MAY 10 — As someone who studies politics, I must confess I have an aloof admiration for this phenomenon known as Isma. They are hugely successful as a lobbying group — not unlike those special interest lobbyists in the United States. This is hardly an original observation.

Every time Isma speaks, everyone pays attention. The press receive hits for their coverage, politicians act on the opportunity to be heroes, and the common men get to express their support or resentment towards Isma. This is, I would argue, partly due to the manner in which Isma is being projected to the public and it is part of a bigger problem. The media tend to label Isma and its likes as Muslim NGOs. I find that unsettling.

How far can Isma (or any organisation) claims to represent the Muslims? I am wary when politicians use the words “The people want/say/has enough of” because the term is such a broad eneralisation and it has been rendered meaningless by its ambiguity. Similarly, when an organisation uses an all-compassing term such as “Muslims”, there are tonnes of questions that term/claim has to be subjected to: How many Muslims are they speaking on behalf of, when and how did the aforementioned Muslims give their consent to Isma to represent them and speak on their behalf, whether those statements they made are derived from Islamic teachings and so on. The legitimacy of any claim to be a Muslim NGO (or anything for that matter) need to be scrutinised.

When the press publish statements from Isma with the tagline of Muslim NGO, they got scot free. Victory by default. They are now Muslim NGO (Note that naming/label is important. Since they win the label, it renders them a certain perceived legitimacy that they represent and speak on behalf of Muslims). The mistake is further aggravated by social media users venting their anger at such “Muslim NGO”, along with the slippery slope to racist and religious bigotry on their part, on public platform (social media is more public than private these days).

We have made a strategic mistake by committing to play on their terms. Their turf is made up of racial and religious differences and we shouldn’t play according to their rules.  Even when we meant well, such as citing the good Malay/Chinese/Indian/Iban/Kadazan/Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu friends we have, we are still playing in term of racial and religious differences. We let those differences to be the identity which we use to define each other.

Are we only limited to such identity? Is Malaysia nothing but a federation of distinct ethnic groups with varying religious beliefs?

I would argue a resolute no.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen wrote that human beings should not and cannot be classified based on a singular identity. We assume many identities in our life and those identities can take the forms of class, gender, ethnicity, nationality, political ideology, religious affiliations, profession, education etc.

Identity is a multidimensional concept. Any attempt to reduce identity into a single dimensional concept is akin to trying to change the rules of mathematics. Ergo, it’s about time to rewrite the interpretation of history.

Malaysia is built by Malays, Chinese, Indians and lain-lain (How peninsular-centric this is) as much as it is built by men and women; the elites, the middle class and the poor; Malaysians and non-Malaysians; liberals and conservatives; Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists and Agnostics; doctors, lawyers, businessmen, entrepreneurs, politicians, teachers, policemen, civil servants, badminton heroes, sportsmen and sportswomen, musicians, mamaks and street hawkers; PhD holders, university graduates, SPM passers, and school dropouts. Since Mother’s Day is around the corner, let us not forget mothers and fathers too.

The narrative of our identities is so multi-dimensional that it shall not be confined to racial and religious terms.

If it is still not clear, let me illustrate with a story. When I was in Penang Free School, my friends and I in 5 Cekal (the second class) like to compete with 5 Budiman (the first class). I guess the third class had the same competitive mindset against our class (We are all kiasu). The identity which takes precedence at that time was our class.

Similarly when it comes to Sports Day a.k.a. Sukan Tahunan, our identity as one Rumah Sukan (Go Wu Lien Teh/Green house!) takes priority. It would be ridiculous to see ourselves as Malays, Chinese, Indians. We will lose all our comparative advantage and the Green house wouldn’t have been champion for seven consecutive years! (Sorry, couldn’t resist) The point is, we have multiple identities and we have a choice to decide which identity takes precedence at particular circumstances and time. In the current Malaysia, I am afraid a great many people mistakenly assume we do not have a choice because we have only one identity.

This essay offers, if nothing else, the reality of our multi-dimensional identity and says “Yes we do have a choice” in choosing how we see ourselves and each other. After all, Chong Wei didn’t jump and hug Misbun Sidek and said “Thank you Malay guy”.

Kok-Hin Ooi B.A Political Science and Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences Department of Political Science, Ohio State University

 * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.