BUKAN SOAL SANUSI. INI SOAL IDENTITI NEGARA.

BUKAN SOAL SANUSI. INI SOAL IDENTITI NEGARA. 
Oleh: Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin

(English Version at the bottom)

1. Kritikan terhadap ucapan Menteri Besar Kedah, Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor, sekali lagi memperlihatkan bagaimana perbahasan mengenai Perlembagaan Persekutuan sering disempitkan menjadi tuduhan perkauman, sedangkan isu sebenar ialah soal sejarah dan asas pembentukan negara.

2. Saya berpendapat bahawa ucapan Sanusi perlu dinilai secara keseluruhan, bukannya dipetik secara terpilih untuk membentuk persepsi politik. Beliau tidak mempertikaikan kewarganegaraan mana-mana rakyat Malaysia dan tidak pernah mencadangkan supaya hak mana-mana kaum dinafikan. 

3. Sebaliknya, beliau mengingatkan bahawa orang Melayu hanya mempunyai satu tanah air, justeru mereka memikul tanggungjawab untuk mempertahankan asas perlembagaan negara ini.

MENGENAI FRASA “CINA ADA CHINA, INDIA ADA INDIA, MELAYU CUMA ADA TANAH MELAYU”

4. Frasa ini menjadi punca utama kemarahan sesetengah pihak, tetapi kritikan terhadapnya kerap gagal membezakan antara dua jenis kenyataan yang sangat berbeza: kenyataan tentang asal-usul peradaban (civilisational origin) dan kenyataan tentang hak kewarganegaraan (citizenship entitlement). 

5. Sanusi tidak berkata rakyat Cina dan India di Malaysia adalah "pendatang" atau kurang layak menjadi warganegara; tafsiran itu adalah tafsiran pihak yang mengkritiknya, bukan kandungan sebenar ucapannya. 

6. Apa yang beliau nyatakan ialah suatu realiti sejarah: peradaban Melayu, bahasa Melayu dan institusi beraja Melayu berakar serta berkembang di Alam Melayu atau Nusantara. Sebaliknya, peradaban Cina dan India mempunyai pusat sejarah, bahasa dan tamadun yang berkembang secara berterusan di wilayah yang kini dikenali sebagai China dan India.

7. Ini adalah pemerhatian sejarah dan peradaban, bukannya pengisytiharan bahawa mana-mana rakyat Malaysia tidak tergolong atau kurang berhak berada di negara ini.

8. Tidak dinafikan bahawa ungkapan seperti ini boleh menimbulkan rasa kurang selesa dalam kalangan sebahagian rakyat Malaysia. Namun, rasa kurang selesa itu tidak seharusnya menghalang kita daripada membezakan antara perbahasan mengenai sejarah dan identiti negara dengan penafian hak kewarganegaraan.

9. Jika keseluruhan ucapan itu dinilai, jelas bahawa mesej utamanya ialah menyeru orang Melayu mempertahankan tanah air dan asas Perlembagaan, bukannya mempersoalkan hak kewarganegaraan mana-mana kaum.

10. UMNO dan PAS, yang kedua-duanya mempunyai pengalaman panjang berpolitik dan mentadbir dalam kerangka masyarakat berbilang kaum, tidak wajar secara simplistik disamakan dengan fahaman perkauman sempit hanya berdasarkan satu ungkapan dalam ceramah politik.

11. Justeru, adalah tidak adil untuk mentafsir suatu ungkapan retorik ceramah yang bertujuan membangkitkan semangat pengundi sebagai deklarasi dasar rasmi negara terhadap kaum lain.

REAKSI POLITIK YANG TERPILIH

12. Menariknya, kecaman terhadap Sanusi datang hampir serentak dan dengan nada yang hampir seragam daripada kepimpinan DAP, MIC dan MIPP. Corak tersebut menimbulkan persepsi bahawa reaksi berkenaan lebih dipengaruhi pertimbangan politik menjelang pilihan raya negeri berbanding kebimbangan yang konsisten terhadap perpaduan negara.

13. Jika kebimbangan itu benar-benar berasaskan prinsip, ketegasan yang sama sepatutnya turut ditunjukkan terhadap kenyataan mana-mana pemimpin yang mempersoalkan kedudukan Bahasa Melayu, institusi Raja-Raja atau Perkara 153. Namun, reaksi dengan tahap ketegasan yang sama jarang kelihatan. Ini menimbulkan persoalan sama ada bantahan tersebut benar-benar mengenai prinsip, atau bergantung kepada siapa yang bercakap dan bila kenyataan itu dibuat.

14. Ahli Parlimen Bukit Gelugor turut mengaitkan ucapan Sanusi dengan kegagalan UMNO mengecam PAS. Seolah-olah kerjasama politik BN-PN dalam pilihan raya negeri kini dijadikan ukuran kepada soal perkauman. Pendekatan ini lebih menyerlahkan kepentingan taktikal politik berbanding kebimbangan yang benar-benar berasaskan prinsip.

PERLEMBAGAAN BUKAN HASIL RUNDINGAN SEMULA SETIAP KALI ADA PILIHAN RAYA

15. Perkara 3, 152 dan 153 bukan peruntukan yang wujud secara kebetulan. Kesemuanya merupakan sebahagian daripada kompromi perlembagaan yang membolehkan kemerdekaan dicapai pada tahun 1957.

16. Suruhanjaya Reid, yang menjadi asas kepada penggubalan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, mengesyorkan sebuah kerangka perlembagaan yang mengekalkan institusi Raja-Raja Melayu, mengiktiraf kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu serta menjamin hak kewarganegaraan dan kebebasan asasi seluruh rakyat. Kerangka inilah yang kemudiannya diterjemahkan ke dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Inilah keseimbangan yang menjadi asas kepada pembinaan negara Malaysia sehingga hari ini.

17. Ia merupakan sebahagian daripada keseimbangan perlembagaan yang mengiktiraf kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu, sambil melindungi kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain. Justeru, tuduhan bahawa ucapan Sanusi “berbaur perkauman” membalikkan logik asas Perlembagaan itu sendiri. Mempertahankan satu bahagian daripada keseimbangan tersebut bukanlah menafikan bahagian yang lain.

18. Perpaduan tidak pernah menuntut orang Melayu melupakan sejarah negara. Begitu juga perpaduan tidak pernah menuntut masyarakat bukan Melayu menafikan hak mereka sebagai warganegara. Perpaduan yang sebenar lahir apabila semua pihak menerima bahawa Perlembagaan mengiktiraf hak kewarganegaraan seluruh rakyat, sambil memelihara identiti sejarah dan asas-asas perlembagaannya.

19. Kesimpulannya, Malaysia sememangnya milik semua rakyat Malaysia tanpa mengira kaum. Tiada siapa, termasuk Sanusi, yang mempertikaikan hak tersebut. Namun, mengingatkan orang Melayu tentang tanggungjawab sejarah mereka bukanlah satu bentuk perkauman. Ia merupakan usaha mempertahankan susunan perlembagaan yang membolehkan kepelbagaian negara ini terus hidup secara aman.

20. Apabila mempertahankan Perlembagaan mula dianggap sebagai perkauman, yang sedang terhakis bukan sekadar kebebasan bersuara, tetapi kefahaman rakyat terhadap identiti negara itu sendiri. Sebuah negara tidak kehilangan identitinya dalam satu malam. Ia kehilangannya sedikit demi sedikit apabila sejarahnya tidak lagi boleh diperkatakan dan Perlembagaannya tidak lagi dapat dipertahankan tanpa rasa takut.

~ Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin

ENGLISH

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SANUSI. IT IS ABOUT MALAYSIA'S NATIONAL IDENTITY.

By Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin

1. The controversy surrounding Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor's recent speech once again demonstrates how discussions about the Federal Constitution are often reduced to accusations of racism, when the real issue concerns history, constitutional foundations and national identity.

2. In my view, Sanusi's remarks should be assessed in their entirety rather than through selectively quoted excerpts designed to shape political perceptions. He did not question the citizenship of any Malaysian, nor did he suggest that the rights of any community should be denied. 

3. Instead, he reminded Malays that they have only one homeland and therefore bear a special responsibility to safeguard the constitutional foundations upon which this nation was built.

UNDERSTANDING THE PHRASE "THE CHINESE HAVE CHINA, THE INDIANS HAVE INDIA, THE MALAYS HAVE ONLY TANAH MELAYU"

4. This phrase has generated considerable outrage. Yet many criticisms fail to distinguish between two fundamentally different concepts: civilisational origin and citizenship entitlement.

5. Sanusi did not describe Malaysian Chinese or Malaysian Indians as "immigrants" or suggest that they are somehow less entitled to Malaysian citizenship. That interpretation has been supplied by his critics, not by the actual words he used.

6. What he referred to was a historical reality. Malay civilisation, the Malay language and the Malay monarchy developed and flourished in the Malay World, or Nusantara. Chinese and Indian civilisations, by contrast, trace their historical, linguistic and cultural roots to territories now known as China and India.

7. This is a historical and civilisational observation, not a declaration that any Malaysian citizen does not belong or enjoys fewer rights in this country.

8. It is understandable that such a statement may make some Malaysians uncomfortable. However, discomfort should not prevent us from distinguishing a discussion about history and national identity from a denial of citizenship or equal legal status.

9. Taken as a whole, Sanusi's speech was fundamentally a call for Malays to defend their homeland and the constitutional framework of the nation, rather than an attempt to question the citizenship of any ethnic community.

10. UMNO and PAS, both of which have decades of experience operating and governing within a multi-ethnic society, should not be simplistically portrayed as proponents of racial extremism on the basis of a single rhetorical phrase delivered during a political speech.

11. It is therefore unfair to interpret campaign rhetoric intended to energise supporters as though it were an official declaration of state policy towards other communities.

SELECTIVE POLITICAL OUTRAGE

12. Interestingly, criticism of Sanusi emerged almost simultaneously and in remarkably similar terms from leaders of DAP, MIC and MIPP. This pattern inevitably creates the perception that the response was influenced more by political considerations ahead of the state election than by a consistent commitment to national unity.

13. If these objections are genuinely rooted in principle, the same level of conviction should also be demonstrated whenever public figures question the constitutional status of the Malay language, the institution of the Malay Rulers or Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. Such consistency, however, is rarely evident.

14. This naturally raises an important question: are these objections truly principled, or do they depend on who makes the statement and when it is made?

15. The Member of Parliament for Bukit Gelugor has also linked Sanusi's remarks to UMNO's alleged failure to condemn PAS, suggesting that political cooperation between Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional has somehow become a measure of racial politics. Such arguments appear to reflect electoral strategy more than a genuine constitutional concern.

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT RENEGOTIATED AFTER EVERY ELECTION

16. Articles 3, 152 and 153 of the Federal Constitution did not emerge by accident. They form part of the constitutional settlement that enabled Malaya to achieve independence in 1957.

17. The Reid Commission, whose recommendations formed the basis for the drafting of the Federal Constitution, proposed a constitutional framework that preserved the institution of the Malay Rulers while recognising the special position of the Malays alongside citizenship rights and fundamental liberties for all citizens. That constitutional framework, refined through subsequent negotiations, ultimately became the Federal Constitution and remains the foundation of Malaysia's nation-building today.

18. These provisions represent part of a constitutional balance that recognises the special position of the Malays while simultaneously protecting the legitimate interests of other communities. To label Sanusi's remarks as inherently racist risks reversing the very logic upon which the Constitution itself is founded. Defending one component of that constitutional balance does not amount to rejecting the others.

19. National unity has never required Malays to abandon their history. Equally, it has never required non-Malays to deny their rights as Malaysian citizens. Genuine unity is achieved when all Malaysians accept that the Constitution guarantees citizenship for every citizen while preserving the country's historical identity and constitutional foundations.

CONCLUSION

20. Malaysia belongs to every Malaysian, regardless of race. No one, including Sanusi, has questioned that principle.

21. However, reminding Malays of their historical responsibility towards the nation should not automatically be interpreted as racism. It is an appeal to preserve the constitutional order that has enabled Malaysia's diverse society to coexist peacefully for generations.

22. When defending the Constitution itself begins to be labelled as racism, what is being eroded is not merely freedom of expression, but our collective understanding of Malaysia's national identity.

23. A nation does not lose its identity overnight. It loses it gradually, when its history can no longer be discussed openly and when defending its Constitution becomes an act performed in fear.

~ Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin