IS there a difference between what national interests are in reality and what is defined as the public interest by some sectarian group?

Who gets to define each?  Is it always a minister or the cabinet, or, only those with legitimate executive authority at the federal or state level? 

If so, how do you distinguish whose view is more important?

Our historic nation-state

Malaysia is our nation-state made of three related but congruent parts of former colonial states.  Singapore was the fourth but it left us.

Each of the three are sovereign components of the British Commonwealth and all three are legally recognised as such and made for the new federation of Malaysia.

Each, therefore, has equal and unconditional legitimate rights defined by the federal constitution.

But, if one simply studies the constitution without awareness of “an organisational history perspective of its foundation and formation”, we may mistakenly assume that Sabah and Sarawak are “states No. 13 and 14 of the federation of Malaya, with Singapore being No. 12”.

Such is never true, in terms of reality.

That wrong assumption is implicitly written, or wrongly interpreted into the federal constitution today with many unclarified multiple meanings “tied into the word ‘state’ within the constitution”. 

These inaccurate interpretations/translations, therefore, need to be corrected and can only be done in Parliament with a two-thirds majority voting in favour.

Our realities

When a Malaysian representative attends the United Nations, he or she represents the whole Malaysian organisational entity at its primary and comprehensive level of existence. That is reality.

In Malay, therefore, we refer to this membership entity as “bangsa-bangsa bersatu”.

Should we not then pause to reconsider this word “bangsa”.

What does it really mean, if not one comprehensive nation-state, within the UN context? Our Dewan Bahasa technical translation of this word is often in the singular form but is considered or translated as “race”. 

Is that an accurate translation? The prime minister recently set up a new standard of reality by articulated his desire and asking for forgiveness on behalf of all their failings.

He spoke in the voice of the new leadership of governance of Malaysia2.0.

For example, in our motto “Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa” is actually translated as “language is the soul of the nation” by agency chairman Professor Dr Md Salleh Yaapar.

Whither then comes the origin of “bangsa” as race in the singular form, especially in “maaf zahir dan batin”?

Finally also, when Dr Mahathir Mohamad, as the fourth prime minster, expounded the concept of a developed nation-state by 2020 and called for a Bangsa Malaysia, as a new community, and was he not also referring to a nation-state category of people proud to be called Malaysians?

Is nationhood then not one mature identity of a people group and community?

Therefore, too, is it not fair to think of all other such sub-groups as ethnicities like Bugis or Penan or Iban or Kadasazan, or Sakai, regardless of particular origins?

Are they not, in reality, sub-categories of our multi-layered complex Malaysian identity model?

Onion-layer identity model

I have an onion theory of Malaysian identity. It argues that all Malaysians have at least five layers of identity. 

The outermost layer is our common national identity, as recognised by our passports. All are Malaysians, including royalty, which we all need to travel globally.

The next layer is our religious heritage, or our birth faith, including free-thinkers who are without a specific religious identity.

The third layer is our sociocultural or ethnic heritage. The roots lie in the habits of our hearts, or, learnt by emersion as a way of life.

The fourth is our unique personality type.  All human beings have personality types. One foundational way of understanding is by two basic types: type A versus type B, representing extroverts and the introverts based upon the Myers-Briggs personality profile scheme.

There are many other theoretical models of personality types, which are also predictors of various styles or forms of human conduct.

The fifth and finally, all human beings have a unique personal conscience. It is an inner feeling or voice viewed as guiding the rightness or wrongness of one’s behaviour or conduct. Such genuine or pure intentions are judgments very personal to the beholder.

Public interest defined

Public interest can, therefore, be defined as the voice of the numeric majority of individual Malaysians who exercised their conscience through voting at the last general election.

It is not and cannot be merely the individual voice of ministers, or even the whole cabinet on any particular or specific issue of concern. It must always remain a referendum vote on particular issues of concern. A general election is one such vote.

It is, therefore, my conclusion that the Bukit Kiara land development project vote may require a numeric vote by all related and involved parties for an accurate reconciliation of such a specific matter of public interest. – June 9, 2019.

* KJ John worked in public service for 32 years, retired, and started a civil group for which he is chairman of the board. He writes to inform and educate, arguing for integration with integrity in Malaysia. He believes such a transformation has to start with the mind before it sinks into the heart!

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.