This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on August 12, 2024 - August 18, 2024

The controversy over “Type C” customers (in which a representative of a local fast food chain insinuated that Chinese Malaysians are trying to mislead Malays into thinking that its products are unjustifiably expensive) demonstrates that racial lines still stubbornly form the contours of Malaysian societal consciousness. In response to (or, simultaneously, as a result of) this decades-long “us versus them” situation, a number of non-Malay Malaysians have become less willing to fully engage with the dominant racial group.

One of the most obvious outcomes is the issue of fluency in Malay among a significant number of non-Malays (compare this with minorities in other countries). When their fluency in Malay is questioned, a common response is: “Why should I learn the language of people who don’t see me as an equal citizen, even when I contribute to the country’s economy and general welfare just like any other average Malay? I’m not going to need it once I live overseas anyway. I will be more appreciated there, unlike here.”

The refusal to learn and speak Malay fluently is thus their reply to systemic discrimination and resistance against cultural erosion, particularly against Malay nationalists. Not infrequently, the latter group, standing on the other side of the chasm, reminds the opposing side to be grateful that they are even allowed to have vernacular schools, use their traditional names, practise their religions freely and so on, unlike the fate of minorities in other countries (for example, the Chinese in Indonesia or Rohingya in Myanmar).

This endless tug of war between different racial groups reflects a “failed” cultural assimilation. It is a blessing (how else could we have touted the country as “Malaysia, Truly Asia” if not for our multiculturalism?) but mostly a bane every time the silent yet disquieting current of dissatisfaction runs underneath the Malaysian sea of consciousness. Is it a bane, though? Does it really take a “successful” cultural assimilation — forgoing or sacrificing one’s culture in favour of the predominant culture — to attain just peace between all races once and for all?

First, where does this persistent fear of (among non-Malays) and demand for (by Malays) cultural assimilation stem from? One possible explanation is that we have a deep-seated zero-sum mindset, that is, whenever there is a gain, there also exists a corresponding loss, resulting in a net growth of zero. This mindset does not only show up ubiquitously in our societal conduct but also as a steadfast principle in the physical theories that govern our world. Conservation of matter tells us that, in a closed system, matter can be converted from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed. Similarly, in economics, the adage “there is no such thing as a free lunch” is often invoked to explain that it is impossible to reap something without the expense of other resources.

This principle has another similar name, “the image of limited good”, coined by anthropologist George Foster in the 1960s. He observed that in poor societies, where goods are perceived as finite and cannot be expanded, the people would believe that when one group does better, the others would fare worse. He further claimed that this zero-sum, closed-system world view leads people to make decisions that are not conducive to economic and political ambitions. On a smaller and more interpersonal scale, this culminates in a higher sense of rivalry, envy and distrust among individuals and groups alike. All of this hits too close to home. This “image of limited good” sows doubt on all sides that the other racial groups have no insidious, hidden agendas.

However, one might say: It is perhaps not so unusual that we perceive and expect many other human affairs to follow this closed-system, zero-sum principle because if the whole universe seems to operate in this manner, shouldn’t everything else follow the same rule too? In fact, this “fixed-pie” (another term!) world view has been gaining renewed and further traction amid the global anti-capitalism movement, climate change and burnout. These phenomena allegedly represent the point that the unrestrained chase for continual economic growth and productivity is not without limits and consequences.

Sure, we are willing to concede that physical laws are immutable. Yet, it is worth contemplating how pervasively the zero-sum principle has occupied our consciousness, even in matters that are not constrained by physical laws. We have to reflect on what situations necessarily call for a zero-sum perspective and what do not.

First, it is important to check the demands or interests of different parties — who knows we might find ourselves in an “integrative-bargain” situation instead of a “distributive-bargain” one? Following a notable example of integrative bargaining, two persons fighting over an orange will cut the orange in half if they have a distributive-bargain, zero-sum mindset. It turns out that upon discussion, however, their conflict can be easily resolved because one required only the orange zest for baking while the other simply wanted to eat the orange flesh. When the desires of different parties are non-contradictory and non-exclusive, a win-win situation should be strived for and a closed-system mindset should be curbed.

As a result, we see additive cultural identity such as the adoption of Malay culture in Taoist worship practices, known as Natuk Kong worship, among some Chinese Malaysians and the adoption of Tatana culture by the Chinese community who live in the west coast of Sabah. When it comes to our sociopolitical issue, it may seem that the demand of non-Malays for racial equality is diametrically opposite to that of those fighting for the permanence of Malay supremacy. However, we have to first remove the irrational and unjust parts of the demands (for example, the reluctance to mingle with each other’s culture and the insistence on maintaining the racial status quo). At the end of the day, we will see that the non-contradictory as well as the most pressing and genuine concern of everybody is that every citizen is treated in accordance with their efforts and socioeconomic backgrounds, not on the origin of their ancestors.

Furthermore, unlike concrete, measurable quantities such as energy and goods, cultures are abstract and socially constructed. This lends us much leeway to imagine the “summation” of cultures in ways we see fit. And by “fit”, we mean in ways that expand the pie or roti canai (adding a dash of Malaysia) as much as we can. Being fluent in Malay or further embracing the predominant culture does not mean it has to come at the expense of losing one’s non-Malay cultural identity. To recognise non-bumiputera as full-fledged Malaysians does not require that they should no longer be allowed to practise the customs of their ancestors. To think there are limited “benefits” and there must always be sacrifices for one party to deserve benefits is a disservice to one’s own intellectual capacity (for example, our brain can definitely handle multiple languages without identity loss) and, in general, ability to achieve (switching from ethnicity-based affirmative action to a socioeconomic-based one will help those who are truly in need).

To conclude, perhaps we have taken the zero-sum principle for granted and too broadly. We have applied it to all other matters and have been, in the case of cultural harmony, consistently fuelling the distrust and ill will among racial groups. Every time our non-Malaysian friends ask us why we still love Malaysia despite being systematically treated as second-class citizens, we find that our usual “Malaysian cuisine is simply delectable” no longer holds water (and probably has never). When we mull over it longer, the answer is: We actually love that Malaysia is not a “melting pot of cultures” but a salad bowl, a “failed” assimilation. We love that our multicultural society does not collapse into a one-dimensional, homogeneous monocultural one. We love that we can see both the unyielding remnants of older, “original” cultures and the emerging strains of unique, entangled cultures such as the existence of Melakan and Kelantanese Peranakan.

What we need to do, however, is review our unchecked, subconscious zero-sum mindset and open up to a positive-sum outlook before the former completely blinds our ability to tackle national issues in the most creative and constructive way possible. It is worth taking a moment to think that perhaps there is no sacrifice and thus no feelings of envy, distrust and animosity between racial groups needed. With an expandable roti canai perspective, we can both encourage and celebrate our diversity and achieve the just and social harmony that our country needs.

Wee Soo May is chief content curator and Vynn Suren is content curator at the Malaysian Philosophy Society

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.