My ‘sixth’ Rukunegara principle

Nation-building falters if there is no genuine acceptance of all cultures and faiths as part of our social, economic and spiritual existence.

WHEN the Rukunegara was introduced, I was in Standard 3 at St Mark’s Primary School in Butterworth. I remember my teacher calling me up along with two other friends.

The three of us were in Standard 3 Yellow. Back then, classes were named after colours. The other classes were Blue, Green and Red.

We were asked to enter the school’s Rukunegara recitation competition. We had to memorise the five principles along with the preceding sentence that begins with “Maka kami rakyat Malaysia...” (We, her people...).

I had not known that the Rukunegara comes with a preamble, until my 57th year.

It was when I helped a friend with the organising of a forum on reinstating the importance of the Rukunegara that I discovered the preamble, which is more powerful than the five principles.

However, after reflecting on the preamble and the principles, I found them to be lacking a single value of the greatest importance. In this article, I will explain what I call my “sixth” Rukunegara principle.

When teaching architecture theory of Malaysian architecture, I found myself struggling with the latter concept.

Many of the first-generation architects like Ken Yeang, Hijjas Kasturi and Lim Chong Keat would circle around the idea of a tropical architecture and the typology of the Malay house. I found both concepts admirable but lacking in the soul of what Malaysia constitutes – its people.

Architects always try to objectify architectural concepts into a machine construct because it is easier and less controversial to present.

A machine does exactly what it is supposed to do and is made using the most economical and highest quality material and technology. This “functionalist” or minimalist constructs were the rage in the early 20th century in Germany, where much of modern architecture was born.

When Malaysia’s first-generation architects went overseas to study architecture, they brought home that concept in the 1960s.

The literature on the call for a truly Malaysian architecture reflected the fact that most Malays embraced the vernacular heritage of Malay architecture, while the more liberal voices among the non-Malays gravitated towards bio-climatic or tropical architecture.

To me, both have acceptable merits but they do not fully answer the question because they lack the socio-political and religious dimensions of nation-building.

After returning from Scotland with a PhD in the late 1990s, I began to ponder on the concept of a “democratic” architecture.

My ideas were influenced by the writings of Frank Lloyd Wright (through books such as A Testament and In the Cause of Architecture) and Louis Sullivan (Kindergarten Chats and The Autobiography of an Idea).

They talked about democracy and the fusion of man and nature as a new construct of both nation-building and American architectural identity.

While I was constructing my thoughts on architecture, the Reformasi movement burst onto the Malaysian political scene with the jailing of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at the end of the 20th century.

That the former deputy prime minister was targeted with such immoral force of government not only shocked my whole outlook on Malaysia and Islam, but also drove home Wright’s and Sullivan’s words of caution about the dangers of federalism to the natural and creative freedom of the American people.

Malaysia is a truly Asian country. In some ways, with its diverse races, cultures and faiths, it is like the United States.

To my mind, defining Malaysia along a single race and religious construct seems to be an injustice.

The Dasar Kebudayaan Kebangsaan (National Cultural Policy), which gives preference to one race and one faith, is anathema to the whole construct of Malaysia, including the nation partners of Sabah and Sarawak.

The policy is more fitting of a Tanah Melayu entity than a Malaysia construct.

The preamble of the Rukunegara speaks of unity but does not tell us how to achieve it. The phrase “a democratic way of life” is fine but it does not have any values or spiritual constructs.

The rest of the preamble and the five principles are mainly about obeying laws and sharing economic benefits but there are no real values relating to human-to-human psychological mindset.

To me, the two most important principles are “Belief in God” and “Courtesy and morality”. They are clearly meant to set up a situation of acceptance and mutual love and respect.

But the Rukunegara merely presents the idea of “allowing” others to practise their faith. The term “courtesy” does not call on Malaysians to love one another. Instead, they are expected to be superficially courteous.

It can be construed that seething hatred of one another is “allowed”, as is judging others based on one’s own faith. Thus, we have the mess that we are in now.

My “sixth” Rukunegara principle is as follows: “To accept all cultures and faiths as a necessary part of our social, economic and spiritual existence.”

It simply means we cannot live without each other and all of us are necessary elements in our concoction of Malaysia.

All the race-based and faith-based organisations have a place in our society. How many Malays or Chinese or Bajau or Murut do not have any social and economic ties with somebody of another race? There are Malays who work for Chinese companies and the Chinese companies cannot survive without Malays, Indians or the Kadazan in their workforce.

Will our badminton, football or hockey teams fare well without the participation of the different races? Tak boleh! (No way!)

So, what’s the problem? Ahh... religion is the problem. At times, religions are a divisive force instead of being constructive. Why? Because to some, they have lost their original spiritual meaning. In the hands of certain people, religion has become a race, an institution and a political entity that can harm humanity and nation-building.

However, if we look at the original spiritual construct, all faiths teach us to help the needy and to never discriminate based on race or faith when providing such help. We cannot go to heaven if we help one race and not another. Is that not so? If there is a religion that discriminates against the poor and the needy, please let me know which one.

A religion that excludes assistance for the needy is just another social club.

Thus, my sixth Rukunegara principle calls for true acceptance of all races, cultures and faiths as the highest spiritual calling of both nation-building and religious aspiration.

Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is Professor of Architecture at UCSI University. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.