I take it that patriotism is love of and identification with one’s country and the willingness to make sacrifices for it. Zahid’s use of Non malays’ low enrolment in the military as an example to show their relative lack of patriotism is inherently contentious. After all people can express their love of and identification with their country by a myriad of other daily occupations they like or are good at. In what way Lee Chong Wei and Nichol Anne David choosing to play their badminton and squash less patriotic than Airforce guys who, whilst enrolling in the Airforce to defend the country in war, also masterminded the sale of the nation’s jet engines? If defence of the country with one’s life, then one never knows, isn’t it, who’s patriotic until the country were attacked – and even if it were actually attacked does not doing anything necessarily connote lack of patriotism? If it were so, then, taking the Japanese invasion of the country as an example, we would be led to absurd conclusion of many Chinese fighting the Japanese, even those sympathetic to the Malayan Communist Party being more patriotic than some kampong Malays who did not fight the invaders. Flash forward to present context, it would be absurd to say people are not patriotic by the fact alone that they are generally not interested in enrolling in Armed Forces when by all reasonable counts Malaysia does not appear to face any external threat and danger, and more military personnel lost their lives from malfunctioning helicopters than in fighting foreign enemies. One cannot blame Non malays if they avoid enrollment not just in the armed forces but other areas of government service when they perceive these to carry out racially discriminatory policies inimical to their career advancement. Zahid would have made a better case of Non Malays being less patriotic if he had cited the preponderance of Non Malays amongst those leaving this country by emigration to other countries…

Yet there is something inherently unfair for Zahid to make an imputation of Non malay’s lack of patriotism in the context of Malaysian racially divisive and discriminatory policies. It may serve a politician’s agenda to appeal to patriotic emotions in attacking their political opponents, implicitly or explicitly by accusing them of betraying the nation but it is not fair to those attacked. The very basis for extolling patriotism as a virtue is the premise that if a citizen born and bred in a country deriving and enjoying all benefits and rights in the country has a reciprocal obligation to uphold the country’s interest out of love for it, which is a necessary condition for the country – and all in it – to collectively benefit from such sentiments. (This is not confined to only defending the country when it faces external threat. It is also working out of pride for the country for its economic interest in a way like (say) Akio Morita developed Japan’s electronic industry by his “Sony” brand). The difference (as this illustration shows) lies in Japan being a homogenous society and it may be questioned whether Akio Morita would have so passionately strived for he economic interests of Japan and Japanese in general had he been relegated to second class citizenship by virtue of his race??? The question therefore arises whether an UMNO politician for political expediency of being shown the champion of his constituency should in one occasion cite Non Malays’ non interest in military enrolment as an example of their relative lack of patriotism forgetting that in another occasion, he will, as a communal politician, also fight to uphold the very set of affirmative policies that marginalize them??? Would he be patriotic if he were a member of minority race of a country that implements policies favouring the politically dominant majority against the politically weaker minority? When JF Kennedy said in his celebrated inaugural speech “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”, he cannot be serious with that exhortation if the country by its policies treats nearly half of the Americans as unequal on basis of race.

Anyway what so great about this idea of patriotism? We can understand why politicians hype it: it helps preserve their position at the helm but what about to the ordinary citizens? But what is the truth of (not just Non Malay patriotism) but patriotism in general as a concept?

There are 2 questions to be asked : (1) what is exactly patriotism and (2) is it really that good an idea?

To say that one is expected to be patriotic in the sense of loving the country raises the problem of what part or aspect of the country a citizen is supposed to love.
Is it love for country’s soil, the rainforest, hot and humid climate or the plethora of all kinds of food available right after midnight or the highways that we have to pay tolls? Or is it love for the countries founding ideals – “the Social Contract” – or its institutions Judiciary MACC parliamentary democracy or its cornerstone policies like, NEP or NEM or 1 Malaysia or what??? Or is it love for its peoples because of their diversity of race and creed and nice demarcation by the Bumi-Non Bumi Dichotomy or what?

I am genuinely befuddled – of what patriotism is exactly supposed to be.
Or it a mere abstraction – an idea and pride that one belongs to an entity or group within a nation state which is better to belonging to no grouping???

If so, then is this patriotism a good thing?
Well certainly not all think so. Certainly not John Lennon who in lyrics of his song “Imagine” exhorted listeners to “imagine there’s no country…nothing to live or die for…” – all wars and human misery and suffering that come from them stem from both adversaries fighting for their nations in the name of patriotism which is probably why our Mr Kee Thuan Chye in the earlier thread called patriotism “the last refuge of the scoundrel”?

There is reason why a guy like John Lennon would think patriotism might not be such a good thing. Patriotism, at its root, is self interest and self-love exemplified and diluted to include a group ascending in gradation to gover a wider and wider group in which one claims belonging whether for pride or insecurities.

Example: It starts with loyalty to one self, then to a wider and wider group of one’s family, one’s friend, one’s village and kampong, then people of one’s faith, norms and value system, then political affiliation, before country – but whichever group at whatever level, one group is always right and interest has to be protected against another opposing group.

This is how we create self inflicted internecine conflicts. The trend is towards universality and belonging to the family of humans and men/women whatever race, creed and nationality.

We now say we try save the environment, the ecology, worry about the Ozone diminution or global warming, sing “We are the World” – for what if not to preserve the common heritage of Mankind than specific nations, nationality and parochial patriotism?