Sanusi's 'China' remark backfires as academic cites his own family

Remarks by Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor during the Negeri Sembilan state election campaign have drawn criticism from across the political divide, with an academic arguing that the controversy is made more striking by Sanusi’s own family history.

Phar Kim Beng, PhD, Professor of ASEAN Studies and Director of the Institute of International and ASEAN Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), said Sanusi’s recent remarks stand in sharp contrast to statements he made during the Ayer Kuning by-election campaign last year.

According to Phar, Sanusi had previously disclosed that his paternal grandfather migrated from mainland China before marrying a Malay woman and settling in a Malay village, using that family history to argue that he could not be racist because his own lineage reflected Malaysia’s multicultural society.

“The irony is difficult to ignore,” Phar wrote.

He noted that Sanusi’s earlier remarks celebrated migration, assimilation, intermarriage and acceptance, acknowledging that identities and loyalties evolve across generations.

“His grandfather was born in China, but his descendants became Malaysians. That is precisely how Malaysia has developed for centuries,” Phar said.

The academic argued that Malaysia’s nation-building has always been shaped by successive waves of migration involving Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Bugis, Minangkabau, Acehnese, Javanese and other communities that eventually became part of the country’s social fabric.

He said this historical reality does not diminish the constitutional position of the Malays, Islam or the Malay Rulers, but instead demonstrates how Malaysia has been strengthened by communities that ultimately rooted themselves in the country.

Phar also stressed that the Federal Constitution simultaneously safeguards the special position of the Malays and Bumiputera while guaranteeing citizenship and the legitimate rights of all Malaysians regardless of ancestry.

He argued that suggesting Malaysian Chinese possess another homeland simply because their forefathers originated from China reflects a misunderstanding of citizenship and nationhood.

“A Malaysian Chinese child born in Seremban, Ipoh or Alor Setar is no more ‘from China’ than a Malay whose ancestors came from Sumatra, Java, Pattani or even mainland China is ‘from overseas’,” he said.

Phar further argued that Sanusi’s own family history offers the strongest rebuttal to race-based assumptions about national loyalty.

“If Sanusi’s paternal grandfather could migrate from China, build a life in a Malay village and leave behind loyal Malaysian descendants, why should today’s Malaysian Chinese continue to have their belonging measured against an ancestral homeland that many have never seen?” he asked.

The controversy follows Sanusi’s campaign remarks that “the Chinese have China, the Indians have India, while the Malays only have Tanah Melayu,” which have prompted criticism from political leaders across party lines.

Police have confirmed receiving reports over the remarks, while Sanusi has maintained that his speech was taken out of context and manipulated.

Phar concluded that Malaysia’s diversity is not an accident but the very foundation of the modern nation, arguing that constitutional protections for the Malays, Islam and the Malay Rulers are fully compatible with equal citizenship and dignity for all Malaysians.

He said the Negeri Sembilan election would ultimately test whether voters support leaders who unite Malaysians through a shared citizenship or divide them according to ancestral origins.