Undeniably, the Malays emerged as the “definitive people” of the Malay Peninsula, shaping its enduring political, cultural, and civilisational identity.

The Malay Peninsula has long been the historical homeland of the Malays. Their institutions, language, customs, and rulers shaped the peninsula’s identity over many centuries. This historical reality deserves recognition and respect - and indeed, the Malaysian Constitution explicitly honours it.

Two concepts of homeland

Much of this controversy stems from conflating two distinct concepts that must be carefully distinguished.

The first is what may be called the historical homeland. The Malay Peninsula is, indisputably, the historical homeland of the Malay people. Their civilisation profoundly shaped its institutions and identity. This is a historical fact that cannot and should not be denied or diminished.

The second is what may be described as the constitutional homeland. Modern Malaysia is the homeland of all its citizens because citizenship - not ancestry - defines membership of the nation.

When someone acquires Malaysian citizenship, whether by birth, descent, or naturalisation, Malaysia becomes their homeland in the most meaningful sense: it is the country to which they owe allegiance, in which they exercise rights and responsibilities, and within which they build their lives and futures.

These two concepts are not contradictory. Recognising the historical position of the Malays does not diminish the rightful place of other Malaysian citizens. Acknowledging the equal belonging of all citizens does not weaken the historical or constitutional position of the Malays.

The constitutional settlement at Merdeka

Malaysia’s founders understood this delicate balance. When independence was negotiated, they did not attempt to erase the country’s historical foundations. Neither did they seek to establish an ethnically exclusive state.

Instead, they crafted a constitutional settlement that balanced historical continuity with inclusive citizenship.

The Federal Constitution preserved the institution of the Malay rulers, recognised Malay as the national language, established Islam as the religion of the federation, and accorded the Malays a special position, later extended to include the natives of Sabah and Sarawak following the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

These provisions reflected the historical reality of the peninsula and honoured the political role of Malay rulers in the independence negotiations.

At the same time, the Constitution established a common citizenship for those who qualified under its provisions. It reflected the understanding that the new nation would be built upon both its historical foundations and the loyalty of citizens from different ethnic backgrounds.

This was not an accident or an oversight. It was a conscious design reflecting the vision of Merdeka.

Article 153 illustrates this careful balance. It entrusts the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak while also protecting the legitimate interests of other communities.

These principles are complementary, not contradictory. The constitutional settlement therefore recognised historical distinctions without creating citizens who belong and citizens who merely reside.

Where the argument breaks down

Against this historical and constitutional background, Sanusi’s statement deserves careful examination. His opening premise contains an important historical truth: the Malay Peninsula has long been the “homeland” of the Malays, whose civilisation profoundly shaped its institutions and identity.

Yet the conclusion he draws does not follow.

By asserting that Chinese Malaysians have China and Indian Malaysians have India, he conflates historical origins with current national identity - implying that ethnicity, not citizenship, determines belonging. This is where the logic fails.

Yes, ethnic Malays have ancestral roots in Sumatra. Yes, some Chinese and Indian Malaysians trace their ancestry to those nations. But this does not mean Indian Malaysians “belong” to India or Chinese Malaysians “belong” to China.

Citizenship supersedes ancestry. The Constitution is clear on this point. Malaysia is the homeland of its Chinese and Indian citizens; their loyalty, aspirations, and futures are rooted in this country.

China and India may represent the lands of their ancestors, but they are not the homeland of Malaysian citizens. Ancestral origin alone cannot determine present-day national belonging.

Historical sacrifice and national belonging

We should not forget that numerous Indians and Chinese, alongside their Malay brothers-in-arms, sacrificed their lives in the struggle against the communists during the 1948-1960 Emergency and the 1968-1989 Second Emergency.

These sacrifices were not the actions of people with divided loyalties. They were the actions of patriots who understood Malaysia as their home and were willing to die defending it.

Sanusi should also take heed of a remarkable declaration made in 2013 by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, now a deputy prime minister and chairperson of BN.

Zahid said that more than half of Malaysia’s ministers were of Indonesian descent.

This is a profound statement. It demonstrates that the highest echelons of Malaysian government have long been occupied by citizens whose ancestors came from beyond the peninsula. Ancestry, clearly, has never been a reliable measure of national belonging - nor should it be.

If the descendants of Indonesian migrants can rise to become ministers and deputy prime ministers, serving Malaysia with honour and effectiveness, then the notion that ethnicity determines true homeland is patently false.

These leaders are not guests or temporary residents. They are Malaysians who have earned their place through service, capability, and commitment to the nation.

A personal testament of belonging

I am personally offended because these remarks erase the lives and sacrifices of Malaysians like my late father, Sadhu Singh Malhi.

He migrated to Malaya in the 1940s and joined the police force on July 1, 1952. He served with distinction until his retirement on June 1, 1983 - more than three decades devoted to protecting the people and preserving the security of the country he had made his home.

His was not the life of a transient outsider, but that of a man who gave the better part of his life to this nation.

His service earned national recognition: the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s Pingat Pangkuan Negara (Dec 18, 1982), 16 commendations from the Perak police chief, and 48 monetary awards from the government for diligence, courage, and incorruptibility.

The government granted him land in Tapah and Bidor, Perak - tangible recognition that he had earned an honoured and permanent place in this country.

My question to Hadi and Sanusi is therefore simple: by what moral or national standard can a man who risked his life for Malaya, served its people honourably, was decorated by the King, and was granted land by the government still be dismissed as a “pendatang”?

My father may have been born elsewhere, but through service, sacrifice, and loyalty, Malaya - and later Malaysia - became unquestionably his homeland. His seven children built their lives here and know no other country as home. They are Malaysians, full stop.

History should unite, not divide

History is far too important to be reduced to political rhetoric. When presented honestly, it enables citizens to appreciate the complexity of their shared past. When selectively interpreted, it becomes an instrument of misunderstanding, resentment, and division.

Political leaders therefore carry a special responsibility. Their words should strengthen national cohesion rather than foster suspicion between communities or question the belonging of citizens whose roots, service, and future are firmly embedded in Malaysia.

A confident nation can affirm the historical role of the Malays while recognising, without qualification, the equal citizenship and belonging of every Malaysian.

Sanusi’s remarks are dangerously flawed: they perpetuate the toxic idea that some Malaysians belong more fully than others. That idea must be rejected categorically.

The term “pendatang” may accurately describe an immigrant at the point of arrival, but it must never become a hereditary label imposed upon citizens generation after generation.

Citizenship is not provisional, and belonging cannot be determined by ethnicity.

Non-Malay Malaysians are not guests, temporary residents, or second-class citizens. They are rightful citizens and co-owners of this nation, bound to it by birth, loyalty, service, sacrifice, and a shared future.

Their ancestral connections to China, India, Indonesia, or elsewhere do not make those countries their homeland any more than the ancestral origins of other Malaysians diminish their belonging here.

Malaysia is their one and only homeland. It is ours to build together, as equals, as citizens, as Malaysians.