I am troubled that Malaysians do not seem to understand the difference between tradition, religion and culture. This is a definite trend, observable even on malaysiakini's website through the views expressed by many in their letters. The government has to shoulder a colossal proportion of the blame for having turned generations of citizens into a confused lot by virtue of their policies on various issues.

For starters, while we are citizens of this beloved nation; it is nonetheless debatable as to whether we are nationals of Malaysia. Typically, both terms are used interchangeably.

Citizenship confers the right to vote and to take part in political life of a nation. Nationality, however, derives from two sources ie, jus soli (right of territory) or jus sanguine (right of blood). The former refers to nationality via birth in a particular territory as in our forefathers from India and China who came to Malaya and had children who were born here and thus were granted citizenship. The latter refers to nationality derived from lineage ie, from parents who are nationals of a particular state. Germany was a classic case in point of jus sanguine taken to extremes during Hitler's reign when the state went through ridiculous lengths to discern people of Aryan blood.

Implicit in the concept of nationality is its connection to a common language and ethnicity where the nationals of a state distinguish themselves through cultural self-determination. Benedict Anderson, a professor at Cornell University, further liberalised the concept of a nation by promulgating the idea that nations are socially constructed and ultimately imagined by the people who think of themselves as a group. Bear in mind however that nationals are subject to the state and entitled to protection from it. Further, citizenship can be acquired whereas nationality is usually derived.

From the aforementioned distinction between citizens and nationals, we can surmise that our incessant debate on Bangsa Malaysia is actually a quest in determining our Malaysian nationality. We have been doing this for 50 years with no end in sight. It is a challenge for us as responsible citizens to evolve a national identity ie, a Bangsa Malaysia in consonance with the constitution of our country.

A logical starting point would be to analyse what is meant by tradition, religion and culture. There is an awful lot of confusion between the three terms. The meanings of the three words are as different as they are spelt. Tradition refers to a practice carried out over a span of time, typically over generations in the context of the subject matter. For instance, we could say Malays and Indians traditionally eat using their fingers. Culture or adat is a generally accepted behaviour or practice peculiar to an ethnic group which could be influenced by tradition and religion. Tradition itself could be influenced by culture and religion. Hence, culture could be once again eating with the fingers, or for the Chinese, performing the lion dance during the New Year.

Hence, is the lion dance a cultural event or is it traditional? It is traditional to the extent it has been practised for centuries and it is cultural to the extent it is an acceptable practice for the Chinese. The 'wayang kulit' (shadow play) of Kelantanese fame was a tradition of the Malays in view of it having been practised for generations and a cultural masterpiece as it was an acceptable practice for the Malays (till PAS came into the picture).

Matters are turned on its head, sadly, when religion is introduced into the equation. Religion has an added component of rituals primarily for the non-Abrahamic religions. As alluded to above, both tradition and culture could be influenced by religion. Hypothetically, religion could be equally influenced by tradition and culture in order to keep pace with time if the adherents of the religion hold the fundamental tenets to heart and are not 'scriptually' precluded from adapting to changes.

For instance, Hindus have a ritual of breaking coconuts to symbolise the breaking of one's ego (signified by the hard shell) and to expose the soft, pure, inner divinity inherent in man (the white inner portion of the nut). Hence, is breaking 100 coconuts better than just one? Logically no. Is breaking 100 coconuts forbidden in view of the inner significance of the act? No. Why? Freedom to worship in any form and method is of primary importance. As a Hindu, I have the freedom to worship the form and the formless, at any time of the day, during any action I do ie, as I drive, work, play, eat, etc. In the ultimate analysis, religion is a personal relationship between devotee and God.

However, Abrahamic religions are not similar in outlook. In countries like ours, religion is usually held as sacrosanct and on a higher plane than the other two concepts of tradition and culture. Regretfully, religion is confused as culture and tradition but it is worse when the culture and tradition of other ethnic groups are interpreted as religious edicts. For instance, Arab males wear a flowing robe for reasons that are peculiar to their country. The Islamic edict of the male 'aurat' is from the navel to the knee as one contributor pointed out sometime ago.

Hence, is Abdul Hadi Awang's form of dress religiously inspired? No. Is his dress code a tradition of the Malays? No, for as an ethnic group, Muslim males in our country have not been walking around for generations in that robe. Is it culturally inspired? No, for it is not a generally accepted form of clothing for Muslim males in our country to date. A similar analogy could be applied to the baju melayu and we would conclude that this dress is of traditional and cultural significance to Malays.

Hence, the recent Kongsi-Raya controversy should rightly be a non-issue. One reader stated that the real concern over the double celebration has to do with the fact Hari Raya and other religious events alike have been obliterated from the minds of Muslims and that the media only highlights the double festivities. I am utterly amazed by this logic. Is Hari Raya a religious celebration? Yes it is. Is Hari Raya a traditional and cultural event? Yes. Are there Kongsi-Raya promotions in years when Hari Raya falls in October and Chinese New Year in February? No. When both celebrations come together, do Muslims forget their religious obligations on Hari Raya? No. What is typically done on that day? All communities visit each other's homes to eat an array of delicacies.

The Perak mufti raised the issue of Muslims celebrating non-Muslim religious festivals. In this instance Deepavali is probably a better example to use. When Deepa-Raya is celebrated, as in last year and this year, do the Hindus perform their religious obligations on the day? Yes. Do Muslims partake in those ceremonies? No. Do Muslims perform their religious obligations on the day? Yes. Do Hindus partake in them? No. What does Deepa-Raya entail then? It is simply a national event for all communities to come together and eat. I recall about two years ago, as Deepavali fell on one of the last few days of Ramadan, Hindus had their 'open houses' after the breaking of fast at 7pm.

Hence, is the open house concept a religious one? No. Is it cultural? Yes, as it is an acceptable practice of all ethnic groups and even the Perak mufti himself admitted to inviting his Indian neighbour for Hari Raya. Is it traditional? Yes, as all communities have been doing so for donkey's years. Thus, it is alright for individual Malaysians (25 million of them) to partake in open houses during double festive celebrations but a national open house organised by the government is not permissible? Are the activities similar between individual open houses and national open houses? Yes, for people of all ethnic groups and backgrounds gather to eat and socialise. So what is the problem? For the life of me, I don't know.

We could go on analysing many issues in this manner and inevitably come to the conclusion that most of these heretical views are garbage. A day would probably come about when someone brings about the issue of why celebrate Jan 1 of each year for it has a close connection with Christianity.

Admittedly, evolving a national identity for a multiracial and multi-religious country is challenging but not entirely impossible. From the standpoint that nationality refers to people with a shared culture, a common language and think of themselves as a group, the challenge would be to extract all our shared values and promote them.

The Rukunegara is an ideal platform, however, we have to take note of AB Sulaiman's valid concerns ie, the tendency for national values to take the form of the values of only the majority race. In the first instance, a national identity should rightly transcend race and we should not even, as a nation and people, make inference to a majority race, a minority race, bumiputera, non-bumiputera, etc. But in a country where the federal constitution itself demarcates two groups of citizens, we have to work around that to evolve a Bangsa Malaysia. The fact that the ruling party in power since independence is a coalition of race-based parties does not help.

But practical solutions and implementation of government policy could go a long way in helping to realise a national identity. For starters, the government should adhere to the letter and spirit of the Rukunegara.

Next, government policies with regard to individuals could be viewed as being of two thrusts viz:

1) 'Benefitting' policies

2) 'Eradication' policies

Examples of benefitting policies would be educational opportunities, business opportunities and the like whereas eradication policies would be those policies relating to eradication of poverty, displacements, drug abuse, illiteracy, gangsterism, etc. The government should henceforth ensure that all 'eradication' polices are not race-specific. In this way, say for instance, 40% of those in poverty are in reality Malays, 40% of the resources for poverty eradication would rightly go to them.

However, no race should figure in the programmes or in the resource allocation for such programmes. All allocations and programmes must be based on factual data. For example, if 10 urban districts in the Klang Valley are earmarked for eradication of squatters, the appropriate numbers of low-cost houses should be developed in accordance with the population in need irrespective of their ethnic origin or which district has more of a certain community.

In principle, I reckon Malaysians have matured to accept that the poor must be helped irrespective of ethnicity. It would take time however before 'benefitting' policies become more egalitarian in view of the deeply entrenched notion of how much benefit 'my' race is getting vis--vis university seats, business opportunities, etc.

Further, a tangible effort must be made, especially with regard to educating the young, to not identify race with religion. An Indian does not always have to be portrayed in school textbooks as being the darkest of the three main races and a temple-going person with the name Muthu. Similarly, a Chinese does not have to be a 'yellow' person with the name Ah Chong who goes to the 'tokong' or a bumiputera with the name Ahmad who could have very well been Andrew who is of Kadazan origin. Such pictorial illustrations inherently lead to fixed perceptions among the young who grow up having preconceived notions about others.

Finally, it would not cost a great deal to do away with the race and religion requirement on the various forms. Whereas race should not figure in nation-building, religion is a personal choice. To illustrate by giving just one example, a colleague who is intermarried (and supposedly very Malaysian by virtue of being so) had a harrowing time registering his children for the new school year because the school insisted on the children being identified with his race without any regard to the fact the children were a mix of two races. He had half a mind of telling the school to register them as Eskimos!