There must be a reason why the term Melayu is coined, and we
must scrutinize its origin closely if any conclusions is
to be drawn.
Firstly, has it occured to any one that there might be no
such race.
People in the South East Asian archipelago are regional, i.e.
they are Achinese, Javanese, Dayak, Boyan, Bataks, Kelantanese,
Bugis, Khemers, Thai, Palembangs, Negritos, etc., these are
what I can off hand recall. I am sure one can be more detailed and
accurate with some research. But no Malay as an ethnic group. They
all could be speaking Bahasa ( as the Indonesians call the lingo)
as a common language for commerce.
When the colonialist came, the natives all look alike to them. I
don't know what the Dutch call these natives collectively, but the
inventive British would certainly would lump them all together
for easy reference under a common lable.
Why did early map-charters called the peninsular Malaya? The
Himalaya mountain range trails into the peninsula. Himal, or
himalaya means mountains in Hindi, or maybe Sanskrit. Could the
Himalayas have truncated into Malaya?
This gave rise to the Federation of Malay States under the
British. And so Malay as an ethnic group emerged.
Tun Dr Mahathir once said that a Malay is one who practices the
Malay custom, speaks the Malay language, and has Islam as the
religion.
Therefore a Boyan, a Bugis, a Javanese, a Thai, a Khemer, a
Dayak, an Arab, an Indian, could all become Malay, through our
official registration system.
As for the "run away' theory, if you believe that, then you
would also believe that Chinese emperors are gods. Its in the
history books, isn't it.
