Skip to main content area Skip to main content area Skip to institutional navigation Skip to search Skip to section navigation

Global Affairs Blog

Culture Series: Choice, Exposure and Religion


Hafidzi Razali, LLM ’18

Before Malaysia’s independence and during the period of colonization, our social classes weren’t as varied. We had the aristocrats (mainly members of the Royal family) on one hand, and a large majority of the working class and the poor.

The concentration of power and wealth of the aristocrats gave them access to Western values, mainly through their exposure to education abroad & close interaction with colonial leaders. This became a tradition for several generations – and created a divide between the two distinct social classes. The cultures of the aristocrats are also different due to their royal tradition that stems from the ancient demi-god mythology.

Post-independence, the distinction isn’t as obvious. ‘Western lifestyle’ was no more exclusively associated to the aristocrats, but subjected to economic class & demographic. Our transition to democracy also means that the aristocrats became more integrated to ‘normalized’ lifestyles.

As our country sought to find its own identity, the earlier days’ exposure to colonialism meant that the options were on the table for anyone to be both Western and cultural.

This intersected with the role of religion, as religious values are also embedded in our culture long before the period of colonization. Slowly, cultural practices that are ‘conflicted’ with religious values are gradually shunned. The combination of a growing sense of religiosity and rapidly development of economy means that there are more rooms for cultural diversity.

Save for the remaining few that are holding symbolic yet official Royal positions, our cultures are no more as influenced by social class, but by choice, exposure and religion. There’s a high likelihood that the rich, middle class and poor have similar outlook on culture, unless if they chose not to.

Related News

  • June 28
    By: Shane Fischman L’19, Editor of the Global Affairs Blog
    To many, the law in Saudi Arabia is the prison shackling women to their homes, their husbands, and their fathers. This perspective, however, is superficial. Even if the law is the prison, more often than not the law is not the prisoner’s shackles. Culture, religion, society, and conformity: these are the true shackles keeping women bound to their posts.
  • June 18
    By: Interview of Elise Kraemer L’93 by Associate Dean of International Affairs, Rangita de Silva de Alwis
    An interview with Elise Kraemer, Executive Director of Graduate Programs. Interviewed by Rangita de Silva de Alwis, Associate Dean of International Affairs
  • May 22
    By: Engy Abdelkader, JD, LL.M.
    The United Nations (UN) has long characterized the Rohingya as the world’s most persecuted population. Historically, the Burmese viewed the ethnic and religious minority as illegal immigrants permitted entry by their former British colonizers. Such historical context informs contemporary views of the group as “foreigners.” And that has helped justify decades-long persecution by both private and public actors culminating in the Rohingya’s legal exclusion as citizens and other discrimination codified as law. Despite the group’s pre-colonial ancestral ties to the land, messaging that Rohingya are “outsiders,” “Bengalis” and even, “terrorists,” has helped the government justify mass atrocity crimes. The current humanitarian and human rights crises also implicate national security.