成為「當地人」：馬來西亞混血華人Sino的非類屬性文化認同

Becoming“Native”:The Unkinded Cultural Identity of Malaysian Mixed-Blood Chinese Sino

Sino是馬來西亞華人和沙巴原住民的混血族群，享有憲法的土著地位，尤其可以繼承習俗地。面對近年馬來民族主義者和伊斯蘭主義者的阻擾，Sino無法像馬來人或其他原住民享有同等的憲法權益。他們透過權益組織發聲，從族類蛻變成族群。然而，權益組織所倡導的文化認同模式和民間的模式存在巨大差異。田野地點克里亞斯半島位於沙巴西南部，當地的Sino與其他族群呈現多重且流通的認同，類比民族誌《依海之人》所提出的「非類屬性文化認同」模式。此模式強調先天和後天因素對認同的影響，尤其是行為、居住地等因素。本文延伸原住民的英文詞彙Native之另一含義「當地人」，拆解其中的「當」和「地」。「當」涵蓋了非類屬性的當下、充當和擔當之概念。田野地點當代的文化認同分兩類：母語維持的模式（母語→居住地→生活方式）和Sino模式（居住地→生活模式→名制）。「地」的概念則涵蓋習俗地的繼承糾紛，在居住地上的作為，和地景傳說的重塑。Sino雖然落實著非類屬性文化認同，卻在政策層面推崇類屬性文化認同。文章最後比較了Sino的認同模式和古典族群理論。

The Sino are a descent group with mixed heritages from Malaysian Chinese and Sabah Native, exercising special constitutional rights, especially Native-Title land inheritance. Facing the hindrances from Malay nationalists and Islamists in recent decades, the Sino could not exercise the same constitutional rights as Malays and other natives. They eventually voiced their concerns through a cultural association and slowly transformed from an ethnic category into an ethnic community. Nonetheless, there are substantial differences between the identity model advocated by the association and what is practiced by the group. The field site of this study, Klias Peninsula, is located in Southwestern Sabah. The Sino and other ethnic groups from the peninsula demonstrated the possibility of a multiple and fluid identity, which is very similar to the “Unkinded cultural identity” model proposed in the ethnography “People of the Sea” by Rita Astuti. This ideal emphasizes both innate and acquired factors in identity formation, especially daily performance and place of residence.
The direct Chinese translations of “native” include “Yuan Zhu Min” (a person who was born and lived in a place before the arrival of colonizers) ad “Dang Di Ren” (a person born or grew up in a particular place). This article extends the meaning of “Dang” and “Di” from the second translation. “Dang” covers the ahistorical, performative, and undertaking aspects of Unkinded cultural identity. The author proposes two contemporary models of the cultural identity in the fieldsite: the Bi-isoglot model and the Sino model. The former prioritizes the affinity of cultural identity with the preference for mother tongue from a parent, followed by the influence of residential places, and then the adopted lifestyle. The Sino model associates the cultural identity with the influence of residential places, followed by the adopted lifestyle and the naming system of an individual.
The concept of “Di” (literally, land) has high relevance in disputes of Native-Title land inheritance-, personal conduct in the residential area, and the reinvention of landscape legends. Besides the legal ownership and fiscal value of Native-Title lands, the Sino also inherit the non-material side, including their spiritual beliefs and native customs from native landlords. Sino activists have also reinvented the folklore of the highest mountain in the Sabah landscape to show the established inter-marriage between Chinese and Sabah Natives since the Ming Dynasty. Compared to other Native ethnic groups, the Sino do not have shared ancestral land and isoglot. Some activists, therefore, justified their “Native qualification” by regarding the whole Sabah landscape as their common ancestral land. Interestingly, the Sino practice the Unkinded cultural identity model in daily life but advocate the Kinded cultural identity model in policymaking. For instance, testimonies from village heads or native chiefs were the most critical evidence to authenticate the native status of a Sino applicant before 1982. This resonates with the Unkinded cultural identity model, showing that community relations define the position of an individual. Nevertheless, the reformed authentication methodology relies solely on documentary evidence that reinforces the Kinded cultural identity concept.
This article concludes by juxtaposing the observed Sino cultural identity with theories of ethnicity. The Kinded cultural identity model is very parallel to primordialism. Notwithstanding that adopted lifestyle and the naming system are consequential ethnic boundaries for the Sino, the Unkinded cultural identity model could satisfactorily explain the permeability of these boundaries among the Sino and their adjacent groups. On the other hand, the circumstantialism illustrates the ethnicity-making activism under Malaysia’s divisive yet dynamic social-political climate. Lastly, both Kinded and Unkinded models have been reshaping and interweaving with each other in Sabah history under the framework of constructivism.