malaysiakini: Dislodging Article 153 will tear society apart.... Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi

Dislodging Article 153 will tear society apart

Shad Saleem Faruqi
Feb 2, 11
5:01pm

I am shocked and sad at the S Pathmawathy's report about my paper at the Tenaganita/Bar Council seminar on Jan 29. Parts of the report, especially the first four paragraphs, are distorted and contained mischievous and materially false statements.

The first four paragraphs of the report deliberately falsify and fabricate the thesis I sought to present.

The first paragraph that “A constitutional expert has outlined how he thought the special position of the Malays had subtly evolved into ethnic hegemony” is very far from what I said. I never used the words “ethnic hegemony”.

I used the word “ketuanan” to describe the recent interpretation of Article 153. You are entitled to interpret “ketuanan Melayu” as “ethnic hegemony”, but you should not attribute this wrong interpretation to me. The only time I used the word hegemony was to describe the hegemony of the West over the rest of the world.

In the second paragraph, you lied blatantly when you said that Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi “eloquently described the atrocities against equality in the constitution.” I never used the words “atrocities against equality”.

In fact, my seminar paper had a portion about 'The Malaysian Constitution's Promise of Equality'. In this portion, I had pointed out how Article 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), 136, 12(1), 12(2), electoral laws, posts in the federal service (except for the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) are ethnicity free.

I also pointed out that the constitution guarantees cultural freedoms, business opportunities, membership of professions and citizenship irrespective of race or religion. Yet you falsely accused me of talking of “atrocities” against the ideal of equality.

My presentation had tried to point out both sides of the story - how the constitution honours equality and how it permits exceptions.

I had also taken great pains to point out that “no constitution ideal is as worthy and yet as unattainable as the ideal of equality before the law”. Throughout the world, massive exceptions including some systemic, structural departures from the ideal of equality abound. What the law says and what the reality on the ground is wide apart. I had pointed to the system of justice in the USA where 70 percent of the inmates in prison are non-whites.

What rankles me most is that you fabricated the statement that “such provisions (the affirmative action provisions) are no longer relevant”. In fact, I had cautioned against revolutionary changes and had recommended evolutionary developments. I had pointed out that any attempt to dislodge Article 153 would tear society apart.

My paper which was shown on powerpoint was entitled 'Race, religion and equal protection under the law'. Your heading to the article 'When special position evolved into ketuanan' created the impression that this was the heading of my speech, which it was not.

You correctly pointed out that I recommended the setting up of an Equal Opportunities Commission but you adroitly omitted the word “subject to Article 153".

You also did not emphasise that I had insisted that both public and private sectors must be subjected to the Article 8 requirement of equality by an Equal Opportunities Commission or tribunal. I had emphasised that discrimination in the private sector contributes to discrimination in the public sector and vice versa.

Your story paints me as someone who has no respect for the constitution. In fact, I believe that the constitution was a remarkable piece of compromise, compassion and tolerance. It dealt with the existentialist reality of Malay backwardness and took a path of compromise and pragmatism. Some of its provisions, while not in line with traditional constitutional theory, were a very moderate and pragmatic response to the realities of Malaysian society.

The gist of my presentation was that in 1957, there was an ethnic bargain and that if non-Malays seek to renegotiate the social contract on Malay special position, then many Malays may ask “if privileges must go, what then happens to the citizenship of the non-Malays.”

I had said that only one part of the social bargain cannot be jettisoned. To reopen the 1957 compromises is a game both sides can play.

You were correct in reporting my belief that Article 153 was left in the hands of politicians and mostly benefitted the rich elite. That is why I had suggested that Article 153 implementation needs to be scrutinised, any over zealousness needs to be checked, and the real provisions of Article 153 need to be studied and adhered to.

I request you to please print this reply and to please be more careful in not putting your own beliefs (to which you have a right to) in the mouth of others.

Professor Emeritus Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi
Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)

Editor's note: We regret the misinterpretation of certain portions of Shad's speech, but this was not due to deliberate falsification or fabrication on the part of the journalist.

malaysiakini: Entrenching Malaysian History with 'Ketuanan Melayu' dogma?

Ibrahim Ali and Muhyiddin, partners in history?

AB Sulaiman
Dec 11, 2010, 2:04pm

COMMENT So, Ibrahim Ali is back after a medical sojourn ('Ketuanan Melayu in the words of Ibrahim Ali' Dec 2) . For his first public statement he sounded like an old record played and replayed over and over again: he has to harp at the special rights of the Malays. I suppose some things or some people don't change for the better, but to regress for the worse.

He mentioned this 'special rights' case in his speech with the title 'Man must have history, for without history man is nothing.' The connotation is that he wished for ketuanan Melayu to be embraced by all as a matter of course, and its credibility to be understood by its critics within the context of history.

Let me support my contention; let's examine the facts.

For one, Ibrahim Ali said that ketuanan Melayu was a slogan coined to unite the Malays during the struggle for independence.

Secondly, he further said, "The justification of ketuanan Melayu becomes a 'right' when it (is) further stipulated and enshrined in our constitution. Ketuanan Melayu was not just plucked out from the heavenly sky but had (been) demonstrated in the historical evolution of our nation.”

I quite disagree on both counts.

I happened to be a young student during the immediate pre- and post-independent period. From experience I know that the favourite slogan used by the emerging political leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman was just 'Merdeka!' repeatedly.

Lesser leaders would exclaim “hidup Melayu” and “untuk bangsa, agama dan negara” and when independence was achieved, it was 'untuk pembangunan negara' (for national economic development). For the life of me I do not recall 'ketuanan Melayu' being bandied about.

So 'ketuanan Melayu' had not yet been coined during the independence era.

Special position not right

As for the principles behind the phrase 'special position' I remember our founding fathers (e.g. Tunku Abdul Rahman again) taking note of the economic situation of the Malays. Apparently the Malays were economically backward with their participation in the economic wealth creating activity at about a meagre one or two percent. They obviously needed a boost if they were to play any meaningful part in the country's subsequent economic developments.

The founding fathers then established government-based development agencies like Mara, Felda, Fama, and many others principally to help Malays be more involved in mainly in agriculture, fishing, and education.

This was what the 'special position' of the Malays originally was intended to mean. It has been addressed by our founders and yes, enshrined in the constitution. To this extent I'd say Ibrahim's second point has validity.

But this is within the context of the phrase special 'position', not 'right'. To me 'position' relates to privilege, but 'right' relates to entitlement. They are totally different so to make one similar to the other would amount to misrepresentation and dishonesty.

What then is the difference between them? 'Privilege' in this context refers to the feeling of empathy and concern over the emotional plight of the Malays at that time. So a special emphatic treatment was thought out by the founding fathers again by providing assistance and support to the Malay community.

The important point to note though, is that the treatment is entirely voluntary, emphatic and humanitarian in nature.

Position, privilege vs rights, entitlement

Now I have to go back to history to see where or how the term 'special position' has developed into a 'right' and an 'entitlement'.

Since the creation of the institutions catering for the special Malay position (and thus privileges) Malay economic advancement was not spectacular in the ensuing years after independence. By 1969 there was this unfortunate May 13 incident that many had thought has been partly economic in nature, between the Malay have nots versus the non-Malay (mainly Chinese) haves.

Tun Abdul Razak saw this Malay plight as a collective loss of face, a big no-no to Malay pride.

So thinking that desperate time required desperate measures, he devised and introduced a radical public policy boosting the government's effort to assist Malays rise up the modern economic ladder. Thus giving birth to the New Economic Policy with a specific target and timeframe: thirty percent of Malay involvement in the economy within twenty years, i.e. by 1990.

But unlike the voluntary 'special position', this new ruling has the element of entitlement, of 'right'; it's a virtual decree saying that the Malays have the right to get thirty percent of the economic cake; that the country owes them this right; that the country must deliver this to them; all within twenty years. This has not been enshrined in the constitution at all.

In any case Tun Razak was having the perception that Malay economic backwardness was caused by lack of opportunity and could be solved by economic policies and within a period of time.

Mental prerequisite for progress missing

On looking back he was right, but had missed or overlooked another equally potent factor, namely the psychology of the Malays, used to the traditional rural agrarian life, and not privy or motivated to the challenges of an emerging new economy.

Could they rise to the challenge of mastering, controlling and managing the economy from one (or two) to thirty percent within twenty years only with copious government help but without any psychological preparedness?

The mental preparedness comes in many forms, like having technical knowledge, awareness of change, preparedness to accept change, and capital availability.

It also involves the willingness to dump old habits, work extra hard, have a lot of perseverance, and develop a presence of mind to make sacrifices today in the interest of a better tomorrow.

History has shown that they could not.

Most unfortunately Tun Razak (right) passed away hardly a fifth into the NEP implementation period. His successors Tun Hussein Onn and later Dr Mahathir Mohamad virtually institutionalised the NEP not only by way of continuing to propagate it by ignoring the coercive thirty percent 'quota' and twenty-year limit.

When 1990 came by the Malays were still no way near the target (at least based on official figures). Again, Malay prestige (or 'mertabat') was at stake. Again, desperate time required desperate measures. Very subtly the Malay-led government ignored the twenty-year period and continued with the NEP, albeit in different nomenclature.

Most unfortunately the Malays ignored or refused to acknowledge the mental prerequisite mentioned above. On the contrary the Malay 'special position' had been hijacked to become a full blown 'right'. The lesson offered by history was lost.

Regretfully all successors to the NEP (e.g the National Development Plan, Malaysian Mission, Vision 2020) were still addressing Malay economic backwardness, but ignoring any possible psychological hang-ups on their part.

People like Ibrahim Ali should be aware of this subtle omission although he might choose to ignore or be blind to it. In the event he is being intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

And skip this “man has history and without history man is nothing” crap. To me this is one badly thought-of script masquerading as God-sent wisdom. Perhaps Ibrahim Ali should have cleared it first with his favourite ulama (like Harussani Zakaria for example). The ulama might find it distasteful for he would rather hear Ibrahim saying something like “man has religion (i.e. Islam) and without religion man is nothing”.

Indoctrinating ketuanan in schools

Meanwhile Muhyiddin Yasin the Minister of Education announced at the last Umno general assembly the proposal to make History a 'must pass' subject in schools. Could there be a link between Ibrahim's Malay rights and Muhyiddin's compulsory history exams?

Could it be that they are conniving to plug the possible loophole on ketuanan Melayu I have suggested above, and justify its credibility by projecting Ibrahim's perception into the history books for our younger generations to internalise?

Again to me this is intellectual dishonesty and deception, but nonetheless a real possibility.

But public opinion quickly reacted negatively to it. Public concern surrounding this proposal seem to centre on two points: one, what kind of history, and two, who writes it.

One, which history. Will it be the history of the ancients (e.g. the Srivijaya and Majapahit eras followed by the Malacca Sultanate)? Or will it be that of the modern world (e.g. from period of the British colonial rule to independence); or of current history (e.g. from 1957 to the present day)? The possibilities are endless.

My bet though is that the government is conniving to record for posterity ketuanan Melayu as perceived or understood by people like Ibrahim Ali.

Then comes the writers of the history. History is written by the victors, which should be different from that written by the vanquished. In this case it may well be history written by government-sponsored historians or writers.

From the nation's current experience history written by government writers would hyperbolically project Islamic and Malay experiences and accomplishments.

Current history text-books would give ample evidence to this observation. They are full of insular ethno-theological superlatives, namely that the world is beholden to Islamic and Arabic civilisation, that Malay is a lucky race for being Muslim.

Ingraining mediocrity

My regret is that there will be no mention of the strings of inglorious things that have happened since the Umno-led coalition governed the country since independence. I'd mention below some of them that would find little chance of mention in the Ibrahim-Muhyiddin history syllabus:

First of course is the country's string of failed economic plans; of its regression when compared to others like Singapore, Korea, China, Hong Kong.

Second is the breaking down of infrastructure especially education and judiciary; the breaking down of democracy.

In the meantime the racial schism will widen, the broken public institutions will continue to decline, local investors will run away, foreign investors will not come.

Human resource planners will find it difficult to increase the productivity of (Malay) workers.

In a nutshell history as taught by the government does not enhance student maturity, nor does it boost any intellectual growth. It is a perfect vehicle for students to go round and round in the loop of mediocrity.

Ibrahim Ali's re-emergence bandying ketuanan Melayu and possible linkage with Muhyiddin Yassin (above) particularly on the question of Malaysian history is good news only to racists and theologians.

And to politicians depending on racism and theology to ensure their political survival. That's so very sad for the country.

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.

Deepavali — and darkness precedes light — Dr David KL Quek

Deepavali — and darkness precedes light — Dr David KL Quek

The Malaysian Insider, November 06, 2010

 

NOV 6 — The wondrous thing about Malaysia is that we have so many celebrated festivals — both ethnic and religious — that provide for so much festive cheer, even if so many of these appear to be more and more socially-contrived and state-sanctioned goodwill and camaraderie.

Some of us lament the fact that many such events have lost their spontaneity and genuine warmth that used to showcase our “Malaysian”ness. Many subscribe to these engineered social events out of sheer political affiliation or the availability of free lunches. But they do give that picturesque semblance of the Malaysian brand, even if they appear cheesy or superficial.

Nevertheless, public holidays also provide for some of us, sporadic commentators, the much-needed time to time-out and perhaps to reminisce and reflect.

Deepavali or Diwali, as the Festival of Lights for Hindus, is one of those special celebrations that should offer us that opportune moment to contemplate where we are once again in the post-election aftermath of March 2008, for the much-anticipated political awakening, and our tottering attempts at social and political change for the better.

Prior to this, the fearless Hindraf movement burst upon the Malaysian scene to spark the improbable impudence of people power, perhaps igniting for the very first time in a long while, the demand for empowerment of a long-suffering downtrodden people. Light from darkness, which embolden perhaps many other citizens to awaken from their long slumber of sociopolitical apathy.

More than five decades of nationhood should provide us with the experience and the audacity to establish and behave as a nation, which truly “can do”, mature in every aspect of human development and social egalitarianism. We should already have a unifying national vision, which empowers and incorporates every citizen to partake of our immense wealth, our consecutive good fortunes and our shared aspirations. Much remains to be done. It also means that we have to work more cohesively to garner greater momentum as a whole, to hopefully realise our collective goal towards becoming a fully developed nation by 2020.

Yet, truth be told, we are beset with greater sociopolitical and religious divisiveness than ever before. The more ethnocentric and religious-minded nowadays shun inter-ethnic contacts for religious or other reasons. Neighbourly cross visitations and social interactions are also becoming fewer and shallower, because many worry about the political or peer correctness of their actions. Worse, many are contemptuous of and disdain the other, fanned by parochial misinformation!

Thus, there is that heightened sense of religiosity and/or ethnic superciliousness that breeds growing avoidance of others different from the self or group. There is that comfort zone indulgence which generates even greater insularity, narrow-mindedness, and plain tribalistic intolerance.

Most if not all are wary of sharing and eating “tainted” non-halal food from unclean crockery and utensils. There is the fear that cross visits might also be construed as pandering to politically-incorrect ideas, as condoning idolatry or worshipping of different gods and deities, fear of labels of heresy (kafir-mengkafir), or insult to their religiousness, etc.

Let’s be brutally honest about this: our tolerance towards one another has been wearing very thin, of late…

Still, our open houses are unique and should serve as auspicious opportunities to foster closer interethnic and inter-religious understanding and tolerance. Well, at least they are supposed to do so, for those who dare or who are brave and liberal enough to surpass their fears or prejudices of the ethno-religious unknown or uncertainty.

How is it that many years ago such tensions never seem to deter our natural inclinations, our sincere if inattentive cohesiveness, despite the broken “pasar” Malay, the strongly accentuated stereotypes of ethnic peculiarities, which continue to evoke laughter and jest in a “cosy” if crude and sometimes irreverent manner? What has happened?

Why have we become so different and divided as we move through these 50-odd years of supposed maturity into a nearly-developed nation, to have become more and more separate and isolated within our own communities, so long a part of our Malaysian history and brand?

As we gather and celebrate our diversity and extraordinary relationships, we must learn to understand and delve deeper into our special circumstances, which make us Malaysians unique in the happenstance of history. We must learn to celebrate our nurtured schema of multiculturalism, so much touted in this uncertain world of disparate and widening chasms. We must strive to eschew the so-called “clash of civilisations”.

Indeed, isolated if intermittent incidents of ethnic and religious outbursts in Malaysia provide a microcosm of the possible civilisational tensions which exist in the world today. It is arguable if Malaysia and our authorities have handled our discords well, or evenhandedly at that. But, there is no template the world over, of what is the right thing to do; we just have to do better! We must find better alternative approaches than mere confrontation and headstrong immovable tit for tats.

Our leadership must robustly and clearly guide the moral direction of where we want our nation and our Malaysia to go, without wishy-washy flip-flopping pronouncements, which only pander to opportunistic bigots and partisan groups! But this is not to say that we should usher in a new era of authoritarian dictates; this should never be the case. Nor should there be intimidating and selective sanctions by the arguable applications of the rule of law!

Simmering tensions and subterranean anger continue to plaque our cohesiveness, our unity — which increasingly appears fragile and sometimes ostensibly shattered by shameful acts of irrational bigotry and repeated hurtful rhetoric by aggressive chauvinistic politicians.

Slogans of progressive and moderate civilisational Islam or Islam Hadhari, notwithstanding, most non-Malay and non-Muslim Malaysians are increasingly feeling isolated and alienated. Malaysian Indians and Chinese, with their unflinching advocacy towards cultural and linguistic “identity” and unrelenting demands for education in their mother tongues, continue to rankle detractors who consider such a “separate” system as divisive towards nation building.

But, unfortunately, the ethnocentric fears of educational standards and opportunities, of perceived biased religious or racial overtones (at the expense of the minority religions and cultures) are not readily understood by the authorities, which are seen to have increasingly dispensed with wider multiethnic input or inclusiveness.

Recent exposures of BTN propagandist lecturers and racist outbursts by some school principals underscore the doctrine of inherent intolerance among even the most senior of civil servants. It is not unreasonable to expect that many more similar incidents might not have been exposed. Schools and the civil service are, therefore, becoming more and more mono-ethnic and mono-religious in character.

In fact, our entire civil service is now so mono-ethnic that this doctrine of separateness has become so entrenched that we have become “them and us”! There is that expected “ketuanan” relationship of top-down approach (not necessarily of genuine respect and regard), but also a reciprocal, if insincere and begrudging obeisance.

This only begets even more divergent undercurrents of separateness, anger, envy, feeling of unfairness, snide contempt and possible abhorrence. Outwardly, there is that superficial acceptance, deference and unspoken tension. This probably extends to their relationship with other authorities such as the police, the military and other agencies. Thus, non-Malays are more and more driven into a “minority cluster”, which is merely tolerated but not really accepted.

One surprising pronouncement of PM Datuk Seri Najib Razak during the Umno general assembly only underscores the separateness of the Chinese and the Indians in Malaysia, when his concept of who is a Malay now encompasses literally everyone else who is Bumiputera, and anyone who adopts Islam as a religion and practises customs and language of the Malays, or whoever is Muslim, notwithstanding their recent origins from within or outside the actual boundaries of the nation…

Unfortunately, such a declaration only serves to marginalise the non-Muslim non-Malay Malaysians all the more. We may no longer be called “pendatangs” but we are also not among the “favoured” citizens as well. Such is the interpretation of the so-called “social contract”, based on but not explicitly stated in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. Worse we are now urged not to question or raise these concerns, that we must refrain from discussing this “social contract” so that inter-communal harmony can be preserved in the nation!

This concept of differential citizen’s rights runs counter to most nations around the world where full citizenship rights — apart from “jus soli” (citizenship acquired by birth within the territory of the state, regardless of parental citizenship) — are based on one’s economic or special contribution, and where one’s preferred choice of nationality is based on the individual’s special qualities or contributory worth, and takes precedence over any religious or ethnic differences. Once we become citizens or are born one, then shouldn’t we all be equal before the law?

How much one is willing to sacrifice to the greater good of any form of discriminatory citizenship would sorely test the resolve of a modern global citizen, no matter the patriotism that one wishes to inculcate or even indoctrinate!

Such would be the dilemma of the Malaysian-born non-Malay in a globalised world, where one’s professional or technical expertise, natural talent or financial worth would dictate preference and attraction to most countries around the globe. How can we now talk about talent retention and attraction to boost Malaysian intellectual property strength and power, when the core principles of fairness and merit are not sacrosanct?

How then can one find meaning and purpose in our individual and collective resolve to belong, to be an integral part of that Malaysian dream, especially if one is a born Malaysian but of “wrong” ethnic origin? Should this really matter at all?

“Malaysian citizenship, at its very core, was not based on equality but it was made to fit the reality (of the country’s) long-term goals and interests,” says Najib. So does this mean that one’s interpretation of “history” cannot be allowed to change with the times?

How then can we simply say that such is the inflexible and immutable quirk of fate and history that we are but unequal citizens, for all time? Yet, we are exhorted to be selfless responsible citizens who would subsume ourselves for the greater good…

But like Lim Teck Ghee and others (malaysiakini: Malaysians ready to discuss ‘social contract’), I believe that “the Malaysian public has reached a level of political maturity that we can have a rational and public debate on the way forward in terms of any inter-communal accord or understanding arrived at, and on what needs to be honoured and respected.”

Just gagging such discussions would otherwise cause the riptides of feelings of injustice and discrimination to slowly but surely corrode and destroy the so-called accord of working together as a united Malaysian team. Silencing rational debate would undermine the expected positive contribution that we hope for, from all the collective talent and entrepreneurial prowess of our citizens!

The highly competitive globalised economic climate would demand that every single citizen pull his/her own weight to productively contribute towards nation building if we wish to prosper, as we work towards 2020 and beyond! There will be no free-lunchers, no stowaways, no tolerance or margins for errors or wastage…

Let’s make every Malaysian count and be counted, and not shortchange or undermine his/her loyalty to become a full-fledged, fully committed citizen.

From the darkness of introverted ethnic communalism, let there be light! Let the festive lights of Deepavali enlighten our cobwebbed mindsets and help illuminate a new bold path for all Malaysians!

Lim Kit Siang Blog: We all grieve for a Malaysia that could be!... by Romerz

We all grieve for a Malaysia that could be!

by Romerz
October 22, 2010

In his presidential address to the 61st UMNO general assembly, a lot of things said by PM Najib could be argued against simply on the basis of logic, history, proper understanding of Malaysia’s federal constitution, democracy and a host of other things. But I will not argue against Najib’s fallacious arguments because I’m tired of warped views and I believe my readers are of a higher mentality than those he was addressing.

Instead I will focus on only one thing he mentioned in the speech. Najib said “the Malays were hurt when the social contract agreed upon by the forefathers of various races who had agreed to make sacrifices to gain the independence, was now being questioned.”

In the first place I know of no such social contract as after 53 years of independence, no one can show me a written copy of this contract nor explain to me what was it that was agreed upon specifically by our forefathers. Even assuming that such an agreement exists (possibly and perhaps reached privately by the leaders of UMNO, MCA and MIC then, which may explain why we know so little of this often touted social contract), hadn’t this preceding social contract been documented and articulated in the Constitution of Malaya 1957?

In essence, isn’t Najib implying that the non-Malay citizens of Malaysia reneged on an agreement made by our forefathers by questioning certain provisions of the federal constitution? But what is it that we are questioning of the constitution? From the context of Najib’s speech, it would seem to refer to article 153 of the constitution. But he seems to forget that article 153 only allowed four areas of discriminatory practices when the rest of the constitution is about equality and freedom for all Malaysians of whatever ethnicity and religious inclinations.

Frankly, I do not think any rational, fair thinking and peace loving non-Malay Malaysians would dispute the original intent of the constitution. It is by this paramount piece of document (nor the inclusion of article 153 into the constitution), which we cling on to, that we hope can safeguard our existence.

All we question is how far article 153 had been taken away from its original intent by UMNO for political self-interests. Are these questions an attack on the Malay race which warrants threats of reprisal? How can Najib say that non-Malays intentionally hurt the Malays simply by asking for the “social contract” vis-a-vis the federal constitution be restored to its original intent?

If the Malays had been hurt, what about the non-Malays being cheated by a changing constitution, eroding at our constitutionally guaranteed rights, to suit those who had control over it for 50 years? If there existed a social contract (which required sacrifices as Najib put it), why is UMNO now reneging on an agreement made by his father and forefathers as well (by using the constitution above what it was originally intended)?

After the riots of 1969, the NEP was formulated by Najib’s own father. When Tun Razak first put forward the the intent and concept of NEP to parliament, he had to convince MCA and MIC and even the opposition to go along with affirmative action with the objective of bringing all Malaysians on par economically which hopefully will prevent another 1969 from happening again. This I do not dispute that it was needed then and even now. Today a large segment of Malaysian society still needs affirmative action but wouldn’t it be better if it was based on needs?

Documented history (parliament hansard) tells us compromises were made, promises declared and at the end of the day, most Malaysians of whatever ethnicity then allowed it to happen through an act of parliament.

But are these promises being kept today? What was supposed to help poor Malaysians then had now become a tool to garner support for UMNO by playing one race against another so is it any wonder that we question how article 153 had been used by our ruling elites?

So who is grieved more?

The answer is Malaysia the country is grieved the most! Not only the Malays or non-Malays but ALL citizens of a greater Malaysia are grieved! When our beloved country could have stood tall amongst the greater nations of the world but instead wallow amongst the wannabes simply because UMNO/BN do not know how to leave racial and parochial politics behind.

And for that, ordinary Malaysians suffer with threats of our well-being politically, economically and safety! Isn’t about time after 53 years on nationhood that we stop comparing race sacrifices, who is the bigger enemy of race and who is the greater defender of our nation?

Why can’t we simply move on and create a better country for all 27 million of humanity? Is it that difficult when all the majority of ordinary Malaysians want is to live in peace and help each other prosper so that our country can once again stand tall?

Shouldn’t we be Malaysians first (which can be proven with our legal citizenry documents), race second (which is subject to the interpretation of race when we cannot ascertain fully our bloodlines except that our blood is red), and religious inclinations third (when faith is a personal matter of the heart which keeps its secrets to itself)?

I will end by going to bed grieving for us all when we allow UMNO/BN to continue dictating the future of this country! But I will not simply go away grieving and instead do my little part for a better Malaysia. Are you one of the 3 million Malaysians who are entitled to vote but are not yet registered to do so? If you grieve as much as I do about the current state of affairs, then register to vote and get as many other non-voters to do likewise.

Let us give our beloved country some chance to survive and possibly prosper come the next GE!

malaysiakini: Consensus on 'social contract' imperative... by Prof. Clive Kessler

Consensus on 'social contract' imperative

Clive Kessler
Oct 22, 10
8:52am

COMMENT The nature of the current disagreement about “the social contract” should be clearly identified.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that “the social contract” be repudiated, set aside, rejected. Nobody is arguing that it is fictive, a pure fantasy, an illusion. On all sides, everyone in their own way is arguing that it should be honoured, respected and upheld.

People just need to be clear, and find a way to agree, what its terms were, what “upholding the social contract” means and entails.

People are broadly agreed that in the years between 1955 and 1957 certain basic inter-ethnic or inter-communal understandings were reached. Through them a national “accord” was solemnly affirmed and politically “enshrined” that made the nation possible.

Known informally in earlier times as “the Merdeka agreements” or “Merdeka understandings”, these were subsequently, in the 1980s, relabelled, or as people now say “rebranded” with a new identity as “the social contract”.

Embodied within the constitution, these agreements - this national “accord” or inter-communal “compact” - became the foundation of Malayan, and later Malaysian, nationhood.

Within the current debates, people on both sides of this question broadly agree on this.

There is basic disagreement, however, about what those agreements were, what they provided, what their terms precisely specified.

In retrospect, different parties have construed them differently and have, at times, enlarged or “inflated” the import of those parts of the agreements, or their preferred notions of them, that they found congenial, that seemed to their sectional political liking.

There is now an urgent need for people on both, indeed all, sides of this question - and all Malaysians generally - to understand what exactly those agreements now designated as “the social contract” in fact were.

Malaysians need to reach a historically well-founded consensus concerning “the social contract”, what its terms were at the nation's formative moment and in its founding experience, and what it means today and for the future. The coherence, strength and political sustainability of the nation require no less.

'Ketuanan Melayu' not part of the deal

It needs to be widely understood that, whatever they provided and mandated, “Ketuanan Melayu” was not part of what those agreements enshrined.

Any suggestion that Malay political domination in perpetuity, continuing Malay “ethnocratic” ascendancy over other Malayans (and now Malaysians), was any part of those foundational agreements now designated as “the social contract” is simply wrong.

Those who argue to the contrary that Ketuanan Melayu is a constitutionally guaranteed “foundational” component of Malaysia's national sovereignty and international public identity are disingenuous, mischievous, or simply ill-informed.

The attempt to “read back” subsequent notions of Ketuanan Melayu into ideas of “the social contract” and in that way to embed them within newly fashioned but quite dubious views of the constitution is simply an exercise in anachronistic revisionism.

It is the duty of serious historians and legal scholars to say so.

CLIVE S KESSLER is emeritus professor of sociology and anthropology at the School of Social Science and International Studies at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

malaysiakini: If it's a problem, don't recognise it... by Kee Thuan Chye

If it's a problem, don't recognise it

Kee Thuan Chye
Sep 22, 10
12:27pm

 

COMMENT Idris Jala is a good speaker. If you listen to him and you don't watch it, he will sell you an idea.

That's what he did - or tried to do - when he gave the keynote address at the “We Are Malaysia” event hosted by UCSI University on Malaysia Day.

He spoke of 1Malaysia and its aims, and how national unity can be achieved. One of the central aims of 1Malaysia is upgrading the diverse population's attitude towards one another from tolerance to acceptance and, eventually, the celebration of diversity. And one of the central strategies of achieving that is the recognition that, in Idris' own words, “in life, there are only two types of issues”.

Sounds rather pat, as if coming from a self-enrichment guru. But as I said, Idris Jala (left) is a seller of ideas.

What are these two types of issues?

Problems and polarities. A problem, expounded Idris, is something that can be solved. A polarity is something that cannot be solved but must be managed. The examples of polarities he gave are old and young, urban and rural, good and evil, rich and poor. Like the North and South Poles, they cannot be removed; therefore a balance must be struck between them.

To illustrate further, he gave the example of his wife and him. She is fastidious in wanting him to place his socks in a proper basket for washing, but he is used to leaving them all over the house. Despite her repeated attempts to get him to conform, he is incorrigible. She on her part takes an inordinate amount of time to get ready when they have a function to attend. It annoys him that because she can't decide on what to wear, they often turn up late.

“That's the situation,” said Idris, “but if we tried to solve it, we could end up in divorce.”

Extending the idea to a wider realm, Idris said race and religion are also polarities, which means they cannot be solved.

“If you try to solve them,” he said, “you could get something like Hitler's Final Solution and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.”

Just a game of semantics?

On that UCSI occasion, Idris got away with not having to answer questions from the floor as there is usually no provision for such in a keynote address. But if there had been, the key question would be: Isn't this all just a game of semantics? How do you decide what is a problem and what is a polarity? Or is there really no difference between the two?

Let's look at the issue of race in the present context. Let's bring in Perkasa, which insists that the 30 percent equity for bumiputeras must be upheld in the New Economic Model (NEM). For want of an opposing camp, let's bring in the MCA, which recently called for the 30 percent to be gradually reduced.

Is this situation of two opposing viewpoints over a racial issue a problem or a polarity? What does it translate into when from this dispute, policy has to be made?

Policy is policy. It provides a guideline for operations to be performed and actions to be taken. It provides a clear-cut solution. It does not merely manage. So how will it solve this Perkasa-MCA dispute?

If Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak decides to listen to Perkasa and includes the 30 percent in his NEM, the MCA might have something to say. Not to mention other groups opposed to Perkasa as well. But since the MCA is a Barisan Nasional partner, Najib or his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, can ask its party leaders to shut up and toe the coalition line, and chances are they will obey. Is that managing the issue or solving it?

While we mull over this, let's consider another point - for an issue to be resolved, it calls for negotiation and sometimes arbitration. There was negotiation between the two differing groups over the ge tai issue in Penang last week and the outcome was satisfactory to both sides. Do we say they found a solution to the issue or that they merely managed it? Does it matter what we call it?

The constitution is the arbiter

It's all semantics. And semantics are of no practical use. Sometimes, semantics create further problems. In any case, the fact that you enter into a negotiation shows that you want to find a solution. If after negotiating, you still can't find it, you may seek an arbiter.

For racial disputes, there is already an arbiter. And that, plain and simple, is the constitution. So how we solve or manage - whichever word you want to use - racial disputes should be guided by that arbiter.

Article 153 of the constitution is the bone of contention. But as lawyer Azzat Kamaluddin (left), who also spoke at the “We Are Malaysia” event, astutely pointed out, there is no mention in that article of special rights for the Malays.

Clause 1 of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

Note that there is only mention of “special position”. And the second part says, significantly, that the Agong shall also be responsible for safeguarding “the legitimate interests of other communities”. It's not all one-sided.

Azzat pointed out that “everyone stops at Clause 1”. But if they were to look at Clause 2, they would see clearly that the special provisions for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak pertain only to positions in the public service; scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities; and permits and licences for the operation of any trade or business.

And in these areas, the provisions have to be “of such proportion as [the Agong] may deem reasonable”. In other words, it's not carte blanche.

Look also at Clause 5, which states that Article 153 “does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.

What does Article 136 say?

It says: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.” This is another limit to the scope of Article 153.

If the government follows the rule of law and interprets the constitution as it should be interpreted, we wouldn't have a racial problem. Yes, problem. Let's call a spade a spade. The racial problem we have now is mostly the result of what the government has done and not done.

It has not followed the rule of law. It has not told Perkasa to grasp the proper provisions of Article 153. Instead, it has been affirming that Perkasa's doing the right thing - only a few days ago, Deputy Education Minister Puad Zarkashi said Perkasa was championing the people's rights as spelt out in the constitution. Perhaps Puad hasn't read beyond Clause 1. Perhaps he doesn't understand it fully.

Gov't has chosen to take sides

In terms of what the government has done, it has chosen to take sides to formulate policies that are contrary to the spirit of the constitution. For instance, is the discount for bumiputeras purchasing property constitutional? If so, where is it written in that sacred document?

The government favours one race and marginalises the other races. With regard to the civil service, it has not upheld Article 136 of the constitution, which calls for impartial treatment for civil servants of all races. Over the past four decades, the promotion of civil servants to the highest positions has been almost totally confined to those of one particular race. Is that impartial treatment?

As for religion, it is again the government that has created problems. Just to name two, one is its action to deny Christians the right to use the word “Allah”; the other, and more far-reaching, action is declaring Malaysia an Islamic state, as Najib did in 2007 when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

“Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state,” he said.

He must surely have read Article 3 of the constitution but chose to ignore what it says: “Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.”

Nowhere is it stated that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Declaration caused fresh anxieties

But by his declaration, Najib caused fresh anxieties to surface and made the issue of religion more contentious. In extreme situations, the provisions of Article 3 have been disrespected. A recent example is Perkasa's lodging of a police report against a church in Shah Alam for planning to stage a Christian play during Ramadan on the grounds that it was seditious and insulting to the sultan.

That police report became a problem to the church. How would it be solved? In an ideal Malaysian setting, the government would have stepped in and told Perkasa to respect Article 3. But of course, it did not. For the church and other Christian groups, these problems will continue to crop up in future and there will be no solution in sight if the government stays silent.

Is the government silent because it now believes it can call such a problem a polarity? And with a polarity, which cannot be solved, the less said about it, the better? Similarly, in the case of the Johor school principal who allegedly made racist remarks, it is better to let the issue be until the public forgets about it?

If so, 1Malaysia is not about taking a radically honest approach towards national unity and the celebration of diversity. It seems to shy away from calling a problem a problem and solving it. Calling it a polarity merely adds a new twist to the propaganda.

So, if Idris Jala comes to your neighbourhood and tries to sell you that idea, be sure to ask him some difficult questions. He's a good speaker and can easily mesmerise his audience. His words may sound pretty until you probe them for substance. If you do, you might find that they amount to nothing more than public relations prattle.


KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up, which won 3rd prize in the Popular Readers' Choice Awards. It has also been translated into Chinese.

malaysiakini: In defence of Nurul Izzah by John Mallot

In defence of Nurul Izzah

John Malott
Sep 7, 2010, 12:42pm

 

COMMENT Without question, racial tensions in Malaysia are higher today than at any time since the 1969 riots.

A high school principal makes racist remarks to her young students but goes unpunished by the government. A Chinese Malaysian rapper makes an offensive video claiming that Malaysia's wealth is thanks to the Chinese, insulting not only Malays but also Indian workers who have toiled on Malaysian plantations for generations.

A right-wing Utusan Malaysia columnist writes that those who disagree with his extremist views on the unwritten social contract can “go home” to China and India. When some Malays parade the severed head of a cow to protest against a Hindu temple, they are greeted as heroes by the home minister.

Fearful of losing political support, the government's actions have been selective - criticising statements coming from the opposition, while remaining silent when the racism comes from their own quarters. The prime minister's failure to provide leadership to deal with this growing racial and religious crisis and his inability to go beyond the sloganeering of 1Malaysia do not portend well for Malaysia's future.

Against this backdrop, Nurul Izzah Anwar, the MP for Lembah Pantai, has written a courageous and fascinating two-part article, 'Malaysia or Malaysaja?', calling for a constructive dialogue with Perkasa to discuss how to interpret Article 153 of the Constitution. She has said that she is willing to engage with other concerned Malaysians as well.

Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali dismissed Nurul Izzah's challenge to a debate, calling her 'small fry'. And in a snub, he said that if she wants to debate, she can talk to the head of Wiranita, the Perkasa women's organisation.

For reasons that most people understand, the publicity-seeking Ibrahim does not want to share a microphone with anyone, let alone Nurul Izzah, who clearly is his intellectual superior.

As expected, Perkasa and its allies responded in typical fashion – not by countering Nurul Izzah's well-considered arguments, but by engaging in bluster, name-calling, and threats, filing a police report against her.

Nurul Izzah, not one to be intimidated by bullying, responded by writing another article, even more forceful and detailed than the first.

What Izzah has called for

Let us consider what Nurul Izzah said and did not say – and why her proposal for a constructive debate on the meaning of Article 153, and how it has been implemented over the years, has merit.

First, Nurul Izzah did not call for the repeal or amendment of Article 153. So the hot heads of Perkasa, as well as Home Minister Hishammuddin Onn, should back off. There is no element of sedition here. She also did not challenge Malaysia's unwritten social contract.

Nurul Izzah correctly pointed out that Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa are wrong when they insist that the words “Malay rights” appear in Article 153. They do not. The Constitution refers to the “special position” of the Malays and other bumiputera, but not to any inalienable rights.

Pardon me for talking briefly about my own country to make a point. Soon to be 223 years old, the US Constitution is the oldest written constitution in the world. Over the years, the US Supreme Court has been called upon countless times - now between 75 and 100 times each year - to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and whether specific actions and laws of the government conform to it.

So as an American, I think that debating the meaning and implementation of specific articles in the Constitution is a legitimate part of the political and governing process in a democracy. Even after two centuries, we still have that debate. For example, the question of placing an Islamic Centre near Ground Zero in New York raises constitutional issues of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Nurul Izzah is doing the same. She says, let's have a constructive debate about what Malaysia's constitution means in practice when it talks about the “special position” of the Malays.

Discounts on fancy homes a 'right'?

For example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that bumiputera citizens should be given discounts when they buy fancy condominiums. Those are policies enacted by the government of the day, which are not enshrined in the Constitution.

While the civil service, scholarships, and business permits are mentioned in Article 153, housing is not. But when DAP MP Tony Pua recently suggested that the Selangor state government should abolish the bumiputera discount for purchase of houses costing more than RM500,000 (in a state where the average cost of housing in 2009 was RM267,000), an Umno Youth leader filed a police report and said that Pua's suggestion not only challenged Article 153, it was an offence under the Sedition Act. Of course, it is not.

Question: Should bumiputera residents be given discounts when they buy housing? If so, what should the percentage be? Do you have a “right” to a 10 percent discount as opposed to 5 percent?

Should there be a means test – that the discount is only given to people whose incomes are below a certain level, or when the value of the housing is below a certain level? If poor Malays are to be given housing discounts or subsidies, then should they not also be given to poor Indians and others? These are all legitimate questions to discuss.

If in the future the government decides that bumiputera may receive a 30 percent discount when they buy a Proton, but others may not, isn't it only fair to discuss this? If the government decides that 100 percent of the civil service has to be Malay, or that only Malays may head corporations in Malaysia, isn't that something that should be debated?

If others want to question such policies, they should not be told that they are violating Article 153 and are subject to arrest for sedition.

Bumi equity target has failed

Let's consider the policy of bumiputera ownership of 30 percent of the equity on the Bursa Malaysia. Article 153 talks about making special provision for bumiputeras to acquire licences and permits to engage in trade and business. But it does not talk about setting aside a special allocation of new stock issues for Malays and others, let alone how the value of the stock should be measured.

If the goal of the NEP is to raise the economic status and living standards of the Malay people, then how does this specific programme – setting aside 30 percent of stock issues – do that? If it were an effective programme, then why after all these years do so many Malays - and especially those in the rural areas - still live in poverty?

Why, as the New Economic Model (NEM) report pointed out, has the gap between rich and poor widened? Why has income for the bottom 40 percent of Malaysian households grown the most slowly over the past three decades?

Judged by these results, clearly the 30 percent equity policy has failed to do the job. Are there not better and more effective policies to raise the economic levels of the Malays and people of Sabah and Sarawak? And as others have pointed out, who decided what individuals could buy these shares? Where was the transparency? Why were the recipients not required to keep the shares, rather than sell them to others for a quick buck?

When MCA head Dr Chua Soi Lek called for ending the 30 percent quota, Perkasa's economic bureau director called for Chua to be arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for “disregarding national interests.”

In 2006, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) issued a report that said when the actual market value of stocks is used (the way that all of us determine our current wealth), rather than the artificially-determined par value, then the 30 percent target already has been reached. But under pressure, Asli withdrew the report.

'A fresh young voice'

In summary, even without challenging Article 153, it is perfectly legitimate to have a discussion of:

1) how that article has been implemented and should be implemented through government policies and actions;

2) how successful past and current policies have been in meeting the goals of Article 153; and

3) how success should be measured.

In a democracy, none of these topics should be "off limits."

On a personal note, I have known Nurul Izzah for 12 years, and it has been a pleasure to watch her grow into the remarkable woman that she is today. No one should underestimate her. Everyone sees her beauty, but I can attest that she also has brains, determination, and courage. And all of those characteristics are on display right now.

Perhaps an anonymous comment on the Internet, in response to her article, says it best: “She may well turn out to be the fresh young voice of conscience and courage… at a time when Malaysia needs a gentle, clear voice.”

JOHN R MALOTT was the United States ambassador to Malaysia 1995-1998.

TMI: Malaysia or Malaysaja? Part 2: Clarifying and reconciling the Constitution — Nurul Izzah Anwar

Malaysia or Malaysaja? Part 2: Clarifying and reconciling the Constitution — Nurul Izzah Anwar

The Malaysian Insider, September 06, 2010

The first part of Nurul Izzah’s “Malaysia or Malaysaja” piece brought about severe criticism of the young MP.

SEPT 6 — Since I wrote my August 31, 2010 article, titled “The Ultimate Malaysian Debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja?”, which called for a constructive engagement with Perkasa, and with the stated purpose to seek clarification and not challenge or repeal the constitution, my invitation to Perkasa has not only been rejected but countless accusations and police reports were made against me.

I believe as a democracy, that all opinions made related to the article — which I hope was not lost in translation — is accepted and responded to with thanks.

With that, I invite everyone to read the full article again.

I stand by that article and will remain a Malaysian Patriot forever.

I also recommend that the Malaysian Constitution be read in conjunction with the Articles mentioned.  For brevity, the fantastic MyConstitution brochures produced by the Malaysian Bar Council are also very helpful.

Part 2: Clarifying and Reconciling the Constitution
In the interest of framing the context of my concerns for the state of our nation, I have written this sequel.

I wish to continue in the path of constructive engagement with all concerned Malaysians.

I again reaffirm that I only seek clarifications and not to challenge or ask to repeal our constitution.

I have decided to make a list of issues concerning “Malay Rights”, that needs to be clarified and reconciled between the mixed government policy signals over the years in relation to Article 153, Article 152, Article 89 and the NEP.

The main contention for clarification is that, how do we reconcile between the need for change to meet current circumstances facing the nation today and the constitution — the raison d’etre of my proposed debate with Perkasa for a better Malaysia?

The list, where all the information is available as a matter of public record, is as follows:

Part XII, General and Miscellaneous — Article 153 — Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
Article 153 contains a quota mechanism in the form of Article 153 (2)... the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law... to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable for:
• positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State)
• scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given
• permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

Position in Public Service Quota
In regards to “position in the public service”, in 2009, 78.2 per cent of public service positions are composed of Malays and 7.7 per cent other Bumiputeras for a total of 85.9 per cent.

However, it is reassuring that measures have been introduced to recruit more non-Malays into the civil service.

How do we reconcile this with the need for diversity and fair racial representation without diminishing “Malay Rights”?

Scholarship Quota
In regards to scholarships for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, I would like to propose that more scholarships should be given as education is a great equaliser and facilitates social mobility; hence shouldn’t all PTPTN student loans be converted to scholarships to fulfil Article 153 intent?

And as a sustainable source of funds for more scholarships, shouldn’t Petronas oil revenue have a specific 30 per cent of profits mandated for scholarships, this would definitely be putting our “Khazanah Negara: (national treasure, i.e. oil) to develop our most treasured resources: our children?
Wouldn’t it also be an exercise in good governance and in the interest of “Malay Rights”, if Petronas accounts are made public and accountable through the Parliament?

I do believe with Petronas mandated scholarship contribution,  even all deserving top scorers, regardless of race can receive a scholarship that will enrich the quality of our human resource  and foster national unity to achieve higher economic growth; to improve the quality of our current workforce, 80 per cent of which are SPM holders.

Wouldn’t this enhance “Malay Rights”?
 
Public University Admission Quota
We should also look at how Article 153 (2) is to be reconciled, with the change of policy from a quota-based to a meritocracy-based admissions system to public universities made by then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 2003?

Wouldn’t this lead to efforts to continue improving our education system or just be seen as limiting access to public universities? Which is the priority?

Permits and Licenses for Business and Trade Quota
In regards to permits or licences for trade or business, how can it be reconciled with the initiative of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s act to liberalise 27 sub-sectors within the services sector?

Would this impact “Malay Rights” positively or negatively, in terms of creating market efficiencies through competition which will grow the economy or have market protection that limits growth?
Part XII, General and Miscellaneous — Article 152 — National Language
Article 152 (1) ...The national language shall be the Malay language.....

How do we reconcile  between the need for change and the constitution with the earlier initiative to teach Science and Maths in English in national schools by prime minister Mahathir in 2003, which now has been reversed back to being taught in Bahasa Malaysia?

As a note to the ability of the courts to interpret on the constitution, this year in a test case brought by four students, a High Court has ruled that it is constitutional to teach Mathematics and Science in English. [1]

Indeed, is it safe to surmise that the constitution can be reconciled with the needs of the times, as shown in the PPSMI case?

Part VI, Chapter 4 — Land; Article 89 — Malay Reserve Land
Article 89 refers to Malay Land Reservation matters, how can it be reconciled with the government’s proposal to establish the Kampung Baru Development Corp, with a yet to be finalised 60:40 ratio for Malay and non-Malay participation in property development  (and ownership?) made by the Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Minister?

Wouldn’t this reduce “Malay Rights” in terms of landholdings, but how do we unlock the value of these lands for productive uses? Which should be the priority?

Nurul Izzah believes Malaysia’s calculations of and response to poverty must be re-examined.

 
NEP — Poverty Eradication Goal
In the matter of the poverty eradication regardless of race, absolute poverty in the population as a whole dropped from 49.7 per cent in 1970 to 3.8 per cent in 2009, according to the 10th Malaysia Plan government statistics.

In real numbers this means that 228,400 households or 1,004,960 Malaysian live on an average of RM800 per household a month and below.

However, if we use a more realistic and reasonable measurement methodology for determining the Poverty Line Income (PLI) which is defined as  income that is necessary to buy a group of foods that would meet the nutritional needs of the members of a household and other basic necessities such as clothing, rent, fuel and utilities, transport and communications, medical expenses, education and recreation, then according to Jayanath Appudurai, who writes extensively on poverty for the Centre for Policy Initiatives, suggest that Malaysia calculates the PLI based on two-thirds of the median income of its households. The median income is a country’s total income divided by half which is RM2,830 for Malaysia. Therefore, Malaysia’s PLI for 2010 based on two-thirds of the median income, should be RM1,886 rather than the government’s PLI average of RM800 per household. [2]

Based on RM800 per month per household of 4.4 people, then the daily amount needed to live is RM6.00 per person as compared to an income of RM 1,886 per month which would provide a daily average of RM14.00 per person to cover basic necessities.

What is the price of one chicken today? Has food prices increased? Is living getting more expensive while job opportunities and incomes are stagnant or declining? Are we losing our purchasing power day by day?

With a more realistic and reasonable PLI, it would mean that 32 per cent or 1,923,368 households with 8,463,821 million Malaysians are living below the poverty line.

And mind you, by some estimates it requires a monthly income of RM3,000 to barely live in Kuala Lumpur.

However, should we take heed of a minister’s advice to cut overheads such as Astro and cars to survive?

Furthermore, our Gini Coefficient index which is a measurement of income inequality, where an index of 0 means perfect income equality and an index of 1 means perfect income inequality, in 2009 is 46.1 and ranked 35 among other nations. Will it go any higher to an index of 1?

Therefore, the first step should be to review the Poverty Line Income (PLI) for Malaysia to a realistic and reasonable measurement, and use it to set urgent corrective and doable policies which have been suggested by Pakatan Rakyat, such as:

• A living income policy that will realign our labour market towards a higher-income nation.
• To review the major utilities concessions that will bring down living costs.
• To strictly implement anti-monopoly laws without fear or favour.
• To expand micro-credit facilities for small business development.
• To provide targeted subsidies for essential goods and services for deserving households.
• To implement a transparent government procurement practice to avoid wastages and leakages that drives up economic cost that burden the poor more.
• And for good measure, to provide even more scholarships and convert existing PTPTN student loans for these households into scholarships.

Can all these be done to assist the households that would be termed to be in poverty, which are majority Bumiputeras, with the more realistic and reasonable PLI, as part of “Malay Rights” struggle?

NEP — Corporate Equity Ownership Goal
Has the Bumiputera corporate equity ownership reached 18.9 per cent or more than 30 per cent in 2006?

These are the four studies or reports on the matter.

In the first study, a 2002 University of Malaya research entitled “Bumiputeras in the Corporate Sector — Three decades of performance 1970-2000″, by Dr M. Fazilah Abdul Samad, head of department of finance and banking in the Faculty of Business and Accountancy, has concluded that the 30 per cent Bumiputera equity ownership as targeted under the NEP had been achieved in 1997.

The research was based on a 10-year analysis of Bumiputera equity ownership between 1988 and 1997 of public listed companies on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE), now called Bursa Malaysia.  It is important to note, that the study used par value of KLSE listed companies as the basis of calculation.

Bumiputera equity ownership reached 33.7 per cent in 1997, comprising 30.6 per cent Bumiputera corporate equity ownership and 3.1 per cent individual Bumiputera share ownership. This does not include nominee company ownership which could be held in the majority on behalf of Bumiputeras.

In a second study in 2006, the Asian Strategic Leadership Institute (Asli) also released a study that showed that Bumiputera ownership of corporate equity in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange had exceeded the 30 per cent target. 
The findings of a 45 per cent Bumiputera equity ownership share were based on a different method of measurement compared with the official one. It used market value as opposed to the par value valuation official method, and allocating the equity of GLCs according to racial composition.

In a third study, also in 2006 and in spite challenging the validity of both the UM and Asli reports of exceeding the 30 per cent target, the government had inadvertently announced on Novermber 7, 2006, that Bumiputeras indeed owned 36.6 per cent or RM78.4 billion in shareholding value in companies listed on the main board and second board of Bursa Malaysia up to December 31 2005.

Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin said shareholding by non-Bumiputeras stood at RM100.4 billion (46.9 per cent) while another RM55.2 billion (16.45 per cent) was held by foreigners.
However, this initial report was later retracted by another qualifying report, which is our fourth report, was released.

The fourth study in 2006, attempted to explain the official NEP statistics calculation methodology. It was reported (published here in its entirety as to understand the full context of the subject) that:
“The Malaysian government has released details on how it calculates the Malay share of corporate ownership following a controversy over this statistic, which is crucial for the continuation of pro-Malay policies.

The Asian Strategic Leadership Institute (Asli) sparked a debate last month when it said Malays already owned 45 per cent of business equity, ahead of the government target of 30 per cent by 2020.
This was seen as challenging the government’s affirmative action policy. Official statistics put Malay corporate ownership at 18.9 per cent.

Following the controversy, the government promised to reveal how it had arrived at its statistics.
The Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Rahman Suliman disclosed the methodology in Parliament on Tuesday, ahead of next week’s Umno general assembly, where the issue of Malay economic progress is expected to be debated.

He said the government based its calculations on the 609,625 registered companies and not just the 1,000-plus public listed ones.

Based on listed companies, the Bumiputera share would be 36.6 per cent as at December 31 last year. This is because all such companies must have at least 30 per cent Malay ownership.

In the case of registered companies, only 24 per cent are controlled by Malays, said Datuk Rahman.
Secondly, the government uses the par, or nominal, value of the shares held, and not the market value, as this gives a better picture, he said.

Datuk Rahman said market value could be used for listed companies, but for the other companies, this could be manipulated easily.

“But the government is always open to reviewing the methodology,” he said.

The Asli study used market value because it believed that this reflected the actual value of the company.
Datuk Rahman addressed criticisms that the government failed to count as Malay the shareholdings of 
GLCs and shares held by nominee companies and trustee companies.

He said it had taken into account shares held by companies like Permodalan Nasional, set up to raise Malay involvement in business, and unit trusts open only to Malays.

It also counted shares held by nominee companies, most of which were owned by non-Bumiputeras.
As for GLCs, he said shares held by the Employees Provident Fund, Khazanah Holdings and Minister of Finance Inc are not classified as held by any particular ethnic group.

He said the government’s data covered only corporate equity in Malaysia and not wealth held overseas.
Datuk Rahman also said Malays owned less than 12 per cent of urban commercial properties, while Chinese held 72 per cent and Indians 5 per cent.

These last two statements are telling. It shows the government has expanded its parameters for equitable wealth distribution beyond the usual yardsticks of corporate equity, household income and employment.

Property ownership, especially commercial assets, and overseas holdings are also now a factor.

Asli director Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam told The Straits Times: “I hope the government will broaden the spectrum of experts to include academicians and the private sector to provide a wider perspective when they review the methodology.”

Opposition Democratic Action Party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng criticised the use of par value calculation and said market value gave a more accurate picture.

Kemaman MP Ahmad Shabery Cheek told online news portal Malaysiakini that affirmative action was still needed to bridge income disparity between races. However, the government is adamant that the NEP should be continued. Earlier, it had rejected two reports from Asli and UM which suggested that Bumiputera corporate equity ownership is more than 30 per cent.”[3]

It would appear in summary that there are four Bumiputera equity ownership share reports with different conclusions and methodologies, the UM report puts it at 33.7 per cent (using par-value method of listed companies), the ASLI report shows it at 45 per cent (using market-value of listed companies and GLCs race apportioned method), the Deputy Finance Minister’s statement is 36.6 per cent (using market value of listed companies) and the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department places it at the official 18.9 per cent (using  par-value of listed and all non-listed companies excluding all GLCs and Government Managed Financial Institutions except PNB).

So has the Bumiputera corporate equity ownership reached 18.9 per cent or more than 30 per cent in 2006?

Which valuation method should be used?

Regardless of valuation method, what the reports fail to show is that which Bumiputeras own all this wealth? How was it allocated?

And how can we explain the NEP Equity leakage of RM52 billion that was sold off?
Shouldn’t the focus for the sake of “Malay Rights”, be on the improving the mode of NEP or progressive NEM implementation and share allocation to include more Malays rather than to only a few individuals?

Shouldn’t our efforts for the sake of “Malay Rights”, be on strengthening the diminishing “enabling” factors to equitable and sustainable economic growth, caused by cronyism, corruption, wastages, leakages, wrong resource allocations (big projects phenomenon), racism, anti-democratic laws and state institutional degradation and abuse, that in reality subverts and undermine achieving the well intended NEP or progressive NEM goals?

Therefore, I want to suggest that to correct this NEP wealth distribution dilemma, and in the interest of “Malay Rights”, a new mechanism be applied on existing Bumiputera equity holdings in both listed and non-listed, especially government vendors, privatisation, utilities and concession holder companies (which is in line with official  Bumiputera Equity Share calculation methodology), whereby, 30 per cent of current ownership be divested on a par-value basis (since this is the official method of calculating equity value held), in the following portions; 25 per cent to a Bumiputera Education Fund for more scholarships, and the remaining five per cent to a Bumiputera employee-owned co-operative of the participating company.

As for financing the par-value shares purchases, to compensate the current Bumiputera equity owners, the beneficiaries should apply for a loan from Bank Bumiputra Berhad which is a financial institution created from the Bumiputera Economic Congress, and as the bank no longer exist, then they should apply to CIMB instead.

This mechanism can be called the “Bumiputera NEP Equity — Quota in a Quota — Redistribution Program”, where the current Bumiputera equity owner will still be left with a 70 per cent stake of his current holdings and the 30 per cent be used for the programme, and may I suggest we start with Kenchana Petroleum, Scomi, CIMB, Perimekar, APCO and a certain Pasir Mas Bridge Building Construction Company as test-cases?

In Conclusion
The above list should suffice for now, to set the context of my concerns for the future of our nation.
I would like to reaffirm, that I am only seeking clarification and to reconcile, and not challenge or repeal the constitution, for a better Malaysia.

I would again remind ourselves that a possible way forward out of this “Malay Dilemma”, comes from a Malaysian statesman, the late Tun Dr Ismail, who once argued that “the question (of the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays) be left to the Malays themselves because as more and more Malays became educated and gained self-confidence, they themselves would do away with this ‘special position’.” However, Tun Dr Ismail believed the special position was “a slur on the ability of the Malays.”

Finally, I do wish to end with the proposition that the government must allow the restoration of local government elections and implement national election reforms immediately, so that the people may legitimately decide, on how to live together as one people, with the constitution, in peace and harmony, in one truly independent and sovereign nation.

Hidup Malaysia (or Hidup Malaysaja?!)

(Note: Bersih’s Joint Communiqué for Election Reforms provides an illuminating argument on the subject. Please support and promote new Voter Registration.)

* Nurul Izzah Anwar is the MP for Lembah Pantai.

TMI: Special rights can’t be erased unless the Malays agree to it, says Khoo Kay Kim

Special rights can’t be erased unless the Malays agree to it, says Khoo Kay Kim

The Malaysian Insider, September 06, 2010

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 6 — The people, irrespective of race, who question Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which spells out the special rights and privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras, are blind about history and the constitution, an analyst said.

Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim said the special position of the Malays was recognised way back since the British era.

“When the British came to Malaya, they found that there were already Malay governments in several parts of the peninsula, and the British recognised these governments.

“These governments took care of a large number of people (the Malays). For the British, these people had their special rights. But those who came and lived in Malaya were not subjects of the Rulers and therefore, did not enjoy the same rights enjoyed by the Malays,” he told Bernama.

He said the non-Malays in the peninsula at that time were not citizens or subjects of the king, saying they only had the opportunity to apply for citizenship when the Federation of Malaya was formed on February 1, 1948.

“When the British planned the formation of the Malay Federation as a nation state, it was an extension of what already existed then, and by 1957, the Federal Constitution was formulated, incorporating the prevailing arrangement at that time,” he said.

The people, especially those from other races, should therefore respect the rights and privileges of the Malays as enshrined in the constitution because when it was first formulated, the various races had already agreed to what needed to be incorporated in it, he said.

“The special position of the Malays started since a long time ago and based on the system of government existed then. In the peninsula, nine Malay kingdoms existed since 1895, and continue to exist until today,” he said.

The Federal Constitution was formulated based on the recommendations of the Reid Commission. It took effect soon after the independence on August 31, 1957.

Article 153 spells out powers vested upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as the legitimate interests of other communities.

It also spells out in detail the functions of the King in ensuring quotas for the Malays and Bumiputeras in the public service, scholarships, public education as well as the provisions of permits and business licences.

Khoo said the reason why there were groups questioning the rights and privileges of the Malays was because the society of today was “blind about history”.

“They don’t understand (the constitution) and are ignorant of what they can or cannot do. There shouldn’t be any debate on the constitution because what is important is to follow what has been in use for so long,” he said.

He said that if the constitution was to be amended, it would require the agreement of two-thirds of MPs in Parliament and should be consented to by the King.

He added that anyone wanting to abolish or amend Article 153 should obtain the agreement of the Malays and Bumiputeras, the agreement of two-thirds of MPs in Parliament and the consent of the King. — Bernama