malaysiakini: Set up a national education reform consultative council... by Toh Kin Woon

Set up a national education reform consultative council

Toh Kin Woon
Aug 3, 11
2:50pm

LLG Cultural Development Centre is highly concerned about the announcement by the Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin in mid July that the ministry was readying a study on a complete revamp of the existing education system.

The report is to be submitted to the cabinet for approval end of this year.

Education reform is of paramount importance. Any country proposing to review its national education system as a whole, will inevitably have to study thoroughly the shortcomings of the current education system, and to consult the opinions of various stake holders in relation to education reform.

We urge the Education Ministry and the Higher Education Ministry to make public details of the proposed education reforms such as the guiding thoughts, principles, objectives, strategies and implementation in the course of undertaking such reforms.

The proposed reforms must be carried out in a transparent manner, allowing people and education organisations to take part in the process. This is to ensure that the true spirit of democracy will prevail, particularly in this area of utmost importance to all the people.

We hold the view that the government should set up a national education reform consultative council, comprising representatives from various education organisations.

These representatives should be involved in the process of brainstorming, idea contribution, planning, implementation and monitoring of the education reforms.

LLG Cultural Development Centre contends that the education reform ought to incorporate four principles as follows:

1. Democracy in education decision-making The government should reform the highly centralised decision-making process in the education system.

The government should also dismantle policies which prohibit strictly certain education providers, particularly those providing vernacular education, from acting as education providers.

In fact, the government ought to decentralise its educational decision-making power to the state governments, municipal governments and even down to the community, allowing the community people to participate in the planning of education.

If the people decide to increase the numbers of Chinese schools, Tamil schools, national schools or any other linguistic schools in their community, the respective governments must seriously consider implementing the proposals.

In short, the government should not suppress primary, secondary and higher education provided in the various mother tongues as medium of instruction. In fact, the federal government should provide educational resource to support these efforts.

2. Equitable provision of education resources. The government must recognise the equal status of all schools by ensuring the fair and equal distribution of education resource for all the schools.

If the government maintains the discriminative education policy and subject tax payers who send their children to Chinese schools and Tamil schools to unfair treatment, the education reform will lose its progressive meaning and is a contradiction to the concept of 'people first' as advocated by the prime minister.

To ensure equality, we propose the adoption of an Education Equality Act that stipulates clearly that the government must treat all schools fairly. To us, this act is an important cornerstone of any education reform.

3. Academic Independence. The most worrying issue for higher education in Malaysia is the lack of academic independence.

The vice chancellors of universities are taking orders from politicians, as witnessed by the recent parking of riot police trucks in university campuses, something that would be taboo in countries that observe strictly the principle of university autonomy.

The universities and politicians have been working hand-in-hand to manipulate campus elections. Academicians with critical thinking have been sidelined and denied promotions by the authorities.

The promotion of academicians is not based on merit but nepotism and ethnic identity.

The University and University Colleges Act suppresses the freedom of thought and movement of students, nurturing graduates who follow uncritically the thoughts and ideas propagated by state elites.

The education reform must abolish all these problems if higher education is to be intellectually strong, creative and vibrant.

4. Elimination of racism. We are extremely worried about the escalating racist mindset in university campuses and schools.

For instance the indoctrination of racist thinking by the Biro Tata Negara, the use of history text books that have been severely distorted and imbalanced, the adoption of the Bahasa Malaysia text book 'Interlok' that instills the idea of Malay supremacy, and the hiring of teaching staff who insult students with racist statements, and the like, are some such examples.

The government must dissolve Biro Tata Negara, abolish all practices that promote racism and seriously punish teaching staff who make racist statements.

TOH KIN WOON is president of the LLG Cultural Development Centre.

TMI: What Malaysians want — by John Teo

What Malaysians want —               by John Teo

July 26, 2011

JULY 26 — Prime Minister Najib Razak has asked the silent majority to speak up.

I belong to the silent majority and here is a wish list of what Malaysians want. We want to live in a country that is peaceful, prosperous and progressive.

We want a government that truly cares for the people rather than just paying lip service to the people. We want a government that launches projects for the people’s benefit rather than mega projects that benefit a few elite groups or do it to score political points.

We want a government that truly believes in the maintenance of quality in our education system as well as a human workforce that is at par with the rest of the world rather than shut our doors, producing wholesale a poor quality workforce and education system and proudly proclaiming to the world we are the “best”.

We want a government that is transparent and accountable in its implementation of policies rather hide behind layers of bureaucracy and pass the buck around when something goes wrong. We want to pay our taxes with pride and to feel that we are contributing to our nation’s prosperity and progressiveness rather than to see our hard-earned taxes being squandered in multimillion-dollar scandal after scandal.

We want to feel in control of our own destiny and have the government truly engage the stakeholders and listen to the stakeholders rather than form policies and shoved them down our throats. We want our politicians to truly work for the people’s benefit rather than engage in useless mudslinging and creating discord to score political mileage.

We want our politicians to be humble in the way they conduct official duties and the way they live rather than be escorted by police outriders, garlanded and seated in reserved VIP seats as if the people, who voted for them and put them where they are, are made to be seen as inferior human beings.

We want our politicians to lead a moderate lifestyle rather than live in million-dollar plush mansions, chauffeured around in luxury cars and drabbed in priceless jewellery while the people are struggling to make ends meet and worrying endlessly on making sure their children get a decent quality education.

We want to live in a country that embraces talent and hard work rather than political connections.

Last but not least, we want to be proud to call ourselves Malaysians, embracing our diversity and celebrating our differences rather than be bombarded by individuals trying to tear apart the fabric of our uniqueness. Is that too much to ask?

* John Teo reads The Malaysian Insider.

MySInChew: No solo race, but multiculturalism — by David D. Mathew

No solo race, but multiculturalism — by David D. Mathew

February 10, 2011

Feb 10 — There is a non-profit organisation in Malaysia called the Perdana Leadership Foundation which was set up to be the leading institution for the study of Malaysia’s prime ministers.

Every former prime minister has a page on the foundation website and there is a quotation attributed to the late Hussein Onn on his page which reads as follows: “Our successes have been founded on moderation. In a multiracial country, moderation requires strong disciplines. It demands sacrifices by all communities in the overall interest of the nation. It requires us to seek solutions which are acceptable to all communities rather than to any particular community.”

The nation’s Father of Unity believed in a very important fact — that the nation’s success was dependent upon policies that suited all communities. He subscribed to the fact that the overall interest of the nation was more important than any particular community.

In a speech he delivered as Umno president during the party’s 32nd general assembly on June 26, 1981, Hussein told Umno members that: “We inherited a multi-racial nation. Umno, as the most important party in our multi-racial nation, has to give attention to the problems of all citizens. This fact has always been acknowledged by Umno and it is with this understanding that Umno has been fair towards all races. In fighting for the welfare of the Bumiputera race, we do not ignore the interests of the other races. What we seek is the opportunity to progress with the other races.”

Due to poor health, Hussein passed away on May 29, 1990 at the age of 68.

One wonders whether the Father of Unity was listening from above when his successor Mahathir Mohamad delivered a speech at the Tun Hussein Onn Memorial on February 1, 2011.

In his speech, Mahathir said that “this country belongs to the Malay race.”

He told his audience at the talk on “The Malay race and the future” that “we must be sincere and accept that the country is Tanah Melayu.”

Mahathir went on to say that the former Philippine President Aquino was Chinese but she identified herself as Filipino and Thaksin Shinawatra is Chinese but he speaks the Thai language and lives the Thai culture.

According to Mahathir, things are different in Malaysia because “we still introduce ourselves according to race” and “this is why the question of race will continue to haunt us.”

Apart from conveniently ignoring the fact that a Chinese had no problem becoming president and prime minister of the Philippines and Thailand respectively, Mahathir’s comments were an insult to the memory of Hussein Onn. To add salt to the wound, his comments were made at the Tun Hussein Onn Memorial.

Do we really introduce ourselves according to race?

Maybe up there in Mahathir land people go about introducing themselves by saying with a smile “Hello Mahathir, my name is Mammooty and I’m Indian Malaysian, originally from Kerala. How are you?”
I don’t know. Maybe that’s because Mammooty carelessly assumes that Mahathir is from Kerala.

But down here where the rest of us live, race does not form part of a casual introduction.

In fact, it does not even form part of a formal introduction. No one says “We now invite Nazri to say a few words. He is Malay. A round of applause please.”

When Malaysians are overseas, they introduce themselves as Malaysians. Not Indians or Chinese.
The question of race is, however. present in other places.

Think scholarships, there is race in the mix. Think government contracts, there is race as a factor.
Fancy a discount on a new apartment? What race are you?

The majority of political parties in this country exist to further the interests of the particular races.

This is why the question of race continues to haunt us. It would not be the case if, for example, one thinks about scholarships and the only thing in the mix is the question of need.

It would not be the case if, for example, retired politicians stick to charitable causes and quit reminding a particular race that they are different from the others.

While Hussein spoke about “progressing with other races”, Mahathir speaks about the Malays needing crutches and having to be fearful of other races.

One spoke in 1981, and the other speaks in 2011.

One was a visionary, and the other a living relic.

The facts today are these.

Lee Chong Wei is the world’s number one badminton player. Tony Fernandes is the 2010 Forbes Asia’s Businessman of the Year and Zeti Akhtar Aziz is among the world’s top seven best central bankers for 2010. They have one thing in common. They are all Malaysians.

And they are a testament to the fact that the secret of our various successes lies in our multiculturalism. — mysinchew.com

AFP: Struggle to stem ‘brain drain’ as talent departs

Struggle to stem ‘brain drain’ as talent departs

Malaysiakini
Dec 30, 10

(AFP) When computer engineer Wan Jon Yew left Malaysia in 2005 for a job in Singapore, all he wanted was to work in the city state for a few years before going home. Now, he says, he will never return.

With a family, a home and a car, he now plans to settle in Singapore for good – just one of the many Malaysians stampeding abroad every year in a worrying ‘brain drain’ the government is trying to reverse.

“I wouldn’t consider going back to Malaysia, I won’t look back. If I were ever going to leave Singapore, I would migrate to Australia,” said the 28-year-old, who now has permanent resident status.

“It’s not about the money. I could have a better quality of life in Malaysia with my pay. I could have a semi-detached bungalow and have a maid there, but I would rather live in a government flat in Singapore.”

Wan, who is ethnically Chinese, is one of some 700,000 Malaysians – most of them highly educated – who are currently working abroad in an exodus that Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government is struggling to reverse.

The ‘brain drain’ has a number of causes. Some have been lured by higher salaries, but others blame political and social gripes including preferential policies for Muslim Malays, who form the majority.

Many feel constrained by life in a country where the ruling coalition has been in power for half a century, and where progress on freedom of expression, the right to assembly and tackling corruption have been slow.

A decades-old affirmative action policy, which hands Malays and the indigenous groups privileges in housing, education and business, has been criticised as uncompetitive and improperly benefiting the elite.

As a consequence, many of those who have left are members of Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities, who make up some 25 percent and 10 percent of the population respectively.

Najib in December launched a ‘Talent Corporation’ with incentives to woo back these highly skilled workers, as well as foreign professionals, to live and work in his multi-ethnic country.

Malaysia, Southeast Asia’s third-largest economy with a population of 28 million, has ambitions to transform itself into a developed nation by 2020, but a lack of human capital is a barrier to reaching that goal.

155-fold increase over 45 years
World Bank data cited by the Malaysian press shows that while globally the number of migrants rose 2.4 times between 1960 and 2005, Malaysia’s diaspora registered a staggering 155-fold increase over the 45-year period.

“I don’t want my children to go through the unfair treatment,” said Wan, who believes Singapore offers “fair competition”.

“I’m not proud of being a Malaysian because I think the government doesn’t treat me as a Malaysian.

“I would rather be a PR (permanent resident), a second-class citizen in a foreign country, than to be a citizen in my own country.”

Wan said his wife, an IT analyst, renounced her citizenship in July this year, joining a queue of about 30 Malaysians lining up to do so on that day alone at the Malaysian embassy in Singapore.

Commentators are sceptical over whether the government’s latest effort to reverse the ‘brain drain’ will be successful, warning it will be tough to persuade those in self-exile.

“Money does have a significant role but the most important factor, I think, is opportunity. Malaysia is too politicised and opportunities are not evenly available to everyone,” political analyst Wan Saiful Wan Jan (right) told AFP.

In one example, he said, academicians are reluctant to work in local universities as they must sign a ‘loyalty pledge’ barring them from, among other things, criticising government policies.

“In such an environment, obviously those with talents will find opportunity elsewhere,” said the chief executive of think-tank the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas).

Wan Saiful, who himself returned to Malaysia last year after living in Britain for 17 years, said the newly launched Talent Corporation will be “another expensive failure” if it does not tackle these structural problems.

“When I apply for a job, buy a house, register my children for school etcetera, why does it matter what my race or religion is? This should stop,” said the analyst, himself a Malay.

‘Brain gain’ effort
Ethnic Chinese and Indian professionals who have left the country commonly say they felt a sense of marginalisation in Malaysia.

“When I went back to Malaysia, it was a culture shock in terms of politically how they promote the rights of the Malays over everyone else,” said Chee Yeoh, a stock analyst who migrated to Australia three years ago.

Yeoh was educated overseas from the age of 10 and returned in 1998 to take up a position with a bank, but felt like leaving again “almost immediately”.

“I just didn’t feel at home in Malaysia. I can’t speak the Malay language – essentially I felt like an outsider even more,” said the 35-year-old analyst, who took a pay cut to move to Australia.

Najib has admitted the talent issues are “broad and complex”, and will not set a target on how many Malaysians he hopes to lure back under the new programme.

The initiatives include a ‘resident pass’ which will give foreign skilled workers, and Malaysians who have given up their citizenship, the long-term right to live and work in the country.

But Fong Chan Onn (left), former human resources minister who was instrumental in previous ‘brain gain’ efforts, said the government must tackle the issue holistically.

“The government needs to rectify this sense of marginalisation. We also have to improve the mechanism so it can be more effective to ask these talents to come back,” he said.

“We have a long way to go. It is better late than never.”

malaysiakini: Who stole the NEP agenda? by KJ John

Who stole the NEP agenda?

KJ John
Sep 7, 2010, 1:07pm

Racism and ethnic bigotry have reached a stage in Malaysia that they need to be checked and nipped in the bud! But this concern for the future of our nation-state should not only be limited to national unity and religious tolerance alone.

Nazir Abdul Razak, the youngest son of Abdul Razak Hussein, recently said that the NEP has been bastardised. That is a very serious statement coming from the son of the Prime Minister who launched the NEP. After all Abdul Razak is considered the father of the NEP.

The NEP was born after our self-imposed martial law period when the Parliament was suspended after the May 13 episode and order was only established when the New Economic Policy was agreed on, established and launched as the way forward for the nation for the next 20 years; 1970-1990.

Consensus was achieved thought the first-ever National Consultative Council. We are now well past that First Outline Perspective Plan (OPP1) period and the first 20 years of the NEP. Why is it then the NEP has not been addressed adequately and fully achieved?

We are now another 15 years after the NEP era and our leaders now admit that it has been derailed from the original intention. Why and how? Who are these “bastards” who stole the agenda and caused the son to disclaim this agenda from the Father of Development of our nation?

I therefore observe with sadness as the history of this nation is being rewritten by false and insincere actors, all in the name of triumphant politics. The Tunku and Abdul Razak were statesmen, not just mere politicians. They were always concerned for the next generation, and never just the next election. True leadership always requires that.

Even Dr Mahathir Mohamad was a statesman, until he lost sight of the agenda and gave up all other values to ensure and secure his own survival. The Tunku and Abdul Razak did not have such a privilege as they did not ever overstay their welcome; as we all fully know!

My pet theory: From GEM to RM

I am not a politician or even a political observer or commentator. I am simply a Malaysian citizen whose father, school and God has taught him to serve the nation before all else. That is all I seek to do.

Let me therefore give my version of the bastardisation of the NEP agenda and all things Malaysian. The NEP when born was an excellent agenda which I fully subscribed to. In fact, after I was offered a role in the public service, I even turned down a private sector offer because I wanted to help implement the NEP in its original form.

The original goals were to achieve national unity vide the twin prongs of eradication of poverty and restructuring of society to reflect a truly Malaysian citizenry or what was later called a Bangsa Malaysia.

These goals were very achievable and all plans were laid in the Abdul Razak (right) era under the NEP and the then-National Operations Room system. The values were to achieve both the goals without too much pain and hurt of any sector or community; stealing from none but growing all.

The central thesis was the accelerated growing of the cake, with the equitable distribution of the growth portion without negating our capacity to grow and create new value.

The Implementation, Coordination and Development Administration Unit (ICDAU) of the PM's Department was assigned as the primary custodian of the NEP Agenda; and the Bumiputera Commercial and Industrial Community Bureau or BCIC (born in ICDAU) was the commercialisation arm of the economic growth portion with an equitable built-in distribution model, and the Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) as the central growth distribution agency of the government of Malaysia.

Through the PNB, all poorer Malaysians could benefit from the new and accelerated growth. PNB was created as a trustee agency for the poorer portions of Malaysians.

The State Development Officer or SDO (an institution created to transcend the traditional state boundaries) was to enable delivery of development on the ground where it hurt people the most. Abdul Razak used to say it “put the finger where the pulse was not beating!”

The state governments did not have the financial or development capability on the ground for most physical infrastructure development under our federal-state model of governance. Local authorities were financially poor!

'Derailment of the national agenda'

Our greatest failure of the NEP was the “derailment of the national agenda”. It unfortunately started after Mahathir was challenged for the leadership of Umno. That bitter fight that started with the other potential Umno leaders has never ended until today.

Proxy fights amongst followers continue. Anwar Ibrahim too continues that fight until today; as does Tengku Razaleigh, or Musa Hitam. Their personal battles over the leadership and direction of the nation have never ended and never will.

In that original fight, Mahathir brought in his own team of mercenary loyalists, who could be “paid off” in ringgit that makes sense. That Ringgit-Malaysia model of development was thus born as an alternative to Abdul Razak's Growth with Equity Model (GEM).

The alternative is sometimes called the Raja Mahathir or the RM model. The RM is today the operative value of all traditional Umnoputras. What then is this new model; which denies the GEM?

Under this RM model, money can be made under the NEP agenda by any bumiputra entity and it is legal and legitimate (to steal) as long as the policy allows for it. You can break rules or whatever but the end always justifies the means. It is Machiavellian at its worst!

The primary concern of Abdul Razak's eradication of poverty therefore became subservient to the “skimming off the top!” The top 30% was more important that the bottom 30%. In effect, there was a resultant separation of the 'bumis' from the 'putras.'

This was the direct result and cause of the so-called New Umno which created the Melayu Baru. The New Umno was grown after the trunk of the Malaysian tree was badly damaged as a result of this personal ego fight in and around 1988.

The poor became ordinary Malaysian on the ground and all those who did an honest day's job. The political elites won the day; or, at least they think so! The Putras (usually the BNputras) became the connected who could collect without too much hassle or burden money which always came from the public coffers. Therefore the PKFZ scandal is nothing extraordinary; it is simply a prime example of the RM model of development and growth!

In America they call this 'ugly capitalism'; wherein illegal and unproductive papers can generate very artificial wealth, which can also disappear overnight. Therefore trillions have been spent by the government of the US to bail out failed banks and corporations to support the rich and famous while the poor the world are still with us. In Malaysia before the last GE it was called “Surat Wahyu!”

Whither Malaysia?

We R Malaysia! Yes, we the people are Malaysia; not just the government or the private sector under the so-called Malaysia Inc model. We make up the electorate of Malaysia and our respective communities are truly Malaysia; Negara Ku.

It is time for us to take charge and begin to drive the destiny of this nation. Let us learn to celebrate our beautiful nation, her heritage and her history of how a small nation of 11 states grew to become a new federation but within which we learned to recognise and observe the dignity of all ethnicities!

We R Malaysia and we can learn to celebrate the diversities. Let us celebrate because we are Malaysia! May God bless our Malaysia Day!

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed above are truths that matter to him as an individual citizen wearing private and civil society hats and therefore are not opinions of the university or faculty. Do send feedback to him at kjjohn@ohmsi.net

TMI: What social contract? — by Prof. Clive Kessler (UNSW)

What social contract? — Clive Kessler

The Malaysian Insider, September 06, 2010

 

SEPT 6 — “Najib warns against questioning ‘social contract’,” it is reported.

This claim is plain and simple “historical revisionism”.

To what “social contract” precisely is the PM referring?

In the 1980s a new political idea was created: that of “Ketuanan Melayu”, of Malay ascendancy, supremacy, domination.

Thereafter, especially from 2008 it has been ever more powerfully promoted, generally in association with the suggestion that a “social contract” had been entered into and constitutionally enshrined in the mid-1950s.

How was this manoeuvre executed? With what purpose and consequences?

It was, from 1986, now newly suggested that the notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” had been part of the “Merdeka process and agreements”, and that the nation’s non-Malay citizens had thereby consented to accept, and thereafter ever live subject to, Malay ascendancy and supremacy.

There was perhaps an implicit, but only implicit, “social contract” formed in 1955-1957. If that is how one chooses to denote the core political substance of the Merdeka process, then that implied “contract” was about inter-communal or inter-ethnic power-sharing and the secular nature of the Malaysian state.

It was not about notion of “Malay supremacy”. That notion was only subsequently, indeed very much later, confected.

If there was at that time a “social contract”——if that is how some people later may choose to characterize the Merdeka process and agreements——then what they are referring to is merely a retrospectively imputed or implied social contract.

This term was now offered as a new way of denoting, and seeing, that national political legacy and foundation, that core political substance. But, when reached, in their own time, those agreements, that subsequently implied “contract” (to use the new, and newly inflated term) was not about and did not provide for “Ketuanan Melayu” — nor for the supremacy of Islamic shari’ah law as the supreme and uncontestable law of the land either, for that matter, as some creative constitutional revisionists also now like to suggest.

Yet there was no “social contract” as such at the time.  People have only inferred and argued subsequently that there was, because there somehow must have been, such a contract at the time of Merdeka — and, driven by retrospective wish-fulfilment, they have then “filled in” what it pleases them to believe, or passionately desire, that its terms must have been. They “read back” the politics of the present, and their preferred political future that they like to imagine for themselves, into the historic past.

Yet nobody talked at the time, in 1955-1957, about there being concluded any such “social contract”. Nobody seriously imagined that any such contract formally enshrining and constitutionally entrenching Malay domination was being entered into by all the people. Nobody suggested that people, or the nation as a whole, had signed up to and agreed to be bound by any such “contract” providing for enduring Malay ethnocracy — for Malay domination in perpetuity and with the unalterable assent over the generations of the dominated.

Subsequently, from the mid-1980s, the idea that there had been an implicit “social contract” was fashioned. It was suggested that the notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” had, by inference, been part of or implied by that contract.

In this way, born only in the 1980s, the new idea of “Ketuanan Melayu” was “read back”, or subsequently “smuggled”, into the Merdeka agreements and process, or into now authoritatively offered but very questionable claims about what those agreements had provided for and “locked in” as the solemn foundations of nationhood . If there was an implicit contract at that time (it was at first subliminally and then explicitly suggested) then universal assent to “Ketuanan Melayu” was and must have been part of it.

This, quite simply and evidently, is historically erroneous. It is sheer revisionism. It is retrospective meddling with national historical truth and the nation’s constitutional foundations.

Never has the need for clear historical study, analysis, accuracy and faithfulness to the facts been greater.

* Clive S. Kessler is Emeritus Professor, Sociology & Anthropology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

TMI: The ultimate Malaysian debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja? — by Nurul Izzah Anwar

The ultimate Malaysian debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja? — Nurul Izzah Anwar

The Malaysian Insider, August 31, 2010

AUG 31 — Perkasa claims to defend Malay rights in a multi racial Malaysia. And these Malay rights are inalienable, non-negotiable and permanent. Those that disagree with their interpretation of these Malays rights are deemed treacherous and should leave Malaysia.

In the spirit of Ramadhan and Merdeka, I would like to invite Perkasa to a Constructive Engagement for a new beginning for Malaysia with me.

I would like to ask Perkasa, several key questions to better understand, and together seek real solutions for the crisis it claims the Malays are facing.

I believe that Perkasa is the current vocal, and not necessarily the majority voice of the Malays. And by all indication, Perkasa is the alter-ego of Umno.

If Perkasa can be engaged constructively and a resolution found, then we would have answered the acid-test of Malay concerns once and for all?

To have an honest Constructive Engagement or dialogue, I suggest that we must decide on four fundamental principles.

First, we must base our dialogue on an agreed standard reference document. Should it be the Malaysian Constitution? The Umno constitution? Or the Perkasa constitution?

If we are unable to decide then our dialogue becomes futile and a monologue at best.

However, looking at how Perkasa continues to refer to Article 153 (even brandishing a copy of the constitution in media events) we can infer that the Constitution indeed is the preferred standard reference document for this dialogue.

Second, once we decide on the standard reference document, then we have to address the issue of constitutional interpretation?

For example, nowhere in the written constitution is it mentioned specifically of the existence of the term ‘Malay rights’. Instead the only term spelled out is the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays in Article 153.

The Article contains specifically, of the powers vested in the Yang di Pertuan Agong to ensure that places in the civil service and institutions of higher learning along with quotas in the allocation of scholarships, and permits or licences required for business and trade are reserved for the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

Another case in point is interpreting to reconcile the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays provisions with other non-Malay citizens with Article 8(1): “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and Article 8(2): Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

It would be ideal to have a mandated entity such as a Constitutional Court or at least a Constitutional Council appointed by the King to act as the final interpreter of any constitutional issues.

The role of the King is central to the issue of constitutional interpretation, as Article 153 of the Constitution states that: “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.”

However, it should be noted that the existing judiciary already acts as an interpreter of constitutional matters in Malaysia.

For the purpose of this dialogue, both sides can present their interpretation of the constitution to be rebutted subsequently.

Third, the dialogue be made public and presented to the people for feedback and validation.
Again, it would have been ideal if a Referendum Process is legalised whereby such fundamental issue can be decided and resolved by the citizens and made binding to all.

As an alternative, the public feedback for comments and recommendation mechanism through letters or the internet would have to do. It is not binding but it would be a measure of public participation, which can only enrich our democratic process.

Fourth, the dialogue format is suggested as follows, I shall submit my point of view in the form of this open article to Perkasa for a rebuttal, and also later for Perkasa to provide their version for my subsequent rebuttal.

The outcome shall be presented to the public for comments and recommendations.

Then as a test of sincerity I invite Perkasa to a Publicly Televised Debate.

Dialogue Safeguards
I propose both Perkasa and I will indemnify all political parties from our views.
Maybe Umno might disagree with Perkasa’s views or PR mine. And all political parties can participate at the comments and recommendations stage if it wishes.

To avoid being seditious, I propose that our views are qualified as an attempt to seek clarification and not to challenge or repeal the Constitution.

I believe that Perkasa and I are true Malaysians and Patriots, but that only our views may differ, hopefully for now.

However, if Perkasa refuses to engage on this matter at all, then it is sufficient for the people and history to judge this dialogue as my sincere attempt to reach out to them for the sake of our country.

My first question is; who is a Malay?
Article 160 of the Malaysian Constitution, defines Malay as being one who “professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs and is the child of at least one parent who was born within the Federation of Malaysia before independence of Malaya on the 31st of August 1957.”

Therefore, constitutionally, a Malay is one who speaks the language, practices the religion of Islam, and performs the rights and rituals of its culture.

My question to Perkasa is,  spiritually and intellectually, does a Malay accepts injustices, power abuse, corruption, racism, anti-democratic laws, state institutional degradation to ensure that the Malays are a Supreme Race in Malaysia, with first class citizenship privileges not to be shared with other non-Malay citizens?

My second question is; what are Malay rights?
Malay rights is an ideological and philosophical and not a legal and constitutional construct.
Article 153 only mentions the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays, and not the ‘Special Rights’ of the Malays.

The term Malay rights is alluding to the unwritten ‘Social Contract’ that defines a ‘Malay Agenda’ which has been extended to include the term ‘Malay rights’.

The Social Contract outlines certain privileges that the Malay community enjoys in exchange for granting citizenship rights to non-Malays during independence by the founding fathers as contained in Articles 14-18, Chapter 1 Part III- Citizenship, of the constitution.

These privileges collectively, are referred to as the ‘Malay Agenda’ which includes provisions on the status of Malay rulers to be preserved, with the head of state, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be elected from His Majesties.  Islam would be the national religion, and the Malay language would be the national language. The ‘Malay Agenda’ also includes provisions of economic privileges accorded by Article 153.

It is also pertinent to note, that according to the Reid Commission that drafted the constitution, Article 153 was intended as temporary preferences to seek racial parity, subject to be reviewed after 15 years by Parliament as to its continued need.

It then should have been reviewed in 1972 but was preceded by the 1969 race riots. Efforts were made, that no sunset clause be included for Article 153, and that under the Sedition Act (1971), it is illegal to be discussed even by Parliament.

These economic privileges in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots, was then institutionalised into the New Economic Policy (NEP) which was then extended as the New Development Policy (NDP) from 1990-2000 and currently we are in the final year of the 3rd Outline Perspective Plan (OPP3 2000-2010) which also includes the National Vision Policy.

However, we welcome the announced change from a race-based to a need-based affirmative action policy as outlined in NEM, but if past practices are any indication, the initial affirmative action stance along with an affiliation-based discrimination will still remain. We will continue to find that the actual wealth distribution will still be skewed to the cronies of the ruling elite.

This has become a ‘Malay Right and Entitlement’ and the cornerstone of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’, which
continues to even overshadow the New Economic Model (NEM) initiated by the Najib government today.

My question to Perkasa is, has the concept of ‘Malay Rights’ now become a permanent convention that supersedes even the written constitution in policy and practice that has to be accepted by all non-Malay citizens?

My third question is; what is the Perceived ‘Malay Anger’ about?
Can it be that the ‘Malay Anger’ built on ‘Malay Insecurities’, may appear to be racist in form, but in essence is a ‘Malay Siege Mentality’ defensive reaction, to the failure in achieving the NEP goals (reborn as the NDP in 1990, followed by the OPP3 and refined as the current NEM) after 40 years of implementation?

Can it also be that the false sense of losing Malay Entitlement and Privileges has crystallised into a political ideology of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’, that further divides the nation?

Can it be that the Malays feel that they are getting poorer, marginalised and disillusioned in their own country in spite of the NEP and billions spent?

Can it really be that the ‘Malay Anger’ is conveniently blamed on the industry of the non-Malays and reformed minded Malays?

It seems that the ‘Malay Anger’ is centred on economic entitlements rather than on cultural, royalty, language, legal, educational, religious or political power deficiencies, where the Malay remains dominant and rightfully unchallenged, as seen from the official affirmative action policies, institutions and civil service population composition.

Could it be that the real question nagging the Malay psyche is, what then is the value and utility of having the Malay traditional dances, Royal institutions, Malay language, Malay medium schools, Federal and State Religious bodies, Syariah court system, civil service and the Federal and State governments remain dominantly Malay, when the Malay feels poor?

It is this imbalance of achievements that creates a dysfunctional Malay identity of being only Political Masters in name and not in wealth that keeps ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ alive.

The ‘Malay Anger’ is purposely focused on the dismal achievements of NEP goals and targets that is used as the justification to continue it ‘permanently’ at all cost and beyond reason.

Instead the angry Malays should focus on the diminishing ‘enabling’ factors to equitable and sustainable economic growth (as increasing the economic pie to achieve NEP targets is the main premise to wealth redistribution policies in NEP) 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 goals.

My questions to Perkasa are:
Where does the real blame for the ‘Malay Anger’ lie? Is it with the NEP results or is it with its selective implementation, where only the ruling elite few and their cronies benefit to the detriment of the Malay majority?

How can Perkasa explain just one example, which is the well documented NEP leakage of RM52 billion in equities originally allocated to the Malays that have been sold off?

What impact has cronyism, corruption, wastages, leakages, wrong resource allocations (big projects phenomenon), racism, anti-democratic laws and state institutional degradation and abuse have in shaping the ‘Malay Anger’?

Who has really betrayed the ‘Malay Agenda and Malay Rights’?

My fourth and last question is; what is the end-game scenario that the unresolved ‘Malay Anger’ will lead to?
In my final analysis, only through free and fair elections that the people can decide if ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ or ‘Ketuanan Rakyat’ shall define Malaysia.

Once the next general election outcome is determined, and if ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is victorious, then some may choose to vote with their feet (emigrate with massive brain drain and a diminishing tax base), and some will choose to vote with their wallet (domestic capital flight compounded with decreasing FDI that further stunts our economic growth), which in turn will indicate the makings of a potential failed state with irreversible consequences.

What is left will be a shell of a former Malaysia that could have been a great example of a democratic and pluralistic nation to the world.

We are truly at a monumental cross-road for the soul of our nation.

As a reminder of a possible way forward out of this ‘Malay Dilemma’, a Malaysian statesman, the late Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman 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’.” Ismail believed the special position was “a slur on the ability of the Malays.”

After 53 years, are we Malays not educated and self-confident yet?

After 53 years, are we Malays still ignorant to the real causes of our problems yet?

After 53 years, are we not Malay enough to act as the protector and provider of justice, equality, dignity, fraternity, liberty and peace for all who choose to co-exist as partners and fellow citizens yet?

In conclusion, we the Malays must stand up and do what is right for Malaysia and our children as they face the challenges of a competitive borderless world.

Would we be so blind and selfish to risk their future for our sins of the past and our deliberately induced insecurities of the present day.

Then my last question to Perkasa is; Will you allow our country to remain in name as Malaysia or be renamed as Malaysaja?


* Nurul Izzah Anwar is the MP for Lembah Pantai.

----------------ooooo00000ooooo----------------------

Comments (DQ):

A brave and mature analysis of the concept of Ketuanan Melayu, the supposed Social Contract and the Federal Constitution Article 153, by a young true Malaysian patriot, the daughter of Anwar Ibrahim.

For most of us non-Malays, it would be extremely uncomfortable and difficult to discuss this dispassionately without being labelled as seditious or chauvinistic, when the reality is that ethnic and religious equality are basic human rights with no emphasis on who has a greater right or supremacy... We need more intellectual and honest discourse without the rancour of bigotry and threatening polemics.

Malaysiakini: We were once 'Malaysians' -- by Tengku Razaleigh

We were once 'Malaysians'

Razaleigh Hamzah
Jul 31, 10
2:36pm

The following keynote speech was given by former finance minister and Gua Musang parliamentarian Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah at the 4th Annual Malaysian Student Leaders Summit (MSLS) today.

I have played some small role in the life of this nation, but having been on the wrong side of one or two political fights with the powers-that-be, I am not as close to the young people of this country as I would hope to be.

History and the 8 o'clock news are written by the victors. In recent years, the government's monopoly of the media has been destroyed by the technology revolution.

You could say I was also a member of the United Kingdom and Eire Council for Malaysian Students (UKEC). Well, I was, except that belonged to the predecessor of the UKEC by more than 50 years, The Malayan Students Union of the UK and Eire. I led this organisation in 1958/59.

I was then a student of Queen's University at Belfast, as well as at Lincoln's Inn. In a rather cooler climate than Kota Bharu's, we campaigned for decolonisation. We demonstrated in Trafalgar Square and even in Paris. We made posters and participated in British elections.

Your invitation to participate in the MSLS was prefaced by an essay that calls for an intellectually informed activism. I congratulate you on this. The Youth of today, you note, “will chart the future of Malaysia.” You say you “no longer want to be ignored and leave the future of our Malaysia at the hands of the current generation.” You “want to grab the bull by the horns... and have a say in where we go as a society and as a nation.”

I feel the same, actually. A lot of Malaysians feel the same. They are tired of being ignored and talked down to.

You are right. The present generation in power has let Malaysia down. But also you cite two things as testimony of the importance of youth and of student activism to this country, the election results of 2008 and “the prime minister's acknowledgement of the role of youth in the development of the country.”

So perhaps you are a little way yet from thinking for yourselves. The first step in “grabbing the bull by the horns” is not to require the endorsement of the prime minister, or any Minister, for your activism. Politicians are not your parents. They are your servants. You don't need a government slogan coined by a foreign PR agency to wrap your project in. You just go ahead and do it.

A man at ease with himself

When I was a student, our newly independent country was already a leader in the post-colonial world. We were sought out as a leader in the Afro-Asian Conference that inaugurated the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77.

The Afro-Asian movement was led by such luminaries as Zhou En Lai, Nehru, Kwame Nkrumah and Soekarno. Malaysians were seen as moderate leaders capable of mediating between the more radical leaders and the West. We were known for our moderation, good sense and reliability.


We were a leader in the Islamic world as ourselves and as we were, without our leaders having to put up false displays of piety. His memory has been scrubbed out quite systematically from our national consciousness, so you might not know this or much else about him, but it was Tunku Abdul Rahman who established our leadership in the Islamic world by coming up with the idea of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference) and making it happen.


Under his leadership, Malaysia led the way in taking up the anti-apartheid cause in the Commonwealth and in the United Nations, resulting in South Africa's expulsion from these bodies.


Here was a man at ease with himself, made it a policy goal that Malaysia be “a happy country”. He loved sport and encouraged sporting achievement among Malaysians. He was owner of many a fine race horses. He called a press conference with his stewards when his horse won at the Melbourne Cup.


He had nothing to hide because his great integrity in service was clear to all. Now we have religious and moral hypocrites who cheat, lie and steal in office, who propagate an ideologically shackled education system for all Malaysians while they send their own kids to elite academies in the West.


Days when we were on top


Speaking of football - you're too young to have experienced the Merdeka Cup that Tunku started. We had a respectable side in the 60s and 70s. Teams from across Asia would come to play in Kuala Lumpur: Teams such as South Korea and Japan, whom we defeated routinely.


We were one of the better sides in Asia. We won the bronze medal at the Asian Games in 1974 and qualified for the Moscow Olympics in 1980. Today our FIFA ranking is 157 out of 203 countries.


That puts us in the lowest quartile, below Maldives (149), the smallest country in Asia, with just 400,000 people living about 1.5 metres above sea level who have to worry that their country may soon be swallowed up by climate change. Here in Asean we are behind Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, whom we used to dominate, and now only one spot above basketball-playing Philippines.


The captain of our illustrious 1970's side was Soh Chin Aun, R Arumugam, Isa Bakar, Santokh Singh, James Wong and Mokhtar Dahari. They were heroes whose names rolled off the tongues of our schoolchildren as they copied them on the school field. It wasn't about being the best in the world, but about being passionate and united and devoted to the game.


It was the same in badminton, except at one time we were the best in the world. I remember Wong Peng Soon, the first Asian to win the All-England Championship, and then just dominated it throughout the 1950. Back home every kid who played badminton in every little kampung wanted to call himself Wong Peng Soon.


There was no tinge of anybody identifying themselves exclusively as Chinese, Malays or Indian. Peng Soon was a Malayan hero. Just like each of our football heroes. Now we do not have an iota of that feeling. Where has it all gone?

Capital flight troubling

I don't think it's mere nostalgia that makes us think there was a time when the sun shone more brightly upon Malaysia. I bring up sport because it has been a mirror of our more general performance as a nation.


When we were at ease with who we were and didn't need slogans to do our best together, we did well. When race and money entered our game, we declined. The same applies to our political and economic life.


Soon after independence, we were already a highly successful developing country. We had begun the infrastructure building and diversification of our economy that would be the foundation for further growth. We carried out an import-substitution programme that stimulated local productive capacity.


From there, we started an infrastructure build-up that enabled a diversification of the economy leading to rapid industrialisation. We carried out effective programmes to raise rural income and help the landless with programmes such as Felda.


Our achievements in achieving growth with equity were recognised around the world. Our peer group in economic development were South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, and we led the pack. I remember we used to send technical consultants to advise the South Koreans.


By the late 90s, however, we had fallen far behind this group and were competing with Thailand and Indonesia. Today, according to the latest World Investment Report, FDI into Malaysia is at a 20-year low.


We are entering the peer group of Cambodia, Burma and the Philippines as an investment destination. Thailand, despite a month-long siege of the capital, attracted more FDI than we did last year. Indonesia and Vietnam far outperform us, not as a statistical blip but consistently. Soon we shall have difficulty keeping up with the Philippines.


This, I believe, is called relegation. If we take into account FDI outflow, the picture is even more depressing. Last year, we received US$1.38 billion in investments but US$8.04 billion flowed out. We are the only country in Southeast Asia that has suffered net FDI outflow.


I am not against outward investment. It can be a good thing for the country. But an imbalance on this scale indicates capital flight, not mere investment overseas.

Time to wake up


Without a doubt, Malaysia is slipping. Billions have been looted from this country, and Billions more are being siphoned out as our entire political structure crumbles. Yet we are gathered here in comfort, in a country that still seems to 'work' - most of the time. This is due less to good management than to the extraordinary wealth of this country.


You were born into a country of immense resources, both natural, cultural and social. We have been wearing down this advantage with mismanagement and corruption. With lies, tall tales and theft. We have a political class unwilling or unable to address the central issue of the day because they have grown fat and comfortable with a system built on lies and theft.


It is time to wake up. That waking up can begin here, right here, at this conference. Not tomorrow or the day after but today. So let me, as I have the honour of opening this conference, suggest the following:


1) Overcome the urge to have our hopes for the future endorsed by the prime minister. He will have retired, and I'll be long gone, when your future arrives. The shape of your future is being determined now.


2) Resist the temptation to say “in line with” when we do something. Your projects, believe it or not, don't have to be in line with any government campaign for them to be meaningful. You don't need to polish anyone's apple. Just get on with what you plan to do.


3) Do not put a lid on certain issues as “sensitive” just because someone said they are. Or it is against the Social Contract. Or it is “politicisation”.


You don't need to have your conversation delimited by the hyper-sensitive among us. Sensitivity is often a club people use to hit each other with. Reasoned discussion of contentious issues builds understanding and trust. Stress test your ideas.


4) It's not “conservative” or “liberal” to ask for an end to having politics, economic policy, education policy and everything and the kitchen sink determined by race. It's called growing up.


5) Don't let the politicians you have invited here talk down to you.

Don't let them


Don't let them tell you how bright and “exuberant” you are, that you are the future of the nation, etc. If you close your eyes and flow with their flattery, you have safely joined the caravan, a caravan taking the nation down a sink hole.


If they tell you the future is in your hands, kindly request that they hand that future over first. Ask them how come the youngest member of our cabinet is 45? Our Merdeka cabinet had an average age below 30.


You're not the first generation to be bright. Mine wasn't too stupid. But you could be the first generation of students and young graduates in 50 years to push this nation through a major transformation. And it is a transformation we need desperately.


You will be told that much is expected of you, much has been given to you and so forth. This is all true. Actually much has also been stolen from you. Over the last 20 five years, much of the immense wealth generated by our productive people and our vast resources has been looted. This was supposed to have been your patrimony.


The uncomplicated sense of belonging fully, wholeheartedly, unreservedly, to this country, in all its diversity, that has been taken from you. Our sense of ourselves as Malaysians, a free and united people, has been replaced by a tale of racial strife and resentment that continues to haunt us. The thing is, this tale is false.

Reclaim your history


The most precious thing you have been deprived of has been your history. Someone of my generation finds it hard to describe what must seem like a completely different country to you now.


Malaysia was not born in strife but in unity. Our independence was achieved through a demonstration of unity by the people in supporting a multiracial government led by Tunku Abdul Rahman.


That show of unity, demonstrated first through the municipal elections of 1952 and then through the Alliance's landslide victory in the elections of 1955, showed that the people of Malaya were united in wanting their freedom. We surprised the British, who thought we could not do this.


Today we are no longer as united as we were then. We are also less free. I don't think this is a coincidence. It takes free people to have the psychological strength to overcome the confines of a racialised worldview. It takes free people to overcome those politicians bent on hanging on to power gained by racialising every feature of our life including our football teams.


Hence while you are at this conference, let me argue, that as an absolute minimum, we should call for the repeal of unjust and much abused Acts of Parliament which are reversals of freedoms that we won at Merdeka.


I ask you in joining me in calling for the repeal of the ISA (Internal Security Act) and the OSA (Official Secrets Act). These draconian laws have been used, more often than not, as political tools rather than instruments of national security. They create a climate of fear.


I ask you to join me in calling for the repeal of the Printing and Publications Act, and above all, the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA). I don't see how you can pursue your student activism with such freedom and support in the UK and Eire while forgetting that your brethren at home are deprived of their basic rights of association and expression by the UUCA. The UUCA has done immense harm in dumbing down our universities.


We must have freedom as guaranteed under our constitution. Freedom to assemble, associate, speak, write, move. This is basic. Even on matters of race and even on religious matters we should be able to speak freely, and we shall educate each other.

Make BN multiracial


It is time to realise the dream of Hussein Onn and the spirit of the Alliance and of Tunku Abdul Rahman. That dream was one of unity and a single Malaysian people. They went as far as they could with it in their time. Instead of taking on the torch, we have reversed course. The next step for us as a country is to move beyond the infancy of race-based parties to a non-racial party system.


Our race-based party system is the key political reason why we are a sick country, declining before our own eyes, with money fleeing and people telling their children not to come home after their studies.


So let us try to take 1Malaysia seriously. Millions have been spent putting up billboards and adding the term to every conceivable thing. We even have 'Cuti-cuti 1Malaysia'. Can't take a normal holiday anymore. This is all fine.


Now let us see if it means anything. Let us see the government of the day lead by example. 1Malaysia is empty because it is propagated by a government supported by a racially-based party system that is the chief cause of our inability to grow up in our race relations.


Our inability to grow up in our race relations is the chief reason why investors, and we ourselves, no longer have confidence in our economy. The reasons why we are behind Maldives in football, and behind the Philippines in FDI, are linked.


So let us take 1Malaysia seriously, and convert Barisan Nasional into a party open to all citizens. Let it be a multiracial party open to direct membership. Pakatan Rakyat will be forced to do the same or be left behind the times. Then we shall have the vehicles for a two party, non-race-based system.


If Umno, MIC or MCA are afraid of losing supporters, let them get their members to join this new multiracial party. Pakatan Rakyat should do the same. Nobody need feel left out. Umno members can join en masse. The Hainanese Kopitiam Owners' Association can join whichever party they want, or both parties en masse if they like.


We can maintain our cherished civil associations, however we choose to associate. But we drop all communalism when we compete for the ballot. When our candidates stand for elections, let them ever after stand only as Malaysians, for better or worse.

---------------------ooooo00000ooooo---------------------------

Comments (DQ):

Perhaps the better PM we never had the chance to experience! Although a number of detractors have criticised him for still being in UMNO, Kuli is still an intellectual senior politician, whose humanism and Malaysianism is crystal clear. If only more would dare to listen to him and emulate his moderate and inclusive mannerisms and ideas....

What the Chinese want By Kee Thuan Chye

What the Chinese want

Sun, 02 May 2010 10:10

 

By Kee Thuan Chye

COMMENT Every time the Barisan Nasional gets less than the expected support from Chinese voters at an election, the question invariably pops up among the petty-minded: Why are the Chinese ungrateful?

 

So now, after the Hulu Selangor by-election, it’s not surprising to read in Utusan Malaysia a piece that asks: “Orang Cina Malaysia, apa lagi yang anda mahu?” (Chinese of Malaysia, what more do you want?)

Normally, something intentionally provocative and propagandistic as this doesn’t deserve to be honoured with a reply. But even though I’m fed up of such disruptive and ethnocentric polemics, this time I feel obliged to reply – partly because the article has also been published, in an English translation, in the Straits Times of Singapore.

I wish to emphasise here that I am replying not as a Chinese Malaysian but, simply, as a Malaysian.

Let me say at the outset that the Chinese have got nothing more than what any citizen should get. So to ask “what more” it is they want, is misguided. A correct question would be “What do the Chinese want?”

All our lives, we Chinese have held to the belief that no one owes us a living. We have to work for it. Most of us have got where we are by the sweat of our brow, not by handouts or the policies of the government.

We have come to expect nothing – not awards, not accolades, not gifts from official sources. (Let’s not lump in Datukships, that’s a different ball game.) We know that no Chinese who writes in the Chinese language will ever be bestowed the title of Sasterawan Negara, unlike in Singapore where the literatures of all the main language streams are recognised and honoured with the Cultural Medallion, etc.

We have learned we can’t expect the government to grant us scholarships. Some will get those, but countless others won’t. We’ve learned to live with that and to work extra hard in order to support our children to attain higher education – because education is very important to us. We experience a lot of daily pressure to achieve that. Unfortunately, not many non-Chinese realise or understand that. In fact, many Chinese had no choice but to emigrate for the sake of their children’s further education. Or to accept scholarships from abroad, many from Singapore, which has inevitably led to a brain drain.

The writer of the Utusan article says the Chinese “account for most of the students” enrolled in “the best private colleges in Malaysia”. Even so, the Chinese still have to pay a lot of money to have their children study in these colleges. And to earn that money, the parents have to work very hard. The money does not fall from the sky.

The writer goes on to add: “The Malays can gain admission into only government-owned colleges of ordinary reputation.” That is utter nonsense. Some of these colleges are meant for the cream of the Malay crop of students and are endowed with the best facilities. They are given elite treatment.

The writer also fails to acknowledge that the Chinese are barred from being admitted to some of these colleges. As a result, the Chinese are forced to pay more money to go to private colleges. Furthermore, the Malays are also welcome to enrol in the private colleges, and many of them do. It’s, after all, a free enterprise.

Plain and simple reason

The writer claims that the Chinese live “in the lap of luxury” and lead lives that are “more than ordinary” whereas the Malays in Singapore, their minority-race counterparts there, lead “ordinary lives”. Such sweeping statements sound inane especially when they are not backed up by definitions of “lap of luxury” and “ordinary lives”. They sound hysterical, if not hilarious as well, when they are not backed up by evidence. It’s surprising that a national daily like Utusan Malaysia would publish something as idiosyncratic as that. And the Straits Times too.

The writer quotes from a survey that said eight of the 10 richest people in Malaysia are Chinese. Well, if these people are where they are, it must have also come from hard work and prudent business sense. Is that something to be faulted?

If the writer had said that some of them achieved greater wealth through being given crony privileges and lucrative contracts by the government, there might be a point, but even then, it would still take hard work and business acumen to secure success. Certainly, Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, who is one of the 10, would take exception if it were said that he has not worked hard and lacks business savvy.

Most important, it should be noted that the eight Chinese tycoons mentioned in the survey represent but a minuscule percentage of the wider Chinese Malaysian population. To extrapolate that because eight Chinese are filthy rich, the rest of the Chinese must therefore live in the lap of luxury and lead more than ordinary lives would be a mockery of the truth. The writer has obviously not met the vast numbers of very poor Chinese.

The crux of the writer’s article is that the Chinese are not grateful to the government by not voting for Barisan Nasional at the Hulu Selangor by-election. But this demonstrates the thinking of either a simple mind or a closed one.

Why did the Chinese by and large not vote for BN? Because it’s corrupt. Plain and simple. Let’s call a spade a spade. And BN showed how corrupt it was during the campaign by throwing bribes to the electorate, including promising RM3 million to the Chinese school in Rasa.

The Chinese were not alone in seeing this corruption. The figures are unofficial but one could assume that at least 40 per cent of Malays and 45 per cent of Indians who voted against BN in that by-election also had their eyes open.

So, what’s wrong with not supporting a government that is corrupt? If the government is corrupt, do we continue to support it?

To answer the question then, what do the Chinese want? They want a government that is not corrupt; that can govern well and proves to have done so; that tells the truth rather than lies; that follows the rule of law; that upholds rather than abuses the country’s sacred institutions. BN does not fit that description, so the Chinese don’t vote for it. This is not what only the Chinese want. It is something every sensible Malaysian, regardless of race, wants. Is that something that is too difficult to understand?

Some people think that the government is to be equated with the country, and therefore if someone does not support the government, they are being disloyal to the country. This is a complete fallacy. BN is not Malaysia. It is merely a political coalition that is the government of the day. Rejecting BN is not rejecting the country.

A sense of belonging

Let’s be clear about this important distinction. In America, the people sometimes vote for the Democrats and sometimes for the Republicans. Voting against the one that is in government at the time is not considered disloyalty to the country.

By the same token, voting against Umno is also voting against a party, not against a race. And if the Chinese or whoever criticise Umno, they are criticising the party; they are not criticising Malays. It just happens that Umno’s leaders are Malay.

It is time all Malaysians realised this so that we can once and for all dispel the confusion. Let us no more confuse country with government. We can love our country and at the same time hate the government. It is perfectly all right.

I should add here what the Chinese don’t want. We don’t want to be insulted, to be called pendatang, or told to be grateful for our citizenship. We have been loyal citizens; we duly and dutifully pay taxes; we respect the country’s constitution and its institutions. Our forefathers came to this country generations ago and helped it to prosper. We are continuing to contribute to the country's growth and development.

Would anyone like to be disparaged, made to feel unwelcome, unwanted? For the benefit of the writer of the Utusan article, what MCA president Chua Soi Lek means when he says the MCA needs to be more vocal is that it needs to speak up whenever the Chinese community is disparaged. For too long, the MCA has not spoken up strongly enough when Umno politicians and associates like Ahmad Ismail, Nasir Safar, Ahmad Noh and others before them insulted the Chinese and made them feel like they don’t belong. That’s why the Chinese have largely rejected the MCA.

You see, the Chinese, like all human beings, want self-respect. And a sense of belonging in this country they call home. That is all the Chinese want, and have always wanted. Nothing more.

 

The Utusan Malaysia article:

Orang Cina Malaysia, apa lagi yang anda mahu?

Malaysian Insider: Not so Perkasa -- by Nizam Bashir

Not so Perkasa

by Nizam Bashir

Malaysian Insider, APRIL 2 —

Perkasa is an interesting NGO. Their raison d’être appears to be predicated on the following:

• the right of Bumiputeras to own 67 per cent the nation’s economic wealth because they form the majority;

• the ISA as being integral to 1 Malaysia;

• the word Allah is exclusive to Muslims.

We must salute Perkasa for having the gumption to be pig-headed (or katak puru-headed if you wish) on issues such as the above.

They are certainly being made at a time when the climate appears cold to their views, with the government talking of the New Economic Model, the ISA possibly being amended and the High Court allowing the Herald to use the word Allah in their publications. Still, climate change doesn’t determine the answer to the RM64,000 question — is Perkasa objectively justified in championing those issues?

Let’s deal with each of their stand in turn.

Perkasa’s national economic policy proposal makes for fascinating reading. In effect, they are suggesting that a community is entitled to the national economic pie purely on the basis of their numbers within the nation and without any qualifications.

The problem is that their proposal seems irreconcilable with what the Reid Commission had to say on the issue and wherein they noted that:

“… We found that there are now four matters with regard to which the special position of the Malays is recognised and safeguarded:
1. … Malay reservations of land …
2. … admission to the public services …
3. … permits or licenses for the operation of certain businesses …
4. … scholarships, bursaries and other forms of aid for educational purposes …”

“We found little opposition in any quarter to the continuance of the present system for a time, but there was great opposition in some quarters to any increase of the present preferences and to their being continued for any prolonged period.”

and then recommended that:

“… with the integration of the various communities into a common nationality which we trust will gradually come about, the need for these preferences will gradually disappear. Our recommendations are made on the footing that the Malays should be assured that the present position will continue for a substantial period, but that in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease so that there should then be no discrimination between races and communities.

“We recommend that after 15 years there should be a review of the whole matter ...”

In other words, the special position could exist but in a qualified way depending on the subject matter — such as land, education, etc. — and always for a finite term.

Notice what’s missing? Population as a basis to extend or enhance special position is nowhere to be found. So much for that.

Let’s now move on to Perkasa’s other notion, i.e. that ISA is integral to 1 Malaysia. This was premised on a number of subsidiary grounds and which are as follows:

• ISA is crucial in safeguarding the “social contract” between the races;

• the country is not a melting pot of different cultures but a salad bowl fragile to sensitive issues;

• ISA is needed to protect Islam and the Muslim culture.

Simply put, the ISA is a legislative mechanism to detain someone without a trial. Typically, a detention under ISA occurs like this:

A police officer knocks on your door at 2am and tells you that you are being arrested under the ISA because you are involved with activities which threatened and which were detrimental to national security.

A document is then issued, which says that the detention is premised on 2 grounds:

• a police officer believes there are grounds to detain you under the relevant section in the ISA; and,

• the police officer believes that you have acted in a manner which is detrimental to the security of Malaysia.

And, voila, your 60 day detention begins.

Around the 60th day, another document is issued where you are detained for a further two year period because a minister thinks you might be a threat to national security.

At both points where the detention occurs, no trial takes place, a mantra was repeated ad nauseam and no evidence was presented to be tested in a court of law.

To put it another way, the accused was detained because someone had arbitrarily decided that he was a threat. Arbitrary because the mantra of “threat to national security”, taken by itself, can never amount to a valid reason for detention. Yet, Perkasa believes that such arbitrary detentions will further the cause of 1 Malaysia.

More than that, Perkasa appears oblivious to the fact that the ISA was only intended to be utilised solely against communist-terrorists and not against legitimate opposition or to silence lawful dissent.

So, save and unless the Malayan Communist Party is still in existence, bent on unravelling the “social contract”, race relations and Islam as well as Muslim culture, Perkasa does not appear to have a leg to stand on vis-a-vis this issue.

Lastly, there is the not so small matter of the intellectual property to the word Allah. Perkasa contends it is exclusive to Muslims. I have written extensively on this matter previously and do not intend to belabour the points made in my earlier article. Suffice to say, a number of Muslims scholars who base their opinions on Quranic verses would beg to differ with Perkasa on this score.

Still, like I said when I began this article, Perkasa is an interesting NGO and I maintain this view for a number of reasons. On the one hand, we should laud the fact that they are trying to present their worldview in relatively civilised fashion. On the other, it also provides us with a suitable opportunity to assess what exactly is the barometer of public sentiment on the issues in question.

If, for example, the absence of the Malay heads of government linked companies is anything to go by, their parochial calls do not appear to be persuading one and all. If nothing else, they provide the perfect foil for those opposed their worldview to present their ideas and their solutions in combating racial-religious issues which perennially bedevil this nation. May the best worldview win.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.