Loyal Followers

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Visiting the Malay "Rights"

I have been labelled anti this and that. Apparently, I am also pro this and that, or the other. As such, I am going to begin this article with a disclaimer, just as all accountants do on their reports. This article contains my interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions in respect of the “rights” of the Malays. And please read the next sentence real slowly. It is not intended to question anything, whether rights or otherwise, belonging to anybody, regardless of his or her race, faith or political leaning.

Malay rights. What a subject. The mere mention of it evokes so many emotions. So much anger and resentment have resulted – on both side of the fence - from this subject. It has been explored by the likes of Awang Selamat, Mahathir Mohamad, Ibrahim Ali and various NGOs. Our politicians have shouted and screamed about it. Warnings of mayhem and amok have been sounded in case of a challenge against these rights. Even HRH the Sultan of Perak had spoken about it recently. But I notice not a single person out of 27 million of us has actually taken the trouble to spell out what these rights actually are. And so, let me be the first one to do it.

The supreme law of this country is our Federal Constitution (“FC”). That means every law and policy must be in adherence with the FC. Otherwise, such law or policy would be void for being unconstitutional. We therefore have to look at the provisions of the FC to determine these so called rights of the Malays.

Generally, article 8 provides that all persons are equal before the law. I say “generally” because there are exceptions to this rule. Clause 2 of article 8 says that there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender except as expressly authorised by the FC. So, there you go. All of us are only equal up to the extent as provided by the FC. This means we may be discriminated if the FC expressly allows it.

Let’s cut a long story short. Article 153 of the FC is right at the centre of this issue. It is a fairly long article, with 10 clauses in it. Basically, these are what that article provides.

Firstly, it says that HRH the YDP Agong has the responsibility to safeguard the “special position” of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Notice that the words used are “special position”, not “special rights.” Notice also that the safeguarding is not only restricted to the Malays but also the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (the “Natives”). But that is not all. It also says that HRH the YDP Agong is also responsible to safeguard the “legitimate interests” of other communities. Notice the differences at what is being safeguarded. As for the Malays and the Natives, it is their special position. While in respect of other communities, it is their legitimate interests.

At this juncture, we should know what Malay is. Article 160 defines Malay as a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom. It is not a scientific definition. It is one of the most absurd definitions I had ever come across in any written law. How could you define Malay as a person who speaks Malay and conforms to Malay custom when the very word which was sought to be defined in that definition is the word “Malay”? It is like defining mango as “a fruit which tastes like mango”. Anyway, I digress.

Under article 153, HRH the YDP Agong is given the power to do the followings:

A. To exercise his functions under the FC in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and Natives;
B. To ensure the reservation for the Malays and Natives of positions in the public service, scholarship, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges given by the Federal Government in such proportion as he may deem reasonable;
C. To ensure the reservation for the Malays and Natives of any permits and licenses if such permits or licenses are needed for the operation of any trade or business as he may deem reasonable; and,
D. To ensure reservation for the Malays and Natives of places in any university, college and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) or its equivalent in such proportion as he may deem reasonable in the event the number of qualified person for any course or study is more than the number of places available.

The rest of article 153 is concerned with the prohibition against depriving licenses or permits from the non-Malays or non-Natives if they have been in possession of such licenses or permits all along. This is beyond the scope of this article.

The most important thing to be noted from this provision is the fact that there is no right whatsoever conferred to the Malays or Natives. The provision does not say, for example, that “the Malays or natives of Sabah and Sarawak shall be allocated 75% of all places in universities, colleges or other education institutions or 65% to all scholarships available in Malaysia every year.” When we speak of “rights”, we speak of entitlements which are possessed by a person or body of persons. These entitlements would then be enforceable by law. Taking my example in the previous sentence, a class action to enforce such rights may be brought by the Malays or Natives if such rights are denied them in any year if the provision in the FC is couched as such.

However, that is not the case in the FC. What is provided is a power to HRH the YDP Agong to reserve licences, permits, scholarships, places in universities or positions in public service for the Malays and Natives in such proportion as he deems reasonable. That power is undeniable and clearly defined. The FC however, in my humble opinion, stops short from conferring any enforceable right.

Question may be asked as to how may HRH the YDP Agong exercise that power. The answer is in clause (2) of article 153. Clause (2) provides that power shall be exercised by HRH the YDP Agong in accordance with article 40. That simply means that the “power” conferred to HRH in article 153 is not exercisable by HRH at his discretion at all. That power is exercisable on the advice of the Cabinet or any Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. By convention, that person is the Prime Minister.

In the big scheme of things then, HRH the YDP Agong does not have any say on how those things are to be “reserved” for the Malays and the Natives. Essentially, it is the Government, through a Cabinet decision, which draws out the policy on how this power is to be exercised. Basically, the Cabinet decides the criteria for such “reservation” and also for the distribution of the matters mentioned in article 153. That means, all these while, it is not UMNO alone who decides. It is the Barisan Nasional as a whole, which means the matter has all along been decided by UMNO, MCA, MIC and all the component parties within the BN.

Nowadays questions have been raised as to why students with lower scores could gain admission into universities while students (non-Malays) with higher scores could not. The same question is raised with respect to the grant of scholarship. In the commercial world, questions are being raised on the distribution of government contracts and also the requirement for a certain percentage of Malay shareholdings in corporations.

On the Government side, these questions have been received with absolute disdain. These are treated as a challenge of the rights of the Malays. Rhetoric abounds. Shouts of “ungrateful migrants” could be heard. There is even suggestion that to question these matters is to question the power of the Ruler under article 153. The “social contract” is referred to.

In my humble opinion, that is misconceived. Nobody is asking for HRH the YDP Agong’s power under article 153 be removed. I think, rather, what is being questioned is the policy which underlies the exercise of the power as opposed to the power itself. It must be noted that article 153 repeatedly provides that HRH the YDP Agong shall exercise his power as “he may deem reasonable”. Perhaps such “reasonableness” is the key.

We profess to have a democratic Government and system of politics. If so, surely Government policies, especially those which touch the very basic and fundamental rights of the people, such as the right to education for all citizens, could be discussed, analysed and even questioned. And surely, a good Government whose heart is with the people and the country would not dismiss such questions nonchalantly.

Otherwise, I suppose, the people could effect a change in such policies by changing the policy makers.

28 comments:

Bentoh said...

I personally dislike article 153.

Not because of the "special position" (Seriously, this special position thing shall go... one day...) But rather, the article provides "special position" only to the Malays and the natives in Sabah and Sarawak...

One would think other communities without "special position" is therefore "pendatang" according to the so called social contract...

What about the natives, aborigine, the orang asli who resides in the Peninsular Malaysia even before the birth of Buddha, Jesus and Prophet Muhammad?

All this while we have been talking about the sidelined Sabahan and Sarawakian natives... but it seems to me the Peninsular Malaysia's natives are even treated worse! I mean, even the constitution doesn't "protect" them?!

Tiger said...

Thanks again for another clarification, Art!
Actually, there shouldn't be any issue with Article 153 as the original spirit in drafting this article WAS (note past tense) to equalize the economic position of everyone within the country.
Unfortunately, after 50 years of abuse of this Article, only some people have been enriched, while 80 percent of the original "target market" are still living on wooden stilt houses today.

Anonymous said...

This is the first article I read that attempts to analyze "Malay Rights" in the context of the federal constitution. What a brilliant approach. The constitution after all reigns supreme and should be referenced to whenever this topic is brought up.

Fi-sha said...

Dear Art

I likened reading your articles like watching Champs League Final where Barca outclassed Man U from the start till the end. There are tough facts to accept but at the end of the article, i always want to believe i came out victorious, enlightened!

My fave move of this 'game' is your last sentence - Right into the goalpost.

Cheerio!

desiderata said...

Dear Art:

An artistic painting of the FC's ring of our Malaysians' rights and certain privileges. Thanks for a first real educational look at an important subject -- I offer endless rounds of the bestA tehtarik at Lingam's in FR; jest don't bring the CJ or ex-CJs...I have no credit/nor card:( DON'T KNOW ABOUT 'EM THO!

Walski69 said...

It seems like I may need to add a corollary to law 3 of the Three Laws of Governmental Physics:
"For every provision made in the Federal Constitution, there exist mostly undocumented directives to negate the original spirit of the Constitution".

Or something to that effect...

It's always the undocumented stuff that's a bitch.

Art, another well-thought out, rational and unemotional study. Unfortunately, those who should take heed do tend to be rash, irrational and emotional. Contrary to popular fairy tales, the YDPA of the day doesn't operate in a vacuum, or for that matter, independently, as you have art-fully pointed out (sorry - couldn't resist).

To mis-quote and oft poked-fun-at slogan:
"Bertukarlah anda sebelum anda terpaksa ditukarkan"

And whomsoever biteth the chili...

Anonymous said...

Good article. There is actually no concept of Malay rights as such which is in line with Islamic values of forbidding discrimination. What is there is the special position of the Malays and people of Sabah and Sarawak which I believe is to protect them from being exploited and to assist them to draw level with the other races in terms of capabilities and achievement and this is very understandable and also fair.

Art Harun, can you also enlighten us on the article 153 (9) which states

"Nothing in this article shall empower parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak"

And how does this compare with government policy of eligibility for contracts (supply and otherwise) with respect to your ethnic origin. E.g. you must be a bumiputra firm to be able to compete for supply to government hospitals.

I am a laymen but I can read English and accordingly the constitution (but then I may not interpret it well) so I wonder what is the government allowed to do with regard to business and trade in line with this article 153 (9) based on the 2006 updated version.

donplaypuks® said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
donplaypuks® said...

When all is said and done, the over-riding words in the FC are '...deemed reasonable.'

Granted, what is reasonable may change from 1969 to 2009, when economic inequalties among the peoples of M'sia, narrows, with increase in national wealth and distribution thereof.

So, when we ask the Govt whether it reasonable to award 80% of scholarships, places in colleges and Unis and jobs in the Civil Services, Armed Forces etc based on racial qualification and 7% discount on housing to millionaire Bumis, we are only asking that the Govt and HRH be reasonable because other citizens have 'legitimate right' too!

That's neither questioning the special position of the Malays nor that of the Royalty and Islam nor is it traitorous conduct inviting repartes of 'emigrate if you don't like it!'

But what do we do when the Govt itself and its ultra right-wing self-appointed nationalists (including Mahathir) does not accept this viewpoint and continues playing the race and pendatang cards?

I mean I cannot help laughing when Mahathir, a half Indian, goes on the defensive and proclaims himself a 'Constitutional Malay' and a Bumi after tweaking the relevant FC clauses. And that definition of adding religion to race has created loopholes allowing many foreigners to beome Constitutional Malays and Bumis!!

Time for a new Govt!!

backStreetGluttons said...

Will anybody bother what you say really ? This is not good for the UMNO parasites . Somebody has smartly said special rights to Malays mean to have their legs broken with the sole right to be given motorised crutches FOC , with bonus attached . And also the right to speak Malay but not any other language, so that they become mentally disabled outside their own domain. What treachery against an entire race !

How pitiful those special rights !

Wake up !

Anonymous said...

"Question may be asked as to how may HRH the YDP Agong exercise that power. The answer is in clause (2) of article 153. Clause (2) provides that power shall be exercised by HRH the YDP Agong in accordance with article 40. That simply means that the “power” conferred to HRH in article 153 is not exercisable by HRH at his discretion at all. That power is exercisable on the advice of the Cabinet or any Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. By convention, that person is the Prime Minister."

So, it all depends on how the PM looks at the whole issue. In other words, the real power is in the hands of the PM. End of story. Politics is about the acquisition of power.

Anonymous said...

I was hoping to get your views on Art. 153(9). Thanks

art harun said...

Anonymous @ 12:20,

Your reminder actually came when I was about to write my view on 153(9). :)

I think you have raised a good question. Clause 9 essentially says Parliament has no power to restrict a trade or business solely for the purpose of reserving the said business for the Malays or natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

There is no judicial precedent on what this clause means. But it is actually quite clear. The Parliament cannot by law restrict any kind of trade or business so that only the Malays or natives of Sabah and S'wak could partake in that trade or business.

The first thing which came to mind is of course the requirement for APs for imported cars. If for instance the sole purpose of that requirement is to establish a monopoly by the Malays or natives in the imported car trade or business, then the requirement for APs would be against clause (9).

I think that what clause (9) means.

ajoyly said...

Malaysians are not questioning the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sarawak and Sabah but rather the provision of more places for non-Bumiputra students in colleges and universities.

As mentioned by Art, it is a matter of changing Government's policy to meet the demand. This would come under the legitimate interest of non-Malays.

And as education is a basic necessity for all Malaysians, it should not be discriminatory in providing vacancies in higher educational institutions.

However it is heartening to note that the Government has taken necessary action to rectify the situation.

Shamsul Yunos said...

I thinkytou should advice your friend Haris to stop name calling... it does nto become a 'respected' lawyer

he now calls the PM pee m...

Richard Loh said...

Hi,

Would appreciate if you could allow me to highlight this important Forum.



Forum Name: eLawyer - Exabytes Penang Bloggers & Law Forum 2009

Date: 27 June 2009

Time: 9.00am – 12.30pm

Fees: F.O.C.

Venue: Dewan Kuliah G31, Pusat Pengajian Sains Komputer, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang Campus (Landmark Masjid USM).

Organiser: www.eLawyer.com.my

This event is exclusively sponsored by www.exabytes.com.my - the No.1 web hosting company in Malaysia


Topic 1: Bloggers & Copyrights Laws


Topic 2: Bloggers & Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998 (MCMC Act) and rules and guidelines of MCMC

Topic 3: Bloggers & Defamation Law


Registration: The admission to this Forum is FREE. However, due to limited seat, please R.S.V.P by sending your details (Name, Tel, Email, Occupation and Company/School) to forum@elawyer.com.my before 24 June 2009 or call 03-2782 5399 for more information.


This event is supported by USM and Penang Bar Committee. It is open to anyone. Please visit http://www.elawyer.com.my/blog/elawyer-exabytes-penang-bloggers-law-forum-2009/ for more information.

Anonymous said...

Hi Art,

Thanks for your views on Art.153 (9).

While the AP issue would be obvious, the same could apply to the government policies of reserving govt. contracts and supplies solely for bumiputras as this will go againts the art.153 (9). But what I am not clear about is that when it says "empower parliament to restrict business or trade", would this also apply to the government of the day and its policies. How does this really work. If Parliament is not empowered to undertake a certain act, does it apply similarly to the conduct of the government of the day.

You see to a laymen all of this is quite confusing. For example, no law needs to be enacted to apply a certain provision of restriction for trade and business but then the government may still do it, I don't see anything to stop the government from doing so. While the intent of 153(9) seems to be clear but it could be argued that this applies only of parliament were to enact a law. Or does it also imply that all Malaysians will receive equal treatment in case of business or trade.

Very confusing indeed. I don't know whether you want to comment any further but thanks for the clarification

art harun said...

153(9) would only be infringed if the Parliament creates a law which restricts any trade or business SOLELY for the purpose of reserving that trade or business for the Malays or the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

The problem is the word "solely". The Government can always argue that the AP requirement was not created solely for reserving the imported car business for the Malays as the AP is also a mechanism to protect Proton or to collect duties, which is a source of income. That is the problem.

You are right on the second point too. Article 153(9) is only applicable when a law is legislated or enacted.

The other problem is the fact that nobody has ever questioned all these policies in the Courts. But you and I know how difficult it is to challenge a policy of this nature in our Court successfully.

In any event, the Court had, in UEM vs Lim Kit Siang narrowed down the possibility of public interest cases by adopting a very restrictive definition and applicability of "locus standi" (the standing to sue).

That is why I think, we should adopt the practice in some Scandinavian countries which establish an "ombudsman" in order to adjudicate challenges by private citizen against the Government.

Cruzeiro said...

The bigest eff-up in our Fed. Constitution is this mind-boggling and silly definition of the "Malay race". Everything else racist and bigotted about our policies,laws and country revolve around this one thing.

Little do the real Malays know that it is used to hoodwink the real Malays and this in itself will one day come back to haunt them - by taking away their heritage and culture.

It is they key to all the discriminatory practices by the BN, without which, their modus operandi falls like a house of cards.

Anonymous said...

Dear Art,

Sorry I am coming back so late on this but was a little tied up or you can say lazy to do some searching.

I refer to art.153(9) where we seem to agree that Parliament cannot enact any laws to restrict trade or business solely for the purposes of reservation of Malays or natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

But the question was whether the government of the day could still do it without having to enact any laws. Lets look at the following provisions of the constitution

1. Art. 8(2)
Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law OR in the appointment to any office OR employment in a public authority OR in the administration of 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 (Emphasis in capital letters is mine)

Based on this provision, there must equality in "carrying on of any trade, business...." And if any trade has to be restricted to a certain race or persons of a particular descent, the constitution must be amended to provide for such reservations as stated in art 8 (2) "Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution...". BUT if we want to amend the constitution with regard to trade and business, we must then look at art.153(9) which prohibits parliament from enacting any such law. So if the government wants to restrict trade to certain races or person of certain descent; the government must first repeal art153(9) and then amend the constitution to provide for these reservations in trade and business.

So as I see it from the laymen point of view and only if my assumptions and interpretations are correct, all trade reservations can be considered ultra vires the constitution. This will include AP's and reservations in tenders and supply contracts. With regard to AP's, it is also clear that Art. 153 when it refer to permits always refers to reservation of a portion and never 100%. Now we can ask if ITM correct in reserving 100% places for Bumiputras?? I qualify these question by saying that these questions and opinions are only true if my reading of the constitution is correct.

I don't know, the constitution and law is very technical and I am not a qualified lawyer. For all you know I may be absolutely wrong and taking off at a tangent as it is human nature to look at things from your own advantageous point of view. Personally I look at the constitution as a contract (as it contains all the elements of contract law as determined by my amateur reading of Jill Poole's book on Contract law) and the parties to the contract called "Constitution of Malaysia" are the citizens of Malaysia. Any person acquiring the citizenship of Malaysia automatically becomes a party to the contract. Political parties and the government are not a party to the contract but merely instruments formed by the contract provisions. So coming to locus standi, as we are parties to this contract known as the "Constitution of Malaysia", every citizen of Malaysia should have locus standi.

But also agreed that even if it is futile effort to approach the courts, it will be intellectual fulfillment if we can understand the Constitution of Malaysia although we may not be able to do much about it.

It will be great if I can get you to respond with your views. Thank you

strange said...

"that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak;"

for those whodwinked by art hqrun it is clearly stated above that laws may provide for the reservation of permits and licenses.

But before bentoh like minded malays start feeling guilty, please study the Malay history of Tanah Melayu.

The Portuguese Queen encouraged by the Catholic church sent an armada to kill and grab Melaka for the Catholic Monarchy in 1511.

These were followed by the Catholic Monarchy of Holland, the Queen of England etc.

They were looking to kill and colonise the world as divided by the Papal Bull issued by the then Catholic Pope.

Thus they killed natives in India, Australia, Filipines, Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam, Burma etc. to setup their colonies and tax and take back the wealth of our country.

Then come world war 2 and the Japanese killed the british,australians and the europeans were forced to leave.

The Indonesians fought and killed off the Dutch people who colonised them under Sukarno to gain independence.

In Tanah Melayu, the British were leaving but they do not want the Chinese and Indians to claim british citizenship. So they forced the Raja Melayu to accept them or else a war of independence need to be fought.

tunku prefered the easy way. But thanks to the Constitution, the Raja Melayu remains in control and putin place appeasement to stop the Malays from going to war with the British as Indonesia had done.

But a contract under duress is not enforceable under common law. So is the Federal Constitution which forced Tanah Melayu to accept huge numbers of foreigners as citizens so much so that Malays were outnumbered.

Time to relook the Federal Constitution

dont you think?

It has failed to ensure equitable wealth ownership.

According to Forbes Ananda Krishnan has 40 billions, Kuok 40 billions..etc..look up forbe richest Malaysians.

And do you know that when Steve Jobs died..the biggest value company in the US he only left behind 23 billion ringgit!

Yes, the Ananda and Kuok are richer the best US techpreneurs..without producing anything clever like ipod or iphone.

So something need to be done to ensure wealth is not limited to the 0.01 percent of chinese and indian population

Perkasa please study this carefully..

art harun said...

Strange,

Please spare me of baseless accusation okay. I am not hoodwinking anybody or trying to hoodwink anybody. You want to put in your opinion, please feel free to do so. You want to disagree with me, by all means go ahead.

But you don't have to throw accusation like that to me. Can't we Malaysians disagree in a civil manner anymore?

I don't deny that law may be passed to reserve licenses etc for Malays and the natives of Sabah & Sarawak. Have I ever denied that? My point is there is no right. It is a discretion of the King who in turn act on the advice of the government.

Please read my article carefully before you start throwing things at me.

strange said...

"I don't deny that law may be passed to reserve licenses etc for Malays and the natives of Sabah & Sarawak. Have I ever denied that? My point is there is no right. It is a discretion of the King who in turn act on the advice of the government."

I think the Malays are tired of these whining by the Chinese and Indians.

Sorry I didnt make my point clear. My point is that the Constitution was forced on the Raja Melayu. There was no right of the Chinese or Indians to be citizens of the Sultans. They were labour brought by the British and should have return to their motherland.

The Malays didnt agree then but were forced to accept the Chinese and Indians. All these talk about Malay rights is nonsensical as the Chinese and Indians should not be citizens in the first place. No where else in the world were Chinese and Indians given citizenship in large numbers. The Malays were angry with Tunku.

He was lazy and did not want to fight the British. And so the Malaysian Constitution is null and void as a contract as it was made under duress and threat of war. The Reid Commission was a Christian body of the coloniser trying to disengage themselves with dignity after the humiliation of being defeated and being the slaves of the Japanese.

The only choice of the Malays would have been to go to war against the British as the Indonesians had done against the Dutch.

So effort for mass emigration should be seriously thought withs grants for relocation available for Indians and Chinese wishing to go back. A huge minority like now will always be cause for distability.

It is not too late. Even now many Chinese are migrating to Australia, Canada etc. With the right skills provided more Chinese will migrate thus reducing the whining.

Instead of UMNO Government paying the Chinese to come back (how stupid can UMNO leaders be) the fund should be used for them to settle in third countries.

I am sure there will be many chinese and Indians willing to take up the offer. They are even doing it now at their own cost..

So the Malays want control of the wealth that has been denied so long and has been given away by the half Indian Mahathir to the Chinese and Indians.

Free boeings anyone, free lotus, free airport? haha...typical indian scum

art harun said...

Strange,

Your thesis that the Consti was forced on us is, with respect, difficult to substantiate.

Through the Alliance, led by the Tunku, we wanted independence. The English drafted the Constitution for us and we chose voluntarily to accept that. The English had never forced us.

We faced two options. We can achieve independence by working together with the English for a peaceful transition & transmission of power. Or we could refuse that and fight a war.

Now, we chose the former. Nobody forced us but we chose it anyway. Now we have to live with it and make the best out of it. We have covenanted our agreements in the Consti. And we have to make the best out of it.

strange said...

"We faced two options. We can achieve independence by working together with the English for a peaceful transition & transmission of power. Or we could refuse that and fight a war."

Glad we can agree on this.
And this is the fundamental question. Yes the Raja Melayu were given the options. But can you call war, that is death and destruction as a legitimate civil option..haha.

This means war... you just confirmed my assertation that the Raja Melayu signed with guns or pistols to their head. Which is what war is.

But it is all strategic moves anyway by the Raja Melayus and Melayus. The British are gone now. There is no gun to our head so.. this means we can scrapped the Constitution that was forced on the Raja Melayu.

If you read the Constitution carefully, the British put in a lot of provisions to ensure they continue their exploitation of Malaya.The Constitution is for their business benefit not mankind.

The Malays should nationalised all important business and assets such as property, plantations oil and gas so that the individual chinese properties and Indians like Bumi Armada cannot accumulate billions in wealth. That is how to use our independence to the full. The Constitution in fact deny the Malays their right.

You tell me why some Chinese have billions while you have nothing?

Even in the US, Occupy W.Street, the people have started to realise that greed knows no bound.

We can let go the Chinese and Indian gently and ease their way back to their homeland ,where as now the Indians have to frequently go back home according to Air India , Malaysia Indians are the most frequent flyers. How much money are remitted back to India?

Malaysia My Second Home attracted the most Chinese and India bangla to come. How come the stupid UMNO is allowing more chinese and indians to come? This is strategic thinking by MCA to increase chinese numbers.

Strategic thinking my friend is important.

Once you lose your strength in numbers you will be like Singaporean Malays who are to be pitied.

art harun said...

Strange,

Perhaps I have not expressed myself too clearly.

I did not admit that the Raja-raja and the Tunku were forced to achieve independence in the way it happened. What I was trying to say is the British wanted to work with us to give us independence in a peaceful way. They also wanted to ensure a peaceful and smooth transition of power and sovereignity. As a people, we chose that route. I posit that the only other route would be to take up arms and fight a war.

But we chose the peaceful route and achieved independence the way we did. Nobody forced us. And now we have to live with all the imperfections (if that is what you want to call it) of the independence that we achieved.

The Constitution was accepted by us out of our own free will. Nobody forced it on us. In fact we took part in its very drafting.

I do not know what to say on your assertion that we should all now tear the Constitution and that the Malays should now reclaim this and that.

This is because we chose that independent and we legally, politically and socially accepted that independence together with the Fed Consti as it was. How could we now turn around and renege on that?

As for Malay rights, pardon me, but I think the Malays as a people gained more rights after the British came then before. Pray tell me, in the feudal society prior to the arrival of the British, what rights have the Malays as a people?

strange said...

Yap Chong Yee said..

i AM cHINESE AND i NEVER KNEW THERE WAS EVER ANY SUCH NONSENSE ! Who contracted on my behalf ? Did Cheng Lock Tan contract on my behalf ? Sheer nonsense and ! IF THERE EVER WAS SUCH A NONSENSE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEN "WHAT IS THE FORM OF ENFORCEMENT, IF THERE IS BREACH ?" wHAT AND WHAT CONSTITTUTES A BREACH OF SUCH NONSENSE ?

The statement by a chinese above shows the naivity of the Malays. Indeed he is right. There is no social contract. What we have is a Constitution forced on the Malay Rulers by the British to accept the Chinese and Indians as citizens.

The term social contract is misleading and only beneficial to the Chinese and Indians. The Malays did not enter into a contract with the Tan Cheng Lock.

They were forced by the British. In view of the fact that Malays are getting the worse end of the Constitution is it not right that we understand how it come about.

Malaysia is not like the US as some people romantically think. The US was built on the genocide of native Red Indians by the Europeans coming from different countries.

"As for Malay rights, pardon me, but I think the Malays as a people gained more rights after the British came then before. Pray tell me, in the feudal society prior to the arrival of the British, what rights have the Malays as a people?"

This is a strange statement. Did the Vietnamese had more right after the French came then before?
Did the Indonesians had more right after the Dutch colonised, taxed, took away their wealth, imprisoned their leaders then before?

Then why did they killed the French and Americans and Dutch respectively?

This is an interesting point on feudalism of the Malays. The Malay rulers were not smart but they were not too unduly cruel either.

The Malays were the one protecting the Rulers from Malayan Union. The Malay Rulers were crying at the Railway Station as they see how the Malays still wanted them despite their weakness.

But everywhere in the world, feudalism was the norm. The British colonialism was driven by feudalism in England where the farmers were frightened by the Churuch into going to war as penitence.

The Queen or King was hand in hand with the religious group in suppressing the European masses.

So much so that at last the Europeans realised that religions was opiate for the masses and guilloitine or shot their rulers.

strange said...

Part 2..

Compare this with the Malays and the Rulers. The concept is the same religion is used to justify the monarchy.

But by then the Europeans had introduced secularism due to the evil of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Monarchy.

Thus the separation of church and Government.

As Islam was brought from the Arabs, the linkage between religion and Malay rulers were weak anyway. But for the Arabs until today, the Saudi King control the religion.

So it was easy for UMNO to accept secularism. Which people dont understand, actually secularism is separation of the state and religion. Where the state and religion become one, it will be theocracy and the head must be a religious head ie a King or Queen as in medieval Europe or in present day Arabs countries where there is no democracy.

So back to your question, the link between religion and Rulers were weak so the Malays were practicing secularism even then.

The system of Parliament meant more heads rather than just one head.

Whatever the British introduced or the by product of their colonialism should be studied. We can thank them if you want but what matter is the future.

The future of Malay language, culture, and wealth of the Malays.

If we need to have a new Constitution so be it. As the present constitution is just a business protection scheme for British and Chinese interest.

There is no social contract. What is there is the perpetuation of foreigners and Chinese business interest.

Economic power and money will means all the other pillars of the Malays will be swept aside. With the money, Ananda can buy a yacht for someone and ensure he gets the licenses. With the money YTL can hire Pavarotti and get his IPP and other licenses.

Time to get smart and get a piece of all that billions the chinese and Indians have been amassing..