IF you are an engineer, you need to be a member of the Institution of Engineers Malaysia. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professions too have their own governing bodies. There could be a few grades of membership, and some may not have the right to vote. For IEM, one of the vision is to promote sound professional engineering practice in support of the socio-economic development objectives of the nation.

Similarly, if we call ourselves Malaysians, surely there is a governing body with its very own constitution and appropriate laws to govern us in achieving stated visions.

The constitution I am referring to here is the controversial Article 153 of the constitution of Malaysia. There are many views and comments about this article but my views are as follows. Some may disagree but do have a read – with an open mind – before making any judgment.  

The Article grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong responsibility for “safeguarding the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities”. It specifies ways to do so, such as establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships, public education, or special facilities given or accorded by the federal government. It is seen as a continuation of previous laws made by the British to protect the indigenous peoples from being overwhelmed by the immigration of Chinese (brought in by Chinese entrepreneurs) and Indian workers (brought in by the British) into Malaya. The non-Bumiputera were generally rich urban dwellers, whilst the Bumiputra were mostly poor farmers or labourers.

For your information, the Chinese entrepreneurs belonged to the Straits Chinese British Association. Formed in August 1900, it was to advance the interests and welfare of the Straits-born Chinese community in Singapore as well as to promote their allegiance to the British Crown. They were defined as those born or living in the Straits settlements and whose loyalty was towards the British crown. One of the original objectives was to promote among its members “an intelligent interest in the affairs of the British Empire, and to encourage and maintain their loyalty as subjects of the Queen”.

SCBA leaders donated funds and even purchased warplanes to aid the British war efforts. They also sat on school committees to improve English education in schools and donated money for the establishment of the King Edward VII College of Medicine (formerly King Edward VII Medical School) in 1905 – its distinguished alumni includes our Dr Mahathir.

Back to Article 153. Some were/are still of the view that the article appeared to unduly privilege the Bumiputera as a higher class of Malaysian citizenry. Do take note that Article 10 (4) of the constitution permits Parliament to pass law prohibiting the questioning, among others, Article 153 of the constitution.

Twelve years after 1957, a dark blot in the nation’s history happened on May 13. The New Economic Policy, an affirmative action plan, was implemented in response to the riots of 1969 to counter the economic dominance of the non-Bumiputera minorities and improve the economic position of the Bumiputera. The aim was to increase to 30% their equity share of the economy, as opposed to the 4% they held in 1970. In the 1980s and 1990s, more affirmative action was implemented. There were some public opposition. However, in the new century, debates intensified when some politicians made controversial statements on the nature of Bumiputera privileges.

If we go back to history, the controversy on Article 153 started since the early days of Malaysia. It seems it was not entirely clear if this article predicated on the Malays’ economic status or was meant to recognise Bumiputera as a special class of citizens. Lee Kuan Yew of the People’s Action Party took the latter view and called for a “Malaysian Malaysia”.

The then finance minister Tan Siew Sin called Lee the “greatest disruptive force in the entire history of Malaysia and Malaya”. The Tunku considered Lee to be too extremist in his views. PAP-Umno relations were further strained. Some may not know that tensions led to the 1964 racial riots in Singapore where 36 people were killed. Eventually, Tunku decided to ask Singapore to secede from Malaysia. Singapore became independent in 1965. Ironically, the constitution of Singapore contains Article 152, which names Malays as “indigenous people” of Singapore and therefore requires special safeguarding of their rights and privileges. However, the article specifies no policies for such safeguarding. It is one of the vaguest in the Constitution, and is “an elephant in the room”.

At one time, the current Bumiputera privileges were opposed by DAP and PKR. DAP argued that it did not have anything against the special position of Bumiputra, but sought to undo policies such as the NEP that it believed discriminated unfairly against non-Bumiputera. PKR then sought to replace it with a more equitable policy.

The NEP has been defended as having been successful in creating a Bumiputera middle class without compromising the non-Bumiputera share of the economy in absolute terms. Indeed, statistics showed that the Chinese and Indian middle classes also grew under the NEP. However, what started as murmurs ascended to become noises about unfairness of distribution of wealth among the Bumiputera themselves. A good example is the alleged discrimination against people not aligned to Umno.

We also know some, if not many of the Bumiputera that were given preferential treatment, under the previous regime, sold or “Ali Baba”-ed it to others.

This is a weakness that we need to mend.

I want to know, if someone is on crutches, would they not want to abandon or to be free of it?

A close Chinese friend of mine once told me he was not bothered about the NEP because at end of the day, whatever extra income the Bumiputra got, a big chunk would go back to the non-Bumiputera through their spending habits. The same went for BR1M or other handouts from the government. He asked me: “Look at all the buildings at the KL skyline, how many belong to the Bumiputera?”

He is absolutely correct. The forty-year-old house I am staying in requires more maintenance and easily around 90% of the cost of repairs go to the non-Bumiputera. But my close friend is getting worried now because apart from Indonesians and Bangladeshis, the Nepalese are getting into the business with or without ICERD.

We are swimming in uncharted waters to build a new Malaysia. Freedom, justice, and good governance for the people can be achieved using a good democratic system of government which abides by the constitution. Countries that ratified ICERD are still practising discrimination.

If we believe our Rukun Negara is still applicable, let us move on.

So, members of Malaysia, we should not be pointing fingers at one another while other “pendatangs” are slowly and surely eating up some of our cake. We need all the fingers to continue our swim and avoid drowning. – December 12, 2018.

* Saleh Mohammed reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.