Paradox and problem intersect in any country; MALAYSAJA and potential make the challenge more complex. We will see whether UMNO has the agility to use power to transfer power to yet another generation.
The ultimate success for a ruling party is that delicious bipolar ability to occupy both government and opposition space. The British in MALAYA perfected the art of functioning through a loyal opposition. The Muslim was so loyal that not a single MUSLIM leader went to jail during decades of our movement. The UMNO tended to be less loyal, but always recognized limits, untilI MAHATHIR liberated the UMNO Malays from either fear or temptation. One cannot think of a UMNO leader who did not go to jail.
Democracy, but naturally, induced a variant. Mahathir ignored the feeble right and absorbed the non-communist left into the UMNO in periodic stages. His own leftist credentials were impeccable, which helped.
artfully split the left and right, until the THE OPERASI LALANG united the rest against UMNO.
Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz blamed his Barisan Nasional comrades today for driving away support with their chauvinistic ways, warning them that they could not ride on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s popularity to win the general election.
The vocal Umno supreme council member told The Malaysian Insider this afternoon that he blamed the “communal leadership” of certain BN politicians for the public’s declining confidence in the ruling coalition.
“I blame the leaders. Some have become ministers but still look at themselves as communal leaders instead of national leaders.
“But this makes little sense for once you are a minister, you represent all... not just your party or your race,” he said.
Nazri was responding to the results of a Merdeka Center survey that showed 45 per cent of Malays were dissatisfied with Umno while only 44 per cent were satisfied.
Umno performed even worse with the Chinese community, with only 12 per cent saying they were satisfied while 55 per cent were dissatisfied. A total of 34 per cent had evaded response, suggesting the possibility that a larger number than the 55 per cent could be dissatisfied with Umno.
The poll results, which involved a sample size of more than 1,000 registered voters in the peninsula, contrasted significantly with Najib’s approval rating of 72 per cent in a separate poll conducted in May.
Nazri however, claimed that Najib’s popularity alone would not be enough to help the BN win the next general election.
“The prime minister being popular on his own is not enough. The BN should be popular. A popular PM cannot carry the BN through to a victory and this was proven in the Sibu by-election.
“If this 72 per cent indeed says something, then we should have won in Sibu but we lost, so what good is a popular prime minister if he cannot carry the BN?” he said.
Nazri bleakly pointed out that if the BN leadership failed to buck up, the coalition would only go further downhill and eventually lose in the coming general election.
It is axiomatic that a largely impoverished nation needs a political party that the poor can identify with. The UMNO has set out to be the party of the poor in daytime, and of the rich at night. Its sunlight politics will fetch votes, its twilight policies will enable it to govern. This is an extremely clever act whose opening scenes are being played out for a new generation that is vague The hero of this drama must have the charisma to dazzle the poor and the flexibility to keep the rich onside. That is the challenge before DR SEXi. His avowed role is to be the guardian of the poor in the city, which means that the poor need protection from DR SEX. He is at home with the elite in the evening and is now making the effort to capture the sunshine hours.
“BN really has to do a lot of image building... otherwise, we will face trouble in the 13th general election. I can see that Umno members, MCA members.... none have learnt their lessons,” he said.
Nazri claimed that BN leaders, in their attempt to regain lost support from the people, had resorted to making harsh statements.
“They make harsh statements to win support from their own communities. Meaning, they would rather win in the newspapers than in the hearts of the people.
“The MCA, by showing they are chauvinistic Chinese, think they can get the support of the Chinese community. But then, the Chinese already have the DAP, so what is MCA trying to do?” he said.
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 clarificationand 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
Once the next general election outcome is determined through free and fair elections that the people can decide if ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ or ‘Ketuanan Rakyat’ shall define Malaysia.
, 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.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or the newspaper. The Malaysian Insider does
Quote
“The approach of some politicians of late, who use Islam as an excuse to invoke inter-racial strife, can actually create misunderstandings about Islam.
“It is THESE actions that truly sullies the religion."
- Former Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin
Quote:
Sebuah NGO Melayu membuat laporan polis kerana membantah pementasan yang hendak dianjurkan oleh sebuah geraja di Shah Alam.Ini BUKAN Islam yang saya kenali. Ini BUKAN Islam yang menjadi cara hidup saya.
- Dengan nama Islam, ada yang mahu menentukan nama tuhan yang boleh dipanggil oleh penganut agama lain.
- Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membakar gereja.
- Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membantah pembinaan kuil dengan berarak membawa kepala lembu yang telah disembelih.
- Dengan nama Islam, ada yang memberi jusitifikasi penggunaan akta zalim seperti ISA.
Islam TIDAK pernah mengajar penganutnya berfikiran sempit, bertindak melampau dan berlaku zalim.
Islam mementingkan keadilan dan kesaksamaan. Islam adalah agama indah dan keindahan itu dapat dilihat melalui kehidupan dan ajaran Nabi Muhammad S.A.W, junjungan umat Islam.
Tindakan mereka ini adalah jelas bertentangan dengan apa yang disampaikan oleh baginda.
Mereka telah membangsatkan nama Islam demi kepentingan sendiri. Lebih menyedihkan lagi, mereka adalah berpangkat, samada pemimpin politik atau agama.
Sebahagian besar Muslim di Malaysia TIDAK pernah terdedah dengan kehidupan sebagai penduduk minoriti di sesebuah negara. Maka dari situ timbul retorik bahawa sensitiviti Muslim harus dijaga kerana Islam dianuti oleh majoriti rakyat Malaysia.
Menggunakan logika yang sama, sudah tentu Perancis boleh mengharamkan pemakaian purdah dan Switzerland boleh mengharamkan pembinaan mimbar kerana “menyinggung sensitiviti” majoriti rakyat negara-negara tersebut.
- Syahzedzan Johan
by
Syahredzan Johan
(Syahredzan Johan adalah seorang peguam muda dan rakan kongsi di sebuah firma guaman di Kuala Lumpur. )
Read here for more
Profile:Syahredzan Johan, born in 1983, is a lawyer by profession and currently residing in Petaling Jaya.
He is a self-professed ‘social critique’ and believes "the nation of Malaysia still has so much unfulfilled potential, yet Malaysians are pegged back by their divisive nature, their desire to divide rather than unite."He wrote in his blog, Refleksi Minda, that "....I will not mince my words when I feel it is needed."
Pada dekad pertama abad ke 21, akibat serangan pengganas yang dikatakan beragama Islam, dunia telah mengaitkan agama tersebut dengan keganasan dan ekstrimisme. Namun persepsi negatif ini tidak menular ke Malaysia. Untuk sekian lama, Malaysia dikenali di persada dunia sebagai “a moderate Muslim country.”
Islamic La Alhambra Generalife
Malangnya, akhir-akhir ini kita tidak lagi boleh berbangga dengan panggilan ini. Kini kita menjadi tajuk utama seantero dunia kerana pelbagai perkara negatif yang dilakukan atas nama Islam. Islam di Malaysia semakin dilihat sebagai agama yang tidak toleran, angkuh dan melampau. Islam di Malaysia semakin dikatakan sebagai agama yang menekan hak-hak orang bukan Islam. Islam di Malaysia semakin disamakan dengan kezaliman.
Manakan tidak?
Dengan nama Islam, ada yang mahu menentukan nama tuhan yang boleh dipanggil oleh penganut agama lain.
Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membakar gereja.
Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membantah pembinaan kuil dengan berarakmembawa kepala lembu yang telah disembelih.
Dengan nama Islam, ada yang memberi jusitifikasi penggunaan akta zalim seperti ISA.
Di Pulau Pinang, seorang khatib didesak untuk meminta maaf kerana telah mendoakan kesejahteraan seorang pemimpin bukan Islam. Alasan yang diberikan adalah kononnya perbuatan mendoakan orang bukan Islam adalah salah.
Terkini, isu yang hangat diperkatakan adalah kunjungan seorang ahli Parlimen bukan Islam ke sebuah surau untuk memberi sumbangan. Isu ini telahdipolitikkan oleh pelbagai pihak, sehingga ia melibatkan pihak istana. Maka jawatankuasan pengurusan surau itu digantung dan ahli Parlimen tersebut diberi amaran oleh majlis agama yang berkenaan.
Saya tidak tahu sejak bila pula orang bukan Islam tidak boleh memasuki masjid atau surau. Tidak pula diberikan dalil atau hujah untuk menjustifikasi arahan yang tidak masuk akal ini.
Adakah ini cara kita berdakwah pada abad ke-21?
Kita tolak orang bukan Muslim sejauh-jauhnya daripada Islam, kita berlaku zalim ke atas mereka dan kita rampas hak mereka untuk mengamalkan agama mereka.
Adakah kita beranggapan bahawa dengan tingkahlaku kita ini, mereka akan lebih dekat dengan Islam? Kalau inilah strategi dakwah abad ini, saya berpendapat kita harus memikir semula strategi bodoh ini.
Tindakan seperti ini memburukan nama Islam dan menyebabkan orang bukan Islam berfikir bahawa Islam itu adalah agama yang sempit, melampau dan zalim.
Kononnya, orang bukan Muslim seharusnya menjaga “sensitiviti” orang Islam. Kita harus bertanya, apakah “sensitiviti” yang dimaksudkan ini? Adakah terdapat justifikasi ke atas “sensitiviti” ini?
Sebahagian besar Muslim di Malaysia tidak pernah terdedah dengan kehidupan sebagai penduduk minoriti di sesebuah negara. Maka dari situ timbul retorik bahawa sensitiviti Muslim harus dijaga kerana Islam dianuti oleh majoriti rakyat Malaysia.
Menggunakan logika yang sama, sudah tentu Perancis boleh mengharamkan pemakaian purdah dan Switzerland boleh mengharamkan pembinaan mimbar kerana “menyinggung sensitiviti” majoriti rakyat negara-negara tersebut. Juga menggunakan logika sama, cadangan membina masjid di tapak berlakunya serangan World Trade Centre tidak boleh diterima kerana ia kononnya “menyinggung sensitiviti” keluarga mangsa kejadian.
Mengikut logika yang digunakan, maka hak penganut agama Islam yang menjadi minoriti di negara-negara tersebut harus dikorbankan demi menjaga “sensitiviti” majoriti.
Apabila kita majoriti, terlalu mudah untuk kita jatuh dalam perangkap pemikiran bahawa kekuatan itu adalah kebenaran.
Adakah kita lupa bahawa ketika menyebarkan Islam, Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. telah mengajar bahawa semua manusia adalah sama di sisi Allah, yang membezakan seseorang itu hanyalah iman? Sudah tentu perkara ini “menyinggung sensitiviti” sebahagian besar Arab Quraisy pada ketika itu, lebih lagi mereka yang mempunyai status di dalam masyarakat Quraisy.
Adakah Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. seharusnya menghentikan ajaran Islam pada ketika itu demi menjaga “sensitiviti” masyarakat Quraisy?
Ini bukan Islam yang saya kenali. Ini bukan Islam yang menjadi cara hidup saya. Islam tidak pernah mengajar penganutnya berfikiran sempit, bertindak melampau dan berlaku zalim. Islam mementingkan keadilan dan kesaksamaan.
Islam adalah agama indah dan keindahan itu dapat dilihat melalui kehidupan dan ajaran Nabi Muhammad S.A.W, junjungan umat Islam. Tindakan mereka ini adalah jelas bertentangan dengan apa yang disampaikan oleh baginda.
Mereka telah membangsatkan nama Islam demi kepentingan sendiri. Lebih menyedihkan lagi, mereka adalah berpangkat, samada pemimpin politik atau agama.
Orang Islam sering mempersalahkan media Barat kerana memberi gambaran yang salah tentang Islam, tetapi apa kurangnya golongan ini yang telah memberi gambaran negatif terhadap Islam melalui tingkahlaku mereka?
Harapan saya adalah bahawa orang yang bukan beragama Islam tidak tersalah anggap bahawa Islam yang sebenar adalah Islam yang mana namanya telah dibangsatkan oleh mereka ini.
No comments:
Post a Comment