KUCHING – For 17 years, Marina Undau lived a life of a child growing into a young adult.
School, her family and friends were a central part of her existence. She dreamt of doing her parents proud by furthering her education in a university and eventually getting a good job.
SPM came and went, and the 18-year-old science stream student of SMK Simanggang did well, scoring 9As and 1B last year.
But then she had a rude shock.
Not eligible
The education system said she was not eligible to enroll in a matriculation course, a prelude to varsity and a degree. The reason? She was, it seemed, not a bumiputra.
Born to an Iban father and a Chinese mother, Marina’s hope for a smooth climb up academia was dashed. With it went a part of her identity and the drive that made her a top scorer.
sarawak-semi-bumiputra.pngIn an interview with The Borneo Post at her house in Sri Aman on Wednesday, Marina expressed her feelings in Iban: “Aku amai enda puas ati nadai olih nyambung sekula ngagai universiti (I’m very sad that I can’t pursue my university education).”
Meantime, she has started Form Six in her old school as a workaround solution.
Upset and bewildered
Seated between her parents, Undau Liap and Wong Pick Sing, the disappointment in the teenager was plain to see.
Her elder sister never had a problem getting into a university. Her identity was never questioned and she is at present in her second year at Universiti Sains Malaysia in Penang.
Marina is worried that a similar obstacle she faced after SPM awaits once she completes her STPM.
“If I get good results, what’s next?”
Marina’s father, Undau, would not take no for an answer.
When her application to enter matriculation was rejected, Undau, a civil servant, contacted the Education Ministry’s Matriculation Department in Putrajaya on June 23 and was told that her daughter was not a bumiputra.
Pressing on
Dissatisfied, the father wrote to the ministry on July 1. The reply he received shocked him, and it is bound to challenge the identity of many Sarawakians who are of mixed-parentage.
The ministry said in a reply on July 14 that Undau’s appeal was turned down because “the candidate is categorised as non-bumiputra (father is Iban and mother is Chinese)” based on a definition used by the Student Intake Management Division, Higher Learning Department and Higher Education Ministry.
Their definition is as follows:
-
If either parent of a candidate is a Malay who is a Muslim/Orang Asli as defined in Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution, the child is considered a bumiputra.
-
Sabah – If the father of the candidate is a Malay who is a Muslim/native of Sabah as defined by Article 161A(6)(a) of the Federal Constitution, the child is considered a bumiputra..
-
Sarawak – If the father and mother is a native of Sarawak as defined under Article 161A(6)(b) of the Federal Constitution, the child is considered a bumiputra..
Despite the explanation, Undau is still dissatisfied and urged the government to clear up education issues that differentiate bumiputras from non-bumiputras.
He said the 1Malaysia concept would be rather hollow if education today continues to be polarised along such lines
“Why all the differences in the intake of students for higher learning? I am not questioning the Constitution, but what is the meaning of 1Malaysia if things like this happen?”
NRD and Native Court weigh in
The National Registration Department (NRD) headquarters here said it has received a flurry of enquiries about the bumiputra status of late.
An NRD spokesman said that in Sarawak, a person’s race is registered based only on the race of the father.
On whether such a person is automatically accorded bumiputra rights, the spokesman said: “We don’t actually handle that. We look at the race of the father. If the father is Iban, the child is Iban. If the father is Chinese, the child is Chinese. The bumiputra status comes under the Native Court.”
Native Court registrar Ronnie Edward said the bumiputra status was a “birthright” and the Native Court only hear cases where a person who was to be declared a bumiputra although his father was not a native.
He said Marina was not alone in facing this problem.
Edward believes the only way to clear the air is to amend the Federal Constitution.
“Article 161(A) of the Constitution has to be amended. The article says that in Sarawak, both parents have to be ‘exclusively’ a native,” he said.
#1 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 6:32 pm
When you have this bumiputra/non bumiputra dichotomy drawn on something less than rational/coherent basis, the side bereft of affirmative action programme will not accept that differentiation/discrimination, which means that in terms of national unity, this is the first negative factor exacerbating divisiveness contrary to 1 Malaysia aspiration opf the PM.
The second negative point : the institutionalized dichotomy of bumi/non bumi has prevented the full tapping of human capital from the non bumi section in GLCs, tertiary institutions civil service etc . The country is utilizing less than 50% the national talent pool, so how could it climb the value added ladder and help this country be “high income” in terms of international competiveness as the PM exhorts?
The third negative factor: Bumi/Non Bumi quotas on corporate ownership structure (listed) and on government licenses, government contracts, and employment are not only upsetting price mechanism and discouraging growth but also provide convenient pretexts to acts bordering in grey area that may arguably constitute or facilitate corruption and leakages, neutralising the political will to combat political corruption.
#2 by Godfather on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 6:33 pm
And what are the chances of the courts ruling that the concept of “bumiputra-ism” is ultra vires the constitution ?
#3 by Godfather on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 6:35 pm
and why do you think that UMNO insists on having its nominee for the post of Chief Justice ?
#4 by limkamput on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 6:41 pm
Godfather, as I have always said, political problems/issues require political solutions. Bumiputra and non bumiputra are never a legal or constitutional issue. Why it is so difficult for some is really beyond me. Bumiputraism is a discrimination, domineering and bigotry issue. Is someone trying to say that discrimination, domineering and bigotry are ok so long as they are constitutionally or legally done?
#5 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 7:03 pm
Bumi/non-Bumi dichotomy/distinction is at the very heart an expression of feudal political culture of patronage based on the basic exchange equation (between politicians and their constituency) of absolute political loyalty to the ruling elites/party (notwithstanding whatever deficiencies in governance) in exchange (quid pro quo) for its protection from legal consequences if one does wrong, and awarding of positions, contracts and other unfair benefits over others, where all other macro considerations of fairness, justice, rights, fair dealing etc take back seat!
As such a kind of feudal culture seeps and permeates every strand of society together in a seamless web – this has been going on in last 30 years – it naturally tends to influence (or, in vocabulary of detractors, “taints”) the neutrality and fairness of many key/strategic players occupying decision making authority within the institutions of the State, whether they be economic institutions, judiciary, civil service, security enforcement agencies, etc
Everyone learns on which side of the bread to spread the butter.
Which further of course undermines our international competitiveness and irks both locals aspiring for a better future for the country s well as foreign investors evaluating taking positions in the country.
Malaysia’s problems on corruption/international competitiveness/brain drain are structural.
Since the time of Mahathir administration we have seen this feudal political patronage culture based on the Bumiputra/Non Bumiputra axis takes deep root in all corners of the system.
To dismantle and unwind (esp mindsets/habits) that have grown roots for nearly 30 years cannot be achieved even by the sincerest of leader in the short term. Of course this is not an excuse not to start.
#6 by PSM on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 7:36 pm
When will the Sarawakians & Sabahans learn that to UMNO, they are ALL Non-Bumis?
I am truly sorry for Marina BUT I’m sure that she will do very well in Form 6 or now that Bro Kit has highlighted this case, she will suddenly get a call to do Matriculation!
Then again, really, now Marina & her family know what it’s like to be a Non-Bumi in Malaysia (i.e. face discrimination & racisism) & have to compete in an environment that’s not fair (why do you think so many Non-Bumi Malaysians are leaving Malaysia)?!
That’s why we need a system based on “need” & not “race”!
#7 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 7:40 pm
//Is someone trying to say that discrimination, domineering and bigotry are ok so long as they are constitutionally or legally done?// – Lim Kam Put
It never ceases to amaze me how (owing possibly to my poor writing/communication skills, for I can’t think of any other plausible reason) an argument for constitutional challenge can ever be mistaken for that of a constitutional justification though both entail a common necessary explanation of the constitutional aspects of “discrimination, domineering and bigotry”.
#8 by limkamput on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 8:01 pm
Look, constitutional challenge is useless for two possible reasons:
1. You are not going to win because you know why.
2. Even if you win in court, you will lose in the political arena – they will amend the constitution (though a bit difficult now) or discard it, or skewed the implementation and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
The solution lies elsewhere. It never ceases to amaze me why my simple English is so difficult to understand.
#9 by k1980 on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 8:14 pm
I propose that bumi status be rotated annually among the various ethnic groups, as what the great mamak had done once before to the chief ministership of Sabah. What say you, mamak?
#10 by ALtPJK on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 8:38 pm
A corollary to the negative factors (re Jeffrey 31 October 2009 – 6:32 pm ) is the steady inculcating and legitimising of ‘tongkat’ mindset/culture that is pervasive right through the education system, civil service and now even the private sector.
How a country, willingly imposing itself a mental/human capital handicap, can ever compete internationally in industry, trade and technology is one question this controversial ‘bumiputraism’ dichotomy is sure to provide disappointing answers.
A bane to real progress for Malaysia this may be but the tangled mesh of the cancerous roots is too deeply intertwined for the current regime to unravel.
#11 by k1980 on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 8:38 pm
umno is insisting on a single stream school system, but is happy for malays to do 1 relaxing year of matriculation while non-malays have to struggle through 2 years of STPM. Why no single stream pre-U study instead of matriculation and STPM?
#12 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 8:43 pm
//It never ceases to amaze me why my simple English is so difficult to understand.//
You said:
“1. You are not going to win because you know why.
2. Even if you win in court, you will lose in the political arena”.
Where in my postings did I dispute or argue on these 2 points, that they become an issue?
I merely highlight that a constitutional challenge should not be mistaken for that of a constitutional justification though both entail a common necessary explanation of the constitutional aspects of “discrimination, domineering and bigotry”.
So is it my poor writing skills or your poor reading comprehension that mix up the above arguing about issues that have not been disputed, confusing an argument for constitutional challenge with that of constitutional justification ?
#13 by limkamput on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 9:21 pm
Challenge or justification, what difference does it make? Did you not say the following?
1. it is possible to challenge Marina status (one of her parent is Chinese) under article 8 because bumiputraism was never defined in the constitution?
2. it is more difficult to challenge the status of Malay because the term Malay was explicitly defined.
Putting the two together did you not imply that bumiputraism and Malay are justified? The moment you justify that, you justify discrimination, bigotry and domineering. Understand now?
#14 by monsterball on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 11:28 pm
Just vote UMNO out in 13th GE…all problems solved.
#15 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 11:29 pm
// Challenge or justification, what difference does it make? // You’re the only one who thinks they are the same.
///Putting the two together did you not imply that bumiputraism and Malay are justified?///
I shall let readers judge for themselves your powers of reasoning – that putting 1 and 2 implies that one is implying that bumiputraism and Malay are justified. LOL. At a certain point, there’s no need to explain further. You conclude as you wish. I am at a lost for words on how you think.
#16 by OrangRojak on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 11:39 pm
I for one would like to nominate limkamput for this week’s Effort Badge.
#17 by tenaciousB on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 12:23 am
Excuse my out of topic viewpoint but i do support the 1aliran school system in order to promote a unified society and pave the path for a indiscriminate nation.
MCA and MIC refuted the suggestion for obvious reasons that they will cease to become a relevant entity. This is due to the fact if there was a one school there would ultimately be a one political party of all races.
This is an obvious point to be discussed, why wouldn’t they condone a brilliant idea in unifying the country? obviously it jeopardizes their selfish interests in personal monetary gains and political influences for the aforementioned.
the country has voted MCA and MIC as an insignificant political entity in the last elections. what i can’t understand is why wouldn’t UMNO get rid of its wounded, nonbeneficial and counterproductive allies.
Why would they risk their political future by being partners with these morons?
well time will certainly tell very soon the predicament that will befall UMNO. It will be the end of its tyranny indeed.
#18 by jbozz on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 10:46 am
The person who dictate eligible or not eligible strictly follow the 1Malaysia guideline?
#19 by the reds on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 1:31 pm
Marina, I am sorry, but I have to tell you this is Malaysia. What you can do in the next few years is wait for GE13, exercise your right to vote for a better government!
#20 by undertaker888 on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 2:05 pm
marina, they reject you although you have great results. My advice is tell all your relatives and friends to reject this govt in the next election.
#21 by 1problem on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 2:38 pm
enough of this….
all these matter wont resolve
corruption, scholarship, civil-servant-service,
TM-internet, higher learning, police & law matters & ETC
know why?……
cause they are part of BN toys, they sight are too weak to diff…..cause “tiok sai”
the only way is to kick them back to the asshoXX cave is…..GE…..DON”T VOTE BN
I’m very sick of najis & all the BN components….
enough is enough!!!
#22 by OrangRojak on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 2:48 pm
“exercise your right to vote for a better government!”
She’s 17 – Marina’s next opportunity will be to vote against PR!
I still don’t see anything concrete in the latest manifesto to come out from PR in Perak. Why not throw us a few bones to chew on, like a promise to lower the voting age to 18 – like the rest of the world? Wouldn’t it be nice to tell people exactly what they’re voting for?
#23 by rrrol819 on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 8:10 am
My goodness, a few generations down the road, Sarawak will be left with no “Bumiputra” of its own if we don’t amend article 161A(6)(b) of the Federal Constitution!!! Is this how the state gov’t “take care” of its people for 52 years???
#24 by teckwyn on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 2:17 pm
Jeffrey said that the Constitution defines a Malay as being one who “… was born within the Federation of Malaysia before independence on the 31st of August 1957?. This is not true – as I have pointed out previously on this forum. The relevant section of the Constitution actually only refers to the Federation of MALAYA and Singapore- not to Malaysia (which only came into being in 1963). This is an important distinction.
#25 by teckwyn on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 3:07 pm
Sheriff Singh said: “the children and descendents of the Chief Minister are also NOT bumiputras as one parent, their late mother, was a foreigner of Polish descent and not a native”. This is incorrect and shows the danger of passing judgement without looking at all of the facts. The difference between the CM’s kids and Marina is that she does not meet the constitutional definition of a Malay (while a full examination of the facts would allow it to be argued that the CM’s kids do meet this definition).
#26 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 4:16 pm
teckwyn, hasn’t it (ie the constitutional definition of “Malay”) been amended post 1963 (for obviously, “and Singapore” no more applies)?
You said “the difference between the CM’s kids and Marina is that she does not meet the constitutional definition of a Malay”. Does Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution defining “Malay” apply to Sarawakian when Article 161A(6)(b) applying to Sarawak states a bumi to be one whose “the father and mother is a native of Sarawak”?
#27 by ktteokt on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 8:54 pm
So tell me what’s so special about BUMIPUTRAS? Do they have 2 heads, 5 hands and 10 legs?
#28 by hoyoyi on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 2:47 pm
Marina can always apply scholarship from Singapore, she will sure get it. Shame on you, Malaysia, opps, it should be Shame on you, 1Malaysia!
#29 by teckwyn on Saturday, 14 November 2009 - 12:32 am
Jeffrey: no, this section of the constitution has not been amended post-1963 (and it is by no means obvious that “and Singapore” no more applies – on the contrary, it still applies).
And, yes, Article 160(2) can indeed apply to a Sarawakian if all the criteria are met. For that matter, this can even apply to a Mongolian if all the criteria are met – because you have to note that nationality is NOT one of the criteria in Art 160(2).