If Mohd Ali Rustam were to be believed, then the Malay race is only one in the world to which other races can enter and be assimilated just by fulfilling the 3 constitutional criteria of (1) converting to Islam, (2) conversing in Malay and (3) following the Malay tradition.

Whilst the whole world defines race based on anthropological terms, our’s is the only one based on legal and constitutional terms: isn’t this odd? Also, is it a soft and subterranean approach at assimilation of other races based on the reward of “special privileges”? Rustam’s suggestion is against the grain of Bangsa Malaysia and celebration of diversity.

There are three other problems:

First not many – even those who covet to partake in special privileges – are convinced about the truth of what Rustam says, at ground level. Ask The Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (KIMMA). It passed a motion in September 2005 at its 30th annual general meeting seeking the government to give Malay status to Indian Muslims born in the country. The contents of the eight-point motion stated amongst others : “The Indian Muslims adopt the three elements but still cannot get the Malay status. If there is a problem in doing so, at least give the Bumiputera status as is being done to the Portuguese”.

Perhaps KIMMA should ask whether its Indian muslims members follow Malay tradition – but what is Malay tradition? Is dressing and image part of tradition? Should the convert wear baju melayu, songkok, tudung and not pelikat sarongs and business shirts as many Indian Muslims do, and if so how often? There is a problem here because many Malays also don western dress, jeans, shirts and trousers with neither songkok or tudung, and if they do that all the time, are they considered having failed one of the three constitutional criteria and if so what becomes of them if not considered a Malay? These are some of the problems associated with defining race based on constitutional terms. (The absurdity is reflected in what Humanly and Taikotai said above).

Second, it will be a double whammy cost for the opportunist to convert to avail himself to Malay privileges and then find the reality on the ground that he is not treated, as KIMMA testifies, as a Malay and could not after conversion exit Islam as the drift of recent court cases evince.

Third, it is also questionable whether “special privileges” are a lure to many people – especially capable people who are not opportunistic in outlook, could stand on their own and with a mindset free to receive the cross winds of the Globalised World – given the debilitating effects of subsidies and reverse discrimination incidental from the crutch of affirmative policies. It is ironical that just when even the previous and present premier have urged the Malays to dispense with the crutches, other races are told by Rustam to become a Malay for the reward of the crutches!

teckwyn,

The intent of (a) and (b) of article 160(2) was to cover citizens. However article 160(2) was promulgated in the Federal Constitution in 1957 prior to Sabah and Sarawak joining Malaysia in 1963 and hence, in unamended form, has not covered Sarawakian and Sabahan Malaysian citizens, which it ought to, there being no rational reason (at least to me) why a Malaysian Chinese or Indian citizen in Peninsular fulfilling constitutional criteria of converting to Islam, conversing in Malay and following the Malay tradition could constitutionally be treated as a ‘Malay’ whilst Sabahan and Sarawakians bumiputras could not. Perhaps no one thought of amending article 160(2) when Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia because this did not appear a big issue (until Rustam’s recent declaration). Whatever the reason, you are right technically in constitutional terms that the wordings of (a) and (b) of Article 160(2) do not cover those before Merdeka Day (or Malaysia day) as the case may be, born in Sabah or Sarawak or born of parents one of whom was born in Sabah or Sarawak or is on that day domiciled in Sabah or Sarawak, as it should otherwise be the case. Thanks for the correction.