Until the list of successful awardees of scholarship together with their scores comes out next year nobody would ever believe that the government was interested to respect the word meritocracy.

Article 153 says that reasonable proportion of scholarships and education opportunity would be reserved for Malays. Obviously 90% was not a reasonable proportion. When quota system was followed, the government had to offer places based on the agreed proportion; it cheats nevertheless. When meritocracy is proposed, can the people trust that the government would be sincere in its implementation?

The constitution provides that all Malaysians are equal. There was a time-bound provision to help Malays so that they were able to catch up. Beyond the initially agreed 15 years period for providing and reserving positions for Malays, the desirability of its extension, and if so the period had to be agreed to through a review as enshrined in the original constitution. UMNO did not keep to that promise.

Najib is talking about 1Malaysia, and in the same breath, declaring Malay special rights. When Malaysian government accepts that some citizens, other than the Rulers, enjoy special rights, it just means that the citizens are not equal, contrary to what is provided in the constitution. There cannot be unity among the citizens when they are not fairly and equally treated. So, after 52 years, Najib came out to declare 1Malaysia without the intention of ever adhering to Article 8 of the constitutions that all Malaysians are equal; except the Rulers who are by definition more equal than the rest.

Najib needn’t declare 1Malaysia if he had no intention to comply, but he did. So Najib’s announcement would have ulterior motives. He would ensure that Malays get more than the proportion representing the population composition.

UMNO will never bring Malaysia to the stage where citizens would be equally treated. It is not that the people are racists, or that the true Malays Tulen would insist that the Article 153 would stay perpetually. Unfortunately, Article 160 has brought in NewMalays who have since outnumbered the original Malays, and they know that Malays is a political classification rather than an anthropological one. Pride of Malays means nothing to NEWMalays. In a sense, Malays have lost its meaning, and they are strictly losing their identity rapidly.

To save Malaysia, BN has to disintegrate; that will happen after the next election. Of course, UMNO would think that if they don’t get to rule, there is no point having a peaceful country. But would non-UMNOputras follow their lead?

Racists may be divided into benevolent racists and malignant racists. The formers are those who able to empathize with people who they consider to belong to the same blood line. Though they might believe their ‘race’ to be more superior to others, and they believe that they can work better and cooperate better with people of the same race, they do not actively work against the interests of other races. The malignant racists are those people who might or might not care about the welfare of their own race, but they would be hostile to people who are different from them in terms of bloodline. Racist thought might be inherent in normal human being. It becomes harmful when racists organize people of their own kind to carry out hostile activities against others.

Institutions are organizations which are recognized by the law of the land. When it is the law of the country which favours one racial group against others, it is institutionalized discrimination. That could be mitigated within the agreed context of helping an endangered race, for which protection and special care was needed. For that purpose, the protected ‘species’ ought to be clearly defined, and the number should not be ever increasing. Obviously, the more numerous the beneficiary, the harder is the burden the disadvantaged groups have to bear. Moreover the longer such inequality exist in the society, the worse the intensive polarization based on the characteristics of qualification for the different treatment would arise Thus, persons who deserved such largesse should be controlled to lessen the pains the disadvantage group had to bear.

Article 153 was included in the constitution to be in force for 15 years, and subject to review. It may be reasonable to provide some ‘compensation’ to those who were born before independence for changes which might arise when the change took effect on 31 August, 1957 on Independence Day. For those who were born after independence, they come to this world on the same condition that they found on their birth, which is that people are equal under the constitution. The 15 years duration for special assistance or reservation of quotas for Malays was intended to help Malays to advance in business, profession or occupation, and to help their children to have a head start. It was not intended to allow Malays to avail themselves of unfair advantages; and certainly it was not intended for them to enjoy the unfair advantages from cradle to grave.

With the non-water-tight definition on the terms Malays provided in the constitution, which understandably was intended to be crucial for a limited period, not only those which were wrongly classified anthropologically are so included, but those whose ancestors were not Malayans were included. We have now more NEWMalays than Malays, and they now form the numerical strength to ensure that the unfair advantages remain perpetually. The restrain preventing Malays from asking for the Article 153 to be held in perpetuity was the pride of Malays, according to the late Tun Ismail. But NEWMalays can hardly be expected to empathize with Malays on their pride, and they would not forgo the opportunities the loophole in the constitution provides.

Malay in no longer a race based on anthropological classifications. It is opportunism that people such as Muyyiddin who claimed that the last drop of blood would be spilled to protect Article 153. That was not pure racism; it is racial opportunist.

Religion is a private matter, and though in the past there were religious leaders who led their followers to be belligerent against believers of other religions. In Malaysia, because Muslim is a classification required as membership to the unfair political advantages, people of the relevant religion are now more inclined to ‘protect’ their religion, as though they are larger than the religion, and that they have a monopoly in the country. One wonders how much of their fight was for political interest that avails them of the unfair advantages.

The country is said to be sitting on time bomb because of racial and religious polarization. The institutional set up which allowed the benefit of diversity to be converted to a curse was due to the desire of UMNO leaders to exploit the situations so that they could plunder the state with impunity, and to ensure that they could build political dynasties for ages. The fact that the son of PM becomes PM, and sons of other PMs waiting at the wing testifies to this.

Imranj 78,

You are right to say with regard to Article 153 that the current constitution does not have the clause to provide for a review after 15 years. But the original constitution had it, and the provision for a review after 15 years was removed through the constitutional amendment in 1971, during NOC rule.

When people talk generally about social contract, they have to refer to the written agreement in the form of the constitution, particularly with regard to the relative positions of the people who together obtained independence from the British. The removal of the review provision took away the intended objective of having Article 153 in the constitution; that Article might no longer be needed when Malays have attained the capability not to rely on crutches. Let me repeat what Tun Dr Ismail said, “Malays would forgo Article 153 when they no longer required it, out of pride”. I still believe that Malays, who are classified as Malays like Tun Ismail would do what he said. But NEWMalays have since taken over the political power, and to them the pride of Malays means nothing to them. They enjoy the benefits while Malays suffer the indignity of having to rely on crutches, 51 years after independence.

One smart Alex said that Malaysian constitution does not provide equality when read together, though there is a specific clause on that effect. The anomaly was with regard to Article 153, which was time-bound when it was prepared. In any case, when there are conflicts between different parts of the agreement, it is an accept convention that the paragraphs that appear earlier take precedent.

The electronic version of Malaysian constitution that one gets from Wikepedia does not show the original version, though there are write up explaining the review provision. It is hoped that readers in London would be abe to obtain the original version and post it for reference.