Art Harun on ‘Malay Rights’

Visiting the Malay ‘Rights’

By Art Harun

JUNE 18 – I have been labelled anti this and that. Apparently, I am also pro this and that, or the other. Therefore, I am going to begin this article with a disclaimer, just as all accountants do on their reports. This article contains my interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions in respect of the “rights” of the Malays.

And please read the next sentence really slowly. It is not intended to question anything, whether rights or otherwise, belonging to anybody, regardless of his or her race, faith or political leaning.

Malay rights. What a subject. The mere mention of it evokes so many emotions. So much anger and resentment have resulted – on both side of the fence – from this subject.

It has been explored by the likes of Awang Selamat, Mahathir Mohamad, Ibrahim Ali and various NGOs. Our politicians have shouted and screamed about it. Warnings of mayhem and amok have been sounded in case of a challenge against these rights.

Even HRH the Sultan of Perak had spoken about it recently. But I notice not a single person out of 27 million of us has actually taken the trouble to spell out what these rights actually are. And so, let me be the first one to do it.

The supreme law of this country is our Federal Constitution (“FC”). That means every law and policy must be in adherence with the FC. Otherwise, such law or policy would be void for being unconstitutional.

We therefore have to look at the provisions of the FC to determine these so called rights of the Malays.

Generally, article 8 provides that all persons are equal before the law. I say “generally” because there are exceptions to this rule.

Clause 2 of article 8 says that there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender except as expressly authorised by the FC.

So, there you go. All of us are only equal up to the extent as provided by the FC. This means we may be discriminated against if the FC expressly allows it.

Let’s cut a long story short. Article 153 of the FC is right at the centre of this issue. It is a fairly long article, with 10 clauses in it. Basically, these are what that article provides.

Firstly, it says that HRH the YDP Agong has the responsibility to safeguard the “special position” of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Notice that the words used are “special position”, not “special rights.” Notice also that the safeguarding is not only restricted to the Malays but also the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (the “Natives”).

But that is not all. It also says that HRH the YDP Agong is also responsible to safeguard the “legitimate interests” of other communities.

Notice the differences at what is being safeguarded. As for the Malays and the Natives, it is their special position. While in respect of other communities, it is their legitimate interests.

At this juncture, we should know what Malay is. Article 160 defines Malay as a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.

It is not a scientific definition. It is one of the most absurd definitions I had ever come across in any written law. How could you define Malay as a person who speaks Malay and conforms to Malay custom when the very word which was sought to be defined in that definition is the word “Malay”? It is like defining a “mango” as “a fruit which tastes like mango”. Anyway, I digress.

Under article 153, HRH the YDP Agong is given the power to do the followings:

A. To exercise his functions under the FC in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and Natives;

B. To ensure the reservation for the Malays and Natives of positions in the public service, scholarship, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges given by the Federal Government in such proportion as he may deem reasonable;

C. To ensure the reservation for the Malays and Natives of any permits and licenses if such permits or licenses are needed for the operation of any trade or business as he may deem reasonable; and,

D. To ensure reservation for the Malays and Natives of places in any university, college and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) or its equivalent in such proportion as he may deem reasonable in the event the number of qualified person for any course or study is more than the number of places available.

The rest of article 153 is concerned with the prohibition against depriving licences or permits from the non-Malays or non-Natives if they have been in possession of such licenses or permits all along. This is beyond the scope of this article.

The most important thing to be noted from this provision is the fact that there is no right whatsoever conferred to the Malays or Natives.

The provision does not say, for example, that “the Malays or natives of Sabah and Sarawak shall be allocated 75 per cent of all places in universities, colleges or other education institutions, or 65 per cent of all scholarships available in Malaysia every year.”

When we speak of “rights”, we speak of entitlements which are possessed by a person or body of persons. These entitlements would then be enforceable by law.

Taking my example in the previous sentence, a class action to enforce such rights may be brought by the Malays or Natives if such rights are denied them in any year if the provision in the FC is couched as such.

However, that is not the case in the FC. What is provided is a power to HRH the YDP Agong to reserve licences, permits, scholarships, places in universities or positions in public service for the Malays and Natives in such proportion as he deems reasonable. That power is undeniable and clearly defined.

The FC however, in my humble opinion, stops short from conferring any enforceable right.

Question may be asked as to how may HRH the YDP Agong exercise that power. The answer is in clause (2) of article 153.

Clause (2) provides that power shall be exercised by HRH the YDP Agong in accordance with article 40. That simply means that the “power” conferred to HRH in article 153 is not exercisable by HRH at his discretion at all. That power is exercisable on the advice of the Cabinet or any Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. By convention, that person is the Prime Minister.

In the big scheme of things then, HRH the YDP Agong does not have any say on how those things are to be “reserved” for the Malays and the Natives.

Essentially, it is the Government, through a Cabinet decision, which draws out the policy on how this power is to be exercised. Basically, the Cabinet decides the criteria for such “reservation” and also for the distribution of the matters mentioned in article 153.

That means, all these while, it is not Umno alone who decides. It is the Barisan Nasional as a whole, which means the matter has all along been decided by Umno, MCA, MIC and all the component parties within the BN.

Nowadays questions have been raised as to why students with lower scores could gain admission into universities while students (non-Malays) with higher scores could not. The same question is raised with respect to the grant of scholarship.

In the commercial world, questions are being raised on the distribution of government contracts and also the requirement for a certain percentage of Malay shareholdings in corporations.

On the Government side, these questions have been received with absolute disdain. These are treated as a challenge of the rights of the Malays. Rhetoric abounds. Shouts of “ungrateful migrants” could be heard.

There is even suggestion that to question these matters is to question the power of the Ruler under article 153. The “social contract” is referred to.

In my humble opinion, that is misconceived. Nobody is asking for HRH the YDP Agong’s power under article 153 be removed.

I think, rather, what is being questioned is the policy which underlies the exercise of the power as opposed to the power itself.

It must be noted that article 153 repeatedly provides that HRH the YDP Agong shall exercise his power as “he may deem reasonable”. Perhaps such “reasonableness” is the key.

We profess to have a democratic Government and system of politics. If so, surely Government policies, especially those which touch the very basic and fundamental rights of the people, such as the right to education for all citizens, could be discussed, analysed and even questioned.

And surely, a good Government whose heart is with the people and the country would not dismiss such questions nonchalantly.

Otherwise, I suppose, the people could effect a change in such policies by changing the policy makers. – The Malaysian Insider

Lest we forget

MEMPERLEKEH PERJUANGAN UMNO

1. Terdapat usaha berterusan untuk memperlekeh perjuangan UMNO dan orang Melayu untuk kemerdekaan.

2. Kononnya orang yang pertama memperjuangkan kemerdekaan ialah Chin Peng, pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya. Chin Peng lah yang cuba membebaskan Malaya daripada penjajah British sebelum mana-mana orang Melayu mencuba melakukannya.

3. Perjuangan UMNO adalah kemudian dari itu.

4. Chin Peng bukanlah orang yang pertama yang memberontak melawan British. Sebelum Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM atau MCP – Malayan Communist Party), sudah ada Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) yang bergerak sebelum Perang Dunia II. Mereka tidak mendapat sokongan penuh daripada orang Melayu Semenanjung kerana mereka cenderung ke kiri. Dengan itu perjuangan mereka tidak begitu berhasil. Namun terdapat beberapa pertubuhan yang secara tidak langsung mewarisi perjuangan mereka. Malay Nationalist Party atau Party Kebangsaan Melayu, Angkatan Belia Insaf dan Putera adalah di antara pertubuhan yang meneruskan perjuangan KMM. Mereka juga tidak mendapat sokongan daripada majoriti orang Melayu kerana disyaki dipengaruhi oleh Komunis.

5. Selepas KMM barulah datang Chin Peng dan PKM. Chin Peng berjuang untuk mendirikan sebuah Communist Dictatorship di mana dia akan menjadi diktator. Bagi orang yang bukan Komunis, terutama bagi orang Malayu kejayaan Chin Peng bukan akan membawa kemerdekaan tetapi mengganti penjajahan British dengan penjajahan Komunis pimpinan Chin Peng dengan majoriti daripada pemerintahan terdiri daripada kaum Cina. Melayu yang akan ada dalam pemerintahan Komunis ini hanyalah hiasan, seperti juga kita lihat keadaan di Singapura sekarang.

6. Bangsa Melayu dan Bahasa Melayu lambat laun akan terhapus.

7. Sebab itu Melayu yang sedikit yang mirip ke kiri pun tidak ingin menyertai MCP. Keadaan dalam MCP sepanjang ia mencuba rebut kuasa, mulanya daripada British dan kemudian daripada Kerajaan Campuran Perikatan dan Barisan Nasional, memberi gambaran akan pemerintahan Chin Peng jika ia berjaya. Orang Cina Komunis akan menjadi pemerintah tetapi Komunis Melayu dengan orang Melayu dan India akan diberi peranan yang kecil dan tidak bermakna sama sekali.

8. Inilah sebabnya yang orang Melayu tidak menyertai pemberontakan MCP melawan British, dan tidak anggapnya sebagai perjuangan untuk kemerdekaan Malaya.

9. Dengan kesedaran dan kepercayaan ini maka orang Melayu telah tubuh badan yang tersendiri untuk betul-betul memperjuangkan kemerdekaan daripada penjajahan British. Badan yang ditubuh ialah UMNO.

10. Orang Melayu tidak percaya yang pemberontakan bersenjata akan berkesan. Ini adalah kerana negara yang akan di warisi jika menang sekalipun sudah tentu akan rosak teruk kerana peperangan.

11. Pendekatan orang Melayu dan UMNO mengambilkira kemampuan mereka. Mungkin perjuangan UMNO tidak gah seperti perjuangan kemerdekaan bersenjata di negara-negara lain, tetapi kemerdekaan yang dicapai oleh UMNO lebih bermakna kerana Malaysia dapat menegak pendirian sendiri dan mengecam kuasa besar di dunia apabila mereka membuat kesalahan.

12. Sesungguhnya UMNO lah yang perjuangkan kemerdekaan sehingga berjaya mencapai kemerdekaan yang bermakna. Chin Peng berjuang untuk mendirikan pemerintahan diktator Komunis yang akan menjajah orang Melayu dan kaum-kaum lain juga. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

Mahathir on Mahathirism and the Extremists

MAHATHIRISM

1. One way of demonising an opponent, particularly a political opponent, is to give him a derogatory label.

2. At one time Lee Kuan Yew labeled me as a Malay ultra. After that caught on, I could do nothing that would not be labeled as extreme. Even if I make the most innocent statement, it would be considered as extreme, as racist.

3. It took me decades to live it down. When I was appointed Deputy Prime Minister there was consternation among the Chinese. What was going to happen to Malaysia when this Malay ultra took over the Prime Ministership?

4. However, by the time I stepped down I had managed to belie that description. In the 1999 Election it was Chinese votes which helped give me the 2/3 majority in Parliament.

5. Now the doomsday label is Mahathirism. Such was the fear of this thing called Mahathirism that Tan Sri Muhyiddin had to assure the public that Najib’s ascendancy to the Premiership would not bring back Mahathirism. The foreign press seem to imply authoritarian Government with Mahathirism.

6. No one has yet described the rule of Dato Seri Abdullah Badawi as Badawism. It must be because he is said to be liberal and free from authoritarianism. But is he?

7. It appears to be simply because the mainstream media, print or electronic, is totally controlled by him through his hatchet man, Kalimullah. And Kali ensures that the media plays up Abdullah’s supposed liberalism, his transparency, his tolerance of the press etc. That the media blacks out any news that is not flattering of him is not noticed by readers, especially the foreign press.

8. Until the bloggers came into the picture and their blogs became extremely popular as they reported the truth, the black-out was effective. Now Kali’s media reports some of the news and views appearing on the blogs.

9. But still the general public is not aware of the kind of authoritarianism of Abdullah. Ministers and civil servants critical of him have been removed. Many are in cold storage. Tan Sri Sanusi Junid who was President of the International Islamic University was one of those removed. No one has been appointed to his vacant place yet.

10. A whole bunch of journalists working with the UMNO owned paper had to resign, to be replaced by Kali’s nominees from Singapore.

11. But Kali has friends amongst the foreign journalists. So we do not hear of Badawism. But privately people have given all kinds of uncomplimentary labels to the 5 years of misrule by the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

12. By now people can draw their own conclusions as to whether Mahathirism in whatever form has returned. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

THE EXTREMISTS

1. We are all held to ransom by extremists. We want to be rational and we all want to do what is best for ourselves and our country. We all want the best for our children and their future. But we cannot do all these because if we do we will be accused of being traitors, not supporting our own community or our own religion. We will be demonized etc.etc.

2. So willy-nilly we become the instruments of these extremists and their narrow jingoism, to our own detriment.

3. In Malaysia we are constantly being asked to confront each other on racial issues. Disputes cannot be resolved by rigidity in our stand. But we have to be rigid if we do not want to be vilified.

4. It is a miracle that this multi-racial country has remained stable and peaceful for so long. If the extremists can have their way we would all be at each others’ throats. We would be demonstrating in the streets and at the airports. If we do not accede to the wishes of the extremists then we cannot even make a living, there will be no investments and no jobs for the workers.

5. Today we are grappling with the problem of education. We have three streams and woe betide anyone who suggests that we should not have them. We talk of liberal society, of free speech, but if you express some commonsensical views you would be labelled racist.

6. Then there is the controversy over the teaching of science and mathematics in English. We curse the person who had proposed this, calling him a betrayer of his mother tongue, of the national language. Then there are those who want to carry out a nationwide strike if the policy is not changed.

7. I am ready to surrender to the extremists, to pay the ransom demanded. What does it matter if the country goes up in flames, if the extremists win the day? What does it matter if the life of our children and their children is blighted? Anything for a quiet life. I want to be a member of the silent majority and just acquiesce. However the habit of a lifetime just refuse to go. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

Nurul Izzah: We must continue to fight for change; the first battle is to change ourselves for the better

Working for Malaysia’s future

By Nurul Izzah Anwar and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad

APRIL 26 – There has been a lot of negative attention on the Parti Keadilan Rakyat lately. We have come under scrutiny over the recent events in Perak, Kedah and now Penang. As young leaders who have faith in the party’s vision and future, we believe that it’s important to reflect on what we have achieved and examine the challenges ahead.

Keadilan is a young party, the result of a 2003 merger between Parti Keadilan Nasional, founded in 1999 and Parti Rakyat Malaysia, founded in 1955. It came about in part due to the Reformasi movement that emerged following the dismissal and incarceration of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 1998. The movement, as laid out in the Permatang Pauh Declaration, was built on the idea of upholding the dignity of man and the need for the continuous betterment of society.

Both of us became involved in the party when the Reformasi broke out, though under different circumstances.

Izzah, who was a 17-year old university student then, was forced into the public eye as she was Anwar’s eldest daughter. Nazmi, who was a year younger and still in school, was reflecting on how the forces that were unleashed could somehow offer something new to Malaysian politics that had atrophied under Dr. Mahathir. As Izzah travelled the country giving ceramahs not only to defend her father’s innocence but also increasingly to articulate the meaning and significance of the Reformasi movement to ordinary Malaysians, Nazmi attempted to explore the possibility and meaning of a new politics for the younger generation as a writer in the alternative media.

We became acquainted in 2001, as part of a group of young Malaysian professionals finding ways as to how we could contribute to change in our country. In spite of the party’s small presence then, we were all excited and idealistic to be part of the cause to lay the foundations of a truly progressive Malaysian political party.

Three years later, the party was dealt a blow when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi hijacked our message of reform and won an overwhelming victory in polls conducted under dubious circumstances. The party was left with a solitary Parliamentary seat. Soon however, Anwar was released and engaged in a conversation with those inside and outside the party. He charted a more multiracial agenda, against the advice of many. Some were clearly discomfited by this development, and left the party. They either could not accept the shift or felt that no matter how idealistically attractive this paradigm movement was, it spelt political disaster.

But like many young members of the party, we felt that this was the right path to take, the logical extension of Reformasi. Nazmi, in particular decided to take the next step by working for Anwar after completing his studies. We were joined by experienced professionals such as Ibrahim Yaacob and Din Merican, along with talented young Malaysians such as Harvard graduate and blogger Nathaniel Tan as well as UTM student leader and Silicon Valley engineer Sim Tze Tzin.

As the 12th General Elections loomed, both of us along with Sim and Ibrahim were considered as possible candidates for seats. We were reluctant at first, but as many others refused to run under Keadilan’s banner-feeling that the party would surely be defeated- we decided to do it. Izzah was 27, and Nazmi, 26, making us among the youngest candidates in the elections.

It occurred to us from very early on that the young Opposition candidates should work together. Together with our colleagues like Tony Pua and Hannah Yeoh from DAP, we campaigned hard in each other’s constituency, drawing inspiration from the courage and conviction of ordinary Malaysians who wanted change. It was truly people’s power – Makkal Sakti – that defied the odds and trumped cynicism. We were fortunate to win our respective seats and be a part of the now legendary story of the 8th of March.

Keadilan as a result increased its Parliamentary presence from one to 31 seats. Not only that, four states along the West Coast fell to a coalition of PKR, DAP and PAS that eventually became the Pakatan Rakyat. What was more impressive and significant was that a multiracial band of MPs and state assemblypersons won on Keadilan’s ticket, making Keadilan the most successful experiment in multiracial politics in Malaysia to-date.

But the reality of victory also dawned upon us as the euphoria of the 8th of March faded away. We had to meet the manifold expectations of our constituents who voted us in. We had to ensure that the voices of the people were heard in the legislatures and corridors of power.

Nazmi and many other state assemblypersons in the five states had the added responsibility of actually governing, trying to make a 50-year establishment embrace reform and progress.

We immediately saw the limits of operating within the confinements of a governmental system that had become dominated by the executive branch. The people of Kuala Lumpur as a Federal Territory remain dependant to the autonomous and powerful KL City Hall. With no say on budget allocations and choice of Mayor, improvements in housing allocation, delivery and services remain marginal at best. They, unlike their counterparts elsewhere do not have the right to vote for a State Assembly. That is why the movement towards holding local council elections – that can and will start in Pakatan Rakyat states – must persist.

Being wakil rakyats meant that we could no longer confine ourselves to criticising from the sidelines, but actually delivering on our promises to the voters. This involved meeting our constituents that brought their problems to us continuously at all hours. This touched and exposed us to the challenges they, the ordinary men and women of Malaysia have to face each and every day and how we have to do everything within our power to help them better their lives.

We also began to realise that change is unavoidable, especially in our own parties. All political parties evolve, and this process is more often that not tumultuous. In the US for example, the Republicans were the party that freed the slaves under Abraham Lincoln. Now, the Democrats, who opposed Lincoln’s reforms in the 19th century nominated Barack Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2008, who as we know is the country’s first African-American Commander-in-Chief. Nothing is constant in politics, least of all political parties.

In Malaysia, Umno, which was once a party of teachers and village officials, is now a party of racial demagogues and crony-capitalists.

On the other hand, DAP and PAS that used to represent a narrow range of constituencies have become more open and inclusive than ever before. The example of Bukit Gantang and the many mixed constituencies that returned a Pakatan representative last year is testament to this.

The growing momentum for change is bearing down not only on Umno and the Barisan Nasional but also on Pakatan Rakyat. The former responding to this challenge by dithering and relying on the most dishonest sort of triangulation. The latter is, though the path has not always been smooth, is heeding the call.

Keadilan grew from a small coalition of people that came together during Reformasi to a Malaysian political party that is based on hope, progress and a new brand of politics.

Just over a year ago before the elections, when we campaigned across the country, many were surprised that Keadilan still existed.

When we walked up the rusty elevators in Kampung Kerinchi and Desa Mentari, we had to convince ordinary Malaysians that we could offer a genuine alternative to the government.

When we called up our contacts and acquaintances to help out, we became used to both polite and direct rejections. The path we took was certainly not the path of least resistance, but it was the choice of our conviction.

Today, Malaysians from all walks of life, including Malay doctors, Indian college students and Chinese businessmen come together in good faith in our divisions.

We have committed Christians and pious Muslims in our committees. All are eager to hoist the party flag that the people hardly recognised before.

We have unsung heroes like Muslim activist Mohamed Ali Ghazali, small businessmen S. Meng Yee and Vinod Sharma, all working behind the scenes, doing their bit for the party without any thought or expectation of reward. Our victory has made it easier now to get people come and join Keadilan, but we still have to make sure that they understand the struggle and sacrifices that the road ahead demands.

We spoke about renewable energy, economic co-operation, climate change, refugees, urban planning and public transport in Parliament and the State Assembly, but all of this was swept under the radar of the controlled mainstream media.

Our young Pakatan colleagues, including Yusmadi Yusoff in Parliament as well as Amirudin Shari and Gan Pei Nei in the Selangor State Assembly have all made an impact in their speeches that impressed everyone in the legislature. In our constituencies we have set up free health clinics, voluntary tuition centres and crime fighting campaigns by empowering the community. Yet, the mainstream media prefers to focus on sensationalised stories rather than substantive news.

Obviously, any growing organisation will have its ups and downs. Just as we should be credited for our successes, it is just as important that we must be accountable for our shortfalls.

We cannot deflect our own undoing. Some are clearly our own weaknesses, but others reflect the lack of human capital and institutional structure that is a problem across the Malaysian political spectrum. As we continue to build Keadilan and Pakatan Rakyat as a party of the future, be prepared for more ups and downs.

But we are a democratic and open organisation, and we always prefer to resolve our difficulties in the open rather than under the cloak-and-dagger of spin.

The important thing is that in spite of all the difficulties we have faced, we continue to attract the best and brightest Malaysians to push for an inclusive political party, a party that upholds our main objective of establishing a just society and a democratic, progressive and united country.

We have, stated above done a lot for the people, but we do not for one second expect them to be satisfied with just this. We do not ask for support or gratitude in return, but simply that Malaysians continue the spirit of the 8th of March and pressure the Federal Government to increase our civil liberties and political freedoms.

Malaysia’s leaders need to always listen and learn from the people, and this is something that we, the young leaders of Keadilan and Pakatan pledge to do.

The service and dedication that we have rendered to the people will continue as long as we hold office and beyond. We consider this to be the true meaning of ‘putting the people first’. We will do this even in our own house.

Keadilan is in the process of revamping our constitution to ensure that the party is able to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. We want to empower to our grassroots. Our Youth and Women’s wings too, are engaged in massive training exercises from Perlis to Sabah to build the party’s human capital for the long-term. We have sought to improve our election machinery to complement the experience of our partners in Pakatan Rakyat.

We are also open to the idea of more far-reaching reforms to devolve power to the ordinary members of the party, including having party primaries for national leadership positions or even for to select Parliamentary, State Assembly and Local Council candidates.

We can institutionalise debate as part of the campaigning for party positions. We can go further in ensuring that one of the  objectives of our Women’s wing is to make the idea of having at least 30 per cent of our leaders and election candidates as women a reality.

We understand that some Malaysians might get tired with all the drama that has transpired thus far. Some might be losing patience with us. But the choice is clear between the potential of Keadilan and Pakatan Rakyat driven by the young compared to the BN’s tired false power-sharing model where the shadow of the past looms large.

Keadilan will continue to fight for change. The first battle is to fight to change ourselves for the better.

NURUL IZZAH ANWAR, 28, is Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai as well as Keadilan Lembah Pantai Division’s Pro-Tem Head. She graduated from Universiti Tenaga Nasional in electronic and electrical engineering before furthering her studies at the School for Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, US in International Relations. She maintains a web presence at www.nurulizzah.com. – The Malaysian Insider

Note:

Emphasis is Alhaj’s

My joint article in the Malaysian Insider: Working for Malaysia’s future (2)

Di bawah payung patriotisma: matinya seorang Nasionalis

Hero Melayu Sarawak

Oleh Michael Sering

USIANYA ketika itu baru 17 tahun dan menjadi pelatih guru. Namun semangat juang bagi menentang British yang ingin kembali menguasai Sarawak selepas Perang Dunia Kedua cukup mengagumkan.

Rosli Dhoby yang berjuang menuntut kemerdekaan Sarawak daripada Inggeris berakhir ke tali gantung pada 2 Februari 1950, selepas menikam Gabenor Duncan Stewart, di Sibu, pada 3 Disember 1949. Semangat kental yang mahu melihat negeri kelahirannya berkerajaan sendiri masih diingati sehingga kini.

Anak muda yang dilahirkan pada 1932 di Sibu menganggotai Gerakan Pemuda Melayu (GPM) yang ditubuhkan bagi menentang keluarga Brooke yang kalah dalam Perang Dunia Kedua tetapi mahu menyerahkan Sarawak kepada pentadbiran British selepas 1945.

Pengkaji Sejarah Sarawak, Dr Chang Pat Foh, berkata tindakan Rosli Dhoby adalah sebahagian sentimen antipenjajah di kalangan penduduk tempatan yang lahir selepas Perang Dunia Kedua.

“Penduduk tempatan mahu keluarga Brooke (yang memerintah Sarawak dari 1839-1942) menyerahkan Sarawak kepada mereka untuk memerintah sendiri dan bukan menjual Sarawak kepada British dengan harga satu juta pound.

Tindakan Sir Charles Vyner Brooke itu mencetuskan kemarahan penduduk Sarawak yang merasakan negeri mereka menjadi barang dagangan yang boleh dijual beli,” katanya pada satu majlis dialog Sejarah Hero Melayu pada Zaman Awal Sarawak, di sini, baru-baru ini.

Tindakan Charles menjual dan menyerahkan Sarawak kepada pentadbiran British pada 1 Julai 1946 mencetus semangat penentangan di kalangan penduduk tempatan terutama golongan cerdik pandai, kakitangan kerajaan dan guru.

Sebelum itu, dua Ahli Parlimen British, D R Rees Williams dan L D Gammans melawat Sarawak pada Mac 1946 untuk mendapatkan pandangan penduduk mengenai isu penyerahan Sarawak sebelum dikemukakan kepada Majlis Negeri untuk kelulusan.

Penduduk tempatan tidak memahami maksud sebenar penyerahan dan isu itu yang kemudian diluluskan selepas berdebat di Majlis Negeri dengan memihak kepada sokongan penyerahan iaitu 19 undi menyokong berbanding 16 undi menentang.

Keputusan itu menyebabkan bermula 1 Julai 1946, British memerintah Sarawak, bagaimanapun, ramai penduduk tempatan tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan berkenaan.

Guru dan kakitangan kerajaan dari kalangan orang Melayu paling ramai menentang penyerahan termasuk Rosli serta mereka yang menganggap penyerahan itu tidak sah dari segi undang-undang dan sebaliknya menuntut kemerdekaan Sarawak.

Rasa tidak puas hati berterusan terutama di kalangan orang Melayu yang kemudian menubuhkan GPM untuk menentang penjajah.

Atas rasa cintakan tanah air, Rukun 13 yang dianggotai 13 ahli GPM yang turut disertai Rosli mengadakan perjumpaan di Jalan Queensway, Sibu pada 21 Februari 1949 untuk mengusir Gabenor penjajah dan wakil yang lain.

Puncak penentangan GPM tiba selepas Gabenor British kedua, Duncan Stewart yang mentadbir Sarawak membuat lawatan pertama ke Sibu.

Mereka merancang mengambil peluang itu ketika Stewart melawat Sibu pada 3 Disember 1949, tarikh Rosli dipilih untuk menikam Stewart bagi memberikan gambaran kepada Inggeris yang masanya sudah tiba bagi Sarawak untuk merdeka.

Pada jam 9 pagi, ketika penduduk Sibu berkumpul bagi menyambut Stewart dan beberapa pegawai Inggeris yang tiba dalam satu barisan panjang sambil pelajar mengibarkan bendera Inggeris dan Sarawak, Rosli pula bersedia ditengah-tengah orang ramai dengan rakannya Morsidi Sidek yang menyamar sebagai jurugambar.

Kira-kira 9.30 pagi ketika Gabenor bergerak ke arahnya, Rosli terus mengeluarkan badik (senjata tradisi yang disapu racun) dan meluru serta menikam perut, sambil melaungkan perkataan: “keluar dari Sarawak atau kamu mati”, pada masa yang sama Morsidi pula menyerang pegawai Inggeris, yang hanya dikenali sebagai Mr Dilks.

Mereka berdua ditangkap polis di tempat kejadian, manakala Stewart yang dalam keadaan kritikal dihantar ke Hospital Lau King Howe Sibu sebelum diterbangkan ke Singapura pada pagi esoknya dan meninggal dunia tujuh hari selepas kejadian.

Pada 15 Disember 1949, Rosli dan Morsidi Sidek serta dua lagi rakan seperjuangan mereka, Awang Ramli Matsaruddin dan Bujang Suntong dihukum gantung sehingga mati di Penjara Pusat Kuching.

Pada awal pagi, 2 Mac 1950, Rosli dan Morsidi Sidek, digantung di Penjara Pusat Kuching, di Jalan Tabuan, Kuching, namun British tidak membenarkan jenazah mereka dibawa keluar dari kawasan penjara.

Tindakan itu kononnya bagi mengelakkan tunjuk perasaan dan bantahan ahli keluarga serta pihak antipenjajahan terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadap mereka berdua, sebaliknya dikebumikan di satu sudut pekarangan Penjara Kuching, tanpa sebarang pengenalan pada kubur.

Nasib sama menimpa Awang Rambi dan Bujang Suntong yang dihukum mati pada 23 Mac tahun yang sama turut dikebumikan tanpa nesan.

Pada 1996, Kerajaan Sarawak merasakan adalah tidak wajar untuk wira dan nasionalis berkenaan kekal terpenjara selepas dihukum gantung 46 tahun dulu.

Dengan persetujuan ahli keluarga, kubur Rosli dan tiga rakannya digali semula dan dikebumikan dengan sempurna di tempat kelahiran asal mereka iaitu di Sibu.

Pada 2 Mac 1996, kubur keempat-empat wira itu digali semula dan tinggalan jasad dikeluarkan dan dibaluti dengan bendera Sarawak dengan penuh penghormatan sebagai pahlawan ke Padang Merdeka dan dibawa dengan dua helikopter Nuri ke Sibu yang disambut lebih 2,000 warga Sibu.

Jasad mereka dikebumikan di perkuburan Masjid An Nur pada 2 Mac 1996 iaitu bersamaan tarikh Rosli dijatuhkan hukuman gantung.

Bagi penjajah British, Rosli adalah penjenayah, namun bagi penduduk Malaysia, beliau adalah wira yang berjuang dan menggadai nyawa untuk memerdekakan negeri ini dari cengkaman penjajahan. – mforum.cari.com.my

Mahathir’s Ketuanan Melayu

Dr M says there is no Ketuanan Melayu without parity

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 4 – Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed joined the roiling debate on race relations by declaring there was no such thing as Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay Supremacy because racial parity had not been achieved yet.

He also said that Malaysians were not yet ready for freedom of speech, while he also expressed doubts about Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s leadership abilities.

Speaking on a special interview with Riz Khan on satellite television station Al-Jazeera, he said that Malays were in fact, the underdogs.

“There is no such thing as Ketuanan Melayu. We are the underdog.

“The shoe-polisher is not the Tuan (master). The man who pays you is the Tuan. I used to have a Chinese driver, he called me Tuan,” he quipped.

Dr Mahathir defended the Malay affirmative action policies in Malaysia despite the fact that Malays formed the majority of the country, whereas affirmative action in other countries were implemented to help minorities.

“It is not about majority or minority. It is to address the disparity.

“The Chinese dominate the economy but the majority is poor and we need to bring them up to achieve parity,” he said.

Having been in office for over two decades, Malaysia’s longest serving Prime Minister added that the stronger presence of the Malays in the political field was to balance out the dominance of the Chinese in the economy.

He also added that there was nothing to stop the country from having a non-Malay Prime Minister so long as “he has the support of the majority.”

When Khan suggested that the system was skewed to the Malays, Dr Mahathir disagreed, saying “it is not skewed, it is in the constitution.”

Dr Mahathir also insisted that he was a Malay and not an Indian. Khan had implied that Dr Mahathir had tried to deny his Indian ancestry in the past.

“There is a lot of foreign blood in this country… we are at the crossing point between the East and West,” Mahathir replied, adding that he is Malay by definition.

He also expressed concerns that current Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak might not step up to the premiership after the March Umno party polls despite winning the presidency unconstested.

Dr Mahathir had recently said that his successor and current Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi may choose to stay on as PM despite not being Umno president, which he claims will be to the detriment of the party and country.

“Najib has not shown any strength in the political field. He is more a follower than a leader and he must change that,” Dr Mahathir explained.

Khan then asked if this “change” meant a reversion to “Mahathirism.”

“Mahathirism… I do not know what that is,” was the elder statesman’s reply.

He rejected the idea that his rule was autocratic but merely “sensible” due to the fact that Malaysia is “prone to instability” as it is a multiracial society. He further suggested that Mahathirism was synonymous with economic development instead.

On this point, he also criticised the level of openness practised by the current administration, stating that the country is not ready for such liberalisation.

“They say it is good to be more open but it is premature. The people do not understand freedom of speech and it has caused racial tension,” he said.

He told Khan that in his tenure as Prime Minister, such matters were discussed between leaders behind closed doors. He concurred with the suggestion that racial sentiments were more heated today than during his premiership as “now, the different races are at each other’s throats.” – The Malaysian Insider

Mahathir realism on race and politics

RACISM AND 2008 ELECTIONS

Nov 17, 2008

1. When the Barisan Nasional did badly in the March 2008 General Election, foreign observers and many in this country were jubilant because they claim that it marked the demise of racial politics and racial parties in Malaysia.

2. I did not agree with this simplistic view and I had put my thoughts on this blog. I believed that it was rather protest against the failures of the Abdullah Government that caused many Barisan Nasional members and supporters to vote for the opposition. But many still insist that race based politics is no longer relevant in Malaysia. Is it?

3. If it is because the Malaysian electorate had rejected racial politics, why did they vote for such parties as PAS, a very Malay Muslim party, and DAP, a Chinese dominated party. Even the Keadilan is made up of violently racist Hindraf Indians, Chinese dissatisfied with the MCA’s representation of the Chinese in BN and self-serving Malays who could not find a place in the other Malay parties.

4. These three parties did not campaign for human rights or open Governments or even against the Internal Security Act. PAS had made no secret of their Islamic State pretensions. DAP talked of Malaysian Malaysia which was the battle cry of its very Chinese PAP antecedents of Singapore (no non-Chinese PM) and Keadilan talked about reforms etc., but the stress was on Hindu Rights and anti-Malay racism.

5. Their accredtied supporters who may really subscribe to their creeds had never been big enough to make them strong opposition parties in the past. They were never able to deny the BN a 2/3rd majority. It should be remembered that Keadilan won only one seat in the 2004 elections. The other two, DAP and PAS did not do much better either.

6. It was the defection by the BN party members which resulted in the opposition parties, regardless of the quality of their candidate getting the large number of votes to win so many more seats than they or anybody else expected.

7. Apart from the voters supporting the essentially race based opposition parties, the claim that it was the rejection of racial politics which led to the poor results by the BN has also not been borne out by the attitudes and debates by Malaysians post 2008 elections.

8. What we are witnessing today is an explosion of racial politics that is more bitter and blatant than ever before. Even the least observant cannot fail to notice how Malaysian politics now is more about racial inequities than about liberalism, human rights, openness etc.

9. True there has been quite a lot of discussion on the ISA. But most of the angry and bitter discussion is about Malay “privileges”, about the Social Contract, about the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister being Malays, about UMNO bullying, about being or not being immigrants, about Malay dominance. Even the criticisms regarding the way judges are appointed or promoted have elements of race that is hardly disguised.

10. Truly Malaysian politics have not been decoupled from racial sentiments and loyalties. And it is going to remain so for as long as the different races prefer to be separated and divided, prefer to strongly uphold their languages, cultures and their historical origins and links. All that is said about reforms and liberalism is mere lip service. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

Melayu Bertolak Ansur atau Kelumpuhan?

A Kadir Jasin

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

KALAU difikirkan kecelakaan yang menimpa orang Melayu hari ini, kita sebenarnya harus berasa sangat malu menjadi orang Melayu.

Saya malu menjadi orang Melayu. Bukan sangat kerana orang Melayu dan bangsa Melayu dicemuh oleh bangsa-bangsa lain, tetapi kerana paralysis atau kelumpuhan bangsa saya yang disebabkan anak bangsa saya sendiri.

Saya malu kerana segala-gala yang buruk dan negatif dikaitkan dengan orang Melayu – rasuah dan politik wang, ketidakcekapan dan kehambaran, mat rempit dan kaki gian, pemalas dan curi tulang.

Saya tidak mahu atau tidak boleh bercakap bagi pihak orang lain. Saya hanya boleh bercakap bagi pihak diri saya sendiri dan kelompok kecil yang saya wakili.

Sebenarnya, kalau saya sedikit sebanyak masih percaya kepada diri saya dan kepada kebaikan bangsa saya, keyakinan itu datang daripada rakan-rakan bukan Melayu saya.

Mereka sering mengatakan kepada saya, negara ini memerlukan orang Melayu yang baik untuk memimpin dan mentadbir dengan baik. Yang mereka tidak mahu adalah orang Melayu yang hambar, yang memimpin dan mentadbir dengan hambar juga.

Tidak berapa lama dulu, seorang jutawan Cina yang sangat berjaya dalam bidang korporat dan pasaran modal, berbisik kepada saya agar tidak terlalu kritikal terhadap pentadbiran Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Katanya, berilah peluang kepada Abdullah berundur secara terhormat. Itu sebelum tempoh peralihan dipendekkan daripada tahun 2010 kepada Mac depan.

Tauke Cina ini berkata lagi, dia gembira Abdullah akhirnya mengambil keputusan bersara lebih awal. Dia gembira walaupun dia cukup akrab dengan Abdullah dan budak-budaknya. Dia mendapat anugerah Tan Sri pada era Abdullah. Bagi orang Cina korporat, gelaran Tan Sri sama nilai dengan seketul emas.

Dia gembira Abdullah bersara awal kerana dia tidak yakin dengan kemampuannya mengendalikan politik dan ekonomi negara. Bagi orang Cina korporat, kestabilan politik dan keperkasaan ekonomi adalah kayu pengukur kepada kejayaan atau kegagalan seseorang Perdana Menteri.

Baru-baru ini, secara kebetulan saya berkesempatan duduk semeja dengan Menteri Dalam Negeri Syed (Abdul) Hamid Albar, Ketua Polis Negara Musa Hassan, Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan Mohamad Hassan, bekas Menteri Besar Perlis Shahidan Kassim, bekas Menteri Besar Johor Mohd Ajib Ahmad dan Blogger Ahmad A Talib aka Pahit Manis.

Satu persoalan yang kami semua hampir sependapat adalah – apakah sikap tolak ansur/toleransi orang Melayu sekarang sejati (genuine) atau manifestasi kepada ketidakupayaan dan kelumpuhan (paralysis) bangsa Melayu?

Ini bukan bertujuan menafikan keikhlasan orang Melayu dan kepemimpinan mereka bertolak ansur dengan kaum-kaum lain sejak sebelum merdeka sehingga kepada termeterainya Kontrak Sosial dalam bentuk Perlembagaan Malaysia dan pelaksanaan pelbagai dasar serta program selepas itu.

Tetapi sejak beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini, apa yang dilihat sebagai tolak ansur dan toleransi orang Melayu, bagi saya lebih berupa ketidakupayaan mereka berartikulasi dan bertindak bagi mempromosi dan mempertahankan hak serta keistimewaan mereka seperti yang termaktub dalam Kontrak Sosial dan Perlembagaan Malaysia.

(Pemikir dan pakar perundangan ulung, Allahyarham Prof. Tan Sri Dr Ahmad Ibrahim dalam rencana berjudul “Prinsip-prinsip Perlembagaan Islam dan Perlembagaan Malaysia” berkata:

“Perlembagaan Persekutuan di Malaysia adalah hasil persetujuan yang telah dicapai antara penduduk di Malaysia daripada kalangan Melayu, Cina dan India yang digubal atas asas persetujuan tersebut. Perlembagaan Malaysia bukan sahaja dokumen perundangan malah adalah kontrak sosial dan perjanjian perdamaian.”)

Dari satu sudut, kelumpuhan orang Melayu sekarang berkait rapat dengan kelegaan mereka dipimpin oleh empat Perdana Menteri Melayu yang berjaya, dihormati dan ditakuti – Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak, Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn dan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Di bawah kepemimpinan (leadership) mereka, negara aman damai dan berjaya. Hatta pergaduhan kaum pada 13 Mei 1969 itu pun hanya sekejap dan terhad di Kuala Lumpur. Apatah lagi ini dapat ditangani dengan cepat dan berkesan.

Sejak merdeka, semua kaum mendapat perlindungan dan menikmati peningkatan taraf ekonomi walaupun orang Cina, kerana monopoli mereka terhadap bidang perniagaan, lebih berjaya dan terus di hadapan.

Dr Mahathir dibenci dan ditakuti oleh kaum Cina apabila dia mengambil alih teraju pemerintahan pada tahun 1981 kerana label “ultra-Malay” atau pelampau Melayu yang diberikan kepadanya oleh jentera propaganda era Tunku.

Bagaimanapun apabila dia berjaya memperkasa ekonomi Malaysia dan mempertahankannya daripada dua krisis besar (pertengahan 1980 dan 1997/98), dia dianggap hero oleh semua kaum, khasnya masyarakat perniagaan Cina.

Ramai orang Melayu tidak begitu setuju dengan dasar dan tindakan beliau yang dilihat sebagai terlalu keras dan menghukum terhadap masyarakat korporat Bumiputera ketika krisis 1997/98.

Ketidakmampuan Pentadbiran Abdullah meneruskan proses memperkasa ekonomi dan melaksanakan ikrar “reformasi” (meminjam mantera Parti Keadilan Rakyat) telah membawa kecelakaan kepada Umno dan Barisan Nasional dalam pilihan raya umum 8 Mac lalu.

Kelemahan Umno dan kelumpuhan orang Melayu inilah yang dieksploitasi oleh kaum-kaum bukan Melayu, sama ada atas pentas politik kepartian, badan-badan bukan kerajaan, inteligensia atau masyarakat sivil.

Sebenarnya mereka juga dalam dilema. Manakala mereka “gembira” dapat mengambil kesempatan daripada kelumpuhan Umno dan orang Melayu, pada masa yang sama mereka bimbang mencetuskan kemarahan orang Melayu.

Dalam perbualan dengan Syed Hamid dan KPN, saya memberanikan diri memberi amaran mengenai kemungkinan (saya ulang, KEMUNGKINAN) wujudnya “the fringe Malays” yang mungkin mengamuk jika mereka berasa kepentingan Melayu diancam dan dipertikai atas landasan perkauman.

Kita lihat bagaimana sudah ada individu dan NGO bukan Melayu dan bukan Islam yang tergamak mempertikai fatwa-fatwa Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan. Yang terbaru mereka mempersoalkan fatwa mengharamkan “pengkid” – perempuan berperwatakan/beraksi lelaki.

Jadi saya setuju sangat dengan amaran Menteri Besar Kelantan, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat terhadap NGO bukan Islam agar tidak mempertikai fatwa Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan.

Saya juga amat setuju dan penyokong kemunculan NGO Melayu seperti Pertubuhan Peribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) dan penglibatan NGO seperti Gabungan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (Gapena) dalam isu semasa yang membabitkan hak dan kepentingan orang Melayu.

Setidak-tidaknya orang Melayu juga mengambil kesempatan daripada kelumpuhan kepemimpinan Melayu sekarang untuk menyemarakkan semula kepelbagaian suara Melayu seperti sebelum penubuhan Umno.

Kalau kepemimpinan Umno masih berasa bertanggungjawab untuk mempertahan dan memajukan hak orang Melayu, mereka wajib sedar bahawa asal usul Umno berakar umbi daripada kepelbagaian suara orang Melayu.

Merekalah yang menjadi penaja dan pengasas Umno dalam perhimpunan bersejarah di Kelab Sultan Sulaiman pada tahun 1946.

Jadi sangat tepatlah kalau pertubuhan-pertubuhan Melayu kembali bersuara bagi pihak orang Melayu dan mengisi ruang kosong yang ditinggalkan oleh Umno.

Atas dasar yang sama, saya berharap kepemimpinan Umno memberi perhatian kepada usul Perkasa yang dicapai dalam Program Wacana Isu Perundangan dan Hak-hak Peribumi Dalam Perlembagaan di Memorial Tun Hussein Onn pada Ahad, 16 November lalu.

Itulah nada ucapan perasmian Menteri Luar, Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim apabila beliau menyarankan pengukuhan dan pemerkasaan politik Melayu melalui penyatuan bangsa sebagai cara mengelak Orang Melayu daripada terus dicemuh dan dipersendakan oleh pihak lain yang suka mengambil kesempatan.

Mungkin perlu difikirkan semula kemungkinan Umno kembali kepada cogan kata asalnya “Hidup Melayu”. Cogan kata “Hidup Melayu” itu digantikan dengan slogan “Merdeka” pada tahun 1951.

Kini Malaysia sudah 51 tahun merdeka, tetapi kehidupan dan kelangsungan orang Melayu semakin tercabar dan dipertikaikan. Jadi eloklah Umno kembali melaungkan “Hidup Melayu” (atau “Hidup Bumiputera”) dan menterjemahkannya kepada pelan dan tindakan. – The Scribe A Kadir Jasin

The Malay economic and political dichotomy

Dr M against abolishing Bumiputera equity

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 – Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad disagrees with the MCA’s proposal that the conditional 30 per cent Bumiputera equity ownership in public-listed companies be abolished.

He said this was not the right time to do so as the target for Bumiputera equity participation had not been achieved.

“If we have achieved the 30 per cent target for Bumiputeras, 40 per cent for non-bumiputeras and 30 for foreigners, then we can do away with the condition,” Dr Mahathir told reporters at the Malaysia Muslim Welfare Organisation (Perkim) Aidilfitri function here today.

“We have not reached that yet… there’s still a lot to be done. If we reduce it to 20 per cent today and it does not expand while the economy does, the Bumiputera equity participation will get smaller. We have to take all this into consideration.”.

Dr Mahathir, who is Perkim president, said although the equity ownership could be changed, the target for Bumiputeras needed to be protected.

“This is not a suitable time to make any adjustment as the world is in turmoil. It does not mean that if we abolish the equity quota it will make the companies stronger and more competitive.

“If we reduce the Bumiputera equity participation to 20 per cent, then the others must also reduce theirs,” he said.

Dr Mahathir said the issue should have been brought to the Barisan Nasional’s attention as it was raised by a BN component party.

Yesterday, MCA vice-president Datuk Liow Tiong Lai said the condition for 30 per cent Bumiputera equity in public-listed companies should be abolised in order for them to remain competitive.

Liow was also quoted as saying that the 30 per cent target set was a hindrance to the creation of true partnership between Malay, Chinese and Indian businessmen in the country.

Asked about Malay special rights, Dr Mahathir said many people talked about it but the non-Malays too have their rights.

“If we take away the rights of the Malays, then we have to do the same with the rights of the non-Malays. We have to be rational, just don’t see only one side,” he said.

Dr Mahathir also said that the open house concept, as practised in Malaysia during festive celebrations like Aidilfiti, should continue as it can help erase negative perception of Islam.

He said in a multicultural and multireligious country like Malaysia, the open house practice would also help non-Muslims not fear Islam or regard it as a strange religion.

“We should continue with this open house practice as it will bring about greater understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims,” he said.

Dr Mahathir said due to the lack understanding of Islam, some quarters had wantonly labelled the actions of some Muslims as acts of terrorism and associated such acts with the religion.

“But Islam is a religion of peace. And peace and unity in Malaysia will be strengthened even further if we bring Muslims and non-Muslims closer together.

“Malaysia has the opportunity to show to the world how Islam is practised, which has brought good to the people and nation, unlike in some countries where the people are often at war with each other,” he said. – Bernama – The Malaysian Insider

Pemisahan Politik Melayu Semakin Kabur

Oktober 26, 2008

[BERIKUT adalah temu ramah yang saya berikan kepada wartawan Harakah, Saudara IRWAN MUHAMMAD ZAIN. Ia disiarkan dalam sisipan Fikrah akhbar Harakah keluaran 17-19 Oktober lalu dengan tajuk "Perangkap Politik Melayu". Saya ucapkan terima kasih kepada Harakah kerana membenarkan saya menyiarkannya semula dalam blog ini.]

ORANG Melayu jauh ketinggalan dari pelbagai segi dan ini dikatakan berpunca daripada sikap pemimpin dan orang Melayu sendiri, juga bagaimana bentuk mereka berpolitik.

Ketua Pengarang Berita Publishing yang juga bekas Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan The New Straits Times Press (NSTP), Datuk Abdul Kadir Jasin sudi berkongsi pandangan dengan pembaca Harakah berhubung perkara ini, 10 Oktober lalu. Ikuti wawancara IRWAN MUHAMMAD ZAIN bersama beliau.

HARAKAH: Selepas 20 tahun, jawatan Presiden Umno akan dipertandingkan. Boleh Dato’ beri komen mengenai pertandingan jawatan utama Umno kali ini?

KADIR: Kita belum boleh membuat kesimpulan akan ada pertandingan. Setakat ini ada penawaran diri oleh dua tokoh iaitu Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li) dan Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak.

Sama ada akan berlaku pertandingan yang sebenarnya kita terpaksa tunggu sehingga bahagian-bahagian Umno habis bersidang. Atau mungkin, dalam tempoh itu mungkin Tengku Razaleigh atau sesiapa saja yang berfikir untuk bertanding jawatan itu mungkin mereka menimbang semula dan menarik diri.

Jika berlaku pertandingan adakah ini akan memberikan kesan kepada Umno?

Saya rasa, khasnya selepas pilihan raya umum 8 Mac lalu, ramai ahli-ahli Umno yang mahu ada pertandingan iaitu mereka mahu diberi peluang untuk memilih pemimpin Umno daripada peringkat paling rendah ke peringkat paling atas. Sebab sebelum ini jawatan presiden dan timbalan presiden itu sekadar disahkan tanpa pertandingan.

Adakah pemimpin-pemimpin Umno mendengar suara akar umbi yang mahukan perubahan berlaku dalam parti tersebut?

Saya tidak mahu meneka, saya tidak mahu cuba membaca pemikiran pemimpin-pemimpin Umno sama ada mereka akan mendengar atau tidak mahu mendengar tapi ahli-ahli Umno telah pun memberikan isyarat yang sangat kuat, sangat ketara pada 8 Mac bahawa mereka tidak mahu lagi diperkotak-katikkan atau mereka tidak mahu lagi menjadi ‘rubber stamp’.

Jadi kalau pemimpin-pemimpin Umno masih tidak faham, masih tidak dapat menerima mesej itu saya rasa perhubungan yang tidak intim, yang tidak akrab antara kepimpinan Umno dengan ahli Umno akan menjadi semakin teruk.

Apabila dikatakan bahawa akar umbi atau ahli Umno sudah menghantar mesej adakah ini bermaksud Umno sudah tidak lagi relevan?

Adakah itu menunjukkan Umno sudah tidak relevan lagi. Jawapan saya tidak. Umno masih relevan.

Dalam konteks apa Umno ini masih relevan sedangkan ramai pihak berpendapat ia sudah tidak lagi relevan?

Dalam konteks dikotomi, pemisahan politik Melayu. Ini lebih menarik daripada Umno. Ini lebih luas iaitu dikotomi politik Melayu.

Boleh Dato’ perincikan lagi tentang dikotomi itu?

Kalau dulu politik Melayu cuma dua, belah dua, Umno dan PAS. Orang Umno akan hidup dan mati dengan Umno dan orang PAS akan hidup dan mati dengan PAS.

Tapi kita lihat keputusan pilihan raya atau kita lihat perkembangan pilihan raya pada 8 Mac lalu, keputusan itu jelas menunjukkan bahawa sudah berlaku rombakan dalam dikotomi ini.

Iaitu orang Melayu yang dulu mengundi Umno, dia sama ada tidak keluar mengundi, membuat undi rosak atau dia mengundi parti-parti lain selain Umno.

Ini menarik sebab sekarang sudah pecah pemisahan yang begitu rigid antara Umno dan PAS. Ada yang mengundi calon daripada KeADILan, ada yang mengundi calon daripada PAS, ada yang mengundi calon daripada DAP.

Jadi bagi saya, ‘trend’ ini menarik. Umno ke, PAS ke, KeADILan ke, DAP ke kalau dia (mereka) tidak lihat trend ini mereka akan hadapi masalah.

Maksud Dato’ trend ini juga harus dilihat oleh parti-parti lain selain Umno?

Kalau pengundi Melayu sudah sanggup berpindah dari satu khemah ke khemah yang lain, kali ini dia berpindah daripada khemah Umno dan Barisan Nasional (BN) ke khemah PAS dan Pakatan Rakyat.

Pada pilihan raya akan datang dia boleh berubah daripada Pakatan Rakyat kepada BN semula. Jadi dia tidak lagi rigid. Ini saya rasa sangat penting. Bagi saya, dikotomi atau pilihan yang makin kabur ini akan memberikan kesan kepada politik Melayu Islam.

Kesan yang macam mana?

Tidak terbayang di fikiran kita sebelum penamaan calon 24 Februari lalu (pilihan raya 8 Mac) bahawa PAS dan DAP boleh berpakat.

Tetapi PAS dan DAP pernah melakukan persefahaman politik dalam pilihan raya sebelum ini?

Tidak dalam struktur yang begitu jelas seperti dalam pilihan raya yang lalu. Saya tidak begitu hairan dengan peranan KeADILan kerana KeADILan ini peranannya adalah ‘match maker’.

Jadi yang lebih menarik bagi saya hakikat bahawa PAS dan DAP boleh duduk dalam satu pakatan walaupun dilihat dalam konteks itu KeADILan dilihat sebagai orang tengah tapi ini menunjukkan bahawa perubahan sedang berlaku.
Akhirnya, kita akan bertanya apa akan berlaku kepada politik Melayu Islam. Kerana sebelum ini Umno sentiasa berunding, berpakat dan bertolak ansur dengan parti-parti komponen BN yang lain dalam isu-isu Melayu, isu-isu agama, isu-isu bahasa dan isu-isu kebudayaan.

Jadi, apakah kita akan lihat unsur-unsur dan ciri-ciri yang sama di antara PAS dan DAP?

Saya tidak merujuk KeADILan sebagai ada konflik dalam hal ini. KeADILan menampilkan dirinya sebagai parti pelbagai kaum.

Jadi sudah pasti isu bahasa, isu bangsa, isu agama sudah pun mereka fikirkan sebelum mereka menubuhkan parti pelbagai kaum, pelbagai agama.

Tapi, bagaimana PAS dan DAP boleh bertolak ansur dalam konteks Pakatan Rakyat mengenai isu-isu yang fundamental kepada orang Melayu dan Islam, orang Cina dan India dan agama-agama lain?

Apa akan berlaku jika pemimpin Melayu masih tidak sedar keadaan ini?

Saya rasa kalau pemimpin Melayu masih tidak sedar, saya bimbang apabila politik pelbagai kaum ini berakar umbi, mungkin kemampuan orang Melayu untuk berartikulasi, untuk membuat pendirian, untuk membuat tuntutan dan untuk mempertahankan hak mungkin terjejas.

Adakah politik perkauman masih lagi relevan?

Saya rasa politik perkauman sama ada dalam konteks BN atau Pakatan Rakyat akan berterusan untuk satu jangka masa yang kita tak tahu sampai bila.

Bagaimana dengan sesetengah pendapat yang mengatakan politik perkauman sudah tidak lagi diperlukan?

Begini, saya melihat percubaan dan kita kata sedikit sebanyak kejayaan ke arah kepelbagaian kaum dalam politik ini dia telah berlaku tapi akhirnya dia akan balik kepada perkauman.

Bukan perkauman dalam erti kata yang negatif, bukan dalam erti kata persengketaan. Tapi orang Melayu akan bertanya dan mempertahankan kepentingan mereka.

Orang Cina akan bertanya dan mempertahankan kepentingan mereka. Orang India pun begitu. Orang Iban, Kadazan dan lain-lain pun begitu juga.

Kalau perkara ini berlaku adakah Melayu akan hilang dunianya?

Saya berbalik kepada kemampuan kita berartikulasi, maksudnya kemampuan kita berfikir dan menyatakan pandangan kita dalam konteks mempertahankan hak orang Melayu, orang Islam dalam konteks Malaysia.

Berbalik kepada perlembagaan. Sebab hari ini kalau kita tengok kenapa orang-orang Melayu, parti-parti politik Melayu, pemimpin-pemimpin Melayu tiba-tiba menderita perasaan bersalah. Menjadi apologetik.

Jadi cepat rasa bersalah. Cepat memohon maaf. Kerana kaum-kaum lain walaupun mereka minoriti tetapi mereka mempunyai kemampuan dan berjaya mengemukakan ‘argument’ dan hujah-hujah mereka dengan lebih jelas.

Adakah orang Melayu pada masa ini tidak berkemampuan untuk mengemukakan ‘argument’ mereka?

Bagi saya untuk beberapa waktu, orang Melayu terperangkap dalam satu dunia yang agak sempit. Dia berasa lega dengan kerukunan perlembagaan.

Dia berasa lega dan cukup selesa dengan apa yang diperoleh dengan dasar-dasar yang menguntungkan mereka kerana mereka kaum majoriti seperti Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB).

Tapi yang mereka tak sedari ialah biarpun mereka mendapat faedah dan perlindungan dengan dasar-dasar ini, di sebalik itu kaum-kaum lain mendapat faedah yang lebih banyak, yang lebih tinggi, yang lebih kekal.

Tapi orang Melayu oleh kerana mereka tidak fasih dan peka mengenai ekonomi, mereka berasa selesa. Mereka dapat biasiswa, mereka bekerja dengan kerajaan, bekerja alam bidang pengurusan pertengahan dalam sektor swasta, mereka rasa dah cukup berjaya dan rasa cukup selesa.

Mereka tak lihat sebenarnya kekayaan kaum-kaum lain lebih besar hari ini dari segi peratusan berbanding dengan tahun 70-an sebelum diperkenalkan DEB.

Berlakunya perkara sebegini adakah disebabkan oleh kegagalan pemimpin Umno atau sikap orang Melayu itu sendiri?

Saya tidak menganggap ini sebagai kegagalan tapi saya menganggap sebagai (kesan tidak dijangka iaitu) apabila kita memberi sesuatu tanpa kita memberitahu dari mana datangnya benda itu dan tanpa kita bertanya adakah awak berhak menerima benda ini, mereka jadi lupa.

Mereka menganggap benda itu bukan lagi keistimewaan, tapi hak. Di masa yang sama ada satu masalah, masalahnya kita orang Melayu kita terlalu ‘party centric’. Ini berbalik kepada dikotomi tadi. Orang Melayu sama ada dia Umno atau PAS.

Tindak tanduk pemikiran mereka terlalu dipengaruhi oleh kaitan politiknya. Berbeza dengan kaum-kaum lain. Mereka mempunyai kepelbagaian parti, DAP, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP dan di Sabah dan Sarawak juga begitu.

Tapi kita orang Melayu terikat dengan Umno dan PAS. Umno dan PAS pula ada satu masalah.

Ini saya rasa satu masalah, satu penyakit yang menjangkiti Umno dan PAS, mungkin dia merebak daripada Umno kepada PAS iaitu Umno dan PAS tidak cerdik, tidak pandai atau tidak bersedia mendengar suara orang Melayu yang tidak sekutu dengan mereka.

Sedangkan kalau kita lihat dalam masyarakat Cina khasnya, mereka ada MCA, mereka ada DAP dan mereka ada Gerakan tetapi mereka juga mempunyai beratus-ratus NGO, beratus-ratus kongsi, beratus-ratus persatuan keluarga, dewan-dewan perniagaan, bermacam-macam dewan. Mereka menggunakan ini semua untuk memperkukuhkan perjuangan mereka.

Ambil contoh dalam BN, MCA akan kata kalau BN tidak bagi A,B,C,D kita mungkin tidak akan undi masyarakat Cina dalam pilihan raya akan datang.

Tapi dalam Umno khasnya, begitu juga dengan PAS, semua suara orang Melayu hendak dimonopoli oleh orang Umno atau PAS. Bila ada orang Melayu dari luar
Umno atau PAS cuba memberi pandangan, mereka akan bertanya kamu siapa?

Apa punca berlaku perkara ini?

Kita balik kepada sejarah. Sebelum ada Umno atau PAS, siapakah Umno? Apakah makhluk yang diberi nama Umno ini. Pada mulanya tidak ada Umno. Pada mulanya ada persatuan-persatuan, pertubuhan-pertubuhan, gabungan-gabungan Melayu. Belum ada Umno.

Tapi pada tahun 1946, mereka ini semua bersidang dan menubuhkan sebuah parti politik. Secara automatik dan berperingkat mereka itu disedut ke dalam Umno lalu hilanglah. Persatuan guru pun dikaitkan dengan Umno, kelab belia pun dikaitkan dengan Umno. Jadi akhirnya suara mereka pun jadi sama dengan Umno atau suara mereka yang berlainan dengan Umno ditapis oleh Umno.

Begitu juga dengan PAS, sebab PAS ini serpihan Umno, sedikit sebanyak budaya Umno ada dalam PAS. Seperti sedikit sebanyak budaya Umno ada dalam KeADILan. Jadi bagi saya begini, tidak kira Umno, PAS atau KeADILan kalau mereka mahu ’survive’, kalau mereka mahu kelangsungan, mereka mesti menghormati kepelbagaian suara orang Melayu.

Adakah hanya pemimpin Melayu yang perlu berbuat begini atau semua orang Melayu perlu berani untuk melakukan ini semua?

Aliran ini sudah bermula dengan orang Melayu pada pilihan raya lalu. Sudah ramai orang Melayu yang dulu kala mereka mengundi Umno, tiba-tiba mereka tidak keluar mengundi atau mengundi parti lain.

Bagi saya di peringkat bawah sudah bermula kepelbagaian suara sudah bermula. Kalau pemimpin masih tidak sedar, mereka akan hilang kemampuan untuk memimpin.

Selepas pilihan raya umum 8 Mac lalu, pemimpin Umno berpendapat bahawa yang ditolak oleh rakyat adalah parti komponen BN bukan Umno. Apa pendapat Dato’?

Saya boleh bersetuju dengan pendapat itu kalau dasar Umno adalah hendak menubuh kerajaan secara bersendirian. Maksudnya di mana MCA bertanding, Umno pun bertanding. Kalau Umno masih mahu jadi parti induk dalam BN, mereka mesti memikirkan kekuatan dan kelemahan parti-parti yang bergabung dengan mereka.

Mengapa kaum lain menolak MCA, MIC dan Gerakan?

Salah satu sebabnya mereka lihat ada pilihan selain BN. Mereka melihat Umno tidak lagi memberi kepimpinan yang meyakinkan mereka.

Mereka menyokong Pakatan Rakyat bukan kerana DAP semata-mata atau PAS semata-mata tetapi kerana peranan orang tengah yang dimainkan oleh KeADILan. Dan orang tengah itu asal usulnya adalah Umno juga.

Kenapa pemimpin Umno bersikap begini?

Ada beberapa sebab. Satunya sebab pemimpin Umno begitu selesa dengan kuasa. Kedua pemimpin Umno terlalu besar. Apabila benda itu besar, mereka terpaksa diri mereka dulu sebelum fikirkan orang lain.

Pemimpin Umno terlalu banyak habiskan masa untuk fikirkan strukturnya yang terlalu besar. Ketiga pemimpin Umno sebenarnya lemah pada persepsi orang Umno sendiri dan apatah lagi pada persepsi parti komponen BN.

Adakah perkara ini sudah lama bersarang dalam Umno atau baru saja berlaku?

Tempoh ini tidak lebih daripada lima tahun. Pada 2004, parti yang sama, gabungan yang sama menang begitu besar.

Adakah ini disebabkan oleh kelemahan pemimpin utama Umno?

Itu adalah kesimpulan semua orang.

Sesetengah pendapat mengatakan jangka hayat Umno tidak akan lama. Adakah Dato’ bersetuju dengan pendapat ini?

Saya tidak menjangka Umno akan mati. Malah Umno boleh dipulihkan. Cuma saya rasa ia tidak boleh lagi dipulihkan macam Umno yang dulu. Iaitu Umno yang seronok dengan ahli yang ramai, Umno yang seronok dengan wang yang banyak, Umno yang seronok dengan pemimpin yang popular. Umno itu sudah berlalu.

Keputusan pilihan raya 8 Mac menunjukkan bahawa Umno yang sebegitu tidak akan wujud lagi. Dalam erti kata ahli-ahli Umno dan penyokong-penyokong Umno bukan lagi generasi yang kini memimpin Umno.

Hari ini Umno banyak bergantung kepada generasi muda dan generasi muda ini kononnya tidak berminat untuk berpersatuan atau berparti tetapi mereka akan menyokong atau mengundi mana-mana parti yang boleh memenuhi cita rasa mereka dan boleh menjamin masa depan mereka.

Krisis apa yang dihadapi oleh Umno?

Umno dan kerajaan menghadapi krisis keyakinan. Itu saja.

Apakah Pakatan Rakyat berpotensi untuk membentuk kerajaan?

Perkara itu tidak mustahil kerana kita lihat di luar dugaan mereka sudah menguasai lima negeri dan satu wilayah. Dan bagaimana daripada tidak sampai 30 kerusi Parlimen mereka sekarang mempunyai lebih dari 80 kerusi.

Kalau kita tengok dari segi ini, mereka ada momentum dan momentum ini boleh berterusan. Saya tidak akan menolak kemungkinan BN boleh bertahan dan saya juga tidak menolak Pakatan Rakyat boleh menumbangkan BN. – mks. – The Scribe A Kadir Jasin

Malay Unity and Malaysian Unity

MALAY UNITY AND MALAYSIAN UNITY

1. Malaysia has a multi-racial population but is quite unique in that the division is not just by race alone but by religion, language, culture and economic situation. Unity in such a diversity is extremely difficult to achieve.

2. If we study other nations where people of different ethnic groups have immigrated, we will find that integration and unity depended on several important factors. Firstly the indigenous people or the people who had set up the country make up at least initially, a very big proportion of the population. Additionally they would be dominant and materially successful. The small numbers of immigrants trickling in found it judicious and beneficial to be identified with the numerically superior and powerful dominant inhabitants. They would willingly forget their original languages and adopt the language of the people of the country as well as their culture; they would intermarry and over time they would be totally absorbed and assimilated and identified with the indigenous people. In such a situation unity is not a problem. The United States is one such country where the original language and basic culture of first settlers are accepted by later immigrants.

3. In the old days before the coming of the Europeans the few Chinese and Indians who settled in Malacca adopted the language and much of the culture of the Malays. Though there was no assimilation nevertheless good relations existed between the immigrant settlers and the Malays. Unfortunately when later the China-born Chinese-speaking immigrants dominated in numbers as well as economic wealth, the Malay speaking Baba and Nyonya deliberately dropped their Malay language and Baba culture and reverted to being Chinese in every way possible.

4. Difficulties in assimilation arise when the late comers are more dynamic and better equipped to progress than the indigenous people. A feeling of superiority towards the indigenous people tended to keep the late-comers apart. As their community grew they established separate enclaves and erect invisible barriers against the indigenous. As their numbers grew the separation became deeper.

5. The British are only partly responsible for the separation of the races in Malaysia, for keeping the Malays in the rural areas, the Chinese in the urban areas and the Indians in the estates. The different races are also responsible. They made no attempt to mix together as a matter of preference.

6. The Malays before World War II really believed that the Chinese and Indians were temporary guests who would return to their countries once they had made enough money. So it was at the beginning.

7. Even when they showed signs of staying permanently, the Malays and their Rulers believed the British would honour the treaties which recognised the Malay States as the land of the Malays, the peninsula as Tanah Melayu or Malay Land.

8. But after the Brits returned after the war they talked of “giving” this country to whoever wishes to stay here. Although the Malays rejected this and forced the Malayan Union to be abandoned, they realised that things had changed and they had to recognise the claims of some of the non-Malays at least.

9. To cut a long story short independent Malaysia recognised the citizenship rights of the non-Malays and gave them quite freely. This is unlike many countries in the region where strict conditions were imposed. In fact, some immigrants were actually expelled.

10. The hope at independence was that the non-Malays would accept a single national language and a single national identity. But it became clear very quickly that the Chinese and the Indians wanted to retain their identities, their mother tongue and their culture. They did not want to be solely Malaysians, certainly not Malays.

11. At the beginning some prominent people tried multi-racial politics but this was rejected by the ordinary Malays, Chinese and Indians. In the end we settled for a compromise – retain your racial identity but cooperate with each other in a coalition of racial parties.

12. Politically it was a good formula and it worked. But when English schools were abolished and the Malay, Chinese and Indians children went to their own schools rather than to the national schools where the teaching was in the National Language. The hope for true national integration faded. After this even the attempt to put the schools from the three language streams in one campus was rejected by the Chinese.

13. It is no good blaming the politicians for perpetuating racial schism. Some of them who tried to ignore racial loyalties simply failed politically. For various reasons the races preferred to stay separated. They may meet at their work place or the playing field but they go home to separate enclaves according to their race.

14. We had opted for democracy and popularity decides who rules the country. Those who reject racialism simply lost popular support. But those who embrace racialism won.

15. They are not racists. The leaders of the different races were, at least in the beginning, able to get along well with each other. They developed close friendship. But they had to be very conscious of their racial backing and to cater to racial demands.

16. The lower ranking leaders, the ordinary members of political parties and the people as a whole had shown no sign of forgetting their racial identity. There may be few liberal minded ones who reject race, but some who do this do so because they believe their own race would gain by it. So even these people are racialist at heart.

17. Then came the resurgence of Islam worldwide. The Malaysian Malays began to adopt Islamic conservativeness especially with the dress code. This tended to push them further apart from the non-Muslims who saw this as an attempt to differentiate Muslim Malaysians from non-Muslim Malaysians. Some people suspect that this is the intention.

18. The behaviour of some extremist exponents of Islamic separateness did not help.

19. And so the races drifted further and further apart. All the time the so-called non-racial parties with their single-minded campaign against the positions of the Malays and Islam as agreed upon at the beginning actually intensified Malay racial sentiments, causing them to yearn for Malay unity rather than Malaysian unity.

20. The ideal of having a non-racial Malaysian nationality has now been almost forgotten. As the self-proclaimed non-racists attacked Malay racialism, the feeling among the Malays hardened. Openly the Malays have not attacked Chinese racialism as manifested by their practical rejection of the use of the National language, their rejection of the National schools, their Malaysian Malaysia slogan. If they do it would be muted and certainly not as blatant as non-Malay attacks against Malay racialism.

21. The Malays have seen what has happened to the Malays of Singapore and they have no desire to be like Singapore Malays.

22. So their reaction is to seek for Malay unity. They feel threatened, and their fear is real. Admittedly there are among the younger educated Malays a few who claim to reject Malay unity. But these people do not represent the vast majority of the Malays.

23. Malay unity, if it becomes stronger will make it more difficult to bring about Malaysian unity. But it must be remembered that the Chinese and Indian are also keen to retain their identities more and more. The Hindraf memorandum is very telling. And the Chinese educationists want even stronger role for Chinese language.

24. The trend is obviously against Malaysian Unity. A weak and unstable Government with its crude attempts to win over the different races through giving in on all demands does not help. Every time it gives in to the demands of one race it simply antagonises and pushes the other races further away.

25. If we still want Malaysian Unity we need to be willing to make sacrifices regarding what we consider to be our racial rights. Everyone has to do this. The leaders must be given some mandate to discuss these matters in private and to make concessions. After each step the lower rung leaders of each race must be given full briefing as to why the concessions have to be made. It would be useless if they don’t agree.

26. Provided we can roll back the present unhealthy trends and redirect it towards more positive non-racial objectives, provided we do this slowly by small steps we may be able to create a truly Malaysian identity where race would gradually become less important. It will take time but with sincerity we may reverse the present trends and move towards increasing co-operation and integration. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

The Social Contract

‘Jangan sentuh kontrak sosial’

Majlis Raja-Raja bersuara lindung hak Islam, Melayu

KUALA TERENGGANU: Majlis Raja-Raja mengingatkan mana-mana pihak supaya tidak lagi mempertikai dan mempersoalkan kontrak sosial, apa lagi menyemak semula atau mengubahnya kerana ia menjadi asas utama pembentukan negara ini.

Dalam kenyataan khas selepas mesyuarat ke-215 di Istana Maziah di sini semalam, Majlis Raja-Raja menegaskan, kaum bukan Melayu tidak perlu bimbang mengenai hak sah mereka kerana ia dijamin mengikut Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan peruntukan Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri yang termaktub dalam Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Adalah diharapkan dengan penegasan itu, segala kekeliruan berhubung perkara ini di kalangan rakyat dapat dibendung dan suatu suasana yang harmoni, aman dan sikap saling hormat menghormati di kalangan rakyat dapat terus diwujudkan demi menjaga ketenteraman negara,” kata kenyataan itu.

Kenyataan khas Majlis Raja-Raja itu disampaikan oleh Penyimpan Mohor Besar Raja-Raja, Engku Tan Sri Ibrahim Engku Ngah dan dikeluarkan oleh Bernama.

Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin berangkat menghadiri mesyuarat itu dengan diiringi Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Mesyuarat dua hari yang berakhir semalam, dipengerusikan Sultan Kedah, Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah.

Engku Ibrahim menjelaskan, Raja-Raja Melayu mempunyai peranan perlembagaan untuk melindungi keistimewaan, kedudukan, kemuliaan dan kebesaran Raja-raja Melayu, agama Islam, Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan serta kepentingan sah kaum lain di negara ini.

“Tindakan pihak tertentu mempertikai dan mempersoalkan perkara itu yang menjadi asas utama pembentukan negara dan termasuk dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, telah menimbulkan kegusaran dan keresahan di kalangan rakyat.

“Sebagai tindak balas, beberapa pihak terutama pemimpin Melayu, sama ada dalam kerajaan atau pertubuhan bukan kerajaan dan orang perseorangan, telah menyuarakan rasa tidak puas hati dan marah terhadap pihak yang membuat kenyataan dan laporan dan menganjurkan forum-forum berkenaan,” katanya.

Beliau berkata, gejala itu jika tidak ditangani segera boleh menyebabkan negara terjebak dalam kancah perpecahan dan persengketaan antara kaum hingga menjejaskan keharmonian dan keamanan yang selama ini telah membawa kemajuan, pembangunan dan kejayaan kepada negara.

“Untuk itu, Raja-Raja Melayu wajar mengingatkan supaya isu berkaitan kontrak sosial tidak sekali-kali cuba diuji dan dicabar.

“Majlis Raja-Raja juga membuat seruan kepada orang Melayu supaya bersatu padu untuk mempertahankan keistimewaan, kedudukan, kemuliaan dan kebesaran Raja-Raja Melayu, melindungi agama Islam, Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa Kebangsaan dan kepentingan sah kaum lain di Malaysia seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Penekanan juga perlu dibuat bahawa agenda ini adalah lebih penting dan utama dari kepentingan politik atau kelompok,” katanya.

Engku Ibrahim berkata, perkara berkaitan pertahanan, keselamatan, kedudukan ekonomi negara, Biasiswa Yang di-Pertuan Agong termasuk cadangan pelantikan Ketua Hakim Negara Persekutuan, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan Hakim Besar Malaya turut dibincangkan dalam mesyuarat itu.

Semua Sultan dan Yang Dipertua Negeri menghadiri mesyuarat itu kecuali Pahang, Johor, Terengganu, Perlis dan Negeri Sembilan.

Sultan Pahang diwakili Pemangku Raja Pahang Tengku Mahkota Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, Sultan Johor diwakili Tunku Mahkota Johor Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Sultan Iskandar dan Sultan Terengganu diwakili Yang Dipertua Majlis Penasihat Pemangku Raja Tengku Sri Panglima Raja Tengku Baderulzaman Sultan Mahmud.

Negeri Sembilan diwakili Pemangku Yang Dipertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Tunku Naquiyuddin Ibni Tuanku Jaafar dan Perlis diwakili Raja Muda Perlis Tuanku Syed Faizuddin Putra Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Jamalullail.

Turut hadir, Menteri-menteri Besar dan Ketua-ketua menteri kecuali Sarawak yang diwakili Menteri II Perancangan dan Pengurusan Sumber Datuk Seri Awang Tengah Ali Hasan. – Berita Harian

Posting Khas – Peringatan Raja-Raja Melayu

Friday, October 17, 2008

A Kadir Jasin

[MUKADIMAH. Rakyat jelata yang sayangkan negara, menghormati Perlembagaan dan cintakan keamanan, menjunjung kasih kepada Majlis Raja-Raja kerana kepekaan dan keprihatinannya.

Peringatan Majlis Raja-Raja ini amat mendesak dan tepat masanya kerana kepemimpinan politik dilihat sebagai tidak mampu atau tidak berasa perlu menangani isu-isu yang menjurus ke arah perkauman dan cabaran terhadap Perlembagaan serta Kontrak Sosial ini.

Dalam struktur perkongsian kuasa yang memberikan keamanan, kestabilan dan kemakmuran kepada negara kita Malaysia, Raja-Raja Melayu adalah sebahagian daripada komponen utama mekanisme “check-and-balance”.

Raja-Raja berhak menasihati dan mengingatkan cawangan legislatif, eksekutif dan kehakiman.

Justeru itu, peringatan Majlis Raja-Raja agar Perlembagaan, Kontrak Sosial serta segala komponen sokongannya dihormati dan tidak dipertikaikan adalah sangat-sangat dialukan.

Menjunjung kasih. Daulat Tuanku.]

[BERIKUT adalah salinan penuh kenyataan akhbar khas Majlis Raja-Raja yang dikeluarkan oleh Penyimpan Mohor Besar Raja-Raja, Engku Tan Sri Ibrahim Engku Ngah semalam.]

“Kenyataan Akhbar Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Penyimpan Mohor Besar Raja-Raja Mengenai Peranan Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di-Pertuan Agong dan Duli-duli Yang Maha Mulia Raja-raja Melayu berhubung dengan hak-hak keistimewaan, kedudukan, kemuliaan atau kebesaran Raja-raja Melayu, agama Islam, Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan, kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain mengikut Perlembagan Persekutuan.

“Raja-raja Melayu yang menghadiri Mesyuarat Majlis Raja-Raja telah berunding mengeluarkan kenyataan akhbar khas bersama pada hari ini.

“Raja-raja Melayu mempunyai peranan perlembagaan untuk melindungi keistimewaan, kedudukan, kemuliaan dan kebesaran Raja-raja Melayu, melindungi Agama Islam, bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan dan kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain di Malaysia.

“Tindakan pihak-pihak tertentu mempertikai dan mempersoalkan perkara-perkara tersebut yang menjadi asas utama pembentukan negara Malaysia dan termasuk dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah menimbulkan kegusaran dan keresahan di kalangan rakyat. Sebagai tindakbalas, beberapa pihak terutama pemimpin-pemimpin Melayu sama ada yang berada dalam kerajaan atau pertubuhan bukan kerajaan dan orang perseorangan telah menyuarakan rasa tidak puas hati dan marah terhadap pihak yang membuat kenyataan dan laporan dan menganjurkan forum-forum berkenaan.

“Antara sebab-sebab yang dikenalpasti berlakunya perkara ini ialah kedangkalan pengetahuan pihak berkenaan terhadap latar belakang sejarah mengapa peruntukan-peruntukan tersebut dimaktubkan dalam Perlembangaan Persekutuan dan pengaruh prinsip-prinsip kesaksamaan dan keadilan yang cuba diimplikasikan di negara ini tanpa berjunjungkan latar belakang sejarah dan keadaan sosial negara ini. Kepentingan politik sempit juga merupakan penyebab berlakunya perkara ini.

“Gejala ini jika tidak ditangani dengan segera boleh menyebabkan negara terjebak dalam kancah perpecahan dan persengketaan antara kaum yang boleh menjejaskan keharmonian dan keamanan yang selama ini telah membawa kemajuan, pembangunan dan kejayaan kepada negara.

“Justeru, adalah perlu Majlis Raja-Raja menegaskan dan memperingatkan semua pihak tentang peruntukan-peruntukan perlembagaan tersebut di samping memberi penekanan tentang jaminan perlindungan hak-hak sah kaum lain. Perlu ditegaskan bahawa setiap peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah melalui proses perbincangan, pertimbangan, konsultansi, pengorbanan dan sifat tolak ansur yang sangat tinggi nilainya bagi apa yang telah diperjuangkan, diperbincangkan, dipertimbangkan, dimanfaatkan serta dipersetujui oleh semua pihak yang terlibat, sehingga wujudnya peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang dikenali sebagai Kontrak Sosial.

“Kontrak Sosial ini tidak wajar dipertikai dan dipersoalkan lebih-lebih lagi disemak semula atau diubah kerana ia adalah merupakan asas utama pembentukan negara Malaysia. Untuk itu Raja-raja Melayu wajar memperingatkan supaya isu berkaitan Kontrak Sosial tidak sekali-kali cuba diuji dan dicabar.

“Sesungguhnya, angkatan pemimpin di era prakemerdekaan, berfikiran dalam – berpandangan jauh. Raja-raja Melayu telah dibawa bersama semasa rundingan menuntut kemerdekaan. Institusi raja dikekalkan dan dimaktubkan secara perundangan dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia Merdeka. Institusi raja diberikan kemuliaan, ditempatkan di puncak kerajaan, sebagai Ketua Negara dan Ketua Negeri, laksana payung pelindung, menjamin berlakunya kesaksamaan di kalangan warga. Institusi raja berperanan sebagai faktor penyemak dan pengimbang, untuk merungkai sebarang kekusutan, sekiranya berlaku.

“Raja-raja Melayu juga membuat seruan kepada orang Melayu supaya bersatu-padu untuk mempertahankan keistimewaan, kedudukan, kemuliaan dan kebesaran Raja-raja Melayu, melindungi agama Islam, bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan dan kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain di Malaysia seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Penekanan juga perlu dibuat bahawa agenda ini adalah lebih penting dan utama dari kepentingan politik atau kelompok.

“Kaum bukan Melayu tidak perlu merasa khuatir dan bimbang tentang hak-hak sah mereka kerana hak-hak tersebut telah dijamin mengikut Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan peruntukan-peruntukan yang terkandung dalam Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri-negeri di Malaysia yang termaktub dalam Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Adalah diharapkan dengan penegasan tersebut, segala kekeliruan berhubung dengan perkara ini di kalangan rakyat jelata dapat dibendung dan suatu suasana yang harmoni, aman dan sikap saling hormat menghormati di kalangan rakyat dapat terus diwujudkan demi menjaga ketenteraman negara.”– Bernama

[This is the full press statement by the Rulers' Council issued by the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal, Engku Tan Sri Ibrahim Engku Ngah at the end of the 215th Conference of Rulers held at the Istana Maziah in Kuala Terengganu yesterday.]

“Press Statement issued by the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal on the role of the Yang diPertuan Agong and the Malay Rulers regarding the special privileges, position, eminence or greatness of the Malay Rulers, Islam, Malay as the national language, the special position of the Malays, and genuine interests of the other communities in accordance with the Federal Constitution.

“The Malay Rulers who attended the meeting of the Conference of Rulers conferred on the issuing of this special joint press statement today.

“The Malay Rulers hold the constitutional role to safeguard the special privileges, position, eminence and greatness of the Malay Rulers, safeguard Islam, Malay as the National Language, and the genuine interests of the other communities in Malaysia.

“The actions of certain quarters in disputing and questioning these matters, which formed the primary basis for the formation of Malaysia and are enshrined in the Federal Constitution, had caused provocation and uneasiness among the people. In retaliation, several quarters particularly Malay leaders whether in the government or non-governmental organisations as well as individuals had expressed their dissatisfaction and anger against those who had made the statements and reports and organised the forums.

“Among the reasons identified for these to have occurred is the cursory knowledge of those concerned regarding the historical background as to why these provisions were enshrined in the Federal Constitution and the influence of their attempts to implicate the principles of impartiality and justice without regard for the historical background and social condition of this country. Narrow political interests are also a cause.

“Unless this phenomenon is arrested immediately, it can lead to disunity and racial strife that can undermine the peace and harmony which has all this while brought progress, development and success to the nation.

“As such, it is necessary for the Conference of Rulers to emphasise and remind all quarters of these constitutional provisions besides giving emphasis to the assurance of safeguarding the genuine rights of other communities.

“It has to be emphasised that each provision in the Federal Constitution has undergone the process of discussion, consideration, consultancy, sacrifice and compromise of the highest degree for what has been championed, discussed, considered, benefited from as well as agreed to by all quarters concerned, until the realisation of the provisions in the Federal Constitution which are known as the Social Contract.

“It is not proper to dispute and question this Social Contract and more so to subject it to a review or change because it is the primary basis of the formation of Malaysia. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Malay Rulers to remind that there should never be any attempt ever to test and challenge issues related to the Social Contract.

“Truly, the leaders of the pre-independence era were insightful farsighted. They brought along with them the Malay Rulers for the negotiations to claim independence. The Institution of the Rulers was retained and legally enshrined in the constitution of an independent Malaysia.

“The Institution of the Rulers was accorded eminence, was positioned at the apex of Government, as the head of the country and the states, as a protective umbrella, ensuring impartiality among the citizens. The Institution of Rulers takes on the role of being a check-and-balance factor to untangle complications, if any.

“The Conference of Rulers also calls on the Malays to be united to safeguard the privileges, position, eminence and greatness of the Malay Rulers, safeguard Islam, Malay as the national language, and the genuine interests of the other communities in Malaysia as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

“It has to be emphasised that this agenda is more important and foremost than political or factional interests.

“Non-Malays should not harbour any apprehension or worry over their genuine rights because these rights are guaranteed under the Federal Constitution and provisions of the state constitutions of Malaysia contained in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

“It is hoped that with this emphasis, all confusion among the people regarding these matters can be contained and an atmosphere of peace, harmony and mutual respect can continue to exist among the people for the maintenance of order in the country.” – Bernama – The Scribe A Kadir Jasin

A lesson from the Solidarity movement

OCT 16 — Although I have always subscribed to the belief that a broader movement representing the poorer sections of the people regardless of race is better than just fighting for the cause of a single race, I have always sympathised with Hindraf and its objective of calling attention to the marginalisation of Indians in the country.

We must understand why Hindraf appeals to so many of our Indian brothers. The Indians, without doubt, are one of the most neglected groups and with no effective representation in the government — the MIC and multiracial parties such as PPP and non-racial parties like Gerakan have failed in their roles to effectively represent the interest of the poorer sections of Malaysians.

Frustration, discontent and anger among the Indians led to the sudden rise of this movement which snowballed into a force that has, in no small part, contributed to the dismaying performance of the BN parties in the last general election.

There is a real need for the government to analyse and address the reasons why Hindraf was able to become such a potent force within such a short time, and take corrective steps to tackle the problems facing the poorer sections of this country.

I was therefore shocked to learn that the government has, instead of engaging Hindraf to learn about the woes of the people, taken a step backwards to ban Hindraf.

Remember the Solidarity movement in Poland? Solidarity was formed in 1980 by Lech Walesa as a trade union movement in Poland, which was under communist rule at the time. It tapped into the disaffection of the people against the communist regime, and it quickly grew into a mass movement spreading to the whole of Poland.

The Polish Communists, as communists elsewhere would do, imposed martial law in 1981 and banned the movement. However, instead of stifling the movement, the legacy of the movement lived on and became an even bigger force, until in 1986, the Polish government had no choice but to lift the ban, and negotiated with the leaders of Solidarity in a series of roundtable talks. The rest is history.

Elections were promised and finally held, and Walesa was elected President of Poland in 1990.

The government can ban Hindraf, but there is no way to ban the ideas and legacy of the movement. A better way is to actually release all Hindraf leaders and engage them in talks to find out ways to overcome the feeling of marginalisation of Malaysian Indians.

I would advocate that it goes even a step further. Engage those NGOs that represent the poorer section of all Malaysians, and find a solution to help the poor of all races.

Fifty-one years after independence, this is the right time to stop race-based affirmative policies, and instead tailor all help based on social strata and need.

Give the tongkat to those who really cannot walk; do not give the tongkat indiscriminately to those who not only can walk, but can run and jump. That is what the NEP is doing, so far skewed from its original purpose of eradicating poverty irrespective of ethnic groups.

Engagement and not suppression will be the key to a civil society. – The Malaysian Insider

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Part 1

1. There has been a lot of talk about a Social Contract in Malaysia.

2. Perhaps it would be useful if we understand this concept a little bit more before we argue about it.

3. If we care to look into the origins of the social contract we will find that it is a European concept enunciated by European philosophers. The most famous is Socrates, the Greek philosopher who was jailed and sentenced to death.

4. He refused to escape and migrate to another Greek city-state because he believed he was bound by a social contract to live by the laws of his state of Athens as he was born and brought up there, benefiting from the aforesaid laws.

5. Before this social contract, men were said to live in a State of Nature, where there was no law to govern the relation between individuals in a small primitive society. The law of the jungle prevailed where might was right.

6. As society grew it became necessary to have laws which govern the behaviour of members of the society. All citizens were committed to respect and submit to the laws. This understanding is in fact a social contract although there was no oral or written undertaking to respect and submit to the laws. This was the view of Socrates. Later philosophers enlarged on this concept but there was never a requirement for a formal contract.

7. The Greeks are said to practise a democratic form of Government. However the citizen who had the right to participate in Government were limited to male adults of sound mind. Women, children, slaves, captives, criminals and foreigners were not accorded the rights of citizens and could not play a part in Government.

8. Much of European civilisation is based on the Greek civilisation. But as society grew bigger, direct participation in Government by the people became impossible.

9. At one stage democracy was abandoned in favour of feudalism in which a monarch ruled by Divine Right. In Asia this had always been the form of Government. Nevertheless the submission of the subjects to the Monarch was also a form of social contract.

10. Later feudalism was replaced by republicanism i.e. a return to the public of the power of Government.

11. Numerous forms of republics have emerged, each with its own set of laws and rules regarding the government of the country. But whatever may be the form, the laws and the rules, the citizens are bound by them. There would be no written contract but for foreigners to accept the rights of citizenship, there would usually be a formal undertaking to submit to the laws and system of the Government of the country.

12. After becoming citizens their offspring would automatically be regarded as citizens and as citizens they need not swear a formal oath of allegiance to the country. This right is through jus sanguinis i.e. through blood relation.

13. But there can also be citizenship by being born in the country or jus soli. This can be provided for by the laws of the country.

14. But whether citizenship is gained through jus sanguinis or jus soli, the social contract still applies even though there is no formal oath taking.

15. What is clear is that a social contract is a general understanding on the part of a citizen to submit to and obey the laws and the institutions of the country. The social contract governs not just his relation with the country, its Government and its institutions but also his relationship with his fellow citizens.

16. After receiving comments on this I will talk about the Malaysian social contract and its effect on Malaysia.

KONTRAK SOSIAL

1. Banyak yang diperkatakan berkenaan Kontrak Sosial di Malaysia

2. Mungkin ada baiknya kita cuba faham akan konsep ini sebelum kita berbahas dengan lebih lanjut.

3. Jika kita kaji asal usul kontrak sosial kita akan dapati bahawa ianya adalah satu konsep bangsa Eropah yang diketengahkan para falsafah Eropah. Yang termasyhur adalah Socrates, ahli falsafah berbangsa Greek yang telah dipenjarakan dan disabitkan hukuman bunuh.

4. Beliau enggan lari dan berhijrah ke bandar Greek yang lain kerana beliau percaya bahawa ia terikat dengan kontrak sosial untuk hidup berlandaskan undang-undang Athens di mana dianya dilahir dan dibesarkan dan mendapat manfaat daripada undang-undang tersebut.

5. Sebelum adanya kontrak sosial ini, manusia dikatakan hidup di dalam Keadaan Semulajadi, dimana tidak ada undang-undang untuk mentadbir perhubungan antara individu dalam masyarakat primitif yang kecil. Yang ada hanyalah undang-undang “belantara” dimana yang kuat selalunya benar.

6. Apabila masyarakat berkembang terdapat keperluan undang-undang bagi mentadbir perilaku sesuatu masyarakat. Setiap warganegara komited terhadap perlunya hormat dan akur pada undang-undang. Pemahaman ini merupakan kontrak sosial walaupun tidak terdapat apa-apa pengakuan untuk hormat dan akur terhadap undang-undang secara lisan mahupun bertulis. Ini pandangan Socrates. Para falsafah selepasnya memperluaskan konsep ini tetapi tidak pernah ada keperluan untuk kontrak secara formal.

7. Bangsa Greek dikatakan mengamalkan bentuk Kerajaan demokratik. Tetapi rakyat yang behak menyertai Kerajaan dihadkan kepada lelaki dewasa yang waras. Wanita, kanak-kanak, hamba abdi, tahanan, penjenayah dan warga asing tidak diberi hak sebagai warganegara dan tidak boleh memain peranan dalam kerajaan.

8. Sebahagian besar tamadun Eropah berasas kepada tamadun Greek. Tetapi apabila masyarakat berkembang besar adalah mustahil untuk mereka membuat penyertaan secara langsung didalam Kerajaan.

9. Pada satu peringkat, demokrasi ditolak dan sistem feudal diterima di mana raja memerintah dengan penuh hak ketuhanan. Ini merupakan bentuk Kerajaan yang terdapat di Asia. Bagaimanapun, ketaatan rakyat kepada Raja juga merupaka satu bentuk kontrak sosial.

10. Kemudian feudalisme digantikan dengan sistem republik iaitu mengembalikan kepada rakyat kuasa Kerajaan.

11. Pelbagai bentuk republik telah wujud, setiap satunya dengan undang-undang dan peraturannya tersendiri berkenaan kerajaan Negara tersebut. Walau apa pun bentuknya, undang-undang dan peraturan-peraturan, setiap warganegara terikat dengannya. Tidak ada kontrak bertulis tetapi bagi orang asing yang menerima hak warganegara, pada lazimnya akan ada perakuan formal untuk menturuti sistem dan undang-undang Kerajaan Negara itu.

12. Selepas menjadi warganegara, anak mereka akan secara automatik dianggap sebagai warganegara dan sebagai warganegara mereka tidak perlu bersumpah kesetiaan kepada Negara berkenaan secara formal. Hak ini adalah melalui jus sanguinis, iaitu melalui pertalian darah.

13. Kewarganegaraan juga boleh diperolehi dengan cara dilahirkan didalam Negara itu atau jus soli. Ini boleh disediakan oleh undang-undang Negara itu.

14. Samada kewarganegaraan diperolehi melalui jus sanguinis atau jus soli, kontrak sosial masih diguna pakai walaupun tiada pengakuan sumpah secara formal.

15. Yang jelas, kontrak sosial adalah kefahaman secara umum seseorang warganegara untuk menghormati dan akur kepada undang-undang dan institusi sesebuah negara. Kontrak Sosial ini tidak terhad kepada mengurus perhubungannya dengan negara, Kerajaan dan institusi, tetapi juga perhubungannya dengan rakan senegaranya yang lain.

16. Saya akan menulis berkenaan kontrak sosial dan kesannya terhadap Malaysia selepas menerima komen terhadap rencana saya yang ini. - Tun Dr. Mahathir

Part 2

THE MALAYSIAN SOCIAL CONTRACT

1. Before there was Malaya and Malaysia the peninsular was known as Tanah Melayu, or Malay Land.

2. Saying this alone would result in accusations of being racist.

3. But I need to go back in history if I am going to be able to explain about Malaysia’s social contract.

4. Through treaties signed by the Rulers of the Malay States of the Peninsular the British acquired the right to rule the Malay States. These treaties obviously recognised and legitimised the States as Malay States. No one disputed this. Even the aborigines accepted this as shown by their submission to the rule of the Malay Sultans.

5. Initially the peoples living in the States were divided into indigenous Malays and aborigines who were subjects of the Malay rulers and foreign guests who were not subjects of the rulers. There were no citizenship or documents about citizenship status as in most countries.

6. The foreign guests prospered in the British ruled Malay States and in the British colonies of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. The Malay subjects of the Rulers and the Rulers themselves did not feel threatened by the numbers of these non-Malays and the disparities between the general wealth and progress of the foreign guests and the subjects of the Rulers. They did not think that the foreigners who had settled in the country would ever demand citizenship rights.

7. When Japan conquered the Malay States and the colonies of the Straits Settlements, the Chinese felt insecure as the Japanese were their historical enemies.

8. Many Chinese formed and joined guerilla forces and disappeared into the jungle. When Japan surrendered the Chinese guerillas came out and seized many police stations in the interior and declared that they were the rulers of the country. They seized many people, Chinese and Malays and executed a number of them.

9. Malay villagers retaliated by killing the Chinese in the rural areas. Tension rose and a Sino-Malay war was only averted because of the arrival of British forces. But the ill feeling and animosity between the two races remained high.

10. It was in this tensed situation that the British proposed the Malayan Union which would give the “guests” the right of citizenship as indistinguishable from that of the Malays.

11. The Malays rejected the Malayan Union and its citizenship proposal. They forced the British to return to the status quo ante in a new Federation of Malaya.

12. Only Chinese who were British subjects in the colonies of the Straits Settlements were eligible to become citizens in this new Federation. Naturally the Malay citizens far outnumbered the Chinese Malayan citizens.

13. Chinese leaders appealed to the British, who then persuaded the UMNO President, Dato Onn Jaafar to propose to open UMNO to all races. This proposal was rejected by the other UMNO leaders and Dato Onn had to resign.

14. The British kept up the pressure for the Malays to be more liberal with citizenship for non-Malays.

15. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the President of UMNO decided on a coalition with MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) and the MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress). In the 1955 elections to the Federal Legislative Assembly, since there were very few constituencies with Chinese or Indian majorities, the MCA and MIC partners had to put up candidates in Malay majority constituencies after UMNO undertook not to contest in these constituencies but to support MCA Chinese and MIC Indian candidates instead.

16. Such was the support of the Malays for the MCA and MIC alliance candidates that they won even against Malay candidates from PAS. The MCA and MIC candidates all won. Only UMNO lost one constituency against PAS.

17. The Tunku as Chief Minister of a self-governing Federation of Malaya then decided to go for independence. The British continued to inisist on citizenship rights for the Chinese and Indians as a condition for giving independence.

18. To overcome British resistance to independence and to gain the support of the Chinese and Indians, the Tunku decided to give one million citizenship to the two communities based purely on residence. One notable new citizen was (Tun) Leong Yew Koh, a former general in the Chinese National Army who was later appointed Governor of Malacca.

19. It was at this stage that the leaders of the three communal parties who had formed the Government of self-governing British Federation of Malaya, discussed and reached agreement on the relationship between the three communities in an independent Federation of Malaya.

20. It was to be a quid pro quo arrangement. In exchange for the one million citizenships the non-Malays must recognise the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people. Certain laws such as the pre-eminence of Islam as the state religion, the preservation of Malay reserve land, the position of the Malay Rulers and Malay customs and the distribution of Government jobs were included in the understanding.

21. On the question of national language it was agreed that Malay would be the national language. English should be the second language. The Chinese and Indians could continue to use their own languages but not in official communication.

22. Chinese and Tamil primary schools can use their languages as teaching media. They can also be used in secondary schools but these have to be private schools.

23. For their part the Chinese and Indian leaders representing their parties and communities demanded that their citizenship should be a right which could not be annulled, that they should retain their language, religion and culture, that as citizens they should have political rights as accorded to all citizens.

24. Much of these agreements and understandings are reflected in the Federal Constitution of Independent Malaya. For everything that is accorded the Malays, there is always a provision for non-Malays. Few ever mention this fact. The only thing that attracts everyone’s attention and made a subject of dispute is what is accorded the Malays and other indigenous people.

25. Thus although Malay is to be the National Language, Chinese and Tamil can be used freely and in the Chinese and Tamil schools. In no other country has there been a similar provision. Even the most liberal countries do not have this constitutional guarantee.

26. The national language is to be learnt by everyone so that Malayan citizens can communicate with each other everywhere.

27. It was understood also that the Chinese language referred in the understanding were the Chinese dialects spoken in Malaysia, not the national language of China. Similarly for Malayan Indians the language was Tamil, not Hindi or Urdu or whatever became the national language of India. However, the Chinese educationists later insisted that the Chinese language must be the national language of China i.e. Mandarin.

28. The official religion is Islam but other religions may be practised by their adherents without any restriction. As the official religion, Islam would receive Government support. Nothing was said about support for the other religions. The non-Malays did not press this point and the Federal Constitution does not mention Government support for the other religions. Nevertheless such support have been given.

29. A quota was fixed for the Malayan Civil Service wherein the Malays would get four posts for every one given to Chinese or Indians. However it was recognised that the professional post would be open to all races as it was never thought possible there would be enough Malays to take up these posts.

30. The result was that in the early years of independence there were more non-Malays in Division 1 than Malays.

31. The Agong or the Rulers of the States should determine quotas of scholarships and licences for Malays. But no one should be deprived of whatever permits or licences in order to give to Bumiputras.

32. The position of the Malay Rulers was entrenched and could not be challenged. There would be a Paramount Ruler chosen from among the nine Rulers who would serve for five years.

33. The rulers were to be constitutional rulers. Executive power was to be exercised by elected Menteris Besar, Ketua Menteri (Chief Minister) and Prime Minister, assisted by members of councils and cabinets. The British practice was to be the model.

34. The most important understanding was the adoption of Parliamentary Democracy with a Constitutional Monarch, again after the United Kingdom model. It should be remembered that the British imposed an authoritarian colonial Government on the Malay State, the power resting with the Colonial Office in London.

35. Before these the Malay States were feudal with the Malay Rulers enjoying near absolute power. Only the elites played a role in State politics. The Malay subjects had no political rights at all. Certainly the guests had no say in politics. Even the Chinese and Indian British citizens had no say though they may be appointed as Municipal or Legislative Councillors.

36. The decision to adopt a democratic system of Government was a radical step in the governance of the Federation of Malaya and of the Malay States. This was agreed to by the leaders of the three major communities as represented by their political parties i.e. UMNO, MCA and MIC. There can be no doubt that these parties represented the vast majority of the three communities in Malaya. The Communists and the other leftists did not signify their agreement to the understanding.

37. The Reid Commission was briefed on all these agreements and understanding so that they will be reflected in the Constitution to be drawn up. All the three parties approved this Constitution after several amendments were made. In effect the Constitution became a contract binding on all the three communities in the Federation of Malaya upon attaining independence in 1957.

38. When Sabah and Sarawak joined the Peninsular States to form Malaysia the social contract was extended to the two Borneo States. The natives of Sabah and Sarawak were given the same status as the Malays. At this time the word Bumiputra was introduced to distinguish the indigenous Malays and Sabah, Sarawak natives from those descendants of foreign immigrants. Because Malay was widely used in the Borneo States there was no difficulty in the acceptance of Malay as the national language. The fact that the natives of the two states are not all Muslims necessitated no change in the Constitution once the word Bumiputra was accepted. But the official definition of a Malay remained.

39. The embodiment of the social contract is therefore the Constitution of first, the Federation of Malaya and then Malaysia.

40. To say it does not exist is to deny the contents of the Constitution which was based upon the acceptance by the leaders of the three communities of the original social contract.

41. All subsequent actions by the Government were the results of this social contract. The fact that the initiators of this social contract and their successors were endorsed by the people in every election reflects the undertaking of the people to honour this social contract.

42. Saying that the social contract does not exist is like saying that Malaysia exists in a vacuum, without a Constitution and laws based on this Constitution.

43. Implementing the social contract requires understanding of its spirit as much as the letter. The social contract is aimed at creating a multi-racial nation that is stable and harmonious. Any factor which would cause instability and result in confrontation between the races must be regarded as incompatible with the spirit of the social contract.

44. For 50 years no one seriously questioned the social contract. Even today the majority of Chinese and Indians and the indigenous Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak accept the social contract. But because Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi basically lost the 2008 election and now heads a weak Government the extremists and erstwhile detractors have questioned the social contract. The Bar Council has now become a political party believing that its expertise in law will exempt it from being questioned as to its credentials and its political objectives.

45. Abdullah’s UMNO is incapable of countering any attack on the social contract. If anything untoward happens Abdullah and UMNO must bear responsibility.

KONTRAK SOSIAL MALAYSIA

1. Sebelum adanya Malaya dan Malaysia, semenanjung ini dikenali sebagai Tanah Melayu.

2. Hanya berkata ini akan sebabkan kita dituduh bersifat perkauman.

3. Untuk terangkan berkenaan asal-usul kontrak sosial Malaysia saya terpaksa imbas semula sejarah.

4. Melalui perjanjian-perjanjian yang ditandatangani Raja-Raja Melayu Semenanjung, British telah mendapat hak untuk menakluk Negeri-negeri Melayu. Perjanjian-perjanjian ini mengakui dan mengesahkan Negeri-negeri ini sebagai Negeri-negeri Melayu. Tidak ada sesiapa pun yang membantah. Orang Asli juga menerima keadaan ini dengan penerimaan oleh mereka pemerintahan Raja-Raja Melayu.

5. Pada mulanya penduduk yang tinggal di Negeri-negeri ini dibahagi kepada orang Melayu dan Orang Asli yang merupakan rakyat Raja-raja Melayu dan tetamu asing yang tidak dianggap sebagai rakyat kepada Raja-raja Melayu. Tidak ada kewarganegaraan mahupun dokumen berkenaan taraf kerakyatan sepertimana di kebanyakan negara-negara lain.

6. Tetamu asing ini hidup mewah di Negeri-negeri Melayu di bawah pentadbiran British dan di jajahan British di Pulau Pinang, Melaka dan Singapura. Orang Melayu yang menjadi rakyat kepada Raja-raja Melayu dan Raja-raja Melayu sendiri tidak sikitpun merasa tergugat dengan bilangan besar orang bukan Melayu dan perbezaan jurang kekayaan dan kemajuan di antara tetamu asing ini dan rakyat Raja-Raja Melayu. Mereka tidak terfikir yang orang asing yang menetap di negara ini akan menuntut hak kewarganegaraan.

7. Apabila Jepun menakluk Negeri-negeri Melayu dan Negeri-negeri Selat, orang Cina merasa tidak selamat kerana Jepun merupakan musuh tradisi mereka.

8. Ramai orang Cina telah menubuhkan dan menganggotai angkatan gerila dan lari ke dalam hutan. Apabila Jepun serah diri, gerila-gerila Cina ini keluar dan merampas balai-balai polis di kawasan pedalaman dan isytihar yang mereka adalah pemerintah negara ini. Mereka menangkap ramai orang, Cina dan Melayu dan beberapa daripada mereka ini dibunuh.

9. Orang Melayu di kampung-kampung membalas dengan membunuh orang Cina di kawasan luar bandar. Ketegangan timbul dan pertempuran antara Cina dan Melayu dielak hanya dengan kedatangan angkatan tentera British. Tetapi perasaan marah dan benci antara kedua-dua kaum ini tetap tinggi.

10. Di dalam keadaan tegang ini British mencadang penubuhan Malayan Union yang akan memberi “tetamu-tetamu” ini hak kerakyatan yang tidak membezakan mereka daripada orang Melayu.

11. Orang Melayu menolak Malayan Union dan cadangan hak kerakyatan ini. Mereka paksa British untuk kembali keapda keadaan asal atau status quo ante di dalam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Federation of Malaya) yang baru.

12. Hanya orang Cina yang menjadi rakyat Negeri-negeri Selat layak untuk mendapat kerakyatan di dalam Persekutuan yang baru ini. Sudah tentu warganegara keturunan Melayu jauh lebih ramai daripada rakyat Malaya yang berketurunan Cina.

13. Pemimpin-pemimpin Cina merayu kepada British, yang kemudiannya menekan Presiden UMNO, Dato Onn Jaafar supaya mencadangkan agar UMNO dibuka kepada semua kaum. Cadangan ini ditolak lain-lain pemimpin UMNO dan Dato Onn terpaksa melepaskan jawatan.

14. British terus beri tekanan kepada orang Melayu untuk bersikap lebih terbuka berkenaan soal kerakyatan bagi orang bukan Melayu.

15. Presiden UMNO Tunku Abdul Rahman memutuskan untuk menubuhkan pakatan dengan MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) dan MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress). Dalam pilihanraya Majlis Perundangan Persekutuan (Federal Legislative Assembly) 1955, oleh kerana kurangnya kawasan majoriti penduduk Cina dan India, MCA dan MIC terpaksa letak calon mereka di kawasan yang mempunyai majoriti Melayu selepas UMNO bersetuju untuk tidak bertanding di kawasan-kawasan ini dan sebaliknya menyokong calon Cina MCA dan calon India MIC.

16. Begitu sokongan orang Melayu terhadap calon Perikatan MCA dan MIC hinggakan mereka menang walaupun menentang calon Melayu daripada PAS. Calon MCA dan MIC kesemuanya menang. Hanya UMNO kalah satu kerusi kepada PAS.

17. Tunku sebagai Ketua Menteri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu kemudian memutus untuk menuntut kemerdekaan. British terus berkeras menuntut hak kerakyatan bagi orang Cina dan India sebagai syarat memberi kemerdekaan.

18. Untuk mengatasi halangan British terhadap kemerdekaan dan untuk memenangi sokongan orang Cina dan India Tunku memutuskan untuk beri satu juta kerakyatan kepada kedua-dua komuniti ini berdasarkan hanya kepada permastautin. Salah seorang rakyat baru yang menonjol ialah (Tun) Leong Yew Koh, bekas general di dalam angkatan tentera nasional China yang kemudiannya dilantik Gabenor Melaka.

19. Di peringkat ini pemimpin-pemimpin ketiga-tiga parti yang berdasarkan kepada kaum yang telah mendirikan Kerajaan pemerintahan sendiri di dalam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Federation of Malaya) British telah berbincang dan mencapai persetujuan berkenaan syarat perhubungan antara ketiga-tiga kaum di dalam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang merdeka.

20. Ianya merupakan agihan yang sama rata. Sebagai balasan untuk satu juta kerakyatan bukan Melayu, orang bukan Melayu mesti mengakui kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu sebagai Bumiputera. Beberapa peruntukan undang-undang seperti kedudukan Islam sebagai agama rasmi, pengekalan tanah rizab Melayu, kedudukan Raja-raja Melayu dan adat istiadat Melayu dan pengagihan jawatan dalam Kerajaan juga termasuk di dalam persefahaman ini.

21. Dalam soal Bahasa Kebangsaan, Bahasa Melayu telah dipersetujui sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan. Bahasa Inggeris pula sebagai bahasa ke-dua. Kaum Cina dan India boleh terus gunakan bahasa mereka tetapi bukanlah sebagai bahasa rasmi untuk berkomunikasi.

22. Sekolah rendah Cina dan Tamil juga boleh menggunakan bahasa masing-masing sebagai bahasa pengajar. Bahasa-bahasa ini juga boleh digunakan di sekolah menengah, tetapi hanya di sekolah menengah swasta.

23. Di pihak mereka pemimpin-pemimpin Cina dan India yang mewakili parti mereka menuntut agar kerakyatan dijadikan hak mereka yang tidak boleh ditarik balik, mereka dibenar kekalkan bahasa, agama dan budaya mereka dan sebagai rakyat mereka diberikan hak politik sepertimana yang diberikan kepada semua rakyat.

24. Kebanyakan persetujuan dan persefahaman ini terkandung di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu merdeka. Bagi setiap yang diperuntukkan kepada orang Melayu, akan sentiasa terdapat peruntukan bagi yang bukan Melayu. Tidak ramai yang sebut akan hakikat ini. Yang menarik perhatian ramai dan yang menjadi tajuk perbalahan ialah apa yang diperuntukkan kepada orang Melayu dan lain-lain kaum Bumiputera sahaja.

25. Demikian walaupun Bahasa Melayu dijadikan Bahasa Kebangsaan, bahasa Cina dan Tamil tetap bebas digunakan di sekolah Cina dan Tamil. Peruntukan ini tidak terdapat di mana-mana negara lain. Bahkan di negara-negara yang liberal sekalipun tidak terdapat jaminan seperti ini yang termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan.

26. Bahasa Kebangsaan ini haruslah dipelajari semua orang agar setiap warganegara Malaya dapat berkomunikasi antara satu sama lain di mana-mana sahaja.

27. Difahamkan bahasa Cina yang di maksudkan di dalam persefahaman tersebut adalah dialek-dialek Cina yang ditutur di Malaysia dan bukannya bahasa kebangsaan negeri China. Demikian bagi kaum India Malaya bahasa Tamil digunakan dan bukannya Hindi atau Urdu atau apa-apa bahasa pun yang menjadi bahasa Kebangsaan di India. Tetapi para pendidik aliran Cina kemudiannya mengguna Bahasa Cina yang menjadi bahasa Kebangsaan negara China iaitu Mandarin.

28. Islam adalah agama rasmi tetapi agama-agama lain boleh dipraktik penganut masing-masing tanpa apa-apa halangan. Sebagai agama rasmi Islam mendapat bantuan Kerajaan. Tiada tersebut tentang bantuan bagi mana-mana agama lain. Bukan Melayu tidak menekankan tentang ini dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak pun sebut tentang bantuan Kerajaan terhadap agama lain. Namun sokongan dan bantuan tetap diberikan.

29. Kuota ditetapkan bagi kakitangan Kerajaan (Malayan Civil Service) dimana orang Melayu akan mendapat empat tempat bagi setiap satu yang diberikan kepada orang Cina dan India. Walaubagaimanapun, jawatan profesional diiktiraf terbuka bagi semua kaum kerana dianggap tidak mungkin terdapat cukup bilangan orang Melayu untuk mengisi jawatan-jawatan tersebut.

30. Hasilnya pada awal kemerdekaan terdapat lebih ramai kaum bukan Melayu daripada Melayu yang mengisi jawatan dalam Divisyen Satu.

31. Yang Di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja-raja Melayu akan menentukan kuota biasiswa dan lesen bagi orang Melayu. Tetapi tiada sesiapa yang akan dirampas mana-mana permit atau lesen hanya untuk diberikan kepada kaum Bumiputera.

32. Kedudukan Raja-raja Melayu termaktub dan tidak boleh dipersoalkan. Seorang Yang Di-Pertuan Agong akan dipilih daripada sembilan Raja-raja Melayu dan akan berkhidmat selama lima tahun.

33. Raja-raja akan menjadi Raja berperlembagaan. Kuasa eksekutif akan dilaksanakan oleh Menteri Besar, Ketua Menteri dan Perdana Menteri yang dipilih dan dibantu ahli majlis atau Kabinet. Amalan British dijadikan contoh.

34. Persetujuan yang paling penting ialah pelaksanaan Demokrasi Berparlimen digabungkan dengan Raja Berperlembagaan, sekali lagi seperti yang diamalkan di United Kingdom. Harus diingat pihak British telah mengenakan Kerajaan Kolonial kuku besi ke atas Negeri-negeri Melayu dengan kuasa diletak pada Pejabat Kolonial di London.

35. Sebelum ini Negeri-negeri Melayu diperintah secara feudal di mana Raja-raja Melayu mempunyai kuasa mutlak. Hanya golongan bangsawan yang memain peranan dalam politik negeri. Rakyat Melayu tidak langsung ada apa-apa hak politik. Sudah tentu tetamu juga tidak mempunyai suara dalam hal-hal berkenaan politik. Warganegara British keturunan Cina dan India juga tidak mempunyai apa-apa suara walaupun mereka boleh dilantik sebagai Ahli Kehormat Majlis Kerajaan Tempatan atau Perundangan.

36. Keputusan untuk melaksana sistem Kerajaan berlandaskan demokrasi merupakan satu langkah radikal di dalam pentadbiran Kerajaan di Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan Negeri-negeri Melayu. Ini dipersetujui pemimpin ketiga-tiga kaum terbesar yang diwakili parti-parti politik UMNO, MCA dan MIC. Tidak syak lagi yang parti-parti ini mewakili sebahagian besar daripada ketiga-tiga masyarakat di Malaya. Pihak Komunis dan yang berhaluan kiri lain tidak menyatakan persetujuan mereka terhadap persefahaman ini.

37. Suruhanjaya Reid diberi penerangan tentang perjanjian dan persefahaman ini agar ianya akan dimasukkan kedalam Perlembagaan yang akan digubal. Ketiga-tiga parti meluluskan Perlembagaan yang digubal setelah beberapa pindaan dilakukan. Kesannya Perlembagaan ini menjadi kontrak yang mengikat ketiga-tiga kaum di Persekutuan Tanah Melayu menjelang merdeka pada tahun 1957.

38. Apabila Sabah dan Sarawak menyertai Negeri-negeri Semenanjung untuk membentuk Malaysia kontrak sosial ini di panjangkan kepada kedua-dua negeri ini. Orang Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak di beri taraf yang sama dengan orang Melayu. Pada masa ini juga perkataan Bumiputera diperkenalkan untuk membezakan orang Melayu dan orang Bumiputera Sabah, Sarawak daripada yang berketurunan pendatang. Kerana Bahasa Melayu dugunakan secara meluas di negeri-negeri Borneo tidak ada kesulitan bagi penerimaan Bahasa Melayu sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan. Walaupun kaum Bumiputera di kedua-dua negeri ini bukan semuanya orang Islam ini tidak memerlukan pindaan kepada Perlembagaan apabila perkataan Bumiputera diterima. Tetapi definisi rasmi bagi orang Melayu tetap tidak berubah.

39. Oleh itu pembentukan kontrak sosial dimaktubkan dalam pertama, Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan seterusnya Malaysia. Untuk mengatakan yang ianya tidak wujud samalah dengan menidakkan kandungan Perlembagaan yang diasaskan kepada penerimaan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin ketiga-tiga kaum terhadap kontrak sosial yang asal.

40. Kesemua tindakan susulan oleh Kerajaan adalah hasil daripada kontrak sosial ini. Hakikatnya pencetus kontrak sosial ini dan pewaris-pewaris mereka yang diiktiraf rakyat di setiap Pilihanraya Umum menunjukkan kesediaan rakyat untuk menghormati kontrak sosial ini.

41. Menidakkan kewujudan kontrak sosial ini ialah seperti berkata yang Malaysia ini wujud di dalam suasana kekosongan, tidak ada Perlembagaan dan undang-undang yang berlandaskan kontrak ini.

42. Pelaksanaan kontrak sosial ini memerlukan pemahaman semangatnya yang mendalam. Kontrak sosial ini bertujuan mewujudkan satu negara berbilang kaum yang stabil dan harmoni. Apa jua faktor yang akan akibatkan ketidakstabilan dan menghasilkan ketegangan di antara kaum haruslah dianggap tidak sesuai dengan semangat kontrak sosial ini.

43. Selama 50 tahun tidak ada sesiapa yang menyoal kontrak sosial ini. Malahan hari ini pun majoriti kaum Cina dan India dan Bumiputera Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak menerima kontrak sosial ini. Tetapi kerana Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pada asasnya kalah dalam pilihanraya 2008 dan sekarang mengetuai Kerajaan yang lemah, pihak ekstrimis dan penyanggah sekarang ini mempersoalkan kontrak sosial ini. Majlis Peguam kini telah menjadi sebuah parti politik yang percaya bahawa kepakarannya dalam undang-undang akan mengecualikan ianya daripada dipersoal tentang kelayakannya dan objektif politiknya.

44. UMNO Abdullah tidak berdaya menangkis apa-apa serangan terhadap kontrak sosial ini. Jika apa-apa terjadi Abdullah dan UMNO harus dipertanggungjawabkan. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

RACIALISM

1. When the Barisan Nasional did very badly in the last general election many observers inside and outside the country claimed that the Malaysian people of all races have rejected race-based politics.

2. The remarkable increase in the opposition Members of Parliament is said to be due to their representing the alternative to the race-based politics of the BN. How they can ignore the entirely Malay PAS and the overwhelmingly Chinese DAP I do not know. These are race based parties.

3. If indeed the people as a whole reject race-based parties as represented by the component parties of the BN, then they would reject PAS and DAP. And we should see an improvement in race relations.

4. But is there any improvement in race relations?

5. I may be wrong and certainly the leader of the Government will say I am wrong, but what I see today is more extreme racialism raising its ugly head.

6. The latest is the case of Dato Ahmad Ismail.

7. The furore caused by him, a minor figure in UMNO, is out of proportion to the issue itself. But because of poor handling by the UMNO big guns it has become an issue that can split asunder the BN itself.

8. Now we have the MCA and Gerakan threatening to leave the BN.

9. We can appreciate the need of the Chinese parties to regain support of the Chinese by showing their strong stand against UMNO. But the only result of this would be the antagonism of the Malays against the Chinese. If this goes on, if the Gerakan and MCA leaves BN because of what Ahmad Ismail said, then who gains? Obviously the opposition Pakatan would gain. The choice for Gerakan and MCA is either to join the opposition or to degenerate into insignificant parties which can never aspire to win enough seats to form a Government. The end result will be victory for the opposition.

10. Do we really think the opposition with parties like PAS, an entirely Malay party with its Islamic State vision and DAP with its predominantly Chinese base and secular politics can form a good Government? The Pakatan is not a properly constructed coalition like the BN. It is just a collection of disparate parties which come together in order to win elections by not contesting against each other.

11. I know that PAS and the DAP are not happy with Johnny-come-lately Keadilan and its leader Anwar Ibrahim. They don’t want to be subservient to Keadilan or to have Anwar as their Prime Minister. They don’t want Keadilan playing the role of UMNO in the Pakatan.

12. The result will be chaos for this country. There would be racial tension which may turn ugly.

13. What I notice is the unwillingness of the disenchanted Chinese parties in the BN to name the real culprit. Privately the Chinese, like the Malays would condemn the leadership of Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. But no one would openly say so. Instead as we can see UMNO is made the scapegoat.

14. Making UMNO the scapegoat is not going to improve race relations or improve the quality of the BN Government. Unless and until Dato Seri Abdullah is removed nothing that the Chinese parties and UMNO can do will help improve race relations or resuscitate the BN or improve the Government of the country.

15. I had said that instead of Dato Seri Najib apologising, UMNO should discipline Ahmad. His apology and its rejection by Gerakan simply angered the Malays. At the same time I don’t think support for Gerakan and MCA would increase.

16. The BN leader should have called the parties concerned and persuade them not to use the race card. But the leader was too scared to face Ahmad Ismail one-to-one. Instead he resorted to the Internal Security Act (ISA) to prove that he is impartial. Now not only the Malays but the Chinese too will become more angry.

17. In my last article I have tried to reduce the anti-BN feeling. To me it is still a great coalition, still the best instituton in the multi-racial Malaysian politics.

18. The problem is incompetent leadership. You don’t sink the ship because the captain is not handling it properly. You remove the captain.

19. I know the Chinese papers are calling me racist. I can deny it but they would not accept my denial. But good race relations in Malaysia is a must. Fighting between UMNO, MCA and Gerakan will only result in racial animosity and split BN. No one in the BN will gain.

20. UMNO, MCA and Gerakan leaders should try to heal the rift and help revive the BN.

21. However I must admit that this will be quite impossible if Abdullah still leads the BN and the Government. It is time that UMNO, MCA and Gerakan join together and force the resignation of Abdullah. Then and then only would we be able to revive the BN and perhaps restructure it. If not race relations will go from bad to worse and the whole country will suffer.

Perkauman

1. Apabila prestasi Barisan Nasional jatuh dengan teruk pada Pilihanraya Umum lepas ramai pemerhati di dalam dan luar negara mendakwa bahawa semua rakyat Malaysia pelbagai kaum telah menolak politik berlandaskan kaum.

2. Peningkatan mendadak jumlah Ahli Parlimen pembangkang dikatakan kerana pembangkang merupakan alternatif kepada politik perkauman yang diamalkan BN. Bahawa PAS adalah parti Melayu manakala DAP pula dianggotai hampir keseluruhannya oleh orang Cina tidak diambil kira. Saya tak faham. Parti-parti ini juga merupakan parti berlandaskan kaum.

3. Jika benar rakyat menolak parti berlandaskan kaum sebagaimana yang diwakili parti-parti komponen BN, mereka juga sepatutnya tolak PAS dan DAP. Dan kita juga patut melihat peningkatan hubungan antara kaum.

4. Tetapi adakah terdapat peningkatan hubungan antara kaum ini?

5. Mungkin saya salah dan semestinya pucuk pimpinan Kerajaan akan kata saya salah, tetapi apa yang saya lihat hari ni ialah kewujudan sifat perkauman yang lebih ekstrim.

6. Yang terbaru melibatkan Dato Ahmad Ismail.

7. Kemarahan dan kekecohan yang ditimbulkan beliau, seorang yang kerdil di dalam UMNO, tidak setanding dengan isu yang dibangkitkan. Tetapi oleh kerana pemimpin UMNO tidak bijak mengurus isu tersebut dengan baik, maka ianya menjadi satu isu yang boleh pecah-belahkan BN.

8. Kini MCA dan Gerakan mengugut untuk keluar BN.

9. Kita boleh faham tindakan parti Cina untuk kembalikan sokongan kaum Cina dengan menunjukkan bantahan yang kuat terhadap UMNO. Tetapi ini hanya akan timbulkan perasaan marah orang Melayu terhadap orang Cina. Jika ini terus berlaku, jika Gerakan dan MCA tinggalkan BN kerana apa yang diperkatakan Ahmad Ismail, siapa yang untung? Sudah tentu Pakatan pembangkang. Pilihan yang ada pada Gerakan dan MCA hanyalah untuk menyertai pembangkang atau terus merosot menjadi parti yang tidak signifikan yang tidak mungkin boleh menang cukup kerusi untuk bentuk Kerajaan. Akhirnya pembangkang menang.

10. Percayakah kita parti pembangkang seperti PAS, yang bulat-bulat parti Melayu dengan matlamat menubuhkan negara Islam dan DAP yang mengamal politik sekular dan dianggotai hampir keseluruhannya oleh orang Cina boleh mendirikan Kerajaan yang baik? Pakatan Rakyat bukanlah satu perikatan seperti BN. Ianya hanya himpunan parti-parti berasingan yang bergabung untuk menang pilihanraya dengan tidak bertanding melawan sesama mereka.

11. Saya tahu PAS dan DAP tidak suka dengan kehadiran Keadilan yang baru wujud ketuanya Anwar Ibrahim. Mereka tidak mahu tunduk kepada Keadilan atau lantik Anwar sebagai Perdana Menteri. Mereka tidak mahu Keadilan memain peranan seperti UMNO di dalam Barisan Nasional.

12. Hasilnya adalah kekacauan dalam negara. Akan tercetus ketegangan kaum yang akan menjadi lebih buruk.

13. Apa yang saya dapat lihat juga ialah keengganan parti-parti Cina di dalam BN untuk menamakan punca masalah yang sebenar. Secara tertutup, orang Cina seperti juga Melayu, akan mencerca pimpinan Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Tetapi tiada siapa yang akan katakannya secara terbuka. Sebaliknya kita lihat UMNO dijadikan mangsa.

14. Menjadikan UMNO mangsa tidak akan memperbaiki hubungan antara kaum atau meningkatkan mutu Kerajaan BN. Hanya jika Dato Seri Abdullah disingkir, dan hanya jika dianya sudah undur, tiada apa-apa yang boleh dilakukan parti-parti Cina mahupun UMNO untuk memperbaiki hubungan kaum dan pulihkan BN atau meningkatkan keupayaan Kerajaan negara ini.

15. Saya sudah kata yang Dato Seri Najib tidak perlu minta maaf, tetapi UMNO harus ambil tindakan disiplin terhadap Ahmad. Penolakan maaf Najib oleh Gerakan hanya menimbulkan kemarahan orang Melayu. Pada masa yang sama saya tidak rasa sokongan untuk Gerakan dan MCA meningkat.

16. Pimpinan BN sepatutnya memanggil semua pihak yang terlibat dan mempengaruhi mereka agar tidak gunakan isu perkauman. Tetapi pucuk kepimpinan ini takut untuk bersemuka dengan Ahmad Ismail. Sebaliknya dia mengguna Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) untuk menunjukkan yang dia tidak berpihak kepada sesiapa. Sekarang bukan hanya Melayu, tetapi Cina juga semakin marah.

17. Di dalam tulisan saya yang lepas, saya cuba kurangkan perasaan anti-BN. Bagi saya ianya masih merupakan gabungan yang baik, masih lagi institusi yang terbaik di dalam politik Malaysia yang berbilang kaum.

18. Masalahnya ialah kepimpinan yang tidak cekap. Kita tidak karamkan kapal hanya kerana nakhoda tidak cekap. Kita singkirkan nakhoda.

19. Saya tahu akhbar Cina mengatakan yang saya bersifat perkauman. Saya boleh nafikannya tetapi mereka tidak akan terima penafian saya. Tetapi hubungan yang baik antara kaum di Malaysia adalah satu kemestian. Perbalahan antara UMNO, MCA dan Gerakan hanya akan hasilkan ketegangan kaum dan perpecahan dalam BN. Tiada pihak dalam BN yang akan untung.

20. Pimpinan UMNO, MCA dan Gerakan mesti berusaha untuk memperbaiki keadaan ini dan memulihkan semula BN.

21. Tetapi saya akui ianya adalah sukar jika Abdullah masih lagi memimpin BN dan Kerajaan. Sudah tiba masanya UMNO, MCA dan Gerakan bersatu dan paksa Abdullah lepaskan jawatan. Hanya dengan cara ini kita dapat pulihkan BN dan mungkin juga menyusunnya semula. Jika tidak hubungan kaum akan terus merosot dan negara akan jadi mangsa. – Tun Dr. Mahathir