What defines a bumiputra?

A Humble Submission

Thursday, 27 July 2017

BY SYAHREDZAN JOHAN

THE announcement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak a few days ago that the Government will study in depth the request by the Indian-Muslim community to be recognised as bumiputra has caused quite a stir and sparked numerous discussions.

Some think that recognising a community as bumiputra is akin to “changing the race” of the said community.

This is a misconception. There is no question of changing anyone’s race. This article will attempt to clear the confusion.

The term “bumiputra” is not found in the Federal Constitution, at least with regards to ethnic communities in Peninsular Malaysia.

The term “bumiputra” or “pribumi” does exist in the context of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Article 161A of the Federal Constitution lists down the ethnic groups recognised as natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

The Constitution also provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and quotas may be reserved in certain areas for these communities. This can be found in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

“Malay” is generally defined in Article 160 as “a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom”. This means that the special position in Article 153 does not include the orang asli of Peninsular Malaysia. However, Article 8 does allow for special laws to be made for the benefit of the orang asli of Peninsular Malaysia.

When the Prime Minister talked about studying the request to recognise Indian-Muslims as bumiputra, he is not talking about Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

If he were, then Parliament would need to amend the Federal Constitution and expand the definition of Malay, or widen the scope of Article 153.

Such an endeavour would require the support of two-thirds of the Members of Parliament and would also require the express consent of the Council of Rulers, since it concerns Article 153.

The term “bumiputra” can be found in other Federal legislation apart from the Federal Constitution. But there is no legal definition of the term for Peninsular Malaysian ethnic groups.

Thus, the term “bumiputra” is not a legal term, but a policy construct. It is a useful term to group together Malays, natives of Sabah and Sarawak and other ethnic groups, especially after the New Economic Policy was implemented.

It is a “catch-all” term when implementing policies which benefit “natives” of Malaysia, including the orang asli who do not fall under Article 153.

The term has also been extended to other ethnic groups, depending on the context and the policy in question. Certain states have also recognised certain ethnic groups as “bumiputra”.

For example, ethnic groups such as Malaysian Siamese, Peranakan and the Malacca Portuguese have at some point asked to be recognised as bumiputra or have already been recognised as such.

The request made by the Federation of Malaysian Indian Muslim Associations (Permim), communicated to the Prime Minister, is not unique.

The request by Permim, therefore, does not require a legislative amendment.

One must also not forget that there are those with South Indian ancestry (as there are those with Pakistani, Arab and other South-East Asian ethnicities such as Javanese, Bugis and others) who qualify as Malay under Article 16 and are already within the ambit of Article 153.

There is no question of “changing one’s race”, which is often brought up in discussions and commentary about this issue. Permim itself is not asking to be seen as Malay, just to be recognised as bumiputra.

Mature and civil discussions and debates about this issue should be allowed to take place. But at the same time, one must be clear about the difference between “bumiputra” and “Malay”, and what Article 153 entails.

There is, of course, the question of whether race-based policies such as those in the New Economic Policy are effective in today’s world.

But that is a discussion for another time, and perhaps another article.

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/online-exclusive/a-humble-submission/2017/07/27/what-defines-a-bumiputra-as-we-debate-this-issue-it-is-important-for-us-to-get-all-the-terminology-r/

Other articles:

The Constitution stands supreme

Time to enact the Freedom of Information Act

The right to peaceful assembly

From revered hero to outright enemy

Saturday, 3 December 2016

Jocelin Tan

KHAIRY Jamaluddin and his team thought long and hard about how to approach the subject of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s betrayal of Umno.

The former premier had long crossed the red line where Umno members were concerned, but Khairy did not want to cross that Malay cultural line of regard for the elderly and sympathy for the vanquished.

After much deliberation, they decided they could no longer beat around the bush because, as Khairy put it, it was a case of “kill or be killed”.

Dr Mahathir and his new party are aiming for the same voter base as Umno, and he is working hand-in-glove with the enemy. The fact that DAP leaders have ticked off Umno for criticising Dr Mahathir says it all. But the point is that Dr Mahathir has been bashing Umno and its president non-stop for the last two years.

He had gone against everything he once preached in Umno.

It was time to hit back.

The Youth wing set the tone in taking on the man considered as Umno’s greatest leader.

Their app­roach was to criticise with substance while acknowledging what Dr Mahathir had done for the country.

Those at the Umno Youth assembly were treated to a video of Dr Mahathir and his contradictions.

Being in power for 22 years is an awfully long time and there is no shortage of instances of Dr Mahathir saying one thing previously and doing another thing now.

It was sort of like the seven deadly sins of Dr Mahathir – taking part in the Bersih protest, reconciling with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, endorsing Reformasi, befriending Moha­med Sabu, holding hands with Lim Kit Siang, aligning with PKR and being part of Pakatan Harapan.

It was quite an experience for the Umno crowd to watch how Dr Mahathir used to condemn the Bersih protests in the strongest terms and in the next instance, to hear him running down Najib at the recent Bersih demonstration wearing a yellow T-shirt.

Dr Mahathir, in the eyes of Umno members, had become the best example of “Melayu mudah lupa”, a phrase the former premier himself had coined out of frustration that Malays easily forget the contributions of past leaders.

Addressing Dr Mahathir’s contradictions had actually begun at a closed-door briefing for delegates a day before the Umno General Assembly.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak told the delegates that the real reason for Dr Mahathir’s action was not the economy or 1MDB.

He was angry because Najib could not agree to the crooked bridge linking Johor and Singapore.

“He lobbied so many times with me but I wanted everyone’s opinion, so I went back to the Cabinet. After much discussion, the Cabinet said it was a no-go,” Najib told the delegates.

But, he added, the turning point was “boi boi”, which caused the entire hall to erupt in laughter and catcalls.

“Boi boi” (boy boy) is the Umno nickname for Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir, the implication being that the favoured son was meant to continue the Mahathir legacy.

Najib said Dr Mahathir wanted him to help Mukhriz win the vice-­president post in the 2009 party election.

“At that time, I felt Mukhriz should perform as the Mentri Besar of Kedah, then we could assess his report card.

“He was not even the state Umno chairman, but he wanted him (Mukhriz) up there. Then the attacks began,” said Najib.

Many of the delegates are still trying to wrap their heads around what Dr Mahathir is doing to their party.

“I understand a father’s love for his son, but surely not to the extent of jeopardising our race and party.

“He is now with people who have insulted him, called him names and attacked our party. We cannot accept that,” said Silam Wanita Umno chief Mizma Appehdullah.

Almost every speaker touched on the “Mahathir betrayal”, yet not once was his name mentioned.

It was one of those unique traits of Malay politics – one does not know that the arrow has gone in until the wound starts to bleed.

“It’s like Malay silat, lots of bunga (showy moves) and then bam! You get hit,” said Kapar Umno chief Datuk Faizal Abdullah.

The “Mahathir betrayal” has been an issue that delegates are completely in one mind about.

It was much easier than when Dr Mahathir struggled to persuade the party against Anwar.

Party members did not need further convincing about what Dr Mahathir had done, but it had to be said and it had to be heard on the big stage.

It was to cut the political and emotional ties, to send a message that the party cannot accept the betrayal.

It was also to tell the Umno grassroots that they cannot accept Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia because it is led by a man who has betrayed the party.

It is the first time that Dr Mahathir has lost a big fight, but he is probably gearing up for the biggest fight of all – the general election.

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/analysis/2016/12/03/from-revered-hero-to-outright-enemy/