Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80

Thread: The rat race part v - the malaysian rat race

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART V - THE WAR MACHINE HARD AT WORK: Cops zoom in on Guan Eng

    The guys at the top of the collaborator's Pyramid are worried about losing the gravy train should Pakatan comes to power. So they are pulling all the stops to bring the State MBs and CMS down. Be aware and be focused.

    Cops zoom in on Guan Eng

    Low Chia Ming, Feb 23, 10

    Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has been told to contact the state police to fix a time and date for his statements to be recorded in relation to six reports against him.

    According to the notice issued by the police, the probe is based on reports lodged in Penang - in Sungai Nibong, Kg Baru, Kubang Semang, Seberang Jaya, Sungai Pinang and Kepala Batas.

    The notice said the alleged offences comprise four counts of participating in an illegal assembly, one of violating the Sedition Act 1948 and three counts of criminal defamation.

    Lim's lawyer, Jagdeep Singh Deo, described the investigations as a form of harassment.

    "The police are listing six cases to be investigated. This clearly shows intention to harass the chief minister, but he will cooperate fully with the police," he told a press conference today. Malaysiakini. Subscription required.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by pywong
    John Doe: Historical points on Melaka empire -

    To be verified.

    Ketuanan Malacca

    Tuesday, 30 March 2010 admin-s

    So, in essence, all of Malaya belonged to Indonesia!!! And they all used Chinese money!! And they were all Hindu!!

    By John Doe

    A few friends from Malaysia emailed me and expressed surprised that Malacca minted their own coins. Yes they did. Let's see how Ketuanan Malacca held up.

    Apparently, the coins were made between 1446-1459. They were minted from tin. Supposedly during the rule of Sultan Muzaffar (4th Sultan). However (for those who read Jawi) the inscriptions read “Al Sultan, Al Adil”, which literally translates to The Sultan, The Just (fair). And since it does not actually bear an inscribed year on it, the actual Sultan who made this could be anyone's guess. I was however going by “popular belief”, when I mentioned that it was the 4th Sultan's currency.

    The coins look like this:

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: Chapter 2: The Social Contract - What ‘social contract’ entails

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong
    (A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

    Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!


    For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

    We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

    What ‘social contract’ entails

    Thursday, 01 April 2010 admin-s

    The term has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression.

    By Azmi Sharom (The Star)

    AH ... the social contract — a theory propounded by the philosopher Hobbes where the citizens of a country agrees to give power to a government in exchange for the guarantee of their own civil liberties and rights.

    It is a term meant to dictate a type of governance where the needs of a powerful authority are balanced by the protection of citizens from abuse of that power. In this Hobbesian philosophy we find a weapon against tyranny.

    But this is not so in Malaysia. The term “social contract” has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression. When “social contract” is used on these shores, it means that Malay political power must always hold sway and a state of perpetual pro-Malay economic policies must remain in place and everyone else must keep quiet as their forefathers had agreed to it.

    The founders of this country did not have such racialist aspirations when we obtained our independence in 1957. The provisions in the Constitution which provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (note there is no such thing as “Malay rights” in our Constitution), were meant as a stop gap measure but not a permanent crutch.

    Tun Dr Ismail likened it to a gold handicap where you give the weaker party a boost until he reaches a point where he can play on equal terms. Indeed the time limit initially set was for the affirmative action to last 20 years.

    But hey, don’t take my word for it. Allow me to regale you with some quotes that can be found in the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission “… in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …”

    And the people who said this were not the British and their pompous hats. It was the Alliance which in case you have forgotten who they were, consisted of the Malayan In-dian Congress, the Malayan Chinese Association and the United Malay National Organisation. That’s right our great leaders of Umno hoped and dreamt of a Malaya based on equality. And you can see this aspiration reflected in the Constitution. Article 8 guarantees equality except in situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. In other words, if an affirmative action is not specifically allowed for in the Constitution, it is unlawful.

    And there are other provisions as well; like Article 136 which states that all government servants must not be discriminated against based on race and creed. So our non-Malay public servants have a Constitutional protection against poor treatment for example in promotions. I don’t see all these “warriors for the social contract” waving placards demanding impartial treatment to all civil servants. Of course not, it would not do to defend the non-Malays, will it?

    By the way, it is not only the politicians who wanted a country where there is racial equality, the rulers, our Sultans themselves said that they “... look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country”.

    But in case you think I am making this up, it’s in the report mentioned above on page 71. Check it out yourself.

    So the next time some ex-premier, or multi-millionaire Malay, or racist rhetoric politician, go on and on about the “social contract”, please be informed that this kind of self- serving bigoted behaviour was not part of the dream that is independent Malaya. Our founders did not have such base ideals they wanted better, and so should we. Malaysiatoday....

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: Chapter 2: The Social Contract - The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong
    (A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

    Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

    Tuesday April 20 2010

    Art Harun describes himself as a non-governmental organism, intent on infecting the conscience.

    The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’ — Part 1
    APRIL 20 — In “The Social Contract — correcting the misconceptions”, I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

    I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

    A social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.

    It also seeks to rationalise why we would then agree to surrender our liberty, freedom and the ability to do whatever we like to the State when we, the human beings, were all born free and by our nature do not like to be restricted and constrained.

    The philosophers surmised that we do so because we by nature are social creatures. We do so because we want to live together as a society. Furthermore, we do so because the State promises us some benefits. In fact we expect the State to give us the benefits that we want. That is why we surrender or agree to surrender some of our freedom, liberty and free will to the State.

    That is why, in theory, we do what we do.

    However, it is not a one way or unilateral agreement. There is supposed to be an exchange of promises between us, the people, and the State. For example, we promise not to steal and if we steal we promise to abide by the law which would send us to prison. In return, the State promises to protect our property from being stolen by other people.

    That is the social contract as a legal theory.

    In reality, that social contract does not exist, in writing or otherwise.

    Now, the social contract which is so much talked about in Malaysia is a *******isation of the theory of the social contract. Why do I say so?

    It is simple. The theory of social contract postulates an agreement between the people of a State and the State. However the social contract which is so well loved by some people in Malaysia is a supposed agreement between the respective leaders of the three major communities among themselves which happened prior to our independence.

    That in itself is the hijacking of the theory of social contract.

    Apparently, the three community leaders met to decide the whole future of Malaysia before and after independence. And what they had agreed would bind all of us till kingdom come.

    Apparently too, the Malay leader was generous enough to confer citizenship to the non-Malays who were not qualified for citizenship.

    The two non-Malay leaders, out of sheer gratitude to the Malays (who were represented by the said Malay leader) for doing so, agreed that the Malays should have “special rights.” These special rights were then spelt out in the Federal Constitution.

    This brings the oft-repeated argument that the Malays have sacrificed a lot in agreeing to “grant” citizenships to the non-Malays who were otherwise “not qualified” to gain one. Therefore the non-Malays should respect the Malay’s special “rights”.

    Over the years, these special rights were apparently challenged by the non-Malays, and even by some Malays themselves. So, according to some people, this is unacceptable. This is unconstitutional. This constitutes a breach of the so called social contract.

    What does history show us about this *******ised version of the social contract?

    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr Alan-Lennox Boyd), while debating our Independence Bill reported to the British Parliament:

    “There were extreme views on the part of some sections of Malayan* (*I think when he said “Malayan”, he was in fact referring to the Malays) opinion which are opposed to any political advance on the part of the Chinese people in Malaya. There were equally strong views held by some of the Chinese population demanding absolute jus soli citizenship for anybody born in the Federation and the complete abolition of any distinction between the races.

    The constitutional Commission had to find a solution which would work and which would find general acceptance, and in our view it has fully succeeded in its task. The present Federation Constitution represents a genuine compromise worked out between differing sectors. The citizenship proposals, I believe, are a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views, and I believe that the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to be a wise balance.

    There are solid guarantees of fundamental liberties to meet Chinese fears of discrimination, with reasonable arrangements to safeguard the special position of the Malayans without injustice to other races. I am conscious that these two aspects of the settlement arouse particular interest in the House, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I devote a moment or two to those two most important matters.

    Now, a word about the balance achieved between the rights of Malays and Chinese. The special position of the Malays was recognised in the original treaties made by His Majesty in previous years, and Her Majesty Queen Victoria and others with the Malay States. It was reaffirmed when these treaties were revised. It was confirmed in the 1948 Agreement, and reference was expressly made to it in the terms of reference of the Reid Commission.

    So the Malay privilege clauses in the articles of the Constitution do not, in the main, introduce any precedent, but give recognition in the Constitution to the existing situation. Most hon. Members will, I think, know something of what these privileges are.

    As I said, I believe that a fair balance has been struck between the interests of Malays and Chinese, and I indicated how the special position of Malays enshrined in the new Constitution did not create a precedent because it had been provided for in very many other treaties and arrangements. I was about to say what form these special privileges had taken.

    In most States in Malaya, there are extensive Malay reservations of land. Elsewhere in States, there are systems of quota for admissions to the public service, a certain proportion having to be Malays. There are quotas for permits or licences to carry on certain businesses. There is preferential treatment for Malays in the granting of scholarships and bursaries and, generally, in education.

    The Reid Commission found very little opposition in any quarter in Malaya to the continuance of the present system for a time, and it made certain recommendations which hon. Members will have read. The Alliance Government—this was accepted by the three parties composing the Alliance—wanted a number of changes, which have been made.

    They relate mostly to quotas in the public service, to permits, scholarships, and land reservations. Very generally, the proposal to review the quotas after fifteen years has been dropped. The responsibility of the High Commissioner is transferred to the Head of State, but—and it is a genuine safeguard for other races—the Head of State will act on the advice of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is bound to be sensitive to the feeling of public opinion at any time.”

    Yes, there was indeed a compromise by the various communities. And there was, at the end of the day, “a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views.” Meanwhile, “the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to be a wise balance.”

    It should be noted that the special positions of the Malays had always been recognised by the British from day one. These have been specified in various treatises. And there were recognised in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, an agreement which preceded our independence.

    All that the Reid Commission did was to continue to give cognisant to those special positions. There were no new position or right added as part of a compromise. To say therefore that citizenships were offered to the non-Malays in exchange of those special positions were not accurate. That is because those positions were already there and recognised from day one.

    It is also wrong for anybody to say that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was a sacrifice by the Malays of their “natural claim to the land of Malays (“Tanah Melayu”). That could not be farther from the truth.

    That arrangement, from historical evidence, was a “compromise” which was achieved after intense negotiations between the major communities and the Reid Commission. Being a compromise, all parties — not the Malays alone — achieved certain demands while letting go some of their demands.

    For example, not all non-Malays managed to obtain citizenship. On this, the said Alan Lennox-Boyd explained:

    “Under this compromise, anyone who is now a citizen of the Federation or who was born in the Federation and is over 18, or is born there after 31st August next, will have citizenship of the Federation as a right.”

    There was a balance achieved between the demands of the non-Malays and the absolute birth rights of the Malays. That is why it was called a compromise.

    The citizenship was not a gift by the Malays. Nor was it a total surrender by the non-Malays of their minority rights in exchange for citizenship as screamed about by Perkasa, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and even Tun Dr Mahathir.

    The special “rights” of the Malays was not a concession by the non-Malays. They had always been there in the first place.

    The Constitution was drafted to reflect this harmonious co-existence of all the major races in the then Malaya. It spells out all the rights and positions of the various communities who were expected to lead a peaceful and prosperous co-existence. The Constitution was designed to make the yet unborn Malaysia a fair and progressive country.

    As stated by Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln MP):

    “The test for the Federation will be whether it can become a real nation in other words, whether the Chinese people in Malaya can become full citizens and work with the Malays, the Indians and the Eurasians to make a new nation. I hope that they can.”

    Have we, as a nation, passed the test?

    It is also not out of place to mention here that in drafting the Constitution, the fathers of our independence were astute enough to consider each community’s services and contributions to this land. This goes towards achieving the balance which I was referring to earlier. In other words, no one community could claim exclusivity towards the country as it was.

    Miss Joan Vickers, the Davenport MP noted:

    “We should remember, in considering these different races, the part that they play. The Malayans are the indigenous people of the country, but we have to remember that had it not been for the Chinese the country would certainly not have been as prosperous as it is today. They opened up jungle roads and worked in the tin mines, and the prosperity of Malaya owes a great deal to the Chinese.

    Furthermore, we had the Indians who, in a rather different way, as a result, in the beginning, of a contract system between the Indian Government and the Government of Malaya, have played their part in the prosperity of the country. In a great many cases they did not make Malaya their home and returned to India at the end of their contract.

    We also owe a great deal to the Portuguese Eurasians in Malaya. Theirs is a very old community. They still keep something of their mother tongue, and very strongly to their own Roman Catholic religion. They have proved loyal and faithful civil servants in a great many of the States. Generally speaking, whichever State they have resided in, they have taken a leading part and have always been loyal to either the British resident or adviser, or whoever they have been serving.

    Finally, I hope that in due course, the Orang Bukit will be able to be brought into the community, because I believe that through living in the deep jungles they have very remote ties with their own country, and they could be a source of trouble. I should like to pay tribute to them for what they did during the very difficult period when the Chinese guerrillas were in the jungle, when they gave considerable help in tracking the enemy.”

    As evident, everyone’s contribution was considered. And it was all done in the name of accommodating, to the fullest of possibility, every community’s demands, rights and positions. Wherever there was a seeming imbalance, a check and balance mechanism was inbuilt within the Constitution in itself.

    To state all the mechanism of check and balance in the Constitution would make this article too long. Suffice if I point out that among others, an independent judiciary (which then includes the right to appeal to the Privy Council), was a part of that mechanism. As stated by the MP for Crosby, Mr Graham Page:

    “Finally, I would draw attention to an important safeguard to the minorities. That is in the retention of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.” TheMalaysiaInsider....

    (Of course, some time ago, someone had to dismantle the Privy Council appeal process and the whole judiciary too leaving the government to lord all over the Judges!)

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: Chapter 2: The Social Contract - The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong
    The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’ — Part 1
    APRIL 20 — In “The Social Contract — correcting the misconceptions”, I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

    I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

    A social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.
    The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’ (Part 2)

    APRIL 22 — Even at the outset of independence, there were people who raised concerns on the perceived inequality between the Malays and the non-Malays. The question of whether the respective leaders of the communities were truly representing the community was also raised. Graham Page raised that point:

    “It appears that the Reid Commission took one single Indian party as speaking for the Indians as a whole, the Malayan Indian Congress, which had sunk its identity in the Alliance Party. I do not think the Malayan Indian Congress spoke for all, or even perhaps a majority, of Indians, certainly not the business, professional and artisan class of Indian, in Malaya. There were many other Malayan Indian associations which gave evidence before the Commission, but the Commission did not seem to take account of their views, or to pay very much attention to them.”

    Arthur Creech Jones MP noted:

    “It may be, and I believe it to be the case, that there are certain sections of opinion in Malaya who are not altogether happy. The fact that most hon. Members have received representations from the Malayan Party and the Pan-Malayan Federation indicates that, certainly so far as the Settlements are concerned, there is still some anxiety about what is likely to happen when the Constitution becomes effective.”

    For the Alliance, an Alliance Committee was formed to negotiate with the Reid Commission. It consisted of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Ismail, Tun HS Lee, Tun Leong Yew Loh, Tun Ong Yoke Lin, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun Lim Chong Eu and Tun VT Sambanthan.

    Be that as it may, the Constitution was quite a massive achievement in itself as the task of balancing the rights and demands of various communities was not an easy one to fulfil. The fact that the non-Malays had to also compromise and tolerate the demands of the Malays — as opposed to the supposed absolute sacrifice by the Malays alone — was also recognised as Arthur Creech Jones, MP for Wakefield noted:

    “A number of Members drew attention to the fact that in the working of this Constitution a great deal of tolerance will be required by the Chinese population, and, possibly, by other minorities, for undoubtedly important concessions are made to the Malays with regard to religion, language, land and the public services; but one can only hope that by the practice of co-operation an answer can be found to any deficiencies or defects in the Constitution as it is now presented to us.”

    It is therefore clear that the compromise entailed “sacrifices” on the part of all the major communities as opposed to the Malays alone. Every major community managed to have some of their demands met while some others were sacrificed for the sake of achieving and maintaining a balanced society.

    In a nutshell, the special positions of the Malays were seen as inevitable in order to improve the financial, sociological and educational status of the Malays which were lagging far behind the Chinese.

    In other words, there had to be inequality to achieve equality. It was said that:

    “My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked whether we were sure that the special position of the Malay population was not to the detriment of the interests of other racial groups in Malaya. The answer is that during the very careful investigation made by the Reid Commission there appeared to the distinguished members of that Commission to be no evidence that the special position of the Malays was either to the detriment of other communities or was resented by those other communities. In those circumstances, I think that we can assume that the special position of the Malays is not likely to be an irritant in the body politic of the Federation after independence is achieved.

    “I believe that, taken as a whole, these long-established immunities and privileges provide the means of ensuring, not inequality between the various races of Malaya, but that those who have had some disadvantages in the past will, as independence comes, have a start which is relatively equal and will achieve the progress, development and prosperity which is already a significant feature of the life of many of the Chinese and Indian communities.” (Cuthbert Alport MP)

    Notwithstanding, the balancing of the rights and compromise was achieved mainly through the honourable and gentlemanly conduct of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his group of sensible negotiators, whose contribution was widely recognised historically.

    Sir John Barlow acknowledged:

    “We can congratulate the Malayas (sic) on having found a great statesman to manage their affairs. Much will depend on him (the Tunku) and his responsibility will be great. But those of us who know him have faith in him and we wish him well. He can rely upon our help. I was very glad when last autumn he went out of his way to indicate that British capital in Malaya would be dealt with justly.”

    The Tunku had apparently promised a just Malaya. And one cannot help but wonder what he would do now or how he would feel now, if he were still alive. His honest and sincere deeds have surely been defiled, deconstructed, destroyed and demolished.

    The Secretary of State for the Colonies was full of praise for the Tunku when he expressed:

    “That is due largely to the prescience and wisdom of my right hon. Friend and also of Tenku (sic) Abdul Rahman, whom I may perhaps presume to call my friend because we were at Cambridge at the same time. As all who know him must agree, he is a wise, humane, just and far-sighted statesman. Malaya is very fortunate indeed to have him at the helm now. I am quite certain we can confidently leave the happiness of all Malayans in the competent hands of Tenku (sic) and his colleagues. They know as well as I know that the Chinese-Malayans and Indian-Malayans can and will contribute enormously to the well-being of their country. Self-interest alone, although there is much more, should ensure that those other races receive fair play and that they are welcomed as partners in the new venture. I would only express the wish that in the near future the Tenku (sic) will feel able to welcome Singapore into the Federation as a twelfth state.”

    Finally, everyone took comfort that the Tunku was a dignified gentleman who would rule post-independent Malaya fairly and justly. Furthermore, as and when the need arises, the Constitution could always be changed. The Secretary of State expressed his confidence thus:

    “The fact is that under the Constitution as it is proposed, that review can take place at any time on the decision by the Head of State and on the advice of the Chief Minister. This is contrary to the proposals of the Reid Commission, but it is better that in a new Constitution which is experimental there should be as much flexibility as possible, and opportunities, at whatever stage is appropriate, of putting right any difficulties that may emerge in practice.

    “Indeed, the Chief Minister (the Tunku), in winding up the debate in the Legislative Assembly yesterday, said that the Constitution is not rigid and that it can be changed when need arises. I am sure that that fact will give to minorities who have natural anxieties and fears at present some reassurance that, if there is any need for alteration, that alteration can take place whenever the necessity appears to arise and is apparent to public opinion in Malaya.”

    Interestingly though, the founder of Umno, Datuk Onn Jaafar had foreseen a citizenship issue, even for the Malays themselves. And he spotted the potential problems way back in 1950, a good seven years before the compromise was being negotiated and achieved, when on May 20 and 21, at the Umno General Assembly at Majestic Hotel, KL, he said:

    “Due to the fact that at present no such laws (citizenship laws) exist, hundreds of thousands of people descended from Indonesia, who have lived here all their lives, or who have the intention of living the rest of their days in this country, cannot be considered “citizens” of this country. Is this really what the Malay people want? I do not understand this myself.....

    “If one were to consider (the matter) as I do, then one (should realise) that because they are currently no (citizenship) laws, international laws should be applied. At present, there are 1.2 million people of Chinese descent, 270,000 of Indian descent, and approximately 45,000 descended from other races, who, by virtue of being born within the Federation of Malaya, may claim to be either British citizens, or the citizens of any one of the Malay Rulers.”

    So, was citizenship to the non-Malays a gift by the Malays as asserted by the proponents of the *******ised social contract? It would appear that even the Malays of Indonesian descent were “given” citizenship as well as the non-Malays. International laws had already recognised their citizenship anyway.

    Do we hear loud screams by the “original Malays” about having to “sacrifice” their rights by granting citizenship to these non-original Malays of Indonesian descent? And don’t we all know that Malaysia, as a country now, in 2010, is still granting citizenship to some Indonesians?

    I would love to hear from Perkasa, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and their ilk about the position of these neo-Malay-citizens.

    The issue is this. They were not citizens. But they were, and are still now, granted citizenship. Their neo-citizenship, ipso facto, means they get to enjoy the “special positions” of the original Malays like myself and my forefathers, who are “originals Malay.” So now, original Malays have to share their special positions with these neo-Malay-citizens. Doesn’t that make the special positions of the original Malays less special? Aren’t the special positions of the original Malays being eroded this way?

    Be that as it may, did Datuk Onn, the father of Umno cringe and sulk his way to a dark room in the thoughts of the non-Malays were going to be citizens? Did he wear a tengkolok, start unsheathing his keris, kiss it and wave it like a mad man? Did he kick up a storm and whine like a small kid, demanding special positions and rights and the likes?

    No. Because he was a true statesman who loved his country as opposed to himself and even his party alone. His answer to that was stated unequivocally on March 24 and 25, 1951 (again at Umno’s General Assembly at the Majestic Hotel). He said:

    “That is to say the laws that enable a non-Malay to become a subject of the Ruler of the Malay state. If, for instance, such laws were passed, and if other matters that have become clearly apparent to us were also approved, one of which will be discussed by this Assembly this afternoon or tomorrow, and if the issues were approved (by the proper authorities), it is my view that there should not be any objections to opening the doors of Umno to admit non-Malays.”

    That was a response by a true warrior of Tanah Melayu. A true statesman. A visionary.

    And what did they do to him?

    He was kicked out of Umno because of that proposal of his.

    Other statesman have from time to time attempted to implement a fair society as clearly conceptualised by the Tunku and our fathers of independence. Tun Razak, for example, dispelled the notion that the Malays’ special positions are meant to make the Malays supreme. He said:

    “Many of you must have heard lately of allegations against the Alliance Government, that we believe in the supremacy of one race over the other and that we have not provided for equal rights to all our citizens. I would like to rebut these allegations because clearly our Constitution does not provide the supremacy of any single race or community. All Malaysians of all races are equal under the Constitution and their rights and privileges are zealously guarded.

    “The Constitution, however, provides for the safeguard of the special position of the natives.

    “This does not mean supremacy or privilege but rather a special position which requires special attention... it is known to everybody that the natives are economically backward, and therefore, in order to give them a fair chance to compete with other races they are given this special attention in the Constitution or in plain language a handicap. This handicap gives the natives a chance to have a share in the economic and business life of the country.” (“Constitution: Equal Rights to All”, p 304)

    Notice that Tun Razak was very precise in his choice of words. He did not use the word “rights” (as is so popularly used nowadays) but the word as used in the Constitution, i.e., “position”. He also was careful to say it was the special position of the “natives” instead of the “Malays.” How more honest and sincere can a Malay leader be?

    He also made it a point to emphasise that the ultimate goal was to have a moderate, fair and just Malaysia, where every race plays a part for the greater good of the country. He expressed his wish thus:

    “I ask members of Umno to be loyal to the Party, to the aims and objectives and to the top leadership. To all good friends of Umno of other races, I ask them to help Umno because it is the duty of us in Malaysia today to help strengthen the sensible, moderate leadership which alone can lead this country in peace, harmony and unity towards meeting the rising expectations of our people of various races for a better life and a more just society. If this sensible and moderate leadership were to fail, then the country would veer either to the right or the left. If this happens then I am certain that misunderstanding and misfortune await all of us.

    “Let us therefore rally to the help of this middle-of-the-road leadership - the right road towards peace, happiness and stability of our people and our beloved country, Malaysia.” (“The Turning Point in the History of This Country”, p 386)

    The words “social contract” were unheard of by the common people in Malaysia since 1957 (save probably for students of and graduates in sociology and philosophy). Not until Aug 30, 1986, at least.

    This was when Datuk Abdullah Ahmad, the famous MP for Kok Lanas, made his now infamous “Ketuanan Melayu” speech in Singapore. He was perhaps endorsed by the then PM, Dr Mahathir. (Well, at the very least, Dr Mahathir has never ever said that he disapproved of that speech). He said:

    “Let us make no mistake — the political system in Malaysia is founded on Malay dominance. That is the premise from which we should start. The Malays must be politically dominant in Malaysia as the Chinese are politically dominant in Singapore.....

    “The political system of Malay dominance was born out of a sacrosanct social contract which preceded national independence.....

    “There is thus no two ways about it. The NEP must continue to sustain Malay dominance in the political system in line with the contract of 1957....”

    He then split hairs:

    “Ours is not a system of discrimination but of Malay preservation which foreigners particularly refuse to understand. Ours is a system of Malay political dominance but not, as is often put across, of Malay political domination.”

    With that speech, delivered with the obvious tacit approval of the then prime minister, Dr Mahathir, all the honest intentions and sincere efforts of the likes of our father of Independence, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, Datuk Onn Jaafar, Tun Dr Ismail and Tun Razak were immediately undone.

    From thence on, the NEP and the special positions of the Malays and the natives were no more there to alleviate the backwardness of the Malays and the natives. The NEP must be continued to “sustain Malay dominance in the political system in line with the contract of 1957.” How time has changed since the heady days of 1957.

    Ketuanan Melayu was, on Aug 30, 1986 (one day short of Malaysia’s 29th year of independence), born.

    The *******isation of the “social contract” was, on Aug 30, 1986, complete.

    The seeds of racial disharmony, racial discontent, racial hatred and racial polarisation were sewn that day. What we are seeing today are the trees and fruits of racial bigotry from the seeds sewn in 1986, watered and fertilised from time to time.

    Now, may I ask, who had hijacked the “social contract”?


    1. All quotations from the British MPs are taken from the British Parliament Hansard

    2. Excerpts of speeches of Datuk Onn Jaafar are taken from “Reflections of Pre-Independence Malaya” by Datuk Mohamed Abid : Pelanduk Publications, 2nd Edition 2004.

    3. Excerpts of Datuk Abdullah Ahmad are taken from “Off The Edge”, February 2010. TheMalaysiaInsider....

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008


    A useful template to study Malaysian history.



  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong
    (A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

    Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!


    For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

    We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.
    COMMENT We are being yet again regaled in various media on the issue of Malay special privileges. All this is being done without even an ounce of respect for the truth, the position of the genuine natives that constitute the territories that make up Malaysia, and the legitimate rights of other communities in the federation.

    We have, among the latest, one from former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who has put a new spin on these issues through his comments in various media on the “hijacking of the social contract”.

    If there's a social contract, then it is the federal constitution. How could there be something in existence besides the supreme law of the law, and conveniently referred to as the social contract for reasons of political expediency and to suit a self-serving agenda?

    A constitution by its very nature, whether written or unwritten, is colour-blind. It could not be any other way and if there are any exceptions anywhere that contradict this colour blindness, they would be restricted, within certain time limits and time-barred.

    All university modules in the country for the compulsory Malaysian Studies course rightly refer to the federal constitution as the social contract, and there being no other social contract.

    There's no doubt that this sacred document, as the social contract, has been completely hijacked by Umno since it came to power more than 50 years ago when the departing colonial British handed them the country on a silver platter.

    That's why Umno continues to flog the dead horse of Malay special privileges in public even in the 21st century as globalisation sweeps the world and threatens to cast it into the dustbins of history.

    Umno-Perkasa 'wink wink' ties

    To maintain this fiction created by the hijacking, Umno has been shamelessly twisting and turning every issue in Malaysia into a racial and religious issue. Their hidden agenda is to mask the continuing theft by the ruling elite, their fat cats in tow, of the people's sweat from the public treasury. Meanwhile, the great unwashed are kept entertained with sheer hype on Malay special privileges.

    These days, in the wake of the political tsunami of March 8, 2008, Umno has outsourced/sub-contracted its racist rant to Perkasa, led by Kelantan MP Ibrahim Ali, and advised by Mahathir. This is an Umno-Perkasa 'wink wink' relationship to maintain its access to the gravy train in perpetuity.

    This hijacking of the social contract (the federal constitution) is the main point being hammered home repeatedly by Hindraf since it caught the public in the wake of the Nov 25, 2007 street demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur. But many, like Mahathir, choose not to see the forest for the trees.

    An impartial examination of Article 153 of the federation constitution, to be read in conjunction with Articles 160, 152, 40, 8 and 3, will show there is no mention of Malay special privileges, as hyped by Umno and Perkasa, in this sacred document.

    Article 152 is the reference to the Malay language as the national and official language of Malaysia.

    This is only natural, and as it should be, since this beautiful and easy to learn and use language was the trading language and the language of communication and religion in the islands of southeast Asia some 500 years ago. Even Indonesia ditched Javanese, the most widely spoken language in the archipelago, in favour of Malay. The reason is that Javanese is a difficult language unlike Malay and not understood by the non-Javanese.

    The colonial British used Malay as a blanket term, for convenience, for the small population already residing in the riverine stretches of Peninsular Malaysia.

    These people were the Kelantanese (Kelantan), Minang (Negeri Sembilan), Yunan (Terengganu), Aceh (Perak), Champa (Perak, Kedah and Kelantan), Mandailing (Perak), Jawa (Johor, Selangor), Bugis (Johor, Selangor), Rawa (Perak), Jambi (Johor, Selangor, Perak), Batak (Selangor, Johor), Banjar (Selangor, Johor), Kurinchi (Selangor) and various other trading trans-migrants from the neighbouring islands who sought refuge in the swamps of Peninsular Malaysia.

    Later, during British colonial rule, the term Malay was also extended to other linguistic groups from the neighbouring islands who flocked to Peninsular Malaysia, much in the same way as they do even now.

    Universiti Sains Malaysia has done a DNA study, 'Menjejak Melayu' (In Malay gootsteps), conducted by 20 researchers on the Malay population in Peninsular Malaysia.

    The study, published in Berita Minggu on July 23, 2006, traced the roots of the Malay language to Cambodia. Here, a Brahmin from India wed a local princess to start the royal line that exists even today and spawned the royal family of Brunei.

    The Malay race is one of the enduring myths since the advent of British colonial rule and continued by Umno for self-serving reasons.

    Hence, the Malay referred to in the federal constitution is that under the blanket term used by the colonial British authorities. This has been captured by the federal constitution under Article 160.

    Constitutional Malays

    Malay under this Article means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs, and geographically refers to Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. This is the Article under which people like Mahathir, of Malayalee Muslim origin (Kerala), claim to be constitutional Malays.
    Article 40 refers to how the king may exercise his functions.

    Article 8 holds that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”.

    Article 3 holds that “Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.

    The only reference to the word privilege in the federal constitution is to educational and training privileges in Article 153.

    The Article also mentions the special position of Malays and natives and special provision, but not as hyped by Umno and Perkasa for the general public. The Article also includes the legitimate interests of other communities.

    The king has the power under Article 153 of the federal constitution to ensure that the Malay community is represented in intakes into state-owned institutions of learning. This is by no means a 'sapu bersih' (clean sweep) clause. Neither does it give the king a carte blanc on training privileges.

    Intake into the civil service, the grant of government scholarships and a reasonable share and proportion of the opportunities from the government to do business are three other areas covered by Article 153.

    The king has never, however, exercised the above powers. Umno, since independence, has hijacked the king's powers under Article 153 and spun it out of control to embrace every facet of life in Malaysia.

    Umno has been able to get away with this hijacking and spin for so long now because of its complete control over the machinery of government propaganda and the mainstream media through the Publishing and Printing Presses Act.

    It has also been able to carry out the hijacking and spinning unhindered because the non-Malay elites have been co-opted into the federal government under the fiction that they have a share of the political power, besides some crumbs now and then from the spoils of office.

    This hijacking and spin is Umno's and Perkasa's version of the social contract a la the ruling BN.

    JOE FERNANDEZ is Malaysiakini's Sabah pointman who feels compelled to put pen to paper when something doesn't quite jell with his 'weltanschauung' (worldview). He readily admits that there's a demon in him at times, urging him on. Malaysiakini. Please support by subscribing as a reader.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART V - RPK: The Concept of Slavery (of the Malays)

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong

    **IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE** We are Rats divided by class. Our labels, of race or religion, are irrelevant. Those labels are useful for the Ruling Class to divide us, control us and manipulate us. They apply psychological warfare on our minds to manipulate our emotions, to make us do their bidding, to pit one group of Rats against the other. Part of their strategy is to champion one race or religion and use them against the others. When it comes to rewards, the Ruling Class will keep the bulk, leaving the crumbs for the rest. Such deception can continue indefinitely. It is still ongoing.

    RPK is describing the above in another way for the Malays.

    1. UMNO needs a bogeyman - The Chinese.
    2. UMNO needs the majority natives to be terrorised into believing the Chinese is a threat to their existence.
    3. UMNO needs a never-ending solution to "solve" the native's problems - the NEP. The NEP must never be allowed to succeed because that means the Malays will be strong enough to do away with UMNO.
    4. UMNO knows that the game is up. They are going all out in the raiding of the Treasury. As it is depleted, things will get worse. They will try to withdraw subsidies, introduce the GST. And finally, as a last resort, they may try the Jewish solution - extermination of the bogeyman.

    The concept of slavery

    Saturday, 29 May 2010 Super Admin

    The Malays and other natives must first break out of the mental slavery that they are in. Only then can they break out of their economic slavery. However, as I see it, the mental and economic slavery of the Malays is too far down the road. I do not see any changes in our lifetime. It may have to get worse before it gets better.


    Raja Petra Kamarudin

    Charting the Malay economic agenda

    Some 500 representatives of more than 100 Malay non-governmental organisations met at Putra World Trade Centre today to chart the Malay economic agenda for the New Economic Model (NEM).

    The convention themed “Strengthening Bumiputera Economy” is aimed at protecting Malay and Bumiputera interests in the country’s economic development.

    Their aim is to ensure that the Malays and Bumiputera will not be left out under the NEM.

    NEM, introduced by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak last month, sought to liberalise the economy and put aside Malay privileges formerly enjoyed under the New Economic Policy (NEP).

    NEM also aims to give equal opportunities to all Malaysians and eradicate poverty.

    The Malay NGOs is grouped under the umbrella body called the Malay Consultative Council (MCC), and spearheaded by Perkasa, a right-wing Malay pressure group.

    MCC wants the government to continue handing out privileges enjoyed by the Malays under the NEP so that they could develop alongside other races.

    The MCC will hand over its resolutions to Najib when he closes the convention tonight. -- Free Malaysia Today


    In the early days, the bigger and stronger tribes would attack the smaller and weaker tribes and take those still alive as slaves (and leave the dead bodies as food for the dogs and vultures). As time went on and tribes became nations, the bigger and stronger nations would attack the smaller and weaker nations and take its people as slaves.

    Of course, once in a while, leaders such as Spartacus, Moses, and so on, came along to lead their people out of slavery. Or people like Abraham Lincoln would emerge to champion an end to slavery.

    But the general rule of thumb would be that the strong would always try to enslave the weak and exploit the weak for economic benefits. There were also instances when two groups went to war and the losers in that war would be captured and turned into slaves. Invariably, if they served no economic purpose then they would be exterminated. But if they were useful as slaves then they would be captured alive.

    Such are the ways of humankind. It is basically a case of the strong exploiting the weak so that the strong becomes stronger and the weak becomes weaker. And that too is basically what politics is all about. It is a game of the strong taking power so that they can rule over the weak. Maybe the graphics below best explains the relationship between the politicians and the voters.

    Eventually, slavery, in the form that we knew, ended. But slavery per se never ended. It just transformed into a more sophisticated form. It transformed into mental and economic slavery. No longer did strong nations attack weaker nations with swords or guns. They attacked weaker nations economically and with ideas and concepts.

    The current economic system is a creation of the stronger nations. Today, the weaker nations are slaves of this system and there is no breaking out of the system. Either you play according to the system or you do not play at all. And any country that does not practice a system of government that the stronger nations regard as ‘acceptable’ are punished until they abandon their unacceptable system and adopt the western interpretation of governance.

    How many times in our youth back in the 1950 and 1960s did we cheer and whistle when the Cowboys won against the Red Indians (now called ‘Native Americans’; the politically correct term)? Was not John Wayne the hero and our idol and the Apaches the baddies? That was the ‘power’ Hollywood had over us. It did not occur to us then that America belonged to the Red Indians while the Orang Puteh (pale face) were the aggressors and robbers of Red Indian land.

    Yes, the white skins decide the system and the rules. The red skins, black skins, yellow skins, brown skins, and whatnot, either comply with the system decided by the white skins or else they are the baddies. White is good. ‘Off-white’ is bad. That is the rule of the game.

    The white skins, however, have left the shores of Malaysia. Today, Malaysia is run by the brown, yellow and black skins also known as Barisan Nasional. The British colonialists are no longer masters of our land. The masters of our land are our own people.

    When the white skins ruled our land they were the masters (tuan) and we were the slaves. Today, the ruling elite is the master and the rest of us their slaves. That is how it worked for 10,000 years. That is still how it works today. But, today, we do not have a Spartacus or Moses to lead us out of slavery. Today, we have two sets of political parties fighting over who should be the masters of this land.

    We might see a change of master if Pakatan Rakyat unseats Barisan Nasional and marches into Putrajaya. But that does not mean we shall see our status as slaves change.

    Barisan Nasional need not enslave the Chinese and Indians. Well, they do, actually. They enslave the Chinese and Indians but reducing them to a status of second-class citizens and by placing quotas and restrictions on them. Therefore they are not free to flourish. They can only flourish as far as Barisan Nasional would allow them to.

    What is more important is to enslave the natives, like how the Red Indians of America were enslaved on the reservations. And the natives here are the Malays and ‘others’ of Sabah and Sarawak. This group of people will decide who gets to form the federal government because they decide more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. So they must be the ones who should be enslaved.

    And they are effectively enslaved both economically and mentally. Mentally, they are enslaved through culture and religion. Yes, cultural and religious beliefs are a form of slavery and a very effective form at that. And that is why Malays are being led to believe the wrong things about Islam. They are not taught the true and right form of Islam. To do so would mean you would be freeing the Malay mind.

    And the most important form of slavery of all is economic slavery. That is what the powerful nations do to the weaker nations. And that is also what people in power do to those they rule over.

    Of course, the people must be constantly reminded that they are poor, backward and left behind. But you have to look for a bogeyman to blame.... (The Chinese). And you offer yourself as the solution although you are actually the cause of the problem.

    Today, the Malays, yet again, sat down in an economic convention to discuss their economic future. They have been doing the same for more than 40 years. And they are still doing it until today. But just like over the last 40 or 50 years, no solution will be found. This is because those who walk in the corridors of power do not want to find a solution. They need the natives to remain in poverty. Only when the natives remain as economic slaves can the powers-that-be continue to dominate them.
    Just to digress a bit, my late father was involved in the First Bumiputera Economic Congress back in the 1960s, which resulted in the creation of Bank Bumiputera, while my Aunt was involved in RIDA, which later transformed into MARA and saw the creation of ITM and now UITM. So, yes, my family was involved in the ‘Malay struggle’ long before ‘May 13’ and that is why I feel I have earned the moral right to criticise those who walk in the corridors of power.

    The Malays and other natives must first break out of the mental slavery that they are in. Only then can they break out of their economic slavery. However, as I see it, the mental and economic slavery of the Malays is too far down the road. I do not see any changes in our lifetime. It may have to get worse before it gets better.

    And this is why I worry. There are only two types of changes. One is evolution. The other, revolution. The first takes time while the second can be achieved overnight. But the second can be very destructive in nature.

    And there are two routes to achieving change. One is through the ballot and, the other, the bullet. The sad thing is, after people decide that the ballot has failed them, they would resort to the bullet.

    And that would be a most tragic thing indeed if it does happen.

    Was it not Lim Kit Siang in 1978 who wrote that book called ‘A time bomb in Malaysia’? Malaysiatoday....

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: Chapter 2: The Social Contract - Citizenship to the non-Malays

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong View Post
    (A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

    Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!


    For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

    We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.
    Citizenship to the non-Malays
    ARCHIVES 2010

    Friday, 18 June 2010 admin-s

    What about the magnanimity shown by the non-Malays in agreeing to recognise the special position of the Malays in reciprocation to give them a better life? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act on the part of the non-Malays? What if the non-Malays had from the outset refused to concede to the Malay demand on this issue and had remained unyielding till the end. Would the Malays be enjoying the sort of life they are leading without the goodwill of the non-Malays?

    By Sivakumar

    Citizenship to the non-Malays: Not given at the behest of the Malays
    Historical facts should be projected in the right perspective without any bias

    I refer to the article entitled, ‘“The Tunku, Merdeka and Malaysia,” by V.Chakaravarthy in Aliran Monthly Vol 30. No 1 where he stated, “Tunku was able to convince the Malays and they showed their magnanimity by granting citizenship to the non – Malays in exchange for the ‘special position’ of the Malays .This was the social contract which was bequeathed to us by our founding fathers’.

    Although the article was written in praise of the Tunku, certain aspects of the article, with particular reference to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays, need to be addressed and put in proper perspective as the above statement is generally the theory propounded by the Malays. At the same time it is also pertinent to reaffirm certain relevant issues regarding the role played by the non–Malays in achieving independence for Malaya.


    While the non-Malays are without any reservation grateful to the Malays for accommodating them as citizens of this nation but to say that it was by the magnanimity of the Malays that enabled the non-Malay to enjoy citizenship status is, to say the least, an exaggeration and a distortion of a historical fact. Some Malay politicians even keep harping now and then that the granting of citizenship by the Malays was a great favour done to the non-Malays for which the latter should remain indebted to them for

    This sentiment is also echoed at the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) courses conducted by the Government where it was alleged that some Malay speakers had blatantly told the non-Malay participants that they should be grateful to the Malays for their magnanimity in granting them citizenship. It looks like even the Government is tacitly reiterating this fact to the non-Malays openly. Such a preposterous statement will not help to foster harmonious relationships between the Malays and non-Malays but will only mar the goodwill that exists between them.

    First of all, the Malays do not have the legal authority to grant citizenship to others as the granting of citizenship is governed under the Constitution. It is quite clear that under the Constitution, citizenship may be acquired by a person by (a) operation of law (b) registration (c) naturalization and (d) incorporation of territory.

    However, it must be pointed out that prior to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 there was no Federal Citizenship. One was either a citizen of one of the Malay states or a British citizen if residing in the Straits Settlement states of Malacca, Penang or Singapore.

    However, by virtue of the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, non-Malay residents in Malacca or Penang, who were British citizens, were entitled to acquire Federal citizenship automatically by operation of law. Thus the acquisition of citizenship by the non-Malays by operation of law is a vested right under the Constitution and not something given at the behest of the Malays as claimed by some.

    To support my statement, I quote below from the book entitled, “The Constitution of Malaysia “written by Harry E Groves, Head of Department of Law, and Dean Faculty of Law, University of Singapore, which is self-explanatory.

    “Malays are subjects if born in the State. Others are subjects if born in the State and one parent was born in the Federation of Malaya. Malacca and Penang, being without Rulers, did not have any State citizenship. Those who came within the terms of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, recognized operation of law, registration and naturalization as methods of acquiring citizenship of the then Federation of Malaya. In addition to all subjects of rulers having Federation citizenship by operation of law, so did citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had certain designated contacts with the Settlements of Malacca or Penang or with the Federation of Malaya.’’

    Social contract

    The so-called Social Contract is a term used by latter day Malay leaders like Dr Mahathir to refer to the reciprocal concessions agreed to by our Malay and non-Malay founding fathers to safeguard the interests of the respective communities, as a sequel to independence. Only our founding fathers would know exactly in what context the concessions or compromises were made as the Constitution only speaks of “safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interest of the other communities” - and nothing more.

    However, some Malays claim that the Social Contract was a pledge to confer citizenship rights to the non-Malays upon their agreement to recognize the special position of the Malays. It is a pity that our founding fathers are not around today to confirm the true position. Nevertheless, going by the version propounded by some Malays, it would appear that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was compromised on a quid pro qua basis and not by the sole decision of the Malays. If so, then what is there for these Malays to insist and state that the Malays were the ones who gave citizenship to the non-Malays and to that extent they were very magnanimous.

    What about the magnanimity shown by the non-Malays in agreeing to recognise the special position of the Malays in reciprocation to give them a better life? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act on the part of the non-Malays? What if the non-Malays had from the outset refused to concede to the Malay demand on this issue and had remained unyielding till the end. Would the Malays be enjoying the sort of life they are leading without the goodwill of the non-Malays? So, the question of magnanimity did not rest with the Malays alone but with the non-Malays as well. This fact must be appreciated by the Malays at all times. The majority of Malays of goodwill have no problem recognising this fact.

    Furthermore, when the NEP was passed in 1970 after the 13th May 1969 debacle, didn’t the non-Malays unselfishly agree to pass over to the Malays 30% of their business equity in the interest of the Malays, as required by the Government? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act and a great favour done to the Malays by the non-Malays in order to uplift them from their poor economic standing?

    Giving citizenship alone is not a bounty, for the non-Malays have reciprocated in no small measure by developing and contributing immensely to the economic progress of this nation, the fruits of which are also enjoyed by the Malays. Hence, it may not be an exaggeration to say that the non-Malays have given more to the Malays than taken from them in the form of just citizenship only. Yet, the non-Malays do not brag or crow about it as it is everyone’s duty to help one another.


    There is also an erroneous perception on the part of some Malays that independence for Malaya was fought by the Malays only. This view is not only unfair to the non-Malays but is without any foundation. Although it must be admitted that the Malays were the ones who initiated the Merdeka movement, they could not, on their own, have succeeded in their mission as the British government was not inclined to grant independence without the participation of the other races namely, the Chinese and Indians. As such the Tunku, as leader of UMNO and the Merdeka movement had to seek the support and co-operation of MCA and MIC respectively to achieve his goal.

    These non-Malay political parties gave the Tunku their whole-hearted support in his hour of need. If the Chinese and Indians had dissented they could have left the Tunku in the lurch by telling the British that they were not interested in independence and preferred to remain as British subjects. But the non-Malays, being magnanimous, didn’t do that. Instead, they co-operated with the Tunku to lift the country from the colonial yoke. To pursue their goal, the three political parties namely, UMNO, MCA and MIC formed a coalition, known as the Alliance to ask for independence from Britain and what followed next is all history, with Malaya attaining independence on 31st August 1957 to the jubilation of all the races.

    I quote below the relevant passage from Mr. Harry E. Groves's book (pages 12&13) which reveals that the quest for Merdeka was the joint effort of all the races and not that of the Malays alone. To say otherwise is tantamount to ignoring and dismissing the non-Malays and their loyal support to the Tunku in his effort to gain independence for Malaya.

    “The sentiment for independence continued to grow during the ‘emergency’ period of Communist warfare. In time it became apparent that independence could only be achieved through some joining of forces of the communal parties; and in 1952 the United Malays National Organization, the Malayan Chinese Association, and the Malayan Indian Congress formed a political coalition, the Alliance, which carried a number of State and Settlement elections. The British Government in 1954 agreed to make a majority
    of the seats in the Federal Legislative Council elective rather than appointive as formerly. Of the fifty-two seats to be filled in the first such election in July 1955, fifty-one were won by the Alliance, with voting across racial lines being one of the most striking features of the elections. Discussions were begun in August 1955, between the British Secretary of State, the Rulers and the new Alliance Ministers on the next steps toward self-government.

    Reid Commission

    It was agreed that a Commission to review the Constitution of the federation should meet in London early in 1956. The Federation of Malaya Constitutional Conference met in London in January and February 1956. Agreement was reached on full self-government and independence within the Commonwealth. A Commonwealth Constitutional Commission was agreed upon to make recommendations for a constitution. Only five members served on this Commission: Lord Reid, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary as Chairman; Sir Ivor Jennings, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Sir William McKell, a former Governor-General of Australia; Mr. B. Malik, a former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court; and Justice Abdul Hamid of the West Pakistan High Court. No Malayans served on this Commission.

    The Commission was given five specific terms of reference:
    (a) the establishment of a strong central government with some autonomy in the States,
    (b) safeguarding the positions and prestige of the Rulers,
    (c) providing for a constitutional head of state,
    (d) creating a common nationality and
    (e) safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities.

    The Commission met in Malaya in the summer of 1956. It solicited memoranda from organizations and individuals and received 131 such memoranda. It held 81 hearings in support of the memoranda throughout the peninsula. It visited each State and Settlement
    conferring with officials, British and Malay, and met informally with other official and private persons

    • The Commission went to Rome to prepare its report” ….
    • The new constitution came into being with the new nation on August 31 1957, Merdeka Day.

    However, notwithstanding the fact that independence was achieved some 53 years ago, it is lamentable that we are still living as Malays, Chinese and Indians and not as one people. It will be noted that an interesting feature of the terms of reference to the Commonwealth Constitutional Commission, as revealed in Mr. Harry E. Groves’s book, at page 13 (see above extract) was the creation of a “common nationality”, following independence. It is regrettable that the Government has failed to achieve this noble objective hitherto. On the other hand the Government has divided the people into Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras to be treated differently contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

    Perhaps the Government prefers to run the nation on ethnic lines as it brings advantages to certain groups of people. This kind of classification certainly does not augur well for the future of the nation as it is bound to create chauvinistic instincts in some people, especially among some Bumiputras, and keep them apart from the others forever.

    If the Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib bin Tun Razak is really sincere about uniting the people under his 1Malaysia concept, then it is high time we dismantle racial borders and treat all as one people.

    In conclusion, suffice to say that ours is a wonderful nation where all the races have been living together harmoniously for generations in the spirit of give and take. Hence, let not a few overzealous Malay leaders distort historical facts on the pretext of seeking glory for their race by portraying themselves as the only magnanimous people on earth. What these misguided individuals are doing is using the name of the Malay community to promote their own selfish interests. Thinking people can see through them.

    The intention of the writer in writing this article is not to criticize anyone but to stress that historical facts should be projected in
    the right perspective without any bias so that our harmony and peace can be preserved for our mutual benefit.

    P Sivakumar is an Aliran member and President of the Malaysian Indians Business Association. Malaysia-today....

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: Chapter 2: The Social Contract - Don't question social contract, says Najib

    Don't question social contract, says Najib

    Hehhehheh. With depressing regularity, these UMNO-clods will come up with this baby to club the opposition into submission: -

    This argument involves a mental sleight of hand on the definition of the social contract. Once we let that slip through, the rest of the argument is easily won by the UMNO apologists.

    UMNO is claiming that the natives of Malaysia granted citizenship to the Chinese and the Indians in exchange for special privileges. We won’t go into the argument about who is the real native of Malaysia.

    So, we will not question the Social Contract. Instead, we will revisit it.

    First a definition. What is a Social Contract? Here’s what Wikipedia says ( –

    1. An agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.
    2. An agreement whereby the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law.

    Definition 1 is very simple – that’s the Federal Constitution. Article 153 has been talked to death but there’s not one word about special privileges! Recognition of the special position (meaning economically-weaker position) of the natives, yes. But special privileges – no. But UMNO has turned the argument on its head to justify the NEP. There are enough reasons elsewhere to explain its lack of constitutionally, so we won’t go into it here. (see bottom of this article)

    Definition 2: the people gave up some rights in exchange for government maintaining social order.

    What are these rights given up by the people? It actually refers to certain obligations undertaken by the people to the government:

    A. Obligations of the governed (the people)
    • The obligation to pay tax, (even this is disputed by many Americans going back to 1913!)
    • The obligation to defend the country during war,
    • The obligation to comply with the Constitution and with any amendments to the Laws drafted by the Government.

    Let’s examine the performance of the people.
    • Have we not paid taxes?
    • Has our forefathers defended the nation during war? Did we not fight the Japanese during World War II? Did we not fight to kick the British colonialists out of the country?
    • Have we not complied with the Constitution and its more than 650 amendments since 1957?

    Clearly, we have kept our part of the bargain.

    B. Obligations of the Government (or the Ruling Party running the institution of Government)
    • Provide social order through the Rule of Law. Note carefully the words – Rule of Law, not Rule by Law,
    • Social services such as healthcare, infrastructure, utilities, education,
    • Help the weak and socially-disadvantaged regardless of race or religion,
    • Security both internal and external.

    Has UMNO/BN honoured the agreement?

    • Is the people governed fairly in accordance with the Law? Can we trust our judiciary, the MACC, the Police or for that matter any government institution?
    • Are social services provided by the Government at reasonable rates, or have they privatized it out to private operators? This is effectively a hidden form of taxation except it is for the benefit of private operators.
    • Is the weak and socially-disadvantaged helped regardless of race? No!
    • Is crime and public security a problem in the country? Yes!
    • With the way defense equipment are procured and jet engines can fly out of the country under the noses of our armed forces, do we have confidence that our defence is secure? No!

    Clearly, the Ruling Party (UMNO/BN) has not kept their part of the Social Contract. In other words, they have lost the mandate to rule. During the next general elections, let’s kick them out and put in a new ruling party.

    Refer to posts above for more information: #2, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 33, 34, 50, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Visitors found this page by searching for:


a pyramid of the three estates in the french revolution

ishak haji muhammad

British realized  they would fail without the support of the Malay Union.

angkatan pemuda insaf

dr burhanuddin helmi

malaysian rat

colonial society pyramid

pyramid of political in malaya

price of road barriers to buy in selangor

proposal of federation of malaya

reid commission

berita malai

articles of british colonization in malaysia impacttree diagram templatepyramid of races superior englishFEDERAL MALAY STATESdr burhanuddin helmyDIAGRAM CONSTITUTION IN MALAYSIAchinese triadscrown colony diagramhorse racing sector diagramhassan adliatlantic slave trade rank pyramidchinese society pyramid emperor king governor
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts