“…all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed…”
This has been credited to the Alliance Party.
“…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”
This is attributed to their Highnesses the rulers of the states of pre-independence Malaya.
The source document : the Reid Commission Report.
I have tried to source this document on the internet without success. It is an important document in aiding our attempts to understand what our forefathers intended to establish through the Federal Constitution. You will see that our Federal and Supreme Court have had occasion to refer to this document as an aid to interpret the Constitution. The case of Susie Teoh is one instance. For those who are interested in securing a full copy of this report, it is included as Appendix A to ‘Constitutional Law in Malaysia & Singapore’ by Kevin YL Tam and Thio Li-ann and published by Butterworths.
The excerpts that I have reproduced above were taken from paragraph 163 of the Reid Commission Report. This appears under the heading ‘The Special Position of the Malays’. Paragraphs 163 – 168 which relate to the matter of the ‘special position of the Malays’ appear under this heading. I have scanned the relevant pages containing these paragraphs which can be read in full here.
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution made provision for, amongst other things, the ‘special position of the Malays’.
Note that this Article uses the exact phraseology as the Reid Commission Report : ‘special position of the Malays’. If you do not have a copy of the Federal Constitution against which to check this, I think its about time you went out and got a copy. For the moment, you may check this here. If you want a quicker reference point, this article by Raja Petra might be helpful.
Article 153 in fact adopts the recommendations in the Reid Commission Report in respect of the ‘special position of the Malays’. It is important that we understand the context of those recommendations that were adopted.
I reproduce here the excerpts which I think we need to remind ourselves of.
“Our terms of reference require that provision should be made in the Constitution for the ‘safeguarding of the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other Communities’. In addition, we are asked to provide for a common nationality for the whole of the Federation and to ensure that the Constitution shall guarantee a democratic form of Government. In considering these requirements it seemed, to us that a common nationality was the basis upon which a unified Malayan nation was to be created and that under a democratic form of Government it was inherent that all the citizens of Malaya, irrespective of race, creed or culture, should enjoy certain fundamental rights including equality before the law. We found it difficult, therefore, to reconcile the terms of reference if the protection of the special position of the Malays signified the granting of special privileges, permanently, to one community only and not to the others. The difficulty of giving one community a permanent advantage over the others was realised by the Alliance Party, representatives of which, led by the Chief Minister, submitted that 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…’ The same view was expressed by their Highnesses in their memorandum, in which they 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’. When we came to determine what is ‘the special position of the Malays’… we found that… the special position of the Malays has always been recognised… We found that there are now four matters with regard to which the special position of the Malays is recognised and safeguarded… the system of reserving land for Malays has been in action for many years… There are now in operation quotas for admission to the public services… There are now also in operation quotas in respect of the issuing of permits or licences for the operation of certain businesses… In many classes of scholarships, bursaries and other forms of aid for educational purposes preference is given to Malays… We found little opposition in any quarter to the continuance of the present system for a time, but there was great opposition in some quarters to any increase of the present preferences and to their being continued for any prolonged period. We are of opinion that in present circumstances it is necessary to continue these preferences. The Malays would be at a serious and unfair disadvantage compared with other communities if they were suddenly withdrawn. But, with the integration of the various communities into a common nationality which we trust will gradually come about, the need for these preferences will gradually disappear. Our recommendations are made on the footing that the Malays should be assured that the present position will continue for a substantial period, but that in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease so that there should then be no discrimination between races or communities…We recommend that after 15 years there should be a review of the whole matter and that the procedure should be that the appropriate Government should cause a report to be made and laid before the appropriate legislature; and that the legislature should then determine either to retain or to reduce any quota or to discontinue it entirely”.
There you have it.
Our forefathers who made up the Alliance Party, representatives of which, led by the Chief Minister, who put in place our social contract, intended that ‘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…’.
The consensus arrived at by our forefathers was against the backdrop of the following :
‘Our recommendations are made on the footing that the Malays should be assured that the present position will continue for a substantial period, but that in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease so that there should then be no discrimination between races or communities…after 15 years there should be a review of the whole matter and that the procedure should be that the appropriate Government should cause a report to be made and laid before the appropriate legislature; and that the legislature should then determine either to retain or to reduce any quota or to discontinue it entirely.’
The power-sharing formula between the citizenry and the monarch established under the Federal Constitution was founded on the royal aspiration that ‘it will become possible to eliminate Communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country’.
The Commission recommended the retention of the ‘special position of the Malays’ that pre-dated the Federal Constitution even as it found it ‘difficult… to reconcile the terms of reference if the protection of the special position of the Malays signified the granting of special privileges, permanently, to one community only and not to the others’, because it envisaged that ‘with the integration of the various communities into a common nationality which we trust will gradually come about, the need for these preferences will gradually disappear’.
The ‘special position of the Malays’ was never intended to be in perpetuity. It did not create rights, but was intended as a temporary mechanism to address an economic imbalance perceived then.
The Reid Commission spoke of ‘the integration of the various communities into a common nationality’. Our government talks of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’.
One and the same?
Is our government walking its talk?
In a Malaysiakini report dated 16/11/2006 entitled ‘UMNO delegate : Don’t provoke us’, the Prime Minister is reported to have said :
“We have to adhere steadfastly to the social contract and what is enshrined in the federal constitution to which all the major communities and the different states agreed. It will be all too easy to undermine these sensitivities by making extreme and unreasonable demands and questioning the basic fundamentals of one community. If there are those who want to overhaul this agreement or continue disputing it, then we run the risk of adversely affecting our stability and harmony. We cannot allow this to happen. I will not allow it to happen at any cost.”
Note his reference to the ‘unreasonable demands and questioning the basic fundamentals of one community’? Which is this ‘one community’ that he speaks of? Who then, do you think, he meant by ‘those who want to overhaul this agreement or continue disputing it’? And if this was not in reference to the racists within UMNO, how do you understand his stand that ‘I will not allow it to happen at any cost’?
All of which leads to the first issue I wish to take to our MPs :
1. I want to work towards a Bangsa Malaysia. If you share the same ideal, what concrete plans do you envisage as being necessary over the next five years to achieve this goal?
2. I take the view that a necessary first step towards a Bangsa Malaysia is the dismantling of raced-based politics. If you hold the same view, what are the immediate plans you envisage as being necessary to start this process?
3. I am alarmed by the recent supremacist language and menacing stances displayed by some of the top UMNO leadership, most notably its youth chief and his deputy. I take the view that such reprehensible conduct is incompatible with the stated national objective of the government to work towards a Bangsa Malaysia and wish to have the same made known to the governmental leadership. If you share the same concerns and views, will you communicate my views to the government and henceforth, rise in Parliament to protest on my behalf against any further such occurrences?
If the government will not walk its talk, will you walk yours?
If not, maybe, just maybe, you have the government you rightly deserve.
I end this post by quoting Michael Chick :
“Do we have the guts to do this? Do we really mean what we say?”
The People's Parliament 
Michael Chick
May 9, 2007
Feels good to get “quoted” 🙂
Anyway, have any of you seen “The Last Communist”? It was a horribly low quality and low budget production, but since it was banned, all of us wanted to see it anyway… You can still get copies in Singapore BTW…
Summary of film, it is extremely fragmented, with rather “home-made” type of handheld shaky camera (don’t get seasick watching it-ya..) and was about trying to inject humour about the places that Chin Peng visited, or went to school, and such. There was ZERO about real communism at all. The only part which was “UNACCEPTABLE FOR MALAYSIANS” was tiny interview of a “Malay” woman in tudong, when she said, “Chin Peng was important for our Merdeka, as he fought against the Japanese”
Did he? or did he not? Why then was he given a medal in Singapore at the footsteps of City Hall on National Television by the British?
Point being, that ALL MALAYSIANS fought for independance. Therefore, all Malaysians deserve to enjoy the country as EQUALS. Take any group away, and you would have FAILED, and still be under tyranny; whosoever that force may be.
Who was Tuanku’s bedfellow? (read “Looking Back” by Tuanku) He literally shared the same bed with MCA leader in England when negotiating Malaysia’s Independance. Did Tuanku insist on taking up 68% of bedspace? I don’t think so. Where was MIC? Not part of the coalition yet, apparently….
Also, why do NONE of any of the Malaysian Plans include the Indians? Are they so super filthy rich that they do not need any assistance at all? Our Malaysian government seems to think so, even after 50 years. Strange that no one talks about it at al…. hmmmmmmm……
By definition, since the Indians were here busy converting Malays to Hinduism 1,600yrs before Parameswara arrived, shouldn’t they be Bumiputeras as well? After all, 2,000yrs ago is a pretty damned long time ago.
In contrast, why were all migrating Indonesians since the 1960’s given full Bumiputera status the moment they were willing to fill out the immigration form as “Malay”? That’s about an easy 4 million additional Bumiputeras since Najib’s Daddy “suddenly” came into power 4 days after May13th. Which leader quits in the middle of a crisis? Maybe he didn’t quit?
Things that make you go “Hmmmmmmmm”
ong
May 9, 2007
Well put-equality is a universal principle which is also universally compromised. More so in our beloved country than elsewhere. All are equal but some are more. The problem is always how to convince a majority group from leaving their advantaged position/privileges. Such stuff are what histories are made though. We need an effort of historic proportion to get rid of the last vestiges of privileges in this country.
dbctan
May 9, 2007
We’ve always been aware that the constitution had been hijacked. What is sad is not just that the powers that be has all but censored or imposed a blackout on the truth for its own purposes.; it is that the collective silence of the majority has by default perpetuated the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Indeed. it will take “an effort of historic proportion” to change things. Daunting! Almost unthinkable. Yet, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, so said a wise man..
Libra
May 10, 2007
There is an interesting commentary here http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IE10Ae02.html
on Anwar (the one you don’t trust), the NEP etc.
Petra
May 11, 2007
Dear Haris
Hello again. I enjoy reading your writing, because you write in simple language.
However, I’m a little concerned that the simplicity of your prose is wasted on people who would otherwise read all of it, just because you have a lot to say in essay form. A few suggestions, if I may:
For quotes – and they’re understandably long ones, given that they’re extracts from documents – consider putting them in font 10? That way it’s obvious to the reader what’s your opinion (good for an overview skim) and what they need to reread in detail.
Also, if it’s a lengthier piece – do break it up with subtitles? That way your readers also get to structure their thinking, which helps when they’re discussing constitutional issues at the mamak stalls. This is one thing that’s unfortunately missing in informal political discussions – structured, intellectual integrity.
I hope I was not too forward, because I genuinely do love that your writing is so simply expressed. I am just wary that people who have less inclination to spend the time reading all of it or less of an eye for detail would miss the message just because they’ve not finished everything you’ve said. Which is a definite shame.
Kind regards
petra
Tan Ban Cheng
May 16, 2007
In the second half of the 1960s, a friend who later became a High Court Judge but alas died far too early told me that there is no racial problem in Malaysia. “Where is it?” he asked, almost rhetorically. I was then 17 years old.
According to him, if you survey the Malaysian scene, you will find that the Chinese comprise 37.8 per cent, the Indians 10 per cent and the Malays and others the rest.
“Now look at the Chinese component in Thailand, Indonesia, Burma and the Philippines,: he said. In Thailand, the Chinese comprise 15 per cent, Indonesia about 5 per cent, Burma another 8 per cent and the Philippines maybe 3 per cent. They do not have a problem with their Chinese component.
“But in Malaysia, the Chinese comprise beyond the 15 per cent. So in order not to have a problem, all we need to do is to import 4 million Indonesians and export 2 million Chinese. Then the Chinese component will be reduced to 15 per cent. No problem.”
Of course, I was left in the wilderness after that, trying to figure out what is actually occurring.
But as life went on, especially after May 13, 1969, I discovered that the importation of 4 million Indonesians became a reality over the years although the “export” of the Chinese was done subtly, also over the years.
The rest, as they say, is history.
I am mindful that this may sound racist, but I am recapitulating this conversation with a learned friend in an effort to share what I happened to learn, albeit at the tender age of 17.
Tivor
July 21, 2007
I pity Susie Teoh because many quarters tried to force her to leave the religion of her choice. I don’t know what happened to Susie after the Supreme Court decision, but just as I pray that Lina Joy, Revathi etc will get to legally practise the religions of their own choosing, I hope Susie Teoh was also afforded that right. Haris, would you know what became of Susie Teoh? Thanks.
Tivor,
Sorry, no clue.