Missing the leaves, the roots, the trees, and the forest
IF anyone cares to scrutinise the vitriol from non-Malay politicians and hacks, with some Malays as well, that is being spewed at Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for suggesting that the Constitution did not cater for a multi-racial nation but rather Malay primacy, there is one common thread.
None of the critics acknowledged or rather refused to even mention the fact that the pillar of Malaysia’s formation is the Malay land or constitutionally known as Persekutuan Tanah Melayu and bastardised into English as the Federation of Malaya.
In essence, Malaya is Tanah Melayu, and translated into proper English it would be Malay land.
For that matter, Malaysia itself is coined with Malay being the primary word, and “sia” is accepted to mean land. Hence it is Raja-Raja Melayu and not Raja-Raja Malaysia.
Why are all these important, one might ask, or for some, the reaction may be “so what”?
It is important as accepting the fact that the peninsula is Malay land, it then acts as the precursor for the acceptance of all the privileges, quotas, and status extended to the Malays in the Constitution.
They basically point towards Malay primacy which is maliciously interpreted as Malay supremacy by the non-Malays and as the latter conjures negative and unsavoury connotations.
It is not an issue of multi-racialism in the demographics. No one is disputing that the population of Malaysia is made up of different races and that their position is protected in the Constitution and that they are citizens of the land.
But when they were accepted as citizens of the land, they in turn accepted the primacy of the Malays hence the provisions accorded to the Malays.
The next question is why raise it now and wasn’t Dr Mahathir a proponent of multi-racialism either in his Wawasan 2020 brainchild as well as when he was Prime Minister both the first and second time?
It then takes the argument as to when it was said, the context, and the political dynamics at that time.
When Dr Mahathir spoke about Bangsa Malaysia, to most adult Malays then, it did not mean that Malay primacy was being shed.
If anything, the Wawasan 2020 was to be achieved through the accorded provisions and when the Vision is achieved the Malays would ease up on its dependency on some of the provisions especially those linked to their economic well-being.
But other provisions which emphasise the primacy of the Malays such as the national language, Islam, scholarships, and the Malay Rulers are never to be compromised in any way.
Then there is the question of why now and not when he was with the DAP and PKR before the 2018 polls and in the short-lived Pakatan Harapan Government.
It is quite obvious that he worked with them on their agreement to accept the coalition being led by a Malay party and that the candidate as PM must come from that party.
However, after winning, the DAP and PKR showed their true colours, condemning Dr Mahathir merely for meeting up with Malay leaders and NGOs in the Malay Dignity Congress.
Prior to winning the polls, Dr Mahathir could meet any Malay, individual or group, for as long as they voted for PH but after winning, the Malay electorates especially those concerned about the Malay plight must be shunned.
Fast forward to today when the issue flared up.
If the 2018 PH was led by a Malay party that advocates Malay primacy, the present PH Government, though headed by a Malay, is representing a multi-racial party and backed by the DAP, which is also a multi-racial party though a DAP stalwart had once insisted on defending its Chinese-ness.
Umno in the equation is merely making the numbers and at best perceived to be a lackey party whose concern is merely ensuring their leaders held some positions and to avoid being incarcerated for previous corrupt practices.
Again, if anyone cared to scrutinise DAP’s Merdeka Constitution, it clearly stated its commitment to secularism which if taken in the context of the Western definition meant a total separation between State and Church.
But in Malaysia, Islam is the religion of the Federation and there has never been an absolute separation between the Government and Islam.
Indeed, the DAP had promised that the position of Islam would never be affected under their watch. But their Merdeka constitution states that “the fundamental right of freedom of religion encompasses the freedom of the respective religions from being subject to oppressive laws and discriminatory acts.”
This provision had given concern to some Muslim law practitioners that it is targeted at the provisions in the Federal Constitution which restrict the propagation of other religions among Muslims.
Then other provisions in the Merdeka Constitution speak of meritocracy and equal opportunity in the economy, upholds Bahasa Malaysia as the national language; but guarantees the obligation, duty, and right to promote the status, expand learning and use other mother tongue languages including Chinese, Tamil, English and native tongues.
It is in its entirety a Malaysian Malaysia in which Malay primacy is of no consequence.
The question is whether the pursuit of meritocracy for example, which in effect puts aside the special privileges, quota, and such for the Malays is against the Constitutional provisions or not.
PKR had also openly declared its commitment to multi-racialism and it doesn’t seem to subscribe to the fact that the peninsula is Malay land either. Its constitution recognises Sabah and Sarawak but described the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu as Semenanjung Malaysia.
It is against this backdrop that Dr Mahathir and other like-minded Malays felt the need to question the attempt to turn the nation’s embodiment of Malay primacy into multi-racialism.
Without rhyme or reason, enter two indigenous leaders of Sarawak and Sabah into the fray – Abdul Karim Hamzah and Wilfred Madius Tangau respectively.
Abdul Karim condemned Dr Mahathir for suggesting that multi-racialism is unconstitutional, arrogantly adding that his ruling coalition Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) would never again work with the likes of Dr Mahathir.
Tangau was equally vicious saying Dr Mahathir’s statement which “attacked multiculturalism and secularism revealed the malicious mind of a Malayan imperialist and colonialist who sees Sabah and Sarawak as colonial possessions of Malayan Malays.”
In the first place, Dr Mahathir’s concern was specifically on the Malays in the peninsula, and their position if multi-culturalism is not merely with regards to the population but extended into the constitution.
His concern cannot spill over into the Sabah and Sarawak domain as the affirmation of the MA 63 literally stopped any interference from peninsula leaders into provisions relating to Bumiputera rights and privileges in Sabah and Sarawak.
In simple words, if the likes of Abdul Karim and Tangau are not concerned about the impact of a multi-cultural philosophy in constitutional provisions pertaining to their Bumiputera positions in Sabah and Sarawak, it is no more Dr Mahathir’s business as that of other Malays in the peninsula.
But Abdul Karim and Tangau need to be reminded about the protection of the Bumiputera in Sabah and Sarawak is not only confined to them being overwhelmed by the local non-indigenous but their immigration laws also limit the entrance of peninsula Malays, Chinese, and Indians, pertaining to certain professional endeavour.
They are still holding on to the provision so that they can stop citizens from the peninsula entering and freely changing their equation. In the meantime, the indigenous should also consider putting up new barriers.
They’re to prevent witless thoughts of such leaders crossing the ocean.
Shamsul Akmar is an editor at The Malaysian Reserve.
