There’s no need to harp on 1Malaysia, reiterated Waythamoorthy, when
Malaysia is already one country, one people after nearly half a century.
Claiming that Article 153 was in fact founded with evil intentions,
Waythamoorthy belaboured the point that the Federal Constitution clause
doesn’t mention the Orang Asli at all while it was extended to Sabah and
Sarawak, after Malaysia, “to be used as a divide-and-rule tactic in
Borneo”. He went on to point out that even if the Malay-speaking
communities in Peninsular Malaysia were allowed to maintain the fiction
that they were Natives, “it still doesn’t mean that they merit Article
153 in any manner”.
Asked how sure he was that Ban will accept the Memorandum,
Waythamoorthy disclosed that the necessary arrangements have already
been made. He added that “we know how the UN system works. Ban is not in
Malaysia just to meet with Umno leaders and lap up their propaganda”.
Hindraf,
he continued, will not let up in its efforts to bring “the apartheid
situation in Malaysia to the attention of the world”. He assured that
his organisation had no sinister motives on the issue and rejected any
notion that the country would be embarrassed and rendered vulnerable if
the issue is continually flogged abroad.
“No change is possible within Malaysia on the question of Apartheid
although the Opposition and activists are openly debating the necessity
of not only a regime change in the country but a system change,” said
Waythamoorthy.
NEP
The NEP is partly an extension of the 4th special position
under Article 153 and pledged to ensure that the Malay-speaking
communities own, control and manage 30 per cent of the corporate economy
– i.e. that publicly-listed – within a twenty-year period (1970-1990).
The target, the Government claims, was not reached, and the NEP has been
continued indefinitely.
The NEP also pledged to eradicate poverty irrespective of race and
creed; and eliminate the identification of race with economic function
and place of residence.
Article 153, under the 1st prong, reserves a reasonable
proportion for the Malay-speaking communities in Peninsular Malaysia and
the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak by way of a Special Position in four
specific areas viz. intake into the civil service; intake into
institutions of higher learning owned by the government and training
privileges; government scholarship; and as seen in the NEP,
opportunities from the government to do business.
Article 153, under its 2nd Prong, is a pledge on the legitimate interests of the non-Malay communities.
He rejected outright any suggestions that Article 153 and the NEP
were, essentially, drawn up in good faith but observed more often than
not in the breach as a result of politically-motivated deviations and
distortions in their implementation. He hastened to add that the
Memorandum covers these aspects as well so that the UN would not be
persuaded by any government propaganda.
“Good faith is the false belief, the no hopers that 3rd Force
activists in Sabah and Sarawak cling to whenever Article 153 and the
NEP are mentioned,” said Waythamoorthy. “The non-Muslims in these two
states, as the Memorandum makes it clear, have never benefited from the
Article and the economic policy.”
The litmus test, according to Waythamoorthy, would be the absence of
Article 153 in Sabah and Sarawak if the two states had not agreed to
Malaysia, or in future, break away.
“Why would they need Article 153 when they are already one country,
one people each in their own way?” asked Waythamoorthy rhetorically.
“Similarly, after more than half a century of the Brutish leaving,
Malaysia is one country, one people, and there’s no place for Article
153 and related mechanisms.”
Waytha wants the United Nation to send a Special Rapporteur to
Malaysia on a fact-finding mission to probe Hindraf’s memorandum and to
advise the Federal Government to take the necessary remedial measures
“to dismantle Apartheid”, failing which, “economic and other sanctions
should be imposed”. He cited the white minority Apartheid regime in
South Africa as an example of the fate that should be in store for
Malaysia for defying the international community.
An added reason for sanctions would be Malaysia’s refusal to sign at
least ten Universal Conventions and Declarations, dated 1948 to 1992,
for fear they would specifically target the Apartheid structure in the
country. These include those on human rights; economic, social and
cultural rights; civil and political rights; fundamental freedoms,
intolerance and discrimination; education; and development.
“If white-ruled South Africa can be held accountable by the UN and
international community for Apartheid and if India, a great power, taken
to task by the Durban Conference over lingering aspects of the caste
system, Malaysia should not and cannot be an exception,” fumed
Waythamoorthy.
Apartheid in Malaysia is real and serious
Waytha’s
call was also to clarify and reiterate Hindraf’s total, complete and
unswerving stand against Article 153 of the Federal Constitution in
response to an ongoing email debate with and among activists in Sabah
and Sarawak on the issue. He has been working arrangements with these
activists as part of a broader agenda to ensure the emergence of a
bipartisan 3rd Force in the Malaysian Parliament.
Hindraf, an ad hoc apolitical human rights NGO working across the
divide, will not however make public the Memorandum until the UN
Secretary-General has received his copy and an opportunity to study it.
Waythamoorthy, a human rights lawyer who recently picked up an award
from the Indian diaspora for his work, was nevertheless willing to
sketch a broad outline of the specifics in the Memorandum.
Apartheid may have been dismantled in South Africa brick-by-brick,
stressed the Hindraf Chief, “but it’s alive, well and kicking in
Malaysia under the Umno Government”.
“The thrust of it is that the non-Malay communities have no rights in
Malaysia but only a pledge on their legitimate interests. Interests are
not rights.”
No comments:
Post a Comment