Malaysiakini
Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi's comment that "any attempt to dislodge Article 153 would tear society apart" does not hold water.
Universiti Teknologi Mara Professor Emeritus Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is way off the mark with his comment that "any attempt to dislodge Article 153 would tear society apart".
Instead, he turned apologist for the system and the establishment.
It should be obvious by now, after 54 years of independence - 48 years in Sabah and Sarawak - that not to dislodge or at least bring Article 153 back to the right premises would in fact be the very undoing of this nation.
This is the continuing price that the country must pay for not accepting that the brightest and best must lead the way for all.
Faruqi, as a true academician, should have qualified his statement by clearly pointing out that the deviations and distortions in the implementation of Article 153 have rendered it beyond recognition.
He also failed to address the legally pertinent point that Article 153 had a shelf life of 15 years.
This point has been raised in particular by Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar in recent months and time and again by Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairperson P. Waytha Moorthy.
All Waytha got for his troubles, to digress a little, was to be accused by de facto chief Anwar Ibrahim of being a racist.
Faruqi, as an academician, has the luxury of cheerfully arguing in his lectures, articles and books that particular aspects of the law are wrong in terms of legal principle or are unjust and should be changed.
This, he has failed to do as evident from his reference to the United States and other places where he alleges there's a disconnect of sorts between theory and practice.
Is he consoling himself with the "fact" that other places on earth are "far worse" than Malaysia?
Does this mean that we have to simply grin and bear it even when we are aware that something is seriously wrong?
In that case, the blacks in the United States would still be slaves today and women in that country would not have the right to vote.
The law, it must be accepted, is always one step if not several behind civics, professional and other ethics, moral studies and religion. Consider the fact that the law at one time considered slavery as legal.
Patently, Article 153 covers both the Malays/natives and the non-Malays, while being a narrow exception to the equality clauses in the Federal Constitution, the only social contract in the nation.
Legitimate aspirations
The article, as spelt out in the Federal Constitution, guarantees that the legitimate aspirations of the non-Malay would be respected notwithstanding the article itself.
This respect for the non-Malays stems from the fact that Article 153 would be a limited breach of the equality clauses in the Federal Constitution.
It's limited to recognising a special position for the Malays and natives by providing for them a reasonable proportion of the places in four specific areas, i.e. intake into the civil service, intake into institutions of higher learning owned by the government and training privileges, government scholarships and opportunities from the government to do business.
The Federal Constitution speaks of no quota system and makes the King responsible for Article 153.
The observation is that Umno has usurped the power of the King over Article 153 and unilaterally extended it in a deviated and distorted form, for reasons of political expediency, to every facet of life in Malaysia.
This has been almost wholly at the expense of the non-Malays and the natives, if not the vast majority of the Malays themselves.
The result is that when the Chief Secretary to the federal government was queried late last year why 90 per cent of the 1.2 million federal government servants came from one community, he had the cheek to answer that "intake was not based on race or a quota system but on merit".
Why the need, in that case, for Article 153 in the Federal Constitution? Does 90 per cent constitute a reasonable proportion?
Similarly, just recently, the Royal Military College (RMC) found itself on the carpet for having only ten per cent non-Malay students despite the community forming 40 per cent of the population.
Intake is not based on a quota system or race but merit, according to the RMC.
Of course, how can anyone claim the quota system is the basis when 90 per cent of the intake is from one community? In any case, it would be honest for the Chief Secretary and the RMC to admit that race was the only criteria being used and drop the fig leaf on merit.
Faruqi's point on ketuanan Melayu - Malay supremacy and dominance - is not exactly how the story evolved.
At the advent of independence in 1957, the first Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman persuaded the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), his political allies, that "since the Chinese dominated the local economy, the Malays would lead the politics".
This unwritten social contract later degenerated, along with deviations and distortions in the implementation of Article 153 - and its unilateral extension to every facet of life in Malaysia - into ketuanan Melayu.
One result of the ketuanan Melayu mindset is the imposition of proxy rule in Sabah and Sarawak and the denial of the majority Dusuns and Dayaks meaningful participation in the politics of their own countries. This can also be seen in their continuing marginalisation and disenfranchisement.
Need we say anything more on Article 153 and ketuanan Melayu!
Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi's comment that "any attempt to dislodge Article 153 would tear society apart" does not hold water.
Universiti Teknologi Mara Professor Emeritus Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is way off the mark with his comment that "any attempt to dislodge Article 153 would tear society apart".
Instead, he turned apologist for the system and the establishment.
It should be obvious by now, after 54 years of independence - 48 years in Sabah and Sarawak - that not to dislodge or at least bring Article 153 back to the right premises would in fact be the very undoing of this nation.
This is the continuing price that the country must pay for not accepting that the brightest and best must lead the way for all.
Faruqi, as a true academician, should have qualified his statement by clearly pointing out that the deviations and distortions in the implementation of Article 153 have rendered it beyond recognition.
He also failed to address the legally pertinent point that Article 153 had a shelf life of 15 years.
This point has been raised in particular by Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar in recent months and time and again by Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairperson P. Waytha Moorthy.
All Waytha got for his troubles, to digress a little, was to be accused by de facto chief Anwar Ibrahim of being a racist.
Faruqi, as an academician, has the luxury of cheerfully arguing in his lectures, articles and books that particular aspects of the law are wrong in terms of legal principle or are unjust and should be changed.
This, he has failed to do as evident from his reference to the United States and other places where he alleges there's a disconnect of sorts between theory and practice.
Is he consoling himself with the "fact" that other places on earth are "far worse" than Malaysia?
Does this mean that we have to simply grin and bear it even when we are aware that something is seriously wrong?
In that case, the blacks in the United States would still be slaves today and women in that country would not have the right to vote.
The law, it must be accepted, is always one step if not several behind civics, professional and other ethics, moral studies and religion. Consider the fact that the law at one time considered slavery as legal.
Patently, Article 153 covers both the Malays/natives and the non-Malays, while being a narrow exception to the equality clauses in the Federal Constitution, the only social contract in the nation.
Legitimate aspirations
The article, as spelt out in the Federal Constitution, guarantees that the legitimate aspirations of the non-Malay would be respected notwithstanding the article itself.
This respect for the non-Malays stems from the fact that Article 153 would be a limited breach of the equality clauses in the Federal Constitution.
It's limited to recognising a special position for the Malays and natives by providing for them a reasonable proportion of the places in four specific areas, i.e. intake into the civil service, intake into institutions of higher learning owned by the government and training privileges, government scholarships and opportunities from the government to do business.
The Federal Constitution speaks of no quota system and makes the King responsible for Article 153.
The observation is that Umno has usurped the power of the King over Article 153 and unilaterally extended it in a deviated and distorted form, for reasons of political expediency, to every facet of life in Malaysia.
This has been almost wholly at the expense of the non-Malays and the natives, if not the vast majority of the Malays themselves.
The result is that when the Chief Secretary to the federal government was queried late last year why 90 per cent of the 1.2 million federal government servants came from one community, he had the cheek to answer that "intake was not based on race or a quota system but on merit".
Why the need, in that case, for Article 153 in the Federal Constitution? Does 90 per cent constitute a reasonable proportion?
Similarly, just recently, the Royal Military College (RMC) found itself on the carpet for having only ten per cent non-Malay students despite the community forming 40 per cent of the population.
Intake is not based on a quota system or race but merit, according to the RMC.
Of course, how can anyone claim the quota system is the basis when 90 per cent of the intake is from one community? In any case, it would be honest for the Chief Secretary and the RMC to admit that race was the only criteria being used and drop the fig leaf on merit.
Faruqi's point on ketuanan Melayu - Malay supremacy and dominance - is not exactly how the story evolved.
At the advent of independence in 1957, the first Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman persuaded the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), his political allies, that "since the Chinese dominated the local economy, the Malays would lead the politics".
This unwritten social contract later degenerated, along with deviations and distortions in the implementation of Article 153 - and its unilateral extension to every facet of life in Malaysia - into ketuanan Melayu.
One result of the ketuanan Melayu mindset is the imposition of proxy rule in Sabah and Sarawak and the denial of the majority Dusuns and Dayaks meaningful participation in the politics of their own countries. This can also be seen in their continuing marginalisation and disenfranchisement.
Need we say anything more on Article 153 and ketuanan Melayu!
No comments:
Post a Comment