Ketuanan Melayu: The Constitutional Flaw of the Indigenous Masters?

Ketuanan Melayu. These very words conjure a myriad of images, depending on you’re your point of view. Some see it as the definition of our socio-political inheritance, others see it as the division of our multicultural heritage.

It is loved or loathed, sheltered or scathed.

Recently, our pretend premier recently tried to explain that the perpetuation of Ketuanan Melayu was because Malays were ‘indigenous’. Izzat so? Well, I always thought of the Orang Asli as indigenous, not Malays.

Now please, don’t get me wrong. This is in no way meant to be disparaging. But while Malays are indeed bumiputera, are Malays ‘indigenous’?

In her previous post, KLConfidential once disclosed that in Article 160 of the Federal Constitution, the definition of being Malay is:

...a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and:

(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or

(b) is the issue of such a person.

So where in the above definition does being ‘indigenous’ come in?

If I understand this correctly, as long as someone fits the above description, they’re Malay, correct? If that is so, then quite a lot of people can constitutionally be Malay, even if they aren’t Malay, right?

So, if you want to be called ‘indigenous’, and gain bumiputera rights, all you need to do is convert to Islam, conform to Malay customs and culture, and tadah! you’re Malay, with all the perks contained therein.

Fascinating, isn’t it? Pity our pretend premier seems to have forgotten this when he – and his less than credible cronies - were all over the news recently.

Sure, it is good for him to be championing Ketuanan Melayu because “the Malays, as the indigenous people in Malaysia” “do not want to become coolies” [The Star, Tuesday April 29, 2008].

It is even good that his lackadaisical lackey, Shahrir, crawled out from under his rock to add that the concept of Ketuanan Melayu “cannot be done away” because it is an integral part of the Federal Constitution, and “is linked to the survival of the sultanate system” [The Sun, Tuesday April 29, 2008]

However, the problem is that there is no provision within the constitution to properly defining what it is to be Malay. And if the constitution is incapable of properly recognising what it is to be Malay, how are Malays rights protected under it?

In regards to this, Singapore’s ever controversial Lee Kuan Yew has been attributed to have said:

Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato’ Syed Ja’afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty.

Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour.

So, our prosaic premier can argue all he wants about the Ketuanan Melayu, but if the constitution allows for individuals who are not ‘indigenous’ to become Malays, then this underscores a flaw within the Federal Constitution that should be rectified.

Perhaps if he and his frivolous flunkies really wanted to protect the rights of Malays, and the concept of Ketuanan Melau, they should amend the constitution to better define what it is to be Malay.

This shouldn’t pose much of a problem, since the ruling coalition has made over 600 amendments to the constitution to date in less than 50 years. When they are willing to go to such lengths to secure the privileges of the few, I don’t see why they can’t make another one or two more to secure the rights of the many.

Additionally, it is quite inelegant - and hypocritical - to go about claiming to uphold one article of the constitution, when others are have to run away from tear gas for upholding another.

So here’s a piece of advice to the power mongerers/mongrels: if the constitution is your defence, please make sure that you observe all of the articles enshrined in the constitution, not just those articles that favour you and your party members.

And Shahrir, if you want to point out articles vital to the survival of the sultanate system, don’t conveniently leave out other more salient articles like Article 32. Unless of course you’re addled after trying to muzzle the monarchy not too long ago.

But to get right down to it, the true tragedy behind the concept of Ketuanan Melayu is that it has allowed the ruling coalition to inhibit the Malays for 50 years, through impeding their educational aptitude, through the hampering of their economic experience, through hindering their competitive capability.

Personally, the debate revolving around Ketuanan Melayu shouldn’t be "if it represses other races". The debate should be if it suppresses the Malays.