[ad_1]
There is no official statement or explanation to explain the origin of the term and why and how it needs to be a major driver of national policy making.
Lin Deyi
One of the most enduring socio-economic and racial issues in Malaysia is that relating to the term Bumiputera and non-bumiputera, and the division it has caused ever since the term was introduced into the country’s political vocabulary and life.
Many observers believe that this is the biggest obstacle to national unity, but so far, not much attention has been paid to examining its role and significance in national policy formulation and implementation.
Should this political and policy structure, which in many ways defines and regulates the lives of most Malaysians, continue to exist? What is its relevance more than half a century after its enactment? What alternative, better structures are there that could more effectively address the challenges we face in nation-building?
These questions should have been raised long ago. But until now, they have been suppressed or repressed. Now, these questions are surfacing in a more powerful form in the open space of social media.
Discussions on the indigenous/non-indigenous divide and dichotomy are hampered by a lack of research and investigation into how the term ‘indigenous’ emerged and became central to national life. There is no official statement or account explaining the origins of the term and why and how it became a major driver of national policy making.
This article explores the when, who, how and why of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous issue in order to start a discussion that can help our leaders reboot the country and get it out of the racial and identity dead end it has fallen into.
The origins of indigenism
It is important to note that the term “indigenous” is a relatively recent coinage.
A review of key constitutional and official documents dating to the country’s independence and the formation of Malaysia in 1963 found no mention of the term.
Neither the Reid and Cobbold Committee proceedings nor the extensive literature used the term, nor did they mention the need to distinguish between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in determining individual status and rights.
Instead, what we find is that the Malays in Peninsular Malaysia, the Bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak enjoy a special status under Article 153, while other communities also have legitimate benefits.
Furthermore, Article 160 defines a Malay as a person who “professes Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, observes Malay customs, and whose parents, at least one of whom was born in the Federation of Malaysia before the independence of Malaya on August 31, 1957, or is the son or daughter (or descendant) of such a person.”
The first official use of the term can be traced back to the first Bumiputera Economic Congress held in June 1965. Subsequently, the term first appeared in Parliament when the “Majlis Amanah Rakyat” [MARA] In August 1965 a bill was introduced to replace the Rural and Industrial Development Administration [RIDA;1953] As proposed by the above mentioned Conference.
The next time the term was used was in Parliament that same year. The following is an extract from the minutes:
Dr Lim Chong Eu (Tanjong) asked the Prime Minister to clarify whether the term “bumiputera” has a legal and constitutional definition and whether the children of Malaysian citizens born after August 31, 1963 also enjoy all the rights of bumiputera.
Prime Minister: [Tunku Abdul Rahman] Mr. Speaker, the word “bumiputera” has no legal meaning unless it is used to refer to the natives of mainland Malaya and the natives of the states of Borneo; or in other words, to the original inhabitants of Malaya, such as the Malays, Bumiputera and the Ibans, Muruts, Malayanos of Sabah and Sarawak and the indigenous peoples of these areas. Since it has no legal meaning, anyone has the right to call themselves “bumiputera”. I would say that even Eurasians of Portuguese descent can call themselves “bumiputera” of this country; or, Eurasians of British descent; as long as they do not call Britain their homeland, and, those Chinese and Indians who have been born here for generations, as long as they do not describe themselves as Chinese and do not claim to be Chinese, have the right to call themselves “bumiputera”, of course, Article 153 of the Constitution provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall safeguard the status of the Malays and the natives of the states of Borneo, namely Sabah and Sarawak. [ Refer Hansard 13 November 1965; Columns 2567 -2476 for full debate]
It is also significant that during that period, a PAS MP tabled a motion on 11 August 1965, calling for “amending the Constitution to guarantee indigenous rights in the political, economic, educational and cultural fields” which was rejected by the government after a lengthy debate.
A full recreation of this and previous debates will be useful to share with our contemporary MPs and other political leaders.
● The second section will explore how Indigenous terminology and the Indigenous/non-Indigenous dichotomy have moved from being a political to a policy construction and discuss some of its consequences.
[ad_2]
Source link
