Malaysia or Malaysaja? – Part 2

Nurul – a chip off the old block

I have decided to make a list of issues concerning “Malay Rights”, that needs to be clarified and reconciled between the mixed government policy signals over the years in relation to Article 153, Article 152, Article 89 and the NEP.

The main contention for clarification is that, how do we reconcile between the need for change to meet current circumstances facing the nation today and the constitution — the raison d’etre of my proposed debate with Perkasa for a better Malaysia?

 

Nurul Izzah Anwar

KUALA LUMPUR – Since I wrote my August 31, 2010 article, titled “The Ultimate Malaysian Debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja?”, which called for a constructive engagement with Perkasa, and with the stated purpose to seek clarification and not challenge or repeal the constitution, my invitation to Perkasa has not only been rejected but countless accusations and police reports were made against me.

In the interest of framing the context of my concerns for the state of our nation, I have written this sequel.

I wish to continue in the path of constructive engagement with all concerned Malaysians.

I again reaffirm that I only seek clarifications and not to challenge or ask to repeal our constitution.

I have decided to make a list of issues concerning “Malay Rights”, that needs to be clarified and reconciled between the mixed government policy signals over the years in relation to Article 153, Article 152, Article 89 and the NEP.

The main contention for clarification is that, how do we reconcile between the need for change to meet current circumstances facing the nation today and the constitution — the raison d’etre of my proposed debate with Perkasa for a better Malaysia?

The list, where all the information is available as a matter of public record, is as follows:

Part XII, General and Miscellaneous — Article 153 — Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

Article 153 contains a quota mechanism in the form of Article 153 (2)… the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law… to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable for:

• positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State)

• scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given

• permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

In regards to “position in the public service”, in 2009, 78.2 per cent of public service positions are composed of Malays and 7.7 per cent other Bumiputeras for a total of 85.9 per cent.

However, it is reassuring that measures have been introduced to recruit more non-Malays into the civil service.

How do we reconcile this with the need for diversity and fair racial representation without diminishing “Malay Rights”?

In regards to scholarships for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, I would like to propose that more scholarships should be given as education is a great equaliser and facilitates social mobility; hence shouldn’t all PTPTN student loans be converted to scholarships to fulfil Article 153 intent?

And as a sustainable source of funds for more scholarships, shouldn’t Petronas oil revenue have a specific 30 per cent of profits mandated for scholarships, this would definitely be putting our “Khazanah Negara: (national treasure, i.e. oil) to develop our most treasured resources: our children?

Wouldn’t it also be an exercise in good governance and in the interest of “Malay Rights”, if Petronas accounts are made public and accountable through the Parliament?

I do believe with Petronas mandated scholarship contribution, even all deserving top scorers, regardless of race can receive a scholarship that will enrich the quality of our human resource and foster national unity to achieve higher economic growth; to improve the quality of our current workforce, 80 per cent of which are SPM holders.

We should also look at how Article 153 (2) is to be reconciled, with the change of policy from a quota-based to a meritocracy-based admissions system to public universities made by then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 2003?

Wouldn’t this lead to efforts to continue improving our education system or just be seen as limiting access to public universities? Which is the priority?