BTN, oh my, part 2 8 December 2009

Just so that no one misses this fascinating string of news centring on the BTN, I’m here to provide you with short and succinct updates!

First, Dr Mahathir, the target of Mr. Nazri’s attacks, responded by challenging the latter to quit what he calls a ‘racist party’.

Then, the Mr. Muhyiddin goes to the Tun’s side and said that it’s ‘extreme’ for Nazri to say what he said. He reiterates that BTN is good and wholesome.

Out of nowhere, former Penang chief minister (and now unity minister) Dr Koh Tsu Koon backs Mr Nazri and says BTN must be revamped. I’m surprised that the good Dr had the fortitude to say something that might ‘rock the boat’. He has a history of being ’super safe’, in my opinion.

Then Mr. Nazri retorts by saying that the Tun’s remarks are ‘most stupid’.

And with all that happening, Ahmad ‘Pendatang’ Ismail got his 3 year suspension lifted 2 years early!

Ah, Malaysia. Not a day passes without something or another happening. Popcorns, anyone?

UMNO first, country second 3 December 2008

So, Mr. Zaid Ibrahim, former de facto law minister has been sacked by UMNO.

To me, it is UMNO’s loss. Let them continue on this path of self-destruction for all I care.

I also thought of an interesting comparison.

Mr. Tajuddin Abdul Rahman, MP for Pasir Salak, uttered racial slurs in Parliament. He is unpunished and un-rebuked by the party.

Mr. Ahmad Ismail, of pendatang infamy, insulted the Chinese, likened them to Jews, tore down a picture of a Chinese leader of a party in HIS own coalition and generally created all sorts of  racial tensions. He got suspended for three years after intense pressure from all quarters to punish him.

Mr. Zaid Ibrahim attended the PKR annual congress. He got sacked.

It’s quite clear where UMNO’s priorities are. Betraying UMNO is far more severe than betraying the unity and harmony of the country.

The Return of Ahmad Ismail 9 November 2008

When I read this the Star report, I couldn’t believe my eyes:

Warrior’s welcome for Ahmad Ismail of ‘pendatang’ infamy

GEORGE TOWN: Suspended Bukit Bendera Umno chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail was given a warrior’s welcome, complete with presentation of regalia such as a keris (traditional Malay sword), when he turned up for the division’s delegates conference.

…

Upon entering, Ahmad was adorned with a yellow tengkolok (headdress) by division adviser Azmi Merican, a yellow selempang (scarf) by Umno veteran Saakyah Mat Isa, and presented with a keris by Umno veteran Abdul Rahman Lazim.

Ahmad raised the keris briefly to his lips in reverence, then lifted it high before proceeding on stage, while the emcee ammounced that all three traditional items were presented to Ahmad as a true pahlawan Melayu (Malay warrior) of Bukit Bendera.

So now, Ahmad Ismail is a pahlawan?

For saying what he said? For refusing to apologize? For defying the prime minister and his deputy? For prompting his konco-konco to tear a harmless picture?

Seriously, if doing all the above qualifies you to be a Malay warrior, then I am simply speechless.

Freedom of the Press: Powers, responsibilities and consequences 22 October 2008

Recent events have brought to the fore the issue of press freedom. It began with Utusan Malaysia’s attacks on Ms. Teresa Kok, first with the azan issue, and then with her supposedly inappropriate attire in a mosque and the latest, the article by Mr. Chamil Wariya entitled ‘Politik Baru YBJ’. Then, Malaysiakini had to issue and apology to Mr. Najib Razak, prime-minister-to-be, for reporting a false manifesto attributed to the DPM. Today, the Kelantan state assembly has banned Berita Harian from covering the proceedings because the daily had allegedly misreported the comments of His Highness the Sultan of Kelantan.

Let us get one thing straight; there is no such thing as a hundred percent independent media. Mass media is now a form of business, and with business, profits take precedent. In Malaysia, business has a political dimension to it; most of the time, the two are invariably linked.

Someone once said that press freedom belongs to who owns it. It is inevitable that certain dailies would have certain political or ideological leanings. Even in countries that supposedly practice a degree of press freedom like the UK, different dailies are catered to different people of different political beliefs and social standing.

Thus when advocates of press freedom talk about the notion, we do not mean that we want the media to be totally devoid of political opinion. To try and achieve something like that would be a futile effort. Instead, advocates of press freedom want a media free of political control and propaganda. The government, whoever it may be, must not be allowed to use the media to keep them in power.

Let us take the example of the Malay dailies; Utusan and Berita Harian. Traditionally, it has always been a newspaper that promotes the interests of the Malay. The akhbar became the wadah perjuangan bangsa, especially in the years leading up to independence. Similarly, Chinese and Tamil language newspapers also play their part in promoting the interests of their respective communities. That in itself does not mean that these dailies lack independence. What does is the fact that these dailies are owned by political parties and/or their proxies and are used to further the interests of those parties. These dailies become a tool to disseminate propaganda, to the extant that spinning, out-of-context reporting and even outright lies can be found within their pages.

Let us compare two dailies; Utusan Malaysia and Sinar Harian. Now it is a well known fact that Utusan is owned and controlled by UMNO, whilst we do not know much of  the political leanings of Sinar Harian’s owners (Kumpulan Karangkraf Sdn. Bhd.). Both are Malay-language dailies, meaning a large portion of their readership are Malays. As such, both would be interested in issues pertaining to the interests of the Malays. Yet whilst Utusan goes on a rampage of discrediting and defaming Pakatan Rakyat (Mr. Anwar, Ms. Kok and the DAP are constant targets), Sinar Harian tries its best to carry reports from both sides of the political divide while still highlighting issues pertinent to the Malay community. The result? Sinar Harian’s increase in circulation (last check: number two in Selangor, and leading Malay daily in the East coast) and credibility, whilst Utusan is losing readership day by day. Not to mention the credibility it has lost many years ago.

Another aspect of press freedom is the ability to report without fear or favour. The press should be allowed to carry out its duties without having to fear persecution or litigation. The ISA of the Sin Chew Daily journalist for reporting Mr. Ahmad Ismail’s remarks is a perfect example of an attempt to curtail press freedom. Yet we must never forget that such freedoms are not absolute. Freedom never existed in a vacuum, it has to be balanced against the rights of others. Thus, Ms. Kok’s decision to sue Utusan for copious amounts of money, and the Kelantan state assemblies decision to ban Berita Harian must not be seen as attempts to curtail press freedom. They are certainly not ‘ISA of the opposition‘, as how one commentator puts it. The media should not be allowed to do as it pleases, to fall short of journalistic standards, to report lies and untruths. To do so would be a gross abuse of press freedom and the offending media must face the consequences.

So Suara Keadilan must be prepared to face the music when it falsely reported the condition of the Inspector General of Police. Similarly, when Utusan falsely accused Ms. Kok with her involvement in the azan petition, it too must be prepared to face a lawsuit.

Media practitioners must be prepared to be accountable and take responsibility for their reports. Some of our media practitioners should learn from former Malaysiakini journalist Wong Choon Mei, who resigned from Malaysiakini for falsely mistakenly and erroneously attributing a manifesto to Mr. Najib.

Even with the emergence of the internet, traditional or ‘mainstream’ media remains a powerful tool. Those in the cities may obtain their daily doses of news through the internet, but for those in rural Malaysia their only source of information is in the dailies they read. So when Berita Harian allegedly reported that the Sultan of Kelantan was murka with the state government, many of those who read the news would not be able to verify this piece of reporting and would of course be prone to believing it. They would also be prone to conclude that the state government must have done something (or many things) wrong to incur the wrath of the Sultan.

It is this ability of ‘opinion-forming’ and to shape public discourse that is so powerful. As the saying goes, with great power must come great responsibility. Following from this, great consequences must befall those who take it for the responsibility for granted.

An evening of buka puasa and friendship 5 October 2008

The last rays of sunshine filtered through the glass windows of the Petaling Jaya restaurant. There were not many patrons at the time, yet the waiters were still kept busy, harrying back and forth with orders. It was an upper middle end restaurant and for such establishments, late evenings do not normally witness brisk business. Maybe later the place as the night wore on, will the place crowd up.

In one corner of the restaurant, eight friends waited patiently for the Maghrib, a signal that the Muslims amongst them would be able to break their fast. They were of different races and religions and they were there to buka puasa together. Eight 25-year-olds, each having different careers and coming from different backgrounds. Eight Malaysians who share an alma mater and a bond of friendship.

Their political affiliations differ as widely as their ethnicities and careers. Yet, while most of them do not hold back their opinions, they accept views in good faith. Friendship transcends politics, as it does race and religion.

There were no mosques nearby for them to hear the azan, thus they depended on their watches. They gave an extra few minutes, just to be certain. When it was time, the Muslims broke their fast with relieved gulps of their drinks.

Before long, smoke started billowing from some of them, the day’s abstinence from cigarettes as hard as the abstinence from food and water. The waiters brought their meals one by one, and with energy regained, the chatter of the eight friends became louder and merrier.

They are examples of the young Malays, Chinese and Indians in this multi-cultural nation. Individually, they are no different from the many young professionals and salarymen that dot the landscape of urban Malaysia. They still struggle with having middle-income salaries in the face of rising living costs.

It is not as if they do not see each other as belonging to different ethnicities and religion. They do not sweep under the carpet the fact that there are differences amongst them. Instead, they celebrate these differences. Racial remarks and insults are thrown around at each other, in jest, given in good faith and received in good faith. They do not merely tolerate, they celebrate the fact that they are different.

Throughout the many years of friendship, they discovered that they have more in common than they have in differences. They realized that there is absolutely no reason for a group of Malaysians, different though they may be, cannot be firm friends with each other.

Their buka puasa was not in conjunction with any events or ceremonies. It was not organized with political mileage in mind, to score some points with PR moments in front of the camera. Nor  did they did not meet to discuss business. They were simply eight friends who decided to iftar together.

As day turns into night, and darkness descends upon the land, the eight friends continued their buka puasa gathering. In our muhibbah Malaysia, eight multi-racial young men breaking fast together as friends are supposed to the norm.

Sadly, such instances are a rarity.

Soul-searching in Britain 27 September 2008

I left the United Kingdom in October 2006, after living there for a good portion of 3 years. When I left the country 2 years ago, I was eager to come home. Sure, the UK was a wonderful country to live in, but as the saying goes, hujan emas di negeri orang hujan batu di negeri sendiri, lebih baik di negeri sendiri. I wanted to come home, to start my career and to bring whatever I have learnt back for the benefit of my country and its people.

2 years back in Malaysia has ‘Malaysianised’ me. Whilst I can still remember the good things about the British Isles, I became engrossed with building my life in Malaysia. My perspective became jaded, I started to look into issues the ‘Malaysian’ way, whatever that means. Thus, my recent return to the UK in the past week was a refreshing and I’d daresay soul-searching experience. My ‘Malaysian’ views was put into sharp perspective and I realized how different the two countries are.

None more so than the political scene. At this moment, the current UK prime minister, Mr. Gordon Brown is facing intense pressure from the public as well as members of his own party. The main issue relates to the ‘credit crunch’, a term used to describe the sudden reduction in the availability of loans and/or the sudden increase in the cost of obtaining loans from banks (taken from Wikipedia). In short, the UK is feeling the effects of the subprime mortgage crisis of the US, as the two countries financial institutions are intertwined. The general perception of the UK public is that the current Labour government is weak and is not doing enough to elevate the hardships of the people. The cost of living in the UK is increasing at an alarming rate, and some have even found themselves unable to pay the mortgage of their own homes.

It is with this background that all eyes are focused on the Labour convention held last week in Manchester (think of it as UMNO’s Perhimpunan Agong, without the keris wielding and racial undertones, of course). Specifically, the public are focused on Mr. Brown’s speech, a speech in which he was supposed to reassure the public and his party that he is the right man for the job.

By and large, Mr. Brown seemed to have succeeded in doing so, at least in the eyes of the Labour delegates. He, who was criticized as being too ’serious’, showed a ‘human touch’ in him, to reconnect himself with the people. The speech was intended to show the people that as prime minister, Mr. Brown and the Labour party will continue to fight for the UK and its people.

Mr. Brown and the Labour party needed to do so. Recent polls suggest that Labour is some ways behind the opposition Conservative party, led by its charismatic young leader, Mr. David Cameron. Some commentators suggest that should a general election be held right now, Labour would lose a lot of seats and will not form the government.

We can certainly see many parallels with the situation in our country. The backdrop is essentially the same; rising cost of living, stagnant economy and an under fire prime minister facing pressure from the opposition and members of his own party. Yet, I rediscovered how different the political situation is between their country and ours.

For one, the media in the UK are not politically controlled. Of course, between certain dailies there are certain political ‘leanings’, but it is not so blatantly biased and full of spin as it is right here. No one minces their words when criticizing Mr. Brown and the government. Over here, one would be hard pressed to find the words ‘under-fire’ and ‘Pak Lah’ in the same article, let alone the same sentence.

There is also a huge gap in the maturity of the arguments. The debate over in the UK are about policy issues; the economy, human rights, social issues, welfare, the environment etc. Over here, we are still bickering about race and religion, about succession planning, about crossovers and of course, about a certain 23-year old man’s backside. Politics here are not about issues but about politics, if that makes sense at all. Everytime we try to break the shackles of petty politics, there would be fierce opposition against it. In the UK, if a political leader was to brand British Asians as ‘immigrants’, that would be the end of his political career, not to he would be facing charges in court. Over here, a person saying something similar is sympathized, defended and even supported. Similarly, the Terrorism Act 2006 of the UK faced fierce opposition from many quarters when it was introduced in Parliamant, mainly because it allowed the police to detain a terrorist suspect for a maximum of 28 days before being released. In Malaysia, a draconian legislation allowing arbitraty detention from a limitless period is being justified as ‘necessary’.

It’s quite disheartening, really. We are a good 30 to 40 years behind. We hope that the next generation of Malaysians will transcend these petty issues, yet the response I received from my  own peers on my condemnation of the Ahmad Ismail issue and the ISA makes me wonder if we can ever achieve it. If young professionals and university graduates can defend racism and arbitrary detention without trial, what more the general populace?

We cannot even agree on the basic fundamentals, such as good governance, accountability, transparency, human rights, racism and racial prejudice. Matters that cuts across political divisions in the UK. A minister in the UK will resign from his post because of his principles and beliefs and it would not cause a massive stir. In Malaysia, after 50 years of nation-building, only recently have we had a minister resign over the same matters.

I came back to Malaysia after a 10 days hiatus and I’m ashamed. Truly, I am. An undemocratic succession plan is going to be hastened. An equally undemocratic power seizure via crossovers is still being promised. Are these the solutions? So what if we have a leadership change? So what if we have a change of government? If our mindset and our culture still remains the same, how can we move forward?

Yes, change will take time. The UK had centuries of democracy. We are still a young nation, grappling with its growing pains. But they say time and tide waits for no man, and it will certainly not wait for a nation. If the task of trying to bring change in people’s mindset and culture is facing such a fierce resistance, why bother? Deep in my heart of hearts, I know that the only reasons that I choose to come back to Malaysia was because of my family and the love of my nation and my people. Call them unpatriotic or whatever, but I can certainly understand why Malaysians would want to leave the country. Patriotism stems from the connections we build with our country, yet if we feel that our country and our people do not love us, why would we want to stay?

No, I’m not giving up hope just yet. But for the first time since in the 2 years I left the UK, I actually pondered over the possibility of living in the UK.

And the fact that I actually thought about it scares me.

Barisan Nasional’s ISA Fiesta, part IV 13 September 2008

From the Star:

No more arrests: Syed Hamid

JOHOR BARU: Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said no more arrests are expected under the Internal Security Act (ISA) but it would depend on the situation of public order.

”We are not making arrests just for the sake of arrests.

”We will not make any more arrests under ISA as long as there is no more disturbance to peace and public order,” he said.

He also appealed to all newspapers to cooperate with the Government and not incite negative feelings or sentiment.

Speaking on the one-day arrest of Sin Chew Daily News reporter Tan Hoon Cheng, who was arrested under the ISA, he said Tan was detained under Section 73(1) of the Act in order to ensure her safety.

He added that police intelligence indicated that there were threats to her life after she reported on Bukit Bendera division Umno chairman Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s allegedly racist remarks.

“We have no intention of holding a reporter as after all she was just taking notes of the comments made by a certain party that led to a public debate.”

Asked on the detention of Selangor senior executive councillor Teresa Kok, Syed Hamid said she was arrested due to her comments on mosques and the Azan recently.

”Her comments have created public disorder and problems,” he said.

Asked whether Kok would be released soon, he said it was up to the police, as they have to access the situation before taking any further action.

So let me get this straight. If my life is in danger, if my safety is in jeopardy, according to the logic of Mr. Syed Hamid, I can be detained under the ISA?

So I can be held under ISA just for being in danger?

Why can’t the police provide me protection? Why can’t I be whisked away to some unknown place for my safety? Why should I be held under the ISA?!

Do they seriously think that Malaysians are stupid?

Barisan Nasional’s ISA Fiesta 12 September 2008

By the time you read this, you’d probably have heard the news. Three people have been arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA); prominent blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, DAP Parliamentarian and Selangor exco YB Terasa Kok and Sin Chew daily reporter Tan Hoon Cheng, the person who first reported Mr. Ahmad Ismail’s alleged racist remarks.

These arrrests make no sense at all. RPK has constantly been a thorn in the government’s side, by isn’t he already charged under the Sedition Act? Is he a national security threat? Yes, his posts are reckless and needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, but hardly something that threatens national security. Don’t we have enough laws to deal with such people?

Why is YB Terasa Kok held under ISA? Is it because of the ‘azan’ issue, that YB Teresa supposedly lead a petition to silence the call to prayers in a mosque in Damansara? Yet this issue has been explained by YB Teresa in detail in her blog, that she never did such a thing. In fact, yesterday PAS MP YB Siti Mariah of Kota Raja made a police report against former Selangor MB Mr. Khir Toyo for creating racial tensions by disseminating false stories about the ‘azan’ issue. Also, the keepers of the said Damansara mosque has lodged a police report also against Mr. Khir for slander and attempting to create racial tensions amongst the denizens. Should this case be investigated first by the police? What happened to due process of the law?

And lastly, why in the world is the reporter detained under the ISA? All she did was report what Mr. Ahmad said. By suspending Mr. Ahmad, isn’t UMNO saying that yes, he should have apologized, but he did not? Are they now saying that the reporter is wrong in her reporting? Why suspend Mr. Ahmad? Why did Mr. Najib apologize if it was misquoted? Is there not a police investigation on the matter?

And if these three ‘deserve’ to be held under the ISA, why is Mr. Ahmad and his Penang UMNO cohorts, who are clearly provoking racial tension, still walking free?

I have stated it once and I’ll state it again: the ISA has no place in Malaysia. It is inhumane, it is unconstitutional, it is draconian and it should be abolished. If there is one thing I learnt in law school, it is that all citizens of a democratic country has the right to a fair trial. Detention without trial goes against everything that is sacrosanct in a democracy.

I can only see one reason for the government’s ISA fiesta: fear. This is the backlash that many have been predicting. This is the Operasi Lalang part II that many have anticipated. Those that hold power will do all in their power to keep onto power. Whether Mr. Anwar’s ‘September 16′ takeover plan materialize or not, this clearly shows that the government is rattled. For every action, there is a reaction. This is Barisan Nasional’s reaction.

At this point in time, everyone needs to be patient. We must not play onto their hands. We must not allow them to succeed. Do not give them a cause to declare emergency. We must be patient in facing such trying times.

Let us pray that our country be delivered from those who seek to destroy it.

Artikel 153, DEB dan membela nasib rakyat 10 September 2008

Politik itu adalah suatu seni retorik. Seni cakap-cakap, di mana ahli-ahli politik akan bercakap semua dan segala apa bagi meyakinkan rakyat jelata untuk memberi kepercayaan padanya. Orang politik cakap macam-macam. Lebih-lebih lagi jika apa yang diperkatakan itu dapat memastikan bahawa beliau mendapat sokongan.

Salah satu perkara yang sering dicakap-cakapkan akhir-akhir ini adalah tentang hak orang Melayu. Mengikut teorinya, selepas pilihanraya umum 8 Mac yang lepas, hak-hak orang Melayu kian terhakis. Orang bukan Melayu semakin berani meminta kesamarataan. Jika ini berterusan, adalah dikatakan bahawa suatu hari nanti orang Melayu akan kehilangan hak mereka.

Hairan sekiranya kita melihat bahawa hanya selepas 8 Mac sahaja isu ini dibangkitkan. Tsunami 8 Mac telah menyaksikan parti Barisan Nasional mengalami kekalahan yang teruk. Kebangkitan pihak pembangkang, yang kini dikenali sebagai Pakatan Rakyat, dikatakan menjadi penyumbang utama terhakisnya hak orang Melayu. Yang seringkali menjadi sasaran adalah parti DAP yang dikatakan dipenuhi dengan chauvanist Cina dan unsur-unsur liberal di dalam parti pelbagai kaum, PKR.

Maka retorik ‘Melayu hilang hak’ ini dipermainkan dan diulangi oleh ahli-ahli politik UMNO, dan dibantu oleh media massa yang dikawal oleh parti tersebut. Mulanya dengan tertubuhnya ‘badan bertindak Melayu’ yang kononnya dianggotai oleh sekian banyak NGO dan pertubuhan Melayu, untuk menyatupadukan orang Melayu bagi menghadapai ‘ancaman’. Kemudian timbul isu-isu seperti projek khinzir di Selangor, pemberian tanah di Perak, muzakarah UMNO-PAS dan pelbagai isu-isu lain yang kononnya membuktikan bahawa hak orang Melayu semakin parah dan terancam.

‘Hak’ orang Melayu, atau lebih tepat lagi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak termaktub di dalam Artikel 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Mengikut artikel ini, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Yang Dipertuan Agong untuk merisabkan kuota bagi orang Melayu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak di dalam penjawatan awam, pemberian biasiswa dan tempat-tempat di universiti awam.

Antara perkara yang sering diungkitkan adalah berkenaan dengan komitmen saudara Anwar Ibrahim untuk melenyapkan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) dan menggantikannya dengan Ajenda Ekonomi Malaysia (MEA). Bagi pendokong teori ‘Melayu hilang hak’, ini adalah ‘bukti paling kukuh’ buat mereka bahawa hak Melayu akan lenyap dengan saudara Anwar Ibrahim.

Retorik ini adalah pembohongan nombor wahid di dalam negara pada ketika ini.

DEB tidak sama dengan hak istimewa orang Melayu yang termaktub di dalam Artikel 153. DEB hanyalah dasar penstrukturan sosial oleh kerajaan yang dipraktikkan sejak peristiwa 13 Mei. Malahan, DEB kini telah digantikan dengan Dasar Wawasan Negara (DWN) yang mengambil ’semangat’ DEB.

Oleh itu, sekiranya DEB tidak lagi digunapakai, ia tidak bermakna bahawa hak Melayu telah hilang. Hak istimewa orang Melayu, seperti saya nyatakan di atas, telah termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Perksekutuan. Malahan, mengikut Artikel 159(5) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Artikel 153 tidak boleh dipinda tanpa persetujuan Majlis Raja-Raja.

Maknanya, walaupun kiranya satu hari nanti Artikel 153 dipinda atau dilupuskan oleh Parlimen, Dewan Rakyat tidak boleh berbuat demikian melainkan dengan persetujuan Majlis Raja-Raja, yang seperti kita ketahui, dianggotai oleh raja-raja Melayu. Dan sudah tentu raja-raja Melayu tidak akan meluluskan pindaan tersebut dengan sewenang-wenangnya.

Berbalik kepada DEB, ianya hanyalah merupakan dasar kerajaan. Ia tidak ada kena-mengana dengan ‘hak’ orang Melayu, dan tidak akan terhakis atau lenyap hak tersebut sekiranya DEB tidak lagi digunapakai. Ketika dasar ini digubal, situasi pada masa tersebut amatlah memerlukannya. Orang Melayu pada ketika itu ketinggalan dari segi ekonomi dan ini adalah antara punca berlaku rusuhan kaum 13 Mei 1969. DEB telah berjaya mewujudkan golongan kelas pertengahan Melayu yang besar dan juga professional Melayu. Ia telah sedikit sebanyak mengangkat status sosial orang Melayu.

Akan tetapi, kelemahan perlakasaan DEB semakin ketara. Ini terbukti apabila kerajaan sendiri mengakui bahawa sasaran 30% pegangan ekuiti orang Melayu tidak kesampaian, walaupun setelah lebih kurang 30 tahun ianya dilaksanakan. DEB semakin lama semakin disalahgunakan untuk hanya menolong sesetengah orang Melayu yang ‘mempunyai cable‘.

Penyalahgunaan DEB ini paling ketara dalam pemberian kontrak, di mana kontrak-kontrak diberikan kepada kroni-kroni pemerintah yang kadangkala hanyalah proksi kepada orang lain. Ianya juga ketara dalam aspek-aspek seperti pemberian biasiswa kepada mereka yang tidak memerlukannya, pemberian rumah kos rendah kepada mereka dari golongan pemerintah walaupun mereka tidak memerlukannya, opsyen pembelian saham Bursa Malaysia, pemberian AP dan macam-macam lagi. Sekiranya DEB dibiarkan, maka dijangkakan bahawa sasaran 30% itu tidak akan dicapai langsung.

Oleh itu, banyak pihak mencadangkan supaya dasar ini dipinda atau ditukar untuk menjadi lebih adil dan lebih efektif. Cadangan yang diberikan adalah dengan menggunakan means based test, di mana bantuan diberikan bukan bergantung kepada etnik tetapi kepada keperluan. Ini terkandung di dalam MEA yang dipelopori oleh saudara Anwar Ibrahim.

Pendekatan means based adalah lebih adil jika dibandingkan dengan DEB. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan ini, bantuan akan diberikan kepada mereka yang benar-benar memerlukannya. Harta negara akan dapat dibahagikan dengan lebih luas dan bukannya tertumpu kepada sesetengah golongan sahaja. Maka diskaun pembelian rumah tidak perlu diberikan kepada seorang Tan Sri berketurunan Melayu yang tidak memerlukannya. Atau biasiswa kerjaan tidak diberikan kepada anak Menteri yang mempunyai wang yang cukup untuk membiayai anaknya.

Pendekatan ini juga lebih equitable dan lebih adil kepada semua rakyat, tidak kira bangsa mahupun agama. Oleh itu, bukan bumiputera tidak akan merasakan bahawa mereka dianaktirikan oleh negara mereka sendiri, seperti yang berlaku ketika ini.

Bagaimana pula dengan orang Melayu? Orang Melayu merupakan golongan terbesar yang memerlukan bantuan di negara ini. Oleh itu, sekiranya pendekatan means based digunakan, maka orang Melayu yang miskin dan memerlukan akan tetap diberikan bantuan, sama seperti orang Cina, India, Iban dan Kadazan yang miskin dan memerlukan. Di samping itu, perizaban kuota yang telah termaktub di dalam Artikel 153 juga memastikan bahawa orang Melayu dan bumiputera tidak akan terpinggir.

Oleh itu, jika kita kaji retorik ‘Melayu hilang hak’ dan bandingkannya dengan realiti sebenar, kita dapat lihat bahawa sebenarnya ‘momok’ yang sering diungkitkan oleh pendokong retorik tersebut adalah tidak berasas. Hak orang Melayu telah terjamin di dalam Persekutuan, dan tidak ada siapa, walau Anwar Ibrahim, walau UMNO, walau DAP, walau Tun Mahathir sekalipun dapat melupuskannya tanpa persetujuan raja-raja Melayu. DEB pula bukanlah ‘hak’ orang Melayu, tetapi dasar tindakan affirmative untuk pengstrukturan sosial. Jika Melayu masih terpinggir pada waktu ini, ia adalah disebabkan kelemahan perlaksanaan dasar kerajaan yang tidak serata. Mengapa harus diteruskan suatu dasar yang tidak lagi efektif? Mengapa tidak kita tukar dasar tersebut kepada dasar yang lebih adil dan lebih efektif?

Orang Melayu harus sedar bahawa walau apapun hak atau dasar atau keistimewaan yang diberikan, ianya adalah untuk memastikan orang Melayu tidak terpinggir dan ketinggalan. Hak atau keistimewaan yang diberikan ini bukanlah sesuatu hak yang mutlak yang boleh ‘dipertahankan’ untuk selamanya. Orang Melayu harus sentiasa berusaha untuk tidak bergantung kepada keistimewaan atau dasar dan berdiri di atas kaki kita sendiri. Benar, mungkin ketika ini orang Melayu secara keseluruhannya masih sedikit sebanyak memerlukan bantuan. Tetapi dalam kita memberikan bantuan, kita juga harus terapkan ke dalam jati diri orang Melayu supaya apabila mereka tidak lagi memerlukan ‘tongkat’, mereka akan memberikannya kepada orang Melayu lain yang masih memerlukannya.

Mari kita angkat martabat dan darjat masyarakat. Mari kita muliakan agama Islam sebagai agama rasmi. Mari kita bela nasib orang Melayu dan bumiputera dan pada yang sama kita juga bela hak dan kepentingan orang bukan Melayu. Mari kita buktikan bahawa Malaysia ini adalah suatu negara yang benar-benar hebat.

Pendatang! 10 September 2008

Pendatang!

Patutkah atau tidak mereka nak tuntut tanah ni sebagai tanah mereka?! Tak sedar diri. Tanah ni tanah nenek moyong aku dahulu, tahu tidak? Sudah lama bangsa aku duduk di tanah ini, senang-senang mereka hendak datang kemudian tuntutnya sebagai hak mereka.

Banyak cantik!

Dulu tanah bangsa aku luas, seluas mata memandang. Semua bangsa aku punya. Tetapi sedikit demi sedikit, mereka datang. Entah dari mana, kami pun tak tahu. Yang pasti, mereka datang dan sedikit demi sedikit, kami hilang tanah kami. Senang-senang mereka datang rampas tanah kami, satu apa pun kita tak pampas kami.

Lepas itu sekarang mereka kata tanah-tanah ni semua hak mereka. Hak mereka? Konon mereka ‘tuan’ di bumi ini. Betul-betul tak sedarkan diri! Mereka ingat, mereka duduk di tanah nenek moyong aku ni sudah lama sedikit, mereka boleh dapat hak sama rata? Gila bayang punya pendatang.

Dahulu, kami dah benarkan mereka semua datang tinggal di atas bumi nenek moyang kami. Dah banyak kami mengalah pada mereka semua. Kami beri mereka masuk. Mereka ambil tanah kami. Apa lagi yang mereka mahu?

Ekonomi mereka dah ambil dari kami. Politik mereka dah ambil dari kami. Apa lagi yang kami ada? Suatu hari nanti, kami akan merempat di tanah sendiri. Aku tidak sanggup lihat anak cucu aku merempat di tanah nenek moyang aku.

Sekarang, ‘ketuanan’ tanah ni pun mereka nak ambil dari kami.

Biar aku beri amaran sedikit pada pendatang-pendantang yang merempat pada bumi nenek moyang aku ini: sedarlah diri sedikit!

Jangan buat kami marah! Jangan main api!

Ditandatangani
Senja bin Manja
Mewakili Orang Asli di Malaysia

***

‘Rintihan’ di atas dan watak Senja bin Manja adalah rekaan semata-mata. Saya memohon maaf kerana menggunakan contoh Orang Asli di dalam senario saya. Saya sesungguhnya tidak merasakan bahawa terdapat Orang Asli yang mempunyai semangat racisme seperti watak Senja bin Manja di atas dan ianya hanyalah digunakan untuk menggambarkan isi yang saya ingin ketengahkan.