Open letter to Tun Mahathir
Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 3,342 viewsA reader has kindly helped me (thank you Daisy Sheppard!) with the translation works for my previous Bahasa Melayu post ‘Surat terbuka kepada Tun Mahathir‘ , so here is the English version for your reading. Please share it around if you think it is worth doing so.
Dear Tun Mahathir,
I refer to Tun’s article entitled “Walk in the Shoes” written on the 20th July 2009 on Tun’s website. Allow me to share my opinion with regards to what had been written by Tun.
2. I believe the questioner perceived that non-Malays are feeling very oppressed and disappointed with the “injustice” against them in Malaysia (by a Government that is controlled by Malays).
The non Malays have strong reasons for feeling very oppressed and disappointed with the injustice towards them in Malaysia. In fact non Malay bumiputeras specifically the orang Aslis and Sabah and Sarawak bumiputeras also share the same feels as they too were not given the same treatment as the Malays whereas they are the original inhabitant of this country. How many non Malay bumiputera were accepted into the government sectors and government owned corporations like Petronas?
3. I do not know if this questioner ever asked non Malay luminaries the same question that is the feelings of Malays as to the state of their ancestors’ country that they have now become a race that relatively speaking are the poorest and still lagging behind.
Tun, the keyword here is ‘the poorest and lagging behind’ and that means irrespective of race, Malay or non Malay. If aid had been given to those who are deserving and in need without taking in account race, skin colour and religion and it was found that the majority of the deserving poor are Malays, it would have been well received by all.
No one will question such a policy. It is only wrong to create on purpose and then systematically misuse a policy to provide priorities to a particular race without taking into account the merit and need. In fact if such a policy is implemented – by taking into account needs and merit in deciding the distribution of aid, the majority of the Malays will automatically receive the benefits.
It has been more than 30 years the NEP has been implemented and there are still many Malays who are poor and lagging behind. Does this not give an indication that the NEP has failed in its implementation and that something drastic needs to be done? The gap between the poor and the rich keeps increasing where wealth is only directed to a group of Chinese, Indian and Malay individuals.
When you were in power, you gave many lucrative contracts to your non-Malay friends and some of them went to become among the richest individuals in Malaysia. Why didn’t you give the contracts to Malays back then? If you did, what happened to them?
And by using the argument that the richest individuals in Malaysia are from those who are non Malays, Tun presumed that it is all right to continue the NEP by giving priority to the Malays and punishing the non Malays who are poor and lagging behind? Is not the original intention of the NEP to help all who are poor and in need of economic aid regardless of race? Since when has the NEP been exclusively reserved for the Malays only?
Oh yes, is it not according to anthropological and historical studies, that most of the Malays in Malaysia and their ancestors actually originated from Indonesia, Thailand and India? Even from China? So their ancestors’ country is actually not Malaysia, just like mine? For example yourself,Tun; Khir Toyo and Syed Hamid Albar?
4. If he were to ask and the luminary answered sincerely, he will find that the Malays are most disappointed with their relative poverty that they are forced to keep asking all the time and also lagged in various fields.
Does it mean that with the existence of the NEP for more than 30 years now (almost reaching 40 years actually), the Malays have truly progressed and no longer lagging behind in various fields? Has it ever been pondered that the number of Malays who have progressed and no longer lagged behind had increased is due to the lowering of the yardstick or standard as well as the quota given by the government to enable them to be accepted for participation in specific fields? Is this to be regarded as achievement to be proud of? Isn’t that self deceiving?
5. They try to convince themselves they are masters in their own country but they know that actually they are not masters. The non Malays are the true masters.
Is it so very important for the Malays or the non Malays who are all Malaysian citizens to be jostling to be the true masters? Why do Malay POLITICAL LEADERS like Tun so obsessed with the mission to be ‘masters’? Tun was almost correct by saying (ONLY VERY FEW) non Malays are the true masters even after 30 years of the NEP being used to give priorities to the Malays. The question then, how could this happen?
The Malays have been helming the country through UMNO. Priority is given to Malays in business, economy, education, job opportunities and etc. through the NEP, yet the ones who become lords are a handful of non Malays? How this can possibly happen? Is that not strange and weird? Whereas those in power are the Malays and policies involving important sectors gave priorities to the Malays?
And Tun, please rectify the misleading statement ‘non Malays are the true masters’ by adding ‘a few’ in the front. I am a non Malay and I do not feel at all that I am master.
6. Because they are willing to share their country with other races, the race that originates from much more ancient civilisation (4,000 years) and who are more successful, today what little that they still have is being removed from them.
Tun, please clarify ‘what little that they still have is being removed from them’. This statement is very confusing and irresponsible. Priorities set aside for the Malays and the Sabah and Sarawak bumiputeras are enshrined in the constitution and no one can change or amend those facts except with the power of 2/3 of the parliament.
What that is frequently disputed here is the lack of fair treatment and implementation that veered from its real provisions as well as the tendencies of political leaders who attempt to twist existing facts according their distorted interpretations for their own selfish interests.
7. Think only of the New Economic Policy (NEP). Corporate wealth distribution in the NEP is 30% for bumiputras (even though they are 60% of the population) and 40% for other races as well as 30% for foreigners. But after 39 years of effort, the portion that is with them is only 20%, while the portion that is with the other races is almost 50%, even though they form only 26% of the total population.
Thank you for sharing this statistic, Tun. This clearly proves that, the NEP policy implemented all these years has FAILED terribly! If it had been implemented regardless of race but looked only at needs, undoubtedly thos who will benefit the most would be the Malays as most of them are poor and from them who make up ‘60% of the population’. Why Tun is still tenaciously defending the NEP implementation that has failed and only benefits very few individuals?
In line with Tun’s logic (twisting statistics to support arguments and making it into a believable ‘fact’), I am a 3rd generation inhabitant in Malaysia, just like Tun. Why can’t I obtain the same treatment as that received by Tun? I have no statistics of non Malay citizens born in Malaysia who are the 3rd, the 4th generation compared to ‘Malays” who immigrated to Malaysia, lived here for less than 3 generations but received the same treatment as the original inhabitants. For example, Khir Toyo? Syed Hamid Albar? Many foreign citizens in Sabah possess MyKad and the ‘Malay Bumiputera’ status? Statistically (refering to the number of years living in Malaysia), I am definitely more qualified to receive ‘better’ treatment than them, right?
I believe the statement that corporate wealth distribution of 30% for the bumiputeras is not very accurate; instead 30 % for Umnoputra is more accurate. The total membership of UMNO is less than 2 million and this means that this 30% corporate wealth distribution is savoured by Umnoputra – who represent but only 7 % of the Malaysia population. Agree?
Additionally, is it the fault of the non-Malays that they were brought here and multiplied here? Why must the ‘blunder’ done by other people (the British) be borne by the non-Malays, particularly new generations like me? Non-Malays do not have the option but to serve and pledge allegiance to Malaysia and what is requested is fair and equal treatment as has been provided for them in the constitution. That is all, Tun.
8. The value of bumiputera owned assets totalled 15 % while the rest are owned by non-Malays because assets owned in urban areas are worth much higher than those in rural areas.
Is it a crime to be rich non-Malay in an economic climate that is based on capitalist principles and free market? Is the question of race still relevant in the global economy that Tun keeps harping on, for example while defending the PPSMI? Why after 50 years of BN government (which is held by the Malays) and 30 years of NEP implementation, the nation’s wealth has yet to reach the rural population who in general are the Malays? Is this the fault of the non-Malays.
9. Non-Malay luminaries who try to put themselves in the place of the Malays (in the shoes of the Malays) if they are sincere, will feel the disappointment of the Malays noting that that almost all businesses and enterprises as well as wealth obtained from them are owned by non Malays. All the grand estate houses are occupied by non Malays. Very few Malays live in such grand estates. More live in slum areas.
Yes Tun, why? Is this also the fault of people who are non Malay but able to still compete and monopolises wealthy even when they were not given an economic crutch? Have Tun ever compared the living standards of Malays who are rich with those who are poor, and non Malays who are rich with those who are poor, which would have a greater gap of wealth disparity difference?
Why are there still so many Malays who live in slum areas while political leaders like Tun live in splendour? Why your child Tun, could hold grand house warming parties but many Malays still live in destitute? Why politicians like Zakaria Deros, Khir Toyo can afford to build magnificent palaces that cost millions of ringgits while there are still many Malays who live in slum shacks?
10. Maybe all these are due to the Malays’ own fault. They did not use the opportunities prepared for them. There are some who even abused these opportunities. But if a trishaw rider is given a million Ringgit, will he be able to venture into business and be successful in this field?
True. Why are opportunities still being given to those who are ‘not clever, less skilled and not qualified?’ Would this help them to be successful? Tun, the good intentions to help the Malays are well received and appropriate. But the way that have been used, the implementations are not right, as postured by Tun yourself “if a trishaw rider is given a million Ringgit, would he be able to venture into business and be successful in this field?”
11. Social engineering is not only done by the Malays alone. Socialism and Communism are also types of social engineering to reduce or eliminate the gap between the poor and the rich. They are also not totally successful although they use speakable violence. The NEP was implemented carefully without violence, without confiscating and often amended when faced with opposition from the non-Malays. What is the perception of the Malays towards the NEP?
Tun, now is the year 2009, not 1959. ‘Social engineering’ needs to change according to current realities. If we keep returning to our history and lives are overshadowed by our pasts, we do not have progress. Do the Navajo Indians need to ask the United States of America to make a policy like the NEP with the excuse of past history?
Yes, it is true the NEP is implemented without violence and confiscation, but it has also systematically quashed the opportunities of many Malaysian citizens just because they are non-Malays. How many non-Malay citizens of Malaysia who are bright and brilliant have been taken and utilised by neighbouring country Singapore to develop that country because they are not accepted by their own country? Is that not a waste? Malaysia ‘raised’, educated and provided shelter for them for almost 20 years, and after obtaining excellent results were not utilised well by Malaysia but instead are ‘handed over’ to our neighbouring country?
The opposition of non-Malays, in fact also many Malays who did not get the benefits of the NEP is towards its implementation which only helped a select few. Refering to the statistics shared by Tun, the poverty gap is increasing and has not improved since the NEP was implemented.
12. Just look at the history of the Malay struggle. During the 1955 election, at a time when they controlled 82% of the constituencies, they willingly gave not a small number of their constituencies to the other races and voted candidates from these races until they won against other Malay candidates (PAS).
Is that not something that is should be carried out in line with the power sharing concept that BN harped upon? I definitely do not agree with BN’s concept of choosing its candidates based on race, and not ability or qualification. This should not be regarded as a ‘sacrifice’, instead the Malaysian citizens have been ‘sacrificed’ as most of the candidates and leaders chosen to represent them were chosen only because they were from a certain race, without looking at the ability of the individual.
13. Then they awarded one million citizenships without the usual conditions to other races so much so that the percentage of the Malay citizens fell from 82% to 60%. Who amongst others has similarly done so?
Tun, could Malaya (at that point in time) been able to achieve independence from the British without agreeing that citizenship be also given to other races? Was not citizenships given conditionally where priorities will be given to the Malays and the Sabah and Sarawak bumiputeras as enshrined in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution?
Why does Tun say it was given without the usual conditions when you know that is not true? Why does Tun still dig up past events? 50 years the non-Malays have lived in Malaysia, is that still not enough to repay the magnanimity of the Malays in awarding citizenships with that particular condition? How long more must these issues of ‘original inhabitants’ and ‘immigrants’ be raised, Tun? Each time BN or Umno feels it will lose its ruling grip?
14. At that time the official name of the country is The Federation of the Malay States. When the Malay States Peninsula was merged with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, the word “Malay States” were dropped and the merged states were named Malaysia. With that the Malay identity disappeared from the name of the country itself. They however did not seek to drop other names.
Tun, is this relevant to talk about? Do not many Malays still adamantly link the name Malaysia as Malay (Melayu) – sia? Why is something that has been agreed upon at one time long ago by all the Malaysian leaders, is made an issue by Tun?
15. Unlike other countries which allow only their national language in all national schools, the Malays agree that Chinese and Tamil be made the medium of instruction in Government-aided schools. The national language (Malay Language) did not become the national language as in other neighbouring countries and in Europe, Australia and America.
Was this (rights to use mother tongue) not also what had been agreed upon by all the leaders – Malay, Chinese and Indians when Malaysia achieved her independence from the British and is thus incorporated into the country’s constitution? Why does Tun need to question this issue? Was this not the condition for the Malay Language to be accepted as the national language, a ‘trade-off?’
16. And many more sacrifices had been made by the Malays so that other races get what ever they demand, for national peace and unity.
How long and how much more sacrifices have also to be made by the non-Malays so that the Malays can be satisfied?
17. What would be the apparent feeling of the luminary who placed himself in the place of the Malays, towards all these sacrifices? Will he still think that the Malays ought to sacrifice everthing that is demanded of them?
Does Tun think that the non-Malays have not sacrificed for the sake of helping their Malay brothers and sisters? Do you think they are very happy to be denied the many opportunities all because they have been born non-Malays? What would be your feeling Tun if you were not Malay?
18. With this article I will still be labelled as a racist by non-Malay racists. But if they are willing to accept the truth, they can compare the sacrifices of the Malays the original owners of this country with the their sacrifices made in the interest of this country.
With this article, it is proven Tun remains trapped in the old mindset. Tun still thinks that in this challenging era of globalisation of a world without borders, racial issues and communal politics are still relevant to talk about? Why does Tun only touch on the sacrifices of the Malays? Why does Tun not touch on the contribution and sacrifices of the non-Malays in nation building and development of this country?
19. I am of the opinion that if this country wants peace and development, wealth distribution and the quality of life of all races mush be just (fair) even though unequal. Let not any party or race bears the burden of extreme poverty, while other races live in luxury. Fishing support by taking the right of one race to give to another race is not the way – particularly taking from those who are lacking to be given to those already have plenty.
I am of the opinion if this country wants peace and progress, racially laced statements and those that can bring about disunity should be avoided, especially those coming from leaders like Tun.
Distribution of wealth and the quality of life of all races can only be fair if it is based on needs and merits, not racial identity and skin colour. Tun contradicts yourself when you said ‘fishing support by taking the right of one race to give to another race is not the way’ yet Tun appears to make arguments to support that very same action from point 2 to 18 with the excuse it is only right and proper because ‘the Malays have sacrificed more compared to the non Malays’.
What is the purpose of Tun writing the article above by pitting the Malays and the non Malays which can give rise to suspicion and dissatisfaction amongst the races? Does it help to build national unity towards a peaceful state?
1. At a forum organised by Gempita and UMNO entitled The Position of the Malay Rulers and the Malays in the Malaysian Constitution in the Age of Liberalisation and Globalisation, I was asked by a Malay lecturer from UIAM (Univeristy Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia) if I had ever thought to put myself in the place of non Malays (put yourself in the shoes of a non-Malay) with regards to the the discrimination against them in this country.
Oh yes, Tun has yet to answer the question of that lecturer, have you even thought to put yourself in the place of the non Malays with regards to the discrimination against them in this country.
That is all,
I, a non Malay citizen of Malaysia.
