Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Ketuanan Melayu, Kekuasaan Cina & Keagungan India

Apparently Malay supremacy is not about Malays being superior at all. It's about Malays not being coolies. According to our esteemed PM:

The definition of ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) is not about the Malays being in a position to dominate, rule over and force their power upon other races, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. He said Malay supremacy meant that the Malays, as the indigenous people in Malaysia, needed to strengthen themselves to ensure they were successful and developed.

“If they are not successful and developed, then they are not tuan (masters), therefore they will be coolies. I am sure we do not want to become coolies who do not play any role in development because we are weak and not able.

“So when we talk about that (Malay supremacy), we mean we must be successful in many fields. It is never about ruling over others, or forcing our power upon them,” he told reporters after chairing the Umno supreme council meeting last night. - The Star
Okaaaaaayyyyyyy... since I'm sure the Malays don't wish the Chinese and Indians to be coolies either, then I'm equally sure that nobody would mind if the Chinese and Indian communities also adopt similarly wholesome and constructive concepts. Right?!

Sean-the-man hereby proposes that in addition to Ketuanan Melayu, Malaysians also wholeheartedly embrace Kekuasaan Cina and Keagungan India... yes?

6 comments:

ahmad samsul said...

the so called ketuanan melayu arrives from the historical fact that the malays occupied and ruled this land when the chinese were still in china and the indians were still in india.
as such the malays believed that this is their motherland. and this was the basis of the so-called social contract.
this is background of the ketuanan melayu concept. without this understanding all discussion will miss the mark.
i am not debating the issue, only to clarify the most important point everybody chose to ignore.

sean-the-man said...

Ahmad samsul

Nobody is denying the Malays claim that they were 'here first' and that Malaysia is their 'motherland'.

But think about it. What should a race's claim of 'motherland' entitle a them to?

Some measure of protection for land rights. Yes I agree. The native Americans and Australian Aborigines have similar rights.

But beyond that?

Does a claim of motherland allow one race to tax or extract rental or enforce commission from the other races?

Think about these 'special rights and privileges' under the so-called social contract that has been re-branded as Ketuanan Melayu.

Which parts of it are fair and equitable? What decent human being and what system of justice allows a person to obtain reward without having to work for it?

Most of the 'special rights and privileges' would already be covered by the concept of human rights, fair equity and universal welfare. Helping the needy or disadvantaged or those who lag behind is not a problem. They work, but their work is not proportionate to the reward. Redressing that situation is equitable.

But getting discounts or free shares or guaranteed profits simply because one is called a Malay is just not on.

Then there is the definition of Malay. The definition is as loose as pair of Fat Mama's panties. Any mamak, arab, pakistani, indonesian etc can become a Malay. Do you expect the non-Malays to pay tax, royalty, rental and commission to them as well? Many of them certainly came to Malaysia after my ancestors did. How do you reconcile them to your 'here first' argument?

Lastly is the concept of 'Tuan' itself.

Just because the Malays were here first, you mean the other races have to accept them as 'tuan(s)', submit to them as 'hamba' and tabik?

I'm sorry. I have had some education, a knowledge of basic human right and I have some morality. I do not submit to ANYONE as my 'tuan' unless they are better than I am as a productive member of society.

Anonymous said...

Sean, you're the man and your answer is on the mark and the comments that the Malays came to this land "first" is all crap. What about the Chinese and other seafaring traders that was said to have "landed" in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia?? What about the "Aborigines" of Malaysia? Are they the "original" people and they should and can claim these "privileges", not the "Malays" and other "imported" Malays!!
We are the 2nd and 3rd generation nons,born and bred here and still considered "pendatangs" and subject to "social contracts' and all these "craps" as espoused by the BE END/UMNO goons!!

wits0 said...

How about this?
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/ketuanan-cina/

orang cina said...

Gua respect sama lu!!!

Anonymous said...

Nah Malays didn't come to the land first.

Hang Tuah is chinese.
Parameswara was indian hindu.
Hang Li Po was a maid in the palace sweeping floor.

I need to clarify before you miss the mark