Has article 153 and other provisions of such nature, solved many of the problems facing the Malays?
- Economics- share in country’s wealth
- Increase productivity of Malays upon which wealth must be predicated?
- Education- produced the numbers required
If the overall answer is an overwhelming NO, then it is reasonable to state, that article 153 is not the BIG issue. You have article 153, yet the Malays have not achieved what the article is meant to do. You have article 153, yet it has not stopped the non Malays from getting what they want. In business. Who has enjoyed more benefits? By and large, non Malays in particular, the Chinese have dominated business as a result of industriousness and abilities. Hello people! The LOATHING on people who get ahead by capitalising on some legislative factors, is NOT the monopoly of non Malays. The majority of Malays are also angry at these parasitic elite.
Article 153 stopped the Chinese from doing businesses? Housing? In spite of the discount giveable, in private housings, are the Malays within the legal quota? In many cases, the requirement for a certain quota is made valid for a certain finite period, say 12 months. After the period is breached, the available unsellable houses are sold to non Malays. Despite the quota on housing, non Malays still get to buy houses. Meaning article 153 has not stopped them from owing houses. The Malays because of financial limitation, in spite of the enabling article 153, have not been able to enjoy better housing facilities. No money no talk- nor article 153.
It would be a mistake to assume that only Chinese and other non Malays are the only ones opposed to Article 153. In so far, as the article has made it possible for the well connected elite to skim of the fat in the name of the Malays which the article was originally meant to assist, the majority of Malays have found it to be objectionable. It is also looked on as unconscionable that only a privileged few, benefiting from the status of Bumiputera, despite having a derisive attitude on the majority of Malays appear to have benefited more.
So you have struck a common ground. There are those non Malays who find article 153 repulsive and a majority of Malays who also find article 153 objectionable. Only the reasons differ. Lets see.
What’s the bone of contention as regards article 153? Sad but true, because its seen primarily from the angle of race. It’s the Malay article. Its objected because its Malay. Then non Malays’ objection is premised on their deep-seated contempt on Malays. As a result, a more objective rejection on article 153 BECAUSE in reality, it’s an exploitative legal device when put into PRACTICE that has injured ALL, fails to be fully appreciated.
So ask ourselves, the renewed vigour which has induced recent MCA leaders to become more vociferous and loud, was it prompted by this second reasoning? Or simply because its perceived to a Malay article? The MCA has suddenly found a embolden voice and has begun to question article 153. Of course, the DAP has made it a lifelong vocation and habit to call for the dismantling of article 153.
The MCA seem to think its one-upmanship and grandstanding by using article 153 will win it brownie points to fortify its own political fortunes. It must champion an issue to stay relevant.
Sakmongkol suggests that a better way to stay relevant is t offer a blueprint to help the Malays progress.
That was the principal reason for creating this article. To provide a living reminder that a large section of the people, must never be left behind in terms of progress. What is the use of say, having an article 152 (
It’s the implementation folks, not the Article.