Seorang pembaca bergelar ‘Malaysian’ mengemukakan soalan … “perhaps, Helen or any reader can reply to my question”:
“Cuma nak tanya. Andaikan saya seorang warganegara Malaysia berumur 60 tahun sekarang yang lahir di Persekutuan sebelum hari Merdeka. Sekarang ini saya berketurunan Cina. Saya memutuskan untuk menukar agama kepada Islam, mula bercakap bahasa Melayu secara lazim dan juga mula mengamalkan adat Melayu. Adakah saya layak digelar Melayu dan mendapat hak istimewa?”
Bangsa Anak Malaysia
Borang sijil lahir Shay Adora Ram (gambar).
Anak kepada Ramachandran Muniandy dan isterinya.
Keturunan: Pilihan pertama ialah ‘Anak Malaysia’ tetapi “at the end of the day we had to settle for Chinese.”
Kerani Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara tulis butir Agama ialah ‘Kristian’. Ia disemak oleh kedua-dua orang ibubapa dan disahkan betul.
Kalau kerani JPN tulis agama ‘Hindu’ atau ‘Buddha’, pasti ibubapa Kristian itu yang merupakan ‘lay preachers’ (orang awam bukan paderi yang menjalankan tugas pastor) akan membantah dengan keras, kata tak betul.
Selepas gagal mendapat pengiktirafan ‘Anak Malaysia’, ibubapa mengakuri Shay Adora Ram seorang ‘Cina’ – yakni ikut keturunan ibu, dan bukan India ikut keturunan bapa. Konsep Anak Malaysia ala DAP (dibayangkan pada surat beranak Shay Adora Ram) ialah Cina dan Kristian.
Adun DAP Komtar pun ikut sama meletakkan ‘Anak Malaysia’ pada borang surat beranak seorang anak perempuannya yang bernama Ng Caryn.
Anak kepada Ng Wei Aik – kalau diikutkan hasrat bapanya – bukan berketurunan Cina. Dalam pada itu di ruangan Agama, Ng Wei Aik mengisi “belum ada”.
Berkaitan:
Helen Ang 
Dalam alam Melayu, seluruh Nusantara, akan tahu apa itu “masuk Melayu”, ertinya, orang selain Melayu memeluk ugama Islam. ]
Istilah ini bukan exclusive di Malaysia sahaja. Kalau kita di Sumatera Utara ( capitalnya, Medan ), Riau, Kepulauan Riau, Jambi, Sumatra selatan, Sulawesi, mereka guna istilah “masuk melayu’ ini. Cuma pemimpin totok PAS yang masa sekolah “antara murid2 terbodoh” sahaja memutarkan dan guna “masuk Islam” dan ”masuk melayu” dianggap assobiyyah.
Nusantara telah menggunakan istilah ”masuk melayu” ini sejak beratus tahun dahulu. Malah, orang-orang Kemboja ( champa, indo-cina ), atau orang-orang yang berasal dari Negara China yang berugama islam lebih awal dari melayu, apabila masuk ke nusantara, mereka ini dianggap sebagai orang melayu.
”masuk melayu” ini diterjemahkan dalam perlembagaan kita dengan penakrifan ‘melayu’. iaitu : 1) berugama islam (2) bertutur dalam bahasa melayu (3) berbudaya melayu.
Yes, Ridhuan Tee is a Malay.
In fact, kalau cina-cina di Malaysia semuanya ”masuk melayu”, automatically they are eligible for all provisions as a malay. We look at the nyonyas in Melaka, mereka mengucap dua kalimah syahadah, mereka akan lebih melayu dari melayu yang ada.
Tapi, cina tak perlu melayu, so buat apa nak masuk melayu?
moya
Saya biasa dengan istilah ‘masuk Melayu’ tetapi Firsters suka mempertikaikan.
Baba-Nyonya Melaka bukan Islam.
Hehehe, saya tahulah daro, nyonya bukan Islam, itu saya sebut..kalau mengucap dua kalimah syahadah, mereka akan lebih melayu dari melayu. Bukan Islam, cuma ucap dua kalimah syahadah ( sumpah )…..satu kalimah mengapa tuhan cuma satu..Allah, dan, satu lagi mengucapkan kalimah bahawa Nabi Muhammad saw, rasul Allah, maka Islamlah mereka.
Nyonya pula, sampai hari ini berkebaya dan bertutur dalam bahasa melayu, that, is much more malay…..I think
Ridhua Tee bukan Melayu. Tee adalah seorang bangsa Cina. Seorang Melayu mengamal budaya Melayu. Budaya Melayu itu mcm mana? Contoh paling jelas, budaya Melayu tu seperti yang ditunjukan oleh Tan Sri P ramlee. Cinta kepada lagu-lagu Melayu, cinta kepada tarian Melayu cinta kepada seni Melayu.
Ridhuan Tee tidak mengamalkan satu pun ciri-ciri budaya dan adat Melayu. Anak-anak Ridhuan Tee di hantar belajar bahasa Cina di sekolah Cina. Jadi mcm mana bapa boleh dikatakan Melayu sedangkan anak-anak Cina ini berbahasa dan budaya Melayu.
Berbahasa Melayu tapi tidak mempunyai adat dan seni Melayu bermakna bukan Melayu.
Lebih tepat Ridhuan tee adalah extremist Islam Cina sama seperti Taliban dengan kata-kata kesatnya terhadap budaya dan adat orang Melayu dan terhadap orang Cina, mcm dia seorang ahli syurga.
Lebih sudu dari kuah mualaf Cina ni.
“Anak-anak Ridhuan Tee di hantar belajar bahasa Cina di sekolah Cina. Jadi mcm mana bapa boleh dikatakan Melayu sedangkan anak-anak Cina ini berbahasa dan budaya Cina?”… pembetulan
Apakah belajar bahasa Arab akan otomatik jadi Arab; belajar bahasa Inggeris di sekolah misionari otomatik jadi OmPuteh dan belajar Bahasa China otomatik jadi China?
Kalau jawapannya adalah ya, makanya hanya mereka yang belajar di sekolah kebangsaan saja yang layak dipanggil Melayu. Betul ke?
Apapun pandangan anda tentang Mualaf China ini, apa yang dapat saya simpulkan ialah dari sudut bahasa, terus terang saya katakan iaitu beliau layak jadi guru bahasa anda.
Namun Melayu bukanlah bangsa sebagaimana dituntut oleh UMNO tetapi orang Muslim, benar tak?
Kalau lelaki bukan melayu kahwin melayu , dia masuk melayu. Kalau Lelaki Melayu kahwin bukan Melayu , perempuan itu dimasuki Melayu…kahkahkah…..hence Riduan Tee is a malay cos he really masuk Melayu.
I like
hamsap ea lang! ginna mai kong hamsap…
Ok kalau begitu anak perempuan Kapal Singh (DAP) kawin dengan anak lelaki Karam Singh (TV3) anak mereka nanti akan di beri nama KapalKaram Singh lah!……ha..ha….haaa….
Helen,
Soalan ‘Malaysian’ itu sebenarnya diceduk dari ‘Malaysia’s constitutions’ – ayat sebenar berbentuk statement tetapi telah diolah sebagai soalan oleh Malaysian.
Mengenai anak bangsa Malaysia pula, kalau constitution jadi kayu pengukur dan untuk menepati syarat, kenalah anak itu beragama islam bukan – bukankah itu agama rasmi negara Malaysia?
Selama ini saya berpendapat politicos kita kurang cerdik tapi tidak saya sangka mereka memang betul-betul bodoh bila keliru antara bangsa dan kerakyatan. Nak tanya juga ni – kalau saya bertahun-tahun duduk di amerika, berbahasa inggeris, bergayahidup ala amerika, dengan kulit coklat saya ni boleh ke mengaku saya caucasian?
Dan pada kotak The Rocket, yang menambah sian pada Malay namun tiada perubahan pada Chinese & Indian – adakah mereka mahu mengatakan bahawa bangsa melayu bangsa paling hina hingga perlu diperbetulkan tetapi tidak pada bangsa cina & india?
anakjamil,
Your points are golden.
Agree with you. Superb
Helen,
1.soalan sdr Malaysian dirujuk. secara teknikalnya, ya dia boleh mendapat hak keistimewaan melayu. tapi takkanlah orang menukar agama kerana inginkan hak istimewa melayu.
2. Ridhuan Tee adalah seorang Cina Muslim dan dia adalah muslim yang baik dan berjaya dalam hidup serta besar sumbangannya kepada masayarakat. jika saya seorang Cina pasti saya bangga dilahirkan Cina seperti beliau.
3. Tidakkah saudari Helen berbangga dilahirkan Cina?
Masok melayu hanya istilah percakapan masyarakat sahaja, mengambarkan sesaorang yang bukan Islam yang dudok dibumi melayu memelok Islam, lazimnya untok berkahwin dengan orang Melayu yang berugama Islam.
Olih kerana mereka berkahwin dengan orang Melayu yang berugama Islam biasanya mereka akan tingal dikalangan masyarakat melayu dan mengamalkan cara hidup orang Melayu yang berugama Islam. Itulah puncanya dalam bahasa pertuturan harian mereka dikatakan masok Melayu, hakikatnya bangsa asal dan keturunan mereka tidak bolih diubah dan tidak perlu di ubah, hanya yang berubah agama anutan mereka sahaja.
Yang bertanya, mengatakan Riduan Tee menjadi Melayu setelah memelok Ugama Islam, pada pandangan saya kurang baik motifnya, bolihkah sesaorang menukar keturunanya secara automatik dengan hanya menukar ugama dan budaya hidupnya, DNA keturunanya tetap wujud.
Jawapan samada si Tee jadi melayu kalau dia masuk islam. begini lah ambil contoh seorang berbangsa kadazan kristian dari Sabah telah menetap di negara Saudi dan menjadi warganegara Saudi dan telah memeluk islam. Persoalannya disini adalah tidak masuk akal si mualaf budak kadazan jadi bangsa Arab sebab dia tiada DNA Arab dan dia tetap kadazan islam hingga generasi dia kecuali dia berkahwin dengan perempuan bangsa Arab. Anak anak si mualaf tadi akan jadi bangsa arab tetapi bukan pada si mualaf tadi. Jawapan nya TIDAK. Begitu juga dgn si Tee Abdullah dia tetap cina islam bukannya bangsa melayu kecuali kalau dia kahwin dgn perempuan bangsa melayu automatik generasi anak dia adalah bangsa melayu sebagai mana termaktub dalam perlembagaan persekutuan.
Cakap lazim orang Melayu, masuk Islam itu memang bermaksud “masuk Melayu”.
Can check this out please @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayisation
soalan hipotetikal berkenaan selayaknya dijawab secara hipotetikal juga.
1. menukar agama pada usia 60-han bukanlah satu yang tidak pernah berlaku. cumanya pada usia sebegitu, penerimaan ahli keluarga selalunya berbelah bahagi.
2. kalaupun benar-benar hendak menukar agama pada usia sebegitu, motifnya sudah tentu kerana agama tetapi bukan hendakkan keistimewaan duniawi.
lagipun keistimewaan apa yang hendak dikejar oleh Apek pada usia 60 tahun? biasiswa? diskaun harga rumah? jadi ahli parti Islam atau parti Melayu?
re: “lagipun keistimewaan apa yang hendak dikejar oleh Apek pada usia 60 tahun? biasiswa? diskaun harga rumah?”
LOL!
Kak Helen,
satu saja keistimewaan yang saya boleh nampak ialah….kot kot apek tu nak bernikah dengan artis abadi…ha ha kenalah ‘masuk melayu, kan, kan?
tanggapan liar:
mungkin ‘AP’ kot… banyak tu RMnya, atau saham ali baba dlm syarikat besaq :) org cakap kalau lelaki masih boleh angkat ayaq setimba, masih lagi lelaki yang penuh kelakian walaupun umoq dah 60 th. itu orang cakap… entah betui entah tidak.
👍
Saudari Helen,
Saya berpendapat saudari jangan taksub meperolok-olokkan agama Kristian (mahupun agama Islam, Buddha dan yang lain) dalam menulis rencana yang sejelas-jelasnya berkenaan politik. Mungkin saudari akan berhujah bahawa di Malaysia ahli politik sering menggunakan agama sebagai peluru politikus mereka, tetapi ini tidak bermaksud agama itu sendiri harus diperlekehkan.
Setiap agama, terutamanya agama Islam dan Kristian, menuntut bahawa pengikutnya cuba menambahkan bilangan ahli; dalam agama Islam, pahala adalah ganjarannya kepada mereka yang dapat memasukkan saudara baru. Dalam agama Kristian, tiada apa apa ganjaran, hanya saudara baru tersebut dikatakan telah selamat. Semua tuntutan ini tiada langsung kaitan dengan politik. Dan melihat kepada sikap ahli politik di negara ini, saya berpendapat tiada satu pun layak bercakap mengenai agama.
Rencana saudari kebanyakannya mengupas aktiviti ahli ahli DAP dengan menggunakan pelbagai terma keagamaan. Saya tiada halangan di situ, tetapi sekiranya dibaca nada ayat yang digunakan, seolah olah saudari menyatakan agama Kristian adalah agama yang amat “mengular” dan sangat rakus dalam bidang politik. Saya harap saudari dapat memisahkan maksud tersirat ini dari rencana saudari kerana agak keterlaluan. Hurailah pasal orang orang DAP atau PR, tapi cuba jangan memperolokan agama.
Saudari menulis:
“Konsep Anak Malaysia ala DAP (dibayangkan pada surat beranak Shay Adora Ram) ialah Cina dan Kristian.”
Saya tidak pasti bagaimana kesimpulan atas boleh dibuat mengenai agama Kristian dan kaum Cina. Bagi saya, apa yang berlaku diantara ibu bapa dan anak adalah isu peribadi. Selain itu, apa kaitannya antara Kristian dengan konsep Anak Malaysia DAP tu? Tiada perkara sebegitu di dalam manifesto DAP, dan sememangnya tiada perkara sebegitu di dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia. Kalau nak kutuk, kutuk sahaja Hannah Yeoh.. mengapa perlu dimasukkan agama Kristian dan kaum Cina di dalam olahan saudari seolah-olah itu adalah perkara yang benar dipercayai DAP?
Terima kasih.
Untuk makluman kepada komentar di atas, adalah hak bersuara Helen lah untuk mengkaitkan DAP = Kristian + Cina! Ini blog dia..
Kamu tak puas hati dan nak ‘rebut’ pi buat blog ko sendiri..
kalau tak faham, tak payah menyibuk dekat sini. kalau nak menegakkan benang yang basah buat blog sendiri. Aku tengok kau ni banyak cuba buat huru hara dekat blog orang!
Thank you Jsper, I agree with you wholeheartedly … I wish Helen would be bold enough to reply your comments.
Kalau saya, saya suka memperolok-olok semua agama. Bukankah sudah menjadi kebiasaan politikus-politikus kita memperkuda agama untuk meraih undi?
Jsper becakap seolah-olah institusi keagamaan itu adalah bersih dan suci. Tak boleh ditegur, ya? Ustaz dan paderi tak boleh buat silap? Penganut agama Islam dan Kristian tak ada niat jahat, hanya nak tambah umat aje?
Manusia bebas memilih agama dan parti politik mereka. Orang Kristian nak semuanya jadi Kristian, orang Islam nak semuanya jadi Muslim, dan tentulah orang atheist nak semuanya anti-Tuhan, tak begitu mengikut logik Jsper?
Yang dinilai itu bukannya agama tetapi penganutnya. Mengibaratkan agama sebagai sesuatu yang asasnya baik atau jahat adakah kerja orang bodoh. Pisau itu baik atau jahat? Sistem matawang itu baik atau jahat? Konsep kenegaraan itu baik atau jahat?
Mungkin Jsper lupa akan pengaruh institusi agama dalam sejarah peradaban manusia. Jsper mungkin tak ingat kebobrokan dan kerakusan manusia yang bertopengkan kesucian agama dan bicara-bicara manisnya.
Masih ramai yang waras dan celik akal, baik yang beragama atau pun yang tidak. Kumpulan-kumpulan pelampau tertentu itu Tuhan saja yang tahu ke?
Tepat sekali.
Contohnya, mempergunakan agama untuk menghalalkan perhambaan- pemerdagangan manusia dari Afrika, selatan Eropah ke Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara sampai sekarang, dan perdagangan hamba Afrika ke benua Amerika.
Saya setuju. Ini pendapat saya dia masuk islam mungkin kerana dia tertarik dgn kebaikan ugama
itu dan kerelaan hati.
yes lone ranger. fakta biologi mata kasar memang betul. setakat itu je aku nk sebut pasal tu.
tp hakikat sebenar, bangsa/kaum mana boleh ditukar-tukar. siat kulit sekalipun, india tak akan jadi cina. rendam dalam klorok sekalipun, melayu tak akan jadi cina.
riduan tee selalu sebut pasal melayu bukan sebab sekarang ini dia dh jadi melayu, bukan juga sebab isteri dia melayu tetapi sebab dia perlu membetulkan hakikat melayu adalah tuan punya yg asal tanah melayu ini. hak2 tertentu org melayu dan agama org melayu perlu dilindungi. itu je… betul ke cam tu helen?
usin betul, aku setuju. Ust Dr. Ridhuan Tee bangga dilahirkan cina sebab tu nama seh (surname) dia kekalkan. dia bukan memperjuangkan HAK ISTIMEWA orang melayu dia cuma mengingatkan tentang itu kepada orang-orang yang lupa. kalau rajin baca ni:
Click to access makalah-v2n1-n4.pdf
Off topic (for this post), but I wonder what is DAP Christian/Catholic and PAS supporters take on the guideline released by that parent teacher’s association (the related ministry claimed it didn’t endorse it, but as usual blame is on the ruling party). From what I know, these two religion is totally against same-sex thingy. Enlighten me….
Yang pasti jika Ridhuan Tee berkahwin dengan perempuan Melayu maka secara automatik anak beliau berstatus Melayu, sama juga berlaku di Sarawak & Sabah, mana2 lelaki bukan bumiputra berkahwin dengan perempuan bumiputra (tak kira bangsa/etnik/agama) maka secara automatik anak beliau berstatus bumiputra!
Saya rasa bukan begitu, sebab kalau dilihat sijil lahir anak2 Ridhuan Tee, pasti tertulis bangsa Cina, kerana etnik seseorang ditentukan oleh bapanya, dan itulah sistem di Malaysia..Saya pernah melihat sijil2 lahir mereka yg bapanya Cina dan ibunya bumiputera, anaknya juga Cina
Yer, saya bersetuju dengan pandangan anda dan memang ada individu2 tersebut mendapat status bumiputra dan ada sesetengahnya tidak dapat.
Saya tak pasti sebab musabab perkara ini berlaku, kemungkinan besar ia berlaku di JPN, mungkin bergantung kepada budi bicara pegawai yg mengurus pendaftaran? Jika di Sabah mereka masih mengamalkan sistem mahkamah setempat yg boleh supersede kuasa JPN. Faktornya berbagai..
Inaccurate. Ridhuan Tee dan isterinya boleh membuat pilihan untuk meletakkan etnik anak-anak mereka sebagai Cina ATAU Melayu. Sama macam si DAP yang boleh memilih antara Cina ATAU India tetapi beliau mengikut etnik sebelah ibu.
Saya ada kawan Sino-Kadazan dan beliau berstatus Bumiputera bukan Islam kerana mengikut etnik keturunan ibunya.
Etnik di Malaysia tidak bersandarkan bapa secara automatik. Soal ini tidak termaktub dalam undang-undang keluarga, yang menetapkan keutamaan mengikut domisil.
Setuju
Sorry, got to add this. I mean this, considering that the Hinduism I know (I was once a priest-wannabe and then realised every goddam swamiji got his or her [mostly his, in this still men ruled world] opinion, pretentious, dubious, ambiguous and any other “uous” you can think off that I stopped giving two reproduction about) actually got no issues with gay and lesbian stuff. Hindus even have special event for transvetites that actually get media coverage here, and is huge in India. If not mistaken, transvetites (who has better noun in Tamil) get discounts in Tamil Nadu hospitals.
My question again, what does the DAP Catholics/Christians (from my wife side I realise that Catholics label protestants as “Christians”) and Pas supporters think about that guideline when their respective religion rejects lesbians and gays.
For your info Rakesh, even in Islam we have the same problem, almost all ustaz/ulama/alim have their own ‘ouos’ as well..
Jawapannya adalah mudah jika saudara “Malaysian” betul-betul jelas apa yang ditanyakannya itu. Ini soalan lapuk sebenarnya. Perlembagaan Malaysia telah memperuntukkan apa itu “Melayu” dan “Asli” dan “Pribumi” kerana takrifan tersebut ada bersangkut-paut dengan soal kedudukan istimewa.
Andaian saudara “Malaysian” sebenarnya menunjukkan kecelaruan antara AGAMA dan ETNIK, satu gejala yang biasa dijumpai di kalangan warganegara kita. Tujuan definisi “Melayu” dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia adalah untuk perlindungan serumpun. Bolehkah seorang bukan Melayu diMelayukan TANPA ikatan perkahwinan/kekeluargaan atau kelahiran?
JAKIM pernah membuat dokumen garis panduan untuk membezakan antara saudara baru Bumiputera dan saudara baru bukan Bumiputera melalui konvensi penamaan (“bin abdullah” secara default sudah tidak dibenarkan). Maka secara logiknya, sudah tentu ada elemen penentuan hak-hak istimewa (special priviledges) yang terpalit. Dari segi pentadbiran, hanya nama Melayu dan status agama sahaja yang biasanya menjadi penentu, dan ini bermakna jika nama anda Melayu sepenuhnya dan beragama Islam, sudah tidak ada cara lain untuk mengenalpasti samada anda mengamalkan adat dan berbahasa Melayu atau sebaliknya.
Jadi, bolehkah Ridhuan Tee Abdullah pangkah Melayu sebagai etniknya? Dia boleh pangkah apa-apa saja pun, tetapi kalau dalam mana-mana proses permohonan wujudnya keraguan status Bumiputeranya, maka hak-hak istimewa untuk Melayu dan Bumiputera is NOT extended to him. Ini realiti. Of course, anak-anaknya tak ada sebarang masalah. Keperluan garis panduan JAKIM itu jelas, untuk mengelakkan abuse of conversion semata-mata untuk menikmati hak-hak istimewa.
Jawapan kepada saudara “Malaysian” adalah TIDAK sama sekali. Ridhuan Tee Abdullah is not a Malay, Zairil Khir Johari is also not a Malay. Tetapi kerana nama Zairil sudah tak ada trace kecinaan, dan beliau dibesarkan sebagai anak angkat dalam keluarga Melayu, maka dalam dokumen surat-menyurat dan urusan rasmi, kita tidak boleh membezakan antara Zairil dengan Melayu tulen / separa tulen yang lain. Ini tak termasuk lagi orang Melayu sendiri yang sudah tidak mengamalkan adat Melayu atau berbahasa Melayu.
Jadi apa kesimpulannya? Bukan Melayu hanya akan menjadi Melayu jika dilahirkan sebegitu atau adopted, yang lain itu jadi bukan Melayu Islam sahaja. Ramai anak-anak Cina dibesarkan oleh keluarga Melayu dan status Bumiputeranya tidak menjadi isu. Yang menjadi isu adalah saudara baru sahaja. Dan fenomena ini hanya mendapat penyelesaian semenjak tahun 1980-an kerana sebelum ini orang bukan Melayu boleh masuk agama Islam dan menghilangkan identiti kecinaan atau keindiaannya begitu saja.
I hate N’Sync
Sekadar bertanya, saya tidak pasti Ridhuan Tee lahir pada tahun berapa, tetapi andai kata beliau lahir sebelum Merdeka, dan sememangnya mengamalkan budaya Melayu, lazim bercakap Bahasa Melayu dan beragama Islam, tidakkah menurut Perlembagaan Persekutuan Perkara 160 (2) di bawah definisi “orang Melayu”, menjadikan Ridhuan Tee seorang berbangsa Melayu juga dan layak mendapat hak2 bumiputera?
Sudah tentu kalau menurut realitinya, beliau jelaslah seorang yang berdarah Cina, tetapi menurut Perlembagaan, yang menafsirkan definisi seorang Melayu (secara begitu luas) ia meletakkan Ridhuan Tee dan sesiapa yang seperti beliau yang berumur 56 tahun ke atas sebagai seorang “melayu”.
Saya tidaklah bersetuju dengan definisi ini, tetapi itulah yang termaktub didalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan kita. Dan atas dasar ini, kita boleh lihat bahawa soalan saudara “Malaysian” di atas sebenarnya bukanlah soalan yang bodoh, tetapi soalan yang “valid” dan membuatkan kita berfikir mengenai definisi Melayu di dalam Perlembagaan kita
Persoalan utama, sudah ada precedence tak atas kes yg diutara oleh ‘Malaysian’? Jika ada, adakah ‘guideline’ dan ‘checklist’ for these people to become Malay ‘constitutionally’?
Persoalan kedua, adakah mana2 ‘sane’ Cina nak menjadi Melayu? Mamak yer ramai dah jadi Melayu even Yemenis/Pakistani ramai yg masuk Melayu dan mereka tidak berpatah balik (kebanyakkannya)
Sebenarnya Elijah, definisi “Melayu” dalam Perlembagaan merupakan takrifan perundangan untuk menentukan kelayakan hak-hak istimewa. It is a false construct.
Samada Ridhuan Tee dianggap lebih Melayu daripada Melayu adalah irrelevant. Beliau saudara baru agama Islam dan secara tepat istilahnya adalah Chinese Muslim atau Cina Islam. Kalau sesiapa sahaja yang memeluk agama Islam dianggap “masuk Melayu”, ini telah membelakangkan prinsip keadilan Islam untuk semua tanpa mengira kaum. Agama Islam tidak membezakan penganutnya dari segi etnik dan kenegaraan.
Saudara Elijah mengatakkan bahawa jika Ridhuan Tee mengamalkan budaya Melayu dan berbahasa Melayu, maka beliau boleh dianggap “Melayu”. Tanggapan ini mengandaikan bahawa tiada sebarang implikasi perundangan atau pentadbiran terhadap label tersebut. Sama jualah definisi warga emas yang ditetapkan pada 60 tahun. It is a necessary demarcation for policy purposes, but not necessarily sound.
Daripada Elijah memanggil kita semua memikirkan tentang definisi “Melayu” (atau definisi “Cina”, “India” atau “bukan Bumiputera”) dalam Perlembagaan, adalah lebih mudah jika kita melihat sahaja rasional keperluan dikotomi tersebut (Bumi – Non-bumi). Kelayakan untuk hak-hak istimewa bukan bersandarkan kepada agama dan keturunan, tetapi sebagai pengiktirafan terhadap penduduk asal dan sejarah bumi ini. Rasionalnya telah sengaja dilupakan dan ketetapan mengikut fasal-fasal dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia disalahpakai.
I Hate N’Sync
Perkara 160 (2)
“Orang Melayu” ertinya seseorang yang menganuti agama Islam, lazim bercakap bahasa
Melayu, menurut adat Melayu dan —
(a) yang lahir sebelum Hari Merdeka di Persekutuan atau Singapura atau yang lahir
sebelum Hari Merdeka dan ibu atau bapanya telah lahir di Persekutuan atau di Singapura, atau yang pada Hari Merdeka berdomisil di Persekutuan atau di Singapura; atau
(b) ialah zuriat seseorang yang sedemikian;
Secara jelaslah Ridhuan Tee seorang berdarah Cina, dan jelaslah seorang yang masuk Islam, tidak bermaksud dia masuk Melayu. Ini jelas dan tak perlu banyak penerangan bagi mereka yang faham.
Tapi persoalan sekarang, kalau menurut perlembagaan, Ridhuan Tee ini memang menepati takrifan Melayu (anggaplah beliau lahir sebelum Merdeka), dan ini sepatutnya melayakkan dia menjadi Bumiputera. Ini logik Perlembagaan Persekutuan kita.
Tapi seperti kata Khairul, adakah apa2 precedence dalam hal ini?
Saya rasa sudah cukup jelas precedentnya melalui pelbagai kes-kes saudara baru di jabatan agama Islam setiap negeri.
Seseorang bukan Melayu tidak boleh menjadi Melayu hanya menerusi pemelukan Islam semata-mata, dan setahu saya, tak ada badan di Malaysia yang mampu memperakukan kesahihan adat dan budaya Melayu di kalangan orang Melayu sendiri (Melayu Minangkabau? Melayu Jawa? Melayu Bugis?). JPN hanya menetapkan etnik menerusi jurai keturunan.
Perlembagaan Malaysia tidak ada indikator-indikator atau garis pengukur ke-Melayuan.
The saudara-saudara baru born post-1957 are not. However the hypothetical question by ‘Malaysian’ is valid wrt Chinese born pre-1957 and domiciled in Malaya/S’pore.
Helen,
The question of being born before 1957 or after is not related to the question of “Melayu” but serves as a demarcation point when this construct (linked to citizenship and nationality) comes into force.
I Hate N’Sync
Incorrect. Being born before or after 1957 relates directly to being “melayu” as far as the Constitution is concerned. Perkara 160 (2)
From your previous posts, I can see that you speak Bahasa Melayu reasonably well. However, it amazes me that you could not grasp this simple clause in the Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Please Elijah, you are the one who couldn’t understand the significance of the Merdeka Day population.
The Article 160 definition of Malays described the EXISTING pool of Muslims who practices Malay culture and language in Malaya and Singapore (domiciled or born or by parents of the same). Even if you were born before 1957 but you only want to start acting Malay and convert to Islam NOW, you clearly missed the boat by over five decades. If you weren’t a Malay then, you aren’t a Malay now, comprehende? You cannot change the fact even by changing your religion, but your children could be Malay or Bumiputera if you marry one.
You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the sub-clause (a) and (b) when it was describing (and covering/encapsulating) the past and future definition of Malays in the newly created realm.
The sub-clauses are needed to demarcate the point of the adopted new definition (mula diterimapakai) of Malays in this country (past Malay Muslims) and their perpetuity through lineage (berkekalan menerusi keturunan) till the end of time. Yes the original definition is civilisational, but it doesn’t mean that one could become “Malay” through conversion under the Constitution. It is the DESCRIPTION of a people, not the PRESCRIPTION for one.
DOH!
U salah all the way… ridhuan thee mendapat hak dan kelayakan sebagai bumiputera…
Hmm… soalan pembaca Malaysia agak subjektif. Tapi I ingat beberapa tahun dahulu KIMMA pernah minta kerajaan Malaysia untuk mengiktiraf mereka sebagai Melayu, tapi I tak tau apa perkembangan terkini. Tahun lepas, ada seorang budak India Muslim yang tidak diterima masuk universiti tempatan kerana dia tidak mempunyai status bumiputera yang sah (dia cuma pelajar lulusan SPM, hanya pelajar STPM atau matrikulasi yg diambil masuk).
Senang saja, KIMMA orang Islam bukan Bumiputera. Orang Islam bukan Bumiputera bukan orang Melayu. JPN telah menerangkan dengan jelas dan tak ada kekeliruan di situ. Budak India Muslim itu bukan ditolak masuk IPTA, dia minta buat medic tapi tak dapat. Banyak bezanya dengan tuduhan bahawa dia tak diterima kerana tak ada status bumiputera. Saya masuk IPTA (program Diploma) dengan lulusan SPM dan kemudian terus Sarjana Muda – tak pakai status bumiputera pun. Bezanya, ADA program khas dan saluran Bumiputera menerusi MARA / UiTM, USIM atau UIAM. Kalau dah orang terpampang depan pintu syaratnya, takkanlah nak mengadu tak tentu fasal?
Isu tentang status Bumiputera sering didebatkan dalam Parlimen dan hansard 2010 ada menyebut tentang perkara ini, rujuk http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-17032010.pdf
“Kedua, kalau seseorang itu berkahwin dengan kumpulan yang lain ataupun mix marriage. Pada saya, kalau membaca 161A(6)(a) yang dibangkitkan oleh Yang Berhormat sebentar tadi dengan izin Tuan Yang di-Pertua, “In relation to Sarawak, a person who is a citizen and either belongs to one of the races specified in Clause (7) as indigenous to the state or is of mixed blood deriving exclusively from those races.”Ini bumiputeralah. Jadi kalau Yang Berhormat datang daripada mix marriages, sekarang ini kita tidak menyebut bahawa bapa itu mesti bumiputera kah, baru jadi bumiputera. Jadi kalau emak pun bumiputera, bermakna dia masih ditakrifkan sebagaibumiputera sebab ia tidak menyebut bahawa the father must be from one of the races specified in clauses 7. Ia cuma menyebut bahawa must be citizen and must belong to one. Jadi kalau mak bapa dia merupakan bumiputera, maka 161A subsection 6, tidak mengeluarkan mereka dari ditakrif sebagai bumiputera.”
Jelaslah bahawa SALAH seorang ibubapa seorang anak itu Bumiputera, maka Bumiputera-lah ia, mengikut pilihan mereka sendiri. Bukan semua orang utamakan habuan dan membelakangkan identiti perkauman mereka saudara Malaysian! Kalau semuanya “Melayu”, apa uniknya masyarakat pelbagai kaum ini?
pertamanya, banyak terima kasih kepada helen kerana sanggup memperuntukkan satu kolum untuk persoalan saya. juga banyak terima kasih kepada pembaca yang sudi menghabiskan masa untuk membaca dan memberi respon.
kita kena ingat, takrifan melayu diperuntukkan dalam perkara 160 perlembagaan persekutuan. perlembagaan adalah undang-undang tertinggi negara dan menikmati status keluhuran perlembagaan. maka, mana-mana pihak yang cuba mentafsir perkataan ‘melayu’ di luar batasan perlembagaan adalah berisiko melakukan kesilapan.
malangnya, perlembagaan itu sendiri tidak memperuntukkan secara terperinci tentang berapa lama seseorang itu harus menganut agama islam, mengamalkan budaya melayu dan berbahasa melayu sebelum boleh diterima sebagai ‘melayu’ dan sekaligus menikmati hak istimewa. sebab itu saya kemukakan soalan.
saya bersetuju dengan respon saudara/i elijah iaitu jawapan kepada persoalan saya adalah ‘ya’.
mengenai soalan saudara/i I hate n’sync, “Bolehkah seorang bukan Melayu diMelayukan TANPA ikatan perkahwinan/ kekeluargaan atau kelahiran?” saya jawab “boleh” dengan merujuk perlembagaan.
contoh melalui cara domisil. andaikan seorang yang lahir di luar persekutuan sebelum merdeka tetapi pada hari merdeka berdomisil di persekutuan dan beragama islam, bertutur melayu serta beradat melayu, orang ini adalah ‘melayu’.
dengan kata lain, perlembagaan mempunyai definisi yang begitu luas sehingga membenarkan seseorang yang asing untuk menjadi melayu walaupun tiada ikatan perkahwinan/kekeluargaan/kelahiran.
saya juga setuju bahawa ridhuan tee adalah melayu dan berhak menikmati hak istimewa jika lahir di persekutuan sebelum merdeka, mengamalkan budaya melayu, lazim bercakap bahasa melayu dan beragama islam. jika sijil lahir anak-anak ridhuan tee ditulis bangsa cina, bukankah ini penafian hak yang tidak adil terhadap anak-anaknya?
Saudara silap kerana menganggap definisi “Melayu” dalam Perlembagaan adalah berasaskan konsep domisil. Saya telah menjelaskan tadi bahawa interpretasi peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan adalah berdasarkan pentadbiran kerajaan. Izinkan saya memetik contoh ASNB (http://www.asnb.com.my/eligibility.htm).
Skim ASB dan ASN hanya boleh dilanggan oleh orang Bumiputera, dan telah dinyatakan bahawa “Berdasarkan Surat Ikatan Amanah seorang bumiputera adalah seperti yang tertulis di dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia iaitu Melayu, Bumiputera Sabah & Sarawak dan Orang Asli.”
Namun, kelonggaran telah diberi untuk kumpulan tertentu untuk menikmati skim-skim Bumiputera tersebut melalui ketetapan khas, dan bukannya kerana mereka turut dikira sebagai “Melayu”.
Contoh:
Golongan minoriti adalah satu golongan yang telah mendapat kebenaran khas dari Perdana Menteri untuk melabur dalam semua unit amanah yang diuruskan oleh ASNB iaitu:
1. Siam
2. Portugis / Eurasian / Serani
3. Mualaf / Beragama Islam tetapi bukan Bumiputera
Telah juga dinyatakan bahawa individu campuran dan Islam bukan Bumiputera akan disaring kelayakannya (meaning, case by case assessment).
Jika benarlah sesiapa sahaja yang menganuti agama Islam, berbahasa Melayu dan mengamalkan adat resam dan budaya Melayu itu “Melayu” mengikut pandangan anda, apa perlunya “kebenaran khas” dan saringan-saringan oleh pihak ASNB untuk skim-skim Bumiputera?
Ridhuan Tee dan isterinya berhak menentukan identiti etnik anak-anak mereka. Saudara Malaysian mengatakan adalah satu ketidakadilan bagi anak-anak beliau dinafikan “hak-hak” istimewa. Saya rasa pelik kerana ini persepsi yang meleset. Tafsiran sebegitu hanya akan memperkukuh pandangan serong terhadap pelbagai jenis kemudahan dan faedah untuk orang Melayu dan Bumiputera. Tak ada apa-apa hak yang dinafikan, terutamanya bagi golongan macam KIMMA. Kesilapan ramai saudara baru adalah membayangkan ganjaran dunia (dan akhirat) dengan memeluk Islam, tanpa menyedari bahawa sebarang perbezaan tersebut hanya menjadi bukti kepada diskriminasi kaum, budaya dan agama. Perlembagaan Malaysia mentakrifkan “Melayu” to qualify the assistance to the original peoples, bukan untuk mendiskriminasi layanan dan hak sama rata warganegara.
I’ve always said that most Malaysians are not trying to abolish special rights and priviledges of the Malays and Bumiputeras, they are just trying to enjoy the same.
Sesuatu yang diwujudkan sebagai perlindungan serumpun telah menjadi satu advantage (mengikuti persepsi ramai). Inilah puncanya resentment golongan bukan Melayu.
Dear I hate n’sync,
Two things:
(1) If “Siam, Portugis / Eurasian / Serani, Mualaf / Beragama Islam tetapi bukan Bumiputera” are included in the amanah saham benefits, then the only two groups (out of the many M’sian pop.) clearly excluded are Chinese and Indians who are Hindu/Christian.
(2) You write:
If everyone can enjoy the same, then it is no longer special nor a privilege, right?
I hate n’sync, you say
You meant the Indon, Bangla, Afghan, Pakistani as what it appears for the last 20 years. Thank you.
Surely you make us feel homely as pure born and breed Malaysian means nothing as to be a Bumi in your definition Indon, Bangla, Afghan, Pakistani can come in and hijack on the pretext of your religion although it it is not specified in your Surat ikatan Amanah.
Dear Helen,
You finally got the idea. Biar apapun yang terkandung dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, apa yang dilaksanakan oleh jentera pentadbiran itu lebih real daripada realiti. Sama jualah dengan kuota bukan Bumiputera dalam MARA / matrikulasi, pengambilan kakitangan awam dsbnya. Yang penting adalah peraturan dan garis panduan SEMASA. Only a few years back MOHE ada mengatakan akan berusaha memperluas definisi bumiputera kepada mana-mana pelajar yang salah satu ibubapanya adalah bumiputera.
I suppose you are right that if the extension of priviledges to everyone will make it no longer a priviledge. Similarly, giving everyone Bumiputera status will also render things like tanah rezab moot. Now ask ourselves again what should be the right solution, a more or less discriminating policy or a more or less precise mechanism to improve the conditions of poor and marginalized Malaysians.
As for MINY, let me put it this way, the special position of the Malays and Bumiputeras is to ensure that the original people of this land is not crowded out by the new citizens. I do believe one day it would no longer matter if we are Malay, Chinese or Indian, but it does not mean the original intention under the Constitution was wrong.
I am born and raised in Malaysia like my parents. I know a lot of people (Chinese or non-Chinese) who want to make me feel less Malaysian by giving me all sort of labels. That’s what others can try to do, but I don’t see it that way and I am every bit as Malaysian as Ridhuan Tee Abdullah or Hannah Yeoh, and the best part is I don’t need to convert into Islam or Christianity to make the point.
Ridhuan Tee memenuhi takrif “Melayu” seperti dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Takrif undang-undang ini memberinya keistimewaan seorang Melayu asli dan Bumiputera yang diberikan Kerajaan. Tetapi terpulang kepadanya jika masih mahu mengekalkan bangsa asalnya.
Satu lagi contoh ialah Tiara Jacqueline – dia juga memenuhi takrif undang2 sebagai “Melayu”. Oleh itu dia boleh dapat keistimewaan bagi seorang Melayu atau Bumiputera, – maybe pinjaman untuk buat filem etc? Tiara ni juga nampaknya really embrace budaya dan adat Melayu terutama setelah terlibat filem Puteri Gunung Ledang di mana dia mempelajari dan mengamalkan tarian istana Jawa untuk filem itu dan sebagai a form of exercise bagi dirinya.
I stand corrected tho…
Ridhuan Tee Abdullah adalah Cina Muslim. Beliau sendiri menggunakan takrifan Cina sebagai etnik keturunannya dalam profail biodata rasmi. Dia saudara baru bukan Bumiputera.
Tiara Jacqueline pun Cina muslim sebab berkahwin orang Melayu. Kalau setakat ambil watak filem sudah boleh dikatakan mengamalkan budaya Melayu, ini dah simple. Sebenarnya, ibu Tiara Cina Indonesia dan bapanya Cina Burma. Nak cakap dia Cina pun ada orang Cina yang tak terima.
Let me provide a bit of clarity why Malay become a part of the definition as defined in Article 160.
Actually AMCJA-PUTERA was the mastermind behind this. They demanded introduction of a nationality, called Melayu (Malay) back in 1947 was for all its citizens (including the non Malays) amongst other things like Malay to be adopted as the national language & constitutional monarchy.
However since AMCJA-PUTERA was aligned with MCP, and bearing the cold war with the communist, British administration maneuvered themselves into negotiations with the Malay aristocracy and UMNO to tweak the Malay definition and imposed institutionalized handicaps against the Non Malays. (This was mainly because the majority Chinese were perceived as Communist back then).
Funny though, the legal counsel for the Malay rulers was QC Neil Lawson, a member of the British Communist Party.
Much of the constitutional rights that were initiated by AMCJA-PUTERA became the blueprint for the current constitution. Now in actual fact the true meaning of the constitution has become murky and perforated for political use as oppose to the actual purpose it was created for the community. e.g. how it is hijacked by Indon, Bangla, Afghan, Pakistani (mainly in Sabah) as they are assimilated as melayu because of the religion minus the other three criteria.
I have witnessed these days those Eastern Europeans community from the Muslim faith being accorded Bumiputra status as well. I actually bumped into some of them who proudly show me their Malaysian passport under the fallacy of Article 160 that seems superficial in such situation.
I guess that could provide some pointer to Malaysian why the terminology of Malay in the constitution is grey and open to debate as he specifically creates a scenario of a 60 years person to seek to be identified as a Malay for those Malaysian who are born and bred in Malaysia .
My two cent thought.
To clarify for any reader still puzzled, the commenter’s scenario of an age specific 60-year-old man is due to the second part of Article 160 which defines a ‘Malay’ (aside from one clearly born to Malay parents)
as also requiring that he be born before 31 Aug 1957 and already living in Malaya/Singapore in addition to the parameters that we’re all familiar with, i.e. being a Muslim, speaking BM and practising Malay adat.
A Chinese convert under the age of (2012 – 1957) = 55 appears to be disqualified as a constitutional Malay based on the 1957-or-earlier (year of birth) requirement.
Helen, with such a materially driven rojak society it is hard to justify anything as everything how I want to see it without consideration amongst us but only for what is a politically assuaging agenda. You give I take attitude. Nobody is interested with the truth and reality even when we try to be truthful in our approach for humanity to sustain amongst us.
MiNY,
Pls consider that Chinese immigrants have been in Malaya at least a few centuries like the Baba-Nyonyas, the Straits Settlements Chinese and those in T’ganu.
The Bumiputera policy makes it advantageous to convert to Islam, and some Malaysians do, for that reason.
That’s why the authorities are wary and today generally appear not to allow converts to drop their Chinese surname. Thus govt departments/agencies can tell an applicant’s racial origin by his name. If not, a bin or binti Abdullah Chinese mualaf cannot otherwise be distinguished from a Malay.
However despite the ‘privileges’ carrot, very few Chinese as a whole have converted for purely economic reasons in the history of Malaya/Malaysia.
Takrifan mengikut MOE untuk permohonan Matrikulasi:
(1) Semenanjung
“jika salah seorang ibu atau bapa calon adalah seorang Melayu yang beragama Islam / Orang Asli seperti mana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 160(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera”.
(2) Sabah
“jika bapa calon adalah seorang Melayu yang beragama Islam / Peribumi Sabah seperti mana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 161A (6)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera”.
(3) Sarawak
“jika bapa dan ibu adalah seorang Peribumi Sarawak seperti mana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 161A (6)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera.
Nota : Takrif ini diselarakan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia Perkara 160(2) bagi Semenanjung, Perkara 161A(6)(a) bagi Sabah dan Perkara 161A(6)(b) bagi Sarawak.
Saya rasa komplikasi di Sabah dan Sarawak adalah berpunca daripada kawalan negeri semasa pembentukan Malaysia. Ini jugalah definisi yang diterima pakai oleh JPN.
Elijah, nak precedent!!! Saya ini rasa nak muntah!!! you ada masa tak atau you semua tahu crowd macam UMNO dan DAP?
Why kena qualify Khairul in your statement? Why would you need someone else to do the dirty job like Helen yang kena maki when and as how it fits us as oppose to what the reality is for your own escapism. What a disappointment?
I really don’t get you..What’s wrong with me asking, if there is a precedent, then it settles the case, we got an answer
Bawa bertenanglah, MiNY
I think it is pointless to ask for a precedent. A one time offer doesn’t make the rule as well.
One must bear in mind that the real confusion in the mind of the people stems with masuk Islam = masuk Melayu.
Jabatan agama can only ascertain your religious status, not your ethnicity. And since ethnicity is inherited or adopted, only children to either parents of Malay/Bumiputera status can lay claim to the identity via JPN.
You can ask if anyone has asked the High Court to declare someone a Bumiputera or not, but I doubt the wisdom of the legal system would permit such ambiguities like practising Malay culture/adat to lay on their feet.
A native court in Sabah stripped someone of his Bumiputera status involved in a land dispute and that was determined by his parents ethnic lineage.
Elijah, why even try to understand? Has your precedent did anything for how the the precedent is convoluted only because it is is good for you. The answer you seek is if it is the the truth and reality for others not some mechanicism that we cannot hide ourselves in it for our own individual material need.
I Hate N’Sync
The confusion of the people about masuk Melayu=Masuk Islam, does not have any single thing to do with the discussion at the moment. This is a red herring that I feel you are putting to divert the topic altogether.
At least a precedent could lead us to an earlier discussion about this, and we could at least not waste our time repeating the same thing if it was already discussed, what’s pointless about that?
The issue is a simple one, Perkara 160(2) defines “orang Melayu” one way, Dr. Ridhuan Tee (assuming he was born before Merdeka) fits that definition, therefore Dr. Ridhuan Tee is a Melayu (as per Constitution).
So the answer should be, yes he is a Melayu as per Constitution (note: If he was born before Merdeka)
Dear Elijah,
Excuse me, but I think the whole talk about “constitutional Malay” is the red herring here. Just like how the Constitution provided no exact civil service and scholarship quota, it also did not define what could be called Malay culture and customs.
The fact that there exists a category of saudara baru bukan Bumiputera has already denote the fact that an individual today cannot convert to Islam and expect automatic Bumiputera status, regardless of whether he was born before or after 1957.
A “Melayu” as per the Constitution only stipulates that the rumpun term only applies to the Muslim sub-set in this country. While the Constitution is supreme in this country, it is a document that sets out to define the operating parameters or principles for the GOVERNMENT (limiters), not for individual citizens. Lay people often imagined that the Constitution is the great umbrella that spells out everything, but even the most basic human rights are not covered. The Constitution is to limit the powers of the Government, not to accord or invest the people with specific rights.
What good is Ridhuan Tee as a “constitutional Malay” when for all administrative purposes, he can’t get anything on the Bumiputera ticket? Besides, the skewed view of what Bumiputera-ism stands for is pretty insulting, don’t you think? Here we have Malaysians who think that our forefathers and the framers of the Constitution set out Article 160(2) to enable non-Malays/non-Bumiputeras to CONVERT their way into Malay/Bumiputera status? Where is the point in that?
Some of you said that these are MY opinions, well, newsflash dude, opinions are like arseholes, everybody got one. The real problem is not the size of the arseholes, but the shit they dole out. You are free to insist that Ridhuan Tee Abdullah fits the bill for being a Constitutional Malay, and I am telling you that the easiest way to debunk that is just to go through some examples of Bumiputera priviledges and see if he qualifies under “Melayu”. He can buy ASN, but that’s because it was permitted specially by the PM, not because he is a Malay.
All definitions of Malay/Bumiputera status in various ministries and for various purposes are based on lineage / kelahiran dan status ibubapa.
It’s your life, you can choose to live in denial.
Helen, you say
You are right, they don’t have to. They realize they don’t need to convert to Muslim in Malaysia but just maintain the Ali Baba concept as it works well with their Anglophile agenda that is globalized. You should do a head count on this.
dear helen and readers, i am now asking a few questions and would like to seek the answers from you. to make things simple, please answer whether ‘the person’ referred to in the questions is ‘a malay’ or ‘not a malay’ according to article 160 federal constitution.
a) a malaysian chinese born before merdeka in the federation. now he starts to profess islam, speak malay and practice malay custom. can he be considered a constitutional malay from now onwards?
b) a malaysian chinese born after merdeka in the federation but having both chinese parents born before merdeka in the federation. now he starts to profess islam, speak malay and practice malay custom. can he be considered a constitutional malay from now onwards?
c) a pakistani born in pakistan before the date of merdeka. he came to federation before merdeka and on merdeka day, domiciled in the federation. he has been professing islam, speaking malay and practising malay custom since his arrival. can he be considered a constitutional malay since merdeka day?
d) a christian turkish born in turkey before the date of merdeka. he came to federation before merdeka and on merdeka day, domiciled in the federation. he has been practising his turkish and christian way of life since merdeka. now he starts to profess islam, speak malay and practice malay custom. can he be considered a constitutional malay from now onwards?
please let me know if any of my questions cannot be answered due to the lack of certain parameters. alternatively, i welcome any readers to modify my questions in order to make it understandable.
many thanks.
My take.
a) No.
b) No.
c) No.
d) No.
Born after or before Merdeka in the Federation in the Constitution is related to the rights of Tanah Melayu people. The other simple parameter, Pakistanis and Turks respective original ethnicity would render them Muslim bukan Bumiputera. How they got through the citizenship process to be even declared Melayu will be another miracle. Rumpun Melayu Indonesia is another story of course, but their hurdle is in the citizenship, not religion.
My basic position is simple, one cannot convert oneself into “Melayu” by means of religion, and we have no Malay adat/custom court or tribunal to assess the other qualifications of “constitutional Malay”.
dear friend,
i admire the speed that you take to answer my four questions. you took about 19 mins to read and reply my questions together with your own opinion. i must salute you for that.
i just want to ask the following:-
(1) are you responding to my questions based on the constitutional provisions or based on your own interpretation? i have expressly stated that that my questions are asked within the parameters of act 160 constitution and requested readers to respond to them within the same.
(2) i refer to your last paragraph. you mentioned “my basic position…”. from where you derive your so called ‘basic position”? if your ‘basic position’ are derived from other sources, are you suggesting that your “basic position” can override the supremacy of the federal constitution when dealing with the definition of ‘malay’?
nevertheless, i am still waiting for the reply from other readers and helen.
The Dictator (12.52pm) offers an interesting perspective.
Natrah – catalyst to S’pore riot – comes to mind. The Dutch girl is seen and embraced as Malay by the community.
I Hate N’Sync
Your “basic position” is based on your “opinion”, not the Perlembagaan Persekutuan Perkara 160. A very simple thing made difficult by you
Therefore all this discussion is a waste of time as your answers do not consider the Perlembagaan, the supreme law in the country, but only your opinion
Dear Malaysian and Elijah,
Maybe because it is a dumb question and the answer is extremely simple? What is so complicated that you failed to understand what Article 160 stands for?
The definition of Malay under Article 160 provides for two groups of people – EXISTING Malays and their DESCENDANTS. You all are harping on the clause that tries to define the CURRENT (at the point of the Constitution’s creation) crop of people who are Muslims, speaks Malay, practices Malay culture and customs found IN Malaya and Singapore (hence sub-section (a)) and their FUTURE descendants (hence sub-section (b)).
Even if you are not born before Hari Merdeka but either one of your parents are Malay, you can also lay claim to that Malay status.
“Orang Melayu” ertinya seseorang yang menganuti agama Islam, lazim bercakap bahasa Melayu, menurut adat Melayu dan —
(a) yang lahir sebelum Hari Merdeka di Persekutuan atau Singapura atau yang lahir sebelum Hari Merdeka dan ibu atau bapanya telah lahir di Persekutuan atau di Singapura, atau yang pada Hari Merdeka berdomisil di Persekutuan atau di Singapura; atau
(b) ialah zuriat seseorang yang sedemikian;
I can lead the horse to the water, but I sure hell can’t make them drink. I’ve already provided that the most salient point in your silly questions is whether one can CONVERT into Bumiputera/Malay status, and the answer was obviously no.
Some Indian muslims are now Bumiputera because ONE of their parents are Malays (see Mahathir)! All the KIMMA cases raised were instances where both parents are Indian Muslims. Itu pun tak faham ke?
Basic position refers to the original intention of why clause 160 has defined Malay as so, meaning to confer a pribumi / original people of sorts for Constitutional protection (special position). If people can just convert in and out of Bumiputera / Malay status by changing their religion, you don’t think that’s stupid and odd?
your question should read “do Malays consider the said person a Malay?” in relation to the status of Ridhuan Tee.
Do you?
i wish to reiterate that all my 4 questions are asked from the constitutional point of view, i.e. whether the highest law of the land recognizes such person as a ‘constitutional malay’?
no one can possibly answer ‘whether Malays consider the said person a Malay’. this is a question of layman perception and varies from one malay to another malay. i am trying my best to avoid approaching the questions from the perception point of view.
please bear in mind, i am asking a constitutional significant question and hope it can be answered in a constitutional manner. anyhow, my question may be flawed and i will provide more details should readers may require the same before answering them.
If you are born before 1957 OUTSIDE of Malaya and Singapore but either your parents are born IN Malaya and Singapore, you can still lay claim to be a Malay. Ini ikut nasab ibu atau bapalah.
Adoh…. sudah terang lagi bersuluh. Perlembagaan Malaysia tak cakap kalau hang memeluk Islam, ada chance boleh jadi Bumiputera status. Muallaf dan saudara baru itu lain sayang.
Sorry Helen, took me a while to reply to your question. Had something important to do. As to your question, no, I DO NOT consider, and I DO NOT embraced Ridhuan Tee as a Malay.
Is there anything about him that is Malay ? NO ! He is just a typical kiasu fraud who happens to embraced Islam as his religion and who, in his “effort” to reach out to the Malays so that the Malays would accept him as one of our own, disparages his own people, the Chinese.
We do not accept such people as one of our own. Why should we ? I tell you why, from my point of view. If we accept him as one of our own, as Malay, what does that tell about us, about the Malays ? That kiasu fraud, he is just a Malay wannabe, a phony.
Malaysian, here is your answer [YouTube]. I know it is Indian (with English translation) so what does that make you less humane for Malaysians to understand?
Malaysian, a, b, c, d does not mean anything if we do nothing about it because only for how it serves us well. Truth and reality does not need a ,b, c & d it needs our consciousness for one another like this is something that we need to digest rather than we make do. I know it [YouTube] is all Indian, but what can you do with the ingenuity of the Indians.
Due to the requirement to have family roots in the Federation or Singapore, a person of Malay extract who has migrated to Malaysia after Merdeka day from another country (with the exception of Singapore), and their descendants, will not be regarded as a Malay under the Constitution as such a person and their descendants would not normally fall under or be descended from the Merdeka Day Population.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia)
Article 160(2) of the Constitution of Malaysia defines various terms used in the Constitution. It has an important impact on Islam in Malaysia and the Malay people due to its definition of a Malay person. The article defines a Malay as a person who satisfies two sets of criteria:
First, the person must be one who professes to be a Muslim, habitually speaks the Malay language, and adheres to Malay customs.
Second, the person must have been:
(i) (a) domiciled in the Federation or Singapore on Merdeka Day, (b) born in the Federation or Singapore before Merdeka Day, or (c) born before Merdeka Day of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or Singapore, (collectively, the “Merdeka Day population”) or
(ii) is a descendent of a member of the Merdeka Day population.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia)
However, there’s terms & conditions which is
complying to what stated in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_people
NOTE: Bumiputera and Malay status are two different things all together.
I hope the above make sense, somewhat.
Helen,
aiyah, some people choose to make things difficult…
I’m waiting for a new post actually.
lets roll in iklan for a while:
http://catatanseni.blogspot.com/2012/09/bukan-rasis.html
dear readers,
let us look at the chronology of events that lead to this posting of ‘Adakah Ridhuan Tee seorang Melayu?’.
initially, i commented on the posting of ‘Tweet senator kontroversi DAP tentang mamak’. i argued that mamak is not a malay as per the federal constitution. helen pointed out my mistake and explained art. 160 federal constitution in detail. she opined that a mamak is a malay from the constitutional point of view.
i asked further question “Andaikan saya seorang warganegara Malaysia berumur 60 tahun sekarang yang lahir di Persekutuan sebelum hari Merdeka. Sekarang ini saya berketurunan Cina. Saya memutuskan untuk menukar agama kepada Islam, mula bercakap bahasa Melayu secara lazim dan juga mula mengamalkan adat Melayu. Adakah saya layak digelar Melayu dan mendapat hak istimewa?”
helen is kind enough to dedicate a posting to accommodate my question by using ridhuan tee as example.
i answered in the affirmative (refer comment no. 39). readers like elijah (29), ida (9) and bisu (44) have concurred with me. even helen (46) has expressed the same. looking at these supportive replies, i proceeded to ask the 4 questions (57).
i am tired to keep on reiterating that my questions are derived from the interpretation of art 160 federal constitution. similarly i am expecting readers to reply within the boundaries of the same. as such, i sincerely invite competent readers to reply to my 4 questions from the constitutional view point. many thanks.
ps. dear helen, would you please answer and comment on my 4 questions. will really appreciate it. thanks.
We could answer your question by strictly using the constitutional yardstick but societies nonetheless function within a human relationship dimension.
Our constitution was also drafted on the basis of race relationships (the so-called “social contract”).
That’s why I brought up the topic of Natrah. She looks orang putih and she was not born Muslim but the Malays in S’pore rioted b’cos of her as they consider her one of their own.
My ‘perception’ (I can’t use a more precisely binding word, sorry) is that Malay society – compared with Chinese – is more embracing of outsiders and hence the concept of Malayness is not as much tightly bound to anthropological ‘race’ parameters (skin colour, hair type, facial features e.g. sepet, physique/stature).
Given this Malay openness to accepting ‘others’ into their fold, it is ironic for DAPsters to keep accusing Malays as more racist than themselves.
If we look at the line-up of Umno presidents, they are of more mixed heritage than the DAP sec-gens. And DAP proclaims itself multi-racial and Umno as most racist.
ini adalah senario tunjuk 1 jari ke muka orang lain, 4 jari tunjuk muka sendiri.
orang yang duduk di atas masalahnya takkan nampak masalah sendiri (kerana masalah sendiri ada bawah bontotnya), dia hanya nampak masalah orang lain. kalau bontot besar lagi susah mau nampak ataupun kalau hanya duduk saja macam tuakong, macammana boleh nampak sendiri punya masalah?
klik
LOL sambil guling-guling…
dear helen, i am agreeable when you said that my questions can be answered using the constitutional yardstick. but you seemed to qualify your statement by saying “……….but societies nonetheless function within a human relationship dimension”.
ultimately, you didn’t answer my questions at all. why are you holding back now whereas on previous occasions, you have been kind enough to enlighten me on how indian muslim/mamak and a chinese convert can be considered as malays from the constitutional view point.
in fact, i strongly believe that the answers to all my 4 questions are ‘yes’. all the said persons in my questions are qualified to be a ‘malay’ as per act 160 federal constitution. nevertheless, i am prepared to be corrected by other readers who are more learned than me. i believe that we can agree to disagree.
I didn’t answer your questions b’cos they can be reliably predicated on a checklist (Muslim, BM, Malay custom, 1957, domicile). If all the items are ticked ‘Yes’ then how can the conclusion be subjected to further dispute unless one rejects the Constitution stipulations themselves?
With the exception of the practicing-Malay-custom criterion (how to measure?) the rest of the criteria can be factually ascertained.
I invoke the human dimension b’cos realistically your conundrum is a rare occurrence, i.e. 60-year-old Chinese man converting.
A number of Malay commenters have given their opinions. Mamaks are widely accepted as Malays. Ditto Ridhuan Tee.
The Chinese is not Malay – not Muslim, no speak BM, no understand Malay adat.
Therefore The Rocket‘s act of adding the “sian” to ‘Malay’ (as in the graphic above) is most jarring. What is the meaning of Malay-sian to the DAP in its loud and aggressive Firster thrust?
I don’t know what transpired between you and Helen on Mamak, I think the Constitution was damn clear about who can and who cannot be a “Melayu”.
Of course, you said that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck. The Constitution however clearly said that only the offspring of a duck is a duck, and this refers to a duck who speaks Malay, practices Malay customs and professes Islam in Malaya and Singapore. Did it say anything about a Chicken can become a Duck if it speaks Malay, practices Malay customs and converts to Islam in Malaya and Singapore?
You BELIEVE the answers to all your questions is YES. You don’t believe me because you think my opinions are subjected and open to your beliefs. Well, just ask Prof. Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi to appeal to authoritative sources, not logic. Only Malays in Malaysia are defined by Islam. You said that you want your examples to be explained from a purely Constitutional definition, well, since someone in b, c, and d were all born after 1957 or outside Singapore and Malaya, “NO” is the default answer. Your a fits the bill, but you already said that he is of Chinese descent and only NOW converts to Islam and starts to try and live the Malay life. You tell me, how can you even say a, b, c and d can all be considered “constitutional Malays”?
Do you even know what does “AND” means?
dear I hate n’sync, many thanks for your reply. i think your disagreement will cause my understanding on art 160(2) constitution to be better, if not complete. my concern is on para (a) of the said art and let us dissect one by one. i reproduce para (a) here in verbatim in the bahasa version and i split them into 3:-
(ai) yang lahir sebelum Hari Merdeka di Persekutuan atau Singapura atau
(aii) yang lahir sebelum Hari Merdeka dan ibu atau bapanya telah lahir di Persekutuan atau di Singapura, atau
(aiii) yang pada Hari Merdeka berdomisil di Persekutuan atau di Singapura;
i interpret that (ai), (aii) and (aiii) have to be read separately, meaning that to fulfill either one of the 3 is sufficient.
with regard to my question (b), i now stand corrected that my interpretation is wrong. the said person in (b) is not a malay as he is born after merdeka.
for questions (c) and (d), no doubt that both persons are born outside of federation/singapore. but both of them are domiciled in federation at the time of merdeka. as such, they must have been born before merdeka but at overseas. para (aiii) allowed a person who is born outside of federation (foreigners) to be a malay, provided that at the time of merdeka the said person is domiciled in federation. as such, i stand on my answers that both persons in (c) and (d) are malays.
and i really think that the constitution allows a chicken (chinese or indian) to be a duck (malay) if the chicken walks like a duck (profess islam), talks like a duck (speak malay) and swims like a duck (practise malay custom), provided that the chicken is born according to para (ai) and (aii).
again, i am willing to be corrected by learned readers on my interpretation above.
Sigh…
Let us look at your (c) and (d) again.
– Malaysian
The concept of a domicile is like PR (permanent resident status). Lets just accept your premise that he is, for all intent and purposes, a Muslim, speaks Malay and practices Malay custom habitually. Now, he checks out on all the boxes you mentioned. Does this make him Malay, constitutionally? Sure, if he does not have a PRE-EXISTING ethnicity, why not? Look at the Siamese Muslims in Malaya, are they considered Malays? Look at the Indian Muslims in Malaya, are they considered Malays? If they married a Malay, sure, their children can be Malays, that’s a fact. By default though, unless your Pakistani (c) has NO ETHNICITY to begin with, probably he can be considered a Malay.
Ethnicity refers to the group identity one belongs to and not strictly biological. It doesn’t matter what your Pakistani do upon his arrival to Malaya in 1920 or 1921, he came into our British Malaya shores as likely a Pashtun, Sindhi or Punjabi Pakistani.
Article 160 is really trying to say this – if you are a Muslim Malay DOMICILED in Malaya or Singapore before this, you are a Malay according to this Constitution. It doesn’t say if you are a Muslim Thai / Muslim Pakistani / Chinese Muslim or Indian Muslim domiciled in Malaya or Singapore before this, you are now henceforth a Malay according to this Constitution. The aim of ai, aii and aiii is to pinpoint WHO among the Muslim Malays in this region can lay claim (for themselves and their future generations) to being Malay under Perlembagaan Malaysia.
As for your (d), it is so simple, the same flaw of “NOW” he wants to profess Islam, speak Malay and practice Malay custom. Your Turk can convert to Islam and do everything Melayu style. However, he wasn’t a Malay before Independence, and he ain’t one now. Our Constitution DESCRIBED / DEFINED what a Malay is, it didn’t provide a provision for a person to BECOME a Malay.
You know my dear Malaysian, OVERNIGHT Malaysians (citizenship) by a stroke of the pen I have heard of. OVERNIGHT Malays (ethnicity) by a stroke of the pen, that’s something new even for me. I mean, even the Melayu Baru were Melayu…
Hmm… here is a blog where many of the commentors post comments that are longer than mine in other blogs. It’s wonderful to see such a lively discussion of ideas.
To see je laa. Tak kuasa aku nak baca giler panjang :P
J/K. Will read later. Congrats Helen.
Untuk memberikan kewarganegaraan mengikyut JUS SOLI, maka kaum bukan Melayu hendaklah mengiktiraf HAK HAK ISTIMEWA BUMIPUTRA. Itu yg termaktub dlm perlembagaan kerana tanah ini asalnya adalah milik Melayu seperti mana Cina di China dan Tamil di India.
Jika bukan Melayu merasakan sudah sampai masanya HAK2 BUMI dihapuskan mengikut perjanjian BAPA KEMERDEKAAN, adakah mereka sanggup pula menyerahkan semula KEWARGANEGARAAN?
Fikirkan…
Wooo… mniy mmg tak suka kenyataan sebegini.. kiki
Dear Malaysian,
Kami orang Melayu do not mind recognising anybody nak masuk Melayu cuma nowaday nobody care pun.. so what is the big deal?
dear khairul, does that mean that you are answering all my 4 questions in the affirmative?
Based on constitution Yes..
Even as community once we have seen you have those simple 3 criteria what more if you are active with local Surau/Masjid we will consider you as one of us no question ask bro..
There you go Malaysian, another Malaysian who doesn’t know their Constitution. You wanna poll among ignoramuses, go right ahead. When you get sick the next time, don’t go to seek professional medical advice, put up a survey and accept the majority opinion as your diagnosis, ok?
dear I hate n’sync, as much as i respect your right to disagree, i cannot tolerate your statement of labelling other commenters as ‘ignoramuses’. i can accept if you call me an ‘ignoramuses’. in fact, i was ignorant on the term malay and that is the reason why i asked readers to comment.
what is your justification in calling other readers as ‘ignorant’, ‘shallow’ and ‘stupid’? are you so suggesting that you are more superior than the rest? you are insulting/belittling everyone who has replied in this posting (including helen).
i agree that you can discredit the comments of readers but not disparage them. bear in mind that this is a forum for discourse.
lastly, how can you draw similarities between a) my request for readers to comment on my questions with b) “When you get sick the next time, don’t go to seek professional medical advice, put up a survey and accept the majority opinion as your diagnosis, ok?” do you really think that i will be so ‘ignorant’ to really do that?
Dear Malaysian,
I am not suggesting that I am more superior than the rest, I AM – at least on this point of the argument that is now over 90 comments long.
Please read:
“i answered in the affirmative (refer comment no. 39). readers like elijah (29), ida (9) and bisu (44) have concurred with me. even helen (46) has expressed the same. looking at these supportive replies, i proceeded to ask the 4 questions (57).”
– Malaysian
You are looking for competent readers to reply, but you are building your case on the basis of supportive headcounts? Whatever happened to logic, reasoning and common sense?
Oh please, you are not sincere of asking to be enlightened, you are sincerely asking to be ridiculed. Right from the beginning at least two persons have pointed out that there is a difference between ethnicity and religion. The fact that ONE of the definitions for a Malay according to the Constitution is Islam clearly means that the ACT of conversion to the religion alone does not imply a change in ethnic status. You then adamantly stated that you are talking about some hypothetical “constitutional Malay” according to Article 160 and sub-clauses (a) and (b), and adopted Helen’s checklist approach in interpreting the DESCRIPTION of a Malay as the RECIPE to create one.
When I pointed out that the year of birth and the geographical location of such a birth is really an expression to include all EXISTING Malays at the point of the Constitution’s creation and their FUTURE descendants in this country as an identity in perpetuity, you regarded my comments as rants.
Your a, b, c and d examples are all flawed, the key being the “NOW” in intention to act Malay (as per description in the Constitution). Only the Pakistani in c comes close, but you again confused the concept of domicile. A Pakistani who domiciles (with PR status) in pre-Independent Malaya or Singapore is more likely to be recorded as a Pashtun, Punjabis, or Sindhi. Even if he makan nasi lemak everyday, speaks Malay or practices the adat Melayu, his ethnicity sebelum Merdeka sudah ADA. The Pakistani doesn’t become Malay with his British or Federation or Straits PR status, he becomes Malayan or Singaporean. Since there was NO DEFINITION OF A MALAY exists before Perlembagaan Tanah Melayu or Perlembagaan Malaysia, how can our Pashtun, Punjabi or Sindhi Pakistani become Malay Malayan/Malaysian?
dear I hate n’sync, many thanks for all your comments. i now comprehend your reasoning on art 160(2) constitution. i had mistakenly interpreted the said art as a recipe to create a malay. such interpretation will actually render the said article as ridiculous and opens a floodgate for people to become malays. quite a number of readers have the wrong perception as mine. i hope that they will be enlightened and become more learned. lastly, i appreciate all your efforts in writing the long replies to correct my misconception. i apologise if i have offended anyone in this posting.
Sorry for bludgeoning you. Civility isn’t one of my strong traits, neither is courtesy. If you find anything on being able to CONVERT oneself into Malay, Anak Negeri or Orang Asli status, do share.
A note of caveat though, there are people who are NOT Malay, Anak Negeri or Orang Asli that enjoy some Bumiputera priviledges – by the feat of administrative circulars or guidelines. You didn’t offend me, I’m just rude and obnoxious by nature. My apologies.
You certainly opened up an interesting line of thought using an effective capsule, i.e. Art.160 is Description not Prescription, or in kitchen talk, “It’s not a recipe to bake a cake (Malay)”.
However, in terms of practicalities, you’ve conceded that “some Bumiputera privileges – by the feat of administrative circulars or guidelines” have been gained by some Malaysians.
Thus in effect and by dint of shuffling paperwork, one can get to enjoy Bumiputera privileges – which by extension infers that the guy is marked as a Bumiputera in his documents and application forms.
Does not this situation then mean that in practice that some non-Malay, non-Anak Negeri (i.e. Sabah & S’wak natives), non-Orang Asli Bumiputeras have indeed been created by bureaucracy?
How would someone like Khir Toyo figure? Bumiputera or not?
I think the administration could NOT change the definition of Malay, Anak Negeri or Orang Asli in the Constitution without the Parliament. What has been the convention, unless I am mistaken, is for the administration to extend Bumiputera BENEFITS to some non-Bumiputeras (as in the example of ASNB, or even recent IPTA intakes). This absolutely does not mean that a saudara baru is a “Melayu”, no more than Serani is a “Melayu”.
Afterall, the Constitution did not define or limit Bumiputera priviledges and certainly did not specify for things like MARA, ASB, housing discounts or fuel subsidies. Like I’ve said, the reality of Bumiputra-ism is defined by the administration.
As for Khir Toyo,
“Of half Indonesian and half Malay descent, Khir was born on August 6, 1965, at Tali Air 2, Bt 4, Sungai Burung, Tanjung Karang, Selangor, the fifth child of a total of nine siblings. His father, Joyo Erodikromo, was an immigrant from Java, Indonesia while his mother, Siti Aminah Mohd Taib, is of Malay ethnicity.”
– Wikipedia
If the information is correct, Khir Toyo is a Peninsular Malay. He is Malay by virtue of his Malay mother. It doesn’t sound fair, I know, but you are free to marry any Malay and your children will be a Malay too.
The real issue here has been about protection of the rumpun Melayu, Anak Negeri and Orang Asli. We can say that the pendekatan used is flawed, but if we never agreed to the need for the protection or special position of the Malays and natives in the first place, any amount of explanation won’t convince the likes of some DAPsters.
Thanks for looking up all the info.
Helen, ini azizah. dulu masa u kat nst kita naik teksi comfort sama. u masuk simpang dekat OMRON. i pula SS5 Kelana Jaya. Kalau salah orang, just forget it.
:) Pls gimme your contact. Saya takkan siarkan.
Okay, thanks for contact. Will be in touch. — Helen
Helen
If a Malay Muslim becomes a Christian than he/she is no longer a Malay. If a Christian becomes a Muslim in Malaysia he/she is a Malay if habitually speaks Malay and practice Malay custom.
The Muslim cannot become a constitutional Malay even if he speaks BM and practises Malay custom because Article 160 of the Federal Constitution specifies another criterion that needs to be fulfilled, i.e.
born in Malaya or S’pore before 31 Aug 1957 or born of at least one parent whom was born in Malaya or S’pore or is on 31 Aug 1957 living in Malaya or S’pore or is the son/daughter of a person born in Malaya or S’pore or is on 31 Aug 1957 living in Malaya or S’pore (plus being Muslim & Malay speaker)
(this clause excludes Bangladeshi and Pakistani recent migrants from becoming constitutional Malays)
It’s true. You need to be under the criterion. A chinese convert is NOT a bumiputera by definition. Please refer to the wikipedia page on this. To get a confirmation in writing on whether you are a bumiputera or not, please get the letter from the National Registration Department (Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara) to confirm the same.
sebahgian orang yg berusia (melayu) di kampung pendapat bahawa sesiapa masuk islam adalah dikira sebagai masuk jawi. Pendek kata masuk melayu atau jadi orang melayu…. Kenapa? ini kerana tanah ini adalah tanah melayu yang budaya melayu serta agama islam. . perlembagaan memeng ada dinyatakan tetapi yang itu sebagai rujukan atau norm shaj. . . ramai bukan melayu bila berkawin orang secara tidak lansung akan ikut budaya melayu…yang paling jelas dapat lihat iaiah berpakaian songkok , baju melayu , kain pelikat dan sebagainya…..walaupun ikut fakta masuk islam bukan masuk melayu …tetapi kebanyak anak2 mereka ditulis bangsa melayu dlm sijil lahir….sebenarnya apa masalah untuk bergelaran jadi orang melayu walaupun dalam perlembagaan kata bukan buniputra atau masuk islam bukan masuk melayu. .memang ada sebahagiab akan mempertahanan presepsi mereka…itu memang hak mereka…jika mereka mengangkap mereka bukan masuk melayu makalah bukanlah, tetapi ia tidak dapat mengubahkan presepsi orang lain bahawa masuk islam ialah masuk melayu sebab ini tanah melayu…ada seorang kawan cina saya, dia kata orang di negara CHINa mengakatkan orang cina di malaysia adalah orang melayu walaupun mereka bukan beragama islam atau bukan melayu. . kenapa??? jawapan ialah sesiapa lahir di tanah melayu adalah orang melayu walupun …. sebab ia mengikut tempat lahir… hanya orang cina yang lahir di negara China di panggil cina tulen…itulah presepsi mereka… ..ada seorang pakcik cina yang masuk islam ..dia sendiri mengakui masuk melayu waluapun status bukan bumiputara….dia kata tak kisahlah jika panggil melayu sebab dari segi luar memang tak ada beza pun dengan orang melayu yang telah mengamalkan budaya melayu..
in my opinion islam never force non muslim to become islam it is someone punya on free will may be because they tertarik islam that’s why they convert into islam. I am from Sabah a native we have alot of family ada christian ada islam but we can still live together in harmony. No issue of kau kristian kau islam. We respect each other sensitive. That is it. In Sabah in if you are a Kadazandusun convert into islam you are tetap Kadazandusun berugama islam. Tiada apa-apa masalah pun.
Okay, this ‘masuk Melayu’ business could be a semenanjung thing.
What and how is the Malay presence in Sabah, if I may ask?
We have only natives definition to differentiate through ethic whether you are a bajau, suluk, brunei etc are 100% muslim not melayu. In case of ie kadazandusun muslim through their document.
Pertama sekali, kita mesti faham konteks asas apa maksud bangsa dan agama. Fahaman mudah, bangsa ialah keturunan dan agama ialah kepercayaan. Oleh itu, Ustaz Dr. Ridhuan Tee adalah bangsa Cina dan beliau memeluk Islam sebagai agamanya. Jangan kita campur aduk sesuka hati tanpa tahu konteks asasnya.
Setiap orang berhak memilih agamanya sendiri. Tetapi jangan silap mengatakan yang Ustaz Dr.Ridhuan Tee ni Melayu… kerana beliau masih orang Cina dimana nama keluarganya ‘Tee” masih tertera pada I/Cnya. Beliau adalah seorang Cina selamanya sampai akhiratnya. Ini adalah kenyataan.
Jangan seseorang ingat memeluk Islam akan automatik menikmati faedah sebagai seorang Melayu. Jawapannya adalah TIDAK. Kalaulah ada orang berfikir sedemikian amatlah sedihnya sebab orang sebegini memang cetek sungguh pengetahuannya.
Mengikut Saudara Nazri Muslim, seorang pensyarah UKM:
Siapakah Melayu menurut tafsiran Perlembagaan?
Ridhuan Tee dalam banyak tulisan-tulisannya menggolongkan dirinya dengan/bersama orang Melayu (“kita”) walaupun sekali-sekala dia ada juga mengaku Cina.
Sebenarnya Ridhuan lagi Melayu daripada Zairil Khir Johari:
(1) Seseorang yang beragama Islam — RT (ya)
(2) Lazimnya, mereka ini bercakap dalam bahasa Melayu — RT (ya)
(3) mengamalkan adat istiadat / budaya Melayu — RT (ya)
RT tidak layak menjadi Melayu kerana tersangkut dengan butiran (4) iaitu berhubung tarikh lahir yang disyaratkan mesti sebelum 1957.
Namun, to all intents and purposes, dia Melayu lah kerana melihat dirinya Melayu dan juga dianggap Melayu oleh masyarakat setempat.
The link to Nazri Muslim’s Dewan Masyarakat article, http://dwnmasyarakat.dbp.my/?p=1860
Constitutional Malay, perceived Malay, Melayu Celup what evs.
How you define yourself will certainly be contingent upon how people define you. I have known many Brits of Indian descent, who still declare themselves Indians because that is what’s expected of them. More often than not, they declare themselves Indians outside of the UK, especially around racist white people (russian/european/american/aussies etc). They risk an argument if they declare themselves “British”, for this would be considered an insult to those whites with racist tendencies.
RT will certainly be considered Chinese outside Malaysia. Those Malaysians who don’t know him would also classify him as Chinese. It is his relative fame that gives him the privilege of being considered Malay.
Constitutional Malay-ism is just for legal purposes, and even that can’t afford the guarantee of being enforceable in all social settings.
You’re right about social setting and acceptance of the community determining what race one is.
Ridhuan Tee teaches in a university where the faculty and students are predominantly Malay (it is the National Defence University). He belongs to a qariah and that would be a Malay milieu as well. His wife is Malay – according to his neighbour, our resident commenter Shamshul Anuar – so that’s yet another Malay environment.
Ridhuan Tee likes to call other Chinese “sepet” but his own looks are the most sepet. I agree with you that anywhere overseas, he would be viewed as a Chinese due to his appearance. But within his own surroundings, I believe that he is regarded as Malay.
We can ask Shamshul ,) if this is so.
RT is malay but not admit malay because he want to dakwah to people not muslim to be a muslim. Rt choose wife malay, follow culture and tradisional malay.. conclusion is malay. people very degil said people cetek ilmu pengetahuan that masuk islam is masuk melayu. but actually you are realy want cetek ilmu dont want accept tha fact.
RT have he objective why he want to all things. RT is culup malay, he preffer be malay rather that chines even though he race chinese.. RT still chinese? answers not..? why ? where identity RT show up chinese custom? he more show up malay custom compare other.
people dont want accept the fact and reality because they show up they still chiness after convert islam but actually is not… PAKAI SARUNG, SOKONG MASIH CINA LAGI KER…..
Saya amat setuju apa tuan apek yang cakap tu….. mereka (pendakwak) macam ustaz rt si mualaf dan lain ustaz mualaf atau mualaf pendakwa bebas… biasanya mereka guna teknik dan bercakap masuk islam bukan masuk melayu supaya menarik lebih ramai orang cina dan india bukan islam masuk agama islam..
bila dah msuk islam barulah ajar sembayang, pakai kain pelikat dan kopiah …sperti ikut budaya melayu… walaubagaimanapun saya amat sokong ustaz rt mualaf guna cara ini supaya mengislamkan semua orang rakyat malaysia jadi satu agama, satu bangsa, satu malaysia….. bila semua orang telah mengislam jadi agama islam… lama lama anak anak atau cucu cucu akan memelayukan atau mualaf memelayukan seperti contoh ustaz rt mualaf.. mengislamkan dan memelayukan…….
saya berharap ust rt mualaf berusahakan mengislam semua melaui saluran yang betul dan ikut undang…. ust rt mualaf tak payah ambil hati samada ust rt melayu atau bukan melayu…. janji menyebarkan agama islam sampai orang bukan islam….. harapan besar ust rt mualaf untuk mengislam orang ramai…. guna slogon masuk islam bukan masuk melayu… ust rt mualaf boleh… ust rt mualaf boleh… you can do it… semoga berjaya berdakwak…. ust rt mualaf, saya sokong dng sepuluh jari junjung