Talk:Bumiputera (Malaysia)

Citations for "Controversy" Section

I don't have citations for the places that are tagged "citation needed," but I would suggest Lim Kit Siang as a good source for an assertion that Malaysian government policies have been racist, and Tunku Abdul Rahman or Tun Abdul Razak as sources explaining what they saw as the need for racial preferences.

Michael 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the "cleaup-essay" tag to this section because it is written in a polemical style that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Examples:

• "Such has been the sheer arrogance of UMNO that in the recently concluded elections, the people have voted against them."
• "This is a case of majority rights which is totally against all orthodox beliefs of constitutional law."

I have no view about whether these statements are right or wrong. I was just reading the article out of interest and noticed them. --spiralhighway (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are racists: I can compare it to Australian situation - Australian citizen and Australian permanent visa. Australian citizen will be someone who has the citizenship based on its loyalty to country, follows the law of Australia and being proud of its country. Australian permanent visa is someone who is eligible for citizenship but its loyalty lies somewhere else. He or she doean't want to integrate fully, but still can live in Australia. This is similarity between bumiputras and others in Malaysia. Hope it helps. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.30.51 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So David, are you saying the non-bumiputras are not citizens of Malaysia but rather a Permanent Residence of Malaysia?? In other words, non-bumis are 2nd class citizens? --Zack2007 (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

David, The issue here isn't discrimination between Malaysian Citizens and Malaysian Permanent Residents. The parties concerned here are all Malaysian Citizens in this case, which invalidates your argument. The question is: Is it racism to treat citizens of the same country differently based on what race they are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.21.135 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference

A suggestion/comment: The following paragraph, in the Public Questioning of Rights section, desperately needs a reference or source. It's a bold statement, and left unsourced makes the article sound biased.

At the 55th annual general assembly of the largest political party in Malaysia, the United Malays National Organisation, the deputy chairperson Badruddin Amiruldin cautioned against questioning the Bumiputra's special rights, and was met with approval from the delegates: "Let no one from the other races ever question the rights of Malays on this land. Don’t question the religion because this is my right on this land."

Paperdoll51 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

-

Please be grateful of what we have today. If the policy is been diminish then there will be riots and maybe a civil war such as in indonesia. it's even better that the government doesn't force such assimilation policies such as in indonesia and thailand which in a way preserves the indian and chinese culture well alive. with the apartheid thing here is the deal ok, in south africa the natives are being opressed and their economic gap is wider then the grand canyon whereas in malaysia the so called 'opressed' are better off. I blame the british for doing this. if they had a better policy in the past then none of these would happen. can't everybody see that those white people are actually the criminals as they rob us asians of our riches as they preach the white man's burden and now what a suprise they are preaching secularism which they are promoting around the world whereas their christian democrats are campaigning about anti-immigrants. think about it! and maybe you will appreciate the things we have in this country which is much better than in china and india. Bumiputra

Nice Quote

[Quote from below] DISCLAIMER: I do not wish to express my opinion like others did to this page, because this is an encyclopaedia. If I did, I shall fall into the endless cycle of waiting for the other party to come up with new but seemingly feeble argument and then pointlessly disputing it, like everyone here did. Please be aware that the other party is clung to his/her beliefs as strong as you do. You will never be able to change his/her mind with your mere arguments.

I made no stand (as that will spark off another debate), thus I suggest we observe the present society and trend and contemplate deeply. Whatever conclusion you have, please keep it to yourself. We have seen the past few decades' progress, and we will observe the next two decades' progress. You will know whether you are right at the end of the day, and snigger to yourself for the other party's losing position in his/her point of view pertaining to this matter as well as his/her reluctance to accept the fact. [End Quote] 203.173.177.143 08:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is going nowhere

To those who think the NEP or its successive policies sucks, please learn how to speak proper Malay and engage the Malays in a frank discussion for it's rescindal. If they disagree, ask them for a timeframe. If they are still adamant, it proves only two things: they are 'hooked' on hand-outs, and they have no intention of giving it up any-time soon. Too bad there are no 'Grey Fox' or 'Gray Ghost' among those whom who opposes NEPisms. All of them are too pre-occuppied with mindless 'Wah Lau Toi' and watching their wallets bulge even bigger. Babyrina2 08:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What's a 'Gray Fox'? 203.173.177.143 08:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't need to speak Malay to discuss this. Will a translator do? This is endorsement of linguistic chauvinism. Some people are from vernacular or english stream schools and will have to use translators. The rest who did study Malay of course should communicate in Malay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.6.205 (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Link to Apartheid Laws

I removed the link to Apartheid from the Bumiputra article. Seriously, I get people from South Africa asking me "where is Apartheid in Malaysia?" Generally, the Chinese in Malaysia are far superior and ahead of the blacks in South Africa (even better than Malays in Malaysia). So obviously the person who put the link has no inkling about the meaning of Apartheid.--User:naisi

I've restored it, but I won't do it a second time. I've justified it with Apartheid outside South Africa and the mention of Malaysia. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Bumiputra

Sorry to hack the definition of 'Bumiputra' so much, but the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an official definition. . The Malay version of the Federal Constitution uses the term "bumputra" but not the English version. If you consider this to be official, then only muslim Malays can be bumiputra. According to the constitution, if you don't speak the Malay language or practice Malay customs, then you are not Malay. You also need to be able to be the descendant of somebody who was Malaysian. --User:dzof

Article 152 of the Federal consitution provides that the official language for all laws etc (one supposes including the constitution itself) should be in English for ten years after Merdeka day. Please provide a citation for your Bumiputra and the date of amendment. If the word is a translation by some lackey at a later date then it does not hold water. Melayu <> Bumiputra.

--User:Malbear

However, in theory, it may be possible for someone who is non-malay to learn the language and customs and convert to Islam. Does this mean that he is Bumiputra. user:dzof

Isn't the bumiputra just another manifestation of the jizya?

If not a mistake, bumiputera includes non malay as well, especially in the Borneo. That includes the Dayaks, Kadasandusuns, Muruts etc. The aborigines (the orang asli) are also considered as Bumiputeras. Rule of tumb, if the person is not a Chinese, Indians, Sikhs, or Eurasians, and he or she is a Malaysian then normally the persons is considered bumiputera. ( a Malaysian view)

Most Mamaks (Indian Muslims) and "Portuegese" (Indian Mulatto equivalents) are Bumiputras too. The assertion that Bumiputra excludes Indian is FALSE.

--User:Malbear

Some part of the article are very similar to the follow encyclopedia: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Bumiputra --ayucat 10:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

nationmaster copies wikipedia. That is why its similar __earth 06:10, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hm...well, as the original author of the "borders on outright racism" clause, I can say for sure that I didn't steal it from there. I've never even been to that site till now. Either we have suspiciously similar wording or they blatantly copied Wikipedia, which isn't to be unexpected. ;-) --Johnleemk 12:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Er, Nationmaster is a copy of Wikipedia. Look all the way at the bottom of the page on Nationmaster and you'll see they get their content from here. So not to worry. Fuzheado 15:13, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see a lot of people saying that the consitution says this that or the other. Let's source or cite the appropriate bits please.

1) The term Malay is defined in the consitution as above

2) This term was previously defined by the British as Malay Reservation Act of 1913; the Act defines a Malay as one who speaks Malay, professes Islam and practises a Malay way of life, but it is conspicuously silent about descent. This definition is enshrined in Malaysia’s national constitution today.

The term Bumiputra and Malay may be used interchangably however it is not. Portugese, Asli etc. also have bumiputra status. So does Mamak. You only cannot be bumiputra if you Chinese or Sikh as far as I can tell. --User:Malbear

The definition cited as being from the constitution "professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs and is the child of at least one parent who was born within the Federation of Malaysia before independence on the 31st of August 1957" can't possibly be right --- once the last person born in 1957 dies, then there's no one left to produce bumiputra kids.

Further, the actual definition in Article 160 Section 2 (where the constitution has all its definition statements) also looks shaky. "Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and - (a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or (b) is the issue of such a person;. "issue" must certainly be read as "direct issue"; but the problematic part is "such a person" in clause (b) --- can't it be interpreted as narrowly referring to people fulfilling clause (a), rather than broadly applying to people fulfilling the main body of the sentence?

(This of course is a perverse reading, not intended by the writers; but it seems like a possible one to me; and also this is the kind of scrutiny to which constitutions are regularly subjected, just look at the debate over what the "well-ordered militia" clause means for the US' second amendment.). Anyway, the judges making rulings on who is a bumiputra cannot possibly be relying on the mere text of the constitution; we should probably look for and add in the text of actual rulings on this matter, if copyright and availability permit. cab 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

-x-

I have here, over my table, an opuscule with a speech delivered at the SPEMA (Secretariat of Portuguese Eurasian Malaysian Association) 7th Annual General Assembly, held in Sungai Petani, Kedah, on the 16th February 2002, by the late Joseph Sta Maria, Vice-President / Youth Leader MPEA.

He complains of the Malaysian Portuguese Eurasian Community NOT HAVING Bumiputra status.

I have been recently (last August) in the Portuguese Settlement in Malacca, and they told me, there, that the situation have not changed since.

So... ???

Álvaro Athayde <amaa@ci.uc.pt>

-x-

Alvaro, this seems like a difficult issue since some sources quote some Portuegese as being Bumiputra

http://home.thirdage.com/Family/garrigue/PDTown.html

Yes, there are many Portuguese who are NOT Bumiputra but there are SOME who are Bumiputra. Being here for a long time is not the test used. Perhaps it needs to be added that some are bumiputra and some are not but it does not seem automatic. Do not have enough knowledge of the community to give a good reply to this. --Malbear 05:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems that some Mamaks, and Portuguese (kristang) are bumis. How about Chitty and Peranakan? anyone got info on this? kawaputra 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some people confuse the Malays with bumiputras. Not all bumiputras are Malays. And why all Malays are Muslims, not all bumiputras are Muslims!!! I refer to 'The Malays Par Excellence... Warts and All' by Ismail Noor and Muhammad Azaham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.30.51 (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

References, please

I've removed the following paragraph from the article:

However, none of these purported foreign interests actually suffered any consequences from the NEP, instead leaving smaller ethnic groups in Malaysia to bear the financial and regulatory burden associated with the NEP.

Where has it been stated that the goal of the NEP was to reduce the percentage of the economy owned by "foreign interests"? Are Chinese and Indians foreigners to Malaysia? If so, the latter paragraph implies they were left untouched, leaving smaller groups such as...well, it's quite hard to think of any racial groups in Malaysia other than the Chinese and Indians who aren't Bumiputras.

Actually, the NEP was to increase the Malay share of the national pie. I have re-wrote it to reflect this. As for the "foreign" thing.... let's just say its not relevant here.--Malbear 08:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, where is it said that:

However, the definition of Bumiputra clearly excludes ethnic Chinese. Some Indians are similarly excluded.

I have never heard of such a thing. The article itself quotes the constitution's definition of a Bumiputra, which does not exclude Chinese or Indians. Johnleemk | Talk 05:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry not "definition". Let's change that to "in practice"--Malbear 08:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I wish to point out that the Orang Asli, not the malays, are the original inhabitants of Malaysia. Most of the malay Malaysians came from Sumatra and other parts of Indonesia. They only migrated here much earlier than the Chinese and Indian Malaysians. It does not mean they deserve privileges or rights just because they were the pioneer immigrants.

It is true that there have been abuses under the name of malay special rights and it is the duty of the malays in particular, and all Malaysians in general, to stop it so that the rightful malays get their rights, and the non-malays get their rights as citizens of this country.

It's a sad thing to say, but I do believe the main thing that's holding back malays is not the Chinese or the Indians, but the malays themselves. That's why Dr M and Pak Lah have been quoted as telling to throw away crutches and work hard to face the challenges of globalisation.

The malay and others of the same mind should learn to stand on their own feet rather than claim for special privileges and rights. The world is becoming globalised and if they don't change their attitude, they will only become beggars in their own country.

As for the malays who insist on hiding behind the veil of malay special rights - you have lost the respect of non-malays a long time ago.

We also suspect that the current situation will, unfortunately, get worse if no action is taken now. Why? Because our kids in school hardly mix with each other. They will grow up with little understanding of their fellow Malaysians, and with the suspicions that exist, it will be worse.

The truth of the matter is that polarisation in Malaysia is caused by the discriminatory practises of the government - especially after the NEP - rather than vernacular education.

The NEP is upheld for the rich and not the poor in Malaysia.

Whether we admit it or not, the problem is that the special rights and privileges given have now resulted in only a selected few bumis getting richer and richer. The bulk of the bumis, especially in the rural areas are not benefiting from the system.

Poor people are poor people, rich people are rich people - no matter which race they come from.

The poor in Malaysia must be served but I am sure all taxpayers feel that this should be done in a manner which is blind to age, ethnicity, gender and religion.

What's wrong with extending help to all deserving citizens based on needs and merits regardless of race?

The Malaysian problem is that rich do become richer. And because of the political system, the players are the same.

Out of control - this is all I can say about any type of enforcement and the level of corruption in Malaysia. No idea what Pak Lah has done in his first year in office but judging from the ground, I guess nothing much.

If you have ever heard of the simple saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime," you will realise that many non-bumis have learned how to fish but the government is still handing out fishes to the bumis. One day the fish will run out.

If you want to say discrimination is here in the US, yes, of course it is. Can you name a country where it doesn't happen? But let me tell you one thing - if you go looking for it, you will find it. But in Malaysia, you don't have to go look for it because it seeks you out, slaps you in your face every which way you turn, and is sanctioned by law!

Official figures have more than one million Chinese Malaysians emigrating over the past 25 years. Why did they emigrate? I am sure the government knows.

For most professionals, living abroad has its own ups and downs. But, you get dignity, fair treatment, and respect for your ability. You get a voice, too. And ears to hear you.

Brain drain by the tank-loads is what we get. Every single year, Malaysia loses people who could potentially contribute to the country immensely.

So the malay, you may keep your rights and perpetuate them. Such things are archaic. Who loses in the end? Your country, which should have been a first world one by today.

I sympathize with those that have benefited from the NEP, but the bad news is that the price he pays for his progress is much higher than what he pays for his benefit.

These special privileges and rights were once a necessity for them to move forward. Today, after many decades, they find themselves still standing in the same place.

It is a shame that our history has been constantly twisted so that our younger generation has no understanding of Malaysia's foundation and its true aspirations.

It is arguable that if not for the contributions of the Chinese and Indian Malaysians who helped in the development of this country tremendously, Malaysia would probably be in same category like Indonesia or the Philippines, if not worst.

To improve the malays' lot, more have to be made to work in private companies where competition is real and what counts is your ability. If special rights only help malays to become government servants, then all the more reason not to invoke special rights.

But of course, the present ruling elite drunken with wealth, will continue to fight this dream to ensure that Malaysia is kept divided so that BN can continue to rule.

Alternatively, Malaysians may begin to realise the dream of a new Malaysia.

The bitter truth is that the majority of this nation don't see the need to change things yet and until then, we can do little about it.

The bottom line with present day globalisation is this: compete on a level-playing field or you will lose. Plain and simple.

I agree with the above rant except the part where Malays came from Indonesia. According to this article http://epress.anu.edu.au/austronesians/austronesians/mobile_devices/ch04s03.html Malays are just Islamized sea Dayaks (Iban, Salako etc.) from Sarawak (Borneo), in contrast to the Goverment's de-facto position on Malays, throughout history are Muslims. This can be displayed by the Malay language, which is extremely similar to the Iban language. Indonesians speak Malay as Malay is considered a unity language among the ethnically diverse Indonesia as every Indonesian can speak Malay due to the influence of the Malaccan Sultanate. Although Javanese is the biggest ethnic group in Indonesia, using Javanese as a national language is a bad idea as not every Indonesian speak Javanese and it will create an impartial bias to the Javanese, the dominant ethnic group. I notice this 'Malays are from Indonesia' theory, along with 'Hang Tuah is Chinese' and so on is strong among the Chinese and Indians, even though it carries no scientific merit.

---

Handouts

(I wrote this before Johnleemk's reply, which I agree with, but let's dissect the facts anyway.) So the two assertions here are that A) the NEP has not met its goal, which I can still buy, but B) that this is because Bumiputras are willing to take NEP handouts, which is just... bizarre. For claim A, since the NEP was implemented, the Malay share of wealth has increased by almost 800% and poverty has been cut drastically from 52% to 5%. Did the NEP thus fail because it didn't reach its "goal" of 1200% increase? And how does the fact that Bumiputras use the benefits that were designed for them to use relate to this? What would it say about the NEP if some bumis didn't rejected the handouts? Jpatokal 14:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No you have created a straw man to knock down so slow down there boss. Since we are agreed on A then let's cut straight to the chase of B. One of the assertions in the article is that although the wealth has grown distribution is a problem.

(70.2 percent of households in the bottom 40 percent income group were Bumiputra, while 62.7 percent of households in the top 20 percent income bracket were non-Bumiputra. ) Let us assume that we agree and indeed distribution of wealth is a problem. Logically the next question an intelligent person would ask is. "Can we tell whether this inequality can be helped by MORE NEP?" The fact that the rich continue to take NEP benefits is quite indicative that more NEP is not going to get you out of your inequality situation. Tough. (unsigned post by Malbear

Present facts and/or others' research and conclusions, not your own. If someone else has reached the same conclusion, quote them. Don't tell the reader what to believe. That's a cardinal rule of NPOV on Wikipedia. Tell them everything there is to know about the topic and let them reach the conclusion by themselves, but never let the article take on a viewpoint of its own. In other words, don't tell them "The NEP is a pointless programme which cannot help the Malays". Also, telling the reader that Bumis never refuse handouts is rather pointless, since it's very obvious — practically nobody will refuse something given to you on a silver platter. Instead, say something like, "The Bumiputra system does not discriminate based on economic class; both well-off and poor Bumiputras are entitled to the same benefits". I think I'll add that to the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the point which you guys are trying your darnest to supress is that people TAKE these benefits. Not that they are entitled. Let me give you a parallel. CEOs of fortune 500 companies are "entitled" to put a cup of pencils on a sidewalk and panhandle for quarters. However they don't. The point I am trying to make is that even rich bumiputras take these entitlements.

It's like the chap at the bus stand who asks you to give him 10 ringgit because he needs to get home to his sick wife and three starving kids. Everyone is entitled to do it but I think it's <POV> pretty sick </POV> when someone who is doing this can clearly afford to pay his own way. --Malbear 07:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Assume good faith (I think this is the second time I'm telling you this), please. We're not trying to suppress anything. Rather, we're trying to prevent political activism from overrunning practically every Malaysian-related article (the bias has gotten so bad, check out what I had to fix in Malaysia last night). The system isn't working any more; but we don't need to tell the readers that. Rather, we show them all the facts. If the system's a failure, they will know. If the system's unfair, it's pretty darn obvious when the reader sees that the system doesn't discriminate between rich or poor. Looking at all the benefits given, they don't need to be told that the rich are unfairly taking more than their fair portion. We shouldn't need to become POV and treat the reader like they don't understand what they're being told. Another thing is that if we mention (and thus, place too much emphasis) rich Bumis never rejecting their handouts, we're being redundant. As I said, it's pretty darn obvious that nobody will reject these, so unless someone has, there's no point in adding a biased redundancy to the article. Without the sentence, it's still quite obvious that nobody rejects these handouts. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see good faith anymore. I only see an attempt to get one slant imposed. "To qouqou" attacks are disingenious. To allow a statement like

"The NEP had the stated goal of eradication of poverty and economic restructuring so as to eliminate the identification of ethnicity with economic function."

This seems to, among other things, indicate that the NEP helps the poor. I would like to add (perhaps since you have such a neutral outlook on life you can help to re-write this better) "The NEP in practice has only helped Bumiputras" and "Even rich Bumiputras benefit from the NEP and none have refused". Yes this is pretty damming of the entire group since everyone is guilty by association and commision (rather than not taking but not objecting to taking). Everyone takes. Show me where this is indicated in the article now.--Malbear 10:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, do you understand the words "stated goal"? That's the government's view and they're entitled to it. If you disagree, then write your comments under the "Criticism" section, that's what it's there for. Get it? The main section, "Goals", has what the government and the program's supporters says. "Results" tries to show the results with neutral facts and numbers. "Criticism" has the opposition viewpoint. Many views! Not one!

Exactly, it was under criticisms. If you can read or to put it in Malay in case you cannot "tak tahu baca kah?"

1. It is in the article that the stated goal of the NEP was to eradicate poverty.
2. It was stated in the article that this stated goal was not what was actually achieved.
3. It was further stated that the goal of eradicating poverty was not achieved (whether this is the cause or evidence is left to the reader) BECAUSE the Malay, even the rich Malay continue to sup from the fetid feeding through of the NEP.

It is statement 3 that someone has a problem with but statement 3 clearly has to be included if you want to include statement 1. For example "I went to market", "I didn't make it to market", "My car did not have fuel". Excluding the third statement simply because it may make the increase in fuel prices look bad is not a reason to exclude it.--Malbear 11:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, saying "nobody has done X" or "nobody says X" is not good encyclopedic practice, because you cannot prove a negative. Jpatokal 11

07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. As such I propose "Even rich Malays take NEP benefits". (unsigned comment by Malbear)

Malbear, before I continue, could you please not split your comments in such a manner? Always refactoring the discussion so it's readable is very annoying. Now to the main point, like I've told you, NPOV is not explicitly telling the reader a conclusion to draw, nor implicitly leading them to the conclusion through certain wording. Neutrality is giving the reader tangible facts, not opinions. That's why I'm so damn pissed off about this whole bovine-excrement of a controversy — because few people working on these articles seem to grasp that.

If you want to NPOV "The NEP in practice has only helped Bumiputras", it's impossible. Rather, point out the disparate increase of well-off Bumis compared to those of other races with the actual cold hard statistics. As for "Even rich Bumiputras benefit from the NEP and none have refused", the first half of the statement was explicitly stated in the article already, but seems to have been moved to the NEP article. The second half is, as I've already said, bloody bleeding obvious. We don't need to emphasise it, because the obvious conclusion even if we don't mention it, is that nobody has refused these handouts.

As for attempting to draw the conclusion as to why the NEP hasn't worked well in eradicating poverty because of the rich Bumis abusing their benefits, I'd venture to say this is more worth discussing in Talk:Malaysian New Economic Policy. Just note over here that there's a substantial number of poor Bumis (providing the exact number if possible), and move on. If you're looking for a direct answer, though, that the rich Bumis abuse their benefits is not THE reason for why the NEP failed. Neither is it likely that it is a major reason. We need to stop harping on it, because it's just one reason, and a minor reason, since poor Bumis still won't be crowded out by rich Bumis during university admissions, nor suddenly become unable to buy a house just because the rich Bumis get discounts as well. That's why IMO, this isn't a real big reason to be constantly harping on. Just show the reader that yes, the NEP doesn't differentiate between poor and rich Bumis, and let them figure it out for themselves. We don't need to keep bringing them to our own conclusions. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok then we agree and I assume you have no problems with the following statements

1) "Rich Bumis also take NEP handouts"

2) "The NEP has not achieved any of its initially stated goals in the initially alloted timespan. As such, the NEP has been extended indefinitely and all measureable targets have been removed. However, the NEP was declared a success under Mahathir who stated that the NEP could be declared a success if the criteria were redfined" (By the way Will only add this once I find a cite for the last sentence - a paraphrase is availale in Rehman Rashid's book - IMHO required reading for Malaysian current history)--Malbear 07:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, both statements are fact, and thus acceptable. If you can cite Rehman Rashid's quote directly, even better. Inclusion of opinions is actually encouraged, as long as they are attributed to someone else, and that opinions from both sides are presented equally fairly. Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed: Spread out

Removed "and insure that economic opportunity in Malaysia is evenly distributed"

I think we have established that none of the policies is to ensure distribution. they only ensure percentage of collective communal ownership. --Malbear 11:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's the stated goal. The policies may not actually be able to achieve that (in much the same way that I may say that Policy X is to stamp out corruption, but actually deals with foreign policy), but that is the stated goal by the government and believed by most, Bumis and non-Bumis. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No the original stated goal (which has not been changed) is to ensure 30% ownership of equity in Malaysian economics belongs to the Bumi. 40% to the Cina and 30% to anyone else. There is no requirement, to borrow a term, as to "shareholder spread". If one Bumi owned 30% of the nation then that goal is fulfilled. It does not address distribution of the wealth. Only communal ownership.--Malbear 07:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Even so, it's misinformation to avoid stating that the general public believes the NEP is to evenly distribute economic opportunity, whether that will actually happen through the NEP or not. Johnleemk | Talk 11:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

tut tut!!! The general public believes or you believe? If you would like to make a claim of what the general public believes then fine....comeup with a citation. My personal opinion is that the general public believes that the NEP is there to enrich certain people (hence the popular usage of the term "Umnoputra" in Malaysia). Those who take it take cynically and those who are excluded find ways to use those who are not (hence ali baba). Is anyone carrying himself better than the other??? Not really. My personal opinion is that the general public doesn't care one way or another and no one believes the NEP is actually going to change anything. Of course, feel free to cite a study that proves me wrong. Even the ex PM (who was finance and education - two key NEP sectors) now admits that the NEP takers do so cynically.--Malbear 11:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently you are living in Aliran's dream world, where everyone opposes the government simply because it's the government. I'd like to see you speak for those rural Bumiputras dumb enough to vote for the PAS religious fanatics, because it's clear that you're only thinking of urban residents who are semi-literate about these issues. There is a substantial amount of people who do believe the NEP's goal is to spread the wealth more evenly. Note that they don't necessarily believe it will do this, but they believe that that is its goal, hence their ignorance. Thus, your argument is irrelevant, because you're confusing what people think the NEP's goal is, and what the people think the NEP will actually achieve. Johnleemk | Talk 12:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I've done another major edit, although mostly just shuffling content around into some semblance of order (definition/policies/controversy). The huge Mahathir quotes (9 paragraphs!) have been shifted out to Wikiquote. Also, I don't see the relevance of the new Government Hiring section, unless there are actual quotas or something to increase the bumi share. Malbear, please elaborate.

The article still bears the NPOV tag, so those of you who object to it, please list your objections below. Jpatokal 06:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two seperate issues so let's address them seperately. The Mahathir quotes are very relevant. There have been four PMs of Malaysia previously (the new one is still largely non impacting to this matter at hand). Generally the Bumiputra thing has reached full flower under Mahathir. If the engineer who builds a house comes out and says "it sucks and is in danger of collapse" then I think his words are very relevant. Feel free to strip out the phrases you feel irrelevant but please leave the quotes. The NEP is a disaster for the country and even the very builders have come out to openly admit it. --Malbear 06:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need that many quotes on this. IMO, we could make a Wikiquote page for the Bumiputra to address this, but quotes that long probably aren't very necessary for an encyclopedia. Perhaps we could just summarise them and point readers to Wikiquote for the full quotes? Johnleemk | Talk 07:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The crutch quote is famous and that I can keep, although it also needs to be trimmed down. The rest have got to go — perhaps into Education in Malaysia, although that's another festering cesspool that needs some major cleanup. Jpatokal 07:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next the civil service hiring. Notice how the NEP has created an atmosphere whereby it's bumiputra first in the gov sector. Effects? (1) not many non-bumis apply for civil service jobs but IN SPITE of this, more are hired proportionally. My conclusion is that this is damming of the bumiputra as a whole. Feel free to reach your own conclusion. --Malbear 06:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Conclude all you want. What is the quota of bumis in government jobs? If there is no official policy to favor them, then this doesn't belong here. Jpatokal 07:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That the Bumis have screwed over the country is indisputable, but I think that the point being made here should be emphasised for the benefit of those who haven't had the pleasure of using our infrastructure. After all, it's counter-intuitive to suddenly be faced with the statistic that non-Bumis are hired at higher rates than Bumis. Even I was surprised, to tell the truth. If possible, I think we should try to find short quotes from both sides; one quote should emphasise the view that this indicates that Bumis are generally of lower standards than non-Bumis, and another should emphasise the opposite view. Johnleemk | Talk 07:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually there is no quota for gov jobs (publicly) but that's not the point there. the point is despite there being "lesser" applicants who are non-Bumi, nonetheless they get more jobs....conclusion?--Malbear 06:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Malbear, I think you're approaching this from the fundamentally wrong angle. You're writing like this is a school essay: you have a hypothesis to prove and you select your evidence to prove it. But this is not an essay, this is an encyclopedia! Jpatokal 07:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's the whole point of wikipedia isn't it. We each have our own views whichwe bring to certain things. My view actually is that the Bumiputra has precious little to contribute to humanity. Since I cannot state clearly that "the bumiputra is fricking useless" then the evidence will have to do. Feel free to remove anything you think is opinion but kindly leave the facts alone. As you have pointed out "this is an encyclopedia!". --Malbear 06:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, the whole point of Wikipedia is to be a useful reference. Representing one side of an argument in an article in Wikipedia only serves to reduce its quality (and make it POV). "The NEP is a fricking disaster" or "Malays are fricking useless" aren't facts; they're opinions (criticisms towards Malays and the NEP, if you like), much like "the NEP is teh greatest" and "Malays are the greatest thing since meiosis" aren't fact, but are in fact opinions. --T-Boy 07:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That's why this entry is bias and useless. Sad to say (while looking at Malbear) that it makes this wikipedia entry not just "precious little to contribute to humanity" but also negatively contribute to humanity. Why? Because some individual in Malaysia really have no respect to other people.

No one here says that "the NEP is teh greatest" and "Malays are the greatest thing since meiosis". No one ever put a negative Wikipedia entry about the Chinese or the Indians. But sad to see that the opposite is true.

Should I correct this? Why bother. My time is precious. Lets just wait for whatever social backlash to come. By then just slap all your head and say Ai Yaaaa! Why not I think that insult and hatred only breed yet another insult and hatred.

Good luck!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.245.168 (talk • contribs)

---

The special position of the malays as prescribed under Article 153 of the Constitution is limited in scope to only the reservation of reasonable quotas in these 3 sectors: public services, educational places and business licenses.

Hence, the present rampant racial discriminations practiced on almost every facet of our national life are mostly violations of the Constitution. Examples of these violations are:

(a) Racial discrimination in the appointment and promotion of employees in publicly funded bodies, resulting in these becoming almost mono-raced bodies. These bodies include: the police, civil service, army and various semi and quasi government agencies.

(b) Imposition of compulsory share quota for malays in non-malay companies.

(c) Imposition of compulsory price discounts and quotas in favour of malays in housing projects.

(d) Completely lop-sided allocation of scholarships and seats of learning in clearly unreasonable proportions that reflect racial discriminations.

(e) Blanket barring of non-malays to publicly funded academic institutions (that should include the Mara).

(f) Barring of non-malays from tenders and contracts controlled directly or indirectly by the government.

Our Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship and all citizens are equal before the law.

The presence of Article 153 does not alter this fact, as it is meant only to protect the malays from being "squeezed" by other races by allowing the reservation of reasonable quotas on certain sectors of national life.

However, this Constitution has now been hijacked through decades of hegemony of political power by the ruling party to result in the virtual monopoly of the public sector by a single race.

The ensuing racism, corruption and corrosion of integrity of our democratic institutions have brought serious retrogression to our nation-building process in terms of national unity, morality, discipline and competitiveness of our people.

---

Removed unsubstantiated POV material

The following paragraphs were removed; please attribute them to a source so they can be added back in conformity with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

- a failure of the scholarship system in identifying talent and intelligence. Although this is unconfirmed,rumours that the government is trying to repress talent of certain races are especially prevalent among the non-bumiputra community.

A majority of Bumiputeras believe that any questioning of their special rights is taboo. They perceive that Non-Bumiputeras are dwellers and second-class citizens, even though most Non-Bumiputeras were born in Malaysia and second or third generation citizens. The Internal Security Act effectively quashes any real opposition that Non-Bumiputeras might have in questioning these special rights - leading to a build-up of unhealthy tension between the Bumiputeras and the Non-Bumiputeras.

In addition, are there quotas related to employment in the civil service or some other form of disadvantagement to non-Malays there? Because I can't for the life of me see how the following is directly related to the subject of Bumiputras:

Preferential hiring in the civil service has led to less non-Bumiputras applying, yet proportionally more non-Bumiputras are accepted.

[1] As reported by the Public Services Commision - of 350,000 applicants annually for civil services jobs, less than 5% were from non-Bumiputras. The PSC employs 40% of the 1.2 million civil servants in the country. Despite the low application rate, non-Malay applicants make up [2] around 13% of the civil service. For the Chinese community in particular, 2% of the applicants are Chinese but they obtain around 8% of the positions in the civil services.

Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Is this article about the NEP or Bumiputras? I know in Malaysia we commonly link the two together, but right now it's hard to tell what's the real subject of this. I think this article should summarise the pro-Malay affirmative action as a whole and then we can use summary style to branch off into other related articles. Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid

Although personally, I'm not convinced the NEP and such are a good thing, especially nowadays and in their form, I do hope there is no more stupid suggestion of the NEP or whatever being apartheid. Please note that the definition of apartheid under international law is: "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; Comparing it to apartheid in SA is even more ridicolous.

"Until 2002, public universities had race-based quotas for admitting students." This is not true.

I don't see what the entire comparison of affirmative action of black Americans has to do with this article - they are a minority group, so effective comparisons are not possible.

---

This article is bias

Hi, I think there's something wrong with this article. it's almost all about how the Malays are very dependent on the government, abusing their special rights and not mentioning the special rights and privilleges given to the non-malays, like citizenship, religious freedom, the right to teach their own language and such. I don't think this article will ever be neutral unless we provide both sides of the arguement.

- no it is not bias, democracy means you are free to have your own religion and culture practice, discrimination means denying others of opportunities by racial origin. If you would take all other freedom rights away, might as well make Malaysia a socialist nation, c'mon 50 years of independence, you can't take a fair fight?.

That's true, although the argument could easily be made that as citizens of Malaysia, it's the least non-Malays are entitled to. Johnleemk | Talk 08:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am a Malay. Without my government's NEP, I dont think my father could afford to send me to college. The Malays may have made money from the NEP but dont forget that they spent it all at Chinese own business outlets. The wealth does trickle downstream to every other race in Malaysia. Maybe the readers here should compare us to the Red Indians of America and the Natives of Australia. We are thankful that we are not strangers in our own land.

The Malays are not the original inhabitants of Malaysia so you shouldn't compare yourselves with the Red Indians and the Natives of Australia. You are immigrants too, just like the non-Bumis. The Orang Asli are the Red Indian equivalents.

The Malays ARE the original inhabitants of Malaysia, along with the Orang Asli. Malays came to Malaysia during the Austronesian migration around 1000 BC (i guess). Malays are the same people who went on migrating to Easter Island in the Pacific and Madagascar in Africa. The languange they use has the same origin. In fact, if you refer back to the name of the land that the Malays call the peninsular, it's Semenanjung Tanah Melayu, and it is also globally known that the name of the peninsular is Malay Peninsular. But the when the Chinese and Indians and other immigrants came to the peninsular, the Malays accepted them and allowed them to have citizenships and other rights. The thing that Malays want from the Chinese and Indians is to be let having the special priveldges. The situation in Malaysia and the one in South Africa are different, and incomparable. The Malays are Bumiputra (sons of the soil) who calls Malaysia their ancestors' home, but now they see the immigrants as their bosses and sirs.

By definitions then the malay are also immigrants. There are not he native inhabitants. If you insist they are then you minus well call the Chinese and indians in Malaysia native inhabitants too because they now have roots there. In the end such favortism will hurt that ethnic group not help them. See Canada and the natives there. The subsidies and hand outs have only kept the natives on the reserves with no statistic increase in wealth or standard of living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs)

- And so generations of locally born ethnic groups such as the Indian and the Chinese are regarded as foreigners no matter what? Discriminated from our educational rights in universities? Draconian economic privileges that most economist would tell you is crippling and counter-productive? I think the special privileges are being abused. Sometimes i wonder. I love my country, but it seems that i have to migrate to elsewhere because i am not treated fairly. My country do not love me. To this day i call myself Malaysian Chinese. The day when my sons can go to universities in Malaysia based squarely on results and not skin colour, i might just call myself Malaysian.

- The non bumis sold their assets to send their children to study abroad, their parents work double shift to send their children abroad, how about that?. When talk about accumulating wealth, what can be said is that, the ball is round, ever heard of the phrase work hard?.

It's not people like you who most opponents of the NEP/NDP are objecting to. It's the rich bumiputras who are the subject of scorn. Who needs a discount on their third bungalow or new Mercedes Benze? Certainly not anyone who can afford such objects. The same money could be spent on agricultural classes for bumiputra farmers or scholarships for deserving students. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Racism and racial discrimination have been part of Malaysian social, political, economic and cultural realities ever since colonial times.

Today, race has been so deeply institutionalised that it is a key factor determining benefits from government development policies, social policy, education policy, entry into educational institutions, bids for business contracts, cultural policy, discounts for purchasing houses and other official policies.

Practically every aspect of Malaysian life is permeated by the so-called 'bumi policy' based on malay-centrism. This is unabashedly spelled out by political leaders in the daily mass media in Malaysia.

It is an established fact that racial polarisation is prevalent in various Malaysian institutions. A survey by University Malaya shows that 98 per cent of malay students do not mix with non-malays while 99 per cent of Chinese students and 97 per cent of Indian students do not mingle with the other races.

While the government tries to account for this problem by blaming other extraneous factors such as the existence of vernacular schools, it is clear that the roots of polarisation lie in this institutionalisation of racism and racial discrimination.

The ruling party Umno prides itself on the supposedly 'successful' affirmative action in favour of bumi. Bumi literally means 'princes of the soil', the official epithet for malays and other indigenous peoples but which excludes the original peoples, i.e. the Orang Asli of Peninsula Malaysia. This has been the cornerstone of development plans since the New Economic Policy was started in 1971.

Consequently, while this populist bumi policy has been applied to the benefit of bumi as a whole, the new malay ruling elite is strategically placed to reap the full benefits of this racially based policy. Totally committed to capitalism and to privatisation, this policy has ensured that the non-malay local and foreign elite have also gained from the New Economic Policy since 1971. This class cohesion among the Malaysian ruling elite underpins the racialist politics which has characterised Malaysian society since Independence.

Racial discrimination in the realm of culture is seen not only in the education policy but also in the discrimination against non-malay cultures and religions in the National Cultural Policy. Non-muslims face obstacles in their freedom to build places of worship and access to burial grounds, among other complaints.

Racism and racial discrimination have dominated Malaysian society for far too long. Now that the malay ruling elite has clearly gained control of the Malaysian economy, it is high time for a new consensus based on non-racial factors such as class, sector and need to justify affirmative action.

---

Think this way ..I come over to your house and I say I want to live there ..you might say yes..but after living there for sometime I want to occupy your bed room you might say yes also after certain while if I get married and I still want to live there with my kids ..you will also say yes but under some circumstances example give priority to you cause it's your house...and if all my kids want to use all your rooms ....how do you feel?? You will say again ...give the priority to you cause this is your house ...so this implies to Malaysia now

I would argue such an analogy is flawed: Chinese and Indians are not guest in the house that is Malaysia, but citizens. As such, they have an equal right to the usage of the house according to the terms of the deed. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

think of it this way, The Malay came over 3000 years ago and displaced the native inhabitants. The Malays are guilty of every bit of yoru anology as the chinese or Indians. To even mention that silly anology is hippocrisy and ignorant. Every person needs a homeland. Where they are born should accept them and they should try to help the country they were born in prosper. the NEP is major barrier and if Malaysia doesn't want to receded into indonesia or worse thenit should embrace a nation of malaysians not "malay and the rest."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs)

"Where they are born should accept them and they should try to help the country they were born in prosper." This describes the natural law and internationally accepted legal term known as "Jus Soli" which states that a person automatically obtains citizenship whereevr he is born. There are no such things as citizens born without citizenship or any citizens decideing what race can or cannot have a citizenship.

---

JohnLeemk. I appreciate your argument. But your post in this talk page is misleading people. For the simple reason that you are using your own senses without considering the actual reality. For instance the house analogy is correct. Because a house has title and deed that point the house ownership.

Now, if the document is missing, we study the local recent history and get some specific information regarding the house to pinpoint who is the right owner. Recent history is the keyword here.

It is even easier to pinpoint a house guest. Use your common sense (correctly) and you will realize this too. Start from the knowledge on who is the house owner and a newcomer to the house is a guest. The keyword here is newcomer.

Lets polish this analogy to reflect the reality of Malaysia. When British first bring Chinese & Indians to Tanah Melayu, (Please note the usage of Tanah Melayu here, historical usage of this term is enough to lay claim that after all the peninsular is Malay's land), British does so under colonial rules. These new comers are immigrant. At the other side of the coin is the people who have already live in Tanah Melayu for generations. Who has even establish rulings with sovereignty. Study Tanah Melayu history and you will easily see this reality.

But of course JohnLeemk, you have already skip 3000 years worth of history to the day where you claim (without any supportive evidence) that the Malays displace the native inhabitants. I wonder how does that happens? Is there a big war? Pray tell?

Now we have establish the owner and the guest from historical perspective. Lets move on.

With another 11 days before our nation 50th Independence day. I'll finish my talk back with somewhat a neutral tone.

During negotiation for independence and drafting of Perlembagaan. All major race component come to agree to achieve independence together. With this come social agreement which is what essentially the perlembagaan is. The social contract says that the newcomers is accepted as rakyat Malaysia. No longer as guest but assimilated into the country as one of the people.

But in order to do that the previous owner of the house need to protect themselves. Without protection they will fare a fate that is akin to Red Indian in US of America. Or worse what the South Africans suffer under Apartheid (why not? the Africans is the house owner while Englishmen is the new comer). And we all have to realize that the previous owner have all the right legally to protect themselves.

At the same time the other racial component that make up the mix has things to protect too. Like education, language, right to their own religion, etc.

And thus the social contract have inked on it that The Bumiputras have special right which is to be protected by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong.

And thus the social contract have inked on it that other races also have their own special right regarding their education, language, right to their own religion, etc.

So nowadays the Malays is no longer the house owner. But in order to accept others, the Malays have do so with terms that is written in the Perlembagaan. Akin to "Lets share this house but respect my wife and my kids".

What if, suddenly the new member of the house backhand one of the kids and forcefully try to gain access to the master bedroom for only god knows what kind of purpose.

After such a long write, let me get back to this Wikipedia topic. Which is bumiputra. What I'm trying to say is that. Bumiputra term is use to differentiate between two type of people that can be easily segregated using historical context. It is like saying these people come first and have sovereign right to the country. And then, another people come a little bit later as immigrant. But they all achieve independence together.

However, the legal term of Bumiputra has been drafted to be very flexible. This is IMHO attributed to the flexible nature of the Malays. So it doesn't just says the Malays and the Orang Asli and the native people of Sabah & Sarawak. It also try to include those who come earlier to Tanah Melayu and embrace the Malay way of life (which just so happens being partially a Muslim way of life). By earlier I mean something that is within historical context, which of course, require long and painful studies.

I would like to see that this "Bumiputra" Wikipedia entry reflect whatever I write above. But I'm not a historian or politician or someone that matter much. I do urge that people with sufficient knowledge and credential to clean up this wikipedia "Bumiputra" entry, that IMHO, at this point of time, is a pile of steaming garbage. (Which interestingly, why it is a wikipedia entry!!!)

Thanks a lot for reading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiapadia (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Bumiputra. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). . BTW, U did not explain at what point in time ownership was transferred from the natives to the Malays? kawaputra^torque 03:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

It is a good question!!! In fact I have wonder the same and sarcastically questioned JohnLeemk regarding how the Malays displace the native inhabitants. Someone should do a deep study and perhaps compare how various races (not just the Malays) come to power and call a country as their own.

I am not a historian. But I can intuit that no such "displacement" has ever happen. AFAIK there is no brutal war between the emerging Malays and Orang Asli recorded in history. Such thing cannot be said in another civilization.

The malay peninsular has always been a melting pot of various races. My theory is that Orang Asli (the native) who become advance and live nearby rivers and sea just simply meet these new comers and assimilate each others to create a new Malay speaking culture. Remaining Orang Asli nowadays are those who choose to keep their hunter-gatherer way of life and live in the jungle. As the culture evolve both side of the fence have their own territory and respect each other. Hence, historically there is no territorial war.

The pot keep melting people *for free* since we have traders from India, China and then the Arabs. Not to mention that in the south we have Siamese (or Thais). I live in Perlis during my secondary education (Sekolah Menengah / middle school) and I can tell you that it shows how Malays there have Siamese streak. Their Malay dialect is 'soft' as opposed to 'hard' northern dialect. But it is still bahasa Melayu.

The important point here is that the melting pot that is the Malay peninsular, produce people who use the same language, practice same culture and at later time embrace Islam as their religion. These are the Malays.

Of course we still have Orang Asli (the natives) and Orang Melayu (the Malay) occupying a same peninsular. Both stay distinct due to different territory and different way of life (hunter-gatherer vs modern living?).

When foreign power arrive to Tanah Melayu, these people who simply claim themselves Malay, already have their own sovereign political system arrayed across the Malay peninsular (Semenanjung Tanah Melayu). I can at least mention two sultanate. In the north; Kedah which is very old. And from the centre to the south; Malacca which is the most famous.

After all I have written above. Here is a bonus question for those who like to ponder much about this melting pot. What happen to it? Why does the melting pot no longer melt people *for free*? The Indians come, the Chinese come but they are still their respective race?

Well it is not that bad. After all we all can stay different as long as we stand together and stop nitpicking on the social contract that our forefathers has agreed.

Good Day!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.245.168 (talk • contribs)

What about the wrongs of the Non-Bumis?

I notice that some Non-Bumis on the internet never miss a chance to take a swipe at the Malays on supposed unfair treatment of them in Malaysia. True, we are not perfect, but the other races are not so great either (In fact, before anyone forgets, NO race is perfect!). The fact is, many of them have qualities that are even worse then that of Malays, among them, bad values like being greedy, having a insurmountable like for everything coming from the West, lack of identity, among others.

PSD Scholarships should be given to students based on merits eh? Ever considered loyalty as a merit? Or is it just getting A's on some piece of paper? Consider this, an ex-fellow classmate of mine, Chinese, who managed a PSD among the 'unfair quota' had this to say when we were discussing patriotism: 'I will never die for this (Malaysia) country, you know' in typical Chinese accent fasion.

'Deserving students' my foot! The truth is many Malaysian Chinese would be the first to run away if Malaysia was ever invaded. At least Malays have given their blood for this land. I have yet to read up any history book telling of a famous Chinese dying for this Peninsula (Remember, blood and sweat carry two destinct meanings). In fact, Chinese here in recent history have always aided and abetted efforts by others to colonise, and even when they were not, they fought for some other dubious Western ideology such as Communism to be implemented.

In recent times, Malaysian Chinese have also been increasingly Westernised, to the extent of accepting any idea, theory or way of thinking from the West, even elements alien to their own Chinese culture. Many have successfully traded their language and culture for a Western one a la US/UK and I wouldn't be surprised if they considered themselves Westerners. What are Malaysian Chinese actually? Chinese, Malaysian or European? Now this wouldn't be a problem if they keep it to themselves, but many have called for our way of managing things to be changed to be made more in line with the way America or the UK does things, for example, they talk about 'Individual Rights' and other such crap, is it any wonder why Malays dispise them? Hello, we're in Asia!

That's right, Bananas, migrate out of Malaysia. Migrate to a country where the people have had a long history and tradition of disrespect and violent massacring of other people who are not similar in appearence to them. You guys may fall victims too but hey, at least they are not Malays, right?

Let me see...and who makes the Chinese feel as if the country is not theirs? Perhaps you may have heard of the axiom making its rounds among the Malaysian bloggers: "If it's a Malay issue, it's a national issue. If it's a Chinese issue, it's a racial issue. If it's an Indian issue, it's not an issue." That's the problem with Malaysia. The Chinese and Indians are made to feel as if Malaysia is for the Malays, and not for the citizens of Malaysia. Even the textbooks are often written as if addressing the Malays instead of Malaysians, with references to Islam and other Malay cultural aspects.

Just look at Singapore. In spite of their being a multiracial society completely lacking in national resources, they are now a developed country. Why? Because the people there are united. There is no presumption that the average citizen is a Chinese or any serious programme giving a particular race special rights.

The presumption that greed, dishonesty, and betrayal are innate qualities of a Chinese is simply as abhorrent as the presumption by some Chinese that Malays smell bad, are lazy, and are extremely religious to the point of martyrdom. Such stereotyping accomplishes nothing. The phrase "pot calling the kettle black" seems pretty appropriate here.

If Chinese kids won't die for Malaysia, we should not jump to the conclusion that Chinese cannot be trusted. Instead, we should consider it equally among other possibilities, such as the government's policies creating a feeling of unfair treatment despite the premise that we are all equal as citizens of Malaysia.

I have yet to read up any history book telling of a famous Chinese dying for this Peninsula Now that, my "friend", makes my blood boil. Every time the New Straits Times runs a story about the old days when the MCP guerrillas were terrorising the village folk, I pay attention to the names. It is not just the Malays who have given up their lives for this country. Indeed, not too long ago, the newspaper specifically quoted a soldier who talked about his fallen compatriots — Chinese, Indian, and even, *gasp*, Eurasian. And to be honest, the only Malay who died for his country I ever read about in a history textbook was Leftenan Adnan. Am I to presume he was the only patriotic one from a complacent lot?

Now this wouldn't be a problem if they keep it to themselves, but many have called for our way of managing things to be changed to be made more in line with the way America or the UK does things, for example, they talk about 'Individual Rights' and other such crap, is it any wonder why Malays dispise them? Hello, we're in Asia! OH MY GOD, individual rights? What the hell are these idiots thinking? Why goodness, no, we're in Asia, we have no rights! P.S. You're currently writing in English and using phrases and words imported from those imperialist bastards, i.e. "crap". Please shoot yourself, betrayer of the Asian race. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You say that loyalty is a form of merit for recieving scholarships? Look at the way things are, man! The Malaysian government has given no reason for the Chinese to feel loyalty in any way. The NEP and racial subsidies have given the Chinese no pride in the way this country is run. It shouldn't come as a suprise to you that your Chinese friend would not die for a country that does not love him as much as his Malay friends (ie: you).

How can you frown upon the Chinese for accepting parts of other cultures into their lives. In case you haven't noticed, cultures don't hatch from an egg overnight: THEY EVOLVE. Do you think the Chinese culture was created by a council of men who debated which elements to include and to excempt and announced to the Chinese: "We have a culture"? To put it into your perspective, do you think the Malay culture was designed and planned in a day? All cultures are formed by different aspects which are adopted or dropped by the people themselves. To say that accepting a foreign or alien culture into a person's lifestyle is betrayal borders on ignorance. Is it in your opinion that the Jahiliah people should have defended their barbaric practices and shunned all influence that was alien to it, such as the influences of Islamic values?

One part of your post I do not understand at all is the implication that 'Individual Rights' is a bad thing. Let me tell you, mister: Individual rights is WAY better than your Special Rights. Indivual rights ensures that we all get a piece of the pie if we work hard enough, as opposed to one group getting a bigger piece while doing less work. Why can't these special subsidies go to all poor people regardless of race or ethnic? What have YOU done to deserve your 'Special Rights'? Not your ancestors, but you. Other than defending the bumiputra system with a hearted yet illogical and flawed perception of what loyalty, merit and culture is, I doubt you have done much.

I noticed that the previous person focused his arguments squarely against the Malaysian Chinese race. No mention of other non-bumiputra races. Similarly, he mentioned only the Malay race, no mention of other bumiputra races. Shouldn't this discussion be about the bumiputra status and the special priviledges that is accorded to it? When did it turn into a Malay vs Chinese issue? And Malaysia is more than just the Peninsula.

My point exactly: if it's a Malay issue, it's a national issue. If it's a Chinese issue, it's a racial issue. If it's an Indian issue, it's not an issue. Many of those who play the xenophobic card tend to ignore the Indians. Anyway, this isn't a place to discuss the issue; it's a place to discuss the Wikipedia article about bumiputras. I run a message board if anyone here wants to vent their fustration about the Chinese bananas or Malay racists. Let's save the talk page for other things. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, == What about the wrongs of the Non-Bumis? == is a condensed piece of wisdom! All hail the Malay nationalist. Where do you shape such wonderfully balanced view of the world? Do you read Mein Kampf just before you go to bed? And by the way, PSD Scholarships is a SCHOLARship so i do think that academic merit is important. If it is based on your definition of loyalty, then it would be called PSD Loyalty Point. Like credit cards.

I am a immigrant chinese canadian. I came when I was 3. I would die for canada and gladly pay my due and support my gov by volenteering and did a bit of time a sa reservist. The problem isn't with the ethnicity, the problem is with Malaysia. Canada has embraced me and given me everything they could. My chinese malaysian friends left malaysia because malaysia doesn't want them. Just as an anecdote, you lost 3 business men who made several million a year here, 2 doctors who felt malaysia would not have a future for their children, and an engineer. Thats just my social group. We would all die for Canada but Malaysia encourages it's "chinese" and "indians" to leave. So we will, taking our skills and wealth with us and leaving malaysia a hulk that will become just liek indonesia. Lots of talk, and no economy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs)

it is a known fact that the orang asli, either in the peninsular or sabah sarawak, are the real aborigines of the land. the malay stock came over from the isles of sumatera to tanah melayu (the term does not signify any evidence of ownership upon the land, the orang asli too could have just named the place tanah orang asli but they were not a possessive bunch). sure the malays settled(i did not use the word "came" as it is much more likely for chinese, arab, indian, siamese merchants etc to actually stepped foot on the grounds of tanah melayu before the malays) to tanah melayu much earlier than the other ethnic groups, but this does not justify their sudden elevation to aborigine/native status!? otherwise the americans, new zealanders, canadians and australians of british(french in the case of canada) decent could also claim aboriginal status along with the native populations, while the later immigrants to the said countries would be delegated as second class citizens legally if they followed malaysia's distorted interpretation of citizenship. one thing that baffles me always is why arent the orang asli in peninsular malaysia arent considered as bumis and why are the malays in sabah sarawak considered as bumis? the malays never had a significant population in west malaysia, their numbers, at most, were only equal to the chinese, and yet they were accorded bumi status as if they were there since the days of parameswara.

your assumption of "who would stay back and defend malaysia, surely not the chinese" is ludicrous. people run away because they can. either they have the proper connections or the money, they could, at anytime, leave the country. are you saying that rich malays who sit around in their illegal palaces would surely carry guns and rifles and fight alongside their comrades in arms just because they are malays? whoever runs away in a fight, is not determined by their race or creed, but by their ability to do so, bumi or non-bumi. frankly, by the way how malaysia treats her non-bumi population, it would be a divine blessing for malaysia if any non-bumi would be willing to hold arms against the enemies of malaysia at all. what about those malays who had been sustained by the NEP, AND obtained JPAs, AND never came back to malaysia? why arent their loyalty ever questioned? non-bumis are seeking a fair and competitive malaysia so that she would prosper amidst the wave of globalisation, while most bumis are overzealous about defending race specific policies that guarantees the eventual damnation of the country. i wonder who really loves malaysia and who seeks for her demise. Emogrande 10:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Biovalley

Okay, this is a fascinating discussion. I'm a White Briton reading this but my girlfriend is Malaysian (Chinese ethnicity). She handed me a news feature (David Cyranoski, 2005, "The valley of ghosts" Nature, p620) that suggested Malaysia's lack of momentum in biotechnology is fuelled by these racial recruitment policies. The intended Biovalley is but one example of this, a project that has been downgraded and downgraded to account for ever lower international interest. The social pros and cons of discrimination of one race against another can and should be argued, but the immediate competitive advantages of discriminating only on the basis of ability are obvious. Any country or company that adopts a purely meritocratic approach will outperform those that do not, all things being equal. Thus the economic consequences of a racially-focused policy would almost inevitably be negative. This might not be so apparent in areas like the civil service where people are recruited from within a country and there is a monopsonic market, but in a globally-competitive field like biotechnology, the effects will probably prove far more obvious. From all accounts they have. --82.38.226.155 22:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting opinion there... A bit problematic, however, seeing as this talk space is appropriated for discussing this particular article, and not its subject. If you're honestly interested in continuing this discussion, it might be appropriate to continue it at one of the Malaysian-populated forums on the net, or a news-site/blog like Malaysia Today (warning; some comments are very vitriolic, especially when Westerners butt in). Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the inappropriate location (though "butting in" seems a bit much) but I thought by providing a reference in an international publication about a failed project with intended international scope, it was probably relevant for the article. Biovalley seems a good example to provide of potential costs in international-competitiveness, as opposed to competition within a country, of racially-motivated recruitment policies, especially in education. The (debatable) social benefits of race-based recruitment might work to counter some economic costs on a domestic level but they are irrelevant on an international stage. This is crucial when the prominence and importance of international trade and direct foreign investment in the development of the Asian economies is considered. I'd write it in myself but as I mentioned, I'm not really informed enough to do so. --82.38.226.155 09:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This interpretation is rather hard to defend however; Wikipedia does not report interpretations of events unless widely accepted by the public and/or are particularly well-known. As such, it is difficult justifying its presence in the article, unless a prominent, reliable source has come to such a conclusion. (An example would be a news outlet printing an editorial pointing out the Biovalley's failure as an example of race-based affirmative action failing.) As such, like I said, it's interesting for a discussion, but otherwise, not of much encyclopedic value. As for the "butting in" comment, that's how many, particularly Malays, would view you; they have little respect for non-Malays championing things like a free press or even equal rights, calling them Westernised Chinese who will wreck the country (there's not much love for the West in Malaysia). Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference

Whether this article is neutral is up to your dispute, though I find it fair. None the less, it is a shame that no external references are listed. Can someone, not least the writer of this entry, please add some official references as external references on this piece of wiki please? Cheers

Observation and Rumination

DISCLAIMER: I do not wish to express my opinion like others did to this page, because this is an encyclopaedia. If I did, I shall fall into the endless cycle of waiting for the other party to come up with new but seemingly feeble argument and then pointlessly disputing it, like everyone here did. Please be aware that the other party is clung to his/her beliefs as strong as you do. You will never be able to change his/her mind with your mere arguments.

I made no stand (as that will spark off another debate), thus I suggest we observe the present society and trend and contemplate deeply. Whatever conclusion you have, please keep it to yourself. We have seen the past few decades' progress, and we will observe the next two decades' progress. You will know whether you are right at the end of the day, and snigger to yourself for the other party's losing position in his/her point of view pertaining to this matter as well as his/her reluctance to accept the fact.

Is this a typo?

The article says:

In Malaysia, by convention, it is generally considered that all Malays are Bumiputras and that all Bumiputras are Malay. This is technically incorrect, as there are cases of non-Malays declared as Bumiputra, and similarly of non-Muslim Malays who are considered Bumiputra.

Later on, the article discusses the constitutional definition of a Malay, which includes the profession of Islam ... so, should that last clause read "and similarly of non-Muslim Malays who are not considered Bumiputra"? --Jfruh 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

^ No, as I understood it, that segment is just saying there are “cases”/exceptions where some non-Muslim (ethnic) Malays indeed can attain Bumiputra classification, though I imagine this would be difficult and quite rare. Fietsvt (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Immigrant" ethnic group? Control of financial sector in 1969?

This is in reference to the following sentence under "Controversy":

"Others argue that the Malaysian situation at the time the policy was introduced, where a minority, immigrant ethnic group controlled the financial sector of the country due in no small amount to colonial legacies which had assisted Chinese migrants to become dominant in the business sector to the point where Malays were largely excluded from economic life, was an unusual and deeply unstable situation."

I'm reluctant to edit this article if there is a consensus behind designating the Chinese community in Malaysia as an "immigrant" group, but my understanding of the word "immigrant" is that it refers to someone who moves from one land to another, not to their children, grandchildren, or other descendants who are native-born. Another viewpoint is that everyone is an immigrant, with some people arriving earlier than others and the Orang Asli having shown up earliest in the Peninsula, but I think this somewhat confuses the issue. I understand that this sentence explicitly describes one particular viewpoint, but I still think it would probably be clearest and most NPOV to state that most(but by no means all) of the Chinese community arrived in what's now Malaysia within the last 130 years or so and then discuss how many Malays still consider the Chinese and Indian communities to still be immigrants and not fully Malaysian.

I also question the assertion that the local Chinese community "controlled the financial sector of the country." Does this refer to banking only, or to the economy in general? I wrote the following in a term paper back in 1984:

"It should be emphasized that 90 percent of the wealth of Malaysia is not in the hands of the local Chinese population, as Mahathir claims on pp. 46-47 of The Malay Dilemma. On the contrary, while 60 percent of the major share capital is owned by foreign concerns, only 20 percent is owned by local Chinese (Bedlington 1978:194)."

The reference is to Bedlington, Stanley S., Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978. I don't have the book at my fingertips, but I figure that Bedlington was citing economic statistics from the mid-1970s. If any of you are really enterprising, you could look up the book and check on my citation. But unless someone can document the assertion that Malaysian Chinese controlled the financial sector of the country in 1969, that text should be edited to read that members of the Chinese community controlled most of the locally-owned sector of the economy.

Michael 18:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no real consensus for this, and I suppose it'd be POV to call the Chinese immigrants (although I'm biased). It is normal to call Chinese from this period immigrants, however -- for much of the early and mid-20th century, non-Malays had their hearts in China and India, not Malaya/Malaysia. So although strictly not immigrants, they could still be said to have strong ties to their ancestral homeland. Note also that Chinese immigration did not really stop until the 1930s, when the British passed a law controlling immigration. As for the wealth controlled by the Chinese, yes, that is a glaring discrepancy. I think it's just a common misconception, since none of the sources I have mention this. Sigh. Sometime I'll have to get around to cleaning this article up. Johnleemk | Talk 20:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made the change.

Michael 10:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

See also section

Under that section, Caste system and Transmigration Program are included. Bumiputra isn't a caste system while transmigration has no meaning in Malaysia. I'd even go as far as saying, Malaysia hasn't seen any active intra-state migration program that in the end displaces the local or resulting in Indonesian-style centralization. If it were about migration-related, then maybe I could accept since this Bumiputra status was more of a reaction to massive foreign labors inflow into Malaya in the 18th and the 19th century. I'll remove it if there's no objection. __earth ^(Talk) 03:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you that these things are not relevant.

Michael 09:58 4 Apr, 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the "See also" section and the links you referred to.

Michael 21:52 12 Apr, 2006 (UTC)

misleading the article?

I think the definition should be rewrite, all i had read is about the history of the creation of bumiputra, but not the definition. Have u ppl read the constituition article 160?--Towaru 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

There should be a section here on bhumiputra ideology in Sri Lanka - the identity of Sinhalese as 'sons of the Buddha' and 'sons of the soil'. I'll add this myself if no one else has in a few days (got a paper due). Joechip123 04:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to this article. Addition on Sri Lankan context should be done on a new page, perhaps, Bhumiputra, if it hasn't been one. __earth ^(Talk) 07:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV section?

Anyone think this is NPOV? Especially because this is not a direct quote?

The reason for that is that even though the Chinese and Indian students are marginalized by the examination systems, those that come through are FAR superior than that of the local Malays. They dont rely on handouts, no special priveleges and as a result they are hardworking and willing to push themselves to excel. The Malays are taking for granted that the Government will give everythig to them on a silver platter. Let us hope that after the recent elections , the Malays will start to work hard at all levels and the NEP will be abolished.

Can somone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.60.88 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources and POV

Much of the article is unsourced, and I agree it is filled with POV. There should be some attempt to describe the policies, then various opinions of them, all sourced.--Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed some recent additions to the article -- they range from inaccurate (e.g. the claim that Bumiputra privileges were to be reviewed 15 years after independence -- most privileges do not flow from Article 153, and the provision for revision of Article 153 was not in the final constitution) to poorly-written (e.g. references to "enlightened Malays") to outright biased. There's some merit in the material, but it needs a lot of cleaning up to be included in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is not the same John Lee from Malaysian Insider. Very disappointing if it is. I'm re-adding portions of the text because the existing text as it is is very misleading and tends to prohibit others from making opinions based on what is the ground situation to a degree. Remaining as it is, it could almost seem like a warning to minorities seeking equality in their own country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.6.205 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is me, and the text you insist on adding is biased. You describe Umno and the government as "racist", refer to the status quo in Malaysia as "racist" and a form of "apartheid", describe bumiputra privileges as "expired", and state outright that "the correct choice is clear". This is extremely biased and opinionated, and has no place in an encyclopaedia article. Johnleemk | Talk 18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bumiputera_(Malaysia)&diff=324188247&oldid=323901466 I added some recent removals to the article. (e.g. references to "enlightened Malays") are viewed as outright biased and opinionated by one person are outright critical to another. If you not wish the minority to have equality, you are walking GERAKAN's path as a person. Have fun removing whatever I add as long as I as have time. I and likely the rest of the world (or minority folk uncompromised by corruption by racists) do not agree with your opinion because Equality is guaranteed under Article 1 of the Human Rights Charter and Malaysia is a signatory. 2 Classes of citizenship IS apartheid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.98.110 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion on the bumiputra policies has no bearing on the content of the article, and your opinion has no bearing on it either. Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform. If you think the article is biased, the solution is not to bias it in the other direction. Insisting on the insertion of tendentious labels like "racist" as statements of fact is unproductive, and can get you blocked from editing. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

These are not personal opinions, nor can it be helped if tendentious labels best reflect the situation. If you feel so strongly that it is biased in the other direction, you are welcome to continue deleting as long as I add. If either of us gets blocked from editing so be it.

Question

Probably redundant so I apologize beforehand and if incorrectly placed, by all means remove my comment. I suppose, this has nothing to do with the Indonesian version of Bumiputera? A racial (and legal) classification imposed by the Dutch colonialists to identify the "locals" in the lowest hierarchy of legal status after Europeans (Eropa), Middle Eastern and Chinese descendants (Timur Asing). This (now revoked) law exists in the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata/Burgerlijkwetboek) Book 1 on Persons (Buku Pertama tentang Orang). Thank you. --Dewa Indra (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the Bmiputra here may be similar to the Indonesian term, but this article is about Bumiputra in the Malaysian legal and social context. Also in Malaysia we didnt have the stratification of race as you have described. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 06:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Terima kasih.--Dewa Indra (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Constitution/SUHAKAM

I've been unable to find any mention of SUHAKAM's suggestion that Orang Asli be granted bumiputera status in the source provided from a quickish search. As it's about the bumiputera of Sarawak, I'm surprised it mentions something like that but maybe it was an aside. If someone could point out where it says it it would be good, and yes, I do understand Malay. I'm not surprised that SUHAKAM has recommended they be protected as bumiputera, just that I wanted to use it for another article but couldn't find it in the source. BTW, I'm pretty sure that is the source used by the contributor (who was an anon). See [3] where it was added and if you use the webarchive, you can see [4] the same document as we now link to. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about this (I'm not talking about you). The state may or may not have decided to extend the privileges to Orang Asli in practice, and if it did so at some point (when?), there would probably be an official policy or law about it. And I have no idea who people on the street would include or exclude in their personal definition of the term bumiputera, which may or may not include some or all Orang Asli, but the views of people on the street should hardly matter in a Rechtsstaat. What's important is this:

• Article 153 explicitly mentions two categories, namely orang Melayu and anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak:
  • Article 160 defines orang Melayu as persons “who profess the religion of Islam and habitually speak the Malay language and conform to Malay custom” and were either born (or “is the issue of … a person” born) (or one of their parents was born) in Singapore or Melaya before 1957-08-31.
  • Article 161a, Clause 6 defines anak negeri as “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; and in relation to Sabah, a person who is a citizen, is the child or grandchild of a person of a race indigenous to Sabah, and was born (whether on or after [1957-08-31] or not) either in Sabah or to a father domiciled in Sabah at the time of the birth”, and Clause 7 says “The races to be treated for the purposes of the definition of ‘native’ in Clause (6) as indigenous to Sarawak are the Bukitans, Bisayahs, Dusuns, Sea Dayaks, Land Dayaks, Kadayans, Kalabit, Kayans, Kenyags (including Sabups and Sipengs), Kajangs (including Sekapans, Kejamans, Lahanans, Punans, Tanjongs dan Kanowits), Lugats, Lisums, Malays, Melanos, Muruts, Penans, Sians, Tagals, Tabuns and Ukits.”
• Article 160 defines “Aborigine” (orang asli) as “an aborigine of the Malay Peninsula” (orang asli Semenanjung Tanah Melayu).
• The term orang asli does not appear in Article 153.
• The term bumiputera does not appear anywhere in the constitution.

I don't know what this article is supposed to cover, but regardless, it should make clear that however vague the popular concept (or somebody's personal idea) of bumiputera may or may not be, the constitution provides somewhat clear definitions of who is to benefit from affirmative action, even if it does not call these persons bumiputera. I totally understand if people use bumiputera as an umbrella term for those people, as repeating the constitutional definitions is tiresome, and simply saying “Malays and S+S natives” is misleading because of important differences between a constitutionally defined Malay and the popular concept of an ethnic Malay. Needless to say, the popular concept of bumiputera (assuming it exists, assuming that there is some agreement among people), the constitutionally defined categories of anak negeri and orang Melayu (without explicit in- or exclusion of orang asli even though orang asli is also a constitutionally defined category) and the actual AA beneficiaries (which may include some, all or no Orang Asli as far as I know) may be three mostly overlapping but not identical groups of people. – Wikipeditor (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization and spelling

The spelling and capitalization of the word (i.e., bumiputera vs. Bumiputera vs. bumiputra vs. Bumiputra) should be consistent throughout the entire article. Any alternate spellings should be listed just once in the lead (of course, don't change direct quotations). I have literally no knowledge of this subject, so I have no input to offer on which spelling and capitalization is correct, but we should use whatever the majority of reliable English language sources use, if that can be determined. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC) ged

I cant find any legal document using this term but it seems like most of the government websites use "Bumiputera". So i think it should be this, with a capital "B". ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 02:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Removals

I don't have time right now to do a fine-toothed job, but I had to remove a bunch of uncited, highly negative and/or contentious information that was uncited. First off, we may never, under any circumstances, have quotations without a citation. Second, we may never have negative information about a living person that is uncited, per WP:BLP. Third, any information which may be challenged, especially if negative, may be removed if uncited, per WP:V. I'll try at some point to go at this in more detail, but I felt that our core policies required the information removed ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal -- as you could have found out with about 2 seconds of Googling, the quotes in question are trivially sourced (and I've done so), since they're both taken word for word from Lee's autobiography, The Singapore Story. I've also restored the last paragraph since I see nothing contentious in it, do you? Jpatokal (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing the top 2; I figured they could be sourced, but wasn't able to do it. The third paragraph is actually the most contentious part, so I re-removed it. It blames, without a source, a particular party for creating racial tensions. Furthermore, it uses clear original research language, by stating, "It soon became clear that..." If it can be sourced, it does need to be re-written neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:OUM bumiputra.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OUM bumiputra.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Three overlooked points

1. This article reads as if the native Malay's are some oppressed minority when they make up over 50% of the population. Thus a majority of the population gets employment, housing, and economic benefits that the minority do not. If that is not analogous to Apartheid I don't what is.

2. There's a big difference between what's in a constitution and what's actually practiced. In practice bumiputera is for Muslims only.

3. The entire system is a modern version of the jizya tax where non-Muslims must pay for the privilege of existing in a Muslim society without being killed or (forceably) converted.

GlowBee (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between being Malay or Chinese/Indian. First of all the Malays lived in this region for more than 5000 years. Chinese and Indians not. Chinese peasants along with Indian criminal convicts were moved here by the British some 150 years ago. Chinese and Indians have their own countries - China and India. The Malays have all the right to do what they like in their own country. If the Chinese or Indians do not like it - they can always move back to China or India. Simple as that. Of course in many respects the way of life and Malay governance is much better than that of China or India, and the Chinese and Indians know it very well. The racial problem is caused not by Malays - but by Chinese and Indians. They are the ones who moved to Malaya and never bothered to integrate or assimiliate, preferring to live in their own ethnic ghettos and sending their children to their own schools. They are the ones who disrespect the Malay national language, national celebrations and national culture and customs. Every nation in the world would at some point have enough of this kind of immigrants and would take necessary measures. Apartheid or ethnic ghettos were established on its own by the Chinese and Indians. If you look through the accomodation ads in the newspapers it always mentions 'For Chinese Only' or the ad is simply written in Chinese. Bumiputera is not Muslim only. This is a very wrong assumption, a spinning done by the Chinese and Indians to cause more trouble and disharmony. Bumiputera can be anyone. Many Orang Asli are bumiputera and they are not Muslims. The host makes the rules, not the guest. Either you accept and obbey them - or you move out. It is unreasonable and in bad manner to complain. On top of that - being a hypocrite is unacceptable. In your own country like China you are very racist towards other ethnic groups, to the point where genocides occur. Yet, for some reason this subject is skipped in your arguments against the Malays, who needless to say treat you with respect and do not inflict physical or mental harm to you. Please, consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.155.67.39 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bumiputera (Malaysia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302051938/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com:80/index.php/malaysia/19428-nik-aziz-says-bumiputera-term-is-racist to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/19428-nik-aziz-says-bumiputera-term-is-racist

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bumiputera (Malaysia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091101102147/http://www.theborneopost.com/?p=60757 to http://www.theborneopost.com/?p=60757
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205100541/http://www.online.uitm.edu.my/takrif_bumi.cfm to http://online.uitm.edu.my/takrif_bumi.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030162537/http://www.apec.org.au/amfta-Mansurpaper.pdf to http://www.apec.org.au/amfta-Mansurpaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160527063738/http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export/orfonline/modules/issuebrief/attachments/malaysia_1203067850658.pdf to http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export/orfonline/modules/issuebrief/attachments/malaysia_1203067850658.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://marranci.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/the-allah-case-in-malaysia/%2C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bumiputera (Malaysia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F8%2F30%2Fnation%2F15280966&sec=nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060128131642/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2005%2F12%2F23%2Fnation%2F12943878&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2005%2F12%2F23%2Fnation%2F12943878&sec=nation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)