Actually, I didn’t want to dignify the MMMM and ABIM’s statements regarding PSD’s ratio with a reply. But I thought of highlighting some issues/mistakes/points in their arguement:
1. There’s not mention of 90% and 10% breakdown in Article 153 (3). It just says:
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.
Clause(2) mentioned above is as below:
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special provision of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.
Since the above Clause(2) refers to Article 40, here it is:
In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law and of the Second Schedule, by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, but Parliament made by law confer executive function on other persons.
This means that the Agong can decide on such porpotion that he may deem reasonable to ensure reservation for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Maybe His Highness in his wisdom realises the 90/10 quota being used all this while is utter nonsense and outdated. So, questioning the ratio is akin to questioning the King? Can it be called seditious? Maybe treason? Now, how many reports were made against Karpal? Perhaps we can set another record, this time against ABIM and MMMM?
2. Article 152 covers issue of language. So I think the newspaper miswrote the number.
3. The NGOs use population as a criteria to establish ratio. Fine, I guess. But what if some of the recipients in 65% group scored lower than those who did not get selected under the 45% group? Wouldn’t that be against the sense of natural justice, fair play and even any version of Islam? Isn’t it plain simple and clear that the solution is to choose the best 2000 students based on results, income, extra-curricular activities, and interview results?
4. Should students who get average results be risked to go overseas and study something which they may not qualify and graduate later? Just because they are of certain privileged people? So who will explain the write-off if these students fail and return back. We are looking at future generation and hope to rewards the best achievers, not give gifts based on skin color. If indeed ABIM and MMMM are thinking about the long term security, benefits, progress and stability of the country, they would be in fact support such a move to abolish ratios and go for the best. For how long can you shield people and give unfair advantage? We have seen 50 years of suffering and tolerance by the normal Malaysians, to the extend that the newer generation are looking for greener pastures. The globe is the playing field now, not just the country.
5. Even in the 65% ratio, can it be certified or audited that only deserving privileged students got the award? If within the group itself have discrimination or extra privileges, then that imbalance needs to be removed. It would anger any Malaysian if a Malay student with 7As and parents income above 10K gets scholarship, whereas a 10A1s student who parents earn just 3K per month did not get it (assume both have high extra-curricular marks and performed well in interview).
So, can these guys be taken in under ISA as well?
Reference to Constitution are from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_153_of_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/constitution/malaysia/malaysia12.php
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia
MMMM bantah kenaikan biasiswa bukan bumiputera 45 peratus
JOHOR BAHRU 29 Mei – Majlis Muafakat Melayu Malaysia (MMMM) tidak bersetuju dengan langkah kerajaan menaikkan kadar biasiswa Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) untuk bukan bumiputera kepada 45 peratus daripada 10 peratus mulai tahun ini.
Setiausaha Satu MMMM, Prof. Madya Datuk Zainal Abidin Borhan berkata, ini kerana kenaikan tersebut merupakan jumlah yang besar dan dianggap boleh menjejaskan hak dan faedah yang dinikmati oleh pelajar Melayu. “MMMM berpendapat biasiswa perlu diberi kepada semua pelajar Melayu yang layak dan hak orang Melayu berkaitan itu tidak boleh diberikan kepada kaum lain,” katanya ketika dihubungi Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.
Semalam, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohammed Nazri Aziz berkata, biasiswa JPA untuk program ijazah di luar negara kepada bukan bumiputera dinaikkan kepada 45 peratus mulai tahun ini berbanding 10 peratus tahun lalu. Mohammed Nazri berkata, secara keseluruhan sebanyak 2,000 biasiswa disediakan oleh JPA iaitu 1,100 untuk bumiputera dan 900 untuk bukan bumiputera.
Zainal Abidin berkata, kenaikan biasiswa untuk bukan bumiputera kepada 45 peratus tidak wajar kerana ia hampir menyamai kadar 50 peratus yang dinikmati bumiputera. Katanya, tindakan itu menggambarkan kerajaan seolah-olah memberi layanan sama rata kepada kaum lain dalam pemberian biasiswa dan dikhuatiri tidak mustahil pada masa depan kadar itu menjadi sama.
Tegasnya, kenaikan itu juga bertentangan dengan peruntukan Perkara 153, Perlembagaan Persekutuan berkaitan dengan Hak-Hak Istimewa Orang Melayu. “Sepatutnya pemberian perlu menggunakan sistem kuota bumiputera 65 peratus berdasarkan jumlah penduduk Melayu dan 35 peratus untuk bukan bumiputera,” jelasnya.
Sementara itu di KUALA LUMPUR, Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) menuntut penjelasan daripada Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz mengenai langkah menaikkan biasiswa itu. Setiausaha Agungnya, Khairul Anwar Mohd. Munir berkata, langkah itu amat memeranjatkan kerana dalam Perlembagaan Perkara 152(2) dan 153(3) menyatakan dengan jelas pecahan biasiswa sebanyak 90 peratus kepada bumiputera dan 10 peratus untuk bukan bumiputera.
Beliau turut mempersoalkan kewajaran langkah tersebut memandangkan peratusan penduduk bumiputera di negara ini adalah lebih tinggi. ”Kedua, taraf kemiskinan dalam kalangan bumiputera juga adalah lebih tinggi berbanding bukan bumiputera.
”Dan dalam konteks pembabitan bumiputera di dalam sektor profesional, bumiputera masih jauh ketinggalan khususnya di Sabah dan Sarawak,” katanya dalam kenyataan di sini hari ini.
Khairul Anwar menambah, langkah seperti itu sama sekali tidak mencerminkan sebuah dasar yang dilaksanakan ke arah mewujudkan keadilan sosial di negara ini. Menurutnya, dalam jangka masa panjang, keputusan itu hanya akan merugikan dan menyebabkan bumiputera terus ketinggalan.
Bagaimanapun, Majlis Belia Malaysia (MBM) menyambut baik langkah JPA menaikkan biasiswa kepada bukan bumiputera. Presidennya, Datuk Shamsul Anuar Nasarah berkata, semua pihak perlu menerima hakikat bahawa terdapat golongan bukan bumiputera yang tidak berkemampuan. ”Bagaimanapun, JPA perlu memastikan hanya bukan bumiputera yang layak sahaja menerima biasiswa tersebut. ”Langkah ini juga membuktikan yang kerajaan tidak hanya membantu satu golongan sahaja tetapi semua kaum,” katanya.