Talk:Bumiputra - Definition

Bumiputra

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. --

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.

--

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.

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.

-- 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. -- -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)

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)

NPOV

"NPOV" does not mean "watered down into meaninglessness", as in this sentence: At the time, it was perceived that the Chinese in Malaysia held more wealth than the Malay people. This is not a question of perception, and while you can doubt the official figure of only 2% in Malay hands, the basic wealth gap between the Chinese and the Malays in former Malaya was painfully obvious.

Likewise, the bumiputra laws are a clear form of affirmative action according to Wikipedia's own definition: specific consideration given to groups considered by some to be victims of social discrimination. This may consist of preferential access to education, employment, health care, or social welfare. Simply calling it "ethnic bias" makes it sound like the government has decreed the laws for the fun of it (cf. apartheid), instead of their stated aim of narrowing the gap. Jpatokal 08:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually the initial sentence put there was that the NEP held a anti-foreigner bias which was editted out. In an effort to find a middle statement that was ok for everyone I had to remove the Chinese/Indian as the R'aison d'etre for the NEP. That is factually inaccurate. What do they even teach in schools here these days? --Malbear 11:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the apartheid comment, i am trying to figure out how to put it in. Using political power to influence the process to help ANOTHER race is affirmative action. Using political power to help yourself and your own race only is closer to apartheid. Affirmative action connotates giving while apartheid connotates taking away. However, this will require some changes on both pages mentioned and I don't have the time now. --Malbear 11:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Must be nice to talk without facts because then you can never be wrong can you?

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,130214,00.html?

In 1970, Malays held 2.4 per cent of the corporate wealth while non-Malays had 34.3 per cent, and foreigners, 63.3 per cent. The aim was a more equitable 30-40-30 breakdown. Although the target to hit the 30-per cent mark is less than six years away, latest official data shows that bumiputra equity stood at 18.7 per cent as at 2002.

Do you have a better source which confirms your 2-98 split?--Malbear 08:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected -- it's 2:98 Malay:non-Malay, not 2:98 Malay:Chinese/Indian. The foreign ownership bit was not mentioned in Malaysian New Economic Policy or the quick Googling I did, so sorry about my mistake (happy now?).

However, sentences like this are not even close to NPOV and I've just given the article another workover: After 30 years, the NEP has not achieved its goal, with the willingness of even the richest Malaysian Bumiputra to take NEP handouts, it probably never will.

It's true. Which part of that sentence is a lie? Besides being politically correct, there is no reason to exclude that. Will add that unless you can come up with some conscientious objectors who have refused an NEP handout. Citable and something we can verify. the NEP no longer "helps" anyone, it sure doesn't help poor Malays. The point here is that the NEP is cynical and POV does not allow me to come right out and say it. --Malbear 11:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IMO, despite that sentence being factually accurate, the tone is completely unencyclopedic, and almost certainly POV. I agree with Jpatokal; the facts here, again, are mostly fine, but the tone in which they are written is clearly biased against the Bumiputra system. Not that I have any fondness of the Bumi system (I think it's an anachronism which could easily be replaced by a far fairer system), but this article seems to unduly constantly present the Bumis in a bad light. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is also drifting towards a lot of overlap with Malaysian New Economic Policy article. I think much of the current content — in fact, pretty much the entire section after "Rationale" — should be moved over there. Jpatokal 10:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The NEP article itself has one or two NPOV issues; to me, it reads like the first half is unequivocally in favour of the NEP, and the second half is unequivocally against it. I tried editing out the phrases concerned, but I'm afraid my bias might be showing. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've moved a great big chunk over to NEP now. Jpatokal 09:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahathir_bin_Mohamed). 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)

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)

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)

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)