“Bumiputra Sabah” proposal by Johnny Mositun.

On the “Bumiputra Sabah” proposal by Johnny Mositun.

I refer to Johny Mositun’s proposal (DE Thursday, April 9, 2009) that “Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) wants the ethnic races of Sabah to be known as Bumiputera Sabah and not as "other races" (dan lain lain) in Federal Government affairs and forms”.

I am appalled by his proposal to categorize the ethnic races of Sabah to be known as such when the term “Bumiputra” is not a racial definition at all.

Let us first get this point right. The term ‘Bumiputra’ is an economic designation/description of those given special affirmative action under the New Economic Policy. It was never intended to be a description of a race but rather to differentiate the non-Bumiputra with the Bumiputras when according special privileges to the beneficiaries of the NEP. The history and reasons for this is well documented and I urge Johny Mositun to peruse through the same from the collections of books that the State Assembly should have at his disposal.

Whilst we each know our own ethnic description, we in Sabah have an even more special group general description and which description is known as the ‘Natives of Sabah’. This description ‘Native’ is defined clearly in the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance Cap 64 and is recognised in the Federal Constitution likewise. We, the Natives of Sabah have special privileges in addition to the privileges in the NEP, and that is the right to own Native Titled Lands in Sabah, our special Native Customary laws and other privileges as guaranteed by the Ordinances, Statutes and the State and Federal Constitution to which the other races like the Malays (who are Bumiputras too) are not accorded with as far as Sabah is concerned.

To dwell into this interpretation would be too long but a short reading of the ordinance will suffice to put right the proposal made by Johny Mositun.

Johny Mositun who is holding a high post of Deputy Speaker in the Sabah State Legislative Assembly, should first get his facts correct before making, at least to me, an absurd proposal which, to my opinion, has far reaching consequential effect.

Mositun must have been prompted by me during the close-door meeting on “MESYUARAT TERTUTUP KETUA-KETUA MASYARAKAT KADAZANDUSUN BAGI PENGANJURAN KOLOKIUM BAHASA KADAZANDUSUN” held on 20th January, 2009 at the Hongkod Koisaan (KDCA) during which I caught his attention when I made a statement that “the natives of Sabah are now known as ‘Lain-Lain’.”

During the closed-door meeting, I specifically mentioned that the term “Kadazandusun” could not be accepted or recognised by the authorities concerned as a “race” under the definition of Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance Cap 64 hence, therefore, the Natives of Sabah have been conveniently categorized as under “Lain-Lain” in all Federal Government affairs and forms.

Our political leaders, though aware of it, did not seem to make any real attempt to correct this mistake which has been highlighted by concerned Natives of Sabah citizens numerous times in the past through the newspaper Forum. With the proposal by Mositun to indentify us (Natives of Sabah) as ‘Bumiputra Sabah’, it is to my opinion, tantamount to relegating further the rights of Natives of Sabah.

It is already wrong in facts and in law, if I correctly deduce Johny Mositun’s reasoning as being one intended to be the description of a race,  to be stipulated in the Government official forms i.e. there is the category race which requires you to describe yourselves amongst the following:- 

(1) Malay, (2) Chinese, (3) Indian and (4) Lain-Lain / Others.

What we should be proposing rather is, whilst the term “Bumiputra” which covers all ethnic groups in Malaysia (inclusive of Sabah of course) as those having privileges or affirmative action entitlement under the NEP, the said term ‘Bumiputra’ should not be redefined or enhanced to describe the demography, geography or by religion as what has been happening of late when the new generic terms of ‘Bumiputra Muslims and Bumiputra Non-Muslims’ have emerged.

In my opinion there is no such thing as ‘Bumiputra Muslims and Bumiputra Non-Muslims’ but we (Natives of Sabah) should all be equal under the category of ‘Bumiputra’!

This is a creation of unscrupulous politicians to gain from such divisions and categorisation.  Was it not the intention of the founding fathers and also the draftsmen of the NEP that the term ‘Bumiputra’ was wholly encompassing and was to be non-isolative at all?

How could we categorise the ‘Bumiputras’ into demography, geography or religion when it was intended as an economic definition to lift up all those privileged to be defined as “Bumiputras”?

Would it not give rise to favouritism or preferential treatment when we categorise the ‘Bumiputras’ by demography, geography or religion? 

Sometime ago, some of our leaders in politics and commerce tried (for reasons only known to them) to categorise us (we in Sabah) as “the Minority Bumiputra”. This has further worsened the situation to the disadvantage of the Natives of Sabah. In this scenario, how could we compete with our own “Bumiputra” kin when we isolate ourselves as a “Minority” when it was never intended by the NEP to divide us by way of demography, geography or religion?

And we are now in a worst disadvantage when we in Sabah are further relegated by sub-demography.

I do not know the reaction of the Sabah Bumiputra Chambers of Commerce to that proposal sometime back as, I believe, their memberships are made up of so many members from different ethnicity. To have a Chamber representing the ethnicity is highly encouraged – hence we have the KCCI, Malay Chambers and others. But to sub-categorize any ethnic race in Sabah as “Minority Bumiputra” only re-affirms and satisfies the greed and ill-intention of those who have now divided or redefined the ‘Bumiputras’ by way of demography, geography  or religion! We should not allow this to happen, nor play along with it. It is dangerous and is an affront to the merits that each of us have as a ‘Bumiputra’.

Let us not succumb to these people and their propaganda but fight on to claim our rights as ‘Bumiputras’ under the NEP on a level playing field and based on merits and not on sympathy.

Going back to Johny Mositun’s proposal, I am perplexed to ask if he was aware of the following factors to be considered before he made his ill-conceived proposal:-

•        That the term “Bumiputra Sabah” is not a racial identity but rather a description of those entitled to the affirmative action of the NEP, and that there cannot be a minority at all as rightfully all ‘Bumiputras’ are of equal standing;

•        That we only demonize and isolate ourselves should the term “Bumiputra Sabah” be considered as the description in Federal Government affairs and forms;

I repeat that the term “Bumiputra” is purely an economical definition, so we should leave it at that.

In line with the above, I propose that we should use the term “Natives of Sabah” instead, likewise our brothers and sisters in Sarawak should also be described as “Natives of Sarawak”, in the official Government Forms or similar documents. I am certain that our own ethnic description will not get lost in translation (if we were to describe ourselves in these forms a “Natives of Sabah”) as our ethnicity is/are clearly defined in the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance Cap 64.

Even the Malays are not described or even describing themselves as “Bumiputras” in the official Government forms. So why are we, the Natives of Sabah, not even attempting to push forward the term “Natives of Sabah” as the official description rather than “Lain-Lain”? Aside from this and if the forms are big enough, I would love to have my ethnic/racial description of “Kadazan” as among the many racial categories to be emplaced in the official Federal Government affairs and forms. Should we not also consider this?

Anyway, if the insertion of “Natives of Sabah/Sarawak” is a problem or unacceptable to many or to the Federal Government or to Johny Mositun, then I suggest that the Government reformat its forms and categorise only the following as a racial description:-

 (1) Bumiputras, (2) Chinese, (3) Indians (4) others/Lain-Lain

We should avoid categorizing the ‘Bumiputras’ into any racial description nor demography, geography or religious description and this should be the pillar or “embracing point” that we must keep intact as promulgated by our forefathers and which is in line with the original intention when the NEP was first formulated.

Note:

While the opinion in this article is mine, the comments are yours; please present them rationally and ethically. - LINUNDUS