Jump to content

Talk:Ketuanan Melayu: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 27: Line 27:
:Taken as a whole, the article is careful to quote from both sides of an issue. Lee Kuan Yew is quoted quite a bit because he was the only one who ever directly challenged Malay primacy, making him a relatively important figure for this article's scope, but we are careful to quote what the government had to say as well. Later on, we quote Mahathir's eloquent arguments for the NEP (and similar policies) from ''The Malay Dilemma'' and also several others. The article never suggests that the policies are unnecessary in the present day; if anything, it is careful to cite the opinions of several prominent present-day leaders such as [[Hishammuddin Hussein]] and [[Khairy Jamaluddin]] that the NEP is still necessary. We could do better, though; I'll see if I can work the ASLI thing in as an example of their reasoning for the NEP's retention. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:Taken as a whole, the article is careful to quote from both sides of an issue. Lee Kuan Yew is quoted quite a bit because he was the only one who ever directly challenged Malay primacy, making him a relatively important figure for this article's scope, but we are careful to quote what the government had to say as well. Later on, we quote Mahathir's eloquent arguments for the NEP (and similar policies) from ''The Malay Dilemma'' and also several others. The article never suggests that the policies are unnecessary in the present day; if anything, it is careful to cite the opinions of several prominent present-day leaders such as [[Hishammuddin Hussein]] and [[Khairy Jamaluddin]] that the NEP is still necessary. We could do better, though; I'll see if I can work the ASLI thing in as an example of their reasoning for the NEP's retention. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


:As a neutral third party I find the concept itself revolting. Government sanctioned racism. To portray this as positive is a incredibly ignorant act. It problably does have some practical use from a malay's persons point of view but I find it will weaken malay people mroe then anything as it points out to how unable they are to compete with the "minorities" in malasia.
:As a neutral third party I find the concept itself revolting. Government sanctioned racism. To portray this as positive is an incredibly ignorant act. It problably does have some practical use from a malay's persons point of view but I believe it will weaken the malay people more then anything. It points out to how unable they are to compete with the "minorities" in malaysia.


== Removed the following from article ==
== Removed the following from article ==

Revision as of 10:56, 5 November 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Delisting as "good article"

This article clearly needs much improvement, such as sections on historical importance, further explanation on the controversy and counter-arguments against the notion, bibliography etc. In comparison to other articles listed as "good articles", this one stands as one of the poorest (even in comparison to articles about very specific notions), so I am delisting it until it reaches a certain level of excellence. (No harm intended) --Kripkenstein 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Needs Updates

As stated in the Reid Commision that the Malay Supremacy is temporary and to be abolished, it is being revised by the ruling coalition party led by UMNO itself - the very advocate of the this political agenda. In fact, it had been revesed several times throughout the course of history of Malaysia. While this concept of supremacy seemed like a legal form of racism, it was made to harmonise the multiracial population of Malaysia. The idea is to protect the Malays while they build themselves in economy, and in return, those races that this encyclopedia labelled as aliens, were allowed to participate in politics. In the rulling coalition party itself, there is only one Malay party but supported by numbers of Chinese-led and Indian-led parties. The state of Penang (mentioned in the article) was given to Gerakan (Movement) Party to rule. I believe that the Malay Supremacy is already abolished in practice and only the remain of its spirit lives within Malaysians as a sign of respect for the Malays, who once owned the land. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.187.116.38 (talk • contribs) .

You believe. Wikipedia tries to reflect the opinions of all, as per our neutrality policy, and there are a group of people who seem to disagree. I would like to add your opinion to the article, but it needs a source (see our verifiability and original research policies). Cheers! Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this article as it clearly stated that "The Malay Supremacy" is as bad as the Apartheid or Zionist. I am for one a malay and I think there is nothing wrong in strengthtening the claim to ownership to one's land of birth. As you can see many modern states also have the same policy(for example Europe) but obviously not stated as "The European Supremacy" but you can see it in their governing policies. This article has bad intention written all

You're seriously misinformed (for starters, neither Europe nor EU is a state). I'd recommend reading European Convention on Nationality, especially noting Article 5 provides that no discrimination shall exist in a state's internal nationality law on the grounds of "sex, religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin". Certainly citizenship confers rights, but citizenship in Europe is very explicitly more inclusive than ethnicity. 89.102.137.122 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that is the europe of today, trying looking at europe during post french revolution until inter-war period. why was there a pan-slavic mevement. again statement is biased. unfair to compare without looking at the social/historical conditions of the country and the intricate link between it. must take into consideration of all relevant factors. krojb

over it and it should be delisted. This article is not neutral as it was claimed to be as the negative opinions outweigh the positive ones. To support my claims, if one research the history of Malaysia and the Malays thoroughly, one will understand why the New Economic Policy(NEP) was instated after the May 13th riot and the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. Lately there were a controversial research by Asean Strategy and Leadership Institute(ASLI) that claimed that Malays in Malaysia have reached more than 45% of the economic pie. This research was then pulled back by the institute's director as it was based on a loose fact findings and was not thorough enough. Loose enough as it stated that all Government Linked Companies(GLC) as Bumiputra companies when the facts are that the majority are not. In short, this article never did reached the standard required of such research. Another research, this time by the governement(I am aware that certain parties will have claims that anything done by the government is not fair, biased and dishonest but I'll take my chances anyway) showed that Malays only owned 18% of the current economic pie. The rest was monopolised by the Chinese and there's small part for Indian and other races. Let me state my opinion again that this article is biased and did not shows the positive aspects of the issues of Malaysia itself. Personally, I would like to invite all non-Malaysians who had a hand in this article or agreed completely with it to come to Malaysia and see for yourself the real situation. I hope this article will be re-written so that it will not show only one side of the opinions or if not, be delisted.

I don't think so - the article never explicitly (or even implicitly) compares ketuanan Melayu to apartheid or Zionism. The article mentions divisive British colonial policies that disenfranchised all Malaysians, especially the Malays, as a cause of the policies associated with ketuanan Melayu, and it makes clear that there are a number of positive aspects to the government's policies. Did you miss the parts of the article dealing with the improvements in the country due to the NEP? (There's a mention of how the rising tide lifted all boats - the poverty rates for all races decreased substantially, while the middle classes grew.) The ASLI study isn't included in the article because it's not directly relevant - that is covered in the Malaysian New Economic Policy.
Taken as a whole, the article is careful to quote from both sides of an issue. Lee Kuan Yew is quoted quite a bit because he was the only one who ever directly challenged Malay primacy, making him a relatively important figure for this article's scope, but we are careful to quote what the government had to say as well. Later on, we quote Mahathir's eloquent arguments for the NEP (and similar policies) from The Malay Dilemma and also several others. The article never suggests that the policies are unnecessary in the present day; if anything, it is careful to cite the opinions of several prominent present-day leaders such as Hishammuddin Hussein and Khairy Jamaluddin that the NEP is still necessary. We could do better, though; I'll see if I can work the ASLI thing in as an example of their reasoning for the NEP's retention. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a neutral third party I find the concept itself revolting. Government sanctioned racism. To portray this as positive is an incredibly ignorant act. It problably does have some practical use from a malay's persons point of view but I believe it will weaken the malay people more then anything. It points out to how unable they are to compete with the "minorities" in malaysia.

Removed the following from article

I have removed the following from the article, as I think it is starting to drift from the focus of its section, the rise of the Malay rights movement.

Some historians have pinpointed this as the incident that made Chinese keenly aware of the need for political representation in Malaya, attributing to it the formation of the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) — a communal political party. (Ye, p. 34.) Others, however, argue that the main driving force behind non-Malay involvement in Malayan politics was the increasing number of local-born non-Malays. The same report from the British Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies cited earlier said that "Those who have been born in Malaya themselves, or whose children have been born there... state that in a great many cases those concerned have never seen the land of their origin and they claim that their children and their children's children should have fair treatment." (Hwang, p. 25.)

Kimchi.sg | talk 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is relevant, since the MCA was the first to challenge the idea that only the Malays could be sovereign over Malaya. I put this back in the article some time ago with hopefully a few sentences that made the importance of this paragraph clearer. Johnleemk | Talk 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate pic

It would be good if the caption for this image included the text of interest, since you can't read it in the thumb and it is also very hard to make out in the large version.--Peta 05:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

A bit OT I know but I just came across this and I'd have to say well done! To be honest, I never expected a Malaysian article especially one on something like this to make FA grade anytime soon. Malaysia boleh :-P Let's just hope it survives November 4th! Nil Einne 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

& looking through the edit history it appears to largely be User:Johnleemk who has made this article what it is, so well done. Incidentally, it might be an idea for us to at least get a stub Malay version of this article up before the 4th. I'll try and do it if I have the time... Nil Einne 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not the first Malaysian FA. I've a feeling that honour belongs to Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution, though Second Malaysia Plan was featured fairly soon afterwards. GeeJo (t)(c) • 00:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. I apologize if I hadn't been too helpful. __earth (Talk) 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I began the translation to the Malay wiki. I only did the intro and given that it took me 4 hours or so for that I don't think I'll be doing any more but we at least have something for when this is featured. Although the French wiki did beat us :-P Nil Einne 14:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did some minor copyediting on the Malay - hope you don't mind. It's rather tedious translating, though. I'd like to rewrite things from scratch in Malay, but alas - my Malay isn't very good. (I may be good at speaking colloquial Malay, but writing is a whole different matter.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this will open the eyes of the world that there are still government-approved racism in many countries. --Prittglue 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal congratulations for making this FA. I cite it often with Byzantine Empire as examples of topics defining article length (versus conforming to arbitrary limits). --Zeality 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace

His administration began the practice of "meritocracy", which Mahathir had tentatively proposed earlier. Under meritocracy, university admissions quotas were eliminated and replaced with a two-track pre-university stream; one course prepared students for the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) standardised examination, lasting two years; the other consisted of various matriculation courses graded by individual lecturers and typically lasting a year.

From memory, the matriculation system was always in place and was always dominated by the Malays with the non-Malays usually doing STPM. Didn't the meritocracy just remove the quotas? The difference in the 2 systems obviously creates the potential for imbalance but if I'm right it's a bit misleading to say the two-track system replaced the quotas... Nil Einne 02:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work on the language. I probably misunderstood what the sources were saying. Sorry! Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

I notice the form "ketuanan Melayu" is used throughout the article. Is this correct? If so, should a disclaimer stating the first letter is capitalized due to technical restrictions be added to the top of the article? Irongargoyle 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's just that "ketuanan" isn't a proper noun, hence it is capitalized in the title but not in the middle of sentences in the article. - KingRaptor 04:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article..

I didn't knew much about Malaysia or these issues before reading this article. Knowing how other Islamic apartheid countries such as Saudi Arabia behave towards their non-Muslim minorities, it's not surprising to see these Islamic supremacist ideas in action, but it is still disgusting... So I was wondering, are there anyone organizing boycuts, protests and other such things against this racist country? If there are I believe they should be also be mentioned in the article.

I think the article explains internal protest issues and such well enough. However I wonder if you have misunderstood the article. Altho there is a religious component, the issue is primarily a racial one and the religious one is just subsidiary to that. Perhaps this is difficult to understand as the Malay identity is strongly linked to the Muslim identity (in some ways akin to the way Judaism is seen as both a race and a religion). But for example, a Muslim Mandarin speaking Hui is not going to be accepted as a Malay or bumiputera Nil Einne 11:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any, to answer your question. The main issue, though, is race - not religion. Religion is a subissue, although because of the close association between Malay and Muslim identity in Malaysia, one could be forgiven for being confused. Politicians often use both racial and religious rhetoric to defend pro-Malay policies, IIRC. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the Lina Joy case? The Court of Appeal rejected her case to have the word "Islam" removed from her IC, on the basis that as Lina was a Malay, she could not renounce Islam. It's pretty interesting to see how religion and race are so closely linked here in Malaysia. (I apologize for the pointless point, just wanted to add my two cents.) Also, John is correct; there are no boycotts (or at least none that I know of). - KingRaptor 12:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Akh, akh, wrong attitude here. I like Malaysia. Malaysia, for all our disputes, sibling rivalry and arguments over rock and water, is still a heartland ally. Hell, it shares a lot of culture with Singapore. It's not about boycotts, it's about reform. If you don't know, Singapore is equally racist too, just on the flip side of the coin. John Riemann Soong 17:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Malaysia and Saudi Arabia is that the discriminated people are minority and there isn't much they could do because they're outnumbered. It's a different situation in South Africa where the discriminated people are the majority. --Prittglue 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discrimanation happen everywhere on earth as long as u found the organism called "human".Malays is define as a muslim,and all muslim are bumiputra which mean if they are chinese or india,they are now a bumiputra too.

Discrimination may happen everywhere but this is blatant, disgusting and it seems several malays take pride in their racism. Although I think it's worse in indonesia.

Recent furore

I do recall just about a month or so ago, there was an open diplomatic dispute ignited by Lee Kuan Yew when he singled out Malaysia and Indonesia for having policies which disadvantage the ethnic Chinese or something like that? If the media is to be trusted, I recall it also sparked another debate on policies inspired by the Ketuanan Melayu concept? Should this be worthy for inclusion here?--Huaiwei 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

Since this got on the main page, it's been facing a whirlpool and tempests of highly charged and polemic users who subvert the article one way or another. Mainly the problem right now is bad grammar. It's changing faster than we can manage it. John Riemann Soong 17:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Vandalism

Somebody just deleted the whole thing and replaced it with a bunch of bs. Is it possible to reverse changes? How is it done? I've been trying to reverse the changes but can't figure it out. theRealdeal