Ethnic status: ‘A difference of opinion’

Hindraf Makkal Sakti disagrees with the claim that ethnic status does not make any difference to Malaysians citizenship rights.

GEORGE TOWN: Hindraf Makkal Sakti does not agree with Bersih 2.0 leader S Ambiga’s claim that the ethnic status of Malaysians did not make a difference to their citizenry rights.

London-based Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy said Malaysians may get the wrong impression that Malaysia truly practised democracy in accordance with Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“As a former head of the Bar Council, Ambiga should really rethink on her statement that there was truly no discrimination based on citizenship in Malaysia.

“Her statement could send wrong signals to the public,” said Waythamoorthy on Ambiga’s speech at a function in Sungei Siput, Perak, last weekend.

Ambiga had reportedly said that the factor that determined the rights and duties of the people was their citizenship and not the size of the community they belong to.

“I was told that in Malaysia I belonged to a minority race. It had to be accepted then. Today, I reject it. I firmly declare that in this country I belong to the majority because I am a citizen,” Ambiga said in her speech.

According to her, the Federal Constitution makes no discrimination among citizens and urged her listeners to be proud of being citizens of a great country.

Ambiga pointed out some of the provisions relating to the special positions of the Malays, the rights of the Orang Asli and the special positions for Sabah and Sarawak and said: “We respect the Federal Constitution… I am talking about fundamental rights.”

Silent indignity

Waythamoorthy chided Ambiga for claiming fundamental liberties were not affected by provisions in Article 153 and Article 121 1 (A) of the Federal Constitution.

He argued that Malaysia remained the only country in the world which practised institutionalised racism, where special privileges were given to protect a majority race.

He said the fundamental rights of religious freedom under Article 11 had become meaningless and hopeless to safeguard the rights of 12 million non-Muslims in Malaysia.

“Article 153 has created two classes of citizenship,” he said , adding that its provisions were rejected even during the pre-Merdeka period.

He pointed out that Perak tin mining tycoon the late Lau Phak Khuan was one notable personality who highlighted the evils of the provision.

Another Malayan, Lau Cheung Ling, had argued at the Reid Commission on July 20, 1956 that: “If Malays were to be privileged, then one form of colonialism would be replaced by another.”

“Today I would dare say that we, the other Malaysians known as non-Malays, have been recolonised by the majority race,” said Waythamoorthy.

He said Article 153 imposes a duty upon the King to safeguard the legitimate interests of other communities that were to be treated as equal human beings.

Pointing out that without equality, there can be no dignity, he alleged that the “other” Malaysians were living in silent indignity.

He rapped Ambiga for creating a misconception that the Orang Asli enjoyed special privileges under Article 153, when it only provided for Malays and natives in Sabah and Sarawak.