DAP declaration lacks oomph

Joe Fernandez

The document unveiled last Sunday in Shah Alam was long on generalities and short on specifics.

There is a need for specifics in DAP’s 28-point Shah Alam Declaration, which was unveiled last Sunday in the Selangor capital amidst much fanfare.

Generally, such declarations by their very nature are left hanging, tend to be vague and are much given to sweeping generalisations, often raising more questions than providing answers.

Corruption is mentioned in three of the points, the first time linked with the Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission (MACC), the second with the rule of law and another time with lifestyles which cannot be explained.

One would have thought that the party would have enough strategists to draft the 28 points in English to strike a coherent stance and not produce a Chinglish translation of the Chinese original.

At the very outset, the declaration should have clearly stated that the Federal Constitution is the only social contract in Malaysia, that is, between the state and the people. It cannot be claimed that there is any other social contract, written or unwritten, existing in defiance of the Federal Constitution.

And it is a mistake to mention the term “Bumiputera” in one of the points. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Federal Constitution. It is an administrative term that should be avoided like the plague, like they do in Malaysian Borneo. The only exception is among the illegal immigrants in Sabah, who have set up taxi drivers’ and mini bus owners’ associations and the like with the word “Bumiputera” incorporated in the names.

The Natives of Sabah and Sarawak, like the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia, detest the term. They see it as an umbrella label to give backdoor native status to any Tom, Dick and Harry in Peninsular Malaysia who fall within the “Malay” definition in the Federal Constitution and to illegal immigrants in Sabah.

The Malay-speaking communities are not recognised in the Sabah state constitution as being among the native groups and they are subject to immigration restrictions.

Furthermore, the Federal Constitution does not recognise the Malay-speaking communities in Peninsular Malaysia as natives of that finger of land jutting out from mainland Southeast Asia. It merely notes the advent of Malay nationalism by defining the term “Malay”.

In that sense, a glaring omission in the DAP declaration is a pledge to weed out the politicisation of the history of Malaysia and the attendant distortions.

In discussing Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, the declaration should not have focused only on preserving the special position of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, the Orang Asli and the Malay-speaking communities in Peninsular Malaysia.

The special position has never been in any danger, except when it comes to the Orang Asli and the Sabah and Sarawak natives.

Deviations, distortions



The declaration should have instead pledged to eradicate the deviations and distortions in the implementation of Article 153 and to ensure that it is not breached.

One main distortion and deviation is not recognising the legitimate interests of the non-Malay communities as specifically spelt out in the Federal Constitution under Article 8 on Equality and the second prong of Article 153.

The other main distortion and deviation is Umno’s unilateral and arbitrary extension of the special position and special privileges to every facet of life in Malaysia when the constitution confines them to only four specific areas – intake into the civil service; training privileges and intake into institutions of higher learning owned by the government; government scholarships; and opportunities from the government to do business.

The DAP declaration makes no specific mention of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which takes off from the fourth Special Position in Article 153. The NEP pledged to ensure that the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, the Orang Asli and the Malay-speaking communities in Peninsular Malaysia own, control and manage 30 percent of the corporate economy within a 20-year timeframe (1970-1990). Instead, the NEP has become a clean-sweep clause in the hands of Umno.

The declaration mentions poverty eradication, which is one of the NEP tenets. The other tenet, not mentioned in the declaration, is the elimination of the identification of race with economic function and place of residence.

On a brighter note, the declaration pledges to honour the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the rights of Sabah and Sarawak.

But this might be a case of too little too late.

At the heart of the Malaysian government’s non-compliance with the 1963 Malaysia Agreement is the definition of the term “Federation” in the Federal Constitution in the wake of Singapore’s departure in 1965.

The Federation of Malaysia of 1963 ceased to exist in 1965. Instead the Federation of Malaya of 1957 was resurrected in 1965 to masquerade as the Federation of Malaysia. Hence the non-compliance.

Patently, the 28 points are not precise and concise. They do not articulate a vision, a mission, goals and objectives worthy of a political party which hopes to participate in government at the federal level in the not too distant future.

The DAP should re-word, re-cast and re-arrange its Shah Alam Declaration to reflect its long-held ideology that change and reform are possible only if people aren’t so selfish as to think of themselves only, as they do in Barisan Nasional.