Ketuanan Melayu: Perbedaan antara revisi

Pada Januari 2006, pemerintah mengumumkan kampanye kesadaran [[Rukun Negara]]. Kantor berita pemerintah Bernama mengutip pernyataan Abdul Rahman pada tahun 1986 bahwa "Orang Melayu bukan hanya penduduk asli tetapi juga penguasa negeri ini dan tidak ada yang dapat membantah fakta ini". Pasal-pasal konstitusi yang menyinggung agama resmi [[Islam]], monarki, status bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa nasional, dan hak-hak khusus Melayu digambarkan sebagai "dengan jelas mengeja pengakuan dan pengakuan bahwa orang Melayu adalah penduduk asli ' pribumi '[pribumi] dari negeri ini. " Kemudian dinyatakan bahwa penekanan baru pada Rukunegara adalah untuk mencegah pertanyaan lebih lanjut tentang kontrak sosial, yang "menentukan polaritas politik dan kedudukan sosial ekonomi orang Malaysia".<ref>Ramly, Rosliwaty (25 January 2006). [http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=177338 Appreciating The Rukun Negara] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070324110139/http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=177338 |date=24 March 2007 }} . ''[[BERNAMA]]''.</ref>

 

 

 

The following month, a controversy arose after the Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute (ASLI) issued a report calculating Bumiputra-held equity at 45% — a stark difference from the official figure of 18.9%, used by politicians to justify the retention or revival of the NEP. One local analyst suggested that "If Bumiputra equity is 45 per cent, then surely the next question is, why the need for Bumiputera rights? It has implications for government policy and it (removing indigenous rights) is one thing UMNO will never accept at present." The report's methodology was criticised for using [[market value]] instead of [[par value]] for its calculations of equity, and limiting its scope to a thousand publicly listed companies. It also included government-linked companies (GLCs) as Bumiputra-owned companies.<ref>Ahmad, Abdul Razak & Chow, Kum Hor (22 October 2006). "The nation's economic pie in perspective", pp. 20–21. ''New Sunday Times''.</ref> Some, however, criticised the government, alleging that par value did not accurately reflect the value of the enterprises studied, and claimed that a portion of GLC equity should be considered Bumiputra-held.<ref>

 

At the Johor UMNO convention that same month, Johor Menteri Besar (Chief Minister), [[Abdul Ghani Othman]], criticised the ''Bangsa Malaysia'' and "meritocracy" policies. Ghani described ''Bangsa Malaysia'' as a threat to the Malays and their Constitutional position, suggesting it could "threaten national stability" as well. Ghani insisted that the policy "be applied in the context ... with the Malays as the pivotal race", and described meritocracy as a "form of discrimination and oppression" because rural Malay students could not compete with their urban counterparts.<ref>{{cite web|authors=Nambiar, Ravi & Nadzmi, Siti Nurbaiyah|date=6 November 2006|url=http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=539|title=Ghani: Bangsa Malaysia is rojak and unacceptable|page=10|work=New Straits Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013161427/http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=539|archive-date=2007-10-13|url-status=dead}}</ref> In the resulting controversy about his remarks, several federal ministers criticised Ghani, with one saying that ''Bangsa Malaysia'' "has nothing to do with one race given a pivotal role over others", and another arguing that "It does not impinge on the rights of Bumiputeras or other communities."<ref>"'Rejection of concept affects integration efforts'", p. 7. (7 November 2006). ''New Straits Times''.</ref> Ghani stood by his comments, declaring that the proponents of ''Bangsa Malaysia'' were also advocating a "[[Malaysian Malaysia]]", as Lee Kuan Yew had, even though "the government has rejected it from the start." Najib, the Deputy Prime Minister, suggested that any effort to define ''Bangsa Malaysia'' politically would be fruitless, and as such the debate was unnecessary; he also insisted that "It does not question the special rights of the Malays, our quota or anything of that sort."<ref>Nambiar, Ravi & Nadzmi, Siti Nurbaiyah (7 November 2006). "No Bangsa Malaysia in Constitution, says Najib", p. 6. ''New Straits Times''.</ref><ref>Tan, Marsha, Teh, Eng Hock, Vijayan, Meera & Zolkepli, Farik (7 November 2006). [http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/11/7/nation/15939803&sec=nation&focus=1 Bangsa Malaysia in mind] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070325115212/http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F11%2F7%2Fnation%2F15939803&sec=nation&focus=1 |date=25 March 2007 }}. ''The Star''.</ref> The UMNO Annual General Assembly that year was the first to be televised in full; it became a subject of controversy when delegates such as [[Hashim Suboh]] made speeches utilising heavy racial rhetoric; Hishammuddin, who had brandished the ''kris'' again, was asked by Hashim when he would "use it". After the assembly, Hishammuddin insisted that the ''kris'' was not a symbol of Malay supremacy.<ref>{{cite web|author=Tan, Joceline|date=26 November 2006|url=http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=985|title=Hisham: The keris is here to stay|work=Malaysia Today|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071014171600/http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=985|archive-date=2007-10-14|url-status=dead}}</ref>