Revisi per 22 Februari 2021 17.00 sunting Hanamanteo (bicara \| kontrib) 45.396 suntingan + ← Revisi sebelumnya		Revisi per 22 Februari 2021 18.00 sunting balikkan Hanamanteo (bicara \| kontrib) 45.396 suntingan + Revisi selanjutnya →
Baris 254: Merefleksikan iklim saling tidak percaya dan kebijakan rasialis di Singapura dan Malaysia (di Singapura, kebijakan yang diduga memihak orang Tionghoa),<ref>Rahim, Lily. The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, et al.</ref> [[Lee Kuan Yew]] memicu debat lain pada bulan September tentang peran keunggulan Melayu dalam politik Malaysia dengan menyatakan bahwa orang Tionghoa telah terpinggirkan secara sistematis di Malaysia dan Indonesia. Insiden diplomatik yang diakibatkan dengan penolakan marginalisasi dari politisi pemerintah Malaysia menyebabkan Lee mengeluarkan permintaan maaf atas pernyataannya yang juga berusaha untuk membenarkan mereka. Abdullah menyatakan bahwa dia tidak puas dengan apa yang dia sebut sebagai permintaan maaf yang memenuhi syarat, tetapi pemerintah Malaysia tetap menerimanya.<ref>{{cite web\|author=Lau, Leslie\|date=25 September 2006\|url=http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-n/2006/09/chinese-malaysians-are-marginalised.htm\|title=Chinese Malaysians are marginalised: DAP\|work=Straits Times\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013161242/http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-n/2006/09/chinese-malaysians-are-marginalised.htm\|archive-date=2007-10-13\|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|author=Ahmad, Reme\|date=4 October 2006\|url=http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-n/2006/10/reply-gets-prominent-play-in-malaysian.htm\|title=Reply gets prominent play in Malaysian media\|work=Straits Times\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061108182932/http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-n/2006/10/reply-gets-prominent-play-in-malaysian.htm\|archive-date=2006-11-08\|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-n/2006/10/umno-and-mca-accept-mms-apology.htm\|title=Umno and MCA accept MM's 'apology'\|date=4 October 2006\|work=BERNAMA\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061108174109/http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-n/2006/10/umno-and-mca-accept-mms-apology.htm\|archive-date=2006-11-08\|url-status=dead}}</ref> Bulan berikutnya, kontroversi muncul setelah Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute (ASLI) mengeluarkan laporan yang menghitung ekuitas yang dimiliki Bumiputra sebesar 45%, yang sangat berbeda dari angka resmi 18,9%, yang digunakan oleh politisi untuk membenarkan retensi atau kebangkitan NEP tersebut. Seorang analis lokal mengemukakan bahwa "Jika ekuitas Bumiputra adalah 45 persen, maka pertanyaan berikutnya adalah, mengapa perlu hak Bumiputera? Ini berimplikasi pada kebijakan pemerintah dan itu (menghilangkan hak adat) adalah satu hal yang tidak akan pernah diterima UMNO saat ini. . " Metodologi laporan tersebut dikritik karena menggunakan nilai pasar daripada nilai nominal untuk perhitungan ekuitasnya, dan membatasi ruang lingkupnya pada seribu perusahaan publik. Ini juga termasuk perusahaan yang terkait dengan pemerintah (GLC) sebagai perusahaan milik Bumiputra.<ref>Ahmad, Abdul Razak & Chow, Kum Hor (22 October 2006). "The nation's economic pie in perspective", pp. 20–21. ''New Sunday Times''.</ref> Namun, beberapa mengkritik pemerintah, menuduh bahwa nilai nominal tidak secara akurat mencerminkan nilai perusahaan yang diteliti, dan menyatakan bahwa sebagian dari ekuitas GLC harus dianggap yang dimiliki Bumiputra.<ref>Ooi, Jeff (2006). [http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/10/equity_share_is_racebased_meth.php "Equity share: Is race-based methodology relevant?"] {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061108104648/http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/10/equity_share_is_racebased_meth.php \|date=8 November 2006 }} . Retrieved 5 November 2006.</ref> Laporan tersebut kemudian ditarik, tetapi kontroversi berlanjut setelah outlet media independen mengutip sebuah studi yang mengikuti metodologi pemerintah yang mengindikasikan ekuitas Bumiputra telah melewati angka 30% pada tahun 1997.<ref>Beh, Lih Yi (1 November 2006). [http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/58885 Bumi equity hit NEP target 10 years ago]. ''Malaysiakini''.</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> Ooi, Jeff (2006). [http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/10/equity_share_is_racebased_meth.php "Equity share: Is race-based methodology relevant?"] {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061108104648/http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/10/equity_share_is_racebased_meth.php \|date=8 November 2006 }} . Retrieved 5 November 2006.</ref> The report was later withdrawn, but the controversy continued after an independent media outlet cited a study following the government methodology that indicated Bumiputra equity had passed the 30% mark in 1997.<ref>Beh, Lih Yi (1 November 2006). [http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/58885 Bumi equity hit NEP target 10 years ago]. ''Malaysiakini''.</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>

Ketuanan Melayu: Perbedaan antara revisi