Talk:Ketuanan Melayu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleKetuanan Melayu is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2006.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 3, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
March 5, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 16, 2005.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Ketuanan Melayu is the belief that the Malays are the "lords" of the Malay peninsula or Malaysia in general?
Current status: Former featured article

great article , double thumb-ups, would request to come back as 'good article'?[edit]

being a malaysian, i've never learnt anything much about this in 5 years of malaysian history, from form 1 to form 5. well, there is this particular issue in the textbooks, but there's never been anything about the causes of the may 13 riots.. including the cause of singapore's separation. one point to say though, i've been skeptically thinking if the government's trying to censor/confuse the issue from the education syllabus, as a way to brainwash the newer batch of generation after 1969 that nep is a justification.

not going to talk much about this.. since this is well under there borders of ISA. emm.. requesting the article internal security act to be put under see also category.. and well done johnleem, if i've not mistaken! Sandakanboy 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting as "good article"[edit]

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[edit]

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs)

Removed the following from article[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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..[edit]

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]
Ah, I'd forgotten about that. It could be a good example for Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia, which deals with the (non-)distinction between Malay and Muslim. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 5 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs)

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.

wow, this article turn out to be a medium to spread hatred towards other people. You could say that the Bumiputras are discriminating against the non-bumiputra people. But remember, Malaysia is third world country, a multiracial one. Therefore, don't make a judgement by comparing Malaysia with multiracial developed countries like United States. The reason behind the discrimination policy is that the government tried to help the bumiputras so that they won't lag behind. This is actually the aftermath of British colonization, which during the British reign, the Malays are kept 'uncivilized' by the British so that the Malays wont turn against them. Actually, this also happen in United States where the native americans being isolated or ignored by the government (e.g. the californion gov.).141.213.178.161 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Last time I checked, the British keeping the Malays "uncivilized" was one of the reasons the Malays turned on them in the first place. As far as I can tell, Native American 'isolation' is actually beneficial to them (self-government, tribal sovereignty, etc.). (Any Yanks care to comment on this?) Also, free government handouts have never fixed anything.
Anyways, my beef isn't really with the government-instituted race-based preferences, or even with the fact that some Malays (particularly the politicians) think they have some kind of God-given right to said inequalities, it's the idea that we Chinese/Indian/other minority Buddhist/Hindu/Christian/animist/atheist/.etc citizens should just shut up and accept whatever our uber-benevolent Malay + Muslim masters of the land give us. Questioning...hell, even discussing the Constitution is dangerous and must be blocked. The May 13 Incident is not a terrible tragedy never to be repeated, but instead a stark reminder of what happens to those who challenge the Malay superiority. A little cult whose idea of religion is sitting down to have interfaith talks in teapot-shaped buildings is a threat to national security! Actually, this topic kinda reminds me of a song...
When der Malay says "ve is der master race"
We heil, heil, heil, right in the Malay's face
Not to love the Malay is a great disgrace
So we heil, heil, heil, right in the Malay's face
(with apologies to Spike Jones)
Okay, enough soapboxing and misusing the talk page (hey, everyone else is doing it) for me. - KingRaptor 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of a shameless self-plug, but those who really like to waste time on this issue might enjoy my blog's forum. Those interested in parodies and who understand Malay might also be interested in the parody of "Keranamu Malaysia" that I penned. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent furore[edit]

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]

I'd be rather reluctant to pile on more material in an article that is already (IMHO) quite large. The diplomatic incident was certainly notable, but not really remarkable in the long term; it doesn't illustrate a point not already in the article, and it didn't have much of an impact on the political scene. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be notable that this issue remains volatile in current contexts, thou. And I believe the tense climate as a result of this remark was made worse when that report on the ethnic economic dominance appears not too long after?--Huaiwei 15:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - at least that's not an opinion held by any of the news sources I've been following. I added a short paragraph on that, though, as well as another one on a recent criticism of Bangsa Malaysia and meritocracy by the head of the Johor government. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dont u ppl have a referrence dude? heh why do you ppl use the referrence better than using ur brain.--Tearfate 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup[edit]

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]

I don't think this kind of sensative issue be moderated by a 16 year old kid.----RH 31/3/2007

Major Vandalism[edit]

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

False or Truth?[edit]

I dont find any reference of the main stream media from this articles, all u ppl did was putting the anti-gov and racist ppl book into the contents, and furthermore, is small changes meaning vandalisme in wikipedia? and the title of this article should be like "all race agree with ketuanan melayu" or "Malay is the master of Malaysia" , i think the second one is better, since the ketuanan melayu is malay word,it can only be use by malay, if the non-malaysian should use english,eversince they prefer to english better than malay.--Tearfate 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the reason that there's no reference to main stream media is because Malaysian press is not allowed to publish politically and racially sensative articles. Also, very few foreign press seem to be interested in Malaysian politics. --Pavithran 07:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger - is this true?[edit]

from article: "Although natives of Borneo were denied the privileges of Malays, merger was effected on September 16, 1963."

can the author verify the bolded parts? thanks. kawaputra 09:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the natives of Borneo were not granted Article 153 privileges is implied by footnote #112, which is the source for the constitutional amendments post-May 13. These amendments extended the previously Malay-only privileges to the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. I did not use this footnote for the sentence in dispute because it was not directly relevant, and only implied that no such privileges were extant at the time of merger. Johnleemk | Talk 07:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. i shall read up on it. thanks. kawaputratok2me 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I reverted the edit deleting citations because:

  • Dead links should not be removed because they are a record of what sources were used; the fact that they do not exist anymore does not change the fact that they are the sources (I attempted to look them up when they went dead, but virtually all are not in Google's cache nor in the Internet Archive)
  • There is no policy that subscription-only web news content should be accessible; you need to buy a newspaper to read it, so if you're going to ban online newspapers that require you to buy them as inaccessible, don't permit citations of meatspace non-free newspapers either

A little common sense in these matters goes a long way. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all right. But editors involved should record the date when the link was found to be inactive, or better yet strive to find a replacement source. — Bluerです。 なにか? 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article[edit]

This article is not neutral and is quite obviously slanted to the Chinese-Malay perspective. That the article is written by a non-academic member of the ethnic group ostensibly targeted by the policies noted in the article, is extremely problematic in terms of neutrality.

As a historian of Singapore and Malaysia, I feel this article needs some substantial revision to felect a more neutral and well-rounded stance. I have begun to edit the first paragraph.Africkert 10:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits for two reasons
  1. Please do not sign on the article page.
  2. Please be mindful of your spelling. __earth (Talk) 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than pleased that a historian is taking a look at this article (or was, as it were; I haven't been very active on Wikipedia so I only noticed this now). Feel free to make any corrections as appropriate. I'm not sure how the Malay point of view could be advanced further, but as you observed, I am not Malay myself so I can't exactly represent their point of view perfectly. I do note that your original edits argued that ketuanan Melayu and Article 153 are equivalent; this does not seem consonant with several of the works I cited, many of which separate assistance for the Bumiputra and the ideology of racial supremacy as two different concepts. (The Reid Commission itself explicitly stated that Article 153 was meant to economically assist the Bumiputra, and stated that it was meant to reconcile their varying terms of reference which specified both equal citizenship rights and assistance for backward Malaysian communities; you may be interested in Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia.) Johnleemk | Talk 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, the article's focus is on a particular set of beliefs as outlined in Malaysian social contract, and a specific interpretation of Article 153 (not Article 153 itself). Johnleemk | Talk 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits fixed[edit]

I have fixed the problems noted with my edits- (ie, visible name signing and spelling.) Fyi, there were also many spelling errors in the original text- I have fixed them up to the first three paragraphs which was the section I originally edited. The rest needs spell check.

edits fixed[edit]

--Allie 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discrimination sidebar[edit]

An editor just removed this template from the article. I'm not reverting yet because I'm really of two minds about this; on the one hand, it's hard to describe Malay supremacy as a form of legal discrimination, but on the other, it's certainly some sort of discrimination, if only in terms of demeaning the de facto value of Malaysian citizenship (since de jure under Article 8 all Malaysian citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law). What do other editors think? Johnleemk | Talk 16:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atm, Im leaning towards removing the template as the definition of KM does not directly indicate form of discrimination. If it was NEP, or something like that then yes. For this article maybe we can just put some relevant categories on discrimination here. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 08:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One sided view article[edit]

The article tries to re-write history, while manipulating the references. The article is seditious and misleading. You forgot to include Tun Sambathan’s remarks after the independence, and the fact that 13th May only happened in 1969. In fact, 13th May only started after the Chinese made racial slurs during a rally, and you also left out the part whereby the Chinese too slaughtered the Malays. This is a one sided article and a political agenda made by individuals for a one sided party. If Wikipedia wants this article, then it is an insult to Malaysia and its people. If the writer thinks his article is not racist, then make your article and your good self public.

Wikipedia should not a keep or even post a bias article.

liyana hasnan --Liyana h (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insult? Wow. Malaysians are easily insulted. __earth (Talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not more or less than anyone else. But they have a tendency to not like people pointing out that certain articles of their constitution are by defintion racist, not to mention the worst example of unbridled w@nk. A shame and a blight on an otherwise fantastic country, and the overall amazing and fantastic people who live in it. And for the record, I find the article as of August 2009 to be excellent. 203.206.113.224 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Gerakan celebrate after 1969 election.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Gerakan celebrate after 1969 election.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ketuan Melayu in today perspektif[edit]



Why Ketuanan Melayu[edit]

Ketuanan melayu or malay supremacy that been refer as malay is the superior and other races is a slave is' 'not relevant anymore in todays world. The old concept is a colonial based thinking that been used a long time ago by western colonialist.

It is proved that all races in Malaysia have an equal opportunity in gaining their economy status. The Ketuanan melayu concept has been manipulated by some political parties for their own political sake. This is because from their point of view, they can be a warrior of their races if they can demolished this concept.

In real life, this concept didn't gave any disadvantage for their race. Moreover, many benefit that they has obtained by being a Malaysian. The articel 153 in Malaysia constitution or Malay supremacy concept is just a piece of leftover to show that malay people is the owner of Malaysia before independent. It is a small piece of advantages after agreeing to share their homeland with other races. That is why all people need to know what is the real meaning of malay supremacy before they make any conclusion.

"It is proved that all races in Malaysia have an equal opportunity in gaining their economy status." - Really? Where is this Proof you mention? I visit Malaysia regularly and I actually see that a great deal of Racism and discrimination in the name of affirmative action still takes place on a day to day basis - Any time anyone questions this racism politically some politician almost invariably answers with veiled or open threats calling for a bloodbath. Sorry, but the blatant discrimination Ketuanan Melayu advocates is not "small advantages" and "not relevant" as you would put it - it's very relevant and very worthy of documenting here on Wikipedia where anyone on the planet who cares to access this information can access it. 134.115.68.21 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proof you can find in the Top Ten Billionaires List in Malaysia where 80% of the person in the list are non-Malays. Now tell me, are oppressed people can be billionaires in the country which "oppresses" them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.102.212 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 4th lead paragraph[edit]

I removed the following paragraph:

However, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi explained that Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) is not about the Malays being in a position to dominate, rule over and force their power upon other races, said Prime Minister. He said Malay supremacy meant that the Malays, as the indigenous people in Malaysia, needed to strengthen themselves to ensure they were successful and developed. If they are not successful and developed, then they are not tuan (masters), therefore they will be coolies. I am sure we do not want to become coolies who do not play any role in development because we are weak and not able. So when we talk about that (Malay supremacy), we mean we must be successful in many fields. It is never about ruling over others, or forcing our power upon them.

Apparently, the tone and style of this paragraph would suit better with one section within the paragraph. Take a look again at Wikipedia:Lead section. Failing which, this will make the article fall short of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Beware; featured articles can be demoted if repeated edits downgrade the quality of the article--just take a look at Victoria of the United Kingdom, an excellent example. You may also see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for the grading assessment remarks.Mr Tan (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism[edit]

This article is categorised as racism and included in a template about racism yet "racist" is only mentioned once briefly in the article and "racism" never. This discrepancy should be resolved one way or another. Munci (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Perkasa?[edit]

These guys are now in the news for half a year now, and this article hasn't mentioned anything about it? I'm beginning to think this page no longer deserves the featured article title because it's no longer up-to-date with the times. - 60.49.106.93 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a section[edit]

I removed the Racial discrimination section just now diff - it had no refs and was written in a very POV way, neither of which was appropriate for a FA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit. As much as I've seen the discrimination against non-Malay ethnicities in Malaysia first hand, and agree that the removed content may well be accurate, it must not be backed by Original Research, must not be presented in a POV manner, and must be verifiable by reliable sources, as per Wikipedia Policy. If someone wants to put it back in, they should ensure those criteria are met. Xlh (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

balanced view instead of Marxist analysis[edit]

in terms of understanding the concept of ketuanan melayu as a form of nationalist supremacy, some translates it to be a form of statement that announces sovereignty instead of "supremacy", which easily bring forth negative connotations if read through the eyes of a third party observer. When explained in terms of rights to sovereignty for the settlers of the land (as in the case of settlers of British island that confirms their sovereignty over the land, or "settlers' of Englishman in what is now called the united states of America). Even if some historians that claims to experience first-hand the issues discussed, bias towards a certain ideals or tone in writing cannot be avoided. I would suggest better views or more balanced comparison in explaining how the concept is understood by people who suggest it and also by people who opposed it, with emphasis given on different views by people of different generation and how each generation perceives it. For the most part, people are too easy to allow themselves to second-guess and thus judge such sensitive issues behind a desk or in front of an article. I will not oppose if this article is judged as misleading and biased, thus could be viewed as an attempt to re-write history. But the article should not be removed, instead should present more balanced views. Even an amateur historian could see the nuances in the writing that is ambiguous in tone and easy to misleads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjang Akuan (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This not about some vague or abstract academic concept. Ketuanan Melayu, and the institutionalised racism it promotes goes to the very core of Malaysian society in a very practical way, and promotes racism both in favour of and to the detriment of, all of Malaysia's major ethnic groups. Until those practical concerns are addressed, the abstract and academic concept of Ketuanan Melayu will continue to be viewed by both Malaysians and Foriegners in socio-economic, if not Marxist, terms. In any case this is not a forum in which you are entitled to argue if discrimination in Malaysia is appropriate to document or not, or whether people are right to link the two concepts or not. Instead this page is to discuss issues of article quality as it relates to adherence to Wikipedia policy. 59.191.225.49 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malay Language Definition for "Ketuanan Melayu"[edit]

It is stated in the article that "Ketuanan Melayu" is translated as "Malay Ownership", I believe that this is etymologically incorrect, the proper translation should be "Malay Lordship", as Tuan brings in the connotation of master or overlord, rather than a "Pemilik" (owner).

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka is the authoritative body for the Malay language in Malaysia and the definition of "Ketuanan" given by as overlordship source: http://prpm.dbp.gov.my/Search.aspx?k=ketuanan 175.137.224.245 (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ketuanan Melayu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

@Mrpresidentfaris: I have removed the POV tag. It was there for a year without any explanation about what the perceived problem was. If you think this article has a problem, please bring it up here on Talk. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ketuanan Melayu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ketuanan Melayu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ketuanan Melayu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ketuanan Melayu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ketuanan Melayu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague tag: "long domicile"[edit]

In the lead section of this article it is stated: "The Malays of Malaysia claimed a special position and special rights owing to their long domicile"... 'Long' is always relative. The 1980's were a long time ago. Dinosaurs lived a long time ago. Did dinosaurs live during the 1980's? Or how long is a piece of string? So we can see that it's usually prudent to specify to which thing a relative term relates. So the long domicile of the Malays is relative to whom? I presume what was meant to be written is that the domicile is longer than that of those who are marginalised by Ketuanan Melayu; i.e. the Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians. But to my understanding (which may be wrong), those with not just a long domicile but an original domicile would find this statement laughable. Isn't the domicile of the Malays merely less short that the domicile of the Malaysian Chinese and Indians, from the perspective of, say, the Dayak? This is a genuine question as I don't have the knowledge. I'm not Malaysian and I've never been Malaysian. I also say this to show I have no personal stake in the matter. What I propose is adding a footnote to clarify that "long" is relative to the aforementioned minorities, or to replace "long" with an absolute estimate of the approximate year that Malay domicile began. Ypna (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the Dayaks perceive the domicile of the Malays merely less short that the domicile of the Malaysian Chinese and Indians? 103.146.63.51 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns[edit]

Upon reviewing this article for WP:URFA/2020, I noticed that Arcahaeoindris added an "update needed" banner in August. I agree with this description: there is no information on how or if this concept is implemented post-2009. I am also concerned that some sections are very large, possibly a sign of bloating; these sections can possibly be summarized or have unnecessary details removed. There are also uncited sentences, and with an article as sensitive as this I think these should be addressed or removed. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding these comments—the orange tag is valid, and the amount of uncited material throughout is cause for concern. I'm also drawn to how huge this article is; at 15,000 words and ~95kb in size it absolutely should be split into more than one article per WP:SIZESPLIT. There's potential to debate what should stay and what should be spun out and summarised here but I would suggest that headings 2, 3, and 4 (Pre-independence; Independence and Malaysia; and 13 May and the New Economic Policy) would benefit from being condensed here and more in-depth material being moved elsewhere. Also seeing no alt text for MOS:ACCIM compliance which should be addressed. Given the existence of an orange-level tag with no remedy for several months now and concerns related to this being raised on the talk page for longer still (I note an eleven-year-old section above raising the absence of a related political movement, still not mentioned in the article) I think this is looking at a potential review of its featured status. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Although the lack of updates for the last several governments is the main issue, would also soft support some information being moved if there are more appropriate articles, as long as it doesn't compromise the quality and detail of this one. I don't think I have enough knowledge of the topic to offer to update it, so hope someone else will. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ketuanan_Melayu&oldid=1205989003"