Talk:Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 18, 2006.
This article is supported by WikiProject Malaysia.

This project provides a central approach to Malaysia-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] removing this sentence

"They came here under work permits during the British rule while the British had promised the Malay sultanates that the immigrants were to return to their countries once their work permits expired."

In my knowledge of history of Malaysia, some immigrants (often Indians) came at their own expenses to travel to Malaya to work (source:Form4 History textbook and umm chapter 10). Therefore, not all immigrants came with work permits and did not promise to return to their home country. Sandakanboy 15:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

While copyediting, I found this sentence..."Eventually, the Tunku decided to ask Lee to secede from Malaysia. Eventually, Lee agreed to do so, and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965."

Should this read "Eventually, the Tunku decided to ask Singapore to secede from Malaysia." rather?

What was Lee's position as a politician? *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the disagreement was more with Lee than with Singapore, which is what makes this whole crap so frustrating. We actually have a very long article (PAP-UMNO relations) devoted to just trying to describe the relations between the governing political parties of Malaysia and Singapore. Anyway, I'll try to copyedit that sentence. Johnleemk | Talk 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've copyedited through the Race rioting section. I'll try to complete the copyedit this evening. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 17:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have finally had enough time to finish copyediting this article. Most of my changes in the final few sections are fairly minor but I do have a few questions and suggestions.

    • The first paragraph under the section "Meritocracy" discusses matriculation. I presume this is solely in reference to higher education so I have changed it to read that way. Though I'm still unsure exactly what is meant by this...Is this simply students entering into colleges and universities or does it go beyond that?
    • You do not explain the PKR's reason for speaking against the NEP in the Present Opposition section.
    • You mention Hishmuddin brandishing the keris twice in the article. First in the Meritocracy section and then again in Present Opposition. Should it be repeated?
    • With an article that describes such a controversial subject, there is a great need to use inline citations in order to be completely NPOV. The citations I used in Mandan are probably the easiest to use.

This is a fine article! Keep up the good work! ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|<sup><font color="green">Dialogue?</font></sup>]] 15:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Matriculation refers to courses students sit for before entering university itself, so matriculation here is a bit different than in other countries. I've fixed up PKR's stand on the NEP, and removed the accidental duplication of the Kerismuddin incident. I'll cite inline sources when I have more free time. Johnleemk | Talk 17:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just want to expand on the subject of matriculation in the context of Malaysian's education (bare with me, this is my first contribution!). Matriculation can be seen as the path that a student wishes to take after they have completed their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), or the Certificate of Higher Education, to continue on with their education. Usually, in this case, their entrance to university. However, as a student could choose to study locally or abroad, the path to enter these higher institute of learning are different. Each matriculation is tailored to allow a student to enter the university of their choice. Thus a student would do an A-level if they wish to study in the UK or the SAT for the USA. For any local university, a student would sit for their Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) which is the entrance exam to an local university. All these different path to enter University courses are generally known as Matriculation.

Masni | 18th Jan 2006

[edit] wikify full text?

Should some parts of the full text be wikified if some of the vocabulary hasn't already been mentioned already? Or would it disrupt the style? -- Natalinasmpf 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions

Very well-written and interesting article; I have two questions:

  1. In the lead section, it says "Technically, discussion of abolishing Article 153 is illegal...", but this isn't explained later. Doesn't the Parliament of Malaysia has the power to amend the constitution with 2/3 majority, including this article, let alone discuss about it?
  2. What are the social effects of this Article 153 and the policies? For example, is this the main reason why many non-Bumiputra students are studying abroad (including many wikipedians!) and why there are so many private colleges in Malaysia?

Thanks in advance. --Vsion 11:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 of subsection "Present opposition" explains the legality (or lack of it) regarding the discussion of Article 153. I wouldn't know about Parliament, as the constitution doesn't explain it - it merely authorises Parliament to ban discussion of abolishing Article 153, which Parliament did by passing the Sedition Act. As for the social effects, not much credible writing is available on Article 153. There are a lot of rantings about it, but most of them tend to pertain to Mahathir and the NEP, or just make blanket accusations about Article 153 and related provisions of Malaysian law. As a result, any in-depth writing on Article 153's social effects would be original research. Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I missed that paragraph. Thanks for your reply. --Vsion 11:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First three sentences of controversy section

They read awkwardly. It reads as though "there was great inequality in 1970, so the commission made a recommendation. It didn't work, and therefore there was rioting in the late 60s." I think the 1970 stats are only being cited as an example of the inequality that led to the rioting, but it reads as though the commission made the report around 1970. Somebody fix. Babajobu 06:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job...

... countering systematic bias. Kudos to all who worked on this article. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the best explanations of the subject I've encountered. Great work and great mainpage material. --Vector4F 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chowing Down

Really?
Really?

Is this the best picture that can be found of this guy to illustrate a serious article about the rights of Malaysians? Good Lord. Tempshill 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is difficult to use on this article because it does not deal with Lim himself, and that was the only free image of him I could find. Johnleemk | Talk 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results of the social contract

In this excellent article I have noticed that the history and backgrounds of the article are very well explained. However, could some data be produced on the longterm effects of the policy? For instance I heard that (as is mentioned) the rural Malays did not profit very much from it, however I also heard that the rural Indians are not very well off at all. Some say suffering under it......

[edit] Proof Wikipedia works

Where else, encyclopedia-wise, would you find an article on something as obscure yet important as this, at this depth of analysis? Bravo. -- user:zanimum

Agreed. I read a lot of this article, and it's pretty interesting and very well-written. Never even knew about it before. Something so controversial should have had a lot more non-NPOV around, but this is pratically 100% NPOV. Great friggin' job. 67.68.153.41 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Also agreed, I came back onto the talk page specifically to thank those who worked on the article - this is the sort of thing that Encyclopedia Brittanica has wet dreams about. Great choice for a featured article :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good God...

I thought the featured article was supposed to be protected?

TJSwoboda 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be. See our protection policy. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] translate this article to Bahasa Malaysia

Good Job. Someone should make it to Bahasa Malaysia, becoz not everybody in malaysia understand english, and this is a topic related to malaysian themself.....i think this article showing some hardcore problem in malaysia07:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One would of course do this at Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu. If some new user does this, please remember to post an interwiki (if you don't know what that is, just leave the URL here).--Pharos 15:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not related to malaysian at all. It's some racist does on the internet.--60.52.16.63 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] :Neutrality:

"some say" is the preceding tag used by partisan organisations to get away with "reporting" fallacious hearsay, i.e., stuff they have just made up.

e.g. "Some say Senator Kerry is a flip-flopper, who can't make up his mind" "Some say President Bush is a cowboy, who shoots first and asks questions later" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Titrator (talk • contribs) .

What you mean is weasel words. However, they are not weaselly if there are sources to back them up. Full stop. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The article seems alright to me. This is nonsense, it looks like you are trying to bring down the article, by putting those disputed tags. Oh yes, good job for the work put in. --Terence Ong 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To debate this topic, try here at the POV wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danny (talk • contribs) .

I brought this issue up earlier. Apparently Johnleemk clarified that it was the lead section, so being assertive with the label of "some" in order for brevity's sake is acceptable, although we might want to use a bit more suspense elements to prove our intentions. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] retaliation + another thought

I have two issues I didn't notice earlier. One is the concept of "ostensibly maintaining support" which doesn't logically flow with the concept of "against the implementation" of Article 153; does someone mind correcting this, as I don't know what the specific nuance in meaning is intended for. Secondly, it concerns that the UMNO retaliated the PAP's running for federal elections in Malaysia; I believe it is the other way round, that the PAP retaliated against UMNO for running for Singapore's state elections, so the PAP decided to run in the federal elections (winning one seat). Or were there three elections? Can the dates be cross-referenced from the PAP-UMNO relations article and forth, because it's slightly ambiguous in that area. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Natalina is right about the elections, Singapore's election was in September 1963 [1], Malaysia election was in April 1964. However, I don't think it was purely a "retaliation", maybe a "response" or "reaction" is better/neutral wording. --Vsion 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It is roughly the same; they were engaged in political conflict. Does it really matter? ;-) Either way is fine by me, although I prefer "retaliation" as it represents the hostile mood then. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination policy mentioned in letter

Letter
Letter

Greetings,

I have a letter in my possesion, scanned here, from a Malaysian university. I am unable to find any English sources from the govt websites of malaysia that supports one way or the other the malaysian law against Shias that the letter talks about.

I think this is not a federal policy, but rather a local state policy. But I cannot verify it.

Can anybody help verifying this?--Zereshk 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Why was the address censored out? Johnleemk would probably be able to help you on this - I am not sure whether the Shi'a/Sunni distinction applies in Article 153. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
IIUM is a private university funded by the Malaysian government. Anyhow, I don't see what this has to do with Article 153. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It is clearly a case of religious discrimination. The Shi'ah denomination is proscribed in Malaysia with some local adherents actually put under administrative detention under the Internal Security Act. Nonetheless, I agree with John, it is discrimination but not within the interpretation of Article 153. Bob K | Talk 10:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt have anything to do with article 153. I just mentioned it here to get some expert attention. I blotted out the name/address of the person to protect him. (I know him personally).
Are there any sources to verify this "law against hiring Shia staff" that the letter is professing?--Zereshk 07:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text

Wikisource includes the full text of Article 153 - do we need to include it here? As I understand it, an encyclopedia does not usually contain such extensive quotations from primary sources (see WP:NOT); in addition, the formatting of the beginning of the lines looks rather odd to me from 8 onwards (I see open bullet points - "o" - before 8(a), (b) and (c); then "1. (8A) ..."; then "9 (9) ..."; then "1. (9A) ...").

I appreciate that this article is partly about disputes over the meaning of the text, and that it is a relatively obscure text, but it is already freely available at Wikisource. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] indigenous peoples of Malaysia

The article contains this phrase, "responsibility for safeguarding the rights and privileges of the Malay and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia..." Malays per se are not the indigenous peoples of Malaysia. The true Bumiputra/indigenous peoples are a much smaller portion of the population.

[edit] Race Riots

Last sentence of last paragraph of the article introduction: Malaysia has escaped the riots that have plagued other multi-cultural countries in Southeast Asia.

This is surely wrong. The race riots of 1969 are very well documented. If anything, Malaysia has had worse race riots than some of their SE Asian neigbours. --202.12.233.21 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you misunderstood the context of the sentences, and most likely the paragraph. The context of the article is set in the late 1990s. Try to read that the whole paragraph again, keeping in mind that the NEP was introduced after 1969. Moreover, the article refers to allegation by its supporter - it's a positive statement, not normative. __earth (Talk) 04:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias, neutrality, NPOV, original research

its weird why such article was elected for featured article. the article consist of the opposition party POV, which not a major voted by ppl, why would you ppl take that as a citation? --60.52.17.3 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)