马来西亚土著

马来西亚土著

维基百科，自由的百科全书跳转到： 导航, 搜索

本条目或章节存有多项争议或问题。请协助改善本条目或在讨论页针对议题发表看法。

中立性有争议。内容、语调可能带有明显的个人观点或地方色彩。自2010年7月起标示本模板。

可能包含原创研究或未查证内容。自2010年7月起标示本模板。

准确性有争议。自2010年7月起标示本模板。

语调或风格可能不适合百科全书的写作方式。自2010年7月起标示本模板。

可能需要进行清理，以符合维基百科的质量标准。自2010年7月起标示本模板。

没有列出任何参考或来源。自2010年7月起标示本模板。

马来西亚土著〈马来语：Bumiputra〉，在马来西亚宪法下指的是马来西亚的马来人，沙巴和砂拉越的民族。Bumiputra一词原自梵文，意指地球之子或是土地之子，这是由于Bumi一词有“土地”和“地球”之意。在马来西亚，中文使用者一般都使用“土著”一词来称呼这些人。由于马来人占了土著92%以上的人口，所以，一般人使用土著一词时，指的就是马来人。而不属于Bumiputra的人，就称为非土著。而非土著一词指的就是华人、印度人、欧亚裔和一些已具有马来西亚公民权的新移民。由于华人和印度人占了非土著近99%的人口，所以狭义称呼下，非土著通常指的是华人或印度人。

马来西亚的原住民（Orang Asli），在马来西亚一般被称为原住民，他们是否是土著范围下的人向来是舆论的焦点。

[编辑] 定义

土著的概念是基于马来西亚的国家宪法（其中宪法第153条对土著的概念有非常的贡献）。但是，宪法没有把土著界别清楚。宪法只有界定以下文族的条文：

巫族（160章、第二条）

土人（160章、第二条）

沙劳越原住民（161A章、第六条、a节）

沙巴原住民（161A章、第六条、a节）

因为政府没有一个统一界定来识别，所以，政府多个部门和机构都有不同（和互相不相容）的界别来厘定土著身份。

[编辑] 马来西亚高等教育部的定义

根据马来西亚高等教育部“学生入学管理办公室”出版的2007至2008年入学指南，土著是以下的人：

马来半岛居民：如果父母其中一位在马来西亚联邦宪法160章、第二条的前提下，是一名笃信回教的巫族人、或者是土人（Orang Asli），他的儿子就是土著。

沙巴居民：如果父亲在马来西亚联邦宪法161A章、第六条、a节的前提下，是一名笃信回教的巫族人、或者是沙巴的原住民，他的儿子就是土著。

沙劳越居民：如果父母两位在马来西亚联邦宪法161A章、第六条、a节的前提下都是沙劳越的原住民，他的儿子就是土著。

[编辑] 民间／传统定义

在马来西亚传统定义下，所有马来人都是土著，一些非马来人也称为土著，一些非回教徒也称土著。除此之外，马来西亚沙巴和砂拉越两州的伊班人，卡达山人，杜顺人等少数原住民也被列入土著的范围。

[编辑] 政策

[编辑] 合法性特权

土著特权是根据马来西亚宪法第153条。该例说明：“国家元首在此条文下有保护巫族人的合法地位和其它社区的合法性权利的责任。（英文：It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.〉”

因为马来西亚运用君主立宪系统组成政府，所以国家元首的责任被人视为是国家本身的责任。

[编辑] 新经济政策

1969年五一三事件后，马来西亚政府为了缓和种族间的紧张关系，于是施行了一系列的新经济政策，这些经济政策的主要目的在于提升土著在马来西亚的经济地位，然而这一系列的经济政策至今尚未成功，相反的，却引起了非土著的强烈不满。

[编辑] 争议

马来西亚土著政策是一个被视为只会维护马来西亚马来族的政策。而这一政策也被国际以及马来西亚非土著视为种族歧视政策。然而一些人认为，在马来西亚独立初期，被视为非多数人口的华人（当时马来人占了人口的约50%，而华人占了约36%）却由于英国殖民时期，英国人控制了马来西亚的经济并采取了“分裂政策”的关系，华人大部分都从商，而马来人却是农夫，渔夫，工人等，基本上被排除在马来西亚的商业圈之外。这情况被一些人视为对马来西亚社会造成不稳。马来西亚政府认为，只有合法土著特权和经济利益才能够缓和马来西亚个种族间的紧张关系。于是在1969年五一三事件后制造了马来西亚新经济政策，以加强马来人在马来西亚的经济地位。

另一个常被争议的问题就是马来西亚的原住民（Orang Asli），根据历史，马来西亚原住民才是马来半岛上最早居住的人民。但在马来人施行的土著政策下，却没有把原住民列入土著的范围，而这些原住民的经济状况实际上却比马来人更糟糕。这情况使得很多人同情原住民的状况，尤其是华人和印度人。马来西亚人权委员会一直不断的呼吁马来西亚政府承认并将原住民纳入土著的范围。然而，一些却反对说，原住民已经被当成土著。

[编辑] 新加坡的独立

参见：新加坡独立

新加坡未独立前，李光耀以及他所领导的人民行动党提出了马来西亚人的马来西亚政策，这一政策主要是所有马来西亚公民，不分种族和宗教一率享有平等的权利。他的主张却遭到很多马来人领袖的强烈反对，这些马来人领袖认为，在马来西亚这片土地上，只有马来人才能享有特权。由于李光耀和这些马来人领袖政策上的冲突，这一冲突也最终导致新加坡的独立。而新加坡的独立也被不少华人视为马来人的阴谋，这是由于，新加坡独立后，马来西亚华人的人口比例直接从原有的45%下降到35%，而马来人的人口比例直接从原来的45%提升到50%的水平，这一情况，使马来西亚华人成为了少数民族，被认为削弱了华人在民主选举投票中的人数效应。

新加坡的独立，马来西亚华人成为少数民族，土著政策的合法化，以及后来的新经济政策等都对马来西亚往后４０年的发展产生了极大的影响，这些政策的实施也影响了新加坡和马来西亚的外交和经济关系。这也使得这４０年来，李光耀不断抨击马来西亚政府的土著政策，并向国际媒体声称，马来西亚的土著政策是一个有系统的将华人和印度人边缘化的长期政策。

[编辑] 现时土著情况

马来西亚前首相马哈迪时常在公共场合抱怨马来人过度依赖土著特权。他经常告诉马来人如果他们经常依赖土著特权下的津贴，马来族会变的很弱。
We have tried to tell them if you depend on subsidies, you are going to be very weak. But they don't seem to understand. We tell them if you use crutches, you will not be able to stand up. Throw away the crutches, stand up straight because you still have the capacity. I have talked about this thing and as a doctor I know very well the meaning of crutches but somehow or rather they want the easy way out. If I get an AP and I sell it and make some money, it's all right, they say.

（汉译：我们已经尝试向他们说如果你倚靠特权，你会变得非常软弱。可是，他们好像不太明白。我们向他们说如果你用拐杖的话，你就无法站起来。（土著）抛弃拐杖、站起来吧，因为你们还有站起来的能力。我已经说过那些东西和作为一名医生，我知道拐杖的用途，但是，他们还不想奋斗。他们想：如果我拥有了一张AP（马来西亚汽车入口许可证），我把它卖出挣钱是没有问题的。

——马来西亚第四任首相马哈迪

马哈迪在2004年也说，“马来人大学毕业生的雇用率低于华人大学毕业生，这是因为华人懂得选择对的科目修读，所以他们在市场上比马来人更有竞争力。那些马来人毕业生，尤其那些来自马来语环境的学生，一般都不能有效使用英语，不管你文凭上的成绩多好，在现实上商场上，雇主只要那些懂得和他们沟通的人。雇主未必是一个马来人，他可以是个外国人，如果他无法和你沟通，他不会雇用你。”
除此之外，那些被马来西亚政府资助的马来人学生，他们一般都会选择修读回教法律，回教历史，或是一些有关回教的科目，他们不但没有选择修读英语，也没有选择去修读一些有经济价值的科目如工程学和医学等，相反的，他们选择到中东国家修读阿拉伯语，这些现象被不少人认为不实际。2006年6月，169名被送去在埃及开罗的Al-Azhar大学的马来人学生，都面临阿拉伯语问题，最终只有五人通过考试。这新闻在马来西亚媒体报光后，使得马来西亚的保送马来人政策非常尴尬，认为这在浪费马来西亚人民的纳税钱。马来西亚首相阿都拉强烈批评马来人学生只会选择容易的科目修读，这些容易科目往往都没有实际商业价值。
取自

http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%A6%AC%E4%BE%86%E8%A5%BF%E4%BA%9E%E5%9C%9F%E8%91%97
1个分类: 各族群马来西亚人
6个隐藏分类: 自2010年7月中立性有争议的作品
自2010年7月可能带有原创研究的条目
自2010年7月准确性有争议的作品
自2010年7月语调不适于维基百科的条目
自2010年7月需要清理的条目
自2010年7月缺少来源的条目

Dear friends,

An article to share...

The New Paper's report today,

Source:The Sun,News,Tuesday 31 August 2010

This sort of fury often brought on by finance-related matters.

Yesterday I received a letter from Prudential, with whom I spend nearly $1,000 every month, telling me that I don’t have cancer

Yep, you read it right. Apparently, according to the experts at Prudential, I lost a breast and went through a 12 hour surgery for… not cancer!

Blows your mind, huh? I’m still trying to find pieces of my brain under the couch after this staggering news.

Truth is, three of my many Prudential policies cover me for critical illness. However, when I signed with my agents, I never imagined that cancer at Stage 0 would be considered by my insurance company that I “do not have cancer”. In fact, there is every chance a woman buying a life plan with critical illness coverage has NO IDEA there is a stage called DCIS, and that her insurance company does not consider it cancer.

So my “imaginary cancer” won’t allow me to claim any of the $200,000 (or more) that my critical illness plans entitle me to.

Please, if you are a woman reading this, go and see your insurance agent and tell him/her/it that you want coverage for EARLY STAGE CANCERS. Make sure your policy document states that you will get 25% or however much for ductal carcinomas-in-situ or Stage 0 breast cancer. To my understanding these are the 2 policies that offer them now:

1. Great Eastern’s PinkLife will pay out 25% of your sum assured for carcinomas-in-situ. Not great an exchange for a breast but at least it’s not nothing. If I had bought that instead I would have $50,000 to allow me to take a break from work for some months, while still being able to pay my monthly bills and kids’ tuition fees and groceries…

2. AIA’s Complete Critical Illness Cover pays out 25% on early critical illnesses (I am assuming DCIS breast cancer is one of these).

Please please please, I beg you, don’t get royally scr*wed like me. Make sure your critical illness plan actually covers you, and you are not just happily giving your money away to insurance companies for their CEOs to buy 10 luxury holiday homes across the world.

Do not be a sucker like me. Please.

Call your insurance agent or financial planner today and make sure, by hook or by crook, you are covered by some rider, anything, for early stage cancers.

I’ve been researching cases of insurance companies who don’t pay out for DCIS breast cancers. Looks like it’s a worldwide disease. The insurance companies are the disease, I mean.

I lost a breast to this threat.

My histological report finds the cancer cells ARE malignant and aggressive, and most certainly were life-threatening — or I wouldn’t have needed the mastectomy.

I just happened to discover it before it became an uncontrollable growth.

Tell me how this is not cancer.

In my Googling I found this BBC clip. It makes me so, so sad that all around the world, women like me are shortchanged by insurance policies that they pay through the nose for.

I have paid close to $32,000 for one policy and over $25,000 for the other.

This clause in Critical Illness contracts NEEDS TO CHANGE. DCIS is cancer (and in my case, malignant) and it should be awarded accordingly and automatically. Sadly, Prudential covered its backside in its small print, which I had no understanding of. It makes me sad that they expect me to have Stage 1, or 2, or 3 or terminal cancer and chemo and radiation before I qualify to make a claim. Losing a breast is forever. Surely that must count for something.

For women in their 20s or 30s reading this — if you have had a grandmother, mother, sister, aunt, female cousin contract breast cancer, make sure you get yourself proper coverage (see box above).

A close friend who is a decorated journalist was horrified to hear it was likely I could not make a claim on my critical illness plans. “They should change that,” he said (after uttering “Wah lau eh, sh*t!”). “I can write a story on that.”

He should. I think I will be calling him soon. Also I am relooking at my Prudential policies now — maybe it’s not worthwhile carrying on. I should get my money back. Pity the surrender value is so pathetic. Bet that CEO already bought his 11th luxury holiday home.

Never mind, lessons learned. READ THE SMALL PRINT, AND FIND OUT WHAT THE EXCLUSIONS MEAN.

So, I guess I have no choice but to haul my sorry ass back to work.

Shree Ann Mathavan of The New Paper came to visit me yesterday and we had a nice chat about my insurance policies (among other things — she is a lovely girl and a hardworking journalist).

Her story came out in today’s New Paper and I felt it was a really fair and clear report of what happened. I was dreading a super-sensationalist header like “She Loses A Breast… And They Won’t Pay!” LOL!

Shree Ann was really respectful of my reasons for talking about this — it is not to complain that Prudential bullied me (which they did not, a contract is a contract) — but to alert other women who might be in the process of buying a policy, or may not have taken a look at her existing policies to make sure her coverage is full. Hence her report came out as such.

I’ve received emails, calls and comments to this blog — financial advisers who very kindly explain how it works (I just wish it was BEFORE not AFTER, but thank you all), women who have been through the same experience, and women who never even realised hospitalisation and critical illness policies are two different policies! So it only confirms that there is definitely a gap in the information that women need to have about their health insurance.

I am also happy to hear from friends who have bought the women’s only policies from AIA, Prudential or Great Eastern, and the GE Early Payout Critical Care, and were covered when the need arose.

Happy!

Today, for once, I feel like there is something worthwhile that has come out of my cancer experience

勇敢走下去