较早的一篇文章（刊于3月12日的《质疑土著的建构》）研究了土著一词和土著/非土著二分法结构如何出现并建构我们的政治，进而在1970年代迅速成为政策的结构。
这样的建构不仅没有受到挑战。反之成为经久不衰的“真理”，塑造并影响著马来西亚人的生活。这根深柢固的结构对国家的团结和人民的归属感带来了严重的伤害。
这是因为其导致了所谓的土著和外来者之间的区别。这种区别是因为政治和政策领导层的有意为之和机会主义的策略，目的是建立一种新的政治分类法，以管理和控制国家的行政和社会经济发展，并优先考量马来人的利益和主导地位。
从证据来看，该策略是全面取得成功的。土著意识建构的主要受益者是马来族群。尽管马来族群上层和中产阶级获得了最大利益，但必须指出的是，马来下层阶级和农村贫困人口，包括外来移民，也通过土著地位特权，获得某种形式上的利益。
自1970年代以来，马来社会特别是精英和中产阶级，不管在经济和职业结构上的改变，以及财富和收入分配的指标，都显示出显著且持续的进步。值得注意的是，早在90年代初，马来人在公司股权，高等教育和专业就业中所占的比例，早已达到或超过了新经济政策下通过马来西亚计划执行的族群指标。
此后，有关政策成果几乎是隐密的，但与此同时，土著政策的建构也全面扩展到了马来西亚人生活的其他层面，超出了其原初的意图。基于，马来人主导著公务员体系，并实际上垄断了所有的高职，土著意识的建构及随之而来的土著/非土著二分法，也成为政府在任何领域政策和发展中，用于制定和衡量结果的因素和标准。
未来的土著建构
新经济政策结束30多年后的今天，重思土著建构的论述是迫不及待的，以化解非土著年轻一代的焦虑，让他们摆脱父母那一代的苦恼。这样的讨论也可加强年轻一代的土著了解，国家要有公平的竞争环境，就必须消除种族歧视政策，这政策已成为土著建构中不可或缺的部分。
有关这方面的讨论，可从最近关于国民团结的两项言论中，找到实质的方向。
第一，首相慕尤丁在2月15日在推介2021年至2030年国家团结政策和大蓝图致词时说：“国民团结是这世界上每个国家的迫切愿望。马来西亚拥有著多元种族，宗教和文化的形象，并往往是国民团结的典范。尽管我们之间存在分歧，竞争和冲突，但我们社会长期存在的团结意识，使我们至今依然保持著团结一致的状态，这是许多国家希望向我们学习的。”
另外，柔州苏丹依布拉欣配合华人农历新年接受采访时也说：“华人不是外来者。他们是被邀到柔佛州开垦土地与耕种。我的祖先了解华人的角色，而华人帮助柔州开垦土地与耕种。柔佛州没有人将华人形容为外来者。华人协助建设柔州经济，他们已成为马来西亚人。他们和其他所有人一样，都是马来西亚人。他们就如马来人，印裔和其他族群一样是柔佛州民族。”
在推动国家对土著论述和土著/非土著区分的探讨中，社会舆论领袖的反馈也有推波助澜作用。这些包括来自智库的反应，如大学、政党、专业团体、民间社会组织和商业组织的智库。
不应再缄默或避而不谈
他们过去都对此话题保持沉默或避而不谈。这种缄默可能是由于担心此政治建构的课题，过于敏感和棘手，但随著现任政府对国民团结以及信息和言论自由的承诺，这样的心态应有所纠正。
其中一个应尽早解决的关键问题是，是否应继续使用“土著”一词作为一种政治建构，有鉴于其带来的分化影响和后果，尤其是对年轻的一代。
国内的政党，包括在东马的政党，对土著一词可能有不同应用，都应对该词及其政策二分法进行分析检讨。之后，党应向党员和民众，公告其在此课题上的立场。
所有马来西亚人都不应该无视这个课题，而应坚持要求我们的政治领导人和其他主要利益攸关方，公开透明地解决这个问题。
《摆脱土著意识的建构》（Doing Away with the Bumiputera Construct）原文：
An earlier article examined how the Bumiputera term and the Bumiputera/Non Bumiputera dichotomy construct emerged as political constructs and quickly became policy constructs in the 1970s.
These constructs not only have not been unchallenged. They have become enduring ‘truths’ conditioning the thinking and impacting the lives of an entire generation of Malaysians.
The entrenchment of the construct has been disastrous for the nation’s unity and sense of belonging.
This is because it has led to a distinction between the so-called sons of the soil and the pendatang. This distinction was a deliberate and opportunistic strategy of the political and policy leadership to create a new political taxonomy to manage and control the political-administrative working and socio-economic development of the country and to prioritize Malay interests and dominance.
And from all empirical evidence this strategy has succeeded all too well.
The main beneficiary of the Bumiputera construct has been the Malay community. Whilst the major gains have accrued to the Malay upper and middle class, it is important to note that the Malay lower class and rural poor including recent foreign migrants have received a substantial share of the benefits in one form or another from privileged access to the Bumiputra status.
Indicators of economic and occupational restructuring and wealth and income distribution reveal remarkable and sustained advances especially for the elite and middle class of the Malay community since the 1970s. Especially notable are Malay gains in corporate wealth, higher education and share of professional employment with NEP ethnic targets for the community established in the Malaysian Plans achieved or surpassed since the early 90s.
What has also happened since has been the almost furtive but at the same time comprehensive extension of the Bumiputera policy construct to other aspects of life in Malaysia beyond the original targeted goals. Because of Malay dominance of the civil service and the virtual monopoly of the higher ranking positions, the Bumiputera construct, and its accompanying Bumiputera/Non-Bumiputera dichotomy, have become the de facto and de jure factor used to determine and measure outcomes in whichever policy sector or area of development it is applied to.
The Future for the Bumiputera Construct
Today more than 30 years after the end of the NEP a national discourse on the Bumiputera construct is overdue if for no other reason to allay the fears of the non-Bumiputera young that this albatross across their parent’s neck will no longer also be theirs. Such a discourse can be used to emphasise to the younger generation Bumiputera that the playing field in the nation has to be reset to eliminate racial discriminatory policies that have been an integral part of the application of the construct.
The substantive direction which this potential discourse may follow can be informed by two recent comments on the related subject of national unity
Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin In launching speech of the National Unity Policy and National Unity Blueprint 2021-2030 on Feb 15
“Unity is the ardent wish of every country in this world. Malaysia’s image as a country of various ethnicities, religions and cultures is always an example of the united country. Even though we have differences, competition and conflicts, our long existent social unity in our society has kept our unity intact to this day that many other countries want to learn from us.”
Sultan Ibrahim Ibni Almarhum Sultan Iskandar in an interview in conjunction with Chinese New Year
“They are not pendatang. They were invited to Johor to cultivate our plantations. My forefathers understood the needs of our Chinese guests and they helped to cultivate our plantations. Let no one in Johor describe the Chinese as pendatang. They helped to build our economy and they have become Malaysians. They are just as Malaysian as everyone else. They are Bangsa Johor, like the Malays and Indians and others.”
What will also be useful in the proposed national discourse on the Bumiputera term and the Bumiputera/Non-Bumiputera will be the feedback from the opinion leaders in our society. These include the various think tanks including those from the universities, political parties, professional bodies, civil society organizations and business organizations. All of them have previously been silent or tight-lipped on the subject. However this reticence, possibly owing to concern that the subject matter of the political construct may be too sensitive to address, should be discarded in view of the current government’s stated commitment to national unity and the freedom of information and expression.
One key issue to be addressed early is whether the Bumiputera term should be continued as a political construct in view of its divisive impact and consequences especially for the younger generation.
Political parties in the country, including from East Malaysia where the Bumiputera term may have a different application, should undertake an analysis of the term and also its policy dichotomy. Following this review, they should inform their party members and public of the party’s position on this subject.
All Malaysians should not allow this subject to go away but should insist that it is addressed openly and transparently by our political leaders and other key stake players.
