Whilst we are in the midst of a penumpang altercation it would be interesting to note when Joyo Erodikromo migrated from Java, Indonesia, he would not have guessed that his fifth child would one day became a Menteri Besar of Malaysia's most developed state.

Similarly, Iskandar Kutty, a merchant from India who settled in Penang and married Siti Hawa of Johor-Riau ancestry, would not have foreseen his grandson becoming the nation's prime minister for 22 long years, neither perhaps would he have thought his grandson would be labeled a Malay ultra.

What distinguishes non-Bumiputera Malaysians from some Umno leaders whose immigrant ancestry is an open secret is twofold, the latter's immigrant ancestor had inter-married with a local and the immigrant ancestor was most likely a Muslim or the offspring became Muslim.

This jives with Article 160 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia in that a Malay is defined as one who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs, and –

(a) Was born before Merdeka Day in Malaysia or Singapore OR one parent was born in Malaysia or Singapore OR was resident in Malaysia or Singapore on Merdeka Day;

(b) Is the child of such a person.

By virtue of Article 160, an Indonesian who migrates to Malaysia today, and likely meets the first three criteria of a Malay, would just need to marry a Malaysian and his offspring would be categorised as a Malay and it is unlikely that Ahmad Ismail would term such a person pendatang as Malays cannot be penumpang by the very nature of the deed. (Ironically, Mahathir Mohamad’s alleged infamous Project M did not require an Indonesian or Filipino to intermarry with a local – they were literally given citizenship on a silver platter.)

In the same breath, it is likely that even if a non-Bumiputera could claim ancestry in Malaysia since 1008 AD, he would still be deemed penumpang . The non-Muslim Bumiputeras are perhaps a special case i.e. though not being Muslim, their indigenousness to the region (by virtue of their Austronesian ethnicity) disallows any notion of them being penumpang .

Hence, for Ahmad Ismail and likeminded individuals, the qualifying factor to be accepted as a citizen of equal standing would be to either profess Islam (hence becoming a Malay) or be of Austronesian extract i.e. bangsa serumpun irrespective of when their ancestors actually set foot on Malaysian soil. Ahmad's argument that he was referring to non-Malays at the time of independence is rubbish as many could trace their ancestry 100-200 years before independence.

Reading the various blog postings in the wake of this fiasco, it is manifestly clear that a segment of the Malay populace have not come to terms with the citizenship status of the non-Malays. This is not surprising given 51 years of indoctrination by Umno via Biro Tatanegara, through the misuse of the mainstream media and abuse of its dominant role in BN to interpret history and the social contract at its whim.

Perhaps, it is timely for the Bar Council to host a series of colloquiums on matters Umno and its sympathetic NGOS would gleefully welcome i.e. (1) citizen loyalty – a case study of the non-Malays, (2) the citizenship status of non-Malays – is there a need to deport them back to India and China, (3) demolishing non-Muslim places of worship is a necessary ingredient to a better Malaysia etc. Give them the privilege to present papers and of course ensure it is an open forum where the public could engage the presenters with questions. It is time to call their bluff.