Orang Asli came to Malaya 40, 000 years ago, they have ancestral and historical property rights

‘Adat’ land not in state constitution, says Perak MB


Orang Asli came to Malaya 40, 000 years ago.

They have ancestral and historical property rights. Adat, based on customary practices, has force of law.

The Perak state gov’t only existed since Merdeka, 31 Aug 1957.

In law, the gov’t cannot backdate legislation to say the Orang Asli are squatting on state land.

Definition of Malay . . . (Malay is a dirty word. It should not be mentioned in polite society) . . .

The Definition of Malay in Article 160 is not about race, DNA, Valiangkati, Nathekaran, history, geographical origin, Nusantara, Kepulauan Melayu, rumpun Melayu or Austronesian.

It’s about a Bogus Malay identity for some Muslims governed by the Merdeka cutoff point. No more Malays after Merdeka except for the descendants of the Malays.

According to the Definition of Malay in Article 160, Muslims able to speak Malay are Malay if born or domiciled in Singapore and Malaya by Merdeka, 31 Aug 1957.

Their descendants are also Malay.

It’s clear these are Bogus Malays.

The Definition is an artificial construct, an aberration in law. The Constitution is colour blind.

Generally, the so-called Malays in Singapore and Malaya are Tamil, Malayalee, Pathan, Yemeni, and Turk (all from India); and Bugis, Javanese, Minang and Aceh (all from Indonesia).

Many people are missing the point.

If a Malay people ever existed in history, it’s certainly not reflected in the Definition of Malay in Article 160.

Again, the people referred to as Malay in Article 160, under the 1st prong, are Bogus Malays.

Given the Bogus Malays in the 1st Prong, it’s a contradiction in terms to harp on the so-called Malay culture, customs and traditions under the 2nd prong.

Besides, the so-called Malay culture, customs and traditions are not only highly subjective but debatable.

Mandi Safar, for example, is Hindu.

Batik, kris and sarung are Indian.

Roti Canai (berota), cendol and rojak are Indian.

The list goes on and on.

Negrito (Semang) . . .

The Negrito came to Malaya from Kerala, southwest India, 40, 000 years ago. Negrito went from east Africa to India 70, 000 years ago.

The descendants of the Negrito still live in the mountains in Kerala.

Kanis, Uralis, Kadar, Kanikkar, and Paniyar, the major tribes who inhabit the mountains of Kerala, are descendants of the Negrito.

The Negrito are still there in Malaya. They are still there in Sumatra, south Thailand, Myanmar and the Philippines. They came from Malaya.

The Negrito have been assimilated in Borneo.

Austronesians only appeared in history about 6, 000+ years ago.

The Tamils from southeast India were the first people in Malaya after the Negrito from Kerala, southwest India.

Read further . . .




Author: fernzthegreat

Joe Fernandez holds a honours degree in management, majoring in economics, and has opted from academia in law to being a jurist. He was trained professionally on the job as a journalist. He's a longtime Borneo watcher, keen on the history and legal aspects of Malaya's presence in Sabah and Sarawak. He teaches the English language privately and has emerged as a subject matter expert in public examination techniques.

34 thoughts on “Orang Asli came to Malaya 40, 000 years ago, they have ancestral and historical property rights”

  1. Jesus did not return to nothingness. HE returned to God. Your own bible says, He is seated at the right hand of God. Secondly, your own bible says, Jesus revealed the book of revelation to John the apostle, long after he left the earth. So if he went to nothiness, John would not have seen the visions of heaven.

    Your own bible says, jesus promised there are mansions in heaven, and God comforts people. Such things are not possible in nothingness.

    You are wrong about your own religion. Seek God in a personal manner, Joseph. Follow your own religion correctly.


  2. DNA studies have shown all humans belong to one race only. Even the concept of race is questionable. Language and culture and the ethnic group from which he identifies with or is a member of, dictate the identity of the person. Some physical features shaped by geographical factors may be incorporated as part of it.
    Just as many outsider may have come into India and assimilated, same way other outsiders also may have come to Malay civilization and assimilated.
    Each ethnic group has the right to define itself and speak for itself. How can others speak for it?


    1. The Constitution is colour blind. The Orang Asal mentioned in Article 161A is not about race, or geographical origin etc, but NCR land i.e. ancient, historical and ancestral property rights.

      The law is not about assimilation and integration.

      The law is also not about DNA except where one has no other way to prove citizenship by descent under operation of law. Refer to recent court cases.

      There’s no jus soli (birthright citizenship) in Malaysia.

      Citizenship in Malaysia, under operation of law, is by descent from a citizen. Jus Sanguinis (blood).

      Having said that, foreigners in Malaysia can apply for citizenship by registration, naturalisation or in doubtful cases by certificate.

      They have to go through the process . . . green IC and red IC before blue IC.


    1. Does not matter where Kutty came from or not. What matters is here and now. I am here and now. I am Malay.


      1. My mother was Malay and for generations her family was based in Johor. So to tell I am not Malay, you are wrong.


        1. If you are the descendant of a Muslim in Singapore and Malaya governed by Merdeka, 31 Aug 1957, the cutoff point, then you are a Malay under the Definition of Malay in Article 160 in Malaya and Article 152 in Singapore.

          My point is that this is a Definition about Bogus Malays. Read it carefully.

          The rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, is not only about letter of the law but the spirit too, with greater emphasis on the latter.

          Having said that, it’s interesting that Article 152 refers to “Malays” as “Natives” of Singapore.

          There’s no such reference in Article 160.

          I believe that Malacca and Penang refers to Natives as including eligible Indians, Chinese and others as well.

          In law, going by jurisprudence, Native does not mean Indigenous or Orang Asal only.

          Article 161A states that only the Indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak are Natives in the two territories.

          The Native Interpretation Ordinance in Sabah, a colonial decree, refers to Natives as the Indigenous or Orang Asal people and certain non-Indigenous people from neighbouring regions, subject to Immigration restrictions i.e. they are not subject to Immigration restrictions, meaning they were there in the territory before the Immigration Act 1959/1963.

          Neighbouring regions, for example, exclude India and China. This is discriminatory in law.

          The Federal Constitution states that an inferior law is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with a superior law.

          The Federal Constitution is superior to Acts, Acts are superior to Enactments, and Enactments are superior to Ordinances.


      2. Ok. I get your point. You have explained your points well.

        For Sabah and Sarawak, neighboring regions means Brunei and Indonesian Borneo bordering that area, some parts of Sulu islands etc. India and China are very far away , otherwise one has to include Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, entire Indonesia etc, if India and china has to be included. We have to interpret it correctly.


      3. You have to also understand the definition of Malay is not just Muslim descendant, but habitually speak and practice Malay language and customs . To do so, one has to have some generational links. Secondly, Malay was already a recognized group even by European colonizers who came in the 15th century. Even historians have written about it. So it is not an invented identity from a historic point of view.

        However, I understand you are trying to look at things from purely legal perspective from the letter of the constitution.

        For instance, Indian Muslims are not classified as Malays, even if they have lived here before the Merdeka cut off date. They have been here for 100 years, but still are called Indian Muslims because they habitually do not speak Malay language or practice Malay customs.

        So it is not correct to say all Muslims (from families who lived before Merdeka) in Malaysia are called Malay in Malaysia today under law. There are also Arabs/Hadrami Muslims who came to Singapore and lived in Arab street for nearly 100 years, they are not called Malay either.


        1. We are not talking about the people the European colonisers may have met.

          Malay was the lingua franca of the Archipelago. Language is no proof of race.

          The Malay in the Definition of Malay in Article 160 is a bogus definition.

          Habitually etc is the second prong. Malay culture, customs and traditions are subjective and highly debatable.

          It’s the first prong, the cutoff point, that’s important.

          re Indian Muslims, some have told me they don’t want to be classified as Malay.

          In fact, the Definition is clear. If they are Malay, they are Malay. Why were Umno meetings in Tanjung, Penang, conducted in Tamil? A non-Tamil complained to Umno HQ.


      4. If many culture, customs, of Malays are subjective and highly debatable, the same can be said of any culture and custom on earth. Each group has the right to call itself a name and give itself an identity, same holds true to each and every ethnic group and language group on earth.

        The UMNO meeting held in Tamil may have been towards some Tamil Hindus who were invited to understand UMNO’s certain potions on social issues most likely. UMNO loves all races.


    2. Most Indian Muslims are not classified as Malays as far as I am aware. Some may if they have Malay mothers. What is wrong in accepting your mother’s identity as well? Are we sexist and anti-women here? Hope not. The mother carries the child in her womb and gives birth. She must have some say in things too.


      1. In law, who are these Malay mothers?

        The Definition of Malay in Article 160 defines Malays. This definition is not about race, DNA etc i.e. all those items I mentioned before.

        For example, if it’s held that a Bugis Muslim is Malay but not a Tamil Muslim, that contradicts the Definition.

        The second prong in the Definition of Malay in Article 160 talks about Malay culture, customs and traditions, all items which are subjective and debatable.

        The first prong says Muslims governed by the Merdeka cutoff point are Malays and therefore these same Malays are vice versa.

        This is a form of identity for the Muslims governed by the Merdeka cutoff deadline. The identity is also for their descendants.

        Islam is not from Malaya or the Archipelago. It was a form of identity created by the 3rd Caliph for Arabs.

        To say that Muslims governed by the Merdeka cutoff point are Malays and these same Malays are vice versa is not law at all but bad law. Bad law inherently does not exist.

        Besides, it’s unconstitutional to say that certain Muslims are Malays by virtue of religion.

        The Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience.


      2. My Malay mother’s family has lived in Johor for generations, are buried there, and history goes back hundreds of years. Certainly not recently arrived within the last 100 years from Indonesia or India or anywhere else. Show that your ancestors are buried in this land for 1000 years and their graves, take out their bones and test their DNA, if it is linked to you. If yes, then you are native to this land. In law and in common sense that is sufficient. To become native, your unique culture and language should be spoken in that area and uniquely developed in that area and no where else. Having some mixed words isn’t going to make it completely foreign. Malay language is not spoken in Cambodia nor is it spoken in Vietnam by the vast majority. Perhaps some parts of Indonesia, Singapore and Malaya and Brunei. They spoke Malay for generations.

        Malaysian courts, Malaysian law recognizes her as Malay. She speaks Malay, the culture she practices isn’t found anywhere in China or India.

        Playing around with definitions isn’t going to change the reality. If you are correct, get a point of ruling from the supreme court of this land.

        Islam was not created by any caliph. It already existed since time of Abraham. Islam means submission to God. Mohammed (PBUH) was the last prophet to receive the revelation of Islam.


        1. There’s no need for a point of law ruling from the Federal Court on the Definition of Malay in Article 160.

          The Article is clear. These are Bogus Malays.

          Islam was created by the 3rd Caliph to give an identity to Arabs. He compiled and codified the Quran in Arabic from Aramaic and sources in other languages.

          Islam is about believers degenerating into tribalism and feudalism and going to war against non-believers (kafir).

          There’s no reason for non-Arabs to be Muslim as the identity is about being Arab.

          The Arab identity and literature must be viewed separately by the rest of the world.

          In Arabia, they are one and the same.

          According to Zakir Naik, everything was created by God. In fact, we know from science that the universe does not need a Creator. Everything happened by chain reaction. Science doesn’t tell us what existed before chain reaction.

          We know from science that the universe is an illusion. It does not exist although it appears to exist physically.

          Zakir Naik added that everything is God in Hinduism.

          Hindus don’t believe in God as in the religions. Those who think of God will become hallucinational. In their hallucination, they become delusional.

          Hindus believe that a great spirit permeates everything.

          Hindus are seekers guided by knowers (Gurus).

          Hinduism is not a religion, it’s not a belief system, it has no Founder and there’s no conversion.

          Buddhism, like Hinduism, speaks of no God. It says the goal of human beings must be to attain eternal bliss. It’s the same in Hinduism.

          The Holy Bible, the Word of God, is not about believers or seekers.

          It’s about the spiritual nature of truth.

          Spiritual does not mean spiritualism (seeking).

          Spiritual does not mean religion or belief system.

          God does not mean God. Word does not mean God.

          Word means the spiritual nature of truth.

          Truth is in nothingness. We come from nothingness, we return to nothingness.

          The truth has a spiritual nature.

          Jesus, in touching on the spiritual nature of truth, said, “love those who hate you, pray for those who curse you, do good to those who wish you harm, and the kingdom of heaven will be yours”.

          By kingdom of heaven, Jesus meant eternal bliss, the return to nothingness.

          Church is a gathering in memory of Jesus.

          Jesus said, “where two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there among them”.


      3. Joseph,

        Why should there be no point of ruling from the Federal court? It will put an end to the controversy as to what and who is a Malay. The Federal court will invite international anthropologists, historians, linguists and genealogists to investigate and submit the report. Why should one be scared of a federal court’s ruling?

        It is pure common sense that anyone who habitually speaking Malay, follows Malay customs, practices, traditions, who else does that apart from the people who lived in Malaysia for centuries, have their ancestors buried here.

        If one wants to question the identity then anyone’s identity can be questioned, including of yourself

        Islam ‘s final prophet came to the Arabs, just as Jesus came to the Jews with his gospel or Buddha came to the Hindus. The message is for all mankind, even if it came to a particular tribe at first. The Message is not racist.


        1. You are missing the point.

          If a Malay people ever existed in history, it’s certainly not reflected in the Definition of Malay in Article 160.

          The people referred to as Malay in Article 160, under the 1st prong, are Bogus Malays.

          Given the Bogus Malays in the 1st Prong, it’s a contradiction in terms to harp on the so-called Malay culture, customs and traditions under the 2nd prong.

          Besides, the so-called Malay culture, customs and traditions are not only highly subjective but debatable.

          Mandi Safar, for example, is Hindu.

          Batik, kris and sarung are Indian.

          Roti Canai (berota), cendol and rojak are Indian.

          The list goes on and on.


      4. Yes, there are borrowed loan words and concepts, just as many Indians like yourself use European names or wear European /western clothing. That does not in anyway diminish Indians identity. There are also lots of things in Malay culture that is not Indian. Even there are many things India that are Arabic and Persian and Turkish influences. Cross cultural influences does not diminish the identity or history or connections to the land of individual Malays and their families who have lived in this land for several generations.


        1. I think that you are still missing the point.

          The Malay language was used as the lingua franca in the Archipelago. Language is no proof of race.

          There’s no evidence of a Malay race, so to speak.

          The Definition of Malay in Article 160 is not about any so-called Malay race. Read it carefully.

          That’s why I said Bogus Malays.

          The Article does not go into generations.


  3. Law exists, and has always existed, based on common sense, universal values, and principles of natural justice.

    There’s no such thing as no law.

    Adat, based on customary practices, has force of law.


    1. You quote law, the same law defines and states rights for us Malays. You cannot have it both ways. Orang Asli are keralite from kerala. there were other people in Malaya


  4. Since you admit they come from Kerala, they are pendatang. They are not indigenous to Malaysia. Original indigenous may be other early man tribes or homo errectus. Orang Asli therefore are not orang asli. They are pendatang of kerala. Thank you for sharing this truth Joe fernandez


    1. You think people come out of the ground or fall from the sky.

      Indigenous means the first people to settle down in the emptiness and vastness of a geographical expanse bounded by water, jungle and mountain, to work the land.

      In law, it’s the right of first settlement.

      The Orang Asli in Malaya are still around. They were first, not the gov’t.


      1. There was no law in past. So law of first settlement cannot apply. Secondly you yourself admitted Orang Asli came from Kerala. So they are Keralites, not Malaysians. There were other people living in Malaysia, orang Asli killed them off. How do you know there were no other people here that time? Orang Asli must return to kerala.


      2. There is no law in Malaysia that states Orang Asli are the first people. They also did not work the land. They came from Kerala and squat there, most probably killed off someone else before them. They are keralites and must return to kerala.


  5. They belong to Kerala then. They did not have visa to enter Malaysia. The are illegal settlers. They must return to Kerala.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: