I am not particularly interested in the recent developments of the political scene. Although the controversial and offensive remarks made by Bukit Bendera Umno chief Ahmad Ismail are being constantly highlighted in the media, no efforts are being undertaken to find amicable solutions to this racial dissent.

Worse still, many Chinese leaders keep urging Ahmad to make a public apology regarding the remarks. According to them, Ahmad alone should take responsibility for his actions.

Rationally, should we agree that 37 percent of the Malaysian population is made up of pendatang ? In a historical perspective, I will definitely agree with Ahmad as historical facts prove clearly that the Chinese migrated to Tanah Melayu.

Even, before Merdeka, Malay leaders had compromised a lot to accept them as citizens of Malaya, by adopting the jus soli principle. They were willing to share the nation by neglecting the doctrine of jus sanguinis even though it was the common practice of all newly independent states in the world at the time and acknowledged by international law.

Jus soli is the principle that the country of citizenship of a child is determined by its country of birth, irrespective of the nationality of its parents. In a nutshell, the doctrine is accepting of all who were born in the country as citizens without taking into account their ancestors.

Ironically, jus sanguinis is defined as the principle that the country of nationality of a child is that of the country of nationality of the parents, irrespective of their place of birth. In other words, it regards all descendants of immigrant as non-citizens despite the fact that they were born in the country.

After 51 years of independence, the principle of equal citizenship prevails. There is no doubt whatsoever that all Malaysians should be treated as citizens. Nevertheless, by hook or by crook, history should not be forgotten by all quarters, particularly in maintaining the peace and prosperity in the country.

I think the major concern today is not about pendatang and an apology from Ahmad, but the conflict of interest between the Malays and Chinese. Both have claimed that their authentic rights in many fields have been seized and marginalised.

This racial impasse has to be solved at first. My suggestion is, we must look forward for the betterment of the Malays and Chinese. We must make concrete decisions which incorporate good governance and policies of equality that should be upheld in helping those who are suffering and living in poverty and miserable conditions.

Hence, we must have a new language of discourse by looking at the problems as a collective responsibility. It is irrelevant to confine the problem to one particular ethnic group by labelling it as a Malay or Chinese problem. The perspective must be shifted to make it a ‘people problem’. We must speak up and act on behalf of all Malay, Chinese and Indian citizens.

Meanwhile, whichever way you look at it, the national policy must respect history without putting aside the contributions of our forefathers, particularly in drafting the Social Contract, which was later embedded in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

Accepting the doctrine of jus soli is a price to be paid by Malay leaders in order to get privileges acknowledged in the Social Contract or Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

If we do not respect the Social Contract or Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, this ‘hot button issue’ will never be resolved. Why should this kind of respect be so difficult for us?

The writer is the vice president of the National Union of Malaysian Muslim Students (PKPIM).