MANY asked me about Tun Haniff Omar’s apology to Lim Kit Siang as read from an agreed text made in the court yesterday.
The apology was made for a remark made in a forum organised by Sinar Harian that the Member of Parliament was responsible for and had the intention to direct DAP to separate or divide Peninsular Malaysia into two parts based on race, and intended to sow discord between the Malay and Chinese communities.
Malay apologists were quick to jump the gun claiming that Malaysians had been duped into thinking that Kit Siang was involved in inciting the various races in the country that led to the May 13 tragedy.
The apology was not about that at all.
Let me reiterate in all fairness, that Lim Kit Siang did not utter those said words.
I was made to understand that they were the words of another politician who was also arrested for sedition after the tragedy, as was Lim Kit Siang who was arrested for other reasons.
When the movie Tanda Putera was shown, many pro-Malay bloggers said it was Lim Kit Siang who was involved in a scene depicting a group of non-Malays who urinated at the base of a flag pole.
I wrote on my blog that that scene did not involve Kit Siang, as he was arrested in Kota Kinabalu and was not in Kuala Lumpur when that and the rioting happened.
In fact, it was almost two months to the day of the tragedy that Kit Siang was arrested under Section 11(2)(b) of the Internal Security Act, 1960 for six offences under the Act ranging from 27 July 1968 in Tanjung Malim where he claimed that the education policy was designed to achieve an eventual extermination of Chinese newspapers, Chinese schools and Chinese languages, to an incident on May 13 1969 at a rally at Kampung Air in Kota Kinabalu where he said that the government was trying to have a Malay Malaysia by dividing the people into bumiputera and non-bumiputer, that “the Malays were first class Bumiputera” and that the government was carrying out a policy of “Malaysiation” of Sabah whereby all top post were held by the Malays.
He was also alleged to have stirred anti-Malay and anti-Islamic religious feelings by telling the audience at Kampung Air that the government was pursuing the policy of exploitation by Malays of other races and that the government, by holding an International Islamic Conference in Kuala Lumpur, had intended to send Malaysian citizens to die in the Middle East in order to capture Jerusalem for the Muslim World (Jerusalem was captured by Israel during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War).
Kit Siang had only offered explanations for the inciting speeches he made, but I never saw any apology made for saying those things.
So, no. Yesterday’s apology should not be misconstrued into an exoneration of Lim Kit Siang’s guilt of fanning the sentiments that led to the May13 1969 tragedy.
It was only to underscore the fact that Kit Siang did not utter those words and was arrested because of that as mentioned by Tun Haniff.
Seramai 24 orang pendatang asing tanpa izin (PATI) ditahan di Teluk Ramunia. Seorang nelayan hilang dan ditemui mati di perairan Kudat, Sabah. Belum sampai penghujung bulan, sejak 1 November 2020 hingga semalam, sebanyak 173 bot nelayan asing (BNA) dari Indonesia telah diusir oleh Maritim Malaysia negeri Perak berhampiran Pulau Jarak. Sebuah kapal Pengawal Pantai China (CCG) Zhongguo Haijing 5402 telah mengganggu sebuah kapal penggerudian minyak serta kapal-kapal bekalannya hanya 44 batu nautika dari pesisir pantai negeri Sarawak. Tiga orang anggota Pasukan Gerakan Am (PGA) Polis DiRaja Malaysia ditembak oleh kumpulan penyeludup dalam dua insiden di sempadan Thai mengakibatkan seorang anggota berpangkat Koperal maut.
Demikianlah rangkuman insiden-insiden diperbatasan yang telah dilaporkan dalam tempoh seminggu ini. Insiden-insiden ini merupakan di antara cabaran-cabaran yang dihadapi oleh agensi-agensi kerajaan terutamanya APMM dalam menentukan sempadan perairan, kedaulatan negara, serta keselamatan komuniti di laut adalah selamat.
Turut berada di perbatasan perairan negara ialah Kapal Maritim Bagan Datuk serta 29 orang anak kapalnya yang dinakhodai oleh Leftenan Komander (Maritim) Nik Mohd Rizam bin Nik Mohd Fauzi, yang meronda di Sektor 6, Selat Melaka. KM Bagan Datuk disokong oleh bot-bot pemintas dari Maritim Negeri Melaka & Negeri Sembilan. Kapal ronda generasi baru sepanjang 45 meter yang ditauliahkan pada 15 Mac 2017 bertindak sebagai kapal induk untuk operasi-operasi pemintasan yang dilakukan oleh bot-bot pemintas di sektor tersebut.
Kehadiran BNA Indonesia di perairan Pulau Jarak bukanlah sesuatu yang boleh dipandang ringan dan remeh oleh umum. Sekiranya dibiarkan atas sebab budi-bicara ataupun atas dasar jiran-tetangga, ianya boleh menjejaskan kedaulatan negara. Kita ambil contoh tuntutan Malaysia dan Singapura ke atas Pulau Batu Putih (Pedra Branca) di mana Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda, 1824 menamatkan kerajaan Johor-Pahang-Riau-Linggi. Di bawah Perkara XII perjanjian tersebut, tidak ada satu pun pertubuhan British dibenarkan di atas pulau-pulau Karimun, Batam, Bintan, Lingga dan pulau-pulau ke selatan Singapura, manakala pulau-pulau serta batuan-batuan di dalam Selat Singapura menjadi milik kerajaan Kesultanan Johor yang baharu.
Sebuah rumah api didirikan oleh Syarikat Hindia-Timur British (HEIC) di Pulau Batu Putih dalam bulan Jun 1850 dan mula beroperasi pada 15 Oktober 1851. Ianya dioperasikan oleh Lembaga Pelabuhan Singapura yang menjadi sebahagian dari Malaysia. Namun, apabila Singapura dikeluarkan daripada Persekutuan Malaysia pada 9 Ogos 1965, tiada sebarang tindakan diambil oleh pihak kerajaan Malaysia untuk mengoperasikan rumah api tersebut.
Hanya apabila pada 21 Disember 1979 Pengarah Pemetaan Malaysia keluarkan sebuah peta yang menunjukkan Pulau Batu Putih sebagai hakmilik Malaysia, kerajaan Singapura keluarkan bantahan. Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) memutuskan walaupun Kesultanan Johor memiliki Pulau Batu Putih, Batuan Tengah dan Batuan Selatan, namun tidak ada mana-mana pihak dari Malaysia ataupun Johor mengambil sebarang tindakan untuk menunjukkan ianya mempunyai hak ke atas pulau dan batuan-batuan tersebut, termasuk mengoperasikan rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih setelah 31 Ogos 1957. Maka ICJ memutuskan bahawa Singapura mempunyai hak à titre de souverain ke atas Pulau Batu Putih manakala Batuan Tengah menjadi milik Malaysia melalui hakmilik Kesultanan Johor.
Inilah sebabnya APMM aktif menghalau BNA Indonesia, Vietnam dan China yang sengaja menguji reaksi pihak berkuasa Malaysia. Tidak mustahil jika suatu hari nanti negara-negara ini membuat tuntutan ke atas kawasan-kawasan perairan dan pulau-pulau di Malaysia sekiranya Malaysia tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan yang menunjukkan kedaulatannya ke atas kawasan-kawasan tersebut.
Masalah yang dihadapi oleh APMM pula ialah walaupun di atas kertas ia memiliki berpuluh-puluh aset dalam bentuk kapal peronda, bot-bot pemintas serta aset-aset udara, perlu difahami bahawa kapal-kapal peronda kelas Bagan Datuk inilah kapal peronda yang paling baharu dan paling canggih. Kapal-kapal peronda yang lain ada yang usianya sudah menjangkau 40 tahun dan kebanyakannya adalah jauh lebih kecil berbanding kapal-kapal peronda milik CCG. Sebuah kapal peronda kelas Bagan Datuk iaitu KM Lahad Datu serta tiga buah kapal peronda luar pesisir pantai (OPV) masih belum diserahkan kepada pihak APMM. Aset-aset udara pula hanyalah dua buah pesawat sayap kaku jenis Bombardier CL-415MP dan enam buah pesawat sayap putar jenis Eurocopter AS-365N3 Dauphin dan AgustaWestland AW139 – jauh dari jumlah yang boleh dianggap mencukupi.
Semasa kapal CCG Zhongguo Haijing 5402 mengganggu kapal penggerudi minyak serta kapal-kapal bekalan dalam kedudukan 44 batu nautika (80 kilometer) dari pesisir pantai negeri Sarawak, Malaysia telah menghantar dua buah kapal milik Tentera Laut DiRaja Malaysia (TLDM) iaitu Bunga Mas 5 dan KD Keris. Walaupun tindakan tersebut telah membuat kapal CCG tersebut mengalah dan berundur ke perairan Beting Patinggi Ali (Luconia Shoals) namun kita belum dapat menjangkakan reaksi pihak China seterusnya.
Ini adalah kerana Malaysia tidak bertindak balas dengan menggunakan diplomasi badan kapal putih (white hull diplomacy), iaitu kapal-kapal APMM untuk menyelesaikan keadaan. Sebaliknya, Malaysia telah menghantar dua buah kapal yang mempunyai badan kapal kelabu – iaitu kapal perang tentera. Besar kemungkinan, China akan bertindak balas di masa hadapan dengan mengirim sebuah atau dua kapal perang tentera lautnya (PLA-N) untuk mengiringi kapal peronda CCG. Sekiranya China bertindak sedemikian, ia adalah kerana tindakan Malaysia menjadi punca sebab China meningkatkan tahap reaksinya.
China juga baru-baru ini telah memperolehi persetujuan kerajaan Cambodia untuk menggunakan pangkalan tentera laut Cambodia di Ream yang terletak di Telukan Thailand. Sudah tentu kapal-kapal CCG dan PLA-N dapat menggunakan pangkalan ini untuk memperolehi bekalan. Ini bermakna, selain menunjukkan kuasanya di sebelah timur Laut China Selatan di luar pesisir pantai Sabah dan Sarawak, kapal-kapal CCG dan PLA-N juga boeh mengganggu bot-bot nelayan Malaysia serta platform dan kapal-kapal penggerudian minyak di sebelah barat Laut China Selatan iaitu di luar pesisir pantai Kelantan dan Terengganu yang hanya sekitar 15 jam pelayaran dari Ream pada kelajuan 20 batu nautika sejam.
Oleh demikian, adalah penting bagi kerajaan serta rakyat Malaysia memahami peranan penting APMM sebagai sebuah agensi separa-tentera (paramilitary) sebagai kuasa pencegahan bagi kuasa asing bertindak sewenang-wenangnya di dalam perairan serta Zon Ekonomi Eksklusif (ZEE) kita. Penting juga bagi kita memahami kerana APMM amat memerlukan lebih banyak aset dan kelengkapan yang lebih canggih dan besar serta berkemampuan untuk berada lama di kawasan rondaan tanpa perlu diulangbekal terlalu kerap.
Cabaran menguatkuasa undang-undang maritim serta mempertahankan kedaulatan perairan Malaysia juga begitu hebat di musim pandemik COVID-19. Umum tahu bagaimana penularan virus COVID-19 di atas sebuah kapal pengangkut pesawat milik Amerika Syarikat telah melumpuhkan pengoperasian kapal tersebut. Oleh sebab itu, kapal-kapal APMM juga diarahkan supaya menjalankan operasi pengusiran BNA dan bukannya penangkapan. Menurut Leftenan Komander (M) Nik Mohd Rizam arahan pengusiran tersebut bukan sahaja untuk menjauhkan para pegawai dan anggota APMM dari terjangkit virus COVID-19, malah ianya juga adalah kerana penangkapan nelayan-nelayan asing juga mungkin akan mendedahkan rakyat Malaysia kepada penularan mutasi baharu virus tersebut.
Sehubungan itu, pusat-pusat tahanan PATI di negara ini sudah penuh hinggakan kerajaan terpaksa membuka pusat-pusat tahanan PATI sementara untuk menempatkan PATI yang ditangkap di dalam negara. Malah, Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri I Dato’ Sri Dr Haji Ismail bin Haji Mohamed Said semasa menjawab pertanyaan di dalam Parlimen pada 18 November 2020 memberitahu Dewan Rakyat bahawa setakat 13 November 2020, Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia (JIM) melaporkan bahawa terdapat seramai 13, 103 orang tahanan di Depot Tahanan Imigresen (DPI) di seluruh negara berbanding kapasiti depot seramai 12,530 orang tahanan pada satu-satu masa.
JIM juga melaporkan bagi tempoh dari 1 Januari 2020 hingga 12 November 2020, seramai 89,086 orang warga asing telah diperiksa. Dari jumlah tersebut, 21,176 orang PATI telah ditangkap untuk siasatan. Sekiranya kerajaan perlu tanggung kos makanan dan minuman berjumlah RM40 sehari bagi setiap orang PATI yang ditangkap ini, maka kerajaan terpaksa membelanjakan sebanyak RM847,040 setiap hari. Proses menghantar PATI pulang ke negara asal lazimnya mengambil masa di antara tiga minggu hingga empat bulan. Maka, kerajaan membelanjakan di antara RM840 hingga RM4800 untuk membekalkan makanan dan minuman bagi setiap orang PATI. Malah, kos keseluruhan untuk menanggung PATI di DPI di seluruh negara ialah sebanyak RM3.4 juta sebulan.
Pandemik COVID-19 juga memberi kesan terhadap emosi para petugas barisan hadapan APMM. Bagi Nasul Abdul Halik yang bertugas sebagai tukang masak KM Bagan Datuk, berjauhan dengan keluarga di Satok, Sarawak sudah tentu memberi cabaran baginya. Apatah lagi beliau baru setahun bertugas dalam APMM. Penularan wabak COVID-19 di Malaysia bermakna sudah setahun beliau tidak dapat menjenguk keluarga di Sarawak. Namun seperti lain-lain anak-anak kapal KM Bagan Datuk, beliau menguatkan semangat untuk melaksanakan tugas kerana moral anak-anak kapal yang lain bergantung juga kepada kemahiran beliau memasak. Sudah tentu rasa masakan beliau perlu sedap tidak mengira sama ada beliau bersedih mahupun mabuk laut akibat cuaca buruk.
Demikianlah di antara cabaran-cabaran yang dihadapi oleh para petugas barisan hadapan kita di Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia. Biarpun cabaran datang dalam berbagai gelombang, mereka akan tetap menerima cabaran-cabaran tersebut. Namun, lebih banyak sokongan kerajaan dari segi aset, kelengkapan dan kewangan yang diperlukan oleh mereka-mereka seperti Leftenan Komander (M) Nik Mohd Rizam dan anak-anak kapal KM Bagan Datuk untuk menjalankan tugas dengan lebih berkesan dan lebih berwibawa.
IT all started with DAP’s Ronnie Liu’s posting about the movement in the Thai capital where demonstrators are up against both the government and the King of Thailand. His caption was simple but subtly seditious: “Now in Bangkok. They are saying no to the King.” Ronnie Liu’s post was to pre-empt a possible proclamation of emergency by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong following an audience with the Cabinet. The King never proclaimed an emergency and Ronnie Liu was arrested four days ago by the police and is being investigated under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act for inciting hate against a Ruler or a government. He has since been released on bail.
A couple of days ago, several photos of posts made by the University of Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY) stating that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should not interfere in national affairs made their rounds in the various social media. A photo of several people in a square showing the ‘Hunger Games’ three-finger salute caught my interest.
Firstly, in the ‘Hunger Games’ movie, the salute is a gesture to mean thanks, admiration, and goodbye to someone they love. But in Bangkok, the salute is to show anger toward the country’s royalist military establishment. It has also been flashed at royal motorcades by Thai protesters.
Secondly, some of those depicted doing the salute are those who showed no decorum during graduation ceremonies at the University of Malaya. It comes as no surprise that these people are the buds of republicanism – people with no respect for history nor the Federal Constitution.
Some photos also show them with well-known members of the DAP. They may be coincidental; but if the DAP impresses them so much, perhaps the DAP should advise them that while championing liberties, the Federal Constitution as the paramount law of the land must be respected to the dot. Unless these clueless youngsters reflect a reincarnation of another society formed within the compound of the University of Malaya, that is now defunct.
In December last year, Ronnie Liu appeared at a gathering to commemorate and glorify the butchers from the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). At the gathering the ADUN of Sungai Pelek admitted that his father was a communist and that the latter strived to free Malaya from its British ‘colonialists’.
First of all, the CPM was never interested in the independence of Malaya, and definitely, nor in democracy. Chin Peng never harboured any loyalty to Malaya. Instead, he said that, influenced by communist doctrine, he wanted to join Mao’s forces to fight a guerrilla war in China. “The same sentiments still applied…I was intending to die for my motherland, a land I had never even visited” wrote Chin Peng in 2003. It means that 14 years after the signing of the Hatyai peace agreement, Chin Peng still regarded China as his motherland (Alias Chin Peng – My Side of History, p.133, 2003). Malaya (later Malaysia) was never home to this butcher.
After withdrawing into southern Thailand following the end of the First Emergency (1948-1960), the CPM Central Committee in 1961 carried out a review of its past policies and chartered a course for the resumption of armed struggle, and spread its doctrine amongst the Thai Chinese which later dominated the 8th and 12th Regiments.
They set up Marxist-Leninist Training Schools to indoctrinate the youth, and by 1963, more than 2,000 indoctrinated youths had returned to Malaya and Singapore. In Singapore, they infiltrated the Nanyang University Students Union (NUSU). 10 days after the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, the police entered the university to arrest communist leaders.
It was also during this time that communist cadres from Johor, Selangor and Perak crossed to Indonesia to be trained and armed by the Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI).
Nanyang University in Singapore was not the only university that was infiltrated by communist agents. They also infiltrated the University of Malaya Chinese Language Society (UMCLS). It started in mid-1970 with a group of students calling themselves the Young Socialists planning to position themselves for the upcoming election, and in June 1971 succeeded in gaining control of the UMCLS Executive Committee as planned. The UMCLS quickly formed ancillary bodies to spread the communist doctrine. Bodies such as the Dramatic Study Sub-Committee and the Cultural Exchange Preparatory Committee were designed to launch propaganda offensive.
The CPM link to the UMCLS was confirmed on Oct 14 1973 when security forces shot dead a communist terrorist near Tanah Hitam, Chemor in Perak and found a work report by a senior student underground movement leader to his superiors on the activities conducted by the UMCLS. UMCLS manipulation of the University of Malaya Students Union (UMSU) led to the illegal students riot on Sept 21 1974.
The UMCLS also issued pamphlets claiming that the fall in rubber prices and rising cost of living had resulted in deaths due to starvation of villagers in the Baling area of Kedah. This was supported by a transmission by the Suara Revolusi Malaya radio station in Beijing condemning the Malaysian government for causing the deaths of the people of Baling.
On Dec 9 1974, police raided a house in SEA Park, Petaling Jaya that was occupied by members of the UMCLS and seized printing blocks, imitation rifles, boots, propaganda music cassettes and banners.
So, now we have the UMANY questioning the authority of person above all others in Malaysia – His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Is the UMANY, a student’s association that identifies itself with the DAP, now a revolutionary front to fight against His Majesty’s government and the people of Malaysia?
If it is, when will the authority be going to nip this cancer in the bud before the red stars of the UMCLS appear again terrorising our streets as they did 50 to 60 years ago?
When the bill was passed on 18 August 1954 to pave way for the first Federal Elections, the Alliance set up a 30-man council to organise their election campaign.
A key feature in the campaign manifesto was to safeguard especially the promises to safeguard the rights and interests of the Malay and Chinese communities.
One of the key points agreed was the need for a common language as a national language. There was little doubt that the Malay language was to be upgraded as the national language. At the same time the manifesto guaranteed protection, growth and development for the language of other communities.
Lord Reid, who was tasked with drafting the Federal Constitution, presented that ‘Malay should be the national language and English should be retained as an official language for 10 years’ (Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957, para 170, London: HMSO CO No.330).
The final version of this part of the Federal Constitution can be found in Article 152, in Part XII.
When the Director-General of the Ministry of Education recently made an excuse on behalf of a school found to have its students singing the National Anthem ‘Negaraku’ in Mandarin, I attribute that to either his ignorance of the Federal Constitution and the special position of the Malay language, and also of the National Anthem Act, 1968.
To give a lame excuse that the anthem was sung NOT in a formal event was a bad move on his side. To give an even lamer excuse that the anthem was sung in Mandarin in order to help non-Malay students to understand the National Anthem made it even worse. Whoever advised the DG to say such things should offer his or her resignation right away. If there was no one advising, perhaps the DG himself should offer to resign.
There are only two versions of the Negaraku according to the National Anthem Act, 1968. In the attendance of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the full version is played. The shorter version is played in attendance of the Raja Permaisuri Agong or other Rulers AFTER the respective state’s song has been played.
You can find the score of the anthem in a schedule made under Section 2 of the said Act, and also the lyrics. The lyrics is in neither Mandarin nor Arabic. It is in Malay, the national language. There are no other versions of the Negaraku.
Therefore, be it an official or unofficial event, the Negaraku has to be sung in Malay, and not in any other language. There is no unofficial version of the Negaraku in the Act.
To help non-Malay students understand and embrace the meaning of the lyrics of the anthem, you can print its meaning in whatever language that you want, but the anthem shall be sung in Malay.
Some detractors used the excuse that the Negaraku was adapted from a French tune called ‘La Rosalie’ which was said to have been composed by Pierre-Jean de Béranger. But there is no evidence to support this as de Béranger was a lyricist whonwas known to have used the tunes of others for his songs. Perak was the first to use the tune for its state anthem ‘Allah Lanjutkan Usia Sultan’ in the 19th century.
But whatever song a national anthem was adapted from, you sing it as it should be sung, according to its lyrics. ‘God Save the Queen’ came from a popular Scottish tune, ‘Remember O Thou Man’ and was used in the national anthem of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The ‘Star Spangled Banner’ was adopted from a popular English song, ‘To Anacreon in Heaven’.
But we never hear the Hindi version of ‘God Save the Queen’ in schools in England, nor have we ever heard of a Mexican version in schools in the US. A national anthem is a national symbol, like the national flag. It is to be sung with respect and honoured as a rallying point – a symbol of unity.
To suggest otherwise or to make excuses to defend stupidity is just blasphemous.
At the recent gathering of former members and supporters of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), the ADUN of Sungai Pelek Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew admitted that his father was a communist and that the latter strived to free Malaya from its British colonialists.
At the same gathering, a former terrorist, Tan Yi Yu, said that the purpose of the gathering among others is to correct the perception of the public towards the CPM. He said that the CPM’s struggle was a war against the colonialists and imperialism; a struggle for the independence of Malaya, democracy, freedom and peace.
First of all, CPM was never interested in the independence of Malaya, and definitely not interested in democracy. Save for Melaka and Pulau Pinang, Malaya was not under colonial rule and nor was it a British dominion. Malaya was made of nine independent sovereign states – all nations ruled by its own Ruler. The British administrators in these states were all under the payroll of the respective state’s Ruler and owed their allegiance to the Ruler. They came through agreements made between Britain and the Malay Rulers to help introduce a more efficient method of governance for the Rulers, and provide protection to the Malay states against aggressions.
And saying that the communist terrorists fought for democracy is like saying Satan did everything in his power to save Jesus from crucifixion. That is how absurd it sounds.
Chin Peng never harboured any loyalty to Malaya. Instead, he said that, influenced by communist doctrine, he wanted to join Mao’s forces to fight a guerrilla war in China. “The same sentiments still applied…I was intending to die for my motherland, a land I had never even visited” wrote Chin Peng in 2003. It means that 14 years after the signing of the Hatyai peace agreement, Chin Peng still regarded China as his motherland (Alias Chin Peng – My Side of History, p.133, 2003). Therefore, how could Chin Peng and his merry men and women have been interested in democracy, freedom and peace of Malaya/Malaysia?
On 31 August 1957, Malaya became a sovereign nation, recognised by the United Nations. She was in her ninth year of struggle against communist insurgency. She was administered by a government of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that was chosen by her people. That in itself shows the illegitimacy of the communist insurgency.
By 1960, 1,200 battle-weary communist terrorists made their way into Southern Thailand. The 8th Regiment in Kedah, the 5th and 12th Regiments from Perak, and the 10th Regiment in Pahang withdrew to areas in Betong and Golok, in the provinces of Yala and Narathiwat respectively.
In 1961, the CPM Central Committee carried out a review of its past policies and chartered a course for the resumption of armed struggle, and spread its doctrine amongst the Thai Chinese which later dominated the 8th and 12th Regiments. They set up Marxist-Leninist Training Schools to indoctrinate the youth, and by 1963, more than 2,000 indoctrinated youths had returned to Malaya and Singapore.
In Singapore, they infiltrated the Nanyang University Students Union (NUSU). 10 days after the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, the police entered the university to arrest communist leaders. It was also during this time that communist cadres from Johor, Selangor and Perak crossed to Indonesia to be trained and armed by the Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI).
Armed struggle was not the only way that the CPM had tried in order to achieve victory. Participation in the democratic process, using political parties as a front to infiltrate into parliament was another method. In a communist document dated 20 March 1965 retrieved from an Executive Committee Member of the Partai Rakyat branch in Perak, states that: “The main thing is the peoples’ actual struggle, but parliamentary struggle is not to be abandoned because it may be used to our advantage.”
The almost exact words appeared in another document published by the Malayan Peoples Socialist Front (MPSF), the forerunner of the Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM), in Perak entitled “The Party’s Future Line of Struggle and Its Strategies” dated 4 April 1965 it states: “Strategically, we should adopt more violent forms of struggle and at the same time make full use of the parliamentary form of struggle.”
In June 1968, the CPM issued a policy statement that states: “In the final analysis, the practice of armed struggle during the past twenty years has confirmed that Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, Marxism-Leninism of the present era, is the guide to the Malayan revolution, and that the integration of the universal truth of Mao Tse-tung’s Thought with the concrete practice of the Malayan revolution is the only guarantee for achieving victory in the armed struggle of the Malayan people.”
The above statement was released to coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the CPM’s armed rebellion launched in June 1948 (the First Emergency). on 17 June 1968, communist terrorists ambushed a police convoy near Kroh, Perak, killing 17 policemen. The bodies were mutilated and private parts severed and stuffed into their mouth. That signalled the commencement of the Second Emergency in a 11-year old self-governing nation that the CPM claimed to be British lackeys! Is that a display of its struggle for democracy, freedom and peace, Ronnie Liu?
Communist agents also infiltrated the Labour Party of Malaya (LPM) and the Parti Rakyat Malaya (PRM) making them components of a Communist United Front in the peninsular. They also infiltrated trade unions such as the Selangor Building Workers Trade Union, the United Malayan Estate Workers Union, the Electrical Industry Workers Union of Malaya and the Pineapple Industry Workers Union – all of which had to be de-registered to curb the red menace. They also infiltrated Chinese secondary schools to form the underground student movement as replacements for lost cadres.
They also exploited Islam and used misinterpretations of Islamic tenets as propaganda tools to exploit the Malays. We sometimes see this today in social media platforms posted by influencers and politicians saying that Islam has never been given a chance to develop under the government, and that communism safeguards Islam. Replace government and communism with acronyms of political parties and you will see what I mean.
Nanyang University in Singapore was not the only university that was infiltrated by communist agents. They also infiltrated the University of Malaya Chinese Language Society (UMCLS). It started in mid-1970 with a group of students calling themselves the Young Socialists planning to position themselves for the upcoming election, and in June 1971 succeeded in gaining control of the UMCLS Executive Committee as planned. The UMCLS quickly formed ancilliary bodies to spread the communist doctrine. Bodies such as the Dramatic Study Sub-Committee and the Cultural Exchange Preparatory Committee were designed to launch propaganda offensive.
The CPM link to the UMCLS was confirmed on 14 October 1973 when security forces shot dead a communist terrorist near Tanah Hitam, Chemor in Perak and found a work report by a lsenior student underground movement leader to his superiors on the activities conducted by the UMCLS.
UMCLS manipulation of the University of Malaya Students Union (UMSU) led to the illegal students riot on 21 September 1974. The UMCLS also issued pamphlets claiming that the fall in rubber prices and rising cost of living had resulted in deaths due to starvation of villagers in the Baling area of Kedah. This was supported by a transmission by the Suara Revolusi Malaya radio station in Beijing condemning the Malaysian government for causing the deaths of the people of Baling.
On 9 December 1974, police raided a house in SEA Park, Petaling Jaya that was occupied by members of the UMCLS and seized printing blocks, imitation rifles, boots, propaganda music cassettes and banners.
And in the name of freedom and peace, the first civilian murdered in the Second Emergency occured when communist terrorists dragged a woman from her house in Sintok, Kedah and shot her in front of the villagers. She was a former communist who had surrendered to the authorities. She was a Chinese.
I can go on and on about the murders of two most senior ranking police officers, the bombs that kept going off in Kuala Lumpur, the murders of policemen on duty in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, the bombing of the National Monument and many others that occured until 2 December 1989. But all I want to prove here is that the CPM was never interested in democracy, freedom and peace, and those murdered in Malaysia were Malaysians and none of them were British colonialists or Imperialists.
All the justification that Ronnie Liu and Tan Yi Yu had put forth in trying to portray the CPM as heroes of the nation are just hogwash, pure rubbish and deserve the display of both my middle fingers. If it weren’t for the selfless sacrifices of the men and women of the security forces – Indian, Chinese, Malay, Iban, Orang Asli and others, these ruthless murderers would have made it into Putrajaya, or Jalan Dato Onn in those days.
Stop trying to hoodwink the public. There is no way that Satan can ever be good.
Perak-born Che Dat bin Anjang Abdullah, otherwise known as Abdullah CD, was a top ranking member of the Communist Party of Malaya. He was once captured during the early months of the First Emergency (1948-1960) in Pahang and was sent to an internment camp in Melaka. As the camp was new, Abdullah CD and other detainees were tasked as labourers to complete the construction of the camp. There he met with a Malayan Civil Service official who was transferred to the camp to supervise its construction. Abdullah CD became friendly with this official and they frequently had casual talks. That night, Abdullah CD escaped. He went on to form the 10th Regiment of the Communist Party of Malaya and continued to wreak havoc until the Hat Yai Peace Agreement was signed on 2 December 1989.
When Dr Mahathir commented on the issue of Chin Peng’s ashes being brought back to Malaysia he said that if the likes of Shamsiah Fakeh and Rashid Maidin could be brought back home without any hassle, why can’t Chin Peng’s ashes be brought back too? What could his ashes do? Mahathir is known for his display of malingering amnesia, usually seen in people who fake amnesia to commit insurance fraud or to avoid criminal punishment.
Shamsiah Fakeh joined the CPM after PKMM, API and AWAS were declared illegal by the authorities. After eight years of struggle, she was ordered to go to Beijing where she operated the Siaran Melayu Radio Beijing Antarabangsa, otherwise known as Suara Revolusi Malaya (I used to listen to it over short wave frequency when I was a teenager). In 1965, she was in Indonesia where she formed the Malayan National Freedom League, when Suharto launched a coup and Sukarno was deposed. As a result, Shamsiah Fakeh was arrested and spent two years in prison.
She returned to China in 1967 to find that the CPM had split into three – the CPM, the CPM Revolutioner and the CPM – Marxist Leninist. She and her husband Ibrahim became strong critics of the CPM and were eventually expelled from the organisation. This was probably one of the reasons that she was brought back by the Prime Minister’s Research Department on 23 July 1994; psychologically she was already against the CPM. Who was the Prime Minister who allowed her to return then?
Were Rashid Maidin and Abdullah CD allowed to return home as claimed by Mahathir? The answer is no. However, they were granted visit passes as agreed in the Hat Yai Agreement. Each time that they wanted to enter Malaysia to visit relatives they would have to inform the police first and a pass would be issued to them. Rashid Maidin died in Amphoe Si Sakhon, Changwat Narathiwat in September 2006 while Abdullah CD still lives in Amphoe Sukhirin, Changwat Narathiwat and is 96 years old. Who was the Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs who denied them citizenship and a chance to return to Malaysia?
Remember how Abdullah CD escaped from an internment camp in Melaka after speaking to the Malayan Civil Service supervisor? He would not have made it to the apex of the CPM if he cannot convince people and turn them over. Chin Peng was also good at psychological warfare.
It was in the mid-1980s when my father who was the Inspector-General of Police asked Sarawak Police Commissioner Yuen Yuet Leng if it was a good time to ask the CPM to surrender. Yuet Leng replied, “Sir, I believe the CPM is very tired. If you give them a pillow, they will go to sleep.”
It was around this time that Abdullah CD wrote a letter to then Encik Ghafar Baba asking to negotiate for peace. The police then assigned Rahim Noor who was the Director of Special Branch then to handle the issue. The police asked permission from Ghafar to assume his identity and correspond with Abdullah CD. In the end, the CPM agreed to receive someone who would be in the position to make decisions on behalf of the Malaysian government. For this, the police extended the service of a Chinese police officer who was on the verge of retirement (not Yuet Leng as the CPM knew him) to pose as this senior official. This senior police officer was then brought to Mahathir’s office for a photo of them together to be taken and shown to the CPM. The CPM took the bait and allowed Rahim and the Chinese police officer to negotiate with them, with Yuet Leng in the background advising.
Spending too much time with Chin Peng can make you sympathise with him easily, just as Abdullah CD was with the MCS supervisor. One day Rahim came to my father and asked if it would be okay for him to bring Chin Peng to speak directly to Mahathir as how he had spoken directly with Tunku Abdul Rahman in 1955.
“Who is Chin Peng to speak to Mahathir? Tunku was not a Prime Minister when Chin Peng spoke to him. Chin Peng is only at your level. That is why I sent you to speak to him,” said my father to Rahim.
Judging by Rahim’s attempt to get Chin Peng to meet with Mahathir, and his recent comment on the issue of the former’s ashes, it is of no surprise that Rahim could be suffering from the Lima Syndrome which is the total opposite of the Stockholm Syndrome. How can a former Inspector-General of Police who was also a former Director of Special Branch have forgotten the sacrifices of the men of the Royal Malaysian Police fighting with this monster? How could he, as the Director of Special Branch, allowed himself to be used by Chin Peng?
And as for Mahathir the political chameleon, it is evident that in order to score political points, he would say just about anything short of “come and lynch me”. It never matters to him who died, who had lost a husband, sons, brothers be they Malay, Chinese, Iban or Indian, fighting the communists, as long as he is seen ‘rationale’ in the eyes of those who had wanted Chin Peng back in this country. The epitome of dog-eat-dog.
I only have one word to describe Mahathir and Rahim – disgusting.
Six years ago a psychopathic god called Chin Peng, kicked the bucket. He died as he had lived – on a foreign soil, as a foreigner.
Chin Peng was never a citizen of this country, nor was he a citizen of the Federation of Malaya before our independence. He never met the criteria stipulated in Part 1.1(a) of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
Hitler killed Jews for only five years.
Chin Peng waged war against the people he was supposed to liberate for 41 years. Why did Chin Peng not stop as soon as the Tunku had announced Malaya’s independence in Melaka in 1956?
Why did he continue to wage war against this nation and her people?
The British government servants were all serving the Sultans and Rajas and were answerable to the latter, with the exception of Penang, Melaka and Singapore that were colonies of the British Empire.
So Chin Peng was not interested in fighting against colonialism, the Japanese also did that in Malaya!
Chin Peng was more interested in assuming this nation under communism, as a satellite nation to the People’s Republic of China. And thousands died fighting this man who was adamant to destroy their religion and way of life.
For his ashes to have been allowed to be brought back to pollute our sacred nation’s soil after all the sufferings that he had caused, is the ultimate insult to those whom had lost fathers, brothers, sons, mother, daughters, sisters, limbs, combatting this terrorist.
What is more insulting is that this happened under the nose of our police force. I wonder who gave the permission for his ashes to be brought back here. Would you like to hazard a guess?
Chin Peng was never interested in coming back to Malaysia. 1,188 members of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) were all that was left during the signing of the agreement to end hostilities in Hat Yai on 2 December 1989. The CPM was given one year till 1 December 1990 to submit a list of those who wished to return to Malaysia. Only 694 were Malaysian, Indonesian and Singapore nationals. Two were former soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army. The other 492 were Thai nationals.
Of the 1,188 only 431 applied to return. The list did not include Chin Peng’s name. Of the 431, only 338 were allowed to return. 93 had their application rejected because they were non-citizens or did not fulfil the requirements of the agreement – Malaysian citizen, of Malaysian origin, born post Merdeka, or post Malaysia Day 1963, or spouse, or child of either if one is an alien.
Each applicant was to stay in the designated places in southern Thailand for at least six months prior to making an application to return. Where was Chin Peng? Well, he was never in south Thailand. He wrote a letter to Malaysia’s Prime Minister from an apartment in Bangkok.
So why should the ashes of the butcher of Bekor, and the head of Malaysia’s largest terrorist organisation which is still in existence, have been allowed to be brought back here? He had no love whatsoever for this country.
And what are the police going to do after this faux pas of theirs? Had the organisers who brought back the ashes of their psychopathic god not committed an offence or two under the Societies Act, 1966? Or is the rule of law only applicable to those not in favour of the current regime?
You are Polis DiRaja Malaysia. Your allegiance is not to your political masters but to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Malay Rulers whom the Agong represents. What are you going to do about these people whom had brought the ashes of the man who waged a war of terror against your Yang di-Pertuan Agong and his subjects?
Malays love to idolise the wrong people. We name roads and university buildings after people like Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Ibrahim Yaakob, Ahmad Boestaman who once fought for the unification of Malaya and Indonesia under the Indonesia Raya political concept where the former comes under Indonesian rule from Batavia, rid of its feudal system.
On 3 March 1946, five Sultans from five Malay states in East Sumatera, along with thousands of their family members were brutally murdered by supporters of the Communist Party of Indonesia as well as Sumateran Malays who fell for their anti-royalist propaganda. The pogrom did not only end the Malay Sultanate governments of East Sumatera, but also the customs and traditions of the Sumateran Malays.
Those whose name had the prefix Tengku, Wan or Raja were immediately executed, while the Malay population had to assume Javanese or Batak names to avoid persecution. At least two generations of Sumateran Malays had to hide their real identity after the pogrom. It was in essence an ethnic cleansing, and was done under the battle cry “Daulat Rakyat.”
I often wonder if the same is being done here in Malaysia, the sowing of hatred towards the royal institutions in order to remove the very protection of the Malay and Bumiputera rights as well as the sanctity and status of Islam as the religion of the Federation?
Once, there was deep respect for the Rulers. Malaysia Incorporated changed all that. Money was power and that came from those with political power. Political interference in the constitutional powers of the Rulers eroded further whatever was left of that respect.
There is a revival of love and respect for the royal institution, now that things are going bad and election promises reneged upon. But people are still confused by the roles that the Rulers have in this democratic system of ours. Many people think that the Rulers institutions should be dissolved as they do not have any tangible role to play. The truth is far from it. Whatever executive powers that the government has, the fount of that power is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The roles of the Rulers were watered down from the beginning – in our school text books. It does not augur well for a government to be seen as playing a second fiddle to the Rulers. Hence, nationalism was injected into our history text books and the Rulers’ role in our “independence” was only as a signee party to the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957. Nothing more. In the end, the Rulers are now “living extravagantly on taxpayers’ money.”
Therefore, it is of no surprise that the Rulers and members of the Royal institutions have their set of haters spawned by this lack of understanding. And when Her Majesty the Raja Permaisuri Agong recently retweeted a known UMNO cybertrooper’s post about the incident at the University of Malaya’s convocation ceremony, she was immediately condemned by the haters.
It was unfortunate for Her Majesty to have retweeted that person’s post, but I can understand why. It was driven by her displeasure of the act by the graduate, choosing such an occasion to display an absence of decorum. What if it was the Sultan of Perak who was there to present graduates with their scroll? Her Majesty undid her retweet later.
The Raja Permaisuri Agong is not the first of the first line member of the royal institutions to have suffered attacks both on and off social media. Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak, the Sultan of Johor, and the Sultan of Terengganu were criticised for choosing a Menteri Besar for their respective state by people who do not understand the constitution. Since when is the choosing of a Menteri Besar the prerogative of a winning party or Prime Minister? Where in any constitution does it say that? By convention? By convention is not a rule of law. That is not binding at all.
The Sultan of Selangor was criticised for protecting the sanctity of Islam, with some calling the state’s Syariah criminal enactment unconstitutional. It is the duty and absolute right of the Sultan of Selangor to protect the sanctity of Islam in his state; the same goes for the other Rulers as well. And the state Syariah criminal enactment that was passed by members of the state assembly remains a law of the state until proven unconstitutional by a constitutional court. Has there been any challenge?
I have mentioned in several of my previous writings that this land has always been Islamic by nature and this was reinforced by two British judges in the landmark case of Ramah binti Ta’at v Laton binti Malim Sutan 6 FMSLR (1927).
For the past few years I have seen many attacks made on the Rulers as well as on Islam and the special rights and privileges of the Malays and the Bumiputeras. Many non-Malay Bumiputeras fail to understand that they stand to lose a lot too if these attacks prevail.
Being the constitutional protectors of both Islam and the special rights and privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras, the protection for the Rulers, for obvious reasons, must be removed first. Hence, we have seen the attempts to introduce the National Unity Consultative Commission Bill in 2015, ICERD and the Rome Statute. Times are dangerous in Malaysia for Islam, the Malays and Bumiputeras.
The reason for the UM graduate’s outburst on stage was his claim that the Vice-Chancellor of the university is a racist for attending the recent Malay Unity Congress and for delivering a speech then. A quick read of his speech text revealed nothing racist. But if the graduate still thinks it is, why stop there? Why not demonstrate in front of the Prime Minister’s office or residence for delivering a speech there as well? Why be selective?
And what has the Malay Unity Congress achieved? Absolutely nothing. Even the Prime Minister seems powerless to tell the graduate to go fly kites with his demands and to stop being such a rude person. The PM also seems powerless and reluctant to summon and reprimand the CEO of Media Prima for giving airtime to the said graduate.
That is why I used to tell my Muslim friends before the last general elections – politicians and governments come and go, so never rely on them to protect your rights and the special constitutional status of Islam in this country. And do not ever think that the politicians are bigger in status than the Rulers. The politicians only want to cling on to power. For that, they will make compromises and are willing to compromise their beliefs.
Imam al-Ghazali in his book, al-Iqtisad fil I’tiqad, challenged the idea that Muslims can perfect their individual actions and morals without a state that governs by Islam.
“The Deen and the Sultan are twins,” he wrote. “the Deen is the foundation and the Sultan is the guardian. That which has no foundation is doomed, and that which has no guardian will perish.”
And that is why there seems to be an attempt to undermine and eventually remove the guardian, so that the foundation can be permanently removed. So, what is it that we want? A nation where we live by the Federal Constitution as our paramount law so we can continue our evolution, or, believe in ‘Rakyat Hakim Negara’ where it becomes a revolution?
Perhaps Mahathir is already incoherent. Article 71 of the Federal Constitution guarantees the Constitution of the States.
If there is any conflict between the state’s constitution with that of the Federal Constitution, then the matter has to be decided by a Constitutional Court.
Example: Selangor’s Shariah Offences Enactment gives power to the state religious affairs authority to confiscate Bibles printed in the Malay language or using one of the 25 prohibited terms such as Allah. This is in conflict with with Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, but is applicable in Selangor until such time a Constitutional Court declares it null and void.
While Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy, Article 181(1) of the Federal Constitution states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,” the “sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers…as hitherto had and enjoyed shall remain unaffected.”
The same was noted by Mark R Gillen of the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria (Gillen 1994:7). In the words of the late Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, former Lord President, it is:
“…a mistake to think that the role of a King, like that of a President, is confined to what is laid down by the Constitution, His role far exceeds those constitutional provisions” (Azlan Shah 1986:89)
In other words, the Rulers may be Constitutional Monarchs, but they are not limited to what have been spelt out in the Federal Constitution.
Now, back to who has the right to appoint the Menteri Besar of Johor since the Constitution of Johor is not void? Please refer to the photo below which is a screenshot of the Constitution of Johor regarding the appointment of the Menteri Besar:
You can fool the uneducated voters, but you can’t fool the likes of me.
I do not think that we have seen the end of the volleys fired at each other between the Tunku Mahkota of Johor (TMJ) and the Government. Although I disagree with the TMJ whenever he writes about anti-federalism, I agree with his stand to protect the Federal Constitution. He may not have the protection from the law as he is not the Head of State, but his courage and determination to go at loggerheads with the Government on this matter deserves support.
According to Barisan Nasional Member of Parliament Annuar Musa, the recent Rulers Council meeting saw the Attorney-General Tommy Thomas and Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah summoned by His Majesties to explain on the clandestine ratification of the Rome Statute.
His Majesties also summoned Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi, a Professor of Law in the University of Law, who is a proponent of the Rome Statute. Also summoned were four academicians opposed to the statute: Law and Constitution lecturers Professor Datuk Dr Rahmat Mohamad, Associate Professor Dr Shamrahayu Ab Aziz, Dr Fareed Mohd Hassan and Hisham Hanapi.
Only after listening to all above did the Rulers Council leave it to the Yang DiPertuan Agong, who represents the Rulers Council, to take the matter with the Prime Minister. The Rulers Council could have there and then issued a statement to show their displeasure at the manner their Government had acted in matters that could have an impact on the rights and position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, the Malay Rulers, the privileges of the the Malays and Bumiputeras, and the National Language.
This is not the first time that Saifuddin has gotten himself in hot soup. When he was a Minister in Najib Razak’s administration, he came up with a National Unity Bill when that was not the term given to him as Chairman of the National Unity Consultative Council. As a result, Najib Razak and the Attorney-General then were summoned to the same meeting four years ago and received a telling or two.
Mahathir was very obviously furious as seen in the video of a press conference made after announcing Malaysia’s pulling out of the Rome Statute, and unnecessarily alarmed the people with words like coup-d’etat to justify the Government’s about turn.
What he, and his supporters seem to have forgotten is that he is the Prime Minister of His Majesty’s government. It was the agreement signed between their Majesties with the ruling coalition in 1957 to transfer the administrative powers vested in the British advisors by their Majesties from the former, to the government that was elected by the people.
This was true then, true when the British were still here, and still true now that although the Rulers had divested much of their independence, they remain sovereign; and independence is not equal to sovereignty.
As a principle of international law, sovereignty denotes, in its purest form, the concept of a ‘supreme authority’ be it an individual or a collective unit and implied power to exercise independence both internationally and domestically.
And Professor Datuk Dr Ramlah Adam rightfully pointed out that the powers of the Malay royalty are now included in the Federal Constitution. They (the Rulers Council) should have been consulted first, as accorded by the Constitution, before the government took unilateral decisions to introduce and ratify ICERD and the Rome Statute.
Other than having the rights to be consulted, to encourage and to warn in daily administrative matters, the Malay Rulers also have the duty to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the Federation and the states they reign over, the special privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras, the special position of the Malay language as the National language.
These are the rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution, and any attempt to introduce anything that has any effect on the above, will need the agreement of the Rulers Council. Any deviation from that is against the Federal Constitution and the spirit in which it was made and agreed to by our forefathers with all the parties involved.
And I saw an online comment by a non-Malay netizen asking what have the Malay Rulers done that have benefitted the people? After the post-World War 2 racial clashes that saw the birth of the First Emergency, the British based on a priori saw the need to resettle the Chinese in camps while between 20,000 and 50,000 be sent back to China.
The plan moved at a snail’s pace due to the objections by many, and with the total withdrawal of the Kuomintang to Formosa, the repatriation of the Chinese came to a halt in September 1949 when the Communist Party of China closed off all ports and beaches. Only 6,000 Chinese from Malaya were sent back (Anthony Short, 1975 pp 178-201). The rest were settled in new villages to curb them from supplying the Communist Party of Malaya with food and other essentials.
Most of them had never had any form of allegiance to Malaya, its Rulers and government. Therefore, in granting citizenship to them they were required to give allegiance to the Rulers and the Federation.
That is the price you have to pay to become the citizens of this nation.
The same goes to all the Members of Parliament and members of the government cabinet: you have all taken an oath of allegiance to the Yang DiPertuan Agong, who represents the other eight Malay Rulers. State executive councillors and elected representatives have also taken the oath of allegiance to their respective Ruler. You are all administering the governments of the Federation and its states on behalf of the Malay Rulers, therefore it is totally unbecoming for you to act as though they are equals.
As in the words of Tengku Amer Nasser Ibrahim, the adopted son of the 16th Yang DiPertuan Agong, posted to his Instagram story:
“Tadbir” must be accompanied by “Adab”, only then will the outcome be just.
So, stop toying around with the Malay Rulers, the sanctity of Islam, the privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras, and the special position of the Malay language as the National language.