A Little History About Your King and Queen For You Little Band of Haters

MALAYSIANS are not accustomed to seeing a Yang di-Pertuan Agong and a Raja Permaisuri Agong that they can relate to.

Remove the pomp and regalia, you see a CEO who holds work discussions at a mamak joint over teh tarik, and a mother who stops at stalls to buy kuih, just like ordinary parents would do on a daily basis.

To say that Malaysians have gone all gaga over this Royal couple is an understatement. The ability to interact, especially with the Queen, on social media is totally unprecedented.

In some ways, being able to tweet to your Queen like you would speak to your mother is good, but some tend to forget that there are lines drawn in such engagement. They mean well, but tend to forget mannerism.

Of course, the royal institution also has its band of haters – people who think that the royal institution does not have a place in modern democracy.

They call the royal families the untouchables, the unelected, the ones whom we pay for their lifestyle. All these remarks have been made thinking that the Malaysian democracy is a true democracy in every sense, where the Malay Rulers are nothing but overpaid rubber stamps.

They are anything but rubber stamps.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the Supreme Head and executive authority of the Federation.

In other words, he is the fount of authority in Malaysia. As the Ruler of a State, he also represents the other eight Malay Rulers who have elected him to the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Prior to 1 February 1948, save for the rulers of Terengganu and Johor which governed in council with the Sultan as head, the rulers were all absolute monarchs.

The British were here in agreement with the respective state Ruler to assist the latter in making the administration of their respective state more efficient.

The Rulers delegated their administrative authority, except in the affairs of the religion of Islam and Malay customs, to the British Residents who were in the Rulers’ payroll.

These residents were answerable not to the Queen of England, but to the sovereign ruler of whichever Malay state they were transferred to.

Come February 1 1948, these Malay states were all federated – with central control, but with some internal autonomy.

The Malay states still retained their sovereignty.

A popular belief is that we were colonised and were therefore not sovereign states, but the court case brought by one Jenny Mighell against the Sultan of Johor in 1894 brought forth an 1885 Treaty with the Crown of England and a letter each from the Colonial Office and Queen Victoria herself to confirm Johor’s status as a sovereign nation.

When the Sultan of Johor sent Dato’ Mohd Seth bin Mohd Said as his representative to the Merdeka discussions in London, the latter was given an instruction to disagree with Malaya being given independence.

Detractors of the royal institution regarded this as the Johor family wanting to remain as a colony of England instead of being independent as a single nation under the Federation of Malaya.

The truth is, Johor was independent at the time as other states were, had its own civil service, courts and postal service. Used to efficient governance headed by British advisers, the Sultan of Johor did not want a Malaya governed by Malayans who, in the view of the Sultan, do not possess any idea of how a nation should be governed.

The 1948 Federation of Malaya had a Federation of Malaya Legislative Council with the High Commissioner as its Chief of Executive; three ex-officio members namely the Chief Secretary, the Finance Secretary and the Attorney-General; 11 State and Settlement members consisting of the President of the Council of each of the Malay states and an elected member of the council from Melaka and Pulau Pinang; and 45 official (including the Chief Ministers) and unofficial members.

This council was made via the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 by Sir Edward Gent on behalf of the Malay Rulers, and only for the Malay Rulers and their Successors.

This again, is proof that the Malay Rulers were sovereign and not subjects of any colonial power.

Fast forward to 1957, the final agreement was reached for the Malay Rulers to transfer the delegation of some of their executive powers from the British administrators to the representatives chosen by the people in the 1955 elections.

The Malay Rulers had preferred a hybrid government that would have consisted of elected representatives as well as representatives appointed by them made up of professionals who could help run the country in the case where elected representatives do not meet the expected mark.

In hindsight, that would have saved us all a lot of trouble now.

The office of a Yang di-Pertuan Agong, representing the other eight Malay Rulers, was created by the Federal Constitution.

In this constitution it also states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has the right to choose from the Lower House, an elected representative whom to the opinion of His Majesty, holds the confidence in the House, to become the Prime Minister.

This Prime Minister shall then advise His Majesty on whom to pick as members of His Majesty’s Cabinet.

Likewise, the Sultan or Raja of the respective states has the right to choose an elected representative from the Dewan whom to the opinion of His Majesty, holds the confidence of the Dewan, to become the Menteri Besar. This Menteri Besar shall then advise His Majesty on whom to pick as His Majesty’s Executive Councillors.

If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or the Sultan or Raja, feel that none hold the confidence of the House or Dewan, Their Majesties can not appoint anyone until a candidate that enjoys the confidence of the elected representatives is found; but this has to be done within 120 days after the dissolution of the Parliament and states assembly.

It is not for anyone to force Their Majesties to choose.

Having said that, there was no business whatsoever for Umno members to hold a demonstration in front of the Terengganu palace, for Pakatan supporters to roll on the roads leading to the Perak palace, or for the Prime Minister to say that the Sultan of Johor has no say in choosing a Menteri Besar.

The Prime Minister is the CEO of the country, answering to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who is the Executive Chairman.

And what do the Malay Rulers receive for them to agree to being in this Federation and to allow the people to choose amongst them representatives who will be administering the Malay Rulers’ government?  The emoluments stated in the Istana Negara (Royal Allowances) Act, 1982 and the various states’ enactment for royal provisions.

The constitution of the Malay states was made by the Malay Rulers and with the State Legislative Council. The Federal Constitution was made by the Federal Legislative Council. The Federal Constitution made the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Acts, us Malaysians.

Take the Federal Constitution away and dissolve Malaysia, you will not have a Yang di-Pertuan Agong, no Prime Minister, nothing. However, the Malay states will still exist with the Sultans as the supreme executive authority of those states.

And they are above the respective states constitution because they made the state constitution.

That is why they are the unelected, the untouchables as some say.

And no, you do not feed them. 

You are merely paying them in exchange for your right to vote in the people in your judgment would be the better ones to administer the government by the people, for Their Majesties.

(This article was first published by The Mole)

The Malaysian Concord (Part 4) – The Position and Function of the Malay Rulers

This article follows a previous one on the Malay and Bumiputera special rights.

A couple of days ago it was made known to the public that the street names in a certain suburb of Shah Alam were changed to Chinese characters, in contravention of Sections 2 and 9 of the National Language Act, 1963/67.

Yesterday, HRH The Sultan of Selangor decreed that the street names be taken down and replaced by ones in the Malay language, which is the National Language.

I mentioned in a previous post that a national language is a tool to unite the peoples of Malaysia. 

It was the intention of our forefathers in the quest for independence to have ONE language to unite all, and that is the Malay language with a Romanised written form, so that the non-Malays could learn the Malay language rapidly (Tunku Abdul Rahman, The Road to Independence, 1984: pp.112-114).

I gather that those were the reasons His Royal Highness issued the decree mentioned above – in line with one of the functions of the Malay Rulers: to care for the people’s welfare.  Therefore, if there is any issue that may cause tension, the Malay Rulers will step in to remind the people to respect each other and to respect the laws.

What I find disgusting in this episode is that the local government, or local council, allowed for the street name change to happen, forgetting that every instrument of the government is acting on His Majesty’s Service.

Not too long ago, all government envelopes had URUSAN SERI PADUKA BAGINDA stamped at the top; that was until someone who was not fond of the Rulers changed that to URUSAN KERAJAAN.

 

Essentially, all government branches, including the Federal cabinet as well as the state executive councillors, are acting on behalf of the Yang DiPertuan Agong and Sultan (in the case of states).  

They are not independent of the Rulers – which is why they are sworn in before the Agong or the Sultan.

The Malay Rulers have divested much of their independence now as they did before during the period of British administration.

However, both they and their state remain sovereign. Independence is not equal to sovereignty.

The British were here through the various treaties signed with the respective Malay Rulers.  Save for the Japanese occupation, Malayan Union period, Pulau Pinang, Melaka and for a while, Pangkor, the Dindings and Larut, Peninsular Malaysia was never under British colonial rule.

There were three test cases to determine the sovereignty of the Rulers and the state they ruled:

 

  1. The infamous Mighell v The Sultan of Johore (1894) where it was ruled that, although the Sultan by treaty had bound himself not to exercise some rights of a sovereign ruler, this did not deprive him of his character as an independent sovereign;
  2. In Duff Development Company Limited v The Government of Kelantan (1924), the House of Lords similarly upheld the sovereignty of Kelantan and its Ruler was not intended to be qualified by the terms of the treaty.
  3. In Pahang Consolidated Company Limited v State of Pahang (1933), the Privy Council summarised the constitutional position in Pahang as follows: subject to the limitations which the Sultan had from time to time imposed upon himself, he remained ‘an absolute ruler in whom resides all legislative and executive power.’ (See, 1894; Q.B 1924; A.C and M.L.J).

The British were in the Malay states to assist the Malay Rulers in the administration and management of their respective states, and were under the Rulers’ payroll.  

The only matters that they could not touch were the states’ Islamic affairs and Malay customs.

Sir Frederick Lugard wrote of the British Residents:

“From the first to last the theoretical independence of the states was the governing factor in the system evolved in Malaya. The so-called ‘Resident’ was in fact a Regent, practically uncontrolled by the Governor or Whitehall, governing his ‘independent’ state by direct, personal rule, with or without the co-operation of the native ruler.” (Sir F.D Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, London, 1926: pp.130-1, vid. pp.8-10).

One such Resident was of course James Wheeler Woodford Birch who, in the words of Sir Richard Olaf Winstedt, “dashed into Perak’s Augean Stables like an angry Victorian schoolmaster, confident that it could all be cleaned up with a little firmness and decision.” (Winstedt, History of Perak, JMBRAS, xii, 1).

Birch’s monumental tactlessness, especially over the regulation of taxes, drove all the Sultan’s Chiefs into frantic opposition which resulted in his assassination in 1875.

Other than the occasional odd behaviour by some Residents, the Malay Rulers and their state remained sovereign and ‘independent’.  In an answer to Colonel Josiah Wedgwood (Labour – Newcastle-under-Lyme) about the control over the states of Malaya, Sir Phillip Cunliffe-Lister (Conservative – Hendon), Secretary of State for the Colonies replied:

“There is no question at all of altering in any degree, even by a comma, the Treaties which bind us, and which are charters of the agreements with the Rulers both of the Federated and the Unfederated Malay States.” (British Parliament Hansard, Commons Sitting, Class II, HC Deb 14 July 1933 vol 280 cc 1429).

With the Independence of Malaya, all the administrative powers handed down by the Malay Rulers to the Federal and State Councils was passed to the government that was chosen by the people of Malaya in the 1955 elections.  

The Federal cabinet administer the government of the Yang DiPertuan Agong, who was elected by the Malay Rulers to represent Their Highnesses at Federal level, while the Menteri Besar and state executive councillors administer the state for the Sultans.

The Malay Rulers, as owners of this land, continue to enjoy their position with their income regulated by the respective laws, and receive advice from the Menteris Besar (or in the case of the Yang DiPertuan Agong, the Prime Minister). 

This is evident in Article 181(1) of the Federal Constitution which 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 1867, Bagehot asserted in “The English Constitution” that the Constitution needed two parts: the dignified – to excite and preserve the reverence of the population’ and the other, the efficient – to ‘employ that homage in the work of government’. 

The monarch was the prime example of dignity in this sense and the Prime Minister (Menteri Besar) and his cabinet (executive councillors) of efficiency.  

Therefore, the monarch, while lacking executive power, had an important constitutional role.

HRH The Sultan of Selangor was correct in the exercise of his function when reminding the people to not touch on the matters that have been agreed upon and are already enshrined in the Constitution – the sanctity of Islam, the National Language, the Malay and Bumiputera special rights, and the position and function of the Malay Rulers.  

Such action, had the Sultan not interjected, would be naïve and dangerous to the fabric of the society.

In the words of Sultan Nazrin Muizuddin Shah of Perak in July 2011:

“Rulers must use wisdom to calm situations, but they do not have a ‘magic lamp’ to keep unity, especially when the situation has become chaotic. “

(This article was first published on The Mole)

The Malaysian Concord (Part 3) – The Malay and Bumiputera Special Rights

Recent protest against ICERD – Bernama

One of the functions and roles of the Malay Rulers is to safeguard the interests of the Malay and Bumiputera communities enshrined in the Federal Constitution.  That is what HRH The Sultan of Selangor did when he voiced out against ICERD and liberalism.

In the previous posts (The Malaysian Concord (Part 1) – The Sanctity of Islam and The Malaysian Concord (Part 2) – The National Language) I have shown you why Islam was made the religion of the Federation, and why the Malay language was made into the National Language.  I also explained why the Reid Commission was just a commission and not a party to the discussions and negotiations to the independence of Malaya and whatever put forth by the commission were recommendations for the Constitution, not the hard-and-fast rule.

The Malay precedence had always been the mantle of the British Residents.  Frank Athelstane Swettenham, the first Resident-General of the Federated Malay States, saw himself as the patron to an heir (the Malays) who was in danger of losing his inheritance to the immigrant Chinese and Tamils.  He wrote:

“The position he occupies in the body politic is that of the heir to the inheritance. The land is Malaya and he is the Malay. Let the infidel Chinese and evil-smelling Hindu from southern India toil, but of their work let some profit come to him.” (Sir Frank Swettenham, The Real Malay (London, 1899): pp. 37-40)

The economic situation of the Malays, pushed to the hinterland by the immigrants, became dire that they had to take loans from the chettiars putting their land as collateral.  When even the interest could not be serviced, these lands were taken into possession by the moneylenders.

The Federated Malay States government intervened and introduced a series of legislations to curb the Chettiars’ operations, one of which was the Malay Reservations Enactment, 1913, which objective was “to provide means for preventing the passing of Malay landholdings into the possession of foreigners”(Frederick Belfield, Legal Adviser, FMS, Report for the Secretary of State on the FMS Enactment 15 of 1913).

In 1910, E.W Birch, the 8thResident of Perak, noted the need for such Enactment:

“It will mean that we shall free our peasantry from the clutches of those people who now remit to India the large sums of which they now bleed the people.”(Hastings Rhodes, Objects and Reasons, Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913, quoting a Minute by E.W Birch dated 7 September 1910; in Selangor Secretariat, File 3013/1912, Conf. File 10/1912).

Two constitutional changes were introduced in 1909, the establishment of a Federal Council, and the enactment to change the title Resident-Generalin the FMS to that of Chief Secretary.

The Governor responsible for these introductions, Sir John Anderson, said that the intention of these changes, in his words, was for“the full safeguarding of Malay interests.” (Proceedings of the Federal Council, FMS, 11 December 1909).

Sir Laurence Guillemard, High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States wrote:

“The moral is clear that real danger lies ahead if the Malays do not get their share of the benefit of the development of their own country.”(C.O 273, Vol 539, Laurence Guillemard to Secretary of State, 3 May 1927).

To put things in perspective, not only were the Malays left out economically, they were also already minorities in the Federated Malay States.  According to the census of 1931, the population of the FMS comprised of a Chinese majority (41.5 percent), followed by Malays (34.7 percent), Indians (22.2 percent) while various other ethnic groups made up the remaining 1.6 percent (Loh Fook Seng, Malay Precendence and the Federal Formula in the Federated Malay States, 1909 to 1939, JMBRAS, Vol 45, 1972: p.48).

When the discussions for the independence of Malaya took place, the MCA which represented the interests of the Chinese community in Malaya, agreed for the continuation of Malay special privileges that was already being enjoyed by the Malays under the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 (Straits Times, 28 August 1956).

Even on the issue of making Mandarin a national language at par with Bahasa Melayu, the MCA Central Committee which debated the Alliance memorandum to the Reid Commission put the issue to a vote: 15 votes were against the recommendation that Mandarin be recognised as an official language, 14 voted for, 31 abstained (Straits Times, 28 August 1956).

Reid Commission was required by its terms of reference to “safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities” (CO 889/6, C.C. 2000/15, Summary record of Commission’s meeting, 27 August 1956).

The Constitutional Bill was then debated in the England’s House of Commons.  Three amendments to the Bill was sought.  The third proposed amendment pushed by Conservative MP Joan Vickers (Devonport) noted that the 15-year limit for Malay special rights recommended in the Reid Report was omitted from the Bill.

However, the majority felt that any eleventh-hour amendment could upset the political compromises embodied in the Constitution (Commons Debates, 19 July 1957, pp. 1590-1591).  The Secretary of State concluded that any accepting of proposed amendments would result in the reopening of all issues on which agreement had already been reached (Ibid., pp. 1592-1594).  Therefore, all the proposed amendments were rejected and the Federal Constitution of Malaya, as part of the Malayan Independence Bill, was adopted unchanged.

These special rights were then extended to the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak through Paragraph 62 of the Malaysia Agreement, 9 July 1963, pages 43 and 44. But this did not come easy.  Many non-Bumiputera groups were opposed to the idea of according the natives of Sarawak with special rights.

A group from the Sarawak United People’s Party led by Ong Kee Hui had a contempt for the backwardness of the natives and had regarded their leaders as men of no consequences.  This prompted the SUPP’s leader in Sibu Jonathan Bangau, an Iban, to resign.

The Ibans, however, told the Cobbold Commission that they were all for Malaysia and some even emphasised on the need for a speedy arrival of better education and development for the Iban community.  In North Borneo, the only negative views were given by the British officials and expatriates as well as the rich (non-Bumiputera) local businessmen.

Both Donald Stephens (Chairman of the Committee of the North Borneo Alliance) and Stephen Kalong Ningkan (Secretary-General of the Sarawak Alliance) both accepted the Inter-Governmental Committee report.  Sarawak Council Negri voted unanimously to adopt the report on 8 March 1963, while the North Borneo Legislative Council unanimously adopted the report on 13 March 1963.

The special rights of the Malays and the Bumiputeras are there to protect their interests so that they do not get swallowed whole in their own land.  The Fijians learnt this the hard way when the Indo-Fijian (Indian descent) minority which numbered less than 40 percent of the population, dominated everything from government to economy, leaving the ethnic Fijians on the sideline.

If the rights of the Malays and the Bumiputeras that was agreed upon by our forefathers are now being questioned, should they now not ask for a better position for themselves? Perhaps a 70-percent equity and quota in everything from now on, or something even better?

(This article was first published on The Mole)

The Malaysian Concord (Part 2) – The National Language

IN part one (The Malaysian concord (Part 1) – the sanctity of Islam), I wrote about HRH The Sultan of Selangor’s displeasure of the challenge by a certain group against the sanctity of Islam, the National Language, the special rights of the Bumiputera, as well as the function and position of the Malay Rulers that are enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

I read the comments on the issue at the online page of a mainstream newspaper.  What I saw was blatant ignorance on the part of the readers. This ignorance, if gone unchecked, will be dangerous to the future of this nation.

Many commentators mentioned that the Reid Commission had recommended for certain special privileges to be reviewed after 15 years, but was never done.  

I need to put this record straight. In many of my writings, I mentioned that those party to the agreement of the independence of Malaya were the British government, the Malay Rulers, and the Alliance party as the government of the day.

Lord William Reid was tasked to form an independent commission to draft the new constitution for a post-independence Malaya.  

The idea to have an independent, non-Malayan constitutional commission came from Tunku Abdul Rahman himself.

The Malay Rulers were for a commission that consist of local politicians, lawyers and other professionals, just as India and Burma (later Myanmar) had. Ghana, Pakistan and Ceylon (later Sri Lanka) opted for a mix of local and foreign constitutional experts.

Tunku felt that it was important to have a non-Malayan independent commission to draft the Malayan post-independence Constitution as it would be able to avoid local prejudices and perform its task with complete impartiality (PH/A/008/4, MCA Files, Memorandum by Tunku Abdul Rahman, 1 March 1955).

This he intimated to Sir Donald Charles MacGillivray, the last British High Commissioner in Malaya, and told the latter before leaving for the January 1956 Independence Conference in London that the commission should consist of legal experts with sufficient knowledge of constitutional developments in the Commonwealth (CO1030/132(3) MacGillivray to A.M. MacKintosh, Head of the Southeast Asia Department of the Colonial Office, 5 January 1956).

So again, I would like to reiterate that the function of the Reid Commission was only to draft the Constitution with input from all those party to the independence agreement, and make recommendations to those parties.  

The Commission itself was never a party to the discussion, let alone of the agreement.

Going back to the issue of the national language, it was in the Alliance’s manifesto for the 1955 federal elections to have a national language to foster a common nationhood, with plans to upgrade the Malay language as the national language.  

As safeguarding the interests and rights of the Malay and Chinese communities being the key features of its manifesto, protection for the languages of the other communities as well as their growth and development was also guaranteed.

The earlier version of the Alliance’s memorandum to the Reid Commission did state a 15-year time frame for the special position of the Malays and Malay as the national language.  

However, in view of the radicals in both Umno and MCA at the time where the former questioned the principle of jus soli while the latter questioned the need for Malay special rights and a national language, an inter-communal constitutional bargain was made and was conveyed to the Reid Commission orally that the time-frame be omitted (PH/A/008/4, Memorandum by Tunku Abdul Rahman, 1 March 1955).

This was the version that was accepted not just by those within the Alliance, but also by the Malay Rulers as well as the British government.

Five years later, this same subject was brought forth to all who would be affected by the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.

The Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee chaired by North Borneo’s Donald Stephens in its memorandum stated the it accepted the view that the Federation of Malaysia should have a national language and placed no objection to the adoption of the National Language of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and Brunei which is also the lingua franca of the region (Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee Memorandum, 3 February 1962: pp. 122).

Even the Cobbold Commission, a Commission of Enquiry set up to gauge the support of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak for the creation of the Federation of Malaysia noted in its report that its Chairman (Lord Cameron Fromanteel Cobbold) felt in view that Malay is the closest to a lingua franca in Borneo than any other language, no derogation from the Federal provision was necessary (Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 21 June 1962: pp. 54).

The Inter-Governmental Committee (a committee that consists of the Federation of Malaya, and Great Britain – looking after the interests of its colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak)  reported that Malay should be the language of the Federation of Malaysia, but Article 152 of the proposed Federal Constitution (based on the Federal Constitution of Malaya) be modified in its application to the Borneo states so as to secure that the English language may be used in an official capacity for a period of ten years after Malaysia Day (Malaysia Report of the Inter-Governmental Committee, 1962: pp. 26).

A national language is an important tool for creating “national” consciousness.  

Hindi is the national language of India, as Mandarin, Thai and Bahasa Indonesia are respectively in the China, Thailand and Indonesia.  

It is difficult to understand why, after 61 years, are we still having this argument about what the national language should be.

What kind of national identity are we to have when we cannot even communicate with each other in one common language?

(This article was first published in The Mole)

Angkatan Tentera Malaysia Dan Perlembagaan

17-Kehebatan-Pasukan-Tentera-Malaysia-Yang-Mungkin-Belum-Pernah-Anda-Dengar-758x505

Sekali lagi saya tertarik dengan satu mesej dalam WhatsApp oleh seorang bekas pegawai tentera yang sering menghentam pihak kerajaan.  Mari kita lihat apa yang ditulis oleh beliau kali ini:

Saya Mej xxxxxxx Bersara ingin memperingatkan semua anggota Tentera Dan Veteran ATM supaya menolak Barisan Nasional dan mengundi Pakatan Harapan (mengunakan logo PKR) Di PRU 14 ini kerana selama 60 tahun kerajaan BN gagal mertabatkan ATM Dan Veteran.

SIRI PENERANGAN KEDUA

SEJAK MERDEKA, KERAJAAN BARISAN NASIONAL MENGHALANG YANG DI PERTUAN AGONG, SEBAGAI PANGLIMA TERTINGGI ANGKATAN TENTERA UNTUK MEMBERI KUASA MUTLAK KEPADA MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA BAGI MENTADBIR DAN MEMBUAT PERATURAN TERUTAMA TENTANG SYARAT SYARAT PERKHIDMATAN, GAJI DAN PENCEN ATM.

Saudara2 Dan Saudari2 sekalian.

Saya ingin memberi tahu bahawa kepincangan mengenai syarat2 perkhidmatan anggota dan masaalah hak hak Veteran kebanyakkannya berpunca daripada keengganan kerajaan Barisan Nasional mematuhi undang2 dan peraturan2 yang sedia ada dan menafikan badan yang ditugaskan oleh undang2 untuk membuat perancangan atau dasar ATM.

Undang2 adalah peraturan hidup. Negara Yang ditadbir tidak mengikut lunas undang2 adalah negara yang tidak tergolong kepada negara rule of law atau negara Yang tidak tertakluk kepada kedaulatan undang2.

Saudara2 Suaudari2 sekali,

Jika undang2 kerap dicabul, undang2 tidak bermakna lagi. Kita sebagai rakyat Yang cinta pada negara hendaklah berani mempersoalkan jika kerajaan membelakangkan undang2 negara dan penguatkuasaanya untuk kebaikan rakyat. Kerap kali kerajaan Barisan Nasional mengunakan undang2 hanya untuk menekan rakyat dan bukan untuk membantu rakyat.

Rakyat mesti faham bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah undang2 yang tertinggi Di Malaysia. Ini dia akui sendir oleh Perkara 4(1) perlembagaan persekutuan: “Perlembagaan ini adalah undang2 utama persekutuan dan apa2 undang2 yang diluluskan selepas Hari merdeka yang tidak selaras dengan perlembagaan ini adalah tidak sah setakat ketidakadilan itu.”

Semua anggota ATM, Veteran dan rakyat jelata hendaklah faham bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah merupakan Satu kontrak sosial rakyat yang tidak boleh di persoalkan Dan diganggu gugat oleh mana2 mana2 individu atau mana2 pihak terutama oleh parti politik yang memerintah.

Yang paling penting didalam perlembagaan persekutuan bagi ATM adalah tiga Perkara seperti berikut:

PERTAMA

  1. Perkara 41 perlembagaan persekutuan yang menyatakan bahawa Yang Di Pertuan Agong hendaklah menjadi Pemerintah Tertinggi Angkatan Tentera Persekutuan.

Perkataan hendaklah tersebut bagi saya bermaksud SPB YDP Agong mempunyai kuasa mutlak untuk memerintah Dan mentadbir ATM.

Jika ada sesiapa hendak mempertikaikan kuasa SPB YDPA ini, saya cabar mereka membaca kuasa budicara Baginda dalam Perkara 40(2) dan 40(3) perlembagaan persekutuan.

Kuasa YDPA sebagai Panglima tertinggi Angkatan Tentera ada hubung kaitnya dengan wasiat nombor 3, wasiat Raja2 Melayu yang di buat pada 5 Ogos 1957 Yang berbunyi:

“Bagi menjaga kamu Dan bagi Melindungi anak cucu kamu Serra hak milik kamu, Kami tubuhkan Rejimen Askar Melayu selain untuk membanteras kekacauan Dalam negara Dan ancaman dari luar negara”

ATM diketuai oleh Panglima Angkatan Tentera (PAT) Yang berpangkat Jeneral, Laksamana atau Jeneral TUDM. Beliau adalah ketua professional ATM Yang dilantin oleh SPB YDPA. PAT memerintah dan mentadbir ATM melalui Jawatankuasa Panglima2 (JPP) dan juga yang paling penting keputusan mengenai pemerintahan, pentadbiran dan Disiplin Di bantu Majlis Angkatan Tentera (MAT) dimana kuasa MAT datang terus dari YDPA.

Yang membuat Kita sedih sekarang kita lihat ATM di tadbir secara terus oleh Menteri Pertahanan, orang politik Dan KSU Yang tidak ujud kuasa mereka dalam undang2 untuk memerintah ATM secara langsung.

KEDUA

  1. Perkara 137(1) perlembagaan persekutuan, menyatakan MAT hendaklah bertanggonjawab dibawah kuasa am YDPA bagi:

– pemerintahan

– tatatertib Dan

– Pentadbiran Angkatan Tentera,

– Dan segala perkara lain yang berhubungan dengannya.

Ahli2 MAT Di sebut dengan jelas dalam Perkara 137 (3) perlembagaan persekutuan:

 

  1. Menteri Pertahanan sebagai pengerusi ( *tidak ada kuasa veto, lihat perkara 137(4)(d), Tanpa menhan, ahli2 boleh lantik ahli lain sebagai pengerusi.);

 

  1. Wakil Duli2 Yang Maha Mulia Rajà2 Melayu, Di lantik oleh Majlis Raja2 Melayu;

 

iii. PAT dilantik oleh YDPA;

 

  1. KSU Kementah bertindak sebagai Setiausaha (*tidak ada kuasa veto tapi hanya menyimpan rekod Dan minit, lihat perkara 137(4)(a) perlembagaan persekutuan);

 

  1. 2 orang pegawai turus kanan AT dilantik oleh YDPA;

 

  1. Seorang pegawai kanan Tentera Laut dilantik oleh YDPA;

 

vii. Seorang pegawai kanan Tentera Udara dilantik oleh YDPA;

 

viii. Dua orang anggota tambahan, jika ada, Sama ada anggota Tentera atau premenopausal, dilantik oleh YDPA.

Sejak pemerintahan Barisan Nasional, perkara ini dicabuli, hak hak Yang Di Pertuan Agong Dan hak MAT Di nafikan secara tak langsong.

Saudara2 Saudari2 sekalian,

Kuasa yang di beri oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan kepada MAT sangat Luas tetapi sedih nya kuasa ini di cabuli dan di rompak oleh pemimpin Barisan Nasional dan KSU Kementah, yang pada dasar nya tidak faham jiwa tentera tetapi mengawal ATM semata2 nya untuk kepentingan politik Peribadi Dan bagi KSU/KSN pula cuba menjadi badan Yang paling berkuasa Di dalam perkhidmatan awam kerajaan malaysia. saya Akan buktikan Dalam siri penerangan saya ini.

Baerbagai2 kuasa MAT yang di beri oleh YDPA Dan semua nya tersurat Di dalam Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972. Berikut adalah beberapa contoh dimana MAT hendaklah bertanggonjawab Di bawah kuasa am YDPA:

 

  1. Sek 15 AAT72: kuasa membuat peraturan2 berkenaan petauliahan Dan perlantikan pegawai, terms perkhidmatan mereka DLL. HAL ini Di perincikan lagi Dalam Peraturan2 AT (Terma2 perkhidmatan bagi Angkatan Tetap 2013)

 

  1. Sek 36 AAT72: membuat peraturan2 berkenaan dengan pengambilan masuk orang dalam Angkatan Tetap, syarat perkhidmatan mereka dll.HAL ini juga di perincikan lagi Dalam Peraturan2 AT (Terma2 perkhidmatan bagi Angkatan Tetap 2013)

 

iii. Membuat peraturan2 gaji Dan elaun Dan emoluments lain bagi pegawai Dan askar-lasykar ang tetap DLL. HAL ini Di perincikan Dalam Federal Army (Pay and allowances) Regulations 1961. Seksyen ini MAT boleh diberikan kuat kuasa kebelakangan kepada apa2 tarikh, Sama ada sebelum atau selepas permulaan berkuat kuasa Akta AT72.

 

  1. Sek. 187(1) membuat peraturan2 berkenaan dengan gaji bersara, pencen, ganjaran dan pemberian lain; Dan peraturan2 ITU boleh menyatakan syarat yang meliputi pemberian Dan kadar gaji bersara, pencen, ganjaran Dan pemberian lain itu, dan boleh mengadungi apa2 peruntukkan lain Yang mungkin perlu dan boleh diberikan kuat kuasa kebelakangan kepada apa2 tarikh, Sama ada sebelum atau selepas permulaan berkuat kuasa Akta AT72.

 

Apa Yang saya nyatakan di atas ada lah sebahagian kecil kuasa MAT yang sangat luas, tetapi kuasa ini tidak di Ikuti secara undang2 kerana orang politik terutama Menteri Pertahanan dan KSU mengambil alih membuat peranan ini. Akhirnya ATM di perlemahkan mengikut cita Rasa mereka.

Saudara2 Saudari2 sekalian,

Ingin saya beritahu bahawa Kementah Dan ATM adalah dua identiti Yang berbeza.

Kementerian Pertahanan Di terajui oleh Menteri Pertahanan dan Di Bantu oleh seorang Timbalan Menteri. Organisasi Kementah mengadungi anggota perkhidmatan awam Yang diketuai oleh Ketua Setiausaha (KSU).

ATM Di ketuai oleh PAT. Beliau adalah ketua professional ATM Yang dilantin oleh SPB YDPA. PAT memerintah dan mentadbir ATM melalui Jawatankuasa Panglima2 (JPP). Hal2 pemerintah, Tata tertinggi Dan pentadbiran ATM Dan segala perkara Yang berhubung dengannya diuruskan oleh MAT.

APA yang belaku sebenarnya dari hal pentadbiran ATM?

Pada tahun 1981, Satu badan Yang mengabungkan perintah tertinggi ATM (MAT) dan Awam Kementah Yang di namakan Lembaga Menteri telah di ujudkan. Lembaga ini dengan secara tidak langsung hilangkan kuasa MAT. Lembaga menteri telah menjadi satu badan Yang meyelesaikan Dan menghuraikan masaalah Kementah keseluruhan nya kecuali berkaitan operasi.

Jika Kita buka sesawang Kementah Di http://www.mod.gov.my/ms/mengenai-kami/carta-organisasi.html Kita Akan dapati PAT Di letak di bawah KSU Kementah.

Keadaan sekarang menjadi lebih malang kepada ATM/MAT di mana Lembaga Menteri Yang saya katakan tadi telah di tukar Nama sebagai KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN ANGKATAN TENTERA. Ahli MAT Yang Di tetapkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah di tambah menjadi 17 dengan bertambah nya 7 orang awam Dan Salah seorang ahli dalam MAT adalah Timbalan Ketua Pengarah perkhidmatan Awam (Pembangunan) dari JPA.

Kesan Dari ini, Kita dapati banyak hal hal ATM terutama syarat2 perkhidmatan dan hal gaji telah di harmonikan dengan sistem perkhidmatan awam.

KETIGA

  1. Menurut Perkara 132(1) perlembagaan persekutuan, susunan kekanan senarai perkhidmatan awam adalah seperti berikut:

 

  1. Angkatan Tentera.
  2. Perkhidmatan Kehakiman Dan perundangan.

iii. Perkhidmatan Awam am persekutuan.

  1. Pasukan Polis.
  2. ( KTM – Dimansuhkan).
  3. Perkhidmatan awam bersama Yang disebut Dalam perkara 133.

vii. Perkhidmatan awam setiap Negeri.

viii. Perkhidmatan pendidikan.

Angkatan Tentera Malaysia adalah Yang terkanan sekali dalam senarai protokol perlembagaan persekutuan. Tetapi oleh kerana pencabulan Yang telah di buat oleh orang politik Barisan Nasional Dan Perkhidmatan awam, dan tidak ada seorang pun panglima2 ATM Yan bangun bersuara Dan menentang pencabulan undang2 di dalam perlembagaan persekutuan, Kita boleh lihat bertapa lemah nya ATM untuk membetulkan keadaan ATM Dan Veteran.

APA Yang belaku Angkatan Tentera sekarang telah jatuh dari tangga teratas menjadi sama dengan Polis Yang duduk Di tangga keempat Dan pangkat Dan gred Mereka telah Di harmonikan dengan perkhidmatan awam.

Semua anggota ATM Dan Veteran tahu syarat2 perkhidmatan Dan Gaya hidup ATM tidak sama dengan Awam Dan Polis. Tetapi kenapa ATM harus ikut gaji Dan syarat2 perkhidmatan tertentu awam? Di mana Keadilan Yang Di beri kepada ATM?

Perubahan2 syarat2 ini Akan secara langsung tempias kepada kedudukannya Veteran ATM. Pesara terpaksa ikut sistem Pesara Awam Yan rata2 mereka semua berumur 60 tahun keatas. Dan telah berkhidmat lebih dari 35 tahun. Pehinaan terhadap ATM sudah bermula 45 tahun lalu (lihat penerangan Siri Satu saya).

Saudara2 Saudari2 sekalian,

Saya Akan ulas lebih banyak isu2 pencabulan undang2 Yang Di lakukan pada ATM Dalam Siri2 penerangan saya Yang berikut nya.

Untuk mengubah nasib kita, Kita Mesti tolak BN Dan gantikan dengan kerajaan Yang Di pimpin oleh Parti politik baru.

Marilah Kita bersama2 mengundi Pakatan Harapan yang mengunakan logo PKR pada PRU14 ini. InsyaAllah

Sekian wassalam.

Mej xxxxxxxx Bersara

Begitu panjang dan lebar tetapi agak dangkal dan terlalu beremosi dalam penyampaian.

Penulis di atas mungkin kurang mahir dalam penterjemahan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, dan lebih gemar memilih peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan yang memihak kepada apa mesej yang hendak disampaikan, dan tidak memberi gambaran yang penuh.

ISU PERLEMBAGAAN MERUPAKAN UNDANG-UNDANG TERUNGGUL

Pada permulaannya penulis telah memberi gambaran bahawa apa jua undang-undang yang tidak selaras dengan Perlembagaan adalah tidak sah setakat ketidak adilan itu.

Semasa isu kalimah Allah menjadi besar akibat pengharaman penggunaannya di dalam Kitab Injil Bahasa Melayu mengikut Enakmen Jenayah Syariah Negeri Selangor, ramai yang menyatakan bahawa Enakmen tersebut adalah bertentangan dengan Artikel 3(1) dan 11(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Namun, Enakmen tersebut adalah merupakan suatu Enakmen yang telah diluluskan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor yang ahli-ahlinya juga termasuk mereka yang bukan beragama Islam.  Ianya adalah Enakmen yang digunapakai bukan sahaja ke atas mereka yang beragama Islam tetapi juga, di mana sesuai, digunakan ke atas mereka yang tidak beragama Islam.

Sehingga ada suatu Mahkamah Perlembagaan yang memutuskan Enakmen tersebut tidak sah dari segi Perlembagaan, maka ianya tetap sah dan diterima pakai oleh semua.  Begitulah juga kaedahnya dengan undang-undang lain yang dianggap mencabuli hak asasi rakyat Malaysia menurut Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

YANG DIPERTUAN AGONG SEBAGAI PEMERINTAH ANGKATAN TENTERA MALAYSIA

Melalui Artikel 41 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Yang DiPertuan Agong adalah pemerintah tertinggi Angkatan Tentera Malaysia.  Namun, apa jua tindakan yang diambil oleh YDP Agong adalah di atas nasihat yang diberikan oleh Perdana Menteri dan jemaah Menteri (Kabinet).

Artikel 40(2) yang disebut-sebut hanyalah berkenaan perlantikan Perdana Menteri, menangguhkan pembubaran Parlimen (Dewan Rakyat), meminta untuk Majlis Raja-Raja bersidang.

Artikel 40(3) pula menyebut Undang-Undang Persekutuan boleh membuat undang-undang di mana Yang DiPertuan Agong boleh bertindak selepas dinasihati oleh orang-orang yang selain dari Jemaah Menteri selain fungsi yang boleh diambil tindakan mengikut budibicaranya.

Ini bermakna, YDP Agong boleh juga membuat tindakan lain selepas mendengar nasihat lain-lain orang selain Jemaah Menteri. Sebagai contoh: mengambil nasihat daripada Badan Kehakiman, Kepolisian dalam hal-hal berkenaan Perlembagaan, Perundangan dan Keselamatan.

Hakikatnya, kuasa yang ada pada YDP Agong hampir kesemuanya dijalankan oleh Perdana Menteri mengikut Artikel 39 di mana kuasa YDP Agong diperturunkan kepada Perdana Menteri dan Jemaah Kabinet, dan YDP Agong bertindak di atas nasihat.  Bertindak mengikut budibicara di sini bermaksud mengambil sesuatu keputusan untuk bertindak setelah menerima nasihat.

Ini bermakna, YDP Agong adalah “de jure head of the state” (Ketua Negara yang sah) manakala Perdana Menteri adalah “de facto head of government” (Ketua Hakiki Kerajaan ).

Maka, kuasa yang diperturunkan oleh YDP Agong untuk mewakilinya di dalam urusan pentadbiran dan lain-lain urusan berkenaan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia diberikan kepada seorang Menteri Kabinet yang dipertanggungjawabkan sebagai Menteri Pertahanan.  Menteri Pertahanan menjalankan kewajipan mewakili YDP Agong, dan bertanggung jawab terhadap Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

Ini bermakna, kesetiaan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia kepada Raja dan Negara bermakna kesetiaan juga kepada Kerajaan YDP Agong yang telah dipilih oleh rakyat dan dibentuk dengan titah YDP Agong.

MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA

Berkenaan Artikel 137 berhubung MAT yang dibangkitkan oleh penulis, tiada sebarang pencabulan berlaku di situ kerana sepertimana yang telah diterangkan di atas, Menteri diperuntukkan kuasa oleh YDP Agong melalui Artikel 39 untuk menjaga hal ehwal Pertahanan.

Apa jua undang-undang yang dibuat mengenai Angkatan Tentera Malaysia termasuk Akta Angkatan Tentera, 1972, adalah merupakan undang-undang yang dibuat di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan diluluskan oleh badan perundangan (Parlimen) untuk Menteri yang dipertanggung jawabkan serta Kementeriannya menjalankan tugas.

Adalah bahaya jika seorang Panglima Angkatan Tentera atau mana-mana Panglima Perkhidmatan boleh bertindak membelakangkan Menteri yang dipertanggung jawabkan.  Bayangkan sekiranya hari ini Tentera Laut DiRaja Malaysia bercadang untuk menyerang mana-mana kapal tentera asing yang melalui perairan kita dalam keadaan “innocent passage.”

KEKANANAN ANGKATAN TENTERA MALAYSIA

Tidak ada mana-mana peruntukan di bawah Artikel 132(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan senarai perkhidmatan awam tersebut adalah mengikut kekananan.  Angkatan Tentera Malaysia bukanlah suatu perkhidmatan awam yang paling kanan kedudukannya berbanding lain-lain perkhidmatan awam.

Ia hanya mainan persepsi yang dibuat oleh penulis.

WASIAT RAJA-RAJA MELAYU

Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu ini dibuat sejurus sebelum berlakunya Kemerdekaan Tanah Melayu.  Ini adalah wasiat daripada Raja-Raja Melayu kepada rakyat di setiap negeri.  Untuk memahami wasiat ini, kita perlu fahami bahawa kemerdekaan yang kita capai bukanlah daripada pihak British sebenarnya.  Kita imbau kembali sejarah penubuhan pembentukan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang merdeka.

Selain Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Singapura, dan (buat seketika) jajahan Dinding dan Pangkor, tidak ada mana-mana negeri dalam Tanah Melayu yang telah dijajah oleh British.  Kemasukan British ke Tanah Melayu dan seterusnya perkenalan sistem pentadbiran British adalah disebabkan perjanjian-perjanjian di antara pihak British dengan Raja di setiap negeri.  Kuasa eksekutif Sultan diperturunkan kepada seorang Residen (Reseden-Jeneral bagi negeri-negeri Bersekutu iaitu Perak, Selangor, Pahang dan Negeri Sembilan). Residen-residen ini adalah digajikan oleh Raja negeri-negeri di mana mereka berkhidmat.

Apabila perbincangan untuk kemerdekaan berlaku, ianya adalah di antara kerajaan British (sebab mereka mempunyai perjanjian dengan Raja-Raja), Raja-Raja Melayu (kerana mempunyai perjanjian dengan pihak British), dan wakil rakyat Malaya yang diwakili oleh Parti Perikatan (UMNO, MCA, MIC).  Perbincangan ini berkitar mengenai pembubaran perjanjian, pemerintahan sendiri oleh kerajaan yang dipilih rakyat.

Maka, apabila berlakunya kemerdekaan Tanah Melayu, kuasa eksekutif yang selama ini dipegang oleh Residen British, diserahkan pula oleh Raja-Raja Melayu kepada kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh Perdana Menteri.

Kemerdekaan kita adalah dari sistem feudalisme, bukan penjajahan.

PENTUTUP

Saya dapati penulisan ini menggambarkan sama ada penulis sebenarnya keliru dengan peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, atau sengaja mahu mengelirukan pembaca disebabkan sandaran politiknya.

Pun begitu, sekiranya inilah yang terbaik yang boleh dibentangkan, nasihat saya kepada beliau adalah untuk banyakkan membaca dan berlaku adil serta tanamkan sikap dan minda yang terbuka.  Penulis nampaknya jahil mengenai sejarah Perlembagaan Persekutuan.  Menjadi seorang peguam tidak bermakna anda mahir dari segala selok-belok perundangan dan perlembagaan.

Bak kata seorang novelis US bernama Edna Ferber: “Minda yang tertutup adalah minda yang menghadapi kematian.”  Oleh itu, jangan dijumudkan lagi minda itu hanya kerana fahaman politik peribadi.

 

The Non-Malay Heroes of Malaysia

Tan_Sri_Khoo_Chong_Kong_2

I am appalled that there still are those who deny the roles played by the non-Malays in defending this country, especially during the two Emergencies; that dark 33 years of fighting communism.  The history books emphasised more on the 12-year First Emergency because of its relation to the independence of Malaya, thus many forget that not too long-ago bombs were going off in the middle of Kuala Lumpur while ordinary policemen were getting slayed.

The First Emergency broke out in June 1948 with the murder of three British estate managers in Sungai Siput.  Fuelled by the progressive successes the Communist Party of China was having against the Kuomintang, the acts of banditry increased exponentially.  Based on a priori the British found it best to both resettle the Chinese in camps while between 20,000 to 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.

When Ismail Mina Ahmad, the chairman of the Ummah umbrella group for Muslim organisations, claimed that only the Malays fought against invaders and communists in this country, it shows the level of ignorance on his part (Syed Jaymal Zahiid – In fiery speech cleric tells forum only Malays fought invaders communists, Malay Mail Online, 13 January 2018).  His claim is far from the truth.

At the peak of the First Emergency, the British had to not only bring in members of the Palestine Police Force who were experienced in counter-insurgency warfare, but also recruited a large number of Chinese residents of Malaya.  Tan Sri Dr Too Chee Chew, more famously known as CC Too, headed the Psychological Warfare section.  We had the likes of Tan Sri Jimmy Koo Chong Kong, Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Ling, Datuk Leong Chee Woh to name a few who spent most of their lives fighting the communists.

CC Too, Koo Chong Kong and Yuen Yuet Ling were among the ranks of the Malayan People Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) during the Second World War who chose to go against their former comrades and became targets of the Communist Party of Malaya. Jimmy Khoo Chong Kong, who was also a former member of the Sarawak Communist Party before surrendering to the authorities and joining the Royal Malaysian Police, paid with his life on 13 November 1975 in Ipoh, Perak, as did his driver Constable (awarded Sergeant posthumously) Yeong Peng Cheong who died with his gun blazing.  Without hesitation, even with the knowledge that he was also on the hit list, Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Ling replaced Tan Sri Koo as the Perak Chief Police Officer.

When a Royal Malaysian Air Force Sikorsky S-61A Nuri helicopter was shot down in Gubir, Kedah on 27 April 1976, three Malaysian Chinese personnel were also among the 11 killed. They were Captain Choo Yeok Boo TUDM, Lieutenant Chung Ming Teck TUDM and Sergeant (Air) Leong Yee Heng.  They were on a resupply mission from the Butterworth Air Base when they were shot down.

Captain Frank Chong Keng Lay TUDM (retired as Lieutenant-Colonel) flew his Nuri into a hot landing zone to rescue several infantrymen.  His two commando escorts were killed as his Nuri took 22 heavy machinegun shots.  The next day he flew into the same landing zone to repeat the task.  Keng Lay was my Chief of Staff at the RMAF Air Training Command where I was a Staff Officer and later its Adjutant.

Inspectors Kamalanathan and Robert Cheah were inside a coffee shop meeting with informers when a terrorist threw a grenade into the shop.  The explosion maimed Kamalanathan and for the rest of his life he walked with an obvious limp with a grenade shrapnel still embedded in his leg.

There were many other non-Malay police officers in particular those who served in the Special Branch who died as unsung heroes as they were not recruited nor trained with other policemen.  They were the deep infiltrators, members of the community, who went on leading a double life that even their own family did not know they were all policemen.  Their pay did not come from Bluff Road (Bukit Aman) directly. DSP Jeganathan was a Jabatan Talikom employee tasked with setting up the police’s VHF network and spent years jungle-bashing, building towers on mountain and hilltops with the communist terrorists hot on his heels so that the police could have a nationwide communications network.

There were those who were just roadside sweepers working for the municipal and town councils, collecting information.  One had his cover blown when he was discovered in a different town by a neighbour asking him loudly what was he doing there sweeping the streets.

Another was on his death bed, ridden with cancer, when he sought the help of a Malaysian daily to contact my father to tell the latter of his condition.  His real name was quoted by the daily to my father, which my father could not recall.  My father asked the contact in the daily to ask him his Special Branch name. When the reply came, my father left his golf game and rushed to the hospital and after more than 50 years of being married, the wife and family finally knew the man-of-their-house was a hero fighting the communists, not just some small-time trader.

Let us not forget Chief Inspector Chin Chin Kooi.  He was a Special Branch officer probing communist activities in Serdang, Kedah.  At 9pm on 12 July 1973, six communist terrorists stormed into his home and let loose a volley of bullets.  Mortally wounded, Chin returned fire until his last breath.

Across the South China Sea, Police Field Force Superintendent Joni Mustapha was a champion Sarawak hurdler from 1958 to 1959.  Joni was watching a movie with his son in Sibu when a policeman relayed a message to him that his men were being pinned down by communist terrorists upriver Sungai Setabau.  He asked the policeman to stay with his son in the cinema and left to rescue his men.

Constable Nuing Saling, an Iban policeman, was on a two-week leave to be with his wife Imbok Jimbon who was six months pregnant with their third child.  Upon hearing that Joni was leaving for the jungle, hurriedly joined the team.  Both Joni and Nuing had made a pact that they would help each other. They left by boat to get to the location.  Upon arrival, they engaged the communist terrorists.  Joni was felled by machinegun fire but remained conscious to direct the firefight until he died.  Another constable friend, Abang Masri was already dead.  Seeing his commander and friend die, Nuing unsheathed his machete and charged at the terrorists’ position firing at them, only to be mown down.  He had been hit in the face by a bullet.  Nuing refused to give up.  He continued his charge and was hit several times more but kept on charging, killing and wounding many.  He died inside the location of the communist terrorists.

Kanang ak Langkau is perhaps the most known warrior from Sarawak who shed blood and tears fighting against the communist terrorists.  He was wounded several times but not once let his wounds stop him from fighting.

These are stories that we should all remember.  Stories of our non-Malay brethren heroes who risked and gave their lives so that we can all enjoy the peace and prosperity that God has bestowed upon us.  Many more have gone unsung, but they shall not be forgotten.  Especially not by selfishly ignoring the sacrifices that have been made by them.

Sabah 20-Point Agreement: Language

Colonial passport for the colonised people of North Borneo
For the previous installment on religion, please click HERE.

 

Dr Jeffrey Kitingan also raised the point on language on pages 11-12 of his book, ‘The 20 Points – Basis for Federal – State Relations for Sabah, 1987′.  Language was the second point of the 20-Point Memorandum put forth before Malaysia was formed.

His points were, that:

  1. Malay should be the national language of the Federation;
  2. English should continue to be used for a period of ten years after Malaysia Day;
  3. English should be the official language of North Borneo, for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of law.

Dr Jeffrey wrote that it was Tun Mustapha’s administration that had changed the status of English by passing a bill and introducing a new clause 11A into the State Constitution, making Bahasa Malaysia the officia language of the State Cabinet and the State Legislative Assembly.

At the same time, he claimed, the National Language (Application) Enactment, 1973 was passed purporting to approve the extension of an Act of Parliament terminating or restricting the use of English for other official purposes in Sabah.

He also said that the National Language Act, 1963/67 was only amended in 1983 to allow it to be extended to Sabah by a State enactment, but no such enactment had been passed.  Therefore, the National Language Act, 1963/67 is still not in force in Sabah.

He claims that the amendments hae brought about the following consequences:

  1. Many civil servants who were schooled in English are employed as temporary or contract officers because of their inability to pass the Bahasa Malaysia examination.
  2. The change in the medium of instruction in schools have affected the standard of teaching due to lack of qualified Bahasa Malaysia teachers.
  3. The teaching of other native languages has been relegated to the background.

Now, let us see what the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC), the Cobbold Commission, the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) as well as the Federation of Malaysia Agreement had to say about the points raised above.

Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC) Memorandum

On Page 122 of the MSCC Memorandum, the Committee accepted that the Federation should have a national language and placed no objection to the adoption of the National Language of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and Brunei (the Malay language) as it is the lingua franca of the region.

However, the MSCC had asked the Parliament to make provision for the English language to remain to be used for a period of TEN YEARS after the formation of the new Federation in 1963.  This is in light of the same period given to the states in the Federation of Malaya in the Federation of Malaya Constitution that is TEN YEARS after 1957.

The Cobbold Commission

According to the Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak (the Cobbold Commission) dated 21 June 1962 on page 54, the objection to the use of Bahasa Melayu as the language of the Federation and its application to North Borneo and Sarawak are matters that the people of the two states should resolve themselves when fully-elected representative bodies have been constituted.

The Chairman and members from Malaya do not think that their opinion of Bahasa Melayu being the language closest to those spoken in the region and therefore should be the lingua franca should not offend the non-Malays and any derogation from the Federal provision is necessary.

On the issue of official languages the Cobbold Commission found that there is majority support for both Bahasa Melayu and English to be used as the official languages in both the Borneo states without any time limit.  This was the view of the Chairman of the Commission and its British members.

The members from Malaya however thought that with MALAYSIA in total consideration such provision cannot be accepted as it breaches the existing provisions in the Federation of Malaya Constitution.  Therefore the Malayan members recommend that a provision be made without affecting the position of Bahasa Melayu as the official language of the Federation where English shall continue to be an official language in the states of North Borneo and Sarawak along with Bahasa Melayu for a period of ten years after the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia.

This shall continue until such time the Federal government in consultation with the State governments provides otherwise.  The same was recommended for application to the indigenous languages used in debates and discussions in the respective state assemblies.

The Chairman and the British members however opined that there should be no time limit applied to the indigenous languages, until and unless the State governments decide otherwise.

The Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC)

The IGC on Page 26 of its report recommended that Bahasa Melayu be made the official language of the Federation of Malaysia but Article 152 of the Constitution should be modified for its application to the Borneo states as follows:

  1. For a period of TEN YEARS after Malaysia Day and until the State Assemblies provide otherwise, English becomes an official language not just for the State Assemblies but also in other official purposes of both State and Federal, including correspondences with Ministries and Federal departments.
  2. For a period of TEN YEARS after Malaysia Day and until the Parliament of Malaysia provides otherwise, English shall be allowed to be used by representatives from the Borneo states in both Houses of Parliament.
  3. For a period of TEN YEARS after Malaysia Day and until both State Assemblies provide otherwise, all proceedings in the Supreme Court for cases involving cases from the Borneo states and all proceedings in the High Courts of both Borneo States shall be conducted in English.
  4. Until the State Assemblies provide otherwise all proceedings in the subordinate Courts in the Borneo states other than the taking of evidence, shall be in English.

Of course at the end of it all parties agreed upon something hence the Federation of Malaysia Agreement, 1963 was signed.  So what does the Agreement say?

Federation of Malaysia Agreement, 1963

Taking into account the recommendations and points made in the MSCC, the Cobbold Commission and the IGC, the Federation of Malaysia Agreement, 1963 on pages 42 and 43 made provisions that no Act of Parliament terminating or restricting the use of English for the purposes stated below shall come until TEN YEARS after Malaysia Day:

  1. the use of the English language by the representatives from the Borneo states in either house of Parliament,
  2. the use of the English language for proceedings in the High and Subordinate Courts of Borneo until the State Assemblies provide for otherwise, or for proceedings in the Federal Court that involves cases from the Borneo states,
  3. the use of the English language in the Borneo states in the Legislative Assemblies or for other official purpose including the purpose of the Federal Government,
  4. the use of native languages in the native courts and in the case of Sarawak, the use of native languages in the State Assembly until otherwise provided for by an Enactment of the legislature.

During the Tun Mustapha Administration the status of the English language was altered in a bill by inserting a new clause called Clause 11A into the Sabah State Constitution, 1989 (pages 17-18), making Bahasa Malaysia as the official language of the Sabah Cabinet and of the State Legislative Assembly.

The content of this Clause is as follows:

“Without prejudice to clause (8) of Article 24, the official language of the State Cabinet and the Legislative Assembly shall be in Bahasa Malaysia:

Provided that:-

a) notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, the English language may be used for such period and for such purposes as may for the time be provided by or in accordance with Article 152 of the Federal Constitution; and

b) an official English version shall be provided of anything which is required to be printed or reduced into writing and may be published in the Gazzette.”

However, Jeffrey disputes the passing of the National Language (Application) Enactment, 1973 that allegedly allows the application of an Act of Parliament to terminate or restrict the use of the English language for other official purposes in Sabah.  This preceded the National Language Act 1963/67 that was only amended in 1983 to allow it to be applied to Sabah through a state enactment.  Nonetheless, there was no state enactment on the matter that was passed as of 1991.  As such, as of 1991 the National Language Act, 1963/67 was still not enforced in Sabah.

Based on the Federation of Malaysia Agreement (Malaysia Agreement), 1963, it is clear that the position of the English language as an official language can be altered TEN YEARS after Malaysia Day.  It was put into force through a law that was enacted by the State Legislative Assembly of Sabah in 1973.  Having said that, no specific enactment was passed as of 1991 to enforce the National Language (Amendments and Extension) Act, 1983 in Sabah.

Jeffrey Kitingan’s assumptions and allegation pertaining the illegality of the National Language Act, 1963/67 and State Enactment No.7, National Language (Application) Enactment, 1973 which preceded the National Language (Amendments and Extension) Act, 1983 by ten years was more of playing a regional sentiment especially in the context of teaching and learning of the indigenous languages in Sabah.

Questioning the use of Bahasa Malaysia as the official language after 27 years of Sabah being part of the Federation of Malaysia clearly displays the arrogance on Jeffrey’s part, and his refusal to accept the fact that the Bahasa Malaysia is the reflection of the spirit of the people of Malaysia that forms a bridge for all races towards national integration.

In the next installment, we shall talk about the third point – CONSTITUTION.