Tag: Mahathir Mohamad

Posted on

Numbed Nought

Old Pals

We have all heard it before from the same person: “I have the numbers to become the next Prime Minister.”  It was first uttered in April 2008, then again just before the Pakatan Harapan administration fell, and again yesterday.  It has, thus far, come to a nought.

It may have come as a shocker for many.  The KLCI fell 0.7 percent and closed nine points lower on Wednesday after the announcement was made.  To be fair, the KLCI has been on bearish for almost a month now. It was at 1578.55 points on August 24th and is at 1496.48 points on September 23rd.

Other than that, Anwar’s claim has been met with scepticism.  “We will have to wait to see if this is another episode of making claims that cannot be substantiated,” said Dr Mahathir over Zoom at Nutanix ASEAN CIO Virtual Summit about his former deputy who is famous for making repeated unsubstantiated claims of having support for the premiership.  Many others think that it is just Anwar’s way to ensure that the voters in Sabah’s state elections will jump on the Pakatan Plus band wagon and support ‘the winning team.’

Numbed by Anwar’s occasional antics, I hardly find his announcement believable, let alone a shocker.  However, a statement that followed and made by another politician got the ‘WTF’ reaction from me.  Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, whose court case against him is far more solid than the one against Najib Razak, announced that UMNO and BN cannot stop any of its Members of Parliament wanting to support Anwar to form a government with Pakatan Plus.  As a matter of fact, Ahmad Zahid said that he ‘respects’ the decision made by the UMNO MPs wanting to jump to the other side.

For a few hours there was silence on the part of Zahid’s supporters.  And then came the spin – the statement is a ploy by Zahid to pressure Muhyiddin’s ‘greedy’ PPBM into asking for a dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election.  In other words, according to his supporters, Zahid is extorting Muhyiddin for a general election to be called.

For the life of me, I find that the lamest excuse that I have ever heard in wanting to dissolve a Parliament.  In order to try get a general election going, all it needs for UMNO to do is to leave the PN government, or maybe Zahid has never read and understood the Federal Constitution.  Once the sitting Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Lower House, he shall tender the resignation of himself and that of his cabinet, or advice the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve Parliament.  That is all it takes.  No extortion needed, and UMNO does not have to be in an administration that DAP is member of.  It is a bizarre statement coming from Zahid, the President of UMNO.

But Zahid, and his ill-read supporter should also remember this:  Parliament can continue for five years from the date of its first meeting till its next dissolution, and in the meantime, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can appoint another member of Parliament whom, in His Majesty’s judgment, has the confidence of the majority of the House’s members. So, Zahid can threaten Muhyiddin but the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can still refuse to dissolve Parliament. That would be a double whammy for UMNO.  And looking at how fluid things are, not one party would dare to go through a general election now until forced to in 2023.  So, is UMNO ready to be partners with PKR, DAP and Amanah?  I strongly doubt it.

UMNO’s No.2, Mohamad Hasan, said that UMNO is still part of the PN administration and shall continue to support it. “Any change in its stance must be decided by the party,” he said when commenting on the issue.  Other UMNO MPs such as Nazri Aziz, Shahidan Kassim and Khairy Jamaluddin have all rubbished the claims.

A word of advice for UMNO.  Winning seven by-elections does not mean that the whole country is now rooting for you.  In a general election, the game is played differently.  Majority of the urban voters are still against you.  Sabah has not exactly accepted you.  Sarawak still cannot trust your Muafakat Nasional partner, PAS. The nation only accepts Muhyiddin and his multi-party band of senior ministers.  Not even the rest of Muhyiddin’s cabinet has the trust of the people. With Zahid trying to play big brother, the wounds of the last general election will bleed again, and people will remember the greedy UMNO that they brought down two years ago.  You are now part of a government without having to wait another three years to go through an election – so be thankful.

As for Zahid, he should learn to behave more like a statesman than a numbnut.  He often speaks before his brain could process the outcome.  A party president is the person who sets the path on which the members in his party should follow.  If he, as UMNO’s President, cannot control his MPs to form an administration with PKR and possibly DAP as he says, he has no business staying on as the party president claiming that he is looking after the interests of the Bumiputeras.  Or is there a deal that he has made with Anwar for a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card?  If that is true, then shame on him.

Posted on

When Wisdom And Maturity Win

His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong

The political crisis started a long way back with one man thinking that the seat of the Prime Minister should be handed to him, while the incumbent felt that he should hold on to it for as long as possible. There was no Malay, Chinese, Indian, Jawi, UEC or Adib involved in the whole fiasco.

When His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong stepped in to solve the crisis, there were as many calls for the Parliament to be dissolved as there were for the incumbent to handover the premiership to his so-called designated successor. I wrote to friends the following:

“The Raja is the landowner. It is the constitutional prerogative of the Raja to choose whom in his judgment should lead the administration of HIS government. Our duty every five years or so is to vote for those whom we think should represent us. That is where our responsibility ends.”

His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong did exactly that – solving the crisis according to what is accorded to him in the Federal Constitution. With the two warring parties claiming the right to the premiership, political parties went back and forth changing their allegiance to each of the party who in turn claimed that he has the most support.

His Majesty went on to call each MP for a private interview trying to see who supports whom. And many got trapped in that simple but virtually meaningless definition of ‘majority support’ thinking that the candidate with the most support should become the Prime Minister. However, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that gives such provision.

Article 43 (2) (a) of the Federal Constitution states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. In other words, exact number of support for any of the candidate is not a requirement for a decision to be made by His Majesty. The interview is only for him to gauge the level of support each candidate has.

The method used is similar to the ones used in Perak by the late Sultan Azlan Shah, and in Kedah several years later, to determine who can command the confidence of the most of the Dewan to become the respective States’ Menteri Besar. In all three crises, the maturity and wisdom of the Ruler is incumbent (Dr Zambry v Dato’ Seri Nizar [2009]5 CLJ 265) para 232. The method to determine the issue of “majority support” is the prerogative of the Ruler and is non-justiciable (op cit).

It is in my opinion that “majority support” was determined by the total number of MPs from any one bloc. There was the Anwar bloc – MPs who wanted Anwar to become the next PM. Then there was the Mahathir bloc – people who wanted the elder statesman to continue. And we had the Muhyiddin bloc – those who solidly supported Muhyiddin’s candidacy. Both the Anwar and Mahathir bloc had to combine to challenge Muhyiddin’s number of support. But whether they like the other bloc’s candidate that they were forced to accept is questionable. Hence, the one with the most unambiguous support would be Muhyiddin.

No one else has the right to choose a Prime Minister. The right claimed by Anwar Ibrahim to become a Prime Minister, and the so-called promise by Mahathir to hand over the premiership to the former, are against the Federal Constitution. Only the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has that right, as prescribed in Article 40 (2) of the Federal Constitution. Conventions are not laws, and are therefore not legal. It is because of this illegal promise that got us into this trouble last week.

Even after the announcement by Istana Negara on the swearing-in ceremony of Malaysia’s 8th Prime Minister was made, there is still talks of numbers and majority made by the other party. But what is the point of scoring 50 goals after the final whistle was blown? And going back to Article 43 (2)(a) where it is the Constitutional prerogative of the King to choose an MP as the PM whom in his judgment commands the confidence of the member of the House, such SDs carry no weight whatsoever. It was just an attempt to create negative perception about the wisdom of the King.

We are certainly blessed to have a wise King who made full use of his rights in the Constitution and his freedom to consult to settle this chaos. Despite taking precedence above all other persons in the Federation, His Majesty did not forget to consult all the other Rulers. After all, he represents all the Rulers. And he stood his Constitutional ground, gentlemanly, when others did not.

Posted on

Was The Speaker Playing Politics?

Pic courtesy of Malaysiakini

The Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat yesterday issued a statement saying that he will not issue a notice for the August House to convene for a special sitting at the request of Mahathir.

Many said that the Speaker was playing politics, and possibly because his son works for the DAP. However, I am in the opinion that the Speaker was right.

Any person who is to become a Minister must first take an oath of office and allegiance and an oath of secrecy in the presence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong before taking office, as prescribed by Article 43(6) the Federal Constitution.

When Parliament is dissolved, the PM and cabinet remain in office as a caretaker government until a new government is formed and sworn in.

In this case, Mahathir resigned, and the Cabinet automatically resigns with him. His oaths of office, allegiance and secrecy are null and void. He is no longer a Prime Minister. He was appointed as an Interim PM, but there was no swearing-in ceremony. Constitutionally-speaking, he is NOT a Prime Minister.

Therefore, if he is not a PM, he cannot instruct the Speaker of the House to issue a notice to convene for a special sitting when Parliament is in recess according to Rule 11(3) of the Parliamentary Meeting Rules.

Posted on

Who Is Anwar To Demand?

Anwar demands for the seat of the Prime Minister (pic courtesy of The Third Force)

Anwar Ibrahim has been waiting for the past 22 years to become the PM. The closest he ever got there was 23 years ago when he became the acting Prime Minister for a short while. And then he got expelled from UMNO that was being led by Mahathir.

There may have been an understanding or even an agreement between Mahathir’s PPBM and PKR, DAP, and PAN that Anwar should become the PM after an X number of years of Mahathir being at the helm.

While Mahathir has never mentioned a specific date for a handover, Anwar has been selling the idea of him being the next PM to the public, forcing a perception that it is his right to take over the helm from Mahathir.

He even said to members of the press that he is open to the idea of Mahathir joining his cabinet. That is how cocksure he is of becoming the PM.

But, since when is the Prime Minister’s post the right of an individual? Even if a Prime Minister can determine his successor, only the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has the constitutional right to choose a Prime Minister.

Article 43(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution gives that right to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to choose a Prime Minister from amongst the members of the Lower House whom he thinks has the confidence and support of the majority of the members.

Back during BN days it became a convention that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong chose the one named by the incumbent, but that was then. That was a time when BN commanded the majority in Parliament.

Unlike the BN, this is a government of motley crew. Helmed by a Prime Minister from a party with the least number of seats, support from within can go either way.

And to get a sure majority support, the Opposition has to be roped in; something unthinkable during the BN days. However, given a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, I doubt that it is in the best interest of the Opposition to back someone seen to have the support of the DAP.

To put Anwar Ibrahim in that post in ways other than those prescribed in the Federal Constitution would be a revolution, and there is nothing democratic about revolutions.

It is the sole right of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to choose a Prime Minister to lead his government. There is no other form of right agreed by all parties when this nation came into being. Dreamers can therefore continue to dream.

Posted on

Dog Eat Dog

A parade of members of the Communist Party of Malaya

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.

Posted on

ICC: A Strategic Withdrawal by the Government?

The International Criminal Court (photo courtesy of Shutterstock)

We have ratified, but have we withdrawn?

AS we all know, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had announced on April 5, 2019 Malaysia’s intention to withdraw from ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

However, just a week ago Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah said that it is only a dead end for ICERD, but not for the Rome Statute (Jalan mati buat ICERD tapi bukan Statut Rome, kata Saifuddin – Free Malaysia Today, 23 April 2019).

Parliamentary Opposition Leader Ismail Sabri Yaakob hit out at the Foreign Minister the very next day. In a blog post, Ismail asked if the Foreign Minister still wants the Rome Statute ratified and what is the Pakatan Harapan government’s agenda? (Menteri Luar Masih Mahukan Statut Rom Diratifikasikan. Apa Agenda PH? – dsismailsabri.com, 24 April 2019).

What I find most interesting among all the points that were brought up by the Opposition Leader are the date when the statute comes into force for Malaysia, and the period of withdrawal from ratification.

Paragraph 1 of Article 126 of the Rome Statute states that the Statute shall come into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the ratification. For Malaysia, that date falls on June 1, 2019.

Paragraph 1 of Article 127 states that a State Party may, by written notification, withdraw from the Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect ONE YEAR after the date of receipt of the notification.

What the above means is that come June 1, 2019, Malaysia becomes a State Party. Any withdrawal following that date will only take effect ONE YEAR AFTER the receipt of the written notification. Until the withdrawal comes into effect, Malaysia is obliged to honour the Rome Statute.

Enter Article 7 Paragraph 1

At a glance, the ICC does not cause a nation’s sovereignty to diminish. Unlike the International Human Rights Law, the International Criminal Law does not directly impact national constitutional arrangements.

However, according to an expert in International Criminal Law, Rupert Elderkin, when International Criminal Law comes into play, it may perform quasi-constitutional functions, in particular offering the only means under public international law to remove state officials from office when they are believed responsible for the most harmful abuses of power (Elderkin, R. (2015). The impact of international criminal law and the ICC on national constitutional arrangements. Global Constitutionalism, 4(2), pp. 227-253).

The Attorney-General can argue that the Yang DiPertuan Agong will not be affected if Malaysia decides to declare war against another nation. Maybe not so. That is the least of my worries. It is Article 7 (Crimes Against Humanity) that I am more concerned about.

This Article deals with any act when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack that includes persecution against any identifiable group or collectively on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or crimes of apartheid.

Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law, while the crime of apartheid is explained as an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.

I can name several Articles in the Federal Constitution, and the numerous policies aimed at protecting the special rights of the Malays and Bumiputera, as well as the special position of Islam, that are already against Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

The Malay Rulers act as a shield in their respective states for protecting the religion of Islam. If a Sultan refuses to appoint a state assemblyman whom he thinks has the majority support of the Dewan, as the Menteri Besar, on grounds that the latter is not a Muslim, then the Sultan is already acting in direct contravention of Article 7.

In the case of HRH The Sultan of Selangor and the issue of the use of “Allah” in Bibles five years ago, although the State’s religious affairs department acted in accordance with a state enactment that was made under the state’s constitution, that, too, would have contravened Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

It is immaterial whether or not the State’s constitution or enactments contravene the Federal Constitution. It can only be so when a Constitutional Court deems it to be.

Can the Agong and Malay Rulers be prosecuted?

But will the Yang DiPertuan Agong and the Malay Rulers still be protected from prosecution by the ICC? Or, can they be prosecuted by the ICC?

The Malay Rulers know of the policies and Articles that give Islam its status as the religion of the Federation; that give special status to the Malays and Bumiputeras over others; that makes Malay the national language – all of which come under their protection.

One can argue that since the Malay Rulers are constitutional in form, they cannot be held responsible, as argued by the Attorney-General saying that the Agong cannot declare war and is therefore not accountable. However, the Eighth Schedule of the Federal Constitution clearly states their executive powers.

Although the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is the common law test for criminal liability meaning the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty, it also means that a crime can be committed not only through one’s intention, but also through the knowledge that one’s action or inaction would contribute the same.

In Prosecutor vs Tihomir Blaškić (ICC Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004), the ICC Appeals Chamber held that “the person who orders an act or omission with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime will be committed in the execution of that order, has the requisite mens rea for establishing liability under Article 7(1) pursuant to ordering. Ordering with such awareness has to be regarded as accepting that crime.”

In other words, there is no legal requirement of an ideology, plan or policy to articulate the mens rea applicable to crimes against humanity. In this context, the Malay Rulers can be found culpable to promoting and enforcing policies and plans that oppress targeted race or religion, while holding the supremacy of one race or religion.

In the words of Catherine Gegout, and Associate Professor in International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Nottingham,

“The ICC can prosecute any individual anywhere in the world, but for suspected criminals who are citizens of a state which has not ratified the ICC Statute, a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution is necessary.” (Gegout, C. (2013). The International Criminal Court: limits, potential and conditions for the promotion of justice and peace. Third World Quarterly, Volume 34, 2013, Issue 5, pp. 800-818).

How effective can ICC prosecute will depend on how cooperative a State Party is. If the government, as the executive branch of a State Party, decides to cooperate with the ICC and have a Malay Ruler tried by the ICC, then It could.

So, what is the government’s intention?

If there is something that may affect the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation, the special privileges of the Malays and Bumiputera, the National Language, and the status and functions of the Malay Rulers, it is imperative that the government bring it to the Malay Rulers to be deliberated.

By going quietly and ratifying the Rome Statute without first bringing the matter to the attention of the Malay Rulers is an act that contravenes the Federal Constitution. The Malay Rulers have every right to be consulted, to warn and to encourage. The cabinet members all took an oath to serve in His Majesty’s government, a Malaysian government; not a political party’s government.

So, what was the intention of ratifying the Statute? To take Myanmar to the ICC? China for the mistreatment of the Uighurs

Most importantly – June 1, 2019 is getting nearer each day. Why has the government not sent the formal letter to the Secretary-General of the UN to notify of Malaysia’s intention to withdraw from ratifying the Statute? How difficult can drafting a letter be? Does it need more than 25 days to draft one?

Or is the announcement by the Prime Minister 26 days ago a form of strategic withdrawal that will only see a letter sent days, weeks, months or years after June 1, 2019 that will see Malaysia bounded for another year after?

(This article first appeared on The Mole)

Posted on

We Are Not Absolute Monarchy, But Neither Are We A Dictatorship

The Prime Minister has defended his view that the palace has no role in the appointment of the menteri besar, in remarks which are likely to increase tension between him and the Johor royal family.

“When we formed the Federation of Malaya, we introduced the constitution, where we stated that Malaya will follow the constitutional monarchy system.

“The ruler has no absolute power. If it still says so in the Johor constitution, then it is void. (We Are Not Absolute Monarchy, Neither Is Johor says Dr M – Free Malaysia Today, 10 April 2019).

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.

Posted on

The Price for Citizenship

The spat between the TMJ and Mahathir has not seen its end (photo courtesy of abuleman.org)

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.

We, the rakyat, are watching.

Posted on

Defence – Isu Seragam Komunis

lct02
Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan memakai corporate bush jacket Kementerian Pertahanan semasa membuat lawatan. Beliau memakai bush jacket yang sama dalam gambar yang dikatakan pakaian seragam komunis

Heboh disebarkan di dalam media sosial sebuah gambar yang menampakkan Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan memeriksa kawalan kuarter Tentera Darat di mana beliau dikatakan memakan pakaian seragam Parti Komunis Malaya.  Saya terpanggil untuk menulis kerana saya perlu bersikap adil kerana menjadi prinsip saya agar hal ehwal pertahanan tidak dipolitikkan.

Bush Jacket Korporat – Satu Langkah Yang Wajar

Saya tak tahu sejak bila budaya Menteri memakai pakaian seragam tentera ini dimulakan.  Seingat saya, Dr Mahathir semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri Ke-4 hanya memakai pakaian seragam tentera darat semasa beliau dianugerahkan beret kehormat Grup Gerak Khas pada tahun 2001.  Selain itu tidak pernah saya lihat beliau mengenakan pakaian tentera.

Begitu juga dengan Najib Razak semasa melawat para pegawai dan anggota tentera kita di Bosnia semasa beliau menjadi Menteri Pertahanan. Beliau tidak mengenakan pakaian tentera penuh, hanya memakai sebuah jaket celoreng untuk mengatasi cuaca sejuk di sana.

najib ke bosnia
Najib Razak melawat MALBATT di Bosnia semasa beliau menjadi Menteri Pertahanan

Bapa beliau yang menjadi Menteri Pertahanan sebanyak dua kali, juga tidak pernah memakai pakaian seragam tentera semasa melawat barisan hadapan.

Screen Shot 2018-10-31 at 18.23.27
Dato’ Abdul Razak bin Hussein, yang ketika itu Menteri Pertahanan, melawat pangkalan Tentera Udara DiRaja Malaysia di Sungai Besi pada tahun 1963

Photo 02 - Tun Razak 31 Dec 74 Visit 3rd Sqdn
Tun Abdul Razak bin Hussein semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri, melawat No.3 Skuadron di Pangkalan Udara Butterworth pada 31 Disember 1974 memakai Bush Jacket berlengan panjang

Begitu juga dengan Perdana Menteri Ke-3, Tun Hussein Onn.  Beliau tidak pernah mengenakan pakaian seragam tentera semasa melawat unit-unit tentera.

photo 04 - stock-photo-perdana-menteri-datuk-hussein-onn-melawat-pusat-latihan-grantales-v-di-sungai-petani--kedah-366461
Dato’ Hussein Onn, Perdana Menteri Ke-3, memeriksa kawalan kuarter Tentera Darat memakai Bush Jacket berlengan pendek – foto ehsan Jabatan Penerangan

Pemakaian pakaian seragam tentera oleh individu-individu yang tidak berkenaan, yang tidak pernah menjalani sebarang latihan untuk berkhidmat untuk Angkatan Tentera Malaysia, selain di atas sebab khusus dan istimewa seperti semasa pengurniaan beret atau sayap kehormat, adalah dianggap mencemar pakaian seragam tersebut.  Ini disebabkan mereka yang tidak pernah dilatih tidak mengetahui pahit jerih serta nilai pakaian seragam serta lencana dan sayap tersebut.

Kadangkala sebagai seorang Veteran ATM, saya rasa terkilan dan sedih apabila mereka-mereka yang tidak pernah lalui sebarang bentuk latihan ketenteraan dan diberikan tauliah kehormat, bersikap lebih tentera daripada warga ATM, dan meletakkan pakaian kepala mereka seperti topi ataupun beret yang mempunyai lencana kor, di atas tanah atau di lain-lain tempat tanpa menghormati makna lencana tersebut.

Pada tahun 2015, DYMM Sultan Johor pernah menegur sikap ramai pemimpin tentera dan pegawai kehormat yang memakai pelbagai lencana dan sayap kehormat ma­sing-masing sepanjang masa kerana berdasarkan tata cara pemakaian, ia perlu dipakai semasa majlis yang berkenaan sahaja.

“Jika betul-betul ingin memakai lencana sayap sepanjang masa, saya syorkan buatlah terjunan dahulu. Sekurang-kurangnya sayap yang tersemat di dada itu benar-benar mempunyai nilainya dan bukannya hanya sebagai hiasan yang memenuhi uniform,” titah baginda yang pernah mendapat latihan ketenteraan di Pusat Latihan Tentera Darat (PULADA), di Fort Benning dan Fort Bragg di Amerika Syarikat, dan menjalani kursus jurutrbang helikopter di TUDM Kluang.

Oleh itu, saya amat menyokong pemakaian pakaian korporat oleh Menteri dan Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan semasa membuat lawatan ke unit-unit Angkatan Tentera Malaysia.

Pakaian Seragam Komunis?

lct04
Gambar yang ditularkan yang mendakwa Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan memakai seragam Parti Komunis Malaya semasa memeriksa kawalan kuarter

Apakah pilihan pakaian yang ada untuk warga Kementerian Pertahanan yang bukan pegawai atau anggota tentera semasa berada di luar kawasan KEMENTAH?  Pakaian kemeja korporat mungkin kurang sesuai berbanding bush jacket sekiranya lawatan tersebut melibatkan mesyuarat dengan pucuk pimpinan ATM berkenaan hal-ehwal operasi.  Sekiranya ianya melibatkan perbarisan penuh bersama panji-panji maka lounge suit atau baju istiadat Ahli Parlimen lebih sesuai terutamanya dengan kehadiran Raja-Raja.

Tetapi, kenapa pakaian Bush Jacket korporat Kementerian Pertahanan itu mirip pakaian seragam Parti Komunis Malaya? Itu pertanyaan yang diajukan oleh mereka-mereka yang tidak pernah melihat pakaian seragam PKM.

pkm
Pakaian seragam Ketumbukan Ke-10 Parti Komunis Malaya

Pakaian seragam Parti Komunis Malaya adalah berwarna hijau gelap.  Ianya hampir serupa dengan pakaian seragam tempur Tentera Darat ketika itu yang menggunakan warna ‘paddy green‘.  Hanya pada penghujung tahun 1970an barulah Angkatan Tentera Malaysia menggantikan pakaian tempur ‘paddy green‘ dengan pakaian tempur celoreng.

lct05

 

Bush Jacket yang dipakai oleh Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan adalah berwarna khaki dan bukannya hijau tua seperti seragam PKM.  Khaki adalah warna yang lebih sesuai digunakan untuk tugas-tugas di tengah panas berbanding di dalam hutan kerana elemen penyamaran yang lemah.

Elak Menjadi Lebih Tentera Daripada Tentera

Angkatan Tentera Malaysia adalah sebuah organisasi professional yang berpegang teguh kepada disiplin dan tradisi.  Walaupun tidak dinafikan Menteri Pertahanan sebelum ini banyak membantu dari segi kebajikan warga Angkatan Tentera Malaysia, dan warga ATM memang berterima kasih di atas usaha-usaha tersebut, namun ada beberapa perkara yang tidak disenangi oleh mereka.  Pemakaian pakaian seragam yang berleluasa oleh Menteri ketika itu terutamanya beret maroon kehormat dan sayap penerjunan kehormat di hampir kesemua majlis pernah menjadi sebutan warga ATM.

Penganugerahan tauliah kehormat dengan agak mudah kepada para pegawai beliau ketika itu juga menimbulkan rasa tidak puas hati di kalangan para pegawai dan anggota kerana mereka rasakan nilai pangkat yang dipakai itu terhakis.  Yang memakai itu mungkin hanya mempunyai kesetiaan politik, tetapi kesetiaan kami bukanlah kepada elemen politik.  Kami setia hanya kepada Raja dan Negara.

Begitu juga dengan pengenalan budaya ‘fist bump‘ serta laungan “Perkasa Perwira” yang berlainan dengan laungan semangat tradisi iaitu “Gempur Wira” yang menjadi sebahagian daripada istiadat ATM itu sendiri.

Kita faham usaha kerajaan ketika itu untuk memperkasakan ATM, tetapi cukuplah sekiranya ‘Perkasa Perwira‘ itu hanya sebagai hashtag di media sosial dan bukannya laungan semangat.  Begitu juga ‘fist bump‘ yang sememangnya bukan budaya mana-mana angkatan tentera walaupun separa-formal.  Mungkin tujuannya ketika itu adalah untuk menunjukkan kepada orang awam bahawa warga ATM ini sebenarnya cool.  Kami sememangnya cool, namun sebagai sebuah organisasi yang professional dan bertanggung jawab untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan negara, kami tidak boleh dilihat sebagai cool apatah lagi hip seperti hipster.

Oleh itu, langkah memakai Bush Jacket korporat oleh Menteri dan Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan sekarang adalah satu langkah yang betul kerana mereka adalah sebagai facilitator membantu warga ATM untuk mencapai sasaran doktrin mereka.  Benar, kerjasama baik di antara Kementerian Pertahanan dengan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia itu penting, namun tidak perlulah sehingga menjadi cool dan hip.  Dapatkan apa yang terbaik yang diidamkan oleh warga ATM sebagai end-user adalah lebih bermakna bagi mereka.

Perkasakanlah Angkatan Tentera Malaysia tanpa menjadi lebih tentera dari mereka.

 

Posted on

E-Hailing versus Taxi Drivers: An Endless Contention

MAHATHIR_MOHAMAD_1540128271
Mahathir reacts to the outburst by taxi drivers in Langkawi – courtesy of Sinar Harian

So, 10 Langkawi taxi drivers hurled abuses at the Prime Minister before walking out of the hall recently where they were to have a dialogue with the latter.

They were utterly dismayed at the government’s decision to allow E-hailing services, namely Grab, to continue its existence and complement the taxi services.

Their anger is understandable.  In March of last year, taxi drivers and owners staged a protest against the previous administration outside the Parliament building, for allowing Grab to operate, and were joined by the likes of Mahfuz Omar, Rafizi Ramli, while in 2015 Datin Seri Wan Azizah Ismail joined them at Padang Merbok.

Although the Prime Minister has denied ever wanting to abolish Grab and other E-Hailing services, the taxi drivers and owners feel as if the government has reneged on its promises to protect their interests.

Prior to the walk out last Sunday, there have been two rallies opposing Grab services organised by taxi drivers; one at Padang Merbok in July, and the latest was five days ago outside the Ministry of Finance.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, you would either have to go to a taxi stand, or call up a taxi stand to have a taxi sent to your location, or wait for one to pass by.  With the advent of radio taxi services in the 1980s, getting a taxi was similar but quicker as the taxi could be roaming near your neighbourhood.

Not much has changed since, but with mobile phones, if you know the taxi driver personally, you could call him or her to come pick you up.

E-Hailing is not much different.  You have a car owner, registered with Grab for example, who would choose on the software whether he or she would like to pick up a passenger who has hailed for a ride using his or her mobile device.

A destination is given and the car owner drives the passenger to the given destination. The fare is fixed; so unlike with taxi drivers, you do not get the last-minute discussion for extra payments.

You can either opt for a credit/debit card payment, or pay by cash.

But E-Hailing is more attractive to the passengers.  Besides having the fare fixed, you don’t need to conduct a cash transaction, they can pick you up from anywhere and drop you off at your choice of destination at any time of the day or night.

With E-Hailing, more and more partygoers would be willing to not drive at night, thus increasing the size of the cake in contention.

It is late at night when the dissatisfaction with taxi drivers is at its peak.

Try hailing a taxi in the middle of the night: if your destination does not conform to their desired location, they could refuse you or reject you.

More often than not, they would prefer not to use the meter and throw you a figure. That figure could be more if they suddenly tell you that they will ‘balik kosong’, meaning that it would be difficult for them to get a passenger in your area after dropping you off.

It is not easy to find an equilibrium where both services can co-exist without losing much to each other.

While it may be true that E-Hailing also takes a slice from the same cake, I doubt that any taxi driver has gone unemployed since the introduction of E-Hailing services.

Swedish-German economist at Oxford Martin School conducted a study in 2013 in cities in the US of the impact Uber has had on the income of taxi drivers.

He found that though it is true that the income of taxi drivers had been affected, the drop was in the region of 10 percent, while E-Hailing services had resulted in a 50-percent rise in the number of self-employed drivers.

Frey expressed that traditional jobs have not been displaced.

In the case of Langkawi, it is difficult to get a taxi, especially if you venture out to the less touristy places.

The Langkawi Craft Complex for example, is almost half an hour away from the taxi stand in Kuah, and 25 minutes away from the one at the Langkawi International Airport.

I doubt if anyone would get a taxi if they waited by the road side.

Perhaps the answer to the plight of the taxi drivers is to subscribe to an E-Hailing service of their own, much like the radio taxi service.

Pay a certain amount as annual fee to a management company, they can download the application, and charge by the meter, and the payment goes into an account, just like Grab or Uber.

Like their counterparts in Singapore, they should be able to accept credit and debit card payments, and passengers get to rate them as well.  I am sure that such an application could be produced.

That way, they have a level playing field with the other E-Hailing services drivers, and maintain the quality of their service.

With two-thirds of the world’s population due to live in cities by 2050, the cake will keep on growing for both taxis and E-Hailing services drivers.  A combination of private providers and public mass rapid systems will be the imminent scenario.

My only wish for now is for foldable bicycle owners to be allowed to bring their bicycle on board our trains during peak hours.

That would increase the ridership of the trains, while both E-Hailing and improved taxi systems complement the process by moving workers from office to meeting venues and back.

(This article was first published on The Mole)