Posts Tagged ‘Malay’
What everyone fears most is for the Malays to unite. I wrote this a few months back. All the lawmakers know that the RUU355 amendments have no impact whatsoever to the non-Muslims, and even if all the Muslims MPs from both PAS and UMNO were to vote for the amendments, they will never attain the 2/3rd majority required to pass the bill for it to go to the next stage.
Which is why the Malays in the DAP, PAN, PKR and Pribumi are the tools for the DAP leadership to use, as in the words of Superman Hew, “to screw the Malays using the Malays.”
Objections are raised using mainly the Malay tools. The screen-capture of a Twitter conversation between a BERNAMA journalist and a PAN MP is the evidence to that.
In the run up to its tabling, the RUU355 has met with lots of resistance. I don’t believe that the lawmakers don’t know that it is the right of each religious group to manage and administer its own affairs. I also don’t believe that the lawmakers do not know that Islam is the religion of the Federation.
But the resistance towards it is mainly to avoid the provision of an opportunity for Muslims and Malays to unite just before the next general elections. They oppose just for the sake of opposing.
And then in comes the individuals who do not see or understand that in Islam, protecting the rights of a community supercedes the rights to protect an individual’s rights, nor understand the separation of jurisdiction between the civil law and Syariah law.
This dual system of law first existed in the Malay states in Perak in 1807 with the introduction of the Royal Charter of Justice of 1807 in Pulau Pinang. Prior to that, laws based on the Syariah has been the lex loci of this land.
Islam first came to this land in the ninth century A.D and flourished in the 13th century, 200 years before the kingdom of Melaka was founded. The first evidence of a coded Syariah law was from the Terengganu’s Batu Bersurat, written in 1303, a full century before Melaka.
The kingdom of Melaka produced two major legal digests, which formed the main source of written law in Melaka – the Hukum Kanun Melaka , and the Undang-Undang Laut Melaka . The Hukum Kanun consists of 44 chapters, which touched upon matters such as the duties and responsibilities of the Ruler, prohibitions amongst members of society and penalties for civil and criminal wrongs and family law. The Undang-Undang Laut consists of 25 chapters, which covered maritime matters, such as the duties and responsibilities of ships’ crew, laws pertaining to voyages and trade. The law contained in the above written codes are said to be based on Islamic law of the Shafie School, together with elements of local custom.
Melaka’s written codes were responsible for the growth of other written codes in other states of the Peninsula: Pahang Legal Digest 1595, the laws of Kedah 1605, the Laws of Johore 1789, and the 99 Laws of Perak, 1878.
Therefore, the question of the Syariah creeping into the lives of the Muslims of the land does not hold true. The reverse however is. The RUU355 is not about amending the offences but merely seeking the agreement to enhance the punishments to be meted out for the offences. And as explained in previous writings as per clickable links above, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and therefore offences already covered in the Penal Code as well as in other civil laws made canoot be tried under the Syariah laws of Malaysia.
Furthermore, the separation of jurisdiction of the legal systems provided by the Constitution also ensures that the rights of non-Muslims are protected – only Muslims can be subjected to the Syariah law.
On the question of the Muslims being subjected to dual laws, this is not a problem. If a Muslim commits theft, he will not get his hand amputated in Malaysia. Theft is an offence under the Penal Code and therefore the Muslim offender gets punished according to what is provided for by the Penal Code. The punishments that the Syariah court can mete out cannot go beyond the Second List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
DAP Emperor Lim Kit Siang was against the introduction of Section 298A of the Penal Code of Malaysia. In a Parliament debate on the 9th December 1982 on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 1982 he said the following:
I was aware that the new Section 298A of the Penal Code has also been drafted in order to punish the non-Muslim partner in a khalwat offence until I read a Bernama write-up on the amendment the other day. The Bernama report exulted that now both the Muslim and non-Muslim parties to a khalwat offence would be punishable, the non-Muslim under the Penal Code amendment.
A Muslim found guilty of khalwat is usually fined $200 or $250 under the Muslim enactments of the various States. I have caused a check of the penalties for khalwat, offences in the various states, which vary from State to State but they all range from the lightest penalty of $100 or one month’s jail in Kelantan to the heaviest penalty of $1,000 or six months’ jail, as is to be found in Johore. However, the non-Muslim partner charged under the Penal Code Section 298A for khalwat activity which causes or attempts to cause or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity on feelings of ill-will would be exposed to an offence which is punishable with three years’ jail, or fine, or both.
This is most objectionable and unjust where for the same act, different persons are charged under different laws where one of them imposes much heavier penalties. Or is the Muslim partner in a khalwat charge going to be charged under the Penal Code in the Criminal courts? I am sure that the Shariah Courts in the various States would vehemently oppose this as a serious erosion of the jurisdiction and powers of the Shariah Courts.
So, in 1982 Lim Kit Siang opposed the introduction of Section 298A because a similar offence tried under the Syariah law would only provide for a much lesser sentence. Why is he complaining now about Hadi wanting to introduce higher punishments for the same? Wouldn’t it be fair for the non-Muslims?
As the purpose of the 2M government is to uphold the sanctity of Islam, defend true Islamic values and Muslim unity in the country so as to be able to deal with the problems of kafir mengafir, two imam issue, separate prayers and burials, in the Muslim community, the government should confine its legislative efforts to the Muslims only, and not draft a Bill with such far-reaching consequences in allowing for State interference in the practice, profession and propagation of non-Muslim faiths.
35 years later, he backtracks on the need for Muslims to make better its laws for the Muslims only. Which is why I say Lim Kit Siang is opposing for the sake of opposing so that the Muslims do not rally behind this bill months before the general election is due.
Even PKR’s Wong Chen acknowledged back on 29th Aril 2013, six days before the 13th General Elections that in order to gain support from the Malays, PAS, which was a partner in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, needed to play up the Hudhd issue and had the full support from the parties in the Pakatan Harapan.
Hannah Yeoh, who is the Speaker of the Selangor State Assembly even allowed the Hudud motion to be brought into the assembly. So why oppose the same motion when it is brought into Parliament? Why the double standard?
And why must Lim Guan Eng ask the BN components such as MCA, MIC and others to bear responsibility for the tabling of the RUU355? Why don’t he ask his party’s Anthony Loke and Hannah Yeoh instead? They both supported Hudud and the tabling of Hudud in the Selangor State Assembly (as in the case of Hannah Yeoh).
Anthony Loke even went to town with his support for Hudud telling his Chinese audience not to be aafraid of Hudud:
Yet, the RUU355 is not even about Hudud. So, what is unconstitutional about the RUU355?
Only the objections by the vapid non-Muslims against the RUU355 is unconstitutional, as it is a right given to all religious groups, not just the Muslims, to manage its own affairs. I don’t have to agree with the amendments proposed by the RUU355, but it is my religion and therefore it should be left to the Muslims to manage its own affairs – as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
And as for the atheists, just stay off my social media accounts. You don’t have the locus standi to participate in this debate.
- In: Daily Whatevers
- Comments Off on And What If The Malays Unite?
Three years ago yesterday, I wrote about how more than a hundred Malays were slaughtered in just one night in the small village of Bekor. Interesting to note is that the effort to kill the Malays was supported by a number of Malays:
” Shamsiah Pakih pakai baju kebaya putih datang kerumah mengajak Tok masuk komunis Tok tak mahu. Pada masa itu siapa yang tidak mahu masuk kominis akan di bunuh. Orang Bekor banyak terlibat dan berdosa kerana bersubahat dengan kominis dan membunuh orang melayu yang tidak mahu masuk kominis. ”
The above is an excerpt from this blog that I had quoted when writing about Bekor.
When Malaya gained independence in 1957, the Malays made up only 49 percent of the population of 6.835 million, a marginalised minority in their own land since the 1930s [Department of Statistics, Federation of Malaya 1957 – Population Census of the Federation of Malaya Report, No.14 by H.Fell].
Of course there was the Penang Hartal of November 1967 and subsequently the 13 May 1969 racial clashes. But by then, the Malays were more united than they were in the late 1940s. Sadly, the Malays are no longer united and not only are they being attacked on anything that is Malay or Muslim by the other races but they are also being undermined by the likes of Rafizi Ramli, and Mahathir Mohamad.
And then came the opposition to the amendments of the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965 dubber the ‘Hudud’ Bill, subsequently ‘Hadi’ Bill. I wrote about how non-Muslims especially the President of MCA who, I assume being ill-advised by his ignorant adviser and MCA’s Religious Harmony Bureau Chairman Ti Lian Ker, decided to oppose the Bill for the sake of opposing, even after the clarification made by the UMNO President, Najib Razak, in a recent speech at the UMNO General Assembly.
This resulted in UMNO delegates calling for the unity of Muslims to support the Bill, also known as the RUU355. While Liow Tiong Lai calls the amendments ‘unconstitutional’ little does he realise that by interfering in the Muslims’ right to manage their own affairs, he is being unconstitutional.
I have seen little or no effort taken by MCA to understand the Bill, or to even explain the current government policies and efforts to assist the rakyat in times of need. There may have been such efforts but they somehow have escaped my radar. If you go to the MCA’s Twitter account, between 21 October 2016 until its last post it has not made any effort to convey the correct message to its audience. Rather, topics on RUU355 are all negative.
Every single day be it on Facebook, Twitter or in comments to online news articles, you will see more often than not the non-Malays taking a swipe at every single effort by the government to make lives better.
The most aired ‘grouse’ is of the rising cost of living. In his closing speech yesterday, Najib Razak stressed that in the seven years as the Prime Minister, he has never approved any application to have the price of 21 essential items like rice, flour, sugar and cooking gas to be increased.
As a matter of fact you can see for yourselves the items which are zero-rated under the GST scheme. If you find any increase in any of the prices of the listed goods, it is your duty to report it to the relevant agencies, especially the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism. You can download its Apps in Google Play or Apps Store and use the Apps instead of using the Internet to spread lies or complain to the general public where you will only make things worse instead of solving the problem!
Najib Razak also pointed out that to date 185 Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia have been established to bring low-priced goods to the people. So, don’t blame the government if you prefer to shop at Jaya Grocers, Cold Storage, Mercato or B.I.G. That is the choice that you have made, not the government’s.
The problem lies with the retailers. And they will continue to fleece you for as long as you don’t report them.
The same also goes to medical treatments. There are 195 Klinik 1Malaysia established nationwide to date, 2,836 government clinics, 139 goverment hospitals, where you can seek treatment for as low as RM1.00! I cannot understand why would anyone, especially kampung folks, seek treatment at private hospitals when they cannot afford it, then make pleas for donations from the public?
And you blame the government saying it does not provide affordable healthcare?
The most terrible whiners are those who go on saying the Ringgit is the worst performing currency that it is no longer accepted anywhere outside Malaysia.
On 31 October 2016, it was the British Pound that was the worst performing currency in the world.
It is no secret that the Ringgit has lost a percentage of its value against the Greenback since Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. But are we really the worst in Asia? Take a look at the performance of several Asian currencies versus the Greenback as on the 2nd December 2016:
While the Ringgit has dropped by 0.23% against the Greenback in the last two days, Singapore Dollar has dropped by 0.46% while the Japanese Yen dropped by 0.52%!
Do we see the JPY or SGD not being accepted in other countries? Of course not. But the zombies refuse to believe this. Among this year’s worst performers (year-to-date) in East Asia are actually the Philipine Peso and China Yuan.
According to Twitter’s @econsmalaysia, since Trump’s victory the Japanese Yen has lost 9.1% of its value against the Greenback compared to 5.6% for the Ringgit. So pray tell how is the Ringgit the worst performing currency in Asia?
There seems to be nothing good to come out of anything a Malay would say or do, and any move made to strengthen Islam in this country is regarded by the non-Muslims, as unconstitutional or done not in consultation with the non-Muslims. Since when does Article 11 of the Federal Constitution requires the management of affairs of one’s religion needs the accord of others? Why are the other races not respecting the position of Islam as the Federation’s religion? Does this not reflect what was done to the Malays back in 1947 when the religion of the land was not respected by other races?
“The violation of the sanctity of Islam also became a factor in the bloody Sino-Malay conflict (WO 172/9773. No.30: 478) when the Bintang Tiga/CPM disrupted religious activities in Muslims places of worship. This started in Batu Pahat, Johor, just before the surrender of the Japanese occupiers, during the Muslim month of Ramadhan. Muslims were forbidden from congregating at mosques or suraus to perform the Terawih prayers (Hairi Abdullah, 1974/5: 8-9).
The same occurred in Perak and some parts of Batu Pahat where Muslims were gunned down and burnt together with the mosque they were in during Friday prayers.
Mosques and suraus were often used as places of meeting for the Chinese community (WO 172/9773, No.30: 478) and were tainted by incidents such as slaughtering of pigs, and mosques’ compound was used to cook pork, where Malays were forced to join the larger Chinese groups.
Pages were torn from the Quran to be used by the Chinese using these mosques as toilet paper.”
And you want to blame the Malays for wanting to unite?
- In: Daily Whatevers
- Comments Off on Lighting The Wrong Path
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a moderate. Moderation is what is preached in Islam. Moderation is what seems to be eroding by the day not just in Islam, but in other religions and cuts across the racial board as well. And this applies to every single country there is on the face of this Earth. And to have a group of people advocating moderation is a more-than-welcome effort in this young-but-amnesiac country that seems to have lost all institutional memory of the events that had brought about the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
Reading the The Star’s interview with Tan Sri Alwi Jantan (Torchbearers for founding fathers – Sunday, 4th September 2016) I cannot help but agree to some of his points, but at the same time feel as if there is some form of misguidance, or misinterpretation of the Federal Constitution, and a deliberate misleading on the respected Tan Sri’s part.
I agree that rather than focusing on petty issues such as whether or not the Langkawi statue is haram, the religious councils as well as JAKIM should focus more on the development of correct as well as balanced knowledge on Islamic subjects such as Tauhid, Fardhus Ain and Kifayah. This is important to counter the influence of deviationists especially that of the Da’esh. However, religious as well as racial extremism is not confined to Islam alone. In the name of pluralism as advocated by the G25, there should only be single-stream schools. Children who do not grow up together will grow up apart. We can never talk about unity and understanding if we do not understand each other. Preserving the mother-tongue can be done after formal classes are over and this can be done at the school itself, perhaps after lunch. So could the Islamic religious classes. In the latter category, this would ensure that correct teachings are being imparted to the children rather than by private religious schools whose curriculum are not being monitored effectively by the religious councils. Also that way working parents do not need to worry about the whereabouts of their children and can pick them up at school after work, or a similar arrangement could be made.
In a plural society such as ours, the need for our children to grow up together for the sake of unity is paramount. Sending children to separate schools based on mother tongue rather than a common national language is against the spirit of the Constitution. When the Constitution was being drafted for it to be in operation by Merdeka Day 1957, the Reid Commission adopted the Alliance’s (UMNO, MCA and MIC) proposal to establish Malay as the official language of the Federation. However, there were differences on how to go about with this. Ng Ek Teong, the MCA representative submitted that English should be allowed to be used for official purposes for a minimum of 10 years. MIC was in support of this. Both MCA and MIC also proposed for Mandarin and Tamil be allowed to be used in the legislatures for a minimum period of 10 years. UMNO however proposed that English be allowed to be used for a maximum period of ten years after independence. Ng Ek Tong told the Commission that this would only serve as a temporary measure (Colonial Office CO 889/6, Minutes of Alliance hearing before the Reid Commission, 27 September 1956, pp 290-294). Tunku Abdul Rahman however said:
“At the end of 10 years, the general trend will be that people will still demand for it and the people who propose it now are not sure that they would be there to guarantee it. It is bound to cause a lot of debate later on.” (Ibid.)
Even Lord William Reid himself was not in favour of the proposal by MCA and MIC saying that it would cause practical difficulties (Ibid/Making of the Malayan Constitution, Joseph M Fernando, pp 128-129). It was for this reason that the Tunku promoted the Rumi script for the Malay language at the expense of the Jawi script to enable the non-Malays to learn the national language rapidly (Tunku Abdul Rahman (1984), op. cit., pp. 112-114). This has been enshrined in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution as well as in the National Language Act, 1963/1967.
The reality of it now is that the migrant workers from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar are more able to grasp the Malay language than many of our own Identity Card-wielding citizens. Mind you, they also stood still at Dataran Merdeka while the NegaraKu was being played. Our own citizens refuse to stand up when the NegaraKu was being played in the cinemas, extinguishing the very torch of our founding fathers.
The Constitution is secular only up to a certain point. The Reid Commission, commissioned by both Her Majesty The Queen of England and the Malay Rulers had initially omitted a proposal by the Malay Rulers to have Islam as the religion of the Federation. Reid saw it fit that matters of religion be handled only by the Ruler of the respective States, and that the special position of the Malays be reviewed after 15 years.
When the report was published, the strongest objections came from the man revered by Malaysians now as the father of multiracialism – Dato Onn Jaafar, who as the leader of Parti Negara said that the Malays had been let down. PAS claimed that the Malay interests had been cast aside (von Vorys (1975), op. cit., p.132). Hence, the Tunku later submitted that Islam be made the religion of the Federation with two provisos added: first that it would not affect the position of the Rulers as head of religion in their respective States; second, the practice and propagation of other religions to the non-Malays in the Federation would be assured under the Constitution (UMNO/SUA 154/56, Minutes of Alliance ad-hoc political sub-committee meeting, 2 April 1957).
Sir Donald Charles MacGillivray personally felt that such a provision would be advantageous because the Yang DiPertuan Agong could at the same time become the head of the faith in the Settlements of Penang and Malacca (CO 1030/524 (10), MacGillivray to Secretary of State, 25 February 1957; See also CO 1030/524 (18), MacGillivray to Secretary of State, 21 March 1957).
Fast forward to the present, Article 3 of the Federal Constitution has clearly mentioned Islam as the religion of the Federation with the Rulers being the Head of religion in their respetive States, while the Yang DiPertuan Agong becomes the Head of religion in the States of Pulau Pinang, Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak, as well as in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya. It is not an official religion but the religion of the Federation. The provisos added to safeguard the practice and propagation of other religions are now enshrined in Article 11 with limits to propagate given in Clause 4 of the said Article, to safeguard and honour the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.
There is even a separation of jurisdiction when it comes to the position of Islam in the Federal Constitution. The Syariah Law comes under the purview of the respective Rulers, and the Attorney-General of Malaysia, under Article 145(3) does not have the jurisdiction over proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court of a court-martial. This separation of jurisdition is also present as provided by Article 121(1A) where both the High Court of Malaya and High Court of Sabah and Sarawak do not have any jurisdiction over Syariah matters. Therefore, the respected Tan Sri should be aware that, borrowing the words of Sir Stamford Raffles in a 1815 letter to his cousin mentioned how “Religion and laws are so united” in Muslim dominated areas that the introduction of Christian beliefs will bring about “much mischief, much bitterness of heart and contention”. (Seademon, A Case For God, 1 Jan 2013) .
Even Act 355, the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965 (last revised in 1988) states the following:
1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction), 1965.
1. (2) This Act shall apply to all the States of Peninsular Malaysia.
2. The Syariah Courts duly constituted under any law in a State and invested with jurisdiction over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List II of the State List of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution are hereby conferred jurisdiction in respect of offences against precepts of the religion of Islam by persons professing that religion which may be prescribed under any written law:
Provided that such jurisdiction shall not be exercised in respect of any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years or with any fine exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.
The Act, clearly says that it first and foremost, applies to all States of the Peninsular Malaysia. It is not applicable to where the Yang DiPertuan Agong is the Head of religion ie. the Federal Territories, Sabah and Sarawak. Second, it applies only to Muslims and any matters in List II of the State List of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution. Third, it cannot propose any punishment that prescribes any jail term exceeding three years, or with any fine exceeding five thousand ringgit, or with whipping exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.
Therefore, there is no question of introducing stoning to death, amputation of limbs etc. Anything above those limitations will be referred to the Criminal Courts.
So, Tan Sri, care to explain how are secularism and pluralism being attacked with examples of provisos of the Federal Constitution or any laws made under it?
Finally, let me quote the interview given by the respected Tan Sri to The Star:
G25 has also expanded its scope to include good governance and tackling corruption. As not only the former head of the PSD but also former secretary-general in the Local Government and Federal Territory Ministry, Health Ministry and Agriculture Ministry, Alwi has focused on good governance, which he calls the precondition for a constitutional democracy: “Those in power must be made accountable for their actions and conduct.”
During his time, civil servants were able to do their jobs without fear or favour, he recalls. “The division of responsibilities between the politicians and civil servants was fairly clear cut.”
But over time good governance has been eroded at an alarming rate, he says.
“There are hardly any more checks and balances.”
What either the good Tan Sri or The Star have also failed to mention is the fact that for more than three years, Tan Sri Alwi Jantan was the Deputy Secretary-General for the Prime Minister’s Department under the founder of Parti Pribumi, Mahathir Mohamad. Mahathir’s now good friend, Lim Kit Siang, wrote not so long ago, on Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 12.57pm:
“This shows the rot in Malaysia, but it is a rot which was started during Mahathir’s 22-year premiership, and by Mahathir himself!
Today, Mahathir is obsessed with the toppling of Najib as Prime Minister, but this is not because he wanted to stop the rot in Malaysia, to restore the independence and integrity of the judiciary and a just rule of law; to end the subversion of the independence and professionalism of national institutions whether the civil service, the police, the elections commission or anti-corruption agency; eradicate rampant corruption; restore ethics and honesty in public life; re-establish a good education system or restore Malaysia’s economic competitiveness.
Mahathir wants Najib out as the Prime Minister for Malaysia, not to stop the rot which was started by him during his premiership, but for an agenda personal to himself.
This is the rot of Hamlet in Malaysia.”
I’m surprised the good Tan Sri had made no mention whatsoever of this episode. And he was a civil servant by definition, under the tutelage of the Pribumi person himself and remained in public service until 16 April 1990, thirteen years before Mahathir steped down.
So, Tan Sri, it is good that you want to become the torchbearer of the founding fathers of this blessed nation. However, please ensure that you are on the right path first before you decide to light that torch and guide others.
- In: Daily Whatevers
- Comments Off on Sarawak Memilih
Sarawak memilih lagi.
Kali tok, sifat tamak DAP dapat kita lihat bila sidak nya dengan sengaja sik peduli dengan rakan sidak dari PKR. Di sia sidak PKR bertanding, di sia juaklah sidak DAP tok bertanding juak. Pabila apa yang di maok sidak sik dipenuhi, lalulah DAP nyumpah seranah rakan sidak ya, lalu nak main ngembak sentimen hal perkauman dan ugama. Toklah yang membuktikan bahawa Pakatan Harapan Rakyat tok sebenarnya cuma topeng ajak untuk sidak DAP bagi mancapai kuasa memerintah.
DAP bukanlah suatu parti yang memperjuangkan nasib semua rakyat seperti apa yang dipadah sidak. Sidak DAP tok parti rasis yang memperjuangkan nasib sigek kaum ajak. Sebagai contoh, kerusi DUN Pending dimenangi hanya kerna DAP dengan terang nyebut sidak adalah parti untuk suara satu kaum ajak.
Ternyatalah Sarawak yang sejak dolok lagik negeri yang harmoni, kinektok dah diperkenalkan dengan hasutan perkauman yang di embak sidak DAP tok, sebuah parti yang bukan nya asal dari Sarawak. Budaya pecah belah dan perkauman tok wajib kita tolak.
Di Pulau Pinang, bukan ajak kaum Bumiputera, kaum-kaum lain yang sik berkemampuan terpaksa pindah keluar dari sia sebab harga rumah dan hartanah yang melampau. Rakyat miskin memang sik ada peluang bersuara langsung. Malah, wakil rakyat Pakatan Harapan di Pulau Pinang yang maok memperjuangkan suara rakyat miskin pun sik diberik peluang meluah masalah rakyat.
Bayangkan ajak kalau Pakatan Harapan berkuasa di Sarawak tok. Parti bukan Sarawak seperti DAP akan berkuasa. Suara golongan Bumiputera Sarawak serta mereka yang miskin sik kira kaum, akan ditindas.
Sarawak akan memilih. Apabila Sarawak memilih pada 7 haribulan kelak, tentukan Sarawak memilih dengan tepat. Tolak parti dari Semenanjung nun seperti DAP yang tamakkan kuasa ajak dan akan membawa perpecahan .
Keluarga kamek urang urang Sarawak tok bukan seperti DAP. Kamek urang di sitok ada ahli keluarga yang Kristian, Islam, Buddha dan lain-lain, yang mewakili rupa wajah perpaduan negeri Sarawak tok. Bayangkan kalau kamek urang tok bergaduh, berkelaiee adik-beradik dan keluarga berpecah-belah hanya kerana oleh hasutan parti sidak DAP!
Tolak DAP! Tolak Pakatan Harapan! Kekalkan perpaduan keluarga Sarawak!
- In: What da f***!!
- Comments Off on Bila Yang Tak Sedar Diri Bercakap
I am opposed to any form of rally in open public places but it was freedom of speech and assembly and within the constitutional rights guaranteed to each citizen when BERSIH 4, the supposedly DAP-defined apolitical movement called for a 34-hour rally to last until the stroke of midnight on the 31st Augusr 2015, on Malaysia’s independence celebration day.
The rally was made up by 90 percent Chinese participants when PAS refused to participate. But it was held where very few, if any, Chinese businesses are run.
When a rally by an opposing party was organised by a largely Malay group, to be held on Malaysia Day in largely Chinese business area, this was what Lim Guan Eng, co-driver of BERSIH 4, had to say:
Morning just now I read article inside picture upstairs I sigh myself, “Mother grandfather! Why English language foot hand government appalling very?”
Who we want blaming? Try you answer that. Who we want blaming? Language Malaysia fighter? Answer its easy: LAZY. Yes! Foot hand government making portal this find road simple. Type inside Malaysia language and afterwards put inside Google Translate and press click. With simple work his complete.
Afterwards, they angry with people say they many fat and work steal bone. Morning come work, punch card, then coffee. 9.30 morning new enter office. 10 morning friend work come place his and invite go drink coffee. After drink coffee 11 morning new enter office. Look one two file then 12.15 middle day go out eat lunch. 2.15 evening new enter office then go for pray Zohor. 3 evening new enter office. 4 evening friend work invite go tea pull. 4.30 evening punch out go back. If foot hand government that already marriage, Thursday must go back early because Thursday Night Friday – must go surau read Yaasin. Actually no say wife want unity!
Reason that citizen Malaysia no looking foot hand government with respect. Citizen Malaysia always angry with government foot hand reason they see foot hand government make work at time own, many fat, work steal bone, eat salary blind.
When leader foot hand angry foot hand say foot hand all many fat, foot hand write letter kite send to director say leader no good, work no good, no friendly, always bully foot hand.
This foot hand now. Some correct many fat and lazy. Pity foot hand making work correct. They become victim situation. Leader department must conserve worker good with ensure worker no good no get punishment like no rise salary, no rise rank. New foot hand good happy and giving service good.
Government must ensure rate service department government all good from foot hand rank low most until to foot hand senior. If no then we no become one country which productive and possess effort compete. Foot hand government must can speaking and writing inside language English so they can
Today Saturday foot hand government no working. Therefore, I want go eat wind. Safe leave to all.
- In: Daily Whatevers
- Comments Off on Clear And Present Danger
The roles of the Rulers (or sometimes referred to as the Malay Rulers) in this blessed nation are somewhat misunderstood. While many often think that the Institution of the Rulers mirror that of the British’s Westminster-style monarchy, it is not. Britain had undergone a period of regicide and for a moment was a republic under Oliver Cromwell, but monarchy was reinstalled with the ascension of Charles II guided by the British Parliament with laws made and passed solely by the Parliament. Here, we have Rulers who, until 1957, ruled the land (although much of the administration was passed to British advisers through various treaties who were on the Rulers’ payroll). It was only on 31st August 1957 that the executive powers of the Rulers were handed over to a civilian government chosen by the majority of the people of the Federation of Malaya. The 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)
As history have shown, time and time again, the strength and weakness of the Rulers lie in the strength or weakness of those responsible to advise the Rulers. Those appointed as the Prime Minister and Menteris Besar are expected to be sincere, wise and knowledgeable, truthful and forthcoming no matter how bitter the advice may be, so that the Rulers can act with just with their feet firmly on the ground, or in the Malay saying:
Supaya Raja tidak dibuai dalam khayalan; tidak diulit gurindam pujian
Why I have not referred to the Rulers in this particular post as the Malay Rulers is deliberate, with references made to various research papers on this subject. Before the entrance of the British advisers, each of the Ruler was the Ruler of all he surveyed and was the enjoyer of all he surveyed. This means that there were no state boundaries as we now have to show the dominion of each Ruler, and the people whom we collectively refer to as the Malays (as the Chinese and Indians are back in China and India are) used to refer to themselves as people of where they originated: orang Muar, orang Jasin, orang Pekan so on and so forth. Their loyalty is to the Ruler who has dominance over their area. With the introduction of the Chinese and Indian immigrants by the British, the role of the Ruler transcended protector of the Malays, as protector of the immigrant subjects as well. The Hikayat Johor of the early 20th century lauds Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor for “looking after the Chinese subjects living in the state.” There is also mention of Chinese and Indians welcoming the Sultan home from an overseas journey (Anthony Milner, Australian National University, Milner 2002:214).
Even a left-wing Malay who wanted to unite a Raja-less Malaya with Batavia (Jakarta), Ibrahim Yaacob, referred to a Kelantan Ruler bestowing a prestigious title on a Chinese merchant and observed that the Johor state council building looked like a Chinese audience hall because it was decorated Chinese writing. When Ibrahim Yaacob asked what was the writing about, he was told that it recorded the personal service of wealthy Chinese people to the Ruler (Milner 2002:261). Ibrahim Yaacob later served as a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Japanese Giyuugun (Volunteer Army) and fled Malaya for Batavia and served under Sukarno taking up the name Iskandar Kamel Agastya (SeaDemon: Road to Merdeka – Persekutuan Tanah China (6th September 2011).
When racial strife hit Malaysia on 13th May 1969, the Sultan of Terengganu as well as other Rulers took steps to protect their non-Malay rakyats (Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, Faculty of Humanities, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Kobkua 2011:364). This goes to affirm the special press statement made by the Conference of Rulers in October 2008 explaining that the Institution of Rulers is a “protective umbrella ensuring impartiality among the citizens.” The statement itself explains the Rulers’ constitutional role respecting the so-called “Social Contract” between Malays and non-Malays, and assures the non-Malays that there is no need to “harbour any apprehension or worry over their genuine rights.” (Kobkua 2011:425-426).
When the British wanted the Sultan of Selangor to banish a Chinese man, Ho Chick Kwan, (Ho Chick Kwan v Honourable British Resident Selangor, Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1931), Ho was described as a “natural born subject of the Ruler of the State of Negeri Sembilan, and his adopted mother Lui Ho described herself as owing “true allegiance to His Highness the Sultan of Selangor.”
Such is the role of the Rulers in unifying the rakyat, and such was how the non-Malays back then were loyal subjects of the Rulers as the Malays were – a far cry compared to what we have today.
As mentioned in the fifth paragraph above, the strength and weakness of the Ruler depends on the strengths, weaknesses, sincerity, truthfulness, and knowledge of their adviser, namely the Prime Minister and the Menteris Besar. The recent fiasco in Johor shows how a weak adviser can put the Ruler in harm’s way. When the British acted as advisers and administered the states of behalf of their respective Rules, many of the Malays, including Ibrahim bin Yaacob, Burhanuddin Helmy et al saw no need for the monarchy to remain as an institution, hence the desire to make Malaya a republic united with Batavia. UMNO then took over as the linchpin of the Malays from the Rulers with the formation of the Malayan Union.
It is easy to understand why the Rulers agreed to the formation of the Malayan Union: weakened by the pompous nature of their British advisers who departed when the Japanese arrived, the Japanese relegated the Rulers into nothing more than deputy advisers in the administration of the Malay customs and religion. Imagine what it was like for a Johor commoner to see his Sultan being scolded by the Japanese for leaning on his stick. Seen working with the Japanese in World War Two, and weak in the eyes of the Malays, the Rulers did not have much choice but to succumb to the demands of the British. But the Tunku was quick in restoring the faith of the Malays in the Rulers. He recalled that:
“At all costs I wanted to avoid having a split with the Rulers.” (Simon C Smith, Professor of International History, University of Hull, Smith 1995:183)
The seemingly weak administrations of both Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak, and the digression of UMNO from its original intended path of protecting Islam, the Malays and Bumiputras and its inherent weakness in dealing with various right-wing Chinese and Indian organisations that have thrived under weak administrations have led to the formation of right-wing Malay groups such as the PERKASA and ISMA. Najib seems to have given in to a lot of demands from people who will never ever support him nor his party, promising uncontrolled legal reforms thence setting up the left-leaning National Unity Consultative Council. The National Harmony and Reconciliation Bill proposed by the NUCC is seen as a clear and present danger to a society that is already on the edge of destruction.
In Section 6 (1) (iii) of this Bill, will render the Rulers powerless in selecting the Menteri Besar for their respective state; the Agong will not have the power to select his Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, his Inspector-General of Police, or his Chief of Armed Forces even. You Malays and Bumiputras may think that Article 153 can protect you, but you should also read Article 153(5) of the Federal Constitution and see what it says, and tell me if what I have written in this paragraph is not true.
Section 7 (1) (ii) even allows people of the LGBT group to hold important positions. Gender equal opportunity is already in effect, but regardless of sexual orientation? I have gay friends and some are good friends of mine. Even they cringe whenever their lifestyle is brought under the spotlight by glamour-seeking peers. It is not that they are not talented but will this not tear the fabric of our society? May I ask the so-called religious Muslims and Christians if they agree with this? In the name of Human Rights, we are beginning to fight to become animals, where unnatural ways are to become the norm of our society. I wonder how long would the Christian church in Malaysia be able to resist same-sex marriages with this Bill coming into effect. Removal of the Sedition Act would certainly act as a catalyst to destruction, much as the removal of the Internal Security Act has contributed to the worsening condition of the country. There is nothing wrong with either Act. Mere tweaking to prevent the laws from being abused by politicians would have been sufficient.
I fear for the future of this nation. We must not let extremism prevail.
This is where the Rulers can play a role in holding the fragile fabric of this divisive society, to once again play a pivotal role in bringing this nation back to its senses. We can no longer rely on weak Prime Ministers and Menteris Besar to protect this society from falling apart, all in the name of Human Rights (and the desire to please non-believers thinking you can get votes by kow-towing to their demands). The Rulers also need to keep their conduct, and that of their families, in check. There is no use correcting the society when they and those related to them do not behave with the utmost decorum. And as history has proven again and again, the Rulers can act independently from their weak and self-interested advisers.
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.“
I was an Officer of the Armed Forces of Malaysia, my loyalty has always been for my King and Country. I humbly beg His Royal Highnesses to intervene and override weak and destructive suggestions of the government of the day. Again in the words of Sultan Nazrin:
“Unity requires a willingness to sacrifice, accept defeat willingly and celebrate victory with humility.”
I, your humble servant, humbly beg.