Posts Tagged ‘Malays’
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.
Lim Kit Siang is not only a racist, he was also against any attempt by the government to counter communist revolutionary ideology.
Two days prior to the 3rd General Elections (1969), Kit Siang held a press conference to accuse his now right-hand man Christopher Ross Lim’s stepfather as “Lying Education Minister.” Christopher Ross Lim now uses the name Zairil Khir Johari. No “bin (Arab for ‘son of’)”.
Kit Siang accused the Alliance government then of enrolling Malaysia into the World Anti-Communist League, an accusation denied by Khir Johari.
Question: why did Kit Siang slam the government even if it was true that Malaysia had joined the World Anti-Communist League?
Answer: the Opposition at that time was teemed with members and sympathisers of the Communist Party of Malaya.
A month before that, on 24 April 1969, an UMNO worker, Encik Kassim bin Omar, who was on his way home after the end of campaign hours for the day was stopped by Opposition supporters as he passed the Datuk Keramat section of Pulau Pinang and brutally murdered. His face was smeared with red paint used to paint anti-government slogans by the Opposition supporters. This is among the reasons long campaign periods can be detrimental to public safety and order.
Since July 1968, that is a month after the commencement of the Second Malaysian Emergency (second armed uprising by the Communist Party of Malaya) that ended 21 years later, Kit Siang fired up racial hatred among the Opposition supporters.
Among the events of incitements that he did were:
- On 27 July 1968, at a DAP rally in Tanjung Malim, Perak, Kit Siang on purpose twisted the facts of the National Education Policy by telling the audience that the policy had been designed to eradicate the Chinese newspapers, Chinese schools as well as the Chinese language.
- On 24 August 1968, at a rally in Slim River, Perak, Kit Siang intentionally twisted the facts of the policy on the National Language to raise suspicion of and hatred for the Malays .
- On 7 September 1968, at a DAP rally at KM38, Jalan Sungai Besi, and on 21 September 1968, at the Sungai Way new village, Kit Siang intentionally incited hatred towards the Malays and the Government by slandering MCA accusing the party of assisting a Malay government to eradicate the Chinese language by not recognising the Nanyang University project.
- On 29 September 1968, at a DAP rally in Batu Pahat, Johor, 2 November 1968, in Lawan Kuda Bahru, Gopeng, Perak, and on 26 January 1969, at Jalan Yow, Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang incited hatred by informing the audience that the government’s policies are racist policies by giving priority to the Bumiputera to enter the public universities, automatically placing the other races as second-class citizens.
- On 12 February 1969, at a DAP rally held at Jalan Lengkongan Brunei, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang once again incited racial sentiments by telling the audience that the Government has shown its racist character by giving priority to the Malays to enter public universities, giving government jobs and distribution of land.
What Kit Siang did not tell any of his audience is that even in government posts (except for the Malaysian Armed Forces), the percentage of non-Malays in the civil service far surpassed the number of Malays as evident in the excerpt from the National Operations Council’s (MAGERAN) White Paper below:
It is evident that Kit Siang’s racist and agitative character has never diminished till today. The General Election was conducted on Saturday 10 May 1969. The Alliance party (UMNO, MCA and MIC) won 66 seats, 23 lesser than in the 2nd General Election while the Opposition won 54.
At 5.30pm, 11 May 1969, DAP held a victory parade without police permit that comprised of five cars and 15 motorcycles that started from Brickfields towards Jalan Lornie (now Jalan Syed Putra).
When they passed in front of the Brickfields Police Station (now demolished), the mostly Chinese participants shouted:
“What can the police do? We are the rulers! Throw out all the Malay policemen!“
At 10pm on the same day, while parading in front of the Jalan Travers Police Station, they shouted:
“Death to the Malays! Sakai (derogatory term for aborigines) go back to the jungle!“
The same insults were hurled at policemen on duty when they again passed the Brickfields Police Station.
At the same time at Changkat Thamby Dollah near the old Pudu Jail (behind Berjaya Times Square), about 40 Opposition supporters shouted:
“Kuala Lumpur belongs to the Chinese!“
On the next day, Monday 12 May 1969, 500 scooters rode by Opposition supporters passed Jalan Ipoh, Jalan Parlimen, Jalan Gombak, Jalan Raja Laut before returning to Jalan Ipoh shouting at every Malay person they encounter:
“The Malays are now powerless. Now we are in control!“
When this convoy arrived at the threshold of Kampung Bahru, they shouted to the Malays:
“Malays get out! Why are you still here? We’ll beat you up! Now we are bigger (more powerful)!“
At night, more insults and abuses were hurled at Malay policemen on duty:
“Mata-Mata Lancau! (Penis Constables)”
“Butoh Melayu! Pergi matilah! (Fuck the Malays! Go and die!)“
I did not make all the stuff above up. You can read them in the MAGERAN report as per the images below:
Where was Lim Kit Siang when abuses and insults were hurled at the Malays in Kuala Lumpur?
Lim Kit Siang on the morning of Tuesday 13 May 1969 was ready to flee to Kota Kinabalu so that he would not be in Kuala Lumpur if any untoward incident was to happen.
The moment he arrived in Kota Kinabalu he immediately went to a DAP public rally in Kampung Air. Sabah was scheduled to vote on the 25 May 1969 and Sarawak on 7 June 1969. In Kota Kinabalu he not only incited hatred towards the Malays but also towards the religion of Islam.
He told the audience that the Government was trying to create a Malay Malaysia by dividing the rakyat into Bumiputera dan Non-Bumiputera. He also lied by saying that the Government wants to turn the Sabah Government into a Malay Government. He also incited hatred towards Islam by saying that the Government would send Malaysians including non-Muslims (including Sabah Christians) to fight and die in the Middle East to help other OIC members to free Jerusalem from the clutches of Israel.
That is how racist and despicable Lim Kit Siang is as well as the DAP that he leads. Almost 48 years have passed since 13 May 1969, Kit Siang is still attacking what he calls the ‘Malay’ government. Back then, the Malays were united in protecting their rights that have been in existence way before the arrival of Lim Kit Siang’s ancestors – rights that have been agreed upon by representatives of all the Nation’s races and enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Unfortunate for us now there are those who claim that they are Malays but forget easily. Now this traitor and his worshippers stick a straw up Lim Kit Siang’s rear orifice and suck up to the DAP Supremo.
- In: Daily Whatevers
- Comments Off on It Is Okay Being Racist If You Are A Minority
It is called “reverse racism” and among the ways it works is by making racist remarks against the majority claiming it is a reaction against oppression.
Yesterday I received a WhatsApp message that has been making its way around on the Internet purportedly sent by DAP’s people:
Forgive me for getting technical with this but I have to endeavour to make people understand the background of this nation to understand the current situation we are in. I cannot possibly answer all the allegations above as I do not work for the government therefore I do not have all the data needed but I shall make references to publicly-available documents.
The Malay States were rich with tin and land for rubber plantations. This led to the signing of treaties to enable the British to have a share of the wealth and the creation of British protectorates of the Federated Malay States (formed in 1895 with common institutions such as the State Constitution, and a Resident-General administering the states on behalf of, and answerable to the Sultans and Yam DiPertuan Besar as his salary was paid by them) and the Unfederated Malay States (C.D Cowan, 1961; Emily Sadka, 1968; Eunice Thio, 1969).
The economy was divided into two systems – tin mining and rubber plantations dominated by the Chinese, and peasant farming and inshore fishing conducted by the Malays (M Yusof Saari, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; Erik Dietzenbacher and Bart Los, Univeristy of Groningen, The Netherlands – World Development, Volume 76, December 2015, pp. 311-328).
With the expansion of mining and rubber lands, the Malays got pushed back to the edges of primary forests, and away from economic wealth that both the Chinese and Indians were enjoying.
EW Birch, the 8th British Resident of Perak, recognized this dire situation and quickly proposed a policy of preserving the Malay land. The only way to him to preserve the Malay race was to “free them from the clutches of those people who now remit to Indian large sums of money, which they bleed from the (Malay) people.”
This later became the Malay Reservation Land Act which spirit is preserved in the Malaysian Federal Constitution. Even Sir Frank Athelstane Swettenham conceded that something had to be done to preserve the Malays. He wrote:
“In the Malay sketches contained in this and a previous volume, I have endeavoured to portray,…the Malay as he is in own country, against his own picturesque and fascinating background…The position he occupies in the body politic is that of the heir to the inheritance. The land is Malaya and he is the Malay. Let the infidel Chinese and evil-smelling Hindu from southern India toil, but of their work let some profit come to him.”
The Chinese and Indians brought over by the British were British subjects as far as the colonised parts of Malaya were (Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore). However, the ones in the Malay States were disinclined to give allegiance to the respective Sultans as they pledged allegiance to their homeland.
In 1911, the Malays made up 53% of the population. By 1931, they were already outnumbered and in 1941 formed only 41% of the population. The Chinese community was at 43%, displacing the Malays as the dominant racial group. The Malays were in a disadvantageous position and this proved explosive in 1946 during the Bekor tragedy. The Malays remained as the minority until 1970.
And if you think the Malays have done well since then, the table below will show that despite the NEP being in place, the income of the Chinese grew tremendously as compared to the Malays (M Yusof Saari, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; Erik Dietzenbacher and Bart Los, Univeristy of Groningen, The Netherlands – World Development, Volume 76, December 2015, pp. 311-328):
Allegation 1 – Of the Top 5 Banks, Only One is Non-Malay
The top five banks are Malayan Banking, CIMB, Public Bank, RHB Capital, and Hong Leong Financial Group.
If you see who the top 30 shareholders of Maybank are, you would see that they are mostly government investment agencies, or nominees especially by Citigroup. Citigroup is NOT Malay. However, you would see that at Number 28, a private individual is an individual shareholder. He is NOT Malay.
The top shareholders of CIMB as of 30 June 2015, are Khazanah Nasional – 29.34 %, Employees Provident Fund (EPF) – 17.51 %, Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP) – 3.61 % and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group – 4.61 %.
Public Bank, although third in the list, was the second largest bank in Malaysia by market capitalisation in September 2016. Its major shareholder is Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Dr. Teh Hong Piow, who has a 23.79% stake in the bank as of 26 January 2016. Teh is also the bank’s founder and chairman. He is NOT Malay.
I can skip and go on to Hong Leong Financial group if you want to see the shareholding information.
Allegation 2 – 99% of PETRONAS Directors Are Malays
The DAP and Pakatan are famous for plucking numbers from the sky.
Two of 16 directors of PETRONAS are non-Malays so that makes 12.5%. Therefore, only 87.5% are Malays. Now look at their respective background and tell me of they are not qualified to be there.
PETRONAS is a government-owned company. It is not an Ah Beng Enterprise (no reference to Lim Guan Beng) and the board is answerable to the Government on all matters.
Allegation 5 – 100% PETRONAS Contractors Are Bumiputeras
Bumi Armada is one of the largest suppliers of offshore support vessels, Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) units, Floating Gas Solutions (FLNG/FSRU/FSU) to PETRONAS. It is an Ananda Krishnan company. Ananda Krishnan is NOT Malay.
Allegation 6 – Chinese Companies Must Have 30% Bumiputera Employees; Malay Companies Can Have 0% Chinese
Again, this is very racist and a blatant lie.
There is NO legal requirement that companies have to employ 30% Bumiputera. Otherwise you will not get these racist advertisements:
You are only required to show your Bumiputera equity be it 30%, 51% or 100% if you are tendering for a Bumiputera-open or Bumiputera-limited contracts. That is EQUITY, not employees.
In reality too, most “Bumiputera” companies that tender for government contracts are actually Chinese-run companies that use Malay names on the license and application forms. Malays are given 30% allocation while non-Malays have 70% but even the 30% has non-Malay participations.
They always claim that they are the “second-class” citizens of this country yet they are the ones who control the economy.
Do you think if policies are not in place they would care for the Bumiputeras?
And by saying Bumiputera, I mean the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak who are economically second-class citizens in their own land as the Chinese are the ones who dominate the economy there.
Allegations 7-10: Minimum Participation of Non-Malays in Government Sector
In 2014, the Royal Malaysian Police had had to lower the entry requirements to cater for the non-Malays – all they need to do is PASS the Bahasa Malaysia subject in their SPM exams.
Even that they cannot do.
In 2016, out of a force of 90,000, Indians made up 3.3% of the total while Chinese 1.77%. In 2016, the Royal Malaysia Air Force the non-Bumiputeras number about 5% of the total 15,000.
This is not due to the pay offered. I don’t think they are interested to serve a Malay-majority government.
Allegation 13 – Kedah Chinese Rice Farmers Have To Sell To Malay-owned BERNAS
BERNAS is a company that regulates the supply and price of rice in Malaysia to deny millers exorbitant profit at the expense of end users.
BERNAS’s top 30 share holders in 2012 are as follows. Note the solo individual top shareholder. Again, he is NOT Malay.
Allegations 19-22: Malay Schools versus Non-Malay Schools
First – THERE ARE NO “MALAY SCHOOLS.” They are the National Schools where all children are supposed to go to, mix, learn and grow up together. Most Chinese or Tamil schools are private schools and are self-funded. That is why we see only a small chunk of the budget go towards the latter two.
Now if we go back to the first paragraph of the WhatsApp message that I received, it is mentioned that the Malaysian government practices racial discrimination, yet the baseless allegations made that I am familiar with have been shot down.
We have seen also that because of their weakness in their command of the Bahasa Malaysia, a language they are supposed to have mastered after 60 years, they have failed to join the public sector. This is due to the fact that they refuse to learn anything that is not taught in their mother tongue.
They would rather that their children do not grow up with the children of the Malays or learn to speak the language that has always been the language of this land and is enshrined in the Federal Constitution as the language of the nation.
So who is it that wants segragation? Who is being racist?
NOT the Malays.
As for those who migrated from Malaysia, those are the free-riders with no loyalty whatsoever to the nation. When the going gets tough, leave for seemingly easier life. For those people, loyalty lies in the pocket.
If this government is being racist do you think that there would be vernacular schools? Do you think DAP’s Chen Man Hin would have made RM790 million from a government company?
So who is being racist here? Obviously DAP itself. Out of the 30 Central Executive Committee members there are only four Indians/Indian diaspora. one Malay and two Sabah/Sarawak Bumiputera.
Again, the rest are NOT Malays.
Whoever is familiar with the study of the Constitution would know Walter Bagehot, an editor, economist and political analyst who also wrote a book called ‘The English Constitution.’ There is one apposite quote of his that I thought befits the current situation and that is:
“Nothing is more unpleasant that a virtuous person with a mean mind.”
The above quote refers to that man who claims to be virtuous but really is the epitome of evil; so evil that Pharaohs would have sought help from God’s Prophets to free them from this person – Mahathir Mohammad.
We have had noblemen leading this country, shining a light upon the path in which this nation walks even through its darkest hour. Tunku Abdul Rahman was the son of the 25th Sultan of Kedah, Almarhum Sultan Abdul Hamid. Tun Abdul Razak was the son of the 9th Orang Kaya Indera Shahbandar of Pahang, Dato Hussein bin Mohd Taib. Tun Hussein Onn was the son of UMNO founder, Dato Onn Jaafar who was the Menteri Besar of Johor.
I was priveleged some time back to a chat with Professor Anthony Milner, a researcher from the Australian National University, an Emeritus Professor, School of Culture, History & Language of the ANU, on the topic of the Malays. We were discussing the origin of the Malays and the ‘Rajas Melayu.’ Interesting to note that our paths converged when we both agreed that the Malays refer to a collection of people of the Nusantara spanning from the borders of Polynesia and Melanesia to Sumatra, who pledged allegiance to the Rajas whose respective dominions were all that they could survey. It was only when political boundaries were defined in a clearer manner that the Malays were defined according to the nation that they lived in.
The antonym of a nobleman would be a commoner. The fourth Prime Minister was not born into the aristocracy like his predecessors, or a prominent religious family like his successor. In short, I would term him a pleb: a low-born, uncultured, coarse, rude, undistinguished – and a personal favourite: scum. His grandfather, Iskander Kutty hailed from the southern Indian state of Kerala. His father was from Pulau Pinang, a school principal.
Mahathir had nothing to show. He had nothing compared to his predecessors. This probably shaped the way he managed this country: through the rule of iron fist, autocratic, dictatorial, enriching cronies and nipotes to prepare him for the end of days. A man who has nothing has nothing to lose. Therefore, it was always his way, or the highway. He had this habit of making enemies everywhere, including the members of the royal households. And as James A Baldwin once said, “The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.”
One would have thought that this nonagenarian would spend the twilight moments of his miserable life repenting for the wrongs he had done, alas no! His perfervid hatred for the man who stands in between him and his undying ambition to ensure that his family would be remembered as an aristocratic bunch rather than the descendants of the evil-smelling Kutty whom had just gotten out of the stowage of a slave ship, has caused him to make a reciprocal turn on all his words, often filled with delusional tales to cloud the minds of those too young to remember anything bad about him. He has nothing to lose.
In 1867, Bagehot asserted in ‘The English Constitution‘ that the Constitution needed two parts: the dignified – to excite and preserve the reverence of the population’ and the other, the efficient – to ‘employ that homage in the work of government’. The monarch was the prime example of dignity in this sense and the Prime Minister and his cabinet of efficiency. Therefore, the monarch, while lacking executive power, had an important constitutional role.
But in 1993, Mahathir, being a pleb and an undignified one too, decided to encroach into the realm of the dignified. Mahathir amended the Federal Constitution with the aim of removing legal immunity of the royalty.The amendments were made at a time when the Malaysian monarchy witnessed a deteriorating relationship with the government (specifically Mahathir). Before the amendments were made, the Constitution granted rulers who have violated the law not to be prosecuted by the criminal court unless he voluntarily wishes to surrender his legal immunity.
This laid the royalty bare and are now subjected to public scrutiny, bringing the royalty and monarchy close to becoming irrelevant. As a result, members of the royalty have been seen to assiduously court public opinion after prolonged years of subservience to Mahathir’s rule (Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid, Muhamad Takiyuddin Ismail (2013)).
Mahathir had nothing to lose. These were the Rajas Melayu. He need not show any allegiance to anything Malay as he is not truly one. UMNO was just a vehicle for him to have power in order to make riches. When UMNO went against him he had UMNO declared illegal in 1988. Then he created a new UMNO where playing fields were no longer level and he had automatic nominations as the President of UMNO. What is UMNO to him but just another Malay institution where he, the soupçon Malay felt no allegiance to.
And Mahathir is never concerned about the people of Malaysia. Politics, to him, is what serves only him. Therefore, his call for the people to overthrow the government is a total reciprocal from his way of dealing with demonstrations against him during his premiership. And how was it during his time?
During his time, when people demonstrated against him, he appealed to the participants to use the ballot box to bring about their desired reform. What is his stand now? He incites people to force change undemocratically!
As Lord Acton wrote in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton on the 5th April 1887:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
And in the case of Mahathir he is not just a bad man, but a pleb and a scum.