Daulat Tuanku – Sultan Muhammad V has been elected as the 15th Yang DiPertuan Agong
Sultan Muhammad V, the 29th Sultan of Kelantan, has been elected to become the 15th Yang DiPertuan Agong by the Council of Rulers today. His Royal Highness shall be replacing Tuanku Al-Haj Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah, the Sultan of Kedah whose tenure will end on the 12th December 2016.
For months whispers have been flying around that HRH Sultan Muhammad V would not be eligible be elected as the YDP Agong as he is not married. However, there are only three reasons for a nominated Sultan to be disqualified;
He is not an adult,
He has made known to the Council of Rulers that he wishes not to be nominated, or,
Five of the Rulers vote against his nomination for reasons such as being mentally or physically challenged, or for some other reason.
The second and third reasons were used during the discussion to elect the First Yang DiPertuan Agong where Sultan Abu Bakar of Pahang was the most senior Ruler after Sultan Sir Ibrahim of Johor who had declined the nomination due to old age (Sultan Sir Ibrahim passed away on the 8th May 1959). He became the Sultan of Pahang on the 24th June 1932. However, Sultan Abu Bakar’s nomination was rejected FIVE TIMES by the Rulers because he was a controversial figure – he had financial difficulties and had wanted to marry a perempuan ronggeng (Abdullah Ahmad, 2016 p.141). Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was then the Chief Minister of Malaya advised Sultan Abu Bakar against marrying this woman named Hathifah binte Abdul Rashid if he wanted to become the Yang DiPertuan Agong. Sultan Abu Bakar agreed.
However, Sultan Abu Bakar married Hathifah anyway and Tunku only discovered so when they were honeymooning in Hong Kong (Straits Times, 21st April 1957).
Early this morning, the infamous portal Malaysiakini and the Malaysiakini-wanna-be Malay Mail Online both reported that the Sultan of Johor had declined the offer to become the next Yang DiPertuan Agong, quoting a Facebook page and not official sources.
It has been a norm that the Raja or Sultan with the most seniority would be considered as the candidate for the post of the Yang DiPertuan Agong. All the nine states have since provided a Yang DiPertuan Agong and the list of seniority is as follows:
The Yam DiPertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan,
The Sultan of Selangor,
The Raja of Perlis,
The Sultan of Terengganu,
The Sultan of Kedah,
The Sultan of Kelantan,
The Sultan of Pahang,
The Sultan of Johor,
The Sultan of Perak.
With the ascension of the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, as the ninth Yang DiPertuan Agong, a new official list was made based on the seniority of the states that have provided a Yang DiPertuan Agong previously. Whether or not Johor was offered is not known but such offer could only be made had the Sultans of Kelantan and Pahang declined the nomination. It would seem impossible for the Sultan of Kelantan to reject such offer only to accept it later when the one that should have been offered next is the Sultan of Perak.
Such is the uniqueness of the office of the Yang DiPertuan Agong that was institutionalised on the 31st August 1957. It was first to be called the Yang DiPertuan Besar but was rejected by the Rulers Council in favour of Yang DiPertuan Agong. Every five years the Rulers would meet to elect the next Yang DiPertuan Agong and the Timbalan Yang DiPertuan Agong. Although some say that this is similar to that practised in the United Arab Emirates, the office of the President of the UAE is a hereditary office of absolute monarchies. They are the government whereas in Malaysia the government is elected by the people and is dismissed by the people through general elections. And unlike in the UAE, the Rulers council cannot dismiss a Prime Minister or anyone else without the advise of the Prime Minister. Therefore, a recent attempt by Parti Pribumi member named Mahathir to get the Rulers Council to intervene and dismiss the Prime Minister is just a futile and cheap attempt to lie to the people of Malaysia. Of course, there would be those mentally-challenged people who would believe that he is right.
With the election of Sultan Muhammad V as the 15th Yang DiPertuan Agong it is hoped that this would bring about a much better cooperation between the PAS-led Kelantan state government and the Barisan Nasional-led Federal government. Such cooperation would be very beneficial to not only the development and people of the state of Kelantan, but also to the Malays and Islam in Malaysia that are coming under constant attacks by Malay liberalistas, evangelists and chauvinistic politicians opposed to Malay unity and the position of Islam as the Religion of the Federation.
Muhyiddin spoke on a PAS platform recently on 1MDB
Muhyiddin recently appeared on a PAS platform in Kuala Terengganu to speak about 1MDB etc. He was invited on the capacity of a former Deputy Prime Minister before the formation of Parti Pribumi which he is a pro-tem President. Not once did he address the long-standing question from especially the PAS members – how much did he make from the 1BestariNet scandal?
PAS first asked this question back in April 2012. Mahfuz Omar of PAS asked then why was the project not given to known telecommunications players such as Telekom Malaysia, Celcom or TimeDotCom who would be able to provide better Internet backbone to support the project.
The 1BestariNet project is a RM4.077 billion project over 15 years to provide 4G Internet connectivity as well as virtual learning environment for 9,924 schools nationwide. YTL, a known favourite of Parti Pribumi’s founder Mahathir, secured a RM663 million package signed by Muhyiddin when he was the Minister of Education. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in 2015 concluded that the implementation of the First Phase of the project is a failure. Not even a project steering committee and project technical committee were established at ministry-level to ensure its smooth implementation.
Responding to the PAC report, Economic Advisor to the Concerned Social-Minded Association (Persatuan Minda Sosial Prihatin) Suud Ridzuan called for Muhyiddin, the then Deputy Prime Minister cum Minister of Education to step down to facilitate the investigation into the scandal.
“According to the PAC, this project is a failure. Why was there a need to spend so much for this program?” he asked. “I urge the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission to investigate.”
the installation of 1BestariNet Receiver Integrated System (1BRIS) communication towers that are supposed to transmit and receive high-speed wireless data in schools that do not have the appropriate LAN (Local Access Network) structure,
the refusal by YTL to pay RM1,200 per month to the Ministry of Education (MoE) as recommended by the Property Valuation and Service Department for each 1BRIS site. The MoE has thus far bowed down to YTL by allowing them to pay RM1,000 for each 1BRIS site instead;
the installation of the 1BRIS towers increased the electricity bill for each school by RM120 to RM150 monthly. With YTL’s refusal to pay the RM500 for each 1BRIS tower site, the MoE would have to fork out between RM5.77 million to RM6.92 million each year until the expiration of the contract.
The portal also alleged Muhyiddin’s son-in-law’s involvement in the project, an allegation that has gone unanswered by Muhyiddin.
Perhaps the MACC should seriously look into this issue as it has gone almost forgotten. Nabbing errant GLC office-holders may be a good thing, but letting a former senior Minister go free after hunderds of millions tangible rakyat‘s funds have been spent without tangible good results will not go down well with the majority.
Children in different costumes holding the Malaysia flag – BERNAMAThis article is the last installment in a series on the Formation of Malaysia, and is a continuation from The Road to Malaysia: Part 3 – The Cobbold Commission.
“… there is no doubt about the wishes of a sizeable majority of the peoples of these territories to join the Federation of Malaysia.” (UN Secretary-General U Thant, 13th September 1963]
After World War 2, the British was economically and financially strained to maintain its colonies especially those east of Suez. It would be a matter of time before Britain would have to give up all of its colonies abroad, save for some of the smaller ones. The Cobbold Commission’s report agreed unanimously that a decision in principle should be taken by governments as soon as possible; that the new state should be called Malaysia; that the constitution of the Federation of Malaya should be adapted for Malaysia, instead of drafting a completely new one; that there should be no right to secede from Malaysia after merger.
Although the Tunku had asked the Malayan Commissioners to sign the report, he was still apprehensive about what “Malaysia” would do to his political position, and what kind of repercussions “Malaysia” would have on Malaya’s relationship with Indonesia and the Philippines.
The Malaysia Agreement was signed on the 9th July 1963. Although not sovereign nor self-governing, the leaders of both North Borneo and Sarawak were invited to sign it. Annexed to the Agreement were a number of Constitutional instruments that included admission to the federation of the three former British dependencies; state constitutions for Sabah (as North Borneo would be called), Sarawak and Singapore; a scheme to compensate officers retiring from government service in North Borneo and Sarawak.
A separate legislation ending British jurisdiction in North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore was enacted at Westminster. It did not provide for the separate independence of the three territories but transferred sovereignty to the new Federation of Malaysia (Commonwealth Relations Office and Commonwealth Office Briefs for Malaysia Bill, 1963 – Dominions Office DO 169/329). Therefore the self-rule given by the British to Sarawak on the 22nd July 1963 and the declaration of independence by Sabah on the 31st July 1963 were not a recognition of the independence of either Sarawak or Sabah, but an independence of the states in adherence to Malaysia (Ghazali Shafie’s Memoir on the Formation of Malaysia, p438). For all intents and purposes, both North Borneo and Sarawak remained as Colonies of Great Britain until the coming into operation of Malaysia.
If the appointment of a Chief Minister is to be taken as the point when independence had been achieved, Malaya would have been independent in July of 1955!
The late President Wee Kim Wee of Singapore, then a young Straits Times reporter, covered Sabah’s Merdeka Day and filed a report that, from all the obvious evidence, it was a declaration of independence within Malaysia.
The Malaysia Agreement referred to North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore as Colonies.Malaysia Day was supposed to have happened on the 31st August 1963. However, several last minute events forced Malaysia Day to be postponed.
1) a last-minute interference by British officials prevailing upon Iban leaders to demand for the post of Sarawak Governor whilst also keeping the post of Chief Minister, thus reneging on an earlier understanding that for the first two years, the post of either the Chief Minister or Governor should go to a Malay if the other was given to an Iban. The Tunku was livid and decided that Malaysia would happen without Sarawak. All the cabinet ministers of Malaya except Tun Razak agreed with the Tunku. Through Ghazali Shafie, Razak negotiated with the leaders of Sarawak and in the end Abang Haji Openg was the Governor designate, Stephen Kalong Ningkan as the Chief Minister, and Temenggung Jugah as a Federal Minister in-charge of Sarawak Affairs. Had it not been for Razak’s persistence, the Tunku would have had things go his way and Sarawak would not have been in Malaysia.
2) the protest by both the Philippines and Indonesia at the United Nations against the formation of Malaysia. They requested that the UN secretary-general, or his representative, should ‘ascertain’ the extent of support in the Borneo territories for Malaysia, that observers from all three governments should accompany the UN mission, and that the formation of Malaysia should be postponed until the completion of the UN report.
Led by Lawrence Michelmore (the American deputy director of the UN Office of Personnel) the mission consisted of Argentinian, Brazilian, Ceylonese, Czech, Ghanaian, Pakistani, Japanese, and Jordanian members of the UN Secretariat. It was accompanied by observers from Indonesia and the Philippines—an arrangement which the British government grudgingly accepted. From 24th August to 4th September they held public hearings in widespread locations and reconvened in Kuching on 5th September, past the 31st August 1963 deadline. This forced Malaya to change the date for Malaysia Day to 16th September 1963.
The UN report, which was published on the 14th September, was generally favourable to Malaysia. In his assessment of the mission’s findings, U Thant was in no doubt that ‘a sizeable majority of the peoples’ wished to join Malaysia, although he also rebuked the Malayans for fixing a new Malaysia Day before the mission had completed its work. Even before the survey was finished, however, Indonesia and the Philippines were attempting to discredit it and, on its publication, they rejected the report and refused to be bound by its findings.
3) was of the PAS Government in Kelantan wanting the Malaysia Agreement and Malaysia Act to be declared ‘void and inoperative.’ Kelantan argued that the Act would abolish the Federation of Malaya, thereby violating the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1957; that the proposed changes needed the consent of each state of Malaya and that this had not been obtained; that the Sultan of Kelantan should have been a party to the Malaysia Agreement in the same way as the Malay rulers had been signatories of the Malaya Agreement of 1957; that constitutional convention called for consultation with the rulers of individual Malay states regarding subsequent changes to the constitution; and that the federal parliament had no power to legislate for Kelantan in this matter.
On the 14th September 1963 the Chief Justice ruled that both the Malaysia Agreement and the Malaysia Act were constitutional (Tan Sri Mohamed Suffian bin Hashim, An introduction to the constitution of Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, 1972) pp 13–14).
By 16th September 1963, we are all Malaysians.
Looking back, I remember an article quoting Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Gilong relating his experience visiting Kuala Lumpur on the invitation of the Tunku, he said:
“Kami naik kenderaan yang dipandu. Bagi sesetengah anggota delegasi saya, itulah kali pertama mereka menikmati air paip dan tandas berpam.”
“Kami dibawa ke beberapa tempat dan kampung yang sudah mendapat pembangunan seperti jalanraya dan sebagainya. Saya sendiri apabila balik ke Sabah telah berkempen menyokong penubuhan Persekutuan Malaysia dengan memberitahu kawan-kawan mengenai pembangunan yang ada di Malaya ketika itu.
Katanya satu kejadian lucu ialah apabila ada anggota rombongannya tidur di lantai dalam bilik hotel mereka dan bukan di atas katil yang empuk.
“Apabila saya nampak, mereka memberitahu saya mereka ingatkan katil itu adalah untuk ‘tuan’, seolah-olah hanya orang kulit putih boleh tidur di atas katil dan anak tempatan tidur di atas lantai sahaja.”
“Saya beritahu mereka katil itu mereka punya untuk tidur di atasnya.”
(“We rode on a vehicle that came with a driver. For some members of my delegation, that’s the first time they enjoyed tap water (running water) and flushing toilets.”
“We were taken to several places and villages that have received development such as roads and so on. When I went back to Sabah I campaigned in support of the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia by telling my friends about the existing development in the then Malaya.
He said that one funny scene was when there were members of his entourage who slept on the floor in their hotel room and not on their comfortable.
“When I saw, they told me they thought it was a bed especially for the ‘master’, as if only the white people could sleep on the bed while the local people sleep on the floor.”
Such was how inferior the people of Sabah and Sarawak felt of themselves before Malaysia existed, and it was not that long ago.
I believe that there has been progress that has been made in both Sabah and Sarawak although there should be more. When I was working offshore, most of my drilling and marine crew are from Sabah and Sarawak, especially the Ibans. My last Chief Mate is a Kelabit from Bario, while one of our vessels’ Captain is a Kedayan from Limbang. In my opinion, both the Merdeka Day on the 31st August and Malaysia Day on the 16th September are equally important to us. Without the 31st August 1957 event, Malaysia would not have happened and I shudder to think what ill-fortune would have befallen the people of Sabah and Sarawak, especially with China, Indonesia and the Philippines staking a claim in both the states.
I also believe that the current Federal Government is doing all it can to fulfill the promises made back in 1963, an uhill task given that previous Prime Ministers, especially a particular former Prime Minister for 22 years, did not do much for the people of Sabah and Sarawak.
Let us concentrate on nation-building, and put aside state-nationalism as that brings about nothing beneficial to any of us. And let us not let hatred destroy us. Our forefathers who agreed to form Malaysia did so following the democratic system, and not through violent nor nonsensical demonstrations or coups.
And let us remember the famous words by the great Temenggung Jugah ak Barieng:
“Anang aja Malaysia tu baka Tebu, Manis di pun, tabar Di ujung”
(Let’s hope Malaysia does not end up like a sugarcane. Sweet at the beginning, bland at the end)
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.
I wrote on Saturday how silly it is for people to go berserk over the private bill by Abd Hadi Awang of PAS seeking to enhance the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965.
The religion of the Federation of Malaysia is Islam as given by Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. However, other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony. The words peace and harmony are written explicitly to underscore the fact that other religions are being protected by the Constitution. One must also remember the first part of that article stating that Islam is the religion of the Federation. It is the religion and not the official religion.
The British came to Malaya through treaties. The states of Malaya, save for Pulau Pinang and Melaka, were never colonies of Britain. Malaya consists of nine sovereign states. Four were the Federated Malay States while five were Unfederated. The religions of these states have always been Islam. This is evident in a letter from Stamford Raffles to his cousin, Reverend Thomas Raffles that “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”. You can read more on this in a previous writing of mine called The Case for God .
I had had a lengthy debate with MCA’s Ti Lian Ker, a senior partner at Messrs Wong, Law & Ti, as he had went on to conduct a session for MCA members on the “far-reaching consequences of the Hudud bill.” When asked, Ti could not even tell me the name of the proposed bill.
For the benefit of the rest, the bill seeks to enhance the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965; a law that is prescribed to Muslims only!
Ti asked me two questions: first – why the hush-hush before allowing Hadi to speak in Parliament about it? For a senior politician to not know the processes of a private bill tickles me. Hadi was merely seeking the August House’s permission to table the bill. He was not tabling the bill. And it is not a BN or UMNO bill. A private bill is a bill that is not proposed by the ruling government. It is proposed by members of the Opposition or backbenchers.
In this respect, Hannah Yeoh as the DAP Speaker for the Selangor State Assembly summed it up real well when Selangor UMNO actually wanted to table a Hudud bill for the state. Watch from 0:38.
Hadi, has as much right that has been accorded to other members of Parliament to table out anything, with the agreement of the House. For once I agree with PKR’s N Surendran who explained the process above.
Ti’s second question to me was:
This is what happens when you speak before your brain could even begin to think. Then you add chaos into the confusion. Article 145 of the Federal Constitution clearly states that the Attorney-General has no jurisdiction over Syariah laws. Syariah laws are made according to the sub-articles of Article 3. Imagine a senior partner of a law firm not knowing this. For the record, Ti never replied me.
And isn’t it detrimental to the cohesion of the Barisan Nasional that a very ill-informed and non-Muslim person such as Ti to go around explaining to members of the MCA something even he does not grasp? Maybe he should have asked a very recently former MCA member to give clarification on the issue instead:
Some of Ti’s followers, concerned that actual Hudud would eventually be enforced, refused to read Articles 3(1), 11(1) of the Federal Constitution that protects the right to practice one’s religion in peace and harmony. Instead they cited Pakistan as an example of extreme Syariah laws.
I don’t know what is it with people who don’t read. The official name of Pakistan itself is a dead giveaway. Since 1973, the country is known as The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Even in the preambles of its Constitution clearly states the intent and spirit of the state and its Constitution:
Checkout how Article 2 of Pakistan’s Constitution differs greatly from Article 3 of ours:
We even have Article 11(3)(a) in our Constitution which states:
Every religious group has the right to manage its own affairs
By intruding, isn’t this right given also to the Muslims in Malaysia being denied by the non-Muslims? Remember, Islam is the religion of the Federation and others are given the rights to practice theirs in peace and harmony. So, why intrude into our affairs?
None of Ti’s followers or defenders quoted me those Articles as asked. Instead they continued to make comparisons between Malaysia and Pakistan.
Their concern is the “protection of the Constitution.” I have written on Saturday how the Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. All the proposals submitted by Hadi that trangress the limits given by the Constitution have been shot down as shown in this table that has now been widely shared:
Let me ask you this: is there anywhere there that says the amendments include its application to non-Muslims? Any proposal for non-Muslim houses of worship to be torn down?
Now, remember! Hadi is merely seeking the permission to table the private bill. Until then he cannot do so. The house will have to debate this and vote on it. So instead of making monkeys out of themselves, shouldn’t the BN non-Muslim MPs take a step back and digest the House rules like smart people should? The following would have been totally unnecessary:
Really? We know that you did not get the lion’s share of your respective community’s votes and this is a good opportunity to try and garner support. You could have done it smartly by saying “we will seek clarification from Hadi and explain to our community” instead of jumping up and down without knowing head or tail about the proposal. It should be the Muslim community to react and not the rest as it would be their liberties affected. Mind you, most of the proposals are already laws in all the states.
Take queue from the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party:
Perhaps the non-Muslim BN parties in the Peninsular too don’t believe in the democratic rights to speak as provided by the Parliamentary Standing Order No.49.
It is Dood Day + 3. And already there is a storm in the BN hood over Hudud.
Yesterday afternoon, a Kedah MCA man quit the party citing the failure of the MCA to stop UMNO from supporting the tabling of the Hudud bill in Parliament by PAS President Hadi Awang, and UMNO for failing to safeguard the Federal Constitution.
Malaysiakini report on the resignation of Mr Leong from the MCA
And today, MCA’s President, Liow Tiong Lai said that the tabling of the Hudud bill transgress the limits and is against the spirit of the Federal Constitution.
A report by The Star quoting Liow as saying the tabling of Hudud is unconstitutional “Unconstitutional”
“Spirit of the Federal Constitution”
Big words coming from the two gentlemen who have no inkling whatsoever of the meaning of those terms.
Firstly, the Federal Constitution through Article 3 explicitly states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. Article 11(1) guarantees those other than Muslims the freedom to practice their religion. That still holds true to this day although many non-Malays do unconstitutional acts such as the propagating of other religions to the Muslims (in contravention of Article 11(4).
Let us go back to the year 2014 when PAS was in the heart of all DAP supporters:
“The Moon Represents My Heart” as in the Teresa Teng song. Dulu lain, kini lain, selamanya berlainan
In 2014,UMNO
proposed to table specifically a Hudud bill in Selangor. Now I want you to remember the words in BOLD above.
The above words in the red box says:
“The DAP speaker in Selangor also welcomes the tabling of Hudud in Selangor.”
They must be kidding, right? Karpal Singh would not have allowed this to happen (although his son never objected to this). Let us see what were said by both Anthony “Olok-Olok” Loke and Hannah “The Lamb Chop” Yeoh:
Now what have we here? Two DAP stalwarts support the tabling of the Hudud back in 2014. One even went to town telling people not to be afraid of Hudud, explaining what are involved and why people shouldn’t be afraid. This is what MCA should be doing.
Of course that was then and this is now.
Alas! MCA is NOT in the position to do so. You only see a handful of MCA people actually still fighting the real fight, like Tan Khai Beng, Lee Beng Seng, Ang Chor Keong, while the rest have mostly blended in with the Chinese supporters of the DAP as not to be left out, and the following is why:
GE13 support for BN by race
MCA could only garner less than 900,000 votes (including votes of the non-Chinese)!
Both Leong Yong Kong and Liow Tiong Lai probably suffer from this:
Not Yet Cooked Shoot Best
The bill that is being tabled by Hadi Awang is actually to seek amendment to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965. Remember nine paragraphs ago I asked you to remember the words in BOLD? The difference here is that this bill proposed by Hadi is NOT a Hudud bill, but one that seeks the enhancement of punishment for only a certain number of offences. This is to allow the Kelantan state government to apply such amendments in Kelantan.
And true to the spirit of the Federal Constitution, the proposals that went beyond the limits of the ones set by the laws made and passed under the Federal Constitution have been shot down even before the tabling of this bill!
And what did Najib say about this yesterday?
Only after most of the proposals have been shot down for going against the limits of the Federal Constitution was Hadi allowes to table the bill:
APPLIES ONLY TO MUSLIMS
Even if this bill gets passed in Parliament it still needs the consent of the Rulers Council as well as the respective state religious authority to agree before it can be passed. And none affects the non-Muslims.
Where, oh Liow and Leong, is the transgression of the spirit of the Federal Constitution may I ask?
Next time do seek clarification before you start chewing on your foot, or use the stop-and-start method to prevent similar political premature ejaculation.
Tony Puaka has just been labelled “PATHETIC” by Ambiga and Maria Chin.
Also labelled as pathetic are other members of the Public Accounts Committee from Pakatan namely its Deputy Chairman, Tan Seng Giaw, Kamarul Baharin Abbas, William Leong Jee Ken, and Takiyuddin Hassan.
You can read more here.
I’m just trying to imagine Tony Puaka’s reaction to the statement. I can actually imagine it already.
There was a time when Anwar Ibrahim and ADIL (later KEADILAN, and then Parti Keadilan Rakyat) enjoyed the massive support of the rakyat no matter the program. That was the time when those who hated his guts such as the DAP and PAS treated him and his party as a political mules. The jockeys rode to victory in many places in 2008 while PKR only got the MB seat in Selangor by virtue of PKR being able to provide a Malay candidate as the MB.
As time goes by, the rakyat can finally see that other than Rafizi, Wan Azizah, N Surendran, Nurul Izzah and Tian Chua, PKR has nonother candidates qualified to become anything, and that PKR is nothing but a vehicle to promote Anwar Ibrahim as the next Prime Minister, and stops at only that.
The above is evident in the latest cow-dung shat by PKR in the case of the Tian Chua-arranged meeting between Nurul Izzah and Jacel Kiram, discarding the sensitivities causedby the Lahad Datu intrusion.
So how much support does PKR and its loose coalition have nowadays?
The above Pakatan-organised (PKR) forum was held in Opposition-held Shah Alam, its own safe seat. Using the favourite opposition-leaning media’s words, “tens of thousands” attended. Here is a photo of the forum.
My guess is we will have a new Menteri Besar in Selangor – a DAP stooge. DAP as usual will have the most seats in Selangor and Mat Sabu-led Amananah will contest. Pseudo-religious voters will support Mat Sabu and his massacre of cartoons and among these DAP-friendly candidates, one will become the Menteri Besar-designate.
DAP will eventually have its way in Selangor.
I cannot really make out what Tony Pua really is. What, not who. Either he is showing one of the early signs of dementia, or he truly is a retard.
Mr Puaka, as he is fondly referred to with a hint of sarcasm on social media, mentioned to the press that the DAP should contest in all the now-defunct Pakatan Rakyat seats held by former partner, PAS. That has brought about negative responses from PAS office-holders who still cling to the past and forgetting that DAP has welcomed PAS splinter-group PAN, as its partner in the recently announced Pakatan Harapan that has replaced the Pakatan Rakyat (except in Selangor).
The only reason for the Pakatan Rakyat to still exist in Selangor is because the Menteri Besar, Azmin Ali, knows if PAS is excluded then he would have to face the possibility of being ousted from office by the real holders of Selangor political power – the DAP. That is why I used the term Pakartun to describe the loose political cooperative.
Of course Mr Puaka talks big only when he is in Selangor, or when protected by immunity in Parliament.
Puaka has been using his privilege as a member of the Public Accounts Committee to hit out at 1MDB’s Arul Kanda. He dared Arul Kanda to an open forum or debate bit received no response from the latter. Now that Arul has turned around and accepted the debate challenge without terms and conditions, Mr Puaka has seemed to chicken out, giving all sorts of excuses not to debate, including saying:
“It should be a question-and-answer session and not a debate because I am asking the questions. There’s nothing for him (Arul) to ask me.”
He said the above to Pakartun’s unofficial media, Malaysiakini.
Like I said, I don’t know what to make out of Mr Puaka. He surely suffers from short-term memory loss. It was he who dared Arul Kanda to an open debate, but now wants to protect himself from being scrutinised by the latter. Lest we forget:
He is a bright spark from the DAP. Therefore he can’t be suffering from dementia. But it sure proves that he is nothing but a yellow-bellied, milksop!
N.B: for some reason I can hyperlink the NST story on Puaka and PAS but cannot hyperlink Malaysiakini’s story. So you can copy the URL here and paste into your browser’s address bar.
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:
SeaDemon Says 
You must be logged in to post a comment.