Non Compos Mentis

Zaid Ibrahim on a campaign trail (courtesy of parpukari.blogspot.my)

His Royal Highness Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah Alhaj, the Sultan of Selangor from my observation is a calm and very private person. He rarely makes any statement or gives interviews to the media except during his birthday celebration.  Only once in a blue moon would Sultan Sharafuddin voice out his concern, especially during the Kajang Move, because it was affecting the efficiency of His Royal Highness’s state government.  The Sultan had also expressed his concern over the rudeness of the Opposition and its supporters towards the late Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak during the Perak constitutional crisis of 2009.

 

The latest episode involves the adverse reaction by DAP’s Zaid Ibrahim to the Sultan’s statement on Mahathir’s remark on the Bugis people.  The statement was made as part of an interview with The Star for this year’s celebration of the Sultan’s birthday.  In his Twitter postings, Zaid said that when some Rulers play politics, they must know the consequences. Do not think there is no price for partisanship.

 

What earned Zaid the wrath of many was when he also Tweeted a warning to Sultan Sharafuddin saying the Sultan should be careful with his words (as) no one is immune when (the) country burns.

 

That is typical of Zaid, when he displays the usual non compos mentis character.  Often displaying his republican attitude, Zaid suits well in the DAP – a party known historically for its rash behaviour when it comes to respecting the Rulers Institution.  It is also well that he is a Malay, from Kelantan, as it would appeal to the fence-sitting Malays in Kelantan who are politically torn after the departure of PAS from Pakatan Rakyat effectively ending the coalition.

 

The late Karpal Singh once petitioned to sue Sultan Sharafuddin’s late father, Almarhum Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Alhaj, in 1987 over a speech by Sultan Salahuddin to the Selangor branch of the Ex-Servicemen’s Association saying that he would not pardon drug traffickers in Selangor. The petition was rejected on the grounds that there was no lis.  In 2009, Karpal Singh had intended to sue Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak for appointing Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as the new Menteri Besar, replacing DAP’s choice Nizar Jamaluddin.  Karpal was found guilty of sedition in 2014.

 

Since gaining some grounds after the 2008 general elections, the DAP has time and again displayed its disrespect to the Rulers Institution by not abiding by the dress code at state assembly openings.  One good example is of DAP’s Gwee Tong Hiang who was the Johor state assemblyman for Bentayan who did not wear a songkok at the state assembly opening.  The late Sultan of Johor, Almarhum Sultan Iskandar Ismail was not amused.

 

Two days ago someone here tried to be a hero by refusing to dress accordingly. If he wants (to differ), then get out of here now!” the late Sultan chastised.  Tong Hiang, unfortunately, was not present then.

 

The DAP had wised up since then.  Seen as a Chinese chauvinist party, such rude behaviour turned them into punching bags of the Malays, especially those from UMNO who had a feast turning the DAP into cheap meals.  The DAP quickly recruited liberal Malays into its fold, including Zaid, to do their dirty jobs for them.  This keeps the heat off the Chinese in DAP, but pit Malays against Malays.

 

What the authorities should realise is that such behaviour displayed most recently by Zaid Ibrahim sends the wrong signal that it is alright to reject Malay traditions including respect for the elders and the Rulers to the younger Malaysian who, at their age, would be mostly anti-establishment by nature.  If this goes unchecked, it would certainly give birth to more Zaid Ibrahims.

 

The authorities should take cue from Sultan Sharafuddin.

 

I am aware that Zaid had long been making false and incorrect accusations against me. He is a politician and a former minister whom I understand is against the royal institution. My advice to Zaid is simple, do not forget where you come from,” the Sultan said.

 

How The RUU355 Is Unconstitutional

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 quote:

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?

He added:

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.

Kit Siang No.1 Racist – Final Part

I have written on how racist Lim Kit Siang is in Part 1 dan Part 2 prior to this final part.

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.

Communist slogans displayed in anti-government rallies
Communist slogans carried by Opposition supporters

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 .
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

Kit Siang Racist No.1 – Bahagian Akhir

Saya telah menulis betapa rasisnya Lim Kit Siang dalam Bahagian 1 dan Bahagian 2 sebelum ini.

Lim Kit Siang bukan sahaja seorang rasis, malah beliau juga menentang apa jua usaha kerajaan ketika itu untuk memerangi dakyah komunis.

Dua hari sebelum pilihanraya umum ke-3 (1969), Kit Siang telah mengadakan satu sidang akhbar di mana beliau menuduh bapa tiri kepada orang kanannya sekarang iaitu Christopher Ross Lim sebagai “Menteri Pelajaran penipu.”  Christopher Ross Lim kini menggunakan nama Zairil Khir Johari. Tiada “bin”.

Kit Siang telah menuduh kerajaan Perikatan ketika itu membuat Malaysia sertai Liga Anti-Komunis Sedunia, satu tuduhan yang telah dinafikan oleh Khir Johari.

Soalan: kenapa Kit Siang beriya-iya menghentam kerajaan sekiranya benar sekalipun Malaysia sertai Liga tersebut?

Jawapan: pihak pembangkang ketika itu, termasuk DAP, dipenuhi dengan mereka yang bersimpati dengan perjuangan Parti Komunis Malaya.

Slogan-slogan Komunis dipamerkan semasa perarakan anti-Kerajaan Melayu oleh Pembangkang
Slogan Komunis dibawa oleh para penyokong pembangkang

Sebulan sebelum itu iaitu pada 24 April 1969, seorang petugas UMNO, Encik Kassim bin Omar, yang sedang dalam perjalanan pulang setelah tamat tempoh berkempen pada hari tersebut telah dibunuh dan mayatnya dilumurkan cat merah oleh para penyokong pembangkang.  Inilah di antara sebab mengapa tempoh berkempen yang lama boleh menjadi berbahaya kepada keselamatan dan ketenteraman dalam negeri.

Sejak bulan Julai 1968, iaitu sebulan selepas bermulanya Darurat Kedua (pemberontakan bersenjata kedua oleh Parti Komunis Malaya) yang tamat 21 tahun kemudian, Kit Siang telah mengapi-apikan semangat perkauman di kalangan para penyokong pembangkang.

Di antara pengapian yang dinyatakan di atas adalah seperti berikut:

  1. Pada 27 Julai 1968, di sebuah rapat umum DAP di Tanjung Malim, Perak, Kit Siang telah dengan sengaja memutarbelitkan polisi Pendidikan Kerajaan dengan memberitahu hadirin bahawa polisi pendidikan Kerajaan direka untuk menghapuskan suratkhabar bahasa Cina, sekolah-sekolah Cina dan juga bahasa Cina.
  2. Pada 24 Ogos 1968, di sebuah rapat umum di Slim River, Perak, Kit Siang telah dengan sengaja memutarbelitkan polisi Kerajaan mengenai Bahasa Kebangsaan dengan tujuan menimbulkan syak dan kemarahan kaum-kaum lain terhadap orang Melayu.
  3. Pada 7 September 1968, di sebuah rapat umum DAP di KM38, Jalan Sungai Besi, dan pada 21 September 1968, di Kampung Baru Sungai Way, Kit Siang telah dengan sengaja menghasut kebencian terhadap kerajaan dan orang Melayu dengan membuat fitnah terhadap MCA dengan cara menuduh parti tersebut membantu kerajaan orang Melayu menghapuskan bahasa Cina dengan tidak mengiktiraf projek Universiti Nanyang.
  4. Pada 29 September 1968, di sebuah rapat umum DAP di Batu Pahat, Johor, 2 November 1968, di Lawan Kuda Bahru, Gopeng, Perak, dan pada 26 Januari 1969, di Jalan Yow, Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang telah mengapi-apikan kebencian dengan memberitahu para hadirin bahawa polisi kerajaan adalah polisi rasis kerana kerajaan telah memberi keutamaan kepada Bumiputera untuk memasuki IPTA sekaligus menjadikan kaum lain sebagai rakyat kelas kedua di negara ini.
  5. Pada 12 Februari 1969, di sebuah rapat umum DAP yang diadakan di Jalan Lengkongan Brunei, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang telah sekali lagi mengapi-apikan semangat perkauman dengan memberitahu para hadirin bahawa Kerajaan menunjukkan sikap diskriminasi dengan Melayu diberi keistimewaan untuk memasuki IPTA, mendapat pekerjaan dan pengagihan tanah.

Apa yang Kit Siang tidak beritahu kepada umum adalah hakikat bahawa di dalam jabatan-jabatan kerajaan pun (kecuali Angkatan Tentera Malaysia), bukan Melayu mengatasi Melayu dalam peratusan penjawat awam seperti yang tertera di dalam gambar di bawah:

Nyata sekali sikap rasis dan penghasut yang dimiliki Kit Siang masih belum pudar hingga ke hari ini.  Pilihanraya umum telah diadakan pada hari Sabtu bersamaan 10 Mei 1969.  Parti Perikatan yang terdiri dari UMNO, MCA dan MIC telah memenangi 66 buah kerusi, kurang 23 dari pilihanraya umum ke-2, manakala pohak pembangkang telah memenangi 54 buah kerusi.

Pada pukul 5.30 petang, 11 Mei 1969, DAP telah membuat satu perarakan tanpa permit polis yang mengandungi ima buah kereta dan 15 buah motorsikal bermula di Brickfields menghala ke Jalan Lornie (kini Jalan Syed Putra).

Apabila perarakan ini melalui di hadapan Balai Polis Brickfields (kini telah dirobohkan), para peserta yang hampir kesemuanya Cina berteriak:

Apa polis boleh buat? Kita raja! Buang semua polis Melayu!

Pada pukul 10 malam hari yang sama, semasa melalui hadapan Balai Polis Jalan Travers, mereka berteriak:

Mati Melayu! Sakai pergi masuk hutan!

Kata-kata penghinaan ini sekali lagi dilemparkan terhadap anggota-anggota polis apabila mereka sekali lagi melalui di hadapan Balai Polis Brickfieds.

Pada masa yang sama di Changkat Thamby Dollah berhampiran dengan Penjara Pudu, lebih kurang 40 orang penyokong pembangkang telah berteriak:

“Kuala Lumpur Cina punya!

Keesokan harinya iaitu pada hari Isnin 12 Mei 1969, 500 buah skuter yang dinaiki penyokong pembangkang telah melalui Jalan Ipoh, Jalan Parlimen, Jalan Gombak, Jalan Raja Laut sebelu kembali ke Jalan Ipoh sambil berteriak kepada setiap orang Melayu yang mereka nampak:

Melayu sekarang tak ada kuasa lagi. Sekarang kita control!

Apabila konvoi ini tiba di perkarangan Kampung Bahru, mereka berteriak kepada orang Melayu:

Melayu keluar! Apa lagi duduk sini? Kita hentam lu! Sekarang kita besar!

Pada sebelah malamnya, para penyokong pembangkang terus keluarkan kata-kata kesat terhadap anggota polis Melayu seperti:

Mata-Mata Lancau!

Butoh Melayu! Pergi matilah!

Bukan saya sengaja ada-adakan benda yang saya tulis di atas.  Anda boleh baca sendiri dalam gambar laporan 13 Mei 1969 yang dibuat oeh Majlis Gerakan Negara (MAGERAN) ketika itu:

Di mana Lim Kit Siang semasa berlakunya pencacian dan maki hamun terhadap orang Melayu di Kuala Lumpur?

Lim Kit Siang pada pagi hari Selasa bersamaan 13 Mei 1969 telah bersedia melarikan diri ke Kota Kinabalu supaya beliau tidak berada di situ sekiranya berlakunya pergaduhan antara kaum.

Beliau tiba di Kota Kinabalu dan terus mengadakan rapat umum DAP di Kampung Air. Di situ beliau telah menghasut dan mengapi-apikan bukan sahaja kebencian terhadap orang Melayu malah kali ini cuba timbulkan kemarahan terhadap penganut agama Islam.

Beliau memberitahu para hadirin ketika itu bahawa Kerajaan cuba menubuhkan Malaysia yang Melayu (Malay Malaysia) dengan membahagikan rakyat kepada Bumiputera dan Bukan Bumiputera.  Beliau juga membuat fitnah kononnya Kerajaan akan menjadikan pentadbiran negeri Sabah sebuah pentadbiran Melayu.  Beliau juga menghasut kebencian terhadap Islam dengan menabur fitnah bahawa Kerajaan akan menghantar rakyat Malaysia (termasuk penduduk Sabah beragama Kristian) untuk berperang dan mati di Timur Tengah untuk membantu rakan-rakan ahli-ahli OIC menawan semula Baitulmaqdis dari genggaman Israel.

Demikianlah betapa rasis dan hinanya Lim Kit Siang dan parti DAP yang dipimpinnya.  Hampir 48 tahun selepas peristiwa 13 Mei 1969, Kit Siang masih lagi menyerang kerajaan yang dikatakan kerajaan Melayu.  Ketika itu, Melayu bersatu memertahankan haknya yang telah sedia ada sebelum datangnya datuk dan nenek Lim Kit Siang – hak yang telah termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang dipersetujui semua kaum.

Malangnya sekarang ada yang mengaku Melayu tetapi mudah lupa.  Kini pengkhianat ini serta para pengikutnya pula yang menjilat Kit Siang serta mereka yang seangkatan dengannnya.

Kit Siang No.1 Racist – Bahagian 2

Semalam kita telah membaca bagaimana seorang yang mudah lupa telah melupakan betapa rasisnya Lim Kit Siang.

Lim Kit Siang boleh cuba untuk menjauhkan dirinya dari peristiwa 13 Mei 1969 tetapi sikap rasisnya ternyata dengan jelas sebelum berlakunya peristiwa tersebut.

Pada hari Ahad 1 Disember 1968, lima bulan sebelum berlakunya peristiwa 13 Mei 1969, Lim Kit Siang telah mengapi-apikan semangat orang Cina di sebuah ceramah DAP di Kampung Baru Salak Selatan dengan mengumumkan ‘20 Perkara Demokrasi Sosialis Serdang‘.

Lim Kit Siang bersama konco-konconya sebelum peristiwa 13 Mei 1969

Di antara 20 perkara yang dituntut oleh Kit Siang adalah seperti berikut:

  • TANAH mesti diberi kepada semua yang tidak mempunyai tanah, tanpa mengira kaum.  Sejak terbentuknya Kampung Baru Serdang, tiada tanah telah diperuntukkan kepada para penduduk dan ini adalah bukti nyata sikap rasis dan ketidakupayaan kerajaan Perikatan dalam hal pentadbiran dan pengagihan tanah.
  • PENGHAPUSAN pembahagian rakyat Malaysia kepada ‘Bumiputera’ dan ‘Bukan Bumiputera’.
  • TARAF KHAS diberikan kepada Bahasa Cina, Tamil dan Inggeris dengan Bahasa Melayu sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan untuk digunakan dalam perhubungan antara kaum.
  • PENGGUNAAN BEBAS Bahasa Cina, Tamil dan Inggeris dalam Parlimen, Dewan Undangan Negeri-Negeri dan di notis awam dan persuratan kerajaan.
  • PENOLAKAN Laporan Abdul Rahman Talib yang bertujuan untuk menukar semua sekolah, sama ada rendah mahupun menengah, ke sekolah yang menggunakan Bahasa Melayu semata-mata untuk tujuan pengajaran, pembelajaran dan peperiksaan.
  • PENGHAPUSAN kategori ‘Sekolah Kebangsaan’ dan ‘Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan’.
  • PENGGUNAAN sebuah sistem pendidikan yang bersepadu, dengan bahasa-bahasa utama (Cina, Tamil dan Inggeris) digunakan dalam pengajaran, pembelajaran dan peperiksaan, dan pengiktirafan sekolah-sekolah tersebut sebagai ‘Sekolah Kebangsaan’ asalkan ianya berpaksikan Malaysia dan mengajar Bahasa Kebangsaan sebagai Bahasa Kedua.
  • PENERIMAAN kesusasteraan Malaysia yang ditulis oleh rakyat Malaysia sama ada penulisan tersebut adalah dalam bahasa-bahasa selain Bahasa Melayu.

Sekiranya anda masih ingat, sebaik sahaja Barisan Alternatif menguasai tampuk pemerintahan di negeri Perak, Mohammad Nizar Jamaludin yang merupakan Menteri Besar pilihan DAP ketika itu telah memberikan hak milik tanah kekal selama 999 tahun kepada 60,000 lot tanah kampung-kampung baru di negeri tersebut.

Nizar dengan taatnya telah merealisasikan sebahagian daripada impian-impian  Kit Siang.

Tiga bulan kemudian di tempat yang sama, Kit Siang telah mengkritik Penolong Menteri Pendidikan, Encik Lee Siok Yew yang telah berucap di Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina) Yoke Nam, menggalakkan penggunaan Bahasa Kebangsaan di rumah oleh kaum Cina.

Menuduh Encik Lee Siok Yew dan MCA sebagai menjual kepentingan kaum Cina kepada Melayu, Kit Siang berkata fanatik UMNO tidak akan membenarkan bahasa lain tumbuh dengan bebas, dan itulah sebabnya mereka (UMNO) tidak membenarkan penggunaan bahasa Cina dan lain-lain di Parlimen, Dewan Undangan Negeri, persuratan kerajaan, notis awam, dan sebagai media pengajaran dan peperiksaan di sekolah-sekolah.

Tambah Kit Siang lagi, akhirnya fanatik UMNO mahu melihat terkuburnya bahasa Cina dan lain-lain – supaya di tempat-tempat awam, kedai, rumah, hanya Bahasa Kebangsaan digunakan.

Demikianlah sikap Lim Kit Siang yang dianggap kini oleh seorang tua yang mudah lupa sebagai bukan rasis.  Adalah diharap agar kita mengingati sejarah negara ini dan apa yang telah dilakukan oleh segelintir orang yang tidak mahu lihat generasi yang akan datang hidup dalam keadaan aman dan muhibbah.

Mudah-mudahan kita semua tidak mudah lupa.

Pengemis Jalanan


Begitulah kata-kata seorang bekas pejuang bangsa Melayu yang pernah menggelarkan DAP sebagai ‘bapa segala rasis.’

“Malah dalam pertemuan saya dengan pimpinan DAP, mereka bersetuju bahawa Perdana Menteri Malaysia mestilah orang Melayu dan bukan dari parti DAP,” kata Muhyiddin dalam satu kenyataan membidas ucapan Najib Razak semasa  Perhimpunan Agung UMNO baru-baru ini.

Kenyataan Muhyiddin ini menunjukkan betapa terdesaknya beliau untuk terus relevan dalam arena politik, mengemis jawatan daripada DAP dan sanggup menggadai maruah demi kepentingan diri.

Muhyiddin mungkin lupa akan dua perkara. Pertama, semasa Pilihanraya Umum Ke-13, DAP telah memenangi 38 dari 89 kerusi yang dimenangi oleh Pakatan Rakyat. PKR mendapat 30 kerusi manakala PAS 21. Tidak mustahil DAP akan meletakkan lebih ramai calon Melayu pada pilihanraya umum yang akan datang.

Orang Melayu perlu faham prinsip dan landasan perjuangan DAP.  Untuk itu kita perlu lihat kepada perlembagaan parti DAP itu sendiri:


Di perenggan pertama, kita dapat lihat perkataan ‘demokratik sosialis.’ Kita faham maksud demokratik.

Sosialis ialah suatu teori politik dan ekonomi yang menjadikan segala hasil dan keuntungan seseorang individu itu dimiliki bersama oleh seluruh masyarakat.

Di dalam buku tulisan Karl Marx bertajuk ‘Das Kapitalsosialisme adalah satu keadaan yang menggulingkan fahaman kapitalisme menuju kepada komunisme.

Kita dapat lihat perkara ini diulangi dalam perenggan keempat.

Ini bermaksud apa sahaja peluang yang selama ini dipelihara untuk golongan Bumiputera akan dihapuskan supaya kesemua bangsa dapat menikmatinya. Ini boleh bermaksud penghapusan hak istimewa Bumiputera dan pengagihan hasil kutipan zakat kepada semua.


Perlembagaan sekular di sini bermaksud menjadikan Islam sebagai agama rasmi Malaysia. Anda mungkin tertanya bukankah itu hakikatnya sekarang?

Jawapannya ialah TIDAK. Perlembagaan Persekutuan jelas menyatakan bahawa agama Islam ialah agama Persekutuan. Bukannya agama rasmi. Inilah sebabnya para Raja di setiap negeri dipertanggungjawabkan memelihara kedaulatan agama Islam di negeri masing-masing.

Perkataan ‘kesaksamaan peluang‘ itulah yang diperjuangkan pada tahun 2014 oleh boneka DAP dalam Majlis Perundingan Perpaduan Negara (NUCC) melalui satu draf rang undang-undang yang pernah mereka perlihatkan kepada umum.

RUU NUCC tersebut, jika diluluskan, akan menyebabkan Yang DiPertuan Agong serta Raja-Raja Melayu hilang keistimewaan melantik Perdana Menteri, Menteri Besar, Peguam Negara, Ketua Polis Negara, Panglima Angkatan Tentera dan lain-lain jawatan penting dari kalangan Bumiputera beragama Islam.

Malah RUU NUCC itu juga membolehkan jawatan-jawatan tersebut diisi oleh mereka yang menjalani kehidupan sebagai LGBT, bertentangan dengan kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan. Inilah yang dimaksudkan dengan Perlembagaan Sekular.

Ini dikuatkan lagi oleh matlamat-matlamat perjuangan DAP yang disebut di dalam perlembagaan parti tersebut:

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-12-00-19

Apa yang ingin dilakukan oleh DAP ialah untuk kerajaan yang disertainya mengubah Perlembagaan Persekutuan agar cita-cita yang disebutkan di atas melalui RUU NUCC dapat dilaksanakan.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-12-00-41

Lupakah sudah kita akan kejadian memurtadkan orang-orang yang beragama Islam di gereja Methodist Damansara Utama (DUMC)?  Saya pernah menulis mengenai perkara tersebut setelah bertemu dengan mereka-mereka yang pernah dimurtadkan di gereja yang berada di kawasan parlimen Tony Pua dari DAP. Dr Hassan Ali yang ketika itu merupakan Exco Agama Islam di Selangor menzahirkan kekecewaan beliau terhadap kepimpinan negeri yang diterajui Melayu PKR yang terpaksa tunduk kepada kehendak DAP.

Orang Melayu jangan lupa bagaimana Menteri Besar Selangor bangsa Melayu yang datangnya dari parti PKR juga akhirnya digulingkan oleh konco-konco DAP kerana mengingkari perintah DAP.

Perkara yang sama juga berlaku di negeri Perak di mana Menteri Besar yang dilantik selepas PRU ke-12 datangnya dari parti PAS tetapi merupakan anak saudara kepada dua orang pembesar DAP Perak.  Di antara akibat orang Melayu parti lain diperkudakan DAP, kontrak menjahit pakaian ADUN Perak diberikan kepada syarikat milik ibu saudaranya.

Hanya tiga bulan selepas berkuasa, 48,000 orang-orang Cina diberi hak milik tanah di kampung-kampung baru untuk selama 999 tahun, suatu penghinaan terhadap 32,444 orang-orang Melayu di negeri Perak yang hidup di Rancangan Kampung Tersusun yang dicadangkan diberi hak pemilikan hanya untuk 99 tahun yang tidak dilaksanakan.

fullsizerender-3

fullsizerender-copy

Apabila tak dapat apa yang dimahukan, maka bergulinglah dan tunjuk biadaplah mereka di hadapan DYMM Sultan Perak sebagai tanda protes dan sokongan terhadap tetuan DAP mereka.

img_3916 img_3915

Inilah yang dimahui dan dijadikan perjuangan oleh kaldai Cina DAP bernama Muhyiddin Yassin – seorang bekas Menteri Besar yang dihalau keluar dari negeri Johor oleh Almarhum Sultan Iskandar, yang kubur bapanya dipacak salib setelah mengubah cuti hujung minggu negeri Johor dari hari Jumaat ke hari Ahad.

salib

Nampaknya memang menjual maruah Melayu dan Islam demi kepentingan politik peribadi menjadi sifat semulajadi Muhyiddin.  Beliau sanggup menjadi seorang Perdana Menteri biarpun dalam bentuk boneka kepada DAP.  Beliau sanggup mengemis dijalanan bagi pihak DAP agar diberi keutamaan menjadi Perdana Menteri.

Kita maklum bagaimana PAS dibelot oleh DAP walaupun mempunyai perjanjian bertulis semasa PAS masih menganggotai Pakatan Rakyat.  Ini menunjukkan betapa DAP terutamanya Lim Guan Eng tidak amanah, tidak boleh dipercayai dan tidak berpegang kepada janji. Maka janji DAP untuk menjadikan Melayu sebagai Perdana Menteri apabila berkuasa nanti juga tidak akan ditunaikan, atau ditunaikan tetapi tidak dipegangi.


Kalau perjanjian bertulis dengan PAS pun DAP boleh mungkir, inikan pula perjanjian air liur dengan Muhyiddin. Maka tidak mustahil suatu hari nanti pengemis hina barua DAP ini akan membayar ufti pula kepada Maharaja DAP hanya untuk kekal berkuasa.

img_3911

The Gent Factor

Sir William Jervois (seated) with JWW Brich stading to his left, and Frank A Swettenham right most by the staircase
Sir William Jervois (seated) with JWW Birch standing to his left, and Frank A Swettenham right most by the staircase

Delegation of Authority

141 years ago Perak became the first sovereign state in the Malay peninsula to come into a treaty with the British for the latter to provide the former with protection, while the former has the “right” to interfere in the internal administration of the state – by the appointment of a Resident or Adviser to the Sultan, on the payroll of the Sultan, and whose “advice” must be asked and “acted upon” in all matters other than the ones affecting the Malay religion and custom (C.D Cowan, 1961; Emily Sadka, 1968; Eunice Thio, 1969).  Between 1874 and 1930, similar but not identical treaties were signed with the other Sultans and Head of States. The treaties notwithstanding, the Sultans and Head of States remain the sovereign ruler of their respective sovereign state. De facto however, the British assumed the unstated “right” to administer the states as well with the exception of Kelantan through the Kelantan Treaty of 1910 (signed in Kota Bharu on 22 October 1910) when the government of King George V undertook not to interfere in the “internal administration” of the state or to curtail the “administrative authority” of the Ruler.

Sovereignty of the Rulers

Although the Rulers had divested much of their independence, both they and their state remained sovereign.  Independence is not equal to sovereignty.  As a principle of international law, sovereignty denotes, in its purest form, the concept of a ‘supreme authority’ be it an individual or a collective unit and implied power to exercise independence both internationally and domestically. Paradoxically, inherent in this conception of sovereignty is the possibility that the sovereign state could also impose limits on its own independence without suffering a diminution of its inherent sovereignty (L Oppenheim, 1928 pp 135 and 250; Albert Lau, 1991).  In other words, the Anglo-Malay treaties in no way compromised the de jure sovereignty of the Malay Rulers.

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

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

The above implied that Britain could do nothing in these states contrary to the terms of the existing treaties.  W. Ormsby-Gore, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies put it in 1928:

“Our (Britain’s) position in every State rests solemnly on treaty obligations….We neither have the right nor the desire to vary this system of government or to alter the type of constitution or administration that now obtains.” (W Ormsby-Gore report, 1928).

This was later echoed by Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister, the 1st Earl of Swinton and a prominent British Conservative politician,  on 14 July 1933:

“There is no question at all of altering in any degree, even by a comma, the Treaties which bind us…and which are charters of the agreements with the Rulers both of the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.”

Interesting, however, is that the Colonial Office came close to discussing the deposition of two Sultans namely the Sultan of Johore (1906) and the Sultan of Terengganu (1919).  In the case of the Sultan of Johore, the Colonial Office was told that unless Sultan Ibrahim of Johore complied with His Majesty’s Government’s wishes, he must “retire from the business altogether.”  In 1914, Sultan Ibrahim was brought to task again for allowing conditions in Johore to deteriorate “to that which called for decided action in 1906” and warned that, unless the administration improved, “the only alternative is his removal from the State.”  In 1919, Malayan officials, increasingly piqued by the obstructive nature of Sultan Muhammed of Terengganu, similarly recommended that “sufficient pressure” should be put on him to “compel his resignation.” (Minute by Lucas, 30 March 1906 CO 273/324 no. 10619; Young to Harcourt, 19 March 1914, CO 273/406 no. 13282; and report by J. Humphreys, 3 December 1919, CO 537/797 no. 5002).

Having said that, it frustrated the British that they had no jurisdiction whatsoever by virtue of the treaties signed, and a movement was initiated by Edward Gent, to change all that.

Willan’s Mission and the Malayan Union

Among the thorny problems of pre-WW2 Malay States is the question of the Chinese immigrants brought in by the British. In the Strait Settlements of Penang, Melaka and Singapore, they could be given the status of British Protected Persons. In both the Federated Malay States (FMS) and the Unfederated Malay States (UMS) the British have no jurisdiction to apply the same rule to them, nor are they citizens of their respective host state.  As far as the Malay Rulers were concerned, only the Muslim Malays are their subjects, not those who are alien, non-native and are non-Muslims.  The British tried to convince the Rulers and also by asking the Chinese to pledge loyalty to the Rulers.  However, the Chinese were disinclined to accept the Malay Rulers as theirs.

The problem arose when in 1929 the Chinese government passed the Chinese Nationality Law stating that all persons of the Chinese race, wherever born, were considered as subjects of China.  As such, the Chinese government could intervene in cases where the Chinese are not being fairly treated.

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.

The only solution out of this is for the Chinese in the Malay states to be declared as British Protected Persons, but such move is against the treaties.  To put this into effect, Malaya has to come under a federation or a union where power is central, and the Anglo-Malay Treaties be reviewed and replaced by a new one.

Following the Fall of Singapore on 15 February 1942, the British saw that it was no longer possible to return to the pre-war system as they had failed to provide the Malay states the protection from the Japanese.  Edward Gent saw this as an opportunity to streamline all the Malay States and the Strait Settlements excluding Singapore under one administration to be based in Kuala Lumpur.  A month after the Fall of Singapore, he set up a team to quickly work out a solution and framework even though it was still not known then how the war would end.

When the war ended, this plan was quickly put in place. Between 8 to 29 September 1945, the Deputy Chief Civil Affairs Officer of Malaya, HC Willan, accompanied by the Senior Civil Affairs Officer for Johor, Colonel MC Hay, made his way to the Pasir Pelangi palace and interviewed the Sultan Ibrahim. Having studied files and found proof of Sultan Ibrahim collaborating with the Japanese, his task was to assess the Sultan’s reception of the British.  Not once, noted Willan, did Sultan Ibrahim hinted that the British had let him down by losing Johor.  More remarkably, Sultan Ibrahim wrote to Colonel Hay the very next day intimated his willingness to “serve under the British Military Administration.”  Willan opined that Johor would sign the new treaty.

Of all the Malay Rulers, only the Sultan of Perak proved difficult. Willan proposed that Johor, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang should be approached in that order to sign the revised treaty. Once the rest have signed, there would not be any reason for Perak not to sign. When Harold MacMichael arrived in Johor, Sultan Ibrahim offered no resistance although he produced a memorandum containing points relating to the Sultan’s personal prestige and the status of Johor reproduced as Annex I in MacMichael’s report – Albert Lau, 1991). This is the “1946 agreement” made in conjunction with the signing of the Malayan Union agreement between the government of Johor and the British Military Administration that has been played up in the social media of late as the Federated Malay States agreement of 1948 had yet to be formulated. Johor was the first state to submit to being colonised by the British.

As expected, Sultan Abdul Aziz of Perak became the stumbling block.  For Sultan Abdul Aziz, the central issue was still sovereignty.  He wrote:

“It is true that under the Treaties I was bound to accept the advice of the British Resident, but nevertheless I was a Sovereign in my State having power to assent or withhold assent to legislation. I am now invited to sit as a member at an Advisory Council with the Governor assuming the function which rightly belongs to me. Being a member of the Advisory Council with authority over the other States is a doubtful honour. I neither desire to have any influence over the other States nor welcome any other Ruler to have influence within my State.”

The Sultan was also further incensed that under the new agreement the Malays in Perak would no longer swear allegiance to him but to the Malayan Union, thus in effect reducing him to the position of a Sultan without subjects:

“All these facts tend to show that my sovereign rights are in real danger. You can well imagine my feelings. I have no status, no State and no subjects.”(Sultan Abdul Aziz to Alexander Newboult, 20 February 1946, CO 537/1548 no. 50823/34 Pt.1)

By the latter half of February 1946, there was more cohesiveness amongst the Rulers in going against the Malayan Union.  The Rulers had tactically rallied behind an informal united front presided by the Sultans of Perak and Kedah.  In a concerted display of solidarity, the Rulers of Perak, Kedah, Pahang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan jointly petitioned to defer the implementation of the new Malayan Union constitution until an independent commission had first visited the country and consulted local opinion. (Newboult to Hall, 22 February 1946, CO 537/1548 no. 50823/34 Pt.1).

The movement against the Malayan Union was born and so was UMNO. The discussions on the formation of the Federation of Malaya began with the British, the Rulers and UMNO taking part in the discussions.

 

Proposals for the Federation of Malaya Agreement
Proposals for the Federation of Malaya Agreement

Epilogue

The Anglo-Malay treaties were left relatively intact with more power given to the people to effect some degree of self-governance, the Rulers continued with their ceremonial roles and duties.  The Federation of Malaya came into effect on 1 February 1948, replacing the Malayan Union.

On 31 August 1957, the Federation of Malaya became independent, not from colonisation, but from feudalism.  Executive powers that were given to the British have been given to the people of Malaysia to determine how they are to be governed and by whom. All agreements and treaties made between the Rulers and the British since 1874 became void. Professor Datuk Dr Ramlah Adam said all agreements inked during the British colonial period are considered void automatically after Aug 31, 1957.

“These issues are over. The powers of the Malay royalty are now included in the Federal Constitution.”

There is no more “state citizenship” but only “federation citizenship,” which makes Malaysians who they are irrespective of where they were born.  The Federal Constitution too does not provide for any state to secede from the Federation. This was further enhanced in Sabah where the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 specifically says the state cannot secede.

Unsolicited remarks should not be made and the spirit of history has to be understood in order to understand why are we where we are, and why are we who we are.  Such talks only put the sacrifices of our predecessors in vain.