I don’t know why Arul Kanda’s presence at the opening ceremony of the UMNO General Assembly is made a fuss. So did Khazanah Nasional Bhd managing director Azman Mokhtar, Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB) group chairperson Abdul Wahid Omar, CEO Abdul Rahman Ahmad and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) CEO Lodin Wok Kamaruddin.
It has always been a tradition for CEOs of Government-linked companies to be invited to the opening ceremony to listen to the UMNO President’s speech where it always touches socio-economic concerns. Even President of BN component parties are invited. In fact, among those who attended the final UMNO General Assembly with Mahathir as President were MCA’s then-President Ong Ka Ting and also PPP’s M Kayveas. So, what is the big deal?
Not too long ago, an archnemesis of the Opposition attended DAP’s Convention. There, those who swore to spit on his grave lined up to smile, bow and shake hands with the man they all had wanted to send to prison for being a corrupt dictator.
Behind Mahathir in the screen capture above is the very man who used to go around the country calling the former a PEROMPAK (robber).
Of course, now Mahathir is forgiven. All the RM100 billion according to both Lim Kit Siang and Barry Wain that Mahathir squandered have been forgotten, all in the name of politics. And in the name of politics, all those with past sins are forgiven the moment they work hand-in-hand with Pakatan.
Arul Kanda, President of BN component parties, all sat with the rest of the guests an delegations. Mahathir, however, was given a seat on the stage with DAP’s central executive committee members.
So, is Mahathir a DAP member? Maybe, Malaysiakini can answer this question.
THIS would be my mellow version of the Ops Lalang.
The Internal Security Act, 1960 or the ISA, was probably the most draconian law to ever exist in Malaysia. Prior to having the ISA, preventive detention was done through the Emergency Regulations Ordinance of 1948 aimed at combatting the communist threats.
With the end of the first Malayan Emergency in 1960, the Ordinance of 148 was done away with but was replaced with the ISA. The mood of the period must be understood to see the reason for having such law.
Although the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had lost the fight, the struggle was continued from across the Thai border by cadres, as well as their supporters (Min Yuen) in Malaya. They penetrated unions, the press, as well as associations, causing occasional racial tensions in the country.
Pre-1970 Malaysia was not all dandy when it came to race relations. The economic power was held by the Chinese since the days of the British administration while the Malays had been relegated to being farmers or lower ranking civil servants.
The Chinese immigrants first came to the Malay states in 1777, and first settled in the state of Perak in 1830 (Patrick Sullivan, 1982: 13). Within 44 years, they numbered 26,000 in Perak alone. In 1921, the number of Chinese immigrants in the Malay states numbered 1,171,740. Ten years later, it was 1,704,452. In 1941, it became 2,377,990 while the Malays were at 2,277,352 (Paul H Kratoska, 1997:318). The Malays remained as a minority until the census of 1970.
During the war, the Malays did not face much hardship as the Chinese did at the hands of the Japanese.
After the war, the CPM/MPAJA and their Chinese supporters took revenge on the Malays. In Batu Pahat, Muslims were forbidden from congregating at mosques or suraus to perform the Terawih prayers (Hairi Abdullah, 1974/5: 8-9).
The same occurred in Perak and some parts of Batu Pahat where Muslims were gunned down and burnt together with the mosque they were in during Friday prayers.
Mosques and suraus were often used as places of meeting for the Chinese community (WO 172/9773, No.30: 478) and were tainted by incidents such as slaughtering of pigs, and mosques’ compound was used to cook pork, where Malays were forced to join the larger Chinese groups. Pages were torn from the Quran to be used by the Chinese using these mosques as toilet paper.
Racial clashes had begun in September 1945 where Malays and Chinese clashed in Kota Bharu, Selama, Taiping, Sitiawan, Raub.
This culminated in the slaughter of Malays early one morning in a hamlet near Kuala Kangsar called Bekor where 57 men and women, and 24 children were killed by about 500 members of the CPM aided by 500 Chinese villagers from Kelian in March 1946 (CO 537/1580: 21 and Majlis, 24 Februari 1947:5).
All in all, 2,000 lives were lost.
Such was the mood and the ISA was introduced to also prevent further racial clashes by preventing instigators from achieving their objective whatever that may be.
Therefore, it was an Act of Parliament that was used to preserve public order and morals. If one is to read the ISA thoroughly, then it would be easier to see that the Act was not just about detention without trial, but also as a weapon for the Royal Malaysian Police to nip any cancerous threat to public order and morals in the bud.
Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad was Prime Minister as well as Home Minister when Ops Lalang was executed on Oct 26 1987 (arrests were made in the early morning of Oct 27).
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was Umno Youth chief and also Education Minister in Dr Mahathir’s Third Cabinet.
Anwar had made several unpopular moves that earned the wrath of the MCA such as the removal of crucifixes from missionary schools, introduction of Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction for Tamil and Chinese studies at the University of Malaya, as well as the introduction of non-Chinese educated senior assistants and supervisors to Chinese vernacular schools.
Deputy MCA president Datuk Seri (now Tan Sri) Lee Kim Sai who was also Selangor MCA chief, on the other hand, had also uttered words implying that the Malays were also immigrants.
A 2,000-strong gathering by the Dong Jiao Zong that was also attended by the DAP, MCA and Gerakan was held and a resolution was made to call a three-day boycott by Chinese schools.
Umno Youth responded with a 10,000-strong gathering at the TPCA Stadium in Kampung Baru. It is said that Dr Mahathir then instructed Datuk Seri (Tan Sri) Sanusi Junid, who was Umno secretary-general then, to organise a rally of 500,000 members in Kuala Lumpur.
I remember feeling the tension in the air, especially when an army personnel, Private Adam Jaafar, ran amok with his M-16 in Kampung Baru, adding more fuel to a potentially explosive situation.
The senior police management met in Fraser’s Hill to plan and then launched Ops Lalang to prevent bloodshed.
Whether or not Dr Mahathir disagreed with the police for Ops Lalang to be launched, it must be remembered that even if the police had wanted to launch the operations unilaterally, Section 8(1) of the ISA specifically mentions that it is the Home Minister who, upon being satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary, may make an order for the person to be detained for a period of not more than two years.
According to Section 73 of the Act, the police were not given the power to detain a person for more than 30 days unless the Inspector-General of Police had reported of the detention and its reason to the Home Minister.
Nowhere does the Act mention that the Home Minister SHALL or MUST act as advised by the police. The police provided the names in a list, with reasons why they should be or were detained, but only the Minister could sign the detention order.
Dr Mahathir may now claim that Ops Lalang was the police’s idea, which may be true. But as mentioned at the beginning of this article that the ISA is an Act of Parliament giving powers to the police to diffuse potentially explosive situations and also to protect and preserve public safety and morals.
The police used the ISA during Ops Lalang as it was intended to be used (there were also detainees from Umno during the sweep), but the Home Minister was the one who played God, and decided whom to be released before the 60 days was up, and whom to hold up to two years.
And that Home Minister is the same unrepentant person now touted to become the next PM by the DAP.
Extraordinary wealth owned by a public official should be enough grounds for investigations into the person, said a group of people who call themselves lawyers, in an apparent reference to a claim made by U-Turn Mahathir that Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi should be investigated by the MACC for having RM230 million when he was the UMNO Youth Chief.
Malaysian Incite reported that a so-called lawyer and “one-sided activist” called Ambiga said that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) could only ascertain the legitimacy of a person’s funds through an investigation.
“Any sign of extraordinary wealth particularly when it concerns people in public office is enough of a basis to investigate. Unfortunately Dzulkifli Ahmad has shown that he is afraid to investigate people at the top,” she was reported to have said, referring to the MACC chief commissioner.
Dzulkifli Ahmad stated that the MACC will only investigate a person’s wealth if there is a basis for the allegation that there are elements of corruption and abuse of power in his wealth.
He said the amount of money one person has is not a reason for the commission to start investigating him.
“The issue is whether the wealth is accumulated through corruption and abuse of power…that basis must be there for the commission to investigate. People can be rich, but it is important that we look at the source of the their wealth because if it is through corruption and abuse of power, then it will become the MACC’s responsibility to investigate,” he said when asked whether the MACC will investigate Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on the excessive wealth he allegedly owned.
In an obviously choreographed act, U-Turn Mahathir claimed that Ahmad Zahid had RM230 million in his bank account back in 1996, while DAP subsequently lodged a police report on the allegation.
Firstly, Ambiga claims that any extraordinary amount of wealth particularly when it concerns people in the public office is an enough basis for the MACC to investigate.
Senility runs deep in the Opposition’s ranks apparently. Zahid became the Member of Parliament for Teluk Intan in 1995 and subsequently the UMNO Youth Chief in October 1996, a position he held until he was arrested under the Internal Security Act for going against U-Turn Mahathir in 1998.
In response to U-Turn Mahathir’s claim, Zahid offered to be investigated.
“I was a businessman, a CEO of a listed company and chairman of other companies,” Zahid said of his past.
Zahid worked in banks such as OCBC, then became the Marketing Manager for Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad (ASNB). Other portfolios that he held then included Executive Director for Scandinavian Motors Sdn Bhd, the CEO for Kretam Holdings Berhad, Chairman of several companies such as Tekala Corporation Berhad, Seng Hup Berhad, Ramatex Berhad, and Bank Simpanan Nasional from 1995 until U-Turn Mahathir incarcerated him in Kamunting without trial in 1998.
Zahid was then the UMNO Youth Chief and a Member of Parliament. No law states that one has to give up his/her business practice in either post, and neither post is a public office as per the Constitution. Unless Zahid abused his position then as a Member of Parliament (a member of a public body as defined in the MACC Act) to obtain those posts, I see no reason for trying to implicate him on the alleged matter. How can remunerations from companies to a Director, or Shareholder, or Officer, derived from the businesses these companies are involved in, be a form of gratification obtained by a member of a public body?
Unlike in the case of Tokong Lim Guan Eng who clearly used his position to obtain gratification be it for himself or for his wife, Zahid did nothing of the above as alleged.
The MACC Act clearly states that in spite of any written law or rule of law to the contrary, a MACC officer of the rank of Commissioner and above who has reasonable reason to believe based on the investigation of an MACC officer into properties that are held as a result of an offence committed under the MACC Act, may by writing as the person being investigated to furnish the MACC with a list of the properties obtained through gratification.
What is there to ask for if (1) no offence has been committed, (2) no investigation has been conducted based on (1)? Request on mere speculation?
This is why Section 36 of the MACC Act is as such, to prevent a waste of taxpayers’ money and the MACC’s precious little time going on wild goose chase. You may refer to Section 3 of the said Act to know what it means by ‘gratification’ when referring to someone holding a public office or is a member of a public body. Therefore, how can there be any form of double standard committed by the MACC as alleged by Eric Paulsen of the Bar Council?
Both Eric Paulsen and Ambiga claim that the MACC is not courageous nor willing to investigate the ‘big fish‘ such as “even Najib Razak if necessary.”
But like I said at the beginning of this post, senility runs deep within the ranks of the Opposition. The MACC quizzed Najib Razak on the RM2.6 billion donation back in December 2015.
Anyway, before I end this posting, I would like to share what Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act says about the use of public office or position for ‘gratification‘ :
If I may, I would like to join Ambiga’s call to ask MACC to investigate the ‘big fish‘ who, in the words of Ambiga herself, continue to loot the nation and if I may add, or also looted the nation.
Ambiga and Eric Paulsen should now agree with me that a report was made by Pribumi’s members on the extraordinary wealth accumulated by U-Turn Mahathir when he was definitely a ‘member of a public body.’
Therefore, in accordance with Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act, 2009, I challenge both Ambiga and Eric Paulsen to make a public call for an investigation to be made into U-Turn Mahathir’s abuse of his office and position to obtain a contract through direct negotiation (more like direct command) from Telekom Malaysia to his son’s company when he was still the Prime Minister. And I challenge the MACC to commence its investigation into the KELEPETOCRACY by U-Turn Mahathir.
If anyone says this was done before the MACC Act, 2009 came into force, let it be known that in the Anti Corruption Act, 1997, the act of seeking gratification by someone holding an office was given via Section 15(1) of the Act.
So there have you. Investigate U-Turn Mahathir and see if he is going to try add this to his EVERYTHINGTUNHIDE 2.0 Q&No-A sessions.
Kurniawan bin Hendrikus (not his real name) who now lives in Kampung Gayaratau off the Ranau-Tamparuli road fears for the future if Pakatan wins Sabah.
“I worked in Semporna and Tawau in the 1990s and used to fear walking alone at night as these towns virtually belonged to ‘Malaysians’ from the Southern Philippines,” he recalled. “Now, the same man who treated Sabah like rubbish is heading the Opposition to try oust the Barisan Nasional.”
Sabah has been plagued by illegal immigrants for over three decades, causing socio-political and economic problems for the state. Although the numbers vary from thousands to millions depending on who you ask, all agree that the influx of immigrants especially from the Southern Philippines happened during Mahathir’s premiership, a move said to dilute the influence of the majority-Christian Kadazan-Dusun-Murut (KDM) communities.
Mahathir must be brought to account for “Projek IC”, the massive operation that flooded Sabah with illegal immigrants in exchange for Malaysian citizenship in the move dubbed ‘Project IC’ said Madius Tangau, the MP for Tuaran.
Madius who is also the President of the United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (Upko) added that the Sabahans want the PM then (Mahathir) who has admitted to giving out the fake ICs to be held responsible.
Mahathir blamed Anwar Ibrahim, who was his deputy at the time of the ‘Project IC’ taking place, for being directly involved in ‘Project IC’ and for acting without his (Mahathir’s) knowledge, the same blame game he uses in the Scorpene drama where he blamed Najib Razak, who was then the Defence Minister, for paying RM3.7 billion without the knowledge of the Minister of Finance, who also happened to be him (Mahathir).
A day after blaming Anwar, the latter returned the ball to Mahathir’s court saying it was Mahathir who was behind ‘Project IC.’ Anwar pointed out that there was even a taskforce set up by Mahathir to oversee the awarding of Malaysian citizenship to immigrants in Sabah.
Pakatan’s hint that Mahathir would be able to restore Sabah’s rights had Sabah’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) scoff at them for “daydreaming.”
Its President Teo Chee Kang reminded Pakatan that it was under Mahathir’s rule that the state suffered greatly, and lost some of its autonomy.
“I read in the papers that several Pakatan leaders from Sabah recently flew all the way to Kuala Lumpur to see Mahathir on Sabah rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963. I find it ironic. I would like to remind them that it was during Mahathir’s administration in 1983 that our state powers to regulate the distribution of gas and electricity were taken back by the federal government. In the 22 years of Mahathir’s rule we lost numerous state rights to the federal government,” he added.
Dr Jeffrey Kitingan who is Sabah’s STAR Chairman said it was Mahathir who introduced ‘Project IC’ and told him (Jeffrey) not to ‘teach’ the people what they didn’t know (Sabah rights).
‘Project IC’ was also called ‘Project M.’ ‘M’ is for ‘Mahathir.’
Sabah also lost a lot under Mahathir’s rule. In 1983, Mahathir made plans for Labuan to be handed over to the Federal Government. Labuan is an important hub for the oil and gas industry. In order to make oil revenues from Labuan totally the Federal government’s, Mahathir conceived the plan for Labuan to become a Federal Territory during a Barisan Nasional meeting in 1983.
Harris Salleh, who was the BERJAYA Chief Minister of Sabah then agreed to hand over the island over to the Federal government without any deliberation. No referendum was made for the proposal.
In August 1983, Tun Datu Mustapha who was USNO’s President made a call to Labuan’s USNO division to reject the proposal and demonstrate against it. In February 1984, Mahathir proposed for the expulsion of USNO from the Barisan Nasional. On 21 February 1984, the Labuan USNO division voted to dissolve itself in support of the handing over of Labuan to the Federal Government. On 27 February 1984, UMNO Supreme Council voted for the expulsion of USNO from the Barisan Nasional. The expulsion of USNO from the BN took effect on 15 April 1984, one day before Labuan became a Federal Territory.
“We are not giving away our territory because the Federal Government is in the position to develop the island,” Harris said in his defence.
As a result of his subservience to Mahathir, Federal allocation to Sabah increased tremendously during the years when BERJAYA was in power. Despite this, in 1986 the poverty level in the state remained at 33 percent, which was higher than the national average of 18.
The transfers to Sabah from the Federal government dropped in 1986 when PBS under Joseph Pairin Kitingan won the state.
It was during the Mahathir-Harris master-and-servant relationship that Sabah also almost lost its right to determine its own Immigration policy.
Pairin, in reminding Harris on why he was ousted in 1985 as Chief Minister, reiterated that it was under the latter’s Berjaya Government that the state’s rights were slowly eroded until very little was left.
“The Berjaya Government was on the verge of surrendering Sabah’s immigration powers before it was ousted from power,” said Pairin in a bombshell revelation.
Even Lim Kit Siang who is Mahathir’s now best-friend-forever wrote that Mahathir must explain the attempt to undermine Sabah’s rights to its own immigration policies.
He wrote: “As the then Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir – who is still very active and alert in the public domain, even plotting to scalp another Prime Minister – should throw light on another long-kept secret in Malaysia on the circumstances and history of attempts in his first four years as Prime Minister in the eighties to abolish Sabah’s state immigration powers as revealed by Joseph Pairin.”
This goes to show that other than Mahathir neither Lim Kit Siang nor Anwar Ibrahim or their respective parties (PRIBUMI, PKR, DAP) can be trusted to look after Sabah’s rights. But what about Shafie Apdal, once UMNO’s rising star from Sabah?
Shafie’s WARISAN, is seen by many in Sabah as being a proxy of Mahathir’s PRIBUMI. Many also question Shafie’s honesty in wanting to help Sabahans.
“People ask what he did to develop Sabah when he was in the federal Cabinet. Did he do anything to fight for Sabah autonomy? Even the other opposition leaders are asking these questions,” said Unimas don Dr Arnold Puyok to The Star.
Three village chiefs, Sosor Bin Aling from Kg Mempulut , Simon Sinsuran from Kg Dalit Stesen and Lidy Bin Lunggiri from Kg Pohon Batu said in the 1980s when Mahathir was in power, roads were never repaired and electricity did not reach them.
“Along the way, we were still using kerosene. Road conditions were extremely severe and there was hardly clean water to use. The primary schools were still as in the days of the British. However, the current Prime Minister had given them access to electricity and water supply is currently under installation, ” they said.
They said compared to the last 22 years with the last eight years, Najib Razak as the Prime Minister had helped them to get basic amenities like roads, schools and a clinic.
“We therefore fully support the government led by Najib. He is one of the best leaders compared to Mahathir. Logs were felled at the time of Mahathir and our area was also handed over to the major companies and we did not get any results,” they lamented.
Simon thanked Najib as he approved the construction of SMK Dalit which served about 30 villages.
After building SMK Dalit, their children no longer need to go to Keningau to study at secondary schools.
He hoped Najib would upgrade the clinic at the Dalit station.
Similarly, in Kabulu, they asked for a clinic for the good of the people in the area.
With also the toll-free Pan Borneo Highway which is already under construction set to improve communications and livelihood of Sabahans (as well as Sarawakians), it is only right for Sabahans to know that progress will only happen by having an administration that truly cares for its people and delivers promises.
Not the ones who use arm-bending solutions or those who now turn a blind eye on the said solutions just because they want to try ride on the dictator’s self-imagined ‘popularity.’
Not too long ago Al Jazeera interviewed U-Turn Mahathir. In the interview Mahathir told all sorts of lies about the politico-economic situation of Malaysia. Among the things he said was:
“Malaysia will go to the dogs.”
Many disagreed and wondered why, that despite the good showing of economic growth, concurred by the world’s economic institutes, Mahathir said that Malaysia is now as doomed as when he was at the helm.
Mahathir’s 22 years of plundering the nation including allowing the Bank Negara to come to the brink of collapse during his tenure is now being investigated by a Royal Commission of Inquiry and the man is desperate to put the stops to it as it could lead him to become the oldest conman to be jailed.
Even PONY TUA, DAP MP for Petaling Jaya U-Tua wrote about Mahathir’s practice of cronyism once upon a time. Of course like the good Christian PONY TUA is, this is swept under the Pakatan carpet.
Mahathir has hinted that he might have to become Prime Minister again – a very scary thought. Almost all of us remember what it was like during his time to blog and be sent to Kamunting under detention without trial..
He covered that up later by naming a few people as potential Pakatan Prime Ministers including the useless Mat Sabu whose job in Pakatan is nothing more than to promote the “Planet of the Apes” franchise as well as hugging Chinese girls. Something he could not do when he was in PAS.
We all know that Mahathir knows only he is fit to become a Pakatan Prime Minister. He never stopped becoming the Prime Minister or power-broker until Najib Razak put a stop to it. And he is incensed by that.
Although he did not name himself a Prime Minister again, he has again hinted as being the person most qualified for the job. He is now Pakatan’s TOP DOG!
Back in September 1998, I asked a fellow ex-serviceman, a known Anwar Ibrahim supporter, of his direction when Anwar declared war on UMNO. His reply was simple but meaningful:
“You don’t burn your house down just because your family hates you. They are still family.”
When U-Turn Mahathir formed Pribumi, many expected UMNO members to dump the latter in throngs and join the former. That never happened.
Anwar’s facade in his war against Mahathir for the premier post was his “fight against nepotism and cronyism.”
Some “changes” did take place within post-Anwar UMNO. Mahathir’s son Mokhzani stepped down as the UMNO Youth’s treasurer while Mukhriz was not allowed to contest for the Youth Chief position.
As it goes in the Old Testament: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”
The epitome of nepotism in Pribumi is the naming of Mukhriz as its Deputy President while Mahathir, who holds the Chair, is also the de facto leader, something he failed to become in the UMNO under Najib Razak.
The first hint of problems arising in the months-old party is when Mahathir is seen going around doing roadshows with most of the pro-tem committee members including Mukhriz who is the Deputy President, while Muhyiddin Yassin who is the President appears mostly alone.
Two months after the party’s formation, Khairuddin aka Mr Botox, known as Mahathir’s chow kow or running dog left the party to “concentrate on court cases.”
Five months later, both he and Mr Empty Boxes aka Ezam, headed a party called New Gen Party and changed its name to Parti Bebas Rasuah.
Several days ago, the President of the New Gen Party, Kumaar Aaman, and its Secretary-General Mohamad Zaini Jaafar, lodged a report to the police and Registrar of Societies claiming that Ezam had stolen his party.
Barely two months after the departure of Mr Botox, a scandal erupted in Pribumi. Internal rivalry saw the exposure of steamy WhatsApp conversations screen captures between Anina Saadudin and her supposed sex partner. The exposé was done by none other than her own assistant, Haiyan Uqba.
Anina, who is a Mahathir loyalist is rumoured to be at loggerheads with the Osman sisters from Perak. Whether or not they are involved in the scheme to oust Anina is yet to be proven.
Early last month, 500 members of the party from the Rembau division quit the party en masse. According to the PPBM Chief Activist for Negeri Sembilan, Mohd Anas Sudin, he and the 500 have lost their confidence in the party leadership.
Last week, the Gabungan Ketua Cawangan Malaysia (GKCM) decided to withdraw its support for the party’s leadership. The movement claims to have 5,000 supporters.
This was followed today by the resignation from all party posts as well as the leaving of the party by one of its founding members, Kamarulazman Habibur Rahman.
Kamarulazman said that the leadership of Pribumi has their head high in the clouds and are too fixated on becoming the PM.
“Those who worked really hard for the party are now being treated as second-class citizens,” he said.
He added that his departure from Pribumi is being followed by 821 members nationwide, mostly from Negeri Sembilan.
In a feeble attempt to hide the truth, Syed Saddiq attributed Kamarulazman’s departure to “threats” from the government as he is a teacher.
If this is so, are the 1,321 former members of Pribumi teachers too?
However, when expelled from UMNO in March 2016, Kamarulazman made mention that he does not fear losing his job as a teacher for supporting the Opposition.
It’s not a secret that hundreds of teachers support the Opposition yet they are still teaching. So what excuse can Syed Saddiq give now?
Perhaps, as pointed by blogger Anotherbrickinwall, Mahathir too would leave the divided new party.
I doubt any party would take him. DAP, the favourite choice, is filled with people opposed to the idea of working with Mahathir, let alone allowing him to join.
The same goes to PKR.
Perhaps it is time for Mahathir to leave the withering flower and consider retirement from politics and join the only party that would probably make him happy.
What everyone fears most is for the Malays to unite. I wrote this a few months back. All the lawmakers know that the RUU355 amendments have no impact whatsoever to the non-Muslims, and even if all the Muslims MPs from both PAS and UMNO were to vote for the amendments, they will never attain the 2/3rd majority required to pass the bill for it to go to the next stage.
Which is why the Malays in the DAP, PAN, PKR and Pribumi are the tools for the DAP leadership to use, as in the words of Superman Hew, “to screw the Malays using the Malays.”
Objections are raised using mainly the Malay tools. The screen-capture of a Twitter conversation between a BERNAMA journalist and a PAN MP is the evidence to that.
In the run up to its tabling, the RUU355 has met with lots of resistance. I don’t believe that the lawmakers don’t know that it is the right of each religious group to manage and administer its own affairs. I also don’t believe that the lawmakers do not know that Islam is the religion of the Federation.
But the resistance towards it is mainly to avoid the provision of an opportunity for Muslims and Malays to unite just before the next general elections. They oppose just for the sake of opposing.
And then in comes the individuals who do not see or understand that in Islam, protecting the rights of a community supercedes the rights to protect an individual’s rights, nor understand the separation of jurisdiction between the civil law and Syariah law.
This dual system of law first existed in the Malay states in Perak in 1807 with the introduction of the Royal Charter of Justice of 1807 in Pulau Pinang. Prior to that, laws based on the Syariah has been the lex loci of this land.
Islam first came to this land in the ninth century A.D and flourished in the 13th century, 200 years before the kingdom of Melaka was founded. The first evidence of a coded Syariah law was from the Terengganu’s Batu Bersurat, written in 1303, a full century before Melaka.
The kingdom of Melaka produced two major legal digests, which formed the main source of written law in Melaka – the Hukum Kanun Melaka , and the Undang-Undang Laut Melaka . The Hukum Kanun consists of 44 chapters, which touched upon matters such as the duties and responsibilities of the Ruler, prohibitions amongst members of society and penalties for civil and criminal wrongs and family law. The Undang-Undang Laut consists of 25 chapters, which covered maritime matters, such as the duties and responsibilities of ships’ crew, laws pertaining to voyages and trade. The law contained in the above written codes are said to be based on Islamic law of the Shafie School, together with elements of local custom.
Melaka’s written codes were responsible for the growth of other written codes in other states of the Peninsula: Pahang Legal Digest 1595, the laws of Kedah 1605, the Laws of Johore 1789, and the 99 Laws of Perak, 1878.
Therefore, the question of the Syariah creeping into the lives of the Muslims of the land does not hold true. The reverse however is. The RUU355 is not about amending the offences but merely seeking the agreement to enhance the punishments to be meted out for the offences. And as explained in previous writings as per clickable links above, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and therefore offences already covered in the Penal Code as well as in other civil laws made canoot be tried under the Syariah laws of Malaysia.
Furthermore, the separation of jurisdiction of the legal systems provided by the Constitution also ensures that the rights of non-Muslims are protected – only Muslims can be subjected to the Syariah law.
On the question of the Muslims being subjected to dual laws, this is not a problem. If a Muslim commits theft, he will not get his hand amputated in Malaysia. Theft is an offence under the Penal Code and therefore the Muslim offender gets punished according to what is provided for by the Penal Code. The punishments that the Syariah court can mete out cannot go beyond the Second List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
DAP Emperor Lim Kit Siang was against the introduction of Section 298A of the Penal Code of Malaysia. In a Parliament debate on the 9th December 1982 on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 1982 he said the following:
I was aware that the new Section 298A of the Penal Code has also been drafted in order to punish the non-Muslim partner in a khalwat offence until I read a Bernama write-up on the amendment the other day. The Bernama report exulted that now both the Muslim and non-Muslim parties to a khalwat offence would be punishable, the non-Muslim under the Penal Code amendment.
A Muslim found guilty of khalwat is usually fined $200 or $250 under the Muslim enactments of the various States. I have caused a check of the penalties for khalwat, offences in the various states, which vary from State to State but they all range from the lightest penalty of $100 or one month’s jail in Kelantan to the heaviest penalty of $1,000 or six months’ jail, as is to be found in Johore. However, the non-Muslim partner charged under the Penal Code Section 298A for khalwat activity which causes or attempts to cause or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity on feelings of ill-will would be exposed to an offence which is punishable with three years’ jail, or fine, or both.
This is most objectionable and unjust where for the same act, different persons are charged under different laws where one of them imposes much heavier penalties. Or is the Muslim partner in a khalwat charge going to be charged under the Penal Code in the Criminal courts? I am sure that the Shariah Courts in the various States would vehemently oppose this as a serious erosion of the jurisdiction and powers of the Shariah Courts.
So, in 1982 Lim Kit Siang opposed the introduction of Section 298A because a similar offence tried under the Syariah law would only provide for a much lesser sentence. Why is he complaining now about Hadi wanting to introduce higher punishments for the same? Wouldn’t it be fair for the non-Muslims?
As the purpose of the 2M government is to uphold the sanctity of Islam, defend true Islamic values and Muslim unity in the country so as to be able to deal with the problems of kafir mengafir, two imam issue, separate prayers and burials, in the Muslim community, the government should confine its legislative efforts to the Muslims only, and not draft a Bill with such far-reaching consequences in allowing for State interference in the practice, profession and propagation of non-Muslim faiths.
35 years later, he backtracks on the need for Muslims to make better its laws for the Muslims only. Which is why I say Lim Kit Siang is opposing for the sake of opposing so that the Muslims do not rally behind this bill months before the general election is due.
Even PKR’s Wong Chen acknowledged back on 29th Aril 2013, six days before the 13th General Elections that in order to gain support from the Malays, PAS, which was a partner in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, needed to play up the Hudhd issue and had the full support from the parties in the Pakatan Harapan.
Hannah Yeoh, who is the Speaker of the Selangor State Assembly even allowed the Hudud motion to be brought into the assembly. So why oppose the same motion when it is brought into Parliament? Why the double standard?
And why must Lim Guan Eng ask the BN components such as MCA, MIC and others to bear responsibility for the tabling of the RUU355? Why don’t he ask his party’s Anthony Loke and Hannah Yeoh instead? They both supported Hudud and the tabling of Hudud in the Selangor State Assembly (as in the case of Hannah Yeoh).
Anthony Loke even went to town with his support for Hudud telling his Chinese audience not to be aafraid of Hudud:
Yet, the RUU355 is not even about Hudud. So, what is unconstitutional about the RUU355?
Only the objections by the vapid non-Muslims against the RUU355 is unconstitutional, as it is a right given to all religious groups, not just the Muslims, to manage its own affairs. I don’t have to agree with the amendments proposed by the RUU355, but it is my religion and therefore it should be left to the Muslims to manage its own affairs – as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
And as for the atheists, just stay off my social media accounts. You don’t have the locus standi to participate in this debate.