Perak: Ningkan’s not a binding precedent

CAN THE KING DISMISS THE PRIME MINISTER

1) A lawyer sent me a long article on the above subject. He seems to be upset about some decisions made by the courts.

2) I cannot reproduce his long article but some extracts relevant to Malaysia merit attention by the Malaysian public who may be worried that the people’s right to be governed by leaders of their own choice has been eroded.

3) Can the King dismiss the Prime Minister? The answer is;

4) No, if the political framework is that of Constitutional Monarchy and there are no express provisions in the Constitution. Additionally, Constitutional Conventions provides no precedent for the exercise of such a power.

5) The Malaysian Constitution;

Article 40 expressly provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on advice, and by Article 40(2), may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions, that is to say;

a) the appointment of a Prime Minister;

b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament;

c) the requisition of a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned solely with the privileges, position, honours and dignities of Their Royal Highnesses, and any action at such meeting;

and in any other cases mentioned in this Constituion.

6) But the relevant article that will close the debate on whether the Agong can dismiss the Prime Minister is contained in Article 43(5) of the Constitution.

7) It provides as follows;

Subject to clause (4), Ministers other than the Prime Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, unless the appointment of any Minister shall be revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister but any Minister may resign his office.

But, since the Prime Minister does not hold office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it must follow that he cannot be dismissed by the King, but he has to resign from office if he fails to command the majority of the members in the House of Representatives – Tun Dr. Mahathir

Art Harun on ‘Malay Rights’

Visiting the Malay ‘Rights’

By Art Harun

JUNE 18 – I have been labelled anti this and that. Apparently, I am also pro this and that, or the other. Therefore, I am going to begin this article with a disclaimer, just as all accountants do on their reports. This article contains my interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions in respect of the “rights” of the Malays.

And please read the next sentence really slowly. It is not intended to question anything, whether rights or otherwise, belonging to anybody, regardless of his or her race, faith or political leaning.

Malay rights. What a subject. The mere mention of it evokes so many emotions. So much anger and resentment have resulted – on both side of the fence – from this subject.

It has been explored by the likes of Awang Selamat, Mahathir Mohamad, Ibrahim Ali and various NGOs. Our politicians have shouted and screamed about it. Warnings of mayhem and amok have been sounded in case of a challenge against these rights.

Even HRH the Sultan of Perak had spoken about it recently. But I notice not a single person out of 27 million of us has actually taken the trouble to spell out what these rights actually are. And so, let me be the first one to do it.

The supreme law of this country is our Federal Constitution (“FC”). That means every law and policy must be in adherence with the FC. Otherwise, such law or policy would be void for being unconstitutional.

We therefore have to look at the provisions of the FC to determine these so called rights of the Malays.

Generally, article 8 provides that all persons are equal before the law. I say “generally” because there are exceptions to this rule.

Clause 2 of article 8 says that there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender except as expressly authorised by the FC.

So, there you go. All of us are only equal up to the extent as provided by the FC. This means we may be discriminated against if the FC expressly allows it.

Let’s cut a long story short. Article 153 of the FC is right at the centre of this issue. It is a fairly long article, with 10 clauses in it. Basically, these are what that article provides.

Firstly, it says that HRH the YDP Agong has the responsibility to safeguard the “special position” of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Notice that the words used are “special position”, not “special rights.” Notice also that the safeguarding is not only restricted to the Malays but also the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (the “Natives”).

But that is not all. It also says that HRH the YDP Agong is also responsible to safeguard the “legitimate interests” of other communities.

Notice the differences at what is being safeguarded. As for the Malays and the Natives, it is their special position. While in respect of other communities, it is their legitimate interests.

At this juncture, we should know what Malay is. Article 160 defines Malay as a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.

It is not a scientific definition. It is one of the most absurd definitions I had ever come across in any written law. How could you define Malay as a person who speaks Malay and conforms to Malay custom when the very word which was sought to be defined in that definition is the word “Malay”? It is like defining a “mango” as “a fruit which tastes like mango”. Anyway, I digress.

Under article 153, HRH the YDP Agong is given the power to do the followings:

A. To exercise his functions under the FC in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and Natives;

B. To ensure the reservation for the Malays and Natives of positions in the public service, scholarship, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges given by the Federal Government in such proportion as he may deem reasonable;

C. To ensure the reservation for the Malays and Natives of any permits and licenses if such permits or licenses are needed for the operation of any trade or business as he may deem reasonable; and,

D. To ensure reservation for the Malays and Natives of places in any university, college and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) or its equivalent in such proportion as he may deem reasonable in the event the number of qualified person for any course or study is more than the number of places available.

The rest of article 153 is concerned with the prohibition against depriving licences or permits from the non-Malays or non-Natives if they have been in possession of such licenses or permits all along. This is beyond the scope of this article.

The most important thing to be noted from this provision is the fact that there is no right whatsoever conferred to the Malays or Natives.

The provision does not say, for example, that “the Malays or natives of Sabah and Sarawak shall be allocated 75 per cent of all places in universities, colleges or other education institutions, or 65 per cent of all scholarships available in Malaysia every year.”

When we speak of “rights”, we speak of entitlements which are possessed by a person or body of persons. These entitlements would then be enforceable by law.

Taking my example in the previous sentence, a class action to enforce such rights may be brought by the Malays or Natives if such rights are denied them in any year if the provision in the FC is couched as such.

However, that is not the case in the FC. What is provided is a power to HRH the YDP Agong to reserve licences, permits, scholarships, places in universities or positions in public service for the Malays and Natives in such proportion as he deems reasonable. That power is undeniable and clearly defined.

The FC however, in my humble opinion, stops short from conferring any enforceable right.

Question may be asked as to how may HRH the YDP Agong exercise that power. The answer is in clause (2) of article 153.

Clause (2) provides that power shall be exercised by HRH the YDP Agong in accordance with article 40. That simply means that the “power” conferred to HRH in article 153 is not exercisable by HRH at his discretion at all. That power is exercisable on the advice of the Cabinet or any Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. By convention, that person is the Prime Minister.

In the big scheme of things then, HRH the YDP Agong does not have any say on how those things are to be “reserved” for the Malays and the Natives.

Essentially, it is the Government, through a Cabinet decision, which draws out the policy on how this power is to be exercised. Basically, the Cabinet decides the criteria for such “reservation” and also for the distribution of the matters mentioned in article 153.

That means, all these while, it is not Umno alone who decides. It is the Barisan Nasional as a whole, which means the matter has all along been decided by Umno, MCA, MIC and all the component parties within the BN.

Nowadays questions have been raised as to why students with lower scores could gain admission into universities while students (non-Malays) with higher scores could not. The same question is raised with respect to the grant of scholarship.

In the commercial world, questions are being raised on the distribution of government contracts and also the requirement for a certain percentage of Malay shareholdings in corporations.

On the Government side, these questions have been received with absolute disdain. These are treated as a challenge of the rights of the Malays. Rhetoric abounds. Shouts of “ungrateful migrants” could be heard.

There is even suggestion that to question these matters is to question the power of the Ruler under article 153. The “social contract” is referred to.

In my humble opinion, that is misconceived. Nobody is asking for HRH the YDP Agong’s power under article 153 be removed.

I think, rather, what is being questioned is the policy which underlies the exercise of the power as opposed to the power itself.

It must be noted that article 153 repeatedly provides that HRH the YDP Agong shall exercise his power as “he may deem reasonable”. Perhaps such “reasonableness” is the key.

We profess to have a democratic Government and system of politics. If so, surely Government policies, especially those which touch the very basic and fundamental rights of the people, such as the right to education for all citizens, could be discussed, analysed and even questioned.

And surely, a good Government whose heart is with the people and the country would not dismiss such questions nonchalantly.

Otherwise, I suppose, the people could effect a change in such policies by changing the policy makers. – The Malaysian Insider

Less we forget

MEMPERLEKEH PERJUANGAN UMNO

1. Terdapat usaha berterusan untuk memperlekeh perjuangan UMNO dan orang Melayu untuk kemerdekaan.

2. Kononnya orang yang pertama memperjuangkan kemerdekaan ialah Chin Peng, pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya. Chin Peng lah yang cuba membebaskan Malaya daripada penjajah British sebelum mana-mana orang Melayu mencuba melakukannya.

3. Perjuangan UMNO adalah kemudian dari itu.

4. Chin Peng bukanlah orang yang pertama yang memberontak melawan British. Sebelum Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM atau MCP – Malayan Communist Party), sudah ada Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) yang bergerak sebelum Perang Dunia II. Mereka tidak mendapat sokongan penuh daripada orang Melayu Semenanjung kerana mereka cenderung ke kiri. Dengan itu perjuangan mereka tidak begitu berhasil. Namun terdapat beberapa pertubuhan yang secara tidak langsung mewarisi perjuangan mereka. Malay Nationalist Party atau Party Kebangsaan Melayu, Angkatan Belia Insaf dan Putera adalah di antara pertubuhan yang meneruskan perjuangan KMM. Mereka juga tidak mendapat sokongan daripada majoriti orang Melayu kerana disyaki dipengaruhi oleh Komunis.

5. Selepas KMM barulah datang Chin Peng dan PKM. Chin Peng berjuang untuk mendirikan sebuah Communist Dictatorship di mana dia akan menjadi diktator. Bagi orang yang bukan Komunis, terutama bagi orang Malayu kejayaan Chin Peng bukan akan membawa kemerdekaan tetapi mengganti penjajahan British dengan penjajahan Komunis pimpinan Chin Peng dengan majoriti daripada pemerintahan terdiri daripada kaum Cina. Melayu yang akan ada dalam pemerintahan Komunis ini hanyalah hiasan, seperti juga kita lihat keadaan di Singapura sekarang.

6. Bangsa Melayu dan Bahasa Melayu lambat laun akan terhapus.

7. Sebab itu Melayu yang sedikit yang mirip ke kiri pun tidak ingin menyertai MCP. Keadaan dalam MCP sepanjang ia mencuba rebut kuasa, mulanya daripada British dan kemudian daripada Kerajaan Campuran Perikatan dan Barisan Nasional, memberi gambaran akan pemerintahan Chin Peng jika ia berjaya. Orang Cina Komunis akan menjadi pemerintah tetapi Komunis Melayu dengan orang Melayu dan India akan diberi peranan yang kecil dan tidak bermakna sama sekali.

8. Inilah sebabnya yang orang Melayu tidak menyertai pemberontakan MCP melawan British, dan tidak anggapnya sebagai perjuangan untuk kemerdekaan Malaya.

9. Dengan kesedaran dan kepercayaan ini maka orang Melayu telah tubuh badan yang tersendiri untuk betul-betul memperjuangkan kemerdekaan daripada penjajahan British. Badan yang ditubuh ialah UMNO.

10. Orang Melayu tidak percaya yang pemberontakan bersenjata akan berkesan. Ini adalah kerana negara yang akan di warisi jika menang sekalipun sudah tentu akan rosak teruk kerana peperangan.

11. Pendekatan orang Melayu dan UMNO mengambilkira kemampuan mereka. Mungkin perjuangan UMNO tidak gah seperti perjuangan kemerdekaan bersenjata di negara-negara lain, tetapi kemerdekaan yang dicapai oleh UMNO lebih bermakna kerana Malaysia dapat menegak pendirian sendiri dan mengecam kuasa besar di dunia apabila mereka membuat kesalahan.

12. Sesungguhnya UMNO lah yang perjuangkan kemerdekaan sehingga berjaya mencapai kemerdekaan yang bermakna. Chin Peng berjuang untuk mendirikan pemerintahan diktator Komunis yang akan menjajah orang Melayu dan kaum-kaum lain juga. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

Mahathir on Mahathirism and the Extremists

MAHATHIRISM

1. One way of demonising an opponent, particularly a political opponent, is to give him a derogatory label.

2. At one time Lee Kuan Yew labeled me as a Malay ultra. After that caught on, I could do nothing that would not be labeled as extreme. Even if I make the most innocent statement, it would be considered as extreme, as racist.

3. It took me decades to live it down. When I was appointed Deputy Prime Minister there was consternation among the Chinese. What was going to happen to Malaysia when this Malay ultra took over the Prime Ministership?

4. However, by the time I stepped down I had managed to belie that description. In the 1999 Election it was Chinese votes which helped give me the 2/3 majority in Parliament.

5. Now the doomsday label is Mahathirism. Such was the fear of this thing called Mahathirism that Tan Sri Muhyiddin had to assure the public that Najib’s ascendancy to the Premiership would not bring back Mahathirism. The foreign press seem to imply authoritarian Government with Mahathirism.

6. No one has yet described the rule of Dato Seri Abdullah Badawi as Badawism. It must be because he is said to be liberal and free from authoritarianism. But is he?

7. It appears to be simply because the mainstream media, print or electronic, is totally controlled by him through his hatchet man, Kalimullah. And Kali ensures that the media plays up Abdullah’s supposed liberalism, his transparency, his tolerance of the press etc. That the media blacks out any news that is not flattering of him is not noticed by readers, especially the foreign press.

8. Until the bloggers came into the picture and their blogs became extremely popular as they reported the truth, the black-out was effective. Now Kali’s media reports some of the news and views appearing on the blogs.

9. But still the general public is not aware of the kind of authoritarianism of Abdullah. Ministers and civil servants critical of him have been removed. Many are in cold storage. Tan Sri Sanusi Junid who was President of the International Islamic University was one of those removed. No one has been appointed to his vacant place yet.

10. A whole bunch of journalists working with the UMNO owned paper had to resign, to be replaced by Kali’s nominees from Singapore.

11. But Kali has friends amongst the foreign journalists. So we do not hear of Badawism. But privately people have given all kinds of uncomplimentary labels to the 5 years of misrule by the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

12. By now people can draw their own conclusions as to whether Mahathirism in whatever form has returned. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

THE EXTREMISTS

1. We are all held to ransom by extremists. We want to be rational and we all want to do what is best for ourselves and our country. We all want the best for our children and their future. But we cannot do all these because if we do we will be accused of being traitors, not supporting our own community or our own religion. We will be demonized etc.etc.

2. So willy-nilly we become the instruments of these extremists and their narrow jingoism, to our own detriment.

3. In Malaysia we are constantly being asked to confront each other on racial issues. Disputes cannot be resolved by rigidity in our stand. But we have to be rigid if we do not want to be vilified.

4. It is a miracle that this multi-racial country has remained stable and peaceful for so long. If the extremists can have their way we would all be at each others’ throats. We would be demonstrating in the streets and at the airports. If we do not accede to the wishes of the extremists then we cannot even make a living, there will be no investments and no jobs for the workers.

5. Today we are grappling with the problem of education. We have three streams and woe betide anyone who suggests that we should not have them. We talk of liberal society, of free speech, but if you express some commonsensical views you would be labelled racist.

6. Then there is the controversy over the teaching of science and mathematics in English. We curse the person who had proposed this, calling him a betrayer of his mother tongue, of the national language. Then there are those who want to carry out a nationwide strike if the policy is not changed.

7. I am ready to surrender to the extremists, to pay the ransom demanded. What does it matter if the country goes up in flames, if the extremists win the day? What does it matter if the life of our children and their children is blighted? Anything for a quiet life. I want to be a member of the silent majority and just acquiesce. However the habit of a lifetime just refuse to go. – Tun Dr. Mahathir

July 17: wether church can use the word ‘Allah’

Church not allowed to use ‘Allah’ till court’s July 7 decision

By Debra Chong and Edward Cheah

KUALA LUMPUR, May 28 — The Catholic Church failed in its bid to get permission to use the word “Allah” while its suit to overturn the government ban is still being heard in the High Court.

The High Court here said the Catholic Church must wait until it decides conclusively on whether it is allowed to use “Allah” to refer to the Christian God.

“This means don’t use ‘Allah’ until the court decides,” said church lawyer S. Selvarajah.

Reverend Father Lawrence Andrew who edits the Catholic newspaper, The Herald, visibly drooped when he heard the news.

The editor-priest had seemed in high spirits earlier and was confident the High Court would allow the church to use the word “Allah” for the time being. He had smiled frequently while speaking with reporters earlier.

Judge Lau Bee Lan set July 7 for the next hearing after dismissing the church’s request to stay the government ban, lawyers for both the church and the state told reporters this afternoon.

The arguments were carried out in the judge’s chambers instead of in open court.

If the High Court allowed the church to use “Allah” in a non-Muslim context, it would be helping the church commit an offence under state laws, a lawyer for the government explained to The Malaysian Insider.

According to a lawyer representing several state Islamic religious councils, it is an offence for non-Muslims to use the word “Allah” to refer to any God other than the Muslim God.

Abdul Rahim Sinwan referred to the Control and Restriction of the Propagation of non-Islamic Religious Enactment that was passed into law by 10 states in 1988.

The states are: Selangor, Malacca, Perak, Terengganu, Kelantan, Kedah, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Johor and Perlis.

The Catholic Church is suing the Home minister to overturn the Home minister’s ban.

The lawsuit stems from the government’s assertion that “Allah” should strictly refer to the Muslim God in Malaysia. This is a view that the Catholic Church has been challenging.

The word “Allah”, the church argues, does not belong only to the Muslims.

The Herald is published in four languages, including the national language Bahasa Malaysia (BM), which caters to the indigenous Malaysians from Sabah and Sarawak, who are mostly Christians.

Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam filed the suit on February 16 to get a declaration from the courts that the church has the right to use the word in print and in church services.

The Home ministry, which issues the annual printing permit for all publications, had warned the church to stop using the word.

Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, who headed the ministry then, claimed the church’s use of the word “Allah” in any literature published in BM would confuse Muslims, who make up the biggest religious group in the country.

This is the second consecutive year in which Archbishop Murphy Pakiam is suing the Home minister to settle the dispute over the use of the word “Allah”. – The Malaysian Insider

Ilah: Tuhan; Allah namaNya – pemakaian kalimah Allah oleh Catholic Herald: hampa dari pertimbangan yang bernas lagi benar

Beza Antara Merebut Nama Allah Dan Mempertahankan Akidah

Menelusuri kemelut kalimah

Buang DEB? Sudah hebat ekonomi orang Melayu!

Buang DEB Tapi Apa Gantinya?

April 27 2009

A Kadir Jasin

SEMALAM, hari Ahad atau dalam loghat Kedah kemaghin (kelmarin) saya ambil bahagian dalam perbincangan panel ‘Memperkasa Budaya Korporat Dalam Perkhidmatan Pegawai Tadbir Negeri Kedah Darul Aman’.

Majlis itu diadakan bersempena ulang tahun ke-100 Perkhidmatan Tadbir Awam Negeri Kedah atau lebih terkenal dengan Kedah Civil Service (KCS).

KSC ni adalah antara perkhidmatan awan tertua di negara kita. Ia diasaskan oleh kesultanan Kedah lama sebelum British kononnya membawa sistem pentadbiran awam ke Tanah Melayu.

Sebab itulah taat setia kepada Raja menjadi tonggak KCS. Kalau zaman saya lepas sekolah dulu, jadi pegawai KSC gerenti dapat bini cantik. Semua nak jadi DO, ADO dan “Raja Tanah” – Pegawai Pemungut Hasil Tanah.

Jadi dalam posting kali ini saya nak cakap yang mudah saja. Sana sini saya nak guna bahasa yang senang dan gaul (gui, kata orang Kedah) sikit dengan loghat Kedah. Minta maaf la. Saya kalau tak cakap atau tulis bahasa Melayu baku, loghat Kedah mai balik.

Pasai (fasal) guna budaya korporat dalam perkhidmatan awam tu, saya dari awal-awal lagi bagi amaran ada percanggahan di antara dasar dan matlamat budaya korporat dengan budaya perkhidmatan awam.

Satu tujuannya buat untung paling besar walaupun susahkan pelanggan manakala yang satu lagi bagi khidmat paling baik dengan percuma atau pada harga paling rendah kepada pelanggan.

Tapi saya kata, ada ciri-ciri budaya dan amalan korporat macam ikut waktu, cepat, jimat sumber dan kepuasan pelanggan boleh disesuaikan dan diguna pakai.

Macam mana pun, kenyataan saya yang nampaknya dapat reaksi luas dan spontan adalah tentang kelancaran peralihan pemerintahan Kerajaan Negeri Kedah daripada Barisan Nasional kepada Pas selepas pilihan raya umum 8 Mac tahun lepas.

Ini pun ada kena mengena dengan prinsip KCS yang taat kepada Raja, berkhidmat kepada rakyat dan patuh kepada kerajaan yang memerintah.

Bagi saya, nak senang cakap macam ni sajalah. Umno perintah ka atau Pas perintah ka pada dasarnya sama saja. Kalau nasib, kepentingan dan hak kaum majoriti, iaitu Melayu dan Bumiputera diabai, lambat laun bencana akan timpa.

Bencana kepada Perlembagaan, kepada ekonomi, kepada parti yang memerintah dan yang kita sangat-sangat takut bencana ke atas keamanan macam peristiwa 13 Mei, 1969.

Maaf cakap. Bukan nak takutkan sesiapa, tapi kita kena ambil yang baik buat teladan dan yang buruk buat sempadan. Kalau kita lupa sejarah, kita akan ulang kesilapan kita.

Saya tak kata tak boleh buka pasaran atau amal liberalisasi, globalisasi dan macam-macam “si” lagi. Meritokrasi pun buatlah. Hapuskanlah kuota 30 peratus pemilikan Bumiputera dalam 27 sektor kecil (sub sectors) perkhidmatan atau bukalah lagi sektor perbankan kepada pelabur asing.

Tapi kalau hapus satu, kenalah ganti dengan yang lain. Tak kan kaum Bumiputera yang terdiri daripada 60 peratus penduduk Malaysia ni tak ada apa-apa lagi.

Kalau nak keadilan untuk semua macam PKR atau Satu Malaysia macam Perdana Menteri Mohd Najib Abdul Razak, logiknya Bumiputera kenalah dapat 60 peratus juga.

Tapi Bumiputera tak tuntut pun. Tak buat tunjuk perasaan macam pertubuhan haram Hindraf. Tak buat demo macam reformasi. Mereka terima 30 peratus yang Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak bagi bawah Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) dekat 40 tahun lalu.

Orang Melayu dan Bumiputera hati mereka baik . Tak banyak mintak. Tak banyak tuntut. Asyik tolak ansur saja. Mereka sokong Umno. Mereka sokong BN sampai ke hari ini. Tengok hasil pilihan raya kecil Batang Ai baru-baru ini.

MP dan Adun BN dari MCA, Gerakan dan MIC itu pun menang fasal undi Melayu. Dalam pilihan raya umum lalu mereka kalah teruk pasai pengundi Cina dan India tolak mereka. Sampai hari ni pun Cina dan India lebih rela sokong calon Pas daripada BN macam di Bukit Gantang.

Ini bukan kenyataan perkauman atau cauvinis. Ini realiti. Ini keputusan pilihan raya. Tapi PM Mohd Najib bagi juga jawatan kabinet, exco negeri dan timbalan menteri. Ada yang bertambah pun.

Tapi bila kementerian yang jadi payung dan sumber ilham peniaga kecil Bumiputera, iaitu Kementerian Pembangunan Usahawan dan Koperasi (MECD) dibubarkan dan kuota saham Bumiputera dihapuskan secara sistematik, kita wajib tanya apakah pemerintah tidak peduli lagi tentang matlamat DEB dan tentang perasaan orang Bumiputera?

Kalau tersilap tutup MECD, tak apa buat flip flop yang positif dengan menghidupkannya balik. Lagi pun Mohd Najib kata bukan semua kerajaan tahu. Sekarang Bumiputera dah bagi tahu. Mereka marah MECD dibubar.

Boleh bubarkan MECD dan boleh batal pemilikan saham Bumiputera, tapi apa gantinya? Kita boleh tolak ansur, tapi kenalah tolak ansur secara adil, telus dan mudah. Kalau ada habuan biarlah boleh dirasa oleh semua kaum, khasnya kaum majoriti Bumiputera.

Selain pelancaran skim baru saham amanah PNB dan janji-janji pembangunan seimbang, mana program untuk perkasa ekonomi Bumiputera yang semakin tenat sejak akhir-akhir ini?

Pemerintah sendiri akui yang jurang pendapatan antara kaum semakin meluas. Bumiputera, khasnya di Sarawak dan Sabah, semakin jauh ditinggal oleh Cina daripada aspek pendapatan isi rumah. Hatta India pun lebih tinggi pendapatan puratanya berbanding Bumiputera.

Ini bukan angka saya, tapi angka Unit Perancang Ekonomi dan angka Bank Dunia.

Tak apalah kalau Mohd Najib rasa sistem kuota tak bagus atau tak berjaya. Tak apalah kalau Mohd Najib hendak perluas meritokrasi. Bukankah la ni zaman liberalisasi, globalisasi dan meritokrasi dan macam-macam “si” lagi?

Tetapi boleh ka kita capai Satu Malaysia, Rakyat Didahulukan dan Pencapaian Diutamakan kalau 60 peratus rakyat Malaysia tercicir dan berasa kurang yakin dengan nasib mereka sekarang dan pada masa depan?

Perlembagaan adalah tonggak kekuatan orang Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera walaupun hak kaum-kaum lain tetap dijamin.

Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak perkasakan hak keistimewaan orang Melayu dan Bumiputera dalam Perlembagaan ini dengan melancarkan DEB.

Kalau DEB tidak berjaya 100 peratus, bukan salah Tun Abdul Razak atau salah DEB. Itu salah pelaksana dan penerima. Tapi kita kena ingat, kejayaan DEB yang sikit itu pun dah cukup banyak naikkan taraf ekonomi dan maruah orang Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera.

Tak apalah kalau nak tuduh Melayu suka tongkat atau mentaliti subsidi. Tak pa kalau nak kutuk usahawan Bumiputera fasal dapat kontrak dan penswastaan. Memang kita suka kutuk bangsa sendiri pun.

Tapi apa pula halnya dengan monopoli gula yang sampai hari ini dibagi kepada Robert Kuok? Atau lesen judi kepada Goh Tong, Vincent Tan dan Ananda Krishnan?

Atau lesen penjana bebas, kontrak hospital dan tanah Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur kepada Yeoh Tiong Lay dan konsesi balak kepada Tiong Hiew King dan Ting Pek Khiing?

Orang Melayu dan Bumiputera bukan saja kena tahu apa yang mereka dapat, tapi kena juga tahu apa yang orang lain dapat. Jangan berebut sama sendiri saja fasal apa yang ada di tangan mereka sangat kecil.

Dalam dok tengok gelagat politik ni, saya tanya diri saya sendiri, kalau Umno hancur macam banyak orang dok ramal sekarang, boleh ka atau mahu ka Pas jadi parti yang pertahan Melayu?

Atau Pas juga sanggup bertolak ansur kerana hendak berkuasa sampai kedudukan Islam dan orang Melayu dipersenda dan dipersoal?

Seperti saya kata dalam posting 22 April “Perdana Menteri boleh buat apa sahaja dengan peruntukan DEB. Tetapi seandainya dalam tindakan beliau itu orang Melayu, kaum-kaum Bumiputera dan Orang Asli yang berupa rakyat majoriti terus miskin dan terpinggir, matlamat Satu Malaysia, Rakyat Didahulukan dan Pencapaian Diutamakan mustahil tercapai.”

Tentang pelantikan tambahan dan pembahagian jawatan dalam Majlis Tertinggi Umno, saya tak mahu ulas panjang. Yang nampak berat ialah pesalah politik duit dan kayu reput terus ada tempat dalam MT.

Alahai. – The Scribe A Kadir Jasin

Nurul Izzah: We must continue to fight for change; the first battle is to change ourselves for the better

Working for Malaysia’s future

By Nurul Izzah Anwar and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad

APRIL 26 – There has been a lot of negative attention on the Parti Keadilan Rakyat lately. We have come under scrutiny over the recent events in Perak, Kedah and now Penang. As young leaders who have faith in the party’s vision and future, we believe that it’s important to reflect on what we have achieved and examine the challenges ahead.

Keadilan is a young party, the result of a 2003 merger between Parti Keadilan Nasional, founded in 1999 and Parti Rakyat Malaysia, founded in 1955. It came about in part due to the Reformasi movement that emerged following the dismissal and incarceration of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 1998. The movement, as laid out in the Permatang Pauh Declaration, was built on the idea of upholding the dignity of man and the need for the continuous betterment of society.

Both of us became involved in the party when the Reformasi broke out, though under different circumstances.

Izzah, who was a 17-year old university student then, was forced into the public eye as she was Anwar’s eldest daughter. Nazmi, who was a year younger and still in school, was reflecting on how the forces that were unleashed could somehow offer something new to Malaysian politics that had atrophied under Dr. Mahathir. As Izzah travelled the country giving ceramahs not only to defend her father’s innocence but also increasingly to articulate the meaning and significance of the Reformasi movement to ordinary Malaysians, Nazmi attempted to explore the possibility and meaning of a new politics for the younger generation as a writer in the alternative media.

We became acquainted in 2001, as part of a group of young Malaysian professionals finding ways as to how we could contribute to change in our country. In spite of the party’s small presence then, we were all excited and idealistic to be part of the cause to lay the foundations of a truly progressive Malaysian political party.

Three years later, the party was dealt a blow when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi hijacked our message of reform and won an overwhelming victory in polls conducted under dubious circumstances. The party was left with a solitary Parliamentary seat. Soon however, Anwar was released and engaged in a conversation with those inside and outside the party. He charted a more multiracial agenda, against the advice of many. Some were clearly discomfited by this development, and left the party. They either could not accept the shift or felt that no matter how idealistically attractive this paradigm movement was, it spelt political disaster.

But like many young members of the party, we felt that this was the right path to take, the logical extension of Reformasi. Nazmi, in particular decided to take the next step by working for Anwar after completing his studies. We were joined by experienced professionals such as Ibrahim Yaacob and Din Merican, along with talented young Malaysians such as Harvard graduate and blogger Nathaniel Tan as well as UTM student leader and Silicon Valley engineer Sim Tze Tzin.

As the 12th General Elections loomed, both of us along with Sim and Ibrahim were considered as possible candidates for seats. We were reluctant at first, but as many others refused to run under Keadilan’s banner-feeling that the party would surely be defeated- we decided to do it. Izzah was 27, and Nazmi, 26, making us among the youngest candidates in the elections.

It occurred to us from very early on that the young Opposition candidates should work together. Together with our colleagues like Tony Pua and Hannah Yeoh from DAP, we campaigned hard in each other’s constituency, drawing inspiration from the courage and conviction of ordinary Malaysians who wanted change. It was truly people’s power – Makkal Sakti – that defied the odds and trumped cynicism. We were fortunate to win our respective seats and be a part of the now legendary story of the 8th of March.

Keadilan as a result increased its Parliamentary presence from one to 31 seats. Not only that, four states along the West Coast fell to a coalition of PKR, DAP and PAS that eventually became the Pakatan Rakyat. What was more impressive and significant was that a multiracial band of MPs and state assemblypersons won on Keadilan’s ticket, making Keadilan the most successful experiment in multiracial politics in Malaysia to-date.

But the reality of victory also dawned upon us as the euphoria of the 8th of March faded away. We had to meet the manifold expectations of our constituents who voted us in. We had to ensure that the voices of the people were heard in the legislatures and corridors of power.

Nazmi and many other state assemblypersons in the five states had the added responsibility of actually governing, trying to make a 50-year establishment embrace reform and progress.

We immediately saw the limits of operating within the confinements of a governmental system that had become dominated by the executive branch. The people of Kuala Lumpur as a Federal Territory remain dependant to the autonomous and powerful KL City Hall. With no say on budget allocations and choice of Mayor, improvements in housing allocation, delivery and services remain marginal at best. They, unlike their counterparts elsewhere do not have the right to vote for a State Assembly. That is why the movement towards holding local council elections – that can and will start in Pakatan Rakyat states – must persist.

Being wakil rakyats meant that we could no longer confine ourselves to criticising from the sidelines, but actually delivering on our promises to the voters. This involved meeting our constituents that brought their problems to us continuously at all hours. This touched and exposed us to the challenges they, the ordinary men and women of Malaysia have to face each and every day and how we have to do everything within our power to help them better their lives.

We also began to realise that change is unavoidable, especially in our own parties. All political parties evolve, and this process is more often that not tumultuous. In the US for example, the Republicans were the party that freed the slaves under Abraham Lincoln. Now, the Democrats, who opposed Lincoln’s reforms in the 19th century nominated Barack Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2008, who as we know is the country’s first African-American Commander-in-Chief. Nothing is constant in politics, least of all political parties.

In Malaysia, Umno, which was once a party of teachers and village officials, is now a party of racial demagogues and crony-capitalists.

On the other hand, DAP and PAS that used to represent a narrow range of constituencies have become more open and inclusive than ever before. The example of Bukit Gantang and the many mixed constituencies that returned a Pakatan representative last year is testament to this.

The growing momentum for change is bearing down not only on Umno and the Barisan Nasional but also on Pakatan Rakyat. The former responding to this challenge by dithering and relying on the most dishonest sort of triangulation. The latter is, though the path has not always been smooth, is heeding the call.

Keadilan grew from a small coalition of people that came together during Reformasi to a Malaysian political party that is based on hope, progress and a new brand of politics.

Just over a year ago before the elections, when we campaigned across the country, many were surprised that Keadilan still existed.

When we walked up the rusty elevators in Kampung Kerinchi and Desa Mentari, we had to convince ordinary Malaysians that we could offer a genuine alternative to the government.

When we called up our contacts and acquaintances to help out, we became used to both polite and direct rejections. The path we took was certainly not the path of least resistance, but it was the choice of our conviction.

Today, Malaysians from all walks of life, including Malay doctors, Indian college students and Chinese businessmen come together in good faith in our divisions.

We have committed Christians and pious Muslims in our committees. All are eager to hoist the party flag that the people hardly recognised before.

We have unsung heroes like Muslim activist Mohamed Ali Ghazali, small businessmen S. Meng Yee and Vinod Sharma, all working behind the scenes, doing their bit for the party without any thought or expectation of reward. Our victory has made it easier now to get people come and join Keadilan, but we still have to make sure that they understand the struggle and sacrifices that the road ahead demands.

We spoke about renewable energy, economic co-operation, climate change, refugees, urban planning and public transport in Parliament and the State Assembly, but all of this was swept under the radar of the controlled mainstream media.

Our young Pakatan colleagues, including Yusmadi Yusoff in Parliament as well as Amirudin Shari and Gan Pei Nei in the Selangor State Assembly have all made an impact in their speeches that impressed everyone in the legislature. In our constituencies we have set up free health clinics, voluntary tuition centres and crime fighting campaigns by empowering the community. Yet, the mainstream media prefers to focus on sensationalised stories rather than substantive news.

Obviously, any growing organisation will have its ups and downs. Just as we should be credited for our successes, it is just as important that we must be accountable for our shortfalls.

We cannot deflect our own undoing. Some are clearly our own weaknesses, but others reflect the lack of human capital and institutional structure that is a problem across the Malaysian political spectrum. As we continue to build Keadilan and Pakatan Rakyat as a party of the future, be prepared for more ups and downs.

But we are a democratic and open organisation, and we always prefer to resolve our difficulties in the open rather than under the cloak-and-dagger of spin.

The important thing is that in spite of all the difficulties we have faced, we continue to attract the best and brightest Malaysians to push for an inclusive political party, a party that upholds our main objective of establishing a just society and a democratic, progressive and united country.

We have, stated above done a lot for the people, but we do not for one second expect them to be satisfied with just this. We do not ask for support or gratitude in return, but simply that Malaysians continue the spirit of the 8th of March and pressure the Federal Government to increase our civil liberties and political freedoms.

Malaysia’s leaders need to always listen and learn from the people, and this is something that we, the young leaders of Keadilan and Pakatan pledge to do.

The service and dedication that we have rendered to the people will continue as long as we hold office and beyond. We consider this to be the true meaning of ‘putting the people first’. We will do this even in our own house.

Keadilan is in the process of revamping our constitution to ensure that the party is able to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. We want to empower to our grassroots. Our Youth and Women’s wings too, are engaged in massive training exercises from Perlis to Sabah to build the party’s human capital for the long-term. We have sought to improve our election machinery to complement the experience of our partners in Pakatan Rakyat.

We are also open to the idea of more far-reaching reforms to devolve power to the ordinary members of the party, including having party primaries for national leadership positions or even for to select Parliamentary, State Assembly and Local Council candidates.

We can institutionalise debate as part of the campaigning for party positions. We can go further in ensuring that one of the  objectives of our Women’s wing is to make the idea of having at least 30 per cent of our leaders and election candidates as women a reality.

We understand that some Malaysians might get tired with all the drama that has transpired thus far. Some might be losing patience with us. But the choice is clear between the potential of Keadilan and Pakatan Rakyat driven by the young compared to the BN’s tired false power-sharing model where the shadow of the past looms large.

Keadilan will continue to fight for change. The first battle is to fight to change ourselves for the better.

NURUL IZZAH ANWAR, 28, is Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai as well as Keadilan Lembah Pantai Division’s Pro-Tem Head. She graduated from Universiti Tenaga Nasional in electronic and electrical engineering before furthering her studies at the School for Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, US in International Relations. She maintains a web presence at www.nurulizzah.com. – The Malaysian Insider

Note:

Emphasis is Alhaj’s

My joint article in the Malaysian Insider: Working for Malaysia’s future (2)

Datuk Seri Effendi Norwawi: Sarawak’s Chief Minister Stuff?

Effendi- Second Term Senator

Written by Dr. John Brian Anthony

I can smell something is cooking in this appointment. Effendi has graciously step down from his cabinet Post earlier in order to concentrate on his business. Maybe the business is doing very well after the stimulus package that he now has time to dabble in politic again.

A brilliant man

A person usually cannot choose to walk in and out of Malaysian politic and cabinet. Effendi is doing just that. Could he be so indispensable that Tun M, Abdullah and now Najib has to rely heavily on his knowledge, expertise and experience OR Tun M, Abdullah and Najib are beholden to Sarawak Chief Minister Taib for his financial support and all.

What is the plan?

Will Effendi be made an interim Chief Minister of Sarawak soon, to provide the space for Taib’s son Suleiman to mature and learn to speak better. In Parliament, Suleiman does not seemed to know how to speak and answer additional question competently.

Well what ever the case maybe, the hand of Taib can manipulate KL easily. PBB is a key “bumiputera” ally to UMNO. Taib ensure that Sarawak provide the support for UMNO tostay in power at Federal level.

…

- Dayakbaru Weblog

Di bawah payung patriotisma: matinya seorang Nasionalis

Hero Melayu Sarawak

Oleh Michael Sering

USIANYA ketika itu baru 17 tahun dan menjadi pelatih guru. Namun semangat juang bagi menentang British yang ingin kembali menguasai Sarawak selepas Perang Dunia Kedua cukup mengagumkan.

Rosli Dhoby yang berjuang menuntut kemerdekaan Sarawak daripada Inggeris berakhir ke tali gantung pada 2 Februari 1950, selepas menikam Gabenor Duncan Stewart, di Sibu, pada 3 Disember 1949. Semangat kental yang mahu melihat negeri kelahirannya berkerajaan sendiri masih diingati sehingga kini.

Anak muda yang dilahirkan pada 1932 di Sibu menganggotai Gerakan Pemuda Melayu (GPM) yang ditubuhkan bagi menentang keluarga Brooke yang kalah dalam Perang Dunia Kedua tetapi mahu menyerahkan Sarawak kepada pentadbiran British selepas 1945.

Pengkaji Sejarah Sarawak, Dr Chang Pat Foh, berkata tindakan Rosli Dhoby adalah sebahagian sentimen antipenjajah di kalangan penduduk tempatan yang lahir selepas Perang Dunia Kedua.

“Penduduk tempatan mahu keluarga Brooke (yang memerintah Sarawak dari 1839-1942) menyerahkan Sarawak kepada mereka untuk memerintah sendiri dan bukan menjual Sarawak kepada British dengan harga satu juta pound.

Tindakan Sir Charles Vyner Brooke itu mencetuskan kemarahan penduduk Sarawak yang merasakan negeri mereka menjadi barang dagangan yang boleh dijual beli,” katanya pada satu majlis dialog Sejarah Hero Melayu pada Zaman Awal Sarawak, di sini, baru-baru ini.

Tindakan Charles menjual dan menyerahkan Sarawak kepada pentadbiran British pada 1 Julai 1946 mencetus semangat penentangan di kalangan penduduk tempatan terutama golongan cerdik pandai, kakitangan kerajaan dan guru.

Sebelum itu, dua Ahli Parlimen British, D R Rees Williams dan L D Gammans melawat Sarawak pada Mac 1946 untuk mendapatkan pandangan penduduk mengenai isu penyerahan Sarawak sebelum dikemukakan kepada Majlis Negeri untuk kelulusan.

Penduduk tempatan tidak memahami maksud sebenar penyerahan dan isu itu yang kemudian diluluskan selepas berdebat di Majlis Negeri dengan memihak kepada sokongan penyerahan iaitu 19 undi menyokong berbanding 16 undi menentang.

Keputusan itu menyebabkan bermula 1 Julai 1946, British memerintah Sarawak, bagaimanapun, ramai penduduk tempatan tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan berkenaan.

Guru dan kakitangan kerajaan dari kalangan orang Melayu paling ramai menentang penyerahan termasuk Rosli serta mereka yang menganggap penyerahan itu tidak sah dari segi undang-undang dan sebaliknya menuntut kemerdekaan Sarawak.

Rasa tidak puas hati berterusan terutama di kalangan orang Melayu yang kemudian menubuhkan GPM untuk menentang penjajah.

Atas rasa cintakan tanah air, Rukun 13 yang dianggotai 13 ahli GPM yang turut disertai Rosli mengadakan perjumpaan di Jalan Queensway, Sibu pada 21 Februari 1949 untuk mengusir Gabenor penjajah dan wakil yang lain.

Puncak penentangan GPM tiba selepas Gabenor British kedua, Duncan Stewart yang mentadbir Sarawak membuat lawatan pertama ke Sibu.

Mereka merancang mengambil peluang itu ketika Stewart melawat Sibu pada 3 Disember 1949, tarikh Rosli dipilih untuk menikam Stewart bagi memberikan gambaran kepada Inggeris yang masanya sudah tiba bagi Sarawak untuk merdeka.

Pada jam 9 pagi, ketika penduduk Sibu berkumpul bagi menyambut Stewart dan beberapa pegawai Inggeris yang tiba dalam satu barisan panjang sambil pelajar mengibarkan bendera Inggeris dan Sarawak, Rosli pula bersedia ditengah-tengah orang ramai dengan rakannya Morsidi Sidek yang menyamar sebagai jurugambar.

Kira-kira 9.30 pagi ketika Gabenor bergerak ke arahnya, Rosli terus mengeluarkan badik (senjata tradisi yang disapu racun) dan meluru serta menikam perut, sambil melaungkan perkataan: “keluar dari Sarawak atau kamu mati”, pada masa yang sama Morsidi pula menyerang pegawai Inggeris, yang hanya dikenali sebagai Mr Dilks.

Mereka berdua ditangkap polis di tempat kejadian, manakala Stewart yang dalam keadaan kritikal dihantar ke Hospital Lau King Howe Sibu sebelum diterbangkan ke Singapura pada pagi esoknya dan meninggal dunia tujuh hari selepas kejadian.

Pada 15 Disember 1949, Rosli dan Morsidi Sidek serta dua lagi rakan seperjuangan mereka, Awang Ramli Matsaruddin dan Bujang Suntong dihukum gantung sehingga mati di Penjara Pusat Kuching.

Pada awal pagi, 2 Mac 1950, Rosli dan Morsidi Sidek, digantung di Penjara Pusat Kuching, di Jalan Tabuan, Kuching, namun British tidak membenarkan jenazah mereka dibawa keluar dari kawasan penjara.

Tindakan itu kononnya bagi mengelakkan tunjuk perasaan dan bantahan ahli keluarga serta pihak antipenjajahan terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadap mereka berdua, sebaliknya dikebumikan di satu sudut pekarangan Penjara Kuching, tanpa sebarang pengenalan pada kubur.

Nasib sama menimpa Awang Rambi dan Bujang Suntong yang dihukum mati pada 23 Mac tahun yang sama turut dikebumikan tanpa nesan.

Pada 1996, Kerajaan Sarawak merasakan adalah tidak wajar untuk wira dan nasionalis berkenaan kekal terpenjara selepas dihukum gantung 46 tahun dulu.

Dengan persetujuan ahli keluarga, kubur Rosli dan tiga rakannya digali semula dan dikebumikan dengan sempurna di tempat kelahiran asal mereka iaitu di Sibu.

Pada 2 Mac 1996, kubur keempat-empat wira itu digali semula dan tinggalan jasad dikeluarkan dan dibaluti dengan bendera Sarawak dengan penuh penghormatan sebagai pahlawan ke Padang Merdeka dan dibawa dengan dua helikopter Nuri ke Sibu yang disambut lebih 2,000 warga Sibu.

Jasad mereka dikebumikan di perkuburan Masjid An Nur pada 2 Mac 1996 iaitu bersamaan tarikh Rosli dijatuhkan hukuman gantung.

Bagi penjajah British, Rosli adalah penjenayah, namun bagi penduduk Malaysia, beliau adalah wira yang berjuang dan menggadai nyawa untuk memerdekakan negeri ini dari cengkaman penjajahan. – mforum.cari.com.my

Mahathir’s Ketuanan Melayu

Dr M says there is no Ketuanan Melayu without parity

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 4 – Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed joined the roiling debate on race relations by declaring there was no such thing as Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay Supremacy because racial parity had not been achieved yet.

He also said that Malaysians were not yet ready for freedom of speech, while he also expressed doubts about Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s leadership abilities.

Speaking on a special interview with Riz Khan on satellite television station Al-Jazeera, he said that Malays were in fact, the underdogs.

“There is no such thing as Ketuanan Melayu. We are the underdog.

“The shoe-polisher is not the Tuan (master). The man who pays you is the Tuan. I used to have a Chinese driver, he called me Tuan,” he quipped.

Dr Mahathir defended the Malay affirmative action policies in Malaysia despite the fact that Malays formed the majority of the country, whereas affirmative action in other countries were implemented to help minorities.

“It is not about majority or minority. It is to address the disparity.

“The Chinese dominate the economy but the majority is poor and we need to bring them up to achieve parity,” he said.

Having been in office for over two decades, Malaysia’s longest serving Prime Minister added that the stronger presence of the Malays in the political field was to balance out the dominance of the Chinese in the economy.

He also added that there was nothing to stop the country from having a non-Malay Prime Minister so long as “he has the support of the majority.”

When Khan suggested that the system was skewed to the Malays, Dr Mahathir disagreed, saying “it is not skewed, it is in the constitution.”

Dr Mahathir also insisted that he was a Malay and not an Indian. Khan had implied that Dr Mahathir had tried to deny his Indian ancestry in the past.

“There is a lot of foreign blood in this country… we are at the crossing point between the East and West,” Mahathir replied, adding that he is Malay by definition.

He also expressed concerns that current Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak might not step up to the premiership after the March Umno party polls despite winning the presidency unconstested.

Dr Mahathir had recently said that his successor and current Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi may choose to stay on as PM despite not being Umno president, which he claims will be to the detriment of the party and country.

“Najib has not shown any strength in the political field. He is more a follower than a leader and he must change that,” Dr Mahathir explained.

Khan then asked if this “change” meant a reversion to “Mahathirism.”

“Mahathirism… I do not know what that is,” was the elder statesman’s reply.

He rejected the idea that his rule was autocratic but merely “sensible” due to the fact that Malaysia is “prone to instability” as it is a multiracial society. He further suggested that Mahathirism was synonymous with economic development instead.

On this point, he also criticised the level of openness practised by the current administration, stating that the country is not ready for such liberalisation.

“They say it is good to be more open but it is premature. The people do not understand freedom of speech and it has caused racial tension,” he said.

He told Khan that in his tenure as Prime Minister, such matters were discussed between leaders behind closed doors. He concurred with the suggestion that racial sentiments were more heated today than during his premiership as “now, the different races are at each other’s throats.” – The Malaysian Insider