Rudyard Kipling"
“When you're left wounded on Afganistan's plains and
the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier”
General Douglas MacArthur"
“We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .” “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
“Nobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass
"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint."
I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,
The Soldier squared his shoulders and said
And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here,
Lord, It needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
Muda acting president Amira Aisya Abdul Aziz in a quote that opens
this piece reiterated the party’s political stance specifically defining
“people” as transcending religion, race and skin colour which is
directly in contrast with what PN stands for.
With PN we are
dealing with a coalition unshackled by the requirements of
multiculturalism or power-sharing, which was always a farce anyway, and
purely operating on racial and religious imperatives in which they hope
to impose majoritarian rule.
These
people continue to gaslight the public with terms like democracy and
anti-corruption and are aided by a mainstream establishment which does
not have the political will to stop them because it fears spooking the
Malays.
The fact that Syed Saddiq blindsided his party with this
move demonstrates the kind of person he is and truthfully, he would fit
right in with the rest of the race hustlers and religious hucksters
which is PN.
Indeed on social media Muda has been attempting to
highlight issues which affect Malaysians, especially those from the
lower income brackets.
Together with PSM, Muda has also been
attempting to form an alternate narrative than that from the mainstream
political parties which is defined (rightfully) for non-Malay voters by
fear.
Muda not only has to contend with PN but also the supposedly
democratic and progressive coalition government. More importantly, they
have to contend with the Pakatan Harapan base which claims to want a
better Malaysia but in reality, only wants to replicate Umno/BN era
politics and policies.
Young people, especially from the Malay
community, are disenchanted with mainstream politics. They view PN as a
workable alternative to the power-sharing formula which, after decades
of propagandising, has taught them is to their expense.
Muda secretary-general Amir Hariri Abd Hadi’s remarks that “We want
to firmly remind all parties once again not to arbitrarily issue
statements that go beyond the party’s decisions,” is one way of telling
Syed Saddiq to keep his mouth shut.
For a better Malaysia
Keep
in mind that the person who announced this roadshow was Muhyddin, an
old comrade of Syed Saddiq from his Bersatu days, and good old Syed
Saddiq was not above playing the race and religion card when it came to
culture wars that afflict Malaysians.
The
Muar MP defended his reservations against the International Convention
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, was busy signing online
petitions to ban Oktoberfest in Selangor and pressuring P Waymoorthy to
resign from his minister post after his objections as to how the
Seafield Temple fiasco was handled and portrayed by the press and the
state security apparatus.
And look at the record of PN when it
comes to people-centric issues. The failure of PN-led governments in
certain states has demonstrated that PN political operatives are more
than willing to lead the Malay community to the slaughterhouse - as long
as PN political operatives can benefit from the gravy train that powers
the ketuanan (supremacy) bureaucracy.
Nobody ever goes
to PN- or PAS-controlled states to look for employment, right? They come
to the “infidelic” states where supposedly the Malays are oppressed. So
much for thinking about “the people”.
Now of course all of this
could be overlooked if Syed Saddiq really had a road to Damascus moment
and decided that he wanted to change the political landscape in this
country for the better.
This, however, is not on the cards. By
doing this, Syed Saddiq has not only compromised his party but also PSM.
As it is, both parties are attempting to do something which could
change Malaysia. My opinion is that it is too late but all we have is
the struggle.
It is a pity that Syed Saddiq does not take a page
from PSM co-founder Mohana Rani Rasiah’s playbook. When PSM suffered a
wipeout as reported in the press Rani said the loss deeply affected her
but “… it also taught her that more needed to be done to expose the
electorate to the values espoused by PSM, and this meant canvassing for
votes in a way she is most comfortable in - providing service.
Dark truths on '98 Commonwealth Games emerge By R Nadeswaran
Sunday, March 17, 2024
Malaysiakini : I persevered with a continuous barrage of questions for Hashim Mohd
Ali, the executive chairperson of Sukom 98 and CEO Manap Ibrahim.
None were forthcoming.
Given
the scandal that engulfed the bids made for the football World Cup at
that time, I wrote: “It is pertinent to reiterate that every bid for any
event – not necessarily football or sports – comes under heavy
scrutiny.
“Even the slightest deviations from the norm is likely
to be examined with a fine-tooth comb and every scribe worth his salt is
likely to dig and dig every bid.”
Real cost of ‘98 Games
Yesterday, Hashim broke his 26-year silence by giving us a hint on how much the games cost the government.
In
opposing plans to host the 2026 Games, he said: “We were given a RM1
million grant from the government to set up Sukom 98 Bhd, and we had
four years to prepare for it. We looked for sponsorship and did not rely
on government funds.
“Mastercard gave us a US$5 million
sponsorship while Malaysian Airlines sponsored air tickets to be shared
by athletes and officials of the 69 Commonwealth countries. It was a big
deal back then.”
But what he did not tell us is that the government spent millions on
the 88,000-seater national stadium, the aquatic centre, and the hockey
stadium in Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur.
What about the upgrades of the velodrome, sports fields, and other amenities?
The
then deputy sports minister Loke Yuen Yow told Parliament that
preliminary estimates found the games would generate about RM38 million
in ticket sales. Organisers forecast a profit of around RM5 million.
However, Hashim seems to have selective memory and omitted details of income and expenditure.
How
much did it cost to make the thousands of colourful blazers for
officials and delegates? How much was spent on hotel suites for those
classified as VIPs and VVIPs?
What about other sources of income including minor sponsors, car number plates, sale of apparel, and souvenirs?
Carlsberg controversy
The most glaring omission is that it had to pay a brewery after signing a sponsorship deal.
In
response to demands from religious quarters, the government banned
Carlsberg’s sponsorship of the games - just two months before it began.
The cabinet decreed that all traces of Carlsberg must be removed, but Carlsberg was faced with a sizeable logistical task.
Fleets
of buses and taxis proclaiming the company’s sponsorship, banners in
shops, and of course, it was advertised on thousands of litres of tinned
and bottled beer (collector’s items of these paraphernalia are still
available on Carousel).
BBC reported that the organisers
were also facing trouble - they would have to repay £800,000 (RM5.6
million at the time) of sponsorship money and could be facing a £1
million bill from distributors for cleaning up the mess.
BBC
said: “Malaysia is the first Asian nation to hold the games, and the
organisers were already facing financial problems because of the
region’s economic slowdown. Budgets for the opening and closing
ceremonies have been slashed.”
There was also a protracted dispute with the ticketing agent that went to court.
Gymnast attire
Why bring up these episodes and dark history? There’s danger at every turn.
If
we decide to host the games, will the government ban leotards and
swimsuits to appease the “Green Wave” and show its green is brighter
than the other side?
How do you do a triple somersault wearing a sarong or would a female athlete dive into a pool wearing a house coat?
Be warned. The drums of godly augmentation have already started beating.
As it is, PAS-led Terengganu has banned female gymnasts from participating in the Sukma Games since 2019, citing concerns about their attire not adhering to syariah standards.
Gymnasts have pulled out, but does anyone care?
Such
misogynistic edicts will certainly resurface and once again, Malaysia
will be making the headlines the world over for the wrong reasons.
Additionally, will athletes from countries that did not condemn the atrocities of Israel be harassed?
JAWAPAN DAN KENYATAAN BALAS PRESIDEN PSPRM, MEJ HJ MIOR ROSLI TUDM (BERSARA), TERHADAP KENYATAAN YB MENTERI PERTAHANAN DAN PENDAPAT PEGUAM NEGARA DI PERSIDANGAN DEWAN RAKYAT PADA 12HB MAC 2024 MENGENAI RAYUAN MEREKA KE MAHKAMAH RAYUAN KEATAS KEMENANGAN TUNTUTAN PSPRM DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI PADA 5HB MAC 2024 Part 4 of 4
PADA 11HB MAC 2024, KETUA PENGARAH PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, TELAH MERASMIKAN SATU SESI TAKLIMAT DAN LIBAT URUS ATM BERSAMA JPA MENGENAI KAJIAN SKIM SARAAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, DI AUDITORIUM MINDEF YANG CUBA MENYAMAKAN GAJI TENTERA DENGAN AWAM.
Ramai veteran telah menghantar WhatsApp kepada saya untuk menanyakan apakah yang telah berlaku pada 11hb Mac 2024. Agak sukar bagi saya untuk menjawab setiap soalan yang di tuju kepada saya secara peribadi, maka disini saya cuba memberi penerangan yang ringkas kepada semua veteran yang ingin tahu.
Bagi tujuan libat urus tersebut, satu sesi perbincangan awalan telah diadakan untuk menyediakan input-input libat urus bersama JHEV ATM telah diadakan pada 7 Mac 24 @ Bilik Minda 3, Wisma Perwira jam 9.30 pagi. Bagi tujuan perbincangan pada 7 Mac 24 tersebut, saya telah di jemput khas oleh KP JHEV untuk hadir bagi memberi input kepada tujuan perbincangan. Pihak JHEV ATM juga telah mengenalpasti wakil tambahan daripada pihak persatuan lain. Saya juga mewakili RAFOC atas permintaannya Presiden RAFOC yang turut berada didalam Tim tersebut. Oleh kerana kami kurang pasti apa yang hendak di persembahkan oleh JPA pada 11hb, kami membuat persediaan soalan dan pendirian mengenai perbezaan ATM dan awam dan kami tidak bersetuju jika Saraan gaji ATM di samakan dengan awam.
17 orang Tim veteran bagi sesi khas pada 7hb (dan untuk 11hb mac 2024) bagi pebincangan dan taklimat Sistem Saraan Perkhidmatan awam adalah seperti berikut:
(a). RAFOC - 5 Orang (Saya berada di sini)
(b). PVATM - 3 Orang
(c). PVTUDM - 3 Orang
(d). PVTLDM - 3 Orang
(e). MACVA -1 Orang
(f). PERIM - 1 Orang
(g). PVATTBM - 1 Orang
Semua yang dicalonkan menjadi Tim Perbincangan ini secara automatik telah dijemput ke Sesi Taklimat dan Libat Urus Kajian SSPA bersama pihak JHEV ATM dan JPA pada 11 Mac 2024 bermula jam 8.30 pagi di Auditorium KEMENTAH. Pada sesi pagi 11hb Mac JHEV telah menjemput veteran-veteran tambahan berikut untuk turut mendengar taklimat dan perbincangan mengenai Sistem Saraan Perkhidmatan Awam 2024:
(a). RAFOC - 15 Orang
(b). PVATM - 5 Orang
(c). PVTUDM - 5 Orang
(d). PVTLDM - 5 Orang
(e). MACVA -3 Orang
(f). PERIM - 3 Orang
(g). PVATTBM - 2 Orang
Saya dapati Presiden PVATM TIDAK hadir di semua sesi taklimat dan perbincangan. Boleh dikatakan separuh kehadiran di dalam Auditorium KEMENTAH di penuhi oleh pegawai2 ATM temasuk Panglima-Panglima ATM dari ketiga-tiga perkhidmatan TERMASUK AHLI-AHLI MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAT). Selepas perasmian oleh KPPA, semua ahli MAT dan majoriti Panglima-Panglima ATM dan mereka yang berpangkat Jeneral meninggal kan majlis tersebut. Sesi Taklimat tersebut di sambung oleh wakil Bahagian Penyelidikan, Perancangan dan Dasar JPA. Pasa sesi soal jawab tidak ada seorang pun anggota/pegawai ATM yang sedang berkhidmat bertanya soalan walaupun taklimat tersebut melibatkan Perancangan untuk meyamakan gaji dan gred anggota ATM dengan Awam. Hanya wakil RAFOC termasuk saya yang bangun dan beri pendapat yang KAMI TIDAK SETUJU ATM DI SAMAKAN DENGAN AWAM
Disebelah petangnya 17 orang Tim Veteran bersama KP JHEV hadir bagi perbincangan lanjut dengan wakil Bahagian Penyelidikan, Perancangan dan Dasar JPA di Mes Perwira KEMENTAH. Banyak perkara yang kami bangkitkan dengan wakil JPA tersebut adalah:
(a). Kenapa Kerajaan masih mahu merayu keatas kemenangan PSPRM di mahkamah tinggi walhal kerajaan dengan nyata kalah dalam Rayuan mereka dalam kes tuntutan pencen yang di buat terhadap Hakim Sabah, kes pindaan 2% kenaikan terhadap akta penyelarasan pencen Perkhidmatan Awam (Aminah), kes Senator dan juga kes 35 orang bekas hakim dan balu mengenai Penyelarasan pencen mereka. Wakil JPA tidak mampu menjawab soalam kami.
(b). Kami/Saya juga memberi penerangan dan hujahan dari sudut undang-undang kepada wakil JPA bahawa ATM adalah satu organisasi Perang yang tidak sama dengan Perkhidmatan Awam Am. Kami juga menerangkan bahawa syarat-syarat perkhidmatan ATM jauh berbeza dengan perkhidmatan awam am.
(c). Kami/saya memberitahu bahawa adalah tidak adil majoriti Pesara ATM hanya dapat pencen 50% dari gaji terakhir berbanding dengan Pesara perkhidmatan awam am Yang kesemuanya mendapat pencen 60% dari gaji terakhir mereka.
(d). Kami/saya menyoal JPA kenapa jasa veteran ATM tidak di ikhtirafkan oleh kerajaan walhal kami lah organisasi yang di barisan hadapan berjuang dan berkorban untuk meyelamatkan Negara ini dari ancaman musuh sejak 1933 lagi.
(e). Saya juga menegaskan bahawa MAT bertindak atas kuasa Am YDPA dan huraian atas 3 bidang di dalam Perkara 137 Perlembagaan Persekutuan di huraikan didalam Akta Angkatan Tentera. Contohnya seksyen 157 YDPA memberi kuasa kepada MAT untuk membuat peraturan gaji ATM dan seksyen 187 YDPA memberi kuasa kepada MAT untuk membuat peraturan pencen ATM. MAT juga menpunyai kuasa kebelakangan (Retrospective powers) ke tarikh sebelum Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972 di buat dan boleh meminda undang-undang yang telah dibubarkan seperti di senaraikan di seksyen 217 (1).
(f) Kami juga memberi tahu JPA kuasa MAT dari segi sumber manusia ATM adalah sangat luas seperti yang dinyatakan di seksyen 5 hingga seksyen 36 Akta Angkatan Tentera.
(g) Kami juga tidak setuju apabila JPA cuba samakan ATM seperti pasukan pakaian seragam awam seperti PDRM, Bomba, penjara dan lain-lain kerana syarat-syarat perkhidmatan dan tata cara kerja mereka tidak sama dengan tatacara kerja ATM.
Banyak lagi perkara yang kami terangkan yang kami dapati JPA khilaf dan cuba samakan ATM dengan perkhidmatan awam (perkhidmatan sivil).
Saya juga kagum atas keberanian dan ketegasan KP JHEV menyokong pendirian kami dan tidak seperti pegawai2 yang hadir di sesi taklimat dan perbincangan di Auditorium KEMENTAH di sebelah pagi hari yang sama.
Saya harap semua veteran memahami apa yang telah saya huraikan diatas dan saya percaya kita akan berjaya dalam perjuangan kita ini.
Akhir kata di hari baik dan bulan baik ini saya sudahi dengan WASOLLALLAHU ‘ALA SAYYIDINA MUHAMMADIN WA’ALA ALIHI WASOHBIHI WASALLAM WALHAMDULILLAHIROBBIL’ALAMIN
JAWAPAN DAN KENYATAAN BALAS PRESIDEN PSPRM, MEJ HJ MIOR ROSLI TUDM (BERSARA), TERHADAP KENYATAAN YB MENTERI PERTAHANAN DAN PENDAPAT PEGUAM NEGARA DI PERSIDANGAN DEWAN RAKYAT PADA 12HB MAC 2024 MENGENAI RAYUAN MEREKA KE MAHKAMAH RAYUAN KEATAS KEMENANGAN TUNTUTAN PSPRM DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI PADA 5HB MAC 2024 Part 3 of 4
RAMAI YANG BERTANYA APAKAH TINDAKAN PSPRM SETELAH MENANG DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI.
Berikut adalah surat Peguamcara PSPRM kepada Peguam Negara, Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Pertahanan (HK/L1027/PBT/19 both 11 Mac 2024):
PER: DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR
SAMAN PEMULA NO.WA-24NCVC-3989-11/2022
MIOR ROSLI BIN MIOR MD JAAFAR DAN 49 YANG LAIN
LWN
1. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
2. PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA
3. MENTERI KANAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA
4. MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA
Dengan segala hormatnya kami merujuk kepada perkara diatas yang telah di tetapkan untuk pendengaran pada 5.2.2024.
2. Pada tarikh Pendengaran pada 5.2.2024 tersebut, Mahkamah telah memberikan Perintah yang berpihak kepada plaintif-plaintif dalam perkara diatas . Bersama-sama surat ini kami majukan sesalinan Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi bertarikh 5.2.2024 yang bermeterai seperti yang dilampirkan di Kembaran A untuk kemudahan rujukan pihak anda.
3. Justeru, kami bagi pihak Anakguam-Anakguam kami memohon kepada pihak anda untuk mematuhi Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut supaya kedudukan kehakiman tindakan ini di patuhi selengkapnya olih pihak anda. Sekiranya anda gagal untuk mematuhi Perintah tersebut dalam tempoh tiga puluh (30) hari dari tarikh penerimaan surat ini, kami mempunyai arahan Anakguam-Anakguam kami untuk meneruskan dengan apa-apa prosiding pengkomitan terhadap anda.
4. Tindakan segera pihak anda amat dihargai demi kepentingan bersamadan didahului dengan ucapan terima kasih.
5. Sila akui penerimaan di salinan pendua surat ini.
JAWAPAN DAN KENYATAAN BALAS PRESIDEN PSPRM, MEJ HJ MIOR ROSLI TUDM (BERSARA), TERHADAP KENYATAAN YB MENTERI PERTAHANAN DAN PENDAPAT PEGUAM NEGARA DI PERSIDANGAN DEWAN RAKYAT PADA 12HB MAC 2024 MENGENAI RAYUAN MEREKA KE MAHKAMAH RAYUAN KEATAS KEMENANGAN TUNTUTAN PSPRM DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI PADA 5HB MAC 2024 Part 2 of 4
ISU KEDUA: PADA PERSIDANGAN DEWAN RAKYAT PADA 12HB MAC 2024, MENTERI PERTAHANAN (KHALID NORDIN) TELAH MEMBUAT SATU KENYATAAN YANG SALAH DAN MENGHINA DYMM SPB YDPA DAN RAJA-RAJA MELAYU DENGAN MENGATAKAN BAHAWA DYMM SPB YDPA TIDAK ADA KUASA TERHADAP ATM DAN ATM ADALAH PERKHIDMATAN AWAM DAN DUDUK DI BAWAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM.
Saya sungguh terkejut dan kecewa atas hujah Menteri Pertahanan yang katanya atas nasihat dan pandangan Peguam Negara.
Pertama, Menteri Pertahanan mengatakan bahawa perkara 41 harus di baca secara harmoni dengan perkara 132 Perlembagaan adalah SALAH!
Mari kita baca apakah ayat perkara 41 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Perkara 41 menyatakan: PEMERINTAH TERTINGGI ANGKATAN TENTERA: YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG HENDAKLAH MENJADI PEMERINTAH TERTINGGI ANGKATAN TENTERA PERSEKUTUAN. Didalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan ayat Perkara 41 adalah ayat yang terpendek dan tepat (short and sharp) didalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ianya tidak mempunyai sebarang huraikan atau penerangan yang mecurigakan.
Perkara 132 (1) pula hanya memberitahu jenis-jenis perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan awam yang terdapat didalam Persekutuan dan di Negeri-Negeri didalam Persekutuan dan Negeri kerana Perkara -Perkara 137, 138, 139,140, dan 141A menerangkan bidangkuasa masing-masing.
Pada pandangan saya Perkara 41 Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Panglima Tertinggi Angkatan Tentera) hanya berkait dengan perkara 137 (Majlis Angkatan Tentera) sahaja dan tidak kepada Suruhanjaya-Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam yang lain.
Pada pendapat saya oleh kerana perkara 41 tidak ada huraian atau tafsiran atau peruntukan khusus didalam Perlembagaan yang boleh mencurigakan tafsiranya, maka ianya hendaklah dibaca bersama Perkara 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang berbunyi ... KEDAULATAN, PEROGATIF, KUASA DAN BIDANG KUASA RAJA-RAJA DAN PEROGATIF, KUASA DAN BIDANG KUASA PEMBESAR-PEMBESAR MEMERINTAH NEGERI SEMBILAN DI BAWAH WILAYAH-WILAYAH MEREKA MASING-MASING.
Jika kita lihat Perkara 137, hanya komposisi Majlis Angkatan Tentera sahaja mempunyai seorang wakil mewakili Duli-Duli Yang Maha Mulia yang dilantik oleh Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu, dan bukan di lantik oleh YDPA seperti jawatan-jawatan yang lain. Jawatan ini tidak terdapat didalam Suruhanjaya-Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam yang lain. Ayat yang berbunyi,Majlis Angkatan Tentera yang hendaklah bertanggungjawab dibawah KUASA AM YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG di Perkara 137(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menpunyai makna yang tersendiri dan khusus.
Pada saya Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) duduk di bawah Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam dibawah Perkara 139 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Dalam Perkara 139(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan jelas menyatakan bahawa Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam TIDAK ADA BIDANGKUASA TERHADAP MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA
Kedua, Menteri Pertahanan membuat rujukan kepada kes kes awam yang tidak ada kena mengena dengan kuasa Majlis Angkatan Tentera. Menteri Pertahanan seharusnya merujuk kepada kes-kes seperti:
Kes Mahkamah Persekutuan:
Majlis Angkatan Tentera & Kerajaan Malaysia lwn Mej Fadzil bin Arshad [2011]
Kes Mahkamah Persekutuan: Abdul Salam Husin lwn Majlis Angkatan Tentera [2011]
Kes Mahkamah Rayuan: Majlis Angkatan Tentera lwn Nurul Ami Bin Mohd Basri [2019]
Dalam kes Nurul Ami, Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan bahawa apa-apa perintah atau undang-undang yang di buat oleh Majlis Angkatan Tentera terhadap anggota tentera mengatasi semua Undang-undang yang di buat oleh Parlimen atau Dewan Undangan Negeri.
Ketiga, saya setuju apabila Menteri Pertahanan menyatakan yang tidak semua kes yang di bawa ke Mahkamah kerajaan menang walaupun kerajaan mengunakan kuasanya untuk merayu kepada Mahkamah yang lebih tinggi. Dalam kes mengenai peraturan pencen dan penyelarasan pencen, kerajaan kalah di mahkamah dalam kes bekas hakim di Sabah, kalah dalam kes pencen Senator, kalah dalam kes pencen perkhidmatan awam/aminah dan kalah dalam kes pencen 35 orang hakim dan balu-balu baru-baru ini. Kes yang saya bawa baru-baru pun telah menang di mahkamah tinggi kerana mahkamah jelas terhadap undang-undang yang peguamcara kita kemukakan. Hakim telah "validified" apayang kita tuntut selama ini.
Keempat, Menteri Pertahanan (yang juga Pengerusi MAT) dan Peguam Negara harus faham Angkatan Tentera tidak tertaklok kepada Akta Pencen 1980 dan juga tidak tertaklok kepada Akta Penyelarasan Pencen 1980. Kami yang bersara sebelum 2013 adalah tertakluk kepada PU(A)123 tahun 1982. (Peraturan-Peraturan Pencen dan Faedah-Faedah Lain 1982). Jika ATM tidak tertakluk kepada Akta Pencen dan Akta Penyelarasan Pencen 1980, kenapa pula MAT perlu tertakluk kepada surat arahan dan Pekeliling JPA?
Kelima, saya percaya JPA tidak faham tata kerja, budaya dan syarat-syarat perkhidmatan ATM. Begitu juga Menteri Pertahanan dan Peguam Negara. Saya syorkan supaya Peguam Negara membaca undang-undang dengan secara meluas lagi. Saya ingin merujuk kepada sebahagian (keratan) dari dokumen penting bertarikh 8.2.1956 tentang sejarah Perkara 137 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Suruhanjaya Reid telah mengadakan pertemuan sebanyak 188 kali diantara bulan Jun dan Oktober 1956, dan menerima 131 memorandum dari beberapa individu dan organisasi. Suruhanjaya ini telah mendaftar draft kerja nya pada 21hb Februari 1957, yang telah di tapis oleh satu jawatan kuasa kerja. Jawatan kuasa kerja tersebut mengandungi empat wakil dari Raja-Raja Melayu, empat wakil dating kerajaan Perikatan, Suruhanjaya tinggi British, Ketua Setiausaha, dan Peguam Negara. Atas dasar cadangan mereka, Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang baru telah diluluskan oleh Majlis Perundangan Persekutuan pada 15 Ogos 1957 dan Perlembagaan di kuatkuasakan pada 27hb Ogos 1957. Mengenai Majlis Angkatan Tentera, saya ambil keratan dari dokumen seperti berikut:
REPORT OF THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE HELD IN LONDON IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1956
(REPORT BY THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE)
.....
III. DEFENCE AND INTERNAL SECURITY
.....
.....
The Administration of the Armed Forces of the Federation: a Federation Armed Forces Council
11. We agree that steps should be taken to enable the Federation armed forces to be administratively self-contained. At present their administration is integrated with that of the United Kingdom forces, and is largely carried out by Headquarters Malaya on behalf of the Federation Government. The process of setting up self-contained administrative machinery for the Federation forces must take time, but meanwhile there should be set up forthwith on a statutory basis a Federation Armed Forces Council, which would be a permanent body, quite distinct from the Emergency Operations Council discussed paragraph 10, The process of building up the necessary administrative substructure will be carried out under aegis and direction of this body.
12. The functions, of the Council and the distribution of responsibilities to its individual members will broadly correspond to the practice obtaining in the Army and Air Councils in the United Kingdom. The membership of the Council will at first be:
The Minister for Internal Defence and Security -Chairman;
A representative of Their Highnesses Rulers;
The General Officer Commanding the Federation Army (who would be seconded by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and be appointed by and, be responsible to the Federation Government),
Two other professional members corresponding to the United Kingdom Adjutant-General (who deals with personal matters) and QuaterMaster-General (who deals with stores and equipment);
The senior civil servant in the Ministry of Internal Defence and Security.
A representative of Headquarters Malaya will be available to attend when required so long as the Federation army is dependent on Administrative support from Headquarters Malaya. We consider that this Council should handle administrative questions concerning the existing and future Federation Naval and Air Forces as well as Army Matters.
13. In the light of the provisions and practice in the United Kingdom regarding handling of Service matters, we consider that the following principles are applicable to the Federation:-
(i). the armed forces of the state (as represented by the Head of State ) and are raised and maintained by the Head of State in accordance with legislative authority;
(ii). so far as the armed forces themselves are concerned, their affairs will be regulated by the Armed Forces Council and not by any Individual;
(iii). so far the Executive and Legislatif Council are concerned, the Minister, as Chairman of the Armed Forces Council, will be responsible for the administration of the armed forces;
(iv). subject to the Minister's general responsibility to the Head of State, on whose authority all appointments are made, personnel matters will be in practice be dealt with, up to a certain level, by the professional member of the armed forces Council corresponding to the Adjutant-General in the United Kingdom, and beyond that level, in relation to very senior posts, by consultation between the Head of State, the Minister and the senior Service advisers of the Government;
(v). the Armed Forces Council, in accordance with United Kingdom practice, will not direct the operational use of the Armed Forces. Policy decisions governing the use of the forces will be taken in Executive Council. The position of UK and Commonwealth Armed Forces in the Federation.
14. We recognise that in the interim period Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will continue to have direct responsibility for the external defence and external relations of the Federation, and that they will therefore retain in the Federation the forces which they consider necessary for the external defence of the territory and for the fulfilment of their Commonwealth and international obligations. To this end they will require in the Federation the facilities needed for the maintenance of those forces, which include the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve.
15. We agree that provision should be made for consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the government of the Federation on matters arising from the stationing of United Kingdom and Commonwealth Forces in the Federation. This should take the form of an understanding that, except in circumstances when immediate action would be essential, e.g. in war or a serious emergency, the Federation Government should be informed in advance of any proposed substantial changes in the size or character of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth forces in the Federation, and given an effective opportunity of making such representation as they wished. We recognise that in the discharge of their responsibility Her Majesty's Government will be bound to consider their arrangements for the defence of Malaya against the background of general defence policy, and cannot therefore undertake to make their disposition subject to the approval of the Federation Government, whose views will however receive the fullest consideration.
Dokumen (keratan) diatas di tandatangani oleh Alan Lennox-Boyd, John Hare, Nm A. Karnil, Donald MacGillivray, D.A. Scott (Ketua Setiausaha), di Lancaster House, London, S.W. pada 8hb Februari 1956.
Keenam, saya menyatakan walaupun Menteri Pertahanan berucap di dalam Parlimen, tetapi cara Menteri membentangkan hujah nya adala satu PENGHINAAN KEPADA DULI-DULI YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG DAN DULI-DULI RAJA-RAJA MELAYU. Saya lihat perbuatan menghina dan mempersenda insituisi Raja-Raja di Parlimen dan di bawa melalui media sosial di lihat semakin berleluasa. Saya mencadangkan supaya undang-undang Lese Majeste seperti di amalkan di Thailand di perkenalkan di Malaysia bagi membendung kebiadaban itu.
Ketujuh, tidak mungkin JPA boleh mengarah Angkatan Tentera kerana skop kerja dan syarat-syarat perkhidmatan ATM dan awam (sibil) tidak sama langsung, dan semua orang tahu bahawa ATM adalah organisasi Perang. Mana mungkin orang yang tidak pernah melalui latihan ketenteraan boleh mengarah anggota tentera.
Kelapan, setiap Raja-Raja Melayu pastinya menjadi Yang di-Pertua Kor atau Rejimen tentera yang berkenaan dan kor atau Rejimen berkenaan pastinya mempunyai panji-panji Sultan/Raja berkenaan.
Kesembilan, Angkatan Tentera Seri Paduka Banginda termasuklah Angkatan tetap dan Angkatan Sukarela Malaysia dan mana-mana Angkatan lain yang diisytiharkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong dari semasa ke semasa sebagaii sebagai Angkatan Tentera. (Sek 2 AAT72). Didalam Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972 terdapat banyak seksyen yang memerlukan kelulusan YDPA.
PAS has misunderstood the meaning of Ramadan By Mariam Mokhtar
Friday, March 15, 2024
Malaysiakini : The third observation is the proliferation of expensive breaking-of-fast (iftar) meals
at leading hotels and restaurants. Many Muslims tend to forget, that
the breaking of fast, is not a time to gorge or to show off that one
could afford a lavish buffet.
On March 12, PAS’ ulama wing leader
Ahmad Yahaya criticised Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek for allowing
school canteens to remain open during Ramadan.
Ahmad (above)
disagreed with the move for canteens to continue operating as he felt
it was more important for the ministry to focus on educating Muslim
students about the importance of fasting and for non-Muslim students to
respect the practice.
The PAS leader, who is also the MP for Pokok
Sena, appears to be confused about the true meaning of Ramadan. Is he
doubting the Muslim students' intention to fast? What makes him think
that non-Muslim students do not respect those who fast?
Although he agreed that non-Muslim students could bring food and
drinks to school for their own consumption, he wanted them to eat in a
space specifically allocated for this purpose.
Purpose of canteens
So,
has Ahmad forgotten that the school canteen serves this specific
purpose? Where should students go to eat, drink and socialise in an
amiable manner?
In previous years, some non-Muslim students had been forced to eat in the school toilets because the canteens were shut. This action undermines the true spirit of Islam and is an insult to both Malay and non-Malays.
Non-Muslims
have not stopped Muslims from fasting nor have they shown disrespect
towards Muslims who fast; but why bar them from eating in the school
canteen? Isn’t that the purpose of canteens?
Ahmad accused
Fadhlina of disrespecting Ramadan because she said canteens could remain
open. He said this was an excessive move, a waste of time and had
created an unnecessary polemic.
However, he has forgotten that
Malaysia is a multicultural, multifaith nation and that the world does
not revolve around Muslims who fast.
Muslims fast to empathise
with the poor, who cannot afford three square meals a day. It is also to
curb our excesses, and sexual desires. In other words, it is about
self-control and discipline.
We are supposed to encourage clean thoughts and not be emotionally aggrieved or feel anger, which is what Ahmad has displayed.
Why does this PAS leader get worked up with a non-issue of the canteen being opened and non-Muslims eating during Ramadan?
Religion becomes state’s business
If
Ahmad feels a strong urge to inspire change during Ramadan then he
should urge Jakim and state religious bodies to try to catch Muslims
eating, and selling food.
Religion
should be a personal choice and its practice should be a private matter
between the individual and God, but in Malaysia, it has become the
state's business to ensure that a Muslim obeys the official doctrine.
Those who smoke in public will suffer the same punishment, of a fine and possible imprisonment, as those who eat in public.
The religious authorities are obsessed with controlling and manipulating people.
A
Muslim who practises his faith will do the right thing. So why do the
authorities feel the need to catch the Muslim eating? Why heap extra
humiliation on him, by ridiculing him and questioning him in public, as
has been done in previous years?
The level of mistrust against
Muslims is also extended to those whose features look Malay. These
non-Muslims have also found Ramadan to be a stressful time when
religious police officers would harass them in public by making them
prove they were not Malays, who should have been fasting.
Food waste
The onslaught of commercialism has ravaged Ramadan and the run-up to Hari Raya.
Look
around us during Ramadan and see that food is sold to excess. Hotels
and restaurants offer special breaking-of-fast meals at inflated prices.
The
cost is a few hundred ringgits per adult. Children’s prices average
around RM150. One evening’s iftar for a family of two adults and three
children could feed a B40 family for a week.
Streets are congested by food stalls at the Ramadan bazaar,
approach roads experience traffic jams and food outlets mushroom from
nowhere and operate well into the early hours of the morning. There
appears to be no shortage of people, both Muslims and non-Muslims plying
these stalls.
The abundance of food and more importantly the corresponding food waste,
the artificial barriers we create with those who are not fasting, and
the act of harassing Muslims who do not fast, help to diminish the
significance of fasting.
Segregation: Why vernacular schools get blamed? By Ooi Kok Hin
Wednesday, March 13, 2024
Malaysiakini : That schools can be such a politically divided issue should be
unsurprising to Malaysians considering we are a nation that has torn its
head apart on education matters since the beginning.
Remember the
Barnes Report, Fenn-Wu Report, and Razak Report in our history
textbooks? The question of - or tension about - parallel school systems
has never been settled in our 60-plus years of independence.
Just recently, several NGOs sought the courts to ban Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools. They lost.
For
all their faults (e.g. strict regimentation and rote learning),
vernacular schools are at least publicly open for anyone to enrol.
The same cannot be said of state-funded boarding schools (SBP)
(bumiputera-only) and Mara Junior Science Colleges (MRSM) (90 percent
bumiputera and 10 percent non-bumiputera quota).
Will those who call for the closure of vernacular schools do the same for SBP and MRSM to be “integrated”?
In
fact, there are Chinese vernacular schools which have Malay students as
a majority - is there any MRSM or SBP that is non-bumiputera majority?
How about matriculation (90 percent bumiputera, 10 percent non-bumiputera) and Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)?
Critics
often deflect the UiTM example because, the argument goes, many other
public universities are open for minority groups and only one university
(UiTM) is reserved for bumiputera.
Data
tell us why the comparison is not apt: UiTM is not equivalent to any
one university - it has one main campus and over 30 satellite campuses
with student enrolment which is five times the number of Universiti
Malaya students.
Put together the total number of students in
bumiputera-only education institutions (primary, secondary, and tertiary
education combined) and the total number of students in Chinese and
Tamil vernacular schools (plus Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman maybe, even
though their enrolment is open for all), do we not see the mutual
culpability of segregation?
Put it another way in Malaysia’s
context: is segregation only a problem when minorities do it? Is
segregation not a problem when the state sponsors it?
Diversity
remains a challenge not only for vernacular schools and national
schools, but also SBPs and MRSMs, which are fully or partially funded by
the public.
The country’s first Orang Asli MP Ramli Mohd Nor, who is also the deputy speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, shared his dismay
at their share of enrolment in MRSM and appealed to the delegates at
the 2024 Bumiputera Economic Congress that there should be at least one
percent allocation given to Orang Asli to pursue studies in MRSM.
In
fact, this whole bumiputera concept needs unpacking, or deconstruction.
An interesting component is how the state “guards” the boundary of
“bumiputera-ness”.
Consider
the Indian-Muslim community. I once got into trouble with right-wing
trolls for tweeting that within one generation of her parents migrating
to the US, Kamala Harris rose to become the country’s vice president
whereas multiple generations of the Indian-Muslim community have long
assimilated in this country but could not enrol into UiTM because they
are not recognised as bumiputeras.
To my surprise, a former
schoolmate (an Indian-Muslim himself) who has not been in touch for a
long while contacted me afterwards saying the tweet was being widely
shared among his community and family Whatsapp groups, who resonated
with being discriminated against despite having assimilated.
Former
prime minister Najib Abdul Razak tried to include Indian Muslims into
the bumiputera category but he reversed gears after receiving backlash
from conservatives.
Some Indian Muslims have enrolled in MRSM or
matriculation, either as part of the 10 percent non-bumiputera quota or
granted individual exceptions, but as a bloc, the community has yet to
attain bumiputera privileges.
As the community lies in between the
(vague) boundary of bumiputera-ness and non-bumiputera-ness, will they
appeal to be included in the bumiputera group, or identify in solidarity
with all those who are left out of that group?
Deciphering the bumiputera concept
This
political calculus-ness of the bumiputera identification goes back to
the origin of its usage in policymaking. Bumiputera-ness is not legally
or constitutionally defined.
The concept of bumiputera is a
political construction requiring only government directives for policy
change to alter which group(s) to include and exclude in the
“bumiputera” category.
According to the late Khoo Kay Kim, the
term “bumiputera” was created in 1963 to refer to the natives of Sabah,
Sarawak, and Malaya.
The term took a concrete policy form when the New Economic Policy (NEP) was launched in 1971.
It
was a politically savvy move by the Razak administration to court Sabah
and Sarawak natives (whose leadership had previously joined forces with
Lee Kuan Yew at the Malaysia Solidarity Convention in 1965) to side
with the Malay political leadership under the broader “bumiputera”
umbrella group rather than with the other minority groups in a
Malay-dominant political structure.
If one day the Indian-Muslim
community finally gains the bumiputera recognition they have been
championing for decades, they would gain access to the SBPs, MRSMs, and
UiTM - the bumiputera elite schools.
However, that would mean people like me and my friend would not have met each other at a national school.
During
the late 1990s, almost all my cousins attended Chinese vernacular
schools but because there was a newly opened school near our home, my
father decided to send me to an ordinary, national primary school.
That
decision, borne out of convenience, had a significant impact on my life
trajectory and circle of friends. Multiracialism has always been a fact
of life in my upbringing, whether in our Indian-majority flat,
Malay-majority school, or Chinese relatives.
When I got into
matriculation, some new friends looked at me strangely. It was not
hostility in their eyes but curiosity and near-excitement at meeting
someone new.
Soon, I discovered that they were from rural areas
where their schools and neighbourhoods were entirely Malay. I was their
first non-Malay friend.
I did not know how to “process” this back
then but now I took two life lessons out of those incidents. It is
unfair to assume that everyone gets the chance to grow up in the same
environment (monoethnic or multiracial), hence we cannot expect everyone
to socialise similarly.
More critically and disturbingly, I came
to realise that choosing a school for our children in a segregated
school system is one of the most political decisions we will ever make
in our lifetime.
And the resentment is slowly
bubbling to the top. This is why we have articles in the foreign media
about how once-welcomed refugees are being harassed online and in the
streets of urban areas in Malaysia.
And stateless or refugee children are open to all forms of abuse and
because they do not have the protection of citizenships, they become
fodder for political operatives.
Remember
two years ago, when MCA Beliawanis (Wanita MCA Young Women Bureau)
chief Ivone Low Yi Wen called beggar refugee children aggressive, arrogant, and ungrateful?
Pengerang MP Azalina Othman Said claimed that we should not blame the children because it was the country that failed them.
Well
actually, no, the “country” did not fail to protect them. The political
apparatus of this country failed to protect them as it has failed with a
great many issues.
Depending on the racial and class structure of
the country, a certain section does not want them here, another section
is using them for political mileage, and another section probably
thinks that open borders are a good thing.
The costs of statelessness
But
make no mistake. What these amendments do is create a permanent
generational underclass in this country. What do you think happens to
these children and foundlings when they are not granted citizenship?
Well,
the first thing is that they are not accorded the full protection of
the law as regular citizens of this country. When this happens they
become prey to all manner of interests.
Saifuddin talked about costs a lot. He talked about how much the
rakyat are paying to house and feed undocumented migrants for instance.
What
he did not mention is how much it would cost the rakyat when these
stateless children advance in age and when they are denied rights that
could make them economically independent and productive members of
society. Think of the costs then.
Not only will the state feed and
house them for whatever reasons, ranging from criminal to civil, but
also this generational underclass would fuel a black economy which would
involve not only big business, the political class, and of course, the
state security apparatus.
What we are dealing with here is an
underclass which would enable the worst excesses of the political class
and culture of this country.
How much money has been spent taking
care of these stateless peoples, especially in the urban areas, while
the Malay heartland has been left to its own devises beyond putting in
more stringent regulations and enforcement?
Ideal for human trafficking
But
of course, the greatest danger stateless people and children have in
this country is being preyed upon by human traffickers with the
complicity of state actors.
Keep in mind, stateless people are
easier to move than citizens of a country, and does anyone really think
that the state security apparatus would care for trafficked stateless
people?
And in this country, as Wang Kelian reminded us, everyone
gets touched. In 2019, then executive director of the human rights NGO
Tenaganita, Glorene A Das, reminded the powers that be to also
investigate the individuals (including those who may be politically
linked) who were behind the cover-up of Wang Kelian.
“The reported
cover-up of the activities of human trafficking syndicates and the
annihilation of vital evidence needs to be explained; those involved in
it should be brought to justice, without fear or favour,” she said.
Of
course, if these stateless children and foundlings are of a specific
religion and would be entitled to certain entitlements if they were
citizens, the cost could go down.
We live in a country where race
is defined constitutionally and you can bet your last ringgit that the
money train is running low, hence the need to cut back on unnecessary
expenses.
As it is, the religious apparatus that is riddled with
corruption has, over the years, been taking on the additional burden of
minding and using various Muslim migrant communities.
Indeed this
generational underclass is perfectly suited for cheap labour and other
kinds of work that do not attract the interest of regular citizens. And
because they do not have the protection of citizenship it is not as if
they could complain to anyone, right?
Who knows there may come a
day when we do not look to other countries for cheap labour, because we
have homegrown cheap, disposable labour here.
Anyone who knows me understands that I fall into the Malaysia First camp when it comes to these types of issues.
When
we have stateless Orang Asal, Indians, Chinese, and not to mention
children of one immigrant parent born out of wedlock, the system is
rigged against those fighting for these children and people but even I
am horrified by these proposed amendments.
Zahid's land corporation proposal is insidious, unfeasible By P Gunasegaram
Sunday, March 10, 2024
Malaysiakini : “The creation of a Bumiputera Land Corporation would signify a
proactive measure aimed at ensuring a balanced racial demographic,
sustaining bumiputera businesses in agriculture, industry, and new
settlements, and preserving bumiputera ownership,” he saiZahid envisaged that the returned portion of land would be then overseen by the corporation.
“I
am confident that this initiative holds the potential to yield
substantial returns and significant opportunities for bumiputera to
possess a stake in the nation's land assets,” he added.
Tremendous implications
One hopes that this badly conceived scheme is still at the proposal
stage and will not see the light of day. The implications are
tremendous. Note that all agricultural land above 50 acres will come
under this and 20 acres for industrial land.
If
you had a small plantation of 50 acres growing oil palm for instance,
and if you were non-bumiputera (I’m assuming this stipulation does not
apply to bumiputera companies) you have to give up 10 acres upon lease
renewal or even a mere extension.
That means you will lose too the
yearly output that you get because the area planted will be reduced by
10 acres. The amount of fresh fruit bunches decreases by 20 percent and
so will your revenue. Profit may decrease even more than that because of
loss of economies of scale.
Let’s say down the road you have an
oil palm mill, logistics centre and office premises amounting to 20
acres, you suddenly have to carve out four acres for allocation to the
Bumiputera Land Corporation.
Presumably, the corporation will hand
it over to a privileged bumiputera who can then sell it back to the
original lessor for a huge premium. What a quick and easy way to make
money and for the government to hand out patronage to its own people.
It beats even approved permits and rivals that infamous 30 percent bumiputera equity stipulation.
Something
like this could only have been conceived by an Umno minister who will
have the necessary audacity, the sense of entitlement and the complete
lack of ethical behaviour to suggest such a one-sided deal.
Imagine
the kind of havoc it will cause - factories, offices, plantations, food
production etc. Right now, almost all leases are automatically renewed
on the payment of a premium and business continuity is assured.
Let’s take Malaysia’s largest plantation - Sime Darby - which has an
estimated planted acreage of 730,000 acres in Malaysia. Sime Darby may
not be considered a bumiputera company because of its diverse
shareholders.
That
would mean that it will eventually have to give up 20 percent of its
plantations in Malaysia or 146,000 acres. Using a very conservative
estimate of RM10,000 per acre, that alone is worth RM1.46 billion.
Potentially, billions of ringgit of properties are involved across all
businesses.
The result of this ill-considered move to surrender 20
percent of larger tracts of land upon lease renewal or extension is a
huge business disruption and the abuse of allocation of land to
privileged bumiputera, two things we really don’t need.
Unless
strictly necessary, leases are not normally terminated or withdrawn.
This practice ensures fairness to all landowners and assurance that
businesses of all kinds have reasonable certainty that they can operate
in a system which is fair, equitable and reasonable.
Why, the move
could be even against the Federal Constitution that stipulates that
everyone is treated equally under the law. It implies that people cannot
have their property taken away through any process and then
redistributed to others.
Zahid’s proposal should be nixed in the bud forthwith before it becomes a needless contentious and divisive issue.
Malaysiakini : Having put my purchases in the car, I adjourned to the nearby warung (food stall) for my favourite fix of nasi lemak and coffee for which I paid using the remaining RM20.
Back home, I wondered if I had handed over “tainted” or “dirty” currency to the tudung-clad mak cik who sold me the santan and operator of the warung.
Did
I inadvertently give “contaminated” notes? This is because the pork
seller gave me the change with his hands after having packed my
purchase. The only consolation is that he wiped his hands on his apron
before the exchange.
With all the hullabaloo over the handling of
alcoholic drinks, especially a suggestion by Pulai MP Suhaizan Kaiat,
who wanted to know if the government can introduce vending machines for such drinks.
Equally astounding was Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's
Department (Islamic Affairs) Zulkifli Hasan, who said the government
always welcomes fresh ideas that can help address concerns about Muslims
having to handle alcoholic beverages at work.
Pray tell me who
will load the vending machines and if there are vending machines to fix
the perfect Singapore Sling or Sri Lankan Arak with coconut water.
ATM money
Back to the RM100 note which I gave to the pork seller. In all likelihood, he would have banked it into his account.
Like all monies received by the bank, this note is now probably in one of the ATMs somewhere in the country.
Now,
do banks in the country have to use sophisticated machinery or
chemicals in each of its premises to separate currency notes into halal
and non-halal categories?
Or will officers be placed beside
machines that accept deposits to query the customer as to the source of
money he is depositing?
Would he stop a customer who honestly declared that they were the winnings from the 4-D lottery?
Will there be special machines to “cleanse” any form of contamination in the banking system?
Would they have separate counters to deal with “clean” and “contaminated” money? Would seats in banking halls be segregated?
Former
law minister Zaid Ibrahim, responding to Suhaizan's proposal, noted:
“By extension, no Malay drivers should be allowed to drive any vehicles
carrying beer bottles.”
In a post on X, he said: “No Malay customs
officers should be allowed to inspect beer consignments and impose
duties. Lastly, the Finance Ministry needs to employ more non-Muslims
quickly as many business and commercial activities in the country are
not halal-type.”
Muslim sensitivities
In 2018, I wrote: “When I started writing for Malaysiakini,
I made a concerted effort to stay away from two contentious topics -
race and religion. Not anymore. Being pushed to the wall by idiotic and
foolhardy individuals, it is time to break the self-imposed restriction.
“Few want to impose their moral standards and values on the rest of Malaysians. We have to stand up and say it as it is.”
Even
before that, when the ominous signs of “sensitivities of Muslims”
surfaced in 2015, I wasted no time admonishing the carrot-brained idiots
for their stupidity.
Then came the episode of different cups for
different religions. I chided the Education Ministry for its silence in
doing nothing to prevent the segregation of drinking cups placed beside a
water dispenser by labelling them “murid Islam” and “bukan Islam”.
So
many came thereafter - hot dogs, Timah whisky, and mother of all -
certain quarters decreeing that it is forbidden for Muslims to wish
someone Merry Christmas.
When will this insanity stop?
In
2015, the Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin asked a touching,
important, and justified question that transcends all boundaries of
religion: “Can the less intelligent be given important posts such as
that of a minister and the like?”
By extension, this should be asked of our lawmakers.
‘Islamophobia’ is being used by Islamists to control debate By Stephen Pollard
JC.COM : This is not some hidden agenda that only those of us who have looked
into the subject are aware of. It’s never been hidden. One of the most
frustrating aspects of this whole area — of Islamism and the words of
extremists — is that they almost always say exactly what they mean, but
well-meaning, credulous liberals and progressives all too often refuse
to see what is in front of their own eyes.
You only need look online at the stream of sermons since October 7
proudly published by mosques on their sites. In one, an imam praises
those responsible: “Dying in battle, dying whilst defending the holy
land is martyrdom. It’s a win-win situation for the Palestinian people.”
In another, a preacher says: “Give victory to our mujahideen brothers
in Palestine, give them victory against the occupying Jews.” They are
not hiding what they think. They are telling us in plain and clear
language. But just as the police have refused to acknowledge that calls
on the post-October 7 hate marches for jihad and intifada are indeed
calls for jihad and intifada, rather than a request for a theological
debate, so these sermons are treated as somehow irrelevant.
This is especially true with the concept of Islamophobia, the purpose of which was made clear from its very creation.
As the brilliant French philosopher Pascal Bruckner has observed, the
word Islamophobia was invented by Iranian mullahs in the 1970s to be
analogous to xenophobia, with the express purpose of declaring Islam
inviolate. Criticise Islam and you are therefore a racist. As Bruckner
writes: “This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is
deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief
system or its faithful adherents around the world.”
But Islam is not a race; it is a religion. It is not an ethnicity; it
is a belief system. And it is no more racist to critique Islam as it is
to critique Buddhism, or, as an intellectual exercise, socialism or
capitalism. Likewise it cannot be racist to examine and, if one wants
to, reject different strands within Islam or any religion. Bruckner is
again spot on: “In a democracy, no-one is obliged to like religion, and
until proved otherwise, they have the right to regard it as retrograde
and deceptive. Whether you find it legitimate or absurd that some people
regard Islam with suspicion — as they once did Catholicism — and reject
its aggressive proselytism and claim to total truth — this has nothing
to do with racism.”
But the word “democracy” there is key, because those who created the
concept of Islamophobia have no truck with democracy. Their modus
operandi is theocracy, which is what they aim at for the rest of us.
They know it is a process — initially — of marginal gains. So while, for
example, there is no prospect of any government introducing a blasphemy
law as such, they also know, because they see how weak and unable to
stand up for its values the West is, that there is every prospect of
finding other means to make Islam inviolate.
Which brings us back to Islamophobia.
The concept is already being used against journalists who write about
Islamism and grooming gangs — and indeed against Ofsted for not bowing
to conservative religious pressure and enforcing gender segregation,
exactly as those who created it intended. What is “Muslimness”, after
all, if it is not Muslim practices and beliefs? Which means, in a
deliberately circular point, that any criticism of those practices and
beliefs is by definition Islamophobic.
It is not religion and religious practices that should be protected
from criticism, or even insult, but the people who observe a religion, a
point made two weeks ago by Kemi Badenoch, the minister for women and
equalities. Her opposite number, Anneliese Dodds, had written, “Why are
senior Conservatives finding it so hard to call out Islamophobia?
Perhaps because the Conservatives still refuse to adopt the definition
used by every other major political party in Britain. To tackle the
scourge of Islamophobia, we must name it.”
Badenoch replied: “We use the term ‘Anti-Muslim hatred’. It makes
clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud
tradition of religious freedom AND the freedom to criticise religion.
The definition of ‘Islamophobia’ she uses creates a blasphemy law via
the back door if adopted.”
Hannah Yeoh's Selendang choice deflection By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Malaysiakini : Mind you, the word “tolerance” is in itself a loathsome word.
It is a word lacking empathy, simpatico, goodwill, or camaraderie. The
word implies, “enduring” instead of “accepting” and “understanding” -
all those sentiments that denote a sense of belonging. But okay, I will
play the “tolerance” game.
We are tolerant that a religion is codified in our laws and Constitution.
We are tolerant that the security apparatus in our country determines which laws to follow, especially when it comes to unilateral conversion.
We are tolerant when our religions are mocked and we are branded traitors because we defend our rights which are supposedly enshrined in our constitution.
We
are tolerant when religious personalities imply that oppositional
political parties are the enemies of Islam and thus open to war-like retribution.
We are tolerant when our public spaces are invaded by a state-sanctioned religion.
We are tolerant when we are warned
not to interfere in the state-sponsored religion even though it has
been objectively proven that the same religion interferes with our
rights.
We are tolerant when our children are indoctrinated in our public schools.
We are tolerant when our politicians play the raceandreligion card at every opportunity.
We are tolerant when men convert to the state’s religion to vindictively attack their wives and children.
We are tolerant when public spaces are raided by religious officials and our fellow countrymen and women are dragged out and humiliated.
We are tolerant when the propaganda organs of the state lie and disseminate fake news vilifying Malaysians as “racist”, “chauvinist”, and “anti-Islam”.
The lopsided reality
The
reality is that the only people who find themselves disturbed by
another religion are the non-Muslims. If there is a disparity in
treatment, a lack of fairness, outright persecution, or double
standards, it is faced by non-Muslim communities.
Yeoh
wants you to respect her choice. I have a question for her. Does she
respect the choice of Muslim women who do not want to wear any kind of
head covering? Has she made any public support for women or women’s
groups who want Muslim women to have the choice of not wearing any head
covering?
When Pakatan Harapan was in power, its then
religious czar, Mujahid Yusof Rawa, contacted the Selangor Islamic
Religious Department (Jais) and a probe was launched on Maryam Lee
about her book “Unveiling Choice” at a forum entitled “Malay Women and
De-Hijabbing” because Mujahid was apparently “seriously concerned” about
the choice some women made in not wearing the tudung.
Did
Yeoh have a response to this? Because as a woman and a politician who
advocates for progressive values, I assume that she respects the choice
of women not to wear a head covering, right? I mean this is about people
respecting women’s choices right?
Yeoh hopes for the day when her choice of a selendang
is no longer a contentious issue, which again implies that the
non-Muslims who have a problem with her choice are the ones causing
disunity or at least not being tolerant. Are we really?
Here’s a question for the youth and sports minister. How does a non-Muslim wearing a selendang in an international political event or even in the homeland promote unity?
How about a syariah-compliant dress code
for the private sector that the then Harapan government was working on?
Does this promote unity? By being “tolerant” to the sensitivities of
our Muslim brethren are we promoting unity?
Enabling bad actors
How
dare Yeoh say that her expressions of tolerance frighten some
non-Muslims when we live in a country where non-Muslims, especially
non-Muslim women, are harassed because of the way they are dressed.
Keep in mind that this is what PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang said: “(Some of our rivals) oppose (our) instructions to cover the aurat, which is mandatory among Muslims.”
“(This
was despite) some non-Muslim communities who are required (by their
religion) to dress decently based on humane values with dignity and
self-respect. They are respected by (adherents) of all religions and
civilisations.
“Don’t be like liberals who are
without shame, similar to animals who cannot think and have no dignity.
This (problem) is plaguing the West now.”
What
I find truly objectionable is that Yeoh has enabled the regressive
forces in this country by implying that non-Muslims who have an issue
with her pandering, are the ones with the problem. That we are the ones
causing disunity, when more often than not we are the ones who are
advocating that people’s choices (even if it offends the sensitivities
of some) should be respected.
Yeoh is a much-loved
political operative amongst the urban crowd in this country. She is a
non-Muslim woman in a political climate that is slowly slipping into a
theocratic stupor.
When she visits another country as
part of a delegation of a supposed reformist government and prime
minister, one would think she would use this as an opportunity to
demonstrate that the Madani government is supportive of the choices of
women, Muslim and non-Muslim.
I would assume she would know which flag to fly for all Malaysians.
DAP - Dilemma Action Party. If it speaks up more on “sensitive
issues” (see below), politicians will claim that Malays are “under
threat” from Chinese supposedly “controlling” the government. If DAP
just works quietly, it’s accused of becoming MCA 2.0.
Deep
State - The discreet alliance of some civil servants, business people,
and other elites who oppose reforms because that will upset their gravy
train of easy money.
DNAA - Do Nothing About Anything when it comes to certain corruption cases. Also called “close one eye”.
Dubai
Move - This attempted repeat of the Sheraton Move fizzled out, as did
the London Move. Pushed by power-obsessed politicians who love to keep
destabilising the country because they cannot accept defeat. They didn’t
know that movie sequels usually do poorly.
Green
Wave - Those riding on religion (see below) add racial petrol for more
vroom power in politics. But the volatile mix may eventually explode.
Gerakan - The little mouse trying to hitch a ride at the very tail end of the Green Wave. Still clinging on despite being openly insulted by PAS leaders in Penang.
Half Pardon - Many dare not criticise the person who gave this and therefore slam Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim instead.
Madani Madness
Kamikaze politics - Suicidal demands that DAP leave the unity government and thus allow the Green Wave to take over the country.
MACC - Mana Ada Corruption Case? (where got corruption case?)
MADANI - MAD About Negligible Improvements. The frustration many feel about the unity government’s slow reforms.
MCA - Make Chinese Angry, a party that upsets the voters they claim to represent. Officially, part of the unity government but behaves more like an opposition party.
Malay
Unity - The never-ending fights for power and money among Malay
political parties in a merry-go-round of shifting alliances (see
Muafakat Nasional below).
Muafakat Nasional - This political marriage of Umno and PAS in 2019 ended in a nasty divorce after Umno accused its spouse of “main dua kolam” (fooling around) with another “boyfriend” called Bersatu.
National Bondage
Pakatan
Harapan - The “pact of hope” that people are losing faith in,
especially after DNAA and the Half Pardon. But supporters have nobody
else to vote for.
PAS - “Parti Ajaran Sesat” (Deviant Teachings Party) was what Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin called PAS in 2013 when he was Umno deputy president.
Ironically, Muhyiddin himself now embraces PAS in National Bondage (see below).
Perikatan Nasional - Based on the word “ikat”
or “tie”, National Alliance is better translated as National Bondage.
This is because they keep us stuck or “tied up” in small racial issues
like BKT while the rest of Asia zooms forward.
PKR - Perlahan Kerja Reformasi or “slow to work on reforms”, thus leading to MADani (see above).
Riders of Religion - Translation of the Malay phrase “penunggang agama”. Refers to those “riding on” or exploiting religion for political gain.
Stained Declarations
Sabah
Wild East - A confusing alphabet soup of political parties such as GRS,
SAPP, PBS, STAR, USNO, PHRS, and LDP. Leaders have hopped from one
party to another in the past. Expect various backroom deals in the
coming state elections.
Sarawak for Sarawakians -
This battle cry has grown louder after Big Brother Umno was defeated in
2018. But the parties complicit in working with Umno for decades are
still in power.
SD - Stained Declarations used to
prove who has “The Numbers” (see below). Often suspected of being
obtained through unholy promises of positions, power, and even money.
Sedition
Act - A law introduced by the British in 1948 to quash criticism
against the colonial rulers. However, long after Merdeka, the law is
still around and has been made even harsher.
Sensitive issues - A catch-all phrase often used to suppress discussion of important issues. Related to sedition (see above).
The
Numbers - The crazy game of horse trading and indecent proposals played
after elections to see who has enough MPs to take power in Putrajaya.
Now available as a satirical card game.
ULARmak - A combination of the words “ulama” (religious scholars and leaders) and “ular” (snake). Refers to so-called “holy men” who speak with forked tongues.
Umno
- When the United Malays National Organisation had unquestioned power,
Umno meant “U Must Not Object”. In the current uneasy alliance with
Harapan, it's “U Must Not Observe” its faults.
Will there be tapai vending machines too? By Mariam Mokhtar
Friday, March 08, 2024
Malaysiakini : Showing his concern for Muslim workers in convenience store chains
handling alcoholic products, Suhaizan urged the government to introduce new mechanisms whereby they could be excluded from business transactions involving alcohol.
He suggested that Jakim create new guidelines for alcohol to be sold through vending machines.
‘New mechanisms’
Instead
of humouring the Pulai lawmaker, Deputy Minister in the Prime
Minister’s Department (Religious Affairs) Zulkifli Hasan should have
come down hard on Suhaizan and told him about the consequences of such a
drastic move.
In
this day and age, jobs are difficult enough to come by, so why make it
more difficult for the Malay worker? Why phase him out of the employment
market?
Why make it difficult for a business owner to employ a Malay worker?
The people in Jakim, as well as Muslim politicians and leaders,
are at risk of creating a new breed of Muslims in Malaysia who are
afraid to handle alcohol. Others will not be so kind but will claim that
the workers are perhaps “workshy”.
The convenience store worker
is not being asked to sample or taste the brew or spirit. He is only
asked to sell the product which is already packaged either in a can, a
carton or a bottle.
All he has to do is take it off the shelves, process it at the checkout and place it in the carrier bag.
Politicians
have huge egos. They also have this mistaken belief that the more
complex the solution to a problem, the more intelligent he probably
looks.
There is no need to introduce “new mechanisms” to stop the
Muslim from handling alcohol. The solution is so simple. If it goes
against the worker’s religious principles, then all he has to do is
resign and not seek employment in a company that sells alcoholic or
haram items.
Does Suhaizan realise how silly he looks? Is he just political point-scoring and eager to look as if he is protecting the interests of the Malay-Muslim community?
How far will it go?
The
alcohol is produced either in the brewery or distillery. Before the
supermarket employee gets to handle the bottle of whisky or the can of
beer, there are other groups of workers involved in the process.
Some
employees are involved in the bottling process. Others pack them into
crates or load them onto the lorries. Will drivers who are Muslim refuse
to drive the lorries?
If
the alcohol is exported, how will Suhaizan accommodate the Muslim port
workers, forklift truck operators, container lorry drivers and Customs
officials?
If alcohol is sold in a duty-free outlet, does the MP
want the Muslim duty-free shop assistant and check-out lady to stop
handling the product?
Empty whisky and beer bottles or cans will also be a problem. Should the Muslim rubbish bin collector refuse to collect these?
Why should Suhaizan stop at the convenience store? He could demand that Muslim cabin crew stop offering drinks to passengers who ask for an alcoholic beverage.
If today it is alcohol, what will it be tomorrow?
Will haram food items like spam or canned luncheon meat be on the list
of food items which Malay workers cannot handle? What about controversial books?
The recent deluge of syariah-compliant businesses
and provision of halal items has taken Malaysia by storm. We should be
in the Guinness Book of Records for being the best Muslims in the world.
We
have halal water, halal lifts, halal trolleys, halal eggs, halal
vegetables, halal wi-fi, and halal smartphones; but the
syariah-compliant airline, Rayani Air, was grounded because the company was allegedly not financially nor technically viable.
Does
the increase in syariah-compliant businesses show that Malays, in
Malaysia, are more pious than the generations of Muslims before them? I
think not.
How strong is a person’s faith in Islam, if he is
easily confused by non-alcoholic beer, or that he feels threatened and
has committed a sin because he “handled” the alcoholic item even if he
did not consume nor physically touch the product?
The most
dangerous threat to the government and the ulama class is not an
invading army, the communists, a contagious disease, or nuclear war.
Teresa and Teo in denial over vernacular schools By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Thursday, March 07, 2024
Malaysiakini : Fellow in the National Professors Council Teo Kok Seong said this -
“They refuse to integrate. They will only learn the basic (Malay
language) to pass examinations, but object when asked to do more”.
This
is complete horse manure. All Malaysians communicate in basic Malay
every single day. We communicate in Bahasa Malaysia, not due to
patriotic impulse but rather because this is the language that cuts
through class and race.
Indeed, non-Malays use the language among
themselves more often than they use English, especially when interacting
with people from different backgrounds and education levels where
mother tongues and English are just not utilitarian.
Indeed, it is
the default language among non-Malays for mundane everyday activities.
This myth that non-Malays use English as some lingua franca is complete
horse manure.
And
let us not forget that when it comes to interactions with the
bureaucracy, non-Malays of course have to use Bahasa Malaysia. Moreover,
like the Malays with their regional patois, this pidgin Malay is not a
perfect articulation of the language but, so what?
Vernacular schools also serve Malays
And
really Teo, vernacular schools (despite what I may think of them) also
serve the Malay community, especially in rural or semi-rural areas. Take
this news report for instance.
From reportage, for small
national-type Chinese schools in rural areas, it is common for the
number of Malay students to exceed that of Chinese students. SJKC Ton Fah in Beranang, Hulu Langat, is no exception.
The situation is complex and should not be reduced to simplistic
arguments of integration or assimilation, which brings me to DAP MP
Teresa Kok.
Teresa said, “In a multiracial atmosphere in Chinese primary schools, how can Chinese students look down on and insult Malays?”
This
is nonsensical because kids can be vicious and depending on the kind of
socialisation they receive, never grow out of their juvenile thinking,
which is ably demonstrated on social media when they are adults.
This is not about multiculturalism, this is about human behaviour and what kids learn from their teachers and parents.
Anecdotally
speaking, Malay and Indian parents who send their children to Chinese
vernacular schools, do so because of their belief that a foundation of
vernacular school education for their kids is a better prospect than
what they would get from failing (especially in lower economic areas)
national schools.
More importantly, they want their kids to
understand the mindset of the people they are going to be in economic
competition with. This is especially so in urban areas.
As one
Indian Mandarin-speaking parent related to me, she always wants to see
the response from companies who want “Mandarin speakers” but gets
flustered when she shows up. She and her husband want their children to
be prepared for this kind of treatment.
Keep race out of education
I know this is not the kind of muhibah fairy tale people want to hear but this is the reality of race relations in Malaysia.
Remember when Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim berated that young student
because she wanted to be treated fairly? What do you think this does to
a young person? How do you think this affects how they view their
fellow citizens?
This is why people like me want people like
Teresa and Teo to work to keep race and religion out of the public
education system. Mind you, when young children of different ethnicities
meet, they are going to bring along the baggage of their parents.
Getting an education with kids from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds is not a politically correct experience.
However,
an egalitarian education system and diligent committed teachers can
ameliorate the prejudice that children are taught at home whether
because of religious values, cultural values or they have numbskulls for
parents.
The state of our public schools is the way it is because
of the way democracy is practised in this country. Take something like
local elections for instance. Refer to Kua Kia Soong’s comment in 2018.
He wrote - “Few Malaysians have noticed, for example, that the all-important role of local education authorities in the Education Act 1961 is no longer mentioned in the Education Act 1996.
“Local
education authorities serve to allocate funds and other facilities to
needy sectors, and can serve to dissipate politicisation of education.”
But
nobody cares about this. Why? Because when it comes to racial politics,
political operatives, even those who claim to have a multi-racial
agenda, want to point to issues they can champion for their community.
Rational
people understand that Teresa and Teo are presenting non-Malays with a
false choice. This is not about assimilation or integration.
This is about how neither desires a secular and egalitarian framework for Malaysians to resolve their problems.
Honestly, the people not damaged by these policies and indeed in many
ways thrive despite these policies, are the non-Malays. Do not take my
word for it, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad acknowledged this.
He said: “The Chinese in Malaysia have no special rights, they experience discrimination. But they are more successful than us.”
I
was never up to date on the nomenclature of economics or economic
policy framing but the reality is that for the average non-Malay, he or
she understands and is brought up to understand that they are not going
to get anything from the government.
Their
reliance on the government is defined by how well they game the system,
which is why we get all these “corporate non-Malays” hooking up with
Malay proxies to get on the gravy train.
The rest of the
non-Malays, especially in the private sector, have to hustle to get by
and the worry for them is that if government intervention, especially
when it comes to religion, gets in the way of their economic rice bowls.
The
non-Malays, having left to fend for themselves, have opened up
economic, educational, and social spheres in which connective tissue has
allowed the state to sustain a kleptocracy that has endured for
decades. This is the Malaysian experience.
Indeed, if someone like
Wahid is concerned about the lack of bumiputera participation in the
private sector, well Mahathir also had his thoughts on that.
As reported
in the press, Mahathir said: “Malays had failed because they were lazy
and sought the easy way out by reselling their shares, licences and
contracts to non-Malays.”
He also said: “They cannot be patient, cannot wait a little. They
want to be rich this very moment... no work is done other than to be
close to people with influence and authority to get something… After
selling and getting the cash, they come back to ask for more.”
And
forget about all those entitlement programmes which people often term
“poverty alleviation” programmes. We know that all those are complete
bunkum.
Do not take my word for it. Take former prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s words. He has admitted
that all those poverty alleviation programmes were carried out by the
vast bureaucracy and nobody had any idea about their effectiveness - “…
that hitherto many ministries had programmes on poverty alleviation but
there was no specific monitoring on their effectiveness”.
Not
because monitoring these programmes would mean there would be
transparency, but because many of these poverty alleviation programmes
were part of the gravy train driven by bureaucrats, political
operatives, and their various proxies.
Hence,
all this talk of poverty alleviation, especially when it comes to the
Malay community, is mired in the kind of corruption that plagues the
mainstream political establishment.
So when Prime Minister Anwar
Ibrahim announces that an RM1 billion fund would be set up and managed
by GLCs, you have to contrast this with what Mahathir said about a
specific class of Malays - “They want to be rich this very moment... no
work is done other than to be close to people with influence and
authority in order to get something.”
Insanity or strategy?
But
the real question people should be asking is this. Does the mainstream
political establishment want the Malays not to depend on the government?
After
all, this is not rocket science. Do you think that all these ketuanan
types are dumb? Look, they may narcotise the majority with race and
religion but they do not drink the Kool-Aid they are dispensing.
They
send their children to better schools. They ensure their children are
competitive here and elsewhere and with the proper connections, they can
earn their place on the gravy train.
Keep in mind, Mahathir
created a Malay middle-class which was a combination of middle
management in the public sector and the proxies in the private sector.
Can
you imagine if the majority ethnic group did not need the government?
That they did not want to be under the shadow of the religious
bureaucracy? That they were successful and independent enough to vote
for political operatives who were not of the same race or religion as
them and who wanted a secular and democratic system of governance?
This
is what happens when people do not need the government, this is what
happens when people coalesce around common goals and seek communion
although from different religions and cultures.
Does a political system built around Malay rights and religious superiority really want these types of majority electorate?
A failure after six decades is not a mistake. It is a strategy.