Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 203


  1. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – MALAYSIA: UMNO IN POWER - 1Malaysia against Malays

    Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding over the concept of 1Malaysia Under UMNO, everyone outside the Ruling Class and their group of collaborators, is treated as a slave. And that includes the Malays in the Lower Class.

    Read below how the Malays in FELDA are exploited. It started off with good intentions - to help the rural poor. As we know, the road to hell is strewn with good intentions. Then FELDA became a monopoly. It grew greedy and expanded, creating plum posts and an income stream for the corporate managers. They kept it solely within the preserve of the Malay upper class, keeping out the non-Malays. That stunted the growth of the townships as talent was kept out.

    Now it has become a monstrous parasite feeding off the people it was originally supposed to help.

    FreeMalaysiaToday.... Is Felda straying from its original mission?

    FELDA tries to clamp down on critics: FreeMalaysiaToday....Mazlan Aliman, President of ANAK - Felda critic to campaign in Hulu Selangor despite ban

    This is the natural tendency of every human being who is given too much power and not subject to any restraint and oversight. UMNO's policy is that as long as their hold on power is preserved, their underlings are free to do anything they like. FreeMalaysiaToday.... Settlers accuse Felda of fraud and discrimination

    The 50-cycle of change is coming to an end. UMNO has managed to survive beyond the dateline and is now among the walking dead. The signs of panic, stripping off the nation's wealth in readiness to run and attempts at repression, are all there. We have to be focused and brave, to give the tottering edifice a final push!

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2008


    Essentially, the Rat Race can be boiled down to a few simple concepts:

    Psychological, Propaganda and Economic Warfare by the Ruling Class against the masses to subjugate and exploit them.

    As we said from the start of this series, it involves an attack on the human emotions of greed, fear and ignorance. Part of it involves the manipulation of history to take the "moral" high ground.

    Raja Petra's article below "For whom the bell tolls" describes how UMNO manipulates history to keep the "Malays" within their control and to keep the non-Malays as outcasts. Simply put, this is the trick of divide-and-rule that UMNO learned from their British masters. And typically of UMNO, they forget those who helped them. Not only that, they betray them.

    Moral of story: UMNO cannot be trusted.

    Very long - 9 pages, both English and Malay. But necessary knowledge to acquire in order to deconstruct UMNO history.

    For whom the bell tolls (UPDATED with BM and Chinese Translation)

    NO HOLDS BARRED, Raja Petra Kamarudin, 23 January 2010

    Malaysians who ‘abandon’ their country and migrate to another country are traitors, says an Umno Minister. Is he speaking on behalf of the Malaysian government, on behalf of Umno, on behalf of Barisan Nasional, on behalf of the Malay race, or on behalf of the Muslim ummah (community)?

    Malays always scream, rant and rave that Islam comes first and everything else goes to the bottom of the priority list. Even the Member of Parliament for Kulim — someone from what can be considered a liberal party, PKR — says that he puts Islam first and everything else second. So let us assume that Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah, being a Muslim, speaks from the Islamic perspective. I doubt he would dare declare otherwise.

    Islam stipulates that if you suffer persecution, oppression, injustice, and discrimination under a dictatorial regime, then it is your duty to hijah (migrate). And hijrah is very important to Islam.

    Hijrah is what the Prophet Muhammad was commanded by God to do. And the day of the Prophet’s hijrah is the day the Muslim calendar begins. That is how important hijrah is to Islam. Is this Muslim Minister from Umno whacking Prophet Muhammad and calling him a traitor?

    Many Malaysians died for their country. The Indians and Chinese migrated to British Malaya between the mid-1800s to about 1920 when the British started to tighten the immigration policy and no longer brought in labourers from India and China to work the railway, public works, plantations and tin mines in Malaya .

    But this did not mean that immigration came to a complete stop. The British still brought in Indians to serve in the civil service and to serve as schoolteachers.

    This was because the local Malays, at that time, were not so proficient in the English language compared to the Indians. So the Indians were required as government servants and teachers.

    Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s father is one example of an English language teacher from India who came to Malaya and eventually married a Malay woman, resulting in the birth of Dr Mahathir.

    Many Indian and Chinese immigrants married in Malaya , sometimes to fellow Indians and Chinese and sometimes to local Malays (that is why many Malays look more Indian and Chinese compared to their Indonesian cousins). And understandably they sired children born in Malaya . And these local born sons and daughters of the immigrants are those Malaysian Indians and Chinese of today, many who have never stepped foot in India or China since the day they were born.

    Their parents and grandparents (some are third or fourth generation Malaysians while some, like the Melaka Chinese, have been ‘locals’ since 500 years ago) came to Malaya to serve the country and died in this country. And some of these ‘immigrants’ have been in the country longer than even Malays who are only second or third generation Malaysians.

    The question of who came first is an arguable issue. There are Indians and Chinese who have been in Malaysia for hundreds of years and there are Malays who have been in the country less than 100 years.

    Nevertheless, this article is not to argue about who is more Bumiputera — the Malays, Indians or Chinese.

    Everyone — Malays, Indians and Chinese alike — are sons and daughters of immigrants. It would be very difficult to dissect the three different races based on generalising. You would have to look at it on a case-to-case basis. My family came to Malaya in the mid-1700s. Tian Chua’s family came to Malaya much earlier than that. Dr Mahathir and Khir Toyo are merely second generation Malaysians although one became the Prime Minister and the other the Chief Minister of a State.

    Okay, the purpose of this article is not to argue who is more Bumiputera as we can argue till the cows come home and will never reach a consensus. What I want to talk about is who has served this country and, therefore, can be considered a true patriot.

    The railway, roads, bridges and buildings, right up to maybe the 1980s or so (that means for more than 100 years), were built by the Indians and Chinese (not the Malays). I still remember even as recent as the 1970s when Indians would work in the hot sun building the roads and laying the railway lines. They also worked in the estates and plantations. And the same goes for the tin mines and the construction industry, which were mainly a Chinese affair. And many died. There were numerous cases where entire Chinese communities were wiped out by disease and war and they had to bring in fresh loads of Chinese workers from China to replace those who had died. And the living conditions of these workers were pathetic. Trust me when I say detention under the Internal Security Act in Kamunting is luxurious compared to what these Indians and Chinese had to endure.

    The Malayan civil service, legal system, education system, and whatnot, depended on the English educated Indians brought in from India. It was not until the 1920s or so, when the immigration policy was tightened, that the Malays were educated enough to start filling the ranks of the civil service. Even by the time of Merdeka the country still depended on the immigrants because there were not enough educated Malays to serve the country.

    And almost all these people died in this country (only some went home to die) and their Malaysian-born children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are those Indians and Chinese you see in the country today.

    To sum up: this country was built by the non-Malays. What we see today is the result of the contribution by the non-Malays. Initially, Malaya’s economy depended on rubber and tin, long before we had factories and heavy industries. And it was because we had immigrant

    Indians and Chinese is why we saw a thriving rubber and tin industry. If not because of rubber and tin, Malaysia would be amongst the poorest countries in this world. Then we had three wars - the Second World War, the Malayan Emergency, and the Konfrantasi with Indonesia . And not just Malayans, but many foreign ‘Mat Salleh’ (white skins), as well as Africans, Fijians, Gurkhas, Indians, Punjabis, Bengalis, and many more, died in these wars. Of course, Malays died as well. But Malays were not the only ones who died in these three wars.

    But is the contribution of these patriots ever remembered? The Malays scream, rant and rave that this is a Malay country. They declare that this is Tanah Melayu (Malay land). But we might not even have a country, at least not in the form that we see it now, if not for the fact that many not of Malay origin laid down their lives for this country. If the non-Malays, including the ‘Mat Salleh’, had not died for this country, Malaysia would no longer be an independent nation but just a small province of Indonesia .

    When Malays talk about dying for your country, they just look at the three wars. But the death toll for these wars does not even come close to the death toll of those who died serving this country in other ways. Some died defending the country in wars. But many more died in the effort to build this country to what it is today. And many also died of mere old age after serving this country their entire life and then retired here as citizens.

    But how do we repay these patriots or children and grandchildren of patriots not of Malay origin? We insult them. We threaten them. We discriminate against them. We oppress them. We persecute them. We treat them as second-class citizens. We refuse to recognise the patriotic contribution of their parents, grandparents or great grandparents in defending this country and in building this country to what it is today.

    So these people feel hurt. So they feel that the sacrifices and contribution of their forefathers are not remembered and appreciated. So they decide to leave the country and go to another country that can better-appreciate their talents and skills instead of threatening and subjecting them to screams of “go back to your own country”.

    Who are the traitors here? Are the traitors those who hijrah in search of a better life like what the Prophet Muhammad did? Or are the traitors those who ignore the patriotic contribution of Malayans from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s?

    The Umno Ministers should be made to pass a history test before they can be appointed as Ministers. And they should also be made to pass a lie detector test every time they make a statement. As the Malays would say: bodoh (stupid) is bad enough. Bodoh sombong (arrogantly stupid) is unforgivable. And Umno Ministers are just that — bodoh sombong.

    Combatants in the Malayan Emergency
    United Kingdom
    New Zealand
    Federation of Malaya
    Various British East African colonies

    Breakdown of the combatants in the Malayan Emergency
    250,000 Malayan Home Guard troops
    40,000 regular Commonwealth personnel
    37,000 Special Constables
    24,000 Federation Police

    Casualties in the Malayan Emergency
    Killed: 1,346 Malayan troops and police (of many races) and 519 British military personnel
    Wounded: 2,406 Malayans (of many races) and British troops/police
    Civilian: 2,478 killed, 810 missing (of many races including 'Mat Salleh')

    Malaysian-Indonesian Konfrontasi

    Combatants in the Konfrontasi

    United Kingdom
    New Zealand
    And with support from the United States

    Allied Casualties
    114 killed
    181 wounded

    Indonesian Casualties
    590 killed
    222 wounded
    Civilian casualties
    36 killed
    53 wounded
    4 taken prisoner

    The forces that served during the Konfrontasi period to secure Malaysia’s freedom and independence

    United Kingdom
    Royal Navy:

    40 Commando Royal Marines
    42 Commando Royal Marines
    Sections of Special Boat Service
    Detachments of 845 Naval Air Squadron (Wessex)
    Detachments of 846 Naval Air Squadron (Whirlwind)
    Detachments of 848 Naval Air Squadron (Wessex)
    849 NAS Fairey Gannet AEW on HMS Victorious

    British Army
    Squadron of Life Guards
    Squadrons of 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards
    Squadrons of Queen's Royal Irish Hussars
    Squadrons of 4th Royal Tank Regiment
    H Squadron of 5th Royal Tank Regiment
    4th Light Regiment Royal Artillery (comprising 29 (Corunna), 88 (Arracan), 97 (Lawsons Company) Light Batteries)
    V Light, 132 (Bengal Rocket Troop) Medium Batteries (of 6th Light Regiment Royal Artillery)
    T (Shah Sujah’s Troop) and 9 (Plassey) Light Anti Defence Batteries (of 12th Light Air Defence Regiment)
    30 Light Anti Defence Battery (Roger’s Company) (of 16th Light Air Defence Regiment)
    53 (Louisburg) Light Anti Defence Battery (of 22nd Light Air Defence Regiment)
    11 (Sphinx) Light Anti Defence Battery (of 34th Light Air Defence Regiment)
    40th Light Regiment Royal Artillery (comprising 38 (Seringapatum), 129 (Dragon), 137 (Java) Light Batteries)*
    70 Light, 176 (Abu Klea) Light, 170 (Imjin) Medium Batteries (of 45th Light Regiment Royal Artillery)
    8 (Alma), 7 (Sphinx), 79 (Kirkee), 145 (Maiwand), Commando Light Batteries (of 29th and 95th Commando Light Regiments, Royal Artillery)
    1st Battalion, Scots Guards
    Guards Independent Parachute Company
    1st Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers
    1st Battalion, Gordon Highlanders
    1st Battalion, Royal Ulster Rifles
    1st Battalion, Queen's Own Highlanders
    1st Battalion, Queen's Own Buffs, The Royal Kent Regiment
    1st Battalion, Durham Light Infantry
    1st Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
    1st Battalion, Royal Leicestershire Regiment
    1st Battalion, King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry
    1st Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd)
    2nd Green Jackets, The King's Royal Rifle Corps
    3rd Green Jackets, The Rifle Brigade
    2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment
    D Company, 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment
    1st Battalion, Royal Hampshire Regiment
    22 Special Air Service
    1st and 2nd Battalions of 2nd Gurkha Rifles
    1st and 2nd Battalions, 6th Gurkha Rifles;
    1st and 2nd Battalions, 7th Gurkha Rifles;
    1st and 2nd Battalions, 10th Gurkha Rifles;
    Gurkha Independent Parachute Company
    Detachments 656 Squadron Army Air Corps
    Various units from Corps of Royal Engineers
    Various units from the Royal Corps of Signals
    Detachments 15 Squadron RAF Regiment
    Detachments 34 Squadron (Beverley) stationed in Singapore
    Detachments 48 Squadron (Hastings and Beverley) stationed at RAF Changi, Singapore
    Detachments 209 Squadron (Pioneer and Twin Pioneer)
    Detachments 52 Squadron (Valetta) stationed at RAF Butterworth, Malaya
    Detachments 66 Squadron (Belvedere) stationed at RAF Seletar, Singapore
    Detachments 103 Squadron (Westland Whirlwind HC 10) stationed at RAF Seletar, Singapore
    Detachments 110 Squadron (Westland Sycamore then Whirlwind) stationed at RAF Seletar, Singapore
    Detachments 205 Squadron (AVRO Shackleton MR Mk2) stationed at RAF Changi, Singapore
    225 Squadron (Westland Whirlwind HC 2)
    230 Squadron (Westland Whirlwind HC 10)
    81 Squadron (Canberra PR 9) stationed at RAF Tengah, Singapore
    20 Squadron (Hawker Hunter) stationed at RAF Tengah, Singapore
    60 Squadron (Gloster Javelin) stationed at RAF Tengah, Singapore
    64 Squadron (Gloster Javelin) stationed at RAF Tengah, Singapore
    45 Squadron (Canberra) stationed at RAF Tengah, Singapore
    74 Squadron (English Electric Lightning) stationed at RAF Tengah, Singapore
    15 Squadron Handley Page Victor stationed in at RAF Tengah and Butterworth)

    102 Field Battery Royal Australian Artillery.
    3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
    4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
    A and B Squadrons of the Australian Special Air Service Regiment

    Malaysian Army
    Squadron of Malaysian Reconnaissance Regiment
    A and B Batteries (of 1st Regiment, Malaysian Artillery)
    3rd Battalion, Royal Malay Regiment
    5th Battalion, Royal Malay Regiment
    8th Battalion, Royal Malay Regiment
    1st Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment
    Royal Federation of Malay States Police
    Police Special Branch
    Battalion of Police Field Force

    New Zealand
    1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment
    1st Ranger Squadron
    41 Squadron (Canberra)
    Detachments 41 Squadron (Bristol Freighter)

    Translated into Chinese at:


    Menurut seorang Menteri UMNO – SIAPA YANG PENGKHIANAT?

    Menurut seorang Menteri UMNO, rakyat Malaysia yang “berhijrah” ke negara lain adalah pengkhianat. Adakah beliau bercakap bagi pihak kerajaan Malaysia, atau UMNO, BN, atau kaum Melayu atau umat Islam?

    Orang Melayu selalu memaki-hamun dan berpekik yang Islam adalah segala-galanya dan selebihnya tidak penting. Contoh terbaik ialah ahli parlimen Kulim, daripada parti PKR yang dianggap liberal, berkali-kali berkata bahawa beliau meletakkan Islam mendahului segala-galanya, termasuk tugas beliau sebagai ahli parlimen. Sekarang mari kita anggap bahawa Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah, sebagai seorang Islam, juga bercakap daripada perspektif Islam.

    Islam berkata bahawa jika anda ditindas, didiskrimasi oleh sebuah regim yang kejam, adalah wajib untuk anda berhijrah. Hijrah merupakan konsep yang amat penting dalam Islam. Allah mengarahkan Nabi Muhammad untuk berhijrah, dan kalendar Islam bermula pada tahun hijrah.

    Sekarang renung-renungkanlah. Adakah Menteri UMNO tersebut menuduh Nabi Muhammad seorang pengkhianat?

    Ramai orang Malaysia berkorban kerana negara kita. Orang India dan Cina datang ke negara Malaya di antara tahun 1800 ke 1920. Selepas itu, British mengetatkan polisi imigrasi dan tidak lagi membawa buruh daripada India dan China untuk bekerja di landasan keretapi, ladang dan lombong di Malaya.

    Tetapi ini tidak bermakna imigrasi telah berhenti selepas itu. British masih membawa rakyat India untuk bekerja di sektor awam dan untuk bekerja sebagai guru sekolah. Ini kerana pada masa itu, Melayu tempatan kurang menguasai Bahasa Inggeris berbanding rakyat India. Oleh yang demikian, rakyat India diperlukan sebagai kakitangan awam dan guru.

    Ayah Tun Dr Mahathir ialah contoh seorang guru bahasa Inggeris yang datang dari India, dan mengahwini seorang perempuan Melayu tempatan.

    Ramai pendatang India dan China berkahwin di Malaya, setengahnya kepada rakyat senegara dan setengahnya kepada Melayu tempatan (ini sebabnya banyak Melayu hari ini mempunyai iras Cina dan India). Anak-anak mereka dilahirkan di Malaya, dan merupakan rakyat Malaysia hari ini yang berbangsa Cina dan India. Ramai di antara mereka tidak pernah menjejak kaki di India atau China dari hari mereka lahir.

    Ibu bapa mereka dan datuk-nenek mereka (ada yang merupakan generasi ketiga atau keempat di Malaysia dan setengahnya, seperti Cina di Melaka, telah berada di sini sejak 500 tahun lalu) datang ke Malaya untuk bekerja dan menghembuskan nafas terakhir di negara ini. Dan sesetengah “pendatang” ini telah berada di negara ini jauh lebih lama daripada sesetengah Melayu yang merupakan generasi kedua atau ketiga.

    Perdebatan tentang siapa yang datang dahulu adalah perkara yang tidak mudah diselesaikan. Ada Cina dan India yang telah berada di sini sejak beratus tahun dahulu, dan ada Melayu yang hanya berada di sini kurang daripada seratus tahun. Namun demikian, artikel ini bukanlah untuk betengkar mengenai siapa yang lebih layak digelar “Bumiputera”

    Semua daripada kita merupakan anak kepada pendatang. Sukar untuk kita mengkategorikan tiga bangsa ini secara umum. Ia sesuatu yang harus dilihat satu-persatu. Keluarga saya datang ke Malaya pada tahun 1700-an. Keluarga Tian Chua datang lebih awal daripada itu. Dr Mahathir dan Khir Toyo merupakan rakyat Malaysia generasi kedua walaupun seorang pernah menjadi Perdana Menteri dan seorang lagi Menteri Besar.

    Sekali lagi, artikel ini bukan untuk membincangkan siapa yang lebih Bumiputra, kerana kita boleh berdebat siang dan malam dan sehingga kucing bertanduk pun kita tidak akan mencapai kata sepakat. Apa yang saya ingin ketengahkan di sini ialah siapa yang telah berjasa kepada negara ini dan oleh yang itu, layak digelar sebagai rakyat yang cinta negara.

    Landasan keretapi, jalan raya, jambatan dan bangunan di negara ini, sehingga ke tahun 1980-an (lebih daripada 100 tahun) dibina oleh India dan Cina (bukan Melayu). Saya masih ingat pada tahun 1970-an, saya melihat pekerja India bertungkus lumus di bawah matahari yang terik membina jalan dan landasan keretapi. Mereka turut bekerja di estet dan ladang. Sama juga bagi lombong timah dan industri bangunan, yang kebanyakannya diusahakan orang Cina.

    Dan ramai yang terkorban. Banyak kes di mana pekerja Cina maut akibat wabak penyakit dan perang dan pekerja baru terpaksa dibawa daripada China untuk menggantikan yang terkorban. Hidup mereka penuh kesengsaraan.

    Di Malaya pada masa itu, sektor awam, perundangan, pendidikan bergantung kepada rakyat India yang menerima pendidikan Inggeris (India pada masa itu di bawah naungan British). Selepas 1920-an, Melayu tempatan mula mengisi jawatan di sektor awam setelah menerima cukup pendidikan Inggeris. Walau bagaimanapun, ketika negara kita merdeka, negara masih bergantung kepada golongan pendatang kerana rakyat tempatan masih kurang yang menerima pendidikan yang cukup.

    Hampir kesemua golongan ini yang pada mulanya dibawa dari Cina dan India, anak, cucu mereka yang dilahirkan di Malaysia merupakan rakyat Cina dan India yang anda lihat di Malaysia hari ini.

    Kesimpulannya, negara ini dibina oleh yang bukan Melayu. Apa yang kita ada hari ini merupakan keringat bukan Melayu. Pada awalnya, ekonomi Malaya bergantung kepada getah dan timah, sebelum kita mempunyai industri berat dan kilang-kilang. Dan hanya kerana adanya pendatang India dan Cina kita mempunyai sektor pelombongan dan peladangan yang berjaya. Kalau bukan kerana ini, Malaysia hari ini mungkin di antara negara termiskin di dunia.

    Selain itu, kita pernah mengalami tiga perang, Perang Dunia Kedua, perang Komunis dan Konfrontasi dengan Indonesia. Bukan hanya orang Malaya, tetapi juga orang putih, orang Afrika, orang Fiji, orang Gujerat, orang India, Punjabi, Bengali dan banyak lagi, terkorban dalam peperangan ini. Tidak dinafikan, Melayu juga banyak yang terkorban. Tetapi mereka bukannya satu-satunya golongan yang terkorban.

    Pokoknya, adakah pengorbanan golongan bukan Melayu diingati hari ini? Ada Melayu hari ini yang terpekik terlolong bahawa negara ini kepunyaan mereka. Mereka kata ini Tanah Melayu. Tetapi kita mungkin tidak ada negara yang kita ada hari ini tanpa pengorbanan bukan Melayu. Jika bukan kerana mereka, kita mungkin hanya satu wilayah Indonesia hari ini.

    Apabila Melayu bercakap tentang berkorban untuk negara, mereka selalunya menumpukan kepada tiga perang ini. Tetapi angka korban bagi perang adalah kecil berbanding dengan yang terkorban kerana berkhidmat untuk negara ini dalam aspek lain. Dan ini tidak termasuk yang menignnggal dunia kerana usia tua selepas menghabiskan seluruh hidup mereka di negara ini sebagai seorang rakyat.

    Tetapi bagaimana kita membalas budi mereka, dan anak-anak dan cucu-cucu mereka yang bukan Melayu? Kita menghina mereka (pendatang!). Kita mengancam mereka (jangan cabar Melayu!). Kita mendiskriminasi terhadap mereka (hak-hak Bumiputra!). Kita menindas mereka dan menganggap mereka sebagai rakyat kelas kedua. Kita tidak menghiraukan budi datuk nenek mereka yang menghabiskan hidup berbakti untuk negara kita.

    Jadi mereka berasa terkilan. Mereka berasa bahawa pengorbanan dan bakti datuk nenek mere tidak dihargai. Jadi mereka mengambil keputusan pergi ke negara lain di mana bakat mereka lebih dihargai. Mereka meninggalkan Malaysia kerana tidak tahan dengan kecaman “baliklah ke China atau India. Ini Tanah Melayu!”.

    Siapa pengkhianat di sini? Adakah pengkhianat mereka yang berhijrah mencari kehidupan yang lebih baik seperti apa yang dilakukan oleh Nabi Muhammad? Atau pengkhianat mereka yang tidak mahu mengiktiraf pengorbanan dan jasa pendatang di Malaya dari tahun 1800-an ke 1900-an?

    Menteri Umno patut mengambil ujian sejarah sebelum mereka menjadi Menteri. Mereka juga patut mengambil ujian bohong setiap kali mereka membuka mulut mereka.

    Bak kata orang Melayu: bodoh suduh cukup teruk. Bodoh sombong tidak boleh dimaafkan. Dan Menteri Umno hanya satu: bodoh sombong.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – Gov't dehumanising Malaysian workforce

    Nothing new here - just part and parcel of the Ruling Class Strategy to weaken the Lower Class to prevent them from ever challenging them.

    Gov't dehumanising Malaysian workforce

    J Solomon
    May 4, 10

    It is now widely-known that the Ministry of Human Resources (MHR), in an effort spearheaded by the minister himself, is proposing amendments to the labour laws of the country which would have the effect of dehumanising the Malaysian workforce, stifling trade union activities and ultimately depressing the wage levels of Malaysian.

    One must realise that only just about two years ago, the labour laws were further amended to the disadvantage of the workers and unions and, frankly, to the advantage of the employers. In fact, we still have not recovered from those changes nor do we know what the long term implications of these changes are. Instead, we are now faced with further proposals to amend the labour laws in various areas again.

    It is our considered view that such efforts to continuously amend the labour laws - especially amendments to the detriment of the workers and unions - are directly opposed to the principal objectives of the New Economic Model, which is to develop a high-income society. It is also diametrically opposed to the concept of '1Malaysia' which is to develop an inclusive Malaysian society.

    The MHR has been misled by the purported intent to amend the laws to be in tune with the current and future business environment. This cannot be further from the truth. The MHR should reflect on what is going on globally, especially since the global financial crisis. Ordinary workers' monies were used to bail out large corporations and then save the global economy from a total meltdown.

    All the major economies are looking at placing curbs on corporate behaviour and increasing worker and consumer protection. Greater cohesion of competing groups in society with differing interests is being sought whereas the efforts of the MHR seem to be a step backward for the county and contrary to the trends globally.

    A fundamental point which has to be recognised is that business exists for and because of society - not the other way around. Business and corporate interests have to serve the larger and better interest of society.

    The Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) has lauded the proposed amendments which clearly show that the ministry has favoured employers. Many of these employers are foreign-owned companies where their aim is to maximise profits and there is no real interest in the development of the country or Malaysian society. The government, specifically the MHR, should be looking towards protecting the interest of the Malaysian society.

    The intent of the MHR, working in tandem with employers, to cripple trade union rights is a blatant violation of basic human rights. The arrogance of the officers of the MHR typifies this objective. Trade unions have to be independent and not exist at the pleasure of the MHR or employers.

    For an effective and meaningful working of the industrial relations system in this county, the laws must be seen to be unbiased and for the benefit of the larger society which in this context means the Malaysian workers and together with this the courts in that the Industrial Court must be independent and fair so that confidence in the court system by the general public shall remian.

    But with this practice of the president of the Industrial Court participating in a weekly meeting with officials of the MHR and the minister, this exhibits the lack of independence of the Industrial Court. It is clear that the executive of this county, through the MHR, is influencing

    the Industrial Court system in this country. This impacts adversely on workers, trade unions and the larger interest of society.

    The separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary is the cornerstone of a democratic system. In this regard, the conduct of the previous Industrial Court president where an attempt had been made to interfere in the administration of a union which had no relevance to the matter brought before the court by the union warrants mention.

    Such conduct is blatantly unethical and should have been censured by the government as it undermines the principle of the separation of powers. All such misdeeds perpetrated by the MHR are causing misery to Malaysian workers. This must be avoided as it is against both the NEM and '1Malaysia'.

    The Prime Minister's Department should curb the abuses of the MHR. If the proposals for the adverse amendments go through, there is a high possibility that 11.5 million Malaysian workers may look to be led by an alternate government to ensure that their interests are protected.

    The writer is secretary-general, National Union of Bank Employees (Nube). Malaysiakini. Please support by subscribing as a reader.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – What is the result of 52 years of UMNO Rule?

    1. Economic Ranking:
    In 1955, after World War II, Malaysia was second in Asia after the Philippines.

    In 1970, we were ahead of Taiwan and South Korea.

    Today, we rank behind Japan, Singapore, Brunei, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea.

    Catching up with us fast: Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam.

    2. Inequality GINI Coefficient: Malays have the worst inequality within the Malays as a group 1997:GINI 0.4495.

    The trend is that inequality has deteriorated from 1990 (GINI 0.446) to 2008 (GINI 0.49)

    2008 0.49

    GINI Coefficient for various races in Malaysia.

    0 corresponding to perfect equality, while higher Gini coefficients indicate more unequal distribution, with 1 corresponding to perfect inequality.
    1. Malay GINI (0.4495) worse than Chinese (0.4180) and Indians (0.4092) in 1997 (Malaysian GINI 0.4586), after 27 years of NEP.
    In 2008, the Malaysia GINI has deteriorated to 0.49! This means that every class of Malaysian at the lower level has gotten worse, particularly the Malays, which we should expect to be around 0.48, say.
    2. Malaysia GINI as a whole has deteriorated from 1990 to 2008.


    Below are more write-up on GINI.

    But when we look at Malaysia’s international position in terms of individual inequality, the position is quite different. According to the latest internationally comparable data from the World Bank, individual inequality in Malaysia (as measured by the common Gini coefficient) is the second worst in all of the Asian countries for which data is available. Only Papua New Guinea ranks worse. In fact, out of 127 countries for the World Bank provides data, Malaysia ranks 101 in terms of the Gini coefficient – the commonest measure of inequality. Aside from Papua New Guinea, the only countries in the world with worse individual inequality than Malaysia are in Central and South America – a region of notoriously high inequality – and some areas of sub-Saharan Africa such as South Africa and Zimbabwe.
    2004 undp human development report:
    HDI GINI 2004 GINI 2005
    Singapore 0.902 42.5
    Malaysia 0.793 49.2 0.47 (2ND Worse after Papua New Guinea.)
    Thailand 0.768 43.2
    Philippines 0.753 46.1
    Indonesian 0.692 34.3
    Vietnam 0.691 36.1
    Cambodia 0.568 40.4
    Laos 0.534 37.0

    For those who don't know the Gini coefficient, please check the Wikipedia article. In brief, 0 means total equality (same share of weath for each person in the country), while 1 is total inequality (one persons owns all the country's wealth). I would like to discuss what in your opinion causes developed "democratic" countries to have quite different Gini coefficient. For instance, the USA's latest stats for 2004 indicate a coefficient of 0.466 (sources), a big increase from 0.408 in 2000.

    The United Nation has stats for all countries (pdf), but for different years - with gaps of up to 15 years. We see that, from the highest to the lowest, Portugal was at 0.385 (in 1997), the UK was at 0.360 (in 1999), Italy at 0.360 (in 2000), France at 0.327 (in 1995), Germany at 0.283 (in 2000), Beglium at 0.250 (in 1996), Japan at 0.249 (in 1993), Denmark at 0.247 (in 1997), and Hungary at 0.244 (in 1999).

    Note that Japan's stats are the oldest (1993) and are in fact considerably higher now. The Asahi Shimbun reported in 2006 that Japan's Gini coefficient was now of 0.314 (sources).

    Other stats give the evolutaion of estimates over the years, although they do not match UN stats. According to those figures, here is the ranking from most to least unequal for 2000 (countries not listed have no stats for 2000) :

    Mexico : 0.491
    Russia : 0.434
    USA : 0.368
    Estonia : 0.361
    UK : 0.345
    Spain : 0.340
    Greece : 0.338
    Italy : 0.333
    Ireland : 0.323
    Canada : 0.302
    Switzerland : 0.280
    Belgium : 0.277
    Germany : 0.264
    Austria : 0.260
    Luxembourg : 0.260
    Sweden : 0.252
    Norway : 0.251
    Finland : 0.247


  5. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – MALAYSIA: What more do we want from the Chinese?

    What more do we want from the Chinese?

    Very simple -

    A nation where everyone contributes to its growth and share in the benefit fairly. A nation where everybody is treated with dignity and valued for their honest effort.

    UMNO's Gambit:

    Play racial politics to the hilt.

    Use PERKASA as the proxy to voice what in the past, UMNO would voice.

    It seems to be working as the Malay support for UMNO is increasing.

    What the rural Malays need to understand is this: The Ruling Class is race-blind when it comes to exploitation of the people and stealing the nation's wealth. A study of recent history can be instructive.

    Nazi Germany: Hitler rounded up all the Jews, robbed them off their gold, packed them off to the concentration camps and exterminated them.

    Uganda: Idi Amin drove the Indian middle-class out and expropriated their possessions.

    Zimbabwe: Mugabe grabbed the White farmers' land and gave it to his cronies to buy their support.

    Myanmar: The Burmese Ruling Class drove out the Indian middle class after Independence from the British.

    Result: Every nation above ended up either being destroyed by war or economic failure.

    The Ruling Class became the oppressors of their own citizens.

    This is where the article below comes in. Push the middle-class too hard and they may decide to pack up and go. Then, there will be no middle-class left to defend the Malays. That will be Myanmar.

    Is that too far-fetched a scenario? Just pop over to Sarawak and observe the Ibans. To them, Myanmar is already here.

    What more do we want from the Chinese?

    Written by Howl Pillai
    Friday, 14 May 2010 12:27

    I find myself in a strangely odd position – an Indian speaking up for the Chinese. It has recently been asked of them: “What more do the Chinese want?”

    If it were merely rhetorical, I will defend the right to ask questions of such a nature in the name of free speech and healthy discourse. Unfortunately it is not a question. It is a blatant threat. The politicians behind the threat have clearly identified themselves. They have also now shown their hand. They are shamelessly indulging in the gutter politics of communalism.

    A demonstration 10,000-stronghad been planned for May 13 in Terengganu. We should reject this threat for the same reason we reject a bribe. Racial politics and corruption are slowly and surely destroying the very fabric of nationhood. A country that was put together carefully with effort, toil and sacrifice deserves better.

    We must therefore entirely reject the threat and answer the question only in its rhetorical form: What more do the Chinese want?

    Post-May 13

    Since 1969, the Chinese have seen the New Economic Policy (NEP) at work and not at work. But for all its faults, the NEP has distributed great wealth and provided unheard of opportunities to create a Malay middle class and super-rich elite of Umnoputras.

    It has also allayed the fears of the Malay man-in-the-street that he/she will be ‘lost in the world’ (Tak akan Melayu hilang di dunia).

    The Chinese with much public grace and equally much private grumbling have largely accepted the pain of economic restructuring. They still account for easily 80% of the income tax revenue of the country. But in this same period, true to their kind, they have girded their loins and redoubled their efforts.

    Ever so quick to seize new opportunities, they have continued to prosper in spite of the excesses of the NEP. Surely there is nothing in this world and no religious or secular law that prevents a man or woman from prospering economically through the sweat of his brow or the straining of his sinews or the mental acuity of his business dealings.

    We may not like the Chinese trait of applying themselves diligently to the task at hand and to the exclusion of all others; or their fiercely competitive nature; their kiasu-ness; their calculative frugality; their risk-taking; their business shrewdness; their culinary indulgences and their relentless pursuit of investments, returns and wealth in all its myriad forms.

    But remember, they too may not like our traits of indifference, impracticalness, lebih kurang-ism … the list both ways is endless.

    But we must respect them for their singular ability to create new wealth and not be merely consumers of old wealth. We must respect them for their resourcefulness and for their incredible pertinacity in the face of adversity. We must compliment them their innate understanding of the importance of personal savings in the economic life of an individual and of the investment opportunities that arise out of deferred gratification. We must thank them for showing us in practical terms what self-reliance and self-sacrifice really means.

    Planning for the future

    Surely, they more than anyone else have shown that the secret of capitalism lies in its unsurpassed ability to promote capital formation that fuels ever more new ventures and so ad infinitum.

    They have shown us also that wealth has a generational purpose and that it is linked to a vision of the future we have for ourselves, our families, our society and the country we live in.

    To me they are the least nihilistic of people. There is much we have learnt from the Chinese economic model based on hard work, perseverance and skills development. True, the pursuit of wealth and economic success is often accompanied by greed and avarice. Which race in the world is free from such follies and frailties?

    The fact that the Chinese migrant is a prized economic asset is indisputable. That this prized asset cannot be got for free is also indisputable. It is also indisputable that he comes with the political rights of a human being – the right to prosper with dignity.

    But No! All this is not ‘what more the Chinese want’. It’s more, much more than that!

    I have every reason to believe that the Chinese, who so often go about their tasks with one eye on the future, have come to the inevitable conclusion that if left unchecked, the politicians of this country will be the ruin of us all.

    The Chinese are not Neros to helplessly fiddle while Rome burns.

    ‘What more the Chinese want’ is for the rot to stop.

    They can clearly see with eyes teared by 5,000 years of the painful tide of relentless history. A history filled with upheavals, turmoil and revolution has given them an inbuilt ‘antenna’ that warns them when a society is approaching decay, decline and disaster.

    They know that a rotten tree will not bear good fruits for long. They know there will be nothing left to share with or without the NEP and its sketchy successor, the NEM.

    They know that zero, simply put, is indivisible.

    The Chinese have sounded the alarm bell for all of us. What more do we want from them? cpiasia.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – Orang Asli NGO submits protest memo over land rights

    Orang Asli NGO submits protest memo over land rights
    May 20, 2010

    PETALING JAYA, May 20 — Jaringan Kampung Orang Asli Semenanjung Malaysia (JKOASM), a non-governmental organisation representing indigenous people in Peninsular Malaysia, today submitted a protest memorandum to the Rural and Regional Development Ministry concerning land rights of the community.

    JKOASM co-ordinator Tijah Yok Chopil said the memorandum was to protest the government’s policy of awarding land titles pertaining to native customary land, which was passed on Dec 4 last year.

    “The government only focused on implementing the policy but not on getting the views of the Orang Asli at various levels. What was done were only campaigns to make the Orang Asli accept the policy,” she told a press conference here.

    She said the memorandum was earlier handed over to the ministry in Putrajaya and was received by a ministry official.

    Tijah added that JKOASM also rejected the findings of a workshop held on April 6 to review the policy and any amendments to be made to the Orang Asli Act 1954, scheduled to be tabled in Parliament in June.

    She said JKOASM, which represents some 30,000 Orang Asli in six states — Perak, Pahang, Selangor, Johor, Negri Sembilan and Malacca — wanted any policies targetted at the Orang Asli to put the community’s interest first in line with the 1 Malaysia concept. — Bernama TheMalaysiaInsider....

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE - Trial set in lawyer’s absence riles ex-Perlis mufti

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong
    JAIS targets ex-Perlis mufti for unauthorised lecture

    KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 2 — Ex-Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin could face an Islamic court for ostensibly lecturing without a permit after he was briefly held at a religious lecture in Ampang last night but the maverick is claiming blatant persecution.

    He has been ordered to turn up for further questioning at the Gombak district Islamic Affairs Department at 9am today after he was earlier freed at 1.10am on police bail.

    Trial set in lawyer’s absence riles ex-Perlis mufti

    By Syed Jaymal Zahiid
    May 21, 2010

    KUALA LUMPUR, May 21 — Maverick ex-Perlis mufti Dr Asri Mohd Zainul Abidin today slammed the Shah Alam Syariah High Court for deciding on his trial date in the absence of his lawyers. TheMalaysiaInsider....

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – Prof faults Pairin for proxy-control of Sabah

    Sabah and Sarawak thought they were teaming up with Singapore and Malaya to form Malaysia as equals. UMNO's thinking was that the British was handing over to them 3 colonies for them to rule.

    Whose interpretation was correct?

    Independence for Sabah and Sarawak under Malaysia, or

    Colonisation of Sabah and Sarawak by Malaya.

    Read on....

    Prof faults Pairin for proxy-control of Sabah

    Joe Fernandez
    May 22, 10

    Visiting law professor Ranjit Singh of Universiti Utara Malaysia, blames Huguan Siou (paramount chief) Joseph Pairin Kitingan for the existing political system in Sabah which involves rule by proxy-control from Putrajaya.

    The 'Rubicon' was crossed in 1990 when Pairin (left) pulled out his PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) from the ruling BN coalition at a critical time - the eve of general elections - said the professor to the local media yesterday.

    "This (Pairin's defection) made the federal government decide on a permanent solution for Sabah i.e. the introduction of Umno and control of the state's politics by proxy-control," stressed Ranjit.

    "From 1990 to 1993, the Federal Government was willing to tolerate some recalcitrance on the part of Sabahans."

    Ranjit was elaborating on his remarks a day earlier at a seminar, 'Effective Policy, People Prosper', in Kota Kinabalu, organised by the Chief Minister's Department.

    He agrees that attempts by nationalists in Sabah, and Sarawak as well, to achieve political domination have been snuffed out progressively and systematically by the federal government. They are aided in this by Muslim-led state governments in Sabah and Sarawak, he added, "acting as proxies for Putrajaya".

    Ranjit, however, sees this proxy-control as impossible if the Dayak and Kadazan-Dusun-Murut communities in particular achieve total unity based on the concept of nationalism.

    He bases this belief on the widely-prevailing notion among the local non-Muslim, non-Malay majority that they should exercise political leadership and domination in their own states.

    Hence, it is by no means certain that the proponents of local nationalism have reconciled themselves to the existing power equation in Sabah and Sarawak.

    Reconciliation, according to the professor, seems to be the current approach in the two states but it is not known for how much longer.

    A reality that has to be accepted

    The law Don, who authored 'The Making of Sabah 1865-1991', sees the existing political system in the state as unsustainable.

    Instead, he advocates acceptance by the federal government that the majority of the people in Sabah and Sarawak are non-Malay and non-Muslim. He defines this as "the stark reality" in the two states ignored since 1963 by the federal government.

    He does not recommend a shared political power model based on the Peninsular Malaysian experience or tacit support for Muslim leadership as inherently stable and suitable for the East Malaysian states.

    "The federal government's denial of the on-the-ground realities in Sabah and Sarawak have resulted in the non-extension of the special provisions in the federal constitution to the natives in the two states," observed Ranjit.

    "It has also meant that the people in Sabah and Sarawak have not benefitted from the New Economic Policy."

    Marginalisation and denial of the benefits of being a bumiputera continue in Sabah and Sarawak, he stressed, and all the more so since the imposition of proxy-control in the two states.

    He faults Putrajaya's policy of assimilation for this state of affairs when the emphasis should be on national integration through accommodation.

    Turning to the political power model, he warns that "the strategies employed successfully in Peninsular Malaysia may not be totally applicable in Sabah and Sarawak".

    Both these two states are very different from Peninsular Malaysia, he noted.

    He cites the differences as based on geographical features, population distribution, ethnic composition, social organisation, religious beliefs, economic systems, political structures and historical experiences.

    The wide differences between both halves of Malaysia, separated by the South China Sea, was the reason that the Federation of Malaysia began as an equal partnership of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, reminded Ranjit.

    "This was captured in the 1963 Malaysia Agreement."

    However, he cautions the current batch of local politicians against reading too much into the 'Malaysia is an equal partnership' mantra given amendments to the federal constitution in 1973.

    Equal partnership no more

    "It's difficult now to claim that Malaysia is an equal partnership of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak," said Ranjit.

    "There must be a change in the mindset of Sabahans and Sarawakians. They need to understand that they are now in a Federation in every sense of the word."

    The federal concept, continues Ranjit, is an alternative model to the earlier one in 1963 advocating equality and a sense of partnership among Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak even with the departure of Singapore in 1965.

    He did not touch on re-current criticisms in Sabah and Sarawak that it was Singapore's exit that effectively ended the Malaysia experiment as a regional partnership.

    Notwithstanding the constitutional amendments that effectively ended Malaysia as an equal partnership of different territories, Ranjit assures that the special rights of Sabah and Sarawak "are in fact recognised and guaranteed".

    This is not seen as a contradiction in terms given that the states in Peninsular Malaysia do not have the same special rights as the two states in Malaysian Borneo.

    In the spirit of the new Malaysia since 1973, Ranjit sums up, Sabah and Sarawak have a case for a review of the current 5 percent oil royalty and greater autonomy than the states in Peninsular Malaysia. "In fact, such demands are totally justified and need to be accommodated," said Ranjit.

    Ranjit was once a consultant to the Foreign Affairs Ministry. He was also the leader of the team which prepared the historical evidence for the case at the International Court of Justice pertaining to Malaysia's sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan islands.
    Malaysiakini. Please support by subscribing as a reader.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – How UMNO Stripped the sultans naked

    How Umno stripped the Rulers naked

    Saturday, 22 May 2010 Super Admin

    The measure, which included a rule to allow commoners to criticise the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or king without fear of the Sedition Act other than questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself, was passed overwhelmingly by the parliament, apparently without outcry over Dr Mahathir's rather tough treatment of the country's nine monarchs.


    Raja Petra Kamarudin

    In a speech before Malaysia's Dewan Rakyat, or parliament, on February 14, 1993, then-Prime Minister asked that the body strip the country's sultans of their immunity to the law. In the speech, he accused them, among other things, of giving away parts of the country to the British, oppressing the people, breaking civil and criminal laws, misusing the money and property of the government and pressuring government officials. The measure, which included a rule to allow commoners to criticise the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or king without fear of the Sedition Act other than questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself, was passed overwhelmingly by the parliament, apparently without outcry over Dr Mahathir's rather tough treatment of the country's nine monarchs.

    Asia Sentinel brings this up in light of the growing controversy in Malaysia over opposition protests against the Sultan of Perak's decision to oust the Pakatan Rakyat chief minister of his state and sanction the appointment of a member of the United Malays National Organisation as the new chief minister despite the fact that a 28-28 tie remained, and that the Pakatan Rakyat had asked for a snap election to determine which coalition should rule the state.

    When Karpal Singh, national chairman of the Democratic Action Party, offered to sue Sultan Raja Azlan Shah in the courts to get his decision reversed, scores of UMNO members filed complaints and led rallies against Karpal Singh for insulting the sultan. Members of the press, including Jed Yoong of the Asia Sentinel, have also been cited.

    It would appear from Dr Mahathir's 1993 speech that it is perfectly legal to sue members of the royalty. It would also appear that UMNO members, particularly prime ministers, can make allegations against the country's royalty that opposition leaders and members of the press can't. We invite readers to decide for themselves. We reprint Dr Mahathir's historic 1993 speech below in its entirety.

    Part I of III

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART VI – MALAYSIA: HOW UMNO Stripped the Sultans Naked

    Part II of III

    Mr. Speaker Sir,

    I request to propose that is a Bill named “An Act to amend the Constitution” to be read for the second time. Speaker Sir, allow me to introduce and comment on the Act that I mentioned above

    2. When the country demanded independence, the country's leaders, who received a huge victory and united support in the 1955 General Election, decided that our country would be administered via Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.

    3. This system was chosen because when the Malay states were administered via the feudal system with power vested in the hands of the Rajas, the Malay states were weak and its administration was in chaos. The states could not establish peace and enforce laws. As a negative result, the states were forced to put themselves under the influence of foreign powers like China, Siam and the West. Finally, all the Malay states were conquered by the British and ruled as a British colony via agreements between the Rajas that administered with the British Government.

    4. After the Second World War, the Malay Rajas hoped that when the British administered again, their positions as Rajas, under the advice of the British officials, would be reinstated. The Malay states would be ruled by the British although not like Singapore, Penang and Malacca, where the British had full power.

    5. For the majority of the Malay people in the Peninsular states, they were ready to accept a rule in which the Malayness of the Malay states was recognized by the British, although the administration was almost completely controlled by the British. Yet, there were opinions among some Malays that the Malay states should be completely freed from British colonial rule.

    6. Malays only realized that they might be marginalized and be made beggars in their own states when the Malay Rajas bowed to MacMichael's threats and signed a new agreement with the British to return the Malay states directly to the British to be ruled as British colonies like Singapore, Penang and Malacca.

    7. Because the Rajas so easily handed over Singapore, Penang and Pangkor to the colonialists and then the Malay states, the People (“rakyat”) could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the People are not given any role in the country's politics. Also, after World War 2, absolute monarchies decayed throughout the world. Everywhere, absolute monarchies were abolished. Where it was maintained, the powers of the Rajas were limited by the Constitution, or the country's basic law. Hence, when the Federated Malay States demanded for independence, the leaders of the People studied administrative systems while taking into account of the history of the Malay States and other administrative systems.

    Mr. Speaker Sir,

    8. The old administrative system in the Malay states was a feudal system in which the Rajas had absolute power without a written Constitution. This feudal system was determined by customs that were often manipulated by the people in power. If the people in power breached the customs, it was difficult for palace officials and the People to criticize and make charges. But when the situation became too bad, it was likely that customs were put aside and revolt occurred. But this method brought definite negative consequences without guaranteeing that the revolt would improve the situation.

    9. Therefore, the opinion that Rajas should be placed under a Constitution that determined the status and role of the Rajas was born. With this method, the Rajas could no longer act as they liked. The powers of the Rajas would be determined by the Constitution, that is the country's basic law. Yet, there were Rajas who were willing to hand over their own states to foreign powers while ignoring the Constitution.

    10. Yet when the Constitutional Monarchy was drafted for the Federation of Malaya, which at that time was moving towards independence, those drafters of the constitution still believed that the Rajas would abide by not only by what was written but also what was written between the lines, that is the spirit of the Constitution.

    11. During the British colonial period, because they could appoint or remove Rajas, therefore Rajas accept the advice of the colonial rulers. This matter is included in the agreement between the British and the Malay Rajas in which the advice of the 'British Resident' or 'British Adviser' must be sought and abide by the Rajas save those that relate to Islam and Malay customs. For the British, that the advice must be abided by the Rajas is not strange because in the Government system in Britain, their 'King' or 'Queen' must accept the Government's advice. If not, the King will be removed from the throne. Hence, when King Edward VIII married a divorcee, he had to abdicate the throne on the Government's advice, although there was no specific allocation for this action. What was enforced was not the law but the country's political interests, and the British Kings abide by the country's politics. That's the reason that even before that, the British Parliament decided that Queen Elizabeth pays income tax. She herself just decided to pay income tax. The British Constitution, although not written, is abided from the perspective of spirit and custom.

    12. Because the Malay Rajas in colonial times followed the advice, therefore it was believed that the problem of Rajas breaking the law would not happen.

    13. The drafters and founders of the administration of the independent Federation of Malaya also believed that the provision that the Rajas that could not be charged in court is only a sign of the majesty of the King and not as a right to commit crimes. Certainly, the drafters of the Constitution and the founders of our country's independence did not mean this provision gave the Rajas the right to be above civil and criminal laws. Constitutional Monarchy has never given privilege to the Rajas to commit crimes. But if the Rajas break the law while carrying out official duties, the Rajas are free from charges. This is because the Government is responsible and the party that should be charged.

    14. In the effort to oppose the Malayan Union and return the Malay states and Straits states to the 'status quo ante', that was the situation before World War II, the People played an important role although there is no legal provision. It was clear at that that time to the people that the Rajas without the People's support are easily controlled by the colonialists and other parties. Hence, the People had to be given rights in the country's politics and administration. The role of the People must be determined by the law.

    15. Looking at this reality and once again taking the example of Britain, the independent Federation of Malaya chose the Parliamentary Democracy system. The People will elect their representatives to the Dewan Rakyat (People's House or Parliament) and the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislative Assemblies) who will be the main law and policy makers. This allowed the People to play their roles in an orderly and organized manner.

    16. Once again following the system in Britain, the laws can only be valid after they are signed by the Rajas. In Britain, this is not a problem because it is not possible that the King will reject the advice of the Cabinet. But in Malaysia, the word 'advice', that the drafters of the constitution believed would have the same meaning like in Britain and during the colonial period, is not clearly interpreted. Therefore, the Rajas can reject the Government's advice.

    17. If the Government admits to be made up of representatives chosen by the People to determine the People's power, but the advice of the Government may not be accepted, this meant that the Parliamentary Democracy does not exist and the People are not in power. In some matters, not only the agreement of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is required, but also the Council of Rajas.

    18. Although the representatives were free to speak in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Undangan Negeri about any topic, but they could not touch on the Rajas because any criticism of the Rajas could be interpreted as sedition and they could be charged under the Sedition Act. This provision was a result of an amendment made in 1971. Before this, criticism of the Rajas could be made in the house. In Britain and other countries, the Parliament was free to criticize the Rajas. It is clear that that criticizing the Rajas does not destroy the Rajas' majesty.

    19. While this prohibition on criticism is said to protect the Rajas' majesty, but when the Rajas are not criticized, they will not be aware of the wrongs that they have committed. Hence, maybe more wrongs will be committed and these wrongs may become more serious. This not only contaminates the Rajas' majesty but can also cause the People to hate the Rajas. It is not true to say the prohibition on criticizing the Rajas will protect the Rajas' majesty. Actually, the majesty of the Rajas will be contaminated because of this prohibition.

    20. With the possibility that the Rajas reject advice while being free from criticism and any fair action, hence, the Rajas are actually not Constitutional Monarchs anymore but have become absolute Monarchs. Once again Parliamentary Democracy no longer exists because no action can be taken towards the Rajas that do not receive the advice of the People's Government and commit wrongs.

    21. In 1983, action was taken to amend the Constitution so that at the very least the power of the Agong to reject Bills written by Parliament was abolished. This effort was successful but not fully. What was approved in the end was the power of the Agong to reject Parliament Bills was reduced a little by having a new provision such that he can refer back to Parliament if he is unwilling to sign the Bill that has been approved by Parliament. If Parliament approves it again, whether with or without amendments, the Bill will be valid law in 30 days (Article 66(4) Constitution) although unsigned by the Agong.

    22. But approvals this way are limited to matters that do not touch on the rights and privileges of the Rajas. To amend the Constitutional provisions that touch on the Rajas, the Council of Rajas must give their agreement.

    23. At the state level, no amendments was made to state Constitutions. Hence, there are no laws that could be approved without being signed by the Rajas. This means the powers of the Rajas in the state is beyond the powers of the Dewans Undangan Negeri that represent the People.

    24. These provisions do not become problems if there are no opposing opinions between the Rajas and the Dewans Undangan, or there is no wrongdoing by the Rajas, or there is no Malay custom that does not like to jeopardize the relationships with the Rajas. Unfortunately, because the Chief Ministers and Prime Minister are Malays that are unwilling to be on bad terms with the Rajas, when the Rajas do something that is not supposed to be done, no effective criticism is made. Even if there is, the unwillingness of the Rajas to care about the criticisms of these official advisers does not bring about any action towards the Rajas.

    25. Hence, in the history of independent Malaysia, the actions of the Rajas and parties who hide behind the Rajas that exceed the rights and privileges of the Rajas become more serious over time. The possibility is that it will become more serious in the future. If there are no amendments to the law, like those suggested here, without doubt worse matters will happen that will cause the Raja Institution to be hated by the people. It is not impossible that if one day in the future, demands are made to completely abolish the Raja System although there are provisions in the Constitution.

    26. Hence this amendment that is suggested aims to avoid or prevent the escalation of hatred towards the Rajas that could bring about demands to abolish the Raja System. This amendment is to save the Rajas themselves and the Constitutional Monarchy system. To strengthen the Constitutional provisions to maintain the Raja System, provisions are made such that any suggestion to abolish the Raja System will be interpreted as sedition and falls under Sedition Laws.

    27. This amendment does not touch on the privileges given to the Rajas. Rajas will continue to be of Raja status, and facilities provided to the Rajas and the Royal Families according to the Constitution will be continued.

    28. To guarantee that Constitutional Monarchy is really effective, three amendments need to be made to the Federal Constitution. First, the Constitutional provision related with the immunity of the Rajas from any legal action as in Clause (1) Article 32 where after the word “court” is added the words “but only those related with whatever that is done or left to be done by him in the carrying out or that which resembles the carrying out of his functions under any written law”. This means no court action can be taken towards the Rajas who are carrying out their official duties.

    29. Sovereign Immunity is a feudal concept – a concept in which allegedly 'The King can do no wrong'. According Dr. Hogg in his book 'Liability of the Crown', this concept is based on the excuse that a King cannot be charged in his own court. This excuse has long been questioned and rejected by European law experts like Adams who feel that there is no doubt that feudal lords are under their own courts – 'No doubt at all of the subjection of feudal lords to their own courts'.

    30. Under the Government of India Act 1935, the Governor General or Governor is only immune when carrying out official duties.

    31. In the United States, President Nixon's demand such that he is exempted from a legal provision is rejected by the Supreme Court.

    32. In England, the Queen cannot be arrested and the arrest of anyone cannot be made on palace grounds. Even charges towards the Queen cannot be made in court.

    33. But in a paper that discussed the Constitutional Law of India, under the Crown Proceedings Act for England the original provision has been amended such that 'Civil proceedings by and against the Crown' can be made. Hence, the difference of 'proceedings' towards the 'Crown' is equivalent to the People.

    34. In the same paper it was mentioned that it has become a 'fundamental general rule' that 'His Majesty cannot sanction any act forbidden by the law'. When he cannot sanction, he also cannot do something wrong. Hence, 'His Majesty is under and not above the laws (and) he is bound by them equally with his subjects'.

    35. Provisions in the Constitutions of Spain, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Luxemborg all give immunity to the King only when carrying official duties as King. Any wrongs in carrying out official duties fall upon the Government or Ministers.

    36. There are no special provisions in any Constitution in European countries that give immunity to the King when carrying out unofficial activities. Yet, the Kings in the respective countries are still recognized and sovereign. They continue to be sovereign and did not lose their sovereignty. The opinion that Kings are only sovereign if the Kings can commit crimes as they like is not supported by the practices of other countries in this era. Even in the older eras, the King is often punished when he commits any wrongdoing, like in the case of Charles I in England and Louis XVI in France.

    37. Only in the Constitution of Malaysia is a specific provision under Article 181(2) that 'no proceedings whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Rules of a State in his personal capacity'.

    38. Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, this country's first Prime Minister, had written that immunity is not 'satisfactory' because 'Rajas can kill anyone without any action taken against him'. The result of provision 181(2) is very wide. Because the Constitutions of the Federation and States are also law, Article 181(2) actually allows Rajas to breach the Constitution. Because of that, when Rajas conduct business, although prohibited by the Constitution, nothing can be done by the Government. The Agong cannot be charged in any court. But the Council of Rajas can sack him from his position. On the contrary as a Raja, Article 181(2) will protect him.

    39. If Malaysia intends to become a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy, the immunity that is given to the Rajas must be abolished. Because the Constitution in countries that practice the Constitutional Monarchy System doesn't give immunity to their Kings, the abolishment of the immunity of the Malay Rajas cannot jeopardize their sovereignty. In the modern era, only because the King can't commit crimes as they like, the King's status will not be jeopardized, especially in a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.

    40. To guarantee the effectiveness of the abolishment of immunity, two more provisions in the Constitution needs to be amended. The first is related to the provision in Article 63(2) that protects a person from taking part in a debate in Parliament or Parliamentary Committee from being questioned in court, which has been amended by Article 63(4) if it touches the provision of the Sedition Act. This provision is made in 1971. This means criticism towards the King can be made before 1971 without jeopardizing the Raja's sovereignty. Hence, it allows again the People's Representatives to criticize the Rajas who were wrong without denying the original rights and privileges of the Rajas. The amendment of Article 63 after Clause (4) reads:- “(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4) no one can be charged with any proceedings in any court related with anything that is said by him about the Agong or a Raja while taking part in whatever proceedings in any of the Parliamentary Committee or any of its task force except if it organizes the abolishment of the Constitutional position of the Agong as the Head of the Government of the Federation or the status of the Constitutional Monarch of a state, according to whichever applies”. Article 72 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting after Clause (4) the following Clause:- “(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4) no one can be charged with any proceedings in any court related to anything that has been said by him about the Rajas in any state while taking part in any proceedings in the Dewan Undangan in any state or in any committee unless if he organizes the abolishment of the status of the Raja as the Constitutional Monarch of the state”.

    41. The interpretation of the sedition towards the King in the Constitution is so wide until no criticism is can be made in Parliament by members of the Dewan Rakyat or Dewan Undangan. Hence, the media also has no opportunity to report. Criticism can only be made by the Rajas' advisors behind closed doors. If this criticism is ineffective, there is nothing that can be done.

    42. Actually all three former Prime Ministers, as advisors to the Rajas, have already criticized the Rajas many times while they were in service. I know criticisms have been made because this matter has been repeatedly reported in Cabinet meetings and also the UMNO Supreme Council.

    43. Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn, as Prime Minister, had in his written speech in a Raja Council Meeting, only attended by His Highnesses or their representatives, harshly criticized the doings of the Rajas that should not be done.

    44. But all these criticisms are not effective. The matters touched upon continued to be done, even intensified. What was never done during the British era and in the early years of independent Malaysia are now done obviously and widespread.

    45. Although almost all Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers report to the UMNO Supreme Council, there are problems that they face but the public are not told. Hence, the public do not know the problems faced by the Government. Most of them continue to believe that the system of Constitutional Monarchy is operating smoothly with the Rajas honoring all the provisions in the Constitution. Only a small portion of the People know and they are not comfortable with the Rajas' doings. But they can't express their views and feelings because there is a Sedition Act.

    46. The Sedition Act and the relevant provisions for sedition towards the Rajas in Article 63(4) of the Constitution prohibits the People from getting information and voicing their opinions. They can only talk among themselves. Political leaders, including Government leaders, definitely hears and realizes that the views and anger of a number of People that knows about the Rajas' doings. Such is their anger till there are, mostly among the young generation, that consider the Raja System to be behind times.

    47. But because of the Sedition Act and prohibitions on criticizing the Rajas, Rajas do not listen and do not believe their advisors when such information is conveyed about the People's anxiety. The Rajas and the Royal Families seems to opine that all of these are inventions of the advisors to the Rajas to scare them or snatch the Rajas' rights.

    48. In this situation, the Rajas not only continue their habits that the People dislike and are uneasy with but also matters that are hated by the People. If this trend is not stopped, the feelings of the People towards the Raja will boil over and become so bad that at a point of time in the future, the People may no longer be able to control their feelings. Letters to newspapers that expressed such feelings have existed for a long time.

    48. With your permission Speaker Sir, I wish to read an excerpt of an article sent to The Straits Times in 1946 by a prominent Malay leader, when the British suggested the formation of the Malayan Union. This leader went on to hold a high position in Government. This article was not published in the Straits Time but was passed to me recently by the writer.

    50. This writer says, with your permission, 'All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not ar- rived when the Malay Royalty (I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogether'.

    51. If opinions were already like this in 1946, is it not possible that it will arise again in 1993 if the Rajas are not stopped from doing things that are undesirable?

    52. The protection and privilege given to the Rajas aim to put the Rajas in a high and majestic place. The protection and privilege is not to allow the Rajas to do whatever they like including committing crime. Rajas who are aware and understand the true meaning of these provisions will always take care to prevent contaminating itself in acts or behaviours that are not good and disliked by society. Rajas who are aware will know acts that ignore the feelings and opinions of society will cause the People to finally remove the Rajas, and even abolish the Raja System. This is what happened in countries that are now republics.

    53. In Malaysia, the protection given is very thick. Sovereign Immunity from laws and prohibitions from criticism, although only by members of the Dewans Undangan that has been entrusted to administer the country, separates the Rajas from the real world. In this situation, the acts and behavior of the Rajas will become worse in the long run. This is happening in Malaysia.

    54. Hence, it is important Members of the Dewan are given back the right to criticize the Rajas in their debates. Without this right, the Members of the Dewan will fail to practice the Parliamentary Democracy system and will fail to prove that the People are the ones in power in this system. Without this right, the ones in power are the Rajas and not the People.

    55. With the existence of a prohibition on criticizing the Rajas, Members of the House actually cannot protect the Raja Institution and Raja System. Hance, the freedom of Members of the House to speak in the House should not be blocked by the Sedition Act like provided for under Article 63(4) and 72(4). With the addition of Article 63(5) and 72(5), the Members of the House not only can protect the Raja's position but also the Constitutional Monarchy that is clearly protected by the Constitution, because it is mentioned in Article 63(5) and 72(5) that the exception from the Sedition Act does not include organizing the 'abolishment of the Constitutional status of the Agong as the Head of the Federation or the status of a Raja in a state'.

    Mr. Speaker Sir,

    56. The second matter that can void the abolishment of the Rajas' immunity is when doing something that breaks the law in a non-official matter is the Rajas' right to pardon as provided for in Article 42. With this provision, a Raja can pardon himself if he is convicted by a court after immunity from legal action is withdrawn. This means the withdrawal of immunity is meaningless and ineffective.

    57. Hence, the Government proposes that Article 38 and 42 of the Federal Constitution be amended as in Clause (2) Article 28 and Clause (12) Article 42. Clause (2) Article 38 of the Federal Constitution is amended – (a) by substituting the comma at the end of the paragraph (c) with a semicolon; and (b) by inserting after paragraph (c), the following paragraph: “(d) giving pardon, reprieve and respite, or to remit, suspend and reduce sentences, under Clause (12) Article 42,”. Article 42 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after Clause (11), the following Clauses: “(12) Notwithstanding the contents of this Constitution, if the powers mentioned in this Article – (a) have to be carried out by the Yang di-Pertuan of a State and are required to be carried out on himself or his wife, his sons or daughters, these powers have to be carried out by the Chief Minister of the State that will act on the advice of the Board of Pardons formed for the state under this Article and needs to be chaired by; (b) are required to be carried out on the Agong, a Raja of a State, or his Consort, according to whichever is applicable, these powers needs to be carried out by the Council of Rajas and the following provisions are required to be used: (i) when attending any proceeding under this Clause, the Agong cannot be accompanied by the Prime Minister and other Rajas cannot be accompanied by their Chief Ministers; (ii) before making any decision about any matter under this Clause, the Council of Rajas must consider whatever written opinion that may be given by the Attorney-General about this matter. (c) are required to be carried out by the Agong or the Raja of the related State with his sons or daughters, according whichever is applicable, the powers have to be carried out by a Raja of a State named by the Council of Rajas and that Raja has to act according to the advice of the relevant Board of Pardons formed under this Article. (13) For the meaning of paragraph (b) and (c) Clause (12), the Agong or respective State Raja, according to whichever is applicable, and the State Yang di-Pertuas cannot be made members of the Council of Rajas”.

    58. With this amendment, the Raja cannot hear the plea and pardon himself. If the Raja or his Consort who pleas for pardon, the Council of Rajas will hear and decide on the respective case.

    59. The Raja also cannot listen to the plea of and pardon his offspring. The Council of Rajas will appoint another Raja to hear and decide on the pardon pleas of a Raja's offspring.

Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021 LastLast

Visitors found this page by searching for:

cbb import and export sdn bhd

Hold on power: How did UMNO remain in power for so long

tables of races languages and food of malaysiachronology of events1994 UMNO tried to topple PBSmalaysian people religionsELECTION COMMISION OF MALAYSIA ER DIAGRAMcontentpekida bintuluTHE RAT RACE PART VI – MALAYSIA: HOW DID UMNO STAY IN POWER FOR SO LONG pdfscheme of religion in malaysiathe rat racestrategies the ruling class use to stay in powermental models used to remember aspects of DAPvi malaysiakelab no strings attachedmalaysia middle classwar in malayarat racegrand design kota mekahumno pyramid of powermalaysia pyramid of powerhistory syarikat jaminan kredit perumahan bhdpowered by myBB minority business grantsmental model university migration certificate
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts