Benarkah HAK Melayu diCabar dan Terhakis ? "HAK" Yang Mana??

Read here and here for more

by

Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos

Isu yang sering diperkatakan, terutamanya, sejak Mac 2008 adalah hakisan dan cabaran terhadap “hak Melayu”.

Cabaran serta hakisan terhadap “hak melayu” ini ditonjolkan sebagai datang daripada kumpulan bukan Melayu dan yang seangkatannya iaitu “Melayu liberal”.

Benarkah hak Melayu dicabar dan terhakis? Hak yang mana? Oleh siapa dan bagaimana ia berlaku, jika ianya berlaku?

Atau adakah semua ini dongeng orang politik yang mahu memperalatkan orang Melayu untuk melanjutkan karier politik mereka?

Ketuanan Melayu

Konsep “ketuanan Melayu” hari ini sudah menjadi celaru dengan pelbagai takrif dan fahaman oleh pelbagai pihak. Pada amnya, yang dimaksudkan ialah dominasi orang Melayu di dalam medan politik.

Kalau dominasi orang Melayu dalam politik yang dimaksudkan sebagai “ketuanan Melayu”, ia bukan sahaja TIDAK terhakis, tetapi menjadi lebih kuat. Dalam tahun 2009, jumlah penduduk diMalaysia dianggarkan seramai 28.3 juta.

Hakikatnya ialah orang Melayu menjadi majoriti Negara ini dan dianggarkan akan menjadi hampir 66% dalam 10 tahun nanti. Kalau di masukkan sekali bumiputera, kemungkinan angkanya ialah hampir 70%. Melayu campur bumiputera memang majoriti.

Apa implikasinya?

Pertamanya ialah, merekalah yang akan menjadi penentu utama dalam menentukan budaya politik serta halatuju politik dalam Negara ini. Perkara ini jelas sejak Merdeka di mana di dalam Alliance Party dan kemudiannya Barisan Nasional, di mana parti politik dominan ialah UMNO – iaitu parti Melayu. Parti politik yang kedua terbesar yang menjadi Pembangkang juga didominasi oleh Melayu dengan PAS.

Pemain utama di dalam politik nasional sentiasa orang Melayu dan dari perspektif ini, ungkapan ketuanan Melayu ialah satu slogan kosong orang politik untuk memperalatkan orang Melayu.

The main players in national politics have always been Malays and hence, from this perspective, the issue of ketuanan Melayu is a mere slogan, a tool for the politicians to manipulate the Malays.

Begitu juga kalau kita lihat sejak penubuhan UMNO baru dan Semangat 46, politik orang Melayu semakin matang di mana mereka sudah berani untuk mengasingkan diri daripada UMNO. Saya katakan matang kerana di dalam arena politik, orang Melayu sudah berani untuk mencuba pendekatan selain daripada pendekatan UMNO (pertamanya ialah dengan dengan penubuhan PAS).

Hari ini, kita lihat orang-orang Melayu berada di dalam hampir semua parti-parti politik ? UMNO, PAS, DAP, PKR dan lain-lain. Orang Melayu seolah-olah “tuan” atau pemimpin di dalam arena politik.

Zaman di mana orang Melayu hanya bergantung kepada UMNO sudah berlalu.

Di dalam politik, orang-orang Melayu mempunyai kepelbagaian pandangan dan kaedah untuk berkhidmat kepada Negara atau memperjuangkan suatu isu. Saya percaya trend ini akan meningkat.

Maka isu “ketuanan Melayu” dalam konteks ini TIDAK berasas dan sudah TIDAK lagi relevan kerana sememangnya orang Melayulah yang mendominasi arena politik dan akan terus mendominasi arena politik.

Realiti terpaksa diakur

Saya percaya orang bukan Melayu juga telah menerima hakikat ini (realiti terpaksa diakur) dan kita akan sampai pada satu keadaan di mana mereka akan melihat kepada parti-parti politik yang boleh bersikap adil dan saksama kepada semua rakyat Malaysia tanpa melihat kepada keturunan atau darjat.

Begitu juga dengan orang Melayu sendiri.

Mereka telah lihat apa yang berlaku didalam Negara ini sejak merdeka – 52 tahun! Siapa yang telah kaya-raya, siapa yang masih miskin, kawasan mana yang dibangunkan, kawasan mana yang masih mundur, siapa yang rasuah, siapa yang menindas dan sebagainya, jelas dilihat.

Saya juga percaya ramai orang-orang Melayu yang miskin tidak percaya bahawa kemiskinan mereka adalah akibat “perampasan” kedudukan “tuan” mereka oleh orang bukan Melayu. Mereka masih miskin kerana kegagalan polisi untuk menangani kemisikinan.

Begitu juga dengan Melayu yang berada didalam tahap pendapatan rendah mahupun kelas menengah yang mengempas pulas mencari rezeki. Mereka sedar bahawa peluang mencari rezeki yang semakin sempit bukan ekoran orang bukan Melayu yang merancang untuk merampas hak pekerjaan mereka. Ia adalah ekoran polisi ekonomi yang tidak mantap, tidak menyeluruh serta tidak bersifat jangka panjang.

Saya tertarik dengan Kota Baru di mana terdapat banyak kedai-kedai rakyat tempatan yang berniaga. Ekonomi tempatan masih tidak dirogol oleh multi-national corporations seperti Tesco, Jusco, Ikea dan sebagainya. Oleh yang demikian, rakyat tempatan Kelantan masih boleh mencari rezeki secara terhormat, serta industri tempatan boleh berkembang.

Kebajikan rakyat tempatan didahulukan dan bukannya “keuntugan tersembunyi” oleh pihak memberi kelulusan, yang juga terdiri daripada orang Melayu elitis.

Di dalam perhimpunan mengenai “ketuanan Melayu” yang pernah dan akan dianjurkan oleh pihak politik (ada yang berselindung disebalik NGO), berapa ramai di antara lebih kurang 14,000,000 Melayu di Malaysia ini yang hadir dan mengambil bahagian? 20,000? 10,000? 5,000?

Kalau 30,000 pun itu baru merupakan 0.2% jumlah penduduk Melayu!

Kalau 100,000 pun, itu baru 0.7% daripada jumlah penduduk Melayu di Negara ini. Inilah permainan politik licik dimana “orang Melayu” diperalatkan oleh politikus Melayu untuk melanjutkan karier politik mereka atau mengalihkan perhatian dari isu-isu sebenar yang dihadapi oleh semua Rakyat, termasuk orang Melayu.

Inilah keadaan sebenarnya dan beberapa kerat di dalam arena politik dan beberapa kerat orang di Bandar terperangkap dengan politik permainan ini. Tujuannya hanyalah politik dan tidak berkaitan dengan kebajikan orang Melayu amnya.

Sebelum saya mulakan perbincangan mengenai Perkara 153 yang kita sering dengar hari ini, elok jika saya turunkan keseluruhan peruntukkan itu untuk tatapan dan fikiran pembaca dahulu.

Melalui cara ini, mudah untuk pembaca ikuti perbicangan saya nanti. Penyataan penuh Artikel 153 Perlembagaan Malaysia dapat dibaca di sini.

Benarkah Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan tercabar?

Seperkara yang perlu diingat ialah: Perbincangan mengenai Perkara 153 telah dipersembahkan sebagai satu isu yang “sensitif” dan oleh itu tidak harus dibincang seolah-olah rakyat jelata tidak matang dan tidak mampu berfikir. Di satu pihak ada yang melaungkan perkara 153 sebagai “hak Melayu” yang “tidak boleh dicabar” tanpa memahami maksud undang-undangnya.

Di pihak yang lain pula ada yang menuduh perkara 153 sebagai “tongkat Melayu” seolah-olah ia sesuatu yang harus dimalukan. Kedua-dua pendirian sedemikian tidak membantu ke arah memahami Perkara 153 mahupun ke arah melaksanakannya dengan cara yang menguntungkan Negara.

Satu lagi perkara:- Di laman web “Pusat Maklumat Rakyat” Kerajaan, ditulis sedemikian:

Kedudukan Istimewa Orang Melayu

Perkara 153 Perlembagaan telah memaktubkan Hak Istemewa Orang Melayu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak meliputi:-

- perkhidmatan awam :Perkara 153 (2,3 dan 4)

- ekonomi : Perkara 153 (6)

- pelajaran: Perkara 153 (2,3 dan 4)

- Kedudukan Istimewa orang Melayu yang lain termasuklah peruntukan Perkara 89 dan 90 ? berhubung dengan tanah rizab Melayu.

- Hak-hak ini tidak boleh dipertikaikan dan ia dilindungi di bawah Akta Hasutan 1948 (Pindaan 1971).

Saya berpendapat ada beberapa kecacatan dan kesilapan fakta di dalam penerangan di atas.

1. Perkara 153 menyebut mengenai “kedudukan istimewa” dan bukan “hak istemewa”. Ini adalah dua perkara yang amat berlainan dari segi undang-undang Perlembagaan.
   
   
2. Saya rasa kurang senang dengan keperluan untuk menyatakan bahawa “hak-hak ini tidak boleh dipertikaikan dan ia dilindungi oleh Akta Hasutan 1948″ atas beberapa sebab. Pertamanya, ia berbunyi ugutan daripada penerangan. Keduanya, pertikaian mengenai tafsiran sesuatu perundangan sentiasa berlaku di dalam Mahkamah serta di dalam penulisan undang-undang.
   
   
3. Dalam sistem demokrasi, Rakyat juga mempunyai hak untuk menyuarakan pendapat mereka sekiranya suatu peruntukan perundangan itu disalah tafsir atau di salah guna. Tidak masuk akal sekiranya tafsiran sesuatu undang-undang itu menjadi hak mutlak penjawat awam yang bergaji sahaja – terutama apabila kualiti kebolehan pemikiran mereka sendiri di pertikai. Tindakan sedemikian tidak termasuk sebagai kesalahan di bawah Akta Hasutan. Perkara yang menjadi kesalahan ialah niat serta perbuatan untuk “menghasut”.
   
   
4. Perkara 153 pernah dipinda oleh Parlimen beberapa kali untuk memperjelaskan maksud peruntukan itu.

Analisa Perkara 153

Sekarang kita akan cuba untuk meneliti peruntukan-peruntukan didalam Perkara 153 satu demi satu. Adalah penting untuk kita memahami peruntukan Perkara 153 supaya kita tidak diperalatkan oleh politikus-politikus yang mahu mempersembahkan diri mereka sebagai “jaguh Melayu” berdasarkan pembohongan dan penyelewengan fakta.

Begitu juga, pemahaman Perkara 153 juga membolehkan kita berhadapan dengan rasis yang membantah terhadap Perkara 153.

A. Perkara 153(1) memperuntukan bahawa YDPA bertanggung jawap untuk melindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu, anak-anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak DAN kaum-kaum lain mengikut peruntukan di situ.

B. Perkara 153 memberi “kedudukan istimewa” dan bukannya “hak” kepada orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak. “Hak” adalah sesuatu yang dimiliki oleh pemegang hak dan tidak ada orang lain yang boleh mengambil dan mengurangkan hak tersebut kecuali jika dibenarkan oleh Perlembagaan.

Hanya sipemegang hak sahaja yang mempunyai budibicara samada ia hendak gunakan hak tersebut atau tidak. Orang lain tidak mempunyai budibicara terhadap penggunaan haknya (kecuali ada undang-undang yang mungkin menggekang penggunaan haknya.

Sebagai contoh, Akta Fitnah terhadap kebebasan bersuara). Kedudukan istimewa, sebaliknya bergantung kepada budibicara munasabah pihak lain. Dalam konteks Perkara 153, budibicara munasabah ini di jalankan oleh YDPA (tertakluk kepada perkara 40 iaitu nasihat kabinet).

C. Perkara 153 (2), (3), (4) dan (8A) memberikuasa kepada YDPA untuk merizabkan perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh baginda daripada biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan yang seumpamanya atau kemudahan khas lain untuk orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

D. Perkara 153 (2) dan (6) memberikuasa kepada YDPA untuk merizabkan perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh baginda sebahagian permit-permit dan lesen-lesen perniagaan untuk orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah danSarawak.

E. Perkara 153 (2), (3) dan (4) memberikuasa kepada YDPA untuk merizabkan perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh baginda sebahagian daripada jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam (selain perkhidmatan awam sesuatu Negeri) untuk orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

F. Perkara 153 (5) memperuntukan bahawa segala peruntukan dalam Perkara 153 TIDAK boleh mengurangkan peruntukan Perkara 136 yang memperuntukan bahawa

“Tertakluk kepada terma-terma dan syarat-syarat pekerjaan mereka, semua orang, walau apa pun rasnya, dalam gred yang sama dalam perkhidmatan Persekutuan hendaklah diberi layanan yang saksama”

Ini bermakna didalam soal kenaikan pangkat dalam gred yang sama ianya adalah berdasarkan kebolehan/meritokrasi dan bukannya ras.

G. Perkara 153 (9) pula memperuntukan bahawa

“Tiada apa-apa jua dalam Perkara ini boleh memberi Parlimen kuasa untuk menyekat perniagaan atau pertukangan semata-mata bagi maksud perizaban bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak”

Ini boleh ditafsir bahawa keutamaan Parlimen untuk memastikan perkembangan ekonomi Negara lebih tinggi daripada keperluan untuk merizaban lesen-lesen atau permit-permit bagi orang Melayu dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

Walau apa pun, perizaban tidak boleh menghasilkan penyekatan perniagaan atau pertukangan untuk Rakyat Malaysia yang lain (termasuk Melayu dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak yang tidak menikmati perizaban tersebut).

H. Perkara 153 (2) memperuntukan bahawa kuasa yang dijalankan oleh YDPA di bawah Perkara 153 adalah tertakluk kepada Perkara 40. Perkara 40 (1A) memperuntukan bahawa di mana YDPA dikehendaki bertindak mengikut nasihat atau selepas menimbangkan nasihat Jemaah Menteri atau seseorang Menteri yang diberi kuasa oleh Jemaah Menteri, Baginda WAJIB menerima nasihat tersebut dan WAJIB bertindak menurut nasihat tersebut. Di dalam erti kata yang lain, Jemaah Menteri lah yang membuat keputusan dari segi fakta walaupun dari segi undang-undang Perlembagaan, ianya dibuat oleh YDPA.

I. Perkara 153 mengunakan ungkapan “suatu kadar perizaban yang difikirkan munasabah oleh YDPA”. Ini bermaksud, keputusan kadar perizaban dibuat oleh YDPA (iaitu atas nasihat Jemaah Menteri) dan keputusan ini tidak boleh dicabar. (Kalau pun di bawa ke Mahkamah, saya percaya usaha itu akan gagal). Lain lah sekiranya ungkapan yang diguna adalah “suatu kadar perizaban yang munasabah oleh YDPA”. Jika ungkapan kedua ini diguna, maka besar kemungkinan keputusan kadar perizaban boleh dicabar dalam Mahkamah berkaitan dengan apa itu “munasabah”

Kesimpulan

1. Pada saya amat jelas bahawa Perkara 153 memperuntukan kedudukan istimewa kepada orang Melayu (seperti yang tertakrif dalam Perkara 160) dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak (seperti yang tertakrif dalam Perkara 161A).

2. Kedudukan istimewa ini adalah berkaitan kadar perizaban daripada:

(a) jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam;

(b) biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan yang seumpamanya atau kemudahan khas lain yang diberikan atau diadakan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan;

(c) apa-apa permit atau lesen yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang persekutuan bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan.

3. Perkara 153 tidak memberi “hak” tetapi “kedudukan istimewa”. Implikasinya ialah Melayu atau anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak yang tidak menikmati perizaban tersebut tidak boleh menuntutnya. Sebaliknya, jika ianya “hak”, semua Melayu dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak berhak dari segi undang-undang untuk menikmatinya dan mereka yang tidak menikmatinya boleh menuntutnya di dalam Mahkamah.

4. Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, Perkara 153 tidak pernah dicabar di dalam Mahkamah. Ianya jelas termaktub dalam Perlembagaan dan ekoran ini, adalah tidak benar jika sesiapa berkata bahawa Perkara 153 dicabar.

5. Jika ada pihak yang tidak berpuas hati terhadap implementasi Perkara 153, rungutan, cadangan atau bantahan harus di kemukakan kepada Jemaah Menteri dan bukannya berucap berapi-api di medan politik dengan dakyah bahawa Perkara 153 dicabar. Itu adalah perbuatan yang sia-sia yang tidak menguntungkan Rakyat langsung, apatah lagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

Demikianlah tafsiran undang-undang saya terhadap Perkara 153 dan saya mengalu-alukan sebarang tafsiran yang berbeza supaya isu ini dapat di bincang dengan sopan dan secara intelek.

-Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos

Malay NGO Consultative Council (MPM): ANOTHER Pro-UMNO Right-Wing Racist Group Formed!

Read here for more in Malaysian Insider

Quote

"Perhaps it is time NON -Malay groups and more progressive Malays team up and counter these right-wing groups, which continue to hog the limelight and dominate the national discourse.

This super-group of more than 50 NGOs now appear to have the muscle and voice to cow the NON -Malays into silence.

The mounting evidence of the past few months indicates that NON-Malays and moderates in the country cannot count on national institutions to protect their interests. And this includes the judiciary, police and the Rulers.

It remains that the ones who shout about their rights and the need to defend or fight for them have wronged their own kind, if not others.

In a free and independent Malaysia, we only need to redress the wrongs that continue to fester but NOT allow rights groups to wrong OTHERS for their own ends.
-Malaysian Insider

Feeling “threatened” in their own country, groups fighting for the rights of the dominant Malay majority have banded together to form the Malay NGO Consultative Council (MPM).

They have their laundry list of priorities, which ranges from the usual Malay rights and privileges, Islam and Malay Rulers, to national security and public order.

These are already items contained in the Federal Constitution and associated laws that very few would contest. Fact is, none would even dispute such provisions, agreed way back in 1957.

So what is behind the MPM and what can Malaysians make of them? They are re-asserting what is guaranteed by the laws of the land, perhaps because they think the ruling Barisan Nasional is giving it all away in exchange for the non-Malay votes that fled in Election 2008.

This super-group of more than 50 NGOs now appear to have the muscle and voice to articulate the community’s demands, and possibly, cow the non-Malays into silence.

Will they succeed?

They already have — as long as Malaysians of all stripes and hues, race and creed, sit by and hold their tongues, fearing to voice out the incongruity of rights group fighting for rights that are already enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Perhaps it is time non-Malay groups and more progressive Malays team up and counter these right-wing groups, which continue to hog the limelight and dominate the national discourse.

For at stake is tone and the right to influence the direction of the country that began as Malaya for all Malayans, and later joined by Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore to form Malaysia for all Malaysians.

The mounting evidence of the past few months indicates that non-Malays and moderates in the country cannot count on national institutions to protect their interests. And this includes the judiciary, police and the Rulers.

It remains that the ones who shout about their rights and the need to defend or fight for them have wronged their own kind, if not others.

The Kelantanese are bereft of the right to a five per cent oil royalty or cash, for oil or gas extracted off its coast. Instead, those who claim to defend Malay rights endorse a compassionate fund, turning their brethren into beggars in their own land.

What of women who are caned due to moral policing? Anyone who questions that is seen as questioning Islam and the Malay Rulers, when it is simply an issue of human rights, not the position of Islam or the Malay Rulers in the Federal Constitution.

In a free and independent Malaysia, we only need to redress the wrongs that continue to fester but not allow rights groups to wrong others for their own ends.
-Malaysian Insider

Among the prime movers are Perkasa, ex-Umno lawmakers council Mubarak, Peninsula Malay Students Confederation (GPMS), Malay Professional Thinkers Association and Cuepacs. Read here for more

A media release said among those who spoke were Perkasa president and Pasir Mas MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali Mubarak chief Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang and Malay Professional Thinkers president Professor Datuk Dr Kamaruddin Kachar who is a former director-general of the National Civics Bureau (BTN) which the opposition claims spreads hate ideology.

The MPM was launched by GPMS president Jais Abd Karim followed by a dialogue and a signing ceremony to form the body.

Its media release said,

“It is apparent that there is pressure on Malay rights and privileges in their own country, towards the position of Islam as the official religion, the position and sovereignty of the Malay Rulers that is always being questioned, the New Economic Policy that is being sidelined despite the LACK of achievement by the Malays and also national security.”

Perak Crisis: Federal Court is Dead WRONG! Nizar is STILL the Perak Mentri Besar, Says Retired Court of Appeal Judge

Quote

"... In the case of Nizar v Zambry, the only point that matters in the appeal is whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to remove a Menteri Besar who had been appointed by him under Article 16(2)(a).

Any astute lawyer or judge can see at once that there is only ONE point that matters in the appeal, and that point is whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to sack his Menteri Besar and to appoint another to take his place.

Yet these five myopic Federal Court judges were UNABLE to see that this is the ONLY point that matters in the appeal when every budding young lawyer knows about it instinctively.

These five myopic judges were lost in a quagmire of confused thinking caused by their own INCOMPETENCE.

They found themselves deep in the forest unable to see the wood for the trees.

Does this mean that we have a bunch of incompetent judges who sit in the highest court in the land?

Clause (7) provides the answer to this question. It says,

“Subject to Clause (6) a member of the executive Council, other than the Mentri Besar,shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.”

Clause (7) clearly says that members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Sultan. The Sultan can remove them from the office of Executive Councillors if they refuse to resign.

But the Menteri Besar, once appointed by the Sultan, does NOT hold office at the Ruler’s pleasure.

Therefore, Nizar, once he had been appointed the Menteri Besar by the application of paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article 16, cannot thereafter be removed from office by the Sultan. This is because Clause (7) says the Menteri Besar does not hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler.

Therefore, even if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has not the executive power to remove him as Menteri Besar.

That being the case, the only way to remove a Menteri Besar is to obtain a vote from the Legislative Assembly to remove him. Alternatively, the Sultan may dissolve the Legislative Assembly if requested by the appointed Menteri Besar – who is Nizar as he cannot be removed by the Sultan – to do so under Article 16(6).

Therefore, the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak is still Nizar, and not Zambry.

Then, how could the Federal Court give such a perverse decision in favour of the usurper Zambry when the Constitution of Perak does NOT confer any executive power on the Sultan for him to do so? This is especially so when Nizar is still in office as the Menteri Besar – a position he still holds in accordance with the law..."
- N.H. Chan
Retired Court of Appeal Judge

NH Chan, (full name: Chan Nyarn Hoi) lives in a modest two-storey semi-detached house in a quiet lane near the state stadium in Perak with his wife, a dog and seven large Japanese carp.

Born in Ipoh on March 27, 1935, Chan was admitted to the Bar in 1961. He was a lawyer for almost two decades before becoming a High Court judge and moving to Kuala Lumpur.

He was among the first batch of High Court judges to be elevated to the Court of Appeal, set up in 1994 to act as an intermediate court between the High Court and the apex court. Chan was recommended to the Bench by none other than Sultan Azlan Shah, the Sultan of Perak .Chan' has published two books, “Judging the Judges”, and “How to Judge the Judges”. Read here for more


The Federal Court in Nizar v Zambry: A critique

by

N.H. Chan

Excerpts: Read here for more

On 9 February 2010 the Federal Court (Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA, Arifin Zakaria CJ (Malaya), Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdul Hamid Embong FCJJ) handed down a unanimous decision on Nizar v Zambry.

The judgment of the court was read by Chief Judge, Malaya Arifin Zakaria.

The judgment is 40 pages long on A4 size paper.

These judges of the highest court in the land have, under the pretext of interpretation, decided that the Sultan of Perak has the power to dismiss the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar when the Laws of the Constitution of Perak does NOT confer any executive power on the Sultan for so doing.

If the Sultan has no power to dismiss Nizar then, we should ask:

How could the Federal Court commit such a devastating error to their reputation as judges of the highest court in the land?

The inability of these judges to pick out the one real point that matters

That is why the ability to pick out the one real point that matters is so important. This is what Sir Patrick Hastings – he was one of the great advocates of his day before and after World War II – had to say about the ability to seize upon the one vital point that is to be found in any case; see his book Cases in Court, p 333:

“The ability to pick out the one real point of a case is not by itself enough; it is the courage required to seize upon that point to the exclusion of all others that is of real importance.”

The late Lord Justice Salmon in his article, Some Thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar, was also of the same view. He said:

But remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest. Nothing is more irritating to a tribunal than the advocate who takes every point possible and impossible. To do so is a very poor form of advocacy because the good points are apt to be swept away with the bad ones. Stick to what matters.

In the case of Nizar v Zambry, the only point that matters in the appeal is :

Whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to remove a Menteri Besar who had been appointed by him under Article 16(2)(a).

Any astute lawyer or judge can see at once that there is ONLY ONE point that matters in the appeal, and that point is whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to sack his Menteri Besar and to appoint another to take his place.

Yet these five myopic Federal Court judges were unable to see that this is the only point that matters in the appeal when every budding young lawyer knows about it instinctively.

These five myopic judges were lost in a quagmire of confused thinking caused by their own incompetence. They found themselves deep in the forest unable to see the wood for the trees.

Does this mean that we have a bunch of incompetent judges who sit in the highest court in the land?

Article IV of The Laws of The Constitution of Perak says, “the Mentri Besar” means the officer appointed by virtue of Article XII.

Article XII says:

(1) His Royal Highness shall appoint by instrument under his sign manual and State Seal, a Menteri Besar pursuant to paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article XVI.

And paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article XVI says:

(1) His Royal Highness shall appoint an Executive Council.

(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say -

(a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly; and

(b) He shall on the advice of the Mentri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members from among the members of the Legislative Assembly;

That was how Nizar came to be appointed the Menteri Besar. He was appointed by the Sultan of Perak to be the Menteri Besar by the application of the provision of Article 16(2)(a) of the Constitution of Perak shortly after the State General Election of 2008.

The provision of Article 16(2)(a) gives the Sultan of Perak the executive power to appoint a Menteri Besar “who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”.

Article XVIII (2) is the only other provision in the State Constitution where the Sultan “may act in his discretion in the performance of the” functions stated in Clause 2 of Article 18. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2 read:

(2) His Royal Highness may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions (in addition to those in the performance of which he may act in his discretion under the Federal Constitution) that is to say -

(a) the appointment of a Mentri Besar,

(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative assembly,

After the Sultan has appointed a Menteri Besar under Article 16(2)(a), then, has he the executive power to remove him?

The answer is definitely NO, because the ONLY executive power left for the Sultan in which he “may act in his discretion” – after a Menteri Besar has been appointed under Article 16(2)(a) – in respect of the Menteri Besar can only be found in Article 18(2) (a) and (b).

Apart from Article 18(2)(a) and (b) there is NO other executive power bestowed on the Sultan concerning the position and status of the Menteri Besar.

The Sultan, therefore, has no executive power under the Perak Constitution to remove a Menteri Besar.

Nor has he any power under Article 16(6) and (7) to dismiss or remove him.

Article XVI (6) and (7) say:

(6) If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, … he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.

By Clause (6) a Menteri Besar who ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly “shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council”.

But what if any member of the Executive Council or all of them including the Menteri Besar – for the Menteri Besar is also a member of the Council – were to refuse to resign?

Clause (7) provides the answer to this question. It says,

“Subject to Clause (6) a member of the executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.”

Clause (7) clearly says that members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Sultan. The Sultan can remove them from the office of Executive Councillors if they refuse to resign.

But the Menteri Besar, once appointed by the Sultan, does NOT hold office at the Ruler’s pleasure.

Therefore, Nizar, once he had been appointed the Menteri Besar by the application of paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article 16, cannot thereafter be removed from office by the Sultan. This is because Clause (7) says the Menteri Besar does not hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler.

Therefore, even if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has NOT the executive power to remove him as Menteri Besar.

That being the case, the only way to remove a Menteri Besar is to obtain a vote from the Legislative Assembly to remove him. Alternatively, the Sultan may dissolve the Legislative Assembly if requested by the appointed Menteri Besar – who is Nizar as he cannot be removed by the Sultan – to do so under Article 16(6).

Therefore, the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak is STILL Nizar, and NOT Zambry.

Then, how could the Federal Court give such a perverse decision in favour of the usurper Zambry when the Constitution of Perak does not confer any executive power on the Sultan for him to do so?

This is especially so when Nizar is still in office as the Menteri Besar – a position he still holds in accordance with the law.

Are these Judges docile lions under the throne?

Is it because the judges were docile lions under the throne who are beholden to the monarch?

In What Next in the Law, page 335, Lord Denning tells us that:

It was Francis Bacon in his Essay, Of Judicature, who said:

‘Let judges also remember that Solomon’s throne was supported by lions on both sides; let them be lions, but yet lions under the throne; being circumspect that they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty.’

According to Francis Bacon (who was Lord Chancellor during the reign of King James I) judges are lions under the throne; being circumspect (it means cautious, prudent or discreet) that is to say, being timid and docile, they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty of the monarch.

Now you can see why the timid lions being circumspect as the monarch’s liege they would rather not check nor oppose any points of the sovereignty of the monarch. ‘Yes, Yes, Yes.’ whimpered the cowardly lions.

But why should they be sycophants when Sultan Azlan Shah himself have said that judges are not beholden to Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers ?

See Sultan Azlan Shah’s Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance, Professional Law Books and Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2004, p 59:

"The judges are not beholden politically to any Government. They owe NO loyalty to Ministers.

…They are “lions under the throne” but that seat is occupied in their eyes not by Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers but by the law and their conception of the public interest.

It is to that law and to that conception that they owe their allegiance. In that lies their strength."

This quotation comes right from the horse’s mouth, the Sultan of Perak has said it himself that it is to the LAW that judges owe their allegiance. Therein lies their strength.

They are not lions under the throne of Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers.

A Case of UMNO's Law Superceding All Other Laws in Malaysia

Read here for more

The Dang Wangi district police headquarters was told the AG’s office would NOT be pressing charges against two AL-Islam journalists who pretended to be Christians and took part in a Catholic Mass.

In their article, the two journalists admitted to receiving Holy Communion — which is in the form of bread which Catholics believe changes to the body of Jesus Christ through the rite. They said they subsequently spat it out in what Catholics consider an act of desecration.

A police report was subsequently lodged against the two journalists.

The duo were then investigated under Section 298A (1) of the Penal Code for causing disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.

The AG’s office would NOT be pressing charges against the two Al-Islam journalists.

No reason was given for the decision.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders including the DAP’s Lim Kit Siang and PAS central committee member Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa, believe the decision not to charge the two may send a negative signal that the rule of law can be undermined by politics.

Lim said the decision not to charge the two indicate the lack of seriousness by the authorities to safeguard domestic religious harmony.

“The decision shows the AG is not serious in protecting and safeguarding religious and racial harmony in the context of a plural and multi-racial Malaysia,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said today the Attorney General’s decision to let two Al-Islam magazine journalists off the hook for allegedly desecrating Catholic Communion hosts should not matter so long as the magazine has “learned its lesson from this episode.”

Khairy argued that the decision may have been reached to “balance out” the racial and religious tension caused by the “Allah” row in a bid to prevent further unease.

The “Allah” row had triggered a nationwide uproar among conservative Muslims. The tension escalated into attacks on houses of worships of both Christians and Muslims.The attacks also tarnished Malaysia’s moderate credentials among the international community.

PAS central committee member Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa regretted the possibility that politics could have been behind the decision to drop the case.

“They might have strong reasons to do so. It may be for security reasons but there has been much doubt about this (even if its true) as many of its (AG’s chambers) decision are done due to political reasons,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

The Parit Buntar MP said the authority should tackle the negative perception that it is upholding the law based on religious and political considerations.

RELATED ARTICLE

JUST WHAT KIND OF BULL SHIT IS THIS?

by

Art Harun

EXCERPTS Read here for more

The blatant double standard. The plain hypocrisy of it all. The stupidity. The stench of bull shit which permeates the air.

Well, let me tell all of you. I am seldom rude. Let alone crude. And there existed little time when I blow up in public.

But now I am blowing up. I am fucking blowing up. I could feel my blood boil. And my skin crawls with repulsion.

And what, you may ask is the cause of this very public and uncivil display of anger and disgust?

I just read a Malaysiakini report that the two so called Muslim who also called themselves journalists for a magazine which has the word "Islam" as its name are now going to escape punishment for their act of desecrating the sanctity of a church and mocking Christianity and Christians in general.

Apparently, no action will be taken "due to overwhelming public pressure". Senior ASP Anantha Rajoo was quoted to have said in his letter to the complainant that the AG Chambers have decided not to charge them.

And the file will be marked "no further action".

Huh. Since when does public pressure could be so overwhelming that the AG Chambers cower in a corner and refuse to do its sworn duty to the nation, namely, to prosecute offenders?

When one considers the speed at which certain "offence" goes to the Court, like the Sodomy 2, one wonders what the fuck this is all about.

Yes. What the freaking fuck is this all about?

What is it IF THIS IS NOT HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARD?

Raja Petra was even detained under the ISA for "insulting Islam" just because he wrote some articles in English about the unbecoming conduct of some Muslims.

Lesser acts have been dragged to Court because they are apparently "seditious".

And these people go away Scot fucking free?

Three women were caned - against the provisions of Federal law - for apparently confessing to having committed illicit sex. Another was sentenced to be caned for drinking alcohol in public.

Tell me that the actions of these two did not affect the harmony of our society. That they did not affect the peace. That they did not affect the interfaith relations in our society (which by the way id as fragile as it can be nowadays)?

Tell me.

Excuse me. But I think this is fucking bullshit!

UPDATED !! The Three Stooges from Malaysia in Washington DC

Read here for more

Report from Washington DC

It was a strange scene at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington on Wednesday morning. When the seminar on Governance & Rule of Law in Malaysia began, only one of the speakers came into the room, Nazri Abdul Aziz.

Attorney-General Gani Patail and former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed were somehow nowhere to be seen.

And in good Malaysian fashion, the seminar started 10 minutes late.

The seminar's chairman, Ernest Bower, looked tired and nervous, saying that he had received a number of e-mails expressing concern that the seminar would not be balanced. He said that he wants a dialogue on important issues. Therefore he also has invited the opposition to speak at CSIS. He hopes they will accept.

Ernest Bower then shocked the audience of about 40 people by saying that the session was 'off the record'. The flyer announcing the seminar never said it was an off the record session.

It doesn't matter though. The session was so boring there is very little to report anyway.

Malaysian Ambassador to the US, Jamaluddin Jarjis a.k.a. JJ, spoke for two minutes. He just said that he is working very hard to improve relations with the US (whenever he happens to be in town, that is). He made no mention, though, whether the new US$150,000 Porsche he just bought is paid for by the Malaysian taxpayers or by him personally.

Nazri said that it was just a coincidence that he, Gani and Abdul Hamid happen to be in Washington at the same time. (Sure. If you believe that then I have half a bridge to Singapore to sell you.) He said he didn't know where the two missing persons were.

He then introduced the "four members of my delegation," all MPs. (Talk about wasting the taxpayers’ money!) Two of them were PKR turncoats, including the infamous Zahrain Mohamed Hashim.

In a tribute to Malaysia Today, Nazri held up an Internet printout and referred to Martin Jalleh's article, "Malaysian Circus goes to Washington". He claimed that he had been planning the trip to Washington for nine months because he and the PM believe it is important to strengthen ties with the US.

Nazri then started his formal speech and spoke for 30 minutes. It was a very academic and therefore a very boring speech. There was no real substance to it and the audience quickly grew bored. Even JJ got so bored as he sat next to Nazri on the podium.

But what shocked the audience was to watch JJ's antics at such an "important meeting" at such a "prestigious think tank."

The whole while Nazri was speaking, JJ was sending and receiving messages on his Blackberry and mobile phone. He never turned off the ringer.

When he tapped out a message, one could hear the "click, click, click" of the keys. He even called his aide up to the podium twice to have conversations. He also got up and left the room and then came back.

And here is a first for Washington.

Then, as Nazri was still speaking, JJ picked up the Washington Post and started to read it -- not once, but twice.

Nazri went on and on, quoting Malaysia's many laws banning corruption. But of course he never said that they apply only to the opposition and not to UMNO politicians or taxi permit holders (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Finally, he stopped speaking and said he would welcome tough questions. He got one right from the start from Kumar, the head of Amnesty International's Washington DC office.

Kumar said Nazri and JJ had both just said that they want to improve relations with the United States. But that will never happen as long as people in Washington have concerns about Malaysia's harassment of the opposition and Anwar's trial.

Referring to the Malaysia Today article, Kumar said if there's a Malaysian circus, it's Anwar's trial.

Nazri replied, "Anwar is a friend of mine." (With friends like Nazri, who needs enemies?).

Nazri said he underwent his legal training in the UK and claimed that if he ever sensed that the Prime Minister was interfering in the case and there is political interference in Malaysia's independent judiciary, he would tender his resignation.

He added,

"When we heard about Saiful's charges against Anwar, I thought it was unfortunate. For the sake of the country, we don't want the nation to endure a trial like this again. But Saiful is entitled to justice. Why talk about rule of law if you ignore his report?

He had a right to report to the police. In any event, Anwar's acquittal before shows that our judiciary is independent, and we did not appeal that decision. That shows we are interested only in justice, not political persecution.

We do not have an agenda against Anwar. Why would we want to use the same old charge of sodomy, again? If you don't believe me, there is nothing I can do."

JJ clapped.

JJ was the only one who clapped.

Murray Hiebert then stood up to introduce himself as the former Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent in Malaysia (but politely declined to mention his experience with ‘good governance’ and ‘the rule of law’ in Malaysia when he was the guest of a Malaysian prison).

Murray asked about the Allah issue.

Nazri turned to the Malaysiakini reporter in the room and told him, “Don't you dare report what I am going to say.”

Nazri looked alive and gave a 20-minute history and language lesson, repeating the usual government line. As Nazri finished his long-winded answer, JJ leaned over to whisper to Ernest Bower, who suddenly jumped up and brought the seminar to a halt.

It was still only 11:30am and the seminar was supposed to go until noon.

JJ probably thought an early halt would be wise before they put their foot deeper into the mouth. Or maybe he was really getting bored and just couldn't take it anymore. Or maybe he was hungry.

So JJ led Nazri out of the room and the audience followed.

So much for the so-called ‘dialogue’.
-Raja Petra Kamarudin

Related Article

First-hand account from a reader , Malaysian Student @The Elliot School of International Affairs on the CSIS Seminar in Washington DC, who attended the Seminar

Read here for more in Din Merican's Blog

"....The Malaysian Taxpayers have a right to know what happened at the recent CSIS seminar. I feel it is my duty to share with you my report on the proceedings. I hope, Mr. Merican, you will publish my piece on your blog, which I follow closely in DC.

I apologise to Mr. Martin Jalleh for borrowing the word circus (I read his piece “Malaysian Circus Goes to Washington” on http://www.dinmerican.wordpress.com )

Actually what happened in Washington is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money (about rm 4million was spent on this, that is the story I heard here, but I have no means of verifying this) but also a disgrace to all of us who are Malaysians here in this politically vibrant city.

The performance was as Mr. Jalleh had predicted. It was dominated by spins and fell well short of the worst expectations.

The Team of Minister Nazri, MACC Chairman Abdul Hamid and AG Gani Patail (The NAG Team) was not there in full force.

Nazri took the podium and monopolized it for the most part – some 1 hour plus.

Gani Patail, we were was told by our “pengcubit punggung” Ambassador JJ, was busy at the State Department in discussions concerning “re-exports” and “transshipments.” Crudely put, it was the issue of breach of sanctions and rules concerning export licenses. The AG was presumably being asked to account for jet engines that flew off on their own to Uruguay, and the lucrative business of shipping sensitive equipment to Iran and other hot ports via Dubai.

The scheduled speaker, Chairman of MACC Hamid who turned up late suddenly appeared to have lost his voice, speaking on briefly and the audience was entertained instead by the lacklustre Dato Abu Kassim, the recently minted Commissioner of MACC.

The NAG Team included a number of hangers-on who could not be identified.

However, three MPS were introduced – a UMNO-Barisan Nasional Tajuddin, Wee Chee Keong (PKR MP for Wangsa Maju) and Penang MP for Bayan Baru, a certain Dato Seri Zahrain Hashim, who recently quit PKR.

The opening act was by the nervous Master of Ceremonies for the event – Ernie Bower of the CSIS. Mr. Bower who was severely criticised for arranging this seminar was groveling, asking the audience to be gentle and polite with questions and to show respect to the VIP guests from Malaysia.

He went on to make the point that the session was a closed one and that all statements were off the record. He broke the CSIS’s covenant for an open dialogue.

Thus there were no media representatives. The rest of the audience were students including myself, odd US Government Departmental representatives, academics, a handful of the Malaysian diaspora, and retirees from the US Foreign service.

This event did NOT attract the capital’s movers and shakers or opinion makers that the NAG team was dispatched to win over or seduce. It would appear that APCO, the lobbying firm, did not deliver after having collected their fat fees.

Minister Nazri began by referring to Mr Martin Jalleh’s article on the Malaysian Circus, which was posted in Raja Petra’s web-paper and carried on your blog. He said that his trip had been planned nine months ago and was part of the new Prime Minister Najib’s wish to cultivate closer relationships with the US.

Nazri elaborated that other Ministers and high officials would all be making visits to Washington in the future. He stressed that Najib was deeply committed to better relations with the Obama Administration. (Or was this an indication to all and sundry that they could count on Rosmah Mansor’s patronage of the Washington Area Shopping Malls which are still feeling the effects of the recession?).

Nazri assured that Washington would be close to the heart of the Malaysian Government.

The haughty Nazri was totally boring and spinning hard and made little or no impression on the audience. His responses to questions were rambling and evasive.

Kumar, the Amnesty International representative, was scathing — compared Malaysia to Myanmar in terms of adherence to the Rule of Law.

Nazri went off at a tangent and gave long definitions about the Rule of Law and good governance. His bull carried on weight.He was no better when questioned by Hibert Murray, formerly of the Far Eastern Economic Review who was in jail as guest of the Malaysian King, on the Allah issue – putting the blame on Roman Catholic Archbishop of Malaysia for instigating the issue. He said it was okay to use Allah in East Malaysia but it is taboo in Peninsula Malaysia. There were the usual worn out excuses for the ISA.

The cowhead –episode, in the de facto Law Minister’s view, had broken no laws and it was, therefore, difficult to prosecute. What crap is that!. I bowed my head in embarrassment at this outrageous comment. No permits from the Police are required to hold demonstrations, a fact Nazri conveniently forgot.

Dato Abu Kassim, the Commissioner of MACC, was boring sick as he described the various Committees that were created to oversee the MACC. In response to questions about the independence of MACC, he said it had freedom to investigate but not prosecute.

No mention was made of the MACC’s selective persecution of opposition. That was up to the AG but the MACC Committees had power to “review”.

On the Teoh Beng Hock issue, he was vague and evasive and said new processes for interrogations were under consideration.

A question about the Mongolian model was completely side-stepped.

Most in the audience left thoroughly disappointed.

We all deserve a refund for this dismal performance.
-Malaysian Student @The Elliot School of International Affairs - February 25, 2010

Must Read Article: The Malaysia Divide

Read here for more in Wall Street Journal

by

Alice Lloyd George
(Alice Lloyd George is a Princeton in Asia fellow at The Wall Street Journal Asia)

Quote

Malaysia risks being left behind economically if it doesn't climb out of its middle-income trap and eliminate the inefficiencies inherent in RACIAL policies.

Malaysia's RISK index, as calculated by Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, rose to 5.4 in January from 5.24 in December on a 10-point scale.

The country has suffered from an acute brain drain over the last decade, as individuals seek education and employment in countries where talent is better rewarded. Now it faces capital flight, too, with foreign direct investment dropping to $2.7 billion in 2009 from $8.1 billion the previous year, according to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates.

One reason is the fear that UMNO will continue to play the race card and stir up tensions to keep itself in power. Another is the government's failure to undertake much-needed institutional reforms and address issues such as corruption, civil liberties and judicial independence.

Some in UMNO, like Prime Minister Najib Razak, think they can maintain the old system by merely tinkering around the edges. Mr. Najib has gestured toward loosening long-standing affirmative-action policies, but any good intentions are obstructed by entrenched interests in UMNO's conservative wing—to date the repeals have been cosmetic at best.

Others are coming to a different realization—Malaysian society has matured and even Malays now recognize that outdated and discriminatory policies must give way to a more transparent and accountable system.

Mr. Anwar and Mr. Razaleigh are right that Malaysian society is ripe for change.

If the current UMNO elite is to stand any chance of remaining in power, it needs to focus on remedying the very real challenges on its doorstep, rather than felling the opposition.

Societal reform based on EQUALITY of opportunity is a change that is long overdue..."
- Alice Lloyd George

"The Leopard," Giuseppe di Lampedusa's celebrated novel about the crumbling feudal order in 19th century Sicily, made famous the line, "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."

That pretty much sums up the predicament of Malaysia's ruling elite today.

The sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim drags on in Kuala Lumpur, with the opposition leader's freedom and political career hanging in the balance. But the true significance of this anachronistic case does not depend on the outcome in the courtroom. The political assassination of Mr. Anwar aside, Malaysia is witnessing the death throes of a political machine that has run the country for over five decades.

Mr. Anwar is a skilled politician who holds together an unlikely alliance of opposition parties—his conviction would certainly be a blow for the prospect of real political pluralism in Malaysia. But he also serves as a vessel for wider social forces and a disenchantment with the country's leadership. Another figure would surely take his place at the head of the reform movement.

The ruling coalition was founded on the principle that the three main races—Malays, Chinese and Indians—participate in politics through their own parties. Coupled with an elaborate system of affirmative action, this has allowed the United Malays National Organization to maintain a lock on power by protecting Malays from the winds of competition.

After the opposition made unprecedented gains in the March 2008 elections, desperate tactics were called for, hence a rather tired repeat of the homosexuality charge first brought against Mr. Anwar a decade ago, now dubbed "Sodomy II" by a skeptical public. The government has denied that the trial is politically motivated.

That the political system and patronage network are under increasing stress is clear, but the prognosis is not yet apparent to all. Some in UMNO, like Prime Minister Najib Razak, think they can maintain the old system by merely tinkering around the edges. Mr. Najib has gestured toward loosening long-standing affirmative-action policies, but any good intentions are obstructed by entrenched interests in UMNO's conservative wing—to date the repeals have been cosmetic at best.

Others are coming to a different realization—Malaysian society has matured and even Malays now recognize that outdated and discriminatory policies must give way to a more transparent and accountable system.

One such leader is Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, a former finance minister of royal blood. Mr. Razaleigh has re-emerged as an outspoken critic of the government in recent weeks, though he strongly denies any intention of switching to the opposition. The 73-year-old party veteran has a history of challenging the leadership; in 1988 he left UMNO and formed a rival Malay party before returning to the fold in 1996.

Sitting in his Kuala Lumpur home—a remarkably exact replica of the White House's Oval Office—Mr. Razaleigh argues that UMNO politicians have not been responsive to calls for reform. "The young want to see a really multiracial organization, fighting on egalitarian issues, without having to fall back on race," he explains. "Unless the party system and the political system are reformed exhaustively, I think we are going to be pulled back into the same boat we have been in for the last 50 years."

Mr. Razaleigh believes that Malaysians want to move beyond identity politics, but UMNO is unable to break away from its Malay nationalist roots.

Most recently, the government appealed a court ruling that allowed the use of the word "Allah" by non-Muslims. Though UMNO called for calm, the prime minister's statement that he couldn't stop protestors from expressing their opinions only served to fan the flames. The ruling was followed by a spate of desecration and arson attacks on churches and mosques. Mr. Najib further undermined the government's response to the crisis when he flew across the world for a 10-day tour of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and India, taking key cabinet ministers and senior officials with him.

By contrast, in a milestone decision, the opposition Islamic party PAS—which only 10 years ago campaigned to create a theocratic state with Sharia law—took a more moderate stance, urging Malaysians to respect the court ruling.

The irony is that while UMNO continues to play race politics to out-Islam its opponents, PAS is appealing to a more progressive voter base.

Part of the reason for the electorate's change of heart is the realization that Malaysia risks being left behind economically if it doesn't climb out of its middle-income trap and eliminate the inefficiencies inherent in racial policies. These policies were formulated in the 1970s, when Malaysia was a tiger economy.

Now its growth lags behind Southeast Asian neighbors like Indonesia—the new "i" in BRIC—and China and India increasingly pose competitive challenges.

The country has suffered from an acute brain drain over the last decade, as individuals seek education and employment in countries where talent is better rewarded. Now it faces capital flight, too, with foreign direct investment dropping to $2.7 billion in 2009 from $8.1 billion the previous year, according to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates.

One reason is the fear that UMNO will continue to play the race card and stir up tensions to keep itself in power. Another is the government's failure to undertake much-needed institutional reforms and address issues such as corruption, civil liberties and judicial independence.

Malaysia's risk index, as calculated by Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, rose to 5.4 in January from 5.24 in December on a 10-point scale.

If there is a silver lining here, it is that even as UMNO has stoked tensions, by and large Malaysians have refused to be provoked—a stark contrast to the May 13 Incident in 1969, when rumors of ethnic slights quickly snowballed into massive riots and emergency rule. And that is one more indication that leaders like Mr. Anwar and Mr. Razaleigh are right that Malaysian society is ripe for change.

If the current UMNO elite is to stand any chance of remaining in power, it needs to focus on remedying the very real challenges on its doorstep, rather than felling the opposition. Societal reform based on equality of opportunity is a change that is long overdue.

Malaysia NEVER Rose Above the Stature of THIRD World Country

The following is a commentary made by a reader, "Mr. Bean", on Din Merican's Blog

Read here for more:

Malaysia the subject of international ridicule? Naah …!

Malaysia despite its towering buildings and all the trappings of a modern state, has NEVER risen above the stature of that of a THIRD World country.

1. The Brits gave you guys their model of parliamentary democracy they call Westminster to start with.
   
   Instead nothing grew beyond the trimmings of parliamentary democracy.
   
   Beginning with form without the substance, it was reduced quickly to being the rubber stamp of an all powerful ruling elite whose claim to legitimacy became over the years tenuous at best.
   
   
2. The Brits gave you guys the English language to master so its people could be living example of a people once backward but later globe trotting citizens, diplomats and businessmen.
   
   You threw that away and in its place nurtured a false pride in a language not spoken outside its own backyard.
   
   
3. The Brits gave you a legal system based on the English common law and a judicial philosophy that meets the needs of a modern nation state; and left behind a quietly functioning civil service that religiously adheres to the doctrine of civil service neutrality.
   
   Today the justice system, law enforcement functions not to safeguard the rule of law but rule by autocrats impatient and determined to maintain their hold over power and with it their monopoly over the spoils of public office.
   
   You have not one justice system but two which are antagonistic rather than complementary.
   
   
4. And the civil service?
   
   Pipe smoking, neck-tie wearing and bespectacled anglophiles have been replaced by a group of self serving, religious bigots whose holier-than-thou attitude permeates the ranks of the civil service, preoccupied with after-life issues rather than issues that affect the development of a country once proud to show off her tradition – otherwise eager to please their political masters.
   - "Mr Bean"
   February 23, 2010

Oil Royalty: UMNO-led Govt Should Do the Right Thing by the People of Kelantan, Says Ku Li

Read here for more

Quote

"... Tun Razak was driven by the nation-building concern that these poorer East Coast areas, which are also predominantly Malay areas should benefit directly from offshore oil. I drafted the Petroleum Development Act to reflect that concern.

On the instruction of the late Tun Razak, I drafted the Petroleum Development Act precisely because we wanted to ensure that Kelantan, Terengganu, and potentially Pahang and Johor would benefit from the 5% cash payments.

We did precisely because we knew that these states did NOT have oil onshore or within their territorial waters.

I traversed the country to sign this agreement with each Chief Minister of each state government.

The argument for depriving Kelantan of 5% cash payments on the basis of its petroleum resources being found beyond 3 nautical miles is an insult to the intelligence.

It is this benefit to the people which Umno Kelantan opposes 34 years after the death of Tun Razak. It is also Razak’s legacy that they make a mockery of. It is a mark of how far Umno has strayed off course that the leadership of Umno, and in particular Umno Kelantan is doing its utmost to deprive the people of Kelantan of sovereign rights secured by an UMNO-led government of another day.

The arguments used in yesterday’s newspaper advertisement undercut the rights of all the states in respect of a natural resource which is theirs as a sovereign right.

It violates a contract between Petronas and the states, denies the Petroleum Development Act, denies the raison d’etre of Petronas (which was in the first place formed to ensure the integrtiy of the federation by way of an equitable sharing of this valuable resource) and sets the Federal Government in contravention of an Act of Parliament.

In the end this is not a question of politics or personality. It is not about what I or anyone else says, nor of where Umno or PAS stand.

It is about the government complying with written agreements governed by an Act of Parliament and respecting parliamentary democracy.

The rights of the people are not to be fulfilled or withheld depending on who they have voted for. In treating Terengganu and Kelantan in this manner we are depriving them of money that is rightfully theirs, undermining sovereign state rights, and eroding parliamentary democracy.

We should do the right thing by the people at whose pleasure we serve...."
- Tengku Razaleigh

UMNO-Led Govt Should Do the Right Thing by the People of Kelantan


by

Tengku Razaeliegh

I see the Ministry of Information has taken out full page advertisements in the major Malay newspapers to argue that Kelantan has no right to oil payments under the Petroleum Development Act because the oil resources in question lie outside the 3 nautical mile limit that delimits state versus federal jurisdictions.

The advertisement fails to point out that almost all the oil found in Malaysia is located MORE than 3 nautical miles offshore, and Petronas has nevertheless been making oil payments to the states.

By the argument deployed in the advertisement, Terengganu, Sabah and Sarawak too are not entitled to the “cash payments” of 5% of profit oil (commonly and a little inaccurately referred to as “oil royalties”). Everything is at the arbitrary behest of the Federal Government.

Yet last year, according to its annual report, Petronas paid out RM6.2 billion in petroleum cash payments, with RM3 billion to Terengganu, RM2.3 billion to Sarawak and RM0.9 billion to Sabah.

One wonders what basis this payment was made on since none of this was for petroleum found within 3 nautical miles offshore of these states. The argument for depriving Kelantan of 5% cash payments on the basis of its petroleum resources being found beyond 3 nautical miles is an insult to the intelligence.

I have spoken and written at length on this issue and had been reluctant to say more on it.

Moreover, as a member of the ruling party I am embarrassed to have to belabour elementary points against the government.

This information campaign, whether through a leaflet campaign in the schools or through newspaper advertisements paid for with taxpayer money, implies either culpable stupidity or gross deceitfulness on the part of agents of the Federal Government. I had hoped to avoid that implication.

The government’s advertisement also exhumes a ten year old mis-quotation in a government newspaper to allege that I once denied that Terengganu had any right to the 5% cash payment. I said no such thing.

If the government media is to be believed I also once converted to Christianity by wearing Kadazan headgear just in time to be exposed amidst a General Election campaign. Why does the government rely on a ten year old misquotation? Well, these days we have our own blogs.

In fact, as a BN backbencher at the time I opposed the Federal Government’s intervention to prevent Petronas from making oil payments to Terengganu and the move to channel those funds instead into “wang ihsan”.

Tun Salleh Abbas and I offered ourselves as witnesses to the Terengganu state government in the suit it filed against the Federal government to recover those oil payments.

Between the 2000 and 2009, RM15.8 billion was paid out through the legal black hole of wang ihsan, not to the rightful party as specified under the Petroleum Development Act, which is the state government’s consolidated fund, but to agencies more amenable to vested interests linked to the central government. The outcome of that spending is the Monsoon Cup, a Crystal Mosque in which it is impossible to pray, a leaking swimming pool, a collapsed bridge and a collapsed stadium.

The people of Terengganu remain poor while Billions have been paid out in their name.

I am said to have changed my mind or somehow ignorant of the fact that Kelantan’s petroleum resources all lie offshore when the fact is that, on the instruction of the late Tun Razak, I drafted the Petroleum Development Act precisely because we wanted to ensure that Kelantan, Terengganu, and potentially Pahang and Johor would benefit from the 5% cash payments.

We did precisely because we knew that these states did not have oil onshore or within their territorial waters. The device we used was a Vesting Deed by which the states vested, in perpetuity, all their petroleum resources to Petronas, onshore or offshore. In return for this Petronas guaranteed the cash payment of 5% from oil found anywhere, offshore or onshore, of the state.

This rendered any consideration of federal/state boundaries whether at 3 or 12 nautical miles or whatever irrelevant for the purpose of reckoning the payment.

I traversed the country to sign this agreement with each Chief Minister of each state government.

Tun Razak was driven by the nation-building concern that these poorer east coast areas, which are also predominantly Malay areas should benefit directly from offshore oil, and I drafted the Petroleum Development Act to reflect that concern.

It is this benefit to the people which Umno Kelantan opposes 34 years after the death of Tun Razak.

It is also Razak’s legacy that they make a mockery of. It is a mark of how far Umno has strayed off course that the leadership of Umno, and in particular Umno Kelantan is doing its utmost to deprive the people of Kelantan of sovereign rights secured by an UMNO-led government of another day.

No one in their right mind could mistake this as behaviour that is beneficial to Umno’s long term standing in Kelantan, let alone elsewhere as people observe this behaviour.

I am accused of putting state interest before party interest. However the issue goes far beyond Kelantan. The arguments used in yesterday’s newspaper advertisement undercut the rights of all the states in respect of a natural resource which is theirs as a sovereign right.

It violates a contract between Petronas and the states, denies the Petroleum Development Act, denies the raison d’etre of Petronas (which was in the first place formed to ensure the integrtiy of the federation by way of an equitable sharing of this valuable resource) and sets the Federal Government in contravention of an Act of Parliament.

One immediate implication of the argument laid out in yesterday’s official clarification from the Ministry of Information is that Terengganu is also ineligible for the oil payments. This means that after cutting off oil payments when Terengganu fell into Opposition hands and replacing it with “compassionate payment” there is absolutely no basis for the government’s promise to return Terengganu to cash payments again.

All of Terengganu’s oil is found very far offshore. In this matter whatever holds for Kelantan holds for Terengganu and vice versa.

In the end this is not a question of politics or personality.

It is not about what I or anyone else says, nor of where Umno or PAS stand. It is about the government complying with written agreements governed by an Act of Parliament and respecting parliamentary democracy.

The rights of the people are not to be fulfilled or withheld depending on who they have voted for.

In treating Terengganu and Kelantan in this manner we are depriving them of money that is rightfully theirs, undermining sovereign state rights, and eroding parliamentary democracy.

We should do the right thing by the people at whose pleasure we serve.

Dr Farish Noor, You Got It Wrong on PERKASA

Read here for more

Who are Perkasa?

by

Dr Lim Teck Ghee



Dr Farish Noor’s assessment of Perkasa as “a class issue… reflecting the anxieties of poor Malays who are scared of the globalization process” is off the mark.

There is presently little or no data on Perkasa’s membership or ideology to support his assertion.

For example:

• we do not know how large its membership is,
  
  
• the demographic and socio-economic profile of members,
  
  
• the reasons for participation in the group’s activities,
  
  
• the number of poor, middle or upper class Malays that are members,
  
  
• the attitudes of these members and other supporters towards the globalization process, etc.

What are known are its origins, leadership, ideological position and the objectives and causes it stands for.

The facts known about it are clear and unambiguous evidence of what the organization stands for and aims to achieve.

They are a far cry from the class-based, nebulous and even heroic concerns that Farish draws attention to in his assessment.

Profile of Perkasa

Perkasa is an organization registered with the Registrar of Societies on Sept 12, 2008. It traces its origins to the aftermath of the momentous March 8 general elections with the early discussion on forming the organization publicly announced in June 2008.

Its OBJECTIVES clearly prioritize the defence of “Malay special RIGHTS” (rather than the “special position” of the Malays) as well as the position of Islam, Bahasa Melayu and Malay rulers.

There is nothing in its objectives (or its subsequent activities) to make it out as being concerned with or wanting to take up the plight of POOR Malays.

Instead PERKASA's positions are based on the anxieties of “Ketuanan Melayu” and “Ketuanan Islam”.

Article 4 of Perkasa charter

• Memperkasakan Islam sebagai agama persekutuan • Memperkasakan Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan • Memperkasakan kedaulatan Raja-Raja Melayu • Mempertahankan hak-hak keistimewaan orang Melayu • Memperkasakan kaum pribumi • Menyatupadukan kaum pribumi dan perpaduan rakyat Malaysia • Mempertahankan kedaulatan Negara.

The names and positions of Perkasa’s office bearers are just as instructive in pointing to the racial supremacy orientation of the organization.

Perkasa: Main office holders as at Oct 2008

• Datuk Ibrahim Ali (President) • Datuk Fuad Hassan (Timbalan Presiden) – ex-Abim • Datuk Shuaib Lazim (Naib Presiden) – former Umno senator & Adun from Kedah • Datuk Yahya Lampong (Naib Presiden) – former state deputy minister, Umno Sabah • Datuk Mokhtar Samad (Naib Presiden) – Umno Bandar Tun Razak chief, president Malay Contractors Association • Syed Hassan Syed Ali (Setiausaha) – vice chairman Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce • Muhammad Afiq Aziz (Penolong Setiausaha) • Datuk Abdul Rahman Bakar (Bendahari) – Johor Perkasa chairman • Datuk Ruhanie Ahmad (Ketua Penerangan) – Umno former MP Note: When he was Usno MP for Kota Belud, Yahya Lampong was alleged to have played a major role in the demonstrations that led to the Kota Kinabalu riots of March 19, 1986

Perkasa Leaders

1. Its “frog king” President is Ibrahim Ali who is notorious for his party hopping (“The frog under the coconut shell hops from padi-field to padi-field, it does not hop …far, just nearby” ) and racist and sexist outbursts (“… there would be fewer marital problems and a lower divorce rate if Muslim women were taught to accept polygamy”).
   
   
2. Most if not all of Perkasa leaders are professional politicians or businessmen, mainly from or closely associated with Umno and fitting in or flirting with the opposition camp when it suits their interests.
   
   
3. NONE have had any track record in the espousal of the socio-economic problems of the Malay working class.
   
   
4. All have been beneficiaries of the Umno system of patronage and profited enormously from the power and wealth distributed by the party to its members, especially those at the top.
   
   
5. All unashamedly make use of the propaganda depicting Malays as the hapless victims of the colonial and post-colonial development process and greedy non-Malays as standing in the way of legitimate Malay concerns and interests.

Dr Mahathir , the Perkasa patron saint

The mentor and ideological godfather of Perkasa is the former PM, Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In his welcome note to their March 2009 Assembly meeting which was telecast live by Astro Awani and contained in the programme booklet, Dr Mahathir argued that the emergence of Malay NGOs was rooted in Islamic and Malay causes and showed that the Malays now have less confidence in the political parties that are supposed to represent them.

He endorsed Ibrahim Ali as “(someone) who is neutral, who is concerned only with good governance, who will criticise whoever, whether the government or the opposition.”

Dr Mahathir and Ibrahim not only have a common interest in publicly massaging each other’s ego and respective causes but also in being perceived as comrades in the frontline of fighting for Malay rights in the face of rising non-Malay challenge. But are other Malays buying this line?

Poorer Malays in Perkasa?

Are Malays from the poorer and lower classes flocking to this and similar or clone Malay ‘NGO’ movements taking up the cudgels on behalf of ‘oppressed’ and ‘long suffering’ Malays whose rights are being trampled on by non-Malays?

The evidence to date is NEGATIVE.

On Feb 5, a Penang-based Malay NGO ‘Sedaq’ or ‘Aware’ claiming to represent 50 members, organized a demonstration after Friday prayers at Komtar to protest against the state’s alleged discrimination and oppression of Malays, especially Malay traders.

Although the demonstrators succeeded in setting fire to an effigy of the Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, it could only mobilize a much smaller crowd of supporters than the 10,000 the organizers were targeting for.

Various media estimated the numbers attending to range from 300 to 2,000.

In response, the MPPP has refuted the claim of Sedaq that Malay traders are being singled out for harassment and discriminatory action.

The data provided by the city council showed that Malays comprised 38% and 29% respectively of the 2,063 and 2,789 cases in the years 2008/09 against taken by the MPPP against illegal traders.

The claims of racial discrimination made by the Malay NGOs were groundless.

Although Perkasa and Sedaq were given much prominence in the Malay vernacular papers and official media, there has been little critical analysis of the actions and activities of such groups in these media outlets and counter arguments such as those put out by the Penang state government and others against the Sedaq group have not been given the coverage they deserve.

Perkasa and the Radical Fringe

It is as if the present Umno leadership which controls the mass media and the spin given to these new forces sees it as in its interests to coddle and legitimize Malay racist organizations, however extreme their message and opportunistic their agenda may be.

The convergence of interests between the Umno leadership and the various manifestations of these ‘grassroots’ movements is NOT surprising.Also not surprising is the apparent rapport between the Deputy Prime Minister and these groups.

For example, on Feb 2, Perkasa spent two hours privately discussing its myopic socio-economic and political agenda with Muhyiddin Yassin. The group’s position on key policy issues is known to be contradictory to that held by the 1Malaysia ideology and New Economic Model espoused by the Prime Minister.

• What message did the Deputy Prime Minister intend to send to other Malaysians and Umno members by being so deferential to Perkasa?
  
  
• Was the event staged to strengthen Muhyiddin’s Malay ‘nationalist’ credentials further and to undermine the Prime Minister’s vision of transformation and change for the country?
  
  
• Or is there some tacit agreement between the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister with one acting as the liberal and progressive face of Umno and the other as its unchanging and non-negotiable Malay nationalist face, thus enabling it to cynically exploit both wider public and hardline Malay support?

There has always been an important dimension of racial pandering driving Umno’s ideology.

Having an attack hound bare its fangs in defence of exaggerated Malay insecurities on economy, religion, language or culture has been a key weapon in the Umno arsenal to remind the non-Malay communities of their real – that is, subordinate – place in Malaysia.

The harder the line these groups take, the more liberal and progressive Umno’s leadership appears to be.

However, this strategy no longer works with a more enlightened Malaysian electorate refusing to be intimidated or browbeaten by distorted or propagandistic versions of history bandied by BTN types and the logic of Malay dominance.

It is also a dangerous game as Perkasa, Sedaq and other fringe extremist groups may turn around to bite Umno and weaken the country’s social fabric in other ways such as the church fire-bombings have already proven.

RELATED ARTICLE

Perkasa is one big joke

Read here for more in Malaysia Insider

Malay rights group Perkasa is growing in popularity among the community with its rhetoric but analysts and politicians differ about its actual purpose in a country where Malays dominate the government.

Its founder, seasoned grassroots politician Datuk Ibrahim Ali claimed that Perkasa has been seen by the Malay grassroots as the substitute platform to champion what they feel as eroding Malay rights despite being the dominant race in the country.

Critics however slam the newly-minted right-wing group of being “ultras” pushing their own agenda to ensure that the long-standing practice of communal-based political hierarchy remains. Ibrahim has dismissed the critics as “liberals” threatened and jealous of Perkasa’s surging popularity. “Perkasa is now a brand every Malays talk about but many have attacked us, calling us a racist group and conservative hardliners because of what we fight for,” said Ibrahim.

But analysts say otherwise.

Professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, a constitutional law expert with the International Islamic University (IIU) in Kuala Lumpur conceded the law does not prohibit Ibrahim from setting up or recruiting more members for Perkasa’s cause but his main concern is the reasoning behind Perkasa’s “struggle.”

Professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari said,

“I don’t know what he (Ibrahim) is fighting for. This guy is confused, what he is doing right now is trying to fan racial sentiments, although we cannot argue that he has a fundamental right to organise a group.

The thing is, Malay rights have always been outlined, stated and guaranteed clearly by the Federal Constitution. I don’t see any logic in Perkasa’s rhetoric about protecting the Malays. The constitution has already provided a space for Malay rights, and it is never challenged.

If there’s still dissatisfaction or unhappiness after all these years, then Perkasa’s target should be the government, where Umno, those in power have failed. Ibrahim should set his guns on Umno then.

Frankly, I think this is an opportunity to keep Ibrahm afloat or politically relevant. I’m not sure whether he can retain his seat in the next general elections.

It is unfortunate to bring the Ruler in this situation. The Monarchy is retained to accomplish certain purposes and for all races. The Monarchy has to be above politics."

According to the law academic, Malays have never been in danger of losing their rights or position as the legal provision for that cannot be amended.

He also noted that many people are unaware or ignorant of these issues, therefore giving Perkasa the ammunition it needs to propel support for its agenda.

Abdul Aziz believed that Perkasa’s frontline stand on racial issues have made things very political, citing involving the Sultan of Selangor in officiating the group a bad move on its part.

PAS chief strategist Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad firmly believes that Perkasa is a vehicle for the extremist Umno members and is undermining Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia concept.

He said,

“Najib has to take on Umno if he does not want Malaysia to be destabilised, he has to take on this hardline Malay issue. His silence on Perkasa’s role is not good because if Najib identifies with Perkasa’s political initiatives, his 1 Malaysia is finished.

This is a false perception that Perkasa is trying to paint, that they are somehow mobilising support. You are only talking to your own people, your supporters who are a minute minority within the Malay population who do not agree to Perkasa’s aims.

The Umno members in Perkasa, they are still caught in the backward Umno politics of the past. The system has now shifted, it rejects racist politics.

However, credit must be given when its due. Politicians within Umno like Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, and yes even Khairy Jamaluddin have spoken out against these kind of racist elements.”

He also criticised Perkasa’s mission, dismissing it as having nothing to do with the concept of nation-building and merely “championing the rights of one race.’

When asked about Perkasa’s growing popularity, Dzulkefly argued that Perkasa is giving people a false perception that it was gaining support when in truth it was only preaching to the converted.

Selangor opposition leader and former state Umno chief Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo however maintained that Perkasa is relevant as it “has its own role to play,” but at the same time stated that it cannot be compared to Umno’s struggles.

“I think Perkasa is doing its job well, but you cannot compare it with Umno, Umno has its own principle. In Barisan National we need to learn how to give and take, how to take care of our component parties,” said the former Selangor Mentri Besar.

According to the politician, Perkasa, like many Chinese and Indian NGOs, is only pushing for Malay rights, and there no should be no cause for alarm because of that.

“There is nothing wrong with Perkasa. They are fighting for their own community needs, like so many other race-based NGOs. If there are no NGOs championing for the rights of the races, then we would have a real problem,” the Umno leader said. Khir was the only one warm to Perkasa’s aims.

Professor Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, a political analyst with UKM said that there are no real figures to verify Perkasa’s supposed growth in popularity, and refuted that anyone should even take its president seriously. He also claims that Ibrahim has also confused the meanings of “liberal” and “traditional” in reference to the Independent MP’s recent outburst against critics of Perkasa.

Professor Shamsul said,

“Who listens to Ibrahim Ali outside his family, friends and supporters in his constituency? Maybe, just maybe, there are sympathisers to his opinions, but they are just listeners.

Those who take him seriously and feel threatened by him, who is just a court jester in Malay politics, must be themselves seriously very insecure personalities”

In the past, Ibrahim Ali usually used terms, such as ‘liberal’ and ‘traditional’ in his rather simplistic literal sense to mean “liberal=not loyal” and “traditional=loyal.

I don’t know why I am spending so much my valuable time on this ‘accidental politician’”