The Case for Tommy Thomas as the next AG


Note 1: Got this from OutSyedtheBox and it makes alot of sense
Note 2: It is reproduced verbatim (I only edited the layout for clarity) – the authentication is not confirmed

(After the major screw-up and yet to accept the reality of things, the guy on the left does not have enough trust and credibility to continue to be the Attorney General. The country needs a change – a drastic change that it. Image source: Free Malaysia Today)

DOES THE AG NEED TO BE A MALAY OR A MUSLIM? DOES HE HAVE TO ADVISE ON SYARIAH LAW?
By GK Ganesan Kasinathan, Advocate and Solicitor, Kuala Lumpur
03 June 2018

The nation is trundling towards a calamitous constitutional misunderstanding. Someone has to do something about it and set matters straight. Let us identify what is happening. A debate has begun to rage. It concerns the identity of the person who should be the next Attorney General.

It is about constitutional provisions regarding what characteristics the Attorney General should have—and whether the current nominee, Mr. Tommy Thomas has them.

Two conflicting ideas

At the heart of the debate are two conflicting statements:-

  • The first is the altruistic proposition that certain quarters ‘have no objection at all to a non-Malay being nominated as AG.’
  • The second is an opposite argument. It is that the AG should be ‘in a position to advise the palace on Syariah matters.’
  • And the third proposition, being a conclusionary one, is the argument ‘… that therefore a judge, or a retired judge of the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court ought to be appointed as AG.’ These arguments are deeply flawed.

Here are the reasons..

These arguments have no constitutional basis at all. In fact, the Federal Constitution says the opposite. Why is that? The rakyat should be allowed to interpret the Constitution. The rakyat should take part in this debate. They should look at the Constitution and inform themselves of the important aspects of this confusion. They should be taught to interpret the Constitution. It is their right. Lawyers should not be the only ones telling people what the law is.

So let us look at the Constitution.

The starting point is Article 145.

Answer to the claim AG ‘must advise on Syariah law.’ The first and most important opposition to the Administration — and Mahathir — comes from the argument that the ‘AG must be able to advise the King on Syariah matters’. This demand contradicts Constitutional provisions. This is because the Constitution exempts the AG from such a requirement. You will understand this readily, because the relevant part of Article 145(2), states:

– ‘145(2): It shall be the duty of the [AG] to advise the [King] or the Cabinet or any Minister upon… legal matters, and to perform… duties of a legal character,… and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

So what it says here is that the AG must discharge the duties that the Constitution asks him to. What power does the Constitution give him? That is explained by Art 145(3). It states:

– ‘145(3): The [AG] shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.’ Clause 3 prohibits the AG from dealing with proceedings before Syariah Courts and Military Courts.

As far as Syariah matters are concerned the AG has no role. No one would disagree that the King must have the very best Syariah advisor—an expert. Were previous AGs experts on Syariah Law? Was Gani Patail an expert on Syariah law? Was Apandi? How come no one objected then?

So how can the AG be now compelled to perform a duty — or exercise a power — that the Constitution has taken away from him? Why is the AG now being asked to advise on something that the Constitution tells him is none of his business? The person to advise the King on Syariah law cannot be a retired judge.

The fifth argument is that the nominee for the AG ‘must be either an existing or a retired Federal Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge; for, that way he can render legal advise on Syariah matters’. This argument is a non-starter. Again there is a clear instruction from the Constitution on this.

Apart from informing the AG what matters over which the AG has powers to act on, the Constitution goes one step further.

Secular courts are non-Syariah courts: i.e. the Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Courts: [Article 121 defines the secular courts].

The Constitution expressly removes from all secular courts any power that is only a Syariah Court can exercise.

Clause (1A) says:- ‘The courts referred to in Clause (1) [read, ‘secular courts’] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.’

The Syariah judicial system works under a different set of laws. They have their own courts, their own judges, and their own lawyers. They are independent of the Judiciary.

Therefore if Syariah law advice is needed, their Highnesses have ample Syariah resources available at their disposal. If so, how can candidates be chosen from the retired or existing list of the secular Federal Court or the Court of Appeal judges? From them have been removed the power to deal with Syariah matters. It stands to reason that they, no matter what race or religion they profess, would have had no formal legal training on Syariah law at all.

So why ask to choose from a group who possess no Syariah knowledge at all? So the argument that the AG ‘must be able to advise on Syariah matters’ argument is a red fish! It is simply not true.

What qualities must a candidate for an AG have?

The next question to ask oneself is, who can be appointed as the AG? Article 145(1) answers the question in this way:

– ‘145(1): The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’

Note the phrase, ‘a person qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court’. Who is that?

That is explained in Article 123. It prescribes that a nominee for an AG must be (a) a citizen and (b) for the last 10 years before his appointment he shall have been ‘an advocate’; or ‘a member of the Judicial and Legal service’ (this differs from judges in the Courts – do not confuse them as one), or a mixture of both. It does not mean he must be a Federal Court or Court of Appeal Judge. He must only be one who is ‘qualified to be’ one.

From which pool would you choose your AG, given the choice?

As a matter of choice where would you choose the AG to come from? Let us examine the pool of resources available to the Prime Minister. Suppose there are about 1,800 lawyers in the AG’s Chambers [AGC]: that is about right. Suppose we assume that at least 500 AGC lawyers in AGC have crossed the ‘10 year practice’ mark (the numbers could be far lower]. Then at least 500 persons qualify to be the AG.

Now, the Malaysian Bar has ten times more lawyers than the AGC. It had, at the latest count, over 18,000 members. Of that number [I extrapolate] there are over 9,000 lawyers who qualify under this Art 123 — they have crossed the ‘10 years of continued practice’ requirement. They are all citizens.

Go now to the judiciary as a source. If you add the total number of judges in the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal that does not cross 45. A great proportion of those judges are from the AG’s Chambers: some say as high as 90%. As a matter of choice, where would you choose the AG from? From the largest pool of 9,00 members, or a lesser pool of 500 lawyers from AG’s chambers, or from a smaller pool of 45 judges from the Judiciary— the latter of which is already under attack?

Equality of all candidates not matter of race

The sixth point is, the Constitution, which upholds equality as its central core (read Article 8 of the Constitution), does not prevent a non-Malay from being appointed an AG. If our forefathers thought it necessary, they would have inserted that proscription into the Constitution. Had they done it, that would have been against all known conventions of human rights. They have not.

Our forebears were reasonable people. They saw this issue and catered for it. The framers of the Constitution were men of great foresight. So why manipulate that intent by specious arguments of non-existent ‘conventions,’ conventions which are against human rights?

So there is no racial restriction in the Constitution. So that argument too goes out of the window.

The King ‘shall appoint’ Clause (1) of Article 145 states that His Majesty the King ‘shall’ on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint as AG a person proposed by the Prime Minister. This is what it says:

– ‘145(1): The yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’

Note the word, ‘shall’. It is mandatory.

The binding nature of the Prime Minister’s proposal is buttressed by an explanatory clause in Art. 40(1A): It says:

– ‘In in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.’

The phrase ‘shall accept and act in accordance with such advice’ points to a mandatory requirement. There is a reason for this. The functioning of a valid government cannot be stultified by delay.

The Manifesto Point

The seventh argument is: ‘In appointing a non-Parliamentarian, Mahathir has departed from the Harapan manifesto that the AG shall be an MP.’

Many points answer this vacuous argument. The manifesto point is readily overcome. Second, I have said elsewhere, the AG ought to be an MP answerable to the people, through parliament. I have suggested that the Constitution ought to be changed to effect that. The Committee for Institutional Reform is engaged in just that.

Like the Council of Eminent Persons, they have had no rest. They are burning the candle at both ends. They are inundated with all manner of papers. They will suggest amendments—in good time. But until that change is done, the law, as it stands, must be complied with. There is no countervailing argument against that. There is, fortunately, a Half-Way House solution.

It is embedded into the Constitution. Art. 61 of the Constitution, which states, ‘(2) Either house of parliament may appoint as a member of any of its committees the [AG]… notwithstanding that he is not a member of that house.’

So, through this side-door, Parliament may, after it convenes, ask the AG to be appointed into its committees. The Committees may ask him to answer questions. In this way the current AG can be brought into Parliament’s deliberations.

So these concerns are easily alleviated. So any allegation that ‘Harapan has breached its Manifesto’ is really no issue at all.

Parliament has a right to override the King on executive matters

The King has executive authority over the Federation. That authority is, however, not absolute. It is subject to the dictates of Parliament: this is because Art 39 states:

‘The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the yang di Pertuan Agong and exercisable… by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, … but parliament may by law confer executive functions on other persons.’

The AG’s appointment, under the current law, is an exercise of executive authority. If the King does not act on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Constitution grants another route to Parliament. In matters of governance, the primacy of Parliament is constitutionally entrenched. But Parliament has not been convened. That time is not yet come. It will. But can we wait till then?

The power of the Conference of Rulers

The final argument in the opposition’s quiver is that the Conference of Rulers have an absolute power to object to any suggestion of the Prime Minister. This is incorrect. True it is that the Conference of Rulers have certain ‘discretionary’ powers. Article 38 lays it out in great detail. They have a right to be consulted on certain matters.

These are listed with some care: these deal with matters relating the appointment of the King, e.g., include any matter relating to the special position of the Malay rulers, the Islamic religion or the rights of Malays under Article 153 (Reservation of quotas in the services, permits etc. for Malays). True also it is that that Art. 38(2)(c) states that the Conference of Rulers shall exercise its functions of consultation by —

‘… consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference’.

Some argue that Clause (6) gives the Conference of Rulers the right of carte blanche— blank cheque; that that it is ‘an absolute right’. This is what the relevant part of Clause (6) says — … the members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say… (c) consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference; In constitutional theory, the personal prerogative of the monarch is said to contradict democracy.

On a proper reading of Clause 6, this personal power is not absolute.

  • First, much of the strength of these prerogative power are diluted by constitutional principles.
  • Second, other clauses in the Constitution severely limit that power.
  • Third, the ‘right to consultation’ cannot mean an ‘absolute right to refuse.’

That is why the Constitution, with great care, has said, their Highnesses ‘may act in their discretion.’ This discretion is called ‘royal prerogative.’ Blackstone described it as the powers that ‘the king enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects.’ So they are are ‘personal prerogatives.’ But the principles underlying the exercise of prerogatives have been uniformly accepted without contradiction across the world.

It is for that reason such prerogatives are carefully circumscribed. The way the words in clause 6 are crafted is a call to exercise, in their Highnesses discretion, one of the most fundamental provisions of the Rule of Law: when a constitutional discretion is granted, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

So the exercise of the ‘personal prerogative’ must seek to achieve the equality principle rooted as the basic fabric of the Constitution. It must be subject to transparency and good governance. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It cannot be exploited capriciously. Such a discretion must be exercised in a way that will aid democracy and uphold the Rule of Law. The words must be construed to comply with the spirit of the Constitution and the Will of the People.

Conclusion

Parliament is not in session. Not yet. Yet someone has to carry the burden of the AG. Charges have to be filed. People have to be hauled up before the courts.

The Cabinet is busy answering a hundred, perhaps a thousand urgent calls upon its time. This amidst the urgent concern that economic matters should be dealt with alacrity. Manifesto or no, Mahathir has to stop the haemorrhage.

The Cabinet cannot hang about. Time is of the essence. Mahathir has to act now. Those who delay the appointment of the AG are doing a great disservice to the toils of an elderly patriot trying to right a wayward ship. These detractors are playing into the hands of the pilferers who have purloined billions from our coffers. They sit pretty, smiling from their strongholds. They think nothing will come upon them so long as they keep raising one constitutional crises after another, and trigger as much unease and delay as possible.

That is why they are delaying the appointment of the AG. They wish to feel safe. They think the GE 14 is a pyrrhic victory. They feel they are untouchable. They must be stopped. As a nation we cannot sit idly by, while these detractors stultify the rakyat’s hard-won victory

Advertisements

2018 – Things So Far


Read also:-

(Miracle do happen! Karma do exist! For the first time in history, the opposition will form the Federal Government and take extra states compared to the last elections. It’s is time to clean up the nation and enforce the rule of law. Photo source: NSTP)

==========

Preamble

I can’t believe that I last blogged back in September 2017 – time does flies fast when one is not looking

Well, it is not that I had lost interest in blogging (I still do drafts now and then but don’t have the time to complete them) but I found that given the very little time that I have apart from work & family, typing on issues and events over the social media & instant messages (Facebook, Twitter and the countless Whatsapp Groups) is more convenient (just hit the “Share” button and your message gets through) compared to blogging which takes time as I tend to do more research and review the drafts over and over again.

Another reason was that the politics in this country was becoming more absurd and lack of any logic that it was pointless to discuss on it at length. The real battle was waged in the social medias and it made a lot of sense for anyone who is supporting the opposition to join them there and share and create the awareness of their points, arguments and speeches to others (especially for those who are still undecided or don’t care about the state of the nation).

But considering one of the main reason for me to blog was to improve my language (and my “penmanship”) and I have been slacking (very much) on this lately, it is time me to seriously look into blogging on a more regular basis. The real challenge would be to find time to do it on a regular basis but I am kind of inspired by Pakatan Harapan’s win in the General Elections and the volume of work that Tun Dr M is doing after taking up his place as the Prime Minister.

==========

Going into the year 2018 started with tragedies

First was this:-

A 15-year-old boy died when a chair, thrown from an upper floor of a block of People’s Housing Programme (PPR) apartments in Pantai Dalam, struck his head on Monday night.

The victim, identified as S. Satiswaran, a Form Three student of SMK La Salle in Petaling Jaya, was accompanying his mother, 45, who had just finished grocery shopping.

When they were about to enter their apartment block at about 8.30pm, an office chair, believed to have been thrown from one of the upper floors, crashed down and struck Sathiwaran.

(Source)

The other was this:-

‘This is not a suicide, this is a murder!’ the Malaysian Tamilar Kural (MTL) president thundered on Thursday, following the death of a 14-year-old schoolgirl who died after being in a coma since Jan 24.

David Marshel slammed what he called inaction by the Education Department and the police for not investigating a teacher who had accused the girl of stealing her iPhone last week – a charge the girl vehemently denied.

The Form Two girl passed away at the Seberang Jaya Hospital at 3.30am on Thursday, prompting David to demand that police take action against the teacher and her husband for allegedly threatening and striking the student, to the point that she attempted suicide at her home last week.

(Source)

And the year 2018 was also the year when we learned that 2 of our close relatives was diagnosed with cancer – one is my aunt, very tough lady with breast cancer (undergoing treatment and seems to be holding off) and another, my father-in-law’s elder brother (who we call Uncle) with throat cancer.

When we got the news that the uncle will not last long and the doctor had informed the family that there is nothing much they can do (he probably had days to live), my grandmother got in touch with me and asked me whether I could drive her to see him in Taiping before it was too late.

Despite of my busy schedule, there was no way I could say no to the old tough lady and so we packed up and drive up North to the uncle’s house with my wife & mum tagging along. We reached late and I thought my grandmother would be tired from the long journey and would like to rest first at my father-in-law’s house. But she said no, she was not tired – let’s visit the uncle first no matter how late it is and then think of rest (namely dinner) later. The mood in the uncle’s house was sombre and depressing and despite the late hours, there were plenty of people still awake in the house. No one had the mood to sleep. My grandmother met the uncle in his room, he was half awake from strong medication and blessed him before we left the house. The very next morning, we got news that he had passed away in his sleep.

Yes, beginning of the year was indeed depressing and full of tragedies

2018 was also the year when the country would be having it’s General Elections and the news on the ground was not good. It seems to favor the current Prime Minister Najib – he seems to be untouchable and despite Tun Dr M joining up with the oppositions under the same umbrella known as “Pakatan Harapan”, the chances of Najib winning another General Elections was indeed high. PAS who opted out from Pakatan Harapan remained the thorn in the bush with its leaders working closely with UMNO to frustrate the Pakatan Harapan’s chances in the upcoming General Elections.

And there was the issue of redelineation by the Election Commission that seems to be favoring the ruling political party and moving voters based on ethnic background.

Malaysia’s ongoing redelineation exercise is unconstitutional and will create a Parliament that is extremely unrepresentative of Malaysia’s people, no matter who wins, because it is severely flawed in two main ways: it either creates malapportionment, which is the manipulation of electorate size where one person’s votes become worth up to 3-4 times the votes of another person in a different constituency; or causes gerrymandering, which is the manipulation of electorate composition to the advantage of one party; or both.

Schedule 13 of Malaysia’s Constitution specifically prohibits malapportionment and gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, making the redelineation exercise unconstitutional.

(Source)

Of course, the same was echoed in the Economist’s article title “Malaysia’s PM is about to steal an election” and this did not help to calm things down. Pakatan was looking for another defeat and Malaysians a lost of opportunity to make things right.

Cost of living was on the increase too, no thanks to GST and other factors (such as Ringgit exchange rate, wide mismanagement, weak oil price, etc). We seem to be spending more and more for a smaller size of sundry goods on the monthly basis. At times vegetables were more expensive than chicken or fish. Eating out had become a luxury adventure and we hardly travel these days. And in the recent months, more businesses were closing down and this has direct impact on the national unemployment stats and income from taxation.

SOME companies have shut down because of the goods and services tax (GST), says Second Finance Minister Johari Abdul Ghani. Johari did not disclose details as the matter is still under investigation.

The Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia told The Malaysian Insight on October 20 that GST has caused many Malay businesses to close shop.

Its vice-president, Norsyahrin Hamidon, said the chamber has yet to obtain the exact number of members who had to close shop due to GST.

(Source)

And of course, this was before outcome of the General Elections when the country seemed to be going into the dark ages. It was running on the basis of “cash is king” and those who walk along the corridors of powers were untouchable and cannot be criticized whilst the wastages & the other nonsense continued.

Then on 9th May 2018, a miracle happened….

Dr M, We All Are Pendatang!


(The message from the great Tunku back in 1988 is still relevant today. The issue of asking someone to go “back” to whatever country that their great-great-great parents came from is nothing new and is not limited to the Bolehland but who is not a “pendatang” in the first place and interestingly that includes “whiter than the white” Dr M whose ancestry was from India.  As the Tunku himself had said, think for yourself and see if what some people have done with their powers is right or wrong)

Is this another distraction from real issues in the next general election? Another dump of dirty politics on the main road?

It is a distress for one to read on the Dr M’s admission on “Project IC” in Sabah and where instead of acknowledging his past mistakes (some even called it treason) and trying to get forgiveness and work towards citizenship of the real stateless people in Malaysia, he instead called for RCI on the citizenship to Indians and Chinese before Merdeka. And worse, he puts the blame on the late Tunku Abdul Rahman (the statesman who got this country its independence and saw through the formation of Malaysia) for granting citizenship to “unqualified” people.

One thing for sure, Dr M have fallen from grace even if he has done some good for the country in the past. And on Dr M’s stirring of the cheap dirty politics to cover his back (it is not the first time he has done this), there has been far too many angry response. The one from Erna Mahyuni nails the point on the dot:-

Sometimes, I think the nation would be better served if Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s vocal chords took a trip to Siberia. After all, few things have been as powerful and as destructive as his voice.

With that voice, he suggested Operasi Lalang. With his words, he brought low two institutions: the royalty and the judiciary. But to silence him forever is to play by the rules he set. Kill dissent, smother criticism, strangle freedom of expression. We may not like to listen to Dr Mahathir, but we have to give him the same rights we long for and deserve.

As he enters his twilight years he continues digging his own grave, this time by insisting we scrutinise the citizenships granted to the non-Malays during Malaya’s independence. That he equates Sabah’s illegal immigrants with the Chinese and Indians is insulting. But hardly surprising. Dr Mahathir believes that to elevate the Malays, it is necessary to trample on the other races. In his heart, Malaysia has always been “Malay-sia.” Land of the Malays, for the Malays, by the Malays.

What a lie.

And it is a lie perpetuated by the fools in Perkasa and the more right-wing elements in Umno. This country would be nothing without the “pendatang.” Dr Mahathir also forgets that many so-called Malays have ancestors who were also in their days “pendatang.” The Bugis. The Minang. The Javanese. Go to Kelantan and you will see Malays who have Thai ancestry. Go to Johor and you will find Malays who can name Chinese among their forebears.

USM professor Zilfalil Alwi, wrote a paper “Asal Usul Melayu Berdasarkan Fakta Genetik” (Tracing the Origins of the Malays by Analysing Genetic Data) where he theorised that early Malays could also have been Indian priests who had arrived at the Malay peninsula to propagate the Hindu faith.

That would make sense, seeing the predominantly Hindu Malay population in Bali. Who eat pork unreservedly, to the horror of our Malays when they visit the island. Dr Mahathir says “Melayu mudah lupa” but himself forgets that non-Malays have worked for the country, fought for the country, died for the country. If tomorrow, should all the non-Malays leave en masse, the country would be crippled.

Non-Malays have served in government, in the armed forces, as well as in the police. Can Sabah’s illegal immigrants say the same? Can we say that Sabah’s “instant citizens” fought off the communists or, in the Confrontation, say they fought off Indonesia’s armed push to put an end to Malaysia? Unlike Sabah’s illegal immigrants, the Chinese and Indians did not come from countries who still privately believe that Sabah and Sarawak should belong to them.

If one day Sabah’s illegal immigrant population dwarfs the natives, would it be surprising if either Indonesia or the Philippines attempts to again “claim” the Borneo states as many of its citizens are there anyway? While Sabah’s illegal immigrants have contributed to the economy, the natives do not embrace them as kin. They cannot claim a shared history, they cannot pretend to have become part of the process that led to Malaysia’s birth.

They did not win the right to citizenship. They do not deserve to be citizens merely because they are willing to vote for Barisan Nasional. Dr Mahathir also forgets the Orang Asli, who, among all the peoples of Malaysia, most deserve to be called “sons of the soil”. But they have benefited the least and suffered the most from Malaysia’s creation. We take their land, send missionaries to “save their souls” when we can’t even save them from poverty.

To the Orang Asli, we are perhaps the real pendatang who have taken everything and given them little in return. They are barely even recognised in our history books or schools. How many Malaysians, for instance, can name the many Orang Asli tribes? Instead of recognising the Sakai and Jakun as the “real” bumiputera, “sakai” and “jakun” are now Malay derogatory terms.

If you insist on semantics, Dr Mahathir, then technically we are all pendatang.

The call for fellow Malaysians to go back to India, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Timbuktu, etc (and soon Afghanistan, Nigeria & Iran, trust me on this) has been nothing new especially from short sighted, power hungry politicians who often wanting to slay the wrong bogeyman. They seem to take great pleasure in seeing the various races (who now living in harmony with each other) in Malaysia to be in odds with other and then manipulate the situation for personal interests (both BN and Pakatan are guilty on this).

Fuelling the fire for further disunity between fellow Malaysians is the recent ex-PM’s suggestion for RCI on citizenship of Indians and Chinese during Tunku’s time. If Dr M is trying to divert the alleged wrongdoing with his Project IC with this, he is dead wrong. The issue is not so much on why citizenship was granted but rather how it was granted i.e. did the proper scrutiny, procedures and criterias were followed in granting the citizenship?.

Besides it’s futile to dig into the granting the citizenship during the independence now, especially after 56 years in existence. One because the key people involved in earlier decision are no longer alive today, so whatever motive for the citizenship back then must be deduced and interpreted from official documents and other records and we all know how very liberal interpretations (depending on who is doing the interpretations) could led to different meanings and by extension difference consequences. So, it will not be right to fall back on official documents alone. If Dr M wanted to do a RCI on the grant of citizenship for the Indians and the Chinese before Merdeka, he should have done that when he was in power and Tunku was still alive.

Two, when the citizenship was granted to the Indians and the Chinese immigrants in early 1950s and onwards, BN was not the government of the day, the British were and they did not regard the Chinese and Indians as illegal immigrants and did not actively hunt down these people high and low as we do now with illegal Indonesians, Bangladeshi and at times African “students”. And it part of the understanding that the Indians and Chinese (who was then part of the British protectorate) who wish to remain in this country after independence will be granted citizenship and will be absorbed into the new federation. They cease to be the citizens of India and China from that time onwards. And it was done in the open and with the full agreement of all parties (if Tunku did not agree with this condition, he could have simply said no and insisted on another condition for the independence). It was not done to secure one’s electoral powers in the state. It was not done with a sinister motive.

The issue of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants in Sabah (which caused them to leech on the state resources and its people) has not been a new issue to the true Sabahans and it had remained a thorn on them for many years now. If it is not for the upcoming general elections, it is very unlikely Najib’s administration would have proceeded with the royal commission to investigate on the illegal immigrants & the grant of citizenship to them. But now since RCI have been formed, it is best to wait for the royal commission to complete their investigations and submit their final findings. And if the royal commission finds faults and makes the necessary recommendations, hopefully the Government will follow through with the relevant actions.

But in the meantime, we need to deal with threats to undo what our forefathers has done when they first laid the foundation for the country to be independence and move ahead with all races united as one people. We cannot afford the lose the country just because of one old man.

Related articles

Quote of the Day: Statesman


(“What is the difference between a statesman and a politician?… A statesman does what he believes is best for his country, a politician does what best gets him re-elected” – Mikhail Gorbachev)

(How to determine who is a real statesman? Cartoon source: http://www.zanetti.net.au)

Who is Dr M, really?

Rocky calls him the Statesman and the DPM even goes on to say:-

“…for us (in the Barisan Nasional), we place priority on human values and give due respect to a statesman who has sacrificed a lot for the country, no matter what his views may be on various issues”

(Source)

To many of the younger generations like me, Dr M was THE best Prime Minister todate (we did not “experience” Malaysia under the previous Prime Ministers although some would say Tunku Abdul Rahman’s time was still best of all). Pak Lah started off well but he was more known for his in-actions (famously his sleepiness) instead of for his actions.

Najib have good ideas (in fact, he have great ideas and putting Idris Jala in charge of the improvement on the delivery system was one of them) but implementation of those ideas is yet to be seen in real action (all that is needed is for some NGOs to make noise, implementation of solid ideas is scaled back).

So, for many of us, there is no doubt that if one to ask about the statesman who is still alive, the majority of the answer would be Dr M – he has done a  lot of positive things for this country (he has done a lot of negative things for the country as well). But lately, Dr M has been in the news for the wrong reasons (read this and this– it is hilarious), so much so, a reader in Malaysiakini commented:-

We’ll hail Dr M as statesman when he behaves like one…

That made the quote of the day…

It’s good to hear Dr M is out of the hospital but it will do a lot good for the country as whole if he leaves the dirty politics to those in power and work towards a stronger and united Malaysia as a true statesman.

Read Also

Slaying the Real Bogeyman

Enhanced by Zemanta

Malaysia’s Chicken & Egg Story


(Long before the illusive 1Malaysia came along, Malaysia already been a multi racial, multi cultural country. We had our differences but we don’t see our fellow Malaysians as threats. Image source: http://ajinbgagah.blogspot.com)

It has been in everyone’s mind but no one dared to say or do the obvious…

Aizuddin Danian of VOI posted something that worth our serious consideration:-

He (Dr M) implies that the DAP, by promoting “meritocracy” is actually promoting a non-Malay domination of the society because its a foregone conclusion that the best Malaysians, in terms of education, business or any other field, are non-Malays.

That’s an interesting perspective on things and something i’ve never considered before.

Is “meritocracy” a very clever smokescreen for “racism”? The way Tun puts it does seem convincing. I think i understand his concerns — he realizes that Malays, left on their own without help from the Government, would take years to become competitive in a level playing field.

The Chinese have been forced to be competitive for the last 50 years of Independence, and its arguable than even a poorly-performing Chinese is better than an above average performing Malay.

Read the rest for an interesting insight on how things have been maintained to ensure stability in the country but at the same time, crippling enough for us not able to make the right leap to a developed nation.

Any way, let’s forget about the notion that one race in Malaysia trying to dominate another race. Let’s forget what Dr M is trying hard to achieve here – no doubt he is great statesman but he is not right all the time.  He is not a saint, he is after all just a politician. The explanation on the meritocracy may just be his means to the end and may be political in nature. So, let’s leave anything that is racial, religion or political in nature aside – track record have shown that no one had never been united under these three aspects.

Let’s look from the nation’s point of view – although we have multi race, multi culture, and multi religion groups in the country but at the end of the day, we are all Malaysians. So why is this fear against fellow Malaysians? Is it a big crime to be competitive? What if there is no other choice?

Let’s go back to the very start when it was “deemed” that Malays would not be able to compete without some kind of affirmative action? Who determined this – by some foreign educated politicians sitting in a luxury bungalow? What were the criteria used?

Perhaps historically, the non Malays have been competitive from the very first day they put their foot on this country. After all, with their families struggling back in India or China, it was a break or make for these early non Malays. If they were able to work hard and made good fortunes in business, there is a chance for them to remit back some money to their families back home and in some cases; to bring their families to new home called Malaya.

Perhaps it was the case of May 13 which the ruling politicians often cite when talking about affirmative actions. But recent revelations of what really happen on May 13th seem to be distancing the excuse of unequal opportunity with the tragedy (If you have time, read The Real Cause of May 13 Riots or Raja Petra’s 3 Parts post titled “The Real Story of May 13” – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 )

Whatever the reason may be – affirmative actions seems to be not working to the early aspiration which is to create level playing field for all Malaysians. It has been grossly abused and sadly, highly laced with political, corruption and self interest.

Zaid Ibrahim said:-

“Many Malays want meritocracy for very good reasons. They want their applications for contracts and projects to be given fair consideration by the authorities. They do not want only those who are politically connected to have the upper hand. They want a level playing field.

“They believe that they can succeed on merit if only they get a fair chance. They want to succeed with their pride intact; and at the same time they want to tell their children that Malays who work hard and with the right attitude can succeed, like everybody else,” he said.

Zaid said many Malays wanted meritocracy so that they could get their dues like promotion and higher positions by working hard.

“They want to be judged fairly and not lose their position or seniority because some one else has the right political cable. They want a promotion system that is transparent and free of interference.

“They want to say that they have succeeded because they did it the hard way. Why does Mahathir have to belittle these Malays? Why must the Malays be scrapped off their self-respect just to prove that Umno is responsible for everything in this country?” he added.

I still recall when we were still young, the competition on who got better marks among my cousins so stiff that it caused long term frictions among the families. Achieving a 99% mark was not acceptable (we used to get good whack of the cane from my mum when our marks went down below 95%).

Lack of scholarships means my dad going into overdrive at his workplace and trying to juggle multiple jobs to cover the college fees. Lack of places at the local universities means students like me to adapt to new environment and studies faster than the rest (I was interested in science but had to switch to law when there was no place at the local university). And since we know that our parents are practically sweating blood to cover our fees, failure was not an option. There was never second chance – it is do or die.

The policy makers will therefore be back at the starting point where once again the Malays (those who been untouched by the affirmative actions because they lack the right “cables”) find themselves facing with non Malays who remained competitive (perhaps at many times fold now compared to those non Malays in the 1950s). Enforcement of even more affirmative actions therefore is not going to solve the problem of uneven level of playing – it will only drive the other group to go another level of competitiveness (wonder why some Chinese schools have classes 7 days a week and have a very high bar of excellence?). Mind you that at an age of globalization, the world had become smaller and Malaysians are also competing with the rest of the world.

Affirmative action is fine if it was implemented for a short period but if continued on a long terms, it will not achieve the purpose of creating highly competitive society – why should they when the Government clears away obstacles for some and not for others.

The solution is to open up the arena and let everyone compete for the available places (the Government can create more places if they want more to fall in). The Government seems to be having this notion of the Malays being incapable of competing without their help. They are dead wrong. Never underestimate those who determined to make it into the top. Yes, in the beginning there will be some be left out on the competition but eventually they will bridge the gap. I have seen my fellow Malay brothers who had worked wonders through their sheer determinations and hard work.

Aizuddin rightfully ended his post with this remarks and I could not agree more:-

53 years of independence is not a long time. But i think it’s long enough to start believing in ourselves. It’ll be a painful journey, sure. However, unless we take it, Malaysia will not be able to make that leap from developing to developed. That goal should transcend all others.

It is time to work as one nation, not as competing groups within the same home. It is time to be competitive as a nation. It is time to pick the best of the best for anything that we do. It is time be Malaysians.

Read Also

Art Harun’s excellent Eh, Tun Dah Lupa?

Samy Vellu = MIC


It looks a case of Samy Vellu = MIC or rather MIC = Samy Vellu, forever and ever…

(Read my lips – I will resign if my No 2 man is ready but….. Image source: http://daylife.com)

Not a big fan of the ‘self claiming representatives’ of the Indian community (a mirage that was scattered by the Hindraf rallies) and whom backsides got whacked left, right and centre in the last general election but recent developments in calling the MIC supremo to stand down has been nothing but comical.

In recent months, if you have noticed, there has been a steady stream of attack against Samy Vellu – from the huge protest in last Maika shareholders’ meeting, the recent posts by Raja Petra on Samy Vellu, the recent disclosure of ‘what really happened’ with Maika shares, how Samy Vellu became the President due to missing votes and of course Dr M’s attacks on Samy Vellu.

What Dr M said about his ex-member in the cabinet was understandable but still a classic:-

‘In other countries, when a leader fails, he resigns voluntarily. In Japan, he commits harakiri (suicide). We are not asking him (Samy Vellu) to commit harakiri’.

(Source: Malaysiakini)

No one could be more direct than Dr. M but some people still don’t get the message, don’t they? Of course, that triggered the call for ‘shoe garland’ for Dr M but only after an overwhelming condemnation, Samy Vellu decided to act – the person who called for ‘shoe garland’ was swiftly disciplined and cornered Samy Vellu decided to throw in a challenge:-

MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said he was prepared to hand over the leadership of the party “tomorrow” if his deputy Datuk G. Palanivel was ready to take over.

(Source: TheStar)

Samy Vellu preparing to leave the party was not something new – he have said many times and every time that happens, he is still in the helm of the party (I recall him saying the same thing – if the party members do not want him, he will leave).

The likelihood of Samy leaving with the issue of Maika shares still fresh on many frustrated Indians is very small. Remember Samy keep saying that he has some ‘unfinished business’ in MIC and therefore still hanging on to the post? The question is what is this unfinished business? Is it getting the Indians back on the prosperity or fortifying himself or getting things in order from future sanctions? If there is ‘unfinished business’, why can’t someone else take over and completes it? The argument of ‘unfinished business’ is getting too suspicious.

Well, that is what I think too – otherwise he would have left if not when UMNO’s Dr. M or MCA’s Lim Liong Sik left, at least when MIC got whacked in the last general election  – get the party revamped by someone new.

But no, he remained where he is and there is no sight of any change of guards at MIC at least for next few years.  There was talks of ‘rebranding’ but unsurprisingly it affected everyone else but him.

Then there was even pressure from the PM to get Samy Vellu to leave his seat and get someone else to take over. After all, both UMNO and MCA have changed their presidents since the departure of Dr. M, didn’t they?

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said he would meet MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu for the second time this year to discuss the party’s succession plan.

(Source: NST)

But the thing is – no body believed Samy Vellu when he said he is prepared to leave and true to the predictions, Palanivel decided not to take Samy Vellu’s challenge and decided to remain a loyal, quiet pussy:-

MIC deputy president Datuk G. Palanivel has thrown the ball back to party chief Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu on when the long-serving MIC president will vacate the post.

(Source: TheStar)

Palanivel’s action to throw back the decision to vacant the president’s seat back to Samy was anticipated from day 1. After all, he is the president’s main man and next in line – surely he will not wish to ‘rock the boat’. So, while the battle for the pilot’s seat at MIC is still on-going (in the open and covertly), Najib have started to open another channel to reach out to the Indian community:-

The Prime Minister has accepted the invitation to launch the newly-formed Malaysia Makkal Sakti Party on Oct 10. The party, which was officially registered early this year, is a splinter group of the outlawed Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) which organised anti-government rallies in November 2007.

(Source: TheStar)

Does this means another nail has been struck on the coffin on Samy’s attempts to still clinging on the president’s seat in MIC? Whatever it is, it remains comical to see a desperate man clinging on the post whilst fighting off the call to step down with promises to step down in near future.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]