What a scandalous affair it was! The call for the return of ketuanan to them is a desperate act to hoodwink their own people. This is because there was no taking away of any ketuanan in the very first place.

As for the call to protect Islam, it is just as contradictory because no one is questioning the sanctity of Islam as a Universal Religion. No one is politicising the religion except those who seem like defending the religion, although they claim that no politicians are involved in the meetings. Obviously it is a ‘politically driven’ agenda.

And someone seems to be taking on the role of ‘powers-that-be’ by issuing an ultimatum to some other party to do this or that by a certain date, when he is only representing an NGO. Wonder who is behind them.

Just as in the case of the so-called Social Contract among the founding fathers of Malaysia..Pak Ungku would be remembered as the kid who said what’s true.

Politicians are mostly opportunists and are just like chameleons..changing colours and stripes whenever it suits them. But of cos there are true politicians in their midst, who are a rarity.

Some academicians, especially those half-baked ones (unlike Pak Ungku who is a true blue gentleman for all i can see all these years), and writers, also half-baked ones, were trying their ‘luck’ to influence the mostly naive masses to believe that their community is losing grounds to be ‘tuan’ in their own country.

Well, what a shame! To say that others are undermining their ‘ketuanan’ is just akin to doubting their own stature in society. When NO ONE is saying anything or doubting their protected status in Malaysia.

Losing in the 12GE does not in any way leads any ethnic group to lose their identity in the country. So, why make a fuss of it, if not just to drum up emotions and hope for support out of pity or they have some ulterior motives?

Stand up and be counted..win or lose. We are no less malaysians whether winning or losing. Just accept the results with dignity and you would be respected by friends or foes.

To which I say, “Yes Lord of heaven, grant them the resolve and strength to hunt them gutter rats.”

You’d have to wait for the Royal Professor to explain what he meant. His field is economics and not political science and/or constitutional history. He is out of his turf here!

Get rid of those UMNO babi in parliment with more talented leaders.

Actually years ago ( about 15 years ) ,while chit-chatting with my best friend , he said that when he goes to a govn hospital and after they gave him the pills,he would throw it away.
I was very very surprised and have no idea why ’cause I have never been to a govn hospital as far as I can remember.
My friend said he does not trust the doctor.

He said the doctors at the govn hosp do not behave like one, they were flirting\chit-chatting with the nurses like having fun and with long and untidy jangut ( sorry if I offended anyone).
Imagine that was so long ago and I bet it is getting worse with
only one race monopolising it.

Private hosp doctor always have a serious look even if they smile

There was a article written by a doctor and he got so fed-up
with our local system that he migrated.
I remember that he said while he was in Univ. he had a malay friend. This malay friend told him that he had actually apply to do some other courses but the govn just gave him a place to study medicine in a local Univ and so he had no choice even though he
was not interest to be a doctor.
Other races had to fight dogs and cats ( not raining dogs and cats)
to get a place in local Univ , and it was handed on a golden palate
to his friend.

To me , the cream of the best students will only get to study medicine because of the dedication required and possibly it’s life and death kind of thing.Just the scienctific
name of medicine would freak out normal person.

Now we know why we do not trust certain doctors.

Well said. The so-called social contract to Ungku Aziz was a figment of the imagination of politicians, but thought otherwise by TDM.

TDM considered the special provision in the constitution, Article 153, was a Quid pro quo for granting citizenships to a million non-Malays in 1957. Of the 7 million populations in 1957, there were some 3.2 million non-Malays in the country, and one million non-Malays who were granted citizenships must have been persons born outside Malaysia before 1957. Fifty years after independence, the percentage of the people who directly benefited from the citizenship has dwindled, and for a fair contract, the provision of the special privilege should likewise be depreciated. Indeed, Article 153 was subject to review after 15 years, but the clause on review has since been removed. When the review was juxtaposed with the reduction in the surviving number of beneficiaries, then that provision should have been removed after 45 years in 2002 when the surviving members would have all retired.

The late Tun Dr Ismail opined that Malays would willingly forgo Article 153 when the need was no longer required. He considered the Alliance partners magnanimous in allowing readily that special provision to help the Malay race. His observation would support the statement of Ungku Aziz that the so-called social contract did not exist. The British would not have granted independence to Malaya if the three major races could not work together. Indeed all three races were equal before the British as British subjects. The non-Malays readily accepted and respect the royal households in Independent Malaya, but the commoners of all races are equal before the royalties. Indeed, in all countries only the royal households are above the commoners, and no commoners can claim to obtain a higher status compared to other just because they are ethnologically the same as the royal households. Hence the claim of Ketuanan Melayu because the Sultans are Malays is illogical.

It is easy to understand a person’s honour, or by association the sense of achievement of somebody closely associated by blood relationship. One feels proud of the achievement of somebody else when that success is difficult to attain, at least to the beholder. For that the achievement must be attained honourably. For example, the Chinese felt proud that CN Yang and CT Lee were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1957, because there were the first Chinese to attain that status. It showed that Chinese scientists were on par with foreign physicists. Had Yang and Lee been awarded the Prize on ‘affirmative consideration’, the sense of pride would be lost.