This is more correct and how this is linked to Pergau dam?

In the Observer’s news report of 7 May, 1989, Sunday Page 10 -OPEN FILE- by Adam Raphael titled “Thatcher used aid to sell arms” it was reported as follows:-
Adam Raphael wrote “The Malaysian deal according to informed sources in London and Kuala Lumpur, involves an upfront payment of 300 million Malaysian Dollars about £60 Million to Prime Minister Mahathir’s political party, UMNO Baru, as well as large payments totalling Another 200 million Malaysian Dollars (£40 million) to agents and ruling families.”

pw:1903 scription

I searched the Malaysian National Archives online at arkib.gov.my, but all I got was:

Warning: ocilogon() [function.ocilogon]: _oci_open_server: ORA-12514: TNS:listener could not resolve SERVICE_NAME given in connect descriptor in D:\xampp\htdocs\webcompass\english\_func.php on line 16

More later

///163. If a decision is taken that the provisions in the existing Federation of Malaya’s Constitution in this regard should apply to the natives of Borneo, we recommend that the question should be reviewed after 10 years in the light of the progress made by the native races.///

Could mean that the 10 years from 1963 could tie in with the review which ought to be made in 1972, when the review on the position of Malays in Peninsular is made.

///55. The Commission recommended that their proposals for continuing the present preferences should be reviewed after 15 years. This recommendation was given careful consideration but it was not considered necessary to include such a provision in the Constitution. It was considered preferable that, in the interests of the country as a whole, as well as of the Malays themselves, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should cause a review of the revised proposals to be made from time to time.///
The above para when viewed from the current position of UMNO strength and their habit of negating promises could mean that they would be able to deny the promise “ the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should cause a review of the revised proposals to be made from time to time” and chose not to have the provision written in it. But the UMNO leaders at that time might want to have a 15-year free time to effect whatever changes they wanted to make, and not subject to the review from time to time, which might have to start before the 15 year is up. The decision about the inclusion depended on political environment then and how the leaders of the three community trust one another.
According to the press reports in around 1970, the constitutional amendment would be made to this Article and future amendment to it would require the expressed approval of the King. There was no requirement to introduce constitutional amendment if the provision for a review was not in the original text. Why would Tun Razak threaten to extend emergency and NOC rule if amendment to the constitution could not be effected? NEP did not need changes to the constitution.

The opposition parties in 1969 campaigned to deny Alliance 2/3 majority so that the government could not amend the constitution with regard to the article, and they wanted a strong support for the review. The opposition could not ask for an amendment to it if it was not in power, and they did not expect to. They campaigned for support hoping to minimise the period of further extension. For that they had to base on the provision of a review written in it. Or are we to believe that the opposition parties in 1969 fooled the voters?

The Pre-1957 version of the Malayan constitution would clarify the matter.

163. If a decision is taken that the provisions in the existing Federation of Malaya’s Constitution in this regard should apply to the natives of Borneo, we recommend that the question should be reviewed after 10 years in the light of the progress made by the native races.

… which suggests to me that no review period was written in the Federal Constitution at that time.

In “Constitutional Proposals for the Federation of Malaya (June 1957)” Under the head ‘Special Position of the Malays’ it says (transcribed by me with snoring and heavy son on shoulder, so may be typos)

55. The Commission recommended that their proposals for continuing the present preferences should be reviewed after 15 years. This recommendation was given careful consideration but it was not considered necessary to include such a provision in the Constitution. It was considered preferable that, in the interests of the country as a whole, as well as of the Malays themselves, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should cause a review of the revised proposals to be made from time to time.

So it probably wasn’t included at 1957. That final ‘should’ would never have made it into any kind of law, I imagine. So if not in 1957, not in 1962, when would the review clause have been added? I would have thought there would be a celebrated document to mark that occasion, if in fact it was the case. I strongly doubt there’s any document anywhere in Malaysia obliging anyone to conduct a review, given the notes above.

I imagine at the time, all involved in drawing up the Constitution agreed that the preferential clauses were an obvious eccentricity in an otherwise fairly reasonable document, and of course they would be tackled in due course. And then time passed and they weren’t eccentric but actually the most important part of the whole document. Funny old game, life.

I have not seen the original, but the campaign by the opposition parties during the 1969 election centred on the review to the constitution in 1972. Tun Razak threatened that parliament would not be reconvened unless the government could amend the constitution, and that indeed was done, after Sabah delivered all 16 parliamentary seats returned unopposed after Tun Mustapha used his power of arrest vested Tun Razak to stop opposition candidates filing their papers on nomination day.

I am certain that BN under UMNO would not remove that that article 153, but the provision of review points to the plausible reasons why that was included; it was not a question of the degree of ‘pendatangness’.

I still remember… my friend, who graduated from the Universiti Sains Malaysia, wished to apply a place in a university in Canada to further his MSc course. If I’m not mistaken, the Canadian university he applied is not very well known. The Canadian university has doubt on his degree, and asked him: “We never heard about this type of degree before. Can you show us the proof? For example, ask your previous university to send us a proof?”

I’m not sure what Loh refers to:

readers in London would be abe to obtain the original version

While the notes of the Reid Commission that record the Rulers’ reluctance to add communitarian clauses to the Constitution and suggests a time period, I’m fairly sure a slightly later document, perhaps on the actual publication of the Constitution says that no time period was thought necessary. I can try to find refs if Loh is convinced there was a time period once upon a time in the Constitution, but I think the closest ever thing was conjecture that it might be a good idea.

These sorts of issues should really be the subject of some public effort to lay to rest – and obviously not organised by the government. It’s easy to keep suggesting that things should have been different, because there’s no credible source of information either way. Perhaps some concerned Malaysians would like to start an Internet-based Museum of Malaysian Politics, where the scraps of information could be argued over until some sort of consensus could be reached.

Even if there was once a time period in the Constitution for the Social Crutch, it would be only of academic interest. As imranj78 points out above, ‘significant backing’ did what it pleased with the Constitution in the past, and now we have to work with it. I think significant backing for a rejection of racist policies is more or less available, so it’s just a matter of time until this matter can be dealt with. I hope that the next few years will see young Malaysians encourage the government to make wholesale changes to Malaysian law to bring it into line with the UDHR. The cosmetic nonsense going on now isn’t going to fool many people for very long.

Completely unrelated, I was delighted to see the article about Hindraf planning to burn an effigy of LGE over the High Chaparral issue. The GLC (Greater London Council) did the same thing with an effigy of Margaret Thatcher while she was PM on a huge bonfire opposite the Houses of Parliament on Guy Fawkes’ night, many years ago – to the sound of The Sex Pistols’ ‘Anarchy in the UK’. You have to love democratic protest!

Thatcher then was Conservative’s PM and Douglas Hurd was Foreign Secretary. They got £234 million from British overseas foreign aid budget to fund the Pergau Hydroelectric dam at Thai border. Concurrently, the Malaysian government bought around £1 billion worth of arms from the UK. £1 billion is probably contributed from £234 million from British overseas foreign aid budget. A nice piece of round tripping. The British learned how to spin a deal from the Malaysian politicians!

(Its not exactly a 1 billion pound sterling payoff to UMNO baru and the royalties in M’sia in 1987/88 per Aliran unless one thinks that its one and same thing)!

This is what Wikipedia says “The suggested linkage of arms deals to aid became the subject of a UK government inquiry from March 1994. In November 1994, after an application for Judicial Review brought by the World Development Movement, the UK High Court held that the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd had acted ultra vires (outside of his power and therefore illegally) by allocating £234 million towards the funding of the dam, on the grounds that it was not of economic or humanitarian benefit to the Malaysian people.”

thanks for your kind words.

much appreciated.

pw:galoshe Through

Since you bring out the Pergau dam, there was a big story in UK and Aliran over the 1billion pound sterling payoff to UMNO baru and the royalties in M’sia in 1987/88 when the internal crisis of UMNO after which UMNO was ruled illegal.

So that is part and parcel of international corruption over arm deals.

Who actually benefitted in the names of others?

pw: mulish 0f

YB, what about wealthy (assets more than UD$120 billion) state owned Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS)’s scholarships – how many are there, what are they worth per year, are 20% of them also based on pure merits?

The last i heard it is -isn’t it?- a stakeholder for heritage/wealth and well being (present and future) of all and not just some Malaysians.

I do not intend to disturb your blog as I post some emails that had gone round the world with many such >>> which would be tedious to delete.

The story in the news is a lesser one.

YB Lim, I hope you understand this.

Thanks Monsterball for the message.

pw:escaped 27

You are right to say with regard to Article 153 that the current constitution does not have the clause to provide for a review after 15 years. But the original constitution had it, and the provision for a review after 15 years was removed through the constitutional amendment in 1971, during NOC rule.

When people talk generally about social contract, they have to refer to the written agreement in the form of the constitution, particularly with regard to the relative positions of the people who together obtained independence from the British. The removal of the review provision took away the intended objective of having Article 153 in the constitution; that Article might no longer be needed when Malays have attained the capability not to rely on crutches. Let me repeat what Tun Dr Ismail said, “Malays would forgo Article 153 when they no longer required it, out of pride”. I still believe that Malays, who are classified as Malays like Tun Ismail would do what he said. But NEWMalays have since taken over the political power, and to them the pride of Malays means nothing to them. They enjoy the benefits while Malays suffer the indignity of having to rely on crutches, 51 years after independence.

One smart Alex said that Malaysian constitution does not provide equality when read together, though there is a specific clause on that effect. The anomaly was with regard to Article 153, which was time-bound when it was prepared. In any case, when there are conflicts between different parts of the agreement, it is an accept convention that the paragraphs that appear earlier take precedent.

The electronic version of Malaysian constitution that one gets from Wikepedia does not show the original version, though there are write up explaining the review provision. It is hoped that readers in London would be abe to obtain the original version and post it for reference.