And, yes, Article 160(2) can indeed apply to a Sarawakian if all the criteria are met. For that matter, this can even apply to a Mongolian if all the criteria are met – because you have to note that nationality is NOT one of the criteria in Art 160(2).

You said “the difference between the CM’s kids and Marina is that she does not meet the constitutional definition of a Malay”. Does Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution defining “Malay” apply to Sarawakian when Article 161A(6)(b) applying to Sarawak states a bumi to be one whose “the father and mother is a native of Sarawak”?

I still don’t see anything concrete in the latest manifesto to come out from PR in Perak. Why not throw us a few bones to chew on, like a promise to lower the voting age to 18 – like the rest of the world? Wouldn’t it be nice to tell people exactly what they’re voting for?

MCA and MIC refuted the suggestion for obvious reasons that they will cease to become a relevant entity. This is due to the fact if there was a one school there would ultimately be a one political party of all races.

This is an obvious point to be discussed, why wouldn’t they condone a brilliant idea in unifying the country? obviously it jeopardizes their selfish interests in personal monetary gains and political influences for the aforementioned.

the country has voted MCA and MIC as an insignificant political entity in the last elections. what i can’t understand is why wouldn’t UMNO get rid of its wounded, nonbeneficial and counterproductive allies.
Why would they risk their political future by being partners with these morons?

well time will certainly tell very soon the predicament that will befall UMNO. It will be the end of its tyranny indeed.

///Putting the two together did you not imply that bumiputraism and Malay are justified?///

I shall let readers judge for themselves your powers of reasoning – that putting 1 and 2 implies that one is implying that bumiputraism and Malay are justified. LOL. At a certain point, there’s no need to explain further. You conclude as you wish. I am at a lost for words on how you think.

1. it is possible to challenge Marina status (one of her parent is Chinese) under article 8 because bumiputraism was never defined in the constitution?
2. it is more difficult to challenge the status of Malay because the term Malay was explicitly defined.

Putting the two together did you not imply that bumiputraism and Malay are justified? The moment you justify that, you justify discrimination, bigotry and domineering. Understand now?

You said:

“1. You are not going to win because you know why.
2. Even if you win in court, you will lose in the political arena”.

Where in my postings did I dispute or argue on these 2 points, that they become an issue?

I merely highlight that a constitutional challenge should not be mistaken for that of a constitutional justification though both entail a common necessary explanation of the constitutional aspects of “discrimination, domineering and bigotry”.

So is it my poor writing skills or your poor reading comprehension that mix up the above arguing about issues that have not been disputed, confusing an argument for constitutional challenge with that of constitutional justification ?

How a country, willingly imposing itself a mental/human capital handicap, can ever compete internationally in industry, trade and technology is one question this controversial ‘bumiputraism’ dichotomy is sure to provide disappointing answers.

A bane to real progress for Malaysia this may be but the tangled mesh of the cancerous roots is too deeply intertwined for the current regime to unravel.