From the Star: Queen Elizabeth II was not spared the budget cuts.. Total spending would stay at around 30 million pounds for the next two financial years.

UK is not known to have built any new palace since Malaysia gained independence in 1957. How the queen wishes to be Queen of Malaya instead. RM 935 million is just the bare structures, furnishing might take RM 539 million. I suppose the new palace would also be tourist attraction. Tourists should be made to pay entrance fees. Then the investments would have produced unintended results.

The ASEAN Charter which Malaysian has signed and obliged to act in accordance to a set of principles includes the following two principles:

1. Adherence to the rule of law, good governance, the principle of democracy and constitutional governance.

2. Respect for fundamental freedom, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice.

If Malaysia fails to act in accordance to the set of principles prescribed in the ASEAN Charter, then she fails to live up to the expectation of members of ASEAN countries, and is thus a pariah state.

The constitution of Malaysia does not allow government to set rule which charges different price for housing based on the ethnicity of the purchasers. So Malaysia violates the constitution, and hence does not observe constitutional governance.

The rule that forces non-Malays to pay more for the same housing facilities causes injustice. That goes against the ASEAN charter which demands that the government promote social justice. Injustice to a class of citizens in government policies goes against the principle that demands the government to promote social justice.

The original Article 153 included in a provision for review after 15 years. But the important provision that it was subject to review was removed after 14 years of implementation, through constitutional amendment in 1971. The constitution allows amendment to itself with 2/3 of the MPs in agreement. Why should Rais Yatim suggest that the government disallow discussion on issue that could be taken up by the parliament? That suggestion violates the principle of democracy and thus the ASEAN Charter. Rais Yatim is an embarrassment to Najib’s administration. How come the senile man is still around?

///Malaysia has enjoyed decades of amicable race relations, but unease has risen in recent years amid complaints by minorities that they endure discrimination because of the affirmative action program that benefit Malays in business, jobs and education.

The Malay privileges stem from a “national social contract,” drawn up by various races at the time of independence in 1957, which put the majority community on a higher footing in exchange for sharing political power with minorities and giving them citizenship.

Najib said Malays made a “huge sacrifice” by agreeing to share the country with minorities, most of whom are descended from immigrants who sought work here during British colonial rule in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Malays make up 60 percent of the population, while Chinese account for 25 percent and Indians 8 percent.

Malaysians should stop arguing about Malay and minority rights, Najib said, adding that history showed how grudges between communities triggered the Holocaust, the Palestinian conflict in the Middle East and killings in Bosnia and Rwanda./// –Najib
http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/35390-najib-warns-racial-rifts-could-destroy-malaysia

We should ask whether the unease was cause by reaction to complaints made by minority groups who endure discrimination, or was the complainants who threatened to make the situation unease. A country cannot be founded on the basis that some people walk slowly that others could catch up, but persons enjoying handicaps pretend that they have not been able to catch up when in fact they have gone ahead of those who slow down. If the unease is caused by the reaction to complaints then the government in power has not been able to uphold rule of law, since no body directly ask them to give up their personal possession. With regard to a change of government regulations, every citizen has a right to voice his preference. The unease that Najib talked about arises because UMNO who depended on Malays votes chose to play race cards. Najib now extends to Malays his promise that he would be unfair to non-Malays and on the other hand he turn to non-Malays and threaten that there could be racial incidents if those who suffer discriminations are not willing to take it lying down. Najib’s statement is political in nature and it does not amount to democratic governance.

Nobody in the government now was involved in the preparation of the Malaya constitution. If that was called a social contract, or official contract, or whatever name one chooses to give to signify agreement between parties, any discussion on how it was entered into cannot change the contents of that agreement. The content of Article 153, as stated by the Reid Commission, included a provision for review after 15 years [in 1972]. That whether Malays gave up more to get the agreement was moot. What was certain was had there been no agreement, Malaysia would not have been given independence in 1957. It is unbecoming of Najib to insist that there should be different citizenship in the country when the world do not recognise race as the basis for discrimination.

Mamakthir’s grandfather only came to Malays in the 19th century. How is it that he could be called bumiputras while others who came then or much earlier to Malacca or Trengganu eight or more generations ago have their descendants called pendatang. Najib’s ancestor came to Malaysia from Indonesia not that long ago, at least not up to eight generations compared to some Trengganu Chinese. Najib is bumiputras as if he formed the so-called 60 per cent. The constitution did not recognise the citizens differently based on the time their ancestors came to this place. Yes, it recognised that somebody needed crutches for 15 years.

The May 13 was caused by political opportunists impatient to await their turns, and the whole incident of coup d’etat was blamed on community jealousy. If Najib’s reform is on creating seeds of distrust, he needed no effort, after his practice run in 1987.