by Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr Azmi Sharom, Dr Toh Kin Woon and Dr Wan Zawawi Ibrahim
October 27, 2010
We would like to provide some feedback to the speech made by Prime Minister Najib Razak on 21 October 2010 to the Umno general assembly in which he gave the impression that there is a ‘social contract’ whose terms are set in stone. He also told the delegates that no Malaysian should question it.
It is necessary to note that there is a range of views amongst us on the social contract issue and on how to respond to the Prime Minister’s advice.
One colleague has argued that it is not yet time for an “organized effort” of civil society to make such a statement as it may provoke negative reactions that may be harmful to our common pursuit of a fair and united nation.
Another has expressed concern that we must not play into the hands of politicians who will mobilize Malay support by trying to show that the non-Malays have reneged on their so-called promise to accept Malay political superiority in exchange for citizenship.
A third colleague has noted that there is really no need to contest what is ‘written’ in the social contract. Rather, we should question where a copy of the social contract is to be found so we can verify and discuss its contents and meaning.
Despite our different points of view, we are in agreement on three key points.
* It is important for Malaysians not to be gagged into silence on what is perhaps the most contentious issue standing in the way of better inter-communal relations in the country. The quicker we can
reach consensus on what the social contract means — not only in terms of what was agreed by the nation’s early leaders in the past but also, more importantly, on how this agreement should be understood by Malaysians today — the less divided and more hopeful will be our future.
* For us to reach this consensus, it is important to have the facts on what took place during that critical period of our history fully disclosed and available for public discussion. In particular, we will need to have the relevant reports of the Reid Commission so that Malaysians have the opportunity to read and understand the logic and wisdom of our early leaders and do not have to depend on politically skewed interpretations of what is supposed to comprise any agreement or social contract for that period.
* At the same time it is necessary for constitutional and legal experts, historians and other scholars to lend their expertise to the public understanding. Professional organizations such as the Bar Council, the Malaysian Social Science Association, and other bodies should organize talks, seminars and forums to ensure that the best minds on the subject can have their opinions disseminated to the public.
We believe that the Malaysian public has reached a level of political maturity so that we can have a rational and public debate on the way forward in terms of any inter-communal accord or understanding arrived at, and on what needs to be honoured and respected. For that reason, we are opposed to the position of Umno and MCA which is tantamount to decreeing a ban on public discussion of the issue.
The danger is that in not debating the issue openly — which is what the two main BN parties seem to be driving at — there is a real danger not only of driving that debate underground but also of reinforcing or entrenching ethnocentric interpretations that do not reflect the true intent of the constitutional agreement reached more than 50 years ago.
* Issued and signed by Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr Azmi Sharom, Dr Toh Kin Woon and Dr Wan Zawawi Ibrahim.
#1 by Godfather on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 6:22 pm
If UMNO says that a zebra is a white horse with black stripes, then it is what as UMNO says. Thou shall not question it. Even if you take UMNO to court, you will not win. This matter is destined to be driven underground, and shall be the dividing factor that will prevent us from reaching 1st world status. Do UMNO and the minority BN parties care ? As long as there are leakages available from the hundreds of billions of contracts, why would anybody in BN care ?
#2 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 6:24 pm
‘Social Contract’ or ‘social understanding’.
These are worlds apart!
I think the way UMNOputras are so hysterical and screeching away seems to suggest something quite contrary. if there is a contract, just show it.
The legion of liars and distorters makes rational discussion difficult.
The country should cut out the clutter about this red herring and focus on bread and butter issues that will propel the country forward and make any historical document irrelevant and trivial.
#3 by Bigjoe on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 6:39 pm
On this issue, those who still care for the truth, knows UMNO construct is a lie. The problem is that there are those who care for the truth and there are those who don’t. Debating it openly obviously destroy liars. So really why would those who want to lie agree to it?
How do you resolve state-sanctioned even state-promoted lying when they know allowing fair debate will?
The only way is either you have a system outside state control to do it i.e. the internet, opposition media OR you change the govt.
Its really simple. This issue, while the internet has done much for, will never really make the leap until BN is removed from power.
#4 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 9:51 pm
///For that reason, we are opposed to the position of Umno and MCA which is tantamount to decreeing a ban on public discussion of the issue.///
MCA has done the Chinese community a disservice by not finding out from UMNO how the social contract originated and what was its agreement. Presumably MCA was scared of being thrown out by UMNO if it delved too deep into the social contract’s distant past.
#5 by dawsheng on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 10:33 pm
Again, here are another set of lame reasons to contemplate to make any meaningful actions toward building a better society for all.
“At the same time it is necessary for constitutional and legal experts, historians and other scholars to lend their expertise to the public understanding.” – useless people
If the world depends on you guys, we would have extinct a long time ago.
#6 by negarawan on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 10:54 pm
Well, UMNOputras are very fond of using the word “contract” because this is the very reason for them to join UMNO.
#7 by johnnypok on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 1:38 am
We have been talking about something that does not exist, and we are heading for bankruptcy in 2019, and the following year, we will declare fully-developed nation.
In the meantime, the country is continuously being raped and sodomised by the ruling government who fears losing power in the coming GE.
#8 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 5:41 am
Me thinks you protest to loudly.
This cliched term ‘social contract’ is an ill defined poorly understood political catch phrase and concept (its origins in Rousseau and perhaps Rawlins) is used so often out of context to describe what a few very vocal ‘intellectuals’ (read: journalists, lawyers and academics) would like us to believe was an off the record agreement between Malays and Malays at the time of independence.
In order to accept that proposition one has to believe that the Malays agreed through their leaders at the time to accept minority government and a surrender of their fundamental rights as a people and as the recognized original inhabitants of Malaysia (which at the time included Singapore).
Legal, historical and political concepts that pre date Malaysian independence were never created or perpetuated in isolation. They were part and parcel of the Colonial mindset that gave rise to their divide and rule policies as well a justification for their rule and their laws.
The term social contract simply means in its colloquial context the surrender of certain rights and liberties to the sovereign in exchange for the services, protection and goods for the surrender of those rights. It all boils down to the concept and understanding of the doctrine of sovereignty. And clearly none of the writers here understand the nature or idea of sovereignty.
Even the United states of America has conceded the ‘right’ of the American Indians to be a nation within a nation enjoying special privileges and rights over the rest of its population. Of course that is a mere small step towards recognition of the obvious. The American Indian is and always was the recognized original inhabitant of that country and European colonization displaced that position. There are of course vocal minority opinions like the religious right, the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society and red necks in general who disagree with that proposition.
Closer to home, Australia in 1992 finally put paid to the notion that Australia was ‘terra nullius’ when Captain James Cook and the first white settlers set foot on Australian soil with that historical decision in Mabo. That’s a big step and an even greater concession to make. But credibility and honesty required that in the face of overwhelming historical evidence, a white settler government had to concede that position.
The idea of what is termed ‘Malay political superiority’ is not one that is properly described by any of the writers here. The Malays in a majority are in every respect in a democracy ‘sovereign’. They are a majority. What some vocal minorities appear to believe and espouse is an outlandish idea that somehow the Malays at independence agreed to allow minority government in Malaysia after independence or perhaps earlier to discard or surrender the doctrine of sovereignty and the special rights and privileges of the Malays to the more vocal, the economically powerful minorities, all of their rights and weaknesses to be exploited like it was and continues to this day in Singapore. And someone with a name like Puthucherry ought to be particularly sensitive to the fallacy of such warped interpretations of these concepts and the false promises of those driving the agenda trapped in the time warp of immediate post independence rhetoric of overcoming the Malays.
The vitriol and bile spewed all over blogsphere in anti Malay, anti Muslim propaganda disguised as ‘rights to free speech’ cannot gain currency anywhere for its lack of substance. There remains amongst us a ‘tribe’ of ferrals who believe provocation and incitement through use of stock phrases can overcome the substantive issues that are absent in their arguments. It walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It must be a duck.
#9 by rasputin on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 6:54 am
Hi,
Some good reading for pondering and cerebral digestion attached here:- http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Periodicals/De/pdf/91_04_01.pdf
#10 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 8:27 am
The article you present Rasputin is an interesting one. What is perhaps not understood by many is that there was no express promise anywhere either inside or outside the constitution to weaken the position of the Malays vis a vis the other two racial groups in Malaysia.
The NEP whether or not in the conetmplation of government at independence was bound to find its way into law. The non Malays who saw themselves as superior beings, a notion encouraged by the British colonial rulers as they had done anywhere there was this unique migrant mix they had encouraged to form societies along with them and nurtured (Indians and Chinese), carved out for themselves conveneint niches in the economy and in adminstration of Malaysia to the exclusionof the Malays.
If ever the Indians have a claim it is against Britain. However where they seek to engage nepotistic clan groups like Hindraf or be exploited by Chinese dominated parties who believe them to be inferior beings anyway, their claims will never succeed and they will be ‘whistling Dixie’ for a long time to come.
The anti NEP argument is bound to fail because it is undemocratic, it fails to recognise the aspirations of the original inhabitants as recognized by international law and the majority which includes not only the Malays but also elements of the Chinese in the MCA and Indians in the MIC which constitute the BN.
Apart from that there is a failure to recognise concessions in the NEP extended to the Eurasians regardless of their religion.
#11 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 8:39 am
Rousseau wrote in 1762 his treatise “The Social Contract”. It propounds the legitimacy of state authority is derived from the consent of the governed via the basic bargain between the state and its citizens – that citizens give obedience to the state and its laws in exchange for the state offering protection and benefits to the citizens.
Rousseau’s political philosophy influenced French to American revolutions. It has however nothing to do with the formulation of the “Malaysian Social contract” ascribed to be the cornerstone of special privileges & interracial bargain underpinning of our Federal Constitution at inception. The treatise of the “Malaysian Social contract” is authored solely by UMNOputras and propagated by BTN!
The difference between Rousseau’s Social Contract and the Malaysian one is that Rousseau’s addresses the bargain between state and citizens whilst the Malaysian one is the so-called first historical bargain between Malays and Non Malays when the nation was formed – the bargain being whilst all citizens are equal, Malays are “more equal” in sense of having special privileges over the Non Malays – and the alleged legitimacy of that unequal bargain is derived from Malays being the definitive people as compared to Non Malays.
Though Orang Asli were earlier inhabitants, Malays assert the claim of the country being first “owned” by them in the sense of their being first to develop an organized political society/civilisation in the Malacca sultanate as compared to others whose forefathers came here as immigrants.
Hence in quid pro quo exchange for the concession of citizenship rights based on birth in the land (jus soli) – never mind that their forefathers were immigrants – they are expected to abide by quid pro quo concession to subordinate their otherwise equal citizenship rights to those of the definitive people being given special privileges, and also the dominant right to define the character of the nation politically economically and culturally and harness its wealth.This is the crux of the so called the “Malaysian Social Contract” as defined or formulated by our ruling politicians.
The First Question immediately arises: whether our most basic law – the Federal Constitution – was actually based on the precepts and ideas outlined above as the “Malaysian Social Contract”.
This is the task of historians, constitutional lawyers, scholars and academicians to determine. They have to delve into the voluminous official communications between colonial office and British Foreign office, the speeches of community leaders from UMNO, MCA & MIC in the then Legislative Assembly, the Reid Commission’s report….
#12 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 8:41 am
Continuing from above: Whether the answer to that first question is ‘yes’ or ‘no’, there is a second more pertinent question which is – even if there were indeed such a “Malaysian Social Contract”, which I am not conceding that there was, will it be binding upon Malaysian citizens of all races several generations down the road….
There are plausible reasons why it may be argued that an Original Social Contract, even if there were one, ought not to bind future generations.
Any so called Social Contract, and even law and constitution, is not static and cast in stone. It evolves according the felt needs and changed conditions. If it is felt that whatever Original Social Contract based on racially segregated reward-burden system served the needs of an era past but undermines the nation’s unity and competitiveness today, then how does want justify its continued perpetuation – especially when all dues by the so called immigrant races have been paid by contributing to develop the prosperity of the nation to what it is today?
There are new factors and developments since 1957 that the original Social Contract of 1957 did not contemplate: for eg the formation of Malaysia in 1963 with inclusion of Sabah & Sarawak; the Globalisation of the Wired World that requires Malaysians to learn skills on how to bargain competitively with the rest of the world instead of bargaining inter-se between ourselves; and rural – urban migration and creation of the Malay Middle Class with much better education amongst younger Malaysians especially Malays today than 1957 etc…
These represent changed conditions from those subsisting in 1957 when the “Malaysian Social Contract” was allegedly struck by the respective community leaders. Naturally changed conditions are also justification for a changed Social Contract!
It is disingenuous to argue that the Original Social Contract allegedly underpinning the Federal Constitution is immutable, unchangeable and forever binding: why the Federal Constitution itself has been amended umpteenth time under Tun Dr Mahathir (TDM)’s watch.
One can’t argue that the Federal Constitution being allegedly based on the Malaysian Social Contract can be amended in response to changed conditions and felt needs and yet not that Social Contract that underpins it! To argue otherwise so is selective bereft of logic!
Our scholars and academicians here want to question Najib. They are wasting their time. Scholars and academicians by professional aspiration investigate research and seek the real truth.
Politicians are a different breed. They are, by professional aspiration, concerned with that version of truth that garners most political support and votes to get into and sustain political power in order to continue define their version of truth as expedient to perpetuate power. Logic and the real truth to which scholars and academicians are concerned is not something ruling politicians care a damn. They know that it is political power that enables and will always enable them to dictate and enforce their version of truth for application. Surely when scholars and academicians try to reason with politicians it has striking resemblance of a cat trying to discourse with a dog.
#13 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:06 am
Why I say political power enables a party in power to define and twist the truth may be illustrated such:
The party defines a certain social contract expedient for it to get votes. It justifies the legitimacy of that social contract by saying that the features in the Constitution by which all are bound reflect the social contract.
When it is discovered that the Constitution has provisions inconsistent or anomalous to the version of social contract as defined by it, the party leverages on its political power to change the constitution and bring it in line with its version of the social contract, and then it keeps repeating again and again “there you are, the constitution also says that there is a social contract”, and by so doing effect a fait accompli in getting its definition accepted.
Thats how political power enables one to define the “truth”. It is power that enables a party to assert what it wants (its version) to be accepted as the truth. This is the nature of the world we find it – the strong dictates to the weak.
#14 by sotong on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:21 am
As I understand it. It’s wrong to abuse economic power and OK to abuse political power…..what rubbish!!
#15 by boh-liao on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:23 am
Hey, can someone make a hit movie entitled “The Social Contract” or not ah?
Similar 2 “The Social Network”
#16 by dagen on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:24 am
There isnt such a “contract”. What more a “social” contract. It has no legal effects even if it actually existed. That is why umno has to argue that somehow the contract is embedded in the constitution. In fact if it has any legal effects at all, then being unwritten and with its full meaning and significance unknown, it is too ambiguous to be enforced or upheld in the courts of law; or followed by the people. Hence as a document, that contract is blind! And we must not be led by it despite what umno said. [No intention to offend people who are visually challenged.] A contact like this should best be described as apanama social contract and will in fact be so referred to hereafter.
Be that as it may, now umno somehow saw it as they inalienable ketuanan right to be the sole reader and applicator of that apanama social contract. And when they deemed it advantageous, they would unilaterally read into that apanama social contract new meanings, effects or significance. They also view themselves as the sole arbiter in the event of conflicting views.
How knotty indeed! If the apanama social contract is embedded in the constitution then certainly it may be debated by anyone or amended – by parliament with the necessary majority support, of course.
#17 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:44 am
There is no obligation on anyone in government, amongst the Malays or elsewhere to conform to what was or is perceived to be this ‘social contract’ that keeps being raised in an effort to disgorge the rights of a majority through unconstitutional means.
The Federal constitution makes no mention of this social contract sufficient to give rise to a right to challenge the constitution to the detriment of so many by so few. A mechanism for such change on an abstract concept does not exist.
This whole concept of a social contract (now refined to be the Rousseau model) is an import by a few who are short on substance in their arguments as to why something as critical and as fundamental to Malaysia’s constitutional government and its majority ought to be displaced or changed to the extent they wish it to be. And the point too is not discussed anywhere in any of the arguments anywhere in any detail.
Perhaps the writer Jeffrey here refers to the Singaporean model. That suspicion stands out like a pair of ‘dog’s proverbials if you don’t mind the French. That the idea to marginalise the Malays and to create a new hybrid society originates from the Singapore example is neither novel nor acceptable to anyone but the few vocal critics of government (and Malays).
The Reid commission has no significance now as it was a rushed job of its own admission. What the law is, is what was reduced in writing in the constitution at the time of its drafting. The rest of is espoused by opponents to the NEP it is a wish list and an incitement to racial strife as a means of inviting foreign participation in an unconstitutional overthrow of government. It spells trouble and promotes marginalisation of the majority.
There is much more about the constitution which is drafted in such uncertain terms and language by a hasty colonial government. It was drafted in haste in an effort to beat of violent challenges by chauvanist Chinese groups (Lee Kuan Yew’s language) and the Communists who were waging their own campaigns for control of the peninsula and its prized port city of Singapore. Yet no one especially Malaysia’s indolent legal fraternity has noticed the point sufficient for them to challenge it through legal means.
After Gamal Abdul Nasser closed the Suez to Portuguese warships heading for India to try to resist the Indian take over of Goa, Daman and Diu in the late 1950’s the British became nervous of another great vital waterway falling into the hands of a Muslim majority in the Straits. They not only worked tirelessly before that event to fool the people of Malaya into an independence that would include the majority, but they also lead the minority into a flase sense of security fooling them into believing there would be changes along the way. The other races the Indians and Chinese were led by an unaccountable bunch of medieval Mandarins (both Indian and Chinese) who agreed to the constitution because they had their own political ambitions carved out along parochial undemocratic lines.
The MIC and the MCA did not take these promises to a great referendum of their membership. At least the Chinese would not be seen in public to support it lest they be called ‘running dogs’ and receive the ultimate sanction that Chin Peng would have dished out to them.
The Indians were shackled by their caste system and never questioned what Sambanthan and his ilk did to them like they continue to be now.
The fact remains that these inequalities spoken of here is a fact of life in the majority of democracies worldwide. It deprives no one of their rights. We all have fundamental rights that are protected by the constitution.
These rights do not exclude any group to any extent the other two groups (Chinese and Indians) do not exclude others from participating and enjoying the benefits of their own communities.
What is being promoted here is an unconstitutional revolution to displace a majority. No one has yet determined what will become of Malays in a so called ‘level playing field’ without the NEP. The alternatives have not been discussed to make any proposed changes palatable to the majority. The Singapore model is repugnant to the vast majority of people who prefer a freer democratic society like Malaysia is warts and all.
If the government does not crack down on the social media like China’s great fire wall of nearly 250,000 internet monitors, it will in the end learn how technology can like fire and water be a great servant but also a bad master if not controlled. This nonsense is being orchestrated to come to a head if Anwar is convicted again and is a well planned but doomed to failure strategy.
#18 by cto on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 11:06 am
Grkumar,
You wrote a lot but all I think you are saying is that Malays are not only the indigenous people but also the majority and the majority has the final say in a democratic society. Correct?
That being the case, you should know that in most developed democratic countries, that are laws to protect minority from unfair treatment by the majority. Affirmative action favors the minority, just like American Indians and Australian aborigines. Furthermore, affirmative action should not come at the expense of meriticracy. Malaysia is probably one of the few countries that affirmative action aka NEP is for the majority and doing away with meritocracy.
Despite that, I would venture to guess that most non-Malays do not have an issue with the original intent of NEP per se i.e. helping the poor Malays. However, as the PM’s own brother said – NEP has been bastardized and the elites amongst the Malays are benefiting most from it. This has to change.
Also you keep mentioning things like Non Malays think that they are superior, there is anti Malay/anti Islam sentiment, … where did you get all this rubbish?
#19 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 12:30 pm
Jeffrey although you do make some sense in what you argue here (as opposed to the types and the language employed by those who hijack such a forum as this and lend little credibility to its purpose) what you suggest and demand remains to be decided in a proper forum. It has to be decided through proper due process and through legitimate means and not by the patronising and condescending pronouncements of mainly Chinese constituents of this country to determine what ought to happen to the constitution, or to future generations or whats good for all of us.
The racist in such poius platitudes is overwhelmingly embarassing and allows me to indulge in racial stereotyping in response as well.
If the methods you employ with the others in your community with some sparse but vocal support from urban Malays (embarassed and overwhelmed house boys and girls) and some Indians is to be legtimised, then as you say if the constitution is “not cast in stone”, let the Malays now promote their Ketuanan Melayu.
Just because Chinese fear monger the concept and ignorant Indian middle classes buy that, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that only what loud abbrassive Chinese demand the Malays do is legitimate.
What you are doing here like your chauvanist counterparts and their ancestors (it must be in the genes) after independence during the communist emergency is to stir the pot when there is no need for you to do so. Once bitten twice shy. The Malays and dare I say many Indians who do not share blogsphere as often as we do will not have another betrayal of the Lee Kuan Yew variety. It produces great results for Chinese and their baggage boys and that may be good for them. Not good for all malaysia or all Malays.
The Malays are in a majority and their determination to maintain the status quo and to change the constitution as one of them suggested to not retain 30% but perhaps 70% as a quote for them will also now have to be heard. They have incumbency and thats dangerous for your chauvanist LKS rants in this regard and will set back your aspirations to controil them by another half century if not more.
And whilst they enjoy the position of the majority in Malaysia, it may not after all, be such a bad thing I am sure, for you as a democrat in an “undemocratic ” Malaysia to have to support and agree to for the principles of democracy.
The principles remain the same. Change. Change of the constitution. That can be effected quite easily without referendum by altering certain provisions of the constitution or by simply giving an enlarged meaning to what is in the constitution.
I challenge you your “intellects” and Lim Kit Siang to further this Chinese driven cause of constitutional change. If you want to test the waters of what constitutional change by way of insulting the majority is, then go for it, the consequences be on you and yours.
Remember that in a democracy you may be wishing for what you don’t want in the end.
The insults and abuses directed against Malays not UMNO (which is not the only component of the Barisan) by posters on LKS’s blog which he allows and the personal insults against those who seek to have a diologue here is reminiscent of what Adolph Hitler used to do with his brown shirts later copied by Mao during the cultural revolution by shouting other voices out.
Set the trend my friend. The legal advice you have is less than simple. It is incompetent.
Let the games begin. Perhaps there ought to be changes to the constitution. Long before the French import of Social Contract there was the Malay Adat, their constitutional conventions now enliovened by Tun Hussein Onn Hishamuddin in Ketuanan Melayu.
Thank you for legitmising constitutional change through the use of electronic wall posters the internet.
In fact the government need not go to an election to change it. Let your voices be heard, invectives insults and Malay bashing.
Gopal
#20 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 12:53 pm
The cry for justice for the Orang Asli as you refer to them (a race of Malays) rings hollow and insincere.
The plight of the Orang Asli has its origins in a Chinese commercial class deforesting and vandalising the environment. The nations development agenda was driven by the MCA Chinese business and Tan Siew Sin in government.
The vast majority of forestry vandals whether for the purpose of the oversupply of housing and development or for the wealth of its timber has been and continues to be a Chinese dominated pursuit.
Thats where the plight of the Orang Asli has its origins in. The prostituting of their women from the jungles of Sabah and Sarawak is a Chinese domniated pursuit. The same in Indonesia. And the practice and history of that practice is well documented.
For a few extra dollars the Chinese of Indonesia from Lim Soei Liem and Bob Hassan sold even their own kind to support a butcher there and for his generosity towards their support in timber, tobacco and clove concessions. That will not happen in Malaysia.
It is time the tables were turned. And the idea of a revised contitution to reflect the true aspirations of the majority is considered.
This is Tanah Melayu and the rules of Westminster do not apply to the rules of Ketuanan Melayu. The Malays remain sovereign and that sovereignty is recognised by the international community except of course Al Gore the bore and Hillary Clinton who “Dodged bullets in Bosnia. There is of course also Paul Wolfowitz and the Neo Cons parading as world bank offshoots like Transparency international who could support your cause. In the end you are all dispensible commodities to them.
GRK
#21 by lchk on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 1:21 pm
GRK wrote:
“This is Tanah Melayu and the rules of Westminster do not apply to the rules of Ketuanan Melayu. The Malays remain sovereign and that sovereignty is recognised by the international community except of course Al Gore the bore and Hillary Clinton who “Dodged bullets in Bosnia.”
Correction. This is Malaysia and the laws of Malaysia apply. There is no such country called Tanah Melayu unless you wish to stake your own claim of nationhood in your backyard – and get thrown into the slammer for treason.
#22 by k1980 on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 1:44 pm
//.. the rules of Westminster do not apply to the rules of Ketuanan Melayu//
Since when has grkumar been converted from a thambi into a tuan?
If the rules of Westminster do not apply here, then cancel the by-elections in Galas and Batu Sapi. Don’t hold any more elections as demonstrated by the dictators ruling Somalia and Sudan today.
#23 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 2:27 pm
Well the rules of Ketuanan Melayu or the Adat of the Malays predate any Westminister constitution you and your fellow “cultural revolutionaries” have such disdain for.
If it is not Ketuanan Melayu and not the Reid commissions Westminster modelled constitution, it won’t be a Mao inspired dictatorial one either.
The racial taunts continue by a yellow livered group content to resort to name calling when they have no substance. Yet you turn precious when the same is applied to your bellies.
The word Thambi means little brother which I am not to you by any definition of that word. You may continue with its application in the pejorative thats to be expected of you being Chinese in Malaysia where everyone except you are a Gui.
If democracy was part of your cultural make up you would not be struggling with the concept like you are now.
#24 by sotong on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 2:28 pm
Punish those who abuse human basic rights.
Nobody objects to majority rule….our ” democracy ” is only democratic when it operates fairly for ALL of our people, not just the rich and powerful.
#25 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 2:33 pm
Yes ignoramus there is Tanah Melayu which is the name given to what is now Malaysia by government for convenience like Hellas the Greek name for Greece, Deutschland the German for Germany) Hell the Chinese name for China, (ask the falung Gong or Falung Daffa), and so on and so forth. But then again for someone so daring to engage in arguments on the constitution and laws when something so basic is unknown to them is what the Jews in Yiddish call Chutzpah (pronounced Hutspah). Fool.
#26 by Godfather on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 2:42 pm
You mean the Brits and those before them recognised that this strip of land was called Tanah Melayu ? You mean the aborigines who were the first people here called the land they lived on as Tanah Melayu ?
Or maybe the first Muslims that came to this land like to me-layu so they called it Tanah Melayu ?
#27 by lchk on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 2:44 pm
grkumar @ ketuanan wannabe,
Tanah Melayu does not appear on an atlas nor a map.
Tell us where in the constitution it is stated that there is a Tanah Melayu that is substitutable for Malaysia.
Who is this government for convenience? Does it exist in your rear orrifice?
#28 by dagen on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 2:50 pm
Rules of westminster is not the same as rules of ketuanan? But of course. The former is the rule of laws. The latter is all about manhood.
#29 by ktteokt on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 4:56 pm
Very right to call Malaya as TANAH ME-layu as we are already in the process of withering! Sudah LAYU lah!!!!