Open letter to Chua Soi Lek

— Tota
Malaysian Insider
Feb 17, 2012

FEB 17 — Soi Lek, hold your silence, apologise to the Chinese Malaysian community and repent.

You always claim that the MCA is the defender of “Chinese rights” and that the party has done a great deal for the community. Your party’s record shows otherwise. The MCA has been in the Alliance/BN since independence, but politically and economically the position of Chinese Malaysians has nose-dived because the MCA representatives in the Cabinet and state governments have behaved like political eunuchs. Their behaviour shows how successfully emasculated the MCA is.

After independence, Umno has successfully colonised the country and MCA has aided and abetted in this by sticking with Umno in spite of this. Currently, the MCA is helping Umno in oppressing people, creating fear among the people and destroying national unity. We are worse off now than under the British. The British allowed Umno to demonstrate against the Malayan Union. They did not fire tear gas or chemical-laced water through cannons at the demonstrators. Under the British, we had local council elections. Now Umno, aided by the MCA, is denying us this basic right.

What were the Cabinet positions the MCA held in the Tunku government and what are the Cabinet positions the MCA holds now? You often talk about the Social Contract. The Reid Commission is the Social Contract and some unwritten gentlemen’s agreements. The MCA aided and abetted Umno in shredding that Constitution, thus destroying the Social Contract.

As to the gentlemen’s agreements, one example was the governorship/CM arrangement for Malacca — if the governor was non-Malay, the CM’s post was to be held by a Malay and vice versa. Tunku appointed an ethnic Chinese as governor and he was the first and last. Now Umno cronies hold both positions.

The MCA supported every amendment to the Constitution, thus nullifying the most sacrosanct provision to keep Malaysia a democratic, progressive secular state. The ISA, the OSA, the Sedition Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, and the Universities and University Colleges Act took away civil rights and liberties and violated human rights.

The MCA supported Umno when the constitutional provision of 1:2 rural/urban weightage in delineating constituencies was amended, thus creating a lop-sided electoral system in which Barisan could win less than 50 per cent of the popular vote but still grab 80 per cent of the seats at state and federal levels. Most Chinese Malaysians are urban dwellers and their vote is perhaps less than 1/20 of the rural vote.

For example, Putrajaya has fewer than 7,000 registered voters but Lim Kit Siang’s constituency of Ipoh Timur has more than 76,000 while Kapar in Selangor has 112,000. And yet you proclaim together with Umno that our elections are free and fair.

The MCA supported Umno in suspending local council elections in the 1960s when an emergency was declared. Urban Chinese Malaysian dwellers are deprived of their constitutional right to elect their local government representatives. An MCA goon is on record as having said that local council elections cannot be held because rural people cannot participate! The 1957 Constitution provided for a 2:1 Malay/non-Malay ratio in the civil service. The MCA supported Umno in amending that constitutional provision, thus creating an almost ethnic Malay domination of the civil service.

The MCA supported Mahathir Mohamad, a real half-past six PM, when the Constitution was amended to set up syariah courts. This half-past six leader was later to say that he was lucky to get away with that amendment. The MCA Cabinet ministers behaved once again like political eunuchs. Look at the problems this has created for non-Muslims in conversion cases.

Soi Lek, have you heard of the Lina Joy case? Now some religious lunatics are claiming that the civil courts are subordinate to the syariah courts! Why have you not had the courage to condemn such claims? Where in the world is the federal constitution subordinate to state enactments as in Malaysia?

The MCA supported the NEP, which was successfully hijacked by the Umnoputras. Through Ali-Baba businesses, as argued by many scholars, Malaysian companies, GLCs and many others have caused a horrendous capital outflow at the expense of people’s welfare and a just distribution of economic wealth to the rakyat.

Umno has assigned you a job — to attack hudud law and frighten the Chinese into believing that hudud law would be implemented if Pakatan Rakyat came into power and that there would be a PAS PM in such an eventuality. Your statements on hudud law are indeed sacrilegious but it is okay with Umno!

You often talk about power-sharing in the government. If it were so, what was the necessity for MCA Cabinet ministers, together with other non-Malay ministers, to send a memorandum to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi? When Umno took offence, the MCA ministers ran for cover and then went on bended knee, apologising profusely and begging for forgiveness! So much for power-sharing in BN. Lim Keng Yaik once said that “the coalition partners were beggars”. This is the truth. So, Soi Lek, do not kid yourself.

Very often, important government policy decisions have been announced at Umno supreme council meetings. Isn’t it true that what the Umno supreme council decides, the Cabinet approves and Parliament rubber stamps?

You claim to fight for “Chinese rights”. Very often, you say that the government must build more Chinese schools and train more Chinese teachers. This is ridiculous! What is the ethnic Chinese representation in the civil service, the police, the army, navy and air force, the diplomatic corps and the judiciary? You have settled for tokenism in all areas of national life.

The deputy minister of education is from the MCA. I consider him as dead as a dodo in his job. What was he doing when the Islamo-fascists wrote the school history textbooks which contain so many irregularities? The Education Ministry is the most racist ministry of all. There are no non-Malay directors in any of its various divisions. There are no non-Malay chief education officers in any state. There are 20 public universities and all V-Cs are Malays. There are four deputy V-Cs in each university. Out of 80 deputy V-Cs, one may find one or two non-Malays. Within each university, most of the deans are Malays. For example, at USM, the “apex university” there are 27 schools and only one dean is a non-Malay.

So, Soi Lek, your claim that if Chinese Malaysians vote for the MCA their position in the government will be strengthened is a black lie. For almost 50 long years, Chinese Malaysians had blindly given their vote to the MCA. With their support, the Alliance/BN maintained its two-thirds majority in Parliament. This majority has been misused to destroy the Constitution and all independent institutions and literally set up a police state. Even Mahathir has said so.

You have called upon the DAP to emulate the MCA. Of course, the DAP will not set up a multi-purpose company or deposit-taking institutions to cheat poor Chinese Malaysians of millions of their hard-earned money. When Lim Guan Eng set an example of a RM100 award in appreciation of senior citizens, he began a trend that was emulated by the MCA and other component parties. Good that the MCA is emulating DAP!

With regard to your forthcoming debate with LGE, you have already adopted a defeatist attitude by saying that he is young, strong and a better debater. You took a cheap shot in calling him a street fighter. Guan Eng has too much finesse and is too classy to disrespect you, given your track record.

When Shabery Cheek debated Anwar Ibrahim, the mainstream media hailed him as a great orator, but he was frothing at the mouth and appeared to have forgotten his handkerchief. I would advise you to bring a towel to the debate.

Good luck, Soi Lek. —

  1. #1 by boh-liao on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 2:29 am

    No need such a long letter, just 1 line will do lah: CSL, U SIA SUI all Malaysians lah, U only care abt Ur SON hving a post in d cabinet

  2. #2 by yhsiew on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 3:08 am

    Soi Lek,

    DAP can survive without Pakatan but can MCA survive without UMNO? If cannot then you have to take stock of MCA leadership to see what went wrong.

  3. #3 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 3:55 am

    Chua Soi Lek thinks he will score points in debating with Lim Guan Eng on topic “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” . CSL was trained in psychology and practiced psychiatry before entering politics. Maybe he understands how to debate this topic. I can’t say I understand it. “2 party system” – what does it mean? For more than 50 years BN has dominated – until 12th GE on 308 when a 2 coalition system seems to have emerged with PR almost at strength vis-à-vis BN in ratio of 83 to 140 seats (before 7 defections). So “2 party system” is this 2 coalition system. Not everyone agrees there’s a permanent 2 party system (things are still in flux) but even if one concedes that there’s a 2 party, how does this connect to the other part whether it is becoming a 2-Race system for the debate to be meaningful? What does 2 race system mean?

  4. #4 by monsterball on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 4:01 am

    Great piece from Tota/Aliran.
    Chua Soi Lek has expanded polishing UMNO b shoes to a new height.
    He is no idiot and know vast majority Malaysian Chinese never supported MCA….and so very clear during the 12th GE.
    Chua Soi Lek is a shameless piece of show dog and puppet to Najib.
    He has no dignity and Malaysian Chinese hate him as much as to Ling.
    Nothing MCA or Chua can do will change the Chinese votes…..not even another 100 Chinese schools…or temples can fool Malaysian Chinese anymore.
    Before 12th was to adapt and choice.
    After 12th GE…it is now for the country and people…and vote BN out…vote corruptions out…vote double standards out…..are the priorities…and MCA is nothing to Malaysians..but a piece of sheeeeeet disgracing the Malaysian Chinese… to the maximum.

  5. #5 by monsterball on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 4:08 am

    First was Gerakan…and see how Koh Tsu Koon curled his tail.
    Who is Gerakan?…MCA buddy in BN.
    And 12th GE….all MCA ministers lost the elections.
    Being backdoor ministers…feeling no shame at all.
    This is not the Chinese way of life and culture.
    Chua Soi Lek claims that we …the Malaysian Chinese are supporting MCA are bunkum and lying with no shame.
    Najib lie….Mahathir lie….and so their puppets lie….what’s new?

  6. #6 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 4:16 am

    In press statement on 11.2.2012 on this topic, Lim Guan Eng said the debate “should see a contest of ideas, ideals and policies that benefits democracy and also all Malaysians not just Chinese alone. DAP offers the ideas, ideals and policies implemented in Penang that can be translated nationally of fostering a sense of belonging, a sense of togetherness and a sense of ownership amongst all Malaysians… regardless whether we are Malay, Chinese, Indian, orang Asli, Iban or Kadazan.” This does not help because I ask – is the other side CSL /MCA advocating (as distinct from implementing) anything really different from the DAP?? In Chua Soi Lek Manifesto that he came out in Sept 16 2008 CSL clearly said that whilst MCA continued to promote Chinese economic competiveness and education, MCA though a “race based party” would take a multi-racial approach to champion the rights of not jut Chinese but all Malaysians on national issues as good-governance, anti-corruption, freedom of religion, an independent judiciary etc”. Isn’t this same as DAP’s? So where’s the point of divergence between LGE and CSL for the debate to proceed???

  7. #7 by monsterball on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 4:25 am

    Come on moderator….release my 4.21am comment.
    I am a Malaysian Chinese speaking from the heart…and let Chua Soi Lek know how I consider him…if not how Malaysians Chinese at large… consider him to be.

  8. #8 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 4:26 am

    Topics like “Is MCA still relevant or obsolescent?” or “will 13th GE be wan song or death knell (last nail in coffin) of MCA?” “Is MCA in master-servant relationship and eunuch’s role vis-à-vis UMNO within BN’s political firmament?” will be easier to understand and contest/debate between DAP and MCA than a topic like “is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System?” which is nebulous, difficult to understand and narrow down where’s the point of difference for contest having regard to what CSL said in his Manifesto of 16.09.2008!

  9. #9 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 8:37 am

    The main argument of MCA and it will be CSL foundation is that Chinese cannot determine the future of this country on their own. DAP’s fundamental and correct argument is that neither can the Malays – the Malays also need the help of significant minorities to rule the country. In fact if only Sabah were not colonized by UMNO-Perkasa/BN, UMNO would be out of power already today..

    Truth be told, DAP does not seek to set the future of this country – that is the collective decision of all Malaysian. What DAP seek really is just fair policies for all guaranteed by the constitutions. For the Chinese, DAP can only seek self-determination, not rule the country or determine the future. Its a fundamental universal right of ALL citizen EVERYWHERE in the world.

  10. #10 by boh-liao on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 9:30 am

    After all these years, we still hv rakyat referring 2 themselves as M’sian Chinese, M’sian Indians, M’sian Malays, etc – RATHER THAN MALAY, INDIAN or CHINESE MALAYSIANS

    Linsanity Jeremy Lin is NOT referred 2 as American Chinese or Taiwanese, but Asian or Taiwanese American in d US

    C d difference?

  11. #11 by boh-liao on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 9:35 am

    NR, MMK, CSL etc – they CAN only think in terms of racial, tribal, racist lines
    N dis is Y M’sia suffers, is suffering n in a mess
    On 1 hand we hv UmnoB (racist master) n on d other hand, MCA (willing serf of UmnoB)

  12. #12 by sotong on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 10:01 am

    A divided country presents an opportunity for some in power to exploit…..nobody cares!

  13. #13 by the reds on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 10:04 am

    I strongly agree with Comment #1 – Soi Lek only cares about his son having post in Cabinet……..

  14. #14 by waterfrontcoolie on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 10:09 am

    You know MCA is the Black Hole when they need the self-styled Tengku of UMNO to plead with the Chinese Community for support! I wonder if he himself need any support in UMNO itself? Yes, it looks like the Mothership is sinking steadily hence the call for assistance to keep the the lifeboats floating? he is hoping to lash the Mothership to the lifeboats to prevent it from sinking? By the way, how on earth could they charge the PKR members on NFL when some Ministers themselves had agreed that the loan was abused? Who is calling the shot? Is it political? I thought they broke the basic terms of using a loan not for the intended purpose and someone highlight it and he is sued! How desperate can it be???

  15. #15 by Taikohtai on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 10:40 am

    Why is Najib running away from a debate with opposition party leader? I thought there is only one Bo Hood in BN :)

  16. #16 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 10:50 am

    Thanks BigJoe for comments #9. Still I’m not convinced and sense that it may be ill-advised for LGE/DAP to participate in such a high profile debate of such a vague topic. It is not a question of who has better American televised style debating skills/styles. It is the nature of the debate topic with MCA Michael Yeoh inserting a preface of “Chinese at a Crossroads” to the main motion “Is the Two-Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?”. Being conducted in Mandarin (which means addressing principally M’ysian Chinese audience) and televised by mainstream, whichever way LGE argues, no matter matter how persuasive, he & DAP will be easily drawn to, and presented by CSL (psychologist) as being Chinese-centric than Malaysian based as DAP professes. Either way CSL/MCA will reap the benefit of this debate.

  17. #17 by Cinapek on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 10:58 am

    Even though this article is directed at CSL, it should be clearly spelled out that it is directed at MCA and how it has failed the non Malays since 1969. A succession of MCA leaders from that point onwards prostituted themselves for self benefits and allowed UMNO to ride roughshod over the non Malays to the extent that we have the rot we see today.

    For example CSL and the Deputy Education Minister are not the only MCA leaders today that are eunuchs. One heartbeat away from the MCA presidency is another leader who sychophantically rushed to falsely defend the PDRM when they fired tear gas and water cannons into the Tung Shin Hospital compound during the Bersih 2 rally. And the saddest part was he dragged the Tung Shin Board to collude with him to disgrace the entire Chinese community. He would have got away with it if the 11 courageous doctors had not stood up against his twisting of the facts by coming out in public to refute his claims defending the PDRM. And until today, he still do not have the grace to apologise for this blatant attempt to cover up the truth.

    These are typical of the type of leaders MCA is breeding. If the Chinese community continue to give them their support, it would only propogate and prolong the suppression of the non Malays. It has to stop and the way to do it is to deny MCA the votes.

    A vote lost to MCA is a vote lost to UMNO and BN.

  18. #18 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 11:07 am

    With such a topic “Chinese at crossroads” CSL’s main thrust will be if we (ie Chinese) vote for Pakatan Rakyat, the Chinese will be in the opposition while Malays will be in the government. And what can LGE respond that shows he is not out of topic? That Chinese ought and would not vote for the BN (Serf MCA) but instead together with all Malaysians of other races should vote for DAP & “multiracial” or rather not “race based” Pakatan for better governance? Which is still saying that it is to the interest of minority Chinese’s interest who cannot otherwise determine their as well as nation’s future on their own alone to support PR? First of all isn’t such line easy to skew to present DAP/LGE as ultimately Chinese centric to thinking of what’s best for Chinese within limiting circumstances? Secondly the debate is carte blanche for CSL to raise issues of PAS’s Islamic policies for LGE to respond (publicly) on divisive issues between DAP & PAS within PR that PR has strenuously tried keep under the lid! To me nothing good for DAP/PR is likely to come out of this debate on a topic (trap) set by MCA!

  19. #19 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 11:15 am

    MCA is already a sinking boat: it cannot on its own merits recover Chinese votes. Its strategy is not to convince Chinese on merits to recover their votes but to engineer for DAP to make mistakes publicly in a mainstream publicised debate to lose Chinese and other Malaysians’ votes. This is a desperate scotch earth policy of – “if I cannot win on merits, I make sure that you trip, fall on your face and cannot win as well…”

  20. #20 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 11:26 am

    If you for one moment think that such a debate between MCA’s and DAP’s representatives (reflecting so called democratic practices) will indirectly give PR’s rep in LGE and agenda the necessary national exposure -free and fair access- to the media through televised debate (otherwise denied to the Opposition) you should think again! The whole ting is orchestrated to make sure no matter that you don’t look good either being out of point in the debate or if within point,are Chinese or supportive of PAS’s Islamic theocratic agenda.

    “This is in line with Bersih’s demand that all parties should have free and fair access to the media.”

  21. #21 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 11:28 am

    Typo omissions – “whole thing” and “Chinese centric”

  22. #22 by Jeremy Liang on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 11:34 am

    The TV debate between Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek on 18th Feb is getting national coverage. But will the key issues facing the electorate be discussed and probed deeply? What are these issues?

    1. What does Pakatan Rakyat truly stand for – equality for all races and a non-racial part system?

    2. What does Barisan stand for – continued race-based politics or will internal reform be driving the parties forward?

    3. It may take electoral defeat or a second straight loss of the two thrids majority for BN to learn the lesson of making genuine reforms.

    4. The weakness of Pakatan Rakyat rests on PAS’s stand on the Islamic state and hudud. How can their policies be accommodated in a multiracial multi ethnic country?

    The whole world is watching Malaysia as ethnic and religious violence has shaken the Middle East and the Israeli-Iran conflict is back in the forefront of international news.

  23. #23 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 12:29 pm

    Again Chinese NOT at a crossroad. They have decided and in fact even Malaysian have decided – UMNO-Perkasa/BN did not have the popular majority vote and if the GE were to be held now it will say it even more so. The issue is how to break the UMNO-Perkasa/BN Mafia holding the country ransom..

  24. #24 by mm08 on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 12:50 pm

    MCA is definately not relevant anymore to us! What is one Malaysia mean to them? Do they understand the meaning and practice it or merely a slogan! There are so much of descrmination here and at one point of time I myself was thinking is there a future here or we should migrate to other country! What we wanted is very simple to be treated as a ‘Malaysian’ and not Chinese, Malay or Indian Kadazan etc. The race is not important, the more important thing is we are Malaysian. We own the country and we have every share of the country economy, eduction, etc. If you are a talented person, you will be excelled in your career whatsoever. This is what we wanted, a fair competition among all the individuals in the country and not base on the race. Let’s us do our part in the GE13 to choose a government which can improve the weaknesses of the previous government.

  25. #25 by Loh on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 1:18 pm

    Chua Soi Lek’s argument is that in a two party system, Malays will be in the government and non-Malays in the opposition. So CSL is opposed to it.

    That is CSL’s understanding of a eventual two party system, and it is no different from the present system where MCA and MIC and all others are in BN in name, but Malays control all the government policies with the excuse that they are supported by non-Malays because non-Malays are represented in the government.

    To CSL MCA members now in government do benefit somewhat personally in power-sharing-arrangement, but the community stands to lose more than as if they are totally divorced from the government. As in that eventuality, UMNO has to respect world opinion on what they do and they cannot hide behind the arguments that non-Malays are represented. Without non-Malays, they lose the window dressing functions and they have to prove that they are fair.

    It is better for the non-Malay communities even if CSL’s vision of a two-party system turn out to be what he said. But that cannot be true. So change from the present system is better than status quo.

  26. #26 by k1980 on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 1:21 pm

    Off-topic— Dr Toh Kin Woon’s warning on Jibby’s proposed 1Care ( more appropriately, 1Don’tCare )

  27. #27 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 3:23 pm

    ///Chua Soi Lek’s argument is that in a two party system, Malays will be in the government and non-Malays in the opposition. So CSL is opposed to it./// – Loh
    I presume “Malays” refer to UMNO’s Malays in govt. However if 2 party system were entrenched and majority of non Malays especially those in fixed deposit states of Sabah and Sarawak were for the Opposition, the Opposition would win and form the government with supposedly fairer sharing of power amongst all races – so how does CSL’s argument (non Malays in opposition) apply???

  28. #28 by Loh on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 3:25 pm

    Mahathir’s words


    Feb17, 2012 Written by chedet

    ///1. According to the former chief justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah, “The Federal Constitution lost its fundamental structure when Article 121 was amended in 1988 and the provision in reference to the judicial power in the constitution removed”.///–Mamakthir

    Article 121 as at 15th November 1986 appearing the Malaysia Federal Constitution published by MDC Sdn Bhd. Reads:

    Article 121 Judicial power of the Federation.

    (1) Subject to Clause (2), the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely-

    (a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry in Kuala Lumpur: and

    (b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Borneo and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine:

    © (Repealed):
    and in such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law.

    Article 121 after the constitutional amendment, as at 5th September 2005 published by International law Book Services reads:

    Article 121 Judicial power of the Federation.

    (1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely-

    (a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry in Kuala Lumpur: and

    (b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Borneo and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine:

    © (Repealed):

    (1a) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.
    The last paragraph of 121 (1) appearing in capital letter restricts the judicial power of the courts to those conferred by or under federal law. The original 121(1) states that judicial power of the Federation, without qualification, shall be vested in the two Courts.

    The amendment also introduced the Syariah courts, and they have power of their own. Thus decision of the Syariah courts is final, and the judicial power of the two High Courts appearing in 121(1) depends on what the AG chooses whether or not to assign them jurisdiction.

    ///2. What is the amendment about? It is about the procedure giving the Attorney General the responsibility for specifying which court should hear a case. Originally Section 418A (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code reads, “Notwithstanding the provision of section 417 and subject to Section 418B, the Public Prosecutor may in any particular case triable by a Criminal Court subordinate to a High Court issue a certificate specifying the High Court in which the proceedings are to be instituted or transferred and requiring that the accused person be caused to appear or be produced before such High Court”.

    3. In December 1986 when Datuk Yap Peng was charged with criminal breach of trust, the public prosecutor issued a certificate under Section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the case to be transferred to the High Court.///–Mamakthir

    The Court, the parliament and the executive are supposedly to have separation of power. The amendment makes the Attorney general more powerful than the court, let alone the executive and the parliament.

    The amendment is not about the procedure for the AG to follow. It is the power for the AG to serve the interests of the executive to kill off political opponents. For example, the Syariah court would only convict sodomy if four adults give evidence as eye-witness to the act. Sodomy 1 cannot stand in Syariah court, so does Sodomy 2. But the government can make the AG persecute in any court that services the interests of the powers-that-be.

    The amendment does not add to the rule of law in the country. It cuts the power of the judiciary vested under 121(1) to what the AG chooses in terms of the cases they would hear, and it restricts the power to what the parliament and the executive dictate.

    ///4. Datuk Yap’s counsel during the trial in January 6, 1987 (before the amendment) argued that the transfer was unconstitutional and that “Section 418A violated Articles 121 (1) and 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution”. The trial judge concurred.

    5. The Public Prosecutor then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld by a 3:2 majority decision, the decision of the trial judge (read here).

    6. Interestingly, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop A. Sani and Tun Salleh Abbas dissented against the majority.

    7. Tan Sri Yeop Sani said, “Section 418A has been examined by the Courts on a number of occasions”. Clearly the courts in the past did not conclude that Section 418A was against the constitution. The practise of the AG transferring a case from a lower court to a higher court must have continued and regarded as part of procedure.

    8. Salleh Abbas, giving his minority dissenting view said: “I cannot see how this power…could be regarded as an encroachment upon judicial power of the court. In my view, it is neither a judicial power nor an encroachment of that power”.///–Mamakthir

    The long story serves only to divert attention. Why should the government amend the constitution to legalize what was clearly unconstitutional?

    ///9. It was probably to make clear the situation and to restore the right of the AG that he decided to include the amendment to Article 121 (1) when the Constitution was to be amended to clarify the role of the Rulers in law-making.///–Mamakthir

    Mamakthir did not specify who the “he” was who decided to change article 121(1). It sounds like Salleh Abbas amended the article on his own initiative. But how can the court get involved in amending constitution? The right of the AG cannot be restored when it had not been removed.

    10. I must admit that I did not seek clarification from the AG at that time and regarded this inclusion as not altering the judicial powers in any way. Before the amendment the AG had this power under the CPC. But it was the court which took away this power on the grounds that it violated Articles 121 (1) and 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution.

    ///11. It is normal that whenever a law needs to be amended to facilitate the process of justice, then it would be amended. The Constitution was drafted by mere men and it cannot be perfect.///–Mamakthir

    Is it to facilitate the process of justice, or is it to facilitate persecution in rule by law? The statement shows that the man cannot be trusted to uphold the constitution. He thinks that all those negotiations and compromises concluded by the forefathers who reached the agreement in the form of the constitution was for him to destroy simply because he had the power.

    ///12. The rights and functions of the judiciary have not been subservient to the politicians or the Prime Minister before or after the amendment. This is because the amendment involves only the procedure in which the AG was given back the responsibility to transfer cases. It did not give the Prime Minister any authority to overrule the courts.///–Mamakthir

    The amendment to article 121 did not have a clause about transfer of court cases between the courts. The changes listed in Para 1 say it all.

    ///13. Tun Dzaiddin pointed out the case of the removal of Tun Salleh Abbas as Chief Justice as evidence that the judiciary is subservient to the Government.

    14. In the first place I was not the one who wanted Tun Salleh to be removed. It was the request (command) of the Agong. I have already explained the circumstances involved in my memoirs.///–Mamakthir

    Ya, the memoirs are fiction. Tun Salleh had fixed the date and decided that nine justices would hear the appeal against the High court decision which rule UMNO illegal; that led to his dismissal. Had Tun Salleh stayed and the old UMNO restored, Mamakthir and Tengku Razaleigh would have to stand for party election again. Mamakthir won 43 votes in the 1987 UMNO election, the result of power failure during vote casting and during vote counting. Thus, Mamakthir had vested interest to see Tun Salleh removed as Chief Justice, whatever Agong felt. The late Sultan of Johor who was King then would have forgiven Tun Salleh if Mamakthir was interested to see that outcome instead of going through the process of firing Tun Salleh. Tun Salleh had also written a lot on the matter. Of the two, we trust Tun Salleh more.

    ///15. There is provision in the Constitution for a judge to be removed. Neither the Agong nor the Prime Minister can dismiss him. A tribunal has to be set up and the case for dismissal heard.///–Mamakthir

    Ya, even corruption can be legalized such as in the negotiated contract. Najib is thinking about selling money making subsidiaries of GLCs to selected Malays. He would go through the process too.

    ///16. All these procedures were followed to the letter. Two foreign judges were on the panel. The Panel decided on Salleh’s removal and not the Prime Minister or the Government. Simply because Salleh was removed in accordance with the Constitution does not mean the judiciary is subservient to the Government or the Prime Minister. If judges cannot be removed at all, the Constitution would say so. But the Constitution carries provision only for a judge to be removed.///–Mamakthir

    Mamakthir failed to mention that the person who headed the tribunal was the beneficiary on the outcome of the case!

    ///17. I would like to know of instances, in the years Tun Dzaiddin was Chief Justice, when I had interfered with the courts in any way.

    18. Perhaps Tun Dzaiddin might be able to tell more about lobbying for high judicial appointments. Malay adats have a very powerful role in the governance of this country.///–Mamakthir

    Indian talking about Malay adats shows that he is prepared to convince others that he knows it. Governance is based on rule of law. How can any adat be relevant?

  29. #29 by undertaker888 on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 3:50 pm

    Chua soi lek together with all his chinese cohorts are a bunch of clowns in Malaysian Chinese A$$hole-ciation. With a few crumbs to feed these mca prostitutes, they have sold our rights to what it is today. They are abetting and supporting the mahadevil to reduce this country to what it is today. Corrupted to the core, incompetitive and insecure.

    Kick these [email protected]@rds back to the stinking hole where they came from.

  30. #30 by limkamput on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 3:55 pm

    Jeffry, you are imputing and postulating lots of things that are blatantly clear to most. The issue of contention here is this: would a two party system (which in this case is a two coalition system) lead to two race system. Of course subsumed by CSL is that the two party system will eventually lead to Malays on one side and the non-Malays, particularly the Chinese, on the other. Having idea like this is to assume that all Malays and all non-Malays are natural racist. LGE and DAP to me is counting on a two party system with each party/coalition being multiracial. The assumption here is people are generally decent and moderate. So the contest of these two parties/coalition here is not between Malays and non-Malays, but between moderation and extremism, between social orientation and rightist take all mentality, between Malay dominance and genuine partnership, and between meritocracy and mediocrity based on race and connection.

  31. #31 by sotong on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 5:15 pm

    Real Malays want to be liberated, secure and free.

    Like other races, they have been betrayed by their so called ” celebrity or popular ” leaders.

    They are sick and tired of present political environment for far too long without an alternative party with strong secular, social and democratic objectives.

    DAP is one of their choice…they don’t want ALL Malays or Islamic parties.

  32. #32 by Loh on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 6:23 pm

    Chua Soi lek said that even though DAP had more seats in Perak, DAP could not have his party member appointed MB, before the coup in 2009. He seemed to blame DAP for the state constitution of Perak.

    Chua Soi Lek simply confirmed that he supported the BN which ensures that the racist policy remain forever. Obviously if UMNO chose to change the racist policy, it would change eventually since the Sultans act on the advice of UMNO. Yet MCA blame DAP for something that it had no power to influence. CSL seemed to think that Malaysians have no choice but to continue living in a racially divided nation. Nothing sadder that a person who has no will to change for the better. MCA is represented, or led by a person who has lost his soul.

  33. #33 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 7:27 pm

    My verdict of the debate. LGE was solid, shined occasionally but not spectacular. CSL was clever but ultimately disgusting – the slime was showing..

  34. #34 by waterfrontcoolie on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 9:13 pm

    CSL proudly down-play Corruption only to prove that MCA is pro-corruption and we should bury it once for all. I hope LGE call-off the next debate, having seen such crude behaviour of MCA supporters, they were definitely less refined than thsoe who attended the debate between KY and Radizi recently. If this is the core of MCA leadership, please don’t insult the Community! You not only behave cheap but arrogant and indeed moronic to an extent! It was a debate to show your Party’s policy issues yet CSL stooped to gain some hand-claps with cheap shots at LGE whose points on corruption, education and lack or in fact total non-existence of opportunity for the Chinese in the Gomen sector. Even the few we have are mostly kaki bodek! MCA’s attitude to so who had to worl overseas ia so clear when he advocated that they shouldn’t have the right to vote. So in simple language, let’s buty it once for all!

  35. #35 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 9:24 pm

    Good point about MCA crude behaviour. MCA was founded by gentleman and ladies. Today merely Ah Bengs and Ah Lians.

  36. #36 by Anti Rasuah on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 11:11 pm

    Chua Soi Lek uses the word “Malay” and he dared not use “ÜMNO”. Lim asked Chua why there is no UMNO member caught for corruption. Chua twisted the word to “Malay” instead of using “ÜMNO”.

    Chua wanted to cause Malay to hate Lim or DAP.

    We see clearly Chua is a real cunning fox.

  37. #37 by Anti Rasuah on Saturday, 18 February 2012 - 11:18 pm

    During the debate, one woman cried out loudly about beating on street. This type of thing happens very where in Malaysia.

    This woman fails to think rationally and see clearly that Penang is now safer than Kuala Lumpur.

    Now I asked the woman and MCA back:

    I have a relative who met a serious robbery in Shah Alam. What is UMNO doing about this type of crime in Shah Alam?

    This robber looks like an immigrant. What does the BeEnd government do about the illegal immigrants in Malaysia?

    Yes, they are planning to track down all illegal immigrants in Peninsular Malaysia. What about the long time problem of Sabah illegal immigrant?

    In our conclusion, PAS has not bullied Chinese community in Kedah (we are Kedahans) and MCA still prefers to support corrupted UMNOputras. MCA also fails since decades to solve Chinese community problems especially educational funding, teachers, etc.

  38. #38 by boh-liao on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 1:01 am

    Ha, ha, it’s interesting dat during d debate, CSL ADMITTED dat BN always MAKAN SUAP, JIAK LUI, ACCEPTS BRIBE “我以為这是国陣罷了哦”
    Watch 1.29 to 1.31 不打自招 SELF-ADMISSION of CORRUPTION

  39. #39 by boh-liao on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 1:03 am

    Yes, SELF-ADMISSION of CORRUPTION by CSL, live in front of d entire world

  40. #40 by boh-liao on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 1:36 am

    From videos of d debate, it’s so SAD 2 C so many MCA supporters cheering, even though they were told dat nonMalays r bashed by UmnoB Malays, n d nation suffers bcos of unbridled CORRUPTION
    哎呀!可憐马华 supporters, 乌呼!哀哉!

  41. #41 by k1980 on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 7:44 am

    //so many MCA supporters cheering//

    You give them RM100 each and they would suck their own dicks if you tell them to do so

  42. #42 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 8:11 am

    What for debate with MCA President on such a topic which was framed in a way to project MCA’s lost cause and to skew that which is actually MCA’s dilemma as if it were Chinese Malaysians’ dilemma?? This whole approach by CSL & MCA think tank is to tell Chinese Malaysian voters not to support Opposition and by extension the so called 2 party/coalition system (but to continue supporting MCA that has a say in govt) lest (1) Chinese Malaysian lose all representation in government and (2) PAS’s theocratic agenda is facilitated. On (1) – it basically begs the question that (a) there is already ample 50 years of evidence/felt experience of MCA having failed to represent Chinese Malaysians’ interests in whatever important areas that count, and (b) there is nothing wrong – and indeed everything laudable- in the Chinese Malaysians talking the lead (grounded on principle) to realise the much needed political transition to a multi racial & non communal 2 party/coalition system (than the present communal politics of then Alliance now BN) in the interests of nation even at the risks of their losing their political representation (basically sham anyway) by the MCA. On (2) – though the prospect of PAS’s theocratic agenda being facilitated is a clear and present risk and cannot be discounted, the position under BN is no worse in a political milieu of UMNO seeking to outdo PAS and become more theocratic than it, about which MCA could also do nothing.

  43. #43 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 8:27 am

    And MCA is harping on (1) and (2) issues in above posting because it basically trains its message towards that 75% majority segment of its traditional constituency comprising the Chinese educated, involved in SMIs, supporting Dong Jiao Zhong, reading Chinese media and associated one way or another with the plethora of guilds and associations whom, in MCA’s calculations, the need of MCA’s limited political representation to preserve Chinese language and culture is priority, never mind the nation can otherwise go to the dogs! Somehow since 308 even this segment have shown that they are not buying this story.

  44. #44 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 8:53 am

    I as big a cynic as the next guy but a lot of the critics of the debate has got it wrong.

    1) I thought it was perfectly clear what the choices for the election was for the Chinese – DAP – solid, smart even if they are not slick Vs. MCA – clever, slick, slimy and obviously hopelessly corrupted.

    2) the debate may not make much difference in vote because the Chinese are already mostly going PR’s way except for the hopeless diehards. BUT it does put pressure on Najib to debate Anwar. Anwar got a new weapon to spin his magic in the villages.. ITS HUGE.

  45. #45 by cseng on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 11:10 am

    What’s wrong with street fighter spirit CM? We are now facing a bunch of ‘robbers, thieves’, they rob Perak, steal money, create lies; street fighter is what we need now, these Umno buggers swallow anybody whole, if they less of a street fighter. So what are you CSL, saliva fighter.
    What’s wrong with CM’s young ego? LGE in personal capacity going thru the political reality of M’sia, but he refuses to back-off, he still holding on his believes. At a part of his life, he almost lost everything and put in jail, for his believe. He urge all Malaysians to believe that we can change the system! He has all the right to say that, he passed the test. I trusted his young and ego. CSL, what have you scarified to build a better nation? Last I remember, you take accountability to resign after your infamous CD.
    Who win the debates, the rakyat win! We expect more! The whole of penang supported our CM, The Only Street Fighter CM!, go check out the big screen TV put out in various spot across penang, all supported the Street Fighter CM include those set up by MCA. So who win?, next debate wear diaper instead of bringing tower!.

  46. #46 by Loh on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 1:21 pm

    CSL was cunning to have diverted attention on some of the issues such as saying that MCA removed OTK instead of countering the argument that MCA was a slave of UMNO. That argument cannot stand scrutiny, but not many people would think over the matter after the debate, and many went away thinking that CSL might be right.

    In the debate before the Florida primary Gingrich allowed the arguments by Mitt Romney that both his parents and parents-in-law were immigrants and thus he was not-anti immigrants, and that Romney had his investments placed on blind trust and thus he had no responsibility on how they were invested, left unchallenged, the viewers believed Romney won the debate which sent Gingrich popularity spiraling downwards. Obviously Romney defense is not tenable but Americans are simply that ‘smart’! Are Malaysians Chinese easily fooled like the Americans?

  47. #47 by alaneth on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 2:35 pm

    There is a BIG question to answer here…

    Why LGE & Kit Siang always remain SILENT on issues relating to PAS & Hudud ?????

    DAP is also a toothless tiger, trying to bodek PAS & always remain silent on Hudud issue. You see the ban on the cinema in Bangi & problems in Kedah relating to non-muslims.

    I only salute Karpal Singh on his strong stand against PAS’s extremism.

    DAP can support Pakatan without bowing to PAS’s extremism. But why the silence always???
    LGE, Kit Siang – please answer before we cross DAP again.

  48. #48 by boh-liao on Sunday, 19 February 2012 - 9:49 pm

    Dis Selayang 泼妇骂街 MCA 黄糩满 will receive SPECIAL 1-2-1 treatment fr d WIFE CHEATER

You must be logged in to post a comment.