Donald Trump’s friend Najib and their common cause



The liberal media like to portray Donald Trump as a buffoon but he’s definitely a lot more canny than they’re willing to credit.

Recently the politically correct media slapped down the president over his un-PC tweet where he said the “loser terrorist(s)” who attacked the London underground train “were in the sights of Scotland Yard”.

(Scotland Yard is the London metropolitan police.)

And it turns out Trump was right.

Media spinning liberal counter narrative

In his controversial tweet, Trump implied British authorities had already got the terrorists under their nose but nonetheless failed to prevent the bucket bomb attack.

(Radicalized Muslims with the potential to turn jihadi are put under surveillance by British police.)

On Friday (Sept 15), a fireball from an improvised explosive device detonated in a white bucket at the Parsons Green tube station and injured 30 people.

British leaders not upfront, Trump right

British Prime Minister Theresa May rebuked Trump for being unhelpful in telling the public things that she refuses to divulge while Home Minister Amber Rudd tried to shut down the information flow by warning ‘don’t speculate’.

Yet it quickly appears that Trump’s intel briefing was on the dot. Police had indeed got the suspect in custody a fortnight earlier.

Currently detained under Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000 for the Parsons Green attack are Syrian asylum seeker Yahya Farroukh, 21, and his younger friend − an Iraqi refugee whose name is being withheld by the press.

The 18-year-old Iraqi has been under foster care, and his Muslim family are reportefly unhappy that he is lodged with a Christian family in England.

Trump knows fake news when he sees it

It’s clear that not only is the mocking media unscrupulously biased but they’re out to do Trump in. They slam him even when he is right.

The media pouring scorn 24/7 on Trump is the hateful voice of the Democrats. Local media pouring scorn on Najib Razak certainly sound like their editorial floor is full of Dapsters.

Like Trump, Najib similarly receives bad press from a section of the domestic media. During his recent White House visit, Najib was also given negative coverage from the same Trump-deriding populist and legacy media.

The uncomplimentary reporting on Najib did little to influence Trump who himself distrusts and despises the said media such as CNN and The New York Times.

Earlier the anti-Najib media painted a picture as if the prime minister was a persona non grata in Washington DC. Pakatan Harapan boss Mahathir Mohamad even claimed that Najib would be arrested by Interpol were he to travel abroad.

Now that Najib’s Washington trip has been successfully concluded – not to mention how he was received as “my friend” by Prisident Trump – we can safely say that the media-bashing of Najib was inconsequential and had no impact on Najib’s reputation in the eyes of the Potus.

Given his own awful experience with American media, Trump knows better than to have any truck with the fake news concocted about Najib.




Download PDF

Harapan risks inflaming Muslim vs non-Muslim tensions over Rohingya



Malaysia claims to have successfully persuaded the United States to make a strong statement – listen below – censuring Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya.

NST declared today that until prime Minister Najib Razak raised the issue during his Sept 12 meeting with American president Donald Trump, the White House had been silent on the Rohingyan plight.

At his meeting with Trump, Najib also mentioned Malaysia’s commitment to fighting Muslim terrorist groups − see video below.

He added that the more the Trump administration aligned with moderate Muslim regimes (such as Malaysia), the better it will be for America’s effort in winning the heart and mind of the Muslim world.

Umno’s wasatiyyah vs PBBM’s toxic politics

The Umno president is stressing ideological warfare. On the other hand, PBBM – the splinter mosquito party that’s an Umno clone – appears to be advocating the use of force to settle disputes.

Mukhriz Mahathir apparently called for reprisal by our Malaysian security forces against Myanmar.

The PBBM deputy president said in his tweet @6:55 am – 5 Sep 2017 that the killing of Rohingya must not be allowed to happen without any response (“Dasar kemanusiaan kita x boleh dipertahankan jika pembunuhan massa itu berlaku tanpa apa2 tindakbalas. Selamatkan #Rohingya.”)

In his series of tweets earlier on the same day @6:53 am, Mukhriz said “the Aung San Suu Kyi regime” cannot be let off just like that for its atrocities committed against the Rohingya.

In his last tweet of the day, Mukhriz urged the Najib government to despatch our Malaysian Royal Navy to the Bay of Bengal, alluding that this show of force (sending warships) is “the only language Myanmar understands”.

Mukhriz seems to be suggesting that violence is the most suitable means for conflict resolution when two sides square off.

Dr M said just “shoot” the Vietnamese boat people

Mukhriz comes across as a warmonger in a vein similar to his party’s new political ally DAP which is known as a ‘streetfighter’ or in other words, a knuckleduster, thuggish sort of party.

Clearly, Pakatan Harapan is failing to adopt a wasatiyyah approach despite the opposition coalition flaunting Christian credentials of supposedly ‘turning the other cheek’.

Mukhriz’s implied threat towards Naypyidaw is an indication that the fruit does not fall far from the tree. His father Mahathir Mohamad famously said “shoot them” about Vietnamese boat people that were attempting to land on our shores in 1979.

Dr M – who was then the Malaysian deputy prime minister – most evidently harboured no sympathy for the Vietnamese refugees who were largely Chinese. (Chinese boat people were a minority ethnic group that fled Vietnam as economic migrants.)

Tun M had wanted them shot, when asked by foreign correspondents.

Now his son Mukhriz is displaying an equal belligerence against the Buddhist Burmese placed on the other side of the Rohingya exodus crisis.


Despite the many generations, multiculturalism fails tragically — Read here

PPBM’s Chinese political ally is equally belligerent.

DAP sec-gen Lim Guan Eng called Trump “dungu”. Lim Jr said that he would not want to meet such a moron even if he had the chance because “when we meet this type of people, we also become stupid”, according to political commentator Joceline Tan.

His father Lim Kit Siang echoed Rev. Desmond Tutu in saying, “It is incongruous for a symbol of righteousness (Aung San Syu Kyi) to lead such a country”.

 ⇓  Arsa attacks make peace more difficult to attain

Element of jihad complicates Rohingya issue

Najib is more measured than Mukhriz and the Lims. He acknowledges that it is more important to tackle the hardline ideology behind the terrorist attacks.

Ataullah – leader of the Arsa terrorist/rebel group that recently attacked and killed Burmese police – is, for example, a Rohingya born in Karachi, Pakistan and educated in Saudi Arabia.

The Rakhine insurgents are led by guerrilas taught by Saudi mullahs whose ideology is Wahhabism. Another Arsa leader Hafiz Tohar trained in Pakistan under the famed/infamous and fearsome Lashkar-e-Tayyaba.

Pundits have pointed out that the Rohingya fighters’ Saudi religious background and terrorist links to Pakistan have resulted in the Rakhine problem becoming militarized.

Like our own Malays who have fought as mujahideen in Afghanistan, Chechnya and the Middle East, the Rohingya too have been previously involved in jihad and brought their battlefield experience to the Rakhine.

The South China Morning Post reported on Sept 1 that residents of the affected areas in Myanmar said “scores of armed villagers joined the Arsa fighters in the attacks”.

“The rebels fired and mowed down the policemen who were taken by surprise, but it was these armed villagers who stabbed and slashed the policemen with their long knives and machetes,” an eyewitness told the SCMP reporters.

In the matter of combating Rohingya insurgency, Myanmar has the support of regional power India that considers the Rohingya a threat to its national security and threatened that the Rohingya currently taking refuge in India could be expelled.

Myanmar is also supported by superpower China in its crackdown in the Rakhine. In short, China and India are on Myanmar’s side.

The Rohingya crisis requires a balancing act on the part of Malaysian leaders navigating its complex geopolitics. In this regard, Najib is acting far more responsibly compared to the sabre rattlers and showboaters in Pakatan Harapan.

Download PDF

Despite the many generations, multiculturalism fails tragically



Most of Burmese emigrants today can be found living in Malaysia and Thailand, said the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in its report earlier this year.

(An ’emigrant’ is defined as out-migrant who has moved away while an ‘immigrant’ is one who has moved in.)

Malaysia is hosting currently many Burmese − be they legal workers, PATI (pendatang tanpa izin) and additionally, the Rohingya refugees.

It is estimated that 4.25 million people who were born in Myanmar are presently residing outside their country of birth, said UNFPA. How many Rohingya have melted into Malaysia’s shadowlands of undocumented migrants, one wonders?

Read here

150,000 Rohingya in Malaysia — Aljazeera



Burmese official narrative: Rohingya are Bengali

Myanmar has a total population of about 51.5 million. Some 3.2 million are living in Rakhine state.

The Rohingya are estimated to be around one third of Rakhine’s population going by the most recent Myanmar population and housing census taken in 2014.

“An estimated 1,090,000 people who wished to self-identify as Rohingya were not enumerated in the census,” the UNFPA clarified however. They are a people living in the shadows in Myanmar too.

⇓  Rohingya cousins dwell in Chittagong, Bangladesh

There are 135 ‘ethnic races’ officially listed by the authorities in Myanmar. The Rohingya are not categorized among these 135.

Rohingya are on the contrary viewed by the mainstream communities as Bengali outsiders, i.e. Indian Muslim immigrants who moved into Rakhine from the neighbouring area of what is today Bangladesh. Hundreds of years ago, Bengal was ruled by sultanates.

[Note: The borders of modern Bangladesh were established with the partition of Bengal in August 1947. Bangladesh was known as East Pakistan beginning 1947 after independence from the British, and called by its present country name since 1971 following Bangladesh’s subsequent independence from Pakistan.]

In Myanmar, ‘citizenship by birth’ is granted to members of “national ethnic races”, for example the dominant ethnic group Bamar, and also the Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Mon, Shan and Rakhine, etc. These ethnics are deemed to have been permanently settled in the areas of what is now Myanmar since before 1823.

The year 1823 is selected as the cut-off line because war broke out between Britain and Burma in March 1824, following border clashes in Arakan state (the previous name for Rakhine state). The British won the war and in 1826, the Burmese had sign a peace treaty and cede Arakan – among other territories – to the colonial empire.

Unlike Burma’s 135 official ‘ethnic races’, Rohingya need to apply to become naturalized citizens. Nonetheless, their prospects of citizenship are “significantly narrowed” due to the country’s restrictive Citizenship Law.

Rohingya are de facto stateless people

Why is it that Rohingya have been pointedly excluded from citizenship by law even though their families have been living in Myanmar for many generations?

According to the Kofi Annan report:

“While there has been a Muslim community in Rakhine since before the Burmese invasion, its size increased rapidly during colonial times. British colonial policies to expand rice cultivation in Rakhine required significant labour, a need which was largely filled by Muslim workers from Bengal. While many came on a seasonal basis, some settled down permanently – altering the ethnic and religious mix of the area. From the 1880s to the 1930s, the size of the Muslim community (as part of the total population of the state) seems to have doubled, increasing from about 13 to 25 percent.”

The demographic data above was sourced from Report on the Census of British Burma, Part I: The Enumeration and Compilation of Results, 1881; Census of India 1931, Vol XI: Burma, Part I: Report, 1933.

The ‘Kofi Annan report’ – a year in the making – collates the final recommendations by the advisory commission chaired by the respected former UN sec-gen.

Some months into his investigations, Kofi Annan rejected claims that the mass killings in Rakhine amounted to genocide.

Descendents of unwelcomed immigrants remain unwanted

Findings by the commission was presented last month (Aug 23) to Myanmar state counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar president U Htin Kyaw.

Ethnicity has a “direct impact on the determination of [Myanmar] citizenship”, the Kofi Annan report acknowledged.

Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law disenfranchised the Rohingya who are considered as “Muslim workers from Bengal”. Through the implementation of this law, Rohingya became ‘white card’ holders only granted temporary residency.

Since they are not regarded by the Burmese government as indigenous to the land, Rohingya are required to prove that they or their ancestors entered the country prior to 1948.

[Note: Burma won its independence from the British in January 1948. The newly independent republic, however, declined to become a member of the Commonwealth.]

Because the Rohingya are viewed as illegal aliens and interlopers, this Muslim minority group is effectively made stateless by the Burmese ruling clique by design.

Long history of mutual distrust

Rakhine has been wracked by perpetual cycles of violence.

As early as 1948, there was a mujahideen rebellion in Arakan (Rakhine) shortly after Myanmar’s independence when the Rohingya demanded an autonomous Muslim region in the north of the state.

Inter-communal conflict is a recurring theme amid the province’s periodic social tensions. In 1978 and 1991, the hostile Burmese military junta pushed more than 200,000 Rohingya to trek as refugees into Bangladesh.

Ethnic conflict between armed combatants took a toll of at least 192 lives (134 Muslims, 58 Rakhine) in June and October 2012. Rohingya separatists are accused of harbouring ambitions to secede.

The most recent waves of violence occurred in October 2016, sparked by attacks on Burmese security forces by the Harakat al-Yaqin insurgents, also known as Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa).

More killings erupted late last month on the back of the release of Kofi Annan’s report.

“What is seen by many internationally as a human rights issue is viewed in Myanmar as one of national sovereignty, and there is widespread support for military operations in northern Rakhine,” reported the BBC in its Sept 6 article.

The British broadcaster also said, “Most Burmese view international media coverage as one-sided, putting too much emphasis on the Rohingya, and failing to adequately cover the plight of others in Rakhine who have fled violence in their villages”.

Foreign media are quoting a figure of more than a quarter million when referring the number of Rohinga who have fled across the border to to Bangladesh over the past couple of weeks.

Nevertheless, it is not Rohinga alone who have been displaced by the sectarian violence. Some 27,000 ethnic Rakhine – Buddhists as well as Hindus – comprise ‘internally displaced persons’ (IDP) that have also had to be evacuated from their homes.

⇓  James Gomez, Amnesty International’s regional director for southeast Asia and Pacific voices how a common language is vital for integration

Multiculturalism, diversity tore apart Rakhine

The Rohingya have a different language, culture and religion from the majority Burmese and the majority Rakhine. They live in a parallel society, in fact.

In their madrasahs, Rohingya children are not educated in Myanmar language.

It is untenable that the Rohingya – or for that matter, any minority so very different in language, culture and religion – should still fail to integrate with the majority population.

Although the Burmese government has downplayed the massacres in Rakhine as merely a security response to Muslim “terrorists”,  Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – see story tweeted above – views the grave situation with alarm as ethnic cleansing.

UN special rapporteur on the status of human rights in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee is similarly concerned, suggesting on Friday (Sept 8) that more than 1,000 people, mostly Rohingya, may already have been killed.

What is undeniable is the Rohingya exodus from Myanmar. With Rohingya villages being razed to the ground, their flight of fear is tantamount to a forced expulsion.

In the worst case scenario, minorities can be expelled even from the land of their birth. If anything, Rakhine proves that too much diversity is dangerous. There is nothing at all to hold such a diverse, fractured society together.

Download PDF

Tanah Melayu sebenarnya milik orang Melayu


Oleh Mohd Khairul Anwar al-Idrus

Telah banyak kali tajuk ini dibincangkan dalam pelbagai platform; dari dewan kuliah universiti, saluran media hinggalah ke perbahasan dalam Dewan Rakyat.[1] Malah ia juga pernah menjadi penghakiman bertulis oleh para hakim yang bijaksana dalam mahkamah negara.[2]

Kesimpulan awal yang boleh kita perolehi: Ramai penulis menulis dengan maksud dan tujuan tersendiri; jarang yang berani mengupas secara ilmiah tanpa prejudis dan keterikatan dengan fahaman kumpulan yang ia anggotai.

Ini masalahnya apabila seseorang menulis secara selektif dan mengambil sebahagian yang menyokong ideanya dan menolak yang sebahagian lain yang benar kerana bertentangan dengan hasrat, fikrah, agenda dan tujuan asalnya.

Demikianlah apa yang terjadi kepada Joshua Woo Sze Zeng dalam rencananya, ‘Happy 60th Merdeka as secular federation’ dalam Malay Mail Online bertarikh 31 Ogos 2017.

Diulang-ulang mentera ‘sekular’ yang tak menjadi

Kita tidak terkejut langsung dengan kenyataan Joshua itu kerana ‘sekularisme’ adalah isu lama yang sudah diselesaikan dalam dunia ilmiah semasa. Ia tiada kesan ke atas sebahagian besar penduduk Malaysia yang sudah boleh menilai tujuan rencana berkenaan ditulis.

Apatah lagi tulisan tersebut oleh evangelis DAP yang juga merupakan seorang ahli Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai.

Barangkali Joshua Woo tidak terbaca tulisan-tulisan ahli akademik yang begitu banyak di dalam bentuk buku, jurnal dan juga di dalam media tempatan mengenai kedudukan Islam dalam perlembagaan.

5 reasons why Malaysia is not a secular country — baca SINI


Di antaranya ialah kertas kerja Dr Abdul Aziz Bari [3] yang berjudul, ‘Konsep raja berperlembagaan dalam perjanjian persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948′ dalam kumpulan kertas kerja seminar ’60 tahun penubuhan persekutuan Tanah Melayu asas negara merdeka’ [4] di mana beliau telah menulis:

“Berbalik kepada kedudukan di dalam sistem tradisional ramai sarjana yang kelihatannya terkeliru dengan apa yang terpapar di dalam Kanun Melaka yang pada hakikatnya adalah perlembagaan Kesultanan Melayu Melaka. Mereka menyimpulkan bahawa melihat peruntukan-peruntukan di dalam kanun tersebut Raja Melaka mempunyai kuasa mutlak. Tanggapan ini timbul kerana mereka jahil tentang kedudukan dan peranan Raja dalam pemerintahan: mereka bertanggungjawab kepada Allah SWT di dalam memastikan pelaksanaan hukum-hukum Islam. Sarjana-sarjana berkenaan jelas tidak memahami hakikat hukum Islam yang sebenarnya adalah manifestasi kedaulatan mutlak Allah SWT. Kita mesti ingat bahawa Kanun Melaka adalah sebuah kanun perundangan yang berteraskan hukum Islam – yang turut mengandungi hukum hudud dan qisas – sebagaimana yang dihuraikan dalam mazhab Syafi’i. Dengan kata lain, Kanun Melaka bukanlah kanun yang memperincikan kehendak dan hukum yang ditentukan oleh Raja Melaka. Mungkin perlu disebutkan di sini bahawa kesedaran atau ilmu perlembagaan Islam perlu sebelum seseorang itu cuba mentafsir kandungan Kanun Melaka itu. Ilmu dan metodologi sejarah sahaja tidak mencukupi untuk kita memahami kedudukan dan konteks Kanun Melaka kerana sebenarnya ialah adalah sebuah dokumen undang-undang perlembagaan. Meskipun begitu perlembagaan kita tidak harus difahami dalam konteks undang-undang perlembagaan Inggeris kerana kita masih mengekalkan kedudukan Islam di dalam sistem perlembagaan dan perundangan kita.” [5]

Hakikat bahawa bahawa perlembagaan persekutuan 1957 adalah bersumberkan perlembagaan persekutuan tahun 1948 adalah fakta yang sudah disepakati ahli perundangan dan sejarah Tanah Melayu.[6] Begitu juga dengan fakta bahawa perlembagaan persekutuan 1948 adalah berasaskan Kanun Melaka yang menjadi teras perlembagaan Kesultanan Melayu Melaka sebagaimana dihuraikan di atas.[7]

Dalam hal ini elok kita perhatikan bahawa [8]:

“Bantahan pemimpin non-muslim itu disokong pula oleh golongan liberal atas alasan Malaysia adalah sebuah negara sekular. Penghujahan mereka seolah-olah menafikan kewujudan Perlembagaan dan Kerajaan-kerajaan Melayu sebelum Hari Merdeka. Suatu fakta yang perlu dihormati dan tidak boleh disisihkan oleh mana-mana pihak bahawa Semenanjung Tanah Melayu sudah mempunyai konsep dan atatcara pemerintahan yang berstatus perlembagaan bertulis sewal penggubalan dan perlaksanaan Kanun Melaka, dan perlembagaan-perlembagaan negeri sebelum penginstitusian Perlembagaan Persekututan Tanah Melayu pada tahun 1957.”

Di sinilah yang kita maksudkan supaya rakyat kita, generasi tua dan muda, jangan sekali-kali lupa pada hakikat sejarah benar sesebuah negara itu.

Kapten Francis Light menaikkan bendera Union Jack di Pulau Pinang

Sebelum British datang bawa common law mereka

Sebelum sebuah ‘Tanah Melayu’ muncul pada 31 Ogos 1957 sebagai sebuah negara bangsa (nation state) yang merdeka lagi berdaulat lengkap-sempurnanya dengan sebuah perlembagaan persekutuannya sebagaimana adanya pada hari ini, bahawasanya beratus tahun sebelumnya telah wujud sebuah tamadun unggul berupa kerajaan-kerajaan Melayu Lama yang juga mempunyai ‘undang-undang tubuh’nya yang kita kini istilahkan sebagai ‘perlembagaan’.[9]

Malah menurut rekod sejarah perundangan negara, sebelum lahirnya kanun Melaka yang berteraskan Islam sebagai dasar pemerintahannya itu, di sana telah sedia wujud juga sebuah kerajaan Melayu lama lengkap dengan sebuah ‘perlembagaan Melaka tua’ [10] yang sudahpun mempunyai sebuah struktur undang-undang tubuhnya atau perlembagaan yang berasaskan adat istiadat Melayu bersumberkan sebuah wa’adat [11] berupa wasiat ulung yang termeterai di antara Sang Sapurba (mewakili golongan DiRaja) dan Demang Lebar Daun (mewakili rakyat jelata).

Di situlah bermulanya undang-undang watan (law of the land) yang menjadi teras sejarah perundangan Melayu sebelum kehadiran undang-undang Islam dan common law Inggeris.[12]

Dalam hal ini salah seorang mahaguru perundangan Malaysia, Allahyarham Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim telah mengungkapkan di awal perenggan buku klasik sejarah perundangannya mengenai betapa pentingnya undang-undang adat yang terpakai di Malaya, jauh sebelum kehadiran English Law:

“When Roland Braddell published the Laws of the Straits Settlements in 1915, the Straits Settlements were still the most important of the areas under the British influence in South East Asia. It was still possible for him to devote the chapter on ‘Legal History’ to what is in effect an account of the reception of English law in the Straits Settlements. Legal history begins with the acquisition of Penang in 1786 and the Charters of Justice of 1807, 1826 and 1885. By the time the Federation of Malaya was constituted in 1947, the position had changed somewhat and would have been less true to say that the legal history of Malaya began with the introduction of English law into Malaya. But as the Civil Law Enactment of 1937 had made English law in practice the basic law in the Malay States and as whatever customary law or Muslim law was followed was administered mainly outside the ordinary Courts, it was still possible to speak of the history of the law in Malaya in terms of the reception of English law. With the establishment of Malaysia, however, the emphasis has or should change. Native customary law plays a much more important part in East Malaysia than it does in West Malaysia or Singapore and one must go beyond 1786 to trace the history of the law in Malaysia. It is not that this was not always true – but the relevance of customary law has increased, the emphasis need to be changed, and it is fitting and perhaps necessary that we should take a larger perspective in Malaysia.”[13]

Seiringan dengan itu jugalah Prof. Jenali Harun [14] pernah menegaskan bahawa Undang-undang Melayu yang berteraskan adat istiadat Melayu itu berasal-usul daripada masyarakat Melayu yang mendiami Tanah Melayu. Undang-Undang Melaka dan Undang-Undang Laut Melaka adalah contoh dua buah adat Melayu yang terawal dan pernah dikuatkuasakan di alam Melayu ketika itu.

Begitu juga, oleh sebab Malaysia mengamalkan juga sebahagian undang-undang Islam (di samping undang-undang sivil) yang turut terpakai ke atas orang Islam di negara kita, hukum kanun Melaka yang mengandungi semua jenis kesalahan jenayah Islam serta hukumannya merupakan bukti yang jelas bahawa undang-undang jenayah Islam digunapakai sejak zaman kesultanan Melayu Melaka lagi. [15] Di Kelantan misalnya, undang-undang jenayah Islam telah digunapakai sepenuhnya pada zaman Sultan Muhammad II. [16]

Kita sudah bentangkan pandangan sarjana betapa berkaitnya wa’adat Sang Sapura dan Demang Lebar Daun, undang-undang Melayu lama terutamanya kanun Melaka, dengan perlembagaan persekutuan tahun 1948 dan 1957. Di sana akan dapat kita lihat betapa kuatnya elemen dan peranan Islam dalam membentuk kodifikasi perundangan negara berbanding dengan dakwaan kitar semula bahawa ‘Malaysia sebuah negara sekular’ yang cuba didendangkan semula oleh Joshua Woo dengan judul rencana provokatifnya itu.

Tak habis-habis dengan wayang Cina mereka

Zaman digital dunia tanpa sempadan memudah-carakan kita untuk mengumpul maklumat untuk dapatkan sejarah sebenar kita. Yang menjadi masalah di Malaysia adalah watak cetek fikiran, berkepentingan politik sempit dan selektif yang cuba memutarbelitkan hakikat sejarah dengan khusus mengatakan Malaysia sebagai “secular federation,” yang mempunyai “federation’s secularity” dan “secular framework” selama 60 tahun.

Pemilihan istilah-istilah berkenaan dan gaya pengkisahan half-truth seperti yang telah Joshua Woo catatkan itu – walaupun menggunakan sumber sejarah termasuk Suruhanjaya Reid dan kertas putih perlembagaan persekutuan 1957 – telah di’spin’ untuk membawa maksud yang tidak tepat lagi benar.

Roh dan kisah sebenar kandungan perlembagaan persekutuan jauh daripada apa yang cuba diwayang-cinakan oleh sesiapapun. Cukup-cukuplah tu.

Jangan direndam perlembagaan persekutuan dalam acuan politik cauvinis politik kepartian yang tak habis-habis dengan agenda ingin menjatuhkan kerajaan sedia ada seperti yang sering dipopularkan oleh DAP.

Hakikatnya ialah segala cabang ranting kerangka politik DAP sudah berjaya dibongkar oleh AIDC (2017) dalam bukunya DAP: Bahaya kepada Melayu-Islam di Malaysia terbitan RED Pena Enterprise.[17]

Di bawah judul ‘Adakah Malaysia negara sekular” dalam salah sebuah bukunya [18], Aziz Bari pun sudah pernah menyentuh tentang pemikiran sikap ahli politik atau mereka yang mempunyai pemikiran politik kepartian sebagai berikut:

“Bagi sesetengah golongan jawapan kepada soalan ini ialah ‘Ya, benar!’ Bagaimanapun mungkin lebih baik jika kita cuba melihat persoalan ini dari sudut akademik kerana orang politik – dari parti apa sekalipun – tidak dapat mengelak daripada melihat sesuatu isu itu dari perpektif politik kepartaiannya. Dan ini selalu menyebabkan mereka tidak dapat menjawab sesuatu persoalan itu dengan tuntas. Orang politik – biar apa warna dan bentuk parti yang mereka wakili – sering tidak dapat mengelakkan kepentingan poltik dalam apa isu sekalipun…”[19]

Barangkali inilah masalahnya dengan Joshua Woo. Dan Aziz Bari sendiri berpendapat “di sisi undang-undang Malaysia tidak sekular atau pernah disekularkan; walaupun negara ini mungkin bukan negara Islam yang sebenar dan tulen.”

⇓  Gambar kenangan anggota Suruhanjaya Reid dan ahli-ahli keluarga mereka beserta rakan taulan

Perlembagaan tidak ada satu pun perkataan ‘secular’

Kita mulakan hujah dengan mengatakan bahawa walaupun Suruhanjaya Reid dipertanggungjawabkan menggubal sebuah ‘Perlembagaan Merdeka’ namun keputusan muktamad dan berautoriti penuh ke atas setiap perkataan dalam deraf perlembagaan itu hanya boleh dimuktamadkan oleh Raja-raja Melayu.[20] Ini adalah kerana Raja-Raja Melayulah yang telah bersetuju dan memberi perkenan kepada konsep perlembagan persekutuan 1948 yang menggantikan idea asal Malayan 1946 oleh pihak Inggeris.

Keputusan untuk memuktamadkan perkataan “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” telah cadangkan oleh seorang hakim beragama Islam dari Pakistan yang menganggotai Suruhanjaya Reid tersebut.

Syor asal memasukkan dan memartabatkan Islam sebagai agama perekutuan berkenaan adalah hasil cadangan sebuah memorandum penuh parti Perikatan yang menggabungkan kepentingan bangsa Melayu, Cina, India dan lain-lain.

Antara lain, memo parti Perikatan itu mengesyorkan:

“it has been recommended by the Alliance that the Constitution should contain a provision declaring Islam to be the religion of the state. It was also recommended that it should be made clear in the provision that a declaration to the above effect will not impose any disability to non-Muslim citizens in professing, propagating and practising their religions, and will not prevent the State from being a secular State. As on this matter the recommendation of the Alliance was unanimous their recommendation should be accepted and a provision to the following effect should be inserted into the Constitution either after Article 2 in Part 1 or at the beginning of Part XIII.”

Setelah meneliti cadangan pihak Perikatan ketika itu, Hakim Abdul Hamid telah mengeluarkan perkataan “… will not prevent the State from being a secular State” daripada tiga cadangan asal Perikatan tersebut dan hanya menerima dua sahaja untuk disepakati dalam Suruhanjaya Reid berkenaan.[21]

Maksudnya, ungkapan “… will not prevent [Malaya] from being a secular state” dibuang oleh hakim yang berasal dari Pakistan daripada deraf muktamad laporan Reid.

Dengan demikian, tiada satu pun perkataan ‘secular’ yang terdapat di dalam perlembagaan persekutuan sehingga ke hari ini yang membolehkan sesiapa mendakwa Malaysia sebuah negara sekular.

Perlembagaan 1957 / 1948 berakar-umbikan kanun Melaka

Sebagaimana dihuraikan terdahulu, peranan Islam dalam kerajaan Melayu-Islam lama amat kuat sekali kerana Islam yang dibawa oleh para ulama dan pedagang ke Kepulauan Melayu telah membawa sebuah zaman baru, yakni “zaman yang menubuhkan bukan sahaja rupa baru bahkan juga jiwa baru” [22] kepada orang Melayu.

Ini dapat kita lihat bagaimana syariah atau undang-undang Islam dikanunkan dalam kanun Melaka, undang-undang laut Melaka, undang-undang 99 Perak dan yang tercatat dalam Batu Bersurat Terengganu bertarikh 1303M [23] yang cukup jelas membuktikan sebelum perlembagaan persekutuan 1957 dimuktamadkan, ia adalah bersumberkan perlembagaan persekutuan 1948 yang berakar-umbikan undang-undang kesultanan Melayu Melaka.

Atas faktor itu jugalah ada yang berpandangan bahawa Islam adalah asas kedaulatan negara yang diwarisi terus daripada kesultanan Melayu Melaka.[24]

Selain itu, kedaulatan kerajaan-kerajaan Melayu lama diperkukuhkan lagi dengan pemakaian kanun-kanun negeri-negeri Melayu yang disebutkan sebagai ‘Malay Digest’, yang berlandaskan syariat Islam. Ini dapat kita buktikan dalam undang-undang 99 Perak [25]:

“Jika didirikan hukum Quran dengan hukum undang-undang di dalam sebuah negeri nescaya amanlah isi negeri itu. Maka barangsiapa tiada mengikut hukum seperti yang tersebut di dalam undang-undang, maka orang itu duduk di luar negeri; diam dalam hutan. Maka amanlah orang memerintah negeri. Jika tiada mau memakai undang-undang dan hukum Quran, maka tersebut di dalam undang-undang orang itu tiada boleh memegang perintah di dalam negeri.”

Perlu juga kita fahami fakta sejarah bahawa robohnya Kota Melaka ke tangan Portugis pada tahun 1511 bukanlah bukti keruntuhan kesultanan Melayu Melaka.[26]

Ini adalah kerana raja-raja Melayu meneruskan pemerintahan beraja di negeri-negeri lain setelah berundur dari Melaka.[27] Baginda raja-raja kekal berdaulat dengan kerajaan dan rakyat baginda sehinggalah Inggeris tiba dan memecah-belahkan pentadbiran negeri-negeri.

Sayugia diingatkan bahawa, terkecuali Pulau Pinang, Melaka dan Singapura (yang digelar Negeri-Negeri Selat), Raja-Raja Melayu kekal berdaulat sehingga ke hari ini.[28]

Nationalist no more? Umno in 1946 struggling against the Malayan Union.

Perihal kerakyatan dan ‘Malaya for the Malays’

Begitu juga halnya, sesiapa yang lahir sebagai orang Melayu di Tanah Melayu menjadi “rakyat Raja dan yang lain bukan” [29] dan ini adalah fakta sejarah penting yang ramai orang tidak tahu atau jika tahupun barangkali tidak faham sedalam-dalamnya dalam konteks persejarahan negara.

Dengan demikian, ada benarnya pandangan bahawa Tanah Melayu sebenarnya milik orang Melayu kerana “kedudukan orang Melayu sebagai rakyat negara ini; ini adalah Tanah Orang Melayu.”

Persidangan Raja-Raja Melayu (Durbar) yang berlangsung pada tahun 1931 di Seri Menanti sudah menetapkan “Malaya for the Malays.”[30]

Demikianlah tercatat bahan sejarah yang tidak boleh dinafikan oleh mana-mana pihak yang kini sudah berwarganegara Malaysia walaupun “ada yang sudah menjadi warga Tanah Melayu tapi tak faham!”[31]

Hakikat sejarah benar seperti yang kita bentangkan di atas, berkat kudrat para sejarawan, pakar perundangan dan akademik dan betapa faktor ikatan erat agama Islam–Melayu–Raja-Raja itulah barangkali yang amat memarahkan warga atau rakyat yang tidak pandai bersyukur sebagai warganegara Malaysia.

Betapa tidaknya, orang seperti ini akan menyerap kepanasan apabila mendengar atau terbaca bahawa:

“Islam dan Melayu merupakan tonggak utama Tanah Melayu. Undang-Undang Islam digunapakai untuk mentadbir Negeri-Negeri di Tanah Melayu. Negeri Melaka telah mengkanunkan Hukum Kanun Melaka dan Undnag-Undang Laut Melaka berdasarkan Hukum Syarak. Di Negeri Perak, Undang-Undang 99 juga digubal berdasarkan prinsip Hukum Syarak; Terangganu, Kelantan dan Kedah menyerap pengaruh Islam dalm pentadbiran masing-masing.”[32]

Joshua mencerminkan niat biadab dan halatuju DAP

Menganalisis kembali tulisan Joshua Woo (gambar atas), adalah diperhatikan ungkapan-ungkapan seperti “secular federation”, “secular polity,” “federation’s secularity,” “secular framework,” “proposed secularity,” “would be secular,” dan “should be secular” digunakan dengan maksud penekanan dengan perulangan sebanyak 11 kali istilah “secular state” sebagai menunjukkan “betapa Malaysia dilahirkan sebagai sebuah negara sekular.”

Tekad benar si Joshua ini.

Secara konsepnya sebuah negara secular (seperti dakwaan Joshua Woo ke atas Malaysia) tidak mungkin membenarkan sekian banyak peruntukan peranan Islam dalm perlembagaan, umpamanya Perkara 3(1) dan sumpah jawatan oleh DYMM SPB Yang DiPertuan Agong dengan lafaz “Wallahi, Wabillah, Watallahi” untuk memelihara Islam pada setiap masa seperti dalam Perkara 37, Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Begitu juga dengan Perkara 11 (4) yang menyekat penyebaran agama lain ke atas umat Islam di negara ini, dan Perkara 12 (2) berkaitan penggunaan dana awam untuk aktiviti Islam serta sekian banyak undang-undang Islam diserapkan di bawah kuasa-kuasa negeri yang diketuai oleh raja dan sultan selaku ketua agama Islam bagi negeri-negeri.[33]

Demikian juga, adalah tidak mungkin sebuah negara sekular yang benar-benar mengasingkan elemen agama dalam pemerintah dan urustadbir negara akan membenarkan sekian banyak pengaruh Islam dalam perlembagaan persekutuan sebagaimana amalan Malaysia.

Dalam penghakiman ‘Kes Serban’ Meor Atqurrahman lwn Fatimah bte Sihi, Hakim Mohd Noor pernah berhujah bahawa maksud

“Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan” itulah ialah “Islam ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini … ia bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran…” [34]

Di sinilah amat malangnya sekali Joshua lebih merujuk kepada persepsi sumber yang dikutip untuk menyedapkan seleranya dengan tujuan dihumbankan ke dalam benak pembaca pada Hari Merdeka.

Jangan menulis kerana marah atau berasa dendam jika itu tujuan beliau. Dendamkan siapa, hanya dia yang tahu kerana yang lain hanya boleh mengagak maksud sebenar between the lines!

Namun pembaca yang bijak dapat membaca apa yang Joshua maksudkan dengan:

Joshua Woo telah menulis di portal MMO perenggan-perenggan seperti yang berikut:

“The Sultans, having read the memorandum, got nervous, not because of the proposed secularity, but (probably surprising to many today) due to the establishing of Islam as the official religion of the federation.”

“The royalties [sic] were anxious that their power over their Islamic subjects, the Muslims, would be eroded. Queen’s Counsel Neil Lawson, hired by the Sultans, conveyed the collective royal objection to the Reid Commission in September 1956: It is Their Highnesses’ considered view that it would not be desirable to insert some declaration such as has been suggested that the Muslim Faith or Islamic Faith be the established religion of the Federation.”

Bolehkah kata-kata beliau yang berbunyi “[…] Sultans, having read the memorandum, got nervous” tersebut dianggap sebagai mengandungi sesuatu yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai biadab, mencabar kedaulatan raja-raja Melayu dan seumpamanya?

Barangkali boleh disabitkan di bawah peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada – Akta Hasutan 1948 atau Kanun Keseksaan, bukan?

Pengkisahan yang dibawa oleh Joshua Woo dalam ceritanya itu amat berlainan dengan versi titah diRaja Paduka Seri Sultan Perak baru-baru ini apabila DYMM Tuanku Sultan bertitah bahawa:

“Kumpulan Kerja Pakatan Tiga Pihak, mewakili Raja-Raja Melayu, PARTI PERIKATAN dan Kerajaan Kolonial ditubuhkan, untuk meneliti perakuan Suruhanjaya Reid. Raja-Raja Melayu diwakili oleh Penyimpan Mohor Besar, Haji Mustapha Albakri, Shamsuddin Nain, Tunku Ismail dan Neil Lawson, QC; PARTI PERIKATAN diwakili oleh Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Dato‟ Abdul Razak Hussein, Ong Yoke Lin dan V.T. Sambanthan; Kerajaan Kolonial, diwakili oleh Pesuruhjaya Tinggi MacGillivray, Ketua Setiausaha Negara, Sir David Watherston, Peguam Negara T.V.A. Brodie, sementara E.O. Laird bertugas sebagai setiausaha. Antara 23 Februari hingga 27 April 1957, Kumpulan Kerja telah mengadakan dua puluh tiga mesyuarat, melakukan pengubahsuaian kepada perakuan asal Suruhanjaya Reid.

Antara pengubahsuaian signifikan yang dilakukan menyentuh perkara-perkara berikut:

(i) Memperkukuh peranan Majlis Raja-Raja; sebagai forum yang melantik Ketua Negara; Majlis Raja-Raja berperanan menasihati Yang di-Pertuan Agong berhubung urusan lantikan tertentu menurut yang termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan; dan Majlis Raja-Raja perlu dirunding dalam perkara-perkara penting seperti perubahan sempadan dan wilayah, serta perkara yang menyentuh bidang kuasa Raja.

(ii) Menggugurkan perakuan yang meletakkan batasan masa lima belas tahun untuk melindungi keistimewaan orang Melayu.

(iii) Islam dikanunkan sebagai agama Persekutuan tanpa mengubah status Raja sebagai Ketua Agama Islam di negeri masing-masing; dan kebebasan beragama secara aman dan harmoni dijamin kepada bukan Islam.
(iv) Memberi kuasa budi bicara kepada kerajaan untuk memberi atau menolak permohonan kewarganegaraan.

(v) Memberi tempoh satu tahun kepada mereka yang memiliki dua kewarganegaraan membuat pilihan.

(vi) Membenarkan pengajaran bahasa Cina dan Tamil serta penggunaan bahasa-bahasa tersebut dalam urusan tidak rasmi.

Pastinya rakyat yang bijak akan berkata titah Paduka Seri Sultan Perak sebagai sejarah benar.

Apa lagi Joshua mahu?

Agama Islam adalah lexi loci (law of the land) sebagaimana yang telah diputuskan dalam kes Ramah lwn Laton. Pastinya keputusan itu amat menyakiti manusia seperti Joshua dan yang sekapal dengannya.

Jangan berbohong dan jangan menyimpan dendam. Dr Aziz Bari telah berkata benar seperti diungkapkan di atas. Semoga Aziz kekal istiqamah.

Demi sesungguhnya, perlembagaan sesebuah negara, sui generis sifatnya, iaitu, berada dalam kelas tersendiri dan tidak sekadar dokumen undang-undang.

Perlembagaan persekutuan pada hakikatnya mengandungi semangat dan roh negara, mencerminkan persetujuan-persetujuan yang di capai ketika negara memperoleh kemerdekaan; memperlihatkan semangat persefahaman – mempamerkan kesediaan berkompromi pelbagai pihak, mencerminkan satu kehalusan seni yang berjaya mengimbangkan kepentingan-kepentingan yang saling bercanggah – memanifestasikan pencapaian kata sepakat antara takhta dengan rakyat, antara rakyat sesama rakyat yang berlatar belakangkan pelbagai agama, kaum, budaya dan bahasa.

Perlembagaan persekutuan digubal bersumberkan warisan sejarah, satu kesinambungan yang berjaya mengekalkan tradisi ketika mengharung modenisasi.

Termaktub di dalamnya, aspek warisan berkerajaan – aspek sejarah bernegara, berpayungkan raja, bertiangkan Islam, bersalut budaya dan bahasa pribumi.[35]

Dan apabila bercakap mengenai Tanah Melayu, rakyat, pemimpin, raja-raja Melayu dan kemerdekaan, ada tiga faktor pengikat utama: perjuangan bangsa Melayu, kedaulatan raja-raja Melayu dan agama Islam yang mengikat kedua-dua entiti berkenaan.

Maka benarlah Titah DiRaja apabila wakil raja-raja Melayu menitahkan:[36]

“Ketika dilambung ombak globalisasi, warga perlu bijaksana mengimbangkan antara tuntutan tradisi dan permintaan modenisasi, agar air tempayan tidak terlalu cepat dicurahkan kerana mendengar guruh di langit. Institusi Raja adalah penerusan tradisi untuk mengekalkan identiti negara bangsa, satu lambang kedaulatan – payung mahkota negara. Institusi raja mungkin pelita lama tetapi kekal memancarkan cahaya. Pelita lama jangan terlalu cepat mahu dibuang kerana riak melihat fajar yang sudah menyingsing; ingatlah hari siang juga akan berakhir, jangan nanti bila senja mendakap malam, warga mula teraba-raba, hilang haluan diselimuti kegelapan malam, kerana pelita lamanya sudah tiada lagi.”

Nota kaki:

[1] Lihat perbahasan isu ini di Dewan Rakyat dalam Haji Maluin Sadiran (2015). Perbahasan Kedudukan Islam dalam persidangan parlimen: Suatu pengamatan. Putrajaya: Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (Iksim), ms. 17-34.

[2] Lihat umpamanya huraian Mahkamah Rayuan dalam ‘kes Kalimah  Allah’, iaitu Menteri Dalam Negeri & Lain-Lain lwn Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur [2013] 6 MLRA 8 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah bersetuju kekalkan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang menolak keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi sebelumnya.

[3] Tesis PhD beliau daripada Birmingham University berjudul ‘The development and role of constitutional monarchy in Malaysia’ (1996). Merupakan bekas profesor dan timbalan dekan (Penyelidikan dan Pembangunan) Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia.

[4] Buku berkenaan telah diterbitkan oleh Arkib Negara Malaysia (2009), Kuala Lumpur.

[5] Abdul Aziz Bari (2009). “Konsep Raja Berperlembagaan Dalam Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948” dalam Kumpulan kertas kerja seminar 60 tahun penubuhan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu asas negara merdeka. Kuala Lumpur: Arkib Negara Malaysia, ms. 92.

[6] Lihat kertas-kertas kerja selanjutnya yang dibentangkan dalam kumpulan kertas kerja seminar ’60 tahun penubuhan persekutuan Tanah Melayu asas negara merdeka’. Kuala Lumpur: Arkib Negara Malaysia, terutamanya kertas kerja oleh Prof. Dr Abdul Aziz Bari op. cit. dan Prof. Madya Dr. Joseph M. Fernando berjudul, ‘Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948: Asas pembentukan perlembagaan negara merdeka” (ms. 78-90).

[7] Perkara ini sudah didokumentasikan dengan cukup teliti oleh sarjana seperti Prof. Andrew Harding dalam Law, Government and Constitution in Malaysia [1996]. Leiden: EJ Brill) dan juga oleh Prof. Liaw Yock Fang dalam Undang-Undang Melaka. A Critical Edition, ed. by Liaw Yock Fang, Doctoral Thesis [Proefschrift] Leiden University, The Hague: De Nederlandsche Boek- en Steendrukkerij/ Verlagshuis S. L. Smits, 1976 dan juga Naskah Undang-Undang Melaka: Suatu Tinjauan. – “Sari” N 25. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2007, ms. 85–94. Lihat juga umpamanya kajian oleh Wan Ahmad Fauzi Husain Wan, bawah.

[8] Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain (2017). Konsep Kedaulatan Watan: Suatu Pengenalan, Kuala Lumpur: Majlis Ittihad Ummah, ms. 15.

[9] Sila rujuk juga titah ucapan Pemangku Sultan Perak semasa merasmikan Kongres Majlis agama islam negeri seluruh Malaysia 2011.

[10] Lihat Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain dalam ‘Selami sejarah perundangan, Perlembagaan’ di portal berita Menara pada 9 Feb 2017.

[11] Lihat titah berupa ucaptama dan perasmian oleh DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan Perak berjudul ‘Konvensyen memperkukuh pasak negara: Ke arah wasiat lebih tersurat” di Hotel Mariott, Putrajaya pada 5 Ogos 2017.

[12] Lihat umpamanya kajian oleh Wan Ahmad Fauzi Husain Wan et al. ‘Raja-Raja dalam penginstitusian perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1957: Satu kajian sejarah perundangan’, Journal of Nusantara Studies 2017, Vol 2(1) 27-39 Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin. ISSN 0127-9386.

[13] Ahmad Ibrahim (1992). Towards a History of Law in Malaysia and Singapore. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, ms.1.

[14] Lihat kajian Prof. Jelani Harun (2008) dalam Undang-undang kesultanan Melayu dalam perbandingan. Pulau Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia dan juga (2003), Pemikiran adab ketatanegaraan kesultanan Melayu. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

[15] Shamrahayu A. Aziz (2016). Isu penguatkuasaan undang-undang jenayah syariah di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, ms. 13.

[16] Abdullah Alwi Hassan (1996). The administration of Islamic law in Kelantan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

[17] Sila baca bedah buku berkenaan oleh Mohd Khairul Anwar bertajuk ‘DAP impikan berkuasa penuh buat julung kalinya’ dalam laman sesawang Tanjak pada 9 Ogos 2017.

[18] Abdul Aziz Bari (2015). Perlembagaan Malaysia: Asas-asas dan masalah. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, ms. 249.

[19] Abdul Aziz Bari (2009). ‘Konsep raja berperlembagaan dalam perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948’ dalam Kumpulan kertas kerja seminar 60 tahun penubuhan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu asas negara merdeka. Kuala Lumpur: Arkib Negara Malaysia, ms. 92.

[20] Mahamad Naser Disa (2015). Islam asas kenegaraan Malaysia. Putrajaya: Insititut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (Iksim), ms. 2-3.

[21] Mahamad Naser Disa, ibid.

[22] Al-Attas, S.M.N. (1972). Islam dalam sejarah dan kebudayaan Melayu. Bangi: Penerbit UKM, ms. 3 dan 51-56.

[23] Lihat al-Attas, S.M.N. (1970). The Correct Date of the Terengganu Inscription. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Muzium Negara.

[24] Pandangan ini diperkuatkan lagi dengan peruntukan Perkara 3(1) dan Perkara 37 (1) dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Sila lihat Mahamad Naser Disa (2016). Daulatkan Islam agama negara. Putrajaya: Institut Kajian Strategi Islam Malaysia (Iksim), ms. 52-70.

[25] Jelani Harun (2008). Undang-Undang kesultanan Melayu dalam perbandingan. Pulau Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, ms. 310.

[26] Mahamad Naser Disa (2016). Daulatkan Islam agama negara. Putrajaya: Institut Kajian Strategi Islam Malaysia (Iksim), ms. 12-13.

[27] Lihat umpamanya penjelasan ‘Sejarah perundangan Islam di negeri Pahang’ dalam laman Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Pahang.

[28] Sila dengar penjelasan Majlis Profesor Negara bahawa Negeri-Negeri Melayu tidak pernah dijajah dalam

[29] Lihat penjelasan tentang konsep “rakyat Raja” ini oleh Prof. Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim dalam

[30] Khoo Kay Kim dalam wawancara seperti dalam

[31] Khoo Kay Kim, op. cit.

[32] Lihat umpamanya tulisan Senator Dr Ashraf Wajdi Dusuki berjudul, ‘Malaysia bukan negara sekular’ dalam rencana Utusan Malaysia pada 22 Ogos 2014.

[33] Titah Pemangku Raja Perak pada tahun 2011 semasa menyampaikan titah diRaja sempena Kongres majlis agama Islam negeri seluruh Malaysia.

[34] Dipetik oleh Mahamad Naser Disa dalam Mahamad Naser Disa (2016). Daulatkan Islam Agama Negara. Putrajaya: Institut Kajian Strategi Islam Malaysia (Iksim), ms. 32.

[35] Titah Paduka Seri Sultan Perak berupa ucaptama dan Perasmian oleh DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan Perak berjudul, ‘Konvensyen memperkukuh pasak negara: Ke arah wasiat lebih tersurat’ di Hotel Mariott, Putrajaya pada 5 Ogos 2017.

[36] Titah Paduka Seri Sultan Perak berjudul, ‘Institusi raja berperlembagaan: Kelangsungan negara bangsa’ di majlis syarahan perdana Kementerian Komunikasi, 7 Nov 2012.

Download PDF

The base will bite back



The unfolding drama in Capitol Hill holds crucial lessons for the 5th floor boys of Bangunan Perdana Putra in Putrajaya too.

When the chief executive betrays his voter base that elected him to office, expect disillusioned supporters to abandon their support of No.1.

“I don’t have any longer the expectations that [Donald] Trump even can keep the rest of his promises,” Republican congressman Steve King of Iowa told NBC News yesterday.

King was reacting to White House chief strategist Steve Bannon becoming the latest “You’re fired!” casualty in Trump’s reality version of his TV former show The Apprentice.

⇓  President Trump has given marching orders to – from left – chief of staff Reince Priebus, Bannon, press secretary Sean Spicer (driven to resign) and national security advisor Michael Flynn; seated is vice president Mike Pence
Nothing can satisfy the bloodthirsty media 

Analyst Kristin Tate characterized Bannon’s forced departure as a matter “of Trump is ceding dangerous ground to the media and establishment”.

Writing yesterday in political magazine The Hill, Tate said there must be “no compromise” with uncompromising critics, and that the chief executive would soon regret ejecting Bannon who had been an indispensable member of Team Trump, if not its ace card.

The conservative columnist believes “the president cannot afford to mortgage his political future due to pressure from a press corps he can never impress or win over”.

Read also:

Nothing the Prez (or our PM) can do that will satisfy critics — here

Kristin Tate is convinced the absence of Bannon will be a major problem for Trump when reaching out to “the human wave” that carried him to the Oval Office last November.

Aside from providing the ideological underpinnings of America First, Bannon was also the Trump campaign’s logistical enabler – successfully shepherding the ‘deplorables’ vote in the swing states that handed the latter his electoral college victory.

Yet Trump willingly threw Bannon under the bus, in part stemming from the left-wing media’s uproar over the supposedly ‘white supremacy’ rally in Charlottesville last week.

Bannon, right

Trump desires media praise and affirmation

To appease the outrage of the virtue signallers who chose to scapegoat Breitbart executive chairman Bannon for the alt right’s ascendency, Trump dumped his chief strategist despite that “Bannon was loyal to the end of his tenure in D.C.” (verbatim quotes the words of Kristin Tate).

Bannon is someone who realises that you cannot abide by Queensberry rules when confronted by a dirty-playing enemy (in the guise of non-partisan media).

Trump has, however, bowed to the pressure from the liberal public as he narcissistically keeps seeking that elusive pat on the back from the legacy press.

Trump manipulated by the liberal media

Ann Coulter is another Trump cheerleading commentator who now looks set to disembark from the Trump train.

The conservative political pundit told The Daily Caller yesterday over email that Bannon’s sacking “makes it appear that Trump is easily manipulable by the media”.

Coulter believes that the left media would merely need “to give all credit to any White House staffer they want to get rid of” for the egotistic Trump – “his little tiny ego explodes” – to feel slighted and proceed to dispose of the individual.

Evidently Trump had his nose out of joint about journalists giving Bannon too much credit for his presidential win, suggested Coulter.

“I dread to think of who the media decide to get rid of next,” she added.

The obvious answer is Sebastian Gorka and Stephen Miller − Bannon allies in the White House whom the media are even now targeting for takedown.

Left media dictating direction of White House

In a separate interview with The Daily Beast, bestselling author Coulter expanded on her view that Trump “just seems to be obsessed with the fact that people give Bannon credit”.

Furthering her criticism, she voiced her disapproval of the president “kowtowing to the same news media he professes to loathe”.

“The media is running the staffing at the White House now,” Coulter concluded.

More forcefully, Coulter attacked Trump for betraying his constituency by acceding to the media’s aggresive demand for Bannon’s head.

No different in wanting to topple MO1

In the Malaysian context, there is our next general election where the epic battle will be between the Malay electorate voting for Umno and the non-Malay electorate voting for DAP.

The country’s Chinese and English-language media are very clear in their pro-opposition bias.

The media’s partisanship in favour of Pakatan Harapan is here similarly – as it is in the US – translated to unfair coverage of our own Bannon-like political figures whereas Trump’s crown prince Jared Kushner in his Malaysian incarnation would be Khairy Jamaluddin.

Like Kushner, the  Youth chief is someone who’s seen as an establishment liberal and somebody willing to outreaching to the political opponents.

KJ even hired a former Malaysiakini and Star reporter as his press secretary, and is on record as not objecting to members of his staff supporting the opposition.

Diametrical to KJ is the far right Umno leader Jamal Yunos who may mount a challenge to the incumbent for the leadership of Pemuda Umno. Jamal is a leader of the Red Shirts (pix below).

Raja Petra Kamarudin in his Malaysia Today column yesterday  opined that the “Red Shirts have far greater Malay support than the non-Malays may think but most of it is silent support that will surface come GE14”.

Here is where we can draw a parallel to current American politics. Every bit of Malay support counts in order for the Umno-led BN to retain the federal government.

The issues are similar, i.e. an antagonistic media that functions like the country’s main opposition party, and a liberal faction – the Kushners & Co. – within the ruling party undermining conservatism as well as the necessity for the president/party president not to alienate his core voter base.

Najib Razak’s brain trust can learn much from the developments presently impacting the Trump administration and what not to do so as to avoid losing fundamental support.

Umno must keep faith with its conservatives.

Download PDF

SIS, DAP mahu menyekat perkahwinan di bawah umur


Comango, nama singkatan untuk ‘Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR Process’,
adalah gabungan 54 buah badan bukan kerajaan yang ditubuhkan bagi tujuan mendesak negara kita agar mengakuri ketetapan semakan berkala sejagat atau Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

UPR adalah proses yang dimulakan oleh the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) di Geneva bagi tujuan mengemaskini status pemakaian hak asasi penduduk di sesebuah negara.

Pada tahun 2013, Comango membawa tuntutan mereka untuk proses UPR ke pejabat Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (UN) di mana Malaysia melalui pusingan kedua UPR. Sebanyak 232 syor telah dikemukakan untuk memperbaiki status pemakaian hak asasi di negara ini.

Walaupun umum tahu gabungan NGO di bawah nama Comango telahpun diisytiharkan haram oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri pada tahun 2014, namun sehingga kini masih ada lagi tuntutan NGO tunggal yang dulunya bersatu sebagai Comango.

Antara cadangan-cadangan yang telah dibentangkan oleh Comango sehingga menyebabkan kritikan keras pihak yang menyokong naratif kebangsaan di negara ini ialah:

  1. Menuntut kebebasan beragama
  2. Menghapuskan hak istimewa Melayu
  3. Mengiktiraf hak kebebasan ekspresi termasuk untuk golongan LBGT
  4. Mengiktiraf hak menterjemah ‘God’ kepada kalimah ‘Allah’ untuk kegunaan gereja
⇓  Pengarah strategi pilihanraya DAP: “Kristian sudah sekian lama menggunakan kalimah ‘Allah’ di Sabah dan Sarawak tanpa mengelirukan umat Islam di kedua-dua negeri tersebut”
Ong Kian Ming, ahli parlimen DAP Serdang

Baru-baru ini, pihak Wisma Putra telah mengadakan sesi konsultansi organisasi masyarakat sivil bagi tujuan mendapatkan maklum balas tahap pemakaian hak asasi manusia di Malaysia.

Antara NGO yang mengambil bahagian dalam sesi tersebut adalah Sisters In Islam (SIS), Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (Komas), Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower), Centre for Human Rights and Advocacy (Centhra) dan Darul Insyirah.

Melalui perkongsian pengerusi Darul Insyirah, Asral Widad Ahmad Asnawi, terdapat beberapa tuntutan oleh NGO yang dulunya bernaung di bawah Comango. Walaupun diakui terdapat tuntutan yang elok, namun wujud tuntutan-tuntutan yang dilihat bertujuan untuk merendahkan kedudukan Islam sebagai agama persekutuan di negara ini.

Antara yang dikongsikan adalah tuntutan oleh SIS mendesak agar kerajaan Malaysia meminda peruntukan undang-undang berkaitan dengan had umur perkahwinan. Tuntutan ini tidak asing lagi dalam perdebatan terutama selepas isu had umur perkahwinan dibangkitkan dalam perbahasan di Parlimen.

Pada awalnya, isu had umur perkahwinan dibangkitkan oleh Teo Nie Ching (gambar atas), ahli parlimen Kulai yang mencadangkan agar diadakan undang-undang untuk mengharamkan sebarang perkahwinan di bawah had umur majoriti, yakni 18 tahun ke bawah. Cadangan ini ditolak kerana dilihat bertujuan untuk menyekat bidangkuasa Mahkamah Anak Negeri dan Mahkamah Syariah yang mempunyai budi bicara untuk membenarkan permohonan mereka yang berumur 18 tahun ke bawah untuk berkahwin.

Isu ini jelas bertujuan merendah-rendahkan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Anak Negeri dan Mahkamah Syariah kerana sebetulnya undang-undang umum jelas menetapkan had umur perkahwinan adalah 18 tahun. Undang-undang ini terpakai kepada setiap rakyat Malaysia. Namun, wujud pengecualian terhadap peruntukan umum ini melalui permohonan yang dibuat kepada Mahkamah Anak Negeri dan Mahkamah Syariah.

Maka boleh dilihat bahawa pengecualian ini hanya terbuka kepada orang Islam dan anak negeri dari Sabah dan Sarawak.

Perbahasan di Parlimen tidak mendatangkan hasil yang diinginkan oleh ahli parlimen tersebut daripada parti DAP itu. Tidak berpuas hati dengan penolakan parlimen Malaysia ke atas cadangan itu, para Yang Berhormat dari parti-parti pembangkang telah memulakan strategi baru untuk mendapatkan sokongan rakyat Malaysia menentang perkahwinan bawah umur.

Mereka memomokkan perkahwinan bawah umur dengan menggunakan kekeliruan takrifan ‘rogol’ sebagai asas untuk menggatakan bahawa perkahwinan bawah umur adalah bertentangan dengan hak asasi. Kekeliruan ini berpunca apabila mereka memutar belitkan peruntukan di bawah Kanun Jenayah yang memaktubkan bahawa sebarang persetubuhan dengan orang bawah 16 tahun adalah perbuatan rogol.

Sebetulnya sebarang initiatif untuk mengharamkan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Anak Negeri dan Mahkamah Syariah perlu ditentang kerana meletakkan kedudukan kedua-dua mahkamah ini dalam dilema. Jikapun ada keperluan untuk menghadkan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Anak Negeri dan Mahkamah Syariah, gerakan ini hanya boleh dilakukan melalui dewan undangan negeri masing-masing dan bukannya melalui perbahasan di Parlimen.

Menidakkan skim penggubalan undang-undang dua aras di Malaysia samalah seperti menidakkan federalisme yang termaktub dalam perlembagaan persekutuan.

Download PDF

Nothing the Prez (or our PM) can do that will satisfy critics



The anti-Trump outrage currently exploding in America has something important to teach our own prime minister.

On Aug 12 (Saturday), a 32-year-old leftist counter protester was killed in Charlottesville, Virginia at a ‘Unite the Right’ rally when a car was driven into the crowd.

⇓  Anti-Trump protest in Durham, North Carolina yesterday afternoon

President Donald Trump has, thankfully, now internalized a valuable lesson from Charlottesville, which is that nothing he can do will ever satisfy his detractors who are hellbent on taking him down − see his tweet below.

The American liberal media are quite evidently willing to twist their poisoned daggers, even in the immediate aftermath of a car attack, into the commander-in-chief just to harass and make him look bad.

Clearly there is no let-up in the strenuous efforts by CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other American mainstream media to try and derail the Trump presidency. They do this through their endless spinning of ‘fake’ news in order to cast his administration in a negative light.

MSNBC television host Joy-Ann Reid, for example, tried to link the idea of white supremacy tangentially with Trump. Reid cited the influence wielded by nationalists Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Sebastian Gorka and Michael Anton (see clip of Reid’s programme, here) as those White House advisors and aides shaping Trump’s alleged ‘racist’ or pro-white policy.

In other words, Reid is insinuating that the white supremacists who gathered in Charlottesville had ostensibly taken their cue from supposed fellow white supremacists ensconced in the White House.

⇓  Magazine special correspondent and a member of the ‘Resistance’ ranting at Trump for not characterizing the car carnage as white “terrorism”

You can view more unhinged tweets by demented anti-Trump journalists, here.

The liberal media currently baying for blood are demanding that the president must condemn “white supremacists” − a vague collective held responsible for the death of the female activist.

(Note: Heather Heyer was mowed down by a 20-year-old driver whom the press have been quick to label as a “neo Nazi”.)

So Trump is being blitzkrieged by critics demanding that he deliver the harshest possible condemnation of “white supremacists” deemed guilty of “domestic terrorism”.

However, this extreme demand by reporters and belligerent politicians from the Democrat party appears to have reached a point where it is almost expected for the president to publicly decapitate – Isis-style – at least a dozen white men guilty merely of exercising their first amendment right to hold offensive demos.

Nothing short of a public beheading will satisfy these foaming-at-the mouth fanatics on the far left who refer to activists from the Republican base as “Nazi trash” and “Nazi scum” die! − see placards in photo above.

⇓  Tweet by former Speaker of the House pointing out the obvious

In fact, Trump has already condemned the violence perpetrated by white nationalists in Charlottesville but his condemnation apparently still fails to go far enough to appease the leftist mob.

On the other hand, we don’t hear the Democrats disavowing their extremist supporters who carry out violent demos or who disrupt pro-Trump rallies.

Nor do we hear the left media calling out the pro-Democrat protestors for their violent behaviour and actions. Liberal media is overtly biased and infinitely one-sided.

The group of professional demonstrators calling themselves Antifa (Anti Fascists Action) have been showing up at rallies across the country to create trouble where Trump supporters would have assembled peacefully otherwise.

⇓  Protest against Trump on Sunday in Seattle

Antifa burn property, beat up people and create riots

National Review editor Rich Lowry correctly pointed out that in Charlottesville there was “violence on both sides” (video below).

Speaking about Antifa, Lowry noted that the “so-called anti-fascists who dress in black, wear masks […] also beat people up, break things, and burn things”.

The masked and black-clad Antifa thugs were caught on video (see below) in Charlottesville violently swinging their baseball bats.

Not only are Antifa members dangerous anarchists but they are also agent provocateurs. See below the provocative sign they carried asking white American citizens to “go back to Europe”.

‘Can’t get no satisfaction’

Apart from depicting the confederate flag as toilet paper − photo here – an Antifa group on Sunday additionally burned the Stars and Stripes (video below).

Given these extreme provocations by Antifa, no one should be surprised at the pushback by white nationalists. Trump was justified to lay the blame on “many sides”.

And mind you, the rally organizers in Charlottesville can hardly be held accountable if a lone wolf driver, unrelated to them, decides to mow down Antifa extremists without timely intervention by police.

It is pointless for Trump to give the white nationalists in general a vicious tongue lashing when nothing he does or says will assuage the bloodlust of the left.

The same goes for Najib Razak. Nothing the PM can say or do will ever be considered enough to satisfy the people who call his party ‘Nazis’.

Hence the Umno president should simply plough ahead, regardless, with BN’s national agenda and let the DAP devil take the hindmost.

Download PDF

Averting possible new trend of binti mother’s name


By Lukman Sheriff Alias

Can the courts or National Registration Department force a Chinese not to use surname and instead use s/o or bin or binti?

I was in a discussion on the effect of ‘bin Abdullah’ case yesterday and gave my view. My position is that it should not have been about a conflict of syariah and civil laws as the ramification of the case is wider − to apply to non Muslims.

The argument of such narrowed conflict is wrong, cannot be sustained and lead to absurdities in interpretations and injustices to various communities. If Islamic laws can’t be considered, then none of the personal laws and customs of other ethnics can be considered. Let me explain.

First the Birth and Death Registration Act (BDRA) does not and cannot operate in isolation. When we bear our children, each ethnic group in our country has its own custom and personal law on how they name their children. The Chinese uses the husbands family surname. The Indians use attribution to the dad. Similarly with Malays with bin or binti meaning the son or daughter of a person.

The BDRA was thus never meant to dictate the customs we have. It sets out the procedure of process of registration of names and how and when to register in section 15. And when section 16 gives the registrar the right to reject to a name, it should be read in similar fashion.

Section 16 states that:

“Where it appears to the Registrar that the name of a child sought to be entered in a register of births is objectionable or undesirable he shall refer the matter to the Registrar-General and the Registrar-General may cause such name to be registered or not to be registered as he shall deem fit.”

There are wide powers and discretion given to registrar. Does this mean the registrar can do what he likes? That whatever civil action taken by registrar prevails over personal law and custom?

No. In registering a name, the registrar must necessarily – and I submit – take into account the customs and personal laws of each ethnic. Thus if a non-Muslim Chinese or Indian wants to register their child using bin and binti, the Registrar has a right to object. Similarly with a Muslim who doesn’t want to use bin and binti. Section 16 allows the registrar not to register.

And by the same token, though section 16 gives wide powers to a registrar to register any name at its discretion, the registrar cannot force a non-Muslim Chinese to use bin or binti. Or force Indian and Muslims to use Chinese family name instead of attributing it to the father.

This is the only sensible way to read the BRDA, i.e. in that the NRD must consider customs and personal laws in registering the names. Interpreting otherwise would allow an unfettered abuse of power disregarding other laws.

So in this case, it came as a surprise to me that suddenly the customs and personal laws are not considered. The whole act should be and has been interpreted as such.

And the relevant Section 13 and 13A cannot be about conflict of syariah and civil laws for in the first place it would render a ridiculous interpretation.

Section 13 and 13A allow an illegitimate child to use a surname of the father.

Now Muslims Malays here don’t have a surname however you want to construct. Muslims that have surnames, their surnames are related to a place like the Syed’s surnames of “al-something” which mostly relate to places in Middle East. But we don’t have family name “al Kuala Lumpur” or “al Petaling” or the like.

The law thus cannot force Muslims and was never intended to force Muslims to have one. So in this manner, I think the argument that it’s a conflict of civil and Islamic law is not correct.

Instead BDRA should be looked at as a whole. It’s meant to register names according to personal laws and customs of each ethnicity. And in this regard the ‘bin Abdullah’ case must be seen in this light.

If we take a position that for Muslims personal law cannot be applied, then other races customs and personal laws cannot also be applied. This is a preposterous interpretation leading to injustices.

I have read the judgement and think it’s a well reasoned judgement. But my view is that it was wrongly argued in failing to see the context of a whole act.

A narrow interpretation disregarding personal laws and customs, will in my view, lead to absurdities and preposterous interpretations and in turn injustices to each ethnic group that the parliament could not have intended.

It is for this reason the judgement cannot stand and should be appealed.

NB − And one more thing: The BDRA was not meant to address the interest of an illegitimate child. The provision of the act is wholly inadequate if one wants to argue that the act seeks to protect the children.

This is a typical red herring argument similar to child marriage not ok but child sex ok argument.

The BDRA is about how to register a child’s name: Who is responsible for registration and obligations of the registrar. The whole BDRA is about that. Argument within that small confines is wrong and without basis.

I was explaining in my comment just now. As I said the BDRA was never enacted to protect the interest of a child.

If you look at section 13A, if a father disagrees then the illegitimate child has to use the surname of its mother. To those who think surname applies to Malay, then the child must be named after the mother. For example Ahmad bin Rafeah. Siti binti Salmah. No bin or binti Abdullah.

Does this protect the interest of the child? Does it protect aib of the child? Lagi lah orang tanya kan kenapa bin or binti nama perempuan or emak. It doesn’t solve anything.

So stop these irrelevant arguments and pretension that the act is to protect interests of children, in particular for Malays. And because of that civil law is better than syariah law. Arguing that BDRA is to protect children is wrong. It just leads to preposterous ridiculous positions.

Please see my previous posting.

Lukman Sheriff Alias is a lawyer and activist

Download PDF

Civil war between two tribes



Some liberals in Malaysia are a super sneaky bunch of people, especially those in the left-wing press. Apart from their lack of journalistic ethics, they possess very little human decency either.

That’s why conservatives can’t stand liberals.

Take the following sly piece of reporting by a liberal reporter/editor in the ultra left news portal FMT.

The FMT article (above) is published today.

It reports on a political commentary by Azeem Ibrahim and quotes the Centre for Global Policy analyst without even mentioning when the original version was first published.

For the record, Azeem’s analysis had initially appeared in Al Arabiya on 25 July 2016 − more than a year ago. FMT regurgitated this one-year old Al-Arabiya material, and through its (FMT‘s) expedient omission of source dateline, tries to pass it off as current news.

Enter Mr Maverick Zaid Ibrahim.

Super sneaky FMT

Immediately after publishing the one-year old Al-Arabiya above, news manufacturer extraordinaire FMT gets DAP’s Zaid to comment on what FMT called “an article recently published by Al Arabiya News Channel’s online service”.

Hullo! An article that is already 375 days old can hardly be described as “recent”.

In any case, Zaid – being DAP – happily colluded with the sneaky portal to validate Azeem’s negative views about Malaysia as a Muslim country.

FMT opportunistically then recorded Zaid’s remarks “responding to” the Al-Arabiya commentary in a separate follow-up article today.

Liberals and their hypocritical virtue signaling

Double standards for liberal media

While the liberal media is allowed a free pass by the Harapan leaders, conservative media is however taken to task for reporting the very same thing − see bottom of this page a comparison of FMT vs Menara in their respective reports on PAN politician Siti Mariah Mahmud.

Meanwhile, prominent lawyer-activist Lukman Sheriff last week pointed out another aspect of the liberal hypocrisy.

He highlighted the emergence of a fairly newish portal Menara – located at a domain – that has been successful in pushing back against the sneaky left media and their sneaky liberal narrative.

According to Lukman, the right-wing Menara has been so successful in countering the left that a black ops unit (Lukman suspects the fraudsters to be “ultra liberal” cyber operatives) have set up a counterfeit site called ‘Menara-my’.

“See how duplicitous and fraudulent they are in using the same name. They have no shame in confusing people,” said Lukman.

He added it is typical of the shameless black ops agents on the left side of the political divide to be devious “even to the point of falsifying and stealing an identity”.

“That’s how low these ultra liberals / left have been.”

Yup. Sneaky and low indeed to masquerade their imitation Menara-my on the coattails of the genuine

Sneaky media in cahoots with Harapan

Below is how FMT reported what Kota Raja MP Siti Mariah Mahmud said in Parliament on July 30 during the debate on a domestic violence amendment bill.

“Wanita Amanah mencadangkan agar pasangan yang tidak berkahwin diberi perlindungan yang sewajarnya di bawah Akta Keganasan Rumah Tangga (AKRT) 2017 yang sedang dipinda. Ketuanya Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud berkata, sehingga kini tidak ada undang-undang yang boleh melindungi pasangan yang tidak berkahwin daripada keganasan.”

Below is how (the real) Menara reported it:

“Dua hari lepas, Ahli Parlimen Kota Raja, Siti Mariah Mahmud (Amanah) dalam membahaskan Rang Undang-Undang Keganasan Rumah Tangga (Pindaan) mencadangkan agar undang-undang yang sedang dipinda itu juga terpakai kepada pasangan-pasangan yang bersekududukan.”

In essence, there is nothing to complain about with regard to Menara’s wording above if at the same time YB Siti Mariah finds the FMT report – or a similar MMO account – to be acceptable.

Yet the Kota Raja MPconsiders the Menara report to be objectionable – allegedly ‘sensationalizing’ her liberal stance – whereas the opposition-friendly FMT and MMO articles are alright by her.

From the video of the proceedings (above) in parliament, you can listen for yourself what YB Siti Mariah said during the House sitting:

“Jadi tidak ada, jadi kalau berlaku penderaan ini ataupun keganasan mungkin di bawah akta lain diguna sebagai keganasan, tidak di bawah ini. Mungkin ada begitu tapi kita tahu juga tidak semua orang dalam keadaan masyarakat kita sekarang dia berkahwin, dia cohabit ramai.”

She clearly said “cohabit”. Menara translated it as “pasangan yang bersekududukan“. How is the translation deemed inaccurate?

As a society, Malaysia is now split into two − liberals and conservatives. These two tribes and their aligned media are engaged in a war of attrition. There is no more middle ground in our country.

Download PDF

Does DAP want to make everybody bumiputera?



DAP needs to come clean on whether it intends to grant all Malaysians the “special position” currently reserved for Malays as stipulated in Article 153 of the federal constitution.

Since its formation, DAP has insisted on the “principle that the separation of citizens into ‘Bumiputra’ and ‘non-Bumiputra’ is strongly opposed” − see below the party’s 1967 Setapak Declaration.

There is no indication that DAP has deviated from its demand for “equality” of the races.

‘No Malays, zero Chinese, no Indians too … all Malaysians’

Riding the 2008 and 2013 Chinese tsunami, DAP diligently peddled its Bangsa Malaysia kool-aid − a concept where everyone is ostensibly to be regarded as Malaysian … and there are supposedly “no Malays”, “zero Chinese” and “no Indians too”.

In other words, ethnic distinction is abolished − refer Hannah Yeoh’s tweet below as an illustration of the DAP’s “Anak Malaysia” indoctrination.

If the DAP is successful with its ‘Anak Malaysia’ brainwashing and Malays are eventually persuaded that they no longer wish to be identified as “racist’ Malays, then Article 153 will – by itself – slip into irrelevance.

From its Bangsa Malaysia propaganda onslaught, we can see how DAP is going a roundabout way to weaken Article 153 on the Malay special position.

Sub groups desiring to be bumiputera

The DAP has one self-styled “constitutional law expert” who today accused the prime minister of being ignorant about provisions contained in the federal constitution.

DAP’s Abdul Aziz Bari quibbled over a news report that Najib Razak was mulling the possibility of recognizing Indian Muslims as ‘bumiputera’.

According to the FMT report (below), Aziz Bari told the news portal that “the question of bumiputera status for Indian Muslims did not arise because it was clear in the constitution that they could qualify as Malays”.

Does DAP agree that mamak are Malay?

FMT quoted Aziz Bari as saying Indian Muslims are “by the definition of the constitution, Malays, and [as such] are entitled to Malay rights”.

According to Aziz Bari (touted by some quarters as DAP’s potential Selangor Menteri Besar designate), Indian Muslims fulfill the definition of ‘Malay’ spelled out in Article 160 of the constitution.

Aziz said this meant that anyone of any ethnic background should be accorded Malay rights as long as he fulfilled the Article 160 conditions of professing Islam, habitually speaking Malay language and practising Malay custom, FMT reported.

The portal reported Aziz Bari as adding, “A convert to Islam could also qualify”.

While correctly listing out the three constitutional criteria under Article 160’s definition of ‘Malay’, Aziz Bari neglected to mention that the Muslim or Muslim convert who habitually speaks Malay and conforms to Malay custom is still nonetheless required to meet a fourth criterion in order to be considered legally Malay.

In the context of Indian Muslim converts – as earlier interpreted by Aziz Bari above – what he omitted to explain is that Article 160 also requires this Malay-speaking Muslim individual to be born in Malaya before 1957, or if not then otherwise his (e.g. the Muslim convert’s) parents must also have been born or already staying in Malaya before Merdeka.

The full text of Article 160’s definition of ‘Malay’ is as follows:

‘Malay’ means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and –

(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or was on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or
(b) is the issue of such a person;

Bangsa M’sia propaganda is DAP strategy to disenfranchise Malays 

DAP’s Aziz Bari in his interview today with FMT provided only a partial interpretation of Article 160.

As someone who has taught law before and is widely promoted by the liberal media as a “constitutional law expert”, you’d think Aziz Bari should know better.

Indeed he likely does.

Therefore we can only suspect that his apparent misdirection, i.e. lack of a complete reading of Article 160, was something done deliberately. Or else why leave out the essential part about any Malay-speaking Muslim individual needing to be born before Merdeka etc, etc, to qualify as a legal/constitutional Malay?

The Malay community must ask themselves if DAP leaders and DAP’s Bangsa Malaysia propaganda is actually a devious means to usurp genuine Malays of their rights under Article 153.

Download PDF