Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

ariff.sabri@gmail.com

Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Perak: satu perangkap untuk DS Najib?


 

Saya sebetulnya, sudah mahu mula menulis mengenai hal hal lain. Khususnya mengenai kepimpinan pemuda UMNO yang akan datang. Seperti biasa, peristiwa politik semasa acap kali menggerhanai usaha tersebut.

Kita sedang menyaksikan pembukaan tirai satu persatu mendedahkan kepincangan dalam UMNO. Setiap hari, UMNO berdepan dengan perkembangan dan peristiwa retak retak membawa belah.

Kita duduk di barisan belakang dan memperlekehkan usaha KJ menyemarakkan semangat UMNO yang kian luntur. Kita tertawa sebab KJ hanya mampu mengembelingkan 1000 orang? Kepada saya ini menandakan dua perkara;

  1. Pertama, tidak ada pimpinan UMNO yang ada presence of mind untuk menghadirkan UMNO dalam gelombang peristiwa politik di Perak. Kita lebih suka UMNO berdiam diri menyembunyikan diri sedang para penyokong parti pembangkang sana sini, kehulu dan kehilir, mendendangkan sokongan merka.
  2. Kedua, kalau KJ yang terpaksa melakukan visible manifestation UMNO atau menunjukkan keUMNOan kita, ini mendedahkan banyak hal dalam UMNO Perak sendiri. Dengan sebuah negeri yang ada hulubalang terkenal- wak zahid hamidi, macho man nazri, 7-eleven Tajudin, negeri yang ada jin Bota, tidak seorang daripada mereka mengembelingkan rakyat Perak untuk bangkit mempertahankan intitusi raja mereka? Ape kene eh yeop? Mengape jadi begitu?

Dan orang UMNO sendiri bersegera untuk mejauhkan dan mengasingkan diri daripada aktitiviti anak anak muda dalam UMNO. Kita ingat, masaalah boleh diselesaikan hanya melalui menulis mengenai melakukan sesuatu?. Sebab itulah kita dapati `kebijaksanaan' pemimpin yang MENULIS mengenai melakukan sesuatu di barisan belakang, sebagai suatu sikap hipokritikal yang tidak malu. Helo tambi, jawapan nya bukan lah menulis tapi MELAKUKAN.

Dan kita harus melihat apa yang di lakukan oleh KJ dan anak anak muda UMNO sebagai perlakuan dan suatu aksi, berbanding dengan menulis yang amat sukar melayakkan diri untuk di gelar PERLAKUAN.

Inilah penyakit UMNO yang sangat besar. Apabila kita mahu menggunakan tenaga orang untuk menghebahkan pendirian, kita keluarkan pasukan tentera kita untuk bertempur di medan perang. Sebaik sahaja ada suara sumbang menempelak teriakan kita supaya bertempur, kita kecut perut. Malah, kita menyertai pula suara suara sumbang mentertawakan anak anak muda dari golongan kita yang berpanas dan berpeluh, menvokalkan apa yang tidak terucap oleh penulis penulis yang hanya bersuara di belakang.

Itu satu bab. Ini bab yang lain.

Cuba kita bayangkan perkara ini. Katakanlah semua ini suatu helah besar, ANWAR IBRAHIM menjerat Najib. Bila kita di takutkan dengan lompatan wakil2 BN kedalam PR, apa yang terjadi? TIDAK ADA apa yang terjadi. Ertinya, apa ANWAR IBRAHIM cakap adalah omongan kosong.

Akan tetapi, lompatan kedalam parti kekal menjadi sesuatu yang menghantui pimpinan UMNO, khususnya Najib. Dimana Anwar hanya bercakap, Najib melakukan dengan perbuatan.

Maka, Najib dengan pasukan nya merancanai lompatan 3 orang ADUN PKR untuk menyokong UMNO/BN. Peristiwa coup d'etat ini menimbulkan persepsi rakyat bahawa 3 ADUN jaguh lompat ini telah di bayar untuk mengkhianati parti mereka. Persepsi di sogok oleh pimpinan UMNO tidak dapat di lenyapkan dari benak rakyat.

Apa yang sebenarnya di lakukan oleh Najib? Aksi dan peranan Dato Najib dalam menjuruterakan lompatan ADUN2 pembelot dari PR sebetulnya, membuka pintu tebatan banjir. Maka selepas ini, tidaklah mengherankan pembelian dan lompatan ahli parlimen atau ADUN tidak akan menjasi sesuatu yang menjatuhkan moral ahli politik. Lompat melompat menjadi perkara biasa. Ia sahih dan kesahihan nya di mulakan oleh Dato Najib.

Cuba kita bayangkan, jika 'kejayaan' Najib sebenarnya adalah suatu perangkap yang di pasang oleh Anwar Ibrahim. Ingat! Apa yang Anwar hanya bercakap, Najib lakukan melalui perbuatan. Di hitung dari sudut ini, siapakah yang lebih di persalahkan? Orang yang hanya bercakap atau orang yang meniatkan serta membuat perkara tersebut? Kecuali meniatkan sesuatu menjadi kesalahan undang undang, maka saya rasa, undang undang yang kita ada sekarang, lebih menyalahkan orang yang meniat dan melakukan nya.

Apa yang Dato Najib lakukan melalui rencana kejuruteraan nya ialah membuang sekatan moral dan nilai nilai kudus didalam sesuatu perbuatan. Apabila sesuatu perbuatan sudah tidak ada lagi nilai moral nya, atau dalam bahasa yang lebih mudah, tidak ada elemen halal dan haram nya, maka perlakuan tersebut menjadi amalan biasa. Amalan yang biasa di terima sebagai sesuatu yang tidak menderitakan kita.

Ini akan membolehkan usaha lompatan wakil rakyat dilakukan tanpa ada sebarang perasaan bersalah dari segi moral. Dan orang yang bertanggung jawab memertabatkan suatu perbuatan terkutuk menjadi suatu perbuatan yang di hormati ialah Dato Najib.

Anwar menjadi seekor harimau yang terluka. Harimau yang luka pula akan menjadi lebih berang. Apa akan menyekat Anwar dari melakukan apa sahaja- by whatever means necessary' untuk melakukan apa yang di lakukan oleh Najib?

Jika perkara perkara ini di terima sebagai sesuatu amalan biasa politik Malaysia, saya khuatir Dato Najib sebenarnya sedang menunggang seekor harimau. Setelah menunggang nya, tentulah kita ketakutan untuk turun kerana akan di baham oleh pak belang. Apatah lagi jika pak belang itu, rupa rupa nya pak sheikh.

36 comments:

Alias Mohd Yusof 10 February 2009 at 09:05  

Lompat parti adalah tidak menyalahi undang-undang maka ia tidak boleh dianggap melakukan kesalahan.
Ada pro dan kontra dalam hal lompat parti ini.

sakmongkol AK47 10 February 2009 at 09:08  

lompat melompat ok. lompat dengan wang untuk wang tu yang salah. sila baca artikel saya sebelum ni. t.kasih

Zawi 10 February 2009 at 10:15  

Dato',
Rakyat sukar menerima sesuatu 'denial' sebagai sesuatu yang benar walaupun ianya dibuat secara bersumpah dalam mesjid. Tambahan pula mereka yang melompat adalah mereka2 yang ada pertuduhan rasuah diatas kepala mereka. Justeru masakan mereka akan melaku lompatan atas rasa rela hati?
KJ gagal menggembelingkan tenaga untuk berhimpun kerana kalangan muda mudi UMNO telah dibiasakan dengan bayaran untuk apa-apa tugas yang mereka hendak lakukan. 'No money, no talk' ialah budaya yang telah ditanam dalam jiwa orang UMNO yang tidak digunakan oleh orang PAS (tak tahu lah dalam PKR dan DAP).
Lompat melompat ni sebagai satu perangkap adalah adalah satu kemungkinan. Persepsi saya ialah Dato' Nasarudin merupakan satu umpan atau satu 'Trojan Horse' Dato' Seri Najib.

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 10:18  

Hooray!

The money wagons are coming to Bt. Gantang and Bt. Selambau. Are the school kids in these two places getting personal laptop each? Just like K.T?

BTW have the kids in KT receive their laptops?

Avalion

bzz,  10 February 2009 at 10:28  

Saya pun terfikir macam ni juga Datuk.

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 10:48  

one thing i hope the Perakians Malays remember is that, are they willing to trade their children's future by voting for a party that wills itself to be dominated by another opportunistic all-Malay hating, guised as Malaysia for malaysians' party, and lose all their land, and economic opportunities for short term gains, just because of their common hatred for the other party who is percieved as corrupted, despite this party being a fighter of their rights all along?
Dalam Bahasa, fikir-fikirlah sendiri! Tak payah tunggu kaum luar hancur kaum Melayu, Dengki adalah sifat semulajadi bangsa melayu.
dapat tanah ladang getah tak apa, orang lain dapat tanah perindustrian dan tanah balak, pun tak apa... depa parti kita... masa depan anak kita, Alahai!, anak kita pandai-pandailah hidup, masa tu kita dah mati. Inilah Melayu. Hidup mesti senang (untuk kita, bukan anak-anak). Belajarlah dari orang Melayu Penang... eg. intel bahagian pengurusan didominasi oleh bangsa lain, dulu Melayu tanjung jual tanah kepada bangsa lain, sekarang nak belibalik, jangan harap, kalau bukan jutawan. Inilah bangsa kita. Senang dulu. cinta pada tanahair tiada. bangsa lain ketawa sampai bank...he he he

Mas

kluangman 10 February 2009 at 11:29  

Dalam hal politik yang begitu celaru di Perak elok UMNO membiarkan pihak berkuasa menyelesaikannya mengikut lunas undang undang dan tidak wajar pemimpin UMNO lain campur tangan kerana mereka mengetahu 'dalang dalam UMNO' yang mengocakkannya, biarlah dia yang memadamkannya.

KJ terus berperanan hero sesuai dengan wataknya kerana tanpa hu ha hu ha - KJ tentu tenggelam.

Yang pasti jangan terlalu 'aktif' takut banyak silap dari betulnya.

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 11:36  

RPK: Anwar, Kit Siang and Hadi should quit
Tue, Feb 10, 2009
The Star/ Asia News Network

PORT KLANG, MALAYSIA: Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin has called for the resignations of three senior Opposition leaders for the loss of the Perak Pakatan Rakyat government to Barisan Nasional.

Pakatan de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang and PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang should resign and accept collective responsibility for the loss, he said at a Chap Goh Mei celebration at the Kuan Soon temple grounds in Pandamaran here.

When asked whether it was a leadership crisis, he said it was just bad leadership, with bad decisions and the three senior politicians were out of touch with the people on the ground.

'It is time for them to stop the blame game. Move aside and give the position to the younger generation that are more able.'

msleepyhead,  10 February 2009 at 12:15  

The people of Perak does not need anymore taunting and further aggravations. It's best to show that BN is just as good if not better than PR through genorosity and inclusiveness rather than pointless bravado by a bunch of youths.

The new MB has a great challenge ahead and has inherited a sticky mess together with the coveted position. If he handles it well then action will speak for itself.

Dhahran Sea,  10 February 2009 at 12:27  

Salam To Sak,
I'm too kecut perut lah to think about the implications of this precedent! Memang "Melayu boleh" from either side; and at the end Melayu jugaklah yang rugi... memang "kuasa" ni hantu; politicians would do ANYTHING to get it!

yem 10 February 2009 at 13:08  

Saya sependapat dengan kluangman agar soal Perak biarlah diselesaikan oleh undang2.Kedua dua pihak patut berhenti memperkatakan keputusan DYMM Sultan Perak.

Penilaian dari artikel mungkin dilihat dari perspektif parti dan berpolitik tetapi bagi saya sebenarnya telah jemu dengan gelagat kedua dua belah pihak...politician is still politician..but u can't live without them.

Walaupun Dato' memuji KJ tapi hakikatnya KJ tak disenangi oleh orangramai..mungkin beliau hebat dalam UMNO (whether rasuah atau tanpa rasuah)yang lebih penting adakah orangramai menerimanya?

Saya tidak mengundi pada PRU12 disebabkan saya merasakan tiada pilihan yang perlu dibuat .Apakah yang saya perolehi sekiranya saya mengundi untuk Dato' Bota (BN),Dua Adun (PKR), Ms DAP...any politician sama saja.....

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 13:57  

(no need to publish Datuk)
Salam Datuk,

I think from the report in The Star today, Umno Youth had missed the point.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/2/10/nation/20090210134005&sec=nation

They should have centred their focus and energy in demonstrating in front of Anwar's office too coz Anwar originally initiated the obvious disregard for the monarchy.

Now it seems, Umno Youth is letting Anwar off scots free. He must not be left off the hook! Keep on pressuring Anwar and PR will slightly be disarrayed.

(No need to publish Datuk)...

Thank you.

JMD-

Ismail N 10 February 2009 at 13:59  

Salam Dato',

Utk rekod, Anwar terima Adun Bota ke dlm PKR walaupun ia cuma 2 minggu. Jadi ia satu perbuatan. Kalau tidak silap, di Sarawak pun berlaku lompatan ke dalam PKR. Manakala Yong Teck Lee dan rakan2 di alu-alukan ke dalam PR, cuma mereka masih belum berminat atau takut dengan sentimen rakyat di Sabah.

Utk membuktikan melompat sebab wang bukan senang sebab rasuah bukan sesuatu yg mudah dibuktikan. Oleh sebab itu, apa-apa sahaja lompatan, tak kira dari BN ke PKR, mahupun sebaliknya akan dikaitkan dengan perbuatan tidak beretika dan rasuah, biarpun mungkin tidak ada pemberian wang berlaku.

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 14:01  

Yang ada duit, tinggalkan sahaja Malaysia ini. Kalau nak tinggal juga, ayuh kita teruskan perjuangaan.
Yang utama mempertahankan ketuanan rakyat - itu sahaja.
Sekiranya perjuangan tersebut gagal, segala nya hampasss...then "if you cannot beat them join them" or else we need a revolution or a civil war, so are we ready for it?
There is no other ways as the arrogance of the leaders in power is despicable and disgusting!!!

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 14:52  

Guess some of us are just too tired and can no longer talk politics without ending up insulting each other. Its getting crazy this politiking and then there are those who have thrown in the towel and decided that enough is enough. It looks like am becoming one of those. I just cannot keep up anymore with the numerous day-to-day developments,,,,heart attack/affairs-lah etc etc,,,Geeee!!
Maybe once we start to sink into economic morass, then the political fighting will stop !
Are we all watching our 'Malaysia' being burn down ?. Are we feeding the fire with fuel ?.
Are there going to be winners or just losers ?,,,,looks like a lost/lost situation rather than a win/win solution.
,,,AK47, you are a bloody good writer n thinker, could you put it up in yr next write-up for a WIN/WIN way forward solution?,,,,as for me, my suggestion for the Malays is to get UMNO to join PAS or is it the other way round ?. But for all Malaysian, we need new leadership in all existing political parties. Most of the existing politicians are out of date,,,old cock. Unfortunately, the young ones are too pwr crazy and not matured enough.
We need to identify new leaders to run this country of ours, tak kira melayu, india, cina, iban or orang utan as long as they also have 'moral leadership' skills in them.
,,,,yes, we need to get rid of corrupted politicians too,,,or rather line them up and shoot them dead, given my way.

islandman

VersedAnggerik 10 February 2009 at 15:34  

this small win is a sign for a big fall, if najib is not careful.

the means of obtaining the win is soooo questionable that its not something to celebrate.

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 15:43  

Saya tengok Dato' Sakmongkol ni ok jugak orangnya. Petah dan pandai berbahasa serta punya peminat ramai yang menggemari cara beliau mengkritik secara berhujah.

Cuma yang saya percaya boleh menggerhanakan Sangmongkol adalah sokongan dan simpati beliau kepada KJ.
Sangmongkol toksah la pertahankan lagi budak tu. Ramai lagi pemimpin yang lebih berwibawa. Si KJ sudah sesiakan peluang dia dan kalau dia jatuh janganlah seret sekali sangmongkol kesayangan kami.

Sudah2 la tu tuan sangmongkol, biarlah si KJ terjun dengan labu-labunya. Beri peluang orang lain. Peluang bukan datang berulang kali untuk si KJ. Ingat tidak beliau mengata kami sebagai Kera Jantan. Kami ignore je budak tu. takde civilisation punya talk.

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 16:31  

Saya kenal Dato' sak lama.Kelulusan M.A. Econs dari Uni. Manchester..datang dari keluarga biasa.Aruah bapak dia kerani haiwan.
Masa dia mula2 masuk politik seksa dia bertempur dengan orang2 Pekan.They do not care about your high and mighty qualifications.Dato Seri Najib pun terikut2.
And so the bodoh ones who pandai play dirty menang.Dato always kalah for all the pertandingan bahagian.

What Dato' is trying to do is probably to help the very intelligent people climb high in politics and be an important part of the present crumbling and stale leadership.

KJ is actually from the ordinary society.He is not from the elit group.Being the PM's son-in-law is just coincidental.
MM is resting on TDM's good leadership.Would you like MM to be the Umno Youth leader who keeps running to his dad for advice?TDM is not senile yet but his ideas may not be all fresh either.

So do we have a better choice than KJ? There are only 3 contenders at the moment.
Should KJ perform miserably later on, its easier to vote him out than to vote MM out.
If MM is a lousy youth leader we'll never get to do so because hes Tun's son!
Orang Melayu selalu hormat pada pemimpin2 yang banyak berjasa.Kita hormat pada Allahyarham Tun Razak sebab tu buruk macam mana Dato Seri Najib, kita tetap sanjung dan hormat dia.Jadi cukup2 lah.

Bagilah peluang untuk orang2 biasa masuk.KJ bakal memecahkan 'pintu' ni sekiranya dia berjaya.
Selepastu, semua pemuda2 yang cerdikpandai dan dari kalangan orang biasa pun boleh ikut masuk 'pintu' yang KJ sudah terajang bukak!!Tidak perlu mengharapkan latarbelakang elit atau tidak.

KT had his chance as MB of Selangor but failed.
Imagine to have Selangor fall into the hands of the opposition..apa yang tidak cukup huh? Sebab tidak buat kerja elok2 lah! Padahal Selangor is one of the richest state in Malaysia.He must have made the rakyat really mad with his poor administration!
He was a bungling fool and we must not give him any more chance to do carry out further blunders!
I believe Dato sak wants 'a real change'!KJ is not a 'perfect change' but he can start the ball rolling towards one!

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 17:24  

i only wish that i could borrow AK47 rifle and shoot all these lousy politicians for a change !.
why can't we find new leaders from the rest of the rakyat, rather than from 'The Dynasty',,,anak anak bapak politik lamakita ?. Sama-lah di-Singapore anak si-LKY saja yang di-lantik. Even in North Korea, same old story,,,,mana nak dapat change and progress ?.
Our mindset and strategy must be open, transparent and progressive.
We are all, very narrow minded, very sombong bodoh too at times, if not most times !.

me again.

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 17:26  

i only wish that i could borrow AK47 rifle and shoot all these lousy politicians for a change !.
why can't we find new leaders from the rest of the rakyat, rather than from 'The Dynasty',,,anak anak bapak politik lamakita ?. Sama-lah di-Singapore anak si-LKY saja yang di-lantik. Even in North Korea, same old story,,,,mana nak dapat change and progress ?.
Our mindset and strategy must be open, transparent and progressive.
We are all, very narrow minded, very sombong bodoh too at times, if not most times !.

me again.

Zawi 10 February 2009 at 18:44  

What is so important about the Ketua Pemuda? We can even do without the Pemuda wing or any other wings. Just have the UMNO after all age is not the main criteria to be a leader in the main body.

kuldeep 10 February 2009 at 21:02  

In school,the notti boys that go to detention class every week have as many admirers as the prefects.

Notti boys can be forgiven for doing "notti" things such as enticing others to smoke.But if a prefect does that then its a serious breach indicative of a breakdown of the system.

And when notti boys fight ,somehow it looks like they really angry.When I see UMNO demonstrations I don't see the fire..looks staged and too proper.Even the banners are too professionally done.

Maybe UMNO needs more soul...

Blogger Pahang 10 February 2009 at 22:25  

Salam Dato' Ariff.

Mohon menyokong kempen pamer logo BLOGGER PAHANG.

Terima kasih.

http://bloggerpahang.blogspot.com/2009/02/kempen-pamer-logo-blogger-pahang.html

Anonymous,  10 February 2009 at 23:55  

It is when high morals are compromised that veritably starts the entire debate. Perhaps dsai's little bluff was seen as exhilirating then but when DS Najib fine tuned the process to its inglorious end that people begin to comprehend its atrociousness.So either side just ban hopping lest referendums be the only way out.

besi buruk

Anonymous,  11 February 2009 at 02:11  

Cebisan sejarah lama juga boleh dijadikan panduan dan relevan kerana ia telah berlaku di Perak.. Pada 1974, Menteri Besar Perak ketika itu, Tan Sri Mohamad Ghazali Jawi iaitu bapa Mohd Tajol Rosli telah menderhaka pada Sultan Idris Shah yang tidak berkenan dengan perlantikan Ghazali Jawi untuk menjadi MB buat kali kedua.
Ghazali enggan melepaskan jawatan berkenaan dan kedegilan Ghazali itu menimbulkan kemurkaan Sultan Idris Shah. Tiada apa dapat dilakukan .

Pemuda Umno ketika itu memberi pandangan; “Sultan Perak mempunyai hak melantik dan berkenan seseorang memegang jawatan Menteri Besar, tetapi setelah dilantik dan diperkenankan, Sultan tidak ada hak mengikut Perlembagaan Negeri untuk memecat atau memerintahkan supaya meletakkan jawatan. Hak untuk memecat atau memerintahkan seseorang berhenti dari Menteri Besar, iala Presiden UMNO.”

HUH... ADA SAPA-SAPA NAK KOMEN SEKALI DGN ISU "NATANG" KAT TERENGGANU 10 BULAN LEPAS????????

Anonymous,  11 February 2009 at 07:41  

Dalam sejarah negara, ada 2 buah parti politik yang diharamkan; yang pertamanya Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM) yang dipimpin oleh Chin Peng, dan yang keduanya ialah parti UMNO yang semasa itu dipimpin oleh Dr Mahathir Mohammed.

Kedua-dua Chin Peng dan Dr Mahathir mempunyai pengalaman yang sama; parti yang dipimpin mereka diharamkan.

PKM diharamkan kerana Chin Peng dan parti itu cuba untuk berjuang melalui gerakan bersenjata maka kerajaan Malaya semasa itu mengharamkan parti itu daripada berfungsi di negara ini.

Walaupun parti pimpinan mereka sama-sama diharamkan, tetapi asas pengharamannya adalah berbeza.

Chin Peng lari ke hutan apabila PKM diharamkan kerana tidak bersetuju dengan pengharaman yang diputuskan oleh kerajaan sedangkan Dr Mahathir sengaja tidak mahu menghidupkan kembali UMNO yang telah dibatalkan pendaftarannya oleh Mahkamah Tinggi.

Dr Mahathir gembira dengan kematian UMNO kerana beliau boleh menyambung karier politik beliau dan berjaya menafikan keputusan Hakim Harun Hashim Mahkamah Tinggi untuk mengadakan pemilihan sekali lagi bagi jawatan Presiden dan Majlis Tertinggi.

Seksyen 70 Akta Pertubuhan 1965 memperuntukkan mana-mana pertubuhan yang diharamkan oleh Mahkamah boleh dihidupkan kembali oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri yang secara kebetulan ketika itu merupakan Dr Mahathir sendiri.

Beliau enggan menggunakan kuasa untuk menghidupkan UMNO itu kerana beliau sudah merancang untuk menubuhkan UMNO (Baru) yang kita semua anggotai ini, dengan mewujudkan Jawatankuasa Penaja di semua peringkat.

Dengan bertindak demikian Dr Mahathir dapat mengenepikan musuh-musuh politik beliau. Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Husien Onn, Tengku Razaleiegh Hamzah dan ramai lagi pemimpin UMNO semasa itu dicegah daripada menyertai parti ini.

Saya sendiri di Kuala Pilah tidak dipilih untuk menganggotai Jawatan Penaja walaupun anggota jawatankuasa penyandang yang lain di seluruh negara dilantik menganggotai Jawatankuasa Penaja parti yang baru ditaja itu.

Bermula saat inilah UMNO mula retak walaupun Dr Mahathir begitu berjaya menyusun ekonomi negara, dan saham Dr Mahathir yang bercakap banyak pada hari ini, tidak kurang besarnya dalam memecahbelahkan orang Melayu dalam UMNO ini.

Maka tidak hairanlah retak-retak itu akhirnya membawa belah apabila lahir pemimpin-pemimpin lemah dan tidak jujur seperti yang ada pada hari ini, dan ramai yang bercakap besar pada hari ini hanya bergiat dalam UMNO yang baru ditaja ini.

Perjuangan Chin Peng ialah untuk menjadikan negara ini sebuah negara komunis dan asasnya ialah untuk memperjuangkan bangsa Cina yang chauvinistic.

Rakan-rakan kita daripada bangsa Cina berjuang berpanjangan dan kalau kita kaji secara halus kita nampak kejayaan mereka membina bangsanya ketahap kemajuan yang begitu tinggi dan mereka tetap satu bangsa yang bersatu.

Sebaliknya, UMNO masih terkial-kial untuk membina bangsa yang sepatutnya dibelanya kerana kekurangan komitmen untuk menjayakan perjuangannya.

Pemimpin Melayu dalam UMNO tidak sanggup berkorban untuk bangsanya kerana mereka mementingkan kedudukan dan kebahagiaan diri dan keluarga mereka sendiri.

Pemimpin Melayu sanggup membiarkan keburukan berlaku di hadapan mata mereka kerana takut kepada risiko yang mungkin mereka hadapi.

Perjuangan bangsa Cina adalah perjuangan global tetapi perjuangan kita Melayu adalah untuk keluarga sendiri, atau dalam bahasa yang lain ‘perjuangan cari makan’.

Siapa di kalangan kita yang sanggup berjuang dan menghadapi risiko, sedangkan orang Melayu tidak ada elemen perjungan di dalam jiwa mereka.

“The Malays walk on their stomach” itulah bunyinya satu perbilangan bahasa Inggeris yang digunakan untuk mendefinasikan orang Melayu dalam hal perjuangan.

Saya amat percaya pada perbilangan itu. Saya yakin orang yang berfikir tentu menerima pandangan ini.

Akhir kata saya ingin mengingati semua; baik Dr Mahathir, Abdullah Badawi, Najib, Muhyiddin dan yang lain-lain dalam team itu semuanya berkira-kira business dengan bertopengkan perjuangan Melayu.

Percayalah! Semuanya akan terbukti dan kita semua akan berasa bahawa kita diperbodohkan mereka ini sekali lagi.

Jika panjang umur kita, kita akan sama-sama mengalaminya. Jangan disia-siakan pandangan saya yang kerdil ini.

sakmongkol AK47 11 February 2009 at 08:14  

anon at 07.41.
komen tuan sangat baik. boleh saya dapat izin untuk meletakkan nya dalam blog saya sebagai satu artikel?
salam/sakmongkol ak47

Anonymous,  11 February 2009 at 10:07  

I support your idea Dato.

I hope Anon at 07:41 does not mind.

Anonymous,  11 February 2009 at 10:34  

Jika bukan kerana sifat tamak dan sifat dengki, Umno tidak mungkin diseret ke mahkamah pada akhir tahun 87/88. Geng Musa Hitam (Umno 11) terus menerus mencuba untuk mendapatkan kemenangan bagi pihak diri mereka. Umno tidak akan diharamkan jika Geng Musa Hitam tidak menyeret parti mereka sendiri ke mahkamah.

Namun itu semua sejarah lama.

Anon di atas cuba menyamakan cara perjuangan PKM dan Umno. Malah anon di atas mengatakan bahawa PKM dan perjuangan mereka yang bercorak ganas dan bersenjata itu mejadi asas terbinanya bangsa Cina yang maju.

Jika Anon berkenaan berpendapat bahawa Chin Peng menjadi titik fokus kepada tahap kemajuan mereka yang tinggi, dan juga membolehkan bangsa cina bersatu, saya merasa amat kesal dengan pendirian tersebut.

Secara tidak langsung, Anon di atas berpendirian bahawa bangsa cina semua merestui sejarah hitam PKM dan segala keganasan dan pembunuhan yang mereka telah lakukan.

Adalah menjadi satu benda yang ironik jika bangsa cina boleh bersatu dibawah naungan perjuangan sesat Chin Peng (seperti yang digarapkan oleh Anon diatas), namun bangsa Melayu tidak boleh bersatu dibawah satu pemimpin yang jauh lebih berjasa, tidak pernah membunuh sesiapa dan juga beragama Islam.

Sifat dengki dan sifat tamak yang ketara di dalam diri bangsa Melayu telah membolehkan anon di atas menulis tulisan mendewakan PKM seperti di atas.

Hanya kerana beliau tidak di pilih menjadi ahli jawatankuasa penaja. Tempat yang terhad sepeti itu mana mungkin dapat menampung semua orang.

Bangsa Melayu berpecah kerana terdapat segelintir Melayu yang berfikiran seperti ini. Yang tidak dapat menerima hakikat dan mencaci jika tidak menerima habuan masing masing.

Mereka kurang komitmen dan tidak jujur dalam menjiwai perjuangan politik mereka. Mereka hanya tahu meminta dari pemimpin mereka tetapi akan mula merajuk jika tidak mendapat apa yang dicita.

Maka dengan itu, apabila darah si Kitul dan Raja Mendaliar mengalir deras mengatasi darah Hang Tuah, maka tidak semena-mena, perjuangan Chin Peng yang kejam itu pun telah diangkat menjadi satu perjuangan yang mulia berbanding dengan perjuangan parti bangsa mereka sendiri.

Ini tidak lain tidak bukan, hanya gerakan perang saraf untuk menidakkan kepimpinan dan jasa bangsa Melayu kepada Negara.

Jangan terpedaya dengan penulisan seprti ini yang pada dasarnya nampak objektif tetapi secara tersiratnya, mempunyai niat yang busuk.

Salam hormat buat semua.

Anonymous,  11 February 2009 at 10:59  

anon 07.41,

Memang lah baik cara penulisan tuan but don't make a fool out of us.
You said Mahathir berkira-kira business bertopengkan perjuangan melayu. Don't be naive, who doesn't. You masuk sekolah ada belajar mathematik ke. Hmm I wonder. Maybe you duduk dalam gua ka?
Anyway, percubaan you secara halus untuk implicate Mahathir and sesiapalah is without substance and incriminating evidence. Prove it kalau ada. Don't sit back and annoy people from your comfort of anonymity.
If you care to see Mahathir blog and the way he handle a large community of the world especially from hostile readers, you will begin to appreciate if not envious of him.
Is this the best you can do? Put a puny jarum here in Sangmongkol's?
You are worst than those you have accused of pecah belah. And to portray Mahathir in the same boat as Chin Peng or living in the same living room or using the same toilet bowl to excrete would require an imaginative Schizophreniac tukang cucuk jarum like you.
Pls Sangmongkol don't listen to the bisikan dan cucukan of that Devil.
Sakmongkol can do a lot better than this.

Anonymous,  11 February 2009 at 12:21  

Dato

Dengan komen Anon 07:41 dan komen Anon 10:34 di atas, memang sudah tepat lah masa nya untuk komen komen itu di jadikan satu makallah lain di blog Dato ini.

Tidak mengapa kita meludah ke langit demi menyedari kelemahan kita, mudah mudahan yang lain mengubah sifat dan langkah untuk kepentingan bangsa dan negara.
Kalau ia pun, tak malu, banyak orang sudah tahu sifat kita, cuma perlu peringatkan orang lama dan mungkin mengajar sedikit orang bahru. Orang lain pun bukan tidak ada kelemahan sifat mereka.

Obama mengaku kesalahan nya di hadapan khalayak ramai tak sampai 2minggu dalam jawatan nya, berjanji tidak akan buat kesalahan saperti itu lagi. Itu lah kaliber yang kita harapkan dari pemimpin pemimpin kita.

Harap boleh komen mereka itu di pindah ka makalah bahru supaya boleh di perdebatkan dan tidak keluar dari topik asal di sini.

Anon,  11 February 2009 at 16:02  

Apa pembesar buat jadi sejarah. Tak boleh lari. Itu pasal kena buat keputusan betul. Kalau niat betol tak ape. kalau nak kuasa lama sangat, susah. Nanti kena kotok

Anonymous,  12 February 2009 at 13:36  

"Apabila sesuatu perbuatan sudah tidak ada lagi nilai moral nya ... tidak ada elemen halal dan haram nya, maka perlakuan tersebut menjadi amalan biasa."

Ini lah sebab nya negara ini sudah menjadi begitu korup sekarang ini.

Tak banyak orang menempelak, mengkeji, meneguh, membantah secara lantang dalam ucapan ucapan, tulisan tulisan dsb nya.

Lompat parti di Sabah, di Perak tak ada unsur rasuah? Tak mungkin. Dua katak di Perak itu ada tuduhan di mahkamah. Kesalahan yang amat di kejikan. UMNO pula terima mereka. Apa hal ni? Kelakar besar.

Mari kita terus panggil mereka yang melompat itu katak. Yang menyuruh dan yang menerima itu kita panggil ... siapa ada cadangan, silakan.

Tolong lah, rakyat Malaysia sekelian. Kejikan lah perbuatan rasuah. Caci mereka yang korup. Pandang serong kapada mereka. Sindirkan mereka. Singkirkan mereka. Pulaukan mereka. Paling mustahak - JANGAN UNDI MEREKA. DALAM PARTI. DALAM PILIHAN RAYA. BILA BILA MASA. DI MANA MANA.

Kalau tidak, jahanam lah negara kita.

Hang-Jebat 12 February 2009 at 15:06  

Sampai bila Orang Pekan hendak bergantung nyawa dengan keturunan Dato' Husin ini. Tun Razak dan Najib ibarat langit dengan bumi. Orang Pekan di perantauan cuba balik Pekan, apa yang ada di Pekan? Cuba kira berapa jumlah Banglo di Pekan milik penduduk asal Pekan? Orang Pekan sudah terlebih makan subsidi dan gula-gula pilihanraya dari Najib. Sebab itu takut sangat nak tolak BN. Orang Pekan malu tetapi takut hendak bersuara apabila Najib sendiri menjadi dalang menjatuhkan undi rakyat di Perak. Golongan muda berpendidikan tinggi dari Pekan yang balik mengundi Najib, apa yang kamu dapat? cuma duit minyak RM70 kalau KL RM80 kalau dari JHB. Ada Najib panggil pulang bekerja di Pekan, sediakan peluang pekerjaan yang mantap di Pekan? hendak bekerja di Kilang Belut, itu tidak payah pakai Degree,. Hendak kerja kilang Mentiga, Proton, DRB, VAC yang hidup segan mati tak mahu,.. Kalau hendak jadi mandur ladang LKPP boleh la,. Kecewa sungguh bila di suruh balik mengundi, rupa-rupanya hendak undi ketua peneroka. Apa yang boleh beliau fikirkan untuk bawa pembangunan di kawasan Pekan. Mungkin Najib bimbang, jika diberi kepada orang lain, mungkin orang Chini kembali mengundi PR.

Anonymous,  24 February 2009 at 09:31  

Mahathir’s Speech Stripping Sultans of their Immunity
14 Feb 1993
Mr. Speaker Sir,
I request to propose that is a Bill named “An Act to amend the Constitution” to be read for the second time. Speaker Sir, allow me to introduce and comment on the Act that I mentioned above
2. When the country demanded independence, the country's leaders, who received a huge victory and united support in the 1955 General Election, decided that our country would be administered via Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.
3. This system was chosen because when the Malay states were administered via the feudal system with power vested in the hands of the Rajas, the Malay states were weak and its administration was in chaos. The states could not establish peace and enforce laws. As a negative result, the states were forced to put themselves under the influence of foreign powers like China , Siam and the West. Finally, all the Malay states were conquered by the British and ruled as a British colony via agreements between the Rajas that administered with the British Government.
4. After the Second World War, the Malay Rajas hoped that when the British administered again, their positions as Rajas, under the advice of the British officials, would be reinstated. The Malay states would be ruled by the British although not like Singapore , Penang and Malacca, where the British had full power.
5. For the majority of the Malay people in the Peninsular states, they were ready to accept a rule in which the Malayness of the Malay states was recognized by the British, although the administration was almost completely controlled by the British. Yet, there were opinions among some Malays that the Malay states should be completely freed from British colonial rule.
6. Malays only realized that they might be marginalized and be made beggars in their own states when the Malay Rajas bowed to MacMichael's threats and signed a new agreement with the British to return the Malay states directly to the British to be ruled as British colonies like Singapore , Penang and Malacca.
7. Because the Rajas so easily handed over Singapore , Penang and Pangkor to the colonialists and then the Malay states, the People (“rakyat”) could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the People are not given any role in the country's politics. Also, after World War 2, absolute monarchies decayed throughout the world. Everywhere, absolute monarchies were abolished. Where it was maintained, the powers of the Rajas were limited by the Constitution, or the country's basic law. Hence, when the Federated Malay States demanded for independence, the leaders of the People studied administrative systems while taking into account of the history of the Malay States and other administrative systems.
Mr. Speaker Sir,
8. The old administrative system in the Malay states was a feudal system in which the Rajas had absolute power without a written Constitution. This feudal system was determined by customs that were often manipulated by the people in power. If the people in power breached the customs, it was difficult for palace officials and the People to criticize and make charges. But when the situation became too bad, it was likely that customs were put aside and revolt occurred. But this method brought definite negative consequences without guaranteeing that the revolt would improve the situation.
9. Therefore, the opinion that Rajas should be placed under a Constitution that determined the status and role of the Rajas was born. With this method, the Rajas could no longer act as they liked. The powers of the Rajas would be determined by the Constitution, that is the country's basic law. Yet, there were Rajas who were willing to hand over their own states to foreign powers while ignoring the Constitution.
10. Yet when the Constitutional Monarchy was drafted for the Federation of Malaya, which at that time was moving towards independence, those drafters of the constitution still believed that the Rajas would abide by not only by what was written but also what was written between the lines, that is the spirit of the Constitution.

11. During the British colonial period, because they could appoint or remove Rajas, therefore Rajas accept the advice of the colonial rulers. This matter is included in the agreement between the British and the Malay Rajas in which the advice of the 'British Resident' or 'British Adviser' must be sought and abide by the Rajas save those that relate to Islam and Malay customs. For the British, that the advice must be abided by the Rajas is not strange because in the Government system in Britain, their 'King' or 'Queen' must accept the Government's advice. If not, the King will be removed from the throne. Hence, when King Edward VIII married a divorcee, he had to abdicate the throne on the Government's advice, although there was no specific allocation for this action. What was enforced was not the law but the country's political interests, and the British Kings abide by the country's politics. That's the reason that even before that, the British Parliament decided that Queen Elizabeth pays income tax. She herself just decided to pay income tax. The British Constitution, although not written, is abided from the perspective of spirit and custom.

12. Because the Malay Rajas in colonial times followed the advice, therefore it was believed that the problem of Rajas breaking the law would not happen.

13. The drafters and founders of the administration of the independent Federation of Malaya also believed that the provision that the Rajas that could not be charged in court is only a sign of the majesty of the King and not as a right to commit crimes. Certainly, the drafters of the Constitution and the founders of our country's independence did not mean this provision gave the Rajas the right to be above civil and criminal laws. Constitutional Monarchy has never given privilege to the Rajas to commit crimes. But if the Rajas break the law while carrying out official duties, the Rajas are free from charges. This is because the Government is responsible and the party that should be charged.
14. In the effort to oppose the Malayan Union and return the Malay states and Straits states to the 'status quo ante', that was the situation before World War II, the People played an important role although there is no legal provision. It was clear at that that time to the people that the Rajas without the People's support are easily controlled by the colonialists and other parties. Hence, the People had to be given rights in the country's politics and administration. The role of the People must be determined by the law.

15. Looking at this reality and once again taking the example of Britain , the independent Federation of Malaya chose the Parliamentary Democracy system. The People will elect their representatives to the Dewan Rakyat (People's House or Parliament) and the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislative Assemblies) who will be the main law and policy makers. This allowed the People to play their roles in an orderly and organized manner.

16. Once again following the system in Britain , the laws can only be valid after they are signed by the Rajas. In Britain , this is not a problem because it is not possible that the King will reject the advice of the Cabinet. But in Malaysia , the word 'advice', that the drafters of the constitution believed would have the same meaning like in Britain and during the colonial period, is not clearly interpreted. Therefore, the Rajas can reject the Government's advice.

17. If the Government admits to be made up of representatives chosen by the People to determine the People's power, but the advice of the Government may not be accepted, this meant that the Parliamentary Democracy does not exist and the People are not in power. In some matters, not only the agreement of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is required, but also the Council of Rajas.

18. Although the representatives were free to speak in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Undangan Negeri about any topic, but they could not touch on the Rajas because any criticism of the Rajas could be interpreted as sedition and they could be charged under the Sedition Act. This provision was a result of an amendment made in 1971. Before this, criticism of the Rajas could be made in the house. In Britain and other countries, the Parliament was free to criticize the Rajas. It is clear that that criticizing the Rajas does not destroy the Rajas' majesty.

19. While this prohibition on criticism is said to protect the Rajas' majesty, but when the Rajas are not criticized, they will not be aware of the wrongs that they have committed. Hence, maybe more wrongs will be committed and these wrongs may become more serious. This not only contaminates the Rajas' majesty but can also cause the People to hate the Rajas. It is not true to say the prohibition on criticizing the Rajas will protect the Rajas' majesty. Actually, the majesty of the Rajas will be contaminated because of this prohibition.

20. With the possibility that the Rajas reject advice while being free from criticism and any fair action, hence, the Rajas are actually not Constitutional Monarchs anymore but have become absolute Monarchs. Once again Parliamentary Democracy no longer exists because no action can be taken towards the Rajas that do not receive the advice of the People's Government and commit wrongs.
21. In 1983, action was taken to amend the Constitution so that at the very least the power of the Agong to reject Bills written by Parliament was abolished. This effort was successful but not fully. What was approved in the end was the power of the Agong to reject Parliament Bills was reduced a little by having a new provision such that he can refer back to Parliament if he is unwilling to sign the Bill that has been approved by Parliament. If Parliament approves it again, whether with or without amendments, the Bill will be valid law in 30 days (Article 66(4) Constitution) although unsigned by the Agong.

22. But approvals this way are limited to matters that do not touch on the rights and privileges of the Rajas. To amend the Constitutional provisions that touch on the Rajas, the Council of Rajas must give their agreement.

23. At the state level, no amendments was made to state Constitutions. Hence, there are no laws that could be approved without being signed by the Rajas. This means the powers of the Rajas in the state is beyond the powers of the Dewans Undangan Negeri that represent the People.

24. These provisions do not become problems if there are no opposing opinions between the Rajas and the Dewans Undangan, or there is no wrongdoing by the Rajas, or there is no Malay custom that does not like to jeopardize the relationships with the Rajas. Unfortunately, because the Chief Ministers and Prime Minister are Malays that are unwilling to be on bad terms with the Rajas, when the Rajas do something that is not supposed to be done, no effective criticism is made. Even if there is, the unwillingness of the Rajas to care about the criticisms of these official advisers does not bring about any action towards the Rajas.

25. Hence, in the history of independent Malaysia , the actions of the Rajas and parties who hide behind the Rajas that exceed the rights and privileges of the Rajas become more serious over time. The possibility is that it will become more serious in the future. If there are no amendments to the law, like those suggested here, without doubt worse matters will happen that will cause the Raja Institution to be hated by the people. It is not impossible that if one day in the future, demands are made to completely abolish the Raja System although there are provisions in the Constitution.

26. Hence this amendment that is suggested aims to avoid or prevent the escalation of hatred towards the Rajas that could bring about demands to abolish the Raja System. This amendment is to save the Rajas themselves and the Constitutional Monarchy system. To strengthen the Constitutional provisions to maintain the Raja System, provisions are made such that any suggestion to abolish the Raja System will be interpreted as sedition and falls under Sedition Laws.

27. This amendment does not touch on the privileges given to the Rajas. Rajas will continue to be of Raja status, and facilities provided to the Rajas and the Royal Families according to the Constitution will be continued.

28. To guarantee that Constitutional Monarchy is really effective, three amendments need to be made to the Federal Constitution. First, the Constitutional provision related with the immunity of the Rajas from any legal action as in Clause (1) Article 32 where after the word “court” is added the words “but only those related with whatever that is done or left to be done by him in the carrying out or that which resembles the carrying out of his functions under any written law”. This means no court action can be taken towards the Rajas who are carrying out their official duties.
29. Sovereign Immunity is a feudal concept – a concept in which allegedly 'The King can do no wrong'. According Dr. Hogg in his book 'Liability of the Crown', this concept is based on the excuse that a King cannot be charged in his own court. This excuse has long been questioned and rejected by European law experts like Adams who feel that there is no doubt that feudal lords are under their own courts – 'No doubt at all of the subjection of feudal lords to their own courts'.

30. Under the Government of India Act 1935, the Governor General or Governor is only immune when carrying out official duties.

31. In the United States , President Nixon's demand such that he is exempted from a legal provision is rejected by the Supreme Court.

32. In England , the Queen cannot be arrested and the arrest of anyone cannot be made on palace grounds. Even charges towards the Queen cannot be made in court.

33. But in a paper that discussed the Constitutional Law of India, under the Crown Proceedings Act for England the original provision has been amended such that 'Civil proceedings by and against the Crown' can be made. Hence, the difference of 'proceedings' towards the 'Crown' is equivalent to the People.

34. In the same paper it was mentioned that it has become a 'fundamental general rule' that 'His Majesty cannot sanction any act forbidden by the law'. When he cannot sanction, he also cannot do something wrong. Hence, 'His Majesty is under and not above the laws (and) he is bound by them equally with his subjects'.

35. Provisions in the Constitutions of Spain, Belgium , Norway , Denmark , Sweden and Luxemborg all give immunity to the King only when carrying official duties as King. Any wrongs in carrying out official duties fall upon the Government or Ministers.

36. There are no special provisions in any Constitution in European countries that give immunity to the King when carrying out unofficial activities. Yet, the Kings in the respective countries are still recognized and sovereign. They continue to be sovereign and did not lose their sovereignty. The opinion that Kings are only sovereign if the Kings can commit crimes as they like is not supported by the practices of other countries in this era. Even in the older eras, the King is often punished when he commits any wrongdoing, like in the case of Charles I in England and Louis XVI in France .

37. Only in the Constitution of Malaysia is a specific provision under Article 181(2) that 'no proceedings whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Rules of a State in his personal capacity'.

38. Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, this country's first Prime Minister, had written that immunity is not 'satisfactory' because 'Rajas can kill anyone without any action taken against him'. The result of provision 181(2) is very wide. Because the Constitutions of the Federation and States are also law, Article 181(2) actually allows Rajas to breach the Constitution. Because of that, when Rajas conduct business, although prohibited by the Constitution, nothing can be done by the Government. The Agong cannot be charged in any court. But the Council of Rajas can sack him from his position. On the contrary as a Raja, Article 181(2) will protect him.

39. If Malaysia intends to become a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy, the immunity that is given to the Rajas must be abolished. Because the Constitution in countries that practice the Constitutional Monarchy System doesn't give immunity to their Kings, the abolishment of the immunity of the Malay Rajas cannot jeopardize their sovereignty. In the modern era, only because the King can't commit crimes as they like, the King's status will not be jeopardized, especially in a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.
40. To guarantee the effectiveness of the abolishment of immunity, two more provisions in the Constitution needs to be amended. The first is related to the provision in Article 63(2) that protects a person from taking part in a debate in Parliament or Parliamentary Committee from being questioned in court, which has been amended by Article 63(4) if it touches the provision of the Sedition Act. This provision is made in 1971. This means criticism towards the King can be made before 1971 without jeopardizing the Raja's sovereignty. Hence, it allows again the People's Representatives to criticize the Rajas who were wrong without denying the original rights and privileges of the Rajas. The amendment of Article 63 after Clause (4) reads:- “(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4) no one can be charged with any proceedings in any court related with anything that is said by him about the Agong or a Raja while taking part in whatever proceedings in any of the Parliamentary Committee or any of its task force except if it organizes the abolishment of the Constitutional position of the Agong as the Head of the Government of the Federation or the status of the Constitutional Monarch of a state, according to whichever applies”. Article 72 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting after Clause (4) the following Clause:- “(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4) no one can be charged with any proceedings in any court related to anything that has been said by him about the Rajas in any state while taking part in any proceedings in the Dewan Undangan in any state or in any committee unless if he organizes the abolishment of the status of the Raja as the Constitutional Monarch of the state”.

41. The interpretation of the sedition towards the King in the Constitution is so wide until no criticism is can be made in Parliament by members of the Dewan Rakyat or Dewan Undangan. Hence, the media also has no opportunity to report. Criticism can only be made by the Rajas' advisors behind closed doors. If this criticism is ineffective, there is nothing that can be done.

42. Actually all three former Prime Ministers, as advisors to the Rajas, have already criticized the Rajas many times while they were in service. I know criticisms have been made because this matter has been repeatedly reported in Cabinet meetings and also the UMNO Supreme Council.

43. Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn, as Prime Minister, had in his written speech in a Raja Council Meeting, only attended by His Highnesses or their representatives, harshly criticized the doings of the Rajas that should not be done.

44. But all these criticisms are not effective. The matters touched upon continued to be done, even intensified. What was never done during the British era and in the early years of independent Malaysia are now done obviously and widespread.

45. Although almost all Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers report to the UMNO Supreme Council, there are problems that they face but the public are not told. Hence, the public do not know the problems faced by the Government. Most of them continue to believe that the system of Constitutional Monarchy is operating smoothly with the Rajas honoring all the provisions in the Constitution. Only a small portion of the People know and they are not comfortable with the Rajas' doings. But they can't express their views and feelings because there is a Sedition Act.

46. The Sedition Act and the relevant provisions for sedition towards the Rajas in Article 63(4) of the Constitution prohibits the People from getting information and voicing their opinions. They can only talk among themselves. Political leaders, including Government leaders, definitely hears and realizes that the views and anger of a number of People that knows about the Rajas' doings. Such is their anger till there are, mostly among the young generation, that consider the Raja System to be behind times.
47. But because of the Sedition Act and prohibitions on criticizing the Rajas, Rajas do not listen and do not believe their advisors when such information is conveyed about the People's anxiety. The Rajas and the Royal Families seems to opine that all of these are inventions of the advisors to the Rajas to scare them or snatch the Rajas' rights.

48. In this situation, the Rajas not only continue their habits that the People dislike and are uneasy with but also matters that are hated by the People. If this trend is not stopped, the feelings of the People towards the Raja will boil over and become so bad that at a point of time in the future, the People may no longer be able to control their feelings. Letters to newspapers that expressed such feelings have existed for a long time.

48. With your permission Speaker Sir, I wish to read an excerpt of an article sent to The Straits Times in 1946 by a prominent Malay leader, when the British suggested the formation of the Malayan Union. This leader went on to hold a high position in Government. This article was not published in the Straits Time but was passed to me recently by the writer.

50. This writer says, with your permission, 'All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not ar- rived when the Malay Royalty (I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogether'.

51. If opinions were already like this in 1946, is it not possible that it will arise again in 1993 if the Rajas are not stopped from doing things that are undesirable?

52. The protection and privilege given to the Rajas aim to put the Rajas in a high and majestic place. The protection and privilege is not to allow the Rajas to do whatever they like including committing crime. Rajas who are aware and understand the true meaning of these provisions will always take care to prevent contaminating itself in acts or behaviours that are not good and disliked by society. Rajas who are aware will know acts that ignore the feelings and opinions of society will cause the People to finally remove the Rajas, and even abolish the Raja System. This is what happened in countries that are now republics.

53. In Malaysia , the protection given is very thick. Sovereign Immunity from laws and prohibitions from criticism, although only by members of the Dewans Undangan that has been entrusted to administer the country, separates the Rajas from the real world. In this situation, the acts and behavior of the Rajas will become worse in the long run. This is happening in Malaysia .

54. Hence, it is important Members of the Dewan are given back the right to criticize the Rajas in their debates. Without this right, the Members of the Dewan will fail to practice the Parliamentary Democracy system and will fail to prove that the People are the ones in power in this system. Without this right, the ones in power are the Rajas and not the People.

55. With the existence of a prohibition on criticizing the Rajas, Members of the House actually cannot protect the Raja Institution and Raja System. Hance, the freedom of Members of the House to speak in the House should not be blocked by the Sedition Act like provided for under Article 63(4) and 72(4). With the addition of Article 63(5) and 72(5), the Members of the House not only can protect the Raja's position but also the Constitutional Monarchy that is clearly protected by the Constitution, because it is mentioned in Article 63(5) and 72(5) that the exception from the Sedition Act does not include organizing the 'abolishment of the Constitutional status of the Agong as the Head of the Federation or the status of a Raja in a state'.
Mr. Speaker Sir,

56. The second matter that can void the abolishment of the Rajas' immunity is when doing something that breaks the law in a non-official matter is the Rajas' right to pardon as provided for in Article 42. With this provision, a Raja can pardon himself if he is convicted by a court after immunity from legal action is withdrawn. This means the withdrawal of immunity is meaningless and ineffective.

57. Hence, the Government proposes that Article 38 and 42 of the Federal Constitution be amended as in Clause (2) Article 28 and Clause (12) Article 42. Clause (2) Article 38 of the Federal Constitution is amended – (a) by substituting the comma at the end of the paragraph (c) with a semicolon; and (b) by inserting after paragraph (c), the following paragraph: “(d) giving pardon, reprieve and respite, or to remit, suspend and reduce sentences, under Clause (12) Article 42,”. Article 42 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after Clause (11), the following Clauses: “(12) Notwithstanding the contents of this Constitution, if the powers mentioned in this Article – (a) have to be carried out by the Yang di-Pertuan of a State and are required to be carried out on himself or his wife, his sons or daughters, these powers have to be carried out by the Chief Minister of the State that will act on the advice of the Board of Pardons formed for the state under this Article and needs to be chaired by; (b) are required to be carried out on the Agong, a Raja of a State, or his Consort, according to whichever is applicable, these powers needs to be carried out by the Council of Rajas and the following provisions are required to be used: (i) when attending any proceeding under this Clause, the Agong cannot be accompanied by the Prime Minister and other Rajas cannot be accompanied by their Chief Ministers; (ii) before making any decision about any matter under this Clause, the Council of Rajas must consider whatever written opinion that may be given by the Attorney-General about this matter. (c) are required to be carried out by the Agong or the Raja of the related State with his sons or daughters, according whichever is applicable, the powers have to be carried out by a Raja of a State named by the Council of Rajas and that Raja has to act according to the advice of the relevant Board of Pardons formed under this Article. (13) For the meaning of paragraph (b) and (c) Clause (12), the Agong or respective State Raja, according to whichever is applicable, and the State Yang di-Pertuas cannot be made members of the Council of Rajas”.

58. With this amendment, the Raja cannot hear the plea and pardon himself. If the Raja or his Consort who pleas for pardon, the Council of Rajas will hear and decide on the respective case.

59. The Raja also cannot listen to the plea of and pardon his offspring. The Council of Rajas will appoint another Raja to hear and decide on the pardon pleas of a Raja's offspring.

60. With the abolishment of the immunity of the Rajas from legal action, except when carrying out official duties, it is believed that a Raja will not commit acts that can be charged in courts. With this, the Raja will be honored by the People.

61. The abolishment of the ban applied on Members of Parliament and the Dewans Undangan Negeri by the Sedition Act will prevent the Rajas from committing any act that may attract the criticism of the respective members of the house.

62. The abolishment of the powers to pardon himself will make legal action more effective.

63. The real reason for these amendments is not because the Government or the People want to drag the Rajas to court as they like. The reason is so that the Rajas will constraint themselves from committing acts that can negatively cause legal action. Hence, the Rajas will be respected more.
64 Harus diingat bahawa penghormatan rakyat terhadap Raja tidak boleh ditentukan oleh undang-undang. Dengan izin, `Respect must be earned`. Mengadakan undang-undang yang menakutkan rakyat tidak akan membawa `respect`. Dengan kesedaran Raja boleh dihadapkan ke mahkamah, Raja tentu akan mengelak daripada melakukan perbuatan yang akan menyebabkan rakyat tidak menghormati Raja. Dengan itu, Institusi ebih dihormati dan lebih berkekalan.

64. It should be reminded that the respect of the People towards the Raja cannot be determined by laws. With your permission, 'Respect must be earned'. Having laws that scare the People will not bring 'respect'. With the realization that the Rajas can be brought to court, Rajas will certainly avoid committing acts that will cause the people not to respect the Rajas. Hence, the Raja Institution will be better respected and better preserved.

65. To strengthen the efforts to preserve the Rajas and Raja System, any suggestion or exertion to abolish the Raja System is interpreted as sedition and will be charged under the Sedition Act.

Mr. Speaker Sir,

66. I feel very sad that today I am forced to present to the august House a Bill to amend the Constitution that has in some way contaminated the good name of the Rajas and the Raja Institution. With a heavy heart I presented and explained the suggested amendments.

67. That the Government made the decision to amend the Constitution is not without reason. Actually, as I have said, the Government has refrained from making these amendments since the start when we achieved independence. But this approach does not alleviate the situation. On the contrary, the situation became worse.

68. In the end, an incident in which a Raja assaulted a citizen and before this another incident in which the son of a Raja assaulted a citizen. The Government cannot look lightly at such events without jeorpardizing the Government's credibility as responsible leaders.

69. The Government is forced to make a firm stand to protect the People from being oppressed by the Rajas. Certainly, this stand was not made because of these two incidents only. Before this there were many incidents where the Rajas oppressed the People, Rajas broke civil and criminal laws, Rajas misused the money and property of the Government and country, Raja pressuring and oppressing officials.

70. The incident in Johor is only, with your permission, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. The People's reaction towards these incidents clearly shows that the People no longer accept and 'tolerate' these kind of acts.
Mr. Speaker Sir,

71. There are people that ostensibly wish to give powers to and defend the Rajas when the Raja commit crimes. They try twist the People's thoughts by accusing the Government is trying to abolish the Raja System.

72. I wish to assert that the Barisan Nasional government does not at all suggest to abolish the Raja System. This is clear from the suggested amendments. Any suggestion to abolish the Raja System will be interpreted as sedition and the Government will take action under the Sedition Act upon anyone who suggest or act to abolish the Raja System.

Mr. Speaker Sir,

73. The government is aware that the People, specifically the Malays accept and support the Malay Raja Institution. The accusations that the Government is trying to abolish the Raja System is merely because of political interests. The Government represents the majority of the Malays and other races will abide by the wishes of the People and will not do something that is unpopular.

74. Because it is clear that the majority of the people of all races still wants the Raja System, specifically the Constitutional Monarchy System, the Government will guarantee that this system is protected by the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker Sir,

75. There are parties that opine that the Malay Rajas are needed to protect the Malays. The MacMichael Agreement and the Malayan Union incidents clearly prove that those who are willing and able to protect the Malays are the Malays themselves. If not because they rose up and opposed the Malayan Union, today, the Malays would have been beggars in their own country.

76. The attempts by some parties to scare the Malays towards the amendment are caused by those who wish to use racial sentiments for the interests of their own parties. Their history does not assure us that they are sincere. They are the ones who try to weaken the Malays by breaking up UMNO and working with certain parties that are viewed with suspicion by the Malays.

77. Can merely barring the Rajas from committing crimes cause the Rajas to lose their sovereignty and no longer be Rajas? The opinion that the Rajas can only be Rajas if they are given rights and given privileges to commit crime contravenes the concept of Rajas as the source of law. In the old era in the West, Kings possessed the right to commit crime. For instance, according to the concept, with your permission, 'Droit du seigneur' (right of the Lord) or the Right of the Lord, the King has the right to spend a night with all newlyweds.

78. But in the West, all these rights have been abolished. That is why Western countries that preserve the Monarchy System does not have specific immunity for the Rajas. Even if there is a mention that the King cannot be brought court, it is only a formality. King, Government and the People know if the King commits a crime, he will be brought to court, and he will be removed from his throne. Hence, the Kings in the Western countries will not intentionally commit crime.

79. Although it is clear that the Kings in the West are not immune from legal and non-legal action, the Kings are still Kings. They are respected and admired.
Mr. Speaker Sir,

80. In the British era, the Malay Rajas were not only immune but were also under the orders of the British officials. They can be appointed and removed from the throne. One of MacMichael's threats so that the Rajas would sign the Malayan Union Agreement is they will be removed from the throne if they do not sign the Agreement.

81. In this situation, the Rajas will continue to be Rajas. The People are not demanding the Rajas be dislodged or the Raja System to be abolished although the Rajas handed over the Malay states to the colonialists. Happily I am reminded that at that time the Rajas in Indonesia , India and Pakistan have been rejected by the People who demanded for independence. On the contrary, Malaysians, mainly the Malays and UMNO, have fought to save the Rajas and Raja System.

82. The opposition of the Malays against the Malayan Union is clear because the fortunes of the Malays are in the hands of the Malays. The safety of Malays is not jeopardized with the Malay Rajas who do not have the right to commit crime. There are parties that say the abolishment of the Raja's right to commit crime, the Malays are no longer Malays and that will be the end of the special position of the Malays. This is not true. This is slander. Those who guarantee that the Malays will continue to be Malays and Malay rights are protected are the Malays themselves. They, through their representatives and the Government that they choose, create and implement various activities to protect and fight for the honour of the Malays.

Mr. Speaker Sir,

83. A Raja asked why the Constitutional amendments are related to Islam when the Government does not agree with the implementation of Sharia and Hudud law. According to him, he is ready to accept Islamic law without immunity but is unwilling to accept the country's laws which are not Islamic law.

84. With or without his blessing, the position of the Malay Rajas since Merdeka has been determined by the law, that is the Constitution. These laws also give certain special privileges to the Rajas. Among these privileges is immunity from legal action. If the Rajas were willing to accept the immunity under laws which are not Islamic laws, why is the abolishment of immunity in the same laws are not accepted by the Rajas?

85. In Islam there are two principals that are strongly held by the law. The first is there is no difference among Muslims in enforcement of Islamic laws. Raja and People are the same. The immunity for Rajas contravenes this principle. Rejecting the abolishment of the immunity so that the difference between Raja and People is preserved in the laws does not reflect a strong adherence to Islamic principles.

86. Receiving immunity from laws said to be not Islamic law, but rejecting the abolishment of this immunity in the same laws clash with the allegation that only Islamic law is acceptable.
87. Islam gives much leeway. Islam takes into account all factors and circumstances faced by its believers. Such that even in carrying out religious duties, environment, an individual's health and the current circumstances are considered. Therefore, praying can be made without certain movements, without facing the kiblat, before, after or together, in a congregation or alone. Palestinians, who were driven out by the Zionist Rule, could pray without taking off their shoes. In other religious duties, there is also leeway. Such is with the enforcement of hudud law. The state of the environment and society must be considered. That is the reason why not many countries in which the majority of the residents are Muslims do not establish hudud law. Those who do, also do not fully implement them.

88. The Government does not reject hudud law. The implementation must take into account the situation of the country in which Muslims only make up 56 percent and they are still weak in many fields. The administration who rejects the leeway given by Islam actually does not follow Islamic teaching. Islam does not order Muslims or a Muslim Government to blindly implement Islamic law until one is destroyed. That is why the Prophet asks his followers to go to Habsyah to save himself. That is why the Prophet migrated to Medina to save Islam and the Islamic struggle.

89. If the conditions allow, we will implement hudud law. But while waiting for hudud law to be implemented, we do something against Islamic teaching. Actually, crimes are prohibited by the country's laws and also Islamic laws. Does the said Raja want the freedom to commit crime only because we have not implemented hudud laws that prohibit the same crime?

90. The second principle is there is no immunity in Islam. All laws are the same for all believers. A Raja that wants to be immune from the law certainly opposes this Islamic principle.

Mr. Speaker Sir,

91. Finally, I wish to touch on the problems related to advising the Rajas. Like I have mentioned, Rajas must accept the Government's advice. In other countries where the Monarchy System still exists although without specific provision that the Kings must act according to the Government's advice, the Kings never act contrary to the Government's advice. Hence, the relationship between the King and Government who represents the People remains good. More than that, in these countries, these Kings are respected and revered by society.

92. Unfortunately, in Malaysia , although there are provisions that the Rajas should act according to the Government's advice, the Rajas hold on to the interpretation of 'advice' as widely accepted – that is advice can be accepted or rejected. This interpretation is wrong. In this area, there are also some matters that the Rajas consider no advice is required to be given. Hence, many things are done in opposition of the Government that represents the People.

93. The problem faced today is caused by the opinion that Rajas could overstep the People's Government. This deceitful act occurs because advice is ignored. An impasse on this amendment is also caused by the unwillingness of the Rajas to accept advice.

94. If this continues, the Parliamentary Democracy Government can no longer fully and truly exist. This is the reason the Government is bringing these amendments to the House. If this process is challenged, the decision can be brought to court. As a Government that holds firm to, with your permission 'rule of law', we will abide by the decision of the courts. At the same time, this matter should not be seen from the legal angle only. It also has to be seen from a political angle.

95. When the Rajas handed the Malay states to the British, the People took the political action to get back the Malay states and preserved the Raja Institution. Although, from a legal point of view, the People do no have the right to as all agreements are made between the British and the Rajas only, the British honored the People's political action.

96. I hope the Malay Rajas also take the lesson from our country's history, specifically the history of the Malayan Union and accept the political will of the country. Although the signs show that the Malay Rajas accept this amendment, I hope after the amendment is approved by the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, the Malay Rajas will accept and approve these laws.

Anonymous,  18 May 2009 at 07:09  

May UMNO and its lapdogs burn in hell forever.

It is time for a change...Just like a change in America...Keeping the current government in power is not change. But electing a new government into power is change.

A big win in Perak for UMNO would pave a way for real CHANGE in the next general election. UMNO, continue your bullshit so that people will continue to see UMNO in a bad light.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP