Honour Among Thieves - The BN's "social contract"

Art Harun has come up with this well written piece debunking the "social contract" as Umno defines it, and the apparent compromise of the "Malays" with the "nons" (which is actually far from the truth).

Good one, Art - more has to be done to discredit the so called "social contract" as per BN's definition.

I used to write a lot on the "social contract" a couple of years ago and was ridiculed for the things I said.

As far as I'm concerned, it was more of a agreement among thieves- Brits included. At least the Brits helped develop a good system which ran on autopilot after "independence" and died for it on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day...

The the BN pirates only sat pretty, hijacked the system and took the credit of "independence" for themselves - while the real fighters were erased from the history books.

I really hope more people will take on the Umno goons and Mahathir cronies on this matter - and Pakatan Rakyat is doing nothing about it!

Bravo!! Keep at it, Art!!

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Bastardisation of the "Social Contract" - part 1

In "The Social Contract - correcting the misconceptions", I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

Social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.

It also seeks to rationalise why we would then agree to surrender our liberty, freedom and the ability to do whatever we like to the State when we, the human beings, were all born free and by our nature do not like to be restricted and constrained.

The philosophers surmised that we do so because we by nature are social creatures. We do so because we want to live together as a society. Furthermore, we do so because the State promises us some benefits. In fact we expect the State to give us the benefits that we want. That is why we surrender or agree to surrender some of our freedom, liberty and free will to the State.

That is why, in theory, we do what we do.

However, it is not a one way or unilateral agreement. There is supposed to be an exchange of promises between us, the people, and the State. For example, we promise not to steal and if we steal we promise to abide by the law which would send us to prison. In return, the State promises to protect our property from being stolen by other people.

That is the social contract as a legal theory.

In reality, that social contract does not exist, in writing or otherwise.

Now, the social contract which is so much talked about in Malaysia is a bastardisation of the theory of the social contract. Why do I say so?

It is simple. The theory of social contract postulates an agreement between the people of a State and the State. However the social contract which is so well loved by some people in Malaysia is a supposed agreement between the respective leaders of the three major communities among themselves which happened prior to our independence.

That in itself is the hijacking of the theory of social contract.

Apparently, the three community leaders met to decide the whole future of Malaysia before and after independence. And what they had agreed would bind all of us till kingdom come.

Apparently too, the Malay leader was generous enough to confer citizenship to the non-Malays who were not qualified for citizenship.

The two non-Malay leaders, out of sheer gratitude to the Malays (who were represented by the said Malay leader) for doing so, agreed that the Malays should have "special rights." These special rights were then spelt out in the Federal Constitution.

This brings the oft-repeated argument that the Malays have sacrificed a lot in agreeing to "grant" citizenships to the non-Malays who were otherwise "not qualified" to gain one. Therefore the non-Malays should respect the Malay's special "rights".

Over the years, these special rights were apparently challenged by the non-Malays, and even by some Malays themselves. So, according to some people, this is unacceptable. This is unconstitutional. This constitutes a breach of the so called social contract.

What does history show us about this bastardised version of the social contract?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd), while debating our Independence Bill reported to the British Parliament:

"There were extreme views on the part of some sections of Malayan* (*I think when he said "Malayan", he was in fact referring to the Malays) opinion which are opposed to any political advance on the part of the Chinese people in Malaya. There were equally strong views held by some of the Chinese population demanding absolute jus soli citizenship for anybody born in the Federation and the complete abolition of any distinction between the races.

The constitutional Commission had to find a solution which would work and which would find general acceptance, and in our view it has fully succeeded in its task. The present Federation Constitution represents a genuine compromise worked out between differing sectors. The citizenship proposals, I believe, are a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views, and I believe that the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to he a wise balance.

There are solid guarantees of fundamental liberties to meet Chinese fears of discrimination, with reasonable arrangements to safeguard the special position of the Malayans without injustice to other races. I am conscious that these two aspects of the settlement arouse particular interest in the House, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I devote a moment or two to those two most important matters.

Now, a word about the balance achieved between the rights of Malays and Chinese. The special position of the Malays was recognised in the original treaties made by His Majesty in previous years, and Her Majesty Queen Victoria and others with the Malay States. It was reaffirmed when these treaties were revised. It was confirmed in the 1948 Agreement, and reference was expressly made to it in the terms of reference of the Reid Commission. So the Malay privilege clauses in the articles of the Constitution do not, in the main, introduce any precedent, but give recognition in the Constitution to the existing situation. Most hon. Members will, I think, know something of what these privileges are

As I said, I believe that a fair balance has been struck between the interests of Malays and Chinese, and I indicated how the special position of Malays enshrined in the new Constitution did not create a precedent because it had been provided for in very many other treaties and arrangements. I was about to say what form these special privileges had taken. In most States in Malaya, there are extensive Malay reservations of land. Elsewhere in States, there are systems of quota for admissions to the public service, a certain proportion having to be Malays. There are quotas for permits or licences to carry on certain businesses. There is preferential treatment for Malays in the granting of scholarships and bursaries and, generally, in education.

The Reid Commission found very little opposition in any quarter in Malaya to the continuance of the present system for a time, and it made certain recommendations which hon. Members will have read. The Alliance Government—this was accepted by the three parties composing the Alliance—wanted a number of changes, which have been made. They relate mostly to quotas in the public service, to permits, scholarships, and land reservations. Very generally, the proposal to review the quotas after fifteen years has been dropped. The responsibility of the High Commissioner is transferred to the Head of State, but—and it is a genuine safeguard for other races—the Head of State will act on the advice of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is bound to be sensitive to the feeling of public opinion at any time."

Yes, there was indeed a compromise by the various communities. And there was, at the end of the day, "a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views." Meanwhile, "the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to be a wise balance."

It should be noted that the special positions of the Malays had always been recognised by the British from day one. These have been specified in various treatises. And there were recognised in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, an agreement which preceded our independence.

All that the Reid Commission did was to continue to give cognisant to those special positions. There were no new position or right added as part of a compromise. To say therefore that citizenships were offered to the non-Malays in exchange of those special positions were not accurate. That is because those positions were already there and recognised from day one.

It is also wrong for anybody to say that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was a sacrifice by the Malays of their "natural claim to the land of Malays ("Tanah Melayu"). That could not be farther from the truth.

That arrangement, from historical evidence, was a "compromise" which was achieved after intense negotiations between the major communities and the Reid Commission. Being a compromise, all parties - not the Malays alone - achieved certain demands while letting go some of their demands.

For example, not all non-Malays managed to obtain citizenship. On this, the said Alan Lennox-Boyd explained:

"Under this compromise, anyone who is now a citizen of the Federation or who was born in the Federation and is over 18, or is born there after 31st August next, will have citizenship of the Federation as a right."

There was a balance achieved between the demands of the non-Malays and the absolute birth rights of the Malays. That is why it was called a compromise.

The citizenship was not a gift by the Malays. Nor was it a total surrender by the non-Malays of their minority rights in exchange for citizenship as screamed about by Perkasa, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and even Tun Dr Mahathir. The special "rights" of the Malays was not a concession by the non-Malays. They had always been there in the first place.

The Constitution was drafted to reflect this harmonious co-existence of all the major races in the then Malaya. It spells out all the rights and positions of the various communities who were expected to lead a peaceful and prosperous co-existence. The Constitution was designed to make the yet unborn Malaysia a fair and progressive country.

As stated by Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (the MP from Lincoln):

"The test for the Federation will be whether it can become a real nation in other words, whether the Chinese people in Malaya can become full citizens and work with the Malays, the Indians and the Eurasians to make a new nation. I hope that they can."

Have we, as a nation, passed the test?

It is also not out of place to mention here that in drafting the Constitution, the fathers of our independence were astute enough to consider each community's services and contributions to this land. This goes towards achieving the balance which I was referring to earlier. In other words, no one community could claim exclusivity towards the country as it was.

Miss Joan Vickers, the MP for Devonport noted:

"We should remember, in considering these different races, the part that they play. The Malayans are the indigenous people of the country, but we have to remember that had it not been for the Chinese the country would certainly not have been as prosperous as it is today. They opened up jungle roads and worked in the tin mines, and the prosperity of Malaya owes a great deal to the Chinese.

Furthermore, we had the Indians who, in a rather different way, as a result, in the beginning, of a contract system between the Indian Government and the Government of Malaya, have played their part in the prosperity of the country. In a great many cases they did not make Malaya their home and returned to India at the end of their contract.

We also owe a great deal to the Portuguese Eurasians in Malaya. Theirs is a very old community. They still keep something of their mother tongue, and very strongly to their own Roman Catholic religion. They have proved loyal and faithful civil servants in a great many of the States. Generally speaking, whichever State they have resided in, they have taken a leading part and have always been loyal to either the British resident or adviser, or whoever they have been serving.

Finally, I hope that in due course, the Orang Bukit will be able to be brought into the community, because I believe that through living in the deep jungles they have very remote ties with their own country, and they could be a source of trouble. I should like to pay tribute to them for what they did during the very difficult period when the Chinese guerillas were in the jungle, when they gave considerable help in tracking the enemy."

As evident, everyone's contribution was considered. And it was all done in the name of accommodating, to the fullest of possibility, every community's demands, rights and positions. Wherever there was a seeming imbalance, a check and balance mechanism was inbuilt within the Constitution in itself.

To state all the mechanism of check and balance in the Constitution would make this article too long. Suffice if I point out that among others, an independent judiciary (which then includes the right to appeal to the Privy Council), was a part of that mechanism. As stated by the MP for Crosby, Mr Graham Page:

"Finally, I would draw attention to an important safeguard to the minorities. That is in the retention of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."

(Of course, some time ago, someone had to dismantle the Privy Council appeal process and the whole judiciary too leaving the government to lord all over the Judges!)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Social Contracts, Social Betrayals and NEP ....

Where is the Spirit of Merdeka?

The Pirate and "Social Contractor".

The "Social Contract" - A Malaysian "Cold War"?

The "social contract" - A Dead-end Roadmap to Piracy

Hey There - Wait a Minute, Mr. Postman Raus!

****************************

"Yes Boss - We can Dance..."

PUTRAJAYA, June 26 (Bernama) -- Sultan Azlan Shah was right in not dissolving the Perak State Legislative Assembly in February because it was barely one year old, Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif said.

-'Sultan Was Right Not To Dissolve Perak Assembly'

========================================

There have been numerous apologists for the rape of Perak by Mr. 1-Malaysia, in February - from Mr. Shad Saleem Faruqi (who initially claimed that by virtue of the Interpretations Act, the power to "hire" includes the power to "fire"), to the various spin doctors in the MSM and among the intellectually bankrupt BN politicos.
Just when we thought that "spinning" was the forte of propagandists in the media and "legal education" industry, the Judiciary has now stepped in to challenge that monopoly, by "legalizing" a travesty of justice. In effect, they have rendered themselves, nothing more than glorified postmen of the pirates who launched the coup d'etat in Perak.
It appears to me as a layman (where the Law is concerned), that the "judges" seem to be a highly twisted bunch of despatch clerks bent on doing the bidding of their political masters. It almost seems that they have redefined the word "judgement" in legal-speak, to mean " to appease those who wield power".

Pardon my ignorance should there be any in the following, wherein I might have erred - but I intend to attempt to dissect what was given by Bernama, before I read the full text of the 49-page spin doctoring by Rauf (or was it just Bernama shaming him??).

In his 49-page judgement dated June 2 released Friday, Justice Raus said that in order for a dissolution of the assembly to take effect under Article 36(2) of the Perak State Constitution as requested by the then Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, the assembly must be in the conclusion of the five-year term when a general election was contemplated.

It certainly beats me, how Rauf (bending over backwards) had come to this conclusion that "that in order for a dissolution of the assembly to take effect... as requested, the assembly must be in the conclusion of the five-year term", when the very next sentence, in article 36(3), it is "screaming out" that :
"The Legislative Assembly unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date of its first sitting, and shall then stand dissolved."

I wonder if this Rauf knows anything about how a parliament is supposed to work ......
Although the following aren't exactly in the order of the press release, the message within really takes the cake - Rauf has explicitly denied the role of the Legislative Assembly in determining the majority, and unwittingly approved of a coup d'etat!!
What he has effectively said is, that the parliament is irrelevant, and that all that is required to prove the majority is a piece of paper, with signatures - without any consideration for the manner in which these signatures were obtained, and so rendering a vote of confidence unnecessary/insignificant!!!

He also said Article 16(6) did not express mandatory requirement that there must be a motion of no confidence passed by the assembly against a mentri besar before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members.
"The circumstances in the present case clearly shows that on Feb 5, Nizar no longer had the confidence of the majority of members of the assembly. There were signed letters from 31 members pledging support to Barisan Nasional which were presented to the Sultan,"
"The fact that a mentri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly can be established by other means. It cannot solely be confined to the vote taken in the assembly,"

Never mind that it is not mentioned anywhere that the majority may be determined through any other means other than a vote of confidence - what Rauf says here is that, theoretically, anyone with the support of the "security forces" bent on grabbing power, may abduct the members of legislative assembly, get the signatures from them at gunpoint, show it to the head of state - to "clearly show that they have confidence of the majority" and be considered legitimate in a parliamentary democracy!!

Moving on to the issue of the appointment of the Mentri Besar ....
Bernama published the following "judgement" made by Rauf:

"The Sultan of Perak in exercise of his royal prerogative under Article 16(2) of the Perak State Constitution is at liberty to appoint another mentri besar to replace Nizar," he said.
"His refusal to tender his resignation and the resignation of the Executive Council was not merely a breach of convention and undemocratic but more importantly, it contravened the clear mandatory constitutional command under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Raus also said that the question of Perak having two mentri besar did not arise because Article 16(6) demands that once the mentri besar was made to know that he had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, he should take the honourable way out by tendering his resignation.

Article 16(6) states that :
If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at the request of His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

While it is true that the Sultan may appoint A Mentri Besar, I fail to see where it is mentioned that the sultan may appoint "another Mentri Besar", while the current has not been proven to have lost the confidence of the majority in sitting.

As "unconventional" as it may be for the Mentri Besar to refuse to resign may be, it must be kept in mind that Article 16(7) states that
"Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.

So, unlike the Executive Councillors, it has to be taken into consideration that the Mentri Besar DOES NOT SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF His Royal Highness
Take Note that there is no "clear mandatory constitutional command under Article 16(6)" as mentioned by Rauf in his attempt to indulge in spinning the Constitution.
(This is probably, as N.H Chan calls it - plain and simple legal "gobbledygook").
Therefore, what Nizar did was perfectly Constitutional and democratic, as it was in accordance to the principle of the holding the Parliament supreme, and the Monarchy subject to Constitution.
As to how Rauf has come to the conclusion that it is "undemocratic" is indeed mind-boggling.

After all the spinning, he then indulges in "masturbation" to flatter himself and the powers that be, that what he delivered was actually a "judgement"-
"In my judgment, the situation confronting His Royal Highness in the state of Perak was one such situation, and His Royal Highness had, in that critical situation rightly exercised his constitutional powers provided under the State Constitution, which exercise was without any doubt, solely for the best interest of the people of Perak,"

All these, Rauf as a dutiful postman has said in his so-called "judgement", while neglecting to take into consideration Article 18 (1) which states (subject to Clause 2,3 & 4) that:
"In the exercise of his functions under the Constitution of this State or any law or as a member of the Conference of Rulers, His Royal Highness SHALL ACT IN ACCORDANCE with the advice of the executive Council or of a member thereof acting under the general authority of the Council except as otherwise provided by the Federal Constitution or the State Constitution; but shall be entitled at his request, to any information concerning the Government of the State which is available to the Executive Council".
(1A) Where in the exercise of His functions under the Constitutionof this State or any Law or as a member of the the Conference of Rulers, His Highness is to act IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVICE or on the advice of any person or body of persons, His Royal Highness SHALL ACCEPT AND ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH ADVICE.

Considering the circumstances, one cannot be blamed if he were to suspect that this verdict/ judgement was written by the likes of Shafee Abdullah (who got to sit in the DUN in the May fiasco) or even V.K. Lingam .....

Next in line of Constitutional spinning by these dispatch-boys, would be the legalization of a speaker who was appointed while the Legislative Assembly had yet to commence its sitting. It would be interesting to see how they would spin that story.

The long and short of it, those responsible for this "judgement" have taken liberties, to read the State Constitution literally and piecemeal - simply as sentences which are totally unrelated to the big picture, the message and spirit within.
This is also how the Umno media and politicians (like Mahathir) - in keeping with their culture of deceit - choose to twist and interpret the Federal Constitution, so as to justify their much hyped, non-existent "social contract", religious bigotry, racism, the NEP and corruption - while totally disregarding the long term consequences of doing so. This also means that they do not mind rendering Malaysia a failed state (while publicly deploring it) - so long as they can hold on to power to facilitate their plunder and rape of the resources we have.

What a pity that our Courts of the land no longer serve the the Law, but pervert it for usurping pirates bent on grabbing power, and are reduced to being dispatch-boys delivering letters for their masters in the corridors of power.

Najib- Mahathir's New "Incompetent"?

==================

Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
- P. B. Shelley
==============================

It was in his perfect moment of glory at the delayed 2008 Umno Baru AGM - he was baptized at the pinnacle of his career as the President of Mahathir's Umno Baru.
Despite all the calls for "change, change and more change"- some things will never change. That is the intellectual vacuum within, which begs for Mahathir's patronage. At his closing speech, true to his image, he subtly pleaded (or was is a jab) to a morose Mahathir, that he not be whacked silly (with the mindless audience applauding), when he said that Abdullah promised not to interfere or criticize him publicly.

It couldn't have been better for the man characterized as a "coward" by his mentor - the conflicts were ironed out, and the elections were engineered to perfection by rewarding the relevant warlords. He even choreographed a real coup in forcing Mahathir's presence as a show of "unity" for a "1Malaysia" (whatever that means). We'll never know for sure, but some say that Mukhriz's post was the carrot dangled for the jackass.

If Najib harbours any illusions of Mahathirs support, it is time he gets rid of it - for this old man don't work for nobody except himself. Najib may have just got more than he bargained for.
For all practical purposes, in Mahathir's eyes, Najib is actually a jackass who has underperformed in all his duties since he was handed power on a silver platter.
Considering Mahathir's persona, one cannot be faulted for thinking that Mahathir actually despises a philandering aristocratic spoilt brat. After all, Mahathir the politician, is never known to be gracious to his "allies" and "partners" - forget the adversaries. In fact, in Mahathir's book, they are all one and the same - an affront to his monumental ego (depicted by the twin obelisks in KLCC).

Abdullah's legacy is ready to be erased - just as many monarchs/ pharoahs of old had done to their predecessors. His corridors are probably destined to be as airy as it always has been. The crook-ed bridge issue is being revived once again. Hardly has his sweat dried, and Mahathir has already passed his "unsavoury" comment on CheDet, and is heavily lobbying for the "crooked bridge" by trying to appeal to the "stupidly patriotic" on the non issue of sovreignty.

======================
As the person concerned I will leave it to Malaysians
to judge and to define "Mahathirism".

-Mahathir, www.chedet.cc

=====================

But knowing how these guys are (like his predecessor who had "big ears"), Jibby in his craving & grovelling for approval (as in the Ku Li report by the MSM), praise & worship from all around him, will probably allow his ears to betray his mind.
While that of Mahathir may be certain (crooked bridge or not), one can only speculate the legacy (beyond the Altantuya legend, that is) that Jibby would leave behind - other than being another name on Mahathir's list of unworthy incompetents.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“We are inconsolable at being deceived by our enemies and betrayed by our friends,
yet still we are often content to be thus served by ourselves.”
-François de la Rochefoucauld

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Cry my beloved Malay soul

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
... ...

$$$$$$$$$$$$
“It took me six months to be nice, to bribe each and every individuals to get back into their good books before our files were attended to”
-Allegedly "misinterpreted" words CJ Zaki, now head of the JAC.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

From MalaysiaKini (Opinions)

Cry my beloved Malay soul

AB Sulaiman | Feb 6, 09 10:51am

When Alan Paton wrote ‘Cry The Beloved Country’ he was lamenting over the inhumanity of man over man, of how the whites can devise, construct and implement race- and colour-based social and economic injustices over the blacks in apartheid-era South Africa.

The whole world had condemned this practice; we were among the loudest screaming against it.

South Africa has moved on since then, and today it is one shining example of an emancipated, open and progressive country, enjoying a respectable place in the community of nations. It has thrown apartheid into the bins of its history.

Here in Malaysia, yes we condemn apartheid, and quite rightly so. But in the same breath we were and are still its major proponent our version of apartheid.

We do not call it apartheid; of course not. We call it instead ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ under the guise of ‘championing Malay rights,’ and implementing it under the New Economic Policy. It’s smart, right? In none of them does the word ‘apartheid’ appear!

Yes, we are smart. We do not blatantly call it apartheid, we merely perfected the process of social separation. First of all we ensure the great majority of civil servants, the police, and the military are manned by Malays (the target benefactors). We give them good salaries, good perks and assured employment. We then devise rules and regulations, and even laws, to ensure the NEP’s easy implementation.

We then brainwash our Malay brethren with the notion ‘untuk agama bangsa dan negara’ that there is a higher ideal beyond performing a duty with professionalism and dedication, and that is doing things in the name of religion and race.

We devise rules and regulations, and even laws, to ensure the NEP’s easy implementation.

Then we design and implement social and economic policies like channeling lucrative government contracts, separate education streams, housing rebates, banking and financial support, in favour of, you guessed it, the Malays.

It does not stop there. We devise measures to prevent the people from raising too much objections to all these by introducing or continuing legislation and religiously implementing them.

The Sedition Act for example stops people from talking too much about language and religion. The Official Secrets Act prevents people from gaining access to government files.

Students and lecturers are not allowed to discuss and make public any subject that would appear to be critical to government (yes, government, not political) policies and philosophies.

All publications must, first of all, get operating licences. Newspapers must not only get a licence before publishing but it must be renewed every year.

Sacrifices conveniently forgotten

The king of all of the suppressive and oppressive laws is the Internal Security Act, when a citizen can be put under detention without the benefit of any charge!

All said and done, we sacrifice the rule of law in favour of rule by private individuals. To show that we are really smart, we pooh pooh the loyalty and patriotism of the non-Malay segment of the population.

We call them pendatang or immigrants bearing the stigma that they are social discard from their original country, similar to rogues, rascals, refugees, mercenaries and scoundrels. We just ignore their proven talent and ability in wealth creation and economic productivity, as well as to their demonstrated loyalty and patriotism.

Many of such pendatangs have made the ultimate sacrifices as military personnel defending its security, during the Emergency, the Confrontation period with Indonesia and as policemen while policing the social environment.

They have contributed and are continuing to, in sport and the arts. Their record as loyal and patriotic Malaysians is quite impeccable. But we do not really care.

The perplexing thing is that despite these attributes and positive records of the non-Malays, we are still going about championing and implement apartheid principles. In this new year, perhaps we can do with a little reflection: why are we doing all this?

We do this apparently to recover our lost soul. We perceive that we have been victims of colonisation when the Portuguese, Dutch and British colonisers all but butchered the Malay entity, psychology and culture. In the process we perceive that we have lost our Malay identity.

With independence, we thought we could recapture the lost glory of Malay suzerainty by

becoming masters of all facets of a nation, especially its commerce, and economy. We found out that the Chinese community had beaten us to it.

We felt the Chinese had capitalised on our weakness and captured the economic initiatives (and wealth) as well as the social characteristics of the country. We lost ‘face’.

Now we want to regain the mertabat or dignity and pride of the Malay race!

Yes, we feel that we have to recover our soul and it is here that we are reminded of Paton’s book title, but in this case suitably paraphrased to – cry my beloved Malay soul.

Our Malay soul needs to cry for doing the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason; even for the wrong thing for the wrong reason, but not for the right thing for the right reason.

To start with colonisation is really not an excuse for our psychological malaise and ineptitude.

Colonisation has been a feature of human history and felt all over the world. There are very few countries that have not been colonised in the world.

It is thus a neutral concept in human social and economic development. It is certainly not an impediment to social or economic progress as we are wont to portray it. We should dump this notion that we hold dear into the bin of history.

Rethinking our way of thinking

Just look at the records. The Koreans were once colonised by the Japanese, but today Korea is an industrial power house. Singapore was once colonised by the British and was indeed a part of us, and today we see this tiny country being a solid financial, trading and industrial entity.

Most pointedly of all, the US was once a British colony and today it is the mightiest nation in the world. Our second grouse - that the Chinese have cornered the economic sector of the country also needs re-looking into, on two counts.

First, the Chinese did not become successful based on any conscious and concerted economic programme to economically marginalise us.

We did this self-inflicted wound ourselves. As proof, we have to note that most of the Chinese came to our shores with only their feet, hands, guts and brains and perhaps a bundle of clothes, nothing more.

They become successful for their hard work, both physically and mentally and for the sacrifices they were prepared to make and had undertaken. They were successful for having the mental fortitude to seek opportunities, grab those that come along and worked extra hard to realise the potentials of these opportunities.

Secondly, we have been given a chance to be equal with them, both under numerous 'special privileges' enshrined in the Constitution, as well as under its NEP implementation programme.

The special privileges have always been in the constitution while the latter began in 1970. In short, we have been given the chance - the opportunity - many times over, to better our Malay polity.

Whereas the Chinese had to struggle just to find and identify the opportunities, in our case they were handed to us on a silver platter!

Thus far we have failed to capitalise adequately on them. It rather shameful we missing out on these chances specially created for us in the first place.

Either way the root cause of our weaknesses and the strength of the Chinese lies in two words - positive thinking. Our thinking is mired with so many dos and don’ts, so many musts and musn’ts, so many cans and cannots, may and may nots, plenty enough to created and internalise doubts and fears in our minds.

So much so that we have doubt over what we can and what we can’t do, what is allowed and what is not. We spend a lifetime looking for these highly complex cans and cannots, musts and must nots, that we have hardly any mental energy left to develop and self-confidence to get on and face the realities of life.

Let’s refer to this case as the ‘can’t don’t and won’t syndrome’. The Chinese by the way are not encumbered by such syndromes.

What appears to have happened is that this syndrome has affected our mental ability to conceptualise. We see things on the straight and narrow. We accept wisdoms handed down to us by our elders as the gospel truth.

Blinded by sentiment

We do not see that things can be seen and interpreted in many alternative ways. We feel we have the monopoly on truth; we therefore think that we are right all the time and other people are wrong all the time. Witness the way we see religion for example.

We think that we as Muslims are right and other people who profess other religions are wrong, all the time.

We need to cry for thinking that we can and have doctored the way the people think and do things. We have been intimidating the people with what they can read or write or think and do.

We seem to be saying "you can think anything, do anything, write anything so long as it does not criticise or condemn the government".

Soul-searching and resuscitating is not or should not be about pointing accusing fingers at some bogeys. That would be a most negative thing to do. It would be better for us to be open-minded and be able to identify our own strengths and weaknesses.

We improve upon our strengths and dump our weaknesses. Mainly we must be able to develop the awareness that we have both the strengths and weaknesses in the first place.

To illustrate, the NEP has proved many time over as a failed strategy for our socio-economic advancement. Let us be aware of this in the first place and move on seeking other ways with better chance of success.

How about secularising the Malay mind? It might make for a good start for we can see many of the don’ts, can’ts, musn’ts dissipating into the wind.

In the meantime, here we are in the early days of a new year. We should begin by realising that whatever 'smart’ moves we had undertaken all this while have not really been that smart after all.

The joke is on us. Everybody says so – the liberated Malays, the non-Malays, our neighbours and the rest of the international community. Only those of us basking in our closed mind and benefiting from the profits of the status quo say it’s alright.

Happy New Year all the same and here’s hoping this year we can get a good perspective as to what propagating a good mertabat really means. It’s long overdue.

In the meantime, cry my beloved Malay soul.

===================================

Related
Where is the Spirit of Merdeka?
Some Umno myths young Malaysians should know.
A Malaysian Disease of Fear and Apathy
Clinging to the Cause .... Wishing the Results Away.
The "Social Contract" - A Malaysian "Cold War"?

Licking the Wounds ... of a Blessing in Disguise

What happened in Perak is good. I hope it will teach Pakatan Rakyat that it has to get its act together. ......
A mere car brought the Perak government down. If this is what brought the Perak government down, then it deserves to fall. I can only say that this serves Pakatan Rakyat right. They had it coming. When personal interests and racial issues override everything else, you deserve to fall.
And there are many low quality wakil rakyat still in Pakatan Rakyat .............Next time, get better candidates. Some of the Pakatan Rakyat wakil rakyat are so low standard I would not even trust them to baby-sit my dog.

- RPK

***********************************

So said RPK.
PR had lost their "bearings" when they got more than they could handle in it's infancy.
Well, I actually said the same (not verbatim lah) at while "Fishing", to PatLu, Segar & Viki- I actually said, "I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they lose the Perak Govt - they have forgotten what got them there!" (But I did feel sorry ...)
Still, it was heartbreaking to see the Nizar Govt fall in such a manner - I wouldn't have felt as such, should Pakatan have been ousted through a "No Confidence" motion. To make matters worse, we had to put up with the smug look of Mr. Mongolia at the press conference .....

"Gamuda" or not - this was realpolitik at play (and IMHO, plenty of "Mahathirism" stamped all over it!). Is it any wonder that Mahathir couldn't hide his glee, and as a "statesman", writing on CheDet,
"Lompat masuk (perangkap) boleh tapi lompat keluar tak sah!! He, he, he!".
(reminds me of how some guys write comments on MT, despite the availability of emoticons)
Yes - Anwar was outwitted in his naivity, and suckered in his own game, although with a little difference in style.

Taking the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case into consideration, we all know that Nizar is still the legitimate MB of Perak, the BN style is to use extra-constitutional methods to launch a coup - always has been, and always will be. Just letters don't cut it, when one claims majority - only the assembly decides. The Constitutional Head of state simply carries out the wishes of the people as expressed by the legislature. It would therefore do well for us to disregard the Pakistani academician cum "constitutional spin doctor" - Shad Faruqi, who claims that the Sultan can Hire & Fire at his pleasure like an autocrat.

Let's hope the case will give PR at least, a moral victory - but we all know that Karpal has a recording of a judge who confessed to being advocate of corruption.
So, we shall keep out fingers crossed.

There were many things that were unsatisfactory with the Pakatan electoral pact - but it was a pretty steep learning curve for them to negotiate. The attitudes of the DAP men in the past, isn't relevant as of now, (although RPK did bring it up).
RPK has also resorted to whacking PR now, in frustration - menyampah (or maybe just a bad flu). Whatever his reason may be, he, just as anybody else, is entitled to it.

I share many of the sentiments expressed by RPK - yes, I concurred with RPK on the dissolution idea, and posted something asking Nizar to dissolve the Assembly ASAP in DISSOLVE THE PERAK STATE ASSEMBLY, NIZAR!!!
(sometimes, I too like to be perasan lah -like as if anybody significant is gonna take me seriously!).

However, I'd look at the events that transpired in Perak in a positive light - it is a baptism of fire for Pakatan, and they better learn the taste of defeat fast - and I mean REAL fast. Or else, they will very soon bite the dust elsewhere as well.
It is a price you pay, when you take power for granted - with the presence of turncoats in your midst.
Actually, I'm surprised they lasted so long and it took this long for Najib to make his move ....

Recent events will make Pakatan realize that it isn't worth fighting among themselves, and that there are bigger things to fight over. Having tasted the sweetness of office/power and the bitterness of defeat, it will also make them fight harder & with more strategy in future.
Things may swing in their favour, if they can keep the desire for reform & negative sentiments towards BN burning in the hearts of the electorate.
In short - it may be a blessing in disguise!

While they take a step back to recoup their strategies, lets hope they do not lose sight of the other states in their grasp.
Meanwhile, just get better reps in future lah - in the last elections, many seat would've been won had they even decided to field donkeys!
And a last piece of (unsolicited) advice -
don't let your egos neglect the "Barisan Rakyat's" opinions!!

For what it's worth - all the best Pakatan!
Overall, you were "passable" in my book - The people are still with you.
And to Najib, the "man of the day" - your day of reckoning is yet to come.
Legitimacy doesn't seem to be a priority to you - You seek for glory within Umno, at the expense of the electorate.
Hardball is what you play, hardball is what you'll get from them
- Cheers to you, Najib!

A SHAMELESS BN INSISTS ON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVT

“Keeping in mind that this is not a conventional situation of a no-confidence vote,
that this is a crossing over, and that two seats are in dispute,
the question whether the Sultan can direct the resignation of the MB or otherwise
does not arise because respectfully, he does not have the power to do so”

“A vote of no-confidence can only be taken by people who are legitimately entitled to vote, meaning people who are still assemblymen,” he clarified.

“As such, the legal basis of the Sultan’s directive may not be found,”

- Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

==============================

"A shameful scene is unfolding in Perak.

Let me follow up on what I said earlier about the status of the Chief Minister.The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the foundation and source of legal authority, and the Rulers are sworn to protect and uphold it.

Acording to the Constitution, Dato’ Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is Menteri Besar until he resigns of his own accord, or is removed by a vote of no-confidence in a formal sitting of the assembly.

The Constitution makes no provision for his removal by any other means, including by petitions or instructions from any other authority."

- Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Veteran
==================================
The Faces of
Constitutional Subversion
& Shamelessness

And The Leadership of Shame in Perak definitely looks like a good
representation of the Umno "Malay" Leadership .... .

(profile below is from StarOnline)

ADUN: Pangkor

Name: Zambry Abdul Kadir
Party: Umno
Age: 46
Marital status: Married
Number of children: Five children
Party position: Lumut Umno division chief

Education:

Degree in Economics from IIUM,
Masters of Philosophy from IIUM,
Masters in Philosophy & Comparative Religion and PhD in Political Thought & Economy from Temple University, Philadelphia. (I say, wow!! - that was a mouthful ...)

Profession:
CEO of various think tanks, board member of several companies and fulltime politician

Contact: 05-6913012 (Lumut Umno service centre),

05-6852117 (Pangkor Umno service centre)