December 29, 2011
PERKASA as good as Article 153 of a Malaysian Constitution
Maclean Patrick, Malaysia Chronicle | twenty-eight Dec 2011
PERKASA, as an NGO which is focussed upon safeguarding a rights of Malays, will regularly melt any
demeanour of legislation to suit their arguments whether right or wrong, satisfactory or unfair.
Obviously, this does not bode good fior a Malays as PERKASA's nonconformist mount will be taken to reflect which of a community as a whole.
So if PERKASA adopts a racist as good as greedy stance, a Malays it claims to represent by virtue of PERKASA carrying access to high-profile mainstream media coverage will additionally come opposite as racist, greedy as good as fearful of competition.
But which as you know is not true. However, a single looks during it, PERKASA has little substance, even during a core. It is a mere shallow capsule to serve a vain urges of someone who is, politically, a non-entity in Malaysia. This person is a owner president Ibrahim Ali.
Supported by UMNO
Ibrahim Ali is not fearful to bluster any one he sees fit since he has a subsidy of Prime Minister Najib Razak's UMNO party. And as prolonged as UMNO gives Ibrahim a nod, he can speak all demeanour of nonsense. Others will get pulled up for mutiny or even incarcerated under a draconian Internal Security Act, though not Ibrahim Ali, who never has to comment for his words.
The many recent idiotic approach taken by PERKASA towards Article 153 as good as a comments by Rev Dr Eu Hong Seng, shows a inability to perspective any subject make a difference objectively as good as intelligently. Eu, a National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) chairman who likened Article! 153 to "bullying" for usually safeguarding a rights of a single group.
"We direct a supervision make use of a Sedition Act upon any one who creates statements similar to this from now upon as good as assign them in court," a PERKASA arch told reporters a day ago.
"We're usually support what's in a Federal Constitution. Please do not keep inspiring us upon as good as upon since it's not great for a country. And you have been studious for so long."
Get a contribution right
But who is PERKASA to talk about a Federal Constitution, generally when it gets a contribution all wrong? Then upon his interpretation of Article 153, Ibrahim Ali as good as PERKASA have been wrong upon various fronts.
Article 153 states which it is a King's responsibility "to guarantee a special in front of of a Malays as good as locals of any of a States of Sabah as good as Sarawak as good as a bona fide interests of alternative communities in suitability with a supplies of this Article".
The argumentative essay consists of ten statements, as good as a initial blunder by PERKASA is that, in Article 153, there is no mention of a tenure "bumiputra". The second blunder is to assert which Article 153 protects a rights of a Malays as good as Bumiputeras.
The heading for Article 153 gives us a transparent design as to what it covers Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays as good as locals of any of a States of Sabah as good as Sarawak.
Article 153(1) uses a broad tenure "the special in front of of a Malays as good as locals of any of a States of Sabah as good as Sarawak as good as a bona fide interests of alternative communities in suitability with a supplies ! of this Article."
The "special position" refers to a Malays as good as locals of any of a States of Sabah as good as Sarawak in relation to supervision service, a distribution of permits as good as etc. Special in front of does not mean "special rights" instead it points to a state of welfare or priority. And nowhere in Article 153 does it mention "bumiputera", as good as when reading a sentence in a whole, a locals of any of a States of Sabah as good as Sarawak have been upon par. They have been to be since EQUAL preference.
The Malays have been not to duke over a locals nor a locals over a locals of Sabah as good as Sarawak. This is fundamental, as it relates to a conditions as good as conditions for Sabah as good as Sarawak to form a association of Malaysia as equal partners.
Who says usually for Malays
PERKASA is additionally dead wrong in reporting their mount which Malays, as good as usually Malays, should take priority. If it is a defender of Article 153, by right, PERKASA should additionally hold up a cause for all locals of Sabah as good as Sarawak. Article 153(1) serve states a third group of citizens, "the bona fide interests of alternative communities".
This third group of adults includes all alternative groups outward a globe of Malay as good as locals of Sabah as good as Sarawak. Meaning, priority is since to Malays as good as locals of Sabah as good as Sarawak though where legitimate, alternative communities should not be deprived of polite use employment, business opportunities as good as education in suitability to to a supplies of a Article 153.
For PERKASA to merely hold up a Malays, using Article 153 as their tool, as good as whitewashing a existence of a locals of Sabah as good as Sarawak as good as alternative communities; have been they not supporting a depriving of equal event as settled in Article 153 as good as thus, all contradicting as good as nullifying a supplies of Article 153?
Article 153 ! protects which rights of all Malaysians, giving priority to Malays as good as locals of Sabah as good as Sarawak as good as where legitimately possible, alternative communities.
When Rev Eu settled which Article 153 is same to "bullying" if it usually protects a rights of a single group, he was referring to a gap you now see when it comes to in front of of a "natives of any of a States of Sabah as good as Sarawak as good as a bona fide interests of alternative communities in suitability with a supplies of this Article" as settled in Article 153(1).
No a single questioned a Agong either
There is additionally no question of questioning a management of a Agong, nor is there any challenge to a Federal Constitution. Another point which irks a intelligence, is a explain by PERKASA, which if any one questions Article 153, they have been to be charged with mutiny as good as a military case lifted against them.
For what crime, might you ask? For a crime of speaking an opinion? For a crime of stating an observation? For a crime of being a Christian as good as addressing a need? What is a crime? Since when was thinking a crime? Since when was a adult punished for voicing out their concerns?
"We direct a supervision make use of a Sedition Act upon any one who creates statements similar to this from now upon as good as assign them in court," Ibrahim told reporters a day ago.
The PERKASA arch was referring to a statement done upon Saturday by National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) chairman Eu, who likened Article 153 to "bullying" for usually safeguarding a rights of a single group. Article 153 states which it is a King's responsibility "to guarantee a special in front of of a Malays as good as locals of any of a States of Sabah as good as Sarawak as good as a bona fide interests of alternative communities in suitability with a supplies of this Article".
If anything, PERKASA should be charged ! with a c rime of melancholy non-Malays as good as non-Muslims, in particular a Christians as good as Chinese, as good as scornful a comprehension of every right minded Malaysian.
Malaysia Chronicle
Read More @ Source (Newsflash) Anwar Ibrahim: Konvensyen Pilihan Raya KeAdilan
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
No comments:
Post a Comment