We have to confirm either you wish to follow the Constitution or not. We cannot roar which the Constitution contingency be obeyed when it suits us as well as afterwards roar which you contingency omit the Constitution when it does not fit us. This is what Barisan Nasional regularly does. Now it seems this is what the antithesis additionally does. So how can you strike the supervision as well as credit it of all sorts of things when you have been similarly guilty of which same crime?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Below is the criticism which 'Pro-arte' posted in the headlines itemMalaysia's prime apportion contingency be Malay Muslim, says historian.
you am the single of those who have argued which the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is silent upon the competition as well as sacrament of the Prime Minister. Article 43(2)(a) of the Constitution just says which His Majesty the Agong is to designate the Prime Minister from amongst the Member of the House (meaning an elected Member of Parliament) who commands the certainty of the infancy of the Members of the House.
Article series 43(2)(a):the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall initial designate as Perdana Menteri (Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet the member of the House of Representative who in his visualisation is expected to authority the certainty of the infancy of the members of which House.
If you were to demeanour closely during what the Constitution says, it does not contend which the Prime Minister contingency be the President or Leader of the celebration wh! ich won the most series of seats in Parliament. It merely says: is expected to authority the certainty of the majority.
Note the word 'likely'. And additionally note the word 'who in his judgment'. This means the Agong contingency have an educated guess, so to speak.
Hence, this means the Agong has to have use of his judgement in reckoning out who most expected will authority the await (the word the Constitution uses is 'confidence') of the infancy of the Members of Parliament. And this does not need to be the Chairman of Barisan Nasional or the President of Umno or the Opposition Leader in Parliament or the Leader of the celebration which won the most series of seats in Parliament.
Nevertheless, the Agong would regularly assume which the Leader of the celebration which won the most series of seats in Parliament would authority the infancy confidence. This is how the Agong would assess the situation. However, if for any reason the Agong feels otherwise, the Agong can afterwards legally designate someone else the Prime Minister.
That is what happens in theory, of course. But speculation cannot regularly be put in to practice. For example, in theory, the Anti-Corruption Commission can detain the Prime Minister for crime as well as the Attorney General can prosecute the Prime Minister as well as the Judge can find the Prime Minister guilty of corruption. But you all know which in have use of this will never happen.
Also, there is nothing in the Constitution which says the Prime Minister contingency be the man. A lady can legally spin the Prime Minister of Malaysia. And since not given 53% of the electorate have been women? But in speculation this can never happen, not for the prolonged time to come during least.
Anyway, you know my stand, as well as my mount is which the Constitution is silent upon the race, sacrament as well as gender of the Prime Minister. Hence, anyone, as prolonged as he or she is an elected Member of Parliament! who in the opinion of the Agong can authority the certainty of the infancy of the 222 MPs, can legally spin the Prime Minister.
Let me play the devil's advocate here. you adore doing this as well as see you people burst as well as froth during the mouth when you take the opposite evidence to you.
For 55 years given Merdeka, Malaysia has regularly worked upon gathering or tradition. And this gathering or convention is which the Prime Minister contingency be the Malay-Muslim from the celebration with the most series of seats in Parliament. And he (not she) contingency be the personality of which party.
Can you mangle divided from gathering or tradition? you suspect not when those innate from Muslim parents have been automatically Muslims as well as for them to leave Islam is deliberate the crime. This is not in the Constitution so since is it similar to this? That is since of gathering or tradition. Hence you need to mangle which 'tradition' initial prior to you can even cruise breaking alternative traditions.
You might contend which traditions have been foolish as well as have been no longer relevant in this modern day as well as age. you am not so certain of that. Can you discuss it the Chinese which the convention of giving out redang powsfor Chinese New Year as well as whiteang powsfor funerals is foolish as well as is no longer relevant in this modern day as well as age? The Chinese, even those with the western education, will froth during the mouth as well as remonstrate with you.
What is so good about the colour of an pouch compared to the some-more critical emanate similar to who should be the Prime Minister of Malaysia? Is not the Prime Minister some-more critical than the colour of an envelope? If the Chinese would never mangle from what can be deliberate the pardonable convention how can you design us to finalise what can be deliberate the some-more crucial convention -- the race, sacrament as well as gender of the ! Prime Mi nister?
So which is the initial emanate here. Do you wish to be pig-headed about traditions, similar to most of us have been (such as carrying to wear asongkokin an assembly with the Sultan, which the little DAP people have been opposite to), or have been you prepared to 'modernise'?
Tradition is such the sensitive issue. Some courtesy traditions as the religious requisite (the Malays-Muslims have been guilty of this as well due to their confused bargain of Islam) as well as they would urge their traditions profusely. And all races have been guilty of this. This is the 'Malaysian' thing, not confined to any the single race.
Okay, my subsequent point, about what 'Pro-arte' pronounced per 'the constitution is the autarchic law of the land' as well as 'when the nation does not adhere to the order of law, afterwards this would take us down the sleazy slant to anarchy'.
Now, this is since you have entitled my articleArguing yourself in to the corner. Once you begin arguing regulating those arguments, you have been going to open ourselves to attack. Those have been the same arguments which the supervision uses to oppose most things which the antithesis does, the Bersih rallies being the single of them.
According to the Constitution, Parliament can pass laws as well as once they get voted in to law Malaysians have been bound by these laws. Hence the government, by law, can dissuade Malaysians from assembling upon the streets as well as if you violate these laws afterwards the police have been empowered to take movement as well as if you resist the police afterwards they have been empowered to action opposite us, even with the have use of of force.
Some antithesis leaders contend which this is the bad law as well as Malaysians should thus challenge these laws. The government's response is which if you challenge laws as well as take the law in to our own hands afterwards you will see anarchy. In ! fact, th is is the same evidence which Anwar Ibrahim used when he hold the press conference which Monday after the Bersih 3.0 rally. Anwar explained which the people longed for to occupy Dataran Merdeka so in annoy of the justice order not allowing it Malaysians have the right to occupy Dataran Merdeka as well as omit the justice order.
Is this not what 'Pro-arte' argued: 'when the nation does not adhere to the order of law, afterwards this would take us down the sleazy slant to anarchy'? Hence do you wish to have use of which evidence when the supervision can have use of which same evidence opposite us?
In the box of who should be the Prime Minister, 'Pro-arte' argues 'the constitution is the autarchic law of the land' as well as 'when the nation does not adhere to the order of law, afterwards this would take us down the sleazy slant to anarchy'. In the box of the Bersih rallies, the reverse evidence is used: the law is bad so you contingency challenge the law.
We have to confirm either you wish to follow the Constitution or not. We cannot roar which the Constitution contingency be obeyed when it suits us as well as afterwards roar which you contingency omit the Constitution when it does not fit us. This is what Barisan Nasional regularly does. Now it seems this is what the antithesis additionally does. So how can you strike the supervision as well as credit it of all sorts of things when you have been similarly guilty of which same crime?
So you see: if you generate which you contingency apply oneself the Constitution afterwards you have to comply with the Constitution even when bad laws have been 'legally' passed. But if you generate which the Constitution is bad as well as the little laws passed by Parliament which have been legally allowed by the Constitution have been additionally bad as well as need to be opposite afterwards you cannot begin quoting the Constitution.
We have the tendency to contradict what you say. We disagree the single! way in the single incident as well as afterwards disagree the alternative way in an additional situation. We need to take the mount as well as be unchanging in which stand. For example, when you contend you do not endure crime you contingency afterwards not endure it never thoughts who may be guilty of it. We cannot oppose it when it involves the supervision as well as endure it when it involves the antithesis as well as afterwards contend which supervision crime is outrageous while antithesis crime is small.
In which same spirit, can you endure tiny election rascal as well as only oppose big election fraud? What would the toleration spin be then? Only if the rascal involves some-more than 10% of the votes? Or would you oppose it even if there were the single fake vote? There is no tiny or big fraud. Fraud is rascal as well as crime is corruption.
So you see, debating an emanate is not which easy after all. Sometimes your arguments can work opposite you. You need to be careful as well as recollect what you have argued. You additionally need to cruise what will occur if you need to take an opposite mount upon an additional emanate as well as either what you disagree today can still be used in an additional incident tomorrow.
Okay, right away let's debate!
*************************************
This so-called Professor's comments have been bereft of any proof to the extent which it really is embarrassing.
The constitution is the autarchic law of the land as well as it does not club any adult from being PM. So since is it the 'must' which the PM is the Malay-Muslim? Where did the good Professor get this from?
The corollary from this notion is which any senior position in this nation should go to the Malay-Muslim. Thus would Khoo accept which he does not really validate to be the Emeritus 'Royal Professor' as well as which he is there by default? His position rightfully belongs to the Malay-Muslim?
! When the nation does not adhere to the order of law, afterwards this would take us down the sleazy slant to anarchy. There have been most aspects of anarchy, Khoo exemplifies the egghead commotion which has taken place in our tutorial complement for the demonstrate purpose ofserving the seductiveness as well as legitimising the statute Malay-Muslim Oligarchy.
Malays have been culturally, religiously as well as physically distinct from to the oldest 'Orang Asal' organisation in the Peninsula. When Malays wish to insult each alternative they call each alternative 'Sakai, Jakun,' etc. - it is the term of abuse of an indigenous people whose ancestors have continuously inhabited the Peninsula for over 50,000 years. The Malays as you know them have been comparatively brand new immigrants, they began to arrive upon these shores about 4,000 years ago. Therefore the Orang Asal can legitimately have the claim to rename 'Malaya' or 'Tanah Melayu' to'Asalaya' or 'Tanah Orang Asal'.
The actuality is 'Tanah Melayu' no longer exists. It has left by assorted name changes from 'Malaya' to right away 'Malaysia'.Before that, the Greeks 2,000 years ago, referred to the Peninsula as 'Chersonesus Aurea' as well as the Romans in spin called it 'Chersonesos'.
Why does Professor Khoo regularly give us "Pakatan Rakyat" story lessons? Does he not have the egghead capacity to be the smallest bit objective? Here you see an educational regularly being wheeled out during suitable times to ' legitimise' "Pakatan Rakyat"'s misrule as well as supremacist views from the so called chronological perspective. He calls Malay-Muslims 'natives' of this nation though aren't ALL Malaysians innate in the land natives?
Pakatan has appointed Anwar Ibrahim as the personality as well as he happens to be Malay as well as Muslim so since all this purposeless talk about'insisting' upon the Malay-Muslim leader?Surely Khoo should know th! is is pa rt of "Pakatan Rakyat"'s racist agenda which is meant to array Malays opposite non-Malays in the hope of shoring up Malay await for "Pakatan Rakyat" which is haemorrhaging.
The subtext is which Malays contingency be wary of the non-Malays, as well as the Chinese in sold who wish to 'rob' the Malays of their rights as well as power. Only "Pakatan Rakyat" can be devoted to 'protect' the Malays. This 'siege mentality' as well as instilling the 'them as well as us' mentally is unsympathetic though passe as well as fortunately most Malays, quite the younger generation, have been not shopping this anymore.
Khoo is the Chinese who is married to the Tamil though yet he is peaceful to undermine the rights of non-Malays as well as non-Muslims in the most unintellectual as well as silly manner. Talking about commotion earlier on, an additional aspect of this is moral crime as well as prostitution as well as Professor Khoo exemplifies this.
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment