Reactions and Overreactions

Unfortunately, many have misconstrued my previous article chastising RSN Rayer about his “UMNO Celaka” remark to mean that I condone what was previously said by the 3 UMNO reps as well as the actions of the mob which barged into the Penang State Assembly on Tuesday (20th May 2014)

Let me be very clear. I am completely against what was done by the demonstrators in Seberang Jaya on the 18th of January. Nothing can ever warrant the use of a tragic event like May 13 1969 to threaten your political adversary. Nothing. It amounted to a hit below the belt, and is nothing short of cheap and unethical

The reaction of the UMNO Youth members to Rayer’s statement is also unacceptable. Although RSN Rayer insulted their beloved political party using the word “celaka,” the matter could have been better handled

When Rayer said “UMNO Celaka” in the Penang State Assembly, he was protected by immunity. But when he repeated it again at a ceramah for the Bukit Gelugor by-election, the UMNO Youth should have just reported the matter to the authorities and left it as that

When they resorted to brute force, it was an indirect insult to the Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) as UMNO Youth implied the police are incapable of dealing with such a sensitive matter. It also showed their lack of respect for the laws of the land, as in order to get revenge, the mob committed trespass to land

Furthermore, an UMNO Youth leader also threatened to conduct a bigger protest if Rayer failed to apologise. Of course if UMNO Youth would like to assembly peacefully, it is within their rights enshrined in the Federal Consitution. However, do not forget that any untoward incident as a result of the protest will reflect badly on the ruling coalition.

There are definitely too many overreactions regarding the matter. Both sides of the political divide need to keep their members on a tight leash, especially those who are prone to commit violent acts. Most importantly, PDRM must act swiftly or further risk being labeled a laughing stock

You Cant Please Everyone

Am I the only one who realises that DAP is often in a catch-22? When they field a Malay candidate for a by-election, they get accused of using a Malay to bait for Malay votes. However, if DAP were to field a Chinese politician for a seat with a Chinese-majority, they get accused of being a racist party.

Katie Couric once said, “You can’t please everyone, and you can’t make everyone like you.” Quite rightly so, DAP being the epitome

The statement that, “DAP is a party dominated by one race” is a verisimilitude. Prima facie, DAP is dominated by the Chinese. But upon further inspection, one would realise that it’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) consists of Malaysians of all races. DAP’s doors are open to Malaysians regardless of race and religion, unlike their fastidious political rivals

The high positions of power in DAP are not just limited to the Chinese. Further proof being that the previous Chairman of the DAP is the late Karpal Singh. Last I checked, a Singh is not a Chinese. The Tiger of Jelutong was not a puppet of the Chinese in DAP. He got to where he was because of his capabilities as well as his determination. Unfortunately, those from the other side of the political divide have successfully made Malaysians envisage DAP as a racist party

My tirade ends here. I simply want to commend DAP for their propriety. Even if Dyana fails to win the Teluk Intan by-elections, it is a step forward for DAP as it shows merit trumps racial heritage

Who Can Stop Hudud?

A reply to: Only UMNO can stop hudud

Lim Guan Eng slightly erred in saying that ONLY UMNO can stop hudud. As we all know, “a coin has two sides.” Similarly, when looking into the hudud issue, UMNO is only one side of the coin

While it is true that  “With 88 MPs in Parliament, UMNO is in the best position to stop PAS’s attempt to implement hudud,” the onus to act isn’t just on the part of UMNO. As a political ally to PAS, DAP should convince PAS to drop the idea of hudud as it is not suitable in our multi-racial and multi-religious nation. The whole problem will be solved if PAS does not table both the Private Members’ Bills

By asking UMNO to act, is DAP absolving itself from all liability? Is DAP implying that it is incapable of pressuring its ally to abandon hudud? These are questions which should linger on our minds

Pakatan Rakyat works on a concept that they will “agree to disagree” especially when it comes to controversial issues. In one sense it is good as the component members of PR wont draw it’s guns and start a friendly fire. But it also leaves a loophole that allows each party to put its own interests above that of the entire coalition

It could potentially be devastating for PR. Imagine if hudud were to be implemented in Kelantan. It would probably cost DAP A LOT of non-muslim votes at GE 14. This is because before GE 13, DAP went around gathering votes for PAS by reassuring the non-muslims that hudud would never be implemented

And in this hypothetical situation, DAP has let down its voters. Hopefully this hypothetical situation does not come to pass. Back to the million dollar question “Who can stop hudud?”, UMNO can. But so can DAP and PKR!

1Malaysia vs Malaysian Malaysia

1Malaysia is a concept founded and advocated (at least it was, before GE13) by our current Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak while Malaysian Malaysia is an old concept reignited by
Lim Kit Siang of the Democratic Action Party (DAP). [as per]. The name of the concepts may be similar but the ideology behind it is substantially different

Malaysian Malaysia fights for equal rights among citizens regardless of race while 1Malaysia upholds the special position of Malays (under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution) while protecting the rights and welfare of non-Malays

By now you should be able to see that the concept of Malaysian Malaysia courts a lot of controversy as it coincides with a provision in our Constitution. One cannot ignore the benefits of the concept though. Through the ideology of Malaysian Malaysia, there will be equality among the races (at least in terms of position and opportunity). Only equality can counter racism and discrimination

But of course as a law student, I believe in the sanctity of the Federal Constitution. As long as Article 153 is part of the Federal Constitution, I will respect that and uphold it. Perhaps one day Malaysians may achieve a level of maturity where it no longer matters what race you are or which country your ancestors came from. Then we no longer need provisions such as Article 153 because we will only see ourselves as Malaysians