Lim Guan Eng/DAP, and Now a BERSATU MP - REJECT politicians that don't respect and promote Human Rights and JUSTICE.

Human Rights and JUSTICE requires consistency - and thus DAP and LIM GUAN ENG just made a BIG MISTAKE/FUMBLE and hopefully will correct it soon. Has DAP forgoten about EQUALITY of Persons, and the prohibition of DISCRIMINATION? Have they forgotten of the basic 'EQUAL PAY EQUAL WORK' - means that all workers that do the same work deserves the same pay, the same employment benefits.

 

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

NOW, disappointingly, DAP is advocating DISCRIMINATION based on nationality...What happens if some other country discriminates Malaysian migrant workers - Approximately 1.86 million Malaysians live and work abroad, representing about 5.6% of the country's total population, approximately 60% in Singapore > so, if DAP advocates discrimination based on NATIONALITY in Malaysia, that means that if this 1.86 million Malaysian MIGRANT workers can also discriminated based on Nationality, IT IS OK? Then DAP cannot say anything about these Malaysians ...can they?

DAP advisor Lim Guan Eng today called on the government to exclude foreign workers from any increase in Malaysia’s minimum wage,..

...  immediate abolition of the mandatory two per cent Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contribution for foreign workers,

When it comes to BASIC or FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights - there is NO COMPROMISE - you cannot say VIOLATE the rights in Malaysia, but we oppose violation of RIGHTS in some other countries.  

EQUALITY of persons - and NO discrimination are HUMAN RIGHTS - and it is also acknowledged in Malaysia's Federal Constitution - and United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, other UN Documents and INTERNATIONAL LAW

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights....

 Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Malaysian FEDERAL Constitution 

Article 8(1)  (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Do not forget that Malaysia had ratified the  Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100),...where it also states  that '...the term remuneration includes the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly, whether in cash or in kind, by the employer to the worker and arising out of the worker's employment;...'

The employer's contribution to the worker's account in EPF/KWSP is clearly a worker's benefit under this definition of 'remuneration' - so too will contributions to SOCSO/PERKESO

# As it is Malaysia is discriminating against MIGRANT Workers - when the employer contribution is just 2% when local workers get 11-12%? The employee benefit is the EMPLOYER's contribution - it is OK to keep certain classes of workers contribution to zero or lesser percentage. The Employer Contribution that will benefit an employee is the EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT - and in Malaysia that is based on income for work. So is this NOT a violation of the EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK principle

DAP's position of DISCRIMINATION based on Nationality is MOST DANGEROUS - it opens the door to discrimination based on ethnicity, on religion, on ... that is why we must always advocate for EQUALITY OF PERSONS (Malaysia Constitution says this - NOT equality of citizens) - thus DAP and/or Lim Guan Eng may have violated Malaysia's Constitutional Guarantee...??? 

“Truth, justice and freedom must not be mere words but core principles that must be upheld to ensure prosperity for all.” -  Lim Guan Eng, DAP Chairman   

And DAP's objective says - about workers, not just Malaysian workers 

To protect workers and trade union rights so that a decent standard of living is accessible to all (should DAP amend its stated OBJECTS - to now say To protect only Malaysian workers???)

 

No one in DAP spoke against Guan Eng's statement - and this was MOST DISAPOINTING because in the PAST, DAP and its politicians stood up and fought for HUMAN RIGHTS and WORKER rights 

REFUGEES and UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANTS - a BERSATU Position? 

Recently, it was a BERSATU MP - 

An opposition lawmaker today urged Putrajaya to take a tougher stance on refugees and undocumented migrants, claiming the rakyat were fed up with what he described as a seemingly endless problem....a nationwide crackdown on undocumented migrants, including mobilising military personnel to assist the Immigration Department in arresting and deporting them.

d

On this matter, some quick comments to Radzi Jidin and BERSATU

Note Malaysia under PM Anwar is at present under global condemnation following the sending back to Myanmar about 10,000 (including refugees) despite knowing that the CONFLICT is ongoing against ETHNIC Minority Groups, and pro-democracy forces > around 100,000 said to be killed.

THUS, the statement by a BERSATU MP about refugees and undocumented migrants - that Malaysia should arrest, even using the Military,...is APPALLING  

* Are you considering REFUGEES and UNDOCUMENTED migrants the same? So, is PN for the arrest and deportation of even REFUGEES back to their home countries? Are you saying that Malaysia should violate the principle of non-refoulement and international law?

* With regard to UNDOCUMENTED migrants - how many are really victims of HUMAN TRAFFICKING? How many came to Malaysia as documented migrants - and now remain as undocumented migrants - and WHY is that when employer should have arranged for their transport back home? 

Are these workers remaining in Malaysia because they have cheated/deceived by their employers/agents - 'come to Malaysia to work' - and when they come no work or different work with different (not agreed wages) or after working ready to back BUT employer still have not yet paid wages/OT and monies owed > and note that for workers to claim RIGHTs, they must be physically present in Malaysia - claims lodged at the Human Resource/Labour Department or Industrial Relations Department mandatorily require physical presence of the worker claimant - the moment that you are ABSENT - your case/claim is cancelled? 

VICTIMS of Human Trafficking > Some migrant workers 'cheated' of their promised monies may chose to remain in Malaysia to work and earn first before going back to their country of origin - where debt-collectors may be waiting because many paid agents/etc a lot of money to come to Malaysia to work. 

THUS, the main PROBLEM or Cause of PROBLEM for many migrant workers was brought about by the Malaysian LAWS/Practice-Policies forcing them to be undocumented migrants - or they could be victims of human trafficking? 

ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS AND ANTI-SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS ACT 2007 - Section 2 

"trafficking in persons" means all actions of recruiting, conveying, transferring, acquiring, maintaining, harbouring, providing or receiving, a person, for the purpose of exploitation, by the following means:

(a) threat or use of force or other forms of coercion;

(b) abduction;

(c) fraud;

(d) deception;

(e) abuse of power;

(f) abuse of the position of vulnerability of a person to an act of trafficking in persons; or

(g) the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to obtain the consent of a person having control over the trafficked person;

"exploitation" includes all forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, any illegal activity or the removal of human organs 

Thus if migrant workers are deceived to come to Malaysia to work based on fraud/deceptions including promises that they will work at this place/occupation, receive so much wages and benefits, and for a term of at least 5 years...then when they arrive in Malaysia, all NOT TRUE - that makes these migrant workers VICTIMS of Human Trafficking

If the employer after the workers have worked fails to pay the wages, OT, work on rest days - and get rid of them > then would they not again be VICTIMS of HUMAN TRAFFICKING too besides workers whose rights have been violated.

Malaysia have wrongly FOCUSED on just that Migrant Workers, after their work permits ends should leave Malaysia back to the country of ORIGIN > that is very very wrong because GOVERNMENT should also ensure that migrant workers to be sent home HAVE no outstanding claims against their EMPLOYERS and/or others noting that access to justice mechanism requires PHYSICAL presence in Malaysia, and ONLY the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction to deal with their claims.

So, Radzi Jidin and BERSATU - are you just interested in getting them out of Malaysia > and NOT bothered that they may have cheated and their rights violated? IF SO, do you not believe in Human Rights and JUSTICE?

Now, when it comes to HUMAN RIGHTS - one should VOTE for political parties that take a principled stance of RESPECT and Promote > that means being consistent and not changing positions  as DAP just did, when he proposed anti-human rights actions for FOREIGN Migrant workers shamefully...and then BERSATU - that even asked government to use MILITARY.. 

Lim Guan Eng says foreign workers should be excluded from minimum wage hike, calls for EPF levy repeal

In a statement, Lim said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is expected to announce a revision to the minimum wage during the tabling of Budget 2027 on Oct 9, following the government’s assessment that wage growth has not kept pace with gains in worker productivity and corporate profits. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

Summary

• DAP chairman Lim Guan Eng urges the government to exempt foreign workers from any minimum wage increase to protect local MSMEs from rising operating costs.
• Lim argues that the minimum wage increase should apply only to Malaysian workers and calls for abolishing the mandatory EPF contribution for foreign employees.
• He stresses the importance of supporting domestic enterprises and preventing policies that may weaken the competitiveness of Malaysian businesses.

By Malay Mail

First Published: Tuesday, 29 Sep 2026 3:10 PM MYT

Last Modified: Wednesday, 30 Sep 2026 2:38 PM MYT

GEORGE TOWN, Sept 29 — DAP advisor Lim Guan Eng today called on the government to exclude foreign workers from any increase in Malaysia’s minimum wage, arguing that the move would help protect local businesses, particularly micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), from rising operating costs.

In a statement, Lim said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is expected to announce a revision to the minimum wage during the tabling of Budget 2027 on Oct 9, following the government’s assessment that wage growth has not kept pace with gains in worker productivity and corporate profits.

While acknowledging the rationale for higher wages, Lim said the prospect of a minimum wage increase has sparked concern among local businesses already grappling with intense competition, higher compliance costs and taxes, as well as price pressures from overseas producers.

He said MSMEs, which form the backbone of the domestic economy, are facing mounting challenges amid a sluggish economic environment and should be consulted before any policy changes are implemented.

Lim argued that any upward revision in the minimum wage should apply only to Malaysian workers, saying foreign employees should not benefit from the increase as they were hired under mutually agreed employment contracts.

He also renewed calls for the immediate abolition of the mandatory two per cent Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contribution for foreign workers, contending that the requirement imposes an unnecessary burden on employers without providing meaningful benefits to migrant workers.

According to Lim, exempting foreign workers from minimum wage increases and scrapping the EPF contribution requirement would help ease cost pressures on local businesses and safeguard the viability of approximately 1.2 million MSMEs nationwide.

He urged the government to prioritise the interests of domestic enterprises and ensure that policies designed to raise wages do not inadvertently undermine the competitiveness of Malaysian businesses.

* A previous version of the article incorrectly stated Lim Guan Eng's party position. It has since been corrected. - Malay Mail, 30/9/2026

Guan Eng wants foreign workers excluded from minimum wage hike

By Audrey Dermawan

September 30, 2026 @ 7:31am

Mandatory EPF contributions for non-Malaysian workers took effect from wages for October 2025. - NSTP FILE PIC

GEORGE TOWN: DAP adviser Lim Guan Eng wants the government to exclude foreign workers from any increase in the minimum wage.

In a statement on Facebook, Lim said the proposed revision, expected to be announced when Budget 2027 is tabled on Oct 9, should take into account the pressures faced by micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had said the current RM1,700 minimum wage was expected to be raised, with details to be announced when 2027 Budget is tabled.

Lim said any increase should not apply to foreign workers, arguing that local employers had hired them based on previously agreed employment contracts.

"Any increase in the minimum wage must not benefit foreign workers, in order to defend and protect the interests of Malaysians and Malaysian businesses," he said.

Lim also wants the mandatory 2 per cent Employees Provident Fund (EPF) employer contribution for non-Malaysian workers to be scrapped, saying the measure placed an additional burden on local employers and MSMEs.

Under current EPF rules, non-Malaysian citizen employees and their employers each contribute 2 per cent of monthly wages. The requirement took effect from wages for October 2025, with domestic workers excluded.

Lim said the government should engage with businesses, particularly MSMEs, before implementing any increase amid concerns over rising operating and compliance costs.

His call comes as the government considers a possible increase in the minimum wage.

Economy Minister Akmal Nasrullah Mohd Nasir had said the government was considering the impact on employers, particularly MSMEs, and the need to balance workers' welfare with business sustainability.

Anwar had said wage growth had lagged behind productivity growth in Malaysia and that the government would introduce measures to ensure fairer wages in 2027 Budget. - NST, 30/9/2026

Get tough on undocumented migrants, refugees, consider deploying military - PN MP

Hariz MohdPublished: Oct 19, 2026 5:52 PM

PARLIAMENT | An opposition lawmaker today urged Putrajaya to take a tougher stance on refugees and undocumented migrants, claiming the rakyat were fed up with what he described as a seemingly endless problem.

Debating the Budget 2027 Bill, Radzi Jidin (PN-Putrajaya) proposed a nationwide crackdown on undocumented migrants, including mobilising military personnel to assist the Immigration Department in arresting and deporting them.

"I suggest the government launch a massive nationwide operation to arrest undocumented migrants and deport them to their countries of origin.

"We know some may argue that the Immigration Department does not have enough personnel to carry out such an operation.

"For this purpose, I propose that the entire government machinery be mobilised through a whole-of-government approach, as we did during the Covid-19 pandemic.

"This could include deploying military personnel to rid the country of undocumented migrants," Radzi (above) added.

The Bersatu leader also urged the government to empty immigration detention depots nationwide as soon as possible by deporting all detainees to their countries of origin.

He said this would send a clear message to the international community and human trafficking syndicates that Malaysia was serious about tackling the issue.

Radzi claimed that the public had long complained about problems associated with the large number of refugees and undocumented migrants, with many viewing the situation as a never-ending problem.

The former minister also said the actual number of undocumented migrants in the country was unknown, alleging that the situation was compounded by "treacherous" civil servants who facilitated human trafficking activities.

Radzi warned that the country would be "destroyed" if the government failed to effectively stem their entry, including by imposing stricter policies on the employment of migrant workers.

Be firm with UNHCR

Turning to refugees, he called on the government to take a firmer stance towards the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), including by asking the agency to stop registering new refugees in Malaysia.

He said it was unfair for the international community to leave Malaysia to shoulder the burden of hosting some 225,000 registered refugees, while only a small number were resettled in third countries."This effectively puts Malaysia in a trap.

"Has the government exerted sufficient pressure on the UNHCR to ensure that as many registered refugees as possible are resettled in third countries?" he asked.

On July 23, Putrajaya has directed UNHCR to temporarily halt all refugee registrations pending a restructuring of the government’s management system via the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme.

According to The Star, Deputy Foreign Minister Lukanisman Awang Sauni (above) told the Dewan Negara that the decision was made to ensure that the management and registration of refugees in the nation are executed in a more orderly manner under government supervision.

“Through the DPP, the government can manage data in a more organised manner, including for data coordination, identity verification, monitoring, and regulation without relying on the records of any foreign entities,” Lukanisman added.- Malaysiakini, 19/10/2026

Migrants: Instead of screaming ‘army’, Radzi should go after the powerful

MPs should understand the root causes of the problem – greed, corruption, exploitation – instead of playing to the gallery.

Charles Santiago

October 20, 2026 1:56 PM

Radzi Jidin wants soldiers deployed to arrest undocumented migrants and clear immigration depots through mass deportations.

But before we send in the army, we should ask: how does Malaysia produce irregular migration in the first place?

Let’s start with recruitment. While our law caps placement fees at one month’s wage, which is RM1,700, Bangladeshi workers routinely pay recruitment fees of between RM20,000 and RM30,000. That is nearly 12–17 times the legal limit, forcing workers to overstay to recoup their payment.

The 2026 US Trafficking in Persons Report flags that not a single employment agency in Malaysia was prosecuted under the Private Employment Agencies Act between 2025 and 2026.

More troublingly, it identifies official complicity as a significant concern. Even Radzi has acknowledged that civil servants assist traffickers.

So why are we proposing to send soldiers after the workers? Why aren’t we going after those who profit from and sustain this system?

Recruitment agents who impose crippling fees, employers who exploit undocumented labour, and officials who enable trafficking are the problem.

Deploy the army? Then deploy it against the employers, including GLCs, that knowingly hire undocumented workers. Deploy it against recruitment cartels that manufacture debt bondage, and against corrupt officials who enable labour trafficking.

If we are serious about reducing irregular migration, we must dismantle the lucrative recruitment-fee system that generates mega profits at the expense of migrant workers and perpetuates the cycle of debt bondage. Enforce a mandatory employer-pays principle and sign binding bilateral labour agreements with labour-sending countries.

MPs like Radzi need to understand the issues they speak about instead of playing to the gallery. Migrant workers are NOT the root cause of this crisis.

Greed, corruption, exploitative recruitment and unscrupulous employers are. Yet we continue to blame the workers while allowing the people who profit from exploitation to operate with impunity.

Malaysia has repeatedly faced international scrutiny and embarrassment over its poor labour migration governance. We simply cannot deport our way out of a system that we have failed to govern. So stop scapegoating migrant workers and start holding the powerful to account.

Charles Santiago is the former MP for Klang.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of MalaysiaNow. 20/10/2026

 

Dusuki Mokhtar must RESIGN as Attorney General - following his wrong comment justifying removal of EXCO member by RULERS not acting on advise of MB? A wrong statement by AG can deceive the PUBLIC?

How could AG Dusuki Mokhtar publicly say that the removal of NS State Exco by the RULER alone, without allegedly the advice of the Menteri Besar was VALID? It was a DECEPTION of the Rakyat who expects an Attorney General is knowledgeable in our Federal Constitution and laws.

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

FIRST, Malaysia is  a Parliamentary Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy. Any POWER of Rulers/King comes from the Malaysian people, and today it is to be found in our WRITTEN Federal Constitution. 

Note, it is the FEDERAL Constitution that even created the KING - before we had no King.The first King of Malaysia (officially the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) was Tuanku Abdul Rahman of Negeri Sembilan, and his reign begin on 31/8/1957(MERDEKA Day) - likewise for State Rulers too, what is their POWERS and how they are to Act is all based on the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution.

Remember Malaysia is not simply a MONARCHY - where King and State Rulers can do as they please on their own > the powers come from the Federal Constitution and the relevant State Constitution > the powers they have is what the Malaysian people decided to give them - and the powers of King/State Rulers can also be further diminished, or increased if the people decide so, and this will be done by Constitutional Amendments

ONE power that was removed by the Malaysian government - was the ability of the KING to block the passing of LAWS, as for laws to be passed, it requires it to be passed by MPs in Parliament, then approved by Senators in Senate, and lastly the ASSENT(approval) by the King - and if NO royal assent, the law is NOT PASSED. Then the constitution was amended - and today, the right of the KING to stop the passing of a LAW is GONE - even if the King do not give his ROYAL assent, it is assumed that he did - Art 66(4 - 4A)

(4) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall within thirty days after a Bill is presented to him assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto.

(4A) If a Bill is not assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong within the time specified in Clause (4), it shall become law at the expiration of the time specified in that Clause in the like manner as if he had assented thereto.

The KING cannot simply appoint Anthony Loke  or Hadi Awang as Prime Minister > because he can only appoint a MP who has the confidence/support of the majority of Members of Parliament - today, it is more than 111 of the total of 222 MPs.

Now, when it comes to members of the Cabinet, the KING has no more power/discretion in the matter, as has to appoint whoever as advised by the Prime Minister... same too in Negeri Sembilan as per that States Constitution, that was enacted post-MERDEKA.

XXXVIII  The Executive Council  LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEGERI SEMBILAN 1959

(1) The Ruler shall appoint an Executive Council.

(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say—

(a) the Ruler shall first appoint as Menteri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in His judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;

(b) He shall on the advice of the Menteri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members from among the members of the Legislative Assembly; and

(c) The Ruler shall, if the Menteri Besar so advises, appoint a member in the State Executive Council to be the Senior Executive Council who shall assist the Menteri Besar in the performance of his duties and the carrying out of his functions on the directions of Menteri Besar,

but if an appointment is made while the Legislative Assembly is dissolved a person who was a member of the last Legislative Assembly may be appointed but shall not continue to hold office after the first sitting of the next Legislative Assembly unless he is a member thereof.

(3) The Executive Council shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly.

(4) If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then unless at his request the Ruler dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

(5) Subject to Clause (4), a member of the Executive Council other than the Menteri Besar shall hold office at the Ruler's pleasure, unless the appointment of any member of the Executive Council shall have been revoked by the Ruler on the advice of the Menteri Besar but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.

(6) A member of the Executive Council shall not engage in any trade, business or profession connected with any subject or department for which he is responsible and shall not, so long as he is engaged in any trade, business or profession, take part in any decision of the Executive Council relating to that trade, business or profession or in any decision likely to affect his pecuniary interest therein.

And, the meaning of 'acting on advice' as per the NS Constitution is similar to the provision of the Federal Constitution  

XL  Ruler to act on advice of the NS Constitution -  (1) In the exercise of His functions under the Constitution of the State or any law or as a member of the Conference of Rulers the Ruler 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.

As it is, the Negeri Sembilan Constitution is similar to the Federal Constitution, and thus The RULER cannot remove any member of the Executive Council save on the advice of the Menteri Besar, The other way, other that personal resignation of the EXCO member, is when the Menteri Besar no longer commands the majority support resigns

Media report allege that the removal of the State EXCO members was not on the advice of the Menteri Besar - so it was wrong/void.

But, then our Dusuki Mokhtar (AG/PP) says it is OK - in my opinion, it was WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL - and one would expect anyone with a legal background would know this - that is why DUSUKI must resign - we need a better AG/PP 

The revocation of the appointments of 10 Negeri Sembilan executive council members is valid, says Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar. ...“According to Article 38(5), an exco member other than the menteri besar holds the post at the pleasure of the Yang Dipertuan Besar,” he said.

Dusuki refers to Art 38(5) of presumably the NS Constitution - and here to he is wrong as it clearly states that the removal by Ruler on the advice of MB - unless they RESIGN on their own.

38(5) Subject to Clause (4), a member of the Executive Council other than the Menteri Besar shall hold office at the Ruler's pleasure, unless the appointment of any member of the Executive Council shall have been revoked by the Ruler on the advice of the Menteri Besar but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office. 

Now, with regards to removal of Attorney General, a similar provision exist - does this mean that it was the KING that removed the 2 past AG/PP of this Anwar Ibrahim's government WITHOUT the advice of the PM Anwar Ibrahim > this is ABSURD so much so no further comment now...

Art 145(5) Federal Constitution - Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine. 

Does DUSUKI believe that the KING/RULERS can act on their own and REMOVE the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Cabinet Members and State EXCO members, without the advice of the Prime Minister or the relevant Menteri BESAR? 

Fortunately, this UNCONSTITUTIONALITY was raised in Parliament by an MP - why did no DAP, PKR,PH MP raise this fundamental issue - a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS > if NS Ruler can do this, then RULERS of other States may also do so, and also the KING - YES, the King can remove, say Anthony Loke as a member of the Cabinet - without the advise of the PM? Is that OK? It is not, and thus the NS Exco Removal by RULER, NOT on the advise of the Menteri Besar is a SERIOUS ISSUE...

Speaking during the debate on the Supply (Budget) Bill 2027, Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) argued that the removal of 10 Negeri Sembilan excos by ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, without the advice of Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim, was unconstitutional.

He questioned why the Attorney-General’s Chambers had deemed the action constitutional, despite Clause 4 of the Negeri Sembilan constitution stipulating that members of the state exco, other than the menteri besar, hold office at the ruler’s pleasure, subject to removal by the ruler on the menteri besar’s advice.

"This (removal) was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the attorney-general, who advises the government, has stated that the action taken is constitutional, when in fact it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

"I would like to ask the attorney-general: which constitution is he referring to when he says that what has been done is lawful?

"This is a constitutional matter that this House has the right to debate, because any constitution and amendments to it are dealt with here,” said the PAS secretary-general.. Malaysiakini, 19/10/2026

 No KING or State Ruler has the power to remove any member of the Federal or State Cabinet on his own. They must ACT of the Advice of the PM or MB. 

NOTE - Here I am only dealing with the removal of State EXCO members by the RULER, allegedly without the ADVISE of the Menteri Besar.

The NS issue now is much more - it allegedly starts with the 'questionable' removal of 1 of the 4 Undangs, the Undangs decision to remove the RULER...and a lot more > I may discuss it later or not. The current crisis has also raised issues of State-Federal relations > who appoints a State Legal Adviser and Secretary > should not the State have 100% control in such matters? 

One thing that the NS Constitution has but not yet in the Federal Constitution is 'BAR'  -  A member of the Executive Council shall not engage in any trade, business or profession connected with any subject or department for which he is responsible...Should we consider including this in our FEDERAL CONSTITUTION too?

Sacking of Negeri Sembilan exco members valid, says AG

24 days ago

FMT Reporters

The gazette on the revocation aligns with Article 38(5) of the state's constitution, says Dusuki Mokhtar.

The revocation of the appointments of 10 exco members was gazetted on Thursday. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA:

The revocation of the appointments of 10 Negeri Sembilan executive council members is valid, says Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar.

Dusuki said the gazette on the revocation, effective Sept 20, aligns with Article 38(5) of the state’s constitution, Sinar Harian reported.

“According to Article 38(5), an exco member other than the menteri besar holds the post at the pleasure of the Yang Dipertuan Besar,” he said.

The Negeri Sembilan administration gazetted the revocation of the 10 exco members’ appointments on Thursday, with their sackings effective Sept 20.

The gazette said their appointments were revoked and annulled as they had violated their pledge of allegiance to the Yang Dipertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir.

The 10 now-former exco members include Umno’s Mustapha Nagoor (Palong), Faizal Ramli (Linggi), Zaiful Bahri Idris (Chembong), Razi Ali (Sungai Lui), Asna Amin (Lenggeng), Siti Nur Umaira Hasim (Labu) and Suhaimizan Bizar (Gemencheh).

The other three are MCA’s Siow Kong Choon (Chennah), PAS’s Fairuz Isa (Serting) and Razali Abu Samah (Sikamat) of Wawasan.

Their sackings come a week after they issued a statement purportedly affirming Tuanku Muhriz’s removal as Yang Dipertuan Besar. Menteri besar Ismail Lasim endorsed the statement a day later.

This was disputed by the state’s Dewan Keadilan dan Undang as well as the Attorney-General’s Chambers. - FMT, 26/9/2026

'Which constitution are you referring to?' Takiyuddin questions AG advice on N Sembilan exco removals

Hariz MohdPublished: Oct 19, 2026 2:15 PM

PARLIAMENT | A Perikatan Nasional lawmaker today raised the Negeri Sembilan royal dispute in the Dewan Rakyat, accusing Putrajaya of undermining the Federal Constitution’s guarantee of state constitutional autonomy.

Speaking during the debate on the Supply (Budget) Bill 2027, Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) argued that the removal of 10 Negeri Sembilan excos by ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, without the advice of Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim, was unconstitutional.

He questioned why the Attorney-General’s Chambers had deemed the action constitutional, despite Clause 4 of the Negeri Sembilan constitution stipulating that members of the state exco, other than the menteri besar, hold office at the ruler’s pleasure, subject to removal by the ruler on the menteri besar’s advice.

"This (removal) was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the attorney-general, who advises the government, has stated that the action taken is constitutional, when in fact it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

"I would like to ask the attorney-general: which constitution is he referring to when he says that what has been done is lawful?

"This is a constitutional matter that this House has the right to debate, because any constitution and amendments to it are dealt with here,” said the PAS secretary-general.

Takiyuddin (above) also referred to Article 71(1) of the Federal Constitution, which stipulates that disputes over a state’s succession to the throne must be resolved by the authorities and in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the state constitution.

 He questioned whether the federal government could guarantee that state constitutions would be respected and implemented without federal interference.

"I would like to ask, as an MP representing a state within the Federation, whether the current federal government truly guarantees the freedom of state constitutions to be applied at the state level, and whether it can assure us that the federal government will not interfere in matters governed by the provisions of state constitutions,” he said.

AirAsia bailout?

In the... Malaysiakini, 19/10/2026

A precedent but no blanket pass 23 Jun 2016 12:00 am

©The Star (Used by permission)
Reflecting On The Law by SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

Article 66 (4A) permits the King to be bypassed but cannot apply to other institutions and agencies with constitutional role in law–making.

FOR the first time in the history of our Constitution, a Bill became law without the consent of the Yang di–Pertuan Agong. This was when the National Security Council Act 2016 (NSC Act), passed by the two Houses last December, was gazetted on June 7 without royal assent.

This draws attention to the complex constitutional procedures for enacting laws and specifically to Article 66 (4A), which permits the Government to bypass the King.

Bypassing the King: Under Article, 44 Parliament consists of the Yang di–Pertuan Agong, Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. In normal circumstances, royal assent is needed for a Bill to become law.

However, in the event that the Yang di–Pertuan Agong refuses or delays assent, Article 66 (4A) provides that the Bill shall become law 30 days after it is presented to the King.

Chequered history: The Merdeka Constitution imposed no time limit for signifying royal assent but in August 1983, a Constitution Amendment Bill sought to insert a new Clause to provide that “if for any reason whatsoever the Bill is not assented to within 15 days of the Bill being presented to the Yang di–Pertuan Agong, he shall be deemed to have assented to the Bill and the Bill shall accordingly become law”.

The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 applied this 15–day time limit to State Rulers as well. The Conference of Rulers, acting under Article 38 (4) and 159 (5), vetoed this Bill. A constitutional crisis ensued. After four months of negotiations, a compromise was worked out between the Government and the royal houses.

The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1984 provided a multi–tiered procedure for enabling the King to object to a Bill but for the Government to ultimately bypass the King in the legislative process.

• The King was granted 30 days to consider a Bill that was presented to him.

• His Majesty was given a right to return the Bill to the House where it originated from with written reasons for his objections.

• If the Houses of Parliament re–enacted the Bill a second time, the Bill would be returned to His Majesty for royal assent.

• His Majesty could delay the Bill for a second 30–day period.

• If he still refused to give his assent, the Bill would be deemed to become law.

• The provision about bypassing State Rulers was abandoned.

For reasons unknown, the 1984 Amendment Act survived only 10 years. By the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994, Article 66 was amended for a third time in 10 years. The provisions for the King to send his written objections to Parliament; for Parliament to re–enact the Bill; and for the King to have a second 30–day delay period were repealed. The bypassing procedures were extended to State Sultans.

The 1994 amendment to Article 66(4A) allows the King and the State Sultans only 30 days to give royal assent, after which the measure becomes law.

Inapplicability of 66 (4A): It is generally believed that the effect of Article 66 (4A) is that since 1994, the Government and the two Houses of Parliament can enact any Bill into law by gazetting it 30 days after presenting it to the King. This view is mistaken. Article 66 (4A) permits the King to be bypassed. But the Article cannot apply to other institutions and agencies that have a constitutional role in the nation’s law–making process.

Conference of Rulers: The Conference is an essential component of the amending process in respect of those amendments specified in Article 159 (5). The Conference has been conferred the momentous power to block amendments to nine key provisions of the basic charter.

These provisions are: restrictions on free speech prohibiting the questioning of “sensitive issues” in Article 10 (4); citizenship rights in Part III; privileges, position, honours or dignities of the Rulers in Article 38; applicability of the law of sedition to legislative and parliamentary proceedings in Articles 63 and 72; precedence of Rulers in Article 70; Rulers’ rights of succession in Article 71; special position of the Malay language in Article 152; privileges of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak in Article 153; and the special procedure for amending the Constitution under Article 159 (5).

Any amending Bill that affects the above matters must be supported by a special two–thirds majority in both Houses and receive the consent of the Conference of Rulers. It is argued by some that as the NSC Act confers powers on the Prime Minister that are akin to the King’s emergency powers under Article 150, the law requires the consent of the Conference under Articles 38 and 159 (5).

This submission is not supported by the case of Phang Chin Hock (1980). The Yang di–Pertuan Agong and the Rulers are distinct entities. The Rulers have no role in the declaration of emergency and so the NSC Act is not caught by Article 38.

Governors of Sabah and Sarawak: Under Article 161E, any modification to the special rights of Sabah and Sarawak requires a two–thirds majority in both Houses of the Federal Parliament, the assent of the Yang di–Pertuan Agong and the consent of the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak. Without the Governors’ consent, the federal Bill cannot become law.

Consent of the State legislatures: Some federal Bills cannot become law unless assented to by the state legislatures concerned. Under Article 2 (b) a federal law altering the boundaries of any State shall not be passed without the consent of that state legislature and the Conference of Rulers. Laws under Articles 80 (3), 76 (3), 76 (4), 161 (3) and 161B (1) likewise need the state legislature’s approval.

Consent of State Sultans: Does the 30–day rule apply to State Sultans? The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994 (Act A885) meant this to be so.

But it is submitted that the federal amendments to Article 66 and the Eighth Schedule do not apply automatically to State Constitutions unless either of two conditions are met: first, that the States have amended their own Constitutions to incorporate the 30–day federal law.

Second, the federal Parliament has used the sledgehammer of Article 71(3) to pass a law to secure state compliance with the Federal Constitution.

Shad Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own. He wishes all Malaysians the blessings of Ramadan and the approaching Eid. - Malaysian Bar Website

 

PM Anwar > will the NEW Malay(those who came to Malaysia after MERDEKA or foreign spouses of Malays) also be entitled to Art.153 benefits/preferences? Provide DATA on who exactly benefited?

Foreign nationals who marry Muslim Malay citizens in Malaysia will not automatically see their ethnicity altered or qualify for special Bumiputera privileges, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said in a written parliamentary reply. 

He stressed that the National Registration Department (JPN) does not reclassify a foreign national’s ancestral lineage based solely on marriage, amid persistent questions around the legal and administrative status of cross-border marriages.

“Determining whether an individual holds Bumiputera status, as well as their eligibility to enjoy rights or privileges allocated to Bumiputera, falls outside JPN’s jurisdiction,” Saifuddin said in the written reply dated October 12.

“This is because such matters remain governed by specific laws, policies, and criteria set by the respective agencies or relevant authorities,” he added.

That answer by the HOME MINISTER raises QUESTIONS/CONCERNS:-

1 - The response seem to talk about just 'MUSLIM Malay citizens' - what about the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, who together with Malays, enjoy Art. 153 special preference. What about foreign spouses of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak - can they also one day become natives and enjoy the Art. 153 special preference. HOW? WHY?

 

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B   

2  - The use of the term Bumiputera  - he should just talk about Malay and natives of Sabah/Sarawak privileges. The term BUMIPUTERA is not YET clearly LEGALLY defined - nobody knows clearly whether there are OTHER Malaysian ethnic groups, other than Malay and natives of Sabah/Sarawak also considered BUMIPUTERA. If the government wanted to add other ethnic groups as beneficiaries of Art 153, then do so. If they wanted to use the term Bumiputra, then include it in the Constitution and clearly define?  

3 -  Who decides one is a MALAY, or a native of Sabah and Sarawak, that qualifies to enjoy the benefits of Art 153? That must be MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR as now we run the risk of NEW MALAY also taking benefits/preferences allocated for just qualified MALAY (not some foreigner who because he is Muslim, speaks Malay, follow Malay Custom is Malay today, a status he may have just obtained after coming to Malaysia after MERDEKA) - the Minister said it was not the National Registration Department(JPN), but 'such matters remain governed by specific laws, policies, and criteria set by the respective agencies or relevant authorities' - No mention of which agency and which law. BEST if the qualified Malay or native of Sabah and Sarawak that qualifies Art. 153 preference are stringently defined by the HOME MINISTRY - and this qualification maybe be clearly stated in National Registration Cards(MyKad) > why the risk of unqualified 'stealing' benefits/preferences from the unqualified > this affects the qualified Malays and natives of Sabah/Sarawak as provided for in our Constitution - and also all other Malaysians who ultimately pay for this.

Today, many later arrivals from Malaysia and neighboring countries, including also some from other countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Arab Nations ...maybe qualified as MALAYs - but they certainly are not entitled to enjoy Art. 153 benefits/preferences. If an unqualified Malay wrongly gets a SCHOLARSHIP or a University place because of Art.153 - it denies another qualified Malay that scholarship, place in University...  

The issue of the 'NEW Malay' and whether they too benefit from the preferences provided for under Art 153 Federal Constitution Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

Under the Constitution those entitled to special preferences are 'Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' 

Under this PART XII (which includes Art 152 to 160B) - Art. 160 defines 'MALAY'

"Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and—

(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or

(b) is the issue of such a person;

THUS, it reasonably means that ONLY Malay that falls within this Constitutional Interpretation can benefit from the special preferences provided in Art 153 - Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc....

This means that the 'NEW Malay' - those came later to Malaysia, although they are subsequently seen as MALAY will NOT QUALIFY to get the benefits of Art. 153 ...

Malay - to become a Malay, there is no requirement that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents, etc were ethnically MALAY (which could be determined today be DNA analysis, etc) - because all the Federal Constitution says is that he/she  is 'a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom' - and that means any MUSLIM from any part of the world who is today a Malaysian citizen 'who habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom...'

The Malaysian Government to date have FAILED to properly record who are MALAY and enjoy the benefit of Art. 153, and who are Malay (or new Malay) who do not enjoy the benefits of Art. 153.

In Malaysia, the benefit to Malays and/or Natives of Sabah and Sarawak comes NOT just from Art. 153 > but can also come in through other laws/policies/practice of the Federal/State and even Local Government. HOWEVER, if comes from some other law/policy and NOT Art. 153 - it may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and VOID.

For instance that policy/practice of 10% DISCOUNT for certain citizens for House purchases from Developer > it, in my opinion, does not arise from Art. 153 > it, I believe, arises from a CONDITION for approval of Housing Development projects that is imposed by the relevant Local Government/Council > is it then UNCONSTITUTIONAL - In my opinion, it is as it violates Art.8(1) that guarantees equality of persons, and also Art 8(2) that prohibits discrimination - there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law. Until this matter is raised in COURT - sadly some Developers or governments may continue to impose such BAD Practices.

On the ART. 153 preferences/benefits - which should also be just a REASONABLE PROPORTION not all - '...proportion as he may deem reasonable...' - and it is only for '....positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law,...'

So, maybe good if Prime MINISTER Anwar Ibrahim of this Pakatan Harapan led Coalition Government openly clarify what exactly is this REASONABLE PROPORTION currently :- 

* Positions in Public Service

* Scholarships

* Places in PUBLIC Universities and other government educational institutions

* License or permits for trade/business...

Another issue - is the Statistics since independence on who got these Art.153 benefits - according to the qualified ethnic groups(to ensure there was equitable distribution, also DATA on whether the benifits reached ALL within qualified ethnic groups > and not just the T20(the very rich) whilst the B40 did not benefit.

ALSO when non-qualified Malay had been benefiting? This is a 'LEAKAGE' in the objects of this preferential treatment. 

##### 

PROBLEM Caused during British Colonial Government RULE 

During colonial rule (1786–1957), the British practiced a "divide-and-rule" approach that segregated groups economically. Chinese immigrants dominated mining and commerce, Indian immigrants worked rubber plantations, and Malays were largely left in traditional rural villages, subsistence farming, and fishing....Malays lagged far behind non-Malays in corporate wealth, urban capital, and professional expertise. Special preferences were designed as an equalizer to help bridge this socio-economic gap. 

The preference that needed to be given Malays is OLD and commonly accepted - it was also acknowledged in the PEOPLE's Constitution and was the reason for the 1947 HARTAL - it differed from the UMNO-British Colonial Government proposal...(Note the Peoples' Constitution was not supported by the then UMNO or the Communist Party. 

The objective of the preferences was to bring about equity in all the Ethnic Groups in Malaysia(sadly the Orang Asli was not included) BUT the implementation need to be reviewed > why are there still so many Malays that are POOR? Did it help only help rich Malay/natives become richer - thus failed to uplift all Malay/Natives ??? 

 

In the late 1940s, as the British colonial government prepared to restructure Malaya, two opposing political factions proposed vastly different blueprints for citizenship and ethnic relations:

Dimension	The Putera–AMCJA Vision (The People's Constitution)	The Anglo-UMNO Vision (The Federation of Malaya Agreement)
The Coalition	A broad, multi-ethnic alliance combining left-wing Malay nationalists (PUTERA) and non-Malay progressive/labor groups (AMCJA).	The British colonial administration working exclusively with conservative Malay elites represented by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).
Concept of Citizenship	Proposed a unified "Melayu" nationality applied equally to all residents who viewed Malaya as their home, stripping the term of exclusive ethnic or religious requirements.	Maintained strict ethnic divisions, offering restrictive citizenship pathways for non-Malays.
Malay Preference & Status	Envisioned Malay primacy but not dominance. It rejected institutionalized, permanent special privileges in favor of socio-economic upliftment under a framework of civic equality.	Codified the formal "special position" of the Malays under the protection of the Malay Rulers, safeguarding quotas in civil service, education, and business.

2. The 1947 Hartal as a Protest

When the British government ignored the inclusive "People's Constitution" and opted to move forward with the pro-elite Federation of Malaya proposals, the Putera–AMCJA coalition launched a massive, peaceful protest.

On October 20, 1947, they staged a Hartal—a total cessation of work and closure of businesses across Malaya. Backed heavily by trade unions, the Chinese Chambers of Commerce, and grassroots Malay, Chinese, and Indian citizens, the strike successfully brought the Malayan economy to a complete standstill for a day.

 

 

Home minister: Children of Malay-foreign marriages may be registered as Malay, but foreign spouses won’t automatically gain Bumiputera status

PUTRAJAYA 14/09/2026 Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail speaks to the press during the Monthly Assembly here at Home Ministry, Putrajaya. PICTURE BY SAYUTI ZAINUDIN

Summary

• In a recent parliamentary response, Malaysian Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail clarified that foreign nationals marrying Muslim Malay citizens do not automatically receive a change in ethnicity or qualify for Bumiputera privileges.
• The National Registration Department (JPN) does not alter a foreign national's lineage based on marriage, as Bumiputera status and associated benefits are governed by specific laws and criteria outside its jurisdiction.
• While the ethnic classification of a foreign spouse remains unchanged, children from such unions can be registered under either parent's lineage, impacting their eligibility for various socio-economic benefits.

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

First Published: Tuesday, 13 Oct 2026 1:10 PM MYT

Last Modified: Tuesday, 13 Oct 2026 1:15 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 13 — Foreign nationals who marry Muslim Malay citizens in Malaysia will not automatically see their ethnicity altered or qualify for special Bumiputera privileges, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said in a written parliamentary reply.

He stressed that the National Registration Department (JPN) does not reclassify a foreign national’s ancestral lineage based solely on marriage, amid persistent questions around the legal and administrative status of cross-border marriages.

“Determining whether an individual holds Bumiputera status, as well as their eligibility to enjoy rights or privileges allocated to Bumiputera, falls outside JPN’s jurisdiction,” Saifuddin said in the written reply dated October 12.

“This is because such matters remain governed by specific laws, policies, and criteria set by the respective agencies or relevant authorities,” he added.

Pang Hok Liong (PH-Labis) had asked the minister whether Muslim foreign nationals could claim Bumiputera status upon marrying local Malay citizens, and what conditions, if any, govern eligibility for affirmative action privileges.

While the foreign spouse retains their original ethnic classification, Saifuddin said children born to a legally recognised marriage between a local and a foreign national enjoy flexibility regarding registration.

Parents can choose to register the child’s lineage following either the mother or the father, meaning the child may legally inherit Malay lineage or that of the foreign parent, subject to registration guidelines.

In Malaysia, ethnic classification and Bumiputera status carry significant legal and socio-economic weight, governing access to government quotas, housing discounts, public university admissions, and specialised financial instruments like Amanah Saham Bumiputera. - Malay Mail, 13/10/2026

 

Bumiputera: Are you one? Or can you ‘become’ one in Malaysia?

The broad constitutional definitions of the word “Malay” raises the question of whether or not someone born to a different ethnic group but fits all the criteria could be considered by both society and the government to be a Malay.

First Published: Wednesday, 26 Jul 2017 7:00 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — Mention the word “Bumiputera” and the word “Malay” immediately comes to mind, and to a lesser extent the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, based on decades of experience on how affirmative action policies are carried out.

With Malaysia’s Indian Muslim community recently asking to join the special group of people known as Bumiputera, you might be asking: can you too “become” one, or must you be born one?

1. What is a Bumiputera?

The term “Bumiputera” however is not found in the Federal Constitution, which suggests that its meaning is not set in stone.

Article 160 of the Constitution only states the criteria for a person to be considered a Malay; which is to profess the religion of Islam, habitually speak the Malay language, conform to Malay custom and be born to a Malaysian parent.

The Department of Statistics Malaysia estimates the country’s population this mid-year as slightly over 32 million citizens and non-citizens, with the Bumiputera forming the bulk of the 28.7 million citizens at 19.78 million and the Chinese and Indians at 6.66 million and just below 2 million, and “others” at over 284,000.

One wonders at the tricky bureaucratic decisions in multiracial Malaysia where mixed marriages are not uncommon and ethnic identity can as a result be relatively fluid.

2. When can you be a Bumiputera?

The broad constitutional definitions of the word “Malay” raises the question of whether or not  someone born to a different ethnic group but fits all the criteria could be considered by both society and the government to be a Malay.

Similarly, who can get official recognition as being Bumiputera, which literally means “sons of the soil”?

Can a community stake their claim to the Bumiputera label if their ancestors had laid down roots in this land generations ago, or if they had intermarried with Malays or east Malaysian natives or other locals, or if they profess the religion of Islam and adopt Malay customs and language, or if political expediency allows for it?

It’s a complicated question, but one that at least one group has raised in public. Perkasa had last week called for a careful study of the Bumiputera status, asking the government if Indian Muslims are also to be conferred the status because of their religion. The non-governmental organisation also asked if Muslims of other ethnicity would be given the same status.

3. It’s just a label, isn’t it?

Well, yes and no. Yes, because some Bumiputera may feel that their community is ready to stand on its own feet.

No, because the “Bumiputera” identity comes with a whole range of economical benefits and tangible advantages that often overlap special privileges for the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. The definition of “natives” of Sabah and Sarawak can be found in Article 161A of the Constitution.

Under Article 153, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is responsible for safeguarding both the “special position” of Malays and east Malaysian natives and the “legitimate interests” of other communities. It does not use the word “rights” or “special privileges” however.

This provision covers what Malaysians often refer to as “quotas” for Malays and the east Malaysian natives with regards to scholarships, educational or training privileges, positions in the civil service, special facilities, permits or licences for trade or business activities.

There are certain restrictions under Article 153 on such privileges that act as a form of safeguard to other communities.

Malaysians can quickly pinpoint real-life examples of pro-Bumiputera policies to help the community catch up such as the carving out of contracts; while some hold a lingering suspicion that public university entry and scholarship awards are not purely merit-based and that race continues to play an important role.

And according to the Securities Commission, companies that wish to be listed on Malaysia’s stock exchange must offer at least 12.5 per cent of their shares to Bumiputera investors, while the percentage of mandatory quotas of discounted property units in new developments have been reported to differ from state to state — Johor offers 40 per cent while Negri Sembilan  offers 50 per cent and Kelantan 70 per cent as of last year.

The federal government has even launched this April the second version of its Bumiputera Economic Transformation Roadmap (BETR) to go beyond economic measures and improve the wellbeing of the Bumiputera community in areas such as education, health, income levels and property ownership.

4. Half the title?

Interestingly, the Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad’s (ASNB) mutual funds that are only open to the Bumiputera community also welcomes another group of local investors known as the “minorities”.

ASNB provides a detailed breakdown of who falls under the Bumiputera category, which includes Malays who must also be Muslims. There is no requirement to be Muslim for other indigenous Malaysians under this category—the Orang Asli in the peninsula, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, or those born to mixed marriages involving Sabahans and Sarawakians.

Aside from helpfully stating the documents required or the departments where Bumiputera verification may be obtained, ASNB’s website also clearly lists out investment eligibility for east Malaysians based on both their parents’ status.

And who are these “minorities” eligible to invest in Bumiputera-only unit trust schemes? Well, they are the “Siamese/Thai, Portuguese/Eurasian/ Serani, Muslim converts/Muslims with non-Bumiputera status, Indian Muslims”.

And who else has been seeking to be recognised as Bumiputera? According to past news reports, it includes the Melaka Chitty community or Indian Peranakan who are also Hindus and the Peranakan Chinese. Malaysians of Siamese descent had in the past been declared as having Bumiputera status.

Does the enjoyment of a benefit normally accorded only to the Bumiputera community mean one has partial Bumiputera status or is de facto a Bumiputera?

This brings us full circle to the question of who is a Bumiputera and who can be one… and which can only be answered by the government in power. - Malay Mail, 26/7/2017

First all–race political action and the People’s Constitution 1 Aug 2007 12:00 am

©The Sun (Used by permission)
by Fahmi Reza

ON Oct 20,1947,the whole of Malaya and Singapore bore witness to the first political action that involved the united action of people of all races – the Malaya–wide hartal.

The hartal, a general strike and the halting of economic activity, was effectively used in the Indian struggle for independence. It was used for the first time in Malaya by the left–wing coalition, Putera–AMCJA as a weapon against British colonialism.

Putera–AMCJA was a united front comprising two major political forces in Malaya: the Pusat Tenaga Ra’ayat (Centre for People’s Power) and the All–Malaya Council of Joint Action.

The AMCJA was a federation of political parties, labour unions, women’s associations and youth organisations that was inaugurated on Dec 22, 1946 in Kuala Lumpur.

The main organisations in the AMCJA was the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU), Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), Pan–Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU),12–State Women’s Federation in Malaya, Malayan New Democratic Youth League (MNDYL) and the Malayan People’s Anti–Japanese Ex–Service Comrades’ Association.

Although dominated by left–leaning parties,the AMCJA was led by a prominent Straits–born capitalist,Tan Cheng Lock.

Putera was a coalition inaugurated on Feb 22,1947,consisting of Malay left–wing parties such as Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (Api), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas), Barisan Tani Se–Malaya (Batas), Gerakan Angkatan Muda (Geram), Lembaga Persatuan Melayu Johor, and other smaller organisations.

Putera was led by Ishak Haji Muhammad, a journalist and nationalist who was also one of the founders of Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) in 1938.

Putera–AMCJA succeeded in bringing together all the political parties in Malaya except the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) and the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in a popular people’s front to protest the Federation Constitution that was formulated by the British to replace the Malayan Union.

The coalition argued that the Federation Constitution was undemocratic because it was formulated in secret consultations between the colonial government and the Malay aristocracy,and sidelined the opinions and wishes of the Malayan people who sought democracy and self–governance.

For Putera–AMCJA, the British action of consulting only one party was part of a divisive “divide and rule” tactic. It held mass demonstrations throughout Malaya to protest.

At each gathering, attended by thousands from all races, Putera–AMCJA leaders such as Tan Cheng Lock,Ishak Haji Muhammad, John Thivy, Philip Hoalim Sr, Dr Burhanuddin Helmy, Gerald de Cruz, Ahmad Boestamam, K. Ganapathy and Shamsiah Fakeh explained the importance of people from all races uniting to fight the Federation Constitution and to back Putera–AMCJA’s struggles.

The coalition also held mass meetings throughout Malaya to gain endorsements for resolutions opposing the Federation Constitution. Hundreds of telegrams and protest letters were sent to the British government. But the British did not pay heed to any of this.

The People’s Constitution

Putera–AMCJA realised they needed a stronger and more progressive programme to win mass support. From May 1947,it began drafting an alternative constitution to challenge the Federation Constitution.

On Aug 10, 1947, the People’s Constitution was completed, taking into consideration the opinions and aspirations of the different factions within the Putera–AMCJA pact. It was a comprehensive document that covered provisions for a democratic system of government, towards establishing a new nationality and an independent nation–state.

The Straits Times dubbed the People’s Constitution as “the first political attempt to put Malayan party politics on a plane higher than that of rival racial interests, and also as the first attempt to build a political bridge between the domiciled non–Malay communities and the Malay race”.

On Sept 21, 1947, the People’s Constitution was presented for the first time to more than 20,000 people who had gathered at Farrer Park, Singapore. Subsequently, Putera–AMCJA began a national campaign to explain the contents of the People’s Constitution to Malayans.

Meetings, mass gatherings, and demonstrations were held in various places to get the people’s support.

The constitution was published in four languages and disseminated throughout the states. Copies were also sent to the Malayan Union Government, the British Prime Minister and the Colonial Office in London.

Yet once more, the British refused to pay attention to Putera–AMCJA or to hold discussions. The colonial government also rejected all proposals in the People’s Constitution.

Malaya–wide Hartal

On Oct 6, 1947, Putera–AMCJA released a “Hartal Manifesto”. It called upon all those who regarded Malaya as their home to observe Oct 20, 1947 as a Day of Protest against the Revised Constitutional Proposals,by staging a Malaya–wide hartal on that day.

“October 20 has been selected as the Day of Protest because it is on that day that the British Parliament is scheduled to begin its autumn session, during which it is reported that a debate on the constitutional issue in Malaya will take place.

“On October 20, therefore, between the hours of six a.m. and midnight, all those who regard Malaya as their real home and who support the People’s Constitution issued by Putera–AMCJA, are asked not to carry out their usual occupations, but to remain indoors throughout the day and night.

“You are asked for one day to cease work in order to demonstrate to government that you reject the Revised Constitutional Proposals, and in order to carry our struggle for acceptance of the People’s Constitution one step further.

“October 20 is the day on which the people of Malaya will be called upon to stage the greatest political demonstration that this country has ever seen.”

The campaign to promote the hartal began on Oct 7. Its aim was to ensure the hartal’s success and to prove to the British that the masses were behind the hartal.

Full hartal instructions were issued on how it should be observed, and “12 Hartal Slogans” that pinpointed the reasons for the hartal were sent to the media, all the parties within Putera–AMCJA, and to the 30 Putera–AMCJA centres throughout Malaya to be translated and disseminated to the people so that they fully understood the hartal’s aim as a political act.

Committees were set up in each state to align and plan activities for the hartal. Propaganda corps were established to tour the towns, districts and kampung to put up posters and banners,as well as give out leaflets explaining the hartal and the People’s Constitution.

Thus, on Oct 20, 1947, beginning from 6am,the whole of Malaya underwent the hartal. Merchants shut their shops, labourers stopped going to the mines, factories, shipyards, and rubber plantations, farmers did not work their lands, fishing folk stayed ashore, housewives did not go to the markets, and the youth stayed away from amusement parks. Only colonial government offices, European stores and several other shops operated as usual.

It was estimated that the British colonial government suffered £4 million in losses from the nationwide strike that day.

According to the Putera–AMCJA, the hartal was also “a unique method of political education. It brought the constitutional issue into every home in the country, and confronted every man, woman and child with this issue. Even in the Government English schools, children in the fourth and fifth standards questioned their teachers about the hartal, asked about its nature and why the government was opposed to it”.

Even though the hartal was a complete success in its execution, it failed to change British constitutional policy in Malaya. The British rejected the People’s Constitution and stayed committed to their agreement with the Malay aristocracy and defended their Federation Constitution.

On Feb 1, 1948, the Federation of Malaya was inaugurated to replace the Malayan Union.

Then, to crush Putera–AMCJA’s continued protests against the new Federation of Malaya, the British declared a state of Emergency throughout Malaya in June 1948.

Thousands of Putera–AMCJA leaders and members were arrested. Most were locked up in detention camps for several years while others were banished.

Most of the organisations affiliated to Putera–AMCJA were banned or dissolved. This was the turning point ad marked the beginning of the end of the constitutional independence struggle of the left in Malaya.

Fahmi Reza is the director of Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka, a short documentary film that chronicles the events that culminated in the Malayawide hartal day of protest against British colonial rule on Oct 20, 1947. - Malaysian Bar Website