MCA Beri Laluan Kepada UMNO Di PRK Tanjung Piai?

6 10 2019

Apakah benar Barisan Nasional (BN) akan meletakkan calon dari UMNO dalam Pilihan Raya Kecil (PRK) Parlimen P165 Tanjung Piai?

Desas-desus ini semakin kencang selepas Presiden UMNO, Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi memberi bayangan bahawa kerusi P165 Tanjung Piai mungkin akan ditandingi calon daripada UMNO.

Utusan Online melaporkan beliau berkata demikian dalam sidang akhbar yang diadakan selepas merasmikan Konvensyen UMNO Johor 2019 yang diadakan di Hotel Trove, di sini sebentar tadi.

“MCA perlu berlapang dada, sepertimana MIC berlapang dada di Parlimen Cameron Highlands”.
“Kita tidak menolak sebarang kemungkinan, apa yang paling penting adalah untuk mengalahkan Pakatan Harapan (PH) dan memenangkan BN,” katanya.

Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (Utusan Online)

Ramai pemerhati politik meramalkan peluang BN untuk memenangi PRK ini lebih besar sekiranya BN meletakkan calon dari UMNO memandangkan hampir 57 peratus daripada pengundi Parlimen Tanjung Piai ialah orang Melayu.

Perkara ini menjadi lebih penting kerana BN akan menentang calon dari Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) yang sudah tentunya orang Melayu.

Dalam PRU14, di Johor ramai calon PPBM telah berjaya mendapat sokongan daripada mereka yang dahulunya menyokong UMNO; dan dengan pertolongan PPBM, kubu kuat UMNO di Johor telah berjaya diruntuhkan.

Tambahan pula, realitinya sokongan pengundi Cina kepada calon MCA di dalam PRU14 adalah amat rendah di seluruh negara termasuk di Johor dan MCA kalah hampir di kesemua kerusi tradisinya.

Namun, persoalannya sekarang, apakah MCA sanggup berlapang dada melepaskan kerusi tradisinya, sepertimana MIC berlapang dada ketika PRK Parlimen Cameron Highlands dahulu?

DAP Uses MCA to ‘Screw’ UMNO?

11 04 2017

Ever since the proposed amendment of Act 355 was tabled on the 26th of May 2016, DAP and its allies including supposedly Muslim parties had strongly opposed the amendment to empower the Syariah Courts and fabricated stories to justify their actions.

Using fictitious, weird and out of context arguments, DAP and friends have been making stern statements not only to voice out their disagreements but also trying to deny the democratic process by trying to forbid the private bill from being tabled in Parliament.   

Not only that, DAP went as far as dragging its ‘enemies’ along to support its cause and pressuring them, in particular MCA, MIC, GERAKAN, and SUPP to force UMNO to oppose the amendment as well.

They even made seditious statements such as urging the non-Malay parties to leave BN since UMNO is working together with PAS ‘to get hudud implemented through backdoor channels’.

Now, why does DAP seriously want UMNO to fight against the amendment that has nothing to do with most of DAP leaders and members?

Well, while the proposed amendment of Act 355 will not affect their lives, UMNO’s support for the Act will definitely gives a great impact to DAP’s chance to win in the coming general election, hence it does affect them indirectly!

DAP who wants to win big in the coming general election can only achieve its dreams if UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates lose; so DAP must make sure that UMNO supporters will not vote for UMNO.

In general, the so-called progressive Malays such as the Malays supporting LGBT rights, pluralism of religion, liberalism and those who are against the amendment of Act 355 will not vote for UMNO; as they feel that UMNO’s approach to Islamic matters is too conservative and not ‘progressive’.

The Negeri Sembilan’s transgender case clearly proves that the government is really serious in curbing the LGBT way of lives.

At the same time, it is not a secret that majority of the Chinese did not vote for MCA during the last general election, and obviously will still not be supporting MCA in the coming 14th General Election.

So the MCA’s candidates can only win the election if the Malay voters who support UMNO vote for them in order to uphold Islam in Malaysia as so far proven by the UMNO led Barisan Nasional.

Therefore, in order to win in the coming general election, DAP must make sure that the UMNO’s Malay voters will no longer vote for UMNO and its allies, and one of the ways to do so is to give the impression that UMNO leaders are no longer fighting for Islam and are as bad as the progressive Muslims leaders of DAP and friends.

And one of the best ways to deny UMNO from winning is to stop UMNO from supporting the amendment of Act 355, hence, making UMNO’s Malay voters angry, and ‘hopefully’ in frustration, some may even vote for the progressive Malay parties as a revenge.

DAP will then play the issue that UMNO had cheated its Malay voters and tell them to teach UMNO a lesson by not voting for UMNO’s and other Barisan Nasional’s candidates; therefore giving DAP and friends a much bigger chance to win in the next general election.

In other words, DAP is actually trying to use MCA as a tool to make the Malays hate UMNO so that they won’t be voting for UMNO and other candidates of the Barisan Nasional, including MCA.

DAP dares to pressure MCA to fight against the amendment because DAP knows that MCA will not be able to win the hearts of the Chinese who had voted for DAP in the previous general election even if MCA went all out to fight against the amendment of Act 355.

So, does it make any sense for MCA to be so arrogant and make the people who voted for them feel very,very angry,unappreciated and cheated?

MCA must understand that unlike DAP’s supporters, the Chinese who had voted for MCA are those who do not agree to the harsh ideologies of DAP and understand and respect the rights of the Muslims to be governed by the Syariah law; so MCA must not fall into DAP’s trap if MCA really wants to win in the coming general election.

Is it logical that DAP cares enough for MCA that it is forcefully dragging MCA to go all out fighting against the amendment so that the non-Muslim voters especially the Chinese will not ‘punish’ MCA in the coming general election?

Unless MCA is an ally of DAP, DAP will do anything to make the voters hate MCA because unless there is a secret agenda, no political party will want their opponent to win any vote.

So that is why the leaders of DAP and friends insist that even though the non-Muslims are not under the jurisdiction the Act 355, they are still affected by the Act because the Malays who support the Act will not be voting for UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates if UMNO fails to support the amendment; meaning the support for the amendment will affect both the Muslim and non-Muslim candidates of DAP and friends in their chances to win the Malay votes in the coming general election.

So, MCA must grow up and be rational, and remember that they must not fall into DAP’s trap unless it intends to ‘commit suicide’.

Grow Up, MCA!

31 03 2017

“Malaysia is a secular country” – that is a very popular myth concocted and supported by people who are obviously constitutionally illiterate and clueless about the interpretation of the Federal Constitution of our country.

MCA Legal Affairs Bureau Chairman Datuk Tay Puay Chuan’s press statement  which was published on the MCA website yesterday (March 30, 2017) with the title, “Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation” is part of the series of false and baseless accusations by certain groups to undermined the core principals of our country.

Tay Puay Chuan who clearly does not (or pretended not to) understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the definition of secularism, made several false accusations regarding the position of Islam in Malaysia, using the recycled baseless arguments which had been answered by many people for years.

I’ve written so many articles on this currently “hot issue” trying to open the minds of these people but then, it seems that some people just prefer to live in denial.

Below is the press statement (orange) together with my answers (blue) to all his twisted facts and wild accusations regarding Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I would like to stress again that the status of Islam as the religion of the federation, the roots of the Islamic law nationwide are granted by the Federal Constitution. This ascertains that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case.

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

This is in response to the booklet by Institute Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM) on the ’10 Salah Tanggapan Tentang Kedudukan Islam di Malaysia (10 Misconceptions about the Position of Islam in Malaysia)’, in which it included topics that either directly wrote or implied that ‘Malaysia is not a secular country;’ ‘rejecting claims that Islam is lower than the Constitution;’ ‘As an Islamic  nation, Islamic system is the thrust;’ as well as ‘other religions have no equal standing; and ‘the nation does  not carry the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions.’

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

In my opinion, “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practied in peace and harmony” means that Islam is the main religion among other religions that are practied in the country such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others. Islam is not equal to any other religion, not sitting together or stand upright. It sits on top, he walked past, located in the field and his voice heard. Islam is like teak trees – tall, strong and skilled. If not so Islam is not the religion of the Federation but is one among several religions practised in the country and everyone is equally free to practice any religion he professes, no more one than the other. Provisions ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ shall be defined and reviewed with the objective to read other provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 89, 152, 153 and 14.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions (as long as they are in peace and harmony with Islam), there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions except Islam, for example, the Article 11(4).

IKSIM must be alerted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution also explains that Islamic law is for persons professing the religion of Islam on matters related to succession, marriage, divorce, etc.

I have read the booklet and in the booklet, IKSIM has never said that the Islamic law has the jurisdiction over people professing other religions other than Islam.

The Federal Constitution is THE supreme law of the nation, and the supremacy of the Constitution renders Islam as the religion of the federation whilst other religions are allowed to be practised freely.

That is not only a false but also a malicious statement. The Constitution has never stated that “other religions can be practised freely” in any of its Articles or Schedules. Article 11(1) says that, Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” while Article 3(1) clearly says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. So, there is no phrase such as “other religions can be practised freely” in both Articles. Maybe Tay came across the word “bebas” in the Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM and was confused by it.

As for the phrase, “in peace and harmony”, it was clearly interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia.

Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Supreme Court judgement enables the implementation of secular laws in the country, which includes both criminal and civil laws. These laws apply to the entire country, irrespective of race and religion. Similarly, the Federal Constitution also provides that Islamic law may only be used on persons professing the religion of Islam. Therefore, Islamic law is not for everyone. Only secular laws may be applied to everyone. Hence, this is one of the proofs which shows that Malaysia is a secular country.

Contrary to what was argued by Tay, the fact that Malaysia has two court systems, the civil court systems and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

By the way, does Tay understand the meaning of the word secularism? George Jacob Holyoake, the creator of the term secularism defined secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation. It also contradicts with other Articles of the Constitution such as the Articles 11(4), 12, 37, 76A, 121(1A) and others.

As I wrote in my article for the news portal Menara, in a secular country, the State does not have a religion and cannot has anything to do in relation to religion, for example in the case of Mount Soledad Easter Cross in San Diego, California.

Hence, by calling Malaysia a secular country, Tay slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

Syariah law which is currently applied across all states, is the provision of rights granted to all state governments on the law as outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It is stated with a condition that the criminal penalties and jurisdictions of the Syariah Court cannot contravene the Federal Constitution, or it will be considered void and unconstitutional.

The jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts does not contravene the Federal Constitution because it was conferred by the Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution also states that: Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This again shows that other religions are also protected by the Federal Constitution. Hence the claims made in the booklet that the country has no obligation to defend nor protect other religions are incorrect. Instead, our nation and the government have the responsibility of defending all religions in line with the Articles and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

What a mind blowing senseless argument! It shows that either Tay is truly constitutionally illiterate or he, in bad faith is trying to deny and debase the position of Islam in our Federal Constitution because his argument is against the core principals of the supreme law of the land. In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali said that the purpose of “in peace and harmony” were added to Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam, and not to defend other religions as claimed by Tay.

It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the insertion of the words: “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also to insulate against any threat faced or any possible and probable threat to the religion of Islam.

Therefore, Tay must be constitutionally illiterate if he really thinks that the Federal Constitution conferred Malaysia as a secular country, all religions have equal standing and the nation carries the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions other than Islam.

It is a known fact that during the 13th General Election, MCA won it seats mostly because of the Malay voters, so this kind of attitude is not a gracious way to thank the voters who had graciously voted for the party candidates regardless of their race and religion. MCA must grow up and stop imitating DAP in debasing Islam and the Malays in trying to win the Chinese votes because it won’t work.  

We are now constitutionally literate and therefore the people are not stupid to easily be fooled by concocted lies. Is it too much for me to hope for leaders to understand and uphold the core principals of my country as clearly stated in the Federal Constitution and stop misinterpreting the supreme law of the land for their political and personal agendas?

Related Posts:

Who Is Racist?

23 02 2014

Who are actually racists?

Below are some tweets by Pakatan Rakyat’s DAP Hannah Yeoh: 

(Image credit to

(Image credit to

(Image credit to

(Image credit to

(Image credit to

(Image credit to

(Image credit to

(Image credit to

Pakatan Rakyat, an unregistered political alliance whose leaders and supporters always accuse UMNO as racist may not be too happy after BN announced Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun as the candidate for the Kajang by-election.

Below is a Facebook statement by a Pakatan’s supporter :

Click to enlarge (Image credit to Pisau.Net)

Click to enlarge (Image credit to Pisau.Net)

Look at what was written in the above red box; now who is talking about race?

My point is, Pakatan would accuse UMNO as racist if the BN’s candidate for Kajang is a Malay because Kajang’s seat used to be MCA’s; but when BN chose an MCA’s candidate, Pakatan made a racist remark that UMNO is scared of MCA.

Did Lim Guan Eng Said The Malays Are Moron?

17 10 2012

I read an article by Helen Ang about Mr. Lim Guan Eng saying that the Malays are morons.

Is it true that Malays are morons?

Should a leader like Mr. Lim Guan Eng calls other people moron just because he does not like them?

We should not call other people names or say that they are stupid and humiliate them just like that even if we don’t like them.

We should respect other people and not humiliate others.

And I am sure that the Mr. Lim Guan Eng will not be very happy if UMNO’s senior leaders do the same to him or to other opposition leaders especially the Chinese.

He also accused Utusan for lying 9 times on October 7.

He tweeted that Utusan lies everyday.

How about MalaysiaKini and Harakah, they never lie?

Mr. Lim Guan Eng is very angry with Utusan because PR still cannot control Utusan like what PR did to MCA’s The Star.

Is this freedom of press and freedom of speech for DAP and the opposition parties?

And they accused the government for controlling the press …

They claimed that they are fair and they support press freedom …

They took part in demonstrations like Bersih 3 that caused riot and destroyed things including plants, left rubbish around, overturned a police car and other crazy things, saying that they fight for press freedom.

And what PAS leaders will say about this?

PAS leaders are Malays so what will they say when their ally humiliate the Malays?

They’ll support their ally, won’t they?

Just as what happened after Ngeh’s statements

Peaceful Assembly Over ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Is A Waste Of Time But Bersih Is Not?

20 09 2012


Perak DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham angered lots of Malaysian Muslims when he asked whether Muslims were “wasting time and energy” in protesting against ‘Innocence of Muslims’, a film that insults Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

He was referring to a peaceful assembly which will take place on Friday over the matter.

As a leader, YB Ngeh Koo Ham must understand that insulting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam is a very serious matter to the Muslims.

And he also must remember that Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia and all leaders must respect our constitution.

And good Muslims do not insult other religions and cause violence while protesting for our rights as misunderstood by some people.

So how about Bersih and other PR’s demonstrations?

Has YB Ngeh Koo Ham ever ask the question if taking part in Bersih 3.0 illegal demonstration was “wasting time and energy”.

And now YB Ngeh Koo Ham said that some people had twisted the meaning of his tweet.

He was reported to say, “There is no doubt that I condemn the video but my tweet was a question and not a statement as some have claimed, belittled Islam.”

I think that he should not tweet the question especially when DAP together with PAS and PKR took part in lots of demonstrations that sometimes turned violent.

Another non Muslim leader, MCA deputy president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said that Ngeh’s comments reflected insensitivity towards the feelings of Muslims.

I am scared if there are Muslims who think that taking part in demonstrations over political, freedom and human rights issues like Bersih is more important than fighting for Islam.

I wonder what will PAS say about this matter and is PAS willing to leave the Pakatan Rakyat as suggested by YB Nasharudin Mat Isa?

Related Post:

  1. Muslims Protest Over ‘Innocence of Muslims’
  2. U.N. Chief: Anti-Islam Filmmaker Abused Freedom Of Expression


%d bloggers like this: