Instead of maintaining and promoting peace and harmony, Nazri is deliberately inciting hatred and uneasiness, says P Ramakrishnan.
Nazri Aziz condemns himself by his revolting utterances that must be seen as promoting racism.
His vast experience as a cabinet minister in the previous administration has not mellowed him or broadened his mindset. He continues to be a petty Umno politician spewing hatred based on race. Bigotry clearly seems to be a part of him.
He is a lawyer; so he cannot be a moron. But strangely his views are moronic since he uses the differing concept of “rights” and “privileges” interchangeably.
While speaking at a ceramah in Semenyih, he accused the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government of being weak, saying it had surrendered the “rights” of the Malays to others.
He doesn’t explain how a government with a majority of Malay MPs supporting PH could be weak. That is baffling! He doesn’t clarify what Malay “rights” have been surrendered to others.
Clearly such blind, sweeping statements are deliberately intended to rile up the Malays. Nazri has no qualms in inciting them with his moronic reasoning.
He cleverly camouflages this statement by attributing this diabolical sentiment to others by adding, “As some said, (we are) surrendering our rights to others.”
We have all kinds of stupid people saying idiotic things; do you, Nazri, agree with them? Do you truly believe that the PH government has surrendered the “rights” of the Malays to others? If you don’t believe in this nonsense, what is the point in repeating this silly argument? It does no credit to your intelligence.
Nazri bemoans, “Many things that never happened before are happening now – (look at the appointments of the) attorney general, chief justice and finance minister.
“Lots of issues that were unimaginable before are an issue now. As some said, (we are) surrendering our rights to others,” he told his audience of about 80 people.
Nazri, tell us honestly, are these three positions reserved for Malays under the Constitution? If not, why do you speak such nonsense!
He even sounds stupid when he claims that such positions are “strategic” and should only be held by Malays in order to uphold the Federal Constitution and Islam. This is utter rubbish!
Instead of welcoming the competent and the best for the posts to benefit the country, he insists that the positions of the chief justice, attorney general and finance minister are strategic positions that must be held by Malays.
Weren’t these positions previously held by Malays and Muslims for umpteen years, and what did they achieve for the nation and for the Malays? How did the Malays benefit from these Malay-Muslims holding these “strategic positions”? Please tell us. We beg of you!
What we know of the past practice of appointing individuals mainly on the basis of ethnicity is that the judiciary was compromised and lost its lofty sheen. It lost the confidence of the public, and some of the decisions became jokes.
The former attorney general was a Malay and former judge, but shamelessly he cleared the vilest kleptocrat in world history, finding him to be clean, honest and blameless in spite of an avalanche of incriminating evidence. He did not act in the best interest of the nation; he only acted in the interest of his political master and sacrificed justice.
The previous finance minister was a Malay and former prime minister, but he left the country in horrendous financial ruin, its wealth looted and plundered. Meanwhile, every crook in the country was dipping his hand into the coffers and pillaging without a conscience during his tenure.
Is this what Nazri wants for Malaysia – unethical, unscrupulous individuals who have no sense of shame in perpetuating injustice to the detriment of the country? Does he want Malaysia to become a laughing stock of the world?
Come on lah, have some sense when you speak!
Without clarification or explanation, Nazri cites the death of firefighter Muhammad Adib as an apparent example of how appointing non-Malays to such positions was bad for the Malays.
Continuing his tirade, he states, “Take, for example, the attorney general. Everyone (my emphasis) said Adib was sacrificed. We ask why no charges were brought against the people who were arrested for allegedly assaulting Adib back then. None has been charged.”
What does he mean by “everyone”? I don’t fall into this category. Neither do any of my friends from different ethnicities believe this nonsense. Does every Malaysian think so? It is an idiotic statement without any basis.
To date, it has not been conclusively established that Adib was indeed assaulted. There are conflicting claims on the cause of his death at the inquest into his death. That being the case, how do you charge anyone just like that? Isn’t there the rule of law and due process, Nazri?
His atrocious claim is indeed shocking and sickening.
“People can see that the attorney-general and the suspects have the same skin colour, so don’t blame the Malay because they thought the attorney general is not fair,” he argues.
According to Suhakam chairman Razali Ismail, “Nazri’s claims that the death of firefighter Muhamad Adib Mohd Kassim has gone unpunished due to the fact that the AG is not Malay are extremely offensive.”
Nazri, as a lawyer and supposedly endowed with intelligence, don’t you consider it your duty to put things straight? Shouldn’t you tell your fools that their thinking was utterly wrong and that Tommy Thomas doesn’t act according to the colour of the skin?
By making such statements, Nazri, you are questioning the integrity of the attorney general. This is a very serious position to take when there is no basis for it. For a lawyer, you are talking utter rubbish!
His convoluted logic continues. He claims that Malay distrust stemmed from the fact that the three new office-bearers he mentioned could not hold the Qur’an when they were sworn in. “An individual swearing before the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must use the Qur’an because the King is a Muslim. If one does not use the Qur’an, then he or she is not bound to the oath taken,” he says.
When MPs and cabinet ministers were sworn in, were they holding the Qur’an? When Dr Mahathir Mohamad was sworn in as Prime Minister by the Agong, he wasn’t holding a Qur’an. When Nazri was sworn in as MP, did he take his oath of office holding a Quran? Even the Agong when he was crowned was not holding a Qur’an.
Where did Nazri get the idea that the attorney general, the chief justice and the finance minister must take their oath holding a Quran? Was this a constitutional requirement? Was it mandatory?
According to the executive director of Lawyers for Liberty, Latheefa Koya, “Nazri seems blissfully unaware that under the constitution, there is no requirement of an oath of office for the AG. In other words, the AG does not take an oath of office, unlike MPs or ministers.”
Nazri is not only confusing; he is the confusion itself! Suddenly, and almost miraculously, Nazri has turned into our fabled Alice, creating confusion everywhere he goes in Wonderland!
His references to Malay rights and vernacular schools only expose his ignorance of our history. Three communities came together to form a nation in 1957 with mutually agreed upon terms of nationhood. There was a quid pro quo among the three communities which was said to have formed the basis of a “social contract”.
Nazri wasn’t there when this arrangement was reached. But he is a beneficiary of that agreement today. Instead of shooting off his mouth, he should honour what our past leaders achieved to create this great nation.
Instead of maintaining and promoting peace and harmony, he appears to be deliberately inciting hatred and uneasiness against the non-Malays and the PH government. It is vile conduct that must be condemned because it threatens the Agong’s peace in the land.
His conduct reminds me of Benjamin Franklin’s remark: “Any fool can criticise, condemn and complain – and most fools do.”
NB: Nearly eight years ago, I crossed swords with Nazri over his remarks when he rather foolishly commented on a majority decision of the Court of Appeal. See below:
Nazri talking through his hat!
By P Ramakrishnan – 4 November 2011
Nazri has given expression to the saying, “Talking through the hat!” That was what he was doing when he rather foolishly commented on the majority decision of the Court of Appeal which ruled in a landmark case that Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act was unconstitutional.
In spite of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, for the Minister of Law to insist that “it does not invalidate the Act” and to dismiss the Court’s decision as “an opinion in passing” is appalling and shocking, exposing his alarming ignorance of the judicial process.
Section 15(5)(a) has been invalidated as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal ruling – which means that the provisions of that section are no longer applicable and cannot be enforced. That section, as a result of the Court’s decision, is void and invalid.
It is a binding decision and cannot be dismissed merely as “an opinion of the Court” without any consequence. Until and unless the Federal Court overturns or sets aside this ruling – thus upholding the High Court decision – no power on earth professing the democratic tradition can ignore this decision. It is as simple as that!
It is extremely disturbing that the Minister for Law has shown scant respect for the judicial process by not taking the Court decision seriously. His dismissive remarks mock our judiciary and he himself comes across as a bumbling clown.
“This is law, passed by us as lawmakers. There must be separation of powers,” he thundered. If he respects the separation of powers, then he must not poke his nose where it does not belong!
The judiciary has an inherent independent authority conferred by the Federal Constitution to “act without fear or favour (and) discharge their grave responsibility of pronouncing judgment on the validity of executive and legislative acts and on the meaning of any provision of the federal and state constitutions …” as clearly expounded by the late Tun Mohamed Suffian.
According to Tun Suffian, Courts have the power to pronounce on the validity of legislative acts and to interpret the Constitution.
When great minds have given their considered opinion, it is futile to split hairs.
Perhaps Nazri, as he is prone to be so vocal, can help us in clarifying what is deemed as a contradiction.
Is there a contradiction in the UUCA in that it doesn’t seem to be applicable to all the university students?
Why is it that the UUCA is only applicable to students of local universities? Why are students of overseas universities exempted from this Act?
And the more pertinent question is: Why do almost all nations espousing democratic traditions refrain from subjecting their university students to such restrictions as spelt out in our UCCA?
How is it that Umno Club members comprising overseas students are permitted to attend the Umno General Assembly regularly? Aren’t they also violating the provisions of this Act which state no student shall express or do anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support or sympathy with or opposition to any political party in or outside Malaysia?
These Umno Club members openly express their support for Umno and by doing so, don’t they fall foul of this Act? Or is it a case of selective application?
Now that the Court had ruled, these Umno Club members henceforth can legitimately attend Umno General Assemblies, something that was not right previously.