Sunday, September 26, 2010

Part 2: Final Response to Nurul Izzah's Malaysia or Malaysaja

For example, nowhere in the written constitution is it mentioned
specifically of the existence of the term ‘Malay rights’. Instead the only
term spelled out is the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays in Article 153. (Ni in Malaysia or Malaysaja)

UPDATED Response:
A simple dissection of Nurul Izzah’s juvenile contentions will show that her magnum opus will not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Apart from the numerous inconsistencies and fallacies, NI’s article founders primarily because of the author’s truculence in not viewing Art 153 for what it essentially is: a constitutional provision for creating an equitable economic playing field. I will come to this in my final part. As for now, it would be suffice to show the gaping holes in NI’s mindless rant to demolish the erroneous assumptions regarding Art 153 that prevail amongst mindless perverts like NI.

1. Article 153 is subject to a time limitation.

Ni argues that Art 153 is subject to a 15 year review in 1972. My question is where does it say so in the Constitution? In fact, NI refers to the Reid Commission as the source of her contention. This is a classic sleight of hand. What if I say that no such limitation exists in Art.153, a line of argument consistent with NI’s assertion that “rights’ are non-existent for Malays as no such word exists in Art 153. That would be a fair conclusion, rught? Simply put, no mention of any time limitation means NON EXISTENCE of any, right?

It is pretty obvious from where the non-Pribumi dickjuicing NI is coming from. If the clauses favour your skewed perception, use them, if not, seek recourse in the Reid Commission Report. I could take the same tack but I won’t for the sake of intellectual integrity even in a pseudo-academic critique like this. Instead, I choose to debunk with logic and will do so on 2 grounds:

A. If Art. I53 is a constitutionally ‘time-limited’ provison subject to legislature review, why was it NOT clearly stated as such by the drafters in the first place. Surely, they would not have been so stupid and careless to overlook this for an important clause as Art.153 when they could do so one clause earlier. In plain English, there are other clauses that clearly have a time limitation attached, so why not Art 153.?

For instance Art. 152 (2) read : “ Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause (1), for a period of ten years after Merdeka Day, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, the English language may be used in both Houses of Parliament, in the Legislative Assembly of every State, and for all other official purposes.” and for that matter clauses 3 and 4 of the same Article.

A time limitation is clearly stated, right? I rest my case suffice to say that it was very convenient of NI to overlook an Article just above 153. The myopia of an intellectual pervert, I suppose.

2. The Reid Commission Report
The recourse to the Reid Commission report to justify a revision is flimsy at best.

"The Reid Commission was, for all intents and purposes, entrusted with the responsibility of drafting the draft Constitution which was subsequently reviewed by the interested parties." (Jawan, Jayum A. (2003). Malaysian Politics & Government, p. 43. Karisma Publications. ISBN 983-195-037-2. ).
Given the above, how could any charlatan like NI or selfstyled “constitutional lawyers” like the Arts of this world hold the ruminations of 5 men in a attached Report as sacrosanct is downright laughable. In simple language, the recommendations contained therein have no legal force unless “coated with the veneer of constitutionality.” The fact that the RCR was nothing more than a recommendatory document is resonant in the less than salutory comment that, the ingrate bitch, Nurul Izzah, used to sarcastically lampoon the Pribumis:

"……..”the late Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman once argued that "the question (of the 'Special Position' of the Malays) be left to the Malays themselves because as more and more Malays became educated and gained self-confidence, they themselves would do away with this 'special position'." (Malaysia or Malaysaja)

The fact that Tun Dr Ismail saw it this way is sufficient evidence to demolish NI’s and the pro-Reid sucklers contention of ‘time limitation’. There was none whatsoever except those to be determined by the Malays/Pribumis and any fatous claim there are timelimitations are just the byproducts of a mental sicko's overwrought imagination.

3. Art 153 is ultra vires the Constitution as it infringes on Articles like Art.8
This one takes the cake as it is the most stupid I have ever seen in blogsphere! It goes like these:
"Another case in point is interpreting to reconcile the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays provisions with other non-Malay citizens with Article 8(1): “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and Article 8(2): Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment." (Malaysia or Malaysaja)

Response: Now look at Art 8(2) which NI culled from the constitution. It begins: “Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution……………………..”

Now 153 is expressly authorized by the Constitution as is patently clear by (Art. *(2) above, so what’s the big deal, bodoh? In simple language Art153 and its provisions are non-discrimanatory for the same Constitution provides for this ‘anomaly' which everyone including the Pendatang signatories were well aware of. Additionally, it would have been absurd for all and sundry, drafters included, not to have noticed this 'anomaly'. They are definitely not as stupid, coconut-shelled or prejudiced as you are, Nurul. It clear that, yet again, myopia is at work as the author conveniently glosses over “Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution…..” Enough said.
If for argument's sake, we follow NI’s faulty immature logic, then Art. 89 (2) would be similarly null and void.
4. Does Art 153 contravene Art.8?
No by a zillion kilometers!!. Read Art 158 and it starts with obligation of the YDPA to safeguard:
…………. the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

And pray what are those provisions, just read up Article 153 (7) ; Art 153(8 a, b and c) and Art.153(9) to witness firsthand how all the contents therein are synchronized with the rights enshrined in Art 8 (2). Go on Nurul, read them, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is as clear as daylight unless you are a born moron.

It is clear then Art. 153 (1) and 153 (7) ; Art 153(8 a, b and c) and Art.153(9) all serve to protect the legitimate interests of other communities even as the Pribumi enjoys the rights accruable to him via his Special Position. Only an imbecile with a child's mind and an 'unorgasmised wife' syndrome could have crafted such a hideous monstrosity.

Nurul Izzah contends that she did not in any way call for the abrogation of Art.153 when investigated under the sedition Act. This a barefaced LIE. In her own words, NI brazenly states:
“Third, the dialogue be made public and presented to the people for feedback
and validation. Again, it would have been ideal if a Referendum Process is legalised whereby
such fundamental issue can be decided and resolved by the citizens and made
binding to all. As an alternative, the public feedback for comments and recommendation
mechanism through letters or the internet would have to do. It is not
binding but it would be a measure of public participation, which can only enrich our democratic process.”

1. You call for public feedback and validation of something already agreed upon and sealed 53 years ago? Isn’t this a backdoor attempt to jettison Art.153.via public (read Non-Malay)pressure?

2. A ‘referendum’ is sufficient evidence of what your actual intentions are. For that matter why subject only Art,153 to a referendum?. Why not Part III (Chapter 1) of the Federal Constitution as well? Baru ADIL namanya!!! Or for that matter articles pertaining to pendatang languages, religion etc.. For that matter, a plebiscite is a 'broader referendum' providing for a more desirable outcome, ex: removal of an undesirable government'. Now, isnt it patently obvious that the Malayan/Malaysian polity has been receptive of the constitution through their affirmation of the Alliance in 1959 and subsequent polls. In plain english, if they had found the FC to be unfair, they would have voted 'the goons' out a long time ago.
By virtue of (1) and (2, there are sufficient grounds for NI to be charged under the Sedition Act (1948) Section 3(1) subsection (f) lest the authorities yearn to be accused of not implementing the law for partisan interests.
A Side Dish : The historical realities seem to have escaped your sperm hungry self, NI. In the late 1940s, the AMCJA collapsed like a house of cards for lack of support from the pribumis. The presumably multiracial Tan Cheng Lock joined hands with UMNO. The 'Malayan Malaya mantra ( the future Malaysian Malaysia, 1Malaysia or whatever shitbag) collapsed like a ramshackle hut in the electoral earthquake of 1955 when its vanguard Onn-led Partai Negara got completely wiped out, 3 years after Onn's progenitor, the Independence Of Malaya, Party was disemboweled in the KL Municipal elections in 1952.
In the first plebiscite in 1959 after the FC was approved, the Alliance won 74 of the 104 seats contested. What does all these say? That the vast majority of Malayans, during a period of unbridled leftist activism, liberal ideological ferment and free intermingling amongst the races, still voted for race-based parties and a race-based constitution. Mind you, civil society and political activism was at its apogee during this period as it continued to be in the 1960s and yet the diverse race groups submitted willingly to Ketuanan Melayu, cognisant of Malaya/Malaysia's socio-cultural and historical realities. Ask your mentors, LKS and co, wahai PaRian, that despite Kuan Yew's Chingkie supremacist garbage clothed as an egalitarian 'Malaysia for Malaysians' fata morgana, the PAP and its allies were massacred in 1964 in Peninsular Malaysia. They only survived in Chingkie heaven Singapore cos of support from the bastard chauvinist Chingk scum.........
So cockhungry, cuntdry bitch get your facts right first, before generating garbage garbed as "reasoned erudite discourse" to stir shit. You aint fooling anyone except your cockstarved cunt and dickempty mouth plus your sick perverted mind.
Buffalo: Me thinks an online petition to the 'authos' to act on NI under the Sedition Act or to detain her under the ISA is well nigh, master. NI? Poor thing!clutching at the straws of its imagination. How pathetic can one get? Mooooooooooooooron.............
Revert: Yes, Buffalo, you said it, the dickfamished BABI's whoregal needs a good spanking for her to cum, I suppose. Anyway, i am gonna put up a play titled "Special Position" featuring the sexual escapades of the artful Dodger and Nuroulle Izzit soon, stay tuned..

No comments: