
Decades later, Mahathir still stuck in a dilemma of his own
For young Malaysians unfamiliar with the nation's political history, here's a recap of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's obsession with his version of Malay supremacy.
In 1970, a year after the May 13 racial riots that followed huge electoral losses for the ruling Umno-led Alliance, Mahathir authored 'The Malay Dilemma', essentially his manifesto outlining his political and racial beliefs.
It examines and analyses the make-up of the Malays and the problem of racial harmony in Malaysia. The book claims that the tolerant and non-confrontational nature of the Malays led them to fall under the dominion of others, and that the government must correct Malaysian Chinese hegemony in business.
The book was banned by the then prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, who felt that it threatened racial harmony. As soon as Mahathir became prime minister in his first term in 1981, he lifted the ban.
Many times, Mahathir has labelled all non-Malays as 'pendatang' (immigrants) despite most having been born and bred here, many for at least three generations. He has been unapologetic about this term, insisting that he is correct historically.
In his latest bid at wantonly promoting Malay supremacy, he is attempting to bring together all the Malay parties, including his former rivals Bersatu and PAS, while inviting Umno members to join too.
His approach appears to be rooted in a perception of threats to Malay identity and interests, which he argues necessitates a collective response from the Malay population.
Honestly, there is nothing wrong in any party trying to unite a community. It's not just the Malays, others do it subtly too. Groups in Sabah and Sarawak are also known to use such divisive tactics for political reasons.
However, to premise his arguments on a narrative of vulnerability, suggesting that the community faces challenges from other ethnic groups, is tantamount to falsehood, in my opinion.
He has sensationalised his concerns about the erosion of Malay rights and the position of the Malay language when there is no such threat whatsoever. He knows hitting the primordial sentiments of Malays will hit the right chord.
Figures on Malays in power
Claims of erosion of Malay and Bumiputera rights is an utterly reckless claim if one cares to look deeply into who's in charge in the public sector. This is vital because these are the people who formulate government policies and implement them.
A check with the government's latest list of secretaries-general and directors-general will show some shocking figures – well, shocking to those who claim that Malays and Bumiputeras are losing their position. The list actually makes Mahathir's assertions laughable.
Of the 43 top-most government officers — namely the chief secretary to the government and secretaries-general — only three are non-Malays.
Of the 107 directors-general and those of their equivalent ranks, only four are non-Malay. If you take the deputies into account, only about 5% of this total are non-Malay.
The heads of security forces and the police, their deputies and senior officers are mostly, if not all, Malays or Bumiputera. The head of the judiciary and the majority of judges are Malays or Bumiputera too.
None of the vice-chancellors in public universities are non-Malays. Government scholarships, jobs and placements in public universities stick to the quota system, although it's not a written policy. But most Malaysians accept this reality.
Constitutional rights
The special rights of the Malays and Bumiputera are securely entrenched in the Federal Constitution, and it's safe to say it will never ever be erased until the majority of Malays decide that they don't need it anymore.
Claims that the DAP is trying to remove their special privileges and dilute the political power of the Malays is all hogwash. The DAP leaders themselves are seen as being more compromising these days.
All they appear to want is to remain in power to ensure there is non-Malay representation in the government. They know better not to rock the boat.
As for Islam and the royalty, they are not only untouchable, but no sane Malaysian wants to even go near these subjects. Besides the constitutional safeguards, there is enough fear among Malaysians to keep their distance.
No one in their right senses would ever want to rock this boat as they know the serious consequences that they will have to face.
The data on population growth also shows that the percentage of Malays and Bumiputera will reach a super majority in a few decades. When it reaches that stage, political battles will mainly involve Malay parties. Non-Malays will be an insignificant minority.
To argue that it's all right for the Malays and Bumiputera to dominate the government since the Chinese control the private sector is akin to comparing apples with oranges.
The private sector generates revenue from private investment and pays taxes to help run the government. The government is mainly funded by taxpayers. They must coexist for the betterment of the nation. It is not a competition.
Election strategy
Most know that the perceived threats to the Malay community raised by Mahathir and his ilk are exaggerated or politically constructed to rally support ahead of the next general election, due by February 2028. Their goal is to bring down Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Harapan.
Mahathir is leveraging on ethnic solidarity in an attempt to regain influence after previous electoral setbacks, including losing his deposit in Langkawi in the 2022 elections.
Mahathir is reckless in taking this approach, as such tactics can exacerbate ethnic tensions in a country that is inherently multi-ethnic, with all citizens enjoying enshrined constitutional rights pertaining to race and religion.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
High Court dismisses committal bid by former KL Tower operator against govt, individuals, orders RM25,000 payment
KUALA LUMPUR, June 9 — The High Court here today dismissed the former operator of Kuala Lumpur Tower's leave application to commence committal proceedings against seven individuals and the government. The former operator, Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd, and its parent, Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd, are seeking contempt of court action against the eight for allegedly disrupting the administration of justice amid ongoing legal proceedings. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain, who rejected the application, ordered the two companies to pay RM25,000 to the respondents, including Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil. — Bernama MORE TO COME


The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Small food businesses need more clarity on new LPG rules, says Bung
KOTA KINABALU: A call has been made for the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry to adopt a more transparent and responsible approach in enforcing Ops Gasak. The concern, raised by Sabah Umno chief Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin ( pic ), centres particularly on the requirement for food premises to use commercial liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders. Bung Moktar highlighted that the lack of clarity surrounding the operation had caused confusion and anxiety among small food operators, especially in Sabah. "The people of Sabah, particularly small traders in the food sector, are now anxious and uncertain over the ministry's move to make the use of commercial LPG mandatory for food premises. "This concern stems from a lack of clear and comprehensive information on the implementation of Ops Gasak, leading to misunderstandings and unease among small food businesses," he said in a statement on Monday (June 9). The Sabah Barisan Nasional chief also called for greater transparency from the ministry, stressing that any weaknesses or confusion in implementation should not be concealed but dealt with openly and responsibly. Urging the ministry to address public concerns through a more inclusive and trader-friendly approach, he added that the state government must also play a proactive role in explaining the matter to the public, especially in providing complete information and assisting small traders with the application process for the Scheduled Controlled Goods Permit (PBKB). He stressed that if the government believes domestic cooking gas is no longer suitable for use in certain food outlets, then the rationale, guidelines, and enforcement conditions must be clearly outlined. "This will avoid confusion and unfairness in implementation,' he said. Bung Moktar further emphasised the importance of balancing regulatory enforcement with on-the-ground realities. "This balance is key to effective administration and the people's wellbeing. I urge all parties involved to show greater commitment in addressing this issue thoroughly, fairly, and prudently," he said.


Malaysian Reserve
an hour ago
- Malaysian Reserve
Nobody is above the law, says High Court
Anwar filed his application on May 23, asking whether a sitting PM has limited immunity from civil lawsuits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution by FARAH SOLHI THE Kuala Lumpur (KL) High Court's dismissal of Prime Minister (PM) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's application to refer a constitutional question to the Federal Court — specifically on procedural immunity from civil liabilities — strongly affirms that no one is above the law. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain ruled that Anwar's claim of being deprived of personal liberty, based on the assertion that the suit filed against him was vexatious and politically motivated, is untenable. In delivering her brief judgement on June 4, the judge held that none of the Federal Constitution articles cited in Anwar's application gave rise to any real, substantial or justiciable constitutional questions. Roz Mawar said Anwar had not demonstrated that he is being denied legal protection afforded to others, or that any legal provisions operate unequally against him. 'The questions posed are speculative (and) not necessary for the disposal of this case, nor do they concern the interpretation or validity of any constitutional provision. 'From a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy,' she said, while also awarded former research assistant Mohammed Yusoff Rawther RM20,000 in costs. Anwar also questions whether courts are constitutionally required to protect public officials from lawsuits when no crime is proven (pic: Media Mulia) Roz Mawar further ruled that constitutional supremacy demands all persons, including public office holders, be equally subject to the rule of law, and that not every question touching or quoting the Federal Constitution warrants referral, as the Federal Court is not a forum for speculative advisory opinions. She added that Anwar's affirmed readiness to proceed with the trial, as submitted by his counsels during the application hear- ing on June 3, indicated no evidence that the suit impairs his ability to perform his constitutional duties. The trial will proceed as scheduled on June 16, as the court found no special circumstances warranting a postponement. Constitutional Questions Raised in Anwar's Application Anwar filed his application on May 23, questioning whether a sitting PM has qualified immunity from civil suits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution. This pertains to alleged private acts committed prior to his appointment, where the continuation of such litigation, he argued, would impair the effective discharge of his executive functions and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Anwar also questioned whether the High Court's decision to allow the civil suit, based on private allegations but pursued in a political context, would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article 8(1) which relates to the fundamental rights to equal treatment. Anwar also questioned, under Article 5(1), whether a sitting PM should be protected from lawsuits that are politically motivated or poorly timed, particularly if they relate to actions taken before assuming office, lack clear legal merit, but could damage reputation and hinder the ability to govern. He further raised the issue of whether courts are constitutionally required to shield public officials from such lawsuits when no crime has been proven. In response, Roz Mawar said Article 5(1) does not extend to mere inconvenience, reputational risks or constitutional burden arising from civil proceedings, noting that Anwar's rights were not violated as he remains at liberty, with no restrictions on his movement or legal capacity. 'The act requiring a defendant to respond to a claim, however politically sensitive, does not implicate Article 5(1), and no precedent has extended its ambit to encompass exposure to civil litigation,' she said. She also found Anwar's questions regarding Article 8(1) to be without merit, saying that the provision serves as a shield, not a sword for immunity, it guarantees equal legal treatment, not exemption from the law, as established in precedent cases. 'The defendant has not shown any discriminatory conduct by the courts or the law. The plaintiff's (Yusoff Rawther's) suit was filed under the same procedural and substantive law applicable to all Malaysians and foreigners alike in this country,' she added. Roz Mawar said while Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers and does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers. It does not suggest, either expressly or implicitly, that executive authority includes protection against personal civil liability. She also said Anwar's arguments contending Article 43 were flawed, as no immunity is implied under the said article. This provision, she added, pertains solely to appointments and tenure, and does not prescribe or imply immunity from judicial proceedings. 'No clause in Article 43 shields a sitting PM from accountability for private acts committed prior to assuming office,' she said, adding that constitutional silence does not equate to immunity. The judge also said that the mind map produced by Anwar's legal team, intended to illustrate their theory of constructive harm to the office, has no textual or jurisprudential basis, nor does any provision in the Constitution imply immunity for the PM from civil litigation. 'The defendant's legal team could not clearly anchor this proposed doctrine to any particular article or legal test. The argument, at best, may be rooted in policy concerns rather than constitutional law,' she said. While Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers, it does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers Is Seeking Immunity a Violation of Constitutional Rights? Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam said every individual, including the sitting PM, who feels aggrieved is entitled to approach the courts for determination of a subject matter. However, there are certain limitations to matters raised, as courts are bound by precedent decisions and administration of justice is subject to specific rules and procedures. 'It is for the courts to determine whether such an action (of raising legal questions) has merit or otherwise. 'Article 8 of the Constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. In other words, no one is above or exempt from the legal framework,' he told The Malaysian Reserve (TMR). However, the Constitution does not afford immunity from court proceedings to any individual, except under Article 183, which provides that no action can be initiated against the Yang diPertuan Agong or a State Ruler without the consent of the Attorney General (AG). Therefore, it can be said that even Article 183 does not provide absolute immunity, as the discretion lies with the AG. Meanwhile, senior lawyer Datuk Seri Dr Jahabardeen Mohamed Yunoos, affirming Rajan's view, said there are various legal mechanisms in place to weed out frivolous suits and those that attempt to abuse the judicial process. He noted that the law does accord certain forms of immunity, but these are limited — primarily to judges or individuals acting in a judicial capacity, as stipulated under Section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. This provision states that judges and others performing judicial functions cannot be sued for actions taken in the course of their duties, even if those actions exceeded their authority, provided they genuinely believed they had such authority at the time. Yusoff Rawther (centre) is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis What's Next? Anwar's counsel, Datuk Seri K Rajasegaran told TMR on June 5 that they have filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Court immediately following the High Court's decision. However, he confirmed that his team is still awaiting a date or case management notice from the Appellate Court. He added that they will file a notice of urgency together with an application to stay (postpone) the High Court's proceedings. Pending any decision by the higher courts, the High Court will proceed with the matter, following Roz Mawar's dismissal of Rajasegaran's oral application for postponement on June 4. Yusoff Rawther filed a suit against Anwar in July 2021, claiming he was sexually assaulted by the latter on Oct 2, 2018, at Anwar's residence. He made a statutory declaration and lodged a police report regarding the incident in 2019. However, he was later accused of attempting to damage the PM's political career and reputation through the police report. The plaintiff, who was Anwar's research assistant, stated in his affidavits that the allegations had affected his mental health. He is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, along with interest, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate. Yusoff Rawther is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis found in his vehicle near the mosque at the police contingent headquarters on Sept 6, 2024. He was also charged under Section 36(1) of the Firearms Act 1960 for possession of two imitation firearms. The High Court is scheduled to deliver its decision at the end of the prosecution case on his charges on June 12. This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition