IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?

WE ARE caught up in UMNO's game of diversion with so many issues that we are missing some vital points. That is, most if not all of UMNO's actions from 1963 to 2013 (50 round years) have been unconstitutional and ultra vires.

Unlike the Americans we do not strongly assert our rights under the Constitution having been hammered into pathetic muted submission with numerous undemocratic emergency laws from 1948 to 960s following the outbreak of armed resistance against British colonial rule and to the British Malayan invention of 'Malaysia'. Only recently with the 'free' internet press that many dared to speak out.

Aside from the uncertainty as to whether the Malayan Constitution is a valid substitute for the "Malaysian Constitution", this piece of paper is worth something (even though genuine Sabah Sarawak nationalists will vigorously challenge this).

It purports to guarantee certain human and democratic rights albeit under an unequal 'social contract' where not all are 'equal  before the law'. Instead we got the Animal Farm situation where some (plus illegals!) are more equal than others.

Those comments aside let us briefly look at the legality of the "instant voters" arbitrarily created by Mahathir and his gang of lawbreakers since he came to power.

1. What Mahathir did was prima facie 'unconstitutional'. What he did was and is not authorised by any law of Malaya or Malaysia.

How can you create 'instant citizens'? There may be extra-ordinary circumstances- but can anyone think of one? All migrants to qualify for citizenship must fulfil the immigration residential and citizenship legal requirements. One might dare say this is the law in all countries in the world.

Mahathir being in serious breach of the law, must be charged, prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law of Treason (Sedition Act). Only then the incumbent government can restore some faith in the authority of the law. How can a PM lead the country in being lawless?

2. Question of legitimacy of 'Malaysia Federation'.

Since 1963 there is still no 'real' 'Malaysia Constitution' as required to be drafted under the 18/20 points Agreement and Malaysia Agreement (an international Treaty between 5 countries- UK, Malaya S'pore, Sabah and Sarawak) 1963.

Tommy Thomas must surely see this point. Sabah and Sarawak were pushed into Malaysia with certain promises (of "security and prosperity" and safeguards in the [flawed] 18/20 Points Agreements) which we took on good faith but these were never even honestly complied with by the other partner Malaya.

These 2 countries were abused by seizure of their resources to develop Malaya which Malayanised by centralising Malayan control instead of the agreed Borneonisation. So neither Sabah nor Sarawak actually control administration much of their own affairs nor actually rule themselves.

No one has or is supervising the Malaysia Agreement. UK should have been the arbiter but was happy to quickly dump Sabah and Sarawak into the willing hands of Malaya.

RPK revealed in his most recent comment on the RCI how the whole Malayan UMNO and gov't machinery conspired and acted in cahoots to ensure that Sabah did not become a "Christian state" in the 1980s.

The fact was that Sabah was a "majority Christian" country in the 1980s until UMNO forcibly Islamised it with mass transmigration of illegals/Muslims. This is a breach of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. Again this an argument supporting the "illegality" of Mahathir's "instant voter" actions.

Mahathir acted without any responsibility honesty, transparency and definitely no accountability authority or consent of the people in the 3 countries in Malaysia. But did he care? - After all Sabah and Sarawak are no more than colonies without rights.

The fact that the Malayan Constitution was amended to append a page mentioning Sabah and Sarawak as the 12th and 13th States of Malaya confirms this.