Mahathir Resah, Cuba Mencampuri Pelantikan YDPA

Bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad baru-baru ini cuba menjalankan program perhimpunan yang didakwa mempromosikan sentimen perkauman serta agama.

Himpunan 'Proklamasi Melayu' itu bagaimanapun dibatalkan oleh pihak penganjur sebanyak tiga kali.

Mahathir dikatakan bakal hadir ke program berkenaan untuk membincangkan tentang isu komuniti Melayu.

Namun elok juga dibatalkan kerana program itu didakwa mempunyai agenda tersendiri di sebalik penganjurannya.

Sumber: https://majoriti.com.my/berita/2023/03/19/tiga-venue-batal-tempahan-himpunan-proklamasi-melayu---sumber

Wujud dakwaan bahawa program itu dijalankan bagi merancang untuk menggulingkan kerajaan ketika ini.

Mahathir didakwa mahu menggulingkan Kerajaan Perpaduan pimpinan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menerusi pintu belakang kerana enggan Sultan Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Ibni Almarhum Sultan Iskandar dilantik menjadi Yang Di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) pada tahun hadapan.

Mahathir takut rahsia besarnya bakal terbongkar. Mahathir takut rahsianya menjual dan melelong kedaulatan negara bakal terbongkar sekiranya Sultan Johor dilantik menjadi YDPA.

Sampai sekarang Mahathir tidak memberikan penjelasan lebih lanjut tentang tindakannya menjual Pulau Batu Puteh kepada Singapura.

Dia hanya memberi alasan bahawa keputusannya itu adalah berdasarkan nasihat oleh para peguam yang dilantik.

Sumber: https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/168174/berita/nasional/isu-pulau-batu-puteh-dr-mahathir-tidak-jawab-persoalan-sebenar

Mahathir dikatakan tergesa-gesa membatalkan permohonan semakan tuntutan Pulau Batu Puteh itu sejurus Pakatan Harapan berkuasa pada 2018.

Sejurus Mahathir mengangkat sumpah pada 10 Mei 2018, beliau mengarahkan pembatalan permohonan semakan tuntutan itu pada 15 Mei 2018.

Pada 21 Mei 2018, sepucuk surat telah dihantar kepada Singapura, memaklumkan bahawa Malaysia akan menggugurkan tuntutan berkenaan.

Tindakan Mahathir itu sangat mencurigakan, ditambah Mahathir memecat Peguam Negara ketika itu, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Mahathir juga menggunakan khidmat peguam asing untuk membatalkan tuntutan itu.

Pada 29 Mei 2018, Singapura dan Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) mengesahkan Malaysia menarik diri daripada prosiding berkenaan.

Persoalan yang timbul sehingga kini, mengapa Mahathir terburu-buru membatalkan permohonan itu?

Tambahan pula, Malaysia memiliki bukti baharu untuk dikemukakan kepada ICJ ketika itu.

Tindakan Mahathir yang mahu campur tangan dalam urusan pelantikan Sultan Johor sebagai YDPA menunjukkan dia tidak berasa hormat kepada lambang ketua negara.

Apakah Mahathir tidak sedar bahawa mencampuri sebarang urusan pelantikan YDPA hanya akan mengganggu kestabilan politik dan keselamatan negara?

Apakah Mahathir masih tidak 'khatam' Perlembagaan Malaysia yang terkandung catatan bahawa pelantikan YDPA adalah proses yang diatur oleh undang-undang dan prosedur yang telah ditetapkan serta politikus seperti Mahathir tidak mempunyai sebarang hak untuk mencampuri proses berkenaan?

Politikus seperti Mahathir yang membahayakan dan menjejaskan kestabilan negara.

Jangan beri pengaruh buruk kepada rakyat untuk tidak mentaati Raja-Raja Melayu di negara ini hanya kerana dendam peribadi kepada sistem monarki.

Portfolio Sultan Ibrahim bukan calang-calang, malahan Sultan Ibrahim sudah membuktikan bahawa Baginda boleh membawa kemajuan serta menjadi ketua negara yang disegani.

Sultan Ibrahim dikenali sebagai raja yang berjiwa rakyat dan sering menghulurkan bantuan kepada mereka yang memerlukan.

Sultan Ibrahim juga lantang dalam mengetengahkan pelbagai isu terutamanya permasalahan yang berlaku di Johor.

Kemajuan Johor juga banyak didorong oleh sumbangan Sultan Johor dalam mengembangkan wilayah Iskandar Malaysia, yang menjadi pusat perdagangan dan pelaburan di Malaysia.

Disebabkan itu, rata-rata rakyat di negara ini sememangnya menanti Sultan Johor dilantik menjadi YDPA seterusnya.

Namun, masih wujud anasir seperti Mahathir yang mahu menjadi pengacau dan tergamak ingin menggulingkan kerajaan serta mencampuri urusan pelantikan Sultan Johor.

Berani buat, berani tanggung.

Mahathir sudah menjual kedaulatan negara kepada Singapura tanpa memikirkan impaknya pada kemudian hari.

Sampai sekarang, rakyat tidak tahu apakah plot dan konspirasi Mahathir sehingga sanggup menjual Pulau Batu Puteh.

Selain itu, tidak usah menjadi batu api kepada rakyat untuk tidak mentaati sistem monarki negara.

Mengapa mahu menjadi pengkhianat bangsa dan negara di hujung-hujung usia? Lebih elok sekiranya masa yang ada sekarang ini digunakan untuk berehat sahaja di rumah.

Sudah-sudahlah Mahathir. Rumah kata pergi, kubur kata mari.

Lessons to Learn for Malaysia Madani, from Bangsa Johor

Malaysia continues to discuss what the concept of “Malaysia Madani” means - of which confusion abounds. For example, according to our Prime Minister, it simply refers to “Madani” as part of a strategic framework of nation that is prosperous, fair and rejects any form of cruelty towards any individuals or race.

While the rest of the country argues and discusses the merits or even meaning of the concept, this discussion should not be limited on a federal level - after all, there is already a concept of a similar make that is going strong down south.

“Bangsa Johor”.

There is no Johorean that would deny that he or she is part of “Bangsa Malaysia”, but that does not mean that they should abandon a local collective identity as “Bangsa Johor” for example.

Both aggregation and devolution proceeded the formation of Malaysia. The 10 states that comprised the Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States were independent in name only and were subject to the rule of their British Residents.

Johor Sultanate however prior to the formation of Malaysia often saw itself as a distinct political entity – with relative autonomy in certain matters of administration and economic development alongside its privilege of having a written constitution.

The “Bangsa Johor” concept, which was first introduced in the early 20th by Sultan Abu Bakar back when Johor was the Johor Sultanate, has enjoyed a resurgence of sorts since its reintroduction into the national conversation in 2015 by Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim as part of his proposed direction for Johor.

The efforts of Johor to foster a complementary political identity to revive “Bangsa Johor” should be applauded. The state should be able to celebrate its rich history as a fiercely independent entity – after all it was the birthplace of UMNO, the organisation which rebelled against the formation of the Malayan Union in 1946.

Groups that share a distinctive ethnic, religious, or linguistic background often have a common history that unites them and defines them as a people. But those within a constituent unit who do not share a common ancestry may likewise have a sense of common identity rooted in a shared history. This would seem likely if the component unit enjoyed an independent existence before becoming part of the federation. Thus, federations formed by aggregation rather than by devolution would seem more likely to foster a political identity tied to the constituent unit.

Human beings naturally identify more with small political units, so with the constituent unit of which they are a part rather than with the country. Yet where there is a sense of shared history in Malaysia, that history is national, not state. Look at how it pervades our public-school curriculum.

Similarly, the success of the Pakatan Harapan government in wresting power from Barisan Nasional was a flashpoint in the collective history of Malaysia as a whole.

There is no denying that the political identity of Malaysians has changed and that we see the federation as more centralized than it was than in the past. But political identity is only one of several safeguards of federalism – albeit one that is varies in importance depending on the relevant historical relationships between state and federal.

In the case of a federation, other safeguards include the power sharing relationship of the federal government and the state’s participation in federal decision making, political safeguards in terms of how party relationships bind federal and state government politicians and the individual safeguards of state powers.

States as states foremost have an interest in safeguarding their individual administrative authority. While this does not mean defiance or opposition to federal policy, but this does also mean an insistence that states should have a significant say in how federal policy affects them.

Given the unique circumstances and problems seen by every state, there should be flexibility in how federal programs are run to accord with their own states’ circumstances.

So, while today, the citizens of the various states may no longer identify primarily with those states, the state representatives and officials they elect act to ensure that needs of the states are prioritized.

As Publius once said, “ambition be made to check ambition” and that “those who administer each department [have] the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.”

Perhaps through concepts such as “Bangsa Johor” or the proposed “Bangsa Kedah”, can more Malaysians recognize this – as Bangsa Johor has proven to be a far more resilient group than today’s Bangsa Malaysia.