Raja Petra: People Only Vote for Pakatan Out of Hate for BN
So if there’s any relationship between the voters and Pakatan Rakyat this relationship is merely the unity of hate not the unity of love. Now if the people voted for Pakatan Rakyat because they love Pakatan Rakayat then I’d say Pakatan Rakayat have a solid future. But they vote Pakatan Rakayat only because they do not want Barisan Nasional, in particular Umno – “ABU” – “Anything But Umno”, “Asalkan Bukan Umno”.
Malaysian Digest
Malaysian Digest: On the subject of the special position, what is your opinion on both article 152 and 153 of the Federal Constitution? Do you feel that affirmative action should still be implemented in the any of the government’s policy or should certain amendments be made to these articles ?
Raja Petra Kamarudin: Amended in what way? What is it to be amended? What is there to talk about? What is article 153? What does it say?
MD: I don’t remember the exact words…
RPK: I tell you what it says. “It shall be a responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives on any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak”, okay… plus “the legitimate interest of other communities”.
What’s wrong with Article 153? Why does it need to be amended? I mean, is there anything in Article 153 that says any race has special privileges? No. It just says to safeguard the special position of the Malays as well of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak as well as a legitimate interest of the other communities, which means article 153 protects everybody… everybody, meaning every Malaysian. The special position is protected.
But there’s no talk about any one race having special right. In fact, Article 153 specifically says “all communities”. So why are we arguing about Article 153 when it’s a non-issue? It’s very clear. But what we can argue about is the misinterpretation of what Article 153 says. A lot of people talk about Article 153 without even reading what Article 153 says. And we always talk about one article… Article 153. But the constitution comprises of 181 articles. And why don’t we look at Article 4?
You know what article 4 says?
No, I don’t…
Okay, Article 4 says, this constitution, which means the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, is the supreme law of the federation and any law passed after Merdeka, which is inconsistent with this constitution, shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. Which means any law that is passed after Merdeka Day that is inconsistent or violates the Constitution is void.
So any law that you pass, as long as it’s a contradictory to the constitution, is not valid. So we talk about one article but we don’t talk about the whole constitution, in particular Article 4, which very clearly spells out you can’t pass any law which goes again the Constitution, full stop. The trouble is, when anyone argues, especially those who defend the ketuanan melayu, many people argue about the Constitution, none of them have actually read the Constitution. None of them understand the Constitution, and (they end up) arguing about something they are totally ignorant about. That is the problem. The problem is not the Constitution, or the articles of the Constitution. The problem is the ignorance of the people who talk about the constitution. Kejahilan of those who wish to discuss the issue.
It says that, any law that you pass after Merdeka Day, after 1957, any law that you pass, if it does not comply to the constitution, is not valid. So even if you amend it and the amendment violates the Constitution, it’s illegal.
