Ibrahim Ali vs Rev Eu: Giving Malays a bad name with racist and ignorant comments

Perkasa, as an NGO that is bent on protecting the rights of Malays, will always contort any manner of legislation to suit their arguments - whether right or wrong, fair or unfair.
Obviously, this does not bode well fior the Malays as Perkasa's extremist stand will be taken to reflect that of the community as a whole. So if Perkasa adopts a racist and selfish stance, the Malays it claims to represent - by virtue of Perkasa having access to high-profile mainstream media coverage - will also come across as racist, selfish and fearful of competition.
But that as we know is not true. However, one looks at it, Perkasa has little substance, even at its core. It is a mere shallow capsule to further the narcissistic urges of someone who is, politically, a non-entity in Malaysia. This person is its founder president - Ibrahim Ali.

Supported by Umno
Ibrahim Ali is not afraid to threaten anyone he sees fit because he has the backing of Prime Minister Najib Razak's UMNO party. And as long as UMNO gives Ibrahim the nod, he can speak all manner of nonsense. Others will get pulled up for sedition or even detained under the draconian Internal Security Act, but not Ibrahim Ali, who never has to account for his words.
The most recent idiotic approach taken by Perkasa towards Article 153 and the comments by Rev Dr Eu Hong Seng, shows its inability to view any subject matter objectively and intelligently. Eu, the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) chairman who likened Article 153 to “bullying” for only protecting the rights of one group.
“We demand the government use the Sedition Act on anyone who makes statements like this from now on and charge them in court,” the Perkasa chief told reporters a day ago.
"We’re only upholding what’s in the Federal Constitution. Please don’t keep provoking us on and on because it’s not good for the country. And we have been patient for so long.”

Get the facts right
But who is Perkasa to talk about the Federal Constitution, especially when it gets the facts totally wrong? Then on his interpretation of Article 153, Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa are wrong on various fronts.
Article 153 states that it is the King's responsibility “to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article”.
The controversial article consists of ten statements, and the first error by Perkasa is that, in Article 153, there is no mention of the term “bumiputra”. The second error is to assert that Article 153 protects the rights of the Malays and Bumiputeras.
The heading for Article 153 gives us a clear picture as to what it covers - Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
Article 153(1) uses the broad term “the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”
The “special position” refers to the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak in relation to government service, the issuance of permits and etc. Special position does not mean “special rights” instead it points to the state of preference or priority. And no-where in Article 153 does it mention “bumiputera”, and when reading the sentence in a whole, the natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak are on par. They are to be given EQUAL preference. The Malays are not to lord over the natives nor the natives over the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. This is fundamental, as it relates to the terms and conditions for Sabah and Sarawak to form the federation of Malaysia as equal partners.

Who says only for Malays
Perkasa is also dead wrong in asserting their stand that Malays, and only Malays, should take priority. If Perkasa is the defender of Article 153, by right, Perkasa should also champion the cause for all natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Article 153(1) further states a third group of citizens, “the legitimate interests of other communities”.
This third group of citizens includes all other groups outside the sphere of Malay and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Meaning, priority is given to Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak but where legitimate, other communities should not be deprived of civil service employment, business opportunities and education in accordance to to the provisions of the Article 153.
For Perkasa to merely champion the Malays, using Article 153 as their tool, and whitewashing the existence of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and other communities; are they not supporting the depriving of equal opportunity as stated in Article 153 and thus, totally contradicting and nullifying the provisions of Article 153?
Article 153 protects that rights of all Malaysians, giving priority to Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak and where legitimately possible, other communities.
When Rev Eu stated that Article 153 is akin to “bullying” if it only protects the rights of one group, he was referring to the gap we now see when it comes to position of the “natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article” as stated in Article 153(1).

No one questioned the Agong either
There is also no question of questioning the authority of the Agong, nor is there any challenge to the Federal Constitution. Another point that irks our intelligence, is the claim by Perkasa, that if anyone questions Article 153, they are to be charged with sedition and a police case raised against them.
For what crime, may we ask? For the crime of speaking an opinion? For the crime of stating an observation? For the crime of being a Christian and addressing a need? What is the crime? Since when was thinking a crime? Since when was a citizen punished for voicing out their concerns?
“We demand the government use the Sedition Act on anyone who makes statements like this from now on and charge them in court,” Ibrahim told reporters a day ago.
The Perkasa chief was referring to a statement made on Saturday by National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) chairman Eu, who likened Article 153 to “bullying” for only protecting the rights of one group. Article 153 states that it is the King's responsibility “to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article”.
If anything, Perkasa should be charged with the crime of threatening non-Malays and non-Muslims, in particular the Christians and Chinese, as well as insulting the intelligence of every right minded Malaysian.

Malaysia Chronicle