Who are the Malays?

[steadyaku47] New comment on Who are the Malays?.

Sunday, 29 January, 2012 11:48 AM
From:
“akbar khan haneefa”

View contact details

akbar khan haneefa has left a new comment on your post “Who are the Malays?“: 

Dear Anonymous
Thanks for your nomination. I am honoured. But allow me to address your post:

1. I wish more people would give a name to their voice. In this thread, of the 20 comments, only 2 have names. And guess what? both muslims. I wonder what has happened to my indian and chinese brothers. (to know why, pls read the blogsite article on The Chinese: Dont have windows in their houses)

2. The mentality that contributes to the stealing of our national underwear. This finger pointing to one community needs to stop. The thieves are Malays, Chinese and Indians. And i blame Mahathir, Ling liong sik and Samy Vellu equally. But there was an accomplice to all this. The rakyaat. And that means you and me, bro. Because we kept quiet. There is a price that needs to be paid if we act deaf, dumb and blind. This mentality is fuelled by fear. (see, people here all become anonymous!!)

3. Last Thursday, a chinese friend of mine said this: “the chinese will sell their grandma if there is a profit.” A bit crude but what it means is this; if it is a choice between rice-bowl and a friend the chinese will choose their rice bowl first. Now if the mamak also wants to be like the chinese and sell his grandma, don’t look down on him, yah 


Posted by akbar khan haneefa to steadyaku47 at Monday, January 30, 2012 4:18:00 AM GMT+10:30

COMMENTS

By |2018-07-14T07:40:28+08:00January 29th, 2012|Categories: Uncategorized|Tags: |18 Comments

About the Author:

18 Comments

  1. Anonymous Monday, January 30, 2012 at 4:32 am

    akbar khan haneefa said:
    Last Thursday, a chinese friend of mine said this: "the chinese will sell their grandma if there is a profit."

    To be accurate, "the chinese businessman will sell their grandma if there is a profit".

    And to be even more accurate, "most businessmen in highly competitive environments will sell their grandma if there is a profit, to survive".

    I came from Dusun Nyior, NS. In my childhood, the mamak sundry shop man could not make any headways being a late comer; the chinaman offered long credit terms, he could not. So, he started the issue of religion and race, etc. He won. That's also "selling grandma" albeit of a kind that may not be looked upon too kindly on 'yawmidin'.

    Anyways, the mamak is gone too. Victim of the hypermarkets and supermarkets.

    So too is the hold of the ulama and the politicians on 'knowledge' with the advent of the internet.

    With knowledge, fear goes out the window.

  2. Anonymous Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    akbar khan,
    i thought you are with a name, look like it is just another anon as you have not enable access to your blogger profile.

    when you are born into a race yet you refused to admit it and you chide some one not revealing his given name.
    what a hypocrite.

  3. Anonymous Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    akbar khan,
    no one point any finger at any particular community, it is just that the grand thief have too many blind worshiper including you who refused to see any wrong even if your underwear was stolen.
    this chinese friend of yours must have got mamak blood in his vein so we excuse him.
    one renounce one's religion because of new found faith or because of persecution we understand but only some not all mamak can change their race. just like african using a white man name but only sicko will even tried to turn white and ended up a disaster.
    even the bugis malay retain his bugis root what a disgrace for an indian to openly sever his and indian civilisation is 5 centuries old.

  4. akbar khan haneefa Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Let me address the comments by this bunch of anony-mice (ie, those who tell me that i have to give access to my blogger profile while they don't even have the guts to reveal their name – what a bunch of ball-less wonders)

    1. The question of whether a mamak is able to call himself a malay or not is a constitutional issue. I will suggest you get acquainted with the Malaysian Constitution before you shoot off your mouth.

    2. The problem here is that people don't read and don't know and then they talk and talk without basing on facts.

    3. i am not interested in your personal views on why the mamak cannot call himself a malay if he chooses to do so. The Arab is a malay. Tell me how is this possible?

    4. If there is a legal, moral or ethical reason for a mamak NOT to call himself a malay, please furnish it. If not, please do us a favour and don't waste our time.

  5. akbar khan haneefa Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Let me repost. This in answer to the comment by Anonymous:
    "but only some not all mamak can change their race….."

    you shouldn't call yourself Anonymous. A better name for you would be Clueless.

    REPOSTING:
    To put this matter at rest on who is a Malay, let me give u a definitive source, ie Tun Mohammed Suffian Hashim, Lord President of the Federal Court from 1974 to 1982 and who had previously served as Chief Justice of Malaya.
    Tun Suffian had a long association with the Constitution of Malaysia, first with its drafting and then with its operation as a member of the Legal Department, and finally with its interpretation from 1961 when he was elevated to the bench of the Federal Court.

    "A "Malay" is defined by Article 160(2) of the Constitution as meaning a person who professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks Malay, conforms to Malay custom and who satisfies residence requirements. To be a Malay for the purpose of the Constitution, one need not be of Malay ethnic origin. An Indian is a Malay if he professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks Malay and conforms to Malay custom. Conversely, even a genuine ethnic Malay is not Malay for the purpose of the Constitution if, for example, he does not profess the Muslim religion. See Tan Sri Mohammed Suffian bin Hashim, An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur; Jabatan Chetak Kerajaan, 1972), p. 247"

  6. akbar khan haneefa Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    In case u missed the point, this is what the man who helped draft, and then interpreted the Constitution as our Lord President said:

    To be a Malay for the purpose of the Constitution, one need not be of Malay ethnic origin. An Indian is a Malay if he professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks Malay and conforms to Malay custom.

    Now this what the constitution says. If you have a counter argument based on fact, please let us have it.

  7. Anonymous Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 2:37 am

    A drowning man clasping to a straw. Sound exactly like one of our previous PM, he likes to say i don't know, we are law abiding citizen and let the court decide or the constitution said so.
    At least the Malay of Arab origin maintain their Arab name like Syed and they are not shameful to acknowledge their Arab roots.
    OK this time let you who read the constitution win otherwise you get so irritated and started calling names.
    You want my name? It was Kublai Khan so satisfied?

  8. akbar khan haneefa Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 3:38 am

    The more i read here, the more i am alarmed at the intellecutual integrity of some of the comments.

    The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is our guiding light for all the consequent laws and by-laws of the country. It is NOT a document to be taken lightly.

    It states our rights and freedoms, whether chinese, indian or malay. These are the rules by which we all agree to play.

    I see here a reluctance and sometimes even a refusal to accept what has been said in the constitution. We shout out about transparency, good governance and accountability but do we really know what it means? Or are we talking about DISCRETION, which cannot be measured, cannot be managed and is dependant on the flavour of the month?

    Contigent to the above is a set of rules by which we all agree to play by. Knowledge of those rules is paramount so that we can all go in the same direction. The Constitution is one set of rules.

  9. Anonymous Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 6:36 am

    You WIN BIG

    Kublai Khan

  10. akbar khan haneefa Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 7:36 am

    Me win big?

    u gotta be joking. The ignorance is sytemic in Malaysia. The constitution says one thing but in the implementation, it is entirely a different matter. The same thing happened with NEP which as a policy was a good thing. But in the implementation, it went an entirely different way.

    Policy and action, words and deeds must go together. It isn't happening to the extent that is desired in Malaysia.

    I faced a whole lot of difficulty with this Melayu thing until i came to the point i said, i don't need this aggravation. With God's grace, i am doing fine. Haven't taken a kickback, or ASN or Housing discount in my life. No i didn't win big. IGNORANCE wins big.

  11. Anonymous Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    akbar khan,
    what a pathetic being you are.
    you started of by saying being a minority of minority, you receive no attention from the bn gom and every one else.
    you then read and understand the constitution well and exploit the generosity of the constitution and sever your root and even change your name to become a malay.
    and now you ended up having no benefit whatsoever from all this acts of folly.
    you feel bitter and insinuate that every mamak had taken kick back,ASN and housing discount except you!!!
    this story won,t elicit any sympathy if you are looking for consolation.
    sorry this round you lose BIG, very BIG.
    one word to describe "clever" people like you S T U P I D

    Alexander the Great

  12. Anonymous Friday, February 3, 2012 at 3:54 am

    I am anon 3:02.

    The purpose of putting a name or a handle in comments in blogs is if one wishes to carry on a conversation.

    In my case at least, when I put a comment, it is just that, a one-shot thingy.

    There is usually no desire to engage. If there is, then a handle, an initial, etc. such as anon 3:02 is good enough.

    In the case of Akbar if that is his real name, and that is his real face, and he is resident in Malaysia, then kudos to him.

    But there's no reason to disparage 'anons' for the simple reason that we are fully aware that our I.P.s are readily available should anybody want to trace us; unless of cos we use anonymisers which can be a hassle sometimes.

    If Akbar is not his real name, and that icon is not his face, then Akbar Khan Haneefa is as good as anon 3:02 for purposes of engagement and carrying-on a conversation.

    I don't think anybody is disputing the Constitution here.

    It is just that for many of us, it is disconcerting that Ridhuan Tee can appear on national TV and carry on about 'kita orang Melayu', and guys like Omar Ong can be a bumiputra and Malay while both his father and mother are full-blooded Chinese.

    Yes, it is the Constitution. We know. No argument.

    The issue for ethnic Malays would be that the Constitution had in mind the protection of the ethnic Malays vis-à-vis the immigrant races. What is apparent now is that the ethnic Malays are being left behind by immigrant races who happen to be Muslims.

    Anon 3:02

  13. akbar khan haneefa Friday, February 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Alex the Great

    this is what i think is wrong with your thinking. You are making too many assumptions without even knowing me. U got no facts lah. So u shooting in the dark.

    And this is exactly the point i am making. Ignorance wins big in Malaysia.

    These are the points i am making:

    1. All Malays in Malaysia are constitutional Malays.

    2. All this talk of Melayu tulen is Bull shit and has surfaced only the last couple of years. But if you disagree, please give a definition of Melayu tulen. And then next, how to determine whether someone is melayu tulen. Then who is going to do the identification of melayu tulen

    3. It matters in Malaysia if you are a malay (or an indian or a chinese)

    If u got something to say, say something about the topic. Not whether u love me or not.

  14. akbar khan haneefa Friday, February 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Anon 3:02

    1. regarding your comment: why do u find it disconcerting that Ridhuan Tee considers himself a malay? Do you think the man is sincere or insincere when he calls himself a malay? that he is a fraud?

    2. Protection of the ethnic malays? is it possible, that during the time of the formation of the constitution, the inclusion of the mamaks were important for the protection of the ethnic malays? Both from the standpoint of numbers and the economic powers of the mamak?

    3. The ethnic malays are being left behind. Is it possible that they are being left behind because there is a lack of struggle?

  15. Anonymous Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 2:37 am

    Akbar,

    1. Disconcerting because if someone like Ridhuan Tee and Omar Ong is a Malay, then it would appear that the Constitutional Malay as defined really refers to a Nationality, not a race. If that is the case, a whole Pandora's Box is opened including vis-a-vis the 'social contract' as envisioned by the original framers.

    2. If we are referring to a Nationality, wherewithal the non-Muslims, and the Muslims that speak no or little Malay and who retain most of their original culture? You can see the quagmire that we will be entering.

    3. I am unfamiliar with the statement that the mamaks were originally included in the definition of Malay. My reading of the historical events gave me the impression that the framers were referring to the ethnic Malays of various sukus, ie javanese, bataks, mandaling, etc. At the time in question most of the Mamaks being involve in commerce were centred in the Straits Settlement – Penang, Malacca, Singapore. The framers were concerned about the Malays in Pahang, in NS, in Perak, etc.

    Anon 3:02

  16. Anonymous Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 5:47 am

    Akbar,
    Despite giving the impression of being a well read person or maybe I am ignorant, you seems to depend entirely on one article in the constitution to interpret your malayness.
    Of course I don't know you because you are as anonymous as the other anon but going from your comments you did mention
    1. Las time, i stupid. I big ego. I say i indian. Go to university. Want to get scholarship, MIC reject me, MCA (no need to say lah – i too black and beautiful). Also tried Indian High Commission. They told me to try Pakistan Embassy. I learned. When u try to become minority within a minority, u standing all alone. Finally got a Johore State Scholarship.

    2.Also, a mamak not stupid. He can read. He read Malaysian Constitution. Malaysian constitution says he can be a melayu if he follows malay custom,islamic religion. So he become melayu lah.

    3.If they call themselves as indians, they become a minority within a minority. Their interests are not looked after.

    4.I faced a whole lot of difficulty with this Melayu thing until i came to the point i said, i don't need this aggravation. With God's grace, i am doing fine. Haven't taken a kickback, or ASN or Housing discount in my life. No i didn't win big. IGNORANCE wins big.

    Please note 1 – 4 are taken from your comments in this blog, unless you are also a liar and what you wrote are just fictitious, then I admit I am really ignorant of what a mamak is capable of.

    As for the definition of a Malay, there are many in the world wide web, non seems to include the people of Indian origin.

    I have a feeling (read between the line) what pak Hussein (a real Malay gentlemen is never obnoxious) was trying to say in his post is that many fictitious Malay or Constitutional malay are spoiling the image of the Malays.

    My apology Pak Hussein if this is not what you mean.

    Alexander the Great

  17. akbar khan haneefa Monday, February 6, 2012 at 1:14 am

    Alex the Great

    1. HOw did u come to the conclusion that I:
    a. "sever your root and even change your name to become a malay. " —- (what was my original name?)

    b. you feel bitter and insinuate that every mamak had taken kick back,ASN and housing discount except you!!!
    (is that my insinuation or your fertile imagination — i just said I DIDN"T take it.)

    2. "you seems to depend entirely on one article in the constitution to interpret your malayness. " —-
    Yes, i am referring to the Malaysian Constitution which defines who is a Malay. What is your definition of Malay and what is your source?

    3. "As for the definition of a Malay, there are many in the world wide web, non seems to include the people of Indian origin. " —-

    Hello friend, why u using www for definition of malay? Why aren't u using Malaysian Constitution? Tan Sri Mohammed Suffian Hashim, our former Lord President has stated "An Indian is a Malay if he professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks Malay and conforms to Malay custom." (and u cannot pretend ignorance because i quoted it in a post in this thread —Thursday, February 2, 2012 6:52:00 AM GMT+10:30)

    Like i said, Ignorance wins big in Malaysia. And you are an example of that. If you disagree, please reply each and everyone of the points presented above.

  18. akbar khan haneefa Monday, February 6, 2012 at 1:33 am

    Anon 3:02

    1. Yes, the original framers have indeed defined Malay as more a nationality rather than a race. Because an ethnic Malay is NOT a malay if he is a christian. Again refer to Tun Suffian's interpretation in my post on Thursday, February 2, 2012 6:52:00 AM GMT+10:30

    2. I don't see a quamire at all. The muslim must follow malay customs and speak the malay language. Its that simple. Our original framers didn't make the Malay club an exclusive private club. The doors are wide open. Only lately, there is a move to make this into a private exclusive club for the priveleged.

    3. "I am unfamiliar with the statement that the mamaks were originally included in the definition of Malay." — are u disputing Tan Sri Suffian's interpretation as given in his book An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur; Jabatan Chetak Kerajaan, 1972), p. 247? Why?

    4. "The framers were concerned about the Malays in Pahang, in NS, in Perak, etc." — what are u basing this assumption on? Please provide documented evidence, if you have it. Then we can both agree.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: