De-Malaysianising 1.75m citizens – isn’t this seditious? 

NGOs moot review of 1.75m citizenships granted from 1957 to 1970

ACR: Article 18(1)  the constitution lays out the process of acquiring citizenship by registration.

What the (then) new immigrants of Malaya would have gone through was the process of becoming citizens by operation of law based on Article 14(1) as it was prevailing then. Article 14(1)(a) makes reference to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 which contained conditions for citizenship.

This is not the first time, nor would it be the last, for moronic stunts like this to be pulled by groups like this. Our constitution is noted for having undergone hundreds of amendments – mostly in the 1960s and 1980s.

I would insist as a citizen that we revert to the Merdeka Constitution of Aug 27, 1957. We can thus put ourselves back in the framework our forefathers agreed upon.

I am wondering where former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad stands on this (he was infamous for amending our constitution numerous times), and whether he is still cosy with, and patron of, Perkasa?

Nil: From day 1 when Malaysia was formed (Sept 16, 1963), all the peoples then present and living in the country have the right of citizenship of country. Schedule 1 of the Constitution refers to persons who came in later and seek citizenship.

Leaders of the Bertindak coalition should be arrested for provoking racial and religious tension if they proceed with their plans.

Wg321: If Bertindak wants to de-Malaysianise 1.75 million citizens, just go ahead.

If these 1.75 million people bypassed the process of taking the oath according to Schedule 1 of the Malaysian Constitution from 1957 to 1970, who is to be blamed? Indeed, they should blame the Umno-controlled government at the material time.

If Bertindak wants to go to court to de-Malaysianise 1.75 million people, these 1.75 million people have the equal right to demand compensation from the same court for their sacrifices in sweat and blood in building Malaysia.

It is very obvious Bertindak wants to sabotage the Malaysian economy.

David Dass: This sounds like: “Who do these Indians think they are? They cannot tell us who we can listen to or not. They cannot tell us who we make permanent residents (PRs). They are getting too much. We should not have made them citizens. Let us review and revoke their citizenship!”

We are 60 years since independence. We went through a citizenship verification exercise in 1970. Indians have been in the country for more than 100 years. We are part of the physical landscape. We are part of the political landscape. We are citizens and entitled to all rights of citizens.

If we breach the law, prosecute us. But you are right on a number of points. We cannot tell you who you can listen to. The truth is whether Indian preacher Zakir Naik is in the country or not, his talks are all over the Internet. Anyone can listen to him.

There are also many speakers from many denominations extolling the virtue and validity of their beliefs. There are many apologists and ‘experts’ from many faiths and atheists arguing the validity of their faiths or the invalidity of other faiths. We cannot stop them.

In a multi-religious society, we are concerned about speakers who provoke religious tension. It does not matter where they come from or what religion they belong to. We are also concerned about religious creeds or sects or interpretations by extremist groups that will set faith against faith.

So, we express our views on speakers like Zakir Naik. Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin has made his position clear. He has apologised. He says that it was not his intention to offend Hindu Malaysians. That is enough to close the episode with him.

As for Zakir Naik, many have expressed their views about him. Not just Hindus. The question of whether he should be sent to India is a matter to be resolved between the governments of India and Malaysia. We should leave it at that. Enough heat has been generated. It is time to calm down.

Gaji Buta: Let’s also analyse the following:

1. How much has been spent on bumiputera ‘special privileges’ over and above that specified in the constitution since independence.

2. How many people were allowed to enjoy bumi benefits without having met the strict conditions of the constitution, and how much they had benefitted. This would include converts, Indonesians, ‘new’ Malays, etc.

All this money should be reimbursed to the non-Malays who had been shortchanged and deprived of the tax monies they paid.

Politician: At least, those who migrated to Malaysia circa 1957 to 1970 were given official citizenship for the hard work they put in to defend this country from communist insurgency and subsequently played a major role in building this country.

On the same note, there are many foreigners from neighbouring countries who are lurking in this country without any documents at all.

Perkasa should also start a probe on these people, many of whom have not made any contribution but have gone to become MBs and even bigger.

Anonymous_1421806811: There are many familiar faces in this newly-formed NGO. I wonder how many real new members they have, as they often are the same members of other NGOs sharing the same ideology.

After a while, this NGO will whittle away like an armour left to rust because no one gives a damn about what they think.

And after a while, this NGO will become extinct and another NGO will be formed with the same familiar faces and same members and raise another stupid issue, and the cycle of garbage is repeated.

Hang Babeuf: An ominous escalation of “blood and soil nationalism” (politik darah dan bumi).

This new “push” takes one step further a process or drive that we have had to recognise for some time now: the negating of the 1957 Merdeka Constitution; the repudiation and unwinding of the key “Merdeka Process” agreements and understandings that made the acceptance and promulgation of the Merdeka Constitution possible; and, in that way and to replace the historical foundations of Malayan and Malaysian Merdeka, the “bedding down” of the view that Malaysia’s “relevant” national political history begins only in 1969/1970.

This is the ‘Tanda Putera’ view of the nation’s origins and true, real identity.

Tan Kim Keong: It looks like Malaysia does not belong to any of us, especially the bumiputera Malays, based on the latest archaeological ‘stone age’ 5,000-year-old skeleton found in Guar Kepah and the recent findings from Bujang Valley.

These are not the ancestors of any of us. So, no citizenship for all. How?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.