Not only no gumption...he has no balls to face a "small fry" who also happens to be a woman.
The fact of the matter is that the true Ibrahim/Mahathir Perkasa agenda will be laid bare in the debate. This is how Perkasa responded to Nurul Izzah's challenge:
Perkasa declares Malay rights not for debate
**********************************
Malaysia's future first woman PM, Nurul Izzah will be disappointed because Ibrahim Ali will not risk his Perkasa all in a single debate with a woman, of all creatures! Mind you this is not ONLY about Malay Rights. It is as much about the Malay Muslim Woman in Malaysia.
Come on Ibrahim! It is obvious you have the gall...let's see if you have the gumption.
This was in the Malaysian Insider:
Nurul Izzah wants clarification from Perkasa on where they are going with their agenda.
Nurul Izzah wants Malay rights debate with Perkasa By Yow Hong Chieh August 31, 2010
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 31 — Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar today invited Perkasa to a public debate on Malay rights, contending that the question of Malay special rights should be put to the King and the people of Malaysia.
Her invitation to the Malay rights group appeared to be an attempt to contain Datuk Ibrahim Ali’s growing influence on policy by locating his discourse squarely within the democratic process.
Referencing Article 153 of the Federal Constitution - which Perkasa says grants “Malays rights” in perpetuity — Nurul pointed out that the article only specified that Malays be given a special position and should, in fact, to be interpreted in light of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) by the King or a body appointed by him.
Article 8(1) states: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and Article 8(2): “Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.”
“It would be ideal to have a mandated entity such as a Constitutional Court or at least a Constitutional Council appointed by the King to act as the final interpreter of any constitutional issues,” Nurul said, adding that the judiciary, which already deals with constitutional matters, would also have a role to play.
Alternatively, she proposed a possible solution in the form of a legally binding referendum, while simultaneously challenging Perkasa to both a dialogue through open letters as well as a televised debate.
Nurul argued that “Malay rights”, as envisioned by Perkasa, were an ideological and philosophical construct that was not rooted in either the constitution or law.
“My question to Perkasa is, has the concept of ‘Malay rights’ now become a permanent convention that supersedes even the written constitution in policy and practice that has to be accepted by all non-Malay citizens?” she asked.
“My question to Perkasa is, spiritually and intellectually, does a Malay accepts injustices, power abuse, corruption, racism, anti-democratic laws, state institutional degradation to ensure that the Malays are a Supreme Race in Malaysia, with first class citizenship privileges not to be shared with other non-Malay citizens?”
She added that it was important to note that the Reid Commission, which drafted the constitution, had seen Article 153 as temporary measure, subject to review after 15 years by Parliament, before it was institutionalised into the NEP following the 1969 race riots.
Arguing that Malaysia was at a “monumental cross-road”, Nurul hammered home the point that it ultimately came down to the people to decide if Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) or Ketuanan Rakyat (people’s supremacy) was going to define Malaysia.
“Once the next general election outcome is determined, and if ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is victorious, then some may choose to vote with their feet (emigrate with massive brain drain and a diminishing tax base), and some will choose to vote with their wallet (domestic capital flight compounded with decreasing FDI that further stunts our economic growth), which in turn will indicate the makings of a potential failed state with irreversible consequences,” she warned.
“What is left will be a shell of a former Malaysia that could have been a great example of a democratic and pluralistic nation to the world.”
Nurul Izzah wants Malay rights debate with Perkasa By Yow Hong Chieh August 31, 2010
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 31 — Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar today invited Perkasa to a public debate on Malay rights, contending that the question of Malay special rights should be put to the King and the people of Malaysia.
Her invitation to the Malay rights group appeared to be an attempt to contain Datuk Ibrahim Ali’s growing influence on policy by locating his discourse squarely within the democratic process.
Referencing Article 153 of the Federal Constitution - which Perkasa says grants “Malays rights” in perpetuity — Nurul pointed out that the article only specified that Malays be given a special position and should, in fact, to be interpreted in light of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) by the King or a body appointed by him.
Article 8(1) states: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and Article 8(2): “Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.”
“It would be ideal to have a mandated entity such as a Constitutional Court or at least a Constitutional Council appointed by the King to act as the final interpreter of any constitutional issues,” Nurul said, adding that the judiciary, which already deals with constitutional matters, would also have a role to play.
Alternatively, she proposed a possible solution in the form of a legally binding referendum, while simultaneously challenging Perkasa to both a dialogue through open letters as well as a televised debate.
Nurul argued that “Malay rights”, as envisioned by Perkasa, were an ideological and philosophical construct that was not rooted in either the constitution or law.
“My question to Perkasa is, has the concept of ‘Malay rights’ now become a permanent convention that supersedes even the written constitution in policy and practice that has to be accepted by all non-Malay citizens?” she asked.
“My question to Perkasa is, spiritually and intellectually, does a Malay accepts injustices, power abuse, corruption, racism, anti-democratic laws, state institutional degradation to ensure that the Malays are a Supreme Race in Malaysia, with first class citizenship privileges not to be shared with other non-Malay citizens?”
She added that it was important to note that the Reid Commission, which drafted the constitution, had seen Article 153 as temporary measure, subject to review after 15 years by Parliament, before it was institutionalised into the NEP following the 1969 race riots.
Arguing that Malaysia was at a “monumental cross-road”, Nurul hammered home the point that it ultimately came down to the people to decide if Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) or Ketuanan Rakyat (people’s supremacy) was going to define Malaysia.
“Once the next general election outcome is determined, and if ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is victorious, then some may choose to vote with their feet (emigrate with massive brain drain and a diminishing tax base), and some will choose to vote with their wallet (domestic capital flight compounded with decreasing FDI that further stunts our economic growth), which in turn will indicate the makings of a potential failed state with irreversible consequences,” she warned.
“What is left will be a shell of a former Malaysia that could have been a great example of a democratic and pluralistic nation to the world.”
No comments:
Post a Comment