Katalog Hansard

Saya menyokong. Usul di-kemuka bagi di-putuskan, dan di-setujukan. Di-putuskan, Bahawa walau apa pun ketetapan yang di-buat oleh Dewan ini pada hari Selasa, 23hb Februari, 1971, mengena Peratoran Meshuarat 14 (2) apa- bila tamat pertimbangan atas Rang Undang2 (Pindaan) Perlembagaan, Dewan ini hendak-lah serta-merta terus menimbangkan pula Rang Undang2 (Pindaan) (No. 2) Perlembagaan melalu semua perengkat.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun me- nyokong Rang Undang2 (Pindaan) Per- lembagaan yang di-hadapan kita pada hari ini. Pada mula-nya saya memang bertanya atas pendirian beberapa parti Pembangkang di-dalam Parlimen ini di-dalam perbahathan atas Rang Undang2 ini. Dan di-dalam kajian saya, saya nampak dengan terang bahawa di-kalangan parti Pembangkang, ada tiga kumpulan. Yang Pertama, ia-lah kumpulan parti Pembangkang yang tidak hendak menerima kenyataan di-dalam negara kita pada masa ini dan yang tetap menetang Rang Undang2 (Pindaan) Perlembagaan yang di-hadapi oleh kita. Pehak yang kedua ia-lah pehak parti Pembangkang yang sedar dan menerima atas kenyataan keadaan di-dalam negara kita pada masa ini dan tidak berdolak-dalek lagi pula mereka menyokong Rang Undang2 (Pindaan) Perlembagaan kita. Tetapi pehak yang ketiga ia-lah pehak parti Pembangkang yang pada faham saya nampak-nya tidak bagitu mengerti atas kedudokan negara kita pada masa ini dan di-dalam uchapan mereka terutama sa-kali wakil ra'ayat, Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada Sarawak, mereka nampak-nya maseh belum faham dan maseh belum dapat gambaran yang terang lagi untok menyokong, atau tidak menyokong atas Rang Undang2 ini. Saya berharap bahawa sa-lepas kita mendengar uchapan daripada Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Payang tadi, maka dapat-lah pehak parti Pembangkang. terutama sa-kali daripada Sarawak, sedar akan kedudokan yang sa- benar-nya dan menyokong kami. Bukan kerana Rang Undang2 ini menyebelahi sa- siapa, malahan Rang Undang2 ini ia-lah untok tiap sa-orang warganegara di-dalam negara kita ini, bukan sahaja untok orang Melayu, bukan sahaja untok orang bumi- putera, bukan sahaja untok pendudok di- kawasan Malaysia Barat, malahan Rang Undang2 ini ia-lah untok tiap sa-orang warganegara kita termasok sahabat kita daripada Malaysia Timor. Malang-nya ketua mereka tidak ada dan kita berharap apabila mereka membuat laporan, tolong-lah beri penerangan kapada ketua mereka sendiri. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dalam empat lima hari kita membinchangkan Rang Undang2 ini saya mendapat satu kesimpulan. Kesimpulan-nya ia-lah bahawa kalau di-kaji daripada tutoran tiap Ahli Yang Berhormat yang telah bangun berchakap, tiap sa-orang daripada kita mahukan keharmonian negara, tiap sa-orang daripada kita mahukan negara kita ini aman damai supaya tiap sa-orang ra'ayat dapat menchapai kebahagian hidup. Pendirian ini dan pertutoran yang telah di-buat dalam Dewan ini sangat-lah meng- galakkan. Tetapi apabila kita kaji dengan lebeh dalam lagi, saya berasa gerun. Saya sa-bagai sa-orang ahli politik yang telah juga berhadapan dengan parti Pembangkang sa-belum pilehan raya tahun 1969, berasa gerun, gerun kerana lagu yang di-mainkan oleh pehak parti Pembangkang, terutama sa-kali wakil daripada parti DAP dan juga wakil daripada P.P.P. ia-lah sama juga dengan lagu lama. Kalau kita kaji Ahli Yang Berhormat itu nampak-nya mereka muka-nya baharu, orang baharu, tetapi lagu-nya lama. Apabila saya mendengar uchapan daripada Ahli Yang Ber- hormat dari Bungsar bunyi-nya bergema salah masa dahulu apabila Malaysia telah tertuboh dan ada satu negeri yang masok di-dalam Malaysia apabila wakil dan ketua negeri itu telah beruchap. Sama bunyi-nya, sama gema-nya di-dalam Dewan Ra'ayat kita pada masa ini. Ini yang saya katakan gerun. Kerana ini-lah yang menyebabkan shak- wasangka di-kalangan ra'ayat dan kerana ini- lah yang menyebabkan ra'ayat jelata di- dalam negara kita ini berasa takut di-antara satu sama lain. Jadi, kalau muka-nya baharu, mereka yang sangat tekun dudok di-dalam Dewan Ra'ayat pada masa ini, jangan-lah lagu lama, kalau rekod-nya burok, buangkan-lah dan tukarkan-lah dengan rekod baharu. Apa yang saya maksudkan rekod baharu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua? Saya suka mengambil kesempatan pada hari ini untok menganalisakan keadaan suasana politik di- dalam negara kita pada masa ini dan juga pada masa yang telah lalu. Kita tahu dan kita harus menerima kenyataan bahawa di-dalam negara kita ini semenjak kita menchapai kemerdekaan, kita telah betul menganuti dasar chara berkera- jaan "Parliamentary democracy". Ya, saya menerima kenyataan juga bahawa sa-kira- nya saya menghadapi sa-siapa juga cherdek pandai, ini betul bukan-nya demokrasi sa- sa-penoh-nya. Ini ia-lah demokrasi dengan kekurangan-nya. Tetapi sa-kira-nya kita bandingkan chara demokrasi di-dalam negara kita ini tidak dapat tidak kita sedar dan menerima bahawa chara kita pada masa dahulu ia-lah demokrasi yang sa-dekat-nya sa-kira-nya kita bandingkan dengan keadaan demokrasi di-dalam negara yang baharu sahaja menchapai kemerdekaan. Apa-kah erti kata demokrasi? Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Menglembu dengan cherdek, pandai, mengatakan, "Government by majority will" kalau ta' salah saya ia-itu "Kerajaan dengan kehendak majority". Tetapi saya fikir istilah ini terlampau "over simplified". Betul, saya bersetuju dengan dia. Tetapi maksud tiap parti politik di-dalam gelanggang demokrasi berma'ana bahawa tiap satu parti politik chuba sa-daya upaya memujok dan menarek ra'ayat jelata supaya menyokong masing2. Jadi kita bertanding, kita chuba di-dalam gelanggang politik, bertanding, bangun, beritahu ra'ayat, "Kami-lah parti politik yang betul sanggup dan ada kebolehan memerentah". Ada yang menang ada yang kalah. Tetapi sepanjang sejarah negara kita ini kita nampak bahawa Parti Perikatan telah menang tiap kali pilehan raya untok memegang teraju Kerajaan Pusat Negara kita ini. Di-dalam masa kita bertanding di- gelanggang politik, ada dua chara-nya. Chara pertama ia-lah dengan chara memperkatakan bahawa parti mereka-lah yang ada idiologi. Idiologi apa mithal-nya, Tuan Yang di- Pertua? "Kami Sosialis, terima-lah kami". Ada pula mengatakan, "Kami Demokratik Sosialis, pileh-lah kami", ada pula mengata- kan, "Kami Liberal Sosialis", mithal-nya. Huruf demokrasi, huruf Sosialisma di- gunakan dengan luas-nya di-dalam masa di-adakan pilehan raya di-dalam masa kita bertanding di-antara satu sama lain. Malang-nya ra'ayat di-dalam sa-suatu negara yang baharu membangun, tidak indah malahan mereka tidak faham akan apa-kah erti kata izem (ism) ini. Yang mustahak kapada ra'ayat jelata ia-lah "perutisem". Perut-bagaimana chara mengisi perut dan parti politik mana-kah yang betul nampak boleh mengisi perut ra'ayat. Jadi, di-dalam memperkatakan idiologi, dari segi cherdek pandai, dari segi masharakat antara bangsa, dari segi wartawan, dari segi orang di- dalam bandar, Demokratik Sosialisem mithal- nya sangat-lah chantek, indah betul nama- nya. "Demokrasi dan Sosialisem". Apa ma'ana-nya terpulang kapada mereka yang menganuti faham ini. Tetapi, saya suka mengingatkan bahawa sejarah di-dalam negara yang baharu membangun terutama sa-kali telah menunjokkan bahawa mereka yang melaungkan demokrasi dan sosialisem- lah, apabila mereka dapat memegang teraju Kerajaan lupa terus akan perinsip yang di- anuti oleh mereka sendiri. Habis! habis di- buang-nya entah ka-mana, ka-parit mana, ta' di-kirakan demokrasi, ta' di-kirakan sosia- lisem. Ra'ayat juga yang terok, ra'ayat juga yang merana. Tetapi Alham dullillah, di-dalam negara kita ini ra'ayat nampak-nya belum lagi ter- tarek dan tidak akan tertarek akan selogan yang di-pergunakan oleh Parti Pembangkang. Jadi, ta' ada modal hendak gunakan idiologi di-kampong. Orang kampong tidak bagitu faham. Apa-kah kemungkinan lagi satu? Kemungkinan lagi satu ia-lah dan mengguna- kan hujjah yang menunjokkan bagaimana Kerajaan yang ada sekarang tidak ada kebolehan untok membena negara. Perengkat pertama kita membena negara, Kerajaan Perikatan tidak boleh di-nafikan telah menchapai kejayaan. Di-perengkat mana? Di-perengkat membangunkan satu infra-structure atau pun satu rangka untok pendirian ekonomi negara kita ini. Infra- structure yang di-maksudkan ia-lah jalan di-kampong, klinik di-kampong, sekolah di-kampong dan sa-bagai-nya. Parti2 politik Pembangkang tidak ada modal juga apabila mereka ka-kampong mengatakan Kerajaan tidak membuat itu dan tidak membuat ini. Buntu lagi sa-kali! Apa boleh buat? Kapada mereka terutama sa-kali Parti Pembangkang yang tidak bertanggong-jawab, sa-telah mereka menghadapi kebuntuan ini, mereka telah beraleh berpandang ka-tempat lain, menchari modal mana yang hendak di-guna- kan. Ada satu modal di-dalam negara kita ini-ada satu modal di-dalam negara lain yang telah menchapai kemerdekaan. Modal apa? Modal menggunakan imosi perasaan perkauman. Kita telah lihat di-negara lain bagaimana ini telah terjadi. Bagaimana chara-nya? Kalau hendak gunakan izem tidak di-faham, kalau hendak menentang Kerajaan dengan pem- benaan tidak di-terima. Senang sahaja dapat fahaman, bandar di-mana ada orang China dan katakan: "Hai! jaga-lah kamu, Kerajaan ini menindas kamu sakalian; semua mereka dapat, semua Melayu sahaja dapat. Kita ta' guna dudok dalam negeri kita ini, semua dia dapat sahaja". Orang yang biasa di-bandar2 menganggok bersetuju. Tiap kali apabila kita adakan pilehan raya, apabila di-adakan rapat umum, ini-lah hujjah yang sa-habis kuat yang di-gunakan oleh Parti Pembangkang hingga orang China, ra'ayat daripada keturunan China nampak-nya ter- pedaya oleh mereka. Sa-telah mereka di- takutkan tentu-lah mereka lari kapada yang berchakap. Mereka pandang kapada parti yang membuat hujjah ini sa-bagai melin- dongi mereka di-atas anchaman, konon-nya, yang telah di-buat oleh orang Melayu ka- atas orang China. Saya sendiri memang sangat bersimpati dengan rakan saya terutama sa-kali dari parti DAP dan juga daripada parti PPP. Bersimpati kerana apa? Kerana kami sedar, kami tahu modal-nya dahulu ia-lah berasas perkauman. Di-dalam beberapa tahun ini mereka telah membena satu perangkap; membena satu perangkap-perkauman, per- kauman, perkauman; menakutkan ra'ayat daripada orang bukan Melayu, hinggakan perangkat itu sudah besar, sudah kuat meliputi mereka sendiri. Saya bersimpati. Sekarang pehak Kerajaan Perikatan chuba menolong mereka keluar daripada perangkap ini. Tolong-lah sedar bahawa Rang Undang2 ini bukan anti-China. Telah di-perkatakan tiap kali oleh Ketua kita. Bukan anti- China, bukan anti-orang bukan Melayu. Apabila di-laksanakan, kami sendiri, kami semua daripada Parti Perikatan sedia ber- disiplin mengikut chara politik baru ia-itu chara politik yang tidak menggunakan perasaan perkauman. Soal pembenaan, apa hendak di-chakapkan, chakap, soal pem- benaan, soal rasuah, chakap; kami sendiri pun menggalakkan ahli kami sendiri ber- chakap soal pentadbiran, soal pembenaan. Kalau salah tunjok. Ini-lah chara constructive yang boleh di-gunakan. Tolong beri tahu. Tolong-lah fikir dengan sa-habis-nya. Kalau saudara saya daripada Parti P.P.P. dan D.A.P. tidak menyokong Rang Undang2 ini perangkap mereka sendiri itu akan terus di- perketatkan. Bila mereka hendak balek kapada pengundi masing2, apa yang mereka hendak chakap, Rang Undang2 ini berjalan, undang2 kita pun berjalan. Jadi, terpaksa mereka berbisek pula. Berbisek di-antara satu sama lain. Sebab apa mereka menen- tang? "Orang China rugi-lah. Kerajaan ini Melayu, dia hendak tindas kita. Itu sebab kita ta' boleh sokong". Ini sahaja chara. Ini sahaja-lah jalan mereka dapat keluar. Jangan-lah kita terperangkap dan ta' dapat keluar daripada perangkap ini. Saya fikir parti Pembangkang yang lain telah memikirkan atas kedudokan dan mene- liti kedudokan kita pada masa ini. Apa yang di-hadapi oleh kita, yang kita sebutkan tiap kali ia-lah bahawa kita takut kalau dengan demokrasi chara lama, dengan kebebasan chara lama, kita takut terjadi lagi 13 Mei. Bukan kerana saya takut, bukan kerana tiap sa-orang Ahli Yang Berhormat takut, kita takutkan negara kita ini tidak akan menchapai kejayaan di-dalam langkah yang kita hendak membena negara kita ini. Saya telah dengar beberapa analisa dan perchakapan daripada ahli parti Pembang- kang yang memperkatakan sebab terjadi-nya peristiwa 13 Mei. Teori-nya banyak. Dari- pada parti Pembangkang, Kerajaan Perikatan bertanggong-jawab. Dari pehak Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Menglembu, senang sahaja, UMNO Selangor yang bertanggong-jawab. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya sa-bagai sa- orang yang telah bertanggong-jawab memegang teraju parti saya sendiri suka mengambil kesempatan di-sini menengkis dengan sa-keras-nya tanggong-jawab yang telah di-lemparkan kapada kami di-atas 13 Mei itu. Saya fikir Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Menglembu tidak bagitu "naive". Kalau saya benarkan berchakap sadikit dalam Bahasa Inggeris, I do not-certainly I do not-think that the Honourable Member for Menglembu is that naive. In such a case as the tragedy of the 13th of May, it is not relevant, really, when you consider it, whether Mr "X" threw the first stone, whether Party "X" organised the first rally, whether so many Malays or so many Chinese or so many Indians were killed in such a tragedy as the 13th of May. One has to go further than that; one certainly needs to go further than that and try to analyse it deeply. Let me try to offer to the Honour- able Member for Menglembu-and my other colleagues too-my own analysis, rather simple perhaps, as to the tragedy of 13th of May. All these years, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the elections of 1959, as rightly pointed out by the Honourable Member for Menglembu, from the elections of 1964, as again he rightly pointed out, right up to the elections of 1969, there has been an accumulation of accusations and counter-accusations of "Who dominates what and who persecutes whom?" in terms of race. To the Malays-they are very simple-minded-they were awed, they were surprised, they were puzzled by all these accusations lumped at them all the time during each time each person spoke in any rally throughout the country, especial- 1y around Kuala Lumpur. Why were they awed? Why were they puzzled? Because they were told that they were the suppressors, they were the persecutors, they had every- thing. Who were they? They were just ordinary folks. They live in and around Kuala Lumpur, comparatively living practi- cally from day to day. How could it be that these "nasty" Malays, who had been persecuting the Chinese and the non-Malays all this time. yet be in the position that they were? And all the time during the election campaigning there had always been this insinuation, "When we come into power we will chuck them out: Balek kampong, Melayu". This is the way they put it. And what happened? They won the elections. Naturally! Congratulations! Naturally, you won the elections on these issues, on this method or system of what I term to be the "politics of fear": you instilled a spirit of fear, a feeling of fear, amongst the popula- tion-the Chinese were afraid of the Malays and the Malays were afraid of the Chinese. What happened? A number of representa- tives from the Opposition won and their exuberant celebrations got out of hand, to the extent that the Malays were made to feel that their number is up, they are finished, they have no future in the country- although it is false. But this is the reality of race that one has to recognise in this country. If you thrive on fear, racial fear, you are sure to create chaos in this country. This is what we are trying to avoid. This is what we are trying to learn from the tragedy of 13th of May. What happened? The Malays ran amok, and do not forget that the word "amok" is a Malay word. We used to be called "the gentlemen of the world"-the Malays were. Simply they said "Yes" to everything. They are capable of being very polite.

Ya, saya hendak balek uchapan saya sa-mula, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya minta ma'af terlepas ber- chakap dalam bahasa Inggeris tadi. Ini semata kerana saya sedar bahawa pehak Pembangkang telah beberapa kali menutup- kan telinga mereka tidak menerima hujjah di-dalam bahasa Melayu. Malah sa-telah beberapa tahun dudok di-dalam negara kita pun saya tahu mereka tidak pandai bahasa Melayu. Jadi untok memahami akan kedudokan yang sa-benar-nya, saya minta ma'af-lah, saya tadi tersasul terus, saya hendak balek sa-mula.

Ma'af saya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, akhir sa-kali saya suka membangkitkan satu kesedaran di-kalangan parti Pembangkang yang tetap tidak menerima Rang Undang2 (Pindaan) Perlembagaan ini. Ia-itu, sa-lepas Rang Undang2 (Pindaan) Perlembagaan ini di-luluskan, tanggong-jawab di-atas kedudok- an negara ini, tanggong-jawab keharmonian negara, tanggong-jawab atas perchaya-nya atau tidak ra'ayat atas keharmonian di- antara bangsa terletak semata di-bahu mereka sendiri dan tidak kapada orang lain. Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dengan uchapan ini, saya berharap bahawa dapat- lah kita sedar akan tanggong-jawab kita. Mari-lah kita sedar bahawa Rang Undang2 ini akan memberi peluang kapada kita semua mengikut chara politik baharu, chara politik membena untok kepentingan kita bersama. Terima kaseh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The question I want to ask is, is His Majesty's Government suffering from the disease of imagining and assuming itself infallible? I hope not. And I am certain that not a few of the Honourable Members on the Government side itself share and entertain the same hope. Mill went on to say that in human affairs, particularly, in the realm of the freedom of thought and speech that "There must be", and I quote again, "a rational assurance that all objections have been satisfactorily answered." He went on to ask, and how are they to be answered if that which required to be answered is not spoken? Or how can the answer be known to be satis- factory, if the objectors have no opportunity of showing that it is unsatisfactory?" Mr Speaker, Sir, let us always remember that issues and problems which are legiti- mate, but which are considered by some quarters to be sensitive can and will submerge underground if and when they are banned from discussion. They become under- ground problems and issues, to be pursued more relentlessly, quietly and surreptitiously by the advocates of violent revolution and the extra-parliamentary and the extra- constitutional process and struggle. The inevitable end-result appears to me to be nothing short of the explosion of the powder-keg and, perhaps, this time on a much bigger and uglier scale and intensity. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya hendak ber- chakap satu atau dua ayat dalam bahasa Malaysia kita. Kami telah berkali, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, menyatakan yang kami tidak menentang Bahasa Kebangsaan kita yang di-hormati oleh kita, kedaulatan Raja dan hak istimewa orang Melayu yang di-maksudkan untok meninggikan taraf ekonomi, sosial dan pelajaran orang Melayu. Kami juga tidak menyoal taraf kera'ayatan yang di-beri kapada orang bukan Melayu. Mr Speaker, Sir, however, this proposal to deny M.P.s the immunity of speech in Parliamentary sessions is an extremely serious, fundamental and vital issue which concerns not only M.P.s but the whole nation and people if we sincerely believe that Parliament should be the nerve-centre and life-line of our national life. The agonising question that is being asked by hundreds of thousands of our multi- racial people outside the walls of this House is, "What kind of Parliament is this going to be if M.P.s cannot speak up freely and without the constraints of fear and the pressures of favour?" Parliamentary immunity of speech is the most fundamental feature and tenet of democracy. If this were to be denied, it may well be pertinent to ask whether it is worth the time, the money-and there has been a lot of money spent-and energy having a Parliament at all. The people will ask this even if we do not do it here. You may have a law to say that this and this and this are the unutterables, but there can be no law, Mr Speaker, Sir, which can say that certain subjects are unthinkable; and the devil must be the only one to triumph when more and more people are compelled, ironically by laws, to not only think of the unutterable but also to think of the unthinkable. The important issue, therefore, is: What manner of Parliamentary democracy are we going to have? Is Parlia- ment to be supreme, or can it still be supreme as it should rightly be? Or, is it merely to be a rubber stamp, designed for no other worthy and dignified purpose than to lend a veneer of respectability and legality to the irrationalities and excesses of the Government? Just as we cannot say that no Government is infallible, so it is that we cannot say that there have not been instances of Governmental irrationalities and excesses over the past decade and a half in our country. It has been rightly said by a leading British trade unionist, Hugh Scanion, that, and I quote: "Where democracy had perished, the first assaults were made on the trade unions." Everyone at home and internationally knows-and it is unfortunate that the Honourable Minister of Labour is not here-that the trade unions are through and through emasculated and suppressed in Malaysia. This is a sad and painful fact. So much so that leaders of the Malaysian Trade Union Congress have publicly acknowledged that they have been made a laughing stock in the eyes of the trade union world. So let the Honourable Member for Bukit Bintang- if he is here-beware. The assaults are today being made on the institution of Parliamen- tary democracy itself. Who is there to guarantee that the Honourable Member for Bukit Bintang will not soon be made a political laughing stock in the eyes of the people of his constituency and the country as well? For that must be the price of gullibility. Mr Speaker, Sir, are we to substitute democracy for autocracy just because some people are impatient and intolerant and we are yet a very young country-of the cut-and-thrust of Parliamentary debates and of democratic principles and practices them- selves. With all humility and sincerity, I would like to remind those Honourable Members (if any) who are thus unfavour- ably inclined towards the concept of practice of democracy that even if and when they succeed to get the Bill passed-and I do not think anyone by now should have any doubt that you will get the Bill passed and I say, "Congratulations to you"-how long would they be able to satisfy their tendencies and inclinations-if not only for a very short time. For they, and the country with them, are bound to fall into the trap of bigger and more experienced and ruthless autocrats than themselves. The advocates and forces of violence and totalitarianism of a different but more efficient and disciplined and definitely more intensely motivated brand, ideologically at least, though some people say, "To hell with ideology", will be and must be the sure victors in the end. The central question that plagues men's minds today is: Do we still want the open society with the open argument or do we prefer a closed society where the strong-arm methods and knuckle-dusters are to be employed to suppress freedom of expression by the people and their duly elected representatives? Will it pay, Mr Speaker, Sir, to insist on having only one voice in the country, the voice of the Government, and the voice of the Opposition parties and M.P.s must be muffled, by legislative cunning if possible, and by sheer brute force if necessary? Assuming that it does pay, the question that inevitably follows is: For how long and at what price? Have we in all honesty and seriousness weighed the probable consequences carefully? Do we realise that any lowering of the status, purpose and meaning of Parliament will lend tens and hundreds of thousands of our multi- racial people to progressively lose faith in the efficacy of Parliamentary democracy? Do we realise that the end result then would be nothing short of helping to drive people, particularly the young and the idealistic, and if I may add, the idle and unemployed, into becoming the recruits of the forces of violent revolution? This attempt to stifle free speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, will actually be self-defeating in the end. History has very many abun- dantly clear examples to demonstrate this, and it would be foolish not to be able or unwilling to learn such an important lesson from the pages of history. Repression has not been able to prevent the people of Hungary and Czechoslovakia from cherishing and even fighting for the ideals of freedom and justice. Even as we speak here today, Mr Speaker, Sir, men and women of courage behind the iron curtain of Russia are risking their lives for the sake of human freedom and dignity. Police atrocities in South Africa may delay but will not deny the ultimate victory of the suppressed Africans in South Africa and Rhodesia if you want. So it is with the struggle of the Black people in the United States in the face of constant and systematic police brutality. Mr Speaker, Sir, men may be imprisoned; men may die, but ideas cannot die. Ideas and ideals of free- dom, equality, fraternity and dignity have life without death, and the underlying human spirit in the struggle for such ideas and ideals, which are primordial needs and desires of human beings, cannot and will not be imprisoned or diminished. Mr Speaker, Sir, are we going to be the beneficiaries of history or do we choose to be its prisoners. There is an anguished cry throughout our country for an honest and courageous answer. And let it be. Let our beloved country cry. Let her cry until she finds her soul. For that is what it is tantamount to, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are asked to take part in the extraction and dissection of the soul of this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, Honourable Members and my countrymen and women, when the soul of our nation escapes from her body, then similarly will the soul of each and everyone of us go.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when that situation arises a part of everyone of us dies. Have we really thought of the possible dire consequences of sweeping more problems under the carpet? Are we to behave like stubborn ostriches. Where do we go from here? Who stands to lose out most in the end? Not just the Opposition or even the Government, but all of us within and with- out the walls of this Chamber which is still august, though not for long. The Honourable the Prime Minister, Tun Razak, had himself openly admitted, after the May 13 riots, that one of the grievous faults of the Government in the past 13 years was its indulgence in sweeping problems under the carpet, believing some- what naively that problems, however, grave and urgent, could best be solved if they were evaded or ignored and left untouched and hidden. Tun Razak had also publicly promised that the Government would not sweep any more problems under the carpet. Instead, it would face up and tackle these problems and issues squarely, boldly and directly. When those words were uttered, when those words were spoken, Mr Speaker, Sir, many people in the country were re-assured, and there was a good deal of agreement with and admiration for the then Director of Operations of the National Operations Council. Because, to give credit to whom it is due those words of Tun Razak at that time

Sorry, Sir. Because, Sir, to give credit to whom it is due, those words of the then Director of Operations were words of courage and sanity. But what is happening to those solemn words and that solemn promise now? Where are those same words of courage and sanity now? I fervently hope that they have neither been forgotten nor sacrificed. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us call on all thinking Malaysians to stand up and be counted in this important and historic struggle for and on behalf of democracy and sanity. For let us not be afraid to remember that if there are not enough Malaysians to fight for a democratic Malaysia, we shall then very soon see this confrontation of wits, arguments and words degenerating into a confrontation of force and violence outside the confines of this building. In the second type of confrontation, parties like the D.A.P., P.P.P. and other similar constitutionally- based Opposition parties, constitutionally- based political parties including the PMIP, would most likely be non-participants because we are not trained, we are not brought up in the new kind of struggle and we do not believe in it, Mr Speaker, Sir, which is more important actually. But that is not to say that because we are not trained and prepared in the extra-constitutional game that we will be spared. We will all the same be caught in the cross-fires. Our multi- racial people and nation will also be the victims. And I am not so sure that the party or parties in power are any better prepared and trained for that sort of a new power game. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not only many Opposition MPs. who are not in favour of this obnoxious suggestion to restrict the freedom of expression of MP's. Hundreds of thousands of our multi-racial people from all walks of life are against it. If Honour- able Members from the Government Bench have doubts about that, then find out for themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we suggested, what about having a nation-wide referen- dum? For these people, these hundreds and thousands of people Mr Speaker, Sir, see in this suggestion a deliberate and sinister attempt to strangle democracy and render it impotent in our country. Our youths, and particularly our students, are equally con- cerned. As leaders of tomorrow, they are genuinely apprehensive of the future they will inherit from us. Mr Speaker, Sir, on September 11, 1970, the National Union of Malaysian Students, which represents 6 student unions and 14,000 students in universities and colleges through- out the country issued a press statement which read, and I quote: "The P.K.P.M. i.e., the Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar2 Malaysia, welcomes the move by the Government to allow political activities back into the Malaysian political scene. We view this move as the correct one in preparation for the convening of Parliament early next year." Mr Speaker, Sir, we see here our students giving credit to whom it is due. They can hardly be called irresponsible or biased. The statement continued: "The P.K.P.M. fully believes in a democratic society based on the principle that full recognition must be accorded to the inherent and fundamental rights of human beings. Now that the country is recovering from the wounds of the Emergency, we strongly believe that restoration of Parlia- mentary democracy would be one of the uniting principles of the nation. We therefore call upon all political parties to support our call for a just and equal society. Towards this end, we call upon the Government to review all the political detainees and to release them or bring them to trial. In a society like ours, we would not tolerate any repressive measures on citizens possessing different political views from that of the ruling party. This would then be a mockery of basic democratic principles. We also deplore any move to restrict the freedom of speech and writing of the University Academic staff and view this move as that of the Government not trusting their citizens to contribute towards nation building. We should not allow such acts to occur as this eventually would lead to the existence of a Police State where any time loyal citizens might be taken out of their beds to be interrogated by the Special Branch." Mr Speaker, Sir, we now come to the most important part of the statement, and it is this: "Parliamentary rule will once again become the order of the day. This we fully support. How- ever, Parliament should be second to none and we would press for the right to discuss all issues when Parliment is reconvened. We warn that if this does not occur, coffee shops throughout the country will become miniature Parliaments, and no matter what laws are made they will not be good enough to stop the ordinary man in the street from discussing and thinking otherwise." The statement concluded with this final plea: "We solemly hope that what we stand for be supported by all political parties, for all Malaysian students are watching the growth of a nation which we are going to inherit in the future and it is imperative that they follow the right lines to avoid future discontentment which may lead to further civil strife." Mr Speaker, Sir, this statement was signed by Sidek Nontak, the President, and Tan Eng Chuan, the Secretary General. Mr Speaker, Sir, how responsive and responsible are we to the aspirations and apprehensions of our youths and students? Are we responding to their call for a just and equal society? Are we paying any heed to their advice not to turn coffee shops into places for wild and irresponsible rumours? Are we acting to "avoid future discontent- ment which may lead to further civil strife" as pointed out by them? Mr Speaker, Sir, are we even listening to our students and to our youths? Mr Speaker, Sir, the November 1970 issue of the Mahasiswa Negara, the official organ of the University of Malaya Students Union, carried an editorial which was entitled "Just How Much Freedom". The Mahasiswa Negara is read and respected for its views and standard of student journalism by the great majority of students not only in the University of Malaya and other institutions of higher learning, but also by members of the public. The editorial has this to say, and I quote: "It was a joyous day for Malaysians when Tunku Abdul Rahman, our ex-Premier, announced that Parliament would be reconvened and demo- cracy restored in the near future. "As we await that great day, however, we are aware of certain matters that stick out like a sore thumb. And apprehensions will remain until and unless these matters are settled and doubts cleared. "Of late, Tan Sri Kadir has been emphasising the fact that freedom of expression in the Parlia- ment has to be curbed. This, he said, was neces- sary to prevent irresponsible Members of Parlia- ment from making statements that would incite racial tension. "There have also been indications that matters placed beyond the reach of Parliament may be discussed by the National Consultative Council. "The Parliament is supposed to be the supreme law-making body in a democracy. But here we are, in Malaysia, undermining this supermacy and placing a non-elected and non-representative body above it. "Just where is a decision reached by the National Consultative Council going to stand? Is it going to be a law, requiring any authorisa- tion from the latter body before becoming effec- tive? Or is it going to be a piece of legislation that has to be endorsed by Parliament before coming into force? "Either way-the editorial continues-the idea is absurd and revolting. To bypass Parliament is to make a mockery of democracy. To require endorsement from Parliament would be starting all over again-why go to the National Consulta- tive Council when you eventually return to Parliament again? "Even with the restoration of democracy, one wonders just how much freedom we have. When a person is sincere and wants to do something honest and good, his way is barred by numerous obstacles laid down by our democratic process. To say something in public, you would have to have a police permit which is often refused on the grounds that the peace and security of the region are threatened." So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, the cream of our country's youths are pretty concerned and worried over the way things are going. These young men and women-the pride and hope of our nation-are clearly against the supremacy of Parliament being under- mined. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe they are sincerely against the suggestion to restrict MPs' freedom of expression precisely because they care so much about the future of democracy in our beloved country just as they are equally, if not more, concerned about the survival of this country itself. It is because they care, not just about their own future and welfare, but also the future and well-being of our multi-racial people and country. Can any right-minded and fair- minded person therefore brand our young people in the universities and colleges as being anti-national, subversive or disloyal elements simply because they care sufficiently to dare, they care sufficiently to question, to disagree? These are our very same students who were among the first to come forward to the defence of our country in her hour of crisis to join the Vigilante Corps and the Terri- torial Army. They are the same ones who demonstrated when our national integrity and honour was violated by the puerile action of the government of a neighbouring country. They were among the first to help in relief work for our people when our country and people were afflicted by floods. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is perhaps useful for all of us to ponder over these words spoken by a great and courageous democrat of the 20th Century. He said: "The task of leadership: the first task of con- cerned people is not to condemn or castigate or deplore; it is to search out the reason for disillu- sionment and alienation, the rationale of protest and dissent-perhaps, indeed to learn from it. And we may find that we learn most of all from those political and social dissenters whose differences with us are most grave; for among the young, as among adults, the sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country."

I am coming to it, Mr Speaker, Sir. Those words, which have by now assumed immortality, have not been uttered by anyone of us in the D.A.P. or the whole Opposition-so there is no need to sneer or scorn. They were the words of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, whose idealism and that of his brother inspired many of us, old as well as young, in this country, and whose tragic and untimely death evoked genuine sorrow and a deep sense of loss from our people from all walks of life, including leaders of our Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, are we intent on dis- illusioning more and more of our people and alienating more and more of our students? In short, should we and can we equate legitimate dissent with disloyalty? Must everyone be loyal to the Government before he or she can qualify to be considered as being loyal to this nation? Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the D.A.P. are second to none in our loyalty towards this beloved country of ours. None other than our former Prime Minister, the well esteemed Tunku, had testified to that effect on August 24th last year. And I have reason to believe, until proved other- wise, that all the other Opposition parties as represented in this House are just as loyal as anybody else to Malaysia. So are our students and youths, Mr Speaker, Sir. Their undivided loyalty for Malaysia is unquestionable. So is the loyalty of the great overwhelming majority of our population. Their credentials of loyalty to- wards Malaysia need not and must not be subject to the test of whether they like or dislike the Government, and for that matter, any Government of the day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, loyalty by every instance of feeling, thinking and acting as a Malaysian citizen. Mr Speaker, Sir, what is going to grow into irrelevance is not only an Opposition dedicated to the democratic and constitu- tional struggle. By itself, the vanishing into irrelevance of the Opposition is not so absolutely crucial and important. What is crucial and even vital is the imminent irrelevance of Parliament itself. If the price of national unity and stability is the extinction of the Opposition, then we would not really mind very much to pack up and go. But will you achieve those objectives after we have gone? Can it be achieved if Parliament itself becomes irrele- vant? When Opposition parties and Parlia- ment itself become impotent and irrelevant, a significant political vacuum would have been created. And, Mr Speaker, Sir, history again tells us that no political vacuum can remain, or will it be allowed to remain by itself as it is, for long. How do we keep nearly 11 million of our people in a vacuum? It is impossible-it is impossible just as it is undesirable. The Far Eastern Economic Review, a political-cum-economic journal, not parti- cularly liked but nevertheless grudgingly respected by even governments in Asia in particular, and throughout the world in general, has this to say about our dilemma- and I quote: "In Parliament there is going to see a good deal of discussion which does not reflect what people are saying in the coffee shops. The government will continue to govern in a political vaccum. The parliamentary superstructure represents a kind of dream world where politicians will seem to make points and bills will be passed. The danger in this situation is that the leaders may assume that what is said in parliament actually represents public opinion". Mr Speaker, Sir, it is also claimed that these Constitutional amendments are designed, and I quote: "to ensure the smooth func- tioning of Parliamentary democracy in this country". I would say a very noble aim. But what do we mean by "smooth functioning of Parliamentary democracy"? Isn't this phrase a cliche and nothing more? While autocracy can quite safely, boldly and even quite often shamelessly lay claim to its "smooth functioning", Parliamentary demo- cracy is seldom smooth if it were to function at all. The moment it becomes "smooth" that very same moment it ceases to be Parliamentary democracy and begins to assume the style and purpose and direction of totalitarianism. Someone has said that Parliamentary democracy is intended to be "contentious, abusive and slightly inefficient". Mr Speaker, Sir, while I do not think that it is desirable or necessary for any M.P. to be abusive towards his fellow M.P.s, and while I think we should be as little inefficient as we humanly can, there is no reason why we cannot be "contentious". For that is what democracy is all about in the final analysis- the right to contend, to dissent and to take part in the open argument, to indulge in the clashing of the minds and the battle of ideas. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, with due and sincere respect to them, I am afraid people who say that they want the "smooth functioning of Parliamentary democracy" hardly seem to understand the essence and character of Parliamentary democracy itself. I quite agree, however, Mr Speaker, Sir, with people who argue that there ought to be institutional modifications in the process of the transfer of institutions from the Western world to developing countries which are also ex-colonies. This need for modifica- tion to adapt to local conditions and needs in the institutions which have been trans- ferred extend to things like trade unionism, co-operatives for instance, besides many other social, economic and cultural institutions. However, such modifications are and should largely be structural rather than with the underlying principles and conceptual essence. Each country, for example, can and should determine the size of its Parliamentary building according to the size of its pocket, and order of priorities, the number of MPs it should have, and the kind and number of languages to be used as far as practicality allows, whether it should dispense with a non-elected Upper House for instance,, or whether to have a three, four or five-year term of tenure for each Parliament. But once an attempt is made to modify and to restrict rather than to enlarge the underlying universal principles of the freedom of expression and the immunity of free speech of MPs, then we have struck much deeper than the mere structure; we are striking at the very essence and raison d'etre of the whole concept of Parliamentary democracy itself. There are Parliaments in South Africa, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Rhodesia under

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are Parliaments in South Africa and Rhodesia under the racist regimes of Vorster and Ian Smith respectively, Parlia- ments which exclude participation of the majority black African people, and deny them the right to vote. The South African Parliament has passed such obnoxious and mad laws like the Terrorism Act and the Immorality Act, which the Africans hardly have any right to question or any constitu- tional chance to change or seek redress. With virtually no Opposition, both racist regimes should have their so-called Parliaments functioning extremely smoothly. But is it Parliamentary democracy? Can we condone it? No. And I am glad that our Government has had, from the beginning of its member- ship of the Commonwealth, stood firmly in condemnation of this Parliamentary farce which in actual fact suppresses and dehuma- nises the African people. We fully support that stand. But, alas; Mr Speaker, Sir, are we now, either consciously or unconsciously, to emulate and be part of the system of parliamentary farce we so vociferously deplore? Are we to lend weight and respec- tability to undemocratic and racist regimes in their effort to perpetuate apartheid under the cloak of a parliamentary farce? For that is exactly the kind of effect it will have, after getting this Bill-this Constitutional Amend- ment Bill- passed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am painfully and sadly reminded of this line from Pensee which says: "We run carelessly to the precipice, after we have put something before us to prevent us seeing it". The Honourable Member for Kluang Selatan quoted a poem from Robert Frost alluding that we are all passing through some lonely, deep and dark woods. It is quite an apt allusion, I would say. However, if we miss the wood for the trees, the chances of we ever coming out of the lonely, dark and deep woods are extremely bleak. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is today a crisis of confidence in the country. Even as we speak, the brain drain from the country continues. Why do teachers who have been trained at great public expense, leave the country to take up teaching posts in other countries? Why do doctors and engineers in both our private and public sectors leave for Australia, Canada and other places? Let it be quite clear that I for one do not agree with the moral basis of their decision. But who are we to question the sagacity of their move? Yes, it is morally indefensible to leave one's country at the height of her crisis of growth and development. We may even call them, with some justification, perhaps, ungrateful birds of passage. They are the transients, but they have the skills and the know-how which are internationally acceptable and applicable, and they say they are doing it not so much for themselves as it is for their children. Just less than three weeks ago a specialist in Radiology at the University Hospital left with his family for Australia.

Tuan Speaker, oleh sebab saya berkehendakan menjawab kapada Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada pehak parti Pembangkang yang telah menggunakan Bahasa Inggeris dalam uchapan mereka itu, saya mohon izin untok membuat uchapan saya dalam Bahasa Inggeris. (Dengan izin) Tuan Speaker, this debate on the constitutional amendment is a historic one and, therefore, I would like to make a small contribution in supporting the Bill before the House. I shall confine my inter- vention in the debate only to answering some of the major points raised by the Opposition. The Honourable the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill has already explained in a most lucid manner the reasons why this Bill has been introduced and, therefore, I do not propose to add anything more to this. Mr Speaker, Sir, during this debate, a number of Opposition speakers repeated the argument that this Bill, if passed, would spell the death of democracy in this country. If anything, the passing of this Bill will mean the beginning of the death of communal politics in Malaysia. For years since Merdeka, the language issue, the provision of the special rights for the Malays and the citizenship issue have been used as ammu- nition by the Opposition to play on the sentiments of the various races. In this way they have succeeded in winning a few seats, but in so doing they have shaken the very foundation on which our country would hope to survive as a nation-namely, mutual trust and harmony. If I may put it simply, this Bill is intended to rescue this foundation from destruction. As a result of the passing of this constitu- tional amendment, political parties in this country will have to re-orientate their political platforms and strategies. Instead of merely depending on such sensitive and communal issues for support from the electorate, they will have to do more than that in order to convince the people. This will, in turn, help to produce political parties which are less communal in character but are based on ideologies and other social or political approaches. One would have thought that a political party like the D.A.P., which claims itself to be a socialist and non- communal party, would have welcomed such a move by the Government, because it will then be able to spread its socialist philosophy without having to resort to the use of communal issues as it has without shame directly or indirectly been doing in the past. Sir, we the constituent parties in the Alliance have never, for one moment, tried to camouflage ourselves and masquerade as non-communal parties; but all these years, where national interests are concerned, we have tried to sink our respective communal differences and work together for the national good. This has been the underlying principle which has kept the Alliance together since 1952. It was the same Alliance under our former leader, Tunku, that drew up our present Constitution; it is the same Alliance that has brought about progress in our country such as we see now; it is the same Alliance now under our new leader, Tun Abdul Razak, that is amending the Constitu- tion in the light of our experience and in the light of what has happened in the country; and it is the same Alliance that is going to see that this country survive as a united, viable and dynamic nation. The Honourable Member for Bandar Melaka seemed to imply from his speech that the passing of this Bill might lead to a racial confrontation accompanied by a con- frontation between, on the one hand, military violence and, on the other, guerilla violence. Let it be understood here and now by all concerned, including the Members on the D.A.P. bench, that we, the Alliance Govern- ment, will deal with any unconstitutional violence with all the strength and forces at our disposal. They must not forget that to save Malaysia from disaster, we even took the extreme measure of "amputating" Singa- pore from Malaysia. Even if we have to take a sterner measure now and in the future in order to save this country, we will not hesitate to do it. The Honourable Member for Bungsar said in his speech that the Alliance could not accept the painful fate of having to lose the premier State of Selangor as a result of the verdict at the polls. I would say that this is a cock-eyed view to take, because in Penang we lost control of the prize Island of Penang at the hands of the Gerakan but we accepted the verdict like true democrats and there was no riot whatsoever. Even when the Alliance was in power in Penang for many years, the Chief Minister of the State has always been a Malaysian Chinese and we readily accepted this fact. Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot has already been said about the special position of the Malays. Speaking as a Malay myself I would like to say that we as a race are a sincere, big- hearted and proud people, though we may be comparatively poor and backward as a community. Because of our sincerity and big- heartedness we readily accepted our non- Malay brothers and sisters as fellow-citizens, sharing the same rights and responsibilities. We realised the fact that we could not survive as a nation where half of the population remained aliens. We were casti- gated by our own people who held the extreme views. This House had the oppor- tunity of hearing what the leader of the P.M.I.P. said during this debate. You can imagine what he and his colleagues would have said in the election campaigns and out- side this House. In spite of this we stuck to our gun in the overall interest of the country. In return for this gesture we only asked that the Constitution should continue to incorporate the then existing provision guaranteeing the protection of Malay rights. This was readily accepted by our partners, the M.C.A. and the M.I.C., representing the interests of the other two major races in the country. As a result of the overall agreement, we had our Constitution and subsequently, Merdeka. As I said, we the Malays for better or for worse are by nature a proud people. The moment you question this right you are making them feel that this provision of special rights is an act of charity by the non-Malays to them. This, no self-respecting Malay is prepared to accept. This, they feel, is a right which must be guaranteed in return for their generosity in agreeing to share their political rights with their non-Malay brothers and sisters. Any attempt to question this right is bound to meet with undesirable reaction which will be detrimental to the peace and harmony of this country. It is to prevent such an undesirable cata- strophe from happening that this action is now being taken to entrench this particular provision in the Constitution of this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, having said that, I now come to the question of the alleged mutila- tion of the Constitution as a result of the proposed amendment. There has been a suggestion that the Constitution is sacred and sacrosanct. In reply I would say this- that if you want to kill the Constitution, then make it sacred and sacrosanct. I submit that Constitution which is unchanging and static-hower perfect it may seem to be- is a Constitution that has outlived its use. A Constitution to be living must be growing must be adaptable and flexible in order to meet prevailing conditions. These amendments proposed in the Bill are an attempt by the Alliance Government to achieve a balance between stability and flexibility, between idealism and realism, between the conditions in the country as we see them today and the dangers that may confront us in the future. I therefore ask all loyal and far-sighted Malaysians inside as well as outside this House to support the amendment whole- heartedly in our joint efforts to safeguard the future of this country-our Malaysia. Terima kaseh. (Tepok).

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dalam usaha untok membena sa-buah negara yang kukoh dan progresif kita harus sedar dan kita mesti kenal siapa sahabat dan siapa musoh kita. Tidak-lah bagitu senang untok kita mengenali-nya kerana musoh kita kadang munchul sa-chara diam. Dalam politik kita tidak boleh menerima dasar kaum sa-bagai musoh dan sahabat. Tidak-lah boleh bagi kita menyatakan musoh itu dari satu kaum dan sahabat itu juga dari satu kaum. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Rukunegara telah menerima dasar-nya. Izinkan saya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, untok menyentoh sadikit isi kandongan Rukunegara. Rukunegara muka surat dua, ia-itu pendudok negara ini sudah beberapa keturunan hidup bersama dengan aman dan damai; bersama menekmati kekayaan dalam tanah ayer kita ini; ber- sama kita telah menentang beberapa pencherobohan terhadap keutohan dan ke- merdekaan negara kita. Sa-chara bersama nembena satu masharakat dalam mana tiap ra ayat mendapat tempat dan kesempatan menchari penghidupan. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, namun usaha kita membena bangsa dan negara telah di-ganggu oleh kegiatan nasir perosak. Nasir itu terdapat di-kalangan semua kaum. Dari sa- masa ka-samasa sikap2 perkauman dan parasangka perkauman yang trpendam telah di-pergunakan dengan berbagai2 helah sa-hingga mengakibatkan berlaku-nya per- istiwa perkauman. Peristiwa perkauman yang mengejutkan sa-kali ia-lah rusohan yang berlaku pada 13hb Mei, 1969 di-Ibu Kota. Oleh itu, ini-lah masa-nya yang sama sahabat kita bersatu menentang musoh kita yang sama. Akhir-nya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya sa- sunggoh-nya menyampaikan sokongan saya terhadap Akta (Pindaan) Perlembagaan ini. Terima kaseh. Dr Lim Chong Eu (Tanjong) (Dengan izin): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, when the Federation of Malaya became independent and it was decided that our country should be framed within a written Constitution, we took a decision that was modern but which also carried with it all the flaws that written constitutions must necessarily imply. At its very best, a written constitution will always be subjected to controversy, a controversy of interpretation of the written words to which the unwritten constitution does not have to be subjected. Thus it has been, that the written Constitution of our nation has had to undergo severe tests as our nation grew to become Malaysia and curtail itself with the separation of Singapore from the Federation. Ever since 1959, time and again I have personally opposed the changes that were made to our Constitution. There were different reasons why I had opposed the various amendments to our Constitution at different times. But one theme underlay most of my objections: that theme was that we should never make amendments too easily and too frequently, or otherwise the amendments will erode away the sanctity of the Constitution upon which our nation is founded. I have participated in this House during many, but not in all, of the amend- ments of the Constitution, although outside this House my opposition to amendments which would affect the delicate checks and balances of the Constitution has always remained steadfast. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, however, today we are presented with a different set of circum- stances. These amendments have been discussed and we are provided a long session in this House to debate the amend- ments. The present debate on the proposed amendments to our national Constitution is centred not so much upon the manner of presentation or the merits of the written words of the Constitutional Amendment as it is focussed upon the reaffirmation of the very spirit of nationhood which we hope to frame within the Constitution. To my mind, especially on looking back over the history of Constitutional amendments that paralleled the very life and history of our nation itself, the amendments before us today do not by themselves present much deviation from the substance of the checks and balances which were intrinsic in the basic provisions that have been made since 1957. For example, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, if we were listening to the Honourable speaker for Payang and we were not appreciative of the fact that the Constitution carries within it in Article 153, Sections (6), (7) and (8) which balance the very reasons which he gave for promoting the cause of the Bumiputera, then I think this House would be facing a completely different issue. The problem of how to strike a balance in the interests of the various racial components of our multi-racial society still remains as vital as it was in 1957, in 1963 and in 1965. This problem will remain with us for very many years to come because the evolution of the Malaysian national community will take time. If the only question before us is just whether or not Malaysia can remain as a nation with a written Constitution and whether this written Constitution can sustain a form of Parliamentary democracy with the checks and balances which are spelled out by the words of the Constitution, then the answer is "yes". But the real issues which we have to decide upon in this debate are much more abstract, much more elusive than the problem of the written Constitution and the words of the amendments themselves. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, the problem that we are faced with today is whether or not the written words of the Constitution can sustain the spirit of the nation itself. Therefore, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, I do suggest that in this meeting of the House a debate on the merits or demerits of the meaning of the written words and the phrases of the proposed amendments to the Constitution will by themselves be not enough. What we must demonstrate clearly to all the people in Malaysia and to the world at large is the manner whereby we reaffirm our faith in the spirit of nationhood as framed by the written Constitution. What really counts is that the elected representatives of the people must clearly declare that the spirit of the nation still prevails in Malaysia. In this respect I sincerely appeal to all the parties represented in this House-although it has been said that the Government is certain of its majority-I still appeal to the Government to withdraw the Whip from their Members so that the decision which we take in this House can be free, voluntary and fully representative of the will of the people of Malaysia. This debate is critical, it is momentous and it is historical. This debate is critical because in this debate the nation and the world at large will come to know precisely those who are for the Malaysian nation and those who are the enemies of the Malaysian nation. This debate is momen- tous because if we do not find enough elected representatives of the people in this House who are for Malaysia and will support its Constitution and be loyal to the nation founded upon this Constitution, then Malaysia, as we know it, will not survive. This debate is historical because if we do find sufficient elected representatives of the people in this House who will support and sustain Malaysia, then those who are against the nation must perish and go down into the limbo of history (Tepok). This is the true meaning of this meeting of the House. Either we are for the continued survival of our nation or we are out to wreck the nation. There can be no two ways about what we have to decide. In the quiet disciplined arena of this august Hall, under the rules of parliamentary democracy such as the world knows it, a battle is being fought between those who want Malaysia to survive against those who want to see Malaysia destroyed. It is in this light that I see and understand the significance of the debate which we are enjoying. Therefore, in this debate we must place the interest of the nation, the interest of all the people in Malaysia, above all other considerations of party ideology or of individual philosophy. Perhaps the written words of the proposed amendments can be better framed or more happily phrased. There will always be the better language experts or those who claim that they are better semanticists, the more knowledgeable in law and so on, who can put that much more life in the words which are being used today. However, the essential thing for us to decide upon is whether or not the intent and the spirit of the words placed before us are meant to secure the survival and unity of our nation, and thus to enhance the well-being of the people of Malaysia. The fundamental question that each and every- one of us must answer is whether or not we want to have unity and peace, stability and happiness in Malaysia. There may be those who will argue that perhaps the Alliance party in power is not the best suited to enunciate the intent and the spirit of the proposed Constitutional amendments, but the fact is that the Alliance is the elected Government of the people of Malaysia. This is an undeniable fact which no one can challenge, particularly if he sincerely upholds the principles of a democracy based upon free elections. Even the Honourable Member for Bandar Melaka has stated that these elections of May, 1969 represent the high watermark of democracy in Malaysia, and surely the Members of his party are not going to deny this now. The world at large has understood the peacefulness of the elections of 1969. These elections were conducted vigorously, but they were truly representative because a very large percentage of those who were eligible to vote did come out to cast their votes, and there have been no recriminations over the way and manner that these elections were conducted such as we remembered the 1964 elections to have been. The simple fact is that the people returned the Alliance Party into power in 1969 and the Alliance Party chose Tun Razak to be the Prime Minister of the country; and as the Prime Minister of Malaysia he has clearly enunciated the intent and spirit of the amendments to the Constitution which are before us. In his speech he stated, and I think after four days of debate, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, it bears repetition. "The two broad objectives-and I am quoting-are, (i) to remove certain sensitive issues from the realm of public discussion so as to ensure the smooth and continuing function of Parliamentary democracy; (ii) to correct racial imbalance in certain sectors of the nation's life." Further, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, everyone in this House must also give heed to the words of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong when he addressed the House at the Opening of Parliament. And, quoting him, he said "I hope you will give careful, thorough, responsible and sincere considera- tion to these proposals. Upon your decisions will depend the future of our beloved country" Tuan Yang di-Pertua, these last few days I have followed this injunction and I have given careful, thorough, responsible and sincere consideration to the proposed amend- ments to the Constitution, particularly with regard 10 the arguments that have been advanced during this debate. I sincerely consider that unless we take firm and resolute action today, the future survival of Malaysia will be jeopardised by those who seek to destroy our nation. I am firmly convinced that all loyal citizens of Malaysia will willingly restrain themselves in accordance with the tenets of the Rukunegara in order to sustain the unity of the nation. Therefore, all those who are loyal to Malaysia will not seriously object to the proposed constraint of removing sensitive issues from the realm of public discussion. As a matter of fact, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, perhaps the people are a little bemused at the fact that one section of the House, instead of fighting for the rights of the people, are fighting for the privilege of the few-the privilege of the Parliamentarians to have free speech whilst accepting the fact that we should deny free speech to the rest of the people. What we are asking for is that this restraint and this constraint must be applied equally in this House and outside this House (Tepok). I believe that. the vast majority of our people will exercise self-restraint and adjust their lives to the constraints if they are equally placed upon every citizen, because they want a united, peaceful and stable Malaysia. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, I for one will vote in favour of these amendments (Tepok). My party and I will cast our votes for the survival of Malaysia and against the enemies of our nation (Tepok). However, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, in so stating my stand on this vital issue, I must clearly state that we are an Opposition party in this House. Nevertheless, this does not blind us to the harsh realities that in Malaysia today the Opposition parties are distinctly divided. The chasm which was made in 1964 remains. There are those in the Opposition who like ourselves in the Gerakan are dedicated to preserve our nation and to work for the peace and security of Malaysia. Unfortu- nately, however, there are others in the Opposition who will recklessly maintain their own arrogant and bigoted ideology and seek to undermine our national unity to close down Parliamentary institution and even to destroy the nation. It is

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with pleasure and joy that after 22 months of suspended Parlia- mentary democracy in Malaysia that we are able to return, even on sufferance, to this House. It is even more so, Sir, to find that you are still occupying the Chair. May I take this very opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election to that most esteemed position. No doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, your wisdom and forbearance will be once again felt in this Chamber, especially by the new Honourable Members now and in the years ahead. During all these past months of un- certainty on whether Malaysia will ever see Parliamentary democracy returning again after May 13, it was with great relief and expectation that we Malaysians of all walks of life and from every corner of the nation, had looked towards the convening of this new Parliament. At one time we were greatly alarmed when the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister had pronounced that Parlia- mentary democracy was dead in Malaysia. But it had been a hasty verdict and we are glad that it is so because the alternative to Parliamentary democracy would have been something we Malaysians dread and even dare not contemplate. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, amidst this great relief at the return of democracy we are still faced with certain disappointments. After the essential prelimi- naries have been completed and Honourable Members called to assemble in this Chamber, we are faced with the proposed Constitution (Amendment) Bill. This Bill, as had been explained by the Honourable the Prime Minister, will deter- mine whether Parliamentary democracy, which we all cherish, will be allowed re- entry permit to Malaysian soil. Mr Speaker, Sir, if my interpretation of certain parts of the proposed Constitution (Amendment) Bill is correct, the Parliamentary democracy we have known and accepted had certainly lost any semblance of its old self and in its place a new Parliamentary democracy will come into being. This new democracy, unless changes are effected in the proposed Consti- tution (Amendment) Bill, will be plagued by sensitive issues, hindered by an Act of Parliament, crippled by the past misdeeds of the emotional politicians and curbed and curtailed by the impending decision to be taken in this Chamber. In the words of the Honourable Minister of Finance, it is to be a "half loaf democracy". How effective this new democracy will be for Malaysians in ensuring greater peace and harmony and how acceptable it will be to the Malaysian way of life remains to be seen. It will entirely be dependent on the parties in power and this is where we have our doubt. We will have to wait and see how the Government will effectively implement the various provi- sions of the Bill once it is passed in this House. If it is to be done as in the past and the Government cannot rise up above party politics and apply a typical Alliance double standard in the implementation, then it will be a sorry thing for all Malaysians and this country. I sincerely hope that it is not going to be so, because this House will be prevented by the very provisions of Clause 3 of the proposed Bill from giving remedial treatment once the needs arise, because we must not forget that from now onwards we will have a very handicapped and ineffective Parliament on the four vital issues. In short, democracy will be denied the responsible treatment of this House on the sensitive issues problem. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been told that all sensitive issues had been brought up to the surface in such explosive manner during May 13 and immediately thereafter. We were also told that the proposed Constitution (Amendment) Bill is the Alliance's intended prescription. I and my colleagues concede that the intention is worthy of praise but the approach is still questionable. I must emphasise in this Chamber, Sir, that I and my colleagues from the Sarawak National Party disagree in principle on the manner of approach. Where we oppose certain provisions of the Bill it is only out of necessity, a necessity in wanting to see that all Malay- sians are given a better and fairer deal. It will also be noted, Sir, that where we disagree it is not for the sake of disagreement alone; we will attempt to suggest alternatives and amendments to the Bill in the light of Malaysian experience as we see it. We only hope that our alternatives and suggestions will be favourably considered by everyone. I have noticed in the past few days of the debate on the Bill some Honourable Members had appeared to be too emotionally carried away, in that there were blames and counter blames on May 13 thrown at each other across the floor. But one inescapable fact still remains. The Alliance has been the party in power ever since 1957, and even after Malaysia was formed in 1963 till to-day. In all those years surely the Alliance must have been aware that these sensitive issues were dormant all the while and could have had the opportunities to act in the prevention of May 13. Whatever the mistakes and whoever were to blame, the Alliance had failed and failed badly in their duty to the country and to the people. May 13 will forever remain a blot in our history. The main purpose of the Bill, we were told, was to prevent the reoccurrence of such happenings. May 13 was purely a West Malaysian experience. But it is an inescap- able fact that we from East Malaysia, particularly Sarawak, were not exempted from any of its after effects and remedial measures. Therefore, the remedial measures proposed in the Bill as contained in certain provisions are very unfair to us. Very few people, if any, in Sarawak questioned the provisions relating to the four sensitive issues as enshrined in the Constitution. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, we will concede that there is a need for uniformity when East Malaysians discuss such issues in West Malaysia. espe- cially in the House, if need be, provided it is being carried out fairly and squarely to all. But we cannot accept the fact that there is any need at all that we should be barred from such discussions in Sarawak where the issues were never sensitive nor issues at all. (ONE HONOURABLE MEMBER: Hear, Hear!) There- fore, the less said about May 13 the better it would be for all Malaysians. The question is to find an effective and preventive cure. At the moment we are debating the merits and demerits of the Alliance's proposed cure. Mr Speaker, Sir, our common aim is to see that all Malaysians should live in peace and harmony with one another, so that they can be happy and prosperous. It is imperative that Malaysia must survive towards this end. My colleagues and I from the Sarawak National Party believe that the solution lies in promoting true and actual multi- racialism even right down to the grass root level in order to unite the people in a diversified society such as that we have in this country. Only through such promotion and the actual practice will we find the answer conducive to peace and harmony and happiness and prosperity for all. For in a multiple and diversified society racial con- sideration and racial sentiment should not be allowed to rear its ugly head. As long as we have racial parties where a few odd and irresponsible leaders are tempted to be carried away by their eloquence and will certainly emphasise on racial differences in order to gain their political eminence, the Malaysian nation will forever be saddled with racial problems. I must emphasise, Mr Speaker, Sir, that racial parties should not be allowed any place in our beloved country, because no matter how good the intentions of the leaders of such parties they will be dictated by racial considerations and racial sentiments in the carrying out of their respective duties and responsibilities (AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Hear, hear!) and no matter how many legislations are passed by this House and how many times we have to amend our Constitution, the problems of racialism will remain like cancerous diseases, each time more immune to remedial measures. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish now to proceed to look at the Bill and give suggestions where I and my colleagues feel it is found wanting. As I have stated earlier, certain provisions are very unfair to us in East Malaysia, especially in Sarawak. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to empower this House to pass laws to restrict the freedom of speech, which will question the provisions of the Constitution relating to citizenship, National Language, the special position and rights of the Malays and Natives, and the sovereignty of the Rulers. I feel that I must say here that I and my colleagues from the Sarawak National Party have never questioned such provisions in the Constitution. We have accepted, at all times, the provisions relating to citizenship, the National language, the special position of the Malays and the Natives and the sovereignty of the Rulers. Our only contention is that, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's implementation of these various constitutional provisions are either wanting or ineffective to the promotion of lasting peace and stability and happiness and prosperity of the people in the country. Furthermore, Sir, as a great number of Malaysians of Sarawak origin do not question the provisions relating to the four issues, it therefore follows that although the issues are sensitive in the light of West Malaysian experience, they are not sensitive issues in Sarawak. In fact, these issues are not issues at all in Sarawak. Therefore, it is unjustified and unfair to saddle us with the provisions of the Sedition Act, 1948, as amended by the Emergency Essential Powers Ordinance No. 45/1970, which Clause 2 of the Bill intends. We concede, though grudgingly, that there is a need to prevent free discussion on these four issues in West Malaysia, even in this very House, if the Alliance cannot offer a better alternative and if our suggestion to empower you, Sir, through the amendment of the Standing Orders, is turned down. However, because these sensitive issues are not sensitive issues or even issues at all in Sarawak, we objected strongly to Clause 4 of the Bill as it stands. There may be a need to implement the Clause in West Malaysia, but certainly not in Sarawak. Clause 4 of the Bill has the effect in that it will not exclude the Council Negri and its Honourable Members from its provision. I must remind this House that Members of the Council Negri in Sarawak had enjoyed free speech and discussion for 103 years (AN HONOUR- ABLE MEMBER: Hear! hear!). If this Clause 4 of the Bill is passed as it is without any amendment, the effect will be to put back the clock for Sarawak by 103 years and destroy our traditions. I, therefore, suggest that Clause 4 be deleted and the following new Clause be put in its place: "(4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person other than a Member of Council Negri of Sara- wak charged with an offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of Article 10". Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague from Miri- Subis (Sarawak) had made known our party views on Clause 5 of the Bill. In order that this Clause will not conflict with the provi- sion of the London Agreement which is contained in the Constitution relating to the status of English as the official language in East Malaysia until 1973 or until our respective State Assemblies so decide there- after, he had suggested that Clause 5 of the Bill, as it stands, needs modifications. I agree with him and would like to see this Clause 5 to read as follows: "Article 152 of the Constitution is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new clause- "(6) In this Article 'official purpose' means any purpose of the Government, whether Federal or State, other than the Borneo States, and includes any purpose of a public authority." While on the subject of the London Agree- ment, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was with regret that I heard the Honourable Member for Kuala Selangor treating the Agreement so lightly. Perhaps, the Honourable Member, and possibly a few other responsible Alliance leaders, are not aware of the implications of the London Agreement in conjunction with the very validity of the existence of Malaysia. Let me take this opportunity to remind these people in this Chamber, and perhaps others outside this House, that Malaysia was formed in 1963, and not in 1957. Before 1963, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position was that West Malaysia was Malaya. In 1963, it was agreed that an entirely new and bigger Federation called Malaysia was to be formed. Sarawak and Sabah, the two States of East Malaysia, joined this new and bigger Federation of Malaysia on the basis of the provisions of the London Agreement as reached in the Inter-Governmental Committee Report. Without the London Agreement there would have been no Malaysia : Malaysia would not have existed. Therefore, I feel that the Honourable Member for Kuala Selangor had done a great dis- service in either knowingly or unwittingly having taken a very light view of the London Agreement. He is questioning the very existence of Malaysia. What a great pity! The orang puteh might have gone away, but what about us, orang Sarawak?

No! (Ketawa). Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice a very great omission in Clause 6 of the Bill. The proposed Clause amending Article 153 of the Constitution only covers the Malays and the Natives of Borneo States. It has left out the Aborigines of West Malaysia, whose state of advancement is still very wanting. Article 8 (5) (c) does not enable the Parlia- ment to make provision for special measures to assist the Aborigines, but this is only an enabling legislation and it is quite different in giving Constitutional rights as provided in Article 153. By virtue of Article 161A (5) the Natives of Borneo States are also privileged under Article 8 (5) (c). The Honourable Prime Minister, when introducing the Bill, explained that the provision so amended in relation to the Natives of the Borneo States is to give them the same privileges and status as the Malays. Presumably the Government does not wish to deny these privileges and status to the Aborigines of West Malaysia. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Clause 6 should be amended by substituting the following for Clause 6 (a): "(a) inserting immediately after the word 'Malays' wherever appearing in that Article a comma and the words 'aborigines of West Malaysia and the Natives of any of the Borneo States'." This will also affect Clause 6 (b) of the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the benefit of the Honourable Member for Muar Utara and any others who might have the same view, I and my colleagues from the Sarawak National Party had never at any moment opposed any provision of the Constitution where it provides for Native rights, parti- cularly in Sarawak. My above discourse on Clause 6 of the Bill should give the lie to the Honourable Member's allegation made a few days ago in this Chamber that the S.N.A.P. opposes any Native rights, status and privileges. As can be seen, even the Alliance had entirely forgotten the Aborigines of West Malaysia, Mr Speaker, Sir. I should therefore, be grateful if Honourable Members of this House should refrain from making wild allegations on any other Member or party without the benefit of having a sound knowledge of the matter. While on my discourse on Clause 6 of the Bill, Sir, I am greatly surprised that some Honourable Members from the other side of the House did not see the implicating conflict between Clause 6 (c) and Clause 8 of the Bill. Clause 6 (c) defines the word "Natives" of Borneo States in relation to its meaning in Article 161A of the Constitution. Clause 8 deletes almost half of Article 161A -.up to "consulted", giving with one hand and taking away with the other; and where does it leave ils from East Malaysia? I am also surprised that some Honourable Members have taken the opportunity to disparage my colleague, the Honourable Member for Miri-Subis who had touched upon the particular provisions of the Bill with good intentions. It was the duty of the Honourable Member for Miri-Subis, as an elected Member of this House, to point out any discrepancy as he had seen it.

Surely, the Honourable Members concerned do not impute that the Government can do no wrong, sees no wrong and perhaps even thinks no wrong. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague and I feel with deep regret and disappointment that the Alliance cannot come up with effective remedial measures for our national problems that resulted in May 13 in spite of the fact that they have been given 22 months of grace to find prescriptions. The Bill, as it stands, is still wanting. I sincerely hope that the Alliance Government will be big enough not to ignore our proposals and suggestions and that they will not forget that there are two sides to a Bill. We must not forget that the first part of the Bill touches upon the questions of freedom of speech, one of the fundamental human rights, which we are deciding upon now on whether to restrict it in Malaysia or not. The question is then, shall we take the plunge? I must say that I will not envy our Ambassadors in their difficulties in explaining to other countries why was it that Malaysia had always in the past been very vociferous in condemning other countries on the infringement of human rights and now that we are doing it. Let us not be hasty in our decisions, because we may not be judged too kindly by future Malaysians and historians. The presentations given so far by the Alliance Honourable Members did not convince us that this Bill will bring about, once passed, a lasting peace and harmony for Malaysians; nor will the implementation of the various provisions of the Bill be conducive to remedy the economic imbalance in our country. However, we have been given an ultimatum that Malaysians will be denied a democratic form of Government if the Bill is not passed and that parliamentary demo- cracy even with half measures may not be returned to this country in the foreseeable future. We love and cherish our parlia- mentary democracy and we love and cherish Malaysia; and we cannot afford to see that Malaysians be further denied the very principles upon which they survive. Mr Speaker, Sir, having considered all aspects of the Bill, we feel that no sacrifice is too big and no price is too high in our desire to see the return of parliamentary democracy to Malaysia for the sake of all Malaysians. So, on behalf of the Sarawak National Party, I, as the Secretary-General of the Party and as an elected Member of this House, hereby conclude and give our Party's qualified support to this Bill (Tepok), not because of the speech of the Honourable Member for Payang (Ketawa), nor because of the speech of the Honourable Member sitting on his right, but because of our own convictions, Mr Speaker, Sir. (Tepok)

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun memberikan sokongan terhadap Pindaan Perlembagaan ini. Dalam masa dua tiga hari yang lalu ini kita telah dengar berbagai2 uchapan, berbagai2 "thesis demokrasi" daripada berbagai2 pehak. Ada yang membawa kita ka-Eropah, ada pula membawa kita ka-Afrika, dan yang meng- hairankan sa-kali ia-lah ada sa-tengah dari- pada pehak Pembangkang yang salah mereka-lah "hero demokrasi" dalam Dewan ini, tetapi di-luar Dewan, di-dalam pilehan raya mereka-lah yang chuba merosakkan perkembangan demokrasi. Jadi, dalam perkara ini teringat saya pada masa dalam mana Presiden Sukarno dahulu melancharkan konfrantasi terhadap Malaysia, ia-itu ber- hubong dengan kemasokan Sarawak dan Sabah. Beliau bermatian berkehendakkan Sabah dan Sarawak itu mengadakan pilehan raya terlebeh dahulu sa-belum memasoki Malaysia. Jadi yang aneh-nya ia-lah beliau berkehendak- kan pilehan raya di-negeri orang, tetapi beliau sendiri tidak menjalankan "initiative" mengadakan pilehan raya di-Indonesia sendiri hinggakan-lah Presiden yang baharu ini, baharu ada ura hendak mengadakan pilehan raya. Jadi bagitu-lah rupa-nya kedudokan sa-tengah parti Pembangkang yang ada dalam Dewan ini. Jadi sunggoh pun telah banyak yang berchakap berhubong dengan tudohan pemimpin UMNO Negeri Selangor, konon-nya gila kuasa yang menyebabkan terchetus-nya peristiwa 13 Mei; dan kalau saya tidak sebutkan mungkin janggal sadikit kerana saya sendiri pun datang daripada negeri Selangor. Jadi kedudokan yang sa-benar-nya pada sa- lepas pilehan raya kita dahulu, parti yang mempunya suara yang terbanyak dalam negeri Selangor ia-lah Parti Perikatan, ia-itu 14 suara; dan 14 suara yang lain terbahagi kapada Parti Bebas, Gerakan dan DAP. Jadi kalau beliau mengatakan yang pemimpin Negeri Selangor itu gila kuasa, hendak terus memegang Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, ini ada- lah tidak berasas sama sa-kali, dan ada-lah hak Parti Perikatan menubohkan Kerajaan kerana parti itu-lah yang mempunya 14 suara, ia-itu yang terbanyak bagi "single" party dalam pilehan raya negeri Selangor. Jadi yang menghairankan, dalam pilehan raya yang lalu, pertandingan ia-lah antara parti politik ia-itu Parti Perikatan, Parti DAP, Gerakan dan Bebas. Mungkin juga ada yang mengatakan Parti Perikatan kalah sadikit-itu memang benar. Tetapi yang menyusahkan atau membingongkan orang ramai ia-lah sa-lepas keputusan pilehan raya itu di-umumkan dan pehak Parti Pembang- kang mengadakan procession; soal yang di-kemukakan ia-lah bukan mengejek penyokong Perikatan, tetapi mereka meng- gunakan perkataan saperti "orang Melayu sudah habis." Ini dengan sendiri-nya di- tujukan kapada orang Melayu seluroh-nya; dan dia mengatakan: "Orang bukan Melayu mesti menjadi Menteri Besar Selangor." Ini- lah perkara yang di-kemukakan oleh mereka dan mereka tahu Menteri Besar itu mesti-lah datang-nya daripada orang Melayu, atau pun orang Islam. Ini merupakan provocation daripada mereka (orang Melayu) dan salah dia hendak menyakitkan hati orang Melayu. Jadi itu pun tidak mengapa juga kalau tudohan itu di-kemukakan kapada penyo- kong Perikatan saperti saya sendiri. Kita boleh terima. Tetapi apa-kah kait-mengait- nya dengan orang Melayu biasa? Yang mungkin hanya sa-bagai pengundi, tetapi mungkin tidak menjadi penyokong kuat Perikatan? Itu-lah yang menyakitkan hati mereka. Itu pun tidak mengapa juga. Tetapi dalam procession itu ada pula yang macham hero berdiri di-atas kereta2 dengan mengeluarkan perkataan yang tidak baik- buka seluar, tunjok pula cherut dia (Ketawa).

Jadi itu-lah yang menyusahkan-fasal tidak ada perkataan yang lain, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, yang saya sebutkan (Ketawa). Kalau hendak sebutkan indecent gesture- not appropriate, itu-lah dia. Tetapi ma'af-lah kalau tidak ada perkataan yang sesuai, tetapi itu-lah sahaja perkataan yang saya dapat sebutkan

Kadang tersasul juga (Ketawa). Apa yang kita hadapi pada hari ini ia-lah empat masaalah sensitive (1) Kera'ayatan, (2) Bahasa, (3) Hak Istimewa (4) Raja yang pada anggapan kita keempat perkara sensitive ini sa-rupa-lah dengan "orang kembar berempat". Saya sengaja sebutkan orang kembar berempat, kerana kalau satu di-usek, yang lain pun sakit juga. Jadi mithal kata kalau usek hak istimewa orang Melayu, soal kera'ayatan berbangkit juga, kerana keempat ini-lah dahulu, sa-masa kita menggubal Per- lembagaan di-jadikan sa-bagai asas "com- promise" antara orang Melayu dengan bukan Melayu untok membulatkan kedudokan kita bagi memperjuangkan kemerdekaan. Memang benar pehak Pembangkang khas- nya DAP mengatakan dia tidak menentang perkara khas-nya keempat perkara ini. Tetapi apa yang berlaku dalam pilehan raya atau pun di-kedai kopi? Mereka mengguna- kan perkataan sindiran atau pun perkataan perli sa-bagai cynical. Umpama-nya saya sebutkan, dalam soal hal istimewa orang Melayu, dia kata dalam pilehan raya bagini: (I) "Chukai di-kutip dari orang China dan di-belanjakan kapada orang Melayu di-luar bandar." Dia tidak sebut pula kemajuan yang di-buat di-kawasan New Villages atau pun incentive yang di-berikan kapada gulongan perusahaan hanya menyebut sa-kerat sahaja. (II) Soal kera'ayatan, dia sebutkan satu gulongan saha'a yang mendapat kera'ayatan- faedah daripada undang2 kera'aya'an; tetapi dia tidak sebutkan pula kera'ayatan itu di- berikan kanada semua pehak sama ada orang Malaysia keturunan China, Malaysia ke- turunan India, atau pun orang Indonesia dan juga orang daripada Asia Barat atau Timor Tengah. (III) Soal bahasa selalu mereka itu sebutkan berkehendakkan multi-lingualism. (IV) Satu perkara lagi soal Raja, dia tidak sebut dia menentang Raja, tetapi apa yang di-sebutkan-nya, saya beritahu, sebutkan di- sini, umpama-nya, dia kata: "to vote for the sailing boat is to vote for feudalism." Jadi sindiran yang macham ini-lah yang menyakitkan orang kita-orang yang ta'at setia kapada negara ini dan kalau dia hendak berdaleh pun di-situ-lah chara dia mengeluar- kan perkataan itu.

Ini kali akhir yang kita ini berchakap fasal itu. Soal Perlembagaan ini, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, sa-rupa-lah kedudokan-nya macham sa-buah rumah yang di-bena di-satu padang- tengah padang dengan tidak ada pagar. Dengan ada-nya sa-buah rumah yang lengkap bagitu rupa banyak-lah orang yang menom- pang, ada pula sa-tengah-nya dudok di- bawah rumah, kerana hendak mendapatkan nekmat daripada rumah ini. Jadi perkara ini, Perlembagaan ini berjalan dengan baik hingga pada satu ketika tahun 1964 timbul-lah satu pehak melancharkan roket. Roket ini pula meletop dekat rumah. Jadi, tujuan-nya me- lancharkan roket ini menghanchorkan rumah itu kapada debu manusia-debu haiwan. Dia hendak jadikan pula unsor manusia yang di-namakan Malaysian Malaysia. Jadi di-situ- lah mula-nya kedudokan kita orang di-tanah ayer kita ini berasa shak-wasangka dengan masa depan-nya. Jadi, sa-belum itu maseh berjalan dengan baik. Dan sa-lepas daripada tahun 1964 sahaja-lah baharu kedudokan kita ini berasa bimbang dan churiga. Jadi dalam pada kita membahathkan, atau mengemukakan pindaan ini, kita tidak mem- bahathkan untong kapada satu2 pehak, untong kapada orang Melayu, atau rugi kapada orang China. Apa yang kita berke- hendakkan dengan pindaan ini ia-lah mem- buat satu pagar untok memagar Perlembagaan itu dan pagar itu merupakan ampangan yang membahagikan orang yang "jahat" dengan orang yang "baik". Orang yang "baik" ini dengan sendiri-nya berada di-dalam pagar untok menjunjong Perlembagaan, dan orang yang "jahat" ini kita boleh asingkan dan kalau perlu kita hantar ka-Pulau Jerejak. Jadi dengan sendiri kita tahu dengan ada empangan ini, orang baik dan orang jahat- dan yang jahat itu hantar ka-Pulau Jerejak, dan kalau tidak muat Pulau Jerejak yang ada pada hari ini, kita tambah lagi dua tiga Pulau Jerejak. Dalam soal hak istimewa orang Melayu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saperti yang di-sebut- kan ia-lah perkara lama. Apa yang kita hendak tambah ia-lah 153 Clause (8) (e) ia-itu berhubong dengan sekolah tinggi Post Secondary Education atau pun Pre-University Education. Ada juga sa-tengah pehak yang menudoh Kerajaan tidak berbuat apa dalam perkara ini. Kata-nya, Kerajaan sengaja tidak hendak berbuat apa untok membanyakkan orang Melayu menjadi doktor, orang Melayu menjadi saintis. Ini-lah yang di-limparkan oleh pehak parti Pembangkang terhadap kita. Jadi satu perkara yang suka saya hendak sebutkan, bukan Kerajaan tidak hendak berbuat apa. Dalam soal memasokkan murid ka-universiti mithal-nya, dahulu Ke- rajaan chuba hendak memasokkan murid ini ka-universiti dengan menggunakan Fasal yang tertentu sa-bagai "state scholars". Itu ada-lah sa-bagai hak mereka. Pehak Pem- bangkang pula mengeluarkan chogan kata: "Kerajaan memasokkan Melayu ka-universiti sa-chara pintu belakang". Ini-lah perkara yang menyusahkan Kerajaan kita dan dengan ada-nya undang2 yang tertentu, maka tidak- lah Kerajaan kita "guilty conscious" hendak memberi peluang kapada mereka. Mithal-nya saya sebutkan murid Melayu kelulusan Pre- University Education. Dalam tahun 1967 (aliran Inggeris) anak Melayu 338 di-bandingkan dengan bukan Melayu 1,400. Tahun 1968, 477 di-bandingkan dengan 1,700. Tahun 1969, 397 di-bandingkan dengan 1,740. Ini kelulusan daripada Pre-University Education. Masaalah kita yang ada hari ini ia-lah hendak membanyakkan mereka itu. Jadi kalau mithal kata wakil dari Batu menyata- kan pengeluaran kita mengadakan Junior Colleges, saya ternanti beliau menyatakan di-Junior Colleges itu patut di-adakan kursus tiga tahun Pre-University Education dan bukan-nya dua tahun saperti H.S.C. untok memberikan handicap kapada anak kita Melayu. Tetapi dia tidak berani sebut yang itu. Fasal dia tahu bila kita adakan tiga tahun Pre-University Education di-Junior Colleges, maka beliau terpaksa menerima ramai Melayu sa-bagai Chairman University Council sekarang.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, baik-lah. Soal bahasa. Ada juga pehak DAP yang menyatakan Kerajaan tidak mengguna- kan atau melaksanakan soal maintain dan sustain mengena soal bahasa. Saya suka hendak beri tahu-nya, soal bahasa ini telah pun di-kuatkan dengan memasokkan dalam Dasar Pelajaran ia-itu mithal-nya sekolah China hari ini maseh lagi mendapat enam tahun Free Primary Education yang meng- gunakan bahasa China sa-bagai Medium of Instruction. Bagitu juga dengan "pupil own language" di-ajar kapada semua pehak hinggakan di-peringkat universiti kita meng- adakan Department of Chinese Studies. Dan gaji guru sekolah China yang dahulu-nya di-bayar oleh ibu bapa, tetapi sekarang ini di-bayar oleh Kerajaan kita. Jadi ini tudohan yang liar tidak patut di-kemukakan oleh pehak mereka itu, kerana saya tahu ramai daripada gulongan DAP itu terdiri daripada bekas guru dan dia tahu perkara ini. Itu sengaja dia bawa kemari boleh jadi untok memprovokan maruah orang China supaya mengundi dia. Jadi, satu perkara lagi, saya rengkaskan, soal Raja. Saya sudah sebutkan tadi chara dia memperlikan Raja. Jadi sudah-lah banyak saya sebutkan perkara itu, kerana perkataan yang saya katakan "to vote for the sailing boat is to vote for feudalism" itu memada "to illustrate" kapada mereka yang dia itu perli Raja. Jadi berbalek pula kapada soal yang marah sangat daripada pehak Pembangkang ini kata dia "dengan undang2 pindaan ini kita menyekat hendak berchakap M.P. dia". Saya suka memberi satu chontoh yang pendek sahaja sa-bagai illustration dia. Barangkali kita ingat lagi, saya pun bukan Ahli Dewan pada masa itu, perkataan "belachan" yang di-timbulkan oleh mendiang D. R. Seeniva- sagam dalam Dewan ini. Belachan ini semua orang seronok memakan-nya. Kalau tidak makan belachan, bukan orang Malaysia. Tetapi chara-nya

Seronok bila mema- kan-nya! (Ketawa). Ini lebeh kurang budu juga. Kalau perkataan belachan itu di-chakap dengan chara baik, maka baik-lah erti-nya tetapi chara dia meletakkan perkataan itu "Hai, Belachan Itu-lah yang menimbulkan pergadohan antara mendiang itu dengan wakil, saya ingat pada masa itu Ahli dari Kuala Langat yang hampir bertumbok. Jadi, kalau kita berkata macham ini rupa- boleh bersebab, atau pun boleh menimbulkan kemarahan dalam Dewan ini, apa lagi yang lain. Patut-nya perkataan belachan itu, kalau kita hendak kata, tidak jadi apa, tetapi chara dia menyebutkan itu, "Hai, Belachan! Itu menimbulkan perasaan marah di-kalangan orang Melayu. Bagitu juga dengan perkataan buah manggis (Ketawa). Buah manggis yang saya buat Muhibbah Parti, itu bagus. Semua orang suka makan buah manggis, tetapi kalau di- sebut, "Hai, Manggis! orang Malaysia keturunan India marah (Ketawa).

Nanti dahu'u! Ada pula yang marah soal ekonomi. Dia kata konon-nya Kerajaan tidak membuat langsong, gagal dalam usaha hendak meninggikan ekonomi orang kita Melayu. Jadi dahulu focus kita ia-lah pada Ranchangan Luar Bandar. Itu thema kita. Ranchangan itu ber- jalan dengan baik dan maju, tetapi thema kita hari ini lain, saperti yang kita dengar daripada uchapan Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Menteri kita dan pemimpin kita yang lain, dasar ekonomi baharu kita ini ada dua chabang. Satu, dia kata, "the eradication of poverty irrespective of race," itu satu, tidak siapa. Satu lagi, "restructure of the society." Jadi, soal hendak menghapuskan ke- miskinan itu tidak akan timbul tudohan daripada mana pehak, tetapi kalau timbul soal "restructure of the society", mungkin di- situ esok timbul perkara kerana ini melibat- kan "human element". Mithal orang Melayu. Bila sebut Melayu sahaja-tanam padi. Bila sebut taukeh-kita ingat China-lah, tetapi mungkin society yang akan datang ini di- bawah dasar ekonomi yang baharu kita ini ada antara penanam padi orang Melayu itu kita hendak suroh dia jadi ahli perniagaan. Itu melibatkan soal "human element". Ini besok, maka timbul-lah tudoh-menudoh mem- bawa orang Melayu pergi ka-business atau pun orang China pergi "padi planting". Ini mungkin timbul besok yang kita sendiri mungkin bimbang. Jadi, untok mengelakkan kegagalan ranchangan Kerajaan ini, maka perlu-lah kita "mendesiplinkan" diri kita. Ma'ana kita berhati-lah berchakap jangan- lah lepas macham dahulu. Barangkali ini-lah waktu yang akhir kita boleh lepas macham dahulu, itu-lah barangkali, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, terpaksa tengok ramai yang lepas hangat itu. Jadi, itu-lah perlu-nya kita hendak menjalankan dasar ekonomi yang baharu itu, yang mungkin, saya kata tadi menimbulkan soal "human problem". Mungkin kita hendak bawa factory ka-kawasan Kajang, kawasan saya. Mungkin ada tentang, tetapi kita tahu factory itu baik, tetapi dengan ada-nya sekatan berchakap sa-wenang-nya itu bukan hendak kita potong lidah dia maka kita analyse dahulu benda itu-bagus, tidak bagus, baharu-lah kita berchakap. Jadi itu- lah, saya pun tidak nampak, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, kenapa mereka ini berchakap bagitu lepas, dengan tidak memikirkan akibat dan consequent-nya. Boleh jadi, saperti wakil daripada Kampar tadi, dia terpaksa membacha satu thesis daripada tempat lain, dia tidak boleh di- tahan. Kalau di-tanah dia hilang. Boleh jadi bagitu gaya-nya. Dia terpaksa, di-luar Dewan menulis bagitu dan dalam Dewan pun dia terpaksa berchakap daripada Alif sampai Nya. Jadi itu-lah sadikit sa-banyak, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pandangan daripada saya sendiri dan rasa saya bagi kita kalau berlaku lagi kekachauan saperti yang berlaku 13 Mei dahulu, pada pandangan saya sendiri tidak siapa yang untong dan boleh jadi perkara ini akan, bukan sahaja terhad kapada satu kawasan, tetapi akan berlaku di-seluroh tanah ayer kita. Dan itu-lah mungkin permulaan bagi kita peperangan saudara. Dan kapada mereka, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kita tidak usah chakap banyak sangat. Kita kena anggap mereka yang menentang Bill ini macham kita berjumpa dengan sa-orang orang gila. "Jangan kita kata dia gila, tetapi biar dia kata kita gila".

Masa- alah yang ketiga ia-lah masaalah bahasa. Saya nampak ra'ayat di-Malaysia kita ini sa-bahagian besar-nya telah pun menerima bahasa Melayu, atau pun Bahasa Malaysia menjadi bahasa yang rasmi di-dalam negara kita. Hanya beberapa kaum, beberapa orang, bukan kaum, hanya beberapa orang sahaja yang mungkin tidak sesuai dengan iklim di-Malaysia ini yang menentang dasar menjadikan Bahasa Malaysia menjadi Bahasa Rasmi dalam negeri ini, tetapi sa- bahagian besar-nya ada-lah menyokong. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dalam Fasal 152 cheraian 1 (a), saya nampak fasal ini kurang memuaskan, kerana dengan ada-nya fasal saperti ni memberi peluang kapada orang yang anti Bahasa Kebangsaan, atau pun Bahasa Malaysia menggunakan di-dalam urusan-nya dengan bahasa yang lain dari- pada Bahasa Malaysia. Perkara ini kita dapat lihat sa-tengah tempat perniagaan, sa-tengah kenderaan perniagaan kita lihat terpampang di-sana, tidak ada tertulis Bahasa Malaysia. Jadi apakala Kerajaan mengatakan, atau pun Menteri kita bersharah tentang meminta supaya orang, atau pun ra'ayat di-negara kita ini menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia, maka mereka menggunakan fasal ini, cheraian ini yang membolehkan mereka menggunakan bahasa itu, sebab ini ada-lah urusan mereka sahaja, bukan urusan rasmi yang berkaitan dengan Kerajaan. Ini chara perlarian dia. Jadi saya rasa, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, bahawa sa-patut-nya kita menegas- kan tentang bahasa ini lebeh kemas sadikit, ia-itu dengan menentukan tempat umum, tempat yang di-pandang umum hendak-lah di-gunakan, di-wajibkan menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia saperti di-kedai, di-lori, di-tempat perniagaan yang orang datang berulak-alek membuat perkiraan hendak-lah di-wajibkan menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia, bukan hanya untok surat menyurat antara mereka dengan Kerajaan sa-mata supaya kita berasa bangga dengan penggunaan yang di-amalkan oleh ra'ayat Malaysia di-atas bahasa-nya ia-itu Bahasa Kebangsaan. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dalam masaalah ini juga saya terasa kechewa tentang kita sudah Merdeka sa-lama 13 tahun, tetapi maseh banyak lagi Menteri kita yang bukan Melayu tidak boleh memberi keterangan, atau pun entah tidak mahu membuat uchapan di-dalam Bahasa Malaysia. Hanya yang saya dengar sa-orang sahaja Menteri Dengan Tugas Khas di-bawah Muhibbah. Saya uchapkan terima kaseh kapada Menteri itu. Jadi saya terasa malu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua

Ya, terima keseh. Yang Berhormat Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kita rasa sepatut-nya semua Menteri kita itu menggunakan bahasa Melayu, kemudian kalau ada yang mustahak baharu menggunakan bahasa lain sekarang- nya saperti yang di-buat oleh, "Idzinkan saya bahawa," chukup. Chontoh-nya Perdana Menteri Singapura itu selalu meng- gunakan bahasa Melayu mengikut apa yang kita dengar melalu radio dan talivishen.

Jadi ini-lah permintaan saya kapada Menteri kita di-Malaysia ini. Satu perkara yang saya rasa chukup dukachita tentang beberapa waktu dahulu sa-orang bekas Menteri kita mengetua satu pasokan bola bertanding dengan sa-buah negara lain di-Kuala Lumpur kita ini. Tetapi bahasa yang di-gunakan di-situ baik dengan chendera-mata-nya, sepandok-nya dan sa- bagai-nya tidak dengan bahasa Melayu yang menimbulkan kemarahan orang ramai khas- nya akhbar tempatan. Jadi saya rasa, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, semangat bahasa kebang- saan itu hendak-lah lebeh dahulu di-amalkan oleh Menteri kita sama ada ketika men- jalankan tugas apa sama ada tugas Kera- jaan, atau pun tugas persatuan bola saperti yang saya sebutkan tadi supaya orang lain melihat bahawa Menteri kita telah amalkan perkara ini. Jadi sa-benar-nya, amalan itu kadang lebeh berguna daripada perkataan, kalau kita kata sahaja, kita suroh sahaja, tetapi amalan-nya tidak, maka pandangan ra'ayat tidak bagitu menggembirakan. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, perkara yang ke- empat ia-lah pelajaran dan ekonomi. Saya sebutkan tentang pelajaran. kita nampak di- dalam Pindaan Perlembagaan ini, baik benar kapada orang kita ia-itu orang Melayu tentang hasrat Kerajaan untok membimbing orang Melayu menuju ka-tempat yang ter- tinggi di-bidang pelajaran, tetapi saya terasa dukachita, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, bahawa perkara saperti ini baharu berlaku sa-telab kita merdeka sa-lama ini, sedangkan baharu kita menchapai kemerdekaan dahulu kita sudah tahu bahawa orang Melayu kekurangar, lemah di-bidang pelajaran dan lahir-lah Penyata Razak, lahir-lah Penyata Rahman Talib yang bertujuan untok membimbing orang Melayu, tetapi sa-hingga ini pun perkara ini maseh kelam-kabut lagi, maseh tidak selesai lagi. Jadi saya rasa ini ada-lah satu kelemahan kapada Kerajaan kita hari ini yang tidak menekankan sunggoh di-bidang pelajaran supaya orang Melayu, anak Melayu boleh naik di-tempat yang tertinggi. Satu perkara yang saya ingin sebut di-sini mengena sekolah ugama-Sekolah Menengah Ugama. Sekolah ini, kebanyakan sekolah ugama di-Malaysia kita ini telah pun menerima dasar pelajaran Kerajaan dengan mengadakan kelas dengan mengadakan kelas SRP atau pun SPM. Jadi kapada mereka yang menerima Dasar Pelajaran Kerajaan Malaysia ini, bantuan yang di- dapati oleh mereka hanya-lah sa-bagaimana bantuan yang lalu juga ia-itu dengan kadar yang tertentu saperti $14 dan sa-bagai-nya bagi satu kepala, sedangkan kapada sekolah yang lain saperti sekolah China, sekolah Tamil, Kerajaan meminta supaya sekolah ini menerima Dasar Pelajaran Malaysia dan dengan tujuan untok memberi bantuan penoh. Chontoh-nya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di- Trengganu kalau ta' silap saya, ada sa-belas buah Sekolah Menengah Ugama yang murid-nya lebeh kurang lima ribu atau pun enam r'bu orang di-sana. Di-sana Sekolah Menengah Ugama itu menerima bantuan Keraiaan hanya sekadar apa yang saya sebutkan tadi, ia-itu di-bawah bantuan ka- pada sekolah ugama, sedangkan mereka ini ada-lah menerima sa-penoh-nya Dasar Pelajaran Malaysia dan perbelanjaan yang di-jalankan oleh mereka ia-lah hasil daripada pemberian itu dan hasil daripada pemberian Kerajaan Negeri. Yang mendukachitakan kapada kita ia-lah mereka tidak mempunya alatan yang chukup, mereka tidak mem- punya guru yang berkebolehan di-bidang pelajaran sains dan hisab dan tidak ada makmal sains. Guru yang ada pada mereka ia-lah guru yang di-beri oleh Kerajaan Negeri, di-bayar gaji oleh Kerajaan Negeri dengan hanya kontrek sa-bulan-kah, sa-tahun- kah dan sa-bagai-nya, bukan guru yang betul terlateh yang di-beri oleh Kerajaan Pusat atau pun Kementerian Pelajaran kapada sekolah ini. Jadi alang-kah baik, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, bahawa Kerajaan, atau pun Menteri Pelajaran memandang berat hal ini, sebab sekolah ugama, atau pun sekolah menengah ugama ini ada-lah terdiri daripada 100 peratus orang anak Melayu. Jadi berarti kita meninggalkan mereka ini, berarti kita meninggalkan kemajuan di- bidang pelajaran anak Melayu. Ini-lah yang saya sebutkan, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Sekian-lah sahaja. Terima kaseh.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Raffles mati pada tahun 1819 tetapi sejarah Raffles maseh ada. Tidak-kah boleh ini kita jadikan satu sejarah dalam negara kita. Barang siapa yang ber- main api sa-kali, sa-kali, api itu akan hidup dan membakar dan telah membakar Kuala Lumpur pada 13 Mei. Tidak-kah ini satu daripada perkara sejarah yang patut kita ingati dalam Dewan yang mulia ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Saya tidak bermaksud hendak menyentoh peribadi sa-saorang. Dalam Islam sendiri pun tidak boleh menyentoh perkara peribadi persaorangan. Sa-bagai sa-orang Islam yang setia saya tahu dan saya faham, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Tetapi maksud saya sejarah tidak boleh di- lupa bahkan sejarah itu nanti akan mengajar kita supaya kita boleh memahami kehendak sejarah. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-telah terjadi, tetapi malang-nya perkara yang terjadi di- Kuala Lumpur trejedi 13 Mei daripada chakapan, hasutan antara kaum dengan kaum sudah berlaku gadoh yang menyebab- kan negara kita berpechah-belah. Fahaman berpechah-belah, rugi beratus juta, maka ada-kah kita mahu lagi perkara yang sa- macham itu. Jawab-nya, tidak mahu. Kalau tidak mahu senang sahaja, jawab-nya lagi tidak banyak chakap, sokong pindaan, habis perkara. Mengapa di-bangkitkan 14 tahun kelemahan Melayu bagini, bagini oleh Parti PAS oleh Yang Berhormat dari Kota Bharu Hulu. Dalam report ini, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, ada menyebutkan beberapa kalimah orang Melayu sa-telah negeri ini merdeka dalam pegawai tadbir sa-kian peratus, sa-kian peratus, China sa-kian peratus, jawab-nya sa-kian peratus. Semua itu yang menunjokkan kekurangan Melayu. Hanya ada satu sahaja kata-nya dalam ini ia-itu ada untong sadikit sahaja kata dia ada banyak Melayu-nya ia-lah perkhidmatan Undang2 boleh tahan kata dia: Melayu 70 orang, bukan Melayu 37 orang. Orang Melayu 65.42% yang bukan Melayu 34.58%. Saya tidak menyangkal kenyataan ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-bagai sa-orang Menteri Besar dia akan mendapati angka penyata yang benar. Tetapi saya suka hendak menanya sebab keraguan saya. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada-kah ahli atau kakitangan yang bekerja itu semua-nya bekerja pada masa Kerajaan Perikatan atau mereka telah ber- khidmat sa-belum negeri ini di-perentah oleh Perikatan. Itu yang saya hendak tanya. Kalau sa-kira-nya mereka yang ada itu, dalam angka ini mereka sudah berkhidmat sa- belum Kerajaan Perikatan memerentah erti- nya dalam masa orang Puteh dahulu, Kerajaan British, kesalahan ini tidak boleh di-letakkan bulat kapada Kerajaan Perikatan. Ini pertimbangan yang saya beri pertimban- gan kapada Ahli Yang Berhormat itu dan juga kapada Tuan Yang Berhormat. Jika semua pegawai yang di-sebutkan dalam Akta itu bekerja dalam tempoh masa kita memerentah 14 tahun ini barangkali itu tudohan yang betul, sebab dalam ayat ini pun dia tidak menudoh orang itu bekerja dengan penjajah British, dalam masa penjajah British atau dalam masa Kerajaan Perikatan, hanya dia menyatakan dalam masa Kerajaan Perikatan. Pada saya yang tidak loyar ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya merasa ragu. Jadi ada baik-nya perkara ini di-pertimbangkan. Jangan-lah ma'ana-nya kesalahan ini di-letakkan bulat pada Kera- jaan yang ada hari ini. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-Dewan ini kita telah berkumpul untok bermeshuarat me- nyatakan pendapat tentang usaha peri ke- baikan bagi negara dan bangsa. Ra'ayat di-bandar, di-desa, sawah bendang bahkan tempat hutan belantara memusatkan per- hatian-nya kapada penerangan mereka melalu T.V. dan radio kapada kita yang ada di-Kuala Lumpur pada hari ini mengikuti telatah dan perdirian kita masing2 yang sedang berunding mengkaji akan Akta Rang Undang2 ini atau Akta (Pindaan) Per- lembagaan ini yang di-harap akan membaiki kehidupan mereka di-masa yang akan datang. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Pembangkang tidak menyebutkan langsong kejayaan kita dalam pelajaran. Pada masa penjajahan dahulu hanya pengajian Melayu sa-takat sekolah rendah. Apab la negeri ini sudah merdeka Penyata Razak di-buat, di-kaji, di-baiki dengan Penyata Rahman Talib. Hasil-nya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pada hari ini taraf sekolah rendah sekolah kebangsaan dalam pengajian Melayu meningkat sa- tingkat kapada sekolah menengah, sekolah menengah atas dan hari ini, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, walau pun tidak menchukupi kehendak Kerajaan, tetapi kita sudah pun ada Universiti Kebangsaan dalam negara kita ia-itu yang kita tubohkan dan kita buat dalam zaman Kerajaan Perikatan yang ada hari ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada-kah kita lupa tentu-lah ra'ayat tidak akan lupa, tetapi ada orang yang akan melupakan yang sangaja hendak melupakan. Tidak-kah mengadakan ini perkembangan baharu yang ada di-dalam zaman Kerajaan yang ada pada hari ini. Tetapi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Akta ini di-buat dengan tujuan-nya keadaan ini tidak menchukupi perlindongan patut di-beri dengan sebab itu-lah Akta (Pindaan) Per- lembagaan ini di-buat-di-beri perezapan dengan kuasa Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang di-Pertuan Agong supaya keadaan per- saimbangan pelajaran orang Melayu dan bumiputra dengan orang yang bukan bumi- putra. Kerana konsep kita, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, tidak ada kesejahteraan negara kita ini jikalau tidak ada persaimbangan dari segi ekonomi, mendapatkan persaimbangan dalam ekonomi mesti ada faktor yang besar ia-itu segi pelajaran. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sekarang sudah nyata dan sedar-sudah nyata dan sudah terang pada kita bahawasa-nya itu-lah sebab- nya Pindaan Perlembagaan merezapkan orang Melayu dan bumiputra dalam negeri ini di-mana sekolah tinggi dan institute di- adakan. Saya pernah berchakap, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pada penggal yang dahulu, Malaysia tidak akan aman Malaysia tidak akan berbahagia jikalau tidak seimbangkan ekonomi pehak yang berada dengan pehak yang tidak berada. Malaya akan menempoh satu keadaan luar biasa dan perkara ini su'dah berlaku tetapi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-bagai sifat hamba, kita melalu sifat beberapa kekurangan, tetapi bila kita sudah sedar kekurangan itu kita baiki, keadaan itu, ini-lah yang di-harapkan, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, oleh beberapa pemimpin dan Ahli Yang Berhormat dari parti Perikatan dalam Dewan ini menyeru supaya pehak Pem- bangkang dengan perasaan hati yang jujor ikhlas dan menjadikan kesetiaan itu pada menimbangkan kelulusan Pindaan Per- lembagaan ini. Pada pandangan saya, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, sa-bagai sa-orang Melayu saya tidak berkata bahawa saya anti China, anti India atau sa-bagai-nya, tetapi kerana kesejahteraan negara kita pada masa akan datang saimbang ekonomi, saimbangan pengetahuan perlu di-adakan pada hari ini. Apa yang kita buat hari ini kita akan men- jadi dosa besar pada zaman yang akan datang oleh jenerasi kita yang akan datang. oleh keturunan yang akan datang, segala kesalahan yang kita laporkan hari kita mempunya dosa bersama pada masa yang akan datang. Dengan sebab itu jikalau kita mahu negara kita negara yang aman dan mewah, hidup dalam lumayan dan harmoni, kita mesti-lah menyamakan keadaan yang saya katakan tadi. Kapada sahabat saya orang bukan Melayu, jangan-lah tuan shak bahawa dengan lulus Akta ini, atau lulus-nya pindaan ini kami orang Melayu akan merangkap tuan, tidak. Tidak ada satu ra'ayat yang boleh merangkap satu ra'ayat, tetapi per- timbangan yang adil harus boleh mengatasi pemikiran sa-chara itu. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kalau-lah kita gagal meluluskan Rang Undang2 ini, Rang Undang2 ini suatu Rang Undang2 yang menjamin servival masa depan bangsa dan negara, kita akan di-kutok habis oleh jenerasi yang akan datang sebab kita telah gagal dalam tugas kita, tugas untok menemukan atoran hidup yang boleh men- jamin perpaduan di-antara berbilang kaum dan keharmonian bernegara. Kalau kita berhasil anak chuchu chichit akan datang bukan sahaja akan berterima kaseh, tetapi akan memerhati betapa bijak-nya nenek moyang kami yang dahulu. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tugas kita sekarang ini ada-lah sesuai dengan konsep hukum alam bahawa satu angkatan yang akan ber- usaha dan menyediakan sa-suatu untok kebaikan angkatan yang akan datang dan berikut-nya demikian-lah sifat tugas kita terhadap meluluskan Rang Undang2 ini. Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, negara asing baik kechil, atau besar sedang memusatkan juga perhatian-nya mereka dengan kacha mata yang berlainan. Negara kechil yang baharu merdeka yang juga menghadapi masaalah politik, social dan ekonomi akibat kepinchangan yang di-timbulkan oleh prek- tek demokrasi moral ala-barat mengikut dari sudut yang khas dan positive. Chara kita bersepakat merumuskan kaedah hidup bernegara sa-hingga dapat menjamin ter- laksana-nya keharmonian bernegara, lebeh lagi sifat bentok dan susunan masharakat kita berbilang keturunan ugama dan ke- budayaan ada-lah satu konsep yang boleh menjadi saham negara kita untok kemajuan negara kechil yang lain dalam dunia ini. Jadi, sekarang ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dengan apa yang kita buat ini jikalau kita boleh menjamin perpaduan kaum di-antara orang yang bukan Melayu dengan Melayu, kita boleh menjamin servival negara kita bukan sahaja dalam segi ekonomi, segi pelajaran dan sa-bagai-nya, keharmonian kita di-antara orang Melayu dengan orang China, orang China dengan India, India dengan Melayu dan lain bangsa, ini satu saham kita, saham meninggikan negara kita pada pandangan negeri lain, lebeh lagi neger. yang sama membangun dengan negara kita ini. Walau pun chakap saya ini satu chakap zaman bungaan, tetapi ini perkara yang benar. Apa yang kita lakukan pada masa yang dahulu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kesetebelan politik kita, taraf ekonomi kita, taraf ketegohan negara kita dalam segi pemerentahan, sudah menjadi sebutan pada negara luar bagaimana keadaan Malaysia di-perentah oleh kita yang di-dudoki oleh beberapa keturunan. Jadi, sekarang, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya rasa Bill ini satu Bill yang sangat mustahak, jadi biar-lah saya pendekkan uchapan saya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, walau pun saya ada peluang saya boleh berchakap besok pagi, tetapi saya bukan datang kerana hendak membuat gambar dua kali dalam T.V., tetapi saya berchakap dengan hati yang ikhlas akan saya tamatkan uchapan saya ini pada pukul 8.00 tepat, dan saya tidak mengambil kesempatan menyambong besok pagi. Saya berharap-lah kapada sahabat saya dalam Dewan ini yang walau pun kita nampak gambaran-nya, tetapi sa-bahagian besar akan menyokong kita dan berterima mereka akan menyokong pindaan ini dan kita berharap sa-bagai suatu ke- bulatan kita, walau pun saya tidak berpehak memaksa saudara saya Ahli Yang Ber- hormat dari Pembangkang tetapi kita mesti menunjokkan satu kejujuran bahawa sokongan yang bulat dari mana pehak akan menunjokkan kapada dunia bagaimana per- paduan kita menjaga keselamatan negara, ra'ayat dan keturunan kita pada masa akan datang. Ini-lah harapan saya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, walau pun saya tidak boleh memberi jaminan apa yang di-minta oleh wakil Tanjong, sebab saya bukan sa-orang menteri atau pehak boleh menjawab jaminan-nya, tetapi boleh-lah saya menga- kukan bahawa kita akan bersama lagi dalam Dewan ini dan kita akan boleh mem- betulkan perkara yang silap kalau berlaku. Terima kaseh.