Posted in Umno

Secebis sejarah Onn Jaafar

Penerbit: UKM, Bangi 2004

Penulis: Anwar Abdullah

Petikan daripada buku Biografi Dato’ Onn: Hidup Melayu

Mukasurat 175-178

OnnJaafar

Riwayat Dato’ Onn memperlihatkan dirinya pada mulanya, sebagai seorang pegawai pemerintah yang ingin berkhidmat kepada raja dan tanah airnya seperti juga orang Melayu lain dalam zaman politik beraja. Setelah berkhidmat beberapa lama sebagai pegawai kerajaan, beliau tidak dapat menyesuaikan dirinya dengan politik seperti itu lebih lama daripada yang dapat ditahannya.

Sultan Ibrahim [1873-1959] melakukan beberapa perbuatan yang tidak menurut lunas-lunas perikemanusiaan dan panduan yang terkandung dalam Undang-undang Tubuh yang telah dibekalkan oleh ayahandanya Sultan Abu Bakar. Dalam beberapa hal, tindakan Sultan Ibrahim terhadap sesetengah rakyat sangat tidak adil, tidak bertimbang rasa, khususnya terhadap orang Melayu yang berkhidmat dalam Johor Military Forces (JMF).’

Dato' Onn, pemimpin Melayu paling berwibawa
Dato’ Onn, pemimpin Melayu paling berwibawa

Sungguhpun peristiwa yang menyedihkan itu diketahui oleh umum di seluruh negeri, tetapi tidak ada seorang pun di Johor yang berani membuka mulut serta membantah kerana Sultan Ibrahim sangat ditakuti oleh rakyat. Baginda seolah-olah seperti “terror” di kalangan penduduk negeri itu pada masa mudanya.

Negarawan terulung
Negarawan terulung

Tetapi tidak Dato’ Onn, beliau tidak dapat memejam mata, menulikan telinga dan membungkamkan mulutnya terhadap sesuatu yang dianggap zalim atau kejam. Beliau tidak sampai hati melihat anggota JMF diseksa, dikerah dan dipaksa bekerja membuat ladang getah kepunyaan raja.

Peluang untuk mendedah dan mencegah perbuatan terbuka apabila beliau menjadi pemberita salah sebuah akhbar dalam bahasa Inggeris yang diterbitkan di Singapura pada tahun tiga puluhan. Beliau menggunakan pena dengan setajam-tajamnya mengecam dan mengkritik tindakan yang dilakukan oleh Sultan Ibrahim yang dianggap oleh Dato’ Onn sebagai tidak patut.

Dengan disedarinya atau tidak, secara langsung kecaman dan kritikannya itu, Dato’ Onn telah menceburkan diri dalam politik sejak zaman politik beraja lagi tanpa mempedulikan apa yang mungkin berlaku ke atas dirinya kerana memperjuangkan kepentingan manusia yang kurang bernasib baik. Tetapi terdahulu dari itu, pihak British telah menggunakan peristiwa JMF untuk menguatkan tekanannya ke atas Sultan Ibrahim supaya bersetuju menerima seorang pegawai British sebagai penasihat.

Persidangan membubarkan Malayan Union pada 1946 di King's House, Kuala Lumpur; Dato' Onn berdiri di barisan pertama bersebelahan Datin Puteh Mariah
Persidangan membubarkan Malayan Union pada Nov 1946 di King’s House, K. Lumpur; Dato’ Onn berdiri di barisan pertama bersebelahan Datin Puteh Mariah ketua Kaum Ibu Umno

Baginda terpaksa meminda Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan bagi membolehkan campur tangan British dalam hal ehwal pentadbiran negeri kecuali dalam perkara agama dan adat resam orang Melayu. Menurut perjanjian yang dimeteraikan antara Kerajaan Johor dengan Great Britain, Sultan hendaklah menerima seorang pegawai Inggeris sebagai penasihat yang ditempatkan dalam Negeri Johor. Dalam setiap hal, Sultan hendaklah meminta nasihat daripada Penasihat British dan nasihat itu hendaklah dipatuhi dalam hal yang berkenaan.

Dato’ Onn menentang syarat perjanjian itu yang pada pendapat beliau apa yang disebut sebagai nasihat itu sebenarnya bukan nasihat dengan erti kata yang sebenarnya, tetapi perintah yang mesti dipatuhi. Beliau menganggap sistem Penasihat British itu sebagai daya utama penjajah hendak mengelirukan penduduk Negeri Johor supaya mempercayai dan meyakini bahawa yang memerintah negeri itu bukannya British tetapi Raja. Namun, pada amalan dan hakikatnya, pihak berkuasa koloniallah yang memerintah secara tidak langsung menerusi pegawai yang ditugaskan berkhidmat dengan Raja-raja Melayu.

Detik bersejarah 1948: Dato' Onn memperjuangkan agar hak orang Melayu terjamin dalam perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu
Detik bersejarah: Dato’ Onn – bergambar bersama para wartawan Utusan – memperjuangkan agar hak orang Melayu terjamin dalam perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948

Dato’ Onn sedar bahawa mengkritik sistem Penasihat British bererti beliau telah pula melibatkan diri dalam konfrontasi dengan pihak berkuasa kolonial atau penjajah, selain berkonfrontasi dengan rajanya sendiri kerana kepentingan rakyat umum atau tanah air. Sungguhpun demikian, dalam konfrontasi tiga jurusan itu, pihak penjajah dan Sultan telah bersatu menentang Dato’ Onn.

Tetapi sebagai seorang Bumiputera yang masih penuh dengan semangat kewatanan, beliau pernah melupakan perselisihan antaranya dengan Sultan Ibrahim apabila beliau mendapati bahawa kepentingan raja-raja dan tanah air mesti dibela supaya tidak terjejas atau rosak kerana mainan politik kolonial. Berbeza dengan kuasa penjajah yang lain, British lebih suka menjalankan pemerintahan di wilayah naungan atau tanah jajahan mereka menerusi alat negara tempatan, seperti menggunakan Raja-raja di India dan di Malaya atau ketua-ketua suku kaum Afrika.

Hussein_Onn
Penebus maruah Melayu

Apabila adanya anak negeri atau Bumiputera yang bergerak dalam bidang politik bagi membela nasib rakyat dan pergerakan itu tidak sealiran dengan kepentingan pihak berkuasa kolonial, anak negeri itu akan dicap sebagai orang yang ingin menentang atau menderhaka kepada rajanya.

Apa yang kerap mendukacitakan Dato’ Onn adalah sekiranya akibat sesuatu dasar yang dijalankan di Johor, pentadbiran negeri menjadi kucar kacir atau rakyat mengalami penderitaan, pihak British sentiasa berlepas tangan dan berpura-pura menyalahkan Sultan kerana kegagalan dasar atau sesuatu rancangan. Tetapi apabila sesuatu dasar atau rancangan berjaya mencapai basil yang diharap oleh rakyat, nama dan kebijaksanaan pegawai pentadbir British, khususnya Penasihat British sahaja yang disebut-sebutkan.

Dengan amalan seperti itu, pihak berkuasa kolonial British, sama ada di India atau di Malaya berjaya menanam bibit kesangsian rakyat tempatan terhadap kebolehan atau kecekapan pentadbir atau pegawai sendiri. Sungguhpun penjajahan telah lenyap dari bumi Malaya atau Malaysia, tetapi penyakit “kurang percaya” kepada kebolehan, kecekapan dan kebijaksanaan pemimpin atau pegawai tempatan masih wujud.

OnnJaafarUmur7tahun
Keturunan bangsawan: Dato’ Onn semasa berusia 7 tahun bersama ayah (bersongkok) & ibunya (yang cantik mirip Aung San Suu Kyi). Di depan ialah isteri-isteri Sultan Ibrahim & putera-putera mereka. Wanita Inggeris ialah guru bahasa kepada putera-putera tersebut

Dato’ Onn adalah salah seorang anak Melayu yang mula-mula tampil ke muka dan mengkritik dasar kolonial dan kelakuan rajanya sendiri dengan berani, berterus-terang lagi cekap. Kebanyakan sengketa antara beliau dengan Sultan Ibrahim berpunca daripada sikap Baginda membiarkan dirinya menjadi alat penjajah yang menjalankan dasar menekan orang Melayu. Tetapi ada juga antara sengketa Onn-Ibrahim berkisar di sekitar perkara peribadinya. Beliau tidak dapat menerima perbuatan British memaksa raja-raja agar meminta dan kemudiannya menguatkuasakan nasihat Penasihat British. Nasihat itu tidak boleh lagi dikatakan nasihat, jika yang memintanya mesti mematuhinya.

Semasa Dato’ Onn menyandang jawatan Menteri Besar [1947-1950], beliau tidak pernah menjadikan amalan meminta nasihat daripada Penasihat British mengenai setiap perkara yang ditadbirkannya, seperti yang dilakukan oleh semua Menteri Besar Johor terdahulu. Beliau sendiri membuat keputusan mengenai perkara yang dalam pentadbirannya dan beliau merujuk keputusan yang dibuatnya itu kepada Penasihat British hanya untuk pengetahuan pegawai itu sahaja.

Sebelum 1946, tidak ada Menteri Besar atau pegawai yang bertanggungjawab seperti itu dan berani membuat sebarang keputusan mengenai pentadbiran negeri tanpa terlebih dahulu menghubungi Penasihat British untuk mendapatkan “nasihat” dan persetujuannya. Memang telah menjadi amalan di Negeri Johor pada masa lalu bagi Menteri Besar menyampaikan Kertas Minit atau fail kepada G.A. (General Adviser) atau B.A. (British Adviser) untuk mendapatkan pengesahan:

B.A., May this be approved?

(Bolehkah ini diluluskan?).

G.A. atau B.A. kemudian memberikan fikiran dan ulasannya, dan keputusan itu diambil oleh Menteri Besar sebagai keputusannya sendiri. Kebanyakan minit-minit fail yang mundar mandir dari pejabat Menteri Besar ke pejabat G.A. atau B.A. bertanda Sulit atau Rahsia.

Dato’ Onn menamatkan sejarah amalan pentadbiran kolonial seperti itu. Sebagai Menteri Besar, beliau tidak pernah memberi peluang kepada B.A. membuat keputusan mengenai sesuatu perkara yang dirujukkan kepadanya, dan setelah sesuatu perkara itu diputuskan barulah sesuatu minit atau fail itu disampaikan kepada B.A. untuk pengetahuannya. Ini terbukti daripada minit dalam fail yang disampaikan dari pejabatnya ke pejabat B.A.:

B.A., this has been Approved. For your information only. Sd. Onn Ja’afar.

(1,049 patah perkataan)

Anda mungkin berminat membaca:

Amanat Dato’ Onn, Mac 1946, hayati lah

Author:

I have no Faceook or Twitter.

26 thoughts on “Secebis sejarah Onn Jaafar

  1. His noble heart and sound intelligence qualifies the man to lead his people in breaking the yoke of the chauvinists who would prevail over them.

  2. Saya ikuti tulisan di blog ini dengan penuh minat yang mempaparkan sejarah lampau Dato Onn Jaafar merupakan ikon yang tiada gandingan pada hari ini dan secara terus terang melahirkan isu dan tidak takut meyatakan sesuatu baik kepda kawan mahu pun lawan terutama menyentuh perkauman

    i.e saya tidak anti cina dan terus terang saya pro melayu dan tidak sanggup melihat bangsa saya ketewasan dibidang ekonomi politik dan social dipandang rasis. anak bangsa apa pun akan terasa terancam jika keadaan ini berbangkit lima puloh tahun lalu dan tidak mungkin lenyap selagi ada puak gergaji dua mata good and evil ways di tanah air tercinta ini

  3. Helen, One of the interesting facts about the early generation of Malay leaders in Malaysia were that they were English educated — not simply in education but culturally (tho think like an English, and to be a proper English gentleman).

    Is there any merit in the argument that the great Malay leaders of the independence era and immediately after it were better because they had proper all-rounded English education?

    Cheers
    Greg

    1. Najib Razak speaks the most impeccable Queen’s English among our current crop of politicians.

      1. Yes he speaks the language impeccably. The same can’t be said of those from the opposition though. Just look at the Lims. They speak the language like the staff of a seedy hotel. L o L !!!

    2. Greg,

      You are correct in your observation.

      In fact the same applies to most British colonies too not just Malaysia. For example Nehru and Jinna were more British then Indian/Pakistani. Jinna can hardly speak the local language (Urdu) at all and led a life (drinking alcohol & consuming non-halal food) that would have earned him the chop literally in today’s Pakistan.

      However I would disagree that they were better. TAR for example was a poor administrator and leader and led a morally questionable life style. His habits of drinking, gambling and womanising often left out of the feel-good bio produced by the current generation of Bangsa Malaysia fanboys and gals. [deleted]

  4. The same applies to Tun M the amusing of him he cited Anwar Ibrahim used bombastic English both studied locally and he had to look up for a dictionary

  5. Allahyarham Dato Onn Jaafar juga dipecat daripada UMNO Baru seperti Tunku, TAR, Hussein Onn, Anwar Ibrahim dll.

    Ahli No 1 UMNO Baru ialah Mamakutty a/l Kerala

    Jangan cuba kiatkan UMNO dahulu dgn UMNO sekarang. Jauh berbedza perjuangan mereka. Raja-raja pun dilenyapkan kuasa mereka semasa pemerintahan Mamakutty sebagai PM selama 23 tahun.

    Wawasan Dato Onn Jaafar untuk membuka keahlian UMNO kepada semua rakyat Malaya tidak disebut pun.

    Perkembangan politik terkini dengan negeri Sabah dan Sarawak ingin menerajui BN dalam masa akan datang mungkin menyebabkan kebijaksanaan politik Dato Onn Jaafar menjadi kenyataan.

    Tick Tock! Tick Tock! Politik semasa semakin berubah dan tidak dapat diramalkan.

    1. Aduhai. Kenapa hari ni begitu lewat ? Dah terlalu letih sebab kerja lebih kah ?

      1. I do not have a definitive answer, but I think they have a longer experience with democracy, and have learnt that institutions are more important than individuals i.e. to place their trust in good & competent institutions rather than good & competent individuals.

        1. I bet. So The Stolen Generation was the result of a ‘good & competent institutions’ or a ‘ good & competent individuals’?

          1. You have a good point there — as in the whites colonial settler mistreated the Aboriginals. In fact, it was not only the stolen generation, but since the white settlers arrived, they have committed untold atrocities against the Aboriginals.

            But here is the interesting fact — white people, through their institutions do realise their mistakes. The High Court has judged that Australia was not Terra Nullius (see the Mabo Case).

            See Paul Keating’s Redfern speech, the apology to the stolen generation by Kevin Rudd, the dismantling of white australia policy since the 1970s.

            There is still a long way to go for Australia, as well as other Western democracies. But by and large, they appear to have got something right in organising their societies.

            ps: One of my biggest surprise since I moved to Perth recently was to see so many Malaysian Muslims who have settled here (far more than in Canberra). Once I get to know them better, I’ll ask them why they have opted for Australia over Malaysia.

          2. On a side note — do you see any parallels to what the whites did to the aboriginals to what the Malaysian government has done to the Orang Asals?

            1. ‘do you see any parallels to what the whites did to the aboriginals to what the Malaysian government has done to the Orang Asals?’

              Nope. We have yet to have pendatang Whites as government of the day. That alone says a lot, I think. The Malaysian government are Orang Asals themselves although we may have significant Malaysian born keturunan pendatangs in the office.

              In fact our half-caste are made Prime Ministers. When will we ever see one in Australia, half-caste that is, made Prime Minister, Mr Lopez, do you know?

              Perhaps Australia wants to learn a thing or two from Malaysia and its highly diplomatic indigenous Orang Asals?

              Any plans to empower the indigenous like we did in Malaysia, or had the Australians already decided that the Stolen Generations and their youngs are prone to self destruct?

              ‘There is still a long way to go for Australia, as well as other Western democracies. But by and large, they appear to have got something right in organising their societies.’

              They Orang Asals government in Malaysia had been made merdeka in 57′, perhaps if the Western powers, would leave us alone and stop meddling into our affairs so much (Mr Lopez, I seriously hope you don’t play dumb on me, over this), we will fare better, like we have always been. i.e Kedah Tua, Sri Vijaya, Kesultanan Melaka.

              ‘my biggest surprise since I moved to Perth recently was to see so many Malaysian Muslims who have settled here’

              Malays are never foreign to Australia. Just ask the Cocos Malays about it. And lend them your ear as well on how the Whites are discriminating the local Malays over pendatang Whites for jobs.

                1. We have different points of departure in our analysis unfortunately, i.e. there is a difference between orang asal and orang Melayu (or Bugis, Javanese, Acheh, etc.) factually. Hence it is unlikely that we could come to an agreement.

                  Nevertheless, you have very interesting views, that I believe are representative of some Malays, and it must be discussed.

                  As for a non-white becoming Prime Minister of Australia. That is an excellent question. It is projected that people of Asian heritage would be the majority in Australia within the next 50 years or so. I am sure with that, changes will occur. Both Canada and New Zealand already have non-whites as heads of state, so having a non-white leader in Australia should not be a big issue in about 50 years.

                  To return to the original question — whether having good institutions is more important than having good leaders — I would say yes.

                  Whether Australia has better institutions than Malaysia — I would think so too. But then, its just my opinion.

                  1. “Whether Australia has better institutions than Malaysia- I would think so too.”

                    Hard to say! That’s the impression I got when I read a book recently written by two brothers who are migrants in Oz for the past decade.

                    Whatever the flaws M’sia have, me thinks this country is still a very comfortable place to live on earth. Malaysia has been consistently ranked as top 10 best places to retire in the world (look at Forbes, Huffington Post, International Living rankings), whoa!

                    1. Yes, personal opinions do differ.

                      In my first question — on whether “English education” and “English character” made Dato Onn what he was, there were no agreement.

                      In my follow-up response — on the importance of individuals or institutions — also differing opinions.

                      Hence the need for a framework for analysis.

                      http://whynationsfail.com/
                      http://economics.mit.edu/faculty/acemoglu

                      I was broadly support this approach of analysis (although not dogmatically as I recognise that any issue can be looked at from differing angles).

                      I am unsure of the causation though as this point in time (do good institutions create good individuals or do good individuals) All religions at some point in their histories have created really horrifying institutions, and have committed untold atrocities. Some continue to do so.

                      It was individual rights (human rights), social democracies and social democratic governments (and not religions or feudal systems) that have liberated and allowed vast number of humans to progress.

                    2. ‘It was individual rights (human rights), social democracies and social democratic governments (and not religions or feudal systems) that have liberated and allowed vast number of humans to progress.’

                      Its pretty obnoxious and stupid to think that one model fits all.

                      Is the western style democracy THE option for China? Are the Iraqis are better off now without Saddam Hussein? Syrians are not better off are they, ‘liberating’ themselves from Assad? Egalitarians too can be elitist, yes? So the Cuba model is bad or good for its citizen? What about the Venezuela model under the late Chavez, is it way better than his predecessors?

                      Traditionally the Malays are very feudalistic, yes. But we are not short of producing empires either. Kedah Tua, Srivijaya and Kesultanan Melayu Melaka are too name a few. The word ‘keRAJAan’ itself says it all. Raja is the centre of having a government and this has been embedded since pre-Islamic times.

                      ‘Milner (1982: 31-2; 1995: 21-4) then concludes that the key to
                      understanding traditional Malay politics is the concept of kerajaan or, as he defines it, “the condition of having a raja.” Thus, the raja, rather than the negri, or the territory, was central to the very notion of the Malay political system. In Milner’s own words the ‘kerajaan’ is not a ‘State’ but: “the condition of having a Raja. The Raja, not the Malay race or the Islamic ummat (community) was the primary object of loyalty; he was the primary object of loyalty; he was central to every aspect of Malay life.” (1982: 31-2) Milner (1982: 94-5; 1995: 24) then suggests that the indispensability of a raja in Malay life and to the survival of a polity is expressed in Malay responses to a situation of “Raja-less”. In such cases of a kingdom without a raja it is equated with “utter confusion” (or in Malay referred to as‘ sangatlah huru-haranya’) and could lead to ultimate ‘anarchy’ (Milner 1982: 104, 109; 1995: 16-24). On the other hand, Milner (1995: 21, 24) considers that the success of kerajaan within a traditional Malay political entity in attaining population, power and wealth and preventing treason (derhaka) was in terms of its capacity to satisfy the requirements of nama, that is, to reputation, title or name on the part of its key subjects.’

                      Malays are extremely loyal too.

                      ‘A key factor in the survival of this royal line was the
                      loyalty of its subjects. While they might be willing to dethrone an individual sultan or to support the challenge of a pretender who claimed royal descent, they did not question the right of the royal house to rule over them. The 1771 revolt against the Sultan, by elements within his family and Bugis mercenaries from Selangor, is reported to have failed simply because people remained loyal and continued to be the ruler’s“friend”, (see SSR 35, 25th June 1772, Monckton to Ft St George). Similarly, in 1831, in recapturing Kedah from the Siamese, a number of Malay refugees at Province Wellesley justified their return to Kedah (hence avoiding ‘punishment’ by the British) saying that they were simply “following our king in his return to our country”(SSR F5, 1831: 240-2, Letter from the Malay rakyat to the Governor of Penang).6

                      Kedah: the foundations and durability of Malay kingship
                      Maziar Mozaffari-Falarti BA; MA (International Relations)
                      Humanities Research Program, Queensland Univeristy of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

                      Click to access kedahkingship.pdf

                      But never blindly loyals to say the least.

                      We had Jebat Mengamok. Sultan Mahmud mangkat dijulang. Malays bangkit menentang the Malay Union, once supported by the Raja-Raja. Mahathir reducing kuasa Raja-Raja. And only recently, Utusan Malaysia ‘derhaka’ kepada Sultan Johor. Thus Raja Adil Raja Disembah, Raja Zalim, Raja Disanggah, but it doesn’t mean that we are dismantling the kesultanan anytime soon as Raja dan Rakyat, berpisah tiada.

                      We kept redefine the relationship, as we seems fit. The agility, (knowing when to push and when to pull, subscribe by both the Rajas and the Rakyats) perhaps, what makes the kesultanan survives till today to the envy of many.

                  2. ‘We have different points of departure in our analysis unfortunately’

                    Understandably. You being the outsider, looking in. Me, the living and breathing, subject matter in your study.

                    ‘there is a difference between orang asal and orang Melayu (or Bugis, Javanese, Acheh, etc.) factually.’

                    Well, perhaps academics like you would like to enlighten me about it.

                    Can you specify, factually of course, with citations preferably, who are those you term as the Orang Asal as oppose to Orang Melayu?

                    It would be great too, if you could cite, Orang Asli, Orang Laut, Orang Sungai, Orang Darat too, while you are at it?

                    ‘Hence it is unlikely that we could come to an agreement.’

                    Well, you can always try and state your case. I don’t expect academics like you to be given up so fast, for the salary and lifestyles the Australians are paying you, don’t you?

                    ‘As for a non-white becoming Prime Minister of Australia. That is an excellent question. It is projected that people of Asian heritage would be the majority in Australia within the next 50 years or so.’

                    I was actually talking about the half-castes, like our past Prime Ministers. Any plan getting the aboriginal, albeit, half-caste, if its too much for the asking, as a Prime Minister, perhaps as a gesture for closure? I don’t think the Queen would mind, do you?

                    ‘To return to the original question — whether having good institutions is more important than having good leaders — I would say yes.’

                    The Malays had glorious history of having both. We are traditionally very structured, highly institutionalized society.

                    Frank Swettenham had commented on Kedah (I was born in Kedah and can trace my lineages to the Ku’s of Kedah, thus the special interest)

                    “was more advanced in its institutions in the observance of order, the well-being of its people, and in the general development of the country, than any other state in the Peninsula” (Swettenham 1906: 311)

                    That’s feudalistic to you. But nothing of the European kinds. It’s pretty symbiotic in nature. Otherwise why do you think, the Kedahans are so loyal to their Sultans.

                    ‘Indeed since the time the ex-Sultan fled to Penang in 1821and during the subsequent revolts and uprisings of 1823-4, 1828-9, 1831-2 and 1838-9 Kedah refugees had always stood by their ruler and never deserted him in his unequivocal determination to return there (Anderson 1824; Gullin & Zehnder 1905: 43; Wheatly 1961: 388;Newbold 1971 II:13-14, 19; Milner 1979/1980:1-15; Osborn1987).’

                    Didn’t you, Mr. Lopez, get to study the pre-Islamics and Islamics ‘Malay world’?

                    But of course we are not left alone to chart our own courses, but succumbs to the brutality of the Europeans who comes to loot and maimed us, for hundreds or years. Any closure from the EU, soon, Mr Lopez? Perhaps some monetary damages, the like of what the Zionists are getting for the ‘6 millions Jews killed’?

                    So you see Mr Lopez, why I have a problem, whenever Europeans or their half-castes tell us that they wanted to help us build better nation?

                    ‘Whether Australia has better institutions than Malaysia — I would think so too.’

                    Its great to note that you don’t wish to bite the hand that feeds you. I’m sure the lifestyle and the Australian dreams are too great to pass!

                    ‘But then, its just my opinion.’

                    I’m glad.

    1. Life is a conglomeration of external and internal factors and influences interacting within the matrix of the individual’s body, mind and soul.

  6. Dandy makang suap tertiary education bermula mungkin zaman Khir Johari dia mudah lupa Dr. Mahatir pun senasib mereka tuah merelesasikan keadaan sebaliknya

Comments are closed.