Posted in Agama

They want to ubah E-V-E-R-Y thing … but be careful, jangan sampai rentung

Malay Mail assistant news editor, Boo Su-lyn, is unhappy that bahasa Melayu as our national language is – according to her – making the country seem more ‘Tanah Melayu’ than Malaysia.

She wrote in her Sept 25 column headlined ‘Hapuskan SJKC? Introduce English-medium schools first‘:

“[Bahasa kebangsaan/Melayu] has divided us. It entrenches the Malay identity instead of making us feel more ‘Malaysian.’

“Amid the constant refrain for Malay rights, Malay as the national language makes the country seem more ‘Tanah Melayu’ than Malaysia.”

Ms Boo insisted we should “use English instead of Malay as the medium of instruction at national schools”.

She also asked, “why do we need a national language in the first place?” and alleged that BM “has failed miserably” in its purpose as a national language to unite Malaysians.

Hannah Yeoh Ugly Pendatang

They’re asking why we need to restrict Christian proselytization

Earlier Boo had courted controversy and police reports when she advocated that Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution be abolished.

11(4)  State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons
professing the religion of Islam.

See ‘Malay Mail Online tarik balik artikel hina Islam‘ (Ismaweb, 7 Oct 2015)

Boo’s Oct 2 column (below) has since been taken down by the Malay Mail.

Nonetheless a web cache of it can be accessed @

Abolish Article 11 4


Her Oct 7 Facebook entry seems to have been withdrawn as well but a screenshot of it (see below) was taken by Muafakat sec-gen A. Karim Omar for his blog article the same day — ‘Jahatnya Boo Su-Lyn dan Malay Mail Online ke atas Islam‘.

Of her paper’s “apology and retraction”, Boo had responded with the nonchalant remark, “Make of it what you will”.

BELOW: Infographic by Karim Omar


Wanna burn everything to ashes?

Ben Yaacob made the following criticism, “Boo Su-Lyn bukan hanya bermain dengan api. Dia telah cuba menghasut sehingga perkara-perkara mengenai Islam di dalam Perlembagaan menjadi hapus rentung.”

See ‘Padam api dengan air liur menteri‘ (, 5 Oct 2015)

According to Ismaweb, Boo had also asked for Article 10(4) – which relates to sensitive topics protected from public challenge – to be abolished.

Article 10(4) reads,

“In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a) of Clause (2), parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any  matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III,  Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof  as may be specified in such law.”

Asking to do away with the protective and prescriptive Articles is tantamount to knocking at the foundation of what makes Malaysia a Muslim country.

It needs to be understood that Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, i.e. “Islam is the religion of the Federation”, means we are a Muslim country.

A number of “secular”-minded opposition supporters appear to have a problem with this.


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

33 thoughts on “They want to ubah E-V-E-R-Y thing … but be careful, jangan sampai rentung

  1. Proselytizing can sour relationships. We need to accept and respect the religion of others and not shove our beliefs down their throats.

    Generally talking about religion can make bad conversations because you just don’t know how people might get offended.

  2. All people have suffered the chauvinism of radical politics in the name of Islam. But some of the people should not make profit from this social disease by insisting Allah is other than His Oneness and All-Encompassing Mercy.

  3. Dear Aunty Helen,

    Boo Su-Lyn should be ashamed of herself. I have no idea what is protecting her that she is so free to go on spewing hatred and making dangerous statements violating the Sedition Act.

    I wrote about her Malay Mail article here.

    re: “[Bahasa kebangsaan/Melayu] has divided us. It entrenches the Malay identity instead of making us feel more ‘Malaysian.’ Amid the constant refrain for Malay rights, Malay as the national language makes the country seem more ‘Tanah Melayu’ than Malaysia.”

    Questioning the Article 152 and 153 is against the section 3 (1) (f) of the Sedition Act.

    Or is this done to divert of the attention of the people from the case of Nurul-Kiram meeting?

    1. I am proud of boo, nothing ashamed abt her. she use her brain to think n state her view, u boy otoh just follow what others tell u. what a waste of talent, u forever r just a … boy.

      1. HY ashamed of yourself, can’t get enough of bullying a respectable senior citizen, he gets his dirty hand tries to bully a prolific minor. HY stop being so delusional and Malaysia will be in better place!

      2. you should be ashamed of yourself. you and boo can get the hell out if not happy with the constitution? use her brain you said? then she should know that amending constitution is impossible at the moment since both sides have yet to secure 2/3 of the dewan rakyat seat. technical thing also fail and yet you see her as some kind of intellectual. you two are losers!

        1. My friend,

          nowadays anyone can be an intellectual. There is just one prerequite. Just be controversial, like that Ms Boo.

          Then again, the word controversial can mean different things to different people. In the case of Ms Boo, she deliberately picked a fight with the majority racial/religious group. As for HY, the man has the propensity to make a fool of himself. Just read his past comments, or in your word, be a loser.

          The word ‘shame’ obviously is absent from HY’s vocabulary. Ah such a person………..what’s that ?

  4. Helen Ang,

    I would nevet quarrel with anybody who wish to change any part of the constitution, say about Malay Rights or about Islam.

    The constitution is man made and not caste in stone. It needs more than 2/3 majority to amend, preclude or include any element in the constitution.

    So my best advise to any evangelist is to procreate themselves now like rabbit mice or pigs and maybe 30 yrs down the may populate this country to the tune of more than 2/3!

    Heck who knows BM could be banned, no more loud azan speakers and a a Yellow Rajah could be the head of state of Penang Melaka Sarawak and Sabah!

    This is all about democracy ain’t it?

    1. if i am nor incorrect, there are some articles cannot be amended or repealed even 222 federal legislators agreed.

      1. Dear kampong lad,
        In a talk I attended, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz said that in reference to Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution, the consent from the Conference of Rulers is needed to repeal certain important Articles of the Federal Constitution.
        Article 159 (5) says:
        A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71, Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.
        And I guess Article 37 gives the right to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to protect Islam. You may also refer to Article 76. Some people want to change certain part of the Federal Constitution just for their own interest without caring about the implications to the whole Constitution. I like studying the Federal Constitution.

            1. yes nothing can last forever. even kings, country, constitution or groups. but you would be crazy to think that we would give anything to evangelistas on a silver platter.

        1. Ahmadalikarim,

          Article 153 is beyond the purview of Parliament. It requires the consent of Majlis Raja Raja.

          Yang Dipertuan Agung is “enpowered” to protect Islam AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF OTHER COMMUNITIES TOO. The Constitution takes a middle path. While it recognises tradition, history and generosity of Raja Raja Melayu and Malays to open up the citizenships to non Malays, it too extends protections to non Malays.

          Many non Malay politicians for their selfish gain purposely do not tell the non Malays that all,the articles on Malays ARE ACTUALLY incorporated in return to Malay Rulers consent to grant more than 1 million citizenships within a very short span of time, thus changing the status of Tanah Melayu from being exclusively Malays to multiracial.

          ON THE OTHER HAND, Malays falsely believe their positions are secured as the abolition of Article 153 requires the consent of Malay rulers. What the Malays overlook is that the position of Malay rulers are secured only because the political power is in hand of Malays. Once the political power is gone(meaning the toppling of UMNO), the monarchy system is the first to go.

          Raja Raja melayu are still here simply because those who cherish the institution are in power. I am not so sure about Pakatan rakyat (or is it Pakatan Harapan) . As DAP leads the Pakatan, it may not be sympathetic to the monarchy system . The system simply reminds the world on the Malay governance of the olden days.

          APTLY said in one museum that looks like a ship in Melaka, “once the political power is gone, everything else are too gone”.

          1. Dear Uncle Shamshul,
            Yes, we cannot take things for granted. It seems that there are people who are trying to turn Malaysia into a republic and it is sad that many people cannot see that coming.
            Uncle Naser Disa said that some other ways that the haters of our Federal Constitution are doing is to use estop on certain Articles. The best example is the Article 3(1). Claiming that, “Islam is the OFFICIAL religion of the Federation” and not “Islam is the religion of the Federation” can one day estop Islam from being the religion of the Federation and Islam will only be the official religion.
            re: “once the political power is gone, everything else are too gone”
            Wise words. Thanks, uncle.

          2. 1. are you saying that umno baru is the protector of rulers, betoi ka ni?
            2. bolehkah institusi raja2 melayu dimansuh?

            1. Dear kampong lad,

              1. The current government uphold the Federal Constitution while the oppositions are not happy with Article 3(1), 11(4), 10(4), 37(1), 152, 153, 159 and lots of others that protect Islam, the Malays and the Rulers.

              2. It happened in other countries but I hope that Malaysians will uphold the Federal Constitution and vote wisely in general elections. As Aunty Prof. Shamrahayu Abdul Aziz said, the royal institution is very important because it is the key to the stability of our country.

              1. Dear kid,

                It is the current government/ruling party that amended the FedCon for circa. 600 times. If the FedCon is really so sacred, can it be amended so many times easily. Please don’t forget that it was the current government/ruling party that diminished the powers of the Malay royalty significantly in 2 ways, i.e. remove the royal immunity and the power to assent bills/laws.

                1. You sound very articulate but………..I have only one question for you. How much is the opposition paying you really ? I m not insulting you. I m just curious.

                  1. Dear Spectre,

                    No one paid me.

                    I also have a question for you.

                    Care to rebut my points vis-a-vis ahmadalikarim’s Point No. 1 irrespective of you being paid (either by BN or oppo) or unpaid?

                2. Dengan izin …

                  re: “circa. 600 times. If the FedCon is really so sacred, can it be amended so many times easily”

                  When Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore merged/joined Malaya, the Constitution was amended to reflect changes in the Federation. When Singapore left/was expelled, again there were updating amendments.

                  A lot of the amendments were minor or technical and overlapping (i.e. several at one go in order to streamline) when related Acts were amended.

                  Some dealt with dates/terms of expiry and quantum in order to keep up with the times, e.g. amount/sum of “federal capitation grants to the States”, the number of High Court judges, etc.

                  “there was the peculiar amendment in 2007, simply to increase the retirement age of the Election Commission chairman from 65 to 66!” See,

                  However those pertaining to basic structure – say Article 3 – is almost impossible to touch. The fundamental amendments are nowhere near the 600 figure you quoted.

                  1. What about “remove the royal immunity and the power to assent bills/laws”? Are these fundamental to you?

                    1. I support Baru Bian’s suggestion. Due recognition must be given. If sincere, don’t stop at cabinet policy level. Escalate higher to Fed Con and Sarawak State Consti. Otherwise, the fiasco of “10 point solution” will happen again as it has no legal force.

  5. The sensitivity excuse is clearly over invoked.

    It has perhaps replaced rationality, compassion and understanding.

    When someone refuse any discourse (religious or political) in the name of sensitivity, it just meant one does not allow themselves to open up to opposing views. Or worse, refuse to acknowledge truths outside their own predefined or state sanctioned narratives.

    The grievances of those who are pro ‘sensitive’ discourse is not the question of winning or losing the rhetorics, rather, it is the fact their voices are silenced and merits discredited even before they are heard.

    ….Conveniently in the name of sensitivity of course.

    1. re: “It has perhaps replaced rationality, compassion and understanding.”

      All three attributes which the DAP evangelistas are sorely lacking.

  6. I have read through Su-Lyn’s original article and conclude that whilst she is offering possible solutions to a problem as if in a brianstorming session, she however does not take into account the amount of majority public acceptance of her proposals within the context of a democracy.

    In Malaysia, the majority who most probably don’t even read her commentary or the Malay Mail – print or online, will most probably not agree with her proposals, though many of her urban, middle-class, English-literate or even overseas-educated cohorts probably will over pricey lattes, and also the kind of people who read The Malay Mail, I suppose.

    Whilst I a very much fit the profile of the kind of person I described above and at one time would very much give a thumbs up to Su-Lyn but realised about 10 or so years ago that the majority of Malaysians do not see the world through the same lenses which I do, which is one of the reasons why the Barisan Nasional has been voted in again and again since Merdeka.

    Likewise, it’s the same in Singapore, where support for the opposition, especially the Worker’s Party is strong in certain areas such as Aljunied and Hougang where the Worker’s Party won, but the PAP won between around two-thirds to three-quarter of the vote in other constituencies, especially those with large working class and low-income voters.

    Just look at the figures for the 2015 Singapore General Elections on the Singapore Elections Department website.

    Also, an independent analysis of voter profiles in the previous Singapore GE found that the higher a voter’s education level, the higher their income, the higher their Internet connectivity and social media savviness the more likely he or she is to vote opposition, whilst those with up to Year 12 education (equivalent to high school or STPM) mainly tend to vote PAP.

    What the above figures and findings basically say is that the minority of voters at the upper end of the wealth, education and tech-savviness pyramid are more likely to vote opposition, whilst those lower down that pyramid are more likely to vote PAP.

    Thus it is rather ironic that the Worker’s Party gets the votes of relatively privileged voters, most of whom are not members of the working class, whilst the workers whom the Worker’s Party purports to fight for, instead tend to vote for the PAP.

    Likewise, try comparing the kinds of people who are caught up with the ongoing 1MDB controversy with those concerned with the rising cost of living, the economic impact of the GST on living standards and business and the negative consequences of the TPPA on Malaysians, and I’m pretty sure you will discover a similar profile.

    Both veterans of their respective country’s fight for independence, both UMNO and the PAP are masters of the populist political game.

    However, masterfully playing the populist game is something which seems to be lost on “PAP Malaysia” a.k.a. the DAP, the PKR, perhaps on PAN and PAS as well, and also many urban, middle-class members of pro-opposition NGOs.

    Like the BN (or more particularly UMNO) in Malaysia, the PAP has been voted in again and again since Singapore’s independence.

    Well, those latte-sipping talking heads and members of the chattering class should descend from their ivory towers, come down to ground level and acquaint themselves with the real-politic of Malaysia.

    1. Being a member of Dumbno or member of the ‘village idiots’ or kampong/ulu citizen who regularly voted for the BeeEnd as the government for the past 40+ years, I’m happy and thankful for the information you just dispensed IT.Scheiss.

      At least you were honest in profiling yourself and yet take the trouble to find facts and understand how the lower down or base of the pyramid think.

      Those Bangsarites type were just like us the Kashtriyas and Dalits. Though they think highly of themselves, they still were just followers. They blindly play the game of follow thy leaders without knowing where they were being led or is it just an ideal they were going after. More like lemmings following those in the front toward the high ground and they might fall into oblivion!

      To make the comment short, I think the Kashtriyas and Dalits were better informed and can think practically better than the Bangsarites type.

    2. the so called populist political game is merely playing the race card, whats so great abt this? n what make u think we dun know what the ground is thinking? perhaps it is not something we wish to follow?

      i believe the elite class support pap, unless he/she is at the age group between 20 to 30. i rarely meet a middle to upper class friend n colleague in spore that support opposition.

      1. ‘ i rarely meet a middle to upper class friend n colleague in spore that support opposition.’

        HY, maybe because you in particular don’t have that many to begin with, kan?!

Comments are closed.