I’m sorry, but this sounds like damage control, especially the part about “animal safety”. It’s akin to “blaming the victim”.

What complicated matters is that many residents were allowed to join the operation. When such a crowd goes round a housing area hunting dogs, some overzealous men can turn an orderly operation into an angry mob. How could MBDK control the crowd?

Some were enraged, claiming Rocky had bitten somebody. But the lady owner avowed that her pet had never bitten anyone before.

“We raised him since he was small and he was part of our family. He didn't deserve to die like this,” she said.

A video of the incident shared by Charles shows the woman owner begging a shouting group of men to release Rocky. They clearly had more numbers and power than the lady.

Would she have dared to “act aggressively”, as claimed by MBDK? Is it more likely that she was simply desperate to save her beloved pet when trying to cut the noose?

Two-Malaysia divide

Conversely, many Malays point to dogs biting people. These have included attacks by fierce breeds such as Rottweilers and German Shepherds.

Although I love dogs, punishment is needed when pets injure others.

But it’s more fuzzy when stray dogs with no owners attack others. One side says that unlike fierce breeds, street canines usually don’t bite people - unless they are provoked.

The other side says all strays are dangerous and must be hunted down mercilessly. This encourages boys to throw rocks at dogs, as some deem them “binatang kotor” (unclean animals). But dogs can detect hatred and may react in self-defence.

Yet many other animals are deemed “unclean”, including carnivores with fangs (lions, what about cats?), birds with talons (eagles) and also reptiles (lizards, iguanas).

Yet they don’t evoke the same hatred as dogs. Is it because canines are bred by non-Malays?

And not all dogs bite; some just bark. But some people on motorbikes panic and end up crashing as a result.

This happened at Taman Teluk Gedung Indah in Port Klang, when a youth was allegedly chased by several dogs. He lost control of his bike at a road bump and then crashed.

He injured his head and went into a coma, but has since recovered. The photo of him on a hospital bed went viral and seemed to be the trigger that sparked the vengeful mob.

Somehow, this was twisted into claims that Rocky had bitten someone.

But running triggers a dog’s natural instinct to chase you. As a teen, I once tried to outrun a barking dog on my bicycle and then fell.

The dog caught up with me but didn’t bite - my bruises were caused by my own panic. I never repeated that mistake.

The correct response is to stop, get off the vehicle, then look calmly at any aggressive dogs -  with compassion if possible - and they will back down. That’s how I’ve dealt with growling street dogs around the world without any problems.

Apart from freaking out, perhaps the motorcyclist didn’t wear a helmet. Is that how he injured his head badly after falling? Dog haters may hurl abuse at me, but let’s be honest and objective about what probably happened.

Compassion in Islam?

It’s disturbing that the crowd was still aggressive even though the lady was on her knees, wailing and begging for Rocky’s life. Even if the dog had no licence, surely some compassion could have been shown?

Islam teaches kindness. Muslims say “Bismillah” every day, invoking the name of the Most Gracious and Most Merciful God. But no quarter was shown to Rocky.

Were people with a “ketuanan” mindset bullying an Indian lady? If the dog was owned by a Mat Salleh, would they have behaved the same way?

Selangor’s Tengku Permaisuri Norashikin expressed deep sadness and anger over recent incidents of cruelty towards pets and stray animals.

Amazingly, this was the fifth time Her Majesty had spoken up about local councils in Selangor mistreating dogs, including in Banting, Shah Alam, and now MBDK. Surely a “royal” body should have higher standards?

I see this as a failure of the Pakatan Harapan state government, which controls Selangor local councils. We need elections for them to ensure they listen more to residents.

They should do this last good deed before they lose the next elections to the BN-PAS Malay wave.

Sadly, the royal reminder didn’t stop Malays from hurling dog hatred online and even insults against Her Majesty.

One comment went – when it comes to the pets of “bangsa asing” (foreign races), everybody makes noise, but when our children are bitten, all are quiet. One abusive fellow wrote, “Pi mampus la, anjing dah gigit org (go and die, the dog bit someone)”.

Another netizen accused Her Majesty of “talking too much” because the “Chinese were upset”. Another joker slammed her as an elite “T20 person” who didn’t understand reality.

If non-Malays had said similar things, they would have been quickly traced and arrested for insulting royalty.

Several Malays blamed the Indian lady for the dog’s death. Others shifted the topic to drunk drivers, the Carlsberg factory in Shah Alam, and even the death of fire and rescue personnel Adib Kassim during a riot. Anything to justify their prejudice.

Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman posted on Facebook that the threat from a few dogs cannot be used to justify another injustice.

But abuse was hurled at him in response, including that his fiancée, Bella, should be bitten by a dog. He then removed his post.

A mob mentality of online bullying seems prevalent. Did the dog hunting “volunteers” in Port Klang have a similar mindset?

Is this sense of racial grievance and victimhood due to political fearmongering? And provocations by cyber troopers that the Malays are “under threat”?

Fair compromise solutions

Three probes into the Rocky killing by the police, Veterinary Services, and the Housing and Local Government Ministry have been announced.

Amid this heated racially-coloured debate, we need calm, clear heads to find fair, compromise solutions.

1) Responsible pet ownership means keeping dogs on a leash outside the house. Local councils should follow the humane trap-neuter-release approach of the Penang Island City Council (MBPP) to control strays.

Tengku Permaisuri Norashikin advocated this in 2024. It’s also done in the Muslim city of Istanbul. Yet Selangor local councils have ignored this. Why?

2) What about cats? I once had a neighbour with eight cats that kept invading my garden to deposit their stinking poop. Nobody compensated me for this nuisance and source of disease. 

The dog haters should ask if people can go around catching or poisoning cats? If not, why is cruelty against dogs allowed?

3) Education is crucial. Bukit Bendera MP Syerleena Abdul Rashid said Islam doesn’t support cruelty towards dogs, but instead calls for compassion.

The correct ways to deal with stray dogs, as mentioned earlier, should be spread online too.

4) Any dog catching operations must be limited to council officers, not “volunteers” who may become vigilantes. Offering money to catch strays, as done in Shah Alam in 2024, only encourages more cruelty.

Some may even catch licensed dogs for the money. High redemption fees to release captured dogs are a blatant attempt to tax dog lovers. It’s probably more useful to offer money to catch litterbugs, dirty eateries, and corrupt officials. 

Sadly, the killing of Rocky has become a racial issue and exposed how Malaysian society is “retak menanti belah” (cracked and waiting to be split open). We can’t go on this way.

Other Umno appointees were Ahmad Jazlan Yaakob (Felcra chairperson); Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki (Mara), and Noraini Ahmad (Risda).

However, it was the appointment of Nooryana Najwa Najib, daughter of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, to the board of the Matrade that drew the most attention and indicated Umno’s grip on Anwar.

From reform pledge to political patronage

This trend continued, and the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) flagged 238 political appointments to federal statutory bodies (FSB) and GLCs under Anwar’s administration.

In its report, titled “Who Sits at the Table: From Political to Public Appointees in Malaysia’s Federal Statutory Bodies”, released in March, the think tank found that 222 political appointments were made to FSBs, while another 16 were to GLCs.

“The appointments, made between August and October 2025, revealed that while Harapan parties largely - though not entirely - honoured the pledge, BN, particularly Umno, flouted it, resulting in a flood of its members into plum positions.”

Did Anwar break his promise? When asked about the appointments in late 2022, he reportedly quipped that the public can expect some political appointments to be made in GLCs, dismissing suggestions that he is outright against the idea.

“I never said that individuals involved in politics cannot be part of (GLC) management. However, they should be bound by certain conditions and have the required qualifications in the relevant fields.

“There is a possibility that several political figures or MPs will be assigned (to GLCs), but we will set the guidelines on the required level of an individual’s professional ability, his past performance, and compliance with the rules of governance.”

Changing stance

But by May last year, he appeared to shift his position.

A Malay Mail report cited Anwar during his winding-up speech at the PKR national congress, where he said appointments are a “reward” that individuals deserve for their service and contributions to the success of the political party that eventually forms the government.

The immediate retort came from Ideas: “This narrative sends a dangerous message that public roles can be handed out like political souvenirs, rather than earned through merit and competence.”

The royal commission of inquiry report on the mismanagement of Tabung Haji was explicit – apportioning blame, among others, to politicians who sat on the boards of the organisation and subsidiaries.

Political involvement in its management, which extended to after the change of government from BN to Harapan in 2018, undermined the institution’s credibility and influenced key financial decisions, the report noted.

This exposed the pilgrimage fund’s decisions to political criticism and ultimately damaged public confidence in the institution, the report read.

The inquiry found that political considerations influenced major financial decisions, including the rate of profit distribution, or hibah, haj payments, and the provision of haj financial support.

A passive director

In response, former Tabung Haji chairperson Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim maintained that he had no absolute authority over the pilgrimage fund’s management, saying he only played a non-executive role during his 2013-2018 tenure.

Azeez stressed that he was not involved in the fund’s daily operations or investment decisions, explaining that all proposals were vetted by Tabung Haji’s management before being served to the board.

According to the former Baling MP, the board met once a month to deliberate on papers that covered investment proposals, governance matters, bonus and hibah payments, as well as other administrative issues.

“I had no authority to sign cheques or ask people what they were doing. No, no. Everything would only be reported to the board every month,” Azeez added.

But the Companies Commission states that a director must exercise reasonable care and skill expected of a person of his experience and be diligent in managing the company's affairs.

“Thus, there is no such thing as a passive director. A director who is passive by not being involved in the company’s management may have breached his duty of care, skill, and diligence.

“When evaluating significant deals, contracts, new hires, investors, and business partners, directors may rely on the advice or opinion of the board member, engage experts or professional consultants who are believed to be reliable and competent to provide information.”

So, Azeez’s assertions and excuses are indefensible. Is he admitting incompetency or a breach of the Companies Act by being ignorant of his statutory duties?

Test of Anwar’s reform credentials

Anwar came to power promising to dismantle the patronage system. Less than three years later, that promise lies in tatters. The revolving door of political appointees has swung wide open, ushering in Umno warlords and party loyalists who treat statutory bodies and GLCs as spoils of victory.

The Tabung Haji scandal is proof of what happens when politics infects governance: credibility collapses, financial decisions are warped, and public trust evaporates.

To describe appointments as “rewards” is to reduce public institutions into political spoils - a contradiction of the reformist agenda Anwar campaigned on and a dangerous precedent for Malaysia’s future.

The question now is whether Anwar is willing to confront this contradiction.

Will he review these appointments and follow the principle of merit-based governance, or will he allow Umno’s grip to tighten and let reform remain only a slogan?

If he fails to confront this rot, history may not remember him as the leader who promised change, but as the prime minister who allowed political expediency to overwhelm reform.

Malaysia deserves better than recycled patronage presented as governance.

All of this is not new. PSM has been doing this for some time now. Referring to the words of the retired PSM chief Nasir Hashim - “I was the chairperson of the Support Committee of Urban Pioneers. At that time we had more than 50 villagers in our committee. They were mostly Malays, except for one estate.

“We did not allow the authorities and developers to label them as squatters, for squatters have no rights in court. So we called them urban pioneers because for three generations they developed the land with a promise of permanent housing.

“We created havoc, and since then, they have been given compensation and alternate housing.”

PSM deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan wondered what PKR deputy president Nurul Izzah Anwar, who is the prime minister’s daughter and was once shocked by the state’s harassment of these folks, will do now.

We voted for this

Does it really matter? I mean, here we have PSM essentially fighting for not only the rights of the disenfranchised but also for the issue of food security for this country, while the prime minister gets his picture taken with a member of the plutocrat class.

Liow, who was granted a DNAA on his 26 money laundering charges involving RM36 million, getting his picture taken with Anwar is strange, of course.

I mean, if the prime minister were ignorant of who this person was, it would be even more queer.

Also, as far as optics go, a politician would normally attempt to gain some coverage by taking pictures with folks who were on the receiving end of injustice by the system. But here in Madani, everything is backwards.

Rational Malaysians have to wonder why Liow would wander into a Madani shindig after all the state has alleged about his activities and is embraced by the political class.

This is the kind of chutzpah that is only cultivated in Malaysia. This is about a system that a majority of Malaysians vote for and then complain and engage in culture wars over, which buries the class conflicts embedded in the system.

While mainstream political coalitions are busy finding easily identifiable “enemies”, PSM identifies systemic deficiencies and misguided policies that essentially encourage the working-class to vote against their long-term interests.

The sight of Jeyakumar, PSM committee member R Karthiges, its Perak Youth member P Kesavan, and a farmer identified as Ho Pon Tien being carted away by police in Tambun during an eviction of farmers and then released is a reminder of Harapan’s failure.

The progressive forces in this country, which were supposed to bring hope to a certain section of the public, have completely failed the people who voted for them.

Liow et all getting their acquittals and DNAA shines a spotlight on the nexus between class, political power, and alleged criminality.

Indifference

It says a lot about the shamelessness of political operatives in who they choose to be seen with, not to mention gives a fig leaf of respectability to those who would ordinarily be shunned by the right-thinking citizens.

What happened in Tambun, the prime minister’s own parliamentary constituency - the scuffles, the bloodied face, and the arrests - are, in reality, the culmination of bureaucratic and political indifference and not some sort of performance theatre.

It is disheartening to read about huge crowds collecting money and food for people who are suffering injustice in another part of the world while looking at the photos of hardworking people who are toiling the land for our benefit but are marginalised by the supposedly reform-minded forces in this country.

These families have a history of doing the hard, often thankless jobs of working on farms and, let us be honest, far from the democratic and societal norms that privilege a certain class of urban people.

What PSM was doing was not only shining a spotlight on the system’s inequalities but also highlighting an integral part of Malaysian life, far from the bourgeois politics of the urban enclaves.

The prime minister knows exactly how to play the class card. Attempting to raise populist sentiment, he once called out the fat cat Malay plutocrat class, who claimed to have the best interests of the Malay polity at heart but in reality merely exploited them.

Anwar also said the quiet part out loud when he said, “I want to tell the leaders with the titles of ‘Tun’ and ‘Tan Sri’ who are rich - if you really want to save Malays, give them half of your billions in profits tomorrow.”

It is talk like this which frightens the more intelligent members of the religious extremist coalition going up against this coalition government.

If you look at Malay operatives from PSM, their class struggle rhetoric often highlights the socialistic underpinnings of their religion. That is why the state strictly controls religious narratives.

Ultimately, the existence of PSM and its failure to gain traction with the voting polity is an indictment not of the system but of a segment of the voting polity agitating for reform but content with the current paradigm.

The Malays, as we would recognise them, did not exist yet when that expansion began - they took shape much later, inside Island Southeast Asia itself, through contact, adaptation and the gradual formation of states.

So where exactly did that happen? Several of the earliest written sources point to the same answer: southeast Sumatra, not the Malay Peninsula.

Chinese records from the 7th century mention a kingdom called Mo-lo-yu, or Malayu, in the Jambi region.

Centuries later, the Javanese court poet Mpu Prapanca, in his book titled “Desawarnana”, also located Melayu in Sumatra. Writing in the early 16th century, the Portuguese apothecary Tomé Pires associated Tanah Melayu with an area near Palembang.

What is striking here is not just what these sources say, but who is saying it.

A Chinese court chronicler, a Javanese poet and a Portuguese apothecary had nothing in common - different centuries, different civilisations, different reasons for writing. Yet they all locate the same region as the birthplace of Melayu.

What modern historians say?

Modern historians back this up. Leonard Andaya has argued that “Malay” originally referred to communities in southeast Sumatra, only later expanding to cover other Malay-speaking populations.

OW Wolters went further, describing the southeastern coast of Sumatra as the heartland of the early Malay seafaring world.

When four independent traditions - separated by centuries and by civilisation - line up this closely with each other and with modern scholarship, that is not a coincidence worth dismissing.

This should not really be controversial if you think about it. Peoples migrate. They build new centres of power.

They turn unfamiliar land into the heartland of a civilisation that had not previously existed there. The English did not originate in London. The Turks did not first emerge in Anatolia.

Recognising southeast Sumatra as the Malays’ earliest home does not take anything away from what they went on to build on the peninsula.

If anything, it explains it.

How the peninsula became Tanah Melayu

For more than 2,000 years, the Straits of Malacca connected the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea - one of the busiest sea lanes on earth.

Rather than dividing Sumatra from the peninsula, the straits bound them together. Traders crossed back and forth. So did scholars, religious teachers and ruling families.

Alliances were made, trade networks grew, and cultural habits moved freely between both shores long before Malacca ever existed.

It was this constant traffic across the straits that eventually pulled the centre of gravity of Malay civilisation away from Sumatra and onto the peninsula.

The turning point came with the founding of the Malacca Sultanate around 1400. Its founder, Parameswara, was a prince from Palembang - in other words, from the old Sumatran heartland.

His crossing to the peninsula was not an isolated event; it was really just the most consequential instance of a movement that had been building for generations, as Malay rulers, traders and settlers kept crossing the straits in search of new opportunities.

Malacca had one enormous advantage: location. Ships from China, India, the Middle East and across the archipelago all converged there, turning it into more than a trading post – it became a hub of diplomacy, scholarship and religious exchange.

Malay became the language of regional trade. Islam embedded itself in the political and social life of the region. Malay ideas about kingship, law and court culture became the template that later sultanates across maritime Southeast Asia would copy.

It is fitting that Andaya calls Malacca the “standard-bearer” of Malay civilisation.

As Malacca’s influence grew, so did the meaning of the word “Melayu” itself. What had once described communities on the Sumatran coast gradually stretched to cover a much wider cultural and political identity.

By the early 1500s, the peninsula - not Sumatra - had become the centre of Malay political power, trade and culture.

That shift, not some original point of origin, is the real reason the peninsula came to be called Tanah Melayu.

What this means for Malay identity

This history also tells us something about what being “Malay” actually meant. Anthony Milner has made the point that “Malayness” was never just about bloodline.

Over centuries, it developed into something closer to a civilisational identity - built around language, Islam, loyalty to Malay rulers, and adherence to Malay custom.

Communities from Java, Minangkabau, the Bugis lands, Banjar and Aceh were gradually absorbed into this wider Malay world through assimilation.

Families of Arab, Indian and Chinese descent who adopted Islam, spoke Malay and lived by Malay custom were, in time, accepted as Malay too.

Malaysia’s Federal Constitution still reflects this. It defines a Malay by religion, language and custom - not by descent.

Why this matters?

Does any of this actually matter, beyond academic interest? I think it does – because our understanding of history should rest on evidence, not on inherited assumptions that nobody bothers to check.

Recognising southeast Sumatra as the Malays’ earliest home does not undermine the constitutional position of Malays today, nor does it diminish the peninsula’s central role in Malay history, or the achievements of the Malay sultanates and rulers.

Those belong to a different – later - chapter of the story, and there is no need to conflate the two.

If anything, the historical record makes the Malay story more impressive, not less. Starting from southeast Sumatra, the Malays built a civilisation whose reach went far beyond its original borders.

Their language became the lingua franca of maritime Southeast Asia. Their political traditions shaped one sultanate after another. Their literary, legal and cultural legacy is still felt across the region today.

History rarely stays still. It is not about fixed homelands or unchanging identities - it is about movement, adaptation and renewal. The Malays are a good example of exactly that.

Conclusion

So, was the Malay Peninsula the ancestral homeland of the Malays? The evidence does not really support that claim.

---

READ MORE: COMMENT | History, homeland, and who belongs in Malaysia

---

The earliest surviving written references to “Melayu”, together with the conclusions of leading historians, point instead to southeast Sumatra as the Malays’ original homeland.

It was only over the following centuries that the centre of Malay civilisation crossed the straits to the peninsula, where it eventually reached its fullest political, cultural and intellectual expression.

This is not just a technical correction. It is a reminder that peoples and civilisations rarely stay put in one place, frozen at one moment in time.

What makes the Malays remarkable is not a claim to some single, unbroken homeland - it is their ability to build, again and again, a civilisation that shaped the history of an entire region.

He must question management, challenge decisions, identify risks, and ensure that the board acts in the best interests of the institution.

According to the RCI, the Tabung Haji board approved accounting practices involving subjective asset valuations which strengthened the institution’s reported financial position. These figures were then used to justify hibah payments and bonuses which the commission found were not financially sustainable.

These were not minor operational decisions. They were governance decisions.

A chairperson cannot claim responsibility when things go well, but distance himself when questions arise. A chairperson is not appointed because he knows everything. He is appointed to make sure that important questions are asked.

Power without accountability

Malaysia has developed a disturbing culture, whereby those at the top enjoy the authority, status, and benefits of leadership.

However, when things go wrong, responsibility appears to disappear. Management made the decisions. The CEO handled operations. The board relied on reports. The minister relied on advice.

Everyone had a role, yet nobody is responsible.

This is Malaysia’s accountability discount. The higher the position, the easier it appears to simply claim: “I didn’t know.”

Unfortunately, Tabung Haji is not an isolated case. Malaysians have heard variations of the same explanation before.

Felda. 1MDB. MAS. The Scorpene controversy. The littoral combat ships scandal.

Different institutions. Different leaders. Different circumstances.

Yet the same refrain: “I wasn’t involved.” “It was management.” “The board approved it.” “Don't blame me.”

The facts of these cases are different and should be judged individually.

But the broader question remains: Why does Malaysia repeatedly fail to build institutions where responsibility follows authority?

The greatest failure is not merely that scandals happen. The greatest failure is that the lessons disappear afterwards.

More than money, a sacred trust

This is why Tabung Haji matters so deeply. It is not simply another government-linked institution. For millions of Malays and Muslims, Tabung Haji represents years of sacrifice and discipline.

Every ringgit deposited represents a dream - to fulfil one of the most important obligations in Islam.

Parents save for their children. Families put aside money for decades. Many ordinary Malaysians sacrifice other comforts because performing the haj is a lifelong aspiration.

The government was therefore entrusted with more than savings. It was entrusted with faith.

When confidence in Tabung Haji was shaken, many depositors withdrew their money. They were not reacting merely to accounting figures. They were reacting to a loss of trust.

Financial losses can be repaired. Broken trust is far harder to restore.

The Tabung Haji episode also raises a wider question about political appointments.

Why are politicians and politically connected individuals repeatedly appointed to institutions managing billions of ringgit?

A board should exist to challenge management, not simply endorse decisions placed before it. If directors do not independently question proposals, then governance becomes nothing more than a performance.

Public institutions do not need political decoration. They need professional guardians.

Structural change, not another inquiry

Malaysia does not need another RCI followed by another promise of reform. It needs structural change.

First, major public institutions should have transparent, merit-based appointments. Those managing billions of ringgit belonging to ordinary Malaysians should be selected for competence, independence, and governance experience, not political connections.

Second, RCI recommendations should not disappear into government files. Every report should trigger a formal parliamentary review, with the government required to explain what actions have been taken.

Third, those appointed to leadership positions must understand one simple principle: authority and responsibility must come together.

You cannot accept the title, influence, and benefits of leadership, then reject responsibility when failures occur.

The issue is no longer just Abdul Azeez. He represents a much larger problem.

Malaysia does not suffer from a shortage of inquiries or recommendations. It suffers from a shortage of reform and the political will to implement it.

Every government promises change when it is in opposition. Every government speaks of transparency, accountability, and meritocracy; but once in power, the temptation to preserve the same systems of patronage often proves too strong.

Real reform requires more than speeches. It requires leaders willing to change a system that may benefit those holding power.

Tabung Haji was entrusted with the hopes of millions of Muslims. Other scandals affected taxpayers, settlers, employees, and national security.

Different victims. Different institutions. Same governance failure.

Until Malaysia replaces political patronage with merit, and excuses with accountability, another scandal will come.

The institution will be different. The names will be different. But the words may sound familiar. “I didn’t know.”

Similarly, the contributions of Indians in the rubber industry are reduced to just two sentences in the same book.

Indian labourers also literally built roads, railways, bridges, ports, and government buildings all over Malaya.

The Public Works Department (PWD) was once dominated by Indian Malaysians, and that’s why the late MIC president S Samy Vellu served as the works minister.

Don’t forget that many labourers died from malaria while clearing the jungles for mines and rubber estates, and also from malnutrition and exploitation.

Dear Anwar, isn’t that the “sacrifice” that you spoke of at Fort Cornwallis?

Many towns were also built by Chinese and Indian traders. The new textbooks may deny this, but the hard evidence can still be seen in heritage shops.

How do Malay students visiting our old towns reconcile what they see with what they have “learned” in school?

I agree with Ranjit that Malays are the “tunjang” or backbone of this country. Nobody disputes that. But please lah, why resort to rewriting history to downplay the contribution of other races? That doesn’t exactly reflect self-confidence.

Sanusi covers failures with racism

Both Anwar and Sanusi made political speeches which lacked historical truth. The latter has repeatedly waded into racial issues, drawing criticism from his opponents and civil society groups, to divert from his own trainwrecks.

Kedah under PAS has failed to ensure adequate water supply while deforestation starves rivers during the dry season.

In the rainy season, devastating floods can happen, as seen in Yan in 2021.

The RM73 million Sungai Petani racing circuit lies abandoned while the RM1.3 billion race track cum resort project in Langkawi was allegedly given to a bankrupt.

The biggest blow was the withdrawal of Dubai investors from the RM40 billion Widad Langkasuka mixed development project

All these, plus the Kulim International Airport, were part of Sanusi’s “Greater Kedah” blueprint. However, they have all ended up a dud.

But Sanusi is a taichi master in avoiding blame by using racial rhetoric, including his latest Tanah Melayu comments.

---

ALSO READ: COMMENT | 'Malays only have Malaya' remark based on historical context

---

It was deemed too racist even by Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who told the Kedah MB not to come and mess up the election campaign in Negeri Sembilan.

He said Sanusi must respect Malaysia’s multiracial society and not touch on race, religion, and royalty during the Negeri Sembilan campaign.

Despite the barrage of criticism from Zahid and other BN leaders, the BN-Perikatan Nasional pact continues in the state.

This proves that even racism, which Umno itself admits has gone too far, will not derail the political cooperation.

Insulting Malay Nusantara heritage

The PAS leader has insulted not only Chinese and Indians but also trampled on the glorious regional heritage of the Malay Nusantara.

He seems to have deliberately ignored the fact that three sultans have Bugis ancestors from South Sulawesi and that the Minangkabau people of Negeri Sembilan came from western Sumatera.

Let’s not forget that the Malays of East Malaysia draw their heritage from the past Brunei empire that once controlled all of Sarawak and Sabah.

Sanusi also conveniently overlooked that many Pattani Malays from southern Thailand have opened tomyam shops all over the country!

If you go to the counter or kitchen, take a peek at the order chits, which are often written in Thai! Yet they speak a Malay dialect similar to Kelantanese.

Many Malays have Javanese roots, including Zahid and former Selangor menteri besar Khir Toyo. Malaysia has at least six places called Kampung Jawa in Selangor, Malacca, Kuantan, and Segamat in Johor.

In fact, there are so many Javanese in Ayer Hitam, Johor and Sekinchan, Selangor that the two Chinese politicians there - MCA president Wee Ka Siong and Selangor exco Ng Suee Lim - can speak some Javanese!

Even Parameswara, the founder of Malacca, was a refugee prince from Palembang, fleeing the ruins of the Srivijaya empire. The empire his successors founded later was on both the Malay Peninsula and Sumatera.

Dubious claims

There were also dubious claims about the “glorious” record of the warrior Mat Kilau in a jingoistic movie, which was also debunked by Ranjit.

He pointed out that the nobles involved were actually more interested in defending their own feudal privileges, as the British wanted to restrict slavery and take over tax collection.

So, why resort to false history to bolster racial pride? Well, fake modern histories about “defending” or “uplifting” Malays are also heard nowadays from the same political party that enabled the neo-feudal plunder of 1MDB, Tabung Haji, and Felda.

There seems to be a pattern here.

---

READ MORE: Najib's 1MDB plunder made Attila the Hun look like a choirboy – judge

---

And of course, Sanusi had claimed repeatedly that Penang should be returned to Kedah.

Bashing a Chinese-majority DAP-led state is a tried and tested tactic to distract Kedah Malays from the multiple failures of the PAS-led state government.

But he should be careful while playing games with history. What if Thailand reclaims Kedah, Kelantan, and Terengganu?

Can Brunei reclaim Sarawak? Can the Philippines claim Sabah?

Is Anwar better?

Sanusi is a serial rabble-rouser, but is Anwar any better? After all, he is a “great intellectual” who (supposedly) wrote “The Asian Renaissance” book.

Anwar spoke of decolonising the past at Fort Cornwallis but ignores the whitewashing, or rather brown-washing, of history to glorify one race and downplay others.

The system has been pushing a new “ketuanan” (supremacy) version of history, but Anwar seems oblivious.

Sadly, it’s no accident that the blood and sweat of Chinese and Indians in building this nation’s wealth are being erased from school textbooks - 17 of the 18 writers are from one ethnic group, noted Ranjit.

He lamented that our Indian past has also been covered up, even though many Malay words such as “syurga” (heaven), “neraka” (hell), “suka” (like), “duka” (sad), “raja” (king), “menteri” (minister) and even “agama” (religion), “bahasa” (language), and bumiputera all come from Sanskrit or Pali languages.

The words “kedai” (shop), “katil” (bed), “kapal” (ship) come from Tamil.

---

ALSO READ: COMMENT | Restoring the Hindu-Buddhist foundations of Malay civilisation

---

Heck, even the role of the most bumiputera of bumiputera, the Orang Asli, has been ignored, said Ranjit. Does this psychologically enable powerful elites to grab their land?

A dubious academic

The distortion of history is getting extreme, with an academic declaring that ancient Malays taught shipbuilding to Romans and flying kungfu to people in China.

She even claimed that the Prophet’s wife, Khadija, was Malay.

The rewriting of history seems to say: this country was built by one race, and that’s why we “deserve” to be the masters or “tuan”.

There are many smart Malays around who don’t need this false boost. Artificially inflated bubbles don’t help genuine Malay progress; they just mask failures.

Just look at Sanusi. Yes, build real self-confidence, not fake chest-thumping from half-truths.

Meanwhile, only genuine multiracial history can build real harmony and unity.

So, dear Anwar, please stop the disease of replacing white colonial masters’ history with that of new brown “tuan”.

At 79 this year, he is hardly the person to take the country to new heights. He had his chance and blew it.

Even if he wants to switch sides to the winning coalition/electoral pact, they may not want him, even if he has willingly or unwittingly handed the mantle to them on a platter by his inaction and inaptitude, losing support from all quarters.

PN, the dominant partner

Remember PAS’ main partner in the Perikatan Nasional coalition is now Hamzah Zainudin’s Parti Wawasan Negara.

In the BN/PN coalition or electoral pact, it will be PN which will be the dominant partner.

Umno-BN is not really the phoenix rising from the ashes, even if things go well in terms of the electoral pact with PAS-PN.

If nobody derails the train, it is almost inevitable that if they combined, PN and BN will be the ones asked to form the government.

Currently, PN controls 62 parliamentary seats (PAS 43, and Wawasan Negara, 19). Given their current strength, they could take the total in a new election to over 80.

If BN can take their number to over 40 from the 30 held, PN and BN are set to form the next government on their own.

In the current 222-seat Dewan Rakyat, 112 gives a majority.

Sabah and Sarawak will be induced to join the winning side, and they will be part of quite a solid pact, even a two-thirds majority. But a pact with no direction and strategy for the future.

PAS will lead the team of PN-BN as Bersatu remains totally sidelined, although it may give up the reins to someone in Umno or to the other major partner, Wawasan Negara, in the revitalised PN-BN electoral pact, for the prime minister’s position.

No Islamic law for all

It would not lead to Islamic law for everyone, which would require a two-thirds majority. There is a body of opinion that says even then, it will go against the basic doctrine of the Federal Constitution if it is done, opening legal challenges.

Even if it is put to parliamentary vote, the move to create an Islamic state for all is unlikely to succeed because Sabah and Sarawak will largely not support it.

The non-Muslim components of BN too will oppose it.

More frightening than an Islamic state is that the non-existent fight against corruption will descend into an open support for it to fund the various parties, cultivate breeds of businesspeople who support the government, and the ignorance of all public revelations of corruption and misgovernance.

It’s a continuation of the Madani government but only much worse, a descent into the downward spiral of Umno politics which has cost the country dearly over the decades.

Spawning rapacious behaviour

It will enrich the already rich, ignoring the plight of poor Malays and others, and spawn more rapacious behaviour exemplified by the 1MDB scandal, losing RM42 billion in loans stolen and perhaps over RM100 billion in opportunity costs.

---

READ MORE: Najib's 1MDB plunder made Attila the Hun look like a choirboy - judge

---

And even in the house arrest/pardon of one of the main perpetrators.

As corruption increases, expect racism to rise. The current crop of politicians still believe that racism will unite groups to support the more dangerous corruption that they will be pushing. Malaysians are no longer convinced of that rhetoric, though.

The unique Bersama

In the meantime, Bersama is the only party that is not playing racial politics among those considered to be in contention, if not now, then in the future.

But all they are likely to do in the immediate future is to get a few seats and maintain the fight for the long term.

At the 17th general election, five to seven years from now, they may make some headway, especially with the young, our hope for the future.

However, they will probably need another five years to make a real difference and have a shot at becoming the dominant party.

The problem that faces Malaysia now is one of poor leadership. It's true what they say about others being worse than Anwar. But unless there is some change, there is no impetus towards better leadership further out. Change forces new leaders to emerge.

A new set of longer-term younger leaders is our only hope for change in the future.

The current leadership espousing patronage politics, which implies continued corruption, has to go or be forced out over time.

After GE16, it's going to be more of the same with the probability of greater misgovernance.

Priorities for economic development and better living standards will be misplaced in favour of the narrow interests of a few. The future is foreboding indeed.

A silver lining

The only silver lining is that in the likely event that the new coalition leading the government misgoverns, there will be greater impetus for change then, and perhaps Bersama might become an acceptable alternative, although it may take GE18 before it can take over.

For most Malaysians, it means making the best of a bad situation now, doing what is possible within current constraints and taking any opportunities for change, passing the mantle to others who have proven that they can be better.

Some patches of light: a strong, well-diversified economy, relatively well-trained workforce, a nice place to live although deteriorating and largely good people whom politicians are trying their level best to make racist.

This seems like a good place to stop writing and prepare with equanimity and calm for the trouble and turmoil ahead and learn how to live with it until it passes, making little transformations along the way.

Malaysians already know full well what’s happening and what they are up against.

Furthermore, it gives the DAP’s political allies a convenient whipping boy when they want to burnish their race and religion credentials.

I do not think that anyone is seriously advocating for the DAP abandoning Harapan, but many are questioning DAP’s role in Madani.

DAP could still support Anwar but play no role in this Madani sham. Furthermore, Madani has demonstrated that it would throw DAP under the bus when it comes to Malay sensitivities.

DAP representatives have been vilified.

DAP representatives have had police reports made against them.

A DAP representative had his home firebombed.

DAP representatives have been reprimanded by the prime minister of their coalition.

DAP representatives have had to make retractions and apologies.

DAP representatives have been attacked by online mobs, who happen to also be the people who voted for them, and did you see DAP having a hissy fit and threatening to resign from all posts and abandoning Madani?

Have you seen Malay/Muslim coalition partners give genuine support when the DAP has come under these kinds of attacks?

Cost of staying in govt

For the sake of Madani, DAP placed a monetary value on Teoh Beng Hock’s murder. And let us not forget all the other malfeasances that DAP has turned a blind eye to in the name of nation building.

When “Thanos” was transferred, was this nation building?

When the state does not investigate certain cases, is this nation building?

When the state claims there is not enough evidence to prosecute religious provocateurs, is this nation building?

When the police refuse to act on the kidnapping of M Indira Gandhi’s child, the spirit of Teoh is present. When Raymond Koh, Amri Che Mat, Pamela Ling, and others are subject to enforced disappearance, is this nation building?

Or maybe something like the Urban Renewal Act (URA) is the kind of nation building that DAP is into.

From P Gunasegaram’s trenchant piece - “Now, here comes the killer. Under Section 5(2) of the proposed URA, the Federal Executive Committee will have the minister as chairperson. That would be Nga Kor Ming, the rising voice of DAP and a strong advocate of the URA, which property developers love. He would steer the FEC.”

Madani is merely a vehicle for Umno to engineer a reversal of fortune. By giving such prominence to Umno in Madani, the prime minister has allowed Umno to leverage its federal influence and symbiotic relationships with an entrenched civil service to make moves on a state level.

This is why the prime minister is making all sorts of overtures to the civil service and apologises for his harsh tone towards them.

Furthermore, as cabinet members with a huge sway on policy, whatever policy moves that Umno makes are to ensure that it plays into the strategies of state moves, which ultimately is a political war of attrition with Harapan.

By kneecapping DAP, which Madani has done because it is deathly afraid of spooking the Malays, Madani has done a good job at destabilising non-Malay support for DAP, which only benefits Umno and PAS.

Madani’s political gamble

Corruption is not a recent phenomenon; rather, it is part of the DNA of the organism fueled by racial and religious imperatives and a compromised electoral system.

Umno/BN designed the system, and Madani is attempting to replicate it, so any attempt at corrective measures is met by a deluge of propaganda or the spectre of the “Green Wave”.

Remember Perikatan Nasional was briefly in power, and how did that go? With all those really dumb “Langkah, langkahs” (moves), professional charlatans figured out they didn’t even need voting to get into power, and a small shift in voting got them ejected from the halls of power in Putrajaya.

With the way the system is gerrymandered, and the unequal weightage of votes, issues like corruption and competent governance are not exactly the greatest concerns of a majority of rakyat who sustain themselves on entitlement programmes and the delirium of social media.

DAP can remain in Harapan without participating in a government that ultimately strengthens Umno and PAS strategies. Perhaps, when more Malaysians recognise that politics should not simply be about holding office, the conversation can shift.

DAP does not need government positions to support policies that benefit the average rakyat. The real question, then, is whether participation in government is genuinely about nation building - or whether it has become about preserving political power and personal interests.

It is funny; the scrapped July 12 special congress could have been the reset that Malaysia and Harapan needed.

Undeniably, the Malays emerged as the “definitive people” of the Malay Peninsula, shaping its enduring political, cultural, and civilisational identity.

The Malay Peninsula has long been the historical homeland of the Malays. Their institutions, language, customs, and rulers shaped the peninsula’s identity over many centuries. This historical reality deserves recognition and respect - and indeed, the Malaysian Constitution explicitly honours it.

Two concepts of homeland

Much of this controversy stems from conflating two distinct concepts that must be carefully distinguished.

The first is what may be called the historical homeland. The Malay Peninsula is, indisputably, the historical homeland of the Malay people. Their civilisation profoundly shaped its institutions and identity. This is a historical fact that cannot and should not be denied or diminished.

The second is what may be described as the constitutional homeland. Modern Malaysia is the homeland of all its citizens because citizenship - not ancestry - defines membership of the nation.

When someone acquires Malaysian citizenship, whether by birth, descent, or naturalisation, Malaysia becomes their homeland in the most meaningful sense: it is the country to which they owe allegiance, in which they exercise rights and responsibilities, and within which they build their lives and futures.

These two concepts are not contradictory. Recognising the historical position of the Malays does not diminish the rightful place of other Malaysian citizens. Acknowledging the equal belonging of all citizens does not weaken the historical or constitutional position of the Malays.

The constitutional settlement at Merdeka

Malaysia’s founders understood this delicate balance. When independence was negotiated, they did not attempt to erase the country’s historical foundations. Neither did they seek to establish an ethnically exclusive state.

Instead, they crafted a constitutional settlement that balanced historical continuity with inclusive citizenship.

The Federal Constitution preserved the institution of the Malay rulers, recognised Malay as the national language, established Islam as the religion of the federation, and accorded the Malays a special position, later extended to include the natives of Sabah and Sarawak following the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

These provisions reflected the historical reality of the peninsula and honoured the political role of Malay rulers in the independence negotiations.

At the same time, the Constitution established a common citizenship for those who qualified under its provisions. It reflected the understanding that the new nation would be built upon both its historical foundations and the loyalty of citizens from different ethnic backgrounds.

This was not an accident or an oversight. It was a conscious design reflecting the vision of Merdeka.

Article 153 illustrates this careful balance. It entrusts the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak while also protecting the legitimate interests of other communities.

These principles are complementary, not contradictory. The constitutional settlement therefore recognised historical distinctions without creating citizens who belong and citizens who merely reside.

Where the argument breaks down

Against this historical and constitutional background, Sanusi’s statement deserves careful examination. His opening premise contains an important historical truth: the Malay Peninsula has long been the “homeland” of the Malays, whose civilisation profoundly shaped its institutions and identity.

Yet the conclusion he draws does not follow.

By asserting that Chinese Malaysians have China and Indian Malaysians have India, he conflates historical origins with current national identity - implying that ethnicity, not citizenship, determines belonging. This is where the logic fails.

Yes, ethnic Malays have ancestral roots in Sumatra. Yes, some Chinese and Indian Malaysians trace their ancestry to those nations. But this does not mean Indian Malaysians “belong” to India or Chinese Malaysians “belong” to China.

Citizenship supersedes ancestry. The Constitution is clear on this point. Malaysia is the homeland of its Chinese and Indian citizens; their loyalty, aspirations, and futures are rooted in this country.

China and India may represent the lands of their ancestors, but they are not the homeland of Malaysian citizens. Ancestral origin alone cannot determine present-day national belonging.

Historical sacrifice and national belonging

We should not forget that numerous Indians and Chinese, alongside their Malay brothers-in-arms, sacrificed their lives in the struggle against the communists during the 1948-1960 Emergency and the 1968-1989 Second Emergency.

These sacrifices were not the actions of people with divided loyalties. They were the actions of patriots who understood Malaysia as their home and were willing to die defending it.

Sanusi should also take heed of a remarkable declaration made in 2013 by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, now a deputy prime minister and chairperson of BN.

Zahid said that more than half of Malaysia’s ministers were of Indonesian descent.

This is a profound statement. It demonstrates that the highest echelons of Malaysian government have long been occupied by citizens whose ancestors came from beyond the peninsula. Ancestry, clearly, has never been a reliable measure of national belonging - nor should it be.

If the descendants of Indonesian migrants can rise to become ministers and deputy prime ministers, serving Malaysia with honour and effectiveness, then the notion that ethnicity determines true homeland is patently false.

These leaders are not guests or temporary residents. They are Malaysians who have earned their place through service, capability, and commitment to the nation.

A personal testament of belonging

I am personally offended because these remarks erase the lives and sacrifices of Malaysians like my late father, Sadhu Singh Malhi.

He migrated to Malaya in the 1940s and joined the police force on July 1, 1952. He served with distinction until his retirement on June 1, 1983 - more than three decades devoted to protecting the people and preserving the security of the country he had made his home.

His was not the life of a transient outsider, but that of a man who gave the better part of his life to this nation.

His service earned national recognition: the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s Pingat Pangkuan Negara (Dec 18, 1982), 16 commendations from the Perak police chief, and 48 monetary awards from the government for diligence, courage, and incorruptibility.

The government granted him land in Tapah and Bidor, Perak - tangible recognition that he had earned an honoured and permanent place in this country.

My question to Hadi and Sanusi is therefore simple: by what moral or national standard can a man who risked his life for Malaya, served its people honourably, was decorated by the King, and was granted land by the government still be dismissed as a “pendatang”?

My father may have been born elsewhere, but through service, sacrifice, and loyalty, Malaya - and later Malaysia - became unquestionably his homeland. His seven children built their lives here and know no other country as home. They are Malaysians, full stop.

History should unite, not divide

History is far too important to be reduced to political rhetoric. When presented honestly, it enables citizens to appreciate the complexity of their shared past. When selectively interpreted, it becomes an instrument of misunderstanding, resentment, and division.

Political leaders therefore carry a special responsibility. Their words should strengthen national cohesion rather than foster suspicion between communities or question the belonging of citizens whose roots, service, and future are firmly embedded in Malaysia.

A confident nation can affirm the historical role of the Malays while recognising, without qualification, the equal citizenship and belonging of every Malaysian.

Sanusi’s remarks are dangerously flawed: they perpetuate the toxic idea that some Malaysians belong more fully than others. That idea must be rejected categorically.

The term “pendatang” may accurately describe an immigrant at the point of arrival, but it must never become a hereditary label imposed upon citizens generation after generation.

Citizenship is not provisional, and belonging cannot be determined by ethnicity.

Non-Malay Malaysians are not guests, temporary residents, or second-class citizens. They are rightful citizens and co-owners of this nation, bound to it by birth, loyalty, service, sacrifice, and a shared future.

Their ancestral connections to China, India, Indonesia, or elsewhere do not make those countries their homeland any more than the ancestral origins of other Malaysians diminish their belonging here.

Malaysia is their one and only homeland. It is ours to build together, as equals, as citizens, as Malaysians.

DAP’s loss of support has been particularly marked and prominent - from 10 to six seats, an erosion of two-fifths. If this is replicated, even on a much smaller scale across the country in parliamentary polls, the effect on the number of seats for Harapan will be devastating.

DAP is the largest partner in terms of seats in Harapan with 40 seats. A two-fifths erosion will take the number of seats down by 16, to 24. A reduction by a fifth can take it down by eight to 32.

If this is coupled with a substantial erosion of Malay support for PKR and the effects of Bersama’s presence as an alternative, PKR’s 31 seats now may be reduced considerably. It likely spells a fatal blow to Harapan’s lofty ambitions to lead a coalition after the GE16.

Full term and retire

With that, chances for Anwar Ibrahim to be prime minister for a second term too. If Anwar reads the tea leaves right, he will want to go full term and retire. This may get pushback from Umno/BN now on a roll. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Other reasons why Umno/BN is strong in Johor include Johor rights, with both the menteri besar and the Johor royalty asking for a greater share of revenue produced in the state, ala Sarawak.

A recent ranking of gross domestic product (a measure of output of goods and services) by state places Johor at number three, below Selangor at number one and Kuala Lumpur at number two, just pipping Sarawak at number four.

This “Johor for Johoreans” clarion call seems to have struck a chord with voters, as it has for Sarawakians and Sarawak, many of whom are happy with the apparent support that the Johor royalty gives to the current state government and its chief minister.

More than any other state in Malaysia, Johor has benefited much from Singapore’s proximity. The state’s closeness, not just proximity but in terms of economic and other ties with Singapore, helps drive incomes higher, making Johoreans happier.

These are some factors that will not be replicated elsewhere in Malaysia and will be unique to Johor. But do they form the main reasons why Umno/BN is so powerful in Johor? Difficult to say.

DAP, PKR under threat

In addition to this, the erosion of support for both PKR, among the Malays, and for DAP, among the non-Malays, is a serious threat which will undermine Harapan’s strength in other states even if Harapan stalwarts say otherwise. The question is by how much.

The other key factor which will affect outcomes is the Umno/PAS alliance. Despite Umno’s strength in Johor, PAS is likely much stronger than Umno almost anywhere else other than Pahang or Sabah.

They will ally for mutual benefit and make way for each other where the other is stronger. This would mean PAS would be the stronger of the two with 45 parliamentary seats now, against Umno’s 26 and BN’s 30.

And then there is the possibility of taking another 25 at least with Hamzah Zainudin’s new Parti Wawasan Negara. Wawasan Negara already has 19 seats after its MPs broke away from Bersatu, which has the remaining six. Bersatu seems only to have a ghost of a chance of retaining them.

With PKR on the decline, some of their seats won with Malay support may be fodder for PAS or even Umno. Thus, it is likely that a PAS/Umno combination may have the most seats post GE16, as I explained in this article.

The Najib factor

That combination towards power seems more likely post the Johor polls. But if Umno thinks this is a licence to give Najib a “get out of jail card”, they are mistaken - I am not saying it, the numbers say so.

Umno’s support declined from 88 parliamentary seats in 2013 to 56 in 2018 when they lost power following the 1MDB scandal to 26 in 2022 when they kept harping on a pardon/house arrest for Najib.

How could a move to pardon or put under house arrest a person responsible for billions stolen from borrowed money in 1MDB’s coffers get public support anywhere? What is it that Umno wants to achieve? I am at a loss for answers.

Like Harapan, Umno also needs to pay attention to public sentiment over certain things. By now, it must be quite clear why an increasing number of people, barring non-Malays, are leaning towards PAS as their saviour. I don’t support it, but that’s the way the curry puff crumbles.

Bersama may make some headway in terms of a handful or two of MPs at the general election, but it is very difficult to predict their performance except to say they will take votes away from PKR and DAP, especially in urban areas.

It will take them at least until the next polls before they can become a threatening third force with their laudable and very reasonable Malaysian approach - the only one likely to give long-term benefit to all Malaysians.