'What's your BM grade? I'll teach English'
The Star reported that the comment sparked reactions echoing throughout the chamber.
Jagdeep, in the middle of answering a question, fired back at Azmi Alang (PN-Teluk Ayer Tawar), insisting he had...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
4 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Turun Anwar? It'll be Anwar Naik, for a second term
I would like to congratulate many parties for the Turun Anwar rally yesterday, at which an estimated 20,000-25,000 demonstrators turned up in black, filling all of Dataran Merdeka. I will explain how this rally would actually allow Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to secure a second term in office. First, I would like to congratulate the unity government for allowing democracy to be practised in the searing heat and unhealthy air of Kuala Lumpur. Malaysians will be reminded that this government is unlike the Mahathir or Najib governments, which were against the Reformasi and Bersih rallies that easily saw 40,000 to 50,000 Malaysians of all backgrounds coming together on their own, without free buses and nasi lemak money. Second, I salute the police and DBKL officers for facilitating the rally with dignity and respect. This is a far cry from the days of Reformasi and Bersih rallies, which were met with batons, tear gas and that all-time favourite, the water cannon. Young Malays can ask my friend Tian Chua to recount his experiences: he sat in front of a few of those cannons many times. They can also ask one of my daughters about her stinging experience of tear gas while attending a Bersih rally, specifically against her father's order not to attend! Third, I would like to congratulate Perikatan Nasional for being able to organise in a militaristic fashion and mobilise 20,000 Malay supporters. 'Hidup Zahid' rally next? Will Umno answer with a stadium filled with 35,000 Malays? It should be easy if they can just get Siti Nurhaliza and Jamal Abdillah to come. It does not have to be an 'Anwar Kekal' rally but a 'Hidup Zahid' one. Come on, lah. Malaysians should know that the Turun Anwar rally was not directed at their potential and former political partner. Wink. Wink. Fourth, I would like to congratulate the Old Man himself for braving the heat without a sheltered podium. I once had to deliver a 15-minute speech in the hot sun at the May 13 Cemetery in Sungai Buloh, and sat waiting in the tent for 20 minutes. At 63 years old, I hastily left after my speech as my health could not tolerate it. But the Old Man was true to form. It so happens that I agree with everything he said about Anwar being a judge in the Batu Puteh issue. Right on, Tun M! We Malaysians should really be angry at Anwar for letting Tun off the hook. More so when we hear that his grandchild's house was robbed of RM1.8 million in jewellery and other things. My wife owns only a total of RM6,000 in jewellery. My granddaughter does not have jewellery. A turning point for Anwar Now that all the congratulations have been given, I come now to why I think the rally is a turning point for Anwar and the unity government with regard to the next general election. I have always known that PKR would be soundly beaten at GE16, because non-Malays have been listening to influencers and reading columnists criticising anything and everything Anwar has done, as well as for what he has yet to do. My readers and viewers reject me when I say that change takes time, and that we are required to change the way we look at things. But when the Turun Anwar rally threatened to bring around 300,000 Malays, my column and video about the rally received positive and frightened responses from non-Malay readers. In my column, I asked PN to show who they would replace Anwar with. They did not respond. I asked PN to show how they were going to solve the issues that Malaysians wanted solved quickly and efficiently. They did not respond. I asked PN to call out their own partners of old, GPS and Umno, but they did not do that either. The new political reality But as they were able to assemble nearly 25,000 Malays in the searing heat, Malaysians must take a long hard look at the reality of Malay politics that Anwar has inherited. In the days of old, Tun M had the Malay majority at his beck and call with money, projects, positions and other perks. Anwar is a bit stingy. He will not spend that much to make Malays come around to his side. I was actually hoping to see 300,000 Malays thronging the whole of Kuala Lumpur to send the message that it is an uphill task to change Malaysia with such 'kurang cerdik' Malays, who have been educated in schools and universites. To these Malays, as Tun M says, Malaysia belongs to them and, according to PAS, should be ruled under shariah law. If today's reality check does not teach Malaysians about the dangers we face in the near future, and about the forces who do not want to change and who face a government trying its very best to change for the better, we and our children will have truly lost the war for our future. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
The Star
11 hours ago
- The Star
Protests in KL are welcomed as it's good for local economy, say Nga
IPOH: Those who want to hold large-scale demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur are always welcome to do so, says Nga Kor Ming. The Housing and Local Government Minister said such demonstrations are a boost to the local economy and it also shows that the Madani government allowed freedom of speech and rights to assemble. "Compared to the previous administrations, we respect freedom of speech and peaceful rallies. "If (anyone) wants to demonstrate, come again, as it will boost the local economy in the capital," he said in a press conference after opening the Canning Madani Recreational Park here on Sunday (July 27). "It shows that we respect the constituency and democratic system of the country. "We don't welcome criticisms with violence but with kindness," he added. Nga was commenting on the "Turun Anwar" rally held by Perikatan Nasional at Dataran Merdeka on Saturday (July 26). Nga, was however, critical of the rally's organiser for not keeping the area clean. "It is regrettable that about 20 metric tonnes of rubbish were left in the area. "The Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation had to clean up the place until 3am," he said, adding that the location was a tourist destination.
Daily Express
13 hours ago
- Daily Express
Dangerous word game violates MA63
Published on: Sunday, July 27, 2025 Published on: Sun, Jul 27, 2025 Text Size: Declaring the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal Constitution as the Authoritative is a Backdoor Amendment — and that's tantamount to unconstitutional THERE is nothing wrong with loving Bahasa Malaysia. But there is everything wrong with using language to quietly change the meaning of the Constitution. The recent proposal to declare the Bahasa Malaysia (BM) version of the Federal Constitution as the 'authoritative text' may appear harmless or symbolic. It is not. It amounts to a backdoor constitutional amendment — one that risks overriding decades of legal precedent, reshaping fundamental rights, and violating the special safeguards promised to Sabah and Sarawak in 1963. Translation Is Not Neutral — It Shapes the Law Malaysia's Constitution was drafted in English by the Reid Commission and adopted in 1957. Every clause, word, and phrase reflects legal concepts from the common law tradition. The BM version, while official, is still a translation — not a legal twin. Article 160B of the Constitution allows the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare the BM version of the Constitution as 'authoritative.' However, this must be read in harmony with other constitutional provisions. Declaring a different-language version legally authoritative changes the words by which the Constitution is interpreted. That shift is not merely linguistic — it is legal. Here, it is important to clarify - is a declaration under Article 160B a law or an administrative act? Articles 159 and 161E apply to constitutional amendments and legal changes, not mere administrative declarations. However, if the effect of declaring the BM version as authoritative is to alter how rights are interpreted or protected, then it must be treated as a legal amendment — regardless of form. Otherwise, it would allow circumvention of constitutional safeguards through executive discretion. Regardless of whether Article 160B is exercised administratively, its legal effects must comply with the Constitution's substantive limits. The courts have long held that constitutional compliance is determined by outcome, not form. Importantly, Article 160B was introduced in 1971 through Act A514. Hansard records from that period make clear that the provision was intended to affirm the BM version as authoritative only after a careful process of harmonisation with the English version. The legislative intent was never to permit divergence in meaning, but rather to ensure that both versions align. Declaring the BM text authoritative without resolving inconsistencies would create a parallel text capable of altering constitutional meaning through linguistic drift. One Parent or Both? The Real Consequences Article 12(4) of the Constitution states that the religion of a minor shall be determined by 'his parent or guardian.' In English, 'parent' was interpreted by the Federal Court in Indira Gandhi (2018) to mean both parents must consent. The BM version says 'ibu atau bapanya' ('mother or father'), suggesting one parent may act unilaterally. If the BM version becomes authoritative, this change in wording could allow unilateral conversion of children to Islam without both parents' consent. That is a major shift — one which cannot be made without proper constitutional amendment. For Sabah and Sarawak, This Isn't Just a Legal Shift — It's a Constitutional Breach When Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), they did so with express constitutional safeguards, especially in matters of religion, language, and autonomy. These safeguards are found in the Constitution: Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent of Sabah and Sarawak for any amendment that affects the religion of the State. If the BM version alters the understanding of conversion of minors, it directly interferes with religious rights. Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent for any amendment that affects the language in use in the State. English is still used officially in Sarawak and arguably in Sabah. Declaring the BM version authoritative displaces English as the legal baseline — which triggers this clause. Article 161E(2) Requires consent for any amendment affecting the operation of the Constitution in those States. Changing the authoritative text changes how the Constitution is interpreted and enforced. This clause covers not just the content of the Constitution, but its application in practice, which reinforces that such a declaration affects operational law. These Articles show that consent is not a formality. It is a legal safeguard. To bypass it is to breach the Federal Constitution. Legal Chaos, Constitutional Drift If courts are forced to choose between the BM and English texts, precedents like Indira Gandhi could be revisited. This move invites confusion over fundamental rights, undermines legal certainty, and erodes public confidence in constitutional protections. A History We Must Not Forget Sabah and Sarawak were not absorbed into Malaysia — they co-founded it. Their agreement to join was conditional upon express guarantees, including the continued use of English and protections for religious freedom. To change the terms of that understanding through translation — not legislation — is to violate the spirit and letter of MA63. Article 160B Is Not a Blank Cheque Yes, Article 160B gives the Agong discretion to declare the BM version authoritative. But that discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits. It cannot override Articles 161E, 159, or 4(1) (the supremacy clause). You cannot change the legal operation of fundamental rights by simply changing the language used to describe them. That would amount to amending the Constitution without using the amendment process. What Must Happen Before any BM version is declared authoritative: Disclose all discrepancies between the English and BM texts for public review; Obtain consent from Sabah and Sarawak as required by Articles 161E(1), 161E(2)(c), and 161E(2)(d); Use the amendment procedure under Article 159 if substantive legal changes occur; Establish a Constitutional Harmonisation Commission to conduct a line-by-line reconciliation of both versions of the Constitution, ensuring consistency of meaning. This Commission should include judicial and constitutional experts from all regions, including Sabah and Sarawak. Until then, the English version must remain authoritative — not because it is in English, but because it is legally and constitutionally valid. Don't Change the Constitution Without Saying So If this move proceeds without proper process and consent, it sets a chilling precedent - that the Constitution can be changed by translation, not legislation. Language can unite a country — or unmake its laws. We must not allow a quiet switch of wording to transform the rights of millions, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. To do so without consent is not just unconstitutional. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
