- Details
- Category: Blog
- Hits: 252
Isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Ahli Parlimen Machang berkaitankehilangan 5,207 hektar tanah dalam jajaran baharu sempadanMalaysia–Indonesia menyentuh perkara yang sangat sensitif: kedaulatan negara dan integriti wilayah. Sekali lagi Anwar membelakangkan kuasa Yang Dipertuan Agong, Raja-Raja Melayudan Kuasa Parlimen sepertimana dikehendaki di bawah Perkara 69 Perlembagaan persekutuan. Ini adalah isu Perdana Menteri MENYERAHKAN WILAYAH secara unilateral. Sama juga denganisu AMBALAT. Perlembagaan mewajibkan Parlimen meluluskansuatu rang undang-undang bagi menyerahkan wilayah Malaysia.
TERMA YANG DIGUNAKAN OLEH ANWAR SEBELUM INI ADALAH “NO MAN’S LAND”. INI SUATU PENIPUAN. PETA WILAYAH DAN SEMPADAN MALAYSIA DAN INDONESIA WUJUD. TIDAK DITANDAKAN PUN SEBAGAI NO MANS’S LAND.
Ini percubaan Anwar memperbodohkan rakyat.
Apabila usul tergempar di bawah Peraturan Mesyuarat 18(1) dan 18(2) ditolak oleh Speaker atas alasan ia telah dijelaskan sebelum ini, isu yang timbul bukan sekadar soal penjelasan di Dewan, tetapi keperluanmemenuhi peruntukan Perlembagaan Perkara 69. Dalam konteksdemokrasi berparlimen, perkara melibatkan sempadan negara lazimnyadianggap sebagai isu berkepentingan awam tertinggi yang wajardibahaskan secara terbuka dan menyeluruh dan kemudiannya diluluskanmelalui suatu rang undang-undang.
Tindakan Anwar Ibrahim yang gagal berbuat demikianmenunjukkan ciri-ciri kepimpinan dictator.
Ketika isu kedaulatan negara melibatkan 5,207 hektar tanah, Ambalatdan Perjanjian Trump Anwar tidak dibenarkan untuk dibahaskan secaraterbuka di Parlimen, Anwar Ibrahim sebaliknya membenarkan naratifkaum dan agama mendominasi ruang awam.
Soalnya mudah: apakah ini kebetulan, atau satu percaturan politik untukmengalihkan perhatian daripada persoalan yang lebih besar dan lebihmendesak — iaitu soal kedaulatan, ketelusan rundingan antarabangsa, dan komitmen sebenar terhadap demokrasi berparlimen? Jika kerajaanbenar-benar yakin dengan keputusannya, mengapa takut untukmembahaskannya secara terbuka?
Anwar Ibrahim selama ini mengangkat slogan Reformasi dan Madanisebagai simbol keadilan, ketelusan dan pentadbiran berintegriti. Namunapa maknanya demokrasi berparlimen jika usul sah ahli-ahli Parlimenyang menyentuh sempadan negara dan perjanjian berat sebelah denganTrump ditolak daripada perbahasan dan keperluan meluluskan suatu rang undang-undang bagi tujuan membenarkan tindakan badan eksekutif tidakdipatuhi?
Apa maknanya kerajaan berteraskan keadilan jika isu kedaulatan tidakdibuka untuk semak dan imbang oleh Parlimen dan perkenan dan nasihat DYMM Yang Dipertuan Agung dan Majlis Raja-Raja diketepikan?
Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
Presiden
Parti Kemajuan Malaysia
13.2.2026
- Details
- Category: Blog
- Hits: 125
The Prime Minister’s use of the phrase “my friends” in warning against vigilantism raises a serious question: if such a warning is now necessary, does it not suggest that his earlier rhetoric has already inflamed sentiments beyond his control and emboldened elements who interpret enforcement rhetoric as a call to action? Words from the highest office are not casual remarks — they are “signals”. And when those signals are framed by Anwar in a way that stirs communal anxieties, they embolden those who interpret enforcement language as endorsement to act and take the. law on their own.
In the Malaysiakini newsreport this morning Anwar was quoted as saying "Therefore, I want to remind my friends you have been told to observe these rules and you must adhere to these principles, and you have no right whatsoever to take the law into your own hands."
Anwar made this remark in response to the demolition of an alleged unlawfully constructed temple in Rawang yesterday.
So the question arises, why is Anwar referring to those who commit crimes and take the. law into their hands as “friends”.
It suggests an awareness that his earlier statements have emboldened “his friends” and they are no longer controllable.
Let it be stated clearly: the Prime Minister cannot ignite a fire and then lecture the nation about restraint. The issue of long-established Hindu temples is not a sudden — it is the consequence of decades of unresolved land policy failures. Yet instead of explaining this historical reality and committing to a lawful, practical structured solution, Anwar Ibrahim chose rhetoric and to falsely term temples as illegal that predictably inflamed religious sensitivities.
This diversion emerged precisely when serious questions were intensifying about his constitutional conduct, his legitimacy as PM, and the controversial international agreement he signed with U.S. President Donald Trump — an agreement that have bypassed fundamental constitutional safeguards.
The Prime Minister speaks of the “rule of law,” but the rule of law begins with the Prime Minister himself. It demands fidelity to the Federal Constitution, respect for parliamentary authority under Article 69, and adherence to collective responsibility under Article 43(3). Constitutional governance and rule of law cannot be selective. It cannot be invoked against citizens while being relaxed for himself. If constitutional procedures are side-lined at the highest office, then no speech about restraint can restore public confidence.
Malaysia does not need manufactured religious tension. It does not need diversionary politics. It needs leadership anchored in constitutional discipline, institutional respect, and moral courage.
Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
President/chair
Malaysian Advancement Party
Hindraf
12.2.2026