Monday, August 31, 2026

Flag blunders: PN, Harapan, and BN politicians call for common sense, not rage










Flag blunders: PN, Harapan, and BN politicians call for common sense, not rage


Zikri Kamarulzaman
Published: Aug 31, 2026 7:30 AM
Updated: 9:30 AM




On the surface, this year’s series of Merdeka and Malaysia Day flag gaffes may seem like just desserts to some.

Several of the incidents involved either Perikatan Nasional or BN - coalitions whose members previously fuelled outrage and racist rhetoric in response to flag errors last year.

But does badgering provocateurs like Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh to stage protests against his allies help heal wounds? Or does it only serve to encourage hypervigilance and divisive politics?

How can we move forward instead? Malaysiakini posed this question to politicians from across the divide, and most were keen to offer constructive solutions instead of punitive measures.

For Masjid Tanah MP Mas Ermieyati Samsudin and Selangor PAS Youth chief Sukri Omar, it starts with distinguishing between purposely disrespecting the flag and honest mistakes or negligence.


Masjid Tanah MP Mas Ermieyati Samsudin


Mas Ermieyati said, for example, that many people who buy flags may not inspect them for errors and would just simply put them up, trusting that everything is right.

“That’s why this year, we can see that flag gaffes involving the Jalur Gemilang can happen in any situation to anyone, whether A or B.

“The question is, what should the response be that is best for the country? For me, it is more about education, correction, and unifying,” she said.

She added that the government should look into enhancing guidelines on the production and display of flags at all levels, including schools, local councils, and business districts.

In at least two incidents this year, one involving a T-shirt worn by Kedah Menteri Besar Sanusi Nor and Jalur Gemilang headscarves sold by Mydin, there was a design error that resulted in fewer than 14 points on the flag’s star.


Measured response needed

Meanwhile, Sukri said that not every incident should be politicised to make the rakyat view each other as enemies.

He also took a more forgiving stance on genuine mistakes, where others had in the past said it was impossible not to notice that the Jalur Gemilang is upside down or has errors.


Selangor PAS Youth chief Sukri Omar


“If someone hoists the Jalur Gemilang upside down because they truly did not know, were careless, or oblivious, without intent to insult, then that is a mistake or negligence.

“But negligence must be pointed out because we are dealing with a national symbol which deserves attention and respect,” Sukri said, adding that when mistakes happen, steps must be taken to educate, fix, and avoid future incidents.

He cautioned, however, that repeated acts of negligence or elements that raise suspicion of intentional disrespect should be investigated thoroughly.


Give room for correction, not instant outrage

As for when you spot an erroneous flag, Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Karim advised against whipping out a phone to make viral content that only serves to fan anger.

Instead, he said those who spot errors should point them out to those responsible and ask for it to be corrected.

Bukit Bendera MP Syerleena Abdul Rashid expressed a similar opinion, saying those who make mistakes must be given space to correct them.


Bukit Bendera MP Syerleena Abdul Rashid


Mas Ermieyati, Sukri, Hassan, and Syerleena - as well as Malacca assemblyperson Noor Helmy Abdul Halem - all said that politicians must not seize on flag gaffes to create tensions, especially between races.

Sukri said that defending the flag should not come at the expense of racial unity.

Helmy, who is the Duyong assemblyperson, likewise said that when leaders make flag incidents into a big issue, it can lead to misconceptions, especially when only one race appears to be targeted.

However, he stressed that there must be personal responsibility when errors happen, regardless of the circumstances that led to it.

This appeared to refer to incidents where the flag was hoisted upside down by workers, who took the blame for the error instead of their employers.


Politicians must moderate, not aggravate

Meanwhile, Hassan said even in incidents where the flag was intentionally displayed wrongly, politicians must serve as a voice of reason.

“Take a sensible approach. Don’t use the police or local council enforcers to act.

“Get local leaders, village heads, local councillors, assemblypersons or MPs to intervene and take charge, because the perpetrator is their constituent,” he said.


Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Karim


Syerleena said politicians must also practice what they preach.

“We need to stop this strange competition over who is more Malaysian and who “deserves” to be here. Nobody should have to keep proving that this is their home.

“Political leaders have a huge responsibility here, myself included. People notice what we say, what we laugh at and what we choose to stay silent about. We cannot talk about unity on stage, then encourage division online,” she said.

She said politicians must organise more activities for their constituents to know each other, be it gotong royong, sports, or volunteer work, instead of just annual photo ops.

She said when politicians act with restraint, empathy, and maturity, that becomes the norm that the public will follow. The same goes when they act as provocateurs who shame and divide.

The DAP lawmaker isn’t just all talk either. She and her team have launched “Ops Bendera”, where they go door to door with the Information Department’s Madani community volunteer group to explain the do’s and don’ts of displaying the flag.

“These conversations matter. Sometimes people simply don’t know or don’t notice, and a friendly explanation goes further than public shaming,” she said.


***


Johor - Nepalese guard hoisted the federal and state flags incorrectly, and woman manager of that factory (ordered to shut down) was remanded for FOUR DAYS - WTF, why 4 days?


MERDEKA MALAYSIA MATEYS 💖💖💖

 

TO ALL MY MATEYS 😀👍😀👍😀👍 - ENJOY, CELEBRATE, LOVE 💖




Sunday, August 30, 2026

VIPS MEMO: Dangerous Talk of Putin’s ‘Loss’ in Ukraine



Consortium News
Volume 31, Number 237 — Saturday, August 29, 2026


VIPS MEMO: Dangerous Talk of Putin’s ‘Loss’ in Ukraine


VIPS tells President Trump that once apprised of the reality on the ground (and in the air) by his intelligence advisors, he might choose to do what is in his power to end the disaster in Ukraine




President Donald Trump on call with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the White House on Aug. 18, 2025, before the U.S. president met with with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and European and NATO leaders in the Oval Office. (White House/Daniel Torok)

August 28, 2026



MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Dangerous Talk of Putin’s ‘Loss’ in Ukraine


Dear President Trump:

The New York Times is reporting that the outlook for Russia in Ukraine is “bleak.” C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe is said to have explained that to the Russians while in Moscow Tuesday. He reportedly urged them “to cut a deal before their military and economic situation gets worse.”

We write you on the chance you may be taken in by this latest song and dance. We believe it is orchestrated by the same kind of geniuses who told President Joe Biden to announce on July 13, 2023, in a major speech in Helsinki, that the Russians had “already lost the war” in Ukraine.

We suggest that you “kick the tires,” if they try to sell you that same car. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your predecessor was ill-served by intelligence. We suspect you are getting the same tendentious treatment from your own advisers. Indeed, many of them seem unconscionably relaxed about risking wider war with Russia over Ukraine.

We offer you, as we offered Biden, the following jogs to memory:

— December 3, 2022: “Russia is using up ammunition quite quickly. It’s pretty extraordinary. Our sense is that Russia is not capable of indigenously producing what they are expending at this stage.” (National Intelligence Director Avril Haines)

— March 18, 2022: “Russia has lost in Ukraine. The West should recognize this Russian defeat.” (Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute)

— July 1 & July 7, 2023: “Putin’s war has already been a strategic failure for Russia – its military weaknesses laid bare; its economy badly damaged for years to come.” (C.I.A. Director William Burns)

The Church of Latter-Day Pundits

Two NY Times journalists who specialize in intelligence matters report Thursday that this latest version of the Russia-has-already-lost story is “the current C.I.A. director’s assessment.” They warn somewhat quizzically that, despite this, President Putin might ignore it “and choose to keep fighting.” But why would Putin do that?

Indeed, the Gray Lady and her intelligence sources seem quite baffled by why Putin would keep trying when, according to U.S. officials and pundits, he started losing three and a half years ago and continues to lose. Could it possibly be that it was they that were wrong – terribly wrong?

Dismissing that as a possibility, they perform a somersault, straighten up, and chose to blame Putin’s advisers who, the Times says, have not “given Putin honest assessments of the war’s trajectory and toll.”

If Black Humor is at work here, we do not find it funny. The slaughter in Ukraine brings hundreds of victims daily.

Russia is methodically advancing in Donbass along a thousand-mile front, it is weathering drone attacks on its oil and civilian infrastructure with enhanced interception and has enforced a virtual blockade on Ukraine’s largest port, Odessa, with withering aerial attacks. Ukraine’s manpower and interceptor shortages make it impossible for it to ever recover its lost territory, as you acknowledged after your meeting with President Putin in Alaska.

Mr. President, if you were given access to reality-based, honest intelligence, you would be able to decide for yourself whose advisers have gotten it right over these past five years. And, once apprised of the reality on ground (and in the air), you might choose to do what is in your power to end the disaster in Ukraine.

Déjà Vu

This is not the first time we advised a president to seek unbiased advice with a view toward avoiding unnecessary, catastrophic war. We did that just a few hours after Colin Powell’s deceptive presentation to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003.

Today, we strongly suggest that you broaden your circle of advisers, as we urged President George W. Bush to do then, in our first VIPS Memorandum, which ended with this recommendation:

“After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”


FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY (VIPS)

Fulton Armstrong, former National Intelligence Officer (ret.)

Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret.); Division Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research

Philip Giraldi, C.I.A., Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, former C.I.A. and State Department Counter Terrorism officer

John Kiriakou, former C.I.A. Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003

Douglas MacGregor, Colonel, USA (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army infantry/intelligence officer & C.I.A. analyst; C.I.A. Presidential briefer (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer/NE, National Intelligence Council & C.I.A. political analyst (ret.)

Scott Ritter, former MAJ, USMC; former U.N. Weapons Inspector, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)

Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War


Xavier Jayakumar warns racial, religious politics could erode Malaysia’s unity





Xavier Jayakumar warns racial, religious politics could erode Malaysia’s unity


In a Merdeka message marking the country’s 69th year, Xavier said unity was Malaysia’s biggest achievement since 1957, describing it as the basis for everything the country had built since


Updated 2 hours ago · Published on 30 Aug 2026 3:01PM


As Malaysia prepares to enter its 70th year, he said divisive voices were becoming harder to ignore. - August 30, 2026



FORMER minister Datuk Dr Xavier Jayakumar has warned that rising racial and religious rhetoric could threaten the unity that has held Malaysia together since independence.


In a Merdeka message marking the country’s 69th year, Xavier said unity was Malaysia’s biggest achievement since 1957, describing it as the basis for everything the country had built since.

But as Malaysia prepares to enter its 70th year, he said divisive voices were becoming harder to ignore.

He criticised what he described as rhetoric bordering on incitement, race-baiting and religious point-scoring, saying these issues were drowning out conversations about the country’s future.

Xavier also took issue with the direction of some political leaders, particularly in Umno and PAS.

He said the generation led by Malaysia’s first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, had established a constitutional settlement based on fairness and recognition of the different communities in the country.

“That settlement wasn’t an afterthought; it was the foundation everything since has stood on,” he wrote.

Xavier said this was increasingly at odds with efforts by some political leaders to consolidate Malay-Muslim support along communal lines.

He pointed to Umno’s calls for a “grand collaboration” among Malay-Muslim parties, as well as statements by PAS leaders linking Malay and Islamic supremacy.

He also criticised recent claims that non-Muslims were responsible for most corruption in the country, saying such claims had been made without evidence.

Xavier added Malaysia’s multiracial model was not to blame for the current political tensions.

Instead, he accused certain factions in Umno and PAS of using racial and religious issues to maintain political relevance and power.

“That’s a survival strategy dressed up as principle,” the former PKR lawmaker said.

Despite his concerns, Xavier stressed Malaysia had much to be proud of after 69 years of independence.

He described the country as one of the more developed economies in the region, with the resources and a young generation capable of taking it further.

But he warned that racial and religious hostility could damage Malaysia’s standing internationally.

“We are genuinely close to something special,” he said.

“But the noise of hate and bigotry risks making the rest of the world take a second look at us — and not the kind of look we want.”

Xavier said Malaysians were ultimately faced with a choice between a country marked by racial tension and extreme politics, or one where people of different backgrounds could live safely and feel that they belonged.

For Xavier, that sense of belonging is personal.

He said his children and grandchildren, whose family had lived in Malaysia for five generations, had every right to call the country home.

“This is home. Not somewhere else. Home,” he said.

He also urged Umno, PAS and other political leaders to reconsider the use of race and religion as political weapons.

Peace, he said, was built through dialogue, understanding and compromise — not threats, ultimatums or hate speech.

“We have watched other nations cross that line and come apart. We know exactly what the point of no return looks like,” he said.

“Let’s not go there — not for anyone’s short-term political survival.”

Xavier ended his message on a more celebratory note, urging Malaysians to take pride in what they had built together.

He cited the country’s food, culture, people and everyday safety as things worth celebrating, while calling for stronger checks and balances and a country that future generations could inherit with confidence.

“I’ve got my flag up. Have you?” he said.

“Salam Merdeka, Malaysia.” – August 30, 2026

Israeli strike kills 2 people including a 3-year-old boy

 



Israeli strike kills 2 people including a 3-year-old boy

Israeli strike kills 2 people including a 3-year-old boy

Gaza medics said the Israeli airstrike near a bakery in Deir Al-Balah also wounded several others.

The Israeli military said it attacked a Hamas militant, without giving further details. (AFP pic)
CAIRO:
An Israeli airstrike killed two Palestinians, including a three-year-old child, in the central Gaza Strip on Sunday, health officials said.

Gaza medics said the Israeli airstrike near a bakery in Deir Al-Balah killed one man, Hussam Nusair, a three-year-old boy, Tayyem Hamdan, and wounded several others.

The Israeli military said it attacked a Hamas militant, without giving further details.

An October 2025 US-backed ceasefire halted major fighting in the shattered territory, but it failed to end strikes by the Israeli military, which it said aimed to thwart attacks by Hamas and other Gaza militants.

Hamas accuses Israel of violating the ceasefire and undermining efforts to implement a broader plan by US President Donald Trump to end the Gaza conflict, which also includes Israeli withdrawals and Hamas disarmament.

More than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed ‌in Gaza ⁠since the ceasefire took effect last October, according to Gazan health officials, while the Israeli military says four Israeli soldiers have been killed.



Is Malaysia an Islamic state?












Ranjit Singh Malhi
Published: Aug 30, 2026 11:55 AM
Updated: 1:55 PM




COMMENT | The debate over whether Malaysia is an Islamic state resurfaces with predictable regularity. It became especially contentious in 2001, when then-prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared that Malaysia was already an Islamic state.

More recently, Sinar Harian, on Aug 21, reported Federal Territories mufti Ahmad Fauwaz Fadzil declaring that Malaysia remained an Islamic state on “fiqhi” (Islamic jurisprudence), “syarie” (syariah-compliant), historical and geographical grounds.

This article analytically examines whether Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Responding to Mahathir’s pronouncement in a statement dated Nov 2, 2001, the Bar Council maintained that a political declaration could not, by itself, alter the federation’s constitutional character.

It rightly argued that the issue must be determined by reference to the Federal Constitution and the rule of law. That central proposition remains sound.

However, the Bar Council’s reliance on the judicial view that Islam’s constitutional role was primarily ceremonial does not fully capture the legal position.


Dr Mahathir Mohamad


The constitutional text, read alongside subsequent judicial decisions, points to a more complex and nuanced conclusion.


Definitions matter

An “Islamic state” has no universally accepted legal definition. If it simply means a Muslim-majority country in which Islam is constitutionally recognised, Islamic institutions receive public funding and Islamic law is given legal effect in specified areas, Malaysia qualifies in that broad sense.

However, if it means a state in which syariah is the supreme law, all legislation derives its validity from it and any inconsistent law is void, Malaysia does not.

“Secular state” is equally ambiguous. If secularism requires an impermeable wall between religion and government, Malaysia is not secular: the Federal Constitution expressly recognises Islam and provides extensive machinery for its administration.





If it means that the legal authority of public institutions ultimately derives from and is limited by a written Constitution, rather than directly from religious law, and is exercised through constitutional and representative institutions subject to review by the civil courts, Malaysia has a fundamentally civil-constitutional structure.

The answer therefore depends on the definition being used.


What constitutional text says

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states: “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Islam’s position is therefore constitutionally recognised and institutionally significant; it does not rest merely on the country’s Muslim-majority population.

Other provisions give that declaration institutional effect. The Malay rulers are heads of Islam in their respective states, while the Yang di-Pertuan Agong holds that position in the federal territories and the four states without a ruler - Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak.

Article 12(2) permits public funding for Islamic institutions and instruction. Article 160 links the constitutional definition of “Malay” to the profession of Islam.

Religious freedom is also constitutionally protected, though not without limits. Article 11(1) gives every person the right to profess and practise a religion and, subject to Article 11(4), to propagate it.

Article 11(4) permits state law, and federal law in the federal territories, to control or restrict the propagation of religious doctrines or beliefs among Muslims. Article 11(5) provides that Article 11 does not authorise acts contrary to general laws concerning public order, public health and morality.

Article 74(2), read with Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule, empowers state legislatures to make laws concerning Islamic personal and family law, mosques, zakat, wakaf, and the creation and punishment of offences by persons professing Islam against the precepts of Islam, except in relation to matters within the Federal List.





This legislative field also encompasses the Constitution, organisation and procedure of syariah courts, whose jurisdiction is confined to persons professing Islam and matters falling within Item 1.

Their jurisdiction over offences extends only so far as federal law permits. These constitutional arrangements make clear that Malaysia is not a polity in which religion is institutionally excluded from public life or Islam confined to private devotion.

Yet, Article 3 does not stand alone. Article 3(4) expressly says that nothing in Article 3 derogates from any other constitutional provision.

Article 4(1) declares the Federal Constitution to be the supreme law of the Federation. Any post-Merdeka law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency. Islam’s protected position must therefore be read together with fundamental liberties, federalism, representative government and judicial review.

Article 121(1A), inserted in 1988, provides that the civil courts “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts”.





It is sometimes cited as proof that Malaysia has two co-equal and autonomous judicial systems. That interpretation overstates its effect.

The provision operates only where a syariah court lawfully possesses jurisdiction; it does not create or enlarge syariah jurisdiction, expand the State List or oust the superior civil courts’ power to determine constitutional and statutory legality.

Syariah court’s jurisdiction must be conferred by valid legislation, be limited to persons professing Islam and matters within Item 1 of the State List and, in respect of offences, remain within the limits conferred by federal law.


Founding fathers’ constitutional vision

The constitutional history reinforces this reading. Paragraph 169 of the 1957 Reid Commission Report recorded the Alliance’s proposal that Islam be the religion of Malaya, together with the assurance that this would not affect the civil rights of non-Muslims or imply that the state was not secular.

The commission’s majority did not recommend inserting such a provision. Judge Abdul Hamid from the Pakistan High Court supported it in his sole note of dissent, and the present clause was subsequently adopted through the working party process.


The Reid Commission


The 1957 government White Paper, Federation of Malaya Constitutional Proposals, was explicit that inserting the declaration on Islam would not alter the Federation’s existing position as a secular state.

On May 1, 1958, Tunku Abdul Rahman similarly told the Federal Legislative Council that Malaya was not an Islamic state in the generally understood sense, even though Islam had been made the state’s official religion.


Formation of Malaysia

The formation of Malaysia added another layer. The 1962 Cobbold Commission recorded serious concerns in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak.

Its Malayan members agreed that Islam should be the national religion of the Federation, while concluding that religious freedom would not be jeopardised and that the Federation would, in effect, remain secular.

These historical sources do not override the Constitution’s enacted text.

They do, however, show that Article 3 was not intended to establish a theocracy or make every law subject to a religious validity test.

In this context, “secular” did not mean hostility towards religion or the banishment of Islam from public life.

It described a civil constitutional polity in which public institutions derived their powers from the Constitution, non-Muslims retained religious freedom, and ordinary law did not become invalid merely because it failed to conform to a religious rule.


What courts have decided

The starting point remains Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal law became unconstitutional merely because it was inconsistent with Islamic law.

Then-lord president Salleh Abas held that, in the context of Article 3, “Islam” meant acts relating to rituals and ceremonies, and concluded that the law then operating was “secular law”.


Salleh Abas


Che Omar should nevertheless not be read as reducing Islam to pageantry in every constitutional respect.

In Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan (2024) 2 MLJ 150 (Nik Elin), the Federal Court explained that Malaysia’s general legal system “leans more towards secularity without being purely secular”, because the Constitution also permits the limited enactment and application of Islamic law.


READ MORE: Apex court strikes down 16 Kelantan syariah criminal provisions


The controlling point in Che Omar remains that Article 3 does not make conformity with syariah the general test of validity for every Malaysian law.


Indira Gandhi’s case

Later Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the constitutional hierarchy. In Indira Gandhi Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors and other appeals (2018) 1 MLJ 545, the court held that Article 121(1A) does not remove the civil courts’ power of judicial review.

Civil and syariah courts operate within their respective constitutional spheres, and syariah courts cannot acquire jurisdiction beyond what valid state law confers within constitutional and federal statutory limits.

In Iki Putra Mubarrak v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor (2021) 2 MLJ 323, the Federal Court invalidated a Selangor syariah offence because its substance fell within federal criminal law.

In Nik Elin’s case, an 8-1 majority declared 17 Kelantan provisions - 16 complete sections and paragraph 37(1)(b) - invalid because, in pith and substance, they fell within Parliament’s legislative power over criminal law.

The court emphasised that the case concerned legislative competence, not the constitutional position of Islam or the authority of the syariah courts within their lawful sphere.

On June 19, 2025, a 3-1 majority in SIS Forum (Malaysia) & Anor v Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor & Ors (2025) 4 MLJ 625 followed the court’s earlier decision in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) (2022) 2 MLJ 356.
The majority held that paragraph 1 of the fatwa was valid only insofar as it applied to natural persons, because SIS Forum, as a corporation, was incapable of professing the religion of Islam.





It invalidated paragraphs 2 and 3, which mandated the confiscation of publications and directed the MCMC to block social-media content, because those matters lay beyond Selangor’s legislative competence. Paragraph 4 remained valid. The court expressly declined to rule on the theological merits of the fatwa’s condemnation.


Judicial secularisation?

Critics sometimes characterise such rulings as judicial secularisation. That confuses the subject of a law with the source of legislative power.

A measure does not become constitutionally valid merely because it is made in the name of Islam, just as a federal law does not become valid merely because Parliament enacted it.

Both Parliament and the state legislatures derive their powers from the Constitution. If the present division of powers is considered inadequate, the remedy lies in constitutional amendment through the prescribed democratic process - not in criticising judges for applying the existing constitutional allocation of powers.


Hybrid constitutional system with clear legal apex

In Iseas Perspective 2025/27, “Legal Pluralism in Malaysia: Navigating the Civil and Shariah Systems”, constitutional scholar Shad Saleem Faruqi referred to “Malaysia’s hybrid, partly secular, partly religious constitutional system”.

That description is persuasive because it acknowledges both sides of the settlement: Islam has an exalted constitutional and institutional position, while the overall system rests on constitutional supremacy, parliamentary law-making, federalism and judicial review by the superior civil courts.


Shad Saleem Faruqi


Malaysia is not secular in the strict separationist sense, but neither is it a theocratic Islamic state.

Political declarations cannot change that architecture. A prime minister may call Malaysia an Islamic state, a secular state or something in between, but such a statement neither amends the Constitution nor binds the courts. Constitutional identity cannot be created by proclamation.

The most defensible formulation is this: Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in which Islam is the religion of the Federation and enjoys a special institutional position, while Islamic law enacted by the states - and by Parliament for the federal territories - operates within constitutionally defined fields, and the Federal Constitution remains supreme.





So, is Malaysia an Islamic state? Malaysia is unquestionably a Muslim-majority country in which Islam enjoys special constitutional and institutional recognition.

But in the constitutional sense of a state governed by the supremacy of syariah, the answer is no. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law, and any legal answer must ultimately be anchored in it.

After nearly seven decades of independence, Malaysians should be celebrating our remarkable diversity, not allowing this recurring dispute to drive us further apart.

Malaysia belongs to all its citizens. Our future depends not on endlessly contesting one another’s place in the nation, but on respecting the Constitution, embracing our shared citizenship and recognising our diversity as a source of strength.

That is the Malaysia we should strive to build - and the nation we should be proud to leave to future generations.



RANJIT SINGH MALHI is an independent historian who has written 19 books on Malaysian, Asian, and world history. He is highly committed to writing an inclusive and truthful history of Malaysia based upon authoritative sources.


***


It should be interesting to know the opinions of Pak Lebai, Encik Tiii and Prof KangKong, wakakaka


Rational Muslims ridicule pious brethren for blaming Nepalese natural disaster on Muslim persecution





Rational Muslims ridicule pious brethren for blaming Nepalese natural disaster on Muslim persecution




FAIR-MINDED Muslims have picked up the guts to rebut their so-called narrow-minded brethren who flooded the social media attributing Wednesday’s (Aug 26) catastrophic flash floods and mudslides along the Nepal-Tibet border to “Nepalese Hindus burning down mosques and Muslim homes” a fortnight prior to the devastation.

A non-plussed Sunni Muslim Threader hit out at his Malay Muslim brethren for their inconsiderate sweeping remarks as if Nepal deserves the destruction that has befallen the nation situated right along the central and southern slopes of the Himalayan mountain range.

“The behavior of some Malay Muslims is extremely bad. How can one simply justify the mudslide tsunami disaster that hit Nepal that caused 500++ lives to be lost with an impromptu ‘You burn Quran and mosque, now Allah destroys you’ comment,” berated one Jaja bink (@jamil_tuan).



Added the self-proclaimed 48-year-old “Anti-Madanon/Walaun”:

How do you know that the dead person is the same person who burned down the mosque? It was Hindu extremists who burned it. There’re many peaceful Hindus around. Same goes to Muslims.

The (mental) cancer that has infected the Malay Muslim community in this country is very bad. Very bad!!
 RIP to the victims.

One non-Muslim applauded the poster for speaking up at a time when rightist Muslims would tick off the nons to stay away from Muslim affairs or “go read the Quran”.

“TBH (to be honest), it’s scary to know that many Malaysians have such low EQ (emotional intelligence) … Merdeka (independent) from the British but still colonised by their (narrow) thoughts and bad hearts,” she observed.



Fallacious divine retribution


Thus far, experts are linking the flooding devastation to glacier collapse and instability in the Himalayan mountain range with climate change also being considered as a factor.

If so, the question arises as to how it is possible that 51 Malaysians who have never been responsible in the so-called heinous act of persecuting Nepalese Muslims were among 51 of the 537 foreigners who were still missing after the flash flood disaster as per the figure released by the Nepalese tourism authority yesterday (Aug 28).





Editor’s Note: According to the country’s disaster relief agency cited by a BBC live reporting, at least 1,924 people were still missing in Nepal at the time of writing with death toll in Nepal having risen to 579 while at least five people have died in Himalayan neighbour Tibet with 558 reported missing there.


Elsewhere, Nancy Jane88 (@maizun_mastura) wondered if by the same weightage can the annual monsoon floods that devastated Kelantan be likened to divine wrath against the PAS-ruled state for having derailed from the teaching of Islam?

“Or how would you justify the bad floodings in Mecca (which is surrounded by deserts) last year,” jibed the self-proclaimed secularist and radical feminist.


“The country (Nepal) has already been hit by a terrible disaster and there’re Islamic fascists out there justifying the disaster as serve ’em right just because non-Muslims are rioting against Muslims there.

Interestingly, likeminded Muslins, too, mocked their conservative brethren for the double standards of attributing disasters that struck non-Muslims as “well-deserving” but “will regard the disasters as test (from God) when they’re at the receiving end”.

Another even clarified that the so-called sweeping statement is misplaced given that “the disaster-affected areas aren’t even close” to where Hindutva elements were accused of attacking, vandalising and setting fire to Muslim-owned properties and a historic mosque during communal unrest in southeastern Nepal in late July 2026.

Going by that argument, why did the catastrophe strike non-sinners? This is where another Muslim Eman (@amri_kiyema) chastised his brethren against becoming “the spokesman of God for once in your life”.
Finding Authentic Islamic Prayer Rugs

No need to dig up what happened three days or three months ago just to declare, “See? This is God’s punishment”. 

God gave us a brain to think and a heart to empathise, not to judge people who live differently from us.

Disasters occur, people lose their homes, families, lives. … But you’re busy making your own divine conspiracy theory.

Maybe practise compassion first. God’s judgment isn’t your portfolio.  – Aug 29, 2026


***


Soon we may have to build a boat a la Noah's Ark.




If nobody stole money from Tabung Haji, who lost it?












Mariam Mokhtar
Published: Aug 28, 2026 12:14 PM
Updated: 2:14 PM




COMMENT | These are the dry numbers in the RCI on Tabung Haji.

RM3.4 billion profit. RM1.4 billion loss.

How many warning lights have to come on before somebody is held responsible for stopping the car? In other words, what does it take for a government to take heed?

It’s the same Tabung Haji, but the difference is RM4.8 billion.

To be fair, former auditor-general Madinah Mohamad has said her team found no evidence of theft or misappropriation, but that doesn’t answer the question that should now haunt Tabung Haji: If nobody stole the money, who was responsible for losing it?


Issues abound

The RCI found that Tabung Haji should have reported a RM1.4 billion loss in 2017, rather than the RM3.4 billion profit it reported.




It also found that political considerations influenced decisions on hibah, haj payments, and financial assistance.

Losses and impairments were not properly recognised, while hibah was paid despite the institution’s deteriorating financial position.

This wasn’t a one-year accident. The financial crisis stretched back to 2014, and Bank Negara reportedly issued five warnings between 2014 and 2016.

So who received those warnings? More importantly, why wasn’t the problem stopped?

Was Tabung Haji being run as a financially disciplined institution, or was it being asked to serve political and social objectives that its finances could not sustain?

How could an institution this important be allowed to decay across political administrations?


Billions in losses

The RCI identified 14 problematic investments which ultimately produced almost RM13 billion in losses.

It recommended forensic audits into how those investments were made and said those involved in the decisions should be held responsible for the losses.





That raises some very simple questions: Who approved them? Who carried out the due diligence? Who raised concerns? Who ignored them? And who signed off?

There is no need to accuse anyone of stealing money to demand answers.

Tabung Haji paid about RM367.7 million in bonuses between 2010 and 2017. The RCI found the payments excessively high and identified unauthorised bonuses at its subsidiary as well.

This is where the story becomes more than financial.

Tabung Haji exists to help Malaysian Muslims save to fulfil a fundamental religious obligation - to perform the haj, one of the five pillars of Islam.

So what does it say about an institution entrusted with that sacred purpose when its financial position is deteriorating while substantial bonuses are being paid?

For many depositors, this isn’t simply mismanagement. It is a betrayal of trust.


Uncomfortable questions

But no theft does not mean no wrongdoing, and it does not mean good governance either.

An institution can lose billions through reckless investments, poor decisions, inadequate controls, political interference, and failure to act on warnings.

The RCI found evidence of precisely these kinds of failures and another uncomfortable question.




The auditor-general had already raised concerns in 2018 about Tabung Haji’s impairment practices, including RM227.81 million in impairments that had not been recorded.

So, why did it take a subsequent PwC review and the RCI to expose the much larger underlying problem?

Now the MACC is investigating possible corruption, abuse of power, falsification, and money laundering.

Let the evidence determine whether criminal offences occurred, but even if nobody is ultimately convicted of stealing a single ringgit, the accountability question remains.

The RCI examined a period spanning successive governments, so this cannot simply become another political blame game.

The uncomfortable question is whether Malaysia’s political system repeatedly failed to protect Tabung Haji.

Bank Negara warned. The financial position deteriorated. Investment losses accumulated. Hibah continued. Bonuses were paid. The accounts were audited. And eventually the government had to intervene.


So who was responsible?

So who was watching the institution? Who was responsible for acting when the warning lights were flashing?

Ultimately, ordinary people don’t get to make their losses disappear by calling them “accounting differences”.

The RCI has now exposed almost RM13 billion in losses associated with 14 problematic investments, and Malaysians deserve to know who was responsible.

Who knew? Who was warned? Who authorised the investments? Who approved the hibah? Who approved the bonuses? Who signed off on the accounts? Why weren’t the losses recognised earlier?

Why weren’t Bank Negara’s warnings acted upon? Why did it take years for the public to see the RCI report? Where is the accountability?




The government must provide answers. If criminal wrongdoing is established, will those responsible face the law? If it isn’t criminal, that cannot mean everyone simply walks away from responsibility.

Tabung Haji isn’t an ordinary investment company. It was entrusted with something more valuable than money: people’s faith, savings, and hope of fulfilling one of Islam’s five pillars.

For years, Malaysians put aside their hard-earned savings believing Tabung Haji would safeguard them and help them fulfil a fundamental religious obligation.

That trust deserved better, and those entrusted with it owe Malaysians an explanation.

Imagine putting passengers into a car after dinner, knowing the driver is unfit to drive. The warning signs are there. People know about them. Yet nobody stops the journey.

When the car crashes, we don't just ask what went wrong. We ask: Who knew? Who was warned? Who allowed the driver to continue? And who was responsible for the passengers' safety?

That is the question Tabung Haji now raises. If nobody stole the money, who was responsible for losing it?



MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army, and the president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO). Find her on her website and on X.