10 FAQ Refute Wild Accusations, Supposedly # DaulatHimpunan812 As a Result of Confusion

Toward a peaceful assembly, denouncing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) # DaulatHimpunan812 today, there are certain parties spreading confusion to ridicule the people's objections to the convention.





The following is an enlightenment in the FAQs as to why ICERD should be rejected at any time as opposed to the provisions of the Constitution.

1) ICERD opposes racial discrimination, why do you object?





This is a superficial argument, we support the Federal Constitution which calls the equal rights of every citizen but at the same time Article 8 (2) allows positive discrimination or affirmative action if stated in the Constitution. This is what we stand for, do not read the constitution with a short piece.









2) Is not Article 1 (4) of ICERD also affirm affirmative action as in Article 153?





This article was used by pro-ICERD including the Bar Council and certain party senior leaders who fought for equal rights. Watch out for a malicious bad agenda, they do not fully tell about Article 1 (4) of the ICERD at the end of which there is a clear set period of time.





3) What about Article 153?





The allocation of the special position of the Malays and Bumiputeras has never set the time limit. The time limit issue also has its history why not included in Article 153 by freedom fighters. So, after 62 years, why we need to open a closed room.





4) Pro-ICERD claims that the power of the Malay rulers is not affected by ratification?





Indeed, Malaysia will remain with a monarchy system if ICERD is ratified, but read the Constitution to the end. If the ICERD touched Article 153, this would also involve the powers of the rulers as protectors of the provisions set forth in the Constitution.









5) Many Islamic countries have ratified ICERD, why not Malaysia?





This was raised by DAP Advisor, Lim Kit Siang yesterday. For this answer read the Federal Territory Mufti statement on November 24. Said, Datuk Seri Dr. Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri: "it is not suitable for acceptance (ICERD) because of different local history, customs and urf" . This is a scholar's statement, not a politician.





6) Why Malaysia is different?





The constitution was formulated based on the history of each country. The Federal Constitution is based on social contracts. So every country is not the same. Saudi Arabia applies hudud law, but in Malaysia it does not. Can Kelantan use that argument back to Kit Siang to enforce hudud only because of the high percentage of Muslims?





7) Not ratifying ICERD just putting Malaysia like North Korea and Myanmar?





This argument lowers the peaceful assembly of anti-ICERD. Why not you giving an example of Israel which clearly opposed the ideas and did not ratify ICERD ? Without ICERD, Malaysia was earlier and strongly opposed to apartheid policy, opposed to Israel's cruelty and tyranny of power. Importantly, we reject racial discrimination as in the provisions of the Constitution.





8) Indonesia has ratified the ICERD, if it is taken as an example?





The ICERD report welcomes the abolition of indigenous and non-indigenous terms in Indonesia. But seeing the Republic, they also have other issues, from the former Governor of Jakarta to the latest, the rally on Dec 2. Read the development of Indonesia when wealth is monopolized by one group. Although 20 years of ICERD ratification, the convention is not an absolute solution. What is important is the balance of society and this purpose of Article 153 is included in the Constitution. Regardless, it is the right of every country to ratify or not.





9) Why is the concept of equality in the context of Malaysia should have its own mold?





Open the Constitution, there are over 50 Malay words and the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak. Most important in the context of the constitution is the Malay special position, the Malay reserve land and the Royal Malay Regiment (RAMD). This provision does not imply discrimination against other races, but a form of positive discrimination for equilibrium. The ICERD does not reject this objective, but once again the Constitution does not specify a time limit as compared to ICERD.





10) The rejection of ICERD due to confusion,

toxicity politics of

racial and religious?



