Unlike the Definition of BoMa/SoCaMa (bogus Malays and/or so-called Malays) in Article 160, there’s no Definition of English in the British Constitution

Unlike the Definition of BoMa/SoCaMa (bogus Malays and/or so-called Malays) in Article 160, there’s no Definition of English in the British Constitution.

In England, no one harps on the politics of bullshit a la BAND (bangsa, agama, negara, derma) driven by history based on collective amnesia and taqiyya (deliberately lying) and kitman (lying by omission), ketuanan English and ketuanan Christian to degenerate, deviate and distort on any Article 153 and NEP.

Man does not live by bread alone.

Principles matter.

What is life all about?

What do the BoMa/SoCaMa (bogus Malays and/or so-called Malays) of the 2nd Prong in the Definition of Malay in Article 160 get by plundering the public treasury?

The urban economies in the west coast of Malaya, the circulation corridor between southeast India and further west and south China and further east have to deal with this phenomenon which increases gov’t liabilities beyond the national debt burden.

Indians and Chinese have been visiting the circulation corridor for thousands of years to exchange and trade.

The British did not exist at that time.

The BoMa/SoCaMa (bogus Malays and/or so-called Malays) did not exist at that time.

Where’s the US$6.5b that THIEF Najib, according to DoJ, plundered from 1MDB? He also allegedly plundered other gov’t agencies.

Author: fernzthegreat

Joe Fernandez holds a honours degree in management, majoring in economics, and has opted from academia in law to being a jurist. He was trained professionally on the job as a journalist. He's a longtime Borneo watcher, keen on the history and legal aspects of Malaya's presence in Sabah and Sarawak. He teaches the English language privately and has emerged as a subject matter expert in public examination techniques.

%d bloggers like this: