Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR
- PREFACE
- Acknowledgements
- About the Author
- Chronology
- PART ONE Merdeka or Medicine?
- PART TWO Remaking Malaysia
- Chapter Six Forced from Retirement
- Chapter Seven A Lack of Time
- Chapter Eight Nailing Things into Place
- List of Abbreviations
- Bibliography
- Index
- Photographs
Chapter Eight - Nailing Things into Place
from PART TWO - Remaking Malaysia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2015
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR
- PREFACE
- Acknowledgements
- About the Author
- Chronology
- PART ONE Merdeka or Medicine?
- PART TWO Remaking Malaysia
- Chapter Six Forced from Retirement
- Chapter Seven A Lack of Time
- Chapter Eight Nailing Things into Place
- List of Abbreviations
- Bibliography
- Index
- Photographs
Summary
On 23 February 1971, parliamentary rule was finally reinstated in Malaysia. To make way for this, the NOC became the National Security Council, while the NCC and the NGC were suffused into the National Unity Council. The latter's task was to advise the prime minister on the issues that were being banned from public debate, and to conduct research into race relations (Comber 1983, p. 83). The first exercise of the new parliament was to debate the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, and for seven days, MPs had their say on this vital document (ST 24 January 1971). On 3 March, the lower house passed this main pillar for Malaysia's political restructuring with a vote of 125 to 17. The opposition was split, with all parties except for the DAP and the PPP supporting it. What the bill did was to place certain issues considered dangerously sensitive beyond political challenge. These concerned citizenship, the national language and the use of other languages, the special position of the Malays, legitimate interests of non- Malays, and the sovereignty of the sultans (ST 4 March 1971).
Ismail argued that the passing of the bill itself did not guarantee political peace in the future. How much longer democracy would live depended, he said, “on how the Opposition political parties behave and [on] the response from the public”. He made a pledge in parliament that day on behalf of the Alliance:
We shall not take advantage of any loopholes in the Bill, nor conjure up other sensitive issues which will cause racial strife; We shall see to it that Alliance members scrupulously interpret the spirit and letter of the Bill; We shall see to it that those who do not are severely punished; We shall see to it that the provisions of the sensitive issues are truly implemented in letter and spirit (ST 4 March 1971). In winding up the debate, Ismail challenged those still opposed to the bill to resign if it was passed, since they had claimed they would not sit in a house that “cut its own tongue”. When no one immediately took up the challenge, Ismail continued his attack: “Now that I know they are not willing to sacrifice for their conscience I know how to deal with them” (ST 4 March 1971).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Reluctant PoliticianTun Dr Ismail and His Time, pp. 241 - 276Publisher: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak InstitutePrint publication year: 2007