Isnin, 31 Disember 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Seeing is believing

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 05:27 PM PST

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

And Malaysia's 2012 Word of the Year is ...

Perception.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when reporting a robbery or a snatch theft and believing that this means crime is on the rise in what has been one of the safest countries in Southeast Asia.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when complaining about rising graft or rising cost of living and thinking that the country is sinking through global indices in what is supposedly an Asian tiger of a nation.

Perception. The reality, according to the authorities, is that statistics this year shows that crime in Malaysia has dipped. Graft in Malaysia has also dipped and the authorities are going after those in the private sector now.

And the economy is rising, so that means more money in the pocket. Not only that, the government has been dishing one-off cash handouts of RM500 to households earning up to RM3,000 a month.

Yet, how many cases of robberies and snatch theft have we heard that occur in urban areas, especially near traffic lights? Is it a case of being more aware because of social media, as some authorities claim, despite official statistics showing a drop in crime?

How about living costs outstripping wages? How do you try to fathom a nation with an annual five per cent economic expansion and a policy of subsidising food and fuel that still needs to give cash handouts?

And the cheek to tell someone who has been robbed, or having to pay a bribe or pay more for groceries that it is just their perception that it is getting worse is just putting salt to the wound.

It is too easy to blame social media for such tales to turn viral. It is too easy to tell people to be more careful and take steps to be more vigilant and complain about corrupt practices and profiteering.

Also too easy to just announce policies and initiatives without ensuring they are implemented to the letter. Putting more boots on the ground, going after the big fish in corruption cases and targeting subsidies to specific demographics rather than an elephant gun spray of goodies for news headlines.

To be fair, Putrajaya has been taking action. There is a raft of policies and laws in place to cut crime, reduce graft and living costs. But the efforts do not seem to bear fruit as fast as they have been promised or implemented.

And this is where the word "perception" can bite the authorities or the government of the day.

The perception that it isn't doing enough or doing things fast enough to make a difference.

There are a slew of projects under various abbreviations but the change isn't being felt because it takes time for housing projects to finish or industries to rise and people to get better paying jobs.

Therein lies the irony, that nothing is as instant as perception.

Jahabar Sadiq, The Malaysian Insider

****************************************

Yes, what Jahabar Sadiq wrote today in his editorial in The Malaysian Insider is very true. Everything in life is about perception -- and more so when it comes to politics. Politics is built on perception.

The perception that Communism is bad and Capitalism is good is what we grew up with. So, if we want to frighten someone, all we need to do is accuse him or her of being a Communist and he/she will back off and tone down.

My question would be: so what if I am a Communist? What is wrong with being a Communist? If I declare that I am a Communist that is as good as declaring that I am a Pariah because the perception is that those who are Communists are Pariahs. Hence if someone accuses me of being a Communist I would deny it even if I do believe in Communism because Communists are outcasts.

Do you believe in God? Many people do. But not all humans believe in God. It is estimated that only about half of humankind believe in God. But less than 10% of the people will openly admit that they do not believe in God. And this is because the perception is if you do not believe in God then you cannot be a good person. Hence, to avoid being labelled as a bad person, you will never admit that you do not believe in God although in reality you do not believe in God.

Do you know that 30 years ago back in the 1980s Mercedes Benz started assembling its S Class in Malaysia? This is because Malaysians used to buy (I do not know whether they still do) the most number of S Class models per capita in the world. Hence Malaysia was the only other country outside Germany that assembled the S Class.

To Malaysians, if you drive the S Class Mercedes Benz or the 7 series BMW then the perception would be you have arrived. You have made it. You are successful. Maybe your liabilities exceed your assets, which means you are technically bankrupt, but the car you drive gives people the perception that you are successful so everyone wants to do business with you.

There is also the perception that if we change the government, meaning we kick out Barisan Nasional, Malaysia would be a better place to live. Foreigners who come to Malaysia for the first time and who see the way Malaysians behave would probably never come to that conclusion. For example, seeing the way Malaysians drive is evidence enough that Malaysians are inconsiderate, rude, arrogant, only care about themselves, and much more.

Malaysians are absolutely ill bred and uncultured. Hence changing the government will not make Malaysia a better place.  It may help to reduce corruption slightly but not eliminate it totally. But it will never make Malaysia a better place.

A better country is not just subject to the government it has. It is very dependent on the people in that country. England changed its system of government more than 400 years ago back in 1649. It kicked out its monarch and turned England into a republic.

Did that make England a better place? The people were still the same. The mentality was still the same. The people never changed. Hence, while they may have changed the government, the country did not become a better place. Therefore the perception that by changing the government the country becomes a better place is a fallacy if the people themselves refuse to change.

And what perception do you get from this statement I just made? Your perception would be therefore I am saying DO NOT change the government. Is this what I said? This is the perception you get although this is not what I said.

And why do you get this perception? You get this perception because you refuse to admit that the fault with the country lies with its people. You want to believe that what is wrong with the country is someone else's fault, not your own fault. Hence you put the blame on the government. If not then you will have to admit that it is your own fault.

This is due to a disease called denial syndrome. Most Malaysians suffer from this disease. It is a disease where you blame others for what went wrong rather than admit that what went wrong is your fault.

Most Muslims will say that Islam suffers from a perception problem. Islam is a victim of bad publicity. And they will blame the western media for this. The western media is giving the perception that 'Islam is the new Communism'. And since Communism is the Pariah therefore Islam would also be perceived as the Pariah.

But it is not Islam that is at fault, Muslims will say. It is the fault of a minority of Muslims who have given Islam a bad name. This minority has dragged Islam through the mud. The majority of Muslims are not like that. But the western media is giving the perception that it is Islam and not a minority of Muslims that is bad.

However, that is not the perception that the non-Muslims have. Most non-Muslims perceive Islam as a bad religion. The fruit of a poisonous tree would be poisonous, they will argue. Hence it is Islam itself and not just a handful of Muslims who is at fault.

So, is Islam the victim of negative perception that has given the religion a bad image? Or is Islam itself fundamentally flawed? The answer depends on whether you are a Muslim or not and hence how you perceive Islam is subject to this crucial point.

We perceive PERKASA as a racist organisation. We do not perceive Dong Zong and Hindraf as also racist organisations. Why is that? PERKASA fights for Islam and the Malay language. Dong Zong fights for Chinese education and the Chinese language. Hindraf fights for the Tamils and Hinduism. So why are not all three organisations classified as racist organisations? Why is only PERKASA a racist organisation but not the others?

Barisan Nasional is a racist party. Pakatan Rakyat is not a racist party. Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove Islam as the official religion of Malaysia? Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove the Malay language as the official language of Malaysia? Why do we even need an official religion and official language when other democracies all over the world do not have official religions and official languages?

Education Ministers have always been Malay. Why is that? In a democracy where meritocracy should prevail the abilities and not the race of that person should be the deciding factor.

Can Pakatan Rakyat announce that it would appoint a Chinese as the Education Minister? Why not? Why can't a Chinese become the Education Minister and why can't Pakatan Rakyat agree to this and make a public announcement on the matter?

In fact, why can't we have a non-politician as an Education Minister? Can we give that job to one of the leading academicians? We want the best education system. We do not want education to be used as a political tool and to brainwash Malaysians.

The problem with Malaysia is the mentality and attitude of its people. Changing the government will not help if the mindset of the people remain the same. Hence we need to do a massive overhaul of our education system. And we can't trust a politician to do this.

Yes, it is all about perception. And the perception is that everything involving the government is bad while everything involving the opposition is good. And PERKASA supports the government so it is bad. Dong Zong and Hindraf support the opposition so they are good.

What if Dong Zong and Hindraf announce that they will support anyone who agrees to their agenda? And what if Pakatan Rakyat disagrees with their agenda while Barisan Nasional agrees to it? And since their agenda is what matters Dong Zong and Hindraf now support Barisan Nasional and they announce so. Would Dong Zong and Hindraf still be considered good or are they now just like PERKASA, a racist organisation? What will your perception of Dong Zong and Hindraf be?

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

Whether something or someone is good or bad is not about whether it is really good or bad but about your interpretation of good and bad. If I perceive all religions as bad then I would have a very low opinion of religionists. Religionists, however, would perceive me as a Godless person and someone who cannot be trusted.

And if I support Hindraf on it latest stand that it will not support either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat unless they support Hindraf's agenda how would you perceive me? Am I a true democrat who fights for the oppressed minority or am I a traitor to the cause? The question is: which cause are you using to come to this conclusion, Hindraf's cause or your own cause?

Yes, your perception is guided by your interest. You will have a good perception of someone when it suits your agenda and you will have a bad perception of that person when it conflicts with your agenda. Perceptions are not real. And that is why most of you perceive that you are going to heaven because you are following the true and correct religion. And is this not why Malaysians are fighting over who has the right to use the word 'Allah'?

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


The Church & Allah

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 04:15 AM PST

KTemoc Konsiders

I'm not surprised by the adverse feedback I've received regarding my post Now, who are the Arab wannabes? here as well as at Malaysia-Today, because firstly, it's an issue related to religions and secondly, I have the seeming effrontery to side with UMNO (and PAS).

I am again not surprised that many have missed the point, evidenced by remarks like:

(a) So, based on this simple etymological track, the used of ANY word/name to describe a Superbeing that the follower used was/is Highly localised. It should not be monopolised, just like some local Muslims like to dictate!

(b) Will you be happy if I forbid you from using certain words because I find it offensive? Who am I to impose this on you? If I forbid you to call your wife, your brother or sister with an alternative name because I find it offensive with their current names which you been calling them all these years. Will you be glad? Please think through.

None of above had been what I proposed in my previous post on subject matter.

wakakaka

Just to refresh your memories (and a bloody lack of reading skills, wakakaka) I wrote:

While I believe on principle there ought not to be a monopolistic use of any word or words, I can understand the Muslim community's worries about the Church's obdurate intention to use this word, especially more so when I know it's obligatory, nay, a sacred duty of the Church and Christians to be 'missionary' (evangelistic).

Yes, I'm afraid on a personal basis, kaytee isn't all that supportive of the Church's insistence on using the Allah word to represent/indicate/describe their Christian God in the Malay language.

Given the experts' etymological and historical clarifications on the Allah word, I am in no doubt that Father Lawrence Andrew is on strong legal grounds to use it ... and indeed we know that the court has supported his stand.

But I have always believed that religion is about faith and morality and not legality or for that matter, political approval. Thus I find it unfortunate that the Father Andrew and the Catholic Herald had taken the issue to the courts. Surely on a matter of religious faith and knowledge, there are numerous other names of God it could have use beside Allah. I view its arguments for the use of Allah as seemingly based on obduracy and legality rather than any plausible unavoidable reason.

The reason why I have not (still am not) been sympathetic with the Church, I had already expressed as follows:

let us also not forget that Christianity and indeed Islam as well are both evangelistic missionary religions with an obligation on the faithful to convert the so-called pagans, for altruistic reasons of course.

So, what is the meaning of 'missionary' and 'evangelistic'?

In their adjectival forms, the dictionary has these to say, respectively:

Missionary = reflecting or prompted by the desire to persuade or convert others.

Evangelistic seeking to evangelize; striving to convert sinners (where sinners mean all not within the Faith).

Dictionary also defines the word evangelize as 'to convert to Christianity', and where we can also substitute the word Christianity with Islam.

Thus, both Christianity and Islam require their respective followers to evangelize.

In my post I had written:

I dare say those Dutch Christian missionaries were out to convert the Indonesian pagans (Muslim and others) into Christianity with whatever it took, and would have found the use of the word Allah as a convenient substitute for the Christian God in persuading the native Muslims that the conversion to Christianity would be nothing more than a seamless worship to the same Allah, albeit with some minor adjustments to the rituals.

Thus the argument that the 16th Century Dutch had been doing this or that during dictatorial colonial circumstances would today be just not good enough for the Church to persist along that line.

Dutch church in Indonesia

Leaving aside the legal aspect, where I had already accepted that Father Lawrence Andrew is on very strong grounds, my post points out the several areas and factors where I have found the stand of the local Catholic Church and Father Lawrence Andrew quite disturbing.

Thus I asked and continue to ask again:

Really, I have to ask again of Father Lawrence Andrew and the Church: "What is really your goal in obdurately pursuing the use of the word Allah to refer to the Christian God in a Malay-language newsletter and Bible when so many other names of your Christian God, with even better biblical pedigree, remain available?"

If the aim of the Church is to spread the word of God, why not use Tuhan or Elohim or a multitude of other Hebraic names available from its source, the Tanakh. Why insist on the Allah word when everyone in Malaysia, especially Peninsula Malaysia knows that Allah is familiarly (automatically) visualized and known as the God of Islam.

Thus I quoted Friedrich Nietzsche who reminded us: "Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal."

Isn't the goal of the Church to spread the word of its Christian God, which can be done without using the word Allah because Elohim and Yahweh and Tuhan are available? 

Why has the Church represented by the person of Father Lawrence Andrew remain stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, namely, to use the Allah word in their Catholic Newsletter, the Herald, and the Bahasa version of the Bible, al Kitab?

Without too much hubris I believe I have successfully challenged every position Father Andrew and the Church had presented as to why the Allah word is essential and cannot be substituted, but some comments here as well as at RPK's Malaysia-Today have totally ignored my points, and continue to come up with comments equally as obdurate as Father Andrew's or as if they haven't read my post at all (which has been why I mentioned some readers' 'lack of reading skills' wakakaka).

In other words, my post questions the sincerity of the Church's insistence in using the Allah word, which I do not support because of the likelihood of confusion over whose (Islamic or Christian) god is Allah.

The ensuing confusion would not be unlike a dangerous sampan in a very turbulent evangelistic sea.

Now, my dear friend Ong Kian Ming wrote a piece in Malaysiakini titled Allah row - what's the name of the game?

Much as I (platonically, wakakaka) love Kian Ming (and I am not joking, he's a great guy) I am not persuaded by his article.

He argued that as Yahwah is already translated into Tuhan, then Elohim (if also translated into Tuhan) following the Yahweh word would result in Tuhan … Tuhan, giving us a double or repetitive Tuhan which won't make sense or provide cohesive reading for the mentioned passage.

MKINI photo

He provided the example of Exodus 29:46, which (KJV) states:

And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.

Kian Ming provided the NIV (1984) version which doesn't make much difference to KJV for his arguments and the point I intend to make. But let's use his NIV 1984 version which states:

They will know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them out of Egypt so that I might dwell among them. I am the LORD their God.

He argued that a Bahasa translation minus the use of the Allah word would give us:

"Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Tuhan (rather than Allah) mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Tuhan mereka."

But in that translation, Kian Ming has become just like Father Lawrence - though as his matey, I believe Kian Ming has been sincere - in believing that both Yahweh and Elohim must both be translated into Tuhan.
Why, and what for? Unless you insist on making an disingenuous point?

Thus, according to his arguments, if we are to avoid the awkward Tuhan Tuhan translation, we require both the Tuhan and Allah words, so as to show each as a different word in that passage.

But my point is why must Elohim be translated from Hebrew into Arabic (Allah)? Why not retain the Elohim word as is in al Kitab instead of translating into Arabic and then daringly claim Allah is a Malay word. If one can claim the Arabic Allah is a Malay word, why not claim and use the Hebraic Yahweh and/or Elohim as also Malay words.

Thus the Bahasa translation of Exodus 29:46 should read as follows (two forms):

(a) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Elohim mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tinggal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Elohim mereka"

or

(b) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah Yahweh, Tuhan mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah Yahweh Tuhan mereka"

I personally prefer the second. And don't forget, we also have Adonai, El Elyon, El Shddai, El Olam, etc.

Sorry, Kian Ming, as a matey I regret I can't even say 'good try' because your arguments have been based on the totally incorrect premise that the Allah word is a Bahasa word when it's patently not – it is as Middle-Eastern (Arabic) as much as are Yahweh and Elohim (Hebrew).

Now, what about my idol Karpal Singh's comments in Malaysiakini's that Karpal rises to Guan Eng's defence over 'Allah' row which reported:

DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh has risen to the defence of the party's secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's Christmas day call for Christians to be allowed to use the term 'Allah', stating that it was not intended to hurt Muslim sensitivities.

He explained that Lim's call was meant for Christians in Sabah and Sarawak where the word has been in use for generations.

I think that's fair enough, though if we have already published a Malay edition of the al Kitab which uses Elohim instead of Allah, why not use it to acquaint Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians on the Elohim and/or Yahweh word(s). Why have a further division of Peninsula from the Eastern States even in al Kitab?

It is surprising, therefore, that Penang Umno secretary Azhar Ibrahim has publicly come out with a scathing attack on the Penang chief minister that what he had said in his Christmas message should not hurt the feelings of Muslims, he said in a statement yesterday.

READ MORE HERE

 

'Allah' belongs only to Muslims and Islam: Jakim

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 12:07 AM PST

(Bernama) - The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) today repeated its stand that the word 'Allah' is a holy word that belongs only to Muslims and Islam and cannot apply to non-Muslims and other religions.

Its director-general, Datuk Othman Mustapha, said the matter had been finalised at the 82nd meeting of the Fatwa Committee of the National Council for Islamic Affairs on May 5 to 7, 2008.

"Therefore, it is compulsory for all Muslims to protect it to the best of their ability. Any attempts to insult or abuse the word must be prevented according to the provisions stipulated under the Federal Constitution," he said in a statement here today.

He said statements made by certain quarters to create racial and religious disharmony just for the sake of gaining political mileage were very disappointing.

Hence, he said Jakim would like to urge all quarters to return to the rule of law to ensure that racial and religious harmony was well preserved and protected under the Federal Constitution.

 

Seeing is believing

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 05:27 PM PST

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

And Malaysia's 2012 Word of the Year is ...

Perception.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when reporting a robbery or a snatch theft and believing that this means crime is on the rise in what has been one of the safest countries in Southeast Asia.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when complaining about rising graft or rising cost of living and thinking that the country is sinking through global indices in what is supposedly an Asian tiger of a nation.

Perception. The reality, according to the authorities, is that statistics this year shows that crime in Malaysia has dipped. Graft in Malaysia has also dipped and the authorities are going after those in the private sector now.

And the economy is rising, so that means more money in the pocket. Not only that, the government has been dishing one-off cash handouts of RM500 to households earning up to RM3,000 a month.

Yet, how many cases of robberies and snatch theft have we heard that occur in urban areas, especially near traffic lights? Is it a case of being more aware because of social media, as some authorities claim, despite official statistics showing a drop in crime?

How about living costs outstripping wages? How do you try to fathom a nation with an annual five per cent economic expansion and a policy of subsidising food and fuel that still needs to give cash handouts?

And the cheek to tell someone who has been robbed, or having to pay a bribe or pay more for groceries that it is just their perception that it is getting worse is just putting salt to the wound.

It is too easy to blame social media for such tales to turn viral. It is too easy to tell people to be more careful and take steps to be more vigilant and complain about corrupt practices and profiteering.

Also too easy to just announce policies and initiatives without ensuring they are implemented to the letter. Putting more boots on the ground, going after the big fish in corruption cases and targeting subsidies to specific demographics rather than an elephant gun spray of goodies for news headlines.

To be fair, Putrajaya has been taking action. There is a raft of policies and laws in place to cut crime, reduce graft and living costs. But the efforts do not seem to bear fruit as fast as they have been promised or implemented.

And this is where the word "perception" can bite the authorities or the government of the day.

The perception that it isn't doing enough or doing things fast enough to make a difference.

There are a slew of projects under various abbreviations but the change isn't being felt because it takes time for housing projects to finish or industries to rise and people to get better paying jobs.

Therein lies the irony, that nothing is as instant as perception.

Jahabar Sadiq, The Malaysian Insider

****************************************

Yes, what Jahabar Sadiq wrote today in his editorial in The Malaysian Insider is very true. Everything in life is about perception -- and more so when it comes to politics. Politics is built on perception.

The perception that Communism is bad and Capitalism is good is what we grew up with. So, if we want to frighten someone, all we need to do is accuse him or her of being a Communist and he/she will back off and tone down.

My question would be: so what if I am a Communist? What is wrong with being a Communist? If I declare that I am a Communist that is as good as declaring that I am a Pariah because the perception is that those who are Communists are Pariahs. Hence if someone accuses me of being a Communist I would deny it even if I do believe in Communism because Communists are outcasts.

Do you believe in God? Many people do. But not all humans believe in God. It is estimated that only about half of humankind believe in God. But less than 10% of the people will openly admit that they do not believe in God. And this is because the perception is if you do not believe in God then you cannot be a good person. Hence, to avoid being labelled as a bad person, you will never admit that you do not believe in God although in reality you do not believe in God.

Do you know that 30 years ago back in the 1980s Mercedes Benz started assembling its S Class in Malaysia? This is because Malaysians used to buy (I do not know whether they still do) the most number of S Class models per capita in the world. Hence Malaysia was the only other country outside Germany that assembled the S Class.

To Malaysians, if you drive the S Class Mercedes Benz or the 7 series BMW then the perception would be you have arrived. You have made it. You are successful. Maybe your liabilities exceed your assets, which means you are technically bankrupt, but the car you drive gives people the perception that you are successful so everyone wants to do business with you.

There is also the perception that if we change the government, meaning we kick out Barisan Nasional, Malaysia would be a better place to live. Foreigners who come to Malaysia for the first time and who see the way Malaysians behave would probably never come to that conclusion. For example, seeing the way Malaysians drive is evidence enough that Malaysians are inconsiderate, rude, arrogant, only care about themselves, and much more.

Malaysians are absolutely ill bred and uncultured. Hence changing the government will not make Malaysia a better place.  It may help to reduce corruption slightly but not eliminate it totally. But it will never make Malaysia a better place.

A better country is not just subject to the government it has. It is very dependent on the people in that country. England changed its system of government more than 400 years ago back in 1649. It kicked out its monarch and turned England into a republic.

Did that make England a better place? The people were still the same. The mentality was still the same. The people never changed. Hence, while they may have changed the government, the country did not become a better place. Therefore the perception that by changing the government the country becomes a better place is a fallacy if the people themselves refuse to change.

And what perception do you get from this statement I just made? Your perception would be therefore I am saying DO NOT change the government. Is this what I said? This is the perception you get although this is not what I said.

And why do you get this perception? You get this perception because you refuse to admit that the fault with the country lies with its people. You want to believe that what is wrong with the country is someone else's fault, not your own fault. Hence you put the blame on the government. If not then you will have to admit that it is your own fault.

This is due to a disease called denial syndrome. Most Malaysians suffer from this disease. It is a disease where you blame others for what went wrong rather than admit that what went wrong is your fault.

Most Muslims will say that Islam suffers from a perception problem. Islam is a victim of bad publicity. And they will blame the western media for this. The western media is giving the perception that 'Islam is the new Communism'. And since Communism is the Pariah therefore Islam would also be perceived as the Pariah.

But it is not Islam that is at fault, Muslims will say. It is the fault of a minority of Muslims who have given Islam a bad name. This minority has dragged Islam through the mud. The majority of Muslims are not like that. But the western media is giving the perception that it is Islam and not a minority of Muslims that is bad.

However, that is not the perception that the non-Muslims have. Most non-Muslims perceive Islam as a bad religion. The fruit of a poisonous tree would be poisonous, they will argue. Hence it is Islam itself and not just a handful of Muslims who is at fault.

So, is Islam the victim of negative perception that has given the religion a bad image? Or is Islam itself fundamentally flawed? The answer depends on whether you are a Muslim or not and hence how you perceive Islam is subject to this crucial point.

We perceive PERKASA as a racist organisation. We do not perceive Dong Zong and Hindraf as also racist organisations. Why is that? PERKASA fights for Islam and the Malay language. Dong Zong fights for Chinese education and the Chinese language. Hindraf fights for the Tamils and Hinduism. So why are not all three organisations classified as racist organisations? Why is only PERKASA a racist organisation but not the others?

Barisan Nasional is a racist party. Pakatan Rakyat is not a racist party. Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove Islam as the official religion of Malaysia? Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove the Malay language as the official language of Malaysia? Why do we even need an official religion and official language when other democracies all over the world do not have official religions and official languages?

Education Ministers have always been Malay. Why is that? In a democracy where meritocracy should prevail the abilities and not the race of that person should be the deciding factor.

Can Pakatan Rakyat announce that it would appoint a Chinese as the Education Minister? Why not? Why can't a Chinese become the Education Minister and why can't Pakatan Rakyat agree to this and make a public announcement on the matter?

In fact, why can't we have a non-politician as an Education Minister? Can we give that job to one of the leading academicians? We want the best education system. We do not want education to be used as a political tool and to brainwash Malaysians.

The problem with Malaysia is the mentality and attitude of its people. Changing the government will not help if the mindset of the people remain the same. Hence we need to do a massive overhaul of our education system. And we can't trust a politician to do this.

Yes, it is all about perception. And the perception is that everything involving the government is bad while everything involving the opposition is good. And PERKASA supports the government so it is bad. Dong Zong and Hindraf support the opposition so they are good.

What if Dong Zong and Hindraf announce that they will support anyone who agrees to their agenda? And what if Pakatan Rakyat disagrees with their agenda while Barisan Nasional agrees to it? And since their agenda is what matters Dong Zong and Hindraf now support Barisan Nasional and they announce so. Would Dong Zong and Hindraf still be considered good or are they now just like PERKASA, a racist organisation? What will your perception of Dong Zong and Hindraf be?

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

Whether something or someone is good or bad is not about whether it is really good or bad but about your interpretation of good and bad. If I perceive all religions as bad then I would have a very low opinion of religionists. Religionists, however, would perceive me as a Godless person and someone who cannot be trusted.

And if I support Hindraf on it latest stand that it will not support either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat unless they support Hindraf's agenda how would you perceive me? Am I a true democrat who fights for the oppressed minority or am I a traitor to the cause? The question is: which cause are you using to come to this conclusion, Hindraf's cause or your own cause?

Yes, your perception is guided by your interest. You will have a good perception of someone when it suits your agenda and you will have a bad perception of that person when it conflicts with your agenda. Perceptions are not real. And that is why most of you perceive that you are going to heaven because you are following the true and correct religion. And is this not why Malaysians are fighting over who has the right to use the word 'Allah'?

 

DAP Protestors Caught Eating During Hunger Protest!

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:59 PM PST

STOP THE LIES

What a bunch of scums! These Anti-Lynas protestors attempted to fool their zombie supporters and the press that they were staging a hunger protest.

Eighteen of these so-called protestors vowed to the world that they would starve for 100 hours starting from Thurs, Dec 27, 8pm but they have been caught having their meals at a nearby hotel!

They would have most likely ate merrily earlier but an alert reporter from a news portal  MYNEWSHUB  caught them sneaking off to the Swiss Hotel after entering the 63 hours of purported fasting.

When the press were present, they acted like they were drained of energy and tired but the minute the photographers went off, one by one, they also disappeared – for their makan!

The absence of these protestors had aroused the suspicions of the reporter, who quietly followed these protestors, mostly DAP members, to the hotel nearby.

He recorded pictures of these protestors having their meals with family members and supporters.

READ MORE HERE

 

Pakatan yakin dapat 35 dari 60 kerusi Dun Sabah

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:36 PM PST

"Selain itu juga 15 kerusi parlimen akan turut kita perolehi bagi membantu Pakatan Rakyat menawan Putrajaya," jelas beliau kepada Harakahdaily.

(Harakah) - Pakatan Rakyat Sabah yakin dapat menawan 35 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (Dun) Sabah pada Pilihanraya Umum Ke-13 (PRU13) nanti.

Bekas Timbalan Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT), Datuk Lajim Ukin berkeyakinan penuh selain dari 35 kerusi Dun, Pakatan Rakyat juga turut dapat memenangi 15 kerusi Parlimen di negeri itu.

"Saya berkeyakinan pada PRU13 nanti kita (Pakatan Rakyat) dapat memenangi 32 hingga 35 kerusi Dun dari 60 kerusi yang dipertandingkan dan membolehkan kita mendapat majoriti mudah bagi membentuk kerajaan.

"Selain itu juga 15 kerusi parlimen akan turut kita perolehi bagi membantu Pakatan Rakyat menawan Putrajaya," jelas beliau kepada Harakahdaily.

Lajim yang dalam pada itu turut mempersoalkan kenyataan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak yang masih mengganggapkan Sabah sebagai 'fixed deposit' mereka pada pilihanraya nanti.

Malah jelas Lajim lagi, jika Najib yang masih berkeyakinan kenapa sehingga sekarang beliau masih belum yakin untuk membubar parlimen dan memberi laluan kepada PRU13.

"Ketika saya di dalam Majlis Tertinggi Umno sebelum ini, ada agensi melaporkan kedudukan Umno-BN di sabah adalah 52 peratus memihak kepada mereka, manakala 48 peratus pula kepada Pakatan Rakyat.

"Tetapi maklumat tersebut bercanggah dengan  apa yang disalurkan oleh Jabatan Kemajuan Masyarakat (KEMAS) dan juga Jabatan Hal Ehwal Khas (JASA) yang menyatakan Barisan Nasional akan kalah di Sabah," katanya.

Tambah beliau atas sebab percanggahan maklumat itulah menyebabkan Najib dan juga pemimpin tertinggi Umno termasuk Timbalan Perdana Menteri terpaksa berulang-alik ke Sabah untuk mencari undi mereka.

Beliau yang juga merupakan Pengerusi Pertubuhan Pakatan Perubahan Sabah (PPPS) juga memberitahu tiada sebab untuk rakyat Sabah menolak Pakatan Rakyat pada PRU13 nanti.

Ini kerana Pakatan Rakyat yang mendahului Barisan Nasional dalam mendengari masalah dan penderitaan rakyat Sabah sebelum ini terutamanya dalam pemberian 20 peratus royalti minyak kepada Sabah dalam usaha meningkatkan kebajikan rakyat.

 

Be realistic with seat demands, Anwar urges SAPP

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:09 PM PST

Ida Lim, The Malaysian Insider

Hard-nosed Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) negotiators may jeopardise Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) bid to make inroads into the east Malaysian state considered a key Barisan Nasional (BN) vote bank, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has said.

With the 13th general election fast approaching, Anwar urged SAPP leaders to cut down on their demands for seats, saying that it would be hard to continue talks otherwise, the Sin Chew Daily reported today.

The opposition front in Sabah currently includes DAP, PAS, PKR and two newly-formed PR-friendly parties – Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS), Pakatan Perubahan Sabah (PPS) – working together with SAPP and the State Reform Party (STAR) against BN.

"Besides Sabah Pakatan Rakyat's five member parties, we still want to negotiate with SAPP; if SAPP continues making demands that are too high, it'll be hard for us to continue negotiations," Anwar was quoted as saying by Sin Chew Daily today.

But Anwar reportedly denied that PR was issuing an ultimatum to SAPP, saying that he only wanted to let the party know that the pact was in its final stages of seat negotiations.

The Borneo Post yesterday reported Anwar as saying that SAPP has to be a strong party to justify its desire for half the seats up for grabs in the coming election.

"As far as the three parties are concerned, it is very good, but then there is very little progress with SAPP; (that) is the report I have. We have to convey this to SAPP because we must have some formula of compromise.

"Each party should not demand too much... we have to be realistic as to the strength of each party. If SAPP for example wants half of the seats, it has to be a formidable party.

"For now we will not stop discussions but we will have to convey our position on behalf of the three parties which include APS and PPPS," the PKR de facto leader said.

According to the Borneo Post, Anwar said that the parties involved in seat negotiations should not carry out attacks during talks.

"We are negotiating and therefore it is not wise to go on attacking, like this spat between SAPP and DAP," he said, likely referring to reported tension between the two parties.

SAPP had in September declared that the party was eyeing the parliamentary seats of Sepanggar, Penampang and Kota Kinabalu in Sabah – the same seats that DAP wishes to contest.

On December 20, Anwar reportedly rejected claims that PR's seat negotiations with SAPP were faltering.

READ MORE HERE

 

‘Endorse our blueprint if you want our support’

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:02 PM PST

Hindraf is not prepared to give any political block free lunch as it did in 2008 general election.

Athi Shankar, FMT

Hindraf Makkal Sakti will only support a political coalition that gives written pre-election agreement to implement the movement's five-year blueprint for ethnic Indian community.

Either Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional must pen down written assurances on Hindraf blueprint agreement that they would implement its demands if they come to power in the forthcoming general election.

"That's the condition if either political block wants our backing to canvass Indian votes," Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy made it clear at a gathering here last night.

He stressed that the civil rights movement was not prepared to give any political block free lunch as it did in 2008 general election.

"We will throw our support to any party that gives written endorsement that if they come to power they will implement our blueprint for the betterment of much marginalised working class Indians.

"We will not compromise on this," insisted the Hindraf supremo.

Those present in the Juru community hall raised their arms to give unanimous support to Hindraf's stand.

They also displayed banners and placards in support of Hindraf and its blueprint, and calling PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan to endorse it.

They also give unanimous endorsement to Hindraf's decision to contest in the next election.

Speculations already rife that Waythamoorthy was contemplating to take on MIC president G Palanivel in the next polls, probably in Cameron Highlands parliamentary constituency.

He declined comment when asked about it.

Hindraf's blueprint was launched last month to mark 5th anniversary of the movement's mammoth rally held in KLCC on Nov 25, 2007.

It generally demands for comprehensive and constructive Felda-type socio-economic programmes, such as community re-settlement, quality housing and equal education opportunities, for displaced ethnic Indian plantation workers and their families.

READ MORE HERE

 

‘Hisham’s liaison officer more powerful than IGP’

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 01:54 PM PST

MyWatch is claiming that the Home Minister's special liaison officer has powers to bypass the Inspector-General of Police himself.

Teoh El Sen, FMT

Anti-crime watchdog MyWatch alleged today that a police officer with a rank of deputy commissioner [DCP] appointed by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein as his special liaison officer is 'more powerful' than the Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar himself.

The NGO's chairman R Sri Sanjeevan claimed that this was because the officer was able to bypass the IGP to give instructions to top officers of the Royal Malaysian Police [PDRM], including state police chiefs, state CID chiefs and district police heads.

Sanjeevan said that never in the history of the police force has a liaison officer held such a high rank of DCP, which is even higher ranked than the prime minister's aide-de-camp who is only ranked an Assistant Commissioner of Police [ACP].

The home minister's current liaison officer is identified as DCP Wan Ahmad Najmuddin Mohamad.

"MyWatch urges the home minister to explain why does he need a PDRM liaison officer in his office with the rank of DCP which is equivalent to state CPO position when all the while it was only a Superintendent [Supt] position."

Sanjeevan claimed that this "clearly shows that home minister is indeed meddling into PDRM matters without relaying orders directly to the IGP himself".

"Since the officer advises the home minister, then I think the IGP would have to listen to him as well, right?" he added.

"MyWatch strongly believes that the home minister is having a DCP as PDRM liaison officer… is only because he can give instructions and orders directly to CPOs [state police chiefs], OCCI [state CID chiefs], and OCPD [district police chief]. This is also another form of waste of police resources and shows non-productivity," he said in a press statement.

Sanjeevan also lamented that complaints to Hishammuddin sent to his Twitter account @HishammuddinH2O were only simply forwarded to Wan Ahmad Najmuddin's account @tok_we, which he claimed was a "dormant account" that was hardly used.

Transferred for refusing to follow instructions

FMT understands that the liaison officer was previously a position where a Supt was placed at Bukit Aman to coordinate communications between the two agencies, and assist the Home Ministry in monitoring case files and statistics.

A police source said that the previous officer, ranked Supt, was apparently transferred out when he refused to follow instructions from the home minister. Najmuddin, according to the source, was promoted very fast when he replaced his predecessor.

Previously, MyWatch or The Malaysian Crime Watch Task Force, had claimed that it has in its possession evidence that top police officers were involved in criminal activities, including officers that were involved in money laundering, illegal gambling, prostitution, football bookies and have direct links with underworld figures and kingpins.

READ MORE HERE

 

Sabah DAP will bury hatchet with SAPP if…

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 01:49 PM PST

Sabah DAP totally agrees with Anwar's comment that each party should not demand too much during seat negotiations.

Queville To, FMT

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah DAP has urged Sabah opposition parties, Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) in particular, to respect Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim's advise to stop attacking each other in the midst of seat negotiation efforts.

"Sabah DAP could not agree more with the advise of Anwar, that it is a matter of principle that all parties must not attack in the midst of negotiations.  Therefore, we respect the call by Anwar to stop the spat between DAP and SAPP," said its publicity secretary Chan Foong Hin.

But Chan, while advising SAPP to respect Anwar's advise and to stop attacking DAP, did not let up on his criticism of the Sabah opposition party.

"It is most regrettable that if SAPP continues to repeat their allegations towards DAP such as that we are 'prepared to form the government with Umno', 'attempts to sabotage the PR – SAPP negotiations' etc. It is high time also for SAPP cyber troopers to stop their labelling DAP Sabah as "biaDAP" and "Malayan Party". The first rule of seat negotiations is respecting each other.

"Let us all go back to the negotiation table. Sabah DAP respects  Anwar's advise to stop the spat between us and SAPP. This statement is the concluding remarks of all the unhappiness and uneasiness created by the spat in the year of 2012. We look forward for a better year of 2013, when all the oppositions can stay united to work for a change of government by upholding the principle of equality and respect to each other. Any party attempt(ing) to dominate the seats is beyond compromised," he said.

He maintained that SAPP's demand for half of the state seats is the root cause of "little progress" achieved in the seat negotiations among the opposition parties.

Chan demanded SAPP put aside all their political rhetoric such as "state party must control half of the state seats in order to uphold state autonomy" if they really want to continue with seat negotiations to achieve the ultimate goal of 'one to one fight' between the opposition and the Barisan Nasional.

He was responding to Anwar's recent statement that "little progress had been made" in the Pakatan-SAPP seat negotiations.

"Anwar's statement totally contradicted SAPP's statement the day before, which said that Pakatan- SAPP negotiations were almost completed," he said.

"Furthermore, it is evident that Pakatan never agreed with the suggestion by SAPP that "local parties contest the majority of the state seats while Pakatan focuses on parliamentary seats," Chan noted.

Nonetheless, he stressed that Sabah DAP totally agrees with Anwar's comment that each party should not demand too much during seat negotiations.

Chan said such comment was in line with Sabah DAP's principle of equality adopted in seat negotiations, that no single party should be bigger than anyone.

 

Standards of evidence

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 01:43 PM PST

Can you respect my different political faith and beliefs the same way you respect my different religious faith and beliefs, asks Raja Petra.

Faith, in a way, can be described as the word to explain lack of evidence. Hence, whenever you fail to prove your beliefs with supporting evidence you classify it under faith. And you can get away with whatever beliefs that lack evidence by calling it faith. It would be considered quite acceptable.

Raja Petra Kamarudin, Free Malaysia Today

How many of you can claim to be believing what you believe in out of choice? Were you once a Christian from the west who visited India and then fell in love with Hinduism?

Or were you once a Buddhist who studied Islam and then decided that Islam is the true religion after all (and you did not convert because you wanted to marry a Muslim spouse)?

The majority of you believe what you believe because you happened to have been born into that belief system and were raised within that belief system and received an education, or rather an indoctrination, regarding that belief system.

There is a more than a 99% chance that if you had not been not been born a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, today you would not be a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

As they say, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives. You were not given any choice as to which family you would like to be born into. And with that lack of choice as to which family you are to be born into, you also have no choice as to what religion you will be following.

Your family and environment shape your beliefs and you grow up adopting a certain belief system, which you invariably accept as the correct belief system.

Then someone comes along and tells you that you are wrong. You have been misled or misinformed and are a victim of conjecture, superstition, fallacies, and folklore. What you had believed your entire life is false. What you presumed as the truth is not the truth. Truth can be tested and would pass the test. Your beliefs are not founded on truth and therefore cannot pass the truth test.

And this contradiction will upset you. Someone is telling you that you are wrong and this makes you angry. It makes you angry because you are not able to rebut this. You are not able to offer any evidence that what this person is telling you is wrong. And you are also not able to offer any evidence to prove that you are right.

The truth test

Ah, yes, your beliefs cannot be tested or proven. They will not pass the truth test. And that is because your beliefs are based on faith.

Beliefs, in particular religious beliefs, are called faiths — religious faith. The reason they are called religious faiths is because you need to believe based on faith, not based on evidence.

Faith, in a way, can be described as the word to explain lack of evidence. Hence, whenever you fail to prove your beliefs with supporting evidence you classify it under faith. And you can get away with whatever beliefs that lack evidence by calling it faith. It would be considered quite acceptable.

Can I use this same basis of 'evidence' in a court of law? Can I sit in the witness box in court and testify that I have faith and hence this faith will be my evidence to support my testimony?

The court can never accept my faith as evidence. Evidence has to be tangible. And tangible evidence must be in the form of documentary evidence or the testimony of an eyewitness.

Even if I were to adduce documentary evidence or quote the testimony of an eyewitness that is not acceptable. I must be the producer or maker of that document. If I am not, then that document will be rejected. The maker himself or herself needs to go to court to testify that he or she is actually the maker of the document. Only then will the document be admitted as evidence.

The same applies to an eyewitness testimony. If I were to relate an incident or the testimony of someone else, that would be mere hearsay. That too is not admissible in court. The eyewitness who told me about the incident or made that statement must personally go to court to testify that he or she saw what happened or heard what was said.

That would be the rules of evidence and the court is very clear on this.

You must have been personally there and you are relating what you saw or else the court cannot accept what you say. Either you personally created that document or else that document cannot be admitted into evidence.

Religion does not work on this basis. Religion is all about hearsay and third party or hand-me-down evidence.

And yet while we will reject such standards of 'evidence' in a court of law, we can readily accept it when it comes to religion. And we build our belief system around these so-called standards, which under normal circumstances would be unacceptable.

And based on this system of belief, we will pass judgment and make decisions that affect the life of people.

READ MORE HERE

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Umno looks to penetrate Permatang Pauh

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 05:07 PM PST

Party insiders say Najib may opt for a more credible candidate with strong oratory skills and sound financial background.

Athi Shankar, FMT

PENANG: Local Umno is quietly confident of penetrating into PKR's virtually impregnable Permatang Pauh parliamentary fortress in the forthcoming 13th general election.

Confidence is said to be running high among Permatang Pauh Umno leaders that they can re-capture the constituency's Penanti and Permatang Pasir, and retain Seberang Jaya state seats.

Permatang Pauh Umno leaders also believe that this time they have an outside chance to upset incumbent MP and the Malay heartland "tribal king" Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader.

But observers believe Umno must apply the right candidacy jigsaw if the party is to realise its dream.

Sources said currently the division chairman and former Penanti assemblyman Abdul Jalil Abdul Majid had been earmarked to challenge Permatang Pauh favourite son Anwar for federal duel.

In Permatang Pasir, a PAS seat since 1999 general election, Umno is expected to field its constituency coordinator and division vice chairman Rahim Man.

Barisan Nasional's constituency coordinator and division committee member Ibrahim Ahmad has been listed for Penanti.

In Seberang Jaya, incumbent assemblyman Arif Shah Omar Shah, who won by a mere 553-majority largely thanks to postal votes against PKR's Rahim Bulat in 2008, is the choice.

However political observers and local leaders from BN component parties believe that the Umno division deputy chief and local corporate figure Mohammad Nasir Abdullah should be included in the candidature list.

Grassroots leader Mohammad Nasir was overlooked for 2008 general election and subsequent by-elections in Permatang Pauh, Permatang Pasir and Penanti.

Insiders said this was largely due to Abdul Jalil uneasiness with Nasir's political presence.

Seberang Jaya Umno branch chief Nasir rose from rank and file in the division, from being an ordinary member when Anwar was then its chief, to youth chief, then vice chairman and now deputy chief.

Observers said Jalil sensed that his position would face grave danger if Nasir, who has strong grassroots support among Permatang Pauh 17,000 Umno members from 95 branches, were to win a seat in general election.

They said that Jalil knew that Nasir, who has no political baggage, can topple him in the next party election.

Good ground support

A random survey showed many Umno branches, particularly among 44 branches in Seberang Jaya constituency, and BN local leaders backed Nasir as an election candidate.

Many want local boy Nasir (photo), who operates a Petronas petrol station in the constituency, to replace Arif Shah, in Seberang Jaya.

But Arif Shah is not expected to give up his seat with a strong fight.

After all if BN were to regain Penang, he stands a strong chance to become a deputy chief minister.

Seberang Jaya has 29,397 voters with Malays 18,882, Chinese 6,677 and Indians 3,682. In 2008, the constituency had 22,678 voters.

Postal votes in Seberang Jaya have also leapt drastically from 405 in March 2008 to 1,200 in mid-2012.

Insiders said it was time to replace Arif Shah with Nasir as the former had been a two-term assemblyman.

Recent vernacular press reports revealed Arif Shah, who speaks fluent Mandarin, would not be able to muster enough Chinese votes, a decisive factor to retain Seberang Jaya.

Local observers believe a fresh local born candidate like Nasir would be an ideal winnable replacement.

Grassroots sentiments are that Arif should be moved to Permatang Pasir which has 22,733 voters with Malays 16,643, Chinese 5,691 and Indians 363. In 2008, the constituency had 20,350 voters.

They feel Rahim would be a better candidate in Penanti, which now has 18,537 registered voters with Malays making up 13,194, Chinese 4,124 and Indians 390. In 2008, the constituency had 15,421 voters.

They said Arif Shah would be an ideal candidate in Permatang Pasir and Rahim had stronger grassroots backing Penanti.

Party grassroots want Umno president and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to give a strong consideration to their sentiments.

"This would give Umno a winnable electoral jigsaw," they said.

In the August 2008 parliamentary by-election, Anwar defeated Arif Shah by 15,671-majority to mark his national political comeback after 10 years absence.

Strangely though, as of June 2012, Permatang Pauh now has 70,667 registered voters, a huge leap by 12,208 votes within four years from 58,459 voters in 2008.

READ MORE HERE

 

Dubious backers of regime change

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 02:04 PM PST

AS Malaysia prepares for a general election, distrust of the political opposition and accusations of foreign interference have been major talking points in the political frequencies emanating from Kuala Lumpur.

Premesh Chandran, the chief executive officer of the nation's most prominent alternative media outlet, Malaysiakini, is a grantee of Soros' Open Society Foundations and launched the news organisation with a US$100,000 (RM300,000) grant from the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance, another organisation with dubious affiliations to the US State Department.

Nile Bowie, RT 

Umno leads the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, and has maintained power since independence in 1957.

One of Malaysia's most recognisable figures is former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who has been credited with ushering in large-scale economic growth and overseeing the nation's transition from an exporter of palm oil, tin and other raw materials, into an industrialised economy that manufactures cars and electronic goods.

The opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, is headed by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who once held the post of deputy prime minister in Dr Mahathir's administration, but was sacked over major disagreements on how to steer the economy during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

Today, the political climate in Malaysia is highly polarised. Malaysia's current leader, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, has pursued a reform-minded agenda by repealing authoritarian legislation of the past and dramatically loosening controls on expression and political pluralism.

Najib has rolled back the Internal Security Act, which allowed for indefinite detention without trial, and has liberalised rules regarding the publication of books and newspapers. During Malaysia's 2008 general election, the Barisan Nasional coalition experienced its worst result in decades, with Pakatan Rakyat winning 82 parliamentary seats.

For the first time, the ruling party was deprived of its two-thirds parliamentary majority, which is required to pass amendments to the Federal Constitution.

In the run up to elections scheduled to take place before an April next year deadline, figures from all sides of the political spectrum are asking questions about the opposition's links to foreign funders in Washington.

Dr Mahathir has long captured the ire of officials from Washington and Tel Aviv, and though he's retired, he has channelled his energies into the Perdana Global Peace Foundation, which recently hosted an international conference in Kuala Lumpur calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 and has sought to investigate war crimes committed in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr Mahathir has been an ardent critic of Israel and organisations, such as AIPAC, and has recently accused US-based organisations, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Open Society Institute (OSI), of holding a concealed intention to influence Malaysia's domestic politics through the funding of local non-govrnmental organisations (NGOs) and groups directly linked to Anwar's Pakatan Rakyat coalition.

In an article the former prime minister published in the New Straits Times, a leading mainstream newspaper, Dr Mahathir accuses financier George Soros and his organisation, OSI, of "promoting democracy" in eastern Europe to pave the way for colonisation by global finance capital. Dr Mahathir acknowledges how OSI pumped millions into opposition movements and independent media in Hungary, Ukraine and Georgia under the guise of strengthening civil society, only to have like-minded individuals nominated by Soros' own foundation come to power in those countries.

The former prime minister has also pointed to how Egypt (prior to Mohamad Morsi taking power) had cracked down on NGOs affiliated with NED, namely groups such as the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House, which are all recipients of funding from the US State Department.

In Malaysia, high-profile NGOs and media outlets have admittedly received funding from OSI and satellite organisations of NED.

Premesh Chandran, the chief executive officer of the nation's most prominent alternative media outlet, Malaysiakini, is a grantee of Soros' Open Society Foundations and launched the news organisation with a US$100,000 (RM300,000) grant from the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance, another organisation with dubious affiliations to the US State Department.

Malaysiakini has come under pressure from local journalists for the lack of transparency in its financial management and hesitance in revealing the value of its shares. Additionally, Suaram, an NGO promoting human rights, has borne heavy criticism over its funding and organisational structure. The Companies Commission of Malaysia launched investigations into Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, a private company linked to Suaram, and found it to be a conduit for money being used to channel funds from NED.

The German embassy in Kuala Lumpur had reportedly admitted that it has provided funds to Suaram's project in 2010. Foreign Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman followed by making strong statements to the German ambassador and declared that Germany's actions could be viewed as interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state.

Since 2007, Bersih, an association of NGOs calling itself the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, staged three street protests in which thousands of yellow-clad demonstrators took to the streets in Kuala Lumpur demanding electoral reform. After coming under heavy scrutiny for obfuscating funding sources, Bersih coalition leader Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan admitted that her organisation receives funding from the National Democratic Institute and OSI.

Ambiga herself has been the recipient of the US State Department's Award for International Women of Courage, and was present in Washington in 2009 to receive the award directly from the hands of Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

While  Ambiga's organisation claimed to be non-partisan and apolitical, members of  the political opposition openly endorsed the movement, and some were even present at the demonstrations.

While a large percentage of urbanites with legitimate grievances are quick to acknowledge the government's shortcomings, many are hesitant to back Anwar because of his connections with neo-conservative thinkers in Washington and general disunity within the opposition. Anwar maintains close ties with senior American officials and organisations such as NED. In 2005, Anwar chaired the Washington-based Foundation for the Future, established and funded by the US Department of State at the behest of Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of then vice-president Dick Cheney, thanks in large part to his cozy relationship with Paul Wolfowitz.

While Anwar was on trial for allegedly engaging in sodomy with a male aide (of which he was acquitted some time later), Wolfowitz and former US vice-president Al Gore authored a joint opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal in support of Anwar, while the Washington Post published an editorial calling for consequences that would affect Malaysia's relations with Washington if Anwar was to be found guilty. Anwar enraged many when he stated that he would support policy to protect the security of Israel in an interview with the Wall Street Journal; this is particularly controversial in Malaysia, where support for Palestine is largely unanimous.

Malaysian political scientist Dr Chandra Muzaffar writes: "It is obvious that by acknowledging the primacy of Israeli security, Anwar was sending a clear message to the deep state and to Tel Aviv and Washington that he is someone that they could trust. In contrast, the Najib government, in spite of its attempts to get closer to Washington, remains critical of Israeli aggression and intransigence. Najib has described the Israeli government as a 'serial killer' and a 'gangster'".

Members of BN have addressed Anwar's connections to NED in Parliament, including his participation in NED's "Democracy Award" event held in Washington in 2007. Independent journalists have uncovered letters written by Anwar, two of which were sent to NED president Carl Gershman in Washington that discussed sending an international election observer team to Malaysia and general issues related to electoral reform.

A third letter was sent to  Soros, expressing interest in collaborating with an accountability firm headed by Anwar. Pakatan Rakyat's communications director Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad verified the authenticity of the documents. This should come as little surprise as Anwar's  economic policies have historically aligned with institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, in contrast to Dr Mahathir, whose protectionist economic policies opposed international financial institutions and allowed Malaysia to navigate and largely resurface from the 1997 Asian financial crisis unscathed.

An issue that concerns secular and non-Muslim voters is the role of Pas as part of the opposition. In sharp contrast to the moderate brand of Islam preached by Umno, the organisation's primary objective is the founding of an Islamic state.

Pas has spoken of working within the framework of Malaysia's parliamentary democracy, but holds steadfast to implementing syariah on a national scale, which would lead to confusing implications for Malaysia's sizeable non-Muslim population. The debate around the implementation of hudud is something that other Pakatan Rakyat coalition members, such as figures in the Democratic Action Party, have been unable to agree on.

Pas  enjoys support from rural Malay Muslims in states such as Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu, though  it has limited appeal to urbanites. While certain individuals in Pas have raised questions about NGOs receiving foreign funding, Dr Mahathir has insinuated that Pas' leadership has been largely complicit: "They (foreign interests) want to topple the government through the demonstration and Nik Aziz (the spiritual leader of Pas) said it is permissible to bring down the government in this manner. They want to make Malaysia like Egypt, Tunisia, which were brought down through riots and now Syria. When the government does not fall, they (Pakatan Rakyat) can appeal to the foreign power to help and bring down, even if it means using firepower."

It must be acknowledged that the current administration led by Najib  has made great strides towards improving relations with Washington. At a meeting with President Barack Obama in 2010, Najib offered Malaysia's assistance to cooperate with the United States to engage the Muslim world; Najib also expressed willingness to deploy Malaysian aid personnel to Afghanistan, and allegedly agreed on the need to maintain a unified front on Iran's nuclear programme.

Najib has employed a Washington-based public relations firm, Apco, to improve Malaysia's image in the US and has embraced American economic leadership of the region through his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Some would argue that Najib is perhaps the most pro-American leader Malaysia has ever had.

Despite Najib having good rapport with formal Western leaders, it is clear with whom the think-tank policy architects, Zionist lobbies, and foundation fellows have placed their loyalties.

Sentiment among Malaysia's youth and "pro-democracy" activists, who constitute a small but vocal minority, tend to be entirely dismissive of the "regime change" narrative, viewing it as pre-election diversionary rhetoric of the ruling party. While bogeymen of the Zionist variety are often invoked in Malaysian political discourse, it would be negligent to ignore the effects of Washington-sponsored "democracy promotion" in the global context, which have in recent times cloaked mercenary elements and insurgents in the colours of freedom fighting, and successfully masked geopolitical restructuring and the ushering in of neo-liberal capitalism with the hip and fashionable vigour of "people power" coups.

As the United States continues to increase its military presence in the Pacific region in line with its strategic policy shift to East Asia, policymakers in Washington would like to see compliant heads of state who will act to further American interests in the Asean region.

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room; the real purpose of America's resurgence of interest in the Asean bloc is to fortify the region as a counterweight against Beijing.

The defence ministries of Malaysia and China held a landmark defence and security consultation in September, in addition to frequent bilateral state visits and enhanced economic cooperation. It was Najib's father, second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak, who made the landmark visit to Beijing to normalise relations in 1974, and under his son Najib, Sino-Malaysian relations and cooperation have never been better.

Following the global economic crisis of 2008, Najib looked to Beijing to revive Malaysia's export-oriented economy, emphasising increased Chinese investment in Malaysia and expanding the base of Sino-Malaysian trade in areas like education and student exchange, finance, infrastructure development, science and technology, yielding lucrative and mutually beneficial results. In asking the question of regime change in Malaysia, Chandra reflects on Washington's moves to bolster its military muscle and dominance over the Asia-Pacific region:

"Establishing a military base in Darwin (Australia), resurrecting the US' military alliance with the Philippines, coaxing Japan to play a more overt military role in the region, instigating Vietnam to confront China over the Spratly Islands, and encouraging India to counterbalance Chinese power, are all part and parcel of the larger US agenda of encircling and containing China.

"In pursuing this agenda, the US wants reliable allies -- not just friends -- in Asia. In this regard, Malaysia is important because of its position as a littoral state with sovereign rights over the Straits of Malacca, which is one of China's most critical supply routes that transports much of the oil and other materials vital for its economic development.

"Will the containment of China lead to a situation where the hegemon, determined to perpetuate its dominant power, seek to exercise control over the straits in order to curb China's ascendancy? Would a trusted ally in Kuala Lumpur facilitate such control? The current Malaysian leadership does not fit the bill."

Pakatan Rakyat has yet to offer a fully coherent organisational programme, and if the coalition ever came to power, the disunity of its component parties and their inability to agree on fundamental policies would be enough to conjure angrier, disenchanted youth back on to the streets, in larger numbers perhaps.

What is ticklishly ironic about reading op-eds penned by the likes of Wolfowitz and Gore, and how they laud Malaysia as a progressive and moderate model Islamic state, is that they concurrently demonise its leadership and dismiss them as authoritarian thugs.

Surely, the ruling coalition has its shortcomings; the politicisation of race and religion, noted cases of corrupt officials squandering funds, etc -- but far too few, especially those of the middle-class who benefit most from energy subsidies, acknowledge the tremendous economic growth achieved under the current leadership and the success of  its populist policies.

Najib has acknowledged the need for broad reforms of Malaysia's state-owned enterprises over concerns that crony capitalism may deter foreign investment; this should be rolled out concurrently with programmes to foster more local entrepreneurship. To put it bluntly, the opposition lacks confidence from the business community and foreign investors; even the likes of JP Morgan have issued statements of concern over an opposition win.

It should be noted that if Islamists ever wielded greater influence in Malaysia under an opposition coalition, one could imagine a sizeable exodus of non-Muslim minorities and a subsequent flight of foreign capital, putting the nation's economy in a fragile and fractured state. And yet, the US has poured millions into "democracy promotion" efforts to strengthen the influence of NGOs that distort realities and cast doubt over the government's ability to be a coherent actor.

Malaysia does not have the kind of instability that warrants overt external intervention; backing regime-change efforts may only go so far as supporting dissidents and groups affiliated with Anwar.

According to Ambiga, Malaysia's electoral process is so restrictive that a mass movement like Bersih is required to purge the system of its backwardness. These are curious statements, considering that the opposition gained control of four out of 13 states in 2008, including Selangor, a key economic state with the highest gross domestic product and most developed infrastructure.

In response, Najib has adhered to Bersih's demands and has called for electoral reform, forming a parliamentary select committee comprising members from both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional.

As elections loom, Ambiga is already dubbing them "the dirtiest elections ever seen" -- unsurprising rhetoric from a woman being handed her talking points by the US embassy.


 

For BN, a balancing act between voters and warlords

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 04:37 PM PST

Clara Chooi, The Malaysian Insider

The Barisan Nasional's (BN) inability to nail down a final list of candidates and the need to strike a delicate balance between pleasing voters and not sidelining its political warlords has been cited as reasons for the delay in calling elections, Singapore's Straits Times newspaper reported today.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has continued to keep Malaysians guessing over the date of the polls even though several dates have been bandied about in the media over the past year.

The Umno president and BN chairman has also refused to release BN's candidates list for the polls, despite several calls from grassroots leaders to do so, noting that keeping the list under wraps is a "strategic" decision.

Quoting political analyst Oh Ei Sun today, Singapore's ST reported that although the federal opposition pact Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is in itself entangled in a tussle over seats, the problem of selecting the best contestants is worse for BN than for its political foes.

Oh said that PKR and DAP lack a strong grassroots system that would allow a party leader to mobilise an efficient election machinery that would prevent sabotage of a candidate.

"In Umno, however, the system of patronage means a lot of people owe their livelihoods to certain leaders and warlords. The potential and ability to sabotage candidates are much stronger," the analyst was quoted as saying.

Sabotage has been highlighted as among one of Umno's greatest fears going into the 13th general election.

During the party's last two general assemblies, this was the strongest message that Najib sent to the party's over three million members.

He repeatedly reminded members to accept the candidates selected by the BN leadership, even if they are not chosen, and urged them to work with their respective parties to ensure the candidate wins the polls for BN.

READ MORE HERE

 

Confidence tricks in Sabah politics

Posted: 26 Dec 2012 03:46 PM PST

Former Chief Minister Harris Salleh's latest comments are indicative of how disengaged Sabah leaders, both past and present, are from the man on the street. 

Free Malaysia Today

Ask almost anyone in Sabah, especially those in the Chinese business community, and they'll tell you the state's economy is in a bad way and will be so for the foreseeable future.

Sabah's prized assets are in greedy hands. Its golden crop – oil palm – is losing its lustre in the commodities market, its tourism lure is messy, the prices of goods and services have gone up, property prices have sky-rocketed and where jobs are available wages are low and the infrastructure remains creaky and basic.

With all this pointing to deepening economic woes, you'd think that the state's politicians who have rarely been so unpopular would be cautious about throwing stones at glass houses that they are living in. But no, its still business as usual.

The constant government boot-polishing goes on as though these things don't matter.

Have the state's leaders become disengaged from the people? Are they out of touch with what the man in the street thinks?

Former chief minister Harris Salleh, who never misses an opportunity to give advice though he was unceremoniously booted out of government more than 27 years ago, gave some insight into the state politicians' thinking this week by heaping praise on what most would view as failure and incompetence.

Speaking as though he was giving the state a Christmas present, Harris predicted more of the same from the Barisan Nasional and Chief Minister Musa Aman for Sabah after the looming 13th general election. He said BN will win in Sabah without breaking a sweat.

The prediction came with the usual boot polishing and though couched in the language of the confident, sounded like a plea when he said there was a possibility that the BN might lose a few seats, especially in the urban areas where people were more in touch with what was going on.

An indication that the former chief minister is aware that the ruling coalition is facing a tough time.

Explaining what it has done with the years it has been given to develop the state, Harris said: "… changing from Barisan Nasional is just like the English saying jumping from the frying pan into the fire" and the opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat was without "real leaders".

As though reciting a mantra, he added: "Sabah under Musa has done very well. It is a well managed state. This was confirmed by the Auditor-General's report that Sabah has the best accounting system in Malaysia. Musa has also jump-started the Sabah economy from the top to the bottom. This is almost completed."

But the former chief minister also said that further pain was necessary for all Malaysians for this "top to bottom" economic revamp being put in place heroicly by the current chief minister with a little help from a BN government in Putrajaya.

"After this election Musa will jump-start the economy from the bottom if the federal government adopts the policy to abolish all subsidies, education and medical fees and in return pay a cash allowance of RM300 to every person.

"This will immediately trigger the development of abandoned rural lands. It will also create hundreds of thousand jobs for Sabahans," he was quoted as saying.

That distribution of cash, which has always been one of the former chief minister's monetary policies since his days helping Berjaya, has always led to head-scratching among the more economically prudent and will again bemuse most.

Observers noted that Harris who has given candid advice about state and national governance has not dared to point out that Musa has done nothing out of the ordinary and can instead be blamed for allowing poverty to flourish during his tenure.

The man who signed over Sabah's oil and gas rights in return for 5% royalty and controversially ceded the island of Labuan, which used to be part of Sabah, to the federal government, making it the second Federal Territory in the country, sees the writing on the wall for the BN and is hoping he can help starve-off defeat and perhaps protect his legacy.

Sounding as though he was pleading to Sabahans he said: "With another five years there is ample time for Najib to reform both the government and Umno.

"With the plan to reform, it will give time to Najib to jump-start the economy from the bottom. This means that everybody – the rural people will be given opportunities to improve and sustain their economy forever."

Harris talked of "well-planned" programmes for the cultivation of both cash and permanent crops that have to be introduced in the rural areas to jump-start the economy from kampong-level and raising to the top.

'Halt all subsidies'

This, by itself, he said, would create employment for the locals apart from reducing import of agricultural produce and creating cash-flow in the small townships or districts.

All this, however, borders on an insult to many who have made the best they can with poorly planned and delayed infrastructure development in the state, including in healthcare and educational services.

The most controversial of the former chief minister's suggestions was that the government halt all subsidies as, he said, these were creating an artificial sense that the living standard and cost of living in Malaysia is cheap.

READ MORE HERE

 

Neither BN nor Pakatan good for Sabah, S’wak

Posted: 26 Dec 2012 03:08 PM PST

Declassified documents pertinent to Borneo, found in the British archives, indicate that Putrajaya's policies may be running foul of the unwritten constitution of Malaysia. 

Joe Fernandez, FMT

Former Sabah Chief Minister Mohd Harris Salleh has never failed to appear from time to time as a bundle of contradictions to the extent of even embarrassing his own party leaders.

Harris, in his defence, may be said to mean well and even acting in good faith but often this argument is nothing more than the proverbial fig-leaf.

The man simply can't be allowed to get away with it too many times. It creates not just bad but dangerous precedents. Both Harris and former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad appear to be birds of a feather in more ways than one.

However Harris isn't even facing the remotest danger of being hauled up by Umno — assuming he's still a member of the party given his penchant for sponsoring mosquito parties including Usno 2006 which is awaiting "registration" — on disciplinary charges for bringing it into public disrepute. This Mother of All Charges, with apologies to Saddam Hussein, is sure to cook anyone's goose for good.

Harris, in the latest, put his aging foot in his mouth in making comparisons between the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan).

In remarks carried earlier this week in the local media, a seemingly worried and frustrated Harris warned Sabahans in no uncertain terms that voting in Pakatan will be like going into the fire from the frying pan (BN).

Either state is not a desirable "ideal" for Sabahans. Harris however seems quite convinced that the frying pan is the lesser of two evils for Sabahans "since there's no other choice".

Orang Asal — Murut and Dusun including Kadazan or urban Dusun — activists beg to disagree with Harris on his theory that "better the frying than the fire".

For starters, they think the jury is still out on whether Pakatan is the fire or the frying pan, not that it makes any difference. Pakatan, in a way, might be akin to going into the frying pan from the fire (BN).

Pakatan has pledged that Sabah and Sarawak will enjoy 20 per cent oil and gas royalty under its federal administration vis-a-vis the present measly five per cent they collect from the BN federal government.

Agenda Borneo vs Agenda Malaya

Is this what Sabahans really want after 50 years of putting up with Malaysia in the mould of the Peninsular Malaysia-dominated Putrajaya?

This year alone, the federal government collected RM18 billion in oil and gas revenue from Sabah. Elsewhere, it has collected RM24 billion in other revenue.

The Malaysia Agreement stipulates that 40 per cent of this combined total must be returned to the state. However, this stipulation has allegedly not been honoured since 1970, according to sources in the know.

Orang Asal activists like local hero Jeffrey Kitingan are urging the people to say "enough is enough!".

"Ini kali lah!", scream Sabahans who want to have nothing to do whatsoever with Putrajaya allegedly continuing to rule Sabah and Sarawak through local proxies and their stooges.

"Kalau bukan sekarang, bila lagi! Kalau bukan kita siapa lagi!", they want to know.

Enter the Agenda Borneo, propagated by Jeffrey's United Borneo Front (UBF), as the eternal stand against the Agenda Malaya of Putrajaya and the parti-parti Malaya operating in Borneo.

The Agenda Malaya, according to Jeffrey and his people, has seen the Federation of Malaya masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia since 1963.

Giving proof they cite the fact that Putrajaya claimed that Malaysia was 55 years old this year, the figure calculated from Aug 31, 1957, the day that the British advisors to the Bugis Sultans gave up their control of the Malayan Administration.

As further proof they point out that Putrajaya keeps referring to Sabah and Sarawak as the 12th and 13th states and has ensured that local history text books maintain the fiction that both "nations in Malaysia" secured their independence through Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963.

Malaysia has unwritten constitution

Nothing could be further from the truth on the history of Malaysia, swear activists in Sabah and Sarawak.

Sarawak in fact chose independence as its form of self-determination and secured that status on July 22, 1963.

Sabah, likewise, chose independence as its form of independence and secured that status on Aug 31, 1963.

It follows therefore that both Sabah and Sarawak entered the 1963 Federation as "independent nations" in Malaysia unlike self-governing Singapore which became independent through the new Federation.

Brunei chose to remain a British protectorate rather than risk all in emulating Singapore.

Brunei was proven right when Singapore left Malaysia two years later in 1965.

Sabah and Sarawak, which realised that the written Constitution of Malaya was being passed off as the written Constitution of Malaysia, were not allowed by Putrajaya to follow in Singapore's footsteps and go back to solely their hard-won self-determination status of July 22, 1963 and Aug 31, 1963 respectively.

Malaysia, Jeffrey and company want to tell the whole world, has an unwritten constitution based on the Batu Sumpah among other constitutional documents including the written constitution of Malaya.

The other constitutional documents cited are the Inter-Governmental Committee Report (IGCR); the Cobbold Commission Report (CCR); the 20/18 Points; the informal UN survey in Sabah and Sarawak; the Malaysian Bill and the state constitutions of Sabah and Sarawak.

Constitution a pandora's box

STAR deputy chairman Daniel John Jambun and activist Kanul Gindol claim that they found more than 5,000 declassified documents during a month's research stint in November at the British Archives in Kew Gardens, England.

READ MORE HERE

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved