Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Creating a Twister From A Teacup Storm?
- Choosing Sides
- Najib hints at November polls
- Janji Demokrasi – the real Merdeka event
- Hari Malaysia 2012 - Dan Lain-Lain
- Stop political corruption: Stop party-hopping
- Tales from the East
- Who's the ultimate ruler of Malaysia?
- Relative to time and place
- Nefarious act of betrayal
- Sabah can’t be compared to Alaska and Hawaii
- 'New flag' stunt raises ire
- Musa on radar of Swiss money-laundering probe
- S’gor DAP branches reject Ganapathirau
- Sultans’ Daulat Is A Myth – Part Two
| Creating a Twister From A Teacup Storm? Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:40 AM PDT
Yahmeh!!! The youths who showed the controversial flag on Aug 30, 2012 have come out to explain their side of the story. Read more at: http://yah-meh.blogspot.com/2012/09/creating-twister-from-teacup-storm.html | ||||||||||
| Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:31 AM PDT
The expression loyal to the government of the day should not be literally translated. The thing that civil service should be loyal to is to the IDEA of the government of the day- not the actual government of the day. If the opposite is true, if the civil service is loyal to the actual government of the day instead of the idea, then, when UMNO loses, the government must resign. Sakmongkol AK47 People of Malaysia will indeed have to choose. Stand on the side of the oppressors or the oppressed. Support the deceiver or the deceived. Support the corrupt and endorse the looting and the pillage of this country. all done in the name of Agama, Bangsa Dan Negara. Everything is justifiable because the perpetrators are Malays and forgetting the victims are in the majority also Malays. pardon the government in shortchanging the Felda settlers giving them a measly 2.5% of the FGV shares while the bulk of the shares are hijacked by people who have no connection at all with Felda. Pardon UMNO because even though it allocates 2.5% to settlers and 3% to Felda employees, all is done in the name of Malays. Ignore the fact that LCCT is going to cost close to RM 6billion instead of RM500 million if facilities for low cost airline are built northwards of the current KLIA instead of agreeing that the facilities be built on soft ground as proposed by the MAB? Are people in the MAB making hay while the sun shines? We keep quiet because it's done by the current government which fights for Agama, Bangsa Dan Negara. Then, does that mean, the agama of UMNO endorses corruption, pillage and looting? Does that also mean that bangsa permits UMNO to do all the transgressions? And does that mean, agama, bangsa of the Malays excuse the murder of a Mongolian because she is after all just a prostitute? And finally because it is done in the name and on behalf of negara which UMNO claims absolute ownership on, all of the above are excusable? The recent spate of advertisements where various people say I chose Malaysia and I choose to vote are nothing more than self-serving vilest of propaganda. They are also self-congratulating. They seem to suggest that those who support the government choose to show the support through the voting process and those who do not, appear to be shown as people who want to change government through undemocratic means. The purveyors of these dreadful advertisements have only shown political immaturity because such hoopla does not require subtle and sophisticated thinking. They require only emotion and self-praise, while the opposite requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational faculty. And we know the emotional faculties are more developed than the rational. When we look at the photos of people hailed as champions of I chose Malaysia campaign in the MSM papers, we know the nature of the faculties which they represent. Liberalize the media and see what happens. Allow the free exchange of ideas and free flow of ideas so that people can judge for themselves. So choose. Stand on the side of the bully or on the side of the marginalized and trampled on? The reality and truth is we can elect in a better government. We only ask the structures of government- the civil service, the judiciary, the law enforcers, other institutions to stop toadying up to UMNO. The structures of government serve the people. They remain intact if and when a new government takes over and the business of running a government does not end with the jettisoning of UMNO. Read more at: http://sakmongkol.blogspot.com/2012/09/choosing-sides.html | ||||||||||
| Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:20 AM PDT
(The Star) - SANDAKAN: Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has strengthened speculation that the next general election will be held in November. With the Prime Minister scheduled to unveil the National Education Blueprint on Sept 11 and Budget 2013 on Sept 28, talk in political circles is that the general election will likely be held in the second last month of the year. The Barisan Nasional chairman's "one-on-one" meetings with component party heads on Aug 28 to discuss their candidates' list have also given credence to talk that the polls will be held then. In his strongest hint yet, the Umno president brought his favourite number 11 into prominence during the joint opening of the party's Kinabatangan, Sandakan, Batu Sapi, Beluran and Libaran delegates meeting here. He said the double digits were "significant" this year because 2012 is the 66th year of Umno, with Malaysia marking the 55th year of Merdeka and Sabah Umno notching 22 years. "All these numbers could be multiplied by 11," he said. "Six times 11 equals 66, five times 11 equals 55 and 2 times 11 equals 22. The factor of 11 appears in all. It is unique and good." Earlier in his speech, Najib urged members of the state Umno and Barisan Nasional to defend Sabah as a "fixed deposit" of the coalition. He said Umno's strength in Sabah was good and believed the party would get "a resounding support" of the people in the state. Najib urged Umno members to work for the party and not look at ethnicity of candidates as this would divide and weaken the party. "We don't need selfish members who only want to fill their pockets and protect their positions. Such people can leave. "Najib is not strong, Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman is not strong. Our strength is in Umno and Barisan Nasional," he pointed out. The Prime Minister asked Sabah voters to give Barisan another five years' mandate so that the coalition could carry out its projects in the state under the Government Transformation Programme. He said ties between the Federal Government and Sabah were good, adding that the state benefited much under Barisan. | ||||||||||
| Janji Demokrasi – the real Merdeka event Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:07 AM PDT
The comparison of the participants at the Janji Demokrasi gathering and those at Himpunan Merdeka is striking. The former were not promised any incentives. The only incentive for them was expressing their disaffection for the government, sending the ruling party the message that it cannot hijack Merdeka for its own selfish purpose: Merdeka belongs to the people, not to BN. Kee Thuan Chye
The occasion could not have been better chosen or timed: The eve of the country's 55th Merdeka anniversary, two hours before countdown. The venue could not have been more appropriate: Dataran Merdeka, where the countdown to Merdeka is held every year to commemorate the very first countdown to independence in 1957. The theme could not have been more telling: 'Janji Demokrasi', a response to the government's Merdeka theme, 'Janji Ditepati'. Sasterawan Negara (National Laureate) A Samad Said (centre) to read his impassioned poem with its powerful ending:
Kita laungkan jerit senyaringnya: "Janji Demokrasi!" (We cry with all our hearts: "The promise of democracy!" Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein predicted few people would turn up. But he was wrong. They came by the thousands – some counted tens of thousands – dressed in yellow, as requested by the organisers.
A demonstration like this would have come in the past from the opposition, but the amazing thing about this one is that it came from the rakyat. The rakyat came to Dataran Merdeka – people of all races, dressed in yellow, in fraternity, united in a common cause. When this comes from the rakyat, not opposition politicians, the ruling party must needs tremble. The rakyat even defied the police ban on the gathering. Hours before the event, the police tried to frighten people away by declaring the gathering illegal. But the people didn't care. Their disregard was a clear sign that the system is falling apart. When the people don't respect the law enforcers as well as the policy-makers, the end for the latter has to be near.
Of those who attended the Bukit Jalil event, 'Himpunan Merdeka', an insider tells me, "at least 50 percent were instructed to attend. We were given RM60 for meal expenses, free travel on the LRT. Those who brought their family got an additional RM50. Free rides on chartered buses were provided." About 100,000 people reportedly showed up, but there must have been many who were lured by the live performances of famous local artistes, the fireworks display and the lucky draw. The prizes included a Proton Prevé, a Chevrolet Cruze, air tickets to London and Sydney, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. The comparison of the participants at the Janji Demokrasi gathering and those at Himpunan Merdeka is striking. The former were not promised any incentives. The only incentive for them was expressing their disaffection for the government, sending the ruling party the message that it cannot hijack Merdeka for its own selfish purpose: Merdeka belongs to the people, not to BN. That they managed to do so, in defiance of the police, on such a significant national occasion must be devastating for the government. Going by this, if BN were to retain Putrajaya at the next general election, it will not have an easy time governing for another five years. It will likely face consistent resistance from a recalcitrant rakyat. Would it be facetious then to suggest that it capitulate now? Indeed, some people have already been calling this year's Merdeka celebrations "Umno-BN's farewell bash". However, BN's leaders continue to strive to maintain that they are right.
The reasoning sounds weird and warped. Mainly because the logic of putting the onus on the people to ensure peace and stability is strained and contrived. Usually, that duty is assigned to the government. But what is more telling is Najib's evasion of the all-important point – that 'Janji Ditepati' is also BN's campaign slogan for the upcoming general election. That is the point of contention that he should have addressed. In his speech at Himpunan Merdeka, Najib responded to the Janji Demokrasi gathering by saying that it involved only the minority whereas the gathering at Bukit Jalil involved the majority. First, many people were compelled to attend Himpunan Merdeka – among them civil servants and staff of some statutory bodies.
Third, if there had been no banning of the Janji Demokrasi gathering and the threat of possible arrest, many more people might have gone for it. Plus, many who did not show up nonetheless support it in their hearts. On social media that night, many said they wished they had gone, and many more cheered the success of the turnout. Fourth, those who did come for the Janji Demokrasi gathering were not attracted by incentives, like payments, free transport and lucky draws. Their reason for coming was sincere and genuine. Sore losers Not only that, he also demonised the opposition by accusing them of trying to bring chaos to the nation. Merdeka Day is supposed to be a day of national harmony and reconciliation. Desperate though Najib may be to win the next general election, he should still have shown respect for the occasion. Instead, he hijacked the event and used it as his election platform. How then can it not be said that the Janji Demokrasi gathering was totally justified?
By the way, the gathering was peaceful, and Dang Wangi district police chief ACP Zainuddin Ahmad admitted that no untoward incidents were reported. Yet even so, he added, "We'll investigate later (for any violations)." What's there to investigate if there were no untoward incidents? He also said they would investigate Samad for reading a poem. Since when has reading a poem become an offence? Don't the police have more important things to do – like going after criminals instead? It's time the police realised that people power is on the rise and adjusted to the new paradigm – or they will look stupid playing their outdated games. It does not do them well to take their cue from their boss at the Home Ministry, Hishammuddin Hussein, who in commending them for maintaining security at the Janji Demokrasi gathering said: "We see that the event, which was aimed at creating chaos, failed …" His statement was outright unfair – and downright stupid. He also sounded like a sore loser. But then, if you have seen how gamblers behave when their chips are down, you will understand why he said it. KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of the bestselling book 'No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians', available at major bookstores. | ||||||||||
| Hari Malaysia 2012 - Dan Lain-Lain Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:03 AM PDT
Date: September 16, 2012 (Sunday) RECENTLY at a group conversation, a genuinely-concerned ethnic Chinese asked a friend of mixed parentage: "How does it feel to not have a real culture?" Excuse me? For so long – too long – we've gone about bandying our respective ethnicity as if, without it, we're rudderless. Yet we've all heard it before, haven't we, in various emphasis; guilty of it even. Our politics is shaped by it, local surveys are modelled along it, the media blares it. Worse, we judge. In our minds, many of us imagine ourselves the quintessential Ethnic Thoroughbred. There's us, and there's them, the Others. That's curious, because genetically, between one human being and the next, we're 99.5 percent alike. And in this 0.5 percent difference – which translates into height, length of nose, colour of skin, shape of eyes, texture of hair – this whole Other business emerges. We're obsessed with the Other. To be fair, we're not unique. It was a reason for imperialism and that slant was expressed candidly. British cartographers for example centered Britain on their maps, and drew it proportionally larger than it should be... Other, then, describes the process of justifying the domination of individuals or groups in the periphery to facilitate subordination. The creation of the other is done by highlighting their weakness, thus extenuating the moral responsibility of the stronger self to educate, convert, or civilize depending on the identity of the other. - Wikipedia Today, the world's religions promote the same virtues, and yet so much of religious discourse and practice is focused on differences with the Others. Women's rights groups exist to correct centuries of being the Other in a male-dominated world. Slaves were a convenient Other. The LGBTs are a convenient Other. Perhaps it is time to pause and dig for solutions which conjoin rather than divide. Let us contemplate the very phrase that so mocked and divided the marginal communities: Dan Lain-Lain. Dan Lain-Lain includes. Dan Lain-Lain is the creative hybrid which gives life its zest. Dan Lain-Lain FTW! Every community in this country has in some way or other adopted and adapted to the geography, and culture of its neighbours. Forget the thoroughbred; we're all mongrels. Whether by language or food or thought, we are mongrel. On September 16, this Hari Malaysia, join us for a celebration of Dan Lain-Lain. | ||||||||||
| Stop political corruption: Stop party-hopping Posted: 02 Sep 2012 08:58 AM PDT What must not be tolerated is the betrayal of voters who had cast their votes in favour of a candidate who then decides to party-hop after winning, says P Ramakrishnan in supporting anti-party-hopping legislation. It is difficult to justify why anyone would want to oppose an anti-party-hopping legislation that holds out hope for morality in politics. Any sane person should welcome this move so that elected representatives who betray their electors cannot go scot-free. These renegades cannot ignore the mandate of the voters who elected them.The proposed legislation by the Penang State government does not prevent anyone from leaving their current party. They are free to go and join any party and associate themselves with whatever party they choose to keep company. There is no law to prevent them from jumping ship! All that an anti-party-hopping legislation seeks to do is to force a by-election so that the voters who had been betrayed could be given the opportunity to decide once again whether they still want renegades or defectors to continue as their elected representatives. Those who initially elected the renegades must have the right to decide whether they still want them as their elected representative. What must not be tolerated is the betrayal of the voters who had cast their votes in favour of a candidate who then decides to party-hop after winning. The voters' electoral decisions cannot be sidelined and totally ignored as if they were of no consequence. Besides, anti-party-hopping legislation also seeks to curb political corruption. Undoubtedly, there is always an element of corruption involved, some attractive inducement held out to corrupt politicians to switch sides. Unscrupulous politicians offer themselves for sale without a tinge of conscience. Otherwise there would be no reason to switch parties. We witnessed in horror how these unscrupulous politicians unconscionably frustrated the will of the voters in Perak by resigning from their respective parties to enable an ignoble takeover of a people's government by the Barisan Nasional. This shameful conduct was given so much prominence and publicity on TV with the then Deputy Prime Minister, who is believed to have orchestrated this despicable act, welcoming their decision as if these scoundrels have performed a fantastic feat! It was this morally contemptible act that toppled a legitimate government that was duly elected by the will of the people. When demeaning conduct is glorified with such pompous fanfare then something must be seriously wrong because it means that we are totally incapable of differentiating what is right and wrong! And when the Deputy Prime Minister, the second topmost leader of the country, was associated with this diabolical conduct what hope is there for integrity and moral conduct. When this despicable behaviour is upheld by the justice system, it is totally appalling and absolutely disgusting! Our courts have inexplicably defended the right of renegade representatives – at the expense of thousands of voters – on the premise of upholding the renegades' right of association. This is ridiculous. This so-called right of association was never in jeopardy. The right to associate was never the issue. That freedom was never denied. The renegades were free to defect. The courts strangely and jealously, in a convoluted manner, have ruled that if renegade representatives were to give up their elected positions, it would constitute an infringement of their right. The courts seem so concerned with the turncoats' right while completely ignoring the rights of thousands of voters whose electoral decision was betrayed and nullified by the unprincipled behaviour of these renegade representatives. Common sense would dictate that the courts should have decided in favour of the voters to uphold the democratic process – but the courts instead shamefully and willfully chose to sacrifice the rights of thousands of voters. It was so obvious that the freedom of association was not interfered with. Renegades would not lose their membership in their new-found parties if they were to resign from their elected positions. They say justice is blind in that it does not take into consideration the status of individuals or their position in society but in these cases, the judgments were blind justice in that they failed to see reason and overlooked what was very obvious. P Ramakrishnan, the immediate past president of Aliran, now serves on the Aliran executive committee. | ||||||||||
| Posted: 02 Sep 2012 01:00 AM PDT
Now, while Lajim's financial backer, a Bruneian who migrated to Sabah, is known as Mr. W., Lajim is known as Mr. J. And Mr. J. stands for 'Mister Jackpot'. Mr. W. and Mr. J., in fact, go way back, back to the days when Lajim was still in Usno. And Mr. W. has been funding Lajim's political career all this while. But Lajim suffers from a serious addiction. And this addiction is gambling (so much for Lajim's Islamic credentials). THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Lajim to set up new political party in Sabah The new party, if approved, will field candidates for the coming general election. (Bernama, 31 Aug 2012)) -- Former Umno supreme council member Datuk Seri Panglima Haji Lajim Bin Haji Ukin will set up a new political party as a vehicle to field candidates in the upcoming general election. He said a formal application for that purpose would be submitted to the Registrar of Societies (ROS) within the next 10 days. "If approved by ROS, we will be contesting under the new party," he told a news conference, here, today. Lajim, who formed a non-governmental organisation called Pakatan Angkatan Rakyat (PPS) recently, however, declined to divulge the name of the new party, only saying "it is a new political party". The former deputy housing and local government minister said should ROS reject the application, he and his supporters would likely contest on a Pakatan Rakyat coalition member's ticket. "We already have the logo and constitution drawn up… the leadership line-up is also ready," he said, adding that the party would be representing the Muslim Bumiputeras of Sabah. Lajim, 57, had recently announced his resignation as an Umno supreme council member, Beaufort Umno division chief and Beaufort BN chairman with immediate effect and declared his support for Pakatan but remained an Umno member, and as a result, his appointment as a federal deputy minister was later revoked. *******************************************
Lajim Ukin, a Muslim leader from Sabah, with great fanfare and ceremony, recently announced his resignation from his various posts in Umno (but not as an Umno member) and said he will be supporting the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (which resulted in his sacking from the Cabinet). Lajim's defection was supposed to have triggered an exodus, in particular from amongst Sabah's Muslim population. Now, why have I stressed 'Muslim leader' in that paragraph above? Simple. Since Sabah got its independence from Britain almost 50 years ago, the Chinese population in that state has declined from 23% to just 9.11%. Hence the Chinese are not that significant in Sabah, save in the few urban areas, just like in Peninsular Malaysia. (See the chart below for the details).
What you will also notice from that chart, the Kadazan-Dusun (who, at 32%, used to be the largest group) is no longer the majority either. Malays, who used to be only 0.4% of the population, have increased to 5.71% while the Bumiputeras and other Muslim groups have increased from 15.8% to 20.56%. Hence the Malays/Bumiputeras/Muslims are now a quarter of Sabah's population with the non-Malaysian citizens making up another 27.81%. Some would call this backdoor colonisation. Anyway, what is crucial is that the natives are no longer the majority like they used to be at the time of Merdeka. The Malays/Bumiputeras/Muslims now make up the majority, with an even larger number of non-Malaysian citizens, mostly Muslims -- who can be given overnight citizenship to dilute the non-Malays/non-Bumiputeras/non-Muslims even further if the need arises. Now do you know why I take my hat off to Umno? Like them or hate them, you must admit that they are brilliant (okay, sneaky, devious, etc., as well). Hence a 'prominent' Muslim leader like Lajim Ukin is very important to PKR and Pakatan Rakyat if they want to take over the state government. Hence, also, there was great excitement when it was announced that Lajim and his other Muslim partners-in-crime were joining the opposition. Suddenly the road to Putrajaya became clearer. But then Lajim was asking for too much. Other than bags of cash, which he needed to cover his deficit finances, he also wanted to become one of the three Deputy Prime Ministers if/when Pakatan Rakyat marches into Putrajaya. And if he can't become one of the three Deputy Prime Ministers then he wants at least the post of Sabah Chief Minister. That has placed Anwar Ibrahim in a quandary because he had already promised the post of Sabah Chief Minister to other people -- in fact, to a few other people. Hence if Pakatan Rakyat does win Sabah, and these various contenders for Chief Minister win the seats they are going to contest, Sabah may have to revert to the rotation system so that everyone who was promised the post of Chief Minister can take their turn at this most lucrative job that earns whoever is lucky enough to get that job at least RM100 million a year (judging by the wealth of the current and previous Chief Ministers). But Lajim can't be made the Chief Minister of Sabah -- and certainly not one of the three Deputy Prime Ministers. And this is not because those posts have been promised to others, although that is one reason, but because he is carrying too much baggage. And this baggage is going to be revealed immediately after Nomination Day of GE13. Hence it is better that Malaysia Today reveals it now, before others do. Then I can gloat and tell you 'I told you so', like I always do. Actually, the reason why Lajim resigned from all his posts in Umno (but not as an Umno member) is because of a scandal that was about to explode. Hence he no longer has any future in Umno, especially as a candidate in the coming general election. And this scandal involves someone I will call Mr. W. Back in 2007, just before the 2008 General Election, Lajim had promised Mr. W a RM50 million contract to build an Islamic college in Beaufort. But he wanted Mr. W. to pay the commission up-front, supposedly as election funds for GE12. Over the last five years since 2007, Mr W. has paid Lajim a total of RM8 million. However, Mr. W. never got the project. What Mr. W. received instead was 55 undated cheques totalling RM3 million. But all these cheques are worthless and Mr. W. is hopping mad and now realises he is not going to get the project, nor his money back. Chief Minister Musa Aman knows about this scandal and because of that Lajim has to be dropped as a candidate in the coming general election. Realising that his future is no longer bright, Lajim woke up one morning and decided to join the opposition to fight for reforms. Isn't it uncanny that Barisan Nasional politicians who no longer have a future in the ruling party suddenly wake up and have visions of joining the opposition to fight for reforms? It makes one wonder why they never had these visions when they were making tons of money in Barisan Nasional. Now, while Lajim's financial backer, a Bruneian who migrated to Sabah, is known as Mr. W., Lajim is known as Mr. J. And Mr. J. stands for 'Mister Jackpot'. Mr. W. and Mr. J., in fact, go way back, back to the days when Lajim was still in Usno. And Mr. W. has been funding Lajim's political career all this while. But Lajim suffers from a serious addiction. And this addiction is gambling (so much for Lajim's Islamic credentials). Mr. W. has had to bail Lajim out of trouble more than once. There was one occasion when Lajim owed an Ah Long (loan shark) RM800,000 and he had to pawn two solid-gold Rolex watches to cover his debts. To add insult to injury, the so-called RM50 million Islamic college project does not exist. It is all a scam. And Mr. W. no longer wants to fund Lajim (that is why Lajim is looking for a new financier -- guess who). In fact, Mr. W. wants his money back and if he does not get it he is going to go public on this. And because of that Umno can no longer retain Lajim in the coming general election. And because of that, also, Lajim has suddenly 'woken up' and is joining the opposition to fight for reforms – justice, transparency, accountability, good governance, an end to corruption and abuse of power, and all that shit. No, I am not going to repeat that since 2008 I have asked Pakatan Rakyat to ensure that they field quality/clean candidates in the next general election. Let them field the likes of Lajim and let's see Pakatan Rakyat get whacked in East Malaysia. East Malaysia holds the key to Putrajaya and unless you win in Sabah and Sarawak you are not going to march into Putrajaya. So, having Lajim and those of his ilk as your partners will only ensure that Barisan Nasional will remain in power. Then, the day after Polling Day, I can, with glee, write my 'I told you so' article. Anwar, Anwar…apa ni? I know you want to become Prime Minister. But this type of thing is only going to make your dream become our nightmare. As the Malays would say: why would we want to reject penyamum and vote for lanun? We said we want CHANGE, meaning change for the better, not change for the worse. Aiyah! Dah malas nak cakap Lantak engkaulah!
Lakim Ukin's normal haunt (above) and the 55 cheques totally RM3 million (below).
ADDENDUM http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim1.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim2.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim3.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim4.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim5.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim6.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim7.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim8.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim9.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim10.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim11.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim12.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim13.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim14.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim15.jpg http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/lajim/Lajim16.jpg | ||||||||||
| Who's the ultimate ruler of Malaysia? Posted: 01 Sep 2012 07:51 PM PDT
KTEMOC KONSIDERS Years back, prior to the March 2008 general election, I warned of royal intrusion into the political arena. Unfortunately then, the Pakatan people were so enamoured of royalty like Raja Nazrin, probably because they saw in him a potential backer of democracy and thus Pakatan. Then (and even now) I have nothing against monarchy PROVIDED those royals remain as constitutional heads of state, whether of Malaysia the nation or of the respective nine states with Sultans (and a Raja), based on my understanding of the concept of constitutional monarchy in a democracy.
Sometime in August 2007 I read with some alarm a letter to Malaysiakini titled No more backbenchers' role for Rulers written by a person with the pseudonym of Truly Malaysian which stated, in my humble opinion, dangerously for our democratic system: It is definitely a light at the end of the tunnel that the Malay rulers have finally decided to have their say in the recent fiascos that has gone beyond the normal tolerance level of the public. The rulers have finally realised that we as a nation are heading towards obscurity. They are now really living to the true manifestation of being the rulers. [...]
It is, of course, better late than never, and aren't we all are glad that the Malay rulers have finally decided to take a stand and voice their own dissent on various affairs that do not serve the public's and nation's interests at large. [...] Although they have played the backbencher's role in the past, they are now coming forward and we should hand them our support for them to play a more pertinent role in moulding the future of the nation rather than moulding the future for a few. For a start, the writer didn't even know what was(is) a backbencher, and to refer to the rulers playing the backbenchers' role showed his bizarre and Truly pathetic ignorance.
But no doubt he/she would have changed his/her opinion by now with the sad advantage of hindsight of royal interference in the Perak political debacle. Anyway, I had then with the gravest concerns written to MKINI the following: I refer to Malaysiakini letter No more backbenchers' role for Rulers which has me rather worried. The author might not have realized the constitutional implications of his words such as "The rulers ... are now really living to the true manifestation of being the rulers ..." and "... Although they have played the backbencher's role in the past, they are now coming forward and we should hand them our support for them to play a more pertinent role in moulding the future of the nation ..." While I understand the author's euphoria over the Council of Rulers' rejection of the PM's candidate for a senior judicial position, I note that the author's infatuation with the royal dissent came on top of several other high praises for the Perak Prince and Sultan of Selangor when the two, especially the former, raised their voices on issues closed to the dissatisfied public's hearts.
The author has not been alone for Dr Chen Man Hin, a former DAP strongman, had even proposed the Perak Prince as an advisor to the Prime Minister (PM). It would seem that the rulers are making a comeback after years of public scorn at their irrelevance, perhaps caused mainly by one particular individual, who had believed he could still rule as per medieval times, as an absolute monarchy. I most certainly appreciate the Perak Prince's reminder of our constitutional pillars, though in reality he didn't say anything much that the Opposition hadn't pointed out before. But yes, his official stature gave his words more force (and attract more attention) than a Lim Kit Siang or a Nik Aziz could manage. But we need to remember Malaysia is a democracy built around a constitutional monarchy, meaning the voice of the people, and not those of the rulers, prevails.
Sure, our royalty as in the model of the Perak Prince, the Council of Rulers questioning the PM in his choice of a candidate for the bench, and the pronouncement of the Sultan of Selangor to keep politics out of our Merdeka celebrations have been most welcome. They have both a constitutional role and an exemplary role model to play. But we must never talk as if, or even suggest that they had been 'backbenchers' moving forward (presumably) to the 'front bench'. That's dangerous talk, to suggest the rulers may play a direct political role (or even as an political advisor to the PM) while serving as respective Heads of States or as the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, or still retaining their royal prerogatives.
It's certainly a sign of our frustration with the current government that some of us believe the royalty could and would be our saviour. We, the politically frustrated public members, are in reality grasping at straws in much the same way as many of us had embraced a former UMNO reject as a political saviour against a previous regime even when there was no evidence of his reformist qualities during his various ministerial roles.
No matter how good any individual royalty is, no matter how bad any politician is, let us not unwittingly change our system of constitutional monarchy to one of absolute monarchy, or of one where royalty has a greater degree of direct political participation. That will be a regrettable step backwards. That was in mid-2007. Exactly a week following the March 2008 general election I wrote another post Lim Kit Siang opened Royal Pandora Box? where I criticized Uncle Lim as follows (extracts):
So Malaysiakini tells us that the political Deal's stitched, & it's all systems go for Perak.
Alas, the parties have finally acquiesced to royal demands, with many of them forgetting that in a political democracy it's the political party which commands the majority in the State Assembly (outright or through a coalition, formal or otherwise) who picks the CM or MB (or at the federal level, the PM) to be approved by the constitutional ruler.
I had posted this reminder of the people's right and power two days ago in Perak Papadum Ping Pong Primadonnas, where I stated:
… kaytee believes the coalition has done something quite stupid. In submitting 3 names to the Sultan to choose it has unwittingly involved royalty in State politics in an unprecedented way. It's not for the Sultan to choose from a list of three. Certainly the Sultan can disagree with a name but he should only be given one name (at a time). For example, the Sultan could say no to DAP Ngeh and say, gimme another name! But it's not for HRH to be given 3 names and decide on one he prefers. The choice of an MB is a political one and to be left to the political parties as elected by the rakyat; the acceptance of the choice is the prerogative of HRH, but HRH cannot and should not be making a political decision by choosing one name from a list of three. Yes, the ruler cannot reject the candidate forwarded for his approval, save where there is perceivable concerns the candidate has a dodgy record or perhaps is infirmed, etc* which may affect the proposed candidate's ability to head the State government.
Now, the Star Online has indicated two worrying cases where the State rulers of Perlis and Terengganu have taken it into their hands (or heads) to appoint their choices against that proposed by the winning political party. [...] In the rulers' increasing (and unjustified) discretion in such appointments the Sultans must have found comfort from the support (direct or otherwise) of the stupid political parties undermining each other. The rulers had been living in tolerated disgrace following the castration of a notorious royal brother by Dr Mahathir (rightfully so and an action fully supported by most Malaysians), but since then they have (under a certain erudite leader) slowly but steadily been clawing their way back to prominence and regained respect and adulation from their subjects.
| ||||||||||
| Posted: 01 Sep 2012 05:52 PM PDT
Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow). NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives--indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame. But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions? Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God. Dr. William Lane Craig **************************************** That was just three paragraphs of a long thesis by Dr. William Lane Craig, which I had to read for my Philosophy of Religion course. Basically, we were going through the various arguments to support the belief regarding the existence of God and one of those arguments was that God certainly has to exist since God is the source of morality. Hence, since morality exists then God definitely has to exist. Hence, also, we know what is right and what is wrong because God 'tells' us what is right and what is wrong (or implants in us the notion of right and wrong) and if there were no God then we would not know what is right and what is wrong. (Note: this is just one of the various arguments that theists use to support the view that God exists). In my essay, I disagreed with this 'popular' view based on the argument that right and wrong are relative to time and place and are dynamic, not static. In other words, the definition of right and wrong changes over time and over regions. There would certainly be a very long list of examples to emphasis this point but let us take just a few. Slavery would be one example. At one time slavery was considered right anywhere in the world. Today, slavery is considered wrong, but only is some parts of the world. Do you know that as recent as just before Merdeka slavery still existed in Malaya? I am not going to go into details lest I embarrass certain members of the Royal Family but just let me summarise it by saying that many of my 'adopted cousins' would be considered slaves by western standards (and I emphasis 'western standards')? In fact, J.W.W. Birch, the first British Resident of Perak, was killed in Pasir Salak on 2nd November 1875 because of his opposition to slavery. Birch had attempted to ban slave trading in Perak and the slave traders, basically the elite of the Perak ruling hierarchy, got rid of him. It took another 100 years before slavery really ended and I was already around to see it before it ended. No doubt this is never discussed (for obvious reasons) and Malaysians generally are not aware of this scourge. And it was not just the Malays who were guilty of this; let me assure you of that. The point I want to make, though, is that slavery, which is considered wrong, would only be wrong depending on the time and place you happened to be living in. So, are you sure that wrong is wrong? Could it not actually be right? And does right become wrong only because you happen to live in a certain region and in a certain time and that if you lived somewhere else and in another time this would be right rather than wrong? Hence, my conclusion in the essay which I wrote was that right and wrong is relative. And since it is relative, how can morality come from God? If morality came from God then it would not change over time and region. It would be static, not dynamic. So, if you use morality to argue the existence of God, then God cannot exist because morality does not exist. Now, when I say 'morality does not exist' I mean it in the sense that what is moral to one person may be immoral to another. Having four wives would be considered immoral, as would be the case for keeping mistresses. But that would only be immoral now, and in western society. In Muslim countries, for example, that is not immoral. So, again, time and place decides what is moral and what is immoral. Take the definition of children, as another example. A couple of hundreds of years ago, 'children' were those who had not reached puberty yet (or girls who are yet to get their period). In 1212, tens of thousands of boys and girls aged 9-13 were sent to the Crusades. (Read 'La croisade des enfants' [The Children's Crusade] 1896, by Marcel Schwob). Today, these 9-13-year old boys and girls are considered children but back then they were adults and old enough to be sent to fight against the Muslims. Incidentally, none of them returned home. Hence even the definition of children changed over time and place and today sex with a 13-year old girl is considered a crime (immoral) because at 13 she is classified as still a child. In the past, though, at 13, a girl was not only old enough to get married but also old enough (moral) to be sent to war and to die for Christ. But times have changed. Today we no longer use religion's definition of adult to classify children as adults. Today we use man-made laws and not God's law to define adults as those above 18 while those below 18 are considered still children -- although in the past a girl of 18 would be considerer too old and her chances of getting a husband at that age would be reduced drastically. I am okay with that, though. I realise that slavery is now no-go and adults would legally be those above 18 (even though slavery is still legal in Islam). No longer can we use old standards and yardsticks. All those old values used to determine morality need to be discarded in favour of modern standards. My only question is why is this limited to just some things? In the past, children of 13 were considered adults and at the same time children had to follow the religion of their parents. If they did not they would be killed as apostates. Apostasy, in short, was punishable by death. Today, we ban the practice of classifying 13-year olds as adults. You need to be 18 to be an adult (in England, you can't even buy cigarettes and liquor). But we do not ban the practice of forcing children to follow the religion of their parents. Children must follow the religion of their parents or would otherwise be punished. Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow). So, when you say this is right or that is wrong, or this is moral and that is immoral, whose standard are you applying? My standard? Your standard? Society's standard? Religious standard? Western standard? Constitutional standard? Which one? You argue one point using one standard and another point using a different standard. You decide right and wrong and moral and immoral using what you believe to be right/moral or wrong/immoral. And you expect me to lead my life according to the standards you have drawn up. If we wish to set certain standards and pass a law that 13 is no longer the age of consent and that an adult is someone who is 18 that is acceptable to me. In fact, that may be good. We redefine right/wrong and moral/immoral. But we should not stop there. There are many other so-called wrongs and immoralities that also need to be addressed. And one such 'old value' that is just as outdated as classifying 13-year olds as adults is to use religious values to interfere in how I wish to lead my life. That is as outdated as sending 9-13 year olds to die in a war or to get them married off before they reach 15-16 and thus become too old to get married. | ||||||||||
| Posted: 01 Sep 2012 03:38 PM PDT
Party-hopping is a potent threat to parliamentary democracy and it is hoped that politicians will come to grips with this issue in a bipartisan manner. Roger Tan, The Star THE great Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was known for party-hopping. In 1904, he changed parties from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party, and was made Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1905. He officially returned to the Tories in 1925 after he failed in two successive attempts to win a seat as an independent. On record, his reasons for defecting to the Liberals were the Conservatives' reluctance to undertake social reform and their protectionist policy of favouring trade with the British Empire. But on the other hand, the Liberals were then an up-and-coming party, and his calculated move obviously did catapult him to high office at the rather young age of 31. Of course, admirers and detractors of Churchill would respectively describe his act as one of political conscience and opportunism. But that is immaterial as until today, the British parliamentary system still does not proscribe party-hopping which also has different nomenclatures such as party-crossing, party-switching, party-leaping, floor-crossing and waka-jumping. Like any democracy, regardless of it being an established or an incipient one, Malaysia too faces this perennial problem of party-hopping and elected representatives resigning from their political parties to become an independent. Hence, we are not short of inveterate party-hoppers. One of them is Sabah State Reform Party (Star) chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan. Prior to this, he had joined Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), the Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS), Angkatan Keadilan Rakyat (now defunct Akar), United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Organisation (Upko) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). It is, therefore, not surprising for such politicians to be given various undignified names such as political frogs, traitors, lepers and chameleons. But we not only do not have any anti-defection law, but the Federal Constitution guarantees the freedom of association – that is the right to join or not to join an association or dissociate from it. The justification for this is best summed up by the eminent Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivala, in his book, Our Constitution Defaced and Defiled: "No greater insult can be imagined to members of Parliament and the state legislatures than to tell them that once they become members of a political party, apart from any question of the party constitution and any disciplinary action the party may choose to take, the Constitution of India itself expects them to have no right for themselves, but they must become soulless and conscienceless entities who would be driven by their political party in whichever direction the party chooses to push them." However, today the Indian Constitution not only disqualifies an elected representative if he resigns from his political party but also if he votes or abstains from voting contrary to any direction issued by his political party without its prior permission or without having been condoned by his political party within 15 days after the date of voting or abstention. In fact, there are about 40 other countries which have various anti-defection laws. Our neighbour Singapore has a provision in Article 46 of her Constitution which disqualifies a member of parliament if he ceases to be a member of or is expelled or resigns from his political party. Hence, a by-election was held on May 26 this year when Hougang Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong was expelled by the Workers' Party on Feb 15 for alleged extramarital affairs. In Malaysia, freedom of association is enshrined in Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution, but Article 10(2)(c) and (3) allow Parliament to impose such restrictions as it deems necessary in the interest of security, public order, morality, labour or education. In the 1992 case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh, the Supreme Court (now Federal Court) ruled that an amendment to the Kelantan state constitution prohibiting party-hopping was inconsistent with Article 10(1)(c). The apex court declared that such a law was invalid because the restriction imposed by the Kelantan Constitution could not be a restriction imposed under Article 10(2)(c) and (3) of Article 10 as it was a law passed by a state legislature and not the Federal Parliament. In the words of the then Lord President, Tun Abdul Hamid Omar: "It is, in our view, inconceivable that a member of the legislature can be penalised by any ordinary legislation for exercising a fundamental right which the Constitution expressly confers upon him subject to such restrictions as only Parliament may impose and that too on specified grounds, and on no other grounds." It follows that any anti-hopping law if passed by the Penang state legislature will be inconsistent with Article 10 since our apex court has already declared that only Federal Parliament can impose any restriction on freedom of association and dissociation such as on the ground that party-hopping is morally reprehensible. And this cannot be done by way of an amendment to a state constitution or an ordinary legislation passed by a simple majority in Federal Parliament. In other words, for any anti-hopping law to be intra vires the Constitution, amendments must first be made by Federal Parliament to Article 10 or Article 48(6) (which disqualifies a person who has resigned from the Dewan Rakyat membership from running again in a general election for a period of five years from the date of his resignation) and section 6(1) of Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution. In this sense, one would have expected the Penang state government to be more respectful of the Federal Constitution when Article 4 declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with it shall be void. To pass a law knowing that it is invalid but with the hope that someone will challenge its validity at the Federal Court is indeed an example of bad governance and it says a lot about the government's lack of respect for the rule of law and constitutional supremacy. That said, personally I would support an anti-hopping law. Having seen the amount of politicking and instability since 2008 caused by those who have defected or become independents, including the Sept 16 fiasco, I believe such a law will provide stability especially if the next election is going to be the most keenly contested one in our nation's history. In fact, hitherto none of the defectors is near the stature of Churchill and neither has any one of them impressed me to be doing out of their own conscience other than perhaps for their own personal aggrandisement. It is also rumoured that some have turned into multi-millionaires overnight. Be that as it may, party-hopping is a potent threat to parliamentary democracy. It is a nefarious act of betrayal especially when it can be employed as an extra parliamentary means to topple a democratically-elected government. In fact, this issue is many times more crucial than those advanced by Bersih! Therefore, by prohibiting our elected representatives from switching their political allegiance, it will ensure that the sacrosanct will of the people expressed through the ballot box is respected. If they defect, the inevitable consequence must be that they give back their seat or seek a fresh mandate. It is hoped that politicians will come to grips with this issue in a bipartisan manner as it will not bode well for the nation if due to this we are plunged into political chaos or the country comes to a standstill after an election. Currently, all political parties are in one way or another hypocritically guilty of condoning and enticing party-hopping. One can only hope that they will remember and remember it well that what goes around will come around to haunt them. The writer is a senior lawyer.
| ||||||||||
| Sabah can’t be compared to Alaska and Hawaii Posted: 01 Sep 2012 03:19 PM PDT
Daniel John Jambun Two BN leaders, namely Datuk Yahya Hussein and Datuk Donald Mojuntin, thought they had a good point when they said that we shouldn't be too fussy about the date of our National Day, that celebrating it on August 31st shouldn't be made an issue because it is not that important. Yahya had said that a good example is Alaska and Hawaii who joined the United States but never made a fuss about their national day or independence day. But several facts about history beg repeating to get a clear perspective of Yahya's argument. First, Sabah was not annexed into the Malaysian Federation like Hawaii was. Sabah, after becoming an independent nation for two weeks, teamed up with Singapore, Sarawak and Malaya to form a federation called Malaysia – as equal partners – on September 16, 1963. When Sabah formed Malaysia with the other partners, there was no Malaysia yet, unlike the case with Alaska which was acquired by the USA in 1867, 91 years after the independence of the 13 United States of America from Great Britain in 1776. Hawaii was annexed into the USA in 1898, 122 years after 1774. For the education of Yahya and Mojuntin, Alaska did not even 'join' the United States. It was bought by the USA from the Russian Empire for USD7.2 million. Russia, fearing a war with Britain that would allow the British to seize Alaska, wanted to proceed with the sale. Being a commodity which was the object of sales and purchase, Alaska cannot in any sense claim to have a proper national day, or least of all, an independence day of its own, because in reality it didn't get any sort of independence when it joined the US. In the case of Hawaii, the state was forcibly robbed from the hands of the powerless Hawaiian monarchy. Teri Sforza werites that in Hawaii's case "It's a story of money, power and betrayal. Hawaii was a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook [came] in 1778. Hawaiians had run their own affairs for some 2,000 years. The kingdom signed trade and peace treaties with the United States, England and other foreign nations, each recognizing Hawaii's independence. Flocks of American missionaries began arriving from Boston in 1820 and were welcomed warmly; many decided to stay on the islands rather than return to the frigid Northeast. Their new roots in paradise went deep: The missionaries became powerful sugar planters and politicians, often serving as advisers to the king. The monarchy was weakened. The planters' powers were strengthened. The United States was the biggest market for Hawaii's sugar. The transplanted planters longed for Hawaii to become part of the United States so they wouldn't have to worry about tariffs. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, was anxious to annex the islands as well. Sensing this, Queen Liliuokalani was on the verge of imposing a new Constitution shifting power back to the monarchy - but she never got the chance. On Jan. 16, 1893, U.S. Marines landed in Honolulu armed with Howitzer cannons and carbines. A group of 18 men - mostly American sugar farmers - staged a coup, proclaiming themselves the 'provisional government' of Hawaii. Stevens gave immediate recognition to them as Hawaii's true government. Imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani issued a statement: 'I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu. ... Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the government of the United States shall undo the action of its representative and reinstate me.'" The monarchy's power was never reinstated until today. So, Datuk Yahya, note that Hawaii did not gain independence by 'joining' America because it was annexed (forced to join) and thus LOST its independence. So how on earth can anyone compare Sabah's history of together forming Malaysia and Alaska being bought and Hawaii being forced to join a nation? I hope with this knowledge, the BN leaders can stop trying to fool Sabahans by using Alaska and Hawaii to justify the neglect of Sabah's demand for the recognition of September 16 as our common Malaysia Day.
Queen Liliuokalani
The original cheque used to buy over Alaska
| ||||||||||
| Posted: 01 Sep 2012 03:09 PM PDT
TREASONOUS ANTICS: Malaysians denounce Bersih supporters who want to replace Jalur Gemilang Bersih supporters showing a flag at Dataran Merdeka on Thursday night in the run-up to the Merdeka Day countdown. (Inset) A flier that was distributed on Thursday night calling for the Jalur Gemilang to be replaced with a new flag. (NST) - MALAYSIANS from all walks of life have described the demands made by supporters of the Bersih movement for the Jalur Gemilang to be replaced with a different flag as "shameful" and "treasonous". They are also incensed over the actions of the same group, which insulted Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak by stomping on his picture during the countdown to the Merdeka Day celebrations at Dataran Merdeka here on Thursday. The supporters of Bersih, who claim to be championing for a better electoral system for the country, had displayed a flag they had created to replace the Jalur Gemilang and distributed flyers to the people to support their cause. Their actions can be seen in a video posted on YouTube. Principal of a childcare centre, Velda Ooi, 44, said this was a disgrace to the founding fathers of Malaysia as they had toiled hard to create an identity for the country, which was symbolised by the Jalur Gemilang. "I really can't believe the youngsters can do such a thing. So shameful... they don't even treasure our history, our pride and our identity. "Why are they doing this?" said Ooi, who said she felt very angry over the group's actions. Student Yogannath Thiruchelvan, 16, said Malaysians who did not appreciate the Jalur Gemilang were a disgrace to the country. "When the Union Jack flag was brought down 55 years ago, our flag was hoisted. It is sad that these people do not know the significance of our flag and can do such a thing," said Yogannath who wanted the offenders punished. Juice bar manager Muhammed Fitri Harun, 28, summed up the entire incident in one word: "Ridiculous!" "They should be punished as this is an act of treason to our nation as a whole. The flag represents us all, the citizens. How dare they do such a thing?" Meanwhile, attempts to get a response from Bersih co-chairman Datuk S. Ambiga were unsuccessful. She, however, yesterday tweeted her displeasure over an incident perpetrated by a Bersih supporter during the gathering. A photo of a rally participant on the Internet showed him "mooning" pictures of Najib and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor as well as Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Yusof. Another man is seen applauding his action, while yet another showed a rude gesture. The organisers of the Bersih gathering, dubbed "Janji Demokrasi rally", did not respond to requests for comments. Businessman Datuk Mohd Mahyidin Mustakim said he was upset when he saw the videoof the act and demanded that the culprits be punished. "Memang kurang ajar (very insolent). What kind of values are they teaching the younger generation? This is not part of our culture. "We are very well known for our humble and well-mannered behaviour," said Mahyidin. Aizad Salleh, 27 who is a sales assistant in a shopping mall here said that it was a very disrespectful act. "What have they done for the country? Now we are flourishing because of our current prime minister and the ones before him. "If they can't be thankful, at least do not disrespect our leaders like this. They really should be brought to court and punished," said Aizad. Financial consultant Susan Lim, 30, also felt that those who committed the act should be punished and taught a lesson. "Who are they to behave like this? This is one of the most disrespectful things I have ever seen. "No matter who it is that you hate, just don't do this. It brings you down as a person as well," said Lim. | ||||||||||
| Musa on radar of Swiss money-laundering probe Posted: 01 Sep 2012 02:36 PM PDT
Swiss bank UBS is being investigated in connection with its relationship with Musa Aman. (FMT) - KOTA KINABALU: A Swiss investigations into a money-laundering trail with its roots in the rainforests of Sabah is threatening to embarrass Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his Barisan Nasional coalition government. Najib who is on a two-day visit to Sabah to bring a fractious state Umno headed by Chief Minister Musa Aman into line ahead of general election, is faced with discomforting international exposure that his government is corrupt to the core. The timing of Swiss investigations into links between UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank, and the proceeds from illegal logging in Sabah couldn't be worse for the premier who is hoping to mollify the state which has increasingly shown signs that it is swinging over to the opposition. Najib and his entourage will be visiting the Kg Rampayan Laut in Kota Belud today for a carnival-like political event where he hopes to prop up shaky support for his Barisan Nasional coalition government. The premier who is also Umno president was in Sandakan on Saturday for a meeting with his state party officials. Talk of a shake-up in Sabah Umno has been quashed by party officials close to Musa and spun as a gambit by his rival, Shafie Apdal, the current Semporna MP who is a trusted man of Najib, and is said to being eyeing the post of Sabah chief minister. Umno insiders are warning of serious repercussions should Najib refuse to reinvigorate the BN. They claimed that party's interest must be put first and ahead of any personal agendas and failure to do so would be disastrous for the BN. Reuters news agency yesterday reported that Swiss prosecutors have opened a criminal money laundering probe into UBS after environmental campaign group, Bruno Manser Fund, filed a complaint accusing it of links to the proceeds of alleged illegal logging in Malaysia. The investigation could be a new embarrassment for the Swiss bank, fined for helping clients dodge US taxes in 2009 and facing similar accusations – which it denies – in Germany. It comes as Switzerland is trying to clean up its image as a haven for ill-gotten gains. A spokeswoman for federal prosecutors said they had opened a criminal investigation into allegations of money laundering. She confirmed that UBS was being investigated in connection with its relationship with Musa Aman. Musa was accused in the complaint brought by Switzerland's Bruno Manser Fund in May of links to illegal logging in Borneo. The chief minister has previously dismissed graft allegations as a political conspiracy. UBS has said it was cooperating with the investigation. "UBS complies with the rules and regulations in all the markets where it operates," a spokesman who noted the bank is obliged to report to authorities fighting money laundering if it finds evidence it is holding assets of criminal origin, was quoted as saying. In its complaint, the Bruno Manser Fund, which campaigns to save tropical rainforests in Borneo and the people who inhabit them, accused UBS of breaching its duty of care by accepting more than $90 million it said was earned from logging in Sabah. Citing documents it presented to Swiss prosecutors, it said the money was banked at UBS in Hong Kong and Zurich.
| ||||||||||
| S’gor DAP branches reject Ganapathirau Posted: 01 Sep 2012 02:28 PM PDT
Selangor DAP branches warn the party leadership that DAP would lose the Kota Alam Shah seat if Ganapathirau, a former ISA detainee, is fielded. Athi Shankar, FMT KLANG: Eight DAP branches here have called on the party leadership not to field V Ganapathirau (photo) as candidate in Kota Alam Shah state seat in the next general election. The branches, all from the state constituency, warned the party leadership that the DAP would lose the seat if Ganapathirau, a former detainee of now repealed Internal Security Act, was fielded. The DAP eight branches, with collectively some 500 members, openly opposed Ganapathirau are Taman Gembira, Klang, Teluk Pulai, Bayu Tinggi, Taman Chi Liung Indah, Southern Klang, Persiaran Raja Muda Musa and Ehsan. The group spokesman Ivan Ho said they were all against Ganapathirau because he was not a local familiar with the party grassroots leaders and members, or constituents in the area. Ho said Ganapathirau does not have close rapport with party grassroots in the constituency, a winning factor so crucial for a potential candidate.
He urged the party leadership to respect grassroots sentiments and not to force in parachute candidates like Ganapathirau in Kota Alam Shah. "DAP members and constituents don't know him much. "The party should not push us to accept Ganapathirau. "We don't want him," Ho, the Taman Gembira branch head, told FMT. Kota Alam Shah incumbent assemblyman is M Manoharan, a protégé of DAP national chairman Karpal Singh. It's learnt Selangor DAP leadership under Teresa Kok planned to replace Manoharan, also a former ISA detainee, with Ganapathirau. Ganapathirau is a staunch confidant of deputy secretary general and Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy. Not an Indian hero Taman Chi Liung Indah head K Yogasigamany reminded the state party leadership that time had lapsed to promote the Ganapathirau as a former ISA detainee and his so-called involvement in Hindraf Makkal Sakti. He said DAP grassroots members and constituents know that Ganapathirau, who now leads NGO Malaysian Indian voice, was not a Hindraf leader. "Constituents have realised that Ganapathirau was never the Hindraf leader or Indian hero. "He is no more relevant for Indian community. "It will be futile and fatal for party leadership to field Ganapathirau in Kota Alam Shah. "The leadership should drop the idea altogether," Yogasigamany told FMT.
| ||||||||||
| Sultans’ Daulat Is A Myth – Part Two Posted: 01 Sep 2012 02:22 PM PDT
M. Bakri Musa Second of Three Parts: The Origin of the Daulat Myth Zaid begins his book by briefly tracing the history of Malay sultans. Unlike the Japanese Imperial family that stretches as far back as 600 BC, or the British to the 11th Century or even earlier, Malay sultans are of recent vintage. The Raja of Perlis was established only in 1834, while that of Johor only slightly older (1819). In modeling the Malaysian constitutional monarchy along the British one, the Reid Commission assumed that Malay sultans were like English kings. That was the first major blunder. To Zaid, it also underscores the pitfall of trying to adopt wholesale foreign concepts or models, not just in law but also much of everything else. Those English monarchs have had centuries of working with a democratically elected government. Earlier, a few of them have had to pay dearly for their errors. Consequently today their system works smoothly. Not so with Malay sultans. Up until British rule, Malay sultans were literally Gods; those sultans could actually take your life. Displease the sultan or prevent him from grabbing whatever you own including your daughter or priced kerbau (water buffalo), and you risked being beheaded, banished, or enslaved (kerah). Those sultans were not above the law as there were no laws then; they were the laws. Malays like me have a lot to be thankful to those colonials for ending those odious royal traits of our culture. No, that is not an expression of my being mentally colonized, rather one of deep gratitude. Malaysia has a disproportionate number of monarchs, 9 out of the nearly 40 worldwide, as Zaid and others have noted. The error in that frequently cited observation is the assumption that our sultans are comparable to those other kings and queens; they are not. There is little in common between Malay sultans and the British Queen or Japanese Emperor. Instead, Malay sultans have more in common with the tribal warlords of Africa and Papua New Guinea, from their insular worldview to their fanciful costumes. The Papuan tribal chiefs have their elaborate colorful headgear, as well as their prominent penile sheaths which they proudly display; ours have their equally ostentatious desta and tanjak. Like those tribal chieftains, our sultans' too are afflicted with their feudal habits. Modernity has not erased our sultan's medieval mentality. When Malaysia became independent, those odious habits began creeping back. Those sultans are not to be blamed entirely, however. "The Rulers' unwillingness to remain within their constitutional roles has been further aggravated," Zaid writes, "by a lack of conviction and courage by the institutions that are supposed to protect and preserve [our] … constitution." Stated differently, our sultans have many enablers. We allow them to regress. We tolerate them when they flout the rules. Members of the Malay royal family are perfectly capable of behaving themselves and keeping within the rules if they were to be told in no uncertain terms that their tantrums would not be tolerated. Consider their behaviors during colonial and Japanese times. It was the sultans who sembah (genuflected to) the colonial and Japanese officers. Today when these Malay princes and princesses are down in Singapore for example, they obey even the basic traffic rules. Those rajas would not dare pull their silly stunts down there; they would be immediately punished. Likewise, if one of our sultans were to skip on his Vegas casino gambling debts, our ambassador would have to quickly bail him out of the county jail. Just as a child whose earlier tantrums had not been corrected would grow up to be an intolerable brat, likewise when our sultans strayed earlier on and there was no one to restrain them, that only encouraged them to go beyond. A few decades later their excesses would trigger the constitutional crises of the 1980s and 1990s that led to the amendments ending respectively the rulers' power to veto legislations and stripping them of legal immunity in their personal conduct. Both were possible because of the strong executive leadership of Prime Minister Mahathir. Today with a government with a less-than-robust mandate and a leader with a banana stem spine, the sultans are emboldened to re-exert themselves; hence the insistence of their daulat or special status.
|
They came to show their disapproval of the government's hijack of this year's celebrations by imposing the theme 'Janji Ditepati' (Promises Fulfilled), which is actually the ruling party's election campaign slogan. They came to remind the government that it had indeed not fulfilled its promises – above all, the promise of clean and fair elections.
These were people who came of their own accord, braving the possibility of arrest. Very different from many of those who would be attending the official Merdeka Day celebrations the next night at the Bukit Jalil Stadium, the extravaganza organised by the government to display its might.
Prime Minister Najib Razak, in defending the use of 'Janji Ditepati' as the Merdeka theme, says there is no reason for anyone to dispute it "unless a person is not used to keeping promises". He says everyone should fulfil their promises, including ordinary people. "If the people want the country to be peaceful, stable and more prosperous, the people must promise to contribute to peace and prosperity."
Second, many of the people of his so-called "majority" are those still zombified by the massive doses of government propaganda they are fed every day through the mainstream press and television, and have therefore not awakened to the government's chicanery.
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan