Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Selangor under siege?
Land grab, Malaysian-style
Do you want the devil you know?
The tackiest wedding of the year
Is Malaysiakini in mischief mode?
No quick fix for East Malaysia
CAT got your tongue, Mansor?
Sabah BN struggling to regain initiative
Polls in December?

Posted: 05 Oct 2012 12:14 PM PDT

The Talam issue is still being spun this way and that while the issue concerning the PJ mayor is orchestrated to jam up the works and smooth-running of the state government's daily administrative process.

What all these shenanigans mean is that the rakyat's choice at the ballot box in March 2008 is not respected but treated as rubbish!

Selena Tay, Free Malaysia Today

Enemy forces are not letting up their assault on the Pakatan-led state in their determination to see it fall in the coming general election.

"Defend till the end! Fight to the last!" was the angry response of this columnist's uncle who is a Selangorian when he heard that Petaling Jaya mayor, Mohamad Roslan Sakiman, is to be transferred to another department.

This is despite the fact that PJ City councillor Derek Fernandez, who is also a lawyer by profession, remarked that the transfer decision by the PSD (Public Services Department) is illegal and ultra vires (as reported in a local English daily).

This columnist's relatives who stay in Selangor are of the view that Barisan Nasional's shenanigans have started again in Selangor.

Under heavy bombardment and continuous shelling, Selangor is bound to fall. This is called a "political siege".

So far since the beginning of this year, the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government had to contend with these four main issues: garbage collection, water, Talam and now the latest is the Petaling Jaya mayor issue.

There has been no let-up from the enemy forces since the previous general election in March 2008.

The first issue – garbage collection – had seen garbage trucks being blocked by hostile forces and broken furniture and tree branches being made into rubbish and dumped here and there in order to portray Selangor as a dirty state. When the garbage collection trucks are hindered, inevitably rubbish will start to pile up.

All this just because the Selangor government wants to save RM20 million from garbage collection services by awarding the contract to new contractors!

As for the water issue, a 40-second infomercial was last month filmed to show residents from a flat lining up to collect buckets of water while, at the same time, complaining about the so-called water shortage. It is a no-brainer as to who is behind this "entertaining movie".

Diabolical forces

What all these shenanigans mean is that the rakyat's choice at the ballot box in March 2008 is not respected but treated as rubbish!

The diabolical forces are hellbent on regaining Selangor by hook or by crook because in the view of these evil forces, might is definitely right.

There is only one thing that can be done by Pakatan in this matter and that is to hold the Selangor state election in May as the State Legislative Assembly will be automatically dissolved by then.

Land grab, Malaysian-style

Posted: 05 Oct 2012 12:08 PM PDT

Before Act A804, land could only be acquired for public purposes or for public utilities like building of roads, schools, hospitals, pipelines, water or power plants, etc. With the addition of "…for any purpose which in the opinion of the State Authority is beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia", no land is safe.

Thomas Fann

This is not a new issue, in fact it is 21 years old.

It all began when the Barisan Nasional government, with its overwhelming majority in Parliament, passed by 99 to 25 votes the 1991 Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, or Act A804. The rephrasing of sections of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 basically gave incontestable power to state governments to seize private land for development by private companies and individuals. Lands originally acquired for public purposes can also be used for private development.

The term "beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia" is as subjective as you can get. A piece of land can be acquired to build a posh five-star hotel, an amusement park or a golf resort because in the opinion of the government it would bring in the tourist dollar and create jobs for locals, not to mention enriching the private companies which would, of course, be paying taxes.

To really make the Land Acquisition Act water-tight for the acquirer, Section 68A says that acquisitions cannot be invalidated by reason of any kind of subsequent disposal or use (etc) of the acquired land.

This new provision aims at preventing the acquirer or the purported purpose from being challenged in court. You can only challenge the quantum of the compensation offered, the measurement of the land area, the person whom compensation is payable to, and the apportionment of the compensation.

The leader of the opposition then, Lim Kit Siang, in opposing Act A804, gave this dire warning: "When it becomes law, it will destroy the constitutional right to property enjoyed by Malaysians for 34 years since Merdeka, and become the mother of all corruption, abuses of power, conflicts-of-interest and unethical malpractices in Malaysia…"

Was Kit Siang just over-reacting or scare-mongering when he said that or is it a prophecy that was and is being fulfilled till today?

A new ball game

The impetus for the passing of Act A804 was for the acquisition of 33,000 acres of land in the Gelang Patah area for the construction of the second link with Singapore and the construction of a new township by UEM, wiping out 19 villages and displacing 10,000 people.

The Johor state government offered the affected smallholders compensation averaging RM26,000 per acre or 64 sen per sqe ft, far below the then market value of RM100,000 per acre for agricultural land.

In a subsequent civil suit by one of the affected landowners against the government of Johor in 1995, it was revealed that a subsidiary of Renong was offering the intended development for sale at RM17 per sq ft, a whopping 28 times more than what the original landowners got!

For a glimpse into some of the backroom wheeling and dealing that went on with these deals, one should read the court papers of cases like "Honan Plantations vs Govt of Johor'; and "Stamford Holdings vs Govt of Johor". Names of notable personalities like Muhyiddin Yassin, Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and Yahya Talib in secret meetings were mentioned.

For the Second Link and the highway that linked it to the North-South Expressway to be built, the Land Acquisition Act was necessary. To be fair, compensation had to not only take into account the then prevailing market value but also the loss of livelihood for the people who used to live off the land.

With Act A804, the government seized a lot more land than was required for the custom and immigration complex and the highway. We can safely say it seized almost 24,000 acres more for a private corporation, UEM, albeit it is a GLC (government-linked corporation).

Today, UEM Land, as the master developer of the 23,875-acre Nusajaya (as the acquired land is now called) boasts of its enormous landbank and potential billions in profit from its development. We want to ask this simple poignant question: whose lands were these originally, and what about the 10,000 over affected villagers? Shouldn't these people be beneficiaries of development and not its victims? Perhaps some of the villagers are now working in Legoland, who knows?

While some of the people behind the scenes went on to achieve high office and some made it to the top 10 billionaires list, thousands of other nameless Malaysians are without land and opportunities.

Land grab is non-discriminatory: Malaysians from all racial, religious and social strata are affected.

Gelang Patah was just the precursor to a new ball game called Land Grab and the same modus operandi was used for Seremban 2, Bandar Aman Jaya in Sungai Petani, Pantai Kundor/Pantai Tanah Merah and Paya Mengkuang in Melaka, Kerpan in Kedah, Sepang in Selangor, lands acquired for the MRT project, Jalan Sultan, native customary lands in the Peninsula, Sabah and Sarawak, and many, many more.

Of course, not all compulsory acquisitions are unjust or not justifiable; but there should be a fair and unskewed avenue for aggrieved landowners through the justice system to question certain acquisitions.

The courts now are somewhat constrained by Act A804, and in almost all cases such acquisitions are not reversed.

The Pengerang grab

Twenty years on, the same script is being acted out in Johor again (a BN stronghold), this time to the east in Pengerang.

A total of 22,500 acres of land are being acquired for the development of the Pengerang Integrated Petroleum Complex (PIPC). The anchor project in this proposal is Petronas' RAPID project which requires a sizeable 6,424 acres.

Smallholders and plantations are being offered between RM1.80 psf and RM8 psf for their land.

Can Pengerang be called Gelang Patah 2.0 where again, on the pretext of development, a huge tract of land is being taken from their original landowners and placed in the hands of one or a few wealthy individuals and corporations? Is the PIPC the main play or is property speculation the main play?

Would the same prime minister who mooted the Third Link to Singapore in 2009 make the announcement again after all the land has been acquired? Who are the direct beneficiaries of such development?

All these are so "legal" that one government official after another is spewing out that it is done properly under the terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. It may be legal, but is it moral?

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak made a statement during the launch of the sixth International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities Conference in Kuala Lumpur on the Oct 4, 2012: "Is the unbridled and ruthless pursuit of extraordinary profits a form of corruption? I believe that if we see corruption as fundamentally a moral problem, therefore anything that promotes selfish interest at the expense of the well-being of others is morally wrong. It was vapid [tasteless] self-interest and greed that was truly at the heart of corruption. "

Mr Prime Minister, I could not agree with you more.

How much is enough for the greedy? How many more poor and defenseless villagers must be forcibly displaced and robbed of the fruits of development to satisfy the insatiable appetites of the greedy who uses the Land Acquisition Act to enrich themselves? Who will speak up for the thousands who will be landless and many without a means of livelihood?

It is evil when a law is crafted to take away land from the poor without their consent, fair compensation or share in its benefits so that a few might make it to Forbes' list of billionaires. We should all be foaming at our mouth with anger at this injustice but instead we just thank God daily that it is not our land they have come to take, at least not yet.

Thomas Fann blogs at www.newmalaysia.org

Do you want the devil you know?

Posted: 04 Oct 2012 02:31 PM PDT

BN happens to have been in federal government for so long that people tend to automatically assume they have the required leadership.

Kee Thuan Chye

I'm finding this frequent comment by people rather irksome: "But does Pakatan Rakyat (PR) have leadership? Can it take over the federal government?"

I'm prompted to ask: What do they mean by "leadership"? Is the Barisan Nasional (BN) leadership the kind we want?

I'd take it further: Does BN have leaders? I mean, real leaders?

People tend to forget to look at the states currently being governed by PR. I don't know much about Kedah and Kelantan, but Selangor and Penang have been doing fine. I live in Selangor, and as a Penang-born-and-bred, I visit Penang from time to time. The Auditor-General has commended the PR government of Penang for its financial management and monitoring system for three consecutive years – 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Auditor-General has also commended the PR government of Selangor for its "very good" performance in 2010 of reducing public debt and loan repayment arrears. And from 2009 to 2010, its consolidated revenue also increased by 20.2%.

Leadership must have something to do with it, must it not?

As for BN, people think it has leadership because it is a perception that has been ingrained in them for more than five decades. BN happens to have been in federal government for so long that people tend to automatically assume they have the required leadership.

But look at BN's leaders today. Which of them are really good? Quite a few have been making stupid statements, that's for sure. And the statements have been getting worse and worse.

Look at Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein's response to a question on why during the Bersih 3.0 rally, the police were confiscating memory cards from the cameras of press photographers and members of the public. "I don't know," he said. "This is the standard operating procedure of the police."

And how about MCA President Chua Soi Lek blaming Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim for Ng Yen Yen's recourse to Australian permanent residence? He said it was because of Anwar's "restrictive" policies while he was Education Minister that compelled non-Malays like Tourism Minister Ng to seek PR status abroad in the 1990s for the sake of their children's education. Never mind that Anwar was not the Education Minister then, that it was actually Sulaiman Daud.

Another comment I find irksome is "Better the devil you know than the angel you don't" – courtesy of ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad recently.

He was not saying something new; this had been bandied about for the last couple of years – by people trying to advocate that even though BN is a "devil", it is safer to keep BN in power than to opt for a new government and potential uncertainty. What's new is that Mahathir has now admitted that BN is indeed a "devil". Unwittingly, I suppose.

Well, should we keep faith with the devil we know?

The devil we know has not brought us a single institutional reform yet despite Prime Minister Najib Razak's numerous pledges. Just to quote one example, why hasn't Article 121 of the Federal Constitution been restored so as to return real independence to the judiciary? Without that, the judiciary is still answerable to Parliament, which was not the original intent of our founding fathers, who recognised the need for the separation of powers between the Executive (Government), the Legislative (Parliament) and the Judiciary.

Neither has the devil we know done away with repressive laws like the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Sedition Act. It has merely replaced the ISA with the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, and is proposing to replace the Sedition Act with the musical-sounding National Harmony Act. In fact, the devil we know has restricted our democratic space by first enacting the Peaceful Assembly Act and then giving us the new amendment to the Evidence Act called 114a.

This amendment presumes the accused guilty and places the onus on him/her to prove his/her innocence. It goes against the principle of natural justice. Under this amendment, someone could borrow your computer to post a seditious comment on some blog or website and you could be held responsible for that comment. You may not even be aware of that posting but you'd have to produce witnesses to testify that you were not at your computer when the posting was done. See how ridiculous it is?

Furthermore, the devil we know has demonstrated that it has different sets of laws for different sets of people. A 19-year-old was arrested for baring his buttocks over photographs of Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, while the incidents of BN supporters burning photographs of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and urinating on the posters of Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz and DAP leader Lim Kit Siang have been ignored by the authorities.

And a 19-year-old girl who surrendered herself to the police for having stepped on the photographs of Najib and Rosmah got handcuffed like a criminal. But if you were to look at photographs of ex-menteri besar Khir Toyo and ex-minister Ling Liong Sik when they were arrested – one for land fraud, and the other for cheating the Government – you'd see that neither of them was handcuffed

It looks like on the one hand, we are told we are 1Malaysia, but on the other, there are these double standards.

The devil we know has also been spending public funds to the tune of RM5.77 billion for the political purpose of buying our hearts – and votes. And in other ways as well. Only recently, Najib, while attending the launch of the Sultan Ahmad Shah Environmental Trust, surprised everyone there by announcing that the Government would donate to it one million ringgit. Just like that – one million ringgit of the people's money, given away at a glitzy launch party. Who gave him the permission to give away our money?

Meanwhile, our national debt keeps increasing at an alarming rate. According to finance expert Teh Chi-Chang, in his book Umno-nomics: The Dark Side of the Budget, "Our national debt now stands at nearly 54% of total national income or GDP …" This, he adds, is just one per cent below the 55% debt ceiling set by "our more prudent forefathers" in the Loan (Local) Act 1959 and the Government Funding Act 1983. The way Najib keeps spending, we might soon go through the ceiling.

The devil we know hijacked Merdeka Day this year and turned it into BN's own day of celebrations and election campaigning, culminating in the setting of a "world record" in the number of tweets in an hour! How that would benefit the country only a twit would know.

The devil we know is currently drawing up a new curriculum for the teaching of History in schools that will supposedly instil "patriotism" in our students. What that probably means is that history being told by the victors about the achievements of the victors will be indoctrinated in the minds of our young. And our young will be captive because History has been made a must-pass subject at SPM starting next year.

So, what do you think? Better the devil we know, or the idea of a two-coalition system turning into reality that might convince sceptics that it is workable – and that it is the better option?

Even someone from the MCA, which is part of the ruling coalition, has come out to suggest that the devil we know has dark secrets to hide. Lee Hwa Beng, writing in his book PKFZ: A Nation's Trust Betrayed, points out that if it had not been for the outcome of the 2008 general election, at which BN lost its two-thirds majority and four states plus Kelantan, "we would never have known what happened in [the] PKFZ [scandal]".

He adds, encouragingly, "If a repeat of March 2008 occurs at the 13th general elections, which are due very soon, who knows what other truths could be revealed."

For the sake of a better Malaysia , would you not want more truths to be revealed?

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians, available in major bookstores.

The tackiest wedding of the year

Posted: 04 Oct 2012 02:27 PM PDT

With rumours circulating that Ali Rustam is seeking an important role in the Umno hierarchy, he was prepared to politicise his son's wedding.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

The award for the tackiest wedding of the year should go to Malacca Chief Minister Ali Rustam, who treated his son and daughter-in-law as goods and touted their wedding in a sponsorship deal.

The newlyweds have been propelled into the glare of publicity, for the wrong reasons. Cynics will make fun of them and say that instead of the usual marriage vows, the groom, Mohd Ridhwan, will have said, "I accept Nur Azieha's hand in marriage, with the mas kahwin of an undisclosed amount, provided for by the taxpayer."

As a true blue-blood Umnoputra, Ali Rustam is more concerned about image, much like his mentor Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. The CM lacks humility, and has no respect for the sanctity of the marriage union. Many aspects of the wedding smack of corrupt dealings. The CM has, in the past, faced allegations of "money politics".

To accept sponsorship for his son's wedding is degrading, but Ali is neither the first, nor last. Over the years, many other social climbers and celebrities have paraded a variety of products from cup noodles to chocolates.

With rumours circulating that Ali is seeking an important role in the Umno hierarchy, he was prepared to politicise his son's wedding, and gain brownie points. The wedding chariot, the beca, was decked with tinselled "1Malaysia" cut-outs – tasteless shows of allegiance which doubtless, will have gone down well with Najib.

Behind the scenes, it is possible that one or more companies have offered to "sponsor" the newlyweds on an all-expenses-paid-honeymoon in an exotic idyll.

The truth is that Ali is a cheapskate. He knows that in this day and age of keeping up with the Joneses, he could not be content with a quiet family affair. Grand weddings do not come cheap.

As he was unable to sell the rights to his son's wedding to the celebrity gossip magazine "OK!" then perhaps, in his opinion, local companies would suffice. Anything to get free goods and services. Umno politician = Freeloader.

Out of touch with reality

Most sensible parents treat the wedding of their children as a joyous and memorable occasion, but Ali treats his son's wedding like a conveniently prepared "3-in-1" coffee drink: the sweetener equals the companies and government departments providing free goods or services; the creamer equals the gifts from the businesses desperate to kowtow to Ali. These are pre-mixed with the coffee powder (the wedding couple). The guests, all 130,000 of them, equal the hot water. All the CM has to do is to add hot water to the 3-in-1 mix, except this time, Ali has found himself in hot water.

Austerity measures are a necessary part of our lives and many Malaysians struggle to feed their families. Ali is unaffected by increased costs of basic goods, petrol and services. He is reported to have said that the wedding was "cheap to organise", and has hit back at his critics calling them "spiteful and jealous".

Ali is far removed from reality. He wants to impress with his wealth and described the RM600,000 bill as "cheap". Perhaps, it is cheap and "not extravagant" by Umno standards. One fears to think what Umno politicians consider "expensive". Is Ali aware that some Malaysians earn less than RM600,000 a year?

The hefty bill raises two questions: First. How does a CM on the government payroll, have access to such sums of money? Second. He is a public official and in any civilized part of the world, free lunches must be declared to the body which monitors gratuities given to public servants.

Malaysians are weary of their public officials stealing the taxpayers' money. The amount of government agencies and businesses "sponsoring" the wedding reception is a conflict of interest. What did they get in exchange for providing goods and services?

People who see nothing wrong with Ali's misappropriation of public funds must know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Neither Ali nor his colleagues in Umno understand the meaning of "conflict of interest". Ali brushed aside claims of corruption. He takes his cue from Najib who misused taxpayers' money when he allegedly flew close friends and family to Kazakhstan for an "official meeting". It was alleged that Najib and his entourage had attended the engagement party of his daughter to the nephew of the Kazakhstan president.

READ MORE HERE

Is Malaysiakini in mischief mode?

Posted: 03 Oct 2012 02:34 PM PDT

Shamsul Akmar

SPIN AND DEFLECTION: The core issues of Soros' involvement in regime change and puppet governments ignored

Shamsul Akmar, NST

IT is quite telling that Malaysiakini, whose credibility is being questioned following accusations of being foreign-funded and a foreign tool to cause mischief to the nation, is turning to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to "absolve" itself.

Having vilified Dr Mahathir throughout almost its entire existence, Malaysiakini is using a letter written by Dr Mahathir to billionaire financier George Soros, to indirectly justify its acceptance of the latter's funding.

Malaysiakini used the letter written by Dr Mahathir to Soros in early 2006 as the basis of the article, which can be basically summed up into five main thrusts:

IT was Dr Mahathir who offered Soros the olive branch after the former had, during the 1997/98 financial crises, accused the latter of wreaking havoc on Asian nations as a rogue currency speculator;

DR Mahathir asked Soros to join him in a Global Peace Forum "criminalising war" campaign;

DR Mahathir assured Soros that his participation in the Forum would not affect his other concerns;

DR Mahathir met Soros in Kuala Lumpur 11 months later and they buried the hatchet when the former said he accepted that Soros was not involved in the devaluation of Malaysia's currency; and,

DR Mahathir dug up the hatchet when he recently said Soros was seeking regime change in Malaysia.

Peace offering

From the very start, it was clear that Malaysiakini was working on a spin -- this is obvious in its contention "the 2006 letter which Malaysiakini has a copy, indicates that it was Dr Mahathir who first approached Soros with an olive branch in hand".

How can it be construed that Dr Mahathir was the first to offer the olive branch when Soros, in a Jan 7, 2006 interview with a mainstream Malaysian publication, the New Straits Times, reportedly said he agreed with the measures Dr Mahathir had taken to deal with the regional financial crisis of 1997/98?

In retrospect, in 1997/98, Dr Mahathir had blamed Soros and other rogue currency speculators for causing the regional crisis, and having ascertained how they had committed their malfeasance, Dr Mahathir came up with a remedy that defied conventional monetary policies, especially those propagated by the International Monetary Fund.

In other words, Dr Mahathir would only have been able to come up with the remedy after determining the cause and the remedy could only work if the cause or illness had been diagnosed correctly.

If Soros said that he agreed with the measures Dr Mahathir had taken, then it meant Dr Mahathir's diagnosis that the crisis was caused by currency speculators had to be correct.

As such, none other than Soros, a well-known speculator himself, vindicated Dr Mahathir, who was described as a heretic when he blamed the speculators for the currency crisis.

And such a concession, by any standard, is a giant olive branch offered by Soros to Dr Mahathir and this prompted Dr Mahathir to write the Jan 11, 2006 letter.

The next point is about Dr Mahathir asking Soros to join him in the Global Peace Forum which is a platform that seeks to criminalise war.

Again, it is obvious that the invitation was made on the premise that Dr Mahathir believed Soros shared his views about war and his campaign against George W. Bush, one of the leading perpetrators of the Iraq invasion and war crimes.

As Dr Mahathir pointed out in his letter that "whatever may be the differences between us, we seem to have identical views on war i.e. on killing people in the pursuit of a national agenda", he obviously believed that Soros was against war as an option in settling international conflicts.

In other words, Dr Mahathir was very aware of other things that Soros does which he may disagree with but they held a common view about war and believed they should work together on it.

The invitation to Soros via the letter did not come with a request for funding or any financial assistance.

Malaysiakini also picked on the part of Dr Mahathir's letter where he said: "I am aware of your other concerns -- about democracy etc. But this anti-war campaign for the ultimate human right will not be in conflict with any other rights that you may espouse. So I hope you will join".

Malaysiakini's description of the remarks as Dr Mahathir taking great pains to reassure Soros is an exaggeration, as what Dr Mahathir had done was merely to say that if Soros were to join the Forum, the objectives would be consistent with whatever other human rights activities Soros was involved.

Beyond the letter, Malaysiakini highlighted the meeting between the two in Kuala Lumpur 11 months after the letter was written, describing it as an event "where the two foes buried the hatchet" following which Dr Mahathir said he accepted that Soros was not involved in the devaluation of Malaysia's currency.

It should have ended at that, regardless of whether Dr Mahathir truly believed that Soros was involved in the currency speculation or not or he was merely being polite. Furthermore, what Dr Mahathir said was that he accepted that Soros was not involved based on what Soros had told him during the meeting.

However, the currency speculation issue and Dr Mahathir's recent accusations of Soros' involvement in wanting to see regime change in Malaysia are two separate things.

Why spin Dr Mahathir's letter?

But why did Malaysiakini go to great lengths to reproduce much of Dr Mahathir's letter to Soros and attempt the spin?

It was obvious the whole article was written to fulfil three aspects:

SOROS is not a rogue or a villain as portrayed because Dr Mahathir himself had asked the former to join the Global Peace Forum;

THAT being the case, if it is alright for Dr Mahathir to want Soros to work with his Malaysia-based Global Peace Forum surely there is nothing wrong with Malaysiakini receiving funds from Soros or his organisations; and

IF the above two aspects are insufficient to vindicate Malaysiakini and exonerate Soros, the third approach is to expose Dr Mahathir as being contradictory and inconsistent when it comes to Soros. As such any of Dr Mahathir's contentions, including the recent accusations that Soros was pushing for regime change in Malaysia, should be ignored.

But underpinning all these is one particular objective -- Malaysiakini is trying to tell its readers and supporters that there is nothing wrong with receiving funds from Soros because Dr Mahathir too had asked for his help.

So instead of coming out to defend Soros, Malaysiakini used Dr Mahathir to absolve itself and to a large degree Soros, too.

The issues of whether Soros is truly pushing for regime change and whether Malaysiakini should explain itself for receiving funds from Soros are conveniently ignored. And Malaysiakini has also conveniently ignored reports of Soros' sinister involvements in setting up numerous puppet governments and regimes.

No quick fix for East Malaysia

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:50 PM PDT

Erna Mahyuni, The Malaysian Insider

"All you East Malaysians need to do is vote out BN!" I hear that time and time again from various people in Peninsular Malaysia and it's getting frankly tiresome.

I apologise to Sarawakians in advance for having to explain things on your behalf, but I have lived in your state so am not totally clueless. Unlike the many who think that all that is needed is a Braveheart-like uprising where the united peoples of Sabah and Sarawak rise up against tyranny and all that jazz.

It's not that simple. And that's my biggest beef with opposition rhetoric. It oversimplifies things, forgetting context and ignoring the complexities of East Malaysia.

One challenge both Sabah and Sarawak have is geography. We're far removed from West Malaysia, quite literally, and in some ways it has worked out for the best but has also made integration tricky. There are far too many assumptions on each side about the other and "getting to know" each other requires a two- to three-hour flight.

Sarawak is a huge state and its terrain makes traversing it prohibitively expensive. The Penans and other interior-dwelling folk have it worse; they are forced to trek hours to the nearest transport stop to get to the nearest city. They do not have ready access to the things we city dwellers take for granted: piped water, electronic and physical media, hospitals and decent schools.

Even on the outskirts of Kota Kinabalu, the state capital of Sabah, there are schools that are little more than glorified shacks with crowded classrooms and malnourished children. Don't get me started on the West Malaysian teachers who refuse their postings to Sabah and Sarawak or clamour to be sent home as soon as possible.

Racial tolerance is more pronounced here. Yet, the reality is that despite the "peace" between the various races in East Malaysia, it isn't easy to get them on the same page politically.

Sabah, for instance, has various splinter parties that are also quite clearly delineated by race. SUPP is predominantly Chinese, PBS is mostly Sabah Bumiputera with a few Chinese people, the Muslim Bumiputeras once mostly congregated in USNO, but the BN-friendly now are in Umno.

It's not much different in Sarawak. The various communities may get along better but dig down and their politics is the same old selfish Malaysian politics. It's never about what's best for the state or the country; it's about what's best for their own communities. Let the Penans rot in the jungles so long as my community gets first pick of lucrative contracts.

That is the reality of the Malaysian mindset; the preoccupation with what's best for your own kind to the detriment of everyone else. Malaysians don't seem to believe in "win-win." It's "I take everything and everyone else can go die-lah." Which explains our love for monopolies.

PKR's already shot itself in the foot by refusing to co-operate with local parties in Sabah and Sarawak. How am I, as a native from Sabah, supposed to place trust in a party that made Azmin Ali Sabah PKR chief? How am I supposed to believe that Anwar Ibrahim and his cohort won't do the same thing and just hand out division chief titles to people from the peninsula as "rewards" to the faithful once the state is won?

What Pakatan Rakyat should be doing is forming alliances with local opposition parties. Instead, it intends to compete against them. Of course, BN will probably end up winning because of split votes.

Don't get me started on people harping on about how Sarawakians should all unite and toss its current chief minister out. Here's news for you: The reason he's still in power is because the people who have benefitted from his position like him where he is. Ponder that for a moment.

It took Bruno Manser to come in and unite the various Penan tribes. It will take more than a well-meaning Swiss to unite the various factions in the two states. Sadly the people trying to play catalyst are not altruistic crusaders but those with an eye on Putrajaya.

By the way, because I have to keep reminding you, Sabah did vote against BN. But BN "convinced" PBS MPs to jump ship in the biggest "frog" incident in Malaysian history. Back in the day, Anwar Ibrahim was proud to be seen as "delivering" the state back to BN.

It's not that simple; it was never that simple; it will never be that simple. So word of advice to Pakatan: When three words can sum up your campaign ("BN is bad!"), you need to do a lot better.

CAT got your tongue, Mansor?

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:34 PM PDT

The deputy chief minister (I) should clear the air if he thinks he has been framed over the 'cocky, arrogant, tokong' controversy.

Five months ago, PKR state chief and Deputy Chief Minister I Mansor Othman let the "CAT" out of the bag but now denies ever having done so, that is, uttering the words "cocky, arrogant, tokong" (CAT) in reference to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

Jeswan Kaur, FMT

No one should be ashamed to admit they are wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that they are wiser today than they were yesterday. – Alexander Pope

Mansor apparently made the "CAT" remark on Lim who is also DAP secretary-general during a private meeting between him and some PKR local members in May.

Details of the meeting were leaked and published in verbatim in a blog "Gelagat Anwar" in June.

But then Mansor is not the first to define Lim as "CAT"; similar remarks were in the past made by former PKR local leaders like independent MPs Zahrain Md Hashim of Bayan Baru and Tan Tee Beng of Nibong Tebal.

However, in Mansor's case, his on-off denial in having said those words to Lim has put the former in an uncomfortable position in the eyes of Penangites, particularly supporters of Pakatan Rakyat.

In what has become an embarrassing episode for Mansor, the "CAT" fiasco has, as feared by DAP national chairman Karpal Singh, been capitalised by ruling Barisan Nasional to gain political sympathy from the rakyat.

Hoping to halt further damage to the Pakatan image, Karpal wants Mansor to clear the air on the "cocky, arrogant, tokong" controversy.

Karpal believes Pakatan can resolve the issue amicably as it involves two individuals and is not between two parties.

The question here is, what is taking Pakatan so long to douse the "CAT" fire which is being kept alive by BN sycophants like Perkasa, which keeps raising doubts in the minds of the people on Pakatan's capability to manage the country should it secure victory in the coming 13th general election.

While Pakatan decides how best to end the "CAT" controversy, Umno crony – Media Prima-owned TV3 – decided to do the dirty work for the government when it aired on its 8pm Buletin Utama more than once the audio recording of the details of the meeting.

Berani buat berani tanggung

There is a Malay saying that goes "berani buat berani tanggung" (if you dare do it, then dare face the music) and now it is left to Mansor to do the decent thing – own up to the fact that he did call Lim a "CAT".

In any case, the rift between Lim and Mansor cannot be disguised.

Mansor should have known better than to make such remarks although uttered during a closed-door discussion involving Mansor and some PKR local members.

To laugh off the "CAT" issue that has been taken to "greater heights" by Pakatan's nemesis Umno is not going to help Mansor save both his face and his political career.

If the utterance "cocky, arrogance and tokong" were made to vilify Lim, then it is a lesson learned the painful way by Mansor.

Mansor is not the first politician in the country's history to have maligned his superior nor will he be the last to do so. There was Mukhriz Mahathir, now the International Trade and Industry Deputy Minister, and the son of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who had openly called for then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step down.

Then Umno Youth chief, Hishammuddin Hussein, refused to take any action against Mukhriz, dismissing the remark as a personal opinion.

Mahathir himself had chided his successor Abdullah for being "stupid" and in May 2008, the former announced he was qutting Umno as he had lost confidence in Abdullah's leadership and would rejoin the party only when Abdullah stepped down as prime minister and Umno president.

Such show of gutter politics has always been there and it is another matter that no one had the guts to confront Mahathir over such an act.

Where "CAT" goes, if indeed Lim is cocky and arrogant, then there is a place and time to raise the issue instead of indulging in petty gossip as Mansor has done, a move which has led many to question Mansor's capability as deputy chief minister.

To now chicken out of the "CAT" issue and dump blame on his detractors is not going to work wonders for Mansor. On the contrary, it is having the courage to say "yes, I did" that will save Mansor's day.

Rotten apples best discarded

Perhaps the "CAT" blunder is a blessing in disguise for it has given rise to the need to discard the rotten apples in Pakatan's fold.

It seems that Zahrain and Tan were not the only rotten apples in the DAP-controlled Penang; there are more with Mansor being one of them.

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:29 PM PDT

As an opposition candidate, defector Wilfred Bumburing will have the support of two former Tuaran MPs to woo voters making him a formidable candidate.

Joseph Bingkasan, FMT

KOTA KINABALU: If there was one thing that MP Wilfred Bumburing did for the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition when he defected to the opposition in July, it was to force the disparate BN branch in Tuaran to unite.

With the opposition in the state, seen by the BN as their 'fixed deposit', gaining ground, the parliamentary constituency of Tuaran has always been shaky as could be seen by the surge in support for the opposition in the last election.

There has always been a fear within the ruling coalition that the defection of top Sabah BN leaders to the opposition would have a domino effect around the state.

The exit in quick succession from the BN by MPs from Tuaran (Bumburing) and Beaufort (Lajim Ukin) as well as a Senator (Maijol Mahap) and a host of senior political leaders once aligned to Sabah Umno has caused the once mighty coalition to pause.

In Tuaran, the initial shock and constant quarelling resulting from the departure of former Upko deputy president Bumburing who is also its BN chairman, seems to ended for the moment.

Bumburing had cited disillusionment with the BN's inability to resolve the longstanding question of how hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants had been registered as voters and were now determining the future of the state as among his reasons for leaving.

Several senior leaders of Upko joined him in forming a new party, Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS), to work with the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition in the coming election.

According to sources, Pakatan leader Anwar Ibrahim has given Bumburing an assurance that he would have a say on the candidates to contest in constituencies where the Kadazandusuns are the majority.

Bumburing, who won the Tuaran MP seat in the 2008 election, is expected to defend his seat against the potential BN candidate, his former colleague Wilfred Tangau, the Upko secretary general who made way for him in the 2008 election.

Tuaran comprises the state seats of Kiulu and Tamparuli now held by PBS and Sulaman by Umno.

'Formidable' Bumburing

Once considered a BN stronghold, it is now a toss up. Tangau won the seat in the 2004 election when he polled 17,722 votes against PKR's Ansari Abdullah who garnered 8,555 votes.

The BN saw its winning margin drop significantly in 2008 when Bumburing polled 17,645 votes to Ansari's 11,023 votes. Independent Ajin Hazin Gagah managed 879 votes.

READ MORE HERE

Polls in December?

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:27 PM PDT

This is because Najib's trump card is the budget goodies and if the polls are held this year, the voters will be tempted to vote for BN in order to obtain the goodies next year.

Selena Tay, FMT

Now that the Budget 2013 has already been tabled, political analysts are again speculating on the date of the 13th general election. Many are of the view that the polls will be held only after February.

But this columnist thinks it can still be held this year, the latest by Dec 15 (after the Umno general assembly which ends on Dec 1).

This is because Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's trump card is the budget goodies and if the polls are held this year, the voters will be tempted to vote for Barisan Nasional in order to obtain the goodies next year.

After the goodies are distributed, he will have no more weapon or trump card. Therefore to maximise the effect of the feel-good factor, he holds on to the goodies now to be used as a carrot.

According to the old folks of the Chinese community, perhaps the devil has gotten hold of the polls date and that is why it is difficult for everyone in BN to get it back.

So much for the devil and the date.

With regard to the budget presentation last week, what was uncalled for was Najib's attack on Pakatan Rakyat which lasted close to 20 minutes. That was really in bad taste and very unbecoming of someone who aspires to be a great statesman. And he has the gumption to talk about moderation!

Commenting on this, PAS Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad opined that "Najib must be having his mind preoccupied with Pakatan 24/7 and that must be the reason why he could not resist taking a swipe at Pakatan during the budget presentation".

Auditor-General's Report

However, what is also just as important as the budget is the Auditor-General's Report which, according to parliamentary procedure, should be tabled on the same day as the budget itself. Instead this vital report is late again as was last year.

The Pakatan MPs need to see the Auditor-General's Report so that they can evaluate the government's spending habits. If a certain ministry has overspent, then it is pointless to allocate another vast sum to this particular ministry again.

A point to note is that the incumbent BN federal government has been running a budget deficit since 1998 and is in the habit of requesting for a Supplementary Budget. This means that additional allocation is requested as the budget's allocation is insufficient to meet the demands of the ministries.

The whole thing shows that the government is not spending in a prudent manner.

Although it is good to dole out goodies to the rakyat, what the government is doing is akin to giving painkillers to the sick person and not curing the disease. In short, it is not solving the problem. It is only implementing a stop-gap measure to relieve the pain.

Back to the Auditor-General's Report. Without this report, Pakatan MPs will find it difficult to debate the budget in an effective manner because they are in the dark on whether the government has spent last year's allocation prudently and wisely as comparisons need to be made between the budget and the Audit-General's Report.

A good example is the National Feedlot Corporation project wherein RM250 million was allocated but the results were measly. This matter was revealed in the Audit-General's Report.

Of course, there are many other examples of procurements or purchases made at jacked-up prices and cost overruns in this and that.

Meanwhile, the national debt has increased to RM502 billion. Plus off-the-record contingent liabilities, the sum will definitely be much higher but with increased spending, the national debt percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could still be below 55%! A miracle indeed!

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 6 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan