Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Royal fatwa on Allah word - has HRH been let down by advisor(s)?
- #KL112: Res Ipsa Loquitur!
- When Yong is hungry like the wolves
- Five contradictions in restricting the use of 'Allah'
- Anwar has changed
- The Witch of Anw-dor?
- Japanese WWII Reparations: Are PR Politicians on LSD?
- Privatisation of Government Land: Ways of Skinning the Cat
- The ABC of Public Trust and Accountability.
- I have, with great sadness and much anger, watched our nation become a nation governed by these ...
| Royal fatwa on Allah word - has HRH been let down by advisor(s)? Posted: 09 Jan 2013 02:47 PM PST RPK has lamented on this, which I detected in one post of his where a visitor challenged him on issues he had actually explained comprehensively in that post, wakakaka. Given the experts' etymological and historical clarifications on the Allah word, I am in no doubt that Father Lawrence Andrew is on strong legal grounds to use it ... and indeed we know that the court has supported his stand. […] Legally, High Court Judge Lau Bee Lan had ruled as unconstitutional the Malaysian government's ban of the use of Allah as the Bahasa equivalent of the word God in the Catholic Herald. […] I'm afraid on a personal basis, kaytee isn't all that supportive of the Church's insistence on using the Allah word to represent/indicate/describe their Christian God in the Malay language. […] But I have always believed that religion is about faith and morality and not legality or for that matter, political approval. Thus I find it unfortunate that the Father Andrew and the Catholic Herald had taken the issue to the courts. Surely on a matter of religious faith and knowledge, there are numerous other names of God it could have use beside Allah. I view its arguments for the use of Allah as seemingly based on obduracy and legality rather than any plausible unavoidable reason. I then went on to detail my challenge to Father Lawrence Andrew's arguments. Apart from shooting down Father Andrew's arguments that the Allah word is vital because the Tuhan word is inadequate for serving the message in some biblical passages, I also voiced my sympathy for the Muslim community's concerns for the reason I know the Christian Church has an evangelistic mission ... ... and endowing it with a Bahasa version of the Bible (al Kitab) which uses the Allah word to refer to the Christian god would be akin to asking lil' Johnny to mind the cookie jar to ensure it's not raided, a totally unrealistic expectation. I have been and still am deeply concerned that the potential (and actual realization) of the issue of Christian proselytizing of Muslims, will destabilize further the already shaky politically-affected inter-communal relationship, with all its attendant unpleasant consequences, ... ... of which we obtained an ugly glimpse of when a mufti sms-ed his followers to stop a fabricated case of a church in Perak proselytizing Muslims. On New Year's day I had a chitchat with my matey, Ong Kian Ming whose Malaysiakini article Allah row - what's the name of the game? I had challenged. Kian Ming was his usual gentlemanly self where he kindly took on the task of explaining to me the logistical problems involved in switching from al Kitab's Allah word to what I have suggested, to wit, Yahweh, Elohim and a host of other Hebraic appellations that the Christian god is better known by in the Christian world. I've been impressed by Kian Ming's masterly grasp on the logistic issue, though it must be noted too both of us didn't touch on the Church's evangelistic angle. Unfortunately due to pressing prior engagements I was not able to continue discussion with him on the topic. But nonetheless, the point I wish to make is that while I didn't and still don't support the Church's intention to use the Allah word, I have never questioned its legal rights (thus far, until the government's appeal is known) to use that word in its newsletter, the Catholic Herald, and al Kitab. I am taking the trouble to reiterate this because (a) of the poor reading skills of some visitors wakakaka, and (b) the thrust of this new post. This new post refers to an article in The Malaysian Insider, namely, Non-Muslims must not use 'Allah', says Selangor Sultan. MAIS informed us HRH Sultan Selangor has decreed that the word Allah is a sacred word specific to Muslims in a fatwa gazetted 3 years ago, and thus must not be used by any non-Muslim religion in Selangor. Look mateys, there must be no doubt that while HRH is a constitutional monarchy, he has a role which entitles him to issue direct decrees, that is, those on Islamic affairs in his state of Selangor, as he is the head of the Islamic religion in Selangor. And on such Islamic issues, it has been claimed that he would be advised by the Menteri Besar (MB). It has been precisely this factor, that of the MB of a state or his deputy advising HRH on Islamic affairs, that in March 2008, immediately after the general election, we saw Khalid Ibrahim, then appointed MB of Selangor, tap dancing away from appointing his deputy. DAP, the second largest component of the informal (winning) coalition in Selangor, had nominated sweetie Teresa Kok to be the deputy MB. But Khalid Ibrahim did not deal courageously with the triple political whammy (to him) candidate proposed as his deputy, one who was/is a Chabor (woman), Chinese and a Christian (all rolled into one), a triple-C factor which sh*tted him ... ... whilst the neighbouring State of Perak also saw HRH Regent sidelined Ngeh Koo Ham of DAP (the Pakatan party with the most number of ADUNs) and picked instead Nizar Jamaluddin of PAS (the Pakatan party with the least number of ADUNs) to be the state's new MB. Mind you, HRH's choice, for whatever reason, turned out to be a serendipitious one for us. It was alleged that Muhammad Munir Bani, the Selangor sultan's private secretary, had advised Khalid Ibrahim about the palace's 'preference' for a Malay (and, alas, not a Malaysian) deputy MB. However, Muhammad Munir denied reports that HRH wanted 'a deputy from a particular race' (meaning 'Malay'), although he added the sultan was the religious head for Islam and Malay culture, and thus the MB has the task of assisting in these duties, which in his absence would also have to handled by his deputy. In that most unbelievable zigzagging explanation, Muhammad Munir, after denying HRH wanted a Malay deputy MB, in the same breath averred that it was only proper a Malay (not a Malaysian) be the deputy MB. Following that, Malaysiakini reported in Expert: No legal need for Malay deputy MB that Prof Abdul Aziz Bari, a constitutional expert who lectured law at the International Islamic University Malaysia, was consulted on the matter. Prof Abdul Aziz dismissed Muhammad Munir's claims that the deputy MB should ideally be a Malay to assist the MB in Islamic and cultural duties. The Prof said: "The Sultan of Selangor does not need the menteri besar or the deputy menteri besar in matters pertaining to religion and Malay custom." According to the Prof, the sultan, as the head of Islamic matters and the Malay adat, is the person in charge of such matters in the state, and not the MB or his deputy. He said: "Matters cited by the palace are entirely within the sultan's jurisdiction. As the sultan may act on his own discretion on these matters, the constitution provides that a council may be appointed to assist him. This is what is commonly known as religious councils or majlis agama, which looks after the religious department or the jabatan agama. In the other four states and federal territories, the Agong will have the same establishment." Prof Abdul Aziz also commented that a prolonged delay in the appointment of a deputy MB was unnecessary and might even be unconstitutional. But when asked whether the appointment of a Deputy MB had been postponed or scrapped altogether, Khalid Ibrahim side-stepped the issue by stating the need to explain the matter (what?) properly to the people (who?), and that he would do this after the executive councillors had been sworn-in (why?).
| ||||||||||
| Posted: 09 Jan 2013 11:24 AM PST To be very, very honest I was quite gobsmacked and was in confusion when I heard from one of my favourite maestre Tukar Tiub Hishamuddin Rais that there was a sequel to the already massive BERSIH 3.0 to be held this Saturday, 12 January 2012, namely for a mega-rally dubbed #KL112. Coupled with his obvious disdain for apocalypse that makes the Mayan Grand-Witch doctor fume with rage, Tukar Tiub went on the offensive against his arch-nemesis the United Malays National Organisation (of which he stubbornly refuse to dub otherwise) by enlisting the NGO, opposition parties, the punks and skinheads; to be honest everything under the unfalling sky that is 'Anything But UMNO' or more affectionately known as ABU; in joining forces (again) to pressure Najib Razak into a position that would make the late Bobby Fischer, Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov blush with admiration. For here are the facts: (1) Najib Razak has now been drawn into a corner (yet again) in his pussy-footing over calling for the 13th Malaysian General Elections. If Najib Razak deals with this rally with force as was what had happened in BERSIH 3.0, he would face another big, big backlash among the young voters, of whom believe that freedom of assembly should not be curtailed. On the other hand, if he gives in and allows the demo to proceed, he would obviously be regarded as a reformer, though would be at loggerheads with the far-rightist in his right wing organisation including (but not limited to) PERKASA, who is UMNO's step-sister on his stepdad's side twice removed. (2) All these very tall tales of UMNO and BN's 'transformation' would again be rendered bland if heavy-handedness were to prevail. All BRIMs, KRIMs and stuff would be effectively neutralised and Najib would be left trying to salvage his efforts through ANOTHER round of an mandatory but improved BRIM etc with maybe a RM3000 payout financed by IMF loans this time around and blaming it to Anwar Ibrahim. (3) Malaysia has high domestic and extra-terrestrial debts for which is well documented which runs to more than a couple of hundred billion Ringgits - nothing much. But Najib Razak knows that corruption of the citizenry has a very high price - that is the Rakyat will feel that they deserve it and that the next handout MUST be more than the previous. At the rate he is going by labelling everything under the sun as being 1Malaysia, we will have a very difficult time finding out what is NOT 1Malaysia. Desperation has seen that even recycled bread is now fielding that name, no matter how ingenius the idea was. Read more at: http://puterakemuning.blogspot.com/2013/01/kl112-res-ipsa-loquitur.html | ||||||||||
| When Yong is hungry like the wolves Posted: 09 Jan 2013 10:46 AM PST President of Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) Taiko Yong Teck Lee's romancing of the Barisan National may end his love affair with the Sabah opposition front soon. But this new love story bring up the moot question as to why he is so desperate when the Barisan National has hardly given any indication to warmly accommodate him under its fold. Sources in the Barisan National say Yong Teck Lee can't be trusted. How can they depend on a leader who was willing to ditch the Barisan National — his decade-old senior partner — when he felt the relations between both were strained because of one man Pak Lah? Earlier too, Yong Teck Lee parted ways with Pairin Kitingan and formed the SAPP. The gainer of this triangular game being played in the state may be Shafie Apdal a good friend of Yong Teck Lee who is waiting and watching in the wings to take over as chief minister from Musa Aman. Remember when Yong Teck Lee was chief minister he together with Shafie Apdal milked Yayasan Sabah until it nearly when dry? However, thanks to Musa Aman,he saved the day for Yayasan Sabah. Even Lajim Ukin, Sabah's famous party hopper and old buddy of Yong Teck Lee from the Party Bersatu Sabah (PBS) days where both began their political career and where both plotted to destroy PBS are seen regularly together nowadays. If recent gathering in the meetings of SAPP is any indication, then Yong Teck Lee being adamant to go for a majority of the state seats (60 in Sabah) this coming looming 13th general election on what he termed as "the principle of Sabah autonomy" is all about splitting the opposition votes and helping Barisan National win big. The political signal coming from Yong Teck Lee in the last few months indicate that he is trying to sail on two boats — Barisan National and Pakatan Rakyat — at the same time. His shifting statements to keep both the major political parties in good humour may end with a backlash. At the same time, Pakatan Rakyat camp specially The Democratic Action Party (DAP) feels that Yong Teck Lee is not dependable and his track record for the last couple of years shows that he is more committed to divide and split the opposition votes. It is a known fact that despite poor governance Yong Teck Lee ruled this politically vibrant state for 2 years but a lot say he worked 4 long years (pun added because he worked day and night 24hours a day making hay while there is sunshine with his partner in crime Joseph Ambrose Lee). Read more at: http://selvarajasomiah.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/when-yong-is-hungry-like-the-wolves/
| ||||||||||
| Five contradictions in restricting the use of 'Allah' Posted: 08 Jan 2013 09:38 AM PST The contradictions are as follows. 1. If we disallow non-Muslims from using the word 'Allah', are we implying that Allah has no relation to the non-Muslims, that Allah did not create the non-Muslims, but to whom Allah must belong if He is the Creator of all things? 2. If we say Allah is not the god of the non-Muslims, does this not imply that besides Allah there must exist a second god specifically for the non-Muslims, the former god of Muslim converts? Does this not clash with the Islamic concept of tauhid, which proposes that there cannot possibly be another god apart from Allah, and that no being can perform the work of a god other than Allah? 3. If we maintain that 'Allah' has no relevance to other religions, who then ultimately created these religions if not Allah, the Creator of all things? Are we suggesting that Allah got it wrong before unveiling Islam? But if tauhid is to stand and Allah is the sole Creator, and if Allah is infallible, perfect and all-knowing, does it not mean that Allah happily created, with no games intended, all the variety of religions and religious philosophies including Christianity and Hinduism? Read more at: http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2465&catid=219&Itemid=189
| ||||||||||
| Posted: 07 Jan 2013 12:47 PM PST Whatever Dr M says however, must never be brushed off as inconsequential. Like Robert Mugabe and Hosni Mubarak, he has a large following and some rebuttal is required lest people believe him. He first flogged US President Barack Obama as someone who did not deliver on his promises of change. He forgets that Obama was re-elected with an bigger margin than the first time he won the presidency. Dr M also ignores the fact that American citizens are in a better position to judge their President than a wealthy but old and retired Malaysian Prime Minister. He then went on to say that Anwar and his friends in the Pakatan would bring havoc to the country, even if they rule for only five years. Anwar and the Pakatan, he said, would make all kinds of sweet promises but would not be able to deliver them. Why? The main thrusts of his argument were as follows: Anwar did not accomplish much when he was in government, and even when he tried to do something, he was a disaster. During the 1998 financial crisis, for example, he wanted to follow the solutions prescribed by the International Monetary Fund, solutions Dr M said would have only bankrupted the country. He then said Anwar is not as pious or religious as he appears, and is a corrupt politician who practises cronyism to enrich his friends and family. For now, my response to these allegations is to say that even if all of the above were true, we should still give Anwar and his friends a chance to rule. This is because Dr M is unable to give an objective assesment of Anwar. He is dumfounded that his nemesis is not only politically alive, but will probably be the next Prime Minister. Dr M is unable to accept this possibility as this would be a devastating defeat for him. Dr M is unable to accept that the person he targeted with the whole machinery of the state is still an active political leader who is more popular than he is. In other words, Dr M is too disturbed by Anwar's thriving success to give a balanced view . I have been an Anwar follower from afar for a long time. I was never his friend, but my interest in politics made me especially interested in him when my first preference, Tun Musa Hitam, pulled out of the political arena. When Anwar was sacked in 1998 and the black eye incident became worldwide news, I felt really sorry for him. I could not do much except to quietly support the Free Anwar campaign. I even named my horse "Deputy Coming Back" in 2000 as a symbolic gesture of support. Unlike Dr M, I can give a better and more detached assesment of both Anwar and his friends in the Pakatan, which voters in the upcoming General Election can rely on. Yes, Anwar did not do much good when he was in UMNO. His tenure as Education Minister was poor and even as Deputy Prime Minister, he was not a trailblazer. He was imperious, feudalistic, strong willed and more interested in strenghtening his position in the party than pushing for real reform. But he was obviously good enough for the job; Dr M would not have picked him as his successor otherwise. Anwar was never shy about showing off his Malay and Islamic agendas, even if these made non- Malays/non-Muslims uncomfortable. His "slaughter" of Tun Ghafar Baba manifested the rapacious character of a man who was willing to abandon friendship and good behaviour so long as he could become Prime Minister. He had friends and allies who were given concessions and allotted shares in public companies. There was no doubt that he was filling up his war chest. In short, he did what a typical UMNO leader would do if he wants to move up the ladder and be Prime Minister. However, I believe that tragic and traumatic experiences can change a man. Anwar has suffered more than any political leader I know and because of these hardships, he is a different man today. He still wants to be Prime Minister (who doesn't), but he knows Malaysians have also changed. Today the people want a cleaner and more responsible Government. They do not want a corrupt leader who would only enrich himself, his party and his family. Anwar and the members of his family are not rich, and live modestly. Stories of him having billions stashed away are lies. He has wealthy friends, of course, and they have kept his struggle going. I don't believe money is terribly important to Anwar and his family, so I don't think we will have pilferage on a huge scale when he becomes Prime Minister. So one up for him. Malaysians also want to coexist in harmony. They are tired of UMNO's divide-and-rule system. Anwar has travelled far and wide in his political campaigns and has seen for himself how groups outside the gated communities live. He relates well with the rural as well as the urban poor and emphatises with the grievances of the marginalised. His concern for the less fortunate is genuine. His strong sense of justice is perhaps due to his own experiences, but they are real and something we can trust him with. He has changed, but Dr M has not. Two up. An important point to remember is that Anwar has a close relationship with PAS. I was initially sceptical that PAS could ever be a strong political force in a moderate Malaysia because for many years, they were hystericaly extreme in their views. Today Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang is no longer the firebrand Islamic leader from Rusila of the 1980's, but a moderate and practical politician. PAS has many young and moderate leaders, and they inject a strong ethical amd moral dimension to governance, at least more so than UMNO. I believe Anwar's influence on PAS and political Islam as a whole is positive. Three up.
| ||||||||||
| Posted: 06 Jan 2013 09:52 PM PST Indeed, and so are we joyous as well ... especially kaytee as I had penned the following posts eons before the cries of marginalisation of Indians rang out: (2) Malaysia's Economic Pariahs? (3) Hated by Indra
... but hold on a ding dong minute, the king-making claim seems to be not what we had visualize and want. It's not about Indian voters tipping the balance of outcomes in the coming general election, and while this may yet be realized, the king-makers we are discussing in this post are the new G-Ds of "truth" and a King Saul like bloke who could call up or upon Malaysian Witches of Endor or more correctly, Witches of Anw-dor wakakaka. On one side we have, as mentioned, B-D, the new G-D of 'Truth' especially the D of the Divine Duality, who in esoteric exotic erotic Taoism-like exercise, is making many PKR supporters go into wild orgasms at the "truth" spewed out like deep fried Manapparai murukku (chap rose hitam - haram certified, wakakaka), very non-halal (non-kosher) thus spicy and enticing but yawnnnnnnnn, something we non-PKR people are already familiar with ... .... while (what G-D gives with one hand, G-D takes away with the other) RPK informs us in The 'third party' whom Rafizi Ramli spoke about of one Datuk Ravi who marvellously has a panel of bomohs on his payroll and is reputed to be the alleged Mursyidul Am sub rosā* to PKR, in fact one personally advising the party's de facto head, Anwar Ibrahim. * sub rosā literally means 'under the rose', from the ancient use of the rose at meetings as a symbol of the sworn confidence of the participants or secret. You have to decide whether it is a black rose.
Wow, a double Makkal Sakti! ... and eat your roast lamb's heart out, Datuk TRJR*. [* = Datuk Tiga Ratus Juta Ringgit, wakakaka] Since 'tis the season of faith and we have been talking about matters relating to Judeo-Christianity, etc, it may be said that in Judeo-Christianity, the first official bomoh was Aaron, brother of Moses. He was the High Priest of the Hebrews, and only his direct descendants from the Tribe of Levi, referred to at times as Aaronites, could be priests. But since the good book says he was a prophet, perhaps we need to leave him and other Aaronites (Hebrew priests) out of this discussion on witch doctors (or shamans or bomoh) ... ... which then makes the Witch of Endor as the most famous bomoh in the bible, wakakaka.
This is just a wee digression, a t'ng k'ooi (chong hei) meandering before I come back to the Indian king-maker and his panel of bomohs. According to the Old Testament, King Saul (Israel's first king) was an unmitigated schizophrenic who was further depressed by leng chai David becoming the people's choice for kingship - so the Bible tells us but there's more to it than what the Bible hopes we would believe. There was a battle looming and Saul wanted to consult God about his chances but alas God didn't answer him which doesn't surprised me in the least because God's usual mouthpiece Samuel coincidentally wasn't around, wakakaka. Unfortunately for Saul (in more than one way), the treacherous Samuel, his priest-advisor, who seditiously abetted leng chai David in a failed coup d'etat, was dead. So Saul decided to ask the Witch of Endor to raise the ghost of Samuel for pre-battle consultations. But I have my doubts about this. You see, Samuel hated Saul's guts because prior to Saul becoming Israel's first king on the people's demand, Samuel as a Judge-Priest was running the country. He appointed his two sons as his successors, and I am sure you have heard of such legacies (in North Korea, I mean wakakaka), but the Israelites told them (Samuel's sons) to f-o, wakakaka, and demanded Saul be appointed King instead.
Obviously insofar as Samuel was concerned, there was nothing that Saul ever did right – for example, there was a pending battle with the Amalekites. Samuel told Saul to wait for seven days after which they would meet and Samuel would then give further instructions on sacrifices to god prior to battle. But as would have it, Samuel did not arrive even after 7 days; Saul's army was fidgeting so Saul started preparing for battle by conducting the standard offer of sacrifices. Aha! Just as Saul finished doing that, guess who popped out from behind the bush? Caught you! Yes, Samuel arrived and railed against Saul for not waiting for him as he was the priest and the only who could offer sacrifices to god (so said he), of course conveniently acting dunno that he did not arrive even after the promised seven days. Naturally the bomoh, ooops I mean, priest told Saul that god's not happy with him and would take away his kingship. Then bloke told Saul the latter had again fallen out of God's favour because he (Saul) was too soft hearted and didn't slaughter all the Amalekites in a genocide instructed by Samuel. Samuel's continuous fault finding with Saul, using god's name, remind me of a judge who once upon a time, long long ago, wakakaka, became the Lord President after he found his boss, then the incumbent Lord President, guilty of some alleged wrong, following which the Lord President was sacked and his prosecutor-judge-successor was promoted to become Lord President, wakakaka. Obviously the biblical Judge-Priest (ruler before King Saul) wanted to achieve the same thing, wakakaka. But realizing Saul had the people's support, he decided to become king-maker and promoted David as a worthy successor, claiming of course the murderous adulterous treacherous David was god's chosen ... thus wrote the Davidic supporters in the Bible, wakakaka.
Maybe Samuel had hope to control David but he died at the age of 53 - just as well for him because there was no one in biblical history more devious, treacherous and evil than David, whose symbol today is on the flag of Israel. Eventually David murdered Saul and his family (sons and daughter, his own wife) and seduced Saul's wife and a few other men's wives to get Saul's throne, so a wee BTN-style creative redaction of the Judaic records were done during the Judeans' captivity in Babylon to whitewash David's crimes. So the story of Saul calling the Witch of Endor to raise Samuel from the dead for pre battle consultations was a further demon-ization (excuse the unintended pun) of King Saul by Davidic supporters, apart from the gross implausible geographical details related to the sequence of events, indicating they were fabricated. But consulting bomoh has been an intrinsic part of Malay culture, which I dare say, due to the muhibbah-ness of our society, some Chinese and Indians and a few Eurasians have participated too, wakakaka. Yes, there are 3 activities that bind us closely like bro's and sis' - namely, sports (especially the faves of gamblers, wakakaka), 4-Ekor (see multiracial crowd at 4-Ekor shop wakakaka and the magnanimous policemen who would be so tolerant of double and even triple parking outside an 4-ekor shop, wakakaka), and consulting the bomoh (to dapat 4-Ekor lah, wakakaka).
My uncle told me that during the days of Tunku (or was it Tun Razak) PM-ship, the Vice Chancellor of our only university was, I believe, Prof Ungku Aziz who did the unusual. He engaged a bomoh to consecrate a hall in UM, and he did in an open ceremony where there were a number of invited guests including VIPs, wakakaka. Ungku Aziz was big on Malay culture and he reckoned a bomoh consecrating the hall would be a nice touch, wakakaka. A few Malays grumbled but most smiled at his Malay-ness or eccentricity. The unique occasion was reported in most of the newspapers, ad that's how my Unc came to know about it. Today I wonder which Malaysian university VC dares do such a thing, wakakaka. Another uncle story - Recalling my uncles were in the Armed Forces, they heard this one about a certain Malay Regiment Battalion commanding officer (CO) during the Emergency. Bloke was a bit of a sexual perv, but let's keep clear of that as we want to discuss the bomoh in the story. Apparently, as the story went, bloke wanted to ambush a known CT group in his area of operations As he lacked intelligence (the military kind, wakakaka) he consulted a bomoh in a hope to get a head start on other battalion commanders. The bomoh assured him that if he laid an ambush at location X, he would get those CTs. Of course the ambush was in vain, or we would have ended the Emergency a lot earlier, wakakaka. But something happened - he whacked the bomoh kau kau, wakakaka.
| ||||||||||
| Japanese WWII Reparations: Are PR Politicians on LSD? Posted: 06 Jan 2013 01:44 PM PST Looking substantively at the issue, first, Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty states, "It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war." This authorizes reparations by recognizing war responsibility. Other claims rights and settlement of property rights, return or compensation for Allied property, compensation for Japanese mistreatment of Allied prisoners of war, resolution of the claims rights of neutral nations, and debt return from the prewar period, etc., are minutely specified in Articles 15 to 18. This may differ slightly from the war responsibility being debated today, but Japan here indicated an attitude to deal sincerely with war responsibility and resolving the various problems arising from the war. Based on the peace treaty, Japan concluded reparations agreements with the Philippines and South Vietnam and concluded individual peace treaties and reparations agreements with Burma and Indonesia, which were not parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Cambodia and Laos were parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty but forfeited their right to claim indemnities, so Japan concluded grant capital aid cooperation agreements with these two countries in return. (This type of aid is classified as "quasi-reparations" in Japan, and in the domestic budget is included not in the general account but in the special reparations account.) With another non-participant in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, India, Japan concluded a peace treaty in June 1952, ending the state of war and confirming India's renunciation of indemnities from Japan. 6 Japan recognized its war responsibility and agreed to pay indemnities in these various peace and reparations agreements. In the reparations agreements with the Philippines and South Vietnam, there is no clear reference to war responsibility, but given that these treaties were based on Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which "it is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war," obviously there was no need to repeat these provisions. In the individually concluded peace treaty with Burma, Japan recognized its responsibility by stating that "Japan is prepared to pay reparations to the Union of Burma in order to compensate the damage and suffering caused by Japan during the war." There is a similarly worded article in the peace treaty with Indonesia, based upon which a reparations agreement is concluded. Although not specifically reparations, Japan concluded so-called grant capital aid agreements in the 1960s and provided grant loans as a form of quasi-reparations to Malaysia and Singapore, whose ethnic Chinese communities strongly demanded redress for damage suffered from Japanese occupation. These agreements state, "Japan recognizes that the (early and total) resolution of problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II in Malaysia (Singapore) would contribute to promoting its friendly relations with Malaysia (Singapore)." They thus recognize Japan's responsibility, and further state that the contracting parties "agree that all problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II are hereby totally and conclusively resolved." -
| ||||||||||
| Privatisation of Government Land: Ways of Skinning the Cat Posted: 06 Jan 2013 01:02 PM PST I believe that the cat refers not to our lovable tabbies at home but to the big cats that the colonials loved to hunt – the tigers, lions, leopards, cheetahs and jaguars. So when the government granted the privatisation of a 223.33-acre military land in Bukit Raja, Selangor, to a little-known private company, Awan Megah Sdn Bhd, which belongs to the Selangor Wanita Umno chief, Raja Ropiaah Raja Abdullah, turned into a mischief, it appears that it had not skinned the cat the right way. And its silence on the vicious allegations that the family of the Prime Minister, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak, was involved with carpet dealer, Deepak Jaikishan, is deafening. The spat between the Umno bigwig and Jaikishan, who claimed ownership of the land, saw the ghost of murdered Altantuya Shaariibuu and the second statutory declaration by the mysterious PI Bala being brought to live just as the general is around the corner. In the process, carpet trader sued his business partner Raja Ropiah (which he recently claimed had been withdrawn) and published an online book about the deal in which dragged members of Mohd Najib's immediate family into the cesspool -- something that the opposition loves to embrace and the Barisan Nasional could not afford as the GE looms. The sad thing is, the iconic Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT) had been dragged in as well or, more appropriately, had been used solve the problem of the smelly carcass of the badly skinned big cat. Its property development arm, Boustead Holdings Berhad, had stepped in to by the land and the concession that goes with it for a combined price tag of RM160 million. I would not dare claim to know much about land appropriation and property development. But when I was briefly involved (as a junior partner) in the management buyout (MBO) of the New Straits Times Press Berhad (NSTP) and Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Berhad (TV3) back in the early 1990s, we were involved in the privatisation of the Kuala Lumpur Railway Station land that is today known as KL Sentral via the Bursa Malaysia-listed property developer, the Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad. Today, MRCB is owned by the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and KL Sentral has become the showpiece of urban renewal. (I left NSTP and severed all relationship with MRCB/NSTP/TV3 groups in 2000). Better Ways Of Privatising Government Land There are certainly other better ways of privatising the Bukit Raja land and, for that matter, all military and government-owned landed properties. I have seen companies offering better terms for military land. For instance, from the outset they roped in the LTAT by forming or prosing to form joint venture companies in which the LTAT is the majority shareholder. The private sector companies that made these proposals are reputable Bursa Malaysia-listed companies. In one case that I came across, a Bursa Malaysia-listed property developer proposed to acquire a piece of Ministry of Defence land and replace it with a piece of land of equal size elsewhere and build on it whatever is required by Mindef. It also pledged to build a military enclave on the privatised site whereby serving and retired military personnel would be offered special discounts to buy houses and apartments. But they were not always successful. People linked to political parties or have access to the inner circles were more likely to receive the privatisation and they would then sell the projects to developers for quick profits. In the case of the Bukit Raja land, it was sold to Boustead. If indeed Boustead had been eyeing the land since 2005, as it was reported telling Bursa Malaysia, it should have made the bit itself instead of buying it from a vendor. The moral of the story is, you either skin the big cat well or you will get scratched. In the worse case scenario, the dying cat may bite off your head.
| ||||||||||
| The ABC of Public Trust and Accountability. Posted: 06 Jan 2013 11:48 AM PST A party coming out in the open showing all that its committed to the principle of transparency and more important on accountability is demeaned because of that? clearly then, it means transparency and accountability do not exist in UMNO's vocabulary. Deceit and irresponsibility are. What would UMNO do? Use mistakes to defraud people? It's better to keep and hide things from people? It's better not to answer or even pretend not to know, the whereabouts of Puspahanas? Where is that damn thing? The government is not answering despite having given the leeching lady RM27 million of taxpayers' money. Is Raja Ropiaah milking money on behalf of UMNO? It's better to keep quiet and hide from people the whereabouts of the RM207 billion or whatever amount paid by Japan to some 30,000 death railway conscripted laborers? UMNO supports and condones silence and hiding malpractices such as the RM500 million commission earned by middlemen in the purchase of malfunctioning submarines. Or defrauding the people into believing that the proposed west coast expressway breaks new ground in the way
| ||||||||||
| I have, with great sadness and much anger, watched our nation become a nation governed by these ... Posted: 06 Jan 2013 11:27 AM PST A person who steals secretly is a thief. One who seizes something from you by force is a robber. Now imagine if you can that these thieves and robbers have no feelings of remorse or guilt, no sense of responsibility or conscience or shame in doing what they do and certainly not limited by legal or moral encumbrances. There you have it my friends, these are the very people we now have the misfortune to have as our leaders in government. This UMNO led Barisan Nasional government! While you and I are encumbered by our conscience and concern for the welfare of others, no such encumbrances inhibit them. They crave power and money. Wealth and influence. And they are now in government able to do these things and anything else without limitations or concern for the well being of any one else but themselves! I have, with great sadness and much anger, watched our nation become a nation governed by these thieves and robbers in the guise of Barisan Nasional politicians who steals not always secretly but always steals albeit without any legal encumbrances for they are in government! This UMNO led Barisan Nasional government! It pains me so that these thieves and robbers are in the main, Malays. Some are Bugis, some Jawa, some Mamaks and various nuances of ethnicity in between ….but in truth they are all coloured by the same ethnic brush….Malays. There will be many who will say that thieves can also be found amongst the Chinese, the Indians and the people of East Malaysia. True but that will be a burden that these races will have to carry for themselves. I am burdened, as I am sure other Malays will be, that these herd of thieves and robbers have long ago announced themselves to be our champions in our attempts to better our lot amongst others whose history started many thousand of years before ours. The Chinese and the Indians have a rich history of culture and traditions that dates back many thousand of years. We Malays are the new kids on the block in need of all the assistance we can get! These Malay politicians who are thieves and robbers have announced to all who will listen that they are the ones who have won Ketuanan Melayu for the Malays – a political concept emphasizing Malay pre-eminence over any others who call Malaysia their home. They further boasts that through UMNO, the Malays have dominated politically for over half a century. For sure this is not the certainty of defeat but the possibility of defeat – but nevertheless it is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Why has this happen? Of course Rome was not built in a day….but half a century is still not enough for UMNO to do its work of making Ketuanan Melayu a reality? Why? What part of Ketuanan Melayu still needs work? Have UMNO been able to unite the Malays after 55 years in government? No! I am against UMNO. Anwar Ibrahim is against UMNO. There are enough Malays today who are against UMNO to make UMNO talk about internal reforms to make themself more relevant to the aspirations of these Malays. Our aspiration is to stop money politics and corruption in UMNO – but that is all UMNO do, TALK! Have UMNO been able to unite the various races in a non-communal UMNO? No! Racial politics is alive and well within the coalition that UMNO leads –the Barisan Nasional. Divide and rule using race and religion is the order of the day for UMNO! FELDA, RISDA, Ali Baba, Nepotism, Negotiated Tenders, Bumiputra Status, Cronyism, an IGP shot dead, corruption in the timber industry from Pahang to Sabah and Sarawak – these are all manifestations of what a government of thieves and robbers can and did do to our beloved Malaysia. I have, with great sadness and much anger, watched our nation become a nation governed by these thieves and robbers in the guise of Barisan Nasional politicians who steals not always secretly but always steals albeit without any legal encumbrances for they are in government! To date there have been other 'Bank Bumiputra's'! All of them magnificent failures of epic financial proportions. Each bigger than the other! Each accompanied by the systematic plundering and pillaging of our nations wealth by UMNO thieves and robbers! And then that unique traditions thought of by these thieves and robbers to cover their tracks while making themselves more money – the bailout! And none made this into an art form more than Mahathir! And none profited more greatly from a bailout than his own children! Read more at: http://steadyaku-steadyaku-husseinhamid.blogspot.com/2013/01/i-have-with-great-sadness-and-much.html |
| 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