Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Why this eagerness to please Malaysia?
- Anwar's Last Gamble
- A case of scratching each other’s back?
- The irony of a biased media
- It's time Malaysia, Philippines resolved Sabah claim fast
- Chinese see Psy, Malays see May-13 film
- No respite from Evil of Government
- Sabah standoff: Karma
- The systematic water torture
- Difficult to fix a ‘broken bracelet’
- Will Selangor go for early dissolution?
- The Sabah standoff
- Malaysia, Sabah & Sarawak
- Where’s the logic, Hisham?
| Why this eagerness to please Malaysia? Posted: 23 Feb 2013 02:26 PM PST
This eagerness to please is particularly puzzling, because Malaysia has been, if anything, rather arrogant insofar as the Philippines is concerned. One remembers that 1,200 Filipino domestic helpers were rounded up in a Catholic church in Malaysia as they were attending Mass. But never mind religious sensibilities. What about its arrogance with regard to the peace talks, trying to tell us what to do or what not to do? Or, the latest, its refusal to turn over Aman Futures' Manuel Amalilio? Solita Collas-Monsod, Philippine Daily Inquirer The Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo, now headed by Jamalul Kiram III, who can trace his lineage at least 500 years back (the sultanate was founded in 1465)—how many Filipinos can go back that far?—still strikes me as a tragic institution, the victim of greed, opportunism, and indifference particularly during the second half of its history. Only consider: There was Spain, which forced it to accept Spain's sovereignty over "Jolo and its dependencies," then turned around and ceded North Borneo (which was not a dependency of Jolo but had been awarded to the sultanate by the Sultan of Brunei in 1685 in gratitude for the former's help in quelling a 10-year rebellion that had devastated Brunei) to Britain under the so-called Madrid Protocol among Spain, Britain and Germany. It must be pointed out that Spain did the same thing to the Philippines: It ceded us to the United States even if we were no longer the former colonizer's to cede. Then there was Britain, which first declared in 1883 that it assumed no sovereignty over Borneo, but then five years later made a protectorate of North Borneo, and finally in 1946 (10 days after Philippine independence, mind you), annexed North Borneo as part of the British Dominions, in spite of formal reminders in the interim by the US government that Sabah (the other name of North Borneo) was not Britain's, but belonged to the Sultanate of Sulu. And then, of course, there is Malaysia, which, 135 years after the Sultanate of Sulu leased North Borneo to a private British company (later known as the British North Borneo Co.), is still paying the sultanate essentially the same rent as in the original agreement (later slightly modified because of additional territory). Last year, for example, the Sultan received a little over P200,000 as lease payments for the whole of Sabah. Sabah's land area is over 73,000 square kilometers. Do the arithmetic: The Sultanate of Sulu is paid something like P2.74 per square kilometer in rent. For the Reader's delectation, one square kilometer is equal to one million square meters. And has the sultanate gotten better treatment from the Philippines? On the whole, unfortunately, the answer has to be NO. President Aquino and President Gloria Arroyo never even bothered to acknowledge, much less reply to, the letter they each got from Sultan Kiram III, who was not even asking for help with regard to Sabah. President Fidel Ramos, if one recalls correctly, was in favor of renouncing the Philippine claim to Sabah (without consulting the Sultan); President Cory Aquino's administration vowed to resolve the matter one way or another—and did not; President Ferdinand Marcos, after his disastrous, bungled attempt (Operation Merdekah) allegedly to invade and take over Sabah, announced in 1977 at an Asean meeting (again without consulting the Sultan) that the Philippines would renounce its claim to Sabah (he did not follow through). The only President who made serious attempts to claim Sabah, it seems, was President Diosdado Macapagal. And with him we can begin to identify the good guys who appeared in the odyssey of the Sultanate of Sulu. The United States must take a bow as one of the good guys. As mentioned above, it gave formal reminders to Britain that Sabah belonged to the Sultanate of Sulu, and it was an American, former governor general Francis Harrison, who denounced Britain's act of annexing North Borneo 10 days after the Philippines gained its independence, as an act of "political aggression." But it was not until 1962 that the Philippines (under Diosdado Macapagal) tried to flex its muscles, with Indonesia an ally (Indonesia wasn't too keen either on North Borneo being part of the Malaysian Federation, seeing as almost the rest of Borneo is part of Indonesia). And here another good guy must be identified: journalist Napoleon Rama, whose series of articles in the Philippines Free Press titled "North Borneo Belongs to Us" raised an uproar and galvanized public opinion. Then there was Jovito Salonga, who led the legislature's support for the cause. Macapagal even wrote then US President John F. Kennedy, presumably seeking his help, and began talks with Britain (not much happened). Not so trivia: Macapagal mentioned in his letter that Sabah is only 18 miles from the Philippines and 1,000 miles from Malaya (the Malayan peninsula). The move to end Malaysia's "hegemony" obviously petered out. But what I cannot understand at this point is why our government seems to be unduly anxious to please Malaysia. When the Philippines was to host the Asean, then Sen. Letty Shahani introduced a bill in the Senate proposing to give up our claim to Sabah. (This was stopped in its tracks by Jovito Salonga, who said that any giving up of claims must be conditioned on the protection of the proprietorial rights of the Sultan of Sulu. When the Malaysian king came a-visiting, there was also another move to give up our claim, but Congress apparently refused to cooperate.) This eagerness to please is particularly puzzling, because Malaysia has been, if anything, rather arrogant insofar as the Philippines is concerned. One remembers that 1,200 Filipino domestic helpers were rounded up in a Catholic church in Malaysia as they were attending Mass. But never mind religious sensibilities. What about its arrogance with regard to the peace talks, trying to tell us what to do or what not to do? Or, the latest, its refusal to turn over Aman Futures' Manuel Amalilio? Is some self-respect on our part too much to ask?
|
| Posted: 22 Feb 2013 03:19 PM PST
In essence, the Hindraf's six demands in its blueprint are Indian-specific. Therefore, by agreeing to back Hindraf's demands, Anwar has committed himself and unwittingly his Pakatan partners to fight for Indian causes. Kuala Lumpur Post Anwar Ibrahim has littered his recent political past with promises he cannot possibly keep. And now he has made the mother of all promises. He has promised to champion the race and religious specific cause of Hindraf. This promise could be his undoing. Anwar was quoted by the social media yesterday as saying that should Pakatan Rakyat assume federal power, Hindraf's five-year blueprint on resolving the Indian community's problems will be implemented within 100 days. The answer…
|
| A case of scratching each other’s back? Posted: 22 Feb 2013 02:49 PM PST
In 1985, Tun Mustapha said perhaps the federal government wanted to use Manila's claim on Sabah against its people as a bargaining chip to make them behave. By Jude Wang, FMT KOTA KINABALU: With the 13th General Election drawing near, it seems to be a fishy coincidence that the Sultan of Sulu and his family have suddenly decided to revive their claim to Sabah as part of their ancestral right. In an interview with the Philippines' Daily Inquirer, Crown Prince Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, reportedly said that they will have to pursue the Sabah claim on their own since the Philippines government appeared to have ignored their demand to include their claim to Sabah as an "integral and essential" aspect of the peace agreement involving "any armed group in Mindanao". Meanwhile, Malacanang maintains a dormant claim to Sabah. But who are these armed groups? Here's a look at the historical facts. The Crown prince claims the armed group are the "Royal Security Force of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo". Their arrival on Sabah shores is said to have sparked one of the biggest security "scares" in recent years in Sabah. Though they claim to have come without any violent intentions, their mere presence was enough to cause jitters among Lahad Datu residents, who, in past years, have witnessed several violent exchanges between Filipino armed groups and Malaysian military forces. Since the ongoing stand-off between the Sulu 'soldiers' and the Malaysian security forces, rumours and text messages have been circulating in the east coast district and as far as Kota Kinabalu. While some of these test messages warned for people to be vigilant, others talked about a shootout between forces concerned. So what are these 'negotiations' that the Malaysian security forces are talking about? It's a drama To understand the situation, I made some inquiries among friends and contacts in the east coast town to gauge the "on the ground" situation. The result was they all knew very little of what was going on. One long time resident of Lahad Datu who did not want to be named told me that the Malaysian military force landed at the Lahad Datu Airport and headed straight to the landing spot, some 20 kilometers from the township. While describing the situation as "terkawal" (under control), she also said: "Tapi kami juga berjaga-jaga" (but we are on the alert). A plantation manager of mixed descent who also preferred anonymity said: "Actually they (the Moros) used to come here unnoticed but this time one of their rivals in one of the many splinter groups informed the Malaysian government. "Also, when this thing happened, people also started to SMS around and this caused a panic. In fact, nothing much is happening that we can see… its more like a false alarm." One man who claimed to be a former MNLF personnel and who has started a new life as a supervisor in a plantation, said he was rather surprised when this issue came up "because my own relatives in the Philippines are also unaware of this (incident)". "The (Malaysian) government kasih makan sama diorang saja ini (the government is only feeding them); ini sandiwara saja… apa hal ini? (its a drama … what is this farce all about?). From the on-the-ground responses, the question that emerges is why has the current standoff generated so much hype in the first place? Is it because of the 'secrecy' of the on-going negotiations? MNLF-M'sia connection The number of armed men seems to have grown from 20 to between 80 and 150 as claimed by the Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein while others say the numbers are even more. Hishammuddin compromised an earlier no-negotiation stance made by the Sabah Chief of Police Hamza Taib, citing as his main reason the need to "handle (the situation) wisely without bloodshed or loss of lives". It was a dubious move in the first place and now seems to have backfired. Calls here are getting louder for the resignation of both the Home Minister and his counterpart in the Defence Ministry, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, over what the DAP has called their "shameful failure" to defend the country in the face of such blatant acts of lawlessness. Another opposition party leader also called the stand-off 'a "shameful failure" of the government to defend the country's honour and sovereignty as well as the security and safety of the people of Sabah. But conspiracy theorists are hinting that this is actually a secret arrangement cooked up between politicians and the many rebellious elements in the Southern Philippines. While it may seem far-fetched, there is historical precedence for such "cooperation". Many point to the tacit connection between the MNLF and the Malaysian government stretching back more than four decades. In 1968, news broke that Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) trainers had killed at least 28 Muslim military recruits during a mutiny at a secret training camp on the island of Corregidor. The Muslim Filipinos presumably were being trained by the AFP as a secret army to invade Sabah. In 1969, Malaysian authorities are said to have secretly trained Moro Liberation Front members on Pangkor and Jampiras Island and a dozen more places in Sabah, as part of an covert strategy to prevent President Marcos' attempts to pursue the Philippines claim over Sabah which was started by President Macapagal in 1962.
|
| Posted: 22 Feb 2013 11:01 AM PST
Politicians lose out on votes, journalists lose out on credibility, and the rakyat loses out on information. In the end, we're all losers in this toxic game. Anisah Shukry, Free Malaysia Today Have you ever felt like doing a karate chop on your television when watching Buletin Utama? Or suffered high blood pressure just after glimpsing the front page of Utusan? Or choked on your morning coffee when surfing Malaysia Chronicle? Last night, my apolitical sister told me she actually felt like puking when watching Buletin Utama. Apparently, they were reporting how a prominent PAS leader likened recipients of the Bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia (BR1M) vouchers to animals. "What rubbish! As if Nik Aziz would be stupid enough to say such a thing!" cried my usually mild sister. "Obviously a spin," I agreed automatically, rolling my eyes. Typical Buletin Utama, feeding lies to the masses, I thought. But then my journalistic instincts, on a brief reprieve after failing to get analysts' responses for my article for the day, kicked in. What if it isn't spin? I mulled. What if this time it's actually true, bona fide news, and I'm dismissing it, before even verifying if the report is true, because I know TV3 is biased? And therein lies the irony of the biased media. What blatantly biased news agencies don't get is that the more they hit out on the other side, the more sympathy people feel towards the "victims". It's reverse psychology 101. Take for example BN-controlled media like Utusan, TV3, NST. Every time they give the opposition bad coverage, most of us from the middle ground automatically assume its spin or, at the very least, not telling the whole story. Immediately, the opposition become martyrs in our eyes – the underdogs that we should root for. And the same applies for pro-opposition news portals like Malaysia Chronicle, and even, to a certain extent, FMT. Honestly, another sister of mine, who is absolutely determined to vote for the opposition in the coming general election, actually shook her head and sighed "poor Najib" when reading the article 'PM missed a beat on drummer ad' on FMT. As for me, every time Malaysiakini/FMT/Malaysia Chronicle columnists wax lyricals about what a "failure" our prime minister Najib Tun Razak is, I can't help but sympathise with him and feel like reminding the world that 'hey, if it weren't for BN, we'd still be an agricultural society. Blatantly biased But then I pick up a copy of NST and feel nauseous at the sight of the bum-kissing headlines plastered above Najib's face, and the cycle of sympathy-hate continues… It's just really ironic, because these news companies, journalists and columnists are bending over backwards to please their political masters, yet they are inadvertently doing these people a disfavour. Because while these news companies can keep the party's staunch supporters feverishly happy with their one-sided, sugar coated, liberally-censored news, the politicians are definitely not winning any new fans. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/02/23/the-irony-of-a-biased-media/
|
| It's time Malaysia, Philippines resolved Sabah claim fast Posted: 22 Feb 2013 10:32 AM PST
Finding an equitable solution requires uncommon goodwill on both sidesMalaysia would, of course, dearly wish for Manila to drop the Sabah claim entirely. But that is hardly realistic. Even if the Philippine government wanted that thorn in relations with Malaysia removed, it will be constrained by political realities existing within the country to unilaterally drop the claim. John Teo, NST THE ailing Sultan of Sulu who reportedly gave the directive to send an armed group of relatives and supporters to Sabah at least had a rather keen sense of timing. The move comes amid impending national elections in both Malaysia and the Philippines, with campaigning either officially or unofficially under way in both countries. The Philippines' Sabah claim thus resurfaces at a delicate time for both nations, as the sultan may have intended. One misstep and either or both nations' leaders are vulnerable to political and other critics. Already, in Malaysia, the government is under growing pressure to act tough against the band of armed foreign intruders as the stand-off in Lahad Datu continues. In the Philippines, the government is similarly under pressure to "resolve" the Sabah claim once and for all. Somewhat uncharacteristically, Philippine officials have described the situation as "sensitive", as ours have also done so. Some in Malaysia wonder if the Philippine group is not doing the bidding of Manila, noting that it provocatively raised the Philippine national flag where it is now camped out in Sabah. It is plausible the Philippine government was caught off-guard by the event as it is claiming. The administration of President Benigno Aquino III is seeking to speed up concluding a final peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. For that it needs the continued goodwill of Malaysia as the third-party facilitator in talks towards that agreement. And it is precisely the very prospect of that peace agreement that was cited by the Sulu group for launching its action. The action might have been ill-advised to begin with but it was done as much to get Manila's attention as it was to get that of Malaysia's. The group would have known that the ancient Sulu sultanate is no longer an internationally-recognised sovereign entity in its own right. To pursue its claim on Sabah, it needed the Philippine government to do it on its behalf. It was moved to take things into its own hands because it sees little prospect of Manila advancing the claim once Manila becomes somewhat beholden to Malaysia for helping to bring peace to Bangsamoro, which will encompass the remaining territory of the sultanate. The Philippine government has, since the administration of President Fidel Ramos, adopted the stand of putting the Sabah claim on the backburner as it seeks to practically advance long-frosty ties with Malaysia. That stand seems to have suited us and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was happy to play along when he was prime minister at the time. On hindsight, it may not have been wise to sweep the whole issue under the carpet even as official ties between Kuala Lumpur and Manila improved over the years. But what could have been done, given the circumstances? Malaysia would, of course, dearly wish for Manila to drop the Sabah claim entirely. But that is hardly realistic. Even if the Philippine government wanted that thorn in relations with Malaysia removed, it will be constrained by political realities existing within the country to unilaterally drop the claim. The Philippines, on the other hand, may be able to live with the claim being referred by both nations for international arbitration. If the international precedent set by the decisions to award disputed territories we had in recent years with Indonesia and Singapore to claimant countries that exercise effective control over the territories in dispute is taken as a guide, our case over Sabah should be on solid ground. Yet it appears extremely unlikely we will submit the Sabah case for legal arbitration. And without consent by both countries to pick the path of international arbitration, it will not happen. Both countries will, therefore, need to creatively find common ground to meet each other half-way. There have been hints from the Philippine side that the issue may be resolved with a negotiated final cash settlement. The Philippine side has always insisted that Malaysia has continued to make annual nominal payments over Sabah to heirs of the royal house of Sulu, something that Malaysia has not publicly acknowledged doing. If indeed such payments are made, perhaps it is time we come clean about it and face up to the implications thereof. Sweeping the matter under the carpet serves no one since the matter is not likely to go away. Finding an equitable solution to this festering issue requires uncommon goodwill between Kuala Lumpur and Manila and we are likely to get as good an opening for that now as we ever will. |
| Chinese see Psy, Malays see May-13 film Posted: 21 Feb 2013 03:15 PM PST
Najib is playing a dangerous game in using 'Tanda Putera' to try to swing support for Umno. The similarities between 1969 and 2013 are uncanny. Mariam Mokhtar, FMT As we approach the 13th general election (GE13), Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's interpretation of "1Malaysia" gets more bizarre. To herald in the Year of the Snake, Najib made the surprise announcement that the Chinese would be treated to a special performance by the Korean entertainer Psy. Earlier this week, after much delay and heavy censorship, the Indians were finally allowed to view the film, "Vishwaroopam". The Malay masses, always on the wrong end of the stick when it comes to Umno's largesse, were forced to view the Umno propaganda film "Tanda Putera". Psy's performance allegedly cost RM3 million for a mere 12 minutes. The ban on Vishwaroopam caused promoters to suffer significant financial losses. Much of the box-office takings were diverted to pirated DVDs which were openly sold throughout Malaysia. "Tanda Putera" cost RM4.8 million and is funded by the National Film Development Corporation (Finas) and the Multimedia Development Corporation (Mdec) – in other words, the taxpayer. We are told that "Tanda Putera" uses the May 13 racial clashes as a backdrop to the relationship between the deputy prime minister of the time, Abdul Razak Hussein, and the former home affairs minister, Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman. For health reasons, Ismail had retired from politics but Razak managed to persuade him to come out of retirement to help resolve the crisis. The screening of "Tanda Putera" was deferred twice, last year. On Sept 13, it was claimed that there was insufficient promotion for the film, then on Nov 15, the Cabinet decided that certain scenes were "inappropriate". Were the bans designed to create more hype around the film and so increase the curiosity of some members of the public? Last Monday, around 3,000 Felda settlers who were in Kuala Lumpur to hear Umno leaders including former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, received an unexpected addition to their programme. Najib ordered that "Tanda Putera" be screened and journalists were asked to leave the hall. It is outrageous that Najib uses racial sentiments to scare the voters into voting for Umno. How can the wounds from May 13 heal, if they are continually being re-opened? The film was shown after Mahathir had told the Felda settlers that they were beholden to Umno. He said, "The comfort today is due to hard work as well as the government's help, can't people be a little grateful and appreciative?" Lessons from history ignored The greatest tragedy of the May 13 riots is that Umno ministers have not learned any lessons from history. The legacy of Mahathir means that his loathsome influence still continues after he resigned as prime minister. In the book, "The Reluctant Politician" about Ismail, by Ooi Kee Beng, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah claimed that Ismail was the one who wanted Mahathir expelled from Umno and twice prevented Mahathir from being re-admitted into Umno. The book also states that Ismail banned offending documents criticising the Tunku from being circulated because law and order was breaking down, and he was adamant that there would be "no coup in the country and no coups in the party". Ismail was known for fair play and correctness, and the book claimed that "every Malay colleague… including Mahathir, feared Ismail". Ismail was always ready to debate and he was highly principled. Malaysia is still haunted by the May 13 riots and each one of us has to bear our share of shame and guilt. How many of us can truly call ourselves Malaysian? Some of us demand that vernacular or religious schools be kept. Universities have special quotas to meet. Particular jobs, contracts or positions are given to certain sections of the community. Are we prepared to dispense with all these racial policies?
Najib is playing a dangerous game in using "Tanda Putera" to try to swing support for Umno. The similarities between 1969 and 2013 are uncanny. In 1969, it was believed that there were two factions in Umno – the "ultras" who included the young Mahathir; and the "old guard" or the moderates who were led by Tunku. Today, a power struggle exists in Umno between the old Mahathir and Najib. The communists were made a convenient scapegoat for the May 13 disturbances. In the past few years, the communist element is again being blamed for troubles in Malaysia. Even PAS leader Mat Sabu was accused of being a communist sympathiser when he alluded to Malay freedom fighters who used communist ideals to fight for independence of Malaya. Bersih marchers were not spared when former Inspector-General of Police Hanif Omar claimed he recognised communist elements from video footage of people on the march. In 1969, the ruling Alliance party suffered a significant decline in support. In an echo of the past, the loss of support that BN suffered in 2008 is predicted to continue to GE13. The opposition took control of Kelantan and Penang in 1969 and states like Selangor and Perak did not have a clear majority. In 2008, Kelantan, Penang, Kedah, Selangor and Perak fell to the opposition although Najib later grabbed back power in Perak. In the 1960s, the Malays were suffering economically. Despite various programmes to help Malays in the lower income bracket, most of the benefits have been abused by Umno Malays to help themselves, and not their poorer cousins.
|
| No respite from Evil of Government Posted: 21 Feb 2013 12:11 PM PST
The term Bumiputera was coined by Tunku Abdul Rahman to include the Malay-speaking communities -- Bugis, Javanese, Minang, Acehnese, Arab Muslims, Indian Muslims etc -- in Malaya who are not considered Orang Asal of the peninsula. Only the Orang Asli in Malaya are considered Orang Asal of the peninsula. By right, all citizens by operation of law in Malaysia who are the issue of operation of law citizens should be considered Bumiputera. Joe Fernandez The minimum wage rate in Malaysia will merely discourage locals and encourage more foreigners to come over. It's half of what it should be. |
| Posted: 21 Feb 2013 12:03 PM PST
Even before the landing of 200 men in Lahad Datu last week, the Sultanate had already sent armed men in small groups to Sabah to escape notice from authorities. The armed groups are being coddled by Tausogs in the Malaysian state. Ramon Tulfo, Philippine Daily InquirerIf Malaysia is clumsy about handling the Sabah standoff, it will have the same problem the Philippine government had when it fought a Muslim rebellion in the South in the 1970s up to the 1980s. Malaysia is in a no-win situation as a result of the standoff in Sabah. If it uses deadly force on a small group of armed Filipino Muslims now holed up in the village of Tanduo in Lahad Datu town in Sabah, members of the fiercest of Philippine Moro tribe, the Tausogs of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, will retaliate. If, on the other hand, Malaysia compromises with the armed group purportedly belonging to the Sultanate of Sulu, it will be perceived as a weakling by its neighbors. Which will Malaysia choose, fighting a rebellion in the Sabah state or swallowing its pride and compromise with the Sultanate of Sulu? Better to be perceived as a weakling rather than have a bloody civil war in Sabah. * * * There is no record of the number of Filipinos, mostly Tausogs, in Sabah. But a friend of mine who used to be in the Philippine military intelligence estimates that one-third of the population in the Malaysian state is Tausog. Many of the people in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi have relatives in Sabah, which is just one hour by speedboat from Simunul in Tawi-Tawi. If the Tausogs in Sabah rise up in revolt against the Malaysian government, their relatives in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi will go to Sabah and fight with them. To the Tausogs, the claim of the group purporting to represent the Sultanate of Sulu that Sabah belongs to the sultanate is legitimate. The Sulu Sultanate, long dormant and somewhat forgotten because of the war waged by the Tausog-led MNLF against the government, is still revered by Moros in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. Tausogs respect the Sultan of Sulu in much the same way Malaysians pay homage to their royal family. If harm is done to Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, brother of Sultan Jamalul Kiram, who ordered the Mudah Agbimuddin to enter Sabah, his fellow Tausogs in Sabah and in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi will take up arms against the Malaysian government. Filipino Muslims declare a rido or vendetta against people who harm their relatives. The Rido has set off feuds between families or clans that last for decades. Most of the Tausogs in Sabah have relatives in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi who are ready to take revenge if harm is done to Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram and his armed followers in Lahad Datu town. My source in Sulu said that even before the landing of 200 men in Lahad Datu last week, the Sultanate had already sent armed men in small groups to Sabah to escape notice from authorities. The ocean border between Sabah and the Philippines is porous or easily penetrated. Most of the tens of thousands of Filipino illegal immigrants in Sabah entered through this porous border. It's very easy for armed Tausogs to enter Sabah and wage a guerrilla war against the Malaysian government should hostilities break out between the Sultanate group and Malaysian police. Tausogs love to fight and look for reasons to pick a fight. If Malaysia assumes a violent stance against the Sulu Sultanate group, the Tausogs will have a reason to fight them. * * * When the government was fighting the MNLF in the 1970s through the 1980s, Malaysia was secretly supporting the rebellion in the South. Weapons coming from Libya and other Middle East countries passed through Malaysia on their way to the MNLF. Now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot. The law of karma is being played out. |
| Posted: 21 Feb 2013 11:48 AM PST
It is irresponsible of the Federal Government to use water to hold the people to ransom by manufacturing a water shortage in Selangor. Stan CH Lee, Free Malaysia Today Under Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (Syabas), Malaysians are paying more and more for water that is not even fit to drink.We have been living with murky, tea coloured water for years, forcing us to spend thousands on home water filters. Imagine, just to get clean water to drink. This alone is the clearest sign that the water concessionare is not doing its job. Like all BN privatisation projects, this is a lopsided contract favouring cronies over the people's welfare. When the CEO is paid a whopping RM425,000 a month basic pay, in a loss-making concern, you would think he should be more than satisfied with his pay. But no, he still needs to make even more money by buying pipes from his own company in Indonesia – in clear breach of the terms of the privatisation contract. I for one do not understand why a contract cannot be nullified if terms are breached. And now there is the ongoing water crisis in Selangor. Looming large in the background is the BN backed Langat 2 project – ostensibly conceived to alleviate future water shortage by getting water from Pahang. The catch is, you need to cut through the Main Range to bring the water over, resulting in a mega billion ringgit bill. To be paid by – you guessed it – increasing the water tariff on a monopolised water supply. This has been in the pipeline for a while now since BN days and waiting to be fast tracked for negotiated tender and award – no doubt to another BN crony with absolutely no track record but plenty of cables. But there is a stumbling block.Water is under state jurisdiction – and the Selangor state government, now under Pakatan Rakyat, has an alternative source of water from Perak that will cost only a fraction of what Langat 2 is projected to cost. This will go a long way to help people mitigate the rising costs of living. So there is a stalemate. BN wants to spend billions on Langat 2. Pakatan does not. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/02/22/the-systematic-water-torture/ |
| Difficult to fix a ‘broken bracelet’ Posted: 20 Feb 2013 12:28 PM PST
Chua's problem boils down to credibility and baggage. The DAP side does not respect him because of his history. Joceline Tan, The Star The quarrel between DAP and PKR in Johor is centred around the parliamentary seat of Gelang Patah which means broken bracelet' in Malay an apt description of the ties between the two parties in the state. THE war of words between DAP and PKR in Johor has grounded to a stop for now, at least. Or as Johor reporters put it, Johor DAP chief Dr Boo Cheng Hau has been "zipped up". DAP called for a ceasefire between Dr Boo and PKR's Johor chief Datuk Chua Jui Meng but as some say, the "rice has turned to porridge" the situation is beyond repair. The slanging match between them the last few weeks has been quite astonishing and it is hard to see how the two of them can work together in the general election. The last time there was this much tension between DAP and PKR was when Datuk Mansor Othman was caught calling Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng a "cocky, arrogant Tokong". The name-calling between Dr Boo and Chua has been worse. Chua has referred to his DAP counterpart as "amateurish" and "ridiculous" whereas Dr Boo has gone as far as calling for the PKR "overlord" to be replaced in Johor. But the most amazing part about the heat and fury between Dr Boo and Chua is that it is centred around a single seat, namely, the parliamentary seat of Gelang Patah. The Pakatan Rakyat thinking these days is that any seat with a sizeable number of Chinese voters is winnable and every one of them wants to contest in a Chinese-majority seat. Gelang Patah, near Johor Baru, is one of those so-called winnable seats because it is 54% Chinese, 34% Malay and 12% Indians. This is despite the fact that MCA had defeated PKR in 2008 by almost 9,000 votes. Dr Boo's argument is that DAP has a better chance of winning the seat than PKR. One version has it that he wants the seat for his party colleague Liew Chin Tong who is looking for an exit plan from Bukit Bendera in Penang. The other version is that Dr Boo is eyeing the seat for himself because he is already the assemblyman for Skudai, one of the two state seats located in Gelang Patah. The tension between the two Johor big guns had simmered for months before it boiled over. For instance, everyone had noticed that Dr Boo and his clique did not show up for Pakatan's Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat in Johor two months ago. Dr Boo first highlighted it on his Facebook page a couple of weeks ago. Then, he issued a press statement to the Chinese media where he bared his frustrations about Chua whom he labelled as "arrogant" and accused of "turning PKR into another MCA". Chua is very sensitive about his history as a former MCA leader and he is furious about the attacks. But his aides have projected their boss as the victim. They said he has never issued any statements about seats in Johor because the decision lies with the top Pakatan leadership. "Google it, check his Twitter. Jui Meng has not said a thing about contesting in Gelang Patah. These DAP people are greedy for seats. We told our boss to focus on the campaign because Dr Boo is acting like a small boy," said an aide. The PKR side also accused DAP of being too possessive about the Chinese vote. They said DAP wants to monopolise the Chinese vote because it wants to be the "tai kor (big brother) of the Chinese". But a DAP insider has suggested that the quarrel may be more than just the Gelang Patah seat or the clashing egos of Dr Boo and Chua. He pointed to the way DAP leaders have directly or indirectly defended Dr Boo on the issue. DAP chairman Karpal Singh did not hold his punches in putting Chua in his place, whereas Lim, who ordered the ceasefire, had commiserated with Dr Boo regarding his "frustrations on being dictated to" in Johor. Another DAP leader Tan Kok Wai said no disciplinary action would be taken against Dr Boo because what he said "is true". The Johor dispute basically reflects the discord over seats in several other states, including Penang and Perak, which, as many have noted, used to happen only in Barisan Nasional. Read more at: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/2/21/nation/12737246&sec=nation
|
| Will Selangor go for early dissolution? Posted: 20 Feb 2013 12:24 PM PST
Exertion of will or pressure on Najib? Meena Lakshana, fz.com For the past month, tongues have been wagging over the Selangor government's announcement of a possible early dissolution of the state assembly ahead of national polls. It all started when Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim disclosed that the state may dissolve the assembly after Chap Goh Mei – if the 13th general election was still not called by then. He spoke of a general fatigue over the anxiety of waiting for the federal government to call for the election. And yesterday, the menteri besar announced, after an audience with Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, that the state ruler has no objection to an early dissolution of the state assembly. Certainly, a sizeable portion of the electorate is disconcerted by the wait for the general election. Many people had to withhold vacation plans. Or worry about career engagements – as they would have to travel back to their hometown to vote – and a host of other problems, just in case they are caught unawares by a general election. But the question is, why dissolve the state assembly after Chap Goh Mei, which falls this Sunday? The Election Commission had been quick to point out the financial and logistical burdens of having separate polls. The EC also stressed that even if the Selangor assembly was dissolved earlier, it was the commission that will decide on the polls date. It has 60 days to do that from the date of dissolution, and so it can still ensure that the state polls are held simultaneously with the general election. Pointless move? Talk is that the general election will be held in March or April after major programmes initiated by the Barisan Nasional government, like the distribution of the BR1M handout, are completed. If the speculation about the national polls is true and if the Selangor government were to proceed with an early dissolution, the state election will fall close to national polls, which renders the state government's move futile. Abdul Khalid obviously knows this as he has said that he would accept state elections being held simultaneously with parliamentary elections. Universiti Malaya law lecturer Azmi Sharom feels an early dissolution of the state assembly would probably not occur. "It will probably come to time with national polls," he told fz.com. However, the state government has the legal prerogative to dissolve the state assembly whenever it wished, provided it has the consent of the sultan, said Azmi. "I don't see a problem with it because it is within their rights. Indeed, the Selangor government should not have any problem now that the sultan has said he would not oppose an early dissolution. Universiti Sains Malaysia political analyst Dr P Sivamurugan said the sultan's consent is very important. This is because a perception that the state government is at odds with the sultan would be disastrous for Pakatan Rakyat in its efforts to woo the Malay electorate. "Among Malays, loyalty to the palace is important, although some liberal ones would think otherwise," he said. Although Abdul Khalid has received the green light from the palace, the Pakatan supreme council has not signed off on his proposal for early dissolution. In fact, the menteri besar said he has only spoken to some Pakatan leaders on this matter. Azmi said the only advantage Pakatan can reap from an early dissolution is to be able to concentrate all its machinery in Selangor. However, the same can be said for Barisan Nasional, which has more of an advantage with its wealth, strong machinery and a legion of campaigners to carry out its plans. Read more at: http://fz.com/content/will-selangor-go-early-dissolution
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2013 12:17 PM PST
Heaven forbid that any harm should befall them. For, that will play right into the hands of those who, for some reason or other, wish to derail the current peace effort in Mindanao and foment a rift between Malaysia and the Philippines. Randy David, Philippine Daily Inquirer There is more to the ongoing standoff between Malaysian forces and some 300 armed men holed up in a coastal village in Sabah than meets the eye. The latter are Filipino nationals, though they identify themselves as members of the "Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo." They have announced that they sailed to Sabah to reclaim their rightful homeland. Heaven forbid that any harm should befall them. For, that will play right into the hands of those who, for some reason or other, wish to derail the current peace effort in Mindanao and foment a rift between Malaysia and the Philippines. The relations between the two countries have significantly improved after Malaysia began hosting the peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Malaysia has a clear interest in the political stabilization of neighboring Muslim Mindanao. In the past, Muslim rebels routinely sought sanctuary in Malaysian territory, and their presence there not only strained relations with the Philippines but also posed the danger of locally spreading a politicized Islam. Of course, beyond all this, the Malaysian investment in goodwill, properly acknowledged as a Filipino debt of gratitude, serves to undercut any move to activate a long-standing irritant in the relations of the two countries. The Sultan's heirs have been pressing the Philippine government to actively pursue its sovereign claim to Sabah. Keeping the issue alive will greatly bolster their demand to be justly compensated as the rightful private owners of the territory. The Philippine claim is solely anchored on the property rights asserted by the descendants of the Sultan of Sulu. This claim was formally advanced by President Diosdado Macapagal in 1962. That was the year before the British formally relinquished their colonial hold on Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, and the straits settlements (including Singapore), paving the way for the establishment of Malaysia as an independent state. Singapore subsequently left the Malaysian federation. "North Borneo," writes the historian Onofre D. Corpuz, "was crucial to the new Malaysia; without it, the latter would have an overriding Chinese majority in its population, because Singapore was to be part of Malaysia. The United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan had interests in the new state based on global strategic considerations. The claim would be pursued, if at all, in diplomatic isolation. The future of the Philippine claim, into the 1980s, was not bright." Sure enough, the keen desire of the Philippine government to forge strong regional ties with its major Southeast Asian neighbors thereafter consigned the issue to the margins of Philippine foreign policy. It has been a long time since the Sabah claim has been openly discussed in the media or, even less, officially taken up by any administration. Yet, no Philippine president has dared to categorically renounce the country's claim to this territory. The young generation of Filipinos, who are unaware of the historic claim of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, may thus be forgiven if they perceive the group of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III as no different from those syndicates who now and then invade expensive real estate in Metro Manila waving fictitious royal titles. But, this particular claim is by no means founded on fantasy. Read more at: http://opinion.inquirer.net/47323/the-sabah-standoff
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2013 12:07 PM PST MG6v9_b7NGE Joe Fernandez This legal issue was staring at every lawyer in the face but its takes a Thai girl to post it on the Net and open up the questioning of what was done to force through Malaysia formation. Sabah (31/08/63) and Sarawak (22/07/63) were only given "independence" after the signing of the Malaysia Agreement on 09/07/63. Was it an afterthought? Or did they realise they put the cart before the horse? So how can there be any exercise of free will as independent countries? Was it just purely window dressing exercise to transfer colonial power to Malaya?
A hasty annexation of territories to Malayan rule?
SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6v9_b7NGE * Malaya, North Borneo(Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore. * The necessary 2/3 majority decision to expel Singapore on 1965 look weird. * The first election for parliament seat in Sabah & Sarawak only been held on 1969. 31st of August is not Malaysia's National Day. 16th of September should be celebrated as the National Day: the formation of Malaysia. The date of the 31st of August is still important because it is the date when Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak achieved their independence from the British. Unfortunately, but technically, MALAYSIA was officially born on the 16th of September 1963 and not the 31st of August. Prior to that it was not "Malaysia", it was "Malaya". Politically and geographically they are two different entities. As per The United Nations proposal, to meet the Declaration on Decolonization 1960 requirement, then North Borneo [Sabah] become an Independent country after regained its independence from The United Kingdom on August 31, 1963. Sarawak also become an independent country after regained its independence from The United Kingdom on July 22, 1963. This occur after the Malaysia Agreement been signed on July 9, 1963 and before joining together of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore to form Malaysia on September 16, 1963. The Parliament of Malaysia then on August 9, 1965 voted 126-0 in favour of the expulsion of Singapore, with members of Parliament from Singapore not present. This decision also been made without the consent of North Borneo [Sabah], Sarawak, United Kingdom and Northern Ireland representatives who involve in signing the Malaysia agreement dated on July 9, 1963. The necessary 2/3 majority decision to expel Singapore from Malaysia on 1965 look weird because, it is been made without knowing the total seat in the Parliament of Malaysia yet, because the first election for parliament seat in North Borneo and Sarawak only been held on 1969. References: 1 Malaysia - Mahathir, Mubarak, Gaddafi, & Assad 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcDs7k... Mahathir Malaysia Political Satire, Caricatures & Cartoon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKDas5... 1 Malaysia - A Civil Society or Satu Toilet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircxlx... 1 Malaysia Najib, Muhyiddin & Mahathir Twisted Justice & Corruptions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw__Tu... 2050 - Malaysia Tranformations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovjWVR... 1 Malaysia Najib's Two-Face Scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JzU1E... 2050 - Designing The Future http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qh0S0... Borneo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo A lesson on Sept 16 http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?... Malaysia celebrates 55 years of Independence http:///blog/2012/07/31/malaysia-cele... Truly Malaysian http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?...... Singapore in Malaysia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapor... 1 Malaysia - Fantasy or for Real http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np9kYs... Hitler's Reaction to Lynas Rare Earth Plant in Malaysia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ0Qo2... Corruptions Index Ranking South East Asia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Et6Tn... Yingluck Shinawatra Thailand - Meeting World Leaders http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lIOWg... FAIR USE NOTICE: This film may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Fair use of this film is under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2013 12:00 PM PST
If the current soft 'handling' of the incursions by armed Filipinos into Lahad Datu is any measure, then it is clear that Sabahans' safety is inconsequential to the federal government. Calvin Kabaron, Free Malaysia TodayIt is an irony how promptly Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein ordered the arrest and deportation of Australian Senator Nick Xenophon while 100 armed Filipinos in military fatigue were being handled with kid gloves by the police and Special Branch officers because they had "links" in Sabah. Xenophon arrived solo and unarmed but was considered a security threat. But in Lahad Datu, some 100 "soldiers" from the alleged Royal Sultanate of Sulu Army who were armed with "M-14, M-16, M203 and Armalite assault rifles" were considered friendly, "not militants" and "not a threat". These armed Filipino bandits landed in Sabah claiming ownership of the land on behalf of their Sulu Sultan. In any other country, the Home or Internal Security Minister would have been at the site of the incursion the moment it was known. But not Hishammuddin. He saw it fit to arrive in Kota Kinabalu only yesterday, seven days after the police and the "militant army" – holed up in a oil palm plantation in Lahad Datu – faced a standoff after failing to come to an agreement over their demands. When Hishammuddin held a press conference in Kota Kinabalu, flanked by military and police top men here, he had yet to visit the incursion site. He just rolled off what he was told. Hishammuddin said everything was under control and that the federal forces would not compromise the security of Sabahans. "The armed group are not militants or terrorists but since they had guns, it is important our action does not lead to bloodshed," he said in defence of the militant Muslim group from the southern Philippines. Hishammuddin also categorically denied speculations that the intrusion had anything to do with Manila's claims, albeit indirectly, on Sabah, and fear of repatriation of Filipinos after the federal appointed Royal Commission of Inquiry's (RCI) devastating witness testimonies. In the January RCI sitting, witnesses revealed details of a high level agenda to neutralise Sabah's Christian population by offering citizenship-for-votes to arriving Muslims from the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan and India. The ICs were issued by the National Registration Department (NRD) under instruction from top level federal Umno leaders. "The issue is not political, not racial; [it has] no connection with the stand on sovereignty but in our context this is our land and this is something that can jeopardise the nation's security," Hishammuddin said. The minister must think Sabahans and Malaysians are stupid.
The Philippine media, meanwhile, has gone to town with the news that the Malaysian government may send back hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Filipino illegal immigrants, many of whom had in their possession dubiously-acquired Malaysian documents. In Manila, the Sulu group leader SuItan Jamalul Kiram asserted that his followers – some 400 men – were resolute and would stand their ground in Lahad Datu for "however long it takes". "Nobody will be sent to the Philippines. Sabah is our home," so proclaimed Jamalul, who is one of the many claimants to the elusive throne. But unlike the other claimants, Jamalul's position as Sultan of Sulu is recognised by Manila and President Benigno Aquino was reportedly "informed of the incursions since Day One". Jamalul had even proudly announced that if his army in Lahad Datu was armed, then the weapons did not come from the Philippines but were already available in Sabah. In an interview with the Philippine media, Raja Azzimudie Kiram, the leader of the group and brother to Jamalul, said his men in Lahad Datu were equipped with "all kinds" of weapons including "M-14, M-16, M203 and Armalite assault rifles". This can only mean that the Sulu "army" could have been stocking arms in Sabah for quite sometime. Now isn't this a serious offence? In Malaysia being in possession – illegally – of a normal firearm is a fatal crime punishable by death; what more when we are talking about combat guns. Remember the Al-Maunah group caught hauling modern guns some years back? Remember how the authorities quickly rounded them up and dealt the harshest possible blow. The authorities said the Al-Maunah groups were waging a war against the Malaysian Yang di-Pertuan Agong and as such the offence was punishable by death. So why is the federal government being tentative about this band of militants who wants to "seize" or "reclaim" Sabah? Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/02/21/wheres-the-logic-hisham/ |
| 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