Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Difficult to fix a ‘broken bracelet’
Will Selangor go for early dissolution?
The Sabah standoff
Malaysia, Sabah & Sarawak
Where’s the logic, Hisham?
Sabah untuk orang Sabah?
Infighting in Pakatan Rakyat?
Half truths and semi-lies
Sabah for Sabahans?
Much ado about nothing
The market sabotage of Pakatan
Is Selangor ripe for plucking?
The Chinese Owe BN Nothing
Ultra-nationalism comes to fore in pre-poll Malaysia
Bully-boy Malaysia immature and Australia's reaction so limp

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.

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.

The Sabah standoff

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.

Malaysia, Sabah & Sarawak

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 & Sarawak were still colonies when Britain signed them up in the Malaysia Agreement (aninternational Treaty) to become part of Malaysia!

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.

Where’s the logic, Hisham?

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 Today

It 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.

'Sabah is our home'

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.

'Imbecile' Hisham

So why is the federal government being tentative about this band of militants who wants to "seize" or "reclaim" Sabah?

Sabah untuk orang Sabah?

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 09:44 PM PST

Pada tahun 1970-an, Sabah berada di kedudukan kedua, di belakang Selangor (dan Kuala Lumpur) sebagai negeri paling kaya di Malaysia. 30 tahun kemudian, Sabah adalah negeri paling miskin dengan pertumbuhan KDNK sebanyak 2.4 peratus sahaja, di bawah Kelantan.

Izmil Amri, Roketkini

SAYA belum pernah jejak kaki ke Sabah. Apa yang saya tahu tentang Sabah adalah hasil dari pembacaan dan pergaulan dengan orang yang arif tentang negeri Sabah. Maka mudahnya saya tidak tahu banyak tentang Sabah, sama seperti anda juga yang bukanlah tahu banyak tentang negeri itu. Anda rasa macam tahu banyak tetapi sebenarnya tidak.

Adalah lebih mudah sebenarnya untuk kita semua diam dan mendengar, daripada cuba bersuara tentang perkara yang kita tidak faham. Kita juga yang akan kelihatan bodoh.

Namun demi segala yang benar, bersuara tentang Sabah adalah tanggungjawab yang mesti dilakukan.

Justeru sebagai permulaan, saya harus meminta maaf kerana telah menyebut Sabah itu sebagai sebuah negeri. Saya mana lah tahu rupa-rupanya Sabah adalah sebuah negara. Sama halnya dengan Sarawak.

Anda mungkin keliru dengan apa yang saya sebutkan ini. Mari saya cerahkan.

Pada tahun 1957, bulan Ogos hari ke 31, sebuah negara di Asia Tenggara telah diisytiharkan bebas daripada menumpahkan taat setia kepada Ratu England. Namanya Malaya, hasil gabungan negeri-negeri yang bersekutu dan tidak bersekutu serta dua daripada negeri-negeri selat kecuali Singapura.

Pada 16 September 1963, sebuah persekutuan lahir daripada gabungan Malaya, Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak. Singapura kemudiannya merdeka sekali lagi setelah 'meninggalkan' Persekutuan Malaysia pada tahun 1965.

Maka mudahnya Malaysia pada tahun 1963 adalah persekutuan hasilan empat buah negara, yang setiap satunya menyertai persekutuan dengan hak dan kelebihan yang tersendiri. Itu antara sebabnya kenapa pihak eksekutif Sabah dan Sarawak dibahasakan sebagai menteri dan bukan Ahli Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri (EXCO) seperti di negeri-negeri di Semenanjung.

Itu juga sebabnya kenapa undang-undang imigresen Malaysia Borneo sedikit berbeza, dan anda memerlukan paspot untuk masuk ke sana. Macam masuk Singapura juga kaedahnya, kerana itu secara teknikalnya bukanlah negara anda. Boleh ikut setakat ini?

Kedaulatan Sabah
Sebagai sebuah 'negara anggota' dalam Persekutuan Malaysia, adalah amat menyedihkan apabila fakta menunjukkan bahawa Sabah mempunyai kadar kemiskinan paling tinggi.

Erna Mahyuni dalam tulisannya di The Malaysian Insider melaporkan bahawa pekan Nabawan di Sabah itu adalah pekan termiskin di dalam negara, dengan kadar kemiskinan setinggi 70 peratus. Saya sangkakan Kelantan negeri paling miskin. Berkesan betul propaganda UMNO ke atas saya.

Tulisan Erna itu lah yang buat saya terdiam sejenak dan betul-betul memikirkan tentang Sabah yang tidak pernah saya jejaki itu.

Menyulap kekayaan rakyat Sabah

Anda juga mungkin menyedari bahawa industri pelancongan negara adalah terjual dengan modal yang datang dari Malaysia Borneo. Sabah terutamanya menyumbang ikon Gunung Kinabalu dan populariti Sipadan serta segala tarikan yang menjadi sandaran kepada 'betapa Asia-nya' Malaysia ini.

Ini di samping ikonologi sumbangan Kelantan dan Sarawak, setiap satunya dengan wau bulan, burung enggang, serta tarian-tarian dan tradisi-tradisi yang tidak ada di Kuala Lumpur yang hanya ada tradisi membeli belah dan kesesakan lalulintas.

Maka, ya; Malaysia menjual ikon Sabah, Sarawak dan Kelantan (antara lain) sebagai pusat pelancongan untuk sekalian mat saleh yang menyampah dengan cuaca sejuk. Kebetulan, ketiga-tiganya negeri miskin. Satu daripadanya sudah puluhan tahun ditadbir PAS. Senang betul jadi kerajaan Barisan Nasional ini. Jual populariti negeri-negeri miskin, rompak pula harta kekayaannya, royalti minyaknya juga tak diberi.

Berbalik kepada Sabah.

Bagaikan jatuh ditimpa tangga, bukan sahaja pertumbuhannya kecil, kos sara hidup di Sabah juga amat tinggi bahkan kian meningkat gara-gara polisi kabotaj yang secara langsung meningkatkan harga barang lantaran syarikat perkapalan mengenakan caj tinggi untuk penghantaran barang.

Itu belum dikira royalti petroleum sekadar 5%. Brunei masih ketawa barangkali dengan nasib Sabah yang menerima royalti ciput sedangkan sumbangannya besar sekali..

Malang yang berlarutan

Barisan Nasional selesa di Sabah disebabkan beberapa faktor termasuk kemasukan pendatang asing secara pukal yang kemudiannya diberi kerakyatan sepertimana yang telah diakui oleh mantan Perdana Menteri Tun Dr Mahathir.

Sudahlah rakyat asal terbiar miskin melarat, dibenarkan pula warganegara asing masuk dan diberi kerakyatan sesuka hati demi kemandirian politik pihak-pihak tertentu. Inilah dia dosa besar Barisan Nasional terhadap Sabah secara khusus yang pastinya tidak akan dapat diampunkan sampai bila-bila.

Dalam satu persidangan politisi muda di Manila dua tahun sudah, saya bertemu beberapa politisi muda Filipina menceritakan kisah rakyatnya yang berulang-alik ke Sabah seakan-akan negeri itu sebuah hotel. Mereka bebas masuk keluar mencari rezeki dan kemudian pulang ke Filipina dengan duit berkoyan-koyan, kebanyakannya dengan meniaga rokok seludup.

Sekotak Marlboro di Filipina harganya baru RM2.90. Jual di Malaysia mesti RM10. Cukup untung setahun, sudah boleh bikin rumah batu tiga tingkat. Itu belum dikira imbuhan tolong mengundi Barisan Nasional dalam pilihanraya. Itu juga fakta popular di kalangan politisi Filipina yang saya sendiri tidak begitu arif waktu itu.

Barangkali Barisan Nasional di Sabah dan ketaatannya kepada pimpinan di Putrajaya sudah tidak lagi peduli dan merasakan adalah 'okay' untuk rakyat negeri itu dilayan seolah-olah warganegara kelas rendah dikeranakan keterasingannya dan ketidakfahaman Putrajaya ke atas kehendak dan keperluan masyarakat Sabah secara khusus.

Sabah tidak perlu 1Malaysia. Sabah sudah lebih dahulu makmur dengan persefahaman dan toleransi antara kaum tanpa memerlukan simbol 1Malaysia. Yang lebih penting ialah ia sudah cukup menderita di bawah tadbir Barisan Nasional untuk jangkamasa yang terlalu lama dan melampaui had sabar. Sabah tidak lagi mampu untuk duduk angguk dan menerima penindasan berterusan secara berlapang dada.

Suruhanjaya DiRaja hanya kini membongkar hakikat-hakikat yang sudah lama menjadi rahsia terbuka di kalangan orang Sabah.

Militan bersenjata yang singgah berdiam di Lahad Datu juga tidak menerima layanan sepak terajang seperti yang dialami demonstran di perhimpunan Bersih.

Angin perubahan sudah semakin menderu-deru di Sabah; meski politisi Barisan Nasional negeri itu sampai kiamat tidak akan mahu mengaku. Orang Sabah tidaklah bodoh seperti yang mereka sangkakan.

Semoga satu hari nanti saya akan dapat menjejak kaki ke negeri Sabah yang bersih dari jelaga Barisan Nasional. Ini kali-lah!

Infighting in Pakatan Rakyat?

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 03:20 PM PST

The PKR is the weakest component party of the Pakatan Rakyat and it has to rely on the DAP and PAS. Therefore, the party's interests should be prioritised, instead of personal interests. If Johor PKR loses the support of its allies, it will still fail to achieve anything even though if it is able to maintain its safe constituencies.

Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily

Cracks emerged between Johor DAP and PKR on the same day when the Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (UPKO) and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) offered each other the hand of unity, reflecting that changes can take place at any time in politics, and the relationships among component parties of the Pakatan Rakyat are not as good as they claimed.

If the above three political parties in Sabah are just uniting on the surface, at least they still know how not shout at each other. The Johor DAP and PKR, however, have failed to do so. If the contradictions are not eliminated before the general election, the Pakatan Rakyat might not even be able to achieve the target of winning 10 parliamentary seats, let alone to seize the Johor state power.

There are a few factors behind the hostility between Johor DAP and PKR, including the state has been neglected by the DAP due to the party's factional problem, and the PKR has been eyeing on Chinese votes amidst the wind of anti-ruling due to the lack of grassroots support, leading to the conflict with the DAP.

The Pakatan Rakyat has classified Johor as a front-line state. However, the DAP's concern for Johor is far less compared to Selangor, Perak, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak.

It has been confirmed that PAS vice president Salahuddin Ayub will return to contest in Johor and due to the lack of talents, former MCA vice-president Datuk Chua Jui Meng, who joined the PKR only in 2009, is appointed to lead the team in Johor. Many DAP central leaders are from Johor, but it was only heard recently that Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong might be fielded to contest in Kluang, Johor.

DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang has announced in June 2011 that Johor has been classified as a frontline state, and a special team headed by the party's Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng was set up to assist the Johor DAP in achieving the dream of seizing Johor.

However, Johor DAP Chairman Dr Boo Cheng Hau is not a mainstream leader. It might be the reason why the special team has not been taking great actions. Also, it is rumoured that some central leaders would help out in Johor, but no move has been made so far.

If the DAP central committee really attaches importance to Johor, the state's seat apportionment problem should be resolved through negotiations as soon as possible, instead of letting Boo to repeatedly express dissatisfaction publicly without taking any actions. Obviously, the party is facing internal communication and coordination problems.

Only DAP Chairman Karpal Singh has expressed support to Boo on that day after the statement accusing Chua of being behind "vicious attacks" against Johor DAP was issued. The contradictions of the two parties in Johor have surfaced and it seems unlikely to be solved within the state and thus, has to be submitted to the party's central leaders.

The Pakatan Rakyat is ambitious in seizing the federal power, but it lacks a drastic determination. It should follow the example of Negeri Sembilan DAP chairman and Lobak state assemblymen Anthony Loke, who volunteered to contest in the Chennah state seat to seize the only remaining seat of the MCA in Negeri Sembilan. Only such a fighting spirit can boost the morale of the grassroots.

Similar situation has taken place in another frontline state, Pahang. The situation there is favourable to the Pakatan Rakyat thanks to the rare-earth refinery plant issue. However, the DAP does not have a prominent leader to lead the team.

How is the Pakatan Rakyat going to beat its enemy in Johor, which is a BN's bastion, with a poor battle array led by no prominent candidate?

Those who do great things must carry the spirit of sacrificing for the greater goal. Nothing will be achieved if Pakatan Rakyat leaders lack such kind of spirit.

Half truths and semi-lies

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 12:01 PM PST

Believe it or not, MCA once had the gumption to provide an articulate critique of the NEP.

Stanley Koh, Free Malaysia Today

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, according to George Orwell.

Hence, when Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak told the World Economic Forum that the non-Bumiputera community did not oppose his government's affirmative action policies in favour of Malays and other natives of Malaysia, he raised eyebrows even among some leaders of his Barisan Nasional coalition.

News reports quoted him as saying: "By and large, the non-Malays in Malaysia, the non-Bumis, don't actually oppose affirmative action. But what they want is the way you implement the policy should be done in a more transparent way."

One could, of course, interpret this as an admission that there had in fact been consistent and persistent opposition to this controversial policy.

Barisan Nasional has been holding on to this policy for more than 30 years – and particularly doggedly during the prime ministership of Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Has it been a disastrous failure? Has the nation become more divided rather than more united? Has the policy fuelled greed and corruption while making the Bumiputeras even more dependent on government patronage rather than more confident of their ability to compete in the marketplace of business and employment?

An ever-increasing number of Malaysians are inclined to answer "Yes" to these questions, if we go by commentaries on the more respectable blogs and news portals.

It seems that more and more Malaysians are becoming aware that our politicians are long on rhetoric and short when it comes to substance.

MCA's true stand

Indeed, even senior BN member MCA has often – but only in the past – questioned the effectiveness of the New Economic Policy.

For example, a memorandum circulated among the party's leaders in 2005 gave a list of the adverse effects of the NEP. We quote it here verbatim:

Agriculture and smallholders and estate workers gained little from the poverty eradication programmes as they were systematically denied fair access of land.

Petty traders received no government assistance while large development expenditures were given to Malays.

Low-cost housing, hawking facilities, and stalls were not allocated to non-Malays.

Non-Malay small businesses tend to be subjected to political, bureaucratic control and harassment for things like taxi licences, micro-credit facilities, factory sites, trade licences, import permits, and even applications for utilities. Since small businesses tend to be run by families who are generally not well educated, they have little means and knowledge on how to circumvent the bureaucracy. As a result, they resort to bribery and corruption.

District development machinery took upon itself to implement NEP, thus denying much needed funds to villages. This exacerbated the poverty among the non-Malays.

While large foreign companies were not subjected to the NEP rule, large domestic companies were forced to sell their 30% below market value. In cases where foreign ownership was shared, they were allowed to sell their equity at fair market.

NEP was deliberately distorted to apply to select companies to reserve senior positions for the Bumiputeras.

Privatisation projects went without tendering exercise and excluded the participation by non-Malays. This is a clear violation of the constitutional rights of non-Malays.

The practice of making developers allocate at least 30% and some even up to 70% of the houses to the Bumis led to price distortions. Often these quotas were not fulfilled, resulting in further holding costs. On top of it, discounts of 7% must be obliged to Bumis. Developers were requested to restructure their equity when applying for planning approvals.

Sabah for Sabahans?

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 11:58 AM PST

Unless you have lived in the state, know its peoples and have a firm grasp of its issues, you are in no position to solve its problems.

Before you send me to Kamunting, realise I am not advocating Sabah leaving Malaysia.

But I think it is high time Sabahans have a good, long think about the status quo.

As it is, things cannot stand.

Last I checked, Sabah is still the poorest state in Malaysia. Nabawan in Sabah is the poorest town in the country, with a 70-per-cent poverty rate.

On top of that, a small private army has landed in Lahad Datu intent on claiming Sabah as its own.

If we had a referendum, what with all the "free citizenships" Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's administration has so benevolently bestowed upon foreigners, would Sabahans actually have the numbers to keep the state in Malaysia?

Or would our new Sabahan brothers and sisters vote overwhelmingly to become part of the Philippines or even choose allegiance to the Sultan of Sulu?

A wanted Filipino fugitive is also now finding safe haven in the state, rumoured to have family connections on the Sabah government.

So much for Sabah "prospering" under Barisan Nasional rule.

Sabah politicians have called on the federal government to do something about the massive influx of foreigners into the state for a long time.

Only now has a Royal Commission of Inquiry been called, and it has confirmed what most of us already knew.

That we have been betrayed.

What right did the former prime minister have to give citizenships to foreigners as he liked?

What he did might have been technically "legal" but it was morally wrong and it was a betrayal of the state, a betrayal of the Sabah people and going against the heart of the 20-point agreement that said the state had jurisdiction over immigration matters. Not the prime minister.

And can Sabahans trust PKR to change things, when Sabah's PKR is a toothless body helpless to even choose its own leaders? When all decisions are centralised and it has no say in choosing who should lead it into the state?

I wouldn't be surprised if Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim attempted to parachute another West Malaysian in to lead Sabah PKR like he did with Azmin Ali.

What next? Azmin Ali as Sabah chief minister? If that happens, I am surrendering my passport and moving to the Philippines.

It is time Sabahans said, "Enough". It is obvious that Putrajaya and Pakatan Rakyat are deaf, dumb and blind to what Sabah really needs and what Sabah really is.

Sabah is not "just" another state. It was equal party to an agreement between Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia. Each had special status, certain rights, and to this day the federal government has chosen to piss upon the spirit and the words of the agreement.

If Sabah is to become more than an impoverished state beholden to cruel masters, it has to start rejecting subjugation.

The first step is saying a big, firm "No" to West Malaysian-based parties like Umno and PKR who are more interested in pushing the Malay agenda than the Malaysian agenda.

(I might perhaps make an exception for Sabah DAP, which has a long history in Sabah, refreshingly free of the stupidity displayed by both Umno and PKR in the recent years.)

Some say Sabah is "selfish" for harping about its rights when it should think of "Malaysia" as a whole instead of its special privileges.

Basically, Sabah should just lie on its back and think of Malaysia? Brilliant.

That has not worked now, has it? The more Sabahans demur, the more our rights are stripped away. Most of the state's revenue goes to the federal government while Sabah just has to make do with the leftovers.

Much ado about nothing

Posted: 18 Feb 2013 04:00 PM PST

Sheridan said Xenophon was over-enthusiastic in his involvement in Malaysian politics, adding that he should instead visit Vietnam or Cambodia if he really cares about democracy in Southeast Asia.

Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily

Xenophon, a weirdly sounding name that should make a good candidate for the namesake of Samsung's next generation of smartphones.

But of course, Xenophon is not a phone. He is a senator from Down Under.

If not because he was barred from entering the country through the LCCT, and was sent off on the next plane, not many people would have the slightest idea who Nick Xenophon is.

His deportation, along with a pathetic-looking self portrait taken at the airport, has caused quite a stir.

Incensed by the move of the Malaysian authorities, Australia's politicians have launched aggressive assaults on Malaysia. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has sided the senator despite their lukewarm relationship.

Who on earth is this Nick Xenophon? Is he the one the Malaysian government said "threatening our national security" and must be deported at once?

I asked a friend returning from Australia about this man, and was told Xenophon is just one of the 200-odd senators in Australia. Never a big shot himself, he is nevertheless unusual in that he is an independent senator who does things his own way, unbound by any political entity.

Although he is no celebrity in Australia, he has somewhat developed an affinity for Malaysian politics, having hammered the country's human rights records on Australian papers. A strong opponent of Malaysian palm oil, he made a personal trip to Kuala Lumpur last year in his capacity as Bersih 3.0 observer.

Not fully contented with my friend's account on Xenophon, I visited The Australian website for a better insight into this man from the Australian perspectives.

The Australian's foreign editor Greg Sheridan wrote in his op-ed "Nick Xenophon's grandstanding does us no good" that his "actions regarding Malaysia are either foolish or cynically self-promoting."

Sheridan said Xenophon was over-enthusiastic in his involvement in Malaysian politics, adding that he should instead visit Vietnam or Cambodia if he really cares about democracy in Southeast Asia.

Although Xenophon's style and stance could send the Malaysian government neurotic, sending him off and branding him "a threat to national security" are both oversensitive and impractical.

While the government is legally justified to act this way, it needs to demonstrate some degree of self-confidence in exercising its sovereignty and jurisdiction. Moreover, if we bother about how democratic we are, we should not handle diplomatic matters with such a restrictive frame of mind.

Even as we reject Xenophon's subjective views, we should refrain from such a hardline stance in responding to his presence..

To show our magnanimity, perhaps the government should allow him to come into the country, speak all he wants to speak and do all he wants to do, so long as he does not act beyond our laws.

To be honest, given our already distinctly polarised political environment, there is hardly anything Xenophon can do to tip the balance.

The market sabotage of Pakatan

Posted: 18 Feb 2013 12:21 PM PST

Ali Cordoba, Free Malaysia Today

At this moment, weeks before the next general election, there are undeniable signs that a large majority of the capitalists in and outside the country are not in favour of Pakatan.

Claims that the market would collapse and that it would bring down the nation's economy if Pakatan Rakyat wins the 13th general election, could be true, in the end.

However, the truth could be stranger than fiction, and the scenario exposed here shows how the contrary could be real. It would also show how the country is now divided, more or less, on an economic line rather than on racial or ethnic line.

MCA has warned the people of a huge financial disaster if Pakatan comes to power. The Barisan Nasional faction has predicted that the KL stock market indicator or KL Composite Index (KLCI) would likely drop 500 points. It added that this could happen within a week after Pakatan is in power.

This scenario is a possible one. The warnings are true, so true that we must all be prepared for a long-drawn battle between the government and the economic powers of the country. And these economic powers are the filthy rich, the capitalists, hence the cronies of the BN regime.

These multi-millionaires and billionaires hold the key to the KLCI, hence a fall of 500 points – though dramatic as it would seem – would only be an attempt to squeeze Pakatan out of its political might.

An electoral victory for Pakatan in the next general election would mean it would form the next government, thus it would be a powerful political group. Whether the victory would be by a slim or large margin, would not be important. Once Pakatan has a stronghold on power, it would be the one ruling the country.

At this moment, weeks before the next general election, there are undeniable signs that a large majority of the capitalists in and outside the country are not in favour of Pakatan. Besides the huge banners showing support to BN, statements of market panic and the bankrolling of BN campaigns, it could be said that the rich among the rich are not pro-Pakatan.

It could also be said, without much ado, that these elements have a tight grip on the local marketplace and the stock market depends largely on their mood. They are enjoying the current economic boom – with the spilling of contracts and whatnot across the board.

There is little doubt they would do everything to attempt a sabotage, if necessary, of a Pakatan regime.

This has been predicted – to a certain extent – by the now famous Bank Islam chief economist Azrul Azwar Ahmad Tajudin. Azrul forecast that a fallout would result from the Pakatan win, with the stock market set to respond in "knee-jerk" fashion as well as an extended period of perceived instability.

He did not rule out the possibility of "economic sabotage" by businesses and the civil service aligned to BN.

Taxing the rich among the rich

The recent claims by MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek, if it were to be taken seriously, falls right into Azrul's estimates that capitalists would try to sabotage Pakatan.

Nevertheless, the people should not worry too much about the 500-point fall, as predicted by Chua.

"So either the country would go bankrupt within two years, or Pakatan would target taxpayers for more funds." said Chua.

"If that happens, the Chinese would suffer the most because they are the single biggest taxpayers group in the country," he added.

The point is, why would the Pakatan attack its own voters with more taxes when it could simply tax the rich among the rich? Since it is being proven that the filthy rich are not pro-Pakatan, it would not be difficult to overtax them.

Is Selangor ripe for plucking?

Posted: 18 Feb 2013 12:11 PM PST

If Pakatan loses Selangor, it would be disastrous for PKR. After all, DAP appears unshakable in Penang, while come hell or high water, Datuk Seri Nik Aziz Nik Mat and PAS will hang on to Kelantan. What has PKR got?

N Shashi Kala, fz.com

ABOUT a week ago, I was sharing an exquisite teh tarik at a kenduri in Klang – not my favourite place, having had the ill luck to end up as a crime statistic there not once but twice – when I heard something interesting.

The table next to mine was in an animated diuscussion about, what else, the upcoming general election.

Now there was a sort of minor VIP at the table – a businessman who was a local bigwig and a staunch supporter of the Barisan Nasional (BN). He was telling those at the table – and all the evesdroppers such as myself – about a recent party machinery meeting where the division chiefs were told an interesting tidbit: according to the latest "intel" from Special Branch, Selangor will be back in the BN fold after GE13. We will win by a at least seven seats, said the VIP, who was smiling smugly.

The seats that he mentioned as "definitely winnable" included Seri Andalas, Pandamaran, and Seri Muda, all of which he claimed had been poorly served by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) reps.

"They can talk about how corrupt the former BN state government was, but basic services such as rubbish collection and maintanence of public infrastructure were carried out.

"Now, garbage collection is a major problem, and the rakyat is being held to ransom over water issues. What's the point of trumpeting free water when there's no water to begin with? So short-sighted. People are fed up.

"The midde-class may still talk about BN's flaws but after 5 years, the poor people in Selangor are talking about PR's flaws too. And there is enough momentum there to push PR out," he said in a booming voice to a not altogether appreciative audience.

Oh, he did add that BN components have not been idle, and that a lot of money is being splashed out to ensure that the message gets across. He claimed "a major property developer" is allegedly bankrolling the "Win Selangor Back for BN" campaign and hundreds of youths are being paid to "reach out to voters".

In all, it sounded pretty dire for Pakatan, and PKR especially as the seats "ripe for plucking" were all from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's camp, with a few from PAS and two from DAP.

Selangor was supposed to be the showpiece for the PR government – this is how we will manage the country, its leaders had said.

In some ways, the state can be proud of the way it has managed its coffers. It ranks top in investment according to latest figures, while the state has tabled a balanced budget in the past few years. Its cash reserves too, are high, around RM2.5 billion.

But it has not been immune from scandals – many originating from decisions made by its municipal councils. The councils of Klang, Sepang, Petaling Jaya, Shah Alam, Selayang and Ampang have, at one point or another, made headlines for all the wrong reasons.

The state's inability to get the councils in line and its councillors to do a better job in safeguarding the people's interest is a cause of frustration and an opportunity BN plans to exploit.

The prolonged impasse over the water issue is also not doing anyone any favours. The finger pointing and the lack of progress made in regards to increasing the amount of treated water in the state (either through reducing water wastage through pipe leakage, etc., or by building more plants) is only resulting in Selangor citizens becoming rather uneasy over their supply.

The Chinese Owe BN Nothing

Posted: 18 Feb 2013 12:03 PM PST

Najib should note that despite the barriers, the Chinese accepted their lot. And many Chinese – for whatever warped or bewildering logic – actually supported BN throughout the times they were marginalised!

Kee Thuan Chye

Najib the vendor of half-baked spin was at it again a few days ago when he said the Chinese owed their success to Barisan Nasional (BN).

At a 1Malaysia open house, he said BN formulated good policies and ensured there was harmony in the country and an environment that "allowed the Chinese to make a good living".

Najib had the cheek to say this.

He of course wants the Chinese to be thankful to BN and therefore vote for the coalition at the upcoming general election. But his half-baked spin completely ignores the other side of the story.

For instance, the Chinese also owe it to BN that they became second-class citizens in their own country because of BN's discriminatory policies – and, let's not forget, practices.

As a result, the Chinese have to work harder to succeed. To get places in Malaysian public universities. To have their children score the highest number of As and still not get accepted to do, say, Medicine in these institutions. And therefore be forced to send them overseas, at much higher cost.

The Chinese owe it to BN that they were compelled to leave Malaysia to seek fairer opportunities overseas, some never to return, and thereby contributing to a huge brain drain for which Malaysia is now paying the price.

Many who are now settled overseas may indeed be thankful that they left, but I'm sure Najib is not looking to them for gratitude. Some of them won't be eligible for voting, anyway, having taken citizenships in their countries of adoption.

The Chinese also owe it to BN that to take on business projects of sizable proportions, they have to pay kickbacks – some to BN bigwigs themselves, some to their cronies.

The Chinese owe it to BN that they find it virtually impossible to rise to the highest echelons of public service – in the judiciary, the military, the police, the universities, the civil service. Not because they don't have the merit to fill these positions; in fact, they do, which therefore makes it even more unjust and painful.

Can Najib name a single Chinese vice-chancellor in a Malaysian public university? Can a Chinese person become Inspector-General of Police or Admiral of the Fleet or Chief Justice?

In fact, Najib should watch what he says in the run-up to the general election, especially if he is hoping to win Chinese support for BN.

As it is, many analysts believe that about 70 to 80 per cent of the Chinese are not in favour of the ruling party. If he wants to win at least some over, he needs to say the right things. More than that, he needs to do the right things. Although even then, one wonders if it might not be too late.

Many Chinese still remember what he reportedly said in 1987 on the eve of Operasi Lalang at the Umno Youth rally in TPCA Stadium. As the Umno Youth chief then, he displayed ethnocentric gusto in unsheathing his keris and announcing that it would taste Chinese blood by the end of the day.

It might have been an act of foolish bravado but it still resonates among some Chinese today. Considered together with the video that is making the rounds again of his address to the Umno and Malay NGOs audience in Putra Word Trade Centre (PWTC) a few days after Bersih 2.0, in which he said, with much tribal sound and fury, "We will show them whose country this is!", many wonder if the leopard has changed its spots.

For all his talk of 1Malaysia, Najib is still an ethnocentrist at heart.

He has said he will meet the Chinese educationist group Dong Zong to discuss the latter's demands in regard to Chinese education. In all likelihood, he will agree to meet some if not all of them as a last-ditch measure to win Chinese votes. He might even declare the Government's recognition – finally – of the United Examination Certificate (UEC), a dream the Chinese educationists have been pursuing for the longest time.

If this consequently prompts Dong Zong to endorse Najib and BN for the coming general election, it could sway a good number of Chinese votes in the direction of BN. Then, like they did in 1999 when they saved Mahathir Mohamad's bacon by strongly supporting his coalition when the Malays were swinging to the Opposition, they could hand BN a victory … and, who knows?, maybe even a two-thirds majority, which is what Najib desperately covets.

However, this is going to be a crucial general election. It is the one time when real change for the country can come about with a change of government.

The Chinese need to consider carefully about giving their vote to BN. They need to consider the long-term effects of another BN victory. They need to weigh the possibility of real reform in the event of BN being booted out and a new coalition taking over that could bring positive change.

They need to be wary of Najib's sweet talk and his gifts. If he gives them Government recognition of the UEC, more independent Chinese schools, whatever, they might want to just accept these politely, say thank you and think of voting according to what they think is right.

Dong Zong on its part should remain neutral and not take a stand by endorsing BN. For if it does and Pakatan wins the general election, it would find itself in an awkward position.

The Chinese have a big role to play now in this coming general election. Najib can say anything till he is blue in the face, but they have to weigh the truth or lack of it in what he says. Besides, ensuring harmony and a conducive environment for work and living in the country is, after all, the responsibility – indeed, duty – of any government for which no gratitude from the citizens is necessary. So the Chinese don't owe BN anything.

Above all, the Chinese must not forget about the corruption that has been rampant under BN rule for decades. And the rent-seeking. And the slow growth of our GDP since 1980 in comparison to South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. These affect the whole country, not just the Chinese, and are therefore all the more important.

So, when it comes to the crunch, the Chinese must vote for only one thing – a better Malaysia.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians, and the latest volume, Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

Ultra-nationalism comes to fore in pre-poll Malaysia

Posted: 18 Feb 2013 11:49 AM PST

THE focus on Nick Xenophon's being barred from Malaysia has been on the senator's calculated outrage, but the story behind it is the Malaysian government's emerging re-election strategy: a return to proud recalcitrance.

Rowan Callick, The Australian

Prime Minister Najib Razak was educated largely in England, had a brief commercial career and then, inevitably, turned to the family business. His father, Abdul Razak, was Malaysia's second prime minister, and his uncle, Hussein Onn, its third.

His public political style is almost one of reluctance, of gentility, rather than that of a cynical son of one of Asia's great party machines. His party, UMNO, has ruled Malaysia for almost 55 years.

Four years ago, Najib was ushered into the prime ministership without a contest by his predecessor Abdullah Badawi, who had been dumped by the party machine after UMNO lost control of five of Malaysia's 13 state governments.

Najib began as a reformer, removing bans on opposition newspapers and releasing 13 people held under the harsh Internal Security Act.

He introduced the Government Transformation Program to make the public service more accountable and efficient. He fostered knowledge industries and foreign investment.

He began to axe sugar and fuel subsidies and lowered the minimum ethnic Malay ownership in listed companies from 30 per cent to 12.5 per cent.

But his name has become associated with a complex, shady tale involving the death of a glamorous Mongolian woman caught up in a series of defence purchases involving hundreds of millions of dollars. He was twice defence minister.

More important, his popularity has fallen to its lowest for 16 months, and the ratings of the government are also slipping.

The party backroom is becoming increasingly anxious since a general election has to take place by mid-year, and Najib has not yet faced the voters.

Several months ago, they began to fret that tactics to prise apart the unusually unified opposition coalition led by Anwar Ibrahim were not yet working.

So besides hiring costly consultants, especially from the US, it is back to the tried and trusted stratagems so successful for Mahathir Mohamad, the fourth prime minister, who ruled for 22 years until 2003.

He remains, aged 87, a powerful presence within UMNO. On Sunday, he railed against the liberty granted new media, lamenting that "their freedom is almost total".

Thus the dramatic turning back of Xenophon at the weekend is not exactly "surprising", as Foreign Minister Bob Carr described it. It is part of a reversion to the old successful pattern of uber-patriotism and uber-Islam that worked so well electorally under Mahathir.

This is the new Malaysia Solution, tailored by Kuala Lumpur and not by Canberra.

Bully-boy Malaysia immature and Australia's reaction so limp

Posted: 18 Feb 2013 11:45 AM PST

Malaysia's decision to ban an Australian independent senator, Nick Xenophon, tells us a good deal about the state of its government, the world's longest-ruling outside the communist world, as it heads to an election. Australia's response tells us a few things about ourselves, too.

Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor

Before critiquing the ruling party, the party of Mahathir, now the party of Prime Minister Najib Razak, we should acknowledge that it knows a thing or two.

First, it's worked out how to hold power continuously for 56 years, ever since Britain granted Malaysia independence. That's a serious accomplishment.

Second, it hasn't done a bad job of running the economy. Malaysia's sharemarket was one of the best-performing in the world last year and the economy is growing about 4 to 5 per cent annually.

Malaysia is a pleasant, multi-racial country with the middle-income living standards that an average per capita GDP of $10,000 delivers, about the same as Turkey or Mexico.

So why is the government so afraid of Nick Xenophon? Why stop him at the airport with the confected explanation that he represents a threat to national security?

The reason is that he is an international observer campaigning in favour of a free and fair election. This is not a threat to Malaysia's national security, but it is a threat to the ruling party's grip on power. As the opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, told me some time ago: ''In a fair and free election, I am absolutely sure we will win.''

Xenophon says that his detention and deportation shows ''a high level of paranoia''. But is it paranoia, or does the ruling party really have something to fear at the election it must call by the end of April?

At the centre of the long success of the ruling party is racial politics.

The county had a history of communal violence; the coalition National Front or Barisan Nasional (BN) party addressed that problem because it was founded on the principle of power-sharing between racial groups, the Malay majority with the Chinese and Indian minorities.

This balance held in check the fear of racial violence on a communal scale. But another key concept in the long years of BN rule was that the native Malays were inferior. They may be numerically dominant, but they lacked the skills and abilities of the other races.

''Deep within them,'' wrote Mahathir in his 1970 book The Malay Dilemma, ''there is a conviction that no matter what they decide or do, things will continue to slip beyond their control; that slowly but surely they are becoming dispossessed in their own land. This is the Malay Dilemma.''

How to address it? By granting the Malays special privileges, including guaranteed dominance of the public sector and automatic, unearned shares of national wealth. In short, affirmative action. ''It should not be wrong,'' wrote Mahathir, ''for the Malays to cling to a system which can elevate them to the status of other races, thus creating a more equitable society.''

The system kept the peace, but one side-effect of such a long stasis was that the government's monopoly on power allowed it to wield a near-absolute control over the other arms of the state, including the courts.

Mahathir shocked the world when he demonstrated the way that he'd managed to compromise all parts of the system when he moved against his deputy and potential nominated successor, Anwar, by trumping up charges that he'd sodomised his aide and speechwriter. Anwar went to jail for six years.

This was supposed to discredit Anwar permanently. But after moving to the US, the aide who testified against him recanted. In the police cells he had been ''brutalised to make a totally false confession'', he said.

Anwar, freed, led a barnstorming campaign as the leader of the opposition. He delivered the BN government a terrible shock at the 2008 election - it lost its customary two-thirds majority of parliament.

And while the BN retained a big majority in the parliament, the actual voting figures show that the contest was much closer than it appeared. BN won 51.4 per cent of the votes while the greater opposition gained 48.6 per cent.

The BN is protected by a gerrymander which means that while some electorates have more than 100,000 voters, others have as

few as 7000. It's also protected by other systemic factors including a restricted press - the opposition parties need government permission just to print their own newsletters.

These are some of the awkward facts that Xenophon, as part of a wider international observer group, pointed out in a report last year. That group reported that in its discussions with the secretary-general of BN, Adnan Mansor, he'd stressed the importance of ''avoiding racial strife'' in Malaysia. He had posed this question to the group: ''Are our people mature for freedom?''

The Malaysian government is afraid not of an Australian senator but of this question. In particular, the Najib government is frightened that the answer might be ''yes.''

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Khamis, 21 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan