Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Who still cares about the third voice?
Pakatan biting off more than it can chew
Another 'irritation' for Najib?
Lahad Datu-type incidents Putrajaya’s ‘Achilles Heel’
Lahad Datu highlights Sovereignty, Security issues
The problem with Malay unity
Lahad Datu standoff: Give us the facts
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

Posted: 25 Feb 2013 04:56 PM PST

Lim Mun Fah, Sin Chew Daily

It is believed that the BN and Pakatan Rakyat are now ready for the general election and their full-fledged campaigns will be launched on the nomination day. It can be foreseen that it will be an unprecedented season that floods new media with wars of words.

It is a season for politicians to show their eloquence, literary talent, wisdom and ideologies. Their words and deeds will be fully exposed through the media. After a rapid fermentation process, they will dominate the people's thinking and affect the future of the society, as well as the country.

It is also a season of the emergence of differences. Different views, different perspectives, different ideas and different ideologies will emerge and bring controversies, discords and debates. All of a sudden, we will realise that there are actually so many differences, in terms of race, religion, culture, education, economy and other areas, in the society. All of them seem out of place and the serious misunderstanding and deep contradiction seem to have split us in half, surprising and worrying us.

Election is not a carnival in which everything will restore calmness after a spree. Election has its greater significance and impact. A major election can even play the role of a historical turning point. Some remarks and ideas made by important politicians during election period will also leave traces and bring continuous or even dominant influences to the post-election society.

After the 2008 political tsunami, we seem to have been living in an unimaginable political ocean, suffering from endless provocations, including political language and behaviours, almost everyday. In just about five years, changes to the country's political ecology are actually shockingly great.

If the political game between the ruling and alternative coalitions can make our society more democratic, free, fair and clean, it will be a blessing for the people and the country. However, if the political game turns into a malicious battle, causing the rights and wrongs of public affairs can only be divided according to the boundaries of political parties, and makes ballot the only truth while trapping the society in a confronting binary impasse, it is then an absolute crisis of sinking democracy, instead of a turning point.

This time, we are in fact in an urgent need to listen to the third voice outside the two coalitions. Unfortunately, due to the need of political correctness, today's society has become more and more intolerant of voices and views outside the BN and Pakatan Rakyat. All people, regardless of media practitioners longing for neutral or scholars claiming themselves objective, once they start talking, they will be labelled as lackeys of the BN or hired thugs of Pakatan Rakyat, making them to immediately shut their mouths to avoid causing more troubles.

A society that cares only about votes and neglects reasoning will always force those who wish not to take side to remain silent, or even indifferently keep a distance from political parties. If this happens, the rational third voice will be absent and the direction of social values and public opinions will then be completely manipulated and dominated by politicians. If a so-called democratic country does not allow the presence of diverse voices, it will be a bad omen for the rise of political violence. It is definitely not a good thing for the country's progress of democracy!

Pakatan biting off more than it can chew

Posted: 25 Feb 2013 01:13 PM PST

Hitting for six: (From left) Kit Siang, Guan Eng, Anwar, Hadi, Nik Aziz and Wan Azizah holding up the new manifesto at the convention in Shah Alam.

Pakatan Rakyat launched an ambitious manifesto but its leaders were cagey about how many seats they would win to control Putrajaya.

Some thought that his words were aimed at DAP whose head has grown bigger than its body because they are so cocksure of Chinese support. Besides, as everyone knows, PKR and DAP are having problems over seats in Johor, Perak and Penang.

Joceline Tan, The Star

RAFIZI Ramli had been sleeping on the floor of his office the last few nights in a mad rush to put the finishing touches to the Pakatan Rakyat election manifesto.

Despite the sleep deprivation, the chubby and pint-sized PKR politician, who is the key person behind the manifesto, cut a confident figure on stage as he presented the document when it was launched during the Pakatan Convention in Shah Alam yesterday.

It does not promise the earth and the sky as in their last election manifesto but it is still a highly ambitious document that aims to match and outdo their rival Barisan Nasional.

It was basically a fine-tuned version of the Buku Jingga and as some pointed out, the manifesto will go down well with supporters of DAP and PKR and less so with those from PAS since it makes no mention of PAS' Islamic State ideals.

In fact, PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang who spoke on behalf of his party during the convention, sounded like a man on a ship which had lost its anchor and his speech was more of a ceramah than a speech of what PAS stands for in the Pakatan set-up.

PAS members may think that Hadi is prime minister material but when placed next to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Hadi looked like he belongs in the old world.

He cannot speak English, all his references whether social or economic go back to the days of the Holy Prophet and he looked out of place in the largely secular crowd in Shah Alam.

How seriously are voters going to take the latest manifesto given that the Pakatan states have been unable to fulfil their previous promises?

PKR secretary Datuk Saifuddin Nasution admits that their last manifesto was drawn up for the sake of having a manifesto.

This time around, he said, the team handling the manifesto had been working on it the last year.

It was also quite clear that their target group is the younger generation of voters and many of the proposals were aimed at this group especially those about to start a family. This group is also among the first-time voters and it is an open market there.

The document is basically telling the voters that they can offer what Barisan is offering and even more.

Yesterday's gathering was the fourth Pakatan Convention since the political tsunami.

Many of those who turned up were probably expecting a rah-rah atmosphere given that this, as Saifuddin put it, is the closest that the opposition has come to challenging Barisan for power.

But the convention was surprisingly sober and quite a contrast to the carnival atmosphere when Kedah played host last year.

Anwar adopted a statesmanlike stance, and steered clear of any big talk of capturing power. In fact, he urged everyone not to be over-confident and stressed that humility is very important in politics.

Some thought that his words were aimed at DAP whose head has grown bigger than its body because they are so cocksure of Chinese support.

Besides, as everyone knows, PKR and DAP are having problems over seats in Johor, Perak and Penang.

And despite their purpose of taking over Putrajaya, none of the Pakatan leaders were willing to be drawn into predicting how many seats they can possibly secure to form the federal government.

During his speech, Anwar heaped praised on the leadership of Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat. He also praised Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng although not in as gushing a tone as that for Nik Aziz.

Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was third on his praise-list which was read by some as a slap on Khalid's wrist given that Selangor is supposed to be PKR's show-state.

But Anwar sort of left out Kedah for praise or mention and the conclusion was that Pakatan has given up on Kedah which is mired in a host of issues ranging from the environment to a PAS leadership struggle in the state.

Of all the Pakatan states, Kedah is in greatest danger of falling. Kedah is a big state with a lot of seats that were won by narrow majorities.

If Pakatan does not hold on to Kedah, then its dream of federal power is going to burst like a soap bubble.

Nevertheless, Anwar is being projected as the seventh prime minister of Malaysia when he appears at ceramah venues especially in Penang.

He is working overtime on the ceramah circuit so much so that he appeared at one wearing a sandal on one foot and a shoe on the other.

He was quite embarrassed but he quite sportingly took them off and moved around the stage barefoot.

The stakes are great for Anwar.

He has much to gain if Pakatan does well but if Pakatan fails, he will lose more than his shoes.

Another 'irritation' for Najib?

Posted: 25 Feb 2013 12:01 PM PST

The Deepak story can attract attention. Question is will the readers believe the content?

Mohsin Abdullah, fz.com

NOW that Bala is back home, the question is, will he be a "thorn" to the prime minister, his wife or BN even?

That is to put it mildly. Very mildly in fact. Bala is of course P Balasubramaniam (or PI Bala, as he is popularly known), the private investigator who many believe knows an awful lot of things about the Altantuya Shaaribu murder.

And his "damaging" statutory declaration (SD) against Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the subsequent SD "clearing" the PM continue to be talked about until now.

Upon returning from Chennai, India, where he had stayed in exile (some say self-imposed, others say enforced), he promised to hold a press conference anytime soon to give a detailed account on the SDs.

And he will sort of bring his case to the rakyat. Direct, on Wednesday, Feb 27, when Bala is scheduled to speak at a forum in Kuala Lumpur.

Surely there will be more – ceramahs and what not, nationwide. Bala has after all said he will campaign for Pakatan Rakyat.

The Altantuya murder will feature prominently in his ceramah. That is a given. That will not be good for the PM and BN with election approaching fast. That is the general perception.

Then there's Deepak Jaikishan. The businessman has been talking and has not stop talking – throwing allegations against Najib, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor and the PM's brother as well.

There's no need for specifics as we know what he has said especially on Bala's SD. In particular, the second SD where Bala retracted the "Najib aspect".

Najib has not responded to Deepak – save for a Jan 17 denial and a shot and curt "Deepak is not credible" remark. Which incidentally, prompted the carpet man to sue the PM for defamation recently.

Deepak too has said he will bring his story to the rakyat. He was scheduled to talk at a ceramah at the old PAS headquarters in Taman Melewar last week.

Somehow he did not turn up although the ceramah went on as planned. But definitely, other ceramah for him will be set for him, if not already.

Bala has confirmed Deepak's story that the businessman met him asking him to come up with SD number two. So with Bala in the country, will Deepak speak on the same stage as the private investigator? A collaboration?

Both have said they are not go looking for each other but Bala did say he is ok with a "collaboration" if Deepak "comes" to him. That can be damaging to the PM. Will it not? "Deepak and Bala won't hurt.

Their credibility is questionable. Won't have traction," said a member of a think tank linked closely to the PM's Office. He alleged "both looking for money".

But he went on to say this: "More worrying is Raja Ropiaah. That requires some urgent attention."

Raja Ropiaah Raja Abdullah is the Selangor Umno Wanita chief whom Deepak accused of "stealing" land worth millions of ringgit from his company and reselling a portion of it to a third party.

And Deepak had also alleged that a member of Najib's family had taken a "commission" worth millions for Najib's "role in getting the land" owned by the Defence Ministry privatised to Raja Ropiaah in 2005.

Lahad Datu-type incidents Putrajaya’s ‘Achilles Heel’

Posted: 25 Feb 2013 11:22 AM PST

Malaysia, the Filipinos know, is a paper tiger with two submarines in Sabah which couldn't detect them. They know that Malayans will not fight to defend or keep Sabah.

Joe Fernandez

The Lahad Datu standoff by Sulu intruders on sovereignty and property rights in Sabah recalls that Malaysia, in 1963, was touted by the British, Malayan and Singapore Governments as an equal partnership of Sabah, Sarawak, Malaya, Singapore and Brunei.

That's far from being the case today.

The past has caught up with Putrajaya in the present to haunt its future in Sabah.

There's no way that Malaysia can take on the Sulu people and other illegal immigrants in Sabah and win as the experience of Manila in the Philippines south shows. Lahad Datu-type incidents in Sabah, if they recur or keep recurring, will be Putrajaya's Achilles Heel in Sabah. Malaysia, the Filipinos know, is a paper tiger with two submarines in Sabah which couldn't detect them. They know that Malayans will not fight to defend or keep Sabah. But more on the security aspects in a while.

First, a little walk down memory lane in connecting the dots which has led up to this High Noon moment in Lahad Datu.

The Brunei Sultan rejected the idea of Malaysia at the 11th hour but did not, at the same time, stand up for Sabah and Sarawak.

Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965 but Sabah and Sarawak, the facilitators, were not allowed to exit in turn. The Singapore Government maintained a discreet silence on the issue after momentarily toying with the idea of another Federation with Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei to replace Malaysia. This idea is still worth pursuing since Malaysia has been beaten on all counts by Singapore. It had to virtually surrender the Iskandar Development Region in southeast Johore to the city state and island republic.

Sabah, in eventually restoring its independence of 31 Aug, 1963, cannot include the illegal immigrants already in this Nation in Borneo. The illegal immigrants, whether from Sulu or elsewhere, entered Sabah after independence.

In any case, Lahad Datu must not mean getting into rhetoric, polemics and creating issues in conflict and/or issues in endless conflict on Sabah.

We need to be cut and dried to get solutions and not be side-tracked by the politics of distraction and disruption.

No referendum in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei, Malaya

The fewer issues there are, and/or fewer irrelevant and immaterial matters, the better towards an eventual solution.

Again, and therefore, the focus in the wake of Lahad Datu should be on the thrust of the thesis statement on Sovereignty, property rights of foreigners and Referendum:

(1) the fact that the Sovereignty of Sabah rests with its people. This Sovereignty, to belabour the point, has never been transferred to Brunei, Sulu, Spain, Britain, the Philippines or Malaysia;

(2) the defunct Sulu Sultan had no and has no private or public property rights to Sabah or to parts of Sabah and/or no private property rights in Sabah or in parts of Sabah. The Brunei and Sulu sultanates extorting tolls from the terrified traffic along the waterways in northern and eastern Sabah, by no means confers, property rights or territorial rights on the extortionists; and

(3) the fact that no Referendum was held in Sabah, or for that matter in Sarawak, Malaya or Brunei, on Malaysia.

The issue is clear: Sabah's independence of 31 Aug, 1963 remains as the sole point of self-determination and should be respected and honoured by All, the UN, the UN Security Council and the international community. The pretenders to the throne of defunct Sulu Sultanate should take note as well.

Sabah needs to restore this independence if Malaysia cannot be salvaged as an equal partnership of Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya. This salvaging must be subject to separate Referendums on Malaysia -- and excluding the illegal immigrants -- in Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya. Again, the illegal immigrants from Sulu in Sabah cannot be part of this process, claim or no claim.

Lahad Datu-type incidents can degenerate into "civil war"

The illegal immigrants in Sabah whether from Sulu or elsewhere, cannot too be part of any decision to restore the nation's independence in the event that Malaysia cannot be salvaged by Referendum.

They would have to return to their home countries assisted by the UN and return, if they wish, with valid travel papers issued by their respective countries.

None of the illegal immigrants in Sabah can remain in this Borneo Nation as demanded by the intruders involved in the on-going Lahad Datu standoff on behalf of the illegal immigrants from Sulu.

Still, the Lahad Datu stand-off or any subsequent similar incident can easily degenerate into a Syria-style "civil war" situation -- albeit between illegals and locals -- where the UN and Malaysia will be helpless. The only locals who will join the illegal immigrants are the Suluk and Bajau, already screaming marginalisation and disenfranchisement by the continuing influx in particular of the non-Sulu illegal immigrants.

If the Moros can fight the Philippines Gov't for so long, the intruders from Sulu can take up arms against Sabah as well.

Security situation in Philippine south, Thai south, Sabah similar

It may be payback time as well for Manila in Sabah on another dimension, for the long- running Muslim rebellion in the Philippine south, unless Putrajaya backs the Philippines Government in its dispute with China on the Spratly islands, a large part of which belongs to Sulu and the Sulu-claimed areas in Sabah.

Can Malaysia defend Sabah when the rebels in the Philippines south have all along been using this Nation as a safe haven for arms and men with Putrajaya looking the other way in a wink-wink relationship with them, ostensibly in the interests of "Muslim brotherhood".

The security situation in the Philippines south parallels that in the Thai south and by extension in Sabah.

No member state of the UN, under its Charter, can engage in acts -- either covertly or overtly -- which compromise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another member state of the world organisation for peace and security.

What if the Sulu people seize parts of Sabah, for a start, by force? When push comes to shove, people who have nothing to lose are capable of anything. We live in desperate times!

The intruders have already seized, for all practical purposes, the village in Lahad Datu where the stand-off continues. And yet the Police have seen it fit to keep the Army out of the picture to keep up pretences on the security situation. The Police have no business taking on armed foreigners invading the country.

No one thinks that they will back down without bloodshed. Heaven forbid! They have already stated that they will not leave Sabah. They have probably stockpiled even more weapons all over Sabah to call the Suluks from among the illegal immigrants in Sabah to arms. They will probably be joined by mercenaries from among other illegal immigrants who already fear for their future in Sabah.

Muslims in Sabah, Sulu feel betrayed by Putrajaya

Again, it's no secret that the long-running war against the Philippines Government was fuelled by arms and men available from safe havens in Sabah created by denying the Orang Asal the right to rule Sabah. During the Mustapha Government, the arms came from Libya's Muammar Ghadafi. That's why Manila had to eventually bring Putrajaya into the peace process in the Philippine south and as a facilitator.

Sulu, like the local Suluks and Bajau in Sabah, obviously now feel betrayed rightly or wrongly by Putrajaya.

How will the gentle-natured Sabahans defend themselves against the battle-hardened people of Sulu?

The authorities should conduct a state-wide search for illegal weapons held by foreigners in Sabah.

Better safe than sorry!

The Orang Asal in particular should form vigilante groups to protect their villages in defending the Sovereignty of Sabah and to emphasise that the defunct Sulu Sultanate had no and has no private property rights to Sabah or parts of Sabah and/or private property rights in Sabah or in parts of Sabah. It's unlikely that the local Suluk and Bajau would be party to any Sulu venture into Orang Asal territory in the Sabah High Country. This is the territory that the Brunei and Sulu sultans avoided like the plague during their plundering days along the northern and eastern coasts.

Even so, Sabahans should not take things for granted. They cannot rely too much either on Putrajaya which has failed to protect their Nation since Malaysia in 1963. There are no guarantees that Malaysia's token forces in Sabah would not flee with their tails between their legs to Sarawak for dear life. This is an appalling failure of intelligence and blind trust and faith in the rebels in the Philippines.

Better safe than sorry!

The current security situation in Sabah was brought about in part by the revelations at the on-going Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), not only the peace agreement in the Philippines south leaving out the Sulu so-called claimants to Sabah, as alleged in the Manila press citing apologists for one of the claimants to the defunct Sulu Sultanship and who is involved in the Lahad Datu standoff in between dialysis sessions in Manila, reportedly paid for by the Philippines Government. The RCI was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

We will get the true picture when the Police fail in Lahad Datu and the Army moves in.

Nothing could be more telling!

The Police, it must be noted, were prepared to employ brute force against unarmed and peaceful people, who wanted to witness Hindraf Makkal Sakthi handing over a Memorandum Seeking Legal Aid to the British High Commission on 25 Nov, 2007, against participants in the peaceful mid-Feb 2008 Rose Rally in Putrajaya and against the participants in the various Bersih rallies.

In Lahad Datu, they are humbling themselves on bended knees, cringing and grovelling, and speaking in soft voices and whispers with the armed intruders in Lahad Datu, in literally begging and imploring them teary-eyed to return to the nearby Sulu Islands in the Philippines. Probably, Putrajaya will throw in loads of cash as well from Petronas for the intruders.

Nothing could be more telling.

The dangerous precedent in Lahad Datu will create more similar situations in Sabah in the near future for Putrajaya which has long ridden the Sulu tiger in the Philippines south and Sabah. The Sulu intruders are through with kidnapping ordinary Sabahans for ransom. The Sulu tiger will eventually return with Putrajaya inside it and a smile on its face.

Joe Fernandez is a mature student of law and an educationist, among others, who loves to write especially Submissions for Clients wishing to Act in Person. He feels compelled, as a semi-retired journalist, to put pen to paper -- or rather the fingers to the computer keyboard -- whenever something doesn't quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview). He shuttles between points in the Golden Heart of Borneo formed by the Sabah west coast, Labuan, Brunei, northern Sarawak and the watershed region in Borneo where three nations meet.

Lahad Datu highlights Sovereignty, Security issues

Posted: 25 Feb 2013 11:15 AM PST

The present so-called Malaysian Constitution does not reflect the reality – political, historical, Adat -- in Sabah and Sarawak. It's not a political document that represents or can represent Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia.

Joe Fernandez

The Sovereignty of Sabah, Lahad Datu or no Lahad Datu, rests with its people. That should be the legitimate and logical response to what appears to be the problem, on the surface, in Lahad Datu and notwithstanding the fact that the Police have described the situation as complex, meaning fraught with untold difficulties and no doubt potentially grave and hidden dangers ahead.

This Sovereignty cannot be transferred to foreign powers and has never been transferred with or without the consent of the people at any point in history to Brunei, Sulu, Spain, Britain, Philippines or Malaysia. Sovereignty remained at all times with the people.

The Sovereignty factor is borne out by the fact that Indonesia under then President Sukarno made Ganyang Malaysia (Hang Malaysia) the thrust of his Konfrontasi Policy against Kuala Lumpur and London.

Sukarno rightly, in hindsight, described Malaysia, as a neo-colonialist plot hatched by London and Kuala Lumpur against the people of Sabah and Sarawak. The Indonesian president railed that Malaysia was a bad British idea in Borneo.

Manila concurred with Jakarta and not entirely because it backed the defunct Sulu Sultanate's – without territory long before Spain in the Philippines -- designs over Sabah.

Indonesia was in turn vilified in the local and British media as a big crocodile, along with the Philippines, and just waiting to swallow Sarawak and Sabah respectively after the British leave.

Indonesia and the Philippines providentially became bogeymen, so-called security issues, for the Malayan and British Governments in Sabah and Sarawak.

Lahad Datu mythological land point for Sulu datus

There should be a debate on this and who has turned out to be the real big crocodile in the region.

I had intended to time a comment piece on the Sovereignty of Sabah after all sides had their say on the Lahad Datu standoff and the defunct Sulu Sultanate's claim to Sabah, more accurately the so-called northern and eastern parts. Both the Brunei and Sulu sultans never ventured in Borneo beyond the coasts for fear of the fierce head-hunters in the interior.

Anyway, here goes.

The intruders in Lahad Datu seem to be focussing on the eastern seaboard, Lahad Datu in particular, for a start. The hidden dimension here is that the intruders may be standing up as much for their Muslim brethren in Sabah who are Malaysian citizens marginalised and disenfranchised by the continuing influx of other illegal immigrants.

That may not be entirely a separate issue. At the end of the day, the Sabah claim may yet prove to be a red herring. Meanwhile, we can only keep a wary eye on the Sabah claim in mind in demolishing it in Lahad Datu, and soldier on nevertheless in the hopes of seeing some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.

Lahad Datu, as local myths go, was the first landing point in Sabah for the datus (traditional chieftains) from Sulu and they referred to the land they saw around them as Sabah (a kind of banana – Pisang Sabah -- also found in the Philippines) since there were many Sabah plants where they landed. It's noteworthy that the intruders involved in the on-going Lahad Datu standoff has chosen this region to make a statement.

History of England reference point for Sabah

The question of the defunct Sulu Sultanate having any private property rights to Sabah or any part of Sabah does not arise.

A distinction must be made between Sovereignty and property rights, whether public or private. They are not one and the same thing.

In England for example, the King no longer owns the entire land area of England as declared by William the Conqueror of Normandy, France, in 1066, after he killed English King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings and forced the local aristocracy to flee, many to Constantinople. Crown land is state land. State land cannot belong to a foreign power.

King William I set up a feudal system, parcelling out the land to the new Norman-French aristocracy in return for taxes and supply of men in times of war, to rule England. The aristocracy allowed the peasantry to work their land in return for a share of the crop and supply of able-bodied men in times of war.

As Duke William II of Normandy he claimed, i.e. before 1066, that he had the right to the throne of England by consent of the dying previous English King, Edward the Confessor, and Harold II who succeeded the former as King. Harold II, as King, defeated Herald II of Norway who also claimed the throne of England. He left the south undefended and William walked to an easy victory there over the whole country as he busied himself with Herald II in the north of England.

Pro-Malaysia Suluk, Bajau marginalised, disenfranchised

My interest in penning this comment piece is not the Lahad Datu standoff per se, the Sulu claim to Sabah, the RCI or the forthcoming 13th General Election which may even be aborted in Sabah.

My interest is on the fact that the Lahad Datu standoff highlights the fact that no Referendum was held in Sabah on Malaysia, or for that matter in Sarawak, Malaya and Brunei, to provide for a legitimate transfer of sovereignty to Malaysia. Sovereignty, apart from private property rights in Sabah, is one of the main issues raised by the intruders involved in the Lahad Datu standoff.

Ironically, local Suluk and Bajau community leaders endorsed Malaysia in 1963, but now claim just preceding Lahad Datu albeit belatedly that they have been marginalised and disenfranchised ever since then (1963) but remained silent for this long for fear of the Orang Asal turning Sabah into a Christian state. They point to the fact that the Pala'u (Orang Laut) or Bajau Sea gypsies are still stateless.

Chinese community leaders were dead set against the new Federation which they viewed as an unnecessary compromise with their newly-achieved freedom.

Orang Asal leaders wanted Sabah to enjoy their independence for a time before looking at the idea of Malaysia again. They wanted further details on the new Federation.

Again, there should be a debate on this "Mother of All Issues" in Sabah and Borneo.

Man does not live by bread alone!

Instead, Putrajaya is continuing to harp on bringing development to Sabah and Sarawak, already the poorest Nations in Malaysia as declared by the World Bank in Kota Kinabalu in Dec 2010.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the Opposition Alliance, is banking on its Buku Jingga to add Sabah and Sarawak as well to its electoral booty.

Man does not live by bread alone!

At present, the written Constitution of Malaya is being passed off as the written Constitution of Malaysia. Constitutional law experts, please take note and enter the debate for a novel development!

A Constitution is not so much about law but is the ultimate political document reflecting history and Adat as well. However, anything deemed unconstitutional is unlawful and hence illegal.

Leaving aside the question of Referendum, Malaysia in fact has an unwritten Constitution based on the written Constitution of Malaya, Batu Sumpah, and the various constitutional documents on Malaysia from Sabah and Sarawak. It's unwritten because Malaysia, except in the case of Singapore merging with Malaya, cannot be viewed as an extraordinary event like war, revolution or independence evoking the need for a written Constitution.

Sabah, Sarawak independent before Malaysia

At present, the Federation of Malaya is clearly masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia.

This is why Putrajaya refers to Sabah and Sarawak as the 12th and 13th states.

This is why Putrajaya claims that Malaysia is 56 years old this year, the anniversary being calculated from the 31 Aug, 1957 "Independence" of Malaya and not from 16 Sept, 1963 when the Malayan and British Governments dragged Sabah and Sarawak into Malaysia with the "connivance", for want of a better term, of the Singapore Government and the Brunei Government remaining silent.

Sabah and Sarawak did not become independent through Malaysia as the history books claim.

In Singapore, the people voted for independence through merger with Malaya via Malaysia. Sabah and Sarawak would be in Malaysia to facilitate the merger of Chinese-majority Singapore with non-Malay majority Malaya. The facilitation would be through adding their Orang Asal and Muslim populations to the Malay population in Malaya and Singapore.

Sabah became independent on 31 Aug, 1963.

Sarawak became independent on 22 July, 1963.

Independence was their natural self-determination.

The problem with Malay unity

Posted: 24 Feb 2013 09:27 AM PST

The rallying cry for Malay or Muslim unity can actually be heard as a clarion call for pitting Malaysians against one another. Hence, advocating for Malay or Muslim unity is really a call for disunity and distrust in Malaysia, where Malays and Muslims should only think about their own interest at the expense of other citizens.

Jacqueline Ann Surin, The Nut Graph

ONE of the exhortations to Malay Malaysian voters as the general election looms is to vote the party that will ensure "Malay unity". Politicians and at least one member of royalty have called on Malay voters to put Malay unity above all else when they go to the polls.

And because Malay Malaysians are also constitutionally meant to be Muslims, there has been unsurprisingly another aspect of this public service announcement. Vote the party that will ensure Muslim unity and the cohesion of the ummah. And to Umno and PAS, the two parties that represent Malays and Muslims respectively: consider a merger so that Malay-Muslim unity can be secured.

But does Malay unity exist to begin with? Does Muslim solidarity? Was either ever present historically or currently in Malaysia? And when politicians, academics and royalty start to promote Malay and Muslim unity, are they peddling an ideal for the nation or a dangerous myth for the masses?

The historical development of the construct of race in Malaya, thanks to the British.
Click on table for bigger view.

What unity?

The presumption behind Malay and Muslim unity is that either or both groups are monolithic entities. Further, that every member of the group shares the same historical roots, cultural identity, political and economic aspirations, and religious beliefs. After all, if either or both groups didn't have enough of a cohesive identity and shared sense of ideals, then talking about uniting would be like asking water and oil to combine into one.

To begin with, are the Malays really culturally and historically similar to each other? The series of Found in Malaysia interviews tell us that many of the foremost Malay Malaysian personalities have different lineages. In brief, the Malays we interviewed had the following ancestries: Orang Asli, Javanese, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Bugis, Araband European. And because the notion of the "Malay" is a political construct that was initiated by the British, and continues to be a construct perpetuated by the current powers that be, the definition of Malay can shift from state to state.

Many of the Malay Malaysian personalities interviewed in Found in Malaysia were of different ancestries.

What about political unity? Did the Malays in Umno unite when Tunku Abdul Rahman expelled Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from Umno? Or how about when Dr Mahathir, then a Datuk Seri, expelled Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from the party and from government?

And then there's the notion of Muslim unity. What kind of Muslim are the politicians and other talking heads speaking about when they espouse "Muslim unity"? Again, the notion assumes that the Muslim world is one single block without variations in beliefs and identity. And yet we know this to be patently untrue.

The fact is, there are at least five major schools of thought in Islam – Ja'fari, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali – and a number of other minority schools of thought such as Zaydi and Isma'ili. Religious practices also differ between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The official and legal brand of Islam in Malaysia is the Sunni Islam of the Shafi'i school of thought. But that doesn't mean that other interpretations of Islam like that practised by the Ahmadiyah don't exist, even if they are banned.

One other evidence that Islam's adherents are not a singular block of unvarying believers is the fact that laws about Islam across the Muslim world differ, whether it's about apostasy, family law, hudud or the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims.

What does this all mean? It means that when politicians and royalty like Raja Nazrin Shah speak about Malay or Muslim unity, they're perpetuating a myth. There is diversity and disparity not just in Malays' and Muslims' political views, but throughout the Malay and the Muslim world. And this isn't true just today. It's historically true as well – just look at the different kinds of political leanings Malay Malaysians had in the past.

Why unite?

That's not to say that some Malays and some Muslims cannot unite in the true sense of the word. They can when there is a solid cause which draws people together because of a shared ideal. But when unity is called for solely on the basis of one's racial or religious identity as a Malay or Muslim, the basis for that unity is founded on shifting sands. Since there are so many kinds of Malays and quite a few types of Muslims, what kind of Malay or what kind of Islam are the adherents of unity advocating for?

My uneasiness with calls to vote a particular way or to merge parties for the sake of Malay or Muslim unity stems from the underlying, and often unstated, purpose of such encouragement. What are Malays and Muslims supposed to be uniting for and/or against?

Lahad Datu standoff: Give us the facts

Posted: 24 Feb 2013 09:05 AM PST

While Malaysians do understand the need to be secretive of security operations, what they are asking for is daily updates on a situation that threatens the country as a whole. It cannot be dismissed as a local problem as it involves the sovereignty of this country.

R. Nadeswaran, The Sun Daily

AS THIS column is being written, there are scores of intruders in this country. No one knows the exact number in Tanduo in Lahad Datu town in Sabah, but it varies depending on where it is coming from. But our inspector general of police says the public should not be influenced by online reports on the standoff, which he said were being spread through social media networks.

From what has been reported, they are subjects of the Sulu sultan and the latest is that he has asked the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to help his followers who are running out of provisions.

According to The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III wrote to the UNCHR in Manila on Feb 20, asking for protection for 250 members of the "Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo" whose lives, he said, were threatened by a food blockade thrown by Malaysia.

Jamalul has also written to Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei asking for help in resolving the standoff in Tanduao peacefully. The UNCHR was furnished with a copy of Jamalul's letter to the sultan of Brunei, also dated Feb 20.

In the absence of official bulletins or announcements from the police, what choices have the people got? Even the exact numbers are hazy and on the Net, it varies from 100 to 400.

Since our authorities have no control over the press in the Philippines, it has gone to town with its stories and commentaries. The Philippine Daily Inquirer also says 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 ... 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 neighbours."

But that's not all. A commentary by Ramon Tulfo in the same newspaper makes compelling reading because we are not talking about just the men and women who arrived by boat three weeks ago, but something more sinister. He says that even before the landing of 200 men in Lahad Datu, the Sulu sultanate had 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," he wrote.

That claim should make every Malaysian sit up and ask: "What the hell is happening to our country." All we know is that the IGP has told us that the "situation is under control and we know what we are doing."

And Tulfo adds insult to injury by saying: "When the (Philippines) government was fighting the Moro National Liberation Front (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."

As much as we want to heed the advice by the IGP not to listen to what is happening in the social media scene, those who are Net-savvy, cannot avoid but read news portals, many of which are reliable.

After all, the information above did not come from newly-set platform by some anti-national elements. It comes from The Daily Inquirer which is one of the most widely read and respected newspapers in that country.

No one wants bloodshed. No one wants to see dead bodies. No one wants to tell the police how to deal with the problem – they know best as they are trained for such purposes. No one even knows their motives or what they want. No one knows if they have taken hostages or have occupied strategic positions in the area. In short, we have been blanked by the silence of officialdom.

No one is asking for operational details but it will be a relief to all Malaysians if we are told the truth, and nothing but the truth.

R. Nadeswaran is editor (special and investigative reporting) at theSun. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

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.)

Is some self-respect on our part too much to ask?

Anwar's Last Gamble

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.

Anwar knows he has bitten off more than he can chew. Why then did he make that promise? Simple. He was blinded by his all-consuming ambition to move into the Prime Minister's residence in Putrajaya.

When asked at the meeting in Shah Alam on Friday night whether he would support Hindraf's six-point demands, he was caught between a rock and a hard place. Since September last year, PKR had been dragging its feet when Hindraf asked it to endorse its blueprint for the Indian community.

More recently, Hindraf leaders became impatient at PKR's foot-dragging. They warned that Pakatan's "inordinate delay" in endorsing the blueprint may result in the coalition losing Indian support in the coming election.

So, this time around, if he had not made a firm commitment to Hindraf, his goose would have been cooked. He would have permanently lost Hindraf support. Faced with that prospect, he was forced to respond positively.

Now, Anwar has to face the consequences of his hasty reply. And the repercussions are grave for him, for his political party and for the opposition coalition.

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.

If he pursues this line, he will be dumped by the Malays and sabotaged by the Chinese, the Dayaks, Ibans and all the other natives of Sabah and Sarawak because he has not made similar promises to them.

He will also have to face the wrath of his coalition partners who have made no similar concession to any other race-based NGO. Even the Buku Jingga, which the three partners cobbled together, is not race-specific.

So how will Anwar try to extricate himself? Just as he has always tried to do. And that is by trying to be too clever by half.

He tried that trick again at the gathering in Shah Alam. He refused to reduce his commitment to Hindraf in writing. He said he would not sign on the dotted line. Now that is his exit strategy. Or so he thinks. Indians are no more the gullible people Anwar takes them to be.

They are wise to Anwar's double talk. They won't rest till they get the PKR Supremo to give them a written undertaking to support their blueprint. They will not settle for anything less.

Anwar's 2013 commitment to Hindraf also means he agrees to their demand to end 'institutionalised racism', a term which is their label for special privileges benefitting only Bumiputeras.

But what has been Anwar's public stand on this issue of Bumiputera special privileges? In 2009, Anwar defended Malays' special privileges and added that these rights should not be questioned by non-Malays. He has since not changed his stand.

So, Anwar stands for Malay special privileges and also supports Hindraf's call to abolish them? Surely Anwar has dug his own grave. He has made a promise to Hindraf that he can't keep. But maybe he always knew this to be the case and was simply playing for time.

Anwar will also be in hot soup with his coalition partners for not seeking their sanction before making his commitment to Hindraf. Their prior consent is necessary, said PKR Vice-President Tian Chua.

Tian Chua was recently quoted as saying that "when it comes to formulating a political programme, we have stressed to Hindraf that PKR will not act unilaterally or without consensus from all 3 "partners" in Pakatan Rakyat.

The blueprint proposed by Hindraf must first be presented to the Pakatan Rakyat leadership council for discussion and approval. This process is yet to take place, therefore it is too early to announce the signing of any agreement."

Observers say this promise was another of Anwar's ploys. He has no intention of keeping his promise, and that's why he is refusing to sign the document. He is simply lying to Indians just to get their votes. He will ditch them afterwards.

What has hitherto been his or his coalition partners' record when it comes to championing Indian causes anyway? The answer; a very disappointing and weak record.

Distrusted by many Malays, viewed with suspicion by many Indians, and treated with caution by many Chinese, is Anwar Ibrahim on a roller coaster ride to political oblivion?

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.

READ MORE HERE

The irony of a biased media

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.

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 sides

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.

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?

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.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 26 Februari 2013