Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Is Dr M really the devil?
The death of duty
Why ethics matter in reporting
Securing our borders
Lahad Datu: Is there a solution?
Taking a bullet for 1Malaysia
Two time-bombs in Sabah
Anwar Ibrahim’s welfarist manifesto makes decision difficult
Suaris Interview: The Future of Malays #6
Sabah, Merdeka and Aquino
Harris’ RM 200m formula a non-starter

Posted: 06 Mar 2013 01:48 PM PST

The country's public institutions could not have been ravaged without the blessing of the electorate, especially the non-Malays.

G Vinod, FMT

Dr Mahathir Mohamad, that name itself would evoke strong mixed reactions from various quarters, politically savvy or otherwise.

Those who thrived under his leadership could see no fault in the man. Nevertheless, a large section of the masses revile and blame him for all the ills plaguing Malaysia.

The man's 22-year iron-fisted rule brought prosperity to Malaysia, not to mention putting our beloved nation on the world map. For that, we must thank the man.

However, during his administration we saw human rights and the independence of our public institutions taking a backseat, paving the way for rampant corruption and abuse of power.

But this article is not about Mahathir. This piece is about the voters who gave him near absolute power to lord over us for more than two decades.

The writer recalls a conversation he had with former corporate colleagues in 2008, when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's government provided compensation to the judges victimised by Mahathir during the infamous 1988 judicial crisis.

When discussing the gross injustice the judges suffered, one colleague said: "As long as the economy is good, who cares about the judiciary?" The answer stumped the writer.

When the conversation veered towards rampant corruption and abuse of power, another colleague replied: "For Chinese ah, as long as the economy is good, this is all that matters."

It is not the intention of the writer to talk about the good or the bad of any race but let's call a spade as spade. It was that sort of attitude that kept Mahathir smiling during his premiership.

Barisan Nasional, during Mahathir's leadership, was kept alive and kicking by the non-Malays. This is a reality that was even acknowledged by the former prime minister on many occasions.

The business community thrived. For the non-Malay businessmen, as long as the Bumiputera requirements were fulfilled, they prospered during the economic boom of the 1990s, aided by Mahathir's business-friendly policies.

The working class Indians suffered under Mahathir's rule, but a majority of them hero-worshipped the man nonetheless.

Many of them loathed former MIC president S Samy Vellu even then, but their love for Mahathir superseded their hatred for the man, resulting in them voting for BN for many years.

The Malays, however, were wary of Mahathir. Some of them were his harshest critics. That resulted in the Malay votes to be split from the late 1970s, between Umno and PAS.

But the strange part now is that, the Malays do not vilify Mahathir much but the non-Malays make the most noise about the evils of Mahathir.

Malays ready to discard BN

Just peruse the comments made after an article is written about Mahathir. The man is called by many names; Mamak Kutty, Mahazalim, Mahafiraun, Kerala Kutty, just to name a few.

And some of this racially charged attacks against Mahathir come from the non-Malays, those who are supposedly aspiring to break Malaysia's racial and religious barriers.

Looking at the comments posted, it can be assumed that those who resort to such attacks range from the ages of 20 to 40.

Now to those people of that age group who revile Mahathir, here is a test. Go back home and ask your parents and their peers which party they voted for between 1981 and 2003.

If they say they have voted for the opposition, well and good.

But if they say that they had voted for BN, it is best to target your attacks against them first before hitting out at Mahathir.

READ MORE HERE

The death of duty

Posted: 06 Mar 2013 12:17 PM PST

Is it far-fetched to assume that officials who neglected their sworn duty helped spawn the current mess in Sabah?

A. Kathirasen, NST

DUTY has become a dirty word. There was a time, not too long ago, when duty reigned supreme. A father, for instance, had a duty towards his son; and a son towards his father. Both had a duty towards society, just as society had a duty towards them as individuals.

Today, right has kicked duty off the pedestal. Right is the in-word, the cool word. It is my right to choose who I wish to marry, regardless of what anyone else thinks. It is my right as a teacher to seek a higher salary or give tuition. It is my right as a taxpayer to park at road junctions. It is my group's right to be accorded pole position. It is my right as your child to be given an iPhone.

This shift is seen in the family, in politics and public life, in the way people and institutions --- such as banks and monopolistic firms -- do business.

I'm afraid we are descending into a "what's in it for me" society.

Take parenting, for instance. On March 1, police revealed that the number of child abuse cases had gone up by 17.8 per cent from 242 in 2011 to 285 last year.

Naturally, we expect love for the child to be the prime motivator in parenting. In its absence, there is such an obligation as duty or responsibility: it is the duty of a parent or guardian to care for his or her child. Has that sense of duty dissipated?

The incidence of babies being dumped, and foetuses being killed, is on the rise too. There were 79 cases in 2009, increasing to 91 in 2010 and 98 in 2011.

If young people have a right to savour sex and seek satiation by, as Shakespeare puts it, "making the beast with two backs", they also, surely, have a duty to the consequence of their act?

And the number of parents being sent to welfare homes or left abandoned in hospitals is rising. Between 2008 and 2011, according to the Welfare Department, there was an increase of one per cent per year in the number of old folk admitted to its nine Rumah Seri Kenangan homes.

In 2011, according to Hospital Kuala Lumpur's medical social work department, 205 patients aged 60 and above were abandoned at the hospital.

Indubitably, it is the right of the adult children to have a good life. But don't they have a duty towards the two people who birthed and nurtured them, too?

Talking about hospitals, a friend was admitted to a private hospital three weeks ago with a heart problem. The hospital promptly placed two stents in his arteries, and a bill for RM60,000 in his hands. His insurance, unfortunately, covered only half the amount and now he is trying desperately to raise the balance.

Does it really cost that much?

Sometime last year, I had an accident and was hospitalised for six days. The bill came to RM11,000, excluding follow-up, although no surgery was done. Fortunately my insurance covered 90 per cent of the bill. Does it really cost that much?

My bill would have gone up considerably higher if I had listened to the advice of the plastic and reconstructive surgeon who wanted to do a skin graft on my knee. I preferred to let nature heal it but he felt strongly that a skin graft was needed and seemed in some haste to get it done.

I sought the advice of a couple of doctor friends who agreed with me, after I described the size of my wound. I then told the surgeon to let it be, as the Beatles would say.

Sure doctors and hospitals have a right to charge patients. But don't they also have a duty to society and the sacred Hippocratic Oath that they take upon commencement of their vocation?

Civil servants have almost always been slammed for dereliction of duty but, I must say, some of them have improved in their service to those whose tax money goes to pay their salaries. The wonderful people at the Employees Provident Fund, for instance, serve the public with smile, sympathy, speed, and scruples.

The EPF is worthy of emulation by officials in other government departments and agencies, such as the Immigration Department and the National Registration Department.

The ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry into the illegal immigrant issue in Sabah, for instance, continues to reveal the blatant dereliction of duty, disregard for rules and a lack of scruples on the part of some officials in these departments, and others yet to be named.

Add to that the unfolding drama in Lahad Datu, Sabah, where more than 27 people, including eight policemen, have so far been killed in fighting between our policemen and armed Filipino intruders and their local sympathisers. Is it far-fetched to assume that officials who neglected their sworn duty helped spawn the current mess in Sabah?

The concept of duty seems foreign to more than a few politicians, too. If they have struggled hard to become division leaders, for instance, they think it is their right to reap the fruits -- even if such fruits are not above board.

Supporters are no different. There are quite a few who think it is their inalienable right to receive largesse for loyalty. And if the leader does not provide patronage and pelf, they take their loyalty elsewhere.

This has contributed to the sorry state of our politics today.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against individual rights. I think it is very important that individual rights are respected, and fought for.

What I would like to see is a happy blend of rights and duty.

"Performance of duty is not for reward: Does the world recompense the rain cloud?" -- Thirukkural

Why ethics matter in reporting

Posted: 06 Mar 2013 11:57 AM PST

The girls came from lower-income households and lived in a red-light district where rent was cheap. The day after they were interviewed, the papers published their photograph. The article that accompanied the photograph described the girls as the offspring of drug users and sex workers. They were humiliated by their schoolmates and teachers as a result.

Petra Gimbad, The Sun Daily

SOMETIMES, journalists and columnists who connect with people face the moral dilemma of whether or not to write a story.

A dear friend, one of the most ethical journalists I know, once spoke of lost career opportunities because of his decisions not to file stories or write from perspectives that would harm or humiliate his subjects.

I have held him as my barometer: as any writer would tell you, it is difficult to throw away a story when you have invested so much into it.

This is not limited to persons working with the press.

In working with children from red-light districts and refugees, I have been fortunate to meet journalists who prioritised their welfare and rights over publishing a sensationalised story. This is not easy.

Given that we live in an age that pays more attention to Angelina Jolie's personal life than the Syrian crisis, it is unsurprising that sensation sells papers.

The fault lies not only with the journalist, but also with us readers who support sensationalised journalism.

I have had uncomfortable interviews and observed how journalists – if they are so deserving of the term – write what they think readers want to hear, knowing that they can get away with it.

This is a practice that is encouraged by unethical editors, local and international. Such editors are not representative of all editors.

However, we need more editors who are able to mentor journalists in journalistic ethics.

Readers must support such editors if we are serious about creating a media that truly serves the public good.

At the height of the Malaysia Solution a few years ago, journalists from regional and international media came to Malaysia to interview refugees. This was for the purpose of understanding how they felt about the refugee swap agreement between Australia and Malaysia.

At an interview, I spoke frankly of how a group of refugee girls were molested on the way to their community school.

The journalist asked if he could interview them. He would not take no for an answer.

I explained that my colleagues were unable to seek psychological support for the girls. Also, such an interview would retraumatise them.

Frustrated, I pointed out his ability to leave Malaysia following the interview. It was my colleagues who would have to pick up the pieces.

Left unsaid was the fact that these girls will live with the memories for life.

Not long after, I was informed by another group of children whom I worked with – Malaysians, of mixed Malaysian and Indonesian descent – that they were ostracised at school by schoolmates and teachers.

The girls came from lower-income households and lived in a red-light district where rent was cheap. The day after they were interviewed, the papers published their photograph.

The article that accompanied the photograph described the girls as the offspring of drug users and sex workers. They were humiliated by their schoolmates and teachers as a result. Shamed, they came to the centre where my colleagues and I worked to weep.

I recalled the incident months later when I spoke to the mother of one of the girls. "I am not rich. I work hard. I may be Indonesian. But my neighbours call me a prostitute." Over the telephone, she cried and cried.

Often, in order to garner sympathy or raise support, many journalists and readers regard sensationalism as necessary. This intention differs from the financial motivation to sell newspapers and tabloids.

Rather than encouraging thoughtful analysis and depth, we encourage the same cheap tactics repeatedly.

Even as readers, we accept such tactics until they hit too close to home when someone dear or a member of one's community is humiliated – even though such harm is unintentional. By then, it is too late.

From experience, I know firsthand – with deadlines to meet and pressure – it is difficult to balance compelling storytelling with ethical reporting.

In refusing to compromise on a media standard that is analytical, considerate and respectful, we may better understand the issues that afflict our nation and come closer to solutions. We will be better off for it.

The writer is a bookworm and occasional runner. She has worked with vulnerable children from marginalised backgrounds.

Securing our borders

Posted: 06 Mar 2013 11:53 AM PST

Historically, Singapore and Malaysia can boast even closer ties, but once the countries separated, Singapore at least ensures its borders are very well policed. No matter how regular a visitor you are (or perhaps you even work there), you don't ever get a free pass.

N. Shashi Kala, fz.com

YEARS ago my parents lived in Rompin, Pahang, a small mining town that was pretty much self-contained, complete with a club house, airstrip and the all-important Cold Storage.

Anyway, everyone knew everyone, and people used to go out without locking their doors. There were no safety issues.

Years later, when they moved to Johor Baru, they stayed in a new housing estate in the suburbs. Back then, they used to keep the front door open, and the outside gate was unlocked. It was true of most of the houses there. Your neighbours watched out for you, and you did the same.

But as more and more unfamiliar faces started moving into the neighbourhood, particularly during the recession period of the mid-80s, people started to become more wary. Break-ins – usually accompanied by violence – was not uncommon, and homeowners had to be more vigilant.

Gates were kept locked, and the front door, firmly closed. To prevent break-ins through the roof, contractors were hired to place timber planks over the beams.

Home burglary alarm systems – both the professionally installed versions and the DIY ones – were also put it. Hell, the folks even went out on Rukun Tetangga patrols.

The long and short of it is this: people took precautions to ensure that their homes were protected. They were responsible for their family's safety.

Fast forward to this decade, and public perception of the crime rate had become so negative that the government was forced to take action by ordering more police patrols, and redesignating staff so that there was greater police presence on the streets.

They took these measures because they are responsible for our safety.

Daily incursions

Likewise, when Sabah joined up to form Malaysia, there were certain things the federal government became responsible for, including guarding our now common borders.

And this it has plainly failed to do, as evidenced by the armed intruders from Sulu who not only managed to slip into Sabah undetected, but continued to camp out at Kampung Tanduo in Lahad Datu for three weeks before our authorities took firm action.

How could this have been allowed to happen? The answer being fed to an over-compliant media eager for any scrap of information is that the area is impossible to patrol due to its size.

Frankly, Sabahans will tell you that for too long the powers that be turned a blind eye against the daily incursions from our neighbours.

The authorities have also pointed to the "historical links" between Sabah and Sulu, adding that the movement of people between the two areas have been going on for years.

Sure, there may be historical links between the parties but that doesn't mean we should not monitor and even regulate their comings and goings.

And as for trying to cross the Johor Straits surreptitiously... let's just say trespassers are severely dealt with.

Documenting the illegals

No doubt Singapore being small has an easier time patrolling its borders. Perhaps the over 3,000km long US-Mexican border would be a better comparison.

Let's see: there's fencing that stretches for over 700km, with 20,000 border patrol agents, not to mention vigilante groups patrolling with shotguns and dogs.

Yes, thousands probably make it across every year, but they do so fearing for their lives as the chances of getting caught are high. And even once they cross the border, without documentation they continue to live in fear of being deported.

Contrast this with Sabah. Thanks to testimony from the RCI we now know that during Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's administration, illegals were freely offered citizenship.

Lahad Datu: Is there a solution?

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 01:26 PM PST

By bringing the battles right to the heart of our towns, they have nothing to lose; but not us, our terrified civilians will become refugees and our developments devastated.

Vidal Yuden Weil, FMT

This is a requested sequel to my previous article titled "To whom does Sabah belong?" which attracted a high number of responses and shares in cyber space and triggering a unique volume of debate among netizens.

In the current piece, I will unmask the mindset of most Malaysian commentators before imparting more of my findings about the Lahad Datu debacle.

Firstly: To the families of policemen who died in the line of duty, my condolences here are as heartfelt and deep as those of mine for the families of innocent citizens who died in police custody including those inside motor vehicles as a result of police shootings.

Secondly: To the families of deceased Tausug warriors who had to assert their right to sovereignty with their lives, my profoundest sympathy that it has to come to such a stage as a result of the failings of my government and possibly that of yours as well. I condemn my government for our casualties and I leave it to you to rebuke yours if yours so deserve it.

By and large, not all homo sapiens are born intelligent, and the high tendency of them ending up as nincompoops rests on how he or she is brought up at home and of course that also includes the way they are educated.

Many countries in the world control the thinking of their citizens; for example, I was reliably told only a few weeks ago that the National University of Singapore does not have the subject called "Jurisprudence" for their law students; if this is true, my personal opinion is that it must have been deliberately done to prevent them from becoming lawyers who can think better.

On the other hand, Malaysians are indoctrinated from a young age with politically convenient half-truths which are spiced up with fabricated history about events that are authored by so-called historians who were never there in the first place; such brainwashing was authorised by an irresponsible government with a vicious tenacity to keep the citizens daft and executed right from primary schools up to tertiary levels.

For instance, all Malaysians read from government authorised history books believing that Sabah and Sarawak are of the same status with the remaining 11 states in West Malaysia – they are wrong!

Tunku Abdul Rahman uttered the following historical statements:

"The granting of self-government too would enable Sabah to stand on its own feet as equal with Malaya, Sarawak and Singapore." (Sabah Times, Jesselton, Aug 30, 1963.)

Serial racists

As a result of the miserable education system, many Malaysians grew up to become full-blown serial racists and religious bigots who not only think that they are superior to other people, but also are unable to respond out of the box because they were only taught "what to think" instead of "how to think" for themselves; and worst, many Malaysians are not even aware of their own pathetic predicament much like when a shrink asks a mental patient "are you mad?" and the lunatic will always answer in the negative.

Like an orphaned lamb which grew up with a pack of wolf pups, the former mistakenly thought that it is strong and formidable like the latter when it was actually physically and psychologically compromised; such is my description of the general Malaysian public today.

It is not entirely the fault of Malaysians when many of them cannot understand basic, decent, and logical elucidation because the education system that churned them out is wanting; but if they continue to elect a bunch of clowns that is corrupted to the core to run the government which only knows how to fiddle with propaganda and figures to look good, the worst will get even worse.

While Malaysians per se are somewhat reasonable, many could not accept fact and truth particularly when they think their interests are in jeopardy; in short, they are unable to behave impartial.

For introducing the naked truth about the sovereignty of the Philippines over Sabah, a layman wrote that there is a difference between stealing something movable and stealing land – how much more preposterous can Malaysians be?

Netizens can find all the ridiculous arguments by Malaysians in the comments section of my immediate previous article in FMT; while not all Malaysians are warped in their thinking, I am sad to say more than 90% of the Malaysian comments therein are such.

Now back to the Lahad Datu skirmishes.

I still maintain that the whole episode is a sandiwara with pre-planned collateral damages thrown in. Is Najib Tun Razak planning to declare emergency, suspend the Federal Constitution, and impose martial law to delay elections which the Barisan Nasional will lose? Will this incident make the BN look more like a hero when our troops finally sweep in?

With the large number of soldiers from Peninsular Malaysia being deployed to Sabah at this time, how many tens of thousands more additional postal votes are we talking about now to bolster the chances of the BN in Sabah? What about the feelings of the 900,000 Tausug people in Sabah, how will it affect their votes?

Alternatively, has the parade now got out of control with the Sulu warriors no longer following the script?

Ridiculous suggestion

It was recorded that the Tausug people of Sulu were never colonised by any foreign powers; their warriors are war-hardened and fear nothing. A few decades ago, they were funded by Libya to fight the government of the Philippines. Was our government the one that trained, armed, and gave them safe haven? Was the same also true of the Acheh rebels in Indonesia and the Pattani separatists in Thailand?

I am unable to gauge the capabilities of our present troops to dislodge the so-called intruders, but I do worry for them and the civilians; the Tausug people never surrender and they never forgive. If their warriors are here to die fighting, they will be dead sure that many of our soldiers and civilians will follow them.

Let me now assume for a moment that the whole thing is not a conspiracy and the Malaysian government does not know how to solve it peacefully and diplomatically; should it not resign en bloc and let the people choose a new government to deal with it? The BN government does not have the authority from the rakyat to risk the lives of our troops, innocent civilians, and foreigners included.

There is another ridiculous suggestion a few days ago: when the nation was peaceful, non-Malays were sidelined or capped with a glass ceiling for promotion and rank in the police and armed forces; all of a sudden in war, Kadir Jasin said that non-Malays should now die for the country…! What kind of logic is that…?

If the Lahad Datu fiasco is real by any imagination, the federation has failed us disastrously; our comfort was all along artificial and looking back, the discredited formation of Malaysia in 1963 is now ludicrously confirmed as not only hugely insignificant but a complete flop and fatally flawed.

Malaya is enslaving Sabah and its politicians, who are not troubled by conscience, are subjugating us with foreign nationals by issuing citizenships to them and plundering our rich natural resources.

Our presence as the poorest of the poor in Malaysia is a clear indication that Sabah's economy is not only on the retreat, but heading for world-record collapse at a speed few of us can comprehend. Malaya's ambition is boundless; it seizes every opportunity meant for Sabah and what did our impoverished people get – terror in the end.

Just look at our infrastructure: a few new roads, a few magnificent government buildings, expensive homes for the elite; but our people are still as poor as ever on a colossal scale working day and night for a pittance. Compared with colonialism, this is much more oppressive and widespread than anything our former British colonial government was ever accused of.

Why must our government run on bribery and by notoriously corrupt pariah politicians while the police force on brutality? There is a real sense of anxiety among a lot of Sabah people that citizens do not have any real protection that we should have; fundamentally, we are now under siege, not only from Sulu gunmen but from Malaya. Why can we not have our own final say on our rights? Why must the people of Malaya insist on how we should live our lives? We are not a colony of anyone!

The people of Sabah are astonishing human beings with a limitless capacity for self-sacrifice; but today, I say: enough is enough. All Malaya politicians are hypocritical and disgraceful – well below the standards expected of decent leaders; the greatest justice for Sabah will triumph on the historic day all the Malaya-based political parties and their local running dogs are humiliatingly voted out by bold Sabahans in the 13th general election, effectively ending their dangerous and hate-driven abusive meddling in the affairs of Sabah, making us physically and financially ill.

READ MORE HERE

Taking a bullet for 1Malaysia

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 01:22 PM PST

Malaysians, regardless of colour and creed, love Malaysia. This is home and on its walls, are etched the memories of our lives and that of our loved ones.

RK Anand, FMT

The soldiers huddled in the trenches as the mortar shells exploded all around them, uprooting trees and sending chunks of earth into the air, which fell back to the ground like droplets of rain.

In one trench, three frightened men embraced each other, wondering if this heralded the end. Then came the order to advance, the three were stunned. It was suicidal.

Seconds later, an argument erupted. Wong and Muthu wanted Abu to make the first dash, hoping that it would distract the enemy troops, giving them a better chance of making it to the next trench alive.

When Abu insisted that all three move together, Wong and Muthu argued that since he was a Bumiputera, he was entitled to the lion's share of the action compared to the other two.

Macabre humour aside. What transpired in Lahad Datu is not an item for burlesque. The bloodbath has claimed the lives of numerous brave men who heeded the call to defend the nation against armed intruders. Husbands and fathers perished, their valour must be honoured.

But amid the lethal exchange, several questions arose as to whether the confrontation is part of a script and if so, who authored it? Were lives pawned in a political chess game? With the election so close and with the stakes so high, some felt that certain quarters with vested interests would consider all to be fair in love and war.

Conspiracy theories aside. What is also disheartening is that even during the height of conflict, the national disease, to quote the description of a learned friend, poured forth from the pen of a seasoned newsman.

He lamented about how the Malays and Bumiputeras had sacrificed their lives to protect Malaysia and suggested that more Chinese and Indians be recruited to die for 1Malaysia as well.

Unsound wisdom

His unsound wisdom once again proved that the greater threat to this country is not external but internal. It is not bullets but bigots that threaten to riddle this nation with holes.

Before putting forth this question, the seasoned newsman should have also pondered on the reason behind these ingrates' reluctance to make a beeline to join the police and armed forces to defend their motherland.

It is after all a promising career, where promotions are based on merit and not race or religion.

And which other profession provides the satisfaction of clobbering and gassing fellow citizens who make absurd demands like clean and fair elections, beating detainees to death for investigation purposes and conducting summary executions of suspected criminals.

Upon retirement, these ex-servicemen could also join the exclusive club which specialises in posterior warfare outside the residences of "pendatang" women.

Just because we are not treated as equals when alive, it does not mean that we should miss the chance of being treated as equals in death. There are no quotas when it comes to bullets.

Malaysians, regardless of colour and creed, love Malaysia. This is home and on its walls, are etched the memories of our lives and that of our loved ones.

But some are adamant on driving home the message that the non-Malays are tenants, to whom the landlord has been gracious enough to rent rooms. Their economic, sporting, social and political contributions are immaterial.

To some, these people are mere squatters and in the event of the slightest transgression, must be reminded of their precarious position with the calls of "Balik India" and "Balik Cina".

Even the prime minister, whose clarion call is 1Malaysia, remains silent when movements like Perkasa and those suffering from an identity crisis like Ridhuan Tee Abdullah bombard his citizens with racist salvos and threats to torch bibles.

READ MORE HERE

Two time-bombs in Sabah

Posted: 04 Mar 2013 01:53 PM PST

Lim Mun Fah, Sinchew.com

The deadly clashes in Sabah after the intrusion of a Sulu army took place at the most sensitive period when the country is counting down to the general election. Inevitably, it has triggered all kinds of speculation while showing us how some netizens simply comment and criticise in this Internet age.

Many people do not know the history of Sabah and have no idea about the gunmen claiming to be the Royal Army of the Sulu Sultanate, let alone the army's historical grievances with the Brunei Sultanate, Spain and the British colonial government. They just simply commented and criticised.

Of course, it is now a democratic era and no one can stop netizens from commenting on the issue. However, remarks made with a lack of basic historical knowledge and international perspective will easily tend to be superficial and turn out as a tool to vent emotions.

Therefore, when the government negotiated with the Sulu army, some questioned why the government did not just open fire and annihilate them; and after an outbreak of clashes, some people wondered why the police force, not the military, was deployed. Some ridiculed when they heard that a few policemen were killed and some even related the issue to a conspiracy theory and questioned why we do not just give it back since it is other people's territory.

Frankly speaking, not all netizens have commented pointlessly. Many people would like to know the answers to some questions and the government needs to clarify them as soon as possible. However, we should always remember a non-negotiable principle, that is, Sabah is part of Malaysia, and territory and sovereignty are sacred and inviolable.

The Sulu Sultanate is a collapsed administration and is now only part of the Philippines. As for Sabah, it has joined Sarawak and Malaya, also Singapore at that time, to form Malaysia, with the recognition of the United Nations. The Philippines has also given up its territorial claim based on this unalterable fact.

History is not a black-and-white picture. In fact, all countries today are result of historical agreements, despite some agreements being unfair. There are only about 200 countries in the world today; if countries are formed based on religion and language (there are about 8,000 languages in the world), it would be an unimaginable chaotic scene. Therefore, the problem to be resolved is not whether more independent countries should be built based on religion or language, but whether the existing countries can respect and be fair to every one of their citizens, regardless of race, religion and language.

The Lahad Datu standoff is undoubtedly a great challenge to the government's crisis management capabilities. The quality of any decisions and actions of the government could bring impact to the next general election. Regardless of the election results, the Sabah state government and the federal government must face up to the Sulu Sultanate's threats in the future.

How are they going to prevent the Sulu army from intruding Sabah again? How are they going to solve the bitter fruit of illegal immigrant issue (According to the Philippine media, at least 8,500 Filipinos are staying in Sabah.)? The people will continue to feel ill until the two time-bombs are dismantled!

Anwar Ibrahim’s welfarist manifesto makes decision difficult

Posted: 03 Mar 2013 06:30 PM PST

Wan Saiful Wan Jan, TMI

I congratulate Pakatan Rakyat (PR) for launching its manifesto recently. PR has always wanted to shift Malaysia's political debate from one that is obsessed with race and religion towards policy. By launching their manifesto early, PR under Anwar Ibrahim shows continuous commitment to making our country a more mature democracy.

I am very impressed with what PR has achieved over the years. Unlike Barisan Nasional (BN) which has access to the vast federal government machinery, PR has very limited resources. Yes, PR may be able to tap into the resources of a few states — and they do — but that is miniscule compared to what BN can access at the federal level.

Therefore it is no mean feat for PR to come out with something as major as this manifesto. Clearly they are preparing for government, and they are very serious in wanting to transform Malaysia. If all our politicians are as committed to mature policy debates as the PR leaders, Malaysia would be a much better country.

Dubbed as "The People's Manifesto", the document contains some wonderful proposals to enhance our political freedom. My favourite one is actually the very first thing listed in the manifesto — "eliminating racial discrimination and the incitement of antagonism between community groups to ensure the people's unity and harmony".

This is a promise that all parties will make, but, I think BN has failed miserably to show commitment to this important agenda. I have not seen strong enough attempts by BN's top leadership to even dissociate themselves from the many inflammatory statements and incidences that have taken place over the last few months. Thus my hope on this aspect is with PR.

PR dedicated a whole section to describe how they would improve the way government is run and improve our political freedom. There are clear promises to remove political interference from the civil service, make elections more clean and transparent, reform the judiciary as well as the MACC and the police force, strengthen Parliament, restore media freedom, and enhance academic freedom. These are reforms that our country very much need.

Unfortunately that is where the good news ends. If one were to analyse the document from a liberal perspective, one would quickly find that the overall spirit of the manifesto is quite scary. Frankly, with this manifesto, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's coalition looks set to make Malaysia a welfare state, and catapult us firmly to the left.

The vision underpinning this manifesto is actually very well summarised in a line on the very last page of the document, in an imaginary letter written by a common Malaysian after 10 years of PR government. The sentence reads "Most importantly, I am proud that the Malaysian administration has proven its ability to distribute and create prosperity for everyone."

Perhaps it is just a Freudian slip, but the positioning of "distribute" before "create" explains exactly what this manifesto is about — i.e. a welfare state redistributionist agenda that puts more emphasis on how to spend rather than how to create wealth.

The list of handouts, subsidies and costly initiatives is a long one. And it looks like under PR the tentacles government will be everywhere in our lives. Let's have a look at just some of them.

In the workplace, PR will increase minimum wage to RM1,100 per month. If that's not enough to increase unemployment, PR will encourage employers to remove low-skilled workers by creating a RM2 billion fund "to provide automation incentives." I hasten to add that BN is the biggest culprit in this issue because it was the BN who introduced minimum wage in the first place.

In dealing with an ageing society, even if you are a millionaire, PR will give you RM1,000 every year once you reach the age of 60. They call this a "Senior Citizens' Bonus Scheme." This is the first time I heard about people getting a bonus simply for ageing.

To attract votes from the armed forces, PR promises to provide several types of handouts. They will create a RM500 million fund to assist the participation of ex-soldiers in economic activities. They will increase the government's contribution to Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT) from 15 per cent to 20 per cent so that ex-soldiers have higher pension fund. And non-pensionable veterans will be given RM2,000 per year.

Posted: 03 Mar 2013 01:10 PM PST

PAS has two fundamental flaws. First, it is confused on whether to be a political party, meaning one that aspires to one day hold power and lead the country, or a religious entity. The two are not necessarily incompatible but PAS has yet to choose which one has the greater priority. The price for this blurring of objective is that the organization does not excel in either.

M. Bakri Musa

Suaris Interview: The Future of Malays Part 6. What is your view on PAS and its leadership? Do you think that their policies and struggles would usher or obstruct Malay/Muslim development in our country?

[The original in Malay appeared in www. Surais.wordpress.com on Feb 20, 2013.]

MBM: The leaders and policies of PAS do not impress me. That however, is irrelevant. More pertinent is that those leaders and their policies will cause Malays and Muslims to regress. Whether we would enter Paradise under PAS, only God knows, and He is not telling me or anyone else.

Second, PAS is not democratic. The highest and ultimate authority lies not with its members, as it should be, rather an unelected Council of Ulamas. Worse, that council is restricted only to ulamas. Where is it written that only ulamas have the ability, wisdom or privilege to lead?

In a democracy, the ultimate power must lie with voters or members. Were PAS to govern, would its ministers be answerable to Parliament or the Council of Ulamas? Which body has the higher and ultimate authority? According to our constitution, it is Parliament; to PAS, the Council of Ulamas.

This is no small matter. Consider the current crisis in Iran where its unelected Majlis Syura is in conflict with the elected Parliament. I have no problem with the Ulama Council being merely advisory. The Ulama Council must respect and defer to Parliament. There is no place for anointed leadership in a democracy. Sovereignty lies with citizens.

On another level, PAS is consumed with labels rather than content. Its leaders are obsessed with hudud and the Islamic State but fail to declare what they mean by those terms. Which Islam state do they hold up as a model? Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Likewise with hudud; as non-Muslims are spared, criminals would be punished based not on the crimes they commit rather their faith. A Muslim committing adultery would be sentenced to death by stoning; a non-Muslim would suffer only the fury of their spouse. A Muslim caught stealing would have his hand chopped off; a non-Muslim would suffer merely a fine or jail sentence. Is that just? If it is not just, it cannot be Islamic. PAS has yet to address let alone reconcile this conflict.

The party's greatest weakness is that its leadership core singularly lacks management talent. The skills needed for running a modern state are very different from that of being an ulama. The training, academic qualifications and experience of our ulamas are very narrow. They have never been exposed to the behavioral sciences, while their understanding of modern science and technology is abysmal. Their mindset is equally circumscribed.

As for their political skills, PAS leaders have not shown the ability and aptitude for cooperating with like-minded players, specifically their fellow partners in Pakatan even on already agreed-upon goals. They behave little kids; play ball my way or I'll take it away. They view compromise as a sign of weakness. They forget that politics, as Bismarck wisely observed, is essentially the art of the possible.

Kelantan reflects the management talent or lack thereof with PAS. After leading it for decades, cholera, which has been wiped out elsewhere, is still endemic. Low level of public health is directly the consequence of managerial ineptitude. The people of Kelantan, overwhelmingly Malays, remain the poorest in the nation. Again that reflects the limitations of a PAS administration.

I have tremendous respect for Tok Nik Aziz as an ulama but voters elected him to be chief minister, not chief ulama. He should be humble enough to acknowledge his significant limitations as an administrator. That is his major weakness and fault. Had he been aware, or humble enough to be made aware of, he would have sought competent advisors.

Consider Reagan, revered as one of America's greatest presidents. He readily acknowledged his intellectual and managerial limitations but he was very confident of where he wanted to take his nation. So he recruited the most talented and accomplished individuals to his cabinet so they could help him achieve his goals.

There are many such Malaysians, Kelantanese specifically. Why couldn't Tok Aziz co-opt a few of them? Perhaps they could not recite the Koran and do not wear big turbans and flowing robes but if they are competent executives, that should be good enough. Frankly I could not care less even if they were not Malays or Muslims. You want someone to make sure that the rubbish is picked up regularly and the welfare of citizens taken care of.

PAS is obsessed with the Islamic State. Many, and not just non-Muslims, disagree with that. Yet PAS remains stubborn. Wouldn't it be more meaningful and productive if PAS leaders were to understand and appreciate the reasons for the lack of enthusiasm and outright opposition? The greatest fear is that Malaysia would become another Iran or Saudi Arabia. Even Tok' Aziz's wife would oppose that. Imagine, women not allowed to drive!

How do your allay their fears and make them see your viewpoint? One thing is certain. If you label them as apostates or kafirs, that would surely alienate them.

PAS should focus on content and not be consumed with labels. Work with your Pakatan partners to get rid of corruption, abuse of power, and those laws that denigrate the human condition. Those are all wrong from the Islamic perspective. Do that and we that much closer to an Islamic state. To me, an Islamic state is one where there is peace, justice, prosperity, free of corruption, and abuse of power. Never mind the label.

Clearly UMNO today has strayed far from our Islamic ideals. Corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power are the antithesis of things Islamic. They cannot be mollified with the building of ornate mosques or having gala Maulad Nabi parades.

The upcoming general election will be a choice between a party that has a wee bit of competence in statecraft but is riddled with greed, corruption and abuse of power among its leaders, UMNO, versus another that is sorely lacking in managerial capability but whose leaders are pious, honest, and not obsessed with materialism, PAS. Which would one choose?

Of course we all would like the choice of competent, honest and efficient leaders, but Allah has not given us that.

Elections are like multiple choice tests, you select the best answer from the list given. Given the choice we have, I would unhesitatingly pick PAS over UMNO. We can easily train someone to be better executives or help them by supplying those talents. It would be considerably more difficult if not impossible to change someone's inner core of greed, corruptness, and repeated breaches of faith. Leaders with those ugly traits would continue to get worse, if given the power and opportunity.

This upcoming election is an opportunity for Malaysians to deny the corrupt, the cheaters, and the greedy that power and opportunity.

Cont'd: Suaris Interview: The Future of Malays #7: Touching on the economy, while to date Malays have made some progress nonetheless the new generation considers that as insignificant. They demand a bigger share of the cake, at least 30 percent. How can we achieve this target?

Sabah, Merdeka and Aquino

Posted: 03 Mar 2013 12:29 PM PST

Is it possible to understand Muslim Mindanao without looking at Malaysia? Perhaps not. This stern neighbor has played its hands rather wisely: feeding a Filipino rebellion on one hand, and helping end it on the other.

Glenda Gloria, Rappler

Sabah has been home to thousands of Muslims who once fought for independence under the Marcos dictatorship. It was their refuge when the military continued to pummel them with bombs and bullets in Mindanao. Sabah was always part of their real -- and imagined -- community. Before colonizers carved out superficial boundaries in that part of the world, the Muslims of Sabah, Tawi-Tawi and Sulu were one community that freely traded goods with each other, paid unhampered visits to one another, and spoke the same language. The imperious Sultanate of Sulu reigned over these islands.

Thus while Manila has consistently put the Sabah claim on the back burner, the reality is that to many Filipinos, Sabah has long been theirs. They grew up on the island, got married there, raised their kids, and put up businesses. An estimated 65,000 Filipinos carry passports as "political refugees" in Sabah. In the capital city of Kota Kinabalu, I once asked a former member of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) why he had chosen to live there. "It's our land. These are my brothers," he said. They call themselves "Suluks" not Filipinos.

At the height of the MNLF's secessionist campaign in the 1970s and 1980s, Muslim rebels sought refuge in Sabah. In Sabah they mapped out plans to bring down the Marcos military to its knees. In its lush jungles they trained young recruits in guerrilla warfare. While Nur Misuari toured the Middle East to raise funds for his movement, his young commanders held clandestine meetings in Sabah to plot the war against Marcos.

Which begs the question, why would Malaysia tolerate this when it could not even put up with a ragtag group of old guards now holed up in Lahad Datu?

The answer partly lies not in Sabah or Sulu or Tawi-Tawi but in another place that keeps the dark secrets of a bungled special operation to invade Sabah: Corregidor Island.

Jabidah, Ninoy Aquino

In March 1968 -- 45 years ago this month -- the Philippine military shot dead young Muslim recruits whom they had trained to invade Sabah as part of Ferdinand Marcos' adventurous pursuits at the time. The underground plot was named Oplan Merdeka (freedom in Bahasa Melayu).

Trained under a commando unit called Jabidah (the name of a beautiful woman in Muslim lore), they were recruited from Muslim provinces such as Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan. Army officers led by then Maj Eduardo Martelino first taught them the rudiments of warfare on the sleepy island of Simunul, Tawi-Tawi. A picturesque town, Simunul is home to the first mosque in the Philippines built in the 14th century. It is also a breath away from Semporna, an island off Sabah. Last month, it was in Simunul where followers of the Sultan of Sulu prepared to sail to Sabah to begin the standoff.

Back then, Simunul lacked the environment for rigorous training. Thus the Army boarded its recruits on a ship to the forlorn, tadpole-shaped island of Corregidor. Promised a monthly allowance, the recruits waited patiently for cash to send to their parents back home. It never came, triggering widespread demoralization that culminated in a petition addressed to Marcos.

The Army was ordered to fix the problem, but the situation was doomed. The young Muslims mutinied against their training officers. Oplan Merdeka was about to be exposed. The government panicked and ordered the Army to silence the recruits forever in what is now infamously known as the Jabidah massacre.

A few survived (including one who would tell the story), but more than two dozen got killed, their bodies burned before being thrown into the sea by the Army's elite forces on board a presidential helicopter. The senator who did his own sleuthing and pushed for a high-profile congressional probe on the massacre -- and Merdeka -- was no less than the President's father, then Sen Ninoy Aquino Jr.

The Jabidah massacre was the spark that lit the Muslim rebellion. It also changed Malaysia forever.

Times were different then. The Philippines was ahead of its neighbors and was in the best position to claim Sabah. Malaysia seemed an easy target at the time: the Federation had just been born in 1963, Singapore had just broken away, and Indonesia was becoming a problematic neighbor.

Malaysia took Jabidah to heart; never again would it be vulnerable to its neighbors. Sabah began getting the attention it deserved through projects and a huge budget.

To spite Marcos, Malaysia welcomed MNLF rebels to its fold to the extent of arming and providing them sanctuary. Eventually the rebels got integrated into Malaysian society. This didn't cause problems in multi-ethnic Malaysia. Because while Marcos unleashed his sword to defeat Muslim rebels, Mohammad Mahathir took the more sophisticated path -- discouraging Islamic extremism by mobilizing and spending state resources to allow moderate Islam to flourish.

Teaching Misuari a lesson

Its porous borders, however, made it difficult for Malaysia to stop the entry of job-hunting Filipinos. The number of undocumented Filipino workers in Sabah reached 400,000 at one point. This would not have been a problem if not for the 1997 financial crisis that forced Malaysia to deport Indonesian and Filipino workers. In 1999, Zamboanga City felt the brunt as it witnessed the arrival of a few hundred deportees via commercial ships.

The situation called for bilateral cooperation. But then President Joseph Estrada had just thrown his support behind Mahathir's jailed opponent at the time, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and this severely strained the excellent ties that both countries enjoyed under the Ramos administration.

The situation turned for the worse in 2000, when Abu Sayyaf bandits kidnapped tourists on one of Malaysia's prime islands, Sipadan, brought them to Sulu, and earned millions of dollars in ransom. Malaysia deported about 700 Filipinos from Sabah after the incident, but denied it was a retaliatory move.

And then something happened in 2001 under the Arroyo government. Malaysia's old friend ran into trouble.

Misuari quarreled with the Arroyo administration and incited a revolt in Sulu. When the military moved against him, he counted on one ally to save him from getting jailed. On a pump boat, Misuari escaped to Sabah. Malaysia is a friend. Or so he thought.

Shortly after reaching the shores of Jiamperas in November 2001, the Muslim leader who once awed the Islamic world was handcuffed and detained by the Malaysian police. He was deported to the Philippines in January 2002, briefly detained on charges of leading a botched revolt in Sulu.

Malaysia's move proved how it regarded Misuari and how aware it was of its bigger priority -- to co-opt another rebel movement that was being lured by radical Islam. Thus its decision to host the peace talks between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

Harris’ RM 200m formula a non-starter

Posted: 03 Mar 2013 11:21 AM PST

Now we have heard it all from former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh. He wants the Federal Government to pay RM200 million of our hard-earned money in "compensation" to some riff-raff, for want of a better term, in the Philippines who claim to be "heirs" of the defunct Sulu Sultanate. At last count, there were some 60 claimants to the Sulu Sultanship.

Joe Fernandez

The "heirs" involved in the on-going standoff in Lahad Datu claim that the defunct sultanate owns the entire Sabah and has private property rights to it. The Brunei and Sulu sultans, terrified of the fierce headhunters, incidentally never ventured inland beyond the coastal stretches in Borneo. Under Adat, the entire land area of Sabah is NCR (Native Customary Rights) and belongs to the Orang Asal i.e. the Dusunic and Murutic Groupings. The Sovereignty of Sabah rests with its people. This Sovereignty has never been transferred to Brunei, Sulu, Spain, Britain, the Philippines or Malaysia. No Referendum was held on Malaysia in Sabah, Sarawak, Malaya or Brunei. In Singapore, the people were given the choice of a simple Yes or No vote: independence of Singapore through merger with Malaya via Malaysia.

We know from history that the Sulu sultan at one time used to extort tolls from terrified traffic along the waterways in eastern Sabah. Later, the extortionist activities were extended to the waterways in northern by courtesy of the Brunei sultan, the previous extortionist, who gave up this "right" to the former.

Brunei, Sulu claims not by war, conquest

These virtually criminal activities, by no means, confer territorial rights or any transfer of sovereignty which at all times resides with the people.

Neither the Brunei nor Sulu sultans can claim like William the Conqueror of Normandy, France that they acquired the ownership of the entire area by the act of war and conquest to set up a feudal kingdom. William defeated English King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and declared that he now owned the entire land area of England.

The sovereignty itself, the last time we heard anything about it ages ago, was "transferred"– if there's any such thing -- to the Philippines Government by one of the many pretenders to the Sulu Sultanship. Manila then had the claim to much of eastern Sabah inserted in the Philippines Constitution and maps and flogged the issue at the time of Malaysia in 1963.

Harris' suggestion obviously takes its cue from the fact that every year; the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines issues a check in the amount of 5,300 ringgit (US$1710 or about 77,000 Philippine pesos) to the legal counsel of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu. Malaysia considers the amount an annual "cession" payment for the disputed state, while the sultan's descendants consider it "rent.

By the Mackasie Declaration of Dec 13, 1939 by the High Court of Borneo in Sandakan in Civil Suit No. 169/39, C. F. Mackasie, the then Chief Justice of Borneo, ruled that nine Plaintiffs were heirs of the defunct Sultanate of Sulu and were entitled to the yearly RM5, 300 cession monies from the Malaysian Government.

Two versions of 1878 Agreement

The nine were listed as Dayang Piandao Kiram, Princess Tarhata Kiram, Princess Sakinur Kiram, Sultan Ismael Kiram, Sultan Punjungan Kiram, Sitti Rada Kiram, Sitti Jahara Kiram, Sitti Mariam Kiram and Mora Napsa.

Alfred Dent, the founder of the Borneo North Borneo Chartered Company, and the Sulu Sultan came to an agreement on 22 Jan 1878 and wherein the former agreed to pay the latter 5,000 Malayan dollars in annual pension money in return for "transferring the sultan transferring his rights in North Borneo" – meaning in eastern Sabah – to Dent and/or his Company.

On 22 April 1903 His Majesty Sultan Jamalul Kiram signed a document known as "Confirmation of cession of certain islands", under what he either "grant and ceded" or "leased" additional islands in the neighbourhood of the mainland of North Borneo from Banggi Island to Sibuku Bay to British North Borneo Company. The sum 5,000 dollars a year payable every year increased to 5,300 dollars a year payable every year.

British version of the 1878 Agreement

"hereby grant and cede of our own free and sovereign will to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck of Hong Kong and Alfred Dent Esquire of London...and assigns forever and in perpetuity all the rights and powers belonging to us over all the territories and lands being tributary to us on the mainland of the island of Borneo commencing from the Pandassan River on the north-west coast and extending along the whole east coast as far as the Sibuco River in the south and comprising amongst other the States of Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang, and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco river with all the islands within three marine leagues of the coast."

Sulu version of the 1878 Agreement

"do hereby lease of our own freewill and satisfaction to...all the territories and lands being tributary to [us] together with their heirs, associates, successors and assigns forever and until the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over all territories and lads tributary to us on the mainland of the Island of Borneo, commencing from the Pandassan River on the west coast to Maludu Bay, and extending along the whole east coast as far as Sibuco River on the south,..., and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco River, ..., [9 nautical miles] of the coast."

We don't know under what law the Dent-Sulu Agreements was made and whether it was registered in any Court. Philippine President Benigno Aquino has in recent days publicly indicated that his office will study the "legal basis" of the claims by the Sulu "heirs". If so, why did previous Philippine Governments raise the Sabah claim?

Easier for Company not to deal with Orang Asal

The Company subsequently "acquired further sovereign and territorial rights" from the Sultan of Brunei, expanding the territory under control to the Putatan river (May 1884), the Padas district (November 1884), the Kawang river (February 1885), the Mantanani Islands (April 1885), and additional minor Padas territories (March 1898).

It was easier for the Company to deal with the Sulu and Brunei sultans than with the Orang Asal of Sabah.

Meanwhile, in 1885, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany signed the Madrid Protocol of 1885, which recognized the sovereignty of Spain in the Sulu Archipelago in return for the relinquishment of all Spanish claims over North Borneo.

In 1888 North Borneo became a protectorate of the United Kingdom and remained so until 1 Jan 1942 when Japan, by the act of war and conquest, demolished the British presence in Sabah and the so-called Sabah claim, if any.

It was not until 1945, when Japan surrendered, that the Company returned to Sabah.

In 1946, the Company sold Sabah to the Colonial Office in London for Sterling 1.2 million.

The Mackasie Declaration is the only claim the "heirs" of the Sulu Sultan, recognized by the High Court of Borneo, have on the Malaysian Treasury.

There's no reason why Malaysia should unilaterally alter the sum mentioned in the Mackasie Declaration just because Harris Salleh woke up one morning on the wrong side of the bed and came up with "a better idea". Adat came long before the so-called agreements between the Company and the Brunei and Sulu sultans.

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.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Khamis, 7 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan