Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Suaris Interview: The Future of Malays #7
Hung Parliament More Likely Outcome of 13th GE
A citizen’s right
Dirty Tricks Department and the 1969 elections — Ahmad Mustapha Hassan
Did Najib lie to the nation?
Gift or Nightmare for Najib?
Tian Chua becomes Najib’s fall guy
Dr M targets emergency rule?
Sabah claim: A tale of two versions
Is Dr M really the devil?
The death of duty
Why ethics matter in reporting
Securing our borders

Suaris Interview: The Future of Malays #7

Posted: 09 Mar 2013 12:27 PM PST

To begin with, which mortal has declared that Malays are entitled to 30 percent? In which verse is it so written? Why 30 and not 60 or 20? Queried thus, it is obvious that the figure 30 percent is only the figment of someone's imagination, or more correctly, fantasy. Whether we control 20 or 60 percent of the economy would depend entirely on our efforts and initiatives, not based on some written parchment.

M. Bakri Musa

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 insignificant. They demand a bigger share of the cake, at least 30 percent. How can we achieve this target?

[The original appeared in www.suaris.wordpress.com on February 27, 2013

MBM: To begin with, which mortal has declared that Malays are entitled to 30 percent? In which verse is it so written? Why 30 and not 60 or 20? Queried thus, it is obvious that the figure 30 percent is only the figment of someone's imagination, or more correctly, fantasy. Whether we control 20 or 60 percent of the economy would depend entirely on our efforts and initiatives, not based on some written parchment.

I agree that our achievement thus far, and not just in economics, is far from satisfactory. It is in fact pathetic when you consider that UMNO, meaning Malays, have been ruling the country for over half a century. Whom can we blame – leaders or citizens?

Economic development depends of us, individually and as a society, having and running successful enterprises. A successful enterprise requires three essential capitals. Most are familiar with only financial capital – money. More important, and we do not emphasize enough, are human and social capitals. We provide literally billions in financial capital, but because we ignore the other two, our enterprises often fail or do not succeed well.

When I began my private practice in America, I did not have any money but because of the value of my human capital was high (being a surgical specialist), I had no difficulty borrowing from the bank. That reflects the primacy of human over financial capital. When your human capital is high, financial capital is not an issue.

The bank was not shy in lending me money even though I was a recent immigrant to America and had no friends or family to guarantee the loan. That reflects the high quality of America's social capital. The bank had faith in the system that I had received my medical credentials legitimately and not through corrupt or nefarious means. Consequently it had confidence in my competence and thus potential success as a private practitioner.

Had America's social capital been low and I could obtain my license through corrupt means or through a degree mill (there was a time in America in the not-too-distant past when that was possible), there would be no assurance that I would be competent. My patients too would sooner or later discover that I was a fraud or a physician in name only.

If American society has low social capital, the banks would not readily grant loans especially to a recent immigrant (pendatang as it were), non-white person (not an American Bumiputra, to put in Malaysian perspective), or someone who shares the religion as Osama bin Ladin. I might not repay the loan on the basis that interest payment is sinful!

Compare America's social capital to Malaysia's, especially Malays'. Could a competent Malay engineer who is a member of PAS get a loan from Bank Islam or land a contract with the UMNO government?

Jamaluddin Jarjis, former Malaysian Ambassador to United States, related how he had difficulty securing a loan from local banks to start his engineering consultancy firm in the 1970s even though he had a PhD in engineering from McGill, an elite university. Now that he is an UMNO strong man, they line up not only to lend but also give him money! That reflects the low quality of our social capital.

A few years ago a student at a leading American university had her scholarship withdrawn because her father was active in PAS. Again, that reflects our low social capital! A society with high social capital values the individual's talent and ability; a society with low social capital values who and not what he knows.

The problem of financial capital is readily solvable; not so with human and social capitals. If we do not elevate the value of Malay human and social capitals, there is no hope for us regardless how generous the quotas or lucrative the contracts we reserve for ourselves. We could kiss goodbye the 30 percent goal, or even the 20 percent!

To enhance our social capital, we must separate as far as possible the incestuous relationship between politics and economics. Granted, we cannot fully divorce the two as they are inextricably linked, but politics in Malaysia generally and Malay society specifically interferes with or more correctly poisons the other sectors especially economic.

Our academics are less scholars and intellectuals, more UMNO activists. Peruse their resume and intellectual output. No wonder they are caricatured as Professor Kangkong (pseudo scholars). The tragic consequence is not just the plummeting of the quality of our universities but a whole generation of young Malaysians are wasted.

If we do not have qualified local or Malay experts, don't hesitate in getting foreigners. Even America has many foreign professors. In all my school years in the 1950s I had only one Malay teacher (other than those teaching me Malay). Likewise at university, as I studied abroad. Yet I did not feel in anyway deprived academically or felt less Malay. Nor was my education inadequate or that I have fallen under the sway of foreigners.

I care only the competent and diligent to teach our students. There is no pride if they were taught by incompetent or less diligent Malay professors. Where is the pride of being operated by a Malay surgeon if you have to suffer the consequences of his inadequate skills? What pride is there if a Malay engineer were to design our bridges but there is more water flowing over than underneath them?

A society with high social capital values the expertise and talent of the individual, not his race, tribe or political views.

Consider the many government-sponsored enterprises like FELDA aimed at helping Malays. I would expect such entities to be led by competent individuals with at least an MBA and vast corporate or private sector experience, not discredited politicians and retired civil servants. Isa Samad, FELDA's head, has zero private sector experience; he could not even run a roadside coffee stall. What is his legacy after leading Negri Sembilan for decades?

To enhance our social capital we must value the competent and industrious regardless of their political sympathies (UMNO or PAS), religious preferences (hijab wearers or fond of gowns and jeans), or the singers they admire (Ito or Siti). We must also not be tolerant of those who are corrupt, incompetent or have repeatedly abused our trust in them no matter how much they praise us, or bribe us with our own (taxpayers') money.

In short, a society with high social capital practices meritocracy. I purposely avoided using that term as it is so often confused with or limited to mean only paper qualifications and test scores. Its true scope is much broader.

On another front, a society with high social capital saves diligently and is not wasteful. The act of savings goes beyond simply putting money in the bank and being prudent. It reflects an ability to think and plan for the future. Those who do so are more likely to thrive. A society with high savings rate has ample "capital formation" to finance economic development, as exemplified by the Japanese and South Koreans.

When Datuk Onn and Za'aba talked about "correcting" Malays, they meant that even though they were not aware of the concept of social capital. There is nothing wrong with Malay society; we need only enhance our social and human capitals.

If one has high human capital but lives in a society with low social capital, one could always migrate to where the social capital is high. Every year thousands of Chinese, Indians and Europeans leave their native land to do exactly that.

The quality of human capital is dependent on health and education. The first is obvious; if you sickly, you are not likely to be productive. The second is related to enhancing citizens' skills, ingenuity and diligence. Consider Proton; while manufacturing cars it could also train mechanics. Once the value of their human capital is enhanced, then only provide them with the necessary financial capital so they could open their own workshops. Do so and within a few years we would see Ahmad Auto Repairs and Mahmud Motorworks mushrooming in Malaysian towns. Who gets the franchise to operate Petronas stations at present? Politicians who have no idea the difference between struts and carburetors!

Likewise with contracts for canteens in schools and public buildings; those should be given to graduates of MARA catering programs. Once they have completed their training (thus have enhanced human capital), only then provide them with the financial capital and contracts. Once they are successful as canteen operators they would expand into their own restaurants and catering services.

Every year the government gives out for free valuable state land. Who gets them? UMNO operatives who are loath to get their fingernails dirty. Why not give those land to agricultural graduates of UPM?

Enhance our human and social capitals; the two are far more crucial than financial capital. If we ignore developing our human and social capitals we might as well kiss goodbye our 30 percent goal. Any other pursuits are but fantasy.

Cont'd.: Suaris Interview. The Future of Malays # 8: You have written much on improving our education. Is the present system capable of preparing Malays for the future? If not what should be done to improve, replace and overcome those deficiencies?

Hung Parliament More Likely Outcome of 13th GE

Posted: 09 Mar 2013 12:09 PM PST

Joe Fernandez

Anwar Ibrahim predicted in a Bloomberg Report carried by Malaysiakini on Fri that he will get a 10-seat majority in Parliament to collect 116 seats. He promises that there will be no witch hunts.

Since when did Anwar's predictions come true? Also, of course there will be witch hunts. It goes with the territory. Who's he kidding? Didn't he say that he will cancel all Petronas contracts to Mahathir's children? Ten seat majority would mean 111 seats + 10 = 121 seats. There are 222 seats in Parliament. Anwar would be lucky if the Malays who supported him in 2008 still stick with him. Malays generally support families and a system like Umno and Pas, not one-man shows like PKR. He can count on the new voters among the Malays and the younger ones.

Anwar can't deny that fewer Indians and Orang Asal would vote for PR, especially PKR, in the forthcoming GE compared with 2008. He should chew on that thought in the wake of his quarrel with Hindraf Makkal Sakthi and Jeffrey Kitingan.

Probably, in compensation, Chinese support for PR will increase even further especially in Sabah and Sarawak.

I predict that PR will get only 105 seats at the most, BN will get at least 107 seats, while the rest i.e. 10 seats at the most will go to the 3rd Force led by Jeffrey and P. Waythamoorthy.

Tengku Razaleigh, who wants to revive the Old Umno, would be willing to join a PR+ Government with 10 to 15 Old Umno seats since Pas wants him as PM and Dap supports the idea. No PM's post, No Razaleigh. Razaleigh won't join a PR+ Gov't if BN gets at least 112 seats on their own, i.e. without Jeffrey and Waytha, to form the Federal Government. Jeffrey and Waytha would be willing to join a Razaleigh Government provided he's willing to meet their demands. Waytha is a Kelantanese like Razaleigh. Jeffrey is close to both Waytha and Razaleigh.

Or Jeffrey and Waytha can add their seats to BN's 107 seats to take the total tally pass 111 seats. But will Razaleigh stick with such a Government especially when he wants to revive Old Umno, PBB may support PR and Sabah Umno may defect to PKR?

Jeffrey's and Waytha's game plan appears to be to support whoever is weaker to form the Federal Government. All the scenarios so far do not take into account strong rumours that MIC would pull out of BN and sign up with PR before the 13th GE once Parliament expires on April 28 or Nomination Day whichever comes first. It's best to cross the bridge when we come to it. Post-13th GE, Umno is likely to open its doors to non-Malays since BN in Malaya would be history.

Indian Polls Strategy for the 3rd Force

(1) Non-performing incumbents -- which means all -- must be thrown out;

(2) the Federal and state Gov'ts, whether BN or PR, must be brought down every GE;

(3) there's a need to weaken the Federal Gov't; and

(4) there's a need to demonstrate that Hindraf has more Indian support than BN & PR combined.

No MIC seat, even if not part of the 67 parliamentary seats & related state seats in Malayawhere Indians decide, must be left unchallenged by Hindraf.

BN may lose all seats where Malays form the biggest block of voters but are not more than 50 %. Umno will give these seats to BN. PR will field Malays here and has a good chance of winning all these seats especially if Hindraf supports it.

Umno will stand in seats which have more than 50 % Malay voters and will be challenged by PKR and Pas. No clean sweep here because the Malays are split and non-Malays, especially the Chinese, will support PR.

3rd Force Polls Strategy in Sabah, Sarawak

In Sabah and Sarawak, BN will not be able to repeat its performance of 2008.

Minimum 14 parliamentary seats -- Sabah 7, Sarawak 7 -- will fall to the opposition in the two Nations in Borneo i.e. five to Star (incorporating Usno) in Sabah; one (Mas Gading) to either Star or PKR in Sarawak; two (Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan) to either Star or Dap in Sabah; and six to Dap in Sarawak..

A citizen’s right

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 05:01 PM PST

Mahathir Mohamad, http://chedet.cc/

1. It would seem that some people are unhappy over my continued involvement in politics. As a retiree I should just retire.

2. I did in fact plan to retire in 1998. But events at that time forced me to defer. When the conditions in Malaysia had been stabilised after the currency crisis, I announced my retirement in 2002. But I gave the assurance that I would continue to support the party at all times as my elevation to the highest office in the country was due to the support of the party. To me it is payback time.

3. Unfortunately, under the policy and practices of the government which followed, the healthy growth of the country was hampered. The effect is still felt today. More seriously the attempts to reduce the economic disparities between the races have been neglected. Although the election of 2004 resulted in overwhelming victory of the governing BN party, there were clear signs that the popularity of the Party was deteriorating after the 2004 elections.

4. The 2008 Election resulted in heavy losses by the BN. The government it formed was very weak and the opposition took advantage by raising racist and religious issues. Where before there was relative harmony between the races, now there is open confrontation. Affirmative action was viciously attacked by the opposition and the government had to give in. And now religious issues are being even more politicised.

5. Clearly the opposition parties are bent on doing away with the attempt to achieve fair economic participation between the races. Without affirmative action the disparities would increase. This will not be good for Malaysian stability or economic progress.

6. Although the opposition also have a lot of Malays, it has been amply demonstrated that they cannot handle even the administration, much less the complex resolution of the disparities between the races.

7. Some would say that as long as Malaysians do well, it does not matter what race they belong to. Unfortunately in Malaysia we all insist on becoming identified by our race. We all want to preserve our languages, our schools, our culture and even the environment we live in. If the Malaysians who do well are of one race and the poor are of another race, the race which is less fortunate will resent the economic disparity between them. This can lead to disunity and tensions between races. It may even lead to violence.

8. As a citizen I have every right to voice my criticism or to support action by political parties. When I find that the opposition rejects the NEP, I feel a need to voice my fears for the future of this, my beloved country.

9. As much as my detractors have a right to object to my continued involvement in politics, I have a right to hold a different view.

Dirty Tricks Department and the 1969 elections — Ahmad Mustapha Hassan

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 11:39 AM PST

In Kelantan, we had to identify PMIP strongholds and what tactics had to be used to curtail their influence and if possible to isolate these areas in a way that would stop them from being able to come out and vote. In the plan, suggestions were put that communication to and from these villages be cut off during election time — destroy bridges for example.

By the year 1965, I had completed five years service with the Kedah state government, the minimum period of service for state scholarship holders. I was therefore free to leave the service. I applied for a post at the Ministry of External Affairs and was accepted. I wanted national and international exposure. My last post in Kedah was as Secretary of the Sungai Petani Town Council which also involved overseeing all local councils in the District of Kuala Muda.

I had to undergo an interview with a Special Branch officer to get clearance to join the service. Although I got through the security screening, I did not join the service as I was persuaded to become the Political Secretary to Senu Abdul Rahman who was then the Minister of Information and Broadcasting.

It was a challenging job as not only had I to do political work for the minister, I was also at the same time doing some press work, writing for the Department of Information bulletin and also for Radio talks.

I was also elected to the Umno Youth central executive committee. The Umno Youth leader was my minister Senu Abdul Rahman and the deputy was Ali Haji Ahmad, my senior at the University of Malaya in Singapore.

I was tasked by Umno Youth to take part in various workshops to prepare the youth members for work in promoting government policies and agenda and also to prepare them for the general election. They should be well prepared to answer questions from the public on what the government was doing.

We targeted Kelantan in our political work as the PMIP was strong there. Most workshops were held there. During that period of time, we were not paid by the party to carry out these activities nor could we claim from the Ministry for doing outside jobs. We had therefore to carry out some ministry work in order to justify our claims. As political secretaries we were paid in total RM1,350 a month.

Thus the foundation for dirty tricks department was established. This department grew and grew till today and used tactics as dirty as they possibly could be. The current RCI in Sabah has given some insight into what could be achieved.

Mostly, the political work had been concentrated in the rural areas as Umno feared that the rural population would turn to PMIP as religious issues were being used as bait to attract support. Umno had been very secular and urbane during this period of time.

The lifestyle had been very liberal. Almost at every function, drinks were liberally served and the "joget' was a very popular form of dance. There was much gaiety and merry-making at all these functions.

Preparations were more or less progressing well towards achieving victory for the '69 elections. Prospective candidates for the State and Parliamentary constituencies were being finalised.

Did Najib lie to the nation?

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 11:24 AM PST

Najib is wrong in making unilateral claims that Sabah belongs to Malaysia when historical legal documents and agreements may indicate otherwise.

Vidal Yudin Weil, Free Malaysia Today

According to the Manila Accord signed on July 31, 1963 and registered in the United Nations as document No. 8029, then Malayan deputy prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein (late father of the present Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak) met up with foreign minister Dr Subandrio of Indonesia, and vice-president Emmanuel Pelaez of the Philippines in Manila for five days from June 7 to 11, 1963, to discuss about the status of Sabah.

Consequently, it was agreed in writing by former Malayan prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman together with president Soekarno of Indonesia and president Diosdado Macapagal of the Philippines in paragraph 12 thereof:

"The Philippines made it clear that its position on the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia is subject to the final outcome of the Philippines' claim to North Borneo. The ministers took note of the Philippines' claim and the right of the Philippines to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the principle of the pacific settlement of disputes. They agreed that the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder. Moreover, in the context of their close association, the three countries agreed to exert their best endeavours to bring the claim to a just and expeditious solution by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the Bandung Declaration."

Subsequently on Aug 5, 1963 in a joint statement released to international media, the same also agreed in writing under paragraph 8 thereof:

"In accordance with paragraph 12 of the Manila Accord, the three Heads of Government decided to request the British Government to agree to seek a just and expeditious solution to the dispute between the British Government and the Philippines Government concerning Sabah (North Borneo) by means of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of the parties' own choice in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. The three Heads of Government take cognizance of the position regarding the Philippines claim to Sabah (North Borneo) after the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia as provided under paragraph 12 of the Manila Accord, that is, that the inclusion of Sabah (North Borneo) in the Federation of Malaysia does not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder."

It was undoubtedly stated from the above provisions of the Manila Accord and joint statement that:

the inclusion of Sabah into the formation of Malaysia is subject to the Philippines claim; and

the Philippines' claim on Sabah must be settled in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) run by the United Nations.

Therefore, until such time when the ICJ has decided, Malaysia does not have absolute ownership of Sabah.

Gift or Nightmare for Najib?

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 11:09 AM PST

Sabahans are now clearly paying for the sins of the much-touted Project IC or Project M (named after ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad), which opened the gates for illegal immigrants, thousands of them from the same Tausug community as the Sulu intruders, to become Malaysian citizens.

Kee Thuan Chye

The ongoing Sabah crisis could turn out to be the gift Prime Minister Najib Razak was hoping for to help his Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition to victory at the impending general election, which he has yet to call, or a ticking bomb instead.

In rejecting the ceasefire proposed by the Sulu Sultan whose followers landed in Lahad Datu more than three weeks ago to reclaim Sabah as their ancestral homeland, Najib has scored much-needed positive points. Already, even his detractors have expressed support for his stand. They now declare that for once, he is saying something "sensible", that they are agreeing with him "for the first time".

Some, however, are saying this is "the only right thing" he has done during the whole crisis. Nonetheless, if he manages to pull off a decisive victory over the intruders, votes, especially from fence-sitters, might actually drop to BN.

But Najib has to do it before the general election has to be held, the absolute last date for which is June 28. If the crisis is not resolved before the general election, his ineffectiveness as prime minister would be exposed. He needs to win the conflict decisively, like Margaret Thatcher won the Falklands War in 1982 and went on to resuscitate her flagging popularity at the UK general election the following year.

On that score, if there was indeed a conspiracy to stage the Sabah crisis as a gamble on the part of either BN or the Opposition, Pakatan Rakyat, to influence the election outcome, it would seem to have favoured BN more than it would have Pakatan. There's nothing like a war – or, in this case, armed conflict – to unite the people behind the Government against the common enemy. And victory would bring it even greater rewards.

On the other hand, however, the discerning ones among the electorate are aware that this is only the first time throughout the crisis that Najib is talking tough. Prior to this, his administration had approached the crisis in a manner that Malaysians found to be surprisingly too gingerly. The police instead of the army were entrusted with dealing with the situation, and talk in the form of diplomatic negotiations with the intruders rather than action to evict them characterised the first two weeks of the crisis. It was only when the intruders reportedly started shooting on March 1 that the Government was riled into action. But it cost the lives of eight Malaysian police officers that might have been saved if the Government had taken the offensive first.

This is something Najib and his government have to answer for. But more significantly, and going beyond just this crisis, is the larger reality that Sabahans are now clearly paying for the sins of the much-touted Project IC or Project M (named after ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad), which opened the gates for illegal immigrants, thousands of them from the same Tausug community as the Sulu intruders, to become Malaysian citizens.

This has become the biggest issue in Sabah and the focus of the ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate it. What the current crisis has invoked are the ghosts of Project IC and their potential to haunt the genuine Sabahans for a long time to come. The future for the latter will be filled with the possibility of threat arising from further aggressive forays by the Tausugs, kin of the Suluks who have now settled in Sabah as citizens.

Given this terrible uncertainty, genuine Sabahans might face the dilemma of whether to continue supporting the ruling party that has brought this upon them or to vote it out of power. If they choose the latter course, the crisis might turn out to be a nightmare for Najib instead.

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

Tian Chua becomes Najib’s fall guy

Posted: 07 Mar 2013 02:00 PM PST

No one is dishonouring the memory of the brave men who died defending Sabahans from invaders, but our leaders appear to be largely responsible for the debacle.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

Many lives might have been saved if Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak had apprehended the armed Suluks in Lahad Datu, with the same speed as taking legal action against the vice-president of PKR, Tian Chua.

On March 1, Tian Chua allegedly defamed Umno in an article on KeadilanDaily.com, entitled, "Shooting Incident in Lahad Datu Umno's Planned Conspiracy — Tian". Four days later, on March 5, Najib instructed Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to take legal action against Tian Chua for linking Umno to the armed intrusion in Lahad Datu.

Tengku Adnan said, "This is because the accusation is baseless and very serious with the evil intention of damaging Umno's image, reputation and credibility."

Malaysians are already aware of Umno's tarnished image, its terrible reputation and questionable credibility. Will Umno go after every individual who speaks ill of the party?

No one is dishonouring the memory of the brave men who died defending Sabahans from invaders, but our leaders appear to be largely responsible for the debacle.

It is common knowledge that our shores and borders are porous, but the government appears to have no remedy.

In the past weeks, illegal immigrants who are accustomed to living and working without hindrance throughout Malaysia are exercising more caution. In Sabah, they are staying away from their usual stalls and the corners where they normally trade. This security crisis has forced the police and immigration staff to be more conscientious in the checking of Identity Cards and other identification papers – in the past, they were very lax.

Marine patrols were increased following the kidnap of two Malaysians last November. It is a fact that there are several layers of intelligence and security surveillance, so how could more than 100 armed and uniformed militants enter Lahad Datu unchallenged? The apparent lapse in security lends credence to a conspiracy theory.

The timing

Another factor which goes against Umno is the timing. The breach in security happened in the critical days before the announcement of GE-13. Najib's popularity has dropped recently and it is widely believed that his intelligence services have predicted a crushing defeat for Umno.

A declaration of emergency rule would suspend elections and in that period, some political pundits claim that Najib would initiate all measures, both legal and illegal, to ensure a win.

Can anyone blame the talk of an Umno drama? Even the Election Commission (EC) chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof has warned of a postponement of elections in selected areas.

Details of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's "Project M" were disclosed in the Sabah Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), and confirmed the suspicions of many Malaysians. Sabahans began to look on each other with fear, apprehension and mistrust.

Mahathir's admission is tantamount to treason, but no Umno leader has censured him. Tian Chua may have been guilty of insensitivity, but Sabah's predicament was caused by one power-hungry, crazed former PM, Mahathir, who gave the nation away.

Najib ordered a probe into Anwar Ibrahim's alleged links with this incursion. He is trying to discredit the opposition, so why is Tian Chua being sued for defamation?

Mahathir caused outrage when he intimated that the slow response of the armed forces was because Muslim militants were involved and Muslim blood should not be spilt.

When news of 100 armed and uniformed men first broke, Malaysians feared the worst, but Najib continued his electioneering in peninsular Malaysia. Najib preferred to play politics and disregard the escalating hostilities.

Najib erred but did not dare admit his guilt and apologise for taking weeks to act. He and his ministers travel with security cordons; their homes are well guarded. They have no sense of urgency and are totally disconnected from the man on the street.

Najib ordered a news blackout and journalists were prevented from entering the area. So we sourced the papers in Manila for details about the incursion. Why should Najib blame people for incriminating Umno? Najib is to be blamed for hiding the truth.

To this day, we are not privy to the demands of the Suluk militants. There have been allegations that Najib had promised the militants land for resettlement. When he allegedly reneged on his deal, Lahad Datu was invaded. It is ironical that Najib was on a BN propaganda drive in Perlis promoting another "Janji-ditepati" stunt, whilst in Sabah, the Suluks invaded because Najib allegedly broke his "janji" to them.

READ MORE HERE

Dr M targets emergency rule?

Posted: 07 Mar 2013 12:13 PM PST

Having established a legacy of fame and fortune, Dr Mahathir Mohamad is not going to stand aside and watch his work destroyed.

Awang Abdillah, Free Malaysia Today

Dr Mahathir Mohamad is a worried man facing a mother-of-all-elections that "threatens" his 22-years of national development legacy, an extensive personal and commercial network and his personal wealth speculated to run into billions.

He is not going to take any chances.

In the aftermath of the 12th general election in 2008, Mahathir established an organisation called Perkasa whose existence is to launch the brinkmanship tactic with or without the approval of the powers-that-be.

He does not have the confidence that his successor-by-appointment Najib Tun Razak can execute radical measures to contain the rise of Anwar Ibrahim-led Pakatan Rakyat.

Therefore he has chosen to partner with Muhyiddin Yassin (Deputy Prime Minister). Together they are scheming to take on Najib before the general election. The duo will go to any and all lengths to plan radical strategies to beat the opposition using all available avenues.

Should Muhyiddin fail to dislodge Najib as prime minister and the latter refusing to take his orders, then Mahathir will go it alone.

With Perkasa as his running dog he believes he can still unleash a lethal force against the opposition. Already, Perkasa has issued warning signals to the opposition and the other races to toe the line.

These people are capable of triggering disturbances in the country compelling Najib to declare a state of emergency. As this strategy serves Najib's agenda, too, he will take it from there.

Do or die battle

Mahathir fears his own safety and the threats to his family business empire.

With these fears egging him, Mahathir will take the general election as his personal war with Pakatan, thereby forcing Najib to step aside. It will be a do or die battle for him.

Should Najib quit, then Mahathir has three arsenals at his disposal.

Muhyiddin as his front man would then forge a reciprocal arrangement with one of the major partners in Pakatan.

In the event of a neck-and-neck contest, any minor changes towards the finishing line may have profound consequences on the contesting teams, favourable or otherwise.

With money at his disposal, Mahathir can execute his vote-buying tactic before the GE and candidate-buying tactic before and after the GE to ensure victory for Umno-BN.

If these tactics don't work, then Mahathir will turn to Perkasa.

Being Mahathir's brainchild, it will take orders from him. It is believed that Perkasa's members are ready to trigger chaos in specific parts of the country and blame it on the opposition.

Sabah claim: A tale of two versions

Posted: 07 Mar 2013 11:03 AM PST

The great controversy with the Sulu Sultanate is whether the contract involving territories including Sabah was for a lease or a cession.

Raymond Tombung, Free Malaysia Today

Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III's defiance against calls for his army in Lahad Datu to surrender despite having lost his soldiers in a shootout with Malaysian security forces and his men's decision to "die in Lahad Datu" has stoked the curiosityof Sabahans.

His daring modus operandi in claiming Sabah as his rightful homeland has awakened the curiosity of many here who are in the dark or have only a vague knowledge about the historical background of Jamalul's Sabah claim.

Why did Jamalul make his move now? In his own words he can no longer "trust" the Philippine government to justly pursue his claim on Sabah.

The fact is the Philippine government has been inconsistent in its claim and on its recognition of the Sulu sultanate.

Many parties in the Philippines, including the pretenders who claim the throne of Sulu, have been speaking up more out of political expediency than of historical realities.

And it is obvious that Malacañang Palace – the seat of the Philippine government – itself has been making decisions on these issues based on changing political climates and pressures, blowing hot and cold to fit its own needs at the material time in violation of past treaties and agreements, even its own declarations.

Let's take a quick look at the history of the Philippines' changing position on Sabah claims.

Two versions of contract

In 1658 the Sultan of Brunei gave away the north and eastern part of what is now Sabah (not the whole of Sabah) to the Sultan of Sulu after the latter helped the Sultan of Brunei quell a rebellion in Brunei.

The most critical turning point in the whole issue of the Sabah claim began on June 22, 1878 when a contract was signed between Sri Paduka Maulana Al Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Alam – representing the sultanate as "owner and sovereign of Sabah" – and Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent, representing the British East India Company (later named the North Borneo Company) as the "lessee" of North Borneo.

The great controversy here is whether the signing of the contract was for a lease or a cession.

How history came up with two conflicting versions of this contract is difficult to understand.

The British version of the treaty says that "… hereby grant and cede… all the territories and lands being tributary to us on the mainland of the island of Borneo… 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".

The Sulu version says, "…do hereby lease of our own freewill… forever and until the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over all territories and lands 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…"

If you lease something "forever and until the end of time," can you reclaim it?

Now the question is which version is real?

Madrid Protocol

On July 22, 1878 – one month later – the "Bases of Peace and Capitulation" was signed by the Sultan of Sulu and Spain in Jolo in which the Sultan of Sulu relinquished the sovereign rights over all his possessions to Spain.

This means thereafter the sultanate no longer had the right to claim North Borneo of Sabah.

But Filipino writers argue that North Borneo was not mentioned, therefore not included in the "possessions".

But what did "all his possessions" mean if it didn't include everything he owned?

In 1881, North Borneo had its first government under the British North Borneo Company which was given royal charter by Britain.

On March 7, 1885, the famous Madrid Protocol was signed by Spain, Britain and Germany.

The purpose of the protocol was to recognise the sovereignty of Spain in the Sulu Archipelago and also for Spain to relinquish all claims it might have had over North Borneo.

Article III of the protocol states: "The Spanish government renounces, as far as regards the British Government, all claims of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu… which form part of the territories administered by… British North Borneo Company."

The sultanate was not involved in this protocol because despite the cession or lease to Overbeck and Dent on June 22, 1878, he had on July 22, 1878 surrendered "all his possessions" (by understanding including North Borneo) to Spain!

Didn't cession to Spain therefore nullify the claim that the June 22 treaty was a lease?

To confirm his surrender of North Borneo, Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed a document on April 22, 1903 known as "Confirmation of cession of certain islands," under which he either granted or ceded to British North Borneo Company additional islands in the neighbourhood of the mainland of North Borneo from Banggi Island to Sibuku Bay, which were not mentioned in the treaty of 1878.

Note that the document's title says "cession," not "lease" and that by the understanding of the Madrid Protocol he should no longer be authorised to cede any part of North Borneo.

Wrong translation of term

By 1915, the status of Sulu entirely changed because the Sultan had by then been stripped off all temporal power and retained only the empty title of Sultan.

Because the United States of America was not interested in the territory of North Borneo, the then powerless Sultan of Sulu was understood to continue keeping his sovereignty rights over North Borneo.

But remember, he had surrendered these in 1878 (if it was a cession) and in 1903 under the "Confirmation of cession of certain islands".

Then in 1935, the Philippine Constitution was promulgated. It stated (in defiance of all contracts, treaties and the Madrid Protocol) that the national territory of the Philippines included, among other things, "all other areas which belong to the Philippines on the basis of historical rights or legal claims".

But strangely, a letter to the Governor of North Borneo dated July 28, 1936 from His Britannic Majesty's Consul General in Manila indicated that the Philippine government decided not to recognise the continued existence of the Sulu Sultanate.

By this year, therefore, the Sulu sultanate had come to an end.

But it is understood that the abolition of the Sulu Sultanate did not abolish the Sultan nor his line of succession, which can be interpreted as the sultan continuing to be sultan in a sultanate that no longer existed.

On Dec 18, 1939 the historic judgment of Chief Justice CFC Macaskie was made in the High Court of North Borneo in the civil suit filed by nine heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, including Sultan Jamalul Kiram II.

Macaskie ruled that the Grant of 1878 was a cession or sale, and that the money to be paid to the heirs was "cession money" and had nothing more to do with territorial property.

However, it is argued by the Philippines that Macaskie was relying on a wrong translation of the 1878 document (which was written in Malayan Jawi).

The Philippines claimed that the later translation said it was a "lease", based on the meaning of "pajak" or "padjak", which had been translated both as cession or lease (or rental).

Philippines recognises Sulu

Then in 1950, Congressman Diosadado Macapagal, together with Congressmen Lacson and Tolentino, sponsored a resolution calling the Philippine government to formally lodge a claim to Sabah.

Protracted studies were undertaken to support the claim.

These determined efforts led to the passing of a unanimous House resolution urging then President Diosdado Macapagal to legally reclaim Sabah.

Macapagal won the presidency partly by using the Sabah claim as an issue in his campaign.

In 1957 (according to Jovita Salonga), the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu issued a proclamation declaring the termination of the 1878 contract effective Jan 22, 1958.

The declaration was served on the British government for the return of the territory, but it was totally ignored.

The question here is: Did the heirs have any power to unilaterally withdraw the 80-year-old contract when the sultanate was no longer in existence?

In 1962, Sultan Esmail Kiram I handed over a Letter of Attorney to Macapagal to give the Manila government the right to claim "the territory of North Borneo and the full sovereignty, title and dominion are hereby ceded…" on the sultanate's behalf.

By accepting this handover of rights, the Philippine government again had officially recognised the continued existence of the Sulu sultanate and the office of Sultan of Sulu.

Is Dr M really the devil?

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.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 10 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan