Jumaat, 17 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Why Anwar Ibrahim is not Prime Minister Material – Part 1

Posted: 17 May 2013 12:41 PM PDT


I have since the first time I heard him speak found him to be a person who delivers grandiose entertaining lectures with little meaning. I found his speeches lack depth. 

Anas Zubedy 

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar will attest that there are two people who have been consistent about Anwar Ibrahim since his days in UMNO; a chap in USM Penang and myself. I have since the first time I heard him speak found him to be a person who delivers grandiose entertaining lectures with little meaning. I found his speeches lack depth. (Unfortunately, we can find many of these folks in the training and development business too).

I am not saying that Anwar has no outstanding talent. On the contrary he has some really outstanding competencies which I will elaborate in part 2 of this article. However, his strength does not match the capacity and skills needed for general management. This is especially for the number one position of a CEO or PM. As early as 1990, I predicted that he was unlikely to become Malaysia's Prime Minister – and if he did, he will not last for long. Events over the last two decades have proven me correct.

If you are an Anwar fan, or from Pakatan, or a supporter of the political coalition, before you go into conniption, spewing angry words, accusations, and going mad with this article, kindly note that I would have written this article even if Anwar Ibrahim is still in UMNO. I suggest you lend me your ear, and listen to my rationale. Thank you.

For a start, let me explain with three simple examples.

1)    When he was the Minister of Education he introduced Bahasa Baku – a more difficult way to pronounce words where we were told to pronounce BM words as they are spelt. For example 'teknologi' is pronounced as technolo-'ghee' and 'universiti' is pronounced as 'oo'-niversity – articulating the 'u' as per the pronunciation of the first syllable for oolong (tea). Historically, language especially the spoken variety does not evolve that way. You cannot force it on the population. In fact spoken words evolved from the more difficult to pronounce to one that is easier to vocalize. For example, in the English language we have the silent 'k' in knife, know, knight etc.

These are remnants of Old English, and wasn't silent at all but was pronounced along with the 'n'. This change is believed to have transpired sometime around the 16th to 17th centuries. Basically, "kn" was considered to be difficult to pronounce and it is much easier and comfortable to follow the "new" pronunciation "n". (Others: gn, hn, hl, hr, hw -to know more please Google phonotactics constraints). In modern day Indonesia when one says, "Ori", it is understood it means 'Original" as the language has evolved to make words simpler.

While we do not expect Anwar to know this as he is not a graduate of linguistic studies but top management must be equipped with the ability to ask the right questions to get to the right answers in order not to end up with such blunders.

2)    During his budget speech as the Finance Minister, analysts were made to pay attention to language rather than economics, the Dewan Bahasa Dictionary rather than to the calculator. That was Anwar's biggest contribution to the budget speech. Big Bahasa Malaysia words. Unfortunately, bombastic words cannot make an economy fly let alone help us out of the 1997 Financial Crisis.

As a young man I was rather worried when most Malaysians were debating the meaning of BM words rather than the budget allocation and plan. I felt that perhaps as Anwar is not that confident with economics, he focuses on showing off language instead. It ended with Anwar not truly explaining the budget and the nation not really understanding his speech. Sigh!

3)    A more recent example is the push to abolish the PTPTN. Accordingly, the loan scheme was approved during Anwar's time. Some say it was him who approved it too. Events today made it obvious that Anwar did not really understand the economics of the loan then when he sanctioned it. I am convinced that he has no idea on the repercussions of abolishing it in favor of free education for all. Loan schemes like PTPTN are not just good noble platform to help people; but rather it is also good economics and therefore good for business. Let me explain.

The purpose of business is to create customers.

Only when a business creates customers, do they add value to society. When a business creates a customer, it sets a chain reaction of interconnected, interrelated, and correlated businesses from raw materials to end products coupled with service needs like distribution and communications that is required for delivery and information. IN SHORT, BY CREATING CUSTOMERS, BUSINESSES CREATE JOBS. As such each time a business sells to one customer they touch the lives of thousands if not millions of people. 

Read more at: http://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-anwar-ibrahim-is-not-prime-minister.html 

What Happens Now to the Opposition and Change?

Posted: 17 May 2013 12:35 PM PDT


Many young people are now charged up to do something to bring about change. Some of them have even expressed willingness to help in ways like educating others about pressing issues and going into the rural hinterland. Pakatan should harness their energies, their eagerness.

Kee Thuan Chye 

Now that the 13th general election (GE13) is over and Najib Razak has been sworn in as prime minister and his Cabinet has been formed, what happens to the Opposition Pakatan Rakyat and the massive numbers of people who wanted change, as reflected in the popular vote?

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has done the right thing in not accepting the result of GE13 on grounds of fraud, and he has been going around rallying support for his cause, but where this will lead is highly uncertain.

Meanwhile, PKR strategist Rafizi Ramli has announced that Pakatan is investigating the results of 27 parliament seats which were won by the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) narrowly. If he and his team are able to prove fraud or wrong tabulation of the votes, there might be a case made for them. But where? In the courts? Would they get the justice they seek?

The harsh reality is, the system we have now and the rules made for it are heavily in favour of BN. Since the time when Mahathir Mohamad was prime minister, many rules were changed to favour the incumbent government – including controlling the judiciary, the Attorney-General's chambers, the media, the police, the higher echelons of the civil service, Felda, the universities and numerous other institutions – and they cannot be unchanged unless the present government is overthrown.

And to overthrow it is extremely difficult, as we have seen from the GE13 result. The fact that Pakatan garnered three per cent more of the popular vote and still lost the elections, and the fact that it managed to win only 89 seats from this while BN won 133 indicate clearly that gerrymandering has favoured BN beyond decent proportions.

If this continues to GE14, the Opposition may still not win at that one. Besides, in the interim, it may be further disadvantaged by an expected fresh exercise to redelineate the electoral constituencies. We can be sure it will be conducted to further benefit the incumbent. So, realistically speaking, Pakatan cannot possibly beat BN playing by the latter's rules.

As it looks, nothing short of a revolution can bring BN down. But that would not be the way preferred by most Malaysians, especially the middle-ground ones who want peace and stability. And given that we have not reached our economic limits, there may not be enough impoverished people with little to lose to support such a drastic move.

Read more at: http://my.news.yahoo.com/blogs/bull-bashing/happens-now-opposition-change-153643530.html 

What Betrayal?

Posted: 17 May 2013 12:31 PM PDT


Was there an agreement before the general election? Did Chinese Malaysians actually promise the BN their votes ahead of time?

P Ramakrishnan.

Discredited politicians are trying to denigrate the Chinese by accusing them of betrayal. What betrayal are they talking about? Do they indeed know what they are talking about?

When you talk of betrayal, it means going back on one's word. It means dishonouring a solemn pledge.

For this to take place there must have been a clear understanding and undertaking between two parties. In this case it would be the Barisan Nasional and the Chinese community reaching an understanding and pledging to vote in a mutually acceptable manner with regard to GE13.

Was there such an understanding and undertaking on the part of the Chinese community to vote for the BN? Who brokered this undertaking?

The entire Chinese community does not belong to any political party aligned to the BN to be beholden to it. Even if they were, they were not obliged to vote only for the BN. In the 2008 general election, even Umno members deserted the BN and voted for the opposition. Nobody then accused the Malay community of betrayal.

Why then are the Umno president and those in cahoots with him beating the war drum against the Chinese community and accusing them of betrayal?

As far as Malaysian voters are concerned, there was no report of any undertaking by Chinese Malaysians to vote for the BN. How then can the BN accuse the Chinese community of betrayal?

Half-baked politicians who know nothing about elections and democracy are talking nonsense when they accuse the Chinese community of betrayal. Why should anyone – especially the vast majority who had not taken up membership with MCA/Gerakan – even come to this arrangement when the elections are touted to be free and fair? They are in no way obliged to go the way of the BN.

When elections are conducted, the voters have the fundamental freedom of choice to elect whomever they choose to support. When that choice is denied, it is no more a democratic election. It becomes a farce which is mockingly peddled as free and fair elections.

Chinese Malaysians were even accused by Tun Dr Mahathir of rejecting the hand of friendship extended by the Malays to the Chinese. Mahathir is surely fishing in troubled waters!

Tun, when was this hand of friendship extended in exchange for voting BN? When was this conditional hand of friendship extended to the Chinese community before the GE13? Who was brokering for the Malays? And brokering for which Malays? You must surely realise that there are other Malays who do not belong to Umno and who are not whining!

What about the Malays in Pas and Keadilan? They are not complaining of any such betrayal!

It is only certain Umno members – in fact only a minority of them – who are making this scandalous claim to sour our peace and harmony. For selfish reasons and for self-preservation, these unscrupulous Umno members are making the ChineseMalaysians the scapegoat for Umno's dismal performance in the GE13.

Umno, the writing is on the wall for you. The sooner you take note of this the better it will be for you – otherwise it will be bye-bye for you! 

HINDRAF- Waythamoorthy Hero and Indian Malaysians Zero

Posted: 17 May 2013 12:17 PM PDT


Do you think Hindraf will be able to represent a segment of Malaysian society never before represented? You know and I know that it's not possible dealing with the warlords in UMNO.


M. Gunasekar


Wednesday evening, the Indian in country were left speechless by the announcement made by PM Najib that P Waythamoorthy been appointed as deputy minister.

The appointment of the so called former Hindraf leader P Waythamoorthy as a Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department has not gone down well with the Indian community, most of whom see it as a "betrayal to the Hindraf cause". 

Negative reactions from netizens flooded the cyberworld as they gave the thumbs down to Waythamoorthy's appointment as deputy minister.

Questions like: "What? Hindraf chief P Waythamoorthy is a deputy minister? PM Najib Abdul Razak, we Indians do not want him. He is a sellout. Waythamoorthy is a fraud who cares only for himself, not for the Indians."

One quoted: "Waythamoorthy, your fasting worked to your advantage. So this is what you wanted, now we know what others have been saying is true."

One pointed out: Waythamoorthy had pawned the self-respect and dignity of the Indians for his own interest.

One blasted: "The Indians in Malaysia will never forgive Waythamoorthy for betraying the trust of these marginalised and sidelined Indians."

One response: "I used to think he was courageous. I am not so sure of his objectives any more. After lambasting UMNO, why make overtures to Najib?"

One was puzzled: "The Malays are openly criticising race-based policies. Now, Waythamoorthy appears to incite Indians to back policies that champion only Indian causes."

PKR political bureau member Dr Xavier Jayakumar said; "Congratulations, he has sold out the Indian community to get a deputy minister's post in the Prime Minister's Office. Now we know why he was campaigning for a two-thirds majority for BN," he said.

Who can forget what was narrated by Waythamoorthy in one of his writings before:

"They [Umno] hounded us, harassed us and went to extreme measures to kill us off. They jailed our activists, they linked us to the LTTE, they confiscated my passport and put me in effective exile, they banned us and they used the police to harass us at every turn, they refused to recognize us or have anything to do with us at all. Yet we did not buckle. We resisted, we fought back, we got better organized as a group of activists and we kept going."

Suddenly you see a different Waythamoorthy defending Hindraf's decision to ink the deal with BN after the opposition failed to deliver its promises to the Indian community.

He claimed that the movement had a series of 24 meetings with Pakatan Rakyat leaders to get an endorsement to implement its five-year comprehensive blueprint for the Indian community since September 2012.

He also alleged that for five years it was "played out" by the opposition which was only good at making promises to the Indian community, but never fulfilling them.

Waythamoorthy also mentioned in his open letter dated 04 May 2013 to all Indian Malaysians the following, "We spent the months from September 2012 till April 2013 with the Pakatan Coalition trying to negotiate a deal. On the other hand we started the dialog with BN in late March and found a completely different attitude."

The fact is Waythamoorthy ignored the many MoU appeals that have been submitted to the BN government by various parties, including MIC and so far none have materialized.

My question to you Waythamoorthy is, is it so simple that within 2 months of negotiating a deal with BN you are able to gain for the Indians what should have been theirs rightfully and we will see the upliftment of the Indians in the country? Honestly speaking, it is not possible knowing that for 56 years the UMNO-led BN collation have ignored and marginalized the Indians in this country.

You claimed that MIC never stood up for the Indian poor - never. They just served Umno and themselves. Do you think Hindraf will be able to represent a segment of Malaysian society never before represented? You know and I know that it's not possible dealing with the warlords in UMNO.

Waytha remember this: You REAP what You SOW: Life is like a boomerang. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later, with astounding accuracy. 


Yes, Waytha Moorthy was desperate for the post, but for whom?

Posted: 17 May 2013 12:16 PM PDT


From the onset of it, Hindraf never promised that it will remain loyal to PR under all circumstances. Hindraf had always maintained that loyalty is issue-based, one that will be determined by mutual agreement and respect. As a result of PR's ditching of Hindraf, Hindraf was left with no other choice but to collaborate with those that Hindraf had previously condemned. 

Suguman Narayanan Ph.D 

Since my arrival in Malaysia for a short summer assignment, I read many political articles and had many interesting political conversations with voters about Hindraf and Attorney Waytha Moorthy.

A fair share of them scorned at Hindraf's collaboration with the Barisan Nasional (BN). Others disagreed with Waytha Moorthy' s acceptance of his appointment as a Deputy Minister in the PM's department. Some depicted him as a traitor or even worse, as someone who deserted his original ideals for position. Such disagreements and criticisms are understandable. I have great respect for freedom of speech. Such bold opinions are definitely welcome especially with Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and Bersih in recent days seeking the right to free speech.

While I admire these individuals for their courage and am sure they speak out of care for the country I must disagree with sophism. The failure to understand Waytha Moorthy and the Hindraf struggle resulted in specious arguments and nothing more than a series of allegations thrown at a noble individual.

Attorney Waytha Moorthy's ideas are original, far ahead of our time. He is a sort of a maverick, with unconventional and nonconforming ideas. Therefore it is difficult for some to understand the steps he took and the decisions he made.

Some of the accusations against him were strongly influenced by ideology while others were loyalty-based. Yes, Hindraf was at one time fiercely against the BN. That is the reason the organization held numerous meetings with Pakatan Rakyat (PR), with one goal, among others, to oust the BN.

The crucial question to answer here is why did Hindraf plot with PR to oust the BN? Hindraf had a single goal—to install a government that will instantly implement the Hindraf blueprint because the BN failed to do its share for the Indian community for more than 55 years. Waytha Moorthy had that one goal in mind—the improvement of the socio-economic status of ethnic Indians through implementation of the blueprint. After numerous meetings however, PR refused to sign the blueprint dumping Hindraf into a completely unexpected dilemma.

From the onset of it, Hindraf never promised that it will remain loyal to PR under all circumstances. Hindraf had always maintained that loyalty is issue-based, one that will be determined by mutual agreement and respect. As a result of PR's ditching of Hindraf, Hindraf was left with no other choice but to collaborate with those that Hindraf had previously condemned. Again this is issue-based, the original goal of improving the shattered lives of ethnic Indians.

The BN, unlike PR was willing to sign the blueprint. Hindraf agreed, and reluctantly threw its support behind the BN. Why didn't Hindraf push for seats with the BN? Again it is because the organization adopted a wait-and-see attitude before forging a long-term alliance with the BN. If the issues stipulated in the blueprint are not fulfilled, I believe Hindraf will leave the BN.

I mentioned earlier that many allegations made against Hindraf and Waytha Moorthy were influenced by ideology and loyalty. For these accusers, bond and devotion to a party is sacred. They loved Hindraf when Hindraf was with PR. As soon as Hindraf made a 180-degree turn, they began to show disdain for Hindraf.

Others failed to appreciate Hindraf's unique ideology-free stand. Both ideology and loyalty are important but there are things that are equally significant, such as issues. Some political issues deal with life and death matters including the survival of a community. In fact loyalty itself should be to the people we represent not the party.

PR promised to implement the blueprint but refused to sign it in writing. What do you expect Hindraf to tell the hundreds of thousands of struggling ethnic Indians if PR comes to power and not implement a verbal promise? These people waited patiently since 2008 for PR's help with little delivered in states run by PR. Don't you see that it will be the greatest disservice to the community if Hindraf relied on a verbal promise for the next 5 years?

Hindraf cannot take that chance. Sleeping with the enemy therefore naturally became the better option. Try telling a starving person to wait another 5 years because a strategic error occurred. Should any responsible organization end up in such a predicament?

Attorney Moorthy devoted the last 7 years of his life for the Indian cause. Therefore the cause is supreme, not loyalty to a party or ideology. This man sacrificed his livelihood. Additionally, he was prepared to sacrifice his life too as evidenced by his hunger strike that lasted 3 weeks. The cause took precedence. He is the best available choice for heading the unit within the PM's department to solve ethnic Indian problems in Malaysia. I cannot think of a more suitable candidate. Moorthy's perseverance, resilience, and altruism earned him the right to spearhead and steer the government's renewed efforts to improve the Indian lot in this country.

For those who hold on to the false dogma that Attorney Moorthy accepted the Deputy Minister post for selfish reasons, I can say one thing—he could have secured that a long time back if he wished.

If you are still unconvinced about the person, at least support what he stands for. Let us leave bitter feelings behind and move on. There is so much he can do for you as Minister rather than as Hindraf Chair.


Discontent in BN parties over Cabinet posts

Posted: 17 May 2013 12:04 PM PDT


(TMI) - All is not well among Barisan Nasional (BN) parties over the distribution of Cabinet posts as Sarawak's PRS has decided to reject its appointments while SPDP is also upset its four federal wins did not get the party anything.

Several senior Sabah Umno MPs are also grumbling that they were overlooked in the Cabinet appointments while other Umno lawmakers are disputing Hindraf's P. Waythamoorthy's selection despite him running down the government previously.

Media reports say Datuk Joseph Entulu Belaun will not take up his appointment as minister in the Prime Minister's Department and Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum has openly rejected being a deputy minister again.

BN secretary-general Datuk Tengku Adnan Mansor told Utusan Malaysia today that the coalition has accepted Gandum's refusal of his deputy tourism minister post.

PRS president James Masing said the majority of the party's supreme council members had agreed to reject Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's offer, saying they felt "sidelined" and "deserved to be treated better."

PRS gained six federal seats and SPDP four to add to BN's 133-seat haul, doing better than BN parties in Sabah, Sarawak and even the peninsula that were better rewarded.

MIC, which won four seats, got two ministerships and two deputy minister posts while SUPP and PBRS got full ministerships despite each winning only one federal seat.

"PRS and SPDP, which are rural-based parties, are not properly treated by the present government.

"The rural areas in Sarawak are Barisan Nasional 'fixed deposit'. If you don't take care of it, somebody will come by and withdraw it," Masing warned in a report by Free Malaysia Today.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/discontent-in-bn-parties-over-cabinet-posts/ 

‘Opposition chaos agenda’ claim

Posted: 17 May 2013 12:02 PM PDT


(NST) - 'MALAYSIAN SPRING' PLANS: Former DAP senator reveals 2012 email between party HQ and its leaders

PETALING JAYA: A FORMER DAP vice-chairman yesterday revealed that the opposition had long intended to initiate a "Malaysian spring" to overthrow the government through street rallies. Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim said the opposition had planned to create chaos since last year's Bersih rally and was now building up to nationwide protests, which were being organised to condemn a democratically elected government over so-called electoral fraud in the 13th General Election.

The former senator said he had evidence to back his claim in the form of an email which was sent out by DAP's chief of staff Foo Yueh Chuan to all central executive council members on April 26, 2012.

In the email, Foo informed the recipients that  she was coordinating the party members and leaders to participate in Bersih's sit-in rally at Stadium Merdeka on April 28 last year.

Tunku Aziz said he replied to the email making it clear that he was "in principle opposed to street demonstrations".

However, he said, DAP founding member Dr Chen Man Hin replied the email, saying that he was in support of the idea.

"Dr Chen said he would be 'delighted to participate in the sit-in (Bersih rally)'. He wrote that 'this may be the beginning of a Malaysia spring'," Tunku Aziz said reading out Dr Chen's response at a press conference held here yesterday.

Tunku Aziz said the email response itself was proof that the opposition backed illegal street protests for an "Arab Spring" kind of uprising to take place in Malaysia.

"Pakatan has been talking about Malaysian spring, they are not talking about flowers, but what the Syrians have been doing and the Egyptians or Libyans had done.

"This is very serious. This is about toppling an elected government...this is being done even when we operate under a democratic system. If you want to bring it (the government) down, bring it down through the ballot box. But they did not succeed and now they are forced to resort to street rallies."

Tunku Aziz, who was accompanied by former Selangor DAP publicity secretary Tan Tuan Tat, added that Anwar was quite open about his plan to organise and orchestrate large-scale, nationwide protests.

"Anwar is well aware that he is playing with fire but he is determined to create a dangerous environment of unease, fear and insecurity that could easily get out of control with predictable consequences."

Tunku Aziz urged the government to put a stop the rallies, as they posed a serious threat to national security and public order.

"The government must apply the full force of the law to stop the rot from setting in.

"Anwar's selfish act bordering on the criminal, has gone far enough..

Tunku Aziz was also not convinced when asked about Anwar's statement that the opposition would steer clear of any illegal street demonstrations to topple the government.

"Of course he would say that their demonstration is going to be peaceful...we are used to his lies.

"So whatever Anwar says, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, for example his Sept 16 notion that didn't materialise."


Ahmad Zahid: My statement in Utusan not racist, just practical

Posted: 17 May 2013 11:58 AM PDT


(The Star) - "I am not being racist... I am just being practical in saying such groups should go to countries where they can translate their political beliefs into reality"

Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has defended his statement which called for groups which did not accept the country's political system to migrate to countries with systems that suit them.

The Umno vice-president, who has been criticised for it, clarified that his statement was taken out of context by certain irresponsible parties.

"I actually said those who are not confident of our political system to berhijrah to countries with political systems that suited them.

"I am not being racist... I am just being practical in saying such groups should go to countries where they can translate their political beliefs into reality," he said yesterday.

Dr Ahmad Zahid said people should not read the statement out of context, urging readers to read the full Utusan Malaysia article.

He explained that Malaysia inherited the Commonwealth system and those who think that the system in the United States or other countries were more suitable could migrate there.

Dr Ahmad Zahid also lambasted the Opposition for disputing the general election results but recognising the results for Selangor, Penang and Kelantan, where they won.

"They are disputing the results very selectively," he said.


GST implementation to add up to RM27b to Malaysia’s income

Posted: 17 May 2013 11:57 AM PDT


(Bernama) - Malaysia will be able to rake in an additional income of up to RM27 billion if the proposed goods and services tax (GST) is implemented at seven percent, similar to neighbouring Singapore.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala said the new taxation mechanism can guarantee additional revenue of RM20 billion to RM27 billion, at maturity.
"At maturity, is when, every Malaysians starts to contribute towards the GST. It must be implemented as soon as Malaysians are ready to accept the mechanism," he added.
Speaking at the forum, 'GE13 – What it means for business?' here today, Jala said education on what the GST is all about and how it benefits the country's economy is very important, as well as for Malaysians to understand and accept the taxation mechanism moving forward.
He also said the GST will provide extra funds for the government to spend on the well-being of Malaysians, according to what was promised in the Barisan Nasional's manifesto, before the 13th general election.
"Even though a new tax is being introduced, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had committed to reducing corporate as well as personal income tax.
"This shows that the government wants a balance in every move that it makes, whether economically or politically," said Jala, who also heads the Performance Management & Delivery Unit (Pemandu).
Meanwhile, he denied claims that the pre-election promises made by the government, will increase the debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio, from the current 53%.
He said the government is committed to maintaining its debt at well below the 55% debt to GDP ceiling that it had set before this.
"At the World Economic Forum in Davos, when I proposed this Malaysian mechanism of keeping 55% as a ceiling for debt to GDP, many world economists and leaders said it was impossible.
"This is because Malaysia is very unique for still having its debt below 55%," Jala said, adding, as examples countries such as Singapore (100% debt to GDP ratio), United Kingdom (80%) and France (81%).
While claiming the 2020 high-income nation goal can be even achieved two years earlier, due to extensive government and private sector economic efforts, Jala said Malaysia is on track to report a budgetary surplus by 2020.
He said for the past four years with Najib as premier, the country's budget deficit had shown significant decrease year-on-year, and gave an assurance that the track record would continue.
"Last year, it was 4.5%, and this year we expect it to decrease to four percent. With all the efforts being taken, I am very sure the day will come when we can report the budget surplus." he added.
On the government's role in business, Jala said it would gradually move out of more businesses this year and in the future.
Through the Government's Role in Business (GRIB), he said the government had already pared down or even phased out its stake in 13 companies, from the 33 entities identified by Pemandu to do so.
"We are having monthly meetings on this chaired by the prime minister and attended by all the related company chiefs. 

"The government intends to exit its role in business. But it can never be done in one day. There will still be businesses that the government has a role, due to the importance of it in the daily lives of Malaysians," Jala added. 

Bugis PM, Javanese minister, new race relations policy in ever-colourful 1Malaysia

Posted: 17 May 2013 11:53 AM PDT


Race relations policy by the Javanese home minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi PhD


A Malaysian minister has announced new citizenship rules and a new housing policy for urban dwellers, in a sudden policy decision that is expected to make an immediate impact on race relations. It will also boost the minister's popularity in his party and chances of re-election to the Umno Baru party leadership council.

Catching members of the government and the public by surprise, the new minister of home affairs announced he was expanding his portfolio and would also become the minister of foreign home affairs.

He said Malaysians who comprised the 51% who voted against his Barisan Nasional party should emigrate to countries with a proportion representation voting system, so that they could practise their political beliefs.

The 51% voting majority comprises Malaysians of various ethnic communities descended from immigrants from neighbouring parts of South-East Asia.

The new minister, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi PhD, who is of Javanese descent, was appointed to the cabinet by the prime minister, Najib Razak, who is of Bugis descent.

He made the announcement in a column in the Utusan Malaysia newspaper owned by Umno Baru, and which is read mainly by those in the 47% minority of voters, comprising ethnic Malaysian Malays working in government or living outside towns.

The 51% voting majority comprises a total of 5.6 million Malaysians of various ethnic backgrounds: many are descendants of immigrants from southern China, southern India and Ceylon in addition to the new urban burgeoisie comprising descendants of immigrants from the neighbouring regions of the archipelago and South-East Asian mainland.

Questions of land titles

As yet there has been no reaction from members of the Orang Asli aboriginal tribes as to whether they will now make a claim to ownership of lands vacated by the 5.6 million urban Malaysians told to emigrate.

The new policy announced by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi PhD, the Javanese, introduces a volatile element into the potent brew of Malaysian ethnic relations, and also on Malaysia's relations with foreign countries, many of whom supply a steady flow of New Malaysians, and other countries who are traditional recipients of Rejected Malaysians.

There has been no reaction by the foreign minister, Anifah Aman, who is a Muslim native tribesman from Sabah. A diplomatic silence is also being observed by the exporting or importing countries affected by the ruling.

Republicans and Democrats

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi PhD, the Javanese, said the 51% majority Malaysians should preferably emigrate to republican countries.


Say who you calling coloured? I'm black. Brown, but black.

The coloured Kenyan from Hawaii. Say, who you calling coloured? I'm black, man. Yes, brown, but black.

There was no immediate reaction from the US Republican Party, which is largely composed of people with European parentage and classified as white, although mostly pink.


However, political observers noted that the leader of the Democratic Party had recently made a widely-publicised telephone call to the leader of the Barisan Nasional.

The Democratic leader, Barack Obama, is of Kenyan parentage suspected of being born in the offshore territory of Hawaii, and is classified as black, although mainly brown and sometimes purple.

A multi-coloured nationality

It is not known what he said to the leader of the Barisan Nasional, Najib Razak, who is of Bugis ancestry, and also mostly brown but who sees himself as rainbow-coloured. His rivals and challengers, however, see him as being mostly yellow and chicken.


Najib Razak is the son of the famous Bugis lawyer warrior Tun Abdul Razak of Pekan, who benefited from a palace coup that overthrew his leader Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, noted for his Siamese ancestry, horses and poker.


The palace coup had brought about by the Ultras, among whom was another Bugis, Harun Idris, leader of a minority government in Selangor, and future government leaders Mahathir Mohamad, variously described to be of Malayalee descent bordering on Tamil, and Musa Hitam, of Johor Malay-Chinese descent married to a Bolivian.

Read more at: http://uppercaise.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/bugis-pm-javanese-minister-new-race-relations-policy/ 

Bishop: Polls anything but free and fair

Posted: 16 May 2013 06:29 PM PDT

Bishop Paul Tan explains that while he abstains from partisan politics, he supports electoral watchdog Bersih in its cause for free and fair polls.

RK Anand, FMT

An outspoken Catholic cleric has cast aspersion on the 13th general election with regard to the battle for Putrajaya being clean and fair.

Bishop Paul Tan said this in reference to the report of the Institute of Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) and Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS).

"IDEAS and CPPS have done an interim report. In it, there is this conclusion: 'GE13 was only partially free and not fair'. I find it difficult to believe that the report could conclude this…

"But when it concluded 'only partially free' for the three reasons given that are fraught with irregularities as reported in the said report, the people involved are not objective," he said.

"From the multiple examples of irregularities arrived in the report, permit me to use a stronger phrase than that of IDEAS and CPPS: GE13 is anything but transparently 'free and fair'," he added.

Tan, who heads the Malacca and Johor diocese, conceded that he could be wrong but stressed that he was morally obliged to speak out at this time because of the immorality practiced before and during GE13.

"If I didn't speak up, I would have to answer to my God and my Church," he said.

Tan said while he obeyed the Catholic Church's teaching that clerics must not take sides in partisan politics, he noted that the church also taught that clerics must speak out against immoralities and against all that go against human rights.

"As a religious person in my role as bishop, I am in a dilemma vis-a-vis to what extent should I allow a certain degree of immorality or infringement against human rights to go on unpunished before denouncing them publicly," he added.

For a long time, Tan said, there had not been sufficient action taken against immorality in its widest sense, especially corruption.

"Some attempts have been made by related government departments to deal with the matter. In 'grosso modo', it has not been effective. Only a few small fish have been caught, the big fish was left untouched.

"The consequence of this 'laissez faire' lifestyle is that it has produced massive corruption, cheating and immoral manipulation of the people to garner votes for one's political party.

"Unfortunately, this cuts across the boundaries of all parties. The degree lies in the extent of corruption," he added.



Sedition charge against Sri Muda assemblyman stands

Posted: 16 May 2013 06:16 PM PDT

Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei has also been implicated in the sand mining corruption scandal

(Bernama) - The sedition charge against Sri Muda state assemblyman Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei over alleged blog postings stands.

This follows a decision of the Court of Appeal here today to dismiss his appeal to have his sedition charge struck out.

Mat Shuhaimi wanted his sedition charge be struck out as he disputed the constitutionality of Section 4(1)© of the Sedition Act 1948, the provision in which he was being charged.

A three-member panel led by Justice Datuk Abdul Malik Ishak in their unanimous decision ruled that Section 4(1)© was constitutionally enacted by Parliament.

"The section remains a valid enforceable law until today," said Abdul Malik who presided on the panel with Justices Datuk Azhar Mohamed and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh.

Justice Abdul Malik ordered Mat Shuhaimi, 45, to appear before the Sessions Court in Shah Alam on June 5 which was set for mention of his sedition case.

The panel, however, allowed Mat Shuhaimi's application to stay the trial at the Sessions Court pending his appeal to the Federal Court against today's decision.

Justice Abdul Malik had granted the stay order applied by Mat Shuhaimi through his lawyer Edmund Bon and deputy public prosecutor Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud did not object to the application.

Mat Shuhaimi, the Parti Keadilan Rakyat assemblyman, was charged in 2011 with posting an allegedly seditious article in his blog, srimuda.blogspot.com on the appointment of Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi as the new Selangor State Secretary.

He was accused of committing the offence at Pusat Khidmat Rakyat, Jalan Anggerik Vanilla, Kota Kemuning, Shah Alam on Dec 30, 2010.

Mat Shuhaimi can be jailed up to three years or fined up to RM5,000 if found guilty.

On April 1, 2011, he filed a notice of motion at the High Court in Shah Alam seeking to have his sedition charge struck out on grounds that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional as it conflicted with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which guaranteed freedom of speech.

On Aug 26, 2011, the High Court in Shah Alam dismissed Mat Shuhaimi's application to strike out his sedition charge.

He subsequently lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal.


Zahid Hamidi should be asked to resign (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 16 May 2013 05:13 PM PDT

So, yes, we too in the UK were not happy with the system. And we 'sold out' the ruling party and 'toppled' the government because we were not happy with the system. But no one told us if we are not happy with the system then we can get out of Britain and go live in another country. If they had done that they would have been crucified. They would have been hung upside down from the nearest tree. We would have nailed their balls (or tits) to the wall.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

The first thing that Home Minister Zahid Hamidi did on taking office was to tell Malaysians who are not happy with Malaysia's political system to leave Malaysia and go live in another country.

If Zahid were a British Cabinet Minister, by now he would have been asked to resign. In the UK you are forced to resign for an even lesser offense than that. And he would have had to resign, no two ways about it. 

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak should, at the very least, demand that Zahid publicly apologise to Malaysians. Forcing him to resign is the correct thing to do but at the very least he must be made to apologise.

Is Najib prepared to demonstrate to Malaysians that he is really serious about his transformation program by doing this? The ball is now in Najib's court. I would suggest Najib walk the talk and do something about this rather than pretend that this never happened.

Look at the two graphics below. In 2010, 23% of us (yes, me included) voted for Liberal Democratic, an opposition party, because we wanted political reforms. However, because of gerrymandering, our 23% of the popular vote gave us only 57 of the 650 seats.

Now do you know why we wanted political reforms? Even though we won 23% of the popular votes we won only 8.8% of the seats. What a bloody unfair system!

The only silver lining in that dark cloud is that the ruling party, Labour, as well as the main opposition party, Conservative, both did not win enough seats to form the government either.

They needed at least 326 seats to form the government. Labour won only 258 seats while its challenger, Conservative, won 307 seats -- both less than the required 326 seats to form the government.

The insult to this injury is that Labour won 39.7% of the seats with 29% of the popular votes while Conservative won 47.2% of the seats with 36.1% of the popular votes. And this also meant that with just 65% of the popular votes (less than two-thirds majority) they could have won 87% of the seats in Parliament (way above two-thirds majority).

What the hell! Bloody unfair, is it not?

Well, we from Lib Dem, the 23% or almost a quarter of the voters, were bloody pissed about this. How can we win 23% of the votes and yet win only 8.8% of the seats while Labour (the government) and Conservative (the main challenger) win only 29% and 36% of the votes respectively and yet win 40% and 47% of the seats each respectively?

Before the election we already knew that we were going to see a hung parliament. We knew that no party was going to win enough seats to form the government. In fact, probably 90% of the British citizens knew this and the media was talking about it every day. Hence no one thought that anyone was going to be able to form the government.

Before the election, Lib Dem said that in the event of a hung parliament it would choose Labour as its partner in a coalition government. But that did not happen for two reasons.

One was that Labour's 258 seats added to Lib Dem's 57 would give the coalition only 315 seats, still short of the 326 it required to form the government. Hence Labour plus Lib Dem cannot form the government either. Only by teaming up with Conservative, where the total would now come to 364, could it happen.

Secondly, Labour promised us electoral reforms, which was not good enough, while Conservative promised us political reforms (which would include electoral reforms), which is a better deal.

Hence for two reasons Lib Dem 'sold out' Labour, as Malaysians would normally say, and went to bed with Conservative.

Hence also, the Labour government was 'toppled', as Umno loves to say, and 59% of the voters controlling 56% of the seats formed the new coalition government.

So, yes, we too in the UK were not happy with the system. And we 'sold out' the ruling party and 'toppled' the government because we were not happy with the system. But no one told us if we are not happy with the system then we can get out of Britain and go live in another country. If they had done that they would have been crucified. They would have been hung upside down from the nearest tree. We would have nailed their balls (or tits) to the wall.

And what was it that Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said? Ah, yes, Malaysia is a country with a first world infrastructure but a third world mentality. How true!

Zahid Hamidi, apologise! Najib Razak, sack him if he refuses to apologise.







原文:Raja Petra Kamarudin



内政部部長再希·哈密迪Zahib Hamidi上位后所作的第一件事就是叫那些不滿馬來西亞選舉系統的人離開本國到其他地方去生活。


















Step down as PKR state chief, Kamarul told

Posted: 16 May 2013 03:57 PM PDT

M Ravi claims that Kamarul won the Teluk Kemang seat because of the excellent service rendered by three assemblymen.

Zefry Dahalan, FMT

Port Dickson state assemblyman M Ravi has urged Telok Kemang MP Kamarul Baharin Abbas to step down as Negeri Sembilan PKR chairman.

He claimed that Kamarul is to be blamed for PKR's defeat in several Negeri Sembilan seats in the just concluded 13th general election.

"Kamarul used his power to field candidates as per his wish without consulting with division and grassroots leaders. This is the reason we (PKR) lost many seats, which we should have won.

"He must be responsible and must step down as state PKR chairman voluntarily. If he loves the party, it's better to do it now before the 'disease' becomes worse. He should step down from the state chairman post and concentrate on his job as MP for Telok Kemang," he added.

Ravi said that Kamarul should make way for young leaders to spearhead the party in Negeri Sembilan.

According to Ravi, PKR could have won the state seats of Ampangan, Pilah and Linggi if the party had fielded candidates who worked through various activities including charities and assistance to poor at the respective constituency for the past four years.

"These candidates are PKR supreme council member and Seremban PKR deputy chief, Dr Mohamad Rafie Abdul Malek in Ampangan; PKR Kuala Pilah treasurer Kamarul Allaymmy Abdul Kadir in Pilah and Telok Kemang PKR deputy chief Rusli Abdullah in Linggi.

"However, Kamarul decided to field 'parachute' candidates including himself in Ampangan, Mohamad Nazaruddin Sabtu in Pilah and Rosman Jonet in Linggi," he added.

Kamarul's track record poor

Ravi said these three candidates went down to the ground only after the nomination day, and 15 days is not enough for parachute candidates to familiarise themselves with the ground.



Is beer halal or haram? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation

Posted: 16 May 2013 03:25 PM PDT

Now, what I do not understand is: why emphasise 'on a Chinese woman'? The Chinese scream that they are not racists. Yet they send me this very racist e-mail. This woman was humiliated or treated badly. That is wrong. Period! But to play up this issue as a racial issue is more wrong. And this is what Malaysians like to do. They like to emphasise that so-and-so who is Chinese or Indian is a victim of such-and-such.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are some who say I am being too idealistic by comparing Malaysia to the UK. You have been in the UK too long you are no longer realistic, some say. Malaysia can never be like the UK because Malaysians do not have a mature mind like those in the west, some others say.

Saying that Malaysia can never be like the UK because Malaysians do not have a mature mind like those in the west is as good as saying that YOU (those saying this) do not have a mature mind. 'Malaysians' here would mean the first party and not the third party. You might as well have said WE Malaysians, which means you included.

If you start off by believing that this or that cannot be done because WE Malaysians are backward then we will never move forward. This is just like the old folks of the pre-Merdeka days believing it is useless to send their children to school because they are better off planting padi. After all, sending them to Qur'an reading classes is good enough. What more do they need?

If the Malays had continued believing this then, until today, the Malays would still be in the padi fields. It took the British (more than 100 years ago) to convince four Malay Monarchs (Sultan Idris of Perak, Sultan Suleiman of Selangor, Yang di-Pertuan Besar Mohd Shah of Negeri Sembilan, and Sultan Ahmad of Pahang) to agree to the setting up of a school to educate the sons of the elite so that one day the Malays could take over the running of the country.

This school, the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (no longer a school for the elite), was the brainchild of R .J. Wilkinson, the Inspector of Schools for the Federated Malay States (F.M.S). In a letter to the Resident-General dated 24th February 1904, he wrote about "establishing at a suitable locality in the F.M.S., a special residential school for the education of Malays of good family and for the training of Malay boys for admission to certain branches of Government service."

A 1910 report said, "From this school the Government have great hopes that the sons of Malays of the Raja and higher class will be educated and trained on the lines of an English Public School and be fitted to take a share in the Government of their Country."

So, the Malays were dragged screaming and kicking into the 20th Century to receive an education in the British tradition -- in what was then known as 'the Eton of the East' -- so that they could one day become 'Brown Englishmen' in thinking and mentality but yet still retain their 'old values' regarding Malay customs and traditions and Islam as the religion of the Malays.

And that is why those of you who are in your 60s (like me), or in your 70s-80s, always lament that the Malays you knew back in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s were very different people compared to the Malays of today. You admired and loved the Malays of the old days but find the Malays of today very obnoxious and lacking principles, ethics, honour, etc.

Yes, that is very true. Just ask the Chinese and Indians who are in their 60s or 70s and they will sigh and talk about the good old days. And that is why those Malays, Chinese and Indians of my age (or older) can agree with what I say and do, while the younger Internet/social media generation whack me. You in your 20s and 30s (or even you in your 40s) just do not possess the same values that we do. 

Hence I would blame what we used to call back in the 1960s 'the generation gap' as being the reason for this. You do not understand the meaning of principles, ethics, honour, etc. To you, the ends justify the means. However, those of our generation would regard this as 'not cricket'. It is not winning that counts but how you play the game that was our code of conduct and ethics back in the old days.

But it would be useless to try to explain this to you post-Merdeka Malaysians. You have not received the type of breeding that we did back in the 1950s and 1960s. You have been corrupted by the education system that was 'modified' back in the 1980s. And that is sad because what we are seeing today is what I call 'The Ugly Malaysian' (after the 1958 book and 1963 movie 'The Ugly American').

Hmm…I wonder which Education Minister I should blame for this.

I received the e-mail below entitled 'HUMILITATING TREATMENT BY BULLY COPS.....on a Chinese woman'. A number of Chinese friends from various parts of Malaysia sent me this e-mail.

Now, what I do not understand is: why emphasise 'on a Chinese woman'? The Chinese scream that they are not racists. Yet they send me this very racist e-mail. This woman was humiliated or treated badly. That is wrong. Period! But to play up this issue as a racial issue is more wrong. And this is what Malaysians like to do. They like to emphasise that so-and-so who is Chinese or Indian is a victim of such-and-such.

And don't try to pretend that this e-mail being circulated has nothing to do with race. It is all about race. You want us to know that it is a Chinese woman who was humiliated by Malay police officers.

Lim Kit Siang said he feels sorry for Umno Youth chief and Rembau MP, Khairy Jamaluddin, who was appointed Youth and Sports Minister. "I am no friend of Khairy's but it is unfair to him that he is put in charge of one of the most minor posts in the Cabinet," he said, adding that Khairy was an Oxford University graduate and deserved better.

Actually, exactly 30 years ago, back in 1983, Anwar Ibrahim too was appointed the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports. But then Anwar is not an Oxford graduate like Khairy. Anwar went to Universiti Malaya. So maybe that is why Kit Siang did not feel sorry for Anwar back in 1983.

Ravinder Singh sent a letter to Free Malaysia Today (read the letter below) asking: "Is gerrymandering halal or haram?"

This is like asking is beer, which has only 5% alcohol, halal or haram?

Why do we even need to argue whether gerrymandering is halal or haram? If you really want to kira halus, the Westminster system of choosing the government itself is not halal. Malaysia's system is already un-Islamic. So why bother about whether gerrymandering is halal or haram when the system itself is in a way haram?

Let me put it another way. Ask any Malay-Muslim what makes a Muslim and he/she will reply anyone who accepts Prophet Muhammad as the Last Prophet and follows the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the Hadith, plus precedence.

Okay, now quote me one verse of the Qur'an regarding the Westminster system of government. None? Okay, if the Qur'an is silent on this issue, then you need to look at the Sunnah and the Hadith plus by using precedence.

How was the successor (caliph) to Muhammad chosen? The successor to Muhammad, Abu Bakar, was chosen by a committee after a three-day 'conference'. Umar, who was Abu Bakar's deputy, took over because he was the deputy (but he did not appoint any deputy when he took over). Usman, the third successor, was appointed by a Committee. And Ali took over because he was the last of the four comrades of Muhammad still alive (but he was bitterly opposed by many).

So, was there any Westminster system in appointing Muhammad and his four successors to the leadership? Hence is Malaysia's system Islamic? And hence, also, should we worry about whether gerrymandering is haram or halal when the system itself is not halal?

Beer is not haram. It is the alcohol in the beer that is haram. So alcohol-free beer would be halal. So I suppose you can argue that a Westminster system without gerrymandering is like alcohol-free beer. Why bother to drink beer then? You drink beer to get high. You play gerrymandering to make sure that the minority can rule over the majority.

And is this not what politics is all about? Even the committee that decided on Muhammad's successors was a minority decision and the majority just had to accept what a handful of people decided.

Is that halal or haram, Ravinder Singh?


Is gerrymandering halal or haram?

FMT LETTER: From Ravinder Singh, via e-mail

Just days ago well known Malaysian cleric Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin stated that it was haram for Muslims to incite tensions between peoples of different races and religions. While his words are still ringing in the ears, more racist words have been spewed out. No one, not even the Chief Executive, seems to care about what Asri pointed out.

Asri was surely not giving his personal opinion, but stating a fact from the teachings of Islam. When racist words continue to be spewed out by people in high and privileged places, what is to be made of the "haramness" of their actions?

Now, one of the main complaints about our elections and not just the 13GE, is about gerrymandering. This is not something that was raised only after the elections but had been raised long before that.

Gerrymandering is clearly about cheating in the elections by giving undue advantage to a certain party over its opponent(s). It is cheating because the ruling party does not have any right, legal or moral, to change electoral boundaries to favour it. The Constitution does not give it any such right.

The cheating is done by manipulating the boundaries of the constituencies such that supporters of the ruling party are put into smaller groups (constituencies) and the non-supporters into very much bigger constituencies. This is how with about 47% of the popular vote the BN has about 60% of the Parliament seats.

How does the EC find out who supports whom? Very easy. Votes are now counted in the very same room they were cast. Voters are streamed into the different rooms based on their residential locality, which is only a short distance from the polling station. Thus based on the results from each room, i.e. a maximum of about 600 voters in a stream, the EC can draw maps showing the voting trend of each locality with great accuracy.

Each locality's votes are therefore no more secret as the EC knows what percentage of a locality voted for whom. This information is then used to draw up new electoral boundaries. In fact our votes are no longer truly secret as the EC knows how voters in a small area voted.

The new electoral boundaries are drawn in such a way that the ruling party will have advantage over its rivals. In other words, it is like moving the goalposts.

So, could anyone please tell us whether gerrymandering, which is a cheating game, is halal or haram? This is very relevant as Malaysia is said to be an Islamic state. The non-Muslims, I'm sure, would like to know whether an Islamic State condones cheating in this way to remain in power?

Let it be remembered that the Constitution orders the EC to ensure that the number of voters in the different constituencies must be approximately equal. In Padang Rengas P61 there are only 28,518 voters but in Kapar P109 there are 144,159 voters.

Now, in the eyes of the EC, is it halal to say that the number of 28,518 voters in Padang Rengas is approximately equal to the 144,159 voters in Kapar?





原文:Raja Petra Kamarudin





如果馬來人到現在還是有這樣的思想的話,那他們將還只是生活在稻田而已。在100年前英國人得苦口婆心地説服4位馬來君主(霹靂的Sultan Idris,雪蘭莪的Sultan Suleiman,森美蘭的Yang di-Pertuan Besar Mohd Shah,還有彭亨的Sultan Ahmad)建立學校來給貴族子弟供書教學以便有朝一日馬來人能夠自行管理國家。

這閒學校就是瓜拉江沙馬來學院Malay College Kuala Kangsar(現在已經開放給非貴族),而它是當時聯邦馬來亞(Federated Malay StatesF.M.S)學校監察員R .J. Wilkinson的智慧結晶。在他1904224號寫給當時地方總督的信裏提到:"。。。坐落于F.M.S 一個適當的地點,一閒專門供給馬來名門望族教育的特別學校和訓練馬來男孩以便他們日後能考進特定的政府部門。"













Ravinder Singh Free Malaysia Today寫了封信 (請讀以上原文) 問道:"不均選民分佈是違法halal還是合法的Is gerrymandering halal or haram?"









這又是HalalHaram呢,Ravinder Singh? 

Malaysia: Authoritarian Leader Lures Investors With Promise of “Responsible” Dams

Posted: 16 May 2013 02:19 PM PDT


Companies that invest in the Sarawak dams are still exposed to the risk of becoming embroiled in corruption scandals, human rights violations, and conflict. Unfortunately, for some investors, this is not a deterrent.  

Kirk Herbertson, Southeast Asia Policy Coordinator, International Rivers 

The Malaysian state of Sarawak is the new star of the global hydropower industry. Located on the island of Borneo in Southeast Asia, Sarawak is largely unknown around the world. Five years ago, Sarawak's ruler Mr. Abdul Taib Mahmud announced that he will "transform Sarawak into a developed state" by building 12 large dams in the state's remote, tropical forests. He argues that the dams will produce an abundance of cheap electricity, which will attract heavy industry and create jobs. Reuters has called Taib's scheme "staggeringly ambitious," especially since the dams will produce 450% more electricity than Sarawak currently needs.

Mr. Taib's scheme has caught the attention of the world's leading hydropower companies. Next week, on May 20-25, Sarawak will host the industry's world congress, which is organized every few years by the International Hydropower Association (IHA). The IHA's mission is to demonstrate that large dams—which are often a source of controversy—can be built in an environmentally and socially responsible way. The IHA is now promoting Sarawak as an example of responsible dam-building that brings profit as well as local development.

Sarawak has a dark history of dam building, having completed the disastrous Bakun Dam in 2011 after five decades of delays. The project is widely criticized for displacing 10,000 indigenous people and leaving them in impoverished conditions, while much of its electricity remains unused. However, Mr. Taib says his government has learned lessons from the Bakun Dam and is committed to do a better job on the next 12 dams. IHA is advising the Sarawak government and will showcase its efforts at next week's congress. The Sarawak government will also use the opportunity to reach out to potential investors.

Doing business in Sarawak requires buying the favor of Mr. Taib, who has ruled Sarawak since 1981. Corruption is well documented. The government carefully controls the information that reaches the public, and journalists are forbidden from scrutinizing Mr. Taib. This creates serious risks for investors who want to steer clear of corruption and human rights abuses. 


The IHA has helped the Sarawak government to make modest improvements in its dams. Yet this has not been enough. To date, IHA's efforts have been largely cosmetic and do not address the real challenges of investing in Mr. Taib's dams.

Read more at: http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/267/malaysia-authoritarian-leader-lures-investors-with-promise-of-%E2%80%9Cresponsible%E2%80%9D-dams 

Malaysians among world’s most bigoted, survey shows

Posted: 16 May 2013 02:03 PM PDT


(TMI) - Malaysians are among the least racially-tolerant people in the world, according to a survey by Swedish economists, who also revealed those from India, Bangladesh and Hong Kong as the most racist.

Researchers for the World Values Survey had aimed to determine whether racial tolerance was linked to free-market economics.

To gauge a respondent's level of racial tolerance, they posed a simple question. Respondents in more than 80 countries were told to identify whom they would not want as neighbours.

One possible answer was "people of a different race". The proportion of people picking this answer from any given country was then used to show the relative tolerance of that society.

Up to 29.9 per cent of Malaysians said they would not like living next to a person of a different race, which was approximately the same per centage in Thailand and the Philippines, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Mali and Zambia.

In contrast, only 9.9 per cent of Singaporeans were considered racially intolerant, marking out the republic as among the most open country in the world.

The data from the survey by Niclas Berggren and Therese Nilsson was recently mapped by the Washington Post to produce an "atlas of global tolerance".

"If we treat this data as indicative of racial tolerance, then we might conclude that people in the bluer countries are the least likely to express racist attitudes, while the people in red countries are the most likely," the Washington Post reported.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysians-among-worlds-most-bigoted-survey-shows/ 

Sindiran kepada Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif AirAsia X

Posted: 16 May 2013 01:42 PM PDT


Dalam hal suntikan twitter anda terhadap Utusan Malaysia, anda benar-benar betul. Bagaimana begitu berani akhbar ini menyuarakan apa yang majoriti orang Melayu sedang fikir? 

Fatimah Zuhri, Utusan Malaysia 

Jawapan sindiran kepada Azran Osman-Rani @ azranosmanrani

Komrad Azran yang dikasihi,

Sebagai rakan Melayu yang membenci dirinya sendiri, izinkan saya secara rasmi mengalu-alukan anda untuk menyertai Self-Hating Malay Club (SHMC). Di SHMC, moto kami adalah 'Untuk menyekat kebebasan bersuara/penyataan pendapat oleh orang Melayu'.

Matlamat kami adalah untuk menakut-nakutkan orang Melayu dan menjadikan mereka berasa tidak selamat, rendah diri dan bersalah.

Ahli-ahli SHMC direkrut secara jemputan sahaja. Berikutan anda telah menunjukkan sikap angkuh yang amat sangat dalam twitter anda, kami merasakan bahawa anda layak untuk menyertai kelab kami yang terkenal ini.


Dalam hal suntikan twitter anda terhadap Utusan Malaysia, anda benar-benar betul. Bagaimana begitu berani akhbar ini menyuarakan apa yang majoriti orang Melayu sedang fikir? Tindakan itu adalah tindakan orang kufur? Sebuah akhbar sepatutnya hanya melaporkan apa yang dianggap politik sebagai betul.

Ini bermakna anda bebas untuk menulis apa sahaja yang merendah-rendah dan menjatuhkan martabat orang Melayu, tetapi tidak akan menulis apa-apa kritikan terhadap orang Cina.

Jadi apa masalahnya jika akhbar-akhbar vernakular sejak sekian lama telah menulis artikel yang lebih bersifat perkauman dan sensitif sejak lima tahun yang lalu? Kami orang Melayu yang membenci diri sendiri hanya memahami bahasa Inggeris dan bahasa Melayu. Oleh itu, kami boleh memaafkan orang Cina yang telah banyak menderita.

Saya mencadangkan agar anda berhubung dengan rakan-rakan kami daripada Anti Defamation League (ADL) dan belajar daripada mereka bagaimana mereka mendiskriminasi dan membuli orang Islam dengan cara yang sangat canggih. Komrad Tian Chua akan dapat memberi anda nombor telefon berkenaan.


Orang Cina telah tinggal di neraka selama hampir 60 tahun. Mereka telah didiskriminasi dan diseksa oleh orang Melayu. Orang Melayu tidak pernah melakukan apa-apa untuk faedah orang Cina!

Jangan tertipu dengan perbuatan baik orang Melayu membeli dari kedai milik orang Cina dan pasar raya walaupun terdapat kedai Melayu berdekatan - orang Melayu hanya menipu.

Juga jangan mendengar orang yang mengatakan 90 peratus daripada 10 orang terkaya di Malaysia adalah orang Cina!

Itu adalah satu pembohongan! Itu bukan orang Cina! Mereka adalah orang Melayu yang telah melakukan pembedahan plastik untuk kelihatan seperti orang Cina! Ini adalah konspirasi BN! Orang Cina tidak boleh hidup di negara ini kerana keadaannya begitu dahsyat.


Kita di SHMC perlu melakukan apa yang orang Cina telah buat - Buy Malays Last! Cuba lihat pendapatan purata orang Cina demi kebaikan kita semua - mereka telah menderita begitu banyak komrad! Di SHMC, kami mahu memastikan bahawa tidak ada orang Melayu yang akan mempersoalkan orang Cina lagi! Jika ada orang Melayu yang berani untuk mempersoalkan motif orang Cina, kami di SHMC akan melaporkannya kepada PDRM yang korup.


Saya gembira kerana syarikat anda berkongsi warna korporat yang sama dengan rakan kita di Pulau Pinang (iaitu DAP). Adalah malang bahawa anda tidak bercakap sebelum Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-13 (PRU-13), jika tidak, kami boleh memberitahu komrad Kit Siang dan komrad Guan Eng mengenai anda. Anda boleh menjadi Yang Berhormat sekarang, bukannya bekerja untuk bos yang kapitalis!


Dari semasa ke semasa, orang mungkin bertanya mengapa anda boleh menjadi orang Melayu yang membenci diri sendiri. Pada SHMC, slogan standard kami adalah - Salahkan BN! Jika anda memakai seluar salah untuk pergi bekerja - Salahkan BN! Jika anak anda membesar menjadi anak tidak bersyukur - Salahkan BN. Jika hujan hari ini - Salahkan BN. Pada asasnya komrad, Salahkan BN untuk segala-galanya. Adakah anda faham?


Sila beritahu orang Melayu yang mudah terpedaya tentang kebenaran ini.

n Anda tidak pernah menerima sebarang bantuan daripada syaitan Darth Vader merangkap kerajaan Saruman iaitu BN. Beritahu mereka bahawa anda berjaya belajar di Stanford kerana terdapat pokok wang ajaib di belakang rumah ibu bapa anda.

n Beritahu mereka bahawa anda menjadi Naib Presiden Kanan (Dasar & Pembangunan) di BSKL yang dimiliki BN yang korup kerana anda mempunyai fikiran hebat seperti Einstein, bukan kerana seorang Melayu (bekas Pengerusi BSKL) memberi peluang kepada anda.

n Anda tidak menyertai ASTRO - sebuah syarikat yang dimiliki oleh kroni Mahathir. Sebaliknya, Utusan Malaysia telah mengklon diri anda dan meletakkan klon anda di sana.


Sebagai kesimpulannya, sila tweet lebih banyak kenyataan yang membenci diri sendiri pada masa hadapan. Kami di SHMC mengalu-alukan tweet anda. Jangan bimbang tentang PDRM. Mereka tidak akan menangkap orang yang mengkritik dan merendah-rendahkan orang Melayu, mereka hanya akan menangkap anda jika anda membuat kenyataan sedemikian terhadap orang Cina.

Secara peribadi, saya akan mempromosi syarikat anda, Malindo Air, untuk seluruh ahli keluarga dan rakan-rakan saya. Kami di SHMC akan mula memboikot AirAsia kerana Komrad Ambiga memberitahu kami Air Asia menerbangkan warga Bangladesh ke negara ini untuk mengundi dalam PRU-13.



Revisiting “democracy in plural societies” in transforming Malaysia

Posted: 16 May 2013 01:27 PM PDT

Will the minimal use of identities in election campaigns eliminate the ethnic and religious cleavages so deeply embedded in dominant ideologies and institutions in a Malaysian polity?

Beyond the short-term goals of winning elections, eliminating corruption, and ultimately achieving democracy, these are important deep-seated issues that need to be addressed among not only foreign observers like myself, but also Malaysian elites and citizens.

Kikue Hamayotsu, New Mandala

A well-established proposition in political science is that it is difficult to achieve and maintain stable democratic rule in a plural society (Lijphart 1977). Some also argue that competitive elections, a minimal procedural condition in a modern democracy, could potentially generate more instability and violence rather than rectifying them in such a society (Snyder 2000). Whoever comes into government, the challenges of maintaining delicate ethnic relations will remain the same in a deeply divided society like Malaysia. In spite of extraordinary economic, socio-cultural and political transformations over the past decades, the basic characteristics of Malaysia's "plural society" and ethnic-based party mobilisation have remarkably remained the same. Will Malaysia's increasingly "competitive" elections and more credible and assertive "multi-ethnic" opposition bring about more equity and stability, as promised by the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR)?

Beyond the short-term goals of winning elections, eliminating corruption, and ultimately achieving democracy, these are important deep-seated issues that need to be addressed among not only foreign observers like myself, but also Malaysian elites and citizens. What will a Malaysian democracy look like? Will the democracy à la PR be significantly different from a polity we have known in Malaysia under the BN in terms of equality and equity? Have issues, ideologies, and institutions of identity, ethnicity, and in particular religion, receded or increased as a result of more competitive elections? Do the opposition leaders have adequate political capital to settle these issues skilfully (and differently) to achieve a new democratic regime and peaceful society? Do they have a better vision of state and nation that they agree and commit themselves to in a long run? In order to address these questions beyond the immediate outcomes of the election, this essay seeks to place the recent political development in broader perspectives that pertain to the questions of identity, religion and ethnicity, based on the available data and tentative observations.

1. The political use of ethnicity and religion in election campaigns: political learning and ideological moderation

On the positive side, one thing that could be highlighted and commended in the recent election is that the use of parochial and divisive ethnic and religious identities and symbols for short-term electoral gains was not as significant as pessimistic observers may have expected. Sure, there were "racial" rhetoric and accusations circulated in media primarily by pro-regime forces. However, these racial and ethnic rhetoric and mobilisation aimed at inciting ultra-nationalistic sentiments has proven to be ineffective or counterproductive, as seen in the defeat of the ultra-nationalist candidate, Ibrahim Ali in his home state of Kelantan. Moreover, violence related to ethnic or religious divisions has largely been restrained. Overall, the PR has been reasonably successful in overcoming and limiting narrow parochial ethnic and religious sentiments in running election campaigns. Instead, they have focused on pragmatic—and universalistic—programs such as clean and fair elections, elimination of corruption and good governance.

Have such universalistic campaigns of PR worked for all the component parties to bring such an impressive electoral showing for the opposition? My quick calculation of the results seems to suggest some interesting (potentially worrying) findings and dynamics, beyond what already have been obvious and discussed, which merit our close observation and explanation. First, DAP is a clear winner while PAS is not, although PR contested parliamentary seats under single tickets. In the Peninsular (except Sabah and Sarawak), DAP won 28 (78%) out of 32 parliamentary seats they contested at the national level. By stark contrast, PAS won only 21 (36%) out of 59 seats they contested while PKR won 24 (41%) out of 58 seats (see Table 1 below). Second, so-called rising young "progressive" reformist leaders from PAS, Dzulkefly Ahmad, Mohamad Sabu, and Salahuddin Ayub, have lost not only in UMNO's strong hold, Johor, but also in Muslim-dominant districts in Kedah and Selangor where PR won handsomely both at the national and state levels.

With everything equal, these outcomes may not simply be attributed to strategic miscalculation (e.g., a wrong candidate in a wrong constituency) or dirty tactics of the government. Although more thorough research needs to be done, one thing is clear; PAS is not gaining much from their position in the coalition and their new "reformist" identity and leadership they have chosen to adopt at the expense of their traditional "Islamist" identity, policies, and leadership. PAS' support base remains exclusively in Kelantan as it was 10 years ago in contrast to a prediction that it has been transformed into a more open and national party.

Despite the deep ideological (and religious) differences and long-standing distrust between predominantly Chinese DAP and Islamist PAS, the PR has learned to work and stay together through what can be called "political learning" as well as a power-sharing formula they have crafted since 2008. Both parties, PAS in particular, have somewhat moderated their ideological positions and put aside their immediate goals they had been fighting hard for a number of years to gain popular support in their respective religious/ethnic communities. Now, it is argued, PAS is dominated by reformist and more urban (and secular-educated) young politicians. For them, an Islamic state based on Syariah (Islamic laws) is no longer the future of Malaysia. This new direction was a crucial step for survival of the coalition thus far because otherwise DAP would not have agreed to stay together. On the other hand, DAP's national vision, "Malaysia for All", has been revitalised to make a central slogan for the opposition. As the result seems to suggests, it worked so well to win the hearts and minds of Malaysian electorates especially in urban areas. These are clearly positive developments unimaginable a couple of decade ago, developments that the ruling politicians could not ignore, as seen in their "One Malaysia" slogan and programs. A big question is what would be an option for PAS now. Are the political and ideological costs they are paying small enough for them to stay as they are?



Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan


Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved