Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- It’s gerrymandering and malapportionment, stupid!
- Open letter to the EC
- The Hudud Boogeyman is Back
- Shrinking population of the Chinese and Indians
- Unite under UBA to Safeguard Borneo Rights
| It’s gerrymandering and malapportionment, stupid! Posted: 27 May 2013 02:44 PM PDT
FMT LETTER: From Stephen Ng, via e-mail Once again, the Election Commission has defended its position, instead of listening to the rakyat, that Malaysia's voting system will keep BN in power forever. By quoting the examples of a number of Commonwealth countries, including Britain, Australia, New Zealand and India, which uses the first past the post voting system, it is telling only half-truth – or in my opinion, a blatant lie – to the whole nation. No one is disputing that the first past the post is a fair system. If you have 222 members of parliament, and you have 112, you form the simple majority government and if you have 144 seats, you have two-third majority. During an interview with the Malaysian Insider, EC's deputy chairman, Wan Ahmad Wan Omar is still trying to hoodwink the nation, with what is on the surface. By doing this, Wan Ahmad is blatantly lying to the nation that the country's democracy is as alive as other more mature democracies in the world. However, what he has failed to do is to reveal the popularity votes in these countries, compared to a pariah system that is allowed to continue. In any case, if a similar situation had occurred in Australia, for example, the Members of Parliament from both political divides would have corrected the discrepancies by making sure that the government of the day represents as closely as possible the majority of the voters. Whereas Malaysia's Election Commission is only answerable to the prime minister, in these more mature democracies, the Election Commission as well as the other important organisations, such as the anti-corruption body, are answerable to the parliament.
What 505 Blackout is all about is nothing to do with the first past the post democracy. No one even disputes it, until Wan Ahmad raised it up in order to justify the position of the Election Commission. What the rakyat have been shouting about are two words: "Malapportionment," which means unequally-sized constituencies and "Gerrymandering", which means the manipulation of electoral boundaries to favour the ruling party. For example, Kapar has over 100,000 voters, whereas Putrajaya has only 6,000 voters. By studying the demographics of the country, it is possible to re-delienate the constituencies based on the voting patterns of the people. For example, based on a state constituency alone like Paya Jeras, a former Umno stronghold, which had collapsed to PAS for the first time in 53 years, the constituency can be broken into two instead of one. The voting stations give an indication of the voting patterns in each part of the constituency; therefore, it is easy for Umno to take back Paya Jeras, by redelineating the constituency to retain Kubu Gajah and Paya Jeras under Paya Jeras, while Aman Puri and Taman Ehsan goes under Bukit Lanjan. Although this is for the time being a hypothetical case, it is how gerrymandering has been taking place in the past. Because of gerrymandering, each constituency no longer follows the logical geographical area or the number of people represented by the elected Member of Parliament or State Assembly. N45 Selat Kelang is a very good example, where the entire constituency is separated by land and sea.
|
| Posted: 27 May 2013 01:04 PM PDT
I take issue with you misrepresenting my country in an attempt to silence both the widespread criticism of both Malaysia's iteration of the FPP system and the EC's conduct. Tessa Houghton, TMI Dear EC Deputy Chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, I wish to comment on your recent statements in an interview reported in The Malaysian Insider, dated May 27, 2013 (reproduced below): According to Wan Ahmad, the electoral system used in Malaysia is also used by developed countries that have been practising democracy for a long time. "Britain, already a few hundred years practising democracy, until now it uses first past the post... Australia, first past the post. New Zealand first past the post mixed a bit with the proportional representation (PR) system. India, the largest democratic country in the world, 800 million voters, first past the post," he said. The EC deputy chairman said it would not be possible for PR to win so many seats, including a few states, if the "first-past-the-post" system was unfair. New Zealand does not, as you state, utilise FPP "mixed a bit" with PR. It utilises the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP), which is distinct from simple/'single winner' FPP. New Zealand used to suffer under the same simple FPP system as Malaysia currently suffers from, which resulted in the right-wing National Party consistently gaining power despite a majority of New Zealanders voting for the left-wing Labour Party, and in a lack of recognition of smaller parties. Wide-scale electoral reform was undertaken in 1992 in response to huge dissatisfaction with the system, through a referendum that allowed NZ citizens to decide on their preferred voting system. Almost 85 per cent of New Zealanders voted to throw out FPP, with over 70 per cent voting to replace it with MMP. A 2011 referendum held to re-gauge New Zealander's voting preferences found almost 60 per cent of New Zealanders in favour of retaining MMP, and less than half of the 42 per cent wanting change expressing a desire to return to FPP. As such, your claim that NZ "uses FPP" and conflation of the two systems is a grave misrepresentation of New Zealanders' opinions on the system of FPP used in Malaysia. Ordinary NZ citizens understand the myriad voting systems available and have clearly registered their preferences. I take issue with you misrepresenting my country in an attempt to silence both the widespread criticism of both Malaysia's iteration of the FPP system and the EC's conduct. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/open-letter-to-the-ec-tessa-houghton/
|
| Posted: 27 May 2013 12:34 PM PDT
What many of the non-Muslims who support Hudud fail to understand is for Hudud to be implemented, the environment must also be right. I am not referring to the climate. I am instead referring to a conducive environment. Parwaiz Win Khalid Samad, "As far as PAS is concerned, the basis of our struggle and reference is the same and will never change,". "When we talk about Islam, we will talk about hudud. And obviously we'll never say we have given it up,". "Our struggle is to convince society to accept its implementation. All of Islam including its legal system will be part and parcel of our objective,". "Our struggle is to open up the society, have all our views presented and convince the public that there would be no harm if Islamic law is implemented,". Karpal Singh, "There is no change in our stand whatsoever. These matters have already been put away and for them to bring it up again now is not quite right,". "I speak on behalf of my party and not in any circumstances will it change its stand,". We are now a few weeks past GE 13 and the thorny issue of Hudud has come back to the forefront. I feel it is not my right to question the validity of Hudud or its effectiveness this day and age. This is god's law for the Muslims and I have always believed in respecting everyone's religious beliefs. I instead have another aspect I would like to explore which I feel a lot of people seem to have overlooked when discussing Hudud. A lot of opposition leaders have made it quite clear that Hudud will only be applied to Muslims; whether such a statement is just to garner the support of non-Muslims for PAS is anyone's guess. With this current development, I have read of many fellow non-Muslim opposition supporters who voice their support for Hudud since it is meant only for the Muslims and many feel with Hudud, UMNO leaders will either have their hands chopped off, their privates chopped off and etc. Overall, the general consensus among many non-Muslim opposition supporters is that Hudud will end UMNO's stranglehold on power and UMNO leaders will have to face Hudud for their alleged wrongdoings. Again, this is debatable and this too is not what I want to bring forward for discussion. For the sake of discussion, let's assume Hudud is implemented and specifically for Muslims alone. Let's not dwell on constitutional hurdles before Hudud can be implemented. Let us instead look at the dynamics for Hudud to be implemented in Malaysia. At this juncture, I hope everyone will put aside politics and truly try to understand what I am trying to bring forward. This is food for thought and by the end of the article, if I have not made you to think in a rational manner with regards to Hudud then I can confidently say you did not put aside political affiliation when you processed what you have just read. Imagine now Hudud is implemented In Malaysia and it is only applicable to Muslims; one might say, lovely, it does not affect the lives of non-Muslims. If you believe this then you are so far from the truth; maybe the implementation of Hudud alone will wake you up from day dreaming. Putting aside the logistics, manpower and etc to implement Hudud, what many of the non-Muslims who support Hudud fail to understand is for Hudud to be implemented, the environment must also be right. I am not referring to the climate. I am instead referring to a conducive environment. You lost me? Ok, let me get you back on track. Hudud is god's law and it is fair in principle and in spirit. But Hudud cannot be implemented not just because of logistics but also because for Hudud to be implemented the environment has to be ideal. Meaning, one cannot just impose Hudud and have clubs, bars, girls in micro minis, magazines with provocative pictures and many more things which will tempt those who can be charged with Hudud in direct contact with such temptations. Islam is fair; one cannot implement Hudud if temptations are readily available. Are you still following me? Hence, everything that can coax, tempt and rattle the soul of a man must be removed and he be given an environment where he will not go on a head to head collision with Shariah and Hudud. Besides providing legal means for discipline, Islam also provides non-legal teachings for the reform of society, which greatly help in curbing crimes. This implies that a state cannot absolve itself of its duties by just enforcing the Hudud; it is also responsible for creating an atmosphere that discourages the incidence of crime in the first place. With that being said, how is Hudud not going to effect the non-Muslims? One must be truly gullible to think otherwise. The primary foundation before Hudud can be implemented is the absence of motivating factors. How do we now ensure a fair chance … well, we will need to surely remove the motivating factors. This, my friends is a fact! Whether you like it or not, this is what is needed before Hudud can be implemented. And you still think Hudud for Muslims only will not affect you? Many might argue that we will practice a Malaysian version of Hudud; well my dear friends, there is only one version of Hudud. There is no such thing as a Malaysian version of Hudud. Islam is a fair religion and those that will be judged under Hudud will be given a fair chance. This is the spirit of Shariah and Hudud. It is not just a law to wield the axe; it is a law which gives those that will be judged an environment which is void of temptations which can lead to an action that runs contrary to Shariah. Again I ask you, how is PAS going to create such an environment and yet at the same time not affect the rights of non-Muslims? One cannot expect to have clubs, China dolls, skimpy dressed girls, bars, prostitutes, casinos and other things everywhere and not expect a person to be tempted. Be fair … Muslim are also humans and they too have weaknesses. Contrary to popular belief, they too have blood flowing in their veins. Was it not PAS who said they would shut down Genting Casino if they won? Why shut it down? Is this not a case of interfering with the rights of non-Muslims? I believe Nik Aziz even went on to say even other religions do not condone gambling. Is this again not a form of infringement on the rights of non-Muslims? What TG Nik Aziz has failed to see is that unlike Islam which does not waiver, many religions of this modern age have changed or to the least been liberalized with time. A classic example is how gay people are now able to get married. TG Nik Aziz's point of view is that of a Muslim and his failure to grasp that he should not equate the Islamic principles with that of other religions is what will effect non-Muslims if Hudud were to be implemented in Malaysia. This does not mean TG Nik Aziz is wrong and the implementation of Hudud is wrong; it just means, non-Muslims will be affected. Finally, allow me to make one thing clear; this is not about if Hudud is good or bad. This is to bring some kind of awareness to what it takes for Hudud to be implemented. So … my dear non-Muslims who seem to welcome Hudud with open arms but at the same time with eyes closed …. You still want Hudud?
|
| Shrinking population of the Chinese and Indians Posted: 27 May 2013 12:17 PM PDT
And more and more Chinese and Tamils or Indians are starting to realize that they will forever be classified as 'pendatang' or outsiders. Pendatang is not an immigrant. A pendatang is someone who is outside of the Nusantara or Dunia Melayu.
Mansor Puteh
I don't think the Chinese and Tamil newspapers will ever allow a Melayu to write a column in their papers extolling the virtues of the sekolah kebangsaan.
The truth is the Chinese and Tamils who study in the sekolah kebangsaan are better behaved. They also look pleasant, and are easy to deal with.
No Chinese and Tamil with the sekolah kebangsaan background is known to be chauvinistic in their attitude.
And no Chinese and Tamil or Indian in America, the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand or even France would ever want to or be able to send their children to the vernacular Mandarin or Tamil schools, where their communities could demand and expect to get land and financial aid from the respective governments.
Despite having the Pancasila, the Indonesian government will never give an inch of land or a rupiah for the establishment of Mandarin or Tamil schools in Indonesia.
This proves that the Melayu are liberal for allowing your column to be published in the NST.
But the trick here is to allow you to express certain slanted views on the matter concerning vernacular education, until it becomes apparent that it has failed even the Chinese and Tamil communities including the Melayu who studied there.
A high-ranking RTM official told me they could not get even one Melayu to read the Mandarin news because none is good with reading. I told him it would be fun to see a tudung-clad Melayu woman reading Mandarin news as much as the Tamil news.
Maybe RTM did not make an effort to get Melayu women to read Mandarin and Tamil news because that could cause an uproar amongst the Chinese and Tamil communities, like there are no Chinese and Tamil-Muslims in the country.
I am afraid the Mandarin and Tamil schools are the main reasons why many of the Chinese and Tamils are backward, economically.
How could they develop themselves if they stop schooling early?
Here are some facts that you should consider.
Most of the Chinese and Tamils who are involved in illegal and criminal activities are those with vernacular background; they could not find jobs in the government and private sectors, and therefore had to create new job opportunities for themselves.
The same with the late Lim Goh Tong who was not educated, who spoke simple bazaar Melayu and no English; he too had to get involved in the gambling business.
It was a major mistake made by Tunku Abdul Rahman to allow him to operate the casino in Genting Highlands as this one core activity had allowed the Chinese to expand their economy in Malaysia, which is largely based on those activities which Muslims consider to be haram.
Millions of Chinese are also indirectly involved in such businesses, especially illegal money-lending or 'ahlong', bars, massage, prostitution and other entertainment centers, after it became untenable for them to solicit funds from traders and small businessmen by extortion as what the early gang or triads had done in the country right up to the break of the 13 May, 1969 incident, all of which involved a certain degree of corruption to allow these actions to go virtually unnoticed.
In fact many of the factories operated by the Chinese in Selangor and in the other states have been known to be illegal despite them having been around for more than a decade.
How could all this go unnoticed if there is no corruption involved?
But the real problems faced by the Chinese in Malaysia today - the New Malaysian-Chinese Dilemma today is how they are displacing themselves living in ghettos created by the British, which includes the schools which sprouted in those communities called 'kampung baru Cina'.
The fast shrinking population of the Chinese is another cause of alarm for them so in another decade all the Chinese communities will be 'surrounded' by the Melayu who are encroaching their turf and businesses so much so that young Chinese will start to be happy serving as amah and drivers for the Melayu as what happened in the past.
Even Tunku Abdul Rahman had Chinese cooks and amah and gardeners at The Residency when he was prime minister, and he adopted Chinese babies.
My grant-aunt and few sisters-in-law were all former Chinese who were given to Melayu couples because their parents did not trust the Chinese to be able to look after them.
The new Malaysian-Chinese Dilemma is also mostly about how the Chinese realize that they do not belong in any race as the term Chinese is not a race as such; it is just a description of the people and citizens of China as much as the Indians who are citizens of India.
There are no Chinese or Indian languages.
But the Melayu exists as a race as there is the Melayu language.
And more and more Chinese and Tamils or Indians are starting to realize that they will forever be classified as 'pendatang' or outsiders. Pendatang is not an immigrant. A pendatang is someone who is outside of the Nusantara or Dunia Melayu.
Indonesians and other Melayu in Southeast Asia are not pendatang in Malaysia; they are perantau or saudara kita. They are not like the Chinese and Indians who are orang lain or orang asing.
Therefore it is good that the NST is kind enough to allow you to have a column. The trick, I believe, is to allow your stilted views on Chinese education to show their true colors as the population of the Chinese in the country shrinks further, as much as the economy of the Chinese.
So by 2050, there will be 80% Melayu and Muslims in Malaysia and just 15% Chinese and about 5% Indians.
|
| Unite under UBA to Safeguard Borneo Rights Posted: 27 May 2013 12:08 PM PDT
The strength of Borneo unity and role of Sabah and Sarawak as "Kingmakers" cannot be more emphasized than the position of the MPs from Sabah and Sarawak after GE-13 which has contributed a record 11 Ministers and 10 Deputy Ministers and with their own ministries unlike being "Menteri Jalan-Jalan" without portfolios under the PM's Department in the past. Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, Chairman STAR Sabah "The people and political parties of Sabah and Sarawak should unite under a single umbrella to safeguard Borneo rights and secure their future under the Federation of Malaysia" said Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, STAR Sabah Chief, in response to the various opinions on opposition unity in Sabah. Ever since the formation of Malaysia in 1963 and the ejection of Singapore from the Federation in 1965, the position of Sabah and Sarawak has been eroded and rights taken away through a series of subtle and not-so-subtle manipulations by the Federation of Malaya and their political leaders in Kuala Lumpur. The list of wrong-doings is long and ever-growing. The Malaysia Agreement was not implemented and thrown down the drain; Even the history of the formation of Malaysia is twisted and the false re-written history is taught to our young in schools. Malaysia never existed before 1963 and never gained independence. Yet we have been made to celebrate Malaya's independence since 1963 instead of Malaysia Day and Sabah's Independence is cast aside and not even confined to the history books as if it never happened. The Umno/BN propaganda machinery and brainwashing have been so complete that the young generations have lost their thought that Sabah and Sarawak are not supposed to be subservient States to Malaya/Malaysia but equal partners with special rights equal to Malaya. As can be seen from the results of the recent GE-13, the voters in Sabah and Sarawak were taken in by the concept of a "2-Party System" contest between BN and PR when in reality and in practicality, a "2-Party System" and Malayan-based political parties cannot best fight for the rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak. If the "2-Party System" is entrenched in Sabah and Sarawak in GE-14, the special rights and autonomy of the Borneo States will be lost forever and Sabah and Sarawak will be downgraded to and remain as the 12th and 13th states of Malaya/Malaysia forever. It is therefore imperative for Sabahans and Sarawakians to stand united under a single Borneo umbrella, both at state-level and jointly, which can champion and safeguard their rights and autonomy. We cannot rely on Malayan political parties, which sometimes have conflicting agendas, and their local proxies and stooges to safeguard Sabah and Sarawak rights and interests. The common platform for Borneo unity is already available under the UNITED BORNEO ALLIANCE (UBA). It is a matter of getting the relevant parties to work together and forging ahead to re-claim Sabah and Sarawak rights and autonomy. The strength of Borneo unity and role of Sabah and Sarawak as "Kingmakers" cannot be more emphasized than the position of the MPs from Sabah and Sarawak after GE-13 which has contributed a record 11 Ministers and 10 Deputy Ministers and with their own ministries unlike being "Menteri Jalan-Jalan" without portfolios under the PM's Department in the past. Even the 25 non-Umno BN MPs from Sarawak and 8 from Sabah could have toppled the BN federal government by switching camp to PR and in the process could have demanded the restoration of the rights of Sabah and Sarawak. That is the strength of Sabah and Sarawak in the current political equation in Malaysia. Unfortunately and ironically, instead of fighting for the rights of Sabah and Sarawak, the MPs and local BN components have settled for personal ministerial positions when they could have created history by restoring the rights of Sabah and Sarawak and at the same time maintain their ministerial positions in the new coalition/federal government. Not only are the rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak are at stake. The future of all Sabahans and Sarawakians are at stake. These rights, autonomy and future can be secured by a united opposition under UBA, both at state and joint Sabah/Sarawak levels, and there is no better alternative at the moment. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan