Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 09:57 AM PDT

Non-compliance raises the question of whether a compliance mechanism must be set up or whether both Sabah and Sarawak should appeal to the international community and the United Nations to facilitate the departure of the two states from the Malaysian Federation. Singapore has been a precedent.

Daniel John Jambun, Chairman of the UK-based Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BOPIM)

I will delve immediately into the subject proper of my Paper in conjunction with the forthcoming National Budget 2014 which will be unveiled by the Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak who is also the Finance Minister. Please bear with me. I will keep my address as brief as possible so that we may all ponder on the essential points that I am trying to make and which must be taken into consideration by the Federal Government.

I have nine major aspects to put before you as Food for Thought in view of the forthcoming National Budget 2014 and you may want to deliberate on them and post your comments below.

As many people know, the World Bank confirmed in Dec 2010 in Kota Kinabalu that Sabah and Sarawak had achieved the dubious distinction of bring the poorest and second poorest states in Malaysia. This is a figure derived at by using the figures of the Economic Planning Units of the Sabah and Sarawak Governments and the Economic Planning Unit in Putrajaya.

Forty per cent of Malaysia's poor, according to the World Bank, are in Sabah. This means that almost half of the poor people in Malaysia are in Sabah.

The poverty figures should come as no surprise since both Sabah and Sarawak are actually colonies of Malaya. More on that shortly.

Just contrast the economic development of Sabah and Sarawak with the status of neighbouring Brunei which stayed out from the Malaysian Federation at the last minute in 1963 and Singapore which left after two years in 1965.

By the end of 2010, the Singapore economy at US$ 210 billion GDP was bigger than the entire Malaysian economy by US$ 5 billion. This is indeed a shameful state of affairs and one that calls for the leadership in Putrajaya to admit that they are an incompetent and corrupt lot and beyond any redemption.

It would no longer do for Putrajaya to continue in a state of denial. Most of the much smaller Malaysian economy vis-à-vis Singapore is concentrated in Malaya.

Did Sabah and Sarawak federate, willingly or unwillingly, with Malaya and Singapore in 1963 to end up at the bottom of the dung heap along with the marginalized and disenfranchised elements of the Third Force in Malaya?

Patently, it's clear that something went seriously wrong for Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysian Federation somewhere between 1963 and 2013, the 50th year in Malaysia. Most of the damage to the interests of the two Malaysian Borneo states in fact took place in the early years of independence.

The population of Sabah and Sarawak may be much smaller than that of Malaysia but the fact remains that this is compensated by the larger territorial area of Malaysian Borneo comparatively, its huge economic resources including vast acres of fertile land and consequently much bigger economic potential.

This is not however reflected in the Malaysian Parliament where the number of seats allotted to Malaysian Borneo at presents stands at 57 including the one held by the Federal Territory of Labuan. Malaya meanwhile has 165 seats in Parliament i.e. more than two-thirds – 148 seats is two-thirds -- and thereby depriving Sabah and Sarawak of veto power in legislation. It is clear that 19 of the seats held by Malaya in fact belong to Sabah and Sarawak. That would have left Malaya with 146 seats i.e. short of the two-thirds majority and thereby give Sabah, Sarawak veto power in Parliament, as envisaged by the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (MA63), on any amendment to the Federal Constitution. Veto power is part of the Basic Features Doctrine implied by MA63 in the Federal Constitution.

The rot set in when Singapore's exit from Malaysia saw Peninsular Malaysia taking half the 15 seats held by the island in Parliament. This altered the previous balance in Parliament between Malaya on the one hand and, on the other hand, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak in the collective.

Malayan politicians like to make much of the issue that their much larger population must be reflected in the number of seats held in Parliament. If that's the case, why is it that Sabah with a much larger population of 3.2 million to Sarawak's 2.5 million has to make do with 25 seats in Parliament compared with the latter's 31 seats. If Sarawak's much larger territory vis-à-vis Sabah's and the latter's much larger population vis-à-vis the former's are both taken into consideration, both states should have the same number of seats in Parliament.

In any case, there's no dispute between Sabah and Sarawak on the allocation of seats in Parliament. It's immaterial whether Sabah or Sarawak, in comparison with each other, has a much larger number of parliamentary seats. The pertinent point is that Sabah and Sarawak, collectively, must have at least one seat more than one-third in Parliament.

The veto power of Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysian Parliament must be restored.

Malayan politicians routinely also claim that rural seats must be given a certain weightage to compensate for their relative under-development vis-à-vis urban seats. This is supposed to account for rural seats having a smaller number of voters compared to those in the urban areas.

If that's the case, why is this formula not being applied in Sabah and Sarawak, which are largely rural, along the same lines as in Malaya?

The gross under-representation of Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysian Parliament, and the deprival of their veto power in the process, has a direct co-relation to the grinding poverty levels in Malaysian Parliament.

It is recommended that no new Parliamentary seats be allocated to Malaya in future increases. If a moratorium is placed on their current 165 seats – to be taken as two-thirds minus one in a new equation or 34 per cent – some semblance of balance can be restored in the Malaysian Parliament.

Sabah and Sarawak's collective 57 seats, including Labuan, must be increased to 85 seats or 34 per cent for a Parliament of 250 seats. If the present 57 seats are deducted from the new proposed total, this gives us additional and new seats totaling 28 which can be shared equally between Sabah and Sarawak.

This will be reflected in the Malaysian Parliament as follows: Sabah 26 + 14 for 40 seats; Sarawak 31 + 14 for 45 seats; and Malaya still 165 seats. Grand Total: 250 seats in Parliament.

The composition of seats in the Malaysian Parliament must be considered together with the question of revenue sharing between the federal and state governments in general and in particular with the autonomous status of Sabah and Sarawak.

At present, the federal government takes all revenue from Sabah and Sarawak, leaving little for the states and leaving them with very little, if at all, revenue-raising powers. In return, very little of the federal revenue from Sabah and Sarawak comes back to the two states. This is the second major reason for the grinding poverty in Malaysia Borneo apart from unfair representation in the Parliament i.e. the first major reason.

The third major reason for our poverty is the fact that the federal government through Petronas gives only 5 per cent of the oil and gas revenue from the inner waters to Sabah and Sarawak and none from the water outers. Contrast this with the 70 per cent that the provinces are allowed to keep in neighbouring Indonesia. The central government in Jakarta takes only 30 per cent.

The fourth major reason for poverty is the fact that there's very little oil and gas infrastructure in Sabah and Sarawak. No attempts have been made to diversify the oil and gas sector through downstream activities and as well facilitate backward-and-forward integration.

The fifth major reason is that Borneonisation of the federal service in Sabah and Sarawak have been a non-starter and where implemented, non-Muslim natives and the Chinese and others have been deliberately left out in line with the vile racist master race policy of ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy and dominance).

The sixth major reason for the grinding poverty levels in Sabah and Sarawak has been the refusal of the federal government and their stooge governments in Sabah and Sarawak to respect the Adat.

Among others, this has seen the wholesale confiscation – with the active connivance of the police and Land Office -- of native customary rights (NCR) land and their alienation to the respective state government (by way of extension of forest reserves and the like), to state agencies, Government linked corporations (GLCs), federal agencies and private companies run by cronies of the ruling party. The phenomenon has been well-documented in numerous cases in court and in thousands of complaints lodged with the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) and at the respective Land Offices in Sabah and Sarawak.

This is a deliberate and systematic attempt to reduce the native communities of Sabah and Sarawak to the same pathetic situation of the Orang Asli in Malaya and the Indian underclass in Malaya displaced and dispossessed by the fragmentation of the estates and or their conversion for the purposes of urban development.

Stranded in urban shanty-towns with no personal documents, little marketable skills, often only a rudimentary education in Tamil, poor command of English and Bahasa Malaysia and without any social safety network, suicide is the only option for the Indian underclass given the reality of no upward social mobility. These are the people represented by Hindraf Makkal Sakthi, the NGO. These are the people taking to the streets ever so often these days and engaged in running battles with the police and authorities as they walk the path of urban guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

Likewise, the future of the natives companies in Sabah and Sarawak will indeed be very bleak without the social safety network afforded by NCR land. Therein lies the seeds of a bloody revolution in Borneo especially when our people start committing suicide, like the Indian underclass in Peninsular Malaysia, to opt out of a hopeless situation.

The native communities in Sabah and Sarawak are being pushed in the same direction as the Indian underclass in Malaya which is a whole lot worse than that of the Orang Asli who still has a little land with them. But for the Orang Asli, how much more time do they still have before they too start committing suicide on the scale of the Indian underclass. Poverty, as Mahatma Gandhi once observed, is the worst form of violence against a people.

The seventh major reason for the grinding poverty in Borneo is the fact that Sabah and Sarawak are being treated as two of the states in Malaysia. This certainly should not be the case if one reads the Malaysia Agreement carefully, the 20/18 Points and other relevant documents including declassified ones available in the United Kingdom.

Sabah and Sarawak were brought together by the British with Singapore and Malaya in 1963 to form the Federation of Malaysia as equal partners. This means that Malaysia is a two-tier federation i.e. a federation of states in Malaya which are part of a greater federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.

Hence, the federal government of Malaysia should be shared equally between Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak i.e. leaving out Singapore which has since quit the federation.

The departure of Singapore from Malaysia begs the question of whether the original federation in 1963 still exists or whether Sabah and Sarawak have been quietly incorporated as two of the states in the 1957 Federation of Malaya (now masquerading as Malaysia). This appears to be the case and must be considered seriously by our legal fraternity, the governments of Sabah, Sarawak, the federal government, the government of the United Kingdom and the United Nations.

Moving forward, it must be clear by now that after nearly 50 years of Malaysia, it cannot continue to be business as usual in Sabah and Sarawak.

Already, the federal government has been in non-compliance with the Malaysia Agreement.

It's unlikely that the Umno federal Government, obsessed with ketuanan Melayu, will ever consider any compliance mechanism for the Malaysia Agreement or give justice, belated as it may be, to Sabah and Sarawak. This must be borne in mind by those who are currently flogging the Borneo Agenda with the hope that the federal government will come to its senses. It may be a case of too little, too late.

The departure of the British colonialists in 1963 in fact saw the handover of our two nations to new colonialists in Malaya i.e. those who believe in the vile and racist master race policy of ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy and dominance).

The ketuanan Melayu policy in Sabah and Sarawak is kept going by local proxies of the ruling elite in Putrajaya and their stooges and rogue elements. These lackeys of Putrajaya are traitors who have participated in the colonial divide-and-rule policy of keeping the Chinese and majority non-Muslim natives out of the political mainstream and from the leverages of power.

To add insult to injury, they have willingly participated in the marginalization and disenfranchisement of their fellow countrymen through the placement of illegal immigrants on the local electoral rolls and the grant of MyKads through the backdoor by Putrajaya. What happened to the security promised us by Federation in 1963? This is the eighth major reason for the grinding poverty levels in Sabah and Sarawak.

Even more than the Chinese and non-Muslim natives communities, it's now the local Muslim native communities that are feeling the brunt of marginalization and disenfranchisement. They see their already small stake under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution being shared with the instant natives created from among the illegal immigrants.

In Sabah, local proxies of Putrajaya have now been dispensed with and Umno itself has struck roots to take half the seats in the state assembly and half the Sabah parliamentary seats. To mask their true intention, they invited MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the PPP from Malaya along for company and recently came up with the so-called 1Malaysia policy. This further ensures the continued enslavement of Sabah.

In Sarawak, Umno is poised to enter the state in the manner that they have done in Sabah. This is to ensure that the majority Dayak community will never be able to rule their own state.

On the final score, there is no Bumiputera in the Constitution or law, only the Orang Asal in Malaya (Orang Asli), Sabah (Dusunic and Murutic Groupings) and Sarawak (Dayak including the Sarawak Malay who are Dayak converts to Islam).

Malay -- Bugis, Javanese, Minang, Aceh, other Muslims -- in Malaya are not Orang Asal.

The ninth major reason, but certainly not the last, for the grinding poverty levels in Sabah and Sarawak is that first Malaysian prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman created the political term Bumiputera to include the Malay in the same category as the Orang Asal by the backdoor and thereby facilitate the ruling elite running up the National Debt Burden to plunder the National Treasury to feather their own nests (to live it up and/or accumulate capital) under the guise of Bumiputeraism and bringing so-called development to the people.

It's time for the international community and the United Nations to enter the picture and rescue Sabah and Sarawak from the gross violations of human rights taking place and restore our sovereignty and territorial integrity and guarantee our security. There's no longer any hope for us in Sabah and Sarawak. Something must be done, and done quickly, before the situation further degenerates into an even greater vicious cycle of poverty, ignorance, disease and violence.

Daniel John Jambun is a Political activist and formerly the Political Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Environmental Development during the Party Bersatu Sabah (PBS) Government.

Malaysia: High Income Nation, but Low Income Rakyat

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 09:43 AM PDT

Anas Alam Faizli

Malaysia's current socio economic structure can be summed up in four words, "Rich Malaysia, Poor Malaysians." Malaysia is blessed with abundant natural resources with petroleum being the most precious. Add the land, other commodity resources, large youthful population and the country has all the essential ingredients to flourish. How then did this small nation of 30 million manage to end up with the unsolicited title of among the region's most unequal nation between the rich and poor. What happened?

NEP: The Noble Intention, Initially

The NEP that was introduced in 1970 was the grand plan that were two things; our proactive action to begin developing the newly independent nation, and our reaction to the British Divide-and-Conquer system.

Textbooks tell us that the NEP strategy was two-pronged; eradication of poverty, and the restructuring of society. But what popular culture and the masses cannot help but to associate the NEP with is the deeply entrenched Bumiputera agenda at its core which target Bumiputeras to own 30 percent equity share in the Malaysian economy.

But "share of the economy" here apparently has broader connotations and implications. It expands from assets and equity ownership, right down to contract procurement, education quotas, and employment policies. Bumiputeras were the poorest of all ethnic groups. Thus the idea was to positively discriminate Bumiputeras, get them on their tracks, and realize a more equitable ownership of the economy. And thus we began traversing down this path of affirmative action.

As time went by and various development plans under the Malaysia Plan or Rancangan Malaysia were undertaken, tremendous improvements were made. Bumiputeras and Malaysians, in general, now own more assets than their parents. A middle class population burgeoned. Poverty rate, measured on an absolute basis, has gone from as high as 49.1 percent to 1.7 percent as reported in the latest Household Income Survey for 2012 published recently.

The Trickle-Down Disaster

Unfortunately, in the 1990s the equity target was still far off the target. Time was running out and Malaysia took a short cut with the ill-planned "trickledown" effect. Malaysia throttled down the road of enriching and empowering a few Bumiputeras who would go on to be successful entrepreneurs and asset owners and the subsequent multiplier effect will trickle down onto and propel the rest of the Bumiputera community. The philosophy was for this "trickledown" effect that surely, it was believed, would be inevitable.

The trickledown effect did not and does not work. Even the Prime Minister Dato' Seri Najib Tun Abd Razak himself acknowledged this in a recent interview with Martin Soong of CNBC. In fact, it perpetuated high inequality amongst Malaysians. It became something we so desperately clung on as an economic doctrine and still believed as true.

So even before we got there, we are now taking on a new "Malaysian Dream". Surely, it is only natural that the next course of action is aiming for a bigger middle class. Or are we really achieving it?

Yet Another Missing Target?

We say High Income Nation is the way to go and have set a new target to achieve a per capita income of US$15,000 by year 2020. It means the Gross National Income (GNI) - a measure of the country's production adjusted with net incomes from overseas - divided by the country's population must equal US$15,000. That target, we are told, is achievable by 2017-2018. Currently, our per capital income is $US9,970.

Never mind that many of the relatively lower income-earners find themselves in pretty much the same position on a relative basis. Never mind that Bumiputera households are still the poorest on average in the bottom 40 percent rung of Malaysian households. Never mind that even if most of this nation's income in year 2020 accrued to say, only 100 of the richest people in the country, we can achieve that $15,000 per capita target because it is grossly divided by the whole population.

Measuring income in US dollar term is already problematic. Many in the research community and the public have expressed concern about this as the US dollar is not the currency that most Malaysians earn and transact in. So when the Ringgit was stronger than US Dollars last year, we have every reason to question whether GNI per capita measured in dollar terms, represented the true magnitude of growth per capita, and whether this target is truly achievable.

But even if we put this currency issue aside, the $US15,000 per capita income target cannot be that headline "dream" we can congratulate ourselves on when achieved.

Here are some reasons why:

Rich Malaysia, Poor Malaysians

Firstly, for majority Malaysian households, about 90 percent of their incomes are attributed to wage and salary, including self-employment. Even for those who can afford to own some assets, this is still true. What more those who do not even own assets, and thus do not have incomes from owning assets.

Note that Malaysian GDP (measured using the income method) will indicate the following breakdown: 28 percent wages and salaries, 67 percent business profits (including mixed income), and 5 percent taxes and subsidies. What does this mean? It means that out of total GDP, only 28 percent is attributable to the working Malaysian population.

For the past 15 years, the contribution of wages and salaries to Malaysian GDP has fluctuated between 26 to 32 percent and the only reason it hiked up to 32 was because of the recession in 2008 when corporate profits declined. In Singapore, this number is already as high as 42 percent in 1997.

In other developed countries such as Korea, Canada, the UK and Japan, the corresponding number is 46 percent, 51 percent, 55 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Malaysians are not getting the bulk of the country's production into their pockets! This is set to worsen; the ETP's document (A Roadmap for Malaysia: Chapter 2) itself indicated that forecasted wages over GDP for the NKEAs will drop to as low as 21 percent in 2020! What are we smoking and what are our priorities, really?

In fact, for the past 15 years as well, the salaries of Malaysian workers have been lagging behind our productivity. Productivity growth rates were in line with rates of growth of salary circa 1998, but it has been slowly lagging thereon. As of last year, the productivity in the manufacturing sector is 45 percent above salaries. This roughly translates into the fact that our workers are under-paid by at least 45 percent. All this illustrates how GNI per capita will not represent well the incomes that majority Malaysians will enjoy as wages and salaries.

Secondly, more than 90% of the wage-earning workforce does not even earn much. Only 11.05 percent of government income is generated from personal income tax and only 1.7 million of the 12.4 million workforce is eligible to pay tax. EPF reported that 78.6% of its contributors database earn RM3,000 monthly or less. This is another illustration of how low the majority of the Malaysian people's incomes are at the individual level. So what is this High Income Nation we are about to achieve in a few years? A High Income Nation with a low earning population?

Thirdly, there is the grave issue of purchasing power. High income alone does not necessarily translate into better economic well-being and quality of life if that high income cannot purchase much. A simple analysis would show how a fresh graduate in 1980 could purchase more compared to today's graduate. With an estimated pay of RM1,000 a graduate could afford an Opel Gemini costing RM12,400 or about 12 months of his salary and purchase a decent house, perhaps even in Taman Tun, costing at RM62,000 or 56 months of his salary.

Today, a graduate can have a basic pay of RM2,500 which is only 2.5 times higher than a graduate in 1980. But a comparable Mazda 6 now costs RM178,000 or about 71 months of his salary and a decent house far outside Kuala Lumpur, say in Nilai, would cost RM350,000 or 140 months of his salary. The cost of living has spiraled viciously upwards and the purchasing power of the average salary man has slumped.

Fourthly is the issue of inequality, and this is by far the most compelling argument against a headline US$15,000 High Income Nation target. There is a reason that many academics, civil society groups and the people at large have recently been blowing the inequality trumpet; Malaysia has among the highest income disparities in the region. On August 3, 2013 the Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni has also acknowledged this.

Income growth measured from 1970 have shown that the Top 20 percent households far overtake that of the Middle 40 percent and the Bottom 40 percent households, while the income gap between them on average is widening. The GINI coefficient, which measures the degree of disparity between the highest income and the lowest income, remained rather stubbornly high without any improvement around 0.43 to 0.44 across the span of the past 20 years for Malaysia.

Earning RM10,000 a month on a household basis will already put you as the top 4 percent of Malaysian households, and essentially in the same group as even tycoons like Ananda Krishnan. 73 percent of households earn less than RM5,000, with an average of 2 income earners or workers per household. This alone shows how much disparity there is. Furthermore, it renders our $15,000 High Income Nation target achievable in form, yet void in spirit and substance.

How did this high and persisting inequality happen? The failure of that very "trickledown effect" that we hoped for is a major contributor. The continuous enrichment of the select few continuously fosters this gap in a long and perpetual cycle. The inequality in our education system also contributed to the large 77 percent of Malaysian workers being only SPM qualified and below thereby commanding low salary levels.

For the sake of profits, businesses are unwilling to invest in productivity and training of locals. We appease the business community by giving way to large influx of foreign workers, especially in factories, in place of relatively more expensive locals. The myth that locals are choosy and unwilling to work in factories is then proliferated, despite locals being able to work in factories if compensated adequately. This is proven in the oil and gas industry; hard laboring welders and fitters are all local Malaysians, despite having to work under scorching heat, as the compensation is rewarding.

So What is Really the Malaysian Dream?

We do not have one! But if we plan to have one, we cannot leave the average salary man behind, the man that forms more than 80% of the Malaysian population. We need a dream that is inclusive and holistic and addresses quality livelihood for Malaysians at large, and not just a select few.

Income inequality is a very serious impediment to our hopes for a truly developed nation. It would be a great irony if the majority of Malaysians do not truly experience that high-income status, once we reach that $US15,000 mark.

How are we to declare ourselves high income when the effects of inequality such as crime, unemployment, health and social problems as well depleting social goods will be so apparent? Even if we do make that high-income bar, problems that emerge out of inequality raise serious questions about the sustainability of that high-income status.

For as long as we do not come together, commit to say no to inequality in resolute, and help alleviate the bottom 60 percent potential economic producers, this problem will not solve itself and will come back to haunt us.

Moving forward our policies should be designed and constructed based on this understanding. We would have not proposed a regressive GST to increase our source of revenue if we understood this fact.

We would have instead tried to increase revenue from other sources that will not hurt the majority of our people like the inheritance tax, progressive taxation and capital gains tax.

But that argument, is for another day.

"There should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil." (Plato)

*A version of this article first appeared in The Edge on 19th October 2013

** Anas Alam Faizli is an oil and gas professional. He is pursuing a post-graduate doctorate, co-Founder of BLINDSPOT and BANTAH TPPA and tweets at @aafaizli

Slaughtering animals in school - lawful or unlawful?

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 09:31 AM PDT

I did not speak anything bad about any religion in the video but it was taken as religious hatred among Papagomo's fan club.

Saravanan Forever

On the 17th, I gave a media statement regarding unconstitutional animal slaughter in our National schools. I thank all Malaysians who have discussed the matter in a good manner. It is very important for us to have such healthy debate and discussions in a democratic country to find a solution for slaughtering animals in school during school hours.

The video conversation between the school headmaster and I went viral on Facebook. Once again I would like to thank UMNO blogger Papagomo for highlighting the issue nationwide. The issue in the video was, is there any provision to slaughter animals in the school which was approved by the education ministry or was it done unlawfully? That was my point again and again in the video.

I did mention slaughtering pigs but it was just an example. As an animal lover I will never agree with pig slaughtering even if the government approves it.

I did not speak anything bad about any religion in the video but it was taken as religious hatred among Papagomo's fan club. Some of the comments said they would like to chop me into pieces, kill me, keling pariah and balik India. As a secular country, all citizens have the right to freedom of speech when it is necessary. I request our PDRM to arrest those who gave death threats.

I believe our police will do their job concerning death threats.

The issue regarding cow slaughtering in schools is something that needs to be discussed by parliamentarians. This is a public interest issue since it was highlighted by the media. Malaysians will obey the law if both Pakatan and Barisan parliamentarians can discuss and agree to this matter. There should be a solution found. By letting the matter hang without solution will cause hatred between the races. I am sure other Malaysians feel the same as I.

All newly released movies have to go through Finas and will be labelled as U, 18, 16 and 12. This is because some movies are not suitable for certain age groups since the slaughtering done in schools may cause psychological trauma to the students who are underaged. My final opinion till parliamentarians decide to debate about it is, our rational thinking Malaysians should keep on discussing the matter. Those who helped me to highlight the issue as such as Papagomo should keep on giving a good momentum to this issue.

Please sign the petition in the link below:

http://www.occupyforanimals.org/malaysia---ritual-slaughter-of-cattle-during-hari-raya-aidiladha-in-schools.html

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 22 Oktober 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan