Isnin, 2 Disember 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Rumblings of rebellion in MIC Youth may spoil Palanivel’s party

Posted: 01 Dec 2013 08:15 PM PST 

So will Najib's united MIC be just a pipe dream? 

Sonia Ramachandran, The Ant Daily 

MIC president Datuk Seri G Palanivel must be heaving a huge sigh of relief with the new line-up of vice-presidents and central working committee (CWC) members voted in at the party's annual general assembly on Nov 30.

After all, two of the vice-presidents and 17 of the 23 elected CWC members are believed to be the president's men.

He has yet to appoint another seven CWC members, which will surely be his men, effectively putting decision-making control in his hands.

But Palanivel might not want to be overly jubilant just yet for he might have underestimated the power of the Youth wing in the party.

A party insider, who spoke to theantdaily on condition of anonymity, said the Youth wing is not going to keep quiet about its former leader Datuk T Mohan being ousted in his bid for the vice-presidency.

Mohan was one of eight candidates who vied for the vice-presidency in the election, which saw former vice-president Datuk S Sothinathan, incumbent Datuk M Saravanan and Johor Baru division chairman Datuk S Balakrishnan elected as the three vice-presidents.

The other candidates were Perak State Legislative Assembly Speaker Datuk SK Devamany, former Youth chief Datuk SA Vigneswaran, MIC treasurer-general Datuk Jaspal Singh and Bukit Bintang division vice-chairman James Selvarajah.

The elections drew the ire of many delegates as a Tamil daily, regarded as Palanivel's "mouthpiece", had splashed photographs of Sothinathan, Jaspal, Vigneswaran and Balakrishnan as the president's preferred choice of candidates a week before polling.

"It's no longer fighting behind closed doors and presenting a united front to the public, it's now outright war. The fight is now personal and public," said the party insider.

This is also due to the fact that newly elected MIC Youth chief C Sivarraajh is closely aligned to Mohan.

The party insider said MIC elections had always been determined by two factors, namely the party president and the caste-based system.

"This is the reason factions are created within the party. Sothinathan's win is proof of this. Usually the whole contest will be determined by the combination of the above two factors," he said.

Saravanan and Mohan are believed to be in Team B who are said to be aligned with former MIC president Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu and who also happens to command huge support within the party. Those aligned to Palanivel's camp are said to be in Team A.

How will the election results affect party unity?


Doubts about the "unity plan"

Posted: 01 Dec 2013 08:02 PM PST 

Many people believe that if they really have a "unity plan", it is because both the factions have no full confidence in winning the election and thus, they can only compromise.  

Lim Mun Fah, Sin Chew Daily 

While everyone is waiting for the three-corner fight for the MCA president post, there are some inside voices claiming a sharp turn for the situation as the Chua and Liow factions have reached a preliminary "unity plan" to avoid an internecine outcome.

Indeed, there is neither permanent enemy in politics, nor permanent friend.

In politics, outsiders can never see through the situation before it is finalised. Therefore, whether the saying is true or not, I can only say that truth can never be falsified.

Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek is still the wily party president who neither admits or denies the rumour. He said that he is willing to negotiate and it is now neither too early nor too late to negotiate. However, he also said that no MCA leader has talked about "unity plan" with him so far. With a sloven and noncommittal attitude, he leaves it to the people to continuously guessing. The only thing he said is, the MCA has no condition for infighting.

However, the rumour has even included a preliminary lineup. It seems to indicate that it is, after all, not totally groundless. There must be negotiations but it is a different matter whether it brings a positive or negative outcome.

At first glance, the "unity plan" seems to have involved equal numbers of leaders from both factions, leading towards a check and balance situation. However, if Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai and Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong are to become the party president and deputy president, and two more from the Liow faction are going to fill two of the four vice-president posts, isn't it mean that the Liow faction will be in complete control? Would the Chua faction compromise so easily? I really doubt it. And I believe that even if they are having a negotiation over compromises, the possibility of changes is still great.

It is noteworthy that if the "unity plan" can really be implemented, would the MCA be more united, continue the fight or become more chaotic? What are the differences between a new team with equal numbers from two factions who check and balance each other and the existing chaotic team?

Many people believe that if they really have a "unity plan", it is because both the factions have no full confidence in winning the election and thus, they can only compromise. Although the extraordinary general meeting has proven that Chua has nearly 900 of iron votes, the Chua faction is still facing a dilemma of lacking in suitable candidates in the evenly matched battle. Although they have roped in Gan Ping Sieu, many in the Chua faction are still worried as he used to be a follower of Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat. The lack in experience is another weakness. In other words, fielding Gan made the Chua faction have no full confidence to win and they are worried that it might end up in another failure, just like the motion to censure Liow. However, they cannot just throw Gan out of the new leadership lineup either, could they?


IGP, What is Seditious in Mariam’s Article?

Posted: 01 Dec 2013 03:12 PM PST 

What makes his remark deserving of censure is what he added: "She had better watch out or we will go after her." That comes across, undoubtedly, like a threat. And it's inappropriate coming from someone like the IGP. 

Kee Thuan Chye

I cannot see a fellow writer being threatened by someone in public authority for what she writes and not stand up for her. I'm therefore saying that the recent warning issued by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to political commentator Mariam Mokhtar against writing articles that could be deemed seditious is highly unwarranted and deserves to be censured.

Now, if the IGP was giving her friendly advice in saying she should not write articles that were seditious, he might have good cause to do so. Even if the articles she has written so far have not proven to be so. But that does not seem to be the tone and tenor of what he said a few days ago.

What makes his remark deserving of censure is what he added: "She had better watch out or we will go after her." That comes across, undoubtedly, like a threat. And it's inappropriate coming from someone like the IGP.

I don't know Mariam personally and have never met her. (Sorry for sounding like Najib Razak talking about a different person – I think you know who.) I also can't say I've read every article she's written. But those I have do not strike me as being seditious - certainly not as is spelt out in the Sedition Act.

In fact, her writing impresses me as that of someone who cares about her country and wants it to be better. She criticises wrongdoing by people in power, exposes their foibles and points out the contradictions between what they say and what they do in order to make Malaysians aware of right and wrong.

She provides a much-needed public service by highlighting issues of pressing and immediate concern to Malaysians, giving voice to thoughts that many of her fellow countrymen and women may share but are unable to articulate.

She has written about racial discrimination, social injustice, domestic violence, child abuse, the rise in crime, political scandals, the 'Allah' issue, the ineptness of Najib as prime minister, the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the illegal immigrants in Sabah, Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's attempt to muzzle the media, the disservice to the Malaysian electorate done by the Election Commission … and many, many more topics of public interest.

She should not be intimidated for creating awareness and putting issues in perspective. She should not be shut up.

IGP Khalid Abu Bakar is reportedly displeased with her article 'One ideology, two reactions' that appeared on the online news website Free Malaysia Today on November 29.

In it, she asked why the Government was willing to welcome home Siti Aishah Abdul Wahab from London when it had been dead against allowing even the ashes of the late Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng to be brought back from Thailand.

After all, Siti Aishah was also a left-winger. She was on the Malaysian police's 'wanted' list in the 1970s for being considered an extremist. When she went to study at the London School of Economics, the police kept her under surveillance. Subsequently, she was allegedly held as a "slave" in London by a Maoist sect for 30 years, until she escaped several weeks ago.

Khalid said Mariam's article was "highly seditious".

I have since read it a few times, but I cannot in all honesty find anything in it that is seditious.

Mariam states the facts about Siti Aishah and Chin Peng. She asks a pertinent question: "Malaysians must wonder why Aishah is considered safe but Chin Peng's ashes are deemed a national threat." Indeed, that has been in the minds of many people this past week.

Read more at: 

Debunking the Myth of a Revolution and the Gen-Y Mindset

Posted: 01 Dec 2013 12:04 PM PST 

The point is, 1) Revolution doesn't have to be aggressive, 2) It takes a whole lot of time to do, 3) A movement leader is not actually needed, and 4) All these examples are actually reformations happen throughout the time, where we could say it's more like hundreds of reformations pilling up to be a revolution. But what do these have to do with Gen-Y? 

Abdul Rahman Shah

Of late, recent news have been shaking the media about sweeping revolutions, the Arab Spring is one. As a result, in Malaysia, the Generation-Y (Gen-Y) is also anticipating one to happen here. It did not. But what is a revolution? This article will try to explore into the myths of revolution and try to explain why some revolutions are mistakenly a "revolution". I will also try to separate the word revolution and reformation.

Semantics out of the way, a revolution is an act of revolting against the current system, whatever the system might be, for a new system, anticipated better system to be established.  By this definition, the Arab Spring, the Renaissance, the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Malaya's independence can be seen as a revolution, despite no bloodshed spilled.

Reformation on the other hand, is the improvements made to the current system, it doesn't have to be changed top-down, but just few things, by this definition we can put civil rights movements, association policies that enforces minimum wage plus maximum working hours, the change in education approach and others. Revolution is wanting to destroy the streets to build a new one, reformation is wanting to improve and change the street.

What are the myths in revolution? 1) It have to be bloody, 2) It have to be quick, and 3) A dominating leader needs to step up to lead the way. Yes, if one looks at the past, successful revolutions such as the French and American revolution are bloody, relatively quick (approximately 10 years) and have their own leaders, Napoleon Bonaparte, and several high profile leaders from America, most notably George Washington. But look at these two examples, both doesn't fit the second myth, and the American one doesn't have one dominating leader, more like a whole group of people, the revolutionary minds of The Patriots.

Now let's look at some more successful revolutions from the past, the Agricultural revolution during the Neolithic period, where suddenly humans realized they can domesticate plants, animals and improving the technology along the way. This revolution by no means happens in a year or two, it happens all around the world in approximately 5000 to 6000 years, not to mention even today we are still improving our technology in agriculture. A second example is the Italian Renaissance which became European Renaissance, somewhere around 13th to 15th century, 200 years between them, the revolution of the mind. And lastly the Industrial revolution 1760 to 1840; 80 years of new technology and advancement of science. Yes I'm aware of the negative impacts of each examples, but why not look at the positive impacts before dismissing everything into negative impacts?

The point is, 1) Revolution doesn't have to be aggressive, 2) It takes a whole lot of time to do, 3) A movement leader is not actually needed, and 4) All these examples are actually reformations happen throughout the time, where we could say it's more like hundreds of reformations pilling up to be a revolution. But what do these have to do with Gen-Y?

Gen-Y today in Malaysia are very lucky, especially university students. We have education, facilities, great foods, sponsorships and much more. But does this mean we should sit back and relax? Just finish our studies, get a stable job, get married, buy a house, have kids, pay off our debts till we die, and live the quiet life? Are we just the 5 years once "revolutionist" that gets angry only during election period while never really doing anything constructive to the country?

Like I mentioned before, the best revolution is hundreds of reformations piles up together. It's more enduring, and it addresses the problem, not tearing down the streets and building just to build a new one. Saying that, we Gen-Y have a responsibility to start a reformation, starting with the reformation of the mind, an education reformation.

Go out and teach the kids, teach about proper language use, philosophy, updated science, technology, morals and ethics, and many more. Sacrifice our life a little for the creation of a new philosophy, the freedom of human beings, and the protection of the earth.

Join in volunteerism, read books, write books, short stories, poems, fiction, non-fiction, write articles, and write research papers; all in the area of reformation of education. Get into open discussions, try to see the world from another's perspectives, change "toleration" into understanding, working together to a common goal. Changing the mindset of teachers, parents and especially students on school, education and exams.

Once this small reformation takes place, in 10 to 30 years, we can start with reforming the whole education system, get involved with the ministry, bring in new education system, the current system in Sweden and Japan seems to be good, try to influence the ministry by being part of the ministry, so regardless of who wins the election, regardless of who is the government, regardless of politics, the reformation movement will still happen.

Then after the success of education reformation, move on to the next one, civil rights, or a better distribution of the taxes (including zakat), and many more areas. Which all of them can happen simultaneously because the reformation of the mind have already happened, people now are aware of the future, not just for themselves, but for everyone.

Start slow, start on one small part, but start now. The movement have already started actually, look at the number of volunteering groups out there (e.g. Teach For The Needs), the number of open discussions, the number of open discourses (e.g. Alumni Sekolah Politik, Projek Dialog), the number of independent publishers (e.g. Buku FIXI, Dubook Press, Lejen Press) and the number of books they publish. We just need more and more to join in to make it a reality, don't get too hasty, don't get too selfish, we all are together in this, we all are going to succeed.

I will not end this with an inspiring quote from any revolutionist/reformist, author or director, or my favorite, "do or do not, there is no try" by Yoda (Star Wars episode IV) because it is not time to be contemplating or to wait for inspiration, it is time to move, and be the inspiration.

* Abdul Rahman Shah is an undergraduate of IIUM and is a member of Kelab Mahasiswa TFTN. This article is written in responding to a challenge by Anas Alam Faizli that IIUM students are Mahasiswa Donut.

All abuzz over salary hike

Posted: 01 Dec 2013 11:35 AM PST

I was under the impression that the Opposition was more interested in putting more money into the rakyat's wallet than their own. Then came the salary increase for assemblymen in Selangor.

My perception of Opposition politicians is that they are a bunch of frugal people who take buses, fly economy class and stay in three-star hotels when they go out of town for a ceramah. That's the impression I got when I read some of their tweets. Moreover, whenever I attended their ceramah, they were always asking for donations.

Philip Golingai, The Star

If I was given the opportunity to have my salary increased to RM11,250, I would – in the blink of an eye – shout "sokong" (support).

That, according to a report in The Star, will put me (and anyone earning above RM10,000 a month) among the top 4% of Malaysian households and I would have reached the highest 26% tax bracket. That would put me in the same group as the country's CEOs, millionaires and billionaires.

Unfortunately, I'm not a Selangor assemblyman.

Last Wednesday, Selangor YBs (Yang Berhomat) approved a salary increase that saw the Mentri Besar earning RM29,250 a month from RM14,175 while an assemblyman's pay rose from RM6,000 to RM11,250 a month.

My first thought on the issue is that the salaries of assemblymen (except those in the Sarawak assembly) and MPs are too low. A few years ago, I was shocked to discover that an MP's basic salary was RM6,508.59. (With allowances, an MP's salary come up to about RM13,000, including the allowance to hire a driver.)

If you are an elected representative of a semi-urban constituency like Penampang, RM6,508.59 is not enough to pay for a wedding, funeral, baby's first month of life celebration ang pows and "emergencies" your constituents encounter. In Penampang, which is my parliamentary constituency in Sabah, a YB is expected to attend all these events, otherwise he'll be branded "sombong" (proud).

With that in mind, I'm supportive of a pay hike for elected representative.

That's why I was not too excited when Sarawak assemblymen voted in May to increase their salary from RM4,500 to RM15,000.

Still, the Selangor move came as a big surprise.

My perception of Opposition politicians is that they are a bunch of frugal people who take buses, fly economy class and stay in three-star hotels when they go out of town for a ceramah. That's the impression I got when I read some of their tweets. Moreover, whenever I attended their ceramah, they were always asking for donations.

To be fair, there are Opposition politicians who are into luxury such as those who Instagrammed themselves on board of a private jet for a frog hunting expedition in Sabah and Sarawak before GE13.

In general, except for the ultra-rich Opposition politicians who smoke RM300 cigars as one would with keretek cigarettes, I thought the Opposition was more interested in putting more money into the rakyat's wallet than their own.

It was also a big surprise because I always thought that the Opposition was against salary hikes for elected representatives. Perhaps I had this false impression when the Barisan Nasional government had to withdraw its proposal to increase MPs' salaries and allowances in October 2011.

The then Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said he had to withdraw his proposal in Budget 2012 after it was shot down by Opposition bigwigs like PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, PKR deputy president Azmin Ali and PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub.

In his typical sarcasm, Nazri said the Opposition leaders should be considerate to their junior MPs who were not as financially independent as them.

"Anwar, Azmin, Lim Guan Eng are wealthy men, but they are not taking into consideration their junior MPs who are struggling to pour petrol to visit their areas," he said.

This flip-flop is best summarised by Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan's tweet. On Thursday, @mpkotabelud tweeted: "Mdm Speaker, point is your own MPs criticising BN in parliament for proposing the same idea. The stench of hypocrisy is nauseating."

His tweet was in reference to the rather "defensive" tweets by Selangor Speaker Hannah Yeoh a day after the salary hike (including hers which was increased from RM6,109.29 to RM22,500).

It was quite funny to see a rather uncommon situation on Twitter where the Opposition was in the defence. My favourite tweet was from Stephen Doss. @stephendoss tweeted: "was raising the salaries of PR assemblymen one of the promises in its election manifesto presented before GE13?"

Interestingly, I'm not sure whether it was the spillover of the Team Azmin vs Team Khalid fight, when Azmin told Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim to reduce the salary hike to a more reasonable quantum.

"We do not reject the need for a salary increase, but what was decided on is too high," said Azmin, who is Selangor Pakatan Rakyat Backbenchers Club chairman. A poll survey conducted by The Star Online revealed that most respondents echoed Azmin's opinion.

It asked people if the salary should be increased and 44% of the 726 respondents said "it should be but at a reasonable quantum".

This was followed by 18.7% who claimed "the representatives were already getting paid enough" while 18.6% said, "yes they deserve every cent they get".

The remaining 18.1% said, "the pay did not matter as long as the representatives carried out the tasks assigned to them".

The Star Online also received about 215 mostly intelligent comments.

My favourite is: "They are there to serve the people. While you do not muzzle the oxen's mouth, you should not allow it to guzzle the owner's (rakyat's) corn either."


PAS-Umno ‘akad nikah’

Posted: 01 Dec 2013 11:21 AM PST

The time is ripe for Umno and PAS to close ranks and 'marry' for the sake of Islam and in the name of Muslim brotherhood; it will be a union made in the heavens.

Narinder Singh, FMT

The mating game is played by birds, bees and many others from the animal kingdom. Some go to extreme lengths to execute bizarre courtships, exhibiting rare moves and character to attract the opposing mate.

In similarity, political parties are not far off the mark of playing mating games; and the best analogue is Umno and PAS. There has been bad blood between the two leading Malay centric parties and representative of the majority Muslims collectively, but there have been some dancing opportunities explored lately.

PAS has always claimed to be more Islam than Umno as their core values have been for long gyrating around the religious nucleus. They have vehemently championed hudud laws and syariah way of lifestyle.

According to PAS, those who oppose them may well be ticketing themselves to the gates of hell come judgment day. Since the divorce between PAS and Umno decades ago, reconciliation has taken a back seat until the recent two past general elections.

Wings have flared and the great walls between PAS and Umno are witnessing some porosity on the lines of Islam.

In the just concluded PAS polls, there was a sudden change of hearts and tone in the closing remarks by their leaders. They extended an olive branch to Umno, something not extremely extraordinary in the name of Islamic brotherhood but could be construed as giving a small jolt to their other allies in Pakatan Rakyat.

There is no doubt that Umno and PAS have only one thing common and that is Islam. There cannot be two types of Islam in a country that has only about 18 million Muslim who are citizens.

Can a common aspiration to uphold Islam be the binding factor between PAS and Umno soon?

Lately there have been clarion calls from both that it is time to close ranks and bury the hatchet that has caused a prolonged and continuous rift between them. The trend is indeed leaning quite significantly towards a 'muzakarah', thus fueling speculations that soon Malaysia will have syariah laws implemented since the majority are Muslims.

And rightfully too in the eye of many Muslim scholars and experts that since the government has declared Malaysia as an Islamic nation, there is no big deal in stamping it further.

Though the Federal Constitution states Islam as the official religion currently, whilst others can practice their own faiths, there is no prohibition to amend it to "Malaysia is an Islamic country" if there are two thirds majority agreeing for it in Parliament.



Illegitimacy of elections since 1984

Posted: 01 Dec 2013 07:53 AM PST

The three delineation exercises were carried out in 1984, 1994 and 2003. As these were carried out in violation of the direction of law as contained in schedule 13 of the Constitution, it follows that all the seven (7) General Elections since 1984, i.e. in 1986, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2004, 2008 and 2013 which were conducted based on the three unconstitutional delineation exercises, are also unlawful and as such void.

Ravinder Singh, The Malay Mail

In his speech at the 26th convocation of Universiti Utara Malaysia His Royal Highness the Yang Di Pertuan Agung expressed his concern about people challenging the laws of the country, including the Federal Constitution. He is reported to have said "The people should always respect and uphold the law."

In the light of the Agung's advise, where does the admission or confession of the former Election Commission chief Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, that the three redelineation exercises he did were done in such a way to ensure Malays retained political power and that he did so "in a proper way, not illegally", stand?

I don't think the Agung means that anyone is above the law or exempted from the law. Abdul Rashid's claim that he did the redelineation in a proper way is a lie. What he did was illegal as it breached the 13th schedule of the Constitution.

The three delineation exercises were carried out in 1984, 1994 and 2003. As these were carried out in violation of the direction of law as contained in schedule 13 of the Constitution, it follows that all the seven (7) General Elections since 1984, i.e. in 1986, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2004, 2008 and 2013 which were conducted based on the three unconstitutional delineation exercises, are also unlawful and as such void.

In other words, although the BN won all those elections, they were not won with clean hands and the governments were formed unconstitutionally. But do any of those who won by playing foul games, as the referee (the EC) had put obstacles, even great obstacles in the path of the opposing teams, feel shame? The obstacles were the huge disparities in the number of voters in the different constituencies where the value of a vote in an opposition supporting area was reduced to a mere 10 per cent or even less compared to a vote in a BN supporting area. A numbers game according to Abdul Rashid.

Abdul Rashid's confession has confirmed that the EC's aggressively defended 'independence' was just a facade behind which was a government department answerable to the Prime Minister and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the incumbent government remained in power election  after election at any cost. To ensure this, the dwindling support had to be shored up with 'correct' delineation so that even with fewer votes, the BN would retain its two-thirds majority. This was the 'vision', 'mission' and duty of the EC.  

The art of gerrymandering was fined tuned to achieve this. First, the guiding formula in the Constitution was done away with. The Constitution initially stated that the difference in the number of voters in the various constituencies should not be more than 15 per cent. This was later amended to 50 per cent. After that it was fully blacked out, but what remained, and still remains in the 13th schedule, is the phrase that the number of voters in the different constituencies must be 'approximately equal' or in Malay 'lebih kurang sama banyak'. This was a blank cheque given to the EC. Abdul Rashid and his team were now free to interpret 'approximately equal' as they wished, throwing out the dictionary meaning of this phrase. To them, a 9kg fish was approximately equal to a 1kg fish when a kindergarten child can tell you it is not. It was halal as the purpose was to ensure the masters remain in power. Could any Mufti or JAKIM please confirm this to put matters straight?   

Not satisfied with this blank cheque, the EC introduced a 'more efficient' and faster way of counting votes. All ballot boxes from all the polling stations in a state constituency used to be taken to a central counting station, manned by a different set of election workers. The boxes would be opened, all the ballots mixed and then counted. This way it would not be known how voters in a small localised area had voted, e.g. how a particular kampung or longhouse voted.   

This method was not suitable for effective gerrymandering. So the process was changed to counting in each and every stream in every polling station immediately after close of balloting. This way, the EC obtained excellent data on voter sentiments in very small areas as each voting stream caters to between 200 to 800 voters. This method of vote counting is in reality voter-spying. It tells how many per cent of the 200 to 800 voters, living in a small area, had voted. With this information in hand, particular kampungs and housing areas can be put in BN-friendly or BN-unfriendly constituencies. This tilting of the playing field, or shifting of the goal posts, is unconstitutional, which means it is illegal, or haram.

On the heels of Abdul Rashid's confession about gerrymandering we have the former deputy chief of the EC Wan Ahmad Wan Omar fretting about being at the receiving end of public criticism for 16 years that the EC was not independent in the way it was conducting its affairs.

Abdul Rashid's confession confirms that the EC was indeed an errand boy of the Prime Minister's department. Being directly under the control of the Prime Minister, how could the EC be independent if its independence could lead to jeopardising the incumbency of the ruling party? The EC was being true to being "Saya yang menurut perintah". For public perception, it had to be painted as a very independent body that was fair to both sides! Abdul Rashid's confession peeled off the flaking paint to reveal what it really was, not that everyone had believed it was an independent body.          

A few months ago, Dr Mahathir said some people don't feel shame like the Japanese do when they do something wrong. This is because their culture requires that those who bring shame upon themselves have to commit hara kiri. Thus they make sure they do things well so as to avoid having to hara kiri themselves. Could Dr Mahathir tell us whether both Abdul Rashid and Wan Ahmad, who do not feel ashamed of violating the 13th schedule of the Constitution, should perform hara kiri themselves?

Thinking about it, the longest serving prime ministership was made possible by both these officers of the EC. So who should do hara kiri?  Someone needs to lead by example.



0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan


Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved