Rabu, 23 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Sabah RCI: What next?

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:59 PM PST

http://www.mole.my/sites/default/files/images/mole-RCI-SABAH-Tun-Mahathir.jpg 

Does it not boggle the mind that in the face of such incontrovertible evidence of this massive illegal operation, Mahathir would still deny its existence? What gave him the courage to do so, if not for the fact that the Royal Commission's proceedings have virtually been blacked out by the mainstream media, while his statement of defence would be given prominence? 

 

Kim Quek 

 

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad finally admitted – in the face of overwhelming evidence – that he granted citizenship to the illegal immigrants who have flooded Sabah, but quickly added that the citizenship was granted legally.

 

He said: "Many of them in Sabah were not there for a day or two, but 20 or 30 years and can speak Malay.  They have the right to be citizens".

 

Is that all there is to the infamous "Project M" (M stands for Mahathir) that has brought untold miseries to Sabahans: the mere granting of citizenship to qualified immigrants in the normal legal way?

 

To get to the truth, let us hear some top officials of the Sabah National Registration Department (NRD) who gave evidence to the Royal Commission of Inquiry looking into the population explosion of Sabah.

 

INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE

 

·         Sabah NRD assistant registrar Kee Dzulkifly Kee Abd Jalil said the special unit he was working in, illegally issued some 100,000 blue identity cards (IC) to the immigrants (blue cards are meant for citizens only), in addition to issuing 200,000 letters of approval for birth certificate for the children of immigrants. With these approval letters, they would get their birth certificates from the hospitals or district offices. These immigrants, who are all Muslims, are mainly from southern Philippines and Indonesia.

 

Kee Dzulkifly, together with some of his fellow officers who also gave evidence collaborating Kee Dzulkifly's evidence, was subsequently detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for two years from 1995 to 1997, for engaging in these illegal activities.

 

·         Tamparuli NRD chief Yakup Damsah said that upon instruction from then Sabah NRD chief Abdul Rauf Sani, he and his colleagues were flown from Sabah to Kuala Lumpur, where they operated a clandestine operation in the house of Mahathir's then political secretary Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin at Kampung Pandan to illegally issue blue ICs to immigrants. Yakup said the purpose of the operation was to boost Muslims voters and to ensure they vote for Umno in the Sabah state election. His group issued 40,000 blue ICs within a month. Yakup was subsequently detained under the ISA for his illegal act.

 

·         Sabah NRD chief Ramli Kamaruddin, who succeeded Abdul Rauf, said that two weeks before the 1994 Sabah state election, he met then deputy home minister Megat Junid Megat Ayub (then home minister was Mahathir) at Hyatt Hotel in Kota Kinabalu, where he was instructed to issue temporary IC receipts to immigrants. These receipts, in the names of voters who never voted, would enable the immigrants to vote on polling day, so as to ensure a Barisan Nasional (BN) victory. Also present at the hotel was Osu Sukam, who later became Sabah chief minister in 1999. Ramli Kamaruddin was also detained under ISA for two years from 1995.

 

·         Sabah NRD deputy director Mohd Nasir Sugip testified that the department carried out the clandestine "Ops Durian Burok" from 1992 to 1995 under instruction from the state Election Commission (EC) to provide unqualified immigrants with blue ICs so that they could vote in an election. With the new ICs issued in accordance with the details provided by the EC, these Philipino and Indonesian Muslims were then planted as voters in strategic constituencies (classified as 'black' or 'grey' for BN) across Sabah to help BN win in elctions. At one time, Sabah EC director Wan Ahmad Wan Yusof handed over a list of 16,000 names and asked for these to be converted into 'Bumiputra Islam" voters. Mohd Nasir was later detained under the ISA.

 

BLACK OUT BY MAIN STREAM MEDIA

 

All these evidences were presented to the Royal Commission on Jan 16, third day of the hearings; whereas Mahathir claimed his innocence on the next day, Jan 17.

 

Does it not boggle the mind that in the face of such incontrovertible evidence of this massive illegal operation, Mahathir would still deny its existence?

 

What gave him the courage to do so, if not for the fact that the Royal Commission's proceedings have virtually been blacked out by the mainstream media, while his statement of defence would be given prominence?

 

Despite such connivance from the mainstream media and Mahathir's brazen denials, there is no way that such staggering breach of law can be buried in this Internet age of ubiquitous information.

 

Equally impossible to deny is Mahathir's link to these acts of treason.

 

The two key political leaders featured in the evidence – Aziz Shamsuddin and Megat Junid – were Mahathir's closest confidante, who were also well known for their roles as henchmen to execute some of his more unsavoury schemes.

 

At their level of political influence and status, these two henchmen would have neither the courage nor the reason to embark on such a bold venture of high treason that could easily have led their journey to the gallows, without the protection of the highest political leadership.

 

It is as clear as daylight that these two political minions were only carrying out the wishes of their political boss.

 

MAHATHIR IRRETRIEVABLY LINKED

 

Project M is unparalleled in modern history in that it is a clandestine operation that has succeeded in robbing the sovereign rights of a people by massive infusion of illegal immigrants and pervasive contamination of the electoral roll with illegal voters (known as the phantom voters).

 

The success of Project M has ensured Umno's hegemony in Sabah for almost two decades. And the original Sabahans will continue to be subjected to such rule unless the illegal immigrants and phantom voters menace is resolved.

 

What is even more alarming is that the phantom voter cancer continues to grow right up to this day, not only in Sabah, but there is ample evidence that its malignancy has been spreading in Peninsula Malaysia, as exemplified by the thousands of dubious registered voters that surface continually, particularly in the state of Selangor.

 

The latest evidence was uncovered by a survey carried out by the Selangor government. In a house-to-house check on the half a million newly registered voters, 135,000 of them could not be traced, for which the EC has not given any valid answer.

 

In fact, our greatest problem is our EC, which has unabashedly acted as a political arm of Umno.

 

Take the case of the explosive expose' uncovered by the Sabah RCI. In any democracy, the election commission would have immediately swung into emergency action, and in conjunction with other agencies such as the NRD, police and attorney general's chamber, would seek out the criminals and rectify the huge damage to restore integrity and public confidence to the electoral system. But not our EC. The latter has chosen not to react on the lame excuse that any comment would be 'subjudice' and any action would also be premature, as the RCI has not completed its findings.

 

BONANZA FOR OPPOSITION?

 

The same deaf and dumb tactic has also been adopted by Prime Minister Najib Razak and the component parties of Barisan Nasional. EC and BN's strategy seems to be: do nothing until the next election which will be held in probably two months' time. (Parliament stands dissolved on April 28, and polling within 60 days thereafter.)

 

And opposition alliance Pakatan Rakyat and civil society will have to decide whether to stage another mass rally, both to force some urgent and basic electoral reforms including cleansing of electoral roll, as well as to gain political capital by swinging the middle ground further towards them.

 

Whatever the decision on the mass rally, the opposition will certainly leave no stone unturned to publicise the moral and political bankruptcy of the incumbent political power in resorting to means most foul at perils of destroying our democracy so as to cling on to power. 

 

Thus, the Sabah RCI is turning out to be a last minute gift to the opposition after all, whatever its findings.

 

 

UTHM Prof Amir Hashim (UMNO) brainwash student committee to support BN!

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:48 PM PST

Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin said that there is no brainwash programme held in any university in Malaysia, how is our higher education minister gonna explain this 3 min clip on a BN supporter/Lecturer at UTHM asking the student committee to "SUPPORT BN OR QUIT YOUR POSITION"

Watch video at: http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v1/y2/r/5l8_EVv_jyW.swf?v=398336883554408&ev=0 

Abbas rejects Malaysian PM visit to Gaza saying it divides Palestine

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:26 PM PST

http://images.alarabiya.net/56/63/640x392_59682_262086.png 

(Al Arabiya News) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas denounced on Wednesday the Malaysian prime minister's recent visit to Gaza, saying that it "enhances division and does not serve the Palestinian interests," reported local news agency WAFA. 

"The Palestinian presidency announces its rejection and condemnation of the Malaysian prime minister's visit to Gaza," a statement said.

Abbas's bureau called on the Malaysian government to provide "clarification," saying that Prime Minister Najib Razak called Abbas earlier and told him that Malaysia was going to provide humanitarian aid to the strip, and that he will meet a Palestinian delegation in Cairo afterwards. 

"[The visit] undermines Palestinian representation and reinforces the division and does not serve Palestinian interests," it continued.

The bureau considered the visit a contribution to a conspiracy aiming to "divide the Palestinian land;" one that "serves Israeli plans to keep Jerusalem isolated from the Palestinian state," the agency reported. 

On Tuesday, the Malaysian prime minster pledged solidarity with the Palestinians on his first trip to Gaza, throwing his support behind reconciliation efforts between Hamas and Fatah.

Najib, who entered via the Rafah crossing from Egypt with Foreign Minister Anifah Aman and other officials, was met by Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya.

Read more at: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/01/23/262086.html 

 

PM explains Gaza visit

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:24 PM PST

http://starstorage.blob.core.windows.net/archives/2013/1/24/nation/najib-gaza.jpg 

(The Star) - "Fatah was uneasy with my visit to Gaza but we explained to them that I had to make a stand to visit the area. The issue of the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza is something very close to Malaysian hearts," he said.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said his visit to Gaza was a humanitarian gesture of solidarity with the plight of the people in the occupied territories and should not be misconstrued as an attempt to interfere in domestic Palestinian affairs.

The Prime Minister said he had explained this to Palestine's WaqafMinister Mahmoud Habash in Cairo on Tuesday evening after returning from Gaza, following criticism over his visit by the Fatah faction of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is opposed to its Hamas-led rivals who control Gaza.

"My trip to Gaza was based on humanitarian grounds and to show our strong support for the struggle of the Palestinians.

"It must not be misinterpreted as interfering with the internal affairs of Palestine but to show our concern to Palestinians especially during the eight days of violence committed by Israel in its attack in Gaza late last year," Najib told Malaysian reporters here yesterday before departing for Davos, Switzerland, where he is scheduled to attend the World Economic Forum.

Hamas and Fatah have been in dispute since 2007, resulting in Gaza being controlled by Hamas and the West Bank, the other territory, which also makes up Palestine, under Fatah.

Najib said besides conveying Malaysia's position to the Palestinian Minister, he had also contacted PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas by telephone on Monday night to explain the reasons for his Gaza visit before he went to the Palestinian territory the following day.

"Fatah was uneasy with my visit to Gaza but we explained to them that I had to make a stand to visit the area. The issue of the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza is something very close to Malaysian hearts," he said.

The Prime Minister said his original intention was to visit both Gaza and the West Bank.

He explained that he was unable to go to the West Bank because unlike the Egyptian controlled border into Gaza, the entry points into the territory under Fatah were under the purview of Israel.

He said Israel would have only allowed him entry if Malaysia accorded Israel official recognition, something that was against Malaysia's policy.

Najib said his visit to Gaza and his meeting with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi also allowed him an opportunity to express Malaysia's support to the Egyptian initiative to bring Hamas and Fatah closer.

The rival groups signed an agreement in May last year to discuss the aim of setting up a unity government in Palestine.

"Hamas and Fatah need to set up a unity government as soon as possible for their common struggle to succeed. In all my meetings, I stressed the point repeatedly that accord between the West Bank and Gaza was a precondition for the Palestinians to achieve their goal," he said.

On a separate matter, Najib expressed his condolences to the family of the Malaysian killed during the hostage drama in Algeria.

"I sympathise with the family. This is something that can happen and is very hard to predict. I hope his family remains strong in facing this tragedy," he said.

Najib said there had been discouraging reports about the fate of the second Malaysian hostage reported missing, adding that Wisma Putra was keeping a close watch on the developments.

 

Under fire, Perkasa says bible-burning threat meant to prevent violence

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:18 PM PST

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/images/uploads/01/syedhassan0124.jpg 

(The Malaysian Insider)Despite facing heat for Datuk Ibrahim Ali's bible-burning remark, Malay rights group Perkasa have insisted their president's words were actually a "wake-up call" to prevent possible violence against distributors of bibles containing the word "Allah" and other Arabic scripts.

 

The group's secretary-general, Syed Hassan Syed Ali, said Ibrahim has no problem facing the consequences of his remarks, including being questioned by the police due to the reports lodged against him.

"To the Perkasa president, he is sure not worried about these reports... because the investigation will surely be based on truth and justice," he said in a statement sent to The Malaysian Insider.

But Syed Hassan maintained that Ibrahim's statement was more to prevent possible physical violence and other untoward incidents, should these Malay-language bibles get into the hands of Muslim students.

If this is seen by Muslims who view this as an attempt at apostasy, the Perkasa leader said violence could be used against the book's distributor.

"I very much understand my president's statement because it is as a 'wake-up call' to all parties to prevent these untoward incidents.

"This is what the president fears because then there would be a physical attack between those of different faiths... this is not good for the nation," he said.

Syed Hassan also confirmed that Ibrahim has been contacted by the police over the reports lodged against the latter by several parties, including DAP chairman Karpal Singh.

Investigations will commence in another day or two, he added.

Karpal lodged the report on Tuesday in a bid to press Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to kickstart an investigation against Ibrahim, who came under fire after making the remarks in Penang over the weekend.

The fiery Malay rights leader had called on Muslims to burn Malay language bibles that contain the words "Allah" and other religious Arabic scripts should it come into their possession.

But when continuing his defence of Ibrahim's remarks here, Syed Hassan said that Perkasa has never in the past attacked Christianity.

He said the group was merely protecting Islam and its position, as enshrined in the Federal Constitution, and this includes rejecting those who insult the religion and who try to spread their own faiths to Muslims.

"Before this, all other races lived in peace. But today, simply because there are parties using this for political expediency, they are willing to flare the sentiments of others," he said.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/under-fire-perkasa-says-bible-burning-threat-meant-to-prevent-violence/ 

'The Act of Killing' and Indonesia's Dark Past Nobody Talks About

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:01 PM PST

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/media/images/medium2/20121121185703096.jpg 

In the gangsters' role as the political bosses of North Sumatra (a province of 14 million people) they have continued to celebrate themselves as heroes, reminding the public of their role in the massacres, while continuing to threaten the survivors – and they have done so even as governors, senators, members of parliament, and, in the case of one prominent veteran of the 1965-66 genocide, as the perversely named, "Deputy Minister of Law and Human Rights".

DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT
By Joshua Oppenheimer
Beginnings
In February 2004, I filmed a former death squad leader demonstrate how, in less than three months, he and his fellow killers slaughtered 10,500 alleged 'communists' in a single clearing by a river in North Sumatra. When he was finished with his explanation, he asked my sound recordist to take some snapshots of us together by the riverbank. He smiled broadly, gave a thumbs up in one photo, a victory sign in the next.

Two months later, other photos, this time of American soldiers smiling and giving the thumbs up while torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners, appeared in the news (Errol Morris later revealed these photographs to be more complex than they at first appear). The most unsettling thing about these images is not the violence they document, but rather what they suggest to us about how their participants wanted, in that moment, to be seen. And how they thought, in that moment, they would want to remember themselves. Moreover, performing, acting, posing appear to be part of the procedures of humiliation.

These photographs betray not so much the physical situation of abuse, but rather forensic evidence of the imagination involved in persecution. And they were very much in my mind when, one year later, I met Anwar Congo and the other leaders of Indonesia's Pancasila Youth paramilitary movement.


Far away or close to home?

The differences between the situations I was filming in Indonesia and other situations of mass persecution may at first seem obvious. Unlike in Rwanda, South Africa or Germany, in Indonesia there have been no truth and reconciliation commissions, no trials, no memorials for victims. Instead, ever since committing their atrocities, the perpetrators and their protégés have run the country, insisting they be honoured as national heroes by a docile (and often terrified) public. But is this situation really so exceptional? At home (in the USA), the champions of torture, disappearance, and indefinite detention were in the highest positions of political power and, at the same time, busily tending to their legacy as the heroic saviours of western civilisation. That such narratives would be believed (despite all evidence to the contrary) suggests a failure of our collective imagination, while simultaneously revealing the power of storytelling in shaping how we see.

And that Anwar and his friends so admired American movies, American music, American clothing – all of this made the echoes more difficult to ignore, transforming what I was filming into a nightmarish allegory.


Filming with survivors

When I began developing The Act of Killing in 2005, I had already been filming for three years with survivors of the 1965-66 massacres. I had lived for a year in a village of survivors in the plantation belt outside Medan. I had become very close to several of the families there. During that time, Christine Cynn and I collaborated with a fledgling plantation workers' union to make The Globalization Tapes, and began production on a forthcoming film about a family of survivors that begins to confront (with tremendous dignity and patience) the killers who murdered their son. Our efforts to record the survivors' experiences – never before expressed publicly – took place in the shadow of their torturers, as well as the executioners who murdered their relatives – men who, like Anwar Congo, would boast about what they did.

Ironically, we faced the greatest danger when filming survivors. We'd encounter obstacle after obstacle. For instance, when we tried to film a scene in which former political prisoners rehearsed a Javanese ballad about their time in the concentration camps (describing how they provided forced labour for a British-owned plantation, and how every night some of their friends would be handed over to the death squads to be killed), we were interrupted by police seeking to arrest us. At other times, the management of London-Sumatra plantations interrupted the film's shooting, "honouring" us by "inviting" us to a meeting at plantation headquarters. Or the village mayor would arrive with a military escort to tell us we didn't have permission to film. Or an "NGO" focused on "rehabilitation for the victims of the 1965-66 killings" would turn up and declare that "this is our turf – the villagers here have paid us to protect them." (When we later visited the NGO's office, we discovered that the head of the NGO was none other than the area's leading killer – and a friend of Anwar Congo's – and the NGO's staff seemed to be military intelligence officers.)

Not only did we feel unsafe filming the survivors, we worried for their safety. And the survivors couldn't answer the question of how the killings were perpetrated.

Boastful killers

But the killers were more than willing to help and, when we filmed them boastfully describing their crimes against humanity, we met no resistance whatsoever. All doors were open. Local police would offer to escort us to sites of mass killing, saluting or engaging the killers in jocular banter, depending on their relationship and the killer's rank. Military officers would even task soldiers with keeping curious onlookers at a distance, so that our sound recording wouldn't be disturbed.

This bizarre situation was my second starting point for making The Act of Killing. And the question in mind was this: what does it mean to live in, and be governed by, a regime whose power rests on the performance of mass murder and its boastful public recounting, even as it intimidates survivors into silence. Again, there seemed to be a profound failure of the imagination.

Within Indonesia more generally, such openness about the killings might be exceptional. But in North Sumatra, it is standard operating procedure. For there, the army recruited its death squads from the ranks of gangsters. Gangsters' power derives from being feared, and so the thugs ruling North Sumatra have trumpeted their role in the genocide ever since, framing it as heroic struggle, while all the time taking care to include grisly details that inspire a constant and undiminished disquiet, unease, even terror of possible recurrence. (In East Java and in Bali, the death squads were recruited from religious groups, while in Central Java and elsewhere they were members of the Indonesian special forces. Unlike gangsters, those groups' power is not necessarily based on their being feared.)

In the gangsters' role as the political bosses of North Sumatra (a province of 14 million people) they have continued to celebrate themselves as heroes, reminding the public of their role in the massacres, while continuing to threaten the survivors – and they have done so even as governors, senators, members of parliament, and, in the case of one prominent veteran of the 1965-66 genocide, as the perversely named, "Deputy Minister of Law and Human Rights".

 
 
----------------------------------------
'The Act of Killing' and Indonesia's Dark Past Nobody Talks About

I was 10 minutes late when I quietly sneaked in to a room crammed with people sitting tightly to their chairs. Their eyes fixed to the screen. I have been to many independent film screenings, but this one was not like any other.

There was no sign whatsoever to indicate that there's a film screening inside. It was meant to be clandestine due to the nature of the film, entitled "The Act of Killing," an award-winning documentary by British-based American filmmaker Joshua Oppenheimer.

From the invitation I received, it clearly said the screening is a closed event and not to be passed around. Prior to the screening, the attendees were asked not to spread the word on social media to avoid unwanted difficulties. "The Act of Killing" contains materials that are prone to disturb viewers, not to mention the historical facts that are still hard to accept to some people in Indonesia. 

"The Act of Killing" follows the life of Anwar Congo, who unashamedly claimed himself as a fearsome executor in Medan, North Sumatera, following the alleged abortive coup by the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). 

As written in the history — or unwritten — the failed coup resulted in the witch-hunt against PKI members and alleged sympathizers. Many of them were captured, tortured and killed without legal trial. Once these alleged communists were detained, they would soon be handed to Anwar and his accomplices who would perform some of the gruesome executions ever imagined by mankind.

I'm not an expert in cinematography, but what is so interesting about "The Act of Killing," apart from the obvious topic which remains untouched for a long time, is the way Anwar's story being told. 

Instead of the orthodox way of making documentary by combining interviews and footage, Oppenheimer creatively re-enacted what Anwar did in the past and shot them in the film. Anwar starred and acted in a film where he re-enacted all his mischievous deeds. It's like making a documentary about Adolf Hitler and asked Der Fuhrer to act as himself in a staged scene.

 

The war begins!

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 11:57 AM PST

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdWwNdwLC_r3fqjXbsNH7keWJno9cGDKMQSPB2dy_D5bioAEbFZnQAbCrQAjiONQxNS5Rqumyz6fsLXpVYt-gAVh2bn5WpLlGbsn44jz1JcqKEKzQDFKHRH73-JcjL2gg76plhmnVfnup6/s320/P_Layer+1_Layer+1.gif 

KL SENTRAL LRT STATION, 830 am, 23 Jan 2013 - BNYV (Youth Volunteers) is currently distributing the brochures below condemning the 2013 Alternative Budget to LRT passengers at KL Sentral Station.

Changing our Mindset


They should be distributing the details of Government's 2013 budget to convince the people that the government's budget is the best but they did the opposite instead.

Read the PR alternative budget HERE
(http://rafiziramli.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Belanjawan-Pakatan-Rakyat-2013-vAkhir.pdf)


 

 



 

 

PAS - from Progressive to Pythonic

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:40 AM PST

KTemoc Konsiders

Pythonic is the adjectival form of python. And we all know a python is a:

(a) boa constrictor (snake) which kills its prey by constriction (wakakaka), or

(b) spirit or demon (louder wakakaka).

I'm afraid those are what non-Muslims, especially Chinese Malaysians, currently view PAS as, a demon which if it comes into power, will 'kill' its prey (the non-Muslims, wakakaka) by constricting their non-Muslim social, cultural, religious and general freedom through PAS intrusive version (interpretation) of Islamic laws and policies.

As such, I wasn't surprised by The Malaysian Insider's news item Pakatan fears PAS puritans putting non-Muslim vote at risk which tells us: There is concern among Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) rank-and-file that PAS risks losing the pact's non-Muslim vote in Election 2013 due to the Islamist party's puritanical restrictions for the word 'Allah' and its gender-segregation policies in Kedah and Kelantan.

Yes and no to the causes of their concerns and the likely political impact.

Firstly, most Chinese (I can't say for the Indians)  aren't too concerned about the restriction in the use of the Allah word per se.

Really, why should they when the prohibited use of the Allah word doesn't affect their Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian or folk religious practice.

It's only the Christian Chinese and some civil liberty activists who are. I'm sad to say the civil liberty activists are unfortunately in the minority. And I am equally sad to say most Chinese aren't sympathetic to the Christian religious issue - incidentally I am also one, indeed one who actually opposes the use of the Allah word in the Malay language Bible (al Kitab) - sorry.

However, they have been deeply concerned about PAS' version of Islamic rules which directly affect them, such as the recent gender segregation rules (unisex hair dressing salons; couple holding hands), PAS own interpreted moral values in taking action against 2 non-Muslim men in a car watching aeroplanes taking off at KB airport, and again PAS own interpreted Islamic values in its intrusive dress codes for Chinese New Year concerts ...

... which in turn evoke earlier ugly pictures of PAS being intrusively against non-Muslim entertainment events, and the harsh draconian edicts such as stoning to death that Pak Haji Aziz threatened against unmarried mothers abandoning their newly born babies, without understanding the social issues and environment  driving those women into doing so, ...

... and miscellaneous provocative issues such as prohibiting the sale of beer at non-religious associated shops (7-11) or the caning of Muslims caught drinking (because of who could be next - the non-Muslims?), etc. 

Beyonce

Secondly, regarding possibly losing PR's non-Muslim vote in GE-13, that's already well & truly lost in Kedah.

In a previous post PAS 'blesses' MCA I wrote about ..... my discussions with quite a number of Kedahans here in Australia where I have been informed that their voting families and relatives have grumbled about being 'cheated' by PAS, a belief gained from their 'experience' under a PAS Kedah government, and that they won't ever vote for PAS again.

Mind you, neither my Kedah mateys nor I can say that UMNO or MCA will be the direct beneficiaries of their disgust (not just disappointment) with PAS. Those Chinese voters may well end up playing non-halal mahjung or p'ar kau all day on GE-13 election day, wakakaka, which I suppose will indirectly benefit UMNO.

Inul Daratista

I am of course not saying PAS won't be the next Kedah state government again, but they can take it from me they will have to achieve that minus the support of non-Muslim Chinese. Again I can't say about the voting preference of Indian Malaysians in Kedah - maybe my Indian visitors can help enlighten us on this.

In November last year I posted The python hanging around the ceiling fan reflecting my concerns about a pythonic (wakakaka) PAS, and its increasing arrogance as it senses hitherto unpossessed federal power within its reach.

READ MORE HERE

 

UKEC Projek Amanat Negara 2013

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 12:12 AM PST

RAJA PETRA KAMARUDIN to talk at the Projek Amanat Negara (PAN)

National Symposium of Malaysian Students 2013

Organised by the United Kingdom and Eire Council for Malaysian Students (UKEC)

Theme: "Malaysia: Restoring Confidence, Paving the Way"

Session: Public Policy

Topic: 13th General Elections: Scrutinising Public Policy

Date: 27 January 2013 (Sunday)

Venue: Thistle Marble Arch, London

Time: 4.10PM - 5.20PM

SEE MORE HERE: http://www.facebook.com/ukeconline

 

 

Man gets 5 years for insulting Islam on Facebook

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 03:47 PM PST

Members of Indonesia's Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) rally on the streets in Jakarta July 30, 2011. Members of the FPI are demanding the government to disband Ahmadiyah sect. Indonesia's Assembly of Indonesian Muslim Clerics (MUI) considers the Ahmadiyah sect to be 'heretical' for believing that Mohammad was not Islam's final prophet. — PHOTO: REUTERS

(The Jakarta Post) - The Bandung State Court has decided to add one more year to the prison term of Sebastian Joe, who was sentenced to four years imprisonment for blasphemy of Islam by the Ciamis District Court in West Java.

The state court decided on Tuesday to slap a higher sentence as it used the 2008 Information and Electronic Transaction (ITE) Law as a lex specialis (special law), instead of the Criminal Code (KUHP) used by the district court, said Sebastian's lawyer, Anang Fitriana, as quoted by tempo.co on Wednesday.

Sebastian was reported by the Ciamis chapter of the Islamic Defender Front (FPI) last year for a Facebook status he made, which they considered insulting to Islam.

Anang said that he planned to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

 

Remember your roots, Mahathir

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 03:31 PM PST

NGO tells the former premier that he would not have been a Malaysian if Tunku had not granted citizenships to non-Malays during Merdeka

G Vinod, FMT

If Tunku Abdul Rahman did not grant citizenships to non-Malays during Merdeka, Dr Mahathir Mohamad would not have been a Malaysian, claimed an NGO.

Malaysian Indian Progressive Association (Mipas) chairman A Rajaretinam made this known during a protest in Brickfields against Mahathir's call to probe citizenships given during Independence.

The former premier said this in reaction to the damning revelations made in the Sabah RCI, which implicated his administration in granting citizenships to foreigners to reside in Sabah.

Rajaretinam was hinting at Mahathir's Indian heritage, where the latter's father was an Indian Muslim immigrant.

Rajaretinam said that not only did Mahathir insult the Tunku with his statement but also the entire Indian community.

He added that the Indians in Malaysia got their citizenships by sacrificing their blood, sweat and tears for the sake of national development, as opposed to the immigrants in Sabah.

"Our ancestors were not refugees. We were brought in by the British government to Malaya to build the country.

"When you talk about plantation, railway and building roads, you will see our ancestors' sacrifice for the country," said Rajaretinam.

READ MORE HERE

 

Jeffrey: Tell RCI the truth, Anwar

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 03:25 PM PST

The Sabah strongman says Anwar, being the second most powerful leader in Umno then, could not have been ignorant of what was happening in Sabah.

K Kabilan, FMT

Sabah's veteran politician Jeffrey Kitingan today expressed hope that Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim would "tell the truth" if he ends up testifying in the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) probing the "Project IC" in Sabah.

"I am glad he has said that he has no problem in testifying in the RCI probing into citizenship granted to immigrants in Sabah.

"However I do hope he would tell the truth about his own role in the citizenship fiasco," Jeffrey told FMT today.

"From what I know, he was indeed in charge of Sabah [for Umno]. He was the director of operations and was involved actively in the citizenship project," he added.

"I am very sure he was in the know of what was happening in Sabah at that time."

Earlier today, Anwar told reporters that he was ready to testify at the RCI but quickly added that he was also in the dark about the project.

"I have no problem whatsoever. I knew for a long time the project was under the prime minister, that it did not involve a Cabinet process, so it is the full responsibility of the prime minister and finance minister.

"When I was there, even I was not briefed on the issue [of providing citizenship to immigrants]," Anwar said.

He also said that the RCI had not summoned him because "they know I have nothing to do with it".

Yesterday, Sabah Umno liaison deputy chief Salleh Said Keruak had challenged Anwar to tell the truth about the illegal immigrants to the RCI tasked with looking into the long-standing problem in the state.

He said that Anwar was duty-bound to do so as he was deputy prime minister at that particular period, adding that "he was a powerful man and knew what was going on in Sabah".

In recent weeks, various quarters have asked for both former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar to be summoned by the RCI to testify on the citizenship-for-vote issue.

READ MORE HERE

 

Malaysia’s judiciary is independent, says retired judge

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 03:10 PM PST

(Bernama) - Despite criticisms and accusations on the transparency and independence of Malaysia's judicial system, a retired Federal Court judge, Datuk Seri Panglima Sulong Matjeraie, said never in his years in service did anyone try to influence him in his decisions.

"I have been working as a judge for 15 years and not on one occasion did any of my bosses said: 'Sulong, you decide this way and not that way'. It never happened.

"In the Federal Court, there are five judges and one of us will write the judgment and then pass it to the rest of us. If we don't agree, we will be dissenting. There is no such thing where you have to follow.

"Definitely, we uphold the independence of the judiciary," he told Bernama here recently. Sulong, 66, the first Sarawakian appointed as Federal Court judge, clocked out for the last time at the Palace of Justice last Friday.

"To be able to administer justice according to the law is something we hold dear."

As a judge, you must make sure you serve justice and ensure justice is achieved. I think we have done that," he added.

Sulong said the transformation of judiciary in the country had also reduced the backlog of cases in courts.

"We have been working hard. There was too much of a backlog that we had to sacrifice our personal time to clear these cases. We have to ensure justice is done expeditiously. All of us work our guts out to make sure we finish our cases," he said.

Sulong was born to a humble family in 1947 in the rural town of Saratok, about 140km from Kuching. As a boy, he used to help his father to tap rubber trees and sell "kuih" in the village to earn extra pocket money.

"My late father always wanted me to be an agriculture assistant where I could get 'free uniform'. I never dreamt of becoming a lawyer or a judge.

"My late father always said: 'Sulong, learn to plant rubber trees. when you get older, you will have your own plantation'.

"As a judge, I get free uniform too," he smiled wryly.

The fourth child in a family of nine, Sulong started his working career at the tender age of 17 when he was appointed a probationary Sarawak Administrative Officer (SAO) in the Sarawak Civil Service.

That was in 1964. When he was 23, Sulong was appointed the District Officer (DO) of Bintulu -now an oil and gas town. The appointment gave him the distinction of being the youngest District Officer in Malaysia.

Sulong started his career in the judiciary when he was appointed a Judicial Commissioner in September 1998 in the High Court of Malaya in Johor Baharu. Two years later, he was a High Court Judge in the Kota Kinabalu High Court, Sabah.

In 2007, he was a judge of the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya and in April last year, he was appointed a Federal Court Judge at the Palace of Justice, here.

"My only regret was not having my father around when I was made the Court of Appeal and Federal Court Judge. He passed away few months before I was appointed as a judge," he said.

Sulong's interest in law was stirred when he was in the civil service, where one of the requirements for an administrative officer to be considered for promotion was to pass the law exam. From there it was all history. To read law, Sulong went to London on a Sarawak government scholarship to study at the Inns of Court School of Law in 1971.

"I am always grateful to the Sarawak state government for giving me that opportunity to further my studies. Otherwise, I don't think I could become a judge. I'm lucky. But then again, all you need to do is work hard and you can achieve any dreams you have," he said.

Sulong obtained his Master of Law Degree in Mercantile Law at the University of Southampton in 1977 where the law study was made possible by his wife who supported him financially.

"I'm thankful to my wife who supported me to do my Master. She was working and I was studying," he added.

Sulong served the state government in various capacities, including as General Manager of Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation from 1979 to 1980 and as the General Manager of Bintulu Development Authority from 1980 to 1983. Sulong left the civil service in 1983 and set up his own legal firm under the name of Messrs Sulong Matjeraie & Co. in Kuching the same year.

On his future and what he would like to do, Sulong said he would like to sit back first before deciding what he would like to do.

"I will take a break first before beginning to do something else. Actually I have no future plan yet. First thing I will do though is rest. It has been a long journey. It has been 49 years of working," he said.

His words to the Malaysia's judiciary: "They are doing a good job. I'm sure the judiciary of Malaysia will be second to none in years to come. The people here are very dedicated."

 

For God, King and Racism

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 03:01 PM PST

RAJA PETRA KAMARUDIN to talk at the Cambridge University Southeast Asia Forum (CUSEAF)

For God, King and Racism

Date: 30th January 2013 (Wednesday)

Time: 5.30pm

Venue: Mill Road Lecture Room 4, Cambridge University

Religion, Race and Royalty are the 'three Rs' of Malaysian politics. Both sides of the political divide have played up the issue of race, religion and royalty to the hilt for more than 55 years since independence or Merdeka.

The March 8, 2008, general election was hailed as a watershed in Malaysian political history. Fast-forward five years and we are once again anticipating another general election. How has Malaysia changed, if at all?

Raja Petra will speak on the upcoming general election expected over the next two months or so, and on whether Malaysians are finally beginning to shift away from race and religion to focus on other substantive issues.

SEE MORE HERE: http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/

 

Dr M must be stopped

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 02:19 PM PST

Zaid Ibrahim

If we follow the actions and thinking of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his supporters, then we must rectify the "errors' of the past, even if it means violating established principles of the Constitution, laws and good governance.

According to them, bringing in more Muslims into Sabah in the 1990s and making them citizens was not a cynical move to help the ruling coalition win elections (although that was the immediate benefit), but to correct the mistakes of history. Simply put, the country needed to have more Muslims – even if they were foreigners from the Philippines, Pakistan or Indonesia – because Tunku Abdul Rahman "gave away" citizenship to the Chinese and Indians as part of the Merdeka agreement. Dr M somehow blames the Tunku for making citizenship "easier" for non-Malays, which he believes justifies his call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Tunku's decision 60 years ago.

His ranting could be ignored if it weren't for the fact that it's dangerous. Dr M destroyed UMNO when it did his bidding and we must not allow him to destroy the country too. To advocate reviewing all past policies and disowning our former leaders' great sacrifices is highly irresponsible. The country's design and constitutional make-up is not like the latest Proton model for him to change at whim. Our heritage and history are ours, not his. He has lost all sense of proportion in trying to gain traction for his wayward political views to change the outcome of the General Election.

Dr M was a member of the Alliance, which agreed to adopt the principle of "jus soli" in granting citizenship to non-Malays. It was a social contract that the Malay Rulers agreed to, and which the rakyat also supported, as evidenced by the Alliance's overwhelming victories in the 1955 and 1959 elections. Yet Dr M has no compunction ridiculing our pioneering leaders' great effort to forge a nation. He is bent on making race a divisive issue in this General Election and he will destroy this country if his views are not accepted.

READ MORE HERE

 

Prosecute Ibrahim Ali over bible-burning call, Bar Council urges

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 02:11 PM PST

Syed Jaymal Zahiid, The Malaysian Insider

Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali should be charged under the Sedition Act for his remarks advocating the burning of bibles, Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said today, backing an similar call by an opposition lawmaker.

Lim said that although the Bar maintains the law deemed a political weapon to silence dissent, should be repealed, it must be impartially applied against Ibrahim given that authorities have charged opposition leaders under the same Act.

"If sedition charges were brought against Karpal Singh, equally charges should also be brought against Ibrahim Ali ... Whilst the Bar calls for the repeal of the Sedition Act, if it were to be applied, it must be applied fairly and without discrimination.

"This incident together with the contemptuous statement by another Perkasa leader against a judge and the judiciary suggest that Perkasa is allowed to behave with impunity," Lim said in a statement.

Karpal, who is DAP chairman and Bukit Gelugor MP, in on trial for sedition over remarks made pertaining to the Perak constitutional crisis in 2009, for which he was accused of making statements challenging the authority of the Sultan of Perak in dissolving the Perak state assembly.

He had earlier been acquitted of the charge by the High Court in 2010, but the Court of Appeal subsequently ordered him to enter his defence upon a successful appeal brought by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

 Lim added that if the authorities do not wish to charge Ibrahim under the Sedition Act, the Penal Code may also be applied on the Perkasa chief.

"This statement by Ibrahim is an incitement or abetment to commit criminal offence under Section 107 of the Penal Code, whilst the seizure and burning of bibles is an offence under Section 441 of the Penal Code," he said.

Section 441 of the Penal Code states that "Whoever enters unto or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property; or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit 'criminal trespass'."

"The public must be warned that this is probably a criminal offence," Lim said.

READ MORE HERE

 

Citizenship-for-votes probe stirs outrage

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 01:51 PM PST

The opposition and election-reform advocates allege massive fraud in voter rolls nationwide and have seized on the testimony as proof of government vote-tampering.

By Julia Zappei, FMT

KUALA LUMPUR: For years, charges have swirled that a secret Malaysian scheme gave citizenship to huge numbers of illegal migrants in a politically important state in exchange for votes for the ruling coalition.

Now, an inquiry is finally airing detailed allegations that have the government on the defensive ahead of elections that pose the greatest threat yet faced by the ruling bloc that has controlled Malaysia for 56 years.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry opened last week with ex-officials admitting they gave citizenship to Filipinos and Indonesians in resource-rich Sabah, one of two Malaysian states on jungly Borneo island.

One former official said some 100,000 identity cards (ICs) were handed out in 1993 ahead of a crucial state election, Malaysian news reports said. Another admitted signing hundreds of thousands of ICs in the 1990s.

The testimony has revived accusations of treason against former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is alleged to have masterminded the scheme to shore up support for his government.

As head of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition, Mahathir dominated Malaysia for 22 years with his famously hardball political tactics until he resigned in 2003.

Current prime minister Najib Tun Razak is now battling to rally support for the BN ahead of polls he is expected to call within months, in an era when the coalition's power grip has slipped.

But outrage over "Project IC", as the alleged scheme is widely known, is undercutting his claims that the national electoral roll is free of fraud.

The opposition and election-reform advocates allege massive fraud in voter rolls nationwide and have seized on the testimony as proof of government vote-tampering.

"What we are concerned about is that this is still going on. That's what we want to stop," S Ambiga, head of the clean-elections activist coalition known as "Bersih", or "Clean", told a press conference Tuesday.

The outlines of "Project IC" have been whispered about for three decades and have bolstered the view of Sabah as a reliable "fixed deposit" of votes for the BN to help it weather challenges elsewhere.

The government allegedly targeted Muslims from neighbouring Indonesia and the predominantly Muslim southern Philippines.

Sudden growth in population

More than half of Malaysia's 29 million people are Muslim ethnic Malays, but indigenous tribes, many of them Christian, predominate in Sabah.

They have bridled at the foreigners, blaming them for crime, drug abuse and economic competition, and alleging their homeland was being stolen.

Najib last June gave in to calls for an inquiry, but the move could backfire, said Ibrahim Suffian, head of independent polling firm Merdeka Centre, calling the revelations "explosive".

"It probably will create a wave of resentment and dissatisfaction among native Sabah voters. This confirms their worst fears," he said.

The population of Sabah, a region of rugged mountains and powerful rainforest rivers that is about the size of Ireland, has surged from some 600,000 citizens in 1970 to more than three million — more than double the national growth rate.

READ MORE HERE

 

Subpoena Dr M, Anwar, Sabah RCI told

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 01:48 PM PST

It will be an invaluable opportunity to uncover the black operations behind elections in Malaysia, says Suaram's Kua Kia Soong. 

Lisa J. Ariffin, FMT

Suaram today called on the Sabah Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to subpoena Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim in its ongoing probe into illegal immigrants.

Suaram adviser Kua Kia Soong said the RCI "must spare no effort" in revealing how citizenships had been given out clandestinely to illegal immigrants and refugees under the Mahathir administration.

Anwar was then in charge of Sabah operations.

"This RCI on immigrants in Sabah is an invaluable opportunity for us all to uncover the black operations behind elections in Malaysia," Kua said in a statement.

"The perpetrators of this electoral deceit must be brought to justice," he added, reiterating the need for the RCI to subpoena Dr M and Anwar.

Kua then claimed the current Najib administration had only acceded to Sabahans' demands for an RCI for political mileage ahead of the 13th general election.

"The RCI had been demanded by Sabahans for years… Umno just couldn't evade their demand anymore," he said.

"Sabahans have had it up to there. And that is why (Najib) had to accede to their demand for a RCI if he was to try and keep his 'fixed deposit' in Sabah," he added.

Implement recommendations

Kua cautioned the failure of the RCI to bring this inquiry to a satisfactory conclusion "will forever bring into question the legitimacy of elections in Malaysia".

READ MORE HERE

 

Allah issue: ‘Pakatan stands by Hadi’

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 01:26 PM PST

 

Anwar Ibrahim is firm that Pakatan Rakyat will allow non-Muslims to use the word 'Allah'.

Anisah Shukry, FMT

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said that Pakatan Rakyat was firm in its decision that non-Muslims were allowed to use the word "Allah".

"Pakatan Rakyat in the past meeting looked through the statement made by PAS president [Hadi Abdul Awang] carefully and we took the stand that we agreed to give room [for Allah to be used by non-Muslims], but to also remind people to not misuse it," said Anwar.

"So we follow what the PAS president says. And if he does not revise that statement, then that is Pakatan's decision."

He was referring to a statement by PAS president Hadi Awang after the opposition pact's presidential meeting on Jan 8.

Hadi had said that "Allah", which is written in the Quran, is special and cannot be translated properly to other languages.

"That's why Muslims of all races refer to God as Allah. So non-Muslims can use the holy word although it may not reflect the original meeting," Hadi had said.

But the PAS Syura Council said last week that non-Muslims should prevent the use of the word "Allah" in translations of their religious text.

"Translating the word God or Lord from any non-Muslim religious texts to the word Allah cannot be allowed because it is wrong from the aspect of meaning…. therefore, it has to be prevented," PAS spiritual adviser Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said in a statement.

Commenting on this, Anwar said: "I've read the PAS Syura Council's statement. Its concern is the problem of the term 'Allah' used for other purposes, and that is probably where there is a difference of opinion…"

But he said the difference of opinion was small and the issue as a whole had been interpreted differently by various Muslim scholars.

READ MORE HERE

 

Rakaman video bukti Umno halang Nik Nazmi ceramah di Sri Stulang, Johor Baharu

Posted: 22 Jan 2013 11:31 AM PST

http://www.keadilandaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Nik-Nazmi-i-300x225.jpg 

(Keadilan Daily) - Sebagaimana ramai maklum, pada 15 Januari yang lalu, saya bersama Tan Poh Lai, Ketua Cabang KEADILAN Johor Bahru dan rombongan yang lain telah berhadapan keganasan UMNO ketika cuba mengadakan ceramah di Flat Sri Stulang, Johor Bahru.

Hari ini kami tampil dengan tiga rakaman video insiden tersebut. 

Kami pada mulanya tiba sekitar jam 8.30 malam dan berjalan ke flat apabila dihalang kumpulan berpakaian baju Umno BN. Mereka enggan membenarkan kami masuk ke dalam sekalipun kami sudah bersiap-siap untuk program kami terlebih dahulu. Mereka turut mengeluarkan makian dan kata-kata kesat terhadap kami.

Selepas berbincang dengan pihak polis, maka kami berundur sementara untuk menyejukkan keadaan. Kemudian kami cuba masuk dengan kenderaan kami ke perkarangan flat menerusi pintu satu lagi. Kini kami dihalang anak-anak muda berbaju Umno yang kemudian memanggil kumpulan pertama. Kami cuba masuk dengan berjalan kaki tetapi terus dihalang dan saya turut ditendang (rujuk video a).

Kami kemudian keluar daripada tempat kejadian, sekalipun cuba dihalang beberapa orang Umno-BN (rujuk video b) dan terus membuat laporan polis di Balai Polis Majidee Johor Bahru.

Kemudian dengan ditemani teman-teman daripada KEADILAN Pasir Gudang dan Gelang Patah serta PAS bersama-sama pihak polis masuk semula ke tapak ceramah untuk mengambil peralatan ceramah.

Saya telahpun dihubungi pegawai penyiasat kes ini. Saya berharap pimpinan tertinggi Umno, Presidennya, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak , Ketua Pemuda Umno, Khairy Jamaluddin dan Ahli Parlimen Johor Bahru, Tan Sri Shahrir Samad dapat menyatakan dengan jelas pendirian mereka menolak keganasan politik.

Rakaman video

Video a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMDJWzB5uKg (Di pintu masuk kedua Flat Sri Stulang di mana kenderaan kami dihalang dan ditendang, dan kemudian rombongan kami dihalang dan saya ditendang lelaki di dalam baju BN berwarna biru)

Video b http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pUZ4d-l5tk (Kami terus dihalang beberapa individu ketika kami cuba meninggalkan kawasan tersebut)

Video c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOIKzG7eNV8 (Kami mengambil peralatan ceramah dengan diiringi pihak polis selepas membuat laporan polis)

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Why is Dr Mahathir such an idiot?

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 08:31 PM PST

Many argue that Dr Mahathir was the architect. While this may be true (and Dr Mahathir, in fact, did not deny it), the 'man-on-the-ground' in charge of executing the plan was Anwar. And while you may argue that Anwar had no choice but to do what Dr Mahathir wanted, how do you explain Zaid Ibrahim resigning from the Cabinet because he did not want to do what the Prime Minister wanted?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad such an idiot? Does he not know that his statements, plus those of the other 'independent' MPs and 'Umno-friendly' people such as Ibrahim Ali, are going to hurt Barisan Nasional in the coming general election expected over the next two months or so? Does Dr Mahathir have a death wish for Umno and Barisan Nasional on the eve (almost) of the 13th General Election?

I would expect someone of Dr Mahathir's political acumen and savvy would be smarter than that. He is, after all, 'The Grand Old Man' of Malaysian politics and very Machiavellian at that too. But what he has been saying and doing of late gives the impression that he is getting senile or is losing it.

Actually, Dr Mahathir is just being, as the Malays would say, bodoh sepat. Which means he is cleverer than many of us suspect. He knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. And those of us who are unsuspecting are being dragged into Dr Mahathir's game plan, which he is playing to achieve the end game of winning the coming general election.

But how do you win the general election by insulting and antagonising the voters? Should you not instead be apple-polishing the voters? Should you not instead be shaking hands and kissing babies? Do you win the general election by making an enemy of the voters?

Ah, this is what separates the men from the boys. Dr Mahathir knows which side his bread is buttered. And he is just making sure he touches the right side of that buttered bread so that he does not get sticky fingers. And all his political life he has made sure that other people get their fingers dirty while he keeps his as clean as a whistle.

Okay, we all know that Dr Mahathir is or was the architect in most of the controversies and scandals to hit Malaysia. However, while he may be the architect, he makes sure that others are the engineers. Hence he designs things but he lets others carry out the dirty work. And he makes sure he insulates himself so that he can do what the US Presidents would do: deniability.

You may suspect he is the architect. You may even know for a fact that he is the architect. But you will never catch him with his hands in the cookie jar. The engineers would be those caught with their pants down. And if you try to bring him to book you will lack the evidence to gain a conviction because there will be no tangible evidence to speak of.

And that was why Nixon was caught while all the others were not. Deniability and insulating the top -- that is how it is done in the US. The architect must not also be the engineer. Hence the engineer would fall while the architect would remain protected.

May 13 is one example that comes to mind. The engineer gets caught while we can only suspect the architect behind the event. As much as we may feel we know who the architect is there is not enough evidence to hang him from the highest tree.

The Sabah illegal immigrants issue now under the investigation of the RCI is yet another example. The entire country knows the architect behind that. They even call it 'Projek M'. But do you have Dr Mahathir's fingerprints anywhere? Where is the smoking gun? What you do have are the fingerprints of various Sabah Chief Ministers, Political Secretaries and Ministers. Is there enough tangible evidence to arrest and try Dr Mahathir?

To be fair, the findings of the RCI is not complete yet as the inquiry is still ongoing. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that when they complete the inquiry and publish the findings of the RCI there would not be enough evidence for legal recourse to be taken against Dr Mahathir.

The testimony of the witnesses thus far appears to show that this scandal had been going on since the 1960s and 1970s. Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister only in the 1980s. Hence this started one or two decades before Dr Mahathir's watch.

Now, in 1985, four years after Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister and three years after Anwar Ibrahim joined Umno, Sabah fell to a 'Christian' government. In 1991, Anwar became the Finance Minister and in 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister after ousting Tun Ghafar Baba.

Tun Ghafar thereby lost his position as head of Umno Sabah and Anwar took over as the Director of Operations of Barisan Nasional Sabah. And Anwar's job was to take back Sabah, which they did the following year in 1994. And how did Anwar succeed in taking back Sabah? He did so by 'diluting' the Christian voters, who had given Sabah to PBS, with an estimated one million 'new' Muslim voters.

Many argue that Dr Mahathir was the architect. While this may be true (and Dr Mahathir, in fact, did not deny it), the 'man-on-the-ground' in charge of executing the plan was Anwar. And while you may argue that Anwar had no choice but to do what Dr Mahathir wanted, how do you explain Zaid Ibrahim resigning from the Cabinet because he did not want to do what the Prime Minister wanted?

This means you do not have to do what the Prime Minister wants, especially if it is something illegal or immoral, and then argue that you had no choice. You can always resign on principle like what Zaid Ibrahim did.

Let us look at another issue, the Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s. Again, Dr Mahathir was the architect for this crisis. That much we know for a fact. But the engineers were Tun Ghafar and Anwar. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who we saw on TV back in the 1980s driving in and out of Istana Negara at the height of the crisis. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who met the Rulers to quarrel with them. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who spoke to the press and kept us updated every day with their press statements.

Yes, Dr Mahathir is a Republican and is anti-Royalty. I can confirm that because I have personally heard Dr Mahathir utter anti-Royalty statements. I heard that with my own ears. But I have also personally heard Anwar whack the Rulers. That, too, came from Anwar's own mouth.

My conclusion, made almost 30 years ago back in the 1980s, was that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar are Republicans and are anti-Royalty. And, more importantly, the Rulers also know that Dr Mahathir and Anwar are anti-Royalty. And that is why the Rulers don't like Dr Mahathir and Anwar.

But Dr Mahathir is no longer in power. He is no longer the Prime Minister (maybe only the de facto Prime Minister like Anwar is the de facto PKR leader). Najib Tun Razak is. And Najib, without a doubt, is pro-Royalty while the man who wants to oust Najib and take over as Prime Minister, Anwar, is anti-Royalty. Hence, between Najib and Anwar, the Rulers would rather have Najib as the Prime Minister and they will do anything they can to ensure that Najib stays on and Anwar never takes over.

We can argue that Malaysia is a democracy and it matters not what the Rulers want because, in the end, it is the people who will decide. True, but which people? And this brings us back to my opening statement regarding Dr Mahathir's 'stupidity'.

The Chinese have made it very clear that they are going to vote ABU -- anything but Umno. The Indians, to a certain extent, have said the same thing, although not as high a percentage as the Chinese. In the last general election, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP won a total of only 20 seats (PPP zero) out of 222 Parliamentary seats. That was less than 10%.

This time around, they may be reduced to just 10 seats in total, or less than 5% of the seats in Parliament. Never mind what Barisan Nasional, Umno or Najib does, this is not going to change things one bit. MIC, Gerakan and PPP are going to get totally wiped out while MCA may be reduced to just 10 seats.

This means they need to depend on just Umno and the East Malaysian members of Barisan Nasional to stay in power. Even then they may be able to do so with only 110-120 seats.

Hence Umno can forget about the non-Umno parties in West Malaysia (MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP). Whatever they say and do is not going to save the day. The only thing that can save Umno would be the Malay votes -- that determine roughly two-thirds of the seats in West Malaysia.

And that is why what they are doing/saying is not to win the hearts and mind of the Chinese and Indian voters. It is too late to win the hearts and minds of the Chinese and Indian voters. They need to win the hearts and minds of the Malay voters. And to do that they need to do and say what they are currently doing and saying.

While this may upset the Chinese and Indians, who are not going to vote for Umno anyway, it pacifies the Malays. And it is the Malays they want to pacify, not the Chinese and Indians, who have made it very clear they are not going to vote Barisan Nasional or Umno come hell or high water.

Dr Mahathir may not be such an idiot after all. It could be that he knows exactly what he is doing. Whatever it may be, in two months time or so we will know if Dr Mahathir is an idiot or actually a Machiavellian political genius. Two months more, that is all, and we will know.

 

This is no conspiracy theory

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 04:57 PM PST

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last two years my studies in British and European history has been able to help me look at events from a fresh perspective. When we studied history back in our school days in Malaysia it was merely a study of dates and events, and maybe the personalities behind those events.

Later they changed the syllabus to objective and you just marked the correct answer: A, B, C, D or E. That brought the level of education down drastically and sometimes you passed your exams by just making a lucky guess at what the right answer is.

Here in Oxford we need to look at the broader picture to understand why what happened, happened. And if we apply the Oxford module rather than the 'Pendidekan Malaysia' module (I am not even sure of the 'modern' Malay spelling any more) then the Sabah 'illegal immigrants given Malaysian citizenship' issue can be better understood.

Many of you reading this are probably quite young, born after Merdeka of 1957 or after 'May 13' of 1969 -- or maybe you were still a kid then and did not know what was happening around you. Hence you will look at the 'Sabah issue' from today's perspective. And hence, also, you just want to know who the guilty person is in what you consider a most heinous 'crime' -- in your opinion tantamount to treachery.

Now, I am not saying what they did in Sabah is legal or illegal, or even moral or immoral. This piece is not about right and wrong. Historians do not pass judgement about events in history. They just analyse what happened and what, in their opinion, were the causes of that event.

First let us go to back to 1946, the year Umno was formed.

In 1946, the British Colonial government introduced the Malayan Union, which reduced the powers of the Raja-raja Melayu (Malay Rulers). This, in turn, meant that the Malays would lose some of their powers. Hence the elite and intellectuals amongst the Malays opposed the Malayan Union.

Yes, it was the Malay elite class and the intellectual community -- and not the fishermen and farmers -- who opposed the Malayan Union. The kampong people did not really care because their lives would remain the same never mind who ran the country.

Because of this opposition to the Malayan Union, in 1948 the British abandoned the idea and instead introduced the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Next came the idea of Merdeka or independence. And this took many years of negotiations (no blood on the streets, as what Umno tells us). One issue of concern to Britain was what to do with the more than one million Chinese and Indians after Malaya was given Merdeka. They can't be sent back to China and India so an independent Malaya had to absorb them by giving them citizenship.

Now, note what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday. He said that Tunku Abdul Rahman was worse. The Tunku gave citizenship to more than one million foreigners. Maybe Dr Mahathir is trying to say that he gave citizenship to less than one million foreigners.

What Dr Mahathir did not explain is that the Tunku had to agree to the granting of citizenship to more than one million Chinese and Indians, which was the British term and condition for agreeing to Merdeka for Malaya. If the Tunku did not agree then the British would probably disagree to Merdeka for Malaya mainly because they had to 'protect' the more than one million Chinese and Indians who would otherwise become stateless.

It was a sort of trade off. Malaya would absorb the more than one million Chinese and Indians. The Chinese and Indians, in turn, must agree to special privileges for the Malays (plus Malay becomes the national language and Islam the religion of the Federation). And then Britain would grant Malaya independence.

In 1955, two years before Merdeka, the first elections were held in Malaya and the Alliance Party (a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC) won 51 of the 52 seats. That meant the Alliance Party was 'stable' and could rule an independent Malaya with a clear mandate from the voters. Two years later, in 1957, Malaya gained independence.

But that 'honeymoon' was short-lived. Twelve years later, in 1969, the Alliance party received a beating in the Third General Election. It garnered less than 50% of the popular votes and lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Alliance Party (meaning all three: Umno, MCA and MIC) knew that it was losing power. Hence Barisan Nasional was formed to replace the Alliance Party so that the opposition parties could be brought into the ruling coalition. And that was how the Alliance Party got back control of the country -- by forming a new coalition with the opposition parties (what we could call a 'unity government', I suppose).

But that was not enough and they needed to do more. Selangor, the jewel in the crown, was in jeopardy (it still is today). So they created new 'Malay' cities, such as Shah Alam, and 'flooded' these cities with Malays to 'dilute' the Chinese voters.

Then they created a separate Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur so that the majority Chinese in Kuala Lumpur could be 'kicked out' of Selangor. Thus the ruling party can afford to lose Kuala Lumpur but they would not also lose Selangor.

By then, of course, Malaysia had been created with the agreement that 25% of the Parliament seats would come from Sabah and Sarawak. This would mean that Sabah and Sarawak would be the ruling party's 'fixed deposit' and there was no way 1969 could be repeated as long as Sabah and Sarawak remained under the ruling party.

But that soon changed in 1985 when PBS, seen as a Christian-based party, kicked out the 'Muslim' government and replaced it with a 'Christian' government.

This meant, yet again, the ruling party was in danger of losing power like what happened in 1969. And they were in danger of losing power because the Muslims, who used to be 85-90% of the population, pre-Merdeka, had been reduced to a mere 50% or so -- in the first instance when more than one million Chinese and Indians had been given citizenship in 1957 and in the second instance when Sabah and Sarawak became part of Malaysia and the Muslim population was diluted even further.

Hence Barisan Nasional (in particular Umno) needed to dilute the non-Muslim population, in particular in their 'fixed deposit' states in East Malaysia which control a very critical 25% of the seats in Parliament and where the Muslims are not the majority like in West Malaysia.

And that was when the idea was mooted to 'create' an additional Muslim population of at least one million. And they could not wait for this to happen gradually over 50 years by encouraging Malays to have more children. They had to 'fast track' this exercise, which means they had to 'import' the population.

The first step was for Umno to get into Sabah. The next step was to 'import' one million Muslims into Sabah and give them citizenship. In 1994, this exercise over those few years proved successful when the 'Christian' government got kicked out and a 'Muslim' government took over the state and has held it ever since.

Now, certainly Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister of Malaysia at that time. But it was the Barisan Nasional government (which means it was more than just Umno) that came out with this game plan on how to grab back and/or retain power by diluting the non-Muslim population by importing a large Muslim population.

In 1957, they granted citizenship to one million 'foreign' Chinese and Indians and 30 years later they 'balanced' this by granting citizenship to one million foreign Muslims. There was nothing illegal about what they did but whether it was moral or not is another thing altogether.

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

And this happened not because of one man, Dr Mahathir, but because of what the government did. And Anwar was a key person in that government at that time. Hence I would be very careful about how the opposition plays up the Sabah issue because if the truth were to emerge it may cost PKR a lot of votes in Sabah. And if they can't win Sabah then they can't form the next federal government.

 

Lest we forget

Posted: 14 Jan 2013 10:58 PM PST

Nevertheless, the point is, that 'historical crowd' did not help the opposition do better. Instead, the opposition did worse. And we celebrated too early our 'success' in 2000 because we translated the crowd in that most historical demonstration into an election victory.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

What BN and Pakatan should be worried about

Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily

Barisan Nasional (BN) probably had not anticipated that the January 12 rally could cause a stir at all.

Past records show that rallies initiated by Pakatan Rakyat, other than the Bersih rallies, could only manage under-10,000 attendance, at best 20,000 to 30,000 on full mobilisation.

The 10,000 to 30,000 that took to the streets could be easily seen as diehard supporters of the opposition pact that would remain loyal whether Pakatan had performed up to the mark or BN had put in any effort to change.

Such a figure could be easily digested by BN and so long as the attendance was placed within this bracket, the impact it would leave on the ruling coalition would be minimal.

BN laid its hopes on the silent majority. So long as these people adopted a wait-and-watch attitude, BN should be able to bring them into its fold.

BN has vast resources at its disposal and Pakatan can make mistakes at times. That explains why Najib prefers to wait instead of rushing to dissolve the Parliament.

The attendance of last weekend's rally far exceeded the estimates of the BN government. Whether it was the 50,000 estimated by the police, the 100,000 claimed by BN, or even the 150,000 some others have estimated, the figure was way higher than what the BN had anticipated.

Where did these additional participants come from? Why had so many answered Pakatan's call?

Could the moderate stance adopted by the police and government embolden the masses to take to the streets?

This is what BN was eager to find out.

If we take 100,000 as a reference, it shows that many erstwhile passive Pakatan supporters and political neutrals have indeed changed their minds. They refused to stay silent and chose to throw their arms around Pakatan.

Some of them did not have a firm or solid political inclination in the past but have now begun to care about social issues and national development.

They were led there by a plethora of factors ranging from dismal government policies, discrepancies in economic development, environmental concerns, widespread public sector corruption and lack of transparency in electoral procedures, among others.

They want a country with a bright future, a more promising society.

When they felt the government had failed them, or the government had slackened in implementing its reform agenda, they rose up to demonstrate their feelings.

The moment Pakatan's appeals met with their aspirations, they would walk out of their passivity and silent past to embrace Pakatan.

When they have become active opponents to the government, a snowballing effect would ensue, enticing more people to their camp. BN should become truly worried when more and more people have chosen to drop their silence, and the ruling coalition.

As for whether a tough crackdown could stop the people from going to the street, I would say no. People would still pour out onto the streets and if subjected to oppressive operations from the government, will be more enraged, bringing the anti-government sentiment way further and broader than anyone could cope with.

What BN did right was to respond with a peaceful gesture which has spared it from much more horrible eventualities.

Something that BN can do now is to expedite reforms to win over the rest of the silent majority.

As for Pakatan, it has to make sure not to commit even the slightest mistakes to sustain the momentum.

The policies of PAS-led Kedah state government have dealt a blow to the integrity of Pakatan Rakyat; so have the controversies over the use of the word "Allah." Improper handling of either could signal the start of its downfall.

***********************************************

THE 100,000 CROWD FIVE KILOMETRES LONG

On 5th November 2000, one year after the general election of 29th November 1999, one of the largest demonstrations in Malaysian history was held along the Kesas Highway, which was met with extreme show of force and brutality by the Malaysian police.

This got the government so worried that soon after that they detained without trial ten of those involved in its organisation, me being one of those ten.

According to the testimony of the Malaysian police during the RCI that was conducted to investigate the extreme force that was used, no less than 100,000 demonstrators took to the streets that day. For the first time in history both the police and the organisers agreed on the figure, 100,000.

That November 2000 demonstration, one year after the general election of 1999, was supposed to be the foundation for the 'big push' in the following general election expected around 2004 or so.

Due to that exceptionally large crowd of 100,000, against the backdrop of about six million voters, that gave the opposition great encouragement. Surely that 100,000 crowd turnout was going to help the opposition do better than it did in the November 1999 general election.

In the 1999 general election, the opposition won two states and 45 Parliament seats. In the following general election expected in 2004 or so, the opposition can easily increase this to five states and more than 80 Parliament seats.

But this did not happen. What happened instead was the opposition lost one state, Terengganu, and got reduced to less than half the Parliament seats, only 21. There is, of course, more than one reason for this disaster, partly the opposition's fault and partly because of what the ruling party did.

Nevertheless, the point is, that 'historical crowd' did not help the opposition do better. Instead, the opposition did worse. And we celebrated too early our 'success' in 2000 because we translated the crowd in that most historical demonstration into an election victory.

Let us not make that same mistake again -- as we have done so many times since then in Sanggang, Indera Kayangan, and so on, until the 2004 general election when the opposition got its arse whacked good and proper.

I suppose the English proverb 'don't count your chickens before they hatch' holds true here. And this time around the voter turnout would probably increase from just six million in 1999 to more than ten million.

 

So it’s settled then

Posted: 08 Jan 2013 07:57 PM PST

Malaya or Malaysia did not attend the conference because Malaya and Malaysia did not exist yet at time. Malaya was created only in 1957 and Malaysia in 1963. Hence Malaya/Malaysia is not a party to that treaty or a recipient of any compensation. The recipient would be Britain, the colonial masters of the non-existent Malaya/Malaysia at that time.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

So it's settled then. Pakatan Rakyat allows non-Muslims to us the Allah word. Barisan Nasional does not allow non-Muslims to use the Allah word.

MCA, the lead partner in Barisan Nasional after Umno, has no opinion about the matter. You use or don't use the Allah word they don't care. They are not going to comment about it.

MIC does not want to comment whether they are going to comment. They are just going to maintain an elegant silence. So you do not know whether MIC agrees or does not agree to non-Muslims using the Allah word. And MIC will soon be known as MINC, the acronym for 'May I Not Comment'.

His Highness the Sultan of Selangor does not agree to non-Muslims using the Allah word. The Church does not agree to His Highness the Sultan not agreeing to non-Muslims using the Allah word.

Some people in Pakatan Rakyat agree with Pakatan Rakyat's stand. Some people in Pakatan Rakyat do not agree with Pakatan Rakyat's stand. Some people in Pakatan Rakyat do not want to take a stand regarding Pakatan Rakyat's stand.

Some people in Barisan Nasional agree with Barisan Nasional's stand. Some people in Barisan Nasional do not agree with Barisan Nasional's stand. Some people in Barisan Nasional do not want to take a stand regarding Barisan Nasional's stand.

So it's settled then. Malaysian politics can no longer be divided between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional. Because there are supporters, opposers and abstainers from both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional, Malaysian politics must now be divided between the pro-Allah word and the anti-Allah word grouping.

Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional plus their 13 or so component party members will need to be disbanded and a new grouping of pro-Allah word and anti-Allah word be created to face the coming general election. The voters will then be able to vote along the lines of whether they support or oppose the use of the Allah word.

Once either the pro-Allah word or the anti-Allah word grouping wins the general election and gets to form the new federal government, Malaysians can expect to see brighter days ahead of them. Maybe corruption, abuse of power and wastage of public funds will still be a problem and we will still not see transparency, accountability and good governance, but at least Malaysians would have resolved one extremely important issue -- whether the pro-Allah word or the anti-Allah word grouping gets to run the country.

With either the pro-Allah word or the anti-Allah word grouping running the country, foreign investors will flock to Malaysia and will pour billions into the country. More jobs will be created and no Malaysian will face unemployment. There will, in fact, be a huge problem of labour shortage, which will allow a few million Indonesians to migrate to Malaysia to fill up the many job vacancies. These Indonesians can then be given Malaysian citizenship and they will be able to vote in future Malaysian general elections.

Malaysia can then increase the minimum wage to RM1,500 a month, as what some people want, which can be further increased by 10% a year so that Malaysians can be ahead of the inflation rate and not find it hard to make ends meet.

In time, Malaysia's minimum wage can match that of the UK, which is roughly RM35 an hour. Then the one million Malaysians living and working overseas can return to Malaysia and seek employment at home since Malaysia is facing a shortage of workers and is paying high wages, comparable to that of the UK.

Malaysia's political culture would also see a revolutionary change that it much needs. No longer will politics be about who makes a better Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim. It will also no longer be about Ketuanan Melayu, the New Economic Policy, Article 153, Bahasa Malaysia, Malaysia's poor education system and poor health service, etc. It will be about whether you support or oppose the use of the Allah word.

Malaysians of all races and religions will no longer be divided like they are now. Malaysians of whatever race and religion will be united under one of two umbrellas. And these umbrellas would be either you support or you oppose the use of the Allah word.

Now, on the second issue of the so-called RM207 billion from Japan, the Treaty of San Francisco or the San Francisco Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers was officially signed by 48 nations on 8th September 1951 at the War Memorial Opera House in San Francisco, United States. It came into force on 28th April 1952.

The countries that attended the Conference were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

This treaty served to officially end World War II, to formally end Japan's position as an imperial power, and to allocate compensation to Allied civilians and former prisoners of war who had suffered Japanese war crimes. This treaty made extensive use of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to enunciate the Allies' goals.

Malaya or Malaysia did not attend the conference because Malaya and Malaysia did not exist yet at time. Malaya was created only in 1957 and Malaysia in 1963. Hence Malaya/Malaysia is not a party to that treaty or a recipient of any compensation. The recipient would be Britain, the colonial masters of the non-existent Malaya/Malaysia at that time.

So that is also settled then, just like the use of the Allah word has been settled. And the Japanese Embassy has just confirmed that the RM207 billion does not exist just like Malaya/Malaysia did not exist when the treaty was signed.

So now Malaysians can get back to the business of choosing their next government in the coming general election. And you will choose your government not on whether you support Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional but on whether you support or oppose the use of the Allah word.

And once the election is over and the winning grouping gets to form the next government, Malaysia is going to prosper and is going to grow in leaps and bounds and in no time at all Malaysia is going to move from the bottom of the list of ASEAN countries to the top of the list, beating even Singapore and Indonesia, who are yet to resolve the issue of whether non-Muslims can or cannot use the Allah word.

Malaysia is going to be remembered as the first of almost 200 countries all over the world that has officially decided on the matter of whether non-Muslims can or cannot use the Allah word. Malaysia has made history and in time will be hailed as a world leader poised to take over the leadership of the United Nations.

Malaysians who used to be ashamed of their country will now be proud to be Malaysian. The United Nations may even consider shifting its headquarters from New York to Putrajaya in honour of the great progress the country has made in resolving the issue of the use of the Allah word.

PROUD TO BE MALAYSIAN

mAV7OM7jVac

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAV7OM7jVac

 

Looking at things realistically

Posted: 07 Jan 2013 04:53 PM PST

Hence with 10 seats in the FT, 10 in Johor, 25 in East Malaysia, 11 in Kedah, 12 in Kelantan, 11 in Penang, 18 in Perak, 17 in Selangor, 1 in Terengganu, 1 in Melaka, 3 in Negeri Sembilan, 5 in Pahang and 0 in Perlis, Pakatan Rakyat can just scrape through with the majority that it needs to form the new federal government -- 124 Parliament seats for Pakatan Rakyat versus 98 seats for Barisan Nasional.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In the March 2008 general election, Pakatan Rakyat won 80 Parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia and only two in East Malaysia -- one each in Sabah and Sarawak. Barisan Nasional won 140 Parliament seats in total.

Let's say this time around Pakatan Rakyat manages to retain its 80 Parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia. It does not lose any of its seats and neither does it increase its seats in Peninsular Malaysia. That would mean Pakatan Rakyat would need to win at least 32 seats from East Malaysia (or an increase of 30 seats from the current two) to form the new federal government.

The first question would be: would an increase from two to 32 be a realistic aim? Is that not too large a jump to expect?

Nevertheless, 32 seats from East Malaysia would give Pakatan Rakyat a mere two-seat majority -- 112 Parliament seats for Pakatan Rakyat versus 110 for Barisan Nasional. That is too risky, as Barisan Nasional needs to buy over only one Pakatan Rakyat Member of Parliament to trigger a hung Parliament -- or two Pakatan Rakyat MPs to take over the government.

Hence Pakatan Rakyat needs more than just an additional 32 seats. Preferably it should be at least 42 seats to make it safe for Pakatan Rakyat so that Pakatan Rakyat wins 122 Parliament seats versus 100 for Barisan Nasional.

However, East Malaysia has only 56 Parliament seats -- 25 in Sabah and 31 in Sarawak. So 42 seats would not be a realistic target. At best Pakatan Rakyat may be able to win between 3-8 Parliament seats in Sabah and 7-11 in Sarawak.

That would give Pakatan Rakyat only 10 to 19 Parliament seats in total -- far short of the 32-42 that Pakatan Rakyat needs to form the new federal government (or form the new federal government with a safe majority of 22 seats).

Let's average those worst (11) and best (19) case scenarios for East Malaysia and put it as 15 seats in total. Added to the 80 seats from Peninsular Malaysia, that would give Pakatan Rakyat only 95 seats. And that would mean Barisan Nasional would still form the federal government with 127 Parliament seats.

Hence 11-19 seats from East Malaysia are not enough. From the total of 56 seats for East Malaysia, Pakatan Rakyat must win at least 25. And this would mean Pakatan Rakyat must cooperate with other East Malaysian parties because on its own Pakatan Rakyat can never win 25 of the 56 seats from East Malaysia.

On top of that, Pakatan Rakyat would need to win an additional 15 seats from Peninsular Malaysia from its current 80. I am assuming, of course, that Pakatan Rakyat can retain every single one of its 80 seats from Peninsular Malaysia. This would then give Pakatan Rakyat a total of 120 Parliament seats versus only 102 for Barisan Nasional.

We are, of course, working on the assumption that Pakatan Rakyat can retain all its 80 Parliament seats from Peninsular Malaysia and then it wins an additional (new) 15 seats from Peninsular Malaysia plus 25 seats from East Malaysia (which would include some 'joint venture' arrangements with other non-Pakatan Rakyat parties). If not then it will not work.

But where are these seats going to come from?

Well, in the 2008 general election, Pakatan Rakyat won only 1 seat in Johor from the 26 seats in total. Hence Pakatan Rakyat would have to increase its seats in Johor to at least 10.

In Pahang, Pakatan Rakyat won only 2 of the 14 seats. It would need to win at least 5 seats this time around.

In the Federal Territory, Kedah, Penang and Selangor, Pakatan Rakyat may have already peaked. Hence it needs to look at Perak where it won only 13 of the 24 seats and try to increase this to 18 -- or an additional 5 seats.

Hence with 10 seats in the FT, 10 in Johor, 25 in East Malaysia, 11 in Kedah, 12 in Kelantan, 11 in Penang, 18 in Perak, 17 in Selangor, 1 in Terengganu, 1 in Melaka, 3 in Negeri Sembilan, 5 in Pahang and 0 in Perlis, Pakatan Rakyat can just scrape through with the majority that it needs to form the new federal government -- 124 Parliament seats for Pakatan Rakyat versus 98 seats for Barisan Nasional.

Of course, if Pakatan Rakyat can win 1 seat in Perlis, 2 in Melaka, and 3 in Terengganu, then it will sail in with 128 seats versus Barisan Nasional's 94.

The earlier question I asked was: but where are these seats going to come from? The next question to ask, I suppose, is: can this be done?

Pakatan Rakyat is confident that it can win at least 122-127 seats, leaving Barisan Nasional with only 95-100 seats. Barisan Nasional, on the other hand, is confident it can win 130-135 seats, leaving Pakatan Rakyat with only 90 or so seats.

Only one can be right. Both cannot be right. Hence the other must be wrong. Which one do you think is right?

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved