Isnin, 4 Februari 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


Sudah jatuh ditimpa tangga

Posted: 03 Feb 2013 04:20 PM PST

The story of these Vietnamese boat people is a sorry tale indeed that must shame many governments. If these boat people did not die at sea, they were attacked by the Thai pirates. If they survived the pirates and death at sea, they were robbed when they reached Malaysia. And after all that, they faced the risk of being pushed back to sea where they would certainly die in that wide, open, and killer South China Sea.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"138 rescued from 'Malaysia-bound' boat," said the Asia News Network today.

The news report went on to say:

"The Sri Lankan Navy rescued 138 Bangladeshi and Myanmar nationals on Saturday from a sinking vessel 50 miles off the island's eastern coast. Of them, 127 are Bangladeshis and the rest are Myanmar nationals, according to a press release of the Sri Lankan Navy. However, in a statement late last night, Bangladesh High Commission in Colombo said most of the survivors are Myanmar nationals."

"The boat was heading to Malaysia. It ran out of fuel on the way and drifted to Sri Lankan waters. According to a Sri Lankan newspaper, citizens of the country pay as much as $3,000 to travel across the sea." (Read more here).

The news report above reminds me of my early days in Terengganu. I lived there for 20 years from 1974 to 1994. This was soon after the fall of Saigon in 1975 when we woke up one morning and found a boat beached along Batu Burok in Kuala Terengganu. It was a boatload of Vietnamese.

THE FALL OF SAIGON: 1975

From that day on the boats kept coming, sometimes more than one a day. And they came mostly during the year-end monsoon when most boats that size would stay in port due to the strong winds and treacherous seas. But they chose this particular time so that the wind could blow their boats to Terengganu. This ensured that they reached Terengganu, and in a faster time as well, plus they could avoid drifting into the Gulf of Thailand where they would be prey to the Thai pirates (who were fishermen and Thai navy/marines moonlighting as pirates).

The story of these Vietnamese boat people is a sorry tale indeed that must shame many governments. If these boat people did not die at sea, they were attacked by the Thai pirates. If they survived the pirates and death at sea, they were robbed when they reached Malaysia. And after all that, they faced the risk of being pushed back to sea where they would certainly die in that wide, open, and killer South China Sea.

THE MISERY OF THE VIETNAMESE BOAT PEOPLE

They soon learned to puncture their boats just before they touched land and then swim the rest of the way so that they cannot be pushed back to sea. But the undercurrents of the South China Sea along Terengganu were treacherous, especially during the monsoon period. You would get swept out to sea and drown unless you were a strong swimmer. And most of the boat people were very weak and near collapse. Hence many drowned. Even one Olympic swimmer medallist who was snorkelling in Terengganu drowned once. And he was an Olympic medallist, mind you.

Elizabeth Becker, who wrote 'When the War Was Over, 1986', cites the UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) statistics as 250,000 boat people died at sea while 929,600 reached asylum. Rummel, however, says that 500,000 Vietnamese boat people died. It is estimated that for every two who reached dry land one died trying.

Trying to reach land was one issue. It is after they reached land was when the real nightmare started, as if the journey itself was not a nightmare enough. Then we realise how cruel humans can be to fellow humans.

SWIM OR DIE

The early group that came in the mid- to late-1970s were mainly Vietnamese who had worked for the South Vietnamese government (some of them in the secret police and hit squads -- even one colonel in the army who had murdered many VCs). In fact, one boat was a boatload of soldiers in uniform armed with M16s and rocket launchers.

This early group could be considered as political refugees, those who would be punished and/or killed if they remained in Vietnam. The later group were mainly economic refugees. These were people who had money and just wanted to leave and migrate to the west for a better future. They only wanted to go to a 'white' country. They refused to stay in Thailand or Malaysia.

This second group had money. And they paid an expensive bribe to be allowed to leave Vietnam -- just like what the Jews had to do to leave Nazi controlled Europe during the Second World War. And many in this second group were Chinese.

They had stacks of US Dollars, gold and diamonds on them. Hence everyone wanted to rob them -- the Thais, the Malaysians, the army, the navy, the fishermen, the pirates, the civilians, the shopkeepers who sold them bread and Maggi Mee at 10 or 20 times the normal price, and the middlemen who helped exchange their US Dollars, gold and diamonds for Malaysian Ringgit.

I remember Chinese traders coming to see me to offer US Dollars at a discount. The local banks would not accept them because of the serial numbers. It seems these notes were 'special' and were printed in Vietnam by the Americans to finance the war. So the banks would not touch them. Hence they had to sell them privately. And that was why we were approached.

I did not touch the US Dollars though. But I did buy some of the diamonds after they had been verified as real diamonds and not fakes. I am still in possession of some of them until today, those I bought 35 years or so ago back in the 1970s/1980s.

Looking back now, these Vietnamese boat people were given a raw deal. The early batch of Vietnamese boat people was not so badly treated. They were real refugees and mostly poor. It is the later batch of rich Chinese who brought in loads of cash, gold and diamonds that suffered.

In the beginning, the west was quite happy to take these refugees. Later, because these refugees were not considered real refugees but economic refugees, the west was not so quick to absorb them. So they were left to the mercy of the vultures that stripped them clean.

Anyway, this article has nothing to do with the RCI hearing going on in Sabah. It is just that talk of refugees brought back memories of Terengganu of the 1970s and 1980s when we would wake up every morning and find boats with Vietnamese who had arrived in the middle of the night waiting to be screwed -- both literally and figure of speech.

The Malays have a saying for this: sudah jatuh ditimpa tangga. This means after you fall down the ladder falls on you -- what the English would say: being kicked in the teeth after you are down.

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

Vietnamese Boat People

The 'Boat People of Vietnam' seemed to encapsulate all the suffering Vietnam had suffered from 1965 to 1975. Despite the end of the Vietnam War, tragedy for the people of Vietnam continued into 1978-79. The term 'Boat People' not only applies to the refugees who fled Vietnam but also to the people of Cambodia and Laos who did the same but tend to come under the same umbrella term. The term 'Vietnamese Boat People' tends to be associated with only those in the former South who fled the new Communist government. However, people in what was North Vietnam who had an ethnic Chinese background fled to Hong Kong at the same time fearing some form of retribution from the government in Hanoi.

In late 1978, Indo-China degenerated into wholesale confrontation and war between Vietnam and Kampuchea (Cambodia) and China. In December 1978, Vietnam attacked Kampuchea while in February 1979, Vietnam attacked Chinese forces in the north. These two conflicts produced a huge number of refugees.

Many in what was South Vietnam feared the rule of their communist masters from what had been North Vietnam. Despite the creation of a united Republic of Vietnam in 1975, many in the South feared retribution once it was found out that they had fought against the North during the actual war. The rule exerted in Ho Chi Minh City (formally Saigon) was repressive as this was seen as a bastion of 'Americanisation'. Traditional freedoms were few. It has been estimated that 65,000 Vietnamese were executed after the end of the war with 1 million being sent to prison/re-education camps where an estimated 165,000 died.

Many took the drastic decision to leave the country – an illegal act under the communis government. As an air flight out of Vietnam was out of the question, many took to makeshift boats in an effort to flee to start a new life elsewhere. Alternately, fishing boats were utilised. While perfectly safe for near-shore fishing, they were not built for the open waters. This was coupled with the fact that they were usually chronically overcrowded, thus making any journey into the open seas potentially highly dangerous.

No one can be sure how many people took the decision to flee, nor are there any definitive casualty figures. However, the number who attempted to flee has been put as high as 1.5 million. Estimates for deaths vary from 50,000 to 200,000 (Australian Immigration Ministry). The primary cause of death was drowning though many refugees were attacked by pirates and murdered or sold into slavery and prostitution. Some countries in the region, such as Malaya, turned the boat people away even if they did manage to land. Boats carrying the refugees were deliberately sunk offshore by those in them to stop the authorities towing them back out to sea. Many of these refugees ended up settling in the United States and Europe. The United States accepted 823,000 refugees; Britain accepted 19,000; France accepted 96,000; Australia and Canada accepted 137,000 each.

History Learning Site: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam_boat_people.htm

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

The boat people of Pulau Bidong

(Sin Chew, 6 Oct 2012) - The federal government decided in 1978 to borrow Pulau Bidong from the Terengganu state government to temporarily house the increasing number of boat people arriving in the country.

From that year on, Pulau Bidong was isolated from the rest of Peninsular Malaysia and outsiders were barred from visiting the island.

Similarly, these boat people were also prohibited from leaving the island while waiting for a third country to pick them up.

During its peak Pulau Bidong accommodated as many as 250,000 boat people, who were gradually sent to third countries in batches.

At the same time, the Malaysian government was also under mounting pressure from the fishermen in Terengganu.

For many fishermen, Pulau Bidong has indeed been a safe haven for generations. Even with the massive storms in South China Sea, this tiny island remains the fishermen's safest refuge.

However, the island became out of bound to the fishermen ever since the government started housing boat people there for over a decade. The irate fishermen rose up in protest.

After the Terengganu state government assured the fishermen, the federal government finally announced on March 14, 1989 a deadline for the boat people to leave, and return the island to Terengganu.

Nevertheless, the number of boat people flooding into the east coast of Malaysia continued to rise, averaging 65 people a day and forcing the government to defer closing the refugee camp.

On November 30, 1991, Pulau Bidong was finally closed down by the federal government, with then Deputy Prime Minister Tun Ghafar Baba returning the island to the Terengganu state government on behalf of the federal government.

Prior to the closure of the Pulau Bidong refugee camp in 1991, the remaining 12,000 boat people on the island were transferred to the refugee camp outside KL awaiting repatriation to Vietnam.

The training centre and other facilities constructed at a cost of RM170 million with UNHCR funds were all handed over to Terengganu.

While they were here, the boat people called the island the "Island of Sorrows," as though they wanted to leave all their grievances behind on this island.

As the Vietnamese government celebrated the 30th anniversary of Liberation, 142 former boat people from around the world returned to Pulau Bidong to pay respect to their late relatives and compatriots.

These Vietnamese, now living in third countries, were youngsters in their twenties when they left their homeland in search of freedom and better life. They now returned to the island as middle-aged people in their fifties and sixties.

This transitional "home" of theirs has changed completely and many of the buildings on the island have gone into disrepair following years of abandonment and neglect, as the graves of their bereaved relatives and friends are now run over by overgrowth.

During the visit of these former boat people, they erected a concrete monument with the following inscriptions:

Front: "In remembrance of millions of Vietnamese boat people who sacrificed their lives in search of freedom (1975-1996). Eternal peace be with those suffering from starvation, thirst, violence, physical exhaustion and all causes of death. Their sacrifices will be remembered forever -- Overseas Vietnamese boat people community, erected 2005."

Rear: "Our heartfelt thanks to the UNHCR, the Red Cross Society, the Malaysian Red Crescent Society and other relief organisations from around the world, the Malaysian government and all Malaysians who offered us their most valued assistance. We also wish to thank thousands of volunteers who once helped the boat people -- Overseas Vietnamese boat people community, erected 2005."

So what?

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 06:31 PM PST

Hence do you think the majority of the Malays, like my family, are too concerned whether the stock market goes up or down? The government will make sure that those who invest in Amanah Saham will not lose. The government will guarantee that the returns will be higher than the bank interest. Boom or bust, those who invest in Amanah Saham do not face any risk. (We also have that secured investment scheme here in the UK).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Chua: Bursa will plunge if PR wins

(The Star) - Bursa Malaysia will drop 500 points if Pakatan Rakyat wins the coming general election, said Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

The MCA president said any change in the government would bring political uncertainty and would have a direct impact on the national economy.

He said the impact of Pakatan Rakyat rule would be adversed as its dominant partner, PAS, had little or no interest in the economy.

He said PAS was bent on implementing its brand of hudud law and setting up an Islamic state.

"PAS has also mentioned that it will close Genting (Highlands) and the Bursa. All these will frighten investors, be they locals or foreigners," he said after opening the 64th anniversary celebrations of the Federal Territory MCA here yesterday.

Dr Chua urged voters to assess the country's situation in a rational manner, taking into consideration its future before making a decision.

He said under the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, the national economy experienced an upward trend with foreign direct investments at RM34bil in 2011 against RM5bil in 2009.

Dr Chua, who is a member of the National Economic Council, said Pakatan's populist policy of pledging to abolish tolls and PTPTN loans, providing free education and a RM4,000 minimum monthly household income for 3.8 million families, would cost the government RM200bil a year.

"If and when this is implemented, it will bankrupt the country within two years," he cautioned.

Dr Chua thanked Najib and his deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin for the mutual recognition for 157 tertiary institutions in Taiwan and 121 tertiary institutions in Malaysia as announced by the Higher Education Ministry on Thursday.

"This has opened up more avenues for Chinese-educated students to further their studies and return home to serve the country," he said.

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

Chua Soi Lek was probably targeting a Chinese audience when he made that prediction above.

I am not going to generalise and speak for all Malaysians. I am not even going to speak for all the Malays. I will just speak for my immediate family. And when I say immediate family I mean my wife, my five children, my son-in-law and daughter-in-law, and my five grandchildren. That would make 14 of us altogether.

If I were to include my entire family then it would probably run into tens of thousands considering my great-grandfather had ten wives and scores of children, my grandmother being one of them. So allow me to speak on behalf of just the 14 of us.

Would it concern us if the stock market collapsed? Not likely. You see, we do not speculate or gamble on the stock market. What we do is we invest in unit trusts, specifically the government backed and government run Amanah Saham.

Each of us can invest RM250,000 or RM500,000 if we include both Amanah Saham Bumiputera (ASB) and Amanah Saham Nasional (ASN). And that would mean our family can invest a total of RM7 million, if we happen to have that much money in our pocket.

Even if we did not have that much money it does not matter. We can always borrow the money from the bank -- and considering the interest we will be charged is lower than the dividends and bonus we will receive, it becomes viable to borrow the money to invest in Amanah Saham.

And we do not need any security, as the Amanah Saham itself is good enough as collateral. Hence we can practically borrow for nothing and the Amanah Saham can help pay back what we owe, at least after the third year or so. Hence we only need to worry about repayments for, say, the first three years of that, say, 15-year loan period.

Hence do you think the majority of the Malays, like my family, are too concerned whether the stock market goes up or down? The government will make sure that those who invest in Amanah Saham will not lose. The government will guarantee that the returns will be higher than the bank interest. Boom or bust, those who invest in Amanah Saham do not face any risk. (We also have that secured investment scheme here in the UK).

And if the government changes it will still be the same. Whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat runs the federal government it is not going to change anything. Amanah Saham will still guarantee a good return no matter which government is in Putrajaya.

Do you think Pakatan Rakyat can afford to let millions of Malays lose their pants? There will be riots on the streets. There will be a revolution. Blood is going to flow. The government, no matter which government it is, must make sure that Amanah Saham stays profitable and pays at least 8% or 9% (or at the very least 7%) returns every year until the end of time.

Of course, if you were Chinese, then the collapse of the stock market would probably hurt you and hurt you bad. And that is why this statement is coming from the President of MCA and therefore targeted to a Chinese audience. Chua Soi Lek knows that the Chinese would vote based on financial and economic considerations. The Chinese would never vote for any government that will mess up the economy even if that government is the most democratic government in the entire world.

I first met the current Selangor Menteri Besar, Khalid Ibrahim, back when he was the CEO of PNB about 30 years ago. In fact, the first Amanah Saham was launched about 32 years ago, three months before Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Malaysia's Prime Minister. Hence it was Tun Hussein Onn who mooted this idea.

It was actually a brilliant idea, from the political angle, of course. According to the 2012 financial figures, PNB has assets of about RM120 billion. It also manages a total of ten unit trusts comprising 79 billion units of shares and involving nine million investors, Malays and non-Malays included.

ASB, for example, earned about RM6 billion in 2010 and paid out about the same to the nine million investors. In 2011 it saw a 21% increase in gross income. And it has consistently paid an average of 6%-7% every year for more than 30 years, in good times or bad.

If I were Malay, and if the economy was the factor that influences my decision who to vote for, then I would vote for the government that can ensure I will continue to receive a good payback every year for the rest of my life, as it has been doing since the days before Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister.

And I would not worry about the 'danger' of changing governments and whether this change of government is going to trigger a collapse of the stock market because the government, whoever it may be, will ensure that my Amanah Saham investment will stay secure and will continue to pay good dividends and bonuses every year -- even if DAP, PAS and/or PKR takes over the federal government.

But that would be something Chua Soi Lek can't say because he is talking to a Chinese audience and to the Malays that type of talk does not carry any weight.

 

The long and the short of it

Posted: 24 Jan 2013 06:34 PM PST

But what will happen, say, in 2057, 100 years after Merdeka, when the children and grandchildren of those three million pendatang -- who by then may number five million and hold Malaysian identity cards because they were born in Malaysia -- all want to vote as overseas voters although they had left the country a long time ago and never once went back to Malaysia?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are those who oppose the Islamic criminal law of Hudud. When we ask them as to why they oppose Hudud they will reply that it is because under the Hudud law they cut off the hands of thieves. Hence Hudud is a very barbaric law. Rather than cut off the hands of thieves they should instead be killed with a bullet in the head like what they do to highway robbers and other thieves in China, corrupt officials and female robbers included.

Well, I suppose a bullet in the head is less barbaric than having to live with only one hand.

Let's say for argument's sake I argue: so what if they cut off the hands of thieves? Why are you so worried about that if you are not a thief? Aren't you the ones who are complaining about the extremely high crime rate in Malaysia? Aren't you the ones alleging that the police are not doing their job? Maybe we need a law such as Hudud to solve the serious crime problem that appears to be spinning out of control.

Only thieves should be worried about and oppose Hudud. If you are so opposed to Hudud then that can only mean one thing -- you are a thief. If you are not a thief then why are you so opposed to Hudud? And it appears like more non-Malays than Malays oppose Hudud. This can only mean that there are more non-Malay thieves than Malay thieves.

I suppose this statement makes as much sense as the statement that if you do not support Pakatan Rakyat then you must be a Barisan Nasional supporter (if you do not support Hudud then you must be a thief). There can be no other logical reason for you to not support Pakatan Rakyat just like there can be no other logical reason for you to not support Hudud.

Can you see that when we apply your same logic to another situation your logic no longer sounds logical?

And that is the problem with many of you. Your logic is not universal. It can be used only to support your prejudiced view but when applied to another argument it sounds real silly.

The Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act are draconian laws. Why are they draconian laws? Well, because these laws are used against the opposition, to stifle dissent, and to deny Malaysians their freedom of speech. Hence the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act must be abolished. And if Pakatan Rakyat ever takes over the federal government this is one of the first things they must do -- abolish the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act.

However, before they abolish these laws, they must first be used against those on the 'other side'. Once those from the 'other side' have been dealt with only then should these laws be abolished.

In fact, if Pakatan Rakyat takes over, we should implement Hudud and use that law to cut off the hands of those crooks from the ruling party. Once all their hands have been cut off we can then abolish the Hudud law.

What are we fighting for? We are fighting for justice. And how do we get justice? We get justice by abolishing bad laws and by reforming the system. Should we do all that now? No, we do that only after we have taken revenge on our enemies. Is revenge justice? Yes, but only if taken against the other side, not if taken against our own people.

It is not fair that Malaysians who have left the country for longer than five years and have not returned to the country for at least 30 days over those five years are not allowed to vote as an overseas voter. Even if those Malaysians left the country 30 or 40 years ago and never once went back to Malaysia they should still be allowed to vote (as long as they still have an identity card, of course, because you need this to vote).

What happens if one million of the three million foreigners who now possess Malaysian identity cards go home to their original countries? Can they be allowed to vote as overseas voters? Your entitlement to vote depends on you possessing a Malaysian identity card. Hence if you have a Malaysian identity card then you are entitled to vote.

And what happens if these people had left Malaysia more than ten years ago and never once came back to Malaysia? Should they still be allowed to vote?

You may argue that they should not be allowed to vote because although they possess Malaysian identity cards they were not born in Malaysia. Ah, but then their children were. Their children possess Malaysian identity cards that show they were born in Malaysia although they left Malaysia ten years ago and now live in another country. So why can't they be allowed to vote?

Back in 1957, when Malaya first gained independence, the Chinese and Indians came from China and India and were given Malaysian citizenship. Subsequently, the children of those 'pendatang' were born in the country. Hence the descendants of these pre-1957 immigrants are Malaysian born and should not be called 'pendatang'.

Agreed, it is wrong to call the present generation Malaysians of Chinese and Indian descent 'pendatang'. Their parents or grandparents may have been pendatang back in 1957. But the present crop of Malaysian-born Chinese and Indians are not pendatang and should not be treated as pendatang or called 'pendatang'.

But what will happen, say, in 2057, 100 years after Merdeka, when the children and grandchildren of those three million pendatang -- who by then may number five million and hold Malaysian identity cards because they were born in Malaysia -- all want to vote as overseas voters although they had left the country a long time ago and never once went back to Malaysia?

Sometimes we need to look short term, such as over the next two months leading to the coming general election. Sometimes we need to look long term, say 30 years down the road. And sometimes we need to balance between short-term and long-term goals.

When the government came out with its education policy it looked short term and not long term. And now, many years down the road, we are paying for this short-sighted and short-term strategy.

But the damage has been done. It is not going to be that easy to rectify things. It may take a whole generation to correct our mistakes of the past -- and even then only if we are prepared to bite the bullet and are prepared to suffer the high casualty rate.

Are we prepared to allow the Malays to become casualties in the interest of a better education system based on meritocracy? Neither Najib Tun Razak nor Anwar Ibrahim would dare say 'yes' to this question.

Things are going to get worse before they become better. The cure may be as painful as the disease. But I am sure neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat would be prepared to take the risk of a political fallout out if they try to change the education system and see Malays fall by the wayside because they are just not good enough.

It is like promising no taxation and promising to give all the oil money back to the states. How would we finance the country? No doubt that type of promise is going to help win votes. But what do you do after you win the votes?

To make money we need to plant oil palm trees. To plant oil palm trees we need to burn down the forests. When we burn down the forests we create an ecological problem. So we don't burn down the forests to prevent an ecological problem. But since we don't burn down the forests we can't plant oil palm trees. And because we can't plant oil palm trees we can't make money.

Life is full of vicious cycles. And Malaysia can win the gold medal in vicious cycles if that happened to be an event in the Olympic games.

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

Use of Sedition Act is wrong

Yin Shao Loong, The Malaysian Insider

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee stated that the Sedition Act should be used on Ibrahim Ali because the latter had advocated the burning of bibles.

Even though Lim acknowledged that the Bar holds that the law should be repealed, it should nonetheless be used against Ibrahim if the government is charging opposition leaders such as Karpal Singh under it.

Burning any book as a political act is vulgar, uncultured and should be condemned. Invoking the use of a draconian law to punish book burning, or incitement to burn books, is a capitulation to authoritarianism.

By taking this stance, Lim and the Bar he leads have undermined any claim to principled opposition to the Sedition Act. Their rationale is akin to those who proposed maintaining the Internal Security Act (ISA) so it could be used one last time against the puppet master of Operation Lallang.

Even if Lim's intent was to underline how the present government selectively enforces the law, his argument was poorly chosen because it was based on the logic that two wrongs would make a right.

The Sedition Act has been a convenient and objectionable tool of authoritarian power in Malaysia due to its broad applicability against anything that could be construed as raising ill-will or hostility within society or against the authorities.

Anyone can claim they had feelings of ill-will or hostility raised by someone's statement or action, proceed to file a police report, and have someone investigated for sedition. Of course, the odds of successful prosecution would improve if the accused happened to be someone not favoured by the government.

Historically, sedition was associated with absolutist monarchies. Undemocratic governments criminalise sedition because they fear dissent will destabilise authority based on force, heredity or property. The rule of the few over the many requires some form of institutionalised discrimination, fear and suppression of criticism.

Democracies incorporate criticism into their system of government and allow the many to use their votes to initiate peaceful, orderly changes in government.

As long as I have known it, the Bar Council has stood for the principled movement towards full-fledged constitutional democracy in Malaysia. Supporting the use of the Sedition Act is a backward step contrary to human rights.

Lim has already noted that any book-burning act or incitement to such act can be prosecuted under those sections of the Penal Code that deal with abetment and trespass.

Additionally, sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code deal with acts designed to cause hurt on religious grounds, section 504 covers intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, and section 505 refers to statements promoting public mischief.

It is reasonable to file a police report, or call for laws to be employed, where the actions in question are criminal, excluding those legitimate forms of dissent criminalised by the Sedition Act, ISA, Printing Presses and Publications Act, and so forth.

One group of citizens is opposing the barbaric act of book burning by inviting people to join in reading holy books — any books, in fact — under the trees at KLCC park on Sunday.

Others have filed a police report against Ibrahim, citing many of the Penal Code sections referred to above, but without recourse to the Sedition Act or any of its repressive bedfellows.

These are civilised means of opposing an uncivilised act.

If we want to move Malaysia out of the shadow of authoritarianism we cannot condone the very methods of authoritarianism. This means that race-baiting, repressive laws and impunity must be abandoned in favour of principled debate, peaceful protest, accountability and reform.

 

How capitalism breeds social problems

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 05:53 PM PST

So, if we want to reduce the three million 'foreign population' of Malaysia then the plantations, construction companies, SMI factories, etc., should stop employing them. And to do that we need a minimum wage of at least RM1,200-RM1,5000 (or thereabouts) a month. With that salary level Malaysians would be prepared to work and hence you do not need to employ foreigners and then give them Malaysian citizenship.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Subra: Minimum wage to avoid unnecessary hiring of foreigners

(The Star) - The minimum wage policy, which came into effect this year, is to avoid the unnecessary hiring of foreign workers, said Human Resources Minister Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam.

For example at petrol stations, he said, people have to accept the idea of self-service when filling up their cars.

Petrol dealers have implemented the minimum wage as of January 1, throwing some 50,000 foreigners out of work.

"The change that we are looking for will not happen overnight," Dr Subramaniam said adding that the minimum wage policy was also implemented to channel workers to other sectors which are in need of labour.

He said there were no provisions in the current law to allow companies to delay implementing the policy.

"Employers need to deal with the new policy but if they have problems, they can forward their concerns to us and we will try and help them," he said.

The minimum wage policy requires companies to pay a minimum wage of RM900 in the peninsula and RM800 in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan.

Subramaniam said the ministry was also discussing with employers on issues relating to levy and allowances for housing and transportation of the foreign workers.

"Employers want the levy and allowances to be born by the workers. The issue is up to the Cabinet to decide on what action to be taken," he said on Sunday.

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

I used to live in Bukit Rahman Putra (BRP5) in Sungai Buloh, Selangor -- from end-December 1996 to end-February 2009. One day we noticed that around midnight or so there would be a foul smell in the air. We spent days trying to track the source of this smell but failed to do so.

We then met up ('we' meaning the residents' committee) with the officers from Jabatan Alam Sekitar (the Department of the Environment) to discuss this matter and to explore what they could do about what was apparently a bad case of air pollution -- and we suspected most toxic as well since this happens only past midnight and not in the daytime when it could be detected easily.

What the officers told us surprised us. Most of those factories at the bottom of the hill where we live are not licensed, they told us. Hence, since they are not licensed, the Department of the Environment cannot do anything about them. They can only take action against licensed factories. They have no jurisdiction over illegal factories and businesses.

Who then can take action? Well, this comes under the jurisdiction of the land office and the local council. So we need to raise this matter with the land office and the local council. However, since these two agencies are amongst the most corrupted agencies (and they still are even though Pakatan Rakyat has been ruling Selangor for almost five years now) we should not expect any action to be taken.

The Department of the Environment should know because they too have faced problems in trying to solve this matter. The factory owners just pay 'under-the-table' money to the officers from the land office and local council and they can practically get away with murder. (In fact, you can literally also get away with murder in Malaysia the same way).

I then did a tour of the area from the Sungai Buloh KTM railway station right up to the old leprosy settlement/new Sungai Buloh Hospital. I discovered that the area was 'infested' with foreign workers, mostly from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc. And the majority of these people were either illegal immigrants or were holding Malaysian identity cards, which means they are Malaysian citizens.

From my rough estimate I concluded that the ratio of 'foreign' population to locals was probably two-to-one -- though since they owned Malaysian identity cards they would be regarded as Malaysian citizens rather than foreigners. It seems it is not that difficult for these 'foreigners' to become Malaysian citizens. All it needs is money, which their employers would gladly pay and then deduct the amount from their salaries later.

I then did a 'census' of the many Sungai Buloh factories at the foot of Bukit Rahman Putra (next to the Hong Leong Yamaha factory) and I found that all these factories are Chinese-owned. There are no Malay- or Indian-owned factories (except for one Indian carpet dealer, which is not a factory but a warehouse). And all their workers are foreigners (except for the managerial postions, who are Chinese), but not necessarily illegal workers, as most owned Malaysian identity cards.

I also discovered that not only is the area from the KTM railway station up to the old leprosy settlement/new Sungai Buloh Hospital 'infested' with 'foreigners'. When I drove in the opposite direction towards Tasek Biru, it is the same thing, although the ratio there is not as high as two-to-one. Nevertheless, there is a huge 'foreign' community there as well.

Why is there such a high foreign community (both illegal as well as those with Malaysian identity cards) in Sungai Buloh? Well, that is because the many Chinese-owned factories and construction companies pay low wages and only foreigners would want to work at these pathetically low wages. No Malaysians want to do a labourer's job in the factories and on the construction sites.

And that is why the SMIs and construction companies are opposed to the minimum wage. If you can remember, last year they spoke up against the implementation of the minimum wage. If there is no minimum wage and salaries are kept low then these businesses make more money. But that would also mean only foreigners from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc., would want to do such work. Malaysians would not want to work for a mere few hundred Ringgit.

The same goes for plantation companies. They employ foreigner workers because Malaysians do not want to do backbreaking work at such low wages. And many of these plantations are multi-national companies, some even GLCs (government-linked companies).

In fact, I spoke to one GLC oil palm plantation company (state government-owned) to confirm this. They employ foreigners because they can't get Malaysians to work at those low wages. And for sure no Malaysian Chinese would want to work in plantations for RM700 a month. They would rather sell pirated CDs and DVDs (they even do so in Manchester, surprisingly).

Today, we complain about the millions of 'illegal immigrants' in Malaysia. Actually they are not illegal immigrants since they have been given Malaysian identity cards. And the reason this estimated three million 'foreigners' are in Malaysia is because we employ them at very low wages. And because of the very low wages only these 'illegals' would want to work. Malaysians are not interested to suffer at such low wages.

I have bumped into many Malaysian Chinese here in the UK working as chefs and waiters/waitresses. Why do they work here in the UK and not back in Malaysia? That is because in Malaysia then can't even earn RM1,000 a month whereas in the UK they earn more than RM5,000 a month. And you can survive in the UK with RM5,000-RM6,000 a month but not in Malaysia with a mere RM800-RM900 per month.

So, if we want to reduce the three million 'foreign population' of Malaysia then the plantations, construction companies, SMI factories, etc., should stop employing them. And to do that we need a minimum wage of at least RM1,200-RM1,5000 (or thereabouts) a month. With that salary level Malaysians would be prepared to work and hence you do not need to employ foreigners and then give them Malaysian citizenship.

And the only people who can do this would be the Chinese construction companies and SMI factory owners plus the GLCs and multi-national plantation companies. It is no use screaming about the problem when we are the source of that problem.

The capitalists want to make more money. So they underpay their workers. And because they underpay their workers the jobs go to the foreigners. And these foreigners bring their families to Malaysia and their children school in Malaysia. They also tax Malaysia's health system.

It is the capitalists who are the cause of Malaysia's social problems involving foreigners. And because we need cheap labour we need to bring in three million foreign workers from the neighbouring countries.

Yes, many of these workers from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc., are Muslims. However, do you think the Christian Filipino girls would want to work for RM700 a month on a construction site when they can earn RM2,500 or more as a maid in Singapore (food and lodging free as well)?

Capitalism works on the law of supply and demand (just like prostitution). When there is a demand for cheap foreign labour then the supply would emerge. And the people creating this demand are the SMI factories, construction companies and plantations. And who are the owners of these SMI factories, construction companies and plantations?

Then you blame the government for this. And when I point out the reality of this situation you get angry. And this is because of the Malaysian culture of…what do you call it…kiasu, is it?

 

My favourite song, Listen

Posted: 16 Jan 2013 05:42 PM PST

As I have always said, this coming general election is not going to be about who is going to win it. It is about who is not going to lose it. And the group that makes the most mistakes is going to lose the general election mainly because the 'other side' made lesser mistakes than the side that lost.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

They say, as you get older, like me, you start to become too sentimental and emotional. That could be true. However, those who have known me for most of my life tell me that ever since they knew me back in my younger days I have always been a sentimental and emotional person.

I suppose that is quite true. I cry when I watch sad movies. When I listen to beautiful songs with even more beautiful lyrics it brings tears to my eyes. And when I saw Melanie Amaro perform 'Listen' in the X Factor I could not stop myself from getting all teary eyed. And an even bigger problem is I still need to wipe my eyes even till today although I have watched and listened to Melanie perform that song countless times.

Many accuse me of being too sentimental and emotional in my writings. Some even sent me nasty messages whacking me for my series The journey in life is never a straight line, which has temporarily stopped at episode 20. "We are not interested to read about your stupid life," they tell me. "Stop writing about yourself," they say. "Just write about the coming general election."

Listen is the latest 'phenomena' in Malaysia. This is the result of the exchange between Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin and KS Bawani at the UUM event. In the last general election in 2008, the catchphrase was 'correct, correct, correct'. It looks like in the coming general election expected in February-March this year, the catchphrase is going to be 'listen, listen, listen'.

As I have always said, this coming general election is not going to be about who is going to win it. It is about who is not going to lose it. And the group that makes the most mistakes is going to lose the general election mainly because the 'other side' made lesser mistakes than the side that lost.

The trouble is, both sides are blundering big time, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. And we do not know how the voters are going to react to these numerous blunders. Nevertheless, voters being voters, and they are the same all over the world, Malaysians are quite prepared to suffer an attack of denial syndrome and allow all these transgressions to be pushed into the background.

Many have asked me what my stand is. They say they are not too clear about my stand and they do not know whether I support Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. They want to know whether I even have a stand in the first place.

Yes, I do have a stand. And I decided more than two years ago back in 2010 what my stand was going to be. However, as much as I tried to explain what this stand is, many still do not get it.

I am too 'complicated' for most of them to comprehend. They want me to make things simpler for them. They want to know which herd I am joining. Am I joining the Barisan Nasional herd or the Pakatan Rakyat herd?

Herds are for cows. I know Sharifah Zohra Jabeen said even cows have problems. But I am not a cow. So I do not need to have any 'cow problems' by joining any specific herd.

So, what is the answer then? What is my stand? Which herd am I joining? Well, I will let Melanie Amaro answer that question. These lyrics explain where I am coming from and if you still do not get it then you are not the type of reader that I want for Malaysia Today.

 

Listen to the song here in my heart

A melody I start but can't complete

Listen to the sound from deep within

It's only beginning to find release

 

Oh, the time has come for my dreams to be heard

They will not be pushed aside and turned

Into your own all 'cause you won't

Listen

 

Listen, I am alone at a crossroads

I'm not at home in my own home

And I've tried and tried to say what's on mind

You should have known

 

Oh, now I'm done believing you

You don't know what I'm feeling

I'm more than what you made of me

I followed the voice you gave to me

But now I've gotta find my own

 

You should have listened, there is someone here inside

Someone I thought had died so long ago

Oh, I'm screaming out and my dreams'll be heard

They will not be pushed aside on words

Into your own all 'cause you won't

Listen

cfxGKyYyom8

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxGKyYyom8

 

 

Yo, people, listen up!

Posted: 14 Jan 2013 07:16 PM PST

And herein lies the tragedy. When I talk to the non-Malay students I get the impression that those selected and sent overseas are the crème de la crème. But when I talk to the Malay students I do not get this impression. In fact, if I had been given the job of vetting through the students, many, or maybe even the majority, of those selected would have been disqualified.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin certainly stirred a hornet's nest and in the process spawned an entirely new satire/music video industry. So much has been said about this incident that I think it is totally unnecessary for me to comment about the matter any further.

What is of interest to me, however, is Sharifah's comparison of those with a mere 'O' level to those who are university graduates. According to her, those who do not have a tertiary education are inferior to those who do.

Actually, if you were to drive on Malaysian roads, you will never be able to differentiate between those who have no (or a lower) education and those who have a higher/tertiary education. From their bad manners on the road and the inconsiderate attitude that they demonstrate, you will never be able to tell the difference.

If education is meant to make you a better and more learned person, Malaysia has certainly failed in this respect. Whether you have a Ph.D. or you are a fisherman or farmer it makes no difference. The way Malaysians drive, those who have a Ph.D. and those who have never gone to school are exactly the same.

I have said this before, many times, and I am going to say it again. In the UK, you go to a driving school to learn how to drive. That is because you need to know how to drive to be able to pass your driving test and get a driving licence.

In Malaysia, you go to driving school to learn how to pass your driving test. It does not matter whether you know how to drive or not. Passing your driving test and getting your driving licence does not depend on whether you know how to drive. It depends on whether you got your driving licence 'through' the driving school.

Hence people who know how to drive, but did not go through a driving school to sit for their driving test, will fail the driving test while those who do not know how to drive, but went through a driving school to sit for their driving test, would pass the driving test.

And that is why the majority of Malaysians do not know how to drive plus the fatality rate due to traffic accidents in Malaysia, on a per capita basis, is ten times that of the UK.  

Actually, more than half of those people driving on Malaysian roads should never have been allowed to drive. The tragedy is not so much that they kill themselves but that they kill others due to their recklessness and inconsiderate attitude.

Do you want to know one thing? If you have a driving licence from Brunei, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, Canada, Australia, the Republic of Korea, (mainly the Commonwealth and EU countries), etc., (a total of 50 countries in all) you can exchange it for a UK driving licence. Malaysian driving licences, however, are not accepted for exchange. That says a lot about the 'quality' of Malaysian driving licences.

And the same applies to Malaysia's education system. Just like in the case of Malaysian driving schools, Malaysia's education system is not about getting an education and becoming learned but about passing your exams.

And they will 'lower the bar' if necessary to allow more people to 'jump over'. Hence those who do not deserve to pass get passed and are then sent for their tertiary education, and in some cases to an overseas university.

Over the last four years since 2009, I have bumped into many Malaysian students -- those post graduate students doing their masters and/or Ph.D. as well. And I have come to a very troubling conclusion. Nevertheless, this is merely my own opinion and, not being from the academic field, I am looking at things from the eyes of a layman and not from the eyes of an academician.

First of all, Malaysian Malays at overseas universities are mostly government-sponsored students while those non-Malay Malaysians, according to what they tell me, are FAMA-sponsored students.

When they first told me they are 'FAMA-sponsored' students I thought they meant FAMA the Lembaga Pemasaran Pertanian Persekutuan (SEE HERE: http://www.fama.gov.my/). "Does FAMA give out scholarships or grants?" I asked these non-Malay and mostly Chinese students. This was certainly news to me.

I had to chuckle when they explained that FAMA means fada-mada (father-mother). But this is no chuckling matter. I feel it is sinful that all the Malay students are 'government scholars' whereas the non-Malay students are 'private funded'. Why is there not a more equitable balance, at par with the racial composition of the country?

I know this has, for a long time, been a bone of contention amongst the non-Malays. The Malays, no doubt, hide behind the New Economic Policy (NEP) to justify this 'sin' while the non-Malays resent the NEP for this very reason. Hence discussing this matter is just going to open up a can of worms and I suspect the comments below this article are going to turn this article into a race-bashing exercise.

But I am not trying to turn this into a race-bashing exercise. My concern is that when I speak to these students (of all races) I find that the attitude, mentality and intelligence level of the Malay students leave much to be desired whereas the attitude, mentality and intelligence level of the non-Malay students are far superior compared to that of the Malay students.

And herein lies the tragedy. When I talk to the non-Malay students I get the impression that those selected and sent overseas are the crème de la crème. But when I talk to the Malay students I do not get this impression. In fact, if I had been given the job of vetting through the students, many, or maybe even the majority, of those selected would have been disqualified.

The other side of the argument, of course, is that if only the 'higher grade' Malay students are selected and sent overseas while those who fail to make the grade are excluded, then the ratio of Malay to non-Malay students sent overseas would be very low. At the end of the day, the ratio of Malays to non-Malays would probably be reduced to 1 in 10.

I can understand and appreciate this argument. We need to give the Malay students a chance. If not then very few Malay students would have the opportunity of an overseas tertiary education. Other countries, too, have racial quotas to help the minorities get ahead.

But in the case of the other countries, the racial quotas and the lowering of the bar are meant to help the minorities, who otherwise would be left behind. Malaysia, however, is doing this for the majority, not the minorities such as the Ibans, Dayaks, Orang Asli, etc.

Instead of lowering the bar to allow as many Malays as possible to 'jump over', the government should explore how to increase the standard of education to enable more people to clear the bar (without having to lower it).

In other words, don't teach Malays how to pass their driving test. Teach Malays how to drive. Then, when they sit for their driving test, they will pass. If you mass-produce graduates like on an assembly line, then you will end up getting low quality people. And that is not the objective of an education.

So those who have degrees/masters or Ph.D. should not be too proud of that fact. It is not the piece of paper that you possess which we should talk about but the quality of that paper. And when you open your mouth you reveal that the paper you possess is…well…not worth the paper it is written on.

 
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


What really did happen?

Posted: 03 Feb 2013 12:00 AM PST

Mindanao was suffering from an armed conflict that lasted for more than 40 years since the early 1970s. The Bangsa Moro Muslims were fighting for self-determination (just like the Muslims from Southern Thailand) and, up to 2007, the conflict had claimed 120,000 lives, many of them civilians. More than a million people were made homeless and destitute and an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 refugees had taken refuge in neighbouring Sabah.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia Today wrote about this matter some years back after meeting some of those involved in the incident, including some of those who were detained under the Internal Security Act because of their involvement.

One of those people I met and talked to was Hassnar Ebrahim, a PKR Sabah leader at the time I first met him at Anwar Ibrahim's house in Damansara. I actually met up with Hassnar and his wife a number of times since then and eventually we became close family friends. I have not met him since I left Malaysia in February 2009 though.

Hassnar's comments can be read below in the Bernama report, which is consistent with what he and the others told me. There are two other reports below that, one by Bernama and another by fz.com, which may also be of interest to you.

From my understanding of this issue, this Projek IC (or Projek M, as some call it) was not one episode but a series of episodes. And at different times it happened due to different reasons.

One reason was actually quite genuine. And this was related to the war in Mindanao.

Mindanao was suffering from an armed conflict that lasted for more than 40 years since the early 1970s. The Bangsa Moro Muslims were fighting for self-determination (just like the Muslims from Southern Thailand) and, up to 2007, the conflict had claimed 120,000 lives, many of them civilians. More than a million people were made homeless and destitute and an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 refugees had taken refuge in neighbouring Sabah.

Hence when I said 'genuine' I meant that they were genuine War Refugees just like the Burmese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, those from Southern Thailand, etc., who also came to Malaysia to seek refuge from the war, death and destruction in their own countries.

On humanitarian grounds the Bangsa Moro Muslims must certainly be accorded refugee status -- as were the Burmese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, those from Southern Thailand, etc., who had been escaping to Malaysia since the 1970s.

In fact, back in the 1970s, Malaysia was heavily criticised by the international community for not wanting to give these people refugee status. Hence, due to this bad publicity, Malaysia had to reluctantly allow the UNHCR to set up base in Malaysia to manage this refugee problem.

Furthermore, when Tun Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister in 1981, he tried to block these refugees from coming into Malaysia and he got whacked good and proper -- by Malaysians as well as foreigners. Dr Mahathir had to subsequently do a U-turn and say that he was 'misinterpreted' ("I said shoo them, not shoot them", explained Dr Mahathir). Due to international pressure, Dr Mahathir had to relent and go along with the UNHCR and allow Malaysia to be used as a base to house these refugees.

That was one reason for the many illegal immigrants in Malaysia, some who eventually chose to remain in Malaysia and become Malaysian citizens. They refused to go home to their original countries to face the hardship and possible death due to the fighting.

Let us, however, just talk about Sabah, the bone of contention for many and the focus of the ongoing RCI investigation.

Now, we must understand that the Mindanao war is only one of the factors for this influx of refugees. And not just one government was involved. Back in the 1970s, when the war first erupted, the USNO government allowed these refugees into Sabah. In the 1980s, the Berjaya government did the same. In the late 1980s/early 1990s it was the PBS government. And after that it was the Umno government.

Hence, since war erupted in the early 1970s in Mindanao, all the governments ever to take power in Sabah were either in a small way or a big way involved in this.

Now, I am not saying that Dr Mahathir's hands are clean. But he was Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003. And this has been going on since the 1970s and, according to Anwar Ibrahim -- in his statement, which you can read below -- it is still going on till this very day.

The question we need to ask is, was it the policy (official or unofficial, as the case may be) of the Malaysian government to absorb refugees from (Southern) Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines (Mindanao), etc? I know that Malaysia was pressuring the west to take these refugees but the west was only prepared to take some of them and not all of them. Hence Malaysia was lumbered with those that the West did not want.

I was involved in the Terengganu Rotary Club back in the 1970s and we used to visit the Vietnamese refugees to give them aid such as old clothes and food. I was also involved in helping some of the Southern Thailand political refugees to settle down in Terengganu (some were on Thailand's most wanted list -- my Tok Guru, Abdul Rahman Pattani, as one example). Hence I have personal knowledge of this matter and sometimes was even directly involvement in giving humanitarian aid.

Undoubtedly, although some of these refugees would qualify as genuine, these were not the only people allowed into Malaysia and eventually given Malaysian citizenship (after the west had rejected them for citizenship). There are also another two categories.

One category would be the illegal immigrants given citizenship by the syndicate for purely monetary gains. Then we have the category that was given citizenship for election purposes.

Hence, by my reckoning, we have three categories to consider.

The first category is justified. Even the US, Canada, Australia, some European countries, and so on, classified them as refugees and took them in -- as did Malaysia.

The second category is purely greed. Some people were making dirty money selling identity cards -- just like they make money selling driving licences (which is probably more than half the Malaysian drivers).

And the third category is purely political -- to pad the electoral roll by creating 'new voters'. And in the case of Sabah, all the government since USNO right up to today are guilty of this third category.

Let us hope the RCI gets to the bottom of this and separate the wheat from the chaff. While we certainly want to nail those who personally profited from selling Malaysian citizenship, plus those who padded the electoral roll with 'new citizens', we do not want to lose our humanitarian spirit by denying asylum to those who would suffer or die if sent back to their war-torn countries.

I feel that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim must be called to testify in the RCI, as should all those others in power since the 1970s until today. They know more than what they are telling us. There is more than meets the eye here and finger pointing is not the right way to go.

Hassnar and those others from Sabah whom I met told me a lot of stories (some stories involving Nur Misuari, Muammar Gaddafi, kidnappings, ransom money, etc). But that would be mere hearsay and not admissible in the RCI hearing (remember 'reliably informed'?). Let them tell their own story as to what happened, especially in those incidences where they were personally involved.

And the two people who must not be exempted from telling the RCI what really happened would be Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim.

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

Project IC boils over in Sabah

Newmond Tibin, Bernama

(Bernama, Jan 2007) -- Former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee Hassnar Ebrahim shocked a lot of people, particularly the locals, when he exposed a Malaysian identification card (IC) scam or known as Project IC in Sabah, in a recent interview with a local newspaper.

The locals here are stunned as many of them who reside in the state's interiors have yet to own the sophisticated Malaysian IC or MyKad, but based on Hassnar's claims, it seems that the card was easily accessible to foreigners.

While Project IC is not a new issue in Sabah, it continues to be debated by many who express concern as the matter is related to the issue of illegal immigrants in Sabah, which is perceived as the mother of all social woes in the state.

Hassnar, an entrepreneur, confessed that he unknowingly became involved with others who made it possible for thousands of foreigners to secure Malaysian ICs.

The former Sandakan district chief, while refusing police's request to make a statement on the issue, however, is willing to give testimony in court.

Hassnar was detained under the ISA on Aug 9, 1998 for two months, and then placed under house arrest for two years in Sandakan from Sept 6, 1998. He was also among the material witnesses in the Likas election petition trial in 1999.

Meanwhile, Sabah Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) deputy chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan has claimed that currently there are 1.7 million foreigners in Sabah, including 600,000 who possess the ICs.

Responding to the allegation, former Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak challenged Dr Jeffrey to list the names of the 1.7 million people but the latter has so far not done so.

Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman said the state government viewed the matter very seriously and was doing all it could to solve it.

He asked those who exposed the issue to come forward and cooperate with the police.

"Do not simply talk through the newspapers. Cooperate with the authorities," said Musa, who also directed the National Registration Department (NRD) and the Immigration Department to explain the issue to the public in the interest of all.

Following the expose, Sabah police commissioner Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Hassan had requested Hassnar to assist police in the investigation.

He said the police could not complete the investigation into Project IC without the cooperation of those with information.

As such, the police were putting Hassnar's statement on the issue on record to speed up the investigation, he added.

Mohd Mokhtar said the police would not arrest Hassnar or anyone without sufficient proof to link them with the criminal activity.

Several residents here met by Bernama, however, admitted they were from the Philippines and had secured the Malaysian IC through the said project.

"True. Project IC exists. I secured my IC from the project in the early 1980's," said Fuad Arif from Tawi-Tawi island, the Philippines, who now resides in Kampung Sabang in Menggatal, near here, with his family.

According to him, he came to Sabah in the mid-1970s with his parents, and they had stayed at Pulau Mantanani before moving to the village.

"After living here for several years, I finally received my Malaysian IC in 1984. At that time, a middleman came to our village to distribute the cards.

"I still remember the middleman coming to every house in the village to fill up forms for the IC and collect the fee of about RM10 each for stamp duty.

"One of the documents used to support the IC application was the late birth certificate registration letter," he recalled.

Fuad said that once the ICs were ready, the middleman would return to the village to distribute the cards to the residents, who were immigrants and had lived there for a long time.

In fluent Bahasa Melayu, he said that his family believed that they would have a better future in Sabah compared to Tawi-Tawi.

"There is no unrest here. We are free to roam anywhere we want. We can go to Tanjung Aru, Mount Kinabalu or Kota Kinabalu," said Fuad, who is the holder of the IC bearing registration number H0504933.

Earlier, Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) secretary-general Radin Malleh had questioned the authenticity of ICs with numbers starting from H0288001 to H03840000, involving 96,000 holders; H0480001 to H05760000 (96,000); H0609601 to H0610000 (400); H0658001 to H0658200 (200); H0658401 to H0659000 (600); and H0666001 to H0666400 (400), saying he had taken up the matter in the Dewan Rakyat when he was the Member of Parliament for Tenom.

Another Kampung Sabang resident, Jamili Bungsu, 53, said the issuing of ICs under the project was rampant in the early 1980's until 1985.

"Just imagine, in the early 1980's at Kampung Pondo in Pulau Gaya (near Kota Kinabalu), there were only about 10 houses there. But the number soon increased to almost 500 squatter homes whose occupants were immigrants from the Philippines.

"It was not their fault that there were locals who were willing to arrange getting the ICs for them. Not many knew who were the masterminds behind the operation. It might have been done by those with high ranks as it was not easy to make an IC," he said.

Jaidy Kamlun, 26, from Kampung Pulau Gaya, said most immigrants who secured the ICs through the project had been living in the country for a long time and were involved in the state's development projects.

He said in Pulau Gaya alone, there were now more than 10,000 immigrants from a neighbouring country and most of them were helped by 'locals' to get the ICs.

"Of course the immigrants would grab the golden opportunity as it required no documents. Furthermore, they wanted to stay here. Most of them now have MyKads and can vote. As far as I know, the project not only benefited Filipinos, but those from Indonesia, India and China. The modus operandi was the same, that was, through a middleman."

He said it was unfair to link immigrants holding the ICs with criminal activities in Sabah.

"Perhaps some of them are involved in criminal activities or social problems but not all. Society's perception is inaccurate as we came here to earn a living.

"Our parents have lived in Sabah for a long time, and as a new generation, we do not desire to return to the Philippines. We are like the locals who love and are loyal to Malaysia," he said.

Jaidy supported the government's efforts to send back illegal immigrants to their home countries and prevent them from re-entering Malaysia.

"Let bygones be bygones. There is no need to determine whose fault it was. Let's work together towards a better Sabah," said Jaidy, who received his education up to Form Five here.

His views were echoed by his village friend, Tamskie Abdul Said, 36, who said that until now, nobody knew who were the masterminds of the IC project that involved Pulau Gaya residents.

"Project IC was different from those involving fake identification cards. The immigrants preferred Project IC as fake ICs did not allow voting rights and the holder would be repatriated if caught by the police," he said.

Several quarters including political parties and non-governmental organisations in Sabah have expressed concern over the existence of Project IC as it could threaten the country's security and deny genuine citizens employment opportunities as blue collar workers.

In this regard, they have appealed to the government to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to get to the bottom of the issue and ways to resolve it.

The state and federal governments are also aware of the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah.

Even the Barisan Nasional component parties including the PBS, United Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (Upko), Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP), Liberal Democratic party (LDP) and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) have been vocal in expressing their concern over Project IC.

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

Pak Lah denies any role in Sabah's Projek IC

(Bernama, Feb 2013) -- Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has denied opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's claim that he was involved in the 'Projek IC' in Sabah.

He said Anwar implicated him in the issue to cover his own wrongdoing.

"He (Anwar) is constantly blaming others. He will accuse other people and then he'll wash his hands off it. I know him too well," he told reporters after the presentation of 1Malaysia People's Assistance (BR1M) 2.0 to 262 Kepala Batas Chinese residents at the Tau Boin Temple Keong Hall here today.

Abdullah - who is the area's MP - was commenting on a press report which quoted Anwar as saying that the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) should investigate Abdullah and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for their alleged involvement in the project.

Anwar who is also Permatang Pauh MP was also reported to have denied his involvement in the issue but said he was prepared to give his statement to the RCI.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had earlier claimed that Anwar was directly involved in the project to issue citizenship and identity cards to ineligible foreigners in Sabah in the 90s.

He claimed that although Anwar did not give orders directly, he was always taking the initiative, sometimes more than was necessary.

Meanwhile, Abdullah said 12,060 people in his constituency were eligible for the first phase of the BR1M 2.0 and the distribution would be carried out throughout February.

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

Anwar: 'Project IC' still ongoing

The ex-DPM denies that he initiated the project and claims it is still running under the current PM.

(fz.com, Feb 2013) -- Former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim claimed today the task force behind "Project IC" was still ongoing under the current Najib administration.

Anwar said the task force started by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was handed over to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and was now under the current premier.

He also denied any involvement in Project IC, refuting an allegation repeated by Mahathir at a press conference yesterday. "Project IC" refers to allegations that many Muslim immigrants from Indonesia and Philippines were issued citizenship in Sabah since the 1990s. The issue has come under renewed scrutiny after a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into the problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah began its hearings last month.

"I was not involved in the task force," Anwar told a press conference at party headquarters here.

"There should be a thorough investigation and ask all past and present Cabinet ministers...the task force was never tabled during a Cabinet meeting. There is no minute that showed my involvement in the task force, and there was never any report submitted to me  when I was the finance or the deputy prime minister," he said.

He also asked whether Mahathir was willing to deny his role behind "Project IC" and his appointment of former Cabinet members Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin and Tan Sri Megat Junid Megat Ayub to the task force.

"There are no records because it was a special task force operated by the prime minister (Mahathir) ...  It is also important to note that the task force is continuous. We should (ask) Tun Abdullah Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

"Datuk Seri Najib as the prime minister is still operating the task force... this should be asked," said Anwar.

Yesterday, Mahathir had claimed at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur that Anwar was directly involved in the project to distribute identity cards to illegal immigrants in Sabah but admitted lacking proof that could stand scrutiny in court. Mahathir also added that so called "Project IC" was never his brainchild but his former's deputy initiative.

The RCI also heard testimony from Sabah NRD chief Ramli Kamaruddin, Tamparuli NRD chief Yakup Damsah, as well as a few migrants who had received their citizenship documents.

Among the panel's terms of reference are determining the number of immigrants in Sabah, investigating if blue identity cards or citizenship papers were issued to immigrants and whether they were registered in the electoral roll, and the abnormal increase in Sabah's population.

The RCI was also looking into allegations that Mahathir had initiated "Project IC" in Sabah to give citizenships to immigrants in exchange for their votes. The former prime minister has admitted granting citizenship to immigrants but stressed the exercise was within the law.

Tan Sri Harris Salleh, who was Sabah Chief Minister from 1976 to 1985, has also denied the existence of "Project IC."

Based on a 2010 census, 889,000 or 28% of Sabah's population are foreigners.

 

"Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it."

Posted: 27 Jan 2013 07:20 PM PST

In 1991, the brother of the Sabah Chief Minister, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for allegedly plotting to take Sabah out of Malaysia. With the detention of Dr Jeffrey, this more or less 'confirmed' the rumour of the plot to take Sabah out of Malaysia and subsequently for Sabah to join the Philippines.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it." That was what my lecturer told me this morning. I think he is chiding me for being too judgemental in my comments regarding the English Civil War and the conflict between King Charles I and Parliament, the course I am currently taking.

With that spirit as the backdrop, I would like to give you my analysis regarding the current controversy raging in Malaysia -- and that is the controversy regarding the Sabah immigrants issue that is being investigated by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).

The Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) was formed on 5th March 1985 and it won the state elections that were held soon after that with Pairin Kitingan as Sabah's new Chief Minister.

During PBS's rule of Sabah from 1985 to 1994, a lot of rumours were flying around Peninsula Malaysia, especially amongst the Malay-Muslim community. And what was being said alarmed the Malays-Muslims from West Malaysia.

The first rumour concerned Muslims in Sabah converting or returning to Christianity.

During the time of Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun -- that is the period when Usno was ruling Sabah -- many non-Muslim natives were converted to Islam. From what we in Peninsula Malaysia heard, those who converted to Islam were given land and money, and were sponsored for a trip to Mekah. Hence, according to what the Sabahans told us, many natives converted to Islam for the monetary rewards rather than because they believed in Islam.

When PBS took over the state government, it seems that many who converted to Islam earlier converted or went back to Christianity. And this upset the Muslims from Peninsula Malaysia. Whether this really did happen or not is another matter. This was what they were told and this was what everyone believed was happening. Hence this outraged the Muslims.

The next rumour was regarding who was allegedly behind PBS.

The rumour then was that the Vatican was financing PBS through the Philippines. It seems this involved a huge sum of money and the purpose of the Vatican was to establish a Christian government in Sabah.

Ultimately, the plan was for Sabah to pull out of Malaysia. Sabah would then join the Philippines, which has always claimed that Sabah belonged to the Philippines. (Read more regarding this matter below).

In 1991, the brother of the Sabah Chief Minister, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for allegedly plotting to take Sabah out of Malaysia. With the detention of Dr Jeffrey, this more or less 'confirmed' the rumour of the plot to take Sabah out of Malaysia and subsequently for Sabah to join the Philippines.

Hence the Malays-Muslims from Peninsula Malaysia had to 'do something' to bring down the Christian government of Sabah and prevent 'Christian' Sabah from leaving Malaysia to join the 'Christian' Philippines. And that would be to dilute the Christian population of Sabah by bringing in Muslims and giving them voting rights, meaning also identity cards.

The Prime Minister during that period was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his Deputy was Anwar Ibrahim, who was also the Director of Operations for Barisan Nasional Sabah. However, this was not something that only those two could pull off.

This was a Muslim versus Christian issue. This involved the Vatican and the Philippines plotting to turn Sabah into a Christian state and eventually pull Sabah out of Malaysia to become part of the Philippines.

Hence Seri Perdana, the army, the police, the Immigration Department, the National Registration Department, the Elections Commission, etc., all had to play a part in keeping Sabah Muslim and to prevent Sabah from leaving Malaysia to become part of the Philippines.

This was a huge conspiracy that involved many people and many government agencies. There may have been a few decision-makers at the top but these people could not have pulled something this big off unless the entire government machinery was mobilised towards this effort.

Later, all those key people at the lower level -- such as those from the Immigration Department, National Registration Department, and so on -- were detained under the ISA in a bid to silence them.

Just too many people were involved and it was too risky to allow these people to roam free where they could probably talk. So they were rounded up and detained without trial. They could certainly not be put on trial where all the evidence of their 'wrongdoing' would be revealed in court.

To the Sabahans, those from West Malaysia or from Kuala Lumpur are traitors. To the Malays-Muslims from West Malaysia, those who managed to thwart the Vatican/Philippines plot to pull Sabah out of Malaysia to become part of the Philippines are patriots who have served Islam well.

I suppose this brings me back to the course I am currently taking. To the 'Roundheads', Charles I was a traitor to the Protestant cause. To the 'Cavaliers', Charles I was a victim of injustice. It all depends on who is writing history and the victors and not the vanquished always write history. And since Charles I lost the civil war and his head got chopped off, then Charles who was 'weak' and compromised with the Catholics is the traitor while the Parliamentarians are the patriots.

How will those people behind the move to thwart Sabah becoming Christian and thereafter leaving Malaysia to become part of the Philippines be viewed by historians, say, 100 years from today? I suppose it depends on who will be writing those history books and this, again, will depend on who the winners are going to be.

As my lecturer said, "Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it." Hence I will not comment on whether what they did was right or wrong. My job as a student of history is merely to relate what happened and state how I interpret those events. This will be how I am going to pass my course at the end of March 2013.

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

The Philippines' claim to Sabah (EXTRACT)

The Sultanate of Sulu was granted the territory as a prize for helping the Sultan of Brunei against his enemies and from then on that part of Borneo is recognized as part of the Sultan of Sulu's sovereignty. In 1878, Baron Von Overbeck, an Austrian partner representing The British North Borneo Co. and his partner British Alfred Dent, leased the territory known as "Sabah" - roughly translated as "the land beneath the winds". In return the company will provide arms to the Sultan to resist the spaniards and 5,000 Malaysian ringgits annual rental based on the Mexican dollars value at that time or its equivalent in gold. This lease has been continued until the independence and formation of the Malaysian federation in 1963 together with Singapore, Sarawak and Malaysia. Up to these days, the Malaysians have been continuing the rental payment of 5,300 Malaysian ringgits - a 300 ringgits increased from original rent.

In 1962 during the Pres. Diosdado Macapagal's administration (the father of the present president, Glorio Arroyo), the Philippines formally claimed Sabah based on the Sultanate of Sulu heirs' claim on the territory. The Philippines broke diplomatic relations with Malaysia after the federation have included "Sabah". The sultan's heirs have given the Philippine government the authority to pursue the claim legally in international courts. However, the succeeding administrations have either have ignored or set aside the claim for peaceful co-existent and trade relation with the Malaysians. 

One significant incident involving then President Marcos have briefly brought into limelight the Sabah claim once more. In 1972, the Marcos government have been training secretly a group of Muslim Filipinos in Corregidor, an island off Manila Bay, for possible intrusion in Sabah to pave the way to an armed secession of Sabah from Malaysia. But upon knowing of the plans, the recruits have mutinied and were eliminated except for one that swam the bay and was rescued. The newspapers have called this incident, the "Jabidah Massacre" named after the operation that was given by the military. The survivor divulged the plan and the claim was put in back burner once more. It was believe that because of the incident, the Malaysians have been aiding the Muslim separatists against the Philippine government. Some people says this distracted the attention to the claim on Sabah as the government was embroiled in containing the conflict.

REFERENCE: http://www.epilipinas.com/sabahclaim.htm

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

How Philippines will eventually take Sabah (EXTRACT)

Much water has flowed under the bridge since the formation of Malaysia. Even though Malaysia gained independence through peaceful means, it did not mean that the birth of the new nation was without labour pangs.

Sukarno of Indonesia and Macapagal of the Philippines were both opposed to the inclusion of the North Borneo territory in the Federation of Malaysia. Sukarno, it must be emphasised, had launched the Konfrontasi to crush Malaysia.

Macapagal was however less vehement in his pursuit against the formation of Malaysia, despite allegations in the first half of 1968 that young Suluk men were secretly being trained in Corrigedor for the purpose of infiltrating and invading Sabah.

Successive Philippine governments have raised the matter of the claim over Sabah with the Malaysian government at various regional and international fora. At one stage, they even threatened to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague for arbitration.

However, the Malaysian government has persistently refused to be a litigant on the grounds that Sabah had become an integral part of Malaysia through a constitutional and democratic process.

That aside, the people of Sabah had strongly expressed their desire to be part of the Federation of Malaysia under the aegis of the United Nations-sponsored United Nations Malaysian Mission (UNMM) and the Lord Cobbold Commission.

Notwithstanding the above argument, the Philippine government has persisted to pursue her claim of sovereignty over Sabah. Two books were published on the claim, one in 1964 and the other in 1967, setting out the legal and historical bases of her claim on Sabah; but the contents of the books were refuted by the Malaysian government's at a June-July 1968 meeting in Bangkok, much to the embarrassment of their Philippine counterparts.

G James, Malaysiakini (READ MORE HERE: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/30940)

 

Feel like kicking yourself

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 05:48 PM PST

Ultimately, you are to blame. And pinning the blame on Dr Mahathir is your way of shifting the blame so that you need not kick yourself. And, soon, the next general election will be upon us. In two months time we shall know who is going to run the country for the next five years or so. And, yet again, Barisan Nasional is going to win the election. And, yet again, you are going to look for someone to blame. And this is just going to prove one thing that I have been saying for a long time -- and that is Malaysians are a bunch of losers.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There is an English saying: you feel like kicking yourself. This describes the situation where you have been an utter fool and now feel real stupid about it. Hence you feel like kicking yourself.

I have noticed that many readers seem to feel exactly like this -- they feel like kicking themselves. Judging by the comments posted in Malaysia Today, many which are deleted merely because they keep repeating the same thing over and over again, quite a number of you fall into this category.

I used to be a Tun Hussein Onn critic in the days he was Malaysia's Prime Minister back in the late 1970s. That was more or less the time I started to become politically conscious and when I began to realise that all was not kosher and honky-dory in Malaysia.

Then, when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister, I did not care about Hussein Onn any more. He had already retired and was 'yesterday's news'. I began to channel my criticism towards Dr Mahathir -- even during the time when Anwar Ibrahim was yet to have his falling out with his master in 1998.

Hence my criticism of Dr Mahathir did not commence only in 1998 when he threw Anwar into jail. It started even earlier than that, long before he and Anwar went into conflict.

When Dr Mahathir handed over the reins to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in November 2003, I became a Pak Lah critic. Dr Mahathir was no longer my pet hate. He was no longer the Prime Minister. Pak Lah was. So my new target became Pak Lah.

Then Pak Lah retired and handed the country to Najib Tun Razak. From that day on I no longer talked about Pak Lah. I started to target Najib. He was now the Prime Minister so he should now become the focus of my attacks.

I find, however, that no one talks about Hussein Onn, the Prime Minister before Dr Mahathir, or about Pak Lah, the Prime Minister after Dr Mahathir. But you do talk about Dr Mahathir. And you talk more about Dr Mahathir's Indian ancestry than about what he did when he was Prime Minister.

Even if you do talk about what Dr Mahathir did when he was Prime Minister, most times you will make that comment in the context of his Indian ancestry. It is as if Dr Mahathir is what he is or is a bad person because he has Indian blood in him. It is as if that explains why Dr Mahathir is what he is -- because he is Indian.

If I were asked to psychoanalyse you, I would most likely do so as follows. Back in the late 1980s, we had already told you what we knew about Dr Mahathir, Umno and Barisan Nasional. What we told you 25 years ago is basically the same thing as what we are telling you today.

However, you refused to listen. In the 1990 general election, more than 53% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, giving the opposition only 53 of the 180 seats in Parliament (or 29%). We just could not get you to kick out Barisan Nasional and give the government to the opposition.

No doubt when we point this out you will reply with all sorts of excuses to justify why you did not vote opposition and instead gave the country to Barisan Nasional. The normal excuses are: there was no Internet yet at that time (so we were not well informed), the opposition was not credible enough (so we had no confidence in the opposition), the opposition had not been tested yet (so we had more confidence in Barisan Nasional), the mainstream media lied to us (so we were misinformed) and so on.

Then, in the next general election in 1995, the opposition's share of Parliament seats dropped to just 30 out of 192 (which is only 15%). More than 84% of you voted Barisan Nasional. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah soon realised that his attempt to kick out Barisan Nasional is futile. Malaysians just did not want the opposition to take over the country. They would rather that Umno and Barisan Nasional continue to rule Malaysia.

Ku Li was better off just closing down his Semangat 46 and go back to Umno -- which he did soon after that in 1996.

Nevertheless, many of us did not give up yet. We continued to support and vote for the opposition. In 1999, we went all out to campaign for the opposition. In fact, that same year I even went to work for Parti Keadilan Nasional. This was no longer just about supporting the opposition. We were literally working for the opposition.

Unfortunately, in the 1999 general election, the opposition did even worse than in the 1990 general election. Almost 57% of you voted for Barisan Nasional (compared to 53% in 1990) and the opposition won only 23% of the seats in Parliament (compared to about 29% in 1990).

The 1999 general election was supposed to have been the landmark election for Malaysia. We were supposed to have made history. But we could not even better the 1990 general election. What a letdown. And, yet again, the long list of excuses as to why you were 'forced' to vote Barisan Nasional rather than the opposition Barisan Alternatif.

And the most classic excuse of all came from the non-Malays: we support you in our hearts but we have to vote Barisan Nasional for the sake of the economy. What a load of bullshit! In other words money talks, bullshit walks. And Barisan Nasional is about money while the opposition is bullshit.

But we still did not give up. In November 2003, Pak Lah took over and four months later the general election was called. Dr Mahathir is a dictator. Dr Mahathir is vicious. Dr Mahathir is vindictive. Dr Mahathir is toxic. So we do not dare vote opposition when Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister. But now Pak Lah was Prime Minister. So surely all those excuses no longer applied.

But no, in the 2004 general election, almost 64% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, giving them almost 91% of the seats in Parliament. This was the best ever performance for the ruling party since Merdeka. So this could not have been about Dr Mahathir this, that and the other after all, as what you told us in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

I was a campaign manager in that 2004 general election. I was no longer just working for the party like in 1999. I was now 'on the ground' trying to help the opposition win. But we got whacked good and proper. We practically lost our pants. Many opposition candidates not only lost the election but lost their deposit as well. That was how bad it was. We were shocked. How could that have happened?

And, yet again, a long list of excuses as to why you voted for the ruling party and not for the opposition -- the same long list of excuses that we heard in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

That was when I decided we needed to change tactics. They say if you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result that is a sign of lunacy. If we expect a different result then we need to do things differently. And that was when I decided to launch Malaysia Today and take our fight to the cyber-world. We can never win in 'conventional' warfare when we do not possess the firepower. So we need to embark upon an 'unconventional' war. And that would have to be in the Internet.

I always use the Afghan Mujahideen fight against the Russians as my analogy. When they tried fighting the Russians in a conventional war they got whacked bad. Russia had tanks, helicopter gunships, rocket launchers and so on. And the Afghans suffered heavy losses.

Then the Afghans changed tactics. They took the fight to where they were strongest, in the mountains. When the Russians tried to fight the Afghans in the mountains the tables turned. Eventually the Russians gave up and went home.

Sun Tzu did say you must engage the enemy in your territory and not try to fight them in their territory. This was what the Afghans did. And this was what we also did in 2004 -- after we got whacked bad in the general election that year -- when we decided to engage Barisan Nasional in our territory, the Internet.

Nevertheless, the opposition success in the 2008 general election was not any better than in the 1990 general election. Still 52% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, a mere 1% improvement over 1990. Yes, that's right, in spite of all that effort, in 2008 we improved only 1% over 1990, an era when there was no Internet yet.

So, can the excuse that Barisan Nasional did well because there was no Internet yet at that time hold water? In 1990 there was no Internet. In 2008 the Internet had already fully matured. But in 2008 the vote improvement was only 1% over 1990.

Most of you refuse to accept the fact that this is your fault. If you do then you would have to kick yourself. So you look for a scapegoat to pin the blame on. And that is why you are very nasty towards Dr Mahathir. You want to blame Dr Mahathir for your stupidity. You do not want to admit that it is you who are stupid. So you blame BTN. You blame Umno. You blame the mainstream media. You blame PAS. You blame the Islamic State. You blame Hudud. You blame the fact that Dr Mahathir has Indian blood in him. You blame the fact there was no Internet. You blame your parents who did not know any better. If you could, you would also like to blame Prophet Muhammad -- except that you are not quite sure how to do this.

Ultimately, you are to blame. And pinning the blame on Dr Mahathir is your way of shifting the blame so that you need not kick yourself. And, soon, the next general election will be upon us. In two months time we shall know who is going to run the country for the next five years or so. And, yet again, Barisan Nasional is going to win the election. And, yet again, you are going to look for someone to blame. And this is just going to prove one thing that I have been saying for a long time -- and that is Malaysians are a bunch of losers.

 

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.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved