Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
- About hand gestures and signals
- Signal not clear
- Aren’t Malaysians weird?
- What we are fighting for
- Bringing up children
- When white is not white
- Guilty as charged
- Sudah jatuh ditimpa tangga
- So what?
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter Posted: 16 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST
And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," said Sir Winston Churchill. In fact, there is another quote from Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the forms of government that have been tried from time to time." While we are on the subject of quotes from Churchill, you may want to read what more he said. "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." Anyway, those are but a fraction of sayings from Sir Winston Churchill to brighten up your Sunday evening (or Sunday morning here in the UK). But that is not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the issue of Haron Din being scolded, cursed, vilified and disparaged because of the stand he has taken regarding the use of the Allah word in the Bible. For both Muslims as well as Christians, they need to understand the boundaries of decent discourse and when does that discourse exceed the boundary and falls into the category of indecency. And this is why I have titled today's article "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." The average voter, meaning the majority of Malaysia Today's readers, have absolutely no idea what democracy means. Democracy means Haron Din has a right to his view and so do you. And democracy does not mean if you differ in view you have the right to attack the other person verbally, or worse, physically. For example, we can disagree on whether Malaysia should remain a Secular Constitutional Monarchy or be changed into a Secular Republic or, as some are proposing, a Theocratic Constitutional Monarchy or an Islamic Republic. At the end of the day, we all have different views and different choices. And that is why there are so many religions and sects of these many religions in existence plus, of course, agnostics and atheists. This is because we have differing views about religion and God and about the way to 'reach' God -- and whether God even exists or not in the first place and if He does then in what form. However, although we may disagree on theological issues, this does not mean since Malaysia is a democracy that gives me the right to disparage someone who has a different view from me. It just means we have different views and we should respect each other's views. I have read comments from readers who say that Muslims are stupid for not wanting to eat pork because pork is so delicious. You know that pork is taboo to Muslims so why the need to goad Muslims with such comments? Have you read any comments from Muslims saying that Hindus are stupid for not wanting to eat beef because beef is so delicious? If Muslims do not want to eat pork (or Hindus do not want to eat beef) then let it be. Learn to respect the taboos of each religion. I am sure you do not like it when I say that Chinese are stupid for getting upset with Ibrahim Ali when he gave white colour angpau for Chinese New Year. If white angpau are meant for funerals and are taboo for Chinese New Year then we respect that tradition. Saying that Chinese are stupid for believing such silly superstition is provocative and will certainly trigger bad-will. In fact, did you know that pork was actually taboo to the early Christians as well (who were not yet called 'Christians' but 'followers of the Jesus Movement')? No, I am not talking about the Christian doctrine or dogma here. I am talking about history. And if you study in greater detail the history of the Apostles (not what the Bible says but what the historians say) then you would know what I am talking about. For the benefit of the non-Christians, in particular the Muslims, the majority who have never studied Christian history, the 12 Apostles are as follows: 1. Simon Peter (brother of Andrew). 2. James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater". 3. John (son of Zebedee and brother of James). 4. Andrew (brother of Simon Peter). 5. Philip of Bethsaida. 6. Thomas (Didymus). 7. Bartholomew (Nathaniel). 8. Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum. 9. James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser". 10. Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite). 11. Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum. 12. Judas Iscariot. The Roman Catholic Church puts a great deal of emphasis on (Simon) Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18). In fact, (St.) Peter is considered the First Pope of the Catholic Church. Hence Peter is regarded as one of the most important Apostles of Christianity. The second most important Apostle, however, is not one of the other 11 but Paul. Paul was a strong anti-Jesus Movement Jewish zealot who made it his mission to destroy this movement. In fact, it is said that he was there to witness the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (and it is also said that Paul held Stephen's cloak while Stephen was being stoned to death). Paul was instrumental in arresting and torturing those who had strayed from true Judaism by following the false teachings of the Jesus Movement. One day, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus on his mission to hunt down and kill Christians, Paul 'saw' Jesus in the form of a mirage. Paul was immediately blinded but, three days later, his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus. This 'miracle' prompted Paul to become a follower of the Jesus Movement. However, while Peter and the other disciples focused their missionary work just on fellow Jews, Paul felt that Christianity should be for all, not only for Jews. So Paul started preaching Christianity to the gentiles and pagans. And to attract non-Jews to Christianity there should be a certain relaxing of the rules, so to speak. Hence the need for circumcision and the banning of eating pork, as an example, which are a Jewish tradition and therefore also the tradition of the early Christians, should be reviewed. By Paul's reckoning, non-Jew Christians should be exempted from circumcision and should be allowed to eat pork. And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians. Of course, there were more non-Jews than there were Jews. Hence, understandably, Paul's movement expanded faster than Peter's. Furthermore, while Peter focused on small Jewish communities, Paul travelled to the bigger non-Jewish cities where there were more people and therefore more potential converts. And because Paul's version of Christianity, so to speak, was more 'liberal' (for want of a better word) compared to Peter's (which retained the strict Jewish taboos and traditions) more people followed Paul than Peter. The 'headquarters' of the Church of England is St Paul's Cathedral in London, founded in 604, around the time that Islam was founded. The 'headquarters' of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, founded in 319 by the Emperor Constantine. Now, can you figure out why that is so (make your own conclusion on this)? This is, of course, my analysis of the early development of Christianity and based on historical accounts and not based on what the Bible says. So I can expect many Christians to disagree with my analysis. And they have every right to do so (as do many Malays/Muslims also disagree with my historical analysis of the early development of Islam -- and the reason why many of my Malay/Muslim friends are no longer my friends: because they disagree with me). Nevertheless, since we are talking about democracy and the right of non-Muslims to comment on Islam, I, too, exercise my democratic right to offer my analysis regarding the early development of Christianity. That is how democracy works, unfortunately. So, my conclusion to this is: if you are a follower of Peter, then pork should be haram for you (plus you should be circumcised) while, if you are a follower of Paul, then pork should be halal (and you only need to be baptised). So be very careful before you whack the Muslims and call them stupid for refusing to eat 'delicious pork'. |
| About hand gestures and signals Posted: 14 Feb 2013 07:45 PM PST
The Malay response to this would be: awak jual, saya beli, which means if you are selling then I will buy. Therefore, if you show Malays your middle finger, they would find it extremely shameful if they did not respond to the cabaran (challenge). It is in the Malay psyche to not walk away from a challenge unless you want to go down in history as a disgrace to your race. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin To certain communities, hand gestures and signals are a big deal. People have lost their lives just because they were perceived to have shown the 'wrong' hand gesture or signal. Do you remember reading last month about that chap who was killed by a triad member because the triad member thought this chap had shown the 'wrong' signal? Actually it was a case of 'mistaken identity'. That chap who was killed was actually an OKU. Anwar Ibrahim is facing a criminal charge for giving the wrong hand gesture/signal during the Bersih rally. Hence hand gestures or signals can get you in trouble with the law if you are not careful. And in the wrong place and to the wrong person it can cost you your life. The latest brouhaha is regarding that science graduate from Scotland who showed the Raja Permaisuri Agong and a senior police officer his middle finger. There is currently a hue and cry going on, both by his supporters who think this Chinese chap is a hero as well as by those who feel he is downright biadap (insolent). I was told this showing of your middle finger first started during the 100 Years War between England and France back in the 1300s-1400s. The English had their archers who were most feared by the French (remember Robin Hood?). Hence whenever the French captured these English archers they would cut off the middle finger of these Englishmen so that they can never again shoot arrows at the French (this was, of course, before the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 that stipulated how prisoners of war should be treated). So whenever the English archers met up with the French on the battlefield they would goad the French by showing the French their middle finger, to demonstrate that they had not lost their middle finger and therefore were going to whack the French good and proper. I really do not know whether this story is true or not but it certainly is a nice story, don't you think so? Anyway, since that day, showing someone your middle finger was meant as an insult or aimed at antagonising that person and inviting that person to a fight. The Malay response to this would be: awak jual, saya beli, which means if you are selling then I will buy. Therefore, if you show Malays your middle finger, they would find it extremely shameful if they did not respond to the cabaran (challenge). It is in the Malay psyche to not walk away from a challenge unless you want to go down in history as a disgrace to your race. In a way, the Chinese and Indians are the same. They hate to be challenged and not respond to that challenge. A few years ago I was covering a press conference at a hotel and arrived about an hour early so that I can set up my video camera at a most strategic location. This was during the days of the Reformasi movement and Ishak, another reformist, set up his video camera beside me. He too had arrived early. About five minutes after the press conference had started a Chinese reporter rushed in and started snapping photographs. He then stood in front of my video camera and all I got were shots of the back of his head. I tapped this Chinese chap lightly on the shoulder (and I made sure I smiled) and told him that he was blocking my video camera. He suddenly turned and started screaming and cursing at me. Halfway through the press conference he left, but as he was leaving he continued shouting and cursing at me and gestured at me to follow him outside -- clearly meaning for a fight. Ishak looked at me with a puzzled look on his face and I just shrugged my shoulders. In another incident in front of Parliament House, we were covering the handing over of a Memorandum to the opposition Members of Parliament. The security officers locked the gate of Parliament House and refused us entry so the MPs had to walk outside to accept the Memorandum. As the Memorandum was being handed over we all rushed to take photographs and there was a lot of pushing and shoving. One Chinese reporter and I accidentally bumped into each other. I did not bump into him or him into me. It was more like we bumped into each other, but not that serious, though -- none of us lost our balance or anything of that sort. This reporter then turned and was about to punch me when a DAP chap grabbed him and said something to him in Chinese. I don't know what the DAP chap said but this Chinese reporter continued glaring at me. Understandably, I moved as far away from him as possible. I suppose that tap on the shoulder and bumping into that reporter was interpreted as a cabaran. And these two Chinese reporters were not about to let me get away with it. I dread what would have happened if I had shown them my middle finger. Can you guess what the outcome of that would have been? Malays do not normally take things as a cabaran unless you really demonstrate that it is a cabaran -- like showing them your middle finger. Tapping someone lightly on the shoulder with a smile on your face or accidentally bumping into someone does not come under that category of cabaran. What is perturbing to read, though, are the comments by some readers that say the chap who showed the Raja Permaisuri Agong his middle finger did no wrong because the institution of the monarchy is outdated anyway and should be abolished and Malaysia turned into a Republic. Now, that, the Malays would take as a cabaran.
|
| Posted: 13 Feb 2013 06:46 PM PST
Personally, I have no problem with either, because not always is democracy or majority voice the best way to solve issues. What if 50.01% of the people want Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic State (the Islamic Kingdom of Malaysia), with the Shariah law of Hudud as the basis of its criminal laws, while 49.99% disagree? Based on a democracy where majority rules, Malaysia would now become an Islamic State even if 49.99% of the people are opposed to it. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin BR1M payout must be orderly: Labuan DAP (Daily Express) - Labuan DAP Chairman Lau Seng Kiat said the RM500 payment under BR1M 2.0 here should have been done with proper planning so that it could be carried out smoothly and orderly and not with recipients having to wait for hours in a jam-packed venue. "Recipients of the financial aid deserve more respect." "After all what is being given to them comes from taxpayers and due to surplus collection by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB)," he said. He was commenting on the chaotic situation in the RM500 payout under the scheme at the Multi-Purpose Hall here from 7.30am to 5pm last Friday. Lau said the announcement made through the print and electronic media about the payment gave no clear details and this led to thousands, who thought that it was the first and final payment under BR1M 2.0, inundating the hall, causing much inconvenience and frustration, especially the elderly and women. According to Lau, he received many complaints about this. "Many had to make several trips back to the hall thinking that the crowd had shrunk but it was not. Apart from the hall, the road was also lined with cars for about one kilometre long," he said. He said the local administrators should ensure a better system of distribution of the aid was in place. "But it does not seem to be the case. For many, the joy of receiving the aid became diluted with anger for having to wait unnecessarily for several hours," he added. Lau also said that because of the chaos many did not bother to check on their eligibility for the money on that day. "It would have been better if the distribution of the aid was divided into phases for different groups based on age," he said. Under BR1M 1.0, some 10,100 here received RM500. Under the present phase, the figure is expected to be more. ***************************************** Politicians should be very careful about what they say. And I am talking about politicians from both sides of the political divide. Too many times politicians contradict themselves and also contradict each other, leading to confusion as to what the real issues are and whether they are unanimous on certain ideals and policies or whether they merely agree to disagree. For example, Barisan Nasional normally insists that you 'toe the party line'. In other words, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, etc., cannot make a statement contradictory to Barisan Nasional's 'common stand'. In the past, some leaders from the non-Umno parties within Barisan Nasional have been suspended (even from Parliament), or disciplinary action has been taken against them, when they make a statement that is perceived as a dissenting stand. We all know that Barisan Nasional means Umno. Hence Barisan Nasional's stand can be translated to Umno's stand. And the non-Umno parties within Barisan Nasional must kowtow to Umno's stand, which would also be Barisan Nasional's stand. In short, in Barisan Nasional, there is no consensus. Umno decides and Barisan Nasional, plus all the members of Barisan Nasional, must comply. And this would mean Barisan Nasional does not act based on democratic principles but rather based on autocracy. And this is certainly another word for dictatorship (I dictate and you follow). Pakatan Rakyat, however, works -- according to what they tell us -- on consensus. That means all three members -- PKR, DAP and PAS -- must agree to a certain policy before it is adopted. And if it is not unanimously agreed then it is not done. The essence of a democracy is that the majority rules. However, when it is on a consensus, then the majority's wishes do not count because it has to be all or nothing. This, I believe, is one contradiction. Hence it must be made clear whether Pakatan Rakyat works as a democracy (where majority rules) or whether it must be unanimous (which means all or nothing even if the majority wants it). Malaysians do not yet grasp the fundamentals of a democracy based on majority rule compared to unanimous decision based on all or nothing. Unanimous does not quite translate to democracy because, in this situation, the minority voice has no say. Personally, I have no problem with either, because not always is democracy or majority voice the best way to solve issues. What if 50.01% of the people want Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic State (the Islamic Kingdom of Malaysia), with the Shariah law of Hudud as the basis of its criminal laws, while 49.99% disagree? Based on a democracy where majority rules, Malaysia would now become an Islamic State even if 49.99% of the people are opposed to it. Hence, in that kind of situation, maybe a consensus based on unanimous agreement would be better than majority rule. And that is why I said I am okay with either because, depending on the situation, democracy might sometimes work against us. And then we have the second contradiction. Pakatan Rakyat also says that they always agree to disagree. However, while that is certainly very civilised and mature, where does that place the 'common platform'? This would give an impression that there are still many areas that PKR, DAP and PAS cannot agree on. Then what do we do? Do we allow freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, etc., to prevail and hence allow those Pakatan Rakyat leaders who do not agree with certain policies to express their opinions? If we do then would this not give an impression of disunity? Or do we impose a censorship on all personal opinions and take disciplinary action against those who do not toe the party line? Is this in line with the spirit of democracy? Now let us look at what the DAP Chairman for Labuan, Lau Seng Kiat, said: "After all what is being given to them comes from taxpayers and due to surplus collection by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB)." Lau was lamenting about the messy way the money was being paid out. But why that part about "……due to surplus collection by the Inland Revenue Board…."? Maybe Lau did not realise that this statement of his contradicts other statements made by Pakatan Rakyat leaders that the country is going bankrupt. How can the country be going bankrupt and yet at the same time the IRB has surplus money? Fortunately for these politicians, most Malaysians have short memories and do not really take too much notice of what politicians say. It not you will find tons of contradictory statements being made by politicians from both sides of the political divide. |
| Posted: 11 Feb 2013 05:44 PM PST
Do you know that I happened to be in Canberra, Australia, at the same time that Najib was in town and I was invited to the official lunch in honour of Malaysia's Prime Minister? I politely declined the invitation and explained to Senator Nick Xenophon that if I attended that lunch it would mean I support Najib since the lunch was in his honour. You should have seen the smiles on the faces of the SABM Australia lads who agreed that by attending the lunch this would mean I am 'endorsing' Najib. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin I wrote 'Sanggang - the BA's wake-up call' (READ HERE) 13 years ago back in April 2000. In March 2004, I wrote 'Crowds don't translate to votes' (READ HERE). Basically, these articles were about the fallacy that if there is a huge crowd at your function or event then this means these people support you. I have been trying to tell the opposition this for more than a decade and it appears that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has discovered this over the weekend. The huge crowd at the Chinese New Year gathering cum PSY concert in Penang cannot be translated to a show of support for Barisan Nasional. The crowd was there for a free concert, not to support Barisan Nasional. This is the nature of Malaysians. If there is a free meal they will be there in hordes even if they hate you. I personally saw thousands of people at Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's Hari Raya open house in 2006 -- many of them, in fact, non-Malays. And some even brought bags and plastic containers to tapau the food, the Chinese equivalent of a doggie bag. It was actually most embarrassing and I saw that Dr Mahathir pretended he did not notice this was happening (my wife, Marina, shook her head in disgust). But how can you not notice your guests emptying the tables and pouring the food into bags and plastic containers? Were they there because they loved Dr Mahathir or were they there because they wanted to plunder the table and bring enough food home for a whole week? And the Chinese New Year concert in Penang is yet another demonstration that Malaysians can hate you but they will come to your party as long as it is free and they need not pay anything. If fact, even if they need to pay they will do so. And that is why it is very difficult to get Malaysians to stop patronising the gaming outlets or to stop buying fast food, etc. (even though gambling and fast food are bad for you). They will scream about all sorts of things and then they will give their business to businesses owned by Barisan Nasional cronies and financiers. As much as we tell them that by making these people rich they are also making Barisan Nasional rich these people refuse to listen. And this is one thing that is most puzzling about Malaysians. They say one thing but they do the opposite of what they say. They scream about corruption and about why we need change and then they will suap a policeman to avoid paying a fine for a traffic offence. They will scream about how bad the government is and why Malaysia needs change and then they will absorb all the corrupted Barisan Nasional politicians into the opposition Pakatan Rakyat. Probably this is the way Malaysians have been brought up by their parents. For example, if I hated Najib I would never attend his Chinese New Year open house even if the food is free and Elton John was going to sing at that open house. I would vote with my feet. I would boycott the event on point of principle. I would never show support by attending his open house and then say that I hate him and am not there because of him. The funny thing is, these people who hate Najib and yet attend his Chinese New Year open house are the same people who accuse others of having no principles. Don't you find that hilarious? Apparently they do not understand what the word 'principles' means. And we are entrusting the future of the country in the hands of these people and are hoping that they will make the right choices and do the right things. I think we need at least 30 years or more before we can reach the stage where Malaysians can walk the talk and practice what they preach. There were some comments posted today by those who do not like what I write that said I have lost their respect. Honestly, do you think I am so concerned about the respect of people who do not respect themselves by attending a Chinese New Year party of someone they hate? Do you know that I happened to be in Canberra, Australia, at the same time that Najib was in town and I was invited to the official lunch in honour of Malaysia's Prime Minister? I politely declined the invitation and explained to Senator Nick Xenophon that if I attended that lunch it would mean I support Najib since the lunch was in his honour. You should have seen the smiles on the faces of the SABM Australia lads who agreed that by attending the lunch this would mean I am 'endorsing' Najib. (I met the Senator to ask him to support Bersih, which he did. He actually went to Kuala Lumpur during the Bersih march to show support and the Malaysian government was pissed big-time). But then that is me and I look at things differently compared to most Malaysians who can hate you and then come to your party. If everyone thought like me then there would have been a Chinese New Year party with no crowd and Najib would really have been embarrassed. Now Umno can always say that that video recording (of the crowd screaming 'no!') was doctored like the ones of Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali (don't we always scream that videos are doctored?). |
| Posted: 10 Feb 2013 07:31 PM PST
You may not agree with some of our views but then you -- the government, that is -- must respect our right to these views. And if you do not then it is time for a change of government -- no two ways about it. If you disagree with us then you have the right of rebuttal as well -- just like we have a right to disagree with you. Whacking us just because you do not like what we say is so yesterday and the culture of an era of days gone by. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin The government, Barisan Nasional, Umno, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, and so on, do not appear to understand what the rakyat wants. They do not appear to know what we are fighting for. We are fighting for freedom of speech. We are fighting for freedom of expression. We are fighting for freedom of opinion. We are fighting for freedom of association. We are fighting for freedom of choice. We are fighting for freedom of thought. We are fighting for freedom of the media. And so on. Basically, this means we must be allowed the right to choose who to believe in, what to believe in, what to think, what to say, what to write, etc. And, this, the government does not seem to understand and does not allow. Hence Malaysians are being denied their fundamental rights. Any government that wishes to rule over us must first understand this. And if they don't then we just cannot accept them as our government. No longer can the government lord over us as in the days of the absolute monarchies. Those days are gone. In England they were discarded in the 1640s and in the rest of Europe in the 1840s -- much later in China, India and our home, Malaysia. In case you still do not understand what we are trying to tell you then read some of the comments below posted by Malaysia Today's readers over the last 48 hours or so. If you want you can read more comments HERE. You may not agree with some of our views but then you -- the government, that is -- must respect our right to these views. And if you do not then it is time for a change of government -- no two ways about it. If you disagree with us then you have the right of rebuttal as well -- just like we have a right to disagree with you. Whacking us just because you do not like what we say is so yesterday and the culture of an era of days gone by. The government, Barisan Nasional, Umno, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, etc., need to be more open and mature. In today's borderless and globalised world you cannot allow just what you like and disallow what you don't like. This is something that we are trying to change. So please read the comments below so that you can grasp the spirit of the right to dissent, to agree to disagree, and discourse in a civilised and mature manner.
written by bumiputar2, February 11, 2013 14:53:03 most of the times pariah dogs like to bark. and they always bark at the wrong tree. when its master tell it to sit, it never ever dare to even think of standing. *****************************************
written by Randholm Lee Siew Hong, February 11, 2013 11:16:08 This Bootlicker is doing what he doe s best. He should also be actively helping the Plastinians, not Malaysians.. That is his calling, same as the most famous immigrant in Malaysia. *****************************************
written by Mah Thian Kan, February 11, 2013 10:41:55 Matthias oh Matthias, always feeling & thinking he is more intellectual than others and forever spewing Tun M deceitful propaganda & make believe plots & fairy tales. Take a walk, go to ground, you will know groundswell truth & Rakyat aspiration for change and ABU. When one's brain has relocated to arse, sitting on it for too long, Matthias sure can concoct grandstanding tales that try serve BN @ cronies But remember many Malaysians are of high intellect too & will understand your outer manifestation of "intellect superiority posturing" that actually hides yours & BN's deep deep sense of submerged inferiority complex & great loss now. *****************************************
written by enikalila, February 11, 2013 10:27:29 One does not need to finish reading d article to know that its writer is a 'running dog fun kuat chai'. I thought that this traitor has repented but then again how can he repent when d sifu is an evil karTun. *****************************************
written by Kabir, February 11, 2013 09:19:57 Hey Mahathirs Mongrel If BN wins 1) BN under Mahathirs control will strip our citizenship easily by changing the constitution.2) They will continue the 2 nation 1 country policy. 3) Taxes collected from us will be used for the benefit of all races but Zakat which is completely deductable against tax not income is only for muslims. Which means non muslims shoulder the development of this country and the other lives on our expense. 4) Education is gone to the rocks. and soon be completely islamised 5) Teaching of English in Science and maths withdrawn which PR will reintroduce or establish english language schools *****************************************
written by robert ng, February 11, 2013 08:28:53 The Opposition has also run out of ammunitions and their rank and file is woefully battle-fatigued. Self-doubts have emerged and major policy disagreements between DAP and PAS have divided the rank and file as well. Karpal Singh has done an invaluable service to the BN government. Whatever surprises that were touted as game-changers, such as the so-called political realignments in Sabah, could not be sustained and have not been transformed into any major groundswell. By Matthias Chang – Future Fast-forward YEOH, CHOW KOW..... LONG TIME NO BARK EH??? SO, ITS THAT TIME TO MAKE YOURSELF RELEVANT AGAIN AH???? PLS SHUT UP AND GO LICK YR MASTER'S N*TS *****************************************
written by Sulaiman Lim Abdullah, February 11, 2013 07:51:47 Matthias oh Matthias, always feeling & thinking he is more intellectual than others and forever spewing Tun M deceitful propaganda & make believe plots & fairy tales. Take a walk, go to ground, you will know groundswell truth & Rakyat aspiration for change and ABU. When one's brain has relocated to arse, sitting on it for too long, Matthias sure can concoct grandstanding tales that try serve BN @ cronies But remember many Malaysians are of high intellect too & will understand your outer manifestation of "intellect superiority posturing" that actually hides yours & BN's deep deep sense of submerged inferiority complex & great loss now. *****************************************
written by tan wai kong, February 11, 2013 01:33:10 I am reading trash from a Tun's dog. I thought you are better than Tun. *****************************************
written by lynn, February 11, 2013 01:28:55 Thought this guy has gone awol, suddenly he popped out of the sewers with his near perfect english. It's amazing, how what is published in the media can sway ppl's opinions - this mouthpiece is hooked-up with that kerala mamak fr the southwest. Ptui. We must stand our ground, vote PR, put Anwar into power. ANWAR AS PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA. *****************************************
written by Philip Yap, February 11, 2013 01:08:36 This is mamak goon, nothing can be worst than bringing back the mamak, voting for BN is same as bringing mamak back to control the country, more corruption, more police brutality, bias and unreliable judiciary, more IC project, revoke citizen of decent citizen who want and fight for a clean and fair election, allow and encourage Ibrahim Ali and the likes to burn holly bibles, may be burning of Church, criminalize those who possess and read bible, computerize and track those who do not agree or dissenting voices and black mark them and deny them all economic opportunities, bla..bla...mamak style. *****************************************
written by Yap T W, February 10, 2013 23:20:50 What a load of rubbish. Are you going to say next that the Zionists are helping DAP to win seats in the next election? Your statements are obviously made to please your racist master none other than the devious Mamak. *****************************************
written by Li Xiang Lan, February 10, 2013 22:34:47 I can't be bothered to read the trash by this man who sold his soul to the Devil (U-no-hoo) as the Devil's Advisor for monetary gain. In the process he also sold the rights of his own community and relegated the Chinese to 2nd Class citizens. Now he speaks for he knows his BIG Benefactor is in BIG trouble when PR takes over the seat of the Federal Govt. My time will be better spent if I go and get those dishes that have been stacked after CNY dinner, washed and cleaned. Fellow Malaysians, be steadfast to our cause, don't let these baboons influence you in any way. Watch the fireworks when PR is in power. Oh yes, you bet some Mamak's "lord" will comment on my Form 5 "degree" and compared it to another doctorate or some crappy papers of this writer, or he too cannot sleep knowing the Fall of BN is imminent. *****************************************
written by Harvey, February 10, 2013 22:18:38 Did TDM ask him to write something so tha it will save the face of the naton traitor. *****************************************
written by anakrakyat, February 10, 2013 21:12:07 Do we take this sell out mongrels propganda seriously? He is undremining the Opposition without a word on the Foillies of BN. *****************************************
written by East-highlander, February 10, 2013 20:46:42 Here is man who talks about everything he sees around him except for the what the rakyat wants, lapping up his his master's sputum at every opportunity. *****************************************
written by MICHAEL ZECHARIAH, February 10, 2013 19:48:28 Hey fellas, Look who is talking. Its Dr.Mahathir's mongrel. What do you all think it is doing? Doing its master a loyal favor. Mathias 'Elvis' Chang. (Check out the Elvis style speactacles its wearing). Unfortunately this mongrel can't sing. |
| Posted: 07 Feb 2013 04:45 PM PST
Let's not talk about politics today and instead look into the mind of an innocent toddler and how he perceives religious teachings, which sometimes do not make sense to small minds that can think better than mature minds. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Dad! Yes, son. How did I get here? Err…hmm…why don't you ask your mum? I want to read the papers. I did and mum said to ask you, dad. Ah…well…the stork brought you. Oh. But my Sunday school teacher said we all came from Adam and Eve. Well…that is also true. You mean we all came from Adam and Eve? Yes. Now run along and play. I want to read my papers. My Sunday school teacher said Adam and Eve were the first two people on earth. Yes, that's right. So who married them then? What do you mean? Aunty Sara and Uncle Bill got married by the priest. So who married Adam and Eve if they were the only two people on earth? Err…no one. So Adam's and Eve's children are all bastards then? Hoi…where did you learn that word from? You must never use that word. I heard you saying that, dad. Me? Yes, you said that your boss is a bastard. I asked Mike what bastard means and he told me. How do you know that your boss is a bastard like Adam's and Eve's children? That was merely a figure of speech. I did not mean it literally. Oh never mind. No. Adam's and Eve's children are not bastards even though Adam and Eve never got married by a priest. Oh, okay. Now run along son. But who did Adam's and Eve's children marry? They married each other, son. You see, there were no other people on earth other than just Adam and Eve and their children. So does that mean I can marry Kate when we grow up? No, son, you can't. Kate is your sister. Oh. But Adam's and Eve's children were also brothers and sisters. Yes they were. But at that time it was okay for brothers and sisters to get married. Now go outside and play. We were also told the story of Noah and his yacht. That's good son. But it was called an ark, not yacht. Now go and play. Did you know that Noah got all the animals onto the ark before the great flood and he saved all the animals? If not there would be no animals around today. Yes, I know that, son. But how did he feed those animals, dad? I suppose he also had food on the ark, son. But lions and tigers eat other animals. Won't they eat up all the other animals on the ark? No they won't, son. Then how did they stay alive for so long without food if the lions and tigers did not eat up all the other animals? I don't know, son, but I am sure that Noah had figured all this out before he took all those animals onto the ark. My Sunday school teacher said that every animal alive today was on that ark. That is true son. Even penguins? Yes, even penguins, son. But there are no penguins living in the desert, dad. Where did Noah find penguins? I am sure there were penguins in the desert at that time or maybe Noah found a way to get some from the North Pole. But penguins live in the South Pole, dad. Whatever. Did Noah have a freezer on the ark? Freezer? Yes, penguins need the cold. They cannot live in the hot desert. MARTHA! Yes, John. We have to stop sending Tim to Sunday school. I don't think they are teaching him the right things. Thanks, dad. Can I go outside and play now? |
| Posted: 06 Feb 2013 08:01 PM PST
So why is white good while black is bad? Why do we say 'we have seen the light' when something good happens to us, such as we have 'seen' God? And why is everything bad associated with black? Black-hearted. Black market. Black death (the plague). Black period in history. Black Friday. Black sheep of the family. Black eye. Black out. Pot calling the kettle black. Black mark. And so on. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin I never know how my days are going to start or end. In fact, while I know how my life started, I really do not know how and when it is going to end either. I suppose that is the spice of life. If everything is laid before us in clear and precise details then there is really no more point in continuing, is there? It is like how I am going to start this article. I am not even sure if I do want to write any article today. I just opened my Microsoft Word and stared at this blank sheet of paper. Of course, it is not really a piece of paper in the physical sense. It is more like an electronic paper. But then is this not where the world is heading -- towards an electronic world? I have probably four or five bookshelves of books, physical books printed on paper. Since mid-last year, though, I have stopped buying physical books. If I continue buying books I will also have to buy a new house, as there is no longer any room to store all my books. My books from merely two months detention in Kamunting alone are already one van-load. Anyway, paper-based books are so yesterday. Today we read electronic books and I have already accumulated almost 1,000 electronic books, which I store on my Kindle, of which I have thus far read maybe only 25 or so. Hence I have a long way to go and I was told there are millions of e-books available. So I am going to run out of breath before I run out of books to read. The same goes for my music. I am constantly 'surrounded' by music, even when I read or write. I start my day quite predictably by booting up my Mac. Then I go to my favourite radio station, Magic 105.4, London's favourite radio station -- or at least that's what the sweet voice of the DJ keeps telling us. In a way music influences my mood for the day. Sometimes, when I am in an aggressive mood, I want to listen to rock music. When I feel slightly mellow I listen to Magic 105.4. I mainly listen to the rock stations that play 1960s music by Grand Funk, Uriah Heep, Santana, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Iron Butterfly, Jethro Tull, and the 200 or so bands and singers of 'my generation'. And to make sure I get the best in sound, I play them on my Bose speakers and turn my workroom into a disco minus the flashing lights and fog machine. Anyway, here I am facing a blank sheet of white paper and still not sure what I am going to write about today. Okay, the 'paper' is not quite paper in the dead tree manner of speaking but more like a plain page of my Microsoft Word. Nevertheless, it is still a plain white page. And why do we call it a plain white page? Well, that is because there is nothing on it. If it were filled with letters, words, numbers, or graphics, then it would no longer be a plain white page. So what does 'plain white' mean then? What do we understand by the phrase 'plain white'? Plain white means absence -- the absence of letters, words, numbers, graphics, etc. When things are absent then we call it plain white. Hence when there is nothing we call it plain white. Hence, also, plain white is what is meant by nothing. And white can only be seen when there is light. If there is no light we cannot see white and white would become black. Hence white is white only because of the presence of light. In the absence of light white will turn to black. If you were put into a pitch-dark room with zero light penetration where you cannot even see your hand in front of your nose and you were given a plain white sheet of paper could you see that white paper? The plain white sheet of paper would become invisible although it exists and you are actually holding it. Hence white does not exist. White is only what you see when there is light. What exists is black. And light also does not exist. Light is merely the absence of darkness. Hence when darkness is absent then light exists and because light exists then white would also exist, which would not exist otherwise if the darkness does not allow the light in. White, therefore, is what you see in the absence of darkness. Therefore, also, darkness exists while white does not. So why is white good while black is bad? Why do we say 'we have seen the light' when something good happens to us, such as we have 'seen' God? And why is everything bad associated with black? Black-hearted. Black market. Black death (the plague). Black period in history. Black Friday. Black sheep of the family. Black eye. Black out. Pot calling the kettle black. Black mark. And so on. Honestly, black is not ugly. Black is beautiful. So why associate everything bad with black?
Black is beautiful Anyway, yesterday an insurance agent phoned me and asked for a minute of my time but took 30 minutes instead. This agent wanted to discuss the prospects of me buying life insurance. I am 62 so he suggested I should start thinking of my family's future in the event I suddenly died. That got my thinking. What if I bought a RM1 million policy so that if anything happened to me my wife would be taken care of? But then, if I were worth RM1 million dead, would that not tempt my wife to bump me off because I would then be worth more dead than alive? And one should never tempt one's wife with such notions. No, maybe a RM250,000 policy should suffice. The insurance agent then worked out the cost of the premium and because I sometimes smoked cigars the premium would come to quite a bit (even with the one or two cigars a month that I smoked). It seems the brand and quality of the cigars did not affect the premium at all. Now that is downright unjust. I asked him how much I would need to pay, say, if I took a 15-year policy -- and over that 15 years I would need to fork out almost RM150,000 in all. What happens if I survived till way past 77? Well, then that RM150,000 would be money down the drain. I get nothing. My wife can only collect RM250,000 if I died before 2027. And I must not die within the first year. I can only die from the second year onwards. In other words, if I died next year, then will we make a gross profit of RM250,000 on an investment of only RM9,000. If I did not die, then we lose RM150,000. So the profit would be in dying quick and not in living long. Hmm… you lose when you win and you win when you lose. I told the insurance agent I would need to think about it first. He then told me they can insure me until age 90 and that there would be a very good chance I will die before I am 90 as most people in England never live past 90. Ah, yes, but this insurance agent has probably never heard of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Anyway, I if I take a 28-year policy that expires at age 90 and I still do not die till past 90 I would have to blow about RM250,000 or so on a RM250,000 insurance policy. This was starting to become even more unattractive. Anyway, I decided instead to allow fate to decide what happens and jumped into my car to drive to Liverpool to join my friends for a jam session and to pick up my new (second-hand) drum set. The problem, now, though, is that I do not feel like writing anything today because I can't wait to whack my drums to Santana playing in the background. Sigh…why is life so complicated? Well, never mind, maybe I can go drumming and write my article tomorrow instead. At least today you do not need to read any cheong hei article from me. My 'new' second-hand drum set
The jam session in Liverpool last night
|
| Posted: 04 Feb 2013 08:10 PM PST
Selangor, at that time, was a territory of Perak. And it was the Sultan of Perak who crowned Raja Lumu as the Sultan of Selangor. The ceremony was conducted in Lumut. Hence Raja Lumu did not invade Selangor and illegally occupy the state, as you are trying to imply, Simon. He was legally crowned as the Sultan of Selangor by the ruling house of Perak -- that was in existence for more than 200 years and came into existence soon after the Portuguese invaded Malacca in 1511. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Dear Simon, I thought instead of publishing your comment I would reply to it point-by-point so that we can engage in a mature and civil discourse. I know your comment was meant to insult me and probably provoke an equally insulting response from me. However, such a low-class response to a low-class comment will not get us anywhere, don't you think so? Hence bear with me as I respond to what you have said. First of all, with regards to your allegation that I am a coward who dares not return to Malaysia. Now, Simon, you posted your comment using what I can only assume is a false name. Even if 'Simon' is not a false name there must be millions of Simons all over the world. Hence why did you not use your real or full name and prove to me that you are not a coward. I mean, only someone who is brave has the moral right to call someone else a coward. It is like a prostitute calling a woman a prostitute. Calling a woman a prostitute is supposed to be an insult. But if you yourself are a prostitute how can you consider calling another woman a prostitute as an insult? I trust you understand what I mean. Furthermore, the e-mail address you used is a fake e-mail address. I tried e-mailing you this response but the e-mail bounced. Hence not only is your name false (or at the very least incomplete), even your e-mail address is false as well. This can only mean you lack the courage to reveal your true identity -- or, to put it a bit more crudely, as you have done: you are a coward. And you call me a coward? Can you now see the irony in this whole thing? Maybe you do not see it this way because I realise you need to be of a certain intellectual level to possess the ability to apply reasoning. If you were to take a course in philosophy you will appreciate how crucial the ability of reasoning is to be able to understand what you are studying. Without that ability you will never be able to grasp the fundamentals of philosophy. And that was the whole purpose why I took a course in Philosophy of Religion in Oxford back in 2010 although I was already 60 years old and really did not need to do so. I wanted to sharpen my skills in reasoning, especially with regards to religion. You then referred to my family background and said that I come from a family of pirates. Actually that is very true and I have never denied that fact. In fact, I have written about this so many times if you had been following my writings since back in the mid-1990s. I even set up a website, which you can see here: http://www.tun-uda.com/. Not only have I never denied that I am a descendant of pirates, I am in fact even proud of it, so proud of that fact that I even set up a website. Yes, my family were pirates back in the old days around 400 or 500 years ago. But then 'pirate' is the reference made only in the context of today's value system. Back in England, Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, etc., that is 400-500 years ago, piracy was a noble profession. The government, in fact, licensed 'pirates' back then and they were called 'privateers' -- such as what governments do today: privatisation of certain services. And you had to be favoured by the government to be given the licence to become a privateer. People like Walter Raleigh and Francis Drake were even knighted by the Queen because of their tremendous success in attacking and plundering enemy ships (plus, of course, for sharing the 'spoils of war' with the government). Today, many of the millionaires and nobility of Europe are descendants of privateers who, if measured by today's value system, were nothing short of pirates. But then such was the value system of those days. What was considered acceptable back in the old days may not be seen in that same light today. I mean, girls aged ten could get married even as late as 150 years ago, and even in countries like America. Do you know that America abolished slavery 150 years ago but they did not abolish the practice of ten-year-old girls getting married? Today, if you married a ten-year-old girl you will get sent to jail, as would you if you attacked and plundered ships on the high seas. I have always said that the victors, not the vanquished, write the history books. Hence Raja Haji, the son of Daeng Chelak bin Daeng Rilaka (or sometimes called Rilaga) of Riau is called a pirate. But that is only because Raja Haji fought the Dutch in Malacca (now Melaka) and lost due to treachery. Hence Raja Haji and not the Dutch is the pirate. But the Dutch also attacked the British ships in the Straits of Melaka that sailed from India to Hong Kong carrying opium. Is this not also piracy? All Raja Haji did was to attack the Dutch ships that attacked the British ships. But Raja Haji is the pirate while the Dutch are 'good Christians'. Okay that is what the western history books tell us: that Raja Haji was a pirate (and hence I am a descendant of a pirate). Now read what the Malay language history books have to say about Raja Haji: Raja Haji Fisabilillah ibni Daeng Celak (1727 - 18 Jun 1784) atau lebih dikenali sebagai Raja Haji adalah seorang pahlawan Bugis dan Yang Dipertuan Muda Kesultanan Johor-Riau-Lingga (1777 - 1784). Dilahirkan di Ulusungai, Riau, Raja Haji meninggal dunia di Teluk Ketapang, Melaka, dan dimakamkan di Pulau Penyengat Indera Sakti, Kepulauan Riau, Indonesia. Now, note the following key words: Fisabilillah and pahlawan. Do you know what these two words mean? The first word means 'to fight in the way of Allah' and the second word means 'patriot'. In short, according to the Malay version of history, Raja Haji is a Mujahideen warrior and died a mujahid (martyr). There is no mention of lanun (pirate) in that version of history. I suppose this is how the Chinese would look at Chin Peng compared to how the British look at him. Does that now begin to make sense? Now, Daeng Chelak, the father of Raja Haji, also had another son called Raja Lumu. And Raja Lumu became the First Sultan of Selangor in 1742 and he took on the name of Sultan Sallehuddin Shah ibni Almarhum Daeng Chelak. Selangor, at that time, was a territory of Perak. And it was the Sultan of Perak who crowned Raja Lumu as the Sultan of Selangor. The ceremony was conducted in Lumut. Hence Raja Lumu did not invade Selangor and illegally occupy the state, as you are trying to imply, Simon. He was legally crowned as the Sultan of Selangor by the ruling house of Perak -- that was in existence for more than 200 years and came into existence soon after the Portuguese invaded Malacca in 1511. In case you have forgotten your history, Simon, the Portuguese invaded Malacca in 1511 and sacked Sultan Mahmud Shah, who then retreated to Kampar in Sumatra. One of his sons, Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah II ibni Almarhum Sultan Mahmud Shah, became the Sultan of Johor, while the other son, Sultan Muzaffar Shah I ibni Almarhum Sultan Mahmud Shah, became the First Sultan of Perak. Hence, Raja Lumu, a.k.a Sultan Sallehuddin Shah ibni Almarhum Daeng Chelak, was crowned the First Sultan of Selangor by the legitimate heir of Sultan Mahmud Shah of Malacca -- a Sultanate which was founded in 1400, and which originated from the Srivijayan Empire of the 600s, which was around the time of the birth of Prophet Muhammad 1,400 years or so ago. So you see, Simon, I can trace my roots in great detail up to about the year 600 or so (and if I really wanted to I could even trace it to earlier times). And I know who my ancestors are. And, yes, some of them were pirates or privateers or mujahideens or pahlawan -- depending on which side of history you stand. However, can you trace your ancestry? Simon, I do not know whether you are Malay, Chinese, Indian, or one of the natives of East Malaysia, because you have not revealed your true identity. But I bet you do not know where you came from. Hence to insult my ancestors the way you have could actually backfire on you. Could you, in fact, be a descendant of one of those 'comfort women' whom Yap Ah Loy brought in from China to work in his brothels in Ampang Road back in the late 1800s? We will never know, will we? Anyway, do keep in touch and do continue to post comments. I shall be most pleased to engage you in further discourse if you feel there are more issues we need to thrash out. In the meantime, keep safe and stay healthy. Oh, and do try to lose some of that hate because hate is not too good for the state of your mental health.
|
| 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." |
| 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. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
