| Elected reps want Anwar's post explained Posted: 19 May 2013 02:15 AM PDT 
(NST) - Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim has been asked to justify the reappointment of PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as Selangor economic adviser. Kuang assemblyman Abdul Shukur Idrus said in the past five years Anwar had brought no apparent investment into Selangor. Instead, the Selangor government had sold many of the state subsidiaries' assets, he claimed. "Land owned by PKPS (Selangor Agriculture Development Corporation) was sold, a golf course in Templer and PKNS (Selangor State Development Corporation) land were sold to developers. "What did the economic adviser do to improve Selangor's economy? What we can see happening is blatant stripping of the state's assets," he said. Yesterday, Khalid tweeted that Anwar was expected to "continue playing an important role in the state administration" because of his experience. Meanwhile, Permatang assemblyman Sulaiman Abdul Razak said Anwar should keep his word and retire from politics after Pakatan failed to take Putrajaya. He said Anwar should not accept any position, including that of Selangor economic adviser. Sulaiman said the position would enable Anwar to use state facilities to further his political interests. |
| In the Malay Press: Pakatan won popular vote only in 4 states, KL Posted: 18 May 2013 06:58 PM PDT 
Meena Lakshana, fz.com Pakatan Rakyat's popular vote win in GE13 is limited to four states and Kuala Lumpur, according to an analysis by Sinar Harian. The daily said that even though Pakatan obtained 52% of the national popular vote against 47% by BN, it did not secure the popular vote in states other than Selangor, Penang, Perak, Kelantan and the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur. In Selangor, Pakatan received 1,045,956 votes and BN garnered 755,133 votes for the state seats while for the parliamentary seats, Pakatan won 1,044,758 votes and BN won 703,039 votes. In Penang, Pakatan received 621,706 votes and BN secured 498,656 votes for the state seats. For the state's parliamentary constituencies, Pakatan won 614,882 votes and BN received 512,451 votes. In Perak, Pakatan won 490,800 votes while BN received 233,243 votes for state seats. Of the parliamentary votes in the state, 492,863 went to Pakatan and 229,859 to BN. In Kelantan, Pakatan won 520,294 votes while BN won 343,417 votes for state seats, while for parliamentary constituencies, Pakatan garnered 405,478 votes against 402,503 by BN. In Kuala Lumpur, Pakatan won 447,218 votes against 238,902 by BN for parliamentary seats. Even though BN assumed power in Perak, Pakatan won the popular vote for state seats due to DAP's stellar performance in the state, whose candidates clinched overwhelming majorities and won all the seats it contested in the state, the daily noted. It added that BN and Pakatan put up a close fight for the popular vote in several states such as Terengganu, Kedah and Kelantan. In Terengganu, BN won 265,195 votes and Pakatan won 264,465 votes for state seats while in Kedah, BN won 447,198 votes while Pakatan won 440,701 votes for state seats. BN recorded significant wins in Sabah, Sarawak, Johor, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and Perlis.
READ MORE HERE |
| Khalid Ibrahim backstabbing DAP? Posted: 18 May 2013 06:39 PM PDT 
KTEMOC KONSIDERS Is Khalid Ibrahim now turning around to bite DAP, an ally which together with PAS have supported him against an Azmin Ali power siege in Selangor? In the last couple of weeks Azmin Ali, supported by his frontmanwoman Zuraida what's-her-name(?), was seen to be laying claims to the Selangor MB position, perhaps in a fantasized wet-dreaming belief that the Selangor politico-CEO position belongs solely to PKR, and for the party to award to one of its state ADUN's, presumably himself, wakakaka.
Azmin had even alluded sneeringly (insultingly) to Khalid as a lame duck pollie not worthy of leading Selangor state.
Post the recent state elections, PKR has 14 ADUNs compared to PAS' 15 and DAP's 15. On the numerical basis of ADUNs that PAS and DAP each has, either party has the rights to claim the MB position though both have been gracious in supporting Khalid to continue in the State's political CEO position.
It must be admitted in practical terms, DAP might not qualify, purportedly because the state constitution and probably HRH's preference would require the MB to be a Malay, though we shall soon read of a constitutional legal expert disagreeing with the former, the constitutional issue, which has probably been a politically perpetuated 'myth'.
Mind, it is still HRH's prerogative to have the final say.
Hmmm, I wonder whether any "Malay" version would do, meaning does it have to be a Malay Malay to be the MB? Or will a Mamak Malay or Kong Kali Kong Malay like Ann Wan Seng or Ridhuan Tee do?
Mind you, on the issue of the mandatory need for a Malay MB, in 2008 after Pakatan won majority rule in Selangor, it was alleged that Muhammad Munir Bani, HRH's private secretary, had advised Khalid Ibrahim about the palace's 'preference' for a Malay (and, alas, not a Malaysian) deputy MB.
However, when further queried Muhammad Munir belakang pusing-ed like Speedy Gonzalez and denied reports that HRH wanted 'a deputy from a particular race' (meaning 'Malay'), and instead added (meaning he started to spin) the sultan was the religious head for Islam and Malay culture, and thus the MB has the task of assisting in these duties, which in his absence would also have to handled by his deputy.
Thus, in that most unbelievable zigzagging explanation, Muhammad Munir, after denying HRH wanted a Malay deputy MB, in the same breath averred that it was only proper a Malay (not a Malaysian) be the deputy MB.
It was obvious that what he uttered in the first instance had nothing to do with HRH but was of his own interpretation, based on his personal prejudice.
Mind you, he hasn't been the only one who misused (and still misuses) HRH's name in order to get what he/she personally wants or is personally biased towards. I am sure you have read what one particular PKR (female) pygmy claimed in HRH's name recently about the required racial make-up for the state exco.
After the 2008 Speedy Gonzalez zigzagged away to safety, Malaysiakini reported in Expert: No legal need for Malay deputy MB that Prof Abdul Aziz Bari, a constitutional expert who had then lectured law at the International Islamic University Malaysia, was consulted on the matter. READ MORE HERE |
| Student activist Adam remanded for 5 days Posted: 18 May 2013 06:27 PM PDT 
Student activist Adam Adli Abd Halim has been remanded for five days to allow police to question him over remarks he allegedly made at a post-GE13 forum. His lawyer, Latheefa Koya, said a magistrate this morning approved the application by police to remand Adam until May 23. She said Adam was remanded under Section 124B of the Penal Code for allegedly undermining parliamentary democracy as well as under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act for allegedly uttering seditious remarks. "We are shocked that Adam's speech on May 13 could be amounted to undermining parliamentary democracy, because the section is quite general. Anything you said can be interpreted as undermining parliamentary democracy. "We see this as a malicious intention to punish Adam, to detain him in the lockup because the purpose of remand is just to carry out investigation," she said. Adam, 24, was arrested by police outside his Bangsar home yesterday and was kept overnight at the Jinjang police remand centre. His arrest is linked to his remarks at a post-election forum organised by Suara Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) on May 13 where he told the audience that Malaysians "cannot wait for five years to overthrow Umno and BN". "We were told that he was under arrest since 3pm yesterday but not a single statement was recorded untill this morning," Latheefa told reporters outside the centre. Insisting that the case is straightforward as it is about remarks made by Adam at the forum, she said police were supposed to have carried out their investigation over the past few days before arresting him. She added that Adam had decided to exercise his right to remain silent and therefore his statement could have been quickly recorded without the need to remand him for five days. Adam's lawyers will challenge the remand order at the High Court, she added. Eric Paulsen, another lawyer for Adam, pointed out this is the first case of a person being remanded under Section 124B Penal Code, which is a new section that was inserted after the enactment of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012. He said it was an "oppressive and arbitrary" provision with a wide definition of what amounted to "detrimental to parliamentary democracy". Paulsen opined that this is an attempt of the police to shut the mouth of the youth, as well as other civil society members to question and discuss the state of democracy in the country. |
| After PKR’s MB kerfuffle, Selangor DAP now disputes exco list Posted: 18 May 2013 05:55 PM PDT 
Boo Su-Lyn, TMI The Selangor DAP is questioning the state executive council composition announced by Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim yesterday, barely a week after a furore in PKR over the state's top post was settled. State DAP deputy chairman Tony Pua said the party was supposed to get four exco seats instead of the three announced by Khalid, adding that the pick for state Speaker was not as agreed. "Last night, we found out a different set of names," Pua told reporters in Subang Jaya here today. "We want to know why; there was no problem on Thursday. It was a quick half-an-hour meet," he added. Pua pointed out that Khalid and Selangor Pakatan Rakyat ― represented by state DAP leaders Teresa Kok and Datuk Teng Chang Khim, as well as state PAS leaders Khalid Samad and Dr Rani Osman ― had agreed in a meeting last Thursday that the DAP would get four spots in the state executive council, while PAS would get three and choose the Selangor Speaker. Khalid told reporters last night that four Selangor executive council posts would be given to PAS, while the DAP and PKR would get three each, apart from the state Speaker being a DAP lawmaker. Pua said he only found out about the allocation of the exco seats through a tweet by Khalid last night. "We're surprised by Tan Sri (Khalid)," said the Petaling Jaya Utara MP. "What's the point of the meeting then?" he added. Pua said that Teng and Kok have been trying to contact Khalid for clarification, but to no avail. Last night, Khalid said that a list of names for the Selangor executive council, along with proposed alternatives, was submitted to the Sultan last Friday. He said the state executive council will be sworn in within the next two weeks. READ MORE HERE |
| DAP disputes Selangor exco lineup Posted: 18 May 2013 05:44 PM PDT 
Leven Woon, FMT DAP has disputed Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim's statement that the party will be given three exco and one speaker posts in the state administration. Citing the meeting between Pakatan Rakyat component parties last Thursday, DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua said the consensus arrived was for DAP to have four exco posts, PAS three and the speaker posts, while PKR will take three exco posts and the Menteri Besar post. However, Khalid told reporters a different version at a function last night where he said DAP would have the speaker posts while PAS would have four exco spots. He also said the name list had been submitted to the Selangor Sultan on Friday, and DAP would decide on its speaker candidate. Pua said the party was surprised by Khalid's statement because this is not what the coalition had agreed upon. He said during the 30-minute meeting on Thursday, PAS had agreed to swap their quota with DAP, which would see the Islamic party taking up three exco and one speaker posts. "If now he submitted a different set of names, then what is the point of the meeting?" he said. He said DAP would question Khalid on the matter once the MB returns to Selangor on Friday. "I hope he made a mistake and told the reporters wrongly," he said. DAP announced last Friday that the party had chosen incumbent Selangor assembly speaker Teng Chang Khim and incumbent exco for new village Ean Yong Hian Wah for the exco posts. Pakatan retained power in Selangor with a greater majority in the recently concluded general election. DAP and PAS obtained 15 seats each out of the 56 seats, while PKR bagged 14. |
| Tan Sri Wong Foon Meng (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 18 May 2013 04:50 PM PDT 
Can you see that long before the 2008/2013 Tsunami, the Malays and Chinese of Kuala Terengganu already set aside their racial/political differences and supported the candidate rather than the race or party? The Chinese supported and worked/campaigned for an Islamist from PAS while the Malays supported and worked/campaigned for a 'kafir' from MCA. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin I spoke (by telephone) to Tan Sri Wong Foon Meng a couple of months ago after more than 20 years of no contact. So, today, is my story about my good friend Wong who I was so pleased to have been able to contact after more than 20 years of 'absence'. From late-1978 to 1990, Wong was with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment in Kuala Terengganu. Now he is the Chairman of Bina Puri Holdings Berhad, a very successful construction and property development company that used to be aligned to Anwar Ibrahim and was regarded as one of Anwar's many crony-companies in the days when Anwar was the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. The 'problem' with Wong, if I may be permitted to call it that, is that his friends were mostly (if not all) Malays. And if you sat with your back to him when he spoke, you would swear on your mother's grave that it was a Malay person who was talking. Wong can speak fluent Bahasa Malaysia and he would use phrases like 'ya-Allah', 'insha-Allah', alhamdu-lillah', 'masha-Allah', and so on. And no one, the Terengganu Religious Department included, would get upset that a 'kafir' was using the Allah word. That is only a problem in 'developed' places like Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. In 'backward' places like Terengganu this is not an issue at all. Terengganu has eight parliamentary seats and 32 state assembly seats. Only one of them, the Bandar Kuala Terengganu state seat, is a MCA seat. The rest are all Umno seats. 
Tok Teng Sai Prior to 1990, Tok Teng Sai, the MCA chief for Terengganu, was the wakil rakyat (State Assemblyman) for Kuala Terengganu. After a long and illustrious career, MCA decided to replace Tok with Wong. MCA had always won that seat so it should not be a problem for Wong to win as well since he is a more likeable person and certainly more a 'rakyat's man' compared to Tok. Or so they thought. In the 1990 general election, Wong lost to PAS's Harun Jusoh who won 4,628 votes against Wong's 3,958. And that was a real shocker for many of us. Both candidates were my friends (still are). In fact, Harun was my neighbour and I was very close to him, as I was to Wong. Now you know why sometimes I need to be 'neutral'? This is not about not having a stand. What do you do when two very close friends contest on opposite sides of the political fence? I lived next door to Harun (in fact, Harun let me stay in his house almost rent-free for about a year when my house was being rebuilt) while I had breakfast with Wong almost every morning in Hamid Buyung's coffee shop. Anyway, Harun won, surprisingly, while Wong lost. But what was more interesting is that the Chinese in Kampung Cina boycotted Wong and would slam the door in his face when he did his door-to-door campaign. And they did this for two reasons. 
Wong Foon Meng One was that Tok was still very popular amongst the Chinese compared to Wong (Tok had done a lot for the Kuala Terengganu Chinese while Wong had done nothing -- mainly because Tok was the wakil rakyat and not Wong). Secondly, Wong was more 'Malay' than Tok (Wong spoke Malay like a Muslim and all his friends were Malays). Now, during the election campaign, the Chinese from Kuala Terengganu helped put up Harun's flags, banners and posters. It was hilarious seeing the Chinese climbing the trees and lampposts to put up the PAS flags, banners and posters. The Malays did the same for Wong -- they climbed the trees and lampposts to put up the Barisan Nasional flags, banners and posters. Can you see that long before the 2008/2013 Tsunami, the Malays and Chinese of Kuala Terengganu already set aside their racial/political differences and supported the candidate rather than the race or party? The Chinese supported and worked/campaigned for an Islamist from PAS while the Malays supported and worked/campaigned for a 'kafir' from MCA. Nevertheless, with the Chinese 'united' against Wong and the Malays split between Umno and PAS, Harun won and Wong lost. If the Malays had been 'united' as well (against PAS), then Wong would have won because there are more Malay than Chinese voters in Kuala Terengganu. In 1995, though, the Chinese 'forgave' Wong and this time around he won the election against PAS's Mustafa Hassan with 6,970 votes against PAS's 5,562 votes. In 1999, however, Wong, again, lost -- but with a very narrow 6,245 votes against Md Azmi Lop Yusof of PAS's 6,756 votes. Azmi Lop was another very good friend of mine. So, yet again, I had two very close friends contesting against each other on opposite sides of the political fence. By the way, Azmi Lop was ex-Umno who had joined PAS so I was very close to him when he was still in Umno and not just since he joined PAS. And Wong and Azmi, of course, knew each other very well -- hence this was a contest between friends and not between enemies. So you see, when you live in a town like Kuala Terengganu, it does not matter what race you are and what your political inclinations are as well. We are all friends, very good friends, and we do not hate each other just because we happen to be of different races or of different political loyalties. In fact, if you can remember, when at different times in our history we have seen race riots in Singapore, Johor, Penang, Selangor/Kuala Lumpur and so on (the biggest but not the only being May 13, 1969, of course) Terengganu and Kelantan were peaceful. There were no curfews there and people went about their business as usual without a single incident. So don't be too fast in condemning the 'backward' and 'stupid' Malays of the Malay heartland. They are more civilised than you give them credit for. Ask any Chinese or Indian who has lived or worked there and they can testify to this. Oh, and regarding Harun Jusoh, not too long ago his wife died and recently two of his sons and a grandson drowned. Sigh...I have never known a friend who has had to bear so many tragedies in such a short space of time. ******************************************** 丹斯利王弗明 你看到了嗎？其實早在2008/2013海嘯很多年以前，瓜拉登嘉樓的華人和馬來人就學會了撇開他們的種族/政治包袱來選人而不選黨/種族。華人在那時候就會支持和為伊黨的回教主義分子競選而馬來人則會為馬華的'異教徒'效力。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 譯文：方宙 我在兩三個月前和已有20多年沒聯絡的丹斯利王弗明通了電話。我今天的故事主提就是我這位好友丹斯利王，而我真的很高興還能在20年以後跟他重逢。 1978年到1990年間，來自瓜拉登嘉樓的丹斯利是當時的科技與環境部長，他現在已在Bina Puri Holdings Berhad 這一家很成功的建築和房產管理公司儅公司主席了。這閒公司在安華還是副首相和財政部長時常被認爲是安華的'裙帶公司'。 丹斯利的'問題'（如果你容許我用這個形容詞的話）是他所有朋友幾乎都是馬來人。如果你背對著他聼他講話的話，你肯定會以爲他是個馬來人。 丹斯利的馬來文流利得很，而且他會用一些專有名詞如 'ya-Allah', 'insha-Allah', alhamdu-lillah', 'masha-Allah'等等。從來沒有人，包括登州的宗教侷，會對一個'異教徒'引用阿拉的詞句而感到生氣。這是一個在'發展地區'如吉隆坡和雪蘭莪才有的問題，在一個'落後封建'的地區如登嘉樓這根本就不是件事兒。 登嘉樓總共有8個囯席和32個州希，而當中只有瓜拉登嘉樓城這一個州席是馬華選區，其他的都是巫統的。
祝聖才先生 1990年以前，登州馬華主席祝聖才是瓜拉登嘉樓的州議員。多年以來他在那給出了顯著的成績，然而馬華過後決定讓丹斯利王上位替代祝聖才。馬華認爲他們都已經在那個席位贏了這麽多年了，所以讓王上位絕對是沒有問題的，再者，王相比起杜來講是個更容易親近且'親民'的候選人。 他們當時的確是把事情編得很理想化。 1990年大選，丹斯利以3958票數給了伊斯蘭黨Harun Jusoh的4,628票，這令我們很多人都跌破了眼睛。 這兩個候選人都是我的朋友（現在還是），事實上，Harun他還是我的鄰居呢，我和他的交情不下於我和丹斯利的交情。 你現在明白了爲何有時我必須保持'中立'了嗎？這不是有沒有立場的問題，儅你兩個好友因政治背景不同而必須對著幹時，請問你會怎麽做？我就住在Harun隔壁（事實上，Harun曾在我裝修房子時幾乎不收費地讓我在他傢住了將近一年），而我幾乎每天早上都會和丹斯利王在Hamid Buyung咖啡店吃早茶。 無論如何，Harun贏了而丹斯利輸了。但有趣的是，當時華人新村的華人都在杯葛著丹斯利王，他們在他上門拜票時都會狠狠地關上大門，而這背後有兩大理由。
丹斯利王弗明 理由一是當時杜先生還是比丹斯利王更受歡迎（杜為選區的華人作了很多貢獻而王則沒有----這可能是因爲杜是人民代議士而王不是）。而理由二則是王比杜還要'馬來人'（王講起馬來話來跟真正的馬來人沒什麽兩樣，而且他的朋友多為馬來人）。 大選期間，華人們都幫Harun挂上他的黨旗，布條和海報。看到華人爬上樹木或街燈為伊黨結上黨旗，布條和海報其實是個很搞笑的場景。而馬來人也為丹斯利王做同樣的事情----他們爬上樹木或街燈為囯陣綁上黨旗，布條和海報等。 你看到了嗎？其實早在2008/2013海嘯很多年以前，瓜拉登嘉樓的華人和馬來人就學會撇開他們的種族/政治包袱來選人不選黨/種族。華人在那時候就會支持和為伊黨的回教主意分子競選而馬來人則為馬華的'異教徒'效力。 無論如何，就是因爲當時華人都'團結'起來對抗丹斯利王但馬來人則各自地支持伊黨和巫統，所以造就了丹斯利的敗選。如果當時馬來人能'團結'起來（對抗伊黨）的話，那丹斯利老早就贏了，因爲瓜拉登嘉樓的馬來選民多過華裔選民。 1995大選華裔選民'原諒'了丹斯利王，他因而以6970票打敗了伊黨的Mustafa Hassan；Mustafa Hassan 當時的票數為5562票。但他在1999年又輸了，伊黨派出的Md Azmi Lop Yusof以6756票險勝丹斯利的6235票。Azmi Lop也是我很好的一個朋友，所以我再次見證了我的兩個好友因政治立場不同而相互競爭。 對了，Azmi Lop是前巫統黨員，但我是在他還是巫統人的時候已經跟他很好了，而不是他加入了伊黨以後才開始跟他交朋友的。丹斯利王和Azmi Lop也是相互認識的好朋友，所以他們之間的是友誼的競爭而不是敵對的競爭。 所以你看，儅你生活在像瓜拉登嘉樓這種小城鎮時你並不會太看重你的種族或政治立場是什麽。我們所有人都是朋友，都是很好的朋友，我們不會因爲膚色和政治忠誠的不同而彼此憎恨對方。 事實上，如果你還記得的話，儅馬來西亞各個不同地區如柔佛，檳城，雪蘭莪/吉隆坡在不同的歷史時刻發生種族暴動時（最嚴重的當然數513事件）登嘉樓和吉蘭丹都是很平靜的。那邊當時根本就沒有所謂的戒嚴，人們都猶如往常一般地過他們的日子，也從沒聽説發生過什麽不愉快的事情。 所以別一下子就為生活在馬來中心地帶的馬來人灌上'落後封建'和'笨蛋'等形容詞，他們比你想象中文明多了。你可以去問問曾生活在那兒的華人和印度人，他們都是可以站出來做供的。 對了，談到Harun Jusoh，在不久前他的愛妻不幸逝世而他的兩個兒子和一個孫子也不幸溺水死亡。嗐。。。。我身邊的朋友從來沒有一個是像他一樣，必須在這麽短的時間内面對如此多的打擊的。 |
| 'We are ready to move forward' Posted: 18 May 2013 03:06 PM PDT 
EMERGING TREND: Young Malaysians are voting across racial lines and this is a sign of unity, National Unity and Integration Department director-general Datuk Azman Amin Hassan tells Tan Choe Choe In Malaysia, our politics is still race based, so there's still this demarcation by race when it comes to the election. But there's been a shift -- not just the Chinese shift to DAP. I've talked to the youths and the Malay Pas boys told me that they voted for DAP. They told me it's because they are Pakatan -- that there's an understanding between Pas and DAP. Tan Choe Choe, NST Question: What prompted you to call on politicians and the media to stop inciting racial tension on May 13? Answer: After GE13 (the 13th General Election), some people were taken aback and started this blame game, even though Barisan Nasional won with a simple majority. There was unhappiness expressed against the Chinese and all that. This is bad for the nation. We've got to look at what really happened, what caused the shift in Chinese support -- and it isn't communal or racist. It was a breakdown of MCA's strength within BN because of a leadership tussle. From interacting with them, I found that they don't see anyone up there in MCA (that they recognise) as their leader. There is a vacuum in BN, so, there was a shift in the Chinese vote towards DAP because the latter was very strategic. The same goes for Gerakan. The Chinese feel none of these parties were aggressive enough in fighting for their rights. We should look at the issue from many perspectives, but there are people who just looked at it along racial lines. Question: It's easier to talk about it along racial lines. Answer: It's easier, yes. But what we should do now is move forward, to look at Malaysia first. The nation should come first, not political parties or our differences. If we want to look at our differences and condemn each other, there's no end to it. There's a new cabinet now and a new government -- let's see how we can reconcile with each other. We need to come together, to have this strength and move forward. On May 28, our department is inviting some academicians, community leaders and politicians to give their comments on what actually happened at GE13 and after that, what's the next step for the country. This is what we should do when we look at reconciliation and there's still hope that we can resolve this issue amicably. Yes, as Malaysians we will face this kind of problem from time to time, this kind of flaring of tempers, but we will cool off soon after and be more sensible and less sensitive. But we need some intervention because if we let it (fester), it will be bad for Malaysia. Question: Why is it always easier to fall back on race? Answer: In Malaysia, our politics is still race based, so there's still this demarcation by race when it comes to the election. But there's been a shift -- not just the Chinese shift to DAP. I've talked to the youths and the Malay Pas boys told me that they voted for DAP. They told me it's because they are Pakatan -- that there's an understanding between Pas and DAP. Ten years ago, you would never see an Indian boy or a Chinese boy voting for Pas and you would never see Pas supporters voting for DAP -- never. Yet today, we can see this happening, especially among young voters. They are different. So, this is (a demonstration of) the democratic space that we have today. It is transparent, everyone has a chance to vote and this is a new emerging trend we can see among youths. Question: Are you happy to see this? I mean it seems to show that the people are really coming together to vote across racial lines. Answer: Yes, you're right. When they talk about the democracy, this is the real thing that's happening at the grassroots level. In that sense it is good. But when people are not happy with the results, when they have lost or when they didn't win enough because they didn't get a two-thirds majority, they don't feel it (is a positive thing). To get a two-thirds majority in the world today is not easy any more, even a simple majority is good enough in the politics of today but these are the things that the old-timers are not willing to accept. This is the gap between the young and the old-timers like me. The way we think is different. It's Gen Y -- they are all for the new media and they interact easily on it and you can see a lot of things are bridging the gaps (between the races). They interact with each other on issues. In that sense, they are more open. Question: So, these youths are exposed and deliberating more on national issues than ever before? Answer: Yes, they are more interactive. So we, the ones more used to the conventional ways, must adjust. These youngsters have a very different way of thinking. This has been expressed in 2008 and more so now in GE13. The new media is very influential because even if the information they get may not be correct, they tend to believe it because everyone else is talking abut it. Question: Were you worried that there would be violence post-GE13? Answer: Yes, I was so worried, especially on the night before polling day, so much so that I could not sleep. So I prayed a lot, asking for peace to prevail and thankfully it did. I have my operation rooms nationwide to monitor the situation and they regularly reported to me; we were on our toes and ready to intervene if anything went wrong. Question: So, your department was monitoring it through the Rukun Tetangga? Answer: Yes, through the Rukun Tetangga and our state level offices. We monitored even post-election because we wanted to make sure things go back to normal. This would usually take about a month. It took even longer for things to settle down in 2008 because the opposition was not prepared to be the government in the states they won as they didn't expect to win. I think this time it will be faster. Question: There were many inflammatory remarks posted online. Answer: A small percentage may be a bit violent, but the majority are moderate people. It's just about five per cent in our community who really lost their minds and got emotional. Some may be educated or are public figures, but when they speak out, they become over emotional. Question: Are these mostly the older generation? Answer: Yes. Their mindset hasn't prepared them for this kind of situation, so, they were shocked. Question: What about the media? Answer: When I read some of the headlines, I felt it was too much. I was very alarmed and very concerned about it. Even though it was meant for Malay readers, the way the arguments went could incite the general public. It was worrisome and I think the Home Ministry should intervene and put a stop to it, not only to that paper, but any other paper that crosses that line. We need to give a balanced report. In a multicultural and multiracial society, we should be conscious about these things. But sometimes when I read the paper, (it feels like) they have also lost their minds; they became very emotional and hit (certain communities) hard. It's very bad for nation-building. Question: In the build-up to the elections, there were already a lot of racial slurs being thrown around. Answer: As in many past general elections, it is very hard to stop the issue of race being brought up. Every time, there will be some seditious or sensitive issue being brought up, even when we say, "Please don't raise all these things". I remember being in the United Kingdom in 1984 and attending the election campaigns of the Conservative and Labour parties. They were given 30 minutes each to talk about what they had to offer to the electorate, so, they spoke, then shook hands. There was no incitement, or ill feelings. Why can't we be like them? Question: Can we move forward now? Answer: When we have this one-day roundtable discussion, we will come up with resolutions on what's next: for example, do we need to advise the police or government? I will go through (the resolutions) with my new minister and see what we're going to do. Instead of making any more statements, we want to engage everybody and really look at what we can do, because sometimes the thing that we (feel we should) do, may not be that correct. So it's wise to get everyone's perspective first on what we should do next. Maybe we should invite the media editors, too. Question: It's 14 days after GE13, how do you feel about national unity now? Answer: I'm glad there's been no violence. I'm happy that there are also non-governmental organisations that are coming out to say that they want peace. We're ready to move forward.
|
| Careless with facts or deliberate in distortions? Posted: 18 May 2013 01:59 PM PDT 
Eric Loo, fz.com A friend emailed a photo story on May 3 of "foreign workers" arriving at the Low-Cost Carrier Terminal, KLIA, in Sepang. It said the workers were being brought in to vote for Barisan Nasional (BN). Phantom voters! I checked with a colleague if the story was accurate. "Utter nonsense," the veteran former editor said. I reverted to my friend who emailed the story. "What, you still have friends in the mainstream papers?" he quipped. "Don't trust them lah." Indeed, it has been years since I referred to the mainstream papers. But, isolated from the campaign frenzy, I had to this time. User-generated speculation about the election was circulating in the social media network. Caustic commentaries were getting high hits in the alternative and mainstream news sites. I was appalled at the blatantly biased coverage. Were the media simply careless with the facts or deliberate in manufacturing consent to push their political agendas? Yes, we are naturally biased in interpreting controversies. This inherent bias inevitably colours the work we do. Writers and journalists are no exception. However, as custodians of the public conscience, professional journalists should activate their in-built alarm system. They are trained to step back when they feel their biases are eroding their capacity to report or comment accurately, fairly and "objectively". While Platonic objectivity is impractical, especially in covering elections reeking with racial, class and religious undertones, there is what we call the "fairness doctrine" that every professional journalist and writer ought to know. There are more than two sides to a controversial issue. The lopsided political editorialising and commentaries during the campaign was alarming. Anti-BN stories were as blunt as anti-Pakatan reports were blatant. Malaysiakini ran these headlines in its column section: BN must be destroyed, Najib's zombie apocalypse, and GE is Pakatan's to lose (disclosure: I write an occasional column in Malaysiakini). The New Straits Times had these: Anwar delusion fuelled by Western media hype, Pakatan's 5-year systemic sinking and PAS-DAP theatre of the absurd. Of course, columnists and editors do indirectly endorse candidates and political parties. The real question is whether the content and contexts published throughout the campaign period provide an overall fair representation of the ground realities, particularly the people's aspirations. Evidently not. From April 15 to May 7, Malaysiakini ran 20 columnist articles and NST, 35. An ad hoc reading of the narrative slants show these distribution: Malaysiakini (anti-government (13); somewhat neutral (7); pro-opposition (0); NST (anti-opposition (15); neutral (12); pro-government (8). Here's how an NST writer worded his disdain for the opposition: "The Bersih organisers, in their myopic march to force electoral reforms, have either naively or idiotically lost their well-meaning plot to opportunistic politicians, allowing the voice of a tyrannical minority to dictate terms in the most brutish manner … Politicians like Anwar Ibrahim can be reliably counted on for disturbing machinations like Saturday's sordid outing: it is his justification to exist (he still nurses the fantasy that he can still become prime minister) but for the likes of Bersih and even the Bar Council, their constant parroting that they are neutral and non-partisan social activists borders on absurdity." In one sweeping 97-word judgment, the writer used a string of hyperboles and negative descriptors to metaphorically lump Bersih, the Bar Council, Anwar and opposition supporters as living in fantasyland. The same writer wrote in another commentary: "The Western media side-steps substantive voter groundswell lurching towards BN but even they must start thinking about Anwar's tangible hypocrisies, mirrored reflectively on his sleeping bedfellows, the DAP and PAS, each with their own set of Orwellian tendencies. Astoundingly, these profiles confirm a long-time suspicion: they will disregard Anwar's fakery, augment his victimology and enrich his aura/charisma only to create more supplicants to serve Anwar's foreign puppeteers."(NST). 'Substantive voter groundswell', 'tangible hypocrisies', 'sleeping bedfellows', 'Orwellian tendencies', 'fakery', 'victimology', 'foreign puppeteers'. The tautology aside, these specious buzzwords do trigger a negative recall of Anwar's past, and effectively send an implicit message that Anwar and Pakatan are untrustworthy chameleons, contrary to their reformasi agencies that their supporters believe. Likewise, columnists in the alternative media are as scathing in their attacks on the government. From Malaysiakini: "… I'm betting that the people are disgusted and determined enough to seize their long-awaited chance to make this May 5 their 'D-day'. 'D' for the destruction of the dumb, despotic, deceitful, double-dealing and altogether despicable BN regime; 'D' for the decent democracy most have dreamed of and been denied for decades. And will be denied for many more decades to come, if BN is ever again allowed to have its way." READ MORE HERE |
| I will not retire, says Anwar Posted: 18 May 2013 01:52 PM PDT 
'But why should I retire? We won. Are Umno people stupid? We won and we will fight together with the people against this robbery, says Anwar at a Penang rally. Athi Shankar, FMT Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim will not retire from active politics any time soon, hinting that he would still be around come the next general election. The Permatang Pauh MP defied calls for him to retire by claiming that Pakatan Rakyat had actually "won" the 13th general election, only to be robbed by electoral frauds. He said Pakatan's popular votes, which were more than Barisan Nasional's, proved that majority Malaysians have voted for a change of federal government. Strangely, he claimed that the popular choice of the people had become the opposition while minority choice had formed the government. Hence, Anwar told a nightly rally here yesterday that he would not heed to quit calls made by his opponents. Critics have called on Anwar to make good of his pre-election promise to retire and go into lecturing if BN won the polls and retained Putrajaya. Many cyber commentators have called on Anwar to fulfill his promise for once this time. But Anwar is adamant he would not heed their call. "Yes I said I would retire from politics if Pakatan loses. Some told me to retire as promised and to fight it out next time. "But why should I retire? We won. Are Umno people stupid? We won and we will fight together with the people against this robbery. "We can't tolerate this rigging, robbery and fraud. We want answers now," he thundered before a roaring and flag-waving mammoth crowd in Esplanade field. A total 11,054,577 votes were recorded for federal contest in the just concluded polls on May 5. Pakatan garnered 50.9 or 5,623,984 popular votes against Barisan Nasional's 47.4% or 5,237,699. The three parties in Pakatan – Chinese-dominated DAP, Anwar's PKR and Islamist PAS, collectively won 88 parliamentary seats against BN's 133 seats. Pakatan-friendly Malaysian Socialist Party (PSM) won a federal seat in Sungai Siput to make it 89 in the parliamentary opposition bench. Soon after the polls, Pakatan led by Anwar has been organising rallies across the country to claim that their victory was robbed by electoral frauds and an incompetent Election Commission. Pakatan leaders also claimed that they were rightful, legitimate winners due to higher popular votes, while hammering BN as a minority government. READ MORE HERE |
| Karpal tells Tunku Aziz to cease attacks on DAP Posted: 18 May 2013 01:33 PM PDT  
(The Star) - DAP national chairman Karpal Singh has warned former DAP vice-chairman Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim to cease further attacks on the party or he would bring the latter to court. "He is completely getting out of hand. I have been watching him very closely. "The DAP leadership was guilty of serious misjudgement in having given Tunku Aziz membership for the party and immediately made a vice-chairman. "He is not grateful but an opportunist," he told a press conference after a thanksgiving session with the public at a market in Jalan Gangsa in Green Lane on Sunday. Tunku Aziz had quit the party in May last year. Karpal Singh said that while Tunku Aziz has not made personal attacks on him, the latter has gone beyond the limit and must stop with the 'persistent attacks' on the party. When asked on how Tunku Aziz would be charged if brought to court, Karpal Singh said it would depend on what the former said. "Bringing him to court is the last thing we want to do," he said. Karpal Singh added that Tunku Aziz should be a gentleman and not reveal whatever that had transpired during central executive committee meetings when he was still a member. |
| MB: Selangor exco to be sworn in within two weeks Posted: 18 May 2013 01:28 PM PDT 
Boo Su-Lyn, TMI The Selangor executive council will be sworn in within the next two weeks, Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim said yesterday. He added that PAS will take four spots in the state executive council, while PKR and the DAP will get three seats each. "The list of names that was given to the Sultan includes alternative names," Khalid (picture) told reporters after a thanksgiving function at Pandamaran Jaya here last night. "I gave alternative names so that Tuanku will have the chance to make his choice," he added. Khalid refused, however, to name the executive council line-up or to confirm if PKR deputy president Azmin Ali was included in the list. Azmin was said to be eyeing the mentri besar post, leading to a protracted tussle over the top government position in Selangor until Khalid was sworn in last Tuesday, more than a week after the May 5 general election. DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said last Friday that party members Teng Chang Khim and Ean Yong Hian Wah will be joining the Selangor executive council. Teng served as the Selangor Speaker in the last term, while Ean Yong, who is also the Seri Kembangan assemblyman, was previously a member of the state executive council. Khalid said yesterday that the DAP will decide on who will take up the post of the Selangor Speaker. Khalid was reappointed Selangor mentri besar for a second term after Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won a two-thirds majority in Election 2013 by sweeping 44 of the 56 state seats in the country's most industrialised state. PAS and the DAP snagged 15 state seats each, while PKR took 14 seats. |
| Soi Lek’s wrong bet Posted: 18 May 2013 01:20 PM PDT 
To join or not to join the Cabinet, either way is a dead end for MCA. All I can say is, why the brainless bet in the very first place? In the absence of support from the Chinese community and recognition from the government, MCA's future is bleak. Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Up till this second I still do not have much idea why Dr Chua Soi Lek made the decision of not joining the Cabinet. And why the presidential council, central committee and general assembly all rushed to echo the decision in unison. What I was trying to say is that it was a very imprudent political gamble, one of inconsiderate "show-hand." It is a kind of gamble that puts your life at stake, one that is committed only under specific circumstances: You either have all the best cards to yourself and are sure the opponent is absolutely no match for you, or you are pretty sure your opponent is only feigning confidence to make believe he has the best cards whereby he does not. But if you do not come close to the above requirements, your show-hand bet is purely suicidal. Chua Soi Lek's 2011 gamble with the Chinese voters of Malaysia, betting MCA's withdrawal from the government if the party won fewer than 15 parliamentary seats, was of bad judgement. What cards did MCA have in hand? 1. Back in 2011, things were not quite going in favour of MCA, and there were no signs the party would perform any better than in 2008. 2. "Pakatan Rakyat" was the trump card in the hands of Chinese Malaysians, so the "out of Cabinet" decision (read: threat?) would not work. 3. MCA had limited remnants of its influences and support base, and was in no position to place such a stake at all. It wasn't the right time when things didn't go your way to put a bet, more so an all-or-none show-hand. But, the big-time gambler in Chua Soi Lek cajoled him into making such a foolhardy bet without giving the slightest thoughts for the forte of the party nor the realistic intent of the Chinese community. The bet that shunned the appraisal for possible consequences accelerated the demise of MCA. I was wondering. Why on earth did the right-minded souls in MCA's presidential council, central committee and central delegates just ingest the motion without digesting it? Didn't the idea flash past the mind of any what would befall MCA if the Chinese voters didn't buy its idea? It is easy for a defeated gambler to quit the table while conceiving a comeback plan later. While Chua can just call it a day and bow out, what about the party he is leading? Does it have to wind up its business as well? To stay out of the Cabinet means foregoing political power, leading to the obliteration of whatsoever residual influences the party might still have now. But if it changes its mind and joins the government, be prepared for a quicker death. To join or not to join the Cabinet, either way is a dead end for MCA. All I can say is, why the brainless bet in the very first place? In the absence of support from the Chinese community and recognition from the government, MCA's future is bleak. Politics is no gambling party. In deciding every single move, a political party must first and foremost take into consideration its feasibility, possible consequences and ways to tackle them. If Plan A fails, there is always a Plan B or Plan C to back up. If the step would possibly lead to a disaster, it has to be avoided at all costs! While a gambler may not need a complete set of strategic plans, the boss of a political party cannot afford to go by a day without the right strategies. |
| Chinese businessmen say boycott on community’s products “racist”, will hurt economy Posted: 18 May 2013 01:15 PM PDT 
Boo Su-Lyn, TMI The call by pro-Umno bloggers and Muslim groups for a boycott of Chinese businesses is racist and will harm the country's economic growth, according to businessmen from the community. Malaysia's gross domestic product (GDP) expanded by 4.1 per cent in the first quarter of the year as a result of weaker exports and slower growth in public spending, compared to 4.7 per cent in the same quarter in 2012 and 6.4 per cent in the last quarter of 2012. "How can you say boycott? Who loses? The government and Malaysia are the ones that will lose out," Chen Kien Keong, chairman of the Tea Trade Association of Malaysia, told The Malaysian Insider yesterday. "The priority now is the economy... so few people also pay income tax," he added. Only 10 per cent of the working population in the country pays income tax. Khoo Kah Jin, president of the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Car Dealers and Credit Companies Association, said the call for a boycott of consumer goods produced by Chinese companies was "racist". "If they boycott Chinese brands, (the) Chinese can boycott Malay brands ― where does it end?" he told The Malaysian Insider. "Politics is politics. This is all consumer items. How can you boycott? Leave politics aside," Khoo added. Bank Negara Malaysia Governor Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz was reported by national news agency Bernama last Wednesday as saying that the economy was forecast to grow between five and six per cent this year. She added that resilient domestic demand would continue to be the "key driver of growth", underpinned by sustained private sector expansion and backed by the public sector. Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Hasan Malek said yesterday that Putrajaya did not approve of the boycott, but said that he could not prevent those who wished to do so. Several pro-Umno bloggers and the Muslim Consumers Association Malaysia (PPIM) recently called for consumers to boycott or at least buy goods sold by Chinese companies last, including products such as Massimo bread, Cap Sauh wheat flour and items from the Old Town White Coffee chain. PPIM wrote on its website that such "DAP products" must be boycotted by Malaysians who love peace and harmony. Pro-Umno blog theunspinners.blogspot.com called last Friday for a "Buy Malay first! Buy Chinese last!" campaign and listed several consumer products sold by Muslims and by "DAP allies". READ MORE HERE |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
