Jumaat, 24 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Majority and minority

Posted: 23 May 2013 04:49 PM PDT

Politicians need to be very careful in how they talk. Barisan Nasional boasts about the higher number of seats it got and claims it represents the majority. Pakatan Rakyat boasts about the higher number of votes it got and claims it represents the majority. But both got roughly only 20% each of the votes. What about the rights of the 80% other Malaysians who did not vote for you? Are you saying they do not matter?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There appears to be some misconception about the term 'minority government'. Over the last fortnight or so I have been receiving a number of media statements from DAP and PKR referring to 'Najib Tun Razak's minority government' or 'Barisan Nasional's minority government' and so on.

I am not sure whether the people issuing these press statements do not understand what 'minority government' means or they are intentionally misleading Malaysians. Nevertheless, whatever it may be, the term 'minority government' is being misapplied in the case of what happened in the recent general election on 5th May 2013.

A minority government is a government in which the main party has more members (MPs or ADUNS) than any other single party but not more members than all the other parties combined.

A minority government exists where a government, lacking an outright majority of seats, depends on the support of other parties or independents that hold the balance of power in Parliament or the State Assemblies. This would apply in a situation where a party or coalition does not have an outright majority of seats to be able to form a federal or state government.

A minority government or a minority cabinet is a cabinet of a parliamentary system formed when a political party or coalition of parties does not have a majority of overall seats in Parliament or the State Assemblies but is sworn into government to break a 'Hung Parliament' election result. It is also known as a minority parliament. 

Hence, in Malaysia's case, the Barisan Nasional government is not a minority government because it did win enough seats to form the federal government although without a two-thirds majority in Parliament. All Barisan Nasional needed was 112 seats and it won 133 seats -- 21 more seats than required to be able to form the government.

Now, assuming we only look at Umno (that won just 88 seats), and assuming that Barisan Nasional did not exist, then Umno by itself would be a minority government if, say, Umno and PKR (an opposition party) agreed to form a coalition government (which would now give them 119 seats in Parliament).

Maybe those opposition leaders issuing these press statements should take note of this and not wrongly refer to the present government as a minority government because it is not -- so this is very misleading. A minority government means you got less than 112 seats in Parliament and in Barisan Nasional's case this is not so since it won 133 seats. 

Nevertheless, if it makes you happy to continue referring to the Barisan Nasional government as a minority government because it garnered less than 50% of the popular votes you are of course at liberty to do so just as long as you understand that this is the wrong application of the term.

Now, why am I so particular about the right application of terminology? Well, I have always been sensitive about terminology that has been wrongly applied. First of all, it makes ignorant Malaysians even more ignorant. Secondly, it is unfair and we are talking about fairness are we not?

For example, Muslim terrorists are always referred to as 'fundamentalists'. I take offense to that as well. A fundamentalist Muslim does not make that Muslim a terrorist or extremist. It just means that that Muslim subscribes to and complies with the fundamentals of Islam. This makes that person a good Muslim. That does not make that Muslim a terrorist or extremist.

And what are the fundamentals of Islam? Well, we have talked about that issue so many times over the last nine years or so -- so I really do not need to turn this into a debate on Islam. Suffice to say that there are fundamentals in everything, even in bookkeeping or accounts. And if you deviate from the fundamentals of the debit and credit rule, then your books do not balance. Hence, in Islam as well, if you deviate from the fundamentals of the religion, your 'book' will also not 'balance'.

So it is important that we understand each terminology and apply the proper terminology. A fundamentalist Muslim is a good Muslim. Why wrongly apply the term and make a good Muslim appear like a bad Muslim just because he or she complies with proper Islamic teachings?

Let me put it another way. A terrorist may be a fundamentalist Muslim (or he or she may think he or she is a fundamentalist Muslim) but a fundamentalist Muslim is not necessarily a terrorist. It is just like a Nazi during WWII was a German but a German was not necessarily a Nazi. And a Zionist is a Jew but a Jew may not necessarily be a Zionist. An IRA terrorist is Irish but an Irishman may not necessarily be an IRA terrorist. A Tamil Eelam terrorist is a Tamil Indian but not all Tamil Indians are Tamil Eelam terrorists. And so on.

Anyway, back to the issue of majority and minority. We always talk in terms of democracy and that democracy means majority rule. Hence when we talk about the rights of the majority it is about what the majority wants and what the majority wants overrides everything else.

Is this what democracy is all about and if so then is democracy really that good after all?

Why must the world be about the majority and not the minority?

In 1948, 82% of Brits smoked. By 1970, it had dropped to 55%. By 2007, it had dropped to 22%.

Hence, in 2007, the majority of Brits did not smoke and two-thirds of Brits supported the banning of smoking in public/enclosed places. So, to protect the rights of the majority two-thirds who supported the banning of smoking in public/enclosed places, smoking was banned in the pubs in 2007. But what about the rights of the minority one-third who do not support the ban or the rights of the 22% who do smoke? Well, the wishes of the minority do not count. Only the wishes of the majority count.

Is this considered fair and just? Because of this smoking ban, pubs all over the UK are closing at the rate of almost three a day (one of the reasons at least). That comes to about 1,000 pubs a year and this has been going on for quite a number of years now and some of these pubs are more than 200 years old.

So, in the UK, the rights of the majority override the rights of the minority. And the fact that pubs are closing at an alarming rate shows that more people who go to the pubs smoke than those who do not smoke. But the majority pub-goer has to 'suffer' because the minority non-smoker who goes to the pub wants a smoke-free environment. Finally, the pubs just close and both the minority as well as the majority are denied the 'pleasure' of going to the pub.

So can you see that 78% of the Brits do not smoke but the 22% who do smoke have to live by the rules of the 78% who do not? But in the pubs more people smoke than those who do not smoke. Yet the majority in the pubs need to follow the rules of the minority (although they are the majority outside the pubs).

Complicating, is it not? The issue of majority and minority is not so simple after all. It all depends on at what point of time you are the majority and at what point of time you are the minority. You can be the majority in one situation and yet get reduced to a minority in another situation. 

Okay, maybe pubs are not the best example to use after talking about fundamental Islam. Let me use another example instead.

Let's say the 88 Umno MPS and the 21 PAS MPs and, say, another 20 PKR/PBB MPs gang up to make it 129 MPs and they vote in favour of elevating the status of the Sharia court to be above the common law common. (It used to be below until Tun Dr Mahathir made it at par). So now the Sharia court has more power than the 'normal' courts and it starts prosecuting people for 'crimes against God'.

Since the majority Muslim MPs voted in favour of this would you consider it as acceptable? Do the majority Muslim MPs represent the majority voice of 28 million Malaysians? Well, under the concept of majority-rule no one can really challenge this other than just protest. Outside Parliament they may be the minority but in Parliament they are the majority. Hence the minority passes laws that the majority does not want mainly because while they may be the minority outside Parliament in Parliament they are the majority. 

Okay, maybe you can argue that 5 million voters voted for you so that makes you the majority. But what about the 10 million who did not vote for you or the 13 million more who did not vote for you because they did not register to vote or are not old enough to vote? Only 5 million votes out of 28 million Malaysians do not really give you the absolute right, does it? You do not represent just 5 million Malaysians but 28 million Malaysians.

For all intents and purposes, your 5 million votes are not the majority but the minority if against the backdrop of 28 million Malaysians. Hence your policies must consider 28 million Malaysians and not just 5 million Malaysians. To just consider 5 million Malaysians while ignoring the other 23 million Malaysians can be called democracy at work but cannot be considered just and fair.

However, that is how democracy works. A small percentage of the people vote for you and you regard this as having the right over the entire population. What if 6 million Malaysians want the military to take over? Is not 6 million more than your 5 million? And since this is the majority can Parliament be abolished and military rule be established? We are talking about who has the higher 'votes' are we not?

Politicians need to be very careful in how they talk. Barisan Nasional boasts about the higher number of seats it got and claims it represents the majority. Pakatan Rakyat boasts about the higher number of votes it got and claims it represents the majority. But both got roughly only 20% each of the votes. What about the rights of the 80% other Malaysians who did not vote for you? Are you saying they do not matter?

This is what the politicians tend to forget when laying claim to who is more legitimate than the other. Don't just talk about the 20% who voted for you. Also take note of the 80% who did not. They, too, have rights.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Re-delineation of constituency: A Voter's perspective

Posted: 24 May 2013 12:13 PM PDT

cpy1989 
 
My presentation is based on the fact that Sabah & Sarawak state should hold 1/3 of the seats in the Federal Parliament & all states should have proportional representation in the parliament.

As for population, it is taken by total Malaysian population, rather than voting population, as I do not have any data on voting population. 

Peninsular
 
148 seats
 
     
 
State
 Population (m)% of Total Population (m) Seats Round up   
Selangor 5.46 22.2% 35.81915 36  
Johor  3.35 14.85% 21.97695 22  
Perak  2.35 10.42% 15.41667 15  
Kedah 1.95 8.64% 12.79255 13  
KL  1.67 7.40% 10.95567 11  
Penang  1.56 6.91% 10.23404 10  
Kelantan  1.54 6.83% 10.10284 10  
Pahang  1.5 6.65% 9.840426 10  
Terengganu  1.04 4.61% 6.822695 7  
Negeri Sembilan  1.02 4.52% 6.691489 7  
Melaka  0.82 3.63% 5.379433 5  
Perlis  0.23 1.02% 1.508865 2  
Putrajaya  0.07 0.31% 0.45922 0  
Total  22.56 100.00% 148 148  
       
State  Population (m) % of Total Population (m) Seats Round up  
Sabah  3.21 55.63% 41.16811 41  
Sarawak  2.47 42.81% 31.67764 32  
Labuan  0.09 1.56% 1.154246 1  
Total  5.77 100.00% 71 74  
       
       
       
       
       
       

Source: see here

 

Vernacular education in Malaysia

Posted: 24 May 2013 12:09 PM PDT

http://mobiletemp.cdnmy.com/images/paper/utusan20091229-2.jpg 

Oh, how good it is to study in the SJKCs and SJKTs.

The many students who dropped out of the SJKCs especially the Chinese students, and also those who drop out of the SJKT, end up going into crimes. 

Mansor Puteh 

There are many who are often confused when they say 80,000 Melayu are enrolled in SJKCs. Earlier it was said to be 60,000 Bumiputera students.

But the truth is that the so-called Bumiputeras are mostly those who are the so-called 'Sino-Bumiputeras' of Sabah and Sarawak.

There is no such a thing called the Sino-Bumiputeras. They are Chinese, since their fathers are Chinese and mothers Natives of the two states. They just want to claim Bumiputera rights which they are not entitled to get.

Of the real Melayu, there are at the most 12,000 in SJKCs.

Unfortunately analyses by many on this matter do not take into account the failures of those Melayu (Malays were British subjects), how all of those who had studied in the SJKCs finally enrolled into the Sekolah Kebangsaan including the Chinese who did not dare to go to universities in Taiwan or Hong Kong and even China where the medium of instruction is Mandarin.

They cry and complain if they are not given places in the universities in Malaysia where the medium of instruction is Melayu.

And of the many Melayu who had studied in the SJKCs, how many finally get to go to university, or even excel in the secondary school? How many get a string of As for SPM and STPM? Virtually none that Dong Zong could be proud of to show.

And of the many Melayu how many who are experts in Mandarin and who had gone to study history to decipher the ancient Ming Dynasty manuscripts to reveal more historical facts surrounding the history of the Melaka Sultanate? None.

And this one fact will startle you: The many students who dropped out of the SJKCs especially the Chinese students, and also those who drop out of the SJKT, end up going into crimes.

They cannot be absorbed into the workforce in the private as well as the public sectors. Therefore, they have to sell counterfeit DVDs in the pasar malam, or paste stickers on public properties, creating the third sector - 'Crimes Sector'.

Get the facts from Bukit Aman and ask for the profile of the petty crimes and those who are involved in the vice trade and illegal entertainment outlets in the country, and the bottom line is that they are all dropouts of SJKCs and SJKTs.

Those who have higher morals amongst the dropouts take up petty trading in the pasar malam or sell telephones and doing other things.

Can Dong Zong be described as a chauvinist group? How many times do their leaders encourage assimilation? Do they ever attend Merdeka and Malaysia Day parades or watch them?

Do they speak in Melayu? Do they allow their children to mix with the other non-Melayu children?

And no Chinese companies actively asked for Melayu with proficiency in Mandarin as an advantage, to work for them.

I hope the NST can organize a public forum with Dong Zong and ask them to speak in Melayu. They won't accept it. In fact, they even send their press releases to TV3 in Mandarin as were shown on television themselves.

Vernacular education in Malaysia (Mandarin and Tamil) is based purely on the large number of Chinese and Tamils (not Indians) that are still in the country.

The position won't be tenable in the future if the size of the communities shrinks and with the empowerment of the Melayu in the economy and politics of the country.

It is estimated that by 2050 the population of the Melayu will be 80%. If this happens, there is no way for anyone not to be able to speak in Melayu.

In fact, if the government was insistent, there will not be that many non-Melayu who are eligible to get driving licenses since the written tests are conducted in Melayu, when most of the Chinese and Indians are not even capable of reading what is written in the tests.

How many of the Chinese and Indian taxi-drivers could truly pass these tests?

It is a shame that NST is offering Rita Sim a special column to express her support for vernacular education, when all that she does is to use it as a propaganda platform, spouting predictable and one-sided views on the matter.

The vernacular Mandarin or Tamil newspapers won't have any column that extols the virtues of the Sekolah Kebangsaan over the vernacular ones.

It is also pertinent to note that of the Chinese and Indian groups, on Mandarin and Tamil are favored or championed by them.

But how come the other Chinese and Indian groups such as Hokkiens, Cantonese, Malayalees, Punjabis, Telugus and so on do not demand the establishment of their own schools in Malaysia?

The problem is that their numbers are too small for them to make such demands.

So the main factor here is 'numbers'. This means if the numbers of the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia shrink in time, vernacular schools will also become irrelevant even to the Chinese and Indian communities.

In Singapore, the government said the Indian community there said they did not want the establishment of Tamil schools.

Lastly there are at least 30% Melayu who have Chinese ancestry including all of mine. Therefore, one can say most of the Chinese in Malaysia of an earlier time had rejected China and being Chinese.

The Chinese today are those who aim to create a colony in Malaysia and not wish to assimilate.

In fact, according to a book written by a Chinese in Indonesia, any Chinese who left Chinawas considered to be a traitor. And if he returned to China, he would be arrested and sentenced to hang.

If he chose to leave China, he should adopt local ways.

That is why the Chinese who went to Indonesia at the same time as those who came to Tanah Melayu assimilated with the Jawa (not Javanese), it is said 80% of the Jawa is said to have Chinese ancestry. No wonder, many Jawa today have Chinese features, including many from the Jawa royal families.

Therefore, what I am saying here is that the issue concerning vernacular education in Malaysia and the others surround it, have not been fully discussed or debated.

 

Open Letter to the Home Minister

Posted: 24 May 2013 11:59 AM PDT

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbtZu7q58kyH7imX7N-diDlgCb5p_zHfjzMf92GlmX_wuw_wCAog 

In business one sells ones products not by running down ones competitor, one sells ones product by highlighting its advantages and its virtues. By far this is the best and proven method of sale. 

Stephen Doss, Social Media Chambers of Malaysia

Dear Dato' Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi,

I write to you as someone who has followed your political ascension from Ketua Pemuda UMNO to your current position as Minister of Home Affairs.

As a young University student, I watched with pride when you took on the then President of UMNO and Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad on the issue of cronyism and nepotism at the 1998 UMNO General Assembly. At the time it was unthinkable for someone so low the ladder in politics to take on the all-powerful Dr Mahathir.

Over the years I have noticed that you have mellowed in speaking out on issues that someone like me (young urban middle class) would hold dear and value. Young individuals like me yearn for a level playing field as we lack the connections and cables that the connected and family members of politicians and businessmen have access to.

I was not surprised with the results of the 2008 elections, even less with the results of the 2013 general elections. The more the leadership in BN speak less about the issues that are of concern to the urban middle class electorate, then it is only natural that you begin to lose the support of that electorate. The correlation should be by now painfully obvious to those who seek the truth.

There are two ways in which political parties and politicians can react to sliding support among the masses, they can either seek to halt and reverse the declining support, or they can seek solace within their comfort zone or cocoon of ignorance until it is too late.

Sir, I don't need to tell you that the most important issues today affecting the urban populace is education, security and cost of living. Issues that although as important to all Malaysians, probably more so those who live in urban centres.

Dear Dato Seri, although UMNO may have won the majority of the rural votes cast, it lost the popular vote, I know you will say that this is irrelevant in a country that practises a First Past The Post system, but that would be fooling oneself into thinking that all is well, especially when you know that the urban demography is a demography that is the most educated, most critical in their thinking and the most discerning, probably a key demography any political party worth their salt will do their best to court as they key supporters.

I am glad that the key portfolio of the Home Ministry is now yours, I am sure you of all people will be aware that different times call for different measures, no longer will Malaysians be easily subdued, easily persuaded, or easily fooled by half measures. Nothing less than sincerity of intention and purpose, easily detected through action will do.  The days of saying one thing and doing another and getting away with it are over, in no small measure thanks to the alternative media which is free from state censorship.

In business one sells ones products not by running down ones competitor, one sells ones product by highlighting its advantages and its virtues. By far this is the best and proven method of sale. I firmly belief if your Ministry can reduce the anxiety of the people who depend on your Ministry to feel safe, then you would have won half the battle. Security is a bigger issue in the urban centres than in the rural constituencies, solve these problems and you will win their support. The ball is in your court not with the opposition.

Dato Seri, I look forward to this national reconciliation process as announced by the Prime Minister, I am sure that you will lead the way as one of his most trusted lieutenants, I assume that reconciliation here means reaching out to all Malaysians even the ones who didn't vote for the BN.  

Leave the days of sledge hammer politics to a generation past, a generation who benefited from the absence of the alternative media, who could get away with murder because people did not have access to information.

No government in the world will blame the electorate for choosing freely who they wish, neither would they achieve anything by doing so. I pray that God give you and the leadership of this country the wisdom and ability to win any election in future in a free and fair manner. Respected for the work that you do, for upholding democracy and trusting the electorate.   

I am sure whether we like the form of democracy or not in this country we all still love this country, having been born here we would wish to die here. As a fellow Malaysian I wish you all the best and hope to see you do great things through your Ministry. Say and do the morally right thing and we will be with you.

Sir I sincerely hope that you do well in the next general elections, I would hate to see you do well in UMNO but fail at the next general elections.

Your sincerely

Stephen Doss

Advisor

Social Media Chambers of Malaysia


 

Behind Malaysian Poll Protest, a Peace Deal That Collapsed

Posted: 24 May 2013 11:53 AM PDT

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf7qeE078pJ_ROmdoaTvYlICdTsKPgMGOk1eq7MwvXwxds9PEkBz_hnxYcYS0bZfJsxuNy9HFUgX_-lUhCpJ0gi2WC_j43DHQRrW9_VRnwfD7L0oC42eoVpJWTMIjfPf41kaGu3a1KbMpu/s1600/jusuf-kalla-ww73.jpeg 

(Wall Street Journal) - Mr. Kalla said the two candidates—whom he said he considered friends of his going back decades—had made a written agreement in April to refrain from personal attacks during the campaign and to accept the outcome, in a deal first proposed by Mr. Anwar. 

A former Indonesian vice president with a history of brokering peace agreements has accused Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of reneging on a secret deal to respect the outcome of Malaysia's elections on May 5.

Jusuf Kalla revealed the pre-election accord in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, amid a public protest campaign by Mr. Anwar over what the opposition leader said was widespread vote fraud by the ruling National Front coalition. The election returned Prime Minister Najib Razak and the long-ruling National Front to power in the tightest national election in Malaysian history.

Mr. Kalla said the two candidates—whom he said he considered friends of his going back decades—had made a written agreement in April to refrain from personal attacks during the campaign and to accept the outcome, in a deal first proposed by Mr. Anwar.

Mr. Anwar acknowledged he had made the pact with Mr. Najib, with Mr. Kalla as mediator, but said the National Front had rendered it void by the way it ran its campaign.

He singled out Malaysia's media, much of which is controlled or owned by the government or members of the ruling coalition. "How can you talk reconciliation when you demonize your opponent in this manner?" Mr. Anwar said to The Wall Street Journal. He also said it was Mr. Kalla, not him, who first proposed the pact.

Mr. Najib stressed reconciliation in his first public remarks after the election, though both sides said that the other had rejected a clause in the pact that the winner was to offer the loser a role in a "reconciliation government."

Mr. Najib's camp confirmed that the agreement was made and dismissed Mr. Anwar's view that it had been undermined by the campaign—during which both sides accused the other of low blows and distortions. Mr. Anwar had strong support among Malaysian Web-based media during the campaign.

Mr. Kalla said he felt that both sides met their commitment to refrain from personal attacks during the campaign, and he hasn't criticized Mr. Najib over the conduct of the election.

Mr. Anwar said he plans to step up a legal campaign to overturn the results in 29 electoral districts, raising political tensions in Malaysia, which has grown increasingly divided in the aftermath of the election.

Read more at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323336104578503170302457636.html 

Cops will fight judges’ remand refusal, says Zahid

Posted: 24 May 2013 11:36 AM PDT

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/images/uploads/01/zahidhisham0520.jpg 

(Bernama) - The police will appeal against the decision by a magistrate yesterday to deny remand on three individuals who were detained to facilitate investigations under the Sedition Act 1948, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

He said an appeal was a normal procedure when a court decision was not in the favour of the police.

"What I want to say is that I have no intention to interfere in the business of the police, this is a normal procedure when a decision does not side with the police, so an appeal has to be made before the police can frame the charges," he told reporters after appearing in an interview on Bernama TV's "Hello Malaysia" programme at Wisma Bernama here last night.

Ahmad Zahid said he always respected the decision of the courts and would not question any decision made and that police also had their own procedures in facing such a situation.

On Thursday, the trio — Batu Member of Parliament Tian Chua, PAS member Tamrin Ghafar and social activist Haris Ibrahim — were arrested by police in connection with their speeches at a forum held at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, here, on May 13 which were alleged to be seditious.

They are being investigated under Section 4 (1) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Yesterday, the magistrate concerned rejected the police's application to remand them and they were immediately released.  

‘Impossible’ to give all votes equal value, EC chairman says

Posted: 24 May 2013 11:35 AM PDT

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/images/uploads/01/azizyusof0403.jpg 

(TMI) - The Election Commission (EC) has confirmed that its year-end redelineation exercise will involve an increase in federal seats but its chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof said it would be "impossible" to guarantee equal value for every vote.

Abdul Aziz cited geographical and logistical concerns with the opposition's demand for "one man, one vote, one value" but added, however, that the EC would try its level best to give similar weightage to every vote.

"But realistically, how do you make it one man, one vote, one value? I think it is virtually impossible... we can spread the weightage here and there but apart from that, it would be too difficult," he told The Malaysian Insider when contacted.

Explaining, Abdul Aziz said the population size and physical landscape in every constituency differs in every state, rendering it even more difficult for the EC to adhere to the opposition's demand for equal value for every vote.

The opposition blamed its recent electoral losses on gerrymandering by the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN), claiming the vastly unequal value of votes across constituencies nationwide had allowed a government with minority support to rule the majority.

In the just-concluded May 5 polls, BN recaptured federal power with 133 federal seats to Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) 89 but lost the popular vote for the first time since 1969, scoring just under 48 per cent of the votes cast to PR's 51 per cent.

Abdul Aziz went on to cite the differences in the terrains of Borneo's rugged interiors in Sabah or Sarawak and the crowded metropolitan streets in cities over in the peninsula.

"In Sabah for example, we take Kinabatangan... the size of this one constituency is as big as the entire state of Pahang... but the number of voters are small.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/impossible-to-give-all-votes-equal-value-ec-chairman-says/ 

 

UMNO Blogger Thanks Bangladeshi Airline For “Making Shit Happen 5/5″

Posted: 24 May 2013 11:22 AM PDT

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKS_Za9CEAA2RjF.jpg 

So, what are we further to make of the claim that it was najibrazak2 that sent him to Dhaka and why does UMNO owe the "Banglapura large"? 

Sarawak Report 

Unlike PR opposition figures, who are getting arrested for questioning the conduct of the 5/5 election on behalf of the majority of the electorate, UMNO bloggers are still enjoying freedom of speech.

However, judging from what some have been saying, Najib may need to shut them up too!

Consider the Tweets put out by one of the known henchmen of former youth leader and recently appointed Sports Minister, Khairy Jamaluddin in past days.

Dax Muhamad, we understand, spent much of the election period in Bangladesh, despite his passionate support of UMNO for whom he blogs

http://www.sarawakreport.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-23-at-19.40.24-650x88.png

Card-carrying UMNO blogger 

Why would such a fellow sacrifice his precious opportunity be part of the exciting GE13 campaign?

One might conclude from his Tweets that it was because he was appointed to an important mission in "Bangla".  Here is one of them: 

http://www.sarawakreport.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-23-at-14.57.53-650x141.png

What 'Shit' did Tony Fernandes (Air Asia) and Air Biman (Dhaka based) make happen 5/5? 

Given that one of the biggest controversies during the election period surrounded the revelation that secret Air Asia and Malaysia Airways chartered flights had been organised by UMNO to fly thousands of suspect voters over from the plantations of East Malaysia to KL, this Tweet by a key UMNO activist just days after the election begs some answers.

In the context of airlines in Malaysia there is only one Fernandes, Tony Fernandes the Head of Air Asia.  Air Biman is evidently Biman Bangladeshi Airline, based in Dhaka where he was blogging from.

Therefore, Sarawak Report would like Dax Muhamad to explain exactly what he means by saying in such a context:

"Big up to Fernandes n even bigger alpha up to Air Biman for making shit happen 5/5″?  

Why does he go on to say (translated)

"Remember your services. Heartfelt gratitude. Here's to Bengali New Year"?

Consider the whole sequence of these Tweets on May 10th.  Because he elaborates on the above highly suspicious statement by explaining that "UMNO owes Banglapura large". 

http://www.sarawakreport.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-23-at-14.21.12-650x378.png 

10th May – "Big up to Fernandes and even bigger up to Bagladeshi airline Air Bimina…..UMNO owes Banglapura large" 

A glance at Dax Muhamad's tweets confirms that he is in frequent touch with then UMNO youth Chief Kairy Jalamuddin and indeed a spread of top UMNO figures. 

Read more at: http://www.sarawakreport.org/2013/05/umno-blogger-thanks-bangladeshi-airline-for-making-shit-happen-55/ 

Idris Jusoh to sue PKR and Mohd Rafizi for slander

Posted: 24 May 2013 02:41 AM PDT

(Bernama) - Second Education Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh will sue Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and its strategy director Mohd Rafizi Ramli for slander.

Mohd Rafizi alleged that 24 Election Commission (EC) staff were locked up on polling day to ensure they voted in Besut parliamentary in 13th general election (GE13).

"I'm studying the allegation with lawyers to ensure it does not tarnish my image as member of parliament for Besut. I will sue them for making a public statement without proof to discredit me and the party," he told a victory function organised by Gong Nering district polling station in Kampung Gong Guchil, Jerteh here yesterday.

Idris said he did not know where they sourced the allegation spread via Facebook and Blog Keadilan 'exposed' by PKR secretary-general Datuk Saifudin Nasution Ismail as quoted by party organ Keadilan Daily.

"The allegation is baseless because how could the EC staff be locked-up. They must be responsible for the allegations," he added.

Barisan Nasional (BN) should be given the chance to implement promises made in its manifesto and the opposition should not continue to destroy the peace of the country just to achieve Anwar Ibrahim's ambition to become Prime Mminister.

"We may have lost the cyber war in GE13 but BN won right to form the government and all parties should be respect the election results," said Idris.

In GE13, Idris beat Riduan Mohamad Nor of PAS to win Besut parliamentary seat with a majority of 8,342 votes.

Khairy says ‘not one shred of evidence’ to suggest polls fraud

Posted: 24 May 2013 02:33 AM PDT

(TMI) - Khairy Jamaluddin has defended the manner in which Elections 2013 was conducted, arguing in a letter to international current affairs magazine The Economist that there was not "one shred of evidence" of fraud in the polls.

The newly-appointed sports minister also took a swipe at Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, by accusing the opposition leader of not accepting the results because "of his own personal, lifelong ambition to become prime minister."

"Allegations that foreign nationals were paid as 'phantom voters' have proved to be false, with not even one recorded case on polling day. All votes were cast and counted in front of representatives from all the contesting parties who signed off on the results.

"If any evidence of fraud does emerge the government encourages the relevant party to file an election petition in the courts to allow due process to take course."

Khairy's (picture) letter to The Economist was in response to a scathing report last week in the magazine of Malaysia's elections.

The Umno Youth leader has been given the task of improving the Barisan Nasional (BN) government's image abroad and his first job recently was to soft pedal the angry reaction by Umno politicians towards Chinese Malaysians in the aftermath of GE13.

In its reports, The Economist noted that national reconciliation appears a distant dream post-Election 2013 for a country scarred by the "nasty, divisive" electoral campaign led by Umno and BN in the rural heartlands.

It observed that Umno, to shore up its base of rural Malay voters, had alienated the Chinese and other communities already fed up with the alleged cronyism and corruption associated with affirmative action policies that favour the country's largest ethnic group.

"Mr Najib has said he wants to be prime minister for all Malaysians. Sadly, however, he presided over an ugly campaign by his... Umno, the main component of Barisan," the magazine wrote, referring to Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who was sworn in for his second term as prime minister after BN emerged victors again for its 13th general election running.

"In the rural Malay heartlands, Umno was as negative, racially divisive and pro-Malay as ever," it added.

Adding salt to wound, The Economist said blaming BN's losses on a "Chinese tsunami" had been unwise of Najib as the vote trend had clearly shown a massive swing in votes from the young and rising urban middle class, which cut across racial lines.

"Casting the election in such racial terms is neither wise nor accurate," the magazine wrote in one article titled "A dangerous result".

"Despite professing to promote a multi-ethnic Malaysia, Barisan's election strategy has left the country more divided than ever, both along ethnic lines and between urban and rural areas," it said in another, titled "A tawdy victory".

READ MORE HERE

 

Sabah’s Ansari quits PKR

Posted: 24 May 2013 01:42 AM PDT

Tuaran PKR chief Ansari Abdullah is deeply disappointed that the party did not follow the "due process" in suspending him.

Queville To, FMT

KOTA KINABALU: Suspended PKR Tuaran chief Ansari Abdullah today announced he has resigned from the party which he joined 14 years ago.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook this morning, he noted that he had decided to quit politics much earlier, but out of respect to the requests from friends, he withheld the announcement until today.

"I have lost faith in the party's leadership. I am now suspended as a member without any time period. I did not receive a 'show cause letter'. So much for justice and due process," he added.

"I criticised the leadership since they were wrong in allowing 2/3 of the seats in Sabah to be contested under Parti Keadilan's (PKR) symbol by non-members in the form of APS (Angkatan Perpaduan Sabah) and PPPS (Pertubuhan Pakatan Perpaduan Sabah)," he explained.

He went on to note that both APS and PPPS lost in all the parliamentary seats they contested and each won a state seat (Tamparuli and Klias).

Ansari, a practising lawyer, has also had a troubled relationship with other PKR members and leaders in the past.

In the run-up to this month's elections on May 5, Ansari made a preemptive attempt the day after the dissolution of Parliament to push through the seven divisions' list of candidates which included himself for the Tuaran constituency.

When his 'proposal' was shot down, he accused Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim of not being sincere in wanting to return political autonomy to Sabah when PKR rejected a move by him to nominate seven candidates to contest for PKR.

He said the rejection of three-quarters of the candidates proposed by the seven divisions in the Sabah west coast north zone, showed that the party's headquarters was adamant about maintaining control of the state from Kuala Lumpur.

 

Blackout photo fake, says EC

Posted: 23 May 2013 06:03 PM PDT

(Bernama) - Preliminary investigation by the Election Commission (EC) revealed that a photograph posted on the internet showing that a blackout purportedly occurred during vote-counting for the 13th general election (GE13) was an act recorded even before the GE13.

EC deputy chairman Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said this conclusion was arrived at after a thorough scrutiny by him together with his officers.

"They had staged the act even before the election to spread it on the internet as a ploy to show that a blackout had purportedly occurred, whereas it was a lie.

"The photograph showed that EC staff were purportedly counting the ballot papers and had to use a auxiliary lamps whereas the staff were not wearing the EC uniform," he told Bernama when met recently.

He said the most obvious proof was when the photograph showed that there were many reporters and photographers present in the vote-counting area whereas no one was allowed into the area except for the EC staff and agents of the candidates.

"The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and work procedure shown on the photograph were totally incorrect…they have forgotten, (they) want to cheat but do not understand the work procedure and were immature.

"In fact the tray used for placing the ballot papers on were also not the EC trays, the material and size were different…(there were) many things in the photograph that did not follow EC SOP," he said.

Wan Ahmad said so far there had been no police report lodged regarding the alleged 'blackout' which showed that it was clearly a slander and concocted story.

"If there had been a blackout, certainly the party agents would have lodged police reports. They represented the candidates, they were present at the counting venues. If there had been a blackout, they would have been the first to lodge police reports, but there were none," he said.

Meanwhile, commenting on an allegation by an opposition newspaper that 24 EC staff in Besut, Terengganu had been confined to mark their ballot papers, Wan Ahmad said he left it to the police to investigate the allegation.

Meanwhile, Wan Ahmad said the proposal by the opposition that a People's Tribunal be set up was dangerous because it ignored the national constitution and law.

"Who will represent the People's Tribunal? Their people, NGO (non-governmental organisation) leaders who have been against the system and the general election all this while? Those who are spreading unhealthy culture to the young generation?" he asked.

 

Magistrate rejects remand request, Tian Chua, Tamrin, Haris released

Posted: 23 May 2013 05:44 PM PDT

Ida Lim, TMI

The police today released three men who were detained for a probe under the Sedition Act 1948 and the Penal Code after a magistrate rejected requests for further remand.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) had earlier described the arrests as part of a national crackdown on the federal opposition.

Politicians Chua Tian Chang, Tamrin Ghafar, political activist Haris Ibrahim were arrested for sedition yesterday and held overnight at the police lockup in Jinjang, purportedly for a probe under section 4(1)© of the Sedition Act and section 124 of the Penal Code.

"We praise a very courageous magistrate. A brave magistrate has heard the legal arguments and decided that our detention is without basis," said Chua after walking out of the lock-up with his lawyers, referring to magistrate Norashikin Sahat.

"That's why we were released without condition," said the PKR vice-president who was the last to walk out, with Tamrin and Haris walking out together earlier on.

Earlier today, a small group of supporters had staged a mini-protest outside the lockup, shouting slogans and holding up placards to demand the release of the trio.

Haris's lawyer Gobind Singh Deo yesterday said he was not yet informed of which "seditious statements" his clients or the two others were detained over.      

All three were believed to be detained over their involvement in a forum on May 13 over the results of the just-concluded general election.

Yesterday morning, student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim was charged with sedition for his involvement in the same forum where he was accused of rallying Malaysians to take to the streets to topple the BN government.

The 24-year-old pleaded not guilty and was released on RM5,000 bail with his trial set for a mention on July 2.

Despite the release of the three today, Chua claimed to have knowledge that more people would possibly be arrested.

"With the same arguments, we hope that the court will take firm action to defend not just the rights of individuals, but also the basic principles of the law," said the Batu MP popularly known as Tian Chua.

 

Majority and minority

Posted: 23 May 2013 04:49 PM PDT

Politicians need to be very careful in how they talk. Barisan Nasional boasts about the higher number of seats it got and claims it represents the majority. Pakatan Rakyat boasts about the higher number of votes it got and claims it represents the majority. But both got roughly only 20% each of the votes. What about the rights of the 80% other Malaysians who did not vote for you? Are you saying they do not matter?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There appears to be some misconception about the term 'minority government'. Over the last fortnight or so I have been receiving a number of media statements from DAP and PKR referring to 'Najib Tun Razak's minority government' or 'Barisan Nasional's minority government' and so on.

I am not sure whether the people issuing these press statements do not understand what 'minority government' means or they are intentionally misleading Malaysians. Nevertheless, whatever it may be, the term 'minority government' is being misapplied in the case of what happened in the recent general election on 5th May 2013.

A minority government is a government in which the main party has more members (MPs or ADUNS) than any other single party but not more members than all the other parties combined.

A minority government exists where a government, lacking an outright majority of seats, depends on the support of other parties or independents that hold the balance of power in Parliament or the State Assemblies. This would apply in a situation where a party or coalition does not have an outright majority of seats to be able to form a federal or state government.

A minority government or a minority cabinet is a cabinet of a parliamentary system formed when a political party or coalition of parties does not have a majority of overall seats in Parliament or the State Assemblies but is sworn into government to break a 'Hung Parliament' election result. It is also known as a minority parliament. 

Hence, in Malaysia's case, the Barisan Nasional government is not a minority government because it did win enough seats to form the federal government although without a two-thirds majority in Parliament. All Barisan Nasional needed was 112 seats and it won 133 seats -- 21 more seats than required to be able to form the government.

Now, assuming we only look at Umno (that won just 88 seats), and assuming that Barisan Nasional did not exist, then Umno by itself would be a minority government if, say, Umno and PKR (an opposition party) agreed to form a coalition government (which would now give them 119 seats in Parliament).

Maybe those opposition leaders issuing these press statements should take note of this and not wrongly refer to the present government as a minority government because it is not -- so this is very misleading. A minority government means you got less than 112 seats in Parliament and in Barisan Nasional's case this is not so since it won 133 seats. 

Nevertheless, if it makes you happy to continue referring to the Barisan Nasional government as a minority government because it garnered less than 50% of the popular votes you are of course at liberty to do so just as long as you understand that this is the wrong application of the term.

Now, why am I so particular about the right application of terminology? Well, I have always been sensitive about terminology that has been wrongly applied. First of all, it makes ignorant Malaysians even more ignorant. Secondly, it is unfair and we are talking about fairness are we not?

For example, Muslim terrorists are always referred to as 'fundamentalists'. I take offense to that as well. A fundamentalist Muslim does not make that Muslim a terrorist or extremist. It just means that that Muslim subscribes to and complies with the fundamentals of Islam. This makes that person a good Muslim. That does not make that Muslim a terrorist or extremist.

And what are the fundamentals of Islam? Well, we have talked about that issue so many times over the last nine years or so -- so I really do not need to turn this into a debate on Islam. Suffice to say that there are fundamentals in everything, even in bookkeeping or accounts. And if you deviate from the fundamentals of the debit and credit rule, then your books do not balance. Hence, in Islam as well, if you deviate from the fundamentals of the religion, your 'book' will also not 'balance'.

So it is important that we understand each terminology and apply the proper terminology. A fundamentalist Muslim is a good Muslim. Why wrongly apply the term and make a good Muslim appear like a bad Muslim just because he or she complies with proper Islamic teachings?

Let me put it another way. A terrorist may be a fundamentalist Muslim (or he or she may think he or she is a fundamentalist Muslim) but a fundamentalist Muslim is not necessarily a terrorist. It is just like a Nazi during WWII was a German but a German was not necessarily a Nazi. And a Zionist is a Jew but a Jew may not necessarily be a Zionist. An IRA terrorist is Irish but an Irishman may not necessarily be an IRA terrorist. A Tamil Eelam terrorist is a Tamil Indian but not all Tamil Indians are Tamil Eelam terrorists. And so on.

Anyway, back to the issue of majority and minority. We always talk in terms of democracy and that democracy means majority rule. Hence when we talk about the rights of the majority it is about what the majority wants and what the majority wants overrides everything else.

Is this what democracy is all about and if so then is democracy really that good after all?

Why must the world be about the majority and not the minority?

In 1948, 82% of Brits smoked. By 1970, it had dropped to 55%. By 2007, it had dropped to 22%.

Hence, in 2007, the majority of Brits did not smoke and two-thirds of Brits supported the banning of smoking in public/enclosed places. So, to protect the rights of the majority two-thirds who supported the banning of smoking in public/enclosed places, smoking was banned in the pubs in 2007. But what about the rights of the minority one-third who do not support the ban or the rights of the 22% who do smoke? Well, the wishes of the minority do not count. Only the wishes of the majority count.

Is this considered fair and just? Because of this smoking ban, pubs all over the UK are closing at the rate of almost three a day (one of the reasons at least). That comes to about 1,000 pubs a year and this has been going on for quite a number of years now and some of these pubs are more than 200 years old.

So, in the UK, the rights of the majority override the rights of the minority. And the fact that pubs are closing at an alarming rate shows that more people who go to the pubs smoke than those who do not smoke. But the majority pub-goer has to 'suffer' because the minority non-smoker who goes to the pub wants a smoke-free environment. Finally, the pubs just close and both the minority as well as the majority are denied the 'pleasure' of going to the pub.

So can you see that 78% of the Brits do not smoke but the 22% who do smoke have to live by the rules of the 78% who do not? But in the pubs more people smoke than those who do not smoke. Yet the majority in the pubs need to follow the rules of the minority (although they are the majority outside the pubs).

Complicating, is it not? The issue of majority and minority is not so simple after all. It all depends on at what point of time you are the majority and at what point of time you are the minority. You can be the majority in one situation and yet get reduced to a minority in another situation. 

Okay, maybe pubs are not the best example to use after talking about fundamental Islam. Let me use another example instead.

Let's say the 88 Umno MPS and the 21 PAS MPs and, say, another 20 PKR/PBB MPs gang up to make it 129 MPs and they vote in favour of elevating the status of the Sharia court to be above the common law common. (It used to be below until Tun Dr Mahathir made it at par). So now the Sharia court has more power than the 'normal' courts and it starts prosecuting people for 'crimes against God'.

Since the majority Muslim MPs voted in favour of this would you consider it as acceptable? Do the majority Muslim MPs represent the majority voice of 28 million Malaysians? Well, under the concept of majority-rule no one can really challenge this other than just protest. Outside Parliament they may be the minority but in Parliament they are the majority. Hence the minority passes laws that the majority does not want mainly because while they may be the minority outside Parliament in Parliament they are the majority. 

Okay, maybe you can argue that 5 million voters voted for you so that makes you the majority. But what about the 10 million who did not vote for you or the 13 million more who did not vote for you because they did not register to vote or are not old enough to vote? Only 5 million votes out of 28 million Malaysians do not really give you the absolute right, does it? You do not represent just 5 million Malaysians but 28 million Malaysians.

For all intents and purposes, your 5 million votes are not the majority but the minority if against the backdrop of 28 million Malaysians. Hence your policies must consider 28 million Malaysians and not just 5 million Malaysians. To just consider 5 million Malaysians while ignoring the other 23 million Malaysians can be called democracy at work but cannot be considered just and fair.

However, that is how democracy works. A small percentage of the people vote for you and you regard this as having the right over the entire population. What if 6 million Malaysians want the military to take over? Is not 6 million more than your 5 million? And since this is the majority can Parliament be abolished and military rule be established? We are talking about who has the higher 'votes' are we not?

Politicians need to be very careful in how they talk. Barisan Nasional boasts about the higher number of seats it got and claims it represents the majority. Pakatan Rakyat boasts about the higher number of votes it got and claims it represents the majority. But both got roughly only 20% each of the votes. What about the rights of the 80% other Malaysians who did not vote for you? Are you saying they do not matter?

This is what the politicians tend to forget when laying claim to who is more legitimate than the other. Don't just talk about the 20% who voted for you. Also take note of the 80% who did not. They, too, have rights.

 

Still waiting for Khalid to name state exco line-up

Posted: 23 May 2013 01:34 PM PDT

(The Star) - Selangor remains the only state whose exco line-up has yet to be named following the impasse over the number of seats to be allocated to the respective Pakatan Rakyat member parties.

Speculation is rife as to who will make it to the highest decision-making body in the state government and how the 10 exco seats are to be divided between PAS, DAP and PKR.

So far, DAP has expressed disappointment over the three exco seats allocated for it as announced by Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim recently.

Khalid's political secretary Faekah Husin said the mentri besar was expected to arrive home from Frankfurt, Germany, today after seeking treatment for an old leg injury.

She said Khalid would immediately seek an audience with the Selangor Sultan over the appointment of exco members.

Selangor DAP deputy chairman Tony Pua, meanwhile, said the party was still in discussion with PAS and PKR over the distribution of exco positions.

"We met twice again recently. Our discussions have been friendly.

"Now we are just waiting for the MB to come back for some confirmation," he added.

DAP previously expressed shock and puzzle when Khalid announced the party would be getting three exco positions and also the Speaker's post.

Khalid also said PAS would get four exco positions and PKR three.

Pua was reported to have said previously that DAP was promised four exco seats.

Meanwhile, it is speculated that most PKR exco members would be replaced with new faces.

PKR's previous exco members were Dr Yaakob Sapari (Kota Anggerik), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan), Dr Xavier Jayakumar (Sri Andalas) and Rodziah Ismail (Batu Tiga).

Among PKR new names tipped to join the exco rank was Seri Setia assemblyman Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. For PAS, new names mentioned include state commissioner Dr Abdul Rani Osman.

Bukit Antarabangsa assemblyman and PKR deputy president Azmin Ali was earlier speculated to be an exco member, but this idea has been shot down by a party source.

 

Stockholm riots continue for a fifth night

Posted: 23 May 2013 01:24 PM PDT

Residents of areas largely populated by immigrants are suffering from segregation, anthropologist Carlbom told AFP. "Living as a young person in these segregated areas can be very hard in many ways. You have virtually no contact with other Swedes and a lot of times I don't think you have a good understanding of Swedish society," he said.

(AFP) - STOCKHOLM: At least nine cars, two schools and a police station were set ablaze as riots swept through Stockholm's immigrant-dominated suburbs early Friday for the fifth straight night, police and firefighters said.

The riots, which have shattered Sweden's image abroad as a peaceful and egalitarian nation, have sparked a debate about the assimilation of immigrants, who make up about 15 per cent of the population.

Many of the immigrants who have arrived due to the country's generous refugee policy struggle to learn the language and find employment, despite numerous government programmes.

Early Friday, police told Swedish news agency TT eight people had been arrested so far for the night's rioting, but no injuries were reported.

In Rinkeby, one of the city's immigrant-dominated areas, firefighters rushed to put out flames that engulfed six cars parked alongside each other. 

Five cars were totally gutted, according to an AFP photographer on the scene.

Three more cars were torched in the Norsborg suburb, and a police station in Aelvsjoe was set on fire but quickly extinguished, police said.

Firefighters meanwhile said a school in another immigrant-heavy suburb, Tensta, was set ablaze but quickly extinguished, and a nursery school in the Kista suburb was also on fire.

And police in Soedertaelje, a town south of Stockholm, said rioters threw stones at them as they responded to reports of cars set alight.

The previous night, the fire brigade had been called to some 90 different blazes, most of them caused by rioters.

"We are gradually becoming more like other countries," said Aje Carlbom, a social anthropologist at Malmoe University.

The troubles, which began on Sunday in the Husby suburb, are believed to have been triggered by the fatal police shooting of a 69-year-old Husby resident last week after the man wielded a machete in public.

The man had fled to his apartment, where police have said they tried to mediate but ended up shooting him dead in what they claimed was self-defence.

Local activists said the shooting sparked anger among youths who claim to have suffered from police brutality. During the first night of rioting, they said police had called them "tramps, monkeys and negroes."

Police meanwhile downplayed the scale of the events.

"Every injured person is a tragedy, every torched car is a failure for society... but Stockholm is not burning. Let's have a level-headed view of the situation," Ulf Johansson, deputy police chief for Stockholm county, said Thursday.

Residents of areas largely populated by immigrants are suffering from segregation, anthropologist Carlbom told AFP.

"Living as a young person in these segregated areas can be very hard in many ways. You have virtually no contact with other Swedes and a lot of times I don't think you have a good understanding of Swedish society," he said.

For example, some 80 percent of the 12,000 residents in Husby are immigrants.

Due to its liberal immigration policy, Sweden has in recent decades become one of Europe's top destinations for immigrants, both in absolute numbers and relative to its size.

In the past decade, it has welcomed hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia and the Balkans, among others.

This is not the first time the Scandinavian country has seen riots among immigrants.

In 2010, up to 100 youths threw bricks, set fires and attacked the local police station in the immigrant-dominated suburb of Rinkeby for two nights.

And in 2008, hundreds of youths rioted against police in the southern Swedish town of Malmoe, sparked by the closure of an Islamic cultural centre in the suburb of Rosengaard that housed a mosque.

Integration Minister Erik Ullenhag attributed the violence to high unemployment and social exclusion in Sweden's immigrant-dominated areas.

"We know that there is discrimination in these areas, and these events don't improve the image of these areas, where there is a lot of positive stuff going on but which is totally eclipsed right now," he told TT.

In Husby, overall unemployment was 8.8 per cent in 2012, compared to 3.3 per cent in Stockholm as a whole, according to official data.

And a total of 12 per cent in Husby received social benefits last year, compared to 3.6 per cent in Stockholm as a whole.

The riots have received international media attention, with some comparisons being drawn to similar problems assimilating immigrants in other European countries such as Britain and France.

 

SPR: Gambar 'Black Out' hari mengundi fitnah dan lakonan

Posted: 23 May 2013 01:17 PM PDT

(Bernama) - Siasatan awal Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) menunjukkan sekeping gambar dimuatkan di internet menunjukkan kononnya berlaku insiden lampu padam semasa pengiraan undi pada Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 (PRU13) 5 Mei lalu adalah fitnah dan lakonan itu dirakamkan sebelum PRU13 lagi.

Timbalan Pengerusi SPR Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar berkata kesimpulan itu dibuat hasil penelitian beliau bersama pegawai-pegawainya.    

"Mereka telah melakonkan perkara ini sebelum pilihan raya lagi untuk disebarkan di internet sebagai helah bagi menunjukkan kononnya berlaku kejadian lampu padam, sedangkan ini semua cerita karut.
    
"Pada gambar tersebut ditunjukkan kononnya petugas SPR sedang mengira kertas undi dan terpaksa menggunakan lampu bantuan kerana lampu padam sedangkan petugas itu langsung tidak memakai baju SPR," katanya kepada Bernama ketika ditemui baru-baru ini.
    
Beliau berkata bukti paling nyata apabila gambar tersebut menunjukkan terdapat ramai pemberita dan jurugambar berada di dalam tempat pengiraan undi sedangkan hakikatnya tidak ada sesiapa yang boleh berada di tempat tersebut melainkan petugas SPR dan ejen calon.
    
"Prosedur Operasi Standard (SOP) dan tatacara kerja seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh gambar itu langsung tidak betul... mereka sudah terlupa, hendak menipu tetapi tidak faham tatacara kerja dan tidak matang.
    
"Malah dulang yang digunakan untuk meletak kertas undi juga bukan dulang SPR, bahan dan saiznya berbeza.. banyak perkara dalam gambar tidak ikut SOP SPR," katanya.
    
Wan Ahmad berkata sehingga kini tiada sebarang laporan polis dibuat berkaitan dakwaan lampu padam dan itu membuktikan bahawa ia ternyata fitnah pembohongan yang direka-reka dan tidak berasas.     

"Kalau ada lampu padam, tentulah ada ejen-ejen parti membuat laporan polis, mereka mewakili calon, mereka ada di tempat mengira undi, jika lampu padam dia yang akan mula-mula sekali berlari buat laporan polis, tetapi tidak.
    
"Malah pada malam pengiraan undi itu juga, saya apabila mendapat 'tweet' mengatakan lampu padam oleh 'cybertrooper' yang tidak bertanggungjawab, kita terus semak kawasan mana, kita semak dengan pengarah negeri kita, Pegawai Pengurus dan saluran sekolah yang dituduh tetapi ternyata tdak ada apa-apa," katanya.
        
Dalam pada itu, mengenai dakwaan sebuah akhbar pembangkang bahawa 24 petugas SPR di Besut, Terengganu telah dikurung bagi memangkah kertas undi, Wan Ahmad berkata beliau menyerahkan kepada pihak polis untuk menyiasat dakwaan berkenaan.    

Beliau berkata namun kesemua mereka dipercayai masuk ke satu bilik itu untuk memangkah kertas undi masing-masing memandangkan kesemua mereka mengundi secara pos kerana bertugas pada PRU13.
    
"Salah seorang daripada mereka didapati telah membuat laporan polis... itu keputusan yang bagus dan betul agar polis dapat membuka kertas siasatan.    

"Namun dipercayai mereka mendapat sampul surat yang berisi kertas undi untuk mengundi cara pos dan itu hak mereka untuk pangkah di mana-mana lokasi termasuk di dalam bilik yang dikatakan itu.. namun apa yang sebenarnya berlaku kita tidak tahu," katanya.
    
Katanya, masyarakat tidak harus membuat andaian dan rumusan sendiri dengan hanya membaca melalui media pembangkang sedangkan semua yang dilaporkan berkaitan SPR adalah buruk dan berbaur fitnah.
    
Sementara itu, Wan Ahmad berkata cadangan pembangkang agar Tribunal Rakyat ditubuhkan adalah amat berbahaya kerana ia membelakangkan perlembagaan dan undang-undang negara.
    
"Siapa yang akan mewakili Tribunal Rakyat itu? Orang-orang mereka, pemimpin NGO yang selama ini yang menentang sistem dan dasar pilihan raya? Mereka yang menyemai budaya tidak baik dan tidak sopan pada anak muda?" katanya.

 

What’s next for Chinese politics in Malaysia?

Posted: 23 May 2013 12:54 PM PDT

He said the Chinese essentially split their vote; a smaller portion voted for the MCA/Gerakan while the majority supported the DAP. Another way was to vote for MCA/Gerakan at the state level while giving the parliamentary vote to DAP. This "split vote" tactic lasted more than two decades — until the 2008 general election.

The Malaysian Insider

The only way forward for Chinese politics in Malaysia is multiracial politics, according to an article in the Singapore Straits Times today.

Writing in the Singapore daily, James Chin said Chinese politicians must win positions in multiracial parties not because they are Chinese but because they are accepted as Malaysian leaders.

"While many may doubt this will happen given the demise of multiracial parties in recent Malaysian history, they forget that citizens of Chinese descent have successfully been elected by a largely non-Chinese population to the top offices in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines," wrote the senior visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

In the article, Chin wrote about the arrival of Chinese in then Malaya in large numbers in the 19th and 20th centuries, and their later involvement in politics through various Chinese-based parties like the MCA, Gerakan and the DAP.

He also detailed the partnership of the MCA with Umno, first in the Alliance party and later in the expanded Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.

Chin wrote that the New Economic Policy (NEP) caused the Chinese community to ask: should we support MCA or the opposition DAP to show our frustration with NEP's ethnic discriminatory policies?

While the Chinese towkays decided that they had to support BN to "do business", ordinary Chinese wanted it both ways, he said.

He said the Chinese essentially split their vote; a smaller portion voted for the MCA/Gerakan while the majority supported the DAP. Another way was to vote for MCA/Gerakan at the state level while giving the parliamentary vote to DAP. This "split vote" tactic lasted more than two decades — until the 2008 general election.

"In that GE, the Chinese, including the usual apathetic middle class, decided it was time for change and threw their support behind DAP. In this year's May 5 polls, the Chinese hardened their attitude and basically wiped out MCA/Gerakan in all 22 Chinese-majority constituencies. And for the first time in Malaysia's political history, Chinese-majority constituencies in Sabah and Sarawak voted en bloc for the DAP," he said.

He wrote that having it "both ways" no longer works. "A new generation of young Chinese do not want to play it safe. To them, Malaysia is their homeland and they do not see why they should be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to politics. To them, what is wrong in Malaysia is best exemplified by the ethnic-based approach of the BN.

"In a globalised world, the young voters see themselves as global as well as Malaysian citizens. They do not want to participate in ethnic and religious politics, the norm thus far in Malaysian politics," Chin wrote.

He said the most sensible approach is for them to work with enlightened Malay politicians who are willing to accept the Chinese as full citizens and isolate those who continue to call the Chinese pendatang (immigrants).

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved