Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

How we fail the Malaysian Indian poor
Towards a bankrupt Malaysia?
Uitm Poll: Most Youths Not 'Anti-Establishment'
Christmas Eve 2011 in Phuket
How the EC is in cahoots with BN
I'm spending a week on a friend's boat in Phuket (UPDATED 23rd December with more photos)

Posted: 26 Dec 2011 03:09 PM PST

Among the reasons why the Indian community is still stuck in the trenches of poverty is because the NEP was not extended to help those in the estates

What we did not realise is that the Indians are not a homogenous group, but made up of different groups that came in several batches. While there are a small group of Indians who were wealthier, about 10 million of them came to Malaya as buruh kasar.

By Anas Zubedy, Free Malaysia Today

After 54 years as a country, it is unfortunate that a lot of non Indian Malaysians do not yet know the Indians. For example, a lot of Malaysians still do not know the difference between Punjabis and Bengalis, and in some instances in recent years this confusion has been the topic of public discussion. This goes back to the time of Independence and the formulation of our principal social engineering programme, the NEP With all due respect to the Tun Abdul Razak administration which created it, one of the main reasons why some parts of the Indian community is still stuck in the trenches of poverty are because the NEP was not extended to help those in the estates. While the NEP helped the Malays and Bumiputera out of poverty and managed to create a group of middle class Malays, it overlooked the needs of the real composition of Indians.

The NEP was designed based on the per capita income of the Malay, Indian, Chinese and foreigner population. At the time, the Chinese had the highest percentage of per capita income, the Indians second, the Malays had the lowest. However, as for the Indians, because we did not understand them, we grouped all of them in one big group.

Based on the average between the incomes of the small group of middle class Indians and the larger community of poor Indians, the statistics drawn were inaccurate. It shows as if the Indians were doing okay, but in reality a big cluster of them were as poor as the Malays and Bumiputera.

It is sad that because we do not really understand our Indian brothers and sisters, we have allowed their poverty problem to continue as a legacy until today. Now that our PM has vowed to address this issue, it is important that we know who they are, where they are and where they are going. I recommend a book by Muzafar Desmond Tate called 'The Malaysian Indians: History, Problems and Future'.

Here are several important points from the book. As I mentioned earlier, the Malaysian Indians are not all the same, but are made up of different smaller communities. One major way the Malayan Indians were divided were the separation between Hindu and Muslim. Another thing was social division into four major class groups:

'1) The elite, consisting of professionals, high government officials and senior executives in leading private firms;

2) An upper, English-educated middle class consisting mainly of government servants;

3) A lower, vernacular-educated middle class, comprising merchants, school teachers, journalists, smallholders, all largely outside government service;

4) Labourers in government service – the PWD, medical services, railways, the docks and the municipalities of large towns – and in private employ, particularly on estates.'

Tate writes that the Indian community remained highly compartmentalised as there was very little interaction between these groups, and hardly any social mobility existed for them.

A large number of Tamils who arrived in Malaya during the British colonial period were drawn from the lowest ranks of Tamil society and came as contract labourers for tin mines and agricultural estates.

They were 'virtually debt slaves' from the point they came to Malaya, having to work off the costs of their passage and recruitment under the contract system. Their wages were so meager that this would take them their whole term of service.

Besides this large group of Tamil labourers, there was also a small group of upper-class Tamils who came by their own resources. These were men of trade, commerce and finance, and Tate writes that this upper class, though small in numbers, were very significant as they 'exerted an influence out of all proportion to their numbers'.

After Merdeka, the rift between the more affluent middle class and the larger number of Indian estate workers who 'hover on the borders of poverty', continued to exist. The middle class was doing fine, dominating certain professions like law and medicine. The enrolment of children into primary and secondary schools also remained the same. But for those in the rural areas, especially in the estates, the problem of poverty seemed intractable.

At the same time, the greatest shift that happened post-independence is urbanisation, which brought new social problems with it.

This was the 'new poverty syndrome' of the rootless Indians in the town. While the strategies of the NEP brought growing industrialisation, the Indian workers who left the estates found that they were in no position to compete in the towns. They were uneducated and had no command of English, they lacked technical skills and were once again forced to live under squalid conditions.

The NEP, on the other hand, did not extend its benefits to the estate workers. The official rationale was that these workers were employees of the private limited companies who owned the estates, and thus they did not fall under the scope of the NEP.

In reviewing the Second Malaysia Plan (1970 – 75), the authors of the Third Malaysia Plan concluded that the aim of eradicating poverty in the plantation sector did not make progress. Two-fifths of the estate workers were still living below poverty levels and unemployment was high.

READ MORE HERE

Towards a bankrupt Malaysia?

Posted: 26 Dec 2011 08:10 AM PST

Since the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis, government expenditure has consistently exceeded its revenue by a considerable margin. For example, in 2011 the spending is estimated to be RM229 billion while the revenue will be only RM183 billion. So the shortfall of RM46 billion has to be met by borrowing.

Subramaniam Pillay, The Malaysian Insider

That the Budget that was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat on 7 October 2011 was an election budget is very clear. There have been numerous detailed comments on the Budget by politicians and analysts (since then). In this article, we are just going to focus on one of the long term issues from the Budget. It concerns the increasing debt burden of the federal government.

How big is the government debt?

The federal government's outstanding debt has been increasing since 1970. From the detailed data available from Bank Negara's website, in 1991, it reached a temporary peak of RM99 billion and then decreased to RM90 billion by 1997. From then, it has been virtually doubling every five years. By the end of 2011, we can expect the figure to reach RM450 billion.

In other words, since the Asian crisis of 1998, we have been growing by borrowing heavily. In the 10 years since 1999, our debt has quadrupled. If we continue on this path, by 2020, our national debt will reach RM1.6 trillion. If our population is 40 million then, each Malaysian will have a debt burden of more than RM40,000 and this does not include our own personal borrowing. Assuming an interest rate of five per cent, paying the interest alone will cost the taxpayers RM80 billion per year!

The government has been reassuring us by saying that our debt is manageable. It argues that the debt at the end of 2012 will be only 54 per cent of our GDP, which is relatively low compared to the current crisis nations like Greece and Italy. (GDP is a measure of the total value of all the goods and services produced in a year in the country.) While it may not reach the levels of Greece by 2012, at our current rate of borrowing it won't take long before we become another Greece. Just to put this in perspective, our giant neighbour, Indonesia has a debt of only 23 per cent of GDP! Singapore has no debts.

The federal government debt alone does not tell the full story. Many government-owned enterprises also have borrowings. If these figures are included, then the total debt would be much higher. It is difficult to get the complete data on these borrowings.

Why has the debt been growing so rapidly?

Of course it is not expected that the government balances its books every year. Prudent economic management requires the government to balance its budget over an entire business cycle. So we can have deficits during bad years and budget surpluses during good years. Since 1998, we have had at least two business cycles; yet every year without fail we have had budget deficits!

This is evidence of fiscal irresponsibility. Here is a government which does not know the meaning of saving for a rainy day. A good example is the situation in the current year.

Actual revenue for 2011 is going to be higher than the budgeted figure by RM17.6 billion. This is mainly due to the increased income from the rise in oil prices in 2011. The federal government relies heavily on different forms of revenues (corporate tax, petroleum profit tax, royalties, Petronas dividends, etc) that originate from the production and export of oil and gas in Malaysia. The proportion can be 30-40 per cent of the total government revenue. Thus a rise in the world price of oil translates directly into higher income for the government. So essentially, we had a windfall income.

What would a prudent government do with this windfall? It would reduce the planned borrowing. But that's not our BN government's way of financial management. Uncannily, the increase in the actual spending is going to be the same amount of RM17.6 billion!

When asked about this at one of the post-budget forums, a Treasury official explained that it was mainly due to higher spending on salaries and increased subsidy for petrol and diesel. We can understand the increased subsidy but why the higher salary? Did we just increase the size of the bureaucracy? This is a clear case of a government that has no control on its spending.

Posted: 25 Dec 2011 11:00 AM PST

(Bernama) - Initial findings of a just completed study show that 70 percent of youth feel more connected to the government now as a result of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's moves to get closer to the group.

The youth, who were surveyed since 2010, welcome Najib's use of interactive social media allowing them direct contact to share their opinions, ideas and criticisms on issues, with him.

"The results of my study show 70 percent of youth support the government because they like being engaged through various programmes," said University Technology Mara (UiTM) Dungun political science lecturer Che Hamdan Mohamed Razali to Bernama recently.

Apart from the connection through social media, he said the respondents, who were between 18 and 40 years old, from students and professionals to fishermen and farmers, felt Najib's government was now also more open.

The respondents clearly acknowledged the Barisan Nasional government's initiative which involved more youths and their importance in outlining programmes such as affordable housing for young people who just joined the workforce, assistance for young entrepreneurs and higher education aid, he added.

'Youths like gov't attention'

He further agreed it was not true to say that youths liked to challenge the government and were 'anti-establishment', which the opposition tried to portray by getting them involved in street demonstrations and being disrespectful to leaders.

"It's typical for a handful of youth to rebel. My early findings show youth are not 'anti-establishment' as claimed by many parties. They just get upset when sidelined. When the government pays them attention, they'll give their support," he explained.

However, Che Hamdan was not willing to provide further details on the findings of the study, saying it was still ongoing and would only be announced when it is finalised.

His initial conclusion was that youths would not gamble their future for sweet promises but were prepared to join forces and work with the government which has proven it has better plans for them and has a proven track record.

Meanwhile, when contacted by Bernama, Malaysian Youth Council vice-president Datuk Irmohizam Ibrahim said," The government has done its best by making various efforts to get closer to the youth. So claims saying the youth are anti-government are not true, it's only a handful."

Youths more vocal

Irmohizam, who is also (UiTM) Shah Alam law lecturer said," In my observation many youths, who are still undecided, are grateful to the government for their education, skills and employment opportunities. Maybe they just want a system which satisfies them better."

"Voicing such a hope doesn't mean they're anti-government, they just want improvements," he added while noting there were an estimated 11.2 million youths in the country.

Apart from recognising youths in the 2012 Budget, the government is also prepared to amend Section 15 of the University and University College Act in relation to the involvement of undergraduates in politics.

The Prime Minister likened the youth as ideal heroes who had the power to turn the nation's transformation programme into a reality and admitting they were an established voice, on Dec 12 Najib said the government is always open to the views, ideas and criticisms from them so that each transformation programme would be successful with their involvement.

Furthermore, he admitted that there were efforts by certain parties which tried to exhort university youths to hate the government for their own political agenda and in their quest to wrest power.

"But youths nowadays who are exposed to a lot of information are not easily swayed and would not accept everything without checking the truth first.

"It's the same with opposition promises, we're aware it's all only a gimmick to gain votes without any concrete plans for the youth such as the BN government has implemented now," he emphasised.

Christmas Eve 2011 in Phuket

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 09:30 AM PST

HARIS IBRAHIM AT THE END OF A HARD NIGHT OF PARTYING

How the EC is in cahoots with BN

Posted: 23 Dec 2011 09:11 AM PST

Indelible ink notwithstanding, the 13th general election is going to be the biggest and dirtiest election battle in history.

By transferring out the Chinese to areas where BN finds impossible to win, they will regain seats lost to the opposition and those seats that BN cannot win we will notice that the opposition has won by a very margin, for instance Seputeh (won by DAP's Teresa Kok by a margin of 36,000), Kepong and Cheras (also won by DAP with large margins).

Selena Tay, Free Malaysia Today

In an effort to lend an air of credibility to itself, the Election Commission (EC) has announced that indelible ink will be used in the upcoming 13th general election.

But there is no reason to jump for joy just yet. A lot of hanky-panky can still go on undetected right until the day of polling itself. Listed below are several examples:

1. Name not in the voter rolls and therefore unable to vote – any perfectly eligible voter whose name is not in the voter rolls is totally helpless to do anything about it. They can lodge a complaint of course but by then the results of the polls are already secured.

2. Name transferred out to another locality or worse still to another state – this is also an inconvenient move for the eligible voter and will very well impede his ability to vote if his name is transferred, say from Kuala Lumpur to Perlis.

3. PKR's Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh has revealed that nearly 600,000 names in Selangor have been moved or shifted about without the voters knowledge and these are only the ones detected!

Although indelible ink is a tremendous help in preventing multiple-voting, we are still back to square one if the eligible voters are unable to cast their vote due to hanky-panky in the voter rolls.

Although prior to polling day we can check to see that our names are not tampered with, anything can still happen on the day of voting itself. With instant and advance technology our names can be in the voter rolls today but vanish tomorrow on polling way. There is no surefire guarantee that our names will be 100% kept safe in the voter rolls.

4. The only way the Pakatan Rakyat can win the 13th general election is with overwhelming support from the rural masses and from Sabahans and Sarawakians. This is because due to gerrymandering by EC, many small seats have been created in the rural areas.

This is called the 'Voters-per-seat Formula'. For instance, the parliament seat of Batu in Kuala Lumpur has over 100,000 voters. Compare this to the rural areas where many seats have less than 10,000 voters. This means that 100,000 can only give one seat to the opposition if the opposition wins in Batu whereas in the rural areas 100,000 voters can already contribute 10 seats.

This also shows that more weight or power is given to the rural seats as even with a few thousand voters, the rural folk have already one parliament seat compared to the city folk who need big numbers to get just one parliament seat. This unfair method of manipulation by EC has helped BN to win all along.

5. Besides playing around with the 'Voters-per-seat Formula', the EC can also move voters in a strategic manner. For example the Parliament seat of Shah Alam held by PAS' Khalid Samad. EC can move the Chinese voters to Klang which is held by DAP's Charles Santiago. In this way, BN regains Shah Alam. Forget about Klang, never mind.

Next, the EC can also move the Chinese voters from the PAS seat of Titiwangsa to Cheras which is held by DAP. In this way, BN regains Titiwangsa. Forget about Cheras as it is impossible for BN to win in Cheras anyway.

EC's dubious tactics

6. Another of EC's dubious tactics is the demarcation of boundaries beyond rhyme or reason. Again, several examples:-

Parliament seat of Batu in Kuala Lumpur. This is supposed to be a KL Federal Territory seat but it has been extended beyond Pasar Borong Selayang right up to Taman Selayang Jaya in Selayang, Selangor. In fact it overlaps with Selayang's Parliament seat in Selangor.

Parliament seat of Kepong in Kuala Lumpur. This is also a KL Federal Territory seat which has entered into Selayang, Selangor and overlaps with the Selayang Parliament seat as well.

The third example also involving a KL Federal Territory seat is the Parliament seat of Titiwangsa which has been extended right up to Taman Chempaka in Selangor.

All those seats are geographically weird in nature and this is done to include in Malay voters who are known to favour BN. However, in the 12th general election in 2008, many urban Malays voted for the opposition. Knowing this, Umno is now frightening the Malays that they will be wiped-out if Pakatan comes to power.

Posted: 20 Dec 2011 08:37 AM PST

I am updating this from the high seas, a guest of my friend who owns a boat in Phuket. We are now sailing out to Phi Phi Island and will be spending a week on the boat. This is how I have to suffer a life in exile.