Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The sins of our fathers
And the fight intensifies
The bogeyman and ‘under siege’ stratagem
When two forces collide
The problem with Umno
Are they lining up Anwar for a fall?
Why Najib has to watch his back
Does Najib really want feedback?
No need to state the obvious
Why the US prefers Najib to Pakatan

Posted: 18 Oct 2012 06:22 PM PDT

Hence liberalism changed Europe. But that only happened when the liberals outnumbered the conservatives. In Malaysia, we shall have to wait until such a time when the liberals outnumber the conservatives. But that time has not come yet. Today, most Malaysians are still conservative. So, until that time comes, we will need to educate the conservatives -- in particular but not confined to the Malays -- and try to turn them into liberals.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

A few days ago, when I spoke about conservatism versus liberalism, some readers did not quite understand what I meant. So let me explain it.

I was equating 'conservatism versus liberalism' to Europe of the mid-1800s, the era after the Napoleonic War when it went through a period of turmoil that culminated in the collapse of the Holy Roman and Hapsburg Empires and saw the creation of the Republics of Italy and Germany respectively.

Those who held on to 'traditional values' (for example, maintaining the monarchies) were said to be upholding conservatism while those who were pushing for reforms (for example, the abolishment of the monarchies) were said to be fighting for liberalism.

Basically, those who resist change are conservatives while those who embrace change are liberals.

Of course, depending on how you apply these words, the meaning can differ. Those wearing 'revealing' clothes can also said to be more liberal than those who do not. Those who indulge in 'swinger' activities can also said to be more liberal than those who do not. And so on.

By today's meaning, liberals are those who live a more 'open' lifestyle, which some, in particular the religionists, might even interpret as an immoral lifestyle. Hence, in short, the liberals will try something new or go for change while the conservatives want to maintain status quo.

And that would be what I mean by the fight between Malaysia's liberals and Malaysia's conservatives -- nothing to do with atheism, agnosticism, free sex, wife swapping, or a LGBT lifestyle.

Okay, now that we are clear on what I mean by liberalism versus conservatism, let us explore in what way this applies to Malaysia. And for purposes of this discussion I have titled today's piece 'The sins of our fathers'.

Undoubtedly, Malaysia's politics is race and religion driven and we tend to view these types of people as racists, chauvinists, parochial, religious fanatics, etc. Actually, this is not quite accurate. If it were, then every single Malaysian without exception would be a racist, chauvinist, and/or religious fanatic.

Those who uphold or give preference to their race, tribe, language, culture, religion, etc., are conservatives, while those who want to discard these 'old values' in favour of a 'new identity' are liberals. They want to abandon their 'old ways' or 'old world order' and migrate to a 'new world' and adopt a 'new world order'.

We think we are liberals. We claim to be liberals. But are we? How many would discard 'religious unions', also known as marriages, and choose a civil partnership, meaning 'living in sin' as husband and wife without going through the religious rituals of getting married?

In the first place, does Malaysia have any laws that will recognise (and protect) a man and woman who have lived together for, say, at least six months, as being a legally married couple even though they did not have a 'proper' marriage?

How many Malaysians would marry (whether officially/legally or unofficially by just living together for at least six months) someone not of his/her same race and religion? Even if they do, one partner would have to convert to the religion of the other partner. For example, seldom will you find one partner remaining a Hindu if married to a Muslim, etc., although there are some rare cases.

The fact that most Malaysians would marry someone of their own race/religion and will go through a 'proper' or legal (plus religious) marriage shows that most Malaysians are conservatives and not liberals. Yet they claim to be liberals.

Hence, when most Malaysians are conservative by nature (and, of course, by upbringing), it would be very difficult to propagate liberalism when it comes to politics. Hence, also, I would not classify Malaysians as racists, chauvinists, religious fanatics, etc. I would classify them as conservatives.

I trust that point is clear and I trust, also, that you will regard this as my interpretation of what Malaysians are.

Now, let us try to analyse all that in the context of the current political sentiments in Malaysia.

Malays, by nature and upbringing (and also by conditioning and 'brainwashing'), are conservative. They uphold feudalism (a major complaint by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who tried to eradicate this in the 1980s but failed) and they refer to the Rulers as Raja-raja Melayu.

Malays also hold dear their traditions and customs (adat istiadat Melayu). And their proverb is biar mati anak, jangan mati adat (let the child die but not let traditions and customs die).

Malays (at least most Malays) regard themselves as Muslims first (and Malays second and Malaysian third). Hence Islam is paramount and supersedes everything else -- even democracy, civil liberties, fundamental human rights, etc.

Malays, compared to the Chinese, Indians and 'others', are probably the most conservative group in Malaysia. You will find more liberalism amongst the non-Malays -- although this does not mean that many of the non-Malays are not conservative as well.

Hence, to understand Malaysian politics, in particular in relation to 'Malay values', this concept has to be clearly understood. If not, you will fail to capture the heart and mind of the Malays. And anyone who wants to 'play politics' without knowing what makes the Malays tick and without knowing how to capture the heart and mind of the Malay is doomed to fail.

You may feel that many of my articles over the last year or so are racist in nature. In 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, Malaysia Today focused on revealing the wrongdoings and transgressions of those who walk in the corridors of power. Then, since 2011, Malaysia Today appeared to have shifted its focus.

Well, the answer to that is simple. In the beginning (meaning 2004 when Malaysia Today was first launched soon after the 12th General Election), my focus was to address the problems of two elections ago (meaning March 2004). And the 'problem' in 2004 was that the non-Malays did not vote opposition.

By 2010, that problem no longer existed. We can safely say that the majority of the non-Malays (at least the Chinese) were already with the opposition. But the situation of the Malays, who since 1990 were divided roughly half-and-half between the ruling party and the opposition, remained more or less the same.

The task in hand, therefore, was to swing more Malays to the opposition. But the non-Malays just do not understand the Malay mind. And this was the major obstacle in getting more Malays to vote opposition.

In other words, the problem is not Umno. The problem is the non-Malays in Pakatan Rakyat. They are the hindrance to getting more Malays to support the opposition. And the more the non-Malays 'whack' the Malays, the worse it becomes. The non-Malays are actually helping Umno garner Malay support.

This is the ironical part of this whole thing. The 'solution' was actually the problem but they could not see this.

As I explained, Malays by nature and upbringing are conservative. Hence you need to interact with the Malays as you would interact with any conservative (even if they are Americans or Europeans). And conservatives are traditionalists, religionists, and resistance to change.

This was the great difficulty faced by the liberals in Europe in the mid-1800s. This is the same problem being faced by the Malaysian liberals today.

Let us take one issue as an example. And this issue is the pre-Merdeka 'Social Contract'. This, of course, is a bone of contention amongst the non-Malays and those from East Malaysia. And this is also why I titled this piece 'The sins of our fathers'.

The pre-Merdeka Social Contract was a 'sin' left by our fathers (or grandfathers). Back in the 1940s-1950s, they had agreed on what post-Merdeka Malaya was going to look like. And we, five generations later, have to live with this sin.

The conservatives would like to maintain status quo and leave things as they are. The liberals would like this pre-Merdeka Social Contract reviewed and possibly amended or abolished. But then there are more conservatives than liberals. Hence the conservatives are going to win while the liberals are going to lose.

And that is the trouble with democracy. In a democracy, the majority will have its say and the minority has to abide by what the majority wants. This may not necessarily mean that the majority are right while the minority are wrong. It just means that when more people want it that way then, right or wrong, things will be done that way.

Now can you see what's wrong with democracy?

So, when will the liberals outnumber the conservatives, like what eventually happened in Europe towards the end of the 1800s? Meaning, also, when will we then be able to see the pre-Merdeka Social Contract reviewed and possibly amended or abolished?

Well, in Europe, that happened when the Europeans 'threw away' religion. You see, the church and the monarchy (God's appointee) shared power and all the land was divided between the church and the nobles. The people were merely serfs who worked the land, which means they were basically slaves. When life became so bad and millions starved to death and lived in extreme poverty, they rose and grabbed power from the church and the nobles.

But make sure you understand that we are going to meet with a lot of resistance. The conservatives are not going to step aside and allow us a walk in the park. They are going to fight back fiercely. They are already fighting back fiercely in case you have not already noticed.

And this is why we are seeing all this race, religion, anti-LGBT, etc., rhetoric going on over the last couple of years or so. This is a sign that the conservatives fear the liberals and are fighting back just they did in Europe more than 150 years ago.

It took more than 30 years but eventually the conservatives lost and the liberals won in Europe. It may take as long for that to happen in Malaysia as well.

But do not attack the Malay or those non-Malay conservatives. Doing so will just make them resist us even more. They might even become violent if they think they are going to lose.

We need time and we need education. In time and with the right education the conservatives will come around to our line of thinking. And when that happens all that we aspire will come true.

Well, if it does happen and if it takes 30 years to happen, I will no longer be around. So it will be my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren who will benefit. Therefore I am not doing this for myself but for them. After all, I have maybe 10 or 15 years more to go at the most before I take my last bow.

In conclusion, let me repeat what I said. This is not about racism, chauvinism, religious fanaticism, etc. This is about conservatism versus liberalism. So, before you fight, understand what you are fighting against. If not you are never going to win this fight. And then, once we win the fight, we can correct the sins of our fathers.

And the fight intensifies

Posted: 16 Oct 2012 01:00 AM PDT

The Azmin Ali-Khalid Ibrahim fight in this game of thrones is being raised to the next level. Azmin's team is now on a whispering campaign regarding a piece of government land involving Khalid's 'blue-eyed' girl, Elizabeth Wong, which they say Khalid personally approved. And they say this is an abuse of power.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Battle for MB post eclipses polls

(The Star, 14 Oct 2012) - The rivalry between Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Azmin Ali for the Selangor Mentri Besar post has overshadowed the battle for control of the state.

The exchange of fire between loyalists of Azmin Ali and Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim last week was not the first but it was the fiercest to date.

The stakes have increased as the general election draws near and there is no denying that the two PKR leaders are doing what it takes to be in the cushy seat of Selangor Mentri Besar (MB). The Azmin-Khalid feud has reached a new level of intensity.

But politicians are such natural actors. When Khalid walked into the House shortly before the Dewan Rakyat session began on Monday, Azmin leapt to his feet with outstretched arms. There was no man-hug that would have been over-acting but they smiled like they were in a toothpaste advertisement as they shook hands, knowing that all eyes were on them.

Anyone looking at the pair last week would have been puzzled, even confused, as to whether they are rivals or buddies. The two adversaries are, quite ironically, seated next to each other Khalid as the Bandar Tun Razak MP and Azmin as Gombak MP.

Azmin immediately launched into an earnest explanation about his interview in a Malay daily that had sparked off the latest rounds of attacks, saying that the reaction generated was not fair to both of them.

Khalid was quite blas about it and told him: "No problem, there's no need to apologise. In fact, I just told reporters outside: Thank you to Azmin for saying that I am federal material.'"

The pair even left the House together a couple of hours later Khalid to attend a meeting and Azmin to visit one of his party workers in hospital. In the afternoon, they were together again, this time at a PKNS meeting in Shah Alam. Again, there were lots of smiles and jovial exchanges, with Azmin praising Khalid's handling of Selangor's financial affairs.

It was not exactly Oscar-winning stuff but it was a good show. Beneath the civil smiles and pleasantries lie a simmering rivalry that is centred around the post of Selangor MB. The two men are savvy enough to leave all that I-say-you and the you-say-me attacks to their machais.

They are well-matched to take on each other. Khalid is the MB, but Azmin pulls the strings in PKR as the deputy president, Selangor chief and party election director.

Azmin is not only a political animal but a smooth operator. Khalid, on the other hand, is not as naive as some imagine. Behind that absent-minded professor demeanour is a man determined to hold on to what he has.

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

Azmin had wanted Elizabeth kicked out long ago, ever since the naked photos controversy first emerged. Azmin's boys had insisted that Anwar get rid of her. But Khalid defended her, just like how he defended Faekah Husin, much to Azmin's chagrin. So Anwar backed off rather than upset Khalid.

But Azmin is not finished with Elizabeth, especially since she, together with Faekah, is guarding Khalid's back. Azmin is suggesting that there is something not too kosher about this land transaction, which he says Khalid 'illegally' approved. This is the story according to Azmin and gang.

Yaysan Selangor is the owner of an 18.51 acre piece of land in the middle of Kelang town near the Goldcoast Hotel and the new Kelang Mosque. In March 2011, Elizabeth Wong met up with Yayasan Selangor and instructed the Yayasan to hand over the land to her for purposes of a Chinese cultural centre.

The Yayasan told Elizabeth that they had already signed a joint-venture agreement with Persada Istemewa Sdn Bhd to develop the land into commercial and residential property. Elizabeth replied that she has already discussed the matter with Persada and they have agreed to work with her.

Yayasan Selangor was not happy to hand over the land and they asked why such a big piece of land in the middle of the town needs to be surrendered for a cultural centre when it would not need land that big in size. Furthermore, the cultural centre can always be built outside the town centre instead of in the middle of town.

This irritated Elizabeth and she warned them that if they refuse to hand over the land then she would use her powers as an EXCO member to ask the Menteri Besar, who is the Chairman of the Yayasan, to intervene.

A few days later, on 21 March 2011, Elizabeth sent the Menteri Besar a letter asking for his approval to surrender the land for a Chinese cultural centre.

Four days later, on 25 March 2011, Khalid wrote to the Yayasan Selangor. In that letter, the Menteri Besar said that the Board had already discussed the matter and that the Yayasan should hand over the land to Elizabeth. The letter said: 'Sdr. Ilham, sudah dibincang di lembaga, sila uruskan'.

On 11 April 2011, a company called Persada Istemewa Sdn Bhd sent the Menteri Besar a letter proposing to develop the land into commercial property and housing as per their joint-venture agreement. The letter was copied to Ronnie Liu.

In reference to the 11 April 2011 letter from Persada, the Menteri Besar sent Yayasan Selangor a letter dated 4 May 2011 asking the Yayasan for its comments on the proposal. Yayasan Selangor replied on 23 May 2011 with a four-page report.

On 14 June 2011, Yayasan Selangor sent the Menteri Besar a letter appealing against surrendering the land to Elizabeth for a Chinese cultural centre.

On 17 June 2011, the Kelang town council sent the Yayasan a letter telling them that the land has already been approved for a cultural centre.

On 12 July 2011, Yayasan Selangor replied to the 17 June 2011 letter from the Kelang town council and said that they do not agree to surrender the land for a cultural centre.

Azmin's boys say that Elizabeth Wong abused her authority with the backing of Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and they want to use this as the leverage to oust Khalid. The question they raise is: why should a government-owned land meant for development be handed to the Chinese when it should be reserved for Bumiputeras? And while Azmin exposes what he says is Khalid's and Khalid's people's wrongdoing, Umno is consolidating in their attempt to grab back Selangor from Pakatan Rakyat.

The bogeyman and ‘under siege’ stratagem

Posted: 15 Oct 2012 06:08 PM PDT

In Malaysia's situation, you can regard the liberals as the reformist group, or Pakatan Rakyat, while the conservatist group is Barisan Nasional. The 'war' between liberalism and conservatism in the mid-1800s in Europe saw the collapse of the monarchies and the emergence of republics. Hence do not underestimate the 'danger' of liberalism versus conservatism.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred over a 13-day period from 16-28 October 1962. That was 50 years ago. I was still in standard six then and many of you were probably not even born yet.

To commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Department for Continuing Education of the Oxford University is holding four lectures (details as below). I have signed up to attend these lectures this weekend so Malaysia Today may be slightly slow in the news updating during that period.

I am not going to give you my opinion regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, at least not until I have attended the lectures this weekend. What I want to do instead is to talk about the use of bogeymen and 'under siege' stratagem as a political tool.

When the government raises a crisis, this can unite the people. Hence if the impression can be created that Islam or the Muslims or the Malays are under attack (under siege), this can unite the Malays-Muslims against what they perceive as a common enemy. To do this, though, you need to create a bogeyman.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bogeyman for the Americans was the Communists and their satellite states such as Cuba.

We must remember that just a year earlier, in 1961, America got involved in the Vietnam War and by 1962 America's troops in Vietnam had tripled. This war was supposed to be to stop the march of Communism but it was not well supported and most Americans were opposed to this war.

Many Americans were openly opposed to the Vietnam War and it even spawned a peace movement, the Hippie culture (make love not war), Woodstock (with the many 'protest' songs), etc.

Later, the Vietnam War escalated into an Indo-Chinese War when America began to bomb and invade Cambodia. In 1970, 500 students from the Kent University, Ohio, protested the Cambodian invasion resulting in 4 students being shot dead and 9 wounded.

Anyway, in short, Americans did not support America's involvement in foreign conflicts. Martin Luther King, Jr., Muhammad Ali, Jane Fonda, and many more, all opposed the Vietnam War. And they were persecuted because of it.

Communism had to be portrayed as an evil and the enemy of the 'free world'. America was becoming very divided and famous people were being attracted to the cause of the anti-war movement. The government had to make the people realise that war was necessary to protect the free world from the evil of Communism. Hence Communism must be seen as 'the enemy'.

Today, of course, Communism is no longer feared. So they need a 'New Communism' and this new threat to the free world is Islam, the 'New Communism'. Islam is the new threat to the free world and the people must unite against radical Islam for the sake of democracy.

That is in the west. In Malaysia the same strategy is used. Islam is a threat, or rather 'radical' Islam, so MCA plays up this issue to the hilt. Thus you are seeing a lot of rhetoric from the Barisan Nasional coalition partners as to the threat to democracy if Pakatan Rakyat were to come to power and PAS gets to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State with the Shariah criminal laws of Hudud as the laws of the land.

MCA, of course, plays to the Chinese gallery. For the benefit of the Malay-Muslim audience, DAP is portrayed as an enemy of Islam with a hidden agenda of turning Malaysia into a Christian State.

So both the Chinese and Malays are under siege -- the Chinese under siege from an Islamic State and the Malays under siege from a Christian State. To the Chinese, the bogeyman is Islam, while to the Malays it is Christianity. And to put icing on the cake, revelations of Christians converting Muslims to Christianity is played up.

If the people can be made to believe that they face an evil and dangerous enemy they can be made to set aside their political differences and to unite against this common enemy. Chinese would no longer be MCA Chinese or DAP Chinese and Malays no longer Umno Malays or PAS Malays. It would be simply reduced to Malays versus Chinese.

And in such a situation Umno and Barisan Nasional would benefit the most.

The trouble is, Malaysians have big mouths. Since 2008, Malaysians have become more arrogant and they no longer care about what they say. They will say what they want to say and will even throw dares and challenges, which just increases the animosity between the races.

Hence the loose talk only goes to help make the rift even bigger. The siege mentality becomes worse and the focus becomes 'unite against the enemy'. And the enemy of the Malays is the Chinese (in particular the Christian Chinese) and to the Chinese it is the Malays (in particular the radical Muslims).

Common enemies are required to be able to unite the people. If there were no common enemy or, more accurately, a perceived common enemy, then the people would be divided along political lines. And in that type of situation you will see the liberals on one side and the conservatives on the other.

The government, therefore, cannot afford for Malaysia to be divided between liberalism and conservatism. Malaysia must be united so that the liberalism versus conservatism tide can be stemmed. And for this to happen Malaysians must be divided racially and religiously.

When each race and religious grouping sees itself under siege, they would discard political ideology and unite. And this is why a bogeyman needs to be created whether it is Communism, America, Israel, Russia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, radical Islam, radical Christianity, Zionism, or whatever.

And this is why Barisan Nasional and Umno are so successful. And they are successful only because Malaysians are so gullible and naïve. Malaysians can be made to feel that they are under siege and that a bogeyman is lurking in the dark waiting to get them.

Maybe this is because when we were kids our parents planted the hantu syndrome into our minds. Hence we are able to see hantu everywhere. Bodohnya rakyat Malaysia. Percaya sangat dengan hantu.

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

The Cuban Missile Crisis: 1962

Lecture 1: John Kennedy, American Foreign Policy and the Cuban Missile Crisis

PROFESSOR MARK WHITE

Department of History, Queen Mary, University of London

Lecture 2: Soviet Communism and the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s

DR GEORGE LAMBIE

Principal Lecturer, Department of Public Policy, De Montfort University

Lecture 3: The Cuban missile crisis: how close to Armageddon?

PROFESSOR LEN SCOTT

Professor in International History and Intelligence Studies, Aberystwyth University

Lecture 4: The Cuban missile crisis in cultural memory

RIKKY ROOKSBY

Tutor for OUDCE (Department for Continuing Education)

When two forces collide

Posted: 15 Oct 2012 01:00 AM PDT

But you should not underestimate Faekah either. This girl may be small in size but she is big in resolve -- sort of like cili padi. And she is fighting back. Her 'team' is talking about the large sums of money Azmin has been siphoning out in the name of the party as well as in the name of the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC) over the last 12 years since 2000. And they are talking about millions.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PKR won't be taking action against Faekah

(The Star, 12 Oct 2012) - PKR is not taking any action against the Selangor Mentri Besar's political aide Faekah Husin despite calls for her to be sacked following her criticisms against party deputy president Azmin Ali.

PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution said the matter involving Faekah was not even discussed at its political bureau meeting on Wednesday.

"We are not referring her to the disciplinary committee," he said, adding that the party certainly won't be taking any disciplinary action against Faekah for now.

Saifuddin was commenting on calls by some party leaders for Faekah to be sacked for criticising Azmin, who had implied that her boss Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim would not be retained as Selangor Mentri Besar.

Selangor PKR election director Borhan Aman Shah had said Faekah should be sacked immediately for publicly criticising state chief Azmin. The MB's deputy Zuraida Kamaruddin had also hit back at Faekah for saying that Azmin was not a smart politician.

Saifuddin said the political bureau had discussed the divisions' AGM reports during the meeting.

"We also discussed the latest status of our election preparations and other current issues," he added.

Many observers had viewed the Khalid-Faekah-Azmin feud with interest as the aide was known to have the support of PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail while Azmin had the backing of party leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

"As Faekah is working under Khalid, Khalid is seen indirectly as having Wan Azizah's backing," said a party insider.

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

Battle for MB post eclipses polls

(The Star, 14 Oct 2012) - Khalid's chief defender has been his loyal political secretary Faekah Husin. She did not mince her words about Azmin's interview; as a result she has been severely criticised by Azmin's camp.

The petite lawyer admitted with a laugh, "there are bullet holes all over my body."

Azmin's boys joke that Faekah is the "First Lady of Selangor". They go for her because she is an easier target to hit than Khalid and there are now renewed calls to sack her for criticising Azmin.

But sacked from what and for what? Faekah is only an ordinary party member, she does not have a party post and her remarks about Azmin were rather mundane.

Moreover, the only person who can sack her is Khalid and he trusts her implicitly; that is what makes her so powerful in Selangor.

Faekah is Khalid's spokeswoman, and during the launch of his book Fearless: From Kampung Boy to CEO, he singled her out for mention. Going by the video that was aired during the launch, it is quite clear that she is central to Khalid's politics and work.

Her power status goes up another notch if one considers that she was the former political secretary to PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and they are still very close. Azmin's boys know they will have to take Faekah down before they can get Khalid, hence the periodic calls for her removal.

In June this year, a group using the Twitter handle @PecatFaekah had agitated for Faekah's resignation. The group has not given up and has since extended their scope to @PecatFaekah/Arfah, the latter being Khalid's press secretary.

While Khalid relies on Faekah to check Azmin, Azmin uses Ampang MP Zuraidah Kamaruddin to poke at Khalid. They are Alpha females who do not mind taking the heat for their men.

Zuraidah, who is Azmin's No. 2 in Selangor, ticked off Khalid a few months ago when he declined to defend Azmin over some compromising photographs of a couple in a toilet. More recently, she lectured Faekah for "jumping the gun" and told her to improve her communication skills with party leaders.

Azmin's supporters maintain that the MB post should have gone to him instead of Khalid. Azmin was in the lead to be the MB when Selangor fell in 2008.

But in the early hours of March 9, Khalid's name overtook Azmin's and by the time the sun came up, Khalid was confirmed as the choice of MB. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had opted for Khalid because he was a big corporate name and also because he thought that Khalid would be easier to control than Azmin; he was wrong on the second count.

Azmin was deeply disappointed and one of those at Anwar's house that morning recalled witnessing how the de facto leader tried to placate Azmin for almost an hour.

"Azmin's face was white with anger if you had cut it with a knife, there would have been no blood," said an insider.

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

Azmin Ali is pissed big time. He wanted PKR to sack Faekah Husin. Anwar Ibrahim, however, refused to do so. It is not that Anwar has any love for Faekah. In fact, between Azmin and Faekah, Anwar would stand behind Azmin any time. It is just that sacking Faekah would create a worse rift in PKR. And the rift is already bad as it is.

Azmin's boys are now trying to undermine Faekah in other ways. They know they need to isolate Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim if they want to bring him down. So they need to first get rid of Faekah who is aligned to Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and Nurul Izzah Anwar. These three ladies -- Wan Azizah, Nurul Izzah and Faekah -- are helping to keep Khalid afloat, even if it is just to prevent Azmin from getting Khalid's job.

Azmin's boys are now insinuating that Faekah is guilty of sexual misconduct. But they are not suggesting that it is with Khalid. They are 'whispering' that Faekah is a lesbian and that her partner is a lady doctor. This is actually a very old story and not even a story for that matter. Everyone knows that these two single girls are sharing a house. But that does not make them lesbians, as what Azmin's boys are trying to suggest.

But you should not underestimate Faekah either. This girl may be small in size but she is big in resolve -- sort of like cili padi. And she is fighting back. Her 'team' is talking about the large sums of money Azmin has been siphoning out in the name of the party as well as in the name of the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC) over the last 12 years since 2000. And they are talking about millions.

In fact, this is not a new story as well and is a story that I had already written about in the past. But Faekah's 'gurkhas' are resurrecting this story in light of the recent Suaram and Malaysiakini exposes, which more or less involves the same people.

I remember telling you the story about one of Anwar's lawyers, Pawancheek Marican, asking me to close down the FAC back in 2004. Pawancheek had asked me how much money I had received to fund the FAC and I told him so far only RM3,000 -- RM1,000 from Wan Azizah and RM2,000 from Anwar's brother, Rosli.

This made Pawancheek very upset. He said that 'they' had been collecting millions so how come I only received RM3,000? He also told me he had met Anwar in prison to complain about this but Anwar did not say anything. Hence Pawancheek suggested that I close down the FAC so that they can no longer use it to raise money.

And who are 'they'? 'They' are Azmin Ali, Khalid Jaafar, Anuar Shaari, Dr Rahim Ghouse, Tian Chua, Elizabeth Wong, Saifuddin Nasution, Ezam Mohd Nor, Ruslan Kassim, etc.

On one occasion, one of the PAS leaders, an 'Old Boy' of MCKK, told me he met one of the FAC Directors in London together with a Malaysian tycoon-in-exile. I asked this PAS leader who this 'Director' was and he replied Khalid Jaafar.

I was surprised. Khalid Jaafar was not one of the FAC Directors so how come he was masquerading as one? On further investigation I found out that Khalid, as the 'Director' of the FAC, was in London to meet this Malaysian tycoon-in-exile to arrange 'financing' for the FAC. Millions changed hands but not a cent went to the FAC.

On another occasion, I received a phone call from the US asking me to confirm the four 'Directors' of the FAC. I asked the chap from the US what their names were. Azmin Ali, Anuar Shaari, and two others whose names I will keep as a surprise.

I vouched for these four people, as I did not want to place them in an embarrassing situation. I then immediately phoned Dr Rahim Ghouse in Perth and asked him about these four people. His response was, "Four? I thought only three." I then named the four and Dr Rahim said, "Oh, Anuar Shaari also went, is it?"

My phone call to Dr Rahim ended in a bitter quarrel. I cursed him and swore at him, the worse language I could use that included 'mother-fucker' and all. We did not speak for more than a year after that.

There were a number of other occasions when the FAC's name was used to raise quite a bit of money. Hence I was not surprised when in 2004 Pawancheek spoke to me about it. I just sighed and told him that I had known this for quite some time. But I swear, I told him, all I received was RM3,000 and not a cent more than that.

Just close down the FAC, Pawancheek told me. The bastards are using you to collect money. If they gave you some funding at least that is not so bad. Now, as it is, they are collecting millions while you are funding the FAC from your own pocket.

I did eventually close down the FAC, of course. But I did that on the day Anwar was released from jail on 2nd September 2004. And I closed down the FAC not because of the money they were collecting but because Anwar had been released from jail and I wanted to focus on Malaysia Today, which I had launched two weeks earlier.

And this is what they are going to use against Azmin. However, Khalid Jaafar, Anuar Shaari, Dr Rahim Ghouse, Tian Chua, Elizabeth Wong, Saifuddin Nasution, Ezam Mohd Nor, Ruslan Kassim, and a few others, are also going to get implicated. But then they are merely 'collateral damage' in this game of thrones.

Dr Wan Azizah and Nurul Izzah both know about this transgression. They have known for some time. They even suspect that Nurul Izzah's wedding was used to raise a lot of money. Of course, Anwar's family never saw this money. But will they tell the truth once this issue explodes or will they act dumb and pretend they know nothing about what Azmin and gang did and the millions they raised and pocketed in the name of the FAC?

I suppose, for the sake of the party, they might have to keep their mouths shut. But those who donated all this money are now talking. And they are revealing that they paid a lot of money, which they thought had gone to the party and to the FAC. Hence it is not that easy to keep the lid on this issue. And Azmin knows this so he is going to hit back even harder.

But then that is a story for tomorrow, so stay tuned.

The problem with Umno

Posted: 14 Oct 2012 04:55 PM PDT

The trouble with Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah is that he thinks he is serving the rakyat or voters. He forgot that it was his party that selected him to contest the election and it was his party that appointed him a deputy minister. Hence his loyalty is supposed to be to the party and not to the rakyat or voters.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(The Malaysian Insider, 14 Oct 2012) - Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah has denied that he has any problems in Umno, saying the issues he raises that appear to conflict with the party's line are purely coincidental as they were based on current affairs.

(FMT, 30 Aug 2012) - As the government copes with accusations of political persecution on whistleblowers, Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah today gave his endorsement to an opposition initiative to encourage informants to expose power abuse.

(Malaysiakini, 11 Aug 2012) - Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah will rally BN parliamentarians against the recent Evidence Act amendments, he told a forum on the law in Kuala Lumpur today.

(Din Merican, 5 Jul 2012) - He insists that UMNO is a lot more inclusive and tolerant of diverse voices than people give it credit for, and cites himself as testament of that. Yet, he admits that at times, he finds himself alone among his colleagues, in advocating the progressive views that he holds.

(The Nut Graph, 6 Feb 2012) - His openness in engaging students has drawn fire from certain groups. Last year, a pro-establishment student group demanded that Saifuddin resign after a student protester momentarily lowered a flag bearing the Umno president's image outside the party headquarters.

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

Those are but some of the 'negative' news reports regarding Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. If you were to Google his name you will find pages and pages of items about him, all mostly about him taking the opposite stance to his party or the government.

And because of that he may not be selected to contest the coming general election. The fact that he has not been sacked or suspended yet is already a surprise. In the past, any Barisan Nasional leader or Minister who takes the opposite stance would suffer the wrath of his party.

Is this because Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is a bit more liberal or is it because he is weak and does not have the guts to come down hard on dissidents like his predecessors would have done? Even during the 'weaker' Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's era there was little tolerance for those who broke ranks or did not toe the party line.

Anyway, Saifuddin may soon discover the folly of his ways. Umno does not tolerate those who speak the same language as the opposition, especially if you are amongst the top leadership and a cabinet member. You cannot just argue that it is purely coincidental that you happen to sing the same tune as the opposition. You are supposed to know what the opposition is saying and then say the opposite to what the opposition says.

Was it not Nazri Aziz who said that the duty of a government Member of Parliament is to oppose anything and everything that the opposition Member of Parliament says?

Technically, if an opposition Member of Parliament were to stand up in Parliament and hold up a white piece of paper and declare, "This paper is white," you are supposed to disagree with him or her and say, "No! That paper is black." You cannot later give an excuse that you agreed that the paper is white because it really is white. Your job is to oppose what the opposition says even if what that person said is the truth.

This, Nazri made very clear.

The trouble with Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah is that he thinks he is serving the rakyat or voters. He forgot that it was his party that selected him to contest the election and it was his party that appointed him a deputy minister. Hence his loyalty is supposed to be to the party and not to the rakyat or voters.

You cannot win the election on your party ticket and then demonstrate independence. That is the mark of a loose cannon. Loose cannons are those who break ranks, do not toe the party line, oppose the party stand, agree with the 'other side', and so on. You will be viewed as a traitor, a Trojan horse, a mole, a Benedict Arnold, a Brutus, etc. They will say you have been bought, have sold out, are planning to jump to the other side, and much more.

Barisan Nasional, in particular Umno, is very intolerant and very uncompromising with those who do not toe the party line. What you say may be true. Your cause may be noble. You may even be having the rakyat's interest in mind. But that is not going to save you from the wrath of your party. The overriding factor would be whether what you say and do is complementary or uncomplimentary to the party. That will be the deciding factor.

Saifuddin, of course, will not be the first person to fall because he felt he was defending his principles. Others before him have suffered this same fate and many more after him will also suffer the same in time to come. Politics is not about principles. Politics is about attaining power. And how can you attain power if you do not close ranks and all sing the same tune?

If you are more concerned about the rakyat and about serving the rakyat then you should not be in politics. Politics is the wrong arena for all this. You should form an NGO or become an NGI (non-governmental individual) and fight outside the political arena. Then you can express your independent views without worrying about rubbing anyone the wrong way.

I can't understand why people join Umno, or remain in Umno, and then say that they wish to represent the rakyat and speak up for the rakyat. Do they not know that the two are not compatible? It is like joining a gang of bank robbers with the excuse that you are trying to reduce crime. What a ridiculous excuse. How can the problem become the solution?

Saifuddin realises that you need to be the solution rather than the problem if you want to solve the problems facing Malaysia. Most people who talk about finding solutions into solving Malaysia's problem are actually contributing to the problem. It is like what the Umno leaders said last week: Malaysian politics is too race and religion driven.

That is absolutely true. I, for one, will agree with this. In fact, I have been saying this myself for a long time. But for the Umno leaders to say this when Umno is the one doing all this sounds very weird. They are the problem. And they have the gall to speak about the problem as if someone else is the one guilty of this.

Many readers who posted comments in Malaysia Today were quite spot on when they said that the problem facing Malaysia is a problem regarding the mentality of society at large. And they have also correctly pointed out that the cause to all this is our education system. Hence we need to reform Malaysia's education system and to do this we need a progressive and liberal education minister and deputy minister.

Hence, also, much of what Saifuddin says is very true. But then what Saifuddin says, although may be very true, is not in the interest of his party. So I doubt he would be allowed to continue to say the things he is saying. And that would mean his party might have to get rid of him and replace him with someone who is more compliant, obedient, and less of a loose cannon.

This would be good for Umno, no doubt, because then they would be able to control their people. But that will not be good for the country. We need to see a reformation of the education system. That is very, very crucial. And to see that we need a reform minded minister/deputy minister in charge. If we have someone who is more concerned about toeing the party line and serving his/her party's interest, then Malaysia is doomed.

Umno is the problem. Yet it is offering itself as the solution. How can it be the solution when it cannot even tolerate a minister who is mildly independent? Yes, I would classify Saifuddin as mildly independent. He is not even 10% of what I would like him to be. He is not saying even 10% of what I am saying.

Najib and Umno have to understand one thing. If we want to see changes then we must respect freedom of expression and freedom of association. Malaysia's current education system does not allow this. This has to change. And we need ministers and deputy ministers who dare call a spade a spade.

Saifuddin is almost there. He is not quite there yet. He is merely playing around the fringes and not even getting to the core yet. But even that Umno cannot tolerate. So how can we expect to see reforms?

Speak without fear or favour is an empty slogan. Umno says it, no doubt, just to impress us and to make us vote for them. But until they allow their own people to contradict the party, Umno has a long way to go to convince us that they are what the country needs.

My fear is that there will be too much pressure put on the party to drop Saifuddin. My other fear is that Saifuddin will be so vilified that he might just throw in the towel and leave Umno to join the opposition.

I do not want Saifuddin to resign and join the opposition. We need him in Umno. We need him in Umno and heading the education ministry so that he can push for reforms. We do not want yes-men in the government. That will only make things worse. We need people within Umno who are committed to reforms and who dare stand up to tell their party and their party leaders that what they are doing is wrong and what they should do to put things right.

I have always said this and I am going to say it again. It is no use preaching in the mosque, church or temple. Those people who go to the 'House of God' have already been 'saved'. You need to tour the back lanes, alleys and brothels to reach out to the drug addicts and prostitutes. They are the ones who need saving, not those who go to the mosque, church or temple.

In that same spirit, it is no use having all the reform minded people in the opposition and the scumbags and slime-balls in Umno. We need some 'saints' in Umno as well so that they can try to 'turn' the 'devils' in Umno. Only then will we see changes in Malaysia.

And that is how I view Saifuddin -- a saint walking amongst a bunch of devils trying to do 'God's work'.

My appeal to Najib is not only to retain Saifuddin but also to promote him to a full minister. And then give him a free hand to reform Malaysia's education system. Then maybe, still maybe, we will be able to see changes in 20-30 years to come. Yes, even then it is going to take 20-30 years.

God help Malaysia because we certainly do need plenty of help.

Are they lining up Anwar for a fall?

Posted: 07 Oct 2012 05:19 PM PDT

Some within PKR are not too happy that DAP is pursuing this matter because it can backfire on Anwar and can open up a can or worms that many younger voters may have forgotten or may not be aware of. While they may successfully implicate Dr Mahathir in this scandal, Anwar, too, is going to get implicated. But then Anwar and not Dr Mahathir wants to become Prime Minister so is it worth going for Dr Mahathir and in the same breath bring Anwar down?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tan Sri Nor Mohamad Yakcop Must Come Clean On The Bank Negara Foreign Exchange (Forex) Scandal And Fully Account For The Losses Of RM15.8 Billion From 1992-3 But Estimated To Reach RM30 Billion.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tan Sri Nor Mohamad Yakcop must come clean on the Bank Negara forex scandal and fully account for the losses of RM15.8 billion from 1992-3 but estimated to reach RM30 billion. According to the Bank Negara'S financial report, Bank Negara recorded losses of RM10.1 billion in 1992 and RM5.7 billion in 1993.

However when replying to my question in Parliament 2 weeks ago, Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Donald Lim only admitted to the RM5.7 billion in losses in 1993. This gives rise to question about the RM10.1 billion losses in 1992 or even a total loss of up to RM30 billion as former Bank Negara senior officer Dr Rosli Yakcop who had worked under Tan Sri Nor had estimated.

Tan Sri Nor was identified as the principal forex trader for Bank Negara with huge bets of hundreds of millions of US$ at single bets. So far he has refused to explain his role or why he gambled with the nation's treasury so recklessly in the largest financial scandal in Malaysian history.

At a time when the Malaysian government is condemning forex currency speculators like George Soros, why is the Malaysian government practicing double-standards by protecting Malaysian forex currency speculators like Tan Sri Nor Mohamad Yakcop. Worse the Malaysian government is sending the wrong message by not only failing to punish those responsible for such huge losses or demanding full accountability but even promoting forex currency speculators like Tan Sri Nor to a full Cabinet Minister.

With the coming general elections, Tan Sri Nor has to fully explain this financial scandal as public interest demands that voters be fully informed what type of person or government that they are voting for when we suffered the largest financial losses in Malaysian history. Failing to do so would show that the BN government is only giving lip service to public accountability and transparency.

LIM GUAN ENG

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

My sources within Pakatan Rakyat tell me that in the event Barisan Nasional gets kicked out in the coming general election and Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next government, it is not sure yet whether Anwar Ibrahim is going to become the Prime Minister in spite of all the rhetoric.

According to these people, DAP is very sore with Anwar regarding the CAT (cocky, arrogant, tok-kong) issue. It is not so much what Deputy Chief Minister Mansor Othman said but more what Anwar is NOT saying.

Anwar's 'elegant silence' is deafening -- as is his 'deafening silence' regarding what Azmin Ali said about Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and also the 'deafening silence' regarding the goings-on in Kedah and the attacks on Kedah Menteri Besar Azizan Abu Bakar.

Those attacking Guan Eng, Khalid and Azizan are Anwar die-hards. Hence, they ask, can't Anwar control his boys? Or has Anwar endorsed the attacks on Guan Eng, Khalid and Azizan?

According to the PKR people, in a meeting that Azizan had with his PAS boys, he said that he believes Anwar is guilty of all the sexual misconduct allegations -- even from back in the 'Sodomy 1' days. Mat Sabu himself, now an Anwar die-hard, used to say the same thing when Anwar was still with the 'other side' (and Mat Sabu does not deny saying it but only explains it as 'that was then, when Anwar was the enemy').

Those close to Guan Eng have told Anwar that the Penang Chief Minister believes that 'Anwar may not be quite innocent' of the sexual misconduct allegations. Other top leaders in PAS have said the same thing.

The DAP and PAS leaders are prepared to downplay this issue for the sake of Pakatan Rakyat solidarity. But whether they will support Anwar as the Prime Minister in the event that Pakatan Rakyat takes over is another thing altogether. That, they will have to 'wait and see' first.

DAP appears to be pressing the issue of the FOREX scandal of around 20 years or so ago. No doubt it appears like the target is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But is Dr Mahathir really going to get hurt by this? We must remember that apart from the fact that Dr Mahathir was the then Prime Minister it was Anwar who was the Finance Minister and the one who misled Parliament. There is nothing to directly link Dr Mahathir to this scandal other than the fact he was the Prime Minister at that time.

In fact, Lim Kit Siang, who was the then Opposition Leader in Parliament, held Anwar personally accountable for this scandal. It was Anwar and not Dr Mahathir who Kit Siang whacked. Hence, if this matter is resurrected, is it going to be Dr Mahathir or Anwar who is going to get hurt?

The PKR people are of the opinion that DAP is sending Anwar a message: which is, control your boys or else get embarrassed by the RM30 billion FOREX scandal. And maybe Lim Kit Siang's speech in Parliament of 11th April 1994 can demonstrate in what way Anwar can get hurt.

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

Speech by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang, in the Dewan Rakyat (Malaysian Parliament) on the Royal Address debate on Monday, April 11, 1994

Bank Negara's forex losses in the past two years could total as high as RM30 billion, making it the biggest financial scandal in Malaysia as well as a world-class financial scandal.

There was in fact a conspiracy of disinformation and misinformation to 'cover up' the real nature, cause and magnitude of Bank Negara forex losses in the past two years which I will show in the course of my speech could total as high as RM30 billion. It is not only the greatest financial scandal in Malaysia, but has reached the standing to be a world-class financial scandal!

In the special DAP motion on the Bank Negara forex losses in Parliament last April, the Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim strenuously denied that Bank Negara had "speculated" or "gambled" in foreign exchange.

Anwar said that as Finance Minister, he was "fully satisfied with the reasons" goven by Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein for the Bank Negara's forex losses.

However, truth cannot be concealed forever, as it would always find some way of declaring itself.

This time, it is the Economic Adviser to the Government, Tun Daim Zainuddin, who had got the 'cat out of the bag'. On Monday, April 4, 1994, Daim Zainuddin was reported in the press as saying that "Central bank s must not play with the risks or losses are high".

The Daim said that while those responsible for the huge forex losses of Bank Negara had accounted for their mistake by resigning, central banks should never go into such ventures.

Anwar must also bear responsibility for the colossal Bank Negara forex losses.

However, the person who must also bear responsibility for the colossal Bank Negara forex losses, apart from Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein, must be the Finance Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, himself.

As Anwar had assured Parliament last April that he was 'satisfied' with Tan Sri Jaffar's explanation for the 1992 Bank Negara forex losses, why had Tan Sri Jaffar done differently in 1993 with regard to the 1993 Bank Negara forex losses to require his resignation?

In Fact, if the Prime Minister is right that the Bank Negara's RM5.7 billion forex losses last year are from profits made in forex dealings made in preceding years, there is no need for Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein to resign at all.

Jaffar should be made a Tun instead of having to resign in ignominy if it could be shown that over the years, Bank Negara had cumulatively made more profits from forex speculation despite the colossal losses in the past two years.

If it could be shown that since it ventured into speculative forex trading under his Governorship, Bank Negara had cumulatively made more profits from such speculative forward forex trading despite the colossal losses in the past two years, Jaffar should be rewarded with a Tun instead of having to resign in ignominy!

This is why the DAP had called on the Government to present a White Paper to give full details of its annual profits or losses from forex dealings in the preceding years, so that Malaysians can know whether the cumulative profits from Bank Negara forward forex dealings are able to absorb the RM5.7 billion forex losses- let alone the RM30 billion which could be the total forex losses in the past two years!

There are two other reasons why Anwar Ibrahim must bear personal responsibility for Bank Negara's forex losses.

Anwar Ibrahim said last week that he had directed Bank Negara to stop forward foreign exchange trading when he discovered its forex losses 18 months ago. If Bank Negara had followed his instructions to stop forward forex trading in 1992, then how could Bank Negara suffer RM5.7 billion losses in 1993, on top of the RM10.1 billion to RM13.1 billion losses in 1992?

Furthermore, Anwar Ibrahim had misled Parliament last July when I questioned him whether Bank Negara had suffered more forex losses. Anwar said that this was not true as he had been monitoring the Bank Negara's forex dealings weekly.

On July 19, 1993, I asked Anwar Ibrahim a supplementary question during question time as to whether at that date, Bank Negara's provision of Rm2.7 billion contingent liability for forward forex trading in the 1992 Bank Negara accounts had not only been confirmed, but even more forex losses had been incurred.

This is Anwar's reply, from the Hansard of 19th July 1993(p. 28):

"Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim: Tua Yang di-Pertua, dukacita saya memaklumkan ini satu berita yang kurang baik bagi Yang Berhormat dari Tanjong. Kerugian yang dimaksudkan itu tidak berlaku dan tidak bertambah. Yang Berhormat mahu percaya atau tidak, tetapi saya ada maklumat yang sebenar tentang keadaan tersebut. Saya juga meneliti tiap-tiap minggu perkembangan kerana masalah yang dihadapi sebelum ini…. Saya ingin member jaminan kepada Yang Berhormat bagi Tanjong bahawa perkara ini kita teliti lebih dekat dan kita lebih waspada kerana pengalaman yang lalu."

In this one short answer, Anwar Ibrahim had misled Parliament and the nation on three matters:

* that by July 1993, the provision in the 1992 Bank Negara accounts for RM2.7 billion contingent liability for forward forex trading had not been confirmed;

* that Bank Negara had not suffered more forex losses; and

* that his weekly monitoring of Bank Negara's forex dealings would prevent further colossal losses arising from Bank Negara's forward forex trading.

If Anwar Ibrahim claims that he had directed Bank Negara to stop forward forex trading 18 months ago, and that "there are no new trading arrangements" last year as the central bank unwound its forward positions in the market last year (Business Times April 6, 1994), then Bank Negara should not have incurred RM5.7 billion when its contingent liability provision for such forward forex trading in end- 1992 was RM2.7 billion.

Anwar's claim that there were no new forward forex trading by Bank Negara in 1993 had been contradicted by Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein, who said in his press conference on March 31 as well in his foreword to the 1993 Bank Negara report:

"In the Bank's 1993 accounts, a net deficiency in foreign exchange transactions of RM5.7 billion is reported, an amount which will be written off against the Bank's future profits. This loss reflected errors in judgement involving commitments made with the best of intentions to protect the national interest prior to the publication of the Bank's 1992 accounts towards the end of March 1993. As these forward transactions were unwound, losses unfolded in the course of 1993. In this regard, global developments over the past year had not been easy for the Bank; indeed, they made it increasingly difficult for the Bank to unwind these positions without some losses. For the most part, time was not on the Bank's side. Nevertheless, this exercise is now complete- there is at this time, no more contingent liability on the Bank's forward foreign exchange transactions on this account. An unfortunate chapter in the Bank's history is now closed. "

This is an admission that until late March 1993, Bank Negara was still dabbling in new forward foreign exchange transactions, with the suggestion that after March, all these forward transactions were unwound.

But the provision of RM1.4 billion contingent liability for forward forex trading in the end-1993 account (Note 12) shows that new forex trading were still being entered into well after March 1993.

Clearly Datuk Seri Anwar and Tan Sri Jaffar are not telling the truth as to when Bank Negara ceased new forward forex trading.

Why Najib has to watch his back

Posted: 06 Oct 2012 06:02 PM PDT

Hence Najib's career all depends on how well he performs in the coming general election. Unless he can do better than what Abdullah Badawi did in March 2008 then he would have to go. Winning the general election is not good enough. He would have to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat does not win more than 80 Parliament seats and Selangor falls back to Barisan Nasional plus Barisan Nasional retains Perak.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

UMNO President and PM Abdullah announced on July 10 he will step down as Prime Minister in June 2010 and hand over power to his deputy Najib Tun Razak. He also will relinquish his positions as president of United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) and as chairman of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition to Najib. The PM added that he would not lead BN into the next general election, which has to be held by May 2013, as at that time the country would have Najib as its new Prime Minister. At a press conference after chairing the UMNO Supreme Council and a briefing to around 1,000 UMNO grassroots leaders, Abdullah added that he would defend his UMNO President's post, with Najib as his running mate, at the national party elections scheduled in December.

Abdullah stated at the press conference that during the two-year transition process, he would consolidate and restore the people's confidence in UMNO and BN. The PM also stated that he chose the time frame to ensure he will be able to implement to the programs outlined in the Ninth Malaysian Plan (2006-2010), particularly hardcore poverty eradication and the judicial reforms he had earlier announced. The Prime Minister noted that he would give Najib more tasks and duties to prepare him for the leadership take-over and to face the next general election.

Abdullah told reporters that UMNO grassroots leaders at the July 10 closed-door briefing had welcomed his transition proposal. One Johor UMNO delegate who spoke with us said those attending the briefing applauded the Prime Minister's announcement as they had no choice, in the meeting at least, particularly given Najib's acceptance of the deal. The UMNO delegate clarified that the UMNO Supreme Council had not precluded a contest for the top two slots (a decision the Supreme Council has taken in certain past elections). It remained to be seen whether branches and divisions would fully support the transition deal, or endorse other nominations.

Standing beside Abdullah at the press conference, Najib expressed his gratitude and reiterated his loyalty to Abdullah. The DPM described the transition as in accordance with UMNO's tradition, and hoped that UMNO grassroots would accept and support the plan. One UMNO divisional leader told us that Najib knew that many grassroots leaders were not happy with the deal, but Najib had explained he had never challenged the party president before and was not about to change that record.

PM Abdullah supporters in the UMNO Supreme Council echoed Najib's view that the transition announcement was in keeping with UMNO party tradition. Party Information Chief Muhammad Taib stated that the plan was the best way to strengthen UMNO, particularly as history has shown that a contest for top posts will only divide the party. Youth Chief and Najib's cousin Hishammuddin and Deputy Youth Chief and Abdullah's ambitious son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin both stated that the transition plan will help unite the party and enable BN to concentrate on fulfilling its election promises. UMNO Women's Chief Rafidah said, with support for the transition plan, party leaders could focus on tackling the challenges arising out of current global economic problems.

Not all UMNO leaders rushed to endorse Abdullah's hand-over plan. Veteran UMNO leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who has been campaigning for the party presidency, described the transition plan as a "wrong move" and "unconstitutional". Razaleigh claimed he was confident of getting sufficient nominations to contest the presidency, as he would now attract the support of those who previously backed Najib to oust Abdullah. Three-term UMNO Vice President and Minister of International Trade and Industry, Muhyiddin Yassin, who aspires to the deputy president slot, voiced disappoint with the transition plan describing it to reporters as "too long".

Previously, Muhyiddin publicly urged Abdullah to step down sooner rather than later. Muhyiddin stated categorically that the decision on the transition should be left to UMNO members during the branch and division meetings, hinting that the deal may not be acceptable to the UMNO grassroots. Stirring the pot, Former Prime Minister Mahathir, now a strong critic of Abdullah, took exception to the transition plan and predicted that in the end Abdullah would not allow Najib to become Prime Minister. Writing in his blog, Dr. Mahathir said Najib would be purposefully weakened by damaging allegations, so much so that Najib would no longer appear suitable for office.

Some party activists took exception to the autocratic nature of Abdullah's pronouncement. John Pang, an advisor to Tengku Razaleigh, described Abdullah's plan as arrogant and undemocratic. He told us that the "feudal culture in UMNO in directing the grassroots" is destroying the party. In support of Razaleigh's statement (and political ambitions), Pang claimed that Najib's supporters were "rabidly" unhappy with the transition deal.

Abdullah's announcement was clearly timed to influence the UMNO grassroots immediately prior to party branch meetings, scheduled for 17 through August 24, which start the nomination process for the top UMNO posts. Following the party's unprecedented set-back in the March general elections, Abdullah has come under pressure to resign in favour of Najib or not seek party re-election in December. By confirming a hand-over date and Najib as his successor, Abdullah hopes to cement his re-election bid and head off any grassroots mobilisation in favour of challengers, including Najib, Muhyiddin, and Razaleigh.

Currently, Najib is in no position to reject Abdullah's proposal, given Najib's vulnerability to unconfirmed but widely believed allegations of his connection to the Altantuya murder case. The UMNO grassroots will have the opportunity in the next few weeks to signal whether they acquiesce to Abdullah's plan. The reaction of senior UMNO figures who lose in this deal, like Tengku Razaleigh and UMNO vice president Muhyiddin, also will be important to gauge.

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

That (above) was the confidential report that the United States Embassy in Kuala Lumpur sent to Washington on 11th July 2008. This report was regarding Umno's closed-door meeting to resolve the succession issue.

Basically, the then Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was not prepared to resign immediately. He wanted a 'transition period' where he would 'eventually' had over power to his Deputy, Najib Tun Razak.

The Umno grass-roots leaders plus the top leadership did not agree to this. And amongst those 'top leadership' of Umno who also did not agree to this was ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who did not see the need for the delay. He wanted Abdullah Badawi out straight away.

Dr Mahathir wanted Najib to challenge Abdullah Badawi for the Umno Presidency, and hence that would mean for the Prime Ministership of Malaysia as well. Najib, however, refused to do that and even publicly stated that he supports Abdullah Badawi and is loyal to him.

This upset Dr Mahathir. But then Najib has never had to challenge anyone in the past. Even his post of Umno Youth Leader was handed to him on a silver platter -- by no other than Anwar Ibrahim. So Najib is not the fighter that Dr Mahathir had hoped he would be.

Dr Mahathir made it very clear that if Najib did not want to challenge Abdullah Badawi for the leadership, then he (Dr Mahathir) will back another 'horse'. And this 'dark horse', so to speak, would be Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. And to push the point home, Dr Mahathir started 'flirting' with Tengku Razaleigh.

This spooked Najib who saw his chances of taking over fading. But there was one issue that was the stumbling block for Tengku Razaleigh. And that stumbling block was: Tengku Razaleigh refused to be Dr Mahathir's proxy with the latter being the de facto Prime Minister who will 'guide' the former.

Tengku Razaleigh was adamant that if he became Prime Minister then he would be 'independent' and will not be under the control of Dr Mahathir. That, in fact, was supposed to have been the arrangement between Dr Mahathir and Abdullah Badawi. However, as soon as he became Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi all but ignored Dr Mahahir's wishes.

And that was Abdullah Badawi's downfall -- his refusal to honour the deal he had made with Dr Mahathir.

Abdullah Badawi was smart, though. He agreed to all the 'terms and conditions' and then after taking office he did a U-turn. Tengku Razaleigh was not so smart. He rejected the terms and conditions so Dr Mahathir had no choice but to dump Tengku Razaleigh and revert to Najib -- who agreed to comply with whatever terms and conditions to become Prime Minister.

Technically, Najib is Prime Minister at the pleasure of Dr Mahathir. If it is displeases Dr Mahathir then he can no longer become Prime Minister. And it would certainly displease Dr Mahathir if Najib cannot do better than Abdullah Badawi did in the March 2008 general election.

Furthermore, even if Pakatan Rakyat gets to retain Penang, Kedah and Kelantan, it has to be with a reduced majority.

So this is not just about whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat gets to win the coming general election. Barisan Nasional is not concerned about losing the general election because they are confident of winning it. It is about how impressive a win. And whether Najib remains the Prime Minister would all depend on his election performance.

But not everyone is happy with Najib. Many within Umno would like to see him fall. The question is: would they play certain 'tricks' to make sure that Barisan Nasional wins with a lesser majority than in March 2008?

Umno is worried that it may see elements of internal sabotage in the coming general election. After all, this is what they did in 2008 to force Abdullah Badawi out of office. So they have done this before. And Umno is worried that they may do it again so that Najib can be forced out off office just like Abdullah Badawi was.

Sometimes, in politics, we need to make alliances with the other side. And many alliances across the political divide are going to be made in this coming general election. Enemies are going to become temporary friends based on a common goal. All through history this has been the case where enemies ally themselves to defeat another but common enemy.

Of course, once this common enemy has been defeated that does not mean the alliance will continue. But that is a matter to be resolved once you need to cross that bridge. For the meantime, the battle lines are not too clear. Expect enemies to ally and friends to sabotage each other.

No doubt, if Umno thought it was going to lose the election then they would close ranks to deny Pakatan Rakyat the government. But if they thought they were going to win and there was no threat of a Pakatan Rakyat take over, then Umno with turn on itself and the warlords in Umno will try to kill each other off.

Hence it does not serve Pakatan Rakyat's interest to demonstrate too much confidence. That would just strengthen Umno's unity. Only if Umno thought that Pakatan Rakyat posed no danger to it would we see a house divided and a house divided is a house that will fall.

This, however, appears to be something that I can't get across to Pakatan Rakyat. The response I get from the Pakatan Rakyat supporters over the last two years is the opposite of what they should be saying. And that, I suppose, can only work in Umno's favour.

Does Najib really want feedback?

Posted: 05 Oct 2012 06:32 PM PDT

Now can you see why Najib is desperate? And now can you see why Najib needs to do better than what Abdullah Badawi did in March 2008? And now can you see why that makes Najib a very dangerous person? A person fighting for his life is more desperate and dangerous than a person fighting for his dinner.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PM admits mistakes over Anwar

BARRY PORTER in Singapore

Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohamad has admitted making some fundamental mistakes in his heavy-handed treatment of his sacked former deputy Anwar Ibrahim.

During a secret meeting with some of his closest political allies, Dr Mahathir confessed his hard-line strategy had partly backfired and said he and his colleagues should adopt a more diplomatic approach, acknowledging Anwar's good deeds while portraying him as a man of many weaknesses.

A leaked document from the meeting Dr Mahathir had secretly with a circle of trusted supporters from his United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) in November has just been obtained by the Singapore Business Times. Citing party intelligence, Dr Mahathir pointed to almost daily defections of UMNO members to the Anwar camp as well as to the opposition for a need to change tack.

"UMNO members are angry with the party leadership whom they view as having mistreated Anwar," he said, directing his colleagues to try to find means to pacify UMNO members within the party.

"Do anything so that they can let off their steam on UMNO - in UMNO."

Anwar, who is being tried for sexual misconduct and corruption, appears to have won considerable popular support for his accusation that he was victim to a political conspiracy.

UMNO has 17 months in which to win sufficient public support to stage a general election. Dr Mahathir said the party had erred in being too graphic in its accusations about Anwar's sexual deeds.

"People found it difficult to believe," the Prime Minister said.

"It seems from the reports I received, this strategy doesn't really work, maybe because when we hentam [attack], the more sympathetic people will be towards Anwar."

Dr Mahathir expressed shock that pro-UMNO newspapers, particularly the Malay-language Utusan Malaysia, had lost up to 40 per cent of their readership while 10 million Internet surfers had logged on to pro-Anwar Web sites.

He urged pro-government newspapers to give more space to "pro-Anwar" stories to draw readers back to the establishment. This may explain the recent more balanced coverage of the Anwar trial.

In another shift in stance, Dr Mahathir said greater concern should be given to international public opinion if Malaysia was to continue to attract investments.

He cited criticism by futurist management guru Alvin Toffler, who threatened to quit as an adviser on Malaysia's Multi-media Supercorridor project in protest at Anwar's treatment.

Dr Mahathir said: "If an adviser says 'don't invest in Malaysia', what's going to happen?"

Dr Mahathir told Japan's Mainichi Shimbun yesterday that Anwar could become active in politics again if he was found not guilty. (SCMP, 14 Jan 1999)

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

Najib wants a strong mandate

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak hopes that he will be given a strong mandate in the upcoming 13th general election to continue to deliver to the people and make Malaysia a fully developed nation by 2020.

Najib, speaking in an interview with "CNBC Conversation" hosted by renowned anchor Martin Soong that was aired on Astro CNBC (Channel 518) today, said the next five years were very crucial for the government to fulfil commitments and promises made by previous leaders to the nation.

"I'd like to have a strong mandate, Martin, because to achieve our vision of a fully developed nation by 2020, the next five years would be very crucial. Crucial, because you're talking about the last lap."

"You're talking about going down the stretch and this is the most critical part because we really have to deliver, " he said.

Najib was responding to a question as to how important the upcoming election was for him and also the importance of receiving a fresh mandate, especially in transforming Malaysia into a developed country by 2020.

He said the transformation was a firm commitment made by the then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the early 1990s with his (Najib's) predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi implementing part of it, and now it was his turn to deliver to the people.

To a question, Najib, who is also Finance Minister, agreed that achieving sustainable and inclusive economic growth without upsetting the political landscape too much was one the challenges Malaysia faced in becoming a developed nation.

However, he stressed that the key to make Malaysian society more equitable was to get growth to redistribute income back to the people.

"Without growth, it will be a lose-lose situation. So if we get 5% to 6% within the time frame, then we will able to at the same time, ensure a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth in this country."

In the 30-minute interview, Najib said the move (to get growth) was working and that the numbers were looking more positive in terms of Bumiputera participation.

"…but it's not just about the equity numbers. We must also make sure that there is a fair distribution of income between the different levels of income groups in this country," he said. (Bernama, 6 Oct 2012)

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

Last night, TV3 reported that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak welcomes feedback and criticism. Well, I do not know whether this is just a political statement or something that Najib really means.

According to Free Malaysia Today, Najib is getting very desperate (read here: Sign of desperation for Najib). I have been aware of that for some time. The question is, though, what is Najib doing about it?

Read the two pieces above. One piece is called PM admits mistakes over Anwar from SCMP dated 14th January 1999, and another called Najib wants a strong mandate of today's date.

Actually, Najib's main concern is not Pakatan Rakyat. In the 2008 general election, Pakatan Rakyat won 82 Parliament seats and five states. And that saw Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi getting ousted from office. If Najib does as bad, or worse, then for sure he too is going to be ousted from office (even if Barisan Nasional wins the election).

So, while most of us think that Najib's 'enemy' is Anwar Ibrahim and/or Pakatan Rakyat, that is not who Najib considers his real enemy. Najib's enemy is Umno and ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Najib needs to do better than what Abdullah Badawi did in March 2008. And that means he cannot afford to lose five states and 82 Parliament seats (or more than that). He has to make sure that Pakatan Rakyat gets less than 80 seats in Parliament and less than five states. Then Najib can claim a 'victory' and would still remain Prime Minister right until the 14th General Election expected to be held around 2018 or so.

As I said in a previous article, he who runs for his dinner is not as desperate as he who runs for his life. He who runs for his dinner merely misses a meal if he fails. He who runs for his life will die if he fails.

Anwar Ibrahim is the Opposition Leader and Pakatan Rakyat is the Opposition party. If they fail to win enough seats to form the federal government nothing changes. Anwar will still remain Opposition Leader and Pakatan Rakyat will still remain the Opposition party. But the same can't be said for Najib.

If Najib fails, he gets kicked out. And if he succeeds but with not enough seats to better the 2008 election performance, he will still get kicked out. Hence winning is not good enough. It has to be a win better than in 2008. Winning as bad or worse than in 2008 means Najib is dead either way.

And the man who will decide whether Najib remains the Prime Minister is Dr Mahathir. And Dr Mahathir will not accept just a win. Just a win is not good enough. It has to be a win better than March 2008.

Anwar has nothing to lose and everything to gain if he fails. Life will remain the same for Anwar even if he fails. Najib, however, cannot claim to be in that same situation. Do you think Pakatan Rakyat will leave Najib, Dr Mahathir, Umno, etc., alone if Barisan Nasional gets kicked out? So this is not just about winning or losing an election. It extends beyond just an election.

And this is what GE13 is all about. So now can you understand what is going on and why it is a no holds barred situation? Come hell or high water, Barisan Nasional must not only win but must perform better than it did in March 2008.

No need to state the obvious

Posted: 28 Sep 2012 05:16 PM PDT

The opposition is screaming that yesterday's budget was merely an election budget. And the government, in turn, denies this. Of course it is an election budget. Everyone can see it is an election budget. So why is the opposition stating the obvious? You do not have to tell us that. We can see that for ourselves, so give us some credit. And why does the government need to deny it as well? In fact, the government might as well just shut up and not say anything rather than insult us.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Did you follow Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's budget speech on TV last night? I did, but I bet most of you did not because you are boycotting the government-owned and government-controlled TV stations. I think that is a mistake because we need to know what others or the other side is saying so that we know how to counter what they spin.

If all I wanted was to know what the budget is about I need not have followed it on TV. I could have picked up those facts from the Internet. In fact, there are so many Blogs and websites that are talking about it. What I wanted to see was what the Prime Minister was going to say and how he was going to say it. Hence, it is not so much the 'strength' of the budget that concerns me but the manner in how it is being presented to the nation.

We have to remember that most people in the rural areas watch TV. They sit in the coffee shops in the kampongs to sip their tea and watch the news and entertainment programs on TV. And in between this, various people in the coffee shops would interject with their comments and views for all and sundry and for no one in particular.

It would be an understatement to say that the kampong folks would be swayed by what is on TV plus by the comments uttered by fellow patrons in the coffee shop. Hence it would make sense to send 'operatives' to spread out all over the country and 'infiltrate' these coffee shops so that comments can be made and views uttered alongside what is on TV.

This is also a good way to study public reaction. Their body language, the nods of their heads, the added comments they make to support or rebut comments made by other 'patrons', etc., would be a good measurement as to whether the message is getting through. Then the following night's news can be amended, improved or repeated depending on the feedback from the operatives on the ground.

This is what Umno does and is a most effective propaganda exercise, which the opposition is not doing due to lack of resources such as manpower and funding. And that is how Umno keeps its fingers on the pulse of the nation, in particular the most important segment of the population as far as Umno is concerned -- the rural voters, in particular the Bumiputeras of both Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia (who are not necessarily Malays).

Hence, if you had followed the TV news last night, you would have realised that Najib's budget speech had been tailored for a certain audience in mind. That audience is not you who read Malaysia Today. It is not you ABU-screamers who just want Umno kicked out at all costs, never mind what you get as a replacement. It is not you the middleclass and thinking population. The audience is those who can be easily swayed by a good 'show' on TV and who make up the voters for 80% of the seats in Parliament.

It is insulting for the opposition to tell us that it is an election budget and also insulting for the government to deny it. It is an election budget and nothing short of that. So no need to mention that or deny it. We feel insulted when both sides speak as if we are too stupid to see what this budget is all about, an election budget.

The more important point is whether the voters buy what was presented. Are the voters impressed and happy with what the government is giving them as an inducement for them to vote for the government? Has Najib's budget done the trick? Clearly the government is throwing money the people's way. But will this result in the people voting for the government or will the people just take all that money and still vote opposition?

The opposition is arguing that Malaysia could be better run and that if Umno had not mismanaged the country then we could have been like Singapore. Singapore is so successful. Look at Singapore Airlines (SIA) compared to Malaysian Airlines (MAS) they will quote as an example.

We have to be careful with these 'comparative studies'. Those voters in the kampongs do not understand such comparative studies. And those who can think know that it is not comparing apples to apples.

For example, the fare for flights from Malaysia to the UK or from the UK to Malaysia is almost the same. It is about 600 pounds or roughly RM3,000 for most airlines. Domestic flights in the UK, however, is about RM800-1,000 while domestic flights in Malaysia is about RM250-300.

Now, SIA does not have any domestic flights so every flight is an international flight. MAS, however, has to cater for domestic flights. But while the fares for international flights from both ends is about the same, the fares for domestic flights in the UK is four times that of domestic flights in Malaysia.

Now, if MAS was allowed to follow the 'proper' cost of fares for domestic flights (meaning a flight from KL to Terengganu cost RM800 instead of RM260 and to Kota Kinabalu costs RM1,000 instead of RM300-350) then MAS would be able to show as much profit as SIA.

Though I do not deny that part of MAS's problem is mismanagement, we cannot just argue that this is the sole problem facing MAS. We are arguing that if MAS were better run just like SIA, then MAS would be as profitable as SIA. That would be true only if MAS was allowed to charge 'normal' fares and the domestic fares are not 'subsidised' by the international fares.

And this is where the opposition is not being entirely honest with the voters. They argue that Malaysia is badly run and if it were better run then all our problems would go away and Malaysia would be as great as Singapore. Some of our problems would certainly go away, of course. There would be some improvement. But don't expect Malaysia to be as great as Singapore just because we have a superb government. There are some things that Singapore does not face and which Malaysia does, and which are not that easy to address.

Singapore is a city. It does not have a rural population or land settlers, famers and fishermen. Imagine that Malaysia was just Kuala Lumpur and there is no population outside Kuala Lumpur. That would mean every Malaysian lives in the city and there are no kampongs and no Malaysian living in the kampongs.

We can then compare Kuala Lumpur to Singapore. Kuala Lumpur can be fully developed. All the money earned would be earned in Kuala Lumpur and all the money spent is spent just in Kuala Lumpur.

But that is not the case with Malaysia. Malaysia is not just Kuala Lumpur. Singapore's population is 5.2 million with about 3.2 citizens and 2 million foreigners who work in Singapore. Kuala Lumpur's population is only about 1.5 million while 7.2 million live in the Kelang Valley, a large percentage of that in the rural areas.

Hence while 100% of Singaporeans live in the capital city, there are only 5% of Malaysians living in Malaysia's capital city, Kuala Lumpur. So how can the Malaysian government just develop Kuala Lumpur the way that the Singapore government develops just Singapore?

We should not give Malaysians false hope. Yes, we can tell them that a better government is required. Yes, we can tell them that a better government translates to a better deal for the voters. But we must not tell them that a better government can turn Malaysia into a Singapore or that MAS would be as profitable as SIA. That would be lying to the voters.

Malaysians must be made aware that the country is not just one large city. And the country must be made aware that 80% of the population live outside the main cities (with only 5% in the capital city). And in such a system, the haves would end up paying for the haves-not. And in such a system where we rob Peter to pay Paul, some people end up receiving more than they pay and some people end up receiving less than they pay.

If we want Kuala Lumpur so be just like Singapore then we would need to pour all the money into Kuala Lumpur and neglect those people who live outside Kuala Lumpur. Since all the tax (or at least 90% of the personal income tax, according to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) is paid by the Chinese and hence would mean the city dwellers, then 90% of the this money should be used to develop Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, George Town, Johor Bharu, etc.

And that is what Najib's election budget is all about. Najib is the new Malaysian Robin Hood. Najib is taking money from the rich to give to the poor -- at least this is the impression he is giving the rural voters who vote in 80% of the seats. So, ultimately, are the rural voters who are voting in 80% of the seats happy with yesterday's budget?

You and I may not be happy. Yes, those of use who vote in 20% of the seats may not be happy. But then we are already not happy anyway. So would a great budget have changed our view of the government?

I doubt it. Never mind whatever Najib could have said yesterday, it would not have changed our view of the government. So why waste time in trying to make us happy? Najib had better just make the voters in 80% of the seats happy. And did he succeed? Well, we will know in about six months time. And, over the next six months, more goodies are going to be thrown their way.

Yes, he is using our money to make them happy. And as we get even unhappier about it, Najib is hoping that some of those 80% voters are going to be so happy that they swing to Barisan Nasional. And all Najib needs is another 5-10% of these voters to do the trick. If 5-10% of the voters swing to Barisan Nasional then he is going to remain the Prime Minister for another term at least.

That is the bottom line. And that was what the TV news last night was all about. And most of you did not watch the news on TV last night. The rural voters who will be voting in 80% of the seats did, though. And that is what matters. What you think does not matter. Anyhow, you are already anti-government anyway. So what does it matter what you think?

Why the US prefers Najib to Pakatan

Posted: 27 Sep 2012 04:20 PM PDT

Is the United States really supportive of democracy and fundamental rights or does America's interests come first? In this 12th May 2008 secret communiqué between the United States Embassy in Kuala Lumpur and the Commander of the Seventh Fleet, it is clear why the United States prefers Najib Tun Razak rather than Pakatan Rakyat to lead Malaysia. And let this communiqué speak for itself.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia is hardly an ideal democracy, but it can still serve as a reference point for evolving Islamic societies elsewhere. The Malay people, traditionally known for their social tolerance, have become more religiously conservative in recent years, but Prime Minister Abdullah has enshrined the Malay political elite's continued preference for moderation in his "Islam Hadhari" or "Civilizational Islam" policy. Abdullah's key message is that Islam can become a leading world civilization again only if it embraces economic development, education, innovation and tolerance.

Observers are wary of a longer-term trend toward greater divisions between the Muslim Malay majority and other ethnic groups, and religious minorities increasingly complain of growing Islamization, as highlighted by the controversy surrounding Deputy Prime Minister Najib's comments last year that Malaysia is an "Islamic state." Nevertheless, Malaysia has kept inter-ethnic tensions well under control by regional and world standards for almost 40 years.

Malaysia is important to us because it is an economically successful, stable, predominantly Muslim country that, over the longer term, may be able to support us more strongly in places like the Middle East. It is strategically located on the Straits of Malacca, through which one quarter of the world's trade flows, and it borders five of the other nine ASEAN countries.

Military-to-military cooperation is improving, with 9 US Navy ship visits to Malaysian ports thus far in 2008, 22 visits in 2007, and 23 in 2006. This is up from only five ship visits in 2003. Recently initiated engagement with the Royal Malaysian Navy's developing submarine force has successfully forged a relationship in this critical warfare capability. Our security relationship also finds expression in regular high level visits and counterpart visits.

Behind the scenes, Malaysia has been a good partner in the war on terror. The overall tone in Malaysian-American relations has improved considerably since Abdullah Badawi became Prime Minister in late-2003, and we seek to translate this into substantive improvements. Bilateral relations eroded under Abdullah's vituperative predecessor Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, but Abdullah brought with him a friendlier style and an interest in projecting a more moderate image, both for himself and for his country.

While the surprise results of the March 2008 election have remade Malaysia's political landscape and severely shaken the ruling coalition, our bi-lateral relations have remained on an even keel. Malaysia is our sixteenth largest trading partner, and many major American companies have invested here. We have increased senior-level exchanges since Abdullah came aboard, for example conducting our first ever Senior Dialogue with the Foreign Ministry at the Assistant Secretary level in May 2005. Malaysia has acceded to the IAEA Additional Protocol, and participates as an observer in PSI exercises. Malaysia has played a positive role in helping to stabilize Aceh, Mindanao, and East Timor.

Malaysia's traditional approach to global issues, which Abdullah has continued albeit at a lower decibel level, remains an impediment to closer bilateral cooperation. Malaysia actively participates in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), often adopting distinctly third-world positions on issues of importance to us.

Our public affairs environment is also challenging. The Malaysian public is strongly opposed to our policies in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. A strong "post-colonial overhang" also colours Malaysian attitudes toward the U.S. role in Southeast Asia. With Abdullah we have nevertheless been able to pursue a set of broad common interests, and pragmatism generally rules in bilateral security relations.

The bilateral military interaction remains strong; and we, along with Embassies in Jakarta and Manila, are implementing the Regional Security Initiative (RSI) concept through a maritime policymakers' conference in Sabah. The objective is to encourage the three nations to share information, data and intelligence on a national interagency level and tri-laterally to create a common operational picture to enhance their effectiveness in maritime enforcement.

These visits, and the relationships developed, have fostered strong military-military cooperation between the United States and Malaysia, and have not been adversely impacted by recent leadership changes. Ship visits have significantly increased and received greater visibility. Security-related training sponsored by the United States for military and law enforcement participants, including Malaysia's new coast guard, Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency, has also been on the rise.

The Malaysian-initiated coordinated surface patrols and "Eyes in the Sky" program, a regional aerial monitoring of the Straits of Malacca, have been more effective in creating a perception of security than actual operational capability. Malaysia concluded a new 505 agreement in 2006 that will allow us to utilize 1206 funds to put CT equipment into the vulnerable Sulu and Sulawesi Seas border areas of Sabah where terrorists are known to transit. Congress has approved funds for building and installing coastal radars in eastern Sabah and the first sites have been identified and contracted.

A joint forces command and control center funded under 1206 is planned for this year to functionally link the various radar sites. Malaysia has not signed either a PSI or Article 98 agreement. In general, Malaysia remains open to bilateral cooperation that strengthens its own defense capacity, but the GOM will quickly raise the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity when discussing international security regimes and coordination, such as for the Straits of Malacca.

We have been pleased by the overwhelmingly positive media coverage our ship visits have received, in contrast to the quiet arrivals of past years. The flip side to this is that our visits could attract increased attention from ideological foes on the Islamist right (PAS), and from some mainstream politicians pandering to the conservative Islamic vote.

Deputy Prime Minister Najib has stoutly defended our cooperation before Parliament, and we do not see that our engagement is under threat. However, we do need to be cognizant of our increased military visibility and sensitive to GOM concerns, particularly with high tensions in the Middle East. The GOM cited concerns about the growing visibility of training in eastern Sabah and, in 2006, decided to review on a case basis proposed training events involving foreign military forces in that region.

In May 2007, Malaysia hosted the annual Bilateral Training and Consultative Group (BITACG) meeting in Port Dickson. BITACG is a forum used to promote and strengthen military-military relations through discussions of bilateral exercises, intelligence exchanges, C4 issues, logistics engagement, and defense cooperation. Malaysia also hosted a BITACG mid-year review in Kuala Lumpur in November 2007.

Additionally, Malaysia co-hosted an annual conference for military intelligence chiefs in the Asia-Pacific region (APICC) held in September 2007. In September 2006, the U.S. Navy initiated annual Submarine Staff Talks, which have been successful in fostering a close relationship with the Royal Malaysian Navy as they develop their Scorpene submarine program.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 19 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan