Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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
Like a trapped animal (part 4)
Like a trapped animal (part 3)
How to torpedo a submarine investigation
Like a trapped animal (part 2)
Like a trapped animal (part 1)

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.

Like a trapped animal (part 4)

Posted: 24 Sep 2012 06:31 PM PDT

To Pakatan Rakyat, this may just be about winning or losing an election. To Umno, it is about the life and death of Barisan Nasional. Pakatan Rakyat can lose the election and still continue to exist as an opposition grouping. Barisan Nasional cannot lose the election and continue to exist as an opposition coalition. Barisan Nasional would be hit with a double whammy. Death will follow its defeat, a danger that Pakatan Rakyat does not face.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Record number of new voters to impact upcoming elections

(The Star) - A record number of first-time voters will have a huge impact on the outcome of the 13th general election.

With new voters now making up one in five of the country's 13.1 million voters or about 22% (2.9 million) of the electorate, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are expected to focus on wooing them over in their campaign strategies.

A total of 2,920,828 Malaysians have registered as voters between 2008 and June 30 this year.

"This is the highest figure so far. Over the last four years, we have been going all out to reduce the number of unregistered Malaysian voters," Election Commission deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said in an interview.

He said the 2.9 million first-time voters were almost equally divided between those aged below 39 and those 40 and above.

"It can't be denied that new voters will have a major influence on the outcome of the next general election but whether they are youths or senior citizens, each vote will count," Wan Ahmad said.

A total of 155,420 Malaysians signed up as voters in 2008. The numbers have progressively increased with 279,270 in 2009, 826,462 in 2010 and 1,221,635 last year. An additional 438,041 people registered as voters between Jan 1 and June 30 this year.

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

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak will not want to call for the 13th General Election independent of the state elections, in particular the four Pakatan Rakyat-led states. Umno would like to dilute the opposition election machinery and one way would be to hold simultaneous federal and state elections involving all the states -- save Sarawak, which already held its state election in April last year.

When nationwide elections are held at both federal and state levels, everyone would focus on defending their own fort, or attacking their opponent's fort in their own constituency. Very few, other than key federal leaders, would have the time to criss-cross the country to help campaign in other constituencies. As the Malays would say: jaga kawasan sendiri.

I remember back in 2004 when I was heading the election campaign for the then PKR Deputy President, Abdul Rahman Othman. Haji Rahman was contesting against the Member of Parliament for Putrajaya, Tunku Adnan Tunku Mansor. We were heavily outgunned and even the police were giving us a hard time.

Haji Rahman's son was beaten up as he distributed pamphlets and I was surrounded by two carloads of Umno 'bouncers'. I had to pull out a knife to keep the Umno toughies at bay. They phoned for the police, who arrived almost immediately. When we made a police report regarding Haji Rahman's son's beating they ignored us. Hence it was clear that the police were part of the Umno campaign. And that was not the first time, mind you. That happened also in the election before that in 1999.

I sent out SOS messages calling for reinforcements. No one came to our aid. Everyone was busy fighting losing battles in their own constituencies. And boy, did we get whacked good and proper in 2004? That was the worse performance ever for the opposition.

Anyway, the point is, in a nationwide election campaign, Barisan Nasional has a more formidable army compared to Pakatan Rakyat. Pakatan Rakyat is an expert at guerrilla warfare. In conventional warfare where firepower is crucial, Pakatan Rakyat will lose out. And that would be how Najib hopes to retain power.

The weapon Umno will use, of course, will be race and religion. This has worked for 66 years since 1946, meaning five generations. So why can't it continue to work? And, as they say, why fix something that is not broken?

By the way, I say five generation because 1946 was during my grandfather's time and I am now a grandfather myself. So that makes five generations.

Umno has accepted the fact that it has lost the Chinese support. It is confident that it can win back some Indian support, though. Nevertheless, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP are doomed and we may see, in the end, Barisan Nasional in Peninsular Malaysia being just Umno with maybe ten or less seats for MCA. But that would be about it.

Hence, for Barisan Nasional to continue to exist, Umno will have to depend on the non-Umno partners from East Malaysia. If Barisan Nasional fails in East Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak fall to Pakatan Rakyat, then Barisan Nasional will be reduced to just Umno. For all intents and purposes, Barisan Nasional will cease to exist other than in name only.

Hence, also, Umno cannot afford to lose Sabah and Sarawak. First, that would mean Pakatan Rakyat would be able to form the federal government. Secondly, it would mean Barisan Nasional might as well disband and Umno continue as a 'solo' party. So there is so much at stake here, not only the federal government, but also the legitimacy of Barisan Nasional to continue to exist.

Hence we are talking about two very different 'value systems' here.

Allow me to use the following analogy. When a fox chases a hare, the hare will have to be faster and cleverer. The hare will feel more desperate than the fox. The fox is just running for its dinner. If it fails to catch the hare it just misses its dinner, that's all. The hare, however, is running for its life. If it fails to escape it loses its life.

So which is more crucial, your dinner or your life? And who do you think will fight harder, he who is about to lose his dinner or he who is about to lose his life?

Malaysia now has about 13 million voters, about three million of them newly registered since March 2008. I expect about 9.5 million to 10 million of these registered voters to come out to vote in the coming general election. That would be roughly 1.5-2 million more voters than in March 2008.

Let us assume that a few more Chinese voters swing to Pakatan Rakyat compared to March 2008. So the number of Chinese voters who vote opposition increases slightly. Najib is hoping that the Indian voters who swing back to Barisan Nasional can offset this increase in Chinese voters for Pakatan Rakyat. In other words, the Indian votes will cancel off the Chinese votes -- so you are back to square one.

If this happens, as what Najib thinks and hopes will happen, it would then all depend on the Malay voters for Barisan Nasional to retain power. And for this to happen race and religion would become a very crucial weapon.

Malays are actually more parochial and regionalistic than racial. For example it would be very difficult for a Malay (meaning Muslim as well) from Kemaman, Terengganu, to contest and win in Besut, also in Terengganu. Never mind he is a fellow Malay-Muslim from Terengganu. As far as the Besut people are concerned, he is not from Besut but from Kemaman.

Hence the Malays are worse than the Chinese in that sense. People like Lim Kit Siang or Lim Guan Eng can contest in Penang, Selangor, Perak, Melaka, Johor, or wherever, and still win. Never mind where Kit Siang or Guan Eng were born. They can even become Chief Minister of Penang or Melaka and that would not be a problem with the Chinese.

The Malays cannot accept that. Can a Penang Malay become the Menteri Besar of Kelantan or a Kelantan Malay become the Menteri Besar of Johor? No way Jose! That would be unthinkable.

So it is not just about whether the person must be Malay, Chinese or Indian. Even if he is Malay, the question is: a Malay from which state? And for some states, say like Terengganu, being a Malay from Terengganu is not enough. Which part of Terengganu also matters. Kemaman is Kemaman and Besut is Besut, both in Terengganu but different parts of Terengganu.

You might say that race and religion no longer matters. You might say that Malaysians, especially those 'new' three million voters who registered to vote since 2008, have put race and region behind them. If you say this then you are most likely Chinese and are thinking like a Chinese.

Let us put that theory to a test. The Malaysian Constitution does not stipulate the race, religion and gender of the Prime Minister. Can the Chinese and Indians accept Nurul Izzah Anwar as the Prime Minister? Most likely they can -- say given a few more years experience as a Member of Parliament and by the time she is, say, 50 or so. But since she is a woman the Malays would find it difficult to accept her as the Prime Minister even though according to the Constitution that is perfectly legal.

What about Lim Guan Eng as the Prime Minister? The Chinese will be delighted. The Malays, however, will be appalled. And let Pakatan Rakyat try to announce that if they win the next general election Anwar Ibrahim is going to be Prime Minister and if they win again in 2018 Lim Guan Eng will take over as Prime Minister.

That would be the end of Pakatan Rakyat. Pakatan Rakyat would be dead meat. Even the army and police would take to the streets to engage Malaysia in a civil war.

Note, though, that not only the Malays are like this. Say Pakatan Rakyat announces that if they can retain Penang in the coming general election a Malay is going to take over as the Chief Minister of Penang. Barisan Nasional then announces that if they win Penang they will make sure that a Chinese from either MCA or Gerakan (depending on who wins the most number of seats) will become the Chief Minister.

I say that Barisan Nasional will take back Penang hands down.

I remember back when Anwar Ibrahim was in the government and his political secretary, Dr Ibrahim Saad, for the first time contested a state seat in Penang and won. He then lobbied to become the new Chief Minister and Anwar scolded him and said he was crazy. If we appoint a Malay Chief Minister the Chinese will punish us and Penang is going to fall to DAP. Even if Gerakan wins just one seat and MCA gets nothing, we will still have to appoint a Chinese Chief Minister, said Anwar.

To pacify him, Ibrahim Saad was appointed the Deputy Chief Minister.

So there you have it. Do you think this is only a Malay 'problem'? Even if Umno sweeps most of the seats and Gerakan and MCA combined win less seats than Umno, the Chief Minister must still be Chinese.

Okay, let's do another experiment. Pakatan Rakyat announces that not only will a Malay take over as the Penang Chief Minister, but a non-Muslim Chinese will take over from Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. Do you think Pakatan Rakyat can retain Penang and Kelantan?

Okay, forget about appointing a non-Muslim Chinese as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. Appoint a Muslim but a Muslim from Sabah as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. Announce that before the election and let's see if PAS can retain Kelantan.

So Malaysians are not really as liberal as they pretend to be, even the so-called liberals reading Malaysia Today. We are all still very racial and parochial. And that will decide how the people are going to vote. And anyone who says otherwise is in denial mode. They are just lying to themselves. And until the Chinese in Penang can agree to a Malay Chief Minister then the Chinese are just as bad as the Malays but are masquerading as liberals.

And do you think DAP can do it alone without the Malays? DAP needs the Malays. Without the Malays DAP is as dead as MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP. I have read many comments posted in Malaysia Today by readers who say that the Chinese do not need the Malays. In fact, I have deleted scores of such comments because they only serve to rub the Malays the wrong way and does not help Pakatan Rakyat's cause one bit.

Do you really believe this? Well, look at the table below and tell me whether you still think so. See what happened over the last ten general elections. If DAP depends just on the Chinese voters, at best it can win only 20-25 Parliament seats. That means only 10% or so of the number of seats in Parliament. Who then, contributes the balance 90%?

Something to think about, no?

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

Parliament seats won by DAP

1969: 13 out of 49 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 50.7%)

1974: 9 out of 19 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 39.3%)

1978: 16 out of 24 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 42.8%)

1982: 9 out of 22 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 39.5%)

1986: 24 out of 29 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 41.5%)

1990: 20 out of 53 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 46.6%)

1995: 9 out of 30 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 34.8%)

1999: 10 out of 45 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 43.5%)

2004: 12 out of 21 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 36.1%)

2008: 28 out of 82 (total popular votes garnered by the opposition: 46.75%)

Like a trapped animal (part 3)

Posted: 23 Sep 2012 07:35 PM PDT

And the most crucial term and condition, which Dr Mahathir announced in a gathering of about 1,000 Umno members in Petaling Jaya, was that the next Prime Minister after Pak Lah would be 'guided' by a President's Council. Who the members of that President's Council are and who would be heading it was not revealed in that announcement but everyone in the audience was able to guess the answer.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

That Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) was going to be ousted soon after the 12th General Election of March 2008 is indisputable. That was the game plan. The needling question, though, was: once Pak Lah is ousted, who is going to replace him?

Barisan Nasional was supposed to do 'not too good' in that general election -- after Barisan Nasional's historical and most impressive performance in the March 2004 general election before that. That, too, was part of the game plan. But for that to happen it would have to be an 'inside job'. And that is a story that has already been told.

And that is why of late the Umno leaders have been warning its members that the party will not tolerate any sabotage in the coming general election. They are worried that history will repeat itself. They know that for Pakatan Rakyat to bring down Barisan Nasional is not too easy, although not impossible. But if internal sabotage is involved, just like in March 2008, then the possibility increases.

The deal struck between Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Pak Lah soon after the former announced his 'retirement' during the Umno general assembly in mid-2002 was that the latter would be a one-term Prime Minister. After that he would step down. Furthermore, he would not 'disturb' all the projects and programmes that Dr Mahathir had implemented. In short, Pak Lah would keep Dr Mahathir's 'legacy' intact.

However, after taking the reins of power on 1st November 2003, Pak Lah reneged on his word. The first thing he did was he dismantled Dr Mahathir's 'monuments'. Then, with a stiff upper lip, he announced that he is not a one-term Prime Minister.

"Who says I am a one-term Prime Minister?" he indignantly asked. He then swore to prove his detractors wrong.

And that was when Dr Mahathir decided that Pak Lah would have to be brought down. But for that to happen it would have to be Umno that brings him down, not the opposition. If it were the opposition that brings him down that would be bad news because it would have meant that Anwar Ibrahim would be taking over as Prime Minister.

Bringing down Pak Lah was just the first step. More important would be who is going to replace him. Dr Mahathir's main grievance against Pak Lah -- other than his going back on his word regarding Dr Mahathir's legacy and the serve one-term only -- was Khairy Jamaluddin. By Pak Lah's own admission, Khairy and his 'Fourth Floor Boys' were running the country. Pak Lah admitted this to his close circle of friends; so that was no secret.

Dr Mahathir's concern (if this matter were not handled properly) was that it would just be an 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' situation. They oust Pak Lah to be rid of Khairy and end up getting Rosmah Mansor instead when they appoint Najib Tun Razak as successor. How to ensure that they were not merely replacing Khairy with Rosmah -- an even worse proposition?

Dr Mahathir tried to advise Najib that before he can be considered for the job of Prime Minister of Malaysia he would first need to solve the 'problem' of Rosmah. Najib may even have to choose between becoming Prime Minister and staying married to Rosmah. Both are not compatible.

This upset Najib who told Dr Mahathir's 'emissary' to butt out of his personal life. His marriage and the matter of his wife were not open to negotiation. Clearly the subject of Rosmah was a sacred cow (no pun intended). Najib made that point very clear.

Najib would have to be taught a lesson. He was beginning to think that his succession was a God-given right and that once Pak Lah steps down he automatically takes over. Najib will have to learn that whomsoever takes over as Prime Minister would be whatever Dr Mahathir decides and there are no two ways about it.

Dr Mahathir then started talking to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li) and Dr Mahathir made sure that Najib knew about it. So now Dr Mahathir had two candidates for Prime Minister and successor to Pak Lah -- Najib and Ku Li. Whom it was going to be would all depend on who is prepared to accept the terms and conditions.

Ku Li was adamant that he would not accept the role of 'proxy' Prime Minister with a de facto Prime Minister telling him what to do -- so absolutely no President's Council to 'guide' him. If he becomes Prime Minister then he will decide how the country should be run, not someone behind him pulling the strings and telling him what to do.

A few meetings were held between Dr Mahathir and Ku Li and it appeared like the matter was making no progress. Both Dr Mahathir and Ku Li were very stubborn and were not able to put their very large egos aside. There was also the matter of old wounds that had not quite healed.

Finally it ended with both sticking to their guns and refusing to budge. As far as Dr Mahathir was concerned, if Ku Li wanted the job of Prime Minister, he (Ku Li) would have to crawl to him (Dr Mahathir) and beg for it. Ku Li also felt the same way. If Dr Mahathir wants him as Prime Minister he (Dr Mahathir) would have to crawl to him (Ku Li) and beg him (Ku Li) to accept the job.

The matter appeared to have reached a deadlock and those of us caught in the middle who were putting in a lot of effort to make sure that Ku Li and not Najib takes over as Prime Minister were getting quite exasperated. Why won't one of them remove his chip from his shoulder and kowtow to the other? This matter will never be resolved if both remain stubborn.

When it appeared that Ku Li was not going to play ball, Dr Mahathir reverted to Najib. In that final meeting of many that we had with Ku Li (one meeting where Haris Ibrahim and Malik Imtiaz attended), he told us that it looks like he is already out of the race. Without a doubt Dr Mahathir is going to make Najib the Prime Minister. It is not going to be him (Ku Li) after all. So we will have to come up with a plan on how to torpedo Najib's chances.

That 'plan' offered itself in the form of the revelation by the Deputy Head of the Special Branch of the Military Intelligence regarding Rosmah's involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder. And it was decided that I would sign a Statutory Declaration regarding the matter (but that is a story I have already related many times so no need to go into all the details again).

The day after my Statutory Declaration was made public, Dr Mahathir summoned Sanusi Junid to his office to ask him whether he had read what I said in my Statutory Declaration. Sanusi said he had not and Dr Mahathir gave him a copy to read (how Dr Mahathir managed to get a copy so fast I do not know until today).

Sanusi just said, "Oh my God! Why did he do this?" and Dr Mahathir replied, "Raja Petra had just broken the legs of our horse. It looks like we will have to look for a new horse."

But that 'new horse', Ku Li, who saw that Najib's chances of becoming Prime Minister had reduced somewhat, still refused to play ball. Aiyoh, anak Raja ni! Degil sangat!

"Why can't you just agree to Dr Mahathir's terms and conditions and once you become Prime Minister you do a U-turn and tell him to go screw himself, like what Pak Lah did?" we asked him.

But then Ku Li is too much of a gentleman to do that. A deal is a deal and once he agrees to something he would never renege on his word. So he would never deceive Dr Mahathir by saying yes and then shaft Dr Mahathir later once he becomes Prime Minister.

Aiyah! Why so honest one? Politics cannot be played like that! Sometimes we need to use tricks and deception. Say yes and grab the job first. Later we can do a dirty on Dr Mahathir. Once you are Prime Minister and power is in your hands what can Dr Mahathir do about it? If he talks too much just arrest him and put him in jail. That is what I would do.

But that is not Ku Li and he refused to play Dr Mahathir for a sucker. That messed up Ku Li's chances of becoming Prime Minister and, tainted or not, it would have to be Najib who takes over. But before that they would have to discredit my Statutory Declaration.

And that was when they arrested me and charged me for criminal defamation. As much as I protested and explained that I never made any allegation against Rosmah but instead I made an allegation against the Deputy Head of the Special Branch of the Military Intelligence, they still charged me for three counts of criminal defamation.

Once they succeeded in raising doubts as to what they alleged was my accusation against Rosmah, Pak Lah was forced out of office and Najib took over as Prime Minister.

The question now is: is Najib going to remain the Prime Minister or is he on the way out? Of course, if Pakatan Rakyat takes over in the coming general election, certainly Najib would be out. There is no doubt about that. But what if Barisan Nasional manages to hold on to power? Will Najib still remain the Prime Minister or is he going to suffer the same fate as Pak Lah?

I suppose that will have to be another story for another time, if I decide to write it. Anyway, in the meantime stay tuned, in case.

How to torpedo a submarine investigation

Posted: 23 Sep 2012 01:00 AM PDT

The Malaysian government, therefore, now has to defend itself against a possible legal action. And to do that it has to bring into question Suaram's status as an international NGO. And if the Malaysian government can prove that Suaram is not an international NGO but is a registered company (and hence profit-motivated) then it may be able to torpedo the submarine investigation. Hmm…torpedo a submarine investigation…I like that.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

CM slams 'revenge' probe on Suaram

Lim Guan Eng says the ulterior motive is apparent since the authorities chose to act on Suaram only now despite the organisation being in existence for 23 years.

(Free Malaysia Today) - DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng has criticised the federal government's investigation on human rights organisation Suaram, calling it a "clear act of political revenge".

By picking on Suaram, the Penang chief minister said Putrajaya had again demonstrated double standard with its selective prosecution. He was curious why Barisan Nasional did not give the same attention to many companies that had committed more serious financial irregularities.

He noted that Domestic Trade, Co-operative and Consumerism Minister Ismail Sabri had said that Suaram would soon face prosecution for its "confusing" and "misleading financial accounts". Lim said Sabri's statement intensified the attack on Suaram while the BN government's selective prosecution of Suaram had exposed its penchant for punishing whistle-blowers.

He was convinced that the selective prosecution of Suaram was a political revenge to distract attention from the Scorpene and National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandals. He recalled that PKR election strategy director Rafizi Ramli was arrested for revealing bank account details that led to the charges against NFC chairman Mohamed Salleh Ismail. "Suaram appears to have been victimised for its role in publicly highlighting and assisting in the Scorpene corruption trial in France," he added.

According to press reports, the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) was supposed to have made a recommendation early this week to the Attorney-General's Office to press charges against Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, a company linked to Suaram, for unexplained financial irregularities.

Lim asked why a privately-funded human rights NGO was being electively victimised over supposed financial irregularities when there were a multitude of high-profile and scandalous cases of alleged corruption and mismanagement of public funds such as the RM500 million commission for the purchase of two Scorpene submarines and the RM250 million NFC scandal.

"No minister ever talked of investigating the accounts of the companies involved in the two alleged scandals," he added. He said Suaram's accounts had been audited and submitted routinely every year and even the NGO leaders publicly declared they had nothing to hide. "As Suaram was formed in 1989, why take action only now but not for the previous 23 years? Is it an act of vengeance?" he asked.

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

An EXCLUSIVE insider report by YL Chong, a.k.a. Desiderata

Some time in early 2001, the Far Eastern Review ran a short report saying that Malaysiakini was receiving money from "purported" rogue trader (as alleged by several Malaysian leaders including the then Prime Minister), George Soros. FEER claimed the money was channelled through South East Asia Press Alliance (SEAPA). Yes, Premesh denied this report of George Soros funding, whether "direct of indirect".

I later found out at a company meeting that Premesh was not being truthful. I wrote later that while FEER was barking up the right tree, it was standing on the wrong branch. The investment money came NOT from SEAPA but from the Media Development Loan Fund (MDLF), via a George Soros unit called the Open Society Institute (OSI), which has many offices outside of the United States.

I was then News Editor, and hence privy to information raised at Malaysiakini's meetings, and I had learned that indeed Malaysiakini had received an initial 10 percent down payment of RM188,000 for a 10 percent interest in Malaysiakini. At a weekend meeting, I told the top two guns -- Steven Gan and Premesh Chandran -- they had better come clean by telling the "full story" and not half-truths. I said how the investment money came through from George Soros -- direct or indirect -- was not important. The truth was indeed that RM188,000 came as initial investment from MDLF, a Soros unit.

I told them since Malaysiakini flagged itself as promoting transparency and openness, it was not right to hide the fact. I said I had no problem with funding from Soros into the news portal -- as long as we practised ethical journalism.

Since the top two guns did not agree with me -- in fact Steven Gan said it would be the death of Malaysiakini if they admitted to receiving this Soros funding! -- I was given Hobson's choice but told them I would hand in my resignation the following Monday (two days later).

Premesh in a following press statement kept on insisting it was NOT true when I said indeed, the FEER story was correct in essence -- barking up the right tree but wrong branch was my metaphoric narrative! -- disclosed when I went public on why I resigned. Premesh still vehemently denied the story of Malaysiakini having received money from George Soros, and defamed me by saying I resigned over dissatisfaction over my "pay"!

I believe it was some 10 to 11 months later, MDLF paid the remaining 90 percent of its investment, or more than the 1.88 million initially indicated at the time of my resignation) or MORE for a 30 percent (I stand corrected on this point on the numbers). I drew the NST attention to this development and it ran an update story on this development.

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

Inspector Clouseau, where are you?

There appears to be some confusion as to what is currently going on in Paris. We are being told that there is an on-going trial in Paris and that the French police are about to arrest and extradite Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to France to face charges and whatnot. This sounds like a Manuel Noriega of Panama episode all over again. Are we going to see a planeload of French commandos parachuting into Putrajaya to whisk Najib out of bed?

Actually, this is not an open court hearing but merely an application by Suaram who filed a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party -- Civil Party Petition -- before a judge in chambers. The judge will first have to look through the evidence and determine whether a crime has been committed before ordering a trial.

Based on Suaram's application, the prosecutor ordered the Tribunal De Grande Instance in Paris to investigate the allegations of impropriety in the submarine contract. The result of this police investigation runs into hundreds of pages from D1 to D153, which you can read below.

The idea to initiate a campaign to keep the Scorpene submarines issue alive until the 13th General Election was mooted by R. Sivarasa and Tian Chua some time back in 2009. Sivarasa and Tian Chua discussed the matter with Anwar Ibrahim who decided that Suaram would be the best vehicle to use to initiate the action.

French lawyers were then engaged to act on behalf of Suaram to apply to the French court for a probe to be conducted on all the companies and personalities involved in the submarines contract. This was a sort of 'class action suit' to be taken by Suaram but Suaram had to first convince the court that it had locus standi on the matter. Suaram was presented to the court as an international NGO similar in status to Amnesty International whose job is to uphold democracy and human rights. This pleading to the court can be seen in the first document, document D1, below. (Malaysia Today, 26 June 2012)

(READ MORE HERE)

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

Okay, so what is really going on here?

First of all, it was Desmond YL Chong of Malaysia Chronicle, a.k.a. Suara Tian Chua, who revealed that Malaysiakini was receiving foreign funding. And Chong pointed out that this is wrong and he went on to explain why that prompted him to resign from Malaysiakini two days after he discovered this 'scandal'.

Hence it was Tian Chua's 'running dog' who first triggered this problem resulting in the shit hitting the fan.

Now, these people funding Malaysiakini are the same people who are funding Suaram. Hence, if Chong feels that it is wrong for Malaysiakini to receive funding from these people, then, according to the government, it should be equally wrong for Suaram to do so as well.

That is point number one.

The next point is regarding what is going on in Paris, which you can read about above. The crucial part of this French investigation is in document D1: http://www.malaysia-today.net/files/scorpene/D00001.pdf

And the part you must note in that document (D1) is as follows:

SUARAM est une organisation non gouvernementale fondée en 1989 (SUARAM is a non-governmental organization founded in 1989).

Il ne fait donc pas le moindre doute qu'eu égard à l'article 2 du code de procédure pénale français SUARAM est tout à fait recevable à ester en justice pour obtenir réparation des atteintes qu'elle a personnellement subie de par l'évident phénomène corruptif entourant la vente de ces sous-marins (There is therefore no doubt that, with regards to Article 2 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, SUARAM is quite admissible to sue for compensation for she has personally suffered damage because of the obvious phenomenon surrounding the corrupt sale of these submarines).

The French investigation into the sale of the two submarines to Malaysia was launched mainly because of an application made by Suaram. Suaram had applied to the French court for this investigation to be launched on the basis that Suaram is an international NGO that has suffered damage because France sold two submarines to Malaysia. And Suaram is seeking compensation.

Hence Suaram is the complainant cum applicant and the defendant in this case is the Malaysian government. But the action is being taken in a French court, not in Malaysia. And Suaram has managed to convince the French court that it is an International NGO and therefore has locus standi to take this 'class action suit' against the Malaysian government.

And that is why the Malaysian government is going after Suaram. The Malaysian government has to rip to shreds Suaram's 'status' so that it can argue that not only is Suaram a profit-motivated company and not an international NGO, but it also has no locus standi in this 'class action suit'.

I would say that this is a very clever 'defend by attacking' strategy, which I would also use if I were placed in that same situation.

Well, as they say, all is fair in love and war.

(MORE DOCUMENTS CAN BE SEEN HERE: D1-D153)

Like a trapped animal (part 2)

Posted: 22 Sep 2012 05:27 PM PDT

And that is what the 13th General Election is all about. It is about kill or be killed. It is about whether Dr Mahathir or Anwar will win. It is about who is going to jail, Dr Mahathir or Anwar. And if Anwar wins then Dr Mahathir is not going to go to jail alone. Pakatan Rakyat has promised to go for everyone who is corrupt and has committed a crime. So, many people have something to lose. Anwar has to die so that so many others can live.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dr M: Malays will lose political power if PR takes over

(The Malaysian Insider) - Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has called the Malays "ungrateful" and "lacking intelligence", warning that the greed of a few power-hungry Malays in the opposition would see the country's dominant race lose its political power.

"If any of these Malay (opposition) parties win the elections and forms the government, this government would have to follow the dictates of other (races). The Malays will no longer hold dominance in the government that they were so willing to share with others," he said in a special column titled "Suara Hati Mahathir" published in Mingguan Malaysia today, the weekend edition of Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia.

In his lengthy tirade against the Malays, the former prime minister expressed sadness that the Malays were now purportedly split into three factions and said that this has resulted in them "begging" for support from the other races.

"It has forced them to beg for support... even from those who have all this time been fighting against efforts to uplift the positions of the Malays and make them equal to the others. But this support is not given for free," he warned.

"Who brought on this disaster? No other than the Malays themselves ― greedy Malays, Malays lacking in intelligence, Malays easily influenced by lust, easily dominated by hatred when agitated," he continued in typical no-holds-barred fashion.

Dr Mahathir took pains to remind the Malays of their colonised past in the decades before independence, detailing horror stories of how the British had called them lazy and stupid, enslaving them in their own country. He said the Malays were only allowed to take on menial labour jobs and were made into drivers and orderlies or clerks and office boys at most.

"There were assumed to be incapable of holding any responsibility. The Chinese and the Indians were even brought into the country to solve this problem of the Malays being stupid and incompetent," the veteran politician recalled.

When the Japanese arrived, Dr Mahathir said the Malays even lost their lowly office jobs and were forced to become petty roadside traders selling goods like bananas. If they failed to bow their heads low when walking by a Japanese soldier, they would be forced to balance large chunks of rocks on their heads and shoulders until they would collapse from dizziness, he said.

"They would be ordered to climb tall coconut trees to get the fruits for these Japanese soldiers. If they failed, they would be slapped and would have to crouch to seek forgiveness," Dr Mahathir continued.

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

The 13th General Election, which most expect in February-March next year, is going to be very interesting. It is going to be interesting because of a few reasons. The pertinent questions I would ask would be:

1. Are we going to see history being repeated?

2. Was the 12th General Election a flash in the pan?

3. Are we finally going to see the end of the rule of the same government that Malaysia has had for the last half century?

4. Have Malaysians finally buried the spectre of 'May 13' and is it now no longer a factor in Malaysian politics (and hence has become a blunt weapon)?

5. Has Malaysian politics been reduced to that of the United States Presidential elections?

6. Whose propaganda machinery and political strategy is better, Barisan Nasional's or Pakatan Rakyat's?

7. Have the political surveys and opinion polls done over the last couple of years been accurate in assessing the mindset of Malaysians?

8. Are we still retaining the political culture of the last 30 years or is that now a thing of the past?

I suppose my list of questions can go up to a dozen or more but for purposes of today's discussion allow me to focus on just those eight. My list is not in order of priority or importance and I am going to address them not in the sequence above.

Most likely Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak would be requesting an audience with His Majesty the Agong early next year to request His Majesty's consent to dissolve Parliament. Thereafter the Election Commission (SPR) will take over and has 60 days in which to hold the elections.

Most likely, also, SPR will allow a ten-day campaign period. Hence, while Nomination Day could be about a month after Parliament is dissolved, Polling Day would be just ten days after that.

Now, Malaysians feel that this is unfair. A ten-day campaign period is too short, they say. In actual fact, if the 13th General Election were held, say, in March 2013, then the campaign period would be five years rather than ten days. Hence it really makes no difference whether the 'official' campaign period is ten days or ten weeks. The reality would be the campaign would have been going on for five years, making Malaysia the only country in the world where the campaign period is five years.

Do I need to explain this? Well, considering the comprehension level of most Malaysians maybe I do. You see, it is like this: both Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat have been on the campaign trail since 9th March 2008, the day after the 12th General Election. They started campaigning the very morning after Polling Day of 8th March 2008 and have never stopped campaigning ever since.

More importantly, though, the campaigning is not really about which will make a better government, Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? It is about who will make a better Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim? Hence, when Malaysians go to the polling booths on Polling Day, many people will be voting not so much based on which political party they support but on who they want as the Prime Minister.

For example, say Pakatan Rakyat announces that if it wins the general election Anwar Ibrahim will not become the Prime Minister but Hadi Awang will instead. How many Chinese will still vote Pakatan Rakyat? Or, say, Pakatan Rakyat announces that Lim Kit Siang is going to be the Prime Minister (which is allowed under the law). Would many Malays still vote Pakatan Rakyat?

The factor, therefore, is Anwar. It is because Anwar is going to be Prime Minister that these people will vote Pakatan Rakyat. And they will vote Pakatan Rakyat because they do not want Najib rather than because they want Anwar. It is about what you don't want and not about what you want. Hence ABU (anything but Umno) may work because ABU is about what you don't want, meaning Umno.

Say Umno announces that Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah will be taking over as Prime Minister after the 13th General Election. Najib will retire and hand the reins to Ku Li. Will all those who intend to vote Pakatan Rakyat still vote Pakatan Rakyat since the main reason they are voting Pakatan Rakyat is because they are pissed with Najib and Rosmah?

So, the criteria here is vote the other side of what you don't want. This makes it easier to ignore and close your eyes to who or what you are voting for. You just decide who or what you don't want then close your eyes and vote the opposite to that.

And this is partly the fault of the political parties themselves. The campaigning has not been about what they can do for the country but about the bad points of the other side. Barisan Nasional has been going out of their way to point out the bad points and faults of the Pakatan Rakyat leaders, in particular Anwar Ibrahim, while Pakatan Rakyat has been doing the same about Barisan Nasional, in particular regarding Najib and Rosmah Mansor.

In fact, the 13th General Election is not even about Anwar and Najib. It is about Anwar and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. And to understand this we need to rewind 30 years to 1982 when Anwar first joined Umno.

While Anwar may be the de facto leader of PKR (plus opposition leader as well because of that), Dr Mahathir is the de facto government leader (the power behind the throne so to speak). Basically, Najib is Dr Mahathir's proxy. Hence if you hate Dr Mahathir (assuming hating Najib and Rosmah is not enough reason to reject Umno), then you vote for Anwar (meaning vote Pakatan Rakyat).

Many may not be aware that it was Ku Li who brought Anwar into Umno back in 1982. Dr Mahathir actually did not want Anwar but Ku Li was persistent and Dr Mahathir eventually relented.

The main concern was that if Umno does not take Anwar then he might join PAS (which was seriously courting him). So better Umno takes Anwar then he goes to PAS. At least in Umno Anwar could be controlled.

Dr Mahathir actually admitted this in an interview in Japan some years back. He said he agreed to allow Anwar to join Umno to prevent him from joining PAS. Dr Mahathir added that he thought he could control Anwar once he was in Umno but then he discovered that Anwar was conspiring to oust him so he had no choice but to get rid of Anwar.

Hence Dr Mahathir admitted that he did not actually want Anwar and he got rid of Anwar not because of the sodomy allegation but because he (Anwar) was conspiring to oust him (Dr Mahathir). We can assume, therefore, that the sodomy allegation was the excuse rather than the reason.

It is, therefore, to Dr Mahathir's interest that he ensure Anwar does not take over as Prime Minister. It has become something very personal between Dr Mahathir and Anwar. This is a vendetta, an old score to settle, not about better governance, etc. And if Anwar succeeds in taking over he would do what he had intended to do back in 1998 but failed. Dr Mahathir is going to go to jail. And if Anwar fails to take over then he is going to jail instead. Dr Mahathir will make sure of that.

Hence the 13th General Election is about whether Dr Mahathir or Anwar is going to win while the loser, whoever that may be, is going to end up in jail. It is winner takes all and loser loses all type of situation -- the Malaysian political culture.

This is a high stakes game. This is about who is going to sit in Putrajaya and who is going to die in jail. And the fact that Pakatan Rakyat has promised that if it takes over the federal government it is going to korek (dig) all the wrongdoings and transgressions of those currently in power (including those already retired) means Pakatan Rakyat (meaning Anwar Ibrahim) cannot take over at all costs, even at the cost of bloodshed.

Well, it is either my blood or your blood, so better your blood.

So it may have been better if Pakatan Rakyat had not made so much noise about the witch hunt they are going to launch once (not 'if') they take over. Promising revenge and retribution have made not only the politicians but the civil service, police, judiciary, military, etc., scared shit. They visual a Pakatan Rakyat takeover as translating to the death of many who walk and sit in the corridors of power in Putrajaya -- not confined to just the elected officials or politicians.

It may have been prudent if Pakatan Rakyat had announced an amnesty and period or reconciliation instead. Promising revenge has turned this into a deadly game. It is kill or be killed.

I remember once speaking to Zakaria Chik, the then CPO of Johor (whom I knew when he was in Terengganu). I congratulated him on his success at combating crime in Johore. I then asked him why all the robbers and kidnappers seem to have been shot dead. You do not seem to arrest anyone, I said. All are shot dead.

Zakaria replied that he told his police officers he does not want any prisoners, only bodies. Any police officer that brings back a live prisoner would be transferred to traffic duty. Hence they don't make any arrest. They shoot on sight.

The criminals, too, knew that they were not going to be arrested or taken alive. They were going to be shot dead even if they surrendered. So why surrender? Better they try to escape by shooting their way out.

So the criminal would never surrender. They will shoot at the police. And the police too have to shoot back. So it is a 'kill or be killed' situation -- and most times the police win.

And that is what the 13th General Election is all about. It is about kill or be killed. It is about whether Dr Mahathir or Anwar will win. It is about who is going to jail, Dr Mahathir or Anwar. And if Anwar wins then Dr Mahathir is not going to go to jail alone. Pakatan Rakyat has promised to go after everyone who is corrupt and has committed a crime. So, many people have something to lose. Anwar has to die so that so many others can live.

In 1999, the opposition did very well. And the factor was Dr Mahathir. Many people hated Dr Mahathir and were angry at what he did to Anwar.

In 2004, the opposition did very badly. The factor, again, was Dr Mahathir. Dr Mahathir had retired and had handed the reins to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. So no more hate Dr Mahathir factor. Let's give Pak Lah a chance.

In 2008, the opposition did well again. And, yet again, the factor was Dr Mahathir. Dr Mahathir had resigned from Umno and had asked the Malays and Umno members to punish Umno by voting for the opposition.

So what is 2013 going to look like? Is Dr Mahathir still a factor? Are we going to see the 1999 scenario, the 2004 scenario, or the 2008 scenario? And how strong is the Dr Mahathir factor or is he no longer relevant or significant?

Umno is now like a trapped animal. And trapped animals can be very desperate and vicious. Umno and the Umno leaders (plus those in government such as the civil servants) have been promised that once Pakatan Rakyat takes over it is going to be payback time. Heads are going to roll. Jails are going to be full. There may not be enough jails for everyone.

Do you think it was wise to make such a promise? Do you think these people should have been made to feel like a trapped animal? Do you think they will allow Pakatam Rakyat to take over if their heads depend on Pakatan Rakyat not taking over? When it is either kill or be killed how do you think your enemy is going to fight? If you are going to die anyway and there are not going to be any prisoners you might as well come out with both guns blazing.

That is what the 13th General Election has been reduced to. But maybe Pakatan Rakyat is so confident it is going to win it need not care about the 'death threat' to the losers once Pakatan Rakyat takes over.

But the thing is the votes have not been counted yet and there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. So anything can happen. And as they also say, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. Oh, that's right, the fat lady did sing, on Hari Raya. Okay, maybe it is over; but let's see.

Anyway, I will stop here and maybe I can continue with part 3 another day, if I am in the mood for it.

Like a trapped animal (part 1)

Posted: 21 Sep 2012 08:49 PM PDT

My friends told me I was crazy. "What are you going to do if your prediction does not come true?" they asked me. "Well, I suppose I will quietly leave the country," I joked. "Never fear, though," I told them. "There is such a thing called a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people believe it, it will happen."

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Who prevails in Umno?

(The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah can talk about a better Malaysia, and we don't doubt his sincerity. He has been principled on many issues, and speaks of the knowledge of authority, not the authority of knowledge.

That is the gist of his speech this past week in Melbourne.

"It's not about numbers, it's about qualitative change. There are many paths to a better Malaysia," he told a mixed audience of about 130 at the annual Seminar Pembangunan Insan (Seminar on Human Development) at Melbourne Umno Club (KUAM) on Thursday.

Saifuddin identified four features for the participatory democracy needed to respond to today's new social consciousness, especially among the young — integrity, governance, innovations in democracy, and progressive political thought.

Do the others in Umno or Barisan Nasional (BN) speak of the same things?

Does he speak for Umno or BN for that matter?

The thing is, Saifuddin is of a very small minority in Umno. In fact he stands alone, and is not popular in the party that feels its dominance is an entitlement, a birthright.

And the names he mentioned in his talk in Melbourne — Khairy Jamaluddin and Gan Ping Siew — are not in his class when speaking about change, be it in Putrajaya or within their parties.

The question is this: who has more sway in Putrajaya: Saifuddin or the likes of Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz or Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein or even Datuk Ahmad Maslan?

And who prevails in Umno? At this point in time, it sure doesn't look like its Saifuddin or those like him.

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

That was The Malaysian Insider Editorial today, and a very valid observation and pertinent questions, may I add. Nevertheless, we all know the answer to those questions. Saifuddin Abdullah speaks for the minority, not the majority. And the majority definitely holds the opposite view to Saifuddin's. Should Saifuddin, therefore, even bother to speak up since his is the minority view and his minority view is not going to change anything?

But then is this not always the case? The minority would normally never dare speak up. Take Saifuddin's case as an example. Those in Umno brand him as a Trojan horse. They call him a mole. They allege that he is a Pakatan Rakyat supporter who is trying to sabotage Umno from the inside. They consider him a traitor who is waiting to leave Umno to join the opposition. And because of that he would most likely not be chosen to contest the next election.

The opposition would also whack him. They will say he is not sincere. If he is sincere why is he still in Umno? He should leave Umno now and join the opposition.

Then, when he does leave Umno to join the opposition, he would still get whacked.

Umno will say he is a frustrated person (gulungan keciwa) who left Umno to join the opposition because he is not going to be chosen to contest the next election. The opposition supporters will say the same thing and will speculate that he is an Umno mole who will probably jump back to Umno in the event of a hung Parliament.

The bottom line is, whatever you say and do can never be right. They will still have something to say about you. And being in the minority means you will get whacked by both sides. It is better you remain in the majority, either pro-government or pro-opposition.

If you are in the opposition and you criticise the opposition you will get whacked. If you are in the government and you criticise the government you will get whacked. Hence you either take the side of the government or you take the side of the opposition and then suck up to one side or the other. Then you become a hero.

That, I suppose, is the Malaysian way. That is the Malaysian mindset. You follow the herd. Either you are a cow or you are a goat. And you just moo or bleat when others do, in sync and in tempo with the others. You do not meow in a group that moos or bleats. They will whack you to kingdom come.

And that proves Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's theory that most people, Malaysians included, are like herd. They buy and sell property and shares like herd as well. When people buy they buy. When people sell they sell. Fundamentals play no part in your investment and divestment decisions. You just follow what others do.

And hence would Malaysian politics be any different? If you think that Barisan Nasional is going to win you will vote Barisan Nasional. If you think that Pakatan Rakyat is going to win you will vote Pakatan Rakyat.

This happened in 1999. It happened in 2004. And it happened again in 2008.

Most people would like to believe that Pakatan Rakyat performed the way it did in 2008 because the people already had enough of Barisan Nasional and just wanted a change after half a century of the same government. I hope you do not believe this because if you do then you are going to be in for a rude shock.

No, that was not the reason why 2008 turned out the way it did. People already felt the way they did in 2008 since way back in 1998, ten years before that. The only thing is that most people did not dare act on what they felt because they thought they were in the minority. And people do not like being in the minority. They want to be in the majority.

In 1998, it was mainly the Malays who swung. And they swung because they felt that the Malays who were going to swing were in the majority. And that proved true the following year in the 1999 general election.

The non-Malays I spoke to back in 1998-1999 also felt the same way as the Malays felt. But they were not confident that the swing was large enough. They were worried that the swing would be too small and hence if they joined those who vote against the government they might be in the minority. And the non-Malays told me that it is very dangerous to be in the minority. It is safer to be in the majority. Hence even if they hate Barisan Nasional they would still vote for Barisan Nasional just to be safe.

In 2004, it appeared like the hate factor had disappeared. The people were not really anti-Barisan Nasional as much as they were anti-Dr Mahathir. And the issue against Dr Mahathir was what he did to Anwar Ibrahim. Hence 1999 was a reflection of the Dr Mahathir hate factor.

But Dr Mahathir had already resigned and there was talk that Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi would release Anwar soon after the 11th General Election of March 2004. Hence the Malays are no longer angry with Umno.

Against that backdrop, most likely the Malays would swing back to Umno. So, if the non-Malays voted opposition while the Malays voted Barisan Nasional, the non-Malays will be in the minority. So, again, it would be safer to vote Barisan Nasional, just in case.

And that was exactly what happened in 2004. The Malays swung back to Umno and PAS lost Terengganu and held on to Kelantan with a one-seat majority in the State Assembly.

Phew, lucky the non-Malays did not vote opposition. So they were right for not voting opposition after all. If they did they would be in deep shit. But they still hated Umno and Barisan Nasional though. It is just they did not vote opposition for safety reasons.

Then, in 2007, against the backdrop of the Bersih and Hindaf rallies in November that same year, it appeared like those opposed to the government were in the majority, or at least a large minority. And it appeared like those opposed to the government were not confined to just one race but cut across the board to include all the races. Even Tun Dr Mahathir was opposed to the government. He resigned from Umno and campaigned all over Malaysia to tell the Umno members to not vote for Umno.

It looked like this time it was for real. Many Umno people even supported and joined the Bersih march in November 2007. DAP and PAS members and some leaders also met up with Umno people who supported the move that Umno must be taught a lesson in the general election. There were just so many anti-Umno Umno members and leaders.

This anti-Umno movement was no longer just an opposition thing. Umno people and leaders were against Umno as well. Tun Dr Mahathir himself was against Umno. Umno is finished. It is time everyone voted Pakatan Rakyat. We are now in the majority.

Then we went round the country to speak at ceramahs and announced that Barisan Nasional was going to lose between 80-100 Parliament seats. They were also going to lose five states and probably rule in two states with a simple majority. Barisan Nasional is finished. Even Umno people and its leaders support the opposition. We told the tens of thousands in the audience this will definitely happen. We even named the states that were going to fall to the opposition.

It is just like the stock market or property market. If enough people believe that in January next year the market is going to collapse it will collapse. And it will collapse because people will panic and will sell. So it is the panicking and selling that actually triggers the collapse. That is how self-fulfilling prophecies work.

The people from Sabah and Sarawak were quite sore with us from West Malaysia. We should have gone to East Malaysia and also tell the voters there that Barisan Nasional was going to get whacked, they lamented. The East Malaysian voters did not think it would happen. So they voted Barisan Nasional because they thought the swing is not going to be large enough. If they had known that the swing was actually bigger than they thought then they too would have voted opposition.

Hence the people from East Malaysia would have also followed the herd if they had known. The only thing is they did not know that there was a herd. And that was why they stuck with Barisan Nasional.

The question now is: do the people believe that the swing is still there? Do they believe that the swing is even larger now than in 2008? If they believe that the swing is larger it is going to get larger. But if they believe that the swing has gone back to Barisan Nasional then it will swing back to Barisan Nasional. People have herd mentality and they will follow the herd. They do not want to be in the minority

I will stop here for now and maybe continue later with part 2 of 'Like a trapped animal' and relate what is going to make the people, in particular the Malays, vote Umno.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 10 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan