Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Different cars on road to Putrajaya
Reformasi: The big leap forward
Is Malaysia an Islamic or secular state?
PAS – making the right choice
Is Islam under threat?
Malays should wisen up
10 reasons for Indians to drop BN

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 03:51 PM PST

PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang had his sights set on Putrajaya when he opened the PAS muktamar and chose to sidestep the thorny issue of hudud and the Islamic state.

Whatever some in the party may think about Mat Sabu and his lack of religious credentials, he is able to do what Hadi cannot do — he is a good organiser, a rebel rouser and very entertaining. He has promised the delegates that the next muktamar will be in a hall in Putrajaya.

Joceline Tan, The Star

KOTA Baru is flush with political banners. The moment one steps out of the airport, one is greeted by banners welcoming those returning from the Haj or the tetamu-tetamu Allah (guests of God).

One banner shows Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat smiling like a proud grandfather. Another shows the man who Umno says will be the next Mentri Besar, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, wearing a blazing red baju Melayu and an even bigger smile than the Tok Guru.

But banners of Nik Aziz alongside PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang dominate the landscape, especially along roads leading to Putik, the party centre where the muktamar is taking place.

The official muktamar banner usually includes the deputy president and everyone has noticed that Mohamed Sabu, better known as Mat Sabu, is missing from the banner this year and no one can quite explain why.

One possible reason is that the party is still feeling awkward about the fact that, apart from Hadi, the deputy and the three vice-presidents are all non-ulama. Hence, it is best to allow the two top ulama to shine for now.

There were a few other famous faces missing at the opening of the muktamar yesterday. Pakatan Rakyat's "future prime minister" was not there for the second year in a row but his wife and PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail was.

DAP's mentor figure Lim Kit Siang, a usual attendee, was also absent. He had a dental appointment and Dr Tan Seng Giaw took his place.

Hadi's policy speech was his longest and most political since becoming PAS president. It was an election type of speech that reaffirmed that his party is committed to its partnership with Pakatan.

His Dewan Ulama chief Datuk Harun Taib had been uncompromising about the party's stand on hudud but Hadi sort of sidestepped the issue and is taking the stand that PAS and DAP would agree to disagree on Islam and hudud for now.

Hadi and his ulama chief seem to be driving different cars on the road to Putrajaya.

He gave the assurance that if the coalition wins power, it would be a smooth and peaceful transition and there will be no victimisation of civil servants. He also dangled carrots in front of Sabah and Sarawak voters, offering to return 20% oil royalties to the two states.

His slogan of PAS ganti Umno (PAS to replace Umno) has caught on and he labelled Umno the "party of devils," a reference to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's call to Malaysians to vote for the devil they know.

He said the party's Negara Berkebajikan (welfare state) would be better than Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's 1Malaysia policy in promoting national unity but he will have to take it beyond sloganeering if he wants to convince people out there.

The Negara Berkebajikan idea is still as hazy an idea today as when it was introduced three years ago. Even the muktamar audience seemed lukewarm to the idea. They either prefer the Islamic state concept or, like most people, they are still unsure what the new concept is really about. As the muktamar chairman noted, the weather outside was hotter than the mood in the hall.

The signs are that Mat Sabu will have to assume the role of "war general" in the election. He took centrestage at the Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat rally held in the Kota Baru stadium in the evening.

Kota Baru is the second stop of the event which was launched in Negri Sembilan earlier this month. It is as good as an election campaign minus the candidates.

The rally is Mat Sabu's version of the Arab Spring. Many in PAS are inspired by what is going on in Egypt and they hope the rallies will build up a momentum for regime change.

This is his big moment and the opportunity to show the party why he deserves to be their No 2. He is under a lot of pressure to deliver. He knows that the conservatives in the party are gathering their forces to push him from the No 2 spot at the party election next year.

This was very clear from the tone of the meetings at the Dewan Pemuda and Dewan Ulama a day earlier. For instance, criticism of slanted reporting by the party propaganda organ Harakah and its online sister Harakahdaily was read as a warning shot by the conservatives in the party.

The two publication bodies were accused of not giving sufficient coverage to the ulama viewpoint. The critics are basically warning people in the party not to dominate the party organ for their own interests.

They are setting the stage for the party polls next year and the talk is that the conservatives want an ulama as deputy president and also ulama figures among the three vice-presidents.

The general election is foremost on the mind of everybody in PAS but so is the party election for some of them.

Reformasi: The big leap forward

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 02:29 PM PST

Is the general election being delayed as a ploy by Barisan Nasional to simply put off the potential takeover of Putrajaya by the 'reform' movement?

The release of the former deputy prime minister and finance minister was also the culmination of the long and strong campaign led by people like Raja Petra Kamarudin, the Malaysia Today editor in chief and maestro of "citizen journalism" in Malaysia.

By Ali Cordoba, FMT

It was in September 1998 that the "reformasi" movement started in Malaysia. Since then, the reform movement has grown from a "group" of people pressing for change to that of a formidable opposition coalition.

With this great leap forward, the "reform" movement in Malaysia is bound to make history again in the next general election with massive gains and a potential total defeat of the ruling Barisan National coalition.

A great push forward for the Pakatan Rakyat in the 13th general election will have untold consequences for Umno, in power since independence in 1957. It will also mean that Malaysia has finally made headway in choosing a "reform" movement that was thought to have run out of steam in the 2004 BN's historic victory.

In 1998, a majority of the "reformasi" supporters had to hide behind the cloak of the "Internet" to promote the movement or propose ideas on how to rein in the masses against the BN and Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the then prime minister.

Since then, the country has made serious gains in "Internet" freedom to the extent that the government of Najib Tun Razak is facing a daily uphill battle against "pro-reform" and "pro-opposition" elements.

With Anwar Ibrahim's release from jail in 2004, the reform movement made an incredible revival. To many, the release of Anwar, promised by the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi regime in case of a big victory in the election, was an act of divine intervention.

However, to a few observers, it is the intense pressure from some members of the International Islamic Ulema (Muslim religious figures) and the Arab World that led to the release of the most popular political figure in the country.

In 2003, the Abdullah regime was in the midst of wooing the Saudi Arabian, Qatari and UAE regimes to win their favours and gain in respect and investment projects. Attempts by the Abdullah regime to win the Arab world on its side failed as the need to release Anwar became a pressing element in the negotiations.

These were the behind-the-scenes event that were not reported by the local or international media as they were kept under wraps by the Abdullah government.

Nonetheless, after the big win by the BN against an ailing opposition that had decided not to campaign on the "Anwar Ibrahim" issue (particularly by PAS), the Abdullah government decided to free Anwar.

Mahathir's move

It was his hard work, tough writings on the freeanwaribrahim.com blog and his campaigns in the country that helped in Abdullah regime's considerations.

During the time of Mahathir, negotiations to free Anwar and allow him to have an operation in Germany backfired when the former prime minister angrily uttered the now infamous "muktamad".

Mahathir was being pressed by the local and international media on rumours that Anwar would be freed and that negotiations between the Anwar group and Mahathir's government were ongoing on the issue.

The fact remains that the Mahathir regime was not prepared to let go of Anwar from its claws as his release and subsequent presence in Germany would have been negative for the regime.

Not only Anwar would be free to campaign against the Mahathir regime from Germany while receiving treatment for his growing back pain, there was also the possibility that Anwar would raise funds through his friends in Germany.

That would have meant a triumphant return of Anwar at the KLIA, a return that would have probably caused tremors within the Mahathir regime at that particular fragile era.

In Germany, Anwar would have been aided by his close "friend" and ally, the former president of Indonesia, Burhanuddin J Habibie. The latter established himself in Germany after his downfall as the "replacement" president following the removal of General Suharto from power in the aftermath of the Indonesian "reformasi".

This would have meant a lot of support not only for Anwar but also for the "reform" movement in Malaysia.

At that particular time what remained of the movement launched by Anwar in 1998, at least in the eyes of the public, were merely echoes of "reformasi" and "memories" of the police beating and tear gas in the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

His flight to Germany would have been an unexpected boost to the Malaysian reform movement. It was, however, just a question of delaying the "tsunami" that would almost wipe out the BN in 2008.

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 11:55 AM PST

Malik Munip, NST

WRITING'S IN THE LAW: Several provisions in the Constitution disqualify Malaysia from being a secular state, writes Malik Munip

The debate on the nature of Malaysia's identity—whether it is a secular or an Islamic state—is mired in confusion. The confusion firstly is of a semantic nature—a lack of clarity on what defines a secular or an Islamic state. The second confusion is about the extent of any entity's authority—be it former Premiers, The Alliance Memorandum or the Reid Commission--in deciding the debate. This article will discuss the second confusion first.

Secular or Islamic State: Premier vs. Premier

Though Malaysian Prime Ministers are vested with a whole battery of executive authority, nonetheless, they do not have the power to determine the identity of a country merely by making an announcement either way. Indeed, if we think about it, even an individual's identity cannot be determined by a pronouncement—a person doesn't become a Muslim, a Christian, an apostate or any identity along the 'faith- atheist' spectrum simply due to a declaration. To have meaning and force, the declaration must correspond with the individual's belief and practice. So if by itself a declaration cannot determine the religious identity of an individual, can it determine the identity of a state?

Nonetheless, many people attribute Malaysia identity as either Islamic or Secular, by citing the positions of previous Prime Ministers on the subject. Hence to shore up their claim, the proponents of a secular state will often draw on the statements of Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussien Onn.

In this regard an often cited statement (but not the only example) used to represent the position of the former Premiers would be from a February 1983 Star report where the Tunku said "The country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion". Another issue also reported Tun Hussien's support for the Bapa Kemerdekaan, "The nation can still be functional as a secular state with Islam as the official religion."

Unsurprisingly those that argue that Malaysia is already an Islamic State wouldn't cite the first and third Premiers. Instead they would quote Tun Mahathir's following statement in September 2001 to support their position: "Umno wishes to state clearly that Malaysia is an Islamic nation. This is based on the opinion of ulamaks who had clarified what constituted as Islamic country.... " .

But with all due respect, there are limits in determining the nature of a country's identity by simple reference to a Prime Ministerial declaration. After all, if Malaysia already possesses many of the features that define a secular state, then her secular nature doesn't change just because a Prime Minister says otherwise. And vice versa—if Malaysia has many attributes of an Islamic state, or a feature that disqualifies her from being a secular state, then it won't be a secular State regardless of how many previous and future Prime Ministers states to the contrary.

So although they are Prime Ministers, nonetheless, their statements, in and by themselves do not automatically determine the nature of Malaysia's identity. At best their statements would be a description of Malaysia's pre-existing identity. And like most descriptions, it would be valid only in so far it is accurate.

The Alliance Memoranda vs. The Reid Commission

Of course, in articulating their positions, participants in the debate don't limit themselves to Prime Ministerial declarations—references to legal authorities and legal documents will also be part of the argumentative arsenal. In this regard none comes with higher prestige than the Federal Constitution and its drafters, the Reid Commission. So with respect to whether Malaysia is an Islamic or a secular state, let's sink our teeth into what the Federal Constitution and the Reid Commission have to say on the matter.

In the Federal Constitution, both terms, Islamic State or Secular State does not appear. Nonetheless, Article 3 of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This provision has often been cited to support the claim that Malaysia is an Islamic State or at least not a secular one.

Yet, many who claim to have read the Reid Report find this argument unconvincing; they maintain that the Commission stated that any provision in the proposed Constitution providing for Islam as the state religion will not invalidate the position of the Federation as a secular state.

Strictly speaking, this portrayal of the Reid Commission's position is incorrect. In respect to Islam being made a state religion, the Commission did not commit itself to that position. As historian Joseph Fernando wrote in his book 'The Making of the Malayan Constitution': "In respect of religion, the Commission decided not to make any provision relating to an official religion for the Federation although the Alliance had proposed that Islam should be made the official religion".

In fact it was the Alliance and not the Reid Commission that wanted a declaration for Islam to be made the State Religion. And similarly, it was the Alliance that made the claim that such a declaration would not negate the position of the federation as a secular state. What the Reid Commission did was to acknowledge (see paragraph 169 of its report) that the Alliance wanted to insert such a provision; they themselves were reluctant to commit to it (with the exception of one member, Justice Hamid).

Be that as it may, even if was the Alliance and not the Reid Commission that made the claim that having a state religion would not negate Malaya's status as a secular state, nonetheless, shouldn't such a claim prove beyond doubt, that Malaysia is a secular State? After all, the Alliance played a crucial role in the constitution-making process—before, during and after the Reid Commission's drafting. Additionally, they were the primary characters involved in securing Independence; hence, if the Founding Fathers claim that the country is a secular State, then it must be binding right? Uhm, not quite.

Firstly, none of them were recognized authorities on the inter-related issue of secular states and secularism, or its relationship to religion and Islamic States. It should be noted that the issue of an Islamic State has theological dimensions, yet none of them were theologians. And on the issue of a secular State, the problem was that they never defined properly what a secular state is; they just claimed that having Islam as the religion of the Federation doesn't annul its status as a secular state. Within the context of such statements, their conception of a secular state seems to be a conception by negation—conceiving it by what it is not, rather than what it is. Such a conception is not convincing.

In short, since the Alliance were not experts on the issue of Secular States, secularism or its relationship to Islam and not exact in conveying what they meant, does it make sense for us to elevate their claim (that having a state religion doesn't negate Malaya as a Secular State) as being the final authority on the matter?

Indeed according to the Joseph Fernando, there is evidence that in private, even the Reid Commission were not convince by the Alliance claim—to them, it was a contradiction. And for those who have some exposure to the literature on secular states and secularism, this shouldn't be surprising. Why? Because the Alliance's position just doesn't correspond with the accepted understanding of what constitutes a secular state. And that is the point: if a statement or description doesn't match up with the reality then regardless of the social standing of the entity making the statement, it cannot be authoritative.

So in determining whether Malaysia is a secular state or otherwise, instead of citing what former Premiers or the Reid Commission or the Alliance Memoranda says on the matter, it would be more pertinent to ask: What defines a secular state? And does the statement of the Alliance Memoranda and those that echo it, tally with such a definition?

What is a Secular State? The acid test

The literature on the subject of secular states and secularism is vast; as such there exist various interpretations. Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that the foundation of a secular state is the principle that state and religion must be separate. Consequently, a secular state will have, among others, the following characteristics: the state must be neutral towards religion; the state cannot give religion a privilege position in the public arena; the state's coercive powers and resources cannot be utilised in the service of any religion; the State should not privilege a religion or its adherents over another; the state should not privilege religion over irreligion; the state should not permit religion to be a requirement of public office; and the state should not interfere with the affairs of religion and vice- versa.

Now by having Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, obviously Malaysia is not neutral towards religion. It gives Islam a privileged status over other religions. Nonetheless, if Article 3 was the only Islamic feature in the Constitution, perhaps the claim by the Alliance that having a State Religion doesn't imply a non-secular state can still be defended. But let's have a peek at other Articles of the Federal Constitution.

Through Article 11(4), missionary work amongst Muslims can be controlled and restricted. Yet there are no laws restricting missionary work to adherents of other faiths. Then there's Article 12(2). This article has far reaching consequences; it empowers the Federation and the states to establish or maintain Islamic institutions or provide assistance in that process. It also sanctions them to do same with regards to providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In pursuant of those purposes, it also authorises the use of public funds.

Both the above Articles violate the principles of a secular state on multiple scores. And these two Articles are not the only one; there exist other Articles that do the same. For instance, Malays are entitled to wear the cloak of Article 153, but professing Islam is a requirement of being Malay under the Federal Constitution. But let's cast our view beyond the Federal Constitution to the State Constitutions whereby the Islamic features are even more pronounced.

Many State Constitutions require the State Secretary to be a person who professes Islam. In those States the default legal requirement for the position of the Menteri Besar is also a person who professes Islam. And the state religion of most of the States that make up the Federation is Islam. In these States, not only is neutrality towards Islam not practice, but unlike the federal position of Prime Minister, religion is made a requirement of the public offices of the Menteri Besar and State Secretary. And beyond the formal structure of the constitution, there are other characteristics that these states have which are at odds with the essence of a secular state. With a name like Terengganu Darul Iman for example, is it realistic to expect otherwise? And does Kelantan under Nik Aziz seem like a secular state to you? But it is not the scope of this article to elaborate.

Conclusion

So to recapitulate the question: Is Malaysia a secular state? Well, by the characteristics that define a secular state then Malaysia by definition is not a secular state; it violates the principle attributes of a secular state on multiple fronts. Breaches to the tenants of a secular state are not the exception; it is almost the rule. In Malaysia, religion is not separated from the state but entrenched, empowered, enforced, expressed and elevated.

Hence, does this mean Malaysia is an Islamic State? My answer is: I don't know; I have no idea what a universally accepted Islamic state in the contemporary world looks like. But it does mean Malaysia disqualifies from being a secular state.

Dr Malik Munip taught history at University of Malaya for two decades, and was also a former Member of Parliament for Muar

PAS – making the right choice

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 11:53 AM PST

Will there be 'an arrangement of sorts' between PAS and Umno after the general election at the expense of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition?

CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today

There are many in PAS who will not have Anwar Ibrahim as their prime minister. Many also see PAS' alliance with DAP and PKR as a necessary evil if they are to be relevant in politics at the national level.

There are many still within PAS who have begun to vocally question the need of these "arrangements" when there is a willing and able ally in Umno which can deliver far more than what DAP and PKR can deliver to PAS.

An ally racially and religiously in sync with PAS – an ally that will allow them to keep Kelantan, Kedah and give them Terengganu. So why, they ask, are they in Pakatan Rakyat and not with Umno?

Of course, the state of PAS politics and the politics in the states under PAS is really the business of PAS and nobody else, except when it concerns the state of Pakatan and the state of our nation. And what is happening in PAS today concerns all of us.

PAS with its overtones of Islam, slightly masked by its overtones of political expediency, is now increasingly unable to internally contain the ever-widening divide of these factions within PAS that see this 13th general election as the definitive moment for each of their varying ideology to be tested and proven in order to achieve what they are all agreed upon: to establish Malaysia as a country based on Islamic legal theory derived from the primary sources of Islam, the Quran, Sunnah as well as Hadiths.

So wither goes PAS ulamas and its technocrats? Wither goes this Islamist political party that has a loyal membership of over one million, strong organisational structure and an ability to source for funding that is the envy of its coalition partners within Pakatan?

Wanting a win-win situation

As I have said previously, politics demand much more than what the aged can give and PAS has an abundance of this in Nik Aziz Nik Mat, Hadi Awang and Azizan Abdul Razak.

For the moment, their absence from PAS' first-tier leadership is unthinkable only because its second echelon of leaders are still sorting out their allegiance to the ranks of the ulamas or the technocrats within PAS.

Do not be distracted by the claims of either factions that the other has compromised too much or too little in the name of political or religious expediency – these are but the nuances of individuals promoting their individual agendas.

What is reality is the existence of opposing factions within PAS that now have real choices to make in the run-up to and after the 13th general election.

What choices PAS will make will depend on the numbers it has allied to or against what Pakatan has to offer PAS and what Umno has to offer PAS.

How will PAS ensure that heads they win and tails they win too?

This they can only do when they have sorted out among themselves which factions have the numbers to make the "right" choice for PAS.

Until then the bickering and the arguments will be contained within PAS with the intermittent leakages by those who seek to have their voices heard by the "masses" – something even PAS cannot prevent from happening despite the Islamic vows and oath-taking it requires of those who are its members

Is Islam under threat?

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 11:49 AM PST

The writer takes a cynical and satirical look on the Islamic threat that will backfire on the political and religious hypocrites.

Iskandar Dzulkarnain, Free Malaysia Today

Yes, leave the Muslims alone and let us sort out our differences. Whether the Muslims choose PAS or Umno will be decided in the next election. And most people believe that race and religious issues will disappear naturally after the election, so be patient.

Yes, Islam is under threat. It is not only from Christians who purportedly try to convert weak Muslims or from MCA which keeps on insulting the hudud penal code but also from within our very own borders.

Wahabbism is purportedly on the rise and Shi'itism, too, among the Sunni followers of Islam in this country. The Al Arqam sect which was supposedly neutralised by the government is rearing its head again.

There are also other deviant Muslim sects operating quietly in the country, and their low-key activities are yet to attract any attention.

Recently, 20 of Al Arqam followers were arrested for celebrating the 75th birthday of the late Ashaari, the founder of the deviant Al Arqam sect.

It has even been reported that Rawang, a back water town, has registered phenomenal economic growth due to its activities

The late founder's wife, Khatijah Am, is operating from an expensive mansion (RSA Palace) in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. She is purportedly overseeing a "government" already in place in the country.

Although no one really knows how big the movement is, there is fear that it is large enough for them to form a "shadow cabinet" with 41 different ministries. Even the Malaysian government doesn't have that many ministries.

Some of the ministries include the ministry of the netherworld (kementerian alam ghaib), the ministries of true souls and sects (roh suci dan tariqat), death and the hereafter (kematian dan akhirat) and family and holy sex (keluarga dan seks suci).

Intelligence agencies have reported that it is part of a plot to overthrow the government and to form an Islamic state. It also said that Khatijah had since been holding a total of 54 monthly meetings with "top leaders" of the sect in Malaysia via video conferencing, where she holds the post of prime minister.

It is also reported that nearly RM800,000 is collected each month through various sources to fund the movement. A clairvoyant of sorts, Khatijah claims she receive direct orders from her late husband.

Meanwhile, Nurul Izzah Anwar's statement on the freedom of religion for the Malays seems to have confused everyone in the country. Now she is facing investigation by JAIS and legal action may be taken against her.

Even the news media and Barisan Nasional politicians were totally confused, judging by the vehement reaction towards her seemingly innocent statement. How can we expect the ordinary Muslims not to be confused?

A pondok cleric with far-sighted vision has declared that it is forbidden for Muslims to vote for opposition party DAP.

A Pahang mufti has also backed a growing campaign among Umno-aligned religious leaders to echo the same after several Islamic scholars called the secular party "belligerent infidels".

Apparently, DAP is not such an innocent political party, after all.

Threats to our way of life

Even the Jews are known to be a security threat to the country and to Islam. That is why the government refuses to have anything to do with the Jews and Israel. Communism is another credible threat that needs to be constantly monitored.

Some non-Muslims pose a threat as they continue to ridicule the government about "sin taxes" collected from alcohol, gambling and cigarettes, even though the government has made it clear that such taxes go into a separate account.

Some have even gone to the extent of questioning income taxes paid by non-Muslims in this country. Now isn't that going a little too far?

Not only that, "it is also very unnecessary of non-Muslims to comment on Islam by using far- fetched examples of "political hypocrisy". They should put a full stop to it or comment on their own religion. The actions of a few renegade Muslims cannot be used to judge the majority of law- abiding Muslims.

As we speak, action is being taken on an outrageous letter to Malaysiakini written by one "Steve Oh." How can Steve humiliate the country and its people by espousing such liberal views? Doesn't he have a heart?

Malays should wisen up

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 03:01 PM PST

After being ruled by Barisan Nasional for 55 years, the Malays must now realise that they do have a choice not to continue to live in poverty, says PKR veep Chua Jui Meng.

Malaysians, including Malays, are at a critical political crossroad. We must start asking ourselves intelligently and come up with honest answers and decisions.

By Chua Jui Meng, FMT

Malaysians, especially the Malays, cannot and must not continue to live in poverty.

After 55 years, you must surely say that is enough. You have a choice and you can show that through your ballots in the next general election. Use your ballots to make change so that another government can try to make life better for everyone.

Umno's battle cries for 55 years have been – Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy), Menyelamatkan Melayu (Save Malays), Bela Melayu (Defend Malays), Jangan Hilang Kuasa Melayu (Don't lose Malay Powers).

What Malay Supremacy? More like Umno Supremacy. Save Malays? From what? Defend Malays, from whom? Don't lose Malay power? More like don't lose Umno powers.

Malaysians, including Malays, are at a critical political crossroad. We must start asking ourselves intelligently and come up with honest answers and decisions.

It is clear for all to see that the corrupt BN government has only been plundering and enriching their cronies, family members and themselves.

It all started with the 22-year Dr Mahathir Mohamad's rule, followed by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and now Najib Tun Razak.

Their plundering has saddled us with a more than RM502.4 billion federal debts, as revealed by Budget 2013, which we and our children and generations will have to bear.

Before the Mahathir regime, the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was used to acquire land for infrastructure and public development projects, like roads, schools, hospitals etc.

In 1991, Mahathir amended the Act to enable state governments to acquire such land, and then to alienate such land to their cronies and crony Umno companies for development.

The agriculture village land, mostly Malay customary-owned, are acquired cheaply by the state government and then converted to property development to enrich their cronies and themselves.

Such land grabs have been carried out by Mahathir, then Abdullah, Najib and in Johor, we are seeing Mentri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman at work in Pengerang.

Did you not see this happened in Gelang Patah, Pasir Gudang, Denga Bay, etc? We are seeing thousands of Malays driven out of their kampungs (villages) when such land grabs are initiated by Umno leaders. Are these stories made up by us?

Umno manipulation

Let me share with you what we know. You may not like what you hear, but it's how Umno manipulates and make a fool out of Malays.

The BN-Umno brainwashing Biro Tata Negara (BTN) has for years, and is still doing so, telling their civil servants to go into the interiors and Malay villages and promise the villagers everything they want. After the general election, no need to deliver the promises.

READ MORE HERE

10 reasons for Indians to drop BN

Posted: 11 Nov 2012 04:23 PM PST

Here are 10 reasons why the Indian community should not vote for Barisan Nasional in the next general election, according to Kota Alam Shah state rep M Manoharan.

By M Manoharan, FMT

Umno's 'Malay Supremacy' agenda

I would be echoing the sentiments of the great majority of Indians in Malaysia when I say they are effectively second class citizens under Umno's rule. Umno and BN can be used interchangeably because Umno is not only the dominant party but the de facto ruling party as well.

The much entrenched 'Ketuanan Melayu ' or Malay Supremacy is the unwritten code of Umno's rule. The ruling party has perfected this philosophy to the extent of rivalling the notorious racist agenda of apartheid South Africa. Basically, Ketuanan Melayu aims to contain the progress and prosperity of the non-Malays.

The Indians have traditionally looked to the civil service for employment but in the last few decades they have seen their share of public sector jobs severely curtailed. Too many Indians have to eke out a harsh living outside the comfort of the government service and the GLCs. Many resort to low paying jobs which in turn locks them in a vicious cycle of poverty. Also, the high crime rate among Indians is a direct result of the lack of access to good, high- income jobs for Indians.

NEP's lopsided implementation

The NEP introduced in 1970 and which has set the direction of the nation ever since was designed to:

a) restructure society so that race is no longer identified with occupation, and

b) eradicate poverty irrespective of race/ ethnicity.

However, none of these noble intentions ever reached the Indian community. The implementation of the NEP has bypassed the Indians. In the past, Indians were identified with the civil service, professions and the plantations. Today, they are increasingly associated with low pay jobs and hard, physical labour.

Many flagship projects of the NEP offered little to the Indian community. Felda which transformed the landless and the poor among the Malays to proud land owners had little impact on the Indians. It was the same story with Felcra, Risda and the numerous other schemes designed to uplift the rural poor.

Somehow, the Indian poor, a large proportion of whom were in the plantations were invisible to the formulators and the implementers of the NEP. There were no quotas assigned to the Indian community for jobs in the GLCs or the private sector. If the BN government could do it for the poor Malays, why did it overlook the poor Indians?

Was not the NEP designed for all Malaysians? Why the lop-sided implementation? Today, we have an Indian community that has high endemic poverty, the highest violent crime rate and a decreasing proportion in the top professions.

The pathetic state of the Tamil schools

Any responsible government would look into the education needs of its entire people. But then, BN has never been a responsible government. The BN government has systematically marginalised vernacular education. Fortunately, the economic and philanthropic strength of the Chinese community has mitigated the many challenges facing Chinese schools. There are 523 Tamil schools in the country, but up to 79% or some 379 of these schools are still occupying dilapidated, termite infested, semi-permanent buildings built on private land before Merdeka. The bigger majority of these schools are in a pathetic state – undersized classrooms, leaking roofs and some even without water or electricity.

Almost all face teacher shortage of some kind, some more acute than others. Promises are made from time to time by the government to improve trainee teacher intake, training temporary teachers and offering them permanent positions but the reality is the opposite. Some 40% of all Tamil school teachers are contract or temporary teachers.

This potent combination of poor infrastructure and teacher shortage is a definite recipe for the high failure rate of Tamil school students. Tamil schools are a neglected lot and the BN must be held responsible by all Indian voters.

Limited opportunities in the civil service and GLCs

Prior to the implementation of the NEP in 1970, Indians were well represented in the civil service. The lop-sided implementation of the NEP has decimated the Indian numbers in the civil service.

Indians and other non-Bumiputeras are severely discriminated both in the intake as well as in subsequent promotions.

For instance, there is not a single Indian judge in the Federal Court. The BN government must look into an Equal Opportunity Commission & an Equal Opportunity Act to redress the gross imbalance among the races in the Government service.

Citizens denied citizenship

Almost 300,000 Indians who are eligible for citizenship do not have MyKads. They are children born to citizen parents whose births were not registered for one reason or another. In a nutshell, they have been denied citizenship due to a government bureaucracy that is callous to their plight. Many dreams have been shattered, jobs and careers foregone and households mired in poverty due to citizenship denied.

Almost all are deserving cases because most were born in Malaysia or have lived here all their lives. Of late, the MIC has organised citizenship for about 4,000 cases but this hardly scratches the surface of the problem. It is more of a publicity stunt for the BN to dupe the Indian electorate as many of the cases publicised in the media are senior citizens in their twilight years and well past their prime.

Sadly, it is a case of political gimmicking taking precedence over resolution of people's grievances.

Highest unemployment rate

Indians have the highest unemployment rate among the major races in the country. The neglect of the Tamil schools means it ill-prepares the students for secondary school and beyond. Many Indian students lack the linguistic and numerical skills needed for today's job market.

Moreover, Indians do not have access to skills training institutes like GiatMara, polytechnics, Mara Training Institutes, vocational schools and numerous other training institutes' set-up with public money at the state and national levels. Certainly, there is a lack of concerted action by the BN government to train and equip Indian youths with the necessary job skills.

The typical response by BN leaders is that Indians do not apply for these opportunities. How can Indians apply for these places when it is not made known to them?

As a result, the majority resort to the private sector. With low levels of education and absence of marketable skills, they are forced to work as lorry drivers, road sweepers, dishwashers, free-lance house maids, cleaners, despatch clerks, personal drivers, etc. These jobs are shunned by the other races because of the low pay, long working hours and physical risks involved.

The situation has got so bad that Indians are forced to compete with foreigners for these very jobs.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 17 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan