| Amangate: will Najib clean up Nazri’s mess? Posted: 02 Nov 2012 12:12 PM PDT 
If Nazri disclaims responsibility over his statements, then who is responsible to parliament for them? Nazri is a cabinet minister in the prime minister's department, looking after parliamentary affairs, as well as de facto law minister. So, if Nazri's disclaimer is justified, does it not mean that in addition to Nazri himself, the prime minister and the entire Barisan Nasional (BN) cabinet can also be freed from responsibility over possible false statements on the scandal made in parliament? Kim Quek Minister in Prime Minister's Department cum de dacto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz's attempt to disown responsibilities for his contradictory statements in parliament on ground that he was only the reader – not the author – of those statements has brought serious concern to the soundness of the Barisan Nasional political leadership. The senior minister was confronted with evidence of his son Nedim's family using a luxurious vehicle registered in Michael Chia's name, who together with Musa Aman (Sabah chief minister), were cleared by Nazri of corruption in parliament earlier. Nazri had provided written answers in parliament that there was no corruption in the four-year-old scandal where Chia was alleged to have been arrested in Hong Kong for trying to smuggle S$16 million of Musa's cash to Malaysia. Nazri also denied that Chia was arrested, or that he had cash with him. Nazri attributed these findings to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Attorney General (AG). Talking to reporters on Nov 1, Nazri explained that all his statements in parliament came from the MACC and AG, over whom he had no control. He was only the minister answering questions in parliament on issues that he was not involved in. As such, he sees no conflict of interest with Michael Chia. Sadly and shamefully, Nazri was in effect saying that he merely parroted what these government agencies told him, for which he disavowed any responsibility. BREACH OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY Nazri's stance immediately raises an alarm. If Nazri disclaims responsibility over his statements, then who is responsible to parliament for them? Nazri is a cabinet minister in the prime minister's department, looking after parliamentary affairs, as well as de facto law minister. So, if Nazri's disclaimer is justified, does it not mean that in addition to Nazri himself, the prime minister and the entire Barisan Nasional (BN) cabinet can also be freed from responsibility over possible false statements on the scandal made in parliament? Doesn't this amount to the Barisan Nasional leadership abdicating wholesale its accountability to parliament, and by extension, betraying the trust upon which the people have elected the coalition to power? This is certainly a serious breach of the principles of parliamentary democracy upon which this nation was founded, for which Prime Minister Najib Razak can no longer keep silent and must promptly stand up to make his stand to the nation. He must urgently clarify in parliament whether Nazri was authorized to make those statements and whether every minister is personally responsible for what he states in parliament. And since MACC comes under the prime minister's department while the AG is the cabinet's chief legal adviser, both of whom are claimed by Nazri to be responsible for the statements he made in parliament, Najib must now give unequivocal answers to many perplexing questions on the scandal, compounded by Nazri's contradicting versions of the story. NAZRI'S CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS To appreciate the seriousness of these contradictions perpetrated by Nazri in parliament, I will briefly recap them as follows: · On Oct 11, answering MP Chua Tian Chan, Nazri stated that the AG decided that there was no corruption, based on MACC's investigations and reports. However, this assertion immediately clashes with MACC's own statement a few days earlier, when its deputy chief commissioner (operations) Shukri Abdul said on Oct 5 that investigation was still on-going, due to instruction by its review panel to get more evidence. · On Oct 18, answering MP Tan Kok Wai, Nazri changed his tune by saying that investigation was not carried out by MACC, but instead, by Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which concluded that there was no corruption. No explanation was given as to why Nazri reversed his story. · On Oct 22, answering questions in the committee stage of the Budget 2013 debate in Dewan Rakyat, Nazri astounded all by denying that Michael Chia was ever arrested, neither did Chia possess the alleged cash, as he understood from MACC. No explanation was given why the BN government had kept its strange silence, while reports of Michael Chia's arrest with S$16 million cash meant for Musa Aman swirled for the past four years. It is important to note that while Nazri was dancing like yo-yo in parliament with his statements of exoneration for Chia and Musa, none of the investigating/law-enforcing bodies – ICAC, MACC or AG – ever uttered a word on the scandal (except for MACC's statement on Oct 5 that investigation was still in progress), least of all any declaration of the duo's innocence. All we have is Nazri's words – words that are not collaborated or substantiated with even an iota of evidence, in addition to being self-contradictory and conflicting with MACC. PM MUST ANSWER Under the circumstances, Premier Najib must take responsibility for the bumbling minister in his department and step up to give categorical answers to the following questions in parliament to avert a total collapse of confidence in his leadership: 1. Is it true that ICAC has conveyed its findings of money laundering to MACC, including a money flow chart trailing the Sabah timber corruption money through a convoluted network to end up in Musa Aman's UBS AG account in Zurich, complete with details of various nominee accounts, payers and payees, deposit amounts, etc? (This money flow chart has been widely circulating in the Internet for some time). 2. Is it true that MACC has carried out an investigation of its own on Sabah timber corruption including probe on Musa Aman and his brother Anifa Aman (Malaysia's foreign minister) since the Michael Chia incidence in Hong Kong? 3. Is it true that neither ICAC nor MACC has ever exonerated Chia and Musa of money laundering and corruption? To avoid falling into the same quagmire as minister Nazri has, the premier is well advised to buttress his answers with sufficient and credible facts – the kind of evidence that will restore public confidence. THE LATEST NAZRI-CHIA CORRUPTION SCANDAL With regards to Nazri's latest refutation of any impropriety over his family's beneficial link to Michael Chia on ground that his son is his son, with whom he has nothing do, this is sheer child's talk. Whether Nazri likes it or not, his son Nedim is his immediate family, and for any improper favour granted to Nedim by virtual of Nazri's position as a minister, the latter is deemed beneficiary and recipient of that improper favour. Would Chia have given the half-million-ringgit Hummer SUV for use by Nedim's family, if not for the fact that Nazri is a senior minister capable of doing Chia a favour? In this case, Nazri easily stands out as a prime corruption suspect, as he has already stuck his neck out in parliament where he recklessly cleared Chia (as well as his alleged master Musa Aman) of any wrong-doing. This is clearly a case with classical corruption ingredients, cut out for action by any corruption buster worth its salt in any democratic country. However, in Malaysia, our MACC has already played deaf and dumb on the Chia-Musa scandal for the past four years. Will it also do a Chia-Musa on the latest Nazri-Chia corruption scandal this time around? |
| What Everyone Should Know About Operasi Lalang Posted: 02 Nov 2012 12:09 PM PDT Kee Thuan Chye Last week, we marked the 25th anniversary of Operasi Lalang, that black day in our history that changed our country for the worst. Like May 13, 1969, it was a Malaysian tragedy. And after all these years, we have yet to fully recover from it. The beneficiaries of that notorious official move on Oct 27, 1987, to detain 106 Malaysians under the Internal Security Act (ISA) were – as journalist uppercaise has rightly pointed out in his blog – the then prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, and Umno. Or, to be precise, Mahathir's Umno Baru, which came about after the original Umno was declared illegal by the High Court in February 1988. The year before, Mahathir was under siege as president of the party. The party was split – into Team A and Team B. And in April, he was challenged for the presidency by Tengku Razaleigh. Members had come to dispute Mahathir's leadership style. Team B, led by Razaleigh, criticised Mahathir for not consulting other Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders before making decisions. As prime minister, he put his own people in charge of key operations. His privatisation schemes were given to his cronies. Team B pointed out that the New Economic Policy had failed to benefit poor Malays. Now, in hindsight, it's even clearer to us why that was so. Team B made an impact, and Mahathir won the election by polling 761 votes against Razaleigh's 718, scraping through by a mere 43 votes. Many people actually expected Razaleigh to win, so the suspicion of election-fixing arose. But Razaleigh accepted defeat and promised to support Mahathir if the latter did not embark on a witchhunt. Of course, now that we know from hindsight the kind of man Mahathir is, it comes as no surprise that he embarked on a witchhunt anyway. He removed all Team B supporters from his Cabinet, and did the same at state and local government levels. In June, a group of Umno members who came to be known as "the Umno 11" filed a suit to have the Umno elections declared illegal because they had found invalid voters among the delegates. These delegates were allegedly from Umno branches that had not been approved by the Registrar of Societies. The court asked both sides to settle the issue themselves, but an amicable solution was not reached. So on Oct 19, the Umno 11 said it would press on with its legal action. At the time, the tensions within Umno were being compounded by racial tensions outside. Chinese educationists had been upset by the Education Ministry's appointing of non-Chinese-educated principals and senior assistants for Chinese schools. The custodians of Chinese education, Dong Jiao Zong – abetted by political parties like the MCA, Gerakan and the DAP – staged a protest against the move. It immediately provoked a counter-rally by Umno Youth at which about 10,000 people turned up. This was the event at which Najib Razak, then the Umno Youth chief, famously unsheathed a keris and reportedly vowed that it would be bathed in Chinese blood. The authorities seized on this potentially explosive situation – and the somewhat random act of an army private running amok in Chow Kit shooting his M16 at people – as a pretext to swoop down on "troublemakers". Operasi Lalang resulted in conveniently shutting away a good number of Opposition politicians and civil society activists who had been critical of the Government. I use the words "pretext" and "conveniently" because most of those detained were not at all involved in the Dong Jiao Zong protest or the Umno Youth counter-rally. Among them were members of Christian groups, environmentalists and anti-logging natives of Sarawak , and a Malay Christian convert. Why were they taken in? Forty of the 106 even had their detentions extended by Mahathir for two years. They included DAP deputy chairman Karpal Singh, Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and his son Guan Eng, some PAS members and numerous NGO activists. On the other hand, the leaders of the Umno Youth rally who were brandishing banners that called for Chinese blood and proclaimed "May 13 has begun" were untouched. Why were they not taken in? The Government also conveniently shut down three newspapers that had been critical of it. The Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh had their publishing permits suspended. Purwaiz Alam, who was a journalist at The Star during its suspension, recalls in uppercaise's blog the months of uncertainty he experienced, surviving on one-third pay and waiting anxiously for the newspaper to be forgiven. At one point, he and his wife had to sell their video cassette recorder just to get some extra cash. "But on the first day that The Star re-opened," he writes, "most of us knew things would never be the same any more. The journalism that we had learnt and knew well would wither away soon enough. As the months went by, it became obvious that my job (and those of hundreds of others) had been saved at a price, a very hefty price." His grim conclusion: "All of us are still paying for it 25 years later." Effectively, Operasi Lalang heralded the culture of fear that strangulated Malaysians for at least two decades. It also provided the environment for Mahathir to rule in an even more authoritarian manner. He had scared off his opponents and silenced his critics, so now he was free to do what he wished. He amended the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) to keep newspapers under tighter control. He amended the Police Act to restrict our right to free assembly, making a police permit mandatory for public gatherings. According to the book Malaysian Maverick by Barry Wain, Mahathir said his amendments were aimed at those who abused the Government's "liberal attitude". "Being liberal to them is like offering a flower to a monkey," Mahathir said, disdainfully. "The monkeys would rather tear the flower apart than appreciate its beauty." In 1988, as a result of his unhappiness over a few court judgements that favoured natural justice over his administration's convenience, he amended the Federal Constitution to remove the independence of the judiciary. There is much more to say about how Mahathir tampered with our sacred institutions in the years after Operasi Lalang, but it would take a book to cover it all. Some people think another tragedy like Operasi Lalang could happen again – and not too far in the future. Especially when, as journalist Charles Chan who lived through the dark days of The Star's suspension puts it, "desperate politicians face loss of power that opens the doors to prosecution for their abuses of power, corruption, etc". To prepare ourselves for such a contingency, we need to ask ourselves how we would respond if it should happen. Should we be docile like we were in 1987 or should we stand up for our rights? What's paramount is that we should find ways of preventing such tragedies in future. First, we should not allow a despot to rise again. At the first sign of such a creature emerging, we should vote him out instead of supporting him for more than two decades. Concomitant with that, we should not allow any ruling party the luxury of a two-thirds majority in Parliament so that they can amend the Constitution anyhow they like. We should also be vigilant in not allowing any of the despot's proxies to climb to the top. Second, we must ensure that checks and balances are firmly in place, like a strong civil society – and, certainly, the reinstatement of the separation of powers among the executive, the legislative and the judiciary engraved in our Constitution. This means independence must be returned to the judiciary. Third, we must repeal all laws that are against the spirit of democracy, like the PPPA, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act (soon to be called the sweet-sounding National Harmony Act) and the Universities and University Colleges Act. There is no ISA now but in its place is the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012. This has to go. We have enough laws to take care of terrorist threats. Fourth, we must get rid of our feudal mentality. This perpetuates a culture of blind subservience to the leader and a culture of sycophancy, both of which empower the leader even more. Furthermore, ascent to leadership should be based on merit, not on an individual's ability to suck up to the boss. Fifth, Operasi Lalang is a tragedy that needs to be told and re-told so that those who don't know about its ramifications may understand why Malaysia is in the mess it's in. Those who have lived through that terrible day and its aftermath need to tell their children and grandchildren the real story about what happened and condemn the abuse of power and dictatorial rule. Our first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, gave us a lead when he said right after Operasi Lalang: "It's not a question of the Chinese against the Government but of his own party, Umno, who are against him." The real story of Operasi Lalang is not about a potential racial war erupting. It is about a despot who wanted to hang on to power, shut out all opposition, and run the country to his own advantage. That's what everyone should know.
* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians, available in bookstores together with its Malay translation, Jangan Kelentong Lagi, Kita Semua Orang Malaysia. |
| Compulsory mosques in new housing will polarise society - COSA Posted: 02 Nov 2012 12:04 PM PDT 
The National Fellowship (NECF) Commission on Sabah Affairs (COSA) is against the compulsory building of mosques in new housing projects in Sabah as a blanket policy. This is our stand in response to recent suggestions that the state government exempt premium on land given up by developers for the construction of mosques, and that a site for a surau or mosque be compulsorily allocated in every low and medium cost housing project, before approval for the housing project is given to developers. NECF-COSA is concerned that such a move may lead to religious polarisation in the state and affect the religious harmony unique to Sabah. The proposal for such a blanket policy is misguided as there has never been any problem in gaining approval for the building of mosques and suraus. On the other hand, it is the non-Muslim places of worship that have been subject to unnecessary delays in obtaining approval for their building plans and in land acquisition applications. Sabah has long enjoyed harmony and tolerance among its multi-religious populations in a way that is not experienced to the same degree in Peninsula Malaysia. Some households even have members of different faiths living under one roof.
From a practical standpoint, non-Muslim house buyers may eventually end up having to shoulder the added cost to build the mosques passed on to them by developers. It is irresponsible for individuals, regardless of their political affiliation, to raise such a controversial proposal in their individual capacity as it concerns the religious harmony Sabahans have long enjoyed. Such matters should only be pursued through the State Legislative Assembly and with prior consultation and consensus with leaders of other religions, housing developers and house buyers. |
| Yang membela Islam tiga orang Cina Posted: 02 Nov 2012 11:48 AM PDT 
Bagi membendung api perkauman yang belum benar-benar padam, Sarena Tay menyeru orang Melayu beramai-ramai menyokong PAS. Jika orang Melayu tidak lagi dalam Umno, maka perkauman boleh diredakan. Tidak lagi orang yang hendak menyokong MCA. Jika MCA dapat dilumpuhkan, kuranglah puak yang berani mencerca Islam. Subky Latif, Harakah Daily Hampir menitis air mata menahan sebak melihat yang membela Islam dicerca Dr Chua Soi Lek dan pemimpin MCA ialah orang Cina dipercayai ketiga-tiganya bukan Islam. Jika yang sensitif apabila Islam dicerca ialah orang Islam, orang PAS dan orang yang beriman, tiada suatu yang luar biasa kerana orang Islam tidak wajar membisu apabila agamanya dicerca. Tetapi amat menakjubkan apabila rakan-rakan Cina yang tampil menyifatkan Soi Lek dan MCA menghina Islam seperti yang disuarakan oleh Anthony Loke, MP DAP Rasah, kolumnis Siang Malam di Harakah, Lim Hong Siang dan seorang penulis lagi Sarena Tay. Pada mereka apa yang cakap oleh Soi Lek dan semua pemimpin MCA dalam perhimpunannya dua hari pada 20 Oktober lalu adalah menghina Islam, hudud dan PAS. Mereka bukan orang Isalam, bukan beriman dengan hudud dan bukan pejuang PAS. Mereka adalah pembawa berita sebenar dan pembuka mata, sesuai dengan ajaran ilmu kewartawanan iaitu berita adalah maklumat berunsur kejutan seperti anjing digigit orang. Bukanlah berita lagi kalau orang digigit anjing. Hujah biasa jika yang membela Islam itu orang, kerana adalah tanggungjawab orang beriman membela dan menegakkan Islam dan hukum-hukumnya. Tetapi ia adalah pembuka mata ada wibawa apabila orang yang tiada kepentingan dengan Islam dan hudud mengira Islam dan hudud telah dicemuh. Mereka tidak bercadang untuk mendaulatkan Islam seperti yang PAS perjuangkan dan jaga mahu hudud menjadi perundangan seperti yang dituntut oleh Islam, tetapi mereka tidak melihat bijak dan rasional apabila Islam dan hudud dihina begitu rupa. Kewajaran mereka berbuat demikian bukan untuk melihat Islam itu daulatkan tetapi tindakan MCA itu menggamit keserahan di kalangan rakyat dan negara. DAP belajar dari keterlanjuran pemimpinnya Karpal Singh pernah berkata langah mayatnya jika Islam diperundangkan. Ia pernah menimbulkan ketegangan di kalangan orang Islam dan ia menyukarkan DAP untuk menembusi pasaran pengaruh politik. Kesilapan itu telah dibaiki, Karpal dan DAP tidak lagi dilihat oleh umat Islam di luar Umno sebagai pencetus ketegangan. Ketiga Cina itu termasuk ketua pemuda DAP, Anthony Loke mahu mewujudkan suasana negara yang aman, adil dan harmoni, menolak provokasi dan penghinaan terhadap Islam yang lakukan oleh MCA itu. Lebih menjolok mata Perdana Menteri Najib telah diperalatkan oleh MCA dalam politiknya untuk menyerang Islam dan hudud itu. Soi Lek menjemput Najib merasmikan perhimpunannya dan lepas itu menggunakan perhimpunan itu untuk menyerang hudud dan PAS. Dengan sendirinya ia menyerang dan menghina Islam. Syukur orang Islam dapat mengawal sabar dan pendirian tidak bangun menyeru pejabat MCA dan premis kepunyaan Cina. Tetapi ia telah mengguris perasaan orang Islam. Siapa yang dapat menghalang kalau ada orang Islam yang bangkit bertindak kasar kepada masyarakat Cina. Walaupun ketiga anak Cina memunyai rasa setiakawan yang tinggi terhadap PAS yang ada pakatan dengan DAP, tetapi tindakan spontan mereka atas kecetekan Soi Lek dan MCAnya adalah untuk mengelakkan ketegangan berlanjutan antara kaum di negara ini. Bagi membendung api perkauman yang belum benar-benar padam, Sarena Tay menyeru orang Melayu beramai-ramai menyokong PAS. Jika orang Melayu tidak lagi dalam Umno, maka perkauman boleh diredakan. Tidak lagi orang yang hendak menyokong MCA. Jika MCA dapat dilumpuhkan, kuranglah puak yang berani mencerca Islam. Malaysia beruntung ada tiga Cina seperti itu dan orang seperti mereka dipercayai ramai. |
| Johor’s Malay vote may thwart Pakatan’s quest for Putrajaya, say leaders Posted: 02 Nov 2012 09:15 AM PDT  The second or third generation of voters in the traditionally pro-Umno FELDA settlements may potentially sway towards the opposition but not the first-generation settlers. Mohd Farhan Darwis, Malaysian Insider Despite Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) ambitious predictions in Johor for the coming polls, local leaders from the federal opposition front expect to stumble in their quest to unlock the Malay vote, which is seen as the key to break into Umno's southernmost fortress. The Malays make up close to 60 per cent of the three million-strong population of Johor, which is also home to a staggering 74 FELDA settlements spread out across 21 state constituencies. The FELDA Malay vote is often played by BN as its trump card during electoral battles, and has also been credited as among one of the key reasons behind the ruling pact's survival of the 2008 political tsunami, particularly in Johor. In Election 2008, BN lost its customary two-thirds parliamentary majority and ceded five states to the opposition, clinging to power only through its successes in Johor and east Malaysia. But local PR leaders believe a slight 35 per cent vote swing among the Johor's Malay electorate should suffice to topple BN in Johor in the next polls, provided the pact throws all its muscle behind ensuring that Johor's non-Malays are willing to go anti-BN. When met during recent interviews, several leaders told The Malaysian Insider that their respective parties have their sights set on the state's mixed and urban seats, where the non-Malay voters make up a prominent percentage. "For the Chinese voters, we are not worried... whether DAP or PKR, or even PAS — if we stand in a Chinese area, voters will opt for PR. "The mixed areas, where the ratio is 50:50 (Malay:non-Malay) or 60:40 (Malay:non-Malay), we have potential to win... so these areas are our focus," Johor PAS commissioner Datuk Dr Mahfodz Mohamed told The Malaysian Insider in an interview. He described the Malay vote as Umno's "lifeline", admitting that it would be too difficult for PR to break into this vote bank. "The Malay seats in the villages, FELDA areas, or Felcra, this is Umno's lifeline... it's definitely hard to breach. Perhaps we may have made some inroads but winning these seats would be tough. "They are safe areas (for Umno), and have been gifted with many things from the party, they feel very obligated to the party there," Mahfodz said. He said the second or third generation of voters in the traditionally pro-Umno FELDA settlements may potentially sway towards the opposition but not the first-generation settlers. PAS Youth chief Shuhaizan Kaiat echoed the same with his party leader, revealing that PAS has even placed Johor's Malay majority seats as its lowest priority target for the coming general election. "Areas with a large number of FELDA settlers particularly are our least focused target for votes... even lower than the rural villages as these settlements are difficult for our campaigners to even enter," he said. But with an estimated 70 per cent support from the state's Chinese community, who make up over 35 per cent of Johor's population, Shuhaizan said the state could well be in the bag for PR in GE13. "We have no doubts of their support in PR," he said. In another interview, Johor Umno Information chief Datuk Sambul Bari Jamali also said he was confident that the state's dominant Malay community would stay loyal to BN in the coming polls. "I would not call them PR's stumbling block, but it is true the Malays in Johor are loyal to their parties, loyal to Umno. "Maybe PR has the support of some of the Malays in the urban areas, but what they (PR) have to see is this easy indicator — the Malays do make up Johor's majority," he said. In Election 2008, BN returned a strong government in Johor when it trounced the opposition in 25 of 26 parliamentary seats and 50 of 56 state seats. Without its victories in Johor, BN would have lost the battle in the peninsula to PR, with only 60 federal seats, in comparison with PR's 79. Including the Johor seats, BN's seat tally with PR stood at 85-80. |
| PKR strongman Badrul Amin among 16 charged in Syariah court Posted: 01 Nov 2012 08:26 PM PDT 
(NST) - Sixteen Al-Arqam members who were picked up during a gathering in Bandar Country Homes Rawang on Thursday night were charged at the Kuang Syariah Court this morning Among those in court were PKR supreme council member Dr Badrul Amin Baharon and Global Ikhwan Sdn Bhd board of directors.
They were charged under Section 12E of the Selangor Syariah Criminal Enactment. All were released on bail.
Selangor Religious Department enforcement officers and police broke up the outlawed Al-Arqam gathering and brought some of the members to its headquarters in Shah Alam for questioning.
The NST reported that the banned Al-Arqam movement,led by the founder's wife, Khatijah Am, is said to have formed a "shadow cabinet" with 41 ministries, including the ministry of the netherworld (kementerian alam ghaib).
This was part of its plot to overthrow the government and form an Islamic state, according to information compiled by intelligence agencies.
Also listed in its shadow cabinet were 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 sources said Khatijah, who is the widow of Ashaari Muhammad and has been living in Mecca after his death, had been holding monthly meetings with "top leaders" of the sect in Malaysia via video conferencing.
A source said 54 meetings, dubbed "roh parlimen" (soul parliament) by Khatijah, had been held so far.
In their "parliamentary meetings", which had begun in May 2010, Khatijah had assumed the position as their "prime minister".
|
| Malay grads losing out in job ‘race’ Posted: 01 Nov 2012 08:14 PM PDT 
A new study discovers that Malay graduates stand a lesser chance in being called up for an interview compared to their Chinese counterparts. Teoh El Sen, FMT Does race matter in securing an interview? Apparently so, according to a new study which found that a Malay fresh graduate was 16.7% less likely to be called up for a job interview in the private sector compared to their Chinese counterparts. The study, funded by the University Malaya Research Grant, was jointly conducted by Lee Hwok Aun, a senior lecturer from the Department of Development Studies at Universiti Malaya (UM) and Muhammed Abdul Khalid, a Research Fellow at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaya (UKM). The academic paper was presented at a public seminar in UM this morning. Both researches said they aim to "empirically and objectively" investigate racial discrimination in the private sector labour market in the Peninsular Malaysia, which was talked about but its prevalence not studied. However, they stressed that the focus was on incidences of discrimination and not on the reasons behind it, including racism, prejudice or bigotry. The "first of its kind" study was based on a field experiment where fictitious resumes of Malay and Chinese applicants were sent to job advertisements in Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 3,012 resumes were sent to 753 engineering and accounting jobs advertised on Jobstreet.com and JobsDB.com between August and December 2011. For each job, the researchers sent out four fake resumes according to race and their academic qualifications. All the "applicants" were male with no prior working experience but have a basic qualification in the field being applied for. The number of responses from employers, which have been divided into "Chinese-controlled, Malay-controlled or foreign-controlled", are then recorded for each category. One of the main findings of the study was that the total resumes sent, only 13.1%(396) received callbacks, of those, 4.2%(63) were Malay and 22.1%(222) were Chinese. The study also found that the quality of applicants appeared to matter more for Malays than for the Chinese. There was also a difference between industries, where engineering companies were responding to 25% of resumes by Chinese applicants and only 3% of resumes by Malay applicants while in accountancy, a lesser 19% Chinese applicants received callbacks compared to 6% of Malay applicants. It was also found that discrimination against Malay applicants is highest among foreign-controlled companies, followed by Malay-controlled companies, then Chinese-controlled companies.
Malay firms discriminating Malays?
Interestingly, Malay applicants applying to Chinese-controlled engineering firms are more likely to be called back than if they applied to Malay-controlled firms. A Chinese applying to a Malay company also has about the same chances as a Malay candidate. Employers that stipulate Chinese language proficiency as a job requirement also favour Chinese applicants. Chinese-controlled and foreign-controlled companies are significantly inclined toward Chinese resumes. "The data do not directly inform the motivation of the observed discrimination. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that employers are generally predisposed favourably toward Chinese, substantially due to compatibility factors and unobservable qualities not revealed in job applications, and are more selective toward Malays, which results in fewer but considerably qualified applicants getting callbacks." "This study underscores the complexity of labour market discrimination and its policy implications," said the study. READ MORE HERE |
| Must be Sirim-approved first Posted: 01 Nov 2012 07:41 PM PDT 
Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around? Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Because of the influence of Hollywood and the movies it churns out, most people have the misconception that the Crusades was about Christians going to war against Muslims. What we are not told is that the Crusaders killed (or massacred entire communities) more fellow Christians than they did Muslims. There was more than one Crusade over about 200 years so it was actually a series of religious expeditions organised by different people from different parts of Europe. So it was not just Richard the Lion Heart versus Saladin (of the Prince John, Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood era) as what most think. The objective of the Crusades was to recapture the Christian 'Holy Land' occupied by the Turks after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire. The 'backbone' of the Crusades was the Roman Catholic church. Hence if you were not Roman Catholic -- such as you were Coptic Christians -- then you too would be exterminated just like the Muslims. In fact, all over Europe, even in England then, if you followed a different form of Christianity than the official 'government-approved' version, you were declared a heretic and thus would be killed. Christians, and of course Muslims as well, have zero tolerance for those who deviate from the correct form of Christianity or Islam. Christians would kill 'deviant' Christians but would tolerate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and Muslims would kill 'deviant' Muslims, but would tolerate Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. That is how it goes. Of course, since the last couple of hundreds of years, Christians no longer kill 'deviant' Christians. But that does not mean Christianity accepts 'deviant' Christians as true Christians. Even as recent as 100 years ago Anglican Christians considered Roman Catholics as idol worshippers and would never sanction anyone of their family marrying a Catholic. For example, homosexuals are still not accepted in Christianity. The priest would remind us about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible and how God went berserk and punished homosexuals. No doubt the church no longer arrest and burn homosexuals like they used to. But just because homosexuals are no longer burned alive this does not mean the Bible has been amended to allow homosexuality. Hence heresy is still a crime in Christianity, just like homosexuality, and the fact that you are no longer tied to a stake and burned alive is not because that crime is no longer a crime. It just means the church no longer has the political power to kill you like it used to. In Islam it is slightly different from Christianity (but only different in terms of authority to punish you). In Islam, the 'church', meaning the religious authorities, still has power to punish you for crimes against Islam. Heresy, homosexuality, sexual misconduct, etc., which the Christian church can no longer punish you for even though they are still crimes under Christianity, can result in you facing punishment as decided by the religious authorities. So, the difference is as follows. Crimes against Christianity and crimes against Islam still exist and both Christianity and Islam basically share the same view on what these crimes are. However, while in Islam the religious authorities are still allowed to punish you for these crimes, in 'Christendom' the religious authorities have lost this power. That power now comes under the state under the concept of separation of church and state. And that explains why the Selangor Religious Department arrested 20 people in Rawang last night that were accused of trying to revive the Al Arqam movement. The followers of Al Arqam are considered heretics and in Malaysia the religious authorities can take action against heretics like they could in Christendom until less than 200 years ago. (Even witches were still burned alive, and in America as well, until not too long ago). In fact, the religious authorities will not just arrest followers of Al Arqam. Even Shias, Salafis, etc., will face the wrath of the religious authorities. In short, anyone who deviates from 'true Islam' and who do not follow the official 'government-approved' version of Islam will get into trouble. Isn't it ironical? Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever, are considered people who have followed the wrong path and who are going to spend an eternity in hell. Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam to embrace any of these other unaccepted and false religions. If they do then they can be killed by order of Allah. But all these false religions are allowed to exist as long as you do not propagate your false religion to Muslims and try to convert Muslims to your false religion. The government will leave you alone and will not harass you if you leave Muslims alone and do not mislead Muslims. Live and let live. Unto you your religion and unto me my religion. (Surah Al Kafirun -- O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.) Yes, can you see how tolerant Islam can be to those of the other religions? You do your thing and the Muslims will leave you alone even if they consider you followers of a false religion. Only if you interfere with Islam or Muslims will you face the wrath of Muslims. However, Muslims will not live and let live when it comes to fellow Muslims. Even if you do your own thing and you do not disturb other Muslims that will not save you. The state or religious authorities will seek you out, hunt you down, and clamp down hard on you if you are a fellow Muslim who is a heretic and who deviates from the 'government-approved' version of Islam. Non-Muslims have absolute freedom to do what they like as long as they are not a 'threat' to Islam -- threat meaning to 'undermine' Islam or 'mislead' Muslims. Muslims, however, have no such freedom. You are told what you can and cannot do. And what you can do depends on what the government says you can do. Now do you understand why the Selangor Religious Department took action against the followers of Al Arqam last night, one of those 20 a PKR Selangor leader? Religion is a state matter and the Selangor Religious Department comes under the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government. So it is Pakatan Rakyat that took action against those deviant Muslims and heretics last night. Yes, we need a Muslim Martin Luther to help reform the Muslim 'church'. We need a Muslim Martin Luther to challenge the religious institution and tell those religionists to mind their own fucking business. Who are they to decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam? You decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam and you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam. What if you are wrong? What if you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam and what if you happen to be wrong? What will happen to me if I follow your interpretation of Islam and you happen to be wrong? Well, that means, just like you, I will go to hell. Is that not correct? Is that not what the Qur'an says? Does not the Qur'an say that if I follow my ancestors' beliefs and if my ancestors happen to be wrong then I will join my ancestors in hell? Does not the Qur'an forbid us from following our ancestors because if our ancestors are wrong then we will be punished for following the wrong beliefs? Yes, the Qur'an has made it very clear. We must not blindly follow our ancestors' beliefs because they may be wrong and if they are wrong then we too will be wrong. But the government will not allow us to do that. The Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government through the Selangor Religious Department will not allow us to do that. The government says we must follow the 'government-approved' version of Islam. The Qur'an, however, says we must not do that. Is the government above the Qur'an? Is the Selangor Religious Department changing, amending or twisting the word of Allah? You are going to pay for the wrongs you do. If the government forces you to do the wrong thing and you do it then you and not the government will pay for your sins. You cannot tell Allah that I only did what the government asked me to do. Allah will punish you for doing the wrong thing in spite of someone else forcing you to do it. Hence religion is between you and God. The government cannot tell you what to believe and what to do. The government can, of course, arrest you if you do not follow the 'government-approved' religion. In fact, until quite recently, the government could even kill you for not following the 'government approved' version of the religion. They would declare you a heretic and put you to death. At one time they fed you to the lions while the Romans clapped and cheered until the animal-rights activists protested this cruelty to lions. So there you are. What has changed over the last 2,000 years? Nothing much really! The government decides the correct version of religion and will pronounce you a heretic and punish you for heresy if you do not follow what the government dictates. Then all those in government who think they are going to heaven do not get to go to heaven and will drag you along with them to wherever they are going to end up after they die. Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around? Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion. |
| Talk about SUARAM and me outside Parliament if you dare Posted: 01 Nov 2012 05:45 PM PDT 
Amer Hamzah Arshad It has just come to my attention that several newspapers have published reports on 1 November 2012 making reference to a letter (hereinafter referred to as "the said letter") which was highlighted by a Member of Parliament, Wee Choo Keong, vis-Ã -vis Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd's legal status. Berita Harian, in particular, made specific reference to my name (which was incorrectly spelt) and also erroneously claimed that I am practising in the law firm of Zain & Co. In fact, I left Zain & Co with effect from 1 April 2011. With reference to the statements by Wee Choo Keong, the newspapers have reported, among others, that: i) I had through the said letter deliberately misled and deceived William Bourdon into believing that SUARAM is a registered entity. ii) There was a "grand design" or a collusion or a conspiracy between myself and Suara Insiatif Sdn Bhd/Suara Rakyat Malaysia/SUARAM (hereinafter referred to as "SUARAM") to discredit or destabilise or overthrow the government. I wish to state that the allegations made by Wee Choo Keong and the insinuations by the newspapers are false and baseless. SUARAM has made various public statements about its legal status. I am shocked that Wee Choo Keong, the newspapers and the broadcast media (TV3 and NTV7 in particular) that reported Wee Choo Keong's statements have ignored SUARAM's position on the matter. I am also appalled that the newspapers and the broadcast media run purportedly by professional media organisations did not contact me to obtain my side of the story before publishing and/or airing these scurrilous allegations against me. For the record SUARAM is a company duly registered and incorporated under the Malaysian Companies Act 1965 under the name Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, and has been carrying out activities, among others, aimed at the protection and realisation of human rights in Malaysia under the acronym 'SUARAM' or 'Suara Rakyat Malaysia'. SUARAM is a personal client of mine and the said letter was written and signed under my name as the personal legal adviser of SUARAM to state the background and registration history of SUARAM under the Companies Act. If Wee Choo Keong had made any effort to verify with the partners of Zain & Co, no doubt it would have been clear to him that my former partners had no knowledge whatsoever of the contents of the letter and the allegations of "grand design" on their part are utterly ridiculous and false. Nevertheless, all the relevant facts have been stated in the said letter substantiated with documentary evidence. I stand by the contents of the said letter. Further, the said letter did not make any reference to Government personnel, institutions or activities. The allegations of a "grand design" or a collusion or a conspiracy is a figment of Wee Choo Keong's "grand imagination" and I challenge Wee Choo Keong to repeat his slanderous and defamatory accusations outside Parliament, and for the newspapers and the broadcast media to report it. I categorically state that the allegations made by Wee Choo Keong which were carried in part or in full by the press and the broadcast media amount to a vicious and unjustified attack upon myself and SUARAM. I view the said allegations as slander, defamation and/or a malicious falsehood specifically designed to assassinate my character and reputation as a lawyer in Malaysia to uphold justice and act without fear and favour on behalf of my personal client. I reiterate my challenge to Wee Choo Keong to repeat his slanderous and defamatory accusations outside Parliament, and for the newspapers to report it. I reserve all my rights in the meantime. |
| Benarkan Al-Arqam Hidup Semula Posted: 01 Nov 2012 05:32 PM PDT 
(Suara Pakatan Rakyat) - TIDAK semua yang senang dengan tindakan kontroversi Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) menyerbu satu majlis di Rawang kelmarin kerana dikaitkan dengan pertubuhan agama yang diharamkan kerajaan BN, Al-Arqam. Ramai yang tidak bersetuju dan membantah tindakan JAIS tersebut. Apatah lagi bila Pengarah Jabatan Penerangan Khas Negeri Selangor, Ustaz Badrolamin antara mereka yang turut ditahan penguatkuasa JAIS dalam serbuan tersebut. Badrolamin yang merupakan tetamu kehormat majlis tersebut, dikhabarkan turut menganggotai jawatankuasa pengelola majlis itu. Sumber dari Pejabat Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim (yang juga Exco Agama) bagaimanapun memaklumkan kepada penulis, Menteri Besar tidak dimaklumkan oleh pihak JAIS mengenai serbuan tersebut dan oleh yang demikian, enggan bertanggungjawab ke atas tindakan jabatan itu. Ini bukan kali pertama JAIS mencetuskan kontroversi. Sebelum ini pun JAIS menyerbu sebuah gereja di Damansara Utama kerana mendakwa berlaku majlis memurtadkan umat Islam – dakwaan yang masih tidak terbukti sehingga kini. Peliknya, pihak gereja tidak pula mengambil tindakan undang-undang ke atas JAIS walaupun gereja adalah kawasan yang berada di luar bidang kuasa JAIS. Kali ini Al-Arqam pula yang menjadi mangsanya. Penulis difahamkan, kerajaan negeri Selangor memang menyokong kewujudan semula kumpulan Al-Arqam ini (dibuktikan dengan penyertaan Badrolamin dalam majlis tersebut). Ia bukan sangat berkenaan dengan ajaran pertubuhan tersebut yang didakwa bertentangan dengan nilai-nilai moral yang biasa seperti bertukar-tukar isteri, arahan terus dari tuhan dan sebagainya, itu Al-Arqam yang dulu. Al-Arqam yang sekarang khabarnya lebih memberi tumpuan kepada memperkasakan ekonomi jemaah mereka sehingga ke tahap antarabangsa. Ramai di kalangan ahli kumpulan tersebut merupakan bekas graduan universiti dalam dan luar negara dalam pelbagai bidang. Selain itu, pengikut kumpulan diketahui sanggup mengorbankan harta benda masing-masing demi menyokong perjuangan pertubuhan yang diasaskan Ashaari Muhammad itu. 
Malah, penulis mendengar, Al-Arqam dahulu diharamkan pentadbiran Tun Mahathir Mohammad, kerana Mahathir bimbang populariti Ashaari mampu menggugat popularitinya, bukan sangat berkaitan dengan ajarannya!! Lagipun, dengan kepakaran ekonomi yang ada di kalangan pengikut Al-Arqam ini, Selangor umumnya dan Rawang khasnya akan menerima manfaat dari kegiatan ekonomi yang dijalankan pihak terbabit. Maka itu tidak hairan kenapa Rawang yang dulu kurang membangun, kini berubah wajah, berikutan kerancakan kegiatan ekonomi yang antaranya diusahakan oleh kumpulan Al-Arqam ini. Semua ini adalah justifikasi kenapa kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Selangor menyokong kebangkitan semula Al-Arqam. Tapi datang JAIS (yang dikuasai penyokong Barisan Nasional), merosakkan semua usaha oleh kerajaan negeri yang hanya bertujuan untuk memakmurkan Selangor dari segi ekonomi, menggunakan kepakaran anggota pertubuhan Al-Arqam ini. |
| Outlawed Al-Arqam gathering raided, 20 detained Posted: 01 Nov 2012 05:15 PM PDT 
PKR leader Dr Badrulamin Bahron one of those arrested (NST) - Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) raided a gathering of Al-Arqam followers and detained more than 20 of them here last night. They were detained under Section 12C of the Selangor Syariah Criminal Enactment for seeking to revive the banned Al-Arqam sect. The raid which began at 9 pm saw JAIS personnel swoop down the banned sect members during a function, said a JAIS spokesman. Those picked up were attending the 75th birthday of Al-Arqam founder Ashaari Muhammad or popularly known as Abuya who died in 2010. All those detained were taken to the JAIS headquarters in Shah Alam for questioning. During the raid, JAIS officials also seized pamphlets. |
| PKR, Hindraf to map out plans for Indians Posted: 01 Nov 2012 05:06 PM PDT 
Anwar Ibrahim and P Waythamoorty held a meeting to address issues affecting the Indian community. K Pragalath, FMT PKR and Hindraf are working on a plan to solve the problems faced by the Indian community. Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy met PKR de facto leader and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim at the latter's office in Parliament yesterday in search of a permanent solution to the various problems faced by the community. The two-hour closed door meeting was also attended by PKR vice president Tian Chua and Hindraf advisor N Ganesan. Tian Chua was upbeat over the meeting and expressed confidence that PKR would be able to resolve the woes of the Indian community. "The Indian social problem is a national problem. We are willing to find a certain time frame to resolve the problem," he said. He added that PKR would announce the methods to resolve the issues and the time frame soon. Tian Chua, who is also Batu MP, told FMT that the PKR – Hindraf partnership was on the basis that they are "fighting partners moving in the same direction to restore human rights and dignity". Ganesan told FMT that they had a fruitful discussion with Anwar without divulging the details. "If this works out positively there is potential for Hindraf to work with them," he said. 
Meanwhile, Waythamoorthy said: "We are here to find a permanent, comprehensive and practical plan to solve the problems of Indians since independence." "We are looking for a permanent solution for the 800,000 Indians who have been displaced from estates since the 1970s and 350,000 stateless Indians," he added. READ MORE HERE |
| Forest land taken by MCA man? Posted: 01 Nov 2012 05:02 PM PDT 
PKR's Rafizi Ramli reveals documents allegedly showing that 1,014 hectares of land is controlled by Negeri Sembilan MCA chairman Yeow Chai Thiam. Patrick Lee, FMT More than a thousand hectares of Negeri Sembilan jungle is, according to PKR, in the hands of a private company and the land is said to be worth just RM10. PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli showed a March 4, 2004 letter where the 1,104 hectares at Serting Ulu, Jempol, was to be allocated to Asli-YNS Sdn Bhd for growing rubber. The letter appeared to be issued by the Negeri Sembilan State Secretariat to the state's Land and Mines Director and the Jempol District Land Administrator. Parts of the letter were blackened out. "Even though the name of this company gives the impression that it is a joint-venture with the state, a search at the Companies Commission of Malaysia, revealed that it is owned and controlled by state MCA chairman, Senator Dr Yeow Chai Thiam," Rafizi told reporters. He was referring to the Jeram Padang Selatan Forest Reserve, near Bahau in Jempol. Previously, FMT reported that the area had been classified as a Permanent Forest Reserve since Aug 30, 1918. Documents provided by PKR showed that Asli-YNS Sdn Bhd appeared to have an issued shared capital of RM10. It had two directors: Yeow and a Yan Sien Wee. Only half the story 
Yeow, it appeared seemed to own half of the company's shares, or RM5. The CCM documents showed that the company was registered in Feb 20, 2004. To this, Rafizi said: "I would love to be that someone who could, with RM5, get 1,104 hectares of forest land." He added that this appeared to contradict Menteri Besar Mohamad Hassan's statement that the Jeram Padang Selatan Forest Reserve still belonged to the state government, through Yayasan Negeri Sembilan (YNS). "Mohammad only presented half of the story. He said by the state policy that any degazetted reserve would be given to YNS…he didn't say what happened from YNS onwards," Rafizi said. On parts of the letter that was blackened out, the PKR leader said that Asli-YNS was only the first of four companies involved in the matter. "I hope the other three companies will panic a little. One by one, you can trace them back to the leadership of Umno-Barisan Nasional," he said. |
| BAFIA charges against Rafizi should stay, say NFCorp lawyers Posted: 01 Nov 2012 04:56 PM PDT 
Ida Lim, The Malaysian Insider The National Feedlot Corporation's (NFCorp) lawyers said today that the court charges against PKR's Rafizi Ramli for allegedly breaching banking laws should stay, saying that such breaches such not be allowed "under the pretext of whistleblowing". On August 1, Rafizi (picture) was charged with violating the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA) by exposing confidential banking details of NFCorp, in a case that has highlighted the importance of protecting bank customers' data and also caused renewed scrutiny of the country's whistleblower protection laws. The NFCorp runs the National Feedlot Centre (NFC), a RM250 million federal-funded cattle-farming project that has been at the centre of a major national scandal. "If BAFIA is allowed to be breached under the pretext of whistle blowing, the very stratum of banking collapses," Shafee & Co, the law firm representing NFCorp, warned in a statement. In explaining why the BAFIA charges against Rafizi "should stand firm", the law firm claimed that Rafizi had "illegally obtained" certain bank documents. "Rafizi obtained the bank documents without the permission of the account holders, the bank or the permission of Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM). "The Attorney-General and Bank Negara Malaysia should not be swayed by political rhetorics but to investigate Rafizi's absolute breach of BAFIA," it said. "Malaysia's well-respected banking and financial systems should not be compromised whatsoever for political dramas and sensationalism," the law firm said. It added that several leaders in the banking industry, including the Association of Banks Malaysia chairman, had stressed that "client confidentiality or secrecy must be upheld at all cost." Shafee & Co also said that under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, a genuine whistleblower should first report to the authorities to allow them to take action. READ MORE HERE |
| Greek journalist on trial for leaking bank data Posted: 01 Nov 2012 04:32 PM PDT 
(AFP) - A Greek investigative journalist went on trial on Thursday for publishing names from an alleged list of Swiss bank accounts that has exposed the debt-plagued government to charges of a cover-up. Costas Vaxevanis, a 46-year-old veteran television journalist who now publishes a magazine, insists he was doing his job while ministers responsible for vetting the list for possible tax evasion did nothing for two years. "We will endure this. Will they?" Vaxevanis tweeted ahead of the trial. Vaxevanis, who was arrested on Sunday, has been charged with breach of privacy and faces a maximum three-year prison sentence if convicted. His lawyers, who reject the charges as "vague", have said that a number of people whose names Vaxevanis published will testify in court in his defence. The head of the International Federation of Journalists, Jim Bumelha, said he had testified on Vaxevanis' behalf and called the trial an "absurd farce". "We were all astonished (by the arrest)," he told reporters. Vaxevanis has accused the Greek state of hypocrisy and says the justice system is bowing to a corrupt political system. "Our politicians declare themselves to be democrats. I see no evidence of this," he wrote in the Britain's The Times newspaper on Thursday. "I wonder if Greek justice will show that the law safeguards the public interest and freedom of speech... in journalism you must do what you think is right without worrying about the consequences," he wrote. Vaxevanis' "Hot Doc" magazine on Saturday published the names of more than 2,000 Greeks, allegedly from a controversial list of HSBC account holders that was originally leaked by a bank employee and passed to Greece in 2010 by France's then finance minister Christine Lagarde. Viewing the list as stolen data that could not be used against potential tax evaders, the Greek authorities took no action for two years. When the case resurfaced last month, it took several days for officials to even locate a copy of the so-called "Lagarde List". Among those named are prominent businessmen, shipowners, lawyers, doctors, journalists and a former minister, as well as companies, housewives and students although no deposit sums were published. The data has been the subject of intense discussion, with the government facing calls to use it to crack down on potential tax cheats as the country grapples with a massive debt crisis. On Thursday, a special economic prosecutor asked parliament to investigate whether previous finance ministers could be faulted for failing to take action on the list, news reports said. Officially, the prosecutor asked lawmakers to "investigate politicians of the period in question," a justice source said. Evangelos Venizelos, the leader of the socialist Pasok party who was formerly finance minister, is among officials who could be called to testify. Venizelos has already told a parliament committee that he had ordered the finance ministry's tax police to investigate, a claim which the department's chief at the time denies. The first recipient of the data in 2010, ex-finance minister George Papaconstantinou, said he did not know what had happened to the original version of the list, raising speculation that it could have been tampered with. As a result, current Finance Minister Yannis Stournaras has asked France to re-send the list. Vaxevanis says he received the information in an anonymous letter whose sender claimed to have received it from a politician. On Wednesday, police arrested another journalist who claimed to have in his possession a list of finance ministry documents allegedly stolen by hackers from the state general accounting office. |
| DAP's ham & eggs Posted: 01 Nov 2012 04:22 PM PDT  | | kepala-sakit Naji |
KTEMOC KONSIDERS After 3 weeks away from blogging I return to see, as I had predicted, elections are yet to be called. Hardly surprising as the prerogative for "recommending" to HM The Agong to dissolve parliament (and thus initiating fresh elections) belongs to the current PM - a legitimate process sanctioned by the Constitution, a process no different to any Westminster styled constitutional democracy - who as we know (and he too knows) hasn't enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the people to call for one as yet. Yes, why rush to commit political suicide.
When you're as politically as f* up as poor Najib, and you have the constitutional rights to hold off for a wee while longer, why not, as the time until the final moments will permit you to: a. work out some salvaging policies and programs (though I don't see any), b. device some politically nefarious schemes, wakakaka, c. hope the opposition will balls up through fighting among themselves or shooting themselves in their own feet (Hudud vs Secularism), d. etc. Regarding subpara 'c' above, the DAP is currently showing its internal division over the Karpal Singh's proposal of 'one person, one seat only at either federal or state level'.  | | DAP's loose cannon M Manoharan supports Karpal Singh's proposal | I both agree and disagree with Karpal's proposal. I agree with Karpal because I opine that the DAP has grown exponentially in membership numbers where, as different from yesteryears, it now has more than adequate numbers of good and capable pollies to take on its share of state and federal seats with a different individual representative in each constituency. If a senior DAP pollie hangs on to both a state and a federal seat, such an approach will deny and frustrate another capable party member who wants to make direct contributions as a people's representative. Frustration among party members in politics will ensure the DAP remains a small player. OK, some new jump-on-wagon-ers to the party, having rushed to join the party since March 2008, may not be desirable (being seen as opportunists) while some new wannabes may also be moles. The DAP is notorious in its apprehension about such a possibility (of moles) which has been why its vetting process for pre-selection candidates is as tight as Midas' fist. But look, there is no 100% guarantee in politics as demonstrated by the remarkable Madam Hee, who despite DAP's over-accommodation of and for her, went on to betray the party. Win some, lose some, and preferably win more than lose ... but in the end, there cannot be any watertight assurance of a party member's indivisible party loyalty. But being apprehensive about some dodgy members like Madam Hee or another remarkable erstwhile (former-UMNO) member in Jelutong(?) doesn't mean there's no one else in a great party to call upon to take up a state of federal seat to be vacated by an existing MP-ADUN. The DAP should, nay, must increase its represenatives' gene pool. However, I disagree with Karpal on his proposed sole exception, that Lim Guan Eng be allowed to stand at both state and federal levels. WTF for when Lim GE will again be the CM of Penang which automatically rules him out from federal ministership. According to Article 43 of the Malaysian Constitution, ADUNs who are also MP cannot have it both ways, that is, by continuing to be ADUNs (and thus possibly MBs or CMs or State Exco members) while becoming federal ministers or deputy ministers. They have to choose between being a federal minister (or deputy minister) or an ADUN.
Thus, if Lim Guan Eng wants to continue being CM of Penang (thus has to an ADUN first), and most Penangites want him to, and I am confident he will be re-elected in the next state election to be an ADUN and consequentially the CM, then he can't be appointed as a federal minister (assuming Pakatan takes Putrajaya), though he may be an ordinary MP. READ MORE HERE |
| Fresh from RM2.2b deal, ex-CJ’s wife’s firm plots route to listing Posted: 01 Nov 2012 04:16 PM PDT 
(The Malaysian Insider) - Emrail Sdn Bhd is set to list on Bursa Malaysia through a reverse takeover of a dormant cash-rich entity, just months after the government was forced to defend its decision to give the company, owned by Umno lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun and the wife of former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi, the RM2.2 billion deal to build the Kinrara-Damansara Expressway. The shareholders of Emrail and Premier Naflin Bhd, a company with RM115 million in hand and no business since last October, announced yesterday that a deal had been been struck which would see the former take over the latter's listing status. Premier's major shareholders are Tan Sri K.R. Somasundram and the National Land Finance Co-operative Society Ltd. Besides Hafarizam, the other directors in Emrail now are Tan Sri Hari Narayanan and Toh Puan Nik Sazlina Mohd Zain, Zaki's wife. In February, Hafarizam told The Malaysian Insider that any suggestion of a deal struck because of his role in the Perak constitutional crisis in 2009 was "tainted with mala fide (bad faith) and intended to bring me and Tun Zaki into public odium, scandal and disrepute." Hafarizam, who is the ruling Malay party's legal adviser, denied that the highway concession award was given as a reward to him and Zaki allegedly for their roles in the 2009 Perak crisis that saw the state government switch from Pakatan Rakyat (PR) to Barisan Nasional (BN), which is held together by Umno. Zaki declined to comment when contacted. Emrail and Zabima Engineering Sdn Bhd had been awarded the lucrative RM2.2 billion contract to build the Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (Kidex), Hafarizam confirmed then. The editor of the Malaysia Today website claimed in an article published in February under the title "Episode 9: The reward for giving Perak back to Umno" that Harafizam and Zaki, who retired on September 9 last year, were awarded the highway contract via Emrail. The new highway, which will be a tolled road, will link Kinrara and Pusat Bandar Damansara and will divert traffic on the LDP. In February, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin also denied allegations that the deal was given to companies linked to the Umno lawyer due to political reasons. According to The Edge Financial Daily today, the expressway project is not expected to take off until after the general election which is only expected after Chinese New Year. The newspaper also reported that yesterday's announcement stated that a special purpose vehicle (SPV) would initially be set up to take over Premier's listing status. |
| In the shadow of strongmen Posted: 01 Nov 2012 04:09 PM PDT 
Lee Kuan Yew governed for 31 years, Mahathir 22. Both former leaders continue to play roles in politics, despite stepping down from office. Given their prominence, it is understandable that elements of their style of leadership have become deeply ingrained into the public consciousness. The most evident of these is fear. Bridget Welsh, New Mandala In the last few years, both Malaysia and Singapore have been undergoing political liberalisation, evident from the increasing parliamentary representation of the opposition and more open political discussion. Yet, with this opening, the challenges the two neighbours face in liberalising are becoming clearer. One of the main obstacles involves dealing with the legacies of Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, as their imprint on politics continues to overshadow current transformations. How do the legacies of the two strongmen constrain contemporary political change? Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad were successful leaders, delivering economic progress and giving their countries international prominence. However, views of these leaders remain divided, with some lauding them as political strongmen who delivered development and stability and others highlighting their excesses. This debate will continue, and likely intensify over time. Still, few dispute the fact that the two leaders profoundly shaped the countries they led. In order to understand contemporary politics in both countries, we need to look beyond these leaders as individuals or their tenures and appreciate how the strongmen continue to shape the two societies. 
The Strongmen Psyche Lee Kuan Yew governed for 31 years, Mahathir 22. Both former leaders continue to play roles in politics, despite stepping down from office. Given their prominence, it is understandable that elements of their style of leadership have become deeply ingrained into the public consciousness. The most evident of these is fear. Fear is defined as an emotion induced by perceived threats and is part-and-parcel of the political landscape of strongman rule. It is not just about the fear caused by the use of the state apparatus through draconian laws for arbitrary arrest or the penalties for breaching the boundaries of what is deemed as unspeakable, it is also the routinisation of warnings and demonisation of the other. For decades Malaysians and Singaporeans were encouraged to conform to set patterns of political behavior – to not question their leaders and follow. They were expected to fall in line, as the system was deemed the best for them. They were warned repeatedly to behave. Red lines – ubiquitously known as OB (out-of-bounds) markers in Singapore – were clearly drawn – not to criticise leaders, not to discuss 'sensitive' issues, or not to express alternative views openly. The end result was possible penalties, which ranged from outright arrest to quiet marginalisation. The actual number of arrests was low relative to other regimes, but such instances took on symbolic importance, especially given the relatively low populations of both countries. While fear has sharply dissipated in the post-strongman eras, it still permeates political life, especially among the generations that lived though these periods. Fear of the state is just part of the story. During the strongman era, fear was used to buttress power. Threats from outside were a constant refrain. In Malaysia, these threats came from enemies in the form of George Soros, Jews or unknown forces of instability that could not be controlled. The threats also came from within. Mahathir was perhaps the most explicit on this in his book Malay Dilemma, which used sharp ethnic divisions as a source of internal instability. The push for Malay unity was used to fend off the other. In Singapore, the ethnic rubric was one of multiculturalism, but memories of the turbulent ethnic tensions of the 1950s and 1960s remained. Events such as 1969 in Malaysia or 1964 in Singapore continued as part of the political discourse, and still do today. There is unease, anxiety and concern about a return to the ethnic turbulence of the past that meshes with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle dimensions of fear. Political liberalisation in both countries is constrained by fear and the baggage it brings. A key element of this baggage is mistrust. On an interpersonal level, race relations in both countries are strong – and this is despite a number of high profile and controversial racial comments that have recently received public attention, notably in Singapore. Yet, deep-down the niggling uncertainties of the 'other' so prominent in the strongman era remain. Strongman Control Mode This strongman legacy is not just about fear – it is also about control. The focus on a specific order was a feature of the strongman eras. The structure of this order varied in both societies, but the pattern of establishing the order was the same – it was to be defined by those in power. Space for alternative conceptualisations was minimised, as leaders set out the course for the country to follow. In many of these decisions, there was wisdom, while in others, less so. But the mode of engagement was the same – the 'government – a.k.a. leader – knows best'. The strongman eras in Singapore and Malaysia's placed the state in a dominant position as the driver of society. In the economic realm, the state was to be the agent of change, usually in alliance with international business. This has meant that the space for domestic private business interests, especially small and medium-sized businesses, as an alternative engine of growth has been minimised. For multiple decades, public spending, allocations and priorities were set by those in power. This provided a powerful economic base for the control of society. Dominance over the economic levers of power reinforced the strongmen's position politically. To challenge political power under strongman rule had the potential to undermine your economic fortunes. This dynamic is deeply rooted, as challenges to the status quo are seen to both backfire on those who engage in them and come at a high price. The legacy of this pattern continues, as those who speak out face marginalisation, and in some cases, outright demonisation. The attacks are particularly harsh on those who come from within the system and are seen to betray the incumbent's political base. The response to Anwar Ibrahim is illustrative. Politically, the strongman mode of control was also characterised by a 'divide and rule' strategy of engaging opponents. As a result, civil societies in both countries are fragmented, wracked by internal suspicion. Those that were co-opted are distrusted by others who are seen as more confrontational. The strategy of division reinforced the position of the strongman leader, a feudal structure of personalised power around one man. Even today, centralised leadership is expected, with heavy burdens placed on the post-strongman leaders to perform and to 'be strong'. Today's leaders are constantly compared to the past. Power continues to be personalised, although in Singapore this is less about personality than persona. READ MORE HERE |
| Pemimpin PKR antara ditahan dalam serbuan cubaan hidupkan Al-Arqam Posted: 01 Nov 2012 03:40 PM PDT  Mohd Farhan Darwis, The Malaysian Insider Ahli Majlis Pimpinan Tertinggi PKR antara yang ditahan dalam serbuan Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (Jais) terhadap sebuah konsert yang didakwa sebagai cubaan untuk menghidupkan kembali ajaran sesat Al-Arqam. Dr Badrulamin Bahron yang ditahan dalam serbuan berkenaan dipercayai merupakan tetamu kehormat sempena sambutan ulang tahun kelahiran pengasas ajaran sesat tersebut, Ashaari Muhammad, atau lebih dikenali sebagai Abuya. Dipetik akhbar Utusan Malaysia hari ini, serbuan yang dilakukan pasukan Jais kira-kira jam 10 malam di Bandar Country Homes, Rawang itu bertemakan 'Abuya Terus Memimpin Walaupun Ghaib' turut dihadiri kira-kira 3,500 orang. Jurucakap Jais berkata,"konsert ini didapati melanggar arahan mufti di bawah Seksyen 12C Enakmen Jenayah Syariah Selangor iaitu membantu menghidupkan Al-Arqam." Cubaan The Malaysian Insider mendapatkan respon daripada Badrulamin berhubung penahanan beliau masih lagi gagal setakat ini. Al-Arqam telah diharamkan di negara ini pada tahun 1994 kerana dikatakan menyimpang daripada ajaran Islam. Selepas kematian Ashaari, pengikut ajaran sesat ini pernah mengadakan konsert empat hari pada 2010 yang menggambarkan Abuya hanya "ghaib" dan akan kembali dalam masa terdekat. |
| ‘Voters unfazed by Pakatan woes’ Posted: 01 Nov 2012 03:37 PM PDT 
He believes voters are too keen to see the end of BN to pay attention to the bad press. Hawkeye, FMT Pakatan Rakyat remains on the road to electoral victory despite reports of trouble within and between the parties making up the alliance, according to PAS Supporters Assembly Adviser Hu Phang Chaw. Speaking to FMT, he said he based his confidence on impressions he had gained from the ground in his travels around the country. "The winds of change are blowing, most profoundly in Sabah and Sarawak," he said. "Pakatan also senses this in other hardline BN states such as Johor and Pahang. If these states are moving away from BN, we can expect at least a similar movement in such borderline states as Malacca and Negri Sembilan." He conceded that all three Pakatan parties—PAS, DAP and PKR—were currently troubled by infighting and that there were differences between the parties themselves, but he said these were not serious enough to sidetrack them from the march to Putrajaya and less significant than the electorate's determination to be rid of Barisan Nasional. "People have just had enough of BN," he said. "They want a change, period." Lately, BN-friendly news organisations have become more energetic in playing up reports that put Pakatan in a negative light. These include speculation about the health of the Kedah and Kelantan menteri besar, an alleged friction between the Penang Chief Minister and one of his deputies, and an alleged splitting of ways between Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and Selangor PKR chief Azmin Ali. Hu said the truth or falsehood of these allegations had little bearing on the public's impression that a Pakatan government would be a better choice than BN. "The so-called silent majority are whispering to Pakatan leaders that they want a change in Putrajaya," he said. He also said Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's decision to put off calling for the 13th general election was working to Pakatan's advantage. The delay was allowing Pakatan to reach out to more people, he said, adding that attendances at Pakatan public functions were becoming bigger by the day. PAS vice-president Sallehuddin Ayub was more cautious in his assessment of Pakatan's chances. He said it was "a bit too early" to predict victory, but agreed with Hu that signs from the ground indicated a mood for change. "There are growing signs that victory is attainable," he said. |
| The politician, his son and the crony Posted: 01 Nov 2012 03:23 PM PDT
There are many more ministerial children of whom we have heard nothing, yet. Yesterday, Nazri ignored criticism of his son's relationship with Michael Chia, the businessman who is embroiled in the RM40 million money laundering saga. Despite assertions that this money was destined for Sabah Umno, the members of Sabah Umno claim to have no knowledge of this donation. Mariam Mokhtar, FMT If the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, then the way to an Umno politician's heart, is through his spouse or children. In Malaysia, cronies beat a path to the politician's door, to provide material goods for his family members. Only the naïve would think their acts charitable. Cronies do it for personal gain: tenders for contracts, to avoid the law, a means to fleece the public through subsidies or when government projects are 'outsourced" like the AES (Automated Enforcement System) aka "speed traps". Plum jobs and multi-million dollar government contracts are reserved for the offspring of Umno politicians, their cronies and pro-Umno civil servants. The rakyat have heard of a few of the children of ministers who are allegedly involved in cronyism and corruption, but there are many more ministerial children of whom we have heard nothing, yet. Whose son was allegedly awarded the RM128.4 million air traffic control system contract, through a "closed tender" process? This air traffic control system was allegedly faulty and risked the lives of millions of airline users. Whose children are allegedly hiding in New York, at least until the furore of the scandal they are involved in, dies down? Were Muslims aware that this Hari Raya Haji 3,000 cattle had to be imported from Thailand for sacrificial slaughter? The irony is that farmers' needs have been sacrificed for the vanity project of an incompetent family. This money should have filtered down to the farmers, to help them earn a living, to help the economy and the cattle industry. Whose sons are indirectly involved in the latest launch of the airline, Malindo Airways? An online newpaper alleged that one of the companies investing in Malindo, had poor financial and safety records, and that its accounts had not been audited since 2007. Which daughter of a former top civil servant owns a major interest in alternative energy projects in Malaysia? Her companies were allegedly set up recently and despite the lack of experience, still managed to secure a controlling interest in the alternative power generation needs. The list is endless. Children of past and present politicians and also VVIPs, monopolise the multi-million ringgit projects, providing much needed goods and services, which you and your children have no alternative but to use. You also pay through the nose, for them. When quizzed by reporters about the involvement of their spouses, children or friends, these politicians brush prying questions aside with: a) My husband does not tell me what he gets up to. b) What my wife does is private. c) I don't know what my son (or daughter) is doing. d) My businessman friend wanted to surprise me with the contents of his briefcase. No conflict of interest Yesterday, Nazri ignored criticism of his son's relationship with Michael Chia, the businessman who is embroiled in the RM40 million money laundering saga. Despite assertions that this money was destined for Sabah Umno, the members of Sabah Umno claim to have no knowledge of this donation. Nazri also said that his reputation as a Cabinet Minister had not been compromised and he could see no conflict of interest in his or his son's friendship with Chia. An online newspaper reported that Nazri had said: "I don't sleep with my son. I am not gay (homosexual). My son is not my wife, my son is not my lover. What he does, he doesn't tell me. "That is between my son and Michael Chia. If he (Chia) wants to give [Nedim] a Hummer or a Ferarri, it is Michael Chia's business… its not like he (Chia) is giving it to me… and I am the minister, not my son." "What has he committed, tell me? He is not a minister. Where is the conflict of interest? He is my son". Cynics claim that the parliamentary ministerial code, which details the conduct expected of Malaysian MPs, can't have been shown to Umno politicians like Nazri. READ MORE HERE |
| Al-Arqam's shadow cabinet uncovered Posted: 01 Nov 2012 12:26 PM PDT 
Khatijah Am, known to her followers as Ummu Jah, had been living in self-imposed exile in Mecca for the past few years. (NST) - PLOT: 41 ministries, including for souls, death, holy sex THE banned Al-Arqam movement, led by the founder's wife, Khatijah Am, is said to have formed a "shadow cabinet" with 41 ministries, including the ministry of the netherworld (kementerian alam ghaib). This was part of its plot to overthrow the government and form an Islamic state, according to information compiled by intelligence agencies. Also listed in its shadow cabinet were 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 sources said Khatijah, who is the widow of Ashaari Muhammad and has been living in Mecca after his death, had been holding monthly meetings with "top leaders" of the sect in Malaysia via video conferencing. A source said 54 meetings, dubbed "roh parlimen" (soul parliament) by Khatijah, had been held so far. In their "parliamentary meetings", which had begun in May 2010, Khatijah had assumed the position as their "prime minister". "To ensure that Al-Arqam leaders and followers stayed with the movement and follow her orders, Khatijah claimed she received direct orders from her late husband," a source said. "She had been involved in running the movement even when Ashaari was still alive. Ashaari suffered a mild stroke in 2005." The source added that Khatijah, known to followers as Ummu Jah, had been living in self-imposed exile in Mecca for the past few years. The group, the source said, had received funding from more than 30 welfare homes in Malaysia run by their proxies. Some homes run by key personnel in Al-Arqam were registered with the Welfare Department and received government funding. "These welfare homes received donations, not only from the government, but private companies and unsuspecting individuals as well," said the source. "From our intelligence reports, only a small portion of the donations received were used for the homes while the remaining went to Khatijah's accounts," the source said, adding that Khatijah lived lavishly in a mansion rented for 340,000 riyal (RM276,000) a year. The mansion, called RSA Palace, has a conference room, an elevator, gymnasium, sauna and a swimming pool. The source said the movement collected an average of RM800,000 in donations every month. Meanwhile, Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Datuk Othman Mustapha said they were collecting evidence on the group's activities. "We found that the group, through its company, still continues with its deviant teachings. All the claims that Ashaari is Imam Mahdi and Ummu Jah can communicate with her late husband are blatant lies. "We hope those with information on their activities will come forward to assist in our investigations." Al-Arqam was decreed a deviant sect in 1994 by the National Fatwa Council after it was found to have practised Aurad Muhammadiah teachings which was described as misleading Muslims from the true Islamic beliefs. |
| The Once and Past King Posted: 01 Nov 2012 12:18 PM PDT 
Just a story? Hang Tuah holds childhood friend Hang Jebat after being forced to end his killing spree. Photo by Photo by P3rSeUs via Flickr. (The Oxonian Globalist) - A "historic" hero faces review in the evolution of an egalitarian multi-ethnic society In the cosmopolitan entrep̫t of 15th century Malacca, a city on the west coast of today's Malaysia, a Malay warrior slew his closest Рyet increasingly seditious Рfriend, to emphasize his own loyalty to the Sultan. Some 500 years later, this story of Hang Tuah Рimmortalised in his Hikayat Hang Tuah Рis causing intellectual, political and ethnic unease in contemporary Malaysia. Having been celebrated in film and taught in schools as the locus of Muslim-Malay mores, the warrior's story was categorically refuted in January by Professor Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim, historian and Chancellor of KDU University College, as nothing more than a myth. All Historians Now In the last year, the Malaysian education system has undergone major review. In April the National Education Dialogue was created to gather perspectives from all levels of society on how to improve teaching and learning. Encouraged by the Minister of Education, and in conjunction with UNESCO, this dialogue aims to cultivate a new generation of globally competitive Malaysians. In the midst of discussions, History, a subject pursued by a very small minority, is enjoying heightened attention. In May 2011, the Ministry of Education declared that it should be a "must-pass" subject in secondary schools from 2013, while scholars and NGOs concurrently launched a campaign for "A Truly Malaysian History". Its spokesman, Dr Lim Tek Ghee, Director of the Centre of Policy Initiatives, called for immediate actions to "ensure a broad and balanced perspective of major civilisations and events", for "accurate historical facts of Malaysia's historical development" and for the "fair recognition to the contribution of all communities". All this seems reasonable. Nonetheless it raises questions about the inclusion in school textbooks of the Hang Tuah story Рa melange of fact and fiction, suffused with the supernatural, and hitherto intrinsic to Malay, but not national Malaysian, identity. As soon as Professor Khoo aired his views, Facebook and Twitter erupted in furious debates. One tweet pointed out how Chinese-sounding Tuah's name is. Another questioned the written record of Adam and Eve. Academics, such as the National Laureate, Dr Muhammad Salleh, retaliated with assertions that Tuah was an irrefutably historical figure, appearing 128 times in six chapters in the Malay Annals. Meanwhile, a group claiming to be the Hang Tuah's descendants announced that only they knew the 'real account' of the famed admiral, based on ownership of an ancient Jawi script passed though the generations. Nation and Narration After independence in 1957, there was a struggle for post-imperial control in the new Malaysia. The Malays, under the auspices of (UMNO), have been the dominant political body of the last 40 years, with bumiputera status since the 1970s (after the racial riots of 1969). As "sons of the soil", they have enjoyed advantages in education and politics, to the chagrin of other ethnic groups. The myth of Hang Tuah, along with his maxim, "Malays will never vanish from the face of the earth", had since gained rising resonance. Though the story has provided a moral reference point, teaching humility and bravery. On a darker level, it has fuelled nationalist convictions. Following the country's Islamisation in the 1980s under Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the Hang Tuah story became ever more sacrosanct in national history teaching. The process of Islamisation Рconsolidating links with the wider Islamic world, solidifying the predominance of Muslim values in public life, and improving the economic position of the Malays (while, for example, curbing the establishment of non-Muslim places of worship) Рprovoked the reassertion of racial identity. Paradoxically it emulated the model of colonial Malaya, when the British sought to separate the Malays, Chinese and Indians into distinct groups to cement their own authority. Even amid recent Bersih (literally, 'clean') demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur in April, where Malaysians of all races demanded electoral reform, the Hang Tuah story was invoked. The opinion of Mohammad Salim, a 51-year old fish breeder from Lingga has been particularly highlighted in the local press. Like other Malays living on the island, he endorsed the race "advancement" efforts of Mahathir and of the present Prime Minister Najib. Salim envies his privileged fellow Malays on the paeninsula, and tells them to take strength from Tuah's words, rather than engaging in public protest. Read more at: http://toglobalist.org/2012/11/the-once-and-past-king-2/ |
| Chia link will not cost BN, unlike NFC scandal, says Nazri Posted: 01 Nov 2012 11:51 AM PDT Nazri was defending himself against allegations of conflict of interest in his alleged defence of Sabah timber trader Micheal Chia. — File pic (The Malaysian Insider) - Nazri pointed out that he does not drive the Hummer, but travels in his own car, which he said uses the number plate "WVJ 6". "Wealth, victory, justice," he said, to describe what the plate initials stand for. "Some say W is for wisdom... but I don't want that. Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz denied today that allegations of his son's link to Sabah timber trader Michael Chia would cost Barisan Nasional (BN) politically like the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) scandal. "It doesn't bother me at all. That (NFC case) is husband and wife...what he does, he doesn't tell me. "It is different from husband and wife," the outspoken minister told reporters when approached in Parliament. Nazri was defending himself against allegations by PKR's Rafizi Ramli, who had accused him of conflict of interest in his alleged defence of Chia, the businessman who was accused of attempting to smuggle RM40 million to Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman. Rafizi had asked if Nazri's alleged "relentless" defence of Chia was because his son, Nedim, had been using the businessman's half a million ringgit Hummer. Despite refusing to confirm or deny whether his son was indeed using Chia's car, Nazri said it was not a problem and has no connection to his integrity as a minister. "Why should it be a problem? It is between him (Nedim) and Michael (Chia). Ask him (Chia) if it is a problem," he said. Nazri pointed out that he does not drive the Hummer, but travels in his own car, which he said uses the number plate "WVJ 6". "Wealth, victory, justice," he said, to describe what the plate initials stand for. "Some say W is for wisdom... but I don't want that. "That is why I can afford things... but certainly, it is not NFC's money," he said, in another swipe at the cattle-farming scandal. Nazri insisted that the latest episode surrounding his alleged link to Chia would not hurt BN in any way in the coming polls. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/chia-link-will-not-cost-bn-unlike-nfc-scandal-says-nazri/ |
| Malaysian employers practise racial bigotry, study shows Posted: 01 Nov 2012 11:40 AM PDT  File photo of a Workers' Day rally in Kuala Lumpur. Two academics found that there is racial discrimination in the hiring process based on an experiment they had conducted.(The Malaysian Insider) - Malaysian employers tend to favour Chinese job applicants over their Malay counterparts, a recent university study has shown, indicating racial discrimination underscores the hiring process in the private sector labour market. In their joint research, Universiti Malaya (UM) senior lecturer in development studies Dr Lee Hwok Aun and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) research fellow Dr Muhammed Abdul Khalid found that fresh Chinese graduates are more likely to be called for a job interview based on their resumes compared to Malays. "Our findings suggest that employers are generally predisposed favourably towards Chinese, substantially due to compatibility factors and unobservable qualities not revealed in job applications, and are more selective towards Malays, which results in fewer but considerably qualified applicants getting callbacks," the duo stated in an abstract of their seminar paper being presented at UM today. The two academics said they had conducted a field experiment by sending made-up resumes of fresh Malay and Chinese graduates to real job advertisements. From their research, Lee and Muhammed Abdul found that while both Malay and Chinese graduates who listed Chinese-language proficiency and stated that they graduated from a certain university were likely to increase their chances to be called for an interview, yet employers — especially those that were Chinese-controlled or foreign-run — were significantly inclined to pick the Chinese applicant. They noted that the racial discrimination was sharper in engineering jobs than in the accounting or finance sector. They also found that in the engineering industry, Malays were most likely to be rejected by foreign-controlled companies, followed by Malay-controlled companies and lastly Chinese-controlled firms. However, they said their data does not directly show the motif of the racial discrimination in the hiring process based on the experiment they had conducted. Lee and Muhammed Abdul are presenting their paper, titled "Does race matter in getting an interview? A field experiment of hiring discrimination in Peninsular Malaysia", at UM's Economics and Administration Faculty at 10am. Malaysia's mushrooming local higher education institutions churned out a total 184,581 graduates last year, according to the latest statistics released on the Higher Education Ministry's website. Of that figure, 44,391 people or 24 per cent are unemployed. The Najib administration has set aside some RM500 million in its Budget 2013 to spend on jobless youths to make them marketable. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-employers-practise-racial-bigotry-study-shows/ |
| Tripped up by blog comments Posted: 01 Nov 2012 11:31 AM PDT (fz.com) - "In my particular case as well, the government and police appear to be sending a signal that while irresponsible bloggers roam free, responsible bloggers who moderate their comments and put a name to their writing are more likely to end up as targets. This policy could not possibly be more ill-formed and counterproductive." PETALING JAYA (Nov 2): On July 13, 2007, blogger Nathaniel Tan was arrested due to an anonymous comment on his blog posting, believed to be information derived from confidential government documents. For four days, he was remanded at the Dang Wangi district police headquarters and pressed on the same line of questioning pertaining allegations in the comment made on Feb 10, 2007, linking the then-deputy internal security minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum to a graft allegation. Besides being arrested, Tan's desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, CDs and some documents, were also seized from his house. Tan was interrogated by the cybercrime division on grounds of publishing accusations based on documents protected under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA) as the identity of the commentator remained unknown. He was released without being charged. However, he might not be as fortunate in the event something similar occurs again. In April, the Evidence Act was amended to include Section 114A which, among others, presumes owners of registered networks, devices, websites and portals to be the publishers of any seditious or offensive content until proved otherwise, and they will be held liable for said content. The provision came into effect on July 31 despite fierce opposition that the law stifles Internet freedom and was vulnerable to abuse as it covers a broad scope of wrongdoings. Some of the more grievous concerns raised against Section 114A are the fact that it shifts the burden of proof on the accused, akin to prosecution against individuals in drug-related offenses. Tan escaped the ordeal of having to go through a trial, not just because there was no evidence to show that he violated Section 8 of the OSA which deals with "wrongful communication" of "official secrets", but also the lack of a precise legislation to nail him for the anonymous content on his website. But for him, the four-day detention was a good enough experience to make sure that he moderates all comments on his blog. "Although, the original comment in question was actually longer, I had already deleted parts of it I found to be without evidence long before my arrest," he said relating his experience to fz.com in an email interview recently. At that time, in dealing with the police Tan noted that "the police did not understand how the Internet works" as he was the "best suspect" to prove their case. "I fear greatly that my arrest, despite the non-existent ties between the accusations against Johari and myself, portend badly for Malaysia's ability to deal with true cybercrime. "In my particular case as well, the government and police appear to be sending a signal that while irresponsible bloggers roam free, responsible bloggers who moderate their comments and put a name to their writing are more likely to end up as targets. This policy could not possibly be more ill-formed and counterproductive," he said in a statement released right after his release. Coming back to consequences of the new provision, Tan opined that it is meant to intimidate online activists in Malaysia considering the evolution of technology today. "Any friend can 'borrow' your smartphone and so on. It is impossible to say for sure who made a posting on your Facebook wall or wrote a tweet under your account. |
| Open Letter to Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz Posted: 31 Oct 2012 06:09 PM PDT 
Tan Sri Zeti, we are neither "depositors" nor "investors" of Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd. We are merely customers who bought gold from Genneva with our life-savings. We'd also like to leave the arguments about the validity of the company aside. Be it about 'hibah,' 'deposit-taking,' 'AMLA', 'BAFIA' or any other acronyms that seem to permeate the financial world these days. by Genneva Malaysia Supporters Thank you Tan Sri Zeti,
It has been a month long wait in agony and desperation since the raid by Bank Negara Malaysia not knowing what the future holds for us and our dependents. Today, your words of assurance to end this investigation as soon as possible gave us a glimmer of hope that our predicament will soon end with a positive outcome. Thank you for finally acknowledging our plight and we look forward to your next course of action. We would like to express our admiration for your achievements and although we recognize the need to take measures upon suspicions of wrong doing, this cannot justify the impoverishment of over 60,000 people and their families, a direct result of the Bank Negara led raid. Tan Sri Zeti, we are neither "depositors" nor "investors" of Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd. We are merely customers who bought gold from Genneva with our life-savings. We'd also like to leave the arguments about the validity of the company aside. Be it about 'hibah,' 'deposit-taking,' 'AMLA', 'BAFIA' or any other acronyms that seem to permeate the financial world these days. It's all rather tiring so we'll let the company duke it out with your financial and legal experts. Instead, we'd like to make this appeal as a person. One human being to another. We make this appeal: - As single mothers whose savings base and income came from the company before the raid.
- We are also fathers, providing food and a roof over the heads of our families.
- We are grandfathers and grandmothers, retirees whose savings are sorely needed to see us through our old age, savings that is now in some frozen account or gold that is in one of your vaults.
- We are the sick, patients with no other source of income, badly needing that money for medication. Our needs are not only urgent, they are critical as well.
There are thousands upon thousands of us. It is our hope that you listen to us even as your officers have not and whoever it was in BNM who organised this irresponsible raid that caused such grief and hardship to countless thousands of families. With all due respect, Tan Sri Zeti, do you also blame us for our current hardship, as many have done? Do you yourself call us 'greedy' and 'ignorant' too? Might we remind, that it was you who said that keeping interest rates too low for too long may lead to the "mispricing of risks." You warned against artificially low interest rates. We are therefore surprised why it is the Central Banks policy to keep interest rates low, you knew in your heart that it would drive us to into 'higher-yielding assets that pose(d) significant risks.' By the way, we do not think that gold holds any 'significant risk,' at least not at this point of time. The risk came directly from the unjust confiscation of that gold by Bank Negara. Now many of us are without our gold and savings. For the aged, the old and the sick, their 'yield' from these 'assets' were all they had, and your bank took it away from them. We may not have the financial intellect like you to understand what all this means.. but we can see and feel and experience. We see that real inflation is spiralling out of control, and wonder why there never seems to be enough to last us till the end of the month. We feel how low interest rates punish savers. For many of us, the interest after a year from fixed deposits can't even pay for a family dinner at a nice restaurant! We experience the hopelessness and helplessness of being crushed by debt, our incomes never rising to meet expenses or to pay off debt. That is not all. The rakyat, not only contending with low interest rates, spiraling inflation, weak to no personal income growth or even worse, no income at all, must also face confiscation of what little wealth we have by the authorities. Must we live in fear that the authorities, with their far reaching powers, can at any time, confiscate and take that which does not belong to them with impunity? The little that we have, our liberty, and our right to chose? We sincerely hope you come to a decision soon and that compassion guides your motives although it may seem out of date these days. Please release the gold and money which is unjustly held by Bank Negara so that we can move on with our lives. We thank you again Tan Sri Zeti, for giving attention to this matter. Sincerely, Genneva Malaysia Supporters http://www.facebook.com/GennevaMalaysiaSupporters
|
| Chinese are inherently racist (or more appropriately supremacist)! Posted: 31 Oct 2012 05:47 PM PDT 
Chinese are just supremacists. They think they are better than everyone and anything else including the Malays and Islam. This just pisses the Malays off. To Malays, Islam is top and many feel that they would die for it but the Chinese never show deference to any religion. Religion is just a sideshow to the Chinese even with all their superstitions. By AsamLaksa Before I go any further let me set down the ground rules. My opinion in this piece is based on the population/community level and not on the individual level of Chinese. So do not point out that so and so is a Chinese and is not racist because I do not care about any individual. It is like with health where on a population level obesity risks many health problems but there are individual obese people who are actually healthy. Now let me begin my opinion piece. I am Chinese by race. Both parents are Chinese, 3rd and 4th generation overseas Chinese. I grew up in a Chinese majority locality in Penang. I studied in classes with 70-90% Chinese student make up even though it is not a Chinese vernacular school. Then I went to the West for tertiary education. As I was growing up in Malaysia the theme among the Chinese community is that the Malays are lazy and stupid. Sure you can be nice to them because they are nice to you but when the Malays do business they are nowhere as capable. We all laughed at how Malays do their work. We laughed like we knew all that is to know and filled ourselves up with a sense of superiority. We are better. We are smarter. When we grow up we would fly to the moon while they will still tanam padi. Hahahahaha *choke* Then I went to the West and met more Chinese from various countries be it from China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore or Taiwan and the theme is still the same, this time replace the Malays with the locals which are the Westerners. We asked why are the West so great when every appliance they use are from China? We saw so many top students in university who are from Chinese stock. We asked why were there so many unemployed stupid white people? We were shocked by the extravagance of the Western governments in social spending on stupid white people. We laughed ourselves silly with ideas of the ascendency of China as a superpower and Singapore as the Utopia of free market economics. I laughed with them. Till reality sinks in. Till I saw how hollow it all was. Till I saw how sad and sickly the Chinese are. Many Malaysian political commentators urge Malaysians, especially the non-Malays to understand the Malays so that the various races in Malaysia may engage and work together for a common good. But what many commentators failed to seek is to understand the non-Malays and bring it out in the open. Inter-racial understanding must come from all parties not just one to foster trust. Without serious efforts to understand the largest minority in Malaysia, you are shooting yourself in the foot. So I come back to the title: Chinese are inherently racists (or more appropriately supremacist)! Many political comments wrongly perceive that the Chinese are anti-Islam and anti-Malay. The truth is that Chinese could not give a damn about the position of Islam and the Malays. They did not give a damn about the status of Islam in the constitution in the infancy of the nation. They did not make much of a fuss of the celebration of Malay culture. Chinese are just supremacists. They think they are better than everyone and anything else including the Malays and Islam. This just pisses the Malays off. To Malays, Islam is top and many feel that they would die for it but the Chinese never show deference to any religion. Religion is just a sideshow to the Chinese even with all their superstitions. The main act for the Chinese is economic wealth. Everyone knows this. Wealth = power and security. Every Chinese parent drill the need for wealth into their children, not necessarily to become super rich but wealthy to lead a comfortable life. Thus the Chinese regard any person according to their wealth. In their minds if you are great then you must be wealthy. This quest for wealth afflicts the Chinese society as a whole in comparison with the West where you have the super-rich coming from a society that believes in social equality. This never-ending thirst for wealth led to the dearth of morals. The Chinese are very flexible in accepting how a person made their wealth. Yes, very very flexible. Cut to the chase – wealth is what matters, not how it was made. Thus as much as the anti-UMNO lobby says that UMNO is evil, they can't hide from the fact that the Chinese is no better as behind every corrupt Malay politician is a Chinese. But the Malays perceive this. Thus you can scream all you want about corrupt Malay politicians and the Malays won't buy it. The Chinese generally do not care if others struggle. It is the economic reality for them that the rich needs to exploit the poor to become richer. And they have the gall to blame the poor for being lazy and stupid when they do little to help the poor! Education is a top priority to the Chinese not as a means to improve society but to ensure wealth. Thus the graduates will gravitate to where they can make the most wealth. They are not sorry to migrate nor are they fighting for more space in the Malaysian civil services. They blame the racist Malaysian government policies in recruitment but never made a fuss about it for years! The truth is that most civil service jobs won't make you rich. In fact they'd make more money in free enterprise thus it wasn't a big deal to begin with. This is what others would see in the Chinese. Again I reiterate that there are many Chinese who are benevolent just like many people of other backgrounds are. But as a community, the Chinese appear to be selfish, amoral, racist and greedy. Some claim that Malaysia is an ideal of a multicultural country and I strongly disagree. I say Malaysia could be the ideal of a multicultural country. It's all about living in harmony in Malaysia but each to their own devices and cannot find a common goal to aim for. I find that some countries in the West are better at uniting the different communities in creating a better nation with rights for the people and care for the needy. They may not be rich but the people are better cared for. In Malaysia you may be rich but still not cared much for (such as protection from crime). I shudder for the next generation of mindlessly laughing Malaysian Chinese. I am not particularly anti-Chinese; I just think that the Chinese need to change attitudes towards others. I repeat my call again for all Malaysians to engage with one another. Try to understand each other. Unite under a good common goal. It is the people who have the power. All politicians be it BN or PR will attempt to divide and rule. It is their nature to preserve their power thus stopping the rakyat from asking the right questions. What are your common goals and what is getting in the way? |
| Servant Leadership – Serve to Lead Posted: 31 Oct 2012 05:39 PM PDT 
The modern servant leadership movement was launched by Robert Greenleaf in his 1970 essay, "The Servant as Leader" whereby he popularized the terms "servant-leader" and "servant leadership." Greenleaf expanded on this concept by publishing additional essays on the various attributes of servant leadership. Lt Cmdr (R) John Moi Servant Leadership? The answer to the world's leadership issues? "Everything rises or falls on leadership." (Author unknown) Servant Leadership is simply applying leadership principles by serving others before self. It is a philosophy and practice of leadership that achieves results for their organizations by giving priority attention to the needs of their counterparts and those they serve. In another simple interpretation, servant-leaders are said to be serving stewards of their organization's resources be it physically, financial or human. Concept of Servant Leadership The modern servant leadership movement was launched by Robert Greenleaf in his 1970 essay, "The Servant as Leader" whereby he popularized the terms "servant-leader" and "servant leadership." Greenleaf expanded on this concept by publishing additional essays on the various attributes of servant leadership. After his passing in 1990, the concept has been developed by other writers such as William George, James Autry, Ken Blanchard, Jim Hunter, George Sanfacon and Larry Spears, just to name a few of the more well-known ones. Interestingly in Malaysia, the Royal Military College carry in its motto, "Serve to Lead" way back in the founding year of 1952! Qualities of being a Servant Leader Larry Spears, who was once the "chief steward" of the Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership for more than 17 years, described the ten characteristics of servant leaders which are: - Listening
- Empathy
- Healing
- Awareness
- Persuasion
- Conceptualization
- Foresight
- Stewardship
- Commitment to the growth of others
- Building community
Some historical perspectives of Servant Leadership
In the 4th century B.C, Chanakya wrote in his book, Arthashastra: "The king (leader) shall consider as good, not what pleases himself but what pleases his subjects (followers). The king (leader) is a paid servant and enjoys the resources of the state together with the people."
In the Tao Te Ching according to the Chinese sage, Lao-Tzu who is believed to have lived in China sometime between 570 and 490 B.C. said: "The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware. Next comes one whom they despise and defy. When you are lacking in faith, others will be unfaithful to you. The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words. When his or her tasks are accomplished and things have been completed, all the people say, we ourselves have achieved it."
According to the Bible, Jesus urged his followers to be servants first. He specifically told his followers: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28 and Mark 10:42-45) In an awesome model of servant-leader, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, as an example of the way in which they were to serve each other. (John 13:12-15) The Prophet Muhamad (SAW) said, "A ruler who has been entrusted with the affairs of the Muslims, but makes no endeavours (for their material and moral upliftment) and is not sincerely concerned (for their welfare) will not enter Paradise along with them." (Sahih Muslim) The Sikhs also have among these, words of wisdom on leadership: "One should first instruct and discipline one's own mind, and then persuade the others to follow." (Asa, M.5) "He who instructs the others in the laws which he himself does not obey, is born only to die; he comes and he goes." (Gauri Sukhmani, M.5) Modern perspectives of Servant Leadership Greenleaf, in his essay has this to say about the servant-leader: "The servant-leader begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve first the followers and believes that leading is a by-product of serving, whereas the leader-first believes that one is call to lead by being served and supported by followers." The cynical view is that unless the leaders take the initiative to serve the followers, the followers will not listen to the leaders who have not proven themselves by serving the followers first. Such are the expectations in this enlightened age! Sita-pati das (all credits unto him) in his commentary on Chapter One - 45 of Bhagavad-gita (On Leadership): "Sanjaya said; Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief." Sita commented that Arjuna is in a clear dilemma. In neither case can he see a good outcome. Either he fights and wins in which case he kills his family members, the family tradition is destroyed and society is irreparably damaged, or else he is killed with the same destruction of the family tradition. He reasons that the best course of action would be to die unresisting and in this way preserve the family tradition. Servant Leadership commentary by Sita: These are all characteristic sentiments of an authentic leader. An authentic leader is a SERVANT of the people and is aligned with and serving something greater than himself or herself. Models of Servant Leadership It can be said that some, if not most, leadership writers see servant leadership as an esoteric philosophy of leadership supported by specific aspects and practices.
Dr. Kent Keith, the current CEO of the Greenleaf Centre and the author of "The Case for Servant Leadership" states that servant leadership is practical, ethical and meaningful. He further identifies seven key practices of servant leaders: - Self awareness
- Listening
- Changing the pyramid
- Developing your colleagues (followers)
- Coaching not controlling
- Unleashing the energy and intelligence of others
- Foresight
Servant Leadership is best summed up by its emphasis on collaboration, trust, empathy and the ethical use of power and leadership. Servant leadership is all about making the conscious decision to serve by leading in order to better serve others (followers) and to enhance the growth of individuals and the servant leaders themselves in the organization to improve teamwork and respective involvement. (See illustrated model(s) of Servant Leadership for clarity) 
"Serve to Lead" best summarizes all you need to know about servant leadership! Note: Lt Cmdr (R) John Moi is a freelance writer and editor. An advocate of Scripture to business (S2b), he can be reached at johnnymoi7@yahoo.com |
| Is Malaysia a secular or Islamic state? It depends Posted: 31 Oct 2012 05:26 PM PDT 
An Islamic state can be defined as a type of government in which the primary basis for government is the Syariah, or Islamic law. Here, the Islamic law reigns supreme, as it is derived from the Quran, the Muslim holy scripture, and the Hadith, a record of the Prophet's deeds and words. At the centre of the Islamic state concept is the implementation of the hudud. Salim Othman, The Straits Times (Singapore) One fundamental question gripping Malaysians today is whether Malaysia is a secular or Islamic state. The issue came to the fore when de facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz remarked in Parliament last month that "Malaysia has never been determined or declared as a secular state", and that the word "secular" was not even present in the Federal Constitution. The minister stopped short of saying Malaysia is an Islamic state, in his reply to a question by a Member of Parliament from the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP). His remarks were made in the context of ongoing polemic between the DAP and its rival, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), on the question of hudud - the Islamic penal code - and the goal of the DAP's coalition partner, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), to establish an Islamic state. This has emerged because the Chinese party is warning voters that a vote for the DAP equals a vote for the PAS, which means a vote for an Islamic state and hudud. This is to scare non-Muslims away from voting for the DAP, because of the implication that the PAS would turn Malaysia into an Islamic state and introduce hudud if the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition - which includes the PAS and the DAP - forms the government after the general election due by April next year. The MCA is capitalising on the fear of hudud's harsh punishments. It is also reminding voters of the danger that non-Muslims, who form 40 per cent of the population of 28 million, would be relegated to being second-class citizens if Malaysia becomes an Islamic state. But the reality is quite different. There is only a remote chance that hudud will ever be implemented by the PAS if the PR were to take over the government, as the Islamic penal code and the concept of the Islamic state are not in the agenda of the coalition. It is also unlikely to happen in a country where only 60 per cent of the population are Muslim. This is because hudud law can take place only if a constitutional amendment is made to provide for the strict Islamic penal code. That would need an endorsement by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. While this secular-Islamic state debate may be purely a smokescreen in the tussle for votes between the opposition and the ruling party, the issue has rekindled interest in the identity of the country some half a century after its independence. Did Malaysia's founding fathers envisage the country to be what it is today? There is no consensus as to what kind of state Malaysia has become since its independence in August 1957 - whether secular or Islamic. One definition of a secular state is that it upholds the concept of secularism whereby a state or country is neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. It treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and avoids preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over another. More importantly, a secular state does not have a state religion or equivalent. An Islamic state can be defined as a type of government in which the primary basis for government is the Syariah, or Islamic law. Here, the Islamic law reigns supreme, as it is derived from the Quran, the Muslim holy scripture, and the Hadith, a record of the Prophet's deeds and words. At the centre of the Islamic state concept is the implementation of the hudud. Both Malaysia's first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and third prime minister Tun Hussein Onn had said Malaysia is a secular state, contradicting Datuk Seri Nazri's remarks in Parliament that the country had no secularist roots. Tunku Abdul Rahman had referred to Malaysia as a secular state, and not an Islamic one, on a number of occasions, including one when he told the Parliament on May 1, 1958: "I would like to make it clear that this country is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood; we merely provided that Islam shall be the official religion of the State." But after 55 years of independence, Malaysia does not quite fit the standard definition of a secular state because Islam is declared the religion of the federation. At the same time, the Constitution guarantees non-Muslims the freedom to practise the religions of their choice - but they cannot preach these to Muslims. The state is therefore not neutral to religion as it gives preference to Islam. Malaysia's secular Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, allows certain aspects of Islamic laws to be implemented in the country, hence blurring its status as a secular state. Is Malaysia then an Islamic state as declared by the country's fourth prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in September 2001? Dr Mahathir, who had previously described Malaysia as an Islamic country, declared Malaysia to be an Islamic state to ward off attacks from the PAS, which had accused Umno (which has a Muslim membership base) of not fulfilling its religious obligation to set up an Islamic state. Dr Mahathir argued that Malaysia could be an Islamic state even without the implementation of Islamic law. But this goes against most theories of the Islamic state which hold that the Syariah, in which the hudud is a significant component, lies at its heart. But the former prime minister, who was against hudud as propounded by the PAS, maintained that Malaysia was an Islamic state as shown by its acceptance as a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The grouping includes countries which do not implement the hudud. Dr Mahathir's concept of an Islamic Malaysia is the result of his Islamisation programme during his two decades of premiership. The expansion of religious bureaucracy is abundantly evident; so are the controls exerted on citizens' rights in the name of Islam, such as a prohibition against the use of the word "Allah" for God by Christians, a restriction on Malay bibles and a ban on proselytisation of Muslims. Indeed, Malaysia has become so Islamic that even civil courts have ceded their jurisdiction to the Syariah courts in disputes involving Muslims under the country's dual legal system. The secular-or-Islamic debate will emerge from time to time as the issue will be raised by the ruling party or opposition to score political points with voters. And this is not a matter only between the Malay parties Umno and PAS. Increasingly, non-Malay parties are also caught up with the issue as their constituents remain wary of the Islamic-state concept and the implications of the country becoming more Islamic. |
| Debates rage on many fronts Posted: 31 Oct 2012 05:17 PM PDT 
There are some law issues being argued of late like secular state, parliamentary committee and death penalty. In support of this view, one can point out that the word "Islam" is mentioned at least 24 times in the Constitution, the words Mufti, Kadi Besar and Kadi at least once each. In Schedule 9, List II, paragraph 1, state legislatures are permitted to apply Islamic law to Muslims in a variety of civil areas. Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi, The Star IN the last fortnight, a number of engaging public law issues captured the public imagination. > Secular state: De facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz crossed swords with DAP's Lim Kit Siang over the latter's claim that Malaysia is a secular state. The law minister correctly pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the word "secular". Further, as Islam is recognised in the Constitution as the religion of the federation, it would be improper to regard the country as a secular state. In support of this view, one can point out that the word "Islam" is mentioned at least 24 times in the Constitution, the words Mufti, Kadi Besar and Kadi at least once each. In Schedule 9, List II, paragraph 1, state legislatures are permitted to apply Islamic law to Muslims in a variety of civil areas. The state legislatures are also permitted to create and punish offences by Muslims against the precepts of Islam except in relation to matters within federal jurisdiction. Syariah courts may be established. Under Article 121(1A), syariah courts are independent of the civil courts. On the other side, Lim correctly pointed out that Malayan constitutional documents and pronouncements by early leaders indicate that at its birth the federation was meant to be a secular state. To back this view, one can point to the Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Che Soh's case that although Islam is the religion of the federation, it is not the basic law of the land. Article 3 on Islam imposes no limits on the power of parliament to legislate contrary to the syariah. Islamic law is not the general law of the land either at the federal or state levels. It applies only to Muslims and that too in limited and specified areas. It is noteworthy that non-Muslims are not subject to syariah or to the jurisdiction of the syariah courts. Ever since Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's declaration on Sept 29, 2001 that Malaysia is an Islamic country, this debate ignites periodically and no firm conclusion is ever possible because of the problem of semantics – the assignment of different meanings to the words "secular" and "theocratic" by participants in the discourse. My personal view is that if by a theocratic state is meant that the law of God is the supreme law of the land and that the temporal ruler is subject to the final direction of the theological head, then clearly Malaysia is not a theocratic state due to the presence of a supreme Constitution and the overriding power of secular authorities over the religious establishment. At the same time if by a secular state is meant that law and religion are separated from each other; that there is no legally prescribed official religion; that religion is not interwoven into the affairs of the state; that no state aid is given to any religious creed; and that religion is left entirely to private establishments, then Malaysia is certainly not a secular state. Then how should we be described? It is submitted that the Malaysian legal system is neither fully secular nor fully theocratic. It is hybrid. It permits legal pluralism. It avoids the extremes of American style secularism or Saudi or Taliban type of religious control over all aspects of life. It walks the middle path. It promotes piety but does not insist on ideological purity. Muslims are governed by divinely ordained laws in some fields but in others their life is regulated by Malay adat and by secular provisions enacted by elected legislatures. Non-Muslims are entirely regulated by secular laws. In sum, the secular versus theocracy debate is full of semantics and polemics and will take us nowhere. > Parliamentary committee: The Government is contemplating setting up a permanent select committee in Parliament to scrutinise Suhakam reports. If this move comes about it will not only catapult human rights to the forefront of parliamentary discussion, it will also do a great deal to bolster the image of parliament as the grand inquest of the nation. A system of well integrated and well serviced investigatory committees as in the United States and the Philippines holds the only key to enabling parliament to become an effective countervailing force to the ever increasing powers of the executive. An increase in the number of permanent select committees from the present five to one for each government department as in Britain, one joint committee on Human Rights, a Dewan Rakyat committee on Public Complaints to examine the reports of the Public Complaints Bureau and a joint committee on subsidiary legislation will do much to improve the institutional efficacy of parliament and to enable backbenchers to play a more meaningful role. To assist parliamentarians in this oversight function, non-partisan support structures ought to be established. MPs should be assigned research assistants. The Houses should have their own legal counsel. In the manner of INTAN and ILKAP, an Institute of Parliamentary Affairs should be established to train MPs and to hone their abilities to research and analyse issues. > Death penalty: Amnesty International has praised Malaysia for the proposal to abolish the death penalty for drug trafficking. The proposal is in its early stage and it is a matter of speculation which of the three alternatives will ultimately be accepted. First, maintain the death penalty for serious crimes but remove its mandatory nature. Restore judicial discretion to tailor the punishment to suit the factual matrix of each case. Second, reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed as at present for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, offences against a ruler or governor, abetting mutiny in the armed forces, murder, abetment of suicide, attempt by a life convict to murder if hurt is caused, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, hostage-taking, gang robbery with murder, drug trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms. Third, abolish the death penalty altogether as in 87 countries plus 27 others that have not executed anyone for the last 10 years. Which of the alternatives will be chosen will ultimately be a matter of high policy dictated as much by human rights considerations as by public opinion. It is submitted that on fundamental issues of right and wrong, popular opinion, while given due weight, should not be allowed to dictate ultimate decisions. As Jesse Jackson once said: "Leaders of substance do not follow opinion polls. They mould opinion, not with guns or dollars or position but with the power of their souls." > Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM. |
| Free speech fanaticism Posted: 31 Oct 2012 05:08 PM PDT Different countries may define blasphemy differently but some common elements must be there. There must be a clear intention to wound religious feelings, a likelihood of breach of public order, and an element of religious insult or vilification. America's actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Kampuchea, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gautemala, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Colombia, Congo/Zaire, Haiti, Somalia, Iran, Grenada, Costa Rica and Dominican Republic can also be defined as terrorist. Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi, The Star THIS column on Oct 4 on "Hate speech hypocrisy" had argued that the right to free speech is not unlimited and carries concomitant responsibilities. My article elicited a number of responses, some very learned, and I welcome them and wish to respond. Sarachandran wrote that the perception among Muslims of their persecution is genuine and based on an objective overview of world happenings. But "how would we weave into this paradigm the unprovoked destruction of priceless Buddhist iconic images by the Taliban and the mere murmuring protestations by the world community and deafening silence of enlightened Muslims?" I totally agree with Sarachandran that we must not be selective in our condemnation and must take a stand against all atrocities no matter who the violator is and who the victim. The first function of freedom is to free someone else. Two readers asked about blasphemy against other religions besides the state religion. The answer to this has to be that the law must not be selective. It must shield all religions against vilification. For example, the Malaysian Penal Code in section 298 contains the general offence of wounding religious feelings. The provision protects all faiths. It must be acknowledged, however, that around the world the law on blasphemy is either discriminatory in its reach or administered unequally. For a long time till its repeal in 2007, the UK law on blasphemy defined the offence only in relation to the Church of England. Though the law was rarely enforced, the same effect was achieved by convicting those who insulted Jews under the common law offence of breach of peace. However, when a Muslim citizen of Britain, humiliated by Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, filed a police report, the public prosecutor got cold feet. The citizen then tried to initiate a private prosecution but the High Court rejected his application. In Greece and South Africa, blasphemy is only against the Christian Church. In the European Union, despite laudable activism in the cause of human rights of non-Muslims, constitutional jurisprudence is not free of anti-Islam bias. For example, Muslims girls are prosecuted for wearing the hijab. Mosques with minarets are vigorously opposed because that would ruin the skyline. Reader Buyung Adil raises a question about "who will define blasphemy?" My view is that the offence must be defined by law and tried before non-sectarian, civil courts. Different countries may define the offence differently but some common elements must be there. There must be a clear intention to wound religious feelings, a likelihood of breach of public order, and an element of religious insult or vilification. Mere disagreements with or respectful criticism of religious rulings should not be prosecuted. What penalty must be prescribed? One reader strongly argued against the death penalty and I totally agree. Fines along with counselling and community engagement sessions may be adequate. The purpose should be to re-educate and banish the ignorance that leads to the prejudices on which hate speech is based. Reader Buyung also asks the provocative question: "Why aren't Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Confucianists, Bahais, Zoroastrians creating violent terrorism over acts of blasphemy?" This is a very large and involved question and only a few points can be explored. First, it is probably true that deep, unquestioning veneration for their faith is more widespread in Muslim societies. The militant secularism (e.g. the banning of Bible-reading in public schools as in the United States) is impossible in Muslim societies. Secondly, it is not true that other civilisations do not indulge in religious-racial violence and persecution. In the US, firebombing of black churches by white racist groups is known. Right-wing Christian groups destroy abortion clinics and shoot dead the patrons. The Ku Klux Clan used to lynch blacks. During George Bush's government, nearly 7,000 Muslims were profiled, detained and harassed. Was there no religious violence in Ireland till the 70s – inquisitions and burning of heretics; Jew-baiting and discrimination against Catholics; and the holocaust in Europe? Are not Europe and the UN to be blamed for the genocide in former Yugoslavia? Who committed and who helped the slaughters in Sabra, Shatila and Jenin? In India, religious, caste and tribal violence is endemic. The Babri mosque was razed to the ground and Muslims were butchered in Gujarat with political and police connivance. In Sri Lanka, race/religious violence claimed more than a hundred thousand lives. In Thailand and the Philippines, religious violence by both sides is well known. Thirdly, reader Buyung implies that terrorism is a speciality of Muslims. Much depends on how one defines terrorism. America's actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Kampuchea, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gautemala, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Colombia, Congo/Zaire, Haiti, Somalia, Iran, Grenada, Costa Rica and Dominican Republic can also be defined as terrorist. Israel's brutalities in Palestine and Lebanon are flagrant violations of international law. Actually, humanity has a bloody record and no civilisation can claim superiority in this area. What has happened today is that through selective demonstration and fear-mongering, the topic of Islamic terrorism is allowed to demonise a religious community. |
| MP claims French lawyers given false info on Suaram Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:53 PM PDT 
(Bernama) - A law firm in the capital was alleged to have furnished false information in a letter to lawyers in France stating that Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) was a registered organisation under Suara Inisiatif Sendirian Berhad (SISB). The matter was raised by Member of Parliament Wee Choo Keong (Independent-Wangsa Maju) who also alleged that Suaram had received millions of ringgit. "The law firm appears to have a grand design to tarnish our country's image," he said during the 2013 Supply Bill debate in the Dewan Rakyat Wednesday. He also questioned why there has been no legal action against Suaram despite the investigation on the NGO which started a month ago. Domestic Trade, Cooperative and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob then replied that his Ministry was informed the Attorney-General (AG) had wanted to obtain a report from the Registrar of Societies first. "The AG said there was a link between Suaram and SISB and wants to establish the link to prove claims that monies received by SISB was channeled to Suaram," he said. Parliament continues its session tomorrow. |
| Blind faith in politics Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:46 PM PDT 
Even if the Pakatan Rakyat takes over the office, it is impossible for it to solve the national debt problem within three to five years, particularly the Pakatan Rakyat also advocates populism, and promises to increase oil royalty for oil-producing states by 20%. Unless if the Pakatan Rakyat can control its spending and open up new revenue, or it will fall into the same financial predicament of the BN government. Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily I do not know if others are sick of politics just like me. I have been skipping news reports about mutual attacks between the ruling and alternative coalitions. However, many people are still passionate in politics. For example, a recent political dinner organised by the DAP in Skudai had attracted 11,000 people and some stayed until midnight and were reluctant to leave. The dinner collected RM63,110 and one of the supporters bade RM30,000 for the "Ubah" mascot with the signatures of party Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang and his son, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was also welcomed by passionate people when touring the country. On the other hand, social media have also been passionately talking about politics. Some people even believe that all the country's problems will be solved once the regime is changed. Is politics so magical? Is it true that everything will become better after the general election? I am not pouring cold water here, but I am afraid that everything might remain as the status quo after the election. The runway landing lights failure at the Kota Kinabalu International Airport (KKIA) had caused thousands of passengers stranded. Such imperfection can be reguarly found in Malaysia and the government is not a panacea that can cure the sloppy working attitude. The flaws in the Automated Enforcement System (AES) reflected execution problems and politics is not a miracle drug. It is impossible to be cured completely even if the government is changed. The various absurd acts in financial management exposed by the Auditor-General's Report involve frauds and it is an institutional issue. The decision made by the Finance Ministry at meetings did not reach the borrowing department and as a result, the department continued lending money to the National Feedlot Centre. It is a problem of blocked communication. The disappearance of evidence in police stations is a result of the lack of discipline. The turtle-speed progress of the road upgrading works in Petaling Jaya is a result of low efficiency and it is a waste to place dozens of 3R recycling bins in Section 13 and 14 where there are not may pedestrians. All the above mentioned drawbacks require a long time to reform and correct. It is impossible to be solved by politicians alone. The greater the expectation, the greater the disappointment. It is also not practical to apotheosise any political leaders. They also have to face institutional and human problems. Even if the Pakatan Rakyat takes over the office, it is impossible for it to solve the national debt problem within three to five years, particularly the Pakatan Rakyat also advocates populism, and promises to increase oil royalty for oil-producing states by 20%. Unless if the Pakatan Rakyat can control its spending and open up new revenue, or it will fall into the same financial predicament of the BN government. In terms of work efficiency, Pakatan Rakyat state governments are not doing better than the federal government, unless if the Pakatan Rakyat rectify the administrative system immediately after taking over the office. The national economy has currently slowed down while the US third Quantitative Easing (QE3) is expected to bring inflation problems. Regardless of whether it is the BN or the Pakatan Rakyat, the federal government must have appropriate measures to cope with the situation after the election. Therefore, it is over optimistic to hope that the general election and politics can change the country. It is also only an idle theory to compare the BN with the Pakatan Rakyat. The key actually lies on who has the ability to implement institutional reforms and eradicate the deep-rooted malady. It requires time to clear administrative drawbacks. A few politicians and a general election are not able to bring massive changes. You may be passionate in politics but please do not put blind faith in it. There is hope in politics only if we purify our minds first. |
| Vote for party, not candidate Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:42 PM PDT 
Our politics has obviously moved towards duality in which those who are not categorised as friends will be regarded as enemies. It has also made it difficult for independent candidates or a third force to rise. The by-election held in Johor Bahru on August 25, 1988 serves as the best example here. Lim Mun Fah, Sin Chew Daily The next general election seems so near yet so far. Political parties seem to have decided their candidates and it is now just the question of time for the official announcements by party leaders. Candidates are indeed important as they are representatives of their respective parties and might be leaders of the country in the future. However, I am more and more convinced that the next general election is going to be a battle between the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat. Except for a few heavyweight candidates or those who are really notorious, voters would basically tend to vote for political parties, instead of candidates. According to my personal observation, supporters of the alternative coalition basically voted for the party instead of the candidates in the past few general elections. For them, it was more important to let the alternative coalition expand its political map than supporting the candidates. Moreover, the alternative coalition had been facing a talent shortage problem even in the last general election. However, the next general election will be different from the previous ones. After the 2008 political tsunami, many young intellectuals have joined the Pakatan Rakyat and it has strengthened the base of the coalition while enabling it to have a large number of potential and talented candidates with political ideals. It also means that this time, BN candidates will no longer face opponents who are incomparable with them in terms of personal knowledge, image and talent. Instead, they will compete with opponents with equal strength or even stronger. Undeniably, the quality improvement of candidates can strengthen the trust of voters while making the election campaigns more worth seeing. However, similar personal qualities might cause voters to further tend to vote for parties and not to care about comparing the candidates. Our politics has obviously moved towards duality in which those who are not categorised as friends will be regarded as enemies. It has also made it difficult for independent candidates or a third force to rise. The by-election held in Johor Bahru on August 25, 1988 serves as the best example here. There was an outbreak of struggle between team A and team B within Umno at that time. Former Welfare Minister Datuk Shahrir Samad, a team B leader along with former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam, resigned from his Johor Bahru parliamentary seat after being sacked from Umno, forcing a sensational by-election. The then Umno was divided into the confronting team A and team B and the voters would also like to take the opportunity to teach the domineering Umno a lesson by intensifying the confrontation. Therefore, they urged Partai Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia (PSRM) Deputy Chairman Abdul Razak Ahmad to withdraw from the election, but Razak insisted to contest. As a result, Shahrir won with a majority more than double the votes of BN candidate, while causing the prestigious Razak to lose his deposit. The by-election illustrated the fact that in an era asking for changes, the situation is always prioritised over people. It is not changeable by personal prestige. Similar to the current situation, voters generally want to see a showdown between the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat and therefore, the next general election is doomed to be a battle in which voters vote for political parties, instead of candidates. |
| Chua : Selfishness DAP leaders intent to keeping their seats for the salaries Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:37 PM PDT 
(The Malaysian Times) - Some DAP leaders are intent on keeping both their parliamentary and state seats which earn them up to RM50,000 a month, said MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek. In commenting on the "one candidate, one seat" proposal made by DAP chairman Karpal Singh, Dr Chua said some Selangor DAP leaders who are both MPs and excos are earning salaries that are "more than a minister's pay". "Some can easily get between RM40,000 and RM50,000 a month, especially if they are sitting on state government-linked companies where they are entitled to allowances and bonuses. "So, some of them might not be willing to give up (their seats)," said Dr Chua, who refused to disclose names. Speaking after attending a press conference on the 4th World Chinese Economic Forum, Dr Chua also said it might be difficult for those who hold dual posts to serve people effectively, especially if their parliamentary and state seats are not in the same state. Meanwhile, Selangor DAP chief Teresa Kok has been branded as being disrespectful over her response to party supremo Karpal Singh's proposed "one candidate, one seat" policy. Kota Alam Shah assemblyman M. Manoharan said Kok's words showed her lack of respect towards the veteran politician. "Who is she to question Karpal Singh?" asked Manoharan as reported by news portal Free Malaysia Today. Last Saturday, it was reported that DAP chairman Karpal had called on party leaders holding both parliamentary and state seats to give one up. "I think it is important for those who are holding two seats now to publicly declare that they will opt for only one seat. I think they should do so in the interest of Pakatan Rakyat," Karpal had said. He added that while there would be "extraordinary exceptions" to his "one candidate, one seat" proposal, all should be willing to vie for a single constituency. Kok was among the leaders who responded, saying Karpal was highlighting "an old story" to the media. Manoharan said Kok, also DAP national organising secretary, had no right to speak against Karpal to the media. "She has to retract the statement and apologise to Karpal for her lack of respect," he added. Kok is among the DAP leaders who are both an MP and a state elected representative. She is Seputeh MP and Kinrara assemblyman. Others include Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng (Bagan MP and Air Putih assemblyman), Penang Deputy Chief Minister Dr P. Ramasamy (Batu Kawan MP and Prai assemblyman), Perak DAP chairman Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham (Beruas MP and Sitiawan assemblyman) and Perak DAP secretary Nga Kor Ming (Taiping MP and Pantai Remis assemblyman). |
| Aziz Bari sahkan tanding PRU, yakin rampas kerusi Sabak Bernam Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:31 PM PDT 
(Sinar Harian) - PKR yakin dapat merampas semula kerusi Parlimen Sabak Bernam pada Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 (PRU13) selepas mengumumkan calon baru bagi kerusi tersebut iaitu bekas pensyarah di Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM), Dr Abdul Aziz Bari. Difahamkan, sebelum ini, Ketua PKR Cabang Sabak Bernam, Dr Badrolamin Baharon dicalonkan bertanding bagi kerusi itu.
Abdul Aziz berkata, pemilihannya sebagai calon bagi kerusi berkenaan adalah atas arahan Ketua Umum PKR, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Katanya, beliau yakin dapat merampas semula kerusi Parlimen Sabak Bernam memandangkan terdapat beberapa penambahbaikan dilakukan Kerajaan Negeri sebelum ini. Pada 2008, kerusi Sabak Bernama dimenangi oleh calon BN dari Umno, Abd Rahman Bakri, yang menewaskan Badrolamin. "Kerajaan Negeri telah melaksanakan beberapa penambahbaikan dalam memastikan hak rakyat tidak diabaikan dan ini adalah kekuatan kita bagi merampas kembali kerusi Parlimen di sini," katanya kepada Sinar Harian, semalam.
Beliau berkata, dia tidak berasa tergugat dengan kekuatan dimiliki Umno memandangkan pihaknya mempunyai kekuatan tersendiri bagi menawan kerusi di Parlimen Sabak Bernam. "Saya yakin ini adalah masa tepat bagi kami merampas kerusi di Parlimen ini memandangkan sokongan rakyat juga dilihat semakin kuat terhadap PKR," katanya. Abdul Aziz berkata, menerusi ceramah-ceramah yang dijalankan di sekitar daerah ini, jelas menunjukkan rakyat semakin matang dalam memilih pemimpin bersih serta mahukan pucuk pimpinan amanah. Beliau berkata, ia dapat dibuktikan dengan sesi ceramah yang diadakan di Bagan Terap di mana rakyat sudah bijak dalam menilai sesebuah parti politik dengan turut sama turun padang memberi sokongan ketika program dijalankan. "Bagan Terap merupakan kawasan hitam satu masa dulu memandangkan PKR pernah kalah teruk pada 2008, namun menerusi beberapa ceramah yang dijalankan kini, jelas menunjukkan penglibatan daripada ramai penduduk yang turut turun bagi memberi sokongan," katanya. Menurutnya, disebabkan faktor itu, Umno semakin takut menghadapi PRU13 memandangkan sokongan dilihat semakin tipis. Katanya, kajian dijalankannya sejak 2004 jelas menunjukkan kadar peningkatan sokongan rakyat terhadap parti itu semakin meningkat memandangkan pucuk pimpinan yang dianggap telus dalam membantu mendapatkan hak rakyat.
"Saya yakin PKR akan menang berdasarkan kajian yang saya jalankan menunjukkan pertambahan sokongan bagi parti ini," katanya. Menurutnya, pada PRU13 nanti PKR mungkin akan kalah dalam beberapa kerusi namun peratusan undian penduduk dijangka akan meningkat sebanyak lima peratus bagi setiap peti undi. Katanya, pada PRU lalu, kebanyakan disuarakan PKR dilihat retorik namun kini parti berkenaan dapat membuktikan ia menjadi realiti di samping membuka mata rakyat. "Ini merupakan salah satu kekuatan kita dalam memastikan kerusi Parlimen berkenaan dapat dirampas," katanya. Dalam pada itu Abdul Aziz berkata, sebelum ini, beliau turut menerima pelawaan daripada Pas dan DAP yang memintanya untuk bertanding di beberapa kawasan lain.
Katanya, bagaimanapun pelawaan tersebut ditolaknya kerana mahu memberi perkhidmatan terbaik di kampung halamannya. "Saya berasal dari sini dan saya mahukan perubahan terhadap pucuk pimpinan di samping memberi perkhidmatan adil kepada penduduk setempat," katanya. Beliau berharap rakyat dapat memberi peluang kepada PKR membuktikan kemampuan mereka dalam menguruskan daerah tersebut.
Sementara itu, Badrolamin enggan memberi sebarang komen berhubung perkara tersebut. |
| UK’s Cameron rocked by defeat in Europe budget vote Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:25 PM PDT 
(Reuters) - LONDON: British Prime Minister David Cameron suffered a humiliating defeat in parliament yesterday after Conservatives rebelled over Europe, an issue that has divided his party for decades and helped bring down previous leaders. Although the result carried no legal weight, the setback raised questions about Cameron's authority after months of missteps by his coalition government and it revived painful memories of Conservative infighting over Europe. Cameron wants the European Union's long-term budget to rise only in line with inflation, while opponents said it should be cut in real terms to reflect the bleak economic landscape at home and across Europe. The rebels won the vote by 307 to 294 votes, a majority of 13, after they received support from the Labour Party, a generally pro-European group accused by Cameron of "rank opportunism". "This is a time for Brussels to listen to the British people and do what we are all doing, and that is cutting our cloth," Conservative lawmaker Mark Pritchard, one of the revolt's leaders, told Sky News. Rebels said the vote – Cameron's first significant defeat in parliament since taking power in 2010 – could strengthen his position at budget talks in Brussels next month because he will be able to say his hands are tied by the British parliament. Other Conservatives said it would weaken his position. Many Britons regard the EU as an incompetent and spendthrift bureaucracy. Britain's ties with the 27-member bloc are likely to be a big theme in a national election due in 2015. Cameron wants Britain to remain an EU member but to renegotiate its role within the bloc, focusing more on trade links and less on areas like regulation. Addressing parliament before the vote, Cameron said he was prepared to use his veto to block an EU budget deal if he thought it was bad for Britain. France also threatened yesterday to use its veto if the proposals imply farm spending cuts. "This government is taking the toughest line in these budget negotiations of any government since we joined the European Union," Cameron said before the vote. "At best we would like it cut, at worst frozen, and I'm quite prepared to use the veto if we don't get a deal that's good for Britain." Accused of siding with the rebels to score cheap points against Cameron, Labour said it was right to ask Europe to cut its budget in real terms at a time of economic hardship. "This is a humiliating defeat for David Cameron which shows how weak and out of touch he has become," said Labour finance spokesman Ed Balls. In a bad-tempered clash in parliament, Labour leader Ed Miliband compared Cameron to John Major, the former Conservative prime minister whose time in office in the 1990s was dogged by infighting over Europe. Bitter arguments over Britain's role in Europe were central to the downfall of another former leader, Margaret Thatcher. Trailing in popularity polls, Cameron faces an uncomfortable balancing act on Europe. He does not want to alienate a majority of voters – and a powerful Conservative minority – who might vote to leave the EU after nearly 40 years. The Conservative leader must also see off a threat from the fiercely anti-EU UK Independence Party, which polls suggest has around 10 percent of the vote, about the same as the pro-Europe Liberal Democrats, the junior coalition partner. However, Cameron must also keep the Lib Dems on side and avoid wrecking relations with the EU, Britain's biggest trading partner, as the country emerges from recession. |
| ‘My son was no criminal’ Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:14 PM PDT 
A distraught VP Rajah says despite two Indonesians being sent to the gallows for murdering his son, R Karthic, the authorities are portraying him as a burglar. G Vinod, FMT Upset with media reports and authorities labelling his murdered son as a burglar, VP Rajah, has come forward to defend his son, R Karthic's honour. "I'm licensed money changer, own a plantation business and run a mini market. My son helps me in my trade and I pay him about RM10,000 in monthly salary and commissions. "I'm also a former treasurer of the Negeri Sembilan PPP and Karthic was a youth member of the party. Tell me, is there any reason for my son to become a burglar?" asked Rajah, 51. On Dec 3,2010, Karthic was found murdered at a shophouse in Taman Sri Sunga Pelek, Sepang. Eyewitnesses claimed he tried to enter a shoplot unit through an opening in the ceiling. However, two Indonesian brothers guarding the shop were said to have spotted Karthic and killed him before fleeing the scene. Frans Hiu and Dharry Frully Hiu were sentenced to death on Oct 19 by Shah Alam High Court judge, Nurchaya Arshad. Relating his ordeal, Rajah said that Karthic went to the shop at about 9am on that day to collect RM5,000 he loaned to his friend, Leong Wai Yiaw, who was working at the shop. "He was supposed to leave for India on that day but decided to get his money first," said Rajah. He added that Karthic and his girlfriend Juliet Rani Nadarajah were waiting downstairs of the shoplot before being dragged upstairs by four men. "The day market was operating then and many can vouch for this. Even my brother in law, R Murugan, was there shopping and saw Karthic being taken upstairs," he said. Rajah claimed that he received a frantic call from his wife at about 11am saying that Murugan had heard a commotion at the shoplot. Rajah said that when he arrived at the scene, he was stopped by a police officer from entering the crime scene. "The officer, named Corporal Asrul even refused to tell us what happened. Only after three hours, did he break the news to us. "He even accused my son of breaking into the shop while the investigations were going on. He just dismissed me," said Rajah. Two still at large Rajah accused investigating officer, ASP Zaiharul, and the deputy public prosecutor Yusof Rahman of working in cahoots with the shop operator to pin the blame on his son. READ MORE HERE |
| ‘Nurturing’ Mukhriz Mahathir Posted: 31 Oct 2012 03:59 PM PDT 
The gap in Umno and the distrust amongst the leadership is getting wider. Toffee Rodrigo, FMT The intrigue in Umno today is greater than the intrigue in the forbidden city during the last days of Chinese Emperors. It is a sure sign of a declining Umno in a 'dog eat dog' situation. The gap in Umno and the distrust amongst the leadership is getting wider. Umno deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin has asked his camp to play low key. If anything has to be unleashed against Najib and his "mentor", it has to be sudden and at a crucial time, so as not to allow for an opportunity for the Mahathirian camp to fight back. "It should be swift and decisive, there will be no turning back," Muhyiddin was quoted as having told his inner circles. Muhyiddin is very uncomfortable with Mahathir and he has to watch every step he takes. He can't have his plans leaked. Thus far he seems to be doing fine on that score, but you can never tell in Umno, especially with Mahathir who is famous for buying out Umno boys to get what he wants. And there are people in Johor Umno who are willing to align with Mahathir in this war. Uphill task for Muhyddin Mahathir has the funds or at least the sources from which he can squeeze it out. Muhyiddin has his back against the wall. Under normal circumstances, an Umno deputy will be able to muster funds at will, but now after the Shahrizat Abdul Jalil's NFC affair, it has been made very difficult for him. In Umno today, it's money that talks, not Bahasa Melayu, but money! So it is an uphill task for Muhyiddin, but sources say he has a good following and can turn the tables – money politics or not. The not so intelligent (Home Minister) Hishammuddin Hussein does not have enough money to spend so lavishly to win any position. He also does not have the support of the grassroots to make himself invulnerable, so he goes the way of Mukhriz, whose father and siblings together with their cronies will outbid anyone on the scene. So Hisham will play the Mahathirian plan although he hates it, like his father, he will be used by Mahathir as a stop gap premier and then moved out ungraciously. Mahathir is looking to park his son Mukhriz' interests. If you notice Mukhriz has been rather quiet, very quiet for anyone's liking. He has ambitions and his father has plans to nurture that ambition but where he parks himself in this controversy and this power struggle in Umno will determine his future in the party, and both him and his father know that and are worried sick on how to solve this power equation. READ MORE HERE |
| Najib the Delayer Posted: 31 Oct 2012 03:57 PM PDT 
Shao Loong, New Mandala Malaysia's second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, was a member of the Fabian Society, a socialist forerunner of the British Labour Party that rejected the revolutionary seizure of power in favour of a gradualist approach. His son Najib Razak, Malaysia's current premier, though no socialist, is a Fabian of sorts, too. The Fabians derived their name from the Roman consul, dictator and general Fabius Maximus, who was known as Fabius the Delayer after his military strategy. Let us understand Fabius before we return to Najib's political strategy. Between the years 218 to 201 BC Rome and the north African city-state of Carthage were engaged in the Second Punic War for control over the Mediterranean.The great Carthaginian general Hannibal rampaged across the Italian peninsula for over 15 years, inflicting crushing military defeats upon Rome and causing political upheaval by plundering the countryside and turning Rome's provincial Italian allies against her. Hannibal's tactical prowess was so formidable that Fabius reasoned that direct military engagement with him was foolhardy. Instead, Fabius opted for a form of guerrilla warfare by refusing pitched battles, settling instead on sniping at Hannibal's stragglers and supply lines. While Fabius' strategy denied Hannibal the political glory of military victories, he in turn was criticised in the Roman senate for such a 'cowardly' approach. His rivals named him 'Cunctator', which sounds ruder than it is, for it merely means 'Delayer' in Latin. Whilst strategically cunning, Fabius' approach was politically flawed because it ran against the highly aggressive Roman mindset. In 217 BC, after his six-month term as dictator expired, Fabius' strategy was not renewed. Instead, the new consul Gaius Terentius Varro rallied popular support for a head on clash of arms with Hannibal. The result was the battle of Cannae, which has gone down in history as one of the most perfect examples of battlefield tactics. Some 86,000 Romans and their allies faced off against a smaller Carthaginian force of 50,000 men. The course of the battle illustrates the prudence of Fabius' decision to avoid a direct clash with Hannibal. The more numerous Roman army was completely encircled by the Carthaginian forces. The result was an absolute slaughter. Nearly 78,000 Romans – one-fifth of the men of military age – may have died that day against only 6,000 to 8,000 of Hannibal's men who perished. It was a crushing defeat for Rome, but for reasons which remain debated to this day, Hannibal decided not to lay siege to Rome and instead focused on weakening her alliances with the various Italian tribes. Roman defeat at Cannae was followed by a return to the Fabian strategy. Rome's military comeback would only occur under the generalship of Publius Cornelius Scipio in 210 BC. Scipio was Hannibal's greatest student for he had learned his military lessons by surviving several of Hannibal's triumphs, including Cannae. Hannibal's grand strategy was to carry the war against Rome to Italy, wreak military havoc and use that to politically fracture Rome's system of alliances with the Italian tribes that kept her dominant and supplied much of her military power. Scipio applied the same strategy to the Carthaginian empire. Carthage's main military strength came from allies in Spain and Numidia (a Berber kingdom in western Tunisia). Despite opposition from the cautious Fabius, Scipio took the war first to Spain and then to Africa. The Spanish forces were defeated and the Numidians, with their crack cavalry, induced to defect from Carthage. When Hannibal and Scipio finally faced off in the plains of Zama south of Carthage (near modern Tunis), the Carthaginian forces lacked their former strength. Scipio now brought his learning of Hannibal to bear and successfully anticipated many of the latter's tactics. The result was Hannibal's first defeat and the end of the war. When faced with a superior foe Fabius' strategy of delaying made sense as long as Rome was unable to produce a decisive military answer to Hannibal. Ironically, it was Hannibal's very success that forged his nemesis, Scipio. Both relied on a mix of direct confrontation and indirect disruption of their opponent's alliance networks. Only Scipio was able to produce decisive victory by combining both military and political strategy. The difference was due, in part, to the contrasting psychologies of the Roman and Carthaginian senates. The historian Polybius argued that Rome's determination outweighed that of Carthage because the Romans personally fought for their empire and freedom whilst Carthage employed mercenaries to achieve the same. The Romans had the fortitude to withstand defeats far beyond conventional expectation – witness Cannae – whereas Carthaginian resolve was not as strong. In Malaysia today Prime Minister Najib Razak, by delaying elections for the last three years, has employed a Fabian strategy of avoiding decisive confrontation with a strong foe. Whilst the twelfth general election of 2008 was not a decisive loss for the UMNO-dominated Barisan Nasional (BN), it denied them a two-thirds majority in Parliament, left several of UMNO's allies severely weakened, and was treated by UMNO as a moral defeat. Somewhat like Hannibal, Anwar Ibrahim has focused on sapping BN's other allies away. The abortive 'September 16th' plan of 2009 – to win government via defections of BN lawmakers to Anwar's Pakatan Rakyat (PR) – was nipped in the bud, but the basic strategy has continued alongside efforts to woo the general voter. Like Scipio's mirroring strategy, Najib's response was the fall of the PR-led state government of Perak, which ensued from the defection of several state lawmakers to a 'BN-friendly' stance. Similar moves were played at the Parliamentary level. The many by-elections since 2008 and political surveys have shown that Malaysia is almost evenly divided between the Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional coalitions, with the balance towards BN. In the impending thirteenth general elections (GE13) much will rest on electoral technicalities (rural weighting, gerrymandering, phantom voters, etc.) and the favour of new voters. Both PR and BN have been fighting on similar ground. When the hot air about ethno-racial politics clears, the main arguments are about who is fit to govern and who will deliver the most wealth into Malaysians' pockets. It is rumoured that Najib's Fabian approach has earned him criticism from UMNO's conservative warlords. It has also generated frustration amongst voters, who are now weary of a three-year long election season. It is here that the analogy between Fabius and Najib breaks down. Fabius was willing to champion an unpopular strategy to save his city from defeat even though his career suffered. Elections are also different from battles in that elections cannot be indefinitely deferred, short of suspending the democratic process and installing a dictatorship via a state of emergency. Najib Razak's father, Tun Razak effectively did so following UMNO's last major loss in 1969. However, BN has been capable of winning GE13 for some time now. The question has more been whether Najib could deliver a decisive enough victory that would secure his own political career from challenge. After all, this was the pretext that Najib employed to depose Abdullah Badawi in 2009. The uncertainty of winning back the symbolically potent two-thirds majority in Parliament has surely been weighing heavily on Najib's mind. Voters have left BN because they want better governance, less wastage, and more justice. BN can at best deliver these demands to a limited degree, and then only inconsistently. The newer Pakatan state governments have largely proven that such gains can be made provided internal political inertia is minimal and political will is present. Yet the popular vote is not enough. In order to form a new federal government, a coalition needs to secure the majority of seats in Parliament, which is not the same thing as a majority of voters. PR faces a struggle to break into the so-called 'fixed deposits' of Sabah and Sarawak, but enough headway has been made that Najib may continue to delay. There is lately even a sense that victory could tip Pakatan's way. It now seems likely that elections will happen in 2013 if decisive, rather than mere, victory is Najib's goal, and his faith in cash handouts to voters, and perhaps other undisclosed measures, is strong. Or else, with the opportunities for decisive victory slipping away with time, he may simply be reconciled to enjoy high office until his term runs out. READ MORE HERE |
| Seats: Ngieng tells DAP top guns to state stand Posted: 31 Oct 2012 07:53 AM PDT 
(Borneo Post) - SUPP Sibu vice Chairman Daniel Ngieng yesterday challenged Sarawak DAP top two leaders – chairman Wong Ho Leng and secretary Chong Ching Jen – to state whether they were willing to give up either their parliamentary or assemblymen posts to live up to their party's proposed declaration. Wong is assemblyman of Bukit Assek and Sibu MP, while Chong is Kota Sentosa assemblyman and Bandar Kuching MP. Ngieng said in a statement that DAP national chairman Karpal Singh had, last Friday, suggested that "all DAP parliamentary members who are also state assemblymen should publicly declare which seat they wish to contest in the coming general election". Ngieng, who is also deputy chairman of Sibu Municipal Council, said other DAP top guns in the Peninsula who were holding two posts were Lim Guan Eng, Ngeh Khoo Ham, Nga Kor Ming, Teresa Kok and Anthony Loke. "We ask Wong and Chong whether they will support Karpal's suggestion which was proposed by Ngeh." Ngieng hoped both Chong and Wong, who are both lawyers, would not excuse themselves by saying this was their internal party matter which others should not question. He said Karpal had clarified that the `One candidate, one seat' policy was for public interest by virtue of their accountability to the constituents. "This means when a person holds two posts, the call of duties would be compromised," he said. "For instance, when Wong is attending his parliamentary sitting he has no time for the constituents in Bukit Assek. This is not fair to them." He said DAP leaders had preached about fairness, accountability and responsibility. In view of their proposed policy, Ngieng said it was timely for both Wong and Chong to declare their stand. He said if they practised that it would give opportunities to more aspiring DAP leaders who might be denied to lead if DAP Sarawak stuck to the `One candidate, two seats' practice. "One DAP source from Selangor said the objection to Karpal's proposal from some DAP leaders may stem from worries that they could lose their multiple incomes, some of which had exceeded RM40,000 monthly, if they were just sticking to one seat," He said if both Wong and Chong were taking part in the coming parliamentary election, they would have to vacate their state seats based on their 'one candidate, one seat' policy. He challenged both Wong and Chong to make the declaration, saying: "The public deserve to be informed of your stand before the coming election." |
| Do you think I care a shit? Posted: 31 Oct 2012 07:33 AM PDT
You Pakatan Rakyat supporters are still too immature. And that is why Pakatan Rakyat is not ready to run the country. Pakatan Rakyat supporters first need to gain some maturity before Pakatan Rakyat can be allowed to form the federal government. You need to suffer another term under Barisan Nasional. This suffering might then wake you up and only when you wake up can we talk about a change of government. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "More I read your articles, more I have an inclination that you really are on a BN payroll." -- bengali kunday.
*************************************
That was what a reader going by the nickname of 'bengali kunday' said. Well, allow me to reply to that. First of all, even if I am on the payroll of Barisan Nasional, so what? There are people like those in Malaysiakini, Malaysia Chronicle, and so on, who are on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. In fact, sites like Harakah and many others actually belong to and are financed by Pakatan Rakyat or parties within Pakatan Rakyat. And they do not hide that fact or are apologetic or ashamed about serving the interest of a political party, notwithstanding the fact that it is an opposition party. Are you implying that it is okay to be on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll but not okay to be on Barisan Nasional's payroll? Are you also implying that democracy and freedom of choice and freedom of association means you must be on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll but not on Barisan Nasional's payroll? What type of democracy is this when you are restricted to serving one party's interest but not the other? What type of democracy is this when you have no freedom of choice or freedom of association and are obligated to serve one party's interest but not the other?
You take the moral high ground whenever you feel that someone is serving Barisan Nasional's interest but you do not demonstrate that same moral outrage if someone is on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. So-called 'independent' human rights organisations such as Suaram openly work for Pakatan Rakyat but that is not repulsive to you. Only if they serve Barisan Nasional's interest is it repulsive.
Secondly, when I write articles very damaging to Barisan Nasional and Umno -- such as my two recent articles this week in The Corridors of Power regarding Umno Sabah -- you do not consider that as being on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. However, if I write just one article that is slightly uncomplimentary to Pakatan Rakyat (in fact, the article that I wrote in which you posted that comment is not even about Pakatan Rakyat or uncomplimentary to Pakatan Rakyat) you consider that as being on Barisan Nasional's payroll. To you Pakatan Rakyat supporters, the decent thing to do is to serve Pakatan Rakyat's interest. Serving any other interest is an indecent thing to do. You decide the moral boundaries and limits of decency and anyone who does not pass your interpretation and yardstick of morality and decency is vilified. Who appointed you the guardian and trustee of morality and decency?
How different are you from the religionists who decide what is moral and what is decent and impose their standards of morality and decency on others? Since Muslims represent the majority population in Malaysia can Muslims then, going by the doctrine of democracy where majority rules, impose their Islamic interpretation of morality and decency on the minority?
Since the majority dictates the ground rules then surely what is compatible to Islam should prevail and anything repulsive to Islam should be barred. In that case the Islamic Sharia law, Hudud included, should be the law of the land. Muslims who are the majority in Malaysia should decide what is moral and what is decent and Islam must be the code of conduct that all Malaysians should live by. Religionists such as Muslims, even if they are the majority in Malaysia, should not impose their will on Malaysians, even on fellow Muslims, let alone on the non-Muslims. So why should you impose your will on others? The believers of Islam should not vilify those who are not of the Muslim faith. Why should the believers of Pakatan Rakyat vilify those who are not of the opposition faith? When misguided Muslims adopt the 'either you are with us or you are against us' religious doctrine, you find that revolting, indecent and immoral. But you can adopt the 'either you are with us or you are against us' political doctrine and it is not revolting, indecent and immoral. What kind of hypocritical double standard is this? You resent it when others impose their will on you and when they decide what is tolerable, moral and decent. But you can impose your will on others and decide what is tolerable, moral and decent. Can you see the hypocrisy that is so thick you can cut it with a knife? Do you think I care a shit about Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? Do you think I care a shit whether Barisan Nasional retains power or Pakatan Rakyat gains power? Do you think my life is only about the general elections and about who gets to march into Putrajaya? That is a very narrow way to look at life. Do you honestly think that my mission in life is to make sure that Barisan Nasional does not get kicked out? Do you honestly think that my mission in life is to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government? You have a very narrow mission in life. Do not imagine that my mission in life is as narrow as yours. Politicians are politicians, never mind from which side of the political divide. And the narrow objective of all politicians is merely to get into power. What makes you think that that is also my very narrow objective? If you think that then you have not been reading properly what I have been writing over these last 35 years. You Pakatan Rakyat supporters are still too immature. And that is why Pakatan Rakyat is not ready to run the country. Pakatan Rakyat supporters first need to gain some maturity before Pakatan Rakyat can be allowed to form the federal government. You need to suffer another term under Barisan Nasional. This suffering might then wake you up and only when you wake up can we talk about a change of government. Yes, do keep whacking me. Continue to vilify me. And when you do I will do everything within my power to make sure that the coming general election is going to result in a huge shock and disappointment for you. Never give a flower to a monkey, the Malays would say. That is like throwing pearls to swine, the English say. And that is how I look at some of you Pakatan Rakyat supporters, monkeys and swine that are not ready to be entrusted with power. So you want to fight. So let's fight. I have nothing to lose because I don't care a shit which side is going to win the coming general election. That is what you want. That is not what I want. Just because that is what you want you have this mistaken notion that that is what I also want. What stupid people you are. If I support Pakatan Rakyat then I am God. If I do not support Pakatan Rakyat then I am a Barisan Nasional stooge. Well, let me break it to you gently. I am neither God not a Barisan Nasional stooge. I am an independent-spirited individual who does not care a shit about losers like you. |
| ‘Who is she to question Karpal?’ Posted: 30 Oct 2012 08:46 PM PDT 
The cracks in DAP continue to widen ahead of the polls, with M Manoharan launching a broadside against Teresa Kok for her 'outburst' against Karpal. Athi Shankar, FMT "Who is she to question Karpal Singh?" thundered a DAP leader who took Selangor exco Teresa Kok to task for being rude. Kota Alam Shah assemblyman M Manoharan demanded that the DAP national organising secretary apologise to the veteran politician, who is also the party's national chairman. He said Kok's "media outburst" with regard to Karpal's statement on the "one man – one seat" issue was uncalled for. Being the party's Selangor chief and national organising secretary, he said Kok should know that Karpal as the DAP supremo had the right to announce the party's public policies. He said Kok had no right to question Karpal's media statements on the "one man – one seat" issue, which had become a major political topic among party leaders and members at all levels. He said Kok should always remember that Karpal was among the senior leaders responsible for the party's political strength and growth over the years. "She should retract her criticisms immediately and apologise to Karpal," Manoharan told FMT. Last Friday, Karpal called on the party's nine double-hat wearers, who are both a parliamentarian and an assemblyman, to declare publicly that they would opt for only one seat in the next general election. In other words, Karpal wanted them to show support to the proposed "one man – one seat" electoral formula. Karpal, who first proposed the formula early last year, argued that the party now had enough capable and dynamic young grassroots leaders as candidates, unlike in previous elections. But Kok, a double-seat holder herself, chided Karpal for highlighting "an old story" in the media. The other DAP elected representatives who are both MPs and assemblymen are Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng (Bagan MP and Air Putih assemblyman), Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy (Batu Kawan MP and Prai assemblyman) and the state senior exco and party chief Chow Kon Yeow (Tanjung MP and Padang Kota assemblyman), all in Penang; Beruas MP and Sitiawan assemblyman Ngeh Koo Ham, Taiping MP and Pantai Remis assemblyman Nga Kor Ming, both Perak; and Rasah MP and Lobak assemblyman Anthony Loke Siew Fook (Negeri Sembilan). In Sarawak, state DAP chairman Wong Ho Leng is the Sibu MP and Bukit Assek assemblyman while state party secretary Chong Chieng Jen is the Bandar Kuching MP and Kota Sentosa assemblyman. 'She was neither here nor there'
Manoharan, who supported the "one man – one seat" proposal, said dual seat holders should put public and party interests above their own interests by accepting Karpal's formula. He said double-hat wearers should not draw multiple perks while dishing out poor performance as elected representatives at the expense of other single seat representatives and taxpayers. At a glance, double-seat holders earn nearly RM40,000 per month. In Selangor, an assemblyman's pay is about RM11,700, inclusive of allowances, while that of an executive councillor is about RM25,000 (inclusive of state assembly pay). A MP earns about RM15,000 a month. Manoharan recalled that during the recent July parliamentary sitting, which coincided with the Selangor state assembly session, Kok was unable to perform her duties efficiently as a senior exco, state representative and parliamentarian. "She was neither here nor there. She was missing most of the assembly sittings," he claimed. Manoharan said he was now fighting a court case against the demolishment of a Hindu temple – Seafield Maha Mariamman Kovil – which comes under Kok's Kinrara constituency. "The temple management told me that it had been difficult to get even an appointment to meet Kok and resolve the demolishment issue amicably," he said. He said Kok was not able to divide and devote her time for her constituents partly because she was a MP and an assemblywoman in two different territories. READ MORE HERE |
| 'One candidate one seat' not Pakatan's Common Policy, says PAS Veep Posted: 30 Oct 2012 08:39 PM PDT 
(Bernama) -- PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub today stated that the 'one candidate one seat' proposal by DAP national chairman Karpal Singh was not a common policy of the opposition group. He said it might only apply to DAP.
"We (PAS) have no problem here. Moreover, we have for a long time practised the 'one candidate one seat' policy except for certain cases like our party president (Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang) who holds two seats (Marang parliamentary seat and Rhu Rendang state seat)," he said when contacted Wednesday.
The opposition group or Pakatan Rakyat consists of PAS, DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
Salahuddin said PAS had never prevented any party member from contesting a state seat as well as a parliamentary seat if he or she was asked to do so by the party's top leadership.
"Karpal had made the 'one candidate one seat' proposal probably because DAP now has many eligible candidates to be fielded in the upcoming general election. Anyway, this is DAP's internal matter," he said.
Last Friday, Karpal was quoted as saying said DAP elected representatives now holding two seats should choose to contest only one in the coming elections, so that they would have more time to serve their constituents.
However, some party leaders objected to the proposal. |
| Lust is a good strategy Posted: 30 Oct 2012 06:29 PM PDT
Well, since the majority of the Genneva gold bullion investors are Chinese I suppose this proves that the Chinese are greedy and are driven by lust -- lust for quick and easy money. And since the Chinese have demonstrated that they have this great lust then they must also be having lust for power. And this explains why the Chinese want to kick out the Malay Umno government. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Genneva involved 35,000 investors, investments of RM10bil (Bernama) - Some 35,000 investors with total investments clinching RM10 billion were found to be involved with the gold bullion investment company, Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd, a deputy minister told the Dewan Rakyat today. Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin said based on the information received thus far, total investments received amounted to RM4 billion and could swell to RM10 billion. He said Bank Negara Malaysia needs time to investigate the case based on two considerations deemed necessary to solve the controversy over the gold bar trading scheme. "Firstly, Genneva Malaysia has been "disguising" behind the gold bar business. Gold is a sentimental attraction. Many people are keen on gold regardless of their background including leaders." "They (the investors) feel this is a genuine business." "Secondly, Bank Negara has to study the situation. The central bank cannot raid straight away. For instance, if Bank Negara conducts a raid today and starts a probe, the central bank is also scolded at, because of their raid, investors lose their returns." "So Bank Negara has to consider, the central bank cannot act very quickly or very late. A balanced consideration is important. I feel all of us will learn from this experience." "Hopefully, we can better handle these type of cases in future," he said when replying to a supplementary question from Datuk Ibrahim Ali (Independent-Pasir Mas) during question time. Earlier, Awang Adek told the House that Genneva Malaysia's liabilities were more than the company's assets and this clearly showed that the company cannot afford to pay the due returns to its investors. The authorities recently conducted a raid on Genneva Malaysia and its associate company on suspicion of violating the Anti-Money Laundering Act. Datuk Wira Ahmad Hamzah (BN-Jasin), who posed the original question, had asked the Finance Ministry to unveil measures taken to curb get-rich-quick schemes which indulge in deposit-taking and illegal investments. In his reply, Awang Adek said Bank Negara was considering imposing a more deterrent sentence on get-rich-quick scheme operators in efforts to wipe out such scams from continuing to cheat the people. The ministry, in collaboration with related government agencies, including enforcement divisions, was monitoring closely and gathering intelligence, besides getting information from public complaints, he added. 
*************************************** Get-rich-quick schemes (Skim Cepat Kaya) such as tontine schemes, Ponzi schemes, etc., have been around for a long time. Tontines (known locally as 'kutu') have been around since the 1800s and Ponzi schemes for about 100 years now. Actually, get-rich-quick schemes have been around since time immemorial. The only thing is the name changes from time-to-time but the objective always remains the same -- make a lot of money from a little bit of money in the shortest possible time. I remember 40 years ago in the early 1970s the Gemini Chit Fund scandal hit the country. I had actually 'invested' in that scheme and made quite a bit of money. I got out just in time, though, before they were closed down and the tail-end investors lost their pants. Then we had the 'Pak Man Telo' Ponzi scheme that first emerged in the late 1970s and ran for about 20 years before the government sprang into action and closed it down. Most of the people caught with their pants down were Malays, a huge number of them rank-and-file police personnel and those from the kampong. Since the 'Pak Man Telo' Ponzi scheme affected mostly Malays it did not become an 'election issue' like the current Genneva gold bullion fiasco. Somehow, anything that affects the Chinese always becomes an election issue. Even giving out white envelopes instead of red envelopes for Chinese New Year can be turned into an election issue. But this would be only if the white envelopes were given to Chinese. If given to Malays then it is not an issue. The strategy in these get-rich-quick schemes is to prey on humankind's lust -- lust for wealth, power, recognition, position, etc. Humankind works on the basis of wants, not needs. Hence lust is very crucial in the whole scheme of things. We need food on the table, clothes on our back, and a roof over our head. Those are our basic needs. But once we meet those basic needs that would no longer be enough. Once we meet those basic needs then our wants take over. Then we want expensive clothes, jewellery, designer shoes and handbags, mansions, exotic cars, power, titles, and much more. Do we need all these? Of course we don't but we want them anyway. And that is why get-rich-quick schemes work. Those behind these schemes prey on peoples' lust or wants. And if you can convince them they can make a lot of money from very little money in the quickest time, they would entrust their money to you -- especially if there are 'references' from others who already made a lot of money from the scheme. To be successful in politics you also need to play on peoples' wants. Most voters might already have what they need. In fact, most Malaysians already have what they need. No one (except those such as drug addicts, etc., who choose to do so) is sleeping on the streets. We do not hear of anyone dying of hunger or starvation. No one walks around naked. So what more do the people need? They actually need very little more. They already have what they need. But it is what they want that counts. And they will vote for the government that can provide them these wants. If it is merely about your needs then you can survive living off the land in the middle of the jungle. You will not need a huge mansion or exotic car in the jungle. You do not need Birkin handbags, Rolex watches, Jimmy Choo shoes, Polo shirts, etc., in the jungle. In fact, you do not even need these if you live in town. But you want them anyway and if you can't have them then the government is bad and needs to be kicked out. Oh, but we are not kicking out the government for these reasons. We are kicking out the government because it is corrupt. Take the RM40 million 'donation' scandal involving Umno Sabah as an example. That is why we need to kick out the government. But the RM40 million 'timber kickback scandal' involving Umno Sabah is not something new. This has been going on for almost 50 years since 1963. That's right, it has been going on for almost half a century. And we have been telling you this for almost 40 years since the 1970s (at least I have, anyway). But this has never concerned you before. The more we tell you about all this the more you vote for Barisan Nasional. In fact, you looked at us as if we were crazy -- barking like a mad dog. Many times you scolded us and told us to just shut up. Now you appear to be screaming more than we are. So, no, I do not believe you want to kick out the government because the government is corrupt. I suspect that this is bullshit and that you have an ulterior motive. I suspect you are up to something no good. I suspect that this is merely a Chinese conspiracy to grab political power from the Malays. If corruption is really an issue then you would have kicked out the government a long time ago and not wait 55 years to do so. I know you all are a suspicious lot. Whenever I write something you are always suspicious of me. You suspect that I have a hidden agenda and that I am doing this for some personal benefit. Well, I, too, am just like you. I too am suspicious. I too suspect that you have a hidden agenda and that you are doing this for some personal benefit. Hence you want to kick out the government not because the government is corrupt -- because the government has always been corrupt for over 55 years and you never cared about it before this. I suspect you are not sincere and this is all about the Chinese kicking out a Malay Umno government. Well, since the majority of the Genneva gold bullion investors are Chinese I suppose this proves that the Chinese are greedy and are driven by lust -- lust for quick and easy money. And since the Chinese have demonstrated that they have this great lust then they must also be having lust for power. And this explains why the Chinese want to kick out the Malay Umno government. Hmm…Chinese logic does make sense, does it not? You swim. A duck swims. So you must be a duck. Raja Petra Kamarudin whacks Pakatan Rakyat. Barisan Nasional also whacks Pakatan Rakyat. So Raja Petra Kamarudin must be supporting Barisan Nasional. I just love what 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation and Chinese philosophy can teach us. Want to see another example of Chinese logic and philosophy? This is what Malaysiakini wrote: In the middle of April 2011, blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, better known as RPK, dropped a bombshell in denying his sensational statutory declaration dated June 2008. He claimed that he had been misled into making a false allegation against Rosmah Mansor, wife of premier Najib Abdul Razak. So there you are -- another example of Chinese logic and philosophy at work. That is what 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation has given to the world. I don't know how Malaysiakini came to that conclusion but who am I to argue with 5,000 years of Chinese logic and philosophy? |
| MACC urged to investigate KCB's failed investment in PNG Posted: 30 Oct 2012 04:53 PM PDT 
(Bernama) -- The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has been urged to investigate the possible power abuse and misappropriation of fund by the Kedah government-owned company Kedah Corporation Berhad (KCB) in its logging and plantation project in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Bandar Baharu District Youth Council chairman Helmi Abdul Khan said the Auditor-General Report 2011 on the project had raised many suspicions such as goodwill payment to vendors in PNG to open new land and lobbying a minister for the project. He also urged Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak not to point fingers on the issue, adding that as the chief executive of the state, he should handle the case professionally. "As a Mentri Besar, it doesn't make sense that he did not know about the multi-million ringgit investment. The people in Kedah demand to know details of the project," he told reporters after lodging a police report at the Bandar Baharu district police headquarters here, Tuesday evening. Several leaders from the Barisan Nasional component parties had also lodged similar police reports yesterday to urge MACC to investigate the case. Meanwhile, the Kedah People Progressive Party PPP) youth secretary M. Sethupati hoped that MACC would urgently investigate the case as it had incurred huge losses since the project was signed in Oct 12, 2008. The Auditor-General Report 2011 had noted that KCB had to bear RM13.49 million in losses after the RM31.21million project in PNG failed. |
| I Just Met A Very Racist Chinese! Posted: 30 Oct 2012 04:39 PM PDT 
Hantu Laut Interesting! I have always joked with my close Chinese friends that I think Chinese are one of the most racist people around. Some agree with me, but than they are my close friends, where jokes are taken light-heartedly. Yesterday, I arrived KLIA from KK and my wife from Phnom Penh, after visiting our daughter and grandchildren there.My wife's plane arrived 20 minutes earlier but she said she would wait for me so we can take the same taxi to our hotel.
I bought a ticket for a limousine at the airport. More often than not, most limousines that I can remember taking before have had Malay drivers, but for today, we have a Chinese driver.
On our way to the city I noticed the driver constantly talking in Chinese to his friend over the VHF radio. Half way to the city it started to rain heavily and my wife started talking to the taxi driver in Cantonese. There was a moment of silence and a slow response from the driver and I can't help noticing that blood have rust to his head, he was red-faced and shocked.
I asked my wife what she said that have made him blushed so badly, not that his colour is much brighter than pale. She said she asked him whether it is always raining in KL and told him to drive carefully as the road might be slippery. I asked why he looked shocked and almost speechless?
My wife said "I will tell you when we get to the hotel."
Here go the story.
While this guy was talking to his friend on the VHF radio his friend asked him whether he is taking passengers to Genting and he said no, that he is going to the city and that his fare are two lalat (flies), husband and wife going to a five-star hotel. He didn't realise my wife fully understands the exchanges in Cantonese all this while.
My wife is half Malay and half Chinese and speaks fluent Cantonese, Hakka and Mandarin. I scowled her for not telling me while we were still in the car and she told me what she did was more appropriate than me picking a fight with a low-life taxi driver.
She told me she purposely spoke to him in Cantonese to embarrasse him, which she did well to impound his rudeness without being rude herself and probably taught this low-life a good lesson that there are non-Chinese looking people who understand and speak Chinese.
This brings us back to the subject of stereotyping all Chinese as being racist, which I believe is more cultural than actual racism.
To the Chinese, anything they find repulsive will constitute name-calling, which bring us to Chinese against Chinese. READ MORE HERE |
| Don't pay AES fines, PAS’s Mahfuz tells road users Posted: 30 Oct 2012 04:32 PM PDT 
Ida Lim, The Malaysian Insider A PAS lawmaker today urged road users not to pay off traffic summonses issued under the federal government's controversial Automated Enforcement System (AES), saying that they should claim trial to the offences instead. "Now I want to ask, if the government refuses to delay the implementation of the AES and withdraw all summonses issued, everyone who receives the AES summonses don't need to pay the RM300 compound, instead follow this instruction to go to court..." PAS vice-president Datuk Mahfuz Omar said at a press conference today. He said that Pakatan Rakyat (PR) was prepared to provide lawyers to represent those who chose to contest the summonses in court. Yesterday, PR said it would suspend approval for the AES's implementation in the four states of Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan, to allow for further discussion and public feedback. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng yesterday said that PR's move would mean that 331 out of the planned 831 cameras under the nationwide AES scheme will not be installed. The AES cameras, which detects speeding motorists and those who beat traffic lights, is in its pilot phase, with 14 installed in Perak, Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Putrajaya. Today, Umno MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin also crossed the political divide today and backed the opposition PR pact in calling for Putrajaya to suspend enforcing the controversial traffic system, saying it could be used as electoral fodder against the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN). Several influential non-government organisations including the umbrella body representing civil servants, CUEPACS, have also opposed the enforcement by saying the system is not currently suitable. They also want the government to review the locations where the AES would operate. However, Bung Mokhtar was reported to have said that the system was necessary to "discipline" road users for the good of all. Lawmakers previously argued that the AES would only benefit the two companies running the system ― Beta Tegap and ATES ― as the firms will allegedly stand to earn RM16 from each summons issued by the AES. |
| Wan Azizah offered four seats In Selangor for GE 13 Posted: 30 Oct 2012 04:23 PM PDT 
(Malaysian Digest) - Selangor PKR is ready to offer as many as four state seats to be contested by PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail for the upcoming 13th general election. State information chief Shuhaimi Shafiei said the four seats offered are the 'safest', based on the previous election results. The seats offered are Seri Muda, Kota Anggerik, Seri Setia and Sementa. "We are ready to offer our suggestions and views to the PKR central leadership if it is true that Dr Wan Azizah intends compete in Selangor. We just want her to win in the seats. "For now, we haven't received any direct instructions from the party leadership. We believe that whatever was announced by Dr Wan Azizah is a party strategy," he was reported as saying in Sinar Harian today. However, Shuhaimi stressed that the choice of seats ultimately lies with the central leadership. "Our offer of the seats is based on the track record. Even I, being the current Seri Muda assemblyman, am willing to make way if the president wishes to contest in the state. "What's important is that all members and party machinery will give 100 per cent to ensure a win for the party and the president," he said. Yesterday, the daily had reported that Dr Wan Azizah is still undecided on whether to contest in Selangor or Penang, both of which are Opposition-controlled states. Dr Wan Azizah, who is wife of Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, said the options were her own personal choices. Barisan Nasional, meanwhile, are unperturbed over the possibility that the PKR president could contest in Selangor. State Umno information chief Abdul Shukor Idrus said the public's growing awareness of BN's transformation plans have led the Opposition to feel insecure. "Based on the numerous transformation plans carried out by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the PKR leadership is now playing close attention to Selangor. "We cannot rule out the possibility that even Anwar and other PKR leaders will contest here," he said. Abdul Shukor declared that BN are 100 per cent ready to recapture the state they lost in 2008. "We will make sure that Pakatan Rakyat will have to pay close attention to Selangor and focus less on other states." |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Forgot password?
Please put in your email: Send me my password!Close message