Khamis, 31 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


The long and the short of it

Posted: 24 Jan 2013 06:34 PM PST

But what will happen, say, in 2057, 100 years after Merdeka, when the children and grandchildren of those three million pendatang -- who by then may number five million and hold Malaysian identity cards because they were born in Malaysia -- all want to vote as overseas voters although they had left the country a long time ago and never once went back to Malaysia?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are those who oppose the Islamic criminal law of Hudud. When we ask them as to why they oppose Hudud they will reply that it is because under the Hudud law they cut off the hands of thieves. Hence Hudud is a very barbaric law. Rather than cut off the hands of thieves they should instead be killed with a bullet in the head like what they do to highway robbers and other thieves in China, corrupt officials and female robbers included.

Well, I suppose a bullet in the head is less barbaric than having to live with only one hand.

Let's say for argument's sake I argue: so what if they cut off the hands of thieves? Why are you so worried about that if you are not a thief? Aren't you the ones who are complaining about the extremely high crime rate in Malaysia? Aren't you the ones alleging that the police are not doing their job? Maybe we need a law such as Hudud to solve the serious crime problem that appears to be spinning out of control.

Only thieves should be worried about and oppose Hudud. If you are so opposed to Hudud then that can only mean one thing -- you are a thief. If you are not a thief then why are you so opposed to Hudud? And it appears like more non-Malays than Malays oppose Hudud. This can only mean that there are more non-Malay thieves than Malay thieves.

I suppose this statement makes as much sense as the statement that if you do not support Pakatan Rakyat then you must be a Barisan Nasional supporter (if you do not support Hudud then you must be a thief). There can be no other logical reason for you to not support Pakatan Rakyat just like there can be no other logical reason for you to not support Hudud.

Can you see that when we apply your same logic to another situation your logic no longer sounds logical?

And that is the problem with many of you. Your logic is not universal. It can be used only to support your prejudiced view but when applied to another argument it sounds real silly.

The Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act are draconian laws. Why are they draconian laws? Well, because these laws are used against the opposition, to stifle dissent, and to deny Malaysians their freedom of speech. Hence the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act must be abolished. And if Pakatan Rakyat ever takes over the federal government this is one of the first things they must do -- abolish the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act.

However, before they abolish these laws, they must first be used against those on the 'other side'. Once those from the 'other side' have been dealt with only then should these laws be abolished.

In fact, if Pakatan Rakyat takes over, we should implement Hudud and use that law to cut off the hands of those crooks from the ruling party. Once all their hands have been cut off we can then abolish the Hudud law.

What are we fighting for? We are fighting for justice. And how do we get justice? We get justice by abolishing bad laws and by reforming the system. Should we do all that now? No, we do that only after we have taken revenge on our enemies. Is revenge justice? Yes, but only if taken against the other side, not if taken against our own people.

It is not fair that Malaysians who have left the country for longer than five years and have not returned to the country for at least 30 days over those five years are not allowed to vote as an overseas voter. Even if those Malaysians left the country 30 or 40 years ago and never once went back to Malaysia they should still be allowed to vote (as long as they still have an identity card, of course, because you need this to vote).

What happens if one million of the three million foreigners who now possess Malaysian identity cards go home to their original countries? Can they be allowed to vote as overseas voters? Your entitlement to vote depends on you possessing a Malaysian identity card. Hence if you have a Malaysian identity card then you are entitled to vote.

And what happens if these people had left Malaysia more than ten years ago and never once came back to Malaysia? Should they still be allowed to vote?

You may argue that they should not be allowed to vote because although they possess Malaysian identity cards they were not born in Malaysia. Ah, but then their children were. Their children possess Malaysian identity cards that show they were born in Malaysia although they left Malaysia ten years ago and now live in another country. So why can't they be allowed to vote?

Back in 1957, when Malaya first gained independence, the Chinese and Indians came from China and India and were given Malaysian citizenship. Subsequently, the children of those 'pendatang' were born in the country. Hence the descendants of these pre-1957 immigrants are Malaysian born and should not be called 'pendatang'.

Agreed, it is wrong to call the present generation Malaysians of Chinese and Indian descent 'pendatang'. Their parents or grandparents may have been pendatang back in 1957. But the present crop of Malaysian-born Chinese and Indians are not pendatang and should not be treated as pendatang or called 'pendatang'.

But what will happen, say, in 2057, 100 years after Merdeka, when the children and grandchildren of those three million pendatang -- who by then may number five million and hold Malaysian identity cards because they were born in Malaysia -- all want to vote as overseas voters although they had left the country a long time ago and never once went back to Malaysia?

Sometimes we need to look short term, such as over the next two months leading to the coming general election. Sometimes we need to look long term, say 30 years down the road. And sometimes we need to balance between short-term and long-term goals.

When the government came out with its education policy it looked short term and not long term. And now, many years down the road, we are paying for this short-sighted and short-term strategy.

But the damage has been done. It is not going to be that easy to rectify things. It may take a whole generation to correct our mistakes of the past -- and even then only if we are prepared to bite the bullet and are prepared to suffer the high casualty rate.

Are we prepared to allow the Malays to become casualties in the interest of a better education system based on meritocracy? Neither Najib Tun Razak nor Anwar Ibrahim would dare say 'yes' to this question.

Things are going to get worse before they become better. The cure may be as painful as the disease. But I am sure neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat would be prepared to take the risk of a political fallout out if they try to change the education system and see Malays fall by the wayside because they are just not good enough.

It is like promising no taxation and promising to give all the oil money back to the states. How would we finance the country? No doubt that type of promise is going to help win votes. But what do you do after you win the votes?

To make money we need to plant oil palm trees. To plant oil palm trees we need to burn down the forests. When we burn down the forests we create an ecological problem. So we don't burn down the forests to prevent an ecological problem. But since we don't burn down the forests we can't plant oil palm trees. And because we can't plant oil palm trees we can't make money.

Life is full of vicious cycles. And Malaysia can win the gold medal in vicious cycles if that happened to be an event in the Olympic games.

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

Use of Sedition Act is wrong

Yin Shao Loong, The Malaysian Insider

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee stated that the Sedition Act should be used on Ibrahim Ali because the latter had advocated the burning of bibles.

Even though Lim acknowledged that the Bar holds that the law should be repealed, it should nonetheless be used against Ibrahim if the government is charging opposition leaders such as Karpal Singh under it.

Burning any book as a political act is vulgar, uncultured and should be condemned. Invoking the use of a draconian law to punish book burning, or incitement to burn books, is a capitulation to authoritarianism.

By taking this stance, Lim and the Bar he leads have undermined any claim to principled opposition to the Sedition Act. Their rationale is akin to those who proposed maintaining the Internal Security Act (ISA) so it could be used one last time against the puppet master of Operation Lallang.

Even if Lim's intent was to underline how the present government selectively enforces the law, his argument was poorly chosen because it was based on the logic that two wrongs would make a right.

The Sedition Act has been a convenient and objectionable tool of authoritarian power in Malaysia due to its broad applicability against anything that could be construed as raising ill-will or hostility within society or against the authorities.

Anyone can claim they had feelings of ill-will or hostility raised by someone's statement or action, proceed to file a police report, and have someone investigated for sedition. Of course, the odds of successful prosecution would improve if the accused happened to be someone not favoured by the government.

Historically, sedition was associated with absolutist monarchies. Undemocratic governments criminalise sedition because they fear dissent will destabilise authority based on force, heredity or property. The rule of the few over the many requires some form of institutionalised discrimination, fear and suppression of criticism.

Democracies incorporate criticism into their system of government and allow the many to use their votes to initiate peaceful, orderly changes in government.

As long as I have known it, the Bar Council has stood for the principled movement towards full-fledged constitutional democracy in Malaysia. Supporting the use of the Sedition Act is a backward step contrary to human rights.

Lim has already noted that any book-burning act or incitement to such act can be prosecuted under those sections of the Penal Code that deal with abetment and trespass.

Additionally, sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code deal with acts designed to cause hurt on religious grounds, section 504 covers intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, and section 505 refers to statements promoting public mischief.

It is reasonable to file a police report, or call for laws to be employed, where the actions in question are criminal, excluding those legitimate forms of dissent criminalised by the Sedition Act, ISA, Printing Presses and Publications Act, and so forth.

One group of citizens is opposing the barbaric act of book burning by inviting people to join in reading holy books — any books, in fact — under the trees at KLCC park on Sunday.

Others have filed a police report against Ibrahim, citing many of the Penal Code sections referred to above, but without recourse to the Sedition Act or any of its repressive bedfellows.

These are civilised means of opposing an uncivilised act.

If we want to move Malaysia out of the shadow of authoritarianism we cannot condone the very methods of authoritarianism. This means that race-baiting, repressive laws and impunity must be abandoned in favour of principled debate, peaceful protest, accountability and reform.

 

How capitalism breeds social problems

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 05:53 PM PST

So, if we want to reduce the three million 'foreign population' of Malaysia then the plantations, construction companies, SMI factories, etc., should stop employing them. And to do that we need a minimum wage of at least RM1,200-RM1,5000 (or thereabouts) a month. With that salary level Malaysians would be prepared to work and hence you do not need to employ foreigners and then give them Malaysian citizenship.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Subra: Minimum wage to avoid unnecessary hiring of foreigners

(The Star) - The minimum wage policy, which came into effect this year, is to avoid the unnecessary hiring of foreign workers, said Human Resources Minister Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam.

For example at petrol stations, he said, people have to accept the idea of self-service when filling up their cars.

Petrol dealers have implemented the minimum wage as of January 1, throwing some 50,000 foreigners out of work.

"The change that we are looking for will not happen overnight," Dr Subramaniam said adding that the minimum wage policy was also implemented to channel workers to other sectors which are in need of labour.

He said there were no provisions in the current law to allow companies to delay implementing the policy.

"Employers need to deal with the new policy but if they have problems, they can forward their concerns to us and we will try and help them," he said.

The minimum wage policy requires companies to pay a minimum wage of RM900 in the peninsula and RM800 in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan.

Subramaniam said the ministry was also discussing with employers on issues relating to levy and allowances for housing and transportation of the foreign workers.

"Employers want the levy and allowances to be born by the workers. The issue is up to the Cabinet to decide on what action to be taken," he said on Sunday.

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

I used to live in Bukit Rahman Putra (BRP5) in Sungai Buloh, Selangor -- from end-December 1996 to end-February 2009. One day we noticed that around midnight or so there would be a foul smell in the air. We spent days trying to track the source of this smell but failed to do so.

We then met up ('we' meaning the residents' committee) with the officers from Jabatan Alam Sekitar (the Department of the Environment) to discuss this matter and to explore what they could do about what was apparently a bad case of air pollution -- and we suspected most toxic as well since this happens only past midnight and not in the daytime when it could be detected easily.

What the officers told us surprised us. Most of those factories at the bottom of the hill where we live are not licensed, they told us. Hence, since they are not licensed, the Department of the Environment cannot do anything about them. They can only take action against licensed factories. They have no jurisdiction over illegal factories and businesses.

Who then can take action? Well, this comes under the jurisdiction of the land office and the local council. So we need to raise this matter with the land office and the local council. However, since these two agencies are amongst the most corrupted agencies (and they still are even though Pakatan Rakyat has been ruling Selangor for almost five years now) we should not expect any action to be taken.

The Department of the Environment should know because they too have faced problems in trying to solve this matter. The factory owners just pay 'under-the-table' money to the officers from the land office and local council and they can practically get away with murder. (In fact, you can literally also get away with murder in Malaysia the same way).

I then did a tour of the area from the Sungai Buloh KTM railway station right up to the old leprosy settlement/new Sungai Buloh Hospital. I discovered that the area was 'infested' with foreign workers, mostly from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc. And the majority of these people were either illegal immigrants or were holding Malaysian identity cards, which means they are Malaysian citizens.

From my rough estimate I concluded that the ratio of 'foreign' population to locals was probably two-to-one -- though since they owned Malaysian identity cards they would be regarded as Malaysian citizens rather than foreigners. It seems it is not that difficult for these 'foreigners' to become Malaysian citizens. All it needs is money, which their employers would gladly pay and then deduct the amount from their salaries later.

I then did a 'census' of the many Sungai Buloh factories at the foot of Bukit Rahman Putra (next to the Hong Leong Yamaha factory) and I found that all these factories are Chinese-owned. There are no Malay- or Indian-owned factories (except for one Indian carpet dealer, which is not a factory but a warehouse). And all their workers are foreigners (except for the managerial postions, who are Chinese), but not necessarily illegal workers, as most owned Malaysian identity cards.

I also discovered that not only is the area from the KTM railway station up to the old leprosy settlement/new Sungai Buloh Hospital 'infested' with 'foreigners'. When I drove in the opposite direction towards Tasek Biru, it is the same thing, although the ratio there is not as high as two-to-one. Nevertheless, there is a huge 'foreign' community there as well.

Why is there such a high foreign community (both illegal as well as those with Malaysian identity cards) in Sungai Buloh? Well, that is because the many Chinese-owned factories and construction companies pay low wages and only foreigners would want to work at these pathetically low wages. No Malaysians want to do a labourer's job in the factories and on the construction sites.

And that is why the SMIs and construction companies are opposed to the minimum wage. If you can remember, last year they spoke up against the implementation of the minimum wage. If there is no minimum wage and salaries are kept low then these businesses make more money. But that would also mean only foreigners from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc., would want to do such work. Malaysians would not want to work for a mere few hundred Ringgit.

The same goes for plantation companies. They employ foreigner workers because Malaysians do not want to do backbreaking work at such low wages. And many of these plantations are multi-national companies, some even GLCs (government-linked companies).

In fact, I spoke to one GLC oil palm plantation company (state government-owned) to confirm this. They employ foreigners because they can't get Malaysians to work at those low wages. And for sure no Malaysian Chinese would want to work in plantations for RM700 a month. They would rather sell pirated CDs and DVDs (they even do so in Manchester, surprisingly).

Today, we complain about the millions of 'illegal immigrants' in Malaysia. Actually they are not illegal immigrants since they have been given Malaysian identity cards. And the reason this estimated three million 'foreigners' are in Malaysia is because we employ them at very low wages. And because of the very low wages only these 'illegals' would want to work. Malaysians are not interested to suffer at such low wages.

I have bumped into many Malaysian Chinese here in the UK working as chefs and waiters/waitresses. Why do they work here in the UK and not back in Malaysia? That is because in Malaysia then can't even earn RM1,000 a month whereas in the UK they earn more than RM5,000 a month. And you can survive in the UK with RM5,000-RM6,000 a month but not in Malaysia with a mere RM800-RM900 per month.

So, if we want to reduce the three million 'foreign population' of Malaysia then the plantations, construction companies, SMI factories, etc., should stop employing them. And to do that we need a minimum wage of at least RM1,200-RM1,5000 (or thereabouts) a month. With that salary level Malaysians would be prepared to work and hence you do not need to employ foreigners and then give them Malaysian citizenship.

And the only people who can do this would be the Chinese construction companies and SMI factory owners plus the GLCs and multi-national plantation companies. It is no use screaming about the problem when we are the source of that problem.

The capitalists want to make more money. So they underpay their workers. And because they underpay their workers the jobs go to the foreigners. And these foreigners bring their families to Malaysia and their children school in Malaysia. They also tax Malaysia's health system.

It is the capitalists who are the cause of Malaysia's social problems involving foreigners. And because we need cheap labour we need to bring in three million foreign workers from the neighbouring countries.

Yes, many of these workers from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc., are Muslims. However, do you think the Christian Filipino girls would want to work for RM700 a month on a construction site when they can earn RM2,500 or more as a maid in Singapore (food and lodging free as well)?

Capitalism works on the law of supply and demand (just like prostitution). When there is a demand for cheap foreign labour then the supply would emerge. And the people creating this demand are the SMI factories, construction companies and plantations. And who are the owners of these SMI factories, construction companies and plantations?

Then you blame the government for this. And when I point out the reality of this situation you get angry. And this is because of the Malaysian culture of…what do you call it…kiasu, is it?

 

My favourite song, Listen

Posted: 16 Jan 2013 05:42 PM PST

As I have always said, this coming general election is not going to be about who is going to win it. It is about who is not going to lose it. And the group that makes the most mistakes is going to lose the general election mainly because the 'other side' made lesser mistakes than the side that lost.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

They say, as you get older, like me, you start to become too sentimental and emotional. That could be true. However, those who have known me for most of my life tell me that ever since they knew me back in my younger days I have always been a sentimental and emotional person.

I suppose that is quite true. I cry when I watch sad movies. When I listen to beautiful songs with even more beautiful lyrics it brings tears to my eyes. And when I saw Melanie Amaro perform 'Listen' in the X Factor I could not stop myself from getting all teary eyed. And an even bigger problem is I still need to wipe my eyes even till today although I have watched and listened to Melanie perform that song countless times.

Many accuse me of being too sentimental and emotional in my writings. Some even sent me nasty messages whacking me for my series The journey in life is never a straight line, which has temporarily stopped at episode 20. "We are not interested to read about your stupid life," they tell me. "Stop writing about yourself," they say. "Just write about the coming general election."

Listen is the latest 'phenomena' in Malaysia. This is the result of the exchange between Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin and KS Bawani at the UUM event. In the last general election in 2008, the catchphrase was 'correct, correct, correct'. It looks like in the coming general election expected in February-March this year, the catchphrase is going to be 'listen, listen, listen'.

As I have always said, this coming general election is not going to be about who is going to win it. It is about who is not going to lose it. And the group that makes the most mistakes is going to lose the general election mainly because the 'other side' made lesser mistakes than the side that lost.

The trouble is, both sides are blundering big time, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. And we do not know how the voters are going to react to these numerous blunders. Nevertheless, voters being voters, and they are the same all over the world, Malaysians are quite prepared to suffer an attack of denial syndrome and allow all these transgressions to be pushed into the background.

Many have asked me what my stand is. They say they are not too clear about my stand and they do not know whether I support Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. They want to know whether I even have a stand in the first place.

Yes, I do have a stand. And I decided more than two years ago back in 2010 what my stand was going to be. However, as much as I tried to explain what this stand is, many still do not get it.

I am too 'complicated' for most of them to comprehend. They want me to make things simpler for them. They want to know which herd I am joining. Am I joining the Barisan Nasional herd or the Pakatan Rakyat herd?

Herds are for cows. I know Sharifah Zohra Jabeen said even cows have problems. But I am not a cow. So I do not need to have any 'cow problems' by joining any specific herd.

So, what is the answer then? What is my stand? Which herd am I joining? Well, I will let Melanie Amaro answer that question. These lyrics explain where I am coming from and if you still do not get it then you are not the type of reader that I want for Malaysia Today.

 

Listen to the song here in my heart

A melody I start but can't complete

Listen to the sound from deep within

It's only beginning to find release

 

Oh, the time has come for my dreams to be heard

They will not be pushed aside and turned

Into your own all 'cause you won't

Listen

 

Listen, I am alone at a crossroads

I'm not at home in my own home

And I've tried and tried to say what's on mind

You should have known

 

Oh, now I'm done believing you

You don't know what I'm feeling

I'm more than what you made of me

I followed the voice you gave to me

But now I've gotta find my own

 

You should have listened, there is someone here inside

Someone I thought had died so long ago

Oh, I'm screaming out and my dreams'll be heard

They will not be pushed aside on words

Into your own all 'cause you won't

Listen

cfxGKyYyom8

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxGKyYyom8

 

 

Yo, people, listen up!

Posted: 14 Jan 2013 07:16 PM PST

And herein lies the tragedy. When I talk to the non-Malay students I get the impression that those selected and sent overseas are the crème de la crème. But when I talk to the Malay students I do not get this impression. In fact, if I had been given the job of vetting through the students, many, or maybe even the majority, of those selected would have been disqualified.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin certainly stirred a hornet's nest and in the process spawned an entirely new satire/music video industry. So much has been said about this incident that I think it is totally unnecessary for me to comment about the matter any further.

What is of interest to me, however, is Sharifah's comparison of those with a mere 'O' level to those who are university graduates. According to her, those who do not have a tertiary education are inferior to those who do.

Actually, if you were to drive on Malaysian roads, you will never be able to differentiate between those who have no (or a lower) education and those who have a higher/tertiary education. From their bad manners on the road and the inconsiderate attitude that they demonstrate, you will never be able to tell the difference.

If education is meant to make you a better and more learned person, Malaysia has certainly failed in this respect. Whether you have a Ph.D. or you are a fisherman or farmer it makes no difference. The way Malaysians drive, those who have a Ph.D. and those who have never gone to school are exactly the same.

I have said this before, many times, and I am going to say it again. In the UK, you go to a driving school to learn how to drive. That is because you need to know how to drive to be able to pass your driving test and get a driving licence.

In Malaysia, you go to driving school to learn how to pass your driving test. It does not matter whether you know how to drive or not. Passing your driving test and getting your driving licence does not depend on whether you know how to drive. It depends on whether you got your driving licence 'through' the driving school.

Hence people who know how to drive, but did not go through a driving school to sit for their driving test, will fail the driving test while those who do not know how to drive, but went through a driving school to sit for their driving test, would pass the driving test.

And that is why the majority of Malaysians do not know how to drive plus the fatality rate due to traffic accidents in Malaysia, on a per capita basis, is ten times that of the UK.  

Actually, more than half of those people driving on Malaysian roads should never have been allowed to drive. The tragedy is not so much that they kill themselves but that they kill others due to their recklessness and inconsiderate attitude.

Do you want to know one thing? If you have a driving licence from Brunei, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, Canada, Australia, the Republic of Korea, (mainly the Commonwealth and EU countries), etc., (a total of 50 countries in all) you can exchange it for a UK driving licence. Malaysian driving licences, however, are not accepted for exchange. That says a lot about the 'quality' of Malaysian driving licences.

And the same applies to Malaysia's education system. Just like in the case of Malaysian driving schools, Malaysia's education system is not about getting an education and becoming learned but about passing your exams.

And they will 'lower the bar' if necessary to allow more people to 'jump over'. Hence those who do not deserve to pass get passed and are then sent for their tertiary education, and in some cases to an overseas university.

Over the last four years since 2009, I have bumped into many Malaysian students -- those post graduate students doing their masters and/or Ph.D. as well. And I have come to a very troubling conclusion. Nevertheless, this is merely my own opinion and, not being from the academic field, I am looking at things from the eyes of a layman and not from the eyes of an academician.

First of all, Malaysian Malays at overseas universities are mostly government-sponsored students while those non-Malay Malaysians, according to what they tell me, are FAMA-sponsored students.

When they first told me they are 'FAMA-sponsored' students I thought they meant FAMA the Lembaga Pemasaran Pertanian Persekutuan (SEE HERE: http://www.fama.gov.my/). "Does FAMA give out scholarships or grants?" I asked these non-Malay and mostly Chinese students. This was certainly news to me.

I had to chuckle when they explained that FAMA means fada-mada (father-mother). But this is no chuckling matter. I feel it is sinful that all the Malay students are 'government scholars' whereas the non-Malay students are 'private funded'. Why is there not a more equitable balance, at par with the racial composition of the country?

I know this has, for a long time, been a bone of contention amongst the non-Malays. The Malays, no doubt, hide behind the New Economic Policy (NEP) to justify this 'sin' while the non-Malays resent the NEP for this very reason. Hence discussing this matter is just going to open up a can of worms and I suspect the comments below this article are going to turn this article into a race-bashing exercise.

But I am not trying to turn this into a race-bashing exercise. My concern is that when I speak to these students (of all races) I find that the attitude, mentality and intelligence level of the Malay students leave much to be desired whereas the attitude, mentality and intelligence level of the non-Malay students are far superior compared to that of the Malay students.

And herein lies the tragedy. When I talk to the non-Malay students I get the impression that those selected and sent overseas are the crème de la crème. But when I talk to the Malay students I do not get this impression. In fact, if I had been given the job of vetting through the students, many, or maybe even the majority, of those selected would have been disqualified.

The other side of the argument, of course, is that if only the 'higher grade' Malay students are selected and sent overseas while those who fail to make the grade are excluded, then the ratio of Malay to non-Malay students sent overseas would be very low. At the end of the day, the ratio of Malays to non-Malays would probably be reduced to 1 in 10.

I can understand and appreciate this argument. We need to give the Malay students a chance. If not then very few Malay students would have the opportunity of an overseas tertiary education. Other countries, too, have racial quotas to help the minorities get ahead.

But in the case of the other countries, the racial quotas and the lowering of the bar are meant to help the minorities, who otherwise would be left behind. Malaysia, however, is doing this for the majority, not the minorities such as the Ibans, Dayaks, Orang Asli, etc.

Instead of lowering the bar to allow as many Malays as possible to 'jump over', the government should explore how to increase the standard of education to enable more people to clear the bar (without having to lower it).

In other words, don't teach Malays how to pass their driving test. Teach Malays how to drive. Then, when they sit for their driving test, they will pass. If you mass-produce graduates like on an assembly line, then you will end up getting low quality people. And that is not the objective of an education.

So those who have degrees/masters or Ph.D. should not be too proud of that fact. It is not the piece of paper that you possess which we should talk about but the quality of that paper. And when you open your mouth you reveal that the paper you possess is…well…not worth the paper it is written on.

 

Friday prayers are NOT compulsory, said the Mufti

Posted: 10 Jan 2013 05:53 PM PST

Nevertheless, since the 'big man' himself, the Perak Mufti, has issued a ruling or decree that the Friday congregational prayers are NOT compulsory, and since Malaysians are obligated to comply with these rulings and decrees issued by these authorities, I have since stopped doing my Friday congregational prayers. I no longer go to the mosque on Friday.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Soal agama perlu ikut fatwa

(Sinar Harian) - Hal ehwal agama perlu dirujuk kepada Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan yang telah ditubuhkan di negara ini dan bukannya berpandukan orang lain yang hanya berlatar belakangkan politik semata-mata.

Setiausaha Barisan Nasional (BN) Kelantan, Datuk Md. Alwi Che Ahmad berkata, dalam hal ini, hanya Majlis Fatwa sahaja yang berhak menentukan penggunaan kalimah ALLAH yang kini semakin hangat diperkatakan oleh setiap golongan masyarakat di sini.

"Kita mesti rujuk isu ini kepada Majlis Fatwa, kerana ini hal agama, maka hanya mufti sahaja yang boleh beri keputusan, bukan orang lain," katanya.

Beliau diminta mengulas isu Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng yang menuntut penggunaan nama Allah di dalam kitab Bible versi bahasa Melayu di negara ini.

Menurutnya, jika persoalan penggunaan kalimah Allah ditanya kepada golongan berkepentingan dalam sesebuah parti, jawapan yang akan diberikan sedikit sebanyak akan mempengaruhi ke arah pendapat peribadi sahaja.

Beliau berkata, kerajaan perlu akur dengan keputusan mufti kerana mufti adalah satu pertubuhan yang dilantik di bawah majlis agama Islam.

"Kenapa isu ini perlu dinaikkan oleh Lim Guan Eng sedangkan dari pengalaman saya, tiada perkataan 'Allah' digunakan dalam kitab Bible, maka di sini kita dapat lihat bahawa agama kita, cuba dipermainkan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu.

"Jika ia digunakan juga, maka, tiada beza antara agama kita dengan agama lain kerana 'Allah' dipakai oleh semua agama dan ini akan menimbulkan kecelaruan dan juga kebebasan beragama kepada generasi akan datang," katanya.

Alwi yang juga Ketua Pembangkang di Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan itu juga berkata, kebebasan menggunakan kalimah 'ALLAH' untuk agama lain tidak boleh diberikan di Malaysia kerana perkara tersebut boleh membuatkan penganut agama lain mengambil kesempatan dalam agama Islam dan dalam masa yang sama juga menyamai tarafkan kedudukan 'ALLAH' dan juga tuhan mereka.

"Kita wajib pertahankan agama kita, hak kita, bukannya untuk dipermainkan, selandas dengan kepelbagaian kaum dan bangsa di negara ini, maka setiap pihak mesti bertanggungjawab untuk menjaga agama masing-masing," katanya.

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

The key issue in the above news report is: Kita mesti rujuk isu ini kepada Majlis Fatwa, kerana ini hal agama, maka hanya mufti sahaja yang boleh beri keputusan, bukan orang lain.

That loosely translates to: we must refer this matter/issue to the council that issues religious decrees because this is a religious matter so only the Mufti can give rulings and not any other people.

This statement implies that only a certain/selected group can interpret what God meant and the rest of us do not have the freedom or liberty to make any interpretations because we do not know what God wants.

How this group of people obtained the franchise or monopoly to act as God's appointed spokesmen is not clear. That is not explained. I suppose your credentials would depend on where you studied religion and whether your certificate, diploma or degree is recognised.

What if I studied religion in one of the madrasah in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any of the gohead-gostan countries (to quote the late Tan Sri P Ramlee)? Would my credentials be recognised?

Let us take Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat as an example. His Islamic studies began in pondok schools (madrasah) in Kelantan and Terengganu. He then went on to study religion in Uttar Pradesh, India, after which he obtained his Bachelor of Arts in Arabic Studies and Master of Arts in Islamic jurisprudence from the Al-Azhar University, Egypt.

Would, therefore, Nik Aziz's decrees be recognised? And Nik Aziz has ruled that it is not against Islam for non-Muslims to use the Allah word. Other religious scholars, however, do not agree with this. Hence we have two opposing views, both views from scholars with credentials.

But which one do we accept as correct and which one do we reject as wrong? And what is the basis for accepting or rejecting these decrees? Is it based on the credentials of the person issuing the decree? Is it based on our political affiliation and hence we decide based on what is politically expedient? Is it based on our religious leaning and depending on the sect that we follow? What is the basis of our acceptance or rejection of these religious decrees?

What we are currently told is that the government decides -- so we have to just follow what the government says -- but issued through the 'mouths' of certain bodies such as MAIS, JAIS, JAKIM, IKIM, Majlis Fatwah, Persatuan Ulama', the Muftis, and so on.

There are so many 'authorities' on Islam in Malaysia.

Let us contemplate one example. When I was in Kamunting back in 2008, we were told by the detention camp authorities that we are not allowed to do our Friday congregational prayers. (In fact, after I was released, I made a police report at the Sentul Police Station regarding this matter).

It is not that the 50 or 60 of us detainees wanted permission to walk to the mosque down the road to do these Friday prayers -- even if they handcuffed us and chained us in a chain gang (which means there would be no way we could escape). We wanted to do these Friday prayers within our own cellblock.

But we were told we are not allowed to do our Friday prayers because they are not compulsory and that this was a ruling or decree by the famous Perak Mufti himself. So why are we so stubborn in insisting that we be allowed to do our Friday prayers? The Mufti is the highest religious authority in Perak and Kamunting is in Perak. So don't be stubborn and listen to what you have been told, they said.

Then came Hari Raya (I was in Kamunting for Hari Raya 2008) and the other detainees got together to do their Hari Raya congregational prayers. I, however, was not allowed to join them because I was in solitary confinement so I was not allowed to mix with the other detainees. Nevertheless, I could hear them do the Hari Raya prayers next door to my cellblock.

Now, as far as I know, the Friday congregational prayers are compulsory while the Hari Raya congregational prayers are not. But the government denied the detainees permission to do the compulsory Friday congregational prayers but allowed them to do the optional Hari Raya congregational prayers. And this was based on the ruling or decree by the highest religious authority in the State of Perak, the Mufti.

I do not have any certificate, diploma or degree from any of the Islamic universities but my common sense tells me that when something is compulsory then you must do it and when something is optional you are not obligated to do it. And even a ten-year-old Malay-Muslim can tell you that the Friday congregational prayers are compulsory while the Hari Raya congregational prayers are not.

Nevertheless, since the 'big man' himself, the Perak Mufti, has issued a ruling or decree that the Friday congregational prayers are NOT compulsory, and since Malaysians are obligated to comply with these rulings and decrees issued by these authorities, I have since stopped doing my Friday congregational prayers. I no longer go to the mosque on Fridays.

I am still waiting for the Perak Mufti to issue a new ruling or decree saying that the Friday congregational prayers are, in fact, compulsory. And since he has not and until he does then I would regard this ruling or decree as binding and something that I am obligated to comply with.

So, yes, the Mufti is the highest religious authority in the land. He tells us what we must and must not do. And we must follow what he tells us to do, or not to do. And the Perak Mufti has told us that we cannot do the Friday prayers because they are not compulsory. So who am I to argue with the highest religious authority in the land? I do what he tells us to do and not do what he tells us not to do. And he said: DO NOT do your Friday congregational prayers. So be it. I stopped doing them. After all, I am a good Malaysian and an obedient Muslim.

 

Remember our February 2008 agreement?

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 05:45 PM PST

After the success of that first Bersih march of November 2007, a few friends and comrades, mostly new ones made over the previous year or so, decided that it was time to 'cement' our perjuangan or struggle. And we would cement it by coming out with a very explicit document that we called The Peoples' Declaration or Deklarasi Rakyat.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The world has a memory of only 100 days, said the Russians in response to the criticism regarding the shooting down of Korean Airlines flight KAL007. In 100 days everything will be forgotten or something else will crop up over the next 100 days to distract the people. Hence, said the Russians, they do not need to respond to the criticism regarding the shooting down of that passenger airline.

Today, do any of you remember that tragedy that so outraged the entire world? How many people died? When did it happen? Why was that plane shot down? Unless you Google the information or search on Wikipedia, very few of you will be able to reply to my questions from the top of your head.

And this best describes Malaysians, never mind which side of the political fence they may stand on. Malaysians are fickle, have a short attention span, respond to issues off the cuff, think short term, forget easily the original objective, change course mid-stream, and much more.

Do you want to know something very ironical? I have kept to the course that was decided more than eight years ago back in 2004 soon after the general election disaster in March that same year. And that was the reason why Malaysia Today was launched in August 2004, five months after the 2004 general election -- to serve this agenda that had been decided.

In 2004 it was a lonely battle that we fought because not many shared our vision and mission. It was not until two years later in 2006 that some joined the cause and only by 2007 that many Malaysians 'woke up'. By 2007, three years after the birth of Malaysia Today, I found many new friends and comrades who stood by my side and walked with me, especially in the first Bersih march of 2007.

After the success of that first Bersih march of November 2007, a few friends and comrades, mostly new ones made over the previous year or so, decided that it was time to 'cement' our perjuangan or struggle. And we would cement it by coming out with a very explicit document that we called The Peoples' Declaration or Deklarasi Rakyat.

We met a few times at Uncle Lee's house, the late Tunku Vic's house, and so on. In case some of you are wondering who the late Tunku Vic was, maybe you can see the following link: In loving memory of Vic: only the good die young. 

The late Tunku Vic, in fact, was supposed to have taken over the leadership of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM). This was agreed in our meeting in Chiengmai, Thailand, which was attended by (Sam) Haris Ibrahim and some of the other 'movers' of MCLM. Unfortunately, Tunku Vic died soon after MCLM held its first AGM to elect a whole new set of office bearers in May last year.

Anyway, back in 2007, Tunku Vic and about ten or so of us formed an ad hoc committee to draft The Peoples' Declaration. This document was finalised in the meeting in Tunku Vic's house. It was then agreed that we would write to ALL the political parties in Malaysia from both sides of the political fence and invite them to endorse The Peoples' Declaration.

Only six of the two dozens or so of the political parties responded, three of them from Pakatan Rakyat. A couple of the non-Umno political parties in Barisan Nasional 'whispered' that they would support the ideals of The Peoples' Declaration but they cannot officially endorse it for obvious reasons -- they do not want to make it appear like they are 'breaking ranks' with Umno.

Nevertheless, the fact that they support it 'off the record' was good enough for me. At least their heart was in the right place although I cannot say the same for their guts. It is nice to know that there is a 'silent' group within Barisan Nasional, and even in Umno itself, that support the ideals of The Peoples' Declaration although they wish at this stage to 'remain in the closet'. Who knows, one day they might come out of the closet and declare that they are pro-reform and proud of it.

At that time, The Blog House at Damansara was non-partisan. People from both sides of the political fence supported The Blog House. Even Umno Bloggers plus people like Mukhriz Mahathir, Marina Mahathir, etc., went to The Blog House. It was a place where we could leave our politics outside the gate and enter The Blog House as Malaysians united for change.

I thought that Malaysian politics had finally arrived. At last there was a place we could meet as supporters of change and not supporters of the government or supporters of the opposition. And it was at The Blog House that we decided to officially launch The Peoples' Declaration under the umbrella of Barisan Rakyat. (See more here and note the personalities in the photographs: The PEOPLE'S VOICE and the PEOPLE'S DECLARATION officially launched today.) 

BARISAN RAKYAT WAS FORMED EVEN BEFORE PAKATAN RAKYAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE

That was almost five years ago on 23rd February 2008. About two weeks later, on 8th March 2008, Malaysia held the 12th General Election. And, because the six political parties endorsed The Peoples' Declaration on 23rd February 2008, three of them from Pakatan Rakyat, we spent the next two weeks campaigning for Pakatan Rakyat.

During the election campaign we made it very clear to the voters that we support Pakatan Rakyat because Pakatan Rakyat supports our reform agenda as spelt out in The Peoples' Declaration. However, if after winning the election Pakatan Rakyat does a U-turn and betrays us, we would withdraw our support for Pakatan Rakyat.

In my speeches during the election rallies all over Malaysia, I even openly declared that if we can make Pakatan Rakyat then we can also break Pakatan Rakyat. Basically, what the lord giveth the lord can taketh away. We are going to give Pakatan Rakyat a chance to rule for one term, I said. And if they fail us then no second term for Pakatan Rakyat. If we can give power to Pakatan Rakyat we can also take back power from Pakatan Rakyat.

Therefore Pakatan Rakyat had better remember that they rule at the pleasure of the rakyat. It is peoples' power, kuasa rakyat, or makkal sakti that gives power to the politicians. Hence we, the voters, and not the politicians, are the boss. And if the politicians ever forget this we are going to punish them come the next general election in 2013 or so.

The crowd cheered and clapped. They gave this declaration a standing ovation (most of the crowd was already standing anyway). They agreed with this covenant. We the rakyat will vote for those who support the rakyat's agenda and if those we vote into office forget this or betrays us then they are going to suffer the wrath of the rakyat.

Since March 2008, The Peoples' Declaration is as forgotten as Korean Airlines flight KAL007. I raised this matter in a talk in London on 2nd October 2010 where Anwar Ibrahim was one of the participants of that talk (see the videos below). Anwar, however, responded in his talk in Australia later on that they would not always listen to what we want.

In other words, they no longer support the agenda for change as spelt out in The Peoples' Declaration although they had agreed to support it in February 2008 two weeks before the 12th General Election. The deal is now off. And since the deal is now off and they no longer support the agenda for change as spelt out in The Peoples' Declaration then I too am no longer obligated to support Pakatan Rakyat.

A deal is a deal. And a deal must be bilateral, not unilateral. If one side reneges on the agreement then the other side is not obligated to stick to the agreement.

But my friends and comrades, who together with me pushed the agenda for change through The Peoples' Declaration, have sold out. They have turned traitor and have abandoned The Peoples' Declaration. They have agreed to support Pakatan Rakyat for the sake of supporting Pakatan Rakyat and not support Pakatan Rakyat because Pakatan Rakyat supports The Peoples' Declaration.

As I said, Malaysians are fickle. Malaysians have a short attention span. Malaysians think short term. Malaysians forget easily the original objective. Malaysians change course mid-stream.

And what makes this even more ironical is that while I am unwavering and hold firm to the original objectives of February 2008, they allege that I have changed course and have done a U-turn whereas it is they who have turned traitor and have sold themselves to the very politicians who have betrayed the cause.

Yes, in February-March 2008 I campaigned for Pakatan Rakyat. But I did so with terms and conditions attached. And this primary term and condition is that Pakatan Rakyat will support The Peoples' Declaration. And the other term and condition is that if Pakatan Rakyat withdraws support for The Peoples' Declaration then I too will withdraw support for Pakatan Rakyat.

I have kept to this agreement. I have been very consistent in my stand. It was quid pro quo. And just as Pakatan Rakyat has every right to withdraw from any agreement, so, too, I have the right to do the same.

My friends and comrades, however, decided to break ranks with me. They abandoned the cause. They are prepared to cast aside The Peoples' Declaration and support Pakatan Rakyat even if Pakatan Rakyat reneges on its word. In other words, my friends and comrades have become turncoats and have sold out.

I suppose, as they say, everyone is for sale. The only question is: at what price? And the price here is power. Since they believe that Pakatan Rakyat is going to form the next federal government they want to be amongst the winner. Hence they will support Pakatan Rakyat even if Pakatan Rakyat no longer supports The Peoples' Declaration.

 

Friends of Pakatan Rakyat October 2010 talk in the UK

lCvdagYlR98

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvdagYlR98

W403AOQqJnc

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W403AOQqJnc

Toe-77-TtT4

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toe-77-TtT4

FsSRTVo29BY

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsSRTVo29BY

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


"Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it."

Posted: 27 Jan 2013 07:20 PM PST

In 1991, the brother of the Sabah Chief Minister, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for allegedly plotting to take Sabah out of Malaysia. With the detention of Dr Jeffrey, this more or less 'confirmed' the rumour of the plot to take Sabah out of Malaysia and subsequently for Sabah to join the Philippines.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it." That was what my lecturer told me this morning. I think he is chiding me for being too judgemental in my comments regarding the English Civil War and the conflict between King Charles I and Parliament, the course I am currently taking.

With that spirit as the backdrop, I would like to give you my analysis regarding the current controversy raging in Malaysia -- and that is the controversy regarding the Sabah immigrants issue that is being investigated by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).

The Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) was formed on 5th March 1985 and it won the state elections that were held soon after that with Pairin Kitingan as Sabah's new Chief Minister.

During PBS's rule of Sabah from 1985 to 1994, a lot of rumours were flying around Peninsula Malaysia, especially amongst the Malay-Muslim community. And what was being said alarmed the Malays-Muslims from West Malaysia.

The first rumour concerned Muslims in Sabah converting or returning to Christianity.

During the time of Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun -- that is the period when Usno was ruling Sabah -- many non-Muslim natives were converted to Islam. From what we in Peninsula Malaysia heard, those who converted to Islam were given land and money, and were sponsored for a trip to Mekah. Hence, according to what the Sabahans told us, many natives converted to Islam for the monetary rewards rather than because they believed in Islam.

When PBS took over the state government, it seems that many who converted to Islam earlier converted or went back to Christianity. And this upset the Muslims from Peninsula Malaysia. Whether this really did happen or not is another matter. This was what they were told and this was what everyone believed was happening. Hence this outraged the Muslims.

The next rumour was regarding who was allegedly behind PBS.

The rumour then was that the Vatican was financing PBS through the Philippines. It seems this involved a huge sum of money and the purpose of the Vatican was to establish a Christian government in Sabah.

Ultimately, the plan was for Sabah to pull out of Malaysia. Sabah would then join the Philippines, which has always claimed that Sabah belonged to the Philippines. (Read more regarding this matter below).

In 1991, the brother of the Sabah Chief Minister, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for allegedly plotting to take Sabah out of Malaysia. With the detention of Dr Jeffrey, this more or less 'confirmed' the rumour of the plot to take Sabah out of Malaysia and subsequently for Sabah to join the Philippines.

Hence the Malays-Muslims from Peninsula Malaysia had to 'do something' to bring down the Christian government of Sabah and prevent 'Christian' Sabah from leaving Malaysia to join the 'Christian' Philippines. And that would be to dilute the Christian population of Sabah by bringing in Muslims and giving them voting rights, meaning also identity cards.

The Prime Minister during that period was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his Deputy was Anwar Ibrahim, who was also the Director of Operations for Barisan Nasional Sabah. However, this was not something that only those two could pull off.

This was a Muslim versus Christian issue. This involved the Vatican and the Philippines plotting to turn Sabah into a Christian state and eventually pull Sabah out of Malaysia to become part of the Philippines.

Hence Seri Perdana, the army, the police, the Immigration Department, the National Registration Department, the Elections Commission, etc., all had to play a part in keeping Sabah Muslim and to prevent Sabah from leaving Malaysia to become part of the Philippines.

This was a huge conspiracy that involved many people and many government agencies. There may have been a few decision-makers at the top but these people could not have pulled something this big off unless the entire government machinery was mobilised towards this effort.

Later, all those key people at the lower level -- such as those from the Immigration Department, National Registration Department, and so on -- were detained under the ISA in a bid to silence them.

Just too many people were involved and it was too risky to allow these people to roam free where they could probably talk. So they were rounded up and detained without trial. They could certainly not be put on trial where all the evidence of their 'wrongdoing' would be revealed in court.

To the Sabahans, those from West Malaysia or from Kuala Lumpur are traitors. To the Malays-Muslims from West Malaysia, those who managed to thwart the Vatican/Philippines plot to pull Sabah out of Malaysia to become part of the Philippines are patriots who have served Islam well.

I suppose this brings me back to the course I am currently taking. To the 'Roundheads', Charles I was a traitor to the Protestant cause. To the 'Cavaliers', Charles I was a victim of injustice. It all depends on who is writing history and the victors and not the vanquished always write history. And since Charles I lost the civil war and his head got chopped off, then Charles who was 'weak' and compromised with the Catholics is the traitor while the Parliamentarians are the patriots.

How will those people behind the move to thwart Sabah becoming Christian and thereafter leaving Malaysia to become part of the Philippines be viewed by historians, say, 100 years from today? I suppose it depends on who will be writing those history books and this, again, will depend on who the winners are going to be.

As my lecturer said, "Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it." Hence I will not comment on whether what they did was right or wrong. My job as a student of history is merely to relate what happened and state how I interpret those events. This will be how I am going to pass my course at the end of March 2013.

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

The Philippines' claim to Sabah (EXTRACT)

The Sultanate of Sulu was granted the territory as a prize for helping the Sultan of Brunei against his enemies and from then on that part of Borneo is recognized as part of the Sultan of Sulu's sovereignty. In 1878, Baron Von Overbeck, an Austrian partner representing The British North Borneo Co. and his partner British Alfred Dent, leased the territory known as "Sabah" - roughly translated as "the land beneath the winds". In return the company will provide arms to the Sultan to resist the spaniards and 5,000 Malaysian ringgits annual rental based on the Mexican dollars value at that time or its equivalent in gold. This lease has been continued until the independence and formation of the Malaysian federation in 1963 together with Singapore, Sarawak and Malaysia. Up to these days, the Malaysians have been continuing the rental payment of 5,300 Malaysian ringgits - a 300 ringgits increased from original rent.

In 1962 during the Pres. Diosdado Macapagal's administration (the father of the present president, Glorio Arroyo), the Philippines formally claimed Sabah based on the Sultanate of Sulu heirs' claim on the territory. The Philippines broke diplomatic relations with Malaysia after the federation have included "Sabah". The sultan's heirs have given the Philippine government the authority to pursue the claim legally in international courts. However, the succeeding administrations have either have ignored or set aside the claim for peaceful co-existent and trade relation with the Malaysians. 

One significant incident involving then President Marcos have briefly brought into limelight the Sabah claim once more. In 1972, the Marcos government have been training secretly a group of Muslim Filipinos in Corregidor, an island off Manila Bay, for possible intrusion in Sabah to pave the way to an armed secession of Sabah from Malaysia. But upon knowing of the plans, the recruits have mutinied and were eliminated except for one that swam the bay and was rescued. The newspapers have called this incident, the "Jabidah Massacre" named after the operation that was given by the military. The survivor divulged the plan and the claim was put in back burner once more. It was believe that because of the incident, the Malaysians have been aiding the Muslim separatists against the Philippine government. Some people says this distracted the attention to the claim on Sabah as the government was embroiled in containing the conflict.

REFERENCE: http://www.epilipinas.com/sabahclaim.htm

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

How Philippines will eventually take Sabah (EXTRACT)

Much water has flowed under the bridge since the formation of Malaysia. Even though Malaysia gained independence through peaceful means, it did not mean that the birth of the new nation was without labour pangs.

Sukarno of Indonesia and Macapagal of the Philippines were both opposed to the inclusion of the North Borneo territory in the Federation of Malaysia. Sukarno, it must be emphasised, had launched the Konfrontasi to crush Malaysia.

Macapagal was however less vehement in his pursuit against the formation of Malaysia, despite allegations in the first half of 1968 that young Suluk men were secretly being trained in Corrigedor for the purpose of infiltrating and invading Sabah.

Successive Philippine governments have raised the matter of the claim over Sabah with the Malaysian government at various regional and international fora. At one stage, they even threatened to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague for arbitration.

However, the Malaysian government has persistently refused to be a litigant on the grounds that Sabah had become an integral part of Malaysia through a constitutional and democratic process.

That aside, the people of Sabah had strongly expressed their desire to be part of the Federation of Malaysia under the aegis of the United Nations-sponsored United Nations Malaysian Mission (UNMM) and the Lord Cobbold Commission.

Notwithstanding the above argument, the Philippine government has persisted to pursue her claim of sovereignty over Sabah. Two books were published on the claim, one in 1964 and the other in 1967, setting out the legal and historical bases of her claim on Sabah; but the contents of the books were refuted by the Malaysian government's at a June-July 1968 meeting in Bangkok, much to the embarrassment of their Philippine counterparts.

G James, Malaysiakini (READ MORE HERE: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/30940)

 

Feel like kicking yourself

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 05:48 PM PST

Ultimately, you are to blame. And pinning the blame on Dr Mahathir is your way of shifting the blame so that you need not kick yourself. And, soon, the next general election will be upon us. In two months time we shall know who is going to run the country for the next five years or so. And, yet again, Barisan Nasional is going to win the election. And, yet again, you are going to look for someone to blame. And this is just going to prove one thing that I have been saying for a long time -- and that is Malaysians are a bunch of losers.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There is an English saying: you feel like kicking yourself. This describes the situation where you have been an utter fool and now feel real stupid about it. Hence you feel like kicking yourself.

I have noticed that many readers seem to feel exactly like this -- they feel like kicking themselves. Judging by the comments posted in Malaysia Today, many which are deleted merely because they keep repeating the same thing over and over again, quite a number of you fall into this category.

I used to be a Tun Hussein Onn critic in the days he was Malaysia's Prime Minister back in the late 1970s. That was more or less the time I started to become politically conscious and when I began to realise that all was not kosher and honky-dory in Malaysia.

Then, when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister, I did not care about Hussein Onn any more. He had already retired and was 'yesterday's news'. I began to channel my criticism towards Dr Mahathir -- even during the time when Anwar Ibrahim was yet to have his falling out with his master in 1998.

Hence my criticism of Dr Mahathir did not commence only in 1998 when he threw Anwar into jail. It started even earlier than that, long before he and Anwar went into conflict.

When Dr Mahathir handed over the reins to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in November 2003, I became a Pak Lah critic. Dr Mahathir was no longer my pet hate. He was no longer the Prime Minister. Pak Lah was. So my new target became Pak Lah.

Then Pak Lah retired and handed the country to Najib Tun Razak. From that day on I no longer talked about Pak Lah. I started to target Najib. He was now the Prime Minister so he should now become the focus of my attacks.

I find, however, that no one talks about Hussein Onn, the Prime Minister before Dr Mahathir, or about Pak Lah, the Prime Minister after Dr Mahathir. But you do talk about Dr Mahathir. And you talk more about Dr Mahathir's Indian ancestry than about what he did when he was Prime Minister.

Even if you do talk about what Dr Mahathir did when he was Prime Minister, most times you will make that comment in the context of his Indian ancestry. It is as if Dr Mahathir is what he is or is a bad person because he has Indian blood in him. It is as if that explains why Dr Mahathir is what he is -- because he is Indian.

If I were asked to psychoanalyse you, I would most likely do so as follows. Back in the late 1980s, we had already told you what we knew about Dr Mahathir, Umno and Barisan Nasional. What we told you 25 years ago is basically the same thing as what we are telling you today.

However, you refused to listen. In the 1990 general election, more than 53% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, giving the opposition only 53 of the 180 seats in Parliament (or 29%). We just could not get you to kick out Barisan Nasional and give the government to the opposition.

No doubt when we point this out you will reply with all sorts of excuses to justify why you did not vote opposition and instead gave the country to Barisan Nasional. The normal excuses are: there was no Internet yet at that time (so we were not well informed), the opposition was not credible enough (so we had no confidence in the opposition), the opposition had not been tested yet (so we had more confidence in Barisan Nasional), the mainstream media lied to us (so we were misinformed) and so on.

Then, in the next general election in 1995, the opposition's share of Parliament seats dropped to just 30 out of 192 (which is only 15%). More than 84% of you voted Barisan Nasional. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah soon realised that his attempt to kick out Barisan Nasional is futile. Malaysians just did not want the opposition to take over the country. They would rather that Umno and Barisan Nasional continue to rule Malaysia.

Ku Li was better off just closing down his Semangat 46 and go back to Umno -- which he did soon after that in 1996.

Nevertheless, many of us did not give up yet. We continued to support and vote for the opposition. In 1999, we went all out to campaign for the opposition. In fact, that same year I even went to work for Parti Keadilan Nasional. This was no longer just about supporting the opposition. We were literally working for the opposition.

Unfortunately, in the 1999 general election, the opposition did even worse than in the 1990 general election. Almost 57% of you voted for Barisan Nasional (compared to 53% in 1990) and the opposition won only 23% of the seats in Parliament (compared to about 29% in 1990).

The 1999 general election was supposed to have been the landmark election for Malaysia. We were supposed to have made history. But we could not even better the 1990 general election. What a letdown. And, yet again, the long list of excuses as to why you were 'forced' to vote Barisan Nasional rather than the opposition Barisan Alternatif.

And the most classic excuse of all came from the non-Malays: we support you in our hearts but we have to vote Barisan Nasional for the sake of the economy. What a load of bullshit! In other words money talks, bullshit walks. And Barisan Nasional is about money while the opposition is bullshit.

But we still did not give up. In November 2003, Pak Lah took over and four months later the general election was called. Dr Mahathir is a dictator. Dr Mahathir is vicious. Dr Mahathir is vindictive. Dr Mahathir is toxic. So we do not dare vote opposition when Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister. But now Pak Lah was Prime Minister. So surely all those excuses no longer applied.

But no, in the 2004 general election, almost 64% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, giving them almost 91% of the seats in Parliament. This was the best ever performance for the ruling party since Merdeka. So this could not have been about Dr Mahathir this, that and the other after all, as what you told us in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

I was a campaign manager in that 2004 general election. I was no longer just working for the party like in 1999. I was now 'on the ground' trying to help the opposition win. But we got whacked good and proper. We practically lost our pants. Many opposition candidates not only lost the election but lost their deposit as well. That was how bad it was. We were shocked. How could that have happened?

And, yet again, a long list of excuses as to why you voted for the ruling party and not for the opposition -- the same long list of excuses that we heard in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

That was when I decided we needed to change tactics. They say if you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result that is a sign of lunacy. If we expect a different result then we need to do things differently. And that was when I decided to launch Malaysia Today and take our fight to the cyber-world. We can never win in 'conventional' warfare when we do not possess the firepower. So we need to embark upon an 'unconventional' war. And that would have to be in the Internet.

I always use the Afghan Mujahideen fight against the Russians as my analogy. When they tried fighting the Russians in a conventional war they got whacked bad. Russia had tanks, helicopter gunships, rocket launchers and so on. And the Afghans suffered heavy losses.

Then the Afghans changed tactics. They took the fight to where they were strongest, in the mountains. When the Russians tried to fight the Afghans in the mountains the tables turned. Eventually the Russians gave up and went home.

Sun Tzu did say you must engage the enemy in your territory and not try to fight them in their territory. This was what the Afghans did. And this was what we also did in 2004 -- after we got whacked bad in the general election that year -- when we decided to engage Barisan Nasional in our territory, the Internet.

Nevertheless, the opposition success in the 2008 general election was not any better than in the 1990 general election. Still 52% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, a mere 1% improvement over 1990. Yes, that's right, in spite of all that effort, in 2008 we improved only 1% over 1990, an era when there was no Internet yet.

So, can the excuse that Barisan Nasional did well because there was no Internet yet at that time hold water? In 1990 there was no Internet. In 2008 the Internet had already fully matured. But in 2008 the vote improvement was only 1% over 1990.

Most of you refuse to accept the fact that this is your fault. If you do then you would have to kick yourself. So you look for a scapegoat to pin the blame on. And that is why you are very nasty towards Dr Mahathir. You want to blame Dr Mahathir for your stupidity. You do not want to admit that it is you who are stupid. So you blame BTN. You blame Umno. You blame the mainstream media. You blame PAS. You blame the Islamic State. You blame Hudud. You blame the fact that Dr Mahathir has Indian blood in him. You blame the fact there was no Internet. You blame your parents who did not know any better. If you could, you would also like to blame Prophet Muhammad -- except that you are not quite sure how to do this.

Ultimately, you are to blame. And pinning the blame on Dr Mahathir is your way of shifting the blame so that you need not kick yourself. And, soon, the next general election will be upon us. In two months time we shall know who is going to run the country for the next five years or so. And, yet again, Barisan Nasional is going to win the election. And, yet again, you are going to look for someone to blame. And this is just going to prove one thing that I have been saying for a long time -- and that is Malaysians are a bunch of losers.

 

Why is Dr Mahathir such an idiot?

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 08:31 PM PST

Many argue that Dr Mahathir was the architect. While this may be true (and Dr Mahathir, in fact, did not deny it), the 'man-on-the-ground' in charge of executing the plan was Anwar. And while you may argue that Anwar had no choice but to do what Dr Mahathir wanted, how do you explain Zaid Ibrahim resigning from the Cabinet because he did not want to do what the Prime Minister wanted?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad such an idiot? Does he not know that his statements, plus those of the other 'independent' MPs and 'Umno-friendly' people such as Ibrahim Ali, are going to hurt Barisan Nasional in the coming general election expected over the next two months or so? Does Dr Mahathir have a death wish for Umno and Barisan Nasional on the eve (almost) of the 13th General Election?

I would expect someone of Dr Mahathir's political acumen and savvy would be smarter than that. He is, after all, 'The Grand Old Man' of Malaysian politics and very Machiavellian at that too. But what he has been saying and doing of late gives the impression that he is getting senile or is losing it.

Actually, Dr Mahathir is just being, as the Malays would say, bodoh sepat. Which means he is cleverer than many of us suspect. He knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. And those of us who are unsuspecting are being dragged into Dr Mahathir's game plan, which he is playing to achieve the end game of winning the coming general election.

But how do you win the general election by insulting and antagonising the voters? Should you not instead be apple-polishing the voters? Should you not instead be shaking hands and kissing babies? Do you win the general election by making an enemy of the voters?

Ah, this is what separates the men from the boys. Dr Mahathir knows which side his bread is buttered. And he is just making sure he touches the right side of that buttered bread so that he does not get sticky fingers. And all his political life he has made sure that other people get their fingers dirty while he keeps his as clean as a whistle.

Okay, we all know that Dr Mahathir is or was the architect in most of the controversies and scandals to hit Malaysia. However, while he may be the architect, he makes sure that others are the engineers. Hence he designs things but he lets others carry out the dirty work. And he makes sure he insulates himself so that he can do what the US Presidents would do: deniability.

You may suspect he is the architect. You may even know for a fact that he is the architect. But you will never catch him with his hands in the cookie jar. The engineers would be those caught with their pants down. And if you try to bring him to book you will lack the evidence to gain a conviction because there will be no tangible evidence to speak of.

And that was why Nixon was caught while all the others were not. Deniability and insulating the top -- that is how it is done in the US. The architect must not also be the engineer. Hence the engineer would fall while the architect would remain protected.

May 13 is one example that comes to mind. The engineer gets caught while we can only suspect the architect behind the event. As much as we may feel we know who the architect is there is not enough evidence to hang him from the highest tree.

The Sabah illegal immigrants issue now under the investigation of the RCI is yet another example. The entire country knows the architect behind that. They even call it 'Projek M'. But do you have Dr Mahathir's fingerprints anywhere? Where is the smoking gun? What you do have are the fingerprints of various Sabah Chief Ministers, Political Secretaries and Ministers. Is there enough tangible evidence to arrest and try Dr Mahathir?

To be fair, the findings of the RCI is not complete yet as the inquiry is still ongoing. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that when they complete the inquiry and publish the findings of the RCI there would not be enough evidence for legal recourse to be taken against Dr Mahathir.

The testimony of the witnesses thus far appears to show that this scandal had been going on since the 1960s and 1970s. Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister only in the 1980s. Hence this started one or two decades before Dr Mahathir's watch.

Now, in 1985, four years after Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister and three years after Anwar Ibrahim joined Umno, Sabah fell to a 'Christian' government. In 1991, Anwar became the Finance Minister and in 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister after ousting Tun Ghafar Baba.

Tun Ghafar thereby lost his position as head of Umno Sabah and Anwar took over as the Director of Operations of Barisan Nasional Sabah. And Anwar's job was to take back Sabah, which they did the following year in 1994. And how did Anwar succeed in taking back Sabah? He did so by 'diluting' the Christian voters, who had given Sabah to PBS, with an estimated one million 'new' Muslim voters.

Many argue that Dr Mahathir was the architect. While this may be true (and Dr Mahathir, in fact, did not deny it), the 'man-on-the-ground' in charge of executing the plan was Anwar. And while you may argue that Anwar had no choice but to do what Dr Mahathir wanted, how do you explain Zaid Ibrahim resigning from the Cabinet because he did not want to do what the Prime Minister wanted?

This means you do not have to do what the Prime Minister wants, especially if it is something illegal or immoral, and then argue that you had no choice. You can always resign on principle like what Zaid Ibrahim did.

Let us look at another issue, the Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s. Again, Dr Mahathir was the architect for this crisis. That much we know for a fact. But the engineers were Tun Ghafar and Anwar. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who we saw on TV back in the 1980s driving in and out of Istana Negara at the height of the crisis. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who met the Rulers to quarrel with them. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who spoke to the press and kept us updated every day with their press statements.

Yes, Dr Mahathir is a Republican and is anti-Royalty. I can confirm that because I have personally heard Dr Mahathir utter anti-Royalty statements. I heard that with my own ears. But I have also personally heard Anwar whack the Rulers. That, too, came from Anwar's own mouth.

My conclusion, made almost 30 years ago back in the 1980s, was that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar are Republicans and are anti-Royalty. And, more importantly, the Rulers also know that Dr Mahathir and Anwar are anti-Royalty. And that is why the Rulers don't like Dr Mahathir and Anwar.

But Dr Mahathir is no longer in power. He is no longer the Prime Minister (maybe only the de facto Prime Minister like Anwar is the de facto PKR leader). Najib Tun Razak is. And Najib, without a doubt, is pro-Royalty while the man who wants to oust Najib and take over as Prime Minister, Anwar, is anti-Royalty. Hence, between Najib and Anwar, the Rulers would rather have Najib as the Prime Minister and they will do anything they can to ensure that Najib stays on and Anwar never takes over.

We can argue that Malaysia is a democracy and it matters not what the Rulers want because, in the end, it is the people who will decide. True, but which people? And this brings us back to my opening statement regarding Dr Mahathir's 'stupidity'.

The Chinese have made it very clear that they are going to vote ABU -- anything but Umno. The Indians, to a certain extent, have said the same thing, although not as high a percentage as the Chinese. In the last general election, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP won a total of only 20 seats (PPP zero) out of 222 Parliamentary seats. That was less than 10%.

This time around, they may be reduced to just 10 seats in total, or less than 5% of the seats in Parliament. Never mind what Barisan Nasional, Umno or Najib does, this is not going to change things one bit. MIC, Gerakan and PPP are going to get totally wiped out while MCA may be reduced to just 10 seats.

This means they need to depend on just Umno and the East Malaysian members of Barisan Nasional to stay in power. Even then they may be able to do so with only 110-120 seats.

Hence Umno can forget about the non-Umno parties in West Malaysia (MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP). Whatever they say and do is not going to save the day. The only thing that can save Umno would be the Malay votes -- that determine roughly two-thirds of the seats in West Malaysia.

And that is why what they are doing/saying is not to win the hearts and mind of the Chinese and Indian voters. It is too late to win the hearts and minds of the Chinese and Indian voters. They need to win the hearts and minds of the Malay voters. And to do that they need to do and say what they are currently doing and saying.

While this may upset the Chinese and Indians, who are not going to vote for Umno anyway, it pacifies the Malays. And it is the Malays they want to pacify, not the Chinese and Indians, who have made it very clear they are not going to vote Barisan Nasional or Umno come hell or high water.

Dr Mahathir may not be such an idiot after all. It could be that he knows exactly what he is doing. Whatever it may be, in two months time or so we will know if Dr Mahathir is an idiot or actually a Machiavellian political genius. Two months more, that is all, and we will know.

 

This is no conspiracy theory

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 04:57 PM PST

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last two years my studies in British and European history has been able to help me look at events from a fresh perspective. When we studied history back in our school days in Malaysia it was merely a study of dates and events, and maybe the personalities behind those events.

Later they changed the syllabus to objective and you just marked the correct answer: A, B, C, D or E. That brought the level of education down drastically and sometimes you passed your exams by just making a lucky guess at what the right answer is.

Here in Oxford we need to look at the broader picture to understand why what happened, happened. And if we apply the Oxford module rather than the 'Pendidekan Malaysia' module (I am not even sure of the 'modern' Malay spelling any more) then the Sabah 'illegal immigrants given Malaysian citizenship' issue can be better understood.

Many of you reading this are probably quite young, born after Merdeka of 1957 or after 'May 13' of 1969 -- or maybe you were still a kid then and did not know what was happening around you. Hence you will look at the 'Sabah issue' from today's perspective. And hence, also, you just want to know who the guilty person is in what you consider a most heinous 'crime' -- in your opinion tantamount to treachery.

Now, I am not saying what they did in Sabah is legal or illegal, or even moral or immoral. This piece is not about right and wrong. Historians do not pass judgement about events in history. They just analyse what happened and what, in their opinion, were the causes of that event.

First let us go to back to 1946, the year Umno was formed.

In 1946, the British Colonial government introduced the Malayan Union, which reduced the powers of the Raja-raja Melayu (Malay Rulers). This, in turn, meant that the Malays would lose some of their powers. Hence the elite and intellectuals amongst the Malays opposed the Malayan Union.

Yes, it was the Malay elite class and the intellectual community -- and not the fishermen and farmers -- who opposed the Malayan Union. The kampong people did not really care because their lives would remain the same never mind who ran the country.

Because of this opposition to the Malayan Union, in 1948 the British abandoned the idea and instead introduced the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Next came the idea of Merdeka or independence. And this took many years of negotiations (no blood on the streets, as what Umno tells us). One issue of concern to Britain was what to do with the more than one million Chinese and Indians after Malaya was given Merdeka. They can't be sent back to China and India so an independent Malaya had to absorb them by giving them citizenship.

Now, note what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday. He said that Tunku Abdul Rahman was worse. The Tunku gave citizenship to more than one million foreigners. Maybe Dr Mahathir is trying to say that he gave citizenship to less than one million foreigners.

What Dr Mahathir did not explain is that the Tunku had to agree to the granting of citizenship to more than one million Chinese and Indians, which was the British term and condition for agreeing to Merdeka for Malaya. If the Tunku did not agree then the British would probably disagree to Merdeka for Malaya mainly because they had to 'protect' the more than one million Chinese and Indians who would otherwise become stateless.

It was a sort of trade off. Malaya would absorb the more than one million Chinese and Indians. The Chinese and Indians, in turn, must agree to special privileges for the Malays (plus Malay becomes the national language and Islam the religion of the Federation). And then Britain would grant Malaya independence.

In 1955, two years before Merdeka, the first elections were held in Malaya and the Alliance Party (a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC) won 51 of the 52 seats. That meant the Alliance Party was 'stable' and could rule an independent Malaya with a clear mandate from the voters. Two years later, in 1957, Malaya gained independence.

But that 'honeymoon' was short-lived. Twelve years later, in 1969, the Alliance party received a beating in the Third General Election. It garnered less than 50% of the popular votes and lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Alliance Party (meaning all three: Umno, MCA and MIC) knew that it was losing power. Hence Barisan Nasional was formed to replace the Alliance Party so that the opposition parties could be brought into the ruling coalition. And that was how the Alliance Party got back control of the country -- by forming a new coalition with the opposition parties (what we could call a 'unity government', I suppose).

But that was not enough and they needed to do more. Selangor, the jewel in the crown, was in jeopardy (it still is today). So they created new 'Malay' cities, such as Shah Alam, and 'flooded' these cities with Malays to 'dilute' the Chinese voters.

Then they created a separate Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur so that the majority Chinese in Kuala Lumpur could be 'kicked out' of Selangor. Thus the ruling party can afford to lose Kuala Lumpur but they would not also lose Selangor.

By then, of course, Malaysia had been created with the agreement that 25% of the Parliament seats would come from Sabah and Sarawak. This would mean that Sabah and Sarawak would be the ruling party's 'fixed deposit' and there was no way 1969 could be repeated as long as Sabah and Sarawak remained under the ruling party.

But that soon changed in 1985 when PBS, seen as a Christian-based party, kicked out the 'Muslim' government and replaced it with a 'Christian' government.

This meant, yet again, the ruling party was in danger of losing power like what happened in 1969. And they were in danger of losing power because the Muslims, who used to be 85-90% of the population, pre-Merdeka, had been reduced to a mere 50% or so -- in the first instance when more than one million Chinese and Indians had been given citizenship in 1957 and in the second instance when Sabah and Sarawak became part of Malaysia and the Muslim population was diluted even further.

Hence Barisan Nasional (in particular Umno) needed to dilute the non-Muslim population, in particular in their 'fixed deposit' states in East Malaysia which control a very critical 25% of the seats in Parliament and where the Muslims are not the majority like in West Malaysia.

And that was when the idea was mooted to 'create' an additional Muslim population of at least one million. And they could not wait for this to happen gradually over 50 years by encouraging Malays to have more children. They had to 'fast track' this exercise, which means they had to 'import' the population.

The first step was for Umno to get into Sabah. The next step was to 'import' one million Muslims into Sabah and give them citizenship. In 1994, this exercise over those few years proved successful when the 'Christian' government got kicked out and a 'Muslim' government took over the state and has held it ever since.

Now, certainly Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister of Malaysia at that time. But it was the Barisan Nasional government (which means it was more than just Umno) that came out with this game plan on how to grab back and/or retain power by diluting the non-Muslim population by importing a large Muslim population.

In 1957, they granted citizenship to one million 'foreign' Chinese and Indians and 30 years later they 'balanced' this by granting citizenship to one million foreign Muslims. There was nothing illegal about what they did but whether it was moral or not is another thing altogether.

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

And this happened not because of one man, Dr Mahathir, but because of what the government did. And Anwar was a key person in that government at that time. Hence I would be very careful about how the opposition plays up the Sabah issue because if the truth were to emerge it may cost PKR a lot of votes in Sabah. And if they can't win Sabah then they can't form the next federal government.

 

Lest we forget

Posted: 14 Jan 2013 10:58 PM PST

Nevertheless, the point is, that 'historical crowd' did not help the opposition do better. Instead, the opposition did worse. And we celebrated too early our 'success' in 2000 because we translated the crowd in that most historical demonstration into an election victory.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

What BN and Pakatan should be worried about

Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily

Barisan Nasional (BN) probably had not anticipated that the January 12 rally could cause a stir at all.

Past records show that rallies initiated by Pakatan Rakyat, other than the Bersih rallies, could only manage under-10,000 attendance, at best 20,000 to 30,000 on full mobilisation.

The 10,000 to 30,000 that took to the streets could be easily seen as diehard supporters of the opposition pact that would remain loyal whether Pakatan had performed up to the mark or BN had put in any effort to change.

Such a figure could be easily digested by BN and so long as the attendance was placed within this bracket, the impact it would leave on the ruling coalition would be minimal.

BN laid its hopes on the silent majority. So long as these people adopted a wait-and-watch attitude, BN should be able to bring them into its fold.

BN has vast resources at its disposal and Pakatan can make mistakes at times. That explains why Najib prefers to wait instead of rushing to dissolve the Parliament.

The attendance of last weekend's rally far exceeded the estimates of the BN government. Whether it was the 50,000 estimated by the police, the 100,000 claimed by BN, or even the 150,000 some others have estimated, the figure was way higher than what the BN had anticipated.

Where did these additional participants come from? Why had so many answered Pakatan's call?

Could the moderate stance adopted by the police and government embolden the masses to take to the streets?

This is what BN was eager to find out.

If we take 100,000 as a reference, it shows that many erstwhile passive Pakatan supporters and political neutrals have indeed changed their minds. They refused to stay silent and chose to throw their arms around Pakatan.

Some of them did not have a firm or solid political inclination in the past but have now begun to care about social issues and national development.

They were led there by a plethora of factors ranging from dismal government policies, discrepancies in economic development, environmental concerns, widespread public sector corruption and lack of transparency in electoral procedures, among others.

They want a country with a bright future, a more promising society.

When they felt the government had failed them, or the government had slackened in implementing its reform agenda, they rose up to demonstrate their feelings.

The moment Pakatan's appeals met with their aspirations, they would walk out of their passivity and silent past to embrace Pakatan.

When they have become active opponents to the government, a snowballing effect would ensue, enticing more people to their camp. BN should become truly worried when more and more people have chosen to drop their silence, and the ruling coalition.

As for whether a tough crackdown could stop the people from going to the street, I would say no. People would still pour out onto the streets and if subjected to oppressive operations from the government, will be more enraged, bringing the anti-government sentiment way further and broader than anyone could cope with.

What BN did right was to respond with a peaceful gesture which has spared it from much more horrible eventualities.

Something that BN can do now is to expedite reforms to win over the rest of the silent majority.

As for Pakatan, it has to make sure not to commit even the slightest mistakes to sustain the momentum.

The policies of PAS-led Kedah state government have dealt a blow to the integrity of Pakatan Rakyat; so have the controversies over the use of the word "Allah." Improper handling of either could signal the start of its downfall.

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

THE 100,000 CROWD FIVE KILOMETRES LONG

On 5th November 2000, one year after the general election of 29th November 1999, one of the largest demonstrations in Malaysian history was held along the Kesas Highway, which was met with extreme show of force and brutality by the Malaysian police.

This got the government so worried that soon after that they detained without trial ten of those involved in its organisation, me being one of those ten.

According to the testimony of the Malaysian police during the RCI that was conducted to investigate the extreme force that was used, no less than 100,000 demonstrators took to the streets that day. For the first time in history both the police and the organisers agreed on the figure, 100,000.

That November 2000 demonstration, one year after the general election of 1999, was supposed to be the foundation for the 'big push' in the following general election expected around 2004 or so.

Due to that exceptionally large crowd of 100,000, against the backdrop of about six million voters, that gave the opposition great encouragement. Surely that 100,000 crowd turnout was going to help the opposition do better than it did in the November 1999 general election.

In the 1999 general election, the opposition won two states and 45 Parliament seats. In the following general election expected in 2004 or so, the opposition can easily increase this to five states and more than 80 Parliament seats.

But this did not happen. What happened instead was the opposition lost one state, Terengganu, and got reduced to less than half the Parliament seats, only 21. There is, of course, more than one reason for this disaster, partly the opposition's fault and partly because of what the ruling party did.

Nevertheless, the point is, that 'historical crowd' did not help the opposition do better. Instead, the opposition did worse. And we celebrated too early our 'success' in 2000 because we translated the crowd in that most historical demonstration into an election victory.

Let us not make that same mistake again -- as we have done so many times since then in Sanggang, Indera Kayangan, and so on, until the 2004 general election when the opposition got its arse whacked good and proper.

I suppose the English proverb 'don't count your chickens before they hatch' holds true here. And this time around the voter turnout would probably increase from just six million in 1999 to more than ten million.

 

So it’s settled then

Posted: 08 Jan 2013 07:57 PM PST

Malaya or Malaysia did not attend the conference because Malaya and Malaysia did not exist yet at time. Malaya was created only in 1957 and Malaysia in 1963. Hence Malaya/Malaysia is not a party to that treaty or a recipient of any compensation. The recipient would be Britain, the colonial masters of the non-existent Malaya/Malaysia at that time.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

So it's settled then. Pakatan Rakyat allows non-Muslims to us the Allah word. Barisan Nasional does not allow non-Muslims to use the Allah word.

MCA, the lead partner in Barisan Nasional after Umno, has no opinion about the matter. You use or don't use the Allah word they don't care. They are not going to comment about it.

MIC does not want to comment whether they are going to comment. They are just going to maintain an elegant silence. So you do not know whether MIC agrees or does not agree to non-Muslims using the Allah word. And MIC will soon be known as MINC, the acronym for 'May I Not Comment'.

His Highness the Sultan of Selangor does not agree to non-Muslims using the Allah word. The Church does not agree to His Highness the Sultan not agreeing to non-Muslims using the Allah word.

Some people in Pakatan Rakyat agree with Pakatan Rakyat's stand. Some people in Pakatan Rakyat do not agree with Pakatan Rakyat's stand. Some people in Pakatan Rakyat do not want to take a stand regarding Pakatan Rakyat's stand.

Some people in Barisan Nasional agree with Barisan Nasional's stand. Some people in Barisan Nasional do not agree with Barisan Nasional's stand. Some people in Barisan Nasional do not want to take a stand regarding Barisan Nasional's stand.

So it's settled then. Malaysian politics can no longer be divided between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional. Because there are supporters, opposers and abstainers from both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional, Malaysian politics must now be divided between the pro-Allah word and the anti-Allah word grouping.

Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional plus their 13 or so component party members will need to be disbanded and a new grouping of pro-Allah word and anti-Allah word be created to face the coming general election. The voters will then be able to vote along the lines of whether they support or oppose the use of the Allah word.

Once either the pro-Allah word or the anti-Allah word grouping wins the general election and gets to form the new federal government, Malaysians can expect to see brighter days ahead of them. Maybe corruption, abuse of power and wastage of public funds will still be a problem and we will still not see transparency, accountability and good governance, but at least Malaysians would have resolved one extremely important issue -- whether the pro-Allah word or the anti-Allah word grouping gets to run the country.

With either the pro-Allah word or the anti-Allah word grouping running the country, foreign investors will flock to Malaysia and will pour billions into the country. More jobs will be created and no Malaysian will face unemployment. There will, in fact, be a huge problem of labour shortage, which will allow a few million Indonesians to migrate to Malaysia to fill up the many job vacancies. These Indonesians can then be given Malaysian citizenship and they will be able to vote in future Malaysian general elections.

Malaysia can then increase the minimum wage to RM1,500 a month, as what some people want, which can be further increased by 10% a year so that Malaysians can be ahead of the inflation rate and not find it hard to make ends meet.

In time, Malaysia's minimum wage can match that of the UK, which is roughly RM35 an hour. Then the one million Malaysians living and working overseas can return to Malaysia and seek employment at home since Malaysia is facing a shortage of workers and is paying high wages, comparable to that of the UK.

Malaysia's political culture would also see a revolutionary change that it much needs. No longer will politics be about who makes a better Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim. It will also no longer be about Ketuanan Melayu, the New Economic Policy, Article 153, Bahasa Malaysia, Malaysia's poor education system and poor health service, etc. It will be about whether you support or oppose the use of the Allah word.

Malaysians of all races and religions will no longer be divided like they are now. Malaysians of whatever race and religion will be united under one of two umbrellas. And these umbrellas would be either you support or you oppose the use of the Allah word.

Now, on the second issue of the so-called RM207 billion from Japan, the Treaty of San Francisco or the San Francisco Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers was officially signed by 48 nations on 8th September 1951 at the War Memorial Opera House in San Francisco, United States. It came into force on 28th April 1952.

The countries that attended the Conference were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

This treaty served to officially end World War II, to formally end Japan's position as an imperial power, and to allocate compensation to Allied civilians and former prisoners of war who had suffered Japanese war crimes. This treaty made extensive use of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to enunciate the Allies' goals.

Malaya or Malaysia did not attend the conference because Malaya and Malaysia did not exist yet at time. Malaya was created only in 1957 and Malaysia in 1963. Hence Malaya/Malaysia is not a party to that treaty or a recipient of any compensation. The recipient would be Britain, the colonial masters of the non-existent Malaya/Malaysia at that time.

So that is also settled then, just like the use of the Allah word has been settled. And the Japanese Embassy has just confirmed that the RM207 billion does not exist just like Malaya/Malaysia did not exist when the treaty was signed.

So now Malaysians can get back to the business of choosing their next government in the coming general election. And you will choose your government not on whether you support Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional but on whether you support or oppose the use of the Allah word.

And once the election is over and the winning grouping gets to form the next government, Malaysia is going to prosper and is going to grow in leaps and bounds and in no time at all Malaysia is going to move from the bottom of the list of ASEAN countries to the top of the list, beating even Singapore and Indonesia, who are yet to resolve the issue of whether non-Muslims can or cannot use the Allah word.

Malaysia is going to be remembered as the first of almost 200 countries all over the world that has officially decided on the matter of whether non-Muslims can or cannot use the Allah word. Malaysia has made history and in time will be hailed as a world leader poised to take over the leadership of the United Nations.

Malaysians who used to be ashamed of their country will now be proud to be Malaysian. The United Nations may even consider shifting its headquarters from New York to Putrajaya in honour of the great progress the country has made in resolving the issue of the use of the Allah word.

PROUD TO BE MALAYSIAN

mAV7OM7jVac

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAV7OM7jVac

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved