Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Looking at things realistically

Posted: 07 Jan 2013 04:53 PM PST

Hence with 10 seats in the FT, 10 in Johor, 25 in East Malaysia, 11 in Kedah, 12 in Kelantan, 11 in Penang, 18 in Perak, 17 in Selangor, 1 in Terengganu, 1 in Melaka, 3 in Negeri Sembilan, 5 in Pahang and 0 in Perlis, Pakatan Rakyat can just scrape through with the majority that it needs to form the new federal government -- 124 Parliament seats for Pakatan Rakyat versus 98 seats for Barisan Nasional.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In the March 2008 general election, Pakatan Rakyat won 80 Parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia and only two in East Malaysia -- one each in Sabah and Sarawak. Barisan Nasional won 140 Parliament seats in total.

Let's say this time around Pakatan Rakyat manages to retain its 80 Parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia. It does not lose any of its seats and neither does it increase its seats in Peninsular Malaysia. That would mean Pakatan Rakyat would need to win at least 32 seats from East Malaysia (or an increase of 30 seats from the current two) to form the new federal government.

The first question would be: would an increase from two to 32 be a realistic aim? Is that not too large a jump to expect?

Nevertheless, 32 seats from East Malaysia would give Pakatan Rakyat a mere two-seat majority -- 112 Parliament seats for Pakatan Rakyat versus 110 for Barisan Nasional. That is too risky, as Barisan Nasional needs to buy over only one Pakatan Rakyat Member of Parliament to trigger a hung Parliament -- or two Pakatan Rakyat MPs to take over the government.

Hence Pakatan Rakyat needs more than just an additional 32 seats. Preferably it should be at least 42 seats to make it safe for Pakatan Rakyat so that Pakatan Rakyat wins 122 Parliament seats versus 100 for Barisan Nasional.

However, East Malaysia has only 56 Parliament seats -- 25 in Sabah and 31 in Sarawak. So 42 seats would not be a realistic target. At best Pakatan Rakyat may be able to win between 3-8 Parliament seats in Sabah and 7-11 in Sarawak.

That would give Pakatan Rakyat only 10 to 19 Parliament seats in total -- far short of the 32-42 that Pakatan Rakyat needs to form the new federal government (or form the new federal government with a safe majority of 22 seats).

Let's average those worst (11) and best (19) case scenarios for East Malaysia and put it as 15 seats in total. Added to the 80 seats from Peninsular Malaysia, that would give Pakatan Rakyat only 95 seats. And that would mean Barisan Nasional would still form the federal government with 127 Parliament seats.

Hence 11-19 seats from East Malaysia are not enough. From the total of 56 seats for East Malaysia, Pakatan Rakyat must win at least 25. And this would mean Pakatan Rakyat must cooperate with other East Malaysian parties because on its own Pakatan Rakyat can never win 25 of the 56 seats from East Malaysia.

On top of that, Pakatan Rakyat would need to win an additional 15 seats from Peninsular Malaysia from its current 80. I am assuming, of course, that Pakatan Rakyat can retain every single one of its 80 seats from Peninsular Malaysia. This would then give Pakatan Rakyat a total of 120 Parliament seats versus only 102 for Barisan Nasional.

We are, of course, working on the assumption that Pakatan Rakyat can retain all its 80 Parliament seats from Peninsular Malaysia and then it wins an additional (new) 15 seats from Peninsular Malaysia plus 25 seats from East Malaysia (which would include some 'joint venture' arrangements with other non-Pakatan Rakyat parties). If not then it will not work.

But where are these seats going to come from?

Well, in the 2008 general election, Pakatan Rakyat won only 1 seat in Johor from the 26 seats in total. Hence Pakatan Rakyat would have to increase its seats in Johor to at least 10.

In Pahang, Pakatan Rakyat won only 2 of the 14 seats. It would need to win at least 5 seats this time around.

In the Federal Territory, Kedah, Penang and Selangor, Pakatan Rakyat may have already peaked. Hence it needs to look at Perak where it won only 13 of the 24 seats and try to increase this to 18 -- or an additional 5 seats.

Of course, if Pakatan Rakyat can win 1 seat in Perlis, 2 in Melaka, and 3 in Terengganu, then it will sail in with 128 seats versus Barisan Nasional's 94.

The earlier question I asked was: but where are these seats going to come from? The next question to ask, I suppose, is: can this be done?

Pakatan Rakyat is confident that it can win at least 122-127 seats, leaving Barisan Nasional with only 95-100 seats. Barisan Nasional, on the other hand, is confident it can win 130-135 seats, leaving Pakatan Rakyat with only 90 or so seats.

Only one can be right. Both cannot be right. Hence the other must be wrong. Which one do you think is right?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 22 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan