Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Sabah: Land Below the Winds of Change
You are a lost cause (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
Do you want to play poker with me? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
70 years later and still the same (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
The untold story of the Lahad Datu incident
Talking to a ten-year old
Conjecture, imagination and suspicion
The Chinese and Indians screwed up
Malaysia at the crossroads
The Deepak-Bala marriage: in Deepak’s own words

Posted: 30 Mar 2013 02:21 PM PDT

The voting trend speaks for itself: within East Malaysia, dissatisfaction against BN does not necessarily translate into a swing for PKR – unlike Peninsula Malaysia, the party will have to do more than win on 'protest votes' here.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Shashi Karu

Over the online media, the atmosphere is palpable and almost sweating with suspense. As we near election day, bloggers, commentators and the occasional pundits are beating with increasing intensity to the same rhythms of change: "it's now or never", "ubah", "ini kalilah" and of course, how could you not forget, "ABU!" [Asalkan Bukan Umno].

Analysts alike are expecting a repeat of the March 2008 Tsunami, but this time it's back with revenge: Peninsula Malaysia is expected to see bigger gains to Pakatan Rakyat - with the bastions of BN in Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and Johor finally caving in to the 'winds of change'. As the tides of politics continues on its charging path, Anwar Ibrahim inches ever closer to Malaysia's first "opposition" Federal government.

And yet, despite the inevitability of change, many anticipate that these electoral gains may not be enough to provide that much needed parliamentary majority. In pursuit for these last remaining seats, analysts and political strategists believe that the final frontline will be won, or lost, in Sabah - the last fortress of BN's 'fixed deposit'.

Winds of change sweeping Borneo?

As the political oven continues to heat up, we are increasingly seeing the battle fought openly in the sleepy state. Issue that irate Sabahans continue to pervade the news, blogs, and coffee shops: PATI (illegal immigrants), UMNO, underdevelopment, timber corruption, state autonomy, and the list goes on. The unfortunate Sulu incursion and RCI of Project IC has further 'activated' dormant voters, who were otherwise indifferent or fatigued to the politics of the state. It's no surprise then that, with an electorate ripe for change, victory is firmly within the grasps of Pakatan Rakyat - or is it?

Despite the solidified angst against BN, history suggests that this may not mean an easy victory for PR. If the 2011 Sarawak state election is to go by anything, the packed ceramahs, sloganeering crowds and near unanimous aggravation certainly does not translate into votes for the opposition.

A Sarawak down memory lane

Looking back at the recent 2011 Sarawak state election, the much vaunted expectations fell embarrassingly short on election day: opposition gained a total of 15 of the 71 state seats - 12 of which were delivered by DAP and a paltry 3 by PKR. Although DAP saw significant gains in the urban areas, PKR suffered a major blow, losing over 46 of the 49 seats it contested. This is despite an election occurring within three years of the March 2008 Tsunami - with anticipations of that very Tsunami finally arriving in Sarawak. Justifiably, the question that should be asked is 'Why did this happen?' and given the shared geography, history and voter preferences: 'Will this trend continue towards 2013 elections in Sabah?'

Many factors have been flagged but a key reason for the upset, as touted by Pakatan Rakyat leaders, was the failure to agree upon seat allocations; this resulted in multi-cornered fights, allegedly 'splitting' and 'diluting' opposition votes that resulted in a BN victory. However, closer analysis of the voting results shows an overlooked fact: even if multi-cornered fights did not occur, the vote counts indicate that Pakatan Rakyat, namely PKR, would still have lost all but 1 seat in Sarawak. Similar trends were seen in the 2008 Sabah state elections, where PKR failed to come close to any victory in all but 3 seats contested.

A further look at the results show that in many of the multi-cornered fights identified, PKR candidates were out-voted by DAP, local opposition parties and independent candidates - suggesting that the party may be a poor voting alternative, even within opposition. The voting trend speaks for itself: within East Malaysia, dissatisfaction against BN does not necessarily translate into a swing for PKR – unlike Peninsula Malaysia, the party will have to do more than win on 'protest votes' here.

Banking Locally

And yet, there is hope for the party. The few gains made by PKR, provide an insight into how the party may achieve its goals in the Eastern front. In both the Sabah and Sarawak State elections, results indicate that voters were won over by the candidates' ties to their communities, rather than PKR's brand and struggle. In Sarawak, the election of Baru Bian, See Chee How and Ali Anak Biju, were achieved through their long-known activism in Native Customary Rights and land rights.

Similarly in 2008 Sabah Election, the only PKR candidates that came close to victory (Daniel John Jambun, Awang Ahmad Shah and Jeffrey Kitingan) were supported by their familiarity as long-time serving leaders and activists within their communities. The result show potential - and PKR has the potential to win, but only through banking on the history and community ties of its local leaders.

The PKR Brand

However, looking forward to the 13th General Election, one thing is for certain: the PKR brand by itself does not hold up its weight in East Malaysia. Given the strong parochial and 'regionalist' sentiments of Sabah and Sarawak voters, PKR continues to be viewed as a 'Federal Party' or 'Parti Malaya', especially within the local bumiputera communities.

Indeed the actions of PKR's Head Bureau, sidelining local leadership choices and decision making of its Sabah Branch, has not gone unnoticed: as one independent Sabahan columnist, Erna Mahyuni, opines: "I wouldn't be surprised if Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim attempted to parachute another West Malaysian in to lead Sabah PKR like he did with Azmin Ali. What next? Azmin Ali as Sabah chief minister? If that happens, I am surrendering my passport and moving to the Philippines."

The perception of Sabah PKR as a "toothless body helpless to even choose its leaders" adds fuels to the perception of PKR and Anwar Ibrahim himself is continuing another 'Parti Malaya'. These sentiments may continue to grow, as allegations and aspersions of Anwar's role in Project IC and the establishment of Sabah UMNO continues to resurface. Looking forward, Anwar Ibrahim realises that PKR (and even his own) brand and struggle will not be sufficient to swing votes in Sabah; it comes as no surprise then, that the de-facto PKR leader has opted to pursue an alternative (some might say risky) strategy to Putrajaya.

Hot Cross BNs

Since re-entering the political arena, Anwar Ibrahim has undertaken a major political exercise to resurrect the careers of former Sabah UMNO politicians. The re-entry of these players provides that much needed 'established community history and local leadership experience' that is lacking amongst its existing candidates. The clout of these leaders and their affinity with the local community may reverse PKR's dismal performance in Sabah and Sarawak, particularly in Muslim Bumiputera areas.

However, even this may not provide the sufficient number to reach Putrajaya; as a last remaining arsenal, Anwar Ibrahim is currently engaging with existing Sabah and Sarawak BN politicians to cross over to Pakatan Rakyat. Already 4 MPs have successfully defected, with more anticipated. Indeed mutiny is simmering within the state, as Sabah UMNO's own Salleh Said Keruak (current Speaker of the state's legislature) boasting 'between 8 and 14 BN MPs (out of Sabah's 25 seats) would leave BN'¹.

The strategy is risky, and if successful, will secure Anwar Ibrahim the comfortable majority to form Federal Government; on the other hand if the strategy is unsuccessful (as seen in the Perak 2009 debacle), the crossovers will back-fire disastrously - it will certainly be defining the point of Anwar's political demise.

Reformasi-compromised

Already, the negotiations have soiled PKR's reputation in East Malaysia - they are reminiscent of Anwar Ibrahim own involvement in the infamous 1994 cross-overs, that resulted in the fall of Sabah's independent PBS government - and importantly, UMNO's entry into Sabah. In Peninsula Malaysia, the cross overs may signal that the BN ship is sinking; however, here in Sabah, they conjure up the nightmares of a previous decade.

No doubt with a successful crossover exercise, Malaysia will see a new Federal government - a final victory for more than a decade long struggle for Reformasi. Pakatan Rakyat supporters have argued that the Reformasi goal is so vital, that accepting BN politicians into the fold may be an essential means to a long awaited end. However, from the view of Sabahans and Sarawakians, the cross overs will mean one and one thing only: the same players of BN's long standing politicians will continue to remain within their clout and power over East Malaysia. Yes, the Reformasi dream can be realised federally - but Sabah and Sarawak must be sacrificed under the yoke of its politicians.

Heading towards a PR disaster?

The political exercise has not sat well with local Sabahans, leading to the up-in-arms exit of its crucial local leaders, including the previously mentioned heavyweights Daniel Jambun, Awang Ahmad Shah and Jeffrey Kitingan. Furthermore, the strategy may be inadvertently doing the opposite of it's intent, strengthening the possibility of an ironic 'protest vote' against PKR; recent surveys conducted by Merdeka suggests this may be likely, particularly within Bumiputera communities and younger, professional-working Sabahans.²

If the cross overs are successful, it will place immediate pressure on the remaining Sabah and Sarawak PR politicians:

Are they willing to fully embrace BN politicians and parties as equals in Reformasi?

Are they willing to ally and work, with those who they have fought their whole political lives against?

Will they be able to put the party's interest, above the Rakyat's interest?

Already we see murmurs within the coalition, with Penang DAP politicians pressing forward an "Anti Hopping Law" and Karpal Singh's ever untimely comments ("The DAP has always been against party hopping"). We may even see local politicians leaving Pakatan Rakyat in protest - as one Sabah DAP State Leader ominously decried: "Why should anyone sacrifice for Anwar's ambitions?"³ Indeed, rather than being the answer, Sabah is turning out to be the source of many questions and doubt for both Pakatan Rakyat and Anwar Ibrahim.

- Shashi Karu

1. US Embassy Cables (Jun 2008, Wikileaks)

2. Public Opinion Survey for Parliament Kota Kinabalu & Penampang (March 2012).

3. US Embassy Cables (Jun 2008, Wikileaks)

You are a lost cause (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 28 Mar 2013 10:03 PM PDT

The most popular comment from these people is that the Malays and Indians should wake up. What do they mean by wake up? Do they think that the Malays and Indians are still sleeping? In what way are the Malays and Indians still sleeping?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It's very funny to see those Bible-thumpers and Qur'an-screamers jump when you touch their raw nerve. They will rant and rave about God's work, principles, sacrifices, noble causes, community service, and all that bullshit. Then, when you corner them with hard facts, as opposed to mere rhetoric, they will accuse you of hitting below the belt.

One favourite of mine are those who challenge me to return to Malaysia if I dare. And if I don't dare then I should 'stop talking'. That is very laughable considering the challenge comes from those who throw this challenge using fictitious names and false e-mail addresses. They don't dare reveal their true identity and yet they call others a coward. And some of these people do not even live in Malaysia but post comments from another country.

Isn't that extremely funny and very typical of the Malaysian mindset? These are the same people who lament about the poor but will refuse to donate even one Sen to the poor. They would even throw their own parents into an old folks' home if they could do that free-of-charge and did not have to pay a single Sen towards the cost.

It is all talk and no action.

What about those who say that we must change the government because there is no freedom of speech in Malaysia and that we are denied our right to criticise the government? But when you criticise the opposition, these same people will scream and call you all sorts of nasty names.

When someone -- say from MCA, MIC or Gerakan -- says something in support of Barisan Nasional, they will call this person an Umno dog or prostitute. But what happens if you say something in support of Pakatan Rakyat? Are you an Anwar Ibrahim dog or prostitute? No, of course, you are not. But then why?

Then there are those who say that the NEP is unjust and discriminatory and they will raise the issue of education as the best example of why the NEP should be abolished. And when we write about how important education is to the non-Malays, they will scream and say that we know nothing about the mindset and priorities of the non-Malays and should, therefore, not be commenting about that matter.

Last week I wrote in support of the NEP and I related the story of my work in the Rotary Club of Kuala Terengganu to emphasis the point as to why we still need the NEP. I expected the non-Malays to call me a racist pig, which they did. Then, this week, I write about why the Chinese are angry with the NEP. And I used the issue of education to support my argument.

And do you know what happened? The same people who screamed discrimination and argued that the NEP is denying deserving Chinese students a place in the universities turned around and said I know nothing about what the Chinese want. But I thought the argument was that the NEP is discriminatory and that Chinese students are being denied a place in the universities because of the quota system? That's what you said and that was what I also said. So what is there to not understand about the Chinese mindset and priorities?

When they say that the Malays and Indians are still sleeping they mean that 90% of the Malays and Indians are not supporting the opposition like the Chinese are. Only 50% of the Malays and Indians support the opposition. Hence the Malays and Indians are still sleeping.

Hence 'sleeping' means you do not support the opposition while 'wake up' means you support the opposition. And it must be 90% to be considered 'woken up'. Only 50% means you are still sleeping.

In the UK, only 35% of the voters support the ruling party while 35% support the opposition. And the balance 30% support neither -- they support the 'third force', LibDem.

So what would you say about this? Which group has woken up and which group is still sleeping? And what do you call the 30% who support neither? They have not 'woken up' nor are they 'still sleeping'. What label shall we give them then, the 30% LibDem supporters?

Actually, it is bad to have 90% of the voters vote for one party. Prior to the 2008 general election I used to talk about a two-party system. In my talks during the pre-election rallies (ceramah) I still talked about a two-party system. And I pleaded with the voters to vote for Pakatan Rakyat so that we can see a two-party system in Malaysia.

And we saw that happen in 2008 when about half the voters voted for the opposition and Barisan Nasional lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament plus five states. So now it is time to bring it up to the next level. This coming election we may see a 'photo-finish'. Some say we may even see a hung parliament.

If that is true then it is time to move up to the next level, like here in the UK. No longer can we just talk about a two-party system, like what the UK (and the US for that matter) had for so long. The UK is moving toward a three-party system. And if you think that this was a flash-in-the-pan, in the latest Eastleigh by-election on 1st March 2013, LibDem won that seat. Hence the support for LibDem is still there in spite of what many may say.

See: The Liberal Democrats have won the Eastleigh by-election, with the UK Independence Party pushing the Conservatives into third place (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21625726).

To the Pakatan Rakyat supporters I can only say that you are your own worst enemy. Your mouth moves faster than your brain. You think you are clever but in reality you are quite dumb. You open your mouth without thinking and do more damage to your cause than Barisan Nasional, Umno, TV3, Utusan Malaysia, etc., can ever do. And you only have yourself to blame for the thrashing you are going to receive in the coming general election.

And do you know what my greatest fear is? My greatest fear is that most of the Chinese seats will fall to the opposition while most of the Malay seats will go to Barisan Nasional. Then we are going to see a Chinese opposition versus a Malay ruling party. And do I need to explain why such a thing is bad for Malaysia?

Go figure that one out for yourself.

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

你们真的无药可救

我常见的留言是'马来人和印度人必须醒起来'。醒起来是什么意思？他们认为马来人和印度人还在睡觉？请问他们是怎样个睡法呢？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

若你曾挑动过那些所谓圣经和可兰经拥护者的神经，你会发现他们的反应是近乎可笑的；他们会抬出上帝的名号，原则，牺牲，神圣使命，社会服务。。。等等的狗屁废话。而当你以实据而非华丽的词藻来反驳他们是就会讲你在攻击他们的下阴（即对他们不公平）。

而我觉得最经典的，是那些向我叫嚣，要我回国的一群。如果我不回应的话我就必须'闭上我的狗嘴'。那是最为可笑的，因为那些挑战我的人都躲在假的名字和电邮地址后。他们连公开自己真实姓名的种也没，但他们可以大言不惭地讲别人是懦夫。更扯的是，他们根本都不住在马来西亚；他们的留言是在他国发出的。

这真是马来西亚思想的最佳写照，非常的可笑。这些就是嘴里为穷人打抱不平，而口袋里永远都不会拿出一毛钱来帮助的人。若他们可以不付一分一毫的话，他们可以毫无考虑得把他们的父母丢进老人院。

这就是经典的只讲不做。

那对于那些整天讲说，我们要改朝换代因为政府压抑我们的言论自由，我们无法批评政府，他们又好到哪儿去？当你批评反对党时，他们就会跳出来对你大喊大叫，骂你难听的脏话。

当有人----就讲是马华，国大党，或民政好了----发表支持国政的言论时，他们会骂他巫统走狗，是巫统的娼妓。那相对的说，如果你发表支持民联的言论，你就是安华的走狗，娼妓咯？当然不是！那请问，为什么不是？

外面有些人讲说NEP是不公的，他们会举出教育的失败为NEP不公的证据。而当我写出教育对非马来人的重要性时，他们就会批评说我根本就不懂非马来人的想法，所以我应该闭嘴。

上个星期我以我在瓜拉登嘉楼扶轮社的经验来叙述NEP还有存在的必要性时，我早就预料到非马来人会称我为种族主义的猪。我是对的，因为他们确实这么骂。然后这个星期我写出华人对NEP的不满，我用了教育这个课题来支持我的论点。

你知道后来发生什么事情吗？那一群认为NEP对华人教育不公的人站出来大喊说，我根本就不懂华人要什么。奇怪了，我那篇文章正是讲说NEP经大学固打制而对华人教育上的不公，这正不是他们关心的课题吗？他们又怎能说我不懂华人的看法呢？

我常见的留言是'马来人和印度人必须醒起来'。醒起来是什么意思？他们认为马来人和印度人还在睡觉？请问他们是怎样个睡法呢？

他们说马来人和印度人还在睡觉因为90%的马来人和印度人还没有华人般的支持民联。只有50% 马来人和印度人支持民联，所以说他们还在睡觉。

从上面可以看出，如果你没有支持民联你就是在'睡觉'，反之则证明你是'清醒'的。而且必须要有90%的支持率才算'清醒'，50%的也不算。

在英国，只有35%的选民支持执政党，而有35%是支持反对党的。剩下的30%，他们就是所谓的'第三势力'，自由民主党（Liberal Democrats）。

你会怎么圈定他们呢？哪一组是清醒的，哪一组是睡觉的？那30%的选民，你会称他们为什么呢？他们既没有'睡觉'，也没有'清醒'，那我们又该如何辨别他们呢？

其实，有90%的选民倾向一个政党是不健康的。08年大选前我就强调两线制的必须性。我在大选讲座会上一直提起，我恳求选民们投给民联以实现两线制。

在2008年，我们看到50%的选民投给了反对党进而让国阵失去了在国会三分之二的优势和五个州的政权。所以现在我们应该再接再厉，在这次大选给国阵民联来个'终点相片判定'（即更加接近50-50）。也有人相信我们会把国阵送上断头台呢。

现在真的是我们更上一层楼的时候了。但就像是英国一样，我们不能再谈两线制，英国现在已经朝向'三党制'了。如果你认为这个想法只是昙花一现，你错了；在3月1号Eastleigh递补选举中，自由民主党是胜出的。所以我们可清楚地看见选民对自由民主党的支持，即使他人仍然相信那是无所其事。

看此：http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21625726

我只想对民联支持者说一句：你们才是你们自己最大的敌人。你们的口转得比你们的脑筋还快。你们自以为很聪明，但其实笨得很。你们一开口就比国阵，巫统，TV3，Utusan 等对你们自己更有杀伤力了。在来届大选中，你们必须为自己的动作付出代价。

你们知道其实我最担心的是什么吗？我担心的是华人区议席会落入反对党手中，而马来人议席则落入国阵手里，然后形成了华人在野，马来人在朝的形势。你们还需要我多解释其坏处吗？

你们自己想想吧！

Do you want to play poker with me? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 07:23 PM PDT

Rafizi also did not confirm or deny the meetings between Anwar and Misuari. He just said I lied. Did I lie about the meetings being held (which means there were no meetings) or did I lie about the reason for the meetings and about what was discussed in those meetings? Rafizi did not explain this.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some readers have challenged me to rebut Americk Sidhu's allegation against me. I will certainly do that but I am first working on the evidence. Once the evidence is complete, I will reveal what I have.

I also want to give some 'space' between P. Balasubramaniam's death and my revelation because what I reveal may not be too complimentary to the deceased private investigator -- nor to his lawyers such as M. Puravalen and R. Sivarasa, for that matter.

I think Americk is going to be shocked to find out what Puravalen and Sivarasa had hidden from him. I personally like Americk and he is a very nice person indeed. However, he can sometimes be a bit naïve about what I would call realpolitik. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik).

Meanwhile, I want to reply to Rafizi Ramli's statement in the video below (see minute 12.12 of that video). Then view Nur Misuari's Aljazeera interview, starting from minute 21.15 where he clearly states that Sabah and Sarawak belong to them and that the peace talks with the MILF (brokered by the Malaysian government) is merely aimed at cheating the MNLF of its right over Sabah and Sarawak.

Hence the motive of the recent intrusion into Lahad Datu is very clear. It was meant to 'stir the sentiments' of the very large Muslim population in Sabah. And considering that 32 of the 60 state seats in Sabah are Muslim-majority, this can have a bearing on the outcome of the general election. And whomsoever wins Sabah and Sarawak will get to form the next federal government.

First look at this chart.

You can see how over 50 years from 1960 to 2010 the Kadazan-Dusun and Chinese population of Sabah have been reduced by almost half while that of the Muslim population has increased dramatically. Furthermore, the non-Malaysian-citizen population is now about a quarter of the State's population. Hence one in every four Sabahans is a non-Malaysian citizen -- probably the highest ratio in relation to the national average of roughly 10%.

And these non-Malaysians, mostly Filipino Muslims, want Malaysian citizenship. And if that happens then the Muslims in Sabah would make up more than two-thirds of the state's population -- where once Sabah was regarded as a 'Christian' state. And these people want autonomy and a new Muslim nation-state comprising of Mindanao (population 25 million, mostly Muslims), Sabah and Sarawak -- 'independent' of both Malaysia and the Philippines.

To exploit this situation, therefore, is not that difficult. Sentiments, hatred and suspicion are running very high. The only question is: who is the one doing the exploiting? Is it Umno or is it PKR?

Umno has met the Muslim Filipinos and their excuse is that it is their job as mediator (pendamai) to meet the Filipinos. Anwar and other PKR leaders have also met the Filipinos. But they have not told us why.

According to the intelligence reports, the reason Anwar met the Filipinos is as I had reported in my article: The untold story of the Lahad Datu incident (SEE HERE). Rafizi says that this is a lie. However, in his press conference, he did not explain that if I had lied then what was the reason Anwar met Nur Misuari?

Nur Misuari made it very clear. They want back Sabah and Sarawak, which he claims belong to them. Was this discussed in the meeting between Anwar and Nur Misuari?

I already gave the date and place of both the first and second meetings. I also revealed that an Indonesian Member of Parliament had arranged the meetings at the behest of Anwar himself. Would Rafizi now like me to reveal the name of that Member of Parliament?

I can if he so wishes but I would not want to be the cause of a diplomatic row between Malaysia and Indonesia. Hence I do not want to embarrass the two governments by revealing the name of that Member of Parliament. And until either the Malaysian or Indonesian government challenges me to reveal his name, I will keep that card close to my chest for the meantime.

I do not always reveal what I have in my possession. For example, I have video evidence that the story regarding 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor's so-called RM24 million diamond ring is not entirely true.

Nevertheless, I am keeping that evidence and will not reveal it yet because the Pakatan Rakyat supporters will just accuse me of being bought, doing a U-turn, trying to sabotage Pakatan Rakyat, and so on.

You see, even if that story about Rosmah's ring is not entirely true, the Pakatan Rakyat people will not want me to reveal the evidence. They want this story to be thought true because this will work in Pakatan Rakyat's favour. Hence it is better that the not-true story be maintained than the truth be revealed.

Is this honest? Never mind whether it is honest or not. If the truth will hurt Pakatan Rakyat then better we perpetuate a lie or half-truth if that lie or half-truth can help Pakatan Rakyat.

In that sense I am also not honest. I have evidence of the truth and yet I hide this evidence just to help the opposition win the election. However, if someone would like to call my bluff and accuse me of lying, then I would have no choice but to defend myself by revealing the truth. Then don't scream that I should not do this so close to the election.

The bottom line is: be careful what you wish for. When you challenge me and call me a liar you are forcing me to defend myself. And you might not like what you see as the truth can sometimes hurt.

Rafizi: Raja Petra is telling tales (see minute 12.12)

4KDZhJiARv0

SEE ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KDZhJiARv0

Nur Misuari's recent interview with Aljazeera regarding the Lahad Datu incident (see minute 21.15)

vbjsw-iQ6wI

SEE ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbjsw-iQ6wI

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

你要跟我玩扑克牌吗？

Rafizi 也没有有承认或否认安华到底有没有见过Nur Misuari。他所说的是"RPK说谎"，那他指的是，我谎称那个会面的存在（意思是说，根本就没有会面那回事），还是说，那个会面是发生了，而我谎称了会面的内容/目的？ Rafizi他没有解释清楚。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

有些读者挑战我反驳Americk Sidhu对我的指控。你们别担心，我肯定会，但我必须先搜集证据。在我拥有足够证据以后，我才会公告天下。

其实，我也想在Bala之死和我把证据公诸于世之间给各空隙，因为我的证据可能会对刚刚逝世的Bala和他的律师（Puravalen和Sivarasa）不大有利。

我猜想Americk在发现Puravalen和Sivarasa隐瞒有他后，他将会是很惊讶。我自己本身很喜欢Americk，因为他真的是个好人，唯他有时候在面对现实政治会有点天真。（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik）

与此同时，我想要就Rafizi Ramli在下方影片的言论作出回应（请看影片的12分12秒，然后在看NurMisuari在Aljazeera的访问，在21分15秒他清楚地表示沙巴和砂劳越是属于他们（苏禄）的，而和MILF的和平谈判（马来西亚政府为协调者）则是用来欺骗MNLF就沙巴和砂劳越主权问题上的烟雾弹）。

拿笃事件的动机是显而易见的；它的目的是挑起沙巴庞大穆斯林人口的神经。沙巴60个国席中的32个国席都是多穆斯林选区，它对大选的影响是很大的。所以说称霸沙巴和砂劳越的政党就是即将组织新政府的政党。

让我们来看看下表。

你可以清楚地看到,在1960到2010这五十年里,卡达山和华人的人口比例降了将近50%,而穆斯林人口比例则显著激增。不只如此,非大马公民现在大约占了沙巴人口的25%,换句话说,每4个沙巴人中,就有一个是非马拉西亚人----相比之下,我国全国的非公民人口比例只有10%。

这些非公民,大多是菲律宾穆斯林,都想成为马来西亚公民。如果他们都如愿以偿的话,那么沙巴,一个曾经被誉为'基督之州'的州属,将会有66%的穆斯林人口。必须注意的是,这些人都有想要自组一个穆斯林国家的议程---他们想把棉蘭老島(2500万人口,大为穆斯林), 沙巴,和砂劳越统一且脱离马来西亚和菲律宾的管制。

所以说,如果有心人士要利用这个局面以自利的话,其实一点都不难：这是个尔虞我诈,自身利益为重的局面。现在的问题是, 有心人士到底是谁?是巫统？还是公正党?

巫统曾经以'我们是调协者'的名义和那些菲律宾穆斯林会面。安华和公正党领袖也和菲律宾穆斯林会面,但他们到现在为止都没有说出他们这样做的目的/理由是什么。

根据我的情报,安华的目的就是我之前所写的(The untold story of the LahadDatuincident按此)。Rafizi 讲这是个谎言。但是，在他的记者会上，他没有交代说，如果我真的说谎的话，那安华会见Nur Misuari 的目的是什么？

Nur Misuari 已经讲得很清楚了，他要'收回' 沙巴和砂劳越。这是否是他和安华会面的主题呢？

我把第一次和第二次会面的时间和地点都讲得很清楚，我也揭露是一个印尼的国会议员在安华的指令下安排这个会面的。Rafizi是否要我讲出那个印尼议员的名字呢？

如果Rafizi要我说的话，我绝对可以，但我不想成为马印两国外交争吵的起端。我不想因为给了那个名字而羞辱马印两国政府。所以如果他挑战我的话，我目前会把那张皇牌捉紧。

我并不会公开我所有的证据。举个例子，关于'第一夫人'罗斯玛2400万钻石戒指的指控，我就有影片证明那个指控是不完全正确的。

但是，我是不会公开那证据的，因为民联支持者只会骂我，讲我被收买，U转了，破坏民联。。。。等。

所以你看，即使罗斯玛戒指案是不正确的，民联是不会要我摆出证据的。他们要大众相信他们的版本，因为这样对他们有利。所以对他们来说，谎言会好过真相。

这成实吗？不重要吧。如果真相会对民联不利的话，那我们说谎也是对的！

这样推断下来，我也是不诚实的。我有确凿的证据，但我现在却把它给隐藏起来了以便反对党能够赢得即将的大选。但是，如果有人够胆说我讲骗话的话，我唯只有公开证据以示清白。到时，请别在那大喊大叫，说我不应该在离大选这么近时做出那种事。

总归一句，小心你想要得到的东西。当你挑战我，讲我是个骗子时，我必须得保护自己。你可能会看到你不想看得到的东西，因为真相有时是很伤人的。

70 years later and still the same (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 24 Mar 2013 05:14 PM PDT

Millions of Malaysians could go hungry as unpredictable weather in rice -producing countries is likely to affect our supply of rice. Unpredictable weather in rice-producing countries, spurred by Malaysia's rising population, could mean less food on the table, warned Kota Belud MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan. "If they have major flooding in rice-producing countries, such as Vietnam or Thailand, or assuming they go to war, where are we going to get our rice?" he asked.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

More than ten years ago, before Malaysia Today was launched, I wrote about the low food production in Malaysia -- in particular rice, which is the staple food of most Malaysians -- and said that if war ever breaks out Malaysians would go hungry; just like they did 70 years ago when the Japanese invaded Malaya and Malayans had to eat tapioca.

After 70 years since the Japanese occupation and more than ten years since I wrote that article, nothing much has changed. Today, Indonesia, which has a population about ten times that of Malaysia, has announced it is now self-sufficient in rice production. Maybe Malaysia should do what Cambodia did -- send the people from the urban areas to the rice fields to plant padi.

And that is why I should not be in politics. If I were and if my party were to win the general election, I would impose a one-year national service program and send school-leavers, plus those who are about to enter university, to the rice fields to serve their country by planting padi. And if you have not done this national service you cannot enter university or get a job -- unless you 'run away' to a foreign university without doing your national service (which means you will have to stay and work overseas after you graduate).

What is the focus of most Malaysians? Well, our focus is whether Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim makes the better Prime Minister. And those who will be voting in the coming general election are going to vote with this in mind -- which person is going to make a better Prime Minister.

Basically, the main factor is going to be whether Najib is guilty of involvement in Altantuya's murder and whether Anwar is bi-sexual and guilty of homosexual activities. If you think Najib is guilty then you will vote for Anwar (meaning Pakatan Rakyat) and if you think Anwar is guilty then you will vote for Najib (meaning Barisan Nasional).

No doubt some of you are going to say that you will not vote for Barisan Nasional because it is a racist and corrupt party. If Pakatan Rakyat is not also racist and corrupt then I would agree with this argument. However, when it is pointed out that Pakatan Rakyat is also racist and corrupt, many will reply that that may be so but Pakatan Rakyat is not as bad as Barisan Nasional.

In other words, Pakatan Rakyat may be just as bad but Barisan Nasional is worse. So you are prepared to accept the lesser evil over the bigger evil. That, of course, is your prerogative and in a democracy you have a right to your choice, whatever the reason may be for you making that choice.

But there are other factors we also need to consider. And we should be very concerned that the government we choose is in tune with what is happening in the world. All countries are moving towards self-sufficiency in food supply. And many countries have already achieved self-sufficiency. Malaysia, however, has been talking about self-sufficiency since the time of Tun Razak Hussein back in the 1970s and after 40 years is still just talking about it.

Food and water are crucial to life. And these are two things that in time are going to become scarce -- food and water. If, say, one day those countries selling us food decide to stop exporting food to Malaysia for whatever reason -- be it war, natural catastrophe, food shortage in the exporting countries, crop diseases, etc. -- where will Malaysia get its food supply from?

Golf courses, holiday resorts, shopping complexes, more cars on the road, high-rise condos, etc., are fine and allow Malaysia to project an image of success and progress. But at the end of the day we need to import our food to stay alive. And if another country wants to bring Malaysia to its knees it need not send in its army. All it needs is to stop sending food to Malaysia. In just a few weeks we will have to surrender without a single shot being fired.

So let's up the election fight one step. Whether Najib is involved in murder or Anwar in homosexual activities are certainly important points to consider. But this is not going to put food on the table. What is would be a government that has a clear program on how to make Malaysia self-sufficient in food, say in the next ten years, and not merely talk about it over 40 years and still be far from achieving self-sufficiency.

Yes, I know many of you are going to say that this is the whole reason why we need to change the government. But then I have not heard what this new government is going to do to guarantee us food on the table. And note that Anwar was once the Agriculture Minister and his policies as Agriculture Minister actually regressed things rather than progressed it. In fact, many people were actually unhappy with Anwar's policies and thought that he was undoing the good things that the Ministers before him did.

No, this is not an anti-Anwar article. This is about hearing what Anwar plans to do if he becomes Prime Minister to ensure Malaysians do not one day starve. And please do not give me political talk. Give me concrete and workable plans. And once this is addressed then we can talk about the other issues. But without enough food and water the other issues become meaningless.

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

Indonesia declares rice sufficiency, no more imports

(Jakarta Post) - Indonesia's State Owned Enterprises Minister Dahlan Iskan said Sunday that Indonesia would not import rice in 2013 as local farmers could produce sufficient rice to meet the domestic demand.

He said that as of December 2012, the existing rice stock inventory in state logistics agency PT Bulog's storehouses across the country reached around 2.5 million tons. Bulog should procure 3.5 million tons of rice during harvest periods this year.

"If Bulog can procure 3.5 million tons of rice during harvest periods this year we will not need to import more rice, as we did last year," said Dahlan, as quoted by Antara news agency. He spoke on the sidelines of a rice harvest event in Jati village, Jaten district, Karanganyar regency, on Sunday.

He said that from last year's rice imports, Bulog reaped Rp 800 billion (US$82.1 million) worth of profit. However, the profit was returned to the farmers so that the price of rice did not decline.

"To procure such a large amount of rice, from now on Bulog should use its full capacity to achieve the target. And if Bulog is willing to work hard, I'm optimistic that this can be achieved," Dahlan said, adding that in 2012, Bulog procured 2.6 million tons of rice from local farmers.

The Minister said that state run agribusiness firm PT Pertani planned to buy 100 units of rice dryer machines to distribute in several regions across the country. The machines would help farmers to dry their unhulled rice properly.

Dahlan said that obtaining fertilizer was no longer a problem for farmers and there was no more accumulation of fertilizer by traders.

"I haven't heard any more about traders accumulating fertilizer, which means that fertilizer distribution has been continuing under a mechanism requested by the farmers," said Dahlan.

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

Rice Consumption in Malaysia

Domestic consumption increased 3.8 percent to 2.7 million tons in 2011. Malaysia is about 62 percent self-sufficient. Consumption is forecast to increase about 4 percent in 2012 as demand is bolstered by an in-flow of foreign workers and tourists. While rice consumption per capita shows an increase from 81.6 kg in 2006 to 95 kg in 2010, the figure does not account for foreign workers and tourists.

In reality, the domestic consumption per capita is about 72 to 75 kg, and it has been on the slide vis-à-vis the consumption of wheat over the last two decades.

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Kuala%20Lumpur_Malaysia_2-15-2012.pdf

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

Experts: Rice production vital

Malaysia is 72 per cent self sufficient in rice production, Science adviser Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr Zakri Abdul Hamid said yesterday.

"Malaysia is progressing steadily. Ten years ago, we were 60 per cent self sufficient and in the next 10 years, we are aiming for 90 per cent," he said at the launch of a strategy meeting workshop on rice security.

"The global population is expected to swell to 9.3 billion by 2050, hence food security is critical.

"We need to find a way to accelerate our food production because Malaysia is one of the most import-dependant countries in the world," he said.

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

'Not enough rice to eat'

A rice shortage and a worsening self-sufficiency on food could force many Malaysians to go hungry.

Millions of Malaysians could go hungry as unpredictable weather in rice -producing countries is likely to affect our supply of rice.

Unpredictable weather in rice-producing countries, spurred by Malaysia's rising population, could mean less food on the table, warned Kota Belud MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan.

"If they have major flooding in rice-producing countries, such as Vietnam or Thailand, or assuming they go to war, where are we going to get our rice?" he asked.

Citing the 2008 global rice shortage as an example, he added: "If the crisis then lasted for another five or six months, we would all have had to learn to eat tapioca."

"This is no laughing matter. Our national rice stockpile was being consumed very rapidly, and we couldn't buy rice quickly."

Abdul Rahman said this in response to concerns raised by the World Bank over the country's worsening food self-sufficiency levels.

According to the Malaysia Economic Monitor (Smart Cities) report, the country's self-sufficiency in rice shrunk to 62% in 2007 from 71% in 1970.

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

Rice Supply Channel Needs Improvement

Problem and implications of low rice production growth that is not able to match the higher growth rate of the population of the world are the subject of a workshop on 'Sustainable Rice Production' here last week.

The workshop organised by the Faculty of Science and Technology (FST) of The National University of Malaysia (UKM) deliberated on solutions to overcome the escalating problem which include the growing of high yielding and quality rice while ensuring safety of the rice farmers.

Tan Sri Dr Mohd Noor Ismail, Corporate Advisor to Tradewinds Malaysia Berhad in his key note address at the workshop said the rice business has to be looked at wholistically from farm to shelf.

He said finding ways to grow rice better and faster is all well and fine but attention must also be given to the issues that goes beyond research so that whatever findings and innovations made will not be undermined.

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

70年过去了，一切还是没有改变。

近期在稻米盛产国变化无常的天气很有可能会影响我国的稻米入口，进而导致数以百万的马来西亚人民挨饿。哥打贝鲁（Kota Belud）国会议员阿都拉曼（Abdul Rahman Dahlan）指出，他国的无常天气，加上我国的人口暴涨，会导致我们人均食品量的减少："如果大水灾发生在那些稻米盛产国，如泰国，越南等，抑或爆发战争，那请问我们应该去哪儿购买稻米呢？"

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

大约十年前，在今日大马还没开网以前，我曾经讨论过有关大马国内食品供应——尤其是稻米（我国主要主食）供应——过低的隐忧。我甚至还提过如果战争爆发马来西亚人民将会挨饿，就如70年前二战期间日本入侵马来亚时，我们必须依靠木薯糊口度日。

70年过去了，我那篇文章也写了十年，一切还是没有改变。印尼的人口多于我国十倍，但日前他们早已宣布他们已拥有足够的国内稻米供应。或许大马应该多向柬埔寨学习——把城市居民带回乡间种植稻米。

这就是为什么我不应该参政的原因：如果我执政的话，我将会强制那些刚离开中学或即将进入大学的学生们参与一年制的国民服务计划——我会派送他们去种稻米。那些不愿意的人将不被允许进入大学和申请工作。当然你可以'逃离'到他国留学，但是毕业后你将会在国外生活和工作。

马来西亚人民最关注的是什么呢？我们关注的是，纳吉抑或安华，哪个会是比较好的首相？那些即将去投票的人都是这个思想模式的——哪个会是比较好的首相，他就会投哪个。

基本上，投票的因素会是：纳吉是否牵涉在阿丹杜亚(Altantuya)谋杀案中，而安华又是否是双性恋且牵涉在鸡奸案中。如果你认为纳吉是有罪的你就会投给安华（即民联），而如果你认为安华是有罪的你就会投给纳吉（即国阵）。

你们当中当然会有人跳出来讲说你们不投给国阵是因为国阵是腐败兼具有种族歧视的。如果民联是廉政且一视同仁的话我当然赞同你这个理由。事实上，当有人站出来指出民联的腐败和种族歧视时，很多人会认为这些指责可能是对的，但他们会说民联还没有国阵这么糟糕。

换句话说，民联是有问题的，但国阵更糟糕，而你愿意从两个烂苹果中挑一个比较不烂的。当然，这是一个民主社会，无论背后的原因是什么，你都拥有绝对的选择权。

我必须提醒你，我们还是应该参照其他因素。我们应该考虑到我们所选的政府是否能够跟上国际社会的步伐。所有国家都设法在食品供应上自给自足，很多国家都已经达成目标了。我国早在敦拉萨时期就提起了自给自足方案，但40年过去了，我们还是停留在'讲讲'这个阶段。

食物与水源是生活的首要必需品，而这两样东西在未来可能会面临短缺。若有朝一日我们的食物入口国因某些原因——战争，天灾，农作物歉收等——而拒绝继续供应我国粮食，那我们应该去哪儿买食物？

高尔夫球场，度假村，购物广场，高楼大厦。。。等等，都显示出马来西亚的发展与成功，但终究我们现今还是得入口食品以存活。如果他国想要我们俯首称臣的话，他们根本都不必发兵来袭，他们只需要停止供应我们食物。不出几个星期，也不用打出一枚子弹，我们就会投降了！

所以，让我们来为这次大选增添'看头'。虽然说阿丹杜亚案和鸡奸案都是重要的考虑因素，但毕竟这些都是不能拿来吃的。重要的是，政府必须提出有效方案以解决国内食品不足问题，而这个方案必须是要有事时间性的（比如说我们定制10年为限期）而不是有如上述40年的空谈。

是的，我知道你们当中会有人告诉我这正好是我们应该改朝换代的原因。但是，我并没有听说过这个所谓的新政府就食粮课题上做出任何承诺。你们应该知道，安华曾经当过我国的农业部长，而他当时的农业政策是开倒车的。是的，当时确实很多人对他的政策不满，认为他把前任农业部长的良好政策给搞砸了。

不，这不是一篇反安华的文章。我是要听听安华在当了首相后，他会怎样做以确保人民不会有朝一日挨饿。还有，麻烦你们别在给我上政治课；给我一个实在的，可行的计划。当我们解决这个课题后，我们才能解决其他的；没有了食粮水源，其他问题都是扯淡的。

The untold story of the Lahad Datu incident

Posted: 24 Mar 2013 01:00 AM PDT

On 16th July 2012, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim flew to Jakarta to meet Nur Misuari -- who is very close to Anwar since the days when Anwar was in the government -- and the military commanders of the MNLF. The meeting was held in the Crowne Plaza Jakarta hotel and was arranged by an Indonesian Member of Parliament -- another close friend of Anwar -- at the behest of Anwar. A second meeting was held in Manila on 4th August 2012 to finalise and seal the agreement.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I wrote about this matter eight years ago back in 2005. However, many of you were probably not yet readers of Malaysia Today in 2005 so you most likely did not read what I wrote then.

For those of you who can remember what I wrote, it was a very long story indeed but basically it was about the links between the Muslim leaders in the Malaysian government and the Muslim leaders in the Philippines and the role that Malaysia played in the 'internal affairs' of the Philippines.

Most Malaysians do not understand the difference with Sulus, MNLF, MILF and Abu Sayyaf -- as they do not know the difference between the PLO and Hamas. Nevertheless, let me simplify it by saying that they are all merely splinter or rival groups of the Muslims in the Philippines who are seeking self-determination, just like the Palestinians in the Middle East are. And Malaysia, being a Muslim country, sympathises with the Muslims of the Philippines -- as it does with the Muslims of Southern Thailand -- and is helping in any way it can to resolve both the Philippines and Southern Thailand issues.

Along the way, however, something went wrong. As I had written in 2005, certain promises were made that were not delivered. And this has a bearing on the Sabah 'IC issue' (you do not need a RCI for me to tell you that). And that resulted in the Sipidan hostage crisis and the involvement of Libya in helping to eventually resolve the crisis after many months of deadlock.

A reported RM50 million changed hands to secure the release of the hostages, the cost which Libya underwrote. Of course, no one is going to admit to this although they will not be able to explain how and why the hostages were eventually released.

But all that happened decades ago. We are talking about the start of the crisis in 1970, when many of you were not even born yet, and the hostage crisis 30 years later in 2000. Since then everything has been very quiet -- that is until last year when this whole thing was resurrected in preparation for the coming general election.

And this was what happened recently.

Anwar's and Nur Miusari's links go way back to the time Anwar was in government

A second meeting was held in Manila on 4th August 2012 to finalise and seal the agreement. Anwar flew to Manila on flight MH 704 and if you were to check these flight details you can confirm that Anwar did make this trip, as he did the trip to Jakarta just two weeks or so earlier.

In that meeting, Anwar told Misuari that he needs the latter's help to win the coming general election. Pakatan Rakyat was confident of winning at least 82-85 of the 165 seats in West Malaysia. It was the 57 seats in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan that he was not confident of winning.

Pakatan Rakyat needs to win at least 30 of those 57 East Malaysian seats to be able to form the federal government with an extremely slim but comfortable enough majority. (Anwar can always increase this majority later with crossovers from Barisan Nasional once they form the government). And for that to happen Anwar needs the support of the Muslims in East Malaysia, in particular in Sabah, many of them Filipino Muslims with Malaysian citizenship and voting rights.

Anwar promised Misuari that in the event Pakatan Rakyat takes over the federal government, Sabah and Sarawak would be given autonomy, as what they had been fighting for over 42 years since 1970. These two East Malaysian states would also be given 20% oil royalty, an increase of 15% from the current 5%. This would ensure that these two states would become very wealthy -- an estimated RM4 billion a year for each state.

Furthermore, all the non-Malaysian Filipinos in East Malaysia would be given Malaysian citizenship -- or at the very minimum permanent resident status -- so that they could seek employment in Sabah. Jobs for them will also be assured.

Nur Misuari agreed to these terms and subsequently appointed Haji Ibrahim Omar as the MNLF coordinator or 'unofficial ambassador' to Sabah to help Anwar garner the support of the Filipino Muslims in that state.

And that was why the Malaysian government hesitated to take drastic action when trouble first emerged in Lahad Datu. The government knew that there was more than meets the eye in this whole episode although it was not too clear yet at that time how this incident fit in to the bigger scheme of things.

To leave things alone is certainly out of the question. But taking military action would only play into the hands of the conspirators and convince the Filipino Muslims in Sabah that they must unite behind Anwar to gain autonomy from the federal government.

Yes, the Lahad Datu incident was certainly a 'wayang', as the opposition claims. Very few Malaysians would deny that this is so. Many Malaysians are also convinced that there are certain 'dalang' behind this incident. What they do not know is: who is the dalang? Well, Malaysia Today has just revealed the untold story and I challenge the Malaysian government to deny the authenticity of what I have just revealed.

Another point to consider is whether the 'war of words' between the MNLF and MILF is another wayang. By perpetuating this conflict, which will result in the torpedoing of the peace process, this gives them an excuse for continuing the armed conflict. However, the relationship between the MNLF and the other splinter groups does not appear as ruptured as what it shows behind the scenes, if the above photograph is anything to go by.

My conclusion to this whole thing is that there are many plots and sub-plots and at the end of the day we really do not know who is playing whom.

2. Columnist claims Misuari helped Sulu siege to derail Bangsamoro peace deal: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55284-columnist-claims-misuari-helped-sulu-siege-to-derail-bangsamoro-peace-deal

3. Anwar claims of BN plot to implicate him in Sulu clampdown: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55320-anwar-claims-of-bn-plot-to-implicate-him-in-sulu-clampdown

4. Sulu military commander captured: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55327-sulu-military-commander-captured

5. Lahad Datu: Kg Tanduo chief's son is coordinator for Sulu group, say police: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55326-lahad-datu-kg-tanduo-chiefs-son-is-coordinator-for-sulu-group-say-police

6. Sultanate: 8 terror accused are Malaysians, not Pinoys: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55315-sultanate-8-terror-accused-are-malaysians-not-pinoys

7. There's much at stake in Sabah: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/55346-theres-much-at-stake-in-sabah

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

Hostage crisis in the Philippines

(CNN, 23rd April 2000) - Abu Sayyaf gunmen attack a Malaysian dive resort on the island of Sipadan, seizing 21 hostages.

The hostages -- 10 tourists and 11 resort workers -- were taken to an Abu Sayyaf camp on the southern Philippine island of Jolo.

Over the following months all but one of the hostages, a Filipino, were released, allegedly after ransoms of up to US$1 million per hostage were paid to the kidnappers.

READ MORE HERE: Libya and the Jolo Hostages (20th August 2000) http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=126

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

AFP mum over sultanate's Sabah intrusion

The intrusion occurred just as former Malaysian leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, also Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader, proposed that Sabah be granted autonomy.

(AFP, 16th February 2013) - ZAMBOANGA CITY: Philippine military officials kept silent over the daring intrusion of dozens of Filipinos into the eastern Malaysian state of Sabah, where authorities surrounded them and were negotiating for their peaceful surrender as of press time.

Reports said that the men are members of the sultanate of Sulu province and North Borneo and the Moro National Liberation Front (MILF), and that some of them were armed.

The Filipinos were believed to be active in the campaign to reclaim the Malaysian oil-rich island, which is part of the sultanate.

"The Department of Foreign Affairs has the sole authority to give a statement about that," Col. Rodrigo Gregorio, spokesman for the Western Mindanao Command, told The Manila Times.

The Philippine Embassy in Kuala Lumpur and the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila have not issued any official statement about the situation in Sabah's Lahad Datu town, where some 100 Filipinos, many of them wearing military uniforms, were holding out.

Foreign Affairs spokesman Raul Hernandez said that they are still trying to ascertain and complete the facts of the Sabah incident.

The Sultanate of Sulu obtained Sabah from Brunei as a gift for helping put down a rebellion on Borneo Island. The sultanate of Sulu was a Muslim state that ruled over much of the islands off the Sulu Sea. It stretches from a part of the island of Mindanao in the east, to North Borneo, now known as Sabah, in the west and south and to Palawan province, in the north.

The Sultanate of Sulu was founded in 1457 and is believed to exist as a sovereign nation for at least 442 years. Malaysia, which is now brokering peace talks of Manila and the MILF, still pays a token to the heirs of the sultanate of Sulu around 6,300 ringgits each year.

Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said that they will do their best to prevent any bloodshed. Gen. Tan Sri Ismail Omar, police inspector, and Sabah Police Commissioner Datuk Hamza Taib, said that the Filipinos arrived in speedboats and that police and military forces have encircled the men.

"In terms of strength, we have the upper hand in combat power to arrest them, but the government opts for negotiation to break the stalemate so that they leave peacefully to southern Philippines," the prime minister was quoted as saying by the Malaysian news agency Bernama.

"We have more and less identified the group. But let the police negotiate with them and hopefully, it will bear fruit and succeed. This is because they cannot go anywhere, they have been surrounded . . . They have no choice and have to find a solution," he added.

The intrusion occurred just as former Malaysian leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, also Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader, proposed that Sabah be granted autonomy.

Sultan Muhammad Fuad Kiram I, the sultan of Sulu and the sultan of Sabah, said that Malaysia illegally occupied Sabah. "Sabah is still the property and sovereign patrimony of the sultan of Sulu and the royal sultanate of Sulu to this day," he said in the website of the royal hashemite sultanate of Sulu, which is accessible at http://www.royalsulu.com.

He said that the sultanate supports "a free and independent Sabah [which] will be under our reign and our heirs and successors according to law of succession as the reigning sultan of Sabah."

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

Authorities urged to reveal if Sulu militants are 'Project IC' Malaysians

(The Malaysian Insider, 21st March 2013) - PKR has urged the government to reveal if the Sulu militants who invaded Sabah last month were given blue identity cards (ICs) under Project IC.

The Sulu sultanate said yesterday that Agbimuddin Kiram — the brother of self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III — was never issued a blue IC, but admitted that he had worked as an assistant district officer in Kudat on Sabah's north.

"The confirmation (by the Sulu sultanate) raises worries among many quarters whether the armed group in Lahad Datu involves Malaysians originating from the Philippines who hold blue identity cards," PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli (picture) said in a statement today.

"This matter raises the possibility of threats to national security, as a result from certain parties allegedly linked to (former Prime Minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who allegedly gave citizenship without due process," he added.

Dr Mahathir, Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister who was in power from 1981 to 2003, has been accused of spearheading the so-called "Project IC", in which citizenship was allegedly given to immigrants for their votes.

PKR said yesterday that Agbimuddin was appointed in the civil service in 1974, based on a 1975 Sabah government payroll dug up from the state's archives.

The Sulu sultanate's spokesman, Abraham Idjirani, reportedly said yesterday that Agbimuddin was still alive after fresh clashes against Malaysian security forces that killed two Sulu militants yesterday.

The Sulu sultanate's "raja muda" or crown prince had led a 200-strong band of gunmen into Lahad Datu last February 9 and turned the Sabah east coast into a violent battleground in their bid to retake the state.

Rafizi also urged the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants in Sabah to continue its proceedings to expose the illegal issuance of ICs in the Borneo state.

The RCI is due to resume on April 15, according to RCI secretary Datuk Saripuddin Kasim.

The RCI, which was formed on August 11 last year, has an additional six months to complete its probe after receiving the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's consent.

Former Sabah National Registration Department (NRD) officers have testified at the RCI that blue ICs were sold to Filipino, Indonesian and Pakistani immigrants in Sabah.

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

Misuari cautioned not to take advantage of Lahat Datu episode

(Daily Express, 21st March 2013) - Kuching: Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Richard Riot on Wednesday cautioned former Moro National Liberation Front leader Nur Misuari not to try and take advantage of the Lahad Datu episode to advance his personal selfish agenda.

In rebuking Misuari's claim that Sabah rightfully belonged to the so-called Sultan of Sulu, he said, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had made it categorically clear that the State was part of Malaysia and no one should question its sovereignty and territorial integrity as a legitimate part of Malaysian territory.

"My advice to Misuari is, if he is a peace-loving man as he desperately claimed to be and if he really loves and cares for his Bangsamoro, he should support and join the efforts towards the peace agreement within the framework that was signed recently between the Philippines government and Bangsamoro for long-lasting peace in Mindanao," he told a media conference here.

Cautioning Misuari to heed the Malay proverb, "jangan menagguk di air yang keruh" literally translated as "not to fish in murky water," he urged him to devote his remaining energy and time to the peace accord for the good of his fellow countrymen and government of the Philippines, to which he owed his loyalty.

He said the promotion of peace was one of the pillars of Malaysia's foreign policy and, for which, the country would vehemently protect and defend every inch of Sabah against foreign aggression and any hostile action.

"We have witnessed that turmoil and instability in Southern Philippines have certainly brought no advantage to anyone but only to burden Malaysia and other neighbouring countries having to host those fleeing their homes for safety and better lives," Riot said.

There was nothing that Malaysia desired for its neighbours more than for them to enjoy peace, stability and prosperity, he said.

For that reason, he said, Malaysia had been actively involved in peace keeping missions all over the world and willing to broker peace efforts in neighbouring countries, particularly in the Philippines.

He said the warm bilateral relationship between both countries was reflected when the regional governor of the autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, Mujir S Hataman, paid him a courtesy at his office in Putrajaya in October last year.

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

Lahad Datu: Misuari's claim a lie, says MILF

(The Star, 21st March 2013) - The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) has denied the claim that the Malaysian Government had used it to strengthen its claim on Sabah.

MILF secretariat head Mohammad Ameen also dismissed claims by former Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) chairman Nur Misuari that Malaysia was responsible for promoting disunity among the Moro people.

"This is a total lie and completely fabricated. Misuari has committed a sin for making such an irresponsible and callous statement against both the MILF and the Malaysian Government.

"He should rectify and atone for this," Mohammad was quoted as saying in a news report by the Luwaran News Centre yesterday.

He was responding to Misuari, who accused Malaysia of being a "stumbling block" in efforts to unite rival Moro groups in southern Philippines.

Misuari also said that the MILF was "the instrument of Malaysian colonialism" and that it was Malaysia which was "pulling the strings" behind the MILF.

Mohammad pointed out that it was Malaysia who called for the formation of the Bangsamoro Solidarity Conference (BSC) in 2002 to unite the MNLF and MILF factions, as well as to promote a common position among them, especially in their dealings with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

"How could Malaysia use the MILF to strengthen its claim to Sabah when Sabah has never been made part of the agenda of the peace talks since 2001?" said Mohammad.

He said Malaysia did not volunteer to facilitate the peace talks between the MILF and the Philippine Government, but it was the then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in 2001, who requested Malaysia to act as a negotiator.

Mohammad questioned why Misuari was so eager to raise the Sabah claim now when throughout his 21 years of peace talks with the Philippine government, he had never raised the issue.

"It is a pity that Misuari is blaming everyone else for the failure of his leadership and growing irrelevance to the Bangsamoro struggle to self-determination," he said.

"As a leader, Misuari has nothing more to prove. It is better for him to rest, write his memoirs, and allow the new breed of leaders to lead the Bangsamoro people towards the fulfilment of their true aspirations."

Talking to a ten-year old

Posted: 21 Mar 2013 06:19 PM PDT

The NEP is not just about stocks and shares and listings on the stock exchange. The NEP is about the aspirations of a two-prong attack: reducing the gap between the haves and the haves-not and reducing the disparity between the different races. Hence, while the Bumiputera ownership of stocks and shares or listed companies may have met a shortfall, what about the rest of us, which the NEP is also about? Are we still short in those areas as well, as we may be in corporate wealth?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Never mind whether I write a short article (The Chinese and Indians screwed up) or a longer article (Conjecture, imagination and suspicion), the average Malaysian still does not understand what I am trying to say. This only goes to show the low comprehension level of most Malaysians. And these are the same people we are depending on to make the right decision in the coming general election.

God help Malaysia when we need to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum and the monkeys in charge of the zoo.

Now, allow me to speak to you as I would to a ten-year old. The events of 1982 and 1992 that I talked about in the two previous articles regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP) were specific to the Malay Chamber of Commerce, which I was not only a member of but I also sat in the Central Committee.

Hence the discussion focused on issues of concern to the Malay Chamber -- and that would be the Bumiputera share of the corporate wealth of Malaysia. It does not involve other issues such as land, housing, education, jobs, etc. The Malay Chamber represents the Malay business community and the job of the Chamber (just like in any Chamber of Commerce anywhere else in the world) is to focus on the needs and aspirations of its members.

Hence it speaks on behalf of only the members of the Chamber. It would not, for example, be speaking on behalf of the taxi drivers, trishaw pullers, lorry owners, petty traders, teachers, bank employees, civil servants, ex-servicemen, ex-policemen, etc., who all have their own associations to represent their interests.

It is like, say, the Association of Chinese Barbers. This association does not represent all Chinese or all barbers. It represents only its members. So to say that the association should not speak on behalf of all Chinese or on behalf of all barbers (the Malay and Indian barbers included) is silly. And in that same spirit to say that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce does not represent all the Chinese in Malaysia is equally silly. Of course it does not. If you are not a member of that Chamber then it does not and cannot represent your interest or your views.

Now, what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad tried to do in 1982 was to act as matchmaker between the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce so that both Chambers can work closely to resolve issues of concern to the Malay businessmen and women. If the business community can work together to resolve their issues, then the government can ease off and not get involved with what were clearly 'business issues'. And if the relationship works and there is close cooperation between both business communities, then the government can leave the businessmen and women alone and not force policies down their throats.

When it did not work, ten years later in 1992, the government organised a Bumiputera Economic Congress where everyone can get involved. This was not to be a Congress where the Malays make demands and hold the government to ransom. It was to be a Congress where everyone can come to a mutual agreement on what to do. This is not about what the Malays want. It is about what the Malays, Chinese, Indians and others jointly want. It was to seek a consensus of all the races and not listen to the demands of just the Malay business community, and only those who are members of the Malay Chamber on top of that.

The Malay argument was that after so many years of the NEP the Malay share of the corporate wealth increased from just 1% to 4% while that of the Chinese increased from 30% to 60%. The Chinese, however, argued that, in terms of percentage, the Chinese corporate wealth only doubled while that of the Malays increased four times. Hence the Malays saw four times the growth that the Chinese saw.

In terms of growth the Chinese are, of course, correct. The Malay wealth increased four times while that of the Chinese only doubled. In absolute figures, though, the Chinese are far ahead of the Malays at 60% compared to only 4% for the Malays.

Then there was another issue that the Chinese raised. Are you looking at Malay wealth based on par value at the time the shares were issued or at market capitalisation? At par value, say RM1.00 per share, the figure would be lower compared to market capitalisation, say, RM10.00 per share. Hence, are we comparing apples to apples?

The second point was: are you looking at Malay wealth based on what they currently still hold or based on what they were originally given, which had already been sold and at a huge profit on top of that. In other words, is your calculation based on current shareholdings or based on what has passed through the hands of the Malays? What the Malays currently hold in terms of stocks and shares may be only 10% or less of what they originally received. And the 90% or more, which the Malays have since sold, would have been sold at a profit, which is not reflected in the calculation of the corporate wealth of the Malays.

Hence, in short, what formula do we use to decide how wealthy the Malays are? And unless we can agree on that formula, and hence arrive at the correct bottom-line, how do we even begin to resolve the problem when we do not even know what the problem is.

(Now do you see why short articles do not work? There are many issues to an argument that need to be raised).

Now, remember that we are still talking about just the corporate wealth or corporate share of the Malays in comparison to the other races. But not all of us have stocks and shares or own companies listed on the stock exchange. Hence this debate, argument, disagreement, or whatever, does not involve all of us. What if you are a makan gaji (salaried employee), student, farmer, smallholder, fisherman, trishaw puller, food stall operator, etc? Whether it is 4%, 19%, 30% or 60% is of no concern to you. This is merely the concern of the Malay, Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce, and in particular to the members of those Chambers.

Yes, those are social issues that the social scientists need to address and which the Chambers of Commerce does not talk about. Do more Malays receive an education now than before? Do more Malays get to go to university now than before? Are more Malays employed now than before? Are more Malays living above the poverty level now than before? Do more Malays own homes now than before? Do more Malays own cars now than before? Do more Malays live in the urban areas now than before? Are there more Malay professionals now than before? And so on and so forth.

So there is more to the NEP than just stocks, shares and listed companies. But the story I told you in the previous two articles concerns the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce and even then specific to events in 1982 and 1992. But it appears like many of you just do not understand this. And this is why many of you posted comments that had nothing to do with the issue.

First understand what is being written and then comment. And the issue was regarding the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce and the events of 1982 and 1992 and what Dr Mahathir tried but did not work out mainly because the Malays and Chinese could not agree on the formula to apply and hence what the solution should therefore be.

And instead of trying to find the middle ground -- as in any 'peace process' there would always be a middle ground -- the Chinese chose to remain silent and not participate and allowed the government to do what it wanted.

That, in a nutshell, is the message I am delivering. However, those wearing blinkers would be hard-pressed to see this message.

Conjecture, imagination and suspicion

Posted: 19 Mar 2013 08:56 PM PDT

Long before 1970, the Chinese, led by Siew Nim Chee, the economic adviser to Lim Goh Tong, approached the Finance Minister, Tan Siew Sin, to propose a sort of economic policy to help the Malays. The Chinese realised that sooner or later there would be turmoil in the country if the economic imbalance between the Chinese and the Malays were not addressed.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Yesterday's article, The Chinese and Indians screwed up, was a good experiment in readers' mentality, comprehension skills, and IQ level.

Firstly, I cut my normal 3-4-page article to just one page in response to some readers who complain that they cannot understand long articles. If they feel that a 3-4-page essay is too long to understand, imagine what they would say if I wrote a 200-page thesis. This thesis would probably be lost on most of them.

Apparently, even if the article is a short one-page article they still do not understand what I am saying, as most of the 146 comments have proven. Hence it is not the length of my articles that is at fault but the brain of the readers that is to be blamed. Short article or long article, they still do not understand what they read.

Secondly, yesterday's article was in response to the whining, moaning, bitching, grumbling, lamenting and complaining regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP). When I revealed what happened in 1982 and then what happened again in 1992, most readers were caught off-guard. They were not aware about the 1982 and 1992 episodes. However, not wanting to admit their ignorance, they started posting comments that were way off the mark.

And most of these comments were not based on facts or eyewitness accounts but were based on conjecture, assumptions, guessing and speculation. I was there in 1982 and 1992 and was involved with what happened. Those who posted comments were not, but they still posted comments as if they knew what happened for a fact.

Thirdly, everyone assumes that the failure of the NEP was solely and entirely the fault of Umno and the Malays. Now that I reveal that the Chinese and Indians had been given an opportunity to correct the faults in the NEP and even end it and replace it with something else, but they did not do so, the readers deviate from the issue and raise all sorts of lame excuses such as the fear of Operasi Lalang, about Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad being a dictator, that even if the Chinese and Indians speak up no one would listen, and so on.

Let me tell you something else that most of you are probably not aware of.

Long before 1970, the Chinese leaders, led by Siew Nim Chee, the economic adviser to Lim Goh Tong, approached the Finance Minister, Tan Siew Sin, to propose a sort of economic policy to help the Malays. The Chinese realised that sooner or later there would be turmoil in the country if the economic imbalance between the Chinese and the Malays were not addressed.

Siew Sin, however, did not take up the idea and when May 13 erupted in 1969, those Chinese who were in the know and who had tried to do something actually blamed Siew Sin for the race riots.

That's right, while you blame Umno and Tun Razak Hussein for May 13, the Chinese who had attempted to avoid such a thing as May 13 blamed Siew Sin for not listening and for not doing what the Chinese had proposed.

Ironical, don't you think so?

When Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister, he tried to get the Chinese to 'take over' the job of reducing the economic imbalance between the Malays and the Chinese so that the government could end the NEP in 1990. The Chinese, however, thought that this is not their job to nurture the Malays. Let the government worry about the Malays. Why should the Chinese worry about it?

The Bumiputera share of the 'corporate pie' in 1970 before the implementation of the NEP was just 1%. Hence the target was set at 30% although the Bumiputera population was 60%. By the time Dr Mahathir took over in 1981, the Bumiputera share had grown to 4% -- or 19% if you include the 15% share of the trust agencies and GLCs. By 1990, it still remained at the same level as in 1981. In short, it had stagnated mainly because of the economic slump of 1985-1987.

The main question and bone of contention then was can the 15% share of the trust agencies and GLCs be added to the 4% personal share of the Bumiputeras considering that the trust agencies and GLCs belong to the government and therefore to the nation? For example, does Petronas belong to the country or to the Malays?

That was one main disagreement between the Malays and the government. The government says that the Bumiputeras own 19% of the corporate pie while the Malays insist it was only 4% -- since what is owned by the nation does not belong to the Malays individually.

Nevertheless, while the argument was about whether it is 4% or 19%, whatever the case may be it was still short of the 30% target.

In 1991, the Malay Chamber of Commerce wanted to organise the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress to discuss the NEP. Dr Mahathir summoned the Committee to his office to inform us that the government will take over the organising of the Congress.

I was in that delegation to the PM's office and was appointed as the spokesman. I was told to protest the move by the government to 'hijack' the Congress. However, there were no two ways about it. The government will take over and there was to be no further discussion on the matter. Furthermore, we were told that the government was going to invite everyone to participate in the Congress.

When we were told this we protested. I stood up to argue that how can we call it the Bumiputera Congress when the non-Malays were going to be part of the Congress and would decide on what the new post-NEP policy was going to look like? But Dr Mahathir's decision was final. The government will be organising it and the non-Malays were going to be part of it. Accept that or the government will proceed without the involvement of the Malay Chamber of Commerce.

We were mad as hell but could not do anything about it. Clearly the Malay Chamber had lost its monopoly on the NEP. The non-Malays were now going to have a say in what happens post-NEP. And that was when many of us in the Malay Chamber swung over to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's Semangat 46.

Dr Mahathir and Umno had 'abandoned' the Malays and had opened up the new policy post-NEP to the non-Malays. This was a betrayal of the Malay cause; the way we saw it then. And Dr Mahathir was no longer regarded as the trustee of the Malays.

Surprisingly, Dr Mahathir had 'given the non-Malays a knife' but they did not use it. Dr Mahathir was in the mood to end the NEP and replace it with something else. We did not know what that something else was going to look like but surely with the non-Malays having a say in what it was going to be could not be something favourable to the Malays.

But the non-Malays did not pick up the knife offered to them. Dr Mahathir was clearly very angry. His response was that the government had given us the opportunity to sort this out amongst ourselves and since we had failed to do that then we have given the government no choice but to unilaterally decide what the new post-NEP policy was going to look like.

In 1990, Barisan Nasional won only 53.4% of the votes and 70.55% of the Parliament seats (and lost Kelantan to PAS-Semangat 46).

In 1992, the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress was held.

In 1995, Barisan Nasional won 65.2% of the votes (the highest ever: even better than in the 'historical' 2004 general election) and 84.38% of the Parliament seats.

The 'message' from the 1995 election result was that the people were happy. Hence I decided to leave the Malay Chamber of Commerce. It was futile to continue if the people were happy with the government and all our effort regarding what to do with the NEP, or post-NEP, had gone to waste.

Now you know why I get very vocal and abrasive with people who shout and scream about the NEP. And don't even try to give excuses as to why all this happened. I know what happened. I was there. You were not. And all your comments and views are based on conjecture, assumptions, guessing and speculation.

The Chinese and Indians screwed up

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 08:03 PM PDT

There is some chatter going on in the Internet regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP) so I thought that maybe I would address this issue. Some readers, however, have said they are incapable of reading my 3-4-page articles. Some say they only read the titles and then start posting comments based on the title. For the sake of these people who want to read brief articles, today I shall try to be as brief as possible.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In 1981, Tun (then Dato' Seri) Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Malaysia's Fourth Prime Minister.

Soon after he took office he invited members of the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce for dinner at the Equatorial Hotel in Kuala Lumpur. He then placed five Malays and five Chinese at each table for ten and made us all sit alternate to one another.

Dr Mahathir then told the Malays that the NEP had run for more than 11 years and had less than nine years to go before it ended. And, as promised, it will end in 1990 because it is not fair to the non-Malays to extend it beyond 20 years. Hence the Malays need to be prepared to face this day.

Dr Mahathir also told the Chinese that they would need to work with the Malays and help them achieve the aspirations of the NEP so that the government can end the NEP in 1990 as planned. If the NEP ended far short of the target, then this might create a lot of dissatisfaction, which is not good for the stability of the country when one race harbours a grudge against another.

In 1991, Dr Mahathir proposed that the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress be held at the PWTC where the various races, political parties from both Barisan Nasional and the Opposition, Malay-Chinese-Indian Chambers of Commerce, associations, societies, movements, NGOs, etc., could sit down for three days to discuss the ending of the NEP and how the government should face the post-NEP era and address the various short-comings in the social reengineering experiment of 1970-1990.

(SEE MORE HERE: http://www.pmo.gov.my/ucapan/?m=p&p=mahathir&id=210)

At this Congress, which was held in January 1992, the audience was shocked by the public quarrel between Anwar Ibrahim, the then Finance Minister, and Rafidah Aziz, the Trade and Industry Minister. These two Ministers plus the other members of the Cabinet could not agree on a common policy.

The non-Malay members of the Congress, in particular the Chinese and Indians, did not put forward any proposals and attended the session merely as silent observers. They just listened to what the Malay participants had to say without contributing any ideas.

Eventually, the Congress ended without any concrete proposals other than the 20-point Memorandum from the Malay Chamber of Commerce (which Raja Petra Kamarudin presented to Tan Sri Sanusi Junid), which the government accepted as merely an Addendum to the main Resolution from the Congress proper, which was that the Congress left it to the government to resolve the issue of what to do in the post-NEP era.

For all intents and purposes, the Congress failed because the Cabinet Ministers, the non-Malay participants, the members of the Opposition parties, and the Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce, did not contribute any ideas and proposals that the government could consider and adopt as Malaysia's new policy post-NEP.

Malaysia at the crossroads

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 07:41 AM PDT

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. So Umno ensures that the Malays never forget history and that once upon a time Malay territory was colonised for 446 years before it saw independence again mainly because the Malays were not united and that it is possible this can happen again if the Malays do not remain united.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why do we need to learn history? One reason would be because those who do not know or forget history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. My usual example would be Hitler. He repeated Napoleon's mistake and thus suffered Napoleon's fate. Nevertheless, looking at things on hindsight is always easy. Everyone can be an expert on hindsight. It is whether one has foresight that matters.

The second reason for learning history would be so that one can develop analytical skills. Are you able to look at history from an unbiased and critical eye and analyse the events for what they were at that particular time and place? Most times we would judge history from our own point of view. And our own point of view would be influenced by our value system. And this value system would, in turn, be influenced by society's norms depending on era and region.

For example, how would you view the Conquistadors of the 1500s -- soldiers, explorers and adventurers in the service of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires? They were initially set up to recapture the Iberian Peninsula that was under Muslim control known as Al Andalus. Over the next 200 years they sailed through most of the world to conquer new territories on behalf of Spain and Portugal.

For all intents and purposes, the Conquistadors were professionally trained soldiers or mercenaries who were very ruthless. The Conquistadors were motivated by just two things -- religion and wealth -- and their objective was to spread Christianity at the point of the sword and to colonise new territories and rob those territories of its wealth.

Today, we would probably call these people pirates and terrorists. However, 500 years ago, they were considered Christian warriors and patriots who plundered the world and eradicated the anti-Christ with the blessing of the Pope in Rome. But how would you, the student of history, judge the Conquistadors? Would you apply today's value system and call them pirates and terrorists or the value system of those days and call them warriors and patriots in the service of God?

You would most likely say, who cares? What relevance is the Conquistador of the 1500s to Malaysia of 2013 where our concern is the coming general election and what the outcome of it is going to be? Well, it may have more relevance than you suspected and it may have more bearing on the coming general election than you had imagined.

First of all, the Conquistadors would not have existed had the Muslim army not occupied part of Christian Europe. Had the Muslims stayed in the Middle East then Christian pride would not have suffered and there would have been no reason to form a mercenary army to retake conquered Christian land.

Then, once this Christian army had fulfilled its task of driving the Muslims out of Europe, it embarked on its own conquest of the world and ventured into Africa, South America, China, India and South East Asia.

In April 1511, Afonso de Albuquerque set sail for Melaka with a force of 1,200 men and a dozen and a half ships. On 24th August 1511, they conquered Melaka and it became a strategic base for Portuguese expansion in the East Indies. The Portuguese, however, did not conquer Thailand. Instead, in that same year, the Portuguese established diplomatic relations with Thailand by sending an ambassador, Duarte Fernandes, to the court of King Ramathibodi.

Why did the Portuguese conquer Melaka but not Thailand? Well, mainly because Thailand was united and had a strong king while Melaka was divided and the other Sultans in Perak, Kedah, Riau, etc., did not come to the aid of the Sultan of Melaka.

In short, as Umno always tells the Malays, the disunity of the Malays resulted in the fall of Melaka and eventually the entire Malay Archipelago was colonised by the western powers -- starting with the Portuguese then followed by the Dutch and finally the British.

To the non-Malays this may not be a significant point. To the Malays, however, this point is very relevant. Malay disunity resulted in the Malays becoming an occupied race. It was not until Umno was formed in 1946 did the fortunes of the Malays change for the better.

So, as far as the Malays are concerned, history is very clear about the issue. No Malay unity and the Malays become second-class citizens in their own country. Malays unite under the umbrella of Umno and the Malays retake the country that they lost.

Now, how do you address this belief? Umno is constantly reminding the Malays about what happened in August 1511 and why it happened. Umno is also constantly reminding the Malays about what happened in August 1957 and why it happened. And to the Malays this makes sense.

You may argue that what happened in 1511 is so long ago and is no longer relevant. Try telling the Irish that what happened in 1641 is so long ago and is no longer relevant. It is still relevant as far as the Irish are concerned and they can never forgive nor forget the events of 1641 when the English 'colonialists' led by Oliver Cromwell invaded Irish land. Hence, if the Malays are being silly then so are the Irish. History may, over time, be forgiven but it can never be forgotten.

This is a very difficult subject to broach mainly because it involves emotions and sentiments. And you can never rationalise emotions and sentiments. You must also never challenge emotions and sentiments head on. You need to carefully navigate around them. And the Malays are very emotional and sentimental, with feudalistic to boot. And Umno has mastered the skill of playing on the emotions and sentiments of the Malays.

No, this is not a non-Malay-bashing article. This is not an article bashing anyone for that matter. This is about what Sun Tzu said: know your enemy. And the 'enemy' here is the heart and minds of the Malays. You can't fight this type of 'enemy'. You have to win over this 'enemy'. The question is: do you know how?

The coming general election is going to be one of the most crucial general elections in Malaysian history. If Umno gets kicked out this may be the end of Umno for a long time to come. Hence Umno cannot afford to lose this election. But how do we convince the Malay voters that the defeat of Umno does not translate to Melaka falling to the Portuguese in 1511?

Well, this is the job for the politicians and I am not a politician.

The Deepak-Bala marriage: in Deepak’s own words

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Deepak Jaikishan was called to the MACC office a few times. This is already public knowledge and is no secret. What is still a secret, though, is what did Deepak tell the MACC? Until today we have not been given the gist of Deepak's statement. And what we are also not being told is why after more than a month still no action is being taken.

From what we know, based on the newspaper reports, Deepak's first couple of visits to the MACC office came to naught. Deepak told the MACC that he was 'not yet ready' to give his statement and went home, promising to return another day. Finally, on 25th January 2013, Deepak gave his statement to the MACC. However, until now, no one knows what he told the MACC. Neither Deepak nor the MACC are talking.

We are still trying to get our hands on a copy of the MACC report, and there is a strong possibility that that may happen very soon. In the meantime, while we try to get our hands on that report, maybe we can share with you the gist of what, according to our Deep Throat, Deepak told the MACC. Let us see whether this part of Deepak's story is going to appear in his 'official statement'.

What our Deep Throat said appears consistent with what Bala said in his exposé at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) on 27th February 2013 plus what he related in his Singapore interview (which you can see on YouTube) and in the London press conference earlier. It is also consistent with Deepak's interviews with Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today.

The only part that remains hazy is: did Bala contact Deepak or did Deepak contact Bala that resulted in the meeting in Rawang that same evening that the first SD was released? Both claim that 'the other person' initiated the meeting. Nevertheless, the rest of the story appears consistent -- except for the part that Bala was allegedly promised RM700,000 by M. Puravalen as payment for the first SD, which Bala has thus far never mentioned but which Deepak says did happen.

Anyway, read what our Deep Throat has to say about the matter.

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

In October 2006, Bala was in Razak's office at the time when they received a phone call from Puravalen (picture above). Puravalen said he had something very urgent to discuss with Razak concerning Altantuya. Razak then agreed to meet Puravalen who arrived not long after that.

Puravalen told Razak that the police were about to arrest him (Razak) for the murder of Altantuya. Razak suddenly went pale and started to panic.

Puravalen told Razak not to worry and that he will handle this matter provided that he (Razak) agreed that he (Puravalen) will act for him as his lawyer. Later Razak's family found out that Puravalen was actually linked to Kalimullah and was feeding information to the 'other side' (Karpal Singh included) through Kalimullah. Razak's family suspected that Puravalen, who is very close to Sivarasa, was trying to fix up Razak so they decided to sack Puravalen and replace him with Shafee Abdullah.

In July 2008, Puravalen was the one who introduced Bala to Sivarasa and Americk. Sivarasa then arranged for Bala to meet DSAI to discuss signing a SD to directly implicate Najib and Rosmah to Altantuya's murder. Bala met DSAI twice, the first time a few days before the SD was signed and the second time on the SD day itself wherein he sat beside DSAI and gave his PC flanked by his lawyer.

The first time Puravalen brought Bala to meet DSAI, he was promised RM700,000.00 if he agreed to come up with the SD by 1st July 2008. DSAI had agreed to pay the RM700,000.00 through Puravalen and the payment was to be made in two stages -- Part A, RM200,000.00, immediately and Part B, RM500,000.00, after the PC. On 1st July 2008, Bala made the SD and proceeded to conduct the PC on 3rd July 2008, organised by DSAI and his lawyers at the PKR HQ.

Unfortunately for Bala, after the PC, Puravalen only paid him RM100,000.00 although he had received RM200,000.00 from DSAI. Puravalen told Bala that DSAI had instructed for the balance to be paid after a few days. The balance RM500,000 Puravalen pocketed all to himself without Bala knowing. This angered Bala and he tried to contact DSAI through his lawyer, Americk, and other people he knew in PKR such as Sivarasa. But DSAI never responded at all to him because DSAI believed that Bala was fully paid.

At the same time, Bala started getting calls from the Brickfields Police Station and he became worried that the police will lock him up again like the last time during the Altantuya case. He started to panic as DSAI was not responding to him and the lawyer had just cheated him of his only income to enable him and his family to leave Malaysia. Bala doesn't know that Puravalen cheated him.

Bala, the next day after waiting for DSAI or his lawyer to call him, realised that he had been cheated of his promised money by DSAI and the lawyers. He then contacted Deepak through a mutual friend, Suresh, and asked to meet Deepak so that he could relate what had happened. Deepak informed Suresh that he will first discuss this matter with Rosmah and get back to him ASAP.

That afternoon, Rosmah called Deepak regarding the SD matter and the discussion got to Bala. Deepak told Rosmah what he had found out from Suresh and she asked Deepak to try and help to resolve the attempt to frame her husband with the murder case. Deepak told Rosmah he will speak to Bala directly and get a true picture of the entire events and how this thing can be resolved. Deepak spoke to Bala on the phone number given by Suresh and asked him if he was prepared to tell the truth of about SD conspiracy, which was now being exploited as a political asset by Najib's competitors.

However, Bala was reluctant to do so as he said he didn't want to trust any politicians as DSAI had cheated him on the amount of money promised and at the same time he was worried that Najib's people were going to get him arrested again like during the Razak Baginda case. Deepak told Bala don't worry because if he was willing to tell the truth he will be protected and will not be harassed by the police. He can get this assurance.

After a long chat, Bala was still unconvinced and told Deepak he will call back later. Deepak then called Rosmah and reported the entire conversation to her. She then told Deepak to come to the Putrajaya house and meet her husband to explain all the matters. Deepak went to Putrajaya, Sri Satria, and met Najib and Rosmah on the first floor lounge and detailed his conversation with Bala. Najib asked Deepak to convey to Bala that it was important that he speak the truth and tell about RM700,000 promise by DSAI.

The reason DSAI had asked Bala to make the SD was because to stop Najib from taking over PM post from Pak Lah and DSAI informed Bala that he needed Najib and Rosmah to be directly implicated. The timing was perfect and DSAI wanted this whole thing to implicate Najib and Rosmah to prevent him from becoming PM and thus allowing him to succeed with his September 16th plan to get the MPs in Sabah to defect so that he could become PM as they were demoralised at that time under PM Badawi's administration.

Deepak met Bala in Rawang at about 9pm and they had a long discussion about the entire affair involving the SD and his experience during the time he was employed by Razak Baginda. The next day Bala signed his second SD to contradict the first SD that he had signed.

Private investigator P. Balasubramanian's interview in Singapore

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX0l1V_Ms4

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZdiTk48400

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tVzHDuyzyE

Deepak Jaikishan's statement corroborating Bala's story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2o7lIVH1Dg

Previous news reports on the matter

1. Lawyer Puravalen to give police statement in PI Bala case http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/lawyer_puravalen_to_give_police_statement_in_pi_bala_case.html

2. Lawyer M. Puravalen claims libel by NST, seeks apology or will sue http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/lawyer-m.-puravalen-claims-libel-by-nst-seeks-apology-or-will-sue

3. Explain alleged conspiracy, duo told http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/explain-alleged-conspiracy-duo-told-1.127878