Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Stop the Buku Jingga lie
GE13 – Make the right choice
When the Fog of War lifts on Lahad Datu Standoff!
Political suicide or stroke of genius?

Posted: 19 Mar 2013 07:12 PM PDT

Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy pens his political thoughts while on his 11th day of hunger strike.

By P Waythamoorthy, FMT

Today is the 11th day of my hunger viratham (hunger strike). I continue to feel weaker with each passing day.

The variety of visitors is broadening. Among the visitors yesterday were several politicians. I would like to thank all the politicians who visited me to show their concerns for my condition during my viratham.

However what I would also like to tell all my politician friends is that the time spent in coming all the way to the temple in Rawang to visit me probably is better spent in lobbying within their respective political parties to get their bosses to endorse the Hindrag Blueprint.

This is the best way for them to show concern. The condition for my going off the hunger strike is very clear:

The Malaysian government led by Najib Tun Razak must endorse Hindraf's 5-Year Blueprint in a binding manner to commit to a plan of implementation of all the six proposals in the blueprint as long as they remain the government,

The government-in-waiting of the Pakatan Rakyat led by Anwar Ibrahim must endorse the blueprint in a binding manner and commit to its implementation, should they be forming the next federal government.

My request to my politician friends is to help us to realize the blueprint.

Today I would like to lay out some of my thoughts on Pakatan's Buku Jingga and Hindraf's Blueprint.

It is a lie to say that the Buku Jingga covers Hindraf blueprint proposals.

Xavier's photo opportunity visit

I would like to make mention of an incident with one PKR politician Dr Xavier Jeyakumar who visited me yesterday.

When asked by one of the other visiting wellwisher as to why Pakatan was reluctant to sign the blueprint, he replied with a question of his own: "Why should we sign your blueprint when it is all in our Buku Jingga?"

The wellwisher then requested Xavier to show where exactly the Buku Jingga covered the Hindraf blueprint proposals. She got silence for the answer.

We were left wondering if Xavier had made that long trip just to convince me to drop our demands for the blueprint endorsement because Pakatan had it all covered.

Isn't it making a mockery of my basic purpose for the hunger strike, which Xavier made an occasion of, to visit?

He being a professional politician just came for the photo opportunity, that is all. If he really felt as he answered, then there clearly was no other purpose for his visit.

In any case, I would like to make it very clear that the Buku Jingga consists of the Common Policy Platform of the parties representing the Chinese interests and a section of the Malays and the Pakatan Agenda which covers eight broad areas and a 100 day action plan.

In all these, what you get other than broad statements of intent are some targets. There is no serious discussion in the Buku Jingga about the plans for realising any of these.

Another great lie

The Buku Jingga broad statements and goals just cannot cover the specific proposals of Hindraf's blueprint. It is apples and oranges.

Pakatan politicians have to stop lumping together what is logically incompatible. It is a lie. There is no way any Pakatan politician can answer the lady yesterday to show where the blueprint proposals are covered in the Buku Jingga. They are not!

The NEP had the stated goal of poverty eradication and economic restructuring so as to eliminate the identification of ethnicity with economic function. The NEP policy document much like the Buku Jingga stated their intentions in these kinds of broad statements, but then we all know how much of a lie the NEP had become.

It became a vehicle for hijacking the national resource – sapu bersih. In fact NEP was initiated in 1970, just the time the massive displacement of the Indian plantation workers began.

Instead of eradicating poverty for the Indian plantation workers, they were pushed deeper into a poverty trap by the development plans arising from the NEP. RM1.1 trillion were spent in the 10 development plans in the name of NEP.

How much of that went to eradicating poverty among the displaced estate workers?

READ MORE HERE

GE13 – Make the right choice

Posted: 19 Mar 2013 04:44 PM PDT

The choice at GE13, to me, is clear. A new government will assuredly give us reform.

By Kee Thuan Chye

Voters, you have to decide soon. The 13th general election has to be held at the latest within two months of April 28, when the current government's term expires. It may even be called next month if Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has the gumption for it.

Meanwhile, if you haven't decided yet which coalition – Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat – should win federal power for the next five years, consider this.

After 55 years of ruling this country, where has BN got us?

The country is more divided than ever. We have been polarised on racial and religious lines for decades, but now we are divided by political leanings as well.

What about our economic progress?

According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates, Malaysia's GDP per capita based on the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) methodology amounted in 1980 to US$2,331. South Korea's was lower at US$2,302, and Taiwan's was slightly higher at US$3,571.

But in 2011, South Korea's figure rose to US$31,220 (an increase of 1,255%), Taiwan's to US$37,716 (up 956%), while Malaysia's stood at US$16,240 (up 596%).

What happened? How did South Korea overtake us and in 2011 record a figure that is double that of ours?

Some people say the GDP (PPP) per capita is not so comprehensive, so let's look at per capita income instead.

In 2011, South Korea's per capita income was US$22,424 and Taiwan's was US$20,083. How much was Malaysia's? US$9,656. Again, half that of South Korea's, and also Taiwan's.

Najib pledges to make us a high-income nation with a per capita income of US$15,000 in 2020. By that time, what do you think the per capita incomes of South Korea and Taiwan would be? Furthermore, would US$15,000 still qualify as high income then?

By the way, our neighbour, Singapore, that used to be part of Malaysia, has a per capita income of US$46,241, which is almost five times ours. And they don't have natural resources like we do.

In the last few years, the government has hardly been talking of making Malaysia an advanced nation, which is the goal of Vision 2020, tabled in 1991. It has been more than 20 years since, enough time to consolidate efforts to attain the goal, but we are apparently not near it. The talk these days is only about becoming a high-income nation instead. That's not the same as becoming an advanced nation.

Corrupt practices and economic leakages

Clearly, wastage, leakages, imprudent government spending and, above all, corruption have retarded our growth. And the problem is compounded by the ruling party itself being mired in corruption.

Is BN therefore likely to address this issue in a serious and concerted manner? Has it been doing so, apart from hauling in a few culprits from time to time?

Shouldn't we bring in a new government that is not so entrenched in this system of corrupt practices and economic leakages?

If we should, the 13th general election may be the only time to do it. Because if BN wins again, it is likely to gerrymander the electoral boundaries afterwards to its advantage and make it even harder for the opposition to win future general elections. In which case BN will be ruling Malaysia for many more years to come.

Would it then be likely to bring reform? Or would it rather continue to maintain the status quo to ensure it holds on to power and reap the rewards of being in government?

However, if the opposition coalition, Pakatan, were to win, what would be the biggest benefit to Malaysians? I think it would be the concretisation of the reality that a two-coalition system can work and is here to stay.

And isn't this what we need? If not for the March 8, 2008, electoral result, would we be feeling as important as we do today as the people who decide who should govern us? Would we be feeling that our votes do count? Would the government be listening to us as much?

A two-coalition system provides for a stronger opposition, and this is always good for applying pressure on the ruling party to do what is right and what is of benefit to the rakyat. When BN had its two-thirds majority, it enjoyed a monopoly. It could push anybody aside and any laws through Parliament. It could be arrogant. Even now, it still is but less so.

Do you think that if BN were not voted out come GE13 so that it would experience what it's like to be in the opposition, it would be able to reform itself in order to serve the people better rather than its own interests?

Look at Umno, the biggest party in the BN coalition. It is dominated by warlords – big ones and small ones. To them, losing their fiefdom is losing almost everything.

Holding office, even a relatively small one, opens the door to potential riches for the office holder and his supporters. The bigger the office, of course the greater the wealth. He will therefore not want to give it up.

That is why Umno's leaders are going around appealing to the party's members not to sabotage candidates selected to stand at GE13; the leaders know that those who are deprived of the opportunity will be envious of those who supplanted them, and they will be motivated to seek revenge against the latter.

This may be cutting off their noses to spite their faces because the act of sabotage can result in a defeat for the Umno candidate and therefore the party, but they don't care.

The point is, they lost their chance to stand – and with it their passport to wealth, like the extra percentage they load onto the costs of public projects to line their own pockets with or the kickbacks they get for giving approvals.

Their supporters, who will also lose out in terms of influence, business opportunities, etc, will go along with their act of sabotage. Why else is our prime minister merely half-hearted in weeding out corruption? Because it's too deeply rooted within his own party.

So how can we continue to give our votes to such a party or its coalition partners, like the MCA, the MIC, Gerakan, PBB, PBS, etc?

Posted: 19 Mar 2013 12:55 PM PDT

Patriotism in Sabah begins with Sabah and does not end with Malaysia.

Joe Fernandez

We have not heard the last of the Lahad Datu Standoff if it degenerates, as it appears more than likely now, into prolonged guerrilla warfare as in the southern Philippines, but perhaps more low-key.

There's a huge security vacuum in Sabah.

Witness the fact that 1.7 million foreigners, mostly illegal immigrants, flooded into Sabahby 2005 alone to dwarf the 1.5 million local population as Putrajaya looked the other way in a wink wink relationship with rogue elements. It's unprecedented in world history.

An estimated 800,000 of the foreigners including illegal immigrants are Suluks, many with MyKads which in the absence of state government sanction as the initiating party on a case by case basis, they are not entitled to obtain and not eligible to hold in Sabah. They may be matched in number only by the Bugis from Sulawesi in Indonesia. There's no love lost between these two large immigrant groups, the local Suluks in particular in the east coast having a strong sense of proprietorship, but that's another story.

Nature, according to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, abhors a vacuum. (Aristotle was a student of Plato, a Greek philosopher, and a teacher of the Macedonian Alexander the Great who became King of the Greeks. Plato, in turn, was a student of Greek philosopher Socrates.)

The reasons for Lahad Datu, given the fog of war, may keep changing during the course of such a conflict.

The first casualty in a war is the truth.

Beheadings, mutilations a Public Relations disaster of highest magnitude

However, to accuse Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim of having a sinister hand in Sabah and Sulu is a simplistic notion, if not cheap politics of hitting below the belt, which will not camouflage Putrajaya's sins in Borneo and the southern Philippines. It will not cover up the fact that the Administration has blood on its hands on both sides of the Sulu Sea. Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice president Tian Chua was right to imply Putrajaya's bloody hands in his numerous statements reported recently on Sabah.

It cannot be denied that the current security situation in Sabah was created solely by Putrajaya which is responsible for the matter.

For starters, they dillydallied for three weeks in an act of extreme weakness if not desperation and to play politics with the issue because security in Sabah until recent days was under the Prime Minister's Department -- so more illegal immigrants can come in and enter the Electoral Rolls -- and not under the Police or Armed Forces.

Who trained the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and gave them safe havens inSabah? MNLF leader Nur Misuari's recent statement on these issues must be taken seriously as he, more than Putrajaya, gets the benefit of the doubt in a balance of probabilities.

By the same token, we don't know whether the Sulu terrorists admitted to carrying out beheadings and other mutilations in Sabah during the on-going Lahad Datu Standoff. The Suluks have more to lose for such dastardly acts, if true. It would be a Public Relations disaster of the highest magnitude; play into Putrajaya's already bloodied hands, and turned the local population against them.

The truth, as usual, may be somewhere in between.

There may be rogue elements involved, if not on one side, then the other.

Or, it could be a distasteful display by the population within that specific locality for any number of reasons.

We can only await a special Parliamentary session on the crisis, a Royal Commission of Inquiry or a White Paper with bated breaths. Meanwhile, Tian Chua's sedition case should be stayed and not be used for cheap politics by the Najib Administration.

Malaysia has no stomach for war in Sabah after southern Philippines

In a reversal of the high stakes cheapo war game played for so long in southernPhilippines by Malaysia, Sulu "terrorists" in Sabah or from Sulu -- or freedom fighters in their language -- will have safe havens in the southern Philippines if the flare-up in Sabahcontinues. They will also have access to arms, men and material from the MNLF and its breakaway Abu Sayaff, noted for its kidnappings along the east coast of Sabah.

Malaysia will have no stomach for such a war after being allegedly engaged, overtly and covertly, in the long-simmering conflict in the southern Philippines.

If push comes to shove, and if there are no "beheadings" and similar atrocities on the part of the militants, the people of Sabah will not back Malaysia in a war against the Suluks, whether in Sabah or from Sulu. Put it down to their historical grievances over the unfinished business of Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak and their ties to the Suluks. The Suluks, if they take advantage of the widespread anti-Malaysia feeling in Sabah and Sarawak, will be like the fish swimming in a sea of popular support. Patriotism in Sabah begins with Sabah and does not end with Malaysia.

The "heirs" know that possession is nine-tenths of the law when it comes to the negotiating table for a diplomatic and political solution. Even so, the Suluks in Sabah or from Sulu would have to unconditionally surrender any territory seized when the country (Sabah) regains its independence.

Defunct Sulu Sultanate no leg to stand on in Sabah

The "heirs" of the defunct Sulu Sultanate -- citing marginalisation and disenfranchisement -- may grab at least Felda Sahabat centred around the Tungku Township in Lahad Datu, this being part of the territory in the Sabah east coast which covers the waterways where Sulu used to extort tolls from the terrified traffic along them. This would force The Issue on Sabah & Sarawak: the UN would have to address the fact that No Referendum was held in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Malaya on Malaysia. Already, the UN has offered in the wake of Lahad Datu to intervene in Sabah.

The Cobbold Commission in 1962 was not a Referendum but a sampling of community leaders. Ironically, only the Suluk and Bajau communities polled agreed to Malaysia. The others, including the Orang Asal, were against the idea of Malaysia in Borneo to facilitate on demographic grounds the merger between Chinese majority Singapore and non-Malay majority Malaya.

Singapore held a Yes or No Vote on independence through merger with Malaya viaMalaysia.

Brunei stayed out of Malaysia at the 11th hour largely because of a rebellion in the sultanate against the idea of Malaysia.

The defunct Sulu Sultanate, of course, does not have a leg to stand on in Sabah or parts of it.

It has no private property rights to Sabah or any part of it.

It cannot claim sovereignty over Sabah.

Suluk marginalisation, disenfranchisement does not equate Sabah claim

All the "heirs' have is the 1939 Mackasie Ruling of the High Court of Borneo which recognises their right to collect RM 5, 300 per annum collectively from the Sabah Government. This is a token or fragment of history having largely only symbolic significance.

The defunct Sulu Sultanate's so-called transfer of sovereignty over Sabah not so long ago to the Philippines Government by Power of Attorney -- now expired -- is a nullity from the very beginning in international law.

The sovereignty of Sabah rests with its people.

The Sulu Sultanate died out, recorded the Madrid Protocols of 1877 and 1885, when its last Sultan died without leaving a male heir. Spain which was ruling the Philippines gave up all or any territorial claims in North Borneo under the Protocols with the United Kingdom and Germany. Read:

http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/Protocol%28Madrid%29.pdf

The Suluks in Sabah, claiming marginalisation and disenfranchisement since 1963, given the continuing influx of Bugis illegal immigrants in particular and Usno being deregistered to make way for Umno, is another matter altogether. This cannot be related to the so-called Sabah claim.

Sabah became British colony after World War II

The Brunei Sultanate has denied giving any part of Sabah to the Sulu Sultanate.

Read:
http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/special-reports/54937-sabah-and-the-sulu-claims
http://www.bt.com.bn/golden-legacy/2013/03/07/sabah-and-sulu-claims

The entire land area of Sabah belongs to or potentially belongs to the Orang Asal under Adat as Native Customary Right (NCR).

Adat and the Orang Asal came long before the Sulu Sultanate's "Agreement" with the British North Borneo Chartered Company which obtained a Crown Charter from the Queen of England to rule Sabah on her behalf.

Sabah was never conquered in a battle or war by any party except by the Japanese during World War II, and this too was an unprovoked war in Sabah and therefore amounted to war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The Japanese in Sabah were "defeated" by the British and subsequently surrendered.

So, by a legitimate Act of Surrender, War and Conquest, Sabah became British Territoryuntil it was returned to the Orang Asal and other Sabahans on 31 Aug, 1963 by self-determination. Even so, the Colonial Office in London agreed to purchase Sabah from the British North Borneo Chartered Company for 1.2 million pounds sterling.

Sarawak independent for 150 years under a Rajah

Malaysia (Malaya) does not have leg to stand on either in Sabah or Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak, two independent countries, were dragged by the Malayan and British Governments against their will into Malaysia on 16 Sept 1963.

Sarawak became independent on 22 July, 1963 after a brief period of British colonial rule after World War 11 during which the Japanese occupied the country. Sarawak was an independent country under a Rajah for over 150 years before the Japanese marched in.

In an interview with Veronica Pedrosa of al Jazeera on Sun 17 Mar, 2013 at his home in Mindanao, Nur Misuari -- tagged the original Muslim rebel by the station -- said Malaysiahad no right to be in Sabah and Sarawak. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2013/03/201331421944766446.htm

l
He challenged Malaysia to appear before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and prove its case on Sabah and Sarawak.

He said that Malaysia was a colonial occupying power in Sabah and Sarawak and accused it of using the MNLF-breakaway Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as an instrument of its colonial policies.

He said peace would only come to the southern Philippines when Malaysia is removed from the equation. He expects MNLF-Manila peace talks to resume sometime this month in Jakarta.

On Sabah and Sarawak, Nur Misuari hinted that Malaysia "will be inviting some crisis" if it does not end the colonial occupation of these countries.

The chickens are coming home to roost

Even so, pending UN intervention; the Registrar of Societies (ROS) should allow the registration of Usno to pacify the Suluks in Sabah.

It should also rule that the parti parti Malaya have no business being in Sabah andSarawak. This is a violation of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, one of the many constitutional documents making up the unwritten Constitution of Malaysia. It would become clear once the fog of war lifts that the presence of such parties in Sabah is among the reasons, albeit indirectly, for the Lahad Datu Standoff.

The chickens are also coming home to roost after the Election Commission, on the directive of a self-serving Putrajaya, naively divided the Electoral Rolls in Sabah as composed of Muslim Bumiputera, non-Muslim Bumiputera, Chinese and others.

The so-called Muslim Bumiputera on the Electoral Rolls is packed with illegal immigrants at the expense of local Muslims.

The non-Muslim Bumiputera category tries to drive a wedge between the majority Christian Orang Asal and minority Muslim Orang Asal when they are related to each other.

Rabu, 20 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan