Jumaat, 29 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Democracy : The Hypocrisy of DAP Cyber Troopers and Supporters

Posted: 28 Mar 2013 12:05 PM PDT

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLCHvgTCJV0pv-pYR_nYIiVI1TS0umUDPNqyjvNOSdcKwhsJaLYg 

Is there any benchmark that whoever protested against Barisan Nasional then they are Heroes and whoever that protested against DAP will be shamed? 

Shen Yee Aun

On 22 March 2013, I led a peaceful rally to submit a memorandum to the Chief Minister of Penang and the Secretary General of DAP. Since then I had been heavily ambushed by all the DAP troopers and supporters in the internet. What shocked me is that most of their comments is actually slapping at their own face.

1. I am not from Penang

If I am not from Penang then is the current Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng from Penang? They have forgotten the facts that I organized it together with 2 Penang-based NGOs and as a Malaysian and in a democratic country should we have boundaries of which state we should or should not go? DAP supporters and troopers must understand that Penang belongs to all Malaysians and not belonging to DAP.

Most importantly, the memorandum that we submit is not only about Penang issues and there are also a few national issues that need clarification from the DAP Secretary General of Malaysia. Is DAP supporters trying to say that DAP Lim Guan Eng is only they DAP leader for Penang and not a leader for all Malaysians?

What about Wong Tack that carried his Himpunan Hijau roadshow nationwide in many of the states that he was not born in?

2. Traffic Jam and Few Businesses Close Shop

The whole process of the event took less than 2 hours and the number of crowd maximum will be 500 - 1000. If my peaceful memorandum rally will cause traffic jams and it is really an issue then what about their BERSIH 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0?

So in Malaysia as long as anybody protests against DAP then it will be wrong to cause traffic jams and whoever that protested against Barisan Nasional and even no matter how bad is the traffic they are causing they will never be wrong?

So a few business close shop then it is my fault for causing their loses and when almost the entire Kuala Lumpur close shop during BERSIH 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 then is not their problem?

3. Shame vs Dignity

All the DAP supporters and troopers are slamming me that I am a shame to the nation, Penang people, the country and even dragging my parents in.

Is there any benchmark that whoever protested against Barisan Nasional then they are Heroes and whoever that protested against DAP will be shamed?

4. DAP are the betrayers of Democracy

DAP are the loudest to shout for freedom to assemble, gather, protest and yet when any individual or entity protest against them, they quickly claim that it is wrong. So is DAP actually shouting for freedom of both sides or only just 1 sided where only pro-DAP supporters are allowed to protest?

5. Accusations Towards our Malaysian Police

There easily few hundreds FRU and police force  in a rally of just 500 – 1000 people. None of us provoked any of our Malaysian police who are doing their job and none of us actually went beyond the line that we are not supposed to cross over. So why would the police need to catch us when we did nothing wrong? Did any of our supporters ambush or attack any police or police car?

Not even a single person in the protest gave the kind of hand and body language instruction like Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali to break through the police barricade. Most importantly they just totally ignored the FRU and Police who came to protect KOMTAR during a small scale peaceful memorandum protest.

6. What is UBAH?

Why should Malaysia political scenario reach a situation where DAP troopers and supporters can only accept 1 sided democracy, freedom and rights while objecting the other entity for such freedom?

Is this type of PERUBAHAN / UBAH a positive type of changes or actually the same or even worse?

7. Do DAP really believe that they are a better choice than BN?

In that memorandum, I did mention that I am most willing to debate with any of current DAP 70 000 members and leaders (any amount, any time and any place) on the title that Pakatan Rakyat is better than Barisan Nasional and now after almost a week DAP does not even dare to send a single person to prove that Pakatan Rakyat is better than Barisan Nasional?

The problem with DAP supporters and leaders will be if they were to challenge anybody for a debate and if that person dares not accept then they will claime that they are scared, wrong and etc but when challenges are forwarded to them, hardly will they ever accept.

Court turns a blind eye to justice

Posted: 28 Mar 2013 11:58 AM PDT

http://i2.wp.com/aliran.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/charles-santiago-in-court.jpg?resize=600%2C364 

It was very disappointing that Judge Vernon Ong said that the Court was bound by Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958 and cannot review a gazetted electoral roll, literally throwing to the wind the conventional wisdom that "where there is a malady the Court will provide a remedy" – even if it has to use its inherent powers. 

P Ramakrishnan, Aliran executive committee member  

Malaysians were rudely shocked to learn that the High Court in Shah Alam put itself in a straitjacket and refused to see the glaring injustice that was clearly highlighted by Klang MP Charles Santiago in a suit that was decided on 14 March 2013.

Charles Santiago (right) at the High Court. The DPP, on behalf of the EC, argued that "Section 9(a) of the Elections Act 1958 stipulates that once the electoral roll has been certified and gazetted, it is final and binding".

Mr Santiago wanted the Court to review the principal and supplementary electoral rolls for his parliamentary constituency.

It was very disappointing that Judge Vernon Ong said that the Court was bound by Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958 and cannot review a gazetted electoral roll, literally throwing to the wind the conventional wisdom that "where there is a malady the Court will provide a remedy" – even if it has to use its inherent powers.

The Judge further noted that the Court could not compel the Election Commission (EC) to respond to the queries of the MP as there was no provision in the Act for it to do so. While it may be true that there is no such provision, what is far more important is whether there is specifically any provision in the Act prohibiting the EC from responding?

Why was this logical point entirely overlooked by the Court? If the Court was the bastion of justice as provided by the inherent powers of providing a remedy for a malady, it would have been the natural consequence to fall back on this logic. But surprisingly, this was not the case.

While it may be true that the Court was bound by Section 9A of the Election Act, shouldn't the Court invoking its overview functions have also looked into the legality of this section?

Is it constitutional? Is it constitutional to perpetuate a wrong in spite of fraud, probably even of a criminal nature, that were clearly established by Mr Santiago?

Section 9A was controversially introduced to the Elections Act 1958, after the High Court in Kota Kinabalu declared the Likas by-election of 2001 null and void. The Kota Kinabalu High Court nullified the Likas by-election because there were discrepancies in the electoral roll.

Section 9A states: "After an electoral roll has been certified or re-certified, as the case may be, and notice of the certification or re-certification has been published in the Gazette as prescribed by regulations made under this Act, the electoral roll shall be deemed to be final and binding and shall not be questioned or appealed against in, or reviewed, quashed or set aside by, any court."

This is what lawyers call a "privative" or "ouster" clause. The effect is to prevent any Court from having a review of the matter at hand. In this particular case, it has to do with the electoral rolls.

Courts in many common law jurisdictions have always viewed such privative or ouster clauses in a very dim light as such clauses effectively prevent the judiciary from discharging its independent role under the doctrine of the Separation of Powers as arbiters of rights and duties vis-à-vis citizens and the State.

In our view, this "deeming" section was introduced so that the Barisan Nasional can win elections through phantom voters and by cheating. By placing this fraud beyond the purview of the Courts, the BN government has legitimised winning of elections through fraudulent means.

The injustice is so obvious and glaring. How could a Court not address this issue even in passing?
Mr Santiago has provided solid proof that the names of those who had not registered as voters were found in the electoral roll. How could this happen?

He had pointed out the case of one Premila Menon, who resides in Dublin, Ireland. She had not registered as a voter; yet her name appears on the electoral roll. He had further produced a Statutory Declaration from a Pandamaran resident stating that he is the only voter registered at his address but another 60 voters of other races are mysteriously listed under this same address.

These two cases clearly establish the irrefutable fact that the electoral roll is padded with dubious voters.

The electoral roll is not clean and yet these dubious voters can vote in the coming 13th General Election. In the case of Premila Menon, someone else can assume her identity and vote in the election. This was how the BN candidate in the Likas by-election got elected.

Even though the Court said it was helpless because of the seemingly prohibitive Section 9A, surely it could have pointed out the injustice perpetuated by this section. It could have taken judicial notice that there are phantom voters on the roll. The Court cannot ignore this gross injustice and turn a blind eye to this grievous wrong as the legitimacy or otherwise of the popular mandate is intrinsically bound to the sanctity or otherwise of the roll per se.

To dismiss Mr Santiago's justified application as frivolous and vexatious is to add salt to the injury. It is a travesty of justice.

Is this a forerunner of things to come post-election?

Even if the existence of unaccountable dubious voters on the electoral roll (that may contribute to a BN victory in certain seats) is subsequently established beyond reasonable doubt, the Pakatan Rakyat cannot challenge this. It cannot win because cheating has been legitimised. The BN will win the case and the PR will lose its challenge in any court of law in Malaysia.

 

 

Cabinet Members go cycling-carnival in the face of a looming crisis?

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 02:16 PM PDT

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/putrajaya-barisan.jpg 

What would it take 10,000 or more people to drive to Putrajaya with their bicycles strapped to the rooftops? What would it cost the government (i.e. the rakyat's money) to even assure that there would free bicycles to spare? 
 
J. D. Lovrenciear
 
The planned 1Malaysia Patriotic Cycling program at Putrajaya on April 3, 3.00 pm, 2013 which hopes to see "more than 10,000" rakyat and all Cabinet Members cycling around a 12 kilometre loop to "promote 1Malaysia spirit" and "appreciate the scenic views" probably should qualify for the 'Believe-it-or-not' series.

Yes, can you believe it?! When the nation is gripped with a general election fever, battling the unending threats, uneasiness and even reported and witnessed incidents of physical harm, our Honourable Cabinet Members see great wisdom in a mammoth cycling public relations stunt.

Who is the genius behind this public relations idea? Do we not have a single member within Cabinet to see through this flawed strategy - or rather, gimmick?

When a nation is pregnant with the labour of going to the polls in what already is widely accepted as the 'mother of all battles' since 1957 and with the rakyat pendulum-ing between despair and hope that is punctuated with bells of alarm, we have a carnival of sorts to gocycling.

Whom are we hoodwinking? Or is this the season forHoudini acts?

In the first place, what would it take 10,000 or more people to drive to Putrajaya with their bicycles strapped to the rooftops? What would it cost the government (i.e. the rakyat's money) to even assure that there would free bicycles to spare?

Mind you, given the sweltering heat and sudden downpours these days, what would it take from the participants to accomplish this seemingly brilliant solidarity showmanship?

Would it not give more dividends to the BN politicians if the Cabinet Members left the comforts of their cosy abodes, donned working jeans, rolled up their sleeves and walked the many Tamans and busy marketplace across the nation to be with the rakyat and to appreciate the concerns, despairs and hopes of the rakyat?

Take a leaf from the books of strategic public relations, will you Sirs:

In the face of threatening crises - (i.e. as in this case of a 'if we loose...' as preached by BN and drummed by Tun Dr. Mahathir, time and time again), the people do not go to the mountain. The mountain (i.e. Cabinet) goes to the people. 

Remember that episode beamed across the globe on George Bush when the horrific Katerina hit New Orleans? The President of the United States of America went to the grounds in the stark face of a national crisis, in jeans and rolled-up sleeves with the wind blowing into his face ruffling his ever combed hair as he reached out to a black citizen huddling her child.

That won kudos and reinstated hope and trust in the face of a crisis. It returned patriotism to 'One USA'!

Please Members of our Cabinet, think! Patriotism is not secured through cycling sojourns and scenic views. Party feelings and goodies bags do not enable patriotism. 

On the contrary, patriotism is chiseled out from trust-creation, empathy-demonstration and responding to going concerns with convincing capacity-building.

Address the concerns of the rakyat; not create make-believe carnivals to show a might of power. Remember public relations is not about pulling stunts orrazzmatazz showmanship. It is about strategic trust building anchored on the ability to identify issues clearly and provide remedies through transparent and accountable communication and communicative behaviour.

Does your glorified mass gathering of cycling showmanship therefore address the looming crisis affecting BN? And by the way, how much did it cost the rakyat to pay for this seemingly brilliant public relations event and your consultants?


 

Stop the Same Old BN Bullshit!

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 02:13 PM PDT

http://www.mole.my/sites/default/files/images/mole-Lim-Guan-Eng-Peang-2.jpg 

With the former opposition PR coalition in power now in the state of Penang, we are quickly witnessing the use of the same demagogy that we have been accustomed to from the BN all these years.

 

Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser

 

For years now, concerned Malaysian NGOs have been performing a service to the nation by raising concerns or criticising the BN government for projects that are destructive to the environment, socially disruptive or blatantly not in the interests of the people. Often, we have had to put up with the taunts of BN leaders that Malaysian NGOs are either foreign agents or supporters of the opposition. The recent BN harassment of SUARAM for pursuing the Scorpene scandal in France is probably the most thoroughly absurd episode in Malaysian history of NGO bashing.

 

This line of reasoning – that NGOs are partisan - is clearly "bullshit", or as I put it in my 1986 publication, "Malaysian Political Myths", "taurus turdo". My old friend, the late K. Das in the Foreword to my 1989 title, "445 Days behind the Wire", called it "bovine excreta". They all amount to the same malodorous heap of cheap demagoguery intended to appeal to popular prejudice but surprisingly, some people only see one side of the dung heap. Others who live in the middle of it simply can't see it!

 

With the former opposition PR coalition in power now in the state of Penang, we are quickly witnessing the use of the same demagogy that we have been accustomed to from the BN all these years. Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has recently accused one of the most consistent and responsible NGOs in Malaysia, namely, the Consumer Association of Penang, of being selective in its criticisms and – worse still - of being aligned to the BN. Lim had called on the people to be wary of "hostile and dangerous NGOs that were now adopting the BN line" to oppose the state's RM6.3 billion tunnel and four-stage integrated road system.

 

True NGOs work for the people

 

Anyone who has followed the investigative journalism of Utusan Konsumer all these years will know that CAP and its sister organisation, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, have been the most tireless and consistent torch bearers of consumer and environment protection in Malaysia for decades now. No other organisation in Malaysia – political party or NGO – can claim that distinction.

 

With both coalitions competing to see which can attract more foreign investments and mega projects, Malaysian NGOs will have to be even more vigilant to protect the interests of the people, the environment and taxpayers. Whichever coalition is in power in Malaysia, they will be subject to the same level of monitoring by NGOs to ensure that they adhere to the norms of good governance.

 

You can expect concerned and vigilant Malaysian NGOs to be here for the long haul, ready to point out any let-down by BN or PR.

 

Real democracy will never be attained merely through periodic general elections and relying on parliament alone. To make democracy work, the people must step up their demands from outside Parliament. NGOs play a crucial role in articulating the interests of the people against the marauding capitalists who are bankrolling both coalitions. Democracy is more than simply voting once in five years for as the saying goes,

"If voting in the general elections ever changed anything, they would have abolished it by now!"

 

Politicians would be wise to steer clear of demagoguery in their political ambitions by appealing to popular prejudices rather than by using rational argument. Equating the peoples' opposition to the Penang tunnel and highways projects to "adopting the BN line" is the height of dishonesty and pure bullshit.

 

Untalented TalentCorp

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 02:04 PM PDT

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Talent-Corp-New-300x202.jpg 

TalentCorp was initiated by the government and as part of the government they must be aware that employees in the public sector are dominated by one group of people. It would be quite hypocritical for them to preach about diversity in the workplace when they too practice selective hiring. 

Fairuz Ahmad

In early 2011, the Malaysian government took a bold step by setting up TalentCorp, an agency designed to streamline the performance of the Malaysian labour market. 

One of the primary goals of Talentcorp is to attract Malaysians working abroad to return home, thereby reversing the outflow of highly skilled Malaysian professionals to foreign countries—a phenomenon proverbially known as 'brain drain'.  

As a Malaysian working in the Middle East for many years, I am one of the candidates with whom Talentcorp actively seeks to engage.

I read on the internet about the results achieved by TalentCorp. In its first 12 months of operation, TalentCorp claimed to have attracted 680 professional Malaysians to re-locate to Malaysia. This is a small number considering the estimated 700,000 Malaysians currently residing abroad.

In its second year, TalentCorp managed to encourage 923 highly skilled Malaysians to return home. This year, TalentCorp targets 1000 Malaysians to return to Malaysia. Two years since its inception, it is quite obvious  the performance of TalentCorp has barely improved. 

Recently, members of the Malaysian expatriate community in the Middle East were invited to attend networking events organized by TalentCorp. These events were held in several major Middle Eastern cities--namely Doha, Manama, Muscat, Abu Dhabi and Dubai.  Since they were planning to drop by my city, Doha, I saw my chance to gain further insight into TalentCorp.

I was not sure what to expect from the networking event, but I had a feeling it would be rather grand as the venue chosen was the meeting hall of a luxury hotel. 

The event started with a presentation by Puan Sherene Azura Azli, general manager of TalentCorp (CEO Johan Merican was curiously absent). She spoke rather optimistically about TalentCorp's ambitions to improve the performance of the Malaysian labour market. Puan Sherene clarified to the packed audience that Malaysia's goal of becoming a high income nation was impeded by the talent and skills deficit.

Senior representatives from the petroleum and healthcare industries also gave presentations to drive home the point that in order for Malaysian corporations to succeed, individuals with skill and influence are needed to participate in the local job market, especially in the private sector.

Overall I was impressed with the presentations and the professional nature of the event. However, there was no formal discussion about the realities of the Malaysian job market. There was no presentation about the systemic discrimination among employers, the disparity in salaries and the difficulty among fresh local graduates to gain employment.

Puan Sherene alluded to the issue of disparities within the labour market when she gave the statistic that 67% of local university graduates are women, of which only a small fraction make it to managerial positions. She did not further elaborate the point she wanted to make. I could only assume that she wanted to keep to the script, which was to portray Malaysia with optimism rather than negativity.

When the event was opened up to the floor for questions and answers, no one raised any query. Apparently, the audience was keener on the Malaysian style buffet than raising issues about discriminatory hiring practices and wage unfairness. Challenges that face the Malaysian labour market was not a topic that people wanted to discuss openly.

Personal interactions were different. I witnessed one assertive guest approach TalentCorp senior manager, Adele Lim, to highlight the issue of quotas, affirmative action and unfairness in hiring practices. He remarked that foreign expatriates have been critical of Malaysian talent, claiming they lack the skills necessary to succeed in technical roles. He spoke specifically about the oil and gas sector, which he claimed is dominated by engineers from India. Adele denied that there was bias.  She opened the conversation to a HR manager from an oil and gas company to get his feedback. To her dismay, he concurred that there is bias in the Malaysian oil and gas sector that allows certain foreign nationals to dominate various technical sectors. The harsh and competitive nature of globalization has allowed such a phenomenon to exist.

Although I am veteran in my industry, I still remember the difficulties of trying to look for a job in the late 80's. Even today during a period of stable economic growth, there are many university graduates who find it difficult to find jobs in Malaysia. 

It has been said that Malaysian universities churn out nearly 20,000 engineering graduates a year. But the perception among hiring executives is that they are not sufficiently competent.There could be many reasons why the private sector has been slow to absorb the local graduates, many of whom come from the Malay ethnic community. But the prevailing belief among many experts is that there is an element of bias. 

A study conducted by two Malaysian professors, Dr Lee Hwok Aun and Dr Muhammed Abdul Khalid, discovered that Chinese graduates are far more likely to get call backs for interviews than their Malay counterparts with similar curriculum vitae. TalentCorp, with its lofty goals to help Malaysia's labour market, should encourage the government to take action on this issue. After all, this is an easy matter to solve-- job agencies and HR managers should be encouraged to hide the names of applicants before submitting résumés to prospective interviewers. Accordingly, companies should be asked to create interviews that are standardized, so that the same set of questions are asked to all candidates, regardless of ethnicity, gender, age or other discriminatory criteria.

I am not naive to think that TalentCorp has all the answers. TalentCorp was initiated by the government and as part of the government they must be aware that employees in the public sector are dominated by one group of people. It would be quite hypocritical for them to preach about diversity in the workplace when they too practice selective hiring. I am also sure government workers are fully aware of the wage differences between the private and public sectors.

Another topic TalentCorp  failed to touch upon during the event was the issue of salaries. An economic census conducted in 2011 showed employees in the mining sector were among the highest paid at RM7,772 per month on average, while the average monthly wages in the services  and manufacturing sectors were RM2,126 and RM2,040 respectively. This disparity in salaries drives many people  in less lucrative economic sectors to seek employment outside Malaysia, where salaries are much higher. 

TalentCorp is squandering the opportunity to improve the Malaysian job market. Their goal seems to be about appeasing the private sector while striving to reach an arbitrary key performance indicator (KPI) set by the government. They do not seek to challenge the private or public sectors. This was apparent in the networking event.

TalentCorp should not try to promote their objectives to individuals working in the Middle East or Western countries, but to the Malaysian employers themselves. They have to change the misguided perceptions held by the employers and encourage them to be more proactive in their search for the right talent. It should be TalentCorp's goal to minimize or eliminate the artificial barriers created by the private sector. The incentives given to foreign nationals with skills should be extended to all eligible Malaysians, with added bonuses, as they are more likely to re-invest their money into the local economy.

Likewise, the public sector should be asked to actively participate in TalentCorp's future networking events. They should send the message to Malaysians all over the world that they too can contribute to the government . The message should be about social and civic responsibility ahead of financial reward.

If Puan Sherene could wonder why more women are not occupying senior management positions, she should be challenging the employers and not raise this issue as a rhetorical question to a disaffected audience. New ideas need  about how to promote greater participation of women at all levels to be introduced and shared with the public. For example in Norway, a quota system was introduced that requires 40% of corporate board members to be women.  Puan Sherene should ask her employer, the government, if Malaysia needs to introduce similar ideas to promote fairness at the workplace. 

The issue of foreign nationals preventing the rise of local Malaysian talent to senior levels is another matter that needs to be addressed by TalentCorp. They should not deny the existence of such a phenomenon. They should try to tackle it by asking the government to put stricter conditions on visas issued to foreign nationals. They should also seek to have foreign nationals undergo yearly assessments that prove they are contributing to Malaysia's economic growth and transfer of technology. These assessments should be audited by third party agencies, so that the companies do not try to circumvent the issue.

Most companies hire primarily based on financial considerations. If they cannot gain the productivity from the Malaysian workers, they tend to place the blame squarely on the employees. It is about time those in management positions take the responsibility, and not judge the employees too harshly.  I think in the case of TalentCorp, maybe it is time for their managers to be judged.

 

 

 

 

 

Victims and villains of Ladah Datu

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:32 PM PDT

http://stopthelies.my/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/malikmnlf.jpg 

How come we are unable to nab one chieftain with our twelve battalions, i.e. some 7,000 of our security personnel, not to mention all the artillery we unleashed? 
 
J. D. Lovrenciear 
 
The incident of the Sulu Sultanate attacks in Sabah and our duty-bound security counter-attacks has brought to the fore a barrage of very serious allegations and issues that demand immediate reflection, investigation and more importantly the courage, integrity and determination to put national security, national sovereignty  and citizens' sanctity above all else.

Political party strategies, priorities and profiteering thereof are a definite act of treason against nation, King and citizens.

Just take a re-cap of the many statements, allegations, speculations, and all kinds of shady finger-pointing going on between and by the politicians, and you cannot help feeling that there is massive iceberg out there.

In the fist place, why blame or even insinuate that 'opposition' may be behind the support for the Sulu Sultanate? Why is the media not contributing to aspired harmonization but seem so engrossed in creating alarm after alarm?

Are the media being exploited for and by self-serving interests?
 
And then what about news that burst out detailing about an UMNO-instrument who was into discussions with the Sulu Sultanate? Do the UMNO leaders not have that same sense of serious concern for nation, King and rakyat to immediately investigate and expose the truth without prejudice or favor?

Lest we forget, what was the Sulu Sulatnate doing as an important VVIP at UMNO's own Assembly? Now that this very person has turned the tides on Malaysia, does UMNO – and even its component comrades of BN, not sense that investigations, accountability and explanations need to be forthcoming without any shades or colors?

Or how about the allegations surrounding the Libya arms that reached the shores of Muslim militants in Philippines via Malaysia's Sabah? Was this another of our classic 'tutup satu mata' stance? Do we also not get immediate answers to this?

Next, in case we overlooked, what was a former Prime Minister – now common citizen and retired out of official power doing in Lahad Datu? He was flashed all over the media meeting with our soldiers who are answerable to the General and King. What gives him excess to otherwise security matters that are privy only to those in the right office?

The commoner-citizens are not wrong is showing so much of apprehension and concern over the Lahad Datu incident that now appears even more mysterious. Yet the politicians preach that rakyat must not politicize the situation. What kind of threatening is this? Does it not smell akin to a gangster -  where the strong and powerful shut up the weak (for lack of 'inside information') and unarmed (for lack of positions in office)?

Do citizens not have a right to know what is right and wrong? Do citizens who will finally fight the war against any intrusion and attack on their sovereign status and safety cordons not have a right to demand that politicking has no place in this Lahad Datu incident?

The rakyat are reading outside of the main stream media loop these days. One such report is that which appeared in the Manila Standard Today (MST).

So we ask in defense of our armed personnel and their grieving families, how come we are unable to nab one chieftain with our twelve battalions, i.e. some 7,000 of our security personnel, not to mention all the artillery we unleashed?

We managed to kill 63 of the 200 band of armed 'terrorists' but lost ten of our loyal, brave men in uniform. That is a high price to pay when you only had foot-intruders running ambush in the plantation (not jungles, mind you) against our battalions armed to the teeth.

Come to think of it there have been far too many incidents in Malaysia these past many years where the citizens are merely left to speculate for the lack of transparent accountability. They are left high and dry in the absence of believable justifications.

It ranges from tolls and highways, mega projects and sand selling, rail and island cessation – name it we have had it all didn't we? That was the high chaparral days of the OSA – Official Secrets Act, mate!

We do not have to go far – even till this date and hour we cannot speak and agree openly about the real truth of the May 13, 1969 horrors. There is so much of politicking. Likewise for the Altantuya grisly murder – we are left with a judgment verdict which concluded that although motive is essential, it is not necessary for this case. Now are these not of national interest to concern the caring citizen?

With the media pledging allegiance to either political parties or to individuals within the corridors of power, it is not helping situations either. With some media playing safe owing to political party allegiance although they would be quick to cloak their reporting with the label of 'self censorship' is just as bad doing damage to nation building.

So much so we have degenerated into a deep well of darkness where we cannot see the distinct difference between political parties and government.

This then is the malaise – the very cancer that is making our borders vulnerable and our future fragile. 
   
Perhaps there is some food for thought here in what the Philippine Defence Secretary, Voltaire Gazmin is reported to have said: "when you are hunting fish, the water becomes your enemy."

 

Longer campaign period: for message or mischief?

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:21 PM PDT

http://starstorage.blob.core.windows.net/archives/2013/3/20/nation/ge13-election-malaysia-n20.jpg 

The call for a longer election campaign period is a double-edged sword. It can have both favourable and unfavourable consequences. But if the latter outweigh the former, there is merit in keeping the campaign period to the barest minimum.

James Ang 

So far, the call for a 21-day campaign period was made by Pakatan Rakyat which claimed it needed more time to reach the voters. Is this a reasonable request?

The campaign period permitted by law runs from the date of nomination day until polling day. The Election Commission (EC) has already said it will increase the previous period of seven days to 10 days for GE-13. So, is 10 days sufficient time?

There is only a thin line between a campaign period and a pre-campaign period.

In law, a "campaign period", means the period during which any candidate or his election agent is allowed to hold election campaign in the candidate's constituency. This includes, among others, the right to print posters, open offices, hold public rallies, meetings and displays; and distribute election campaign material. These activities are restricted to a candidate's constituency.

The pre-campaign period extends from the end of one general election to the start of the next.

There is even a thinner line between an "election campaign" and "electioneering". Electioneering is defined as activities that politicians and their supporters carry out in order to persuade people to vote for them or their political party, like making speeches and visiting voters.

Given this blurred distinction, it is true to say that political parties have in fact been campaigning from the last general election in 2008.

It is common knowledge that some political parties have been campaigning long and hard over the last five years. If during this period, they have not been able to get their message across to the voters, they probably never will. Leaders of these parties have held political ceramahs, held politically-motivated public rallies, used the compliant social media, and have even actively campaigned overseas. It was not too long ago when erstwhile election observers came-a-knocking from the Muslim community in the US. The aborted attempt by an independent senator from Down Under is another case in point.

On top of all these, the Opposition parties are also demanding fair airtime on government radio and television. The Information Ministry has said this would be allowed. So, wherefore is the need for a longer campaign period?

Truth be told, fatigue is already setting in among the people who wish to see the back end of elections so that they can go back to living life without the hype and hyperbole normally associated with excessive politicking. There are media reports of people, especially the younger voters, who say they are put off by the incessant political bickering so much so that they are wondering whether or not they should vote at all. Businesses are also being affected. Hotels claim that polls uncertainty has impacted their business. Room reservations, and seminar and wedding bookings have suffered since people are adopting a wait-and-see attitude.

By now, most people have already made up their minds whom to vote for. They know which political parties have the capacity to deliver and are aware of their track record.  They also know which politicians make excessive claims and promise the unattainable Utopia. A few are still undecided, and it only needs a brief period to convince them one way or another.

So, a 10-day campaign period is sufficient to put the finishing touches to what has been a protracted campaign. However, as I said, if after five years the parties have not got their act together and still have not got their message across, they are probably not yet ready to govern.

But, if an extension of the campaign period is being sought with mischievous intent, then no period will be long enough....

 

My political thoughts during the Hunger Viratham Day Eighteen 27th March 2013

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:18 PM PDT

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/waythamoorthy1-300x202.jpg 

Today there is still a lot of residual anger against UMNO among the Indian poor. Pakatan is capitalizing on this and is thinking that the votes of the Indian poor have nowhere else to go but to them. This thinking shows in the way they have treated the Indian electorate recently in their Election Manifesto flip flops.

 

P. Waythamoorthy 

This is the eighteenth day of my Hunger Viratham.

 

In this tenth part I will be penning my thoughts on the option of strategic abstention by the Indian poor in the forthcoming elections.

 

PART 10

 

Strategic Abstention as an option for the Indian poor in the forthcoming General Elections.

 

Today there is still a lot of residual anger against UMNO among the Indian poor. Pakatan is capitalizing on this and is thinking that the votes of the Indian poor have nowhere else to go but to them. This thinking shows in the way they have treated the Indian electorate recently in their Election Manifesto flip flops.

 

Pakatan believes they should get a majority of the Indian votes – not maybe as high as the last time, but still the majority. Barisan for their part believe they can buy the Indian vote with the goodies they have planned. Hindraf's analysis however is this – the urban educated Indians will largely go for Pakatan. Add to that the beneficiaries from the last election who have personally gained and all those who potentially stand to gain in the forthcoming elections. These votes are with Pakatan. Then on the Barisan side, the MIC machinery is preparing to reach out to the local warlords and through them to the poorest among the Indians. They will be throwing a lot of money in the process in doing this

 

In our estimate all of that will all probably account for 50% of the Indian voters. You can argue about the accuracy of that number, but it surely is in that ballpark give and take a few percentage points.

 

The leverage for the Indian poor does not come from those foregone votes. When we say leverage, we mean leverage as in getting the politicians to commit to the specific bottom up plans laid out in our 5 year Blueprint for the Indian poor. This is the key point on which the decision as to where the remaining Indian votes will go will be determined.  Hindraf will make sure of that. This is the key point that BN and PR should focus on.

 

We have a few more days left for BN and PR to take their respective positions, either explicitly or by default on the question of the endorsement of the 5 year Blueprint. If they remain silent or ambivalent then we in Hindraf will project it to mean they do not support a program of comprehensive and permanent correction to the socio-economic problems of the Indian poor – that they do not care about the Indian poor. This therefore will form the central message from us to our base.

 

On the contrary, if either, and I reiterate, if either PR or BN comes up and is willing to endorse the 5 year Blueprint in a clear binding way, our message to the Indian poor will be to throw their support behind them – whoever they are –PR or BN.

 

What if Pakatan and BN have not endorsed the Blueprint by the time Parliament is dissolved? The message that this sends to the Indian poor is that they both do not have the interest of the Indian poor in their minds. The proposals in the 5 year Blueprint are entirely justifiable. And if they do not want to adopt them and do not show the necessary commitment to implement them, then it does not really make any difference who wins in these elections. We will make absolutely sure that this is the message that the Indian poor will hear.

 

Under these circumstances, abstaining from voting either BN or PR becomes a real option for the Indian poor. Both PR and BN cannot complain on any count on the adoption of this option by the Indian poor. To the Indian poor, the logic is simple. Neither care, so neither deserves anything in return.

 

What will be the consequence of this move? This strategic abstention effectively means a pullback in the number of votes for both BN and PR in this GE. What this means in turn is that, all those seats that were won marginally will all be affected. The uncertainty increases. If you take Selangor alone, we see at least (at least) 20 State seats that fall in this category – easily. The same logic and formula apply in Kedah, Penang, Perak, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and Johore. All marginally won seats in the last elections with an Indian voter population of more than 10% are candidates to come into this category. And not all the Indian poor need to abstain. Even if 20% of the Indian voters abstain, the impact will be significant. Strategic abstention can prove to be quite impactful.

 

By this strategic abstention, the Indian poor will be determining new winners and new losers.  The winners will know they won without those votes and the losers will know they lost without those votes. To both the winner and the loser the significance of the vote of the Indian poor would have become clearer. This adds to calculations for future elections. Will the contenders want to treat the Indian poor vote so cavalierly? Yes they can, but only at a cost. That will become plain.

 

Extending this logic to the next level, strategic abstention can also be applied to individual candidates in the elections. If they will announce their stand on the Blue print, whether they support it and what specifically they will do in support of the programs for the Indian poor and put it down formally to Hindraf.  Hindraf can then endorse some of these candidates in return. The logistics of this has to be worked out, but this is also another option.

 

My conclusion therefore is that strategic abstention does become a purposeful option for the Indian poor in this election. By this act the Indian poor would have taken the opportunity to show the significance of their votes, whether we will issue the call for it will be determined over the next couple of weeks, depending on when Parliament is dissolved.

 

Our position is very clear. We do not want to see just changes in faces at the helm of our country; we also want to see real changes in the lives of the Indian poor. And we will take any position that supports our motives.

 

We will make our decision on what we will do soon as the dust settles for us

 

MRT

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:15 PM PDT

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVSB6M-7NKTQWaS00fIPV8qJF6Z6coWJrHezmDTPRKLqifESLGMQ 

What this has resulted in is the retro-fitting of major urban public transportation network into existing, established residential and commercial areas. Since it is retro-fitting, the existing laws also do not adequately cover all the scenarios arising from such construction. 

Jee Ping 

It is unfortunate that in the race to push Malaysia to become a developed nation, we chose to focus on the building of buildings, car plants, a new government center and many other catalytic projects. What we forgot to do was adequately connect these job and leisure hot spots to communities with world-class public transportation.

What this has resulted in is the retro-fitting of major urban public transportation network into existing, established residential and commercial areas. Since it is retro-fitting, the existing laws also do not adequately cover all the scenarios arising from such construction.

A good example is the MRT network that is being fast tracked in Klang Valley. The main issue arising from the 9.5km underground tunnel construction was that the people above ground were not aware of the laws that permitted tunnelling underneath their properties. In fact, even SPAD, the regulator, was not aware of such provisions until it was pointed out. The use of the Land Acquisition Act should only be used following not only the letter, but the spirit of the law. Most importantly, there must be transparency and frequent communications with affected parties on the use and effect of the law on them.

Another disturbing point to note is the proximity of the MRT line along the houses in Jalan Damansara, just after Victoria Station. The construction is basically a couple of feet away from the kitchen of the houses situated on a slope. And we have certainly seen enough of hill slope tragedies. Even the Peninsula Hotel down the road is not spared as the line will run just 4 meters away from the nearest hotel room window. The Sinaran Apartments and houses along Pinggir Zaaba are also similarly affected.

The question is - what are the laws governing how near or far a railway line or track must be from a residential property. To my knowledge, the Railway Act provides for a buffer of 6 meters on both sides of the track to protect the track from damage and vandalism. Given that legal position, are the relevant sections of the MRT line illegal and open to challenges from suffering residents? As this is a matter of public and community interest, we expect an answer from MRT Corp on the matter.

 

Opposition not fit to govern

Posted: 26 Mar 2013 09:17 PM PDT

Narinder Pal Singh, Shah Alam, Selangor

LAST Saturday there was a session with an opposition leader in one of the hotels in Petaling Jaya. Being an ardent follower of politics and an eligible voter, I went to hear what the opposition leader had to say.

Upon reaching there, one of the opposition's henchmen, a youth in his 20s, rudely demanded my age, citing that if I was not a "youth" then I must wait outside, as the event was not for elders.

I was disgusted at the high handed attitude of the youth, who claimed he had been instructed by his party to do so. But then, I saw there were other senior citizens in the ballroom.

I realised then, I was being discriminated because of my appearance. I guess they could not make out if I was Malay, Chinese or Indian.

I guess they did not know what a Sikh looks like as they had been shrouded by their political masters, too.

His explanation, unacceptable though, was that this event was for the youth. He said it was stated on their website.

I disputed it and said the condition for entry to the event was not stated on their website. It was mentioned that the youth will have an opportunity to throw questions to their leader but there was no mention that only youth will be allowed for the session.

I was then surrounded by their people and I felt intimidated. But as a voter and knowing my rights, I challenged them to state where they had put the conditions for attendees or the public.

The episode left me, my relatives and friends with one major apprehension on the issue of how the opposition is trying to empower the youth of today.

I have nothing personal against the youth, as I was once in their shoes, too. However, manners and respectfulness must always be there in whatever age group they belong to.

If this is the kind of arrogance and grooming that is championed by the opposition, then the lasting impression is bitter in all aspects.

The public must be reminded repeatedly that merely changing for the sake of change, as championed by the opposition, may land ourselves with more problems.

The opposition does not appear to have the right mix of leaders to progress in the future.

Where is the structure of management? They propagate that the youth will lead but if they are nurturing the ideology of governing through might, we may be heading towards more turbulent times.

A simple session with their leader has so many obstacles and red-tape, with discriminative thug-like attitude controlling the guests.

What can the rakyat expect in return? I do not feel safe, how is the rakyat going to feel safe and assured with the future of Malaysia in their hands?

Governing a nation is not a trial and error virtual game. It takes far more than just emotions and will to administer.

It's time for the rakyat to think not only locally, but globally and in a holistic manner.

The future of Malaysia is not for gamble. Your single vote essentially decides the future of all. Opposing just for the sake of opposing will not bring you far.

 

My political thoughts during the Hunger Viratham Day Sixteen 26th March 2013

Posted: 26 Mar 2013 01:37 PM PDT

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Najib-Waythamoorthy-Hindraf.jpg 

This is the sixteenth day of my Hunger Viratham. Yesterday was a tiring day. I left the temple for Putrajaya for a meeting with the Prime Minister on his invite. 

 

Now, let me share my thoughts with you on this meeting.

 

P. Waythamoorthy 

 

PART NINE

 

OUR MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER

 

My journey into Human Rights activism started in 2005 with the formation of Hindraf. Hindraf was formed directly as a response to the accelerating demolition of Hindu Temples by the UMNO-led Government of the day. We gave expression to the extreme anger of the rural sections of the Indian community at this stage and we led the resistance to the demolitions. Then when this converged with the rampant killing of Indian youths in police custody, the cauldron really began to boil. The stage was set for an explosion. The explosion began with the first demonstration in Putrajaya in August 2007 where several thousand Indians gathered to submit our 18 point demands to the Government. The big explosion took place at the Grand Hindraf rally of November 2007. The Indians in the country were at war with UMNO.

 

UMNO was HINDRAF's nemesis. They hounded us, harassed us and went to extreme measures to kill us off. They jailed our activists, they linked us to the LTTE, they confiscated my passport and put me in effective exile, they banned us and they used the Police to harass us at every turn, they refused to recognize us or have anything to do with us at all. Yet we did not buckle. We resisted, we fought back, we got better organized as a group of activists and we kept going. Then after reaching a crescendo, UMNO started to roll back on all of that when Najib took over. They released the activists from Kamunting, they reduced then stopped the harassments, they lifted the ban on us, returned my passport and allowed me to return, and now reaching a new peak of this trend Najib invited us for a meeting yesterday.

 

Hindraf has come a long way to this point of being able to agree to this overture and to sit at the same table with its nemesis and to talk to them. This was something that was never considered possible. A lot of bad blood had flowed in these last five years and Hindraf has had to set aside all of that to accept the invitation. Hindraf had been the trigger for change and accelerator of new political developments in the country. Hindraf has been a vocal and leading opponent of many fundamental policies of the UMNO-led Government. Najib for his part had also come a long way to meet us at this point - he probably had to overcome significant resistance from various segments within his domain to get to the point of inviting us for this meeting. This was indeed a risky move for him personally. So, it can be said that the meeting yesterday was truly a historic meeting.

 

This meeting, historic as it may be however, has to be understood for what it really represents. It is effectively only a preliminary meeting to decide if we should proceed. Subsequent meetings are really the key, should they take place. They will provide opportunity to explore the possibilities of meeting respective objectives by movements of positions on both sides. Those meetings are yet to take place and there is no certainty they will take place at all, as all we have up to this point is a verbal undertaking. If there is a true commitment for rapprochement on Najib's side, then this is the first place that it will tell. The rest will become apparent during the talks. We go into the talks with our eyes and minds wide open.

 

Our focus is the proposals in our Blueprint. We have been very consistent on this point.

 

I reiterate, whichever of the two coalitions accepts and endorses the Blueprint will get our total support. This is not decided as yet. There is still some time before Hindraf will come off this ambiguity and take a firm position in this issue.

 

Malaysian Agriculture – Among the Best in the World

Posted: 26 Mar 2013 12:08 PM PDT

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfZExNjvO6BoS0M7hLRWaM6wmvak-ykAJVwNXWFwcch54RkJeZ 

We have five million hectares of oil palm. If, like the Thais, we are able to produce their fruits and not grow oil palm, 10,000 hectares of each type would saturate the country. What are we going to do with the rest of our land? Yet, it is true that we do not grow much food. Is it Malaysia's fault? I don't think so. 

KC Chang 

Many brickbats have been thrown at Malaysian agriculture - at how bad it is not being able to produce food. As an agriculturalist, I would like to defend it as I think that it is amongst the best in the world. Basically, Malaysians are quite competent people and will do a good job if left to it e.g., look at how good the country was before UMNO messed it up. And agriculture in Malaysian is the least messed up economic sector by the politicians because if they want money, better and simpler to get shares in, say, Public Bank than a plot in the jungle which they'll then have difficulty selling to realize the cash ... and get into trouble for doing so as did the cousins of Taib in Sarawak.

Whatever crop the country deigned to grow has produced just about the highest yield in the world - rice, jagung, cocoa, rubber, oil palm. Yes, including the food crops. In our granary areas, we get 7 t/ha for rice, while the Thais get only 1 t/ha, and yet they get the kudos of having better agriculture in being able to produce more food crops – rice, jagung, mango, longan, etc. What is not said is that the Thais have about 100x our area in rice and produce only about 5x as much. I think that if God were to offer the Thais a choice of Malaysian vs Thai agriculture, they would choose ours without blinking an eye.

We have five million hectares of oil palm. If, like the Thais, we are able to produce their fruits and not grow oil palm, 10,000 hectares of each type would saturate the country. What are we going to do with the rest of our land? Yet, it is true that we do not grow much food. Is it Malaysia's fault? I don't think so.

The agriculture of every country is constrained by its climate and, of course, economics. In Form 3 basic geography, we learn that there is no discernible drought at the equator although some times of the year are wetter/drier than others. As we move away from the equator (both N and S), more and more marked wet/dry periods occur, culminating in the great deserts on the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. Even in Penang/Kedah (only about 4o – 5o N), there is already an annual dry season in January/February, although not very serious.

This hot and humid clime throughout the year is ideal for plant growth (although some, like apples and pears, will not fruit because there is no cold stimulus to trigger their flowering process). Thus, all the crops we have tried have given very high yields, but we settled on oil palm, rubber, cocoa and coffee because they give the highest returns and are the least bother, e.g., tree crops, plant once in 30 years; annual crops, plant 2x or 3x a year. Thus, all the world over, in the humid tropics (say, 10oN - 10oS), the agriculture is tree crops, which is technically horticulture.

Our continuously hot and wet climate is ideal for oil palm which cannot stand drought for high yields although the palm will survive very harsh conditions. Thus, Thailand cannot grow oil palm (economically) except in the very south, and even then their yields are generally not high. In the middle and north country, where the dry season is 6 or even 9 months, it can only grow 'drought-escape' crops – in the 3 or 6 months of the rainy season, the country is as wet as any other so any crop can grow; but the crop must start and finish during the rains to escape the drought. Hence, their high production of rice and jagung ... because they can't grow anything else.

Another, possibly even more important, reason for tree crops is potential environmental damage. In Malaysia, it rains, on average, every 2 – 3 days, and the rainfall is often heavy and very erosive. In the 1980's there was a housing boom, and there were so many (uncovered) construction sites that there were complaints throughout the country of the environmental damage wrought – rivers turning brown from sediment loss, landslides, blocked drains, etc. Now, at any one time, what would be the national area of uncovered building sites? I don't know, but suspect only about 1,000 hectares (about 4 square miles).

To grow any meaningful food crops for the country, say jagung, there would need to be 500,000 hectares, and this land would be uncovered (during in-between crops and the young crops) for half the year, every year. In contrast, tree crops, once established, will protect the soil for the next 30 years. They'll also have to be replanted eventually, of course, and it may take a year to establish full ground cover from felling the previous crop (by cover crops/weeds, not by the tree crop itself which will take longer for full canopy cover), or about 12 days in the year.

All this talk about insurance is fine, which is what food security is all about. But the insurance can be overdone. In the extreme, it can be like a person spending all his money on insurance, and having nothing to live on. Of course, it will be Happy Day (for his family, not him) when he dies and the millions flow in. But the logic of this is clearly dubious. I think the 60 – 70% self-sufficiency in rice seems reasonably sensible. In a war, we suffer a bit by having to eat some sweet potato which won't kill us. Even tapioca with its cyanide content shouldn't do us in! In peace, which is most times, we get to buy our Ferraris.

Actually, the food insecurity goes further than rice. We also cannot produce protein. Officially, we produce only 10 - 20% of our beef, mutton and milk, but are 'self-sufficient' in chicken, eggs and pork. But the 'self-sufficiency' is predicated on a 'screwdriver plant' operation - we bring the chicks/piglets and (imported) feed to one place and 'screw' them together. If in war we cannot import rice, we would equally likely not be able to import jagung (the base for most animal feed) too. So, there goes our protein ... which may not be a bad thing, actually. If all we have is plain rice, then arguably, plain sweet potato tastes better.

We cannot produce beef/mutton/milk because we are too hot. If we are too hot we don't want to eat – can you eat immediately after playing badminton? – and if we don't eat we can't grow. Cattle are large animals, and by their sheer bulk and lower surface area (= skin) compared to humans, have difficulty dissipating heat.

The naked human is comfortable at 80oF, but the equilibrium temperature of a cow is about freezing. So the continuously hot cattle won't eat much and grow in Malaysia. Under 'good' management in Malaysia, a cow/bull will put on 0.25 kg/day. The run-of-the-mill equivalent in a temperate country, grazing roadside grass will put on 1 kg/day. It is a physical problem, and I don't know why the government agricultural authorities are wasting their time seeking biological solutions – testing new breeds. It'll never work unless the cattle are human size.

Sheep and goats are smaller, but have thick coats so the heat problem remains. Pigs are about the size of humans (slaughter at 100 kg liveweight), so ideal size-wise, but we cant produce their feed. Poultry are smaller and also ideal for our climate, but again we cant produce their feed.

There are a lot of myths in Malaysian agriculture, and to formulate policy, we first have to see through the fallacies. For example, Sarawak is reputed to grow the best pepper because of its suitable soils and climate. I pondered this for 30 years before finding out that it grows pepper because it has no roads! Same reason why the Golden Triangle is so hooked on growing opium.

 

 

 

If BN loses it does not mean Malaysia does not have a government

Posted: 26 Mar 2013 12:00 PM PDT

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4qoET4fZMd9u1zLwrxt995qFiF_g37SewwC8R0GvlLFcmsaUk8w 

If that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then for Malaysia's sake dismantle all opposition parties; arrest all opposition politicians; and cage all those who support these parties lah.
 
J. D. Lovrenciear  
What are our politicians from the BN quarter teaching our young and old these days? Each time they open their mouths the scream is all about 'Malaysia will be destroyed if opposition comes to power' and 'do not go against the government' and 'vote for the government'.
 
With the general elections' fever rising to unprecedented notches, such rubbish distortions and nonsensical misrepresentations are becoming a generously daily diet dished out in all our mainstream media.

Now let us get this nonsense straightened out once and for all Mr., Miss. and Mrs. politicians of Malaysia from the BN fortress.

BN or UMNO, MIC and MCA is not the government. When Parliament is dissolved, the governing of the nation continues without the ministers and their band-wagon of party fries.

Next, to vote BN is not patriotism. Likewise to vote opposition is not treason against the nation. Get it!

It is not only shocking but even beats the daylight out of any dimwit to keep hearing from all the BN entourage and loyalists that the rakyat must think Malaysia; must safeguard Malaysia; must this and that for Malaysia; and therefore they must vote for BN.

Hello, what rubbish are we frothing these days?

If that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then for Malaysia's sake dismantle all opposition parties; arrest all opposition politicians; and cage all those who support these parties lah.

Just have BN only for Malaysia and Malaysians. Stop even claiming to label the country as moderates. Stop even having a Parliament lah. Then it makes sense to all that the BN leaders and their paid stooges are clamouring these days.

And let the PM and all his other comrades in arms be told too - including the Home Minister: You are a minister on the government's service. Not the government on your service.

So when you speak - for as long as Parliament is not dissolved, cut your party allegiance and serve all Malaysians.

If you want to speak of party matters and in defense of your political party, go by all means to your party events and speak, scream, or raise a mile-long sword before your political party members.

But when you address the nation on matters that are of importance to all citizens, like in the case of national security and defense and public safety, don't you dare segregate the nation along party politics and allegiance.

Can the professionals, the learned, and the heads of clear thinking organizations please tell our salaried public servants who are wearing the hats of ministers and leaders about the stark difference between political parties that win an election to form a government and that of governing a nation. 

Right minded citizens, please rise from your cloisters and tell it to these politicians loud and clear before we sink deep into the recess of a politically immature and incapacitated mental block, not knowing the difference between politics, governance and leadership or nationhood.

Otherwise, let us all remain as the proverbial frog-in-the-well and bury the much sought after crown of 'developed' status.

Then we must accept the trophy of 'The Laughing Stock of South-east Asia'.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan

 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved