Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

A pattern of Sultanate deception
Hindraf Makkal Sakthi had it coming!
Who will win the 13th general election?
‘Kick out those who sodomise the nation’
Mistake to rekindle Saiful affair
Malaysia a failure in Sabah, Sarawak
Handling the hype behind Sabah crisis
Why Malaysia Slaughters Filipinos?
At what cost high-speed rail
The 2 ASEANs must meet

Posted: 11 Mar 2013 10:54 AM PDT

This is the same Jacel Kiram who has been accusing the President Benigno S. Aquino III (P-Noy) government of acting as a Malaysian puppet for not supporting their Sabah misadventure. She and her family knew from Day 1 that the Philippine government no longer has a role in pursuing the Sultanate's Sabah claim — yet they ranted for days for being abandoned and that P-Noy didn't protect fellow Filipinos.

William M. Esposo, Phil Star

By the very admission of Sultanate of Sulu Princess Jacel Kiram, daughter of Sultan Jamalul Kiram, in a March 8 GMA Network "Unang Hirit" interview — the Sabah issue is strictly between the Sultanate and Malaysia. Racel Kiram admitted that the authorization given by their family to the Philippine government in 1962 lapsed automatically when nothing was accomplished in pursuing the claim after 20 years.

Jacel Kiram was quoted: "Nag-lapse na po ito. Nakalagay po 'dun sa kasulatan na in 20 years time, kung wala pong nagawa ang gobyerno... may expiration 'yung authority. So back to the Sultanate of Sulu na ulit. (This lapsed already. It's in the agreement that if nothing is accomplished in 20 years, the agreement automatically expires. That's why it's back with the Sultanate.)"

In an earlier media report, a recruit of the Sultan's royal army in Sabah admitted that they were lured to join by promises of $600 in wages, land and position. Early on during the Sabah misadventure, the Kirams kept boasting that they were willing to fight and die for their rights to Sabah and that many Filipinos in Sabah will rally and join their cause. Again, these boasts reflect deception. The 200-man royal army expedition would not have been as courageous if they knew there were no reinforcements to be expected from Filipinos in Sabah.

Amazing how those of our supposed "sober-minded analysts" and "Sabah experts" missed the pattern of deception in this Sabah caper. Nobody ever thought of the safety of the over 800,000 Filipinos in Sabah that became exposed to risks of deportation because of Sultan Kiram's boast that they'll join his misadventure. Not only did they not join the Kiram misadventure — they condemned it for putting their lives, livelihood and assets at risk. Now, they're returning home where they have no jobs or shelter.

This admission of Jacel Kiram is evidence that there was a conspiracy in this Sabah misadventure. It's a conspiracy to stir Filipino emotions to further the Sultanate's interest in what's strictly a Sultanate and Malaysia row. It's a conspiracy to involve the Philippine government and the Filipino people both here and in Sabah in a violent episode that the Sultanate instigated when it turns out all along that we have no role in this Sabah row. How could all those so-called analysts, intellectuals of our academe miss this grand deception and even reinforce the misplaced desire to reclaim Sabah? Charlatans they all proved to be.

They were proclaiming the Sabah invaders as romantic Tausug warriors — and that they were Filipinos our government was duty bound to protect. Such idiots they are, people who don't know the truth even when it stares them in the face. Nobody among these charlatans realized that when you create a national security threat in another country, you are liable to the laws of that country and our government is duty-bound to respect that. When captured and tried, the best our government can do is to provide legal service and when convicted — plead for clemency. In my opinion, the Sultanate should provide for the legal service. They started this mess so let them pay for its outcome and attendant costs.

Hindraf Makkal Sakthi had it coming!

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 09:36 PM PDT

If Hindraf decides to contest these seats, it's unlikely to win any, but nevertheless can succeed in demonstrating that its Indian support base equals or exceeds that given by the community to BN and PR combined.

Joe Fernandez

Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran penned an irrelevant, certainly self-serving, piece on Sunday in Malaysiakini which once used to be all about making a difference; Hindraf is no longer the force they were (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/223413).

The MP appears to be implying thereby, among others, in his bleeding heart piece that any ethnic-specific reform proposals put forward by the ad hoc apolitical human rights movement, no matter how well meaning, can be trashed unceremoniously.

His approach to Hindraf, at the risk of repetition, is not the merits or otherwise of its reform proposals but rather the delusion that the NGO movement is past its shelf life since it insists like Jeffrey Kitingan on quarrelling now rather than later.

Besides, he alleges like his fellow mandores and oodampillai (Tamil for running dog), that Hindraf is really too kurang ajar (ill-mannered) for his new statesmanlike station in life up in the clouds. The word "Indian" is not to be uttered in public at the risk of being labelled not only kurang ajar, but racist or worse!

He made scant references, no doubt grudgingly, to Hindraf's 25 Nov, 2007 Rally in the streets of Kuala Lumpur and the mid-Feb 2008 Rose Rally in Putrajaya. He thinks, in an attempt to seize the moral high ground, that perhaps these two events played a role in denying the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) the coveted two-third majority in Parliament at the last outing.

But too much should not be made of Hindraf's role in the political tsunami of 2008, belabours Kula and his kind, quickly returning like snails to the mud which they prefer as their comfort zone.

Siapa yang makan cili akan rasa pedasnya!

Also, there's the little matter of Hindraf labeling Kula and others like him with kurang ajar terms of "endearment" like mandore and oodampillai.

Kula may be in good company with the proxies, stooges, and rogue elements in Sabah and Sarawak politics which bedevil Jeffery's and the Orang Asal's ties with the Malaysian state.

If the cap fits, wear it. Siapa yang makan cili akan rasa pedasnya!

Otherwise, why bother!

The Indian Nation in Malaysia, in any case, is much bigger than the fate of a few individuals who get their proverbial 15 minutes of fame and cling on for dear life to public life for self-serving reasons and strut around as if the Gospel Truth is with them.

Hindraf had it coming considering Kula's tirade and the virtually racist and derogatory comments elsewhere directed at it in the wake of the controversy which erupted in Opposition ranks over its Blueprint for Indians in Malaysia.

Hindraf has no mandate from Indian Nation in Malaysia

The Blueprint and its earlier 18 Point List of Indians Demands have certainly sowed the seeds of suspicion and doubt on Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) Buku Jingga and Manifesto and the BN's various Transformation Programmes.

Hindraf does not appear to be so concerned about the BN Programmes which the movement has dismissed so far as nothing but hot air.

The Buku Jingga and Manifesto are a different matter altogether since much thinking appears to have gone into it. Hindraf is concerned that they omit mention of Indian-specific issues.

Hindraf certainly had it coming considering that the political mandores and oodampillais they refer to in PR see the movement as having no mandate from Indians to negotiate with the Opposition Alliance, the BN or anyone else for that matter. The little matter of 85 per cent of Indians voting for PR in 2008, thanks to Hindraf, seems to have been all but quickly forgotten.

There's a point here.

Hindraf too has made much of "evidence of public support" it has been demonstrating through dinner functions held with opinion leaders from various walks of life, Town Hall- style Meetings and tea parties, the last taking a leaf from Jeffrey's successful Borneo Tea Party gatherings.

Still, where's the mandate, shriek the "ungrateful" mandores and oodampillais in the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Democratic Action Party (Dap) in unison.

Kula and Co are fine ones to ask!

85 per cent of Indians voted against BN in 2008

The mandores and oodampillais certainly don't have a mandate either from Indians, having been elected largely by non-Indian votes attracted by the Rocket sign and the blue-black eye suffered by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim at the hands of a former Inspector General of Police. So, they have no business either asking whether Hindraf has any mandate from the community to negotiate with PR or BN for that matter.

The question of Hindraf getting a mandate from Indians does not arise. There are no ethnic Indian-majority seats in Parliament or any state assembly. The marginalisation and disenfranchisement of Indians over the last 56 years, under the Umno-led BN Government, has been complete. Their voices have not been heard in the legislature since independence in 1957. Indians in the legislature, all elected by non-Indians by and large, are kidding themselves!

To add insult to injury, 350,000 Indians have been deliberately kept stateless to keep them out of the electoral rolls and at the same time provide a readily-available domestic pool of slave labour in the twilight zone.

There are 67 parliamentary seats in Malaya, and related state seats, where Indians decide.

Hindraf clinging on to romantic notions of 2007 and 2008

Such a bold move by itself would be damaging to PR since the opposition needs Indian votes much more than the BN does as the 2008 General Election results proved. In the 12th GE, BN obtained only 15 per cent of the Indian votes cast.

Yet, it has been the BN wooing the Indians all the time since 2008 and not PR. The suspicion is that this is just a ploy to weaken the Opposition in the run-up to the 13 th GE. The BN doesn't expect to ever regain its two-third majority of 2004 and the years before. After the GE, the BN will promptly forget the Indians again until the next time when a GE is due and the coalition hopes that the community would have forgiven them if not forgotten their sins.

Outside the 67 parliamentary seats, and the related state seats, it will be damaging to both PR and BN if Hindraf urges Indians to vote against all incumbents on the grounds of "non-performance".

The jury is still out on which coalition, BN or PR, will be hurt more by this Indian strategic approach, and how this will translate into the total number of seats lost.

If Hindraf is yet to burn its bridges, put it down to the movement's leaders being perhaps more than a little naïve, or clinging on like "idealistic fools" to romantic notions of 2007 and 2008 – "Oh! Those were the days!" – and perhaps even a sincere although not too apparent desire to genuinely protect the Opposition leaders, the much-reviled and universally detested mandores and oodampillais included, from themselves.

You cannot fool all of the people all of the time

In the end, there's only so much Hindraf can do.

They can't continue to be gluttons for punishment.

If Opposition leaders refuse to be saved, the movement has no choice but to cut its losses and move on.

In any case, whether BN or PR takes Putrajaya, Indians are more likely to get the short end of the stick as usual.

There's no need for Indians to turn to anyone.

Their best bet is to avoid party and coalition politics and vote strictly on the basis of the candidates offering themselves to the electorate.

If good fortune favours the Indian Nation in Malaysia one day, the Federal and state governments will fall every GE like tenpins in a bowling alley and keep falling until there's a realization all around that it's time – better late than never -- to make difficult choices and necessary compromises if we are to move on.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln

Joe Fernandez is a mature student of law and an educationist, among others, who loves to write especially Submissions for Clients wishing to Act in Person. He feels compelled, as a semi-retired journalist, to put pen to paper -- or rather the fingers to the computer keyboard -- whenever something doesn't quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview). He shuttles between points in the Golden Heart of Borneo formed by the Sabah west coast, Labuan, Brunei, northern Sarawak and the watershed region in Borneo where three nations meet.

Who will win the 13th general election?

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 01:57 PM PDT

Lee Hwa Bang, TMI

The coming 13th general election will be interesting as nobody can say for sure which coalition will win Putrajaya. However, one thing that we can all agree on is that Barisan Nasional (BN) can no longer win a two-thirds majority and whoever wins, the margin of victory will be narrow.

Many analysts have been making forecasts recently but (in my humble opinion), most of these articles are political spin to make their paymasters look good.

As a disclaimer, I have no agenda in providing the below. I have drafted a list of what I think are thought-provoking questions for the astute reader to use in order to come to an informed conclusion on whether Pakatan Rakyat (PR) can improve their GE12 performance.

In my analysis, I have relied on the results of the last elections (see table) and sparingly highlighted the results of the by-elections, crossovers and those MPs who have become independents since GE12.

In the last elections, BN won 140 seats and Pakatan 82 seats in Parliament. In Peninsular Malaysia, BN won narrowly with 85 seats to Pakatan's 80 seats. However, in east Malaysia, Pakatan won only two seats, one each in Sabah and Sarawak, while the rest of the parliamentary seats were won by BN.

Since then, PAS wrested the Kuala Terengganu seat from Umno in a by-election; MIC wrested the Hulu Selangor seat from PKR; six MPs from PKR and one MP from PAS have resigned; one joined KITA and six became BN-friendly independents.

The DAP has wrested an additional seat from SUPP in the Sibu by-election; two SAPP MPs have left BN to become independents; one MP from Umno and one from UPKO in Sabah have resigned and become Pakatan-friendly independents.

Before you attempt to predict which coalition will win GE13, you should answer the following questions:

1) Peninsular Malaysia (BN 85: PR 80)

Is the overall anti-BN sentiment expressed in 2008 stronger or weaker in 2013? If the anti-BN sentiment is worse now among the Chinese, will the MCA and Gerakan be able to retain their existing 17 seats (MCA 15, Gerakan 2)? Will the Indian voters return to BN when most people agreed in the last election 60 per cent of them voted for Pakatan?

Will PAS be able to wrench away some of the 65 Umno seats in Peninsular Malaysia and improve on the 23 seats that it won in GE12? Quite a number of these seats were won marginally by either Umno or PAS.

Will Pakatan be able to retain the seats of their seven MPs (Gobalakrishnan-Padang Serai/Kedah; Zulkilfi Noordin-Kulim/Kedah; Tan Tee Beng-Nibong Tebal/Penang; Zahrain Hashim-Bayan Baru/Penang; Mohd Fadzil-BaganSerai/Perak; Wee Choo Keong-Wangsa Maju/KL and Ibrahim Ali-Pasir Mas/Kelantan) who have resigned from Pakatan and become BN friendly?

2) Sarawak (BN 30: PR/DAP 1)

During the 2011 state elections (where there were no parliamentary elections), many were surprised when the DAP won 12 state seats and PKR three state seats. If we use the results of the state elections to extrapolate on the potential result of parliamentary elections, the DAP would win six Parliament seats.

It is noteworthy that the DAP was able to win the Sibu by-election in addition to the Kuching seat it won in 2008. In a nutshell, the Chinese voted overwhelmingly for the DAP during the 2011 state elections.

Will the DAP be able to hold on to its Chinese support and increase its indigenous support to add more seats?

Will PKR and the DAP be able to win a couple of seats in the parliamentary constituencies that are composed of "mixed" seats with Chinese and native support especially the 15 seats now held by SUPP (5), SPDP (4) and PRS (6). Whatever the case, most pundits predict a range of 6-10 seats for Pakatan Rakyat in Sarawak.

3) Sabah (BN 25: PR/DAP 1) (Labuan as part of Sabah)

Since the last election in 2008 (GE12), the SAPP with two MPs has left BN and become independent. An Umno MP and an UPKO MP have also resigned from their parties and have aligned themselves to Pakatan.

Will Pakatan be able to negotiate and ultimately, co-operate with Jeffrey Kittingan's STAR and Yong Teck Lee's SAPP in order to ensure a direct, one-to-one fight in all the state and parliamentary seats?

Will the on-going Lahad Datu conflict have any effect on the Muslim voters in Sabah, especially among the Suluk voters?

If you are able to answer the questions above, there you have it, you have just come to your own conclusion of who will win the next GE13.

Remember a coalition needs a minimum of 112 seats to form the government out of the total of 222 seats. The current standing is BN with 142 MPs (135 plus seven BN-friendly independents), Pakatan with 77 MPs (75 plus two Pakatan-friendly Independents), SAPP two MPs and one vacancy due to the death of the PAS MP in Titiwangsa where no by-election has been held.

* Datuk Lee Hwa Beng is the former MCA state assemblyman for Subang Jaya (three terms from 1995-2008). Stood as the BN candidate for the Kelana Jaya parliamentary seat in 2008 and lost. Appointed Port Klang Authority chairman to investigate the PKFZ scandal from 2008 to 2011 and the author of "PKFZ: A Nation's Trust Betrayed."

‘Kick out those who sodomise the nation’

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 01:49 PM PDT

Anwar Ibrahim may have sodomised a few fellows but BN leaders have been sodomising the entire nation for decades, argues one voter, with a shaving blade in hand.

RK Anand, FMT

Sporting a French beard is cumbersome, entailing a trip to the neighbourhood barbershop at least twice a week just to keep the darn thing in shape. Its fate hinges on the deft hand that wields the shaving blade.

During the last visit, I was mortified to discover that the regular Indian national barber was absent and in his place, slumped on the worn-out sofa, was an elderly Malaysian Indian gentleman.

His oil-slicked hair and loud red batik shirt did not inspire confidence but I was desperate. It was late, there was an important dinner on the schedule and I needed to look sharp. The slightest error would leave me no other option but to clean shave, which would feel queer.

With a stern expression, he smothered the shaving foam. In the background, the TV3 newscaster ranted about Saiful Bukhari Azlan's insistence that Anwar Ibrahim sodomised him despite his father claiming otherwise.

I decided to break the ice and prod the barber's views on this delicate subject. His reaction was astounding and left me wondering about his sexual orientation.

"So what if it's true!" he thundered, as he inserted the blade into the shaving kit.

"Anwar might have sodomised a few fellows but these… [Tamil vulgarities censored]… have been sodomising the country for decades. So it's time for us to sodomise them in the elections," he hollered with excitement, waving the shaving kit in a menacing manner. I regretted bringing up the topic.

To the sapiosexual voter, Anwar's heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual bedroom romps mean little. It is a matter of grave concern to his wife but not to the nation.

Attempting to discredit him on this note has little impact on most but on those that it does, these people are torn between believing the allegations and his claim that it is an insidious plot to frustrate his march towards the administrative capital.

Sexual escapades is a potent weapon in the arsenal of politicians the world over, who have exploited it to great effect against their rivals. Even here, one or two heads have rolled.

But it fails to hurt Anwar because the cases against him are riddled with holes, giving the impression of being ill-conceived conspiracies hatched in the minds of mediocre conspirators.

And in the case of the infamous sex videos, it was unwise to use those with tainted characters to character assassinate him, and thus failing the first litmus test of Conspiracy 101.

Assets and liabilities

Can Anwar be trusted? Of course not. Like all politicians, his tongue is forked and from it, will sprout a venomous trail of falsehood. Umno used to run in his veins, and now he wants to slit its throat and bleed it to death.

However, he claims to be a reformed man after being sacked, beaten, jailed and humiliated. Should he be extended the benefit of doubt? Yes. Because we too have made mistakes and learned from them. To err is human.

Both Anwar and PKR are the federal opposition bloc's greatest assets and at the same time, its biggest liabilities.

To those who desire regime change, Anwar's shortcomings and purported transgressions can be forgiven because he is the most important tool in their endeavour to demolish the Barisan Nasional fortress.

Until the advent of the new Anwar, there had been no strong Malay opposition leader to lead the charge against Barisan Nasional. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, during his Semangat 46 sojourn, was too much of a polished aristocrat to appeal to the Malay voters of all classes.

Anwar, on the other hand, is a street combatant and also regarded as a pious Muslim. He brings to the table what no other Umno politician has – guts. And his boldness has captured the imagination of the voters irrespective of class and age.

Credit must also be given to his wife and children, who stood alongside him throughout the numerous trials and tribulations, therefore lending more credence to his claim of being a victim of an evil plot.

Furthermore, when a venerated Muslim leader, garbed in robes, such as the PAS spiritual adviser can place his faith in Anwar's leadership, then the simple God-fearing Muslim voter wonders about the basis of the allegations by the designer-suit clad Muslim leaders in Umno, whose alleged scandals, if arranged in a straight line, can cover the entire length of Putrajaya.

So attacking Anwar is counter-productive to BN, especially when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of those whose disdain for the ruling coalition far outweighs their reservations towards the opposition leader.

To these voters, he is an indispensable saint or sinner at this juncture.

READ MORE HERE

Mistake to rekindle Saiful affair

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 12:32 PM PDT

PKR cannot accuse Umno of using dirty tactics when the former itself is guilty in abundance of doing the same thing.

CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today

You would think that after all that he has been through, Anwar Ibrahim understands that he, above every other politician, should lead Pakatan Rakyat away from the gutter level of discourse that passes for politics in our nation.

In this latest twist and turn of the Saiful sodomy saga, we see it all happening again – albeit in a more precarious situation than before for Anwar.

He has already got his "get out of jail" card, so why in the name of common sense does he want to revisit the site of his near political death?

And whatever the outcome of this Saiful Bukhari Azlan's father's latest "awakening" is, I believe it will result in no political gain for Anwar, PKR or Pakatan Rakyat.

I do not understand the need for any party within Pakatan Rakyat to resort to the tactics that PKR is now stooping to in revisiting the Saiful sodomy on its own volition.

That was that Sungai Petani PKR MP Johari Abdul who accompanied Saiful's father, Azlan Mohd Lazim, to the press conference, was it not?

So let nobody deny that PKR is complicit in this disgusting circus of pitting father against son and vice versa.

What are they doing here? Accusing Umno of using gutter politics to try and score cheap points with the Malaysian public and bring Anwar down?

Surely it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. PKR cannot accuse Umno of using dirty tactics when the former itself is guilty in abundance of doing the same thing.

Visiting the Saiful case serves no purpose for our nation or our people except to remind them again of the abyss our politicking is now drowning in.

You do not have to tarnish the image of Najib and Umno – they have already been doing it to themselves quite adequately.

Why not take the level of political discourse to a more sensible level? Why not challenge Umno and BN on an ideological and political level?

But no, Anwar and PKR prefer to take the low road – gutter politics.

Drama from the father

Already you question the credibility of what this father of Saiful has to say. He mentions Najib's special officer, Khairil Annas Jusoh, and yet has never met him.

So he tells us that he had stood by his son to provide moral support. So what has changed? Saiful's morality or his?

He says his son is a good person, so what has changed with Saiful to make him change his mind – or again is it himself that has changed?

And why the change – a sudden rush of religious morality or financial inducements? Do not bring race or religion into this. What has being Malay got to do with it all?

If you talk about religion, then what is more kosher – Saiful taking an oath in the name of Allah that he has been sodomised by DSAI or his father using religion as an excuse of supposedly coming clean.

So his previous statement had been scripted by his son's lawyer Zamri Idrus? Who is now scripting his statement now?

And why the presence of Johari – that in itself smacks of politics being behind it all, not morality, not religion, not race.

He tells us that the government did not meet with him or even ask his opinion on the case. Why should the government meet with him and discuss the case?

Was it not his son that was sodomised and not he?

And again invoking the name of Allah, he wants to ask for forgiveness from Anwar's family and from Anwar himself.

Do not use the name of Allah in vain; use it so often and in all circumstances that it no longer has any credibility in announcing your guilt or innocence to any of us – what more to Allah?

Malaysia a failure in Sabah, Sarawak

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 12:05 PM PDT

Internal colonization is a winner take all in Sabah and Sarawak: on the one-hand take away all the resources and revenue of the two Territories; and at the same time give very little back so that both territories continue to remain at the bottom of the dung heap and thereby unable to pose a serious threat in any shape or form to Putrajaya.

Joe Fernandez

It's patently pointless getting into rhetoric and polemics on Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak, at this juncture, in the wake of the Lahad Datu Standoff. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has vowed that Sabah will remain forever within Malaysia. Apologists for his Administration swear that Malaysia was properly constituted in Sabah as well.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) in The Ballad of East and West

Malaya on the one hand, and Sabah and Sarawak on the other hand, are poles apart.

It would be more pertinent to examine, with an eye on the forthcoming 13th General Election, that Malaysia whether properly constituted or otherwise in 1963, has indeed failed in these two Borneo nations. It follows therefore that it's high time that they regained and/or restored their self-determination status of 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively when they opted for independence and no word of Malaysia was mentioned in the declarations.

Four points would suffice.

In Dec 2010, the World Bank released a damning report in Kota Kinabalu on poverty in Sabah and Sarawak. The report, based on figures from the Economic Planning Unit and the respective State Planning Units, confirmed that both Nations were the poorest in Malaysia. Sabah had the dubious distinction of being the poorest.

The 2nd point is the fact that both Singapore and Brunei has grown by leaps and bounds since 1963 when Malaysia was set up on Sept 16. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia two years later and has built an economy almost as large as that of Malaysia. Brunei stayed out of Malaysia at the 11th hour and is among the richest countries in the world.

Sarawak another Sabah in the making

Thirdly, as the on-off Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) proves, the Orang Asal of Sabah would lose their country altogether to the illegal immigrants from Indonesia in particular, and from the Philippines, if Sabah continues to remain within the Federation of Malaysia. The fact that the illegal immigrants are Muslim and the Orang Asal largely Christian is beside the point.

The marginalization and disenfranchisement of the Orang Asal, as part of Putrajaya's internal colonization policies in Sabah and Sarawak, continues unabated.

In 2005 alone, the statistics indicated that there were 1.7 million foreigners in Sabah vis-a-vis 1.5 million locals. Of the 1.7 million foreigners, who are often collectively dismissed as illegal immigrants, no less than 600,000 had Malaysian personal documents in the form of the MyKad held only by citizens by operation of law.

Fourthly, the energy-intensive SCORE region in Central Sarawak has plans to attract 1.2 million foreign workers over the next decade or so. Already, there are 600,000 foreigners in Sarawak and of these no less than 240,000, it has been estimated, are illegal immigrants from Indonesia and elsewhere.

Sarawak in Malaysia seems to have embarked on the same ruinous path as Sabah to marginalize and disenfranchise the Orang Asal who also include the local Sarawak Malays, who are actually Bidayuh and Iban converts to Islam in the last 300 years.

Why any Government worth its salt would want to deliberately create jobs for foreigners when its own citizens have numerous needs unmet is a million dollar question as recent protests in Singapore on the same issue show.

Internal colonization is a winner take all in Sabah and Sarawak

Even so, it won't be exactly a walk in the park for Sabah and Sarawak to exit Malaysia.

For starters, there's the question of numerous foreigners in both states being on the electoral rolls.

Then, there's the wedge that successive administrations in Putrajaya/Kuala Lumpur had driven between the local non-Muslim and Muslim population in Sabah and Sarawak to create disunity and thereby prevent any possibility of their nations exiting the Federation of Malaysia and denying the ruling elite valuable resources to add to their already considerable looting of the Public Treasury in Malaya.

More damaging is the reality that Sabah and Sarawak, except for the Stephen Kalong Ningkan and Joseph Pairin Kitingan periods respectively, have been run by local proxies, their stooges and rogue elements of Putrajaya. This kind of rotten politics, in return for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver, has facilitated Putrajaya's internal colonization policies in the two Borneo nations in Malaysia.

In any case, the days of the local proxies, stooges and rogue elements via local political parties seem to be numbered.

The voice of Borneo in the Malaysian Parliament

Putrajaya no longer wants to take a risk as evident from the presence of Umno in Sabah since 1994.

The parti parti Malaya, on both sides of the political divide; seem determined to eliminate local parties from the political theatre.

If the parti parti Malaya call the shots in Sabah and Sarawak, the voice of the people of Borneo in the Malaysian Parliament will be extinguished.

As it is, Malaya has more seats than it should have in Parliament. The Malaysia Agreement envisaged that Malaya should not have more than two-thirds less one seat. Given the 165 seats that Malaya has at the moment in the 222-seat Parliament, the Territory has 18 seats more than it should have.

At the same time, to add insult to injury, some of the 57 parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sarawak are held by the parti parti Malaya.

Najib should admit failure in southern Philippines

No one in his right mind would believe that the Sulu people have the resources to take on Malaysia in Sabah. They have been no threat since the days of the Spanish in the Philippines and the American did a thorough job over 50 years of decimating what little power they had and pacifying the Sulu Islands.

Najib should admit his role in the imminent failure of the peace process in southern Philippines.

Instead, Najib is picking on the Opposition pledging to honour the Autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak as the reason for the Lahad Datu standoff.

Does he want to continue ketuanan Melayu (Malay political supremacy, dominance, hegemony) in Sabah and Sarawak?

The Autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak is implicit.

The political salvation of Sabah and Sarawak hinges on the people of the two territories forming a united front and presenting their case on internal colonization before the UN Security Council.

This was the route taken by Southern Sudan which was allowed by the UN Security Council to break away from Sudan.

Malaysia an Equal Partnership of Nations

As an addendum to the Sabah, Sarawak Petition before the UN Security Council would be the fact that No Referendum was ever held in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Malaya on Malaysia. The Cobbold Commission report is No Referendum.

Malaya cannot continue to masquerade as the Federation of Malaysia and refer to Sabah and Sarawak as the 12th and 13th States in Malaysia (Malaya).

The written Constitution of Malaya cannot continue to be passed off as the written Constitution of Malaysia.

Malaysia, if it's continued, in fact has an unwritten Constitution based on the written Constitution of Malaya, Batu Sumpah and other constitutional documents from Sabah and Sarawak on the Malaysia concept.

Malaysia, if it had been indeed constituted on 16 Sept 1963, would have been 50 years this year, not 56 years this year as Putrajaya claims.

Malaysia was supposed to be an Equal Partnership of the Nations of Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei, Singapore and Malaya.

Handling the hype behind Sabah crisis

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 12:02 PM PDT

We need to constantly remind ourselves that this situation was never the desire of the Philippine government, and we should not blame the Philippines as a whole for what has happened.

Farish A. Noor, NST

CHECK THE INFO: There are many actors in the Sulu saga and there is a need to separate fact from fiction

THERE are times when I do believe we ought to be more circumspect and perhaps even cynical when reading the news we get.

As the Sabah crisis continues at its own pace, different contenders have come to the fore offering their opinions as to how the crisis ought to be settled.

Among them has been Nur Misuari, leader of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), who was once a player in the regional dynamics of Southern Philippines, but who now seems to be taking the opportunity to foreground himself once again.

I was somewhat alarmed to read a report in the Borneo Post when Misuari claimed that "Sarawak is also part of his clan's ancestral lands".

I had to read the article several times to convince myself that my failing eyesight was not deceiving me and that the article was genuine and not a spoof.

Misuari had also suggested that he be given a role as mediator to end the Sabah incursion, despite his claim that Sarawak belongs to his clan.

Then came other reports about how the MNLF was threatening "chaos" in the region, and that 10,000 Filipinos would be sent to Sabah in a show of support for the pretender to the Sulu throne there.

Once again, I had to read the reports several times to convince myself that my eyes were working and that I was not seeing things.

In a state of crisis, one of the first conditions that has to be met is information management and verification of reports.

While sensational headlines may sell newspapers, they do not calm an already delicate situation and may, in fact, have the opposite effect of rousing fear and anger among readers or viewers.

It is for this reason that we ought to remember some salient facts that are pertinent to the Sabah situation at the moment.

First, Misuari's MNLF is today a spent force, with around a few hundred followers left.

If Manila had chosen to broker a peace accord with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) instead, it was for the simple reason that MILF claims to have 15,000 followers and is perhaps the strongest armed force in Mindanao at the moment.

They are in fact the only power brokers and if peace is to be restored to southern Philippines, it cannot be done without the support of the MILF.

Second, the other splinter groups that have been largely responsible for the incursion into Sabah happen to be those who felt left out of the peace accord and who may have felt that they had been denied a slice of the pie.

This is indeed unfortunate, but it has more to do with who the government in Manila recognises as legitimate actors, and who are not.

No other country in Asean has the right to intervene in this process, but can only help it along by mediating when asked. Third, it ought to be clear by now that the incursion into Sabah was certainly not the desire of the Philippine government. As President Benigno Aquino Aquino has noted in his presidential address last week, the constitution of the Philippines does not allow for the creation of private armies, the ownership of weapons without permits, and the unilateral declaration of war on another country by a citizen who does not represent the state.

On these grounds, the incursion into Sabah has no legal standing and was, in fact, contrary to Philippine law itself. Malaysia cannot pick itself up and relocate itself in some other quiet corner of the world, and we should not deny our long historical and diasporic links to all the mobile, fluid communities that make up the complex social landscape.

Indeed, for centuries, people from Sulu have moved in and out of Sabah along with Bruneians, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Bajaus, Ilanuns and Bugis. What is at issue here is how an internal domestic crisis in the Philippines has erupted and spilled over into the territory of another country, namely Malaysia. The Malaysian public in turn may be wary or even angered by a Philippine citizen who suddenly claims to be their sultan out of nowhere, but we cannot allow our judgment to be clouded by fiery rhetoric, disinformation and propaganda that may be designed to upset us. We need to constantly remind ourselves that this situation was never the desire of the Philippine government, and we should not blame the Philippines as a whole for what has happened.

In the meantime, some of the stories that are emanating from the likes of Misuari ought to be taken with a heavy dose of salt too: the man who now claims to wish to mediate the crisis also happens to be the same person who, during his younger left-leaning days, was inclined to criticise the traditional rulers of southern Philippines for their feudal culture and elite status. The solidarity shown for those claiming to be the descendants of the sultan of Sulu seems hollow and more instrumental, as are the claims that tens of thousands of southern Filipinos are about to invade Borneo. If these leaders truly wanted peace in the region, they ought to begin by tempering their own rhetoric for starters, and stop making claims like Sarawak is also part of his clan's ancestral lands.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Philippines President Benigno Aquino witnessing the signing of the peace accord between the Philippines and Moro Islamic Liberation Front in Manila. Splinter groups that have been responsible for the incursion into Sabah happen to be those who felt left out of the peace accord.

Why Malaysia Slaughters Filipinos?

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 11:51 AM PDT

The Filipino activists in Sabah are ordinary men of valor. They are not armed with the most sophisticated weapons available in town. The best they can do is to protect themselves with knives and simple guns. They did not undergo rigid training so as to qualify them as self-declared commandos. These royal warriors, as they call themselves, are just ordinary citizens possessed with passion to claim what this country actually owns.

Atty. Aleck Francis "Koy-koy" T. Lim, The Bohol Standard

Malaysia continues to slaughter Filipino Muslims who were suspected of being followers of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III of Sulu.

The royal army of Kiram had tried but failed to bring back Sabah to the arms of the Philippines as its rightful owner historically and legally.

While it is true that a violent takeover or invasion is not the best solution to resolve a territorial dispute, killing defenseless people without affording them the opportunity to stand in court trial is holocaust in Asia in the making.

Ordinary as these men of valor from Southern Philippines are, yet the Malaysian government has used its military might, army commandos and jet fighters, in order to obliterate from the face of the earth this band of brave Filipino-Muslim soldiers.

In the first place, the number of Kiram's followers would fall short to the requirement of brutal force necessary for a complete Sabah takeover. Kiram's soldiers, truth to tell, are all full of sound and fury but signify nothing earth-shaking as they have no match against Malaysia's military forces.

But then again, why does Malaysia continue to mercilessly massacre our brothers and sisters in Sabah? How can the Philippine Government stop this ruthless killing of Filipinos in the eyes of an apathetic international community? What can the United Nations do in order to stop Malaysia from committing crimes against humanity?

If the so-called invaders of Sabah were citizens of China, do you think Malaysia would do the same acts of atrocities as they did to the Filipinos? No. Truly, Malaysia would exhaust all efforts in order to resolve the Sabah stand-off. Hypothetically, Malaysia cannot afford to face the anger of China. Malaysia cannot just slaughter Chinese warriors without suffering the terrible consequence of China's retaliation.

So it boils down to military might. Malaysia knows their armed forces are more powerful and potent and updated than ours. Malaysia knows that whatever it does to wipe out Filipinos who truly own Sabah would be treated with impunity by the Philippine government, including the international community of nations.

At what cost high-speed rail

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 11:38 AM PDT

Based on 2010 data, the Kristom study says infrastructure maintenance costs in Europe are around €100,000 per km. For the 350km KL-Singapore route and based on an exchange rate of RM4 to one euro, maintenance could total a hefty RM140 million a year.

Second, will the Malaysia-Singapore HSR have sufficient passengers to make it commercially viable?

Tan Siok Choo, The Sun Daily

MAGNETIC levitation (maglev for short) trains are to railways what Lamborghinis are to cars. Like Lamborghinis, maglev trains are super speedy, ultra-pricey and transportation's status symbols.

Currently, there are only two commercial maglev trains globally – the 30km Pudong-Shanghai maglev and the 8.9km Aichi maglev, near Nagoya in Japan, built in 2005 at a cost of over US$100 million per km.

Given the exorbitant costs involved, Malaysia's decision to rule out buying maglev trains is a relief.

Whether building a high-speed rail (HSR) to connect Kuala Lumpur with Singapore is economically justifiable is debatable. HSRs are the equivalent of Bentleys – cheaper than Lamborghinis but out of reach for 95% of car owners.

Commonly defined as trains that travel on specially-built lines at speeds of 200kph, HSRs have been installed in several countries, mainly in Europe, China and Japan.

If asked, frequent travellers to Singapore – whether Malaysians or foreigners – are likely to vote overwhelmingly in favour of replacing sluggish Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) trains with HSRs. Some economists and Malaysian taxpayers, however, may be more cautious for several reasons.

First, will the costs for construction and maintenance be affordable? Research reports published in Malaysian newspapers suggest the tab for the proposed KL-Singapore HSR could be around RM40 billion comprising RM30 billion in construction cost plus RM10 billion for rolling stock or trains.

This figure appears to be a massive understatement.

A study titled "Economic evaluation of the High Speed Rail" by Bengt Kristrom, Mikael Asell and Agnus Allgulin in December 2011 says the construction cost per km of HS2 in UK is estimated at €70 million (RM280 million).

This suggests the 350km KL-Singapore HSR could cost RM98 billion.

Admittedly, HS2's costs are due to high land values and the need to build tunnels. HS2 is the planned second high-speed rail link from London to Manchester and Leeds via Birmingham.

Equally important – and often overlooked in Malaysia – is the need for an adequate budget for maintenance costs.

Second, will the Malaysia-Singapore HSR have sufficient passengers to make it commercially viable?

In 2010, Australia's Transport Ministry said it rejected the proposed HSR linking Sydney and Melbourne because it was too costly and wouldn't attract enough passengers. According to the ministry, an HSR needs about six million passengers a year to be viable.

Third, will the HSR benefit Malaysian taxpayers? One benefit of HSR often cited is its speed. However, it is misleading to talk of maximum speed, what matters is operational speed. Because the HSR will have to slow down considerably before and after a station, opting for more stations will reduce the operational speed.

Because of its speed, proponents also claim HSRs offer considerable savings in time. One figure often glossed over is door-to-door time. This comprises four segments – time from home to airport or railway station, waiting time, actual travel time, and from railway station or airport to destination.

While cities often build dedicated highways to airports, the same cannot be said for high-speed railway stations.

One example is the HSR from Beijing to Jinan in Shandong province.

In November 2011, my husband and I took this HSR. Door-to-door time was about four hours 15 minutes. Actual travel time was three hours, the Jinan station was just 10 minutes from the hotel in Jinan. But the savings in time were negated by the 90 minutes it took to reach Beijing South railway station from our hotel in Beijing.

Flying from Beijing to Jinan, the door-to-door time would have been three hours 45 minutes – one hour from hotel to Beijing airport, one hour waiting time, one hour flying time and about 45 minutes from Jinan airport to hotel.

Moreover, the lack of escalators in Jinan railway station meant we had to carry our suitcases up and down two flights of stairs.

Forecasts for future passenger travel by HSR often overlook a growing corporate trend – the rising popularity of video-conferencing, enabling top executives to minimise physical travel and maximise their time more effectively.

A non-quantifiable benefit of the KL-Singapore HSR is that it reflects the improved relationship between the two countries. What is notable is this HSR proposal was possible only because the prime ministers of both countries were unencumbered by the fallout from Singapore's separation from Malaysia.

Going forward, implementing this project will ensure Malaysia and Singapore will be inextricably linked by fast-track rail – a physical bond that cannot be severed unilaterally – and fortified by this tangible acknowledgement of their shared economic interests.

The 2 ASEANs must meet

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 11:33 AM PDT

Are we, ASEAN citizens, and are the states of ASEAN, ready for multiple citizenship?

Farish A. Noor, Rappler

During my student days in England, I saw an advertising campaign by a certain commercial airline. The slogan read: "XYZ Airlines, Bringing the World Together." It was accompanied by images of people from all over the world, who were presumably now connected thanks to the wonder of modern aviation technology: There was an image of an American farmer, and next to him an Indian farmer.

I recall how I reacted to this image with a combination of bemusement and cynicism. For it struck me there and then that the promise of globalization was a delicious lie. The farmer from America could perhaps afford to fly to India to have a cup of tea with some Indian agriculturalists, but it would be a long time before an Indian farmer could afford to fly to Texas to share some tacos with his American counterparts. And even if he could afford it, he probably would have been denied a tourist visa, on the grounds that he may have been an economic migrant.

That's the reality of capital-driven globalization, and it sucks.

It ain't new, this Globalization Thingy.

As a lecturer of Southeast Asian politics and history I constantly find myself warning my students not to use trendy terms. Among the terms I loathe the most is "globalization" because it is such a prissy, self-conscious, oh-am-I-not-too-sexy-for-my-shirt sort of term. The word has been bandied about so much by now that it is old hat, and yet for so many people it sells itself as something novel and exciting, when in fact it is not.

When people talk about globalization in Southeast Asia today, they seem to have conveniently forgotten the facts of 2,000 years of recorded history. We talk about globalization as if it is only now – today – that we realize that we live in a crowded Southeast Asia with neighbors all around us.

But this impression merely underscores the fact that our consciousness, epistemologies and vocabularies have been so deeply marked and shaped by the colonial encounter and the regime of the political border. It is only because we – the ASEAN citizens of the postcolonial era – have no tactile memory of the precolonial past of our region that we think that being able to hop on a plane from Manila to Singapore, to Kuala Lumpur, to Jakarta, to Bali is such a funky experience.

Well, let the historians remind you that centuries ago our ancestors were a million times funkier than we are today, as they lived in a world without passports. (Yes, Bob Marley's Utopian world can be backdated that far.)

Oosokan Bay Borneo as depicted in this illustration from F. Marryat's Borneo and the East Indian Archipelago (1848)

If we were really honest with ourselves, and comfortable and confident enough to accept our mottled past, most of us would admit to having such mixed, multiple origins too. Scratch the skin of any Southeast Asian and one would find the multiple, overlapping bloodlines and personal narratives of all of Asia beneath. Yet the impact of Empire, and the advent of the modern (post)colonial state, has rendered us boxed-in, compartmentalized, classified and registered subjectivities.

Living as we do in the postcolonial age as both modern citizen-subjects and inheritors of a premodern fluid past, no wonder these tensions come to the surface once in a while. And recently it did so with a vengeance.

More Sulus to come

What the Sulu-Sabah debacle has done is bring to the fore what can only be described as the growing gap between two virtual ASEANs: On the one hand an ASEAN that is connected via the modern communicative infrastructure that is used by the region's technocrats, business elites, middle-class professionals and globe-trotters who can afford to fly; and, on the other hand, an ASEAN that is populated by hundreds of millions of other ASEAN citizens who may feel that the capital-driven march towards globalization has left them behind.

In the case of the former, we see the emergence of a new generation of ASEAN-minded citizens whose sense of belonging across the region is rendered all the more comfortable by the poolside bar and their sushi power-lunches; in the case of the latter their dreams of becoming global citizens extend only as far as the gated compounds of the rich which they cannot ever penetrate, and the cold glass window of the shopping malls brimming with luxury goods they can never afford.

Somehow, the nation-states of ASEAN need to bring these two communities together, lest we end up living in a bifurcated ASEAN divided against itself.

I am not condemning ASEAN here, for I consider myself a committed ASEAN-ist. And while there are those who think that ASEAN has gone past its sell-by date and has nothing left to offer, I would beg to differ. For all of ASEAN's failings, weaknesses and internal contradictions; it did do what it set out to do, which is to prevent wars between states from 1967 until today.

Look across the globe today and we will see that ASEAN and the European Union are perhaps the only multi-national bodies that have managed to prevent conflict when so many other regions were blighted.

But unlike the EU, the convoy of states that make up the ASEAN flotilla is a diverse one indeed. For a start, there remain enormous differentials in terms of GDP and income levels across the region. Then there remains the fact that structurally the nation-states that make up the ASEAN flotilla are so very different too, ranging from republics with centralised rule, monarchies, constitutional monarchies and federations.

The very fact that the ships of the ASEAN flotilla have managed in sail in more or less the same direction for more than four and a half decades is, for me, an achievement in itself.

But from the very beginning until now, ASEAN has been made up of nation-states whose cordial relations were maintained only because these were states that were interacting with each other according to well-established norms of diplomacy and statecraft.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 11 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan