Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

In Came Tun Musa
The Chua Tian Chang Sedition Case
Liar, Liar, Liar Wong Tack!
Will Malays vote MCA in GE13?

Posted: 14 Mar 2013 08:30 PM PDT

But these are promises and, like all election promises, they are not cast in stone. Even the Barisan Nasional had, over its long rule, amended and abolished some of its cherished policies and programmes.

That the BN leaders and supporters quickly lampooned and berated the PR economic agenda as set out in its 2013 General Election Manifesto is only to be expected.

Both the Prime Minister cum Finance Minister, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak, and (Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad, were reported as saying that the PR economic agenda was impractical and could bankrupt the country.

In his blog posting entitled 'Change', Dr Mahathir, among other things, wrote: "Five years for the (PKR de facto leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) or (PAS president Abdul) Hadi (Awang) -led opposition to govern is dangerous. Many things can be destroyed in five years. We have some experience in this.

"Already we see this person who claims to fight for free speech suing and resorting to the courts to shut the mouths of his critics. Other powers of the government will be similarly abused.

"Nepotism and cronyism will be employed as indeed they are in the party he now heads."

Musa Came to PR Defence

What is not expected is for the former Deputy Prime Minister, (Tun) Musa Hitam, to join the fray and contradict Mohd Najib's and Dr Mahathir's assertion.

In a March 13 report headlined 'Pakatan regime won't bankrupt nation, says Musa Hitam', the Malaysian Insider news portal quoted him as saying, Malaysia would not become bankrupt if PR trumps the BN in the race for Putrajaya in the GE.

Knowing Musa-Anwar relationship, I believe the statement is less about endorsing Anwar and his People's Pact than about resurrecting his long-drawn rivalry with Dr Mahathir. Although Musa was for five years – from 1981 to 1986 - Dr Mahathir's deputy, there is little genuine respect between them.

So, with Dr Mahathir positioning himself as Mohd Najib's 'panglima' (warrior) in the battle against Anwar in the GE, Musa is set to resume his diatribe against his former boss.

After resigning as Sime Darby's chairman, Musa is free of all links with the government and, therefore, free to speak as he likes. Furthermore, Musa was appointed to the board of Sime Darby not by Mohd Najib but by (Tun) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

READ MORE HERE

The Chua Tian Chang Sedition Case

Posted: 14 Mar 2013 09:16 AM PDT

This is not unique to Malaysia. It is common in developed democracies to treat words attacking the government as sedition during times of invasion and war.

As quoted by Keadilan Daily, PKR's dedicated house organ – and presumably one of the publications on which a PKR officer may rely to accurately relay his words – Chua allegedly said the following:

1. "The shooting in Lahad Datu is believed to be a planned conspiracy of the Umno government to divert attention and intimidate the people."

2. "The incident has raised many questions and doubts as to the drama staged by the Umno government."

3. "The intrusion in Lahad Datu was only a drama of the government to intimidate the people to make it seem that Sabah is not peaceful."

4. "There is a conspiracy by the Umno government to divert the attention of the Sabah people, particularly from the issue of giving identity cards to foreigners."

It is important to distinguish what Chua allegedly said from how his words have been characterised. He was not criticising the Government's handling of the Lahad Datu situation; if he said what has been alleged, he was asserting that the Government enacted the entire conflict, either murdering soldiers, police, and civilians, or pretending to do the same.

If he said what he is alleged to have said, he is also accusing police and soldiers of either faking their comrades' deaths, or being complicit in their murders.

By any reasonable measure, this is sedition – it directly attacks the Government and its ability to prosecute war, not its actions, in an attempt to weaken it during a time of conflict.

Chua's defence, such as it is, is fairly traditional PKR rhetoric.

"This is a politically-motivated charge. I will fight this slander to clear my name," Chua told the Sessions Court while claiming trial. His lawyer, N Surendran, added that as the Prime Minister had promised the repeal of the Sedition Act, Chua should not be charged under it.

Putting aside the illogical nature of the lawyer's claim, it is important to understand that almost every country in the world – including the world's leading democracies – has a long history of treating attacks on the government during a time of military conflict as criminal sedition.

The United Kingdom has a storied history of sedition charges. Although the charge itself was largely abolished only in 2010, the charge was used heavily during the extensive conflicts in which Britain found itself for the last three centuries. In every major conflict in which Britain found itself embroiled, it charged its own citizens with sedition for attacking Britain's involvement in the war itself. In the last 150 years alone, the Boer War, World War I, and World War II saw dozens of sedition trials each, with convictions almost a foregone conclusion.

Most recently, during the Troubles in Ireland, the UK liberally employed sedition charges against attempts to aid the Irish Republican Army (which was at the time planting bombs in and around schools, train stations, and other areas with high civilian traffic) or undermine the effort against the IRA, even into the 1970s.

A movement to repeal sedition as a crime began after Ireland calmed, but was delayed in the wake of the July 7 attacks, only coming to fruition in 2010 when Britain faced no significant internal conflict. Even so, sedition remains a crime for aliens in the UK.

The United States, despite a tendency to very broad interpretations of free speech, has been a vigorous proponent of sedition charges from the country's very beginning. Washington most recently criminalised sedition – and charged for it en masse – throughout the twentieth century and beyond.

During World War I, the US charged and prosecuted over 2,000 American citizens with sedition, which was the crime of interfering with the war effort through speech. During World War II, sedition charges were unused until German submarines appeared off the American coasts – and then the government began charging in earnest.

Communists and communist allies were charged and convicted of sedition for the simple act of espousing communism – that is, that there should be an organised movement to overthrow the US government. This occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, when the United States was not formally at war, but was locked in its Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union.

Indeed, the United States has never needed a formal declaration of war to prosecute for sedition. American citizens promoting the idea that the archipelago territory of Puerto Rico should be a sovereign nation have been convicted of sedition in the 1970s and 1980s. Terrorists – American citizens who sided with al Qaeda – have been charged with sedition before and after the September 11 attacks; many have not gone to trial merely because they have fled the country or have been killed during America's extensive terror-related conflicts over the last decade.

Australia criminalised sedition in 2006, only modifying the laws slightly after a change in Government. India retains an extensive sedition law. Canada has existed under American protection since the end of the Second World War and so has not significantly prosecuted for sedition since then, but retains laws against sedition.

Yet sedition charges have become less common than in the past in major democracies. Some suggest this is because their laws and customs have broadened to accept even incendiary speech.

This is not so.

READ MORE HERE

Liar, Liar, Liar Wong Tack!

Posted: 14 Mar 2013 09:06 AM PDT

Wong Tack, the man behind the movement of Himpunan Hijau, which has been opposing the Lynas rare earth project, surprised everyone when he was named as a DAP candidate to contest the Bentong parliamentary seat in the general election.

His candidacy was announced by Lim Guan Eng who said that Wong was a natural choice as both DAP and Himpunan wanted to see a greener Malaysia and the closure of the Lynas Corp rare earth plant in Gebeng.

We now know that Wong Tack had been hiding behind the mask of the green movement to brand himself as a champion against the controversial Lynas project to score political points.

This is evident from a China Press report on Thursday that Wong had been a DAP member since 2011 but does not hold any party post.

Since day one, he had fooled the people, especially the Gebeng folks. He failed to declare his political interest and had even been quoted by the Chinese newspapers that he had no political links or allegiance with any political party.

And in January this year only, Wong told Malaysia Insider that Himpunan Hijau did not see the necessity in fielding candidates for the 13th general election.

"At this moment, we don't see the necessity but…feel that (we should) focus on strengthening Pakatan Rakyat's position," he was quoted as saying.

But now he is making a U-turn and has instead offered himself as a candidate.

This flip flop is amazing because just a month ago, he declared that he was not interested in politics and that he will not be contesting any seat.

READ MORE HERE

Will Malays vote MCA in GE13?

Posted: 14 Mar 2013 05:45 AM PDT

Bentong

The Malay lifeline gave MCA altogether nine seats, if not for which the Chinese party would have suffered a washout.

But that was five years ago. The MCA stock now has few takers from the Chinese community. It has greatly dipped in value among the Malays too.

The recent development over the Bentong seat raises some questions. Currently the Bentong electoral roll has 46 percent Chinese, 43 percent Malays and 9 percent Indians. Given this demography, would it actually be a safer bet to field an Umno, rather than an MCA candidate for Parliament?

Three other seats can also serve to illustrate a similar predicament arising from the loss of confidence in the MCA.

Padang Serai

Is there any reason at all why BN should not give Padang Serai to the MIC to contest instead of to the MCA?

Padang Serai in Kedah is a Malay-majority Parliament constituency which has a 22.3 percent Indian electorate. This figure is just a hair's breadth away from the total of 22.6 percent Chinese voters.

In 2008, Padang Serai was lost by Datuk Boey Chin Gan (MCA) to N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR).

The general consensus is that Indian support has returned to BN whereas the Chinese vote has moved even further away from the ruling party.

Wangsa Maju

Another notable seat lost by the MCA in GE12 was Wangsa Maju, a 52.5 percent Malay-majority area.

The present incumbent Wee Choo Keong is popular with the Malays partly due to his Kelantan origin. Wee had won the seat on a PKR ticket by a slim margin of 150 votes but later turned independent in May 2010.

His probable challenger is Yew Teong Look of the MCA who has continued to service the area despite his 2008 loss. Yew is known to the Chinese ground as a diligent worker and is most likely to receive the nod again from his party.

Meanwhile PKR is tipped to field Dr Tan Tee Kwong, a former Deputy Land and Cooperative Development Minister and ex-Gerakan man.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 15 Mac 2013