Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The perils of Umno men joining PAS — The Malaysian Insider
A very ‘American’ election
Anwar after Hindraf over Ministry of Orang Asal and Minority Affairs (Moama)
Time for 1MDB to come out in the open
Unfair media access: PR should boycott polls
Lu Kacau Gua, Gua Kacau Lu – Hindraf under Star symbol and flag in Malaya!
The EC Must Address These Doubts
GE13: The good, the bad and the ugly
For politicians, it’s only about power
Dilemma of rural Sarawakians

The perils of Umno men joining PAS — The Malaysian Insider

Posted: 14 Apr 2013 03:54 PM PDT

Election 2013 will be the tightest race in recent Malaysian history and every party is looking for an advantage over their foe. PAS is no exception and has now taken in several Umno men to boost its ranks and profile in the May 5 polls.

Is that wise?

Corporate player Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin is now PAS's candidate for the Tasik Gelugor federal seat in Penang. He was a known associate of Tun Daim Zainuddin and even helmed the Umno-linked MRCB between 1999 and 2002.

Then there is mounting speculation that former Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib will join PAS this week to give it a psychological edge over Umno.

Muhammad is a big catch, of course. But he comes with baggage too, including the one where RM3.8 million was found on him in Australia, forcing him to resign as mentri besar in 1997.

The man known as Mat Tyson might not be a candidate but what advantage does he and Rahman give to PAS in the long run? Perhaps they have repented and want to contribute to society through PAS but at what cost?

After all, the Islamist party has been grooming a younger set of leaders and they should be given a chance to contest the polls as they come without baggage.

So, why is PAS now going the route of having brand-name recognition to win the general election? To ensure it can keep up with its allies in Pakatan Rakyat?

Will it work? Or will such men with such past sink PAS's efforts in this general election.

These are the perils that PAS must know if it continues picking up former Umno men.

A very ‘American’ election

Posted: 14 Apr 2013 03:46 PM PDT

Clive Kessler, TMI

So far it has been, as a friend remarked the other day, "a very American election". With its mobilising and symbolic focus on PM Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the GE13 "pre-campaign" has been nothing if not "presidential".

"Presidential" campaigning: PM Najib and BR1M

If Umno/BN is now a brand, Najib is its face. Its trademark.

Not unlike a certain avuncular colonel and his own certain brand of fried chicken.

And if Umno/Bn now has a strategic approach, it is Najib's own iconic BR1M.

Umno/Bn now relies upon communicating an irresistible sense of party and government largesse that, in a very personal way, the prime minister distributes and also symbolises.

The outgoing government of the last four years — since Pak Abdullah Ahmad Badawi stood down — has largely placed its trust in, and now entrusted its political fate to, BR1M.

And the BR1M promises keep flowing. Endlessly, it would seem. "Our cup overfloweth," the government might well say, spilling over its generous brim.

It has been "brim-full" of subtle inducements and beguiling "goodies".

The election, it seems, will be a referendum on BR1M, and the prime minister will live or die politically on the people's verdict upon this measure, this key strategic device.

When an election is focused, through one key initiative, upon the fate of the national leader who is uniquely identified with that measure, we may well characterise the campaign as presidential.

Targeting the Malaysian "political market"

But there is more to be said. When the present campaign is typified as "very American", much more is involved than its presidential style and personalised "symbolics".

Let us return to the BR1M payments.

These are part of a very sophisticated strategy or political approach.

And the entire approach which the BR1M initiative suggests, and of which it is a part, seems to have a clear "genealogy", or readily identifiable origins.

It seems directly traceable to the "new approach" to election campaigning that has been pioneered in the US over the last quarter-century — especially and initially but now no longer exclusively by the "political right" — by such innovative political consultants, strategists and "operatives" as Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and their more recent successors, most notably Karl Rove Jr.

This is the approach that sees not a single nation — "a community of common destiny and shared national fate" — to be addressed, but a series of special interests and constituencies.

A discrepant array of groups that are to be reached, each specifically in its own way: with finely tuned and closely targeted messages, with its own special "tailor-made" policies, and its specifically targeted benefits and promises.

It is an approach that does not presume, nor seek to address, a "nation that is ever in the making", one continually engaged in the process of discovering and renewing itself, but merely a segmented and fragmented political "market".

It is an approach that, so to speak, neither hears nor wishes to sing a national anthem voicing widely shared aspirations, but one that is instead eager to respond to a cacophony of discordant voices, all calling out "me , me!" and "remember us!"

"Do not forget us," they cry out, "do not leave us out of your official gift-giving at this special political festive season!"

And, guided by the consultant political marketers, the politicians — well, some kinds of politician — hear and respond. They do as the clamourers and the clamour-monitors suggest, they do what they are entreated and told to do.

The idea of a "political market"

This is an approach that assumes, and which orients itself towards, a highly differentiated market in which each component or "strategic actor" is little concerned with what is in the interest of "the whole".

To the "crackpot realists" (to use an expression of C. Wright Mills) who champion this piecemeal approach, such notions as "the common interest" are quite fanciful, even delusional and dangerous.

Those whom they and their preferred strategies address are interested in, and care only about, their own demands, their own insistent question (and the tangible political answers proffered to it!): "what is in this for me, what's the specific benefit for us over here?"

It is an approach that creates and promotes the very social and political fragmentation, the centrifugal drives, the sectional division of diverging interests that it presumes.

This approach, together with its calculating practitioners, is in the business of promoting a "self-fulfilling prophecy" — serviceable to some including its creators — that becomes real, and may become the dominant reality. But it does so, increasingly, to the neglect, and even at the expense, of any common national purpose and agenda.

It does so since it presumes that that is what human nature is like, and what human nature really and most authentically likes. (And when people say so, they maintain, you can believe it, they are "for real", since self-interest never lies, deceives or pretends. It is honestly self-regarding. It is never "fake", it is always trying it best.)

On the other side of the same coin, this approach holds to the view, or conviction, that co-operation and consensus and "the negotiation of differences" — because they do not come easily — are unnatural, while socially "autistic" or heedless self-interest is no mere default position or moral "last resort", no token of social failure, but natural, commendable and "as good as you can get". That there is nothing better or higher.

It is therefore an approach that, when faced with the challenge of nation-building, always starts from the assumption — the often unexpressed and suppressed assumption — that the whole can never be more than, or achieve a reconciled accommodation among, the sum of its parts.

So people should not even try to seek any such common purpose, or imagine that one may be identified and realised. Any such exercise must be delusional, "chimerical", and even dangerous.

Dangerous because, or so the champions of this approach believe, such efforts — even if unsuccessful, and even if they are merely attempted — violate what they hold to be the most basic, sacred and authentic human realities. They interfere with personal preferences and individual choice and so distort market processes.

The limits of this view

What is wrong with this approach?

True, societies are a complex interplay of co-operation and individualism.

And, like the United States, and others in its wake, the more modern societies become, the more individualistic they also are.

We are all caught up, generally most happily, in this dynamic.

It is the dynamic of human emancipation and self-realisation.

And, again true, markets are arenas in which people — even when they are members of larger social aggregates and groups — think and strategise, choose and act, individually, as separate and independent individual agents.

So, in the short run, you can do so-called "retail politics" by treating the members of political society as nothing more than players in a market, even if it is a rather special kind of market called a political market.

Yet there is more involved than just that.

So that approach can be taken only "so far and no further".

Beyond that point, the idea of the "political market" collapses, becomes dysfunctional and, in practical terms, not helpful.

Why? How?

What we call "political society" these days, even when it has international dimensions and outreach and ramifications, is still largely something that resides, and is accommodated, within states.

And these states are, by and large, what we call "nation-states".

That is to say, they are identified not so much with foreign imperial masters (who may choose to colour large parts of the world map red, or blue or yellow or green, as was once the case) nor primarily with their former traditional sacred rulers but with their own people as citizens.

Whatever their different historical background, and the diversity of their origins and the various but converging paths by way of which they became citizens, these people are now and together members of what we call, and are generally understood as, "nations".

That, meaning cohesive and viable national communities, is what these people, or citizens, must together become and create if political society, and with it all social and economic development, are not to collapse.

That is why people these days, even in the age of rampant and unstoppable globalisation, still talk about "nation-building".

And why, even if its members come into citizenship from differing origins and via different but converging paths, we must speak of them as together "sharing the nation".

States, their institutional arrangements and resources are the common, shared property of all their citizens, as equal stakeholders in the nation. They are the common birthright and inheritance of all their citizens' children.

Political markets, citizens, states and nations

What this means, the first implication of this fact, is that there is more to political and national life than merely political marketing. A nation is not just a political market.

It may be that too — sometimes, at certain moments or phases of its own and citizens' lives — but it is so much more than that.

A nation may at times be a political market, or may be seen and treated as one. That may be one part of what is involved in its common life.

It is the part that the political consultants know, and the part that the campaign strategists who follow and apply the latest "American" technical innovations know how to address.

But that market and those who are involved in it are "subsumed" (or contained and enfolded) within the common life of a nation that finds its expression, its instruments for pursuing common purposes and also its arena for "the negotiation of difference" in state structures and institutions.

So more, much more, is needed in politics, especially in the "election season", than a good marketing strategy.

Posted: 14 Apr 2013 02:22 PM PDT

Anwar is just a case of sour grapes trying to create trouble for Hindraf on the registration issue through Jayathas

Joe Fernandez

Is Jayathas of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), allegedly Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's newly-recruited political mandore from Hindraf, trying to say the NGO should not be registered just because his boss doesn't like it?

It appears to be so judging from his song-and-dance act on Sat at a press conference, for his 15 minutes of fame, on the subject.

Hindraf, or any organisation, has a right to be registered. It's the Registrar of Societies (ROS) which plays politics with registration, on the instructions of Umno, until the matter ends up in Court. Umno doesn't own the ROS.

Anwar is just a case of sour grapes trying to create trouble for Hindraf on the registration issue through Jayathas and his other known Indian political mandores. He's painting Hindraf's registration as proof of it being in cahoots -- whatever it means -- with Umno/BN. If there's one thing which can annoy PR and drive it up the wall, if not around the bend, it's the registration of Hindraf and Umno/BN knows it only too well and has capitalised on it.

Anwar has never stopped trying to discredit Hindraf as a "racist" organisation ever since 2008 when he shamelessly jumped onto its makkal sakthi -- people power in Tamil - - bandwagon which created the political tsunami at the 12th General Elections. He forgets that Umno/BN has never once referred to Hindraf as a racist organisation. In 67 parliamentary seats in Malaya, and the related state seats, the Indians decide. That was the reading in 2008. But "lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama" Anwar continues to remain in a state of denial.

When unelected caretaker Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak wanted to talk to Hindraf, they said, "lift the ban first". Obviously, the Government can't be in discussions with an unlawful or banned organisation.

So, the ban was lifted and at the same time the organisation was registered. All the paperwork was done. Again, the Government can't be engaged in discussions either with an unregistered organisation. The registration had to be done.

Mahathir makes it seem as if the Malays are desperate for heroes

Hindraf was banned although it was not a registered organisation and did not apply for registration. Anwar was among those who gloated in public when Hindraf was banned. He was even seen doing his usual dance jig, Oh! Hindraf sudah goyang!, at various ceramah over the banning.

The then IGP Musa Hassan even disingenuously accused Hindraf of having links with the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. Anwar applauded the IGP although his paternal grandfather is a Tamil Hindu and he should have known better. His main concern, as a well-known "user", was to eliminate Hindraf so that he doesn't have to share political space with the NGO.

The IGP wanted to cover up the fact that there was little intelligence in his intelligence service, the Special Branch, and Military Intelligence. Déjà vu!

Indians had a good laugh since there's no love lost between the Sri Lanka Tamils and Indian Tamils. The Tamil Tigers would have been able to carve a separate homeland by now for the Tamils, Muslims and Malays in northern and eastern Sri Lanka had the Tamils of Tamil Nadu in south-eastern India supported them. The Tamil Tiger killing of Rajiv Gandhi in Tamil Nadu was the last straw.

Initially, Hindraf began as an ad hoc protest movement against the bogus conversion of Everest hero Moorthy to Islam by two operatives of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Mahathir makes it seem as if the Malays are desperate for heroes to enter, by hook or crook, in our history books which are already highly politicised and full of propaganda. Fortunately, the truth is out there in the libraries of the world. Mahathir should take his own advice not so long ago when he urged the Malays to commit hara kiri should they bring shame upon their own people.

Then, in response to Mahathir on Moorthy, the Indian community jumped on the Hindraf bandwagon with all their pent-up demands from over the last half century. The rest is history.

Buku Jingga, Manifesto an irritating response to Blueprint

One needs to read the Tamil papers, not Malaysiakini and the like, to get an idea of what's going on in the Indian community.

Hindraf can help Pakatan Rakyat (PR) against Umno/BN despite the Indian community not having even one ethnic-majority seat in any legislature. Anwar doesn't seem to realise that the people did not vote for PR in 2008. It voted against Umno/BN. Who channelled the hate against Umno/BN into the political tsunami if not Hindraf? That does not mean that Indians, in the absence of a clear direction from Hindraf, will take leave of their senses and root wholesale for Umno/BN.

However, Hindraf cannot be a political mandore for PR or BN, after having been so vocal on the issue and for so long.

Political mandoreism is a theory on which Hindraf holds intellectual property rights. Jeffrey Kitingan, similarly, holds intellectual property rights with his theories on the Dependency Syndrome, and Putrajaya's rule by proxy, composed of traitors who are proxies, stooges and rogue elements, in Borneo.

If Umno/BN supports the proposed Ministry of Orang Asal and Minority Affairs (Moama), it must make an open declaration and not come to a secret understanding, as feared, with Hindraf.

Anwar can steal the thunder from Umno/BN by openly declaring PR's support for the proposed Ministry instead of taking pot shots at Hindraf through minions like Jayathas who may mean well but are naïve enough to be like buffaloes led by a rope through the nostrils. Let not the Ministry become yet another Fixed Deposit for Umno/BN. The ball is in PR's court.

Anwar must realise that Hindraf, being apolitical, cares two hoots about his PR or even Umno/BN.

He has already made a big mistake by not probing whether the Hindraf Blueprint may have been a Red Herring.

Instead, he was going on and on about his Buku Jingga whatever and Manifesto, both of which doesn't interest Hindraf and Indians in the least. They are all about the Chinese and Malays.

Ministry of Orang Asal and Minority Affairs (Moama) the key concern

Malaysia is perhaps the only country in the world where politicians expect free votes especially from the marginalised and disenfranchised.

Even the great Obama had to make concessions on immigration reform, for example, before he could clinch the Latino votes to win a second term as US President. Otherwise, how could a black man enter the White House, in a largely white country which is still generally racist to the core?

Anwar offers Indians nothing in return for their votes except the remote possibility of throwing out Umno/BN in retaliation for the 56 years of internal colonisation they suffered under the ruling party's bangsa, agama, negara driven ketuanan Melayu (Malay political supremacy and dominance) "ideology", a sick combination of Apartheid, Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Political Islam, terrorism, militancy, "ethnic cleansing", and the caste system which denies the non-Malays upward social mobility.

Dap compounded Anwar's big mistake by copy pasting the Hindraf Blueprint in part for their 14 Point Gelang Patah Declaration. No reference was made, if any, to the Hindraf Blueprint. Now the Dap has both egg and mud on their faces as Hindraf cried plagiarism and rolled on the floor with laughter. Don't underestimate these estate Indians. They had 56 years to work out which side their bread is buttered.

All Hindraf is concerned about is pushing through the proposed Ministry, an idea which has the support of State Reform Party (Star) chairman Jeffrey Kitingan and the Orang Asal on both sides of the South China Sea, the Suluks, the Chinese, Christians, Siamese, Portuguese, Eurasians, Anglo Indians, Baba Nonya, Chitty and other members of the 45 per cent non-Malay minorities in Malays. The mood is clear from Hindraf's ceramah, tea party talks and town hall-style meetings.

Entry of Star into the fray in Malaya an unknown factor

Once the Ministry kicks off, the Hindraf Blueprint will automatically take on a life of its own. If Anwar is smart, he will say that he supports the proposed Ministry and will leave any decision on the Hindraf Blueprint to it. Many countries have a ministry for minorities, an idea promoted by the UN High Commission on Human Rights.

If both PR and Umno/BN refuse to endorse the Hindraf Blueprint, the NGO has pledged to urge Indians to abstain from voting. This is equivalent to spoiling the ballots. In the former case, Indians don't have to bother visiting the polling stations.

If Indians abstain, there are no prizes for guessing what will be the result come polling day. The winners (BN) will know that they won because the Indians didn't vote against them. The losers (PR) will know they lost because Indians didn't vote for them. In 2008, 85 per cent of Indians voted against BN. This means PR needs Indian votes more than BN does.

We still haven't factored in Hindraf's reported plans to field candidates under the State Reform Party (Star) symbol and flag in Malaya. Hindraf chairman P. Waythamoorthy, win or lose, can be expected to take on MIC President, G. Palanivel, in Cameron Highlands or wherever he's fielded.

Hindraf wants deviations, distortions and anti-non Malay laws ended

Hindraf must remain an apolitical NGO on human rights for all (hurifa).

Hindraf is not about Hinduism or a particular religion as Anwar keeps preaching to his mandores and others.

It has never been about Hinduism as evident from its stand on Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, which does not mention an official religion, and about creeping Islamisation in the country.

Hindraf's stand against the intrusion of the Syariah and the Syariah Court into civil law, bogus conversions, forced conversions, and the lack of freedom of worship, has the support of all right-minded Malaysians.

Hindraf's stand on the deviations and distortions on Article 153 of the Federal Constitution and the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the anti non-Malay minorities administrative laws must also have the support of all right and fair-minded Malaysians.

Hindraf wants these deviations, distortions and administrative laws ended and abolished.

It has further called for Article 153 and the NEP to be ended and abolished. The jury is still out on this matter among the Malay-speaking nation -- Bugis, Javanese, Minang, Acehnese, Arab Muslims, Indian Muslims etc -- in Malaya and the Orang Asal.

Hindraf has taken a stand against the ruling elite running up the National Debt Burden to put their hands in the National Cookie Jar under the guise of bringing development to the people but in fact to feather their own nests at the expense of the nation. Consider the fact that the Malay-speaking communities are no match for the Chinese as a people despite 56 years of racist rule by Umno pushing the so-called Malay Agenda.

Had it remained ad hoc, Hindraf could have been a Hydra on human rights

The Orang Asal can join Hindraf as they were originally Hindus, are culturally Hindus, and the pagans practise an animist form of Hinduism.

All Indians, Afghans, Iranians, and southeast and East Asians, irrespective of religion, are culturally Hindus.

Had it remained ad hoc, Hindraf could have been a Hydra on human rights.

Now, that possibility remains unclear even diminished, as the inevitable struggle for posts, come in-house elections if any in Hindraf, would give rise to internal politicking and power struggles. Jayathas is not Anwar's only political mandore. He has others bidding their time in Hindraf while feeding him with information in return for a little tambang bas but there should be no witch-hunt. They are under the constant watch of the hardcore Hindraf loyalists.

Joe Fernandez is a graduate mature student of law and an educationist, among others, who loves to write especially Submissions for Clients wishing to Act in Person. He also tutors at local institutions. 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) or to give a Hearing to All. 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. He's half-way through a semi-autobiographical travelogue, A World with a View.

Time for 1MDB to come out in the open

Posted: 14 Apr 2013 01:56 PM PDT

IFR Asia's Jonathan Rogers suggests latest private placement serves neither transparency nor sensible pricing

So our old friends from Malaysia's 1MDB are back again, or should I say were back again, since the US$3bn 10-year private placement arranged for the government investment vehicle by Goldman Sachs was closed in conspicuous silence some weeks ago – on March 29 to be precise.

The under-the-radar modus operandi mirrored that seen on the US$1.75bn 10-year private placement Goldman closed for 1MDB last June. As with that deal, the new transaction is likely spark controversy, not just because of the quiet manner in which it was completed but because it comes barely three weeks before Malaysia's general election on May 5.

That is because Malaysia's opposition party led by Anwar Ibrahim has called for 1MDB's abolition as part of its election manifesto, claiming 1MDB, which replaced the former Terengannu sovereign wealth fund in and is a plank of prime minister Najib Razak's New Economic Policy, duplicates the functions of the country's pension fund Khazanah Nasional. But beyond that seemingly anodyne policy call, Anwar has claimed that the debt assumed by 1MDB could bankrupt Malaysia.

Meanwhile, various Malaysian commentators have criticised 1MDB for lacking transparency, and it seems likely that the latest transaction will simply add to the noise – if that's the right word – which surrounds the entity.

THERE IS AN obvious point to be made about the 1MDB private placement, the size of which equates to last week's US$3bn two-tranche transaction for the Republic of Indonesia, which was the largest G3 public offshore market deal so far this year. Why wasn't the transaction launched, marketed and distributed like any conventional bond transaction rather than placed privately?

While there are no doubt many deals of hefty size in Asia which could have been placed with one or a handful of investors, issuers take the public route because it best serves their interests.

Not only does canvassing a broad base of investors enable syndicate bankers to discover the optimum price point at which a deal can be successfully placed, but the secondary trading of a well-placed bond will tend in most cases to lower an issuer's implied cost of term funding. It also opens up a broad investor base which can be called upon in the future to provide funds and secondary market liquidity.

And the bookbuilding process can often uncover hitherto unimagined demand for an issuer's paper which in turn allows leads to drastically tighten pricing. Not so with a private placement, where demand is uncovered bilaterally or with a handful of investors.

Taking the public route also helps large enterprises build up liquid meaningful yield curves, again, something which the private placement market cannot provide. And when private placement paper finds its way into the secondary market, it inevitably does so via the brokers. It's not uncommon to see paper crossed for obscenely large skims between a less than clued-up seller and an even less savvy buyer.

The last time around, 1MDB's paper, which priced at Treasuries plus 425bp, was rumoured to have been shown a few days later to an Asian insurance company at around 200bp inside that level.

None of this does any service whatsoever to the issuer, unless of course the primary aim was simply to get the funds in, whether the source is one investor, or in the case of the latest placement from 1MDB, a handful of investors.

Unfair media access: PR should boycott polls

Posted: 13 Apr 2013 03:28 PM PDT

Pakatan Rakyat has an important case to make to Malaysia and the world by standing firm and refusing to go to the elections without equal media access.

Although the media in Malaysia does not primarily decide the outcome of elections, its role in influencing the decision-making process of the electorate is crucial and needs to take place on a level playing field.

Lim Teck Ghee, FMT

Even before the dust has set on the fixing of the polling date, the Barisan Nasional had already begun the hijacking of the elections.

With the apparent connivance of the Election Commission (EC) – the pit bull ensuring BN's electoral victory for the past 12 general elections – they have imposed a 10-minute slot for Pakatan Rakyat parties to explain their polls manifesto over the official media.

According to Rais Yatim, the Information, Communications and Culture caretaker minister, the short time offered to Pakatan will be more than enough to showcase their pledges.

Although an attempt has been made by the EC at damage control over the government's ludicrous but at the same time deadly serious intent – it has explained that the opposition had misunderstood the offer which was intended to be serial and not one-time – the objective of the government is clear.

This is to use its monopoly of the official (and much of the unofficial print) media to ensure a BN election victory by seeing to it that the public – especially rural and Malay voters – will hear only the good side and promises of the BN and to downplay, ignore or demonize the Pakatan side.

Quite rightly, the Pakatan has snubbed the offer in response, calling it a "joke" and a mockery of press freedom.

In fact, media manipulation has been one of the cornerstones of the BN's remarkable record of cheating and trickery in the elections over the past 50 years. So it is not surprising that the BN and its partner in electoral crime, the EC, will want the racket to continue.

And it will continue until the strongest possible stand is made against it.

Free and fair access to media should be what our electorate deserves, not media coverage which is saturated by BN propaganda and political advertisement overkill.

What is puzzling for now is the timidity of the opposition response. Although leaders from the opposition pact have maintained that they want equal media access in the mainstream media and television stations controlled by the government (RTM)) or by companies that are closely linked to the BN (the New Straits Times, The Star, Utusan Malaysia, etc), they appear to have forgotten or decided not to draw a line in the sand on this No.1 game changer.

Surely the opposition must be aware that any decision to limit them to anything less than equal time over official media for the elections will make a mockery of the democratic process.

Boycott the elections

Not only that, this blocking of media access will also hurt – if not – kill the Pakatan's chances of winning power in Putrajaya.

Although Pakatan parties have rightly rejected the offer, they need to go further and to insist on equal time as a precondition for participation in the elections or else they will boycott it.

Such a stand is not as extreme as it may appear.

Posted: 13 Apr 2013 02:47 PM PDT

Joe Fernandez

It's confirmed! Hindraf Makkal Sakthi will be fielding candidates in Malaya under the Borneo-based State Reform Party's (Star) symbol and flag in the forthcoming 13th General Election on May 5. Star is a national party.

Star chairman Jeffrey Kitingan, in a text message a little while ago said: "Let Hindraf be a big surprise."

Hindraf chairman P. Waythamoorthy in a text message confirmed: "We are still finalizing the list."

Star Secretary Guandee Kohoi confirmed in a text message: "We agreed to it. Letter of authorization to use symbol with me. We only need full name as per IC."

This is the culmination of a process which began quite some time ago to get the ten percent who are Christians in Malaysia on board with Hindraf as 3rd Force allies. At present, the Christians in Malaya don't have any political vehicle. Star has answered that need.

There are many Sabahans and Sarawakians in Malaya.

Hindraf Star alliance in Malaya mooted quite some time ago

When Waytha was still in involuntary political asylum in London, I casually suggested to him and Jeffrey that Hindraf field candidates under the Star symbol and flag in Malaya to help forge 3rd Force unity in Parliament. That was well before Waytha re-filed the Hindraf class action suit in London in early July last year.

Incidentally, I am not a member of Hindraf or Star. Neither am I a self-appointed Advisor to anyone. I am more for embedded reporting, albeit with a difference.

It's not about scooping anyone.

There's a difference between merely following the news and watching history on the one hand and giving a Hearing to All.

First, a little more digression.

The fact that the Registrar of Societies (ROS) approved Hindraf last month after earlier lifting the ban on the unregistered organisation is beside the point. The ROS himself said that Hindraf could apply for registration after the ban was ended. Hindraf still remains an NGO. It's not a political party. Obviously, the Barisan Nasional (BN) hopes that Hindraf would be a BN-friendly NGO. Hence, no doubt the approval. However, Hindraf's support for anyone would not be free.

The registration of Hindraf was filed at the same time as the appeal for the ban on it to be lifted. Nothing was done discreetly, according to a text message a while ago from Waytha. Supporters of former Legal Advisor and co-Founder P. Uthayakumar in PKR – the man himself is not involved -- were also at the same time trying to hijack ownership of the NGO.

Away from that little digression, I felt that no useful purpose would be served by Waytha continuing to stay in London once the suit had been re-filed.

No mystery in Waythamoorthy's return to Malaysia

He was worried that his return would be seen as a sellout to the BN, the same worry plaguing Royal Fugitive Blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin who had met up with Waytha to exchange notes. The latter had put me in Skype contact with Petra.

Initially, Waytha did not know what to say about the Star proposal. I suggested subsequently that he head a Star chapter in Malaya, an idea which came from Jeffrey. Waytha appeared to agree somewhat and I even mentioned this in a story on his return from political exile. No one followed up the story as the media on both sides of the political divide, especially the Opposition, is anti-3rd Force.

Waytha himself, before the Star idea came up, toyed with the idea of standing on a Dap ticket, or even a Pas ticket. He was also for meeting Nurul Izzah and her mother Wan Azizah in Singapore to discuss patching up between Hindraf and PKR.

However, doing business with PKR was difficult since relations between Anwar and Hindraf were strained to the breaking point after the former tried to discredit the NGO as a racist organisation and kept claiming that it had nothing to do with the makkal sakthi – people power in Tamil -- wave which unleashed the political tsunami of Sat 8 Mar, 2008. Anwar had shamelessly jumped on the Hindraf bandwagon but now he was like the lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama. The people did not vote for PR in 2008. They voted against BN.

Waytha decided to return via Singapore without his Malaysian passport. He had a UN Travel Document issued to him, as a political exile, by the British Government. He could travel to any country in the world except Malaysia and should he infringe the condition, his political asylum status would be immediately revoked.

People of Borneo should get a proper hearing in Parliament

The Malaysian High Commission in Singapore quickly re-issued a Malaysian passport to Waytha as otherwise he would have to be deported, as is the norm in Government agreements with carrier airlines, and this would have been politically and diplomatically embarrassing to both Singapore and Malaysia especially if Waytha refused to leave the city state and made repeated attempts to enter his country. The British Government and the UN would then enter the picture. Waytha's idea was to cross over from Singapore to Johore on foot. He was prepared to be arrested and charged with terrorism, sedition and treason as the Government had earlier indicated.

Jeffrey was initially hesitant about Hindraf fielding candidates under the Star symbol and flag in Malaya.

He feared that Star crossing the South China Sea to Malaya may perhaps contradict his own battle cry that Malayan parties should keep out of Borneo. Hence, we have Agenda Borneo v Agenda parti parti Malaya in Borneo, a Star version of a one-to-one fight in Sabah.

(Kepayan Star Chief Phillip Among, a young Turk, is the Architect of the Agenda Borneo v Agenda parti parti Malaya in Borneo theme. He sold me the idea one day over tea at McDonald's in Kota Kinabalu. I wrote about it, to gather public feedback, even before Jeffrey entered the picture and quickly endorsed it. Star is a young Turk party.)

I pointed out to Jeffrey that under the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, and related constitutional documents on Malaysia, Malaya was supposed to have one seat less two-thirds in the Malaysian Parliament at the very maximum. Given the present 222 seats in Parliament, that means no more than 147 seats. Malaya has 165 seats in Parliament. This is a theft of 18 seats which should be with Borneo, a heinous crime against the people, the result of the Registrar of Societies, the Election Commission and the Attorney General looking the other way to diminish the voice of the people in Parliament.

By the same token, there's no reason why Borneo cannot have the same one seat less two-thirds in the Malaysian Parliament at the very maximum. In order to achieve this, a Borneo-based national party or coalition would have to field candidates under its symbol and flag in Malaya. It's not tit-for-tat! It should not be tit for tat!

Nur Misuari can't help Anwar against Star/Usno in Sabah east coast

It's not possible for Borneo to achieve the same maximum in Parliament given its paltry 57 seats including Labuan. Even if Malaya had not stolen the 18 seats, Borneo would have only 75 seats in Parliament, far short of the 147 seats.

Jeffrey was finally sold on the idea of Hindraf using the Star symbol and flag in Malaya.

Also, the mood in his party was, Lu Kacau Gua, Gua Kacau Lu – a variation of Caretaker Unelected Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's infamous Lu Tolong Gua, Gua Tolong Lu declaration in Sibu during a parliamentary by-election -- given the stubborn refusal of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to make way for local parties in Sabah.

Anwar is being politically suicidal in Sabah. Although he may not have been a party to placing illegal immigrants on the electoral rolls, he certainly knew about it, did nothing to stop the treasonous activities, and now wants to benefit from it, as he did when he headed Sabah Umno.

He wants to ensure that Muslim, whether local or illegal, political domination of Sabah continues so that he can "inherit" the system in tact through cross-overs en bloc. This is why he's having problems with his own Sabah PKR leaders who are up in arms against his nefarious plans in their country.

Anwar is pledged towards continued disunity among the Orang Asal, including the Muslim, in Sabah and Sarawak.

If possible, he wants to see the political destruction of the mainly Christian Orang Asal in Sabah and Sarawak in pursuit of ketuanan Melayu (Malay political domination and supremacy).

His attempts to get Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) leader Nur Misuari to throw a spanner in the Star-United Sabah National Organisation (Usno) alliance has not worked. Usno, now protem after deregistration, was founded by legendary Suluk Chief Mustapha Harun, a previous Governor and then Chief Minister of Sabah. Nur Misuari pledged he could do more than what Anwar wants according to Sabah PKR sources now with Star, and either known or unknown to him (Anwar), was behind the Lahad Datu intrusion. His latest ploy has been to try and wreck the possibility of a truce between Star and Sapp.

Anwar should make way for the sake of greater Opposition Unity

If Hindraf and Star maintain their position that the former fields candidates under the latter's symbol and flag in Malaya, it will be a whole new ball game.

Some will say that it will be BN that would benefit.

The jury is still out on the issue.

We need to watch where Hindraf will be fielding candidates and then work out the possible trends that could emerge.

It will be prudent if both BN and PR can give way to Star/Hindraf in Malaya instead of continuing to promote their political mandores.

Both should accept the proposed Ministry of Orang Asal and Minority Affairs (Moama) if the Hindraf Blueprint proper sticks in their throats. The Ministry can implement the Hindraf Blueprint.

Ideally, Indians should put off the inevitable destruction of Umno/BN, and help maintain the status quo in Malaya for now except for removing MIC from the scene and making place for Hindraf/Star. Indians have more than an axe to grind with Umno/BN for the 56 years of internal colonisation they suffered under the ruling coalition's bangsa, agama, negara (race, religion, country) policy of ketuanan Melayu (Malay political dominance and supremacy), a sick combination of Apartheid, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, Political Islam, terrorism, militancy, "ethnic cleansing", and the caste system to prevent upward social mobility among the 45 per cent non-Malay minorities.

It would not be in the interest of Indians to see the destruction of PR. The PR is needed to destroy Umno/BN, if not now, later. In any case, the writing is on the wall for Umno/BN after 56 years. Its days are numbered. BN, outside Umno, is likely to be history this time in Malaya.

If there's going to greater opposition unity, come the 13th GE, Anwar has to step aside and let Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Lim Guan Eng, Chua Jui Meng, Hadi Awang, Nik Aziz and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah have a greater say.

Anwar has become a divisive figure, partly the result of Azmin Ali & Co, on both sides of the South China Sea. He cannot continue to take Azmin's side against his own wife, the party president, and his daughter Nurul Izzah. It's the party president who should run the party, not the de facto whatever by using the fig leaf of being the Opposition Leader in Parliament.

Agenda Borneo v Agenda Malaya on the backburner in Sarawak

If the Opposition in Malaya and Sabah fails to measure up to public expectations, come the 13th GE, blame it on Anwar for not being able to rise to the occasion. His political impotence would be complete.

In Sarawak, the people have put the Agenda Borneo v Agenda Malaya on the backburner for the moment, given the destruction of local political parties by the Taib regime.

They are banking on PR to help bring about a change of government in their country.

However, PR component parties in Sarawak would have to incorporate locally and be autonomous and independent of Malaya, or they risk Jeffery entering the picture again in that nation to haunt them all over again.

The EC Must Address These Doubts

Posted: 13 Apr 2013 02:34 PM PDT

Another curious decision made by the EC is that the indelible ink would be applied on each voter before they cast their vote. Tindak Malaysia has tried this out in a practice run and found that it's a bad idea because it could result in the ballot paper getting smudged, which could lead to the vote being considered spoilt.

Kee Thuan Chye

While announcing the date for the 13th general election, the Election Commission (EC) also said that it would make the event "the best" ever held. In pledging this, its chairman, Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, reiterated what he had said on Feb 5.

But somehow the pledge rings hollow. Many Malaysians have lost too much confidence in the EC to believe that it will be, in Abdul Aziz's words, "transparent" and that it "will not help any party to win". Its actions and pronouncements have too often indicated the contrary.

Besides that, NGOs that have engaged with the EC know how frustrating the experience can be. The latter is notorious for not replying to pressing questions concerning the electoral process or improper conduct at elections. Its dismissal of Bersih's demands for electoral reform compelled the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections to take its cause to the streets in July 2011.

The EC is also noted for its apparently cavalier attitude towards calls for cleaning the electoral roll. Instead of getting down to the task of doing it, it has been giving excuses – even though a Merdeka Centre survey in April 2012 revealed that 92% of Malaysians in Peninsular Malaysia want the roll cleaned.

The biggest joke, made in April 2012, was Abdul Aziz's declaration that the Malaysian electoral roll was "the cleanest in the world". He said there were only 42,000 dubious voters out of the 12.6 million registered, which works out to a mere 0.3%.

But political scientist Ong Kian Ming had a radically different figure to present. Ong said an analysis conducted under one of his projects showed that the number of dubious voters was 3.3 million.

Apart from dubious voters, missing names and other anomalies have reportedly been found in the constituencies of Klang MP Charles Santiago and Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar, both from Pakatan Rakyat.

But when they both requested the EC to look into the matter, it did not respond accordingly. Both were forced to go to the High Court. However, Section 9A of the Elections Act denies the courts jurisdiction in regard to the electoral roll, so their cases were thrown out.

More distressing for Izzah is the sudden spike in the number of postal voters there. By the end of 2011, it had gone up by an unusual 1,400% from 2008. And since postal votes are known to favour the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, their increased presence could be a bane to the PKR vice-president.

As for the total number of voters in Lembah Pantai, there has been, according to Izzah, a phenomenal increase of 15,000. While some are newly registered voters, many more appear to have been transferred there, for reasons known only to the EC.

With the general election coming up on May 5, what happens now to the discrepancies in the electoral roll? Do Malaysians go to the polls with doubt in their minds about whether the process might be compromised and phantom voting might influence the outcome unfairly?

GE13: The good, the bad and the ugly

Posted: 12 Apr 2013 02:53 PM PDT

Malaysia is probably living one of its most exciting times, with delayed polls, never before seen handouts and an opposition strangulating the regime to its last breath.

Ali Cordoba, FMT

Malaysia's upcoming general election on May 5 seems to be scripted from the Hollywood western, 'The Good, The Bad and the Ugly' but there is a surprise on the timeline.

The battle to govern the nation is pitting Pakatan Rakyat leader, Anwar Ibrahim, who is living the greatest political revival in Malaysia's history, against a regime that has probably overspent its days in power.

The irony of the parallel to the United States is that the ruling Barisan National is run by an old guard, shadowing a younger generation with similarities to the Republican Party.

The BN, with Umno at the helm, headed by Najib Tun Razak, is intricately mired in the gripping embrace of former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.

The behind the scenes politics and the power deals that form part of the BN's litany of errors have in a sense contributed in catapulting the opposition to greater heights.

Mahathir, fighting for his legacy and for the new Malays he helped create, is putting Umno into jeopardy, forcing it to embark on a suicidal mission to defy the people and maintain the status-quo.

The bunch of old men, gunslingers of the past, have laid down the rules for Umno and BN in the wake of the GE13 and it is with their dusty intentions that the ruling coalition is going into the battle against Pakatan, re-branding the old tune into a new ring tone.

Again behind the scenes, is Daim Zainuddin and to a lesser extent Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, clamouring for BN to remain in power while the people seem to understand they are struggling to keep alive their own legacies.

The legacy of the Mahathir era is rigged with incidents and events that have marred the country for good, including the 'Malaysia Boleh' slogan, the Memali incident, the al-Maunah episode and the reformasi era.

Mahathir is not opposing Anwar to secure the memories left behind by the street battles of the reformasi crowd seeking change in the country, but he is batting for the total recall of such vivid memories.

And by recall, it clearly means the erasing of the history of the reformasi movement with the elder statesman calling for Anwar to be burried in GE13.

The sinking ship

Mahathir and men of his ilk are defending their legacies of ISA arrests, the beating of Anwar in jail and of his supporters in the streets, the fallacies of the Sodomy 1 and 2 saga and cronies eating up the wealth of the country are the uglier ones in Malaysia's political arena.

Then came the Najib Tun Razak era, tainted with the Scorpene scandal and the Altantunya Shaariibuu affair, with a government that did everything to become the copycat of the policies formulated by the opposition.

Najib will be remembered for the lackluster BN in power, shackled by Anwar's exuberance and his forceful character whom they could not eliminate despite the plethora of ugly sex videos.

READ MORE HERE

For politicians, it’s only about power

Posted: 11 Apr 2013 03:04 PM PDT

The politicians forget that it is us, the rakyat, who decide on their fate. It is us who decide if we want them to govern us.

CT Ali, FMT

I read that a blogger (I am sorry but I cannot bring myself to utter or write his name!) is going to stand as an independent against Anwar Ibrahim in Permatang Pauh.

What does he think this 13th general election is going to be? His road to glory, fame and wealth?

Do wannabe politicians no longer measure their ability to succeed in the electorate that they intend to contest by their ability to serve the rakyat? By their ability to present themselves as candidates deserving of the rakyat votes? Are elections a joke now?

And why does he want to contest?

Not to better the people's lot! Not to serve his electorate! No! He wants "to expose more alleged sex videos during the campaigning period".

How insulting is this to the constituency that he will contest in? Does he think that they would prefer sex tapes to food on their table? Is that now what budding politicians should strive to do?

How do Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat choose their candidates? Winnability, they say. The electorate be dammed!

What matters is winning the election. And if this is the public façade that these politicians willingly allow us to see, imagine what they will do within the four walls of their political enclave in order to ensure that they do win.

Do you not worry at the things they will do, the intrigues they will indulge in and how "winning" will excuse any act, however foul as long as it will ensure "winning"? What madness is this?

How are we to choose our representative that we send to Parliament to represent us? How do these candidates translate "winnibility" into votes for themselves and for the party that closes all eyes to anything else but the getting of political power?

It would seem that both BN and Pakatan are now seriously descending into an orgy of handing out cash through BRIM or any other plausible avenues in the name of helping the rakyat.

There are promises of cheaper petrol, cars, promises of more gutter politics, promises of burying each other in god knows what.

Anything but nation building. Anything else but the common good of our people and our nation.

Anything else but decent, open, responsible and good governance.

Winning at any costs

Look at the Malaysia we have today: a blogger could even think of challenging the leader of the opposition because he thinks that the "sex tapes" he has is reason enough for him to do so.

A national debt of over RM502 billion and still this BN government keeps making beggars of its own people because it keeps giving out cash handouts.

And a Pakatan opposition that now joins this irresponsible BN government in the race to give out more to the people.

READ MORE HERE

Dilemma of rural Sarawakians

Posted: 11 Apr 2013 01:26 PM PDT

I thought that when the state government started intensive logging more than 40 years ago, the state government's plan was to bring development into rural Sarawak and hence transform the life of the rural folk for the better. Wasn't the logging industry meant to act as a catalyst to better the life of rural Sarawakians?

Stephen Then, The Star

"ATAP masih bocor, minta perintah bikin baru". (The roofing is still leaking, am asking the government to do repair work).

That was the candid requests by many of the Iban folk I spoke to at Rumah Ngumbang, a settlement of 300 people located deep in ulu Teru sub-district, about 150km inland from Miri, when Baram incumbent MP Datuk Jacob Dungau Sagan went to visit them last weekend.

Men and women folk with handwritten letters in their hands, lined up to present Sagan with their needs, each of them appealing for financial help to repair their "bilik" in the 50-door longhouse.

I would have thought that such problems like leaking roofs, rotting verandahs and rickety ladders and walkways, muddy footpaths, leaking toilets, cracked walls and holes in the ceilings would have been overcome long ago.

After all, more than two years ago, the Federal Government had announced allocations of massive financial grants to urgently repair dilapidated longhouses of those living in interior Sarawak and Sabah.

I remember many national and state leaders visiting rural communities and telling them that their longhouses would be repaired with grants from the Rural and Regional Development Ministry.

Each longhouse would be getting up to RM100,000, depending on their needs and population size.

Apparently, there are still many areas where these repair works have not been accomplished.

No wonder in places like the Baram parliamentary constituency, longhouse folk are still deprived of the very basic.

Rumah Ngumbang, like so many other longhouses throughout Sarawak, still does not have treated water supply.

Last Saturday, Sagan and officials from the Rural and Regional Development Ministry launched a waterfiltration project in Rumah Ngumbang.

The folk there, will at least from now on, have access to clean and safe water to drink.

The question that has been bothering me is why is it that development of such very basic amenities have come so late for the rural folk of interior Sarawak.

Every one of the remote settlement that I have visited, from the ones in Baram in northern Sarawak to those in ulu Belaga in central Sarawak and Sri Aman in southern Sarawak, still seems to be plagued by infrastructural and amenity woes of all sorts.

After 50 years of independence through the formation of Malaysia, our rural Sarawakian brothers and sisters are still suffering from hardship caused by the lack of these very basic amenities.

Today, the state government leaders are talking about constructing 12 new dams in the remote areas to spur economic development.

State leaders have been aggressively drumming this message across. Even here in interior Baram, the state government's latest dam plan is to construct a RM4bil dam in Long Kesseh.

The leaders of the state administration are saying that there is a need to build these new dams so as to open up these interior regions to create jobs, new townships, new roads, schools, clinics, new business opportunities for a new life for the rural poor.

Wasn't the logging industry meant to act as a catalyst to better the life of rural Sarawakians?

Why was that objective not achieved? It would seem that the only ones benefiting from the logging industry in Sarawak are the big companies, not the local natives from whose land the timber logs were extracted.

After the logging came the oil palm industry.

Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land that had been logged and cleared of their valuable timber, are now planted with oil palm trees.

During my helicopter ride to ulu Teru from Miri Airport, I looked out from both sides of the windows and saw endless stretches of oil palm estates, both newly cleared and old ones.

These oil palm estates extended as far as the eye can see. Were not these oil palm schemes meant to improve the life of the rural poor?

Why was it then that the rural Sarawakians are still so deprived of the very basic when there are thousands of acres of oil palm estates surrounding their settlements?

Are the oil palm firms the only ones benefiting big-time from the palm oil yields on these interior native land?

There are of course some longhouse folk getting dividends from taking part in jointventures with the oil palm firms but it would seem that these dividends had not come in such great amount that were enough to revolutionise the rural communities.

Has something gone very wrong with all the development plans that the state government had put in place for the rural folk that had resulted in our rural people being still left so far behind in terms of social and economic progress?

During the dialogue organised by Sagan at Rumah Ngumbang, longhouse chiefs and elders from about a dozen settlements came. Almost all of them spoke about the need for the very basic amenities. My heart goes out to these folk.

I believe that what is happening now is that plans devised to develop rural Sarawak have become lost in implementation.

I hope the next government to be formed after the 13th general election will carry out a thorough review of the development masterplan for rural Sarawak.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 15 April 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan