Ahad, 17 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter

Posted: 16 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST

And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," said Sir Winston Churchill. In fact, there is another quote from Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the forms of government that have been tried from time to time."

While we are on the subject of quotes from Churchill, you may want to read what more he said.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."

Anyway, those are but a fraction of sayings from Sir Winston Churchill to brighten up your Sunday evening (or Sunday morning here in the UK). But that is not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the issue of Haron Din being scolded, cursed, vilified and disparaged because of the stand he has taken regarding the use of the Allah word in the Bible.

For both Muslims as well as Christians, they need to understand the boundaries of decent discourse and when does that discourse exceed the boundary and falls into the category of indecency. And this is why I have titled today's article "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

The average voter, meaning the majority of Malaysia Today's readers, have absolutely no idea what democracy means. Democracy means Haron Din has a right to his view and so do you. And democracy does not mean if you differ in view you have the right to attack the other person verbally, or worse, physically.

For example, we can disagree on whether Malaysia should remain a Secular Constitutional Monarchy or be changed into a Secular Republic or, as some are proposing, a Theocratic Constitutional Monarchy or an Islamic Republic. At the end of the day, we all have different views and different choices.

And that is why there are so many religions and sects of these many religions in existence plus, of course, agnostics and atheists. This is because we have differing views about religion and God and about the way to 'reach' God -- and whether God even exists or not in the first place and if He does then in what form.

However, although we may disagree on theological issues, this does not mean since Malaysia is a democracy that gives me the right to disparage someone who has a different view from me. It just means we have different views and we should respect each other's views.

I have read comments from readers who say that Muslims are stupid for not wanting to eat pork because pork is so delicious. You know that pork is taboo to Muslims so why the need to goad Muslims with such comments? Have you read any comments from Muslims saying that Hindus are stupid for not wanting to eat beef because beef is so delicious?

If Muslims do not want to eat pork (or Hindus do not want to eat beef) then let it be. Learn to respect the taboos of each religion. I am sure you do not like it when I say that Chinese are stupid for getting upset with Ibrahim Ali when he gave white colour angpau for Chinese New Year. If white angpau are meant for funerals and are taboo for Chinese New Year then we respect that tradition. Saying that Chinese are stupid for believing such silly superstition is provocative and will certainly trigger bad-will.

In fact, did you know that pork was actually taboo to the early Christians as well (who were not yet called 'Christians' but 'followers of the Jesus Movement')? No, I am not talking about the Christian doctrine or dogma here. I am talking about history. And if you study in greater detail the history of the Apostles (not what the Bible says but what the historians say) then you would know what I am talking about.

For the benefit of the non-Christians, in particular the Muslims, the majority who have never studied Christian history, the 12 Apostles are as follows:

1. Simon Peter (brother of Andrew).

2. James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater".

3. John (son of Zebedee and brother of James).

4. Andrew (brother of Simon Peter).

5. Philip of Bethsaida.

6. Thomas (Didymus).

7. Bartholomew (Nathaniel).

8. Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.

9. James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser".

10. Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite).

11. Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.

12. Judas Iscariot.

The Roman Catholic Church puts a great deal of emphasis on (Simon) Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18).

In fact, (St.) Peter is considered the First Pope of the Catholic Church. Hence Peter is regarded as one of the most important Apostles of Christianity. The second most important Apostle, however, is not one of the other 11 but Paul.

Paul was a strong anti-Jesus Movement Jewish zealot who made it his mission to destroy this movement. In fact, it is said that he was there to witness the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (and it is also said that Paul held Stephen's cloak while Stephen was being stoned to death). Paul was instrumental in arresting and torturing those who had strayed from true Judaism by following the false teachings of the Jesus Movement.

One day, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus on his mission to hunt down and kill Christians, Paul 'saw' Jesus in the form of a mirage. Paul was immediately blinded but, three days later, his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus. This 'miracle' prompted Paul to become a follower of the Jesus Movement.

However, while Peter and the other disciples focused their missionary work just on fellow Jews, Paul felt that Christianity should be for all, not only for Jews. So Paul started preaching Christianity to the gentiles and pagans. And to attract non-Jews to Christianity there should be a certain relaxing of the rules, so to speak.

Hence the need for circumcision and the banning of eating pork, as an example, which are a Jewish tradition and therefore also the tradition of the early Christians, should be reviewed. By Paul's reckoning, non-Jew Christians should be exempted from circumcision and should be allowed to eat pork.

And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians.

Of course, there were more non-Jews than there were Jews. Hence, understandably, Paul's movement expanded faster than Peter's. Furthermore, while Peter focused on small Jewish communities, Paul travelled to the bigger non-Jewish cities where there were more people and therefore more potential converts.

And because Paul's version of Christianity, so to speak, was more 'liberal' (for want of a better word) compared to Peter's (which retained the strict Jewish taboos and traditions) more people followed Paul than Peter.

The 'headquarters' of the Church of England is St Paul's Cathedral in London, founded in 604, around the time that Islam was founded. The 'headquarters' of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, founded in 319 by the Emperor Constantine.

Now, can you figure out why that is so (make your own conclusion on this)?

This is, of course, my analysis of the early development of Christianity and based on historical accounts and not based on what the Bible says. So I can expect many Christians to disagree with my analysis. And they have every right to do so (as do many Malays/Muslims also disagree with my historical analysis of the early development of Islam -- and the reason why many of my Malay/Muslim friends are no longer my friends: because they disagree with me).

Nevertheless, since we are talking about democracy and the right of non-Muslims to comment on Islam, I, too, exercise my democratic right to offer my analysis regarding the early development of Christianity.

That is how democracy works, unfortunately.

So, my conclusion to this is: if you are a follower of Peter, then pork should be haram for you (plus you should be circumcised) while, if you are a follower of Paul, then pork should be halal (and you only need to be baptised). So be very careful before you whack the Muslims and call them stupid for refusing to eat 'delicious pork'.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


About withdrawing someone’s citizenship

Posted: 14 Feb 2013 05:16 PM PST

It would be good, therefore, if before we talk about withdrawing anyone's Malaysian citizenship we clarify how it is going to be done and what happens after it is done. If not it might give the impression that we do not really know what we are talking about.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There have been many calls for this person's or that person's citizenship to be withdrawn. I think before we ask for that to be done we should first of all familiarise ourselves with Malaysia's Constitution (which you can read below) to make sure we know what we are talking about -- especially the lawmakers who should know the Constitution by heart (or else they do not qualify to be a lawmaker).

I suppose if we want to consider withdrawing someone's citizenship then we would have to look at Article 25(1)(a) of the Constitution: The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation.

Now, first of all, who or which is the authority that is empowered to define whether someone's act or speech is disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation? Is it the Minister under whom Internal Security and/or the National Registration Department comes under? Or would that person first have to be charged in court and only after the court pronounces this person guilty can that person's citizenship be withdrawn? And which section of the law would this charge come under?

Next, what are the acts and statements that would be considered disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation? Is this subject to the Minister's or the Attorney General's interpretation? For example, if I give a talk in the UK and I make a statement saying that Malaysia is not a democracy, can the Minister or AG say that this can be interpreted as economic sabotage since my statement will discourage foreigners from investing in Malaysia and hence I am ruining Malaysia's economy (which means that this is an act of disloyalty)?

Thirdly, once someone's citizenship has been withdrawn, what do we do with that person? That person is no longer a Malaysian citizen and will no longer possess a Malaysian identity card, which means that that person cannot be allowed to remain in Malaysia any longer. That person must leave the country.

However, that person will also not possess a Malaysian passport (the Malaysian passport will be cancelled since that person is no longer a Malaysian citizen). Hence that person cannot leave the country since that person will not be allowed to travel or will not be allowed into another country without a passport. In short, that person is now stateless. So what do we do? That person cannot remain in Malaysia and at the same time that person cannot leave Malaysia.

It would be good, therefore, if before we talk about withdrawing anyone's Malaysian citizenship we clarify how it is going to be done and what happens after it is done. If not it might give the impression that we do not really know what we are talking about.

************************************

CONSTITUTION OF MALAYSIA

PART III - CITIZENSHIP

Chapter 2 - Termination of Citizenship

 

Article number: 23

23.

• Any citizen of or over the age of twenty-one years and of sound mind who is also or is about to become a citizen of another country may renounce his citizenship of the Federation by declaration registered by the Federal Government, and shall thereupon cease to be a citizen.

• (2) A declaration made under this Article during any war in which the Federation is engaged shall not be registered except with the approval of the Federal Government.

• (3) This Article applies to a woman under the age of twenty-one years who has been married as it applies to a person of or over that age.

 

Article number: 24

• (1) If the Federal Government is satisfied that any citizen has acquired by registration, naturalization or other voluntary and formal act (other than marriage) the citizenship of any country outside the Federation, the Federal Government may by order deprive that person of his citizenship.

• (2) If the Federal Government is satisfied that any citizen has voluntarily claimed and exercised in any country, being rights accorded exclusively to its citizens, the Federal Government may by order deprive that person of his citizenship.

• (3) (Repealed)

        • (3A) Without prejudice to the generality of Clause (2), the exercise of a vote in any political election in a place outside the Federation shall be deemed to be the voluntary claim and exercise of a right available under the law of that place; and for the purposes of Clause (2), a person who, after such date as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by order appoint for the purposes of this Clause -

       • (a) applies to the authorities of a place outside the Federation for the issue or renewal of a passport; or

       • (b) uses a passport issued by such authorities as a travel document,

       • shall be deemed voluntarily to claim and exercise a right available under the law of that place, being a right accorded exclusively to the citizens of that place.

• (4) If the Federal Government is satisfied that any woman who is a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15 has acquired the citizenship of any country outside the Federation by virtue of her marriage to a person who is not a citizen, the Federal Government may by order deprive her of her citizenship.

 

Article number: 25

(1) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied -

      • (a) that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation;

      • (b) that he has, during any war in which the Federation is or was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business which to his knowledge was carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or

      • (c) that he has, within the period of five years beginning with the date of the registration or the grant of the certificate, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit or the equivalent in currency of that country, and has not received a free pardon in respect of the offence for which he was so sentenced.

• (1A) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied that without the Federal Government's approval, he has accepted, served in, or performed the duties of any office, post or employment under the Government of any country outside the Federation or any political sub-division thereof, or under any agency of such a Government, in any case where an oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance is required in respect of the office, post or employment:

Provided that a person shall not be deprived of citizenship under this Clause by reason of anything done before the beginning of October 1962, in relation to a foreign country, and before the beginning of January 1977, in relation to a Commonwealth country, notwithstanding that he was at the time a citizen.

• (2) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalization if satisfied that he has been ordinarily resident in countries outside the Federation for a continuous period of five years and during that period has neither -

       • (a) been at any time in the service of the Federation or of an international organization of which the Federal Government was a member; nor

       • (b) registered annually at a consulate of the Federation his intention to retain his citizenship:

provided that this Clause shall not apply to any period of residence in any Commonwealth country before the beginning of January 1977.

• (3) (Repealed)

 

Article number: 26

• (1) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any citizen by registration or by naturalization if satisfied that the registration or certificate of naturalization -

        • (a) was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact; or

        • (b) was effected or granted by mistake.

• (2) The Federal Government may by order deprive of her citizenship any woman who is a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15 if satisfied that the marriage by virtue of which she was registered has been dissolved, otherwise than by death, within the period of two years beginning with the date of the marriage.

• (3) (Repealed).

• (4) (Repealed).

 

Article number: 26a

Where a person has renounced his citizenship or been deprived thereof under Clause (1) of Article 24 or paragraph (a) of Clause (1) of Article 26, the Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any child of that person under the age of twenty-one who has ben registered as a citizen pursuant to this Constitution and was so registered as being the child of that person or of that person's wife or husband.

 

Article number: 26b

• (1) Renunciation or deprivation of citizenship shall not discharge a person from liability in respect of anything done or omitted before he ceased to be a citizen.

• (2) No person shall be deprived of citizenship under Article 25, 26 or 26A unless the Federal Government is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that he should continue to be a citizen: and no person shall be deprived of citizenship under Article 25, paragraph (b) of Clause (1) of Article 26, or Article 26A if the Federal Government is satisfied that as a result of the deprivation he would not be a citizen of any country.

 

Article number: 27

• (1) Before making an order under Article 24, 25 or 26, the Federal Government shall give to the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground on which the order is proposed to be made and of his right to have the case referred to a committee of inquiry under this Article.

• (2) If any person to whom such notice is given applies to have the case referred as aforesaid the Federal Government may, refer the case to a committee of inquiry consisting of a chairman (being a person possessing judicial experience) and two other members appointed by that Government for the purpose.

• (3) In the case of any such reference, the committee shall hold an inquiry in such manner as the Federal Government may direct, and submit its report to that Government: and the Federal Government shall have regard to the report in determining whether to make the order.

 

Article number: 28

• (1) For the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter -

        • (a) any person who before Merdeka Day became a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation by registration as a citizen or in consequence of his registration as a citizen or in consequence of his registration as the subject of the Ruler, or by the grant of a certificate of citizenship, under any provision of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, or of any State law shall be treated as a citizen by registration and, if he was not born within the Federation, as a citizen by registration under Article 17;

        • (b) a woman who before that day became a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation by registration as a citizen, or in consequence of her registration as the subject of the Ruler, under any provision of the said Agreement or any State law authorizing the registration of women married to citizens of the Federation or to subjects of the Ruler shall be treated as a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15;

       • (c) any person who before that day was naturalised as a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation under the said Agreement of became a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation in consequence of his naturalization as the subject of a Ruler under any State law shall (subject to Clause (2)) be treated as a citizen by naturalization.

and references in those provisions to the registration or naturalization of a citizen shall be construed accordingly.

• (2) No person born within the Federation shall be liable by virtue of this Article to be deprived of citizenship under Article 25.

• (3) A person who on Merdeka Day became a citizen by operation of law as having been citizen of the Federation immediately before that day shall not be deprived of citizenship under Clause (1) or (2) of Article 24 by reason of anything done on or before that day, but in the case of any such person Clause (2) of Article 25 shall apply equally in relation to a period of residence in foreign countries beginning before Merdeka Day and in relation to such a period beginning on or after that day.

 

Article number: 28a

• (1) (Repealed)

• (2) For the purposes of Articles 24, 25, 26 and 26A a person who on Malaysia Day becomes a citizen by operation of law because immediately before that day he has the status of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall be treated -

        • (a) as a citizen by registration if he acquired that status by registration; and

        • (b) as a citizen by naturalisation if he acquired that status by or in consequence of naturalisation;

and references in those Articles to the registration or naturalisation of a citizen shall be construed accordingly.

• (3) Where a woman is under this Article to be treated as a citizen by registration, and the status consequence of which she is to be treated was acquired by her virtue of marriage, then for purposes of Clause (4) of Article 24 and Clause (2) of Article 26 she shall be treated as a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15.

• (4) Where a person born before Malaysia Day is under this Article to be treated as a citizen by registration by virtue of a connection with the State of Sabah or Sarawak and he was not born in the territories comprised in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, Article 25 shall apply to him as if he were a citizen by registration under Article 16a or 17.

• (5) Notwithstanding that a person is under this Article to be treated as a citizen by naturalisation,he shall not be deprived of his citizenship under Article 25 if he was born before Malaysia Day in the territories comprised in the States of Sabah and Sarawak and is to be treated by virtue of a status acquired by or in consequence of naturalisation in those territories.

• (6) Without prejudice to the forgoing Clauses, where on Malaysia Day a person becomes a citizen by operation of law in virtue of any status possessed by him immediately before that day to be deprived of that status under the law relating thereto, then the Federal Government may by order deprive him of his citizenship, ir proceedings for that purpose are begun before September 1965: but Clause (2) of Article 26b and, subject to Clause (7), Article 27 shall apply to an order under this Clause as they apply to an order under Article 25.

• (7) Where a person is liable to be deprived of citizenship under Clause (6) and proceedings had before Malaysia Day begun to deprive him of the status of virtue of which he acquired his citizenship, those proceedings shall be treated as proceedings to deprive him of citizenship under that Clause, and shall be continued in accordance with the law relating to that status immediately before Malaysia Day, and the functions the Federal Government in relation thereto shall be delegated to such authority of the State in question as the Federal Government may determine.

 

The problem with self-hypnosis

Posted: 12 Feb 2013 07:57 PM PST

I did not see that happen in Kuala Terengganu. In fact, the reverse happened. In areas where there are a high percentage of Chinese voters, the opposition did better in March 2008 than it did in January 2009. And in January 2009, the Tsunami was supposed to have been bigger than in March 2008, as what we are being told.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Penang has more Malays than Chinese

(The Star) - The number of Malays in Penang is increasing, and they now outnumber the Chinese by 0.7%.

In 2009, the population of Malays was at 654,300, just ahead of 651,600 Chinese or just a 0.1% difference.

In 2010, it widened to 0.7% with 41.6% or 670,100 of the estimated 1.6mil Penang population being Malays while 658,700 or 40.9% were Chinese.

According to statistics, the two races were followed by 9.7% Indians (155,600), 7% non-Malaysians (112,200) and 0.8% others and other bumiputras (13,300).

The statistics, obtained from Department of Statistics, is part of a 32-page Penang Statistics (Quarter 1, 2010) report submitted to the state government by the Socio-Economic and Environ­mental Research Institute (Seri), which is the state government's think-tank.

The report can be viewed at Seri's website at www.seri.com.my.

Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong of DAP (picture above) said the trend was not surprising or unusual.

"It's a national trend. It is not that the Chinese population didn't grow but the Malay population is growing faster."

"We have been expecting this to happen since the 1980s because of the 70 million population policy announced by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad," he said yesterday.

However, Liew, who is Seri executive director and DAP strategist, said the trend was a good opportunity for DAP.

"To me, it's not about the declining number of people from a certain race, but more about quality of life," he said.

************************************************

The most often heard remark since the aftermath of the March 2008 general election is that 80-90% of the Chinese all over Malaysia -- even in Sabah and Sarawak -- will be voting opposition in the coming general election while the Indians and Malays are split 50-50.

The second most often heard remark being bandied about is that Penang will, without a doubt, remain with Pakatan Rakyat because Penang is majority Chinese.

Mainly, the assumption is, in March 2008, Malaysia saw a political Tsunami and in the coming general election this Tsunami is going to get even bigger. Hence, while Pakatan Rakyat managed to sweep five states and 82 Parliament seats in March 2008 -- and in that same process denied Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament -- this time around Pakatan Rakyat is going to do even better and will send Barisan Nasional into retirement.

The issue is: is this an educated guess, a conclusion based on research, or mere wishful thinking and self-hypnosis into seeing what is not there?

There are some who consider my articles on history boring and a total waste of time. "Why talk about the past?" they ask me, "the past is not important."

That depends, of course, on what your purpose of learning history is. If Hitler had learned from the past, then he would not have made the same mistake that Napoleon made and hence Germany might not have lost the war, or maybe would not have lost the war so fast.

And while on the subject of Napoleon, some historians say that Napoleon was a military genius. Now, this is merely their opinion. What is the basis of classifying someone as a military genius? If it is on the basis that he moved his army across Europe so fast (Blitzkrieg) that he caught the enemy sleeping, then probably he is a military genius. But if based on the estimated 5 million-6.5 million people who were killed in the Napoleonic Wars, would one still consider Napoleon a genius? How can someone who resulted in 5 million or more deaths be a genius?

Hence, how you perceive things would influence your conclusions. And history is certainly not an exact science because history is not merely about reporting the events but about interpreting the events as well. Hence, also, Osama Bin Ladin can be both hero and murderer depending on what yardstick you apply.

Statistics normally do not lie -- unless you doctor those statistics. But how you interpret those statistics can differ depending on what colour lenses you are using to look at them. For example, no one will dispute the existence of the Qur'an. But whether you regard the Qur'an as God's word or not would depend on how you look at things.

The bottom line is: one fact, but two different interpretations of that one fact.

Okay, let's get back to the March 2008 Tsunami being bigger in the coming general election.

For someone like me who wants to see a strong two-party system where we give one group the government for, say, two terms, and then switch to the other group for, say, another two terms, the strong Tsunami that everyone says we will see is certainly a most welcome scenario.

The adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely is certainly true and you need not be a student of history to understand that. Hence we need a balance, and that balance can only be achieved when we have two strong political parties (and not one strong one and one weak one).

Nevertheless, is this even bigger Tsunami than the one in March 2008 for real? And what do we base our conclusions on?

Let us look at the Kuala Terengganu Parliamentary by-election (P036) that was held in January 2009, about ten months after the March 2008 Tsunami. You can look at the details or statistics below.

The turnout in that by-election was slightly lower than in the general election ten months before that. And this was because the turnout for Chinese voters was greatly reduced.

I spent that entire period in Kuala Terengganu together with a few other Bloggers such as Haris Ibrahim (Sam), Bernard Khoo (Zorro), etc. Even Zaid Ibrahim, who was not in PKR yet at that time, came up to join us for three days. And we campaigned door-to-door, not once, but three rounds in all -- even Zaid Ibrahim. We even went to all the pubs and clubs to meet the Chinese voters.

Hence, we obtained feedback from the 'horses' mouths', so to speak. And what we were told was this.

Many of the Chinese voters (mainly the younger ones who work outside Kuala Terengganu) would not be coming home to vote because they want to reserve their leave for Chinese New Year. (That's what I call 'commitment').

Most Chinese would be voting Barisan Nasional because they worry that if they vote PAS they may get punished by Umno (especially those from Kampong Cina whose homes sit on TOL land).

The Chinese feel that the majority of the Malays would be voting PAS so it does not matter if the Chinese vote Barisan Nasional. (PAS can still win even though with a reduced majority).

Sam and Bernard can tell you about this 'survey' that we did because they too were there and they too heard what the Chinese had to say. Understandably, this upset us and we were worried that if the Chinese did what they said they were going to do, and if the Malays do not swing to PAS like we hoped, then Umno was going to win that by-election. (It was, after all, an Umno seat, which they won in March 2008).

And that was when I decided to change tactics. Initially, I only campaigned amongst the Chinese voters. But when I discovered that the Chinese would not all be voting opposition, I started campaigning amongst the Malay voters as well (who I had 'ignored' in the beginning).

Come Polling Day and what we were told was going to happen really did happen. Many younger Chinese who work outside Kuala Terengganu did not come home to vote. The fact that we were monitoring the polling stations and we saw mostly senior citizen Chinese coming out to vote confirmed this.

Next, the areas or UPU that were predominantly Malay went to the opposition while the areas that had a fair number of Chinese voters went to Umno.

And the voter turnout was lower than for the GE, in particular amongst the Chinese voters. Plus, also, the majority that PAS won was 2,000 less than we had hoped. (And note the high 'spoilt' votes -- considering that the voters were urban and not rural).

Pakatan Rakyat is supposed to win the coming general election on the strength of the Chinese support. And the Chinese support this time around is supposed to be bigger than in March 2008.

I did not see that happen in Kuala Terengganu. In fact, the reverse happened. In areas where there are a high percentage of Chinese voters, the opposition did better in March 2008 than it did in January 2009. And in January 2009, the Tsunami was supposed to have been bigger than in March 2008, as what we are being told.

Is the story that, today, more Chinese have swung to the opposition compared to March 2008 a fallacy? What evidence are we using to come to this conclusion? I worry that we are merely fooling ourselves and are subjecting ourselves to self-hypnosis. The statistics do not appear to support what we say.

Another point of importance is: if we depend on just Chinese votes for the opposition to win the election, then we are going to create a situation where 'opposition' means 'Chinese' and 'government' means 'Malay'.

Now, do I need to spell out in graphic details the danger of such a thing happening? And if you still do not get what I am driving at then you should not be reading Malaysia Today because you are not clever enough for Malaysia Today.

Oh, and yes, I know, those of you who find what I just wrote extremely unsettling are now going to accuse me of spinning for Barisan Nasional. Well, that is called denial syndrome, an ailment of people who refuse to accept reality. If I was helping Barisan Nasional then I would just keep quiet instead of warning you that you need to do your maths again.

************************************************

Kuala Terengganu Parliament Seat (P036)

80,229 registered voters

63,993 came out to vote

32,883 voted for PAS

30,252 voted for Umno

665 spoilt votes

 

The four State Assembly seats under Kuala Terengganu

1. Wakaf Mempelam (Umno)

2. Bandar (MCA)

3. Ladang (PAS)

4. Batu Buruk (PAS)

 

Voter breakdown according to ethnicity

Malays: 88.14%

Chinese: 10.94%

Indians: 0.65%

Others: 0.27%

 

In the Kuala Terengganu by-election on 7th January 2009, PAS did well in the Malay-majority seats of Wakaf Mempelam and Batu Buruk while it did badly in Ladang and Bandar, which has a higher percentage of Chinese voters.

 

The Pearl of the Orient not so pearly any more

Posted: 10 Feb 2013 06:13 PM PST

What I can't understand is, while the federal government terminated Penang's free port status in 1969 and withdrew Terengganu's oil royalty in 1999 (or rather in 2000, a few months after the state fell in November 1999) because the opposition had won those states, when these two states went back to the ruling party Penang's free port status and Terengganu's oil royalty were never reinstated.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Reinstate free port status to Penang Port, government told

(Bernama) - Reinstating free port status to Penang Port will stimulate economic activity in diverse sectors in the state, said Penang Chinese Assembly Hall chairman Datuk Lam Wu Chong.

He said many sectors, particularly the tourism sector, would benefit immensely if the free port status was reinstated.

"Economic activities will flourish if Penang was granted the status. Penang will emerge as a shopping haven and a tourist paradise.

"I believe Penangites are looking forward to the reinstatement of the status," he said at the Chinese New Year open house hosted by the assembly.

Yang Dipertua Negeri Tun Abdul Rahman Abbas, his wife, Toh Puan Majimor Shariff, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak, former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng attended the open house.

Lam said the state economy needed injection of fresh economic elements to provide the impetus for a vibrant economy.

He said reports from professionals showed Penang's economy, which relied heavily on the industrial sector, was losing its competitive edge and this has caused the economy to slow down.

Penang has been a free port since the colonial days until the status was revoked in 1969.

On another matter, Lam said Penangites supported the plan to introduce monorail services as the move would considerably ease traffic congestion which has become a major problem in the state.

"Traffic woes have become a major concern to Penangites. A permanent solution has to be found for this problem. This must be addressed soon.

"If we look at major cities around the world, the cities have adequate traffic systems, subways or underground train services to help ease traffic congestion," he added.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had recently promised a monorail service for Penang if the Barisan Nasional (BN) was given the mandate to govern the state in the soon-to-be-held 13th general election.

*********************************

What the Penang Chinese Assembly Hall chairman, Lam Wu Chong, said is a subject close to my heart because I have been saying the same thing since way back in the 1970s. Now, after 40 years, someone else is saying the same thing.

I always tell my friends that I love Penang of the 1950s and 1960s but not the Penang of today. In fact, the same applies to Port Dickson, Cameron Highlands, Frasers Hill, and so on. All these places have lost their charm. They no longer have 'character'. They are nothing like what I remember them to be before and soon after Merdeka.

When we were kids  -- soon after Merdeka when my grandfather was the Governor of Penang -- we would spend two weeks every December holidaying in Penang. One week would be spent on the beach and another week in Bel Retiro up on Penang Hill (the house where Tunku Abdul Rahman would stay when he was in Penang).

Bel Retiro, Penang Hill

It was paradise and we would look forward to our year-end holidays in Penang. I wished we could have lived in Penang and not have to go back to Kuala Lumpur. The beach was superb. Penang Hill was lovely. And you can't beat the shopping in Penang. We would never go to Singapore because Singapore could never beat the shopping in Penang.

Then, in 1969, Penang fell to the opposition. And then Penang's free port status was terminated. Penang was no longer the shoppers' paradise like it used to be. And what a shame indeed! This was also what happened when Terengganu fell to the opposition 30 years later in 1999. The federal government withdrew the oil royalty and brought the state to its knees.

What I can't understand is, while the federal government terminated Penang's free port status in 1969 and withdrew Terengganu's oil royalty in 1999 (or rather in 2000, a few months after the state fell in November 1999) because the opposition had won those states, when these two states went back to the ruling party Penang's free port status and Terengganu's oil royalty were never reinstated.

And why was this?

Penang had been established as a free port back when Captain Francis Light first conned the island from the Sultan of Kedah. If you read the (Malaysian) history books, they will tell you that Penang was a deserted island that was founded in 1790 after Captain Francis Light of the East India Company leased it from Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah of Kedah. That is as true as the story that Yap Ah Loy founded Kuala Lumpur in 1873 or that Umno fought the British in 1946 to gain Merdeka for Malaya in 1957.

Actually, Admiral Cheng Ho of the Ming Dynasty, who went to Malacca in the 1400s, reported the existence of an island called Penang in "The Nautical Charts of Zheng He". At that time China and Penang were already engaged in trade. (Does this surprise you? -- because you did not learn about this in Malaysian schools).

Hence Penang already existed since the 1400s and was not 'founded' 300-400 years later, as what we are told. Furthermore, in April 1591, privateer (the politically-correct word for 'pirate') Sir James Lancaster sailed the Edward Bonadventure from Plymouth and reached Penang in June 1592.

He returned to England in May 1594 after two years of plundering the island and all the ships that sailed nearby (not called 'piracy' though, since Lancaster was a 'privateer' and not a 'pirate' -- now do you know why 'privatisation' is called 'piratisation'?).

And all this happened hundreds of years before Francis Light was supposed to have founded Penang.

Anyway, what may be noteworthy about Francis Light is he gave Penang free port status (as if it was his kuasa to do that). Then, almost 180 years later, when Penang fell to the opposition, the island's free port status was removed and, soon after that, Singapore became the new shoppers' paradise.

By the mid-1970s, we no longer bothered to go to Penang. Instead, we went to Singapore to shop.

I first knew Dr Ibrahim Saad when he was Anwar Ibrahim's Political Secretary at the Ministry of Youth and Sports. In 1990, Ibrahim Saad contested the Bukit Gelugor state seat in Penang and won. He was then appointed the Deputy Chief Minister of Penang.

Soon after that I made a trip to Penang and met Ibrahim Saad and his wife for dinner. I then asked him why don't the federal government re-establish Penang as a free port and give Singapore a run for its money, like how it used to be before the 1970s.

And this was what Ibrahim Saad told me.

He said he had in fact raised this matter with his boss, Anwar Ibrahim, but Anwar told him: what for? It will only make the Chinese rich. All the businesses in Penang are owned by the Chinese, not by the Malays. So the Malays are not going to benefit from Penang's free port status. Might as well the government tax all imports and earn some revenue.

When politics overrides economic decisions then over the long term the country will suffer. Do you know that over the last five years about 12 million tourists a year visit Singapore? More than two million of these tourists are from Indonesia while roughly a million each are from China, Malaysia, Australia and India.

Hence about half the tourists are from just five countries with the other half from Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Hong Kong, the UK, the US and other countries from Europe and Asia. And shopping is the main attraction of Singapore, like what Penang was once before politics overtook common sense.

And don't tell me that this is why we need to change the government because some of these 'decision-makers' who once were in the government are now in the opposition.

 

Been there, done that

Posted: 08 Feb 2013 04:49 PM PST

If less than 20 pages is 'too lengthy' then I really do not know what to say. They should be reading at least 100 to 150 pages a day or go through a 300-page book in two or three days. Some PhD students here in the UK, Malaysians of course, told me that they hardly read a book a year save for their text books.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hindraf has laid out six conditions for both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional to agree to before it decides which of the two coalitions it will support in the coming general election. Five of those six conditions were actually addressed in The People's Declaration exactly five years ago in February 2008.

In fact, The People's Declaration is in even more detail because it comes to almost 20 pages. The problem is most people did not read it because, according to them, The People's Declaration is too lengthy.

If less than 20 pages is 'too lengthy' then I really do not know what to say. They should be reading at least 100 to 150 pages a day or go through a 300-page book in two or three days. Some PhD students here in the UK, Malaysians of course, told me that they hardly read a book a year save for their text books.

That is pathetic. And these are the same people who whack Umno and blame Umno for the 'poorly educated' Malaysians. I just don't get it how you can blame Umno for your low-level education when you refuse to read a book a year and you declare that 20 pages are too lengthy to read.

Anyway, save for item 2 in Hindraf's list of six demands, five of these demands have actually been addressed in The People's Declaration, as you can see below.

I admit that The People's Declaration is not specific to 'Indian issues', as it tries to address policies to make things more equitable, and so that the beneficiaries of these policies would be on a need basis rather than race-based. Nevertheless, if there were any particular ethnic group that is in need, then it would automatically become that beneficiary.

For example, if you build houses for the needy, and if the Indians are in need of houses, then the Indians become the beneficiary of those houses since the spirit of The People's Declaration is to do away with race-based policies in favour of need-based policies.

Many people have asked me what is the source of what they view as my 'falling out' with Anwar Ibrahim in late 2010 and why two months later I started 'whacking' Anwar Ibrahim.

Well, if they were to view that video of our meeting in London in 2010 on Youtube then they need not ask this question. In that meeting I stressed that Pakatan Rakyat had signed an agreement that they will adopt The People's Declaration and later, in Australia, Anwar did a U-turn and rejected it.

Basically, what Hindraf is asking for has already been laid out and agreed by Pakatan Rakyat (plus PSM, mind you) five years ago in February 2008. And The People's Declaration has more details. Will Pakatan Rakyat now say yes to Hindraf when it has said no to The People's Declaration -- after saying yes earlier?

Anyway, while we await a reply from Pakatan Rakyat, maybe in the meantime you can compare what Hindraf wants to what was agreed back in February 2008.

 

Hindraf: 1) Stop displacing Indian plantation workers and provide reasonable compensation as well as offer skills training to them.

The People's Declaration: Form a framework of tripartite consultation that is effective, just and democratic, and amend laws relating to labour, trade unions and industrial relations consistent with it; fix a reasonable monthly wage for estate workers and seriously implement a housing scheme for estate workers; and introduce re-training programmes for retrenched workers.

 

Hindraf: 2) Resolve Indian stateless issue.

The People's Declaration: None.

 

Hindraf: 3) Provide equal education opportunities to all Indian students via meritocracy;

The People's Declaration: Establish a National Education Consultative Council to ensure that the practice and implementation of the national education policy and philosophy is both effective and just; allocate the education budget in a fair and equitable fashion, without neglecting any group; provide more scholarships and other financial assistance on the basis of need; and increase the number of mother tongue schools and upgrade their facilities according to need and demand.

 

Hindraf: 4) Provide equal job and business opportunities to Indians;

The People's Declaration: Establish an investment fund, under-written by the government, for the development of small and medium enterprises and allocated according to performance and not political favouritism.

 

Hindraf: 5) Stop police brutality and death in custody, and set up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

The People's Declaration: Sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; restore the image and status of the Royal Malaysian Police by means of a permanent committee as the Police Commission to receive and consider petitions by the people on police behaviour; improve the quality and effectiveness of human rights education at all levels of education and institutions of higher learning as well as training centres for public servants; and improve prison administration and conditions in line with international standards.

 

Hindraf: 6) Stop institutionalised racism and ratify United Nations convention against racial discrimination.

The People's Declaration: Immediately dismantle any and all remaining practices of "divide and rule" in public administration from the days of the BN administration; put in place an affirmative action programme at Federal and all State levels to eradicate poverty and marginalization from amongst the weak and backward groups irrespective of race, social background and religion; and establish an independent Ethnic Relations Council, reporting directly to Parliament to help in building a united Bangsa Malaysia.

 

The approach

Posted: 05 Feb 2013 08:21 PM PST

There are two things you do not discuss at a party. One is religion and the other is politics. And this is because both those subjects are very sensitive and extremely volatile. Hence the approach you adopt for both religion and politics is about the same. And while my story above concerns religion, the example could easily enough be applied to politics.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

About 15 years or so ago I joined a bike ride up north (north of Malaysia, that is) and we stopped to spend a night at some old colonial chalets at the foot of Cameron Highlands. The next day we visited an Orang Asli settlement not far from there and spent half a day with them. We also brought some handouts to distribute to the Orang Asli -- a sort of community service thing.

The Orang Asli had probably been living at the foot of Cameron Highlands for thousands of years and it was most interesting to see that many of their old ways were still almost intact. I found out that both the Christian as well as Muslim missionaries visit them from time to time and although some of the Orang Asli have converted to Christianity not too many want to become Muslims.

This bike trip I am talking about took place back in the days when I was still a fundamentalist Muslim who subscribed to the ideals of an Islamic State and the Shariah as the law of the land, the criminal laws of Hudud included. Hence it was of great interest when I was told that for many decades both the Christian as well as Muslim missionaries visited these Orang Asli and while some did leave their 'old faith' to adopt the Abrahamic faith they had no problems becoming Christians but had no attraction to Islam.

This matter warranted further investigation.

Our local friend, a Malay-Muslim, who had lived there for some years and who was our guide for the day explained that it all boils down to approach. The Christians go there not to preach Christianity although ultimately that is their mission, to spread Christianity. They go there to offer community service and in that same process they demonstrate to the Orang Asli what good people the Christians are. Hence Christianity must be a good religion if Christians are so good.

The spreading of Christianity is never projected as the main motive. The main motive is to see how we can help you and serve you. If at all Christianity is mentioned, it is merely as a by-the-way thing, sort of: oh, by the way, before I take my leave, I just want you to know that we are Christians.

The Muslim missionaries, however, have a different approach. They go there specifically to talk about Islam and how Islam is the only true religion while all other religions are false religions and under Islam this is forbidden and that is forbidden while this is mandatory and that is mandatory. In short, only Islam is good while all the others are bad and Islam is about a long list of dos and don'ts and if you breach these rules you will get punished both by God and by the Malaysian government.

My conclusion was that the Christians adopted the soft approach while the Muslims adopted the hard approach and while the Christians talk about love and freewill the Muslims talk about hate and you have no freewill.

If I were from the 'old ways' and two new religions were being presented to me, which do you think I will adopt, Christianity or Islam? And I saw as many pigs running around that Orang Asli settlement as I did children. They were like house pets. If the first thing I had to do to become a Muslim was to get rid of all my pigs while the Christians were quite happy to let you keep your pigs and almost the same number of dogs that I saw, do you think I would prefer Islam to Christianity?

Now, before you all start your Islam-bashing, which will just send more Malays over to Umno, let me assure you that this article is not about Islam-bashing. It is about approach. It is about how you must approach people to convince them to join you, follow you, or support you, and not turn them off with your hate sermon. My story about my bike ride to an Orang Asli settlement around 15 years ago is merely to demonstrate my point.

There are two things you do not discuss at a party. One is religion and the other is politics. And this is because both those subjects are very sensitive and extremely volatile. Hence the approach you adopt for both religion and politics is about the same. And while my story above concerns religion, the example could easily enough be applied to politics.

If I talk to you about Islam and I condemn the Christians and tell you that the Bible is a fake, which was written by shamans and is not a book of God, and that it is compulsory that you become a Muslim because this is what God commanded, and if you refuse to become a Muslim then you are condemned and your blood is halal, will this attract you to Islam? It may not convince you to become a Christian but for sure Islam will disgust you -- or at least Muslims will disgust you.

And is this not exactly the reason why many of you who are non-Muslims are disgusted with Islam or at the very least you are disgusted with Muslims?

Concerts cannot. Sexy shows where women reveal too much flesh cannot. Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia cannot. Bibles using the Allah word cannot. Celebrate Valentine's Day cannot. Celebrate Christmas cannot. Build churches higher than mosques cannot. Build churches where there are Muslims living in the neighbourhood cannot. Build churches not far from mosques cannot. Ring church bells too loudly cannot. Christians talking about Christianity to Muslims cannot. Inviting Muslims to church functions cannot.

And so on and so forth, the list is endless. However, Muslims can do everything that the Christians are forbidden from doing.

Now, let us look at this whole thing from the perspective of politics and apply the above argument to politics. We who are Pakatan Rakyat people can do all sorts of things because we are doing a noble thing. Barisan Nasional people, however, are not doing the noble thing so we must condemn them if they do what we do.

Can you not see that your attitude is no different from those inconsiderate and unreasonable Muslims that you condemn? The Muslims, too, feel that they are doing the noble thing just like how you Pakatan Rakyat people feel. And these inconsiderate and unreasonable Muslims feel that they are justified in doing what they are doing because they are doing the right thing and are opposing the wrong thing just like how you Pakatan Rakyat people feel.

You condemn the Barisan Nasional people for not respecting freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc., while you resent and vilify those who speak out against what you believe in, meaning Pakatan Rakyat. You condemn those who change sides when Pakatan Rakyat people join Barisan Nasional and you call them traitors and many other nasty names but you hail those Barisan Nasional people who join Pakatan Rakyat and you call them angels and patriots.

You say that all those who used to be in power and who have committed transgressions must be hunted down and severely punished without mercy while those who used to be in power and who have committed transgressions but have joined the opposition must be forgiven and pardoned. You can call the Hindraf people 'Pariah Indians' and the Indian Muslims 'stinking Mamaks' but Ibrahim Ali can't say anything bad about the Chinese. (And don't let me even start on what you call the Malays).

And, yet again, the list can go on and on.

The issue is not about the cause. The cause may be noble but if the approach stinks then the message will be drowned in that sea of hatred. And this is what many see in the Pakatan Rakyat approach just like how we see the same in the approach the Muslims adopt in trying to 'sell' Islam.

Why have I changed? Why is it once I was a fundamentalist Muslim and today I am disgusted with the attitude of Muslims and have become one of the greatest critics of the conduct of Muslims?

Have I left Islam to become a Christian? No! Am I still a Muslim? Yes! Then why am I so critical of Muslims when once I cheered the Talibans of Afghanistan? Why do I share the view of the Christians that Muslims are hypocritical, unreasonable, inconsiderate and downright oppressive when I am a Muslim and not a Christian?

Okay, let me rephrase the two paragraphs above.

Why have I changed? Why is it once I was a diehard Reformasi activist and today I am disgusted with the attitude of the Pakatan Rakyat supporters and have become one of the greatest critics of the conduct of the Pakatan Rakyat people?

Have I left the opposition to become a government supporter? No! Am I still a Pakatan Rakyat supporter? Yes! Then why am I so critical of Pakatan Rakyat when once I cheered the Reformists? Why do I share the view that opposition supporters are hypocritical, unreasonable, inconsiderate and downright oppressive when I am an opposition supporter who propagates reforms?

Yes, you who are disgusted with the mindset of Muslims equally disgust me with your mindset regarding politics. You and those small-minded Muslims are the reverse side of the same coin. The only small difference is while those 'others' apply this attitude to Islam you apply the same attitude when it comes to politics. You have no right to condemn the Islamists because you are no different when it comes to your 'religion' called Pakatan Rakyat.

I may be a Muslim but that does not take away my right to condemn the conduct of Muslims, as they should rightly be condemned. And in the same spirit I may be a Pakatan Rakyat supporter but that, too, does not take away my right to condemn the conduct of Pakatan Rakyat supporters, whenever they warrant condemning.

Okay, I know what some of you are now going to say. Why only criticise Pakatan Rakyat? Why not also condemn Barisan Nasional? Pakatan Rakyat may not be perfect but Barisan Nasional is worse.

First of all, have I ever not whacked Barisan Nasional? What more do you want me to say about Barisan Nasional that you do not already know? Is there anything more I can say about Barisan Nasional to convince you that we need change? Are you saying you are not yet convinced enough? Do you need me to reveal more dirt on Barisan Nasional to convince you who to vote for?

Let me put it another way. Do I need to preach Islam to Muslims to convince them to become Muslims? How do I convert the already converted?

Secondly, I am not a Christian. Hence I refrain from criticising Christians although not all Christians are sincere and noble and there are many hypocritical Christians. In fact, the Christians and Muslims are really not much different. Many from both religions are slime-balls and scumbags.

I want people to love Islam, not to hate Islam, like what is happening now all over the world, Malaysia not exempted. Hence I criticise Muslims and condemn their conduct. And if Muslims do things that are damaging to Islam I will speak up.

I really do not care about priests raping choirboys and so on. If many people end up hating the Christians, that is not my concern. That is not my problem and the more the Christians leave Christianity to become Muslims the better. But I am concerned if it is the other way around.

And this same argument would apply to Pakatan Rakyat as well. My job is not to convince you that Barisan Nasional is beyond redemption. That you already know. My worry is that many who voted Pakatan Rakyat back in 2008 are having second thoughts about whether to do the same in the coming general election.

Hence I am not going to stop criticising the Muslims, as I will not stop criticising Pakatan Rakyat supporters. And if the Muslims do not like that then stop doing and saying silly things that makes me ashamed to call myself a Muslim.  And in that same spirit, the Pakatan Rakyat supporters can also avoid criticism by stopping from doing and saying silly things.

Sometimes I feel like I am speaking to a bunch of school children…sigh.

 

What really did happen?

Posted: 03 Feb 2013 12:00 AM PST

Mindanao was suffering from an armed conflict that lasted for more than 40 years since the early 1970s. The Bangsa Moro Muslims were fighting for self-determination (just like the Muslims from Southern Thailand) and, up to 2007, the conflict had claimed 120,000 lives, many of them civilians. More than a million people were made homeless and destitute and an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 refugees had taken refuge in neighbouring Sabah.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia Today wrote about this matter some years back after meeting some of those involved in the incident, including some of those who were detained under the Internal Security Act because of their involvement.

One of those people I met and talked to was Hassnar Ebrahim, a PKR Sabah leader at the time I first met him at Anwar Ibrahim's house in Damansara. I actually met up with Hassnar and his wife a number of times since then and eventually we became close family friends. I have not met him since I left Malaysia in February 2009 though.

Hassnar's comments can be read below in the Bernama report, which is consistent with what he and the others told me. There are two other reports below that, one by Bernama and another by fz.com, which may also be of interest to you.

From my understanding of this issue, this Projek IC (or Projek M, as some call it) was not one episode but a series of episodes. And at different times it happened due to different reasons.

One reason was actually quite genuine. And this was related to the war in Mindanao.

Mindanao was suffering from an armed conflict that lasted for more than 40 years since the early 1970s. The Bangsa Moro Muslims were fighting for self-determination (just like the Muslims from Southern Thailand) and, up to 2007, the conflict had claimed 120,000 lives, many of them civilians. More than a million people were made homeless and destitute and an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 refugees had taken refuge in neighbouring Sabah.

Hence when I said 'genuine' I meant that they were genuine War Refugees just like the Burmese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, those from Southern Thailand, etc., who also came to Malaysia to seek refuge from the war, death and destruction in their own countries.

On humanitarian grounds the Bangsa Moro Muslims must certainly be accorded refugee status -- as were the Burmese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, those from Southern Thailand, etc., who had been escaping to Malaysia since the 1970s.

In fact, back in the 1970s, Malaysia was heavily criticised by the international community for not wanting to give these people refugee status. Hence, due to this bad publicity, Malaysia had to reluctantly allow the UNHCR to set up base in Malaysia to manage this refugee problem.

Furthermore, when Tun Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister in 1981, he tried to block these refugees from coming into Malaysia and he got whacked good and proper -- by Malaysians as well as foreigners. Dr Mahathir had to subsequently do a U-turn and say that he was 'misinterpreted' ("I said shoo them, not shoot them", explained Dr Mahathir). Due to international pressure, Dr Mahathir had to relent and go along with the UNHCR and allow Malaysia to be used as a base to house these refugees.

That was one reason for the many illegal immigrants in Malaysia, some who eventually chose to remain in Malaysia and become Malaysian citizens. They refused to go home to their original countries to face the hardship and possible death due to the fighting.

Let us, however, just talk about Sabah, the bone of contention for many and the focus of the ongoing RCI investigation.

Now, we must understand that the Mindanao war is only one of the factors for this influx of refugees. And not just one government was involved. Back in the 1970s, when the war first erupted, the USNO government allowed these refugees into Sabah. In the 1980s, the Berjaya government did the same. In the late 1980s/early 1990s it was the PBS government. And after that it was the Umno government.

Hence, since war erupted in the early 1970s in Mindanao, all the governments ever to take power in Sabah were either in a small way or a big way involved in this.

Now, I am not saying that Dr Mahathir's hands are clean. But he was Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003. And this has been going on since the 1970s and, according to Anwar Ibrahim -- in his statement, which you can read below -- it is still going on till this very day.

The question we need to ask is, was it the policy (official or unofficial, as the case may be) of the Malaysian government to absorb refugees from (Southern) Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines (Mindanao), etc? I know that Malaysia was pressuring the west to take these refugees but the west was only prepared to take some of them and not all of them. Hence Malaysia was lumbered with those that the West did not want.

I was involved in the Terengganu Rotary Club back in the 1970s and we used to visit the Vietnamese refugees to give them aid such as old clothes and food. I was also involved in helping some of the Southern Thailand political refugees to settle down in Terengganu (some were on Thailand's most wanted list -- my Tok Guru, Abdul Rahman Pattani, as one example). Hence I have personal knowledge of this matter and sometimes was even directly involvement in giving humanitarian aid.

Undoubtedly, although some of these refugees would qualify as genuine, these were not the only people allowed into Malaysia and eventually given Malaysian citizenship (after the west had rejected them for citizenship). There are also another two categories.

One category would be the illegal immigrants given citizenship by the syndicate for purely monetary gains. Then we have the category that was given citizenship for election purposes.

Hence, by my reckoning, we have three categories to consider.

The first category is justified. Even the US, Canada, Australia, some European countries, and so on, classified them as refugees and took them in -- as did Malaysia.

The second category is purely greed. Some people were making dirty money selling identity cards -- just like they make money selling driving licences (which is probably more than half the Malaysian drivers).

And the third category is purely political -- to pad the electoral roll by creating 'new voters'. And in the case of Sabah, all the government since USNO right up to today are guilty of this third category.

Let us hope the RCI gets to the bottom of this and separate the wheat from the chaff. While we certainly want to nail those who personally profited from selling Malaysian citizenship, plus those who padded the electoral roll with 'new citizens', we do not want to lose our humanitarian spirit by denying asylum to those who would suffer or die if sent back to their war-torn countries.

I feel that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim must be called to testify in the RCI, as should all those others in power since the 1970s until today. They know more than what they are telling us. There is more than meets the eye here and finger pointing is not the right way to go.

Hassnar and those others from Sabah whom I met told me a lot of stories (some stories involving Nur Misuari, Muammar Gaddafi, kidnappings, ransom money, etc). But that would be mere hearsay and not admissible in the RCI hearing (remember 'reliably informed'?). Let them tell their own story as to what happened, especially in those incidences where they were personally involved.

And the two people who must not be exempted from telling the RCI what really happened would be Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim.

*********************************************

Project IC boils over in Sabah

Newmond Tibin, Bernama

(Bernama, Jan 2007) -- Former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee Hassnar Ebrahim shocked a lot of people, particularly the locals, when he exposed a Malaysian identification card (IC) scam or known as Project IC in Sabah, in a recent interview with a local newspaper.

The locals here are stunned as many of them who reside in the state's interiors have yet to own the sophisticated Malaysian IC or MyKad, but based on Hassnar's claims, it seems that the card was easily accessible to foreigners.

While Project IC is not a new issue in Sabah, it continues to be debated by many who express concern as the matter is related to the issue of illegal immigrants in Sabah, which is perceived as the mother of all social woes in the state.

Hassnar, an entrepreneur, confessed that he unknowingly became involved with others who made it possible for thousands of foreigners to secure Malaysian ICs.

The former Sandakan district chief, while refusing police's request to make a statement on the issue, however, is willing to give testimony in court.

Hassnar was detained under the ISA on Aug 9, 1998 for two months, and then placed under house arrest for two years in Sandakan from Sept 6, 1998. He was also among the material witnesses in the Likas election petition trial in 1999.

Meanwhile, Sabah Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) deputy chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan has claimed that currently there are 1.7 million foreigners in Sabah, including 600,000 who possess the ICs.

Responding to the allegation, former Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak challenged Dr Jeffrey to list the names of the 1.7 million people but the latter has so far not done so.

Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman said the state government viewed the matter very seriously and was doing all it could to solve it.

He asked those who exposed the issue to come forward and cooperate with the police.

"Do not simply talk through the newspapers. Cooperate with the authorities," said Musa, who also directed the National Registration Department (NRD) and the Immigration Department to explain the issue to the public in the interest of all.

Following the expose, Sabah police commissioner Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Hassan had requested Hassnar to assist police in the investigation.

He said the police could not complete the investigation into Project IC without the cooperation of those with information.

As such, the police were putting Hassnar's statement on the issue on record to speed up the investigation, he added.

Mohd Mokhtar said the police would not arrest Hassnar or anyone without sufficient proof to link them with the criminal activity.

Several residents here met by Bernama, however, admitted they were from the Philippines and had secured the Malaysian IC through the said project.

"True. Project IC exists. I secured my IC from the project in the early 1980's," said Fuad Arif from Tawi-Tawi island, the Philippines, who now resides in Kampung Sabang in Menggatal, near here, with his family.

According to him, he came to Sabah in the mid-1970s with his parents, and they had stayed at Pulau Mantanani before moving to the village.

"After living here for several years, I finally received my Malaysian IC in 1984. At that time, a middleman came to our village to distribute the cards.

"I still remember the middleman coming to every house in the village to fill up forms for the IC and collect the fee of about RM10 each for stamp duty.

"One of the documents used to support the IC application was the late birth certificate registration letter," he recalled.

Fuad said that once the ICs were ready, the middleman would return to the village to distribute the cards to the residents, who were immigrants and had lived there for a long time.

In fluent Bahasa Melayu, he said that his family believed that they would have a better future in Sabah compared to Tawi-Tawi.

"There is no unrest here. We are free to roam anywhere we want. We can go to Tanjung Aru, Mount Kinabalu or Kota Kinabalu," said Fuad, who is the holder of the IC bearing registration number H0504933.

Earlier, Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) secretary-general Radin Malleh had questioned the authenticity of ICs with numbers starting from H0288001 to H03840000, involving 96,000 holders; H0480001 to H05760000 (96,000); H0609601 to H0610000 (400); H0658001 to H0658200 (200); H0658401 to H0659000 (600); and H0666001 to H0666400 (400), saying he had taken up the matter in the Dewan Rakyat when he was the Member of Parliament for Tenom.

Another Kampung Sabang resident, Jamili Bungsu, 53, said the issuing of ICs under the project was rampant in the early 1980's until 1985.

"Just imagine, in the early 1980's at Kampung Pondo in Pulau Gaya (near Kota Kinabalu), there were only about 10 houses there. But the number soon increased to almost 500 squatter homes whose occupants were immigrants from the Philippines.

"It was not their fault that there were locals who were willing to arrange getting the ICs for them. Not many knew who were the masterminds behind the operation. It might have been done by those with high ranks as it was not easy to make an IC," he said.

Jaidy Kamlun, 26, from Kampung Pulau Gaya, said most immigrants who secured the ICs through the project had been living in the country for a long time and were involved in the state's development projects.

He said in Pulau Gaya alone, there were now more than 10,000 immigrants from a neighbouring country and most of them were helped by 'locals' to get the ICs.

"Of course the immigrants would grab the golden opportunity as it required no documents. Furthermore, they wanted to stay here. Most of them now have MyKads and can vote. As far as I know, the project not only benefited Filipinos, but those from Indonesia, India and China. The modus operandi was the same, that was, through a middleman."

He said it was unfair to link immigrants holding the ICs with criminal activities in Sabah.

"Perhaps some of them are involved in criminal activities or social problems but not all. Society's perception is inaccurate as we came here to earn a living.

"Our parents have lived in Sabah for a long time, and as a new generation, we do not desire to return to the Philippines. We are like the locals who love and are loyal to Malaysia," he said.

Jaidy supported the government's efforts to send back illegal immigrants to their home countries and prevent them from re-entering Malaysia.

"Let bygones be bygones. There is no need to determine whose fault it was. Let's work together towards a better Sabah," said Jaidy, who received his education up to Form Five here.

His views were echoed by his village friend, Tamskie Abdul Said, 36, who said that until now, nobody knew who were the masterminds of the IC project that involved Pulau Gaya residents.

"Project IC was different from those involving fake identification cards. The immigrants preferred Project IC as fake ICs did not allow voting rights and the holder would be repatriated if caught by the police," he said.

Several quarters including political parties and non-governmental organisations in Sabah have expressed concern over the existence of Project IC as it could threaten the country's security and deny genuine citizens employment opportunities as blue collar workers.

In this regard, they have appealed to the government to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to get to the bottom of the issue and ways to resolve it.

The state and federal governments are also aware of the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah.

Even the Barisan Nasional component parties including the PBS, United Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (Upko), Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP), Liberal Democratic party (LDP) and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) have been vocal in expressing their concern over Project IC.

*********************************************

Pak Lah denies any role in Sabah's Projek IC

(Bernama, Feb 2013) -- Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has denied opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's claim that he was involved in the 'Projek IC' in Sabah.

He said Anwar implicated him in the issue to cover his own wrongdoing.

"He (Anwar) is constantly blaming others. He will accuse other people and then he'll wash his hands off it. I know him too well," he told reporters after the presentation of 1Malaysia People's Assistance (BR1M) 2.0 to 262 Kepala Batas Chinese residents at the Tau Boin Temple Keong Hall here today.

Abdullah - who is the area's MP - was commenting on a press report which quoted Anwar as saying that the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) should investigate Abdullah and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for their alleged involvement in the project.

Anwar who is also Permatang Pauh MP was also reported to have denied his involvement in the issue but said he was prepared to give his statement to the RCI.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had earlier claimed that Anwar was directly involved in the project to issue citizenship and identity cards to ineligible foreigners in Sabah in the 90s.

He claimed that although Anwar did not give orders directly, he was always taking the initiative, sometimes more than was necessary.

Meanwhile, Abdullah said 12,060 people in his constituency were eligible for the first phase of the BR1M 2.0 and the distribution would be carried out throughout February.

*********************************************

Anwar: 'Project IC' still ongoing

The ex-DPM denies that he initiated the project and claims it is still running under the current PM.

(fz.com, Feb 2013) -- Former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim claimed today the task force behind "Project IC" was still ongoing under the current Najib administration.

Anwar said the task force started by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was handed over to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and was now under the current premier.

He also denied any involvement in Project IC, refuting an allegation repeated by Mahathir at a press conference yesterday. "Project IC" refers to allegations that many Muslim immigrants from Indonesia and Philippines were issued citizenship in Sabah since the 1990s. The issue has come under renewed scrutiny after a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into the problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah began its hearings last month.

"I was not involved in the task force," Anwar told a press conference at party headquarters here.

"There should be a thorough investigation and ask all past and present Cabinet ministers...the task force was never tabled during a Cabinet meeting. There is no minute that showed my involvement in the task force, and there was never any report submitted to me  when I was the finance or the deputy prime minister," he said.

He also asked whether Mahathir was willing to deny his role behind "Project IC" and his appointment of former Cabinet members Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin and Tan Sri Megat Junid Megat Ayub to the task force.

"There are no records because it was a special task force operated by the prime minister (Mahathir) ...  It is also important to note that the task force is continuous. We should (ask) Tun Abdullah Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

"Datuk Seri Najib as the prime minister is still operating the task force... this should be asked," said Anwar.

Yesterday, Mahathir had claimed at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur that Anwar was directly involved in the project to distribute identity cards to illegal immigrants in Sabah but admitted lacking proof that could stand scrutiny in court. Mahathir also added that so called "Project IC" was never his brainchild but his former's deputy initiative.

The RCI also heard testimony from Sabah NRD chief Ramli Kamaruddin, Tamparuli NRD chief Yakup Damsah, as well as a few migrants who had received their citizenship documents.

Among the panel's terms of reference are determining the number of immigrants in Sabah, investigating if blue identity cards or citizenship papers were issued to immigrants and whether they were registered in the electoral roll, and the abnormal increase in Sabah's population.

The RCI was also looking into allegations that Mahathir had initiated "Project IC" in Sabah to give citizenships to immigrants in exchange for their votes. The former prime minister has admitted granting citizenship to immigrants but stressed the exercise was within the law.

Tan Sri Harris Salleh, who was Sabah Chief Minister from 1976 to 1985, has also denied the existence of "Project IC."

Based on a 2010 census, 889,000 or 28% of Sabah's population are foreigners.

 

"Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it."

Posted: 27 Jan 2013 07:20 PM PST

In 1991, the brother of the Sabah Chief Minister, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for allegedly plotting to take Sabah out of Malaysia. With the detention of Dr Jeffrey, this more or less 'confirmed' the rumour of the plot to take Sabah out of Malaysia and subsequently for Sabah to join the Philippines.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it." That was what my lecturer told me this morning. I think he is chiding me for being too judgemental in my comments regarding the English Civil War and the conflict between King Charles I and Parliament, the course I am currently taking.

With that spirit as the backdrop, I would like to give you my analysis regarding the current controversy raging in Malaysia -- and that is the controversy regarding the Sabah immigrants issue that is being investigated by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).

The Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) was formed on 5th March 1985 and it won the state elections that were held soon after that with Pairin Kitingan as Sabah's new Chief Minister.

During PBS's rule of Sabah from 1985 to 1994, a lot of rumours were flying around Peninsula Malaysia, especially amongst the Malay-Muslim community. And what was being said alarmed the Malays-Muslims from West Malaysia.

The first rumour concerned Muslims in Sabah converting or returning to Christianity.

During the time of Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun -- that is the period when Usno was ruling Sabah -- many non-Muslim natives were converted to Islam. From what we in Peninsula Malaysia heard, those who converted to Islam were given land and money, and were sponsored for a trip to Mekah. Hence, according to what the Sabahans told us, many natives converted to Islam for the monetary rewards rather than because they believed in Islam.

When PBS took over the state government, it seems that many who converted to Islam earlier converted or went back to Christianity. And this upset the Muslims from Peninsula Malaysia. Whether this really did happen or not is another matter. This was what they were told and this was what everyone believed was happening. Hence this outraged the Muslims.

The next rumour was regarding who was allegedly behind PBS.

The rumour then was that the Vatican was financing PBS through the Philippines. It seems this involved a huge sum of money and the purpose of the Vatican was to establish a Christian government in Sabah.

Ultimately, the plan was for Sabah to pull out of Malaysia. Sabah would then join the Philippines, which has always claimed that Sabah belonged to the Philippines. (Read more regarding this matter below).

In 1991, the brother of the Sabah Chief Minister, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for allegedly plotting to take Sabah out of Malaysia. With the detention of Dr Jeffrey, this more or less 'confirmed' the rumour of the plot to take Sabah out of Malaysia and subsequently for Sabah to join the Philippines.

Hence the Malays-Muslims from Peninsula Malaysia had to 'do something' to bring down the Christian government of Sabah and prevent 'Christian' Sabah from leaving Malaysia to join the 'Christian' Philippines. And that would be to dilute the Christian population of Sabah by bringing in Muslims and giving them voting rights, meaning also identity cards.

The Prime Minister during that period was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his Deputy was Anwar Ibrahim, who was also the Director of Operations for Barisan Nasional Sabah. However, this was not something that only those two could pull off.

This was a Muslim versus Christian issue. This involved the Vatican and the Philippines plotting to turn Sabah into a Christian state and eventually pull Sabah out of Malaysia to become part of the Philippines.

Hence Seri Perdana, the army, the police, the Immigration Department, the National Registration Department, the Elections Commission, etc., all had to play a part in keeping Sabah Muslim and to prevent Sabah from leaving Malaysia to become part of the Philippines.

This was a huge conspiracy that involved many people and many government agencies. There may have been a few decision-makers at the top but these people could not have pulled something this big off unless the entire government machinery was mobilised towards this effort.

Later, all those key people at the lower level -- such as those from the Immigration Department, National Registration Department, and so on -- were detained under the ISA in a bid to silence them.

Just too many people were involved and it was too risky to allow these people to roam free where they could probably talk. So they were rounded up and detained without trial. They could certainly not be put on trial where all the evidence of their 'wrongdoing' would be revealed in court.

To the Sabahans, those from West Malaysia or from Kuala Lumpur are traitors. To the Malays-Muslims from West Malaysia, those who managed to thwart the Vatican/Philippines plot to pull Sabah out of Malaysia to become part of the Philippines are patriots who have served Islam well.

I suppose this brings me back to the course I am currently taking. To the 'Roundheads', Charles I was a traitor to the Protestant cause. To the 'Cavaliers', Charles I was a victim of injustice. It all depends on who is writing history and the victors and not the vanquished always write history. And since Charles I lost the civil war and his head got chopped off, then Charles who was 'weak' and compromised with the Catholics is the traitor while the Parliamentarians are the patriots.

How will those people behind the move to thwart Sabah becoming Christian and thereafter leaving Malaysia to become part of the Philippines be viewed by historians, say, 100 years from today? I suppose it depends on who will be writing those history books and this, again, will depend on who the winners are going to be.

As my lecturer said, "Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it." Hence I will not comment on whether what they did was right or wrong. My job as a student of history is merely to relate what happened and state how I interpret those events. This will be how I am going to pass my course at the end of March 2013.

**********************************

The Philippines' claim to Sabah (EXTRACT)

The Sultanate of Sulu was granted the territory as a prize for helping the Sultan of Brunei against his enemies and from then on that part of Borneo is recognized as part of the Sultan of Sulu's sovereignty. In 1878, Baron Von Overbeck, an Austrian partner representing The British North Borneo Co. and his partner British Alfred Dent, leased the territory known as "Sabah" - roughly translated as "the land beneath the winds". In return the company will provide arms to the Sultan to resist the spaniards and 5,000 Malaysian ringgits annual rental based on the Mexican dollars value at that time or its equivalent in gold. This lease has been continued until the independence and formation of the Malaysian federation in 1963 together with Singapore, Sarawak and Malaysia. Up to these days, the Malaysians have been continuing the rental payment of 5,300 Malaysian ringgits - a 300 ringgits increased from original rent.

In 1962 during the Pres. Diosdado Macapagal's administration (the father of the present president, Glorio Arroyo), the Philippines formally claimed Sabah based on the Sultanate of Sulu heirs' claim on the territory. The Philippines broke diplomatic relations with Malaysia after the federation have included "Sabah". The sultan's heirs have given the Philippine government the authority to pursue the claim legally in international courts. However, the succeeding administrations have either have ignored or set aside the claim for peaceful co-existent and trade relation with the Malaysians. 

One significant incident involving then President Marcos have briefly brought into limelight the Sabah claim once more. In 1972, the Marcos government have been training secretly a group of Muslim Filipinos in Corregidor, an island off Manila Bay, for possible intrusion in Sabah to pave the way to an armed secession of Sabah from Malaysia. But upon knowing of the plans, the recruits have mutinied and were eliminated except for one that swam the bay and was rescued. The newspapers have called this incident, the "Jabidah Massacre" named after the operation that was given by the military. The survivor divulged the plan and the claim was put in back burner once more. It was believe that because of the incident, the Malaysians have been aiding the Muslim separatists against the Philippine government. Some people says this distracted the attention to the claim on Sabah as the government was embroiled in containing the conflict.

REFERENCE: http://www.epilipinas.com/sabahclaim.htm

**********************************

How Philippines will eventually take Sabah (EXTRACT)

Much water has flowed under the bridge since the formation of Malaysia. Even though Malaysia gained independence through peaceful means, it did not mean that the birth of the new nation was without labour pangs.

Sukarno of Indonesia and Macapagal of the Philippines were both opposed to the inclusion of the North Borneo territory in the Federation of Malaysia. Sukarno, it must be emphasised, had launched the Konfrontasi to crush Malaysia.

Macapagal was however less vehement in his pursuit against the formation of Malaysia, despite allegations in the first half of 1968 that young Suluk men were secretly being trained in Corrigedor for the purpose of infiltrating and invading Sabah.

Successive Philippine governments have raised the matter of the claim over Sabah with the Malaysian government at various regional and international fora. At one stage, they even threatened to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague for arbitration.

However, the Malaysian government has persistently refused to be a litigant on the grounds that Sabah had become an integral part of Malaysia through a constitutional and democratic process.

That aside, the people of Sabah had strongly expressed their desire to be part of the Federation of Malaysia under the aegis of the United Nations-sponsored United Nations Malaysian Mission (UNMM) and the Lord Cobbold Commission.

Notwithstanding the above argument, the Philippine government has persisted to pursue her claim of sovereignty over Sabah. Two books were published on the claim, one in 1964 and the other in 1967, setting out the legal and historical bases of her claim on Sabah; but the contents of the books were refuted by the Malaysian government's at a June-July 1968 meeting in Bangkok, much to the embarrassment of their Philippine counterparts.

G James, Malaysiakini (READ MORE HERE: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/30940)

 

Feel like kicking yourself

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 05:48 PM PST

Ultimately, you are to blame. And pinning the blame on Dr Mahathir is your way of shifting the blame so that you need not kick yourself. And, soon, the next general election will be upon us. In two months time we shall know who is going to run the country for the next five years or so. And, yet again, Barisan Nasional is going to win the election. And, yet again, you are going to look for someone to blame. And this is just going to prove one thing that I have been saying for a long time -- and that is Malaysians are a bunch of losers.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There is an English saying: you feel like kicking yourself. This describes the situation where you have been an utter fool and now feel real stupid about it. Hence you feel like kicking yourself.

I have noticed that many readers seem to feel exactly like this -- they feel like kicking themselves. Judging by the comments posted in Malaysia Today, many which are deleted merely because they keep repeating the same thing over and over again, quite a number of you fall into this category.

I used to be a Tun Hussein Onn critic in the days he was Malaysia's Prime Minister back in the late 1970s. That was more or less the time I started to become politically conscious and when I began to realise that all was not kosher and honky-dory in Malaysia.

Then, when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister, I did not care about Hussein Onn any more. He had already retired and was 'yesterday's news'. I began to channel my criticism towards Dr Mahathir -- even during the time when Anwar Ibrahim was yet to have his falling out with his master in 1998.

Hence my criticism of Dr Mahathir did not commence only in 1998 when he threw Anwar into jail. It started even earlier than that, long before he and Anwar went into conflict.

When Dr Mahathir handed over the reins to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in November 2003, I became a Pak Lah critic. Dr Mahathir was no longer my pet hate. He was no longer the Prime Minister. Pak Lah was. So my new target became Pak Lah.

Then Pak Lah retired and handed the country to Najib Tun Razak. From that day on I no longer talked about Pak Lah. I started to target Najib. He was now the Prime Minister so he should now become the focus of my attacks.

I find, however, that no one talks about Hussein Onn, the Prime Minister before Dr Mahathir, or about Pak Lah, the Prime Minister after Dr Mahathir. But you do talk about Dr Mahathir. And you talk more about Dr Mahathir's Indian ancestry than about what he did when he was Prime Minister.

Even if you do talk about what Dr Mahathir did when he was Prime Minister, most times you will make that comment in the context of his Indian ancestry. It is as if Dr Mahathir is what he is or is a bad person because he has Indian blood in him. It is as if that explains why Dr Mahathir is what he is -- because he is Indian.

If I were asked to psychoanalyse you, I would most likely do so as follows. Back in the late 1980s, we had already told you what we knew about Dr Mahathir, Umno and Barisan Nasional. What we told you 25 years ago is basically the same thing as what we are telling you today.

However, you refused to listen. In the 1990 general election, more than 53% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, giving the opposition only 53 of the 180 seats in Parliament (or 29%). We just could not get you to kick out Barisan Nasional and give the government to the opposition.

No doubt when we point this out you will reply with all sorts of excuses to justify why you did not vote opposition and instead gave the country to Barisan Nasional. The normal excuses are: there was no Internet yet at that time (so we were not well informed), the opposition was not credible enough (so we had no confidence in the opposition), the opposition had not been tested yet (so we had more confidence in Barisan Nasional), the mainstream media lied to us (so we were misinformed) and so on.

Then, in the next general election in 1995, the opposition's share of Parliament seats dropped to just 30 out of 192 (which is only 15%). More than 84% of you voted Barisan Nasional. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah soon realised that his attempt to kick out Barisan Nasional is futile. Malaysians just did not want the opposition to take over the country. They would rather that Umno and Barisan Nasional continue to rule Malaysia.

Ku Li was better off just closing down his Semangat 46 and go back to Umno -- which he did soon after that in 1996.

Nevertheless, many of us did not give up yet. We continued to support and vote for the opposition. In 1999, we went all out to campaign for the opposition. In fact, that same year I even went to work for Parti Keadilan Nasional. This was no longer just about supporting the opposition. We were literally working for the opposition.

Unfortunately, in the 1999 general election, the opposition did even worse than in the 1990 general election. Almost 57% of you voted for Barisan Nasional (compared to 53% in 1990) and the opposition won only 23% of the seats in Parliament (compared to about 29% in 1990).

The 1999 general election was supposed to have been the landmark election for Malaysia. We were supposed to have made history. But we could not even better the 1990 general election. What a letdown. And, yet again, the long list of excuses as to why you were 'forced' to vote Barisan Nasional rather than the opposition Barisan Alternatif.

And the most classic excuse of all came from the non-Malays: we support you in our hearts but we have to vote Barisan Nasional for the sake of the economy. What a load of bullshit! In other words money talks, bullshit walks. And Barisan Nasional is about money while the opposition is bullshit.

But we still did not give up. In November 2003, Pak Lah took over and four months later the general election was called. Dr Mahathir is a dictator. Dr Mahathir is vicious. Dr Mahathir is vindictive. Dr Mahathir is toxic. So we do not dare vote opposition when Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister. But now Pak Lah was Prime Minister. So surely all those excuses no longer applied.

But no, in the 2004 general election, almost 64% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, giving them almost 91% of the seats in Parliament. This was the best ever performance for the ruling party since Merdeka. So this could not have been about Dr Mahathir this, that and the other after all, as what you told us in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

I was a campaign manager in that 2004 general election. I was no longer just working for the party like in 1999. I was now 'on the ground' trying to help the opposition win. But we got whacked good and proper. We practically lost our pants. Many opposition candidates not only lost the election but lost their deposit as well. That was how bad it was. We were shocked. How could that have happened?

And, yet again, a long list of excuses as to why you voted for the ruling party and not for the opposition -- the same long list of excuses that we heard in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

That was when I decided we needed to change tactics. They say if you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result that is a sign of lunacy. If we expect a different result then we need to do things differently. And that was when I decided to launch Malaysia Today and take our fight to the cyber-world. We can never win in 'conventional' warfare when we do not possess the firepower. So we need to embark upon an 'unconventional' war. And that would have to be in the Internet.

I always use the Afghan Mujahideen fight against the Russians as my analogy. When they tried fighting the Russians in a conventional war they got whacked bad. Russia had tanks, helicopter gunships, rocket launchers and so on. And the Afghans suffered heavy losses.

Then the Afghans changed tactics. They took the fight to where they were strongest, in the mountains. When the Russians tried to fight the Afghans in the mountains the tables turned. Eventually the Russians gave up and went home.

Sun Tzu did say you must engage the enemy in your territory and not try to fight them in their territory. This was what the Afghans did. And this was what we also did in 2004 -- after we got whacked bad in the general election that year -- when we decided to engage Barisan Nasional in our territory, the Internet.

Nevertheless, the opposition success in the 2008 general election was not any better than in the 1990 general election. Still 52% of you voted for Barisan Nasional, a mere 1% improvement over 1990. Yes, that's right, in spite of all that effort, in 2008 we improved only 1% over 1990, an era when there was no Internet yet.

So, can the excuse that Barisan Nasional did well because there was no Internet yet at that time hold water? In 1990 there was no Internet. In 2008 the Internet had already fully matured. But in 2008 the vote improvement was only 1% over 1990.

Most of you refuse to accept the fact that this is your fault. If you do then you would have to kick yourself. So you look for a scapegoat to pin the blame on. And that is why you are very nasty towards Dr Mahathir. You want to blame Dr Mahathir for your stupidity. You do not want to admit that it is you who are stupid. So you blame BTN. You blame Umno. You blame the mainstream media. You blame PAS. You blame the Islamic State. You blame Hudud. You blame the fact that Dr Mahathir has Indian blood in him. You blame the fact there was no Internet. You blame your parents who did not know any better. If you could, you would also like to blame Prophet Muhammad -- except that you are not quite sure how to do this.

Ultimately, you are to blame. And pinning the blame on Dr Mahathir is your way of shifting the blame so that you need not kick yourself. And, soon, the next general election will be upon us. In two months time we shall know who is going to run the country for the next five years or so. And, yet again, Barisan Nasional is going to win the election. And, yet again, you are going to look for someone to blame. And this is just going to prove one thing that I have been saying for a long time -- and that is Malaysians are a bunch of losers.

 

Why is Dr Mahathir such an idiot?

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 08:31 PM PST

Many argue that Dr Mahathir was the architect. While this may be true (and Dr Mahathir, in fact, did not deny it), the 'man-on-the-ground' in charge of executing the plan was Anwar. And while you may argue that Anwar had no choice but to do what Dr Mahathir wanted, how do you explain Zaid Ibrahim resigning from the Cabinet because he did not want to do what the Prime Minister wanted?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad such an idiot? Does he not know that his statements, plus those of the other 'independent' MPs and 'Umno-friendly' people such as Ibrahim Ali, are going to hurt Barisan Nasional in the coming general election expected over the next two months or so? Does Dr Mahathir have a death wish for Umno and Barisan Nasional on the eve (almost) of the 13th General Election?

I would expect someone of Dr Mahathir's political acumen and savvy would be smarter than that. He is, after all, 'The Grand Old Man' of Malaysian politics and very Machiavellian at that too. But what he has been saying and doing of late gives the impression that he is getting senile or is losing it.

Actually, Dr Mahathir is just being, as the Malays would say, bodoh sepat. Which means he is cleverer than many of us suspect. He knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. And those of us who are unsuspecting are being dragged into Dr Mahathir's game plan, which he is playing to achieve the end game of winning the coming general election.

But how do you win the general election by insulting and antagonising the voters? Should you not instead be apple-polishing the voters? Should you not instead be shaking hands and kissing babies? Do you win the general election by making an enemy of the voters?

Ah, this is what separates the men from the boys. Dr Mahathir knows which side his bread is buttered. And he is just making sure he touches the right side of that buttered bread so that he does not get sticky fingers. And all his political life he has made sure that other people get their fingers dirty while he keeps his as clean as a whistle.

Okay, we all know that Dr Mahathir is or was the architect in most of the controversies and scandals to hit Malaysia. However, while he may be the architect, he makes sure that others are the engineers. Hence he designs things but he lets others carry out the dirty work. And he makes sure he insulates himself so that he can do what the US Presidents would do: deniability.

You may suspect he is the architect. You may even know for a fact that he is the architect. But you will never catch him with his hands in the cookie jar. The engineers would be those caught with their pants down. And if you try to bring him to book you will lack the evidence to gain a conviction because there will be no tangible evidence to speak of.

And that was why Nixon was caught while all the others were not. Deniability and insulating the top -- that is how it is done in the US. The architect must not also be the engineer. Hence the engineer would fall while the architect would remain protected.

May 13 is one example that comes to mind. The engineer gets caught while we can only suspect the architect behind the event. As much as we may feel we know who the architect is there is not enough evidence to hang him from the highest tree.

The Sabah illegal immigrants issue now under the investigation of the RCI is yet another example. The entire country knows the architect behind that. They even call it 'Projek M'. But do you have Dr Mahathir's fingerprints anywhere? Where is the smoking gun? What you do have are the fingerprints of various Sabah Chief Ministers, Political Secretaries and Ministers. Is there enough tangible evidence to arrest and try Dr Mahathir?

To be fair, the findings of the RCI is not complete yet as the inquiry is still ongoing. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that when they complete the inquiry and publish the findings of the RCI there would not be enough evidence for legal recourse to be taken against Dr Mahathir.

The testimony of the witnesses thus far appears to show that this scandal had been going on since the 1960s and 1970s. Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister only in the 1980s. Hence this started one or two decades before Dr Mahathir's watch.

Now, in 1985, four years after Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister and three years after Anwar Ibrahim joined Umno, Sabah fell to a 'Christian' government. In 1991, Anwar became the Finance Minister and in 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister after ousting Tun Ghafar Baba.

Tun Ghafar thereby lost his position as head of Umno Sabah and Anwar took over as the Director of Operations of Barisan Nasional Sabah. And Anwar's job was to take back Sabah, which they did the following year in 1994. And how did Anwar succeed in taking back Sabah? He did so by 'diluting' the Christian voters, who had given Sabah to PBS, with an estimated one million 'new' Muslim voters.

Many argue that Dr Mahathir was the architect. While this may be true (and Dr Mahathir, in fact, did not deny it), the 'man-on-the-ground' in charge of executing the plan was Anwar. And while you may argue that Anwar had no choice but to do what Dr Mahathir wanted, how do you explain Zaid Ibrahim resigning from the Cabinet because he did not want to do what the Prime Minister wanted?

This means you do not have to do what the Prime Minister wants, especially if it is something illegal or immoral, and then argue that you had no choice. You can always resign on principle like what Zaid Ibrahim did.

Let us look at another issue, the Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s. Again, Dr Mahathir was the architect for this crisis. That much we know for a fact. But the engineers were Tun Ghafar and Anwar. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who we saw on TV back in the 1980s driving in and out of Istana Negara at the height of the crisis. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who met the Rulers to quarrel with them. It was Tun Ghafar and Anwar who spoke to the press and kept us updated every day with their press statements.

Yes, Dr Mahathir is a Republican and is anti-Royalty. I can confirm that because I have personally heard Dr Mahathir utter anti-Royalty statements. I heard that with my own ears. But I have also personally heard Anwar whack the Rulers. That, too, came from Anwar's own mouth.

My conclusion, made almost 30 years ago back in the 1980s, was that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar are Republicans and are anti-Royalty. And, more importantly, the Rulers also know that Dr Mahathir and Anwar are anti-Royalty. And that is why the Rulers don't like Dr Mahathir and Anwar.

But Dr Mahathir is no longer in power. He is no longer the Prime Minister (maybe only the de facto Prime Minister like Anwar is the de facto PKR leader). Najib Tun Razak is. And Najib, without a doubt, is pro-Royalty while the man who wants to oust Najib and take over as Prime Minister, Anwar, is anti-Royalty. Hence, between Najib and Anwar, the Rulers would rather have Najib as the Prime Minister and they will do anything they can to ensure that Najib stays on and Anwar never takes over.

We can argue that Malaysia is a democracy and it matters not what the Rulers want because, in the end, it is the people who will decide. True, but which people? And this brings us back to my opening statement regarding Dr Mahathir's 'stupidity'.

The Chinese have made it very clear that they are going to vote ABU -- anything but Umno. The Indians, to a certain extent, have said the same thing, although not as high a percentage as the Chinese. In the last general election, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP won a total of only 20 seats (PPP zero) out of 222 Parliamentary seats. That was less than 10%.

This time around, they may be reduced to just 10 seats in total, or less than 5% of the seats in Parliament. Never mind what Barisan Nasional, Umno or Najib does, this is not going to change things one bit. MIC, Gerakan and PPP are going to get totally wiped out while MCA may be reduced to just 10 seats.

This means they need to depend on just Umno and the East Malaysian members of Barisan Nasional to stay in power. Even then they may be able to do so with only 110-120 seats.

Hence Umno can forget about the non-Umno parties in West Malaysia (MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP). Whatever they say and do is not going to save the day. The only thing that can save Umno would be the Malay votes -- that determine roughly two-thirds of the seats in West Malaysia.

And that is why what they are doing/saying is not to win the hearts and mind of the Chinese and Indian voters. It is too late to win the hearts and minds of the Chinese and Indian voters. They need to win the hearts and minds of the Malay voters. And to do that they need to do and say what they are currently doing and saying.

While this may upset the Chinese and Indians, who are not going to vote for Umno anyway, it pacifies the Malays. And it is the Malays they want to pacify, not the Chinese and Indians, who have made it very clear they are not going to vote Barisan Nasional or Umno come hell or high water.

Dr Mahathir may not be such an idiot after all. It could be that he knows exactly what he is doing. Whatever it may be, in two months time or so we will know if Dr Mahathir is an idiot or actually a Machiavellian political genius. Two months more, that is all, and we will know.

 

This is no conspiracy theory

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 04:57 PM PST

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last two years my studies in British and European history has been able to help me look at events from a fresh perspective. When we studied history back in our school days in Malaysia it was merely a study of dates and events, and maybe the personalities behind those events.

Later they changed the syllabus to objective and you just marked the correct answer: A, B, C, D or E. That brought the level of education down drastically and sometimes you passed your exams by just making a lucky guess at what the right answer is.

Here in Oxford we need to look at the broader picture to understand why what happened, happened. And if we apply the Oxford module rather than the 'Pendidekan Malaysia' module (I am not even sure of the 'modern' Malay spelling any more) then the Sabah 'illegal immigrants given Malaysian citizenship' issue can be better understood.

Many of you reading this are probably quite young, born after Merdeka of 1957 or after 'May 13' of 1969 -- or maybe you were still a kid then and did not know what was happening around you. Hence you will look at the 'Sabah issue' from today's perspective. And hence, also, you just want to know who the guilty person is in what you consider a most heinous 'crime' -- in your opinion tantamount to treachery.

Now, I am not saying what they did in Sabah is legal or illegal, or even moral or immoral. This piece is not about right and wrong. Historians do not pass judgement about events in history. They just analyse what happened and what, in their opinion, were the causes of that event.

First let us go to back to 1946, the year Umno was formed.

In 1946, the British Colonial government introduced the Malayan Union, which reduced the powers of the Raja-raja Melayu (Malay Rulers). This, in turn, meant that the Malays would lose some of their powers. Hence the elite and intellectuals amongst the Malays opposed the Malayan Union.

Yes, it was the Malay elite class and the intellectual community -- and not the fishermen and farmers -- who opposed the Malayan Union. The kampong people did not really care because their lives would remain the same never mind who ran the country.

Because of this opposition to the Malayan Union, in 1948 the British abandoned the idea and instead introduced the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Next came the idea of Merdeka or independence. And this took many years of negotiations (no blood on the streets, as what Umno tells us). One issue of concern to Britain was what to do with the more than one million Chinese and Indians after Malaya was given Merdeka. They can't be sent back to China and India so an independent Malaya had to absorb them by giving them citizenship.

Now, note what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday. He said that Tunku Abdul Rahman was worse. The Tunku gave citizenship to more than one million foreigners. Maybe Dr Mahathir is trying to say that he gave citizenship to less than one million foreigners.

What Dr Mahathir did not explain is that the Tunku had to agree to the granting of citizenship to more than one million Chinese and Indians, which was the British term and condition for agreeing to Merdeka for Malaya. If the Tunku did not agree then the British would probably disagree to Merdeka for Malaya mainly because they had to 'protect' the more than one million Chinese and Indians who would otherwise become stateless.

It was a sort of trade off. Malaya would absorb the more than one million Chinese and Indians. The Chinese and Indians, in turn, must agree to special privileges for the Malays (plus Malay becomes the national language and Islam the religion of the Federation). And then Britain would grant Malaya independence.

In 1955, two years before Merdeka, the first elections were held in Malaya and the Alliance Party (a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC) won 51 of the 52 seats. That meant the Alliance Party was 'stable' and could rule an independent Malaya with a clear mandate from the voters. Two years later, in 1957, Malaya gained independence.

But that 'honeymoon' was short-lived. Twelve years later, in 1969, the Alliance party received a beating in the Third General Election. It garnered less than 50% of the popular votes and lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Alliance Party (meaning all three: Umno, MCA and MIC) knew that it was losing power. Hence Barisan Nasional was formed to replace the Alliance Party so that the opposition parties could be brought into the ruling coalition. And that was how the Alliance Party got back control of the country -- by forming a new coalition with the opposition parties (what we could call a 'unity government', I suppose).

But that was not enough and they needed to do more. Selangor, the jewel in the crown, was in jeopardy (it still is today). So they created new 'Malay' cities, such as Shah Alam, and 'flooded' these cities with Malays to 'dilute' the Chinese voters.

Then they created a separate Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur so that the majority Chinese in Kuala Lumpur could be 'kicked out' of Selangor. Thus the ruling party can afford to lose Kuala Lumpur but they would not also lose Selangor.

By then, of course, Malaysia had been created with the agreement that 25% of the Parliament seats would come from Sabah and Sarawak. This would mean that Sabah and Sarawak would be the ruling party's 'fixed deposit' and there was no way 1969 could be repeated as long as Sabah and Sarawak remained under the ruling party.

But that soon changed in 1985 when PBS, seen as a Christian-based party, kicked out the 'Muslim' government and replaced it with a 'Christian' government.

This meant, yet again, the ruling party was in danger of losing power like what happened in 1969. And they were in danger of losing power because the Muslims, who used to be 85-90% of the population, pre-Merdeka, had been reduced to a mere 50% or so -- in the first instance when more than one million Chinese and Indians had been given citizenship in 1957 and in the second instance when Sabah and Sarawak became part of Malaysia and the Muslim population was diluted even further.

Hence Barisan Nasional (in particular Umno) needed to dilute the non-Muslim population, in particular in their 'fixed deposit' states in East Malaysia which control a very critical 25% of the seats in Parliament and where the Muslims are not the majority like in West Malaysia.

And that was when the idea was mooted to 'create' an additional Muslim population of at least one million. And they could not wait for this to happen gradually over 50 years by encouraging Malays to have more children. They had to 'fast track' this exercise, which means they had to 'import' the population.

The first step was for Umno to get into Sabah. The next step was to 'import' one million Muslims into Sabah and give them citizenship. In 1994, this exercise over those few years proved successful when the 'Christian' government got kicked out and a 'Muslim' government took over the state and has held it ever since.

Now, certainly Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister of Malaysia at that time. But it was the Barisan Nasional government (which means it was more than just Umno) that came out with this game plan on how to grab back and/or retain power by diluting the non-Muslim population by importing a large Muslim population.

In 1957, they granted citizenship to one million 'foreign' Chinese and Indians and 30 years later they 'balanced' this by granting citizenship to one million foreign Muslims. There was nothing illegal about what they did but whether it was moral or not is another thing altogether.

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

And this happened not because of one man, Dr Mahathir, but because of what the government did. And Anwar was a key person in that government at that time. Hence I would be very careful about how the opposition plays up the Sabah issue because if the truth were to emerge it may cost PKR a lot of votes in Sabah. And if they can't win Sabah then they can't form the next federal government.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved