| Victims and villains of Ladah Datu Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:32 PM PDT 
How come we are unable to nab one chieftain with our twelve battalions, i.e. some 7,000 of our security personnel, not to mention all the artillery we unleashed? J. D. Lovrenciear The incident of the Sulu Sultanate attacks in Sabah and our duty-bound security counter-attacks has brought to the fore a barrage of very serious allegations and issues that demand immediate reflection, investigation and more importantly the courage, integrity and determination to put national security, national sovereignty and citizens' sanctity above all else.
Political party strategies, priorities and profiteering thereof are a definite act of treason against nation, King and citizens.
Just take a re-cap of the many statements, allegations, speculations, and all kinds of shady finger-pointing going on between and by the politicians, and you cannot help feeling that there is massive iceberg out there.
In the fist place, why blame or even insinuate that 'opposition' may be behind the support for the Sulu Sultanate? Why is the media not contributing to aspired harmonization but seem so engrossed in creating alarm after alarm?
Are the media being exploited for and by self-serving interests? And then what about news that burst out detailing about an UMNO-instrument who was into discussions with the Sulu Sultanate? Do the UMNO leaders not have that same sense of serious concern for nation, King and rakyat to immediately investigate and expose the truth without prejudice or favor?
Lest we forget, what was the Sulu Sulatnate doing as an important VVIP at UMNO's own Assembly? Now that this very person has turned the tides on Malaysia, does UMNO – and even its component comrades of BN, not sense that investigations, accountability and explanations need to be forthcoming without any shades or colors?
Or how about the allegations surrounding the Libya arms that reached the shores of Muslim militants in Philippines via Malaysia's Sabah? Was this another of our classic 'tutup satu mata' stance? Do we also not get immediate answers to this?
Next, in case we overlooked, what was a former Prime Minister – now common citizen and retired out of official power doing in Lahad Datu? He was flashed all over the media meeting with our soldiers who are answerable to the General and King. What gives him excess to otherwise security matters that are privy only to those in the right office?
The commoner-citizens are not wrong is showing so much of apprehension and concern over the Lahad Datu incident that now appears even more mysterious. Yet the politicians preach that rakyat must not politicize the situation. What kind of threatening is this? Does it not smell akin to a gangster - where the strong and powerful shut up the weak (for lack of 'inside information') and unarmed (for lack of positions in office)?
Do citizens not have a right to know what is right and wrong? Do citizens who will finally fight the war against any intrusion and attack on their sovereign status and safety cordons not have a right to demand that politicking has no place in this Lahad Datu incident?
The rakyat are reading outside of the main stream media loop these days. One such report is that which appeared in the Manila Standard Today (MST).
So we ask in defense of our armed personnel and their grieving families, how come we are unable to nab one chieftain with our twelve battalions, i.e. some 7,000 of our security personnel, not to mention all the artillery we unleashed?
We managed to kill 63 of the 200 band of armed 'terrorists' but lost ten of our loyal, brave men in uniform. That is a high price to pay when you only had foot-intruders running ambush in the plantation (not jungles, mind you) against our battalions armed to the teeth.
Come to think of it there have been far too many incidents in Malaysia these past many years where the citizens are merely left to speculate for the lack of transparent accountability. They are left high and dry in the absence of believable justifications.
It ranges from tolls and highways, mega projects and sand selling, rail and island cessation – name it we have had it all didn't we? That was the high chaparral days of the OSA – Official Secrets Act, mate!
We do not have to go far – even till this date and hour we cannot speak and agree openly about the real truth of the May 13, 1969 horrors. There is so much of politicking. Likewise for the Altantuya grisly murder – we are left with a judgment verdict which concluded that although motive is essential, it is not necessary for this case. Now are these not of national interest to concern the caring citizen?
With the media pledging allegiance to either political parties or to individuals within the corridors of power, it is not helping situations either. With some media playing safe owing to political party allegiance although they would be quick to cloak their reporting with the label of 'self censorship' is just as bad doing damage to nation building.
So much so we have degenerated into a deep well of darkness where we cannot see the distinct difference between political parties and government.
This then is the malaise – the very cancer that is making our borders vulnerable and our future fragile. Perhaps there is some food for thought here in what the Philippine Defence Secretary, Voltaire Gazmin is reported to have said: "when you are hunting fish, the water becomes your enemy." |
| Malaysia's Najib says economy at risk from weak election result Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:29 PM PDT 
(Reuters) - Najib's reformist ambitions are widely seen as having been curbed by conservative interests within UMNO. He has announced few major steps to roll back ethnic privileges that distort the economy and are seen as favoring the elite. Malaysian leader Najib Razak has warned that nascent reforms can't be done "overnight" and that Southeast Asia's third-largest economy risks slipping backwards if he does not win a strong majority in an election he must call within weeks. Prime minister Najib said a reduced parliamentary majority could weaken his drive to curb Malaysia's budget deficit and raise investment, and even cost him his job. "A strong government is necessary for us to accelerate the process of transformation in this country," Najib, who is also finance minister, told Reuters. The election, shaping as the closest in more than 50 years of post-colonial history, must be called by the end of April. "A weak government means instability and uncertainty and a country can ill afford that kind of scenario for the next five years given the external economic situation that's going to be between weak and rather uncertain." Convincing Malaysians that his government is "transformational", as 59-year-old Najib puts it, is crucial to the ruling coalition's chances. The ruling National Front is facing a confident opposition alliance led by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, who says Najib's reforms have stalled and who is tapping into a potent desire for change after 56 years of rule by a coalition led by the dominant United Malays National Party (UMNO). Najib's coalition, helped by economic growth that hit 5.6 percent last year and its own deep financial pockets, is favored to win against a fractious three-party opposition. But there is uncertainty over the outcome, helping make Kuala Lumpur's stock index Asia's worst performer this year. Najib has delayed potentially painful reforms to wean the country off dominant oil revenues and stem rising debt. He signaled that those steps would not be rushed through even if he formed a stronger government than the one that emerged from the 2008 election, when the National Front lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority for the first time. "If you try to do it overnight like some countries are doing, there's a massive contraction of the economy," he said. "We cannot afford that. We have to be mildly expansionary in our policies but fiscally responsible," Najib said. ARAB SPRING COMPARISON Malaysia's budget deficit fell to 4.5 percent last year from more than 6 percent when Najib took office. Its debt has crept up to around 53 percent of GDP -- close to a self-imposed limit of 55 percent -- from 43 percent in 2008. Najib has overseen a deluge of handouts to poorer Malaysians in what opposition politicians call thinly disguised vote-buying. Najib counters that the opposition's plans, including free university education, would send the deficit soaring. "The word 'change' has been abused so many times. As you know with the Arab Spring, there were no dividends," Najib said. Taking power in 2009, Najib staked his fortunes on reforms aimed at spurring growth, increasing transparency and dismantling policies that favor majority ethnic Malays but which have alienated minority ethnic Chinese and Indians. His flagship policy is the $444 billion Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), which aims to double per capita incomes to $15,000 by 2020. The ETP has won initial praise from investors, although it remains to be seen if private investment can play as bigger role as hoped. Najib's reformist ambitions are widely seen as having been curbed by conservative interests within UMNO. He has announced few major steps to roll back ethnic privileges that distort the economy and are seen as favoring the elite. Najib said that a "vast majority" of government contracts were now awarded through open tenders and that government spending was increasingly based on needs rather than race. Political pundits expect that an unconvincing election win for Najib will result in a leadership challenge later this year from within UMNO, possibly from his own deputy Muhyiddin Yassin, who is seen by markets as less reform-minded. |
| Longer campaign period: for message or mischief? Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:21 PM PDT 
The call for a longer election campaign period is a double-edged sword. It can have both favourable and unfavourable consequences. But if the latter outweigh the former, there is merit in keeping the campaign period to the barest minimum. James Ang So far, the call for a 21-day campaign period was made by Pakatan Rakyat which claimed it needed more time to reach the voters. Is this a reasonable request? The campaign period permitted by law runs from the date of nomination day until polling day. The Election Commission (EC) has already said it will increase the previous period of seven days to 10 days for GE-13. So, is 10 days sufficient time? There is only a thin line between a campaign period and a pre-campaign period. In law, a "campaign period", means the period during which any candidate or his election agent is allowed to hold election campaign in the candidate's constituency. This includes, among others, the right to print posters, open offices, hold public rallies, meetings and displays; and distribute election campaign material. These activities are restricted to a candidate's constituency. The pre-campaign period extends from the end of one general election to the start of the next. There is even a thinner line between an "election campaign" and "electioneering". Electioneering is defined as activities that politicians and their supporters carry out in order to persuade people to vote for them or their political party, like making speeches and visiting voters. Given this blurred distinction, it is true to say that political parties have in fact been campaigning from the last general election in 2008. It is common knowledge that some political parties have been campaigning long and hard over the last five years. If during this period, they have not been able to get their message across to the voters, they probably never will. Leaders of these parties have held political ceramahs, held politically-motivated public rallies, used the compliant social media, and have even actively campaigned overseas. It was not too long ago when erstwhile election observers came-a-knocking from the Muslim community in the US. The aborted attempt by an independent senator from Down Under is another case in point. On top of all these, the Opposition parties are also demanding fair airtime on government radio and television. The Information Ministry has said this would be allowed. So, wherefore is the need for a longer campaign period? Truth be told, fatigue is already setting in among the people who wish to see the back end of elections so that they can go back to living life without the hype and hyperbole normally associated with excessive politicking. There are media reports of people, especially the younger voters, who say they are put off by the incessant political bickering so much so that they are wondering whether or not they should vote at all. Businesses are also being affected. Hotels claim that polls uncertainty has impacted their business. Room reservations, and seminar and wedding bookings have suffered since people are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. By now, most people have already made up their minds whom to vote for. They know which political parties have the capacity to deliver and are aware of their track record. They also know which politicians make excessive claims and promise the unattainable Utopia. A few are still undecided, and it only needs a brief period to convince them one way or another. So, a 10-day campaign period is sufficient to put the finishing touches to what has been a protracted campaign. However, as I said, if after five years the parties have not got their act together and still have not got their message across, they are probably not yet ready to govern. But, if an extension of the campaign period is being sought with mischievous intent, then no period will be long enough.... |
| My political thoughts during the Hunger Viratham Day Eighteen 27th March 2013 Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:18 PM PDT 
Today there is still a lot of residual anger against UMNO among the Indian poor. Pakatan is capitalizing on this and is thinking that the votes of the Indian poor have nowhere else to go but to them. This thinking shows in the way they have treated the Indian electorate recently in their Election Manifesto flip flops. P. Waythamoorthy This is the eighteenth day of my Hunger Viratham. In this tenth part I will be penning my thoughts on the option of strategic abstention by the Indian poor in the forthcoming elections. PART 10 Strategic Abstention as an option for the Indian poor in the forthcoming General Elections. Today there is still a lot of residual anger against UMNO among the Indian poor. Pakatan is capitalizing on this and is thinking that the votes of the Indian poor have nowhere else to go but to them. This thinking shows in the way they have treated the Indian electorate recently in their Election Manifesto flip flops. Pakatan believes they should get a majority of the Indian votes – not maybe as high as the last time, but still the majority. Barisan for their part believe they can buy the Indian vote with the goodies they have planned. Hindraf's analysis however is this – the urban educated Indians will largely go for Pakatan. Add to that the beneficiaries from the last election who have personally gained and all those who potentially stand to gain in the forthcoming elections. These votes are with Pakatan. Then on the Barisan side, the MIC machinery is preparing to reach out to the local warlords and through them to the poorest among the Indians. They will be throwing a lot of money in the process in doing this In our estimate all of that will all probably account for 50% of the Indian voters. You can argue about the accuracy of that number, but it surely is in that ballpark give and take a few percentage points. The leverage for the Indian poor does not come from those foregone votes. When we say leverage, we mean leverage as in getting the politicians to commit to the specific bottom up plans laid out in our 5 year Blueprint for the Indian poor. This is the key point on which the decision as to where the remaining Indian votes will go will be determined. Hindraf will make sure of that. This is the key point that BN and PR should focus on. We have a few more days left for BN and PR to take their respective positions, either explicitly or by default on the question of the endorsement of the 5 year Blueprint. If they remain silent or ambivalent then we in Hindraf will project it to mean they do not support a program of comprehensive and permanent correction to the socio-economic problems of the Indian poor – that they do not care about the Indian poor. This therefore will form the central message from us to our base. On the contrary, if either, and I reiterate, if either PR or BN comes up and is willing to endorse the 5 year Blueprint in a clear binding way, our message to the Indian poor will be to throw their support behind them – whoever they are –PR or BN. What if Pakatan and BN have not endorsed the Blueprint by the time Parliament is dissolved? The message that this sends to the Indian poor is that they both do not have the interest of the Indian poor in their minds. The proposals in the 5 year Blueprint are entirely justifiable. And if they do not want to adopt them and do not show the necessary commitment to implement them, then it does not really make any difference who wins in these elections. We will make absolutely sure that this is the message that the Indian poor will hear. Under these circumstances, abstaining from voting either BN or PR becomes a real option for the Indian poor. Both PR and BN cannot complain on any count on the adoption of this option by the Indian poor. To the Indian poor, the logic is simple. Neither care, so neither deserves anything in return. What will be the consequence of this move? This strategic abstention effectively means a pullback in the number of votes for both BN and PR in this GE. What this means in turn is that, all those seats that were won marginally will all be affected. The uncertainty increases. If you take Selangor alone, we see at least (at least) 20 State seats that fall in this category – easily. The same logic and formula apply in Kedah, Penang, Perak, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and Johore. All marginally won seats in the last elections with an Indian voter population of more than 10% are candidates to come into this category. And not all the Indian poor need to abstain. Even if 20% of the Indian voters abstain, the impact will be significant. Strategic abstention can prove to be quite impactful. By this strategic abstention, the Indian poor will be determining new winners and new losers. The winners will know they won without those votes and the losers will know they lost without those votes. To both the winner and the loser the significance of the vote of the Indian poor would have become clearer. This adds to calculations for future elections. Will the contenders want to treat the Indian poor vote so cavalierly? Yes they can, but only at a cost. That will become plain. Extending this logic to the next level, strategic abstention can also be applied to individual candidates in the elections. If they will announce their stand on the Blue print, whether they support it and what specifically they will do in support of the programs for the Indian poor and put it down formally to Hindraf. Hindraf can then endorse some of these candidates in return. The logistics of this has to be worked out, but this is also another option. My conclusion therefore is that strategic abstention does become a purposeful option for the Indian poor in this election. By this act the Indian poor would have taken the opportunity to show the significance of their votes, whether we will issue the call for it will be determined over the next couple of weeks, depending on when Parliament is dissolved. Our position is very clear. We do not want to see just changes in faces at the helm of our country; we also want to see real changes in the lives of the Indian poor. And we will take any position that supports our motives. We will make our decision on what we will do soon as the dust settles for us. |
| MRT Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:15 PM PDT 
What this has resulted in is the retro-fitting of major urban public transportation network into existing, established residential and commercial areas. Since it is retro-fitting, the existing laws also do not adequately cover all the scenarios arising from such construction. Jee Ping It is unfortunate that in the race to push Malaysia to become a developed nation, we chose to focus on the building of buildings, car plants, a new government center and many other catalytic projects. What we forgot to do was adequately connect these job and leisure hot spots to communities with world-class public transportation. What this has resulted in is the retro-fitting of major urban public transportation network into existing, established residential and commercial areas. Since it is retro-fitting, the existing laws also do not adequately cover all the scenarios arising from such construction.
A good example is the MRT network that is being fast tracked in Klang Valley. The main issue arising from the 9.5km underground tunnel construction was that the people above ground were not aware of the laws that permitted tunnelling underneath their properties. In fact, even SPAD, the regulator, was not aware of such provisions until it was pointed out. The use of the Land Acquisition Act should only be used following not only the letter, but the spirit of the law. Most importantly, there must be transparency and frequent communications with affected parties on the use and effect of the law on them.
Another disturbing point to note is the proximity of the MRT line along the houses in Jalan Damansara, just after Victoria Station. The construction is basically a couple of feet away from the kitchen of the houses situated on a slope. And we have certainly seen enough of hill slope tragedies. Even the Peninsula Hotel down the road is not spared as the line will run just 4 meters away from the nearest hotel room window. The Sinaran Apartments and houses along Pinggir Zaaba are also similarly affected.
The question is - what are the laws governing how near or far a railway line or track must be from a residential property. To my knowledge, the Railway Act provides for a buffer of 6 meters on both sides of the track to protect the track from damage and vandalism. Given that legal position, are the relevant sections of the MRT line illegal and open to challenges from suffering residents? As this is a matter of public and community interest, we expect an answer from MRT Corp on the matter. |
| Impossible for BN to cheat Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:11 PM PDT 
There is no way the Malaysian authorities would want the country to become another Myanmar. Ali Cordoba, FMT Malaysia is abuzz with talks that the ruling Barisan National will never accept defeat, or that it is preparing to snatch victory by cheating at the polls with massive voting by foreigners. However, due to the current global situation and the fact Malaysia plays a very important role in the global sphere, there is serious doubt on these allegations. How true are claims that the BN will hijack the polls and twist the votes or that it will cause a massive blockade of Pakatan Rakyat voters, to allow pro-BN votes? The opposition has accused the BN of filling the voter rolls with foreigners, whom it claims have been given Malaysian identity cards to vote for the BN. The number of foreigners set to vote for the BN, Pakatan says, varies between a few thousand and two million. The opposition produced some ICs that appear to be dubious and fraudulent, and the ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry on the IC fraud in Sabah does not help the BN. The BN itself is aware of the limitations imposed on it to remain in power at all cost, and to try to cheat its way in the next general election. Many of its top leaders have warned the opposition not to trigger an "Arab Spring". By all means, this is indicative of the fears the BN leaders have of such a possibility. The mounting criticism of the forceful ways the authorities handled the Bersih 2.0 rally to the disadvantage of the BN has been heard. However, the Jan 12 rally at Stadium Merdeka was peaceful, successful and sent yet another message to the BN: that the international community is watching and the BN be better prepared to play fair. The BN is now pretty much aware that the global forces of change will not allow it to twist and turn the results of the upcoming polls in its favour. The United Nations, for the time being, is watching the situation in Malaysia very closely. There is no way the Malaysian authorities would want the country to become another Myanmar, for example. The military junta in Myanmar stole the election from the powerful opposition, annulling the polls results and imposing emergency rule. This will not happen in Malaysia; such an act will only destroy the nation's economy for good. Malaysia, since the time of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has depended heavily on foreign direct investment (FDI). This has helped raise the standard of living of the people, putting Malaysia firmly on the world map. Would the BN do some foolish stuff to destroy this edge that it has helped the country achieve in the past decades? BN must deliver its promises The onus is on the BN indeed as any tainting and meddling in the upcoming polls will scare investors away, stop the influx of FDI and surely raise the ire of the population. Any attempt by the BN to crush the angry mobs – if they were to appear after a BN win in the polls – would only turn Malaysia into a "rogue" nation in the eyes of the international community. And what about the United States? The most powerful nation on earth has been behind, tacitly or openly, the Arab Spring since its inception on day one. This country will not close its eyes, if there were to be trouble in Malaysia as a result of a flawed election. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/28/impossible-for-bn-to-cheat/ |
| DAP, you are driving away the Malays Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:08 PM PDT 
Put the Chinese arrogance away before the Malays get too fed up and start punishing Pakatan by voting for Umno. CT Ali, FMT There will always be among us hardcore radical Malays, hardcore radical Indians and hardcore radical Chinese, and not forgetting our brothers in Sabah and Sarawak, too. They are a stubborn and arrogant lot where reason and good sense are lacking. They are confrontational in their stance towards those who are not of their persuasion. Their "in your face" approach to anyone remotely removed from their racial or religious preferences seeks only to confirm their "take no prisoners" way of doing things. For the hardcore radical Malays, there is Perkasa – the overtly Umno-sanctioned release valve to allow their pent-up frustration to find relief. What about the Chinese and the Indians? Unfortunately, nothing like Perkasa exists for them. With the exception of a few well-reported outburst hollered from the safety of being among their own in numbers and in venues well away from other prying eyes, we do sometimes hear from the Chinese and the Indians cries of frustration and anguish for the future of their own kind. And there it stays without any hope of these sentiments being demonstrated publicly through demonstrations or organised marches. Much as there is a fear that repressed public anger is unhealthy, the authorities take the view that this sort of dissent will not be tolerated for matters of "national security". We will all have to live with these realities. What worries me is the work being done by Umno and DAP to widen this divide. PKR and PAS may have the intent but they do not have the financial will, acumen and political will to do the same. Let me explain myself. DAP and Penang Umno is a lost cause and I do not intend to go there, but Penang is increasingly being polarised as the Chinese embark on a form of economic ethnic-cleansing to rid itself of those who are economically challenged (read: the Malays and Indians). And what better place to start than the most basic of human requirement – housing. Where are the affordable low-cost housing for the low-income group in Penang? So many high-end developments catering for the high-income bracket, which are beyond the reach of many Malaysians with the exception of the wealthy Chinese community – so by default their poorer Malay and Indian cousins are excluded. Many will say that is this not just what Umno is doing to the other races, especially the Chinese? For sure they are, and so are the Jews bullying the Palestinians, the Syrian killing their own people, the Talibans killing other Muslims and Vladimir Putin in Russia again becoming numero uno within the bonds of legality but only just, but are these what we should emulate? Decent people do decent things. It is not decent to deliberately embark upon a policy that encourages ethnic-cleansing through economic means. In the end it does what ethnic-cleansing always does: polarise the rakyat. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/28/dap-you-are-driving-away-the-malays/ |
| Improving education Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:07 PM PDT 
(The Star) - There are still many problems in our education system yet the reforms needed are moving at a glacial pace, compared with the world our children will grow up in. A RECENT headline claimed that Malaysia's education system is fast becoming the world's best. I really had to blink several times because it seemed as farfetched a claim as Malaysian women now being equal to our men. Further down in the article it said that we still had a long way to go before we could "justify" the claim that we are at par with the world's best. Once again, we are handed a confusing statement. Are we improving or are we not? According to our Government Transfor-mation Plan (GTP) report: "The rate of improvement of the system in the last 15 years is among the fastest in the world." But that actually says very little because it can mean that while 15 people can now read when previously there were 10, it still means there are only 15 literate people. I really wish the media would ask tougher questions of pronouncements like this. One of the GTP targets is to get 92% enrolment in pre-schools. For a long time, we have been proud of our literacy rates. But it turns out we measure our literacy rates through school enrolment rates, which any schoolchild will tell you is not the same thing. Just because you went to school doesn't mean you're literate. Indeed, just because you pass your school exams, it doesn't mean you're literate either, as any frustrated employer can tell you. So achieving high enrolment should be only part of the goal, the rest is about giving our children quality education. Undoubtedly, there are supposed to be four key GTP initiatives to improve the quality of education but this does not necessarily translate into a "fast-improving" education system. Our problems are so numerous yet the reforms needed in our education system are moving at a glacial pace, compared with the world our kids will grow up in. I also have a problem with the stated target of reducing the rural-urban achievement gap by 25%. What is the gap in the first place? If it is huge, is reducing it by 25% enough? When will this be achieved? In another study a few years ago, urban parents who cannot afford to care for their children in the cities are sending them to their home villages to be cared for by their grandparents. Undoubtedly, the schooling that these kids will get will be inferior to what is available in the city, not to mention other disadvantages they will have, including the lack of civic amenities in the rural areas. What's more, the family background they will be in may not be as conducive to high achievement as if they stayed with their own parents, who are in all likelihood better educated than the grandparents. Are these issues considered in the Education Blueprint? What would be the psychological cost of separating children from their parents for most of their impressionable years? While a good educational foundation is good for our children, we should not also neglect the other end of the educational scale – tertiary education. Assuming our children survive their early education to get to tertiary education, what happens there? As it is, employers are complaining about the quality of the graduates we bring out. What are we doing about this end? And here's a question: If our youths coming out of public universities are not meeting employable standards, how is it that we are going all out to market our universities to foreign students? What will they get out of it? It makes me wonder why any foreign student would want to come here and study because if the quality of our local graduates are not up to par, then they cannot be much better off. But yet in our public universities, there are thousands upon thousands of foreign students here. How do we select them? Are we selecting the best and the brightest, or just anyone who can pay the fees? What exactly is our reason for opening up our low-ranking universities to foreign students? A neighbour of ours has made it their policy to give scholarships to the best and the brightest from the countries around them. In this way they not only attract the best brains to study there but eventually these brains don't want to go home. Even if they do, like all foreign students who study overseas, they will retain friendly ties with the country of their alma mater, useful for both parties in the future. Our policy, however, is not to invest in brains, whether it's ours or other people's. As long as foreign students pay to put their warm bodies behind our desks, we don't care what they have to offer, and then feign surprise when some of them get into some very troublesome activities. |
| Halal Easter eggs and cat food: where big money meets religion Posted: 27 Mar 2013 12:02 PM PDT 
(Sydney Morning Herald) - Halal mainly involves meat. Much of the non-meat food supply is intrinsically halal, and thus does not require certification, including milk, honey, fish, vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and grains. Yet many producers and suppliers of such products pay for halal certification. Cadbury will sell a mountain of chocolates this Easter, as it does every Easter. It has been careful to make sure that its products are certified as halal, even though it is not necessary. Hundreds of companies in Australia do the same. Halal certification has become a big business. The essence of halal is that any food is forbidden to Muslims if it includes blood, pork, alcohol, the flesh of carnivores or carrion, or comes from an animal which has not been slaughtered in the correct manner, which includes having its throat slit. Food labelled as halal invariably involves the payment of a fee. It does not extend to chocolate but Cadbury lists 71 products which are halal, ranging from Dairy Milk to Freddo frogs to Red Tulip chocolates. The website also states: ''We do not have any kosher-certified products.'' ''Cadbury also pay for halal certification on the Easter product range, even though Easter is a Christian celebration and nothing to do with Islam,'' says Kirralie Smith, who runs a website called Halal Choices. The website lists 340 companies in Australia that pay for halal certification, including Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, Franklins, Kellogg's, MasterFoods, Nestle and even Kraft's Vegemite. Halal Choices has received more than 250,000 visits since Smith, a Christian activist, created the website two years ago to draw attention to the incremental extension of sharia into Australian culture. ''[Cadbury has] a standard letter to people who complain about their halal certification which says they have been assured the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils [which issues halal certifications] are not involved in any illegal activity,'' Smith said. ''They might want to explain the $9 million in fraud involving the Malek Fahd school.'' (Last year the Malek Fahd Islamic School in Sydney was ordered to repay $9 million in state funding which the state and federal governments said had been illegally transferred to the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. A federal government audit also questioned numerous payments made to AFIC by Islamic colleges in Canberra, Brisbane and Adelaide.) Read more at: http://m.smh.com.au/comment/halal-easter-eggs-and-cat-food-where-big-money-meets-religion-20130327-2gujc.html |
| Pakatan looking at "5+2": Kit Siang Posted: 26 Mar 2013 09:26 PM PDT 
He said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily that Pakatan should be able to retain Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan while recapturing Perak plus the states of Negeri Sembilan and Perlis, in the 13th general election. Sin Chew Daily DAP's Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang foresees an even more powerful political tsunami in the upcoming general election, and the opposition pact is confident of capturing Negeri Sembilan and Perlis in addition to the five states it won in March 2008. He said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily that Pakatan should be able to retain Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan while recapturing Perak plus the states of Negeri Sembilan and Perlis, in the 13th general election. However, he admitted that Kedah was less stable among the states currently held by Pakatan. He also did not rule out the possibility that PKR Advisor Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim would contest in Perak. Kit Siang felt that the March 2008 political tsunami had yet to reach a peak, and that the peak would be reached in the coming general election. "The tsunami swept from the north to as far as Negeri Sembilan in 2008, and so the tsunami was not a comprehensive one. The political tsunami did not reach a peak." He believed the tsunami would cover the entire country this time. He said judging from the response of Pakatan events in Perlis these years, he could feel that the people there desired to change, and therefore did not rule out the possibility of a change of administration in the state. Pakatan took 15 state assembly seats in Negeri Sembilan in the last election, just four seats short of forming the state government, and so Pakatan would concentrate its firepower on the state this time. Due to the problems arising from PAS, Kit Siang admitted that Kedah could be a relatively weak state for Pakatan. As for Johor, he said Pakatan had already made it a frontline state in the coming election and that he himself would go south to lead the electoral battle. "Johor is not only the cradle of Umno, it is also a strong fortress for both MCA and Umno. If they are thumped by Pakatan in the coming election, there wouldn't be any chance for them to stage a comeback." He predicted the winning chances for Pakatan and BN to be 50 to 50, with BN at a slight advantage. DAP to make inroads into Umno's strongholds Kit Siang stressed that DAP had set its goal of contesting in Malay-dominant constituencies, and that his move to Gelang Patah would mark the start of the party's advances towards this end. He described his venture into Gelang Patah as "putting my head on the chopping block." He told Sin Chew Daily Gelang Patah would be a very challenging battle for him, as he had to leave Ipoh Timur with 81% Chinese voters to one that has only about 53% Chinese, along with 34% Malay and 12% Indian voters, an ethnic make-up that would better reflect that of the entire country. "To win Gelang Patah, I need more than just the support of Chinese voters. "I hope I can initiate a political whirlwind in Johor without taking into consideration which BN component party would actually contest in the constituency. "I have to apologise to Chua Soi Lek as I never thought whether an MCA candidate would contest in the constituency. The question is not whether it is or it is not an MCA constituency." When asked to comment on the accusation that DAP would only contest in Chinese-majority constituencies, Kit Siang said, "That's a perversive statement. We need not bother about it. In fact, MCA president Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek has made plenty of such statements and we don't have to refute them as they will be washed out by time." "Gelang Patah is a very big risk. It's not about my personal victory or defeat nor that of the party. It's about the maturity and solidarity of the entire nation. "Racist remarks from Umno and MCA leaders will not contribute positively to the concept of '1Malaysia' but the annihilation of the same. "Our strategy is in line with the need for more maturity and more 'Malaysian' as the nation progresses. Transcending political affiliation and race marks a first step towards the real '1Malaysia.'" "When I see myself as a Malaysian first, race, religion, locality and community second, it doesn't mean I will stop being a Malay or Chinese, which is not possible, but we must have the mindset of transcending race and religion." When asked to comment on the assumption that Chinese Malaysians would be sidelined if they voted in favour of the opposition in the coming election resulting in the total defeat of MCA and Gerakan, but Pakatan's victory was not big enough to helm Putrajaya, Kit Siang replied that such an ethnic-driven statement was very irresponsible. "BN has been in power for more than 50 years now. We should look at things from the angle of Malaysians, not our respective races." Show the differences within first 100 days Lim Kit Siang said if Pakatan were to make it to Putrajaya, it would show the differences between the new administration and the BN in all areas within the first 100 days. He reiterated that Pakatan was not looking at just being one-term government, adding that the three parties making up Pakatan Rakyat would prove to all Malaysians that everyone irrespective of race and religion would be taken care of by the new government. He also said Najib had kept deferring the dissolution of Parliament because he was afraid of losing. "They have come up with all sorts of favourable measures but they still don't think they are ready for the election!" Whether the Parliament would be dissolved next week or next month, he said Najib had already missed the most favourable timing for holding the election. He said the best timing would have been around the Sarawak state election in 2011 before the emergence of Bersih 2.0 and 3.0. |
| Opposition not fit to govern Posted: 26 Mar 2013 09:17 PM PDT 
Narinder Pal Singh, Shah Alam, Selangor LAST Saturday there was a session with an opposition leader in one of the hotels in Petaling Jaya. Being an ardent follower of politics and an eligible voter, I went to hear what the opposition leader had to say. Upon reaching there, one of the opposition's henchmen, a youth in his 20s, rudely demanded my age, citing that if I was not a "youth" then I must wait outside, as the event was not for elders. I was disgusted at the high handed attitude of the youth, who claimed he had been instructed by his party to do so. But then, I saw there were other senior citizens in the ballroom. I realised then, I was being discriminated because of my appearance. I guess they could not make out if I was Malay, Chinese or Indian. I guess they did not know what a Sikh looks like as they had been shrouded by their political masters, too. His explanation, unacceptable though, was that this event was for the youth. He said it was stated on their website. I disputed it and said the condition for entry to the event was not stated on their website. It was mentioned that the youth will have an opportunity to throw questions to their leader but there was no mention that only youth will be allowed for the session. I was then surrounded by their people and I felt intimidated. But as a voter and knowing my rights, I challenged them to state where they had put the conditions for attendees or the public. The episode left me, my relatives and friends with one major apprehension on the issue of how the opposition is trying to empower the youth of today. I have nothing personal against the youth, as I was once in their shoes, too. However, manners and respectfulness must always be there in whatever age group they belong to. If this is the kind of arrogance and grooming that is championed by the opposition, then the lasting impression is bitter in all aspects. The public must be reminded repeatedly that merely changing for the sake of change, as championed by the opposition, may land ourselves with more problems. The opposition does not appear to have the right mix of leaders to progress in the future. Where is the structure of management? They propagate that the youth will lead but if they are nurturing the ideology of governing through might, we may be heading towards more turbulent times. A simple session with their leader has so many obstacles and red-tape, with discriminative thug-like attitude controlling the guests. What can the rakyat expect in return? I do not feel safe, how is the rakyat going to feel safe and assured with the future of Malaysia in their hands? Governing a nation is not a trial and error virtual game. It takes far more than just emotions and will to administer. It's time for the rakyat to think not only locally, but globally and in a holistic manner. The future of Malaysia is not for gamble. Your single vote essentially decides the future of all. Opposing just for the sake of opposing will not bring you far. |
| NS seats: Pakatan done, BN still uncertain Posted: 26 Mar 2013 08:42 PM PDT 
While Pakatan Rakyat has completed seat distribution and selection of candidates in Negeri Sembilan, Barisan Nasional is still searching for the best solution for all. Zefry Dahalan, FMT SEREMBAN: Today is the last day of Negeri Sembilan's 12th State Legislative Assembly term. Starting tomorrow, the state will be under a caretaker government prior to the state election to be held within the next 60 days. With the automatic dissolution of the state assembly, the focus now has shifted to the all- important state polls. How will the votes go? Who will form the next state government? Will the opposition pact, Pakatan Rakyat, make tangible inroads in the land of the Minangkabau? Will the state get a new menteri besar? All these questions would be answered only after voters of Negeri Sembilan cast their ballots. But before this, both sides of the political divide need to put up "winnable" candidates. The candidates picked would do battle on the front line. They will be the ones carrying the torch of their respective parties in battle. The talk on the ground here is that both sides of the political divide are eagerly awaiting the Election Commission (EC) to announce nomination and election dates. Their preparation for the polls is almost complete minus a few issues which need to be ironed out. An interesting subject discussed by both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan supporters is seat allocation: who will be dropped as a candidate, who will remain and who are the new ones to replace those dropped. On the seat allocation, sources said Pakatan has finalised its seat distribution among its three component parties – DAP, PAS and PKR. Compared to the seats allocated in 2008, sources said PKR will contest an extra seat courtesy of PAS. At the last state assembly election, which was held simultaneously with the general election, PAS contested in 13 seats, PKR (12) and DAP (11). But seat swapping among PAS and PKR has resulted in PAS contesting 12 seats and PKR 13 seats this time around. Pakatan's list As for the parliamentary seats, PKR contested three (Telok Kemang, Rembau and Kuala Pilah), PAS three (Jempol, Jelebu and Tampin) and DAP two (Seremban and Rasah). Although the Pakatan leadership is yet to officially announce its list of candidates for the state polls, most of its supporters know which component party will contest which seat. The status quo for Pakatan parliamentary seats in Negeri Sembilan remains unchanged. From the eight parliamentaty seats in the state, Pakatan won three – Telok Kemang (PKR), Seremban and Rasah (both DAP). PAS has given up two seats – Gemas and Sri Menanti – in exchange for the Labu state constituency with PKR. In the final count, PKR will contest the Port Dickson, Chuah and Linggi state seats (under the Telok Kemang parliamentary constituency), Ampangan and Sikamat (Seremban); Rantau (Rembau), Gemas (Tampin), Palong and Jeram Padang (Jempol), Pertang (Jelebu); Sri Menanti, Pilah and Juasseh (Kuala Pilah). In 2008, PKR won the Port Dickson, Chuah, Ampangan and Sikamat state seats. PAS, on the other hand, will contest the Paroi, Chembong and Kota state seats (in the Rembau parliamentary constituency), Gemencheh (Tampin), Serting (Jempol), Sungai Lui and Klawang (Jelebu), Senaling and Johol (Kuala Pilah), Lenggeng (Seremban), Labu (Rasah) and Bagan Pinang (Telok Kemang). PAS only managed to win in Paroi in the 2008 election. Meanwhile, DAP would contest the Lobak, Temiang and Nilai state seats (in the Seremban parliamentary constituency), Senawang, Bukit Kepayang, Mambau and Rahang (Rasah), Lukut (Telok Kemang), Repah (Tampin), Chennah (Jelebu) and Bahau (Jempol). The party won all its seats at the last election except Chennah. While Pakatan seems to have finalised its candidates' list and seat allocation among component parties, the same cannot be said of Barisan Nasional. READ MORE HERE |
| Separate polls unlikely, say pundits Posted: 26 Mar 2013 08:37 PM PDT 
'It's impractical and costly and will probably meet the resistance of EC, which has the final say.' Alyaa Azhar and Priscilla Prasena, FMT Political analysts have scoffed at the idea of holding state elections and the parliamentary election on different dates, saying it would be costly and impractical. Three analysts told FMT today that the Election Commission (EC) was likely to use its authority to prevent separate elections, proposed yesterday to Pakatan Rakyat state governments by Selangor Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim. "The EC has already made a statement saying that elections will be held simultaneously; so I don't see the possibility of having separate state and parliamentary elections," said Sivamurugan Pandian of Universiti Sains Malaysia. "Even if the Pakatan states decide to dissolve their assemblies, the EC has full authority to decide when elections will be held. "State governments cannot hold their own elections. They can only advice the state rulers when to dissolve state assemblies." Yesterday, in a bid to pressure Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to call for the dissolution of Parliament, Khalid announced that Selangor would wait for its legislative assembly to dissolve automatically on April 22, and try to persuade the governments of Kedah, Kelantan and Penang to dissolve their respective legislative assemblies on the same date. Law professor Shad Saleem Faruqi of UiTM and Merdeka Centre chief Ibrahim Suffian agreed with Pandian that the EC would probably object to the proposal and scuttle the idea. Even in the unlikely event of EC supporting the proposal, Faruqi said, the financial cost of holding separate elections would make it unwise. READ MORE HERE |
| One reason why the Chinese are angry (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 26 Mar 2013 08:09 PM PDT 
We speak about justice. But to most Malaysians justice is just about what you receive in court. Justice is not just about the legal system. Justice is also whether the education system has been fair to you. And if it is not fair to you then you have been denied justice. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin I always tell my friends that there are two things of great concern to me. One would be the education system and the other the healthcare system. At least that would be my order of priority, mainly because of what age I am. Third, of course, would be my ability to cari makan (earn a living). But, again, at my age, my concern would be my retirement life rather than my working life. Housing would probably tie with cari makan, or at the very least come to a very close fourth. I rank education as the first item on my list of priorities because that is how you start your life. You start your life by getting educated and unless you receive this education then the rest of your life is not going to be a bed of roses. Towards the end of your life -- like what is happening to me now where I maybe have ten or 15 years left if I am lucky -- your health becomes the main concern. Hence that is the second item on my list of priorities. In between this -- say for 40 years from age 20 to age 60 -- you need to 'live'. And to live you need a job or a career. And this job and career would depend on what type of education you received. So I break up my life into three parcels. Parcel one, the first 20 years or so, you receive an education. Parcel two, the next 40 years, you cari makan. And parcel three, the last 20 years of your life (if you are lucky enough to live till 80), you just need to look after your health (or else you will not reach parcel three and will die during parcel two). So when I look at a good government, I will measure this 'good government' by its policies on education and healthcare. Will this government provide good and cheap (or better still, free) education and healthcare? Are the education and healthcare systems comparable or better than those in the advanced countries? (We must remember that just because a certain country is 'advanced', say like the US, this does not mean that its education and/or healthcare system are anything to shout about). Once we are assured of these two very basic and very crucial services, we then need to consider the job and career opportunities that the government or country can offer its citizens so that we can have a decent lifestyle and quality of life. However, if we are not educated (or not well-educated) and our health suffers, how well the economy may be doing and how much job opportunities there are is no bloody good to us. We will either be too unqualified to get a job or too sick to cari makan anyway. Once we are a recipient of a good education and our health is well looked after, plus we have a decent home and a reasonably good car to move around and to get to work, we will start looking at the other features of a 'good' government. And these would be, of course, good governance, transparency, accountability, no or minimum corruption, press freedom, freedom of choice (regarding religion, sexual orientation, association, etc.), no discrimination and persecution (based on race, religion and gender), a good legal system (good and just laws, independence of the judiciary, etc.), and so on. Ideally, we would want ALL OF THE ABOVE. Nevertheless, while I too want all of the above, what I am mentioning here is my list of priorities -- what comes first and what comes later. We need first to be educated and healthy to enjoy good governance, transparency, accountability, no or minimum corruption, press freedom, freedom of choice (regarding religion, sexual orientation, association, etc.), no discrimination and persecution (based on race, religion and gender), a good legal system (good and just laws, independence of the judiciary, etc.), and so on. If we are not armed with a good education and are suffering from, say leprosy, no good government is of any use to us. We speak about justice. But to most Malaysians justice is just about what you receive in court. Justice is not just about the legal system. Justice is also whether the education system has been fair to you. And if it is not fair to you then you have been denied justice. Justice is also about whether when you are sick you are given medical treatment. If you need to be a millionaire before you can afford treatment, and if you are poor then you will die, that is not justice. Why can only the rich be given medical treatment while the poor need to die because they do not have money for medical treatment? And this happens in even the so-called advanced countries. To the Chinese, the first item, education, is very important. If you get through that first level, then the second and final levels can take care of themselves. With a good education, the second part of your life (20 to 60) will be smooth sailing and once you reach the final part of your life (after 60), and with savings of at least RM3 million in the bank, you will be able to look after your health even if you need to pay for the healthcare yourself. And that is what you will need to retire on at today's standard and cost of living once you reach 60 -- RM3 million. This will increase as we go along, of course, and by 2030 it will have to be more than RM3 million. But if you retired today that is what you need if you are going to live for at least another 15 or 20 years -- RM3 million. But how do you accumulate RM3 million in savings if you work in McDonalds or earn only RM2,000 a month? You can't even pay for your living expenses let alone save RM3 million over 40 years. RM3 million over 40 years is RM75,000 a year or RM6,250 a month. So you need to earn at least RM10,000-15,000 a month and with the income/dividends on your EFP savings you may eventually see RM3 million in your account by the time you retire at age 60. (I am just doing a rough calculation here so please do not split hairs on the figures). So, unless you have a good tertiary education, there is no way you can earn RM10,000 a month or more. And if you can't earn RM10,000 or more a month then you will not have RM3 million in your EPF by the time you retire at age 60. And that means it is bad news for you. Furthermore, you need to set aside at least RM300,000 for each kid to enter university (for at least three years) and RM1 million if this kid does medicine. And if you have five children, like many Malay families do, me included, you need millions just to see all your kids through university (I know because I paid for my kids university education in the UK from my own pocket). And this is one major bone of contention to the Chinese. The Chinese need to dig deep into their pockets to send their children to an overseas university. Then they see the Malay kids in overseas universities receiving government aid even though some (or many) of these Malay kids do not quite make the grade. If I were Chinese I would be upset. Even as a Malay I am upset because I have had to spend a lot of my own money putting my kids though college/university at my own expense. Then I see the kids of the Yang Berhormat, Tan Sri, Datuk Seri, Datuk, and so on enjoying their life in the UK at taxpayers' expense and bringing home Mercedes Benzes and BMWs when they return to Malaysia. The government (whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat) has to understand this. And, of course, the Chinese blame the New Economic Policy (NEP) for this great injustice. But the government is not about to abolish the NEP. The NEP is a powerful political tool. It keeps Umno in power and if abolished Umno will be out of power. Even Pakatan Rakyat will not dare abolish the NEP. If they do that would be the end of Malay support for Pakatan Rakyat. At best Pakatan Rakyat can declare that it will review the NEP and make it fairer and more equitable, without giving any specific details. Okay, in what way is the NEP going to be made fairer and more equitable? Will UiTM be opened up to the non-Malays? Will 40-50% of places in local universities be opened up to the Chinese, Indians, Orang Asal and natives of East Malaysia? Would 50% of students sent overseas be from the non-Malay community? Yes, what are the details of this fairer and more equitable NEP? And note that I am only talking about education, the first item on my list of priorities. I am yet to talk about places in the civil service, business opportunities, licences, permits, quotas, plus a host of other things. And before you start posting comments accusing me of asking you to vote for BN or saying that you are still going to vote Pakatan Rakyat and scream ABU and so on, this article is not about that. It is about justice. And justice, or the lack of it, is colour-blind. *************************************************************** 其中一个让华人很生气的原因 我们经常提到正义/公正。对很多马来西亚人来说，正义/公正只局限于法庭内。其实，正义不应该只限于司法系统内。正义也取决于教育系统。如果你得不到公平的教育机会，那根本毫无（社会）正义可言。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 译文：方宙 我常跟我朋友谈及两样我认为很重要的东西，一为教育，二为医疗，第三才是'找吃carimakan'（这个顺序很大原因跟我的年龄有关）。当然，身为一个退休人士，我看重的当然是我的退休生活而不是我的工作环境。房屋一般来讲跟赚钱有很大关系，但如果要把它们分开的话，房屋会是第四重要的。 我把教育列为第一，因为一个人未来的生活都视乎于他所受的教育。你的生活是被你学到的东西所定型的，所以，除非你学习东西不然你的生活将会不大好过。 当你年迈了----正如我一般，我还有个10年就偷笑了----你的健康将会逐渐成为你主要考虑的问题。所以，我把医疗列为第二。 期间，你需要'生活'。你要生活你就必须工作/有事业，而你的事业很大取决于你受的教育。 所以，我把人生归纳为三个阶段。第一个阶段，在你出生后的二十年里，你开始接受教育。第二阶段，往后的40年里，你开始'找吃'。最后的二十年里，你只需要关注你的健康（假设你在前60年都有关注你的健康，你才能走到第三阶段）。 所以当我评估一个好的政府时，我会以他们的教育与医疗方针为主。这个政府会提供有素质且便宜（最好是免费啦）的教育与医疗吗？它的教育与医疗系统能够媲美先进国吗？（当然，这也不是说所有先进国的教育或医疗系统都是很好的，如美国的医疗系统） 当我们有了这两个基本且重要的元素以后，我们就要考虑这个政府有没有能力提供就业机会促使国民过上安稳的生活。如果我们都是没有教育且身弱的一群，那不管经济多强，就业机会多好，对我们来说都是没用的。因为我们根本就没有资历或体力去'找吃'。 所以说，在拥有了良好的教育与健康，加上安定的住处和便捷的交通工具（以移动和上班）后，我们才应该开始注重政府的其他问题。这包括管理能力，透明度，信用，廉政度，资讯自由度，选择权自由度（宗教，性取向，社会团体等等），公平治国（针对种族，宗教，性别），司法方针（公平的法律，司法自由）等。 在一个理想的环境中，能够拥有所有以上当然是最好的。然而，虽然我也想要全部，我们还是得懂得分先后：哪一项我们应该先达到，哪一项后达到。我们必须先拥有良好的教育与健康，尔后才能拥有管理佳，有信用，清廉，容许资讯自由，尊重个人自由，一视同仁，司法公正。。。等的政府。 我们经常提到正义/公正。对很多马来西亚人来说，正义/公正只局限于法庭内。其实，正义不应该只限于司法系统内。正义也取决于教育系统。如果你得不到公平的教育机会，那根本毫无（社会）正义可言。 正义也取决于，当你生病时，你能否享受医疗设施。如果你必须是个百万富翁才有人为你治病的话，而如果你是个穷光蛋就必须等死的话，那也是不正义的。为何只有富人才能得到医疗而穷人因为没有钱而必须等死呢？这发生在很多所谓的发达国家。 对华人来说，教育是非常重要的。只要你把第一阶段过好了，第二和第三阶段就会过得很顺利。有了很好的教育，你生活的第二段（20-60岁）将会一帆风顺。而当你进入第三段时，若你已存有300万令吉，基本上你得健康就有保障了，即使你必须付自己的医疗费。 300万令吉，这就是你60岁退休的数目（以今天的生活水平来讲）。当然这个数目会随着时间而增加，如2030年的退休金肯定会高过300万令吉。但如果说你今天就退休而还会活多15-20年的话，你就需要300万令吉。 设想你现在在麦当劳打工，抑或你一个月只赚2000令吉，请问你要怎么才能存到300万？你连你日常生活也顾不了呢！ 40年内存300万，即每年需存7万5千，或每月6250令吉。换句话说，你的月收入必须是1-1.5万，然后你的公积金存款+利息才能在60岁达标。（以上只是我粗略的计算，请别再这数目上转牛角尖） 所以，除非你有很好的大学文凭，不然你很难月入1万/以上，你的公积金也无法在你60岁时达到300万。 除此之外，你还要为每位孩子拨出30万的大学教育费（医学则需100万）。如果你，就像一般马来家庭般，有五名小孩（我就是），你至少得准备上百万。（这点我很清楚，因为我从自己的口袋出钱让我孩子在英国读大学） 这是其中一个华人最大争论的焦点。他们都花了很多钱送他们的孩子上国外大学，然后他们看到很多马来人在国外都拿政府奖学金，而当中有些马来小孩的成绩是不太好的。 如果我是华人我当然很生气。身为马来人我也已经很生气了，因为我必须自己花钱送我孩子进大学，然后我就看到那些YB，丹斯里，拿督斯里，拿督等的小孩拿着人民的钱在英国享福，然后大摇大摆得驾辆马赛地或宝马回国。 政府（不管国阵民联）必须看清楚这一点。华人当然会讲着都是新经济政策（New Economic Policy ，NEP）的错，但政府是不会废除NEP的。NEP是个很厉害的政治工具，它能让巫统继续掌权，所以如果巫统废除NEP的话，它就会立刻下台。 即使民联也不敢废除NEP。他们这样做就代表他们完全放弃马来人的支持。他们顶多只敢宣布他们会从新审查NEP以让它更为公平，但他们不会给任何太详细的细节。 好了，请问NEP必须怎样才算更加公平呢？开放UiTM （Mara大学）给非马来人？开放40-50%的本地大学学位给华人，印度人，原住民？50%海外大学学位必须给非马来人？ 是的，'更加公平'的细节是什么？ 请注意，我们现在谈到的只是教育问题，是我所有关注问题中的第一项。我还没开始谈及公务员，商业机会，执照，准证，固打。。。。等等其他课题。 在你开始诬赖我怂恿你把票投给巫统，或开始大喊ABU。。。等等前，我要告诉你，这篇文章的中心点是'正义与公正'。而正义与公正，他们都是色盲的。 |
| What if Najib decides on NS first? Posted: 26 Mar 2013 06:04 PM PDT 
The question is will the PM, in an attempt to stymie the opposition, decide to hold the Negeri Sembilan state election first, before dissolving parliament. Zefry Dahalan, FMT The Negeri Sembilan state assembly will be the first to be dissolved on Thursday (March 28). The five-year term of the legislative body expires midnight today. Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Mohamad Hasan, in explaining how the dissolution terms work, said the day (March 27, 2008), the 36 state assemblymen took their oaths is not counted as the first day of the state assembly sitting. The next day is considered the first. "So the five-year term ends at 12 midnight on March 27, 2013 and the Negeri Sembilan state assembly sitting will be dissolved automatically on March 28, 2013," said Mohamad. In the meantime, Mohamad added he will manage the caretaker government until the election, which must be held within 60 days of the date of the dissolution. This situation in Negeri Sembilan now poses a question if PM Najib Tun Razak, in an attempt to stymie the opposition, will hold the Negeri Sembilan state election first before dissolving parliament. It may look strange but there is nothing wrong with the move if he were to do so, according to the law. Parliament will be dissolved automatically on April 28. Technically state elections can be concluded by then, as the Election Commission needs less than 30 days to announce the nomination day, conduct the nomination process and hold the election. Najib has a good reason to deal with Negeri Sembilan first. He and his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin have put in extraordinary effort to woo voters in Negeri Sembilan for the past 13 months. The premier and his deputy, seeing it as the most fragile state likely to fall to Pakatan, have set a record of sorts, visiting it 11 times between themselves.
Guidelines for caretaker government Strategically it will be a wise move for Najib and Muhyiddin to wrest the 'nine states' and go into a bigger contest, sending out a signal that Barisan Nasional is in driving seat. However it will be an interesting scenerio and Pakatan leaders definitely can't wait to see the Election Commission's reaction if such scenario really happens. READ MORE HERE |
| Guan Eng rapped for his remarks — again Posted: 26 Mar 2013 05:43 PM PDT 
(The Star) - Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has again come under fire for his remarks, this time for saying that he would not forgive the Penang Club for cancelling a book launch that he was scheduled to officiate. State MCA secretary Lau Chiek Tuan said such words should not have come from a chief minister's mouth. "As a chief minister, that was too rude. The club has a right to non-political involvement. Lim, as a lawmaker, should know that. "He has to abide by and respect the club's decision and forgive," said Lau. According to online news reports, Lim was scheduled to launch former journalist Kee Thuan Chye's book Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More at the club on Feb 28. It was reported that the club told Kee it did not want to be "politically aligned". Lim said at the book launch at another venue on Saturday that he could forgive the club on a personal level, but he could not as the chief minister. "Tiada maaf bagi mu (No forgiveness for you)," he was quoted as saying. State Gerakan vice-chairman Wong Mun Hoe said it was not good for the chief minister to keep having quarrels with people. "For example, just because some non-governmental organisations had an alternative view to the proposed undersea tunnel project, he labelled them as dangerous NGOs'. "This is a dangerous label. Just because they disagree with his view, they are dangerous," he said, adding that Lim should not take it personally when others do not support or agree with him. "Could he explain what he means by not forgiving the club as the chief minister? "Is he trying to say that he is not a revengeful person, but on the other hand he would use the state administration's power to take revenge on the club? "When I read a statement like that, I get very upset. "I don't expect my chief minister to talk like that. "Whether I like him or not is another matter," said Wong. When contacted, Penang Club's lawyer Bala Mahesan said there had been a misunderstanding on the issue and he had been instructed to clarify the issue with Lim in the next few days. "The club president, committee members and members extend their humble apologies to the chief minister," he said. |
| Rafizi defends PKR’s choice of candidates Posted: 26 Mar 2013 05:36 PM PDT 
He denies that Anwar was making unilateral decisions. Priscilla Prasena, FMT PKR today rejected allegations that party boss Anwar Ibrahim was making unilateral decisions in the choice of candidates for the general election. Responding to a FMT report quoting grassroots leaders, PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli said candidates were chosen by a committee in a tough process to ensure that only the best were fielded. He acknowledged that the committee was headed by Anwar but said its decisions were preceded by "consultations at every level" of the PKR leadership. "The committee then goes through the list thoroughly and identifies the best potential winning candidates," he added. Yesterday, some divisional leaders of the party complained that Anwar was picking his close associates for candidacy instead of personalities with good records of service to the public. Rafizi said the candidates chosen by Anwar's committee would have gone through a "difficult and delicate" process of vetting. Among the criteria for selection was their "clout of influence" with the constituents they were supposed to represent, he added. He said these criteria did not include the strength of a potential candidate's friendship with Anwar. "This thorough process will definitely result in dissatisfaction among several leaders as they might feel that they could do a better job," he said. "Anwar spends time with local leaders to rationalise on his decision to pick the best candidates for his party. "At the same time, we can't please everyone, and there will be groups who will express their dissatisfaction." Rafizi also disclosed that about 20% of PKR's candidates would be from outside the party. He said these candidates also had to undergo the gruelling selection process. |
| GE13: Playing the victim is Anwar’s way of gaining sympathy, says Nalla Posted: 26 Mar 2013 05:35 PM PDT 
(The Star) - Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim always claims to be a victim of conspiracy whenever unfavourable allegations against him surface, said Senator Datuk S. Nallakaruppan. The Malaysian Indian United Party president alleged that playing the victim was Anwar's way of gaining public sympathy. He said another of Anwar's tactics was to use legal action as an intimidation tool. He cited Anwar's RM10mil suit against Deputy Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Datuk Hamzah Zainuddin over a "wife-harassment" issue. Nallakaruppan pointed out that despite taking Hamzah to court, Anwar failed to turn up for the first day of trial on Monday morning, resulting in an adjournment of the case until May. "For Anwar, suing is a form of strategic denial. This is a good tactic to gain trust and convince the people that he didn't do all those things," he told reporters here yesterday. The senator, who said he was once very close to Anwar and his family, described the PKR adviser as "trying to destroy the country". "His personal ambition is so overriding that he doesn't care if it will be at the expense of the country's peace and stability," he claimed. Nallakaruppan expressed belief that Malaysians were now aware of Anwar's true character. "He says everything is a conspiracy. But until today, has he admitted even one thing he has done? He can cheat all Malaysians but he cannot cheat me. I know him and his character very well," he said. He urged Anwar to apologise to the public and admit that there had been no conspiracy against him. "Ask for forgiveness from them and stop cheating the rakyat," he said. |
| GE13: Sabah’s ‘fixed deposit’ status to stay Posted: 26 Mar 2013 04:23 PM PDT Despite the Sulu intrusion, Barisan is set for a big win in the Land Below the Wind, thanks to a fragmented Opposition. Taking the fight into the political hotbed of the Kadazandusun and Murut areas will be Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) led by Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan who is the Kadazandusun Huguan Siou (paramount leader), Upko president Tan Sri Bernard Dompok and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah president (PBRS) Tan Sri Joseph Kurup. By MUGUNTAN VANAR, The Star IN-FIGHTING among Opposition parties for seats has been overshadowed by how the Feb 9 Sulu intrusion will impact voting patterns in Sabah. Although observers believe that the "fixed deposit" status of Sabah for Barisan Nasional would remain, concerns are growing over the east coast seats, especially the Suluk-Bajau majority ones around Lahad Datu, Semporna and Kunak. Barisan candidates will have to work much harder to convince the migrant ethnic voters on why a stable and united government is important for the security of the state. With security utmost in the minds of the people, even urban or semi-urban seats once considered black or grey to the ruling government could shift back to Barisan, particularly with the business community now finding "solace" with the coalition. The prospects for the parliamentary seats of Kota Kinabalu, Tawau and Sandakan are looking brighter for the ruling coalition, affirming the "fixed deposit" tag. Kota Kinabalu and Tawau are now in the hands of the Opposition, while Sandakan was won by Barisan with a razor-thin margin. Sabah Barisan withstood the March 2008 tsunami, delivering 24 of the 25 parliamentary and 59 of the 60 state seats. Within Pakatan Rakyat, the DAP and PKR contested against each other after failing to cut a deal. Among the Opposition parties, it was only the DAP which saw victory, winning the Kota Kinabalu parliamentary seat and the state seat of Sri Tanjung. Sabah Barisan, which was led by Datuk Seri Musa Aman, chalked a landslide. By September 2008, however, Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) pulled out with its two MPs (Sepanggar and Tawau) together with two state assemblymen (Likas and Luyang). But two other assemblymen (Elopura and Tanjung Papat) opted to stay put with Barisan by joining Gerakan. Datuk Seri Lajim Ukim of Umno and Datuk Wilfred Bumburing of Upko left Barisan to align themselves with Pakatan, raising the political heat in Sabah late last year. Furthermore, their entry into Pakatan was not entirely welcomed by Pakatan leaders in Sabah. Pakatan, the SAPP led by former chief minister Datuk Yong Teck Lee and the Sabah chapter of State Reform Party (STAR) headed by Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan have shown no signs of a deal for a one-on-one contest against Barisan. Yong's SAPP wants to contest more state seats while giving way to Pakatan for the parliamentary seats. STAR, on its part, wants Pakatan to leave Sabah entirely to local parties. Pakatan is not interested in such demands. Even the SAPP and STAR themselves are also unable to work out a seat-sharing formula. As the Sulu crisis continues to linger in the minds of the people, Sabah parties are slowly getting back into the political groove with a clearer indication that the Opposition has agreed to disagree, opening a free-for-all fight against Barisan. The Opposition's game plan augurs well for the eight-member Sabah Barisan. Some observers believe they can pull off a repeat of 2008. Local issues and choice of candidates are likely to be key topics for the ruling coalition. Musa heads Sabah Umno, which is set to defend all its Muslim bumiputra seats (32 state and 12 parliamentary seats). It will focus on taking back Beaufort after Lajim quit the party. The party is maintaining a tight lid on possible new faces. However, Kinabatangan MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin and Kalabakan MP Datuk Abdul Ghapur Salleh are among the estimated 20% who are speculated to be dropped to make way for new faces. Taking the fight into the political hotbed of the Kadazandusun and Murut areas will be Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) led by Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan who is the Kadazandusun Huguan Siou (paramount leader), Upko president Tan Sri Bernard Dompok and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah president (PBRS) Tan Sri Joseph Kurup. Talk is rife that Pairin is likely to give up one of his two seats (Keningau parliamentary and Tambunan state seats). Kurup may be retiring in favour of a new face. There has been talk that his son might contest. For the Chinese seats, Gerakan which was nearly wiped out in the peninsula, has shot into the limelight with the party holding three state seats and two state Cabinet posts in Sabah with the defections of SAPP members. Sabah Gerakan together with Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) led by Datuk V.K. Liew, Sabah MCA's Datuk Edward Khoo and PBS' Datuk Yee Moh Chai will face an uphill battle to win over the urban voters. All Barisan parties are lobbying to contest the six seats (two parliamentary and four state seats) formerly allocated to the SAPP. To date, Barisan has yet to announce how the six seats will be allocated. At one stage, the urban Chinese-majority seats were considered lost for Barisan. But with the DAP and SAPP unable to see eye-to-eye, Opposition votes could be split and the incumbents could pull through, albeit narrowly. The hot seats to watch out for are: > Penampang The parliamentary constituency which has the largest Catholic population is set to test the popularity of incumbent Dompok, who has pushed for key issues about illegal immigrants and mission schools; > Pensiangan Kurup, a survivor of Sabah politics, is likely to have a tough time to defend the seat which he won after he was returned uncontested in a controversial Nomination Day decision; > Keningau Will it be Round 2 for the feuding Kitingan brothers? If Pairin decides to defend the seat, he will face off with his politically estranged younger brother Dr Jeffrey. In their previous battle, Pairin retained the seat with a 4,264-vote majority; > Sandakan LDP's Liew will be facing stiff challenge in this Opposition-inclined seat which he won by a mere 176-vote majority against the DAP; > Beaufort This parliamentary seat will be the focus of Umno's onslaught as Lajim remains a popular figure in the constituency where the two state seats of Klias and Kuala Penyu currently held by Barisan might be at stake due to Lajim's clout; and > Kota Kinabalu A three-way tussle is on the cards for this seat where Barisan is hoping to slip through with a win as home-grown Opposition party SAPP (barring a last-minute compromise) takes on the DAP. As for Musa who has broken the jinx of Sabah chief ministers not lasting more than nine years he is set to keep the ruling coalition in control of the state and deliver more than two-thirds of the 25 parliamentary seats. A big win will also ensure Musa's position within Umno and Barisan. |
| ‘Check NG0s with political leanings’ Posted: 26 Mar 2013 03:44 PM PDT 
The new NGOs in Penang have broken from the traditional mould and are seen as lackeys of political parties. Hawkeye, FMT GEORGE TOWN: The chances are that if you throw a stone in Penang you are most likely to hit an NGO. In the last five years, the island has seen a mushrooming of non-governmental organisations. The traditional NGOs champion causes like the disabled, environment and other social ills. But the new ones have dubious leaders and most of them are shadows of political parties. One man who is very concerned with the unwanted rise of NGOs is Penang Malay Congress president Rahmad Isahak. He wants the Registrar of Societies (ROS) to probe the rise of several NGOs here since 2008. Rahmad said many of the new NGOs seem to be involved in the political and socio-economic issues in the state. He said that the formation of new NGOs is healthy as it shows an acceptance of civil society and democracy here. But at the same time, the issues and individuals behind such groups are seen as dubious at best, Rahmad claimed in an interview. The new NGOs seemed to be championing political issues rather than the conventional norms such as the rights of the disabled or protecting the environment. They seem to have exploited the loopholes in the ROS guidelines to form and name organisations, without any clear reference to how many members they have, submission of accounts and other criteria imposed by our watchdog of societies. Dubious names Therefore, the congress is encouraging ROS to investigate such organisations to ascertain if they are sincere and genuine, he added. He said dubious organisational names have appeared in media reports together with individuals, who were previously unheard of in the local NGO scene here. The new NGOs have organised protests – some turning violent, lodging police reports for all kinds of issues and in some instances, have tried to intimidate politicians such as the recent vandalism of a vehicle carrying PKR vice-president Tian Chua in Penang, Rahmad said. "This is an undesirable attitude for those claiming to be NGOs. Such groups form the focus of a civil society where dialogues and forums are seen as the best platform to champion their struggle or objectives." Since Independence, Penang has been the home to an active collection of NGOs and civil societies with the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) as the leading light. In the last decade, some NGOs in Penang have gone on to form the Penang Forum platform which meets on certain occasions to discuss issues dear to them. Rahmad said the congress is appreciative of the contributions made by the likes of CAP and other NGOs such as the environmental group, SAM, but he is distrustful of the newer NGOs which seemed to be more interested in politics. READ MORE HERE |
| ‘PAS does not reject Anwar as PM’ Posted: 26 Mar 2013 03:40 PM PDT 
Shah Alam MP, Khalid Samad, dismisses allegations that PAS is unhappy over Anwar Ibrahim as the choice candidate for PM. Lisa J. Ariffin, FMT PAS is solidly behind Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim as the candidate for prime minister should Pakatan Rakyat win federal power in the next general election, said Khalid Samad. The Shah Alam MP said the party's silence on the matter was to take the focus off Anwar as an individual, not because they disagreed with supporting him as PM. He also dismissed allegations that the party has been 'bowing down' to its coalition partners and deviating from its original goals for the sake of holding Pakatan together. "PAS does not bow down to anybody. Pakatan works on consensus. Whatever needs to be done or is being done, has to be agreed by all three parties," said Khalid. "PAS has been playing down the issue because it would create a problem when BN is consistently indulging in character assassination of Anwar to discredit Pakatan. "The final decision of who becomes PM will be endorsed by Pakatan and accepted fully by the coalition. If DAP and PKR support him, there is no reason for PAS not to," he added. "We will place the names of leaders on the table and decide who is best choice for PM. If two parties voice their support for Anwar, then it will most likely be Anwar." 'Our is battle to change the government' 
Khalid said PAS is cautious in voicing support for Anwar as he "may lose in the area he is contesting" and Pakatan would then "not be able to deliver the candidate it said would be PM". READ MORE HERE |
| My political thoughts during the Hunger Viratham Day Sixteen 26th March 2013 Posted: 26 Mar 2013 01:37 PM PDT 
This is the sixteenth day of my Hunger Viratham. Yesterday was a tiring day. I left the temple for Putrajaya for a meeting with the Prime Minister on his invite. Now, let me share my thoughts with you on this meeting. P. Waythamoorthy PART NINE OUR MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER My journey into Human Rights activism started in 2005 with the formation of Hindraf. Hindraf was formed directly as a response to the accelerating demolition of Hindu Temples by the UMNO-led Government of the day. We gave expression to the extreme anger of the rural sections of the Indian community at this stage and we led the resistance to the demolitions. Then when this converged with the rampant killing of Indian youths in police custody, the cauldron really began to boil. The stage was set for an explosion. The explosion began with the first demonstration in Putrajaya in August 2007 where several thousand Indians gathered to submit our 18 point demands to the Government. The big explosion took place at the Grand Hindraf rally of November 2007. The Indians in the country were at war with UMNO. UMNO was HINDRAF's nemesis. They hounded us, harassed us and went to extreme measures to kill us off. They jailed our activists, they linked us to the LTTE, they confiscated my passport and put me in effective exile, they banned us and they used the Police to harass us at every turn, they refused to recognize us or have anything to do with us at all. Yet we did not buckle. We resisted, we fought back, we got better organized as a group of activists and we kept going. Then after reaching a crescendo, UMNO started to roll back on all of that when Najib took over. They released the activists from Kamunting, they reduced then stopped the harassments, they lifted the ban on us, returned my passport and allowed me to return, and now reaching a new peak of this trend Najib invited us for a meeting yesterday. Hindraf has come a long way to this point of being able to agree to this overture and to sit at the same table with its nemesis and to talk to them. This was something that was never considered possible. A lot of bad blood had flowed in these last five years and Hindraf has had to set aside all of that to accept the invitation. Hindraf had been the trigger for change and accelerator of new political developments in the country. Hindraf has been a vocal and leading opponent of many fundamental policies of the UMNO-led Government. Najib for his part had also come a long way to meet us at this point - he probably had to overcome significant resistance from various segments within his domain to get to the point of inviting us for this meeting. This was indeed a risky move for him personally. So, it can be said that the meeting yesterday was truly a historic meeting. This meeting, historic as it may be however, has to be understood for what it really represents. It is effectively only a preliminary meeting to decide if we should proceed. Subsequent meetings are really the key, should they take place. They will provide opportunity to explore the possibilities of meeting respective objectives by movements of positions on both sides. Those meetings are yet to take place and there is no certainty they will take place at all, as all we have up to this point is a verbal undertaking. If there is a true commitment for rapprochement on Najib's side, then this is the first place that it will tell. The rest will become apparent during the talks. We go into the talks with our eyes and minds wide open. Our focus is the proposals in our Blueprint. We have been very consistent on this point. I reiterate, whichever of the two coalitions accepts and endorses the Blueprint will get our total support. This is not decided as yet. There is still some time before Hindraf will come off this ambiguity and take a firm position in this issue. |
| Pakatan and Kit Siang Take the Offensive Posted: 26 Mar 2013 01:09 PM PDT 
MCA President Chua Soi Lek has come out to call Kit Siang a "touch and go" politician. And this, he says, is the rude way of putting it, as compared to the polite one of "hit and run" politician. Soi Lek is one to talk. He hasn't even stated where he is going to stand. Will he even stand? Kee Thuan Chye It looks like Pakatan Rakyat is driving the 13th general election. As this most crucial of Malaysian elections draws near, the Opposition coalition is the more gung-ho in leading the way into battle. It is initiating the charge, taking the offensive, scoring the psychological points. While the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition is led by a leader who has been tardy in calling for the general election partly because he has been humming and hawing about wanting the rakyat to feel the effects of his transformation programmes first, Pakatan has already shown its preparedness by coming out with its manifesto a few weeks ago, way ahead of BN. In football terms, this is like the away team, despite its disadvantageous position, taking the play to the home team and attacking its goalmouth. Sometimes, this can end in a victory for the outsiders. DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang's decision to stand in Gelang Patah – in BN's impregnable state, Johor – is another courageous offensive. It is a risky move by the DAP veteran who has never fought shy of engaging in difficult battles. In the most famous of his encounters, he took on Lim Chong Eu, the Chief Minister of Penang then, at Padang Kota in 1990 and won. Nonetheless, it was a huge gamble for Kit Siang, who has not always been victorious. He lost when he came out of his comfortable position as Kubu state assemblyman in 1982 to try and capture Bandar Hilir, and again when he took on the risky seat of Tanjung Bungah in 1995 against yet another chief minister, Koh Tsu Koon. In fact, throughout his political career, Kit Siang has lost five times. More than its just being another manifestation of his penchant for rushing into areas where angels fear to tread, Kit Siang's current foray into Gelang Patah is a forceful demonstration of psychological one-upmanship. It is sending out the signal that Pakatan is not afraid of BN. It is a demonstration of sheer confidence. |
| Star, Is the Current Government in Sabah Illegal or Not? Posted: 26 Mar 2013 12:32 PM PDT 
The press release was made October 20, 2012. It is now 27th March 2013. This gives me the impression that he has all the ideas but it remains just that. Ideas. No actions. Borodungal Borneo I am impressed with the boldness of Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, who did a Press Conference on 21 January 2013 at the Sabah Oriental Hotel, Kota Kinabalu. He voiced out the illegitimacy of the current government of Sabah as a result of 'Project IC'. However, pray tell why was it only released in March? 27dBP3WeyJ0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27dBP3WeyJ0 Also, confessions on the alleged Mahathir's Project namely 'IC Project' aka 'Ops Durian Burok' by En. Hassanar who used to be the District Officer of Sandakan claiming that the said project went as far back as 1981. Tweeted about this and a certain minister replied. Disputed it, of course. oj6dyodFI_I Confessions of an ex District Officer of Sandakan about IC giveaways since 1981 in Sabah and this lady, Puan Siti Aminah TrUgLObm3DM
In the matter of the first video, Datuk Dr Jeffrey G Kitingan said that he was not doing the Press Conference to show the current local leaders what to do. He is merely initiating a discussion process with all the local leaders to get them to unite and acknowledge the illegitimacy of the current government in Sabah and to become a pressure group to oust them and replace them with a 'national non-partisan' group comprising of the current local leaders as a temporary measure. Datuk Jeffrey Kitingan also suggested that the GE13 for Sabah be postponed until the electoral roll is cleaned up. Nevertheless, until today, I haven't heard anything on any 'initiation process', 'discussion' or any of the sort mentioned by Datuk Dr Jeffrey. Was all he said in the video only hot air? This reminded me of another Press Conference he did somewhere in Kota Kinabalu as well (see here: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/10/20/jeffrey-maps-out-sabah-oil-battle-plan/). In this statement, Jeffrey mentioned that should the State Government ignore this issue, STAR Sabah would consider taking legal action. The press release was made October 20, 2012. Now is 27th March 2013. Until today, not even a whisper of the so-called legal action is heard anywhere be it cyberspace or the local dailies. This gives me the impression that he has all the ideas but it remains just that. Ideas. No actions. OR are they actually in the process of (still?) executing all these 'ideas'? Curious indeed. To be fair, all of STAR's 'warriors' (as they call themselves) are working voluntarily. Even up to the point of forking out their own money to finance most of the activities done all over Sabah. It was even reported that some of these people are currently facing 'financial' problems due to the fact that all their monies have been sacrificed 'demi perjuangan'. I am sad when I came about to know this because it seems to me that so many people are depending on this party to win. What if they don't? What will happen to these 'warriors'? Back to square one? STAR Sabah should start a fund-raising campaign to help these warriors out. In fact, this is plain common sense because the party really does not have much funds to distribute all over. As a true Sabahan, this is my advice to STAR Sabah - please 'Walk the Talk'! If you mean it, then by all means DO it! The amount of people believing in the struggle escalates every day. I would like to quote from an article I read a few months ago which amused me in so many ways. It said, "We are fed-up of being governed by BOYS in Sabah ... this time around we want MEN to do it!".
Sincerely, Borodungal Borneo
I am a Sabahan who is fighting for what's true. Not a politician. A realist, if you prefer. Some of the things that STAR Sabah voiced out are true ie No referendum prior to the formation of Malaysia, No compliance mechanism to the pre-conditions agreed upon to protect Sabah's safeguards, loose ends in the MA63 that was violated through the Federal Constitution and many more. However, not many of the issues brought up were properly explained. My truth, once revealed, will be the people's truth ... for I too seek justice for Sabahans ... through the eyes of a Sabahan, NOT a Sabahan politician. Stay tuned for more revelations of the political on-goings in Sabah.
|
| Malaysian Agriculture – Among the Best in the World Posted: 26 Mar 2013 12:08 PM PDT 
We have five million hectares of oil palm. If, like the Thais, we are able to produce their fruits and not grow oil palm, 10,000 hectares of each type would saturate the country. What are we going to do with the rest of our land? Yet, it is true that we do not grow much food. Is it Malaysia's fault? I don't think so. KC Chang Many brickbats have been thrown at Malaysian agriculture - at how bad it is not being able to produce food. As an agriculturalist, I would like to defend it as I think that it is amongst the best in the world. Basically, Malaysians are quite competent people and will do a good job if left to it e.g., look at how good the country was before UMNO messed it up. And agriculture in Malaysian is the least messed up economic sector by the politicians because if they want money, better and simpler to get shares in, say, Public Bank than a plot in the jungle which they'll then have difficulty selling to realize the cash ... and get into trouble for doing so as did the cousins of Taib in Sarawak. Whatever crop the country deigned to grow has produced just about the highest yield in the world - rice, jagung, cocoa, rubber, oil palm. Yes, including the food crops. In our granary areas, we get 7 t/ha for rice, while the Thais get only 1 t/ha, and yet they get the kudos of having better agriculture in being able to produce more food crops – rice, jagung, mango, longan, etc. What is not said is that the Thais have about 100x our area in rice and produce only about 5x as much. I think that if God were to offer the Thais a choice of Malaysian vs Thai agriculture, they would choose ours without blinking an eye. We have five million hectares of oil palm. If, like the Thais, we are able to produce their fruits and not grow oil palm, 10,000 hectares of each type would saturate the country. What are we going to do with the rest of our land? Yet, it is true that we do not grow much food. Is it Malaysia's fault? I don't think so. The agriculture of every country is constrained by its climate and, of course, economics. In Form 3 basic geography, we learn that there is no discernible drought at the equator although some times of the year are wetter/drier than others. As we move away from the equator (both N and S), more and more marked wet/dry periods occur, culminating in the great deserts on the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. Even in Penang/Kedah (only about 4o – 5o N), there is already an annual dry season in January/February, although not very serious. This hot and humid clime throughout the year is ideal for plant growth (although some, like apples and pears, will not fruit because there is no cold stimulus to trigger their flowering process). Thus, all the crops we have tried have given very high yields, but we settled on oil palm, rubber, cocoa and coffee because they give the highest returns and are the least bother, e.g., tree crops, plant once in 30 years; annual crops, plant 2x or 3x a year. Thus, all the world over, in the humid tropics (say, 10oN - 10oS), the agriculture is tree crops, which is technically horticulture. Our continuously hot and wet climate is ideal for oil palm which cannot stand drought for high yields although the palm will survive very harsh conditions. Thus, Thailand cannot grow oil palm (economically) except in the very south, and even then their yields are generally not high. In the middle and north country, where the dry season is 6 or even 9 months, it can only grow 'drought-escape' crops – in the 3 or 6 months of the rainy season, the country is as wet as any other so any crop can grow; but the crop must start and finish during the rains to escape the drought. Hence, their high production of rice and jagung ... because they can't grow anything else. Another, possibly even more important, reason for tree crops is potential environmental damage. In Malaysia, it rains, on average, every 2 – 3 days, and the rainfall is often heavy and very erosive. In the 1980's there was a housing boom, and there were so many (uncovered) construction sites that there were complaints throughout the country of the environmental damage wrought – rivers turning brown from sediment loss, landslides, blocked drains, etc. Now, at any one time, what would be the national area of uncovered building sites? I don't know, but suspect only about 1,000 hectares (about 4 square miles). To grow any meaningful food crops for the country, say jagung, there would need to be 500,000 hectares, and this land would be uncovered (during in-between crops and the young crops) for half the year, every year. In contrast, tree crops, once established, will protect the soil for the next 30 years. They'll also have to be replanted eventually, of course, and it may take a year to establish full ground cover from felling the previous crop (by cover crops/weeds, not by the tree crop itself which will take longer for full canopy cover), or about 12 days in the year. All this talk about insurance is fine, which is what food security is all about. But the insurance can be overdone. In the extreme, it can be like a person spending all his money on insurance, and having nothing to live on. Of course, it will be Happy Day (for his family, not him) when he dies and the millions flow in. But the logic of this is clearly dubious. I think the 60 – 70% self-sufficiency in rice seems reasonably sensible. In a war, we suffer a bit by having to eat some sweet potato which won't kill us. Even tapioca with its cyanide content shouldn't do us in! In peace, which is most times, we get to buy our Ferraris. Actually, the food insecurity goes further than rice. We also cannot produce protein. Officially, we produce only 10 - 20% of our beef, mutton and milk, but are 'self-sufficient' in chicken, eggs and pork. But the 'self-sufficiency' is predicated on a 'screwdriver plant' operation - we bring the chicks/piglets and (imported) feed to one place and 'screw' them together. If in war we cannot import rice, we would equally likely not be able to import jagung (the base for most animal feed) too. So, there goes our protein ... which may not be a bad thing, actually. If all we have is plain rice, then arguably, plain sweet potato tastes better. We cannot produce beef/mutton/milk because we are too hot. If we are too hot we don't want to eat – can you eat immediately after playing badminton? – and if we don't eat we can't grow. Cattle are large animals, and by their sheer bulk and lower surface area (= skin) compared to humans, have difficulty dissipating heat. The naked human is comfortable at 80oF, but the equilibrium temperature of a cow is about freezing. So the continuously hot cattle won't eat much and grow in Malaysia. Under 'good' management in Malaysia, a cow/bull will put on 0.25 kg/day. The run-of-the-mill equivalent in a temperate country, grazing roadside grass will put on 1 kg/day. It is a physical problem, and I don't know why the government agricultural authorities are wasting their time seeking biological solutions – testing new breeds. It'll never work unless the cattle are human size. Sheep and goats are smaller, but have thick coats so the heat problem remains. Pigs are about the size of humans (slaughter at 100 kg liveweight), so ideal size-wise, but we cant produce their feed. Poultry are smaller and also ideal for our climate, but again we cant produce their feed. There are a lot of myths in Malaysian agriculture, and to formulate policy, we first have to see through the fallacies. For example, Sarawak is reputed to grow the best pepper because of its suitable soils and climate. I pondered this for 30 years before finding out that it grows pepper because it has no roads! Same reason why the Golden Triangle is so hooked on growing opium. |
| If BN loses it does not mean Malaysia does not have a government Posted: 26 Mar 2013 12:00 PM PDT 
If that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then for Malaysia's sake dismantle all opposition parties; arrest all opposition politicians; and cage all those who support these parties lah. J. D. Lovrenciear What are our politicians from the BN quarter teaching our young and old these days? Each time they open their mouths the scream is all about 'Malaysia will be destroyed if opposition comes to power' and 'do not go against the government' and 'vote for the government'. With the general elections' fever rising to unprecedented notches, such rubbish distortions and nonsensical misrepresentations are becoming a generously daily diet dished out in all our mainstream media.
Now let us get this nonsense straightened out once and for all Mr., Miss. and Mrs. politicians of Malaysia from the BN fortress.
BN or UMNO, MIC and MCA is not the government. When Parliament is dissolved, the governing of the nation continues without the ministers and their band-wagon of party fries.
Next, to vote BN is not patriotism. Likewise to vote opposition is not treason against the nation. Get it!
It is not only shocking but even beats the daylight out of any dimwit to keep hearing from all the BN entourage and loyalists that the rakyat must think Malaysia; must safeguard Malaysia; must this and that for Malaysia; and therefore they must vote for BN.
Hello, what rubbish are we frothing these days?
If that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then for Malaysia's sake dismantle all opposition parties; arrest all opposition politicians; and cage all those who support these parties lah.
Just have BN only for Malaysia and Malaysians. Stop even claiming to label the country as moderates. Stop even having a Parliament lah. Then it makes sense to all that the BN leaders and their paid stooges are clamouring these days.
And let the PM and all his other comrades in arms be told too - including the Home Minister: You are a minister on the government's service. Not the government on your service.
So when you speak - for as long as Parliament is not dissolved, cut your party allegiance and serve all Malaysians.
If you want to speak of party matters and in defense of your political party, go by all means to your party events and speak, scream, or raise a mile-long sword before your political party members.
But when you address the nation on matters that are of importance to all citizens, like in the case of national security and defense and public safety, don't you dare segregate the nation along party politics and allegiance.
Can the professionals, the learned, and the heads of clear thinking organizations please tell our salaried public servants who are wearing the hats of ministers and leaders about the stark difference between political parties that win an election to form a government and that of governing a nation.
Right minded citizens, please rise from your cloisters and tell it to these politicians loud and clear before we sink deep into the recess of a politically immature and incapacitated mental block, not knowing the difference between politics, governance and leadership or nationhood.
Otherwise, let us all remain as the proverbial frog-in-the-well and bury the much sought after crown of 'developed' status.
Then we must accept the trophy of 'The Laughing Stock of South-east Asia'. |
| Taib, Can You Hear the Deafening Silence All Around You? Posted: 26 Mar 2013 11:52 AM PDT 
being Vernon Today is EXACTLY one week after the Global Witness exposé video hit the news and rocked the world of Malaysian politics – a game-changer, as the Americans say. The Chief Minister is denying the existence of the mammoth elephant in the room, the lawyers have allegedly left the country, and the famous sisters have gone missing. The whole of Sarawak is in uproar, coffee-shops and secluded private rooms in expensive restaurants are bustling with the talk of "tax evasions" and "squatters", BN's Dayak leaders are dumbfounded and have lost their tongues (and dare we hope silently fuming at the audacity of some cousins of the Chief Minister?), the rest of the country is asking questions and the spin-doctors from BN are in overdrive trying to shift the blame. What a week! Besides fingering his cousins, Taib has also pointed the finger at Anwar Ibrahim, suggesting that the Opposition Leader has worked with Global Witness to "frame" him. So Taib, are you saying that Uncle Rahman Yakub sat down with Anwar Ibrahim and the environmental chaps from Global Witness and concocted this complicated story to "frame" you?
Alvin Chong, who is one of the legal representatives of the Lands and Survey Department, substantiated all that the sisters had said and more. His cock-sure confidence caught on camera was an award winning Oscar performance. Then there is the Hii family. The Hii family representative, lawyer Huang, admitted more than he should have. Best Supporting Actor award goes to him, if we are to believe the spin doctors.
So why would these lawyers want to "frame" the hands that feed them, kill the golden goose that lays the golden eggs and destroy their respective reputations all at the same time? Were all these different people, political opponents and NGOs and cronies and cousins and lawyers working together to "frame" Taib? Would it not be simpler to just accept the truth which is that his cousins, the lawyers and the businessmen were all indiscreet towards a person they thought they were doing a business deal with and in their bloated over-confidence spilled the fat beans, lifted the lid on Taib's Pandora's Box and opened his platinum coated can of worms?
My simple mind says YES. My political mind which attempts to deconstruct Machiavellian plots says MOST DEFINITELY YES.
Now that the whole world knows and Taib and his lawyers are desperately trying to pick up the pieces as they go into crisis management mode, one cannot but be intrigued by the apparent lack of public support that other Barisan Nasional leaders are expected to show him. Should they not be closing ranks and falling over themselves to come to his defence?
In the past, sycophants would be competing with one another to come up with the most credible counter-spin to protect their lord and master, but a week has come and gone and all we hear is TOTAL SILENCE. Except for some yelps from insignificant politicos and the youth wing of PBB condemning reports on the internet (and not an outright defence of their Chief Minister, mind you) in the last two days.
Where is Taib's Chief Political Secretary, the ever-faithful Karim Hamzah? Is it not his first duty and responsibility to immediately rally the troops and sound the trumpet and lead the charge and demonise Global Witness in every newspaper in Sarawak? Not a squeak from him.
Where is Awang Tengah, the supposed right hand man and heir apparent? Well, he did squeak a bit today in the Star but in no way was his whimper an outright rebuttal of the exposé and in defence of the Old Man; just a passing comment on how foreign NGOs are not to be trusted and how Sarawak will be re-forested. Political analysts would read his statement as more a personal defence, almost like a manifesto promising Sarawakians that under his watch, Sarawak would be re-forested.
Where is Jabu, the most loyal Dayak devotee there has ever been and ever will be of the 'beloved' Old Man? Absolute silence from Jabu of all people? What has this self-proclaimed 'Paramount Chief' of the Dayak has to say about being called a squatter by his beloved's cousins?
Both factions in SUPP are also withholding their tongues. Smart. Read more at: http://beingvernon.blogspot.com/2013/03/taib-can-you-hear-deafening-silence-all.html |
| Africa's tax haven Posted: 26 Mar 2013 11:45 AM PDT 
(Foreign Policy) - A new report from the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development shows that the picture of who is investing the most in the continent is a bit different than you might expect. Discussion of BRICS investment in Africa tends to conjure up images of Chinese-built superhighways and controversial mining projects. On his first trip to Africa, President Xi Jinping has defended his country's growing influence on the continent ahead of a BRICS summit meeting in South Africa. But a new report from the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development shows that the picture of who is investing the most in the continent is a bit different than you might expect. For one thing, China isn't even East Asia's top investor in Africa -- that would be Malaysia: 
A 2010 article from Consultancy African Intelligence described Malaysia's investment in Africa as "dispersed both in terms of the countries and the industries targeted" and noted that "Malaysian firms – such as Petronas and Telekom Malaysia - accounted for more than 1/2 of mergers and acquisitions between Asian and African multinational corporations (MNCs) between 1987 and 2005, with the largest recipients having been Mauritius and South Africa." Reuters reports that "Malaysia sent 24 percent of its outward FDI to Africa in 2011, mainly to Mauritius in that year." What's so attractive about Mauritius? Well apart from a stable democracy and what are apparently lovely beach resorts, it's also an emerging tax haven -- though the governmentobjects to the label -- as the Wall Street Journal reported last year: Read more here |
| The stars favouring Pakatan Posted: 26 Mar 2013 11:41 AM PDT 
There are so many wrong-doings practiced by the powers-that-be that all who favour good governance should vote in Pakatan Rakyat. Selena Tay, FMT Of late, many political observers, analysts, economists and corporate figures have predicted that Barisan Nasional will win big in the coming 13th general election. Logically, if one looks at the political scenario, the odds are heavily stacked against Pakatan Rakyat due to two major factors: the BN federal government's control of the mainstream media and the dirty electoral roll. It is as if Pakatan is in a boxing match with hands tied and being blindfolded at the same time. Concerning the mainstream media, this has been fully utilised to portray that it is good for the rakyat for BN to stay in power as many economists and corporate figures opine that "BN's continuity will bring peace, stability, progress and economic prosperity for everyone" whereas Pakatan has been painted as being in total disarray with daily bickerings among its top leaders. Other current major issues purposely ignored by the mainstream media and the pro-BN economists and analysts include the video expose on land grabs, the second statutory declaration of the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam and the actual cash handout of RM1.35 a day to the BR1M recipients (which has always been highlighted as the RM500 gift of the generous BN federal government). Therefore everyone is urged to vote for BN because a change in government will herald disaster and doom for the nation. However it is also common knowledge that although Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak seems to command large crowds at his functions, many of those who attend had to be ferried to the event by buses sponsored by BN. But if Pakatan has enough support, then it will be possible to overcome the votes from the civil servants, pensioners, teachers, police, armed forces, Felda and Felcra settlers and the phantom/alien voters. Really it does seem to be a tall order for Pakatan! Nevertheless, this columnist is convinced that Pakatan will win the 13th general election and had in October last year predicted in Facebook that the new Pakatan federal government will come into power in April/May 2013. It would be too long to go into details here but suffice to say that the metaphysics formula going into the calculation of Pakatan's victory is similar to the formula of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio's ascendancy into the papal office as Pope Francis I. Cardinal Bergoglio has had his turn and soon it would be Pakatan's turn to ascend the heights of power. We will have to wait and see. Clean ballot paper Even with the stars favouring Pakatan , it is still incumbent upon the rakyat to vote wisely and one of the things that every sensible voter should do is to look out for the dot by making sure that the ballot paper handed to us is really, really clean, not torn nor marked with dots nor smudged. This is because if there is a dot anywhere near or on the column of XYZ party for example, then that is considered a vote for XYZ. If we then vote for our preferred ABC party, then a problem may arise during the vote-counting process. Therefore this little piece of information here is for everyone to know so that we can have as close as possible to a fair voting process. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/27/the-stars-favouring-pakatan/ |
| When govt ‘hands are tied’ Posted: 26 Mar 2013 11:39 AM PDT 
(The Sun Daily) - "Najib has no direct authority to order Taib to step down. It (the decision to resign) depends on him (Taib) alone." The government's hands are tied when faced with the moral predicament of asking elected leaders to vacate their post while under investigation for graft-related charges, said Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) president Datuk Paul Low. Low noted that this is the "political reality" in Malaysia as compared to the ideal situation of an elected leader voluntarily stepping down to facilitate investigations. As an example, he cited recent reports of Indonesia's Democratic Party chairman Anas Urbaningrum's decision to resign from his position last month after being named by the republic's anti-graft body as a suspect in a case involving the construction of a multimillion-dollar sports complex in the city of Bogor, West Java. Indonesian media had also reported that all Democratic Party officials had, prior to Anas' resignation, signed an "integrity pact" to give up their posts if named as a corruption suspect similar to a mechanism introduced by TI-M and signed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak recently. Low said that unlike the situation in Indonesia, there is no written legislation or moral compulsion for any person holding office in Malaysia to take such steps as in the most recent case involving an ongoing probe by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) against Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud based on a recent video exposed by London-based NGO Global Witness. The video, which has been making its rounds on social media since last week, allegedly showed members of Taib's family explaining to a "foreign investor" the mechanisms to circumvent existing laws to obtain logging licences and how to profit from such deals. The licences are issued by Sarawak's Ministry of Resource Planning and Environment which is headed by Taib. "In Indonesia, the lawmaker involved (Anas) reports directly to the president. In this case (Sarawak), the chief minister (Taib) is not appointed by the prime minister (Najib), but by the people who voted for him. "Therefore, Najib has no direct authority to order Taib to step down. It (the decision to resign) depends on him (Taib) alone," Low told theSun. Taib, in response to the video, had reportedly denied all allegations against him, insisting instead that he was "framed" by quarters who may be out to tarnish his reputation and implicate his family members who were featured in the 16-minute clip. During a press conference at TI-M's headquarters here yesterday, Low also called for the Sarawak state government to initiate an independent probe into the allegations raised and for its findings to be made public. |
| Anwar says 'moving strategy' needed to make inroads Posted: 26 Mar 2013 11:37 AM PDT 
(fz.com) - PAS and Keadilan have also agreed to field some strong and formidable candidates in Johor Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim defended the move of Pakatan Rakyat heavyweights to contest in different parliamentary constituencies, saying that it is necessary in order to make inroads. At a press conference this evening, Anwar said that the parachuting of DAP's parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang (Ipoh Timur) and strategist Liew Chin Tong (Bukit Bendera) to Johor, is to shore up support for the opposition. Similarly, suggestions for Anwar to contest in a parliamentary constituency in Selangor or Perak were aimed at expanding Pakatan's base. Asked if the move will backfire on Pakatan, he said that on the contrary, it is expected "increase participation" and contradict Umno's claim that DAP is unable to entice Malay voters. "At the same time, PAS and Keadilan have also agreed to field some strong and formidable candidates in Johor," he added. "The suggestion that I go to Perak is of the same strategy to generate interest although Umno would say that I'm afraid of losing in Permatang Pauh," he said. Anwar's announcement that he may contest in other constituencies had generated fiery criticism, particularly from former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who said that it indicated his former deputy was running away from defeat. |
| Umno akan menang percuma di 10 kawasan keselamatan khas? Posted: 26 Mar 2013 11:30 AM PDT 
Mungkin ramai yang tidak sedar didalam 10 daerah itu ia merangkumi tujuh kerusi Parlimen dan 15 kerusi DUN Sabah. Kerusi-kerusi Parlimen yang termasuk dalam zon keselamatan khas ini ialah, P167 Kudat, P168 Kota Merudu, P183 Baluran, P187 Kinabatangan, P 189 Semporna dan P190 Tawau. Mohd Sayuti Omar, The Malaysian Insider Semalam Najib Razak mengistyharkan 10 daerah di Timur Sabah menjadi kawasan Selamat di Sabah. Sepuluh daerah itu ialah Kudat, Kota Marudu, Pitas, Baluran, Sandakan, Kinabatangan, Lahad Datu, Kunak, Semporna dan Tawau. Pemilihan kawasan itu sebagai kawasan keselamatan khas yang membawa kepada penubuhan satu jawatankuasa menurut Peraturan-Peraturan Pemeliharaan Keselamatan Awam 2013 yang digubal oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri. Jawatankuasa berkenaan akan dipengerusikan oleh Ketua Menteri manakala Najib selaku perdana menteri akan menjadi pemantau. Jawatankuasa lain akan diumum perlatikannya nanti. Menurut Najib beliau sendiri telah memohon perkenan Yang di-Pertuan Agong supaya Ordinan Pemeliharaan Keselamatan Awam 1962 dikuatkuasakan bagi memastikan keselamatan rakyat di Sabah terus terjamin. Sememang tidak siapa dapat menyangkal hasrat kerajaan untuk mewujudkan keadaan selamat dan damai di Timur Sabah itu waktu ini. Sewajarnya kalau kerajaan mengambil langkah-langkah perlu seperti mengistyharkan atau meletakkan 10 kawasan itu dalam zon yang diberi kawalan keselamatan khas. Tindakan itu diambil semuanya gara-gara meletusnya tragedi pencerobohan yang menelan lebih 50 korban termasuk sembilan orang anggota keselamatan kita manakala ratusan yang ditangkap. Namun betapa suci usaha kerajaann itu ia tetap akan disuluh dengan berbagai maksud kerana ianya dibuat dalam edah pilihan raya umum akan menjelang tiba bila-bila masa saja. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/rencana/article/umno-akan-menang-percuma-di-10-kawasan-keselamatan-khas-mohd-sayuti-omar/ |
| The principle of the unprincipled (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 25 Mar 2013 09:15 PM PDT I remember back in the days of Semangat 46, which was basically a party of ex-Umno members and leaders. They, too, toured the country singing like a canary. Even the most respected and revered 'Bapak Merdeka', Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the most cursed and hated 'Bapak May 13', Datuk Harun Idris, allied with Semangat 46 and went all over Malaysia to whack Umno kau-kau. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Tunku Aziz: DAP a political circus (Bernama) - "They are a political circus," said Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim of DAP when asked what he thought of the party's intention to field advisor Lim Kit Siang in the Gelang Patah parliamentary seat in the coming general election. "You go to one place and you pitch your tent and, when the circus is over, you take down your tent and move to another circus. This is what they have been doing," said the former vice-chairman of DAP. The DAP had announced recently that the 73-year-old veteran politician and Ipoh Timur MP would be fielded in the hot seat, also eyed by Johor DAP chairman Dr Boo Cheng Hau and Johor PKR chairman Datuk Chua Jui Meng. The DAP stalwart had previously contested in several parliamentary seats since the 1969 General Election, among them Bandar Melaka, Petaling, Kota Melaka, Tanjong and Bukit Bendera. Speaking to Bernama, Tunku Abdul Aziz, the former president of Transparency International-Malaysia, said the DAP's practice had negative implications for the voters and the nation. "You elect them and they do not do anything at all for the constituency and then they move ... this is not good. ""If you watch Lim Kit Siang's progress ... political progress ... it has been the same story, election after election and after election," he said. Tunku Abdul Aziz cautioned voters to vote with their heads and not their hearts when exercising their rights. Shaking his head, he said the party should have advised its elected members of parliament to serve the people who had voted for them through thick and thin. ******************************************** According to a friend in the Finance Ministry, 90% of the success of the Income Tax and Customs Departments depend on information from insiders. These are people who once were part of the gang (or working for the 'gang' -- such as the accountants) and have now turned informer or 'state witness'. I was told the rewards are pretty lucrative, 50% of whatever the government succeeds in recovering. Sometimes the government uses deception to rope in informers. For example: say a gang got away with a bank robbery to the tune of RM1 million. The police would then announce that the robbery amounted to RM1.5 million. This would turn the bank robbers against each other because they think that the others in the gang have cheated them. Hence they end up becoming police informers to get revenge on those who have cheated them. I, too, depend on Deep Throats, people who were in one way or another involved with whatever was going on. And, of course, you need to trust your Deep Throats because not always are there documents to support what they say so you need to depend on their word. The track record of these Deep Throats also counts. They may have been giving you information since the last few years and thus far all the information they have given has never been wrong. One Deep Throat I depended on regarding information about the night Altantuya was murdered was someone I had known for 50 years since 1963. That is longer than I have known my wife. Nevertheless, in spite of knowing this chap for 50 years, I still found the information he gave quite incredible until I counter-checked the story with Anwar Ibrahim and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and both of them confirmed the reliability of the information. Only then did I decide to run with it. Anyway, the point is, who better to know about what is going on inside a certain gang or organisation if not some insider? We on the outside can only hear stories. Those on the inside were part of what was going on. Hence it is not surprising that Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim is able to sing like a canary. He was once one of the 'gang members' of DAP plus he sat in the top leadership and was privy to the most inner secrets of that party. Hence he would know what many of us would not know. The question is: is it ethical and noble for Tunku Aziz to now sing like a canary when he used to be one of the birds flocking with the other birds of that same feather? The opposition supporters, in particular the DAP supporters, would definitely say no. They would regard him as a traitor who should not be kissing and telling. Nevertheless, if it is principles that we worry about, then how principled are people like Anwar Ibrahim, Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri Aziz, and many more of those other ex-Umno leaders who have now joined the opposition and are singing like a canary to reveal what went on in Umno at the time they were in Umno? And who better to reveal what went on and is still going on in Umno than these ex-Umno leaders? I remember back in the days of Semangat 46, which was basically a party of ex-Umno members and leaders. They, too, toured the country singing like a canary. Even the most respected and revered 'Bapak Merdeka', Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the most cursed and hated 'Bapak May 13', Datuk Harun Idris, allied with Semangat 46 and went all over Malaysia to whack Umno kau-kau. And we must not forget that Tunku Rahman was very hurt and upset about May 13 and never forgave those from Umno who he blamed for May 13 -- Datuk Harun being one of the major players with blood on his hands. Yet Tunku Rahman and Datuk Harun could join forces in Semangat 46 to whack Umno. And did not DAP and PAS enter into an alliance with Semangat 46 (called Gagasan Rakyat and Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah respectively), a party where some of the leaders had the blood of May 13 on their hands? And was not DAP and PAS excited that the Semangat 46 ex-Umno leaders were now whacking Umno, the party they were once part of? Principles are one thing. I am all for principles. But how can we say it is unprincipled for ex-DAP leaders to whack DAP but extremely principled for ex-Umno leaders to whack Umno? This is where Pakatan Rakyat supporters lack principles and hide behind their lack of principles to talk about principles. Let us not hide behind the word 'principle' to deny others their right to free speech, even if what they say upsets us. We can tell Tunku Aziz to shut the fuck up and not talk about DAP if we also tell Anwar Ibrahim, Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri Aziz, etc., to shut the fuck up and not talk about Umno. ************************************************* 没有原则者的原则 我想起了当年的64精神党，一个充满了前巫统会员的政党。他们也一样，周游全马大暴巫统内幕。就连我们最尊重的国父东姑阿都拉曼也和最讨厌的'513之父' Datuk Harun Idris 与64精神党联手'厚厚'地给巫统扒了一层皮。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 译文：方宙 东姑阿都阿兹：行动党就像是政治马戏团 （马新社）---- "他们就像是政治马戏团，"东姑阿都阿兹对行动党党魁林吉祥有意在振林山竞选的看法。 "他们去一个地方搭帐篷，当马戏团表演结束后，他们收起帐篷搬到别处，这就是他们的所作所为。" 前行动党副主席如此表示。 行动党日前宣布73岁的林吉祥将会出征这个热席。振林山之前也是柔佛行动党主席巫程豪和柔佛公正党主席蔡锐明有意竞选的国席。 林吉祥从1969年开始在不同地方竞选国席，包括马六甲市，八打灵，丹绒，升旗山等。 也是马来西亚透明国际前主席的东姑阿都阿兹表示，行动党的做法将对选民和国家带来负面影响。 "你选了他们，但他们没有为选区做些什么就去了其它地方。。。这是不好的""如果你观察林吉祥的政治路途。。。都是一样的故事，一个又一个又一个的选举，" 东姑阿都阿兹告诫选民们，应该用他们的头脑而不是心情来履行他们的权力。他摇头的说，行动党应该劝告党内中选的议员们，无论时好时坏，都应该服务那些把票投给他们的选民 ******************************************** 根据我一个在财政部的朋友，90%税务局的成功行动都是靠线人所提供的消息。那些曾经是'集团'其中一员的（或曾经为'集团'工作的，如会计师）会变成线人，或者是'国家证人'。我听说线人的回报是满吸引人的，大约是政府成功收回的50% 有时候政府会设局来套住那些线人。例如，一帮抢匪打劫了银行100万，那警方就会放出打抢了150万的风声。那些匪徒就会互相猜忌，因为他们会认为被彼此给坑了，然后总会有一些成员为了要报复而成为警方的线人。 而我当然也很依靠我的'深喉'（即线人），那些跟事情有挂钩的一员。你当然必须很相信你的'深喉'，因为有时候他们所透露的消息都是没有证据的。 那些'深喉'的过去表现当然也很重要。他们可能给你放消息放了几年，而他们的消息都是正确的。关于阿丹杜亚（Altantuya ）谋杀案的'深喉'，我已经认识了他50年，那是比我认识我老婆还要久！ 虽然说我认识了他50年，我还是认为他的消息是匪夷所思的。直到安华和登姑拉扎利（Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah ）跟我确认那消息的可靠性，我才决定接受它。 我在此要表达的是，有谁比内幕人还更清楚那个'集团'所发生的事情呢？我们这些外人只有听故事的份儿。那些内幕人才真正的清楚所发生的东西。 所以，东姑阿都阿兹对行动党内部消息的掌握进而大暴消息不应该是个很惊奇的状况。他曾经是党内的一员，而且身居高职，知道很多高层秘密。他当然知道很多我们不知道的东西。 问题是，东姑阿都阿兹，之前曾经是那'集团'的一员，如今站出来大暴内幕，此举有违道德操守否？反对党支持者，尤其是行动党支持者，肯定认为这是有违操守的。他们会列东姑为一个永远应该闭嘴的叛徒。 话虽如此，如果我们现在谈及的是原则上的问题，那请问，那些前巫统会员如安华，Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri Aziz, 等等在加入了民联以后就站出来大暴巫统的内幕时，他们又有原则吗？然而，如果他们不说的话，又有谁又会更清楚揭出巫统内幕呢？ 我想起了当年的64精神党，一个充满了前巫统会员的政党。他们也一样，周游全马大暴巫统内幕。就连我们最尊重的国父东姑阿都拉曼也和最讨厌的'513之父' Datuk Harun Idris 与64精神党联手'厚厚'地把巫统给扒皮。 我们必须记得国父对于513事件是多么的伤心。他从来没有原谅过那些应该为513事件负责的人，而Datuk Harun Idris 就是其中一个双手沾满了鲜血的幕后操手。然而，国父还是和Datuk Harun Idris 联合64精神党来对抗巫统。 当年64党某些领导者还是513事件的操纵者，但行动党和伊斯兰党不是也曾经和64党联合过吗（当时分别被称为Gagasan Rakyat 和 Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah）？当64党狠狠地大暴巫统内幕时，行动党和伊斯兰党难道不感到高兴吗？ 原则就是原则，我就是个很有原则的人。但我们能够说前行动党员站出来大骂行动党就是没有原则的，而前巫统党员站出来大骂巫统党就是很有原则的？ 这就是民联支持者没有原则的地方；他们躲在没有原则里大谈原则。我们不应该打着'原则'这个幌子来妨碍他人的言论自由，虽说他人讲的可能不是对我们有利的。当我们够胆叫安华，Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri 等人闭上他们的狗嘴别再扯巫统后腿时，我们才有资格叫东姑阿都阿兹也闭上他的狗嘴别再扯行动党的后腿。 |
| Pakatan to fight Sabah BN alone Posted: 25 Mar 2013 07:46 PM PDT 
Sabah Pakatan will not engage in any more talk with local parties and will focus instead on solidifying its agenda with Lajim Ukin and Wilfred Bumburing's groups. KOTA KINABALU: Pakatan Rakyat will walk alone in Sabah and that means no more discussions or negotiations with local parties. It also means that Sabah will once again see multi-cornered fights in almost every constituency in the state. In the 2008 general election, Sabah had the most number of constituencies with multi-cornered fights. Many had hoped that this time round the situation would be different. Disclosing Sabah Pakatan's decision, its chief Anwar Ibrahim said the coalition will not engage in any more talk with local parties and will focus on solidifying its agenda in Sabah together with its new allies Pertubuhan Pakatan Perubahan Sabah (PPPS) and Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS). PPPS is led by Beaufort MP and former Umno warlord Lajim Ukin and APS by Tuaran MP William Bumburing. Bumburing was formerly the deputy president of UPKO, a partner in Barisan Nasional. Both Lajim and Bumburing and some of their key supporters quit BN in July last year throwing their support behind Anwar. Since then there have been reports of trouble within Sabah PKR as a result of Lajim's 'incursion'. But Anwar has balked at such talk. With the increasing influence of Lajim and Bumburing in the picture, negotiations with local parties have also been slowly but surely sidelined. Yesterday, following a Sabah Pakatan coalition meeting, Anwar told reporters that Pakatan will take on Sabah BN on its own. "Our meeting is to solidify our stand and agendas in Sabah, all three member parties and our alliances, APS and PPPS are on same page. "There are no other parties. Many of their (other parties') statements conflicted with our stand in Pakatan so we will continue with our agendas for changes (alone)," he said. SAPP and STAR alone
Anwar is believed to be alluding to both Sabah Progressive Peoples Party (SAPP) led by former chief minister Yong Teck Lee and State Reform Party (STAR) chairman Jeffrey Kitingan. Both parties have been, from time to time, rumoured to be 'in negotiations' or 'being financed' by BN or its agents. Both have denied these rumours saying that the speculations were engineered by PKR, a Pakatan member. SAPP and STAR have refused to budge from their Sabah for Sabahans and Borneo Agenda stand. READ MORE HERE |
| Address minority issues, BN and Pakatan told Posted: 25 Mar 2013 07:41 PM PDT 
Neither coalition has shown any genuine interest in tackling their plight, say two Hindu American right groups. Athi Shankar, FMT Two Hindu American right groups called on Malaysia's main coalitions of political parties to urgently address minority rights issues ahead of the 13th general election. In a joint statement, Washington-based Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and California-based Malaysian American Foundation (MAF) pointed out that neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat have initiated any pro-active steps to resolve inequality in Malaysia. Despite its portrayal as a model Muslim democracy with a highly successful economy, HAF-MAF alleged that Malaysia had instituted deeply divisive policies that institutionalised discrimination against the country's ethnic and religious minorities. "The Indian-Hindu minority, in particular, faces systematic inequality, but neither political coalition has shown any genuine interest in addressing their plight," said HAF director Samir Kalra Kalra, who is also a senior fellow for human rights. Posted on the HAF website, the joint statement stated that Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy's ongoing hunger strike was to draw national and international attention to the disparaging conditions facing the majority of the Indian-Hindu community in Malaysia. Local Hindraf branches are currently holding candle light vigils across the country calling on either BN or Pakatan, or both to endorse Hindraf's five-year blueprint, which outlines permanent solutions to end marginalised Indian plight. "Ahead of the upcoming election in Malaysia, the hunger strike renews focus on religious discrimination in Malaysia," stressed the HAF-MAF statement. "Waythamoorthy's effort is a means to bring world attention to the suffering of the Indians."
Article 153 of Federal Constitution
MAF co-founder Muralitharan Samy said that since independence in 1957, successive Malaysian governments had refused to provide basic civil rights to the Indian population. Most of them who were originally brought to Malaysia as indentured labourers by British colonialists since early 1800s, remained politically silent until 2007 when they first challenged the Malaysian government's discriminatory policies. READ MORE HERE |
| Stop picking own candidates, Anwar told Posted: 25 Mar 2013 07:38 PM PDT 
PKR division leaders say wrong candidates picked by Anwar Ibrahim to contest in the general election may result in sabotage. B Nantha Kumar, FMT PKR's preparation for the 13th general election has hit a snag with several party division leaders complaining that they were not consulted before the potential candidates were picked and made public. They also claim that party de-facto chief Anwar Ibrahim was making unilateral decisions in picking candidates and this would lead to a "major problem" after nominations. "There would be factions after nominations. Those not picked but promised seats would pull back. I do not rule out sabotage. If the candidate does not meet expectation of members then, members will refrain from campaigning and this is trouble for PKR," said a party division leader who declined to be named. He claimed that Anwar was not picking candidates based on their track record but was giving out seats to those close to him. "Anwar is very talented, he is a good orator but his judgement on the selection of candidates is flawed," said a division chairman from Selangor who did not want to be named. "Just look at Hulu Selangor. It is speculated Anwar would field his close friend Khalid Jaafar as PKR candidate in the constituency. The chances of Khalid winning the seat is slim because he is not well liked by the locals," he added. The source said Khalid, Anwar's former speech writer, was defeated in the tussle for the Bukit Katil parliament seat in Malacca during the 2008 general election. "Now, he is trying his luck in Hulu Selangor," said the party insider, adding that PKR was capable of taking back the seat from MIC if it fields a strong candidate. In 2008, PKR won Hulu Selangor when Dr Zainal Abidin Ahmad defeated MIC president G Palanivel with a 198 vote majority. However, the seat returned to BN in a by-election following the demise of Zainal in 2010. The source said another example of a wrong PKR candidate was in the Pasir Salak parliamentary seat. "Party members are not happy with Anwar naming Musthapa Kamil Ayub as the candidate. So why pick him? Anwar should talk to grassroots leaders before making announcements on candidates," he added. READ MORE HERE |
| The consistency of inconsistency (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 25 Mar 2013 06:46 PM PDT Let me explain it this way. I make an allegation that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once told me that he has evidence that Anwar Ibrahim is gay. I then ask the police to investigate Dr Mahathir. The police then arrest and charge for the crime of defaming Anwar. Did I make an allegation against Anwar or did I make an allegation against Dr Mahathir? And are Dr Mahathir and Anwar government officers? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin A-G has no power, desire, guts or clearance? Ravinder Singh, The Malaysian Insider What rubbish is the Attorney-General talking "I have no power to investigate Bala's SD2"? So who has the power, or has nobody such power? Are we to believe that feudalism still holds sway in Malaysia? The case is about the two police officers Sirul Azhar and Azilah Hadri who were sentenced to death. Has the case against them been proven beyond doubt? SD2 casts a very serious doubt on their guilt. They may have pulled the trigger, wrapped the corpse in C4 and ignited it, but all this by itself does not prove their guilt. It must be shown that they had a motive to do what they did. If the intention to annihilate all traces of Altantuya Shaariibuu was not theirs, then they cannot be sentenced to death even though they pulled the trigger. It was mandatory for the court to find the motive for their doing so. This the court did not do. Instead it came out with a novel argument that MOTIVE was not relevant. This was to camouflage its refusal to find the motive, not that motive is no longer relevant in all criminal proceedings in this country. Why? Did the court have the power to take it upon itself to overrule the requirement to discover the motive for the crime before passing sentence? Do courts not have to adhere to all the principles of justice in carrying out their duties? Could the learned A-G please explain to Malaysians why MOTIVE is not relevant in this particular case while it is all-important in all other criminal cases? Please show us where is the court's power to overrule the requirement to discover the motive, the basic ingredient of a criminal case. The confession by the senior lawyer who prepared the SD2 is new evidence. Any new evidence coming to light, even decades later, must be investigated. That is the hallmark of a justice system that upholds justice. In the murder case of Jean Perera Sinnappa, a witness who gave false evidence confessed to it a few days later. Why could that case be re-opened and re-investigated? As a result, the person sentenced to death was freed and the confessor jailed for giving false evidence. Is the A-G saying that the power which the A-G or the court had at that time has been removed by some amendment to some law? And if so, please tell us the rationale for removing that power to re-open cases (especially involving the death penalty) when new evidence, in any form, surfaces? Of all people, the A-G should know and uphold the adage that justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done. The court's ruling that MOTIVE was irrelevant in this case only shows that justice was not seen to have been done. Now the A-G's refusal to take cognizance of the senior lawyer's confession and re-open the case is further evidence that justice is not seen to be done. There is a Malay saying: "Jika hendak seribu daya, jika tidak seribu dalih". So, dear A-G, if you want it you can do it! When lives are at stake, should our justice system be so cruel as to arrogantly shut the door to justice by giving all manner of excuses which are aptly described in Malay as "tak masuk akal"? ******************************************** Ravinder Singh's letter to The Malaysian Insider makes interesting reading indeed. I am not sure whether this chap is a lawyer and not being a lawyer myself I can't comment on his legal arguments. What I do want to comment about, however, is regarding the inconsistency between how the Attorney-General (AG) handled P.I. Bala's Statutory Declaration (SD) and how he handled mine, which were both more or less about the same matter. When I signed my SD the month before Bala signed his, the AG reacted very differently from the way he reacted (and is still reacting) regarding Bala's SD. Bala was also treated differently. Bala was given a Malaysian passport and was allowed to leave the country and later allowed to return to Malaysia many times -- and eventually for good -- while I am not being allowed a Malaysian passport. Anyway, that could be because Bala left the country 'legally' while I did not -- I sneaked out. Hence I committed a crime while Bala did not -- which means he can be allowed a passport and also allowed back into Malaysia while I cannot. I can understand that. Anyway, that is not the point. The point I want to discuss is that the very next day after an Umno Blogger revealed that I had signed the SD (which was supposed to be confidential and hence I do not know how the Umno Blogger got his hands on it) the AG announced that I had signed a false SD and that they (the AG's office) will be taking action against me. First of all, this was what the Blogger reported. The AG had not even seen a copy of that SD yet. Hence he did not know at that time whether such a SD even existed. Nevertheless, he already announced that the SD was false and that they would take action against me for signing a false SD. The AG's office had also not started any investigation yet -- not only whether this SD existed or not but whether what was mentioned in that SD was true or false. However, even without confirming the existence of this SD and, if it did, whether the contents were true or not, he announced that they would be taking action against me for signing a false SD. The very next day, without investigating whether the SD did or did not exist and whether the contents were true or not, the IGP also announced that the SD is false and that the police were going to charge me for signing a false SD. How did both the AG and IGP know I had signed a false SD? They had not even started any investigation yet. It was not until the following week that the police called me in for my statement to be recorded. And my statement was recorded based on a so-called police report made against me. Now, according to the AG and IGP, my crime is for signing a false SD -- a SD that they had not even seen yet and which they did not know whether it existed or not since it was supposed to be confidential and for the eyes of only the Prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial. However, when they brought me to court to charge me, they did not charge me for the crime of signing a false SD. They charged me for the crime of criminal defamation. First of all, how did they know I had committed criminal defamation? They never interrogated or took the statements of those people mentioned in the SD. How could they come to the conclusion that I had defamed those three people I was charged with defaming? Are they clairvoyant? Secondly, criminal defamation applies only when you defame a government officer in the execution of his/her duties. Is Rosmah Mansor, the wife of the then Deputy Prime Minister, a government officer? Even now, as the so-called 'First Lady', she is not a government officer. So how could I be charged for criminally defaming her? As for the husband-and-wife Lt. Col. team, they may be government/army officers, but were they on duty at the time I alleged that they were at the site of Altantuya's murder? Isn't it damaging to the government to admit that after midnight on the night of Altantuya's murder they were still on duty? What were their 'duties' after midnight on the night Altantuya was murdered? Hence, if the government thinks that I had signed a false SD, then why not charge me for that crime rather than for some other crime that I did not commit? I mean, if I robbed a bank then charge me for the crime of robbing the bank. Why charge me for the crime of fraud and say that I misled the bank teller into handing over the money that does not belong to me. The crime is robbery, not fraud. And the third and more troubling part of this whole thing is that I was alleged to have defamed Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Even if I am guilty of defaming someone, it is not Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. I had defamed. I defamed a fourth person -- who I was never charged for defaming. I defamed the number two of the military intelligence that I alleged had made that allegation against Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Hence, even if I did commit a crime of criminal defamation, it is not Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. I defamed but the number two in the military intelligence, who I was never charged for defaming. Let me explain it this way. I make an allegation that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once told me that he has evidence that Anwar Ibrahim is gay. I then ask the police to investigate Dr Mahathir. The police then arrest and charge for the crime of defaming Anwar. Did I make an allegation against Anwar or did I make an allegation against Dr Mahathir? And are Dr Mahathir and Anwar government officers? And that was why when they charged me in court I refused to reply to the charge, which took the court by surprise. I told the court that the charge was defective plus mala fide. Charge me for criminal defamation if you wish but not for defaming Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Charge me for defaming the number two of the military intelligence. I refused to stand trial on a bogus charge. Hence I refused to answer to that charge. The court can, if it so wishes, then send me to jail. I was prepared for that. However, the court refused to accept my refusal to answer to that charge and instead insisted that they take that as a plea of not guilty. I was furious. I shouted at the judge and told him that I did not enter a plea of not guilty. The judge ignored me and set bail. I refused to accept bail and instead walked out of court and headed straight for the lockup below with the police officer chasing after me while trying to persuade me to stay in court and accept bail. For two years I tried explaining that I never made any allegation against Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Instead, I had made an allegation against the number two of the military intelligence. Why, therefore, was I arrested and charged for something I did not do? Why not charge me for a crime I did commit -- if the government is of the view that I had committed a crime? But all this fell on deaf ears. Finally, I went on TV3 to explain exactly as I had written above. This interview was done in Perth, Australia, after consultation with a few friends who were in Sydney together with me. These friends thought it was a good idea that I go on TV and explain the details. Of course, today, that TV3 interview has been interpreted as me having done a U-turn. I don't know in what way I did a U-turn. In fact, a copy of that SD was shown in that TV interview. So we are still talking about the same SD, not a new SD or SD2 like in Bala's case. What TV3 wanted to know is what were the circumstances and reasons behind me signing that SD. So I explained what happened and the reason why I signed the SD. This, however, has been interpreted as me withdrawing that SD. I did not withdraw the SD. Instead, I explained the story behind that SD. And when the Malaysian police met up with me in the Malaysian Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, soon after that TV interview to record my statement, I repeated what I had said in that TV3 interview without changing one bit of my story and I signed that police statement. The AG says he has no power or authority to take action on Bala's SD2. But he did take action on my SD. And the action he took was against me. Bala, no doubt, has since died. But Bala was in the country a few weeks before he died. Yet the AG did nothing. And if Bala had not died the AG would most likely still do nothing. Why is that? And why was Bala allowed back into the country and allowed to travel all over the country to give talks all over the place? I would never have been allowed the same. Why? Is it because they had made a deal with Bala? In that case, what deal did they make with him? I am beginning to suspect that they are not giving Bala the same treatment that they are giving me. Okay, you can say that my SD is based on hearsay. You can argue that what I said was what someone told me and not what I saw with my own eyes. But was not Bala's SD also based on hearsay? His SD was about what Razak Baginda and Altantuya told him, not what he personally saw. That is also hearsay, just like what I said. When Bala signed his first SD he was considered a hero. Even Anwar Ibrahim gave him red carpet treatment at the PKR headquarters. When he signed his second SD, he was called an Indian Pariah, a turncoat, a traitor, etc., and was nicknamed 'Bala U-turn'. Then he again did a U-turn and said that SD1 is true while SD2 is false. And, again, he became a hero and was given red carpet treatment and garlanded. Signing two contradicting SDs is a serious crime. Why does the AG say he has no power and authority to do anything? And if the AG is powerless to take action until and unless a police report has been made, many police reports have already been made. The AG can pick and choose from the many police reports to take action against Bala. Why did he not do this? And if the AG really has no power or authority to take action, why then did he take action against me and announce that he is taking action against me even before he could confirm the existence of the SD and confirm the authenticity of that SD, if it did exist? Many people, especially those from the opposition, scream about justice, good governance, selective prosecution, and whatnot. Actually, these people do not even know what that means. If they really mean what they say then they can clearly see that the manner the AG handled Bala and the manner he handled me are glaringly based on two different standards of justice. And if you were really a believer in justice, then you would focus on what I said in my SD and not what you imagine I said or wish I had said. And because of this I no longer believe that the opposition people are true proponents of justice. They twist what I had said and allege I had said what I did not say. And this makes the opposition exactly like the government we are trying to kick out. If you believe that a lie is okay as long as we lie about the government and not lie about the opposition, then your fight is not my fight. That is the plain and simple truth of my perjuangan. Some of you say I have turned. Of course I have turned. I have turned against those in the opposition who behave just like those in the government. And being a victim of these untruths I, of all people, should know this. ************************************ @font-face @font-face @font-face p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal strong em p span.st div.Section1 不一致中的一致 让我给你一个简单易懂的例子。我，RPK，对外宣称，马哈迪告诉我说他有证据证明安华是同性恋。我要求警方去调查马哈迪讲的东西。然后警察就来控告我刑事诽谤了安华。请问，我RPK到底是诽谤了马哈迪还是诽谤了安华呢？还有，马哈迪和安华是政府人员吗？ 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 译文：方宙 这篇由Ravinder Singh 写给 The Malaysian Insider 的信的确是很有意思。我不清楚他是不是一个律师，但我无法就他的法律论点上给任何看法，因为我不是个律师。不过，在首席检察官（Attorney-General，AG）以不同方式处理我和巴拉（Bala）私家侦探于阿丹都亚案的法定宣誓书（Statutory Declaration ，SD）（我们俩的SD所谈及的内容大致都一样）的行为上，我有我的看法。 我比Bala早一个月签下了我的SD，而AG对我们俩的反应是很不同的（现在他的反应也还是很不同）：Bala可以用他的马来西亚护照自由的进出----而最后他永远地留在（死在）马来西亚----而我则不被允许使用我的马来西亚护照。 或许AG这样的反应是因为我犯罪了吧：Bala他'合法'的出境，而我则'偷偷'的出境。所以，Bala被允许应用他的护照，而我则不能，这一点我能够理解。 不管怎样，这不是这篇文章的重点。我要讲的是，就在某个巫统博客说出我已经签了SD的第二天，AG就宣布我签了假的SD，他要采取行动对付我（我签SD是件很保密的事情，我不知道那个博客是从哪得到消息）。 当时那个博客只是空讲，AG根本就没有看过我的SD，所以他根本就不知道那份SD是否真的存在。但，他还是宣布那份SD是假的而要对付我。 AG办公室当时根本都没有进行任何调查----他们连到底这份SD是否存在也不知道，而SD的内容是否有如巫统博客报导般也不清楚。就这样，AG决定我将会被对付 到了第三天，也在没有任何调查下，总警长（Inspector-General of Police ，IGP）也来掺一脚，宣布说我的SD是假的，警方会把我提控。 请问，AG和IGP是怎样知道我签了一份假的SD？他们根本都还没有进行任何调查。直到一个星期过去了，警方才传召我去录口供。而我被传召的原因仅仅是因为有人向警方报案。 好，现在AG和IGP说我的罪是我签了一份假的SD----一份他们根本都还没有看到过，都还不清楚是否真的存在的SD（那份SD严格来讲应该是很机密的，而且只有阿丹都亚案的检查官才能看到）。然而，他们最终把我控上了法庭，但罪名不是签了假的SD，而是刑事诽谤。 问题第一点，他们是怎样知道我诽谤他人呢？他们从没有把SD里边提及到的有关人士请来问话，那他们是怎样做出结论的呢？他们是有千里眼吗？ 第二点，刑事诽谤是当被诽谤人士为（A）政府人员 和（B）正在执行公务 才有效的。那请问，罗斯玛，我们的首相夫人，是政府人员吗？直到现在我们所谓的'第一夫人'都还不是政府人员。所以我怎算是在'刑事'上诽谤了她呢？ 对于那对中校军人夫妻档，他们的确是政府人员，但在他们涉案的时间点上，他们是不是已经下班，不再执行公务了？我被控的是刑事诽谤，那就代表政府默认那对夫妻档当时半夜三更出现在阿丹都亚谋杀现场其实是在执行任务，难道这不是政府自己损自己面子吗？那又请问当时他们的'公务'又是什么呢？ 所以说，如果政府认为我真正罪状是签了假的SD，为什么他们不告我那个罪名而是告我一个我根本都没有犯的罪呢？打个比方，如果我打抢银行，就告我'打抢银行'好啦，你又何必告我'欺诈银行，用计让银行职员把不属于我的钱拿给我'呢？我是'打抢'银行，不是'欺诈'银行。 第三点，也是很复杂的一点，他们指控我诽谤罗斯玛和那两个中校。如果我真的被判诽谤罪的话，我诽谤的根本就不是以上三人；我诽谤的是第四个人，那就是军事情报组的第二号人物，因为我的SD里讲的是'我宣称，那个军事情报员宣称说罗斯玛与那对夫妻档涉案。 所以，如果我真的诽谤了人家，那绝对不是罗斯玛和那对夫妻。我诽谤的是那个军事情报的第二号人物。但是，就从来没有人告我诽谤那个军事情报员。 让我给你一个简单易懂的例子。我，RPK，对外宣称，马哈迪告诉我说他有证据证明安华是同性恋。我要求警方去调查马哈迪讲的东西。然后警察就来控告我刑事诽谤了安华。请问，我RPK到底是诽谤了马哈迪还是诽谤了安华呢？还有，马哈迪和安华是政府人员吗？ 这就是为什么我到了法庭后，我拒绝对那个控罪作出任何回应。我对法庭说，他们指控我的，都是恶意和站不住脚的。如果你真的要控我刑事诽谤，那对象应该是那个军事情报组的第二号人物，而不是罗斯玛等三人。 我拒绝为一个假的指控作供，所以我拒绝作出任何回应。法庭当然可以因此而把我丢进监狱里，我其实已经做好准备了。但法庭拒绝接受我的'拒绝回应'，他们坚持的把我的'拒绝回应'当成'不认罪'。 我怒火冲冠的对法官大吼，我并不是'不认罪'，但法官就是没当一回事，而且开始给我订保释金。我拒绝被保释，然后直接离开法庭并走向楼下的扣留室。警察跟着追了出来劝我回去法庭和接受保释。 两年以来，我不停的解释我从来没有指控过罗斯玛等人；我指控的是军事情报组的第二号人物。那为何我为我没犯的罪而被捉呢？如果政府真的认为我犯罪了，那它应就我所犯的罪提控我。 这一切都被大家当成了耳边风。后来，我和住在澳大利亚的朋友商量过，他们认为上电视解释是个不错的主意。所以，我在珀斯上了TV3的访问。 到今天为止，大家都认为我在那个TV3的访问上出尔反尔。我到现在也搞不懂我到底做了什么出尔反尔的动作。我在访问上亮出了同一张的SD，不是其他的SD，更不是Bala的'第二张SD'。 TV3 想要了解我签SD的原因和背景，我回答了他们的答案。但，大家都认为这是我收回SD的动作。 我并没有收回那个SD；相反的，我详细的解释了SD背后的故事。当我的访问播出后，警方就约我到曼谷的马来西亚大使馆录口供。我当时一字不改的像警方陈述了我之前跟TV3所说的东西。 AG表示他目前没有权力对Bala的SD采取行动，但他有对我的SD采取行动，而他采取行动的对象正是我。Bala确实已经死了，但他生前的最后几个星期是在马来西亚渡过的，而AG则一点行动也没有。我猜测，即使Bala没有死，AG也还是会按兵不动的。 这是什么状况？Bala他被允许回国，而且还周游全国开演讲会，而我则不能？为什么？ 是否有可能他们已达成协议？若真的是那样，那那个协议的内容又是什么？我开始怀疑我和Bala是受到不同的对待。 Okay，你可以说我的SD是道听途说的。你可以说我所宣称的是别人告诉我的而不是我亲眼看见的。但Bala的不也是道听途说的吗？他的SD是针对Razak Baginda 和 Altantuya 对他讲的东西，而非他亲眼看到的。 Bala签下第一张SD时，所有人都当他是英雄。安华甚至还公正党总部铺上红地毯来欢迎他。但当他签下第二张SD来推翻第一张时，大家都骂他为'无能的印度人'，'变节'，'叛徒'等，还给他取了个称号"U转Bala"。然后，他又U转一次，说第二张是假的，第一张才是真的，他又成为了英雄。 签下两张自相矛盾的SD是很严重的刑事罪案，为什么AG会说他没有权力呢？如果说AG要到了警方接到报案才可以行动的话，那就更说不通了；很多人就此报了案，AG有很多报告可以选择来对付Bala。为何AG会静若寒蝉呢？ 如果AG确确实实没有权力，那他之前哪来的权力对付我？那还是在他还没掌握充分证据前呢！ 有很多人，尤其是反对党，都大打'正义'，'廉政'，'司法公正'的旗子。事实上，他们根本就不懂这些名词的意义。如果他们真的懂的话，他们早就一眼看穿了AG对待我和Bala课题上的双重标准。 如果你真的很正义的话，你会注重我真真确确写在SD上的东西，而不是你认为我会讲（抑或你希望我会讲）的东西。正因如此，我不再相信反对党是正义的拥护者。他们会扭曲我讲的东西，然后指控我讲了我没讲的东西。这样的反对党跟我们现在要踢走的政府又有什么两样呢？ 如果你相信对政府散播谣言是可以的，但对反对党就不行，那对不起，我俩志不同道不合。我的斗争就是那么的平白简单。 你们当中有人说我变了。我当然变了，因为反对党现今有一些份子的动作跟政府都是一样的，所以我变得跟这些人不同路了。身为这些谎言的受害者，我，跟所有人比起来，当然是最清楚这点的。 |
| Chua Soi Lek & his MCA Merajuking Manoeuvre Posted: 25 Mar 2013 04:16 PM PDT 
KTEMOC KONSIDERS Lee Hwa Beng (MCA) was Subang Jaya's state assemblyman for three terms from 1995 to 2008, and guess what happened in 2008, wakakaka. He was appointed Port Klang Authority chairman from 2008 to 2011 to investigate the PKFZ scandal; he was also the author of 'PKFZ: A Nation's Trust Betrayed'.  | | Alamak, can't see Tee Keat lah, wakakaka | In an article he wrote for TMI titled How will MCA fare in the coming election? he predicted MCA could well lose up to 2/3 of its current 15 federal parliamentary seats, though he refused (said it would be inappropriate) to identity which seats MCA will lose.
Needless to say, the current focus of keen political observers (both professional and amateur) is on Johor and the MCA-held parliamentary seats like Gelang Patah. That DAP's Lim Kit Siang will be the Pakatan Rakyat's candidate in Gelang Patah is no longer the question, though many Pakatan supporters revel in the possibility of Uncle Lim standing there as a candidate under the PAS banner in the event the Registrar of Societies (RoS) decides to suspend or de-register DAP. In fact I dare say they fantasize and hope for that possibility which in one fell swoop would destroy UMNO's demon-ization of DAP as an anti Malay-Muslim political party. In what we suspect to be UMNO possible plan to 'persuade' ROS to suspend DAP just prior to the election, so as to save its subordinate, MCA, UMNO could well be digging for itself a far deeper cesspool than it currently wallows in, and which its plummeting into may be non-salvageable. The picture of a pro Malay-Muslim DAP to the Heartland may just make UMNO think twice, unless it's so monumentally stupid, a state of mind most unlikely but which we mustn't completely discount. Dare CSL confront Lim KS in Gelang Patah?However, the question of the MCA candidate in Gelang Patah, purportedly Tan Ah Eng, continues to intrigue political observers and KPCs (kay poh chnee or busybodies, like kaytee, wakakaka). Will CSL step in a la Lee San Choon in Seremban in 1982, to put his leadership 'money' where his mouth is, to re-enact a second MCA vs DAP Clash of the Titans, which Lee San Choon won for the MCA in the 1982 general election when he defeated Dr Chen Man Hin (DAP). 'Twas then a historic event in what the Chinese would term an MCA leader courageously entering the DAP's haw siew (tiger lair, meaning stronghold) - a case of dare to say, dare to do!
Lee also mentioned Chua Soi Lek's (CSL) merajuk tactic as follows:
Two years ago, MCA president Chua Soi Lek announced that the MCA will not accept any Cabinet positions if the party obtains fewer than the existing 15 seats. This statement was made nearly two years ago when he first became MCA president but has not been repeated since.
Was he trying to blackmail the Chinese community into considering carefully before voting against the party? Was he more confident of a better performance then? His subsequent silence may mean he has either regretted his statement or that he is less confident of his party's performance in the upcoming elections two years later.
CSL's merajuking reminded me of Koh Tsu Koon who told Penangites pretty much the same thing, that he won't enter government if he lost his bid for the Batu Kawan federal seat, and which he did to Dr Rama (DAP), ... but which nonetheless saw him subsequently and shamelessly accepting a ministerial position via the Senate back door, to become the Assistant (disgracefully only an assistant) Headmaster of Report Cards for BN ministers and officials. Anyway, 'nuff of Koh TK and back to CSL and MCA, for the story of MCA is also the story of Malaysians of Chinese ancestry, and perhaps vice versa We'll consider Gerakan as nothing more than a splinter group of MCA in the way PKR is a splinter group of UMNO. The genes, DNA and chor-kong (political ancestors) are the same for MCA and Gerakan, as are for UMNO and PKR. The questions we want to ask are: (a) Will CSL stand in Gelang Patah? (b) Will his merajuking tactic convince the Chinese, especially those in Johor, to give the MCA a 'second-illionth' chance in GE-13 or suffer no Chinese representation in the new Malaysian cabinet? - A threat we may describe as the 'MCA Merajuking Manoeuvre'. Only CSL can answer the first, but for us to obtain an answer to the second query, we need to revisit the history of the MCA, in particular that of its leaders - and I'll try not to be tng k'ooi (chong hei) wakakaka. The leadership tussles in MCAThe MCA was formed on 27 February 27 1949 with support from the British colonial government who hoped for the Chinese association to manage the social and welfare concerns of the rural Chinese interned (not unlike Japanese POW's) under the Briggs' Plan in the 'new villages' during the Malayan Emergency.  | | Chinese forcefully 'moved' to new villages | Two years later, MCA transformed into a formal political party under the leadership of a Straits-born Malacca baba Tan Cheng Lock, father of Tan Siew Sin. Among the top leaders were Kuomintang (Guomindang) Party people, wakakaka. Presumably it found favour with the Brits and UMNO because it was undoubtedly anti Communist.  | | Chiang Kai Shek in Kuomintang military uniform, wakakaka | Even Penang-born Lim Chong Eu, a King's scholar who studied medicine in Scotland holds a Kuomintang army medical (honorary) rank of Colonel. Yes, do look at the emblem of the MCA and see in it its association with the emblem of the Kuomintang Party of Chiang Kai Shek.  | | Kuomintang emblem |  | | MCA |
Right from its very start, MCA has been a party rife with leadership tussles. Lim Chong Eu who became its President after defeating Tan Cheng Lock in 1958 demanded that Tunku treated the MCA as an equal partner, and demanded 40 seats instead of the 28 it was allocated. Lim also wanted Chinese recognized as another official language of Malaya.
Tunku went as far as increasing MCA's allocation from 28 to 31 but rejected Lim's other demands. Then, in what was alleged as a political war by Tunku against Lim Chong Eu using a surrogate, pro UMNO Tan Siew Sin, he applied both external pressure (by UMNO) as well as internal pressure (by Tan Siew Sin's pro UMNO faction in MCA) until he manoeuvred Lim Chong Eu into resigning from MCA. Tan Siew Sin took over as MCA president and became and remained UMNO's favourite and respected partner. READ MORE HERE |
| ‘Umno plots ‘sex attacks’, targets Nurul as well’ Posted: 25 Mar 2013 04:01 PM PDT 
PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution claims that he was shown footages by several Umno agents purportedly aimed at implicating several senior party leaders. G Vinod, FMT Umno agents are planning to reveal more videos on senior PKR leaders, purportedly linking them to sexual misconduct, said PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution. Speaking at a press conference held at the party headquarters, Saifuddin said that the Umno agents are now targeting four PKR leaders. "They are targeting Anwar (Ibrahim) and Nurul (Izzah Anwar). The other videos supposedly implicating other leaders such as Khalid (Ibrahim) are still being manufactured," said Saifuddin, who was flanked by PKR communications director Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. Saifuddin said he received a call from some people about three days ago and was told about the videos and photographs. The Machang MP, together with other leaders, said that he met the agents in Kuala Lumpur, and was shown two videos and photographs. "I don't know who these people are but they seem to be in the know of production work. It looks like they want to inflict maximum damage on us nearing general election," said Saifuddin. Recently, pro-Umno blogger Papagomo, or his real name Wan Muhd Azri Wan Deris, released a video, purportedly showing Anwar engaging in homosexual activity. The Permatang Pauh MP later filed a RM100 million defamation suit against the blogger. Game of perception
Saifuddin dismissed the allegations levelled against the PKR leaders, saying the agents were attempting to perpetuate the culture of slander nearing the 13th general election. 
Asked on what demands the agents made, Saifuddin refused to divulge details, saying the agents employed the carrot and stick approach. When asked if he was rattled by the video clips shown, Saifuddin said, "We don't feel threatened at all. It's part and parcel of politics." Saifuddin said that he believed that the agents merely wanted PKR to know that they have such material, which may be published during the general election. "It's a game of perception. They just want us to fall in their trap," he said. He later criticised Umno and Barisan Nasional for employing dirty tactics in order to win the general election. "When we ask for debate, you reject our request. When we launch our manifesto, you launch a (sex) video," he said. Saifuddin also urged Malaysians to reject the slanderous attacks and not to be tricked by the ruling government's dirty tricks. "All this attacks only make us stronger and propel us to move forward. The people will definitely make a wise choice for a better Malaysia by voting for Pakatan Rakyat," he said. READ MORE HERE |
| Rafizi: Raja Petra is telling tales Posted: 25 Mar 2013 03:17 PM PDT 
PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli dismisses the blogger's claims that PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim had sought Nur Misuari's help to win parliamentary seats in East Malaysia. G Vinod, FMT PKR today dismissed blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin's allegation that Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim had sought the help of Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) to win Muslims votes in Sabah and Sarawak. "I have read his article but not a shred of evidence was produced. Dia cerita ikut kepala dia saja (He is just telling tales)," said PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli. Yesterday, Raja Petra, in his article titled 'The Untold Story of the Lahad Datu Incident', alleged that Anwar had sought MNLF founder Nur Misuari's help to win at least 30 parliamentary seats in East Malaysia. The former deputy prime minister claimed to have urged Nur Misuari to convince Filipino Muslims in Sabah to vote for Pakatan Rakyat. In return, Anwar promised citizenship and jobs for non-Malaysian Filipino Muslims residing in East Malaysia. READ MORE HERE |
| Malaysia’s social media election is already over Posted: 25 Mar 2013 03:01 PM PDT Since the last general election in 2008, Malaysia's Internet penetration has risen by over 300 per cent in 2012. Total Internet penetration had increased from 1,718,500 in 2008 to 5,839,600 in 2012, an increase of as much as 4,121,100. James Gomez, TMI The upcoming general election is not a "social media election". The so-called "social media election" is already over. Observers are just waiting for the results. Let me explain. Social media in Malaysia has been influential in keeping important political issues in the forefront in the last five years. Hence, when evaluating the social media-related outcomes of the next general election, it is the net impact of social media's political influence in the last five years and not just the campaign period that analysts need to consider. In Malaysia, broadcast media, like elsewhere, has over the years evolved into a fragmented viewership base. Viewers switch easily between free-to-air, subscription TV and videos on-demand mostly for their entertainment needs, leaving those interested in alternative local political news to look elsewhere. Meanwhile, Malaysian newspapers, particular the Malay- and English-medium ones that have traditionally reported on local political news, have seen a drastic drop in circulation since the last general election held in 2008. The two main Malay-language newspapers, which are Berita Harian (weekend edition Berita Minggu) and Utusan Malaysia (weekend edition Mingguan Malaysia), have suffered a decline in circulation from 1,147,126 in 2008 to 890,446 in 2012. Similarly, English-language newspapers such as the New Straits Times, The Star and The Edge saw their combined circulation drop from 936,664 in 2008 to 813,994 in 2012. But this fragmentation in broadcast media and slack in print media circulation is being taken up by the Internet. Since the last general election in 2008, Malaysia's Internet penetration has risen by over 300 per cent in 2012. Total Internet penetration had increased from 1,718,500 in 2008 to 5,839,600 in 2012, an increase of as much as 4,121,100. According to the Malaysian Digital Association's (MDA) February 2012 report, websites of the mainstream media, such as thestar.com.my, utusan.com.my and bharian.com.my, attracted 2,221,763, 1,171,578 and 769,772 unique browsers respectively. Alternative news websites such as malaysiakini.com and themalaysianinsider.com attracted 1,858,649 and 1,117,124 unique browsers respectively in the same period, demonstrating strongly their comparative strength. However access to social media sites is the highest according to the same MDA report. Sites such as facebook.com and youtube.com attracted 6,467,257 and 4,238,824 unique browsers while twitter.com attracted 926,874 unique browsers in the same period from Malaysia. READ MORE HERE |
| More voter excitement for GE13 as Bersih targets 85pc turnout Posted: 25 Mar 2013 02:55 PM PDT 
Boo Su-Lyn, TMI Voters are getting more enthusiastic over Election 2013 compared to the last general election as Bersih 2.0 aims for an 85 per cent voter turnout to mitigate electoral fraud. Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, co-chairman of the electoral reform group, told The Malaysian Insider today that Bersih's "Jom 100" campaign has seen greater awareness about the upcoming national polls among people of all races and ages in both urban and rural areas. "People are raring to go and raring to vote," said Ambiga (picture). "There's a lot of enthusiasm on the ground... people are getting more aware about their voting rights. I also ask the question, did you vote in 2008? They say no. Are you gonna vote this time? And they say yes," added the former Bar Council president. Election 2013, which will be held in weeks, is expected to be the most keenly contested election in recent times, with analysts saying that the outcome is in doubt for the first time in Malaysian history after the historic 2008 general election that saw Barisan Nasional (BN) lose its two-thirds parliamentary majority. There are 13.3 million registered voters, or 83 per cent, out of 16 million eligible voters, according to the Election Commission (EC). In Election 2008, 76 per cent out of 10.7 million registered voters turned up to vote, amounting to about 8.16 million voters. Ambiga said she hoped for at least an 85 per cent voter turnout, pointing out that five to 10 per cent could make a difference. "Any increase will help reduce or mitigate the fraud," she said. The lawyer said Bersih told Malaysians that they should not assume that their favoured candidates would win and that voting would help reduce electoral fraud. "We don't want people to think there are no solutions to the fraud. There is in fact a very effective, not complete solution, but an effective way of reducing it," said Ambiga. READ MORE HERE |
| Wira Perkasa bidas pemimpin Gerakan Posted: 25 Mar 2013 02:36 PM PDT 
Kenyataan Baljit Singh boleh diklasifikasikan sebagai isu sensitif dalam ambang pilihan raya. Muda Mohd Noor, FMT Wira Perkasa membidas kenyataan ahli politik Gerakan Baljit Singh yang melabelkan Perkasa sebagai rasis terbesar Melayu dan rasis dan dibenci oleh bangsa bangsa lain. Ketuanya, Irwan Fahmi Ideris berkata, sayap Perkasa itu merasakan kenyataan tersebut tidak patut keluar daripada seorang ahli politik yang bijak kerana boleh diklasifikasikan sebagai isu sensitif dalam ambang pilihan raya. Wira Perkasa membantah keras kenyataan Baljit dalam isu pembabitan pemimpin BN berdemonstrasi bersama Perkasa dan mahu beliau memohon maaf dan menarik balik kenyataan tersebut. Baljit dilaporkan mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa pemimpin pemimpin BN yang menyertai Himpunan Rakyat Bersatu Pulau Pinang bersama sama Perkasa di Padang Esplanade pada Ahad lalu sebagai mengiktiraf dan mengakui bahawa Perkasa adalah sebagai kuasa yang disegani dan meminjam kredibiliti pertubuhan tersebut. Bajlit merupakan ketua biro undang-undang hak asasi manusia Gerakan Pulau Pinang. Irwan Fahmi berkata, sepatutnya Gerakan perlu memainkan peranan sebagai 'pembangkang' yang aktif di Pulau Pinang kerana kekuatan awal parti tersebut bermula di negeri itu. `Gerakan mudah patah semangat' "Bukan membangkitkan isu isu yang tidak releven dan menjadi hero keadaan. Sikap yang ditunjukkan oleh Parti Gerakan yang dilihat mudah patah semangat, terlalu selesa dan menerima apa sahaja tanpa ada usaha yang lebih dan bersunguh sunguh. " Adalah terlalu sukar untuk BN menawan kembali Pulau Pinang," kata pemimpin muda Perkasa itu dalam kenyataan media hari ini. "Di sini kami ingin menegaskan bahawa beliau dan Parti Gerakan perlu berusaha dan bekerja lebih berkerja keras membantu jentera BN dalam usaha menawan semula Pulau Pinang. READ MORE HERE |
| I am not for sale, tweets Saiful Posted: 25 Mar 2013 02:30 PM PDT 
The tweet message comes in the wake of claims from Datuk T that there were attempts to buy them over to retract allegations that Anwar was the man in a sex video released two years ago. K Pragalath, FMT Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's ex-aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan has claimed that he cannot be bought over, reported Utusan Malaysia. Anwar was charged in in 2010 for allegedly sodomising Saiful and was acquitted last year. The prosecution team had appealed against the acquital. In a Twitter message to Anwar, Saiful wrote: "I'm not for sale. Even if you are the prime minister, I will not bow to you. The truth will prevail, the false will fall. That is Allah's promise." Last Thursday, Risda chairman Rahim Thamby Chik claimed that businessman Shazyl Eskay Abdullah was offered a blank cheque to retract allegations that Anwar is the individual in a sex video. Rahim, Shazryl and Shuib Lazim, known as the Datuk T trio revealed the video in 2011. Saiful also claimed that Anwar was using his father, Azlan Mohd Lazim, to counter the alleged sodomy. "Anwar's move to use my father is wrong and would backfire. May Allah continue to give me the strength and patience," he said. On March 8, Azlan claimed that Anwar did not sodomise Saiful and the sodomy episode was a political conspiracy. Saiful through his lawyers refuted Azlan's claims. Three days later, Azlan joined PKR. READ MORE HERE |
| Kulasegaran’s exit causes concern Posted: 25 Mar 2013 01:57 PM PDT 
(Free Malaysia Today) - Perak DAP members are pinning for the return of their unsung hero Kulasegaran to once again be their vocal voice but the party veteran might not return. The departure of DAP veteran leader M Kulasegaran from Perak to Johor has cast doubts on the bargaining and political clout of the 20% Indian members in the state party. Some Indian party leaders have expressed fear that their political voice may not be heard in DAP as their "Indian Godfather" moves his base to Johor. Kulasegaran was instrumental in ensuring that the voice of Indian members was heard in the silver state after the 2008 political tsunami. According to a DAP source, it was Kulasegaran who brought in Teluk Intan MP M Manogaran, Sungkai assemblyperson A Sivanesan, Tronoh and Buntong lawmakers V Sivakumar and A Sivasubramaniam respectively, into the Perak political arena. The source said Kulasegaran, who is close to party superemo Lim Kit Siang, ensured that an executive post be given to Sivanesan and that the state speaker post goes to Sivakumar by the newly minted Pakatan Perak state government in 2008. Kulasegaran also advocated that the post of Ipoh City mayor should be given to an Indian but it failed to materialise. The Ipoh Barat MP also ensured that Indian representation in the DAP silver state had at least a minimum of two parliamentarians and four state lawmakers. One party leader even opined that the Ipoh Barat MP might come back to Perak to defend his seat as Kulasegaran only wanted to challenge Segamat incumbent cum MIC deputy chief Dr S Subramaniam in Johor. However, with the PKR Gelang Patah parliamentary seat given to Kit Siang and in the exchange the DAP Segamat seat was instead given to Johor PKR chief Chua Jui Meng. Perak DAP members are pinning for the return of their unsung hero Kulasegaran to once again be their vocal voice but the party veteran might not return as the bad political experience of Perak still remains in his mind. Team A vs Team B It was smooth sailing between Kulasegaran and party secretary Nga Kor Ming before the 2008 general election as they were united in their political standing. But after the win of the silver state, cracks appeared in the friendship which saw DAP being divided into two camps with Nga and Ngeh Koo Ham in Team A and Kulasegaran in Team B. What was disheartening to Kulasegaran was that two of the three Sivas (Sivanesan, Siva Kumar and Sivasubramaniam) that he had groomed had betrayed him and crossed over to Team A. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/03/26/kulasegarans-exit-causes-concern/ |
| Unreliable leaks and flawed intelligence Posted: 25 Mar 2013 01:52 PM PDT 
Singapore officials believed Anwar Ibrahim was involved in Sodomy II but the facts today have proven otherwise, calling into question the reliability of US intelligence cables. Amir Ali, Free Malaysia Today WikiLeaks has been used by the ruling government on several occasions to blame or tarnish Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. First came the "leak" about Singapore's diplomatic officials linking Anwar to Sodomy II against Saiful Bukhari Azlan. Now we have accusations that Anwar is the man behind the Lahad Datu intrusion, and all because he had close ties with Nur Misuari, the troubled former governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Let's look at the reliability of the diplomatic leaks by WikiLeaks and the accuracy of these sensational stories. Last year, Anwar, in a "live" dialogue-cum-interview with WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange, answered Assange on critical issues. They did not touch on the "leaked" diplomatic documents. Now what about the diplomatic comments revealed by WikiLeaks? Or let's ask the crucial question: How reliable are the diplomatic cables? The declaration by Saiful's father (that Anwar was not guilty of the sodomy) has not only tarnished those who accused Anwar of sodomy, it has also exposed the flagrant dishonesty of the Singaporean "officials" who claimed Sodomy II was real. The Jakarta Globe (quoting an AFP report) screamed: "Singapore leaders believe Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had sex with a male aide in a honey trap set by his enemies, according to leaked US cables published by WikiLeaks." The Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI), in its article on the "Singapore leaks", reported that the US Embassy had recorded the opinions of Singapore officials in Malaysia, adding that their comments were blunt and none was complimentary. Slap in the face CPI cited the Sydney Morning Herald report on Dec 12 which quoted WikiLeaks as having stated that it (sodomy) was a "set-up job engineered by Anwar's enemies, and that Anwar did engage in sodomy". But the statement by Saiful's father (that Anwar was innocent) and his decision to join PKR are a big slap in the Singaporean officials' face. It also cast doubts on the trustworthiness of WikiLeaks' cables. There are two major aspects in the WikiLeaks' cables on Sodomy II. One is the report about Singaporean officials giving their views to US officials on the sodomy trial, and two, is the source who disclosed the "intelligence" to the Singaporean authorities. If the intelligence came from Malaysia, it is clear that the Singaporeans were duped into believing that the story was true. This shows how the "diplomatic" circles in this region can easily be deceived about national, regional and international issues. Singapore believed Anwar was involved in sodomy when the facts today proved otherwise. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/26/unreliable-leaks-and-flawed-intelligence/ |
| Identifying Malaysia's Enemies & Appropriate Weaponry Posted: 25 Mar 2013 01:34 PM PDT 
So, exactly how are decisions made in the ministry of defence to purchase the submarines, the corvettes, the frigates (costing billions) instead of more effective patrol boats to guard our coastlines? Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser As the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, GDAMS 3.0 (15 April 2013) approaches, it is time for Malaysians to ask: Who are Malaysia's enemies and what appropriate weaponry do we need? One would think this is the first question the Ministry of Defence should ask in the multi-billion decisions to procure armaments now that the arms merchants are here again for LIMA 2013. Yet our National Defence Policy has never even been properly debated in parliament. Just a few months ago, the defence ministry would not have said that Malaysia's enemies were among the Suluks who have been coming back and forth between southern Philippines and Sabah all these years. After all, hadn't we helped to train MNLF fighters there against Marcos in the seventies? Wasn't this the reason why the Home Minister Hishamuddin said that the invaders at Lahad Datu were "neither militants nor terrorists" during the two or three weeks that they were already there? And haven't we got a "Rapid Deployment Force" (10 Paratrooper Brigade) ready to be dispatched to any flashpoint? One wonders what flashpoint scenarios they are trained for? Are they ready to be deployed only when there are secessionists fighting to take East Malaysia out of the federation? They certainly hadn't been prepared for the Sulu sultan's army to "turn". Don't be surprised if the "defence analysts" in the ministry have now shredded all their previous analyses about Malaysia's perceived "enemies". With the new-found enemies of the Malaysian state, the arms lobby has at last found a raison detre for their fabulous arms procurements. Heck, didn't we finally get the chance to use our F18 fighter bombers and Hawk 208 fighter jets against this so-called "rag-tag army"? Wouldn't armoured cars and tanks and mortars have sufficed in that four square kilometer area of land against that motley crew? In the end, were Malaysians given a clear picture of the efficacy of those fighter jet sorties? Whatever the reasons for sending in the fighter bombers and jets, the international arms merchants have now come to town to peddle their wares. The French have started advertising their 'Rafale' fighter jets in our mainstream newspapers, alongside bargains by 'Giant' and 'Tesco' for the attention of Malaysians. BAE are also desperately trying to flog their 'Typhoon' jet fighters in a RM10 billion deal they hope to clinch with a "Buy 1 - Get 1 free" gambit. They lost out recently to the French when the Indian government opted to buy 126 Rafale fighter jets instead, and are still fuming. But do we need any fighter jets at all, considering their cost is spiraling way out of control and they so quickly become obsolete? They will be even more obsolete when future air wars are fought using drones (Unarmed Aerial Vehicles)! Malaysians should be aware that the latest (US) F35 fighter jets cost at least half a billion ringgit a piece? Can we keep up with the race? What race? Who are we racing against? Who are our enemies? The appropriate vessels for RMN When the bombardment finally began at Lahad Datu, it was mentioned that the navy had formed a cordon to prevent the intruders from getting away. It became clear that there has never been a cordon to prevent any intruders from getting INTO Sabah all these years. Looking at the geography of the area, it is evident that our two submarines (costing more than RM7 billion) sitting pretty in Sepanggar Bay and our six New Generation Patrol Vessels (costing RM9 billion) were not the most suitable vessels in such circumstances. This mismatch raises the question of the need for our navy to prioritise the deployment of appropriate alternative vessels. As part of the RM5 billion arms deal signed between Dr Mahathir and Margaret Thatcher in 1989, we procured two corvettes built by the Yarrow shipbuilders costing RM2.2 billion. (NST, 11.11.91) At the time, the Royal Malaysian Navy said they required sixteen offshore patrol vessels but due to financial constraints, the RMN could only afford four or five of these locally-built OPVs. Mindef had budgeted RM85 million per OPV. (NST, 25.11.91) Now, in the light of the latest incident at Lahad Datu, Malaysians will be in a better position to see the appropriate vessels that would be more suitable to secure the Sabah coastline. Before the Lahad Datu incident, the main "enemies" testing the capacity of our armed forces were the pirates in the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca. There were no bigger "enemies" than those seafaring marauders. Are state-of-the-art fighter jets and submarines the appropriate defence equipmenty against pirates? These would likewise be inappropriate if "international terrorists" and suicide bombers choose to target Malaysia. So, exactly how are decisions made in the ministry of defence to purchase the submarines, the corvettes, the frigates (costing billions) instead of more effective patrol boats to guard our coastlines? ASEAN needs to take ZOPFAN more seriously There is no end if we choose to embark on an arms race with our neighbouring countries. We simply cannot afford such an arms race and it is time ASEAN countries seriously talk about disarmament and joint defence agreements instead of an arms race within ASEAN. Our economic priorities need to be diverted away from military production toward production for human needs, and public expenditure diverted to more and better social services throughout ASEAN. Any disputes over territories should be settled through international arbitration as was done over Pulau Batu Putih with Singapore. The dispute of the Spratly Islands should be resolved the same way. The Malaysian People are NOT the Enemy The Lahad Datu incident should act as a wake-up call for the Malaysian government that seems pre-occupied with treating its own people as the enemy. When we bear in mind that throughout the career of the Internal security Act since 1960, more than 10,000 people have been incarcerated for being "threats to national security". But hardly any have been charged for any crimes involving violence against the state. Then again, there have been at least two cases of Malaysians who have been killed in neighbouring countries for alleged terrorist activities. Yet, none of them were ever arrested under the ISA! This goes to show that our intelligence service has been focusing on the wrong suspects. As a former ISA detainee who was incarcerated for being a "threat to national security", I can vouch for the wanton wastage of security personnel on Malaysians who are simply not "enemies of the state". When I think of the number of state operatives who had been spying on me, arresting me, guarding me, interrogating me, accompanying me on family and hospital visits, I immediately wonder how they could be better deployed to prevent crimes being committed and watching out for the real enemies of the state. And when we multiply the cost 10,000 times since 1960, we will realize the enormous waste of human resources that could be better put to use! It was recently reported in the New York Times (13.3.2013) that Malaysia is among 25 countries using off-the-shelf spyware to keep tabs on citizens by secretly grabbing images off computer screens, recording video chats, turning on cameras and microphones, and logging keystrokes: "Rather than catching kidnappers and drug dealers, it looks more likely that it is being used for politically motivated surveillance," security researcher Morgan Marquis-Boire was quoted by NYT as saying. This is what I mean when I say our intelligence service is not focused on the job but wasting valuable resources spying on and apprehending the good guys! Indeed, if the Malaysian state had only focused on the job of catching the real criminals, Malaysia would be a much safer place instead of being the "nation of guarded communities" it has become today. Militarism serves the ruling class Apart from the huge commissions that can be creamed from multi-billion arms contracts, the ruling class requires militarism to contain the oppressed and disgruntled sections of the population. A strong military is necessary to prop up the ruling class. At the same time, the military-industrial complex promotes the development of a specially favoured group of companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of munitions and military equipment for personal gain and profit. These armaments companies have a direct interest in the maximum expansion of military production. Arms production is a green issue Military spending and arms production are very much green issues. The military- industrial complex not only produces toxic products, they produce weapons that kill indiscriminately. LIMA and other defence fairs are certainly not congruent with Malaysian leaders' stated commitment to peace and spiritual values. The green movement has a responsibility to work toward an end to the culture of war. This involves re-ordering our financial priorities away from wasteful and destructive arms production and procurement to the social well-being of the people. Ultimately, working towards a culture of peace is a vision that is only attainable in a society that respects human dignity, social justice, democracy and human rights. |
| Anwar’s hand in Lahad Datu isn’t credible theory! Posted: 25 Mar 2013 01:27 PM PDT 
No Suluk in his right mind in Sabah would ever want the state to be part of the Philippines or even Sulu. The Suluks fled the Philippines to get away from the Manila Government. Joe Fernandez There is quite a bit of material in the mainstream and alternative media hinting, suggesting and even accusing Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim as the arch villain behind the Lahad Datu intrusion and subsequent standoff. As the various conspiracy theories go, this is the weakest of them all. We can only await the proposed Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on Lahad Datu with bated breaths. Anwar may have met Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) leader Nur Misuari in Jakarta and Manila, as reported by several sources including Malaysia Today. However, such meetings by themselves tell nothing. Both men were longtime friends. The MNLF Leader may have wanted to catch up with the Opposition Leader because he's also the Prime Minister in Waiting. Moreover, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak was then facilitating a peace process in the Philippines south without the MNLF. That could have been the only serious issue featured in the two reported Anwar-Nur Misuari talks. When Nur Misuari found that the Prime Minister of Malaysia had turned his back on him in the wake of the peace process, he could turn nowhere else but the Prime Minister in Waiting. This is akin to visiting western leaders not only calling upon the head of state and head of government of a country but also making time to meet with the Opposition Leader. Any suggestions that the Lahad Datu intrusion happened because Anwar wanted to swing the Suluk votes his way simply doesn't add up. It's Umno which has immediately added 12,000 postal votes in eastern Sabah in the wake of Lahad Datu. Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein Onn said his ministry would build seven new police stations in Pulau Bum Bum, Pulau Banggi and Pulau Gaya, and five integrated customs, immigration and quarantine complexes under the Eastern Sabah Security Command. The ministry would also enhance its agencies, including the Marine Police, VAT69 Commando, General Task Force and Special Action Unit,. Suluk, Bajau betrayed after supporting Malaysia Anwar may not have been banking on winning any Muslim seat in Sabah. He can only favour Sabah Umno crossing over en bloc if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) can seize the reins of power in Putrajaya. If the Suluk seats were shaky for Umno before Lahad Datu – they may still be -- it will be more due to the pro-tem United Sabah National Organisation (Usno) which has been making inroads in the 20-odd Muslim seats once held by the party before it was deregistered to make way for Umno. The Registrar of Societies (ROS), for all practical purposes, has refused to re-register Usno and this has caused considerable anger among the community. It's viewed as a kind of betrayal. Ironically, the Suluk and Bajau community leaders were the only ones who agreed to the formation of Malaysia. The Orang Asal community – Dusunic and Murutic groupings -- leaders wanted a period of independence before considering the idea of Malaysia again and asked for further details to be used for future reference. The Chinese leaders were against Malaysia. In Sarawak, the Sarawak United People's Party (Supp) even backed the local communists who operated from their jungle hideouts against the inclusion of their state in Malaysia. Classification of voters in Sabah not acceptable There was No Referendum on Malaysia. The people were not consulted. The Suluk and Bajau communities have been complaining about being marginalized and disenfranchised ever since 1963 by the increasing influx of illegal immigrants from Celebes and other places. The response of the Umno leaders, according to Usno vice president Abdullah Sani, is that the influx of illegal immigrants was okay since they were all Muslims. This is unacceptable to the Suluks and Bajau. The Suluk in particular are against the continuing Bugis influx. There's no love between these two groups. The reason why the complaints of marginalisation and disenfranchisement by the Suluks have been ignored so far lie in the Election Commission delineating the voters in Sabah into four categories i.e. Muslim Bumiputera, non-Muslim Bumiputera, Chinese and Others. This means that the Suluks and other Muslim groups have been submerged, with one stroke of the pen, under the larger Muslim Bumiputera category. It may make perfect sense to self-serving Umno leaders' sitting in air-conditioned comfort in Putrajaya but it comes across as not practical and realistic to Sabahans. In Malaya, the Malay-speaking communities viz. Bugis, Javanese, Minang, Acehnese, Arab Muslims, Indian Muslims and the like are all classified as Malay in the electoral rolls. In Sabah, Putrajaya decided that the equivalent was Muslim Bumiputera. Again, it may be a convenient and politically expedient label to the Umno Government but the consensus of the man in the street is that it masks problems within the Muslim communities. Jamalul Kiram III could only be after more money The Suluks, like other Sabahans, would have preferred voters in the state being classified, as reality on the ground dictates, into Orang Asal including Muslim; Suluk; Bajau; Other Muslims; Chinese; Others. The Other Muslims include the Brunei Malays or Barunai, Irranun and Banjar, among others. Orang Asal Muslims cover the Bisaya, Orang Sungei and Ranau Dusuns. The majority of the Orang Asal are Christians. The Suluks also can't understand why they cannot have their own political party, Usno, and why it was deregistered when Umno came to Sabah. The unhappiness of the Suluks in particular is the only thing that makes sense in view of the Lahad Datu intrusion but not that they are involved. The so-called Sulu Sultan, Jamalul Kiram III, obviously knew that sentiments among the Suluks were against Putrajaya and Umno in particular. He may have then decided that it was time to strike for more money from Putrajaya by using the moribund Sabah claim as the fig-leaf. The news along the political grapevine is that Jamalul Kiram had been engaged in on and off talks with Putrajaya for over a year until they were called off sometime last year before the peace process in the southern Philippines was put together. Jamalul apparently wanted more money against the measly RM 5,300 per annum that he has to share with the descendents of the other eight heirs of the Sulu Sultanate. Mopping up in Lahad Datu fast turning into a farce If Jamalul had expected the Suluks in Sabah to rise up and rally to his cause, he was sadly disappointed. No Suluk in his right mind in Sabah would ever want the state to be part of the Philippines or even Sulu. The Suluks fled the Philippines to get away from the Manila Government. It makes no sense now for them to root for a Government which they despise. Patently, the odds are that other conspiracy theories on Lahad Datu are more credible than that linking Anwar with the bloody intrusion in recent weeks which is fast turning into a farce in the mopping up stage. It remains to be seen how all this will be spelt out in the forthcoming long-delayed 13th General Election. If the security forces even suspect that Putrajaya has blood on its hands in Lahad Datu, there are no prizes for guessing which way the additional 12,000 postal votes in eastern Sabah are going. Further Reading: http://www.kinabalutoday.com/index.php/opinion/480-is-lahad-datu-stand-off-a-conspiracy http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/55331-the-untold-story-of-the-lahat-datu-incident http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/from-around-the-blogs/55336-agenda-besar-anwar-ibrahim-a-misuari-di-sabah-terbongkar Joe Fernandez is a mature student of law and an educationist, among others, who loves to write especially Submissions for Clients wishing to Act in Person. He feels compelled, as a semi-retired journalist, to put pen to paper -- or rather the fingers to the computer keyboard -- whenever something doesn't quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview). He shuttles between points in the Golden Heart of Borneo formed by the Sabah west coast, Labuan, Brunei, northern Sarawak and the watershed region in Borneo where three nations meet. |
| “Ajaran Sesat” by the Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Posted: 25 Mar 2013 01:18 PM PDT 
Tindak Malaysia
Having accused unnamed NGOs of confusing the public with "ajaran sesat", the SPR continues its program of confusing the public even more by making public pronouncements that come apart upon careful scrutiny.
The most recent is the "clarification" published in the media (TheMalaysianInsider 23rd Mar 13) which claimed that, even with double registration, it is impossible to vote twice.
Let us see how much that clarification is worth.
First, they are implicitly admitting that there is double registration!
Second, will the indelible inkprevent double-voting as claimed by the EC?
The UNDP Procurement Guide For Post-Conflict Electionshas recommended that indelible ink has a reliable lifetime of 3 days! [By the way, indelible ink is used for post-conflict elections. That is how bad our electoral system has become.] We have no idea what kind of indelible ink will be used by the SPR. Independent parties have not been given any demonstration of the durability of the ink nor have they been given any samples of the ink for testing. In the absence of other evidence, we have to take the UNDP recommendation as valid.
Regulation 3 (1A) of Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981requires that the "advance polling day shall be fixed not less than seven days after the day of nomination and not less than 3 days from the date or dates of the polling day". There is a window for Advance Voting, 7 days after nomination and 3 days before polling. This is very strange.
The indelible ink for Advance Voting cannot meet the minimum recommendation of the UNDP unless they use very high quality ink and have stringent procedures to prevent fraud. Thus the SPR cannot guarantee that indelible ink applied on Advance Voters will remain visible on polling day.
There are additional factors that the SPR chooses to ignore although these factors have been publicly discussed during the alleged "ajaran sesat", some of which sessions were attended by persons suspected of being SPR officers and even Special Branch members:
1. What measures are being taken against a voter coating the finger with a transparent substance such as transparent nail polish to prevent the indelible ink from sticking? 2. What solvents has the SPR tested on the indelible ink to ascertain the indelibility of it? How certain are we that a person who knows the chemistry of the ink cannot devise a way to reduce, if not remove, the ink stain? 3. Has the indelible ink been tested on a variety of skin types to ensure that its indelibility applies effectively across all skin types? 4. Polling Agents are currently positioned where it is very difficult for them to inspect the fingers of voters. There is a comedicvideo circulating on You Tube that demonstrates this. Comedy notwithstanding, there is a very real fear that voters who have voted before can be allowed to vote again, especially given that the SPR itself stands accused of colluding with the incumbent leadership. 5. In a training video released by the SPR, the KetuaTempatMengundi (Presiding Officer) is given instructions on how to cope with a long queue at the Polling Station by processing voters two-by-two. If this were to happen, how effectively can the Polling Agents screen fingers for indelible ink? If collusion is suspected, the double processing can be expected to be implemented just when voters with stained fingers come to vote, thereby ensuring that specific persons succeed in voting twice. 6. Even if the identity inspection is conducted one voter by one voter, we must remain aware of the time constraint – in each Polling Station (Saluran),700 voters need to be processed in 9 hours. This means each voter has to be processed in just over 46 seconds. In those 46 seconds, the following need to be done: a. The voter's finger needs to be inspected and verified. b. The voter's identity document needs to be inspected and the photograph matched with the face. c. The voter's record needs to be located in the Electoral Roll d. The voter's name and identity number need to compared between identity document and Electoral Roll e. The voter's name and identity number need to be read out for the Polling Agents to verify. f. Time must be allowed for the Polling Agent to raise any objections g. If there are any objections, the time remaining for the remaining voters will become even less.
How effective can the screening by the Polling Agent be? Yet the Deputy EC Chairman dare to publicly claim (TheStar 22nd Mar 13) "It only takes three minutes for a person to vote, unless he or she creates chaos and refuses to follow instructions," he told reporters after chairing a special session with election and police officers in the state here yesterday.
To date the SPR has done nothing to assure Civil Society that the implementation of indelible ink is expected to be effective. All we have seen are potentially chaotic situations and no credible answers to the questions that have been raised.
There is one other very significant factor that has conveniently been ignored by the SPR – there is a class of voter on whom indelible ink will not be applied! Yes, there is no provision for indelible to be used on Postal Voters. We understand the impracticality of applying indelible ink on persons who could be anywhere when they vote. But most of the local postal voters can vote as Advance Voters! But they are not assigned as such.
This is why it is critical that any person eligible to be a Postal Voter must be scrupulously removed from the Electoral Roll of regular voters. Otherwise indelible ink CANNOT guarantee that double registration does not mean double vote.
Remember that any member of the Police and Military forces can, at any time, opt for postal voting. This means the infamous Papagomo could have used both his military and civilian identities to vote. So let us not be fooled and lulled into complacency. There is a massive loophole in the system.
Postal voting is also available for all EC officials –some 300,000 of them. This potentially creates 300,000 double votes.This is no trivial number considering that sometimes seats are won or lost by a margin of a few hundreds or even tens. It only takes a majority of one to win!
Journalists on duty are also eligible to be Postal Voters. We can expect that, if the suspected collusion turns out to be real, those journalists allowed the double vote would be selective and dependent on the political alignment of their parent organisation. We are not suggesting that this will happen. We are simply saying that this loophole in the system has not been plugged effectively. We should not be so naive as to depend on the honesty of the people involved. Systems should be designed to be secure.
There is one other element that many people remain blissfully ignorant of – with the use of a Borang717, an SPR officer can cast his Postal Ballot at any Polling Station.
This is even provided for in the Conduct of Election Regulations 15(1)!
Provided that where an elector for any constituency is employed as a presiding officer or in any other official capacity at a polling station within that constituency and it is inconvenient for him to vote at the polling station to which that part of the electoral roll which contains his name has been assigned, the returning officer may authorize such elector to vote at any other polling station in the constituency. Such authorization shall be given under the hand of the returning officer and shall state the name of the elector and his number in the electoral roll, and the fact that he is so employed as aforesaid and shall specify the polling station at which he is authorized to vote.
Since the issuing of such Ballot Papers is not witnessed by any independent agent, any number of such Ballot Papers can be issued to the officers. And these Ballots can be cast in any Saluran so long as they are accompanied by a Borang 717.
If there is no validation system in place, SPR officers can vote any number of times. And this is why NGOs teaching about Election Laws and the Electoral Process are accused of "ajaransesat" – too many of the SPR secrets are being exposed.
We have said this before and we will say it again – WE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CURRENT SURUHANJAYA PILIHAN RAYA.
Article 114 of the Federal Constitution provides that an Election Commission be appointed "which enjoys public confidence". The public has lost confidence in this Election Commission and calls upon His Majesty the Yang di PertuanAgong to sack this Election Commission. We can only have democratic elections if the body charged with conducting the elections is capable of acting in a fair and impartial manner. The present Election Commission has shown time and again that it is both biased and incompetent.
Enough is enough!
|
| Squatter-Gate vs. Ming Court 2.0: Don't Shift the Blame, Old Man! Posted: 25 Mar 2013 01:08 PM PDT 
I refer to a classic piece of spin doctoring on the recent Global Witness exposé by a blogger calling himself/herself The Benchmark entitled "Global Witness on Taib: Was it really a sting operation?" Click on http://thebenchmark0.blogspot.com/2013/03/global-witness-on-taib-was-it-really.html to read this rather lame attempt at shifting the blame. Being Vernon The piece by The Benchmark desperately tries to deflect, distract and 'turn the tables' on Global Witness, which is why I call it a classic text-book case of Spin-Doctoring 101. In a nutshell, the writer is saying that the exposé is "a well crafted conspiracy against Taib by his own kin," and supports his/her conspiracy theories by resurrecting the old and tired story of the Tun Rahman Yakub versus Taib Mahmud 'feud' of the 80s. Whether or not the 'feud' was real or simply a 'sandiwara' (shadow play) is beside the point. It was a very public spat, and Taib made a big show of withdrawing licences issued by his uncle to drive home the point that the fight was indeed genuine.
Then, after Taib had allegedly identified and neutered his enemies (per kindness of the dramas that unfolded at a certain Ming Court Hotel in Kuala Lumpur many years ago), consolidated his position and solidified his political strength, this happened:
A heart-warming and tearful reunion of uncle and nephew was carefully choreographed and publicised, and the dynasty was intact. Nevertheless, in a very recent video interview by Taib, he retorts, "Are you trying to frame me?" suggesting that hidden hands are now at work to undermine him. Classic Taib!
Before we fall into this trap of being distracted by the conspiracy theories being espoused by The Benchmark, let us first examine the facts before us, and deconstruct the arguments advocated by The Benchmark one by one. |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
