Isnin, 27 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Lembu punya susu

Posted: 26 May 2013 06:34 PM PDT

Another more important point is that it was Jusuf Kalla who revealed the secret deal between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim. And then Anwar goes and whacks Najib when Najib never said a word and it was Jusuf Kalla who spoke out. Should not Anwar whack Jusuf Kalla instead? Why whack Najib? Najib never said anything. Jusuf Kalla was the one who spoke.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Malays have a saying. Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama. I suppose this more or less describes what is happening here.

First of all, why does Terence Netto (in Din Merican's piece below) have to make references to Jusuf Kalla's Bugis ancestry? Why mention his race when you are the ones screaming for non-race-based parties and for race not being mentioned on your ICs and so on. Would it have been okay if Jusuf Kalla were Javanese or Balinese or Batak or Acehnese instead of Bugis? And you accuse Umno of being racist when you too play the race card.

Anyway, what is so wrong about him being Bugis? I know the Pakatan Rakyat supporters just love slandering someone's race like 'Mahathir the Mamak' and so on. Are Bugis and Mamak akin to being a leper? His Highness the Sultan of Selangor is Bugis. Are you going to now say that DAP was snookered by a Bugis because the Sultan wants six Malay EXCO members as opposed to five Malay and five Chinese? Why not say 'Anwar the Mamak got snookered by Jusuf Kalla the Bugis' since you love disparaging Mamaks and Bugis?

Another point to note is that Anwar Ibrahim approached Jusuf Kalla to ask for the latter's help in brokering a deal. Now you tell him to fuck off and butt out of Malaysia's internal matters? It is you who asked for his help, not him who kaypoh. And did Pakatan Rakyat not also approach Australia to ask them to interfere in Malaysia's elections? And did not someone from Australia, at your request, come to Malaysia during the Bersih rally? Are you now going to tell the Australians to fuck off and stay out of Malaysia's internal matters?

Another more important point is that it was Jusuf Kalla who revealed the secret deal between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim. And then Anwar goes and whacks Najib when Najib never said a word and it was Jusuf Kalla who spoke out. Should not Anwar whack Jusuf Kalla instead? Why whack Najib? Najib never said anything. Jusuf Kalla was the one who spoke.

Aiyah, what is going on here? Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama.

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

Anwar Ibrahim snookered by Najib, thanks to Indonesia's Jusuf Kalla

(Din Merican, 27 May 2013) - What prompted Anwar Ibrahim to agree to a deal brokered by former Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla that required both the opposition leader and Prime Minister Najib Razak to agree to peaceably accept the results of GE13?

The Wall Street Journal quoted Jusuf Kalla as saying in this weekend's edition of the paper that he faults Anwar for reneging on the deal. In his defence, Anwar is quoted by the same paper as saying that the terms of the deal were nullified by the manner of the campaign waged by BN – that it had demonised the opposition, tactics that the Jusuf-brokered deal had required the BN to abjure.

It's strange that after all what he has been made to endure in the last 15 years by the powers-that-be – the two trials for sodomy, one for corruption and abuse of power which led to a six-year stay in jail, dissemination of a video showing someone looking like him in a transaction with a sex worker, among a host of other calumnies leveled at him – Anwar could still be credulous enough to believe that Umno-BN can abide by the terms of the deal negotiated by Jusuf.

There was not a little surprise when Najib, in the course of announcing in nationally televised remarks on April 3 the Agong's consent to the dissolution of Parliament, also let on that his party would abide by the wishes of the electorate and accept a peaceful transfer of power if that was what voters wanted.

Responding for the opposition Pakatan Rakyat that he leads, Anwar the same day welcomed Najib's assurance of a peaceful transition in the event one was decreed by voters. At that time, there was no way of knowing that these pantomimes were pre-ordained by the terms of a deal worked out by Jusuf Kalla, as reported by Wall Street Journal.

According to Anwar's version of the terms, as reported by the internationally respected paper, Najib had agreed not to demonise the opposition in BN's campaign waged through their doormat mainstream media. There was in the versions to Wall Street Journal given by the three parties to the deal some stuff about a role for the loser in a reconciliation process that would presumably take place after the vote. But this was rejected by one or the other party. 

Concern over power transition 

Deals like these are invariably hedged with ambiguity, this one more than others because it was inherently unworkable. Asking the BN not to demonise the Opposition in an election campaign that could well have resulted in their loss of power after a half-century's incumbency, is like distracting the Taliban from their goal of an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan with the idea that they would be better off as farmers growing poppy.

From the Wall Street Journal's story, it could not be inferred with certainty who made the initial approach for a deal – Anwar, Najib or Jusuf. Jusuf claims it was Anwar who approached him to broker the deal, but Anwar implies that the whole idea of the deal arose from concern in some ASEAN capitals that a transition of power in Malaysia after GE13 would be prone to violence.

To avert violence, get the two competing coalitions' spearheads, Najib and Anwar, to agree a deal where they would abide by the election's results. Anwar's pre-condition for agreeing to the deal was that BN not demonise the opposition during the campaign. The curious thing about this aspect of the deal is how did Anwar conclude that broker Jusuf had expertise in seeing to it that the BN abided by its terms?

Apparently, Jusuf had no difficulty in phoning Anwar the day after the election, May 6, to remind him about the opposition leader's "commitment" to accept the results with acquiescent serenity. But all a perplexed Jusuf got in return, according to The Wall Street Journal, is: "They said, 'No, no, no.' " It looks like Anwar has allowed one Bugis, Jusuf Kalla, to get him snookered by another, Najib Razak.

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

Anwar: I didn't break any deal because Najib didn't sign it

(FZ.COM, 27 May 2013) Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was adamant today that he had not broken any peace deal because the prime minister had not signed the treaty.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published last Saturday, former Indonesian vice-president Jusuf Kalla accused Anwar of reneging on a secret peace deal to respect the result from the 13th general election.

Jusuf claimed that he had a written agreement with both Anwar and Datuk Seri Najib Razak in April to refrain from personal attacks and to accept the election outcome.

Anwar, however, claimed today that he was the sole signatory to the deal as Najib had refused to sign but agreed verbally.

"What were the parameters agreed upon? Number one is that we respect the ethical standards of the campaign which means you don't use the media to demonise, control the media and deny the right of other parties to express themselves. Number two is that to ensure free and fair election.

"Number three is contingent on the two earlier agreement then we must respect the agreement so that the transition of power is smooth and following that the victorious party would be magnanimous and no witch hunt. The defeated party would then accept the decision.

"It is more pronounced in that situation given all these points then there must be a spirit of building this nation together in this new reconciliation. So that is the context. Then why do you about reneging the agreement," he told a press conference at PKR headquarters.

Anwar explained the case of reneging did not arise because Najib had broken the first two agreements and pointed out that "the entire discourse now is about fraud and mass rigging."

He also claimed that Jusuf had met Najib and him several times prior and after nomination and after election.

"Initially my agreement was verbal but I told Pak Jusuf  'Look, I don't want to be like Najib because Najib will come and give all sorts of assurances'… So I told Pak Jusuf that I don't want to be in that category, so if I agree on ethical standards, free and fair election and peaceful transition then I will sign it.

"So I signed it alone and Najib did not," he said.

Anwar admitted that he had signed the agreement despite knowing beforehand that Najib had refused to the sign the agreement.

He also denied the agreement had touched on the subject of forming a unity government or any form of power sharing.

"Of course, I am not (legally bound to the contract). There is no contract. That is a contract that I signed. Najib said he agreed, he is a man of honour but he dare not, as usual, sign even though he agreed," he said.

Anwar confirmed that the contract was signed before nomination day.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Just sleeping together but not married

Posted: 26 May 2013 04:19 PM PDT

In other words, say PKR, DAP, PAS and PRM each won 15% of the seats. Would their 15% each be considered a combined 60%? Or would they be considered 15% individually? And if they are not combined to become 60% but are treated as 15% each, then would Barisan Nasional with 40% of the seats be regarded as the largest minority (not the majority) against PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM who each had only 15% of the seats?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The gist of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng's speech in London on Saturday, plus the statement by Zulkifli Noordin, are interesting only because it brings us back to the dilemma we faced four general elections ago back in 1999. And what happened 14 years ago was as follows.

For the first time in history, four opposition parties were contesting the general election as a 'proper' coalition called Barisan Alternatif or the Alternative Front (and 'alternative' to Barisan Nasional or the National Front) comprising of PKN (now called PKR), DAP, PAS and PRM (now merged with PKN as PKR).

No doubt the same thing 'almost happened' nine years earlier in 1990 when Semangat 46 entered into an electoral pact with DAP on the West Coast of West Malaysia called Gagasan Rakyat and with PAS on the East Coast of West Malaysia called Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah -- plus with PBS in Sabah that was merely a 'handshake' with no name.

However, in 1990, it was more or less a 'loose' coalition or 'understanding' while in 1999 it was more 'formalised' and stronger than just an electoral pact.

Being the first time, we really could not anticipate what would happen. Say Barisan Nasional were to win 40% of the seats (not votes, which could have been only 30% of the votes) and Barisan Alternatif won 60% of the seats (say on 70% of the votes), would Barisan Alternatif have been allowed to form the government?

This was our anxiety (and suspicion). And we had grounds to suspect so because His Majesty the Agong had 'disappeared'.

Actually, the Agong had not disappeared in the real sense of the word. We knew where His Majesty was. He was in Langkawi. The only thing is no one could reach him, not even his own sons. In a way, as far as we were concerned, the Agong was under a sort of 'house arrest'. At least that is how we interpreted it whether rightfully or wrongfully.

At noon on Friday, 26th November 1999, I went to Istana Negara to try to hand-deliver a letter to His Majesty the Agong. That was three days before the 29th November general election (which was on a Monday). I was not allowed in and was told to hand the letter to the guard.

I handed the letter to the guard as instructed and then went to the mosque for my Friday prayers. On reaching PKN's office at 2.00pm, a reply was waiting for me.

First of all, this was probably the first time in Malaysian history that a reply to your letter came in that fast (just two hours). More importantly, the reply was not from His Majesty or Istana Negara but from the Prime Minister's Department. And the Prime Minister's Department replied that my request to meet the Agong was denied and that I should try again AFTER the general election.

I then phoned two of my cousins (His Majesty's sons) and was told it was impossible for me to meet the Agong. Not even they, the Agong's own sons, could reach him.

That gave rise to suspicion that even if Barisan Alternatif were to win the election on 29th November 1999 they would not get sworn in as the government. The Agong was a 'prisoner' in Langkawi and only Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (at that time 'Datuk Seri') could reach him. And that would most likely mean only Dr Mahathir could get sworn in.

And this made sense. Barisan Nasional was contesting the election as a legal entity while Barisan Alternatif was not. For all intents and purposes, Barisan Alternatif did not exist. What existed, as legal entities, were PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM.

In other words, say PKR, DAP, PAS and PRM each won 15% of the seats. Would their 15% each be considered a combined 60%? Or would they be considered 15% individually? And if they are not combined to become 60% but are treated as 15% each, then would Barisan Nasional with 40% of the seats be regarded as the largest minority (not the majority) against PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM who each had only 15% of the seats?

This was actually a very strong possibility and the fact that Dr Mahathir could reach the Agong while we could not meant that he would be able to get sworn in as Prime Minister with just 40% of the seats (and maybe against only 30% of the votes) before we could do anything about it.

The following day, on Saturday, I prepared four letters for each of the four party leaders to sign. I then asked four people to go and search for Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Lim Kit Siang, Ustaz Fadzil Noor and Dr Syed Husin Ali, who were on the campaign trial, and to get them to sign these letters.

Basically, each party leader signed a 'consent letter' consenting to combine the seats their party won under the umbrella of Barisan Alternatif. Hence, say, if each of their parties won 15% of the seats, the seats would come under Barisan Alternatif and not PKN, DAP, PAS or PRM individually.

This was a long shot, of course. If Barisan Nasional won 40% of the seats and PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM collectively won 60%, we still needed to send these letters to the Agong and to make sure that the four party leaders are in front of the Agong to get sworn in BEFORE the Agong swears in Dr Mahathir as Prime Minister.

We then rented a helicopter and put it on standby. In the event Barisan Nasional does win less than 50% of the seats while PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM collectively win more than 50%, we will need the helicopter to pick up all the four party leaders and fly them to meet the Agong and insist that Barisan Alternatif gets sworn in as the government. Who from the four (Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Lim Kit Siang, Ustaz Fadzil Noor and Dr Syed Husin Ali) would get sworn in as the new Prime Minister was a matter to worry about later and we would cross that bridge when or if we come to it. For 'practical' purposes it may have to be Ustaz Fadzil Noor, at least as 'temporary' Prime Minister while we sorted out the 'long-term' solution.

But we never needed to use those four letters or to get the helicopter to take to the air as Barisan Nasional won 77% of the seats although with only 57% of the votes. And this was because although Umno won just 71 seats, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the Sabah and Sarawak parties brought in another 76 seats. MCA alone won 29 seats.

After the 1999 general election, we told Barisan Alternatif to get registered as a legal entity to avoid the 'scare' that we suffered on 26th November 1999. Instead, Barisan Alternatif broke up when DAP left the opposition coalition due to its disagreement with PAS regarding the Islamic State. And, in 2004, the opposition got massacred.

This has always been a problem that the opposition does not seem to be concerned about. Now, the opposition is saying that it won 51% of the votes against Barisan Nasional's 47%. Hence it should be the government although Pakatan Rakyat won just 89 seats versus Barisan Nasional's 133.

Actually, if you regard Barisan Nasional, DAP, PKR and PAS as four separate legal entities, Barisan Nasional still won the largest minority in terms of votes versus DAP, PKR and PAS individually. And, individually, DAP, PKR and PAS are the legal entities, not Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, what if Pakatan Rakyat had won 51% of the seats on 5th May 2013 (which could have been against 60% of the votes)? Would Barisan Nasional still be sworn in as the government since DAP, PKR and PAS are treated as individual parties and not as a legal entity called Pakatan Rakyat?

Article 43.2(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution says: the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri (Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representative who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

In other words, it is still the opinion of the Agong that the Prime Minister must be the person who has the majority confidence of the MPs. This does not mean the Prime Minister must be the person heading the party with the largest number of votes or even the largest number of seats.

And since Article 41 of the Constitution says 'The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of the Federation', who is going to take to the streets to argue with 100,000 guns and dozens of tanks?

So things are not as simple and straightforward as many may think and as the politicians are trying to tell us. There are many legal and constitutional ways to 'steal' the government and 'Bangladeshi voters' is merely just one of the ways.

Can I just sum up by saying that the opposition is very sloppy and leaves too many things to chance? And then they moan and groan and complain about how the government was 'stolen'.

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

Speech by Lim Guan Eng to the Pakatan Rakyat's Supporters Club in London on Saturday, 25th May 2013.

PR Promises A Malaysian Spring To Free Malaysia From BN's Winter Of Fear, Corruption, Money Politics And Poverty.

1. 5.6 million voters in Malaysia who supported and voted for Pakatan Rakyat know that BN would have lost this election to Pakatan Rakyat, if not for the 4Ms of:

* Money politics to buy votes by the BN.

* Manipulation of the electoral system by a biased Election Commission.

* Unfair Media coverage.

* Abuse of government Machinery.

2. Nowhere else in the world would a coalition of parties which won 51% of the popular vote in a first-past-the-post system not only fail to enjoy a 'seat bonus' – that is win more than 51% of the parliament seats – but only manage to win 40% of seats.

3. We can observe BN's desperation to cling on to power immediately after GE13. Despite calling for a national reconciliation, the actions of Prime Minister Najib and of his cabinet members have been anything but reconciliatory.

4. PM Najib blamed the 'Chinese tsunami' when everyone knows that is was the Malaysian Tsunami that caused the BN to lose the popular vote. After all, the Chinese are only 30% of the total voting population. Even if Pakatan had won 80% of the Chinese vote, this means that only 24% out of the 51% of our popular vote came from the Chinese. The other 27%, or the majority of Pakatan's support, comes from non-Chinese voters.

5. The new Home Minister, Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, asked those who did not like the electoral system and the election results to leave the country. Zahid is quickly making a name for himself, along with the new IGP Khalid Abu Bakar, in launching a crackdown to detain anti-BN activists and PR leaders. BN is mistaken to think that the majority of Malaysians(51%) will be cowed by BN. The majority will not allow the minority to suppress, repress and oppress the majority.

6. Pakatan's challenge is to harness the desire of justice, freedom, democracy, integrity, equality and change expressed in the 13th general election by the 51% of voters by focusing on three areas.

7. One, the struggle for electoral reform. The need for an independent EC to conduct clean elections that respect the "one person, one vote, one value" principles has never been more urgent. We will not allow BN to steal the elections again.

8. Two, economic reform. We have seen how it has been business as usual for the BN despite the grand rhetoric of the Economic Transformation Program (ETP) and the New Economic Model (NEM). 1MDB is operating like a slush fund handled by cronies with no track record except close personal tiers with BN leaders. Newspaper reports have alleged that profits of 1MDB have been parked in the Cayman Islands while its debts are being parked in Malaysia.

More and more GLCs will be privatized to a few selected individuals. Lucrative toll road contracts will continue to be dished out to BN cronies. Pakatan will contest every single dodgy deal that is attempted by the BN, especially demanding full accountability for the GLCs and Petronas.

10. Thirdly, we must focus on making the Pakatan controlled states of Penang and Selangor even better models for competent, accountable and transparent government. We will continue to prove that a clean government can outperform a corrupt government. We will make a difference in the lives of ordinary Malaysians by providing a future that is clean, green, safe and healthy.

More importantly PR adopts a Malaysian approach by appealing to our hopes and instead of pandering to our fears, where we are inspired by our dreams of a better future together instead of despairing from BN's racist agenda of dividing us eternally.

PR promises a Malaysian spring to free Malaysia from BN's winter of fear, corruption, money politics and poverty.

LIM GUAN ENG

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

Pakatan's popular vote a myth, says Zul Noordin

(The Malaysian Insider, 27 May 2013) - Perkasa's Datuk Zulkifli Noordin moved to debunk as myth Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) claim that it won the popular vote in the May 5 polls, saying the three opposition parties were a loose pact that had contested separately with their own logos, and in some seats, among themselves.

In an opinion piece titled "Mitos undi popular PRU-13 [The myth of the popular vote in GE13]" published today in Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia, the vice-president of the right-wing Malay group accused PKR's de facto chief Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of lying and having twisted the facts in an attempt to hoodwink Malaysian voters into believing the unregistered PR opposition had beat the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) to gain the popular vote. 

"Anwar's allegation that the total votes obtained by the DAP-PKR-PAS alliance of 5,623,984 (or 49.96 per cent), 386,285 votes more than the BN (which obtained 5,237,699 or 46.53 per cent) is a lie and a distortion because," he wrote, adding, "DAP-PKR-PAS contested separately using their own symbols on the ballot paper which is the rocket (DAP)-moon (PAS)-one eye (PKR); there absolutely was not a joint opposition symbol."

Zulkifli, a former lawmaker who had run for the Shah Alam federal seat as a BN-friendly candidate only to lose in the recent election, also gave two other points to reinforce his hard-hitting remark that PR's win of the popular vote was a myth.

He pointed out that there were certain constituencies where the three parties had overlapped in fielding their own candidates, naming as examples Sg Aceh, Penang and Kota Damansara, Selangor.

PKR's Badrul Hisham Shaharin had gone against his PAS ally, Mohamad Yusni Md. Piah in the Penang state seat while socialist Dr Nasir Hashim run on a PKR ticket against PAS's Ridzuan Ismail in a crowded field of six candidates for the Selangor state seat. All four had ended up losers in the contest for the two seats.

Zulkifli also highlighted that the PR could not claim victory in the popular vote as their alliance was not registered with the Registrar of Societies and as such, "did not even exist" in the 13th general election.

Even going by Anwar's "twisted" logic, Zulkifli said the BN would have won the popular vote since it gained 46.53 per cent and would still have netted 103 seats overall, which was still the majority number in the 222-member Dewan Rakyat compared to all the three opposition parties. The BN had in fact claimed 133 seats. 

To drive home his point that Anwar's logic was flawed, he said the DAP with its 15.42 per cent would have taken 34 seats and not the 38 it actually hauled in, the most of the three opposition parties.

Instead, he highlighted that Anwar's PKR that had scored the second-highest number of popular votes at 20.03 per cent, should then have got 45 per seats instead of the 30 seats it actually won while the PAS that drew 14.51 per cent of the popular vote would have got 32 seats instead of 21. 

PR has blamed alleged electoral fraud for not becoming government although it won the popular vote in Election 2013. It won 89 federal seats against the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) which took 133 seats in the 222-seat parliament.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Lembu punya susu

Posted: 26 May 2013 06:34 PM PDT

Another more important point is that it was Jusuf Kalla who revealed the secret deal between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim. And then Anwar goes and whacks Najib when Najib never said a word and it was Jusuf Kalla who spoke out. Should not Anwar whack Jusuf Kalla instead? Why whack Najib? Najib never said anything. Jusuf Kalla was the one who spoke.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Malays have a saying. Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama. I suppose this more or less describes what is happening here.

First of all, why does Terence Netto (in Din Merican's piece below) have to make references to Jusuf Kalla's Bugis ancestry? Why mention his race when you are the ones screaming for non-race-based parties and for race not being mentioned on your ICs and so on. Would it have been okay if Jusuf Kalla were Javanese or Balinese or Batak or Acehnese instead of Bugis? And you accuse Umno of being racist when you too play the race card.

Anyway, what is so wrong about him being Bugis? I know the Pakatan Rakyat supporters just love slandering someone's race like 'Mahathir the Mamak' and so on. Are Bugis and Mamak akin to being a leper? His Highness the Sultan of Selangor is Bugis. Are you going to now say that DAP was snookered by a Bugis because the Sultan wants six Malay EXCO members as opposed to five Malay and five Chinese? Why not say 'Anwar the Mamak got snookered by Jusuf Kalla the Bugis' since you love disparaging Mamaks and Bugis?

Another point to note is that Anwar Ibrahim approached Jusuf Kalla to ask for the latter's help in brokering a deal. Now you tell him to fuck off and butt out of Malaysia's internal matters? It is you who asked for his help, not him who kaypoh. And did Pakatan Rakyat not also approach Australia to ask them to interfere in Malaysia's elections? And did not someone from Australia, at your request, come to Malaysia during the Bersih rally? Are you now going to tell the Australians to fuck off and stay out of Malaysia's internal matters?

Another more important point is that it was Jusuf Kalla who revealed the secret deal between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim. And then Anwar goes and whacks Najib when Najib never said a word and it was Jusuf Kalla who spoke out. Should not Anwar whack Jusuf Kalla instead? Why whack Najib? Najib never said anything. Jusuf Kalla was the one who spoke.

Aiyah, what is going on here? Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama.

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

Anwar Ibrahim snookered by Najib, thanks to Indonesia's Jusuf Kalla

(Din Merican, 27 May 2013) - What prompted Anwar Ibrahim to agree to a deal brokered by former Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla that required both the opposition leader and Prime Minister Najib Razak to agree to peaceably accept the results of GE13?

The Wall Street Journal quoted Jusuf Kalla as saying in this weekend's edition of the paper that he faults Anwar for reneging on the deal. In his defence, Anwar is quoted by the same paper as saying that the terms of the deal were nullified by the manner of the campaign waged by BN – that it had demonised the opposition, tactics that the Jusuf-brokered deal had required the BN to abjure.

It's strange that after all what he has been made to endure in the last 15 years by the powers-that-be – the two trials for sodomy, one for corruption and abuse of power which led to a six-year stay in jail, dissemination of a video showing someone looking like him in a transaction with a sex worker, among a host of other calumnies leveled at him – Anwar could still be credulous enough to believe that Umno-BN can abide by the terms of the deal negotiated by Jusuf.

There was not a little surprise when Najib, in the course of announcing in nationally televised remarks on April 3 the Agong's consent to the dissolution of Parliament, also let on that his party would abide by the wishes of the electorate and accept a peaceful transfer of power if that was what voters wanted.

Responding for the opposition Pakatan Rakyat that he leads, Anwar the same day welcomed Najib's assurance of a peaceful transition in the event one was decreed by voters. At that time, there was no way of knowing that these pantomimes were pre-ordained by the terms of a deal worked out by Jusuf Kalla, as reported by Wall Street Journal.

According to Anwar's version of the terms, as reported by the internationally respected paper, Najib had agreed not to demonise the opposition in BN's campaign waged through their doormat mainstream media. There was in the versions to Wall Street Journal given by the three parties to the deal some stuff about a role for the loser in a reconciliation process that would presumably take place after the vote. But this was rejected by one or the other party. 

Concern over power transition 

Deals like these are invariably hedged with ambiguity, this one more than others because it was inherently unworkable. Asking the BN not to demonise the Opposition in an election campaign that could well have resulted in their loss of power after a half-century's incumbency, is like distracting the Taliban from their goal of an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan with the idea that they would be better off as farmers growing poppy.

From the Wall Street Journal's story, it could not be inferred with certainty who made the initial approach for a deal – Anwar, Najib or Jusuf. Jusuf claims it was Anwar who approached him to broker the deal, but Anwar implies that the whole idea of the deal arose from concern in some ASEAN capitals that a transition of power in Malaysia after GE13 would be prone to violence.

To avert violence, get the two competing coalitions' spearheads, Najib and Anwar, to agree a deal where they would abide by the election's results. Anwar's pre-condition for agreeing to the deal was that BN not demonise the opposition during the campaign. The curious thing about this aspect of the deal is how did Anwar conclude that broker Jusuf had expertise in seeing to it that the BN abided by its terms?

Apparently, Jusuf had no difficulty in phoning Anwar the day after the election, May 6, to remind him about the opposition leader's "commitment" to accept the results with acquiescent serenity. But all a perplexed Jusuf got in return, according to The Wall Street Journal, is: "They said, 'No, no, no.' " It looks like Anwar has allowed one Bugis, Jusuf Kalla, to get him snookered by another, Najib Razak.

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

Anwar: I didn't break any deal because Najib didn't sign it

(FZ.COM, 27 May 2013) Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was adamant today that he had not broken any peace deal because the prime minister had not signed the treaty.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published last Saturday, former Indonesian vice-president Jusuf Kalla accused Anwar of reneging on a secret peace deal to respect the result from the 13th general election.

Jusuf claimed that he had a written agreement with both Anwar and Datuk Seri Najib Razak in April to refrain from personal attacks and to accept the election outcome.

Anwar, however, claimed today that he was the sole signatory to the deal as Najib had refused to sign but agreed verbally.

"What were the parameters agreed upon? Number one is that we respect the ethical standards of the campaign which means you don't use the media to demonise, control the media and deny the right of other parties to express themselves. Number two is that to ensure free and fair election.

"Number three is contingent on the two earlier agreement then we must respect the agreement so that the transition of power is smooth and following that the victorious party would be magnanimous and no witch hunt. The defeated party would then accept the decision.

"It is more pronounced in that situation given all these points then there must be a spirit of building this nation together in this new reconciliation. So that is the context. Then why do you about reneging the agreement," he told a press conference at PKR headquarters.

Anwar explained the case of reneging did not arise because Najib had broken the first two agreements and pointed out that "the entire discourse now is about fraud and mass rigging."

He also claimed that Jusuf had met Najib and him several times prior and after nomination and after election.

"Initially my agreement was verbal but I told Pak Jusuf  'Look, I don't want to be like Najib because Najib will come and give all sorts of assurances'… So I told Pak Jusuf that I don't want to be in that category, so if I agree on ethical standards, free and fair election and peaceful transition then I will sign it.

"So I signed it alone and Najib did not," he said.

Anwar admitted that he had signed the agreement despite knowing beforehand that Najib had refused to the sign the agreement.

He also denied the agreement had touched on the subject of forming a unity government or any form of power sharing.

"Of course, I am not (legally bound to the contract). There is no contract. That is a contract that I signed. Najib said he agreed, he is a man of honour but he dare not, as usual, sign even though he agreed," he said.

Anwar confirmed that the contract was signed before nomination day.

 

PAS continues to push for hudud

Posted: 26 May 2013 05:53 PM PDT

However the hudud law will only be implemented when people want it to be implemented, says Khalid Samad.

Lisa J. Ariffin, FMT

Islamist party PAS will continue to pursue its Islamic state agenda, including the implementation of hudud law in Malaysia, said Selangor PAS deputy commissioner Khalid Samad today.

Khalid said the implementation of hudud law has always been the party's ideology and it would never drop that plan.

"As far as PAS is concerned, the basis of our struggle and reference is the same and will never change," Khalid told FMT today.

"When we talk about Islam, we will talk about hudud. And obviously we'll never say we have given it up," he added.

However, Khalid stressed that hudud law will only be implemented "when people want it to be implemented".

"Our struggle is to convince society to accept its implementation. All of Islam including its legal system will be part and parcel of our objective," he said.

"Our struggle is to open up the society, have all our views presented and convince the public that there would be no harm if Islamic law is implemented," he added.

DAP will never accept hudud

DAP national chairman Karpal Singh, who has always been outspoken against the implementation of hudud, today reiterated his party's stand "remains the same".

"There is no change in our stand whatsoever. These matters have already been put away and for them to bring it up again now is not quite right," he said.

"I speak on behalf of my party and not in any circumstances will it change its stand," he added.

The Bukit Gelugor MP also called on PAS leadership to make a formal stand on the issue to prevent unnecessary confusion in future.

"There must be some sort of formal stand… it cannot be up and down," he said.

READ MORE HERE

 

Just sleeping together but not married

Posted: 26 May 2013 04:19 PM PDT

In other words, say PKR, DAP, PAS and PRM each won 15% of the seats. Would their 15% each be considered a combined 60%? Or would they be considered 15% individually? And if they are not combined to become 60% but are treated as 15% each, then would Barisan Nasional with 40% of the seats be regarded as the largest minority (not the majority) against PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM who each had only 15% of the seats?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The gist of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng's speech in London on Saturday, plus the statement by Zulkifli Noordin, are interesting only because it brings us back to the dilemma we faced four general elections ago back in 1999. And what happened 14 years ago was as follows.

For the first time in history, four opposition parties were contesting the general election as a 'proper' coalition called Barisan Alternatif or the Alternative Front (and 'alternative' to Barisan Nasional or the National Front) comprising of PKN (now called PKR), DAP, PAS and PRM (now merged with PKN as PKR).

No doubt the same thing 'almost happened' nine years earlier in 1990 when Semangat 46 entered into an electoral pact with DAP on the West Coast of West Malaysia called Gagasan Rakyat and with PAS on the East Coast of West Malaysia called Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah -- plus with PBS in Sabah that was merely a 'handshake' with no name.

However, in 1990, it was more or less a 'loose' coalition or 'understanding' while in 1999 it was more 'formalised' and stronger than just an electoral pact.

Being the first time, we really could not anticipate what would happen. Say Barisan Nasional were to win 40% of the seats (not votes, which could have been only 30% of the votes) and Barisan Alternatif won 60% of the seats (say on 70% of the votes), would Barisan Alternatif have been allowed to form the government?

This was our anxiety (and suspicion). And we had grounds to suspect so because His Majesty the Agong had 'disappeared'.

Actually, the Agong had not disappeared in the real sense of the word. We knew where His Majesty was. He was in Langkawi. The only thing is no one could reach him, not even his own sons. In a way, as far as we were concerned, the Agong was under a sort of 'house arrest'. At least that is how we interpreted it whether rightfully or wrongfully.

At noon on Friday, 26th November 1999, I went to Istana Negara to try to hand-deliver a letter to His Majesty the Agong. That was three days before the 29th November general election (which was on a Monday). I was not allowed in and was told to hand the letter to the guard.

I handed the letter to the guard as instructed and then went to the mosque for my Friday prayers. On reaching PKN's office at 2.00pm, a reply was waiting for me.

First of all, this was probably the first time in Malaysian history that a reply to your letter came in that fast (just two hours). More importantly, the reply was not from His Majesty or Istana Negara but from the Prime Minister's Department. And the Prime Minister's Department replied that my request to meet the Agong was denied and that I should try again AFTER the general election.

I then phoned two of my cousins (His Majesty's sons) and was told it was impossible for me to meet the Agong. Not even they, the Agong's own sons, could reach him.

That gave rise to suspicion that even if Barisan Alternatif were to win the election on 29th November 1999 they would not get sworn in as the government. The Agong was a 'prisoner' in Langkawi and only Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (at that time 'Datuk Seri') could reach him. And that would most likely mean only Dr Mahathir could get sworn in.

And this made sense. Barisan Nasional was contesting the election as a legal entity while Barisan Alternatif was not. For all intents and purposes, Barisan Alternatif did not exist. What existed, as legal entities, were PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM.

In other words, say PKR, DAP, PAS and PRM each won 15% of the seats. Would their 15% each be considered a combined 60%? Or would they be considered 15% individually? And if they are not combined to become 60% but are treated as 15% each, then would Barisan Nasional with 40% of the seats be regarded as the largest minority (not the majority) against PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM who each had only 15% of the seats?

This was actually a very strong possibility and the fact that Dr Mahathir could reach the Agong while we could not meant that he would be able to get sworn in as Prime Minister with just 40% of the seats (and maybe against only 30% of the votes) before we could do anything about it.

The following day, on Saturday, I prepared four letters for each of the four party leaders to sign. I then asked four people to go and search for Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Lim Kit Siang, Ustaz Fadzil Noor and Dr Syed Husin Ali, who were on the campaign trial, and to get them to sign these letters.

Basically, each party leader signed a 'consent letter' consenting to combine the seats their party won under the umbrella of Barisan Alternatif. Hence, say, if each of their parties won 15% of the seats, the seats would come under Barisan Alternatif and not PKN, DAP, PAS or PRM individually.

This was a long shot, of course. If Barisan Nasional won 40% of the seats and PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM collectively won 60%, we still needed to send these letters to the Agong and to make sure that the four party leaders are in front of the Agong to get sworn in BEFORE the Agong swears in Dr Mahathir as Prime Minister.

We then rented a helicopter and put it on standby. In the event Barisan Nasional does win less than 50% of the seats while PKN, DAP, PAS and PRM collectively win more than 50%, we will need the helicopter to pick up all the four party leaders and fly them to meet the Agong and insist that Barisan Alternatif gets sworn in as the government. Who from the four (Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Lim Kit Siang, Ustaz Fadzil Noor and Dr Syed Husin Ali) would get sworn in as the new Prime Minister was a matter to worry about later and we would cross that bridge when or if we come to it. For 'practical' purposes it may have to be Ustaz Fadzil Noor, at least as 'temporary' Prime Minister while we sorted out the 'long-term' solution.

But we never needed to use those four letters or to get the helicopter to take to the air as Barisan Nasional won 77% of the seats although with only 57% of the votes. And this was because although Umno won just 71 seats, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the Sabah and Sarawak parties brought in another 76 seats. MCA alone won 29 seats.

After the 1999 general election, we told Barisan Alternatif to get registered as a legal entity to avoid the 'scare' that we suffered on 26th November 1999. Instead, Barisan Alternatif broke up when DAP left the opposition coalition due to its disagreement with PAS regarding the Islamic State. And, in 2004, the opposition got massacred.

This has always been a problem that the opposition does not seem to be concerned about. Now, the opposition is saying that it won 51% of the votes against Barisan Nasional's 47%. Hence it should be the government although Pakatan Rakyat won just 89 seats versus Barisan Nasional's 133.

Actually, if you regard Barisan Nasional, DAP, PKR and PAS as four separate legal entities, Barisan Nasional still won the largest minority in terms of votes versus DAP, PKR and PAS individually. And, individually, DAP, PKR and PAS are the legal entities, not Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, what if Pakatan Rakyat had won 51% of the seats on 5th May 2013 (which could have been against 60% of the votes)? Would Barisan Nasional still be sworn in as the government since DAP, PKR and PAS are treated as individual parties and not as a legal entity called Pakatan Rakyat?

Article 43.2(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution says: the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri (Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representative who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

In other words, it is still the opinion of the Agong that the Prime Minister must be the person who has the majority confidence of the MPs. This does not mean the Prime Minister must be the person heading the party with the largest number of votes or even the largest number of seats.

And since Article 41 of the Constitution says 'The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of the Federation', who is going to take to the streets to argue with 100,000 guns and dozens of tanks?

So things are not as simple and straightforward as many may think and as the politicians are trying to tell us. There are many legal and constitutional ways to 'steal' the government and 'Bangladeshi voters' is merely just one of the ways.

Can I just sum up by saying that the opposition is very sloppy and leaves too many things to chance? And then they moan and groan and complain about how the government was 'stolen'.

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

Speech by Lim Guan Eng to the Pakatan Rakyat's Supporters Club in London on Saturday, 25th May 2013.

PR Promises A Malaysian Spring To Free Malaysia From BN's Winter Of Fear, Corruption, Money Politics And Poverty.

1. 5.6 million voters in Malaysia who supported and voted for Pakatan Rakyat know that BN would have lost this election to Pakatan Rakyat, if not for the 4Ms of:

* Money politics to buy votes by the BN.

* Manipulation of the electoral system by a biased Election Commission.

* Unfair Media coverage.

* Abuse of government Machinery.

2. Nowhere else in the world would a coalition of parties which won 51% of the popular vote in a first-past-the-post system not only fail to enjoy a 'seat bonus' – that is win more than 51% of the parliament seats – but only manage to win 40% of seats.

3. We can observe BN's desperation to cling on to power immediately after GE13. Despite calling for a national reconciliation, the actions of Prime Minister Najib and of his cabinet members have been anything but reconciliatory.

4. PM Najib blamed the 'Chinese tsunami' when everyone knows that is was the Malaysian Tsunami that caused the BN to lose the popular vote. After all, the Chinese are only 30% of the total voting population. Even if Pakatan had won 80% of the Chinese vote, this means that only 24% out of the 51% of our popular vote came from the Chinese. The other 27%, or the majority of Pakatan's support, comes from non-Chinese voters.

5. The new Home Minister, Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, asked those who did not like the electoral system and the election results to leave the country. Zahid is quickly making a name for himself, along with the new IGP Khalid Abu Bakar, in launching a crackdown to detain anti-BN activists and PR leaders. BN is mistaken to think that the majority of Malaysians(51%) will be cowed by BN. The majority will not allow the minority to suppress, repress and oppress the majority.

6. Pakatan's challenge is to harness the desire of justice, freedom, democracy, integrity, equality and change expressed in the 13th general election by the 51% of voters by focusing on three areas.

7. One, the struggle for electoral reform. The need for an independent EC to conduct clean elections that respect the "one person, one vote, one value" principles has never been more urgent. We will not allow BN to steal the elections again.

8. Two, economic reform. We have seen how it has been business as usual for the BN despite the grand rhetoric of the Economic Transformation Program (ETP) and the New Economic Model (NEM). 1MDB is operating like a slush fund handled by cronies with no track record except close personal tiers with BN leaders. Newspaper reports have alleged that profits of 1MDB have been parked in the Cayman Islands while its debts are being parked in Malaysia.

More and more GLCs will be privatized to a few selected individuals. Lucrative toll road contracts will continue to be dished out to BN cronies. Pakatan will contest every single dodgy deal that is attempted by the BN, especially demanding full accountability for the GLCs and Petronas.

10. Thirdly, we must focus on making the Pakatan controlled states of Penang and Selangor even better models for competent, accountable and transparent government. We will continue to prove that a clean government can outperform a corrupt government. We will make a difference in the lives of ordinary Malaysians by providing a future that is clean, green, safe and healthy.

More importantly PR adopts a Malaysian approach by appealing to our hopes and instead of pandering to our fears, where we are inspired by our dreams of a better future together instead of despairing from BN's racist agenda of dividing us eternally.

PR promises a Malaysian spring to free Malaysia from BN's winter of fear, corruption, money politics and poverty.

LIM GUAN ENG

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

Pakatan's popular vote a myth, says Zul Noordin

(The Malaysian Insider, 27 May 2013) - Perkasa's Datuk Zulkifli Noordin moved to debunk as myth Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) claim that it won the popular vote in the May 5 polls, saying the three opposition parties were a loose pact that had contested separately with their own logos, and in some seats, among themselves.

In an opinion piece titled "Mitos undi popular PRU-13 [The myth of the popular vote in GE13]" published today in Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia, the vice-president of the right-wing Malay group accused PKR's de facto chief Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of lying and having twisted the facts in an attempt to hoodwink Malaysian voters into believing the unregistered PR opposition had beat the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) to gain the popular vote. 

"Anwar's allegation that the total votes obtained by the DAP-PKR-PAS alliance of 5,623,984 (or 49.96 per cent), 386,285 votes more than the BN (which obtained 5,237,699 or 46.53 per cent) is a lie and a distortion because," he wrote, adding, "DAP-PKR-PAS contested separately using their own symbols on the ballot paper which is the rocket (DAP)-moon (PAS)-one eye (PKR); there absolutely was not a joint opposition symbol."

Zulkifli, a former lawmaker who had run for the Shah Alam federal seat as a BN-friendly candidate only to lose in the recent election, also gave two other points to reinforce his hard-hitting remark that PR's win of the popular vote was a myth.

He pointed out that there were certain constituencies where the three parties had overlapped in fielding their own candidates, naming as examples Sg Aceh, Penang and Kota Damansara, Selangor.

PKR's Badrul Hisham Shaharin had gone against his PAS ally, Mohamad Yusni Md. Piah in the Penang state seat while socialist Dr Nasir Hashim run on a PKR ticket against PAS's Ridzuan Ismail in a crowded field of six candidates for the Selangor state seat. All four had ended up losers in the contest for the two seats.

Zulkifli also highlighted that the PR could not claim victory in the popular vote as their alliance was not registered with the Registrar of Societies and as such, "did not even exist" in the 13th general election.

Even going by Anwar's "twisted" logic, Zulkifli said the BN would have won the popular vote since it gained 46.53 per cent and would still have netted 103 seats overall, which was still the majority number in the 222-member Dewan Rakyat compared to all the three opposition parties. The BN had in fact claimed 133 seats. 

To drive home his point that Anwar's logic was flawed, he said the DAP with its 15.42 per cent would have taken 34 seats and not the 38 it actually hauled in, the most of the three opposition parties.

Instead, he highlighted that Anwar's PKR that had scored the second-highest number of popular votes at 20.03 per cent, should then have got 45 per seats instead of the 30 seats it actually won while the PAS that drew 14.51 per cent of the popular vote would have got 32 seats instead of 21. 

PR has blamed alleged electoral fraud for not becoming government although it won the popular vote in Election 2013. It won 89 federal seats against the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) which took 133 seats in the 222-seat parliament.

 

Selangor exco to be sworn in Thursday, says Khalid

Posted: 26 May 2013 02:21 PM PDT

(The Star) - The Selangor executive council will be sworn in on Thursday, as the Sultan of Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah has consented to the line-up.

Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had an audience with Tuanku on Monday, and told reporters later that the exco list had been finalised.

"The swearing in ceremony for all selected exco members will be held this Thursday at 9.30am at Istana Alam Shah, Klang," he said.

However, Khalid refused to reveal the names of those picked for exco, nor the party composition of the line-up.

"I will announce the composition after I have informed the three parties.

"It would not be fair to them if I announced it now before speaking to them," he said, adding that he would be meeting party leaders from DAP, PAS and PKR later.

Khalid was seen entering Istana Kayangan here at 10.15am on Monday, and left around 11.30am.

In the previous exco line-up, DAP and PAS had three representatives each while PKR had four.

PKR will have three representatives this time, but it is not known if DAP or PAS would get the extra exco seat.

DAP already announced two of its exco representatives, Datuk Teng Chang Khim (Sungai Pinang) and Ean Yong Hian Wah (Seri Kembangan).

 

Still no word on swearing-in date for Selangor executive council

Posted: 26 May 2013 01:49 PM PDT

(The Star) - Although three weeks have passed since the May 5 polls, no date has been set for the swearing-in ceremony of the Selangor executive council.

Many expect the announcement to be made this week, as Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had indicated on May 18 that the line-up would be sworn in after he returned from receiving medical treatment for an old leg injury in Germany.

Khalid returned to Malaysia on Friday, but a source in his office said the date for the swearing-in ceremony had yet to be fixed.

Before he left the country, Khalid had submitted a list of names to the Sultan of Selangor for approval.

Khalid had then said that he expected to receive feedback on the proposed names from the Sultan after his return.

In the previous line-up, the DAP and PAS had three representatives each while the PKR had four.

The PKR will have three representatives this time, but it has not been finalised whether DAP or PAS would get the extra seat.

The DAP has already announced two of its proposed representatives – Datuk Teng Chang Khim (Sungai Pinang) and Ean Yong Hian Wah (Seri Kembangan).

 

PKR Youth chief rapped for criticising PAS chief

Posted: 26 May 2013 01:40 PM PDT

Syarhan said PKR had also back-stabbed PAS by negotiating with PSM which has never been an ally of Pakatan.

(The Star) - PAS Youth officials have slammed PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin for criticising PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang over the party's decision to field candidates against its allies in GE13.

Perak PAS Youth chief Mohd Zawawi Abu Hassan defended his party's decision in fielding candidates and said that the statement by the PKR Youth movement reflected his immature political attitude.

"When the head of the PKR Youth dares to belittle and accuse our president without seeking a clarifications first through a joint discussion then it can be construed as a wild accusation," said Zawawi, who is the Gunong Semanggol assemblyman.

He said that the attitude displayed by Shamsul Iskandar was unacceptable.

Meanwhile, PAS Gombak division head Syarhan Humaizi Abdul Halim reminded Shamsul Iskandar to be careful before criticising PAS.

He noted that it was PKR's cavalier attitude in selecting its own election candidates that had led to the fall of the Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak in 2008 after a number of its state assemblymen defected.

Syarhan said PKR had also back-stabbed PAS by negotiating with PSM which has never been an ally of Pakatan.

He claimed that it was PAS election machinery that had worked hard in the recent general election, including in helping PKR's candidates to win as they were more disciplined and prepared.

"If we in PAS Youth can respect Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as PKR adviser although there are many things which we may not agree upon, it would be nice if PKR Youth also learnt some manners by not criticising our leader.

"Behave yourself before the possibility arises that some other leaders will resort to criticising Anwar in public due to this uncouth act," said Syarhan.

Apart from criticising Abdul Hadi, Shamsul in his policy speech at the party's ninth congress here on Saturday also called on the leaders of the respective parties in the Pakatan Rakyat to expel their members who had contested against candidates from other Pakatan member parties, thus forcing multi-cornered fights.

 

EC denies Malaysia’s voting system will keep BN in power forever

Posted: 26 May 2013 01:27 PM PDT

Amin Iskandar, TMI

The Election Commission (EC) has denied claims that the first-past-the-post voting system practised in Malaysia will keep the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN) in power forever, while insisting that it is among the best electoral systems in the world.

Academics have said malapportionment — unequally-sized constituencies — and gerrymandering — manipulation of electoral boundaries — have led to one rural vote being equal to six urban votes in the May 5 general election where Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won the popular vote but BN got to form the government.

"This first past the post, it's not until forever that BN will win. This first past the post is a simple system where (there's a) contest for seats in an area," the EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar told The Malaysian Insider in an exclusive interview.

"Because of this first past the post, BN did not get two-thirds majority in PRU13 (13th general election). Because of this first past the post, the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat (PR) government won with two-thirds majority in the state assembly (DUN)," he added.

According to Wan Ahmad, the electoral system used in Malaysia is also used by developed countries that have been practising democracy for a long time.

"Britain, already a few hundred years practising democracy, until now it uses first past the post.

"Australia, first past the post. New Zealand first past the post mixed a bit with the proportional representation (PR) system. India, the largest democratic country in the world, 800 million voters, first past the post," he said.

The EC deputy chairman said it would not be possible for PR to win so many seats, including a few states, if the "first-past-the-post" system was unfair.

"Because of this first past the post, Kelantan was ruled by one party only, PAS for 25 years. In Penang, DAP won in all the seats it contested. I feel that those who make these statements do not understand the electoral system in Malaysia," Wan Ahmad said.

PR currently rules the three states of Kelantan, Penang, Selangor after it recently lost its one-term PAS-led administration in Kedah to BN and failed to recapture Perak.

READ MORE HERE

 

Incorrect strategy cost BN votes

Posted: 26 May 2013 01:20 PM PDT

Anwar and Kit Siang are inviting police to arrest them. They want to be arrested. They are totally irresponsible. If you see the recent rallies and that majority of the participants are Chinese, what do you think will happen if one hot-headed Malay organisation wants to organise a counter rally? But Anwar and Kit Siang don't mind, if there is another inter-racial incident, they would blame BN. If you are willing to sacrifice peace and stability for your ends, what kind of leadership is this?

A. Kadir Jasin, TMI

Twice the finance minister and now a sought after political commentator, Tun Daim Zauniddin attributed the Barisan Nasional's poor showing at the May 5 general election to incorrect strategy.

He told the China Press newspaper that Malaysia' general election is a parliamentary election and not a presidential election, adding that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's advisers should be sacked.

"If you associate a vote for BN as a vote for him (Najib), then BN's poorer results reflect on him too.

"This is a parliamentary election, not a presidential election. The PM's advisers should be sacked," he said.

And is Najib a lame duck prime minister and Umno president?

The following is the English transcript of the interview, which covered a wide variety of issues surrounding the outcome of the 13th GE, made available to this blog. I record my appreciation to the China Press for its superb effort and to Daim's office.

The Day After

Q1: Tun, what was first in your mind when you first received the full election result? Did you expect it?

A: I wasn't surprised. At around noon the feedback I got was that BN 141, DAP 38 but my own assessment was BN between 125 and 135 only.

Q2: Do you think this election was a fair one? Opposition parties and NGOs still accused BN of misuse the government facilities, and the problematic integrity of the electoral roll.

A: Of course it is fair. If it's not fair how come in Penang and Selangor Pakatan improved on majorities and Federal BN get only 133. These accusations are not new. They said all these even before the elections. I've said earlier that they will be saying all these because they know they can't get to Putrajaya.

Read my interviews before this, I said they will be proclaiming to world they would win and that if they don't its because they have been robbed and therefore entitled to protest, incite people which is that they are doing now and they want people to go to streets. They want FRUs, water cannons and teargas then CNN, Al Jazeera, etc will be back and they are back in the news.

Anwar and Kit Siang are inviting police to arrest them. They want to be arrested. They are totally irresponsible. If you see the recent rallies and that majority of the participants are Chinese, what do you think will happen if one hot-headed Malay organisation wants to organise a counter rally? But Anwar and Kit Siang don't mind, if there is another inter-racial incident, they would blame BN. If you are willing to sacrifice peace and stability for your ends, what kind of leadership is this?

They say they should be the rightful leaders of this country, yet they defy laws, defy the police, and they have no respect for, and undermine every institution of government which they say they should helm. What kind of leadership promotes lawlessness and anarchy? What message do you send and what lessons do you teach the young and the impressionable? Leadership comes with responsibility.

There are laws in this country. Go to court, of course, they say courts are not fair, yet these same courts have acquitted Anwar. Again when it's convenient to them they go to the courts to sue and silence their detractors. They accept where they won and reject where they lost. They are selective. Karpal practises and appeals before this same court.

Be brave and honest. Accept the results. Karpal says he is happy with the results. PAS has accepted. Azmin is critical of Anwar's refusal to accept the results and doing these rallies, but don't read too much into his statements. It's like an old married couple's quarrel, one party merajuk (sulks) but in the end they are still together.

Anwar is already up to his tricks — putting out feelers to Barisan MPs. He is waiting after the Cabinet appointments for another round of his September 16.

Reasons for Poor BN Performance

Q3: As expected in our last interview, BN managed to retain Putrajaya but couldn't regain the two-third majority. What are the main reasons?

A: Really you should ask BN. But in my opinion, it's the wrong strategy. As I've said before, this is a parliamentary election, not a presidential election. The PM's advisers should be sacked. If you associate a vote for BN as a vote for him, then BN poorer results reflects on him too. I kept reminding them that those huge numbers at BN's ceramahs do not translate into votes. You don't try to fight his (Anwar's) numbers with your even bigger numbers. Let Anwar be the entertainer (borrowing from The Financial Times). We are not entertainers, we don't know how to sing, dance and tell jokes. It's a serious business electing a government, so let's leave this clown's strategy alone and not play to his game.

If I know, then surely BN knows that the Chinese majority areas were gone. Why waste time and money? As a strategy, you should concentrate on those areas where you lost by slim majorities in 2008 and strengthen the seats you won in 2008. There was also the question of choice of candidates, and, for example, in Pandan, why be petty?

Many people disputed that there was a Chinese tsunami. But there was, in the sense that Chinese voters voted en block whilst non-Chinese votes were split; but this is their right. This is democracy.

What was disturbing was the reason for the en block votes. Pakatan preached hatred for BN particularly Umno. DAP have always told the Chinese that they are victims, marginalised; that the cup they have is always half empty; that this is the time to teach MCA and Gerakan a lesson for being under Umno's control, that Umno (and by extension the Malays) were dominant, and this was a Malay-led government, and the Chinese by voting out all the Chinese parties in BN is saying that they have had enough of being bullied by Umno/Malays. If this is not racist, I don't know what is.

Their cybertroopers were at work, 24 hours a day, sending misinformation, spins, rumours, lies, untruths, etc. Where were the Banglas? Where was the blackout? How many people whose ink washed off voted twice? Tun M flew away in a private jet? Lies and lies and the Chinese believe in "Ubah" and "Ini kali lah".

I told you if the Chinese rejected Najib's leadership, the rural votes will swing to BN. DAP benefited the most. PAS, I do not know how it is going to reorganise itself. PKR we know practise nepotism, ask Azmin.

As for the Indian votes, only some Indians votes came back to BN. Koh Tsu Koon has announced his retirement. Chua Soi Lek is not seeking re-election. In the West you lose, you retire. Brown retired. Here they are not morally strong to quit. Anwar stays on, Kit Siang stays on, Hadi stays on. Let me remind you, Anwar said he would retire if he failed to get to Putrajaya. Anwar does not keep to his word. He will never retire, until the day he is on his deathbed he would still want to be PM.

Let's recognise that nowhere in world is it easy to get a two-thirds majority. Urban voters everywhere in the world are anti-government. BN's strength lies in the rural areas. Yet too much time and money were wasted in urban areas where the results were almost certain.

Q4: Chinese votes for opposition even reached over 90 per cent, why? From your observation, why MCA and Gerakan rejected by the Chinese? We still remember in 2004 the situation was totally different.

A: I have explained at length in the answer above. Chinese votes for the Pakatan reached 90 per cent because they believed in Pakatan's propaganda. This is at last the chance to reject the Malay-led BN. We saw on Polling Day many Chinese came out in droves believing that Pakatan was going to win. They were all misled. Pakatan knew that they were not going to get the numbers. Imagine Chinese voting for PAS, when they have seen what was happening in Kedah and Kelantan. Chinese voters were taken for a ride that they were going to make the difference. If Hindraf can affect the 2008 results, imagine what the Chinese with their bigger number can do? This was the line given and they swallowed it. In 2004, Chinese gave the then PM with his clean image a chance but that got to BN's head and 2008 was the result. In 2013, Pakatan tapped into the Chinese and urban psyche. The Chinese are practical people and if they felt that the votes could go either way, they would not take a chance and choose stability over change; but if they believed that they can change the government and win, then they did what you see in GE13. But Chinese normally bet on minority horse.

Q5: By analysing the results, we can see DAP won more seats this time and seats won by PKR and PAS also close to their numbers in 2008. Does it mean Malay votes still split? How about Indian votes?

A: Malay votes split four ways. Umno, PAS, Keadilan and fence-sitters. Lucky for BN, this time most went to Umno. Less than 50 per cent of Indian voters voted BN.

READ MORE HERE

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Incorrect strategy cost BN votes

Posted: 26 May 2013 01:20 PM PDT

Anwar and Kit Siang are inviting police to arrest them. They want to be arrested. They are totally irresponsible. If you see the recent rallies and that majority of the participants are Chinese, what do you think will happen if one hot-headed Malay organisation wants to organise a counter rally? But Anwar and Kit Siang don't mind, if there is another inter-racial incident, they would blame BN. If you are willing to sacrifice peace and stability for your ends, what kind of leadership is this?

A. Kadir Jasin, TMI

Twice the finance minister and now a sought after political commentator, Tun Daim Zauniddin attributed the Barisan Nasional's poor showing at the May 5 general election to incorrect strategy.

He told the China Press newspaper that Malaysia' general election is a parliamentary election and not a presidential election, adding that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's advisers should be sacked.

"If you associate a vote for BN as a vote for him (Najib), then BN's poorer results reflect on him too.

"This is a parliamentary election, not a presidential election. The PM's advisers should be sacked," he said.

And is Najib a lame duck prime minister and Umno president?

The following is the English transcript of the interview, which covered a wide variety of issues surrounding the outcome of the 13th GE, made available to this blog. I record my appreciation to the China Press for its superb effort and to Daim's office.

The Day After

Q1: Tun, what was first in your mind when you first received the full election result? Did you expect it?

A: I wasn't surprised. At around noon the feedback I got was that BN 141, DAP 38 but my own assessment was BN between 125 and 135 only.

Q2: Do you think this election was a fair one? Opposition parties and NGOs still accused BN of misuse the government facilities, and the problematic integrity of the electoral roll.

A: Of course it is fair. If it's not fair how come in Penang and Selangor Pakatan improved on majorities and Federal BN get only 133. These accusations are not new. They said all these even before the elections. I've said earlier that they will be saying all these because they know they can't get to Putrajaya.

Read my interviews before this, I said they will be proclaiming to world they would win and that if they don't its because they have been robbed and therefore entitled to protest, incite people which is that they are doing now and they want people to go to streets. They want FRUs, water cannons and teargas then CNN, Al Jazeera, etc will be back and they are back in the news.

Anwar and Kit Siang are inviting police to arrest them. They want to be arrested. They are totally irresponsible. If you see the recent rallies and that majority of the participants are Chinese, what do you think will happen if one hot-headed Malay organisation wants to organise a counter rally? But Anwar and Kit Siang don't mind, if there is another inter-racial incident, they would blame BN. If you are willing to sacrifice peace and stability for your ends, what kind of leadership is this?

They say they should be the rightful leaders of this country, yet they defy laws, defy the police, and they have no respect for, and undermine every institution of government which they say they should helm. What kind of leadership promotes lawlessness and anarchy? What message do you send and what lessons do you teach the young and the impressionable? Leadership comes with responsibility.

There are laws in this country. Go to court, of course, they say courts are not fair, yet these same courts have acquitted Anwar. Again when it's convenient to them they go to the courts to sue and silence their detractors. They accept where they won and reject where they lost. They are selective. Karpal practises and appeals before this same court.

Be brave and honest. Accept the results. Karpal says he is happy with the results. PAS has accepted. Azmin is critical of Anwar's refusal to accept the results and doing these rallies, but don't read too much into his statements. It's like an old married couple's quarrel, one party merajuk (sulks) but in the end they are still together.

Anwar is already up to his tricks — putting out feelers to Barisan MPs. He is waiting after the Cabinet appointments for another round of his September 16.

Reasons for Poor BN Performance

Q3: As expected in our last interview, BN managed to retain Putrajaya but couldn't regain the two-third majority. What are the main reasons?

A: Really you should ask BN. But in my opinion, it's the wrong strategy. As I've said before, this is a parliamentary election, not a presidential election. The PM's advisers should be sacked. If you associate a vote for BN as a vote for him, then BN poorer results reflects on him too. I kept reminding them that those huge numbers at BN's ceramahs do not translate into votes. You don't try to fight his (Anwar's) numbers with your even bigger numbers. Let Anwar be the entertainer (borrowing from The Financial Times). We are not entertainers, we don't know how to sing, dance and tell jokes. It's a serious business electing a government, so let's leave this clown's strategy alone and not play to his game.

If I know, then surely BN knows that the Chinese majority areas were gone. Why waste time and money? As a strategy, you should concentrate on those areas where you lost by slim majorities in 2008 and strengthen the seats you won in 2008. There was also the question of choice of candidates, and, for example, in Pandan, why be petty?

Many people disputed that there was a Chinese tsunami. But there was, in the sense that Chinese voters voted en block whilst non-Chinese votes were split; but this is their right. This is democracy.

What was disturbing was the reason for the en block votes. Pakatan preached hatred for BN particularly Umno. DAP have always told the Chinese that they are victims, marginalised; that the cup they have is always half empty; that this is the time to teach MCA and Gerakan a lesson for being under Umno's control, that Umno (and by extension the Malays) were dominant, and this was a Malay-led government, and the Chinese by voting out all the Chinese parties in BN is saying that they have had enough of being bullied by Umno/Malays. If this is not racist, I don't know what is.

Their cybertroopers were at work, 24 hours a day, sending misinformation, spins, rumours, lies, untruths, etc. Where were the Banglas? Where was the blackout? How many people whose ink washed off voted twice? Tun M flew away in a private jet? Lies and lies and the Chinese believe in "Ubah" and "Ini kali lah".

I told you if the Chinese rejected Najib's leadership, the rural votes will swing to BN. DAP benefited the most. PAS, I do not know how it is going to reorganise itself. PKR we know practise nepotism, ask Azmin.

As for the Indian votes, only some Indians votes came back to BN. Koh Tsu Koon has announced his retirement. Chua Soi Lek is not seeking re-election. In the West you lose, you retire. Brown retired. Here they are not morally strong to quit. Anwar stays on, Kit Siang stays on, Hadi stays on. Let me remind you, Anwar said he would retire if he failed to get to Putrajaya. Anwar does not keep to his word. He will never retire, until the day he is on his deathbed he would still want to be PM.

Let's recognise that nowhere in world is it easy to get a two-thirds majority. Urban voters everywhere in the world are anti-government. BN's strength lies in the rural areas. Yet too much time and money were wasted in urban areas where the results were almost certain.

Q4: Chinese votes for opposition even reached over 90 per cent, why? From your observation, why MCA and Gerakan rejected by the Chinese? We still remember in 2004 the situation was totally different.

A: I have explained at length in the answer above. Chinese votes for the Pakatan reached 90 per cent because they believed in Pakatan's propaganda. This is at last the chance to reject the Malay-led BN. We saw on Polling Day many Chinese came out in droves believing that Pakatan was going to win. They were all misled. Pakatan knew that they were not going to get the numbers. Imagine Chinese voting for PAS, when they have seen what was happening in Kedah and Kelantan. Chinese voters were taken for a ride that they were going to make the difference. If Hindraf can affect the 2008 results, imagine what the Chinese with their bigger number can do? This was the line given and they swallowed it. In 2004, Chinese gave the then PM with his clean image a chance but that got to BN's head and 2008 was the result. In 2013, Pakatan tapped into the Chinese and urban psyche. The Chinese are practical people and if they felt that the votes could go either way, they would not take a chance and choose stability over change; but if they believed that they can change the government and win, then they did what you see in GE13. But Chinese normally bet on minority horse.

Q5: By analysing the results, we can see DAP won more seats this time and seats won by PKR and PAS also close to their numbers in 2008. Does it mean Malay votes still split? How about Indian votes?

A: Malay votes split four ways. Umno, PAS, Keadilan and fence-sitters. Lucky for BN, this time most went to Umno. Less than 50 per cent of Indian voters voted BN.

READ MORE HERE

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved