Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Ho Chi Minh
- The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Part 3 of 5)
- The day after the 1 night stand before: the aftermath of 2013 budget
- Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: The threat of foreign funding
- The Untold Truth Behind The Sinking of Titanic
- Lee Lam Thye, a Malaysian
- Kurang manis budget
- Quick glance BN budget vs PR budget
- Premesh Chandran Dissection Is No P T Barnum Circus
- Cocky Arrogant Tokong
| Posted: 30 Sep 2012 03:24 PM PDT At that time the US was bombing Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia back to the Stone Age. It was called the Vietnam War. I clearly remember watching the 'Dunia Di Sana Sini' program on Television Malaysia (no RTM yet at that time) which would show black and white footage of American GIs using flamethrowers to burn attap huts belonging to Vietnamese villagers. Till today I cannot figure out how attap huts in Vietnam were a threat to the security and vital interests of the 'Yewnited States of Americky' That is one evil and adulterous generation (Matthew 14:6-8) which is still dancing around the fire in the Yewnited States. At that time the Americans successfully brainwashed all of us into believing that the Vietnamese were bad people led by an ugly monster called Ho Chi Minh. So like the simple, Third World, Mat Salleh wannabe bumpkins that we were (and many many still are) we all chorused the American line that our own neighbors were monsters. The French colonials started taking control of Vietnam in the 1860s. By 1883 the entire country was a full fledged French colony. Under French colonial rule Vietnamese were prohibited from travelling outside their districts without identity papers. Freedom of expression and organisation were restricted. Land was alienated to French companies and the number of landless peasants grew. So people like Ho Chi Minh started fighting back. Fastforward (because this is a short story), Ho Chi Minh kicked the butt of the French in Dien Bien Phu in 1952 and sent them home in crates. Way before that on 2 September 1945, half a million Vietnamese people gathered in Hanoi to hear Ho Chi Minh read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. The Vietnamese had thrown off the foreign invader. One of the first things that Ho Chi Minh did as the leader of a free and independent Vietnam was to REPUDIATE ALL TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS which had been entered into by Vietnam under French Colonial Rule. Not only Ho Chi Minh but in many newly independent countries (usually non British Commonwealth) an independent people refused to recognize treaties and agreements which the colonials had forced them to sign at the point of a gun or without the consent of the people. So whatever the French colonial power had signed on behalf of Vietnam was not recognized by the Vietnamese people. Why? Apa pasal? Because those treaties were NOT signed by a free and independent people. I wanted to Blog about this because just a few days ago I was having breakfast with some friends who started quoting the terms of the Pangkor Treaty (! ! !) to support their side of the argument about the Perak issues. At the time of our Independence, we should have taken a leaf out of Ho's book (it is really not too late) and repudiated all the treaties and agreements which were signed under the British. For example, Stamford Raffles found disgruntled seafarers from the Riau Islands, played politics with the Dutch and got "a" Sultan to rent space on Temasek Island to the British East India Company (NOT TO THE BRITISH SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OK). Raffles did not work for the British Government but he worked for the British East India Company, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange. Stamford Raffles was just like an earlier version of a Somali pirate. And at the time of our "Independence" in 1957, all this had happened just over 100 years before. (Much less time than Nga and Ngeh's 999 year leasehold titles granted recently in Perak). Then later this slick little piece of piracy by Raffles was 'formalised' by the British Sovereign through the Colonial Office. And many people think that Stamford Raffles braved the seas, sailed out here from England and claimed an uncivilized, uninhabited island for the British Government. Wrong. First of all Raffles was already chilling his heels in Penang. Long before he "founded" Singapore in 1819, Raffles was assistant secretary at the British East India company's "administration" in Penang in 1805. Then in 1818 Raffles became "lieutenant governor of Bencoolen" fighting the Dutch who were trying to grab the whole of South East Asia. Before that Raffles was appointed "governor general" for the British India Company in Java (1811-16). In 1818 Raffles sailed hurriedly from Bencoolen to India, and convinced Lord Hastings of the need for the British to open a port on Temasek Island. He had already identified Temasek Island. (It was NOT some unknown, uninhabited, alien island that fell out of the Matrix movie). But more importantly why did Raffles suddenly panic in 1818? He was the East India Company's "secretary" in Penang in 1805, made it to Company "governor" in Java in 1811, became Company "lieutenant governor" for Bencoolen in 1816-1818. Why panic in 1818 to open another port?
| ||||
| The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Part 3 of 5) Posted: 30 Sep 2012 02:01 PM PDT The one diagram in the Blueprint that best captures what's wrong with the Malaysian education system is Exhibit 6-4, the ministry's organizational staff structure. The diagram is described as rectangular; it's more fat Grecian column. Incidentally, that diagram is the best graphic representation of data in the entire document; it captures and demonstrates well two salient points. One, there are as many Indians as there are chiefs in the organization, and two, the overwhelming burden of administrative staff at all levels. "Malaysia arguably has one of the largest central (federal) administrations in the world, relative to the number of schools," says the Blueprint, quoting a UNESCO report. We do not need those highly-paid international consultants to remind us of the bloat. The gleaming tower that is the Ministry of Higher Education in Putrajaya is emblematic of that. It reveals the government's perverted priorities. That edifice shames that of the Department of Education of the US, or any First World country. By any measure, relative to the economy, population, or total budget, Malaysia funds its education system generously, much more so than countries like Finland and South Korea. Yet our students and schools lag far behind. The answer lies in Exhibit 6-4. The bulk of the resources expended do not end up in the classrooms. It reflects the panel's commitment (or lack of it) to enhancing the system's efficiency that the post-reform chart looks only slightly tapered at the top. It needs to be sharply pyramidal to tackle the current bloated rectangle. Efficiency is one of the Blueprint's six goals. Briefly though not inaccurately defined, efficiency is output relative to input. If I expend "x" amount of resources (time, money, effort) and produce "y" amount of intended results, while my colleague expends twice as much, then I am twice as efficient. However, if he produces other than the intended results, then he is not being efficacious quite apart from being not efficient. His producing all those unintended and unwanted products reduces or interferes with his output of the desired ones. Efficiency is doing things right; efficacy, doing the right thing. Our system of education is both inefficient and inefficacious. We are not efficient because despite the vast resources expended we produce far too few graduates who are bilingual, science literate, mathematically competent, and capable of critical thinking. We are not being efficacious because the graduates we produce are not the types we desire, meaning, they are unilingual, unable to think critically, and good only at regurgitating what has been spoon-fed into them. A more tangible manifestation of our inefficiency is this. Rwanda could provide each child with a laptop at a fraction of the Malaysian price. We are not being as efficacious as Rwanda where its laptop program teaches not only the children but also spills over to their families. In Malaysia those laptops end up either being "lost" or gathering dust in the school's storerooms. Our teachers have not been adequately trained to use them; besides those computers belong to the school and not given to individual teachers. Thus there is no pride of ownership, and opportunities for them to learn are that much reduced. Pursuing efficiency, we have two ministries (one for higher education), each with its own overpaid minister, deputy ministers, KSUs, DGs, Deputy KSUs, Assistant Deputy KSUs, and hordes of directors. With the government's stated goal of autonomy to universities, all you need is one person to write the checks perhaps once a semester. You do not need a ministry, much less a grand one. That expensive edifice and bloated administrative staff divert resources that otherwise could have been diverted to the classrooms and teachers. Peruse the organizational structure of the Ministry of Education (MOE); dozens of divisions could be chopped off. Why do we need a separate division for matrikulasi; it is nothing more than Sixth Form; likewise with residential schools. The purpose of decentralization and devolution of authority to the periphery is, among others, to reduce the central bureaucracy, not to lighten the load of those already under-worked civil servants at headquarters. If schools truly have autonomy then all you need is one person at headquarters to write the big check every month, term, or year. Bureaus like Textbook, Translation, and Dewan Bahasa could be privatized and the resources saved diverted directly to pay writers, translators, and publishers, the actual producers of goods and services. Then there are the corporate and international relations offices. Get rid of both. The only important relationship MOE should cultivate is with parents and teachers. I would also spin off the Examination Syndicate. Such bodies in America like the College Board (responsible for the Scholastic Assessment Test, SAT) and American College Testing (ACT), as well as those responsible for graduate and professional studies like GMAT (business school) and MCAT (medical school) are private. Yet there is not a word in the Blueprint on streamlining the ministry, reducing the bloat, and getting rid or at least privatizing those peripheral services. Malaysians, individually and as a society, value and respect education. We willingly expend resources on it but are unwilling to expend the extra effort to make sure that that those funds are spent wisely. MOE's budget escapes critical scrutiny. MOE, being part and parcel of the massive Malaysian bureaucracy, is also afflicted with rampant corruption, blatant cronyism, embarrassing incompetence, naked nepotism, and a distorted sense of meritocracy. The last scandal (at least one that was exposed) was in 1960 under Rahman Talib when RM100 million in school construction funds were "unaccounted for," the euphemism for "missing." That may seem small change by current standard of greed, but after factoring for inflation and devaluation, it would be a billion in today's currency. The Blueprint completely ignores this blight of administration in MOE. In an earlier book I cited the example of the bloated cost of a MARA residential college where through competitive bidding we could get three such schools for the price of two. If competitive bidding were to be standard practice, then not only would we get more for our money but also our schools would have roofs that would not collapse, thus endangering our children. Najib and Muhyyiddin have not demonstrated their ability to take on local UMNO warlords. On the contrary, both are central to the corrupt political patronage system that plagues Malaysia. So expect the bloat and inefficiency in MOE (and the rest of the government) to continue. As for efficacy, the Blueprint does not even comment on whether the recent rescinding of teaching science and mathematics in English advances the goal of producing bilingual and science literate graduates. There is no recommendation for increasing the number of hours of instruction in English or mandating a pass in the Malaysian University English Test (MUET). The more hours and the younger you are exposed to a language, the more proficient you would be, and faster. Making students pass a test definitely motivates them to study for it. In the 1950s the government mandated all civil servants to pass a test in Malay to impress upon them its importance. That prompted many to take private lessons lest they would be bypassed in promotions. This Blueprint does not mandate teachers and headmasters demonstrate their competence in English.
| ||||
| The day after the 1 night stand before: the aftermath of 2013 budget Posted: 30 Sep 2012 01:16 PM PDT The 2013 spend and feel good budget has been read for the nation's attention and parliament's debate. The debate is probably useless, for the Janji Ditepati administration, chronic, habitual spending above budget is a given. This habit is well documented  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/litee/print/malaysia/putrajaya-asks-for-rm14b-more-to-spend/ Malaysia Putrajaya asks for RM14b more to spend UPDATED @ 12:04:39 14-06-2012 By Shannon Teoh Jun 14, 2012 KUALA LUMPUR, June 14 — The federal government tabled a supplementary supply Bill today, asking for RM13.8 billion more to spend this year, fuelling fears the Najib administration will not be able to rein in the deficit and breach the statutory debt ceiling. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore, rather than dwelling too much in detail into a current and soon to be derailed budget, let's project into the future base on the path Malaysians been dragged down unto for the past decade. As reported by the Star: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Individual income tax rate to be reduced by 1 percentage point for each grouped annual income tax exceeding RM2,500 to RM50,000. The measure will remove 170,000 taxpayers from paying tax as well as provide savings on their tax payment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a sure sign of GST coming upon us because cut in personal income tax (a.k.a. direct tax) goes hand in hand for imposing GST. Let's look at Singapore for example: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GST was implemented at a single rate of 3% on 1 April 1994, with an assurance that it would not be raised for at least five years. To cushion the impact of GST on Singaporean households, an offset package was also introduced. Simultaneously, corporate tax rate was cut by 3% to 27%, and the top marginal personal income tax rate was cut by 3% to 30%. The initial GST rate of 3% was among the lowest in the world, as the focus was not to generate substantial revenue, but to allow people to get adjusted to the tax.[4] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, Malaysians are not ready to switch to GST because most of Malaysians can't even afford personal income tax!. Also, the reasons for Singapore and Malaysia to introduce GST are not the same. With this 2013 gula and then GST, while you save 1% on your income, almost every Ringgit and Sen you spend will be taxed at 4% or whatever eventual rate that will be levied on us hence for people living on debts, you may probably end up paying more taxes. This blogger is not part of the BN administration but his/her speculation is base on sources from within: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BN and PR should agree to GST after polls says Idris Jala By Lee Wei Lian March 27, 2012 KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — The country's two rival political coalitions should cooperate on tax reforms once the political temperature has simmered down after the upcoming general elections said Datuk Seri Idris Jala today In Chinese, there is a saying "秋後算帳" i.e. letting someone or something off for the moment only to come back later; invoke the past and punish as such. BN administration already done that with Suqiu pleaders (whose list of request is quite in line with Wawasan 2020 and 1Malaysia, and less vocal compared to the current Chinese educationists' voices which are deemed by Nazri to be reasonable) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm no hypocrite, Nazri tells MCA Minister in the Prime Minister Department Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz has brushed aside the claim by MCA leaders that his support for Dong Zong's eight-point demand for Chinese education is mere diplomatic manoeuvring. "Of course we have to be diplomatic, we are politicians – but not in the sense that I am a hypocrite… ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (er…notice the get out clause?) For people living in vibrant night light circle, this could be called the morning after the night before situation. Once the passionate objective is achieved, time for cold showers, breakfast and business as usual. Only this time the business as usual will be back in with a greater vengeance because this time, the cost of procurement is very much higher than before and the expected and desired returns, will have to be even greater. The existing cosy political-economic union calls for GLC and Government initiatives to dominate economic activities. When the federal government dishes out some much, it needs to recoup. The ubiquitous quote nowadays "GST is a mean to widen tax base" is a , borrowing Nazri's words, diplomatic way of saying in Malaysian BN context, money collected from the people and god's gift to Malaysia has been squandered big time and there is a great need to ask for more. Bailout with tax payers' money, i.e. future and security. Therefore, there is an unmistakable trend of awarding of major contracts and new government measures that ask the rakyat to contribute even more than we have already. Apart from GST, there is 1Care scheme which should resurface after its disappearance before GE | ||||
| Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: The threat of foreign funding Posted: 30 Sep 2012 01:11 PM PDT WHY don't civil society organisations register as societies in Malaysia, resorting instead to being listed as companies? And don't Malaysians deserve to be suspicious of groups which are highly critical of the government and which are propped up by foreign funding? According to both the state and the national media, Malaysians should be wary. A 21 Sept 2012 New Straits Times front-page story said it all — there is a "Plot to destabilise govt". And those behind this plot are human rights groups — with Suaram in the forefront — , civil society organisations, and news portal Malaysiakini by virtue of the fact, it seems, that they receive foreign funding, among others, from no less than George Soros. Don't the government and the media have every right to hold these groups accountable in the same way that these groups often hold the state accountable? The Nut Graph speaks to political scientist Wong Chin Huat on the still-unfolding issue of Malaysian groups and their foreign funding, and the threats they potentially pose to the nation. TNG: Why shouldn't Suaram be investigated? If it's registered as a company, shouldn't it be treated under company law like any other company? Just because it works on human rights issues, should it be given special treatment?  Suaram logo (source: Wiki Commons) The question we should first ask is: why did an NGO register as a company? A company may avoid tax if it is registered as an NGO. But what can an NGO gain by registering as a company? Nothing except for being registered! The fact is registering an NGO under the Societies Act is made difficult and nearly impossible for civil society groups. Why? Because, to me, the Registrar of Societies (ROS) is loyal not to the country, its citizenry and the federal constitution which guarantees us freedom of association, but to the ruling parties. Groups — whether NGOs or political parties — deemed unfriendly to the federal ruling parties are often denied registration. For example, Parti Sosialis Malaysia was denied registration for years but the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP)'s registration was approved in days. If Suaram should be on trial for using a roundabout way to register itself with the state, then the ROS and their political master, the home minister, should be in the dock for insulting the Federal Constitution and betraying citizens. Yes, Suaram should certainly not enjoy any special discrimination. At the same time, if we want to talk about fair treatment all around, NGOs promoting human rights should enjoy as much freedom of association as those groups opposing human rights. Is that too much to ask of our prime minister, Najib the Moderate? We often complain about government inefficiency. In the case of the ongoing investigation into Suaram, shouldn't we applaud the government's multi-agency efficiency? I beg to differ about this allegation of general government inefficiency in Malaysia. This is slander by people who are jealous of our country's achievement! I apologise if I, too, have unwittingly contributed to this misperception in the past. Our government is certainly quite efficient when it wants to be. For example, in compromising justice; inciting hatred; acquiring lands; destroying forests; serving foreign interests; enriching cronies; violating human rights and finally; covering up all these acts through censoring the media and witch-hunting whistle-blowers. They are really very good in these core competencies. Why can't groups like Suaram, the Centre for Independent Journalism, and LoyarBurok, and movements like Bersih 2.0 source for funds locally? Why do they need to get foreign funding? If you are deemed as friendly to the government, then you get easy donations from big businesses and of course, the government itself. If you are deemed as anti-establishment, you may get donations from some other Malaysians but only if you grow big enough to be seen as a threat to the government. In that sense, large opposition parties and vocal ethno-religious NGOs generally have no big problems securing funding. Funding problems are also solved when one is the target of a government witch-hunt. For example, Bersih 2.0 raised the money needed to organise the Bersih 2.0 and 3.0 rallies completely through public donations from Malaysians at home and abroad. So, what kind of NGO work needs foreign funding? Those deemed threatening to the regime but which are not "sexy" enough to draw in pro-change public donations. For example, the funds Bersih 2.0 received from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) was for a study on constituency re-delineation. At that time, Bersih 2.0 was still in its infancy and received little public attention.  Annual human rights reports: not as sexy as seeing Najib in a French courtroom (source: suaram.net) Another good example of important NGO work that is not so appealing in the public's eyes is Suaram's annual human rights report, arguably one of the most important documentations of political development in Malaysia. How many of those who donated to Suaram for the Scorpene suit just to see Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak being dragged to a French court, forked out the same amount of money for the NGO's annual publication? Read more at: http://www.thenutgraph.com/uncommon-sense-with-wong-chin-huat-the-threat-of-foreign-funding/
| ||||
| The Untold Truth Behind The Sinking of Titanic Posted: 29 Sep 2012 03:29 PM PDT On April 10, 1912, the Titanic, largest ship afloat, left Southampton, England on her maiden voyage to New York City. The White Star Line had spared no expense in assuring her luxury. A legend even before she sailed, her passengers were a mixture of the world's wealthiest basking in the elegance of first class accommodations and immigrants packed into steerage. When we think of events that have transpired in history over the last one hundred to two hundred years, there are certain events that stand out as ones of great horror, great surprise and great sadness. Of the many that come to mind the most devastating have been the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City and the sinking of the Titanic.
| ||||
| Posted: 29 Sep 2012 02:42 PM PDT * the word 'king' was deliberately (mis)spelt 'Kinng' on advice from an Indian numerologist . Not unlike Hong Kong film makers, Bollywood is fussy about good feng shui when starting or launching a film.
The sad part of 'Lee Lam Thye was Kinng' lies in its grammatical tense, namely 'was'. Today, the younger ones, even DAP members (with no clue as to their party's history) hate him for no other reason than he chooses, since his publicly declared retirement from politics, to be a non-political non-partisan Malaysian. Whoooaa, that won't do in today's Malaysia for current politics has gone 'George Bush II', as per that low-brow Dubya-ish 'you're either with us or against us'.
This (extract on Lee only) was what I wrote in an earlier post Gentlemen in ungentlemanly Malaysian politics in March 2010: … when I read readers' comments at various places – Malaysiakini, The Malaysian Insider, my matey Susan Loone's blog, etc – I seldom see a reasonable and balanced or civil comment. The comments would in general be feral, ferocious, and frightening, not unlike rabid salivating attack dogs unleashed ;-). It seems these are worse at RPK's Malaysia-Today wakakaka. […] They adopted George W Bush's doctrine of "either you're with us or against us", just black or white with no grey in between. Likewise the attacks against Lee Lam Thye were scurrilous, sleazy, sickening and by some scumbags whose pubic hair weren't yet in sight when Lee LT was already performing sterling services in KL.
Lee was virtually a demigod in the eyes of his constituency and woe betide any political challenger for his seat – my uncle told me in each general election he actually felt sorry for those MCA pollies who were 'nominated' by MCA leaders to stand against Lee. They were probably unpopular members, good only as cannon fodders wakakaka. Maybe the following poem by kamikaze pilot, the late Matomi Ugaki, should be dedicated to those foolish or 'pushed forward' to stand against Lee Lam Thye: Flowers of the special attack are falling When the spring is leaving. Gone with the spring Are young boys like cherry blossoms. Gone are the blossoms, Leaving cherry trees only with leaves. MCA cherry blossoms? Totally crushed by Lee Lam Thye! Wakakaka!
Of course Lee retired from politics but these young punks couldn't, wouldn't respect his decision and let him be as he went about his Malaysian way. He was only 'acceptable' if he was like them, feral, ferocious and frighteningly moronic in blind hatred against anything and everything UMNO and BN. Same stuff happened to my matey Hsu Dar Ren in my post Gerakan hopes to snatch a new breath of life. Just because I refer to him as my matey, a commentator called him a 'running dog', just as some others had so termed Lee Lam Thye.
Though I dislike the BN for its terrible governance and divisive antics, I do have friends in Gerakan, MCA, UMNO and wakakaka even MIC. I don't see the need to maul them as well though of course I would certainly challenge their political policies if these are not supportive of fairness, transparency, accountability, or just wasteful. In fact I was delighted to see that Hsu had written a letter to Malaysiakini titled The ascendancy of right wing politics. Read it if you think he is a 'running dog'. Some people like Lee Lam Thye and Hsu Dar Ren are gentlemen through and through, civil, soft spoken, well-mannered and treat even their political enemies as fellow Malaysians. In politics one doesn't have to assume one of the extreme positions like the general UMNO apparatchiks or anwaristas. And I am glad Lee and Hsu aren't. Also, in another much earlier post (October 2007) titled The necessary demonization of Lee Lam Thye I wrote (extracts only): Here is an outstanding former DAP stalwart who was the best performing opposition politician bar none. Neither my political hero Lim Kit Siang nor the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon could match his popularity and the respect the people of KL of an earlier generation have for him. Yet to today's political Johnnies & Ginny's-come-lately, he is a "hypocrite, a spineless turncoat who goes with the flow. His past actions have clearly shown he is a 'yes-man' and 'brown nose' and he is certainly not independent nor trustworthy" – see comments on the post.
@font-face p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal div.Section1 So, on the above pseudo-logic, for Lee to be trustworthy in the amoebic minds of these J's-come-lately, he must, according to their tadpole worldviews, be a 'no-man'. Oh yes, he must buck the 'flow' in accordance with their wondrous views of which way the 'flow' has been going. Yes, Lee should bloody well conform to their dictates or 'de facto' assessments. What about the critics themselves? Certainly they would say 'no' to the establishment! But what would they say to the man who can walk on water. No, I wasn't referring to Yeshua ben Yusuf, but the bloke whom visitor informed me "Didn't you know the guy practically walks on water?" in an earlier post Guess who've been singing that old tune "I'd have been sacked ..."? Read the above post and see whether Lee Lam Thye or He who walks on water has been a 'spineless hypocrite'.
| ||||
| Posted: 28 Sep 2012 01:45 PM PDT wakakaka! How can I not laugh when Anwar Ibrahim lectures the government on cronyism and monopolies. Anyway, let's move on. Budget-wise or in everyday governing, for me, there are four important issues that I want the government to address appropriately, adequately and in a timely fashion, namely: Security, Health, Education and Rule of Law. Security - While it's impossible to guarantee 100% security, do Malaysians today feel secure as their families and loved ones go about their businesses, shopping, schooling, etc? The rhetorical question has to unfortunately a big NO! I believe the general short term concerns of the public is internal security where occurrences of crimes are frighteningly at an unacceptable high in our nation's modern history, while their long term concerns would be the presence in our midst of millions of illegal immigrants, both potentially as fifth columnists harmful to our national security and job stealers from our unemployed citizens.
Operational expenditure covers the maintenance of the existing police force, who unfortunately have not shown satisfactory performance, wasting away both resources and valuable time on monitoring and harassing non-BN political parties for a purely political agenda, instead of addressing what they ought to be doing, fighting crimes. However, the blame should go principally to its highly politicized leadership - more of this follows.
We get to hear the standard mafulat excuse that there had been no investigation because, now get this bullshit, no one had lodged a report. We keep hearing this same lame excuse time and time again, as if worrying (to national security) allegations can't and won't be acted upon if the police do not receive any official report from the public (unless of course, the 'worrying' issue leads to opportunities to harass non-BN parties and supporters). Are they (the police) robots only to be activated by public reports?
But still, that excuse has been totally demolished by Ramli Yusuff, a former Director of the Police Commercial Crime Investigations Department, who asserted his point through evidence gathered by the CCID team, a statutory declaration (not challenged) and court testimonies. In 2007 Ramli Yusuff wrote a letter on the scandalous affair to the Home Minister, a letter which Hishamuddin has acknowledged. But Hishamuddin rejected setting up an inquiry because he (Hisham) deemed there was a lack of evidence. Thus the lie went from 'no evidence' to 'no report'. The truth then becomes 'no action'.
So acting Law Minister Nazri should swallow his pride, bull and partisanship, and get about doing something on the very serious allegations against the former IGP, since the Home Minister is too busy with regrets he didn't have the opportunity to rehabilitate Noordin Top, one of the World's most notorious terrorist-bomber, or engaged in pampering cow-head hoodlum bigots.
| ||||
| Quick glance BN budget vs PR budget Posted: 28 Sep 2012 12:42 PM PDT Vision: Pakatan Rakyar: 3 strategic thrust to combat deteriorating standard of living of all Malaysians, combating rampant corruption and patronage 1) Increasing disposal income 2) Building Entrepreneur class and promoting constructive competition 3) A just society with dignity and pride BN: Focus on the expected short term goodies and no structural transformation in sight despite Economic Transformation being the daily rallying call BN would rely on the tax break such as •Three-year tax holiday for tourism companies handing 750 foreign tourists and 1,500 local tourists. •10-year tax holiday for Tun Razak Exchange companies, expected to attract 250 companies related to finance sector So much for 1Malaysia concept - special tax rate for finance industry major players converging in a piece of real estate. It is proven that tax break alone is not enough to attract foreign investment and talent. Otherwise Singapore would not have beaten Malaysia to become the financial hub of South East Asia. Whereas constructive competition promoted by Pakatan Rakyat would attract foreign investment as evidenced by the new vibrancy in Penang since 2008 On the contrary, PR's budget advocate for removing rent seekers, lower cost of business and living by addressing excessive fats in toll collection, broad band expenses, water and electricity facilities. PR's budget exhibited much more apparent transformation and structural reform signals compared to BN. The existing concessionaires no doubt represented a major obstacle for reform and transformation of substance. Cost of living BN continue to mimic PR's initial concrete gesture of returning excess cash to the needy (such as Penang's RM100 gift to elders). The difference is that BN finance the handout by deficit budget whereas PR distributes from surpluses. BN has upped the competition with more handouts such as: •One-off payment of RM1,000 for army veterans who served for at least 21 years, where 224,000 will qualify. •RM200 rebate for smart phone purchase for those aged 21 to 30 years. •Half price Kommuter fares for those earning less than RM3,000 a month. • RM500 cash for households with combined income of RM3,000 or less •RM250 cash for unmarried individuals who are 21 and above and earning RM2,000 and below •One-off payment of RM100 for each primary and secondary school student •One and a half month civil servants bonus, disbursed in three months. The above one off goodies is merely pre-GE gig. A water tap which can be turned on and off according to the whims and fancies of a person who can call or postponed GE at spur of a moment. PR has moved beyond that. It's budget advocate raising income for all Malaysians. Increased income would free the people from depending too much on hand outs and work towards social justice and more equitable share of wealth of nation. Read more at: http://wangsamajuformalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/09/qucik-glance-bn-budget-vs-pr-budget.html | ||||
| Premesh Chandran Dissection Is No P T Barnum Circus Posted: 27 Sep 2012 03:12 PM PDT "The attacks against Malaysiakini signal that the government is getting desperate." "Does Soros care that his personal foreign policy is putting America at risk? Not likely. When asked whether he felt responsible for his role in the 1997 East Asian currency crash, he famously responded: "As a market participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions."Self explanatory "The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power" 4. Malaysiakini gets grants from foreign donors See 1. above Premesh, give any one year, in the last 7 years, a detailed income and expense financial statements, as proof, grants meant for non-profit projects has not been utilised in your for-profit organisation.
| ||||
| Posted: 26 Sep 2012 01:31 PM PDT Penang DCM I, Mansor Othman, thought he was safe within the confines, comradeship and confidentiality of a closed-door PKR special (to Chinese echelon leaders) meeting, when he let loose his opinion of CM Lim Guan Eng wakakaka. And it sure as mafulat didn't help when his CM boss belongs to a different (and potentially rival) political party. Alamak, not brilliant ler for a PKR No 2 saying his DAP No 1 is cocky, arrogant and (considered by Penangites as a) tokong, wakakaka. As FMT journalist Athi Shanker (who I suspect from his previous writings doesn't like DAP, wakakaka) cleverly put it: Just when PKR thought the worst was over, the CAT has reared its ugly head again, much to the chagrin of the party's Penang chief and Deputy Chief Minister I Mansor Othman. CAT here is not the "competency, accountability and transparency" tune routinely sung by Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng about his Pakatan Rakyat state administration. In this instance CAT means "cocky, arrogant, tokong", a refence Mansor allegedly made to Lim.
Now, we have two types of C.A.T in Penang wakakaka. But really man, I should be pissed as I'm a dog lover and consider cats only good as door stoppers (sorry darling, wakakaka), but jokes aside, as I had written in my post PKR and its arrogant tokong one month ago: Loose lips sink ships, or in this case, (the potential to sink) the Rocket spaceship. As they say, 'perception' matters in politics and whether there's any truth in PKR Mansor Othman's vocalized opinion of Lim GE, doesn't matter a bloody fig. Each and everyone of his enemies, from those in MCA to pro-UMNO and ultra anti-Lim GE bloggers (wakakaka), and even those in PKR, will have a field day dissecting, pseudo-analyzing and writing ugly dissertations on Lim Guan Eng's political leadership.
The significant political damage would be to the reputation of Lim Guan Eng among his nascent and growing Malay supporters, while Mansor Othman merely suffers the embarrassment of being exposed for badmouthing an ally and boss, though in a worst case scenario he may have (post the next Penang State election) a frigidly courteous, cold and contentious boss. But in visualizing the worst case scenario, maybe we're falling prey to Athi Shanker's projection in FMT that: Whether or not Mansor's alleged description of Lim was spot on, the Penanti assemblyman has surely fueled Lim's wrath. Mansor now faces a tough political future in Penang so long as Lim, from Malacca, hangs around in the island-state. A PKR source said Mansor, who is a party vice-president, must now move out of Penang to safeguard his political interests, alleging that Lim could be "vindictive and vengeful." The source said PKR feared that Lim would order DAP leaders and members not to help Mansor's campaign in the coming general election. As I mentioned, Athi Shanker might possibly be not well disposed to the DAP and could be imagining the worst of Lim Guan Eng. Lim GE is not so small-minded as Shanker has penned, based on his sources. We should remember Lim has been a man who was willing to be jailed for the justice of an (then) under-age Malacca Malay girl. We may say he possesses very high quality values, and would not be a person to be vindictive, much as BN wants us to believe. And if you believe in God, as Lim GE does, wakakaka (sorry for the wakakaka, just ignore me, kaytee the blooming atheist), then we could say the Almighty has rewarded him for his courageous and Guan Yu-like righteous deed for a Malacca Malay girl and her grandmother.
Now, back to topic, much as it may sound strange for me who's not well disposed towards PKR wakakaka, I personally didn't and still won't place much blame on Mansor for his indiscretion in badmouthing Lim GE behind the latter's back. The brouhaha has been nothing more than just a storm in a Pakatan teacup.
Hey, badmouthing someone behind his back, while in itself is bad, means it's suppose to be a private opinion or an opinion expressed among confidantes, wakakaka, and not intended as a biadap-ish disrespect. Surely most of us at one time or another have mafulat-ishly mumbled & muttered imprecations at someone, even those close to us, privately of course or only in thoughts. There is only one rule when doing so, don't get caught and be publicly exposed, wakakaka. Mansor Othman's sin had been in naively believing he was secure within the confines, comradeship and confidentiality of a closed-door PKR meeting, but alas, PKR is not unlike a vipers' nest. The hand that has plunged the assassin stiletto into Lim's political back is not that of Mansor Othman, though I have to say he (Mansor) had naively lent his hand to the assassin for the backstabbing job.
It didn't help when the PKR Chinese faction (supposedly headed by Big Boss Tian Chua wakakaka) was worried about Mansor ceding some state constituencies held or lost (in March 2008) by PKR to DAP, perhaps as a quid pro quo for DAP not to compete with PKR for the State's Malay dominated seats(?). That adverse scenario for the anxious PKR Chinese members was further aggravated when the x number of Chinese members wanting to present themselves as PKR state candidates realized there were only x-1 available constituencies for them, the Chinese elements of PKR. Now, when you become aware you're a loser, or it's made known you'd be one vis-à-vis the list of candidates for the next election, your sour-grapes vengeful exposé of a covertly taped conversation with Mansor committing his faux pas, though totally unethical, would not surprise me in the least, given the generally PKR's viperous environment and culture. And assuming erstwhile PKR MP for Nibong Tebal Tan Tee Beng has been truthful (wakakaka) in stating that, when he was in PKR, Anwar approved attacks against Guan Eng because he (The Great One) considered Lim GE as kurang ajar and desired to "... reproach Lim for his wrongdoings and mismanagement in Penang", it's yet another salutary lesson in being careful of what you say when you are in nest of vipers.
Much as I personally dislike Anwar, and yes, he (The Great One) might have said something uncomplimentary about Lim GE, I doubt he would go to the extent of saying those stuff like what Tan would have us believe. Okay, say maybe he did, that would then make Anwar's unflattering remarks about Lim a trillion quadrillion quintillion times worse that that of Mansor Othman because of the words kurang ajar and the green light to publicly attack an ally. But as I said, I don't believe Tan 100%. Tan is the son of Tan Ghim Hwa, a Penang Gerakan Party big-shot at one time. I mentioned the father in an earlier post Analysing Tan Tee Beng's resignation from PKR where I penned: But this post is not about Tan becoming a frog. If he does that, it won't surprise me. After all, his family roots are in Gerakan-BN. His father Tan Ghim Hwa was the former Gerakan State Chairman, and known as the sworn enemy of the DAP. Lim Kit Siang had in 1991 described Tan Ghim Hwa as a political vulture in a matter where phone threats were made against Lim, allegedly by some Gerakan Party members.
This post is more about Tan Junior's attack against CM Lim GE in particular and the DAP in general. We can of course speculate that his background could have been a possible factor in his latent hostility towards the DAP and the son of Lim Kit Siang, and eventually brought to the boil after some disagreement with CM Lim. But let us not forget that he came from the Chinese section of PKR, led by (its de facto section leader wakakaka) Tian Chua. Uncle Lim described his father as a 'political vulture', and for his unethical kiss-and-tell-like revelation about an alleged Anwar's unfriendly but behind closed door indiscretion towards Lim GE, truthful or otherwise, I have to describe him as 'politically vulgar', wakakaka. Okay, be that it may, obviously with elections around the corner, the BN is in full swing with its char koay teow-ing of the PKR faux pas, aimed to damage and hopefully discredit Lim GE. WTF, after all, it has no policy and nothing else to do, wakakaka. It would appear that Gerakan Penang has been tasked with the dubious honour of playing the role of the fried noodles hawker - huan cheo chay-chay (minta chili lebih - lat cheow tor tee). Okay, so Lim GE is C.A.T though the C.A (cocky and arrogant) is tautological. But sometimes I believe in some circumstances, when one has it, why not flaunt it, as some sweeties have done, much to my immense delight.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
