Jumaat, 1 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 9:25 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

"Remember, we study history to try and understand the past, not to judge it."
Feel like kicking yourself
Why is Dr Mahathir such an idiot?
This is no conspiracy theory
Lest we forget

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

Posted: 27 Jan 2013 07:20 PM PST

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

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next rumour was regarding who was allegedly behind PBS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Philippines' claim to Sabah (EXTRACT)

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

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

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

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

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

How Philippines will eventually take Sabah (EXTRACT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel like kicking yourself

Posted: 23 Jan 2013 05:48 PM PST

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

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Dr Mahathir such an idiot?

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 08:31 PM PST

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

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is no conspiracy theory

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 04:57 PM PST

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

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lest we forget

Posted: 14 Jan 2013 10:58 PM PST

Nevertheless, the point is, that 'historical crowd' did not help the opposition do better. Instead, the opposition did worse. And we celebrated too early our 'success' in 2000 because we translated the crowd in that most historical demonstration into an election victory.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

What BN and Pakatan should be worried about

Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily

Barisan Nasional (BN) probably had not anticipated that the January 12 rally could cause a stir at all.

Past records show that rallies initiated by Pakatan Rakyat, other than the Bersih rallies, could only manage under-10,000 attendance, at best 20,000 to 30,000 on full mobilisation.

The 10,000 to 30,000 that took to the streets could be easily seen as diehard supporters of the opposition pact that would remain loyal whether Pakatan had performed up to the mark or BN had put in any effort to change.

Such a figure could be easily digested by BN and so long as the attendance was placed within this bracket, the impact it would leave on the ruling coalition would be minimal.

BN laid its hopes on the silent majority. So long as these people adopted a wait-and-watch attitude, BN should be able to bring them into its fold.

BN has vast resources at its disposal and Pakatan can make mistakes at times. That explains why Najib prefers to wait instead of rushing to dissolve the Parliament.

The attendance of last weekend's rally far exceeded the estimates of the BN government. Whether it was the 50,000 estimated by the police, the 100,000 claimed by BN, or even the 150,000 some others have estimated, the figure was way higher than what the BN had anticipated.

Where did these additional participants come from? Why had so many answered Pakatan's call?

Could the moderate stance adopted by the police and government embolden the masses to take to the streets?

This is what BN was eager to find out.

If we take 100,000 as a reference, it shows that many erstwhile passive Pakatan supporters and political neutrals have indeed changed their minds. They refused to stay silent and chose to throw their arms around Pakatan.

Some of them did not have a firm or solid political inclination in the past but have now begun to care about social issues and national development.

They were led there by a plethora of factors ranging from dismal government policies, discrepancies in economic development, environmental concerns, widespread public sector corruption and lack of transparency in electoral procedures, among others.

They want a country with a bright future, a more promising society.

When they felt the government had failed them, or the government had slackened in implementing its reform agenda, they rose up to demonstrate their feelings.

The moment Pakatan's appeals met with their aspirations, they would walk out of their passivity and silent past to embrace Pakatan.

When they have become active opponents to the government, a snowballing effect would ensue, enticing more people to their camp. BN should become truly worried when more and more people have chosen to drop their silence, and the ruling coalition.

As for whether a tough crackdown could stop the people from going to the street, I would say no. People would still pour out onto the streets and if subjected to oppressive operations from the government, will be more enraged, bringing the anti-government sentiment way further and broader than anyone could cope with.

What BN did right was to respond with a peaceful gesture which has spared it from much more horrible eventualities.

Something that BN can do now is to expedite reforms to win over the rest of the silent majority.

As for Pakatan, it has to make sure not to commit even the slightest mistakes to sustain the momentum.

The policies of PAS-led Kedah state government have dealt a blow to the integrity of Pakatan Rakyat; so have the controversies over the use of the word "Allah." Improper handling of either could signal the start of its downfall.

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

THE 100,000 CROWD FIVE KILOMETRES LONG

On 5th November 2000, one year after the general election of 29th November 1999, one of the largest demonstrations in Malaysian history was held along the Kesas Highway, which was met with extreme show of force and brutality by the Malaysian police.

This got the government so worried that soon after that they detained without trial ten of those involved in its organisation, me being one of those ten.

According to the testimony of the Malaysian police during the RCI that was conducted to investigate the extreme force that was used, no less than 100,000 demonstrators took to the streets that day. For the first time in history both the police and the organisers agreed on the figure, 100,000.

That November 2000 demonstration, one year after the general election of 1999, was supposed to be the foundation for the 'big push' in the following general election expected around 2004 or so.

Due to that exceptionally large crowd of 100,000, against the backdrop of about six million voters, that gave the opposition great encouragement. Surely that 100,000 crowd turnout was going to help the opposition do better than it did in the November 1999 general election.

In the 1999 general election, the opposition won two states and 45 Parliament seats. In the following general election expected in 2004 or so, the opposition can easily increase this to five states and more than 80 Parliament seats.

But this did not happen. What happened instead was the opposition lost one state, Terengganu, and got reduced to less than half the Parliament seats, only 21. There is, of course, more than one reason for this disaster, partly the opposition's fault and partly because of what the ruling party did.

Let us not make that same mistake again -- as we have done so many times since then in Sanggang, Indera Kayangan, and so on, until the 2004 general election when the opposition got its arse whacked good and proper.

I suppose the English proverb 'don't count your chickens before they hatch' holds true here. And this time around the voter turnout would probably increase from just six million in 1999 to more than ten million.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 9:18 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Voting right by residency?
Beating authoritarianism with consistency
The Fabrication of fz.com's "Pak Lah takes on Dr M in 'tell-all' book"
‘Amalilio a nephew of Sabah minister’
Would winds of change usher in hudud?
Don’t haggle with PAS over Islam, DAP and PKR told
Joe the orphaned baby elephant 'wasting away' after mother was poisoned
Kumpulan Semesta CEO sacked
Pak Lah takes on Dr M in 'tell-all' book
Khutbah Jumaat menyeru untuk toleransi, tapi tegas tentang hak umat Islam
Mahathir behind Project IC, says Anwar
Is Malaysia's monarchy “above politics”?
RPK: For God, King and Racism

Voting right by residency?

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 11:13 AM PST

Malaysians have been using biometric passports since 1998 – the first in the world – there is no stamped date of our entry and exit on our passports. How many overseas Malaysians would have kept a log of their movement in and out of the country – which is required in the registration form 1B? Will the immigration provide easy access to our travel records?

Wong Chin Huat, Selangor Times

AS published in the gazette on Jan 14, 2013, the Election Commission (EC) has changed the postal voting bylaw to extend postal voting rights to more – but not all – overseas Malaysians.

Both the two exclusionary criteria are based on residency.

First of all, ordinary Malaysian voters residing in Singapore, Brunei, Southern Thailand and Kalimantan are not entitled to the postal voting facilities.

Secondly, even for other ordinary overseas Malaysian voters, they would have to first prove that they have been "in Malaysia, or returns to Malaysia, for a period of not less than thirty (30) days within five (5) years before dissolution of Parliament or any State Legislative Assembly in force".

Previously the only "absent overseas voters" who vote on postal ballots are civil servants and students and their wives. These rights are unaffected by the new changes but they are only a fraction of Malaysians residing abroad.

Well, if you insist on seeing a half-full rather a half-empty glass, you should cheer for the EC's move.

However, if one were to take a closer look at the amendment, it is not amusing at all.

To begin with, the residency in Malaysia requirement is worded exclusively for general elections, whether for federation or state.

As such, ordinary overseas voters cannot vote on postal ballots should by-elections take place after the General Election

Next, since Malaysians have been using biometric passports since 1998 – the first in the world – there is no stamped date of our entry and exit on our passports.

How many overseas Malaysians would have kept a log of their movement in and out of the country – which is required in the registration form 1B? Will the immigration provide easy access to our travel records?

And what about those who travel to Malaysia via Singapore or some other checkpoints, where more often than not the Malaysian immigration officials would pay no more than a cursory look at our passports and then do nothing to record our entry or exits?

Now, even if we move on to the exclusion based on country of residency, is it justified? Why is it assumed that those who live in Singapore are from Johor and not Kelantan or Sabah, or that someone who works and lives in Kalimantan must be from Sabah and Sarawak and cannot be from Penang or Terengganu?

It is clearly ridiculous for the EC to assume that Malaysians living in a neighbouring country must be from the border town.

And in the case of Kalimantan, how many hours would one spend on the flight and transit from Tawau to Pontianak?

Or from Kapit in Sarawak to Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, by whatever means of transport?

As a matter of fact, travelling from Sandakan to Santubung in Sarawak, let alone from either to Sauk of Perak, to exercise one's duty to vote is taxing in time and money.

Civil society has been calling for absentee voting facilities to be provided for domestic voters, at least between Sabah, Sarawak and the Peninsula. Unfortunately all these have been falling on to the deaf ears of the EC.

As the custodian of the electoral process, the EC should do everything it can to encourage voter registration and voting.

If postal voting can get more of the 300,000 Malaysians residing in Singapore to vote, why should we indirectly suppress their turnout by forcing them to travel home to vote?

Similarly, if overseas Malaysians care enough to keep their citizenship, why should they be deprived of their right to vote but called upon to serve the nation only when we need their talents, money, skills and network? Why don't we also impose residency conditions in the TalentCorp programme and tell those who have not spent at least 30 days in the past five years to take a hike?

The disenfranchising of overseas Malaysians has no basis in our Federal Constitution.

Beating authoritarianism with consistency

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 11:09 AM PST

Malaysia would not be a better, more democratic place if we incarcerated authoritarians under the ISA or charged them for sedition. We would thereby perpetuate authoritarianism ourselves.

Yin Shao Loong, Selangor Times

LONG exposure to authoritarian, race-based politics has shaped who we are on a moral, intellectual, and cultural level, including our ideas about authority, argument, acceptable speech, group identity, and national destiny.

Shifting away from Umno and the Barisan Nasional's brand of soft authoritarianism will not be easy, but this is what is needed for democracy to deepen in Malaysia.

BN has been in power long enough to exert a strong gravitational force on the methods and principles of our political culture. Even their critics within civil society, the opposition, and the public sometimes resort to the very methods they otherwise stand against.

The Bar Council has been known as an opponent of the Sedition Act and a defender of constitutional democracy.

Last week however, the president of the Bar Council condoned the use of the Sedition Act against Datuk Ibrahim Ali for the latter's incitement to burn Bibles.

Additionally, Karpal Singh has filed a police report against Ibrahim citing violation of the Sedition Act even though Karpal himself is currently being prosecuted under the Act and his party has opposed it as a draconian piece of legislation.

This kind of inconsistent behaviour can fuel simplistic judgements that little difference exists between our present political alternatives. There are, of course, substantial differences, but a struggle waged on principle must strive for consistency.

Supporting the use of the Sedition Act against even Ibrahim Ali was a breach of principle. The broad definition of sedition within the Act makes it ripe for abuse by a government scared of accountability.

There are many non-authoritarian laws within the Penal Code that would serve equally well to handle Ibrahim's threats.

The provisions of the Sedition Act against raising ill-will and disaffection have traditionally been used to criminalise dissent against the government. This runs counter to the spirit of democracy where it should be legitimate to question power.

The call to use the repressive weapon of sedition is a symptom of a bigger problem in Malaysian political life where the authoritarian political culture promoted by Umno during its hegemony has influenced the behaviour of its critics.

Recently, some people wanted to lodge a police report against Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for his comments about Tunku Abdul Rahman's granting of citizenship to various Malayans prior to Merdeka being a bigger crime than Dr Mahathir's involvement in granting ICs for votes in Sabah.

Using a police report as a punitive measure is part of the old political culture of intimidation. Far better than lodging a report would be to expose Dr Mahathir's faulty grasp of historical facts and logic in public, as several writers have done.

The melodrama of filing a police report against someone annoying has become a staple of Malaysian political theatre. Rather than use more rational forms of debate and argument, the ritual of the political police report – backed by repressive laws such as the Sedition Act and the compliance of the police and judiciary with the powers that be – became a way for the threat of authoritarian state power to be used to silence dissent.

Police reports should be lodged if a crime has been committed. If there is a breach of the law, the police and the attorney-general are duty bound to take up the matter.

However, democrats should refrain from exercising those draconian laws that criminalise legitimate dissent and democratic freedoms.

Malaysia would not be a better, more democratic place if we incarcerated authoritarians under the ISA or charged them for sedition. We would thereby perpetuate authoritarianism ourselves.

Equally, if we stand against race politics we should move beyond the kinds of hate-speech and prejudice promoted by patriarchal, race-based politics.

The Fabrication of fz.com's "Pak Lah takes on Dr M in 'tell-all' book"

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 11:03 AM PST

We are dismayed by the shoddy sensation-seeking reporting of Moshin Abdullah, who has fabricated a story without practicing basic professional ethics of checking his facts.

Bridget Welsh & James Chin

We write to express our concern with the unprofessionalism of reporter Moshin Abdullah on the forthcoming volume Tranformations: The Abdullah Badawi Years to be published later this year. This reporter fabricated a story on unnamed sources and did not confirm his analysis before going to press. The end result is an overly-sensational shoddy piece of journalism that misconstrues the collection and Abdullah Badawi's contribution.

By further describing the book as a "tell all" collection, he inappropriately mischaracterizes and demeans the collection and the contributors. We ask that fz.com apologize for failing to follow basic journalistic standards, retract the piece entitled "Pak Lah takes on Dr M in 'tell-all' book".

We are dismayed by the shoddy sensation-seeking reporting of Moshin Abdullah, who has fabricated a story without practicing basic professional ethics of checking his facts. The reporter did not follow professional ethics of confirming the story with the editors (who can easily be reached by phone and email). His story "Pak Lah takes on Dr M in 'tell-all' book" is a fabrication of his own imagination. No attempts were made to check the facts or to contact the editors.

Transformations: The Abdullah Badawi Years is an academic publication of more than 40 essays and interviews reflecting and analyzing the five years of the Abdullah Badawi administration. It has nothing to do with "tell all" or an attack on Tun Mahathir. The collection provides a range of views analyzing Malaysia from 2003 to 2008. The core of book is about the Pak Lah administration, not Tun Mahathir. The claim that Abdullah's interview is an attack on Mahathir, as implied by the fz.com reporter, is not true.

We urge fz.com and journalists in Malaysia to follow basic ethical practices in reporting. Too much of what is being reported today in Malaysia is based on shoddy reporting. The Malaysian people deserve reporting based on credible sources and high professional standards.

Bridget Welsh & James Chin

‘Amalilio a nephew of Sabah minister’

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 10:58 AM PST

(Philippine Star) - Manuel Amalilio is a nephew of the chief minister of Sabah, who blocked last week his repatriation to Manila where he is wanted for a P12-billion pyramiding scam.

This is according to Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who called on his country's police to "act in accordance with law and not be seen taking orders from political masters."

"Yes, his mother is Musa's first cousin," Anwar told The STAR when asked for details about Amalilio's ties to Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman.

"Amalilio's real name is Kamal bin Said, born in Beaufort, Sabah," Anwar said. "The mother is Zubaidah Omar, cousin of Chief Minister Musa Aman. Haji Aman (Musa's father) and Haji Omar (Zubaidah's father) are brothers."

One reason given by Sabah airport police in stopping National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents, at the last minute, from flying Amalilio to Manila is that he is a protected Malaysian citizen.

"Amalilio is married to a Filipina, and holds a Philippine passport," Anwar said.

Amalilio is facing court cases for duping last year more than 15,000 Visayans and Mindanaoans in a get-rich-quick scheme of his Aman Futures. He is hot news in predominantly Muslim Malaysia because most of Amalilio's victims reportedly are from the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

When President Aquino ordered his arrest last November, Amalilio fled to Sabah, where he reportedly was often seen in public.

Last week the Interpol branch in Malaysia arrested Amalilio, and promptly informed Manila.

The NBI dispatched a team to pick up Amalilio the other Friday. But the agents came home empty-handed. Sabah police retook Amalilio at the airport minutes before the flight, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said.

Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, who had helped the thousands of victims sue Amalilio, revealed that no less than Chief Minister Musa intervened for the fugitive.

Would winds of change usher in hudud?

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 10:55 AM PST

(FMT) - With the general election drawing nearer, there is talk of negotiation and alliance.The question now is, would PAS and Umno lie on the same bed?

Is there any way possible for the Barisan National to snatch victory from Pakatan Rakyat in the upcoming general election? This is the question being asked by all and sundry in the country.

Nevertheless, a large number of organisations and nations across the globe see change as an inevitable thing in Malaysia, and would welcome a Pakatan victory.

Among them is Hamas whose top-most leaders are allies of Anwar Ibrahim.

During the entire Pakatan campaign in 2012, Anwar displayed images of the Hamas leaders in meetings with Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qardawi, with Anwar himself at the centre of attention.

These images, applauded by the local folks all over Peninsular Malaysia and in Borneo, show the close relationship the Hamas leadership has with Anwar.

And suddenly, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak jumps onto the Hamas bandwagon and gets himself meddled in a diplomatic row with Al-Fatah. Yet, the surprise visit – surely arranged by some organisations acting as public relations and image polisher of the Malaysian prime minister – has had some reverberations.

The presence of PAS Syura Council member Ustaz Nasharuddin Mat Esa, since then ejected from the party, speaks for itself.

Was the trip to Gaza an attempt to gain the sympathy of local Islamic NGOs? Or was it an attempt to discuss future plans for the pro-Umno PAS members?

It would be stupid to dismiss the possibility of talks between Umno and PAS members. It is clear that a PAS member who joins an Umno prime minister's trip is either a toad or simply a negotiator.

Was it not expected that PAS would dismiss Nasharuddin after this display of love for the prime minister?

However, many observers believe the Malaysian prime minister's visit to Gaza, where he praised the Hamas movement, was not a simple visit. Despite the apparent diplomatic faux pas, there is more than support for Gaza in the visit.

This was certainly an attempt to reach Sheikh Yusuf, the mentor of Anwar. And do we care to know why?

Don’t haggle with PAS over Islam, DAP and PKR told

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 10:53 AM PST

(The Star) - DAP and PKR should not "haggle" with PAS over the Islamist party's decision on the issue of the word "Allah" or any matter concerning Islam, says PAS ulama chief Datuk Harun Taib.

"We are sticking by the (PAS) Syura Council's decision that the word Allah should not be used by other religious faiths," he said.

The party's information chief Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man said the party's decision on the matter was final.

He added that PAS would not entertain Pakatan Rakyat's recent decision that indirectly allows the word "Allah" to be used in Bibles in the Malay language.

"We will abide by the Syura Council decision. We will not change our stand on matters concerning the religion," he said, adding that PAS is not a flip-flop party that changes its stand for the sake of political expediency.

They said this in response to reports that DAP chairman Karpal Singhhad allegedly asked PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to ensure that the Syura Council abided by the Pakatan Rakyat leadership council's recent decision to allow non-Muslims to use the word "Allah".

The Syura Council is the highest decision-making body in PAS that decides on the party's policies and direction.

On Jan 14, the council decided that the word "Allah" cannot be used to describe God in any non-Muslim publications.

However, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said the Pakatan's stand remained the same despite the council's decision.

Abdul Hadi had said earlier this year that Islam did not forbid people from other faiths from using the word "Allah" – provided it was not misused.

Joe the orphaned baby elephant 'wasting away' after mother was poisoned

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 10:49 AM PST

(The Telegraph) - A baby pygmy elephant that was pictured nuzzling the body of its dead mother in a heartbreaking attempt to wake her up is said to be losing weight fast amid fears he may not survive.

The three-month-old calf, named Joe by wildlife officials, made headlines earlier in the week when the poignant photograph was published.

His mother was one of 14 rare Borneo pygmy elephants that have been found dead of suspected poisoning in recent days in a series of fatalities that has shaken conservation efforts.

The decomposed remains of the latest known victim were located on Wednesday, said Laurentius Ambu, director of the wildlife department in the Malaysian state of Sabah on Borneo island.

Officials believe the animals may have been poisoned, possibly by substances left out by workers at nearby oil palm plantations to deter the animals from eating their palm fruit.

A wildlife official tends to Joe. Picture: SABAH WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT/AFP/Getty Images

They fear more dead pygmy elephants - an endangered species - could be found because they usually roam Borneo's jungles in herds of 50 to 60 animals.

Masidi Manjun, Sabah's tourism, culture and environment minister, warned it would be a "challenging task" to keep Joe alive as he was consuming only half his normal 30 litres (7.9 gallons) of milk daily.

"(Joe) is surviving, but it is going to be a challenging task," he told AFP news agency by phone from Sabah.

Joe is being kept in quarantine at a wildlife park and has lost 22 pounds after being traumatised by an 800 kilometre (497 mile) road journey to the park, the Star newspaper said Thursday.

Kumpulan Semesta CEO sacked

Posted: 31 Jan 2013 06:39 PM PST

Wan Ab Halim Wan Ismail has been on leave since November, and terminated from service last month.

Meena Lakshana, fz.com

Wan Ab Halim Wan Ismail, who is chief executive officer (CEO) of sand mining company Kumpulan Semesta Sdn Bhd (KSSB), a subsidiary of the Selangor government, had been sacked effective last month for abuse of power and violating company procedures.

ALSO READ:

1. EPISODE 4: The Selangor sand-mining scandal

2. Sand mining: RPK reveals 'dirt' on two reps

3. MACC reopens probe

4. Haris: What happened to the 2010 findings?

When contacted, sources in the Selangor government confirmed to fz.com that Wan Ab Halim, who was appointed CEO in July 2010, had received notice of his firing in early January.

A Sinar Harian report today, quoting sources, said the KSSB board of directors fired Wan Ab Halim for abuse of power and violating operating procedures.

The move came as a surprise for many quarters within KSSB as Selangor mentri besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim had extended the CEO's contract for another two years last July. The company, too, has been doing financially well under his watch.

The sacking follows an independent investigation by a firm appointed by the board of directors to look into financial operations of the company.

Sources close to KSSB told the Bahasa Malaysia daily that Wan Ab Halim was alleged to have sanctioned illegal sand mining last year.

Last November, he received notice to go on leave from the Selangor MB, and this was then extended till end-December.

The CEO position at KSSB was created after two of the company's directors, who are state assembly members, were investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in 2010.

Wan Ab Halim, 62, has wide prior experience with companies that are involved in the mining of mineral resources such as sand, tin, iron and gold.

KSSB was established on June 26, 2008 to pioneer the mining of sand and other minerals in the state.

Pak Lah takes on Dr M in 'tell-all' book

Posted: 31 Jan 2013 06:25 PM PST

'Elegant silence' no more. 'Mr Nice' is set to do battle with his predecessor over spiteful remarks.

Mohsin Abdullah, fz.com

Former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is finally countering allegations hurled at him by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in a "tell-all" book to be published after the coming Chinese New Year, say sources.

The book is edited by well-known academics and political analysts Bridget Welsh and James Chin.

If this is indeed true, then it will be the first time Abdullah is addressing attacks from his predecessor, which began soon after he took office in 2003.

The attacks arose from what was seen as Abdullah "pushing aside" development projects started by Mahathir (including cancelling the "crooked bridge" link to Singapore) and unwillingness to continue certain policies.

The barrage of attacks escalated following Barisan Nasional's poor showing in the 2008 general election, which Mahathir blamed on Abdullah, accusing him among other things, of being "a weak leader leading a half-past-six government". And that was one of Mahathir's "softer" tirades.

Mahathir also openly called for Abdullah's resignation and famously quit Umno in May 2008, citing a lack of confidence in the party leadership. (Abdullah eventually stepped down in April 2009, to make way for current Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak).

Abdullah's response to Mahathir's attacks was, well, a non-response – prompting former deputy prime minister Tun Musa Hitam, who agreed with the former's stance, to coin the now famous term "elegant silence".

And Abdullah or Pak Lah as he is fondly known, has stuck to his code of "elegant silence" religiously, at least in public. Until now. With the publication of the book the "elegant silence" will finally, it seems, be broken.

"Well, it is done in Pak Lah's style which is different from Dr Mahathir's," said another source, who is privy to the publication of the book. This means whether it would "satisfy" those who expect a hard-hitting response from the veteran politician remains to be seen.

Posted: 31 Jan 2013 06:09 PM PST

Zurairi AR, The Malaysian Insider

Pihak jabatan agama Persekutuan menyeru umat Islam untuk menghormati bukan Islam, tetapi bersikap tegas untuk tidak berkompromi tentang kesucian agama itu.

Khutbah Jumaat minggu lalu yang memberi amaran bahawa terdapat percubaan dari "musuh Islam" untuk mengelirukan umat Islam mengatakan semua agama adalah sama.

Dalam khutbah hari ini, bersempena dengan Minggu Keharmonian Antara Agama, Jabatan Kemajuan Agama Islam (JAKIM) menyeru kepada umat Islam untuk menghormati dan melindungi penganut lain.

"Di antara butir-butir kesepakatan yang terkandung dalam Piagam Madinah ialah sesiapa yang hidup dan tinggal di wilayah Madinah, baik Islam atau pun bukan Islam, dengan syarat tidak berbuat zalim, khianat dan huru hara, maka hendaklah mereka dilindungi dan diberi keamanan di bawah kekuasaan Islam yang suci," menurut teks khutbah tersebut.

Bagaimanapun umat Islam harus "mengambil tindakan" sekiranya agamanya dipertikai atau persenda, seperti ditulis dalam surah Al-Mumtahanah ayat 8 dan 9.

"Allah tidak melarang kamu daripada berbuat baik dan berlaku adil kepada orang-orang yang tidak memerangi kamu kerana agamamu, dan tidak mengeluarkan kamu dari kampung halaman kamu; sesungguhnya Allah mengasihi orang yang berlaku adil.

"Sesungguhnya Allah hanyalah melarang kamu daripada menjadikan teman rapat orang-orang yang memerangi kamu kerana agama (kamu), dan mengeluarkan kamu dari kampung halamanmu, serta mereka membantu (orang lain) untuk mengusir kamu. Dan (ingatlah) sesiapa yang menjadikan mereka teman rapat, maka mereka itulah orang-orang yang zalim".

Khutbah itu juga memberi amaran kepada mereka yang memanipulasi agama untuk kepentingan sendiri, dan mereka yang berkompromi secara melampaui batas dengan agama lain.

"Namun perlu diingat, toleransi yang dimaksudkan bukanlah bererti kita mengakui doktrin keyakinan mereka kerana di dalam persoalan akidah, Islam tidak sama sekali berkompromi dengan kekufuran atau kesyirikan. Toleransi yang dimaksudkan oleh Islam ialah kita tidak melampaui batas dalam perkara yang telah dipersetujui," menurut khutbah itu lagi.

JAKIM memberi amaran toleransi melampau akan menjadi pemangkin kerosakan masyarakat itu yang akan melemahkan kestabilan sosio-politik.

Dalam khutbah itu juga, JAKIM memberi amaran kepada bukan Islam tentang apa yang sudah digariskan dalam Perlembagaan dan hak ekslusif umat Islam.

READ MORE HERE

Mahathir behind Project IC, says Anwar

Posted: 31 Jan 2013 04:54 PM PST

The opposition leader points his fingers at former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed instead.

Anisah Shukry, FMT

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim today reiterated his stance that he had nothing to do with the citizenship-for-votes granted to Sabah immigrants in the 1990s.

Instead, he accused former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad of being responsible for the task force allegedly responsible for the citizenships granted to the immigrants.

He also claimed that the exercise was ongoing and suggested that the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) haul up Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and former premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as well.

"I am ready for the [Royal Commission of Inquiry]. You can ask all the ministers, it was never discussed with me in the Cabinet, there are no minutes no reports, no related records," Anwar said at a press conference today.

"Because the task force [to oversee Project IC] was managed by the then prime minister and handed over to (Mahathir's political secretary) Aziz Shamsuddin and (former Deputy Home Minister Tan Sri) Megat Junid (Megat Ayub)," claimed Anwar.

"This is Mahathir's method [to make accusations against me]; but can he deny that he is responsible for founding the taskforce? All the reports were to his knowledge. He must answer this first."

Yesterday, Mahathir had claimed his former deputy was the main man behind the so-called "Project IC", which is now under probe by the RCI.

He said that there were times when Anwar had acted without his orders, and that the exercise was Anwar's own initiative.

"He normally takes the initiative and sometimes do more [than is required]," online news portal Malaysiakini quoted Mahathir as saying.

"What happens on the ground is often different from the directive [from above]," added Mahathir.

Last week, Anwar had stated his willingness to testify in the ongoing RCI, but was quick to add that he was in the dark about the project.

He also said that the RCI had not summoned him because "they know I have nothing to do with it".

Today, Anwar again said that he would readily testify before the RCI.

"As I said from the beginning, I am prepared to be investigated," he stressed.

Posted: 31 Jan 2013 04:42 PM PST

monarchy-politics

Pak Sako, CPI

Speaking at the launch of a book on the Malaysian monarchy, Malaysian prime minister Najib bin Razak said that the Malay Rulers "are above politics" (see ' Najib: Constitutional monarchy fosters stability, prosperity ', The Malaysian Insider, 30 Jan 2013).

He said that the Malaysian monarchy "provides a solid foundation" for turning Malaysia into a high-income nation.

To be above politics means to not interfere in the political workings of the country and to take no sides in party politics.

To act as a foundation to the economy so that Malaysian citizens enjoy high incomes means abstaining from and disapproving the undemocratic use of the public's wealth and resources.

So is the prime minister's statement about the Malaysian monarchy true?

The evidence paints a different story.

A Negri Sembilan prince clarified that the royalty have and do participate in party politics and gave five examples (see ' Response to statements by Tunku Aziz and Anthony Loke ', The Malaysian Insider, 29 Jan 2013).

In his biography of Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysian Maverick (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009), Barry Wain speaks about how the sultans of the nine states had "sometimes played politics, leveraged their positions for financial gain and indulged in fairytale-like extravagance at the public expense". Although the sultans were "not meant to engage in commerce, they were actually so deeply involved that they were resented by the business community".

Roger Kershaw's Monarchy in South-East Asia (Routledge, 2001) states that "in return for secure wealth and status", the Malaysian monarchy gives the ruling Malay elite a "more traditional kind of legitimacy" by proxy, in what is said to be an "important but unwritten 'social contract'" in contemporary Malaysia.

On this political relationship, associate professor Azlan Tajuddin in Malaysia in the World Economy (1824-2011) (Lexington Press, 2012) claims that when the constitutional article on royal immunity in 1993 was removed, "the real aim" of the government of seeking "full control of the monarchy" was "to ensure that the Malay royalty continued to serve a political function in preserving Malay electoral support for UMNO". The author says it should not be surprising "to find some of the sultans publicly generating support for UMNO or admonishing those who have been critical of the party".

He explains: "For the royals, the reward for subservience to the party [UMNO] would also sustain continued enjoyment of unsurpassed advantages... Several members of the the Malay royalty... have found their way into UMNO's circle of crony entrepreneurs... Many royally-run businesses have resulted in numerous bankruptcies... [but] as long as the Malay rulers remained staunch UMNO supporters, they would be assured their businesses stayed operational and are given access to lucrative commercial ventures".

Fadzilah Majid Cooke's The Challenge of Sustainable Forests: Forest Resource Policy in Malaysia, 1970-1995 (Allen & Unwin, 1999) notes that between 1987 and 1990 alone, the Pahang royal family was awarded logging concession licenses totalling 18,723.82 hectares (or 187 square kilometres) of forest.

READ MORE HERE

RPK: For God, King and Racism

Posted: 31 Jan 2013 04:21 PM PST

Malaysia Today editor blasts Umno for its distorted version of the country's history and debunks its claim of having fought for independence

To a stunned audience, Raja Petra claimed that the Malay nationalists and the Japanese had decided that the date for Merdeka would be Aug 17, 1945. This failed to materialise because of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the eventual Japanese surrender on Aug 15, 1945.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

CAMBRIDGE: Raja Petra Kamarudin debunked Umno's version of Malaysian history and detailed Tunku Abdul Rahman's sorrow at the destruction of his vision of a multiracial Malaysia, when he spoke at Cambridge University South East Asia Forum (CUSEAF), first Lent term event on Wednesday evening.

Within a stone's throw of the Tunku's alma mater, St Catherine's College Cambridge, Raja Petra told the audience of 90 people, comprising mainly students in their 20s that, "the Tunku used to say he was the happiest PM in the world, but in a later interview, said, 'I wish I had died earlier…living to this age and seeing my fellow Malayans killing one another. It saddens me. This is not what I planned for my country.'"

According to the Malaysia Today editor, the Tunku died a heartbroken man and neither spoke to, nor forgave the person whom he blamed as the architect of the mess – Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

He drew a sharp contrast between the rallying call of "God, King and Country" used during the English Civil War, with Malaysia's version, which encompasses Ketuanan Melayu, "God, King and Racism".

Charting the birth of the nation and the route taken, as well as the real fighters for Merdeka, he criticised the version of history being taught in Malaysian schools which he called Umno propaganda, and lamented the lack of works by original historians like Swettenham, Wilkinson, or Winstedt.

"In our schools, the history of Malaya starts in 1946. This is when Umno was born. Umno also claimed to have fought for independence from the British."

Raja Petra rubbished Umno's claims that they had fought for independence.

"Umno did not fight anybody. The real fight started in 1941 when the Malay nationalists got together, Pak Sako, Mustapha Hussain and Ibrahim Yaacob. We also had Chinese nationalists like Chin Peng who wanted to fight for the independence of Malaya.

"The fact that he was a communist is secondary. Ibrahim Yaacob was a socialist. Shamsiah Fakeh, a communist. Pak Sako, who is today celebrated as one of the greatest Malay writers, was a socialist."

He recommended that the audience to read, "The Memoirs of Mustapha Hussain: 1910 to 1957: Malay nationalism before Umno" which details the journey of nationalism before the formation of Umno and how the Malay nationalists supported the Japanese to free the country from western imperialism.

Umno formed to resist Malayan Union

After WWII, he said that the British decided to educate the Malayans, in Britain, to groom them for independence. A bankrupted Britain needed to protect her economic interests in Malaya to help their country recover. The British also introduced the Malayan Union, in which the powers of the sultans would be reduced, thus diminishing the powers of the Malays.

"In 1946, Umno was formed not to fight for Merdeka but to resist the Malayan Union," said Raja Petra.

During the negotiations for Merdeka, the British wanted the Malays to persuade the non-Malays to join forces with them. "There was a trade off and so all non-Malays who happened to be in the country, were made citizens. The notion of "Pendatangs" stopped at the time of Merdeka. Merdeka was given to Malaya in 1957, for the Alliance party to administer, and not to Umno."

"With the new parliamentary set-up in 1959, the politicians started to mess things up. From 1959 to 1969, they played up various issues. One of the guilty people was Dr Mahathir, the author of 'The Malay Dilemma'."

Raja Petra blasted the propaganda aimed at the Tunku during May 13, the increase of religious intolerance, the resurgence of racism and talk of "pendatangs". He did not spare parties like PAS which felt that Malaysia was "not religious enough".

"Tunku felt that the country was messed up by Umno politicians who played politics using race and religion".

Reading an excerpt from the book he had earlier recommended, he said, "Mustapha was humiliated and labeled as "the Malay who brought the Japanese into Malaya" because he was negotiating with the Japanese for independence.

"Although Mustapha was already negotiating for Merdeka in 1945, Umno claimed that negotiations for Merdeka only took place in 1957. The 12 year difference is crucial.

"If Umno were to recognise that people like Mustapha Hussain, Pak Sako, Ibrahim Yaacob, as the real "pejuang Merdeka" or fighters for Merdeka, then Umno's legitimacy is gone.

"Umno cannot then claim they are the fighters of Merdeka anymore. They cannot then explain the history they have presented us, which is that Umno was formed in 1946 to fight for Merdeka. None of that happened."

BN and Opposition no different

Raja Petra said that certain people in Umno feared the Tunku's vision of Malaya; a more multiracial and less Islamic Malaya, and so they plotted to make the country more radical and ultra-religious. Their plans started in 1959, and they plotted continuously until the eruption of violence in 1969.

He regretted the entry of the "Young Turks" who grabbed power in 1969, which signaled the beginning of the end, for national unity. He said that from then on, both sides of the political fence played the 3Rs (race, religion, royalty), ketuanan Melayu, the NEP, Article 153 and continued the British policy of divide and rule.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 1 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Pengikut

Trafik

Live Traffic

Mesyuarat Tingkap

Archive