Monday, 20 October 2014

Malays who moved from one island to another in the Malay Archipelago are NOT pendatang

"Perwakilan Gerakan Johor, Tan Lai Soon mengatakan Melayu juga pendatang yang berasal dari Indonesia. Dia kata dia ada baca sejarah, tapi agaknya sekadar baca tapi langsung tak dapat faham!'
Kelab Che Det FB

So let us be clear about the definition of pendatang. All those Malays who moved from one island to another but within the Malay Archipelago are not pendatang. It is just like Malays from Penang moving to Selangor. The cut-off date would be after the different sovereign states were created in the 20th Century.
Raja Petra

In that superficial sense, if anyone wants to say Malay are pendatang from Indonesia, you are as good as saying the Hokkiens are Pendatang in Canton, Beijing people are pendatang in Shanghai, or Kedah in Selangorian are pendatang too.
Tai Zee Kin

Gerakan members dan sewaktu dengan mereka should know the history of Semenanjung Tanah Melayu before they put their foot in their mouth.

Historical lessons for Malaysians who refuse to know the History of Tanah Melayu:

From Facebook Kelab Che Det:

Perwakilan Gerakan Johor, Tan Lai Soon mengatakan Melayu juga pendatang yang berasal dari Indonesia. Dia kata dia ada baca sejarah, tapi agaknya sekadar baca tapi langsung tak dapat faham!

Admin nak sekolahkan sekali lagi orang mcm Tan Lai Soon ni! Dulu pun admin dah post banyak kali pasal sejarah orang Melayu di Malaysia.

Orang Melayu memang merupakan penduduk asal Malaysia (sebelumnya Tanah Melayu) dan kajian arkeologi dan mtDNA mengesahkan kewujudannya di Benua Sunda sejak lebih 60 ribu tahun yang lalu lagi. Tidak timbul soal orang asli merupakan penduduk asal di negara ini kerana pemetaan genetik dan artifak arkeologi juga telah mendapati bahawa masyarakat Orang Asli Semang dan Senoi yang mendiami Benua Sunda adalah merupakan nenek moyang kepada populasi Melayu Proto dan ras Melayu hari ini. Kajian itu telah dibuat oleh penyelidik Universiti Sains Malaysia yang diketuai oleh Prof Madya Dr Zafarina Zainuddin. Kajian mtDNA oleh pakar genetik Universiti Oxford, Dr Stephen Oppenheimer juga mengesahkan tentang perkara ini.

Orang Melayu Kelantan memang telah dibuktikan secara kajian saintifik dan sejarah sudah wujud dan menetap di Semenanjung Tanah Melayu lebih 60 ribu tahun dahulu lagi! Mereka bukan pun berasal dari kepulauan Melayu yang kini merupakan wilayah Indonesia.

Memang sebahagian orang Melayu di Pantai Barat Semenanjung Tanah Melayu berasal dari kepulauan-kepulauan yang kini dalam wilayah Indonesia. Tapi waktu itu, tiada pemisahan sempadan. Orang Melayu boleh berpindah-randah ke mana-mana wilayah mereka kerana dari sudut sejarah sebelum penjajahan, pulau-pulau tersebut seperti Sumatera merupakan wilayah keturunan Melayu juga. Penjajah yang memisahkan wilayah-wilayah Melayu melalui Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda dan Perjanjian Inggeris-Siam.

Sebahagian besar Sumatera, Singapura, Pattani dan sebagainya sebelum wujud perjanjian penjajah tersebut adalah merupakan wilayah orang keturunan Melayu. Tiada sempadan untuk mereka bergerak sama seperti orang Kelantan atau Kedah berhijrah ke Selangor hari ini!

From Raja Petra's Malaysia Today:

So let us be clear about the definition of pendatang. All those Malays who moved from one island to another but within the Malay Archipelago are not pendatang. It is just like Malays from Penang moving to Selangor. The cut-off date would be after the different sovereign states were created in the 20th Century.
Raja Petra Kamarudin
All the three key races that form Malaysia’s majority — the Malays, Chinese and Indians — are immigrants or pendatangs, even though the Malays, as the country’s dominant ethnic group, are given Bumiputera status, a Gerakan delegate, Tan Lai Soon, said today.
Tan said that supporters of Umno, who have in the past referred to the Chinese as immigrants, did not realise that even the Malays do not originate from Malaysia.
“I want to explain Malaysians’ position. The Malays, Chinese, Indians, are all pendatangs (immigrants) other than the indigenous people, Sabahans, Sarawakians — the original Bumiputera. So when Umno’s people say the Chinese are pendatang, they didn’t think that they are also pendatang from Indonesia,” said Tan.
Actually, Tan is not quite correct because he is looking at Malaysia as a sovereign nation separate from Indonesia, Philippines and Southern Thailand. Those are boundaries created by the European colonialists since the 16th Century. Prior to that, Indonesia, Philippines, Southern Thailand (up to the Isthmus of Kra), Singapore, East Timor and Brunei did not exist. What existed was just the Malay Archipelago.
The Malay Archipelago has been defined as an island group of Southeast Asia between Australia and the Asian mainland and separating the Indian and Pacific oceans. It includes what we now call Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Southern Thailand (up to the Isthmus of Kra), Singapore, East Timor and Brunei.
About 1,400 years ago, at the time of Prophet Muhammad, the Malay Archipelago, the name the Europeans gave this region, was part of the Srivijaya Empire. In the 13th Century, this was replaced by the Majapahit Empire until the 16th Century and still included those countries mentioned.
The language of this region was old Malay, old Javanese and Sanskrit with Buddhism and Hinduism as its main religions.
It was in the 16th Century that the Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese started coming to the Malay Archipelago and began dividing up the territory, just like what the Europeans did to the Ottoman Empire after the First World War (and the cause of all those problems in the Middle East today).
Hence it would be incorrect to say that the Malays are pendatang or immigrants, at least not the original Malays of the 600s to 1800s. There was certainly movement of people between the different islands as well as the Malay Peninsula plus Thailand. But these people were not immigrants because this movement was still within the same empire or territory.
When Tan says that the Malays, too, are immigrants to Malaysia, he has to clarify what period he was referring to. The Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States, the Unfederated Malay States and British Borneo did not come into existence until the 19th Century. From then on British Malaya came into being.
For purposes of history, all those people who came to British Malaya since 1850 could be correctly referred to as pendatang or immigrants (the date when the British immigration policy was launched to bring in Chinese and Indians from China and India). Prior to 1850, we cannot call the Malays from Java, Sumatra, etc., as pendatang.
So let us be clear about the definition of pendatang. All those Malays who moved from one island to another but within the Malay Archipelago are not pendatang. It is just like Malays from Penang moving to Selangor. The cut-off date would be after the different sovereign states were created in the 20th Century.
For example, when my family moved to Selangor in the 18th Century, Selangor was not yet part of British Malaya but was an independent territory under Perak control. At that time, the Bugis Johor-Riau Empire controlled that region. It was not until the 19th Century when the British and Dutch signed a treaty in London that the Empire was carved up and eventually ended.
Today, any Bugis from Indonesia who comes to Selangor can be called a pendatang. But in the 18th Century we were not pendatang. That is a historical fact.
The Malay Archipelago is the largest group of islands in the world, consisting of the more than 17,000 islands of Indonesia and the approximately 7,000 islands of the Philippines. The principal islands and groups of the Republic of Indonesia include the Greater Sundas (Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes), the Lesser Sundas, the Moluccas, and western New Guinea. The main islands of the Philippines include Luzon (north), Mindanao (south), and the Visayas in between. Other political units in the archipelago are East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak), Brunei, and Papua New Guinea.
Encyclopædia Britannica
Definition and Boundaries
For reasons which depend mainly on the distribution of animal life, I consider the Malay Archipelago to include the Malay Peninsula as far as Tenasserim and the Nicobar Islands on the west, the Philippines on the north, and the Solomon Islands, beyond New Guinea, on the east. All the great islands included within these limits are connected together by innumerable smaller ones, so that no one of them seems to be distinctly separated from the rest.
By Alfred Russel Wallace, The Malay Archipelago.

From Tai Zee Kin Facebook:

Are Malay pendatang from "INDONESIA"? (Refering to the Gerakan Man's allegation)

If British, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherland did not came and colonize us, I have a feeling that south east Asia will be very different from how it is now.

Firstly, the indo-chinese countries like Myanmar Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand will remain as such due to their long and ancient history being subject/influencee of the Chinese empire and also their own ancient sovereign respectively. Their language are unique to its own and has a little bit of chinese influence here and there.

The intriguing and interesting part would be among Malaysia, Indonesian, Philippines and Bruneians. These were countries forming the "Malay Achipelago", commonly known as Nusantara. They share similiar language and cultural background, being a blend and fusion of (lingual) Sanskrit, Pali, Persian, Arabic, Tamil, Han Chinese, and the local "Malay" languages, as well as the cultural influence of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, all predated colonial invasion and existed since time immemorial.

The whole idea of "Malaysia" and "Indonesia" was infact a product of the colonial treaty between Britain and Netherlands in 17 March 1824 in London, "Anglo-Dutch Treaty 1824" which sets the boundary of colonial influence between modern day peninsular malaysia (to british) and Indonesia to Netherlands. The Treaty was later updated in 1891 through the Boundary Convention in London, and 1928 in Hague Netherlands.

Take for an instance, if there were only one colonial force instead of two, say Netherland, the whole of Malaya and Indonesia would be Indonesia, under the influence of Netherland colonial strategy. Or vice versa, if it was just British, it could be Brotish-Malaya for all malaysia and Indonesia, as one country. (Lateron, the brooks and the East india company would surrender their sovereign of Sabah and Sarawak to british crown).

I therefore despise this Gerakan man's simplistic view about Malay coming from Indonesia. If he bothered to read up a little on history, there is No Malaya / malaysia or Indonesia before 1824. Not even the slightest sense in terms of nationality wise.

The malay, indonesians were original dweller of the Malay archipelagos. They were all the aboriginal people here. They were descendent of The Jawa, bugis, kattaha, Minangkabau, pahang, orang laut, or orang Asli etc etc. They were here since time immemorial, whether their existence was recorded in any western or chinese journal or not.

Whenever we talk about Indonesia or Malaysia, that's after 1824 and it's not even old enough to ascertain the origin of a tribe or ethnic.

In that superficial sense, if anyone wants to say Malay are pendatang from Indonesia, you are as good as saying the Hokkiens are Pendatang in Canton, Beijing people are pendatang in Shanghai, or Kedah in Selangorian are pendatang too.

Period. Sian.

The following is added reading:



1.Pandangan ini adalah dari Ye Lin-Sheng yang berasal dari China tetapi seorang ahli perniagaan di Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, Thailand, Singapura, Britain dan Amerika Syarikat. Beliau mempunyai banyak pengalaman yang melibatkan orang Cina di negara yang disenaraikan itu. Tetapi orang Cina di Malaysialah yang paling tidak bersyukur, kejam, serta mengkhianati perjanjian ataupun dipanggil perlembagaan.. Dalam buku Ye Lin-Sheng The Chinese Dilemma (East West Publishing, Australia, 2003), Ye Lin-Sheng menulis:

2. Pengiktirafan orang Cina:
"Orang Cina Malaysia mendapati mereka lebih mudah untuk menerima dominasi oleh orang-orang putih kerana mereka dapat memberi pengiktirafan terhadap kehebatan orang Barat. Tetapi Orang Cina Malaysia amat susah untuk menerima kehebatan orang Melayu kerana perasaan iri hati dan hasad dengki mereka bahawa Malaysia ini milik orang Melayu. Mana mana orang Cina Malaysia sama sekali tidak boleh menerima tentang konsep ketuanan Melayu, mereka percaya bahawa mereka adalah lebih baik" -(Buku The Chinese Dilemma - Ye Lin-Sheng)

3.Keangkuhan orang Cina:
"Keangkuhan orang cina Malaysia telah membuatkan mereka sentiasa memandang rendah terhadap keupayaan orang Melayu, walhal ramai orang Melayu sebenarnya bekerja atau belajar lebih pandai dari kaum cina Malaysia ini. Perkara ini sudah lama saya perhatikan, kerana saya memiliki perniagaan di Malaysia dan telah bercampur dengan orang Cina Malaysia ini. Sikap mereka suka cakap belakang dan tekan orang Melayu adalah menjadi tabiat dan budaya mereka. Mana mana orang Cina Malaysia yang tidak menghina orang Melayu dikatakan kolot dan membelot bangsa cina" -(Buku The Chinese Dilemma - Ye Lin-Sheng)

4.Perkauman orang cina:
"Kejayaan orang Cina Malaysia hanya tercapai jika mereka dapat menindas orang Melayu dalam masa yang sama menggunakan kudrat dan kelebihan orang Melayu. Mereka juga tidak akan mengakui bahawa kepimpinan Melayu adalah sangat mahir, cekap serta bagus dalam pengurusan politik, ekonomi dan sosial. Cina jarang menyifatkan kejayaan Malaysia daripada orang Melayu. Apa yang ada diminda mereka adalah semua kejayaan di Malaysia ini adalah kerana orang Cina. Sebab itu orang Cina yang asal dari China tidak suka bergaul dengan Cina Malaysia kerana sikap mereka yang ekstrim ini. Mereka masih lagi mengamalkan ideologi komunis" -(Buku The Chinese Dilemma - Ye Lin-Sheng)

5. Penghinaan orang Cina:
"Sampai hari ini, sesetengah orang Cina Malaysia masih menggunakan istilah "Menghina" terhadap orang Melayu. Dalam dialek Cina yg tertentu, orang Melayu dipanggil dengan nama yang bermakna ‘orang hutan’ atau ‘orang liar’. Maknanya, Bangsa yang tidak Bertamadun.. Malahan orang Cina yang memeluk Islam dikatakan telah ‘masuk Melayu’. Jarang ibu bapa Cina membenarkan anak mereka menjadi Askar atau Polis kerana anggap itu kerja kotor dan hanya Eksklusif kepada kaum Melayu sahaja.. Mereka sentiasa percaya bahawa budaya dan Tamadun Cina lebih tinggi berbanding Budaya dan Tamadun Melayu termasuklah penggunaan membersihkan diri menggunakan tisu dianggap lebih bertamadun.. Umumnya, orang Cina boleh menerima ‘Ketuanan orang Putih’ kerana menganggap tamadun dan Budaya Barat lebih bagus, tapi tidak terhadap Tamadun Melayu-Bumiputera." -(Buku The Chinese Dilemma - Ye Lin-Sheng)

6.Sikap negatif orang Cina:
"Kejayaan orang Melayu turut dipandang sinis. Ia biasanya dikaitkan dengan bantuan Kerajaan atau hak istimewa yang diberi kepada mereka. Kebanyakan Cina Malaysia sukar menerima hakikat kejayaan Usahawan atau Syarikat2 Melayu.. dimana mereka berniaga secara jujur dan bukan seperti orang Cina berniaga. Jadi sebenarnya majoriti orang Melayu ada peniaga tulen yang jujur dan dicapai menerusi kerja keras mereka. Sikap sebegini sebahagiannya berpunca daripada kesukaran menerima hakikat orang Melayu lebih pandai daripada mereka dan sebahagian lagi bertujuan menunjukkan pencapaian mereka sebagai lebih hebat" -(Buku The Chinese Dilemma - Ye Lin-Sheng)

7.Isu Tuan Rumah:
"Siapakah Tuan Rumah Negara Malaysia? Ia adalah orang Melayu selaku Tuan Rumah , dan orang Cina dan India sebenarnya hanya
lah sbg tetamu ataupun dipanggil menumpang kerana tiada tempat. Orang Cina Malaysia sepatutnya berasa malu kerana telah datang secara asal untuk menjadi pekerja dan selepas diberi Kerakyatan.... Akhirnya mereka cuba hendak merampas serta menindas Tuan Rumah (Bangsa Melayu). Sudahlah mereka datang dengan jumlah yang besar dan ramai. Jika saya (Ye Lin-Sheng, penulis Buku) adalah orang Melayu, saya tidak akan membenarkan Perlembagaan dan Sosial Kontrak dicabar. Saya akan merasakan maruah dan penghormatan saya akan tercalar" -(Buku The Chinese Dilemma - Ye Lin-Sheng)

8.Orang Melayu sebenarnya sedang dijajah oleh Cina:
"Tetapi itulah keistimewaan orang Melayu, mereka adalah satu Bangsa yang bersopan santun dan kaya dgn kesabaran.. Sudahlah mereka bersusah payah Berjuang bermati matian untuk membebaskan diri dari Jajahan Barat. Sekarang mereka perlu bersusah payah pula untuk merampas dari orang Cina yang memegang kuasa ekonomi di Tanah airnya.. Sepatutnya orang Cina yang perlu berbakti kepada orang Melayu kerana mereka sudah diberi peluang utk mendapat kerakyatan, tetapi saya selaku orang asal dari negara China berasa malu dengan sikap Bangsa saya sendiri yang tinggal di Malaysia. Tidak ada perkataan yang dapat saya berikan kerana dasar orang Cina Malaysia terlalu keras, Ekstrim serta Perkauman. Kami sendiri orang yang tinggal di China tidak lagi menerima ideologi Komunis, tetapi orang Cina di Malaysia lebih selesa untuk mengamal serta menyebarkan ideologi Komunis sehingga kini.. Sebenarnya jujur saya mengatakan orang Cina Malaysia sedang Menjajah Orang Melayu... Mereka seperti menganggap bahawa orang Melayu adalah musuh mereka yang nyata" -(Buku The Chinese

Thursday, 16 October 2014

The continuing saga of the DAP Penang regime state land sale

An interesting post I want to share from particular this interesting post by my FB friend this feisty lady Lim Sian See  :

Yesterday, in his speech ( at the Yang di Pertua birthday, Penang CM LGE made the following claims.

1) Penang govt surplus budget is not derived from land sales and not linked to any transaction of govt land

2) if compared with the sale of land prior to 2008, the current state government has sold far less government land to developers.and that "After 2008, DAP sold 106.1 acres of land through competitive open tender with returns of RM1.11 billion compared with the sale of 3,661 acres of land before 2008 with revenues of RM1.06 billion, "

3) Revenues derived from such sale of state land is revenues from such sales are channeled to development of public and affordable housing.

Well, he LIED, LIED and LIED. And LIED some more.. lol

He probably thinks we all don't know how to read the state AG report and don't understand accounts.

Let me debunk it one by one.

1) In the latest available AG Report which is for the year 2012 (, the yearly Penang state Expenditure has almost doubled from RM283million in 2008 to RM540million in 2012 (see Jadual 4.20 in picture).

Whereas yearly Penang state Revenue has increased from RM371million in 2008 to RM654million in 2012, which is good. Except that if you look at the figures properly, you will see that yearly Hasil Cukai has only increased marginally from RM110million in 2008 to RM116million in 2012. (see Jadual 4.11 in picture)

Yearly Hasil Cukai essentially remaining flat while yearly state expenses doubled, so how to cover without running into budget deficit?

The big increase that is helping to cover this is the Hasil Bukan Cukai.

So, what is this Hasil Bukan Cukai?

As you can see in Jadual 4.13, the item "Premium Tanah - Pemberian Hak Milik" has essentially increased 10 times from RM19million in 2008 to RM206million in 2012?

This is essentially land sales and without these land sales, Penang state govt would have been in deficit.

And how do we know "Premium Tanah - Pemberian Hak Milik" is land sales? Well, the name itself already says it but this is more explicitly explained in point 1 of Jadual 4.,14 in picture which clearly explained that one of the big increase between 2011 and 2012 revenue for this Premium Tanah is from RM110 million from "Bayan Mutiara" - which is part payment of the RM1.07 billion sale of land done in early 2012.

So, this means that Penang State Govt would have been deficit n 2012 without the RM206million in land sales and it is clear that the revenues and surplus IS LINKED to land sales - despite what CM LGE said yesterday. This means he LIED!

BTW, I wonder how the Rakyat would react if Federal BN Govt does the same and doubles yearly govt expenses within 4 years and sells assets (like Petronas or federal land) like LGE to compensate for the deficit?

2) Of course prior to 2008, the previous Penang Govt sold more land as it was a period spanning many decades compared to after 2008 till now.

BUT, he LIED again that previous state govt sold 3,661 acres for RM1.06billion. Much of these land sales are decades old and majority of this is NOT EVEN LAND but land reclamation projects - as explained here:

And he LIED again to say After 2008, DAP sold only 106.1 acres of land with returns of RM1.11 billion. The correct figure would be about RM9billion of state land that is either swapped away or directly sold -

3) And when he mentioned that "Revenues derived from such sale of state land is revenues from such sales are channeled to development of public and affordable housing:, he again LIED as it can clearly be seen above that such revenues are used to cover the doubling of yearly state expenses.

Plus, he has launched the RM500 million fund for affordable housing projects in May 2011 and today, he is still talking about the same old RM500 million fund as for the past 4 years, he has kept talking and relaunching the same fund.

But affordable houses are still nowhere to be found yet? And yet developers seem to get a much better deal compared to poor people buying affordable housing -

Plus, if you have sold billions of ringgit in land and you said such money will be channeled to building affordable houses, can we expect RM9billion in future funding for affordable houses? What about RM2.64 billion (if we take away the RM6.3 billion from Penang Tunnel project).

But if you were serious about affordable housing, just scrap the RM6.3 billion for the Penang Tunnel project which has got dubious benefits and has already run into implementation problems ( This amount can build 42,000 affordable homes at Rm150,000 each which you can give it free to the public and assuming each house can house 5 persons (210,000 persons) which means that 30% of Penang Island's population of 700,000 can stay in free houses.

Dear CM, CM means Chief Minister and not Cheat Minister lah.

Please be more honest in future and just admit that you are selling state land like crazy in speed, amount and values never seen before and that not much state land is left owned by the state govt now compared to 2008.

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Situation seems to get from bad to worse after the ISA was repealed in 2011

'selepas ketiadaan ISA, undang-undang yang tinggal sekarang semuanya memerlukan polis mengemukakan bukti sebelum membuat penangkapan' 

'Mereka mencabar kuasa undang-undang dan kemampuan polis kita, dan oleh kerana apa yang saya sudah sebut dari dulu, lagi, apabila ISA tidak boleh digunakan lagi'
Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri - Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar

Things seems to be getting from bad to worse after the ISA was repealed on 16 September 2011. The criminals and the militants are probably laughing their heads off at the PDRM who cannot act until they actually committed a crime. 

Now on 9 October 2014, they are throwing grenades on the streets of Kuala Lumpur purportedly by  underworld gangsters...what is next Mr. PM sir? Please do not wait until the streets of KL or Malaysia erupts in an explosion of violence and mayhem before you do something on the ISA. Please give our PDRM the support that they need not just more personnel, expertise, surveillance and weapons but also the ability to detain a criminal or a terrorist/militant before he can do actual terrible harm to our blessed  nation.


Tuesday, 7 October 2014

Want to discuss about abolition of vernacular schools in UMNO General Assembly? Why not discuss reinstatement of PPSMI instead?

'The Government should bring back the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) or the country will be left behind'

'If we want knowledge, especially in science and mathematics, we must use English because most of the knowledge is in this language'
We will become a race which cannot create anything if we fail to master science and mathematics, which are mostly in English'
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Have you read the above quote by Dr. Mahathir? 

OK, here's what a lawyer said about the vernacular schools in response to MCA saying that its seditious to discuss about possible abolition of vernacular schools in the upcoming UMNO General Assembly and I hope after this there will be no more talk about its 'seditious to advocate closure of vernacular schools'.....

..............actually I would rather that the UMNO delegates campaign for the PPSMI to be reinstated, the PPSMI as you know was 'repealed' by PM Najib, and instead of advocating the abolishment of vernacular school, we should make the Sekolah Kebangsaan as a more attractive place for learning...and with the PPSMI in place I can bet you many Chinese or Tamil parents will want to send their children to SK schools with PPSMI teaching facilities and where the teaching of Mandarin and Tamil are available for those who want to study the subject. With more people enrolling in SK schools with PPSMI, the vernacular schools will in all probability die a slow death anyway.

In any case the two best times to abolish the vernacular schools was during Merdeka and after the May 13 tragedy, both windows of opportunity have passed. 

The Gomen could of course now limit the school funding and stop building new vernacular schools altogether, having PPSMI for SKs will make its job less troublesome, anyway have a read :

Published: 6 October 2014

The comments of MCA Religious Harmony Bureau Chairman Datuk Ti Lian Ker against Umno Petaling Jaya Utara division deputy head Mohamad Azli Mohemed Saad give us something to ponder. According to Ti, in suggesting the discussion of the possible abolition of Chinese vernacular schools at the coming Umno general assembly, Mohamad Azli falls afoul of Article 152 of the Federal Constitution which, in addition to enshrining Malay as the national language of Malaysia, supposedly provides the right for non-Malay medium schools such as Chinese and Tamil schools to be established to provide for education in the mother tongue of minority Chinese and Indian communities, and this is sedition under the Sedition Act 1948.

But is this really the case?

I believe the issues that arise should be dealt with as answers to two questions: firstly, whether our Federal Constitution protects the right to the use of the mother tongue of any particular community as the medium of instruction for any schools; and secondly, if there is such a right, whether a call for a debate with a view to the abolition of Chinese (or indeed Tamil) schools, in existence for more than half a century here as reminded by Dong Zong deputy president Chow Siew Hon, is sedition under the Sedition Act 1948.

First of all, there is a need to state the position of the Federal Constitution on this matter. Article 152(1) states that the national language of Malaysia is the Malay language. However, there are two provisos as set out in Articles 152(1)(a) and (b), namely, that no person shall be prohibited from using, teaching and learning any other language, unless for official purposes; and that nothing shall prevent the right of the federal government or any state government from preserving the use and study of language of any other community in Malaysia.

At a glance, these two provisos would appear to protect the existence of Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools. However, a closer scrutiny of the said provisos to Article 152 would reveal otherwise, and this can be gleaned from the decision of the federal court in Merdeka University v government of Malaysia.

In this case, Dong Zong had requested the federal government for an incorporation order issued pursuant to Section 6 of the University and University Colleges Act 1971 for the establishment of a university, namely the Merdeka University, using Mandarin Chinese as the medium of instruction. This was rejected by the government at the time as being against the national education policy.

Subsequently, Dong Zong sued the government at the high court and was dismissed. This was appealed at the federal court and their Lordships Lord President Suffian chief judge of Malaya Raja Azlan Shah J, federal court justices Salleh Abas and Abdul Hamid held, by a majority (with Justice Seah disagreeing) that if an order for the incorporation of the university were to be made, it would be, notwithstanding its privately owned nature, a public authority as it would be exercising powers under the University and University Colleges Act 1971 as the legal basis for the functioning of the university.

And as the university would be a public authority, use of the Chinese language as the medium of instruction would be for an official purpose and thus, prohibited by Article 152(6) of the Federal Constitution.

Thus from the above reasoning it was deduced that Chinese and Tamil schools, being established pursuant to the Education Act 1996, were also public authorities within the ambit of the above interpretation, and therefore the use of Chinese and Tamil as the medium of instruction within those schools was similarly prohibited.

But do the aforementioned provisos to Article 152(1) protect the right to receive instruction in a language other than the Malay language? To this, His Lordship Suffian LP postulated that the word “using” in proviso (a) to Article 152 does not include “teaching in” any language apart from the national language. Thus, while the proviso protects the teaching and learning of any other language – including one’s mother tongue – the protection however does not extend to the use of those languages as medium of instructions in schools.

Thus the answer to the first question, namely whether the Federal Constitution protects the right to establish vernacular schools is, quite frankly, no. By virtue of the above precedent we can safely conclude that no such right exists. This should put paid to the second question, that is, whether the questioning of the right to instruction in one’s mother tongue is sedition within the ambit of the Sedition Act 1948. For sure, no statement is seditious when it questions a purported right that is in reality non-existent, what more protected from question under the Sedition Act 1948 as claimed.

The landmark decision in PP v Mark Koding is often cited as authority, including by Li himself and other supporters of Chinese education to assert that the questioning of the vernacular schools is sedition. However, such an assertion should not be accepted at face value. Instead, the facts of the case and the judgement delivered thereon should be read to see whether this precedent is indeed what critics of Mohamad Azli allege.

In PP v Mark Koding, a member of parliament, Mark Koding, was indeed charged with sedition under Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948 and convicted. It is said that the seditious statement uttered in the course of his speech before the Dewan Rakyat was his call for the closure of Chinese and Tamil schools. But even a cursory read of the facts of the case will make it clear that this is simply untrue.

A summary of the facts may be made as follows: 

Koding made a speech before parliament in which he questions the existence of Chinese and Tamil schools and the use of Chinese and Tamil on signboards. He asks why this is allowed and goes on to state that Article 152 of the Federal Constitution should be amended to permit their continued existence. It is for this – ie. the call to amend Article 152 – that he is convicted of the charge against him under the Sedition Act and not for his questioning of Chinese and Tamil schools.

In the words of His Lordship Mohamed Azmi J:

“The question therefore arises as to the true interpretation of proviso (a) to Article 152(1) (of the Federal Constitution). Having regard to the words used in the proviso, ‘teaching or learning any other language’ as opposed to ‘teaching or learning in any other language’, I tend to agree with the restricted meaning as enunciated by Abdoolcader J. when dealing with schools or other educational institutions.

“In my view, under proviso (a), although the national language shall be the Malay language, the usage of any other language other than for official purposes, is guaranteed; so is the teaching or learning of any other language in schools, be it Chinese, Tamil, Arabic or English. But there is nothing in proviso (a) to justify the extension of the protection to the operation of schools where the medium of instruction is Chinese, Tamil, Arabic or English.

“This strict interpretation is consistent with proviso (b) which guarantees the right of the federal government or any state government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the federation.

“Thus, the preservation and sustenance of usage of language of any other community is guaranteed. So is the preservation and sustenance of study of any other community's language, but again there is no justification in extending the guarantee to the preservation and sustenance of study in the language of any other community in the absence of specific words to that effect.

“Any other interpretation of proviso (a) would result in abusing the words used in the proviso. It is absurd for instance to think that the proviso gives constitutional protection to teaching or learning in school where the medium of instruction is Russian or Japanese.

To my mind, the protection only extends to language but not to medium of instruction in schools. In other words, no person shall be prohibited or prevented from teaching or learning Chinese or Tamil or, for that matter, any language which is not the national language in any school as a language subject, but such protection does not extend to the teaching or learning in a school where the teaching or learning is in any other language."

“As correctly stated by Abdoolcader J., the omission of the preposition ‘in’ after the words ‘teaching or learning’ in proviso (a) makes the distinction necessary. In the event, it is my finding that the accused is not guilty of sedition when he advocates for the closure of Tamil or Chinese schools. Whether or not such closure is advisable or feasible is, of course, another matter to be decided elsewhere and not in this court. There is nothing unlawful in allowing Chinese or Tamil schools to continue.”

Thus it is clear as daylight that while advocating the amendment of Article 152 of the Federal Constitution, which Koding did, was and still is seditious, his questioning of Chinese and Tamil schools was and is not.

In conclusion, it may be said with absolute certainty that with due respect to Li, his assertion that Mohamad Azmi committed the offence of sedition when he called for a debate on the possible closure of Chinese and Tamil schools at the coming Umno general assembly is wholly without basis and incorrect, simply because there isn’t a constitutional right to the schools as claimed in the first place.

Further, the legal precedent set by Koding’s case is not authority for the notion that questioning the existence of the schools is sedition. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Thus Mohamad Azmi can safely rest assured that raising the status of Chinese and Tamil schools at the said assembly for whatever deliberation is not sedition but rather is within his right to freedom of speech protected by no less than Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. – October 6, 2014.

* Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi is a lawyer practising in Hartamas Heights, Kuala Lumpur and an activist member of Concerned Lawyers for Justice.

Friday, 3 October 2014

Cut the fuel subsidies? Yes fine, but can't it be done incrementally and gradually?

Embedded image permalink

Here is a good post on the Fuel Subsidy Cut we had starting yesterday. Hope there are many bloggers out there like hishamh who are trained economist but are damned good on explaining complicated subjects like economics to layman like you and me. 

Many thanks to Sifu Blogger Dato' Rocky for highlighting this easy to understand post. Read on:

So, effective yesterday, petrol prices at the pump have been raised to RM2.30 and diesel to RM2.20.

Ballsy move, and to me, completely unexpected. With the 20sen cut in the petrol and diesel subsidy, Malaysia is within striking distance of abolishing fossil fuel subsidies entirely – at least, at the retail level. We still have the gas subsidy to deal with, but that’s less important for a couple of reasons: gas is a cleaner fuel (no negative externalities) and there’s also less implications for the government budget.

Resistance, compared to the similar 20sen cut last year, seems to me to be a lot more muted this time around. Nevertheless, resistance there is.

Some of it reflects the understandable concern over the impact on the lower income group. But that’s what the cash transfer under BR1M is for; it’s even allocated under fuel subsidies in the government budget.

If support for the disadvantaged is the goal, subsidies for petrol and diesel are an incredibly inefficient and wasteful way to go about it. Most of the benefits of energy subsidies goes to higher income households, not the lower income group. An IMF study found, on average, the top 20% gain six times more from energy subsidies than the bottom 20%, and that petrol subsidies are the most regressive (i.e. the benefit climbs higher the higher your income level). Cash transfers are a far more efficient and effective way of supporting the poor.

Some have complained about the timing of the cut (here for instance), just as global oil prices have begun falling. But that completely misses the point – the best time to cut subsidies is when prices are falling, especially with the fixed price mechanism we use here in Malaysia. The reason is that it makes the final adjustment to market pricing – and ultimately, that’s the goal – that much easier to achieve. If prices are high, you’re going to have many more and deeper cuts, with correspondingly higher pain.

I’m flummoxed by the mention of India and the UK cutting prices. That’s neither here nor there. In India for instance, the petrol subsidy is fixed and prices adjust in line with the global market. With global crude prices declining, so will the retail price of petrol in India. The flip side is also true; when global prices rise, so will the pump price. The UK has full market pricing, and in fact taxes the use of petrol quite heavily along with taxes on car emissions. 60% of the price of a litre of petrol in the UK goes straight to the government, and UK drivers pay the second highest level of petrol taxation (and highest for diesel) in Europe. I can’t believe people are bringing up these examples.

If, as I suspect, the price of oil continues to decline, there may not be any need to make any further cut in the subsidy and it’ll disappear naturally. We’re not that far off, as another 10%-15% decline should do the trick. That would mean we can shift to a zero-subsidy regime without any further pain, something which would not be possible without the present cut.

Lastly, there’s the idea that a more gradual adjustment would be better. I have some sympathy for this view, though more for political economy reasons than economic ones. A gradualist approach, say a 5 sen cut every quarter, would be easier to sell politically and more palatable to the public.

However, it doesn’t make a whole lot of financial sense, which shows you how irrational people actually are. Say that after the September cut last year, the government switched to cutting 5 sen at three month intervals instead of the one-time 20 sen cut that we actually saw yesterday. While that would have made the whole thing an easier sell, if you take the net present value of the cuts (alternatively, call it the opportunity cost) the one-time cut would work out more in favour of households, because it came at the end of the period.
So what’s on the table next? Long term I’d still like to see fossil fuel use to be taxed, because just getting rid of the subsidy doesn’t account for negative externalities. There’s also still the issue of the targeted and tiered subsidy scheme that’s been rumoured about for months now. Personally, I think that should be taken off the table. With prices so low and still on the decline, the relative subsidy between income groups would be so small that it would be pointless to put such a system into place. In any case, cash transfers are a much cheaper and efficient way to achieve precisely the same thing.

Beyond that, I think there’s finally light at the end of the tunnel of this sage – we’re close to finally being rid of petrol and diesel subsidies, for good and all.


Its very enlighthening what blogger Hishamh has got to say...I support and agree but personally I wish that the cuts are in incremental amount of say 5 sen and done say 3 months once. But thats just me:

Tuesday, 30 September 2014

The free speech conundrum - IVANPAL SINGH GREWAL

Though I don't agree with Ivanpal  that the Sedition Act should be repealed and be replaced by a new Act, I fully agree that Democracy should also protect those who can be hurt by the unbridled freedom of expression. Read on:

'Absolute freedom of speech cannot sustain itself and people must be responsible for their utterances' 

'Democracy must not only protect the right to speak freely but it must also protect those who can potentially be hurt by unbridled freedom of speech'
Ivanpal Singh Grewal

The free speech conundrum


Democracy should also protect those who can be hurt by the unbridled freedom of expression.

LIKE most Malaysians, I have closely followed recent spate of arrests made under the Sedition Act 1948.

I have sought to understand the issue of free speech better and being in government I also appreciate the concerns the police and other law and order agencies have when it comes to balancing the right to speak freely against the concerns of public order and security.

Democracy is a balance between the rights of the many and the rights of the few. Democracy is sometimes a noisy process where extremists use the very rights of free speech and expression to defeat democratic values.

Democracy is not a new concept and has its roots in Ancient Greece in fact. Over the centuries, it was been abused and sometimes altogether dismantled but with the end of the Cold War it is now the default choice for most governments in the world.

Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy with three branches of government i.e. the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. We have elections every five (5) years and over the span of fifty-five (55) years, state governments have changed in seven (7) states. This can be considered the formative aspect of our democracy; and this means we are democratic in form and we ensure suffrage at regular intervals so citizens can choose their leaders unencumbered and in complete security.

The substantive aspects of our democracy are the rights that accrue to us as Malaysians, which include the right to life. Another right that has been subject to intense debate is the right to free speech and expression. Malaysians are also able to avail themselves of these rights through the judicial process.

For democracies to be fully functional, as ours, it must be both a formative and substantive democracy.

Hence, it begs the question when and how do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of expression. Our Federal Constitution is indeed a grand compromise that has engendered a relative period of peace and tranquillity despite the challenges of ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversity. Many less diverse societies have actually failed because they have are unable to manage their differences and build on its strengths.

In fact the German Chancellor and the British Prime Minister on separate occasions have proclaimed that multiculturalism have failed in their respective countries because they have failed to integrate their minorities and this has caused a serious case of social exclusion.

With historical antecedents and more recent experiences as a guide, the duty of the government is to then manage our diversity and balance it against our democratic values and fundamental liberties.

Freedom of speech cannot be absolute as it is not absolute in event the most progressive democracies. As far back as 1920’s, the famous American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. remarked that “...the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.”

Malaysia is compelled to employ a higher degree of restriction given our diversity and the sensitivities of all communities.

I have been privy to many instances where the most stringent proponents of free speech have questioned the failure to use the very legal instruments they abhor to take action against individuals who have trampled on their sensitivities.

I do not think, as a society, we have reached the critical mass of democratic maturity to accept utterances that hurt us and it is imperative that the authorities discharge their duties without fear and favour and ensure parity of action.

What is more important is that we speak responsibly and we must stand by what we say and not abuse the right to speak freely. An instance of incitement against any government is wrong and can lead to disorder and chaos.

The police have a duty to protect any legitimately elected government from pernicious forces that seeks to destabilise it via extra-democratic means. This is a protection all democratic governments enjoy because democratic latitudes cannot be employed to achieve undemocratic ends because that would not only be an affront to democratic principles but a complete defeat of the system of democracy.

I echo my party’s stand and support the eventual repeal of the Sedition Act 1948. I do not believe that in this day and age such an act can effectively counter the challenges of free speech and the threat to democratic values whilst at the same time ensuring Malaysians enjoy the fundamental liberties that accrue to them as citizens of Malaysia.

I support the Prime Minister’s proposal for an enactment of a new piece of legislation that will balance the right to free speech and expression with our right to live in peace, harmony and stability. However, any piece of legislation must be syndicated with all interested parties and cannot be monopolised or manipulated by individuals or organisations that are inherently and unabashedly partisan with obvious political compulsions.

I also believe that this process must not be hurried for the sake of political expediency so that is why the time line laid out by the Prime Minister’s Office is not only feasible but completely practical.

However, until we are bestowed with a new piece of legislation that is accepted by all parties, the police have to use the present legal instruments available to them and criticising them for it is mischievous.

The government cannot afford to straightjacket itself until a new piece of legislation to address irresponsible speech and incitement. I am certain a vast majority of peace loving Malaysians agree with this approach.

In summation, free speech must also be balanced against the inherent challenges societies face. Absolute freedom of speech cannot sustain itself and people must be responsible for their utterances. Democracy must not only protect the right to speak freely but it must also protect those who can potentially be hurt by unbridled freedom of speech.

Read in full here.

I think the Sedition Act should not be repealed, it is the one effective barrier that would stop an ethnically and religiously mixed country like ours from going on the road to perdition, instead the existing Sedition Act should be strengthened and improved to prevent abuse of its application, that is all.

Monday, 29 September 2014

'The young find it difficult to afford a home'..Not just the young the old too!

'Salaries of young adults, especially those under the age of 30, are too low to be able to afford most properties within the Klang Valley'
Licensed financial adviser and syariah financial advisory for Excellentte Consultancy Jeremy Tan

'Government needs to stem the rapid rise of property prices due to false demand and excessive speculation.

“Ensure a steady supply of affordable properties to cater to the demands of the lower- and middle-income segments. Prevent a “homeless generation” from emerging that will result in many social problems (and) prevent our young from drowning in debt'
National House Buyers Association (HBA) honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong

“The biggest culprit are the developers who used to offer cheap entry costs, such as up to 100% loans, legal fees and/or stamp duty absorption and the DIBS. Many people who had bought a property at that time were those who couldn’t afford it or did not need to own a house.

“Because of this, everybody rushed to buy primary properties and the prices just went higher and higher. For instance, a semi-detached house that used to fetch between RM650,000 and RM800,000 in 2008 now costs RM1.6mil. How can the price jump 100% in just five years?”
Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents (MIEA) president Siva Shanker 


THE removal of the developer interest-bearing scheme (DIBS) in Budget 2014 last year was supposed to help curb speculation in the property market, where prices, especially of residential properties in prime locations, have risen beyond the means of most ordinary wage earners.

However, for first-time house buyers, whose earnings usually fall in the range of between RM3,000 and RM4,000, the removal of the DIBS has simply made life more difficult.

This segment of house buyers finds that it is now much harder to acquire their dream home. This is because under the DIBS, they could have placed a down payment of a certain amount and not pay anything until the property was completed; usually between 24 and 36 months.

Take Razif, a 28-year-old executive who earns RM4,500 a month, for instance. He lives with his parents and has been planning to move out for a while now. Unfortunately, the potential properties that have caught his eye so far have been way above his budget.

“I can’t seem to find a house or apartment that I can afford. They’re just so expensive and I also don’t want to live in a place that’s too far away from the city where I work,” says Razif.

“My parents are already retired and I wouldn’t want to burden them with any requests for financial assistance,” he adds.

Many genuine first-time buyers, especially fresh graduates or individuals under 30, face a similar plight as Razif.

Licensed financial adviser and syariah financial advisory for Excellentte Consultancy Jeremy Tan says salaries of young adults, especially those under the age of 30, are too low to be able to afford most properties within the Klang Valley.

“As a general rule, the loan should not take up more than one-third of your monthly salary. Most young adults are usually already paying for their car loans, which is compounded by other obligations such as income tax deductions and Employees Provident Fund and Socso contributions. Hence, they can’t qualify for a loan.”

MyFP Services Sdn Bhd managing director Robert Foo notes that it is difficult for young adults to buy a house these days, unless their parents “chip in”.

“Unfortunately for young adults, they have to either find something a bit more affordable or wait until they start earning more money. Another alternative is to buy the property in joint names.”

Bleak house

National House Buyers Association (HBA) honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong, in his article Affordable housing: The buzzword, notes that the average household is finding it ever more difficult to buy their own property, with the ever-rising property prices coupled with the rising cost of living.

“The prospect of buying a suitable house is looking bleak. The average rakyat is struggling to purchase their dream house amid the ever-rising prices of properties, which have far outpaced the increase in salaries.

“Young adults are unable to afford a reasonable, suitable and liveable house that doesn’t require either taking out a back-breaking bank loan or moving out to a distant and bland housing estate that involves mind-numbing daily commutes.”

Chang adds that young adults are slowly becoming a “homeless generation”.

“Mind you, they are the future economic drivers of the city. Hence, the Government must take concrete and proactive measures to curb the unbridled escalation of house prices.”

Chang says the Government needs to stem the rapid rise of property prices due to false demand and excessive speculation.

“Ensure a steady supply of affordable properties to cater to the demands of the lower- and middle-income segments. Prevent a “homeless generation” from emerging that will result in many social problems (and) prevent our young from drowning in debt.”

Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents (MIEA) president Siva Shanker says one of the biggest reasons many young adults cannot afford to buy properties today is due to the upswing in property prices over the past few years.

“The biggest culprit are the developers who used to offer cheap entry costs, such as up to 100% loans, legal fees and/or stamp duty absorption and the DIBS. Many people who had bought a property at that time were those who couldn’t afford it or did not need to own a house.

“Because of this, everybody rushed to buy primary properties and the prices just went higher and higher. For instance, a semi-detached house that used to fetch between RM650,000 and RM800,000 in 2008 now costs RM1.6mil. How can the price jump 100% in just five years?”

Siva says this is a classic case of “unnatural growth fuelled by unnatural demand”.

“Greed has pushed the market up to unreasonable levels,” he says.

A change in strategy

Siva believes that today’s young adults, especially the Gen-Y group of individuals, need to “restrategise” and “change their psyche”.

“Today’s generation does not have what I call the ‘trade-up’ mentality. Instead of buying something affordable and then upgrading from there, they want to go straight for something with class that they can’t afford.

“Instead of buying something that costs, say, RM300,000, they aim for something that retails at RM600,000, which they cannot afford. So, what do they do? They save and save, but by the time they can afford it, the price has gone up to maybe RM800,000!”

Siva says that if they had purchased the RM300,000 property in the first place, they could have waited for it to appreciate to RM500,000 and then sell it and use the difference to buy a more expensive house later.

“You can get a medium-cost apartment for less than RM200,000 in Desa Pandan, which is less than 4km away from KLCC. But when they have a look and see that the place is not ideal, they back off. Who says there are no affordable properties to buy?

“If buyers are not picky or choosy, then there are, in fact, many properties that they can buy. There’s no such thing as an ideal home. You buy one and make it your ideal home.”