Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Daim Zainuddin: Don't waste time on Anwar Ibrahim

The second part of the NST Daim interview:

Don't waste time on Anwar, says Daim

THIS is final part of the interview with former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin, who helped the Malaysian economy survive the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

Without mincing words, Daim discussed with New Straits Times journalists A. JALIL HAMID, RASHID YUSOF and HARIZ MOHD and photographer ZAHARI ZAKARIA the key events during the "Mahathir Years", including the events which led to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's downfall.
Question: Media reports suggested at the time of your departure from the cabinet in 1991 that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had three names in mind as the new finance minister -- Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Was this indeed the case?
Answer: Rafidah was then the minister for trade, having been appointed to the post after the Team A versus Team B split in 1987. Sanusi was minister for agriculture.
Dr Mahathir wasn't too sure about Anwar. He said, "I don't think Anwar can handle the ministry of finance" given his academic background. He was a graduate in Malay studies.
My counter argument went along this line -- "I think if you want him to be your successor you have to groom him.
"I can help him and guide him, give advice."
In the end, I managed to convince Dr Mahathir.
Anwar used to come to my house very often to seek my advice on matters related to the ministry of finance.
He would also bring me to to his house for lunch very often. His aunt cooked my favourite dishes. 
Question: Given that Anwar had later named you as the "chief conspirator" leading to his sacking from the cabinet in 1998, when did things actually turn sour?
Answer: There was no fallout between us until he started accusing me of being a chief conspirator. This is an old story. No one is interested in the whys and wherefores. It is the now and the future that people are interested in.
Really, we should not waste time with Anwar. He is past his use-by date. His time had come and gone.
I also think that you should not give so much news space to him. That's what he likes. He does not like to be ignored, so ignore him I say. He should be left to be the entertainer that he is, dancing and singing at ceramahs. As I said his time is gone, like a burung punggok merindukan bulan, (a dog barking at the caravans, and the caravans have moved on).
But as you keep insisting, I will answer. The best person to speak about Anwar is Sanusi. They were in school together.
They were in Abim (Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia) and in the cabinet, and Sanusi was secretary-general of Umno. Anyway, I promised to answer so I will answer.
Okay, my answer to Anwar -- I'm no Cassius. I maybe thin but I don't have the hungry look. And definitely, I'm no Brutus.
When Anwar claim- ed that I was the conspirator, he knows the truth that I played no part, no role whatsoever. I knew nothing about the case until I was told about it. I might be a busybody, but I do not interfere with people's private life. I don't want people to know about mine either. I don't want to know what people do behind closed doors. I'm not interested. People whispered to me, but I said, "Look, we are all human, we all have weaknesses."
But I understand he was under pressure, it was his political survival and he was a drowning man, clutching at whatever to keep himself afloat, plus he knew that I would never answer any allegations thrown at me. I thought I was his friend and he was in trouble, and I let it be.
I also thought that it was so farfetched that it was laughable. Anwar, for example said I took out RM2 billion cash by plane. I must be an idiot, and any way how much is RM2 billion cash? Probably a few lorries to transport!
At the end of the day, truth will always prevail. You can't hide it. If not today, one day, the truth would be told. In the case of his supporters, even if he were to do all that he is alleged to have done, right on the carpet in front of their eyes, they will not believe. To them, everything is a conspiracy.
Anwar's problem was that his image was whiter than white. When stories got around because he got this image, it's difficult for people to believe. In life, some things are too strange to be true but they are true.
As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
There was a myth about Kennedy, too, but people did not talk about it during his lifetime. After his death, you read about him and what he did behind closed doors.
 Question: There was talk back then that your motivation in ousting Anwar was that you were anxious about protecting your business interests?
Answer: That was his line, that he was this super hero fighting crime and corruption and, therefore, had to be brought down. If you know the things about him that I know, that line of his is hilarious, and the cheek of it all, to claim righteousness.
I had then retired and what business interests did I have? I had to sell all my assets before joining the government in 1984.
But later on, after I had left, when I was made chairman of the northern triangle, there was a clause in the agreement that I would be able to venture into business. I was not a member of the cabinet anyway.
I ventured overseas after my retirement. I didn't want to do my business in Malaysia. But after my banks overseas became successful I needed to have a bank locally, I bought a bank. You can check, it was very expensive, I paid higher than anybody else. At that time, the highest anybody ever paid for a bank. This was a one-branch bank. Later, I sold this bank, too, when I rejoined the government at the last financial crisis. I really should stop buying banks in Malaysia. Every time I buy one, I'm made minister of finance and have to sell them.
Immediately after my retirement, I went away to Harvard University, in particular to the Kennedy School of Government as a visiting scholar.
Anwar kept calling me in Boston. (He asked) why I stayed there and asked me to come back. He needed me to help him, but I said I was enjoying my stay. I met a lot of people.
It was at Harvard that I met Francis Seow (who once served as Singapore's solicitor-general). He was writing books. Interesting books. You should read his books. We became good friends and often exchanged views over lunch.
Then it was about the so-called "Daim Boys".
They were also very close with Anwar after I left.
Most were Malay College old boys. They were in school with Anwar.
Yahya (the late Tan Sri Yahya Ahmad) was his head boy and Halim (Tan Sri Halim Saad) was at the Malay College.
Anwar, through his accusations, repeated the lie that I wanted this contract and that contract, and that because he was in the way, I got rid of him. A lie repeated many times, unfortunately, becomes a truth.
What contract? I want to ask, which contract did I or my family secure? Show me.
Show me one single contract I got from the government.
So I have always maintained, the danger with Anwar is that Anwar is more Sukarno than anything else. All fiery speeches, completely economical with the truth and an instigator at his best.
 Question: Was there a turning point, one that had caused a fall- out?
Answer: There was no particular fallout. I was his scapegoat, among many other scapegoats. I was his friend, Dr Mahathir defended him. I told him not to open the Pandora's box by making a police report but he thought he was clever.
I've told you earlier that you should not waste news space on Anwar. But you insist and I'm answering only to make the point that if you have Pakatan and him leading Pakatan, then we are heading down the road to disaster. He was tested during the Asian financial crisis and he failed. I also think that he failed not just because of his policies, but also of his motivation. Dr Mahathir, for example, was totally offended by the crisis. He could not bear to see what he had taken time to build destroyed because of the greed of speculators and financial vultures, and he wanted to make sure the country was safe again.
 Question: Some commentators had pointed out that Anwar at the time of the crisis did not help by raising interest rates to such a high level?
Answer: In the case of Anwar, at that time, he was really badly advised.
Because all along we know, Anwar on his own did not know what to do.
He has to get people to advise him and that was OK so long as you get good advice.
And of course at that time he really liked (Michel) Camdessus of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and James Wolfensohn of the World Bank.
And he was also close to Robert Rubin (secretary of treasury of the United States).
All these people later came to endorse him.
But you see, different countries have different environments, different stages of development, different conditions.
It's not the same.
You look at what happened during that crisis to South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and us.
There's Singapore, China and Japan.
During that time, Anwar's stance was "follow what was advised by the IMF and World Bank".
That would be a normal reaction -- in a crisis like this, you need some big fellows to come and advise.
Because if there's any trouble, the IMF and World Bank will come and assist.
And if America backs you, you are also okay. And America has big influence over the IMF and World Bank.
In the case of South Korea, it wanted to borrow from Japan so that it would not go down.
But America refused to help. America told the Japanese not to help, so it went down and mind you, South Korea was close to the US. Don't expect the US to support us.
At that time, Robert Zoellick, who was deputy secretary of state, made it known that the doors were open for the American companies to go in to pick up companies at fire-sale prices.
This was the case with Indonesia when they came in and took almost everything they wanted.
They killed Thailand, too.
We saw what was happening. Dr Mahathir understood.
He said: "What we built... will be destroyed".
Years of growth and stability will be wiped out.
And if we are not careful, there might be riots like in Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.
Probably worse.
So, he had to think how to stop it.
 Question: Based on your articulation on the political scenario, you are troubled not by Anwar's so- called misconduct but more of his character?
Answer: I'm worried that he has not got the depth on economics.
If he again becomes the finance minister or prime minister, his inclination is to take the American line.
America is in crisis, Europe is in crisis.
He likes to identify with Europe, America and Australia.
He tried to get Australia to support him, to condemn and say our election will not be fair, etc.
He talks of Arab Spring, but he said the Arab Spring here is not a revolution but through the ballot box.
He had been telling the world that he will win this election.
If PR were to lose, it would be because of unfair practices and mobs could then go to the streets to protest. He promised to form the government in September 2008. Everybody got jittery and many believed him. That is his style. He is all talk and promises. Now, he tells the world he will win.
But the government isn't even responding. There has never been riggings in elections here. Last election, they formed five state governments.
Otherwise, how did the opposition win so many seats if the government rigged elections?
No election is perfect in this world.
But he has started this, and the government must respond.
Anwar is conditioning the minds of the people here and telling the world PR will win but he knows he cannot win.
As I said earlier, I question his (and also Pakatan's) motivation. His personal ambition is so overriding and an obsession that he does not care that it will be at the expense of peace and stability in his country.
Can you imagine the scenario if Pakatan does not get to Putrajaya? He will go on to claim that it is rigged and then bring on the Arab Spring here. Instigate the people that under Barisan Nasional, their votes were stolen and they have to go out to the streets to reclaim their votes.
This will cause havoc and he won't care because his ambition overrides all other considerations. And Pakatan doesn't care, too, because they are on the same ride.

Read in full here.

Totally agree with Tun Daim and I have always said that to fight Anwar is not to use his purported porn movies and smear him but through showing his disability to govern as a Prime Minister. Tun Daim showed the way and I am sure Anwar's camp will be sweating when they read the NST Daim interviews. The self designated PM in waiting disability to govern being laid bare by Tun Daim.

Sunday, 24 March 2013

Daim Zainuddin: I want Najib to Win, Anwar not fit to be PM

"If you ask me, between the two, Najib or Anwar, I would choose Najib. I will give Najib the chance. Give him the mandate and see whether he delivers because Anwar has had his chances, but he blew them."
Daim Zainuddin

In 2008 Tun Daim Zainuddin predicted that the DAP,PKR and PAS will make tremendous gains in the PRU12 with them winning 5 states..his predictions came true. The NST today carried an interview with Daim Zainuddin and I must say it is a must read, notable quotes:

"I have always advocated a robust debate. Over the years, I personally do find certain policies objectionable, but I am still a supporter of the government as there are more good policies than bad"
"For the rest of the nation, if you disagree with government policies, yes, go ahead and criticise, but constructively. I would fear more for the country if people gave up and didn't care. I believe that it is only when you care that you want things to be for the better, that you voice out. A passive passionless society will be a disaster for the country."

"I think Lee Kuan Yew does not have much respect for DAP's leadership. The quality is not there."

"The PAP is more intelligent and more calculating, very suave in their approach. The DAP is really a Chinese party. It's not a multiracial party. It's chauvinistic, but claims to be Malaysian Malaysia. You can see in its last party election, members don't want even a single Malay to be in the top leadership. This is very clear. That is their idea of Malaysian Malaysia. Whatever their leadership may claim, their members are their main drivers"
"PKR has always been a one-man show. Its history is a party fighting for Anwar. They are former Umno members. Later, some liberals joined them, taken in by the rallying call of justice and fairness, but it's just pure "sloganeering". It is actually fighting just for one man, not even for justice. Who have they fought for? What cause have they pursued? See the stand on Palestine. It is a question of justice and humanitarian cause. They support Israel"
"PKR is a party born from the streets. So, it will always return to the streets. That is their culture. So, you can see demonstrations in the streets organised, or supported by them. Pas was never like that. The DAP was never like that. Anwar had repeatedly said there would be Arab Spring-like demonstrations should Pakatan lose in the next general election because of what they deem as "cheating". He has set the stage to justify their losses if they lose in the next general election.Pakatan is prepping the people so that they can scapegoat the government and the Election Commission"

"China and Japan had demonstrated their qualities as genuine friends of this country at the height of the Asian Financial Crisis.China decided not to devalue its currency, while Japan handed Malaysia a US$5 billion (RM15.6 billion) soft loan. Its then vice-finance minister Eisuke Sakakibara told me not to tell the Americans of the gesture."

 "It is dangerous if Pakatan under Anwar is to lead the country. I am worried as he does not have the depth in economy, always needed people to tell him --  what to think and what to do.
  So far, there has not been even one significant idea from Anwar as the economic adviser to the Selangor government.
 Worse, Selangor has badly handled its water issue, which had dismayed developers, investors  and the people. Of course, they will blame everything on the Federal Government despite the fact the Langat 2 water  project was planned  before they came to power in the state.   
Why doesn't he become economic adviser to Kelantan and Kedah if Pakatan believes he is good?
Think seriously.  Think of our future."

When asked if Anwar is destined to be PM, Daim's reply: Well, destiny is an act of God.   You can be only one heartbeat away from that post but man proposes, God disposes.   I think God still loves Malaysia (smiles).

I believe he(Anwar Ibrahim) will mess up the country by getting advice from the likes of the  IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank and Wolfowitz (Paul Wolfowitz, former World Bank president).

I will support Najib, but he must fight corruption and crime, strengthen the nation's security and review the education system. 

Make English compulsory in all national schools. 

Without English, we are  dead, especially the Malays. 

The Malays must realise, without English they cannot compete. 

We must insist on English as a second language.

Read more in the NST here. Watch for the 2nd part of the interview too.

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Explained: Legal issues on GE13 by Shad Saleem Faruqi

A government that allows the elected assembly to live out its full five years must be commended and not condemned.

A caretaker government is a government holding the fort in the interim period between the dissolution of Parliament and the appointment by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of a Prime Minister and his Cabinet after a general election.This means that the Najib Government will go into caretaker mode only on the date the Dewan Rakyat is dissolved.
Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi

In what must be a compulsory read for voters, many issues on the PRU 13 is discussed and explained by Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi here from The Star:

Legal issues on GE13
Reflecting On The Law by SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

Debate about the date of the impending general election continues to generate interesting issues of constitutional law.

THE public debate about the impending general election continues to elicit interesting issues of constitutional law.


Many who had predicted an early general election are exasperated at the “delay” and are critical of it. Constitutionally speaking, there is no delay. The Parliament elected on March 8, 2008 had its first meeting on April 28, 2008.

According to Article 55(3) of the Constitution, Parliament’s life expires five years after its first meeting. The five years will end on April 27.

A full-term parliament is rare but is perfectly legal and politically fairer than a premature, surprise dissolution.

A government that allows the elected assembly to live out its full five years must be commended and not condemned.

In some countries like the UK, the law has moved in the direction of fixed term parliaments.

Caretaker mode: 

As GE12 was held on March 8, 2008, some commentators are making the startling suggestion that on March 8, 2013, the Government exhausted its five-year political mandate and went into “caretaker mode” with diminished powers. This is a clever but legally incorrect view for four reasons.

First, under Article 55(3), the tenure of Parliament (and of the newly appointed government) commences from the date of Parliament’s first meeting and not from the date of the election.

Second, Article 55(4) allows a delay of 60 days between a parliamentary dissolution and an election, and 120 days between dissolution and the summoning of the new parliament.

This means that the maximum period between one election and the next and one parliament and the next is not five years but five years plus 120 days.

Third, a caretaker government is a government holding the fort in the interim period between the dissolution of Parliament and the appointment by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of a Prime Minister and his Cabinet after a general election.

This means that the Najib Government will go into caretaker mode only on the date the Dewan Rakyat is dissolved.

Fourth, there is a difference between prorogation and dissolution. Right now, the Dewan Rakyat is in prorogation under Article 55(2) and not under dissolution under Article 55(4).

Federal-state tie-up: 

It has been argued that the date of dissolution of the Johor state assembly on March 21 ties the hands of the Prime Minister who must, in order to synchronise federal and state elections, advise the King to dissolve Dewan Rakyat on or before March 21.

Indeed there are compelling political, administrative and financial reasons for holding federal and state elections concurrently.

Each election since 1959 has seen such federal-state simultaneity.

However, in our federal system, no law imposes this requirement. Both federal and state governments can choose their own timing for going to the polls.

In practice, however, the states toe the federal line on the date of their assembly dissolution to save the huge cost of holding separate polls.

In turn, the Prime Minister is legally justified in selecting the timing for parliamentary dissolution.

He may let the Dewan Rakyat run its full course till the pale dusk of the impending night of April 27/28, irrespective of the dissolution dates for state assemblies.

These dates are: Johor, March 21; Negri Sembilan, March 26; Pahang, April 7; Selangor, April 22; Perak, April 24; Malacca, April 26; Perlis, April 28; Kelantan, April 28; Sabah, April 29; Penang, May 2; Kedah, May 2; and Terengganu, May 5. The Sarawak assembly, elected in 2011, ends its term only on June 20, 2016.

As to the federal-state tie-up for joint elections, two points need to be made.

First, such synchronisation is highly desirable but not mandated.

Our Prime Minister’s hands are not entirely tied down by the Johor assembly’s mandatory dissolution on March 21 and state elections in Johor within 60 days, i.e. before May 19.

Second, if such a federal-state tie-up is sought, as is likely, the calendar permits it to be achieved. Presuming the Dewan Rakyat goes the distance and dissolves on April 28, there are still 22 days till May 19, which is the last date for Johor state elections.

This 22-day period, though rather tight, is sufficient for the fixing of a nomination date, the period of campaigning and the holding of the polls before May 19.

However, the Election Commission has the last word on these matters.


 It is to the great credit of the Prime Minister that despite the armed incursion and the bloodshed in Sabah, a proclamation under Article 150 was not issued to declare emergency nationally or in Sabah.

In the past, emergencies have been declared for much lesser reasons e.g. in Sarawak on Sept 14, 1966 and in Kelantan on Nov 8, 1977.

If the Prime Minister had invoked the powers under Article 150, what would have been the effect on general elections?

Contrary to what is believed, an emergency proclamation does not automatically suspend elections.

We were under a continuing state of emergency from 1964 till 2011. Yet, elections were held regularly in 1969, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2004 and 2008.

What an emergency proclamation does is that it enables Parliament or the King (if the two Houses are not sitting concurrently) to pass crisis legislation and suspend most parts of the Constitution.

The suspension is not automatic and must be explicitly provided for.

As things stand, the Government is using the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and the Penal Code to deal with threats to security and public order.

If, due to the military operations in Lahad Datu, constituents in any federal or state constituency are dislocated, the Election Commission has powers under Regulation 3(5) of the Election (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 to relocate polling centres, or to suspend the poll in any centre.

That may delay some results but the rest of the electoral exercise can proceed normally.

It is heartening to note that despite the crisis in Lahad Datu, our general election has not been derailed. In a few weeks’ time, the sound of guns in Sabah will be drowned out by the voice of the people.

> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM

Hope this article by Professor Faruqi will be of immense help to voters as it did me.

Ops Daulat: Kumpulan Kiram..Sarang Tebuan Jangan Di Jolok, Buruk Padahnya!

The Sulu terrorist who intruded into Malaysia at Lahad Datu, Sabah are finding out the hard way that all their invincible tangkals, weapons and guerilla warfare experience are no match with the resolve of the Government of Malaysia and the sophistication and experience of our Armed Forces and Polis to defend our sovereign territory.

From NST: LAHAD DATU: Armed intruders pay for grave miscalculation

KUALA LUMPUR : The armed intruders from the Philippines who intruded into Sabah made a grave miscalculation by assuming that their home-grown brand of warfare would be successful in Malaysia, said a defence analyst.

"They were wrong in believing that the battle experience on their own turf would hold them in good stead in this country," said the expert, who preferred to remain anonymous.

They failed to take into account also the strong backing Malaysians gave their government in safe guarding national sovereignty, he said.

Another factor which they probably did not consider was the might of Malaysia's naval power in securing the coastal waters off eastern Sabah and preventing the arrival of enemy reinforcements, he added.

The analyst said Malaysia's use of conventional war assets to decimate the guerrilla-type warfare employed by the intruders is seen as what he called "power projection".

"Power projection" is described as the ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance stability.

The analyst recalled that an example of a "power projection" during peace time was the "Halilintar" Exercise conducted in Langkawi in 1994 involvinga combination of air, naval and ground forces as a rapid intervention force in the defence of the nation's interests.

A combination of air, naval and ground forces is also being used in the "OpsDaulat" offensive launched on March 5 against the Sulu terrorists who killed two policemen in Kampung Tanduo, Lahad Datu, on March 1 and six policemen in Kampung Simunul, Semporna, the following day.

Two soldiers have also died, one in a gun battle and the other in a road accident, while the enemy has suffered 62 dead. The terrorists, who had holed up in Kampung Tanduo since Feb 12, rejected an offer for negotiations and refused to lay down arms and surrender. pic
The "Ops Daulat" offensive began with F/A-18 Hornet and Hawk fighter aircraft of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) strafing the area where the terrorists were believed to be in hiding. 

This was followed by the army firing several rounds of 91mm mortar and the soldiers moving in for the search and mopping-up exercise. 

Mopping up at Kg Tanjung Batu
NST pic
The security forces also used 12 ACV300 or Adnan-type armoured cars with chain wheels which can move on all kinds of terrain, said Army First Division commander Maj Gen Datuk Ahmad Zaki Mokhtar. 

He said these armoured cars provided an advantage to the ground assault teams because their weapons were aided by computer and an optic system for coordination of more sophisticated and stable firing and the vehicles were equipped with night vision devices.

Vessels of the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN), meanwhile, patrolled the country's waters off eastern Sabah to prevent entry or exit of the terrorists.

Chief of Defence Forces Gen Tan Sri Zulkifeli Mohd Zin said several helicopters of the army's aviation unit and RMN gunboats would be brought to eastern Sabah in stages.

The use of all these military assets in the "Ops Daulat" offensive has sent a clear message to the enemy that Malaysia will not compromise on the question of national sovereignty.

The analyst said many members of the public did not understand military operations and criticised the tactics employed by the security forces against the Sulu terrorists.

The lives of the policemen and soldiers are not that cheap for them to be sent to the front lines like lambs to the slaughter, he added. -- BERNAMA

To the Kiram Group and those who supported them, remember this:

 Sarang Tebuan Jangan diJolok,Buruk Padahnya! pic

Friday, 15 March 2013

A good info about the Selangor Water crisis that just would not go away

A couple of videos I would ask you to watch and  listen if you want to know more about the Selangor Water Crisis which will soon hit all of us in the Klang Valley  (yes that includes Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Klang too folks) if there are no concrete resolution in the coming months.

These videos in two parts were prepared by young people who are sick and tired of the misinformation campaign conducted by the Selangor Pakatan Gomen, so relax, sit back and I trust you would be enlightened:

I think Politicians who are elected into office must understand that they are in office to serve the rakyat not their friends, families or parties. If they cannot do what is right for the rakyat then politicians in office ought to resign and give the office to somebody who can.

If you are not prepared to give away your rights then do not ask others to surrender theirs

"If you want to abolish the rights of one race then you have to also do away with the rights of others" 
Tun Dr. Mahathir

I just have to post this article as I agree wholeheartedly on what Tun Dr. Mahathir had to say on race relations in our blessed country, and yes unless you are leaving in some caves somewhere we are now polarized more than ever with almost every one wanting to defend the rights of their race:

Dr M: Non-Malays too have special rights

MARCH 14, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, March 14 – Tun Dr Mahathir argued today that non-Malay complaints of discrimination stemming from policies favouring the Malays are without “basis” as the country’s minorities too enjoy special rights including the freedom to speak their native languages and practice their own religion.

“Each race enjoys special rights in their own way,” the longest-serving former prime minister (picture) told a forum at University Malaya here, when asked to comment on the opposition’s push for “Malaysian Malaysia” carried by the DAP’s predecessor, the People’s Action Party (PAP), in 1964.

Dr Mahathir said while the country’s ethnic majority do enjoy a special position under the Constitution, the same law guarantees the minorities the right to self-identity through the freedom to practice their respective religion, language and mother-tongue education.

He added that only in Malaysia, the minorities identify themselves according to their root “nationality” like “Chinese Malaysian” and “Indian Malaysian”, a phenomena that reflects the freedom and rights enjoyed by the non-Malays.

“This idea is not practised anywhere else. In Indonesia the Chinese don’t call themselves Indonesian Chinese, they call themselves Indonesians and speak Indonesian.
“Here, we agreed to maintain their rights,” Dr Mahathir said.

...The federal opposition pact Pakatan Rakyat (PR) argued that such policies and the Malay-rights debate are used to enrich only a selected few Malays. Its pledge to dismantle race-based policies and put in place an economic model based on merits have won the support of the non-Malays.

But while PR leaders maintained that this does not mean the abolition of Malay rights, Dr Mahathir alleged voting the opposition would erode the positions of the Malays who would end up being “slaves in their own country”.

The former prime minister argued today that it would not be possible to abolish Malay privileges without doing away with the rights of the minorities.

“If you want to abolish the rights of one race then you have to also do away with the rights of others. Of course none of the races would want this,” he said.

Dr Mahathir had also suggested that the growing opposition to Malay rights reflected a deepening racial strife. He argued that this showed Malaysians are now more racially-conscious.

This has led to stronger racial identification including the birth of more vernacular schools and poorer integration among Malaysia’s different races.

“In other countries there is assimilation but here we are happy with integration. There is even little integration now. The different races are not coming together,” he said.

Read in full in MI here.

I have read and listened with dismay about other minorities questioning the rights of the Malays and Bumiputras as written in our Perlembagaan, and yes I also observed that the same critiques refused to discuss about vernacular schoosl and referring to any body touching negatively on the subject as racists. 

PR is talking rubbish if they think they can easily do away with Malay/Bumi rights, they are just telling the non Malays what they want to hear before the General Elections. They are not telling the Non Malays that there will be a backlash from the majority who have been taking a tak apa attitude all this while.

Actually,  Tun Mahathir is reflecting the majority views that if you want to take away Malay/Bumiputra rights then you have to give away your rights too. Fair is fair. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Too bad YB Lembah Pantai don't know head or tail what she talks about

After watching this video on her criticism of our Polis Force I can only conclude Nurul Izzah is an idiot who does not know head or tail of what she talks about.

I pray to God Almighty that Nurul Izzah daughter of Anwar Ibrahim lose her deposit in the next election. Lembah Pantai folks deserve better. 

Anyway, one idiot YB in parliament is one too many.

Just a short story

Must watch short movie from Stop The Lies blog

Voters, Think! 

This coming PRU is not about one man wanting very much to become PM, its about the future of Malaysia, the fate of our blessed nation is in your hands. 

Vote wisely, Not emotionally.

Friday, 8 March 2013

8 Mac 2013: Hari ini lagi ramai pengundi atas pagar percaya Anwar liwat Saiful


1. Saya berasa amat sedih dan dukacita dengan berita mengenai bapa saya. Saya sedih kerana bapa saya telah menjadi mangsa kerakusan politik makhluk bernama Anwar bin Ibrahim.

2. Demi Allah, Agama Bangsa dan Negara tercinta, Saya ingin tegaskan bahawa saya tidak sama sekali akan berganjak dengan dakwaan saya. Saya akan terus Istiqamah dan berpegang teguh pada dakwaan saya, segala keterangan saya di Mahkamah, juga sumpah laknat yang telah saya lafazkan, sehingga ke akhir hayat.

3. Kepada Anwar bin Ibrahim, bertaubatlah. Telah 5tahun saya bertahan, dan berdiri teguh walaupun sukar. Saya pasti Allah akan balas apa yang saudara lakukan. Sungguh terdesak dan jijik sekali.

4. Saya juga memberi amaran kepada Anwar Ibrahim, walaupun terdesak, jangan membabitkan bapa saya untuk memutarbelitkan keadaan dalam mencapai matlamat beliau.

5. Saya percaya isu ini sengaja ditimbulkan bagi mengalih perhatian isu "pengkhianat negara" yang sedang beliau hadapi.

6. Walau apapun berlaku, saya yakin KEPADA ALLAH SWT..yang benar tetap benar. Kebenaran tidak dapat dihapuskan walau apa sekalipun.

7. Saya akan terus berdoa agar Allah bukakan hati bapa saya untuk kembali pada jalan Allah, kebenaran, pertahankan anak kandungnya yg menjadi mangsa.

8. Sebagai seorang anak, kasih sayang dan hormat kepada seorang ayah akan kekal hingga ke akhir hayat.

9. Kepada seluruh rakyat Malaysia, saya menyeru agar tidak terpedaya dengan permainan jijik Anwar Ibrahim ini.

10. Kedaulatan Negara kini sedang diancam musuh, ditambah pengkhianat musuh dalam selimut membantu, sudah ramai perwira kita yang telah terkorban, marilah sama-sama kita doa dan pertahankan.

Akan terus Doa, Istiqamah dan Sabar


Sumber disini.

Semuga kebenaran terserlah jua.

Posted in Chittagong, Bangladesh.

Sodomy 2 a conspiracy? So where is Saiful?

Updated, and another failed attempt by PKR to cleanse their Ketua Umum through trial by media:

Saiful denies political plot in Sodomy II charge

Original Post:

Satu "kejutan" hari Jumaat yang mulia ini: 

From out of the blue and when the Ops Daulat still underway in Sabah to kill or capture the Lahad Datu intruders, interesting news indeed from a PC called by Johari Abdul a PKR strongman:

Saiful’s father says Sodomy II an ‘evil conspiracy’, apologises to Anwar

Conspiracy? Something very fishy here when the one who apologised namely Saiful's father was not the one who reported to the Polis that he was sodomised by Anwar Ibrahim. 

I am sure the Pakatan macais will be going into town with Saiful's father 'conspiracy theory' and apology. 

The problem with this PKR sponsored PC is that the conspiracy is participated by Saiful, Anwar Ibrahim(Ketua Umum PKR), the Polis, the Prosecutors, the expert witnesses, the Judge too? And even if there is a conspiracy as what Saiful's father said he did not seem to deny that sodomy actually happened. 

I can't comment too much on the Sodomy 2 case as there is an Appeal under way. Will just have to hear what the Appeal Court Judges say.

So for now, where is Saiful?

Posted in Chittagong, Bangladesh

Thursday, 7 March 2013

Ground Zero: #LahatDatu No Ceasefire only Unconditional Surrender

“Do not underestimate Malaysia's determination to maintain Sabah as part of Malaysia”
YAB Prime Minister of Malaysia 

YAB PM Najib today told the Kirams, the sponsors of the Filipino terrorists who had slain and desecrated the bodies of our fallen heroes that they must lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally, read here. Ops Daulat to seek and destroy the intruders is still under way.

Anyway I observed something disquieting and that is while the majority of Malaysians were steadfast in condemning the Filipino intruders, the Opposition pact of Pakatan Rakyat and their supporters like Suaram, Aliran even the 'neutral'  Bar Council have not made any categoric condemnation of the Filipino intruders, I wonder why? 

Should Malaysians  trust these people to defend our sovereignty when they cannot even condemn terrorists who landed on to Malaysia's shores, and killed 8 of our Servicemen? No, I don't think so, Pakatan are only good at condemning and blaming BN for all ills.

One thing for sure is that the Kirams who are not rich people would not be able to send hundreds of armed intruders from Filipina into Malaysia without financial help from somebody or some group. I hope both the Malaysia and Filipina Gomen collaborate to find and punish the culprits. 

Posted in Chittagong, Bangladesh

Friday, 1 March 2013

Pulau Pinang hanya dipajak dari Kesultanan Kedah rupanya

Cerita-cerita mengenai peristiwa yang sedang berlaku di Lahad Datu yang boleh dibaca disini dan sini. Teringat pula saya pasal perangai Kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang, lebih lagi kesombongan Ketua Menteri yang lantik diri sendiri jadi Ketua Menteri.

Jangan pula parti DAP dan penyokong mereka ingat bila mereka perolehi majoriti didalam DUN Pulau Pinang pada Pilihan Raya 2008 maka Pulau Pinang ini mereka punya. Sila baca:

Kembalikan Pulau Pinang kepada Sultan Kedah

Oleh Zaini Hassan

SAYA dan profesor kajian alam Melayu, A. Murad Merican mempunyai kepercayaan yang sama. Pulau Pinang harus dikembalikan kepada kerajaan Kesultanan Kedah. Bukanlah kerana saya orang Kedah dan Murad orang Pulau Pinang, maka kami bersetuju dengan cadangan itu.

Tapi ia adalah berdasarkan fakta sejarah.

Asal cadangan itu datangnya dari Pengerusi Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia Cawangan Kedah (PSMCK), Datuk Wan Shamsuddin Mohd. Yusof melalui kenyataannya kepada Bernama 1 Disember lalu.

Berita itu bertajuk: Kedah dicadang tuntut semula Pulau Pinang:

‘‘PSMCK mencadangkan supaya Pulau Pinang dikembalikan kepada Kedah kerana negeri tersebut pada asalnya kepunyaan Kedah.

Pengerusi PSMCK, Datuk Wan Shamsudin Mohd. Yusof berkata, cadangan itu ditimbulkan kerana Pulau Pinang adalah hak milik Kedah sebelum berlakunya perjanjian antara Sultan Kedah dan British pada 1786.

“Setelah negara kita merdeka pada 1957, Pulau Pinang yang dijajah sepatutnya dikembalikan kepada Kedah sepertimana Dinding dan Pangkor dikembalikan kepada Perak. Tetapi Pulau Pinang tidak dikembalikan kepada Kedah dan terus dijadikan sebuah negeri yang berasingan,” ujarnya kepada pemberita.

Dalam perjanjian yang dibuat antara Sultan Kedah ketika itu, Sultan Dhiauddin Mukarram Shah dan Leftenan Gabenor Pulau Pinang, Sir George Leith Baronet pada tahun 1800, Pulau Pinang dipajak untuk menampung keperluan ekonomi pada masa itu.

Pada ketika itu, Pulau Pinang dipajak dengan harga 6,000 manakala Seberang Prai dipajak dengan harga 4,000 dan pihak British membayar wang tersebut kepada Sultan Kedah dengan menggunakan mata wang Sepanyol.

Menurut Wan Shamsudin, Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai disifatkan masih hak milik Kedah kerana duit pajakan masih dibayar oleh Kerajaan Pusat dengan nilai RM10,000 setiap tahun kepada kerajaan negeri Kedah pada masa ini.

“Pembayaran pajakan masih wujud sehingga kini dan ini bererti, keadaan tersebut masih wujud dan tidak salah untuk Kedah membuat tuntutan,” jelasnya.

Tambahnya, pihaknya akan mengadakan satu seminar dengan pakar-pakar sejarah untuk mengumpulkan fakta-fakta dan bukti yang berkaitan dengan sejarah Pulau Pinang yang dahulunya di bawah naungan Kesultanan Kedah.

“Kami juga akan menyerahkan bukti dan fakta tersebut kepada pihak-pihak yang bertanggungjawab dan terserah kepada mereka untuk menuntut semula Pulau Pinang atau tidak,” katanya.

Tanpa menjelaskan siapa pihak yang bertanggungjawab itu, Wan Samsudin berkata, tugas PSMCK ialah untuk menyuarakan kembali perkara itu memandangkan ramai pihak mula terlupa tentang sejarah sebenar negeri Pulau Pinang.

“Sama ada pihak tersebut mahu menuntut semula Pulau Pinang atau tidak itu terserah kepada mereka.

“Kami suarakan perkara ini kerana tidak mahu sejarah negeri Kedah dan Pulau Pinang terus dilupakan,” katanya.

Namun bukan semua orang menyenangi dengan cadangan itu. Ada yang mengatakan jika itulah pandangannya maka Tanah Melayu harus dikembalikan kepada Orang Asli?

DAP sudah tentu tidak mahu menyerahkan Pulau Pinang kepada Kedah. Mereka juga sudah tentu tidak bersetuju dengan pandangan dan cadangan itu. Pulau Pinang bagi DAP ialah kubu terkuatnya (sekarang).

Sejarah Pulau Pinang, sudah tentu mereka 100 peratus bersetuju, hanya bermula dari kolonial Inggeris, Francis Light. Bukannya dari kesultanan Melayu Kedah. Mereka juga percaya Raffleslah yang membuka Singapura. Bukan kesultanan Melayu.

Namun, cadangan Wan Shamsuddin itu mesti dipertimbangkan dengan wajar dan serius. Patik – Ahli Mahkota Kedah ini – berharap Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Al-Sultan dapat meneliti perkara ini sedalam-dalamnya.

Umumnya komen-komen yang diutarakan dalam siber bagi mencantas cadangan itu jelas memperlihatkan kedangkalan sejarah dan persejarahan di kalangan rakyat Malaysia. Pemikiran dan sikap mereka dalam hal ini bersifat kebudak-budakkan sehingga ada mengatakan bahawa jika kita hendakkan yang asal, mengapa tidak kembalikan Tanah Melayu kepada orang asalnya, Orang Asli.

Beberapa lagi komen menjurus kepada mencabar kedaulatan Malaysia – dari segi mengembalikan negeri-negeri seperti Kedah, Kelantan dan Terengganu kepada Siam, Thailand dan Sabah kepada Filipina.

Wan Shamsudin telah membangkitkan satu isu penting dalam sejarah dan persejarahan negara, bukan hanya kaitan Kedah dan Pulau Pinang. Ini adalah kerana sekian lama, sejarah dan persejarahan Malaysia, sama ada sengaja atau tidak, wujud dalam keadaan pelbagai kelompongan.

Saranan Wan Shamsuddin perlu disokong lalu diteliti dan dihalusi implikasinya dari segi sejarah dan persejarahan pasca kolonial. Kita bukan menolak kedatangan Inggeris dan kuasa barat ke Alam Melayu. Apa yang penting ialah usaha berterusan memberi tafsiran dan konteks yang lebih wajar kepada alam dan geopolitik kesultanan Kedah.

Murad juga dalam kenyataan akhbarnya menyebut, perjanjian memajak Pulau Pinang antara Sultan Kedah dan British pada 1786 dan 1800 tidak pernah menyebut bahawa ia tidak boleh dimansuhkan atau akan tamat pada tempoh tertentu.

Oleh itu, katanya tidak mustahil jika Pulau Pinang dikembalikan kepada Kedah jika ia dituntut sekarang. ‘‘Pulau Pinang boleh dijadikan satu daerah atau wilayah khas dalam Kedah jika ia dikembalikan kepadanya.”

Kata Murad, selama ini rakyat Malaysia hanya menganggap sejarah kewujudan Pulau Pinang berlaku pada 1786 iaitu apabila British mula sampai ke negeri itu. ‘‘Namun sebenarnya sejarah Pulau Pinang dan orang Melayu telah terpendam. Jika Kedah mengambil semula Pulau Pinang, ia sama sekali akan mengubah sejarah negeri itu,” jelas beliau.

Bagi menjelaskan lagi senario sejarah ini, saya menyarankan Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia dapat mengadakan seminar seperti cadangan Wan Shamsuddin itu seberapa segera. Pulau Pinang harus dikembalikan kepada hak kesultanan dan tamadunnya yang asal.

Kerajaan Pusat juga harus mengikuti perkembangan ini dengan teliti.

Bagi mendapatkan ruang bicara mengenai cadangan dan pandangan ini, Prof. Murad yang juga Ketua Kluster Penyelidikan Kajian Oksiden di Alam Melayu, Universiti Teknologi Petronas memberi analisis impirikal ringkasnya mengenai hal ini. Katanya cadangan itu membuka perbincangan yang penting bukan hanya dari segi kedaulatan kesultanan Kedah (yang tertua di dunia dan Malaysia), tetapi juga usaha berterusan mengeluarkan sejarah dan persejarahan Malaysia dari kepompong kolonial Inggeris.

Ikuti tulisan beliau:

DARI sudut Perlembagaan Persekutuan, cadangan Datuk Wan Shamsuddin itu tidak bercanggah dengan undang-undang negara. Mengubah sempadan sesebuah negeri diperuntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dalam Bahagian 1, Artikel 2, tertakluk kepada persetujuan Dewan Undangan Negeri terbabit dan Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu.

Kita juga seharusnya tidak mengenakan sekatan pemikiran dan pergerakan untuk meluruskan masa lalu demi generasi masa depan. Kita maklum bahawa apabila Inggeris dan Belanda bertapak di Kepulauan Melayu, mereka melakarkan sempadan geopolitik. Ini membawa maksud mencampur tangan dalam hal ehwal masyarakat dan kerajaan Melayu.

Apa yang berlaku pada hakikatnya ialah pihak Inggeris telah campur tangan dalam hal-ehwal kesultanan Kedah. Dan campur tangan ini bermula lebih awal daripada Perjanjian Pangkor 1874.

Maka wujudlah nama-nama seperti Light, Scott dan Leith yang dikaitkan dengan sejarah Pulau Pinang dan seterusnya Malaysia. Maka pelbagai buku dan bahan tentang sejarah Pulau Pinang mengandaikan bahawa Pulau Pinang hanya mempunyai sejarah selepas mendaratnya Francis Light di Tanjung Penaga pada 11 Ogos 1786, dan seterusnya perjanjian pada tahun yang sama dan pada tahun 1800.

Akibat dari perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut, alam Melayu mula dikotak-katikkan – khususnya jajahan Kesultanan Kedah, kerajaan Melayu yang tertua di Malaysia dan kerajaan beraja yang tertua di dunia.

Jika kesedaran umum bahawa ‘segala-galanya’ bermula dari Melaka, maka kita memesongkan sejarah. Ini tidak semestinya kita mengetepikan Melaka yang merupakan asas kepada institusi dan sistem kerajaan di Malaysia kini.

Namun demikian, kesedaran ruang dan masa yang lebih awal dari itu amat kritikal sekali dalam penulisan sejarah negara dan perlu diketengahkan pada tahap akademik dan popular.

Dan apabila kita baca penulisan tentang sejarah Pulau Pinang, Kedah hanya dirujuk dalam konteks Sultan Kedah membuat perjanjian dengan Francis Light. Lebih dari itu, Kedah hilang dalam persejarahan Pulau Pinang.

Begitu juga dengan pelbagai penulisan tentang sejarah Kedah. Apa yang saya perhatikan ialah persejarahan Kedah setakat ini tidak memberi penekanan kepada Pulau Pinang sebagai sebahagian daripada Kesultanan Kedah. Persejarahan Kedah juga menjadi mangsa kepada perspektif kolonial, yakni, menerima sebagai hakikat bahawa sejarah Pulau Pinang asing dan berbeza dengan sejarah Kedah.

Persejarahan Kedah memandang sepi penempatan Melayu Pulau Pinang dan warisan Kedah di pulau itu kecuali salah satu kertas kerja Datuk Wan Shamsudin beberapa tahun lalu yang ada menyebut penempatan Melayu sebelum kedatangan Inggeris.

Malah akibat daripada perjanjian dalam tahun-tahun tersebut, perhubungan Kedah dengan wilayah-wilayah di Sumatera pun tidak ditonjolkan seolah-olah tidak ada kesepaduan tradisi, bahasa, agama dan budaya di antara Kedah dan wilayah-wilayah tersebut.

Beberapa tahun lalu dalam syarahan saya pada PSMCK di Alor Setar, saya menganjurkan bahawa sejarah dan persejarahan Pulau Pinang mesti lari dari sudut kolonial lalu mencadangkan bahawa ia dilihat dari perspektif negeri dan Kesultanan Kedah.

Cadangan Datuk Wan mempunyai implikasi kepada sejarah negara. Tidak ada sebab mengapa kita tidak boleh luruskan persejarahan. Tidak ada sebab mengapa kita tidak boleh mengubah geografi alam kita sendiri demi menerokai satu ruang lapisan sejarah yang telah disisih.

Asal usul negara bangsa Malaysia perlu dihalusi dan dibincangkan secara terbuka. Kenyataan-kenyataan yang tidak menggambarkan hakikat hendaklah ditangani sewajarnya demi masa depan.

Sebagai contoh, sebuah buku yang diterbitkan pada tahun 2007 dengan tajuk Malaysian Chinese and Nation-Building: Before Merdeka and Fifty Years After (Penerbit: Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, Kuala Lumpur) telah menyatakan bahawa Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara bangsa bermula dengan pembukaan (founding) Pulau Pinang pada tahun 1786.

Bab satu buku itu yang bertajuk “State and Nation: An Overview and Malaysian Perspective,” menyatakan bahawa dari situ, perkembangan seterusnya telah menjurus kepada pembentukan satu politik.

Dalam perbincangan pembentukan Malaysia, buku itu menekankan kepada warisan undang-undang dan pentadbiran British sebagai asas kesamaan wilayah-wilayah di Malaysia (ms.10).

Wacana-wacana sebeginilah yang memesongkan sejarah dan persejarahan Malaysia. Apakah ia mengandaikan bahawa Malaysia tidak ada sejarah sebelum 1786?

Artikel  Penuh dari Utusan Malaysia.