Thursday 28 November 2013

Ilusi Pilihan Bebas

With all these super pay rise for ADUN Selangor and the astounding RM7.2 billion payout to foreign Consultant by the BN Gomen, the messed up education system, ex-convicts for Chief Minister and Ketua Pembangkang, PM wife using Gomen Jet for trips and the ridiculous excuses in support, by Ministers etc.etc. etc  it makes me wonder, do we, the ordinary people of Malaysia have a free choice really?:

Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca): Ex-CID Chief vs Peguam Negara and just a layman's view

'The Court finds that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh; that Malaysia has sovereignty over Middle Rocks; and that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located'
International Court of Justice

I read in utter disbelief at this preposterous statement by this one time CID Chief:


File:Pedra Branca Map.svg

I think every one shouldbe calm and stop believing whatever that come out from this ex-CID Chief mouth. 

As a background Malaysia and Singapore agreed to go before the International Court of Justice in respect to Singapore and Malaysia's claim of sovereignty on the three marine rock outcrops off the Malaysian Johor coast namely Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca), Middle Rocks and South Ledge. To cut a long story short, please read the full ICJ judgement which can be downloaded at this site here. A press release/summary of the judgement can be read:

ICJ's Press Release on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case

Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)

The Court finds that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh; that Malaysia has sovereignty over Middle Rocks; and that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located

THE HAGUE, 23 May 2008. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today rendered its Judgment in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore).

In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without appeal, the Court

finds by twelve votes to four that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to the Republic of Singapore;

• finds by fifteen votes to one that sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia;

• finds by fifteen votes to one that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court first explains that the dispute between Malaysia and Singapore concerns sovereignty over three maritime features in the Straits of Singapore: Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (a granite island on which Horsburgh lighthouse stands), Middle Rocks (consisting of some rocks that are permanently above water) and South Ledge (a low-tide elevation).

Having described the historical background of the case, the Court notes that the dispute as to sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh crystallized on 14 February 1980, when Singapore protested against the publication in 1979 by Malaysia of a map depicting the island as lying within Malaysia’s territorial waters. It further observes that the dispute as to sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge crystallized on 6 February 1993, when Singapore referred to the two features in the context of its claim to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh during bilateral negotiations.

• Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh

Malaysia contends that it has an original title to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (dating back from the time of its predecessor, the Sultanate of Johor) and that it continues to hold this title, while Singapore claims that the island was terra nullius in the mid-1800s when the United Kingdom (its predecessor) took lawful possession of the island in order to construct a lighthouse.

Having reviewed the evidence submitted by the Parties, the Court finds that the territorial domain of the Sultanate of Johor did cover in principle all the islands and islets within the Straits of Singapore and did thus include Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. It establishes that this possession of the islands by the Sultanate was never challenged by any other Power in the region; and that it therefore satisfies the condition of “continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty”. The Court thus concludes that the Sultanate of Johor had original title to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. It adds that this ancient title is confirmed by the nature and degree of the Sultan of Johor’s authority exercised over the Orang Laut (“the people of the sea”, who inhabited or visited the islands in the Straits of Singapore, including Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and made this maritime area their habitat).

The Court then looks at whether this title was affected by developments in the period between 1824 and the 1840s. In March 1824, the colonial Powers in the region, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, signed a Treaty which had the practical effect of broadly establishing the spheres of influence of the two Powers in the East Indies. As a consequence, one part of the Sultanate of Johor (under Sultan Hussein) fell within the British sphere of influence while the other (under Sultan Abdul Rahman, Sultan Hussein’s brother) fell within a Dutch sphere of influence. In August 1824, Sultan Hussein ceded the island of Singapore, together with its adjacent seas, straits, and islets to the extent of 10 geographical miles from the coast of Singapore to the English East India Company in the so-called Crawfurd Treaty. Finally, in a letter of 25 June 1825, Sultan Abdul Rahman “donated” certain territories, which were already within the British sphere of influence, to his brother, thereby confirming the division of the “old” Sultanate of Johor. After careful consideration of the legal effects of these developments, the Court finds that none of them brought any change to the original title.

The Court turns next to the legal status of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh after the 1840s to determine whether Malaysia and its predecessor retained sovereignty over the island. It observes that in order to do so, it needs to assess the relevant facts, consisting mainly of the conduct of the Parties (and of their predecessors) during the period under review.

The Court examines the events surrounding the selection process of the site of the lighthouse and the construction of the latter, as well as the conduct of the Parties’ predecessors between 1852 and 1952 (in particular with respect to the British and Singapore legislation relating to Horsburgh lighthouse and in the context of the Straits lights system; constitutional developments of Singapore and Malaysia; and Johor regulation of fisheries in the 1860s), but is unable to draw any conclusions for the purposes of the case.

The Court notes that in a letter written on 12 June 1953 to the British Adviser to the Sultan of Johor, the Colonial Secretary of Singapore asked for information about the status of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in the context of determining the boundaries of the “Colony’s territorial waters”. In a letter dated 21 September 1953, the Acting State Secretary of Johor replied that the “Johore Government [did] not claim ownership” of the island. The Court considers that this correspondence and its interpretation are of central importance “for determining the developing understanding of the two Parties about sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh” and finds that the Johor’s reply shows that as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.

The Court finally examines the conduct of the Parties after 1953 with respect to the island. Having reviewed all arguments submitted to it, it finds that certain acts, inter alia the investigation of shipwrecks by Singapore within the island’s territorial waters and the permission granted or not granted by Singapore to Malaysian officials to survey the waters surrounding the island, may be seen as conduct à titre de souverain. The Court also considers that some weight can be given to the conduct of the Parties in support of Singapore’s claim (i.e., the absence of reaction from Malaysia to the flying of the Singapore ensign on the island, the installation by Singapore of military communications equipment on the island in 1977, and the proposed reclamation plans by Singapore to extend the island, as well as a few specific publications and maps).

The Court concludes, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 (when the dispute crystallized) sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore. The Court thus concludes that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Singapore.

• Sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge

Malaysia claims that the two maritime features have always been under Johor/Malaysian sovereignty while Singapore’s position is that sovereignty over the features goes together with sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.

With respect to Middle Rocks, the Court observes that the particular circumstances which led it to find that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh rests with Singapore clearly do not apply to Middle Rocks. It therefore finds that original title to Middle Rocks should remain with Malaysia as the successor to the Sultanate of Johor.

As for South Ledge, the Court notes that this low-tide elevation falls within the apparently overlapping territorial waters generated by Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and by Middle Rocks. Recalling that it has not been mandated by the Parties to draw the line of delimitation with respect to their territorial waters in the area, the Court concludes that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President in the case; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Parra-Aranguren, Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judges ad hoc Dugard, Sreenivasa Rao; Registrar Couvreur.

Judge Ranjeva appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Parra-Aranguren appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judges Simma and Abraham append a joint dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Bennouna appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc Dugard appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court.
___________
A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No. 2008/1”, to which summaries of the declarations and opinions are annexed. In addition, this press release, the summary and the full text of the Judgment can be found on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org) under “Press Room” and “Cases”.


We should stop this myth that Singapore won and Malaysia lost in the said dispute. Singapore may have won  Batu Puteh but it did not get what it wanted that is total sovereignty over the other two rocks. These two rocks namely Middle Rock and South Ledge if had been awarded to Singapore would make it possible for Singapore to join the three Rock outcrops by way of reclamation forming one big island which can be used for military or commercial endeavors, depending on its strategic needs.

Alas when the ICJ only awarded Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore, the rock outcrop shall remain for what it has been for decades, just a light house. Singapore can trumpet whatever to their people or to the world about its 'success' but Pulau Batu Puteh or Pedra Branca as it is now  known remains a lighthouse. Period.

In this context the Attorney General and his Defence Team had done a commendable job in defending our sovereignty and we lost Batu Puteh because of that one letter:

"The Court notes that in a letter written on 12 June 1953 to the British Adviser to the Sultan of Johor, the Colonial Secretary of Singapore asked for information about the status of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in the context of determining the boundaries of the “Colony’s territorial waters”. In a letter dated 21 September 1953, the Acting State Secretary of Johor replied that the “Johore Government [did] not claim ownership” of the island. The Court considers that this correspondence and its interpretation are of central importance “for determining the developing understanding of the two Parties about sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh” and finds that the Johor’s reply shows that as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh."

And the fact that:

'Court finally examines the conduct of the Parties after 1953 with respect to the island. Having reviewed all arguments submitted to it, it finds that certain acts, inter alia the investigation of shipwrecks by Singapore within the island’s territorial waters and the permission granted or not granted by Singapore to Malaysian officials to survey the waters surrounding the island, may be seen as conduct à titre de souverain. The Court also considers that some weight can be given to the conduct of the Parties in support of Singapore’s claim (i.e., the absence of reaction from Malaysia to the flying of the Singapore ensign on the island, the installation by Singapore of military communications equipment on the island in 1977, and the proposed reclamation plans by Singapore to extend the island, as well as a few specific publications and maps).'

Note that 'conduct à titre de souverain' was the almost the same reason that we won Sipadan Island  from Indonesia previously and I believe it was almost the same Malaysian team which fought tooth and nail for the rock outcrop of Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

And Yes please don't simply blame the AG for Malaysia's loss of Batu Puteh, his team did win the Middle Rock for Malaysia and the Southern Ledge is still to be decided but that will likely take a long long long time to resolve.

Friday 22 November 2013

Word of the day "Tahaluf Siyafi'

Pengertian Tahaluf Siyasi
Tahaluf Siyasi membawa makna kerjasama harakah Islam dengan mana-mana pergerakan lain yang tidak bermatlamatkan Islam di dalam perjuangannya. Kerjasama ini boleh terjadi di dalam apa jua bidang yang dipersetujui bersama untuk sama-sama menghadapi musuh yang sama. Tahaluf Siyasi juga kemungkinan boleh berlaku dengan gerakan yang pernah atau berpotensi untuk menentang ideologi harakah Islam. Dalam suasana hari ini, tahaluf siyasi yang dimaksudkan juga termasuk kerjasama dengan golongan bukan Islam untuk menghadapi musuh yang sama.

The word Tahluf Siyasi has been bandied about by 'self proclaimed defender of Islam' people of PAS for quite sometime now, probably to justify their marriage of inconvenience with the 'Anti Anything Malay' people of  DAP and the 'liberal' people of PKR. 

I thot many would be interested what it really meant, you may want to try reading this:

Disediakan oleh: 
Ahmad Fadhli bin Shaari 
Pensyarah KIAS

I don't know much about it, but Muslim PAS having a political  alliance with Non Muslims and some who are obviously anti Malay and anti Islam against an UMNO which are Malay and Muslim? Why? 

Instead of regarding UMNO as the enemy why not seek ways cooperate?

Sunday 17 November 2013

Irony: cancel PPSMI, allow Vernacular Schools then tells us that we are not good enough?

'There must be some sense of Nationalism in-calculated into our Political Executives from the moment they enter politics, stop these obsession about foreign Consultant being the best, foreign does not means best, locals does not mean not good enough'
Me

Something that is bugging me for the last few days:

Opposition does the math, says Putrajaya averaged RM4 million a day on consultants over four years



1. The Najib BN Gomen is so proud that Malaysia is the only country on earth that has a vernacular school system parallel to the National Schools, they even cancelled the much needed Learning of Maths and Science in English introduced by the then PM Dr. Mahathir just before he retired in 2003. The Najib Gomen then came out with the NEB cobbled together by a foreign Consultant to boot, but at the end of the day PM Najib tells us that locals/Civil Servants/EPU are not good enough and that is why we needed foreign Private Consultants which cost this country our arms and our legs. How ironic is it not?

2. During Dr. Mahathir's time our EPU planned and coordinated Malaysia's holistic success we had growth of 8-9%. The moment Dr. Mahathir left the PM's office his successor PM Pak Lah started to disregard the EPU and this was followed through by PM Najib who took it to a higher level with the formation of PEMANDU and the rest is just money for the foreign Consultant.

3. The RM7.2 Billion question is, was it worth it Mr. Prime Minister Sir?

4. The next one is where does the PM office intends to go from here, employ more foreign Consultants, what of the EPU and other Civil Servants..shouldn't they be given the chance to chart the nation's success as they used to?

5. Politicians who gets to be Executives of the Gomen should remember that the local voters voted them in for a better life for all of us NOT a better life for Foreigners who only comes here for the money and then goes away after completing their job.

6. There must be some sense of Nationalism in-calculated into our Political Executives, stop these obsession about foreign Consultant being the best, foreign does not means best, locals does not mean not good enough.

Read also:

What are Najib’s MKRAs for the RM7.2b consultancy price tag

Wednesday 13 November 2013

Saya tabik Siti Nurhaliza sebab keberanian beliau menegur Menteri

Cindai bercorak penuh berpita,
Pakaian anak Panglima Garang,
Emas dan Perak pengaruh dunia,
Budi yang baik dijunjung Orang 

Its not often that a citizen, who happens to be our much loved songstress tells of a serving Cabinet Minister so publicly and on twitter at that:

Source from blogger Apanama: KJ Biadap?
KJ fanboys will be out in force ridiculing Siti after this, just watch. 

But Siti, don't worry your legion of fans will be there for you, you'll never walk alone.

Yang kurik itu kundi,
Yang Merah itu saga,
Yang Baik itu budi,
Yang indah itu bahasa

Monday 11 November 2013

What is GST? Don't know? Please read on...

Source from twitter @4myNabila here

The Genting Bus Crash Report is out & YES the road barriers were improper safety barrier for sloped road

The long awaited report on the Genting Highland Bus tragedy on 21 August 2013 is finally out announced by acting MOT Minister on 9 November 2013:


As announced by the Minister, MIROS identified a number of main points:

1. The ill fated bus was driven exceeding the speed limit;
2. The ill fated Bus brake had brake problems;
3. Concealed location of truck escape ramp;
4. The wideness of  the road width contributed to the accident;
5. The rubble wall and guard rail were improper safety barrier for slope route(road);
6. The lack of implementation of Safety, Health and Environment Codes by the Bus company.

The news report can be read here:


KUALA LUMPUR: The bus involved in the deadly Genting Highlands crash that took 37 lives in August was travelling beyond the stipulated speed limit with inefficient brakes at its front wheels and a retarder that failed to slow it down.

These were among the findings made by the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety (Miros) of the Aug 21 tragedy, which happened after a Genting Highlands Transport Sdn Bhd bus that was carrying 53 passengers plunged 60m down a ravine near the hill resort.

Acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, giving reasons for the crash, also warned of possible action against the company and its officials to ensure regulations and laws are complied with.

This includes the possible closure of the bus company.

Hishammuddin said the findings also showed a truck escape ramp was shielded by the road’s geometrical design and that the signage for the ramp was inaccurate.

He said another reason was that the lane, measuring 4.2 to 4.9m, was too wide and beyond the 3.25m standard, allowing drivers to go faster.

The Miros findings also considered the rubble wall and guardrails along the road as improper safety barriers for slope routes and Genting Highlands Transport Sdn Bhd, the operator in charge of the bus, was deemed to have unsatisfactory company policies.

The Land Public Transport Com­mission (SPAD) will take the necessary action against the operator, Hishammuddin said at a press conference at the Defence Ministry, which he heads, yesterday.

“I’ve asked them to look into the possibility of taking action not only against the company but also against individuals, such as directors or those responsible in the company, to make sure that all guarantees regarding regulations and laws are complied with,” he said, adding that this included a possible shutdown of Genting Highlands Transport Sdn Bhd.

Hishammuddin added that if the operator was shut down, the Genting Highlands resort needed to provide alternative transport services for those travelling to and from the resort.

He also said the Transport Ministry would recommend to the Cabinet amendments to the law by the end of the year if action against the operator was deemed not enough.

I blogged about the inadequate barriers made of rubble wall a couple of months back: 


and I am pleased  that MIROS also considered the rubble wall and guardrails as improper safety barrier for slope routes.  

I hope action will be done according to the report for all roads in Malaysia so that this needless tragedy shall never ever recur.

Friday 8 November 2013

Freedom of Speech must have limits, Gomen must curb COMANGO before its too late

These COMANGO group are really in full  shit stirring gear mode, these people either have nothing better to do or are bent in pushing the tolerant Malays and Muslims to become aggressive ferocious Talibans, Malay Muslims patience has its limits too. 

Either way these COMANGO people needed to be investigated by KDN, they have to be curbed. Freedom of Speech must have limitations, we do not live in a vacuum, these COMANGO people must be controlled before the country explode in communal and religious violence, a small group of people cannot be allowed to impose their dangerous ideas on the majority. They are also challenging the Perlembagaan, isn't that against the Law?

Something I want to copy paste from the Unspinner blog, hope they don't mind, as they say sharing is caring:

COMANGO cabar asas Perlembagaan dan keamanan



Friday 1 November 2013

The battle for a One School For All System has been lost but the war is not over yet

DI MANA BUMI DI PIJAK, 
DI SITU LANGIT DI JUNJUNG

The Gomen has decided, The National Education Blueprint (2014-2025) was announced in September 2013:




It seems that the battle for an integrated One School For All System is lost when the Gomen still insisted that Malaysia should be the only odd man out in being the ONLY country in this world to have a vernacular school education system in parallel to the National Schools. 

In fact DPM Muhyiddin said in Kedah recently that vernacular schools will exist in Malaysia selagi ada 'bulan dan bintang' and promptly gave a mind boggling RM1 million to a 15 student Chinese school that even got myself and PAS baffled. Mind you despite what many supporters of vernacular school says, there is no provision in our Perlembagaan for vernacular schools read here, here and here

I cannot understand nor comprehend why an education system that is systematically destroying our integration and unity as a nation should be allowed to continue for so long. According to the Statistics people, Malaysia's demography will change a lot by 2025 and beyond because the birth rate of the Chinese and Indians is declining compared to the Malays/Bumis:


Source: Jabatan  Perangkaan Negara here
Malaysia is a prosperous nation and no doubt shall remain so for a very long time because all Malaysians be they Malays, Bumis, Chinese, Indians equally work hard in their own special way for the nation to succeed and ALL wants peace and stability necessary for economic growth. 

The increase in population especially of the Malays/Bumis meant that the Chinese and Indians must somehow find a way to integrate themselves with the majority to ensure peace and stability of this blessed nation and there are no alternatives and certainly this voluntary segregation by vernacular schools way is not the way. Do not underestimate the power of Bahasa Melayu..our very close neighbors Indonesia will  be the top six world economy by 2030 and we can sure trade with them, by then Indonesia will have a population of 300 million people and together with a strong English proficient people the World is Malaysia's oyster.

The best way to integrate is to have a one school for all system where our young will be able to mix around to understand each other religion and culture more at an early stage, the National Blueprint ending 2025 may be a temporary medium term project but it will have to transform into a One School For All System with some adjustments to ensure that the Constitution is followed in the future, Malaysia's demographic change demands it.


For now the battle for a One School For All System/Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua has been lost, but hey the war is not over yet, It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings.

Selamat Hari Deepavali

To all my Hindu Friends, 

Selamat Hari Deepavali.