Tuesday, 24 February 2015

Not worried about the GST, more worried about loose tongues

Interesting report from The Malaysian Insider the rabid anti BN portal though not as rabid as M'kini, I hope depa tak ada tambah-tambah lauk:

Rosmah hopes home services charges post-GST will not hurt housewives like her 

A guideline is needed to monitor prices of home services especially after the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the prime minister’s wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor said today.
This, according to the president of the Welfare Association of Wives of Ministers and Deputy Ministers (Bakti), was because hairdressers, tailors and make-up artists who make house calls, had begun to increase their prices.
Highlighting this at a GST briefing in Petaling Jaya, Rosmah said she too was not spared from the predicament and had to fork out RM1,200 each time she had to dye her hair at home.
"It is really hard to make tailored clothes these days. Their prices come up to RM500, and I am speaking as a representative of a housewife that buys made-to-order clothes.
"We have to make beautiful clothes to attend functions, but the prices are way too high. For those who can afford, it's alright.
"But what about housewives like us, with no income?" she said during the briefing, which was attended by other wives of ministers and deputy ministers (Bakti).
Rosmah complained that the charges for hairdressers, tailors and make-up artists who make house calls were "really high" and "did not make sense".
She said that housewives like herself, who had no choice but to use their services, often became victims and were burdened with exorbitant prices.
"Housewives, especially, often become the victims to such traders because there is no price control and guidelines by the government on house call services," she said.
Despite stumbling oil prices, Rosmah said that these errant business people have refused to lower the prices for their services.
"Do we (housewives) have to keep asking our husbands then? For those who have husbands who don't mind giving (money), it's fine. But sometimes, there are husbands who say 'hey, I gave you last week and you want more?'
"So I feel that we should monitor these things as they will make exorbitant profits," Rosmah added.
She also said that traders, who provided services at clients' homes, were usually those who worked independently and who are not likely to register for the GST.
"Tailors and hairdressers will not register but we don't want them to increase the charge for their services."
The prime minister's wife claimed that she did not want to make a big deal or "too much noise" over this issue as some might say that even her husband is quiet about the issue but noted that this was "reality".
"When the prices of these services increase by RM200 we feel the pinch and if we complain, I am just afraid that they wouldn't want to make our clothes. And it is hard for us as wives of civil servants," she said.
Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Ahmad Maslan, who gave the briefing on the GST, said that many were still confused with the implementation of the consumption tax, thinking that it would cause prices of goods to increase.
"That is not right. People think that when the GST is implemented, the prices of goods, such as furniture, electrical items and clothes will go up but in fact, it would decrease.
"This is because the current total sales (10%) and services tax (6%) is 16%  but GST is only 6%, which would mean the prices of goods will fall," he said.
Speaking to reporters later, the deputy minister said that Bakti's call for control in services tax for house calls was a good suggestion and will be considered.
"It is a good suggestion and I believe the relevant ministry, the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry will look into this," he added. – February 23, 2015.
I am not worried about the GST, having worked and holidayed overseas in many countries,  I know its one Tax System which will benefit Malaysian as a whole despite whatever negatives that its detractors want to say.

I am more worried that the Prime Minister's wife is talking extravagance here...RM1200 for a hairdo? That sounds a wee bit luxurious when our minimum monthly income is what? RM900 kan.

I am lost for words, I just wish Prime Minister's wife's speeches be vetted by Government officials, I do not think she should be allowed to say whatever she wanted to say...not in public anyway.....it could be disastrous to the Husband and his Government.

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Happy Chinese New Year 2015

Happy Chinese New Year

Wishing You A Prosperous New Year of the Goat

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Sodomy2: Above all, this is a story about all men, regardless of their power, being equal before the law.

'Yet Anwar Ibrahim himself chose to give no more than a statement from the dock. Unlike his victim, he refused cross-examination. This was his right under the law, but a right he used to attack the prosecution, the judges, and his former colleagues in government. He has undermined the reputation of his own country'

'Consider how this matter first arose. As Hansard (dated 22 October 1997, 18 December 1997) recalls, the very first time an MP stood up in parliament holding a statutory declaration that accused Anwar Ibrahim of sexual – homosexual – assault, Anwar Ibrahim was Deputy Prime Minister and his accuser was not a member of the government, but in fact an opposition MP from the DAP. And who was his original accuser? The late Karpal Singh MP, a brilliant lawyer. Any account of the criminal and then political downfall of Anwar Ibrahim should recall who threw the first stone'

'The only politically motivated actions here are those of Anwar Ibrahim and his supporters who have been demanding that the case be dropped'
Lawyer/DPP Shafee Abdullah

Anwar's Sodomy Case: Highlights Of Summary Of Judgment

PUTRAJAYA, Feb 10 (Bernama) -- Following are some of the highlights of the Federal Court's judgment in upholding the conviction and five-year jail sentence imposed on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim by the Court of Appeal on the charge of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Leading the five-member bench was Chief Justice Datuk Arifin Zakaria. The other justices on the panel were Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Raus Sharif and Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abdull Hamid Embong, Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar and Datuk Ramly Ali.

* Federal Court convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Mohd Saiful had been sodomised by Anwar as charged.

* The Federal Court panel of judges agreed with the Court of Appeal that Anwar had not created any reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case and that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonble doubt.

* The scientific evidence (medical and DNA) adduced by the prosecution clearly established that sperm cells belonging to Anwar were found in the lower and upper rectum of Mohd Saiful.

* The Federal Court said the only logical explanation from the above is Mohd Saiful must have been sodomised by Anwar.

* Federal Court held that the defence of political conspiracy remained a mere allegation unsubstantiated by any credible evidence.

* Federal Court found Mohd Saiful to be a credible witness

* The panel found Mohd Saiful not a willing participant in the offence but in fact a victim

* The Federal Court judges were of the view that the trial (high court) judge erred in imposing the "100 per cent certainty" standard of proof on the part of the prosecution to refute the possibility of the DNA samples taken from Mohd Saiful being compromised.

* The correct standard of proof to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt need not reach certainty but carry a high degree of probability, said the panel.

* Federal Court fould the possibility of the integrity of the samples taken from Mohd Saiful having been compromised as remote.


The DPP speaketh:

Anwar Ibrahim verdict – Muhammad Shafee Abdullah

This judgment brings to an end seven years of court time during which nine judges, and scores of lawyers, Anwar alone had (14 lawyers in the Federal Court, but in all about 20 lawyers cumulatively at all levels) occupying many thousands of hours, have exhaustively looked at every detail of the evidence in this case from beginning to end. The total 9 judges do not include the judges who presided in interlocutory appeals.
I know that justice has finally been done, so I am professionally satisfied with the result today. But it gives me no pleasure – a young man's life has been wrecked, changed forever. Worse still, without anonymity, the victim was put through seven days of courtroom cross-examination and all that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s team could throw at him. So even the process of justice added to his suffering.
Yet Anwar Ibrahim himself chose to give no more than a statement from the dock. Unlike his victim, he refused cross-examination. This was his right under the law, but a right he used to attack the prosecution, the judges, and his former colleagues in government. He has undermined the reputation of his own country.
I was appointed at the Court of Appeal until the final stages of this appeal at the Federal Court, the highest court in the land. It has been a very difficult task, because what would in ordinary circumstances be a straightforward case of sexual assault by an employer against an employee has been used as a battering ram against the reputation of the judiciary. So I ask all fair-minded people in Malaysia and overseas to consider carefully before forming an opinion, and to review the actual evidence in the case.
Most importantly, please read today’s judgment and the previous judgments word for word. They provide the facts – however ugly – of the case.
For example, turning to the DNA evidence, Malaysia has two key features in its treatment of DNA. Firstly, we require 16 out of 16 matching points. No country demands higher – most, such as UK and the USA, allow much less. All the DNA that supported this case matched 16 out of 16 – in gambler’s jargon, a ‘full flush’. And all the DNA was from semen, which is much more reliable then say DNA from sweat. You cannot steal, fake or contaminate it.
Second, in Malaysia there is no law that compels someone to give a DNA sample. When Anwar Ibrahim challenged the prosecution samples in court, he had the opportunity to offer his own samples, as fresh evidence. If innocent, he could have done so and closed the case overnight. He chose not to do so.
Regarding Anwar Ibrahim’s alibi, he initially offered an extensive one. But he abandoned it completely when it was demonstrated to be false by CCTV footage shown to the court. All this was established long ago.
Anwar Ibrahim also refused to swear on the Quran about the incident. The victim swore on the Quran about the details of the case, both in Malaysia and Mecca at Islam’s holiest mosque.
The case in front of this, the highest court in Malaysia, was a technical one: in all of the exhaustive legal process, and in all the layers of evidence, was there any possibility that due process had not been followed? Was there any technicality? Today, the answer of the judges was no. Today, they ruled on the decisions already taken, the evidence long ago tested and presented.
The great smear is the much-repeated allegation by Anwar Ibrahim that this case was politically motivated. As the judgment today details, this is simply false.
The independence of Malaysia’s judiciary is enshrined in the constitution. And this case was brought by a private individual, Anwar Ibrahim’s employee, who lodged a police complaint in which he accused Anwar Ibrahim of using undue pressure, as his employer, to coerce him into sex.
Nobody could have scripted the twists and turns of the extraordinary and comprehensive legal processes, including the many decisions that have gone in Anwar Ibrahim’s favour. To allege as much is offensive to the judges, and it is unsustainable to anyone who reads today what they decided, and why.
The only politically motivated actions here are those of Anwar Ibrahim and his supporters who have been demanding that the case be dropped.
Consider how this matter first arose. As Hansard (dated 22 October 1997, 18 December 1997) recalls, the very first time an MP stood up in parliament holding a statutory declaration that accused Anwar Ibrahim of sexual – homosexual – assault, Anwar Ibrahim was Deputy Prime Minister and his accuser was not a member of the government, but in fact an opposition MP from the DAP. And who was his original accuser? The late Karpal Singh MP, a brilliant lawyer. Any account of the criminal and then political downfall of Anwar Ibrahim should recall who threw the first stone.
But for the victim and indeed Malaysia, this has been a dreadful and long drawn out saga. At this time of closure, I ask the honourable members of the media present to impartially look at the facts of the case, to analyse the meticulous judgments, and to carry these, as best they may, to the people.
I am afraid some media appear to regard the Malaysian courts as acting fairly whenever they find in Anwar Ibrahim’s favour, and as compromised whenever they do not.
We all have a duty to the victim, a young man who was Anwar Ibrahim’s personal assistant, and who through no fault of his own has found himself in the national and international spotlight. As with all victims of serious crimes, he had the right to see his complaint properly investigated by the police and the judiciary.
So, rather than being a story about politics, this is actually a human story – and from the judiciary’s perspective, it is the role of our country’s justice system to enable both sides of the story to be heard in court.
Above all, this is a story about all men, regardless of their power, being equal before the law.
Thank you. – February 10, 2015.
* Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is the deputy public prosecutor in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case.

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Praise be to Allah that the Federal Court upholds Conviction of Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy

Anwar’s Sodomy II: Timeline (12.14pm)
10 FEBRUARY 2015 @ 8:25 AM

PUTRAJAYA: Below is the timeline from Palace of Justice where the verdict on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II is expected to be made.

12.14pm: The Federal Court fixed 1pm today for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to mitigate for a lesser sentence for sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

12.11pm: The Federal Court upholds conviction of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, finds him guilty of sodomising former aide

11.31am: Anwar's eyes closed, face pointing to the floor as he sat in the dock

11.22am: Arifin says the panel agrees that mere degradation has no effect on DNA profiling in this case.

11.20am: Arifin says DNA samples were credible despite the degradation

11.12am: Arifin says there had been no infringement of Anwar's constitutional rights when he was arrested and the samples collected from the items in the lockup.

10.59am: Arifin says the present panel agrees that there is corroborative evidence to support Saiful's testimony. He says PW1(Saiful) is not a willing participant.

10.58am: Arifin: Evidence Act does not require corroboration in sexual offences and that credibility of complainant is enough.

10.52am: Arifin: Court of Appeal find that the evidence of the carpet, where the KY Jelly was allegedly poured on during the act, is not a critical piece of evidence.

10.48am: Arifin: Court of Appeal agreed that delayed in lodging of reports in sexual cases was due to various psychological factors like honour among others. Court of Appeal upheld the credibility of Saiful

10.44am: Arifin: Prosecution argued that Saiful's testimony was strong due to its consistency. Argued that lapse of time explain why there was no tear in Saiful's anus from the act.

10.42am: Arifin: There was doubt on whether the sodomy lasted several minutes or 30 minutes.

10.38am: Arifin says, the High Court acquitted Anwar at the end of defence. The High Court judge said it was unlikely that sperm cells could be lifted from the samples after the great lapse of time. The judge said the cutting of the envelopes containing the samples by Jude brings doubt into integrity of samples. The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal, ruling that the forensic experts were armchair experts. Anwar's ground of appeal touched on credibility of Saiful

10.36am: Arifin: During defence stage of high court trial, two forensic experts from Australia said great time span had passed before tests were done on the samples.

10.32am: Arifin added the DNA profiles were lifted from the samples, which matched those on the mineral bottle water, among others. This indicated they came from a common source. High Court judge had ruled that a prima facie case was established against Anwar and he was ordered to enter his defence.

Anwar had given statement from the dock, alleging conspiracy among others. That PW1 (Saiful) had political connections, that Anwar was old and weak, among others.

10.29am: Arifin says, the appellant was later detained, and given a ‘Good Morning’ towel, toothpaste, and a mineral bottle. The items were later left in the lockup and found by the policemen. The items were placed in individual envelopes and sealed. They were handed to PW25 at IPK Kuala Lumpur. They were stored in a steel cabinet. The samples were later handed to chemist Nor Aidora.

10.24am: Arifin says, investigating officer Jude Blacious Pereira was present during the examination.

Samples were put into sample bags and given to Jude on June 29, 2008.

A witness testified she did not see evidence of tampering with the samples.

Sperm cells were found in the samples following chemist test.

10.21am: Arifin added Mohd Saiful later went to Pusrawi Hospital, complaining of pains in the anus as he was sodomised.

Mohd Saiful then went to Hospital Kuala Lumpur, where he told Dr Daniel he was sodomised by Anwar.

Mohd Saiful was then advised to lodge a police report.

Two policemen came and gave Mohd Saiful a police report form to fill up.

Two rectal swabs were taken from Mohd Saiful's rectum.

10.18am: Arifin says Anwar had instructed Saiful in a angry tone to come into the bedroom. Anwar, clad in towel, hugged Saiful. Carnal intercourse takes place and Saiful was invited to have refreshments, before he left the unit

10.14am: Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria starts reading the summary of the case. Arifin explains offence and punishment for unnatural carnal intercourse under Section 377B of the Penal Code. He added penetration alone is sufficient to constitute offence.

Arifin says Mohd Saiful started working for Anwar in early 2008, preparing work schedules, among others. Arifin describes the events leading to the alleged sodomy, with Mohd Saiful asked to bring documents to the condo unit.

10.12am: Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria, Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and the other three Federal Court bench members enter the courtroom

9.06am: DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang and his son, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng enter the courtroom.

9.04am: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, wife Datin Seri Azizah Ismail and daughter Nurul Izzah arrive in court

8.57am: Lead prosecutor Tan Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah enters the courtroom.

8.36am: Gobind Singh Deo and Ramkarpal Singh, part of Anwar's legal team, enter courtroom.

8.30am: Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, lead counsel for Anwar Ibrahim enters courtroom

8.15am: Pockets of Anwar’s supporters seen in front of the Palace of Justice

8am: About 200 of the opposition leader’s supporters gather in front of the Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin mosque to march to the Palace of Justice

7am: Hordes of reporters, photographers and videographers from the local and foreign media have converged in front of the court complex

6.30am: Muhd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s lawyer, Zamri Idrus arrives at Palace of Justice

Monday, 9 February 2015


Pantun Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari

Here is something that is going around.

1. Saya nak makan nasi lemak, beras dibeli dari siapa?! 
BERNAS!!  BERNAS milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

2. Makan nasi lemak, takkan tak minum, so order kopi o! 
Air buat kopi, di Johor, beli dari Aliran Ihsas Resources.
Milik siapa?   Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!

3. Minum kopi mesti campur gula! 
Gula di Malaysia, dua pengeluar sahaja MSM & MSR.
MSR milik siapa? Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar sepenuhnya!
(MSM pun dia pegang 20%).
4. OK, cakap banyak sekarang nasi dah sejuk, kasi panas! 
Guna dapur gas.  Gas Malaysia milik siapa? 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!

5. Guna microwave oven. TNB beli letrik dari siapa? IPP! 
IPP terbesar di Malaysia Malakoff.  Milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

6. Tak mau makan nasi, pergi McD... naik motor! 
Motor Kriss, keluaran MODENAS! Modenas milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

7. Tak nak naik motor, naik kereta! Kereta apa? Proton! 
Proton milik DRB HICOM! DRB HICOM milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

8. Tak nak beli Proton la.. Beli Honda saja... 
Honda Malaysia milik siapa? 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!

9. Beli kereta nak buat pinjaman islam, pergi Bank Muamalat! 
Bank Muamalat milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!

10. Kereta kena ada insurans! Insurance beli dari siapa? 
Uni Asia Insurance! Uni Asia milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

11. Nak beli kereta / bayar road tax, kena lulus PUSPAKOM! 
Puspakom milik siapa? 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

12. Tak mau naik kereta! Naik keretapi. 
Double tracking siapa buat?! MMC! MMC milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari! 

13. Sekarang, dia pun nak ambil alih KTMB!!

14. Ok naik  kapal terbang saja la... nak pergi Johor! 
Mendarat di Senai. Senai Airport milik siapa? 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!

15. Tak mau motor, kereta, keretapi, kapal terbang. Naik kapal saja... 
Pergi Pelabuhan Tanjung Pelepas! PTP milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!
16. Tak mau PTP, pergi Johor Port! 
Johor Port milik siapa? MMC! MMC milik siapa?! 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

17. Orang KL, naik MRT sahaja la...
Projek MRT, siapa kontraktor ?! MMC! 
MMC milik siapa?!  Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari!!

18. Ok lah.. jangan keluar rumah langsung! 
Hantar surat sahaja! Kena beli setem! 
Pos Malaysia milik siapa!?  Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari

19. Meluat? Duduk rumah tengok TV. Semua TV akan jadi digital.  
'Pusat' digital broadcast francais kpd satu syarikat saja.
Milik siapa? Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Bukhari.

20.  Keluar rumah pergi makan dinner. Makan di Hilton Hotel.
Francais Hilton Hotel milik siapa?
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhari

21. Nak lari masuk hutan. Sampai ke Taman Negara.
Singgah semalam di Taman Negara Resort. 
Milik Siapa!? Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Bukhari

22. Alamak !! Lari ke Pulau Pinang.
Naik feri Penang Port Commission. Milik siapa?
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Bukhari.

23. Dah fed up? Pergi beli buku di MPH Bookstore, tenangkan hati
Banyak sekali biografi ex-KSU, biografi Pengerusi itu dan ini. 
MPH Bookstore milik siapa?  Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Bukhari

24. Pergi jahit baju kot mahal di Sparkmanshop.
Jumpa ramai YB ADUN dan Ahli Parlimen tengah ukur baju
Sparkmanshop milik siapa? Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Bukhari

Tahniah Tan Sri! You earn all of this, all on your own!! 

Malaysia is YOURS!!  Entirely yours!!

And the Malays complain the Chinese are oppressing them???

Thank you and regards,


Betul ke? Kalau betul, minta lah sikit bagi kawan...nampak macam sapu semua je....kalau mati bawa semua tu kedalam kubur ke?

Thursday, 5 February 2015

Those who study together will learn to live and work together, its good for nation building you know

How are we going to build a united nation? 
To me, every citizen must know how to speak Bahasa Melayu.
Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim

Gomen must consider to close down vernacular schools before this voluntary segregation education system polarised us Malaysians any further.

Voluntary segregation in schools will inevitably lead to racial polarisation and disunity, its disastrous for nation building.

The consequences of having a vernacular system, the only one of its kind in the world:

Local Chinese youth divided on importance of speaking BM in Malaysia


Published: 5 February 2015 7:00 AM


The Malaysian Insider looked at Malay parents who have opted for a Chinese school education for their children, citing the ability to master Mandarin as an advantage. The focus today is on Chinese Malaysians who, despite having been born and bred in Malaysia, cannot speak the national language.

Chinese youth who cannot speak Bahasa Malaysia (BM) told The Malaysian Insider they had few problems surviving in the country without the language, although their handicap limited the number of places they could go to and the people they communicated with.

They also did not feel a connection with the language, which they learnt in school by rote. Some also said they did not feel BM was all that important as it was not widely spoken elsewhere.

Katarina Law Jen-Yu, who went to secondary school at Wesley Methodist, came from a Chinese primary school and said she “could never complete a verbal sentence in BM”.
“I try to avoid having conversations with teachers, but when I do, I mix English with BM or write a sentence in Malay on a piece of paper then repeat it to the teacher,” she said.

Another student, Har Chee Hou, a Johor Foon Yew Chinese Independent School graduate, on the other hand, used broken BM to communicate with Malays while helping in the 2013 general election campaign for Liow Cai Tung, the DAP candidate for the Johor Jaya state seat.

“I ran errands amidst preparations for the election campaign then, and it gave me the opportunity to communicate and interact with Malay representatives from PKR and PAS.

“But even with the most crooked BM, they were still able to comprehend what I was saying,” he said.

Speaking "rojak" – the mixing of English and rudimentary BM – sometimes helped, such as in the case of Pin Hwa High School graduate, Chan Kah Fai, who said he was forced to pick up BM and mix it with English for his job at the customer service department of a telecommunication service company.

Otherwise, it would have been impossible to communicate, he said.

Carrying out daily activities like shopping, ordering food or going to banks and offices with Malay employees were not much of a problem as most youths interviewed would either find someone else to speak on their behalf or resort to speaking "rojak".

“I often have to get people who are good at BM to accompany me when I’m out," confessed Tan Jia Mun who attends a national secondary school in Puchong, Selangor.

Another student who only wanted to be known as Wong from SMK Assunta, Petaling Jaya, regularly mixes English and rough BM as she found Malays could still understand her.

“It’s really hard for me to find a Malay who doesn’t speak English at all,” she said. “All my Malay friends around me speak English anyway.”

Rote learning

Not being able to speak BM does not mean one cannot read or write the language.

All the youths interviewed said that as long as a student read more and memorised model essays, Malay words and idioms, one could easily score in exams or at the very least obtain a passing grade.

“I always flunked my BM or passed it by the skin of my teeth, until I attended tuition classes that forced us to memorise at least one essay every day and other sophisticated Malay words and idioms because including them in your essays earns you extra marks in exams,” Tan said.

“Memorising” was a common practice among students when she was in school, she added.

Wong has her own way of passing BM exams. She would write a sentence out in English and then translate it to BM.

“I don’t do badly in exams,” she pointed out. “It’s not that I don’t want to excel at the language, my family did send me to a Malay school after all but with everyone around me speaking English, I never really had the chance to practice it.”

National integration

The inability of some Malaysians to speak the national language has been fodder for some politicians, such as Umno's Datuk Shahruddin Salleh, the Jorak assemblyman who last year said that those who failed to master BM be stripped of their citizenship.

In 2010, Loh See Mooi, 51, was verbally abused by a police officer when lodging a police report after falling victim to a snatch thief. She was told to "go back to China" for addressing the officer in English instead of BM.

A street poll conducted by The Malaysian Insider back in 2011 found that 28 out of 107 respondents had almost no command of BM or could not understand the language at all.

The poll was conducted after a school survey by the National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP) found that one in every four Chinese students would drop out of a national secondary school.

Asked if they felt BM was important, the students held two views, with some saying that it was necessary given Malaysia's multi-racial population, while others felt it was of little significance.

Chan for instance, felt BM was necessary because there are Malaysians who can only understand that language.

“Living in a multi-racial country, I think it’s about being considerate and understanding when it comes to learning BM,” he said.

“But not knowing it doesn’t mean you can’t survive, there are tons of examples of people living a good life despite not knowing the language”.

Har also agreed with Chan’s views, saying that “the only element one would require to survive in this country is tolerance.”

Tan, however, felt that BM wasn’t as important because it was just a “language used in a small region”.

“It’s not even an international language, so as long as you can speak on a basic level, that should be enough,” she said.

Wong agreed, saying that it was not right to consider someone as being unable to survive in Malaysia without speaking BM.

“If expatriates can survive without a word of BM, why can’t we? It’s just so double standard,” she said. – February 5, 2015.
The Gomen should study to mandate a one school for all system where each students must take compulsory mother tongue language classes. Let them study and mix from young together.

additional read: 

Menghasut since 1968 and still going strong in 2015

Its true Lim Kit Siang was not in KL on 13 May 1969 when the the Nation was shaken to the core by race rioting in Kuala Lumpur.

Its true that Lim Kit Siang was detained after the 13 May riots, read why he was detained:


Since July, 1968, you, Lim Kit Siang, have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Malaysia in that in the several speeches you have made since the date you have deliberately and intentionally roused intense communal feelings thereby promoting feelings of hostility between different races in Malaysia and causing suspicion and disunity to grow between them.

1) On the 27th July 1968, at a DAP public rally at Tanjong Malim, Perak, you deliberately distorted the Government policy on Education by telling your audience that the policy was designed to achieve and eventual extermination of Chinese newspapers, Chinese schools and Chinese languages. Such distortion was made by you with the deliberate intention of creating and furthering suspicion and animosity between the Chinese and the Malay in this country.
2) On the 24th August 1968, at a public rally at Slim River, Perak, you deliberately distorted the Government’s policy on language by telling your audience that a tourist poster with the Malay wordings “speak the National language only” clearly illustrated the one language policy of the government and that the dubbing of English, Chinese and Tamil T.V. films with Malay was unfair to the other races as their languages were not being given equal status such distortion was made by you with the deliberate intention of creating and furthering suspicion and animosity between the Chinese and the Malays in this country.
3) On the 7th September 1968, at the DAP public rally at 24 milestone, Sg. Besi road, Kuala Lumpur, and on 21st. September 1968, at Sungei Way new Village Selangor, on both these occasions you deliberately roused intense communal feelings by telling your audience that the MCA had instead of striving for the rights of the Chinese Language and Education in fact assisted the government in suppressing the Chinese Language as evidenced by the Non-recognition of Nanyang University project. The speeches are evidence of a deliberate misinterpretation of actual facts and had resulted in generating suspicion and animosity between the Malays and the Chinese in Malaysia and thereby creating a feeling of tension and racial hatred.
4) On the 29th September 1968, at the DAP public rally at Batu Pahat, Johore, on 2nd November 1968, at Lawan Kuda Bahru, Gopeng, Perak, and on 26th January 1969, at Jalan Yow, Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, on these three occasions you deliberately roused intense communal feelings by telling your audience that the alliance’s policy was a “racialist policy” as the Alliance had given more privileges to Bumiputras in University education and that there were first and second class citizens – the Bumiputras being first class citizens, and that the awards of honour such as P.P.M, are not worth anything because they were given to men in the streets and that P.P.M. stands for “ PELAN PELAN MATI”. By these utterances you had deliberately distorted the actual Government policies and by doing so you had generated racial tension, hatred and disharmony in the country.
5) On 12th, Feb 1969, at a DAP public rally held at Jalan Lengkongan Brunei, Kuala Lumpur, you deliberately roused intense communal feelings by telling your audience that the Government was showing discrimination between the various races in examination entry to University of Malaya, employment and in the distribution of land and that special privileges were being given to the Malays. By these utterances you deliberately distorted the Government policies and thereby causing suspicion and animosity between the various races.
6) On 13th May 1969, at a public rally held at Kampong Ayer, Kota Kinabalu, you deliberately roused intense communal feelings by telling your audience that the Government was trying to have a Malay Malaysia by dividing the people into bumiputras and non-bumiputras, that “the Malays were first class Bumiputras” and that the Government was carrying out a policy of “Malaysiation” of Sabah whereby all top post were held by the Malays. You also stirred anti-Malay and anti-Islamic religious feelings by telling your audience that the Government was pursuing the policy of exploitation by Malays of other races and that the Government by holding an International Islamic Conference in Kuala Lumpur had intended to send Malaysian citizens to die in the Middle East in order to capture Jerusalem for the Muslim World. By this speech you had made dangerous statements of a communal nature there by fostering communal resentment fear and apprehension amongst sections of the public in Sabah.

By direction,
DATE: 11 JULY 1969

Copied from blogger buddy SatD here.

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

Abdul Wahid Omar..watch this name he will go far in any Malaysian Cabinet

Watch this young Minister, I think he will go far in any Malaysian Cabinet now and the future.

Copy pasted from Datuk Rocky's blog post here

RON95: Looking beyond cheaper teh tarik

By Abdul Wahid Omar
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department

As Malaysians enjoy lower RON95 petrol price of RM1.70 per litre effective 1 February, some may have missed credit rating agency Moody's announcement on 30 January 2015 that affirmed Malaysia's A3 rating & Positive outlook.

An "A" rating is considered upper-medium grade & is subject to low credit risk. Positive outlook refers to a likely rating upgrade over the medium term (12-18 months).

Here's my 1-2-3 take on Malaysia's rating:

1) There are 3 global rating agencies ; Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch . 

Moody's and S&P are the 2 main agencies reatained by most global issuers. All three rating agencies have rated Malaysia at A3/A- but with different rating outlook. 

Moody's is Positive,  S&P Stable and Fitch Negative. 

At A3/A-, Malaysia has the 2nd highest credit rating in ASEAN after Singapore (AAA), and one notch above Thailand (Baa1), two notches above Philippines (Baa2) and three notches above Indonesia (Baa3). Brunei is not rated. 

Other ASEAN countries are below Baa3 (minimum level considered to be investment grade). 

2) Moody's is generally positive on Malaysia due to the Govt's commitment to fiscal deficit reduction & reforms and Malaysia's fundamental credit strengths - notably
macroeconomics stability, domestic capital market depth and favourable Govt debt structure. 

This provides resistance to a more adverse external economic environment, lower oil prices & global financial market volatility. Moody's acknowledged they have seen ongoing fiscal deficit reduction & actual implementation of significant reform. 

This includes, among others, the managed float system for petrol & diesel in Dec 2014 that effectively eliminated subsidies, reduced Govt reliance on oil revenues to 30% in 2014 and implementation of GST come 1 April 2015 which will broaden our revenue base. 

Meaning Malaysia has been doing the right things & potentially could have been upgraded if not for the recent sudden drop in global oil prices & market volatility. 

On economic fundamentals, Moody's expects Malaysia to continue to exhibit faster growth, lower inflation & a more robust external payments (current account in Balance of Payments) position than other A rated countries. 

Other strengths include favourable demographics, resurgence of private investment since ETP, macroenonomic stability anchored by credibility of BNM & Govt's favourable debt structure & depth of onshore capital markets. Only 3% of Govt debt is denominated in foreign currency.

3) What are Moody's concerns? 
First is the high level of household debt which is mitigated by low unemployment & high level of household financial assets. 

Second is the external payments position but Moody's believes that Malaysia is likely to sustain a structural current account surplus & that foreign currency reserve adequacy will remain in line with other A rated countries. 

Third on clarity of off-budget financing entities to analyse contingent risks to Govt.

Notwithstanding the concerns, the Posiitive outlook reflects confidence that fiscal consolidation will be sustained despite prolonged low commodity prices. What could move the rating up? 

Continued track record in fiscal deficit reduction and stability in the affordability & refinancing of Govt debt. What could move the rating down? 

Worsening of fiscal deficit or crystallisation of large contingent liabilities.

What can Malaysian businesses/corporates do to help?

Well, there are many things businesses/corporates can do to help the Country / economy. 

Top three;

1) Help grow the economy. Optimise your expenditure. Please spend domestically if you can afford it. Invest domestically.

2) Be generous to your employees. If you make more profit, share it with them. They can do a better job in stimulating private consumption out of the bonus paid. 

3) Be a responsible corporate citizen. Dont evade tax, dont bribe to get contracts, embrace inclusiveness & sustainability.

Let us all do our respective parts to navigate through 2015 & beyond.

Thank you & with best regards.

3 Feb 2015