Indelible ink can be tempered with, it should in fact be banned

One of the demands of the Bersih2 movement for electoral freedom spearheaded by the Opposition loose coalition of Pakatan Rakyat, was the use of indelible ink, even though  indelible ink were used unsuccessfully in very third world countries like Afghanistan and totally banned in America and Europe. These despite the fact that the Electoral Commission (the EC) is planning to introduce high tech biometric fingerprint identification in the next General Election. Read here to refresh your memories.

Perhaps Bersih2 supporters are a bit wary of new technology and distrusts it so much that they would prefer old world methods to ensure a one man one vote election. This sort of mentality would even have them checking the loose change given back by their children after buying lunch in a restaurant for the family. 

Anyway, today comes news that would disappoint Bersih2 supporters that is indelible ink can be easily removed by common chemicals, how sad. News from the Star:

Wednesday September 14, 2011
Indelible ink can be easily removed, says firm

PETALING JAYA: An international firm specialising in fingerprint security systems claims it has evidence to show that indelible ink used for voting may not be foolproof and that it can be easily removed with common solvents.

The Europe-based company, with 25 years of experience in over 40 countries, has carried out a reliability test on the ink with its findings to be submitted to the authorities.

In a demonstration for The Star, it was shown the indelible ink stain on the test subject's index finger was easily rubbed off in minutes using off-the-shelf stain removal solvent found in most hardware shops.

“The ink is a controlled item which contains silver nitrate and is not openly sold in the market,” a senior company spokesman said, adding that India was the main source for indelible ink.

The controversy over indelible ink is not new as its use was questioned in the Afghan presidential elections in 2004 and elections in Palestine in 2005.

Off it goes: Indelible ink used to mark voter’s fingers can be washed off with off-the-shelf detergents.

“It was discovered in both elections that some voters managed to remove the ink and vote more than once,” the spokesman said.

“Indelible ink could also be easily substituted with other inks and polling stations may not be equipped with test kits to test their genuineness.”

Health concern is another factor affecting the use of the ink as it contains silver nitrate which can cause irritation.

“Its use is not permitted in Europe and the US,” he said.

The use of indelible ink was among the demands of Bersih 2.0 which described it as a simple and cost-effective means to prevent voter fraud.

In 2007, the EC decided to implement the use of indelible ink but did not do so in the 12th General Election following fears of fraud.

Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Yusof refused to comment on the company's findings, saying that any such matter would be discussed by the Parliamentary Select Committee set up to implement electoral reforms.

I think the EC should just go ahead with the biometric fingerprint identification, indelible ink will only bring more problems that it can solve. Additional reading here.

Indelible Ink : OUT

Biometrics: IN

Professor Zainal said Tanah Melayu never colonised, so what did we celebrate on Merdeka Day then?

In a recent MPN (Majlis Professor Negara) meeting, it was revealed that Tanah Melayu (Malaya) has never been colonised except for the years during the Japanese occupation and the 2 weeks in August 1945 when the Kominis Bintang Tiga had briefly taken and killed many Malays,Chinese and Indians who did not support their cause during the Japanese occupation.

I must admit that my knowledge of Malaysian history is quite shallow, relying much on spoon feeding by the history school teacher and the existing curriculum, it  ended after my taking the MCE exams in form five before being sent to the UK to take the A-level Exams and later entering University there. 

The current debate on Malaysia's formative years is an eye opener, especially the statement by Professor Zainal above. The good Professor's statement really opened many eyes not to mention  raised many eyebrows. Like many good citizens, I questioned, why then do we celebrate Merdeka Day on 31 August 1957? Isn't it not the day where the British Flag were lowered down and the new Malaysian flag was hoisted to the sound of our national anthem, NegaraKu. 

It is good to note a quote from a History expert, Malaysian Historical Society’s Executive Committee chairman Datuk Omar Hashim who said "There was no need to rewrite the nation’s history as improvements were being made continuously.Changes are made through improvements. If there are new information or evidence, we will study its veracity whether additions needed to be made. History is a dynamic knowledge". I hope that Malaysia's history experts would elaborate more on the declaration of Merdeka in light of the statement given by Professor Zainal.

Here is a  take on Professor Zainal's controversial statement by a very passionate writer, please read Art Harun's Is it Really, Professor?, read the lively comments section also it is very enlightening, one can conclude with a degree of certainty that we Malaysians are very serious and passionate about our history and I think its a good thing for the future of this blessed country.

Blogger Seademon has written a very substantive information laden brief on Malaysia's formative years leading to Merdeka Day and his conclusion probably would satisfy many, at least it substantively answered some of the question I asked earlier in this post:

The Road to Merdeka: British-Malaya

Posted by: seademon on: September 12, 2011

• In: What da f***!!
 
• Comment!

In the Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 3126 dated 10 November 1893, there was a column entitled: A BRIGHTON SCANDAL. BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT AGAINST A SULTAN. It tells of a certain Miss Jenny Mighellsuing a Mr Albert Baker for breaching a promise to marry her. Albert Baker was the name assumed by HRH Sultan Sir Abu Bakar ibni Daing Ibrahim, the Sultan of Johor from 1862 to 1895.

The case set a legal precedence in nations belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations that the ruler of a sovereign state or nation that is a protectorate of the British Empire cannot be tried in a court of law. Johor, in 1885, had signed a treaty of protection with the United Kingdom.

Collectively known as “British Malaya” the Malay states were unlike “British India.” British India started off as a business venture by the East India Company when it established a factory in Bengal in 1612. However, the “company rule” by the East India Company ended with the Government of India Act in 1858 following the Indian rebellion a year earlier. It was ruled directly by the Crown as a Colonial Possession and known thereafter as the Empire of India. The Indian princely states were allowed some measure autonomy in exchange for British suzerainty.

The Malay states comprised of three groups namely the:

1) Federated Malay States: a group of four states – Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and Perak, that formed a federation that enjoyed the protection of the British in exchange for an “Advisor;”
2) Unfederated Malay States: Johor, Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah (and later Perlis after it was independent of Kedah) that did not form a single grouping. Johor signed a treaty of protection with the British in 1885, while the rest became the British Protected States after Bangkok transferred its rights over these states to the British via the Bangkok Treaty of 1909. The Unfederated Malay States lacked common institutions and were not recognised as a single state under International Law.

3) The Straits Settlements – areas along the Malay Peninsula that came under direct British Crown rule (Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore) after being taken over from the East India Company. Initially, the Dindings and Pangkor islands formed part of the Straits Settlements via the Treaty of Pangkor in 1874, but the British gave it up as Pangkor did not serve the British’s economic interest. It was established in 1826 by the East India Company following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, but became a Crown Colony on 1st April 1867.

Therefore, the Malay states were never colonies save for Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore that came under direct British rule.

Both the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States had an “Advisor” appointed who came under the respective Sultan’s or Raja’s payroll to advise on the management of the state’s day-to-day affairs. They were called the “Residents.” They were there in exchange for the protection provided by Britain and do represent an indirect rule by the Crown. While it may be argued that the real rulers were the Advisors, but that is more on a case-to-case basis. Some may be pushy, like Birch who was subsequently murdered for his overwhelming influence in the Perak courts, while some are loyal to their paymaster(s).

One such person was Frank Athelstane Swettenham who first became the Resident of Selangor before convincing the Rulers of Selangor, Pahang, Perak and Negeri Sembilan to form a federation and became the first Resident-General of the Federated Malay States, serving from 1896 to 1901. Swettenham brought about development to the four states and introduced better civil administration. He was one of close to 40 former British Empire officials who were OPPOSED to the Malayan Union on the grounds that the Malayan Union went against the Atlantic Charter (the Atlantic Charter among others stated that there was to be NO territorial aggrandizement after the Second World War). Swettenham, as other Advisors, were on the payroll of the Sultans. There were other British officers who were on the payroll of the Sultans. One example is Major L.Vears, who was the aide-de-camp to Almarhum Sultan Iskandar of Perak.

If you remember the first paragraph, the United Kingdom recognised Sultan Abu Bakar as the reigning sovereign of the country of Johor, a protectorate of the Crown of the United Kingdom, and thus enjoyed the privileges extended to members of royal families. Johor, as other Malay states were at that time, sovereign states, ruled by its own rulers albeit with an appointed Advisor (Johor accepted an Advisor only in 1904). Sultan Abu Bakar and Queen Victoria became lifetime friends; not as a subject, but as real friends who corresponded with each other on a frequent basis.

Another example of “British-Malaya” being a collection of independent states is the donation of the people of Malaya towards the construction of a battleship aptly named “HMS Malaya” during the First World War. Launched in 1915, HMS Malaya served during the Battle of Jutland, and throughout the Second World War before she was sold for scrap in 1948. Her bell can be seen at the East India Club in St James’s Square, London. Among the battleships that served the Royal Navy, only HMS Malaya flew a different ensign: the red-white-black-yellow ensign of the Federated Malay States!

We have now established the fact that the Malay states were never colonised by the British, and that the Residents (Advisors) were appointed and on the payroll of the Malay Sultans. Therefore, those who waged war on the Malayan, and subsequently Malaysian, people are nothing less than traitors to their homeland.

Whether or not the Advisors were the real rulers of the Malay states, we must keep an open mind. Some may have spoken with condescending tone, some may have been more polite. Comments on history are often made by people who are emotionally-scarred, and may be biased as to how they see things, but history cannot be based on emotions – it must be based on facts.

You may now ask, if we were not colonised, then whose flag did we bring down on 31st August 1957, and what are we independent of?

Feudalism!

On 31st August 1957, the Rulers of the Malay States handed over power to the people of the Federation of Malaya through its Chief Minister, thus ending the need to be dependent on the Advisors from the British Empire, turning this land into one with democratic principles with Constitutional Monarchy.

Now that we are independent, perhaps the Department of Museums and Antiquities would like to ask for the bell of HMS Malaya to be brought back to the country that sponsored the ship.

A big Thank You for the well researched post Bro Seademon.

So much for our Merdeka story which I am sure will still be debated and researched by our historians in years to come.

We cannot however have politicians the likes of Mat Sabu of PAS talking about history as they have no research to back them up, only political agenda to advance their respective parties political cause.

Additional Reading:

Dr M: Don’t re-invent our history

Should nation’s history be rewritten?

Lynas again!

Not long after 2 nuclear scientists came out to publicly give their OK to the proposed Lynas Gebeng plant now comes an official support from the Australian Government:

Lynas fulfills all requirements: Moore

PERTH: Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum Norman Moore says there is no concern by the Australian government in respect to any operations of Lynas Corporation Ltd as the company has fulfilled all the requirements.
The Minister also voiced his pleasure in the company's involvement in developing its Mount Weld rare earth project as it has given Western Australia a chance to be a part of the world’s rare earth business.

Moore, who is responsible for initiating the single biggest overhaul of Western Australia's mining industry's occupational health and safety system, also assured Malaysians that the level of radioactivity attached to the product from Mount Weld was very low, that it was not considered as dangerous goods from the point of transportation regulations.

"So it can be transported from Mount Weld to Fremantle Port and exported (to Malaysia) from there and does not require the regulatory arrangement that would relate to dangerous goods with such a low level of radioactivity attached to it. So, it meets all the requirements," he told reporters at his office.

Lynas is building a RM700 million rare earth processing plant in Gebeng, Pahang, using raw materials sourced from its Mount Weld mine, to produce rare earth products essential for making hi-tech gadgets.

From the mine, the raw materials are taken to its concentration plant within the site and processed into concentrates before they are shipped from Port of Fremantle to Malaysia to be processed into rare earth products at its Gebeng plant.

Moore said the project was important because rare earth was in demand due to the range of products using this material.

"As you are aware, there is severe competition in the world. The Chinese government has almost a monopoly with respect to rare earth, so we are aware that other countries would like to have access to rare earth and as such, we are very keen for this project to go ahead," he added.

Meanwhile, China, which produces 95 per cent of the world's rare earth, has been cutting its export quota, causing a global shortage of rare earth.

With the rush to find alternative source, Lynas jumped onto the bandwagon, with its rich deposits of rare earth at its mine in Mount Weld, and had set up a plant in Malaysia to be nearer to the markets.

As for opposition by some Green Party members in Australia to Lynas' Malaysian project, he said, products using rare earth were also green-related.

"Ironically, the products that used rare earth are in fact related to the things like wind turbines that the Greens might be supportive of developing because they are looking for renewable energy sources," he said.

Moore said he did not understand why they should oppose to a plant being developed in Malaysia which would provide employment and opportunities for the Malaysian people, adding that it was unfortunate for them to be also involved in Malaysian politics and the exaggerated circumstances surrounding the Gebeng plant.

"I must confess I don't understand the politics of Malaysia at the moment. I understand you are in an election mood and I can understand Green Group seeking to take advantage of the opportunities to promote the green agenda but I think it is unfortunate that the Australian Green should involve themselves in Malaysian politics, particularly these days, to be exaggerating the circumstances surrounding the project," he added.

Moore said the mining and transportation of the rare earth products from Mount Weld would be done under strict regulations in Western Australia and processing in Malaysia would be done under Malaysian laws which were rigorous as that of Australia's. -- BERNAMA

Read more here.

I understand that there is a campaign "Stop Lynas, Save Malaysia", I think those involved especially the politicians should stop fear mongering among Malaysians. Just Stop the Lies and help Malaysia and its people prosper.

The World's biggest employers according to the Economist

Friends have you ever wondered who the world's biggest employers are? Well the Economist has the answer, read here too:

And some Malaysians complain that the Malaysian Civil Service with 1.2 million employees covering 28 schemes of services include among others the Police, Bomba and the 3 Military service arms, Government, and Local Government are too big. Hmm...

Kemerdekaan Malaya 31 Ogos 1957 - Satu dokumentari filem

A film documentary that I feel obliged to be put up in my blog for future references on the days leading to 31 August 1957, Hari Merdeka:

Dear YAB DS Najib, the PPSMI must be reinstated for the sake of our children and the future of this blessed country

Here is another letter from a Malaysian to our decision makers, Prime Minister YAB DS Najib Razak and his Cabinet arguing for the reinstatement of the PPSMI:


From The Star:

Why we need English

THE results of the PPSMI survey by a Malay NGO speaks volumes.

The majority of the Malays are against the reverting of the teaching of Science and Mathematics to Bahasa Malaysia. I agree with this opinion and believe our younger generation’s competitiveness in the global job market is significantly jeopardised if the Education Ministry insists on reverting the teaching of the subjects to Bahasa Malaysia.

Feedback from employment agencies further reinforces this opinion that one of the main reasons foreign investors have invested elsewhere was due to the lack of a talent pool proficient in English.

In the multinational call centre where I work, the majority of the employees are non-Malays.

The company has been constantly reevaluating strategic locations for its operations.

If the leadership finds Malaysia no longer attractive, they would relocate to a new country.

We are fully aware of today’s information technology advancements. They come with new terms and phrases.

I can imagine Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) coming up with strange and confused terms in Malay.

This does not help our younger generation when they join multinational companies or even government linked companies for that matter.

We lose our competitiveness to countries such as India and Singapore where schools are using English.

Other countries, too, have increased their focus to improve their standard of English.

Yet, instead of seriously competing with these countries, the Education Ministry made a surprise U-turn to revert the teaching of Science and Mathematics to the Bahasa Malaysia.

We are aware that some in rural areas will find instructions in English completely foreign to them. They struggle to understand the language.

But this should not stop us from finding ways to help this group.

Even during the British occupation of Malaya, many Malays were excellent in the language despite the absence of the electronic media, and compared to what we have access to today.

In fact, today’s generation can effectively use Facebook and Twitter despite the instructions being in English.

JAMIL DIN,
Kuala Lumpur.

I say this, the decision to return to the PPSMI should be done objectively and purely for the sake of our children and the future prosperity and security of this blessed nation of ours. Any political consideration or the narrow interest of  minority pressure groups should be thrown out of the Malaysian Cabinet meeting room window.

Remember Bukit Kepong, remember the PKM massacre, lets forget Mat Sabu

I think it is high time that we close the chapter on Mat Sabu the PAS Timbalan Presiden after so much arguments, much tears and sometimes laughter. Before that lets read what DAP's Tunku Aziz have to say about Mat Sabu:

Bukit Kepong: Insensitive remarks

MOHAMAD Sabu, or Mat Sabu, is always good for a laugh and I must say I find his speeches on the hustings delightfully shallow.

You may say that he is entitled to his opinion and I agree. However, when facts are twisted, so much so that they border on lies, he invariably invites, and deservedly so, innuendos and strictures.

It is in his interpretation of the attack by 180 communists of the 4th Independent Company of the Malayan Races Liberation Army on the remote police station at Bukit Kepong on Feb 23, 1950 that Mohamad has succeeded in further reducing himself to a sad figure of fun and ridicule.

He is, to the discerning, no more that a political jester, one of the many that the system has thrown up in all of our political parties. I say this more in sorrow than anger.

He has resorted to spinning his tangled yarn in a disingenuous way as he tries to worm and wriggle his way out of the preposterous, callous and insensitive assertion that the terrorists who mounted that dastardly attack on the lonely outpost at Bukit Kepong in Johor were the real independence fighters.

He said he did not use the word "communists" to describe the attackers. The fact is they were communists.

I concede his right to his opinion, but when Mohamad is who he is in the Pas hierarchy and, therefore, a leader of Pakatan Rakyat, a coalition now posturing itself as impatiently waiting in the wings to run the country, then he cannot speak as a jester. He is no longer amusing.

There is now an added dimension to his political life. The people have a right to examine him more closely for signs of character defects.

He has to reconsider his assessment of events in a more honest, principled and responsible way.

Unlike Mohamad, I equate a nationalist freedom fighter, whatever his politics, with chivalry.

According to one of the communists, Ching Moit Chai, (see Gallant Last Stand at Bukit Kepong by Datuk J.J. Raj Jr, Brian Stewart's Smashing Terrorism in the Malayan Emergency and J.W.J Moran's Spearhead in Malaya), there was heavy resistance by the 20 Malay policemen against some 180 to 200 terrorists.

Ching's leader, a Malay terrorist, became impatient and ordered them to attack the living quarters, the weakest spot in the compound.

As a matter of interest, Ching was tempted to surrender later, as was the case with hundreds of other "freedom fighters", by the prospect of getting his murderous hands on the reward money being offered by the government.

One of the policemen's wives "tried to run to the station but my comrades caught her. They asked her to walk to the station and ask the men to surrender. She refused and she told my comrades that there were only two people left alive in the married quarters, a policeman's wife and daughter. My comrades shot her and called upon the one in the quarters to surrender. She refused and shouted that both she and her daughter preferred to die. So my comrades set fire to the quarters. Then they threw the body of the other wife into the blazing building".

Could the means justify the end?

I wonder whether Mohamad has the moral courage and integrity to reflect dispassionately upon this, the height of bestiality and cowardice by people whom he had sought to dignify as the true heroes of Merdeka.
The communists were aliens to a man and owed no loyalty except to China. They fought the British with the sole purpose of turning Malaya into a Chinese communist state, a satellite of the Communist Party of China.

The Malays in their thousands volunteered their service not, as Mat Sabu implied, to protect British interests in Malaya but, in cooperation with the colonial power, to defend the only country they ever knew and their religion against a godless alien ideology.

I am in danger of being accused of racism, but I am talking of events in a different era.

In this struggle to defeat communism in Malaya, there were many officers and men of non-Malay origin who fought with great gallantry.

Some of the names that come to mind are Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng, Datuk J.J. Raj Jr, Datu Tagore, Goh Chin Hee (once a teacher at Klang High School), Leong Chee Woh and Tan Tiew Siew, my classmate at Klang High School.

He and Datu both won the George medal, the civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross. They were the real heroes together with tens of thousands of other loyal men and women of all races.

I come from a police family and am proud of the vital contributions of the police, then and now, to the peace and security of our nation.

Read more here.  

Though some like Helen Ang are a wee bit suspicious about the DAP needling their partner liking it as an attempt to distance themselves as much as possible from the aftermath of Mat Sabu's ill advised statement on Bukit Kepong which he has yet to recant and retract or even offered an apology to at least the descendants of the Police Constables and their familiy members who were massacred, I am prepared to give Tunku Aziz the benefit of the doubt on this one.

NST's Zainul Ariffin says it is "It's time to leave Mat Sabu behind" and I agree totally, the guy's a complete jerk and PAS are worse jerks for ever allowing a man of little intelectual capacity to become number two in their leadership hierarchy. I say biarkan Mat Sabu dan PAS terjun dengan labu-labu mereka.

Mat Sabu got it all wrong for sure on the Bukit Kepong massacre

Another historical fact laden letter to the NST debunking  PAS's Mat Sabu controversial statement that Mat Indera the Parti Kominis Malaya terrorist is a hero:


Bukit Kepong incident: Mat Sabu got it all wrong
2011/09/08
DATUK WAN ZAHIR SHEIKH ABD RAHMAN, Kuala Lumpur

THE alleged remarks of Pas deputy president Mohamad Sabu that the communist terrorists who attacked Bukit Kepong police station in 1950 were the country's true heroes and that Datuk Onn Jaafar and Tunku Abdul Rahman should not be hailed as icons of the nation's independence as they were British officers, has shocked the nation.

Firstly, the alleged remarks had assumed that the Federation of Malaya that came into being on Feb 1, 1948, was a British colony and the communist terrorists who killed 16 of the Bukit Kepong policemen were fighting for the country's independence from the British.

As a former secretary to the Malaysian Parliament, let me lay down the historical facts.

Both the former Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang and the unfederated Malay states of Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis never became British colonies.

In fact, both types of Malay states were brought under British control through a system of British protectorate, a protectorship of under-developed states by a stronger state.

Hence, the sovereignty of each one of the nine Malay states remained with its respective Malay ruler who also retained the power and control in the administration of Islam as the religion of the Malays.

Under the system of the British Protectorate, the British Resident had an office in each state as the Malay ruler's adviser.

In respect of the four protected Malay states of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, they were formed into a federation in 1895 with a Resident-General's office located in Kuala Lumpur.

The unfederated Malay states were administered more loosely. Johor was the last Malay state to come under British control as the relations with Johor were not regulated by a formal treaty until 1914.

After World War 2, the British tried to establish more direct control over the Malay states to salvage their prestige of losing the war to the Japanese.

But the Malays, under the leadership of Onn, strongly opposed the Malayan Union and following new negotiations, the constitution of the Federation of Malaya was established on Feb 1, 1948.

Penang and Malacca were included in the new federation but Singapore was left as a British colony. The British conceded to the abolition of the Malayan Union for the fundamental reason that the Malay territories were brought under British control through the protectorate system of formal treaties entered into between the British government and the Malay rulers.

With the transformation of Malaya into a booming economy of tin and rubber and a multiracial and multireligious country, the British conceded to the demands of the Alliance coalition, comprising Umno, MCA and MIC, under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, for an early independence.

The constitution of the Federation of Malaya granting independence to the country was, therefore, based on negotiation and agreements between the British government, on one hand, and the component party representatives of the Alliance coalition, on the other hand.

Both parties had also taken into consideration the views of the Malay rulers with whom the British had signed formal treaties before World Wars 1 and 2.

With the above historical facts, we can conclude that Mohamad's alleged remarks about the communist terrorists being the true heroes and Onn and Tunku being British officers, bear very serious security implications on himself and equally grave political implications on Pas as Mohamad is not an ordinary Pas member but the deputy president of the party.

Our historical records show that the terrorists of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), comprising mostly Chinese and a number of Malays, were accountable for a series of atrocities and killings of members of our security forces and innocent civilians and attacks on property that went on much longer than the declared 12 years of Emergency from 1948 to 1960.

Indeed, the British government helped the Malayan government to end the communist terrorist menace to enable us to achieve our independence early and save the country from being ruled by MCP.

When Sir Henry Gurney was killed in the communist terrorist ambush on Oct 6, 1951, Sir Gerald Templer deployed our security forces more effectively to end the state of emergency through political and military action.

Mohamad's implied support for the communist ideology from the alleged remarks also has serious implications to his religion of Islam.

This comes from the fact that communism and its ideology are strongly opposed to Islam and to all other world religions such as Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism.

Read in full here.

Mat Sabu must issue an unqualified apology  to all the descendants of the 25 Police constables and their families who were murdered in the Bukit Kepong Massacre or forever be branded as a "talibarut pengganas parti Kominis Malaya".

Finally, Bar Council Malaysia is severely criticized in public by a lawyer

Lately I have observed that Bar Council since the Presidency of Ambiga Sreenevasan and now Lim Chee Wee are aggressively showing that it is heavily biased and partisan against the Government of the day, which is not how a supposedly neutral Bar Council should behave. These days the Bar Council tend to take up issues which are more aligned to the opposition political parties. Shouldn't the Bar Council be apolitical just like other Professional organisations such as The Institution of Engineers Malaysia, Persatuan Akitek Malaysia etc? 

I think many Malaysians share the same view, the following is one lawyer who makes no bones about what he thinks of the Bar Council:

KUALA LUMPUR, 7 Sept – Majlis Peguam Malaysia atau Bar Council kini dilihat sebagai sebuah badan yang mewakili pemimpin dan parti-parti pembangkang, dan tidak lagi dilihat sebagai sebuah badan professional yang bebas dan non partisan, ujar peguambela yang juga penasihat Undang-Undang UMNO, Datuk Hafarizam Harun.

“Saya selaku peguambela yang juga merupakan ahli kepada Badan Peguam Malaysia (Malaysian Bar) melihat Majlis Peguam Malaysia (Bar Council) telah lari dari landasan tujuan penubuhan mereka mengikut Akta Profesion 1976.

“Jika kita melihat Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976, Majlis Peguam seharusnya bersikap bebas. Bebas bermakna, mereka sepatutnya bersikap non-partisan, berkecuali,” katanya di sini.

Tegas beliau lagi jika diperhatikan kenyataan-kenyataan Bar Council, terutamanya tiga empat bulan ini, jelas kelihatan Bar Council ini lebih kepada satu pertubuhan yang disifatkannya sebagai pertubuhan separa politik, di mana tidak ada benda yang baik yang dilakukan kerajaan.

“Contohnya, mengapa apabila saya sebagai seorang peguam telah dihadapkan ke Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan, Bar Council tidak mengeluarkan sebarang kenyataan rasmi yang mana dikeluarkan di semua media termasuk Malaysian Insider dan Malaysiakini mengutuk tindakan Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor.

“Tetapi apabila Datuk Ambiga telah dihalang masuk ke Sarawak ketika Pilihanraya Negeri Sarawak baru-baru ini, tidak sampai 4 jam beliau telah dihantar pulang, Bar Council telah mengeluarkan kenyataan mengutuk pengunaan kuasa menghalang rakyat Malaysia memasuki mana-mana negeri dalam Malaysia,” ujarnya lagi.

Ujarnya, Majlis Peguam kini lebih mirip kepada pembangkang.

“Saya bercakap ini bukan sebab saya peguam UMNO. Kenapa tidak disamai saya seperti Karpal Singh, peguam DAP. Kenapa tidak disamai saya seperti anak-anak beliau, Gobind Singh Deo, peguam DAP, N Suvendren, peguam PKR. Mereka dilihat sebagai peguam, tetapi kepada saya dilihat sebagai peguam UMNO. Ini saya lihat sebagai tidadil kerana saya walau apapun adalah seorang peguam.

“Cuma saya menjadi peguam kepada parti UMNO, Barisan Nasional. Salah ke saya untuk memilih mewakili anak guam saya sahaja, itu tidak bermakna saya sudah tersasar dari profession saya sebagai seorang peguam,” ujarnya lagi.

Namun apabila mereka menggunakan Bar Council sebagai platform, yang dilihat sebagai ‘baling batu sembunyi tangan’, kewibawaan dan kredibiliti Bar Council itu telah menampakkan mereka ini tidak lagi bebas.

“Saya difahamkan di bangunan Bar Council ada poster mendiang Teo Beng Hock, kenapa tidak ada pejuang-pejuang UMNO, kenapa tidak ada poster Datuk Zambry sebagai Menteri Besar Perak, beliau juga seorang pejuang, seorang yang professional,” tambahnya.

Dalam masa yang sama, Hafarizam turut mencadangkan kepada Bar Council untuk pergi ke Jabatan Pendaftar Pertubuhan, minta borang dan tubuhkan sebuah parti politik yang dikenali sebagai Majlis Peguam Parti Politik Peguam.

“Dengan itu, marilah masuk kem kancah politik, marilah kita sama-sama bergelumang dalam arus politik,” ujarnya.

Read more here.

Dear YAB DS Najib Razak, please be informed that many Malaysians wants the PPSMI back

The Gomen under Najib Razak must face fresh realities on the issue of the learning and teaching of Science and Mathematics in English with more and more groups other than PAGE coming out in support of the PPSMI. This issue will not go away even if the Gomen tries other systems on our poor schoolchildren bruised and battered over the years by the Gomen lack of political will in implementing what was a good teaching system which would propel our children in no small way into the technology and internet age, the PPSMI.

Malay NGO backs PPSMI policy

PETALING JAYA: A Malay non-governmental organisation backs the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English following a survey result among 15,000 respondents nationwide.

Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) said the four-month survey found that 54% of the respondents nationwide, including parents from rural areas, preferred PPSMI to be retained.

Some 70% of the respondents were Malays.

Although JMM's constitution stated its role in upholding the Malay language, the demands of the parents supporting the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) must not be denied, said itspresident Azwanddin Hamzah.

“We have refrained from making any statement until the completion of the survey.

“Now, based on the findings, we urge the Government to listen to the voices of parents who want the best for their children and review its decision to abolish PPSMI,” Azwanddin said.

The survey also stated that 66% of parents from rural areas agreed that teaching Mathematics and Science in English would give their children a chance at a brighter future.
“Instead of abolishing it completely, the Government should give parents a say in the education of their children.

“For example, some schools in the city or large towns could offer PPSMI.

“The parents are supportive of the move. It is up to the Government and teachers to be prepared for the teaching of the two subjects in English.

“English is one of the requirements for our children to further their studies overseas, as well as being the main criterion in almost 12 million job applications in the nation,” said Azwanddin in a statement.

He added that results of the survey mirrored the findings of education advocacy group Parents Action Group For Education Malaysia (PAGE) which was in favour of PPSMI.

He said JMM was prepared to meet the Prime Minister with their findings with PAGE if necessary.

PAGE chairman Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim called for a meeting with the Cabinet to find a lasting solution to the issue.

The termination of the PPSMI before having done a proper long term research on its successes or limitations was ill advised and premature. The Gomen should stop drawing on sand with their toes, just bite the bullet and give the PPSMI a new breath of life. At least give the Parents and their Children the option to decide what kind of education they want for themselves.