Friday, October 29, 2010

MCA boss: Dimwits in Umno should retire

Those politicians who are tainted , racists should also retire !

Meanwhile heard there's a certain rumour going round in MCA circles that a certain Minister has been sending sms to a certain lady requesting for a f*** . Whether this rumour is true or not , I hope that Minister will come out to * cleanse * himself and to dispel the rumours .

KUALA LUMPUR: MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek has one piece of advice for Umno leaders who are not the brightest of bulbs – retire.

The Barisan Nasional leader made the stinging remark when asked to comment on Titiwangsa Umno division chief Johari Abdul Ghani's speech that Umno did not need Indian or Chinese votes.

A video of the speech had appeared on YouTube, but Chua told reporters in Gua Musang that it was unlikely to have an impact on Chinese voters come the Nov 4 Galas by-election.

The MCA president also stressed that such views did not reflect the Umno leadership's stand as illustrated by its president, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's 1Malaysia concept.

“The prime minister promotes policies for every ethnic group,” he said, adding that MCA would propose to Umno not to field members with such chauvinistic views as election candidates.

“This (video clip) tells us that there are some Umno grassroots leaders who are not politically savvy. They are not very smart.

“They should not come out (in public). We will pursue this. They should not represent BN and should retire and go home,” he said.

Dangers of Islamic state in Mandarin

In his speech, Johari had said that Umno could retain the Titiwangsa parliamentary seat if it could rope in 70% of Malay votes in the consituency.

If this is achieved, he added, there was no need for Chinese or Indian votes.

“If we want to win in Titiwangsa, we want Malays (to vote for us). Don't bow down to the Chinese and Indians just because we want to win,” he said.

In another development, Chua said MCA was distributing a Mandarin translation of PAS' constitution in Galas to educate Chinese voters on the perils of an Islamic state.

He said the PAS constitution did not respect Malaysia as a racially and religiously diverse nation.

“I don't think the Chinese are aware of this. They think an Islamic state means they cannot eat this or that. They are simplifying things,” he added.

Watch video of Johari's speech here:

Concluding the series on the Constitutional Conference which was the foundation of the ‘Social Contract’ (part 8 of the series on the Social Contract)

Friday, 29 October 2010

The Constitutional Conference of January-February 1956 agreed that a Constitutional Commission would be set to address many issues, one being to "safeguard the position and prestige of the Rulers" plus to "safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other (non-Malay) communities". There is no agreement on the Malays being accorded special rights and privileges and it was agreed that the new Federal Constitution of Malaya would be based on what the Constitutional Conference decides.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

A reply to Tun Mahathir's atrocious blog post

Dr M - self-admitted racist
Valerie Mohan

I really don't understand how someone as intelligent as you can come up with statements that are so blatantly ignorant. I'm 25 years old, my grandparents came from Kerala and I only speak English and Malay. I've never been to India, don't speak the language and all I can say is tanah tumpahnya darahku.

How dare you talk about fair distribution when you and your cronies have amassed vast fortunes at the expense of others? I don't see you going out among the less fortunate Malays and equitably distributing your wealth! If I follow from what you wrote you didn't deserve a place at medical school which means you took the place of someone who better deserved it. Which is what is happening all over this country in every arena.

Its not racial issues that the people are most concerned about its a lack of competency that is perpetuated because of racial policies.

Malaysians would not care if the vast majority of the government were Malay if they were able to discharge their duties competently. If there were 10 doctors and only one was Malay I would go to him if he was best at his job. But we have idiots running this country (the government, the police, the MACC, the judiciary) to the ground and they happen to be a Malay majority so of course people are pissed.

Do you think Malaysians would be angry if the country was well run and everyone's rights were upheld just because it was run by a Malay majority. Take a serious look at the majority of politicians and the rest of the people running the country (non malays included) - they are morons! The government is in shambles, the police are seen as the enemy and the judiciary is a joke - you really think intelligent Malaysians are angry at the Malays in general?

We are angry at those in power because we cannot trust you to do what's in Malaysia's best interest, we don't feel safe in our own country, we have no freedom of expression because you need to keep us quiet in order to stay in power and we don't believe that when there is a crime commited you are actually to get to the bottom of it unless it serves your own interests.

This racially charged hate mongering has to stop, it's stupid and unnecessary.

The real issue is our country is badly run and yet the government insists on discriminitory policies that seems to ensure its continuity. Did you ever stop to think that the person who's place you took in medical school could have been the one to lead Malaysia the way it deserves? Maybe that merits discussion?

(Valerie Mohan was responding Mahathir posting entitled HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR, MELBOURNE. Click here to read Dr M's controversial posting in full Dr M tells Malays: To be given handicaps is to ensure fairness)

Lets buy him a pair of clutches since he wants handicap ! Shameless Mamak !

Thursday, October 28, 2010

The Constitutional Conference also addressed amendments to the Federation Agreement (part 7 of the series on the Social Contract)

Thursday, 28 October 2010

The Federation of Malaya Agreement was signed on 21st January 1948 and came into force on 1st February of that same year. A form of common citizenship was created for all who acknowledged Malaya as their permanent home and the object of their undivided loyalty. Within this framework the settlements of Penang and Malacca remained British territory while Singapore became a separate colony under its own Governor.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

When you don’t trust your own people

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

In other words, Pakatan Rakyat does not trust their own party members and they also don’t trust their own candidates. So they have to keep the names of the candidates a secret until the eve or the morning of Nomination Day.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are two areas of concern that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) would like to thrash out with the three Pakatan Rakyat political parties contesting the elections.

One is the problem of which party gets to contest which seat.

Second is the eleventh hour decision in naming the candidates resulting in candidates ‘parachuting’ into the constituency and most times the voters do not know them from Adam.

222 parliament seats and 505 state seats were contested in the last general election. If we include the 71 state seats in Sarawak then the total number of seats would come to 798.

In the previous general election, the opposition won 82 parliament seats (so they lost in 140 parliamentary constituencies) and 196 state seats (so they lost in 309 state constituencies). This, of course, does not include the 71 Sarawak state seats because Sarawak did not hold the state elections at the same time as the last general election.

This means, in the last general election, the opposition won 37% of the parliament seats and 39% of the state seats (Sarawak not included), roughly one-third of all the seats contested. In other words, the opposition lost almost two-thirds of the seats.

That is not so bad, really, because, first of all, there are only three parties in the opposition versus 14 in Barisan Nasional. Secondly, even then the opposition managed to garner almost 50% of the popular votes. Unfortunately, though, because of the gerrymandering and the ‘first past the post’ system, it is seats and not votes that determines the winner.

And this is exactly the grouse of the LibDem party of the UK and which has also been my grouse since way back in 1999 when I wrote that the opposition would need to garner 60% of the votes to win 51% of the seats (if you analyse the 12 general elections since 1959, in particular the 1969 general election) -- which is almost impossible for the opposition to achieve.

Okay, we are talking about almost 800 seats in all (if we include Sarawak) and the opposition, at best, appears to be able to win less than one-third these seats. So how does the opposition decide which party should contest which seat?

Now, I can understand PKR, DAP and PAS being very protective of the 82 parliament seats and the 196 state seats that they won in 2008 (total 278 seats). These are seats that they ‘own’, since they already won them. But what about the remaining 520 parliament and state seats (Sarawak included) which they lost? Who owns those 520 seats, which the opposition lost and Barisan Nasional won?

And herein lies the problem. PKR, DAP and PAS will not quarrel over the 278 seats. After all, those seats are seats that they already won so they 'belong' to the respective parties that won them. No one would dispute that the winner gets to keep those seats, especially if the party that ‘owns’ the seats had won it the last three, four of five general elections in a row. It is the balance 520 seats that they lost and which Barisan Nasional won that is the problem.

PKR, DAP and PAS considers those seats that they lost as also ‘belonging’ to each respective party based on who contested those seats in the last general election (or last few general elections). The fact that they lost those seats (sometimes many general elections in a row) is not important. It is who contested those seats, even though they lost those seats, which will be the criteria to decide who ‘owns’ those seats.

For example, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li) has never lost his Gua Musang parliamentary seat. And PAS has always contested that seat against Ku Li and has lost every time. So who from the opposition ‘owns’ Gua Musang?

Why, PAS, of course. PAS 'owns' the Gua Musang parliamentary seat because it has always contested that seat and lost each time.

Okay, what if PKR or DAP has a good candidate to face Ku Li in Gua Musang and probably could even win? No way! Gua Musang 'belongs' to PAS so only PAS can contest that seat even if they do not have a good candidate who can give Ku Li a run for his money.

Now, Gua Musang is just an example, although it may not be the best example, to help you understand the issue about ‘seat ownership’.

What if there is another candidate who is not a member of PAS but a PKR/DAP member who is actually the best candidate for Gua Musang? Well, tough luck. Gua Musang 'belongs' to PAS and if this candidate is really very good then he or she can always contest that seat but will have to do so under the banner of PAS. There would be no way that PAS would ‘surrender’ Gua Musang to PKR/DAP even if there is a better chance that the opposition can win that seat if PKR/DAP contests it instead.

The opposition does not work on ‘winability’ (actually that word does not exist). It works on ‘traditionally’. Traditionally, which was the party that contested that seat in the last election (and lost)? That party would then ‘own’ that seat. Winability is not the issue.

The opposition has to discard the ‘Barisan Nasional formula’ of deciding which of their 14 parties contests which seat. That is Barisan Nasional’s formula. That is old politics (politik lama). We should look at politik baru (new politics). And it should be ‘winability’ and not ‘traditionally’ that we use to decide on which party contests which seat.

Another thing to note is: since there are three parties in the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat -- PKR, DAP and PAS -- then the seats are divided three ways (one-third to each party). So we use this ‘equal share’ calculation and then fight over which seats are yours and which are mine.

So, PKR, DAP and PAS each get roughly 74 parliament seats and 168 state seats (Sarawak excluded) to contest. Where these seats are is a second issue, which will be resolved after a great battle (and sometimes when they can’t be resolved there will be three- or four-corner fights like how history has proven).

But do PKR, DAP and PAS have enough candidates for all those seats they now ‘own’?

Apparently not! And that is why many have to contest two seats (both parliament and state as well) -- plus PKR, DAP and PAS are forced to pick lesser quality candidates of low capability, no integrity, and zero honesty.

PKR, DAP and PAS are greedy. They just focus on numbers (quantity). Quality is of no concern. The MCLM wants to engage Pakatan Rakyat and talk about quality candidates. Don’t just play the numbers game. Take only as many seats as you have candidates. And if you are short of candidates then hand the seat to one of the other parties, or let MCLM assist you in filling these seats with civil society candidates.

This has been done before since 1999, although not on a grand scale. Of course, in 1999 none of the civil society candidates won mainly because the time was too early and Malaysians were not ready for change yet. But the fact that the civil society candidates did not win in 1999 or 2004 is not because of the lack of quality of the candidates.

No, PKR, DAP or PAS need not ‘surrender’ or give up their seats. They can keep the seat. The civil society candidate will contest under the respective banner of the party that ‘owns’ that seat, like what happened in Johor where PAS fielded an Indian-Hindu woman lawyer (note: professional). And if PAS can accept not only a woman candidate, but also an Indian-Hindu on top of that, this means that PAS is not adverse to the idea of fielding non-party professionals as its candidate.

The final issue is about the eleventh hour decision on naming candidates, sometimes the morning of Nomination Day itself. This needs to change.

Let’s say the civil society movement wants to contest the Bentong seat. We will then have to work the ground early, maybe a few years before the election. But if suddenly on the morning of Nomination Day we are told that that seat will be given to us, we shall have to scramble to look for a candidate (if we can find one). And then that candidate will have to rush down to Bentong to file his or her nomination papers.

However, most likely not many voters in Bentong will know who this candidate is. And he or she has just a week to ten days to meet the voters and become known. How can seven or ten days be enough time?

Now, the reason given as to why the party does not want to announce too early their candidates is because, firstly, they want to avoid internal sabotage by their own party members, and, secondly, they want to make sure that Barisan Nasional will not buy over their candidate.

In other words, Pakatan Rakyat does not trust their own party members and they also don’t trust their own candidates. So they have to keep the names of the candidates a secret until the eve or the morning of Nomination Day.

What does this say about the opposition? This would mean the opposition is no different from Barisan Nasional who holds back announcing the names of their candidates for exactly the same reason.

If your members are committed to the cause there should be no issue of internal sabotage. And if your candidates are people of integrity, you should not be worried about them being bought over by the other side. It appears, however, that this is not so.

This is even more the reason why the opposition should revamp its criteria of how candidates are chosen (and also how seats are decided). Months back the MCLM (which was then still only in the pipeline) already started identifying suitable candidates and started talking to them. Many, of course, said they want to wait and see first as to whether the idea is acceptable to the opposition. The last thing on their minds is to enter the fray in three-corner fights with Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

We are not worried about announcing their names too early. After all, if Barisan Nasional wants to ‘steal’ them then better they do it now and not after they win the election (not that I think they can be bought).

And -- as has been proven over the last two years -- even if you announce the names of your candidates late this does not mean they will not be bought, like what happened to about ten or so Pakatan Rakyat candidates who have since jumped to the other side.

The voters need to know whom they are going to be voting for. It is okay if the candidate is a high-profile figure like Karpal Singh, Lim Kit Siang, Anwar Ibrahim, Nurul Izzah, Hadi Awang, Mat Sabu, Hannah Yeoh, etc. But what if it is someone you have never heard of before? Don’t you want to know whether he or she is suited for the job of wakil rakyat?

And that is why the prospective candidate needs to work the ground early, move around the constituency, meet the voters, talk to them, discuss issues, answer questions, do some community work (even though he or she is not the local wakil rakyat), and much more.

And this can only be done if, today, we know who will be contesting that constituency in the next general election, whenever that may be.

Minister Tourist Yen Yen asked why: When even beautiful can become 'beautuful'

KUALA LUMPUR — Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen spent RM3.25 million on overseas trips since she was appointed tourism minister in 2009, according to the ministry’s reply to a question in Parliament made available today.

In a written reply to Pandan MP Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on October 26, the Tourism Ministry said Ng spent RM1.67 million on official overseas trips in 2009, and RM1.58 million between January and October this year.

“The tourism minister has made 16 visits overseas since being appointed. These visits include 26 countries, and 61 cities up to October 2010,” said the written reply.

The reply added that the ministry’s efforts overseas had earned Malaysia a ninth out of tenth placing in the “most popularly visited countries” in 2009.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lawmakers have accused Ng of excessive spending overseas as minister, and have dubbed her as being more of a “tourist” than “minister”.

Ng has however brushed off the accusations, insisting that the ministry’s promotional activities abroad were instrumental in helping to expand the country’s tourism industry.

Last week, the Tourism Ministry released figures that showed its travel expenses ballooning by 40 per cent since 2008 while its promotion budget shrank by nearly 70 per cent in the same period.

At a press conference today, DAP MP Anthony Loke continued PR’s attacks on Ng’s ministry by pointing out grammatical errors in the brochures for the Malaysian pavilion at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo.

“The purpose of the expo is to showcase what the country can contribute to the world’s economy. Sadly there is nothing in the Malaysian pavilion that shows such a thing,” Loke said.

He pointed out the various spelling errors in the Malaysia pavilion brochure, where the word “development” is spelled as “decelopment” and “visitors” was wrongly spelled as “visitious”.

“Look at this sentence — To know more about Malaysia, we ‘incite’ you to step into the Malaysia Pavilion. What kind of standard is this?”

“Don’t tell me that no single Tourism Ministry official proof read this before printing the brochures? This is highly embarrassing, to say the least.

“Beautiful is even spelled as ‘beautuful’. A shame, really,” added the Rasah MP.

Racial inequality and the secret of Chinese 'success'

Helen Ang

Prime Minister Najib Razak on Oct 21 at the Umno general assembly told his party delegates "... kewarganegaraan Malaysia pada dasarnya bukan lagi bersifat sama rata". This country does not have equal citizenship.

Despite 1Malaysia (or Malaysian First), this is the core implication of Article 153, the 'special position' of the Malay.

NEP is the realpolitik of a race-based system to distribute resources. There has been no negotiation on its implementation: Umno dictates, MCA complies although it gets around the discriminatory policy by 'settling' (read: 'gao dim' or greasing the palm).

The so-called 'social contract' carries a rider; MCA navigates the lopsided terms and conditions using money as the medium. Well-connected wheelers and dealers have obtained a satisfactory outcome for themselves via the Ali Baba arrangement.

Hence the claim by Liew Kee Sin, a Tan Sri and a tycoon, that Chinese had thrived under NEP. But only for a small handful of Chinese. Liew, the SP Setia president-cum-CEO, raised hackles with his statement at the Chinese Economic Congress organized by MCA on Aug 14. His talk was titled 'Malay and Chinese collaboration to achieve NEM'.

Incidentally, Najib delivered the keynote address at the event that included two Tan Sris and five Datuks among its speakers, and three Tan Sris and four Datuks as moderators and discussants.

Giving an example of how Chinese have fared well under NEP, Liew disclosed that SME owners can afford his company's expensive bungalows, exclaiming "One Chinaman want to build a bungalow of RM40 million!"

Theory on the middle tier

The more Chinese are discriminated against in Malaysia, the better the community performs. This is a theory explored by two dons from Yale University and the University of British Columbia. The 30-page paper by Fang Han-ming and Peter Norman titled 'Government-mandated discriminatory policies: Theory and evidence' postulates that the NEP could actually have been the reason for, rather than an obstacle to, the Chinese's economic success.

Their research was published in the International Economic Review, Vol.47, No.2, May 2006, and in also our CPI archives.

They wrote: "Some minorities, notably overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and Jews in Europe, have performed economically better than the native majorities, despite being subject to government-mandated discriminatory policies."

Nonetheless, Fang and Norman placed a caveat: the extent of the discriminatory policies is crucial. The discriminatory exclusion can only be beneficial if the government-controlled sector is small enough. Aside from the public sector, the other parts of the economy that the government can legislate are in the industries where the authorities have direct ownership or control through professional licensing.

Occurring some years after the publication of the above study, the Low Siew Moi (left) episode inserts a more timely perspective. Loh, a long-time civil servant, failed to be confirmed as PKNS general manager by Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim due to the glass ceiling occasioned by her ethnicity. That Ketuanan Melayu objected vehemently to her appointment was a clear display of the minorities' limited access to public sector jobs and positions.

Although Malaysia is in a denial mode, foreigners like Fang and Norman nonetheless make the comparison with apartheid.

They noted: "As far as we understand, the policies facing Blacks [in South Africa previously] were significantly broader measures than those implemented in Southeast Asia. Moreover, it is necessary that some sector where investments in skills are important is left open for the discriminated group. Again, this seems like a more plausible assumption when considering overseas Chinese."

Their theory posits that exclusion from opportunities provided by the state created better incentives for Chinese to make a costly investment in skills. These skills are assets invaluable and crucial for private sector jobs.

On the flip side, giving a group (read: Malay) preferential access to high-paying public sector jobs may dampen the incentives for skill investment so crucial in the private sector.

Consequences of apartheid

Fang and Norman also tackled the vexing question of why the Malay majority would have implemented a policy that ultimately hurt itself. They believe the "natural answer is that the negative indirect effect of preferential policies in favour of the Malays was quite subtle and difficult to forecast; whereas the direct beneficial effects were obvious."

The direct benefits are that the public sector offers secure employment and generous perks. Government administration jobs ranked among the top five of 100 occupation categories, only slightly lower than architects and engineers. [S. Anand, 'Inequality and Poverty in Malaysia: Measurement and Decomposition' [Oxford University Press,1983].

From the recent budget announced for next year, taxpayers can get a clear idea of the staggering percentage of our national expenditure that goes towards paying the civil service.

Despite the minorities hardly benefitting from state largesse, Najib in his Umno speech on Thursday again made them the bogeyman. He attributed success to "creativity, innovation and the willingness of the individual to work hard and take risks".

Having said that, he added, "For example, the non-bumiputeras, after 39 years of affirmative policies being implemented, are still the race who own the largest share of wealth".

The Chinese indeed possess an unerring ability to cope with the hostile NEP environment. Yet paradoxically, this coping mechanism is a poisoned chalice with the effect of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. The insecure, fearful Malay views the trait of competitiveness as being 'ultra kiasu', innovative as 'underhanded'; resilient as 'cold and heartless'.

Essentially what the two Yale and University of Chicago professors have said -- if I may rephrase the idea as social Darwinism -- is that the Chinese survive when they are the fittest. But here, the fitter the Chinese are, the more the Malays feel intimidated.

The Mahathir era was a juggling act and to his credit, the maverick managed to keep all the balls in the air. Tensions aside, the good ship Malaysia Inc. stayed afloat. The Chinese were able to 'cari makan' but soon after Mahathir relaxed his iron grip and the unwritten 'social contract' began unravelling, the vessel started sinking.

A good illustration, even today, of the Mahathir-Machiavellian method is the planned development of Kampung Baru, a Malay reservation where the residents want to retain this prime real estate 100% in bumiputera hands. It was Mahathir who urged that Chinese investment be allowed for the reason of "we want to use the non-Malays as bait to lure more visitors".

Mahathir's callous remark is a backhanded compliment on Chinese capital and business acumen, but galling.

While the Fang and Norman theory may be applicable to its time (the 1980s), and to certain segments of Chinese, it doesn't cover all bases. The working class and wage-earners -- and their children -- have been shut out and victimised by NEP.

Another important factor to be borne in mind is the time frame of the Fang and Norman study. It was premised on population data up till 1988 where Chinese formed 32%. However, Chinese had since declined to 24% of the population in 2007, and further fast decreasing. It is expected that Chinese will only be around 18.6% in another 25 years or likely even lower.

Readjusting the variables to the current Chinese population ratio (and the much, much smaller slice projected in future) will be adversely affect the Fang-Norman theoretical framework. Their theory is that the NEP discriminatory exclusion is an obstacle that can be surmounted if the government-controlled sector does not encroach too much into private enterprise.

However, in the last decade we've seen how the government has grown very big and its finger in every pie. In short, the Fang-Norman model that Chinese are inveterate high performers who run harder and jump higher needs a revisit under prevailing circumstances. - CPI


Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Pakatan gets riled up over DAP 'harbi' banner

Unidentified quarters have managed to rile up PAS and DAP in Galas, Kelantan, by questioning again their cooperation despite the differences of ideology between the two partners.

NONEA banner was this morning found hanging in the Gua Musang town area with clearly printed words which screamed: “Why is PAS still supporting DAP (harbi)?”

'Harbi' refers to non-Muslims at war with Muslims.

It also described DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh as one who 'hina perjuangan Islam' (has insulted the Islamic struggle).

The banner quoted Karpal as having said: 'Mau wujudkan negara Islam langkah mayat kami dulu' ("You want to set up an Islamic state, you have to step over our dead bodies first").

NONEThe banner was taken down by PAS and DAP workers soon after wind of it had reached their parties operations centre in Gua Musang.

Speaking at a press conference held afterwards, PAS' Galas by-election machinery advisor Wan Abdul Rahim Wan Abdullah and DAP's national publicity secretary Tony Pua condemned the “racist” and “undemocratic” message put up by the parties' detractors.

Rahim said the banner was also against Islamic teachings.

“It is racist when we call someone 'harbi', as 'harbi' signifies open war with Muslims,” the Kota Baru MP said. He described the banner as an attempt to provoke Muslims.

"As the advisor to the PAS (election) machinery, I would like to make it clear here: it is PAS versus Umno. It is not DAP that is contesting in Galas.

"If you want to issue a challenge, please challenge PAS. Say it out loud - what kind of challenge do you want to issue?" said Abdul Rahim.

NONEWhen asked, Rahim - known as Cikgu Rahim among the local - said he had no idea who was behind the banner, but urged the police to take action.

Pua (left) said although DAP had always been labelled as "anti-Islam" by “irresponsible” parties, the Penang goverment that it leads has put in place policies that belie such accusations.

Islamist party PAS has in the past been criticised for cooperating with DAP given the latter's opposition to the Islamic state - the rallying cry and cornerstone of PAS' ideology.

The Constitutional Conference was attended by the Alliance government and not Umno (part 6 of the series on the Social Contract)

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Appendix A of the report on the Constitutional Conference held in London from January-February 1956 shows that it was attended by the Alliance government of Malaya and not Umno. Also in attendance were representatives of the British government and the Malay Rulers of Malaya.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Fair & Square, My Thoughts Over RPK's MCLM

People are starting to question the capabilities of PR to govern should they be given the mandate to take over Putrajaya. What happened with PR the past 2 years indicated two very distinct weak points. Credible candidates and the arrogant 'we know best' attitude, just like umno.

By Richard Loh

This posting is to share my thoughts over Raja Petra Kamarudin's (RPK) Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement(MCLM) and not a challenge to take on RPK nor having any other ulterior motive. Who am I, an unknown little person to take on RPK, whom, up till now has strong support from the public, especially those who are up in arms against umno/bn.

Raja Petra Kamarudin wrote about the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement(MCLM)

This Saturday, 30th October 2010, I am going to legalise the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM). And so that I do not create any confusion or be accused of ‘hijacking’ the MCLS, I am going to call it ‘Movement’ instead of ‘Society’.

Thus the launching of the MCLM this Saturday to take over from the MCLS that was shot down even as it was still taxiing on the runaway and before it could take off.
You can read the full posting here.

There are confusion among his readers regarding his posting on the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement(MCLM) especially when they saw Tun Mahathir and Umno's big shot, Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, names were mentioned.

Let me begin by describing how, for the first time and hopefully not the last, I met and shook hands with this great man, Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK).

It was at the biggest bersih rally in 2007, I happened to walk right pass him among the 50k or so crowd. He was with his wife (we met a few more times later when RPK was detained under the ISA) and I think his son was there as well. I recognised him and paused for a while, thinking of whether to approach him or not.

We were already near the front gate of the Istana and cannot move forward anymore, just standing on the muddy ground, soiled by an earlier heavy down pour.

After looking around for a few minutes I decided to walk up to him and introduced myself. "Hi, you are RPK", no response and his wife quickly answered "yes" and she signaled to him of my presence. I said, "Richard Loh from Penang" and we shook hands, his wife gave a surprised look and asked, "you came down all the way from Penang?" RPK excused himself saying that he was trying to call someone. I had a short conversation with his wife before moving away to meet up with Haris Ibrahim.

A few days later, at home on my computer, I visited MT to read the news about the big rally. There were many photos and I was surprised to see a photograph, a closed up picture of me in full. I think it should still be in the archives.

My one sentence description of RPK. A quiet man who talks with his brain rather than his mouth.

Many of us are amateurs when talking about politics. We are clueless or incompetent when comes to talk or argue about our country's politics. We just follow the tides and sentiments depending on which side of the political divide we are aligned to.

A few may have graduated to be political analysts but many, including myself, are still hanging here and there, once a while trying to be smart, writing or commenting on political issues, after the 308 tsunami.

What we can observed is that a majority of MT followers are pro-opposition, not for the love of it, but the hatred of the ruling government. Each time when RPK whacked umno/bn, everyone would add more fire onto the already hot issue in their comments just to make one feels better.

So, what is wrong or right about RPK's article on the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement(MCLM). I assume many like me had not heard about this Malaysian Civil Liberties thingy until we read RPK's article about it. He may had written about it many years ago, but, not many had much interest about politics at that point of time.

All these years, RPK had wanted change of a new Federal Government and works with PR to help in whatever way he can to see that it takes place. The 12th GE came close but not close enough to see the change except the consolation of winning 5 States. Everyone seems to be happy with the results and the forming of PR was officially sealed.

The next step is for PR to wrest Putrajaya in the 13th GE. Everything looks fine during the first year after 308 but things started to go wrong after Perak was given back to umno/bn on the platter with the help of 3 jumping frogs. Many frogs started to jump following the fall of Perak and internal bickering within each party in PR started to show the weaknesses of PR.

One party within the PR coalition is showing its true color reminiscing that of umno. The craze for position, infighting and throwing out all the gabbages of the party openly to the media. The other two parties also have their internal problems but not that glaring.

People are starting to question the capabilities of PR to govern should they be given the mandate to take over Putrajaya. What happened with PR the past 2 years indicated two very distinct weak points. Credible candidates and the arrogant 'we know best' attitude, just like umno.

Not only you and I are frustrated but I guess RPK is very furious as well. He had highlighted many disastrous events about to happen in PR by writing in MT or maybe even had spoken to the leaders but no actions were taken to prevent it from happening and sadly enough it did happened.

Read more at:

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The ‘Social Contract’ is signed and sealed on 8th February 1956 (part 5 of the series on the Social Contract)

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

The Constitutional Conference agreed that Merdeka be given to Malaya in August 1957 subject to certain constitutional changes, as can be read below. To achieve this and to meet the tight deadline of August 1957, a Constitutional Commission would be set up. And this was the Reid Commission, which came out with the Articles to be included in the new Federal Constitution of Malaya. The signatories to this ‘Social Contract’ of 8th February 1956 were the representative of the Alliance government of Malaya, the representatives of the Malay Rulers, and the representatives of the British government


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Monday, October 25, 2010

Fix biased version of History first, MCA tells Education Ministry

October 25, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 25 — The MCA today urged the Education Ministry to review and mend what it called an “imbalanced” account of the nation’s history in existing textbooks favouring one race and religious civilisation before making the subject a “must pass” in school from 2013.

“MCA has received feedback (or complaints) from parents that the History textbook syllabus tends to predominantly favour a particular race and religious civilisation, while using derogatory terms of ‘pendatang asing’ [foreign immigrants] on other races,” the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition’s Chinese partner highlighted in a media statement today.

MCA deputy publicity chief Loh Seng Kok also noted that newspapers had reported the subject would soon be taught from the primary level onwards — at present it is a core subject only in secondary schools — and would incorporate Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which touches on the “special position” of the Bumiputeras.

“There are also anxieties of the possibility of misinterpretation where ‘special position’ i.e. a ‘privilege’ maybe taken to read as an ‘automatic right’,” Loh said.

He stressed that the history taught in schools must be objective, rational and impartial to reflect the contributions of the different races and religious groups in the making of multicultural Malaysia.

Loh noted the a five-year review of the school syllabi was scheduled to take place soon and advised the set-up of a multicultural panel to fix the lopsided accounts of the past.

The MCA man said the new syllabi created should be free from influence of any one political group and urged History authors not to “introduce new terms which hint of racial supremacy or inaccurately suggest that vernacular schools impede national unity”.

Loh said such prejudice could be seen in the latest History paper in the PMR, the national assessment examination for Form Three students.

“Any personal conviction held by the authors which can lead to racial resentment and uneasiness must be completely disallowed.

“The Ministry of Education must review and rectify any shortcoming in order to prevent ethnic disharmony in our nation,” Loh stressed, joining a growing chorus criticising the Najib administration’s latest move on education.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also in charge of Education, had recently announced that History would be a “must-pass” subject in the SPM, the national secondary school leaving examination, in addition to Bahasa Malaysia.

The opposition DAP had also demanded Muhyiddin form an independent advisory board to “overhaul” the subject crucial to nation-building efforts.

The national Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE) had earlier today slammed the education minister for caving in to pressure from delegates at the Umno annual assembly over the weekend.

“[PAGE] is of the view that this is yet another politically-motivated decision to appease and please Umno delegates at its general assembly, without any thought given to recent policy decisions that have been made by him on education thus far,” the lobby group’s chief, Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim, said in a media statement.

The agreement on the Malayan Civil Service (part 4 of the series on the Social Contract)

Monday, 25 October 2010

The Constitutional Conference of 1956 between the British government and the Alliance government of Malaya agreed that a Public Service Commission will be set up and that it will be an independent statutory body, free from political interference, as the essential foundation of good government. Five pages of what was agreed is in this report and it does not mention anywhere about racial quotas in the civil service other than they must be ‘suitably qualified’ for the job.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

MCA is actually right

Let’s hope I don’t get to say ‘I told you so’ after the Galas and Batu Sapi by-elections. Let’s hope the opposition, for once, gets to prove me wrong. I would love to be proven wrong and having to eat my words once the by-election results are in.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

MCA's Wee says Chinese in Galas "actually don't like" Pakatan

(Bernama) - MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong is convinced that voters in the Galas state constituency, particularly the Chinese community, are not easily influenced by the tactics employed by the opposition.

Dr Wee, who is also the Deputy Education Minister, said the Chinese voters were now more mature in choosing leaders in their constituency.

"The Chinese community has made a clear stand that they actually don't like the opposition (PAS) because the party had never been concerned before and had never visited them to give any assistance.”

"The situation is so different with the Barisan Nasional (BN) and MCA leaders showing interest on their living condition and giving immediate aid if necessary," he told reporters after visiting Chinese homes in Kampung Baru, here Saturday.

As such, Dr Wee said the MCA machinery would continue to monitor the tactics of the opposition who tried to incite the Chinese voters to the extent of affecting racial harmony.

The by-election for the Galas state constituency seat is being held on Nov 4 following the death of the incumbent (PAS) assemblyman Chek Hashim Sulaima who died on Sept 27.


What the MCA Youth chief said is actually quite true. And when the government leaders say something that is true we should admit so and not disagree with them just because they stand on the opposite side of the political fence. The Chinese from the three villages in the Galas constituency are very angry with the state government. And this anger has been there for some years now.

The state normally appoints the ketua kampung or village heads as well as the local councillors -- as there are no local council elections as what we from the civil society movements would like to see. Most times these village or council heads would be cronies of those in power. That is sort of how politicians reward their supporters -- by giving them positions in the local councils and villages.

But these Chinese heads of the villages have been behaving like Little Napoleons or warlords (taiko in Chinese). And they have been bullying the Chinese villagers.

For example, in one incident, the Chinese villagers had applied for a piece of land to build their temple. However, since that land is a very nice piece of land the Chinese village head hijacked it for his holiday resort. This has of course angered the Chinese villagers.

Complaints have been made to the state, in particular to Husam Musa, but no action was taken and these gangster village heads continue to terrorise the Chinese villagers. So now it is payback time. The villagers are going to teach the state a lesson by voting for Umno -- whereas it was the Chinese votes that gave that Galas seat to the opposition in the last election.

Then we have the significant number of Orang Asli voters who are very angry that the local council demolished their church and still refuses to allow them to rebuild it even though the court has ruled in favour of the church. No doubt it was the local council that did this and not the state government. However, since the local councillors are selected by the state and not voted into office, the Orang Asli blame the state government.

And this matter is still unresolved. So the Orang Asli may want to teach PAS a lesson by voting for Umno.

Can PAS win the Galas by-election? With Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, the taiko of Gua Musang, leading the charge (which means the Malay votes are in jeopardy) and with the Orang Asli and Chinese both angry with the state, it will be an uphill battle for PAS. And maybe it is good they lose this by-election or else they will not listen when we tell them of the problems on the ground. They will go on thinking that they need not listen to us since they and not us are the politicians (so they know better).

Of course, it is not too late to salvage things but PAS will need to bend over backwards if they want to win back the support of the Orang Asli and Chinese. And, considering that the Malay votes are in jeopardy, it is either they win back the support of the Orang Asli and Chinese or else they will lose the by-election.

The Batu Sapi by-election in Sabah is not any better for the opposition. With a one-to-one contest it is already difficult to beat PBS, especially when the widow of the late candidate is contesting the seat. But in a three-corner fight it will be plain sailing for PBS/Barisan Nasional.

The situation is so hopeless that there are some in DAP who are saying they had better not waste their time by going to Sabah. BN is going to win anyway. Yong Teck Lee of SAPP is going to grab the Chinese votes while Ansari Abdullah of PKR is going to grab the Malay votes. But with the Chinese and Malay votes split, all PBS needs is 40% of the votes to win. And it is not that difficult to win at least 40% of the votes.

The logic of both SAPP and PKR contesting that by-election in a three-corner fight is to see who wins second place. In an election, winning second place means losing because only number one counts. So what is the novelty of winning second place when second place is a loser just like third place?

This is so that they can decide who contests that seat in the coming general election. If SAPP wins more votes than PKR then SAPP will contest that seat in the next election -- and vice versa.

Okay, that may solve Batu Sapi (and I say ‘may’). But what about the 84 other seats in Sabah? There are 25 parliament and 60 state seats in Sabah. They can arrive at a formula for Batu Sapi but what formula are they going to use for the other 84 seats?

Are they also going to contest in three-corner fights in the coming general election for these other 84 seats and then decide, based on who wins number two spot, who should contest that seat come two general elections from now?

What if it is a four-corner or five-corner contest two general elections from now? SAPP and PKR can agree on the formula and shake hands on the matter (and it is only a handshake, mind you, not a sealed contract) but what is there to stop another party other than SAPP or PKR from joining the contest and, again, turning it into a three-corner fight?

This ‘gentleman’s agreement’ thing does not make sense. You can come to an agreement but you can’t control what others do. Someone can always resign from their party and contest the election as an ‘independent candidate’ like what happened back in 2004. So we shall still see a three- or four-corner fight.

The trouble is the politicians always think they know better what they are doing than those of us who ‘comment only’. But then, those of us who 'comment only' always get to say ‘I told you so’ later.

Let’s hope I don’t get to say ‘I told you so’ after the Galas and Batu Sapi by-elections. Let’s hope the opposition, for once, gets to prove me wrong. I would love to be proven wrong and having to eat my words once the by-election results are in.

The many roots of Malays leave delegates in stitches

(The Star) - LIGHT exchanges over the origins of Malay and whether Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, who is of Turkish descent, could be regarded as Malay, had the delegates in stitches yesterday.

Fellow vice-president Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal had the floor in stitches earlier when he said that party president Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak didn’t include the Turks when defining the Malays in the country during his presidential address.

Hishammuddin said that even Shafie, whom he called “the pirate of Semporna”, had eloquently presented his speech in Malay, complete with poetry. Shafie is of Bajau descent.

Hishammuddin took the joke further by labeling Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi as Jawa Bagan Datuk, Malacca chief minister Datuk Seri Ali Rustam as Bengali Malay, Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambri Abdul Kadir as mamak Malay, Datuk Seri Musa Aman as Malay-Pakistan-Dusun. To this, a delegate retorted he is a three-in-one Malay.

Putra Umno chief Datuk Azeez Abd Rahim was not left out.

“I have checked (with the National Registration Department) and the JPN director-general told me that Azeez’s (ethnic) status is unknown,” Hishammuddin said.

Umno deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin also touched on a person’s roots.

“People ask me what am I. My late father was a Bugis and my late mother was a Javanese. I am a Malay,” he said.

Najib, in his winding-up speech, declared that the man of Turkish descent and the guy with “unknown status” are also Malays.

“We are all Malays. We must be united,” he said to loud applause from the floor.

On Thursday, Najib had given a long list of creeds and ethnic groups ranging from Bajau to Pakistanis, Arabs and Indian Muslims who were regarded as part of the Malay root.

Mahathir ? well everyone knows his father is from Kerala , India so he is a one hundred percent Mamak . Pak Lah is half Chinese . His first wife Endon is three quarters Japanese and his present wife is Eurasian . Anwar's wife is of Chinese descent from Singapore .

The list goes on and on not forgeting Mamak Ahmad Ismail .

Sunday, October 24, 2010

‘Ketuanan Melayu’ was not part of the Merdeka deal (part 3 of the series on the Social Contract)

The Constitutional Conference, which was held in London from 18th January to 6th February 1956, was attended by representatives of the Malay Rulers as well as the newly-elected government of Malaya that won 51 of the 52 seats in the elections six months before that. And this government was the Alliance government of Umno, MCA and MIC. This, therefore, demolishes the argument that Umno negotiated Merdeka. It was actually negotiated by a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC. And this Conference was the basis of Malaya’s new Federal Constitution -- the handiwork of the Chinese and Indians as well.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

There is now an urgent need for people on both, indeed all, sides of this question – and all Malaysians generally – to understand what exactly those agreements now designated as “the social contract” in fact were.

Malaysians need to reach a historically well-founded consensus concerning “the social contract”, what its terms were at the nation’s formative moment and in its founding experience, and what it means today and for the future. The coherence, strength and political sustainability of the nation require no less.

‘Ketuanan Melayu’ not part of the deal

It needs to be widely understood that, whatever they provided and mandated, “Ketuanan Melayu” was not part of what those agreements enshrined. Any suggestion that Malay political domination in perpetuity, continuing Malay “ethnocratic” ascendancy over other Malayans (and now Malaysians), was any part of those foundational agreements now designated as “the social contract” is simply wrong.

Those who argue to the contrary that Ketuanan Melayu is a constitutionally guaranteed “foundational” component of Malaysia’s national sovereignty and international public identity are disingenuous, mischievous, or simply ill-informed.

The attempt to “read back” subsequent notions of Ketuanan Melayu into ideas of “the social contract” and in that way to embed them within newly fashioned but quite dubious views of the constitution is simply an exercise in anachronistic revisionism. It is the duty of serious historians and legal scholars to say so. -- by CLIVE S. KESSLER, Malaysiakini

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Today's Malaysian-Chinese are not "Pendatang"

It's depressing to see that the Prime Minister himself had to provide this re-assurance h e r e about the status of the Malaysian-Chinese.

Sure, a few non-Chinese from Ahmad Ismail to Anwar Ibrahim have called the Malaysian-Chinese "pendatangs" but most of them are politicians, and why do the Chinese who are Malaysians bother to give them so much credit?

The fact is, if you were born in Malaysia and you have never revoked your citizenship, then you are Malaysian. You may think you are Malay first or Malay second but if you are Malaysian then you are Malaysian. You may have been born in Singapore, Indonesia or the US but have opted to become a Malaysian citizen, you are Malaysian.

The same goes if you were born in Malaysia but you decide to hold a Green Card. For all intent and purpose, you are still Malaysian not matter how many people question your loyalty. There's talk that a very prominent politician who spends so much time abroad is a Green Card holder of the United States of America but until he revokes his Malaysian citizenship, he's still Malaysian.