Raja Petra on PKR's Chances in GE13

Raja Petra on PKR's Chances in GE13

Outside parties, sore losers, third force and two-party system

Outside parties, sore losers, third force and two-party system

Many say that Malaysia is not ready for a third force and that we first need to see the emergence of a two-party system. Now, before we debate this point we need to clarify certain matters and see whether we are on the same wavelength as far as the meaning of these things are concerned.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar: No reason to entertain "outside parties" and "sore losers": said Malaysia Chronicle. You can read the news item here (http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/2010/11/anwar-no-reason-to-entertain-outside.html)

There is much talk lately about third force and two-party system. Now we have outside parties and sore losers as well.

I don’t know whether we are on the same wavelength as to what these words and phrases mean. So that we can engage in an intelligent discussion on the matter, I think we must first clear up whether we are of the same mind as to the meaning of all these things.

For example, when you say someone is a fundamentalist, you may actually mean that he or she is an extremist -- whereas to the person in question a fundamentalist is someone who follows the true and fundamental teachings of the religion. Therefore, to the first person, a fundamentalist is a negative thing (something not quite right with that person’s brain) whereas to the second it is positive (they are a purist).

Again, when you say someone is a liberal, to one person it is positive (this person is reasonable and modern thinking) whereas to another person it would be considered as deviant beliefs (not following the teachings too strictly and straying from the correct path).

A non-Muslim would look at a Muslim who drinks wine as good (this means the person is a liberal Muslim) whereas a fellow Muslim would not share that view -- it would be considered bad. So liberal can be both good and bad depending on where you stand.

So, now that we understand how words and phases can be perceived differently by different people, let us get back to the issue.

What would you consider as outside parties? Would Malaysians who voted for a certain political party in the last general election and who would like to see that particular party succeed be considered as outside parties?

What would you consider as sore losers? Would people who are not contesting the party election but would like to see a well-run election because this is the first one-man-one-vote party election in Malaysian history be considered as sore losers?

Okay, the next two issues are feedback I have received. Many say that Malaysia is not ready for a third force and that we first need to see the emergence of a two-party system. Now, before we debate this point we need to clarify certain matters and see whether we are on the same wavelength as far as the meaning of these things are concerned.

What is a third force?

What is a two-party system?

Does Malaysia have a two-party system or two coalitions of 17 parties?

Would a two-coalition system qualify as a two-party system?

Would a third force work opposed to a two-party system?

If so, in what way does a third force work opposed to a two-party system?

Would a third force complement a two-party system?

If so, in what way does a third force complement a two-party system?

Can a two-party system be easier achieved without the presence of a third force?

If so, how can a two-party system be easier achieved without the presence of a third force?

How would the third force hinder the emergence of a two-party system?

How do we achieve a two-party system? How would we do it and what is the formula?

Why Onn Jaafar really left Umno to form the IMP (part 10 of the series on the Social Contract)

Why Onn Jaafar really left Umno to form the IMP (part 10 of the series on the Social Contract)

On 21st December 1951, around four years before the Constitutional Conference of January-February 1956, the British government came out with a report on the racial situation in Malaya. The Malay-Chinese population ratio then was 50:50 but because many Chinese were not allowed citizenship this ratio eventually tipped in favour of the Malays. Page four of this report reveals that Umno aimed to embark on a ‘Malaya for the Malays’ policy and that was why Dato Onn Jaafar broke away from Umno to form his Independence of Malaya Party (IMP).

NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 (part 9 of the series on the Social Contract)

NO HOLDS BARRED

Monday, 01 November 2010

After the Constitutional Conference that was held in London from 18th January to 6th February 1956, attended by representatives of the Malay Rulers as well as the newly elected Alliance government of Malaya, a Federation of Malaya Independence Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1957 to spell out the terms of Malaya’s independence. Again, no mention of any special rights and privileges.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957

1957 CHAPTER 60

An Act to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the Commonwealth.

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Provision for establishment of the Federation as an independent sovereign country.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the approval of Parliament is hereby given to the conclusion between Her Majesty and the Rulers of the Malay States of such agreement as appears to Her Majesty to be expedient for the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the Commonwealth.

(2) Any such agreement as aforesaid may make provision—

(a) for the formation of the Malay States and of the Settlements of Penang and Malacca into a new independent Federation of States under a Federal Constitution specified in the agreement, and for the application to those Settlements, as States of the new Federation, of State Constitutions so specified;

(b) for the termination of Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the said Settlements, and of all other Her power and jurisdiction in and in respect of the Malay States or the Federation as a whole, and the revocation or modification of all or any of the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and of any other agreements in force between Her Majesty and the Rulers of the Malay States.

(3) Any such agreement shall be conditional upon the approval of the new Federal Constitution by enactments of the existing Federal Legislature and of each of the Malay States; and upon such approval being given Her Majesty by Order in Council may direct that the said Federal and State Constitutions shall have the force of law within the said Settlements, and, so far as She has jurisdiction in that behalf, elsewhere within the Federation, and may make such other provision as appears to Her to be necessary for giving effect to the agreement.

(4) Any Order in Council under this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made.

(5) In this Act "the appointed day" means such day as may be specified by Order in Council under this section as the day from which the said Federal Constitution has the force of law as aforesaid.

2. Operation of existing laws.

(1) On and after the appointed day, all existing law to which this section applies shall, until otherwise provided by the authority having power to amend or repeal that law, continue to apply in relation to the Federation or any part thereof, and to persons and things in any way belonging thereto or connected therewith, in all respects as if no such agreement as is referred to in subsection (1) of section one of this Act had been concluded:

Provided that—

(a) the enactments referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as from the appointed day subject to the amendments made by that Schedule (being amendments for applying in relation to the Federation certain statutory provisions applicable to Commonwealth countries having fully responsible status within Her Majesty's dominions);

(b) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such further adaptations in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed before the appointed day, or in any instrument having effect under any such Act, as appear to Her necessary or expedient in consequence of the agreement referred to in subsection (1) of section one of this Act;

(c) in relation to the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955, this subsection shall have effect only so far as may be necessary for the making of payments on or after the appointed day in pursuance of schemes in force immediately before that day and in respect of periods falling before that day;

(d) nothing in this section shall be construed as continuing in force any enactment or rule of law limiting or restricting the legislative powers of the Federation or any part thereof.

(2) An Order in Council made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) An Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council so made and may, though made after the appointed day, be made so as to have effect from that day.

(4) In this section "existing law" means any Act of Parliament or other enactment or instrument whatsoever, and any rule of law, which is in force on the appointed day or, having been passed or made before the appointed day, comes into force after that day; and the existing law to which this section applies is law which operates as law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom, Southern Rhodesia, or any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory except that this section—

(a) does not apply to any law passed by the Federal Legislature of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;

(b) applies to other law of, or of any part of, Southern Rhodesia so far only as concerns law which can be amended neither by a law passed by the Legislature thereof nor by a law passed by the said Federal Legislature; and

(c) applies to other law of, or of any part of, Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland so far only as concerns law which cannot be amended by a law passed by the said Federal Legislature.

(5) References in subsection (4) of this section to a colony, a protectorate and a United Kingdom trust territory shall be construed as if they were references contained in the British Nationality Act, 1948.

3. Appeals from Supreme Court of Federation.

(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council confer on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council such jurisdiction in respect of appeals from the Supreme Court of the Federation as appears to Her to be appropriate for giving effect to any arrangements made after the appointed day between Her Majesty and the Head of the Federation for the reference of such appeals to that Committee.

(2) An Order in Council under this section may determine the classes of cases in which, and the conditions as to leave and otherwise subject to which, any such appeal may be entertained by the said Committee, and the practice and procedure to be followed on any such appeal, and may in particular make such provision with respect to the form of the report or recommendation to be made by the Committee in respect of any such appeal, and the transmission to the Head of the Federation of such reports or recommendations, as appears to Her Majesty to be appropriate having regard to the said arrangements.

(3) Except so far as otherwise provided by Order in Council under this section, and subject to such modifications as may be so provided, the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, shall apply in relation to appeals under this section as it applies in relation to appeals to Her Majesty in Council.

(4) Arrangements made in pursuance of this section may apply to any appeal to Her Majesty in Council, or any application for leave to bring such an appeal, which is pending on the appointed day; but except as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall be construed as continuing in force any right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council from any court in the Federation.

(5) An Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council so made.

4. Interpretation, repeal and short title.

(1) References in this Act to any other enactment are references thereto as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment.

(2) The enactments described in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, as from the appointed day, to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.

(3) This Act may be cited as the Federation of Malaya Independence Act, 1957.

FIRST SCHEDULE

Consequential Amendments of Enactments

Nationality and Citizenship

1. Subsection (3) of section one of the British Nationality Act, 1948 (which specifies the Commonwealth countries whose citizens are British subjects or Commonwealth citizens) shall have effect as if for the words "and Ghana" there were substituted the words

“Ghana and the Federation of Malaya”; and the British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order in Council, 1949, made in pursuance of sections thirty and thirty-two of that Act, shall have effect as if the references to the Malay States in section eight of that Order and in the Second Schedule thereto were omitted.

Armed forces

2. (1) References in the Army Act, 1955, the Air Force Act, 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, to a colony or to territory under Her Majesty's protection shall not include any part of the Federation, and section two hundred and eighteen of the Army Act, 1955, section two hundred and sixteen of the Air Force Act, 1955, and subsection (3) of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, shall cease to have effect.

(2) In the definitions of "Commonwealth force" in subsection (1) of section two hundred and twenty-five of the Army Act, 1955, and in subsection (1) of section two hundred and twenty-three of the Air Force Act, 1955, and in the definition of "Commonwealth country" in subsection (1) of section one hundred and thirty-five of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, for the words "or Ghana" there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”.

(3) Until the coming into force of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall have effect as if for the reference to the definition of "Commonwealth country" in subsection (1) of section one hundred and thirty-five of that Act there were substituted a reference to the definition of

“Commonwealth force” in section eighty-six of the Naval Discipline Act, as amended by the Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1955.

3. Section four of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933 (which deals with attachment and mutual powers of command), and the definition of "visiting force" for the purposes of that Act which is contained in section eight of that Act, shall apply in relation to forces raised in the Federation as they apply in relation to forces raised in Dominions within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

4. (1) In subsection (1) of section one of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952 (which specifies the countries to which that Act applies), for the words "or Ghana" there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”; and in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section ten of that Act the expression "colony" shall not include any part of the Federation.

(2) Until express provision with respect to the Federation is made by Order in Council under section eight of the said Act of 1952 (which relates to the application to visiting forces of law relating to home forces), any such Order for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to visiting forces of the Federation.

Diplomatic immunities

5. In section four hundred and sixty-one of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which relates to exemption from income tax in the case of certain Commonwealth representatives and their staffs) for the words "or Ghana", in both places where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”.

6. In subsection (6) of section one of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, after the word "Ghana" there shall be inserted the words

“the Federation of Malaya”.

Financial

7. As respects goods imported after such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint, section four of the Import Duties Act, 1932, and section two of the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1932 (which relate to imperial preference other than colonial preference) shall apply to the Federation.

8. (1) The Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 to 1948, shall apply in relation to stock of the Federation as they apply in relation to stock of a Dominion within the meaning of the Colonial Stock Act, 1934, but as if in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of the said Act of 1934 for any reference to Her Majesty's Government in the Dominion, to the Parliament of the Dominion or to the Royal Assent, there were substituted a reference to the Government or the Legislature of the Federation or to the Assent of the Head of the Federation.

(2) During any period on and after the appointed day during which there is in force as part of the law of the Federation any instrument passed or made before that day which makes provision corresponding to the undertaking required by the said paragraph (a), paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been complied with in the case of the Federation.

Ships and aircraft

9. The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1954, shall apply in relation to the Federation as they apply in relation to the Commonwealth countries mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of the British Nationality Act, 1948.

10. Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing paragraph—

(a) in subsection (2) of section four hundred and twenty-seven of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as substituted by section two of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, 1949, for the words

“or Ghana”

there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”; and

(b) in the proviso to subsection (2) of section six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, for the words "or Ghana" there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”.

11. In the definitions of "Dominion ship or aircraft" contained in subsection (2) of section three of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and in Regulation one hundred of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, the expression " a Dominion " shall include the Federation.

12. The Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, shall not apply to any ship by reason only of its being registered in, or licensed under the law of the Federation; and the penal provisions of that Act shall not apply to persons in the Federation (but without prejudice to the operation with respect to any ship to which that Act does apply of the provisions thereof relating to the forfeiture of ships).

13. In the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1934, the expression "British ship to which this Act applies" shall not include a British ship registered in the Federation.

Copyright

14. The references in section thirty-one of the Copyright Act, 1956, to a colony or to a country outside Her Majesty's dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction shall not include any part of the Federation.

15. If the Copyright Act, 1911, so far as in force in the law of any part of the Federation, is repealed or amended by that law at a time when sub-paragraph (2) or paragraph 39 of the Seventh Schedule to the Copyright Act, 1956 (which applies certain provisions of that Act in relation to countries to which the said Act of 1911 extended) is in force in relation to that part of the Federation, the said sub-paragraph (2) shall thereupon cease to have effect in relation thereto.

[31st July 1957] Status: This is the original version (as it was originally enacted).

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

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.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

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.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When you don’t trust your own people

NO HOLDS BARRED

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.

NO HOLDS BARRED

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.

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

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.

NO HOLDS BARRED

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: http://ousel.blogspot.com/2010/10/fair-square-my-thoughts-over-rpks-mclm.html

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

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.

NO HOLDS BARRED

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.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

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.

‘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.

NO HOLDS BARRED

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

Report of the Federation of Malaya (part 2 of the series on the Social Contract)

A Constitutional Conference was held in London from 18th January to 6th February 1956 attended by a delegation from the Federation of Malaya, consisting of four representatives of the Malay Rulers, four representatives of the Alliance Party (the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and three Federation Ministers), and also by the British High Commissioner in Malaya and his advisers. This is a report of that conference.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You want to know about the Social Contract? Okay, let’s study history

You want to know about the Social Contract? Okay, let’s study history

Today, I am going to publish the first two pages of the 33-page document, which is the so-called Social Contract that everyone is talking about. This series of articles shall continue over the next few days until all 33 pages are published.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Teach the young to appreciate history, says Puteri Umno

(Bernama) -- Puteri Umno has called on party leaders as well as Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders to undertake the responsibility to educate the younger generation about the country's history so that they understand their role in the country.

Puteri Umno's human resources bureau chief Fahariyah Md Nordin said appreciation of history was important at a time when certain sections of the younger generation had been voicing out that they had nothing to do with the decisions made by the previous generations.

"The question is, don't they realise that by denying history, they are denying the very history of their existence?" she said when debating the policy speech of the Umno president at the 2010 Umno General Assembly today.

She also called for a better way of promoting history among students such as by utilising tools like the Internet.

History should also be made a compulsory-to-pass subject in school to drive home the point on the importance of learning the country's history, she said.

Fahariyah added that it would be dangerous for the younger generation to be influenced by those who are bent on rejecting the provisions in the Federal Constitution, especially those concerning the rights of the Malays and Bumiputera.

****************************************

A few months ago, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that the Social Contract does exist. However, it is not a written Contract. It is a verbal Contract, said Dr Mahathir.

Do you know what lawyers have to say about verbal contracts? A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on.

The ongoing Umno General Assembly appears to be about warning the non-Malays as well as the ‘traitor’ Malays to not question the Social Contract, unless they want to see a ‘May 13 Version 2’. Even the Umno running dog, MCA President Chua Soi Lek, has been told to shut up.

Puteri Umno wants the young to be taught ‘the correct version of history’. Well, you know me. I just can't resist being that teacher to educate the young on the correct version of history.

No, I shall not deny history, as what Puteri Umno said. I shall also not distort history, as many Malays accuse me of doing (40% truth and 60% lies, as some would say). Instead, I am going to publish SECRET documents of ‘Her Britannic Majesty’s Government’ -- which have since been declassified and are available from The National Archives in London (so I am not violating Britain’s Official Secrets Act).

Today, I am going to publish the first two pages of the 33-page document, which is the so-called Social Contract that everyone is talking about. This series of articles shall continue over the next few days until all 33 pages are published.

(Many Malaysians are not capable of reading more than four pages of any document or article so I need to give it to them in small doses if I want them to read everything).

After you have read the entire 33-page document you can then decide whether the Social Contract does or does not exist (and whether it is written or verbal). You will also be able to understand what was agreed in that Social Contract that the Malays, Chinese and Indians entered into in 1956, just before Malaya became independent on 31st August 1957.

Remember, this is not what I say. This is what was agreed and reported back in 1956. And this was the basis of the Reid Commission’s report and recommendations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Commission), which eventually saw the birth of a new nation called the Federation of Malaya together with its new written constitution called the Federal Constitution of Malaya.

Oh, and by the way, I am not looking for a PhD, like our good Minister Rais Yatim who earned his PhD for writing a thesis that opposed the Internal Security Act and then ‘changed his mode’ after he got back into the government and was appointed a Minister.