marahfreedom

16 Articles on Malaysian Politics : Pretentious, Statuatory Rape, Child Marriage, Undemocratic Pakatan loses an MP, Flawed Malaysian Political Characteristics, Racism Hidden As Bias?, Description of Malaysia’s Flawed Mindset, Pontificating Pakatan Refuses to Engage Rakyat – Bad Politics of Nepotism, Apartheid Worse Than Untried, Neurotech Assassination With Ruminents, Cynical English Infleunce Plagues South East Asia Againm Shyok Sendiri Points Scoring, Najib Out of Touch, BRICS Should be Offended By Malaysian Apartheid – reposted by @AgreeTodisagree – 3rd September 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, amendments to law needed, Apartheid, better judgments, better laws, Bumiputera Apartheid, cult of personality, demogoguery, Freedom of Expression, Nepotism, Neurotech, oligarchy, orang asli, politics, preventing vested interest, racism, spirit of the law, spirit of the word, unprofessional behaviour, vested interest on September 2, 2012 at 8:53 pm

ARTICLE 1

Of devils and angels – Posted on 29 August 2012 – 04:41am – Oon Yeoh

FORMER Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad created quite a stir when he remarked “Better the devil you know than the angel you don’t.”

This is a well-known saying which means that it’s better to deal with an entity you are familiar with, even if they are not ideal, than take the risk of dealing with an unknown entity, who could end up being worse.

He was, of course, referring to Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat and urging the public to stick with the former, which has ruled the country since independence.
Politics being politics, PR leaders were quick to make fun of his choice of idioms and claim that Mahathir was admitting that BN was the devil and PR the angel.

In retrospect, he probably should have used a variation of that idiom which goes something like “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”, which is commonly used as well. That way, his detractors would not be able to claim that they were the angels.

People fluent in English will know exactly what he means though. He’s saying that BN, while not perfect, has done a pretty good job so far so it’s better not to change course. He’s also saying that PR, which says all the right things but which has no experience, would be worse for the country.

Let’s examine, not his choice of words but the context of what he’s saying. Does it make sense? Let’s start by looking at the first part. Has BN done a good job so far?

Of course supporters of BN will say yes while detractors will say no. Objective observers will probably say that while BN is far from perfect, it hasn’t exactly driven the country to the ground either. Malaysia doesn’t score particularly well in global indexes relating to economic competitiveness, human rights, free speech and so on. But it’s a far cry from the banana republics.

In other words, things are not too bad. People have jobs, roofs over their heads and no one is starving. As a country, we could have turned out a lot worse. So, yes, there’s some merit in the first part of Mahathir’s quote. What about the second?

Is PR the angel that we don’t know? For sure, PR is promising a lot of things that are popular with civil society. Stuff related to freedom of assembly, free speech, freedom of the press and so on. It has also promised lots of populist measures like cutting petrol prices, offering free education and reducing car taxes that would see a considerable lowering of car prices.

Is all this too good to be true? Probably. For sure if PR were to come to power, it would not be able to fulfil everybody’s expectations. But is it a newbie that will totally disappoint?

This is where the idiom doesn’t apply. PR might be newish but it’s hardly an unknown quantity. Since the March 8, 2008 general election, it has governed four states, two of which are probably the most prosperous states in the federation: Penang and Selangor.

I’m from Penang (and visit there frequently) and live in Selangor. I can safely report that the two states have not gone to the dogs since PR took over. Some would argue that things have improved considerably. Of course there are those who will say there’s still plenty of room for improvement, and they would be right. But it would be laughable to suggest that things have become worse.

Ironically, given that the incumbent in those two states is PR, the idiom would apply in PR’s favour. The so-called devil that you know, in this case, would be PR, which has governed these two states for the past four years. The angel, meanwhile, is BN, which was decimated in those states, to the point that it is no longer recognisable.

BN was destroyed in Penang. Who knows what the new Penang BN would be like? BN was not as badly trounced in Selangor but it has no clear leader in the state. With Khir Toyo no longer in the picture, who is the mentri besar-in-waiting? No one knows. The BN government-in-waiting in those states might or might not be angels, but we certainly don’t know much about them.

For voters, the next general election will not be about familiarity, or the lack thereof, because it is clear what BN and PR stand for.

Oon Yeoh is a new media consultant. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

If BN grants :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

BN might be worth voting. Otherwise stagnation will occur and PR will be a risk to the Rakyat when PR gains power.

ARTICLE 2

Statutory rape is SERIOUS: Future of victims just as important as perpetrators’ – Eli Wong – Friday, 31 August 2012 01:28

Like all concerned Malaysians I am very disturbed by the recent two court decisions on statutory rape offenses.

First, national bowler Noor Afizal, who was convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl, had his jail sentence reversed by the Court of Appeal.

It was then compounded by Tuesday’s Sessions Court decision in the case of Chuah Guan Jiu, who was found guilty of raping a 12-year-old girl, yet freed on a bond.

Statutory rape isn’t something to be taken lightly. To consider “consent” in the sentencing, as both courts did, is to make a mockery of the very point of the law–to protect minors, deemed incapable of giving free and informed consent.

This is especially true in cases where the perpetrator is an adult, which is true in both these cases. These incidents should not be confused as young children letting their hormonal urges get the better of them.

Both Noor Afizal and Chuah Guan Jiu were adults who took advantage of children far younger than themselves. The former was 19 when he committed the offence with a 13-year-old girl, while the latter was 21, nine years older than his victim.

Future of the perpetrators, what about the victims?

Disappointingly, the courts were more concerned with the future of the perpetrators and not the victims.

The written judgement in Nor Afizal’s case specifically states that the decision should not be taken as a precedent. However, by not imposing the mandatory five-year minimum jail sentence for rape, the courts are sending a very unfortunate message to women and children–that their rights cannot be protected by our judiciary.

Worse, potential child rapists might think it is possible to escape the punishment the crime deserves.

I urge the public prosecutors to appeal both decisions on these grounds. Malaysians will be watching very closely, hoping for justice to finally be done.

YB ELIZABETH WONG is Executive Councillor, Selangor State Government & PKR assemblywomen for Bukit Lanjan

***Commentator Comments :

What I think by Joan Lau – August 29, 2012

I am all for personal freedoms but when it comes to children and sex, well… all bets are off. Chuah Guan Jiu was 21 when he had sex with a 12-year-old girl. But the judge gave him a break because he did not have a criminal record, is not well educated and the sex was  consensual. So what is the

message here? If you have never committed an offence before and did not go to college, you are “poor thing, give chance”? Come on.If this were a drug or firearms offence, the same “considerations” would not be given.Having sex with a child is wrong. Pure and simple.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Elizabeth Wong should know that far more serious is the inability to tell the difference and even attempt to blur the lines between the difference between Statuary Rape AND Consensual Sex NOT AMOUNTING TO RAPE between biologically viable adult women that Statuary Rape Laws Brand as

Women, preventing the right to bear children to younger women. Perhaps, in a certain spiritual theory, there is an occult reason to prevent the ‘masses’ from having young brides having children at young age. And the Fundos are in on this? Is the quality of children by older women different?

Some things should not be used as ‘weapons’ and this intentional inculpation of inability to tell the difference between biological viability and QUALITY of birth could well be the make or break factor in the ascension of a country spiritually . . . these are theories that no nation can ignore. Perhaps all great leaders and spiritually powerful people were borne by the youngest mothers, though again  remember that the planet can only host so many people and that everyone including non-humans have a right to live on the planet and cannot ‘own’ anything on the planet, though having an equitable birth rate that at least replaces deaths is alright – there are too many people for a single species btw, out of 100s of 1000s of species, humanity taking up near 40% of the world’s land area is obviously too much . . .

Biological maturity and psychological-emotional maturity are not statuary age. And statuary age does not take into consideration biological age and psychological-emotional maturity. Are Joan or Elizabeth sure they are aware of the difference between WORD of law or SPIRIT of law? Hegelian dialectic AGAIN. Joan and Elizebeth entirely miss the spirit of the law of this case. Having sex with a blindly legalistic statuary age defined ‘child’ is not wrong if the above biological and emotional maturity fact is considered because the final result is actually a mature person in reality – even as age by blindly interpreted ‘word of law’ for statuary consideration, does not recognize reality. ‘Pure and simple’ is not supposed to be fundo and simplistic. And here the display of lack of understanding of the spirit of the issue, or perhaps intentional focusing only on the ‘word of the law’ shows up another 2 of the country’s supposed educated as agenda intent if not uneducated, much like apartheid is accepted by those who no sense of pride as persons as given by the UN Human Rights Charter.

We must remember that before Victorian era, many child brides lived fulfilling lives with their husbands and many of this generation have had a great(or any number of greats)-granny who was a child bride that turned out fine. Who is Joan to say what 2 individuals decide on their own and at their consent? These are private lives and if consensual, and because the child did not suffer and wanted to, especially if the manipulation from the adult was non-existent or within decent limits (thrill of chase etc.), no person or even the court has a right to punish any as no suffering was inflicted except upon the narrow minded or with a certain religious outlook.

This ‘If you have never committed an offence before and did not go to college, you are “poor thing, give chance”?‘, is pure ‘old aunt’s’ demogoguery in quite an uneducated manner. You see one can have a degree yet not be educated in mindset. And mindset wise Joan IS uneducated, as much as Elizabeth is insulting the readers by inculpating hegelian dialectic thought via demogoguery upin the suffering of victims for political points.

Come on.If this were a drug or firearms offence, the same “considerations” would not be given.

Drugs or firearms offences (private carry or use specifically, not smuggling or sale to fundo or 3rd world states) as of now are also more word of law than spirit of law, the premise for existence and application not particularly PC as in a similar manner as the above statuary age case. See the next article below on differences between positive child marriage AND negative child marriage, considered against statuary law and ACTUAL biological age.

ARTICLE 3

By whose interpretation? – Thursday, 30 August 2012 Super Admin (Raja Petra Kamarudin)

Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18?

You may have noticed that I have not written a thing regarding former national youth squad bowler Noor Afizal Azizan’s statutory rape case.

First of all, I thought that since every man and his dog was already talking about it you don’t really need me to comment as well. I mean it is not quite the untold story that I normally like to dabble in. It is more like the ‘over-told’ story.

Furthermore, do you really need more ‘noise’? There is such a thing called overkill and flogging a dead horse (an idiom). There is also such a thing called information overload, which makes people lethargic and sometimes immune to the issue. Hence ‘too much’ can be counter-productive.

Secondly, this appears to have turned into an opposition crusade, which is bad. Once it is perceived as a political issue rather than an issue of justice, people become divided on the issue based on political leanings and not because it is either the right thing or the wrong thing. People will oppose right or support wrong if the criteria is politics. Take crossovers as one example.

Anyway, what is my take on the issue?

Okay, are you outraged about the court’s decision because you are an opposition supporter or because it is morally (or legally) wrong to not classify the case as statutory rape instead of consensual sex? (Note that even some of those in government feel the same way as you do although they speak ‘gentler’ in expressing their view and without the venom).

I think a more important question would be are you capable of setting aside politics when you talk about this issue — or any issue for that matter that involves justice, civil liberties, etc? Can we leave our Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat hats outside the door and come to the table as Malaysians of common interests and concerns?

That is the one thing we find most difficult to do. It is always politics first and everything else second, even in matters such as Hudud, which is supposed to be above politics but is not.

Okay, so a man (or boy) has sex with an underage girl. My first question would be: are the men/boy and girl Muslims? If they are then this is zina (illicit sex or sex outside marriage). And is not zina a crime under the Sharia (Islamic law)? Hence should not the boy and girl be tried under the Sharia?

If the man/boy and girl were both above 18 they would have been brought to the Sharia court. Why are they not brought to the Sharia court just because one or both are below 18?

In Islam, the ‘age of consent’ would be the age of puberty. For girls that would be once she gets her period and that could even be when she is nine years old. According to the Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet Muhammad married Aishah when she was six but did not ‘take her’ until she was nine. And aren’t Muslims supposed to believe in and strictly follow the Hadith and Sunnah or else they cease to be Muslims and would become kafir (infidels).

Hence if the girl is 13 and she already has her period, is she legally (in Islam, that is) a woman who can consent to sex or is she still a child? And hence, also, since she is a Muslim and ‘legally a woman’, is she accountable for her ‘crime’ of consenting to sex or is she blameless? In other words, if the Sharia court were to try them, would both be on trial or only the man/boy?

Okay, we can argue that the Sharia court does not come into play here. This matter does not involve the Sharia court.

Why not? If Muslims above 18 ‘get caught’ for illicit sex they get dragged to the Sharia court. The common law court has no power to try Muslim adults who have sex outside marriage. In fact, sex outside marriage is not a crime under common law (even for Muslims) unless it is same-gender or gay sex.

Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18?

Okay, what if the church or Christians preaches Christianity to Malay boys and girls of 13 or 14 (in short, below 18). Is this a crime? A crime under which law? Common law? Under common law it is not a crime to preach Christianity to Malay children. It is only a crime according to the Religious Department.

But the Religious Department does not have power over us until we are 18. Islam recognises 9-year olds as adults. Common law does not. We are adults only at 18. And common law decides whether we are adults. Not the Religious Department.

So how?

The question is: who has power over Muslims? The common law courts or the Sharia courts? And why does the common law court have power over us until we are 18 and then the Sharia court takes over after that? Is age 18 the ‘legally adult’ age in Islam? And if 18 were the legal adult age under Islam, can Muslims below 18 get married?

Yes, Muslims below 18 can get marriage on condition they are ‘adults’ (meaning reached puberty) and they have their parent’s consent. Hence at that age they are already responsible for their own actions, even in crimes of illicit sex.

But then we are not talking about the Qur’an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law here. We are talking about common law. Hence common law overrides the Qur’an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law and will decide at what age you are an adult and at what age you are still a child. And you will face the common law court when you are legally a child and the Sharia court once you are legally an adult. And although Islam has decided the age of adulthood, Islam has no power over Muslims because the laws of the land and Islam do not work in tandem.

Crazy or not? In Islam, religion decides when we become an adult and hence can get married and have sex. But Islam does not have the power to decide at what age we would be considered as having consensual sex outside marriage. That the common law decides. And that age is 18.

Now, who decides when we cease being a child and legally become an adult although at the age of nine we already discovered the difference between a boy and girl and knew what to do with that thing between our legs? Well, the 222 Members of Parliament, of course. They pass all the laws and they have decided that only at age 17 we can drive and at age 18 we can have sex and at age 21 we can vote.

But why at age 17, 18 and 21 respectively?

Queen Isabella of Valois married Richard II when she was 6 years, 11 months and 25 days old.

David II married Joan, the daughter of Edward II, when he was 4 years and 134 days old.

Louis XIV of France became King at age 5 and took over full control at 23.

Joan of Arc led the French against the English at age 17.

And of course we have that story regarding Aishah, the wife of Prophet Muhammad.

In those days, you married as soon as you legally became a woman, which was when you got your period, and would have been around age 9-11. At age 10-13 boys joined the army and fought and died for their country. These were ages when you were no longer children.

I know, times have changed and we no longer consider girls of 10 or boys of 13 as adults. That may be so when it comes to common law but not if we consider religion.

So, are we outraged about the case of Noor Afizal Azizan because we perceive it as him having sex with an underage girl and the law says a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex and hence he broke the law? Okay, so it is the law that we are concerned about, am I correct?

The law says that a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex. This is a law passed by Parliament, the body that can legally pass laws, which we all must follow. And since Noor Afizal Azizan broke the law passed by Parliament we are outraged.

Okay, I can accept that. The law must be followed. After all this is a law passed by Parliament. But hold on, Parliament also passed a law that says we must get a police permit if we want to hold a demonstration. Should this law not also be followed since we are extremely concerned about the law?

Was Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim therefore correct in that the law must be followed?

Hmm…touché or not touché?

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Amend laws that make no sense, stop talking about Tunku this and that. If a writer uses keeps using any person as a point of reference in matters of common sense instead of consideration of facts, they are dishonest writers involved in inculpation of cult of personality mentality rather than logic based judgments.

Drugs or firearms offences (private carry or use specifically, not smuggling or sale to fundo or 3rd world states) as of now are also more word of law than spirit of law, the premise for existence and application not particularly PC as in a similar manner as the above statuary age case. Good exposition on child marriage issues and examples of ‘child’ marriages in either case.

ARTICLE 4

Two come to Tuan Tat’s defence over forgery accusations – Saturday, 25 August 2012 Super Admin

(The Star) – Ex-Sepang DAP parliamentary liaison committee member Tan Tuan Tat, who was accused of forging 149 membership forms, has produced two former party supporters to back him up.

Mahful Wahid said he had collected membership forms from some 100 people in Kampung Teluk Manggis and Taman Kedidi as they were interested in becoming DAP members.

“I approached Tan for help to submit the forms to Selangor DAP. Why was he accused of forgery?” he said, adding that he, too, had been interested in joining DAP.

Such accusations, added Mahful, had caused him to lose confidence in Pakatan Rakyat.

DAP disciplinary committee chairman Tan Kok Wai said that Tuan Tat, who had been in the party for 18 years, had been charged with forging the membership forms to set up three pro tem branches in Sungai Pelek, Sepang.

He also claimed that the MyKad of people from Sungai Pelek were used without their knowledge to enrol them as DAP members.

Former Pantai Sepang Putra DAP chief R. Veerasamy echoed Mahful’s views, saying that he had also approached Tuan Tat for help to forward the forms to the state DAP’s office.

“In the end, I was found guilty of falsifying the applications and sacked,” he said during a press conference here yesterday.

Denying the accusations, Tuan Tat said it was meant to slander his integrity and credibility.

“Don’t defame me. I did not forge any forms.

“The forms were genuine and came from people who wanted to join DAP,” he said.

Tuan Tat, who used to be Taman Sri Sungai Pelek branch chairman before leaving the party last week, said DAP had deviated from its original spirit and essence.

He also disputed Tan’s charge that he was sacked from the party.

“How can I be sacked when I resigned first?” he said.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

3rd Force needs you Tuan Tat! BN is corrupt and racist. PR is nepotistic and undemocratic!

ARTICLE 5

BN, PR: dua kali lima – THE CORRIDORS OF POWER – Friday, 31 August 2012 Super Admin – Raja Petra Kamarudin

But the political parties that they belong to will not allow this. Although they are called Wakil Rakyat, in reality they are Wakil Parti. They have to represent their party, not us, the voters. And when they try to do what they are supposed to do, the party will pounce on them. Hence they have to toe the party line or else they will be suspended, or worse, sacked.

No, this is not an anti-government article. It is not an opposition-whacking article either. This is an article about why we vote for 222 Malaysians to represent us in Parliament — never mind whether you voted (or will be voting) for Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. That is not important. What is important is: why do we vote?

We vote for 222 Malaysians to go to Parliament (and another almost 600 State Assemblypersons for the State Assemblies as well — known as ADUNs) so that they can become our representatives or wakil.

The Malays have the correct term for this. These people we vote for (both MPs and ADUNs) are called Wakil Rakyat in Malay, which means Citizen’s Representative (or People’s Representative).

And, as the name implies, that is exactly what they are supposed to do — represent us, the voters.

But the political parties that they belong to will not allow this. Although they are called Wakil Rakyat, in reality they are Wakil Parti. They have to represent their party, not us, the voters. And when they try to do what they are supposed to do, the party will pounce on them. Hence they have to toe the party line or else they will be suspended, or worse, sacked.

Why call them Wakil Rakyat then? They cannot function as Wakil Rakyat. We might as well call them Wakil Parti. And in the coming general election, 10 million Malaysians can go to the polling stations to vote for the Wakil Parti.

Both Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat are equally guilty of this. And since we do not have a ‘third force’, so to speak — unless the rakyat can be regarded as that third force — that is how things are going to be for a long time to come.

But, no, I am not going to talk about the third force. Malaysians are too dumb to understand the meaning of ‘third force’. To most people, ‘third force’ means three-corner contests. Then they will say I am trying to sabotage Pakatan Rakyat so that Barisan Nasional can retain power.

So what if some Members of Parliament (never mind BN or PR) go against their party stand? If it is for the good of the rakyat why can’t they break ranks and not toe the party line? That is why we sent them to Parliament (or the State Assemblies) in the first place.

In America, the Congressmen or Senators from the President’s own party can vote against the President while those from the other side will vote in support of the Bill that the President is proposing. On more than one occasion the President’s Bill had been defeated by his own party while those from the other side actually voted in support of it. No one was suspended or sacked because of this.

I know, some of you are now going to argue that we follow the British Westminster system and that this is how they do things in the UK. They have the Parliament Whip whose job is to ensure that no one breaks ranks.

Okay, if we are so concerned about what they do in Britain, and hence we need to follow the British model, then what about the written constitution? Britain does not have a written constitution. Why not follow Britain and abolish our Constitution?

I have no problems with that. Then no longer will Islam be the religion of the Federation or Malays have special privileges or the Agong be the Supreme Head of the Federation and all that. Britain’s ‘laws’ do not allow a Prime Minister not from the Church of England. You must belong to the Church of England. You want to follow that as well since it is very important that we follow the UK?

Some things we say we MUST follow. Other things we don’t want to follow. Apa ni? Gay marriages also allowed in England, mah! Want to follow or not?

This sorry state of affairs can only be corrected by you, the voters. If you, the voters, insist that the Wakil Rakyat speak for us and not for their party, only then can it happen.

I am going to tell you a story about why Ali is my favourite of the four (Rightly-Guided) Caliphs of Medina. And, no, it is not because I am a follower of the Shia sect of Islam.

Ali was the last of the four Medinan Caliphs. The Shias, however, allege that Ali was robbed of his right to be the First Caliph. I am not going to talk about that. What I want to talk about is he almost became the Third Caliph. And according to the story this is what happened.

As Omar, the Second Caliph, lay dying, he told the people of Medina to form a committee to decide on who should succeed him when he dies. A few candidates were selected and finally it was short-listed to just two, Osman and Ali.

A few interviews were conducted and during the final interview Osman was asked how he would rule if he was chosen as Caliph. Osman replied he would rule according to tradition and by following the example of the Prophet.

Ali was asked the same question and he replied he would rule according to his conscience and with God as his guide.

Osman got the job and some historians say that that was the beginning of the decline of the Islamic Empire. Osman appointed his relatives to important posts in the government and corruption soon emerged. One of Osman’s blunders was he appointed his cousin Muawiyah as the Governor of Syria. When Osman died and Ali took over, Muawiyah declared war on Ali, the first ever war where Muslims fought Muslims (and have been fighting ever since)

I know many Islamists will disagree with my analysis of events, although these events did take place. Nevertheless, my interpretation of this event is Osman said he would follow tradition while Ali said he would follow his conscience. And we have seen how tradition may not always be the best thing to follow.

And the same goes to the issue of our Wakil Rakyat. Forget about tradition, especially Westminster tradition. Follow your conscience. Did we, the voters, or your party vote you into office? And if we voted you into office then serve us instead of your party.

ARTICLE 6

S’gor DAP branches reject Ganapathirau – Sunday, 02 September 2012 – Athi Shankar, FMT

Selangor DAP branches warn the party leadership that DAP would lose the Kota Alam Shah seat if Ganapathirau, a former ISA detainee, is fielded.

KLANG: Eight DAP branches here have called on the party leadership not to field V Ganapathirau (photo) as candidate in Kota Alam Shah state seat in the next general election.

The branches, all from the state constituency, warned the party leadership that the DAP would lose the seat if Ganapathirau, a former detainee of now repealed Internal Security Act, was fielded.

The DAP eight branches, with collectively some 500 members, openly opposed Ganapathirau are Taman Gembira, Klang, Teluk Pulai, Bayu Tinggi, Taman Chi Liung Indah, Southern Klang, Persiaran Raja Muda Musa and Ehsan.

The group spokesman Ivan Ho said they were all against Ganapathirau because he was not a local familiar with the party grassroots leaders and members, or constituents in the area.

Ho said Ganapathirau does not have close rapport with party grassroots in the constituency, a winning factor so crucial for a potential candidate.

He urged the party leadership to respect grassroots sentiments and not to force in parachute candidates like Ganapathirau in Kota Alam Shah.

“DAP members and constituents don’t know him much.

“The party should not push us to accept Ganapathirau.

“We don’t want him,” Ho, the Taman Gembira branch head, told FMT.

Kota Alam Shah incumbent assemblyman is M Manoharan, a protégé of DAP national chairman Karpal Singh.

It’s learnt Selangor DAP leadership under Teresa Kok planned to replace Manoharan, also a former ISA detainee, with Ganapathirau.

Ganapathirau is a staunch confidant of deputy secretary general and Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy.

Not an Indian hero

Taman Chi Liung Indah head K Yogasigamany reminded the state party leadership that time had lapsed to promote the Ganapathirau as a former ISA detainee and his so-called involvement in Hindraf Makkal Sakti.

He said DAP grassroots members and constituents know that Ganapathirau, who now leads NGO Malaysian Indian voice, was not a Hindraf leader.

“Constituents have realised that Ganapathirau was never the Hindraf leader or Indian hero.

“He is no more relevant for Indian community.

“It will be futile and fatal for party leadership to field Ganapathirau in Kota Alam Shah.

“The leadership should drop the idea altogether,” Yogasigamany told FMT.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

How about Ganapathirau run as an independent candidate? Who needs DAP’s nepotism and crony capitalism? Be a Wakil Rakyat not a Wakil Parti.

ARTICLE 7

About the next government – Saturday, 01 September 2012 Super Admin – Raja Petra Kamarudin

This is not about whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat is worse. This is about doing the honest thing. When you do party work the rakyat must not be made to pay for it. And when Parliament and the State Assemblies have been dissolved you are committing criminal breach of trust by

continuing to use the government facilities for your personal political campaigns and party work.

First have a look at the Google Analytical graphic below. Those are Malaysia Today’s figures for the pre-Raya, Raya, and post-Raya period.

On Friday, 17th August 2012, Malays began to leave town to return to their kampung. That was when the figures started declining. By Saturday, more people left town (even many non-Malays) and the figures dropped even further.

The non-Malays did not return to work until Wednesday last week, and that was when the figures started to increase again. Most Malays, however, stayed away the entire week until Sunday. On Monday this week, the figures returned to normal when everyone was back in town.

Now, while the figures over last week were down quite a bit because many people were still back in their kampung, the comments, however, did not suffer. And even when the figures went up again this week, the comments more or less remained the same.

From these figures I can only assume two things. First is that Malaysia Today’s Malay readership is quite large. And that is why the figures drop when the Malays are away. Secondly is that most of those who comment are non-Malays. And that is why while the Malay readership declines the comments do not.

Of course, thirdly, based on the type of comments posted, we can also assume that most of those who comment are not yet of the age of maturity. And that is why many comments are very childish. (You should read the ones we deleted. They will shock you).

Anyway, what I want to talk about today is regarding the next government. You see, when Parliament is dissolved to make way for the next general election, in principle Malaysia no longer has a government. What we have is merely a caretaker government and a caretaker Prime Minister.

Now, even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said this back in 2006. Dr Mahathir explained that in principle there is no longer any government but just a caretaker Prime Minister. But he could not understand, Dr Mahathir said, why no one realises this and never challenged it.

In short, the Cabinet no longer exists, as everyone would have already been ‘sacked’, so to speak. Parliament has been dissolved so technically we no longer have any Members of Parliament. Hence, if we no longer have any Members of Parliament, then we no longer have a Prime Minister or Ministers.

Can the Prime Minister still use his office and other facilities such as the private jet, helicopter, etc., which are for the use of the Prime Minister? What about all those Ministers who still use their office, government car, etc?

Many Malays regard our First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, as fasiq (bad Muslim) because of his drinking and gambling. But did you know that the Tunku took six months no-pay leave to campaign for the general election? He handed the government to his Deputy, Tun Abdul Razak

Hussein, to take over as Acting Prime Minister.

Whatever you might say about the Tunku, at least he was honest enough to separate his party post from his government post and he did not abuse his government post to do party work. Has any Prime Minister since then taken no-pay leave when they campaign for their party? Even the Merdeka celebration is treated as a party campaign.

And please don’t start screaming ‘that is why we need to get rid of Umno’. Many now in the opposition — not only from Umno but also from MCA, Gerakan and MIC as well — did the same thing when they were in government. They talk only now that they are with the opposition. When they were in government serupa saja.

Take the Menteris Besar from the Pakatan Rakyat states, as an example. Would these MBs take no-pay leave whenever they are campaigning for their party or would they use their post as MB to campaign for Pakatan Rakyat? Of course Umno also does this. That, I don’t deny. But do two wrongs make a right?

Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the MB of Kelantan, switches of the ‘government’ light when he prays (which is a personal duty and has nothing to do with the government). And how much electricity does his light bulb consume when he prays?

This is not about whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat is worse. This is about doing the honest thing. When you do party work the rakyat must not be made to pay for it. And when Parliament and the State Assemblies have been dissolved you are committing criminal breach of trust by continuing to use the government facilities for your personal political campaigns and party work.

Do you remember when Datuk Ramli Yussuf, the Director of the CCID, faced charges in Sabah for using a police plane to fly over his land? He was alleged to have taken a detour while on official duty to fly over his land. Just a slight detour in a government plane and he was arrested and charged.

No doubt he was eventually acquitted of that charge but the fact he could he sacked, arrested and charged for taking a ‘joyride’ in a police plane was enough to show the difference between personal and official work. What makes the Prime Minister or Ministers immune from this same ‘crime’?

Once Parliament is dissolved it should be hands-off all public property. No more using public facilities for your personal or party work and campaigns.

I do not know how better to explain this point without sounding cheong hei but understand one thing: once Parliament is dissolved you are now sacked from your job. Hence we no longer have a government and you can no longer use what belongs to the government — meaning, of course, what belongs to the rakyat.

Now, in that same spirit, since we no longer have a government, when we go to the polls we are choosing a new government. Whether we choose Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat does not matter. Both are new governments. The old government no longer exists. Everyone has been sacked from his/her job.

Okay, so we no longer have a government and we go to the polls to choose a government. Never mind that Barisan Nasional has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. That was before. For all intents and purposes, if they win the election they are going to be a new government, jut like how Pakatan Rakyat would be if they win the election.

Hence we need to ask both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat what type of new government they are going to be. We do not care what they did in the past. Don’t try to impress us with what you have been doing over the last 55 years (actually it’s 53 years because the First General Election was in 1959, not 1957). That government no longer exists. We are about to choose a new government so we want to know what type of new government we are going to choose.

Let’s look at it this way. We wipe the slate clean and start from scratch (not to include any corrupt acts, of course, which should still be on the slate). Then we are giving both a level playing field (or else Barisan Nasional can boast about what they have done over 55 years compared to Pakatan Rakyat who never ruled at federal level). Let’s assume Malaysia never had a government before. So now tell us why we should vote for you.

And that would mean we would need to look at so many unresolved issues and hear from both sides what they have to offer us. As I said, there are just so many issues but maybe for purposes of this article we can talk about some of the more pressing ones. And my list is certainly not in order of priority. And I am addressing this list to both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

1. Will Malaysia adopt in its entirety the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations on 10th December 1948?

2. Will Malaysia practice meritocracy to replace the system of quotas and preferential treatment and will Article 153 in the Constitution be abrogated?

3. Will fundamental liberties be respected and will it include the right to choose your religion, the right to have no religion, the right to your sexual preference, the right to a civil partnership, and much more?

4. Will Malaysia remain a Constitutional Monarchy or will it opt to become a Republic?

5. Will the oil royalty for those states that have oil and gas be increased to 20% or more or will it remain at 5%.

6. Will Sabah and Sarawak be given autonomy and will Federalisation in those states be reduced/limited in line with the 20- and 18-Point Agreements?

7. Will the Human Rights Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission, Police Force Commission, Judicial Commission, Election Commission, etc., be restructured so that the appointments can be made by Parliament and so that they can be responsible to Parliament and will include Commissioners from both sides of the political fence in equal numbers?

8. Will the Constitution be amended to make Malaysia more Secular with the removal of Islam as the religion of the Federation?

9. What is the position of the Sharia — Hudud included, of course — and which legal system will be supreme and will Malaysia remove the dual system, which appears to be running parallel, in favour of a single legal system?

10. Will the anti-hopping act, freedom of information act, freedom of association act (to include students), anti-discrimination act, anti-racism act, freedom of religion act, etc., be introduced and will the death sentence be abolished?

Those are just ten points that both sides need to tell us about. Of course there are many more and some of you may want to add to that list. The bottom line, however, is that we want to hear from all those who are going to offer themselves for election what their position about all these issues are.

We can’t accept the ‘vote first and talk later’ argument. We need to know before we go to the polls the stand of all these people who want our vote. Hence no shocks and surprises later once we choose our new government.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

BN has the mandate for granting all of the above or condensed form of the 3 items below :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;but does not act. Pakatan looks set to be worse with Hudud and Nepotism and backward crony capitalist mindsets, who knows gangsterism as well? A nice article that challenges unnecessary structures in government.

ARTICLE 8

I believe, hence I am right – Sunday, 26 August 2012 Super Admin – NO HOLDS BARRED – Raja Petra Kamarudin

Not even a priest or an imam will ‘serve God’ if they are not being paid a salary. It’s all about money, even those who claim to be serving God. So get off your high horse and stop all this self-righteous bullshit. Every single one of you does things for money. So stop slandering this person and that person as doing things for money. You too are as much money-motivated as the other person you are accusing.

I can’t understand why Malaysia Today’s readers are foaming at the mouth and whacking Hudud. Some have even gone beyond just attacking Hudud and have even whacked Muslims and Islam. A police report has already been made against Malaysiakini. Do you also want a police report to be made against Malaysia Today?

Most of you may think that Malaysia allows freedom of expression. Well, Malaysia may allow freedom of expression up to a certain extent but that freedom is not absolute. There are limits. And that is why Malaysia has many laws that are aimed at ‘ensuring the peace and stability’ of the nation, the Sedition Act being one of them.

This means you cannot simply say what you like, not even in America or Britain. For example, if you start talking about Muslim terrorists, Jihad and bombs while in a plane you can get into trouble anywhere in the world. You might argue that it is your fundamental right to talk about whatever it is you want to talk about. The police, however, will not agree with you as they drag you away in handcuffs. Try it if you don’t believe me.

So perish the thought regarding absolute freedom of expression. It does not exist. There are boundaries and you must navigate within these boundaries. I, for one, can tell you that this is absolutely true. I, too, have learned that you cannot say everything that is on your mind. There are some things you can say and there are many things you cannot say. And if you violate this rule you will get vilified like hell. I am speaking from experience here.

Look at what happened to Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim. His party expressed support for the Bersih 3.0 rally while he said that although he is for clean elections he does not feel that breaking the law is the way to send the message to the government. And for saying that he was whacked kaw-kaw until he felt so hurt he left the party. I suppose anyone who is called foul names would feel the way he felt. I mean people do have feelings, even Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

In the first place, Tunku Aziz should not have joined a political party. He is not a politician, period. And he should have realised that once you join a political party you must toe the party line. You cannot do what the people would view as breaking ranks. They will kill you, figure of speech, of course. And once you join a political party and then resign, you will be accused of being bought off, of selling out, and all sort of foul things. It is better you had not joined in the first place. Then you can say what you like.

Once you join a political party you need to sacrifice certain freedoms for the sake of party unity. Even when you talk in closed-door meetings or unofficial meetings you need to watch what you say. In politics everyone is an enemy, even the person sitting next to you in the meeting. And what you say will be leaked to embarrass you. And the Penang PKR chief, Datuk Dr Mansor Othman, has found out the hard way what damage these leaks can do.

Of course, Dr Mansor has denied saying what he is alleged to have said. The minutes, though, appear to prove otherwise. But minutes can be forged. After all, only those who attended the meeting would know.

No doubt, none of the others who attended that meeting have come forward to reveal that they had attended the meeting and that the minutes had been forged and that no such thing was ever said in the meeting. Nevertheless, whether the people believe that denial is another thing. After all, politicians deny allegations all the time. Clinton denied. Nixon denied. And in the end it was proven that these denials were all lies. In fact, Najib Tun Razak has also denied the allegations against him but we all don’t believe his denials — am I not correct?

The golden rule in politics is when cornered deny or say ‘no comment’. Of course, most people are of the opinion that when politicians deny it then it must be true and when they say ‘no comment’ that means they are admitting the allegation. But the most important thing is no one can prove it.

And this is what matters in the end. Can you prove the allegation?

What you need to do, before they even deny it or say ‘no comment’, is to challenge them to prove that the allegation is false. Under normal circumstances one is assumed innocent until proven guilty. But if you want to corner a politician you twist it the other way. You ask them to prove that the allegation is false. That is actually quite impossible to do.

Anwar was convicted and sentenced to a total of 15 years jail because he could not prove his innocence. The Federal Court later overturned that conviction on grounds that the Prosecution failed to prove his guilt. Nevertheless, Anwar had already served six years of the 15 years before he saw freedom. Thus, sometimes, the guilty until proven innocent rule does work in certain cases.

New laws are being introduced in Malaysia where you will need to prove you are innocent or else you are presumed guilty. We had 52 years of the Internal Security Act where an estimated 10,000 people had been detained without trial on that same assumption — guilty until proven innocent. They detain you first and then later you need to convince them that you deserve to be released. It is impossible to prove you deserve to be released when your detention is on the basis that one man, the Minister, believes you are a threat to national security.

I mean how do you prove a belief wrong? You have a belief, and that belief is I am a threat to national security. How do I prove this belief wrong? How do I prove any of your beliefs wrong? You believe that Hudud is God’s law and is mandatory. You believe that the Qur’an came directly from God and is God’s word. You believe the Bible is the Holy Book of God (in fact, you swear an oath on the Bible although it may have been printed by a printer in Jalan Chan Sow Lin). You believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified and died for our sins. How do I prove all these beliefs wrong?

So, I can’t prove any of your beliefs wrong, even the belief that I am a threat to national security. And that means I will remain under detention without trial until your beliefs change and you now believe that I have reformed and have turned over a new leaf and am no longer a threat to national security.

Such are beliefs. And beliefs are impossible to prove wrong. If you had to prove your belief right, that would be another thing altogether. To prove your belief right you will need evidence, which you may or may not have. But for me to prove your belief wrong is a non-starter never mind what that belief may be. Beliefs do not require evidence. Hence you can believe something even if there is no evidence. And for me to prove your belief wrong when your belief is void of evidence would mean I would not have the evidence to prove your belief wrong.

Can you see how it works?

Many friends have been in touch with me to ask me to clear the air on what people are saying about me. These friends tell me that people believe I am this or I am that or I have done this or I have done that. But that is just it. This is what people believe. How do I prove this belief to be false?

Most of those people who believe these things about me also believe in God and believe in a religion. Is there any basis for these beliefs? Is there any evidence to support these beliefs? Can they prove that their beliefs are facts and not myths?

Of course they can’t. They just believe it, that’s all. There is no basis for these beliefs. They heard stories and they believe these stories. These are all stories without evidence. Then they support these stories and justify their beliefs by showing us a Holy Book, which they said came from God but was printed by a printer in Jalan Chan Sow Lin who himself does not believe in God and is printing this ‘Holy Book’ just to make money from the printing contract

Thus this is the mindset of these types of people. They are susceptible to believing things that cannot be proven. And these same people also believe certain things about me. So how do we talk to such people when they are already prone to believing things that they imagine to be true even when it cannot be proven true?

Can you see the futility in trying to turn these people? It is as difficult as trying to convince a Catholic that Prophet Muhammad is a Prophet of God or trying to convince Muslims that Jesus is the Son of God — or trying to convince readers of Malaysia Today that Hudud is God’s command and is mandatory for all Malaysians.

The best would be to just let people believe what they want to believe. Most of these people believe that they are sincere and noble while all the rest are scumbags anyway. Only they are true. All others are false.

Look at the party hopping issue as one example. Most believe that it is wrong for people to leave their party to join the other side. But it is not wrong for those from the other side to leave the other side to join their party.

If they leave the other side to join their side then it is a sincere and noble gesture. But if they leave their side to join the other side it cannot also be because of a sincere and noble gesture. It can only be because of money and for no other reason.

This is the belief.

You do things out of sincerity and for noble reasons. Others are not noble or sincere and do things merely for money. You do not do things for money.

As I said, this is the belief and they believe that their belief is right. But is it?

Their parents sent them to school to receive an education. I have Chinese friends who tell me that education is at the top of the Chinese priority list. Education comes first and everything else comes after. This is what my Chinese friends tell me and since so many seem to tell me the same thing I am inclined to believe it.

Then I ask them, why? To the Malays, religion comes first. That is way at the top of the priority list of the Malays. Go ask the Malays and see what they say. But why do Chinese put education and not religion at the top of their priority list?

And they tell me it is because you need a good education to be ensured a good future. Only a good education can ensure a good future. And many Malaysians, after they have received that good education, choose to stay overseas to work. They have spent so much money on their education that they need to work overseas because the salary they will earn back in Malaysia would be too low and they will never be able to recover the cost of their education.

So people get an education. But they go and get an education not because they seek knowledge. They go and get an education so that they can get a good job that pays good money.

Everybody works. And they all work because they want money. Only with money can they buy things and live a good life. They want a house. They want a car. They want to get married. They want power, position, prestige, recognition, and whatnot. And all this requires money.

Why do they want all these? Are these not all for selfish reasons? You can go live in a jungle and not starve. There is food everywhere. You can live off the land. You can build a roof over your head from what you find in the jungle. You can use the streams and rivers to wash and bathe. You do not need money. You do not need a job. You do not need to spend so much money getting educated.

So, yes, everyone does things for money, even those of you who believe you are sincere and noble. Do you need money? Actually you do not. You don’t need money. You just want money. And you want money because you want the good things in life.

Are you prepared to resign from your job and go work in one of the African countries for no salary? They will provide you a tent to sleep in and three meals a day. They will also provide you with khaki uniforms. But other than that you will receive no money.

Is that not a noble and sincere thing to do? You work for no money but only to serve humankind. You get to eat and sleep in a tent, that’s all.

Not even a priest or an imam will ‘serve God’ if they are not being paid a salary. It’s all about money, even those who claim to be serving God. So get off your high horse and stop all this self-righteous bullshit. Every single one of you does things for money. So stop slandering this person and that person as doing things for money. You too are as much money-motivated as the other person you are accusing.

At least a prostitute is honest about what he or she is. That is more than I can say for you.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

1) Most of you may think that Malaysia allows freedom of expression. Well, Malaysia may allow freedom of expression up to a certain extent but that freedom is not absolute. There are limits. And that is why Malaysia has many laws that are aimed at ‘ensuring the peace and stability’ of the nation,

the Sedition Act being one of them. This means you cannot simply say what you like, not even in America or Britain. For example, if you start talking about Muslim terrorists, Jihad and bombs while in a plane you can get into trouble anywhere in the world. You might argue that it is your fundamental right to talk about whatever it is you want to talk about. The police, however, will not agree with you as they drag you away in handcuffs.

Then attempts will be made to change the law so that the police will focus on real criminals like corrupted politicians or those who sequester the funds of the nation by writing Vehicular-AP type laws so their daughters and son-in-laws can lounge around writing pro-1% rubbish instead of changing bad laws. The police, however, will agree to fair mindedness instead of chilling effect bad wishes on people via bad or racist laws, who at least bother to engage the country/public in effecting meaningful change. No word on apartheid yet? Still defending hudud? Why does RPK seem to support chilling effect laws?

2) It’s all about money, even those who claim to be serving God. So get off your high horse and stop all this self-righteous bullshit. Every single one of you does things for money. So stop slandering this person and that person as doing things for money. You too are as much money-motivated as the other person you are accusing.

Those who claim to be serving God would think that everyone is EQUAL and that the wealth of the nation and the land belongs to everyone. That means space for living, as well as oil wealth etc.. This is what makes a nation a nation, not 1% of people holding 99% of the wealth while 99% of the people have to work. “God’ provided the land that grows food and has materials for life and civilisation. There is no such thing as money which is man made and a mere tool or yardstick for reprsentation of goods and services.

3) The golden rule in politics is when cornered deny or say ‘no comment’. Of course, most people are of the opinion that when politicians deny it then it must be true and when they say ‘no comment’ that means they are admitting the allegation. But the most important thing is no one can prove it.

And this is what matters in the end.

When a 99% person’s life looks set to be an endless and hopeless rehash of days till old age, ‘no comment’ is not an option.  And this is what matters in the end. The 99% will vote for political power distribution via term limits and nepotism prohibitions, then also wealth and land distribution. The plutocrats and oligarchs and nepotists can GTFO of Parlaiment.

4) Such are beliefs. And beliefs are impossible to prove wrong. If you had to prove your belief right, that would be another thing altogether. To prove your belief right you will need evidence, which you may or may not have. But for me to prove your belief wrong is a non-starter never mind what that belief may be. Beliefs do not require evidence. Hence you can believe something even if there is no evidence. And for me to prove your belief wrong when your belief is void of evidence would mean I would not have the evidence to prove your belief wrong. Can you see how it works?

Muslim thought mode imprinting. Manipulative inculpation of ‘thought/sentence’ structures/pattersn is not engaging the readers but insulting the readers. If I am wrong about this being a Muslim NLP, then apologies in advance when I go ‘Blah, Muslims . . .’ . . . NO, all non-Muslims refuse to see how ‘it’ (Islam by my reading of what RPK is pushing with ingenuous references to it, it might as well be the whore of Babylon or Moloch or every non-Muslim’s collective !@#$%^& . . . )

5) Can you see the futility in trying to turn these people? It is as difficult as trying to convince a Catholic that Prophet Muhammad is a Prophet of God or trying to convince Muslims that Jesus is the Son of God — or trying to convince readers of Malaysia Today that Hudud is God’s command and is mandatory for all Malaysians.

There is even less proof of God yet people believe. Futility to ‘turn these people’ is far easier than to believe in God. Also laws are man-made, wealth distribution is biased. The 99% would believe that and the 1% as RPK and by extension RPK’s wife Marin or Mahathir’s ill-gotten billions would prefer th 99% to not think about.

6) Everybody works. And they all work because they want money. Only with money can they buy things and live a good life. They want a house. They want a car. They want to get married. They want power, position, prestige, recognition, and whatnot. And all this requires money.

This is a materialistic view. There are many views. Also there are systems that do not require money.n The Capitalist system is abusive and enslaves people with money. Figure out the rest on how to vote to change the system to do away with money.

7) If they leave the other side to join their side then it is a sincere and noble gesture. But if they leave their side to join the other side it cannot also be because of a sincere and noble gesture. It can only be because of money and for no other reason. This is the belief.

Shame on RPK for preaching corruption. Kaffir mindedness if anything and tainted by promotion of hudud’s violence based justice.

8) Are you prepared to resign from your job and go work in one of the African countries for no salary? They will provide you a tent to sleep in and three meals a day. They will also provide you with khaki uniforms. But other than that you will receive no money.

Any and everone would if land and wealth were distributed equally. In fact there would be no ‘African countries’ either if migration prohibitions were done away with up to limits of population supportable by a country at least.

9) At least a prostitute is honest about what he or she is. That is more than I can say for you.

One man’s ‘honesty’ is another man’s resignation and apathy, giving up on a better life. That is what a prostitute does, which is more than I can say for RPK’s inactivity and b.s.ing from England instead of returning to Malaysia to prove so called ‘enemies’ wrong.

Fostering apathy via weak logic so that plutocrats and nepotists or propagandists get to abuse and parasite off the 99% is pitiful and reprehensible. Belief with logic is and expecting to be questioned and responding always makes right. As mentioned before, some people use their intelligence for good causes, others use their intelligence to suppress the truth and every man’s right to equality instead of entitlement. Being around for decades within privilege allows one to never feel empathy for the problems people face. The 99% however are ready to vote in a manner that will end such socialised insanity. Money is an invention. The sooner everyone realises this, the better a place the world will be. Also the sooner Marina and RPK endorse the below 3 items :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;the sooner will the Malaysians have a real chance of reclaiming their place as equals with other races in the world instead of hiding behind corrutpting tacit approvals by Marina or pernicious articles by RPK.


written by Dr Syed Alwi, September 02, 2012 14:20:43
Dear RPK,

It doesn’t matter whether its BN or PR – the mentality of the average Malaysian is very backwards. It will be another 50 years before you can see the kind of changes that you want. You’ve got a vast majority of Malays still believing in magic etc ! You’ve got the Chinese who are still pushing for parochial interests ! To change Malaysia – is to change minds. You need a mental revolution. Malaysia is Third World in terms of mentality. Still medieval and still feudal. Its still 1511 as far as Malaysians go !

If you are serious about these changes – then you should focus on Education. The educational system must change to produce better minds in the future. No major changes can be expected in the short term. Just focus on education and in 20 to 30 years time – it will bear fruit. But for now – you won’t see much changes.

Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

ARTICLE 9

Merdeka belongs to ALL M’sians, not just to BN or to Pakatan – by Lim Kit Siang – Thursday, 30 August 2012 22:03

Merdeka Day should be an overarching national celebration uniting Malaysians regardless of race, religion, region or political affiliation in a common purpose to develop a more democratic, just, competitive and prosperous nation – and any partisan attempt to hijack the Merdeka Day which can only result in greater division, dissension and disunity must be deplore

It is sad many Malaysians feel depressed by this year’s 55th Merdeka Day not only because they have never felt so unsafe in public places and the privacy of their homes, but also because of the increasingly negative and discordant voices sowing distrust and hatred in our plural society and seeking to polarise and divide Malaysians particularly along race and religious lines.

For ALL Malaysians

Merdeka Day is a national celebration not just for any individual, group, community or political party. It is not for Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. It is for all Malaysians.

Let all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region or political affiliation rise above their differences to celebrate the 55th Merdeka Day as one Malaysian people to forge a common national destiny where freedom, justice, integrity and good governance flourish in our land and enjoyed by all our citizens.

Lim Kit Siang is the DAP adviser & MP for Ipoh Timur

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Whats really sad is the 90% failed campaign promises by DAP, Kit Siang talking shop here as if those seats were fairly won. All DAP seats were won by lies of unkept campaign promises. The Rakyat loses respect for politicians who cannot keep their word, especially after being rewarded in advance with votes. Merdeka belongs to ALL M’sians . . . blah blah blah . . . campaign promises first, otherwise don’t talk rubbish here on internet. Pakatan OWES the Rakyat all unkept promises Mr.Undemocratic-TermLimitless-Nepotist . . .

Voters, don’t depend on Pakatan so much. Pakatan has said nothing about ending the Bumi/Non-Bumi difference, or PAS’s Hudud so far. Look at the lack of engagement hiding behind the ethos of that MP’s seat intent on being term limitless. Voters, if Pakatan will  in such a belittling manner, not respond fairly and clearly to questions as blogs like these pose, Pakatan will indeed favour and collude with cronies in the same way BN has. Pakatan is UNVOTABLE simply by the uncommunicativeness and even attempts to destroy would be competing 3rd force politicians, groups and activists by.

The voters are no fools and can see what has happened. Pakatan is a danger and perhaps even part of the hegelian dialect, at least in all term limitless family nepotistic types. Again I present the unvotable within Pakatan so that the Rakyat can think clearly enough to vote correctly :

OFFENDING TERM LIMITLESS/NEPOTISM CLIQUES in PAKATAN

Three of the below limitless term MPs must be challenged so that only a single candidate without relatives remains :

Lim Kit Siang (MP Ipoh Timur – Perak)
Lim Guan Eng (MP Air Puteh – Penang)
Chew Gek Cheng (Assemblyman Kota Laksamana – Malacca) Guan Eng’s wife
Lim Hui Ying Guan Eng’s sister (Vice-Chairman)

Two of the below must be challenged so that only a single candidate without relatives remains :

Karpal Singh (MP Jelutong – Penang)
Gobind Singh (MP Puchong – Selangor) Karpal’s son
Jagdeep Singh (Asssemblyman Dato Keramat – Penang) Karpal’s son

Two of the below must be challenged so that only a single candidate without relatives remains :

Anwar Ibrahim (MP Permatang Pauh, Seberang Prai)
Wan Azizah
Nurul Izzah Anwar(MP Lembah Pantai – Kuala Lumpur) Anwar’s Daughter who won only because (as per RPK’s report on article) only 7% of the voters in the constituency Nurul stood in turned up!

Also either Ngeh (Pantai Remis) or Nga (Sitiawan) must go to prevent 2nd degree nepotism and the kind of environment that caused DAP’s Kulasegaran to be kicked out possibly an act of racism but more likely at the order of the Lim family clique and their dogs like Chow Kon Yeow and Ng Wei Aik.

For even stronger consideration, I also list seats that HRP demands from the unethical Pakatan cliques, note that PAS is the least problematic party in Pakatan though more authoritarian and Islamically inclined (Hudud should be applied on a signatory by signatory basis, not summarily imposed, to not drive away Malay voters) :

1. Padang Serai (Incumbent: PKR – N Gobalakrishnan)
2. Batu Kawan (DAP – Ramasamy)
3. Sungei Siput (PSM – Dr D Jeyakumar)
4. Ipoh Barat (DAP – N Kulasegaran)
5. Bagan Datoh (BN – Ahmad Zahid Hamidi)
6. Cameron Highlands (BN – SK Devamany)
7. Hulu Selangor (BN – P Kamalanathan)
8. Kuala Selangor (PAS – Dzulkefy Ahmad)
9. Klang (DAP – Charles Santiago)
10. Kota Raja (PAS – Siti Mariah Mahmud)
11. Rasah (DAP – Anthony Loke)
12. Teluk Kemang (PKR – Kamarul Baharin Abbas)
13. Alor Gajah (BN – Fong Chan Onn)
14. Tebrau (BN – Teng Boon Soon)
15. Lembah Pantai (PKR – Nurul Izzah Anwar)

HRP might very well be aware of some things we are not aware of to list some surprising choices as well, do not discount their reasons.

ANOTHER THEORY ON WHY VOTE 3rd Force Over Pakatan or BN

Introducing all readers to the high tech world of hidden surveillance and mind altering electronics like Passive Millimeter Wave Technology or EMF based wave weapons. Half of the wealthiest and most influencial non-Muslims in Malaysia could get thrown into jail for if that law is passed. Afraid if the government makes owning such things illegal?

ALL READERS. Rais Yaatim was manipulated into raping the maid via sub-aurals and EMF and possibly certain drugs that made him unable to control himself the combination is very effective on most people unless they have the luxury of becoming extremely anti-social to compensate.

Also like Anwar and Saiful, the 2 guys were probably drugged and manipulated with the same method. Do you think dr.Evil had no hand in causing the cases to be used as a weapon to ensure their obedience?

Neuro-linguistic programming also could have played a strong part in grooming targets with dr.Evil’s resources, he could get any number of people to ‘say things’ to manipulate Anwar, Saiful’s or Rais Yaatim’s mental state, then drug them. The combination is quite lethal.

A law against use or ownership of such electronic weapons should be immediately put in place and all who are in ownership of such devices should immediately be investigated and any complaints or evidence corroborated by the legal system which should be made aware of these obviously criminal methods and weapons. Watch out for the Wiifi, 4G or 700 Hz YTL lines. These and the telecoms towers will ensure whatever government will be able to manipulate voters as well INCLUDING extracting/inserting thought memories.

In time these weapons or stalking activities will be illegal and the legal system updated on these weapons, and anyone who has used these will likely be dragged up on charges for victimising citizens with criminal intent to harm. They should watch out for YTL’s 4G or the Telecoms Towers as well, Nautilus Bay Penang looks like a G.W.E.N. Tower too.

4G or 700 Hz will literally end all freedom of thought, so start understanding that we are living in high tech times even though the infrastructure is still quite bad. In the hands of private contractors like YTL we will literally lose control of free thought. Oppose any 700 Hz, 3G or telecoms towers, otherwise we will be quite finished even before GE13.

Anwar and Saiful, Prince Saud Abdulaziz Bin Nasir Al Saud of Oman, the Catholic Priests overcome with lust for children, I strongly believe that due to your strong religious and family upbringing and even some of us due to our station, political beliefs and political alignments, or threat of presenting too powerful a social or psychological, even psychic competition, or even intelligence, or even failed relationships with people having access to such devices – have been groomed into paedophilia, LGBT or even simulated mental illness specifically to weaken our voice by society’s worst who see nothing except political power and wealth not a nation of citizens.

Let us seek justice and reclaim our reputations.

ARTICLE 9

Buckle up – and beware of strays – by REGINA LEE – Friday August 10, 2012 regina@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: The usual road safety tips apply along the North-South Expressway buckle up and obey the speed limit. Then watch out … for cows?

Signs urging motorists and other road users to be wary of cows have sprouted up at 29 locations along the expressway as recently as three weeks ago, according to highway concessionaire PLUS Malaysia.

“There has been an increasing number of animal sightings along the expressway and we want to warn people to be wary of cows and other strays, especially at certain locations,” corporate communications senior manager Mohd Nizam Ismail said yesterday.

“Most of the strays sighted are cows, water buffalos, tapirs and wild boars. But other animals such as dogs, monkeys and goats have also been seen.”

A woman and her son were killed early on Sunday when their car collided with a cow near the Simpang Ampat toll plaza in Malacca.

Ngatinah Kemin, 47, and her 10-year-old son Habib Firdaus were travelling back from the KL International Airport to their home in Simpang Renggam together with her husband and daughter when the accident occurred at 1.20am.

The Road Transport Department said that such incidences were rare and that it was not usual for cows to cross a highway.

“In the rural areas, yes, it happens a lot. But this is the first case that I’ve heard of in my two years in the Transport Ministry,” said deputy director-general Datuk Ismail Ahmad.

A cow died on the spot after being hit by a car at Persiaran Utara in Putrajaya while crossing the road. The driver was unhurt.

The driver was unhurt.

He explained that a road retained heat at night making it warm and “nice” for cows to lie on.

Ismail hoped cattle farmers would keep their cows fenced up, especially at night.

In July 2008, three people were killed in two separate accidents on the same 772km-long expressway within days of each other in Rembau and Jitra after crashing into cows.

Pahang Umno secretary Datuk Abdullah Rahmat died when his car hit a cow in Temerloh on the East Coast Highway on Dec 12, 2008.

PLUS urged members of the public to call its hotline 1800 88 0000 whenever they see stray animals on the expressway.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

PAP’s Neuroscience Institute at Biopolis has been busy equipping Pakatan? Neurotech assassination? Get a cow to saunter onto the road at an inopportune moment to kill political opponents. Earlier that was neurotech dogs savaging and killing people, but too dramatic and suspicious.

ARTICLE 10

Man gored to death by wild buffalo – September 01, 2012

IPOH, Sept 1 — A man was gored to death while his friend was injured after they were attacked by a wild buffalo while on a fishing trip at the Royal Belum Forest Reserve in Hulu Air Pasir, Banding near Grik yesterday.

Musa Ismail, 56, died after he was gored in the stomach while his friend Isa Abdullah, 24, broke a leg and hand. Two other friends of theirs, however, escaped injury.

Grik police chief Supt Abdul Manab Baharum said in the incident happened between 3pm and 6pm when the four entered the forest reserve via a trail at Km68.4 of the East Coast Highway.

“As they were walking towards the location to set up their fish traps they were attacked by a wild buffalo which appeared out of nowhere,” he told Bernama.

He said after the animal ran away after attacking them, one of the friends who was not injured used his handphone to call up other friends for help.

He said they (friends) alerted the police who immediately mobilised a search-and-rescue team which included members of the Fire and Rescue Department, Rela, Civil Defence Department and local villagers.

“Because of the mountainous terrain, the team only managed to reach them at 1am. We also had difficulty bringing them out and only managed to do so at 6.30am today.

“The dead and injured victims were sent to the Grik Hospital,” he said.

Abdul Manab advised the public not to enter the reserve to fish or gather herbs without a valid permit from the authorities for their own safety. — Bernama

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Looks like this method of assassination will be the newest method employed in Malaysia. ‘ . . . beware of strays . . . ‘ goes Regina . . . so does that mean dogs and cats will also be used to kill car driving people in the same way? A neurotech dog or cat rushes out across the road, a ‘caring’ driver dies avoiding the animal . . . or at least get injured if said driver hits  the animal and crashes . . .

ARTICLE 11

I’m not returning to Barisan, says Lajim – Saturday, 01 September 2012 Super Admin

(The Star) – KOTA KINABALU: Beaufort MP Datuk Lajim Ukin has denied talk that he is returning to Barisan Nasional.

“I have not met any Barisan leaders either at the state or Federal level to talk about returning to Barisan,” he told reporters here on Thursday.

Several bloggers have claimed that he was returning to Barisan because he was not given any “incentives” promised by the Opposition and that he failed to deliver more crossovers.

He believed such bloggers were trying to discredit him and make people lose faith in him.

He reiterated that his July 28 move to align himself with Pakatan Rakyat was done without any “incentives”.

“Let me make it clear that I joined the Opposition not because of monetary gains. That is not how the Opposition works, they do not buy anyone,” he added.

Lajim, who has formed non-governmental organisation Coalition for Change in Sabah, claimed that there would be more Barisan members leaving at the “right time”.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Lajim, just drop nepotistic PR and racist BN! Join 3rd Force!

ARTICLE 12

PR has lost direction, says Noh Omar – by Mohd Farhan Darwis – September 01, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 1 — Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Datuk Seri Noh Omar today took a swipe at Pakatan Rakyat (PR), saying the opposition bloc has started to lose its direction in wanting to replace the national flag, the Jalur Gemilang.

The Selangor Barisan Nasional (BN) deputy chairman also said it was impossible to do so as the flag is enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

“They have started to lose direction… until they even want to change the flag. I want to remind them that we cannot change matters enshrined in our Constitution such as the flag; whoever rules it is still our symbol. And the national anthem ‘Negaraku’, it is the song of whoever is in power.

“They are not yet ruling (but) already want to do extraordinary things,” Noh (picture) told reporters at the Selangor BN open house at the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia (RRIM) in Sungai Buloh here.

The Tanjung Karang MP also expressed sorrow at the way PR celebrated National Day.

“I feel very sad at the attitude and the way they celebrate Merdeka Day, we should raise flags, but they make other flags,” he said, in apparent reference to a group of individuals who were spotted waving flags sporting alternative designs to the Jalur Gemilang during the massive public countdown to the country’s 55th National Day in Kuala Lumpur last Thursday.

“They are rude, not yet in power but they are already power crazy, their supporters and followers don’t respect our rules.”

The individuals were spotted carrying flags sporting the familiar crescent moon and 14-pointed star against a red-and-white striped background — similar to the national flags of neighbouring Singapore and Indonesia — which were alleged to be the alternative to the Jalur Gemilang.

Some of the street party-goers were also reported to have stepped on or tore posters bearing the images of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, his wife and the Election Commission chairman that night.

However, the organisers of the Janji Demokrasi rally — which took place at the same venue at Dataran Merdeka — has distanced themselves from the individuals who had allegedly demanded the national flag be replaced.

Noh also commented on Selangor PR ignoring the Sultan of Selangor in its National Day celebrations, saying that it shows that the federal opposition bloc did not uphold the Rukun Negara principle of “Loyalty to King and country”.

“Before BN carried out today’s programme, the organiser informed the Sultan of Selangor that the prime minister will come to celebrate with the people.

“Not like the opposition, their state-level Merdeka Day celebrations ignored the Sultan and turned this celebration into a political arena,” Noh said, adding “we practise the Rukun Negara principle of loyalty to King and country.”

Noh said: “In this life there are two things, morals and laws. Morally, they have to respect our culture, other people’s functions, but they try to take advantage to carry out politicking activities including in the programme on Merdeka Day eve”.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Better than BN’s WRONG DIRECTION – continuing apartheid is wrong. Pakatan is still excusable for not having 2/3rds to end apartheid. We’ll know 100% for certain if Pakatan wins and does not end apartheid or 3rd Force takes over.

MCA meanwhile should leave BN with, PPP, MIC and Gerakan to form a viable 3rd Force with Tunku Aziz as head of 3rd force on the below 3 items as a rallying factor :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Voters, BN is apartheid, corrupt and refuses to use that mandate to better Malaysia, PR is self serving non-pro-active, self glorifying, unable to keep their campaign promises, also very nepotistic, so vote instead for 3rd Force Parties such as : KITA, JATI, MCLM (whats left of MCLM), PCM, Borneo Front, MoCS Sarawak, Konsensus Bebas, HRP/Hindraf and PSM, ABU, PRS, STAR etc.. to END APARTHEID.

ARTICLE 13

SHOCKING: ‘Suspected criminal’ Musa Aman swings meeting with William & Kate – by  Sarawak Report – Saturday, 01 September 2012 17:44

Today’s confirmation by the Office of the Attorney General in Switzerland that it has opened a criminal prosecution against the banking group UBS, over suspected money-laundering on behalf of Musa Aman, looks set to cause an awkward diplomatic upset for the UK.

After all, the royal couple Wills and Kate are right now packing their bags to give Musa a friendly visit!

Sarawak Report first exposed back in May the evidence that the Sabah Chief Minister has taken tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks for issuing licences to chop down what remains of Sabah’s rain forests.

And we have laid out damning details of the money laundering operation conducted by the Musa and his associates through UBS accounts in a number of articles.

Details of bank statements and of the official investigations by the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission and also the Hong Kong authorities into the affair were made public in our series of exposes and the evidence was sent to Switzerland, where the Bruno Manser Fund requested the prosecution against UBS.

Yet, despite this mounting evidence, UK officials have refused to heed warnings against the planned visit to the state by the British heir to the throne and his new wife.

The visit is due to take place between September 11-19th, as part of a Royal Tour of the Commonwealth in celebration of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, marking her 60th year on the throne.  They will also be visiting Singapore and the Solomon Islands.

Photo-opportunity?

Great publicity – but could it now all backfire?

To begin with the choice of Sabah might have seemed perfect publicity for the environment conscious Royal Family.  After all the trip is being promoted as an “exotic visit to the Borneo Jungle”.

Just in the past few hours the British press has printed exciting details of plans to feature the Prince and his wife looking daring in lush forest canopies and cuddling up to cute baby orang-utans.

Given Musa’s energetic ‘greenwash’ PR of recent months, the objective has been to praise Musa for ‘slowing’ Sabah’s rate of deforestation, according to UK officials.  They are accepting claims that he now wants to protect what is left of the jungle.

However, for months Sarawak Report has been warning the Royal Palace and the British Foreign Office against becoming associated with Musa Aman’s new campaign to present Sabah as an eco-friendly state, when in fact the Danum Valley Reserve which they will be visiting is a small oasis in one of the world’s worst environmental disaster zones and the Chief Minister is still selling concessions for kickbacks throughout the state.

Sarawak Report has also warned that proof of Musa Aman’s timber corruption is now in the public domain, showing how the destruction of Sabah’s jungle since the early 1990s has largely been driven by his own greed, first as the Head of Yayasan Sabah (The Sabah Foundation which is the trustee of its national forests) and then as the Chief Minister.

There is evidence that over US$90million dollars have been money-laundered through accounts associated with Aman and his key conspirators, a family friend Michael Chia and the Sabah lawyer Richard Christopher Barnes.

For these reasons Sarawak Report has repeatedly pleaded against the Royal Couple being encouraged to endorse a man whose criminality has ruined the jungle that they say they want to see protected!

This is a photo-opportunity that could go badly wrong.

Why endorse a suspected criminal?

Musa and his forest Chief Sam Manan altered the contour maps to allow logging of these once protected steep mountain areas of the state

Despite warnings from Sarawak Report just last week that Switzerland was about to launch its criminal prosecution over Musa’s money, the British High Commission is allowing this visit to proceed!

This opens the Royal Couple to charges of complete hypocrisy.  They will of course be staying in pure luxury in the jungle resort in Danum Valley (a project sponsored by the world’s largest palm oil company, Malaysia’s government-controlled Sime Darby), while all around them millions of hectares of oil palm plantations are still being rolled out by their corrupted hosts.

The questionable judgement of such a visit is made even more severe by its timing, just as Malaysia approaches a crucial election.

What business has Britain to give such an endorsement to a notoriously corrupted and autocratic government, which has remained in power for longer than almost any other in the world?

After 50 years, who can still argue that BN has not cheated or bribed its way to its various ‘election successes’? Furthermore, evidence shows that more money is being stolen from the public in Malaysia and secreted out to foreign bank accounts, like Musa’s, than in practically any other country in the world.

Yet, it seems the royal advisors on this tour are preferring to present a lie rather than cancel the trip or upset their corrupted host, the Chief Minister of Sabah. They would rather the Royal Couple shake the hand through which a hundred million dollars of timber corruption money has passed than take a stand against the forces of corruption that are destroying Borneo!

Eco-friendly? Musa has just signed over 1/3 of Sabah’s forest reserve to ‘mosaic plantations’. He is selling off the licences in return for kickbacks. Most of that money has been stolen from the poor people of the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak, whose natural resources have been filched by their politicians, while they have been left in the deepest poverty.

At a time when Malaysia is at last waking up to these shocking truths and when the opposition parties are defying persecution and abuses against them to present for the first time some kind of real challenge to BN’s forces of oppression, is it right for Britain to prop them up with such a high profile visit by its as yet untainted young royal couple?

The cries in Malaysia and even in Musa’s own BN party in Sabah are now becoming deafening for his removal and his position is more precarious than ever.

How he will thank William and Kate, for stretching out their hands and offering him just the lifeline he needed with this visit and their silly praises for his greenwash PR about the ‘eco-friendly’ policies of Sabah.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

William and Kate are not new in the world conquest ‘game’, but England is now a viper’s nest of Orwellian and self serving liars. If East Malaysia demands independence for the  lack of :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;England will want to ‘recolonise’ again ahead of all other local powers. So here come William and Kate are here to prepare to cash in or even prep these UMNO-BN guys (who despite all the unfairness of policy, will never hear a word for the Rakyat, justifying their bad behaviour, disenfranchisement, ill written and greed intent based policies . . . ) if not consolidate the Commonwealth while entirely overlooking the Apartheid system of unequal citizenships. This is one of those times where being proven wrong is good, but knowing the platitudes likely to overshadow the entire meeting, no word would likely pass on granting the above. Such is the cynical nature of the 1/4 German ancestry supposed future heads of the Commonwealth. If Commonwealth is so ‘common’ why is England and an SCG ALWAYS the Head? Do other Royals not deserve to head the Commonwealth?

ARTICLE 14

People’s happiness important, says Najib – September 03, 2012

PUTRAJAYA, Sept 3 — Per capita income and the people’s well-being are the two main criteria used to measure the success of a country’s development model, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

He said that while per capita income was the conventional yardstick used elsewhere, Malaysia put forward a one-of-a-kind and unique development model which took into account the “happiness index of the people”.

Both these aspects had to be scrutinised as the correlation between the two may not necessarily be positive, because there may be other factors or constraints which could cause dissatisfaction despite an increase in income, Najib (picture) said.

He cited factors such as traffic congestion and crime as examples, saying the two were definitely taken into account in determining the well-being or satisfaction index of the people.

“We try to formulate a one-of-a-kind and unique development model for this country. We do not copy 100 per cent from the west or east, but must have the ability to come up with our own model suitable for the people,” he said during the monthly gathering of the Prime Minister’s Department here today.

From a macro indicator, this year the second quarter of the economy grew by 5.4 per cent compared to 4.9 per cent during the first quarter, and Malaysia emerged as the third biggest initial public offering (IPO) centre after the United States and China, said the prime minister.

Malaysian companies FELDA Global Ventures Holdings and IHH Healthcare ranked the second and third largest IPOs on a global scale, he added.

Najib noted that the international media had also been covering Malaysia in a more positive light, with those who were previously critical appearing to be changing their tone and admitting that there were many positive changes and real development taking place in the country.

“I mention this because we have actually gained world recognition. But what’s the message here? The message is we must maintain the momentum and not let the transformation agenda lose steam; we must redouble our efforts,” he said.

Najib said civil servants played a very important role in implementing strategies to ensure the government’s development agenda was carried out as scheduled, was felt by the people, achieved its objectives and reached the targeted groups. — Bernama

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Apartheid, extreme religion, very bad wealth distribution, nepotism and oligarchy all make the people unhappy. BN represents all of this, Pakatan some. Political coalitions in Malaysia hence make the people unhappy until all of these problems are corrected. Vote 3rd Force political parties or indie candidates!

ARTICLE 16

Umno’s land thievery & refusal to share profits: Why the deafening silence – Guan Eng slams Gerakan – by  Lim Guan Eng – Tuesday, 04 September 2012 17:10

Penang BN Chairman Teng Chang Yeow must explain why 2 UMNO leaders who claim to defend the rights of the Malays chose to profit as land brokers but refused to share their RM 5 million profits, earned within a mere three and a half months, with the 31 Malay landowners.

Today, Teng has chosen to defend both Umno Penang deputy chairman Dato Musa Sheikh Fadzir and BN Penang general election strategy director Dato Omar Faudza for profiting RM 5 million from sale of land owned by 31 Malay landonwers in Kampung Terang, Balik Pulau, as a private business transaction.

Teng clearly forgets that as political leaders, public interest demands that the private business transactions of these 2 UMNO leaders must also conform with their public political positions. Is this how UMNO leaders defend the rights of Malay landowners by buying their land cheap and then selling it high, pocketing 100% the profits from the sale? I regret that Musa has refused to explain why he refused to share the RM 5 million profit with the 31 Malay landowners and instead behaved emotionally and irrationally by attacking me as a racist for bringing up this issue of public interest.

Racist to share RM5mil profits with the 31 Malay landowners?

How am I a racist when I asked Musa and Omar to share the RM5 million profits with the 31 Malay landowners and not with non-Malays? Clearly BN and UMNO are so bankrupt of political ideas that a racist party is calling a multi-racial party racist!

Teng’s irresponsible refusal to explain is similar to dishonest tactics of spreading lies after lies without proof against PR leaders. Beginning with falsifying Google photographs of hillslope projects to run down the PR state government, Teng has still not shown evidence that myself, 4 EXCO members Chow Kon Yeow, Phee Boon Poh, Wong Hon Wai and Danny Law together with ADUN Komtar Ng Wei Aik has a personal interest in the Taman Manggis private hospital project.

Suddenly, new conditions emerge

Now Teng tries to explain BN’s failure to fulfill their promise to buy the Taman Manggis 1.1 acre piece of land at RM450 per square feet to build Projek Perumahan Rakyat(PPR) by saying that the state government has not written officially to BN. This is a new condition which was never mentioned earlier by BN.

To ensure that Teng does not try to run away again from making unsubstantiated allegations and promises, I have directed my Political Secretary Ng Wei Aik to write an official letter to be handed over to Teng’s office that BN can buy over the land at RM450 per square feet to build PPR.

Profits from proceeds from the sale to BN will be used to fund the building of affordable housing by the state government in the island, especially in Jalan S.P. Chelliah.

The question is will BN come up with the over  RM22 million  before the next general elections to buy the land to build PPR or this is another sandiwara to get cheap publicity?

Lim Guan Eng is the DAP sec-gen & Penang Chief Minister

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Guan Eng has no right to demand anything of Gerakan.

Penang BN Chairman Teng Chang Yeow must explain why 2 UMNO leaders who claim to defend the rights of the Malays chose to profit as land brokers but refused to share their RM 5 million profits, earned within a mere three and a half months, with the 31 Malay landowners.’ . . .

;is something for the Chambers of Commerce or a commerce or law based NGO to take up on. Guan Eng being CM should address apartheid instead much less ask for 750K funeral funds. Always sets sights so low and mostly on commercial interests, but not human rights and equality interests. Guan Eng is a mere greedy wannabe CEO type, who only sees the money issue but never the quality of life (i.e. NO APARTHEID) issues, is  argumentative and keeps demanding apologies of all supposed opponents instead of fighting for the rights of the Rakyat. Not CM material at all. Does shame to the CM’s post and is no leader of the oppressed dhimmified Chinese community who still suffers from lack of :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

1.5 terms as CM used up and 90% of campaign promises still unkept, (i.e. MP assets undeclared, Local Council Elections still not implemented formally or otherwise . . . and not a word on apartheid) let 3rd force take over fool. PSM how about taking over from this product of nepotism?

ARTICLE 16

Najib to lead delegation to Apec meeting in Russia – Published: Tuesday September 4, 2012 MYT 8:09:00 PM

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will lead the Malaysian delegation to the 20th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) Economic Leaders Meeting in Russia on Sept 8 and 9.

The foreign ministry said in a statement here that Najib would be accompanied by wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, several Cabinet ministers and senior government officials.

The annual summit, themed ‘Integrate to Grow, Innovate to Prosper’, to be attended by heads of state and government from the 21-member economies, will be preceded by the 24th Apec Ministerial Meeting (AMM) on Sept 5 and 6, and Apec Senior Officials Meeting on Sept 2 and 3.

Najib, who is Finance Minister, would speak on wide-ranging issues, covering the liberalising trade and investment and expanding regional economic integration, strenghtening food security, establishing reliable supply chains and fostering innovative growth, the statement said.

The prime minister will also explore new and innovative ideas to further enhance cooperation among the 21 Apec member economies in these areas.

Najib is also scheduled to hold bilateral meetings with several Apec leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The outcome of the leaders’ meeting will be documented in a Joint Leaders’ Declaration while the 20th AMM outcome will be documented in the Joint Ministerial Statement.

Apec, a forum set up in 1989, for 21 Pacific Rim member economies to discuss issues on regional economic cooperation, trade and investment, accounts for 55 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product and 49 per cent of global trade.

Apec’s 21-member economies comprise Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, United States and Vietnam. – Bernama

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Najib is also scheduled to hold bilateral meetings with several Apec leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin.

President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin should note that if a Russian migrated to Malaysia, the APARTHEID currently affecting all non-Muslims and non-Malays would also be applied upon the migrant Russian. This means that the BRICS and effectively 40% of the world’s population, if migrating to Malaysia, would face 2nd class citizenships while Malaysians migrating to BRICS countries will face no such apartheid. I hope that President Putin will raise this issue with Malaysia’s PM Najib and remind APEC that UN Human Rights are to be respected by all and that APARTHEID in Malaysia via the Bumiputra Special Privileges are against the spirit of the UN premise of equality among all mankind, and illegal because Malaysia is a signatory of the UNHCR as well the fact that Islam disallows somthing like Bumiputra APARTHEID. Again, the 3 items this blogger has lobbied for, for near 2 decades . . .

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: