Posts Tagged ‘limitless terms’

7 Articles On Malaysia Politics LGE-CSL debates, JATI formation, Malaysia’s NHS copy-failure, Art Harun touches VERY lightly on apartheid, LKS’s unrealistic demands on NFL, Farish’s (non’contribution’ to ending apartheid – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 11th February 2011

In 3rd Force, Abuse of Power, Malaysia on February 11, 2012 at 3:07 pm


Don’t change debate topic, Guan Eng tells Soi Lek – UPDATED @ 03:34:26 PM 11-02-2012
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal – February 11, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 11 — The DAP’s Lim Guan Eng today accused foe Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek of altering their February 18 debate topic and limiting its scope to the Chinese community’s political future.

The DAP secretary-general pointed out the initial topic suggested by organisers, the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI) together with the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (INSAP) was titled, “Is the two-party system becoming a two-race system?”

“It is wrong for Chua to change the topic on the merits and demerits of a two-party system or whether it is becoming a two-race system to one of “Malaysian Chinese-Quo Vadis?” Lim (picture) said in a statement.

The MCA president had reportedly said the debate would be on the future of the Chinese community in Malaysian politics.

Lim said he accepted the topic as it was in line with the DAP and the Penang state government’s commitment to fight for the rights of all Malaysians, not just one community.

“The debate…should see a contest of ideas, ideals and policies that benefits  democracy and also all Malaysians not just Chinese alone.

“Only when when there is respect of political rights, socio-economic justice and respect for each other’s human dignity are we Malaysians regardless whether we are Malay, Chinese, Indian, orang Asli, Iban or Kadazan,” added Lim.

Lim said the debate between him and Dr Chua will be in Mandarin, and will take place at the Berjaya Times Square Hotel in KL from 5 to 6pm. The debate will be carried live by Astro AEC.

Lim also said he was willing to debate in either English or Bahasa Malaysia if given another slot.

The debate will happen during one of the sessions during the “Malaysian Chinese at the Political Crossroads” forum, which will be officiated by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

All parties with Chinese membership, in and out of government, have been invited to speak at the event.

Other than politicians, representatives from non-governmental organisations are also slated to speak.

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

If MCA and DAP were competing without UMNO, MCA wins because MCA is less nepotistic and it is more possible to climb the hierarchy. Look at DAP’s CC, disgraceful display of nepotism and dynastic politics, almost as bad as the situation in India. One culd say that India did not catch up with China because of nepotism itself. They were focusing on their own power, not bettering India and in Malaysia’s case DAP did not fight apartheid but did ensure all their relatives were in power.

That is why UMNO fell apart internally in Malaysia ecven though Pak Lah was a potential winner, nepotism by a certain keris handling relative who was favoured tremendously made so many UMNOites so jealous (along with dr.Evil’s kids just waiting to strike) that the mass defections that recvived Keadilan occured. That is why Keadilan exists today – no chance of promotion due to extreme nepotism in UMNO.

If MCA drops out of BN, MCA will be a better choice than DAP, but until then DAP might still be viable though voters should really drop ALL *term limitless family blocs* (think Gadaffi and sons in Libya) in the nepotistic outfit so that other people can at least have their 2 terms of power at whatever level.

ARTICLE 2 (2 JATI related articles)

Hasan Ali to form politically-neutral Jati Published: Tuesday January 31, 2012 MYT 2:53:00 PM Updated: Tuesday January 31, 2012 MYT 5:12:26 PM

SHAH ALAM: Datuk Dr Hasan Ali will set up a non-governmental organisation (NGO) called Jati to fight for Islam, Malay rights and the Malay rulers.

The former Selangor executive councillor rejected speculation that he would join other political parties following his sacking by PAS on Jan 8.

“People asked whether I will join Umno or PKR. I will not join other political parties but will join an NGO called Jati,” he told reporters.

Hasan admitted that he still loved PAS and would try to rid the party of “parasites” out to destroy its original struggle.

He said that if he was still a member of PAS, he would like cleric Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to continue to lead the party.

On Jati, he said the NGO will be launched on Feb 21 and urged other NGOs to merge to form a “third force” that would offset Barisan Nasional (BN) and opposition parties PAS, PKR and DAP at 13th general election.

“We need a middle force that will determine who will form the next government.”

Asked whether the “third force” will oppose or support the government, Hasan said he is still thinking about the direction to be taken by Jati.

“We are the “third force” and will contest on this premise and are not bothered whether we compete with or against political parties,” he added. BERNAMA

Non-Muslims Not Marginalised By Jati – Wednesday, 08 February 2012 15:31

KUALA LUMPUR – The non-Muslim community should not feel marginalised by non-governmental organisation (NGO) Jati that will be officially formed on Feb 21.

Former Selangor PAS commissioner Dr Hasan Ali said although Jati’s struggle focuses on upholding Islam, the Malays and Rulers (IMR), the rights of non-Muslims are guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

“Non-Muslims must not feel marginalised. Under the constitution, not a single person is left out or not given the space, comfort and rights in this country.

“Don’t worry, Islam and the Malays don’t marginalise others. The rulers are the point of solidarity, togetherness and convergence,” he said in an exclusive interview with Bernama and Bernama TV here recently.

Hasan who was sacked from PAS on Jan 9 said Jati’s formation is eagerly awaited by the Muslim community claiming that thousands of people are keen to join the NGO.

“People have been asking me where to get the forms, has it been formed, its website and so on. Alhamdulillah.”

Hasan who was PAS vice-president for five years said Jati’s structure is being created and will be led by a president though it is not a political body.

“There is no pressure as the button is being pushed by itself. Our forte is the Islamic faith and Malays who reflect the purity of Islam.”

Although Jati is not politically motivated, members will not be prevented from joining up or individually become candidates at the next general election.

Asked whether it would compose of big names, he said it depends on views of individuals but most are activists.

Hasan stressed that Jati is not another Islam-based political party.


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

We need as many 3rd Forcer parties and independent as possible because BN (corrupt, nepotistic, racist, does not want to end apartheid) and PR (corrupt, nepotistic, self serving in a non-corrupt manner, does not want to end apartheid) are a let down in so many ways.

1) the rights of non-Muslims are guaranteed under the Federal Constitution

Not exactly in the below form of 3 items? IF the below form is acceptable and unambiguously endorsed, then JATI is worth taking a look.

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.

2) “Non-Muslims must not feel marginalised. Under the constitution, not a single person is left out or not given the space, comfort and rights in this country.

Try allowing ALL forms of gambling in what are currently 4D outlets first. And a legalised RLD (adult services district)in Penang and KL for a start. On rights for all races, how about adding that abstention clause to Forced Military Conscription?

3) “There is no pressure as the button is being pushed by itself.

Freedom? NLP with neurotech has indeed tormented and left some of us bereft of dignity privacy affords and loss of trust in humanity. Hope this is a friendly one . . .

4) Our (JATI’s) forte is the Islamic faith and Malays who reflect the purity of Islam.

How about something more all encompasing? This is kinda ‘Asabiya’? Perhaps a non-Muslim branch with equal voting rights that has a forte of Inter-Faith and Non-Malays?

5) Asked whether it would compose of big names, he said it depends on views of individuals but most are activists.

Big names are useless if the policy they write is oppressive and self serving, they might as well be small names that write the same bad policy. Activists tend to be very independent. How about getting them to switch off the electronic collars nationwide first and consider making reasonable amounts of space for EVERYTHING?

6) Hasan stressed that Jati is not another Islam-based political party.

What is JATI based on then? Ideals? UNHCR ideals? The citizens can only hope, if JATI addresses the above in fullest form and keeps everything oven-raced or open-faithed, even non-faithed and transparent, JATI could be a great 3rd Forcer.

Hasan Ali tells why he won’t appeal sacking Thursday, February 9, 2012 – 11:50 by Bernama
KUALA LUMPUR: Former PAS vice-president Datuk Dr Hasan Mohamed Ali, who was sacked from the party on Jan 9, has given five reasons why he would not file an appeal on the sacking.

In an exclusive interview with Bernama, Hasan laid out the reasons.

* PAS has abandoned its original struggle to form an Islamic state and replaced it with a concept of a welfare state, which can be implemented in any secular country with any system or political practice.

* PAS has lost its respectable stand and firmness, and thus often taken for granted by its partners in the opposition pact, especially DAP, which has gone to the extent of boldly rejecting PAS’s Islamic state concept.

* PAS is too eager to take over Putrajaya to the extent of sacrificing Islam and collaborating with DAP which is clearly “an enemy of Islam”.

* The minds of ulama have been corrupted by the presence of 70 per cent of “parasites” in its top leadership with political interests other than, and different from, the original PAS’s vision.

* The loyalty of PAS elected representatives in Parliament is more towards Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, by giving huge attention to the opposition leader when he speaks in Parliament but the same level of attention has not been accorded to PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Hasan said PAS had deviated from its original struggle and would continue to be deviated if it continued to stay in the opposition pact with DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

“If the opposition pact wins the election with the existing component configuration, there will be no Islamic state, no hudud law and no Islamic elements in economic, social, agriculture and foreign policies.

“When PAS collaborates with DAP and PKR, PAS cannot form the Islamic state. Anwar, who is PKR de facto leader, doesn’t seem to be interested.

“I spent 15 years in PAS. I joined the party because I want Islam and ulama leadership, as promoted in the party’s tagline. That’s the biggest reason I joined PAS, but ulama leadership is no longer dominant and the concept of Islamic state no longer exists in PAS. So, on what aspect should I hold on to?” he said.

Hasan said PAS leadership must improve themselves and make an “islah” or a reform as the current principles upheld by the party were simply wrong. “Although Putrajaya is very necessary, but to uphold the status of Islam, Malays and Malay rulers should be the final goal of our political struggle,” he said.

Hasan, who is also former Selangor PAS Commissioner, said the minds of ulama had been corrupted by the presence of 70 per cent of “parasites in its top leadership”.

“After ruling Selangor for three years and 10 months, the opposition should’ve reviewed its strength, weaknesses and chances. I can list out 20 of their weaknesses, but the opposition pact didn’t do that and didn’t dare to do that,” he said.

He also slammed Anwar for keeping on testing people’s reactions through demonstrations.

“Demonstrations can be good, but not all the time. The country will turn into anarchy if everybody comprehends things according to their own ways of thinking,” he said.

Hasan also claimed that there was an unwritten law in the opposition pact that every issue must be referred first and foremost to Anwar.

This would eventually lead to an autocratic leadership and PAS being totally manipulated and used by PKR and DAP, he said.

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

I really hope JATI and Hasan will be real 3rd Force types and not UMNO saboteurs and UMNO moles. But when Hasan said – “If the opposition pact wins the election with the existing component configuration, there will be no Islamic state, no hudud law and no Islamic elements in economic, social, agriculture and foreign policies. – I wonder if UMNO was intentionally trying to radicalise PAS to frighten local minorites as well as cast doubts on PAS’s reputation internationally. Hudud is scary even to UMNO Malays and quite many PAS Malay it would seem, how can that be good for PAS?

PAS could have Hudud districts with property swop arrangements for Muslims who cannot live in such a strict manner at most. The best Hudud format would be for individual Muslims to sign contracts that allow them to be punished by Hudud if affected. To enforce nationwide though is not going to help PAS get more votes. Hasan sabotaging PAS by goading PAS to do something even Malays cannot generally handle? In all cases, 3rd force is the more neutral choice and it is best that Hasan be without any racist or UMNO agenda (dictator-like tendency, corruption and racism the worst things about UMNO) though JATI has yet to confirm on the 3 items :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.


Friday, 10 February 2012 09:00
1Care rip-off: Can’t choose doctor or when to see him, no refunds and cheapest medicine Written by  Jackson Ng

I HAVE been snooping around talking to experts in the insurance industry on the possibilities of 1Care Malaysia’s proposed modus operandi.

Whether what I have learnt is the actual modus operandi to legally rob taxpayers is anybody’s guess now as the Barisan Nasional (BN) government has refused to release details of its plan and intentions.

Big BN cronies will control NHFA

Experts say the government is expected to initially set up a National Healthcare Financing Authority (NHFA) for approval submission. Something like the NFC or National Feedlot Centre.

Upon approval, it will be structured into a government-linked company (GLC), owned by BN cronies.

Little birds say the NHFA will be controlled by some big fellas with nominees. It is also believed that a relative of one of those eyeing the multi-billion-ringgit gravy train had planned and structured the 1Care proposal.

The scheme will likely be underwritten by more than one local insurance company.

These local insurance companies will partially reinsure (maybe up to as much as 70%) with an overseas reinsurance company, through another “agent” who could be based in Labuan.

Commission allowable from local insurance companies (to NHFA) can be anything from 10% to 25% of premium depending on negotiations.

Commission allowable from reinsurance company to the “agent” is normally 3% to 5% and payable outside Malaysia into the “agent’s” account.


Health Ministry deputy director for the National Health Financing unit Dr Rozita Halina Hussein, amidst what the government terms as speculations and twisted facts, told the media yesterday (Feb 9, 2012) that 1Care would have to be made mandatory.

That is what we already know (or what the government accused us of speculation). However, what they are not telling is the quantum and limited benefits while Malaysian taxpayers pay through the nose.

They are also not telling who will benefit from the billions of ringgit, year in and year out!

Based on available information, every household will be made to pay up to 9.4% of gross household income for social health insurance. The payers will be the individual, the employer and the government via taxes, exact proportion still being worked out.

There shall be no choice. Everyone has to pay. There is no opting out. We have to pay upfront. It will no longer be fee-for-service; it is fee-before-service.

There has been no information on exactly how this payment will have to be made or how the government will collect from self-employed people.

The government will be expected to contribute to the insurance premiums of government pensioners, civil servants and five dependents.

You can’t choose your doctor or when to see him and there is NO refund

But the problem is: 1Care does not cover all your medical expenses; only for a prescribed basic list of what “you can have” healthcare items. Anything more than basic you will have to pay your own.

Your long-serving independent family doctor will have to join the system or will not be allowed to see you under the 1Care scheme. The robust, cost- effective independent clinics serving the country will be replaced by 1Care clinics.

You cannot pick your own doctor. 1Care will allocate a doctor to you.

If you want to see a doctor of your choice, you’ll need to pay for that from your own pocket. Your allocated doctor will decide when and which specialist you can see if the need arises (a process called gate-keeping).

The NHFA will pay GPs RM60 (present proposal) for each patient as consultation fees. It does not include medicine.

Compare this with presently, for cough and cold visit, the GP would charge RM20 to RM30 for consultation and medicine. With 1Care: consultation for GP visit is RM60 and this does not include medicine.

You cannot see your doctor as and when you feel the need arises. There will be a rationing system in place as well. There will also be rationing for specialist care with the GP as the gate-keeper. Likewise if you wish to see the specialist of your choice or go to a hospital of your choice, unless referred by your allocated doctor, you will also have to pay out of your pocket.

Even if you only see the doctor once in a year, you will not get a refund from 1Care. Your medical costs are prepaid in advance irrespective of whether you become sick or not.

You are also expected to make an additional co-payment for your visit. This is to discourage you from seeing doctors too often.

Cheapest medicine

You will be prescribed only medicines from a standardised list of not-the-original medicines in keeping with WHO List of essential medications. This will save cost for 1Care and maximise profit for the insurance companies.

Insurance companies will have major say in the price and the range of this standardised medicine list. It will likely to be the cheapest medicine.

The doctor will only give you injections. You’ll need to get all other medicines from a pharmacist, even if it means hauling three sick children with high fever along a hot, dusty busy street looking for the nearest pharmacy.

If you do not like what is given to you, you can get alternative care by paying out of your own pocket.

For such a crappy deal, taxpayers would fork out about RM45 billion a year! So Malaysians, do you get the big picture now how the BN government loves to care for you!

Jackson Ng is a Retired Journalist

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

A 3rd Force mindset that challenges the Hegelian Dialectic of a 2 coalition system if any. If Jackon is well thought of in society and interested in abolishing taxes or abolishing apartheid, please run for candidacy as a 3rd Force independent.


Three kids and a flute — Art Harun

MARCH 1 — In exploring and demonstrating the idea that it is possible to have different reasons for justice, each of which would survive “critical scrutiny” but “yields divergent conclusions”, Amartya Sen in his “The Idea of Justice” brought us a delightful tale of three kids with a flute.

As the tale goes, there are three children, Anne, Bob and Carla. And there is one flute. All three kids make claim for the flute on different reasons and with distinct justification.

Anne makes claim to the flute based on the fact that she is the only one who can play the flute. This fact is admitted by the other two kids, who know next to bleeding nuts on how to even make a sound from the flute.

Bob, on the other hand, lays claim to the flute by being the most underprivileged of the three. Coming from a poor family he has no toys. Having the flute would very much make him happy and elevate his unhappy life. The other two children admit it as much that they are more privileged than Bob and that they have more toys than they need.

Carla, on the other hand, claims the flute due to the fact that the flute is the product of her hard labour. Yes. Carla actually was the one who made the flute. This fact is also admitted by the other two children.

Who should get the flute?

The socialist-economic egalitarian among us will make a plausible — and probably incontrovertible — argument that Bob the poor (as opposed to Bob the builder, I suppose) should get the flute. After all, Bob represents the sad face of the oppressed masses, the proletariat, so to speak. In the face of the bourgeoisie Anne and Carla, Bob should get the flute, argues the Marxist.

If the other facts are not available to us, we would even agree with the socialist-economic egalitarian.

The capitalist and probably the utilitarian among us would surely argue that Anne should get the flute. After all, only she alone can put the flute to really good use, namely, to make money out of it. She could perform in multiple concerts (full house, of course) and make money.

With that money, she could pay taxes. With that taxes, the state can help out Bob. Probably, the state can lend some money to Carla to build a flute-making enterprise and employ Bob. Bob’s financial position could then be elevated. The state could be richer and everyone could reap the benefit.

The capitalist would never ever waste this opportunity. That flute should never be wasted in the hands of Carla or Bob. Of course, if we do not know the other two arguments, we would agree with the capitalist.

The moralist-naturalist and probably also the libertarian among us would make a firm argument for the flute to be retained by Carla. A direct reference will of course be made to the fact that a person should be allowed to keep whatever he or she produces.

Without knowing the other two arguments, we would surely agree that Carla should keep the flute.

In Justice Is An Illusion, I have posited that all that we have is a notion of justice and not justice as a conceptual reality. Justice is presumed done when the law is applied to a set of facts and a determination of right or wrong is made together with an order by the adjudicator on how to redress the “injustice” or dispute.

That article brought a remark by a famous lawyer for me to re-read my Dias. For the uninitiated, Dias is an author of one of the most basic — and easily understandable — books on jurisprudence. Well, I do not know where I went wrong in that article and still, after re-reading Dias since then, I am none the wiser.

Allow me to explain my stand. A woman is raped and killed. And a man is found guilty of raping and killing her. He is sentenced to death by hanging. Justice is done?

The injustice here is the rape and murder. The application of the law makes the man guilty for rape and murder. And the order granting “redress” is that the man should be hanged to death. Following that, the resulting notion is that justice is done. But is it?

Let’s say the woman has two children. She is also survived by a husband who loves her. Her parents are also still alive. The woman lost her life. Her children lose the opportunity of enjoying her company, affection, love and guidance forever. Her parents and husband lose her company, affection and love forever. So do her friends. And her relatives. Her boss loses her as an employee. And so on and so forth.

Now, does the hanging to death of the man who raped and murdered her bring justice? Justice to who?

Okay, let’s look at another case. A man loses a hand in a car accident. The other man at fault is found liable and is ordered to pay the first man RM100,000 as compensation. The law is applied. Is justice done?

You tell me.

Back to the three kids and the flute. I don’t have an answer to the question on who should have the flute. And all of us could argue till all the cows are slaughtered and their head severed. No correct answer will ever come.

Yes. There would be arguments stronger than the others. And probably more acceptable than the others. But I doubt that there will be an answer acceptable to all and everyone of us.

Having said so, I can’t help but run wild with imagination on how corporate Malaysia would deal with this nice problem.

Firstly, there will be a declaration. 1 Flute. All three kids will be implored to live happily with each other and share the benefit of the 1 Flute. After all, there is only 1 Flute.

Then there will be a huge protest somewhere because the flute, apparently, is a western influence and owning it, let alone playing it, will be as bad as women not wearing their panties on Valentine’s Day. Some minister will then issue a statement that the 1 Flute is eroding our culture.

The Minister for Tourism will of course disagree. He or she will apply to the United Nations to declare that the 1 Flute is a world heritage coming from Malaysia. Indonesia will protest. They will assemble in front of a Balinese pub and start burning the Malaysian flag. Then someone will accidentally step on someone else’s feet. That will of course end in a bloodbath worthy of the next “Bravehearts” movie.

Brunei quietly obtains the heritage status.

Back in Malaysia Darul Boleh, suddenly there will be a huge outcry. Demonstrations are threatened. Cows are killed and their heads severed. A massive demonstration takes place in front of the Dewan Filharmonik Petronas where Anne was suppose to give a soulful rendition of M. Nasir’s first-ever concerto “Con — OPus 1” (in short) backed by the Pancaragam Polis Di Raja Malaysia, flute section.

Banners reading “Martabatkan Islam — lu sial pu%$mak” could be seen. Pictures of the 1 Flute are burnt and stomped on.

Eight-hundred-and-seventy-two Malay NGOs meet at the Bukit Jalil stadium, after the final Akademi Fantasia concert led by Mawi and some dolled-up Malay chicks, and declare their intent to protect Malay music. A further 456 NGOs meet at a Jom Heboh funfare to declare their support for the first 872 NGOs.

Meanwhile, the Companies Commission freezes new applications for the registration of NGOs. “There are too many NGOs and we are short of staff. All applicants are advised to form a sendirian berhad instead,” says a spokesperson who wishes to remain anonymous.

Opposition politicians call for a Malay counter-movement to fight for the right of all Malaysians to enjoy the 1 Flute.

On Facebook, a group called “Kami Golongan Benci Flute Dan Serunai” is started, gaining 155,000 members in three hours. Apparently, 149,999 of them are new Facebook members since the morning before the group was started.

Meanwhile, the group “All Malays and Malaysians Clueless Apathetic Liberals Who Don’t Mind The Flute As Long As We Are Not Killed Or Maimed” gains four members in the last seven days. A Malay left-right winged Umno member starts another group, “Kumpulan Melayu Yang Mahu DiMertabatkan Sebagai Melayu Yang DiMertabatkan.” It quickly gains 3,469 members in two days.

As a result of the planned concert at the Dewan Filharmonik Petronas, the chief of Petronas loses his job. A guy managing a shipping company replaces him.

Five people holding a candlelight vigil to mark the “death of music, flute or otherwise” are arrested and charged with sedition. On the way to court to meet their clients, 34 lawyers are also arrested, handcuffed and detained for a night.

The 30 people demonstrating in front of the Dewan Filharmonik Petronas, who are arrested and interrogated for two minutes at nearby Nasi Kandar Pelita, KLCC outlet, are released. Latest. The AG Chambers say they are not going to be charged due to “massive public pleasure” (sic).

Tengku Razaleigh meanwhile calls for the 1 Flute to be shared equally among Malaysia’s 13 states. The federal government disagrees, saying the Tengku is being disloyal to Umno for suggesting as such.

Karpal Singh files a suit in court. Uproar in Parliament.

Anne manages to get a contract to play the 1 Flute in the United States. Much hoo haa was made of it in the media. A Datukship was offered to Anne. Three officials are sent to the US to do the promo. But only one manages to appear at a press conference there. Unfortunately, the press conference quickly becomes an off-the-record event.

The concert never happens. The 1 Flute was stolen.

Bob goes back to his rubber estate in Bukit Selambau. He still does not have any toy.

Carla leaves for Singapore. There she starts a small industry manufacturing flutes from recycled material. She has won a Nobel prize.

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

Nice use of allegory and smooth reading at the start but :

(1) 3 Kids?

I’d say 4, did you forget Orang Asli? Maybe even 10, if you look at the classes of citizenship, mixed sub-groups and Lain-lain.

(2) And all of us could argue till all the cows are slaughtered and their head severed.

No cows here. All humans. I’m serious about not making voters into livestock. DON’T.

(3) That will of course end in a bloodbath worthy of the next “Bravehearts” movie.

Don’t give them ideas. It all started with Prima Noctis. Who’s getting the raw deal tho?

The rest of the article degenerates into a something that could be sung as a Malaysian version of : We Didn’t Start the Fire by Billy Joel.

Definitely worth more than a second look. And nice use of numbers throughout . . . do they mean you believe in :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.


Penang NGO Organises ‘Cover Aurat’ Campaign – Saturday, 11 February 2012 00:17

GEORGE TOWN — A group of ten non-governmental organisations in Penang, called “Pertubuhan Menangani Gejala Sosial Malaysia” (Malaysian Organisation to address social problems) or UNGGAS, is organising a campaign to encourage Muslim women to cover their ‘aurat” (parts of the body which Islam rules as not fit for public viewing).

Its secretary, Asti Toba, said the campaign would be held from today until Feb 14 to educate Muslims against celebrating Valentine’s Day.

During the campaign period, the NGO members will be at public places like Pantai Jerejak, Bayan Baru and the Pantai Bersih Rest Area at Bagan Ajam, Butterworth to encourage Muslims to cover their “aurat”, he added.

He said they would also distribute free scarves to Muslim women.


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

If their preference is not to, does that mean they are less Muslim? Maybe it’s the heat that makes them not want to cover aurat? If they have no choice to choose to go apostate, will the be a form of infringement on WOMEN’S RIGHTS? Somewhat controversial and a waste of manpower – more controversial if the groups are somehow getting paid while they do this . . .


Convene Emergency PAC Meeting Or Resign

Lim Kit Siang
Friday, 10 February 2012 13:58

My statement on January 24 calling on Azmi Khalid to resign as Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman if he is not prepared to convene an emergency PAC meeting to investigate into the RM330 million National Feedlot Centre/National Feedlot Corporation (NFC/NFCorp) “cattle condo” scandal so as to be able to report to Parliament next month has been vindcated by none other than the NFCorp chief executive officer Wan Shahinur Izmir Salleh.

Wan Shahinur Izran came out with a most shocking assertion yesterday when he said in a statement:

“The issue of NFC managing its loan monies amounting to RM250 million is the company’s responsibility to administer and utilise. NFC retains the prerogative to invest the funds in the best interests of the company.”

Can this shocking claim be true, that NFCorp has been given a completely blank cheque to do what it likes with the RM250 million loan from the Finance Ministry although completely unrelated to the “high impact” NFC economic project to promote beef self-sufficiency in the country?

If true, then the “political masters” responsible for this decision at the relevant time, whether Abdullah, who was the Prime Minister when the project and loan was approved, Najib Razak, the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on “High Impact Projects” or Muhyiddin Yasin the Minister for Agriculture and Agro-Based Industries should be hauled up before the PAC for the whole truth to be told.

If untrue, it is the responsibility of PAC to get to the bottom of the matter and report to Parliament when it reconvenes on March 12.

An emergency meeting of PAC is all the more imperative now as PAC member and MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua in his statement today said PAC at its meeting in November had been told by the Finance Ministry that there was no provision that permits the NFCorp to use its federal loan to purchase property.

As a senior Ministry of Finance official had been “very specific” informing the PAC that the NFC loan could not be used for purposes other than what had been specified, that the purpose of each drawdown must be clearly stated and that the ministry had never received an application from NFCorp to purchase property, PAC must be convened to have sight and verify of the RM250 million loan agreement and the relevant documentation so as to be able to submit an accurate and satisfactory report on the issue to Parliament by March 12.

Azmi should decide whether he is going to discharge his duty as PAC Chairman to conduct a proper investigation into the RM330 million “cattle condo” scandal so that a PAC report on the issue could be presented to all MPs to assist in the parliamentary debate on the matter, or whether he would step down as PAC Chairman to allow the PAC Deputy Chairman, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (MP for Kepong) to carry on the investigations affecting the Minister for Women, Family and Community Development, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and her family without any impediment.

There may be reasons why Wan Shahinur Ismir is to courageous in claiming that it is the “prerogative” of NFCorp to “invest the funds in the best interests of the company” to the extent that NFCorp posted this claim on my twitter last night – the first day NFCorp went on an “offensive” on the social media.

I had responded on my twitter to NFCorp last night with Five Questions on the RM330 million “cattle condo” scandal, viz:

1. Do you admit to public responsibility? Make public loan agreement to prove you can do what you like with NFC loan.

2. You deny Shahrizat family members paid princely sum of RM215k monthly. Specify actual salaries/perks drawn by each member monthly.

3. What is your response to each one of allegations re luxury condos, land, family holidays expenses and credit card payments. Why evade?

4. Do you agree you have plunged Najib govt to 2new credibility crisis? Would you fully support a Royal Commission of Inquiry into NFC?

5. Does “prerogative to invest in e best interests of the company” include the right to trample on public/national interests?

I believe all Malaysians, and not just myself, are waiting for answers from NFCorp to these five questions on the “cattle condo” scandal.

If the NFCorp continuse to evade these five questions, then let the PAC provide some answers when Parliament reconvenes on March 12.


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

Absolutely entrancing LKS’s smiling face =D, actually *BARF*, but on a more serious note . . . asking people to resign is absolutely stupid (who is going to listen to this stupid suggestion to sack someone without any authority?) and a waste of tax payer’s time in Parliament and taxpayer money.

File a constitutional lawsuit not provoke useless arguments – what are you a blogger without an MP’s post held for unlimited terms? Unless LKS has no intention of ending apartheid he should have been filing a lawsuit since the missed review as recommended by the Reid Commission was missed in 1975. Losing edge or losing mind? Or just double-talk without results. The general nature  of all questions cannot lead to any change in any law, why even mention at all? File a lawsuit based on Article 1 of the UNHCR and be done with it. DAP is a waste of time.

Too many terms, and closed party system, it’s a wonder anyone joins DAP at all.


The road to Malaysia is sometimes paved with grammatical errors — Farish A. Noor
February 07, 2012

FEB 7 — There are times when I can only assume that Malaysians have so much free time on their hands that they don’t know what to do with it. Today, as I was marking my students’ book reviews, I chanced upon an item on Facebook that caught my attention: A minor kerfuffle had erupted thanks to a naive and well-meaning, though poorly executed, attempt at political correctness and inclusivity. The JKMM Facebook page had announced a Happy Thaipusam, but to Buddhists instead of Hindus. Almost immediately scores of irate Malaysians wrote on the page, accusing the JKMM FB page administrators of being stupid and insensitive.

Now allow me to contribute my two cents’ worth here (I’m paid in Singaporean dollars now, so my two cents are worth five sen ok, don’t play-play … )

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that anyone at the offices of the JKMM would deliberately set out to insult Hindus on the page of the JKMM. That would be so insanely counter-productive as to beggar belief. True there might be racists anywhere and everywhere (even in academia) but they seldom use official channels to insult others, what more in such a case where anyone responsible can be tracked down and eventually identified.

I can only assume that this was an unfortunate and embarrassing instance of well-meaning individuals treading on deep water, and perhaps the poor fellow got out of his/her depth in this instance. Look, for heaven’s sake, it’s not as if the political temperature of the country was not hot enough at this point, can we not put things into context. The statement was, after all, wishing people Happy Thaipusam — though in this case, it was being wished upon the wrong confessional community. At worse, it was an embarrassing thing to do which could be easily rectified with a simple explanation and/or apology.

But this has made me ask myself another related question, about our sensitivities and where they may lie. Recall that in the late 1960s another well-meaning Malay-Muslim politician had himself photographed in a Mandarin costume and his wife in a cheongsam, that was then affixed on a Chinese New Year card and sent out to constituents. It was also a well-intentioned gesture, done presumably in the spirit of goodwill to fellow Malaysians. There was nothing that compelled the Malay politician to dress in Mandarin garb. Heck, there was nothing that compelled him to even wish his Chinese constituents a Happy Chinese New Year.

But as a result of this act, he was condemned by several quarters, including those who accused him of being a ‘race traitor’ etc etc. (You know the script by now)

It just shows that sometimes people blunder though they mean well. Over the past 10 years, I’ve grown rather tired and jaded with this country, and fed up with Malaysians who don’t want to look at the real geo-strategic and macro economic picture, to see that we are standing on the precipice of a serious economic and political crisis across all of Asia. Perhaps the reaction to the JKMM posting is symptomatic of how Malaysians are now on the edge, or have been pushed to the brink by the pyrotechnics we see in the political discourse of our country. But this is, after all, OUR nation — warts and all, and if some of us blunder, we need to rise above it and place things in context. At the very worse all that can be said about the JKMM posting was that it was misdirected. It was not racist. It was not inflammatory. It was not hate-laced with threats to anyone.

As I grow older and my eyesight fails me, my blunders grow in number, frequency and proportion too. (If you don’t believe me, go ask my long-suffering students).

If this was a case of an official making a mistake because of how he was taught (or not taught) about cultural and religious differences in school; then let us deal with something concrete like the teaching of multiculturalism and religious pluralism in our curriculum instead. But for heaven’s sake, my fellow Malaysians — (and I don’t believe I’m using phrases like this from teen-speak) — do chill out. We have enough demagogues and hate-mongers in our midst, let us deal with some real problems, one nuisance at a time.

* Dr Farish A. Noor is a Senior Fellow at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

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

Not a word on apartheid and littered with petty comebacks? Heres my impression of Farish the academic which might well be wrong but I am doubtful my reading will be too far off. Address the content of the material in an honest and proper light. I though Farish cared about equality and democracy more than grammar than being taken up by out of context issues. Now Farish indulges in, or is, – rubbish.

Farish shows the mentality of the PAP estabishment, authoritarian and refusing to engage, prideful and distant – all trademarks of a failed authoritarian academic, a dictator. I’m glad some of us have committed to never spending a cent of ed*f*ucation that funds salaries of people like Farish which allows their worthless presence to disgust the citizens while so manu Farishes pontificate ‘judgments’.

Oh and here are the NLPs which Farish would wish upon others right back at Farish – “As Farish grows older and Farish’s eyesight fails Farish, Farish’s blunders grow in number, frequency and proportion too. (If the people don’t believe Farish, go ask Farishs’ long-suffering teachers . . . )” Heres an NLP – See R***ish? I*nore.

Vicious and self serving older generation academics plaguing us all, if in Malaysia doubtless RACIST as well . . . some of us may not have the luxury of validation of expensive educations or the establishment, but we do know though what people like these represent and how to boycott the educational establishment. Not a cent or work hour for education. Education should be FREE.

Citizens, be presented with the response from the ‘elite uncaring face’ of Singaporean academics (nominally crypto-racist Malays in Singapore? Do some articles posted here towards equality inspire those NLPs?) and act/vote accordingly.

Armadebton: The Case For Hitting the Debt Reset Button – by Eric Blair – 2nd August 2011

In Uncategorized on January 29, 2012 at 4:13 pm
(Reset the debt clock to zero) Activist Post
Donald Trump tells a story about the Savings and Loan crash in the late 1980s. He was complaining to his young daughter at the time about how devastating the real estate plunge was for them. She didn’t understand why he was crying poor when they lived such a lavish lifestyle. The Donald pointed to a bum on the park bench and said, “You see that guy over there? He is billions of dollars wealthier than we are.” He was referring to the debt he owed to banks. On paper he was worse than broke, so he was actually poor compared to the penniless squatter in the park. But, in reality, he was still fabulously wealthy, as the debt was just an arbitrary number, and he still slept in a penthouse within a building he owned, not a park bench. And, of course, the banks had to work with Trump because he was too big to let fail. This story is relevant to the current debt “crisis” facing the United States. Although many believe the national debt to be real, it is also simply a number in a ledger. First, consider that about 12%, or $1.7 trillion, of the overall debt is owed directly to the Federal Reserve. Another $2.6 trillion is owed to Social Security.
Furthermore, other large private banks, including foreign banks, own a huge chunk of debt as well, most of it bought with the $16 trillion created from nothing and given to banks as bailouts. The amount owed to China pales in comparison. The scheme guarantees an income stream for the banks who got virtually free money backed by the U.S. taxpayer to invest in higher-interest bonds backed by the U.S. taxpayer. Next, the money never existed in the first place until it was created in the ledger. It was lent into existence in the moment of need. It started off as fiction and remains fiction. Since the banks never had the money it lent in the first place, they’re either collecting interest or seizing assets due to default from funny money. It’s not difficult to see how the banks will end up owning everything if this scheme keeps up for much longer. Finally, the American people don’t owe this money, just like the people of Iceland or Greece don’t owe their nations’ debts to a shadowy banking cartel. They did not sign a contract to borrow the money. They did not mismanage the funds, or borrow more money to paper over private banking losses. They did not demand wars with any of the victims of the government’s imperial conquest. They did not demand the PATRIOT Act and resulting behemoth surveillance-industrial complex. The taxpayer is not responsible for this debt as Stefan Molyneux explains. Yet, the politicians tell the same story Trump told: we’re worse than broke. It’s a crisis, economic Armadebton. America’s credit rating is at stake. Soldiers and seniors won’t get paid if we don’t extract more taxes and cut benefits. All while they go to bed in the penthouse. The real wealth of America has nothing to do with a phony number on the ledger. Some great wealth lies in the infrastructure — water systems, roads, electric grids, universities, buildings, farms etc. Some wealth lies in our capacity to make war.
But America’s greatest riches are its innovative people; each brought up to believe they can accomplish anything they put their mind to. This is precisely the reason Trump was not actually broke no matter what he owed to banks — because he had the ability to be creative, and the capacity to accomplish big things. If America defaulted and all debt was reset to zero, it would still be the wealthiest nation on Earth for the reasons above. The bankers argue that if the U.S. defaulted or lost its credit rating, no one would lend it money. That’s laughable. The entire world depends on the ebb and flow of American business, and it always will. Starting over at zero would likely cause a surge of new capital. Therefore, I propose to the banks a complete write-off of the national debt in exchange for your survival. In other words, the American people will probably forgive your crimes and the bailouts, if the banks forgive the debt — even-steven. Should the banks not accept this deal, they and their political cohorts will eventually meet their demise and lose everything. And unlike the American people, they have not been able to prove that they can create anything of true worth. ***Commentator’s Comments Anonymous said… I believe that the only way we can defeat the NWO in this country is for all of us to agree to not pay income taxes. Next is for every state to secede from the union. They can sit in Washington trying to figure out who they will steal from next. They don’t have enough FEMA camps to house 350 million citizens but there would be plenty of room for those crooks to live out their lives quite comfortably.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
This suggestion of default however could leave ALL Americans to the mercy to whatever NWO type social (think AUF and Breivik) and political forces WITHIN America (some say Trump is NWO, this dictatorship would serve him and his people if he was NWO – he backed out of Presidential runs but would suggest this???), the possibility for dictatorship by even law enforcement alone (much less military – Pres. Obama, how aboput forming a Junta as Supreme Commander with 3 to 5 star generals as various Satraps???) would be tremendous if regular citizens were villified. It is suggested that :
1) AFTER dismantling of the Federal Reserve, and
2) replacing ALL Congressmen / Governors and Senatorsof extreme wealth
3) replacing collusive or bad policy writing Bureaucrats and Quanngocrats (NGOs)
4) changing economic policies that do not work at all (i.e. the prison contractor system has to go)
5) also removing the ‘term limitless’ among political ‘seat holders’ (nothing is worse than a complacent Congressman, Senator or Governor, even Councilman or Mayor – ESPECIALLY if they are filthy rich)
6) and the wealth of the little more than 10,000 plutocrats sequestering 90% of near 300 million strong American population’s wealth redistributed
;a barter based deal on absolute value of debt as of 2011 be implemented, i.e. no more interest added (read up on Usury and Islamic finance, maybe a Sheikh or few could be consulted on infterest free loans), BUT that USA will return at non-interest added, all that it earns in the form of goods and perhaps manpower services at least.
Why return anything at all? So that ABSOLUTE Dictatorship from being ‘economically isolated’ for default, will not give free reign by the TSA/Fed Reserve/NWO/Greek Letter Club types free reign to abuse (if they haven’t been removed from policy making positions in government), and manipulate the average American citizen who are already quite severely NLP affected and even who knows, neuro-tech controlled.
Interest and usury, also fiat and quantitative easing  is b.s., but America should return it’s debts in good faith, as a responsible nation. Default all you want, America, but no more lending will be made to you and you should return what you owe. Meanwhile down with the plutocrats and politicians living the high life off writing bad policy while 300 million Americans languish !
Time for a second French Revolution, the ‘Nero’ types have returned and all they ever do is channel their funds and businesses overseas to tax havens or 3rd world economies where labour is still cheap. They have grown fat off the nation when times were good, and when times are bad this is the way they thank their homeland which was in fact stolen from the Native Americ-Red Indians?
Like locusts they are and they will likely betray all those 3rd world nations they invest in AGAIN, via their NATO/IMF/UN conglomerate nation level corporate raiders. A multipolar world order is needed. The autonomy of BRICS and the Caliphate, African Union, South America will ensure that 300 million Americans will not end up as in the film “Idiocracy” while all the technology and wealth goes elsewhere (I’d hazard even be taken to the Moon or Mars – no joke that GTA3 reference to off world issues . . . they will sabotage EVERYONE, so make sure their Rocket does not take off . . . the French Revolution type Guillotine whatever form it takes as deserving still awaits them . . . )

General Reminders On Voting – AgreeToDisagree – July 2011

In Uncategorized on January 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm
5th columnism and potential proxy propaganda-ism is as detestable and treacherous, unethical and untrustworthy. If Utusan is not another false flag newspaper to continue enriching the term-limitless oligarchs and nepotists on BOTH BN or PR sides, the Sultans should nab Malaysia Chronicle for fomenting the destruction of Malaysia via foreign elements on behalf of DAP being proxy of PAP, PAP being proxy of USA, USA being proxy of the anti-goyim elememts of Zion.
This is a Nusantaran cultural region, if Utusan is a proxy somehow to ‘draw ire’ so that Malaysia can be toppled by ‘Zionists’ (Jews and Israelis who can respect religious diversity are not Zionists btw), then it deserves no support or quarter from the Fede4ral government either. If the Federal government is in fact doing the same, the Rakyat shhould give no vote to the ruling coalition at all. It is that simple, unless the Rakyat wants to become a PIIGS nation and like in homless shelters and subsist on food stamps with the bankster-Fed-Reserve owning Malaysia.
The problem is DEAR RAKYAT (I am not addressing Malaysia Chronicle-DAP-PAP-USA-Zion or the QE2/Pope/Mson/Inns-of-Law worshipping segments of UMNO-BN) and simple citizens who want autonomy for Malaysia, if BN itself and Pakatan are both foreign run outfits, it will be better to run for independent candidacy and attempt to warn any last ethical citizens here to drop both coalitions PR and BN in favour of local and non-Internationally affiliated, non-plutocrats who are non-nepotistic as well. Make sure you know who you vote for. A REAL Malaysian who knows what Malaysia is or should be, or the globalist hegemonist banksters mentioned in so many ‘advanced’ websites as discussed who are not neutral citizens but slaves of so many who intend to foster neo-feudalism in absolutist governance paradigms which I have been addressing in my links.
Again to help you think on how to vote : A RELATED REPOSTING WARNING ABOUT NEPOTISM : Please note the Oligarchs in Pakatan as listed below : NEPOTISM IN PAKATAN RAKYAT Three of the family blocs below 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 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, PKR’s Gobalakrishnan, to be kicked out possibly an act of racism but more likely at the order of the Lim Dynasty clique. BN of course we do not need to discuss, blocs of relatives galore.
Nepotism: Umno controlled by 3 families. – by Patric McClean
MCA, MIC, Gerakan also littered with nepotism – political parties are not family clan associations (family clan associations being unpopular enough already due to the same politicking as well whu=ich drives same named families away from the same structures . . . ).
For even stronger consideration, I also list seats that HRP demands :
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. PSM’s Jeyakumar appears to have been bought by BN though, so their viability is uncertain until PSM’s clique leadership changes. I have done some probing and casual calls to PSM, they are not very grassroots and quite a clique based outfit very suspicious of outsiders.
DAP of course (also tried earlier) is far worse and absolutely TREACHEROUS and clique based and beholden to SINGAPORE’s PAP. I would not be surprised if the nepotists in DAP are rounded up a 2nd time, for collusions with Singapore to subvert Malaysian Federal authority instead amongst other things like ‘neurotech abuse’.
Everyone else, should meanwhile stand as independents in any constituency with bad assemblymen or MPs or people who do not endorse term limits and asset declarations. Here’s something that will help voters decide if candidacy is not their thing or too expensive :
Barisan – Apartheid, Corrupt and Nepotistic-Oligarchs
Pakatan – Corrupt and Nepotistic-Oligarchs (excepting PAS)
3rd Force – Corrupt Only
Independents – any citizen can be an independent, think you are not a plutocrat (worth less than 20 million), will respect term limits and not write 750K/120K funeral laws in favour of yourself? Not racist? Then run for election! The world needs you!
BN = 90% Apartheid, 90% Nepotism, 90% Corrupt
PR = 50% Nepotism, 50% Corrupt
3rd Force = 0% Nepotism, 0% Corruption
Yourself running for candidacy means the flaws or benefits and freedoms you bring.
Pick the coalition with the least flaws. End the APARTHEID ! Destroy the Oligarchs in all political coalitions ! 3rd Force is best. Beware voters, as mentioned many times before, it could be critical that Selangor and Penang MUST be controlled by neutral parties neither BN nor PR dominated, and East Malaysia controlled by local East Malaysian political parties ONLY (not Peninsular Coalitions like BN or PR), with the remainded left for Pakatan Rakyat, OTHERWISE Pakatan Rakyat with its burgeoning nepotists and oligarchs will become a second BN.
Here’s something that will help voters decide if candidacy is not their thing or too expensive : Pick the coalition with the least flaws. End the APARTHEID ! Destroy the Oligarchs in all political coalitions ! 3rd Force is best. End APARTHEID, nepotism and corrupted plutocracy or keep killing the nation. No self serving and racist political coalitions filled with lapdogs who do not know what citizen equality is.
Why 0% Nepotism? Unless entire families run en bloc, most likely will be without relatives. Why 0% corruption? Because not been in government before, so never had a chance to write 750K funerals for self, or buy a Scorpene sub. Choose the best.
If both coalitions’ candidates BN and PR are nepotistic or corrupt or racist, term limitless, then run for candidacy yourself. I’m sure the constituents will donate a ringgit or 2 so that APARTHEID will end,so that they get an MP that will not be a threat to them. Pakatan should ideally not win EVERYTHING with BN holding 1/3 of Peninsular Malaysia seats and East Malaysia being entirely East Malaysian party controlled without any Pakatan presence.
SUPP of East Malaysia may have difficulty so long as it associates with BN. If it LEFT BN, it might have fought better against DAP. As long as it remains in BN, SUPP is a mere lapdog. SUPP is just kidding itself if it thinks the minorities will accept being 2nd class citizens. Even with young candidates, there is no difference. A young lapdog is still a lapdog. SUPP leave BN and run on the below 3 items or disappear by GE13 :
1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.
I’d like to see SUPP sweep Sarawak and even Sabah rather than let DAP take over East Malaysia. But with the shadow of UMNO domination and 2nd class citizenship and tacit approval Bumiputra APARTHEID hanging above their heads by being a BN member, SUPP has no chance at all of gaining the minority vote. Leave BN SUPP, if you stay in BN SUPP will be finished and we citizens will have to find a non-BN altemative to dealing with DAP then. PKR/DAP(potential but quietly Christian fundos) as you know are inclined to write 750K/120K funerals for themselves and are VERY nepotistic, do not want to respect MP or Assemblyman term limits (meaning members in Pakatan will NEVER have the chance to be MPs or Assemblymen, no independent thought in Pakatan Rakyat, no better than Barisan) and aligned with foreign powers in the order of PAP-USA-Zion-Illuminati (which has the intention of wiping out Islam).
Pakatan Rakyat must not dominate either Peninsular Malaysia or East Malaysia, East Malaysia must be dominated by local East Malaysian parties that are not beholden to UMNO-BN and Bumi-APARTHEID. You’re an old man George Chan, think like one. Denounce APARTHEID and become as popular as DAP by doing the same thing. Challenging UMNO. No hard feelings UMNO, but if you guys endorse the above 3 items, you (at least the non-plutocrats or less obviously racist or those able to show repentence from racism) could still survive GE13 (with corruption issues certan to be unearthed even as dr.Evil is being outed by the likes of Ling Liong Sik, it’s not about that failed and highly unfair apartheid Bumi concept anymore, it’s about the 2/3rds of the world’s population and their aggrieved cousins living here in Malaysia seeking merely equality.
Pledge Form / Questionairre to identify who is votable :

One candidate, one seat — Kua Kia Soong – January 19, 2012

In 3rd Force, Apartheid, Bumiputera Apartheid, Equality, Ethics, Malaysia, Nepotism, Uncategorized on January 24, 2012 at 9:28 am

JAN 19 — Karpal Singh, Chairman of the DAP must be commended for his recent call to Pakatan Rakyat to practice a “one candidate, one seat” policy. At last, one leader in Pakatan Rakyat has finally spoken up against this undemocratic practice of the party elite monopolising federal and state seats … a lion amongst the lambs?

When I criticised this practice a few years ago (Mkini, 18.4.2008), the “seat grabbers” tried to justify the practice by saying they COULD handle both federal and state constituencies: “All you need to do is employ more secretaries to look after the seats for you what,” was their pathetic reply. They failed to see the contradiction and fallacy in this undemocratic practice while criticising the Barisan Nasional for not carrying out democratic reform.

Democratic reforms begin at home

A Pakatan Rakyat that champions democratic reforms should practice this basic democratic principle within their parties before talking about reforming the country. “Seat grabbing” of both federal and state constituencies in the general elections suggests that the politicians involved are brilliant multi-taskers and that there are too few appropriate candidates within their parties to do otherwise.

Democracy is about people’s participation and that means creating opportunities for MORE, not fewer people to engage in the democratic process of government. Are these politicians actively seeking and nurturing such potential candidates within their party?

Whatever their claimed intention, “seat grabbing” looks like an attempt by the power holders in the party to have as many positions and privileges as they can grab, a case of careerism and opportunism gone mad! It’s damn petty bourgeois if you ask me…

The Barisan Nasional, you may have noticed, does not practice such “seat grabbing” not because they are democrats but because they have too many parties between which, to divide the spoils. Furthermore, compared to the largely petty bourgeoisie in Pakatan Rakyat, they are the bourgeoisie who have the “discreet charm” to forego such cheap thrills of monopolising federal and state seats and go for the bigger economic stakes.

A retrogressive step

It has been mentioned that, now Pakatan Rakyat has so many candidates, they should think about implementing the “one candidate, one seat” policy. In fact, when I was in the Selangor DAP state committee in 1990-95, we already implemented this policy in the early 1990s, much to the chagrin of the power elite at the centre of the DAP. At the time, they had insisted that a part-time member of parliament who kept two medical practices was indispensable in the state as well. Even then, the rank-and-file in the DAP were opposed to power holders in the party monopolising both federal and state seats.

But now, this “one candidate, one seat” policy of the Selangor DAP state committee seems to have been rolled back in recent years obviously through the persuasive arguments by the power elite in the party that these politicians are indispensable at both federal and state levels. This example shows how political reforms can be rolled back with time…

There are other reforms that have not been implemented within PR including limiting the terms of office of the party leader, a democratic reform that has been achieved by even the retrogressive MCA. Has the never-ending feudal “dear leader” syndrome any place in a democracy?

Even at the expense of feminism?

Turning to PKR, the same practice has been carried out at the expense of very basic feminist principles. I am of course referring to the abdication of the Permatang Pauh seat by the president of the party, Wan Azizah for her husband, Anwar Ibrahim’s return to the federal parliament.

I was not opposed to the idea of forcing a by-election for Anwar to return to parliament but it should have been the MB of Selangor or some other ineffectual MP who should have given way for Anwar and not Wan Azizah. Hasn’t the mentri besar or the chief minister of state enough duties on their plate to also want to claim a federal seat?

In this case, we are talking about not just an ordinary woman leader but the president of the party and a possible Prime Minister of the country in the event of Anwar being imprisoned for sodomy 2.0.

But how was it that the feminists and the principled politicians in PR did not utter any dissension? It has become a standard feminist demand that there should be a gender quota of women representation in political parties, government office and other institutions. In this case, we have a woman president of the party who had already won her seat in parliament having to make way for a man!

It’s democracy, stupid!

Why do you think this grabby practice of wanting seats in both federal and state parliaments is not practiced in other democratic countries? Do you think it is because they cannot afford to employ political secretaries to look after their constituencies?

It’s democracy, stupid! To do so would risk being laughed at by the media and the public for being such petty bourgeois careerists! Democracy is a process that emphasises broad and greater participation of the people and the nurturing of new leaders in the political system. It is about the inclusion of women and young leaders in the exercise of power and decision-making throughout society.

This principle of inclusivity is crucial. It is not about placing a few token or high-profile women who are more interested in air-brushing their public image either! The role of women leaders is to push for deeper and more extensive models of democracy and participation for other women.

Thus, selection procedures within parties must be inclusive, transparent and democratic. Various structures such as the women and youth wings should be empowered to enable them to effectively participate in this selection process. As my example of the Selangor DAP state committee is instructive, intra-party democracy and inclusivity needs to be sustained. This requires the party to have in place structures and system that will ensure that all groups are catered for at all times and reforms cannot be simply undone.

If Pakatan Rakyat fails to carry out such intra-party reform, democracy will continue to be cynically interpreted — as my former comrades in the DAP used to joke about it — “Dia mahu kerusi”.

* The writer is a director of Suaram and former Petaling Jaya Utara MP

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

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

An intelligent article that is too pro-feminist for it’s own good. You’d think feminism was more important that mention of TERM LIMITS and NEPOTISM. Mention these Pakatan problems sometime too KKS, Pakatan is rife with it’s own form of undemocratic illness – with careerist behaviour particularly pronounced and well described here in Pakatan Rakyat.

Could MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP please leave BN to form a 3rd Force along with KITA, MCLM, PCM, Borneo Front, Konsensus Bebas, HRP, PSM that is not aligned to Pakatan? BN is too racist as of now. Pakatan is too ambiguous but more cosmopilitan, though likely corrupt and opaque when they entrench, even as term limitless politicians and nepotists throng the Pakatan coalition. The only safe option which the Rakyat can control to any measure, that could understand that limitless terms and nepotism is wrong, is 3rd Force.

Learn from Philippines: Areas under political dynasties the poorest – by Malaysia Chronicle – 27 September 2011

In Uncategorized on January 18, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Learn from Philippines: Areas under political dynasties the poorest PHILIPPINES – While saying it hasn’t yet established a connection between political dynasties and poverty, a policy think tank released initial results of a study showing that areas under the rule of dynasties are among the poorest in the Philippines.

The study, being prepared by the Asian Institute of Management Policy Center (AIMPC), said seven out of every 15 legislators are members of families that are considered political dynasties. Legislators belonging to political dynasties tend to represent areas with lower per capita incomes, and higher and more intense poverty levels, the study said. Roland Mendoza, AIMPC executive director, said the study isn’t yet linking political dynasties with poverty which, he said, needed further study and analysis.

Mendoza presented the study’s initial results last Friday at a policy forum, “Pathways to High and Inclusive Growth,” at the AIM Conference Center in Makati City. The AIMPC study said dynasties continued to dominate Congress. Current members of Congress, it said, tend to belong to richer families but have poorer constituents compared with legislators that are not members of dynasties. The forum was organized by the Kondrad Adenauer Stiftung Foundation, Unicef and Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. At least 200 representatives from the academe, international organizations, business sector, civil society, humanitarian organizations, diplomatic corps and media were in attendance.

Dynasty categories The initial AIMPC study results listed four categories of legislators belonging to dynasties: Dynasty 1. These are members of the 15th Congress with kinship ties to legislators in the 12th, 13th and 14th Congresses. Dynasty 2. Members of the 15th Congress with kinship ties to legislators in the 12th, 13th and 14th Congress or with local officials elected in 2001, 2004 and 2007. Dynasty 3. Members of the 15th Congress with kinship ties to legislators in the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th Congress or local officials elected in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010.

Dynasty 4. Members of the 15th Congress with kinship ties to legislators in the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th Congresses and local officials elected in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010. According to AIMPC, 115 legislators (68 per cent of Congress) belong to the Dynasty 3 category or those with relatives who were legislators since the 12th Congress until the 15th Congress or local officials elected in 2001 or currently occupying elective posts.

At least 144 legislators are related to legislators or local officials who were elected in the 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections, AIMPC said. Mendoza said while political dynasties also exist in other democracies, like the United States, there is an increasing number of dynasties winning Congress seats in the Philippines.Wealthier legislators AIMPC said based on statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) that members of Congress are required to submit, legislators belonging to political dynasties tend to be wealthier, with an average net worth of P52 million (S$1.5 million), than those not belonging to dynasties with an average net worth of P42 million. The wealthier legislators tend to represent poorer areas, according to Mendoza. AIMPC also said members of political dynasties also dominate major political parties. It said 76 per cent of members of the former ruling party Lakas-Kampi are members of dynasties. At least 57 per cent of members of the now ruling Liberal Party belong to dynasties.

So do 74 per cent of members of the Nationalist People’s Coalition and 81 per cent of the Nacionalista Party. Young legislators, AIMPC said, are often perceived to represent reforms and innovation, but political dynasties are dominant among all age groups of legislators, including the youngest. AIMPC said 77 per cent of legislators in the 26-40 age group are members of dynasties. At least 64 per cent of those in the 41-55 age bracket are members of dynasties. Mendoza told the Inquirer there was a need for “sober evidence-based discussion” on how to institute reforms in the political and electoral system before the next elections in 2013. He noted how reform-minded political leaders, like former Pampanga Governor Fr. Eddie Panlilio and former Isabela Governor Grace Padaca, initially won but were later defeated in dynasty-dominated elections. – Asia One

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

In a wealthier economy, the surfeit is not so obvious, but turns up in fractionated societies typfied by extreme wealth individuals and crony contracts and procurements. Where family members or proxies become extremely wealthy and monopolise entire sectors of industry to eventually collude to destroy OTHER countries like Thaksin (Thailand) and Lee (Singapore) in Telecoms.

In a wealthy society, this shows up in power madness, lack of democracy in the political party, dominance by family based cliques in nepotism, lack of ethics and ultimately a false sense of entitlement based on political seats which TERM LIMITLESS attitudes or refusal to declare assets typifies. Political dynasties lead to all of the above.