Posted in Malaysia Today 

“The Opposition could not even agree on something as basic as a logo. Pas has the moon, PKR the eye, and DAP a rocket which is still on the ground. Whereas we have already sent a Malaysian astronaut into space,” the Deputy Prime Minister said, gesturing to Sheikh Muszaphar. “If their logos are not the same, and they can’t agree on their direction, they shouldn’t talk about policies for the country.”

Speaking to the Siamese community here today, Najib piled on the discrepancies between the three major opposition parties.

“Pas wants a theocratic Islamic state, DAP wants a secular state, while PKR changes according to the situation. So how can they share power?,” he said. “They even have different manifestos. Whereas the BN has one manifesto that includes the Siamese community. The Opposition can only make pacts to oppose the BN during elections, but they cannot copy us. They don’t have the same direction and cannot agree on policy and ideology.”

Earlier, Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid said the state government increased its allocation for the Siamese community by an additional RM100,000 to RM400,000. Najib said he would direct Mara to extend its training programmes and scholarship to the Siamese as well. - NST

 Posted in Malaysia-Today

KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 28, 2008): The DAP has challenged Barisan Nasional (BN)’s Bukit Bintang candidate Datuk Dr Lee Chong Meng to explain why he was dropped as a candidate at the eleventh hour and replaced by a female candidate (Tan Chew Mooi) in the 2004 general election.

Speaking in a DAP ceramah on Jalan Tiong Nam on Monday night, incumbent Cheras MP and DAP organising secretary Tan Kok Wai said: “Lee is obliged to explain to the electorate why he was dropped. MPs must have an impeccable background, political ethics and integrity.

“If he (Lee) is unable to explain to the voters, then MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting should do it for him.”

Lee is locked in a straight fight with incumbent Bukit Bintang MP and DAP treasurer Fong Kui Lun.

Tan described the increase in postal votes from over 4,000 to 5,000 votes in Bukit Bintang as a “BN political conspiracy”.

“It is impossible for so many police officers and soldiers to be in Bukit Bintang,” he said.

Fong said he had written to the Sungai Besi Air Force as well as the Election Commission on the matter but “no one bothered to respond”.

“Bukit Bintang has no army camps, even the Brickfields police hostel is under the Lembah Pantai constituency. “I am wondering where in Bukit Bintang are these thousands of policemen and soldiers staying?”

“In the last election, the turnout for Bukit Bintang was just 60% and I won by only 304 votes because not all voters came out to vote. I appeal to all registered voters to come out in full force to help me fight the thousands of phantom voters and smash this BN conspiracy of postal voters.

“Your political rights are at stake. Come out and exercise your rights instead of leaving matters to phantoms,” said Fong.

DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang said the BN was now under the dominance of Umno, ursurping the rights of all others without any resistence. “This dominance must be broke and it can only be done by denying the BN its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Lee, in his ceramah, called on the voters to give him a last chance to serve as their MP because the elections this time might be his last battle in his political career.

“I have spent my youth in Bukit Bintang for 15 years and I am not young anymore, so give me a chance. I am not paid by the government nor the MCA for continuing with my service to the people. I have to spend RM15,000 a month to keep my service centre running,” he added.

Lee said the MP for Bukit Bintang must be far-sighted and strive effectively to make the heart of the federal capital as successful as cities like Shanghai, Singapore and Hongkong.

“If Bukit Bintang can achieve that status, I am sure all foreign companies will come here and open their branches because of our lower-cost of living but high standard of living.

“This will also check the brain drain, our children need not leave the country for a better job,” he said.

“You have given DAP 11 terms and two terms to Fong, so what is his achievement?” - theSun

Analysts foresee a close fight between the two, and whoever that wins will be by a slim majority. - Channel NewsAsia

Donald was heckled when he presented statistics and compared Malaysia with Myanmar. “Why Myanmar. Why not Singapore?” an audience member retorted.

He got the audience jeering and laughing again when he said: “There are many foreigners who have chosen Malaysia as their second home … I firmly believe that Malaysia is a good country to live in, that is why I am here.”

The candidates were also tested on issues on the brain drain, migration, inflation, unwanted development in Bukit Gasing and over-development in Petaling Jaya.

Asked why none of BN’s component parties have endorsed the People’s Declaration (a report detailing with the demands of the public) although all opposition parties have pledged to support it, Thuang Seng said he would try his best to tackle the problems without making “empty promises” which he claimed was what opposition parties are “good at”.

“I will try,” he said but the audience demanded commitment.

Thuang Seng’s retorted: “If you are with the alternative (parties), do you think you can do it?” The crowd collectively shouted “Yes!”

DAP’s Lee said an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) needed to be implemented to check the rising crime rate: “This will help to weed out bad cops.”

He said that a pay hike was also due for the police force, arguing that their low wage was the reason for corruption. “A pay hike will also attract more young and qualified people to join the police force.”

Despite the hullabaloo throughout the night, Hee stuck to reading out his prepared speech throughout the 15 minutes allocated to each candidate. He did not volunteer his opinion on any of the issues raised. - theSun

Posted in Malaysia-Today by Raja Petra

Some of you reading this article probably know my Auntie, Raja Fuziah. And those of you who know her probably do so because when you went to university she was the one who gave you your MARA scholarship. Could not my father’s own sister who had given out scholarships to tens of thousands of total strangers not also give her own nephew a scholarship?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaya gained independence or Merdeka from Britain in 1957. But the British Colonial masters would not willingly grant Malaya independence. It took a decade of haggling before the Union Jack could be lowered and the new Malayan flag that almost looks like the flag of the United States of America could be raised in its place.

One of the issues that delayed the granting of Merdeka was the matter of what to do with the Indians and Chinese once Malaya becomes independent. India had already gained independence from Britain earlier and China had turned Communist. No doubt the British had brought the Indians and Chinese to this country from the mid-1800s to about 1920 to work the tin mines and rubber estates, but there was no way they could be sent back to their ‘homeland’, in particular the children of the original immigrants who had been born in Malaya.

The British refused to consider Merdeka for Malaya until and unless the Malays, Indians and Chinese sat down and worked out a solution. Merdeka would be granted only when the three races come to an agreement on what to do with the ‘immigrants’ who after about 100 years were not only third or fourth generation ‘Malayans’ but had in fact become more Malays than the Malays — at least some of them like the Mamaks and Babas who no longer spoke their mother-tongue but spoke better Malay than some Malays.

The British knew that a hurried Merdeka without resolving the citizenship issue would just result in a blood-bath when one race, in this case the Malays, would claim sole-ownership of the country and the ‘pendatang‘ get evicted from their land and homes. The religious diversity would also pose a problem as the aftermath of the independence of India had proven when brother fought against brother just because of religious differences. What more when it involves a diverse set of races who were also of different religions.

Finally, wisdom and common sense prevailed and the founding fathers of the nation called Malaya came to an agreement, or maybe a compromise, on what would happen on Merdeka Day. The Indians and Chinese would be granted citizenship, unless they chose to return to their homeland, but the Malays, for ’sacrificing’ their 90% or so majority, would be accorded certain rights and special privileges, to be reviewed after 15 years, meaning some time in 1972.

But something happened before 1972, and that was the race riots of May 1969, and to address the discontentment of the Malays who felt they had been left out of the economic race, the New Economic Policy was agreed upon by the leaders of the three component members of the Alliance Party — Umno, MCA and MIC. Invariably, the rights and special privileges of the Malays were not reviewed in 1972 as originally intended. Instead, the NEP became the new policy which in a way ’strengthened’ the rights and special privileges of the Malays even more. But this was supposed to end in 1990 — which meant that the 15-year review would be reviewed after 33 years instead.

But the NEP was more than just about Malay rights and special privileges. It was a two-prong attack (serampang dua mata) aimed at reducing the disparity amongst ALL the races as well as to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots. In other words, the NEP was about helping all the poor and unfortunate, regardless of race. And that was when the term ‘Bumiputera’ came into being. But Murphy’s Law says that anything that can go wrong will go wrong and the Bumiputera issue was exploited to become an Umnoputra policy. And Umnoputra did not just mean Malays but anyone who serves Umno — Indians, Chinese, Kadazans, Dayaks, etc., included. In fact, as far as the corporate world was concerned, the non-Malays benefited more than the Malays who were reduced to mere ‘rent-seekers’ and commission agents who earned a small fee for fronting for the non-Malays and for selling their permits and quotas, in particular to the Chinese.

The Umnoputras, of course, did not totally lose out in this ‘Ali Baba’ arrangement as they still had some meat on the bones that were thrown their way. But the Indians, except for a very small handful, did not even get any bones, with or without meat attached to them. But it was the fault of the Indian leaders actually. Why did they not demand their share? Why did they not demand that at least one or two FELDA settlements be allotted to them like what the Malays got? After all, the Indians were the original estate workers so they would know how to grow palm oil, rubber, cocoa, etc. Instead, while the Malays became estate workers with the help of the government, the original Indian estate workers got displaced as estates got turned into townships and golf courses and in the process the Indians not only lost their homes but their livelihood as well.

It is not that the government did not set up funds and place money in these funds to help the ‘retired’ Indian estate workers. It is more that those ‘elite’ Indians entrusted with the task or managing these funds embezzled and misused the money. In short, the Indians had cheated their own kind, as did the Malays and, to a certain extent, the Chinese as well.

No doubt, for being relegated to second- and third-class citizens, the Indians and Chinese are carrying grudges against the Malays. But is it really the Malays who are to blame? Okay, maybe Umno can and should be blamed. But Umno is Umno. Umno is not 16 million Malays. It is not even 6 million Malays. MIC and MCA too have misbehaved. Should we hang 10 million Malaysian Indians and Chinese from the tallest tree just because of what MIC and MCA have done? The Indians and Chinese would get upset if we blame them for the sins of MIC and MCA. What makes the Indians and Chinese think the Malays too would not get upset if they are blamed for the sins of Umno?

If you want to find someone to blame for your troubles, don’t look in my direction. Sure, I am Malay, but I am not Umno. I never voted for Umno. I never even obtained a government scholarship to send all my kids to England. In fact, my father, who was then the son of the Governor of Penang and cousin to the late Agong, did not have money to send me to England and he refused to get a government scholarship to pay for my education. I mention this fact that he was the son of the Governor of Penang and cousin to the late Agong to demonstrate how easy it would have been for me to get a scholarship since our family was so well-connected.

Some of you reading this article probably know my Auntie, Raja Fuziah. And those of you who know her probably do so because when you went to university she was the one who gave you your MARA scholarship. Could not my father’s own sister who had given out scholarships to tens of thousands of total strangers not also give her own nephew a scholarship? No, my father would not allow it. That is dishonest. That is corruption. It would have been better if my father had not been Raja Kamarudin Bin Raja Tun Uda. Then I could have got a scholarship. Instead, my father sent me to Volkswagen to do an apprenticeship on a starting salary of RM105 a month.

At first Pak Arshad would not take me because I was ‘over-qualified’ and the pay was too little. But my father insisted and Pak Arshad relented. Sure, that was in 1970. But even in 1970 RM105 was pittance. And I slogged it out for three years learning the trade under a Hakka mechanic whose every second word was a four-letter word. And my ‘training’ involved the first six months in the washing bay where I had to wash the cars before and after they were serviced. That’s right, I started my working life as a tukang basuh kereta.

But I did not mind. My father promised that if I passed my apprenticeship exam he would send me to England to do Automobile Engineering. So I studied hard. I was going to get distinction in my AMIMI exam. Automobile Engineering was kacang (peanuts) for me anyway. I was already tuning my own motorcycle and in 1968, at the age of 18, had participated in my first Malaysian Grand Prix. I could soup up an engine without having to even go to school to learn how to do it. I could make my 100cc motorcycle go as fast as a 250cc. I could ride from Kuala Lumpur to Penang in under three hours even before we had the PLUS Highway. Automobile Engineering was not a career. It was a passion, in fact a ‘religion’ as far as I was concerned. And I took my religion seriously.

Halfway through my final exam my father died of a heart attack. He was only 46. I got distinction, the only one out of more than 100 students who sat for the exam. The ’second best’ student got only a ‘B’. I brought my results home to show my mother. She looked at it and broke down and cried. I did not know why she cried but I cried as well. Seeing my mother cry makes my cry and barely two months since my father died I suspected that must have been the reason.

But that was not the reason. My mother cried because my father was not able to see my exam results before he died, and he missed it by only a couple of months. “Your father was worried about you,” my mother explained. “He did not want to send you to England because he was scared you would just ‘play the fool’ and not study. He wanted you to prove that you are serious about your studies before sending you to England. And now you have proved it but he is no longer around to see it.”

Then my mother cried again. “I have no money to send you to England. But you deserve to go and Daddy promised you if you passed your exam he would send you.”

“I don’t want to go to England,” I told my mother between sobs. “I want to stay here and look after you.”

I framed my exam results and hung it on my bedroom wall and then went to work for a company at RM250 per month. RM250 a month is not a king’s ransom even back in 1973 but that was all I could get. My exam results were of no use unless I wanted to go back to Volkswagen and become a car mechanic. It was supposed to be my ‘passport’ to England but my father was no longer around and sometimes plans have to change to suit changing situations.

Two of my ‘best friends’ went to university though. My Indian friend went to Singapore University and my Chinese friend went to England. But I repaired engines at RM250 a month because my father was the son of the Governor of Penang and cousin to the late Agong and he would not allow me to ‘abuse’ this ‘position’ by getting a government scholarship.

Yes, in 1957, Malaya gained Merdeka from Britain and the Indians and Chinese were granted citizenship. Then, in 1970, the New Economic Policy was launched and the Indians and Chinese became second- and third-class citizens. But at least as second- and third-class citizens they went to university. I, the ‘first-class’ citizen, had to start from the bottom and work my way to the top because I hated being at the bottom and longed to get to the top.

I pity the Indians and Chinese who have to accept being second- and third-class citizens and cannot do anything about it. I certainly know what it is like because that was where I started as well. But I have never grumbled about it. I don’t blame the Indians and Chinese for how I have ’suffered’. I don’t even blame Umno or the Malays. And I would certainly never blame my father for having too much principles; and maybe pride as well. I just drove from Kedah down to Johor and up to Kelantan, with my baby sleeping in the back seat of the car, to sell my engines so that by the age of 40 I can send all my children to England for a university education without having to run to Umno or the government for financial assistance.

The last time the multiracial coalition failed to score a two-thirds majority was in 1969. A few days after the election, the country’s worst race riots erupted, killing hundreds.

“We can deny Barisan Nasional a two-thirds majority,”‌ the former deputy premier said in his office in an old bungalow in a leafy suburb just outside the capital.

PAS is contesting only 60 Parliament seats. They need 150 seats to control two-thirds of Parliament. PAS cannot implement Islamic laws even if they control two-thirds of the seats in the State Assembly without controlling two-thirds of Parliament.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“I do not want to send you to jail,” said the judge as he stared at me like he was trying to burn a hole right through my chest. “But I have to.”

“I plead leniency your honour,” was the only response I could come up with in such short notice. “I am, after all, a first-time offender,” I added, hoping that that would ‘melt’ him a bit.

“It’s not that I want to punish you,” the judge replied without flinching and with the same cold stare. “Sending you to jail is not about punishing you. It is about protecting society from people like you. You may be a first-time offender, but what is there to guarantee you will not do it again? Society needs to be protected and that’s why I have to send you to jail. If I thought you are repentant then I could give you a suspended sentence and bound you over for good conduct. But thus far you have not even said sorry for what you have done or promised never to do it again.”

I saw this as an escape clause and quickly jumped in. “But I regret what I had done, your honour, and I promise never to do it again. I now realise my mistake.”

“Hah, a leopard never changes its spots. If you did it once how would I know you will not do it again? Sure, you can always say you are sorry and that you regret what you did. But I am not too sure if I were to release you that you would keep your word.”

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

No, I did not really go to court. And, no, I was not sent to jail. In fact, the entire dialogue above never happened. I just put that in to dramatise what the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) must be going through in the ongoing ‘trial’. For eight years, the Chinese in particular and the non-Malays in general, have been screaming about the Islamic State Document (ISD) that PAS introduced in Terengganu not long after the Tenth General Election in 1999. Actually, long before PAS did that in Terengganu, they had done the same in Kelantan about eight or nine years earlier. But the ISD that PAS launched in Kelantan not long after the 1990 general election and the one launched in Terengganu not long after the 1999 general election both went nowhere. And PAS knew they would get nowhere with it.

Why in heaven’s name did they launch them then? This would probably be what many of you would now be asking. Well, it’s simple, really. PAS is an Islamic party and it is therefore their ‘duty’ to launch the ISD. What else would you have expected PAS to do? I would be very surprised if they had NOT launched them.

But PAS had only 27 Parliamentary seats in 1999 and even less in 1990. They would need at least 150 seats to control two-thirds of Parliament before they can implement the ISD and change Malaysia from a Secular State to an Islamic State.

Okay, PAS controlled Kelantan in 1990 and Terengganu in 1999. Maybe PAS did not, on both those occasions, have 150 seats in Parliament or controlled two-thirds of Parliament. But they did, in 1990, control two-thirds of the seats in the Kelantan State Assembly in and, in 1999, in the Terengganu State Assembly. So the ISD could have been implemented in these two states even though PAS would not have been able to do so at Federal level. Why, then, did PAS not do so at state level?

PAS could not do so at state level because, to make constitutional changes at state level, you require the approval of Parliament and PAS did not have 150 seats in Parliament or control two-thirds of Parliament. But this should still not stop PAS from ‘pushing’ the issue. Whether PAS does or does not control Parliament is not the issue. PAS’ job is deliver its election promise — the implementation of Islam — and then leave it to Parliament to sort the whole thing out.

We must remember, PAS was under pressure. Umno was calling PAS a liar. UMNO was accusing PAS of cheating the voters by not delivering its election promise. The simple-minded village folks (orang kampong) are not able to rationalise issues the way we can. These people would swallow the Umno propaganda hook, line and sinker. “PAS bohong! PAS tipu! Sebelum pilihan raya janji Islam. Bila sudah menang pilihan raya diam, tak buat.”

PAS had to show that it delivers its election promises, or at least try to deliver even if it does not have the power to do so. We promise, we deliver. If Barisan Nasional blocks it at Federal level because they control more than two-thirds of parliament, then PAS can’t be blamed for that.

PAS’ job is to try to deliver what it had been mandated to do by the voters who voted for it. And PAS did just that. So it fulfilled its election promise. But Malaysia still remained a Secular State as everyone thought it would, PAS included. That is not PAS’ fault though. That was Barisan Nasional’s fault. So Barisan Nasional is the chow lang in the eyes of the Malay voters, not PAS.

When Umno challenged PAS to ‘deliver its election promise’, it did not think that PAS would actually do it. This is because PAS can’t act alone but must act in the spirit of the opposition coalition, then called Barisan Alternatif. Umno was calling PAS’ bluff. Then, when PAS fails to deliver, Umno can turn around and call PAS a liar and a cheat. Janji tapi tak buat.

Umno was in fact caught off-guard when PAS ‘accepted’ Umno’s challenge and announced the launching of the ISD. Not only Umno was caught of-guard but the other three members of Barisan Alternatif as well — DAP, PKN (now PKR) and PRM (now merged with PKN into PKR). DAP, PKN and PRM did not agree with the ISD and told PAS so. DAP even left Barisan Alternatif in a huff.

Umno realised that challenging PAS was a mistake. It thought the challenge was safe because surely PAS would not act alone and DAP, PKN and PRM would object strongly to the ISD. But PAS did act alone in spite of the protests from DAP, PKN and PRM. PAS had no choice, really. It was being challenged by the other Malay-dominant party and was being called a liar and a cheat. Either it faced Umno and accepted the challenge or else PAS would become irrelevant and might as well close down just like Semangat 46 before that.

Now it was Umno that was in a bind. Umno never for one minute suspected that PAS would put the opposition coalition in jeopardy by going against the wishes of the other three coalition members. But PAS did and the coalition practically broke up (hidup segan, mati tak mahu). PAS, however, managed to redeem itself in the eyes of the Malays. And Umno responded by hurriedly declaring, on 19 September 2001, that Malaysia is already an Islamic country, so why do we need PAS? PAS can only promise. It does not control two-thirds of Parliament so it can’t deliver. Umno, however, through Barisan Nasional, does control two-thirds of Parliament. So Umno does not need to ‘promise’ like PAS does. Umno can deliver. So Umno, in a way, became Malaysia’s new Islamic party, dislodging PAS from that perch.

Many may have not noticed this, but since the 2004 general election, when PAS lost Terengganu, almost lost Kelantan, and saw its 27 Parliament seats reduced to just nine, PAS has stopped talking about the ISD. DAP knows this. Talk to people like Ronnie Liu. He can tell you that PAS wants to treat the ISD as an embarrassing mistake that should be buried in the past and allowed to remain buried. But people would not allow it to remain buried. They kept resurrecting the ISD issue even though PAS themselves, those who gave birth to it, would like it to remain buried. It was no longer PAS that was talking about the ISD. It was those who would like this stigma to hang over the head of what could be the most successful and powerful opposition party.

Okay, PAS made a mistake in the past. They have learned from this mistake. But do we want to keep harping on the past? How far back into the past should we go? Is there any cut-off date? Should we continue killing every Japanese we see in Malaysia because of what they did to us during the Second World War? In 1834, the Chinese in Lukut massacred Raja Busu and his entire family plus hundreds of Malays. Raja Busu was a member of the Selangor Royal Family. Should I still hold that against the Chinese, in particular the Chinese from Lukut? Or maybe I am entitled to avenge the death of my ancestors by ‘teaching’ the Lukut Chinese a lesson?

Sometimes the past is better left in the past, especially when all has been forgiven, though not quite forgotten. What the Chinese in Lukut did to my family in 1834 and what the Japanese did to Malayans during the Second World War is now a footnote in history. What PAS did two elections ago is also a footnote in history. Should we condemn the Indians for giving 90% of the votes to Barisan Nasional (MIC) in the recent Ijok by-election or should we instead support them and stand by HINDRAF because of what they are doing today rather than because of what they did a few months ago in Ijok?

Today, PAS is talking in another nada or tone of voice. That is what counts. Yesterday is yesterday. Today is what matters. And if today we still want to talk about what PAS did yesterday, then I too should condemn the Chinese for what they did yesterday to my family in Lukut and what the Indians did yesterday in Ijok. By the way, do you know we eventually lost Lukut, Linggi and the areas surrounding it because of this massacre? The British stepped in on the excuse of ‘restoring law and order’ and to protect their business interests. Negeri Sembilan would not exist and today it would still be part of Selangor if the Chinese had not started a ‘war’ down there.

Yesterday, 100 pro-government Malay Islamic groups led by ABIM announced that they want the government to Islamise this country. I need not go into details as you can read it here (Pro-government Islamic groups demanding stronger role for Islam ahead of polls in Malaysia) and here (PEMBELA declaration & press statement ).

Let us look at the track record.

Was it not PAS that summoned the Kelantan Hindus for a meeting and offered them a site for a Hindu temple even though they did not ask for one? Umno, however, during the time it was ruling Kelantan, blocked the building of a Hindu temple. Was it not Umno that declared Buddhist statues haram and blocked its construction in the state of Sabah? The court case is pending even as you read this. Was it not Umno that demolished Hindu temples in Selangor? Was it not Umno that shot tear gas and water cannons into the Batu Caves temple grounds? Was it not PAS that allowed pigs to be slaughtered in Kelantan while Umno, during the time it ruled Kelantan, forbade it? Look at the track record. Let the track record speak for itself.

Take a drive to Kelantan these next few days before the general election. Go visit the Kota Bharu market. See for yourself all the women selling at the Kota Bharu market. Yes, the women control the market. The women monopolise the economic scene. The batek and songket manufacturers are mostly all women. The signboards carry women’s names. If you trade with them, you trade with the women. The women negotiate with you and the women handle all the money, not the men.

Where are the so-called ’separate check-out counters’? The men and women stand in the same line and the women serve you and you pay the women at the check-out counters. There are only separate toilets for men and women. The rest are all men-women mixed.

Go stay at the state government-owned Perdana Hotel in Kota Bharu. They have only one swimming pool. And you and your wife both swim in that same one pool. There are no two swimming pools, one for men and another for women.

You want to drink, fine, order a beer and send me the bill. Yes, you can get drunk in Kota Bharu if you want to, as you could in Terengganu when PAS was ruling that state from 1999 to 2004. Okay, Terengganu banned gambling when PAS was running that state. But that was because the PAS Menteri Besar had a meeting with the non-Muslims and they agreed that gambling is bad and should be banned. Some argue that gambling is Chinese culture and should not be banned. Well, why did the non-Muslims then ask the Menteri Besar to ban gambling? Anyway, I have made about ten trips to China thus far and have travelled the length and breadth of that country and none of the Chinese I met in China say that gambling is their culture. In fact, the Chinese government bans gambling and will not allow casinos on its soil.

If just because you want to gamble you would rather have Barisan Nasional rule Kelantan and Terengganu, then the Chinese are even shallower than I thought. But if it is really that important and really Chinese ‘religion’ that you gamble, then make this point clear to PAS. And if gambling is more important than a good future for your family, I am sure PAS will accommodate the Chinese and not interfere with Chinese ‘religion’, as it has promised. But please do not ask PAS to legalise child prostitution so that you can sell your children to the pimps for a profit as much as in some societies this is acceptable and very rampant.

Let me put it to you again in plain and simple English. PAS is contesting only 60 Parliament seats. They need 150 seats to control two-thirds of Parliament. PAS cannot implement Islamic laws even if they control two-thirds of the seats in the State Assembly without controlling two-thirds of Parliament. PAS is not pursuing the ISD any longer. Malaysia will remain a Secular State unless two-thirds of Malaysians demand this country be changed into an Islamic State through a referendum — but then the referendum can only be called by Barisan Nasional and never by PAS because only Barisan Nasional controls two-thirds of Parliament.

Now, are we still worried about Malaysia being turned into an Islamic State? If we are then we had better watch Barisan Nasional closely because only Barisan Nasional can do that. Look at this news item again (Pro-government Islamic groups demanding stronger role for Islam ahead of polls in Malaysia) and here (PEMBELA declaration & press statement ). See who is crying out for more Islamisation? Is it PAS? Or is it the Umno-led organisations? And who will control two-thirds of Parliament come this election? Will it be PAS when it is contesting only 60 seats and may end up winning only half or so? Or will it be Barisan Nasional as most of you believe will happen? Is it wise, therefore, that Barisan Nasional be given two-thirds of the seats in Parliament? You decide come 8 March 2008 when you go to cast your votes.

The fundamentalist Islamic Party (PAS) said it had detected a total of 28 names in two states where voters aged between 106 and 128 years old were on the roll for March 8 general elections.

“PAS will be waiting for these people to show up during the elections, to congratulate them for living up to this ripe age, if at all they exist,” said party official Roslan Shahir.

“Our worry is that if we don’t expose these things then other people will appear on behalf of them to vote,” he told a press conference.

PAS, in a loose alliance with two other opposition parties, is hoping to deprive the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition of a two-thirds majority for the first time in history.

Roslan said that in some cases up to 40 voters were registered in the same house address, and called on the Election Commission to immediately investigate these irregularities.

Malaysian activists have criticized electoral authorities ahead of the polls, accusing them of not cleaning up electoral rolls and refusing to abolish postal votes, which it says are manipulated.

The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) last November gathered some 30,000 people for a rare mass rally in the capital to demand electoral reforms.

The opposition failed to live up to its vow to contest every seat, allowing Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s Barisan Nasional’s (BN) coalition to get an early boost when no opposition candidates came forward to run for six parliamentary seats. Another would-be opponent was disqualified for submitting his papers late.

Leading BN candidate, International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz was almost left out of the race when she left one of her forms unsigned during nomination.

Despite opposition objections, the Elections Commission decided it was just a “technicality issue” and allowed her application.

Mr Abdullah was sanguine about the elections scheduled for March 8. “I believe the people will be attentive to the National Front, which has brought peace and progress for 50 years,” he said. “I would like this election to be free of troubles.”

Even as he spoke, riot police went on the alert, as thousands of supporters of Ms Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, president of opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat and wife of former Deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim, engaged those of her BN opponent in a heated exchange of words.

Dr Wan Azizah, 55, is defending her Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat - first won in the 1999 general election.

In Skudai, Johor, things turned uglier when several BN supporters on motorcycles took a wrong turn and ran into a large group of opposition supporters of the ethnic Chinese-based Democratic Action Party (DAP).

They were beaten with flagpoles as they tried to pass, but the row was stopped by some PAS supporters who cleared the way for the BN group to leave.

One of the fiercest electoral contests is in Kelantan, which has been controlled by PAS since 1990, making it the only one of Malaysia’s 13 states not run by the BN.

Several hundred opposition members roared “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is great,” as PAS’ spiritual leader, Mr Nik Aziz Nik Mat, filed his nomination papers.

The BN won 199 of 219 parliamentary seats in 2004, with only 19 seats taken by the opposition, including six by the PAS and 12 by the DAP. One seat went to an independent.

This time, the three opposition parties have made a pact to field only one candidate in each constituency to avoid multi-cornered fights, which in the past benefited the BN.

The strategy is aimed at preventing the BN from attaining a two-thirds parliamentary majority, which enables the government to change the constitution easily.

Mr Abdullah dismissed the opposition’s effort as “a pact of convenience, that’s all.”

“I want us to win with a very good majority, even more than two-thirds,” he said.

Analysts say a poor performance could undercut Mr Abdullah’s popularity as he targets a second five-year term as prime minister after succeeding long-time leader Mahathir Mohamad in 2003.

Despite Mr Abdullah’s show of confidence, the 14-party BN, which has governed since 1957, has acknowledged it will win fewer seats this time amid public complaints over rising inflation, crime and racial and religious tensions.

A new development is that a section of Indians, who are angry over the alleged discrimination against the community and detention of Hindraf activists, are switching their allegiance to the opposition, observers in
Johor noted.

Malaysians were probably surprised to see Mr Abdullah retaining many ageing members of his cabinet as candidates as public expectations were high that there would be renewal and rejuvenation by bringing in new faces.

But Mr Abdullah soothed such fears when he said that with the exception of his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Razak, none of his contesting cabinet members were guaranteed a cabinet position, even if they won in the general election.

“I have made no promises to anyone. I have a free hand (after the election),” he said on the eve of Nomination Day.

Mr Abdullah, 68, said he and his deputy had ensured there were many more young qualified people who were chosen as candidates at parliament and state levels.”More and more young people are coming in. They are our future,” he stressed, saying the younger generation would be given more opportunities.

They would include a record number of second-generation candidates, many among them familiar names, including Mr Mukhriz Mahathir, the son of Mr Mahathir.

Mr Mukhriz, 44, an influential businessman, will stand as a candidate for the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) on his father’s home turf in northern Kedah state.

His father, who ruled for two decades until 2003, said he will steer clear of his son’s political career.

“No, I will not campaign. I give him my blessings,” he said. “It is up to the people who are going to vote … I cannot just say my son is powerful, strong, brilliant and all that,” he added.

Also joining the fray is Nurul Izzah Anwar, the 27-year-old daughter of Mr Anwar, and the son-in-law of the prime minister, the hugely influential Khairy Jamaluddin.

“My son has has shown outstanding leadership qualities since he was small,” said his mother, Ms Rahmah Abdul Hamid, 72. Mr Khairy’s wife, Ms Nori Abdullah, said: “I used to follow my father but now I follow my
husband.”

Mr Mahathir however, appeared not too pleased with the emergence of this second-generation of would-be leaders. “We should not have a dynasty in our country’s politics,” he said.

But the frail 82-year-old Mr Mahathir turned up at the nomination centre in Alor Star, Kedah, waiting in the hot sun as he proudly watched his son file his papers. - TODAYONLINE

By Raja Petra Kamarudin

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Practically the whole country is focused on the coming general election due to be held on 8 March 2008. But while we look the other way, distracted by the intense election campaigning, some parties are quietly about to make RM4 billion from a property development that involves a piece of land belonging to the rakyat. And rakyat here means 26 million Malaysians, 11 million or so who are registered voters. Sadly though, only 8 million who will come out to vote this election while the other 3 million will just stay home to watch television.

But it will not be 26 million Malaysians who will profit from this development. It will be handful of people who walk in the corridors of power. And these handful of people are the man with two Muhammad’s in his name who would like to be Malaysia’s future Deputy Prime Minister, Anuar Zaini who runs the Malaysian government’s propaganda machinery also known as Bernama, and the cronies to the powers-that-be.

In June last year, it was reported that a company owned by Hong Leong’s Quek Leng Chan will be taking over the land which the Universiti Malaysia sits and will turn into a new township. The university would then be relocated to Sepang.

There was a big hue and cry and the government flatly denied such a thing was in the cards.

Everything went quiet for awhile. Part of the objection to this proposal was because of the ’sacred’ status and sentimental value of Malaysia’s first university. But what was even more of an objection was the fact that a Chinese company was going to become the beneficiary to a very valuable piece of government asset.

To quell the outrage, the government quickly denied such a thing was being planned. But the denial was a lie and merely meant to quieten things down for awhile so that alternative plans could be put into place.

Realising that the university land was a ‘goldmine’, other parties jumped in and last week they announced that the university would sell off 27.5 acres of its under-utilised land for a price of RM312 million or for a value of RM200 million plus a share of the developer’s profit, whichever is higher. However, what was not revealed was that the Selangor State Government, which is supposed to be a joint-venture partner, would get only 10% of the deal while 90% will go to Muhammad son of Muhammad and Anuar Zaini. The state government company is merely a front to give an impression that this is a government deal and to avoid any more controversy while in actual fact certain individuals are going to profit from the entire arrangement.

Yes, while Malaysians sleep, while Malaysians get distracted by the 8 March 2008 general election, those connected to those who walk in the corridors of power are going to make billions while the government will get pittance in return. Is this not one more of so many reasons to cut Barisan Nasional down to size by denying it its 92% hegemony in Parliament?

It is time Malaysians demonstrate outrage and shout loudly, “NO MORE!” And this demonstration must come in the form of no longer allowing Barisan Nasional a landslide victory in the coming general election and by denying it its 92% hegemony in Parliament.

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

Shock over township plan for UM campus

Malaysiakini, 13 June 2007

Former academician Dr Syed Husin Ali has expressed shock over news that Universiti Malaya (UM) will relocate its campus from Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, to a large swath of undeveloped land in Sepang Selangor. “I was shocked and a great number of the UM Alumni have expressed consternation on hearing that there is a plan to relocate UM to Sepang,” said Syed Husin in a statement today

The move is reportedly part of a property developer’s proposal to turn the 300ha campus into a commercial and residential township to complement its RM1.2 billion Damansara City project. According to Business Times yesterday, GuocoLand Bhd - a property developer controlled by billionaire banker Quek Leng Chan - has made a bid for the university grounds. Citing sources, the newspaper said the company intends to develop a commercial and residential township on the area, which has an estimated gross development value of RM10 billion. If the proposal is approved, the university will be relocated to the developer’s 4,860ha land bank in Sepang.

Syed Husin said: “Apparently, the plan aims to kill two birds with one stone, one, to maximise profits from the development of the present university site and, two, the sale of these bungalows and villas to university staff, which it would otherwise face great difficulty to dispose of. Presumably, it hopes to sell these to the university staff, if it succeeds in relocating UM.”

He noted that there is “little or no concern” over the impact of the move. “The intended relocation will certainly (disrupt) the lives of thousands of academic and non-academic staff of the university and their families,” said Syed Husin, a former lecturer at the university and now deputy president of the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

The campus was established in 1959, after the university was set up as an autonomous entity following its separation from the University of Malaya, Singapore. Although there were lobbies to site the campus near Johore Bahru and elsewhere, the location remained even after Universiti Malaya was officially founded in 1962.

“The UM has developed into an institution with a strong historical and academic tradition. It has served higher education well and contributed considerably towards the process of nation building. A large number of its graduates have been and are important political and administrative leaders of the country,” said Syed Husin. “Universiti Malaya and Lembah Pantai are one, the same and inseparable. There should be no attempt to separate them, especially if entirely for commercial purposes that will enrich only a handful few who are already extremely rich.”

GuocoLand’s share price gained 87.3 percent six days prior to yesterday to RM3.26. Registered in Singapore, the property developer recently announced plans to invest US$5.4 billion in China. Meanwhile, UM vice-chancellor Rafiah Salim has denied receiving a proposal from Quocoland to develop Lembah Pantai, according to Sin Chew Daily today. The daily also reported Higher Education Minister Mustapha Mohamed as saying there would not be development in the area, describing the university grounds as having significant historical and cultural value.

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

UM land more important than money

Dr Hsu Dar Ren, Malaysikini, 21 June 2007

I refer to the malaysiakini report Shock over township plan for UM campus. According to the report, a prominent developer has made a bid for the Universiti Malaya’s campus ground. The university authority has denied it and expressed shock over the report. I suspect even they may not even be privy to the proposal.

The piece of campus land situated in Lembah Pantai is indeed very valuable, and I tend to believe that there may have been a proposal to shift the university and develop the land, bearing in mind that there is no smoke without fire.

I am not a Universiti Malaya graduate but that is not important because I believe that it is the duty of every single Malaysian to defend the heritage of the country, and one such legacy is the Universiti Malaya campus. Businessmen, politicians, civil servants and indeed everyone of us must understand that there is something more valuable than just money. A heritage ground is one of these priceless inheritances.

No amount of money can be equated with a heritage ground. Money earned can easily be spent, but a heritage will remain forever as a symbol of a nation and it is what nationhood is about. Imagine a proposal to shift the Buckingham Palace in London. Even though it is situated within the one-square-mile golden city centre, the British will defend this building till the end of their nationhood. Imagine a proposal to shift Harvard University from its present campus in Cambridge, US. I think the whole of America will be in an uproar because the American heritage and the pride of the nation will be challenged.

There is a Chinese saying meaning ‘A gentleman loves money but you must earn it in the proper way’. Developers and businessmen, let me appeal to you - there is something more important in life than just making profit. Leave Universiti Malaya alone.

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

UM seeks approval to develop under-utilised land

Bernama, 19 February 2008

Universiti Malaya (UM) said today it has submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Higher Education to develop under-utilised land of 27.5 acres (11 ha) out of 900 acres (360 ha) of its main campus land. The successful completion of the development project is expected to provide UM with a minimum income of RM312 million or the land value of RM200 million plus a share of the developer’s profit, whichever is higher, UM said.

It said in a statement that the Vice Chancellor, Datuk Rafiah Salim, on behalf of the university’s Board of Directors (UMBD) and the university, sought the approval of the Minister on Jan 25 for the development project. The project, under a private-sector initiative, will be undertaken by a consortium by the name PPC-MINT-GLOMAC.

PPC-MINT-GLOMAC, a result of a merger of two companies, was recommended by Colliers International Property Consultants Sdn Bhd, which the university had appointed for an independent assessment. The two companies were from the three shortlisted by Colliers International to make presentations to UM Holdings Sdn Bhd Board of Directors (UMHBD) on Sept 27, 2007.

Initially, eight developers were invited to submit proposals for the development but only five submitted proposals. Colliers International was appointed by UM Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of UM that was incorporated in line with the government’s plan for public universities to be financially independent.

UMBD has appointed Datuk Seri Panglima Mohd Annuar Zaini to the board of UM Holdings and to chair with the aim to fulfil the corporate aspirations of the university. UMHBD also comprises Emeritus Professor Tan Sri Dr Augustine Ong, Annuar Mohamad, Azhar Harun and Professor Dr Muhammad Zakaria.

Among the roles of UM Holdings is to plan, identify, explore, conserve, develop and enhance the university’s assets. The university disclosed that UM Holdings had received many proposals for various types of development and projects. Several parcels of land were identified, and the 11 ha of land on Lot 10476 were chosen.

The university said the PPC-MINT-GLOMAC consortium, which made a presentation to UMBD on Oct 9, 2007, drew attention to the presence of the proposed University of Malaya Alumni Association (PAUM) clubhouse and the PALAPES (Reserve Officer Training Unit) camp on the land to be developed.

“This will affect the Master Plan of development of the consortium in relation to the land. UMBD acknowledged the concern of the consortium and recognised the need for UM to obtain optimum benefit to all in regard to the development of the land. With this in mind, UMBD recognised that both the PALAPES camp and PAUM’s clubhouse need to be relocated to sites to be identified by UM,” it said.

It also said that on 13 December 2007, UMBD said that subject to agreement by PAUM, the site for the building of PAUM’s clubhouse and the PALAPES camp will be relocated to sites identified by UM.

“UM gives the assurance that this development will be transparent and all processes and procedures will be observed, and decisions made will be based on independent professional advice. Evaluations and recommendations are made by UM Holdings and UMBD but the final approval rests with the Government,” it added

Posted in Malaysia-Today by Raja Petra   

IF the show of support yesterday was anything to go by, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail is going to breeze through her defence of her Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat.

The president of opposition party Keadilan and wife of former Deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim has openly declared that after her victory this time, she will step down so he can contest the by-election - when he becomes eligible less than 40 days after the polls.

Thousands turned up at the nomination centre where she filed her papers as a candidate. Dr Wan Azizah, 55, is defending her seat - first won in the 1999 general election when her husband was sentenced to jail on corruption charges - against Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate Pirdaus Ismail in a straight fight. Mr Pirdaus is a former National Mosque imam who lost to Dr Wan Azizah in the 2004 polls by a slim margin of 590 votes. An imam is a Muslim spiritual leader who leads the congregation in prayer.

Dr Wan Azizah spoke to reporters yesterday as soon as she emerged from the closed-door nomination exercise at Tuanku Bainun Teachers’ College.

Mr Anwar was not by his wife’s side. The couple had decided he should be with his 28-year-old daughter Nurul Izzah in Kuala Lumpur who is contesting the Lembah Pantai parliamentary seat for the first time, taking on incumbent Shahrizat Jalil. “My daughter is contesting a tough seat, so Anwar is there,” said Dr Wan Azizah.

“Although they (the Malaysian government) denied Anwar the right to contest in the elections, there is a provision under law that says if I resign, he can contest in my place,” she said. Mr Anwar is only eligible

to stand for office after April 15.

Asked if her husband still harbours hope of becoming Malaysia’s Prime Minister one day, Dr Wan Azizah told Today: “Position is not important to him … serving the people and the nation is.”

Hours before her arrival at the nomination centre at 9am, thousands of opposition supporters had started to converge on a nearby field carrying Keadilan and Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) flags. They chanted “Reformasi!” and displayed banners with messages such as “Tak nak BN”, or “Reject BN”.

Taking up opposing sides were Barisan Nasional supporters bearing the ruling coalition’s flags and those of component parties Umno and Gerakan. Some supporters exchanged heated comments with the opposition camp while scores of riot police stood ready for any possible unrest.

Umno candidate Mr Pirdaus appears unfazed by the opposition’s show of optimism. “I only had nine days to lay the groundwork in the last elections and I was inexperienced. Now, I’ve had nearly four years to do

my work and get to know the people,” he said.

While Mr Pirdaus stood by the edge of the college grandstand and waved to his supporters, Dr Wan Azizah, on seeing her numerous supporters, decided to step down to greet them.

One of them, businessman Saiful Azhar, 37, had travelled from Kuala Lumpur. “I was also here during the 2004 polls, where the turnout of BN’s supporters was bigger than the opposition’s. Today, I see more Keadilan and PAS supporters,” he noted. He said he was looking forward to Mr Anwar’s by-election contest. - TODAYONLINE