Brilliant or not?

So now do you get it? Umno has given up on the Chinese. They have abandoned the Chinese voters. What they want is the Malay votes because one Malay vote is equivalent to two Chinese votes. Pakatan Rakyat needs to win 100,000 Chinese votes to win just one seat while Umno can get two or three seats with that same 100,000 Malay votes.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Have you noticed that of late there appears to be an explosion of controversial issues and statements regarding Islam and isu Melayu-Cina (Malay-Chinese issues)? Today alone Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has made a few statements, as he has been doing for a while now.

Some are direct attacks while others are indirect and camouflaged. You, of course, can clearly see the direct attacks but you do not notice that the indirect attacks are actually targeting something else.

I know many of you, in particular readers of Malaysia Today, will foam at the mouth and scream ‘racist’. Dr Mahathir is a racist. Najib Tun Razak is a racist. Ibrahim Ali is a racist. Umno is racist. Perkasa is racist. Pekida is racist.

Firstly, you need to distinguish between racist (prejudiced person), chauvinist (war hawk) and nationalist (flag waver). Most readers understand only one word, racist, and everyone is called a racist.

Would those who fight for Chinese education and Chinese schools then be considered a racist? Are they prejudiced?

They would be prejudiced or a racist if they think that Malays are an inferior race, just slightly better than animals, and that is the reason they are fighting for Chinese education and Chinese schools -- to uphold and maintain the more superior Chinese language and culture.

Most Chinese educationists are not racists. They could, in fact, even be called sentimentalists or romantics. For all you know, they could even be connoisseurs and scholars of Malay poetry and literature while still wanting to uphold Chinese education and schools. So how can they be racists?

I know many scholars of Islam who are actually Christians. They love doing research on Islam and they have published more books than all the lecturers of UITM combined. Muslims call these types of people ‘orientalists’. Some have even classified Prophet Muhammad as the most influential person in history, even above Christ, the Prophet of Christianity, the religion of these orientalists.

Fighting for your language, culture, community, etc., does not make you a racist. It might make you a chauvinist in some people’s eyes. You become a racist only when you feel you are of a superior race and that all other races are inferior and you discriminate against those you regard as inferior.

In that same spirit, the Hindraf people are not racists. And neither are the Umno, Perkasa and Pekida people.

Now, before you stop reading at this point and start posting comments whacking me for ‘defending’ Umno, Perkasa and Pekida, as most of you normally do, read on till the end and see why I say this. If not you will again be commenting off tangent, as many of you normally do.

The Umno people (meaning also Perkasa, of course) actually do not hate the Chinese. In fact, most, if not all, do business with the Chinese (and they just love China Dolls). Many of them have become extremely rich because of their links with the Chinese. The Umno-Perkasa people will be the last people in Malaysia to go to war with the Chinese.

Read what Dr Mahathir said today. Many Chinese have become rich under the NEP. A few days ago, Umno said that the NEP has created many billionaires. Who do you think all these billionaires are? And sometimes those Chinese or Indian billionaires do not really own everything they are perceived to own. Only part of their wealth belongs to them. Part of it belongs to their ‘silent’ partners who they are holding the shares under trust for -- meaning, of course, the Malays in the corridors of power.

How do you think all these Chinese and Indians became billionaires if not because of their links with the Malays? How do you think all those Malays became millionaires (or even billionaires in some cases) if not because of their links with the Chinese and Indians?

You people reading Malaysia Today are so dumb. You foam at the mouth and scream ‘racist’. Hell, they are not racists. They are Bapak Kapitalist -- Capitalists of the highest degree. They are only pretending to be racists. And they have been fooling you good and proper for a long, long time.

Lim Goh Tong, Robert Kuok, Khoo Kay Peng, Vincent Tan, Francis Yeoh, Tan Kay Hock, Ananda Krishnan, Samy Vellu, and many more of their ilk would never have become what they have become if not because of Umno. From the days of Merdeka and the days of the First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Chinese and Indians have made it big because of Umno.

I am not saying that some Malays also did not make it big. But note one thing. While the Chinese and Indians made it big in partnership with Umno, the Malays made it big while fronting for Umno. In other words, do these Malays actually own all that wealth or do they own just a percentage of their wealth while the lion’s share actually belongs to Umno whom they are fronting for?

Even Daim Zainuddin’s wealth is questionable. How much belongs to him and how much belongs to ‘others’ and Umno? Does anyone other than the people concerned know the real situation?

So, if all these people are not really racists, then why of late have they been acting like racists? What’s with this Islam and Melayu rhetoric? Why antagonise the Chinese and Indians and risk losing their support and votes?

Umno and Barisan Nasional know that they have already lost the Chinese support and votes and nothing they say and do is going to reverse that. They also know that the Indians have swung back to Barisan Nasional and they are confident of getting no less than 50% of the Indian votes. So that leaves only the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak to worry about.

The Malay heartland is very crucial to Umno. There are more ‘Malay’ seats than ‘Chinese’ seats. Malay seats are as low of 20,000 or 40,000 voters. Chinese seats are as high as 100,000 or 120,000 voters. Hence, there are double or more ‘Malay’ seats compared to ‘Chinese’ seats. Hence also, this means that if 50% of the votes go to the opposition while Umno gets also 50%, Barisan Nasional can still form the government with around 60% of the seats in Parliament, as long as Umno’s 50% comes from the Malay heartland.

So now do you get it? Umno has given up on the Chinese. They have abandoned the Chinese voters. What they want is the Malay votes because one Malay vote is equivalent to two Chinese votes. Pakatan Rakyat needs to win 100,000 Chinese votes to win just one seat while Umno can get two or three seats with that same 100,000 Malay votes.

That is why Umno, MCA, Gerakan, etc, are all playing on the Malay sentiments and issues related to Islam. They want to win as many Malay votes as they can to compensate for the loss of the Chinese votes. DAP-PKR can take all the towns. Umno will take all the kampongs. There are more seats in the kampongs than in the towns. And this includes Sabah and Sarawak as well.

It is a bonus for Umno when the Chinese and Indians react negatively to Umno’s ‘racism’. That helps Umno in its strategy. When the Chinese and Indians also resort to Malay-Islam-bashing, Umno can use this as ‘proof’ to convince the Malays in the kampongs that Pakatan Rakyat is a threat to the Malays and Islam and that if Pakatan Rakyat takes over the Malays will become second-class citizens and hamba (slaves) in their own country.

Actually it is a brilliant strategy. Make tons of money in partnership with the Chinese. Use the Chinese as the bogeymen to frighten the Malays. And then let the unsuspecting Chinese do the rest in proving how dangerous they are by their own words and action.

Brilliant or not?

Raking in the Bounty of FELDA’s IPO

By M. Bakri Musa

In the run-up to the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of FELDA Global Ventures Holdings (FGH), there is little, in fact no discussion on how the exercise would benefit FELDA settlers. Surely that should be the foremost consideration. The only criterion upon which to judge the wisdom or success of any FELDA initiative, including this proposed IPO, would be to assess its impact on the settlers.

Instead the focus has been on bragging rights, as with trumpeting FGH to be the biggest IPO for the year, among the top 20 on the KLSE, and the world’s biggest plantation company. Such milestones are meaningful only if achieved as a consequence of the usual business activities and not through fancy paper-shuffling exercises. Apple recently surpassed Microsoft in market capitalization, but that was the consequence of Apple’s much superior products like iPads, iPods, and iPhones. Contrast that with earlier achievements of such now-defunct financial giants as AIG and Lehman Brothers that were based on fancy “financial engineering” instead of solid products and services.

Instead of delineating the potential benefits that would accrue on the settlers from this IPO, its proponents are content with dismissing the critics and imputing evil motives on their part. There are legitimate concerns that this exercise would prove to be nothing more than yet another fancy scheme for the politically powerful to cash out on a lucrative but under-priced government asset. We already have many ready examples of such greed.

Consider the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) “cowgate” mess involving considerably much smaller sum of money. Despite the presence of high government officials on NFC’s board to safeguard the government’s interest, NFC’s senior managers still managed to subvert those publicly-subsidized loans to purchase luxury condominiums totally unrelated to the company’s activities. This oversight failure reflects both the incompetence of the government’s representatives in discharging their fiduciary responsibility, as well as the lack of integrity on the part of NFC’s management.

Such despicable omissions and spectacular failures are not unique only to NFC; they are endemic in government-linked corporations. Thus Malaysians have good reasons to believe that FGH would be no exception once the money starts rolling in.

It also does not escape the public’s attention that the man helming FGH, and thus whose hands would be at the till once the billions start pouring in from the IPO, is one Isa Samad, a former UMNO Vice-President. Not any VP however, but one who was found guilty by his party of “money politics” and subsequently suspended. UMNO is no paragon of virtue; to be found guilty by it would be akin to being called a slut by hookers. You have to be disgustingly gross.

It would be easy to blame Isa Samad. The bigger question, and one that has yet to be answered, is why did Prime Minister Najib choose such a shady character to helm this major corporation? That is as much a reflection of Najib as it is on Isa.

Peruse FGH current corporate structure. It has nearly over a hundred subsidiaries, associated companies, and joint ventures, many with overlapping functions, markets and products. Those units are created less in response to commercial needs, more to create opportunities for senior civil servants to be appointed to the many governing boards, and thus garnering extra income in the form of directors’ fees, in addition to their regular civil service pay. Ever wonder why these GLCs lack effective oversight and our government departments are shoddily run? You would think that their regular government jobs, diligently executed, would keep them fully occupied.

A more sinister reason for these GLC directorships is that they are an effective trick to trap the loyalty of civil servants. Be too critical of the idiotic ideas of your political superiors and you risk being left out on those lucrative board appointments. With Isa Samad, it is also a case of Najib buying Isa’s silence, for reasons best known only to the pair.

Corrupting A Noble Initiative

FELDA was the crown jewel of Tun Razak’s imaginative rural development scheme. It was to provide land to otherwise landless villagers, the equivalent of land grants homesteading to early American settlers. The other reason was to encourage Malays to undertake an internal migration of sorts by uprooting them from their tradition-bound villages to begin a new life unencumbered by prevailing non-productive cultural practices.

With the expertise of and financing from the government, those villagers would develop hitherto virgin jungles into productive rubber and palm oil plantations, with those settlers eventually getting title to their holdings. At about 14 acres each, those units were definitely economically viable. To make sure that those lands would survive the next and subsequent generations and not be endlessly subdivided, the settlers had to agree to dispense with their usual Islamic inheritance practices. Meaning, the property would be inherited by only one of the children.

The surprise was the absence of howling protests from the ulama to this clear departure from Islamic inheritance practices as everybody saw the wisdom of the move; to maintain the economic viability of these holdings.

If this IPO were to enhance the condition of the settlers, then it should be supported. FELDA is meant to serve the settlers, not the other way around. Isa Samad had it backwards when he dismissed the concerns of the settlers as voiced through their cooperatives.

In response to the settlers’ concerns, Isa suggested a portion of the proceeds be placed in a “Special Purpose Vehicle” specifically to meet their needs. Unfortunately he did not provide the specifics. Consequently this SPV risks degenerating into yet another honey jar to be passed around among the politically powerful bears.

In my forthcoming book, Liberating the Malay Mind, I put forth ideas on how to maximize the use of these GLCs in improving the lot of Bumiputras. The focus should be on investing in people – human capital – not companies. Companies are subject to business cycles; they can also be ruined by incompetent and corrupt managers. All you would be left with then are worthless stock certificates. Where is Bank Bumiputra today? Malaysia Airlines is in no great shape either, despite the billions expended through SPVs and other accounting gimmicks.

Invest in our people instead; the skills and knowledge they acquire would stay with them to benefit society through good and bad times. Thus I suggest selling these GLCs and putting the proceeds into an escrow account for the sole purpose of investing in and developing Bumiputra human capital.

Bringing the issue specifically to FGH, I would commit a third of the IPO proceeds to a special fund to be used to develop the human capital of the settlers and their children. That money would be used to air-condition their schools, build adequate laboratories and libraries, and to bring qualified teachers especially in English, science and mathematics. If you want the children of those settlers to be other than penorakas (homesteaders), the best route would be to provide them with superior education. That means their schools and teachers should be among the best; today they are among the worst.

I would use the funds to enrich the curriculum as with providing music classes. I would go further and provide free musical instruments and after-class music lessons, modeled after Venezuela’s highly successful El Sistema initiative. New York is modeling a similar Harmony program with its low-income students, and this week those students had the thrill of their lifetime when their orchestra was conducted by Placido Domingo. Gustavo Dudamel, the young conductor of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, is a product of El Sistema, a tribute to Venezuela’s investment in human capital.

Similarly I would use the IPO funds to mechanize the operations on these plantations. Today palm nuts are still harvested in the same labor-intensive and back-breaking ways as they were 50 years ago; there is little innovation or mechanization. I fail to see why FELDA engineers could not design harvesting machines and trucks with hydraulic lifts like those used by utility repair workers to fix broken lines. Only through mechanization could the workers’ safety and health could be assured, and their productivity enhanced.

If through this IPO the lives of those FELDA settlers and their children were to be made better, then the initiative would find many ready supporters. What many fear is that this IPO would prove to be nothing more than a windfall for the likes of Isa Samad so they could acquire their luxury condos, fancy cars, and trophy wives. — www.bakrimusa.com

THE IRONY OF LIFE

How the Chinese Will Establish a New Financial Order

By Porter Stansberry

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

For many years now, it's been clear that China would soon be pulling the strings in the U.S. financial system.

After all, the American people now owe the Chinese government nearly $1.5 trillion.

I know big numbers don't mean much to most people, but keep in mind… this tab is now hundreds of billions of dollars more than what the U.S. government collects in ALL income taxes (both corporate and individual) each year. It's basically a sum we can never, ever hope to repay – at least, not by normal means.

Of course, the Chinese aren't stupid. They realize we are both trapped.

We are stuck with an enormous debt we can never realistically repay… And the Chinese are trapped with an outstanding loan they can neither get rid of, nor hope to collect. So the Chinese government is now taking a secret and somewhat radical approach.

China has recently put into place a covert plan to get back as much of its money as possible – by extracting colossal sums from both the United States government and ordinary citizens, like you and me.

The Chinese "State Administration of Foreign Exchange" (SAFE) is now engaged in a full-fledged currency war with the United States. The ultimate goal – as the Chinese have publicly stated – is to create a new dominant world currency, dislodge the U.S. dollar from its current reserve role, and recover as much of the $1.5 trillion the U.S. government has borrowed as possible.

Lucky for us, we know what's going to happen. And we even have a pretty good idea of how it will all unfold. How do we know so much? Well, this isn't the first time the U.S. has tried to stiff its foreign creditors.

Most Americans probably don't remember this, but our last big currency war took place in the 1960s. Back then, French President Charles de Gaulle denounced the U.S. government policy of printing overvalued U.S. dollars to pay for its trade deficits… which allowed U.S. companies to buy European assets with dollars that were artificially held up in value by a gold peg that was nothing more than an accounting fiction. So de Gaulle took action…

In 1965, he took $150 million of his country's dollar reserves and redeemed the paper currency for U.S. gold from Ft. Knox. De Gaulle even offered to send the French Navy to escort the gold back to France. Today, this gold is worth about $12 billion.

Keep in mind… this occurred during a time when foreign governments could legally redeem their paper dollars for gold, but U.S. citizens could not. And France was not the only nation to do this… Spain soon redeemed $60 million of U.S. dollar reserves for gold, and many other nations followed suit. By March 1968, gold was flowing out of the United States at an alarming rate.

By 1950, U.S. depositories held more gold than had ever been assembled in one place in world history (roughly 702 million ounces). But to manipulate our currency, the U.S. government was willing to give away more than half of the country's gold.

It's estimated that during the 1950s and early 1970s, we essentially gave away about two-thirds of our nation's gold reserves… around 400 million ounces… all because the U.S. government was trying to defend the U.S. dollar at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce of gold.

In short, we gave away 400 million ounces of gold and got $14 billion in exchange. Today, that same gold would be worth $620 billion… a 4,330% difference.

Incredibly stupid, wouldn't you agree? This blunder cost the U.S. much of its gold hoard.

When the history books are finally written, this chapter will go down as one of our nation's most incompetent political blunders. Of course, as is typical with politicians, they managed to make a bad situation even worse…

The root cause of the weakness in the U.S. dollar was easy to understand. Americans were consuming far more than they were producing. You could see this by looking at our government's annual deficits, which were larger than ever and growing… thanks to the gigantic new welfare programs and the Vietnam "police action." You could also see this by looking at our trade deficit, which continued to get bigger and bigger, forecasting a dramatic drop (eventually) in the value of the U.S. dollar.

Of course, economic realities are never foremost on the minds of politicians – especially not Richard Nixon's. On August 15, 1971, he went on live television before the most popular show in America (Bonanza) and announced a new plan…

The U.S. gold window would close effective immediately – and no nation or individual anywhere in the world would be allowed to exchange U.S. dollars for gold. The president announced a 10% surtax on ALL imports! Such tariffs never accomplish much in terms of actually altering the balance of trade, as our trading partners simply put matching charges on our exports. So what actually happens is just less trade overall, which slows the whole global economy, making the impact of inflation worse.

Of course, Nixon pitched these moves as patriotic, saying: "I am determined that the American dollar must never again be a hostage in the hands of international speculators."

The "sheeple" cheered, as they always do whenever something is done to "stop the speculators." But the joke was on them. Within two years, America was in its worst recession since WWII… with an oil crisis, skyrocketing unemployment, a 30% drop in the stock market, and soaring inflation. Instead of becoming richer, millions of Americans got a lot poorer, practically overnight.

And that brings us to today…

Roughly 40 years later, the United States is in the middle of another currency war. But this time, our main adversary is not Europe. It's China. And this time, the situation is far more serious. Our nation and our economy are already in an extremely fragile state. In the 1960s, the American economy was growing rapidly, with decades of expansion still to come. That's not the case today.

This new currency war with China will wreak absolute havoc on the lives of millions of ordinary Americans, much sooner than most people think. It's critical over the next few years for you to understand exactly what the Chinese are doing, why they are doing it, and the near-certain outcome.

In tomorrow's essay, I'll explain the rest of the story… and what it means for you as an investor.

Good investing,

Porter Stansberry

Dr M ‘assaulted’ judicial independence, says Bar Council

By Clara Chooi
The Malaysian Insider
Feb 19, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 — The Bar Council has accused Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad of stripping the judiciary of its independence, saying the former prime minister “assaulted” the institution with “Machiavellian ruthlessness” during his tenure.

Council president Lim Chee Wee said the 1988 amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution had effectively tampered with the judiciary’s independence, forcing the courts to be subservient to the executive arm of government.

“The Malaysian Bar has consistently held the view that Dr Mahathir Mohamed had with Machiavellian ruthlessness assaulted the once great Malaysian judicial institution.

“First with this amendment, then the sacking and suspension of the Lord President and Supreme Court Judges and later the appointment of three different Chief Justices, whose reputation the Bar holds in low regard,” he told The Malaysian Insider in an emailed statement.

Lim was responding to Dr Mahathir’s claim in a blog posting on Friday that the constitutional amendment had not altered judicial powers but merely gave the Attorney-General the responsibility to choose which court should hear a case.
“The rights and functions of the judiciary have not been subservient to the politicians or the prime minister before or after the amendment.

“This is because the amendment involves only the procedure in which the A-G was given back the responsibility to transfer cases. It did not give the prime minister any authority to overrule the courts,” he had written.

The country’s longest serving former prime minister was denying the claim by former Chief Justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah last Saturday that the judiciary had become subservient to politicians after the former clipped its wings in the 1980s with the amendment.

Dzaiddin had said the change was repugnant because Parliament could now decide what powers the judiciary should be given, altering in a very fundamental way the basic structure of the Federal Constitution.

Agreeing with Dzaiddin, Lim said the June 10, 1988, amendment had removed the words “the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in two High Courts” from Article 121, effectively deleting the provision that judicial power of the federation is vested in the judiciary.

Instead, he said, it was stipulated that “the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law”.

Lim recalled that when the Bill was being moved through Parliament, then Dr Mahathir had stated that its intent was to clarify the separation of powers, namely that the judiciary was to be prevented from interfering with the acts and functions of the executive.

“He (Dr Mahathir) had also stated that the amendment was to remove the powers of the judiciary in respect of judicial review, to make and develop Malaysian common law, and to do natural justice.

“This clearly is a misconception of the doctrine of separation of powers,” Lim said.

Following the amendment, he said, it was later misconceived that the courts had become powerless to address issues wherever there was a lacuna (when the law is silent).

They were wrongly thought to be confined to interpreting and implementing acts of Parliament, no longer able to develop common law and deprived of their inherent right to exercise judicial review over decisions of public bodies and executive functions, he added.

Noting that the judiciary was finally on its journey towards restoring independence and credibility, Lim urged the apex court to strike down the 1988 amendment as unconstitutional and contrary to the structure of the Federal Constitution.

He commended Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz for acknowledging the “shameful era” of the Malaysian judiciary and called on the latter to support another constitutional amendment, this time towards restoring judicial power.

“And the Bar urges all parliamentarians to support the Honourable Minister in this endeavour,” said Lim.

Media statement by Dr Chen Man Hin, Dap life advisor in Seremban on 19th Feb 2012

Media statement by Dr Chen Man Hin, Dap life advisor in Seremban on 19th Feb 2012

PERSECUTION OF ANWAR OVER HIS REMARKS ON ‘SECURITY FOR ISRAEL’ A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE HIS REPUTATION AS LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.

On January 26th 2012, Anwar Ibrahim was interviewed a WSJ journalist and the following statement was recorded

“SOME REFUSE TO RECOGNISE THE STATE OF ISRAEL, BUT I THINK OUR POLICY SHOULD BE CLEAR – PROTECT THE SECURITY (OF ISRAEL) BUT YOU MUST BE AS FIRM IN PROTECTING THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF PALESTINIANS”

The very mention of security of Israel evoked a torrent of criticism from UMNO and their allies, condemning Anwar for wanting to grant security for Israel. He was painted as a traitor of Islam, just as Israel was declared an enemy of Islam for its cruelty to the Palestinians in Gaza and Jordan;

So far, no other sources or countries have emerged to condemn Anwar for talking about security for Israel. There are 50 countries with Muslim majorities, and none have criticised Anwar on the security of Israel issue. There are over 200 countries in the world, and they are all silent, except for UMNO and its allies.

Indonesia with the largest Muslim majority in the world, has not castigated Anwar for his remark of Israel security. Why? Because they want to do business with Israel whose technology is much sought after by Indonesia and other developing countries. Since there are no diplomatic ties with Israel, the business is conducted via Singapore.

For the information of hard line Islamists, they should look into countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt which have good relationships with Israel,

Israel has diplomatic relationship with non-Arab Muslim countries.

Malaysia too has no diplomatic ties with Israel, but she saw it fitting to employ APCO a highly sophisticated Israel company to plan and manage Malaysia’s own Intelligence agency - SPECIAL BRANCH - to supervise intelligence and security. The Najib meeting with Obama was arranged by APCO which cost a big sum of ringgits.

UMNO with its extremist stand on Islam is out of touch with the changing mood of the world to the Palestinian cause, which has changed to one of rapprochement to adopt practical measures to the woes of the Palestinians. To them the pressing problem is sovereignty – they want statehood for Palestine. They want security.

So also Israel. They too want security. In Anwar’s mind, it was in tune with the thinking of the United Nations Security Council, who was pressing for statehood for the Palestinians. Their two statehood solution would be the best thing to provide peace and security for the two nations - peace and security.

Viewed in this context, the people would understand the words that Anwar spoke to the AWSJ journalist, and why he mentioned security for Israel. The security must be bipolar – to embrace both Palestine and Israel.

BEWARE OF CONSPIRACY TO PAINT ANWAR AS ANTI-ISLAM

Israel is not the real threat to the welfare of the country. It is the UMNO extremists who have failed to bring down Anwar by fabricating the Sodomy 2 conspiracy. Anwar was declared innocent. Now that he is a more dangerous threat to UMNO, their agents are trying to fabricate the charge that Anwar is pro-Israel and therefore anti-Islam.

They will fail, because Anwar is a true patriot. He has been imprisoned and has suffered much pain from false charges and trials. Yet he persists and struggles on for democracy, justice and prosperity.


to point out how shallow the accusations that Anwar is pro=Israel and anti-Islam by talking about security for Israel, how is it, no one queried PM Najib why he employed APCO an Israel organisation a few years ago, to advise him on political strategies and security last year. There are no diplomatic ties with Israel, and yet he worked closely with a Jewish organisation. APCO was given full rein in the Special Branch department.

Why were Najib not dubbed as pro-Israel and therefore an enemy of Islam? Why was he not reported to the Religious Department?


Dr Chen man hin
Dap life advisor

Anwar has shown his awareness of international politics by his stand on statehood for Palestine and by advocating and supporting the UN stand on double statehood – one for Palestine and one for Israel. He wants peace and security for both Palestine and Israel.

Jangan Putar Belit Kenyataan Demi Menghambur Fitnah

Jangan Putar Belit Kenyataan Demi Menghambur Fitnah

By Anwar Ibrahim

Source: http://anwaribrahimblog.com/2012/01/28/jangan-putar-belit-kenyataan-demi-menghambur-fitnah/

Saya diwawancara oleh Wall Street Journal pada hari Khamis, 26hb Januari 2011. Antara soalan yang ditanya kepada saya adalah berkaitan dasar luar negara dan isu Palestin. Saya tuntas menegaskan bahawa kemahuan dan hak rakyat Palestin mesti dibela dan itu merangkumi hak untuk mendirikan negara sendiri serta tidak terus dizalimi. Saya juga mengungkapkan bahawa jika syarat ini dipenuhi maka wajarlah hak rakyat Israel juga dihormati. Berikut adalah jawapan yang saya berikan:

“I support all efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel,” said Mr. Anwar, although he stopped short of saying he would open diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, a step which he said remains contingent on Israel respecting the aspirations of Palestinians.“

Pendirian saya ini ternyata sejajar dengan prinsip perjuangan Parti Keadilan Rakyat yang menjunjung tinggi prinsip Keadilan Sejagat dan tegas membela hak mereka yang dizalimi. Selain itu pandangan saya ini ternyata selari dengan Resolusi 1397 Majlis Keselamatan Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) dan Inisiatif Keamanan Arab (Arab Peace Initiative) yang berteraskan Penyelesaian Dua Negara atau lebih dikenali sebagai Two-State Solution. Malahan dasar luar negara juga menekankan prinsip Penyelesaian Dua Negara sebagaimana yang diungkapkan YB Menteri Luar ketika Perbahasan Perhimpunan Agung PBB Sesi ke-66 pada 27hb September 2011 di New York (GENERAL
DEBATE OF THE 66TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY). Beliau menyebut:

“..Malaysia fully supports the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people for an independent State of Palestine, based on the two-state solution, taking into account the security concerns of both parties (Israel and Palestine).”

Ternyata dari kenyataan Menteri Luar Negara, dasar Malaysia adalah bersedia menghormati hak rakyat Palestin dan Israel untuk menikmati keamanan dan kedamaian. Akan tetapi kesediaan kita pastinya bergantung kepada syarat selagi mana hak rakyat Palestin tidak dicerobohi. Justeru saya memberi amaran keras kepada mana-mana pihak yang cuba memutar belit kenyataan saya semata-mata mahu menyebar fitnah kononnya saya mengkhianati aspirasi rakyat Palestin. Pendirian Parti Keadilan Rakyat adalah tuntas membela hak sesiapa sahaja yang dirampas dan dizalimi. Iltizam untuk memastikan keadilan buat semua tidak pernah surut malah pastinya digilap dan diperkukuh.

ANWAR IBRAHIM
—-
I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, 26th January 2011. Among the questions posed to me was concerning foreign policy and the Palestinian issue. I was firm in stating that the wishes and rights of the Palestinian people must be protected and that includes the right to form a independent and sovereign state of their own, and not to be continuously oppressed. I also posited that if these conditions are to be must be fulfilled, then by the same logic, the rights if the Israelis should also be respected. My full response to this matter is reproduced below:

“I support all efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel,” said Mr. Anwar, although he stopped short of saying he would open diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, a step which he said remains contingent on Israel respecting the aspirations of Palestinians.”

My position is clearly in line with that of the principles of struggle of the People’s Justice Party which values highly the Principle of Universal Justice and strongly defend the rights of the oppressed. In addition, my view runs concurrent with that of Resolution 1397 of the United Nations Security Council and the Arab Peace Initiative which promotes the Two-State Solution. What more, the same principle of the Two-State Solution approach had been addressed by the Hon. Foreign Minister at the General Debate Of The 66th Session Of The United Nations Assembly on 27th September 2011 in New York. He mentioned:

“..Malaysia fully supports the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people for an independent State of Palestine, based on the two-state solution, taking into account the security concerns of both parties.” (Israel and Palestine)

It is clear from the Foreign Minister’s statement that Malaysia adopted a policy of respecting both the rights of the Palestinians and Israelis to enjoy peace and security. However, this condition shall largely depends on the prerequisite that the rights of the Palestinians are not violated. Hence, I would like to sternly warn any distractor who wishes to twist and turn my statement and henceforth spread lies that I have turned my back on the aspirations of the Palestinians. The principle of the People’s Justice Party is very clear in defending whose rights have been denied and oppressed. Our commitment to uphold justice has never faded, in fact it is always renewed and strengthened.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

TERKINI!! The Wall Street Journal percaya Anwar Ibrahim akan menang pilihanraya umum

http://paspb2.blogspot.com/2012/01/terkini-wall-street-journal-percaya.html

Dalam satu temuramah eksklusif bersama akhbar berpengaruh di Amerika Syarikat, The Wall Street Journal, Ketua Pembangkang Anwar Ibrahim berkata dia tidak kisah dengan tindakan pendakwaraya persekutuan merayu keputusan pembebasannya 9 Januari lalu sebaliknya dia kini memfokuskan perhatian kepada pilihanraya umum ke 13 yang dijangka diadakan tahun ini.

Tambah Anwar lagi, penghakiman kes fitnah liwatnya sangat kuat dan agak mustahil untuk dirayu melainkan jika terdapat bukti dan petunjuk baru yang boleh meyakinkan supaya rayuan pengadu Saiful Bukhari Azlan diterima.

Dia menjelaskan, proses rayuan boleh memakan masa sehingga enam bulan dan dalam tempoh tersebut pilihanraya umum mungkin diadakan di saat beliau masih belum dibicarakan semula.

Perdana Menteri Najib mesti memanggil pilihanraya umum selewatnya pada Mac 2013 tetapi berdasarkan mood semasa, penganalisis berpendapat ia mungkin dibubar lebih awal yang bakal menyaksikan pertarungan pilihanraya paling sengit pernah berlaku dalam sejarah negara ini.

Anwar meramalkan ia bakal berlangsung sebelum Jun atau Julai tahun ini.

Dengan rasuah dan penyelewengan semakin berleluasa dengan tujuan mengumpul dana pilihanraya, Anwar tidak ada pilihan lain melainkan menghentikan segalanya dengan memenangi pilihanraya umum demi menyelamatkan Malaysia dari risiko muflis dan kehancuran.

Anwar yang ditemuramah wartawan koresponden akhbar berkenaan di Singapura, Shibani Mahtani, berkata lagi, Najib terpaksa mengadakan pilihanraya umum lebih awal dari jangkaan kerana faktor ekonomi dunia yang semakin merosot di samping kebimbangan berlaku satu lagi krisis matawang dunia disebabkan data terbaru di Amerika Syarikat menunjukkan ketidak tentuan ekonomi Eropah boleh menjadi lebih buruk.

Akhbar itu turut meramalkan Anwar berada selangkah di hadapan Najib Altantuya dari segi sokongan umum walaupun data terbaru hasil kajian beberapa institusi pengajian tinggi dan badan bukan kerajaan menunjukkan sebaliknya.

Kekuatan Anwar disokong oleh peratusan undi kaum Cina kelas pendapatan tinggi dan pertengahan yang kuat yang lebih mempercayai Anwar berbanding Najib kerana faktor ketelusan memerangi rasuah dan penyelewengan di samping kaum India yang semakin sedar MIC tidak boleh diharapkan membela nasibn kaum ketiga terbesar di negara ini.

Tambah akhbar itu lagi, beberapa negeri juga akan tumbang di tangan Pakatan Rakyat walaupun tidak menamakan negeri yang bakal bertukar tampuk pemerintahan selepas pilihanraya umum nanti.

Anwar dengan yakin merasakan kali ini Pakatan Rakyat akan berjaya memperolehi mandat lebih besar berbanding tsunami politik pada 2008 yang menyaksikan 82 kerusi berjaya dirampas dan sekaligus menafikan majoriti dua pertiga buat pertama kali dalam sejarah Malaysia.

Dengan tempoh rayuan yang masih panjang dan pilihanraya umum mesti diadakan dalam tempoh enam bulan, tidak mustahil kata akhbar itu, Anwar Ibrahim akan memimpin Pakatan Rakyat memenangi pilihanraya umum buat pertama kalinya menewaskan BN selain membawa Malaysia ke arah pencapaian yang setanding dengan kuasa besar ekonomi dunia seperti China, Jepun dan Singapura.

Malaysia's Anwar Presses On Despite Appeal

By SHIBANI MAHTANI


Asia News 26 January 2012 11:17 AM ET



KUALA LUMPUR—Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said he isn't worried about state prosecutors' move to appeal a court decision acquitting him of sodomy earlier this month, and said he remains confident it won't derail his campaign to lead a new government to power in elections expected later this year.

"The judgment [in the sodomy case] was very strong" and "difficult to appeal," Mr. Anwar said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his political party's headquarters here Thursday. He said the appeal process, which began Jan. 20, would likely take at least six months, meaning it could loom over and outlast the election campaign.

Prime Minister Najib Razak has to call an election by March 2013, but under Malaysia's parliamentary system of government, many analysts predict it will be called much sooner, triggering one of the most fiercely fought electoral contests this resource-rich nation has ever seen. Mr. Anwar said he believes the election is unlikely to take place later than June.

Since the Jan. 9 verdict by a High Court judge—who acquitted Mr. Anwar of violating Malaysia's strict sodomy laws citing a lack of witnesses and flawed DNA evidence—the 64-year-old opposition leader has begun mobilizing support in this multiracial country, promising reforms to dismantle a decades-old affirmative-action program designed to give a leg up to the majority ethnic-Malay population while also targeting what he describes as widespread cronyism in Mr. Najib's government.

If elected, Mr. Anwar said he will accelerate privatizations and do more to enable free markets to operate more efficiently, such as improving transparency in the bidding for government contracts.

Apa yang dilakukan oleh pentadbiran negeri Pulau Pianang untuk Islam

** Blog article by Syed Imran, an ex-Bernama journalist (1971-1998) and former press secretary to a Minister in PM's Department.

http://kudaranggi.blogspot.com/2012/02/apa-yang-dilakukan-oleh-pentadbiran.html

Saya menghabiskan lapan hari di Pulau Pinang dan dalam tempoh tersebut dapat melihat dan meneliti beberapa perkara yang sering dijadikan 'berita sensasi' mengenai untung nasib Melayu/Islam. Jika mempercayai sepenuhnya laporan-laporan yang dimuat dalam akhbar dan media elektronik 'arus perdana', kita pasti akan marah dan melemparkan 1001 tuduhan kepada pentadbiran negeri.

Sebagai anak jati Pulau Pinang, saya sedar dan tahu akan kedudukan sebenar atau apa yang berlaku dan dilakukan sebelum pilihan raya 2008. Banyak masalah berkaitan orang Melayu/Islam bermula sebelum 2008 dan berterusan hingga ke hari ini.

Banyak perkampungan Melayu dalam kawasan bandar raya dan pinggirnya wujud atas tanah milik bukan Melayu termasuk golongan pemberi hutang yang digelar 'Ceti' dan apabila tuan tanah jual harta mereka itu, maka orang Melayu yang 'menumpang' di situ terpaksa berpindah. Akibat daripada perpindahan itu, berkuranglah jumlah atau bilangan orang Melayu dalam kawasan bandar raya atau pinggir bandar.

Dalam kawasan bandar raya, kampung Melayu/Islam yang masih kekal adalah atas tanah wakaf seperti di Lebuh Aceh (Acheen Street - wakaf Syed Hussein Idid) walaupun hanya tinggal beberapa buah rumah sahaja, Kampung Makam di Jalan Dato' Keramat (wakaf Sheikh Kassim) dan Kampung Syed di Jalan Burma (wakaf Kupima Ku Zainal Abidin/Syed Mohamad Alhabshee).

Ketiga-tiga buah kampung itu kini bernilai tinggi dan dilihat sebagai 'lombong emas' yang mengundang banyak pihak menaruh minat tetapi oleh kerana tarafnya sebagai harta wakaf, maka pihak tertentu tidak boleh menyentuhnya. Bayangkan apa akan berlaku jika ketiga-tiga kawasan atau hartanah itu bukan harta wakaf?

Sekitar tahun 1970-an ada pihak yang ingin membangunkan Kampung Makam selaras dengan kehendak dan wasiat pewakif untuk memastikan ia selari dengan kemajuan dan pembangunan sekitarnya. Malangnya, usaha tersebut dibantah oleh segelintir penduduk dan akibatnya Kampung Makam kekal seperti sedia kala hingga sekarang.

Kebelakangan ini, pentadbiran negeri sering dijadikan sasaran dan kecaman oleh pihak-pihak tertentu yang antara lain menuduhnya menganaktiri dan menzalimi orang Melayu dan orang Islam. Mereka melempar tuduhan dengan merujuk kepada pentadbiran negeri sebagai "kerajaan DAP" sedangkan ia adalah sebuah kerajaan campuran tiga buah parti politik yang dikenali sebagai Pakatan Rakyat. Mungkin dengan merujuk kepada pentadbiran negeri sebagai "kerajaan DAP" pihak berkenaan berharap ia dapat membakar semangat marah di kalangan orang Melayu dan Islam.

Banyak masalah yang dibangkitkan oleh mereka sebenarnya bukan perkara baru. Ia mula berlaku semasa pentadbiran Barisan Nasional/Perikatan dan diwarisi oleh pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat. Kebanyakan daripada masalah yang bersangkut-paut dengan isu tanah dan perumahan membabitkan soal undang-undang dan pentadbiran yang mengambil alih selepas pilihan raya umum 2008 tidak seharusnya dipersalahkan.

Pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat yang berkuasa di Pulau Pinang, walaupun dicemuh oleh pihak tertentu, telah membuktikan kecemerlangan khususnya dalam aspek pentadbiran kewangan dan memelihara kebajikan rakyat.

Belanjawan atau Bajet 2012 Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang berjaya mengukuhkan kesihatan dana negeri dengan mengurangkan hutang yang ditinggalkan kerajaan terdahulu daripada RM630.13 juta kepada RM29.66 juta dalam tempoh tiga setengah tahun sahaja.

Pengurangan hutang sebanyak RM600.47 juta atau 95.29 peratus adalah kadar yang paling cemerlang di antara semua negeri di Malaysia. Hasil daripada pengukuhan kewangan, penjimatan dan perbelanjaan berhemah yang diperolehi melalui prinsip tadbir Cekap, Akauntabiliti dan Telus (CAT) telah disalurkan untuk keperluan pembangunan dan kesejahteraan rakyat.

Antara program yang dilancarkan atau diperkenalkan sejak 2008 - Program Membasmi Kemiskinan Tegar, Program Penghargaan Warga Emas, bantuan kepada golongan Orang Kelainan Upaya (OKU) dan ibu tunggal serta Penghargaan Anak Emas yang bermul pada 2011.

Mulai tahun ini, kerajaan negeri bertekad untuk membantu 743 Ketua Isi Rumah (KIR) yang majoritinya orang Melayu, memperolehi pendapatan sekurang-kurangnya RM600 sebulan yang membabitkan bantuan sebanyak RM4.0 juta setahun. Kerajaan negeri mensasarkan sebelum 2015, Pulau Pinang menjadi negeri pertama di Malaysia yang berjaya menghapuskan miskin tegar sepenuhnya.

Sudah tentu ada pihak yang kurang senang dengan apa yang saya nyatakan tetapi itulah hakikatnya dan itulah kenyataan. Saya tidak memihak kepada sesiapa tetapi sebagai anak Pulau Pinang, saya kena akui dan terima kenyataan tanpa mengira siapa atau parti politik mana yang berkuasa.

Saya perturunkan fakta kewangan berkaitan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam yang dilaksana oleh Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Pulau Pinang sejak ia mentadbir negeri pada 2008. Ia adalah fakta, bukan sesuatu yang direka-reka untuk menyedap hati atau sebagai hiasan jendela. BN merujuk kepada pentadbiran Barisan Nasional pimpinan Parti Gerakan dan PR merujuk kepada pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat pimpinan DAP.


1. PERUNTUKAN BERKAITAN HAL EHWAL AGAMA ISLAM

Tahun 2008 (BN) ..............RM25.7 juta
Tahun 2009 (PR)...............RM33.2 juta
Tahun 2010 (PR)...............RM38.9 juta
Tahun 2011 (PR)...............RM45.7 juta
Tahun 2012 (PR)...............RM64.03 juta


2. SAGUHATI TAHUNAN GURU KAFA

Tahun 2008 (BN)..............RM659,000.00
Tahun 2009 (PR)...............RM879,000.00
Tahun 2010 (PR)...............RM913,200.00
Tahun 2011 (PR)...............RM900,000.00
Tahun 2012 (PR)...............RM900,000.00


3. PERUNTUKAN TAMBAHAN TAHUNAN UNTUK SEKOLAH AGAMA RAKYAT (SAR)

Tahun 2008 (BN).............TIADA
Tahun 2009 (PR)..............RM1.50 juta
Tahun 2010 (PR)..............RM1.75 juta
Tahun 2011 (PR)..............RM1.75 juta

4. SUMBANGAN DAN PENGIKTIRAFAN AL-HUFFAZ

Tahun 2008 (BN)............TIADA
Tahun 2009 (PR).............RM75,000.00
Tahun 2010 (PR).............RM100,000.00
Tahun 2011 (PR).............RM130,000.00


5. SUMBANGAN EKYA' RAMADAN (KEPADA SELURUH MASJID)

Tahun 2008 (BN)............TIADA
Tahun 2009 (PR).............RM213,000.00 setahun bermula tahun 2008 selepas ambil alih pentadbiran negeri

6. PROGRAM BULANAN AL-QURAN

Tahun 2008 (BN)..........TIADA
Tahun 2009 (PR)...........RM100,000.00 setahun

*FAKTA ADALAH DARIPADA JABATAN HAL EHWAL AGAMA ISLAM PULAU PINANG

Saya tidak pasti sama ada berita ini mendapat tempat dalam media arus perdana tetapi percaya ianya tidak dilaporkan. Apa yang dilaporkan lebih merupakan laporan negatif yang mencemuh dan memberi gambaran buruk terhadap pentadbiran negeri semata-mata kerana ia diterajui oleh DAP.

Malaysia’s prime minister loses most from Anwar trial

— by Barry Wain
The Malaysian Insider
Feb 10, 2012

FEB 10 — Malaysians expressed a collective sigh of relief when Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted of sodomy charges in early January.
Their groan of dismay over the prosecution’s subsequent decision to appeal was equally palpable.

For most Malaysians, despite being divided in their opinions of Anwar, the acquittal marked a chance to move away from the sleazy politics that has long dominated daily life. Now, they expect more of the same. Aware of public exasperation, Prime Minister Najib Razak was quick to seize on the not guilty verdict as proof of his ‘reformist’ agenda and Malaysia’s supposedly independent judiciary. But the appeal leaves him stranded, inclined to delay calling a general election, and acutely aware that he is under threat as much from within his own ranks as from the opposition. It seems likely that Najib will win the next election, but unless he scores big — which seems unlikely — his leadership could be at risk.

The old guard in Najib’s United Malays National Organisation (Umno), the core of the Barisan Nasional coalition government, has been trying to have Anwar convicted of sexual misconduct for more than 13 years. His first sodomy trial in the late 1990s was regarded as a miscarriage of justice, and the recently completed second trial was just as dubious, according to international legal and human rights organisations. Kuala Lumpur has a thriving gay club scene and nightlife, and the police — to their credit — do not hound homosexuals. But Anwar was hauled into court twice on a charge of ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

The government’s deliberate targeting of Anwar is obvious. His arrest in 2008 came soon after he led a revitalised opposition to unprecedented gains in a general election, depriving the Umno-led Barisan Nasional of its usual two-thirds majority in parliament. Subsequently, Anwar has spent much of the past three years caught up defending himself in the sodomy trial, when he might have otherwise engaged in consolidating the opposition coalition.

Despite, or perhaps because of, these efforts, the trial has become a liability for Najib. The value in distracting Anwar and trying to knock him out politically has been offset by the damage to Najib’s reputation as a putative reformer. Conscious that the long-term electoral trend is running against the ruling coalition, which has held power since independence in 1957, Najib has positioned himself as an agent of change, who is in touch with Malaysia’s younger generation. He has attempted to roll back unpopular elements of an affirmative action program designed to benefit the country’s majority ethnic Malay community, liberalise press restrictions and replace controversial security laws, including detention without trial. Still, Najib is yet to convert the rhetoric of reform into reality, which he must do to win back the alienated centre of Malaysian politics, where cynicism and anger run deep.

Najib is encountering entrenched opposition within Umno, particularly from conservatives who favour continued Malay privileges and the flow of patronage to the party faithful. These older Umno Malays and their supporters in the business world and bureaucracy — especially the police and prosecutors — strongly objected to Anwar being freed and lobbied hard and successfully for the appeal. In the end, Najib will lose the most. It seems he failed to stand up to these factions — again — and lost the public relations gains from Anwar’s acquittal.

The loss of the momentum that Anwar’s freedom initially gave Najib may persuade him to wait until later this year to call an election, which must be held by March 2013. Najib must gamble that the electoral climate will improve by this time. But the economy could slow and more political scandals could emerge — rampant corruption involving Umno politicians has already hurt his government.

Free to campaign, Anwar will lift the spirits of the three-party opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition. But he is looking and sounding tired, and his own People’s Justice Party is rife with factionalism and squabbling. Although Anwar said recently: ‘My gut tells me we will win [the election]’, most analysts believe he will fall short, even if not by much.

While the opposition will surely live to fight another day, Najib may not have it so easy, even if he wins. Only the recovery of a two-thirds parliamentary majority will ensure his continued leadership of UMNO and Malaysia. Failing this, Najib could face pressure to step aside if he loses more seats, a fate that befell Abdullah Badawi, his predecessor. — East Asia Forum

Even after Anwar’s acquittal, politics will likely stay dirty

— Bridget Welsh
The Malaysian Insider
Feb 10, 2012

FEB 10 — Malaysia recently hit the headlines after opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted of sodomy charges, although the prosecution has already filed an appeal.

The case is entirely political and reflects the government’s willingness to use the judiciary for political ends. Malaysia is set for the most competitive elections it has ever had, likely before June or else pushed off until 2013, and each side has a fighting chance to win.

Malaysian politics is dirty. Murder, sodomy, secret trysts, sex videos and conspiracy are all commonplace, and corruption scandals occur regularly. Both sides wallow in this political gutter, each trying to darken the reputation of the other and not fully appreciating how much the system as a whole has been damaged. Anwar’s acquittal gave the government an opportunity to take the high road and move away from this negative approach. Instead, it opted to appeal, despite the shabby evidence.

Concerns are now focused on the integrity of the electoral process. The government is mooting reforms but the problems are vast, from administrative neutrality to vote buying. As the system becomes more competitive, political institutions involved in anticorruption and law have been compromised, with the government pressuring institutions such as the civil service to toe the line.

The upcoming election will revolve around Anwar and Prime Minister Najib Razak tapping into their own popularity bases, as politics in Malaysia is highly personalised. Both men have been damaged by character assassinations and will need to work hard to win support. The test now is whether either candidate will move beyond a largely self-centred campaign and articulate the solutions that his leadership can offer.

The country’s problems are well known — including the need for economic reform and improved race relations, coupled with growing inequality — but sadly, the policy options each side promises to pursue are unclear.
Anwar’s strength has been his charisma, and he has succeeded in consolidating his support base through martyr politics. Nevertheless, his reputation suffered during the trial and he has a long road ahead to win new supporters, especially in rural areas, where the government media dominates.

On the other hand, Najib faces a trust deficit, which seems to be growing at the same rate as inconsistencies in his reform policies. It is still unclear what he stands for, and his reliance on handouts to woo voters reflects weakness, not strength.

Malaysian politics is also highly polarised. Both sides can expect support from about 35 per cent of the electorate, with the remaining third in the middle. But in satisfying their primary support bases, Malaysia’s leaders have alienated the centre. To win the upcoming election, both leaders will need to meet the expectations of their support bases while reaching out to those who are ambivalent, tired of over-politicking, and eager for more than negativity.

Najib in particular faces the challenge of preserving the loyalty of his base, many of whom have resisted change and adopted reactionary racial positions. They expect him to protect their interests and have shown that they will remove any leader who fails their expectations.

His attempts to reach the middle ground, both in areas of political reform and ethnic relations, compromise his base’s support. He now has limited political space, and the result has been inconsistency. In contrast, Anwar can more easily reach out to the middle because his support base wants change, although even he must manage the growing anger of his supporters.

In this complicated terrain, ethnic politics is alive and well. Malaysia has three linked interethnic dynamics. The first involves race relations between Malays and non-Malay minorities. Then there is the issue of religious relations, especially between Muslims and other religious groups. Finally, there is the issue of moderate views and more extreme views of race and religion in the Malay community.

These dynamics have become more difficult to manage since the 2008 elections when Najib’s National Front lost its two-thirds hold on seats; in some instances, they have even led to violence, such as the church bombings in 2010.

Navigating these divisions is not easy, and the contenders for power ultimately need to include all Malaysians. For Najib, the challenge is to reach out to non-Malays. For Anwar, the challenge is to show that his coalition can represent the positions of different ethnic groups, while also incorporating the country’s Islamists.

Especially challenging for both is how to accommodate more extreme perspectives in a moderate framework, in a bid to move Malaysian politics from negativity toward inclusion and hope. — Jakarta Globe

Court of Appeal: Freedom of speech not absolute

February 08, 2012

PUTRAJAYA, Feb 8 — The rights and freedom of speech enshrined in the Federal Constitution are not absolute, the Court of Appeal ruled today.

As a result, statements made by Karpal Singh at a press conference in 2009 about Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak in relation to the political crisis in the state at the time, exceeded the boundaries permitted by the law and amounted to sedition.

This is despite the fact that Karpal (picture) in his capacity as a Member of Parliament and lawyer has the right to make political comments and express his views on the Constitution and the law, a 105-page judgment by Justice Datuk Ahmad Ma’arop added.

The Star Online reported Justice Ahmad as ruling the freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution meant a person had the right to speak, write or publish anything he liked so long as he does not break the law.

He also said the prosecution only needed to prove that the words uttered by Karpal could be deemed seditious — and not that they had led to an actual act of violence or an adverse reaction.

The news portal also quoted Justice Ahmad as saying it is immaterial as to whether Karpal’s statements were grounded in fact or not.

On January 20, Justice Ahmad, who presided over a three-man bench of the Court of Appeal, ordered Karpal to enter his defence on a charge of uttering seditious words against Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak during a press conference in 2009.

The panel, which also comprised justices Datuk Clement Allan Skinner and Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali set aside the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision on June 11, 2010 to acquit and discharge Karpal from the sedition charge without calling for his defence.

Karpal was charged with uttering the seditious words at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama in Kuala Lumpur between 12pm and 12.30pm on February 6, 2009.

He is alleged to have said that the removal of Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as mentri besar of Perak by the sultan could be questioned in a court of law.

The charge under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act carries a maximum RM5,000 fine or three years’ jail, or both if convicted.

The Appeals Court, on January 20, also fixed tomorrow for mention of the case at the High Court.

In his judgment, Justice Ahmad said the panel did not accept Karpal’s submission that Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948, which makes questioning the rights and privileges of rulers an offence, was against the Federal Constitution.

Justice Ahmad further held the panel were in no doubt that the press conference was called with the hope that the proceedings would be reported.

He said Karpal at the press conference had repeatedly uttered words that clearly inferred the Sultan of Perak had broken the law, did not follow the law and did not respect the law.

US gives non-taxpayers the ballot, overseas voting group tells EC

By Shannon Teoh

February 07, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 7 — A group representing Malaysian voters living abroad slammed the Election Commission (EC) today for wrongly citing the United States as a country that operates a “no tax, no vote” system.

EC chairman Tan Sri Aziz Yusof was earlier reported as saying that Malaysians overseas would have to pay tax to Putrajaya before being given postal votes, a proposal that garnered support from MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

Aziz was chided for his ‘ignorant and misleading assertions about the American system of overseas voting.’ — File pic

However, the election regulator chief clarified yesterday that he only gave the US as an example “where postal voters should be taxpayers” to show that other countries imposed conditions on citizens living abroad before allowing them to vote.

But MyOverseasVote said in a statement that even this assertion was wrong and chided “the EC chairman and the MCA’s ignorant and misleading assertions about the American system of overseas voting.”

In its statement, it pointed to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act that allows a US citizen abroad the right to vote so long as he is 18 years or older, saying that this fact was confirmed by the US Embassy in London.
“According to the Constitution of the United States of America, it is illegal to link the payment of taxes to the right to vote.

“The 24th Amendment provides that ‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax’,” the group added.

Electoral reforms movement Bersih 2.0 has also slammed as unconstitutional the suggestion to bar overseas Malaysians who do not pay taxes from voting, pointing out that many Malaysians here are not taxpayers.

It said that those who earn less than RM2,500 a month and many retirees are exempt from paying income tax, and asked if these groups will also be barred from voting in parliamentary and state elections.

The group has persistently demanded the EC to open the way for Malaysians abroad to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

There are an estimated 700,000 Malaysians living and working abroad.

Earlier last month, the High Court here threw out an application by six Malaysians overseas who wanted a review of the election laws.

Judge Datuk Rohana Yusuf had ruled that the applicants “clearly” did not come under the allowed absent voter category. She noted that the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002 define “absent voters” as citizens who are members of the armed forces, public servants, full-time students, or their spouses who are allowed to cast postal votes.

The government had set up a parliamentary select committee last year to improve elections after international condemnation of its clampdown on the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally which saw over 1,500 arrests, scores injured and the death of an ex-soldier.

But opposition leaders, who strongly supported the march, have threatened further protests if electoral reforms including eight key demands by Bersih 2.0 are not implemented before the next general election, widely expected to be called this year, ahead of its 2013 expiry.

Najib at bay

Feb 4th 2012

Politics in Malaysia – Good intentions are not enough for a leader at odds with his party

KUALA LUMPUR

WHEN the leader of the Malaysian opposition, Anwar Ibrahim, was acquitted by a high court judge last month on controversial charges of sodomy, supporters in the government of the reforming prime minister, Najib Razak, were able to claim it as something of a victory. It was proof, they said, that ministers no longer meddled in judicial decisions, as in the bad old days. They even claimed it as evidence of Mr Najib’s wider programme to bring the country into a modern, liberal age.

And so the attorney-general’s decision barely two weeks later to appeal against Mr Anwar’s acquittal hardly looks good. Mr Anwar has always maintained that the sodomy charge was a smear that had been orchestrated by people from within Mr Najib’s ruling party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). The case had run for two years, which for many Malaysians was quite long enough. Mr Anwar’s lawyer quickly derided the appeal as “a desperate act”.

The attorney-general’s decision renews suspicions that nothing much has changed within UMNO, which refuses to stop hounding Mr Anwar and, despite Mr Najib’s worthy intentions, wants few reforms to speak of. Resistance to Mr Najib’s changes has become something of a leitmotif of his time in office, and it could cost him dear at the next general election, which is expected later this year.

Over the past two years this English-educated son of an earlier prime minister has positioned himself as a bold moderniser. Mr Najib has promised to repeal a myriad of repressive laws, some carried over from colonial times, and to usher Malaysia into a new era of “transparency, democracy and the rule of law”. He seems sincerely to believe that Malaysia’s political settlement after independence in 1957 is anachronistic, because it uses wide-ranging affirmative actions to privilege the rights of the majority ethnic Malays over those of ethnic Chinese and Indians. It should, he says, be dismantled, slowly but surely.

As well as being right and proper, such reform makes political sense too. A younger generation of Malaysians resents the ethnic divisiveness practised by the ruling establishment and yearns for more political and social freedoms. It means that the centre ground of politics, on which the next general election will be fought, has shifted away from the politics of Malay supremacy.

The trouble is that though Mr Najib believes in change, much of his party clearly does not. UMNO was founded specifically to protect Malay privileges and has ruled Malaysia without interruption since independence. Mr Najib came to power in 2009 not through an electoral mandate for change, but in an internal coup. As a consequence, he lacks the clout and possibly the will to impose his agenda on UMNO. And the longer he postpones an election, the more his personal authority will ebb.

Reformists within the party are now frustrated, whereas others have defected to other parties. One, Mohamed Ariff Sabri Aziz, used to be chief of information in Mr Najib’s own division, or constituency. He argues that Mr Najib “does not have the foot soldiers to bring his reformist slogans down to the ground. He has the right instincts, but he’s running into a brick wall.” Most of the internal opposition to Mr Najib comes at the divisional level, where a belief in Malay privilege remains entrenched. Here are the people who have benefited most from the tenders and contracts traditionally doled out by UMNO ministers to friends and family. “These are the favoured lot, who grease the wheels of power”, a senior UMNO man says. “You have to dismantle all this, and so far Mr Najib has done nothing. He is not strong enough. He has tried very hard, but he has been pushed back by the conservatives in his party.”

The civil service is a problem too. Traditionally an important source of Malay patronage, it is dominated by those with a vested interest in hanging on to their perks and their standard of living. So even if the prime minister’s office tries to push a reform through, the outcome is by no means assured.

Obstructionism from within the governing system to Mr Najib’s reforms has become brazen. Take the Peaceful Assembly Bill, awaiting signing into law. This legislation, from the attorney-general’s office, seems to go directly against much of Mr Najib’s earlier declarations about the need for greater civic freedoms. To many, the bill, regulating the right to protest, seems to be even more restrictive than what went before. Najibistas in the cabinet claim that they fought back bravely, watering down some of the more draconian provisions. Nonetheless, the new law has come in for condemnation, including by UN human-rights people.

So much for the great reform programme. The pity of Mr Najib is that a well-intentioned man has reformed just enough to alienate his own party and too little to convince the centre ground. He may be courting electoral disaster.