Friday, August 29, 2008

Perhaps the last on Anwar

More of Anwar's "Cronies" or Hypocrisy?

They say they who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Corresponsingly, those who commit "cronyism" should not accuse other's of "cronyism".

And, those who demand proof should not support those who accuse other's without proof. The latter remark is intended to answer one commentator who seek to refute my list of Anwar's "cronies" by seeking proof.

Where is Anwar's proof then to accuse Najib of feminine indisgression, "murder" and commission taking from the Government's purchases of Scorpene and Sukhoi? Love or loath him, Anwar owe Najib proofs. Unsubstantiated accusation from one public figure to another public figure is defamatory.

On the subject of "cronyism", it is Anwar that challenged the public to name his "cronies". Since he did not define the "cronyism" term, Dr Mahathir's description was used. By that definition, there is no need to any proof. This is a court of public opinion and not a legal court.

I can vouch for the list I have provided from my years in the corporate sector analysing public companies and making a forte identifying "people behind those published names." These names come from the public but it is not ordinary man on the street but from dealings of my own and others.

To remind readers, the terms crony, cronies and cronyism remains in inverted commas as we await Anwar to shed more light on his definition. I sense it will be a while. He won't be dwelling on this issue any more.

Without having to open my own "six boxes", several sources reminded me of more names of Anwar's "crony". I am sure Ezam's promise to open his "six boxes" will shed even more. Why are we waiting?

More "Crony"

Reading Tunku's posting on Najib's revelation, it reminded me of another important "crony" of Anwar.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Anwar Once Demanded Gambling Licence In Sabah, Says Najib

BUKIT MERTAJAM, Aug 20 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, when he was Deputy Prime Minister once slammed the table and threw files to demand the Sabah government approve a licence for a four-digit lottery to a company he had an interest in, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

The Deputy Prime Minister said the incident happened when Datuk Yong Teck Lee was Chief Minister of Sabah.

"He (Anwar) wanted the licence because his elder brother was the chairman of the company concerned," Najib said when campaigning for the Barisan Nasional in the run up to the Permatang Pauh by-election in Simpang Empat, Seberang Jaya here Wednesday night.

Yong Teck Lee was appointed Chief Minister of Sabah from 1996 to May 1998 while Anwar was deputy prime minister from 1993 until he was sacked from Umno in September 1998.

Najib said he was proud of the action of the Sabah government in upholding its principles to deny the unprincipled Anwar the licence.

"Now he is talking about forming a society of high moral values but before, demanded for a gambling licence to be approved," he said.

Earlier, at another function in Seberang Perai Tengah, Najib announced special allocations amounting to RM100,000 for each mosque and RM30,000 for each surau in the parliamentary constituency.

He also urged Muslims to remind united so that the community continued to remain strong.

The by-election on Aug 26 will see a three cornered fight between Anwar, who is now advisor of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the BN's Arif Shah Omar Shad and Hanafi Mamat of Angkatan Keadilan Islam Malaysia (Akim).
.


My recollection on this deal differ from Tunku.

The group Najib meant is more likely to be "Duta Yap" or Dato Yap Seng Hock's Mycom Berhad. It relates with the issue of Sandakan Turf Club bid for numbered games.

Other than "Duta Yapp", the Hong Leong people are also involved. I mentioned yesterday the close relation of Anwar in assisting Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan to secure a Malaysian Bank.

... And More "Crony"

Commentator Wak Segen in Rocky Bru's enlisted additional names from the Skim Kontraktor Wibawa "cronies" like Projass Engineering and Espirit Group.

Projass is a company having a nice modern designed building near the Subang Jaya Masjid (below is RHB Bank) but the owners, which are Anwar's MCKK collegemate, already left the country for London strpping the company's cash. Isn't that a case of CBT?

In former Bank Negara Malaysia Adviser, Dato Abdul Murad bin Khalid Statutory Declaration of October 28, 1999, many names are mentioned, and the story told tallies with my own knowledge of events. A summary of the names and events are below:

1. Dato Murad, a company, Ben Harta Sdn Bhd and its nominee shareholders - Gan Hong Sin @ Lan Hong Sing and Gan Sor Ting

2. Nazri Abdullah's Group takeover NST Group with help from Maybank and Hong Leong's Seow Lun Hoo and Quek Leng Chan of Hong Leong;

3. Tong Koi Ong and the recipients of his monthly benevolence are YB Azmin's wife, Puan Shamsidar Tahrin, and one Encik Rahman;

4. Former CIA operative, Douglas H. Paal that was heading Asia Pacific Policy Centre;

5. Receipient of debt problem solved - Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad, Puan Marina Yusof, and Penang based Mercury Securities shareholder - Chew Seng Guan and Encik Ahmad Kamal;

6. Sale of Matang Emas Sdn Bhd, a company owned by Taib Hamid; and

7. Faiz Abdullah (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's ghost writer) and Seow Lun Hoo of Hong Leong to purchase Kewangan Usaha Bersatu Berhad (KUBB).

The list of mentioning of Hong Leong Group association with Anwar reminded me of the same group's involvement in ECM Libra and their takeover of Avenue Asset.

I am reminded of one member of PACC then that is supposed to probe into the ECM Libra-Avenue scandal, as in Member of Parliament, YB Sarit Jusoh who controls Wembley Berhad as Anwar's "crony".

Really Anwar, you could either define your "crony" term or lay off this issue.

This is about Karpal Singh the Lion of Jelutong who cried when detain by the Government during operation lalang in the 1980's.

Karpal as a politician should be contemptible not only to Dr Mahathir but to the rest of the Malaysian society who have some degree of moral belief and sense of fair play.

Karpal has managed to hide his racist and opportunistic political approach by riding on his so-called courage of being vocal and not mincing his words in criticising the BN Government.

A good example is his expose of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for sexual transgressions sometime during the first quarter of 1998 at a DAP convention held in Federal Hotel, Kuala Lumpur.

At that time, Ummi Hafilda Ali and Azizan Abu Bakar, the two main witnesses in the Anwar’s sodomy trial, had given their sworn affidavits of Anwar’s sexual misdemeanour.

Karpal had stood before the DAP audience and said to the effect hat he had proof of the Deputy Prime Minister’s sexual misdeeds and challenged the Prime Minister (Dr Mahathir) to take action against his deputy.

It may sound unbelievable but I’m sure some DAP leaders or those who had since left the party would be more than prepared to come forward to verify this.

This revelation was made some five months before accusations of Anwar being a sodomite was made public or taken up by Dr Mahathir himself.

However, when Anwar was finally charged in court for sodomy based on the affidavits of Ummi Hafilda and Azizan, what did Karpal do?

He came forward to offer himself as one of Anwar’s defence lawyer. Of course it can be argued that in any system of justice, a person who is accused of any crime deserves to be defended, if not for his innocence, at least for leniency.

However, in the case of Anwar, the defence attorneys were defending his innocence and as such, Karpal should disqualify himself even if he was requested by Anwar.

This is based on the fact that Karpal was the very person who first made the accusations against Anwar and to a very large degree, was the one who encouraged, directly or otherwise, Ummi Hafilda and Azizan to take the case one step further.

Like it or not, given Karpal’s reputation (being vocal and not mincing his words), would have inspired confidence in Ummi Hafilda and Azizan to take the matter up to Dr Mahathir himself.

What kind of moral values does Karpal hold when he had, on one hand, publicly accused Anwar and then on the other, when the accusation is filed in court, he offers himself to be the defence counsel?

And one wonders why the Bar Council had not taken any steps to discipline Karpal? Is it out of fear (of his reputation) or that he speaks the same language as most members of the Bar.

And one should also wonder why Anwar himself seems to be comfortable with Karpal who had publicly accused him of his sexual misdemeanour but fumes and rant when it came from Dr Mahathir?

It can only then be deduced that Karpal is an unscrupulous lawyer/politician who is opportunistic and would grab anything which could provide him political gain.

Less the public forgets, Karpal when realising the unhappiness of the masses for the accusations of Anwar being a sodomite, ensured that he capitalised on the ground swell.

Gaining much publicity and political ground by being Anwar’s defence counsel, Karpal decided to take one step further. He was again at the forefront in making the accusations of a conspiracy to murder Anwar over the use of arsenic.

No doubt, it was later proven that there was no such thing but for Karpal, he managed to grab the opportunity to be the “hero” of the moment and got the publicity he needed.

His kind of politics is divisive and destructive. It can only be deduced that he resorted to this because he could not stand the leadership of the Malays.

He couldn’t stand Dr Mahathir at the top and neither could he accept Anwar as the successor. How does he remedy it – by pitting them against each other and then befriending the one perceived to be the victim?

Karpal cannot stand the fact that if there is any Malay in the country that would not be intimidated or suffer any sense of inferiority, it would be Dr Mahathir.

And Karpal knows, for as long as Dr Mahathir is respected and popular among the Malays, his agenda of undermining Malay leadership would not be achieved.

Now, he is back to his old tricks – throwing his support behind Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

This sudden affinity for Abdullah has got nothing to do with his concern over whether the nation is better off with Abdullah or otherwise.

Karpal realises that for as long as Abdullah remains as the Prime Minister and Umno president, the Malays would be further disenfranchised and sidelined in a nation where they are the majority.

To him, Dr Mahathir must not be allowed to push for Abdullah’s resignation as this would set back his agenda or maybe even back to square one.

The only way is to turn his attention on Dr Mahathir, encourage Abdullah to unearth issues which are perceived to be Dr Mahathir’s dirt so as to shut up the former Prime Minister.

Otherwise why does he only seemed concerned about Dr Mahathir’s purported past misdeeds when Abdullah’s misadministration and malpractices presently are there for everyone to see.

Karpal seems concern about use of ISA in the 1998 Ops Lallang. It can be argued that there are those who believed that Ops Lallang was a necessity given the political temperature then which was ready to blow.

Ask any Malay who was politically sensitive during that period – they would tell you that they were then ready to jump into the next bus and attend the Malay gathering at the TPCA stadium just to express their anger for the non-Malay continued attacks on the Malay rights and privileges.

The situation was indeed explosive and it can be argued that Ops Lallang was an evil necessity.

However, if Karpal is so concerned about the use of the ISA, there seems to be a deafening silence on his part when Abdullah used the ISA to lock up Sri Lankan businessman BSA Tahir for his links over the export of centrifuge to Libya by Scomi.

While Tahir may pose a danger but the fact that he was directly linked to Abdullah’s son Kamaluddin and his company Scomi made the placing of Tahir under the ISA very suspicious.

In fact, it smacked of Abdullah’s attempt to silence Tahir so as to protect his son. By any moral standards, between Ops Lallang and Tahir’s detention, the latter is immoral, unjust and self-serving.

If Karpal can be so concerned with the plight of a man he had publicly pronounced as a sodomite, is he not concerned with the possible victimisation of Tahir by the Prime Minister.

This, yet again, proves that justice and fair play are not of concern to Karpal.

The demand that Dr Mahathir apologise to Salleh Abas proves very much Karpal’s lack of regards for the justice system he proclaims to champion.

The matter cropped up when newly-appointed de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim decided to put his foot in his mouth by suggesting that the Government apologise to Salleh Abas.

Then it was revealed that Zaid himself had in 1989 supported the setting up of the tribunal and had then, in his capacity as Muslim Lawyers Association president condemned the Bar Council for continuing to question the tribunal.

The whole issue boils down to whether the tribunal had been legally instituted or otherwise.

If it is, as Zaid seemed to be inferring, then the next question is whether the tribunal’s decision was right or wrong.

If it is accepted to be right, the issue of apologising to Salleh Abas does not arise. If its decision is wrong, then the tribunal should apologise to Salleh Abas and not anyone else.

As such, the whole thing must go through a process of several stages if justice were to be achieved. But for Karpal, these stages need not be pursued as justice to him is only when he is the judge, jury and executioner.

But he has not always been an executioner. Karpal was at one time willing to be executed, if his remark “over my dead body” is to be used as a yardstick.

He remarked this when PAS stoked the idea of setting up an Islamic state which brought strong reactions from DAP leaders and secularists.

But none were as strong as Karpal’s who, apart from having proven to be a committed one man anti-Malay army, now wanted to be anti-Islam.

While debates are encouraged and should be tolerated pertaining to the Islamic state issue, was it necessary to come up with such threatening statement as “over my dead body”.

Even though being a rabid anti-Islam may serve Karpal’s political career in his majority non-Malay constituency, his remark hurt many a Malay/Muslim feelings.

But did he care? Of course he didn’t. He only seemed to be remorseful in 1999 when PAS took the leading role in the reformasi movement, when a large segment of the Malays were quite united in opposing the BN Government.

Again Karpal saw the opportunity to work with the Malay/Muslims and he then expressed his regrets for making the “over my dead body” remark. Why the change of heart?

Simply because he knew that to ensure the continued split among the Malays, he must support either one of it and for his political agenda, it was best to support the reformasi even though PAS was very central to it.

Such is Karpal’s nature that, to my mind, contemptible is too gentle a word to describe a person like him.

Some More

There’s something about Anwar alright (updated 30/04/08)

30 04 2008
We shall start off with this pantun;

“Angkut angkut terbang ke langit,
sampai di langit dimakan merbah,
biar bertangkup bumi dan langit,
setia hamba tidak berubah.”

Those were the words of an Umno Deputy President during an Umno General Assembly in the not too distant past. During the good old days some would have reckoned. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim verbalized his undivided loyalty towards his mentor, Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad by reciting this pantun at the end of the Umno General Assembly in 1996. The affection being shown at that time by the PM towards his successor was for all to see. Only the most clairvoyant among us can predict what could have been unfold in the next two years after the pantun was recited and immortalized in the annals of Umno history.
“The prodigal son and the father figure”
This fiery pantun, which embodied an absolute and undying loyalty of a man towards his President no matter what may come, had been truly forgotten by Anwar Ibrahim as he became the fiercest critic to the very same person he held in very high regard several years ago.
In 1996, Anwar was seen as Umno’s heir apparent to Dr Mahathir. Now, in 2008, Anwar is still perceived as heir apparent and prime minister in waiting to the current PM albeit from another political party. Who is Anwar Ibrahim? How did he came about to be what he is today? A political reformer? The people’s saviour? An opportunist? A power hungry extremist?
In order to know a person, we need to know his character, his current idealogy, his belief system, his principles or as some may say it, his ‘centre of being’. We study this, and then we reflect on all his actions through the years we’ve known him during the height of his power, and only then we can gauge what kind of a man he is. As what Abraham Lincoln once said - “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”.
Read the above pantun again. Has the earth and the sky flipped over each other?
From his May 2007 interview in BBC’s Hardtalk, we delve into the man which some touted as the next best thing in Malaysia.
The issue which was relentlessly hammered on to Anwar towards the end of the interview was his integrity and credibility in leading the fight against the blatant corruption within the Malaysian Government. As the interviewer pointed out, he was in the system itself for nearly 2 decades and did not do anything about it. Although Anwar insisted he fought against the tide, it were only in the forms of words. No actions were done by him. In fact, his tenure as the Finance Minister from 1991 to 1998 was best remembered by his subtle manouevring in forcing Dr Mahathir to resign as Prime Minister in the Umno General Assembly in 1998.
His message was conveyed in the form of his trusted lieutenant, Datuk Zahid Hamidi, the Umno Youth Chief at the time. Alleging that cronyism and nepotism were prevalent within the Umno top hierarchy, and insinuating to the Umno members that Dr Mahathir had too many cronies, it was time Dr Mahathir to pass on the mantle of power to a cleaner leader. However, the plan backfired. We can read to remember about this revelation in Business Times ( 23 June 1998 );

DATUK Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the Umno Youth chief, caused more than a bit of a stir when he spoke of `nepotisma and kronisma’ at the Youth assembly last Thursday, forcing the ensuing three-day Umno general assembly to debate issues associated with these alien terms openly.

The party found itself on the defensive because, as a member of the Umno supreme council, there were questions as to whether Zahid had raised the issues at its meetings chaired by the party president. It led to several significant things happening during the assembly.

It prompted the Government to issue several lists of names of so-called “Government cronies” who had been awarded shares or privatization projects. They included the Prime Minister’s son, the Deputy Prime Minister’s father and brother, Cabinet ministers and members of parliament, aside from hundreds of other names of “ordinary” Malays and Bumiputeras. Even Zahid’s name was in one of the lists.

The finality of the findings destroyed Anwar’s reputation as the leading reformer of clean governance as more evidence of his excesses were exposed that year. One such excesses was the purported loss of billions of ringgit in currency hedging by Bank Negara Malaysia. In January 2008, Dr Mahathir had already toying with the idea of capital controls but was shot down by Anwar. He favours the more risky currency trading. As the result, when the ringgit devalued further that month, he directed BNM to intervene;

KUALA LUMPUR 5 Jan. - Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) dibenarkan untuk campur tangan dalam pasaran tukaran wang asing bagi memastikan nilai ringgit dapat distabilkan.

Anwar yang mengulas mengenai kejatuhan ringgit hari ini yang mencapai paras terendahnya 4.0550/50 berbanding dolar Amerika, menegaskan BNM boleh campur tangan sekiranya keadaan itu sangat diperlukan.

Dalam hubungan ini Anwar menegaskan, kejatuhan ringgit sebenarnya disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor serantau seperti nilai baht, peso, rupiah dan won (Korea Selatan).

Please note that he stated the ringgit value fell due to external factors. Not due to Dr Mahathir’s fault as he had always screamed after he was sacked from the cabinet. Two days after making the statement above, the BNM used billions of ringgit to stop the further slide as stated in the report below;

KUALA LUMPUR 7 Jan. - Ringgit menjunam ke paras paling rendah terbaru pada 4.8800 berbanding dolar Amerika sehingga terpaksa dipulihkan hari ini melalui campur tangan Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).

Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, dalam satu kenyataan petang ini berkata, ”operasi-operasi campur tangan” telah dijalankan untuk memastikan keadaan stabil bagi membolehkan pasaran tukaran asing berjalan dengan cekap.

In the end, BNM lost billions as the ringgit sank further. Some speculated the loss reached up to RM30 billion ringgit, similar to the loss he was accountable in 1993. Obviously, Dr Mahathir was furious. Anwar’s mistake was intolerable. But his next action in the coming weeks was even more unforgivable by Dr Mahathir. Anwar had invited the IMF to ‘help’ Malaysia’s ailing economy and the recent loss of wealth.

KUALA LUMPUR 9 Jan. - Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah mengundang Pengarah Urusan Dana Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF), Michel Camdessus melawat negara ini minggu depan bagi membincangkan masalah ekonomi yang sedang melanda rantau ini.

”Dari situ kita dapat melihat pandangannya serta langkah-langkah proaktif yang sesuai untuk kita ambil,” kata beliau pada sidang akhbar selepas mempengerusikan Mesyuarat Majlis Kewangan Negara 1998 di Kementerian Kewangan hari ini.

As the result of IMF’s prescription, the economy and people’s purchasing power broke down. The IMF encouraged the Minister of Finance to lift the prices of controlled food items and increase the banking interest rates. Dr Mahathir was wary with the IMF’s prescription. The people in our neighbouring countries Indonesia and Thailand were already rioting due to the expensive cost of living.

KUALA LUMPUR 19 Jan. - Malaysia akan mengkaji cadangan Dana Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF) supaya kadar faedah tempatan dinaikkan, kata Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad hari ini.

Cadangan itu dikemukakan oleh Pengarah Urusan IMF, Michel Camdessus selepas menemui Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim serta pegawai-pegawai Perbendaharaan dan Bank Negara di sini minggu lepas.

But Anwar was adamant. He needed the people to riot on the streets. President Soehatro was already shaky. A new leader was needed to take over this country. He was going to blackmail Malaysia to become the next prime minister through the use of the destructive IMF treatment. In the end, the interest rates were increased. Some was as high as 18%. The non performing loan criteria was shortened from 6 months to 3 months. As the result, the credit crunch in the country was inevitable. By May 1998, President Soeharto resigned. But Indonesia sank further in oblivion for many years after that.

“The leader whom had unified Indonesia as the biggest Muslim country in the world, was brought down by new type of colonialism”

Seeing Anwar was unable to lift Malaysia from the currency crisis, Dr Mahathir appointed the more able Tun Daim Zainuddin as the Minister of Special Functions to help alleviate the Malaysian economy. Anwar was sidelined due to his culpability in managing the country finances. To illustrate this point into perspective, a CFO of a company must surely be sacked if he runs the company to the ground with his reckless methods. That was what happened to Anwar Ibrahim. But Dr Mahathir was still magnanimous in his actions. He was willing to forgive and forget if Anwar would simply lay low for a little while. But matters were not easily understood by Anwar.
Compounded further was the allegations in a DAP convention by Karpal Singh and poison pen letters in the Umno General Assembly that Anwar Ibrahim was a homosexual. Karpal had even asked Dr Mahathir why is he keeping such minister in the cabinet. Dr Mahathir brushed aside these allegations initially.
As a desperate act, Anwar employed a machiavellian tactic by using Zahid Hamidi as a tool to incite hatred towards Dr Mahathir in the Umno General Assembly in June 1998. The rest as they say, is history.
In the recent interview with BBC HardTalk, Dr Mahathir mentioned that Anwar was blackmailing VK Lingam via the secret recordings made in 2001. The allegations of fixing the appointment of top judges in the country is not relevant to me. What is more telling was the act of blackmailing VK Lingam itself. The one that was taking the recording was non other than Loh Gwo Burne.
This political greenhorn, who is still learning to speak proper Bahasa Malaysia, became the MP of Kelana Jaya under the PKR ticket in 2008 general election. Although Gwo Burne stated that he recorded the conversation out of boredom, it was a full 14 minutes recording nevertheless. He could test his new found camera at the time to record everything else, but he chose to record VK Lingam’s conversation non stop for the whole 14 minutes. Furthermore, what astonished me was the fact that Anwar kept the original copy all this while. How did he get the copy? From Gwo Burne himself no doubt.
Now, Gwo Burne is offering his seat for Anwar to contest in the possible by-election. That whole event was suspiciously conspired by Anwar. If blackmailing is Anwar’s modus operandi in obtaining power and gaining political mileage, we will see another round of surrendering our sovereignty to foreign powers.

“Picture says a thousand words”

When he was inside the government, this was what he had to say;

BUKIT MERTAJAM 1 Feb. - Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menolak tanggapan sesetengah pemerhati Barat bahawa kemelut ekonomi dan krisis mata wang di negara-negara Asia disebabkan oleh pengurusan yang lembap, rasuah dan pelbagai gejala negatif lain.

Timbalan Perdana Menteri berkata, mereka memberi gambaran seolah-olah ekonomi terjejas kerana pengurusan yang lembap, gejala rasuah dan pertimbangan semata-mata untuk suku sakat serta kepentingan sahabat handai dan keluarga.

Anwar yang juga Menteri Kewangan berkata, kepincangan dan ketidakadilan juga berlaku di Barat dan salah satunya ialah ketidakadilan sistem perdagangan dunia.

”Sistem perdagangan dunia memberi kepentingan kepada negara-negara kaya dan negara-negara industri dan pada masa yang sama menggunakan institusi antarabangsa mempertahankan kepentingan mereka,” katanya lagi yang menganggap dakwaan yang dibuat amat kritikal.

But he changed his tune when he was booted out from the government. The man whom everyone in the Pakatan Rakyat idolizes as the only clean and liberally democratic politician, has always been the main protagonist of anti cronyism and nepotisme slogans after his sacking. But people forget that underneath the seemingly clean image lies several issues contradicting and plaguing his reputation. As per the news in Berita Harian ( 8 December 1998 );

Bapa Anwar miliki saham 20 syarikat
KUALA LUMPUR, Isnin - Ketika Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan pengikutnya menuduh Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, mengamalkan kronisme, nepotisme dan kolusi, bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu membisu terhadap kepentingan perniagaan keluarga dan rakan rapatnya. Senarai Pendaftar Syarikat menunjukkan anggota keluarga Anwar dan rakan rapatnya adalah peneraju korporat yang penting.

And another speech he made in 1995 which greatly mirrored the situation in Pakatan Rakyat now;

Anwar seru rakyat tolak Pas
HULU TERENGGANU, Selasa - Rakyat diminta menolak Pas kerana bersandiwara kononnya memperjuangkan kepentingan umat dan syiar Islam sedangkan pada masa sama membantu DAP melenyapkan kepentingan serta masa depan orang Melayu di Pulau Pinang, kata Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Timbalan Perdana Menteri menegaskan, sebagai contoh beliau mempunyai bukti bahawa calon DAP yang bertanding menentangnya bagi kerusi Parlimen Permatang Pauh, Abdul Raman Manap, adalah Timbalan Yang Dipertua Pas Bukit Mertajam.

Credibility and integrity throughout a political career is paramount in becoming a great and respected leader. Inconsistency in political principles tantamounts to losing both credibility and integrity. Anwar Ibrahim has not properly addressed this. Changing his stand without proper explanation and not supplementing any evidence towards any doubts about his own inconsistent character will prove to be a bane in gaining confidence from the rest of the nation.
As Stephen Covey once said - “In the last analysis, what we are communicates far more eloquently than anything we say or do”.
A political reformer? The people’s saviour? An opportunist? A power hungry extremist?
You be the judge.
More

The Ketuanan Anwar movement

22 08 2008

Let's move away from all this mumbo jumbo about the swearing over the Quran discussion and focus on a more important matter which is very relevant to the current political scenario we are experiencing now - Anwar Ibrahim and his misadventures in Malaysian politics.

I find that it is imperative to learn about the 'reason for being' of the man we call Anwar Ibrahim. To the majority of Malaysians, they know him only from the moment he was sacked from the government in 1998. But do they really know the man that had ruled the mob with his zest in grabbing the reins of power in the country?

I doubt anybody could remember his stance on any particular issues when he was in the government. To his detractors, he is labeled as one who would play to the gallery and made differing statements to different crowds. They are mostly correct. Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was a very different man from the Parti Keadilan adviser, Anwar Ibrahim.

His lust for power to become the Prime Minister had changed him. It is even exceeding the lust of power of Pak Lah in staying on as the Prime Minister.

Many have heard that Anwar is a great politician and a good orator. Even though he is nowhere near the other Umno political greats such as Ghazali Shafie, Ghaffar Baba, Sardon Jubir and Syed Jaafar Albar, Anwar's participation in mainstream politics and his ascendency to the penultimate pinacle of power was practically handed to him on a silver platter.

Many had forgotten that his rise to power was certainly helped by the patronage and blessings of Dr Mahathir. As a matter of fact, Anwar was very much a strong supporter of the issues he was so much against today.

On the case of amending the Constitution in 1993, this is what the Vice President of Umno at that time had said;

Anwar : It's good for our royalty

SINTOK, Fri. - The decision to amend the constitution in relation to the Rulers' immunity is aimed at protecting the Royal institutions and uphold the Rulers' sovereignty, Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today. He stressed that the royal institutions would remain because the people had confidence in the constitutional monarchy system. - NST (9 January 1993)

Remember the times when Anwar said he will not challenge Tun Ghaffar Baba?

Anwar : I am not challenging Ghafar for no. 2 position

KUALA LUMPUR, Sat. - Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced today he will not challenge Ghafar Baba for the Umno deputy presidency during the party's elections in November. The Finance Minister, who is also an Umno vice-president, said his decision was based on his belief that party unity and strength must be enhanced so that the country can continue to enjoy peace and prosperity. - New Sunday Times (25 April 1993)

Ghafar Baba reciprocated the 'selfless' Anwar and thanked him publicly;

KUALA LUMPUR, Mon. - Umno deputy president Ghafar Baba said he appreciated the statement by party vice-president Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that he would not challenge him for the number two post in the November party elections. Ghafar said this when asked about Anwar's statement in a radio talk show over Radio Televisyen Malaysia this morning. - NST (11 May 1993)

The following month, Anwar reiterated his stand not to contest;

KUALA LUMPUR, Jumaat - Naib Presiden Umno, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, berkata keputusannya tidak mencabar Timbalan Presiden, Ghafar Baba, dalam perhimpunan agung parti itu, November ini, adalah muktamad. "Tiada yang berubah. Apakah ada apa-apa yang berubah? (Ini) kenyataan yang sama daripada dulu. Tidak ada tukar. Saya dah katakan sebelum ini," katanya. - Berita Harian (12 June 1993)

Come November 1993 that year, Anwar humiliated the venerable Ghafar in an Umno general election which was marred by an unprecedented money corruption activity. The rest as they say, is history.

With regards to the affirmative action (NEP) which the new Anwar Ibrahim love to hate, he had said this way back when he was the Finance Minister;

Anwar : Our NEP proved us right

PETALING JAYA, Thurs. - Malaysia's affirmative action aimed at fairer distribution of the nation's wealth under the New Economic Policy (NEP) - long subjected to severe criticisms by Western countries, particularly the United States - has proven to be positively viable in the light of the bloody Los Angeles racial riots. Finance Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today in the aftermath of the riots, the United States was beginning to talk about affirmative action, distributive justice and a concerned and caring society, actions already implemented in Malaysia. - NST (22 May 1992)

These were only a couple of examples on how Anwar could manipulate certain issues to his advantage. When several news broke out about the apparent mismanagement within Pakatan Rakyat, he chose to conveniently discard them as a non issue.

After nearly 6 months in power, we have come to realise that there is not much difference between the Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional actually. Both are practising corruption. The silence of Anwar and the absence of any effort to at least castigate the Perak exco members shows how they deal with their own act of corruption. To any observer, their mute silence can only be labeled as condonement.

It's not surprising as Anwar himself is not free from corruption allegations. One big tell tale was his abuse of power that had eventually sent him to jail for 6 years in 1999. Bear in mind the judgment on that particular case still stand till today.

Although many Anwar loyalists may fight tooth and nail in defending the so called strength of Pakatan Rakyat, in reality, this coalition is nothing more than a loose partnership centred on greed of a man in becoming a Prime Minister. Any seasoned politician from the DAP and PAS would ride on the coattails of Anwar's ambition while simultaneously pushing for their own agenda.

Pakatan Rakyat, with all its perceived splendour and new found popularity, is still an unregistered society. No formal agreement was signed between parties at national level. The dream of having a two party system in Malaysia is unjustifiable when the leaders from these parties could not even work together in the long run. How to successfully work together when even an easy task of creating a common logo had also failed?

Officially, Pakatan Rakyat does not exist. Hence, there would not be much hassle if any of the parties within wanted to extricate itself from it. That is why it was very easy for factions within the parties in Pakatan Rakyat to demonstrate their animosity openly towards the other coalition party members.

Presently, many of Anwar loyalists were left flabbergasted when his challenge to name his cronies were met with energetic replies in blogs. This is not surprising as most of his fans are of a younger generation which are not exposed to his political pedigree prior to his sacking in 1998. Those who are much older would remember his backfired attempt during the 1998 Umno General Assembly.

Anwar's power hungry actions were shoved down Malaysia's throat in a very unfashionable way. The western media aped about his attempt to 'seize power' come this September.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has vowed to seize power soon, stepping up his campaign against the government as he fights an accusation of sodomizing a young worker in his office.

Addressing some 7,000 people on Tuesday night, Anwar accused the ruling National Front coalition government of being corrupt, inefficient and uncaring. He promised to set right the problems plaguing the country, including bringing down fuel prices. The government last month raised the price of gasoline by 41% and diesel by a whopping 63%.

Now, for a politician who had promoted the 'masyarakat madani' concept, this is surely an oxymoron indeed. Malaysians have never met anyone who had made known his ultimate ambition in such a coarse and blatant way. Seizing power is synonymous to the realm of dictators and despotic rulers.

In his latest throw of the dice, he followed the footsteps of Amien Rais of Indonesia when gathering support. The dice? Telling people that he has the backing of foreigners;

BUKIT MERTAJAM 21 Ogos — Hampir di setiap ceramah, Penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim pasti menyebut nama-nama pemimpin asing yang menurutnya memberi sokongan kepada beliau dalam usahanya memenangi hati pengundi di Permatang Pauh.

Antara nama yang disebut ialah bekas Presiden Indonesia, Gus Dur atau Abdurrahman Wahid, bekas Presiden Filipina, Joseph Estrada, ulama terkenal, Yusof Qardhawi dan yang terbaru beliau mengaitkan bekas Perdana Menteri Britain, Tony Blair kononnya turut menyokongnya.

Anwar juga mendakwa kononnya pelabur-pelabur asing sedia membantunya menaikkan ekonomi negara jika beliau menjadi pemimpin.

"Pelabur-pelabur luar pun ada jumpa saya. Mereka cakap, Anwar, kamu pimpinlah negara ini kerana kalau kamu pimpin, ekonomi negara ini akan kami naikkan dalam masa tiga bulan. Itu kamu tak perlu risau," katanya pada hadirin di ceramahnya di Kampung Pertama, Permatang Janggus dekat sini.

What travesty had been commited by Anwar in blackmailing the public in such ways that could only be deemed as narcissistic and unpatriotic.

Gone were his humility and self reflection. Just like Shakespeare's Macbeth, whose lust of power in becoming the King of Scotland became his only obsession, Anwar's road to achieve power is ungainly and frightening. No wonder PAS' Mohamad Sabu in an interview in 1998, cited that Anwar would be much worse than Dr Mahathir if he had became Prime Minister.

Some believe that his incarceration since 1999 is justifiable in his effort to become the Prime Minister. Some believe he was treated unfairly by a dictatorial regime. That is why it is only natural that he show some aggression in seizing power.

But his hunger for power stemmed much earlier than 1999. It came the moment he was brought into Umno in 1982. One of the conditions he set upon joining Umno was to be made leader of the Umno Youth movement. In which he was duly elected under the blessings of Dr Mahathir several months after that. 11 years on, he challenged the late Tun Ghaffar Baba for the deputy presidency of Umno.

Comparing with Tengku Razaleigh's approach in challenging Pak Lah, Anwar came across as arrogant and self centred with a dash of megalomania. To digress a bit, it is quite ironic that the supposedly authoritarian and dictatorial rule of Dr Mahathir had in fact approved the application of Parti KeAdilan to become a political party in April 1999. This had provided Anwar and his followers the platform to be active in politics and have a chance in becoming MPs.

Anwar Ibrahim may seem to love the rakyat. But his actions and the act of hubris he commited illustrated that he love himself more. He wants Malaysia to make him the Prime Minister by hook or by crook. His apparent lack of piety and convention is not important. This is what I call as Ketuanan Anwar movement.

Between Ketuanan Melayu, Ketuanan Rakyat and Ketuanan Anwar, which one do you think is his priority?


Comments : 50 Comments »

Categories : Politics

Nik Aziz - Hypocrites should help each other?

18 08 2008

Yesterday he said this:

Sumpah Mohd. Saiful bercanggah dengan Islam - Nik Aziz

IPOH 17 Ogos – Mursyidul Am Pas, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat berkata, sumpah yang dilafazkan oleh Mohd. Saiful Bukhari Azlan bahawa dia diliwat oleh Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bercanggah dengan Islam.

Katanya, apa yang dilakukan Mohd. Saiful itu sama dengan penganut Kristian menggunakan Bible.

Menurut beliau, Islam hanya menerima sumpah Wallahi, Wabillahi dan Watallahi. - Utusan

But in July, he said this:

Nik Aziz: Bersumpah junjung al-Quran tentukan kebenaran

KOTA BHARU: Menteri Besar Kelantan Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat berkata "mubahalah" atau bersumpah dengan menjunjung al-Quran adalah cara untuk menentukan kebenaran dan juga sesuatu yang dituntut dalam Islam.

Sambil menyokong cadangan Mufti Perlis, Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin berhubung perkara itu, beliau berkata melalui cara demikian, Allah SWT boleh melaknatkan mana-mana pihak yang bersalah.

"Dalam Quran sudah menyebut, setelah sudah tiada ikhtiar lagi dalam menyelesaikan kemelut yang memalukan itu, siapa yang tidak bersalah Tuhan tolong," katanya kepada pemberita ketika ditemui di sini, hari ini.

Beliau yang juga Mursyidul Am PAS berkata demikian sebagai mengulas cadangan Mohd Asri supaya kedua-dua individu yang dikaitkan dengan kes liwat iaitu Penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat Malaysia (PKR) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan bekas pembantunya, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan "bermubahalah" atau bersumpah.

Dalam kenyataannya semalam, Mohd Asri berkata isu liwat yang membabitkan Anwar sudah semakin rumit dan rakyat pula menjadi keliru. - Bernama

I guess politics trounced Islamic principles in this situation. No?

"I will have nought to do with a man who can blow hot and cold with the same breath - Aesop"

Here are excerpts that I have taken about Anwar. It be in 4 or 5 parts but it speaks volume why I detest the Man whom people dubbed the Prime Minister in waiting!

Pakatan Rakyat - Kill with a borrowed knife

25 08 2008

The title of this article will probably does not make any sense to some people. Before I elaborate it further, I have to give a background story on this subject. So please bear with me.

In this country, whenever somebody calls the other person as racist, the implication of such remark is very damaging to both sides. There must be a reason for such acts and its main rationale would be provocation on something that is sensitive among the races of our country.

There are three areas of sensitivity that every Malaysian in this country should be aware of. In fact, this awareness should have been deeply infused in our culture that after 50 years of independence, it no longer deemed as a tedious or an alien thing to do. It is the one of the pillars of tolerance in the context of multi cultural Malaysia.

These areas are; the sanctity of Islam as the federal religion of Malaysia (Islam agama persekutuan), special position of the Malays and Malay language as well as position of Malay Raja Raja.

Ever since 1957, moderation is crucial in our interaction with one another. With the Malaysian Constitution in the background, our forefathers had this to say regarding the multi cultural Malaysia;

Speech by MIC President, Tun V.T. Sambanthan in the Parliament on 1 June 1965:

"Now, in 1955 we won the elections with a great majority. Then we obtained freedom in two years time. During this period, we had to discuss citizenship and various other things. Now what did the Malays do - since we are speaking on racial lines - what did the Malay leadership do? They had 88 percent of the electorate still with them. What did they do with citizenship.

If we look around in Asia and East Asia, particularly, you will find that my race the Indian race, is not welcomed in Ceylon, is not welcomed in Burma. Look at my brother Chinese race, it is not welcomed in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in all the other areas. What help do they get for citizenship in all these territories? In Burma, as we know, Indian have been send packing, in Ceylon they refused them citizenship and in Burma it is likewise. I know it, you know it. And yet in Malaya what happened? Here we found that the Malay leadership said, "We shall take them unto ourselves as brothers, we shall give them full opportunity to live in this country, we shall give them every opportunity to become citizens." And so, in 1957, for the whole year, we waived language qualifications, and tens of thousand of Indians, Chinese, Ceylonese and others became citizens.

As I said, it has been my great good fortune to have born in this country. Where else can you find a more charitable, a more polite, a more decent race than Malay race? Where else can you get such politically decent treatment for any immigrant race? Where else in the history of the world? I ask you. These are the facts. Who are you to safeguards us? I am 10 percent minority race here. But I am happy here."

(Note that his speech was delivered to chastise the PAP leaders who were harping on the Malaysian Malaysia concept)

MCA President, Tun Tan Siew Sin, in an article in a local paper entitled - "Tun Tan Answers Critics on Special Privileges" on 30 April 1969, said:

"The Malays, through UMNO, were generous enough to relax the citizenship laws of this country to such extent that within 12 months of independence, 90 percent who were still non-citizens after nearly 100 years of colonial rule in the Malay States, obtained their citizenship. In return for this major concession, the MCA and the MIC agreed to continue the policy of preserving the special position of the Malays while at the same time upholding the legitimate interest of other communities."

(note that his speech was delivered prior to the 1969 general elections which was tainted with racial extremism that questioned the Article 153 of the Constitution perpetuated by the DAP and Gerakan)

As the voice of moderation among the disgruntled Malays in 1970, the late Tun Dr Ismail had this to say on the 'Special Position' just after the NEP was established:

"This proved a less intractable problem because the leaders of the Alliance realised the practical necessity of giving the Malays a handicap if they were to compete on equal terms with the other races. The only point of controversy was the duration of the 'special position' — should there be a time limit or should it be permanent? I made a suggestion which was accepted, that the question be left to the Malays themselves, because I felt that as more and more Malays became educated and gained self-confidence, they themselves would do away with this 'special position' because in itself this 'special position' is a slur on the ability of the Malays and only to be tolerated because it is necessary as a temporary measure to ensure their survival in the modern competitive world: a world to which only those in the urban areas had been exposed."

As the result, the NEP was given 20 years and the objective of achieving 30% of wealth is set for the Malays, inclusive the other Bumiputras.

I have to make a special mention on a very touchy subject of the race riots of 13th May 1969.

Many have come forth with several analyses pertaining that sad day. A more recent view of the incident reveals that it was merely a political coup d'etat of Umno stalwarts led by Tun Abdul Razak over Tunku Abdul Rahman. This is one such narrow interpretation of the riot. Most of the references cited for this analysis came from documents obtained in London which in turn, were written by the British Intelligence aka the western observers of the riot.

Note that the Westerners, ever since the day of our independence had been nothing but doomsayers. They predicted, upon gaining our independence, that The Federation of Malaya will not last long because of our own diverse culture and multi ethnicity.

And they had almost gotten it right when May 13th exploded in our country. They were actually congratulating themselves for predicting that very thing and would not stop telling us 'We told you so!'.

Almost all of the reports at that time were biased and non objective. Much like all the criticisms Malaysia had gotten when we implemented capital controls in 1998. We still remember the heckling we got from the international community. These days, what Malaysia did had proven to be correct and many western countries particularly the US even used remedies similar like our own in the time of crisis.

Anyway, those ill conceived reports, were what used by the analysts in their own perception of May 13th 1969. Furthermore, these analyses did not take into account on what had happened prior to 13th May. It downplayed the role made by extremist groups among the Chinese in instigating the Malay sentiment. Since 1964, racial tension had been escalating due to the calls of PAP on 'Malaysian Malaysia' concept.

With the loss of many seats by the Alliance in the 1969 general election, tensed emotions between races finally snapped after the victory parades by the opposition DAP and Gerakan on the 11th and 12th of May had ridiculed the Malays in the predominantly Malay areas of Kampung Baru. Insensitive banners and slogans and rowdy demonstrators jeered at the kampung folks in Kampung Baru.

Meanwhile, as a show of strength, a similar parade was also being organized by Umno to answer the challenge by the opposition on the 13th of May. However, on that day a Malay army officer was murdered by Chinese hooligans as he and his spouse were coming out from a movie theater in the predominantly chinese area of Bukit Bintang. The angry Malay protestors swiftly wrecked havoc and revenge by killing two passing Chinese motorcyclists.

That was the trigger of a whole scale riot on that fateful day. One can still remember Datuk Harun Idris, in his capacity as the Umno Youth leader, standing on top of a bus in Kampung Baru, urging the Malays to defend their dignity and honour. Some say he was the perpetrator of the riot. But many others see him as the saviour of the Malays' pride. The weakened Prime Minister at that time did not have enough political power to restore stability and harmony between the warring political opponents.

The jawi inscription read : Gambar perarakan 'kemenangan' di atas menunjukkan 'penyapu untuk menyapu orang2 Melayu'. Gambar bawah : Penyokong penyokong Gerakan dalam mabuk 'kemenangan'

In order to ascertain the real story on what had happened that fateful day, the National Operations Council prepared an official report to brief the people on what had happened. This report were initially criticised by certain quarters over its accuracy. But this was expunged by Tun Haniff Omar in his article last year.

Nevertheless, the White Paper presented in Parliament in October 1969 clearly indicated elements of extremism from both sides, namely the Sino-Malay relationship in Malaysia:

'The eruption of violence on May 13 was the result of an interplay of forces. These include a generation gap and differences in interpretation of the constitutional structure by the different races in the country; the incitement, intemperate statements and provocative behaviours of certain racialist party members and supporters during the recent General Election; the part played by the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and secret societies in inciting racial feelings and suspicion; and the anxious, and later desperate, mood of the Malays with a background of Sino-Malay distrust, and recently, just after the General Elections, as a result of racial insults and threat to their future survival in their own country'

Therefore, in the light of the circumstances above, we may have to agree that extremism is dangerous in the multi racial climate of Malaysia.

There is also a small minority in Malaysia that think the independence we gained was fought by the chinese and not the Malays. They believed that the Malays had it easy whereas it was the chinese who fought the Japanese and the British via guerilla warfare and tactics.

They failed to see that the Malays had fought for the liberation of the land even longer than that via the rebellion of Datuk Maharajalela, Panglima Dol Naning and Datuk Bahaman, to name a few. Sir Frank Swettenham, in his letters, revealed that the Malay population in Selangor was decimated in the struggle between the British and the Malays to control the Selangor tin mines.

Now come to the gist of this article.

After 51 years of administration, the BN government is currently being accused by the opposition members as a racist government. This is then echoed by their supporters and then further repeated by the ordinary citizens that were taken in by the oppositions' cries in criticising the government.

Anwar would always say that he brings more equitable and just system whereby the poor people of Malaysia will not be lagged behind. He added that the current BN policies only favour the Malays. He would say this ad nauseam so that most of Malaysians will believe this.

Eventually, the media will take this up and it does not take a genius to see that since most Malaysians are idealists, what he brings to the table is viewed upon as the coming of a new age of fair justice and impartial policy.

But, the big blunder the people could not see was, whatever Anwar is preaching, is exactly what the BN government had done all this while. The system that had been put in place such as the NEP (since 1970) and Dasar Pembangunan Negara (since 1990) were not intended to be a racist policy. There is a HUGE difference between a racist policy and a selective discrimination policy popularly known as the affirmative action. Many countries worldwide including the US are practising it.

In my previous articles, I have stated the reason on why the affirmative action is important in Malaysia. But this very article is not about the importance of the affirmative action but actually it's about the approach of certain extremism in the Pakatan Rakyat that is tearing the very fabric of social harmony Malaysians had painfully sowed since the aftermath of 1969.

This statement of mine may appear ridiculous to some as it was the members of Pakatan Rakyat and their loyal subjects who had initially accused the BN government as being racist. Permit me to dissect their approach.

These extremists especially some from the DAP and PKR are actually using the strategy called the 36 stratagems. To be precise, they are mainly using 4 of those strategies to full use. They are;

1) Kill with a borrowed knife

Basically it means, to attack using the strength of another. I can only describe this further with a quote from a DAP member who had said - 'You have to also be practical. The present corrupt BN with its Malay/Muslim powerbase can only be challenged by a Malay/Muslim politician.'

As one of this blog's avid commentator (Lekiu) had said - 'For years Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh tried to end it (affirmative action) and it took another Bumiputra (Anwar) to finish it off. How strange history can be.'

2) Deceive the heavens to cross the ocean

They mask their real intention with a fake goal. In this context, the Pakatan Rakyat masked their real intention in shouting Ketuanan Rakyat slogan that creates a seemingly 'fairer' government'. But in actual fact, it is no more than fake cries of 'Ketuanan Anwar' and Malaysian Malaysia.

3) Create something out of nothing

Now this is the mother of all their strategies; to tell everyone that the BN government is racist. The idea that the BN government is racist had never been drilled in the minds of Malaysians before. With a progressive economy and stable government since 1970, Malaysia had become an economic tiger all through the 80's and 90's.

Furthermore, the BN government, with its good track records, had been elected more than two thirds majority in every general elections. How could a 'racist' government be so popular? Surely the lost of two thirds majority this time around should not be the main reason for the sudden rise of anti-racism in the country. A greater underlying factor is at work here. And the goal is to make the BN government unpopular by using racial politics as weapon.

For example, when Najib agreed to approve the licenses of scrap metal business for the Indians in Permatang Pauh, this innocent statement of his was distorted to become something that has a racist connotation to it. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in Pakatan Rakyat were foaming in the mouth claiming Najib was racist and that he had downgraded the Indians to become scrap metal collectors. They did not realise that in the first place, it was the Indian businessmen that had initially applied the licenses and it was only apt for Najib to announce it there in Permatang Pauh. It took the MAICCI to clear the air over this matter. To me, it was the Pakatan Rakyat who was being racist here but people could not see their subtle strategy.

Another example was when Anwar announced this much loved statement - 'Anak Melayu, anak kita, anak Cina ,anak kita, anak India pun anak kita. Mengapa harus bezakan?'

Is there anything wrong with this statement?

Yes, there is.

The statement itself is based on the assumption that the BN government is racist by nature. Therefore, to permeate this idea to Malaysians, he needs to tell this lie again and again. What is sickening to me was it is Anwar himself who has made racial differences more pronounced. Since we already established earlier that BN government is not practising racist policy, what locus standi Anwar had to even say this? Everyday we are soaked to the bone by Pakatan Rakyat's accusations that Malaysia is a doomed state because of its racist policy. Thus, Anwar's statement was in fact, nothing more than a reverse psychology with two pronged attack - making him look good and dissing the BN government at the same time.

Innocent statements by Malay leaders, were often twisted out of context to make it sound as if Umno is racist. One such example was Tun Dr Mahathir's calls for the Malays to unite and become stronger to face the challenges ahead. Other opposition leaders jumped in the bandwagon and further accused Umno leaders as racist and bigots. On the contrary, it was them who made the first strike.

As the extremists in Pakatan Rakyat make racial differences becoming more and more pronounced, and Anwar ibrahim - the 'borrowed knife', keep on harping this racial issues, no wonder the political turbulence between the races in Malaysia had been the highest since 1969. He forget that as a 'borrowed knife', he kills the racial harmony that had been built since then.

4) Loot a burning house

I don't think I need to explain this self explanatory strategy.

On another note, it irks me to no end that the Umno leaders as well as the BN leaders as a whole do not know how to defend their own policy and resorted to become a mere apologist of the cause. It does not help that right now, we have a terribly weak Prime Minister at the helm. And so, without a clear and guided instructions from the PM, the Umno and BN leaders do what comes naturally. Fight fire with fire.

This precipitates the quagmire we are in right now.

'The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye: The more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract'. So did Oliver Wendell Holmes say.

Extremism, in whatever form, is dangerous in this country of ours. And in the absence of strong government, coupled with a fragmented majority, even the minority can dictate their extremist policy and bring forward their own agenda. Hindraf, with its racist memorandum is one such example.

It is ironic that as a committee member of the National Operations Council in 1969, Pak Lah could not even find solutions to this current problem. Has he not learn from his superiors back then? Was he sleeping during the many rounds of NOC meetings?

So, on the eve of the Permatang Pauh by election, I bid all Malaysians, good night and sleep well with clear conscience in the following days ahead.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

This reflect my feelings exactly. No apologies for I share some this ideas mooted by Tun Mahathir our former Prime Minister.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION


Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at August 26, 2008 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (297) | TrackBacks (0) | Previous Blog
1. Affirmative action by its very nature must involve discrimination.

2. Affirmative action is about correcting imbalances between groups. But in the process, the interest of individuals would have to be sacrificed. It is unfortunate for the individual concerned but if no one's interest is to be sacrificed then corrections cannot be made. The status quo would remain and this would mean there would be no affirmative action. Simply said, no corrective action would be possible unless there is some discrimination against someone.

3. Golf is a great game. But like other games the poorer players would be given handicaps. Otherwise golf would be very boring as the good golfers win every time.

4. In boxing we cannot match a heavyweight against a lightweight. The latter would be hammered to a pulp.

5. In horse racing the lighter horse would carry weights so that the race is between evenly matched horses and riders.

6. Globalisation has been promoted by the rich countries.

7. The essence of globalisation is open borders or a borderless world. With this, the rich and the well-endowed will have unrestricted access to the countries of the poor in order to exploit them. Of course the poor can have access to the rich countries too. It sounds fair. The playing field seems to be level.

8. But what will certainly happen is that the rich will go into the poor countries and with their capital, their managerial skills, and their technology, would overwhelm the people in the poor countries with their small businesses, limited skills and limited capital.

9. The end result would be that the poor countries would effectively be owned and exploited by the rich countries and the local people would be mere workers in the big enterprises of the rich, earning a pittance for themselves. Essentially colonisation of the poor by the rich would again take place.

10. But the rich countries will claim that the people of the poor countries are free to do business in the rich countries, buy over the banks, the industries and anything they like. But they know and we know that it would be impossible for the people of the poor countries to do this.

11. This is why the WTO has been rejected by poor countries. The people of the poor countries know they cannot compete; know that in the end they would be colonised. They are not being selfish. It is simply that they want to exploit their wealth for themselves.

12. Effectively the poor countries want to discriminate in their favour by rejecting the borderless world of Globalisation. Exploitation by the rich would most likely enrich the poor countries. But they would rather be poor than be exploited.

13. We take the relative peace and stability in our country for granted. But look at other multi-ethnic countries. In most cases the indigenous people, if given power would not just discriminate against what they consider to be non-indigenous people but would want to expel them. Look around us and you will understand what I mean. Look at the Tamils of Sri Lanka, and the Indians in Burma. There are other examples which I will not mention here.

14. But the indigenous people of this country actually welcome the non-indigenous and expressed their willingness to share the wealth and the opportunities that this great country has to offer between them. But the sharing must be fair. That was the kind of sharing our founders agreed upon. The Malays would not have agreed if in this country they would be reduced to being the hewers of wood and drawers of water.

15. When the sharing did not really take place, the anger lead to the 1969 race riots.

16. Following that our wise leaders from all the communities agreed on how to carry out the sharing. They agreed on what is basically affirmative action. They agreed that they would eradicate poverty irrespective of race and that there should be no identification of race with economic function.

17. It is only a small sacrifice. But the peace and stability that came with the NEP had enriched the country which in turn had contributed towards peace and stability even during the recession caused by the financial crises. We know that racial riots occurred in other countries at that time. Contributing to the fairness of the NEP was the decision that discrimination should not be by expropriation of what already belonged to others but through the distribution of new wealth and opportunities. Thus, the sense of deprivation would be reduced.

18. But even when the discrimination is to be based on growth the rich would still feel a sense of deprivation because they cannot get all the wealth and opportunities that they believe they were qualified for.

19. If contracts or licences or permits are to be given out why should someone less qualified get them when they, the qualified could make better use of these things.

20. In the case of university admission and scholarships, why should someone less qualified get admitted when the better qualified cannot.

21. So even when the corrective action is based on new opportunities and wealth and not by expropriation of what is already in the possession of the rich, there would still be a sense of deprivation by the richer communities.

22. Accepted that the richer communities also have poor members among them and the New Economic Policy's first prong clearly proposed poverty eradication irrespective of race, the fact remains that there is more poverty among the poorer community than among the richer communities.

23. If we eliminate poverty among the rich without regard to the level of poverty, then the richer community would be rid of poverty while the poorer community would still be saddled with extensive poverty.

24. Today we have reduced poverty to 5 percent. If we care to do a study, we will find that the majority of those still under the poverty line would be from the deprived community.

25. Still, despite the alleged discrimination, our poverty eradication is regarded as being very successful. It is nearly impossible to find hard core poverty among the better-off race in the urban areas. There are more in the rural areas.

26. Fifty years is a short period in the history of nations. We have not reached menopause yet. In fact we are in our youth still. Whether we succeed to overcome our present difficulties depends on us. If we fail, pointing fingers will not save us.

27. I will readily admit that the NEP had been abused. But we are so ready to blame that we pick on the wrong target. Of course the way the affirmative action was carried out, and the abuses, were picked on by the opposition to condemn the whole policy.

28. UMNOputra, like cronyism, was a word invented by politicians and the detractors of this brash country which dared to thumb its nose at the powers that be. Unable to condemn blatant corruption as they do to other countries, they came up with cronyism and UMNOputra. When there is real cronyism and corruption they deliberately ignore them because these are committed by their favourite people.

29. Before making these criticisms against the affirmative action of the NEP, why not make a real study. Are most of the Malays getting the scholarships and entries into the universities the children of UMNO people? If they are, why was it necessary to have the Universities and University College Act to stop students from demonstrations against the UMNO-led Government? How did the doctors and lawyers in PAS get their education? Are the students all from rich families with connections?

30. I will be the first to admit that there have been abuses in the promotion of business among the bumiputeras. Given opportunities, given licenses, permits, contracts etc, they disposed these for immediate gains. This frustrates the efforts to help them. Some degree of abuses may be excused but the degree of abuse of the opportunities created by the NEP is far too much. They cannot all be excused.

31. I also admit that there has been unfairness in the award of scholarships and Government jobs.

32. I will not try to defend these abuses. We must try to reduce them. But affirmation is about discrimination. And those discriminated against will never understand the big picture, the benefits of an increasingly egalitarian society.

33. The Malays must accept that this discrimination cannot be forever. If they fail to respond properly to what is being done for them, they should accept this policy would be taken away.

34. When Malay youngsters, especially boys, failed to study and qualify for university education, when they preferred to play and not study, we cannot expect the non-Malays to patiently wait and give up their opportunities until the Malays decide to become serious and study. That would not be fair.

35. That was why we introduced merit in the selection of students for the universities. Unfortunately, the implementers of Government decisions chose to interpret it differently. By requiring Bumiputeras to sit for the matriculation and the non-Bumiputeras to sit for higher school certificates, they managed to give the impression that the Bumiputeras were actually better qualified than the non-Bumiputeras. With this, the intention of the Government to make the Bumiputeras become more serious about their education failed.

36. There is a tendency among Malays to regard the discrimination in their favour as a privilege, as a recognition of their superior status. I think this is wrong. The discrimination is in order to give them a kind of headstart so that they can catch up with other races. To me, it is shameful to have to be protected because we do not have the capacity to compete. We are not Red Indians to live on reserves. We should regard it as a temporary expedient to be done away with once we have achieved the capacity to compete on our own.

37. However, we must give time for ending the NEP and it should be done in stages. I hope that the time will not be too long. In the meantime, serious efforts by the Bumiputeras must be made to avail themselves of the opportunities. If this is obviously not being done, then, as with entrance into the universities, the discrimination must end.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

I am sad for the Malays because last two days they rear their ignorant ugly heads up. I am sad because I am a Malay and again instead of looking at the issue in hand rationally they do so emotionally. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that the forum should be held close door instead of opening it as religion is highly emotive to the Malays. I agreed with the Deputy Prime Minister and disagreed totally with the Bar Council. Like all matters of religion and race it will be hijacked by politicians or individuals to suit their personal agenda. I understand the displeasure of the non muslim who found them embroil in a religious law that they don't proscribe too when conversion occurs within spouses. This must be address. Sadly hooliganism and rowdiness were the rule of the day. It mar Islam and the Malays as races which are not willing to discourse but take the easy way out. As Prof Doctor Mehrun Siraj of the International Islamic University, a Muslimah who is one of the panelist condemn the riots as unislamic in no uncertain terms.

For me we have been an independent nation for the 50 years yet we can't even sit down and talk rationally like adults without getting excited.This is one of the failure of the NEP for it provide a falsehood to the Malays giving them a superiority complex like the Aryan as envisage by Hitler. I am for NEP but gross mismanagement has created this situation thus has divided the people instead of uniting them under one nation. excerpt below are news and videos that i have glean from the web for your perusal.

Law professor keeps open debate on 'conversion to Islam' issues going

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 10 — Despite the fact that the Bar Council's "Conversion to Islam: Art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini & Shamala Revisited" forum yesterday ended prematurely, former Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) commissioner Prof Mehrun Siraj managed to raise an issue concerning the fate of marriages once a spouse has converted.

Speaking to reporters, Mehrun said that the law should provide for the settlement of such cases in the civil courts.

Mehrun urged the government to amend Section 3 of the Law Reforms (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 to give a converted spouse the opportunity to annul his or her civil marriage at the Civil Court in cases where the other spouse opted not to convert.

"Currently, the divorce is taken to the Syariah courts and the non-Muslim spouse will feel his or her rights have not been protected," she said.

"If a non-Muslim chooses to convert, we should accept them but their civil marriage should be settled first. Give the opportunity to the non-converting spouse to claim alimony and custody of children," added the adjunct professor of law at the International Islamic University Malaysia.

Mehrun said that the current problems arose due to the lack of understanding among non-Muslims but that it was the duty of Muslims to explain the matter to them but not through "shouting or bullying", referring to the behaviour of protesters who brought the forum to a close.

Mehrun was referring to the two women mentioned in the title of the forum, R. Subashini and S. Shamala, whose husbands had converted not just themselves but also their children and then filed for divorce in the Syariah courts.

Religion resurfaces as hot issue
From the Singapore Straits Times

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 11 — For several months, it seemed as though religious disputes were no longer the hot issue in Malaysia. Then over the weekend, it flared up again, with all the familiar reactions in attendance.

The emotional protest by several hundred Muslims that forced an abrupt end to a Bar Council forum on conversions to Islam was not the first such incident in Malaysia. But it was the first since the watershed March 8 polls in which race and religious disputes shaped the voters' response.

Political parties on both sides are now being watched closely for their response to last Saturday's events.

The response from the government has been predictable. Umno ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak and Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, have insisted that the matter should not be discussed openly as it is too sensitive.

Najib said yesterday that the Bar Council was "stubborn" in going ahead with its open forum on religious conversion, which had provoked the protests, and it was up to the Home Ministry and the police to decide whether to use the Internal Security Act.

The forum was aimed at discussing the impact on non-Muslim families when a spouse converts to Islam. Problems have cropped up repeatedly in the past few years, predominantly over custody. The Muslim parent is allowed, by law, to convert the minor child to Islam without the consent of the non-Muslim parent.

But this time, the non-Malay partners in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition are being watched, and they cannot afford to be too reticent, not after their punishment at the hands of their electorate during the polls.

Several of their leaders have spoken out, although in fairly mild terms.

MCA publicity chief Datuk Fu Ah Kiow told The Straits Times yesterday that he was disappointed the matter had not been resolved after the many promises and discussions. He said there seemed to be no interest by the government to resolve the matter.

MIC Youth coordinator T. Mohan condemned the disruption of the forum, and urged government leaders to address the issue of non-Muslim husbands who abandon their families after converting.

The government has long promised reforms, and has set up a group of Islamic and legal scholars to hammer out a solution. It has proposed resolving these disputes behind closed doors by a special panel, or amending the law to require converting spouses to resolve their marriages through civil law.

But none of this has taken off, not surprisingly, since the matter has evolved and is now seen as a saga pitting Muslims against non-Muslims.

The non-Muslims see this as an infringement of Islamic law against their rights, while the Muslims see non-Muslim protests as Islam-bashing.

The government's response had been to sweep it under the carpet, but it may now come under pressure to act if the non-Malay BN partners speak out.

But while the government is coming under pressure, this episode is also turning out to be a test of sorts for the ideologically-disparate opposition coalition after a Parti Keadilan Rakyat MP Zulkifli Nordin led the protest.

He stressed that he was acting in his private capacity but this was not enough to defuse criticism from PKR partners. The Straits Times understands that even some leaders in his party, including the Muslims, are unhappy with his actions.

It has cast a pall over the PKR's multiracial stance and sparked a complaint from DAP MP Tony Pua.

PKR deputy president Syed Husin Ali yesterday sought to cool things, when he chided Zulkifli for his role in the protest. He said in a statement that the party regretted the protest.

It is an indication that the religious dimension will be equally difficult for both sides to handle.

Malaysia spat erupts over curbing religious debate PDF Print E-mail
Posted by St Low
Sunday, 10 August 2008 15:46
Malaysian politicians wrangled Sunday about whether to curb sensitive debates on religious disputes in this Muslim-majority nation after protests halted a conference on Islamic conversions.

Police told the Bar Council association of lawyers to abort the forum Saturday after more than 300 demonstrators rallied outside the conference hall and threatened to storm the event.

The forum was supposed to be a rare public platform to examine how Malaysian families are caught in legal conflicts if one spouse in a marriage converts to Islam. The protesters claimed it reflected unfair demands by non-Muslim minorities for religious equality.

Government leaders insisted that Malaysia was not ready for freewheeling dialogues about religion that could undermine multicultural tolerance and social peace.

Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said "there are certain things that are out of bounds for public discussion, even if held in a private place."

Education Minister Hishammuddin Hussein urged Malaysians "not to think that openness is an absolute right."

However, some non-Muslim politicians called the protest a setback to hopes of resolving disputes in a young nation with a history of ethnic tensions.

"We believe open discussions and dialogues on ... issues (of) religious conversions are imperative to find solutions," said T. Mohan, a youth leader in the Malaysian Indian Congress, a party in the ruling coalition.

Tony Pua, an opposition member of Parliament, said that if lawyers were "not allowed to hold open discussions in relation to our constitution and its laws, then it makes a complete mockery of our legal system."

The Bar Council had organized the conference in response to concerns that the law fails to safeguard minority rights in religious conversion cases.

Malaysia's Buddhist, Christian and Hindus minorities have increasingly felt that they get second-class treatment because of court verdicts that favor Muslims. In a key case last year, Malaysia's highest court rejected a Hindu woman's plea to stop her Muslim-convert husband from changing their son's religion to Islam.

The Bar Council scrapped the forum barely an hour after it began, but denied the protesters' accusations that it was trying to question Islam's position as Malaysia's official religion.

The Bar Council noted that the conference speakers included both Muslims and non-Muslims, proving not all Muslims — who comprise nearly two-thirds of Malaysia's 27 million people — opposed the idea of public discourse that could prove constructive.

- The Associated Press

Moments of chaos during forum
K Pragalath | Aug 9, 08 6:31pm
Chaos erupted in the Bar Council auditorium today when several demonstrators entered the venue to disrupt a forum on religious conversion.

bar council islamic forum controversy inccident 090808 04One of the demonstrators (pic right), wearing a green and white Malay Student Front (GPMS) shirt, started the verbal melee when he grabbed hold of a microphone and lashed out at the crowd of about 100 participants.

“I represent Umno. Stop this forum” declared the unidentified individual who also uttered “Don’t insult Islam” and “You! Chinese, Indians, go to hell!”.

The individual’s tirade however earned him a loud reprimand from renowned International Islamic University law lecturer Dr Mehrun Siraj (pic below) who took to another microphone.

bar council islamic forum controversy inccident 090808 mehrun siraj“Open discussion is the way to discuss the issues between Muslims and non-Muslims. Don’t insult Islam,” she said amidst the shouts of the protesters.

‘Protest welcomed’

The GPMS representative were among several leaders of a protest against the forum, that was held outside the Bar Council headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

Another protest leader who entered the auditorium to disrupt the forum were PKR’s Kulim Bandar Baharu MP Zulkifli Noordin.

Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan was compelled to cur short the half-day forum at 10am following advice from the police.

“I’m closing this forum officially... we have no issues with anyone who has a different point of view. We respect everyone’s views in this building. That is what the Bar Council is about,” she said to rousing applause from the participants.

bar council islamic forum controversy inccident 090808 01Earlier, in officiating the forum, Ambiga had told participants that the protesters had a right to voice their views provided that the forum is allowed to continue.

“Demonstrators are exercising their freedom of expression. We will certainly not lodge police reports against them,” she said, adding that they were open to share their views within the forum as well.

Testimonies


Prior to the disruptions, the forum went ahead when three women brought on stage to share their experience with legal wrangling resulting from religious conversions.

One woman brought on stage, an ethnic Chinese, narrated how her father had met an Iranian woman before embracing Islam and marrying the woman without the family’s knowledge.

“Mother was devastated. She did not know what she did wrong... He was married to mum for 30 years. During the divorce process, he agreed to give mother our house.”

“One day, the hospital called and informed of his passing. It was during the divorce process... The authorities did not recognize my mother as his wife and me as his daughter. Our property was gone. Home didn’t belong to us.

“It is not fair. It is not justice,” said the woman in between sobs.

A German woman, known only as Anita, who shared her story later said that she had a civil marriage with a Malay Muslim man in England, who claimed to be an atheist at the time.

When the couple returned to Malaysia, Anita said she was ‘converted’ during a Muslim marriage, which eventually ended in divorce and she would have to remain a Muslim.

“Why does the family take it upon themselves to convert Western girls who come here? People should be able to choose. Why is it so rigid? Relationship is supposed to be free,” she said.

Another woman who shared her story to the participants was Marie Rayappan whose family was caught in a tussle over her deceased father - Anthony Rayappan’s - remains with the religious authorities.

Subashini’s case


The second session of the forum involved a panel discussion on the custody battle between R Subashini and her former husband T Saravanan@Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah.

In 2006, Saravanan had converted to Islam, taking the name Muhammad Shafi, sought a divorce and applied for custody of the couple’s two children through the Syariah courts.

Subsequently, Subashini filed for an injunction against Muhammad Shafi’s action at the Syariah Court but was rejected at all levels up to the Federal Court.

The forum panel consisted of lawyers Haniff Khatri Abdulla, K Shanmuga and Ravi Nekoo and moderated by activist Zarizanana Abdul Aziz.

Two other panelists - Federal Territories Islamic Department (Jawi) Syariah prosecutor Dr Mohd Naim Mukhtar and Institute of Islamic Understanding (Ikim) representative Dr Wan Azha Wan Ahmad - pulled out of the event at the last minute.

Shanmuga argued that Muhammad Shafi should have sought a divorce at the civil court as their marriage was a civil marriage.

“In this case, because of the conversions, jumping spouses say that the new rule rules,” said Shanmuga, who is Subashini's lawyer.

Haniff Khatri however argued that by virtue of embracing Islam, Muhammad Shafi had a right to seek recourse at the Syariah Court.

“He had the urge to convert at the age of 19. Syariah principles must be advanced as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of the non Muslim. There are principle guidances in Islam,” said Haniff Khatri, who is Muhammad Shafi's lawyer.

The last speaker Ravi concurred with Shanmuga and advised that all converts who embrace Islam finish their obligations at the civil courts before moving to the Syariah Courts.

“There cannot be two conflicting orders in one case,” he said.