| hide details 12:24 PM (4 hours ago) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dear Ang
It is true but affirmative policy was introduce first in the states to help the black 1961. Our NEP and affirmative policy is base on that. It is transient in nature not permanent. The result could be seen now, many professional malays are against this policy but my question is can Zaid and Anwar or even Nurul Izzah survive if there is no policy like these in place?
What is wrong is the way the affirmative policy is implemented. It must be for other bumiputras too. The Aboriginesand native of Sabah and Sarawak seem not to enjoy the policy as much as the Malays case in point the buying of house where discount is offered to Malays not bumis although the advert says otherwise.
It is not a right but a privilege given to bumis so they could excel thus it is not permanent. Chinese and Indian leaders agree to it but it was also open to other races which has been marginalized i.e. poor like the indian from the estate but this was not done as proscribed. That is sad
I hope this explain
Wan
Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad in a statement (FMT Sept 4, 2010) finally admitted that he and the Umno government intentionally discriminated against innocent non Bumiputra students by denying their educational rights as enshrined in the Constitution.
He said: "If we use the merit system , half of the university students (Bumiputeras) don't qualify..."
What one can gather from his statement is that the education system over the past 53 years has failed to produce Bumiputera students to meet the set requirement by Umno's own higher educational qualification merits.
Despite the billions spent to improve the educational achievements among Bumiputeras, citizens of this country are now been told by this longest serving Malaysian Prime Minister that Bumiputera students in Malaysia can only survive upon discrimination against their fellow non Bumi students. What a shame!
The former Prime Minister also revealed the truth on why local public universities are constantly dropping in international standard ratings. He admitted that half of the undergraduates did not qualify for entry into universities but were nevertheless granted places merely on race considerations.
I wonder how he justifies such brutal educational injustices. The moment a government tolerates such discrimination, it is actually planning to fail the country and its citizens over the years to come.
By implementing this racist based policies, thousands of fully qualified non Bumiputera students are cruelly denied entry into matriculation courses , local public universities intakes as well the PSD scholarships.
To summarise Mahathir's statement, he as the former prime minister and those in power ruling this country today clearly do not implement meritocracy in local university intakes, half of our university students are actually non qualifiers for higher education.
Fully qualified non Bumiputera students are oppressed and suppressed by the implementation of racially biased educational discrimination. The Umno-led Barisan Nasional government over the past 40 years has conveniently violated article 8 and 12 of Federal Constitution.
Time to stop the talk, and start the walk
By LIM SUE GOAN
Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE
We celebrated our National Day on 31 August under an atmosphere filled with racial sentiments. On the eve of Malaysia Day, there was a dispute over whether or not the Singapore administrative model is better than ours. Are such disputes necessaryW?
Malaysian politicians criticized Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for his governing theory given in a recent interview with the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Lee might not mean to offend anyone but some people still found it harsh and took his opinon too seriously.
Lee said that "if the Tunku had kept us together, what we did in Singapore, had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society, much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would be achieved in Malaysia."
He said "if", and we know that no one can turn back the clock and there is no "if" in history. No one can ever verify what will be the outcome if Malaysia had adopted the Singapore administrative model.
It is not necessary to take a sigh and memory of an elder so seriously. However, former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has responded fiercely. He criticized Singapore for joining Malaysia at that time and blamed Lee's catchphrase "Malaysia for Malaysians" for planting the seeds of today's racism in Malaysia.
Meanwhile, MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said that as Bumiputeras have not yet achieved the same economic level, the affirmative action policy is necessary. And the current deteriorating racial relations are a result of competition between the ruling and alternative coalitions after the 2008 general election.
And Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin even said that an apple should not be compared with an orange.
Perhaps, Mahathir is trying to repeat the old trick to expand the market of his Malay sovereignty. No matter what kind of words used by the politicians to fight back, future generations will still assess Malaysia and Singapore based on the countries' actual strength.
It is undeniable that the competitiveness of Malaysia has been in decline for three years while Singapore has been ranked among the world's top competitive economies. Why the difference is so great after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia?
Instead of wasting time to argue the history of whether the People's Action Party (PAP) of Singapore is the culprit causing racial polarization in Malaysia, it is better to spend time on self-improvement. Such a dispute is meaningless and even if we win the war of words, it is unable to change the facts. We should just leave the issue to historians for professional judgement.
What Malaysians should do, and do it immediately, is reform, stop the racial divisions and discontinue meaningless debates. How can we reform if we are confused and lose our direction just because of Malay rights group Perkasa, which has only been formed for less than a year?
We have been talking much, including the Government Transformation Plan (GTP), the New Economic Model (NEM), minimum wages, high-income economy, advanced country and the 1Malaysia concept. These plans have been facing obstacles because of racial and religious factors.
Everyone is looking forward to the second phase of the NEM and the 2011 Budget for new policies to bring changes.
While we are celebrating Malaysia Day, we must understand that a country's actual strength is the absolute principle. Malaysia can walk towards its own path and the old score of history can be settled only when we can really transcend Singapore.
Sin Chew Daily
Dr M’s racial politics outdated, says Pakatan’s young leaders
They said the country should do well focusing on bread and butter issues rather than harp on issues from the 1960s, such as the circumstances surrounding Singapore’s expulsion from Malaysia.
Dr Mahathir, in his latest blog post, had claimed that “Racism in Malaysia is clearly the result of Singapore’s membership of the country for just three years.”
He was responding to the island republic’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, who remarked in his New York Times interview that Malaysia’s inter-racial relations would have been if Singapore were not expulsed from the federation.
PKR’s Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, one of a clutch of rising young political stars in the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) stable, sent out this message on his Twitter site earlier this week: “Let’s focus on the future. They’re fighting the cultural wars from the 1960s. We have more urgent battles to fight.”
The first-term Seri Setia assemblyman’s views were echoed by PR colleagues Nurul Izzah Anwar, the DAP’s Liew Chin Tong and Dzulkefly Ahmad from PAS.
The trio observed that Dr Mahathir’s arguments were growing increasingly stale among the younger generation of voters who are more concerned with how Putrajaya handles bread-and-butter issues in an increasingly competitive global landscape.
“Harping on the events of August 9, 1965 won’t resolve anything,” said Nurul Izzah, the eldest daughter of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, referring to the date Singapore was booted out of Malaysia.
The Lembah Pantai MP observed that the long-standing battle between the two former prime ministers had nothing constructive to work on in the way of nation-building today.
“We have to learn the past, but focus on the current if we want solutions.
Liew, who is Bukit Bendera MP, subscribed to Nik Nazmi’s observation likening the verbal jousts between Dr Mahathir and Lee as an outdated “cultural war from the 1960s” that had no place in the present day society.
“That cultural war has nothing to do with us. I think we have moved beyond the question of if Singapore should be out or in,” said the DAP international secretary.
“I think we should not be distracted by Dr Mahathir. Let him do whatever he wants. He was a racist, and then he was inclusive...he’s changing colours every decade. He should not concern Malaysians pondering their future,” he added.
Liew observed that Dr Mahathir had been racist in his approach in the first half of his term in office in the 1980s but had switched to preaching inclusiveness after he nearly lost to Kelantan prince Tengku Razaleigh in the 1990 general elections.
Political scientist Agus Yusoff echoed the two first-term legislators and called Dr Mahathir’s argument “irrelevant”.
“I disagree with Dr Mahathir’s argument that Singapore is to blame for racism in Malaysia. It’s irrelevant. Why should we care what Lee Kuan Yew says in Singapore or in New York for that matter?” the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) lecturer said.
“What we have to concern ourselves with is what’s happening in our own country. Racism is a problem in Malaysia because there are organisations like Perkasa,” he stressed.
“We don’t have many politicians who support the prime minister’s concept of 1 Malaysia. They don’t even understand what the concept is all about,” he added.
Agus warned that Malaysia would not be able to go far in fighting racism as long as there are political groups championing the rights of a single ethnicity.
“We can’t go far if even in the BN, if there are political groups that fight for only the rights of one racial group, Malay rights, Chinese rights... That’s why racism keeps happening in this country,” he insisted.
The Kuala Selangor MP slammed the elder statesman for not owning up to his failure to stop the rift from widening during the latter’s 22 years in office.
“He had 22 years and the longest premiership. What was he doing all those years? He can’t blame an event in history or attribute the problems to another country,” Dzulkefly told The Malaysian Insider.
The PAS central working committee member pointed out that Dr Mahathir’s argument was flawed and only served to highlight the gravity of Malaysia’s inter-racial rift.
“He himself is admitting there is a serious racial divide in no uncertain terms. His only denial is that he is the catalyst for that,” Dzulkefly said.
He pointed out that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was at least “trying to enhance racial relations by taking an inclusive, market-friendly approach”.
He contends the 85-year-old’s patronage of hawkish Malay rights group Perkasa had further fanned racial conflicts here.
“He is now calling for racially-biased politics and reminding the current PM, in fact, coercing the PM not to ever debate those politics and not to marginalise Perkasa for fear of losing the Malay vote,” Dzulkefly said.
The PAS man warned that Umno was at a most crucial political crossroads and its survival to stay relevant with the Malay community depended on whether it would choose Najib’s reform-minded inclusiveness or continue to parade itself as the “most supreme Malay party on Earth”.
Mahathir: PAP has won elections on Chinese votes
September 15th, 2010 | 
Author: Former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has lashed out at PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew for “distorting” history.
During a recent interview with the New York Times, the octagenarian Lee criticized Malaysia for its “racist” politics and claimed that the PAP would have improved inter-racial relations had Singapore remained a part of Malaysia.
“I think if the Tunku (Malaysia’s first prime minister) had kept us together, what we did in Singapore – had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society – much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would have been achieved in Malaysia. But not as much, because it’s a much broader base. We would have improved inter-racial relations and an improved holistic situation,” he said.
Dr Mahathir refuted Lee’s arguments and counter-accused Singapore of perpetuating “racism” in Malaysia during its two year stint in the Federation.
“Before Singapore joined the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia, there was less racial politics in the Federation of Malaysia…..’Of course the slogan was ‘Malaysian Malaysia’, which implied that the Chinese were not having equal rights with the Malays. If this appeal to Chinese sentiments against the Malays was not racial, I do not know what is racial,’” he wrote on his blog.
He also took a pot shot at Singapore politics which has been completely dominated by the PAP for the last fifty years or so.
“Whether the PAP admits it or not, the party has always been led and dominated by ethnic Chinese, and has won elections principally because of Chinese votes. The others are not even icing on the cake,” he said.
Dr Mahathir added that if Singapore is a part of Malaysia, the ethnic Chinese in both countries will dominate and control Malaysian politics:
“No dissent would be allowed and certainly no one would dare say anything about who really runs the country.”
It is a shame that there is not a single soul in Singapore right now who dares to rebuke Lee and Singaporeans need a former Malaysian Prime Minister to speak up for them.
LKYtheRacist:Temujin:
September 15, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Dr.M is the worse kind oh leader ever to exist i.e to deny his roots.
Full Name: Mohd. Mahathir Kutty s/o Iskandar Kutty s/o Kutty.
Race Indian:
Country of actual origin: Kerala India
How dare he claim to be more Malay than the Malays a Bumiputra at that.
Whatever LKY(Harry) is good bad or ugly,he never deny his roots and claim to be Malaysian while in Malaysia and now 100% Singaporean though not doing much justice to the True Blue Singaporean.
MAJULAH SINGAPURA!!!
——
hi
Dr M may be half Indian but he care for the Malays. His mother is Kelantanese Malay so he qualifies as A Malay coz his mum is tru blue Kelantanese.
Compared this to so called PAP Malay MPs they are not Malay either.
Dr Fateemah Lateef Marine Parade MP – Indian Muslim
Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Environment Monster – Indian Muslim, wife – South American
Halimah Yaacob, Jurong MP – Indian
Dr Faisal , Kaki Bukit MP – Indian
Alami Musa, MUIS President – Turkish
Isa Semait , Mufti MUIS – Arab
BG Isyak ,so called 1st Malay General – Indian
Zaqy Mohamed, PAP Youth Leader – Chinese
Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi, half Chinese – Dad Javanese, Mum, Chinese
Hawazi Daipi Manpower Ministry – Indian
Madeen Packer Education Min – Indian
Only Tampines MP Masagoes and Dr Maliki Osman are not “tainted” Malays, But who knows…? SO Dr MM is not unique…
LKYtheRacist:wtf:
September 15, 2010 at 8:19 pm
@A Malaysian in Singapore:
September 15, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Dr M is a senile imbecile who who utters absolute stinking rubbish from his mouth. Please ignore him. BTW, Dr M is the undisputed champion of all racists.
———————
Pot, meet kettle.
LKY is also a racist. He absolutely *loves* to flash the race card even when he himself warned others not to play the race card. Hypocrite.
In addition, LKY also believes in eugenics, something which Hitler also loved to dabble with. Mahathir, for all his flaws and loudmouth verbal venom, never tried eugenics.
——————
LKY is the greatest racist and hyprocrite who “tricked” the British, the so called “communists”, the Malays and now the true blue Singaporeans. He has only one motive : absolute power in other words, to be God.
Non of his relatives married non Chinese.
All his children went to Chinese schools.
He created race-based politics on the pretext and hypocisy of all-race representation by introducing SAP schools, GRC, housing quota, self-help groups, Chinese-dominated SAF, Chinese dominated Navy, Chinese dominated Artillery, Malaysian Malaysia bullshit, Chinese dominated parliament, no-Malay-as -president till now, Speak Mandarin campaign, pro-PRC immigration policy, PAP-ised all major Malay-based organisations (MUIS, MENDAKI<>
His policies are detested by both Malays but by other enlightened non Malays who are riled by his "racism" and "hyprocrisy" disguised as meritocracy and representation-for-all policy.
All those policies hurt the Malays much more than the Chinese. At the end of the day, Chinese end up always the gainer and the Malay always the loser.
Now Singapore Chinese are receiving a bitter dose of their own medicine when LKY import thousands of PRC communists to take over their jobs, to be beaten by their own kind. Its God's karma — the punishment for keeping quiet when ur Indian and Malay brethren were being discriminated.
Its LKY racist policies which tear Singaporeans a part.
rang Singapura:DR M rebuts LKY..
Interesting as to who is telling ..er..porkies!!
==============
Mahathir Mohamad…speaks…
“Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor of Singapore, is three years my senior. That means he and I practically grew up in the same period of time. That also means that I have been able to watch the progress of Lee, and in fact to interact with him on various occasions.
His assertion in his interview with the New York Times that “Race relations (would be) better if Singapore (had) not (been) “turfed out” (of Malaysia) is worth studying. Is it true or is it fantasy?
Before Singapore joined the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia, there was less racial politics in the Federation of Malaysia. In 1955 the Malays who made up 80 per cent of the citizens gave a large number of their constituencies to the few Chinese and Indian citizens and ensured they won with strong Malay support. As a result the Alliance won 51 of the 52 seats contested.
The Tunku then rewarded this willingness of the Chinese and Indian citizens to support the coalition concept by giving them one million unconditional citizenship. This reduced Malay majority to 60 per cent.
In the 1959 elections the Alliance of Umno, MCA and MIC won easily though Kelantan was lost. PAS with only Malays as members was rejected. Racialism even when implied failed.
In 1963 Singapore became a part of Malaysia. Despite having promised that the PAP will not participate in Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak politics, Kuan Yew reneged and the PAP tried to displace the MCA in the Alliance by appealing to Chinese sentiments in the Peninsular. Of course the slogan was “Malaysian Malaysia” which implied that the Chinese were not having equal rights with the Malays. If this appeal to Chinese sentiments against the Malays was not racial, I do not know what is racial.
But the Peninsular Chinese favoured working with the Malays in Umno. They totally rejected PAP in 1964.
Following the Malaysian Malaysia campaign a few Umno leaders tried to rouse Singapore Malay sentiments. There were demonstrations in Singapore where before there were none. Kuan Yew accused Jaafar Albar for instigating the Singapore Malays. Although I never went to Singapore, nor met the Malays there, I was labelled a Malay ultra by Kuan Yew himself.
By 1965 racism had taken hold and the Tunku was forced to end Singapore’s membership of Malaysia. But the seed of Chinese racialism had been sown, so that even after the PAP left, the “Malaysian Malaysia” war cry was picked up by the DAP, an offspring of the PAP.
With the background of Singapore’s activities in Malaysia in the short three years of its membership, can we really believe that if it had not been “turfed out” race relations would be better in Malaysia?
But proof of what would have happened was shown by the politics leading up to the 1969 elections. The MCA began to criticise the Sino/Malay co-operation especially on so-called special rights and demanded for a Chinese university. Umno then began to clamour for a greater share of the economy of the country. The Umno/MCA conflict resultedin the Alliance faring very badly in the 1969 elections.
DAP and Gerakan, a new party largely made up of MCA dissidents, made gains. The Alliance was shocked and rattled.
Then the Gerakan and DAP held their victory parade near the Malay settlement of Kampung Baru, hurling racist insults at the Malays. The result was the May 13 race riots.
Till today the racist slogan “Malaysian Malaysia” is the war cry of the DAP. Racism in Malaysia is clearly the result of Singapore’s membership of the country for just three years. Can we really believe that if Singapore had not been “turfed out” Malaysia would have no racial problem.
While Kuan Yew talks about his belief that all ethnic communities should free themselves from the shackles of racial segregation in order to promote fairness and equality among the races, he also said that “once we are by ourselves (out of Malaysia) the Chinese become the majority”.
Singapore’s population is made up of 75 per cent Chinese and they own 95 per cent of the economy. It is therefore not a truly multi-racial country but a Chinese country with minority racial groups who are additionally much poorer.
In Singapore dissent is not allowed. People who contest against the PAP would be hauled up in court for libel and if they win elections would not be allowed to take their places in Parliament. Whereas in Malaysia opposition parties invariably win seats in Parliament and even set up state governments (today four out of the 13 states are ruled by the opposition parties); the PAP in Singapore has to appoint PAP members to represent the opposition.
Whether the PAP admits it or not, the party has always been led and dominated by ethnic Chinese and have won elections principally because of Chinese votes. The others are not even icing on the cake.
If Singapore is a part of Malaysia the PAP can certainly reproduce the Singapore kind of non-racial politics because together with the Malaysian Chinese, the PAP will ethnically dominate and control Malaysian politics. No dissent would be allowed and certainly no one would dare say anything about who really runs the country.
Amnesia is permissible but trying to claim that it is because Singapore had been “turfed out” for the present racist politics in Malaysia is simply not supported by facts of history.
Lee Kuan Yew and I saw the same things and know the reasons why.”
Labels: Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir
posted by wan zaharizan b wan zan at 2:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home