Malaysians Must Know the TRUTH

Whitney Houston dead at age 48

2012-02-11T19:38:00.000-08:00

Dead at 48 ... Whitney Houston. Photo: AP

US police said Houston was found dead in a room at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles. Her cause of death is unknown.

At her peak, Houston was the golden girl of the music industry. From the middle 1980s to the late 1990s, she was one of the world's best-selling artists. She wowed audiences with effortless, powerful, and peerless vocals that were rooted in the black church but made palatable to the masses with a pop sheen.

Her success carried her beyond music to movies, where she starred in hits like The Bodyguard and Waiting to Exhale.

Top-selling artist ... Whitney Houston bows after performing "I Didn't Know My Own Strength" at the American Music Awards in Los Angeles, California in November 2009 Photo: Getty Images

She had the perfect voice and the perfect image: a gorgeous singer who had sex appeal but was never overtly sexual, who maintained perfect poise.

She influenced a generation of younger singers, from Christina Aguilera to Mariah Carey, who when she first came out sounded so much like Houston that many thought it was Houston.

But by the end of her career, Houston became a stunning cautionary tale of the toll of drug use. Her album sales plummeted and the hits stopped coming; her once serene image was shattered by a wild demeanour and bizarre public appearances. She confessed to abusing cocaine, marijuana and pills, and her once pristine voice became raspy and hoarse, unable to hit the high notes as she had during her prime.

Whitney Houston has died, aged 48. Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones

"The biggest devil is me. I'm either my best friend or my worst enemy," Houston told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an infamous 2002 interview with then-husband Brown by her side.

It was a tragic fall for a superstar who was one of the top-selling artists in pop music history, with more than 55 million records sold in the United States alone.

She seemed to be born into greatness. She was the daughter of gospel singer Cissy Houston, the cousin of 1960s pop diva Dionne Warwick and the goddaughter of Aretha Franklin.

Click for more photos

Whitney Houston Dead

Pop icon Whitney Houston, pictured here at the MTV Music Awards in November 1999 .Photo: Getty Images.

Houston first started singing in the church as a child. In her teens, she sang back-up for Chaka Khan, Jermaine Jackson and others, in addition to modeling. It was around that time when music mogul Clive Davis first heard Houston perform.

"The time that I first saw her singing in her mother's act in a club ... it was such a stunning impact," Davis told Good Morning America.

"To hear this young girl breathe such fire into this song. I mean, it really sent the proverbial tingles up my spine," he added.

Before long, the rest of the country would feel it, too. Houston made her album debut in 1985 with Whitney Houston, which sold millions and spawned hit after hit. Saving All My Love for You brought her her first Grammy, for best female pop vocal. How Will I Know, You Give Good Love and The Greatest Love of All also became hit singles.

Another multiplatinum album, Whitney, came out in 1987 and included hits like Where Do Broken Hearts Go and I Wanna Dance With Somebody.

The New York Times wrote that Houston "possesses one of her generation's most powerful gospel-trained voices, but she eschews many of the churchier mannerisms of her forerunners. She uses ornamental gospel phrasing only sparingly, and instead of projecting an earthy, tearful vulnerability, communicates cool self-assurance and strength, building pop ballads to majestic, sustained peaks of intensity",

Her decision not to follow the more soulful inflections of singers like Franklin drew criticism by some who saw her as playing down her black roots to go pop and reach white audiences. The criticism would become a constant refrain through much of her career. She was even booed during the Soul Train Awards in 1989.

"Sometimes it gets down to that, you know?" she told Katie Couric in 1996. "You're not black enough for them. I don't know. You're not R&B enough. You're very pop. The white audience has taken you away from them."

Some saw her 1992 marriage to former New Edition member and soul crooner Bobby Brown as an attempt to refute those critics. It seemed to be an odd union; she was seen as pop's pure princess while he had a bad-boy image, and already had children of his own. (The couple had a daughter, Bobbi Kristina, in 1993.) Over the years, he would be arrested several times, on charges ranging from DUI to failure to pay child support.

But Houston said their true personalities were not as far apart as people may have believed.

"When you love, you love. I mean, do you stop loving somebody because you have different images? You know, Bobby and I basically come from the same place," she told Rolling Stone in 1993. "You see somebody, and you deal with their image, that's their image. It's part of them, it's not the whole picture. I am not always in a sequined gown. I am nobody's angel. I can get down and dirty. I can get raunchy."

It would take several years, however, for the public to see that side of Houston. Her moving 1991 rendition of The Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl, amid the first Gulf War, set a new standard and once again reaffirmed her as America's sweetheart.

In 1992, she became a star in the acting world with The Bodyguard. Despite mixed reviews, the story of a singer (Houston) guarded by a former Secret Service agent (Kevin Costner) was an international success.

It also gave her perhaps her most memorable hit: a searing, stunning rendition of Dolly Parton's I Will Always Love You, which sat atop the charts for weeks. It was Grammy's record of the year and best female pop vocal, and The Bodyguard soundtrack was named album of the year.

She returned to the big screen in 1995-96 with Waiting to Exhale and The Preacher's Wife. Both spawned soundtrack albums, and another hit studio album, My Love Is Your Love, in 1998, brought her a Grammy for best female R&B vocal for the cut It's Not Right But It's Okay.

But during these career and personal highs, Houston was using drugs. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2010, she said by the time The Preacher's Wife was released, "[doing drugs] was an everyday thing. ... I would do my work, but after I did my work, for a whole year or two, it was every day. ... I wasn't happy by that point in time. I was losing myself."

In the interview, Houston blamed her rocky marriage to Brown, which included a charge of domestic abuse against Brown in 1993. They divorced in 2007.

Houston would go to rehab twice before she would declare herself drug-free to Winfrey in 2010. But in the interim, there were missed concert dates, a stop at an airport due to drugs, and public meltdowns.

She was so startlingly thin during a 2001 Michael Jackson tribute concert that rumours spread she had died the next day. Her crude behaviour and jittery appearance on Brown's reality show, Being Bobby Brown, was an example of her sad decline. Her Sawyer interview, where she declared "crack is whack", was often parodied. She dropped out of the spotlight for a few years.

Houston staged what seemed to be a successful comeback with the 2009 album I Look To You. The album debuted on the top of the charts, and would eventually go platinum.

Things soon fell apart. A concert to promote the album on Good Morning America went awry as Houston's voice sounded ragged and off-key. She blamed an interview with Winfrey for straining her voice.

A world tour launched overseas, however, only confirmed suspicions that Houston had lost her treasured gift, as she failed to hit notes and left many fans unimpressed; some walked out. Cancelled concert dates raised speculation that she may have been abusing drugs, but she denied those claims and said she was in great shape, blaming illness for cancellations.

Malaysia 2012 – Open Letter To All Malay-Muslim Leaders

2012-02-11T19:32:00.000-08:00

By Matthias Chang,
Future Fastforward (01-12-12)

In the last two years, under the hysteria of a pending General Election, several prominent Malay -Muslim leaders from across the political divide have been calling, “Muslims must unite to survive or lose power.” The sub-text is “Malay must unite or lose power.”

In the latest sub-plot, Zaini Hassan ofUtusan Malaysia takes the view that a Third Force comprising PAS and UMNO religious elements will become the power brokers in the country. He said, “Malay fence-sitters will be this wave’s target to ensure that power is achieved.” This frenzied call for unity was and continue to be a sinister ploy to create fear first among the Malay -Muslim community and, as a collateral outcome, a paralysis within the non-Muslim community to discover the truth about Islam – to prevent them from grasping the fundamental truth that Islam is not, has never, and will never be opposed to their religious beliefs.

Both communities have been kept deliberately in a state of stupor and ignorance so that they can be easily manipulated to serve the hidden agendas of those who crave for power and wealth. Religion is but a tool.

I am a Catholic of Chinese descent. But I am a Malaysian first and no one did my family and I any favours when I became a citizen (by Operation of Law orJus soli (Latin: right of the soil)). My ancestors were here in the then Malaya much earlier than many who claimed to be Bumiputeras (sons of the soil). Just like the Native Indians in America and the Aborigines in Australia, only the Orang Asli of Malaya can rightly and constitutionally claim to be natives. They are the originals.

My citizenship is not as a result of any favours granted or any social contract agreed by UMNO, MCA and MIC or for that matter any organisation that fought and negotiated with the Imperialist United Kingdom.

The citizenship that I enjoy with all my fellow Malaysians is the undisputed recognition that all our forefathers, regardless of race and creed, have toiled with blood, sweat and tears for the country and that all future generations will do likewise as one nation.

The United Kingdom granted Malaya “Independence” not that we have become civilised and able to govern ourselves, but because she feared that this “Jewel of the Imperial Crown” would be lost forever as a result of the armed resistance of all races to her oppressive colonial rule which drained whatever little that was left in the vaults of the Bank of England after the Second World War. The pound was no longer the world’s reserve currency. The dollar and the new Imperial America ruled supreme.

Like many countries in Africa and Asia, Malaya was divided as to the path to be taken to achieve freedom from oppression and colonial slavery. This division resulted in a civil war encouraged by external powers locked in a life and death struggle for ideological supremacy, a struggle now more commonly referred to as the Cold War. But it was a “hot war” for many countries. There were victors on both sides of the ideological divide, and to them went the spoils of war and the “undisputed right” to write the history of their struggle as they deemed fit. This is the political reality.

As a Malaysian, I do not fear any community for I do not distinguish one from another as we are all Malaysians. I do not feel insecure about my future or my children’s future, or my grandchildren’s future. The destiny of the country is in our hands.

Before I pose my trillion ringgit question to all Muslim-Malay leaders of Malaysia, I want to put on record certain undisputed political and economic realities so as to enable one and all reading this article to come to their senses and not deny reality no matter how unpleasant it is to some, and to expose the lies perpetrated by the powers-that-be for the past few decades.

The Military is predominantly of one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Police Force is predominantly of one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Civil Service is predominantly of one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Government-linked Companies (GLCs) are predominantly of one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Agriculture Sector – specifically palm oil, rubber etc. is predominantly controlled by one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Banking Sector is controlled predominantly by one community – the Malay- Muslim.

The Oil & Gas Sector is controlled predominantly via Petronas by one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Transportation Sector (airways, railways, shipping etc.) is predominantly controlled by one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Public Educational Sector is predominantly controlled by one community – the Muslim-Malay.

The Public Healthcare System is predominantly controlled by one community – the Muslim-Malay.

Contrary to what you may be be thinking, I applaud unreservedly all these achievements by the Muslim-Malay community which were achieved under the New Economic Policy (NEP) that was introduced by the Second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, the father of the present Prime Minister.

But for these spectacular achievements, there would not be a Malaysia as we know it and we would have ended up as a banana republic living at the behest of the so-called generosity of the European powers.

Of course, there were mistakes along the way. Building and managing a country is always a work-in-progress. There are no standard textbooks to tell us how to develop a multi-racial, religious and cultural country such as Malaysia. We all made sacrifices – every community had to adjust to the new realities and adapt accordingly for the good of the country.

If truth be told, in my travels I have been frequently asked, “You are a Christian and a minority in Malaysia. Aren’t you afraid of the Muslim majority, the jihadists, the extremists, and their narrow outlook?” This question begs another question, “Why are people so ignorant and so biased to ask such a stupid question?” But this is the sad reality – the mindset of the brainwashed. They thought that I ought to be fearful, fearful for my family and the insecure future which a minority faces in most countries. They could not understand why I was not fearful for myself, my family or our future. They could not understand that there were no reasons to be fearful.

But there are reasons to be angry and frustrated – that as a nation, we could achieve much more, be more disciplined, more united, more ambitious and more daring to compete at the highest levels and succeed. However, we stumble just when we are about to take off to the next level of excellence in nation building.

Wondered Why?

Note: The message of the piece, which, I presume, is also intended for Tun Dr. Mahathir, will be ignored. In stead the messenger himself who is a close associate of our Prime Minister No.4 will be “shot”.

1Malaysia and Vision 2020 (which calls for a inclusive and caring Bangsa Malaysia) are mere slogans if we do not stop thinking and talking in terms of race and religion, and do not end divide and rule politics. “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, says President Abraham Lincoln (Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858). –Din Merican

War in UMNO? Which one way will Najib go?

2012-02-11T19:23:00.000-08:00

Image by Getty Images via@daylife

Unless Najib is willing to allow Sharizat the benefit and clear her of all wrongdoings, he is in for a big battle within UMNO. Not really a battle but rather an all out war - the likes of which have not been witnessed in all UMNO history, and Sharizat's, Muhyiddin's and Khairy Jamaludddin's supporters are ready to wage this war - a war that may either make or break UMNO.

All the three of them are UMNO leaders Sharizaat the head of the Wanita and Khairy the head of the youth wing, Muhyiddin was voted in as Deputy President, and all of them have demonstrated tremendous grass root support.

Najib did not have that privilege or was he too afraid to challenge anyone, that the status quo had to be maintianed and the draconian UMNO rule of only being able to contest if you had a minimum number of nominations rendered Tengku Razaleigh ineligible to contest him. Had Kuli come in then Najib's real strength could have been gauged, Najib is thus a PM by default.

If Sharizat has to go as Najib wants her to, then the pressure will mount on Muhyddin and Khairy both who are in one way or another involved in the award of the NFC contract to Sharizat's husband, he can't absolve one and keep the other two and hope that all will be okay, in fact it will only get worse, and that is what some factions in UMNO claim, after all it's Sharizat's husband who owns NFC not Sharizat, so it is those who were actively involved in the award of this contract who should be taken to task, and that includes UMNO's deputy president, and UMNO's youth chief.

Of course if Najib can wipe out all the three he will then be seen as all powerful, but in UMNO to carry out such an attack he has to have the resources, and resources in UMNO means money - big big bucks, and it has to simmer down right to the grassroots, it is only money speak in UMNO nothing else will do.

That is the reality of UMNO, corruption breeding corruption and more corruption.

If Najib on the other hand decides to be Jantan Kuat and go head and sack the three it will create an uprising in UMNO bigger than what has ever been seen, and the Mahathir - Anwar saga would look but like a storm in a teacup.

Can Najib Wage This War?

One UMNO division head tells me he'd like to, but being Najib he dares not, " had it been Mahathir, that man woudl have gone for it, he had a hold on so many people that he would have done it and still survived, he may come out bruised yes - after the battle, but he (Mahathir) can survive. Najib? OMG, Najib will be made sambal belacan, and served to the UMNO assembly. He does not have that clout, in fact no one, and I dare say, no one respects Najib in UMNO, maybe some people respect the seat of the President, but Najib no way."

Najib according to UMNO sources knows his strengths, he is a great disciple of the SWOT principle and is working overtime on beefing up his strengths and looking for opportunities, but this "beef case" is driving him up the wall.

All indications are that he will only go for Sharizat Abdul Jalil and leave the other two alone, Khairy Jamaluddin is no real threat to him, and with that move - removing Sharizat he hopes enough damage will be done to Muhyiddin whom he'd like to remove but lacks that Jantaness.

If Najib takes this route, that of removing only Sharizat only, he may be solving one problem only to create two more, if he decides to go for broke it will be all out war, and if he does nothing he loses the confidence of the Malay majority which is waning by the day, it is this reality that is drawing Zaid Ibrahim back to the opposition, after all he was/is an UMNO man.

Which one way will Najib go?

Is he thinking of parking Muhyiddin in Johor as MB or is he preparing for battle in Johor - battle with Muhyddin?

POSTED BY TOFFEE

KFC fracas: Conflict resolution, Pakatan-style

2012-02-11T19:09:00.000-08:00

What looks like the evolving sequel to the fracas at the KFC outlet at iCity, Shah Alam, is providing a foretaste of what the Pakatan Rakyat module of conflict resolution for inner-city disputes would look like should they take power in the upcoming general election.

A video uploaded on YouTube of a fight that broke out after what appears to been a nerve-wracking imbalance between the demand and supply of fried chicken at a KFC outlet had the potential to engender a racially-inflamed postlude.

The 27-second video went viral on the net. With its potential to spawn racially-charged comments, there lay the seedbed for sectarian misunderstanding and conflict.

Fortunately, this prospect was forestalled by the peace-making aplomb of two Pakatan MPs.

Into the threatened breach stepped Lim Lip Eng (Segambut) and Khalid Samad (Shah Alam), bearing mediating initiatives of fact-finding - indispensable, as always, for conflict-resolution - and an offer for a negotiated settlement after their intercessory efforts made things obvious that the dispute had no more inflammatory nub than an imbalance between supply and demand and the consequent frazzled nerves leading to fists thrown in fury.

Lim started the mediation ball rolling by organising a press conference a few days after the incident occurred and a couple after the video had gone viral on the net.

The press conference saw the injured party to the fracas tell his story. To his credit, Daniel Ng did not affect the aura of the much-wronged victim in his narrative of what happened.

After Ng’s version hogged the headlines on the web news portals, the video maker came out with her side of the story.

Her version strengthened the growing hypothesis that a shortage of fried chicken and the nervous anxiety that had occasioned was the cause of the fight at KFC’s iCity outlet in Shah Alam, and not racially-tinged thrash talk that could have accompanied the hubbub.

Thanks to the two Pakatan MPs, the stage has been set for an amicable resolution of the dispute.

Facts on the cause of the dispute have been affirmed, as a consequence of which tempers are calmed and cyber commentary restrained.

The ‘Allah’ imbroglio

This module of conflict pacification and resolution follows the one whose outlines had congealed when the dispute over Christians’ use of the term ‘Allah’ occurred a little over two years ago, following a High Court decision that upheld a Catholic Church publication’s use of the term.

As the dispute flared in the public arena, Pakatan leaders, led by Anwar Ibrahim, went into a huddle and emerged with the finding that Muslims do not have an exclusive right to the term; Jews and Christians could also use the term.

However, this did not prevent assorted politicians hitting the demagogic trail, venting their spleen at the court decision even as incendiary elements torched church buildings and property.

But Pakatan’s principal leaders like Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat and Anwar steered by the course of submitting facts to a candid public and allowing the latter to decide whether they want to be inflamed by superstition or enlightened and becalmed by fact.

Pakatan MPs Lim and Khalid have emulated this module in their intervention in the KFC outlet dispute, with results that are looking every bit as promising as antecedent overtures in the ‘Allah’ imbroglio did in early 2010.

Of course, this is going to deprive Hasan Ali of grist for his inflammatory mill, though that does not seem the case with Perkasa types, as its secretary-general has already found fault with the comments posted on the web on the KFC dispute.

Character is destiny, as the Greeks say, but the destiny of a post-BN Malaysia need not follow BN or Perkasa outlines.

As suggested by the better angles of the Malaysian spirit, to use a phrase from Abraham Lincoln, that destiny as prompted by MPs Lim and Khalid in their KFC mediation effort is set to flower in a Pakatan ascendancy.

TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for close on four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them. It is the ideal occupation for a temperament that finds power fascinating and its exercise abhorrent.

Why revamp our healthcare system with 1 Care?

2012-02-11T18:04:00.001-08:00

— CK Chooi
The Malaysian Insider
Feb 11, 2012

Many have written on this subject. Most are concerned about the implementation, costs, bureaucracy and effectiveness of the 1 Care scheme. Perhaps there is another holistic approach the government can consider.

Best treatment for the rakyat

Even in most developed countries those who did not have medical insurance will have to accept public health care and those who can afford it are treated in private hospitals. This is a reality of life, all citizens accept this. Have we heard anyone complain that he should be treated in a five-star private hospital when he knows well that he cannot afford it? The government cannot lose votes on this score. Malaysian citizens are mature enough to realise this fact —not all men are equal! We have the poor, the middle class and the rich — every society has this social structure.

Malaysia’s public health care is highly rated

Compare with even advanced countries, our public healthcare system is highly rated. The equipment in public hospitals are second to none, even more sophisticated than in private hospitals. But better trained staff are required to operate them.

Waiting time

Sure there are long queues, waiting up to two or three hours is normal. Even at private hospitals, seeking an appointment with a specialist incurs a waiting time of an hour or more. The government should have a solution to the long waiting time due to the huge numbers of patients. Increasing the number of health care staff is a simple and good solution. Have separate queues for senior citizens and the handicapped — these people should have priority. This would ease the “pain” for these people.

Managing increasing costs

No citizen will hold a grudge if medical fees are reasonably increased over two or three years. After all, these fees go back to the government and not to any third party, thus avoiding criticism of cronyism. Citizens can accept this. Perhaps for those above 60 years and the handicapped, medicine and fees can be waived to alleviate their medical costs.

There are huge numbers of non-citizens seeking treatment in public hospitals and this is a burden on healthcare costs. While it is a moral responsibility to treat these people, the government must recognise that citizens must be given priority. Perhaps these non-citizens can be charged on a moderate scale for consultation and medicine, say, 50 per cent subsidy. No country in the world subsidises medical treatment to non-citizens. Not even the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Korea, etc. So why must the government and the rakyat be burdened by non-citizens. By doing so, public healthcare costs and government subsidy are lessened. This may sound callous, but let us face reality. Citizens must come first!!

Healthcare budget

With only two per cent of our budget allocated to health care, it must rank low by world standards compared with developed and other developing countries. The government must and should double or triple this amount. Cut from unnecessary and ego-promoting projects! Plug leakages and corruption — billions can be saved and utilised for health care. Do we need 270 units of armoured personnel carriers totalling some RM7.6 billion (and reportedly the cost from Turkey was only RM1.6 billion?) Do we need six littoral patrol vessels at RM1 billion a piece when the US Navy has only two? We can afford health care if we can save from all these.

Unnecessary 1 Care costs

While no specific numbers of staff and costs are available, implementing the 1 Care scheme will incur additional staff and further costs. The civil service is already bloated. What transparency can be expected? Why do we need to “invent” and copy from the UK’s NHS — which incidentally is facing lots of criticisms when the British government wanted to reduce its healthcare coverage.

Politicians must remember this — “privileges” once given out can never be abolished even though there are justifications, even when the government cannot afford it, even when facing bankruptcy. Look at Greece, Spain, Italy —strikes and demonstrations are the order of the day. This brings social and economic unrest.

Shouldn’t we try not to re-invent the wheel. We have a good healthcare system — all it needs are improvements. Something that can be achieved fairly easily and quickly.

MCA is a Dog (Anjing)

2012-02-11T18:01:00.000-08:00

MCA is a party blinded by projects and false promises. Today Anjing cannot respond to this.

The right of the Malays to steal

2012-02-11T17:59:00.000-08:00

This is a common factor among the Malays. The leaders steal big from the coffer, the others steal small from business outlets.

When one pray five times a day, dress holy and then openly condemn other races, is this how the Muslim show their colours? Where are their dignity and moral sense?

Today we are shown daily how the leaders and other Malays are stealing from each other and the rest suffer in silence.

Forcing the reading of the Quran will not make a sinful person change its spot.

Political dynamite for greedy BN in Sabah and Sarawak over native rights, land

2012-02-11T17:52:00.001-08:00

If we go by the statement “out of the blue” from the Sabah Attorney General’s Chamber on Friday and various other statements since then on Sarawak, it seems that in reality there are no Natives in Sabah after 1930 and none in Sarawak after 1958, but only on paper and meaningless for any purpose whatsoever.

This is political dynamite from the ruling Barisan Nasional in an election year!

In short, after allowing for other private land properly registered and titled, all land in the two states – after 1930 and 1958 respectively – is state land. This is equivalent to William the Conqueror claiming all land in England as Crown (his) land after he vanquished King Harold 11, the last English King, at the Battle of Hastings on 14 Oct 1066.

Left with nothing but Article 153

Without Native land after 1930 and 1958, the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak are only left with Article 153 of the Federal Constitution which in any case has been observed more than not in the breach and/or in a deviated and distorted form to favour the ruling elite in Peninsular Malaysia.

Article 153, in any case, also speaks of the legitimate interests of the non-Malay communities in its 2^nd prong and includes the Orang Asli and the Malay-speaking communities in Peninsular Malaysia in its 1^st prong.

Article 153, despite being a fine piece of legislation on paper, is no guarantee for the Natives or Orang Asli, even if the Malay-speaking communities in Peninsular Malaysia can be excluded at some future date by virtue of them not being Natives of the land.

This is because Article 153 is a man-made piece of legislation which was initially supposed to have a 15-yeear shelf life and, therefore, can be done away with by a future Government without batting an eyelid.

Native Customary Rights

The Malay-speaking communities in Peninsular Malaysia, as stated before, don’t enter the picture for the purpose of defining a Native although the British created Malay reservation land for the immigrant squatter colonies and hence the Federal Constitution had to define Malay, principally for the purpose of owning such land and Article 153 as well.

The latter reflects more the fact that Umno stepped into the power vacuum created by the departing British “colonial” administration. This brings the issue back to NCR land, Adat and the question just exactly who’s a Native in Sabah and Sarawak, if we set aside the Orang Asli for a moment.

The provision in the Sarawak Land Code that no NCR land can be created after 1958 has never been challenged in Court. If done so, it will surely fail since it runs foul of the Federal Constitution, the superior law, and tries to usurp the power of the King and the Governor in matters related to the conduct of Native affairs and their protection.

The common law position will not support the Sarawak Land Code either as it stands. The law states that Native land can only be owned by Natives. The law, for that purpose, defines who is a Native. The list of those deemed native can be found in the Sabah and Sarawak Constitution and the federal Constitution.

If the question of defining who can own Native land does not arise, there would be no need in law to define a Native. Having defined a Native, no other law can go on to contradict it by stating that only those before a certain year – 1930 and 1958 respectively – are Natives in reality.

Hence, would the issue of Natives after 1930 and 1958 respectively, merely be Natives on paper and not in reality. No state government in Sabah or Sarawak can legislate a cut-off date for the creation of Native or NCR land.

Hence, it’s not the done thing for Sabah and Sarawak Governments to throw cold water on the status of NCR land created after 1930 and 1958 respectively.

NCR an inalienable part of the laws of the land

A discussion on Sabah will do to illustrate the dilemma faced by Sarawak Natives as well.

What are we talking about here? The Sabah state government wants to dignify a date, i.e. 1930, used then by the British North Borneo Chartered Company administering Sabah, for the purpose of NCR? That's like legislating against the people.

The sovereignty of a people lies with them. The Natives of Sabah did not give the Company a mandate to rule Sabah in defiance of history, NCR and Adat and in fact any mandate at all. The Natives came before the Company and Government. That's in history, Adat, Common Law and the Federal Constitution.

This means NCR is an inalienable part of the laws of the land. No law including the Federal Constitution and/or Judiciary and/or Government can by administration extinguish NCR, Native Rights and the Natives in any manner. The Native Court has been accepted as an inalienable part of the Judiciary.

It has been established by case law in our Courts that even if Government "claims" NCR by "law" as "state land", this still doesn't give it beneficial possession of such land. The beneficial possession of such land still resides with the Natives and this means that there can be no cut-off date for the creation of such land. The Natives have to allow for their coming generations through the continuous creation of such land.

Adat

Under Adat, there's no cut-off date for the creation of NCR. So, no Government can legislate on this. It stands to reason that new NCR, including on so-called state land, is a natural and logical extension of existing NCR. No one is creating NCR in the middle of town on state land.

It may be permissible to re-designate NCR as Country Lease – can be owned by anyone -- land if it's (NCR) next to the latter land and not otherwise. No one can open Pandora's Box here.

No one can create CL land in the middle of NCR land. No matter which way we turn on the issue of NCR, we can't ignore history, Adat, Common Law and the Federal Constitution. In essence, this is not just the Art but also the Science of Law.

The right Forum for NCR issues in Sabah is the Assistant Collector for Land Revenue (ACLR), Native Court and the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak. In this the Natives of Sabah, as in Sarawak, have to stand alone and not look to politicians or the government of the day to protect them.

The Court of Appeal and the Federal Court can make a determination on points of Law which may be said to include history, Adat, Common Law and the Federal Constitution.

Any law legislated against history, Adat and the Natives including against NCR doesn't enter the picture for the purpose of such determination. There is no need for a provision for the creation of NCR after 1930.

The Ordinance not allowing for the creation of NCR after 1930 is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with Adat. There is no cut off date in Adat, neither can there be, for the creation of NCR. Adat provides for the continuous creation of NCR.

Against all natural justice

NCR is the Right to Life as provided for in history, Adat, Native Rights and the Federal Constitution which is the superior law vis a vis Ordinance or Enactment.

Any Ordinance or Enactment, being inferior pieces of legislation vis a vis the Federal Constitution, is null and void to the extent of their inconsistency with the Federal Constitution, the Superior Law of the Land. The Federal Constitution cannot be seen as going against itself.

The bottom line in history, NCR, Adat, Native Rights and the Federal Constitution is that those who come from the outside world and encroach into the Land of the Original People – including a Government, Constitution and Judiciary -- must face the consequences of their action.

No subsequent work of man-made legislation can whitewash, for want of a better term, their "sins" including against Natives.

There can be no Law on Earth providing for the virtual theft of someone else property and/or anyone acting with impunity and that includes the Government.

Malaysia Chronicle

1Care: Healthcare for the people or for the cronies

2012-02-11T17:51:00.001-08:00

AFTER the massive whacking of Barisan Nasional (BN)’s bid to introduce a 1Care national health scheme (NHS), let’s look at the idea from a different and more positive perspective.

The Health Ministry has confirmed that 1Care would entail mandatory monthly contributions from all Malaysians – meaning, the government is going for your pockets, despite paying all kinds of taxes and service charges.

It is extremely illogical, nauseating to say the least, for a “caring” government to even think of asking the rakyat to surrender 10% of their monthly salary to support 1Care.

Trying to introduce a health care scheme for the rakyat is a noble effort and idea. But the works of the scheme stinks.

For the people or for the cronies

It is acknowledged globally that the Canadian Health Programme is genuinely pro-rakyat with no loopholes for any chance of mismanagement and mishandling.

Any opportunity to link 1Care with any local or foreign insurance and reinsurance company will be a disaster. This linkage can only lead to total commercialisation, thus creating limitation and excess clauses in the programme policies.

Also, any reinsurance will lead to invisible out-flow of huge amounts of funds to foreign land.

Malaysians need a real health programme and there is already a successfully tested health programme in Canada, so why opt for an inferior UK-NHS scheme?

The most important question: Is 1Care for the rakyat or for insurance companies backed by cronies of those in the corridors of power?

In Canada the employed, the self-employed, the unemployed, the rich the poor all get the same top level of medical treatment. No one is denied proper medical care due to lack of money. The Canadian system allows its citizens to pick their own doctors, go see whichever doctor they want to see, and extra billing i.e. extra charges by the doctor is NOT allowed. (No gravy for BN cronies, you see!).

The health care system covers all basic medical care including doctors, surgery, hospital stays, etc. There is no limit on how many times citizens can see the doctor in a year or limit to the cost of our medical treatment. Whatever is necessary? For example, a Canadian sees his doctor and gets laboratory tests once every three months on a regular basis and not a penny out of his or her pocket. Or if one feels some aches and pains, he or she can go see a physical therapist or a chiropractor and it is all covered.

Canadians who opt to get any extra medical care not covered, such as cosmetic surgery or traditional Chinese medical consultation or get acupuncture treatment, they have to pay the first 20% of their income and the rest are tax deductable.

The poor

Upon implementation of 1Care, who will then care for the poor and the marginalised population when the private and public healthcare corporatisation compete for business and profits?

Consider:

> Public hospitals and clinics are now service-driven but upon corporatisation or privatisation, they have to be profit-driven;

> So who will serve the people in remote places? and

> Who will serve the very poor people?

Consider the following hypothetical situations:

What happens when the government introduces 1Care? The whole system of independent one-stop general practitioners will be restructured and converted into 1Care clinics like the UK NHS general practitioner system.

Before

Ali has been suffering from skin rashes for many years. He has to see his doctor once a month to get treatment. That would mean he will have to see his doctor 12 times a year just for this illness. What if he has other illnesses?

Now

But now, Ali’s doctor has allocated only a budget equivalent to six visits a year, regardless of how many times Ali would need for his yearly treatment. What happens then? A rationing system will kick in. If the doctor sees Ali too many time, his “P4P” (Pay for Performance) profile will be poor and he will be paid less.

To start with, Ali will probably cannot just walk in and expect to be treated. He will have to make an appointment. There will be a long waiting list. What if Ali needs to be treated for fever or some painful joints? He will also have to wait for his appointment. If he cannot wait and wants immediate treatment from another doctor he will have to pay on his own. This is what the NHS UK system is offering its patients.

Lim has an appointment to see his doctor over a knee ache. Just before his appointment, he has an ingrown toe nail that has become painful. At the clinic, after his doctor treats him for his knee ache, he asks his doctor if he could look into his ingrown nail. His doctor says “No, the system does not allow me to do that. You must make another appointment. This visit I can only treat and bill for your knee ache. 1Care will accuse me of over-servicing my patients. I have no authority to make any discretion, all is by SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). This is what the NHS UK system is like today.

Muthu lives in a remote rubber estate. One day he had chest pain and went to the nearby 1Care clinic. He has blood pressure problems since young and has had fits. A hospital assistant saw him. Because of a change of his medications to the cheapest not-the-original medications, his blood pressure went out of control and his seizures returned. He developed a fatal stroke and died. This is what is happening when essential original medications are replaced with the cheapest .The cheapest medications are not necessarily the best for the patient and certainly not the safest.

Every salary man must get a 5-9% deduction from his salary to fund this scheme. This money is taken and gone for good even if you don’t see a doctor.

Do you still want such a rotten deal? Don’t you think the government is taking us for a ride?

Jackson Ng is a Retired Journalist

For some council tenants, EPF home loan not sweet deal

2012-02-11T17:49:00.000-08:00

By Melissa Chi

February 12, 2012

View of KLCC from the 17th floor of the Seri Sabah flats in Cheras. — Picture by Choo Choy May

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 12 — On a clear day, the iconic Petronas Twin Towers can be sighted from the top floor of the 17-storey high Seri Sabah flats in pollution-choked Cheras.

The view that the rich pay millions for is a luxury the poorer residents of the city can also afford, at RM124 a month or between RM25,000 and RM35,000 for life.

Seri Sabah is just one of dozens of low-cost high-rise housing schemes owned by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and currently the centre of a storm over a government loan proposal.

Under the scheme, its tenants will be able to buy up their units with loans from a workers’ pension fund, for which they would ordinarily not qualify for at commercial banks because they fall into the high risk class of borrowers.

And most of the tenants at Seri Sabah do fall into that group — many of the households draw a monthly income of RM3,000 or less. Many of the heads of households are retired.

And surprisingly, many of the tenants whom The Malaysian Insider spoke to during a recent visit said they would not take up the proposed loan offer even though they liked their home. They said they preferred to buy up the place with their own money or continue to rent from DBKL.

Mr Lee chatting with a neighbour about how long they've lived here. - Picture by Choo Choy May

An elderly Chinese man who was shooting the breeze with his wife and a neighbour at the tiny park within the flats grounds told The Malaysian Insider he had been living there 25 years and never thought of buying.

Speaking in the Hakka dialect, Mr Lee, as he wanted to be known, said he didn’t see a point in buying.

“If one of us goes, the other will live with one of our kids,” he said nonchalantly.

Rent is RM124 a month and the water and electric bill comes up to about RM80 monthly, he said. It costs about RM27,000 to buy their unit, he added.

Zaiyani Ali, a 22-year-old clerk for Yayasan Belia who earns RM900 a month told The Malaysian Insider that her father had already purchased the unit with money withdrawn from his Employees Provident Fund (EPF) savings to buy their RM28,000 home there.

She said she lives in the flat with her parents and brother and that their combined household income is RM2,000.

She said her unit now costs RM35,000.

Some of her neighbours, she disclosed, had bought units, renovated it and rent it them out for RM450 a month.

Thirty-year-old Iza who works as a clerk has lived in Seri Sabah with seven others in a 650 square-foot-flat for more than 20 years. The total household income is RM3,000.

She said her family never considered buying the unit because she heard that if they want to resell it, it has to go back to the city council or to a relative.

“I don’t agree with this housing scheme because there are already housing loans available (for low-income earners),” said Iza, who was born in Johor, during a walk around the flats open grounds with her mother and her three-month-old baby.

Fifty-eight year old Saudiah Husin lives with her husband and two grown-up children, seemed uncomfortable with the thought of using money borrowed from someone else’s retirement savings to fund her home purchase.

“If you loan to people like us, who’s going to pay in the end?” she said.

The housewife said she was aware that those who were unqualified for bank loans would likewise have a higher percentage of defaulting on their payments.

The family, which has an approximate household income of RM1,700, are in the midst of purchasing their unit, with their own savings.

One daughter, Saudiah said, is manager with Pizza Hut and draws RM1,000 a month. The motherly Saudiah said she can earn up to RM700 babysitting.

She said the government has always encouraged the tenants to purchase the units they were living in, but the only problem was that they had to wait until get an offer letter from City Hall.

Like Saudiah, 57-year-old Siti who is similarly living with her husband and two children in Seri Sabah said she too was paying for her flat with their own money.

“I think it’s not right that the government is using other people’s money, EPF funds,” she said, referring to the Employees Provident Fund.

Vies of KLCC from the 17th floor. - Picture by Choo Choy May

Federal Territories and Urban Well-being Minister Raja Datuk Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin who mooted the proposal had said the loan would be secure as it is guaranteed by the government through its local council.

He said the EPF would earn 5.5 per cent interest annually from the repayments made by the 20,000 new house buyers.

The Umno senator also said he expects “not more than 10 per cent (of the borrowers) will default”.

The government has been forced to address fears that the housing loan scheme would result in losses for the 5.7 million active EPF contributors.

Under the scheme, applicants will receive a 100 per cent loan, with a repayment period of up to 25 years to allow borrowers to make “smaller” monthly repayments.

DBKL deputy director-general (socio-economy development) Datuk Amin Nordin Abd Aziz had said that buyers under the scheme would have to pay less than RM300 a month, depending on the duration of the loan which was up to 25 years and the size of the house. Those currently renting are paying between RM124 and RM194, depending on the size of the unit

He also said that some 80 per cent of the tenants of DBKL public housing had paid their rent for the last two years, thus making them eligible for the housing loan.

Amin reportedly said that there are 14,584 units of DBKL public housing and 29,562 units under the Economic Action Council’s People Housing Programme (PPR-MTEN) available and 12,675 eligible tenants have accepted the offer.

Children playing at the playground. - Picture by Choo Choy May

Under the PPR rental programme, a total of 75 projects containing 70,199 units were scheduled to be completed.

Of that figure, 24 projects (of 32,762 units) were built in KL and 51 other projects (37,437 unit) were built in other states.

As at 2007, a total 49 project comprising 52,716 units have been completed.

Another 26 projects with 17,483 units are in various stages of construction and were expected to be completed by 2010. No further news is posted on its website.

According to the web site, there are still 86,572 poor families in the country, with the highest in Sabah, 23, 692. KL has 11,181 families.

There are other city renters who said they would grab the opportunity to own their house with the housing loan scheme.

Halimah Yatim, 58, who is a single mother and now lives with one of her three children, said she appreciates the chance for low-income earners to get loans.

“If I have to pay till the day I die, so be it,” she said, jokingly.

Her household income is RM2,000 and to buy the unit would cost about RM28,500.

The grandmother of four said she has been living there for the past 17 years.

Huzaimi Ishak, 32, a dispatch clerk also welcomed the housing loan.

He lives with seven others including his wife and a toddler, some of his siblings and spouses as well. They have been living there for the past decade.

He told The Malaysian Insider that now that he has a child, he can apply to rent a unit at the flats. He had done so eight months ago but has yet to get an approval for the next five years.

However, others are unsure about the scheme until more details are announced.

Kalesom Hamzah and her family. - Picture by Choo Choy May

Kalesom Hamzah, 55, who lives with six other people in her two-bedroom flat said she is considering this housing loan proposed by the government but it very much depends on the interest rate and the payment plan.

Her husband, a taxi driver, the sole income provider for the family earns RM1,500 a month.

“We don’t want to go through the banks because the interest rates are high,” the grandmother to two toddlers said.

She said previously, if you’ve lived for more than a decade at the flats, that is considered as the down payment to purchase the unit.

“We don’t want to live elsewhere. It is comfortable here and there is good transportation around here. If I get stressed sometimes, I can come out here to get some air,” she said pointing to the balcony which has two bright pink chairs.

There are some who are less optimistic as they feel that the offer sounded too good and so believe the interest rate will be very high.

Mok Chee Keong, who is over 70 years old has lived in the flats for more than two decades with his wife and three sons.

“Of course everybody wants to buy a house but if you have no money to buy and can’t even get loans, how to buy?” he said.

Indians smothered by the humongous garland

2012-02-11T17:46:00.000-08:00

YOURSAY 'Religion has a way of enslaving its followers with constant indoctrination with the likes of a political 'brain washing'.'

The slaying of our sacred cows
Cala: Correct me if I am wrong, my impression after reading S Thayaparan's article is that he appears to be overly concerned about describing the various shortcomings in the system that resulted in the sorry state of affairs facing the Indian community, but not in providing some workable solutions.

Three major challenges have been identified by him: i) high level of crime rate; ii) gender inequality; and iii) the community's subservience to religious figures.

One may ask: Who should be held accountable? Who else but MIC which is supposed to represent them under consociational politics? In the absence, the community has to abandon its historical source of support.

Hence the real challenge facing them seems to be the leadership issue. Who then is the saviour to a community plagued by both poverty and the class system?

TC: Tamil schools have been under performing for a long time. But they have changed. Many are putting in a lot of effort to improve and the results are showing.

You cannot compare the Chinese schools with their enormous funding from all sections of the Chinese community with the ill-funded Tamil schools.

What was wanting amongst the poor Tamils was awareness. Awareness that education is a tool for betterment is slowly dawning amongst them now.

Political awareness came with the Hindraf march (After that march, it does not matter what happens to Hindraf). The priestly class are not the beneficiaries of the money channeled into temples, but the people in the temple committees.

Fairnessforall: Thayaparan, you condemn the bathing of the Indian gods with milk which cost but a few ringgit and yet did not bother to mention the wastage of thousands of ringgit on a humongous garland for someone who comes and lies in the temple premises thereby desecrating the holy ground.

The Indians are stupid - that is why they have made Najib their god. I have never seen a garland even half that size being put on the statue of Lord Murugan.

Indians need to wake up and first kick out Sri Maha Mariamman Temple Committee president R Nadarajah and his 40 thieves. The committee collected RM10 from the poor Indians to do an ‘arjane' yet they did not think twice to spend thousands on a garland.

Thaipusam is a religious festival and should not have been used as a political platform. Shame on Nadarajah and gang for allowing Najib to come and desecrate the temple premises with his lies and even a bigger shame to the Tamils for standing there and listening to his lies.

Onyourtoes: As I read through some of the comments here, one point of view is Indians are easily exploited because of their caste system, closed affinity with gods and Tamil education.

Another point of view blames the exploitation on others, particular their own leaders (MIC and in fact many others including those at the temples) and Umno.

So which is the chicken and which is the egg? Why do you think Indian leaders and those from the Umno could so easily hoodwink the Indians and "take them to Holland"?

Fairnessforall mentioned an interesting point - why condemn "the bathing of the Indian gods with milk which cost but a few ringgit and yet did not bother to mention the wastage of thousands of ringgit on a humongous garland for someone who comes and lies in the temple premises thereby desecrating the holy ground."

But here lies the irony. Has it ever occurred to us that whether it is a few ringgit of milk or thousands of ringgit on the garland, the modus operandi is the same - the same exploitation on the ignorant and gullible Indians?

So between the chicken and the egg, I feel that the chicken must come first - get rid of the ignorance, gullibility, caste and the totally hopeless Tamil education first, the exploitation will eventually die a lingering death.

Open Minded: Religion has a way of enslaving its followers with constant indoctrination with the likes of a political 'brain washing'. MIC has used it very effectively to hoodwink and control the poor Tamils in particular, to be totally dependent on the powers-that-be for their sustenance.

Tamil schools, the bane of the community, which has gained almost no progress over the years, is another juicy vote-buying tool to arouse and seek fanatical support for a party whose sole intention is seen to be, enriching themselves at the expense of the masses.

Accept it or not, Tamils schools are a thing of the past and have no future in this country. Do not play politics when it comes to the future well-being of the community. Stop whining and move with progress or be left even far behind.

Gandhi: Thayaparan, you should say Tamil schools and not Indian schools. As a Sri Lankan Tamil, you should be proud that Tamil language is used in Malaysian schools.

My friend's son can write and speak like you in English, but his pride took a deep dip when his white friends asked him what was his mother tongue.

Just because you write well in English and express your ideas easily doesn't mean that Tamil schools should be integrated with mainstream schools.

You would be sure about certain areas of Hindraf's contribution only if you had perspired on that day of the rally. You as a retired Navy commander, I would say you may be good at management of an organisation, but politics in the multiracial environment is not that simple.

What I would request you is, get to know P Uthayakumar and M Manoharan personally then you may understand the complexity of our brethren.

You say D Jeyakumar is the kind of politician we need but did he bring in the tsunami? Hindraf moved the laggard Indians to rise up, did Jeyakumar do that?

Cocomomo: Hindraf and MIC (both are no different when it comes to the bottom line of retarding the progress of poor Indians) will soon be calling for Thayaparan's blood.

This is a brilliant article that hits the nail hard with truth - one that all Indians should read with an open mind. However, I believe many will curse Thaya rather than mull over what he has written.

Indians have but themselves to blame for the predicament they are in. I grew up in a rubber estate. My parents chose to send me to government school rather than the Tamil school in the estate.

While Tamil education maybe well-developed in India, the quality of the Tamil schools in Malaysia results in the vast majority of those who go to such schools to be caught and kept within the cycle of poverty and look for handouts rather than improve themselves and progress.

Jiminy Qrikert: Thayaparan has voiced what many 'Indians' (people originating from India or Indian nationals, take your pick) here in this forum will not - that the emotional shackles of religion and education have made the community subservient to Umno-BN.

But then again, 'religion' refers only to 'Hinduism' and education refers only to 'Tamil' education. What about the other 'Indians' who are neither Hindu nor Tamil? Which is why Hindraf was conceived as 'Hindu Rights' - focused and began its life championing only the Tamils equated as 'Indians.'

Torn between harnessing the deep frustration of the Tamils and focusing all that anger and energy to 'champion the Indian cause' and the increasing need to be more inclusive, first towards 'other Indians' and later 'Malaysian' perspective, it morphed into HRP (Human Rights Party) to then loudly proclaim ‘15 + 38' (state and parliament seats).

Today, HRP is just another mosquito 'Indian' party with the two founder brothers not even agreeing on what they stand for. Indeed, Thaya makes more sense than Uthaya.

Kit Carson: Commander, I like your write-up. I hope people like G Palanivel, P Kamalanathan and all the other goons in MIC will read this. I, for one, will circulate this article to all my Indian friends and family. - Malaysiakini

PM-sultan talks: Johor MB's succession on agenda

2012-02-11T17:43:00.000-08:00

Speculation has swirled over a scheduled ‘four-eyed’ meeting between Prime Minister Najib Razak and the Sultan of Johor at the latter’s palace in the state capital today.

Najib flies in for the 15th anniversary of the waterfront Danga Bay development which stretches for several hectares along city’s coast facing the Straits of Johor.

The celebrations get underway at 3.30pm, after which the PM repairs to the state palace for the meeting with the sultan that is expected to start at 5.30pm.

Because the sultan will also grace the anniversary celebrations - he is scheduled to launch a charity foundation in connection with the project - his meeting later with the PM has triggered speculation, more so when the next item on the PM’s schedule is the Chingay parade in the town centre that only starts at 8.30pm.

Unsurprisingly, speculative eyebrows arched over the length and probable agenda of the scheduled palaver at the palace, with most theories apt to discount the possibility that the propriety of the charities that would benefit from the Danga developers’ benevolence or the disposition of the deities that would be on show at the Chingay parade would take up too much conversation time between the bluebloods.

In short, the tete-a-tete between PM and sultan is expected to revolve on issues of political rather than social import. Like whether four-term Menteri Besar Ghani Othman would still be retained as Johor menteri besar after the upcoming elections.

The PM wants Ghani to stay but the latter is undecided and an allusion he made in a public address at the recent Thaipusam celebrations in Johor fed speculation that the incumbent wants out and knows who should take his place.

Men aligned to Muhyiddin

Ghani said out loud that Johor Baru MP Shahrir Samad ought to be promoted in the state Umno hierarchy on account of his integrity and ability.

This was read as indicative of Ghani’s desire to withdraw in favour of Shahrir as Johor MB, though this would be an elevation that would be contested by at least three young aspirants aligned to Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

Muhyiddin, a former Johor MB, would be glad to see Ghani go but not replaced by Shahrir, who though he is not really an ally of Ghani’s is like the latter in being averse to the Umno No 2.

In the complicated calculus of Johor Umno alignments, any aspirant to Ghani’s position other than Shahrir must be allied to Muhyiddin to have any chance of obtaining the position.

The sultan’s dispositions on the matter are crucial to the ultimate choice; he is said to be in favour of a change of MB.

Historically, in Johor the choice of MB is a matter of delicate importance, with Putrajaya averse to commending a choice the palace might frown on.

This time the question is further complicated by the looming contest for the No 1 post in Umno between Najib and Muhyiddin in party polls that would have to be held after the general election is over.

Singapore’s view matters

As if the future MB-ship of Johor were not fraught enough, the other matter that is likely to be discussed is considerably more delicate, public discussion of which could raise suspicion that the discussants have contravened laws.

The matter came up in recondite fashion when Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong mused over a round of golf with his Malaysian counterpart during a recent visit that his government has discovered that MB Ghani is, after all, not hostile to Singapore’s investment interests.

Ghani, overall, has been known to be frosty in his attitude to Singapore but Lee held that that perception no longer held up.

Like many matters Malaysian, first impressions don’t necessarily congeal into lasting stereotypes.

It is not known if Lee alluded to other adversaries that are now viewed as hostile to the investing labours of Temasek Holdings, his government’s investment arm that is heavily into Johor ’s prized flagship, Iskandar Development Region.

Perhaps, Najib wants to consult with the sultan on a matter that has the potential to sour ties with the state’s blue-chip investors.

KFC ISSUE !!! PUBLIC CLAIMS POLICE TRYING TO COVER-UP THE INCIDENT ??? POLICE REPLY !!!

2012-02-11T08:38:00.000-08:00

WHAT IS ALL THIS ???

CLAIMS POLICE TRYING TO COVER-UP ???

Police have issued a warning demanding un-involved parties from getting involved in the incident that happen at KFC I-City fast food restaurant at Shah Alam last Monday.

Deputy IGP, Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar informed that the parties involved in the incident are in the process to mutually settle the matter and demanded others from not getting involved or create problems in this matter.

The Police are monitoring the outcome of the settlement between the parties involved. Police further claim that there is no cover-up as speculated by certain groups.

Read more : (in Malay) http://badutrakyat.blogspot.com/2012/02/isu-kfc-rakyat-maki-polis-ini-jawapan.html

ISA SAMAD MISUSED FELDA MONIES ..CLAIM ANAK (VIDEO)

2012-02-11T08:13:00.000-08:00

To read the story:
http://malaysiansmustknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2012/02/isa-samad-used-rm353000-felda-monies.html

Sarawak may leave Malaysia sooner than expected

2012-02-11T08:07:00.000-08:00

Written by: Dr. John Brian Anthony

Federal Government proposed to have 1 additional Army Division in Sabah and additional Brigade strength for Sarawak. What is the meaning and implication of this proposal? Is the Federal Gov’t worried about the rising sentiment in Sarawak to get out of Malaysia? Sarawakian feel than Kuala Lumpur is colonizing the State in every sense of the word.

Sarawak against the British colony

Just the other day I had discussion with some friends who wanted to know whether Sarawak is serious about getting out of Malaysia as seen in many blogs and Face Book discussion. Frankly, Sarawakian felt colonize by Malaya today. From History, Sarawak responded negatively towards Britain when Sarawak was a colony that one of Sarawak son killed the British Government by plunging a knife into the gentlemen while inspecting a parade given in honour of the Governor’s visit. The British Governor subsequently died.

Prior to being made a colony under British rule many Dayak War Chiefs fought wars with the Brookes. Of all the War chiefs, Rentap was the most famous for being able to defeat the Brooke army twice and made his last stance at Bukit Sadok.

Is Sarawak a colony of Malaya?

If you look at the Federal Government policies and their approach towards taking Sarawak natural resources wealth and also the way Sarawak is being develop at snail pace into the “3^rd poorest state in Malaysia”, these are evident enough. In the Federal civil service, Federal Government make sure that the top post are held by their people which is against the Borneonization of the Civil Service.

Politically, Sarawak reject UMNO at all cost so as not to put the last nail into the Sarawak coffin of being made a colony of Malaya.

Taib’s response to Prime Minister political pressure

In the recent election in April 2012, Taib Mahmud has to demand that the Governor swore him to be the next Chief Minister of Sarawak on the evening that the State election result was announced. Taib was not ready to be replaced as the chief Minister as demanded by Najib. Actually, before the election Taib “commit” to step down as Chief Minister after 2 years into the current term. Will this happen we are awaiting for the change by end of 2012 or early 2013.

What was heard was that Taib threaten to pull Sarawak out of Malaysia if Federal Government continue to undermined the Government and politics within Sarawak. Subsequently, Najib left Taib alone and do not say a word about Taib’s retirement.

Federal Government response

In Sabah, Dr. Jeffery Kitinggan used the STAR party to agitate for Sabah rights as agreed through the 20 points agreement signed before the formation of Malaysia. The document is signed under United Nation Treaty supervision.

In Sarawak, the spirit of anti- Malaya due to its colonizing approach is rising. Sarawak today is being colonize in all aspects, education, commerce, religion, politics, social structure and even government through BN.

Malaya took the wealth of Sarawak and gave back “crumps” as development fund. Malaya take all the important Ministry, took all the important post in the civil service, dismantle Sarawak Ranger and install Malay regiment.

Just yesterday, the Army threaten Sabah Sarawak by proposing to put in another Division of Army in Sabah and Brigade strength in Sarawak. This army is not to guard the security of Sarawak / Sabah as there is no external threat but more to ensure that the Federal Government can put down any of Sarawak intention to leave Malaysia.

In Sarawak, many of us sleep through this new development because as usual we do not want to pay attention to what Federal Government is doing to Sarawak. By the time this event of a brigade being placed in Sarawak and the Brigade start to take action then we find out that we are being pro-actively subdued by force in Sarawak.

Conclusion

The Federal Government will not change its approach in dealing with Sarawak. The revenue from oil and gas for that matter contributed to 40% of Malaysia’s income and the main source of corrupt money for UMNO leaders. The BN supporters in Sarawak thought that UMNO really care for Sarawak. The answer is NO, Sarawak will continue to be poor. If the Federal government response by giving Sarawak more development fund, then Taib and his political cronies will take it to keep.

The people of Sarawak are now being squeeze between a hard surface and granite rock. Dayak poverty is good as a source of BN support. Sarawak being poor is reason enough that the Federal Government think that they know what is best for Sarawak and they will continue not to hand back Sarawak oil and gas wealth to Sarawak.

In the coming PRU 13, when you vote for BN you are voting for continued poverty of Sarawak and to allow our oil and gas money to be in the hand of UMNO / BN.

UBAH meh! Change WE Must.

LATEST KFC VIDEO!!! UNBELIEVABLE

2012-02-11T05:46:00.000-08:00

NCR CUT-OFF DATE, DENY NATIVE RIGHTS

2012-02-11T05:41:00.000-08:00

PACOS Trust views the interpretation by State Attorney General that the Sabah Land Ordinance does not allow creation of fresh Native Customary Right to Land after 1931 as very misleading.

In Malaysia, it is the judiciary (through the court) that has the authority to interpret our laws, including Native Customary Rights (NCR) to land. In analysing the decisions of court cases, there has been any interpretation by the court that 1930 is seen as a cut-off point for the creation of NCR.

There are several reasons why indigenous peoples or natives of Sabah would oppose such an interpretation by the State AG:

A) In historical documents based on reports by authorities on land during the British colonial period, Commissioner of Land (now Director of Lands and Survey) and District Officers argued strongly to continue accepting NCR claims because the NCR land settlements was never completed and that the registration of NCR claims was limited because of the lack of understanding of the concept of native land use and ownership. This lack of understanding persists to this day, and exemplified in the processes adopted by the state in issuing native titles. Those authorities dealing with NCR claims then felt that giving a cut-off date may infringe on the rights of the natives, and have advised the colonial government against it.

B) There was never any mention even by the Land and Surveys Department or the state government regarding such a cut-off date before. In any case, before any new interpretation is put forward, particularly one as important as setting a cut-off date on NCR that would adversely affect the rights of native peoples, there must be adequate discussions and the decision must be based on the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the natives of Sabah.

C) There are many complaints from natives of Sabah that the procedure of land applications through the normal process of getting a title, including the three ways mentioned by the AG, are flawed and disempowering for native people. SUHAKAM reported that about 80% of the complaints it received are due to administrative and procedural issues in applying for a title. A simpler procedure to record NCR under S14 of the Sabah Land Ordinance has been stopped for almost 10 years. To now try and implement an NCR cut-off date as far back as 1931 would only invite verification nightmares and serious delays in determining NCR claims. The cut-off date in Sarawak of 1 January 1958 has created numerous problems for the natives and the Sarawak government, and it would be wise for the Sabah government not to take such a path.

D) The concept of NCR originates from customary laws of the natives of Sabah, and incorporated in the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930 under S15, though not in a comprehensive manner. For example, S15 failed to include, among others, fallow land under the traditional agriculture cycle, community water catchment areas, community conserved areas for hunting, fishing, sago cultivation, firewood, or ceremonial areas. But communities continue to this day to uphold their own customary laws with respect to land ownership which means that whoever opens a piece of land within their traditional territory, gains ownership right to that land.Although most NCR claims are based on generations of occupation and use, some new land which are opened after 1930 as a result of increasing population pressure in a particular village territory would still be recognised as NCR land under customary law.

E) It should be pointed out to the AG that the judiciary and native communities do not interpret NCR to mean that any native can occupy any state land anytime, anywhere.Native communities recognise inter-village boundaries and opening of land is subject to customary law.

It should also be pointed out to the AG that NCR lands which fall under S15 are not only through the granting of a title or paying of compensation (understood to mean that the application was unsuccessful).

Customary tenure under S15(a), which is further defined under S66, establishes that NCR land need not be recognised based on a documentary title. S66 states that “Customary tenure shall confer upon the holder thereunder a permanent heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy in his land..”.

The AG’s argument that the concept in which all land belongs to the State with the SLO coming into force in 1930, is also debateable. As with similar concept such as the 'Regalian Doctrine' in the Philippines or 'Terra Nullius' in Australia, many indigenous peoples have argued that the flawed understanding of the colonizers (and adopted by present-day governments) of customary land use is a violation of indigenous peoples’ rights to land.

Similarly, the limitation in the criteria for customary land use under S15 of the Sabah Land Ordinance (mentioned earlier), and back-dating cut-off dates to when native population were much less, are but ways to deny native rights in Sabah.

It can also be argued that the introduction of the SLO 1930 and the concept that came with it, was imposed on Sabahans by the colonizers with the intention for the state to profit from land. As such, any present-day democratic and people-centred government should push for rights-based legal reforms instead of perpetuating such concept.

Article 26 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should not be taken out of context. The use of the term 'traditional' in Article 26 does not imply going back historically and as far back as to deny indigenous peoples their right to their land.

The article also emphasized the need to accord recognition to land with due respect to customs, traditions and land tenure systems. As mentioned earlier, to natives of Sabah, their land tenure systems include present-day practices that are governed by customary laws.

PACOS Trust questions the motives of the state AG in his interpretation which clearly implies a move to impede the recognition of native peoples’ right to their land. It can only see such statement as a way to further exacebate the serious allegations by native communities and individuals of the denial of their right and the extinguishment of NCR to land in favour of large-scale land development in the hands of government agencies, GLC and private companies.

In this respect, PACOS Trust urges the AG and the government to cooperate fully with the ongoing National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples being conducted by SUHAKAM and seriously implement the recommendations made when the report comes out.

- Sabahkini

WHY 'ONE TO ONE' FORMULA IS STILL USED?

2012-02-11T05:38:00.001-08:00

THE RECENT case highlighted by the Kota Kinabalu Member of Parliament Hiew King Cheu on the Ranau SJK (C) Pai Wen who was given a grant based on a 'One Ringgit to One Ringgit' system as a government grant to help the school development projects had received much attention and created a ‘talk of the town’ especially in the Ranau District.

The KK MP Hiew is also a person who had worked many years with the development of schools in Kota Kinabalu and the positions he had held were from School Board Members, Building Committee Chairman, Alumni Presidents, and Parent Teacher Association Chairmanship etc..

He served for a good many years in the various Kindergarten, primary schools, and secondary school. He said the granting formula of ‘One Ringgit To One Ringgit' was cut many years ago by the government. The records on the announcement still can be traced.

Many schools that needed the grant and allocation from the government to continue their expansion projects had suffered, and they were told to source for their own fund to continue their projects. Even though some schools had achieved to raise money through fund raising events like dinners and bazaars, their developments were delayed due to lack of fund.

It came as a big surprise that the Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman actually announced on the spot on 21st November 2010 in a fund raising dinner held by the school where the Minister Datuk Masidi Manjun was the organizing chairman, that a state government grant based on the 'One to One' formula and equivalent to RM200,000 was made to the school hall building fund. A mop cheque was handed over to the school during the ceremony.

The point is, why CM announced a grant that is based on the ‘Phased Out Formula’ which is no longer used by the government? Many Ranau people were present at the dinner heard the good news that a grant was approved and announced on the spot. Why this was never made payable immediately, and the school had to seek advice on how to apply for it?

This took them 14 months to process the grant application, and still have to wait until May this year to receive the money, (if there is any). In fact the said grant should be called as the 'Spot-Grant' which does not need any application procedure. There were many such 'Spot-Grants' made available and paid immediately to schools on many occasions.

The school is really in need of fund, and we can see this in their CNY visiting leaflets requesting for sponsors to donate for the required sum of RM400,000 to complete the hall. The donor’s name will be used to name the hall if the donor can donate the RM400,000 or more.

The school hall account balance sheet was also attached. We must thank the contractor for coming up with his own money (RM500,000) to complete the construction of the hall, and claim later when the school has the money.

He must be complimented. Even thought the contractor can come up with his money first, he still has to be paid anyway. We suggest CM Musa to come up from his own pocket the RM500,000 to help the school.

- Sabahkini

IF RCI IS TO BE OF INTEGRITY

2012-02-11T05:36:00.001-08:00

Dear Editor,

IN ANTICIPATION of the Federal Government's announcement on the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants and dubious MyKads in Sabah, i would like them to consider a few points that are vital to safeguard the country's and the RCI's integrity.

We are very happy to hear that the federal government is finally considering the setting up of the RCI, even though it is long overdue but i supposed it is better late than never.

If the proposed RCI is to work and solve the outstanding problems in Sabah, the following must be considered :

- The government must be sincere,

- The Term of Reference must be comprehensive, and

- Members of the RCI should consist of people with high integrity with no political interest and should be good people from Sabah.

This should be done and completed BEFORE the coming General Election, because many voters in Sabah are foreigners, many of whom are already proven to be in the electoral roll.

Thank you.

DATUK DR JEFFREY KITINGAN

- Sabahkini

Judiciary now cowed due to Dr M, says ex-CJ

2012-02-11T05:23:00.001-08:00

By Melissa Chi

February 11, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 11 — The courts have become subservient to politicians in the executive arm of government today because of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Chief Justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah said today.

The retired judge highlighted the amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, made during Dr Mahathir’s administration in the 1980s, which effectively clipped the judiciary’s wings for over two decades.

Mohd Dzaiddin said the judiciary is not a tool to be used by the government for any kind of political expediency. — Picture by Jack Ooi

“As a result of the amendment, the judicial powers of the courts were removed and they have only such judicial powers as Parliament gives,” Mohd Dzaiddin said, adding that it meant “Parliament is more superior than what the judiciary was.”

The man, who once headed the country’s courts, said the amendment was repugnant “because Parliament attempted to dictate to the judiciary that it only has judicial powers which Parliament itself says the judiciary has.”

He stressed: “This alters in my view in a very fundamental manner the basic structure of the Federal Constitution, from the concept of the independence of the judiciary to dependence of the judiciary on the executive for its judicial powers.”

Malaysia’s judiciary is not a tool to be used by the government for any kind of political expediency, Mohd Dzaiddin said.

“The judiciary should be completely independent both of the executive and the legislature,” the retired judge said in his keynote speech celebrating Tunku Abdul Rahman’s birthday and the Institute of Democracy and Economic Affairs’ (IDEAS) second anniversary at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Memorial today.

In 1988, then Lord President Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas was sacked by then-Prime Minister Dr Mahathir.

Mohd Dzaiddin said the incident was due to clashes in opinions between Dr Mahathir and Salleh over the roles of the two arms of government.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee also said the incident in 1988 should never be repeated.

“I think there is a recognition now by everybody, we must never go back to the days of ‘88, we must never allow a prime minister to sack judges just because he made a judicial pronouncement which was unfavourable to the government of the day, that must never ever happen again,” he said.

Lim said for commercial cases, Malaysia’s judiciary system was credible enough to handle cases from the region.

“But the ultimate test is of course when it comes to politically sensitive cases or religious cases and how our appellate courts deal with it.

“On that score, I still give them a minus because so far as religious cases go, the conversion cases, there is a fear by our appellate courts in having to make a decision. They keep postponing, the controversial cases just being postponed, then there is of course the Perak crisis,” he said.

On Wednesday, a three-man panel of judges in the Court of Appeal ruled that the rights and freedom of speech enshrined in the Federal Constitution are not absolute.

As a result, veteran DAP MP Karpal Singh’s statement at a press conference in 2009, that the Sultan of Perak could be sued, had crossed legal lines and amounted to sedition, the judges said.

“To be fair, we have very courageous judges who have awarded substantial damages against the government for wrongful detention. So to be fair there are those, in the words of Tun Dzaiddin, ‘silver lining out there’,” Lim said.

The 1Care Ripoff

2012-02-11T04:14:00.000-08:00

If the 1 Care scheme is allowed to takeoff it is expected that a National Healthcare Financing Authority (NHFA) will be set up to manage the scheme. It will be run like a GLC and like other GLCs it will be controlled by BN especially UMNO cronies. It is estimated that RM45 billion a year will be collected from Malaysians under the proposed mandatory 1 Care scheme. Mandatory means compulsory. You cannot choose to opt out. Regardless of whether you are young and healthy and hardly see a doctor your salary will be deducted.

Yes, year in year out RM45 billion will be siphoned from the hard-earned wages of Malaysians into the 1 Care scheme. No wonder there are people who are so excited that they are talking incoherently and contradicting each other about what, how and when this will be implemented. - Curi-curi Wang Malaysia

Nurul to file anti-PPPA bill at next House sitting

2012-02-11T02:38:00.001-08:00

Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar announced today that she plans to move a private member's bill to replace the Printing, Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) at the March parliament sitting.

She was responding to a member of the audience who asked her comments on the issue of a free press, as its control has a direct impact on the public by keeping them in the dark on vital issues, at a panel discussion in remembrance of Tunku Abdul Rahman in Kuala Lumpur this morning.

Nurul Izzah (left) said PPPA should be replaced with a media council similar to the British concept, but with the proviso that it comprise industry players, not ministers.

"I am against the idea of setting up a media council with the existence of PPPA because it seems to be another layer of control," she told reporters later.

On the question of politicians owning equity in media organisations, she said it would be better to provide a level-playing field rather than prohibit the practice.

"There is always bias in media publications and collusion among different bodies of the government, take the case of Rupert Murdoch in Britain for example.

"So it's better to allow all the voices to emerge, they can be pro-Malay, pro-Sabahan or pro-government like Utusan as long as unfounded reports are not published, and the government should allow them the freedom to publish what they want so long as the law is observed," the PKR vice president told some 200 attendees.

It is, however, hard for bills proposed by backbenchers to see daylight, Nurul said, saying that Parliament's normal practice is to only accept government bills.

How to strengthen liberty

She added that to strengthen the institution of liberty, the government must also activate parliament select committees (PSC) as and when public interest issues demand urgent attention.

The panel discussion also featured speakers like Barisan Nasional's Kota Belud MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan, Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's principal research fellow Anis Yusal Yusoff.

When it came to Abdul Rahman's (right) turn, he took to teasing Pakatan, claiming they "never walk the talk."

"All the suggestions they made, they should implement it in the states they govern.

"I've never seen (Selangor government-funded) TV Selangor carry any report on the BN," he said.

He added that he had yet to see PSC active in all Pakatan-led states, except the Selangor Capability, Accountability and Transparency Committee (Selcat).

"How I wish the state governments under Pakatan having very active PSCs," he mocked.

He said unlike opposition MPs, BN backbenchers always worked from within, citing the deferment of goods and services (GST) tax came as a result of his lobbying the prime minister.

Shahrizat: Wanita Umno confident of women's support for BN in GE-13

2012-02-11T02:36:00.001-08:00

ALOR SETAR-- Wanita Umno today expressed confidence that the majority of women voters, who make up some 53 per cent of the electorate, will support the Barisan Nasional (BN) in the next general election.

Its chief, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, said the confidence is founded on feedback from the people dissatisfied with the Pakatan Rakyat's allegedly unkept election promises.

"The promises have remained just that. The people will demand that the state governments administered by Pakatan Rakyat fulfill the promises. I am confident that women will give BN the mandate in the 13th general election," she told reporters after a "Jalinan Rakyat" (forging ties with the people) programme of Kedah Wanita BN, here.

The event, attended by state women leaders of BN component parties at the hall of Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Bersatu Kuala Kedah, was opened by Kedah Umno Liaison Committee chairman Datuk Paduka Ahmad Bashah Md Hanipah.

Shahrizat, who is women, family and community development minister, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak implemented development programmes in all states regardless of whether they are administered by the BN or the opposition.

She also said that the ministry alone channelled more than RM10 million in aid to 34,734 people in Kedah last year.

-- BERNAMA

Same old rhetoric: Dr M waves a false Islamist flag, runs down Israel

2012-02-11T02:35:00.001-08:00

My Dear Hanan,

Mr Alireza Forghani, Khamenei’s strategy specialist must of course be speaking for the Government of Iran and Ayatollah Khamenei when he puts in his website the Ayatollah’s “legal and religions justification for killing all Jews and annihilating Israel”.

You would like to believe that this threat is true. It would give Israel the excuse for taking the pre-emptive strike that you say it needs to do to secure Israel. You have to build a case for that dastardly act.

Between Iran and Israel, I believe Israel is more likely to carry out its threat. You have a record for doing this.

The world knows that Israel did carry out a pre-emptive strike to destroy Iraq’s nuclear facilities long before the war against Iraq.

The world knows that Iran has never carried out any pre-emptive strike against any other country. The world also knows that Israel’s satellite, the United States, financed Iraq to attack Iran. Israel bombed the Egyptian air force base without any declaration of war.

Israel breaks any law with impunity e.g. build settlements on Palestinian territory, build walls which divide Palestinian villages, blockade Gaza illegally, shoot and kill aid workers on a mercy mission in international waters, destroyed hospitals, schools and homes in Gaza, prevents construction materials from being sent to Gaza to rebuild homes, ran over Rachel Corrie, an American because she stood in the way of Israel bulldozers about to destroy a Palestinian home, and more.

Yes, all these you do to secure Israel and Israelis. Don’t others have any right to secure their people and their countries? You will say it is retaliation for attacks against Israel. Actually the Palestinians were retaliating against Israeli seizure of their lands, killing their people, arresting and detaining thousands of their people etc.

Israel is known to have more than 200 nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Israel uses phosphorous bombs and cluster bombs and together with America used depleted uranium in the bombs and missiles.

Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor any WMD. It was a lie and the world knows it. But Israel has nuclear plants in Rafael, Eelun and Nebrin. Then there is Dimona, nuclear centre in Naqeb which produces 90% of enriched uranium for Israel’s nuclear weapons.

With Israel’s history of pre-emptive strikes, invasion and occupation, Israel’s total disregard for international laws and the recent talks about taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities and Israel’s possession of nuclear bombs, shouldn’t Iran prepare itself for possible Israeli and US attack? Or are other people disallowed from preparing for their own defence.

Why is it that Israel is entitled to security but Iranians and everybody else should not be so entitled? Why is labelling all Muslims as terrorist permissible but any criticism of Israeli intransigence condemned as anti-Semitic?

Iranians may sound belligerent but they are not mad. They know that if they ever use nuclear weapons, Israel and the United States would wipe Iran off the face of the earth with the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the two countries.

Islam does not teach us to kill. But Islam says we have a right to defend ourselves if attacked. That is the true teachings of Islam.

But there are Muslims, as there are Christians and Jews, who make use of religion for their own purpose. They don’t represent their peoples or their religions.

I am a Muslim fundamentalist.

I adhere to the true teachings of Islam.

This is not a religious war between Islam and Judaism. It is a territorial war. When you seize other people’s land, you must expect attempts to recover it. Or do you think people must thank you for robbing them of their property?

DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD

p/s: This entry is in reply to a comment Hanan submitted to this blog on 2012/02/07

Electoral graft due to voter expectations, say pundits

2012-02-11T02:32:00.001-08:00

By Melissa Chi

February 11, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 11 — Voters may not realise it but they are promoting corruption among politicians by demanding handouts, pundits said today.

A political academic, an independent think-tank chief and two lawmakers from opposing sides suggested today that the public is responsible for encouraging politicians to offer handouts in return for electoral support.

Nurul Izzah agreed that people have high expectations of their MP. — File pic

“The rakyat should not have this very high expectation that their MPs should be a Superman …,” said Anis Yusal Yusoff, adding “that the MPs have to be there [is] because obviously you are promoting corruption without realising [it].”

The Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) principal research fellow said that many Malaysians expect their MPs to give money but when the MP “donates” RM10, he would be criticised for being stingy.

“This is the problem because of that expectation,” Anis Yusal said.

However, he said some MPs were partly to be blamed as they liked to behave “as if they are Superman.”

The practice of offering handouts, whether in cash or in kind, has been likened by various transparency groups as a form of vote-buying and tantamount to an act of corruption.

PKR MP for Lembah Pantai Nurul Izzah Anwar appeared to agree with the UKM researcher’s comment.

She quipped in reply: “Nak menang brother [Want to win brother].”

Both were on a panel at an open discussion titled “Empowering liberal democratic institutions” organised by the Institute of Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) today.

Kota Belud MP Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan also agreed with the academic’s analysis, saying society must change its mindset if reforms were to take hold.

“The people must also reform. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation,” the Umno backbencher said.

Abdul Rahman said society must change its mindset.

Abdul Rahman said as an MP, he had no idea what voters were talking about, and cited his Sabah constituents as an example because the “culture of writing to MPs does not exist in this country.”

“We do not know what you guys are talking about,” he said.

The Umno lawmaker, however, seemed to think that it was the duty of independent think-tanks like IDEAS to act as a “third force” to educate voters about their duty to combat corruption among politicians.

“I think this is what IDEAS should be doing. Go to the ground, educate the people and make their views known to their representatives.

“I think we have a big problem of reforming Parliament or the whole system of governance in this country,” Abdul Rahman said.

IDEAS chief executive officer Wan Saiful Wan Jan, who was the moderator, agreed with the panellists.

He said: “Society needs to change as well. I think it's unfair that we have been blaming the politicians for so long when it's actually society who expects you to behave like that and if you don't you will lose.”

The ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) government has been repeatedly attacked by its political foes and anti-corruption organisations for giving cash handouts, bonus and pay hikes as well as various forms of financial aid to various groups in the lead up to the 13th general election, rumoured to be called this year.

Since promising massive cash handouts and bonuses announced in Budget 2012 last year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been approaching Malaysia's multicultural and multireligious communities one by one for support and offering diverse forms of incentives in return.

The most recent example was during the Thaipusam celebration last Tuesday when he announced that the government will allocate RM2 million to build a cultural centre at the Lord Muruga temple grounds in Batu Caves.