Berita Harian 17/08/2008

Orang Melayu banyak kesabaran
Bersama Johan Jaaffar

'Perkauman' tidak ada dalam perbendaharaan kata mereka

ORANG Melayu pada dasarnya tidak perkauman. Jikalau tidak masakan sebuah kedai Cina boleh berjaya di tengah-tengah masyarakat Melayu di kampung. Malah kedai runcit milik Melayupun selalunya tidak maju jikalau bersaing dengan kedai milik Cina di kampung itu. Malah di banyak kampung Melayu di negara ini, sebaris kedai Cina menjadi tempat orang Melayu membeli barangan dapur, membetulkan motosikal dan basikal dan macam-macam lagi.

Hari inipun sikap orang Melayu terhadap 'orang lain' tidak banyak berubah. Mereka mungkin kecewa dengan penguasaan orang lain dalam bidang ekonomi. Mereka mungkin kesal kerana usaha meningkatkan usaha niaga orang Melayu tidak mencapai sasaran. Tetapi mereka tetap membeli dan menggunakan khidmat kaum lain dalam semua hal – daripada membeli tong gas, membaik pulih peralatan elektrik, hinggalah memperbaiki kereta dan membeli simen dan kayu.

Sewaktu saya menjadi Ketua Pengarang sebuah organisasi akhbar, saya menerima banyak rungutan daripada orang Melayu bahawa kaum lain mengambil mudah sokongan mereka. Ada premis perniagaan yang acuh tak acuh menyediakan hiasan perayaan hari raya. Ada kedai rangkaian elektrik yang tidak langsung menggunakan orang Melayu dalam iklannya. Ada syarikat yang enggan mengiklan dalam akhbar-akhbar berbahasa Melayu. Ada juga syarikat yang terang-terang memilih pekerja daripada kaum tertentu.

Mereka bertanya apakah keadaan sebaliknya boleh berlaku? Apakah sebuah kedai Melayu boleh hidup di tengah-tengah masyarakat Cina? Apakah syarikat Melayu yang mendapat AP membawa masuk limau Mandarin sewaktu perayaan Tahun Baru Cina tidak menimbulkan kontroversi? Apakah rangkaian syarikat Melayu boleh mendapat dokongan kaum lain?

Saya pernah menulis tentang kuasa ekonomi orang Islam dan orang Melayu di negara ini tidak lama dulu. Menurut perangkaan 2007, terdapat 16.7 juta kaum Bumiputera di negara ini atau 61.7 peratus daripada jumlah rakyat. Daripada jumlah itu terdapat 13.7 juta orang Melayu atau 50.6 peratus. Jangan permudahkan kuasa beli kaum Bumiputera dan orang Melayu. Walaupun tidak ada angka rasmi bagi menunjukkan jumlah sebenar nilai kuasa beli mereka tetapi cukup untuk menjejaskan perniagaan dan urus niaga orang lain.

Mungkin agak keterlaluan untuk menyamakan orang Melayu dengan kedudukan orang Arab di Semenanjung Arab. Mereka punya angka. Tetapi mereka tidak punya kekuatan. Dan mereka tidak bersatu. Mereka tidak dapat berdepan dengan kekuatan kira-kira 7.1 juta rakyat Yahudi di Israel. Bezanya orang Melayu di Malaysia mempunyai kuasa politik. Hari ini mereka berpecah dan tidak bersatu. Dan mereka tidak ada kuasa ekonomi. Nampaknya kuasa politik orang Melayu pun hampir terhakis.

Malah, dalam usaha untuk memenangi hati kaum lain, ada kalanya pemimpin Melayu tersilap langkah. Dalam kes yang terbaru, seorang Menteri Besar yang sebelum ini diberi amanah memimpin sebuah agensi meningkatkan ekuiti orang Melayu, membuat kenyataan mengejutkan untuk membuka Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) kepada kaum lain. Saya tidak boleh membayangkan cadangan membuka kuota 10 peratus kepada kaum lain itu dibuat oleh orang seperti beliau yang selama ini menjuarai Agenda Melayu.

Mungkin juga keadaan berubah. Pemimpin Melayu sendiri merasakan bahawa salah satu cara untuk memenangi hati kaum lain ialah dengan mendekati mereka. Caranya ialah dengan membuat cadangan populis yang tujuannya memancarkan sikap keterbukaan dan melampaui pertimbangan kaum.

Sayangnya cara ini akan merosakkan orang Melayu sendiri.

Orang Melayu masih belum mampu berdiri sama tinggi dan duduk sama rendah dengan kaum lain. Dalam bidang ekonomi, Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) dalam apa bentuk, sifat atau semangatnya masih diperlukan. Usaha membantu usahawan dan ahli perniagaan Melayu belum berakhir. Malangnya terdapat kalangan pemimpin Melayu yang menolak DEB semata-mata kerana DEB tidak popular dengan kaum lain. Teras DEB ialah membasmi kemiskinan dan menyusun semula masyarakat.

Lagipun DEB bukan dasar perkauman yang mencuri daripada orang lain untuk menjayakan orang Melayu. Selepas terlaksana DEB, kaum lain sebenarnya jauh lebih berjaya daripada orang Melayu sendiri. Kejayaan DEB pada orang Melayu tidak boleh diketepikan walaupun dengan kelemahannya – kebocoran, ketirisan, nepotisme, dan lain-lain. Sistem dan cara perlu diperbaiki. Tetapi dasarnya perlu kekal.

Saya bangkitkan hal ini kerana nampaknya kesabaran orang Melayu mulai dicabar dengan cara yang luar biasa. Isu mengenai hak keistimewaan orang Melayu dan agama Islam sudah secara berani dan biadab dipersoalkan oleh sesetengah pihak secara terang-terangan. Dalam kes yang terbaru, Forum Memeluk Islam anjuran Majlis Peguam membangkitkan kemarahan umat Islam di negara ini – tanpa mengira parti dan kepentingan. Majlis Peguam sepatutnya lebih prihatin isu yang sensitif itu. Mungkin Majlis Peguam mahu mengambil kesempatan daripada keterbukaan baru kerajaan. Tetapi membahaskan isu sensitif itu samalah seperti menjolok sarang tebuan.

Kemarahan banyak NGO Melayu terhadap Majlis Peguam bukan tidak berasas. Majlis itu harus tahu batas kebebasan dalam negara pelbagai kaum seperti Malaysia. Memang perbincangan terbuka dan cerdik dialu-alukan. Tetapi ada isu yang harus ditangani dengan hati-hati, dan bukan untuk debat terbuka.

Bagi generasi baru yang tidak memahami makna sensitiviti kaum lain, memanglah sukar untuk memberi justifikasi mengapa soal hak kaum tertentu dipersoalkan. Atas nama demokrasi dan kebebasan bersuara, mengapa perlu dikawal perbahasan mengenai apa saja? Mengapa perlu dilesenkan penerbitan akhbar? Mengapa perlu Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA)? Semua itu dengan mudah dianggap bertentangan dengan semangat kebebasan dan hak asasi yang dilindungi oleh Perlembagaan Negara.

Sebelum ini timbul perbahasan mengenai isu 'kontrak sosial'. Masing-masing memberikan definisi apakah maksud ungkapan itu. Kontrak sosial bukan dokumen rasmi yang menjadi supplimen kepada Perlembagaan. Kontrak sosial lebih merupakan persetiaan semua pihak yang mencipta Perlembagaan tentang keperluan berkompromi, mengambil kira sensitiviti orang lain, pertimbangan kerakyatan dan lain-lain sebagai prasyarat membentuk sebuah negara bangsa.

Kontrak sosial itu lebih merupakan semangat persefahaman dan tolak ansur. Itulah yang menjadi asas pembentukan sebuah negara yang kompleks seperti Malaysia. Hormatilah jerih perit pemimpin pelbagai kaum pada zaman Merdeka yang melihat jauh ke hadapan bagi memastikan terjalin harmoni dan muhibah sesama rakyat. Jikalau semangat itu tidak dihargai, kita akan menjurus pada kehancuran. Kestabilan akan terjejas dan kaum-kaum di negara ini akan berbalah.

Apakah itu harga kebebasan yang kita mahukan?

The Law and the Art of being Popular

NST Online
2008/05/31
The law and the art of being popular
By : JOHAN JAAFFAR

WATCHING the images of a senior police officer being hoisted on to the shoulders of the so-called "Cheras barricade breakers" saddened me.

According to reports, the barricade was demolished "peacefully" by the crowd in the presence of policemen watching "to maintain peace and order".

I wonder if anyone questions how many laws have been broken by the boisterous yet agitated crowd or whether the gathering is even allowed by the Police Act.

Should anyone care to listen to "the other side" -- the highway concessionaire Grand Saga who maintained that the barricade was erected "on an indisputable portion of the concession area"?

I have no love for Grand Saga and I empathise with the residents if at all the barricade had caused so much misery to them. But I believe we have to be fair to all parties -- the people affected and to the company, too.

No one is above the law. That is the principle that we have upheld all these years. That is the Malaysian way of doing things. If we take the law into our own hands, we are heading towards anarchy.

If you have been following media reports in Taiwan and Hong Kong over the Cheras issue, you will understand how much it has dented our reputation.

There is another worrying element to the reports -- hints of racism.

Why, I wonder, has a matter pertaining to the setting up of a barricade protested by residents of all races become a racial matter?

The way I look at it, the country's image is one thing, but the maintenance of law and order is another.

It is easy for anyone to say that they stand by the people on matters like this. Toll highways have never been popular with Malaysians, anyway. It hurts the pocket. But people have no choice but to pay to go places.

Shall we do away with tolls on all our highways?

An enticing prospect needless to say, and indeed one that will get wholehearted support from everyone, except of course the operators of those highways.

But does anyone in his or her mood of irrational exuberance remember the matters pertaining to concession agreements, the funding and its necessity?

In the name of popularity, should the present government pronounce as null and void all those concession agreements signed so far?

Taking a populist approach is easy.

Side with the people over everything. One can never go wrong. Just give the people what the people want.

But things are not that simple. So the only logical thing to do is play the underdog. It is always the Goliaths over the Davids. The little people are victimised by "the system".

The Big Guys motivated by nothing but greed make life miserable for the masses. These people make tons of money while the highway users endure ever increasing rates. In an economic system like ours, there is no law against making money.

Playing to the gallery is good politics. Just imagine how one becomes popular siding with hawkers and every conceivable petty trader who has no regard whatsoever for the law, safety or cleanliness.

Stand by them, and presto, you're the folk hero. Some of today's MPs and state representatives were social activists before. But they, too, are on the side of law and order now.

Behaving like saviours of the little people is one thing, but the burden of being elected representatives is another.

There are members of parliament and state representatives who would love to label themselves as orang yang ditakuti (the dreaded ones). They want the image of a no-nonsense, hard talker and a gunslinger, ever willing to spray bullets on hesitant and bumbling politicians. They build their notoriety on acting tough.

Some even make it a point to provoke, condemn and humiliate others. The Dewan Rakyat sadly has become one big arena for bertikam lidah (sabre rattling). Some of the scenes are not too pleasant. Harsh words are exchanged and proprieties take a beating.

Do we have to go to that? Do we have to witness our politicians behaving like spoilt schoolchildren in the so-called Dewan yang mulia? Why can't they just get into the business of representing the people?

They have tons of problems to begin with. The people want their representatives to bring forth their grouses, argue their cases and help them find ways to improve their livelihoods.

Why can't they do just that, rather than perfecting the art of throwing mud at each other?
Why can't they be like what they are supposed to be -- ahli-ahli yang berhormat (the respectable ones)? I fear the day when fist fights will actually happen in the Dewan Rakyat.

Good, rational arguments win hearts and minds.

Take the case of Datuk Ibrahim Ali's maiden speech in the recent sitting. He has been called many names. But he gave one of the best speeches at the Dewan Rakyat. He has nothing new to sell, actually. But it was his calmness, research and eloquence that won the day.

If only there are more like him than the noisy interrupters and perennial table bangers.

Why, I wonder, do parliamentarians need to waste time on semantics and dubious rules of the House or lambasting fellow MPs when they should be making suggestions and contributing ideas? That will differentiate the men and women from the boys and girls.

Brute force without wisdom fails by its own weight, someone famously said. Little wonder we forget most of the questions and statements made in Parliament.

But is our society being reflected in what happens at the Dewan Rakyat today?

We need a responsible government, and equally responsible representatives to play the role of check and balance. The very people who were elected on the mantra that the ruling government at the time was ignoring and disrespectful to the rakyat, practising cronyism and succumbing to racial politics, must now prove themselves as the harbinger of change.

They must now show the way for the betterment of the people, to ensure the emergence of a civil society and more importantly to respect the law. That applies even to the supporters of the demolition of the Cheras barricade among them.

They must also work together to heal a divided nation. Is that too much to ask from our Yang Berhormat?

THE MALAYSIAN SOCIAL CONTRACT

Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at July 12, 2008 11:27 AM
www.chedet.com

1. Before there was Malaya and Malaysia the peninsular was known as Tanah Melayu, or Malay Land.

2. Saying this alone would result in accusations of being racist.

3. But I need to go back in history if I am going to be able to explain about Malaysia's social contract.


4. Through treaties signed by the Rulers of the Malay States of the Peninsular the British acquired the right to rule the Malay States. These treaties obviously recognised and legitimised the States as Malay States. No one disputed this. Even the aborigines accepted this as shown by their submission to the rule of the Malay Sultans.

5. Initially the peoples living in the States were divided into indigenous Malays and aborigines who were subjects of the Malay rulers and foreign guests who were not subjects of the rulers. There were no citizenship or documents about citizenship status as in most countries.

6. The foreign guests prospered in the British ruled Malay States and in the British colonies of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. The Malay subjects of the Rulers and the Rulers themselves did not feel threatened by the numbers of these non-Malays and the disparities between the general wealth and progress of the foreign guests and the subjects of the Rulers. They did not think that the foreigners who had settled in the country would ever demand citizenship rights.

7. When Japan conquered the Malay States and the colonies of the Straits Settlements, the Chinese felt insecure as the Japanese were their historical enemies.

8. Many Chinese formed and joined guerilla forces and disappeared into the jungle. When Japan surrendered the Chinese guerillas came out and seized many police stations in the interior and declared that they were the rulers of the country. They seized many people, Chinese and Malays and executed a number of them.

9. Malay villagers retaliated by killing the Chinese in the rural areas. Tension rose and a Sino-Malay war was only averted because of the arrival of British forces. But the ill feeling and animosity between the two races remained high.

10. It was in this tensed situation that the British proposed the Malayan Union which would give the "guests" the right of citizenship as indistinguishable from that of the Malays.

11. The Malays rejected the Malayan Union and its citizenship proposal. They forced the British to return to the status quo ante in a new Federation of Malaya.

12. Only Chinese who were British subjects in the colonies of the Straits Settlements were eligible to become citizens in this new Federation. Naturally the Malay citizens far outnumbered the Chinese Malayan citizens.

13. Chinese leaders appealed to the British, who then persuaded the UMNO President, Dato Onn Jaafar to propose to open UMNO to all races. This proposal was rejected by the other UMNO leaders and Dato Onn had to resign.

14. The British kept up the pressure for the Malays to be more liberal with citizenship for non-Malays.

15. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the President of UMNO decided on a coalition with MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) and the MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress). In the 1955 elections to the Federal Legislative Assembly, since there were very few constituencies with Chinese or Indian majorities, the MCA and MIC partners had to put up candidates in Malay majority constituencies after UMNO undertook not to contest in these constituencies but to support MCA Chinese and MIC Indian candidates instead.

16. Such was the support of the Malays for the MCA and MIC alliance candidates that they won even against Malay candidates from PAS. The MCA and MIC candidates all won. Only UMNO lost one constituency against PAS.

17. The Tunku as Chief Minister of a self-governing Federation of Malaya then decided to go for independence. The British continued to inisist on citizenship rights for the Chinese and Indians as a condition for giving independence.

18. To overcome British resistance to independence and to gain the support of the Chinese and Indians, the Tunku decided to give one million citizenship to the two communities based purely on residence. One notable new citizen was (Tun) Leong Yew Koh, a former general in the Chinese National Army who was later appointed Governor of Malacca.

19. It was at this stage that the leaders of the three communal parties who had formed the Government of self-governing British Federation of Malaya, discussed and reached agreement on the relationship between the three communities in an independent Federation of Malaya.

20. It was to be a quid pro quo arrangement. In exchange for the one million citizenships the non-Malays must recognise the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people. Certain laws such as the pre-eminence of Islam as the state religion, the preservation of Malay reserve land, the position of the Malay Rulers and Malay customs and the distribution of Government jobs were included in the understanding.

21. On the question of national language it was agreed that Malay would be the national language. English should be the second language. The Chinese and Indians could continue to use their own languages but not in official communication.

22. Chinese and Tamil primary schools can use their languages as teaching media. They can also be used in secondary schools but these have to be private schools.

23. For their part the Chinese and Indian leaders representing their parties and communities demanded that their citizenship should be a right which could not be annulled, that they should retain their language, religion and culture, that as citizens they should have political rights as accorded to all citizens.

24. Much of these agreements and understandings are reflected in the Federal Constitution of Independent Malaya. For everything that is accorded the Malays, there is always a provision for non-Malays. Few ever mention this fact. The only thing that attracts everyone's attention and made a subject of dispute is what is accorded the Malays and other indigenous people.

25. Thus although Malay is to be the National Language, Chinese and Tamil can be used freely and in the Chinese and Tamil schools. In no other country has there been a similar provision. Even the most liberal countries do not have this constitutional guarantee.

26. The national language is to be learnt by everyone so that Malayan citizens can communicate with each other everywhere.

27. It was understood also that the Chinese language referred in the understanding were the Chinese dialects spoken in Malaysia, not the national language of China. Similarly for Malayan Indians the language was Tamil, not Hindi or Urdu or whatever became the national language of India. However, the Chinese educationists later insisted that the Chinese language must be the national language of China i.e. Mandarin.

28. The official religion is Islam but other religions may be practised by their adherents without any restriction. As the official religion, Islam would receive Government support. Nothing was said about support for the other religions. The non-Malays did not press this point and the Federal Constitution does not mention Government support for the other religions. Nevertheless such support have been given.

29. A quota was fixed for the Malayan Civil Service wherein the Malays would get four posts for every one given to Chinese or Indians. However it was recognised that the professional post would be open to all races as it was never thought possible there would be enough Malays to take up these posts.

30. The result was that in the early years of independence there were more non-Malays in Division 1 than Malays.

31. The Agong or the Rulers of the States should determine quotas of scholarships and licences for Malays. But no one should be deprived of whatever permits or licences in order to give to Bumiputras.

32. The position of the Malay Rulers was entrenched and could not be challenged. There would be a Paramount Ruler chosen from among the nine Rulers who would serve for five years.

33. The rulers were to be constitutional rulers. Executive power was to be exercised by elected Menteris Besar, Ketua Menteri (Chief Minister) and Prime Minister, assisted by members of councils and cabinets. The British practice was to be the model.

34. The most important understanding was the adoption of Parliamentary Democracy with a Constitutional Monarch, again after the United Kingdom model. It should be remembered that the British imposed an authoritarian colonial Government on the Malay State, the power resting with the Colonial Office in London.

35. Before these the Malay States were feudal with the Malay Rulers enjoying near absolute power. Only the elites played a role in State politics. The Malay subjects had no political rights at all. Certainly the guests had no say in politics. Even the Chinese and Indian British citizens had no say though they may be appointed as Municipal or Legislative Councillors.

36. The decision to adopt a democratic system of Government was a radical step in the governance of the Federation of Malaya and of the Malay States. This was agreed to by the leaders of the three major communities as represented by their political parties i.e. UMNO, MCA and MIC. There can be no doubt that these parties represented the vast majority of the three communities in Malaya. The Communists and the other leftists did not signify their agreement to the understanding.

37. The Reid Commission was briefed on all these agreements and understanding so that they will be reflected in the Constitution to be drawn up. All the three parties approved this Constitution after several amendments were made. In effect the Constitution became a contract binding on all the three communities in the Federation of Malaya upon attaining independence in 1957.

38. When Sabah and Sarawak joined the Peninsular States to form Malaysia the social contract was extended to the two Borneo States. The natives of Sabah and Sarawak were given the same status as the Malays. At this time the word Bumiputra was introduced to distinguish the indigenous Malays and Sabah, Sarawak natives from those descendants of foreign immigrants. Because Malay was widely used in the Borneo States there was no difficulty in the acceptance of Malay as the national language. The fact that the natives of the two states are not all Muslims necessitated no change in the Constitution once the word Bumiputra was accepted. But the official definition of a Malay remained.

39. The embodiment of the social contract is therefore the Constitution of first, the Federation of Malaya and then Malaysia.

40. To say it does not exist is to deny the contents of the Constitution which was based upon the acceptance by the leaders of the three communities of the original social contract.

41. All subsequent actions by the Government were the results of this social contract. The fact that the initiators of this social contract and their successors were endorsed by the people in every election reflects the undertaking of the people to honour this social contract.

42. Saying that the social contract does not exist is like saying that Malaysia exists in a vacuum, without a Constitution and laws based on this Constitution.

43. Implementing the social contract requires understanding of its spirit as much as the letter. The social contract is aimed at creating a multi-racial nation that is stable and harmonious. Any factor which would cause instability and result in confrontation between the races must be regarded as incompatible with the spirit of the social contract.

44. For 50 years no one seriously questioned the social contract. Even today the majority of Chinese and Indians and the indigenous Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak accept the social contract. But because Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi basically lost the 2008 election and now heads a weak Government the extremists and erstwhile detractors have questioned the social contract. The Bar Council has now become a political party believing that its expertise in law will exempt it from being questioned as to its credentials and its political objectives.

45. Abdullah's UMNO is incapable of countering any attack on the social contract. If anything untoward happens Abdullah and UMNO must bear responsibility.

Dr M quits Umno

The Star

Tuesday May 20, 2008

ALOR STAR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has announced he is quitting Umno, in what is seen as his final push to force Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step down as Prime Minister and party president.

His wife Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohd Ali has also quit, according to his website http://www.chedet.com/

Dr Mahathir also called on Umno members to join him in this radical move, which he likened to “removing gangrene” in order for the party to survive.

Except for two party veterans and one branch in the Merbok division, there were no other takers.

Abdullah, who expressed shock at Dr Mahathir's decision, however, reiterated that he would not give in to the pressure from the former premier.

Party deputy president Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak offered to meet Dr Mahathir to “discuss the decision” to quit.

Dr Mahathir has been on the warpath against Abdullah since 2004, claiming his successor was unfit for the job and has stepped up his attacks after Barisan Nasional's disastrous results in the March 8 general election.




The New Straits Times
2008/05/20

The Mahathir gambit: Can he gain the momentum?
By : Comment by Zubaidah Abu Bakar

WAS it political brinkmanship? Or could it be a mis-step for Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, whose repeated calls for Umno members to quit have backfired, forcing him to announce that he himself was leaving the party he once led for 22 years?

These were some of the questions raised in Umno circles when the former prime minister - whose party membership number 00001 tells the whole story - dropped the bombshell at a forum on "The Position of Malays post-12th General Election" in Alor Star yesterday.

There were shouts of support when Dr Mahathir said he would return to the party following a leadership change. He said Umno was no longer the same party that was formed 62 years ago to fight for Malay interests, rights and privileges.

"But now it has become a party merely to support Abdullah's leadership, serve his, his family's and his cronies' interests," he alleged again.

During his term as prime minister, Dr Mahathir had also been accused many times of nepotism and cronyism but he denied it. Many in the Alor Star audience were dumbfounded by his announcement, asking each other whether they had heard him right.

The 82-year-old former party president has been waging a war of words against his hand-picked successor Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for more than two years, but had given no indication that he would quit the party.

Why now?

"Why did he do that? Now, we do not have a platform to fight for Umno's survival," said a former divisional delegate to the party general assembly who is now an ordinary member of the Kubang Pasu division, which Dr Mahathir once led.

Does this mean that his staunch supporters would follow in his footsteps en masse and cause irreparable cracks in Umno?

At least one, Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, the former Umno secretary-general during whose term in office Umno was declared an unlawful party by the courts, said immediately that he was following "his boss".

Associate Professor Mohammad Agus Yusoff of Universiti Malaya did not rule out that more members would quit the party and said this may further weaken Umno.

But there are those who believe Dr Mahathir's resignation is the former prime minister's latest strategy in forcing Abdullah to step down.

There is also the view that his move was to deflect attention from the Lingam video clip issue, in which he was implicated. But Dr Mahathir denies this.

Whatever his reasons, his timing comes at a critical point for Umno following the Barisan Nasional's dismal performance in the March general election where some party members had asked for Abdullah's resignation.

Dr Mahathir has been churning the ground to get party members to rebel against Abdullah's leadership.

But he has been frustrated that his calls to push Abdullah to resign have not snowballed the way that he had wanted, said a divisional leader in the crowd.

"So, he is now asking party members in Kedah to quit by trying to convince them that those in other states would also be doing so; just to try and build momentum.

"But it backfired when someone from the floor challenged him to fulfil what he preached by leading the way and quitting," the divisional leader said.

However, Dr Mahathir will face a problem in getting followers.

Professor Mohamed Mustaffa Ishak of Universiti Utara Malaysia believed members eyeing for posts at the division level would only follow in Dr Mahathir's footsteps if they failed in their bids.

Dr Mahathir is not any ordinary member and he does enjoy considerable support, having led the party for 22 years. Certainly his resignation will have an impact on Umno - negative or otherwise.

The next few days will be crucial. If the momentum does not build up, it will end up as a vain attempt by Dr Mahathir, who has never had a good relationship with any of his deputies when he was prime minister or with any of his predecessors such as Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn, to control the party in retirement.

If there is momentum, the highly-charged political atmosphere after the March 8 general election will go up another notch.

But the sad fact for Umno is that the call for its members to quit will benefit only opposition political parties and Dr Mahathir may, knowingly or otherwise, be playing into the hands of Umno's rivals at a time when its leaders are making efforts to revive and rebuild.

The New Straits imes
2008/05/20

Mukhriz defies dad's call to quit, will fight PM within Umno

by June Ibrahim


KUALA LUMPUR, Tues:

Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir is not following his father former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad out of Umno. But the first-term MP for Jerlun said he was not backing Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as Umno president.

“My friends and I are of the opinion that the prime minister should relinquish all three positions held by him which are the post of prime minister, Umno president and Barisan Nasional chairman immediately,” he told a packed press conference at a hotel here today. “This is the decision that I have made for now. I will not hesitate to change this decision if things do not change for the better in due time,” he said.

Mukhriz reiterated that his father’s decision to resign from the party was because he loved Umno. “I also believe that there are many ways to skin a cat, hence I am announcing that I will stay on in Umno, as the parliamentarian for Jerlun and an Umno member. I will be loyal to the party as a member but I will be a strong voice that will criticise the deficiency of the party’s leadership,” he said, reading from a press statement in Bahasa Malaysia.

He claimed several other members have given Abdullah an ultimatum, that is to quit all three positions before the branch elections start in July.

On whether his father Dr Mahathir welcomed his decision to stay on in the party, Mukhriz replied: “My father is unaware of my decision. I have yet to speak with him and tell him about this. “I believe that he may be disappointed with me for not following him but nevertheless I will try and explain to him my reasons and hope that he will understand them,” he said.

(On Monday, Dr Mahathir had said: “It is up to them (members) to follow or not, but if they think they should continue supporting Pak Lah and give priority to Datuk Abdullah Ahmad Badawi over the party’s struggles, it is their right.”)

Mukhriz also did not brush aside suggestions that he was staying on in the party because he was vying for the Umno Youth chief position which will be up grabs in December.

“I have been getting positive feedback from the ground,” he said on his aspirations for the Umno Youth chief position.

He said although Abdullah has made it clear that he would not leave the party despite Dr Mahathir’s resignation, many Umno members will pressure him to do so by conducting road shows and campaigns.

“Many people are of the opinion that he should leave immediately and this is the feedback that we get from members and even veterans,” he added

Bush blaming Indians for food shortage takes the cake

American Burger

Indian Capati

Chinese Dim Sum

Malaysian Nasi Lemak

The New Straits Times
12/05/2008

Bush blaming Indians for food shortage takes the cake
By : Mahendra Ved

To be asked what to eat and what not is disconcerting, but to be told that one is eating too much is downright insulting.

This human trait is universal.

US President George W. Bush probably did not mean to insult the Indians and the Chinese. When he said the rising prosperity of the two Asian giants meant there was demand for more and better food, he was explaining the global price rise to his own people.

Bush talked of India's 350 million-strong middle class. "That's bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the prices to go up," he said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, several American and European lawmakers and economists have also talked in the same vein about China and India. But none has implied that the two countries should eat less or go hungry.

The Chinese reaction, if at all, would be political and diplomatic. But Bush's comments touched a raw Indian nerve. Its politicos cemented the ideological divide and political differences to engage in Bush-bashing.

This was the second snub to the United States within a fortnight of asking Washington not to tell Delhi how to deal with visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If one is preachy, the other is prickly.

Defence Minister A.K. Antony called it "a cruel joke". Junior Commerce Minister Jairam Ramesh, an MIT-trained economist, declared: "George W. Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics. And he has just proved once again how comprehensively wrong he is.

"Communist Brinda Karat predictably called it a "reflection of an imperialist mentality".

If Bush needs to explain food price rises to his people, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is combating 7.57 per cent inflation. So, everyone is defending his turf.

Sensing this, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) conveniently attacked Manmohan and not Bush.

"His (Bush's) statement is aimed at serving his own constituency ahead of the US presidential elections," said BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar.

Indians have a reputation for being sensitive and, like most Third World nations, anti-American.

This is, of course, despite thousands of American visas being cornered by Indian techies, adding to a 2.6-million presence in the land of prosperity. While the storm in the Indian dhal bowl blew over, the global food crisis persists.

The Indian angst is not without reason. For one, India is largely self-sufficient and even a net exporter of food after years of effort.

It could face a food crisis again with one or more bad monsoons. But it will be managed. There has been no starvation death in many years. India's problem is not shortage, but one of management and distribution.

Even globally, the population doubled from three billion in the early 1960s to six billion by the end of the 20th century, but episodes of mass starvation were the exception rather than the rule.

If people didn't have enough to eat it was usually because of war, pestilence or other (usually man-made) calamity, not because there wasn't enough food to go around.

Bush's contention that people eat more and eat better as prosperity comes is a universal phenomenon. One learnt this while studying world economic history that, as elsewhere, Indians switched from coarse millet to fine rice and wheat.

So what is new? For one, India, even if self-reliant, cannot and does not live in isolation.

It dug into its limited rice reserves meant for the poor to sell cyclone-hit Bangladesh 500,000 tonnes of rice.

Food was also on top of the relief material the Indian navy rushed to cyclone-hit Myanmar last week.

The other new development is in the US and Europe: excessive emphasis on biofuels leading to diversion of arable land and food crops to produce energy.

Bush has defended this policy, calling himself "an ethanol person". The US says ethanol causes only 1.5 per cent of the shortage. For the rest, again, China and India are the culprits.

An American consumes five times more food than an Indian, three times more than a Chinese and twice as much as an European.

According to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007 as quoted in the Times of India: "An Indian eats about 178kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046kg.

"It's not just grains. The Times of India report goes on to state:

"Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78kg per year for each American, compared with 36kg in India and 11kg in China.

"Vegetable oils consumption per person is 41kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yogurt and milk powders, which are consumed in huge proportions in the more advanced countries.

"As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6kg per person per year, compared with a mere 1.6kg in India and 5.9kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. In the US, 45.4kg of poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared with 1.9kg in India.

"Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6kg of pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7kg is consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so more than 35kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey.

"But the story would not be complete without mentioning the plight of Africa, where foodgrain consumption last year was a mere 162kg per year for each person, or about 445g per day."

In blaming India and China, the few gluttons of the world are missing the wood for the trees.

The Dog & The Man

The dog is Bulldog, the man is Karpal Singh. Both are fierce. Other similarities ?

To me Karpal splashes colours to the political and legal scenarios .... sometimes it is nice, sometimes it is nasty, sometimes it is messy ..... depending who you are; you may like his splashing ( then it becomes a painting to the followers), if you don't like him his splashing is just a mess.

This is my splashing of colours, entitled "something fishy"

21 Mei 2008,
Karpal received death threat :-

The passing of a towering Malaysian

Tan Sri S.M. Nasimuddin S.M. Amin's Naza Group is well known for its car-making businesses.

The New Straits Times 03/05/2008
The passing of a towering Malaysian
By : Zuraimi Abdullah



KUALA LUMPUR: One of the country's most successful businessmen, Tan Sri S.M. Nasimuddin S.M. Amin, who founded and built up the diversified Naza Group of Companies, died of lung cancer on Thursday night (Malaysian time) in Los Angeles where he was being treated.

Nasimuddin was one of the finest examples of a New Economic Policy Bumiputera success stories.

Starting with RM80,000 at the age of 21, and ploughing back the gains he made selling imported cars through initial government support, he built a thriving diversified business empire.

Nasimuddin's passing sent shock waves throughout the country, especially among those who knew him, as he had kept his illness under wraps.

Although he had been in the United States seeking treatment in early February, word of his illness only started filtering back last week when his condition worsened.
The Kuala Pilah-born Nasimuddin, who was well known for his philanthropy and support of charities and sports, had, at the time of his death, built up a multi-billion ringgit diversified business empire.

This included motor trading, manufacturing, transport services, engineering, plantations, animal husbandry, credit and leasing, properties, domestic and international hotel operations and insurance.

But he was best known for his penchant and involvement with automobiles, his first love.

Having been one of the recipients of Approved Permits (APs) in the late 1970s, he successfully imported re-conditioned cars from Japan and sold them here.

As his business grew, he ploughed back his profits, unlike the vast majority of other AP recipients who frittered away the rich pickings, leading lives of luxury, so much so that the APs came to be seen as a passport to wealth by many aspiring Bumiputera businessmen.

But of all the hundreds who received the same opportunities, very few, such as Nasimuddin, through hard work and diligence, ventured into different aspects of the industry.

He assembled automobiles, set up plants here and abroad, and eventually became the largest automobile distributor in the country.

The Naza Group is known for its car-making businesses with South Korea's Kia Motors Corp, and more recently, PSA Peugeot Citroen of France. It also distributes exotic marques like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, Porsche, Bentley and Ducati.

From that first RM80,000, the small shoplot in Taman Maluri and the initial 20 APs he "bought" from those who had received the permits, Nasimuddin's business gradually became less dependent on motor vehicles.

He bought hotels and properties in the United States, in Britain and in Malaysia, displaying an uncanny trait for sensing when the markets were at their lowest ebb, and making manifold gains when the economy boomed.

Yet, despite the high profile of his original business of fast and luxury cars, Nasimuddin remained till his last days a soft-spoken, low-profile humble businessman, not showing in the least the traits of other nouveau rich who flashed their helicopters, private jets and yachts.

Most days, he would ride up front with his driver in a Toyota Land Cruiser and would only use his Mercedes Benz saloon on days he had to go for meetings and functions.

On days when he had time, he would drive his favourite seven-year-old Ferrari.

He never lorded over his staff and employees, treating them more like colleagues and they, too, in their demeanour, showed respect and regard for him - never fear.

It was no surprise that his friends ranged from the most powerful and famous to the poor and ordinary.

Born in 1955, Nasimuddin was always interested in cars. After completing his Form Five education at SM Tuanku Muhammad in Kuala Pilah, he decided to learn business from his father, a contractor who was a prominent member of the Kuala Pilah community.

Nasimuddin's father, S.M. Amin, was disappointed that his son did not want to pursue his studies, but respecting his wish to be a businessman, asked him to work for his friend who owned the Lam Foong Transport Company as a dispatch supervisor.

But the call of business was too strong and after a year, Nasimuddin - already married to his childhood sweetheart, nurse Zaleha Ismail - set up his own construction company. He went into the automobile business in 1976, selling 10 to 15 units of imported Japanese cars each month.

In 1979, as business grew, he opened a branch in Kampung Baru in Kuala Lumpur. Nasimuddin expanded his business into the import and trading of reconditioned luxury cars and as a dealer for completely built-up Mercedes Benz vehicles and assembling Kia models.

In 2003, the Naza Group became an automaker with the launch of its multi-purpose vehicle Naza Ria. Priced at RM98,888, the MPV was the cheapest in its range at the time.

One of the keys to Nasimuddin's success in transforming the Naza Group into what it is today was his RM500 million investment on an automotive complex in Gurun, Kedah.

This facility, set over 60ha of land, is where the bulk of the group's car assembly is done, although another bigger factory is being built in Bertam, Penang.

In December 2006, Nasimuddin received one of South Korea's highest awards for his contribution to the automotive industry through the partnership between Naza and Kia that started in 1996.

He was given the Presidential Award industrial service medal from the South Korean president.

He was also named the Automotive Man of the Year at the NSTP-AmBank Car of the Year Award and also the Tokoh Maal Hijrah, both in 2006.

His passing is mourned by all - employees, friends, the country's leaders, and most of all by his family to whom he was more of a friend as he was a father and husband.

Note:-

In late 1980's Tan Sri came over to my house with my brother-in-law, Atim. He let Atim use his BMW 728 to drive around while Atim was in KL from Labuan. I knew his brother Shamsuddin who was doing contracting works when I was working in Sewa Logi, Bank Pembangunan; he was one of those selected by the government to undergo intensive training overseas, in his case he was trained to repair bridges. The government program was to create good contractors and entrepreneurs and make them towering Malays. A few hundred were sent with the hope that many will become millionaires. Later in the 1990's government introduced project management consultants to carry out turnkey projects for smart schools, hospitals, etc with indirect intention to create towering Malay professionals. These good intentions and objectives of the government proved successful to a limited extend, the failure as I see it is mostly from the participants for not seriously taking advantage of the offerings and partly from those selfishly taking advantage of the opportunities.