Dr M ;"Water Agreeements"

1. Next year, 2011, one of the agreements to supply up to 86 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from Johore to Singapore at 3 sen per 1,000 gallons will end.

2. I understand Johore is still buying treated water from Singapore for 50 sen per 1,000 gallons. The amount purchased should not exceed 12 per cent of the raw water bought by Singapore.

3. The agreement also stipulates that the price of raw water and treated water can be renegotiated and changed if both parties agree. Should the raw water price be revised upwards Singapore would be entitled to revise the price of treated water.

4. If, for example, under the current agreement the water price is increased to 6 sen per 1,000 gallons, i.e. 100 per cent, Singapore can insist on the same percentage price increase by 100 per cent i.e. from 50 sen per 1,000 gallons to one Ringgit per thousand gallons.

5. If both sides agree on this quantum of price increase, Singapore would actually earn more from selling treated water to Johor than Malaysia would earn from selling raw water to Singapore.

6. Almost 10 years ago Johor was allocated sufficient money to build its own treatment plant so as not to buy treated water from Singapore. I am told that for reasons unknown, despite building its own treatment plant Johore is still buying treated water from Singapore.

7. Johore sells raw water to Melaka at 30 sen per 1,000 gallons. It seems that Johore is less generous towards Melaka than it is towards a foreign country. The wisdom of this escapes me.

8. Whatever, in 2011, a new agreement to supply Singapore with raw water from Johore may have to be made, I think that despite Singapore's desalination plant, despite Newater, and new reservoirs, Singapore would still need raw water from Johore. We should be willing to supply the people of Singapore with raw water.

9. The question is whether we should sell at 3 sen per 1,000 gallons and buy at 50 sen per 1,000 gallons of treated water as before or we should extract better terms.

10. Malaysian negotiators are unduly generous and we often provide ourselves with no exit clause. I will not cite the cases.

11. The public, the Johore people in particular, should be assured that we don't make agreements which are indefensible this time.

(From Chedet)

Dr M :"5th PM flipped-flopped, incompetent and unable to govern the country and grow its economy.

Dr Mahathir:"PERKASA and ME"

When the 5th PM took over, it became obvious he was incompetent and unable to govern the country and grow its economy. He was seen as weak by the Malays as well as by the Chinese and Indians. He flipped-flopped, making decisions and policies and reversing them, arresting opposition members under the ISA and then releasing them shortly after, claiming that he wanted to protect them.

Extremists among the Chinese and Indians felt they could safely challenge the Government, particularly over racial issues. They demanded that provisions in the Constitution favouring the Malays and the NEP quotas be removed. Even Barisan Nasional partners took up the call

Normally UMNO leaders and UMNO generally would take up the defence of the Malays. But Abdullah as UMNO President and PM was silent (elegant silence) causing the other leaders and members of UMNO to become silent also.

As the attack against the Malays escalated and UMNO remained silent, the Malay public felt they were being let down by UMNO. Losing faith in UMNO, they began to set up NGOs to take up the challenges by the Chinese and Indian activists.

Perkasa as an NGO gained the most support because the founder was more vocal and willing to take risk and to rebut the views of the Chinese and Indian extremists.

In the 2008 elections, many UMNO and BN candidates won only by small margins even in their strongholds. If in the next election defections by even a small number of supporters in some constituencies can result in a reduction of the Barisan Nasional majority or even cause the BN to lose altogether.

Because of the poor handling of the Perak crisis, the Chinese who considered the Pakatan Government of Perak as a Chinese Government, swore not to support BN anymore.

The situation of UMNO and BN looked bleak. They have not regained the Malay support lost in the 2008 elections and they face the prospect of the Chinese not supporting the Barisan Nasional in the 13th General Elections. Striving to regain Chinese support is not enough. They must also regain Malay support.

Perkasa has not indicated that it is against BN and UMNO. In fact it has hinted that it is for UMNO. Looking at the strength of Malay support for Perkasa antagonising them would not be to the benefit of the Barisan Nasional or UMNO.

Perkasa is accused of being racist and should be rejected on that ground. Is Perkasa racist? If anyone cares to study the statement by Perkasa he will not fail to note that it has confined itself to rebutting allegations that the non-Malays have been discriminated against, that the Malays need to retain their present position. If it is really racist then it would be demanding the abolition of the special treatment of the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. This it has not done except when defending the Malay position.

(Read more here)

Dr Mahathir:"Badawi was totally incompetent" !!

"Najib inherited a bad government. He is better than number five (Badawi) who was totally incompetent,"

- Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Speaking on the sidelines of an international forum at Kuala Lumpur today, Mahathir spared no mercy for Abdullah, who was his handpicked successor, saying that the latter had wasted the strong mandate he received in the 2004 general election.

"When you have two-thirds majority, it should be used for doing the right things. In the four years, 2004 to 2008 (Abdullah) did the wrong things (so) in 2008 he lost it," he said.

Prime Minister Najib Razak will have an uphill battle regaining two-thirds majority in Parliament in the next general election, no thanks to the lacklustre performance of his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, says Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The former prime minister said Najib was trying to put things right and having a difficult time to do that as he inherited a bad government .

"(You) see, sometimes he (Najib) fails, sometimes he succeeds. Sometimes he has good ideas and sometimes his ideas are not so good. That is to be expected," he told reporters after delivering the keynote address at the International Forum on The Creation of Global Citizens: Media Liberation and New Political Realities today.

Mahathir hoped Najib could garner the support from the people because "the alternative has somebody who is worse and will spoil things if he has power".

On the new political model mooted by Najib for Umno's continuity as the pillar of the government, Mahathir said what were crucial were not systems or consensus but individuals who could control the situation.

"Nothing good will happen if the individuals are bad, although the systems are good," he said.

On the National Union of Journalists' (NUJ) proposal that they should be allowed to regulate themselves using a media council as the mechanism instead of the Home Ministry having the say, he said they could do that but would not have the strength if people broke the regulations.

"That is why the government have a say in it. You can still control just like you a have a club, which has by-laws and you're supposed to regulate your club functions. But when you step beyond that, the government has to impose the rules," he said.

On the government's investigation on certain bloggers, Mahathir said while there was press freedom, the government was also free to investigate such cases and ultimately, an independent body would make the decision.

Dr Mahathir:"1 Malaysia has caused irreconcilable conflicts"

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today that Malays must continue to be given handicaps, while arguing that Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1 Malaysia was a confusing concept which means different things to different people.

He also accused the Chinese and Indian communities of continuing to identify with their countries of origin, and argued that Malays would continue demanding special treatment as a result.

Writing in his blog today, Mahathir said the Malays interpreted 1 Malaysia to mean the abolition of Chinese and Tamil schools and a “fair” participation of Malays and Bumiputeras in the private sector.

The Chinese and Indians, he claimed, interpret 1 Malaysia to mean an end to special treatment for Malays, the removal of quotas and the end to NEP-style affirmative action policies favouring Malays.

“Without the government spelling out the precise meaning of 1 Malaysia, different people are giving their own interpretations which not only differ from each other but are in conflict with each other.

“These two interpretations of 1 Malaysia admittedly are by the more extreme groups. The more moderate ones from both sides are milder in their expectations but their minimum interpretations still provide irreconcilable conflicts. 1 Malaysia clearly means different things to the different races.”

Dr Mahathir also argued that the Bangsa Malaysia concept encapsulated in his Vision 2020 document was more appropriate for multiracial Malaysia.

“In Vision 2020 one of the objectives is to create a bangsa Malaysia.

“The belief at that time was that if Malaysia becomes a fully developed country, it would become very prosperous,” he said.

He repeated his old formula for managing race relations by making the economic argument that if prosperity was fairly shared between the races there would be less jealousy between them.

“Malaysians of all races would be so proud of their country and its great achievements that the desire to be linked with other countries would be much diminished if not disappear altogether (as happens in prosperous multi-racial countries like the US – where the German Eisenhower led the war against Germany. Eisenhower was American first and his country of origin was irrelevant to him).”

But he said it was clear that race still played an important role currently in Malaysia.

The former prime minister also accused the Chinese and Indian communities of preferring to be identified with their countries of origin, and this, he said, caused Malays to expect special treatment.

He said a change in the so-called social contract between the Malays and the non-Malays would take a long time to replace.

“This will take a long time. As the new contract will be between races, racial factors would be included. Unless both sides agree to give up their races’ own rights as spelt out in the first contract i.e. the preservation of own home languages and schools etc. the rights of the indigenous races to their special position, etc, must remain a part of the new social contract.

“It is not certain that each would not demand for more than what they got under the old contract. It is likely there would be no agreement and no contract. Ths would lead to perpetual conflicts.

Dr Mahathir also took aim at Malays who wanted affirmative action to be abolished, and repeated his stand that Malays were not ready yet to compete on an equal footing with the Chinese in particular.

“I am not ashamed to admit that I cannot compete with the Chinese and Indian students when studying medicine. They had much better results than me and the other six Malay students for entry into the Medical College. Even at that time the British promised to the Rulers to help educate the Malays. I had my chance because of the affirmative action then. On pure merit I would not be a doctor today, not because I was not qualified, but my qualification was lower than others.

“One has to remember that the Chinese civilisation is more than 4000 years old. No other civilisation has lasted that long. Naturally they have developed a culture better able to survive under all conditions. It is my belief that if the percentage of Chinese in the United Kingdom for example is the same as in Malaysia, UK would be better developed than it is now. It is not surprising that the Chinese excel in developing Malaysia (for which they are amply rewarded).”

He said that it was not shameful to lose out against the Chinese but to just catch up would require handicaps.

“To be given handicaps is to ensure fairness, not discrimination. That is why in golf you have handicaps. That is why in all contests there must be equality between the contestants. It is selfish if having benefited from the handicaps you want to deny others from having them.”

(From The Malaysian Insider)

Mahathirism and the Pakatan phobia

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has warned that the Malays will "lose their power" if the Pakatan Rakyat were to come to power, and he went on to label Pakatan leaders as a bunch of self-serving and racist politicians.

The elder statesman said such a situation would not be not far-fetched, as illustrated by the way the opposition ran the states it had won in the watershed March 2008 general election, when the ruling BN coalition lost control of five states.

Taking the example of Perak when it was still led by PAS's Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin as menteri besar, Mahathir (left) said the former had "followed DAP's orders" until he fell.

"So they call it a Chinese government. We might get a prime minister who is like Nizar... his name is Malay, he is a Muslim but he is not actually free. He is a tool of others and this could happen," he said in an exclusive article sent to Umno-online.

He also took the opportunity to brand DAP as a racist party for repeatedly raising racial issues for as long as he could remember.

Mahathir continued his tirade against PAS and Nizar, who was deposed after a spate of defections in the state assembly swung a simple majority in favour of the BN in 2009, accusing the Islamist party of using Islam as a means to garner support.

He also took a potshot at PKR, saying the party was merely posturing when claiming to fight for the Malays, when its actual goal was to fulfil the personal ambition of de facto leader and Mahathir's former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, to become prime minister.

"Unfortunately, Umno dropped this person, and in anger that he lost his opportunity, he formed another party. His struggle in singular, and it is not for race, religion and country but to become prime minister."

Mahathir went further to accuse the entire PKR leadership of being self-serving, saying they were only interested in using the party for their individual benefit.

"That is the basis for (forming) Keadilan (justice). Keadilan is just a name... (they) formed Keadilan as if this country has no justice," he said.

Meanwhile, Lembah MP Nurul Izzah Anwar today accused former prime minister and PERKASA patron Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad of perpetuating the politics of racial fear to keep the ruling Malay elite in power, which she said was detrimental to the nation’s stability and progress.

The PKR legislator also offered to debate the veteran UMNO politician to disprove the claims he articulated in a blog post yesterday, in which the latter denied he was a racist.

“The ‘politics of fear’ uses Article 153 as a political instrument of deceit and despair,” the first-term MP said, referring to the Federal Constitution. Article 153 concerns the special position of the Bumiputeras, which includes the Malay community.

“I find this statement as irresponsible and as a desperate attempt to destabilise the nation,” the 30-year-old said of the country’s longest-serving premier.

The eldest daughter of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and a rising star in the PR bloc called on Malays to stand firm against the described threat to their community.

“We must fight back by emphasising on the ‘Politics of Hope and Liberation’, which will transform the Malay mind from the false fear of losing their identity and economical development to a positive force that will create a confident and liberated community,” she urged.

Nurul Izzah claimed the Malays have been persistently “indoctrinated” to “act out a victim mentality narrative that degrades, confuses and paralyses a community to remain enslaved intellectually and emotionally first by the colonial masters and now by its new reincarnation, UMNO”.

She stressed that the other partners in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition were also guilty for not speaking up for the communities they represented.

MALAYSIA ACCORDING TO LKY, SINGAPORE ACCORDING TO DR M

Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew still strongly believes that Malaysians would be enjoying his city-state’s brand of nationalism and multi-racialism today, if both nations had not been split in 1965.

In an interview with the New York Times, the 86-year-old Minister Mentor reflectively expressed that the first regret he had of his colourful career was having been “turfed out” of Malaysia.

In his conversation with the New York Times, Lee claimed that if Malaysia’s founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman had decided to keep both nations together 45 years ago, much of what Singapore had achieved today in terms of equality among the races would be likewise be achieved in Malaysia.

“I think if the Tunku had kept us together, what we did in Singapore, had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society, much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would be achieved in Malaysia,” he said, according to the transcript of the interview, conducted on September 1.

Lee, Singapore’s longest serving prime minister, claimed that if Singapore had not seceded from Malaysia, the country would have improved inter-racial relations and an improved holistic situation today.

“Now we have a very polarised Malaysia — Malays, Chinese and Indians in separate schools, living separate lives and not really getting on with one another. You read them. That’s bad for us as close neighbours,” he said.

He pressed on with his belief that all ethnic communities should free themselves from the shackles of racial segregation in order to promote fairness and equality among the races.

Meanwhile, according to Dr Mahathir, before Singapore joined the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia, there was less racial politics in the Federation of Malaysia. In 1955 the Malays who made up 80 per cent of the citizens gave a large number of their constituencies to the few Chinese and Indian citizens and ensured they won with strong Malay support. As a result the Alliance won 51 of the 52 seats contested.

The Tunku then rewarded this willingness of the Chinese and Indian citizens to support the coalition concept by giving them one million unconditional citizenship. This reduced Malay majority to 60 per cent.

In the 1959 elections the Alliance of UMNO, MCA and MIC won easily though Kelantan was lost. PAS with only Malays as members was rejected. Racialism even when implied failed.

In 1963 Singapore became a part of Malaysia. Despite having promised that the PAP will not participate in Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak politics, Kwan Yew reneged and the PAP tried to displace the MCA in the Alliance by appealing to Chinese sentiments in the Peninsular. Of course the slogan was "Malaysian Malaysia" which implied that the Chinese were not having equal rights with the Malays.

By 1965 racism had taken hold and the Tunku was forced to end Singapore's membership of Malaysia. But the seed of Chinese racialism had been sown, so that even after the PAP left, the "Malaysian Malaysia" war cry was picked up by the DAP, an offspring of the PAP.

With the background of Singapore's activities in Malaysia in the short three years of its membership, can we really believe that if it had not been "turfed out" race relations would be better in Malaysia?

While Kwan Yew talks about his belief that all ethnic communities should free themselves from the shackles of racial segregation in order to promote fairness and equality among the races, he also said that "once we are by ourselves (out of Malaysia) the Chinese become the majority".

Singapore's population is made up of 75 per cent Chinese and they own 95 per cent of the economy. It is therefore not a truly multi-racial country but a Chinese country with minority racial groups who are additionally much poorer.

In Singapore dissent is not allowed, People who contest against the PAP would be hauled up in court for libel and if they win elections would not be allowed to take their places in Parliament. Whereas in Malaysia opposition parties invariably win seats in Parliament and even set up State Governments (today five out of the 13 States are ruled by the opposition parties) the PAP in Singapore has to appoint PAP members to represent the opposition.

If Singapore is a part of Malaysia the PAP can certainly reproduce the Singapore kind of non-racial politics because together with the Malaysian Chinese, the PAP will ethnically dominate and control Malaysian politics. No dissent would be allowed and certainly no one would dare say anything about who really runs the country.

Amnesia is permissible but trying to claim that it is because Singapore had been "turfed out" for the present racist politics in Malaysia is simply not supported by facts of history.

Islam, Muslims at the mercy of PAS ?

Islam and its followers have become victims of PAS leaders who are using religion as a weapon of political survival, said former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Although purportedly advocating the true Islam, he said PAS leaders were willing to change their minds and interpretation as it had always been their tendency in gaining the support of non-Muslims.

"We see how the so-called Islamic fighters are willing to change the interpretation of Islam for political gain, if they once used to say that those who cooperated with non-believers were infidels, but now they defended their cooperation with non-Muslims," he said in an interview with Umno Online.

On the recitation of "doa" (prayer) for Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng instead of the King during Friday sermons in Penang recently, Mahathir said PAS had a way of justifying the action of the katib ( preacher).

"They say it is not wrong as the doa was an effort to draw them to Islam and this is the beauty of Islam.

"If Islam is an obstacle in gaining the support of non-Muslims, they will digress a little.

"For example in pursuing the hudud law and the Islamic country, they cast it aside in order to gain the support of non-Muslims," he added.

May 13 a "class war" ?

Gerakan Tindakan Rakyat (Gertak's) much-talked-about Melayu Bangkit rally kicked off to a lukewarm response despite the fervour of its organisers and the ruckus it created in the media.

According to Malaysiakini,only 1,000 people gathered at the indoor stadium in Kuala Terengganu this morning, far short of the promised 10,000, for the controversial rally intended to unite Malays into a force to be reckoned with, and to defend kedaulatan Melayu.

Most in the crowd remained silent throughout the speeches and failed to respond to the cries of “Allah Hu Akbar” from the organisers who tried to get them to join in.

In an hour-long keynote address, former premier Mahathir Mohamad claimed that the May 13 racial riots which took place in 1969 was a “class war” between the rich and the poor.

“Those uprisings are caused by the development of socialist ideas and the communist thought which led to the disenfranchised poor rising to attack the rich. A class war caused by the huge gap between the rich and the poor which killed millions... And these people are from the same race,” he said.

He explained that the problem is compounded in Malaysia as the divide between the haves and have-nots is made worse by the fact that both sides often come from different races.

This disparity of wealth, he said, is something the nation needs to address and correct lest events like May 13 is repeated.

However, Mahathir stressed that the non-Malays who have been graciously granted citizenship must understand that the Malays rose (in 1969) because they were losing out economically.

The Malays, he said, do not want to take what belongs to non-Malays but just want their fair share.

Mahathir also admitted that he believes that Malays will not perform in a pure meritocracy system, thus must be protected by the system to ensure that they - as “historical masters of the land” - are not left behind.

“I am not racist, I have also done a lot to help other races,” he claimed, decrying those who label him as such.

He added that he is highlighting the issue because it needs to be addressed for the good of the nation and not because of any racist undertones.

Mahathir then warned that the Malays are now in a stage of “crisis” and they would follow the same fate like their kind in Singapore, a minority group which is not protected by the government, if they don't act now.

“If we don't act rationally, one day we will be like the Malays in Singapore. A people that are truly powerless. So they have to bow down to another race,” said the former premier.

He further lamented the fate of the Malays, saying their political support has been fragmented between Umno and Malay-based opposition parties.

He said this was a dangerous precedent which weakened the Malays further, putting them at risk of losing their place in their own land.

Mahathir also said that cancellation of the May 13 rally was due to the short-sightedness of some parties who feared that the gathering of Malays on the date of racial riots in 1969 may provoke insurrection.

He explained that the date was chosen by coincidence and without ulterior motives.

Mahathir added that people need to be reminded of events in history “if we are to learn from it”.

“Learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it,” said Mahathir, quoting the popular adage.

Dr Mahathir :" Human Rights Probe should be internal first "

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia, widely acknowledged as the architect of Malaysia’s modernization, who was in Sri Lana to deliver the keynote address at the International Business Forum, granted the Daily Mirror an exclusive print media interview.

Q: I understand your first visit to Sri Lankan was in 1962, do you have a count of the number of visits you have had to Sri Lanka? And what did you find as most significant in Sri Lanka, in terms of progress each time you visited?

I think I have visited Sri Lanka four times. Well, since independence you have made progress but I see that the progress has been slow because you were having problems. Now that the problems have been resolved, I can see it is peaceful and stable. I am quite sure I am going to see a big difference, the next time I come here.

Q: Sri Lanka has just overcome a three decade war, although the people in the country are relieved about this, we have had to put up with a lot of Western criticism of how Sri Lanka handled the war, particularly the last phase. What would be your advice in this situation?

Well when you are fighting a war there are certain things which happen which are really unavoidable. War means killing people that is why we are very much against war but sometimes of course people consider that you have used, much more force than is necessary. But over time I think it is the way you treat the defeated people which is going to be important. If they are integrated with the society, and if they also benefit from the kind of development you are going to carry out, I am quite sure that world opinion will change

Q:Currently there are allegations against Sri Lanka on Human Rights violations, this has also been cited as a reason for the withdrawal of the GSP plus, also the UN has requested for a probe on alleged war crimes by Sri Lanka- Your comments Sir?

I think the probe should be done internally first, using judges and other highly respected people. But if there is anything amiss in that, then it requires international involvement, maybe you should allow then to do a probe. But I think this is an internal problem of Sri Lanka.

Q:You had once condemned the UDHR, calling it an ‘oppressive instrument by which the US and other countries try to impose their values on Asians’. Could you elaborate more on your stand on human rights?

We should be open and explain why you have done certain things. Instead of hiding. Not being able to defend your position versus accusations against you. Yes-we do arrest people, we do not torture people. In Malaysia we do detain people without trial but we do under the laws of the country. We have the ISE, it is a law that permits us, that allows us to detain people. We do not torture people as it has happened in Britain and America. They torture the people arrested by them. We don’t do that kind of thing. We are open. Anyone can say we are wrong. We have our own people’s well being in mind all the time.

Q: Although having been a critic of the USA, your relationship with the USA was strong- How was that possible?

When we have been critical of the USA, it is because something is wrong. Relationships should be based on what is right. Just because someone is your friend you can’t do what you want. Americans themselves are critical of their governments when they do something wrong. We were able to attract the business people in making investments. They are not interested in the politics of the country. We were being nasty, but were very cooperative in getting what we want.

Well, I think one of the most important things that we did in Malaysia was to choose models and to learn from the models how to carry out development. Now is the time for you to determine who your models should be. It is not necessary to be just one model, maybe a whole range of models and I think you can learn a lot about developments from these models.

Q:There are some who call our President, an extremist, a Sinhala extremist. What is your impression of this?

I was also called an extremist, a dictator, if you work for your people eventually you will be exonerated.

(more)

Dr M:"UMNO is incapable of countering the attacks by Chinese extremists against Malays." !

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has lamented that Umno - the party he led for two decades - has failed to defend the Malays in the face of attacks from the minority Chinese.

He suggested that perhaps his protege Najib Tun Razak is pandering towards the non-Malays, instead of protecting his own race.

In a blog posting, he said Umno's inability to defend the Malays from Chinese attacks has led them to form NGOs like Perkasa.

Mahathir's comments come amidst speculation that certain quarters in Umno are uncomfortable with Najib's all-inclusive policies, with some even suggesting that a mutiny could be brewing.

“We hear a lot about demands by Chinese extremists questioning the provision of Malay special rights in the constitution, demanding an end to the NEP, reduction of quotas for Malay students.

“They even say the Malays are also 'kaum pendatang' or immigrants. An article even claims that there is no such thing as a Malay race,” said the former premier.

Despite this, Mahathir said, Umno remained silent.

However, he said that the party chose to suspend an Umno member who labelled the Chinese and Indians as descendants of immigrants.

“It seems to many Malays that Umno is incapable of countering the attacks by Chinese extremists against the Malays,” he added.

According to Mahathir, Umno and the government are facing a dilemma.

“In trying to win over the Chinese with allocations and abolishing NEP provisions, the BN will lose Malay support as it did in 2008.

“On the other hand, no matter how the government tries to satisfy Chinese demands, the Chinese have clearly rejected BN,” he said, noting that Chinese parties BN are also in a crisis.

Mahathir also dismissed Pakatan Rakyat as not a viable alternative, saying it has shown no capacity to rule.

He also underscored the danger of playing race politics.

“This country may find itself being governed by a weak government. There will be more politicking and more racial conflicts.

“There will be instability and chaos. Then everyone, whatever race he may be, will suffer. The choice is ours,” he said.

He nevertheless did not offer an opinion on how Umno should overcome its dilemma, apart from saying that “the choice is ours”.

“Playing race politics in Malaysia is dangerous. This country may find itself being governed by a weak government. There will be more politicking and more racial conflicts. There will be instability and chaos. Then everyone, whatever race he may be, will suffer.”

Dr Mahathir:"We should not choose and trust people who like to hop from one party to another like that."

"Our country is peaceful and calm. And although we have achieved a lot of development in the urban areas, much more has to be done in the rural areas," Mahathir said at a ceramah (public talk) in Serendah for the BN by-election campaign last night.

He said the country had progressed from the BN's administration and because its leaders worked hard for the country's development and not for personal interests.

"When we develop the country, everyone will benefit and this only the BN has proven to be able to do."

On PKR candidate in the by-election, Zaid Ibrahim, he said the former minister could be likened to a frog.

"When he was in Umno, he became a minister, then he joined the opposition and now he's their candidate for the by-election.

"We should not choose and trust people who like to hop from one party to another like that.

"He (Zaid) doesn't gamble but he has horse races. I too have horses but they are not horse races. He admitted having horse races but said he didn't gamble. I don't understand this," Mahathir said.

Dr M:"I wonder who is hijacking 'social contract '."

True the constitution does not mention "Malay rights" but obviously the mention of the special position of the Malays implies recognition of certain positions and privileges that they hold. The leaders of the time, the Tunku, Tun Razak, Tun Sambanthan and Tun Tan Siew Sin understood the "special position" of the Malays as the indigenous people of Tanah Melayu, the "Malay Land".

The Malays did not fight against the Malayan Union only to give up all that they had gained. But their leaders were realistic enough to have a quid pro quo arrangement. Does anyone seriously think that the Malay leaders would reduce their majority from 80% in the 1955 elections to less than 60% after the gift of citizenship to unqualified citizens? Only the weak minded would think so.

The Malays hate turmoil. They prefer accommodation. Had they been like some other indigenous people, they would have insisted on their rights even if they had to be violent and to wait a longer period.

In making use of the provision for the "special positions" of the Malays, the post-1969 leaders came up with affirmative actions. These are undoubtedly "crutches" and crutches should be discarded as soon as strength is gained. Only the selfish would advocate throwing away the crutches of others simply because they have already made good use of their own.

- Chedet

Dr M on The New Economic Policy & Apco deal

Dr Mahathir Mohammad said the New Economic Policy (NEP) was intended to be a "temporary crutch" and abolished when the Malays and bumiputeras are capable of standing on their own two feet.

He said the whole point of the NEP and similar programmes would be lost if the Malay and bumiputera communities continue to rely on it for financial support, a "weakness" which he said is inherent in their culture.

Taking Malay reserve land as an example, Mahathir said the then British colonialists and Malay leaders decided to gazette such land to stop the constant sale of land by Malays looking to gain some quick money.

"The trend then was that Malays would sell their land in urban areas because of the high price and move out to the outskirts. When the city expanded, again they sell the land and move further out.

"By logic, if that had continued the Malays would have ended up living in the jungle," he said in his address.

Mahathir stressed that it is up to the Malays and bumiputeras to make full use of the opportunities given to them instead of accusing other races of controlling the economy.

"It is shameful not to fully utilise the opportunities given to you but at the same time demand that these opportunities are not given to anyone else," he said to a packed hall.

This is a far cry from his past defence of the controversial policy, having once said that not enough is being done to improve the lot of the Malays and bumiputeras.

Dr Mahathir said it is difficult to set a deadline for the abolishment of the affirmative action practices that were implemented under the NEP but noted that a clear indication would be when the Malays and bumiputeras are financially independent.

On a separate issue, Mahathir said he did not see any reason for the government to pay nearly RM77 million to Apco Worldwide, which was engaged to mend ties between Malaysia and the United States.

Earlier, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz dumped much of the blame on Dr Mahathir's shoulders for deteriorating ties with the United States over his 22 year tenure, while the rest of the blame went to his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's six years in power.

Dr M : double standards in the implementation of justice.

From Chedet: "THE LAW AND THE COURTS"


1. I think it was the President of the Bar Council who pointed out that the law provides for a judge to accuse a person with contempt of his court and to punish him.

2. I am not disputing this legal provision. But we know of the cynical reference to some laws being an ass. In fact many lawyers would claim that the ISA which provides for detention without trial as bad law, and many have urged that the law be removed from the statute books. The reason cited is that without a hearing in a court of law, the executive has assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and executioner. In todays society this is a denial of justice.

3. But the same people, who strongly object to the Internal Security Act, support the law providing for contempt of court in which the aggrieved judge becomes the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.

4. Clearly we are seeing double standards in the implementation of justice.

5. To say that the judge knows best as to the culpability of the accused person is to once again breach the principles of justice. A judge should not know and prejudge a case. He should be quite ignorant of the case coming before him and he should allow himself to decide simply based on the evidence put before him, the words of the witnesses and the pleadings of the prosecutor and the counsel for the accused person. If a judge is also a witness to the case then he would be bias and cannot possibly do justice to the case.

6. There is certainly a need for a law against contempt of the court but it should follow the same procedures as applicable to all other cases including being heard by other than the aggrieved judge. The charge should be made properly. There should be no arbitrary arrest before a charge is made. The accused person should be given his right to hear the charge and to state his defences before a judge who is not personally involved.

(Read more here)

The smart autocrats of Singapore & Malaysia, the two 'MM'

Dumb autocrats use the army, goon squads and guns to repress the opposition. Smart autocrats use the law courts to do it. Indonesia's Soeharto was a dumb autocrat. Singapore's MM Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's MM Mahathir Mohamad were smart autocrats.

The Lee-Mahathir model keeps the outward facade of a functioning democracy, with elections, a parliament and supposedly independent courts. Behind it, the systems are gutted to guarantee the ruling party remains ruling.

In Singapore, where Lee's People's Action Party has been in power for 50 continuous years, the government simply sues opposition politicians for defamation. A tame court hands down ruinous damages, opponents end up in bankruptcy, jail or exile.

When a meddlesome foreigner, the deputy director for Asia of Human Rights Watch, Phil Robertson, said last month that ''Singapore is the textbook example of a politically repressive state'', the government just shrugged and said: ''Singapore is a democratic state with a clean and transparent government.''

The army is in its barracks and there are no goon squads smashing through people's front doors at 3am. It's all legit, see? The foreign investors and governments play along. So what if the ruling party holds 98 per cent of the seats in parliament? It has an elected parliament, and surely that's good enough.

In Malaysia, Mahathir was never as subtle or as smooth as Lee. But Mahathir was still a smart autocrat who kept control through his puppetry of the judicial system. The pivotal moment was in 1988 when Mahathir complained that the courts were ''too independent''.

He purged the chief judicial officer, the Lord President, and suspended the five chief justices of the Supreme Court. The court system has never given any further trouble to the Barisan Nasional, or National Front, since. Together with its predecessor, the BN has ruled Malaysia continuously for 54 years.

It's infinitely smarter to use legal instruments to purge judges than to use guns against protesters. A judicial massacre makes lousy TV. You won't see one live on CNN. So it remains hidden from international view. Yet it can be every bit as repressive. So when Mahathir faced a power struggle in 1998 with his deputy prime minister and heir apparent, the charismatic Anwar Ibrahim, he naturally turned to the courts to purge his younger rival.....more here

Dr M "Anwar Ibrahim does not know anything about the economy."

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad believes that Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor Anwar Ibrahim does not know anything about the economy.

"He is a good speaker but not about economics. If you want to bankrupt Selangor, that's the good advisor.

"Of course, you pay him RM1, you'll get RM1 worth,"

Mahathir said that Anwar, when he was in the Cabinet as finance minister, almost brought down Malaysia to its knees during the financial crisis.

"He adopted the International Monetary Fund and made the matter worse. I don't think he knows anything about (the) economy," he said when commenting on Anwar's appointment as economic advisor to the Selangor Government.

Mahathir himself had his ambitions, initiatives, and plans, and launched his favored projects with flourishes of economic nationalism. Yet many of those pet projects entailed huge problems, flaws, and abuses. Moreover, Mahathir’s policies were inconsistent, and several of his major policy turns were in fact “U-turns” made in response to crises, some of which were created by him, albeit unwittingly.

Mahathir and Daim had Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim suspend KLSE rules to allow the leading crony UEM-Renong conglomerate to organize a bailout. That move caused the stock market capitalization to fall by RM70 billion, or 20 percent, in three days in November 1997.

Mahathir government had established Danaharta, Danamodal, and the Corporate Debt Restructuring Committee to restore banking liquidity, manage non-performing loans, re-capitalize banks, and restructure the banking system and major conglomerates. Now it has become clear that the efforts of these three agencies were variously biased and abused, in practice if not in intent.

When it took over billions of ringgit of corporate debt, the government hardly penalized the borrowers. Ostensibly this was because some of them were said to have been performing “national service” with their borrowings. Moreover, the government used public funds to “re-nationalize” privatized assets at prices far exceeding market levels. Critics charged that the regime’s cronies were doubly blessed – first by benefiting from privatization, and then by walking away unscathed from their debts and liabilities. Despite such abuses, Danaharta, Danamodal, and the Corporate Debt Restructuring Committee managed to restore essential liquidity.

Besides, the government’s absorption of corporate losses reached new heights under Mahathir. Perwaja, the steel-making corporation, is a spectacular failure, having lost more than RM10 billion by the mid-1990s. Bank Bumiputra Malaysia was scarcely better. Before it was acquired by Bank of Commerce, Bank Bumiputra had been re-capitalized several times with several billion ringgit of public funds.

As yet, there is no careful accounting of the losses associated with privatization followed by re-nationalization. Public assets were privatized at a discount, but re-nationalized at premiums that were enjoyed by their non-performing beneficiaries. In short, we have experienced 20 years of privatizing profits and profitable assets, and socializing losses and liabilities.

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS IN MALAY - giving "Ang Pow" would not win over the voters.

From Chedet:

" The Government has decided that the teaching of science and mathematics would revert to Malay in the Government school, with Chinese in Chinese schools and Tamil in Tamil schools. How this is going to help integrate Malaysians I do not know."

" But some parents and teachers had also conducted a survey and the majority are again in favour of English. A petition to the Prime Minister by parents and teachers was copied to me and they were in favour of retaining English. At least one senior non-Malay politician had left a Barisan Nasional component party and joined the opposition because of the switch back to Malay, Tamil and Chinese. He claimed that he could not afford to send his grandchildren abroad as some who advocate Malay as the medium had been doing. "

" The reason that has been given is that Malays, particularly kampung Malays just could not do well when the two subjects were taught in English. If we follow this kind of argument we should also stop trying to get Malays to do business because they really cannot do well in that field. They are best at working as wage-earners, particularly in Government service. We should encourage them not to try to go into business."

" If we do this then the current anger over the New Economic Policy on the part of the non-Malays would be reduced."

" Similarly with learning English. Malays just cannot learn and speak English. We should stop teaching it so that the language would not drag down the Malays in their exams. We should see better results. "

" Malays do best at paddy planting and fishing with rods and net. They should be taught to do this, probably with new technology."

" By switching back to Malay, we can expect them to vote for the Government party at the next election. Similarly we can expect at least some who believe their children's future has been blighted by this decision to think again about voting for the BN."

" I cannot read Chinese but Utusan Malaysia kindly translated the editorial in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. The editorial basically said that giving "Ang Pow" would not win over the voters."


Source: " SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS IN MALAY "

Malaysia's MM Vs Singapore's MM

Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's MM pulled no punches today and called the Singapore leader “a little Emperor … of a tiny Middle Kingdom” lecturing Malaysian leaders on how to run the country in his recent “triumphant visit to Malaysia”

“During Lee Kuan Yew’s triumphant visit to Malaysia, he made it known to the Malaysian supplicants that Singapore regards the lands within 6,000 miles radius of Singapore as its hinterland. This includes Beijing and Tokyo and, of course, Malaysia,” Dr Mahathir said in posting at his popular www.chedet.cc.

“Of course this self-deluding perception places Singapore at the centre of a vast region. It is therefore the latter day Middle Kingdom. The rest are peripheral and are there to serve the interest of this somewhat tiny Middle Kingdom,” he added.

Dr Mahathir pointed out Kuan Yew’s explanation that Singapore Chinese would control the “Iskandar whatever” was not justified as Malays could work there, sarcastically saying “It is good to know that Malays can also work in their own country. I wonder as what? Maybe someone should make a study of the Malays of Singapore just to know what it is like to be a Malay minority in their own country”

He also made a stinging observation about Kuan Yew’s visit to Kuala Lumpur, Seremban, Ipoh, Penang, Kota Bharu and Kuantan with his delegation in the past week.

“All those who met the great man from the little country were lectured on how Malaysia should be run. We should not have any more problems now. We have been told the direction to take. MCA must help Umno to win because Singapore does not want an Islamic party like PAS to win. We must ensure this.

“Sorry, PAS. Working with the DAP, the offspring of PAP has not endeared you to Mr Lee,” he wrote.

But he promised this was not the end of his diatribe against Kuan Yew.

“I have a lot more to say about this little Emperor but I will reserve it for later,” Dr Mahathir vowed.

Do you still remember, the querulous Mahathir once said, "Singapore is a tiny country. Don't talk big."

What sparked off the controversy that time was MM Lee's comment that the attitude of Malaysia and Indonesia towards the Republic was shaped by the way they treated their own ethnic Chinese minorities

He added: "My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education"

"And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant"

Mr Lee said Singapore must have a government which must be "firm but polite", able to deal with difficult neighbours "who want to pressure us to build pretty bridges without giving us commensurate benefits".

"You need a government that will be able to not only have the gumption but the skill to say no in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly," he said.

Surely Dr Mahathir can’t agree to Najib giving in to Singapore’s demands like what is currently happening. Are we going to see Dr Mahathir going berserk like back in 2006 with all these concessions Najib is granting Singapore?



THE MODERN MIDDLE KINGDOM

1. Ancient China considered itself the centre of the world and called itself the Middle Kingdom. And well it should. It was far more advanced in every way than Europe of the Dark Ages. Maybe China is thinking of making a comeback.

2. But we already have a new Middle Kingdom now. During Lee Kuan Yew's triumphant visit to Malaysia he made it known to the Malaysian supplicants that Singapore regards the lands within 6000 miles radius of Singapore as its hinterland. This includes Beijing and Tokyo and of course Malaysia.

3. Of course this self-deluding perception places Singapore at the centre of a vast region. It is therefore the latter day Middle Kingdom. The rest are peripheral and are there to serve the interest of this somewhat tiny Middle Kingdom.

4. Kuan Yew also explained that the fear Singapore Chinese would control Iskandar whatever is not justified. Malays can also work there. It is good to know that Malays can also work in their own country. I wonder as what? Maybe someone should make a study of the Malays of Singapore just to know what it is like to be a Malay minority in their own country.

5. As for the 3 sen per 1000 gallons of raw water supplied to Singapore Lee says it was absurd for the former Prime Minister of hinterland Malaysia to ask to increase it to RM8 per 1000 gallons. I don't know where he got this. Some Malaysian officers did suggest this figure but we were ready to bargain and maybe settle for RM3. And why not? Johore sells raw water to Melaka for 30 sen, 1000% higher than to Singapore. And Melaka is, I believe, a part of Malaysia! Some Malaysians may see the irony of this.

6. The great 5th Prime Minister has decided that since the people of Johore did not want to sell sand to Singapore, Malaysia would not build any bridge, straight or crooked, or negotiate and settle the other issues like the Central Provident Fund, the Railway land. Maybe the 5th Prime Minister thinks he is punishing Singapore. Actually he is giving Singapore what its wants including the 3 sen per 1000 gallons water until 2061. Think of how many grains of nasi lemak we can buy with 3 sen in 2061. Imagine what 1000 gallons will earn for Singapore at that time. Can't think of a more astute PM for Malaysia.

7. All those who met the great man from the little country were lectured on how Malaysia should be run. We should not have anymore problems now. We have been told the direction to take. MCA must help UMNO to win because Singapore does not want an Islamic Party like PAS to win. We must ensure this. Sorry PAS. Working with the DAP, the offspring of PAP has not endeared you to Mr Lee.

8. I have a lot more to say about this little Emperor but I will reserve it for later.

- taken from Chedet.co.cc

Najibism VS Mahathirism

The fear of this thing called Mahathirism that Tan Sri Muhyiddin had to assure the public that Najib's ascendancy to the Premiership would not bring back Mahathirism.

But, is the current government worse than the Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad administration in its response to dissent?

Consider the use, or rather abuse, of the police force to serve and protect the reputation of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Take into account how the police have used vague and controversial laws like sedition to arrest and charge nearly anyone who is unhappy, dissatisfied or critical of Najib.

Remember how it was decreed then by the authorities that the name of Altantuya Shaariibuu should not be mentioned by politicians while on the stump.

Step back and one could only come to one conclusion – that decision was to stop the further sullying of Najib’s reputation.

Be aware also of how the police came down hard on a campaign to mock Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan by having the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan literally declare black t-shirts illegal.

Contemplate too how Najib has played out the Perak crisis. While it started in February before he took over as PM, many Malaysians will remember how the three Pakatan Rakyat (PR) defectors were taken to Putrajaya to meet Najib, not Abdullah.

Consider then, that Dr Mahathir never ever presided over controversial and alleged disregard for the constitution by the judiciary until his seventh year in office after winning two general elections by crushing majorities.

Take into account, also, the fact that Dr Mahathir had also presided over mass arrests through the use of the Internal Security Act (ISA), but the fact remains that even then it could have been reasonably argued that there were serious racial and political tensions which merited the use of draconian preventive detention.

Be aware, too, of how Dr Mahathir was a man known for common sense who never went as far as to ban black t-shirts or prohibit the mention of certain names, which he would certainly have considered unnecessary.

Take heed of the fact that Dr Mahathir was always a fighter, that he would often take on critics head-on and argue his way to win the votes. It was not always about how he crushed dissent because Dr Mahathir recognised the importance of also winning the hearts and minds of voters.

Be mindful that Dr Mahathir, while loathe by many is probably equally loved by many too, just as he is respected and feared.

And he did not achieve all of that by having a police force that banned t-shirts of an unfavourable colour and prohibited names from being mentioned.

Consider too that Dr Mahathir was in power for 22 years.

It may be unfair to compare a man who has been in power for 22 years against one who has only been at the reins for 59 days.

But, so far, it is clear that Najib’s administration has not heralded the return of Mahathirism. So far, it is worse.

And, today is just Day 59 of the Najib era.

(Source:"On dissent, is Najib worse than Dr M?"

Najib has to clear his name !

"The People's Parliament" will continue to oppose Datuk Seri Najib Razak's appointment as prime minister despite the failure of their previous petition against him to net results.

"We will continue to address the point that Najib was not appointed through a popular vote, but by politicking in Umno," The People's Parliament moderator Haris Ibrahim told The Nut Graph, adding that he himself would do so whenever an opportunity arose in the public sphere.

"The fact remains that the questions that motivated the petition have gone unanswered," Haris, who is a lawyer and activist, added.

Haris stressed that political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda's acquittal and the conviction of police officers Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar did nothing to dispel doubt over Najib's integrity and restore confidence in the premier.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Haris characterised the Agong's decision to appoint Najib as prime minister, despite widespread reservation in the Malaysian public, as "alarming", and took it as proof of the lack of democracy in Malaysian government.

"I will continue to wear my black arm band in public, to mourn the death of democracy in Malaysia," Haris said.

Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad accused the international media of trying to demonise Malaysia's new leader, who is battling opposition accusations of links to corruption and murder.

Mahathir's defense of Prime Minister Najib Razak reflects concerns within the ruling party that the leader's reputation has been tarnished because of unproven allegations by political adversaries.

Mahathir said many articles published in the Western media when Najib took power earlier this month were 'anti-Najib stories' that highlighted the accusations against him.

'From France to Britain to Australia, the articles are identical and carried the same message,' Mahathir wrote on his blog. 'I cannot believe that this demonisation by so many at the same time is a coincidence.'

Mahathir - a strident critic of the Western media during his 22 years as prime minister before stepping down in 2003 - said Najib should brace himself for more foreign criticism, but added that it was ultimately with Malaysians 'that Najib has to clear his name.'


DEMONISATION

1. The Western Press launched a concerted effort to demonise the new Prime Minister. From France to Britain to Australia, the articles are identical and carried the same message. The in-coming PM is said to be corrupt and involved in a murder case. The Australian writer says Malaysia is a "pariah" nation. I cannot believe that this demonisation by so many at the same time is a coincidence.

2. Included in the condemnation of the new PM is the allegation that he would bring back "Mahathirism". By this the Western press seem to imply that the fourth PM was a dictator who detained for no reason, manipulated the judiciary, controlled the Press etc etc.

3. As the person concerned I will leave it to Malaysians to judge and to define "Mahathirism". They are the constituents which Najib should care about. The foreign press has an agenda of their own. And their friends in Malaysia are feeding them with the anti-Najib stories as they fear Najib would put a stop to their control of the media.

4. Najib can expect to hear more of this kind of demonisation from the foreign press but it is what Malaysians think that counts. It is with them that Najib has to clear his name.

- from Chedet