Quotable Quotes

“If he stamps his feet, I will shudder.”
- Datin Seri Rosmah, describing her husband; whilst overzealously trying to portray a mousy image of herself.

“ … do not provoke him. If he is angry, there is no forgiveness for you.”
- again, Datin Seri Rosmah, attempting to conjure a rather fearsome image of her husband.

“The motorcyclist was also not wearing a helmet and had no driving licence”
- Gerik OCPD Superintendent Mahad Nor Abdullah, citing one of the reasons why the motorcyclist was presumed to be at fault when he was knocked down and killed by the 4WD driven by the former Perak Mentri Besar, Tajol Rosli Ghazali.

The MCA’s Single EGM: Whose resolution to come first?

I don’t really care much about the MCA feud between Ong Tee Keat and Chua Soi Lek. However, I’ve been privy to corporate litigation and board tussles. I’ve seen directors and shareholders battle it out in board rooms. Every move is carefully planned and crafted, for a wrong move may spell disaster in favour of the opponent.

Perhaps that is why I’ve taken an interest in the MCA’s EGM. There is – and will be – more than meets the eye.

Chua Soi Lek may be a cunning politician, who apparently commands the support of the grassroots and several ex-MCA strongmen. But one must not too easily discard Ong’s ability to fend off his enemy technically by way of an EGM.

When Chua’s supporters went around garnering support to call for an EGM to reinstate him and to remove Ong Tee Keat; Ong, in response, quickly called his own EGM. Although no agenda was cited, it is expected that Ong’s EGM is to seek a vote of confidence in his leadership as well as to endorse Chua’s sacking.

Then it was reported that MCA’s sec-gen, Datuk Wong Foon Meng proposed a move to have a single EGM, citing a merged EGM would not inconvenience the members and to further divide the party. These reasons are quite daft and nonsensical considering the seriousness of the crisis. Costs and inconveniences should be the least of the matters to worry about.

Currently, both sides are not yet in full agreement of the single EGM. Issues relating to submission and exchange of resolutions are still at the works, with Soi Lek’s camp asking for the resolutions being exchanged, but Ong still keeping his resolution “top secret”.

Apart from keeping the resolutions “secret”, there will also be an issue of whose resolution will be heard first. This, I think, will be crucial.

For example: if Ong’s motion is first on the list, which means it will be heard and debated first. If it is then called for a vote and passed immediately, then that makes Chua’s resolution redundant and academic, without even being heard and debated. This is one way to foil Chua’s attempt to remove the president.

I’m not aware of how the MCA’s constitution operates, but in most cases, the Chairman of the meeting wields great authority in the running and conduct of the meeting. Many things can be done against an opposing party.

If Ong is not afraid no face his opponents, he should just allow Chua’s supporters to call for their EGM, rather than complicating the situation by calling a double EGM, and then justifying a merged EGM. The problem of the double EGM is his doing, not Chua.

There will be no problem of a double EGM if Ong had stayed mum. If during the EGM, the members do not vote to support Chua’s motion, then this is as good as an endorsement of Ong’s leadership. But for Ong to do all this shows a hidden agenda.

There will be even more technical problems arising from such an exercise, which will – in the end – in a prolonged legal suit comparable to the Perak debacle.

With his way of calling a double EGM; by him being secretive of the proposed resolutions; by his early warning to the party’s disciplinary board to lookout for money-politics in the EGM – perhaps a technical win or a protracted legal suit is exactly what Ong Tee Keat hopes for to keep his position afloat.

Wear BLACK on August 31st!

They don’t really care about us!!

An Account of 1st August, 2009 – ISA Demonstration

Cherubim was there. This is a witness account.

Like any other sane protester, Pewaris and GMI alike, all of us took the LRT. It’s kind of amusing to watch a bunch of middle-aged to elderly men wearing ketayaps and white T-shirts proclaiming their affiliations and riding the same train with black and red-clad folk to pretty much the same destinations, when we were supposed to oppose each other.  Along the way, I saw at least 50 blue-clad policemen and their tents, chilling at Masjid Jamek. Even around KL Sentral, I saw more policemen under a brige.

Okay, I thought. Paranoid, much?

At around 1:30pm Cherubim and her fellow protester walked to Istana Negara, but since it was too early we were blocked by a significant number of police and too small number of us. So we walked to SOGO instead. That was around 2:30pm (yes, we walked a lot) when we arrived at Pasar Minggu Jalan TAR. The usual crowd; kids, families, keropoks, air nenas, and oh, the odd FRU truck and police vehicles or two.

Make that a fully loaded water cannon vehicle, several trucks filled with FRU troops fully equipped with gear from SWAT (we girls thought it cool) and they were shooting not merely at us, but at innocent bystanders, patrons of pasar minggu and hawkerstalls alike!

I was lucky, when I was about to go onto Jalan TAR, in a bizarre Cloverfield like feel, I saw the water that was shot at the people in the main road, then I saw everyone running my way. Stunned, I stood aside and just stood beside an equally clueless tourist where we witnessed the police vehicles and policemen in a crowd of 20 or so coming in and grabbing any poor fellow wearing black, red and having anti-ISA emblems on their Ts. Mostly young Malay men tho.

After they were gone, we continued our chant and went on the main road, and heard a few shots of tear gas. I got my very first taste of the day.  My eyes burned, my face burned, my nose burned, my throat burned. Some children were crying. Some families were in fear. A friend handed me some salt, which I gratefully ate to remove the sting of the gas, and washed my face thoroughly. Like many others, we covered our noses and our mouths, but those things are stubborn, and made in Arizona USA. During the last BERSIH demonstrations, I heard tell the pellets were from Israel.

When that cooled down, we peeked outside and hung out in front of SOGO, watching the police watching us there. Me & my friends amused ourselves checking out whether any of the younger policemen are cute. Heck, we wanted to take pictures, but was declined the request. Anyways, we got hungry, a little pissed that Secret Recipe (and their delicious frosty ice lemon tea) was closed, and went to this nice little cafe across the street.

We ate happily, some PKR dude apparently belanja all us citizen journalists there, we chatted with the people from Malaysiakini and others.

That’s when it really happened. I don’t recall exactly how many times the FRU cannon truck went back and forth, but I do recall that during one of the lulls we saw several people carrying effigies and picket signs “Mansuhkan ISA”. Also, they were joined slowly by people who were taking refuge, though when we heard the siren and the sight of FRU troops going in we had good sense to return inside the cafe. There were children and families inside the cafe, some of the kids were hit with the tear gasses that was repeatedly shot by the FRU. People escaped through the back door.

Around what, 4pm or 5pm or so, the FRU decided to spray the corners of the ends at Jln TAR, pretty much near the old cinema (ground zero of 13th May, according to my dad, who was a young man then), and I thought it had some ironic implications. Violence seems to like Jalan TAR. I heard the voices of many, I couldn’t determine where, but there were first screams, then outraged outcry, probably Mansuhkan ISA again. Then I heard more tear gas pellet shots.

So, anyway, I was chilling nearby the police, thinking, this was highly excessive. The policemen was nice to me and my friends, we’re technically media, but I thought to myself, I know they are following orders not necessarily in line with their personal opinion, I saw some of them hesitate before aiming and shooting. During the whole event, Pertahanan Awam knocked on shopgrills asking whether anyone was hurt, evacuating the injured, watching out for civillians with a seriously worried and slightly angered look on their faces. What I cannot and will not remove out of the equation is this excessive force and collateral damage.

Look, we all know that on Saturdays, SOGO is a family oriented go to place, as I have all my life with my own parents, we know that most likely there’d be families, not demonstraters there. Plus, in my long involvement with this kinda thing, when the police doesn’t come, after chanting for an hour we all get tired and go to the mamak stalls to chill before going home after 2 hours max. Thanks to the police and especially FRU, we have sufficient warped entertainment for 5 hours to 6 hours. Wow, talk about efficient crowd control.

Again, Cherubim argue that the authorities (we all know who runs the cops) should have let the protesters be. Make sure they don’t hurt anyone, and bonk a few belligerant heads, and things would have been fine. What’s happening now is that even shopkeepers, hawkerstall owners, etc etc are getting pissed off at the gomen.  We each protect each other, blind for once to the idea of race and religion, but conscious of the idea of humanity. Otherwise apathic and apolitical folk are now getting more and more involved.

Well, more fodder for the 14th GE.

P.S = Waaaaah, so many police, meh? How come crime rate still so high?

Open letter to Tun Mahathir by The Flaccid Mind

Updated: The Flaccid Mind just posted an English version of his letter to Tun Mahathir – Open letter to Tun Mahathir. Go and have a read.

Bongkersz from The Flaccid Mind wrote an excellent rebuttal letter to Tun Dr. Mahathir’s ‘Kaki Dalam Kasut’. Let me share his well written letter with The Dandelions readers. I hope you guys understand Bahasa Melayu.

Surat terbuka kepada Tun Mahathir

Kehadapan Tun Mahathir,

Saya merujuk kepada artikel Tun bertajuk “Kaki Dalam Kasut” yang ditulis pada 20 Julai 2009 di laman web Tun. Izinkan saya berkongsi pendapat saya berkenaan apa yang ditulis oleh Tun.

2. Saya percaya penyoal berpendapat orang bukan Melayu berasa amat tertekan dan kecewa dengan “ketidakadilan” terhadap mereka di Malaysia (oleh Kerajaan yang dikuasai oleh orang Melayu).

Orang bukan Melayu mempunyai alasan yang kukuh untuk berasa amat tertekan dan kecewa dengan ketidakadilan terhadap mereka di Malaysia. Malah bumiputera bukan Melayu khususnya orang Asli dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak juga berkongsi perasaan yang sama kerana mereka turut tidak diberikan layanan yang sama seperti orang Melayu sedangkan mereka merupakan penduduk asal negara ini. Berapa banyakkah individu bumiputera bukan Melayu yang diterima masuk dalam sektor kerajaan dan syarikat-syarikat milik kerajaan seperti Petronas?

3. Saya tidak tahu samada penyoal ini pernah bertanya kepada tokoh bukan Melayu soalan yang sama iaitu perasaan orang Melayu akan keadaan di negara nenek moyang mereka yang mereka sudah jadi kaum yang secara relatif termiskin dan masih ketinggalan.

Tun, kata kunci di sini ialah ‘yang termiskin dan ketinggalan’ dan itu tidak mengira kaum Melayu atau bukan Melayu. Sekiranya bantuan diberikan kepada mereka yang berhak tanpa mengira kaum, warna kulit dan agama dan didapati majoriti yang miskin adalah orang Melayu, ianya akan diterima baik.

Tiada sesiapa akan mempersoalkan dasar sedemikian. Tetapi adalah salah untuk membuat dan memperalatkan sesuatu dasar yang memberikan keutamaan kepada sesuatu kaum tanpa mengira taraf hidup dan keperluan. Malah jika sesuatu dasar itu dilaksanakan dengan mengambil kira keperluan dan merit, majoriti orang Melayu secara automatis yang akan mendapat manfaatnya.

Sudah lebih 30 tahun DEB dilaksanakan dan masih yang banyak orang Melayu yang miskin dan ketinggalan. Bukankah ini memberi petunjuk bahawa DEB telah gagal dalam perlaksanaannya dan sesuatu yang drastik perlu dilakukan? Jurang antara yang miskin dan kaya semakin bertambah, di mana kekayaan hanya tertumpu kepada sekumpulan individu Cina, India dan Melayu?

Dan dengan menggunakan hujah individu-individu paling kaya di Malaysia adalah terdiri daripada mereka yang bukan Melayu, Tun beranggapan adalah patut untuk meneruskan DEB dengan memberikan keutamaan kepada orang Melayu dan menghukum orang bukan Melayu yang miskin dan ketinggalan? Bukankan intipati asal DEB adalah untuk membantu semua yang miskin dan memerlukan pertolongan ekonomi tanpa mengira kaum? Sejak bila DEB itu khusus untuk orang Melayu sahaja?

Oh ya, bukankah mengikut kajian antropologi dan sejarah, kebanyakan orang Melayu di Malaysia dan nenek moyang mereka sebenarnya berasal dari dari Indonesia, Thailand dan India? Malah China? Jadi negara nenek moyang mereka sepatutnya bukan Malaysia, sama seperti saya? Contohnya, Tun sendiri, Khir Toyo dan Syed Hamid Albar?

4. Jika beliau bertanya dan tokoh tersebut menjawab secara ikhlas, beliau akan dapati bahawa orang Melayu amat kecewa dengan kemiskinan relatif mereka sehingga terpaksa meminta-minta sepanjang masa dan juga ketinggalan dalam pelbagai bidang.

Apakah dengan adanya DEB sepanjang 3o lebih tahun ini, orang Melayu sudah maju dalam erti kata sebenarnya dan tidak ketinggalan dalam pelbagai bidang? Pernahkan direnungkan bahawa bilangan orang Melayu yang maju dan tidak ketinggalan sudah bertambah adalah disebabkan pengurangan aras pengukur atau ’standard’ serta pemberian kuota oleh kerajaan bagi membolehkan mereka diterima masuk menyertai bidang-bidang tertentu? Apakah ini boleh dianggap sesuatu pencapaian yang membanggakan? Bukankah ini menipu diri sendiri?

5. Mereka cuba yakin mereka adalah tuan di negara mereka tetapi mereka tahu sebenarnya mereka bukan tuan. Orang bukan Melayu yang menjadi tuan yang sebenar.

Apakah amat penting untuk orang Melayu dan bukan Melayu yang semuanya rakyat Malaysia berebut-rebut menjadi tuan yang sebenar? Mengapa PEMIMPIN-PEMMPIN POLITIK Melayu seperti Tun begitu taksub dengan misi untuk menjadi ‘tuan’? Tun hampir betul dengan mengatakan (SEGELINTIR) orang bukan Melayu  yang menjadi tuan yang sebenar walaupun sudah 30 tahun DEB diperalatkan untuk memberi keutamaan kepada orang Melayu. Persoalannya, mengapa ini boleh berlaku?

Orang Melayu memegang tampuk pemerintahan melalui Umno. Keutamaan diberikan kepada orang Melayu dalam perniagaan, ekonomi, pendidikan, peluang pekerjaan dsb. melalu DEB, tetapi yang masih menjadi tuan adalah segelintir orang bukan Melayu? Mengapa ini boleh berlaku? Bukankah itu sesuatu yang pelik dan aneh? Sedangkan yang berkuasa adalah orang Melayu dan dasar-dasar melibatkan sektor-sektor penting memberikan keutamaan kepada orang Melayu?

Dan Tun, sila perbetulkan kenyataan ‘orang bukan Melayu yang menjadi tuan yang sebenar’ dengan menambah ’segelintir’. Saya orang bukan Melayu dan saya langsung tidak merasakan diri saya adalah tuan.

6. Kerana mereka rela berkongsi negara mereka dengan kaum lain, kaum yang berasal dari tamadun yang lebih tua (4,000 tahun) dan lebih berjaya, hari ini yang sedikit yang ada pada mereka pun hendak dipisah dari mereka.

Tun, tolong jelaskan ‘yang sedikit yang ada pada mereka pun hendak dipisah dari mereka’. Kenyataan ini amat mengelirukan dan tidak bertanggungjawab. Keutamaan-keutamaan yang diperuntukkan kepada orang Melayu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak sudah termaktub dalam perlembagaan dan tiada sesiapa boleh mengubah dan meminda fakta tersebut melainkan dengan kuasa 2/3 parlimen.

Apa yang sering dipertikaikan di sini adalah layanan kurang adil dan perlaksanaan yang terpesong daripada peruntukan-peruntukan yang sebenar serta kecenderungan pemimpin-pemimpin politik yang cuba memutarbelitkan fakta yang ada mengikut tafsiran serong demi kepentingan masing-masing.

7. Fikirkan hanya berkenaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB). Agihan kekayaan korporat dalam DEB ialah sebanyak 30% bagi bumiputra (walaupun mereka adalah 60% dari penduduk) dan 40% bagi kaum lain serta 30% bagi orang luar. Tetapi setelah diusahakan selama 39 tahun bahagian yang terdapat bagi mereka ialah 20%, sedangkan yang terdapat bagi kaum lain ialah hampir 50%, walaupun mereka hanya 26% dari jumlah penduduk.

Terima kasih kerana berkongsi statistik ini, Tun. Ini dengan jelas membuktikan bahawa, dasar DEB yang dilaksanakan selama ini GAGAL! Sekiranya ia dilaksakanakan tanpa mengira kaum tetapi memandang kepada keperluan, nescaya yang mendapat paling banyak manfaat adalah orang Melayu kerana banyak mereka yang miskin adalah terdiri daripada mereka yang ‘60% dari penduduk’. Mengapa Tun masih degil mempertahankan perlaksanaan DEB yang telah gagal dan cuma menguntungkan segelintir individu?

Sejajar dengan logik Tun (putar belit statistik untuk menyokong hujah dan dijadikan ‘fakta’), saya merupakan penduduk generasi ke-3 di Malaysia, sama seperti Tun. Mengapa saya tidak boleh mendapat layanan yang sama seperti yang diterima oleh Tun? Saya tiada statistik rakyat bukan Melayu yang lahir di Malaysia yang merupakan generasi ke-3, ke-4 berbanding orang ‘Melayu’ yang berhijrah ke Malaysia, tinggal di sini dalam tempoh kurang dari 3 generasi tetapi mendapat layanan setaraf dengan penduduk asal? Contohnya, Khir Toyo? Syed Hamid Albar? Ramai warga asing di Sabah yang mempunyai MyKad dan berstatus ‘Bumiputera Melayu?’.

Rasanya kenyataan bahawa agihan kekayaan korporat sebanyak30% untuk bumiputra adalah kurang tepat, sebaliknya 30% untuk Umnoputra adalah lebih tepat. Jumlah keahlian Umno adalah lebih kurang 2 juta orang dan ini bermakna agihan kekayaan korporat 30% ini dinikmati oleh Umnoputra – mewakili hanya 7% daripada penduduk Malaysia. Setuju?

Lagi, adakah ia salah orang bukan Melayu mereka dibawa ke sini dan beranak pinak di sini? Mengapa ‘kesalahan’ yang dilakukan oleh orang lain (British) perlu ditanggung oleh orang bukan Melayu, khususnya generasi baru seperti saya? Orang bukan Melayu tidak mempunyai pilihan melainkan untuk mencurahkan bakti setia kepada negara Malaysia dan apa yang diminta adalah layanan yang adil dan saksama seperti yang telah diperuntukkan kepada mereka di dalam perlembagaan. Itu sahaja, Tun.

8. Nilai harta milik bumiputra pula berjumlah 15% sedangkan yang baki dimiliki oleh bukan bumiputra disebabkan harta di bandar bernilai lebih tinggi dari di luar bandar.

Adakah menjadi satu kesalahan menjadi kaya dan merupakan bukan bumiputera dalam suasana ekonomi yang berasaskan prinsip kapitalis dan pasaran bebas? Masih relevankan persoalan kaum dalam ekonomi global yang Tun sentiasa canangkan, umpamanya ketika mempertahankan PPSMI? Mengapa setelah sudah 50 tahun kerajaan BN (yang dipegang oleh orang Melayu) dan 30 tahun DEB dilaksanakan, kekayaan negara masih tidak sampai kepada penduduk luar bandar yang rata-ratanya orang Melayu? Adakah ini salah orang bukan Melayu?

9. Tokoh bukan Melayu yang cuba duduki tempat Melayu (in the shoes of the Malays) jika ikhlas, akan rasa kekecewaan Melayu melihat hampir semua perniagaan dan perusahaan serta kekayaan yang diperolehi darinya dimiliki oleh bukan Melayu. Segala estet rumah mewah juga diduduki oleh bukan Melayu. Sikit benar orang Melayu yang tinggal di estat mewah ini. Lebih ramai yang tinggal di kawasan setinggan.

Ya Tun, mengapa? Adakah ini juga salah orang kurang Melayu kerana mampu terus bersaing dan memonopoli kekayaaan walaupun tidak diberikan tongkat ekonomi? Pernahkan Tun membandingkan taraf hidup orang Melayu yang kaya dengan yang miskin, dan orang bukan Melayu yang kaya dengan yang miskin, manakan yang lebih besar jurang perbezaannya?

Mengapa masih ramai orang Melayu yang tinggal di kawasan setinggan tetapi pemimpin-pemimpin politik seperti Tun hidup mewah? Mengapa anak Tun boleh mengadakan parti ‘house warming’ yang mewah tetapi masih ramai orang Melayu yang hidup merempat? Mengapa pemimpin politik seperti Zakaria Deros, Khir Toyo yang mampu membina istana indah berharga jutaan ringgit sedangkan masih ramai orang Melayu yang tinggal di rumah setinggan?

10. Mungkin semua ini disebabkan kesalahan orang Melayu sendiri. Mereka tidak guna peluang yang disediakan bagi mereka. Ada yang salahguna peluang-peluang ini pun. Tetapi jika seorang pengayuh beca diberi sejuta Ringgit, apakah ia akan dapat berniaga dan berjaya dalam bidang ini.

Betul. Mengapa peluang-peluang masih diberikan kepada mereka yang ‘tidak pandai, kurang mahir dan tidak layak?’ Apakah ini akan membantu mereka untuk berjaya? Tun, niat baik untuk membantu orang Melayu memang disambut baik dan berpatutan. Tetapi cara yang digunakan adalah tidak betul, seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Tun sendiri “jika seorang pengayuh beca diberi sejuta Ringgit, apakah ia akan dapat berniaga dan berjaya dalam bidang ini.”

11. Social engineering bukan hanya dilakukan oleh orang Melayu sahaja. Sosialisme dan Komunisme juga merupakan sejenis social engineering untuk mengurang atau menghapus jurang antara yang miskin dengan yang kaya. Mereka juga tidak berjaya sepenuhnya walaupun mereka mengguna kekerasan yang dahsyat. DEB dilaksanakan dengan berhati-hati tanpa kekerasan, tanpa rampasan dan sering dipinda apabila menghadapi tentangan dari bukan Melayu. Apakah persepsi orang Melayu terhadap DEB?

Tun, sekarang ialah tahun 2009, bukan 1959. ‘Social engineering’ perlu berubah mengikut realiti semasa. Jika kita asyik berbalik kepada sejarah kita dan hidup dibayangi masa lampau kita tidak ada maju. Adakah orang India Navajo perlu meminta supaya kerajaan Amerika Syarikat membuat dasar seperti DEB dengan alasan sejarah lampau?

DEB betul dilaksanakan tanpa kekerasan dan rampasan, tetapi ia juga secara sistematik telah menidakkan peluang ramai rakyat Malaysia hanya kerana mereka bukan Melayu! Berapakah bilangan rakyat Malaysia bukan Melayu yang bijak pandai diambil dan dimanfaat oleh negara jiran Singapura dalam membangunkan negara tersebut kerana mereka tidak diterima di negara sendiri? Bukankah ini satu pembaziran? Malaysia ‘membesarkan’, memberikan pelajaran dan tempat tinggal kepada mereka hampir 20 tahun, dan selepas mendapat keputusan cemerlang tidak digunakan dengan baik oleh Malaysia sebaliknya ‘diserahkan’ kepada negara jiran?

Tentangan orang bukan Melayu, malah juga oleh ramai orang Melayu yang tidak mendapat manfaat DEB adalah terhadap perlaksanaannya yang cuma membantu segelintir pihak. Merujuk kepada statistik yang dikongsi oleh Tun, jurang kemiskinan semakin besar dan bukannya bertambah baik setelah DEB dilaksanakan.

12. Lihat sahaja sejarah perjuangan Melayu. Pada Pilihanraya 1955, diwaktu mereka menguasai 82% dari kawasan-kawasan pilihanraya, mereka rela memberi sejumlah yang tidak kecil dari kawasan – kawasan mereka kepada kaum lain dan mengundi calon dari kaum-kaum ini sehingga menang melawan calon Melayu lain (PAS).

Bukankah itu sesuatu yang wajar dilakukan sejajar dengan konsep perkongsian kuasa antara kaum yang dicanangkan oleh Barisan Nasional? Saya memang tidak setuju dengan konsep BN yang memilih calon berdasarkan kaum, bukannya kebolehan dan kelayakan. Ini tidak harus dianggap suatu ‘pengorbanan’, sebalik rakyat Malaysia yang ‘terkorban’ kerana ramai calon-calon dan pemimpin-pemimpin dipilih mewakili mereka hanya kerana mereka adalah dari kaum tertentu, tanpa melihat kepada kemampuan individu tersebut.

13. Kemudian mereka anugerahkan satu juta kerakyatan tanpa syarat biasa kepada kaum lain sehingga peratusan rakyat Melayu jatuh dari 82% kepada 60%. Siapakah yang lain yang pernah lakukan yang sedemikian?

Tun, bolehkah Tanah Melayu (pada ketika itu) mencapai kemerdekaan daripada British tanpa persetujuan bahawa kerakyatan turut diberikan kepada kaum lain? Bukankah kerakyatan itu diberi dengan bersyarat di mana keutamaan-keutamaan akan diberikan kepada orang Melalyu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak seperti yang termaktub dalam Artikel 153 Perlembagaan Malaysia? Mengapa Tun mengatakan ia diberi tanpa syarat biasa sedangkan Tun tahu itu tidak benar? Mengapa Tun masih mengungkit peristiwa lampau? 50 tahun orang bukan Melayu tinggal di Malaysia, masih tidak cukupkan untuk membayar budi orang Melayu menganugerahkan kerakyatan dengan syarat tersebut? Berapa lama lagi perlu diungkit isu ‘penduduk asal’ dan ‘pendatang’ ini, Tun? Setiap kali BN atau Umno merasakan ia akan hilang tampuk pemerintahan?

14. Pada ketika itu nama rasmi negara ialah Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Apabila Semenanjung Tanah Melayu dicantum dengan Singapura, Sarawak dan Sabah, perkataan “Tanah Melayu” digugur dan cantuman negeri – negeri ini dinamakan Malaysia. Dengan itu hilanglah identiti Melayu dalam nama negara sendiri. Tidak pula mereka tuntut nama-nama lain digugur.

Tun, adakah ini relevan untuk dipersoalkan? Bukan masih ramai orang Melayu yang gah mengaitkan nama Malaysia sebagai Malay (Melayu) – sia? Mengapa sesuatu yang telah dipersetujui satu masa dahulu oleh semua pemimpin-pemimpin Malaysia, dijadikan isu oleh Tun?

15. Tidak seperti di negara-negara yang membenar hanya bahasa kebangsaan mereka sahaja untuk semua sekolah nasional, orang Melayu bersetuju bahasa Cina dan Tamil dijadikan bahasa pengantar di sekolah bantuan Kerajaan. Bahasa Kebangsaan (Bahasa Melayu) tidak menjadi bahasa kebangsaan seperti di negara-negara jiran dan di Eropah, Australia dan Amerika.

Bukankah ini juga telah dipersetujui oleh semua pemimpin-pemimpin – Melayu, Cina dan India ketika Malaysia mencapai kemerdekaan daripada British lalu dimasukkan dalam perlembagaan negara? Mengapa Tun perlu mempersoalkan isu ini? Bukankah ini adalah syarat supaya Bahasa Melayu diterima sebagai bahasa kebangsaan, satu ‘trade-off?’?

16. Dan banyaklah lagi korban yang dibuat oleh orang Melayu supaya kaum lain mendapat apa sahaja yang dituntut oleh mereka, demi keamanan dan perpaduan rakyat dan negara.

Berapa lama dan banyakkah lagi korban yang juga perlu dibuat oleh orang bukan Melayu supaya orang Melayu puas hati?

17. Apakah gamaknya perasaan tokoh yang meletak diri di tempat orang Melayu, terhadap semua korban ini? Apakah dia masih fikir yang orang Melayu harus korban segala-gala yang dituntut daripada mereka?

Apakah Tun fikir yang orang bukan Melayu tidak berkorban demi membantu saudara-saudara Melayu mereka? Apakah mereka berpuas hati ditidakkan banyak peluang mereka hanya kerana mereka dilahirkan bukan Melayu? Apakah perasaan Tun sekiranya Tun bukan Melayu?

18. Dengan rencana ini saya tetap akan di cap sebagai racist oleh racist bukan Melayu. Tetapi kalau mereka sanggup menerima yang benar, mereka boleh banding korban orang Melayu pemilik asal negara ini dengan korban mereka untuk kepentingan negara ini.

Dengan rencana ini, terbukti Tun masih berada di takuk lama. Tun masih berfikiran bahawa dalam era dunia globalisasi tanpa sempadan yang mencabar ini, isu dan politik perkauman masih sesuai diperkatakan? Mengapa Tun hanya menyentuh kepada pengorbanan orang Melayu? Mengapa Tun tidak menyentuh jasa dan pengorbanan orang bukan Melayu dalam membangun dan memajukan negara ini?

19. Saya berpendapat jika negara ini hendak aman dan maju, agihan kekayaan dan kualiti hidup semua kaum hendaklah adil (fair) walaupun tidak sama (unequal). Janganlah hendaknya mana-mana pihak atau kaum tanggung beban kemiskinan yang keterlaluan, sementara kaum lain hidup mewah. Mengumpan sokongan dengan mengambil hak satu kaum untuk diberi kepada kaum lain bukanlah caranya – lebih-lebih lagi mengambil dari yang kurang berada untuk diberi kepada yang sudah lebih berada.

Saya berpendapat jika negara ini hendak aman dan maju, kenyataan berbaur perkauman dan yang boleh membawa perpecahan harus dielakkan, terutama yang datang daripada pemimpin seperti Tun.

Agihan kekayaan dan kualiti hidup semua kaum hanya akan adil sekiranya ia berlandaskan keperluan, bukannya identiti kaum dan warna kulit. Tun membuat kenyataan yang bercanggah apabila menyatakan ‘mengumpan sokongan dengan mengambil hak satu kaum untuk diberi kepada kaum lain bukanlah caranya’ sedangkan Tun nampaknya cuba membuat hujah-hujah untuk menyokong perbuatan tersebut dari poin 2 hingga 18 dengan alasan ia adalah patut dan wajar kerana ‘orang Melayu lebih banyak berkorban berbanding orang bukan Melayu’.

Apakah tujuan Tun menulis artikel di atas dengan melagakan orang Melayu dan bukan Melayu yang boleh menimbulkan rasa curiga dan kurang puas hati antara kaum? Adakan ini membantu membina perpaduan negara ke arah suasana yang aman damai?

1. Di forum anjuran Gempita dan UMNO bertajuk Kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu dan Orang Melayu dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia di Zaman Liberalisasi dan Globalisasi, saya ditanya oleh seorang pensyarah Melayu dari UIAM (Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia) apakah saya pernah fikir untuk meletak diri saya di tempat orang bukan Melayu (put yourself in the shoes of a non-Malay) bersabit dengan diskriminasi terhadap mereka di negara ini.

Oh ya, Tun masih belum menjawab soalan pensyarah tersebut, apakah Tun pernah fikir untuk meletak diri Tun di tempat orang bukan Melayu bersabit dengan diskriminasi terhadap mereka di negara ini.

Sekian,

Saya, rakyat Malaysia yang bukan Melayu.

FIC was never legal anyway

Now that Najib has announced the disbanding of the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC), and the ending of the FIC Guidelines, I’m sure many of us have our personal thoughts on the issue.

Some may think that the doing away of the 30% bumiputera requirement is a good thing; others may think its replacement with requirement of 50% stake of public offering in listing companies makes the whole exercise redundant and superfluous.

However, I’m not going to touch on those issues. I want to highlight some revelations on the FIC which I think most Malaysian knows not of.

The FIC was set up on 20th February 1974 to promote and protect the New Economic Policy that has just been implemented then.

The FIC comes under the auspices of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU). The EPU itself is not a ministry or government department – but as the namesake suggests – it is the economic planning unit of the Prime Minister’s Department. Over the years, this subsection has become increasingly powerful, overshadowing even that of other Ministries. In fact, some Ministries have become indirectly subservient to the EPU, waiting for directions before implementing or embarking on any governmental projects.

The FIC is merely a committee – albeit a powerful one – consisting of senior civil servants led by the Director-General of the EPU.

The FIC has – over the years – issued many guidelines, commonly known as the FIC Guidelines, to regulate and coordinate matters on foreign investment, acquisition of assets or interest, mergers and takeovers of companies and businesses by both local and foreign investors.

Once the FIC Guidelines is imposed to a particular transaction, the parties would have to apply to FIC for approval. The FIC will then impose conditions for approval. The conditions include: -
• for companies with less than 30% Bumiputera equity, to increase the Bumiputera equity to at least 30%;
• for companies with more than 30% Bumiputera equity but less than 50%, to maintain the Bumiputera equity at least at 30%;
• for companies with more than 51% Bumiputera equity, to maintain the Bumiputera equity at least at 50%;

What we need to understand is this – the FIC is not a proper ministry or body set up under the law. It is merely a committee. It is, to put it crudely, a working group; or at most, a board, with no real executive powers given in law.

Consequently, the FIC Guidelines also do not have force of law. It is not an Act of Parliament. It is not a law or by-law. It is merely a guideline, or garispanduan. None of us need to follow it.

This issue has been taken up in the courts. In the case of Ho Kok Cheong Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lim Kay Tiong & Ors (1979) 2 MLJ 224, the High Court confirmed that the FIC Guidelines have no force of law. The judge, Justice Wan Hamzah said: -

“The guidelines were issued not pursuant to any power given by law, and in my opinion they have no force of law but are of advisory character merely. I do not think that non-compliance with the guidelines can be taken as an act opposed to public policy. The guidelines reflect the government’s political policy but government’s political policy is not public policy.”

In a later case of Malaysia Overseas Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd v Sri Segambut Supermarket Sdn Bhd (1986) 2 MLJ 383, the High Court again re-affirmed its stand on the FIC Guidelines when Justice Siti Norma Yaacob held that the guidelines have: -

“… no force of law but of advisory character only and non-compliance whatsoever will have no effect as to the legality or otherwise of the contract.”

If the FIC Guidelines have no force of law, what happens if we don’t comply with it? The answer is nothing.

In the case of Thong Foo Ching & Ors v Shigenori Ono (1998) 4 MLJ 585, the Court of Appeal held that non-compliance of the FIC Guidelines would have no effect on the parties and the transaction. Justice Siti Norma Yaacob, now sitting in the Court of Appeal, explained the court’s decision as follows: -

“A reading of the guidelines shows that there is no penalty imposed for non-compliance of any of their provisions. From the nature of the document itself and its purpose to eradicate poverty by restructuring the Malaysian society so as to correct any racial economic imbalance, at most I would say the guidelines impose a moral obligation only on those affected to comply with their provisions.”

So, in the midst of all the hullaballoo of the end of the FIC and the de-regularisation of the Guidelines, let us pause to think of all the Malaysians that have been hoodwinked into complying with a 30% equity requirement that was never valid or legal in the first place.

Complexities of Construction Liability

Days after the collapse of the Jaya Supermarket and the Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium in Terengganu, the lay-blame game begins. In the case of the Jaya Supermarket, the Petaling Jaya City Council hastily declared that the architect in charge of the demolition is solely responsible under the local by-laws. Similarly, in the case of the Terengganu Stadium, fingers were quickly pointed at the PWD, the architects and the contractor. And all these happened even before any probe or a commission of inquiry was established to investigate the cause of the collapse. This only shows the mentality of the authorities in understanding issues on construction liability.

It is always a complex issue when a building collapses. It is difficult to ascertain liability. First of all, we have to find out the cause of the collapse. That itself is a near-impossible task. For example, if a house is found to have cracks on its wall, then the owner should appoint consultants or experts to inspect the cracks. The consultants or experts may produce a report that the house owner may rely on to decide on the next course of action. But if the house collapses before an inspection is undertaken, then it will no longer be possible to check on anything as the whole structure has fallen to debris. There is no more evidence to rely or inspect upon. The cause of the collapse will only be a guessing game.

In the case of the Highland Tower collapse in 11 December 1993, the owners of Block 2 and 3 (the unaffected units) sued for damages. The court had to ascertain the cause of the collapse. To help the court decide, two top personalities in the field of geo-technological engineering in the world were asked to give their views. Both came up with conflicting reports. In the end, the court had to choose between one to another. Even the top experts cannot agree as to the cause of the landslide. Based on the conflicting theories, it is safe to say that the cause of the Highland Tower landslide will never be accurately known.

There is also another problem arising in this area. In cases of latent defects, the damage takes place underground in the foundations or inside the walls so at the time of its occurrence it is unknown and undiscoverable. The damage caused by the defective work may not become apparent even until the completion of the project and its untimely collapse.

In the event we are able to conclude – against the odds – on the exact cause of a collapse, we now have to connect the cause of the collapse to the responsible party. This is not going to be easy. There are many parties involved in the construction of a building. There is the owner – the one who commissions for the construction of the building. The owner will appoint an architect to design the building.

Once the design has been drawn out, other professionals such as engineers and quantity surveyors will be appointed to conduct engineering and surveying work. It is also common for project managers to be hired to oversee the project. All the necessary building approvals in respect of the construction will be made to the authorities. Tenders will then be given to appoint builders or contractors to construct the building. In big projects, a main contractor will be appointed. The main contractor will then appoint sub-contractors – some of them specialist in their own field – to do part of the job. Lastly, there are suppliers who supply the building materials to the contractors.

With so many parties involved, we have to carefully link the cause of a building collapse to the correct responsible part. For example, if the cause were due to negligent design, then the architect would be liable. Similarly, the architect can also be liable for negligent certification, negligent supervision and negligent inspection. A project manager can also be liable for supervision and inspection if they are so appointed for the task and fail to act reasonably. If the cause is due to negligent construction or negligent workmanship, then the main-contractor or the sub-contractor may be liable. If it is negligent approval, then the authorities may be liable. Suppliers may be liable if inferior materials are being supplied.

However, liability of a party is never clear-cut. If a builder is expressly instructed by the owner to use inferior materials, and the builder in such a case have expressly advice against the use of such materials, can the builder then expressly disclaim liability and responsibility by contract to the owner? Similarly, whether a particular problem was caused by inadequate supervision would be influenced directly by the amount of resources the architect was required to deploy on supervision. Unlike design, supervision costs are entirely time and labour related. It is largely for the client and the consultant to negotiate and decide how much resource should be applied to secure supervisory functions beyond the minimum required.

Construction liability is additionally made more difficult by the defence of Act of God. This is a defence readily employed in cases of landslides. Act of God has been described where an escape occurred through natural causes and without human intervention in circumstances that no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize. Lightings, earthquakes, cloudburst and tornadoes may amount to an Act of God.

Once we are able to ascertain the cause of a collapse and correctly linking it to the responsible party or parties, we then have to consider the type of liabilities attracting the careless act. Liability can be three types: – contract, tort and statute. A construction project is managed by an intricate web of contracts to define their relative rights and responsibilities. An owner may have signed a contract with the main-contractor but not with the sub-contractors or suppliers. The architect or engineer has no contract with the contractor. Where there is no contract, parties may then rely on the law of negligence to impose tort duties to cut across contractual lines. A party may also be additionally liable under a statute, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994.

With such a complex area to grapple and understand, the government should take other pro-active steps to avoid future disasters. The passing of the Construction Industry Development Board Act 1994 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 is a good move. But it is not good enough. Perhaps we can take a cue from neighbouring Singapore. In 1987, the Hotel New World collapsed. It is the first ever collapse of a building in Singapore. Following the recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry and the Report of the Select Committee on the Building Control Bill (Bill No. 3/88), the Building Control Act 1989 was enacted.

The Singapore Building Control Act 1989 introduced several new measures to regulate the construction industry. In regulating the design and supervision of a construction building, a developer must appoint an Accredited Checker, whose main duties are to evaluate, analyze and review the structural design in the plans of any building works and perform such original calculations with a view to determining the adequacy of the key structural elements of the building to be erected or affected by the building works carried out in accordance with those plans. The Accredited Checker must be independent in that he must have no professional or financial interest in the building works.

Apart there from, the Building Control Act also regulates workmanship and materials by empowering the Minister to make regulations on the suitability and use of materials and components. Any building regulations may adopt any code, standard, rule, specification or provision which is recommended, issued or adopted by the Productivity and Standards Board of Singapore or the British Standards Institution. In the later Building and Construction Authority Act passed in 1999, the Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority has been empowered to prescribe standards for the construction industry in relation to design, processes, construction techniques, products and materials.

Singapore’s Building Control Act 1990 also provides for periodical inspection of buildings by an independent structural engineer. The appointed structural engineer must carry out the inspection, prepare, sign and deliver a copy of the report to the Building Authority. If the report contains any measure or other recommendations to be carried out to ensure the structural stability or integrity of the building, the owner must carry out the same within the period as may be specified by the Building Authority. The Building Authority may, if it appears that a building is in such a condition as to be likely to be dangerous, order the owner to carry out or cause to be carried out such inspection of the building as he may specify and/or to execute such building works as may be necessary to obviate the danger and/or to demolish the building or any part thereof. Alternatively, the Building Authority may order the closure of the building.

In summary, we are able to see and appreciate that construction liability is a complex issue. Finding a cause of a collapse of a building is never easy. For most of the time it will be a guessing game or a process of elimination. With so many parties involved in a constructions project, it will also be difficult to ascertain who is liable for what. With so many uncertainties and issues at hand, it is best for the Government to take pro-active steps to better regulate the construction industry. The developments in Singapore would be a good starting point for us to compare and emulate. The current existing laws that we have may not be adequate and may need to be improved on.

Say no to Chin Peng the ‘former terrorist’, say yes to Communist China!

I applaud the decision by the Malaysian government to dismiss and not entertain any idea of allowing Chin Peng the ‘former terrorist’ to return to this country.

Government Will Not Allow Chin Peng To Return, Says Najib

PUTRAJAYA, May 27 (Bernama) — The Malaysian government will not allow former Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader Chin Peng to reside in the country.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the return of the former terrorist would lead to dissatisfaction among the people, especially those who fought the communists and families who lost their loved ones during the CPM’s revolt from 1948 to 1981 (known as the Emergency).

(Source: Bernama)

The government is absolutely right, many victims suffered during the communist insurgency, Chin Peng and his commandos killed many people in the past and they certainly do not deserve any consideration from us. No, I didn’t say that. Our very wise, informed and cultured Datuk Datuk Seri Utama Dr. Rais bin Yatim said that.

Several quarters and individuals, including Information, Communication and Culture Minister Dr Rais Yatim, have opposed the idea.

“Chin Peng and his commandos killed many people in the past and they certainly do not deserve any consideration from us,” Rais had said.

“The communists abused this country and we had been shackled through killings and terrible actions committed by them,” he added.

(Source: 1Malaysia)

We should never allow Chin Peng to come back to Malaysia. Thanks to our sensitive Defence Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for putting it in context.

Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had said his return would be an insult to the families of nearly 50,000 British colonial and government troops who died during the “Malayan Emergency”. (psst, the 50,000 figure is a crap is you ask me)

But I have some disturbing questions.

1. Isn’t Chin Peng was just a puppet for the Chinese Communist Party? His party, Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) was supported by its China main counterpart throughout their four decades in Malaysia. My question is, why punish the puppet, but not the master? Obviously we should punish China!

Let’s severe our all our diplomatic and bilateral ties with China to show our sensitive considerations to the suffering families that went through killings and terrible actions committed by the communists. Let’s show them Malaysia is serious about its past history, goddammit!

2. If I am not mistaken, China is ruled by Communist Party of China (CPC). So, let me get this right, China is ruled by a bunch of communists and why the hell we are courting them now? What happened to ‘the communist abused this country’ and ‘they certainly do not deserve any consideration from us?‘

What is our beloved Prime Minister doing frolicking in China then? Is he not worry that his visit would lead to dissatisfaction among the people, especially those who fought the communists and families who lost their loved ones?

I repeat, let’s severe our all our diplomatic and bilateral ties with China to show our sensitive considerations to the suffering families that went through killings and terrible actions committed by the communists. Let’s show them Malaysia is serious about its past history, goddammit

3. If I remember correctly, the British and Japanese  also killed a lot of people during their occupation of Malaya no? The British sure killed and injured a lot of people back then.  Remember the fights by Tok Janggut, Dato’ Bahaman, Mat Kilau, Maharaja Lela? I bet my last cent the British killed more people here during their occupation compared to the emergency period.

How about the war crimes and astrocities the Japanese commited against the people of Malaya during World War II? Wait, did the communists kill less people than them?

Let’s severe all our diplomatic and bilateral ties with Japan and British (now Great Britain) to show our sensitive considerations to the suffering families that went through killings and terrible actions committed by the Japanese. Let’s show them Malaysia is serious about its past history, goddammit!

Well, I do not agree and I don’t really care if Chin Peng was a freedom fighter, but that’s beside the point. Just how much longer we want to live in the shadows of the past? May 13th, Malaya Emergency etc. often quoted by our leaders to ‘remind’ us, about what? You should know better. Selective issues, don’t you think? Why it is only Chin Peng not allowed to come back to Malaysia? How about other CPM leaders?

Conclusion: Only in Malaysia, it would seem like history has to dictate how we we live tomorrow. Rather sad.

ps: I am sure Chin Peng was not a freedom fighter. He’s taking arms for fun, just like how I shoot people for fun at my Counter Strike game. Okay, Let 4 Dead lah, nobody play CS now. Okay, bad joke.

pss: What is this ‘my father’, ‘my father’ and ‘my father’ crap keep repeated by Najib? He has no backbone to stand on his own? To claim his own credit, other that relying on his father’s name?

A Little Birdy…

Cherubim was told from a particularly reliable tweety bird that the three independent candidates in Penanti are in fact plants by Barisan Nasional, which makes a lot of sense, all things considered. I’m sure many of you are more familiar with the details in this war of public perception.

Cherubim was also informed that the next state to fall with similar underhanded tactics after Perak would be Selangor, and afterwards Kedah. The gears of this mechanism is currently in the process of being installed one by one, and I’m sure Tan Sri Khalid’s doing all that he can to counter this, however, I bid him to be swift.

Old news, I know, but it’s always nice to know it as the truth, as truth goes these days. I wonder, what is Pakatan Rakyat doing about this?