Sunday, January 22, 2012
On the other hand, Ah Wah Gor has already garnered 27,083 links which is 9 times more than the pathetic An Jib Gor. Do go to Ah Wah Gor to add to the number of likes to show how you detest that fork tongue Najib.
Here is the link to Facebook Ah Wah Gor a the URL of Ah Jib Gor (http://www.facebook.com/myAhJibGor). If you want to check on the latest comparison.
UPDATE: The URL for Ah Jib Gor above is the wrong one. The correct one is http://www.facebook.com/ahjibgor and today the number of likes amounts to 17,163
Let's go see what is the latest for Ah Wah Gor: 33,478. Ah Wah Goh still trounce Ah Jib Gor 2 is to 1.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Mariam Mokhtar raised the possibility that the current UMNO/BN Federal government is an illegal one. What did Mariam based that observation on? Read her opinion piece Do we have an illegal gov't? below courtesy of Malaysiakini.
Do we have an illegal gov't?
11:57AM Jan 16, 2012
The word “One” has assumed an important but meaningless position in the Umno/BN vocabulary.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s ‘OneMalaysia’ exists alongside discriminatory laws which favour only one racial group.
The recent ‘OneAcquittal’ (Anwar Ibrahim’s) is said to equate to an independent judiciary.
In 'OneElection' the use of only one criterion out of the several needed to guarantee free and fair elections is deemed sufficient.
And in ‘OneCorruptPolitician’, the lenient sentence of one politician, Mohd Khir Toyo, is Umno/BN’s stage-managed way of showing the people that the government is tackling corruption.
With the rakyat’s deep mistrust and hostility of Umno/BN and especially the PM, Najib;s administration should be termed the ‘OneMalaysiaFarce’.
When politicians or pro-government bodies are backed into a corner, they use the following - Constitution, Religion, Attorney-general, Prevention (CRAP) - as reasons to justify their actions.
In a recent landmark case, six overseas Malaysians seeking the right to be registered as ‘absent voters’ lost their fight in the High Court. The overseas Malaysians wanted equality under Article 8 of the federal constitution but Justice Rohana Yusuf ruled that the Election Commission (EC) was correct in not registering them as absent voters because the applicants did not come under the category of “absent voters”.
In delivering her judgment, Rohana appeared to ignore Article 119 of the constitution.
Last week, former EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman claimed that in the 2008 election, he was criticised for not using indelible ink to stop multiple voting.
Four years after the event and when RM2.4 million of the taxpayers’ money had been wasted, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz finally admitted that he had blocked the use of the indelible ink prior to GE-12.
Nazri said, “On indelible ink, I must admit that the person who questioned it was me. At that time, there were constitutional concerns.
“Under the constitution, if you fulfill the two conditions, aged 21 and above and are a registered voter, you must be given the ballot paper. So, what happens if you refuse to be marked by the ink?
“There was also concern among Muslims at that time that the ink will block water from reaching the skin when cleaning up for prayers.”
What about henna/dyes and ink for tattoos?
Muslims like Nazri suddenly worry about the use of ink in religion just before a general election. Why has no one bothered to bring up the subject of henna/dyes used to paint hands and feet in Muslim marriages or even the use of ink in permanent tattoos?
In the same vein, why are Umno politicians unperturbed by the hard-core porn circulating in our pasar malams, but at the time of a general election, they create an unholy fuss about certain sex videos, to score political mileage?
In the sex-video of a man purporting to be opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, Umno/BN made full use of the government media and premises to exhibit the sex video and at the same time, proclaimed their own moral rectitude.
Perhaps, Najib should add to the Umno/BN list of slogans, ‘OneHypocriticalParty’.
Former EC chairperson Rashid said, “In 2007, I received a letter from the Attorney-General's Chambers saying that the implementation of indelible ink contravened Article 119 of the federal constitution”.
A political observer said that whenever the rights of Malaysians are curtailed, the attorney-general’s name or office is quoted.
Rashid had allegedly proclaimed on national television that indelible ink could not be used because of security concerns. The AG instructed the former EC chairperson to lie. This is the same AG in charge of the so-called independent judiciary.
Nazri (left) had also denied knowledge of any fatwa endorsing the use of indelible ink in the 2008 general election. Malaysians are aware that the ink in GE12 was withdrawn at the last minute.
Today, the government tells us that the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform has approved the use of indelible ink. Cynical Malaysians wonder if the ink will be banned because of another trumped-up reason in GE13? What will the AG’s instructions for the current EC chairperson be?
Abdul Rashid said he was prevented from implementing the use of indelible ink in the 2008 election. Who will be prevented from ordering the use of indelible ink in GE13?
Recently, former BN politicians and ex-civil servants appear to be very effusive in their revelations about vote rigging and other Umno/BN’s unjust practices.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (centre in photo) described the inflated prices paid by the government for the procurement of weapons as buying toys for the boys.
Former deputy minister Tan Kee Kwong Tan criticised Najib for “single-handedly destroying” Felda’s prudent management, siphoning-off its wealth and misleading both parliament and the public.
Former minister Dr Lim Keng Yaik in an interview with The Edge was cynical about Najib’s failing policies: “I give up lah, talking to this government” and said, “Politicians who think they can become rich quickly by joining politics should be condemned and kept out of politics and government.”
Mohamed Rahmat, the former information minister, revealed Umno’s wrongdoings in his book ‘Impian’ and warned Umno/BN that they could not maintain a policy of protecting its leaders. He also said that his mission in 1977 was to topple the PAS government in Kelantan.
Recently, former minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir agreed that introducing indelible ink was no guarantee of free and fair elections. Lately, he too had revealed BN’s media restrictions on the opposition, the use of government agencies to court rural votes and bribery during elections.
Why can’t they resign on a point of principle?
What has happened to the notion of politicians and ministers being principled? Why do politicians and civil servants, like the former EC chairperson, wait years before revealing their part in acts of corruption and deception?
Why can’t they, at the time, resign on a point of principle and, at a press conference, expose the instructions given to them to undermine the opposition? The public will be behind them. The international community will laud them.
Today, the rakyat are grateful for the revelations, but to talk now, just shows cowardice and a lack of principles. Why the sudden pricking of their consciences? Are they manoeuvring themselves into a favourable political position for when the opposition takes power? Are they clamouring for public acceptance?
More importantly, these revelations show that Umno/BN was guilty of corrupt practices during previous elections. Shouldn’t the results be declared null and void, and the government in power today, be declared an illegal one?
MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
I like the majority of Malaysians yearning desperately for reforms and a better Malaysia are extremely sadden by RPK’s (Raja Petra Kamarudin) interview with the UMNO owned wastepaper NST and the UMNO controlled TVs but have not the aptitude to write a proper rebuttal of RPK’s comments. However, I find S Thayaparan’s take on the issues published by Malaysiakini and republished here with Steven Gan’s permission to be a fit rebuttal to RPK’s damaging comments and if you are hard pressed for time to read this long article, I have highlighted in bold red below that I considered deserving of highlighting:
In response to Raja Petra's interview
11:12AM Jan 4, 2012
COMMENT It would seem that Raja Petra Kamarudin’s New Sunday Times interview has caused a great deal of concern amongst ardent supporters of Pakatan Rakyat.
I have been inundated with messages of wild conspiracy theories and impassioned statements of deep disappointment from rebellious middle class voters.
Needless to say, I have been greatly amused that the article has reached its intended demographic.
But what exactly is there to be concerned about? The mandarins at Media Prima sent Ahmad Fairuz Othman to do a job and Raja Petra provided the hatchet.
Understand now, that I have never accepted the contents of Raja Petra’s blog as the Gospel truth but have delighted in his ease at slaying Malaysian sacred cows.
What people who feel disappointed or angry should do is apply some much needed common sense to what they read.
They should understand that the leading questions posed by Ahmad Fairuz and RPK’s polemical replies are intended to rattle the cages of those who conflate principle and personality.
They should accept that RPK or Pet as is fondly known is right when he claims that Anwar Ibrahim(left) is slowly sliding into irrelevancy but they should understand that their hero worship of this most vocal of Cassandras is irrelevant when it comes to the political destiny of this country.
Of course RPK would be scathing of Pakatan Rakyat’s performance after their historic 2008 tsunami. At this moment he is an influential figure in a nascent ambiguous political entity that hopes to be the “third force” in upcoming election.
Both Barisan National and Pakatan are competitors in the market place of eligible voters.
His vitriol against Anwar and by extension Pakatan is valuable to both BN (for obvious reasons) and his own political group mainly because the opposition at this point in time is the more credible contender to the throne in Putrajaya. Or at least that’s the perception.
My disappointment with Raja Petra stems from reasons totally unrelated to his messianic role. Under the putrid headlines of opposition “tearing itself apart”, this talented purveyor of political spin wallows in the same old Umno canards that we are used to reading in this nation’s propaganda organs.
Ahmad Fairuz may have led the horse to water but what I was hoping for was that the horse would spew out a geyser of undisguised contempt for his past comrades in arms, instead of the rather cliched sound bites that we are all familiar with.
Everything about the interview is designed to create angst in the minds of those who fervently believe that RPK is the lone voice of freedom in the media, forgetting the hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of loyal Malaysians of every ethnic group who work tirelessly on the ground level hoping to create a Malaysia that the slogans from Umno have been unable to do.
These people of course go unnoticed. Let us, like RPK reminds us, separate principle from personality, in this case the personality of Raja Petra, and discover in this interview the moral bankruptcy of what Pet espouses.
On Anwar and his sodomy trial
RPK makes the rather disingenuous claim that Anwar’s trial is a criminal one rather than a political one.
Fair enough, but where are the thousands of other sodomites who have never been prosecuted?
And why have they never been prosecuted? Where are the other BN political figures engaged in homosexual acts, hinted at in the Wikileaks expose that have never been investigated?
Without resorting to conspiracy theories prima facie it can be established that Anwar’s prosecution is politically motivated.
And did Anwar get the trial he wanted or is he unwillingly participating in a trial he has no choice but to accept?
While RPK may dismiss these questions as “another issue”, this strikes to the heart of a biased judicial system in this country. A biased judicial system that Pet has written extensively about with regards to his legal problems.
This perjuangan (struggle) should not be about Anwar, but Anwar’s trial is the most overt example of a judicial system plagued by executive interference.
And what is the perjuangan if it does not encompass the rehabilitation of this most vital of institutions? If we are tired of sodomy it is because we are tired of a system that uses the courts to silence voices of dissent.
If we are tired with the trial, it is because we are tired of the way how the executive prosecutes those who it sees as a threat to its power. Threats like Dr Jeyakumar who was briefly threatened with the charge of waging war against the Agong.
And yes, Ahmad Fairuz, I am not forgetting the victim, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan(right). I am not forgetting that this victim had access to the prime minister of this country.
I am not forgetting that this is a victim who had an affair with one of the deputy prosecutors (something that RPK exposed before anyone else).
And I am not forgetting that this is the victim that the presiding judge in the case called “truthful” at the end of the case for the prosecution without hearing the arguments of the defence. If only all victims could be as fortunate as Saiful.
On Anwar and the Selangor administration
For years now, supporters of RPK have accepted his word based solely on anecdotal evidence and undisclosed sources.
So it should come as no surprise that Pet uses the same rhetoric when describing the state of Selangor and the supposed discontent of its poor frustrated inhabitants.
The question people should ask, is Pakatan solely to blame for the level of corruption that still exist in the state today? Does federal influence and an entrenched hostile civil service play a part in the mess Pakatan finds itself enmeshed in Selangor?
Time and again the state government has had to withstand assaults by an aggrieved federal government and found itself on the losing end of protracted political power plays.
Add to this certain members who have gone independent or remained as recalcitrant troublemakers and you have a state-run government plagued by both external threats and internal sabotage.
But what is the alternative? To run back to BN, who ran the state in an exemplary fashion?
Lest we forget, it was under the aegis of BN that Selangor got the reputation of being the most corrupt state in the federation.
It was under the leadership of a BN chief minister who is now appealing a one-year prison sentence for corruption and is a proponent of Malay rights; he doesn’t display any intelligence to grasp the concepts of “rights”, that the state gained such a reputation.
Are these the people Pet thinks the inhabitants of Selangor will run back to? Who knows? But what I do know in a purely anecdotal way (much like Pet) is that if Selangor does go back to BN, it could be because of the way new voters, not to mention citizens, have been discovered in the great state of Selangor.
No doubt Anwar has stumbled in the running of the state in his capacity as economic advisor and there is clear evidence that the coalition seems to be functioning without his leadership.
However, I argue that the former is nowhere near as calamitous as the way that BN ran the state and the latter merely evidence of a functional alternative front.
Will Anwar fade away?
It would be pointless to debate the parliamentary seat numbers game with anyone.
RPK’s theory is as sound as anything else I have read. But readers should view this game in the proper context, especially when it comes to Sabah and Sarawak.
Any numbers game should take into account the historical gerrymandering, the contemporary money politics and the creation of constitutional Malays imported from Indonesia and the Philippines under Project M (which ironically Anwar was involved in). Life is strange, isn’t it?
However, this does not necessarily mean that Anwar will fade away. Pundits have been proclaiming his political demise for years, but like a bad penny he keeps resurfacing.
By continuing this tactic of trying to silence him, the BN makes it impossible for him to become irrelevant either by his own doing or theirs.
If RPK is against personality politics as personified by Anwar, why is he so concerned that someone should “lead” the opposition?
Perhaps, we should take Pet’s advice and not worry too much about personalities. I would rather examine the working relationship between personalities like Mat Sabu and Lim Guan Eng rather than bemoan the fact that someone like Zaid Ibrahim has left the alliance.
Perhaps it was true at one time, the time RPK used to be a rabid supporter of Anwar, that he was indispensable to the party, but the reality is, because Anwar has been bogged down by the internal politics of his own party and his legal troubles, various elements from all three parties have had to work together and find solutions to the problems affecting them.
Unlike Pet, I don’t see the leadership issue as something of a major stumbling block. People vote the opposition because they have lost faith in the BN. They don’t vote for the opposition because they have faith in Anwar.
The leadership issue is a straw man created by BN in the hope of confusing people that the opposition alliance is unstable, and is further subtle indoctrination by them that only with a strong personality can the political party function.
Well, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (left) has shown that he has been ineffectual in controlling the nastier elements of his party and has so far been unable to transform Umno and BN into an alliance which the people can trust or carry out his nation building policies without opposition from racist pressure groups.
Are we to worry of the transition of leadership within the BN? I’m sure many are terrified to see who will replace Najib.
Lessons from Egypt
Pet’s contention that there could never be a Tahrir style revolution in this country goes against conventional wisdom and his own past writings on the subject.
There is no doubt that the Malay community is divided on the issue of who should govern this country.
Add to this Umno’s Sunni (Shafi'e) interpretation of Islam and the fact that everyday more and more foreigners are granted constitutional Malay status, you get an explosive clash of racial and religious identities within one community vying for control of said community’s destiny.
And never forget that the inspiration for this will come from the thousands of “Malay” students sent to the Middle East to expand their knowledge of Islam amongst other ventures.
Non-Malay participation in this would be negligible since although the Chinese community is extremely influential in the economic sphere, their interest have always been subservient to whoever is or is likely to be in power.
If I recall correctly it was RPK himself who said that the non-Malays should stay out of this coming clash and leave it to the Malays to settle it for themselves.
Of course, in those days he proclaimed that it would be Pakatan “Malays” who would protect the non-Malays.
Since when as Malaysian did we become intolerant of infighting between political alliances? And why is it these voters who complain to RPK that they are sick of all the Pakatan infighting would rather vote for BN, which is currently involved in massive infighting of their own but which is never covered by the mainstream media?
Why is it these voters who talk to Pet are extremely angry at the way how the opposition-controlled states are run (even though the Auditor-General has said that Penang is the best-run in the country) and wish to return the BN fold when they seem totally oblivious to the major financial scandals - NFC, Perkim, etc - that have rocked the ruling alliance they so desperately want to return to?
Who are these ignorant voters that keep complaining to Pet about their problems with Pakatan?
I have no idea who these voters are but my advice to them and indeed anyone who is troubled by the revelations made by RPK is to vote according to their conscience and not be taken in by the personalities involved.
What we as a society should do is understand that the evolutionary change that RPK talks about should be about changing our mindset, that only BN can run the country but instead that it is possible that the opposition could run the country too.
We must abandon this shackle that has been indoctrinated in us that only an alliance that has ruled since independence knows what’s good for us.
We must embrace the concept of a two-party system or in this case a two-party alliance not because it is the best method but because for the time being it is the best method for us.
The choice here is either to embrace what is comforting even though we know the corruption that exist within or take a chance and embrace the unfamiliar, a new ruling coalition made up of divergent interests (which is what this country is made up of, anyway).
If the new government made up of Pakatan reps fails us for some reason than we may turn to RPK’s third force and abandon the concept of a two-party alliance system.
But we do this only when we have tried a system which is unknown to us. Whatever your views on the opposition is, they have put in the time and effort and have gone unacknowledged for years.
In a sense they never abandon us, but we abandoned them when it was convenient to do so. I hope we don’t make the same mistake again.
S THAYAPARAN is commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.