malaysian first

colour-blind.org is born!!!

2007-06-29T19:07:00.000+08:00

Yes! my new website colour-blind.org is launched today. Pls feel free to visit and drop me a few lines!

Take care,

Ronnie Liu liu.ronnie2@gmail.com

Please go to Colour-blind while Malaysian First under repair

2006-10-14T22:49:00.000+08:00

Colour-blind

http://ronnieliutiankhiew.wordpress.com

“马华对不起华社”- 谨此呼吁马华基层党员向大山脚马华看齐，集体退党。

2006-10-14T00:50:00.000+08:00

“马华对不起华社”

民主行动党中委兼非政府组织局主任刘天球文告- 2006年10月13日

我们对于马华大山脚区会7个支会主席于2006年10月12日晚率领逾百名党员宣布退党，以表示对马华领导层彻底失去信心，表示欢迎和欣慰。

根据报导，以马华大山脚区部前副主席陈廷锡与前秘书陈福良为首的106名党员，是於昨晚在大山脚宣布退党，其中包括7名支会主席、9名支会妇女组主席、5名支团团长及多名支会执委在内。马华大山脚区会前任主席彭纯枰也曾於今年1月初，宣布率领逾千名来自大山脚、巴都交湾、巴东埔、打昔牛汝莪、甲抛巴底、北海支部马华党员加入公正党。

他们形容马华是“无法抓老鼠的猫” ！犹有进者，他们指责马华“对不起华社”。

他们可以认真考虑，加入主张“大马人优先” 的民主行动党，为马来西亚各族群的平等权益而奋斗。

我们呼吁全体马华基层党员，关注陈福良在较早时发表的文告内容。我们也要诚恳地呼吁马华每一位基层党员，向大山脚马华基层看齐，早日脱离这个早已偏离创党目标，不能捍卫和维护华社和全民基本权益的政党。

陈福良在文告中批判道，“有感于马华已无法在巫统牢控下的国阵内争取华社应有权益，且对马华彻底失去信心下，做出彼等身为马华党员的最后一次责任，要马华领袖以彼等的退党引以为戒。

陈福良说，马华口口声声在国阵内与巫统共享政权，华裔权益可透过协商精神争取，可是，事实证明华社长期受到不公平待遇，尤其是华社最关注的华教课题上，非但无法取得平起平坐，还不断地被边缘化。

“不是我们负了马华，而是马华负了全国华裔，马华公会对不起华社，毕竟，华社长期给予支持，换来的却是无奈、委屈、受辱和公开的不公平对待。”

他列举近期国内的3个令华社大感不满的课题作为他们退党的决定性因素：

第一：第9大马计划公然边缘化华社，增建180间学校，却没有增建任何一所华小。教育部副部长诺奥玛在国会殿堂公开宣布后，马华总会长黄家定才后知后觉似的，表示将要正式提呈建议书给政府。

他表示，虽然随后取得“零”的突破，由教长希山慕丁宣布增建两所华小，可是，马华不该忘记，其中一所古来二校早在第8大马计划内，没有如期增建，如今还拿来欺骗华社。

第二：华小工程拨款被 “干捞”，出现3万变3千的荒谬事实。

他说，马华在内阁有教育部副部长一职，对于这个全国普遍存在骑劫拨款的事件，为什么毫不知情，也完全不能制止进种舞弊现象？

他表示，同样是纳税人和公民，华社却长期必须支付第二、第三所得税来发展华教，如今，连仅有的区区工程修缮拨款也都无法保住，马华要叫华社情何以堪。

“第三：华社被边缘化事件。新加坡资政李光耀指大马华裔被有系统地边缘化时，全国华社都一致默认这是事实，可是，做为华社代表的马华总会长黄家定居然不知道，还一口否认华社被边缘化的事实。”

他表示，马华一再保证能解决却永远无法解决的华小师资短缺问题、土著30%的新
经济政策、改变华小本质的英化数理政策、优秀生无法进入国立大学事件、政府工程招标不公平现象等等，都一再显示马华已辜负了华社争取权益的责任。

其实，陈福良等人所列举的理由非常中肯，每一条都值得马华基层党员认真思考。

如果更多的马华基层醒觉过来，离开这个“成事不足，败事有余” 的政党，最终不但迫使马华作出改变，同时也将迫使坚持奉行种族主义和支配政治霸权的巫统也跟随改变，甚至可能因不愿改变而瓦解。这是一项非常有意义的社会政治工程，也唯有马华基层党员才能发挥这项功能。

/ 刘天球

Najib too has failed to convince Malaysians that the 18.9% Government figure was correct

2006-10-13T04:17:00.000+08:00

Najib too has failed to convince Malaysians that the 18.9% Government figure was correct

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Friday, October 13, 2006 in Petaling Jaya

The government today continued to defend its 18.9% figure of bumiputra equity ownership despite findings by an independent think tank, using new methodologies and data, that found it could be as high as 45%.

Referring to the findings of Asli's Centre for Public Policy Studies, which disputes the official statistics, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said there was no need for the government to prove the institute wrong.

Najib was quoted as saying that "we have already explained through public statements the Economic Planning Unit's (EPU) basis of calculations.” He said “"the government will continue to insist on the official data. We hope this will be accepted and will not be questioned by anyone."

Such attitude taken by Najib was clearly wrong and certainly would not help to convince Malaysians that the 18.9% figure for bumiputera equity was correct. In fact, it only serves to confirm that the EPU under PM Abdullah has little or no basis to support its claim.

We maintain that the government's figure could only be verified if its data, methodology and analysis were publicized. If the government has nothing to hide, they should immediately disclose its data, methodology and analysis, just like what has done by Asli.

It’s wrong and unethical for the Chairman of Asli Mirzan Mahathir to withdraw the report without a reasonable justification although we understand that he was doing so under tremendous political pressure from the Barisan Nasional Government leaders. As a leader of Asli, Mirzan is obliged to protect the integrity and reputation of the think-tank. He has destroyed the credibility of his institution beyond repair. He might as well close down the entire institution.

It must be noted that the Asli reports were prepared and presented to the Government in response to the call made by Abdullah prior to the drafting of the 9th Malaysia Plan.

We like to impress upon Mirzan and other UMNO leaders that the government’s figure could not be “vigorously defended” and certainly not the other way round.

The centre's director Dr Lim Teck Ghee has resigned in the interest of defending "the integrity of independent and non-partisan scholarship". What Dr Lim has done was heroic and his sacrifice will always be remembered by all fellow Malaysians. The non-Malays now see Dr Lim as their hero. And sooner or later, even the Malays will regard him as a hero when they realize that the 45% equity were in the hands of a select few and not distributed evenly to the Malay community.

Najib also cautioned NGOs from raising "sensitive matters" that could be seen as seditious. He was reported as saying that “initially, it could be seen as intellectual discourse but once it touches on sensitive matters, it can incite racial feelings.”

We wish to remind Najib that he has no credibility to make such remarks as the whole world knows that he has not apologized for those highly sensitive remarks he made prior to the 1988 Operasi Lalang, where more than 100 leaders of political parties and NGOs were detained and incarcerated under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

It appears to all Malaysians that from Muhyiddin Yassin to Abdullah Badawi and now Najib Tun Razak, they were all resorted to “secrecy and threats” to rule this country. Isn't "Accountability", "Reliability" and "Transparency" part of the election pledges of the Abdullah government?

We feel proud that more NGOs have come forward to support Dr Lim Teck Ghee despite of mounting political pressure from government leaders. These include the Selangor Kuala Lumpur Chinese assembly Hall, the Writers Alliance for Media Independence (Wami) and the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ). They have all expressed the view that critics of the Asli report must use the "same or a higher level of intellectual rigour" to dispute its findings.

"As the NEP (National Economic Policy) has been central to Malaysia's political and socio-economic development, all Malaysians have the right to listen to the debates on its achievements and make their own judgments."

Stressing the need for freedom of information legislation, they also said the attacks on the centre were an assault on academic freedom and freedom of expression.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng has earlier said that Mirzan's statement and apology had reduced Asli's credibility and integrity because it was without academic basis or rationale.

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang also challenged the other Barisan Nasional component parties to speak up on an issue affecting all Malaysians.

A Malaysian Today reader LC Chuah urges all Malaysians to scrutinize the academic and professional qualifications of Dr.Lim, his experience with world-level organizations, and compare with those of his critics.

“There's no need to say anything more,” he opined. So, what do you think, my fellow Malaysians?

An open letter to Muhyiddin over equity debate

2006-10-11T16:44:00.000+08:00

How much longer can Umno leaders rule with secrecy and threats?

An Open Letter to Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Vice President of UMNO and the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister
On Wednesday, October 11, 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

By Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO Bureau Chief

Dear Tan Sri,

I am borrowing the question raised by Malaysian in his letter to Malaysiakini titled “ Asli report: Muhyiddin’s threat disappointing” as the topic of my letter.

Like Malaysian, I too was disappointed with Tan Sri‘s remarks on the controversial Bumiputera equity debate.

You have spoken twice on the matter within the last one week. It shows the subject is of great interest and importance to you.

In my earlier statement titled “ Bumiputera equity- 18.9% or 45%?” ( www.dapmalaysia.org and Malaysiakini) , I have asked you to disclose the methodology used by the EPU to determine the percentage of equity held by different ethnic Malaysians and foreigners instead of discrediting the facts and figures presented by Asli.

I certainly did not expect you to describe Asli’s findings as “rubbish” and worse still, you even threaten to take action against Asli if the think-tank refuses to withdraw their report.

And what were you thinking about when you say that “ as Malay, I’m very angry.” What were you angry about?

I think Malaysian is right. How long can UMNO leaders rule with secrecy and threats?

Business Times Malaysia has a report on October 9, 2006, which I find very sensible and relevant to the debate today. I like to reproduce the report here in toto for the benefit of our discussion.

Malaysian Insight :A lack of openness is driving investors away.
One example is the reluctance in discussing the extent of NEP's success.

FOR years now, Malaysia's market players have racked their brains for remedies for its slumping stock exchange. Last week, when the Dow Jones set new all-time highs, Bursa Malaysia's pulse flickered briefly, a six-and-a-half year peak barely raising any interest.

Although the country has gradually rolled back capital controls which in 1998 made it a pariah in the international community, there has been close to zero interest in the Malaysian market, except for very brief periods of large foreign buying or hedge fund activity - which is strange, given that Malaysia's economic growth has been reasonably impressive and its reserves solid, courtesy of surging oil and commodity prices and strong exports.

Somewhat belatedly, the regulatory authorities are trying to inject confidence into the market. It is, for example, attempting to clean up bad public listed companies (PLCs) and ensuring only quality share offerings get listed after the disastrous late 1990s implementation of the disclosure-based system and the notion of caveat emptor. Many retailers have gone to the extent of closing their trading accounts.

Surveillance of PLCs has been stepped up, and the Securities Commission recently warned them 'to perform to stay listed'. On its part, Bursa has made it easier for foreign investors and introduced new products. But nothing seems to excite the market. Even the proposed reintroduction of securities lending and regulated short-selling (RSS) for some 40-odd companies this month is expected to meet with muted enthusiasm. Already, a foreign stockbroking firm has noted it was too cumbersome to be effective.

The nod for dual listings on the local bourse also seems ironic now in view of an increasing trend by controlling shareholders to take their companies private and delist them in order to relist on other regional bourses. After enduring years of poor single-digit valuations in the Malaysian market, controlling shareholders are looking at other options. Often this means looking abroad.

More the pity then for the Malaysian exchange, for there are good undervalued companies that deserve a second look. However, as much as regulators can do their utmost to ensure PLCs abide by corporate governance rules or to drum into entities the principles of corporate social responsibility, it appears all too hollow given the corresponding lack of transparency or accountability at the municipal, state or national levels. This in spite of the many, many glaring examples of mismanagement.

What are foreign investors to think? And what are they to make of the political stand-off between Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his former boss Mahathir Mohamad, which shows little sign of ending? Or the current controversy surrounding Malaysia's over-three-decade-old affirmative action policy which favours bumiputras or indigenous Malaysians who are mainly Malays?

A report on the New Economic Policy (NEP) by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) Centre for Public Policy Studies has concluded that bumiputras actually own closer to 45 per cent of Malaysian corporate equity - or more than double the government's figure of 19 per cent.

There are significant implications should Asli's figures be accurate, since the continuation of the national policy is based on the premise that the stated objective of ensuring bumiputras hold a third of the country's wealth has not been achieved.

Both Asli and the government use different methodology and mechanisms to reach their conclusions. Already, the top leadership has dismissed the think tank's report as inaccurate, irresponsible and liable to incite anger - in other words, the less said the better.

But don't expect the debate to end. It will continue to be discussed - if not openly in mainstream media - in homes, offices, coffee-shops and online. As Malaysia continues to argue the pros and cons of extending the NEP indefinitely, refusing to address larger and more pressing issues, investors - local and foreign - will continue to head for greener pastures. And Malaysia's competitors will undoubtedly pull even further ahead.”

Tan Sri, I have highlighted the last paragraph for you to read and ponder over it. I think the concern expressed in the report is well founded. Secrecy and threats may only work for some period of time.
My challenge to you remains unchanged: please show us how the figure 18.9% was concluded. Or prove to us in what ways the figure 45% put forward by Asli was erroneous?

To calculate the value of equity, it’s wrong to base on par value instead of market value. The par value simply cannot reflect the real value of any share or equity for that matter. And the value of one Hwa Tai share cannot match the value of one Maybank share although their par values may be of same value.

And no one is saying the Malay poor needs no more help from the government. In fact, all Malaysian poor needs the help from the government. No government should neglect or marginalize the poor. To help the poor and close the gap between the haves and have-nots is a duty and obligation no government could run away.

You are correct to point out that many Bumiputera brothers and sisters in Sabah and Sarawak are still living in poor. But did you do anything significant and substantial to help them in the past? Did you do anything to stop both the chief ministers in these two states to amass wealth for themselves?

I believe Asli is now under tremendous pressure to withdraw and apologize to the Government. I hope they have the resolute and courage to stand by their study and finding.

If Mirzan Mahathir, the Chairman of Asli, was eventually succumbed to pressure and forced to withdraw the study and finding of his institution as suggested by some of your colleagues in UMNO, we would not be overly surprised.

But Tan Sri, the fact remains unchanged – that the 45% figure has not been proven incorrect by the government. And ordinary Malaysians would have more reasons to believe that the Asli’s figure is more accurate than the 18.9% concocted by the government.

And many Malaysians will start thinking ( they were not allowed to say ) that the basis to continue with the NEP ( nicknamed “Never Ending Policy” , “Never Ending Payouts”, “Not Equal Policy”, Never Enough Payouts”) is not valid.

And sooner or later, the Malay poor will realize that NEP is not helping them after all said and done, but just a vehicle to enrich a handful of well-connected Malays.

And the entire nation and its people have to pay a heavy price for an outdated, ineffective and self-defeating economic policy.

Tan Sri, I put it to you that the NEP is destroying the Malays (Malaysiakini), a claim made by the former Guthrie and PNB boss Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

Your former colleague Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was also of similar view. He too has said that NEP has lived out its usefulness after all these years and I quote,
… "Far from charting a new way forward, the Ninth Malaysia Plan that Mr. Abdullah unveiled in April retains one of the ugliest legacies of the past: the race-based affirmative action policy that favors bumiputra -- mostly Muslim Malays -- for educational and business opportunities. While this policy may have served a useful purpose in promoting more equitable growth during the initial decades after Malaysia’s 1957 independence, it has long since outlived its usefulness. In recent years, it has devolved into an instrument for corruption and rent seeking that heightens racial tensions and deters foreign investments. Most of all, it demonstrates the Abdullah administration’s lack of resolve in dealing with the challenge of global competitiveness while ensuring social justice for all." ...

WSJ- October 3, 2006- Malaysian Mudslinging- COMMENTARY by ANWAR IBRAHIM- Source: http://online. wsj.com

I would also argue that the NEP is depriving the rights of non-Malays.

In fact, Malaysians now are saying that the denial on your part was to cover up the fact that wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few Bumiputera. Some feels that it is UMNO’s underarm tactic to understate the wealth of Bumiputera so that people like you could continue to mislead the Malay poor for their support. How I wish there is no truth in such arguments.

And please tell your colleagues not to turn the debate into a racial spat and bring up the ugly May 13 Incident to threaten the non-Malays again. I noticed some of the overzealous writers in the Malay press have attempted to do that. This would not work anymore except making the debate meaningless and leaving a very bad taste.

It’s time for the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional Government to admit the anomalies of NEP and move on with a colour-blind economic policy as suggested by DAP Sec Gen Lim Guan Eng.

I trust you to talk to all your peers in the Cabinet and convince them that “you guys can no longer rule with secrecy and threats.”

Yours sincerely,

Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew
- liu.ronnie@gmail.com

Too late and too little in tackling haze

2006-10-10T17:12:00.000+08:00

Indonesia has done too late and too little to tackle the haze problem

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO Bureau Chief on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 in Kuala Lumpur.

The DAP delegation led by Sec Gen Lim Guan Eng met the First Secretary of the Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur this morning over the haze problem.

Judging from the explanations and statement issued by the Indon Embassy today, we could only say it’s too late and too little on the part of the Indonesian authority in tackling the above environmental menace.

So many years have passed but they have not ratified the Asean trans-borders agreement on haze; they are now saying “the matter is being debated in the Indonesian parliament”.

And guess how much manpower they were engaging in fighting the current “forest fires” in Kalimantan, Sumatra, Rain, Slaws and other parts of Indonesia? 1058.

And they are talking about ‘those who were found burning the forest will be charged and heavy fines will be imposed.” But they have produced no figures whatsoever on how many wrongdoers were charged and fined so far.

And the other measure they were employing to tackle the haze was cloud seeding. But where can you find clouds to do the seeding when you were burning forests everywhere and the temperature was so hot all–round?

The Indonesian government appears to be very much lacking the political will to resolve this environmental disaster although their own citizens also suffer from the haze.

The Malaysian Government is also at fault. Their duty and responsibility is to protect the health and economic wellbeing of this nation and its citizens. But they do not even put up an official protest as of today. Do they care about the losses we incurred in terms of health, economic activities and tourism?

ASEAN as a whole has also failed to help resolving this problem. It should collectively pressure the Indonesian authority to at least ratify the trans-borders agreement immediately and at the same time provide assistance and efforts to resolve the matter.

The DAP delegation also put up a protest outside the embassy before meeting their officials.

Yes! Return our blue sky to us!

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

MCA Makes Chinese Angry?

2006-10-09T18:35:00.000+08:00

“马华 = 卖华？请读者自行判断”

/ 刘天球(民主行动党全国中委兼非政府组织局主任) -2006年10月9日

读过了由马华中央宣传局观察家撰写，只是发表在马华网页上的“马华将把行动党以华制华的画皮一层一层剥下来” ，确实有点啼笑皆非。

我曾经说过，希望马华不要畏缩，继续和行动党辩论有关华教和其它涉及华社权益的问题，但是马华总该认真和严肃地进行辩论，而不是进行人身攻击或者顾左右而言他吧？将文章选择性地刊在自己的网页，不将它发去报馆，难道有什么难言之隐吗？

无论如何，有关文章谬误层出，故不得不加以反驳，以正视听：

马华指控：“行动党领袖林吉祥持续其以华制华的政治谋略，自贬身份向教长进谗，企图唆摆教长革除华裔副教长韩春锦的邪恶意图被马华中宣局揭穿后，那名在行动党内不得人心，只靠林氏父子庇阴保住地位的刘天球，一马当先，站出来护驾，为表其护驾之诚，不惜拿华裔副教长韩春锦来开刀，刻意抹杀韩氏在任内勤勤恳恳，竭尽所能为华教作出的奉献，以一大堆歪曲事实及莫须有的罪名加到韩氏身上，从而片面判定韩春锦"何来功劳"，不但令人啼笑皆非，简直是教人齿冷。”

本人反驳：“众所周知，开除正副部长的权力在于首相，教育部长无权过问，何来林吉祥企图唆摆教长革除华裔副部长之说？我写文章揭露周美芬误导林良实和黄家定，要求关闭白小，韩春锦身为副教育部长没有捍卫白小原校，导致白小关闭至今已经接近六年，句句实话，不容抵赖！再说马华/韩春锦争取增建华小不力，迁校又慢吞吞，对于宏愿学校不敢反对，还搞了一个不伦不类，极可能会造成华小变质的 “二四三方案” ，也是铁一般的事实，何以马华中央教育局和中央宣传局双双对本人的上述质问避而不谈？马华在改制华文中学事件出卖了华社，我说连马华前署理总会长(也是当时的副教育部长)李孝友临死前公开在雪兰莪中华大会堂表示忏悔和道歉，也是众人皆知的事实。一个月前，翁诗杰不是在报上怪责韩春锦在安邦二小建校方面监督无方，搞到建校工程一再拖延吗？韩春锦明明显失职和失败，连翁诗杰也看不过眼，马华宣传局却写文告极力吹捧他，岂能怪我严厉批判韩氏？”

马华指控：“刘天球对马华中央宣传局揭露"民主行动党一贯奉行以华制华政治竞争手段"的事，色厉内苒，不愿置辩，却另辟蹊径，到历史堆里去挖掘一些陈年旧事，来转移视线，大肆指责，咒骂马华，以为这样一来，人们就会忘记行动党采纳分散华人政治力量，导致华人各领域面对困境的以华制华罪行，实在是愚不可及之极。

刘天球孤陋寡闻，不知道有人以东姑一句话，凭自由心让误判而流传着的一个谜团，即指当年参与草拟至今被视为华人权益护身符的联邦宪法的其中一名马华已故领袖，陈东海当年与东姑等赴英伦谈判独立时，丢弃华团备忘录，出卖华人的谜团。经"华社之谜"作者朱可立深入追查华社党团历史档案记录后，谜团已解，事实是当年并没有任何华社党团交付备忘录给他，何来丢弃之有？

刘天球以此来重复诋毁马华出卖华社权益，已印证其修养的浅薄，不料他连马华创党人陈祯禄因年迈及曾于1955年跌倒受伤不良于行，未亲自出马而委派李孝式和陈东海与东姑于1956年赴英参加独立谈判的事都搞不清，却妄言陈祯禄"不被马华公会委派为代表"。这种有违事实的说法，若非对历史无知则显然存心歪曲事实来嫁罪马华，如此卑劣存心，其心可诛，其言又如何可住(信)？”

我的反驳：华人社会总要求被陈东海丢进废纸箩，是马来西亚前首相东姑所为文公开揭露者。马华现在看到两人已经去世，反正死无对证了，就可以死不认错吗？难道马华要指东姑说谎吗？恕我孤陋寡闻，所谓的朱可立到底是何方神圣，他凭什么说谜团已解？据说朱可立就是马华‘枪手” 郭仁德，那么郭仁德为什么不敢以真名实姓来推翻东姑的说法，要躲在什么“朱可立”( 巧克力？朱古立？) 的笔名大做文章呢？需知东姑的谈话涉及历史大事，事关马华出卖华人的历史事迹，郭仁德若有真凭实据，就应该以真名发表，他/马华害怕什么呢？

独立之前，华人提出的诉求很多，包括要求合法公民权，华文列为官方语言之一，平等对待华教，民族地位平等，马来人特别地位为期不得超过十五年。。。这些要求都获得当时的马华总会长兼创党人陈祯禄的同意，并表示准备提到伦敦的谈判桌上去。可是马华(在巫统的淫威下？) 没有让陈祯禄代表华人，连他自己的儿子陈修信也曾经一度推说父亲当时病重，几乎神智不清(注；马华解释陈祯禄没有出席谈判的说法很多，包括此文所说的“跌到受伤不良于行”，但是始终洗脱不了临阵退缩之嫌)；结果所托非人，派出去的陈东海竟然将华人的总要求丢掉；另一位代表李孝式也“好不到哪里”，导致无人在谈判桌上提出华人的重大要求，种下今天华人长期有系统地被边缘化的恶果，马华难逃其咎！

马华指控：“马华自独立前至今历57载，在当年紧急法令期间，致力解救陷于水深火热的乡区同胞，协助50万同胞免于被驱逐出境，并积极协助他们在新村重建家园；与友族联手，致力争取国家独立、建国，参与宪法的制订，致力为华族，包括行动党人及刘天球的父祖辈争取公民权，奠定了华族在大马的政治地位，既可与友族共享政权，又确保民族文化，教育不致像东南亚其他国家的可悲遭遇而能完整保存，且与时并进，发扬光大，凡此种种已一一载录在国家历史、档案中，已铭记在华族心中，岂是刘天球妄加诬蔑所能抹杀、篡改的？”

我的反驳：“马华原为马票党；独立前受英国殖民地政府所托，在紧急法令期间负责华人新村的福利工作，代表英国人(英人和马共对着干，不便出面)收买民心，故获得英人政府给予彩票发行权。当时中彩票者必须成为马华会员，因此不少会员(后称党员) 属于这类性质。至于公民权，当时的马来左翼领袖和华裔和印度社会领袖，早在巫统，马华成立之前，已经取得共识，一起争取独立，同时让所有各族人民取得合法公民权；而英国政府则要求三大民族必须合作，在政治上取得共识，组成统一阵线，才让马来亚独立。当时的教总主席林连玉也到处奔走，说明华人争取和申请公民权的重要，敦促华人一定要争取和申请公民权，不容马华厚颜吹牛，将取得公民权的功劳占为己有。我的祖父辈多有海峡殖民地发出的的州籍民公民权，独立后自动改为马来亚公民权，马华不得无礼，不得邀功！英国人在马来左派和马共的压力和反抗下几乎破产，不得不利用巫统，马华和印度国大党，对付马来左派和马共，不得不让马来亚独立；这是历史事实，并非本人杜撰。今天华人地位有如二等公民，在多方面皆受到边缘化，马华领袖为了头上的乌纱帽，从来不敢据理力争，导致华人权益节节败退，马华难逃其咎，故有“卖华公会” 之污名。”

马华指控：“而令华社难原宥的是，行动党为了权欲，不惜冒险与摆明欲在我国建立回教神权统治的回教党明勾暗结，先后在1990年与回教党成立人民力量阵线，于1999人结成替代阵线，公然出卖政治原则，出卖华社的前途，为虎作伥，充当回教党马前卒，没有任何实际的建树，至今仍是年年交白卷。”

我的反驳：当年社阵在联盟的种种打压下愤而抵制大选，在策略上是对是错未有定论；原为人民行动党的曾敏兴医生以及蒂凡那国会议员等人由于马新分家而创办民主行动党，继续为民主化马来西亚而斗争，可谓合情合理合法；马华指控行动党“冒社会主义之名，取社阵而代之’ ，原是一些不了解事实真相之辈向来的成见，马华竟然也用来诬蔑行动党，居心不良。马华自己不争气，陆续被巫统边缘化，失去工商部长和财政部长的职位也不敢大声，如今竟然怪到行动党的头上来，真是” 千古奇闻“。再说，马华基层之中的确有人默默为华教贡献力量，但是马华领袖利用拨款(人民的钱，对外宣称或当作自己的钱，将拨款称为捐款)来“东捐一点，西捐一些，大选要来就捐多一点” ，则令人不敢恭维，称不上什么“出钱出力建设”云云。

马华指控：“而令华社难原宥的是，行动党为了权欲，不惜冒险与摆明欲在我国建立回教神权统治的回教党明勾暗结，先后在1990年与回教党成立人民力量阵线，于1999人结成替代阵线，公然出卖政治原则，出卖华社的前途，为虎作伥，充当回教党马前卒，为建立神权回教国担当开路先锋。”

我的反驳：“行动党为了打破国阵的种族霸权和支配政治，才多次联手其它反对党对抗国阵，可惜受到国阵(尤其是马华)利用控制媒体之便，歪曲和抹黑行动党的正义之战，结果功败垂成。无论如何，行动党反对在多元的马来西亚成立回教国，向来立场鲜明，马华要诬蔑也难以得逞。反观马华公然支持前首相的‘九二九’回教国宣言，同时支持各种回教化措施，才是不可原谅的过错。

备注：欲知马华创党以来的种种恶行和过失，请参阅本人著作的小书
<<马华在华社的角色：罪魁？帮凶？祸首？>> (2004年出版)

The Iconic Che Cuevara

2006-10-09T00:55:00.000+08:00

1967年10月9日

拉美游击革命家格瓦拉被害

　　1967年10月9日，拉美游击革命家格瓦拉被害被害。

　　1928年6月14日，格瓦拉出生在阿根廷罗萨里奥一个资本家兼庄园主家庭。
　　1953年3月毕业，取得了医生资格。这时，他决定先到委内瑞拉加拉加斯的一所麻风病人收容所工作。当他在布宜诺斯艾利斯车站与父母告别时，意味深长地说：“一个美洲士兵向你们告别了。”

　　同年12月，他到达危地马拉。当时，阿本斯总统正在实行某些反帝反封建的措施，因而受到美国的反对。格瓦拉挺身投入保卫阿本斯政权的斗争，积极为阿本斯民主政府服务。他曾呼吁建立民兵组织对付国内外的反动派。阿本斯政权失败后，他被美国中央情报局列入黑名单，于是越过边界潜逃到墨西哥。

　　这时，古巴革命运动的领导人菲德尔-卡斯特罗为了寻找活动基地，来到了墨西哥。1955年6月的一个夜晚，格瓦拉与卡斯特罗在墨西哥城埃姆帕朗街49号会面。两人一见如故，通宵畅谈各种国际政治问题。最后，格瓦拉同意参加正在筹划的古巴远征军。

　　1956年11月25日深夜两点钟，八十二名古巴远征军成员，在墨西哥湾的图克斯潘港悄悄登上“格拉玛”号游艇，开始向古巴进发。格瓦拉作为“格拉玛”号名册上最早两名成员之一，和大家一起唱起古巴国歌和《七月二十六日赞歌》。由于风急浪高，大部分人都晕船了，经过七天七夜的紧张搏斗，12月2日，他们终于到达古巴东南部科洛腊多斯海滩一个叫贝利克的地方。他们刚一登陆，就遭到敌机的袭击。巴蒂斯塔政府的军队随即跟踪而来。部队来不及休整就与敌人展开了周旋。格瓦拉作为随军医生，一面治疗伤病，一面参加战斗，他不仅受哮喘病的折磨，在12月5日的战斗中还受了伤。部队历经千辛万苦，转移到层峦叠嶂的马埃斯特腊山区，开辟游击根据地。1957年1月14日，在拉普拉塔河口打了第一个胜仗，格瓦拉表现出坚定的革命立场和顽强的斗争意志。

他经常出色地完成任务。1957年5月28日，他参加著名的乌维罗战斗，显露出杰出的军事才能。战斗结束后，他留下照顾伤员，并克服困难带领他们回到了部队。从此以后，他崭露头角，不久就被提升为第二纵队(后来叫第四纵队。当时有七十五人，下辖三个排，相当于连队(的指挥员。7月，荣获少校军衔。以后，他指挥了布埃西托和翁布里托等多次战斗，与卡斯特罗的部队密切配合，迫使敌人退出了马埃斯特腊山区。

　　1958年5月，游击队打退了敌人规模最大的一次攻势，随后便转入了反攻。8月31日，格瓦拉率领一路部队突破敌人的重重阻拦，向拉斯维利亚斯省挺进。他们负责切断敌人的主要交通线，破坏敌人组织的选举。12月底，在袭击交通枢纽圣克拉腊城的战役中，格瓦拉带领不足三百人的纵队，攻进并解放了这个有坦克、大炮和几千步兵守卫的城市，使敌人处于崩溃之势。接着，游击队挥师东进，解放了首都哈瓦那。格瓦拉满载鲜花和荣誉进入这个城市，成了一个传奇式的游击大师。

　　古巴革命胜利后，格瓦拉于1959年1月9日被新政府宣布为古巴公民。同年9月任土地改革全国委员会工业部主任。1959年11月-1961年2月任国家银行行长。1961年2月-1965年任工业部长。1962年-1965 年任古巴统一革命组织全国领导委员会书记处成员。他先后访问过埃及、印度、日本、南斯拉夫、苏联、阿尔及利亚、刚果( 金) 等三十多个国家。1960年11月和1965年2月访问过中国。

　　古巴革命胜利后，格瓦拉总结自己从事游击战的经验，撰写了《游击战》、《游击战：一种手段》、《古巴革命战争回忆录》等著作，系统地提出了“游击中心论”、“大陆革命论”等思想理论。他认为，夺取政权最基本的手段是“游击战” ，即“非正规的武装斗争道路”。

游击战士是最有战斗力的先锋队成员，是社会的改造者。革命的胜利要靠游击队实现。

19 65年4月，格瓦拉从古巴神秘地“失踪”了。原来，他曾先后支持拉美一些革命者，在危地马拉、委内瑞拉、秘鲁、哥伦比亚、海地和阿根廷等国实验他的理论，但都一一失败了。因此，他决定亲自出马，重新回到游击斗争中去，发动拉丁美洲的革命。

1965年4月1日，他致函卡斯特罗，辞去党内外的一切职务和古巴的军籍军衔，准备去“世界的另一些山地”进行斗争。6月，他带领一支约一百二十五名古巴游击队员的小分队，开赴非洲的金沙萨地区，化名“塔图司令员”，支援那里的起义军，想在非洲的心脏地区建立一个新古巴。但起义军屡遭挫折，格瓦拉认为这里不适宜建立游击中心，便撤回了古巴游击队。9月，格瓦拉决定在玻利维亚的尼阿卡瓦苏建立游击中心。尼阿卡瓦苏处于圣克鲁斯省一个被数以百计峻削的丛山所包围的峡谷之中。峡谷里布满了繁茂的热带植物。他们准备以此为中心，将安第斯山变成马埃斯特腊山区。

　　1966年11月，格瓦拉化装成一位秃顶、戴眼镜的乌拉圭商人，从蒙得维的亚经巴西圣保罗市乘飞机抵达玻利维亚首都拉巴斯。他声称是美洲国家组织的特使，要从事社会调查工作，乘车抵达了尼阿卡瓦苏。他在这里准备训练一批游击队员，然后展开游击活动。但是由于他的活动没有得到玻利维亚共产党的支持，因而难以招募到玻利维亚人。游击队经初步训练后外出行军时，很快就被政府军队发现和包围。于是，游击队过早地暴露了自己，不得不与政府军队展开艰苦的周旋和战斗，

1967年8月，由于叛徒的告密，游击队的秘密仓库被搜获，城市中的联络网也遭到破坏，游击队的处境从此更加困难。格瓦拉率军左冲右突。始终不能改变局势，加上伤病员增加，不得不兵分两路，进行突围。8月31日，以华金为首的一路游击战士在横渡马西库里河时，遭到敌人伏击，全部壮烈牺牲。格瓦拉率领的十六名游击队员被围于尤罗峡谷。

10月8日下午1 时，游击队滑下峡谷准备突围。但敌人的包围圈已经密合，随着密集的机枪声，格瓦拉腿部中弹受伤。当他包扎伤口时，敌人已出现在他面前。格瓦拉镇静地报出了自己的名字。敌人立即将他押送到附近的拉伊格拉村。敌军总部立即用直升飞机派来了高级军官和美国中央情报局的特务。

次日黎明，敌人的军区司令等大小头目乘直升飞机到达，以便确认被俘者是否真是格瓦拉，并对格瓦拉进行审讯。格瓦拉临危不惧，坚定地回答敌人：“革命是永垂不朽的。”敌人见无法使他屈服，经请示玻利维亚总统和美国驻玻使馆同意，于10月9日下午杀害了格瓦拉。

　　1967年10月15日，古巴当局证实了格瓦拉罹难的消息，并将10月15日定为“游击队员日”。10月18 日，古巴群众在革命广场悼念格瓦拉。古巴共产党中央委员会第一书记和革命政府总理菲德尔-卡斯特罗致悼词，高度评价了格瓦拉的一生，称他是“一个无与伦比的战士”、“一个无与伦比的领导人”。

More reports on 528 Bloody Sunday public inquiry

2006-10-08T04:09:00.000+08:00

“528反燃油漲價示威事件”聽證會

多名證人證詞：直升機低飛很危險
CHINA PRESS(吉隆坡6日訊）

“528反燃油漲價示威事件”聽證會今日進入第2天，多名證人表示，當局出動直升機低飛越過群眾，是項具非常危險性的行為。

這項集會主講人之一哈達醫生和劉天球說，當時，他們可見到有直升機低飛而過，並且不斷在空中盤旋，干擾他們致詞，也聽不清楚台上其他人的談話內容，現場非常喧吵。

今日依序受大馬人權委員會傳召出席聽證會的證人，包括：被列為第3證人納扎魯丁（聯邦后備隊攝影師）、第4證人葉韋寬（人民公正黨黨員）、第5證人哈達醫生（回教黨總財政）、第6證人林仕妝（學運代表），以及第7證人劉天球（民主行動黨非政府組織局主任）。

出席旁聽者包括公正黨副主席西華拉沙律師、警察總長秘書阿勞丁阿都瑪吉、大馬人民之聲協調員鄭立慷等。

當人權委會委員拿督霍拉提及，何以使用“危險”字眼形容當時的場面時，哈達醫生說，他真的對直升機低飛一事感過擔憂，因為兒童也聯同大人一起出席集會。

沒聽到警方警告

詢及有否聽到警方發出警告，要求人群疏散時，劉天球指出，他只聽到吵雜聲，沒聽到警方警告，因為直升機當時低飛，太過靠近，非常危險。

劉天球進一步地說，當直升機從樹上低飛而行時，他見到樹枝搖晃，如果1棵樹有4層樓高，他估計當時直升機離開群眾只有8層樓高。

他認同霍拉指直升機干擾其致詞的說法，因為每當直升機低飛而過時，他必須停止演講。
其他引導證人供證的人權委會委員，包括拿督朱紹駒、拿督楊元慶和拿汀巴杜卡再頓奧瑪。

劉天球促執法者值勤時展示名牌

民主行動黨非政府組織局主任劉天球促請警員和聯邦后備隊，在值勤時應在制服上展示名牌，以便群眾辨認他們的身份。他表示，聯邦后備隊成員值勤時，皆穿上夾克，以致看不到制服上的名牌，這是他最不能接受的。“除非他們戴上頭盔，才知他們是來自聯邦后備隊，而且他們都長得非常高大，連他們的眼睛也看不到。”

劉天球供證時建議：“警員遵守條規，必須向群眾說清楚本身將會採取行動，不能任意驅趕群眾。”

被列為第7證人的劉天球，也希望大馬人權委員會賦予群眾集會的自由，同時可自由向媒體發言，不會受到准證所限制。

“528示威事件”聽證會

3證人：沒發出充份警告警方暴力鎮壓公眾
SINCHEW updated:2006-10-07 14:16:34 MYT

（吉隆坡訊）行動黨國際秘書劉天球、回教黨財政哈達及學運國內事務秘書林仕妝均認為，警方及聯邦後備隊在“528示威事件”中使用暴力驅散參與抗議油價調漲的人群前，並沒有發出充分的警告。他們3人都是集會的演講人，週五（6日）分別向人權委員會，在“528示威事件”聽證會上不異而同表示，當局動用直升機在人群上盤旋，干擾示威行動。

直升機低飛盤旋公眾上空

劉天球說，有關當局根本沒有遵從法律，清楚向示威者發出至少3次的驅散令，甚至讓直升機低飛，盤旋在公眾上空。“我們根本聽不到有關當局在集會時說了甚麼，接著水炮、警員的警棍就落在我們身上。”

劉天球也建議人權委員會要求聯邦後備隊及警員在值勤時配戴證件，讓受到暴力對待的公眾人士可以追查施暴者，以免冤枉錯人。

哈達表示，他們已向警方表明這是第四次，也是最後一次的和平集會，不過警方仍然使用暴力鎮壓公眾。

林仕妝也表示，警方及聯邦後備隊使用暴力驅散人群前，曾經在遠處與演講人劉天球同時發表演說，不過由於直升機低飛時所發出的巨大聲響，人群根本無法聽清楚。

聯邦後備隊代表：集會者沒過激行為

代表聯邦後備隊作證的29歲納沙魯丁說，據他的觀察，“528示威事件”的集會公眾保持安寧，並沒有表現過激的行為。

在當天負責拍攝的納沙魯丁向人權委員會呈交長達17分鐘的錄像帶，顯示鎮暴隊在5月28日的抗議燃油漲價集會中，向和平集會者發射水炮、使用警棍毆打人群和逮捕20名集會者。（星洲日報‧2006/10/07）

BMC Lantern protest : Samy Vellu! Buka Jalan!

2006-10-08T02:32:00.000+08:00

I have attended a special lantern protest organised by the Bandar Mahklota Cheras Free Access Action Committee at the Mahkota Walk a few hours ago.

Some two to three hundred men and women, young and old, have participated in the lantern protest despite of the haze. The boys and girls were chanting," Samy Vellu, Buka Jalan!" throughout the procession. ( The small boy walking beside me was one of those who shouted "Buka Jalan" enthusiastically through the loudhailer.) We have put our unhappiness and worries aside for a while and I believe that all participants have had a good time.

In my briefing to the residents, I told them to continue the struggle until the access road is open.

I also told the residents that the action committee have met the representatives of LLM ( Malaysian Highway Authority), Grand Saga (Toll concessionaire) and Narajaya ( Developer,The Lion Group) seperately over the last two weeks.

We now have a clearer picture after reading various letters and documents, and the next course of action would be setting up a meeting between LLM, Grand Saga, Narajaya and the action committee. We may include the MPKj if necessary.

DAP Cheras MP YB Tan Kok Wai, the Chief Coordinator appointed by the committee, is now trying his best to fix a meeting. Such meeting is important and necessary because the different parties were now having different interpretations over the same clauses in the same approval letter.

We also informed the residents that we will demand for the removal of barricades first while negotiation betwen the various parties can proceed simultaneously. The traffic congestion has become very serious and unbearable for the residents of BMC and Bandar Sg Long. The residents here should not suffer any further just because the Government "fails to act as a government".

The earlier claims made by Works Minister S. Samy Vellu do not seem to hold water. The access is not illegal since the developer has obtained an approval prior to construction. And there were no clauses to state clearly that Grand Saga has the right to put up the barricades. Even the question of the so-called compensation is in a limbo.

Samy Vellu has promised the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang that he will find a solution during the last Parliamentary debate. We hope he would not drag his feet any longer.

The action committee should be commended for coming up with a VCD with the help of the DAP Sg Long Branch within a short time. It consists of parliamentary speeches and video clips of various protests and outings, including the protest outside the toll gate and the office of Grand Saga. It is priced at RM6 per copy and all proceeds will go back to the action committee. The VCDs could be obtained from members of the action committee and leaders of the DAP Sg Long Branch.

The committee may pay Samy Vellu a visit during his Deepavali open house if his department has yet to get a date firm up for the all-parties meeting. We may even pay the Prime Minister a visit if his minister fails to act within a reasonable time frame.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The residents of BMC and BSL want the access road NOW!

Ong Ka Ting, where's the RM4 million?

2006-10-07T19:11:00.000+08:00

100 units of Jet Ski overpriced by more than RM4 million: Ong Ka Ting should explain

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Saturday, October 07, 2006 in Petaling Jaya

A concerned citizen sent the DAP an email today, detailing how 100 units of Jet Ski bought by Ong Ka Ting’s ministry were overpriced by more than RM4 million. And moreover, these Jet Skis were not fully utilized at many fire stations where they were kept because they did not have the facilities to lift them up and down according to the Audit Report 2005.

We want Ong Ka Ting to explain what has happened as the allegation made by the concerned citizen was very serious.

Here are the relevant info provided by this concerned citizen and readers can see for themselves why Ong Ka Ting ought to explain.

A:From Audit Report 2005:-

The Department had acquired 100 units of Jet Ski, valued at RM7.91 million and 21 Rapid Intervention Motorcycles valued at RM10.63 million. However, both these vehicles were not fully utilized due to lack of competent personnel to operate them. In the case of Jet Skis, it was not fully utilised at many fire stations where it was kept because they did not have the facilities to lift them up and down.

B:Original selling price for Sea-Doo GTX 4 TEC for 2002:

There were apparently two versions, the Blue and the Red.
According the the ABOS Marine Blue\nBook, the original MSRP's ("Approx. Retail Price New"), without trailer, were:Blue version - $9,499.00Red version - $9,899.00

According the the ABOS Marine Blue Book, the original MSRP's ("Approx. Retail Price New"), without trailer, were:
Blue version - $9,499.00

So, the US dealer suggested retail price for the GTX 4-Tec in 2002 was 9499$ or 9899$ depending on the model variation.

C:Foreign Exchange Rate in year 2002 was USD9899 x 3.8 = RM37,616.20 but Ong’s ministry bought it for RM 79,100 per unit.

So, where is RM41,483.80 (per unit) went to? It’s more than RM4 million if you add up for all the 100 units!

The concerned citizen argues that the above prices are retail prices at US, so it is impossible to reach RM 79,100 per unit even with the transportation costs.

There was a statement issued by the department on the issue but the explanations were far from satisfactory. That’s why we need Ong to explain to all concerned citizens.

Please read the news reports by Sinchew, The China Press and Nanyang at the following links listed below for a clearer picture:-

http://www.sinchew.com.my/content.phtml?sec=1&sdate=2006-10-05&artid=200610042957
http://www.chinapress.com.my/content_new.asp?dt=2006-10-05&sec=mas&art=1005mc56.txt
http://www.nanyang.com/index.php?ch=7&pg=10&ac=654829

Another report on '528' Bloody Sunday public inquiry

2006-10-07T04:55:00.000+08:00

“血腥星期天”第二场听证会证人指镇暴队打了人就跑
MALAYSIAKINI.COM 实习记者黄思颍Oct 6, 06 7:33pm

举办5月28日和平集会的“抗议燃油涨价联盟”总协调哈达南利（Hatta Ramli）在今日的第二场听证会中向人权委员会供证时表示，他亲眼目睹集会者遭警方暴力对待。他以“警方来到，打伤人后就离开”来形容当天的情景。

“我看到公正党副总秘书查希哈山（Zahir Hassan）躺在马路上，可是却没有目睹他被殴打的经过，因为查希被一些警方人员包围着。”

人权委员会是从昨日起，传召“血腥星期天”事件的目击者供证，以彻查这宗发生於今年5月28日的警方暴力案件。聆审这项听证会的4位人权委员是卡兰占沃拉、朱绍驹、杨元庆和再顿奥曼。

哈达南利指出，除了查希外，另一名伤势相当严重的集会者便是安兰（Amran Zulkifli），因为后者满脸都是血。“我看他伤势不轻，所以便赶快叫别人送他去附近的诊疗所接受治疗。

”警方无须动用暴力镇压和平集会哈达强调，该和平集会中的集会者都非常安分守己，并没有作出行动导致警方需要使用暴力进行镇压。“最多也只是重复性地呼喊口号，并没有造成混乱。但是，一位镇暴队成员却对我说：'你还是回去吧！这样让国家难堪！”

另一名公正党党员叶韦宽也是其中一位被警方现场逮捕的集会者。叶韦宽在供证时讲述，他目睹查希在离他约8尺的地方被镇暴队包围，查希遭到其中一位镇暴队员拳打脚踢，后者腰部也被踢伤。“查希被逮捕，带到警局时，我看见他满嘴是血。”

录影出现间断画面昨日向人权委员会提呈集会现场录影的证人－－镇暴队巡伍長纳沙鲁丁，也在今日再次受传召询。聆审听证会的4位人权委员要求重看纳沙鲁丁提供的录影，并再次向他查询有关涉及侵犯人权性质的画面，以确认当日的情形。现年29岁的纳沙鲁丁，是在事发当天负责拍摄整个事件过程的唯一警方人员。该长达17分钟的录象带显示镇暴队在5月28日的抗议燃油涨价集会当中，向和平集会者发射水炮、使用警棍殴打人群和逮捕20名集会者，可说是人权委员会目前掌握警方的确有动用暴力对待示威者的最有力证据。针对录影画面有间断一事，纳沙鲁丁解释，他是为了确保录影机的电力充足，所以才间中关机以保留电力。

纳沙鲁丁：多数镇暴队员持有枪械

问及当天约有多少位镇暴队成员在场时，纳沙鲁丁表示，当天约有40名镇暴队成员在场。他也提及，多数的警员们都持有枪械，包括M16机关枪、点三八手枪和催泪弹。“不过，我没有想过他们会发射水炮。当他们向群众发射水炮时，在场的人群都感到惊惶失措。”

纳沙鲁丁提供的录影中，出现一幕便衣警察踩住一名集会者的画面。当委员们向他求证此事时，纳沙鲁丁表示，警方正在逮捕该名人士，但是他却无法认得该名被逮捕的人士。

当博大学生林仕妆被传召入聆审室时，她向委员们表明，她是当天集会的其中一名演讲者，并透露她曾被镇暴队员用护身罩暴力推挤。“我的朋友李发成担心我会受伤，便叫镇暴队停止推挤的举动。他也很明确的告诉镇暴队成员：'我们很快便会离开现场'。但是，其中一名镇暴队员不但不领情，反而敲打发成的额头，导致他跌倒在地，额头也肿了。”她也向委员们提及另外两位伤势较严重的集会者，即安兰和赖康辉。李发成和赖康辉将在接下来的听证会上供证，以协助调查此暴力事件。

刘天球：警方直升机危险低空盘旋

今天的最后一位证人，也是“抗议燃油涨价联盟”成员之一的民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球，则提出了另一个论点。

“警方驾驶的直升机飞得很低，仅在大树的顶端。这是非常危险的，万一有什么突发事件，下面的人群肯定没机会逃脱。”他认为，直升机不断低空盘旋，其实是企图干扰该和平集会，不要让群众聆听演说者发表的言论。“

我看到镇暴队使用警棍殴打某些集会者，有些集会者也遭暴力推挤及殴打，但是我不能认出他们的身份。我也看见一些集会者被警方逮捕后，便被拖至警车附近。”“我认为他们这样的做法是不对的。我在演说时，就被他们以水炮瞄准发射。他们应该发出警告后，让我们有足够的时间离开现场，而不是用暴力解决。不但如此，他们其实应该明确地告诉我他们的意愿，而不是在其他地方大声呼叫！”

Complaints and suggestions I made to Suhakam yesterday

2006-10-07T04:20:00.000+08:00

I have raised a few matters as a witness with the Suhakam commissioners headed by former judge KC Vohrah in the public inquiry held yesterday.

1.Freedom of assembly is part of freedom of expression and Suhakam should help to see that Malaysians have the freedom to assemble with or without the police permit so long as law and order were maintained. Just a notification to the police will do for those who want to organise gatherings.
2.All police personnels must wear their name tags on duty for identifacation purposes and to prevent abuses of power.
3.Warnings must be given clearly by the police before they could call off any assembly.
4. Helicopters must not be allowed to hover dangerously above the protesters in future.
5. The police must refrain from using brutal force in carrying out their duties.

Dr Hatta Ramli of Pas was also there to give his testimony as the coordinator of the event organised by Protes, a coalition consists of NGOs and political parties over the issue of petrol and diesel hikes.

Here's a report by Merdekareview.com...

　直升机低空盘旋干扰并未听见警方解散指示

■日期／Oct 06, 2006 ■时间／08:01:56 pm
■新闻／家国风云 ■作者／郭华盈 -MERDEKAREVIEW

【本刊郭华盈撰述】今天出席人权委员会528抗议石油涨价集会公听会供证的四名证人，一致指出，从集会一开始到警方采取行动发射水炮，都没有出现群众失序的场面。此外，他们也一致指出低空盘旋的直升机，导致他们没有听见或无法清楚听见警方发出的解散命令或其他指示。

民主行动党中委刘天球（左图）指出，但他发现警方开始有所行动，联邦后备队开始动员，不过直升机低空盘旋发出巨大噪音，无法听见内容。

也是528集会的第三位发言人的刘天球形容，本身与集会协调人哈达哈欣都对低空盘旋的直升机赶到非常担忧，担心随时出现意外，坠落在人群里。哈达哈欣也是回教党总财政，以及机会当天的第一位发言人。

刘天球指出：“直升机飞得很低，购物中心周围树木的树枝与叶子都在摆动。我猜想离开地面只有7、8层楼高而已。”

他指出，他个人的发现是，直升机每到演讲时刻，都会在演讲者头上低空盘旋。

被问及直升机低飞的目的，刘天球指出，事实上好几次的抗议油涨价集会，都出现类似情况，至于低飞的原因，他相信，是制造噪音，干扰演讲的顺利进行，让群众听不清楚演讲内容。

528事件被普遍称为“血腥星期天事件”（Bloody Sunday）。5月28日上午10时左右，大约300名公众聚集在吉隆坡双峰塔阳光广场前，抗议政府在2月27日晚上宣布燃油涨价，导致后来电费高涨及通货膨胀的连环效应，加重人民负担。

这项集会由“抗议燃油涨价联盟”（PROTES）举办，警方在民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球演说时，向人群发射水炮，镇暴队冲向人群殴打参与者，最严重的受害者安兰（Amran Zulkifli）为保护10岁的儿子而被镇暴队打破头，伤口缝了五针。

马来西亚人权委员会5月28日反对石油起价示威暴力事件公听会，将会连续进行8天，即10月5日、6日、11日、12日、13日、16日、17日以及18日。人权委员会将传召12位证人，今天有五位证人供证，他们是联邦后备队伍巡长纳沙鲁汀哈欣（Nasurudin Hashim）、刘天球、回教党总财政哈达哈欣（Hatta Hashim）、集会参与者杨韦宽与林仕妆。

听审的四位委员包括霍华（K.C. Vohrah）、杨元庆、再顿奥斯曼（Zaitoon Othman）与朱绍驹。霍华是委员主席。今天出席旁听的观察员除了来自律师公会的代表，还是国家警方总部秘书处的代表阿劳汀阿都玛吉（Alaudeen Abdul Majid）。

哈达：直升机低空盘旋发出吵闹声

回教党总财政哈达哈欣表示，他在演讲一开始就强调这是一场和平集会，也是抗议油涨价的最后一场示威集会。非政府组织与在野党之前共发动了三场抗议示威。

哈达指出，由于低空盘旋的直升机发出吵闹声，所以即使民主行动党代表刘天球站起来发言时，也无法听得清楚。哈达也是该集会的协调人。

他同时指出，他发现站在指挥车上的警官正在发言，但是由于直升机发出太大的嘈杂声，而无法清楚听见。

他表示，警方发射水炮与展开逮捕行动后，他看见其中一位示威者安兰（Amran）衣服沾满鲜血，有人告诉他，安兰被踢了。

他也指出，在场的群众，在聆听演讲时高喊口号，不过场面平和。

叶韦宽：看见扎希尔被踢

集会参与者叶韦宽（右图）指出，他在聆听演讲时，隐隐约约听见联邦后备队发出一些指示，但是无法听见指示的内容，原因是在演讲人演讲现场上空盘旋的直升机发出巨响，造成干扰。

他还表示，本身亲眼看见一名示威者扎希尔哈山（Zahir Hassan）的腰部被一位联邦后备队员用脚踢，复跌倒在地上，他脸上还流了血。叶韦宽因为拒绝离开演讲现场，被警方逮捕。

林仕妆：看见五分钟手语

布特拉大学生，也是当天出来代表学生演讲的林仕妆指出，她看见站在指挥车上的警官与其中一位示威群众通过手语对话，该位警官出示了五根手指，表示“五”，她猜想应该是主办当局向警方要求五分钟的集会时间。

不过，不到两分钟的时间，林仕妆（左图）指出，警方就向群众发射水炮。她同时指出，本身亲眼看见同学李成发在解散时要求联邦后备队员不要以盾牌推挤他们，他们会解散时，招徕联邦后备队员用警棍当头打下，复不支倒地。

“他的额头肿了起来，后来他去警察局报案，也和其他在示威时受伤的同僚拍摄了照片存档。”
今天继续供证的联邦后备队摄影师纳沙鲁汀提供的录像带中，也出现了金马区警区主任卡玛与联邦后备队指挥官布斯巴拉占（Pusparajan）出示五根手指，表示五分钟的画面。

昨天，证人之一巴哈鲁（Badrul Hisham Shahrin）表示，他与卡玛通过手语沟通，双方达成共识，让集会继续进行五分钟后解散。

四位委员今天逐幕重看联邦后备队提供的录像带，以及要求摄影师纳沙鲁汀附加解释影像内容。
从影像录制时间的跳脱，委员与在场旁听的观察员，发现影像中出现多次的暂停录制的情况。
录像带出现的镜头包括警方发射水炮，导致群众四处跑散、警方逮捕示威者、被逮捕的示威者蹲在地上、机会发言人发言等画面。

被问及影像跳脱的原因时，纳沙鲁汀表示：“我是为了节省电池才这样做。”他否认影像经过删减处理。

他也表示，发射水炮的命令由站在指挥车上的联邦后备队指挥官布斯巴拉占，通过对讲机发出。他同时指出，本身听见布斯巴拉占向群众发出解散的命令；不过，整个行动的最高指挥是金马区警区主任卡玛。

他同时指出，他听见布斯巴拉占发出“即刻解散，否则（警方）将采取武力对付”的命令；而当时群众还在聆听演讲，场面没有失序。

他也听见“逮捕”的命令被下达，之后，水炮就被发射，导致地面都湿透。影像显示部分人群散去，警方开始拖走聚集的人士、进行逮捕行动，被逮捕者逐一蹲在地上等待被带回警察局。

其中一幕影像也显示联邦后备队与便衣警察一起围捕移民示威群众，其中一名便衣警察还用脚踩或踢该名示威者；联邦后备队员则驱赶前来拍摄照片的摄影记者或记者。

多次被问及在场群众的情绪是否高昂与激动时，他都表示，群众表现平和，即使在演讲开始进行，群众的情绪都没有出现激昂或者场面没有失序。

纳沙鲁汀同时指出，当天，联邦后备队员各个佩戴M16手枪、点38短枪与催泪弹。

建议执勤警员佩戴证件

另一方面，刘天球希望通过，人权委员会建议，联邦后备队还是警方，在执行任务时，应该佩戴证件（name tag）

因为戴上头盔的联邦后备队员，还是只穿便衣或穿上背心的警员，无法让公众人士辨认，特别在发生警员暴力对待时，我们根本无法辨认对方是谁。”

他还建议，警方应该展示给公众知道，发出解散警告的程序，“肯定不是从远处高喊，结果群众也听不见。警方应该直接告诉主办当局，这是一个非法集会还是什么的，然后给群众多少时间离开现场。”

Muhyiddin, dedahkan cara pengiraan ikuiti anda

2006-10-05T21:24:00.000+08:00

Adakah Muhyiddin mampu mendedahkan cara pengiraan ekuiti Bumiputera yang dikatakan pada tahap 18.9% itu?

Kenyataan media Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, Ahli Pusat Tertinggi dan Ketua Biro NGO DAP Kebangsaan pada 5 Oktober 2006 di Petaling Jaya.

Mengikut satu lapuran hari ini dari Muar, Johor, Naib Presiden Umno, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin menafikan kenyataan sebuah kumpulan penyelidik pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) bahawa orang Melayu kini sudah menguasai 45 peratus kekayaan ekonomi di negara ini.

Sambil menyifatkan laporan yang disiarkan dalam sebuah akhbar tempatan bukan berbahasa Melayu (The Sun) semalam sebagai mengelirukan, beliau yang juga Menteri Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani berkata, orang Melayu hanya mencapai 18 peratus penguasaan ekonomi.Muhyiddin Yassin telah membuat satu kesilapan yang besar kerana nampaknya beliau terkeliru dengan perbezaan di antara ekuiti bumiputra dengan kekayaan ekonomi, walaupun ekuiti merupakan sebahagian daripada kekayaan ekonomi.

Apa yang dibentangkan oleh ASLI adalah ekuiti bumiputra telah mencapai 45% pada tahun 2005, dan bukannya 18.9% yang dikatakan oleh kerajaan BN dalam RMK 9. ASLI juga memdedahkan cara pengiraan yang digunapakai untuk menyokong dakwaan mereka.

Muhyiddin juga berkata, peratusan itu tidak berganjak sejak Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) tamat pada 1990 iaitu kira-kira 16 tahun lalu, berbanding bukan bumiputera yang menunjukkan peningkatan.

Jika ini benar, apakah kerajaan BN yang didominasikan oleh UMNO sendiri sudah gagal selama ini? Apakah UMNO selama ini tidak mampu ataupun kurang ‘idea’ untuk membantu kaum Bumiputra dalam usaha mempertingkatkan ekuiti mereka?

Kami juga tidak bersetuju dengan komen beliau kerana beliau mendakwa bahawa kenyataan yang dikeluarkan itu seolah-olah cuba menunjukkan bahawa orang Melayu di Malaysia sudah cukup kaya dan mendapat banyak kuasa ekonomi di negara ini.

Tujuan kenyataan itu ialah menunjukkan ekuiti Bumiputera telah mencapai matlamat DEB, iaitu 30%, maka DEB tidak haruslah dilanjutkan lagi.

Tiada sesiapa yang katakan semua orang Melayu ataupun Bumiputera sudah cukup kaya. Tentu ada yang kaya dan ada yang miskin dalam setiap kaum di Malaysia. Tentunya YTL, Lim Goh Tong dan Ananda Krishanan bukannya orang Melayu dan Datuk Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhary dan Datuk E, Datuk K dan Datuk R bukannya orang Cina atau India.

Dakwa Muhyiddin juga tidak tepat apabila beliau katakan ‘‘penyelidik NGO yang tidak perlu saya namakan itu memberikan contoh syarikat-syarikat milik kerajaan (GLC), yang kita sedia maklum ia adalah milik kerajaan dan bukannya orang Melayu kecuali Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) dan Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (PUNB) yang sememangnya ditubuhkan untuk membantu orang Melayu.”

Ini adalah kerana ASLI tidak pernah mengambil kira bahawa semua ekuiti dalam GLC adalah 100% dimiliki Bumiputera. Hanya separuh ekuiti dalam GLC dianggap sebagai ekuiti Bumiputera. Adakah Muhyiddin anggap semua ekuiti dalam GLC dimiliki oleh bukan Bumiputera ataupun orang asing?

Sebenarnya, mengikut ASLI, jika ekuiti dalam GLC tidak diambil kira, ekuiti Bumiputera sudah pun mencapai tahap lebih daripada 30%.

Bagaimanapun, kami bersetuju dengan cadangan Muhyiddin bahawa memandangkan laporan yang dibuat oleh kumpulan penyelidik itu telah dihantar kepada kerajaan, maka perkara tersebut perlu diperjelaskan semula oleh kerajaan atau agensi yang bertanggungjawab seperti Unit Perancang Ekonomi.

Kami tidak pernah mempertikaikan usaha kerajaan membantu kaum Melayu. Pada masa yang sama, kerajaan harus membantu semua lapisan masyarakat dan golongan miskin tanpa mengira kaum dan latarbelakang mereka.

Masalah DEB ialah dasar ini telah diimplimentasikan khas untuk golongan yang sudah kaya ataupun golongan yang rapat dengan kuasa pemerintah.

Golongan yang kaya dan berkuasa ini terdiri daripada tokoh-tokoh politik dan ahli-ahli perniagaan yang rapat dengan pemimpin UMNO, MCA, MIC, PBB, Gerakan dan SUPP. Rakyat jelata di akar umbi terus merana kerana mereka tidak mendapat apa-apa bantuan yang signifikan seperti golongan atasan.

Dan ‘mental subsidi’ yang tidak sihat juga dilahirkan kerana pelaksanaan DEB yang kurang tepat dan berkesan dan ini sudah menjadi satu halangan yang besar untuk kaum Bumiputera sendiri.

Kita perlukan satu dasar ekonomi yang lebih baik dan berkesan untuk semua lapisan masyarakat di Malaysia, baik miskin mahupun kaya. Rasa tidak puas hati di kalangan bukan Melayu pasti akan tercetus di negara ini jika DEB diteruskan walaupun ikuiti Bumiputera telah melebihi 30%.

DAP masih menunggu pihak kerajaan memberi penjelasan bagaimana (dengan pendedahan cara pengiraan) mereka mendapat angka ikuiti Bumiputera yang dikatakan hanya pada tahap 18.9% itu.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

烟霾笼罩的下的马来西亚，路在何方？

2006-10-05T19:14:00.000+08:00

烟霾笼罩的下的马来西亚，路在何方？

在一场由民主行动党主办的时事座谈会上，大约两百人挤满了加影新纪元学院四零五号讲堂，与主讲人林吉祥，林冠英，黄进发硕士和胡逸山博士和‘临时嘉宾’ 杨白杨进行了非常热烈的交流。这场讲座主题为“拉伯- 大选是唯一出路？” ，由张念群律师主持。

向来点子丰富的黄进发不按牌理出牌；他将主题改为‘大选-马来西亚人的出路’ ，并点出六大原因，说明为何马来西亚人应该在来届大选寻求突破。他认为在经济，廉政，教育，治安，环境和自由的六大层面，马来西亚政府节节败退，人民有必要站出来寻求出路，否则前途未卜。(他甚至大胆提出反对党应该集中火力攻打州政权的设想，值得探讨。)

我完全同意，拉伯是否能够通过‘闪电大选’ 来削弱前首相对他个人威胁，好让他和家族继续在政坛和商场上呼风唤雨，不是我们最应该关心的事。如果能够通过手中的神圣一票，改变巫统一党坐大，种族主义横行无忌的局面，那才是我们所应该追求者。

今天整个马来西亚的天空，被浓浓的烟霾所笼罩，而马来西亚的政治，不也被浓浓的种族主义色彩所围困住吗？评论人杨白杨认为一切的问题，源自极端的种族主义政治格局，是非常精确的论断。

他认为所有的反对党，都应该以破除种族主义政治为大前提，将种族主义者的气焰扑灭下来，一起来‘救救马来西亚’ 。

行动党秘书长林冠英鼓励人民拒绝乞丐政治和糖尿病政治，果敢地争取基本权益，值得各族人民深思和有所改变。他点出国阵领袖所谓的‘各族分享权力’是虚伪的假象。

反对党领袖林吉祥促请人民不要再对阿都拉存有幻想是正确的；他点出首相的许多施政弱点，譬如肃贪无心，改革警队无力，完全不能彰显所谓的‘全民首相’ 风范。他认为首相任由自己的女婿发表煽动种族情绪的言论，也是一大败笔。

胡逸山举出一些成熟的民主国家的典范，令出席者非常向往；不说不知，印度的首相曼莫汉是锡克教徒，总统是回教徒，虽然大部分的人民是兴都教徒。出席者不免会想，什么时候，马来西亚也可以真正的选贤与能，不再以一个人的种族或宗教为考量？

依我看来，反对党的支持者受到砂劳越州选举成绩的鼓舞，另一方面又看到阿都拉政府被前首相攻击得手忙脚乱，而国阵成员党之中又出现好像凯里这样的‘乱人’ ，再加上普通老百姓开始对经济不景气和通货膨胀发出怨言，因此对于来届大选的期望已经相对提高。

但是他们眼看首相已经准备提早大选，而反对党还是不能同声同气，心里不免开始焦急起来。他们都在担心，万一反对党再闹分裂，就会再次错失凝聚力量，狠狠地教训国阵的机会。

许多反对党支持者都希望，反对党之间能够在人民共同利益的大前提下，将各自的差异和矛盾放在一旁，一起迎头痛击国阵。

当然，要反对党将彼此的差异和矛盾放在一旁谈何容易，能否让各层次的人民接受反对党的合作却是一个非常大的考验。

行动党果敢地在1999年和回教党联手对抗国阵得到部分人民的接受，却同时流失了许多原有的支持者。仍有部分支持者直到今天还不肯谅解行动党。

无论如何，反对党有必要认清事实，人民也要谅解反对党的苦心，了解反对党必须合作的政治事实，除非有人愿意永远受制于种族主义者的气焰下，过着没有尊严和自由的生活。

"Is a snap election the only way out for Pak Lah?"

But "who cares about Pak Lah?" seems to be the reaction of the audience.

They are hoping that the coming general election will serve as an opportunity to teach Abdullah a lesson because he has failed miserably as a Prime Minister.

So many things have gone wrong under his administration and he seems to have no more control, not even his own son-in-law.

Saya disapina oleh Suhakam pada 6 Oktober

2006-10-04T17:29:00.000+08:00

Saya menerima sepucuk surat daripada Suhakam beberapa hari yang lalu untuk hadir dan memberi keterangan di hadapan Suhakam mengikut Sekyen 14(1)(c) Akta Suhakam 1999 (Akta 597). Saya akan hadir pada 6 Oktober 2006 (Hari Jumaat) sebagai seorang saksi. Surat ini ditandatangani oleh Haji Ahmad Yusuf Haji Ngah, Setiausaha Suhakam.

Sebelum ini, saya telah memberi keterangan kepada pegawai Suhakam kerana saya merupakan orang yang pertama di tangkap oleh polis pada insiden berdarah hari Ahad, di mana Sdr Amran dan lain-lain dibelasah dengan begitu teruk olen FRU.

Saya ditangkap tanpa sebarang amaran apabila saya sedang berucap di depan KLCC/ Petronas tentang isu kenaikan harga petrol/ diesel/ gas / elektrik, dalam satu perhimpunan secara aman anjuran Protes, satu gabungan NGO dan parti politik pembangkang.

Hak perhimpunan adalah satu hak asasi manusia. Rakyat berhak mengudarakan sebarang bantahan tentang polisi atau langkah kerajaan yang dianggap kurang munasabah ataupun tidak adil kepada rakyat. inilah maksud demokrasi yang sebenar.

Tugas polis adalah menjaga keselamatan dan keamanan. Keganasan dan kekerasan polis memang tidak boleh diterima oleh masyarakat umum.

Mudah-mudahan mereka yang menyalahgunakan kuasa akan dibawa ke mahkamah selepas "public hearing" yang dijalankan oleh Suhakam.

Be fair to our people back home

2006-10-03T19:04:00.000+08:00

Be fair to our own people back home.

We need not care too much of what others have said about us so long as we were doing the right things.

The best defense for PM Abdullah is to build a truly just, liberal, free, democratic, progressive and prosperous Malaysia.

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Wednesday, 3 October 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

I have earlier commented that I did not expect PM Abdullah to write a letter to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for a clarification on his controversial remark, where he said that “Malaysian Chinese were systematically marginalized”.

And I subsequently suggested to him not to collect the letter to save him some embarrassment.

But all that were not necessary now that MM Lee has writen a letter and decided to release his letter for all to read.

MM Lee has chosen to release the letter probably because he was afraid that what he said in his letter could be twisted by the Malaysian authority for propaganda.

And true enough.

If you read his letter carefully, you will know that MM Lee did not apologize for what he had said earlier. He did not retract a single thing he has said in the international dialogue.

He went further to say that Singapore never protested over the racist remarks made by various UMNO leaders in the past. He even provides an annex of past remarks as evidence.

MM Lee appears as saying “Do not unto others what you don't want others do unto you".

So, it is merely a personal apology to PM Abdullah for causing a great deal of discomfort to him.

In addition, MM Lee uses the opportunity to attack former PM Mahathir Mohamad. He is doing this to settle the score over the crooked bridge controversy.

He also took the opportunity to insinuate the behavior of some UMNO politicians in his letter: "And from time to time, when Malaysian politicians attack Singapore fiercely over some bilateral issue, some of them tell us privately that we should just accept this as part of Malaysian politics and not react to these attacks."

After reading his letter, we can safely say that MM Lee’s remark was aiming at explaining to the Americans and other foreigners why Singapore needs a strong government with little or no opposition.

One Malaysiakini reader, in his comment over the letter, has put it pretty well and I quote, “LKY’s statement, in essence, was his ongoing propaganda to the people of Singapore to rally round the PAP flag.

“He was justifying why Singapore needs a repressive government and why LKY will not accept any coalition nor brook any strong opposition. He asserts he is able to say no to Malaysia over bilateral issues not considered favorable to Singapore because of a strong PAP-led government. Any weakening of the government by the emergence of an opposition will undermine the ability of Singapore to say no to Malaysia and erode its bargaining power.”

“He was justifying his intolerance of opposition ideas in Singapore to an international audience because the suppression of the rights of Singaporeans to demonstrate during the IMF Conference had been highlighted by the international media and was a hot issue. Lee Kuan Yew’s justification, and certainly not for the first time, was to point out that he has to keep the opposition under the PAP’s jackboots lest his Malay neighbors undermine Singapore’s sovereignty."

“Knowing that the US needs Singapore in its China containment policy, such an appeal would have gone down well with the US and its allies in the audience and clouded the issue of the rights of Singaporean’s to oppose the PAP. Never mind that it will be viewed as being mischievous and certainly not welcomed by his neighbors, Malaysia and Indonesia.”

MM Lee is sorry to hurt PM Abdullah’s feelings but still stands by what he said. It’s therefore wrong and unprofessional for Barisan Nasional-controlled newspapers to headline their front pages in a manner as if MM Lee has apologized to Malaysia (which he clearly did not).

He has once again demonstrated his skill, i.e. “to say 'No' in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly."

MM Lee stood up for what he said and what he said is the truth. He only apologizes for causing Abdullah Badawi discomfort for telling the truth.

We noticed that Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar was unable to respond to MM Lee’s letter. He wanted to wait for PM Abdullah to say his piece first.

PM Abdullah is now reported as “unimpressed with MM Lee’s reply” in an AFP report today, I wonder how the Government-controlled newspapers are going to report in their headlines tomorrow.

Abdullah reiterated his view that the comments from MM Lee were "uncalled for and not appreciated" and risked inflaming racial tensions in the multicultural country.

But we have no clues of what Abdullah would do next or simply leave the matter to rest.

I like to put it to MM Lee that two wrongs do not make one right.

Allow me to say this to MM Lee: “You do not make such remark simply because your counterparts in another country have accused you for marginalizing your own citizens based on ethnic background.

You have made such remark because you know you were right. It is unnecessary for you to retaliate with the annex of remarks made by UMNO leaders in the past. You have the right to do so but by putting in the annex, you have given others an impression that “I do this because you have done that to me”, rather than “what I have said earlier was correct.”

You may have apologized to PM Abdullah for causing him a great deal of discomfort, but I’m afraid your letter has actually caused more headaches for him. Your decision to release the letter publicly has shown that you do not trust him very much. That’s one of the reasons why he was not impressed with your letter. But what did he expect in the first place?

You may have saved him the trouble of “whether to tell or not to tell” Malaysians about what you have said in your letter, but he is now trapped in a position- “whether to reply or not to reply” to your letter”. Just expressing his displeasure and dissatisfaction with the letter was surely not sufficient to put the dispute to rest.”

I doubt PM Abdullah has very much grounds to rebut whatever said by MM Lee. But how could he keep mum when MM Lee has not retracted a single word he said about the marginalization?

And I doubt very much the boys on “tingkat empat” (4th floor) could help writing a “good enough” letter to save the elegant grace of PM Abdullah. This is not as easy as making money out of restructuring of GLCs.

And I sincerely hope that Malaysian politicians would refrain from saying how Singapore has been marginalizing the Malays there for “two wrongs do not make one right”.

The best answer PM Abdullah could give will be proving MM Lee wrong by dismantling all race biased policies like the NEP and put forward more color-blind policies in the near future.

We need not care too much of what others have said about us so long as we were doing the right things back home.

We must be fair to our own citizens regardless of their race, religion and creed. ‘Malaysian First’ should be our attitude and spirit at all times.

The best way to defend Malaysia is to build a truly just, liberal, free, democratic, progressive and prosperous Malaysia.

韩春锦毫无建树若开除毫不足惜

2006-10-03T00:43:00.000+08:00

韩春锦一再出卖华教
若被开除毫不足惜

民主行动党全国中委兼非政府组织局主任文告-2006年10月3日八打灵再也

马华公会中央宣传局在十月二日发表文告，指责民主行动党领袖林吉祥公然促请教育部长希山慕丁革除副教育部长韩春锦的职位，是怀有不良议程的邪恶意图。

该局今天发表的文告极力吹捧韩春锦，提出了一大堆尚未成功或落实的所谓“努力” 譬如争取复办假期师训班，解决华小师资不足的问题，并且将所有的迁校计划视为韩春锦的功劳，令人啼笑皆非。

众所周知，自从韩上任以来，不但增建华小有气无力，迁校又慢吞吞，造成许多严重缺乏华小的城镇，如蒲种，双溪龙，旺沙马朱，皇冠城，首邦市，沙亚南，新山，吉隆坡，槟城等地，久久未能解决。根据董教总的数据，全国缺乏至少134间华小。

更令人愤慨的是，韩春锦不分青红皂白，只因为同僚周美芬同意关闭白小原校，同时说服了林良实和黄家定，就允许白小原校被无理关闭，结果在华社掀起千层浪，迄今拖了2098天仍未解决。韩因此成为众矢之的，到处被华人指指点点，韩难道忘记了吗？

韩春锦对华社极力反对的宏愿学校计划大力支持，对于不利华教长期发展，甚至可能令华小变质的243方案，韩也是模糊其词，何来功劳之有？

至于指“民主行动党一贯奉行以华制华政治竞争手段” ，更是毫无根据的诬蔑，不值一驳。
反观马华，自从成立到现在，从独立谈判的那一天，就开始出卖华社。如果不是前首相东姑阿都拉曼在英文星报专栏文章里，提到马华的陈东海(身为联盟秘书) 将华人的总要求备忘录丢进废纸萝，根本没有将它提到伦敦的谈判桌上，华人到今天还被马华蒙在鼓里呢！

马华创党人兼总会长陈祯禄曾经要求华社全力支持马华，同时答应为华社争取应有的权益，可是在紧要关头(伦敦独立谈判) ，却不被马华派为代表，反而让李孝式和陈东海代表华人，结果华人的权益没有受到保障，马华迄今没有作出明确的交待。华人有理由相信，马华打算出卖华人权益，才不让陈祯禄代表华人。

马华后来在华文中学改制事件，再次出卖华人，这是许多华教人士迄今不愿原谅马华，也不敢忘记的铁一般的事实。后来前马华署理总会长李孝友(也是前副教育部长)临终之前公开向华社道歉和忏悔，难道马华领袖都忘记了吗？

坦白说，华教的最大隐忧，其实是243方案；因为到了2008年，万一政府一意孤行，将英文列为六年级考试媒介语，而且只承认英文作答的考试成绩，又不承认华文作答的成绩，华小很快就会变质了。到时即使再多建几件华小，还有什么意义呢？

如果华小和国小的分别，只在于一科华文，华小还成华小吗？万一在国小列华文为正课的试验(今年起在150间国小开始实行)获得成功，华小和国小的唯一分别也没有了，都成了如假包换的英文小学，华小不是被名正言顺地消灭了吗？韩春锦对这个事件的发展只字不提，他有什么功劳可言呢？

所谓真理越辩越明，我们希望马华不要打退堂鼓，继续和行动党公开辩论母语教育权利的课题，一切让华社去评论和判断好了。

/ 刘天球

生日快乐！HAPPY BIRTHDAY！

2006-10-02T00:52:00.000+08:00

十月一日是中华人民共和国诞生的大日子，恰好是我的长子尊宪的生日。

正当中国十三亿人欢庆国庆日，似乎也同时为今年十八岁的他庆祝生日，难怪他有点洋洋得意。
回想当年(一九八七年)茅草行动，长子尚未出世，我由于为了营救同志早日重获自由，到处奔波走动，一直还未为他命名，结果拖到他出世的那一天，有感于国阵政府违反宪法，滥用权力，逮捕了一百多位异议份子(单单民主行动党就有16位同志被扣)，故此为他取名为“尊宪”，反讽国阵违宪！

转眼之间尊宪已经十八岁了，马来西亚的人权纪录一直未能改善，令人失望。

我们这一代人受到打压，当然不想下一代也继续受到打压，唯有奋力进行改革，希望国家有朝一日，变得更加自由，民主和开放。

中国近年来经济发展迅速，只是政治开放和人权纪录犹嫌不足，希望中国领导人勇于革新，大步走向民主自由和开放之路。

祝福你，中国！祝福你，刘尊宪！生日快乐！HAPPY BIRTHDAY！

Bumi equity- 18.9% or 45%?

2006-10-01T15:43:00.000+08:00

Bumi equity: 18.9% or 45%?

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Sunday, October 01, 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

The 9MP claims that in 2004, the Bumi equity stays at 18.9%, and the Chinese owns 39%, Indians 1.2%, nominee companies 8%, others 0.4% and foreigners 32.5%.

Khairy Jamaluddin and other UMNO leaders talks of the failure of the New Economic Policy(NEP) to fulfill its objective of 30% Bumi equity compared with the 18.9% in 2004 and that the Ninth Malaysian Plan(9MP) is the final chance to achieve it.

Prof Dr Lim Teck Ghee of Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS), an independent think-tank, argues with facts and figures and even the methodology the centre uses to state that the Bumi equity has reached some 45%.

We have yet to hear from Khairy or any other UMNO leaders that the figure quoted by ASLI was incorrect.

So far, we only hear some disagreement from one or two academicians. But none of them have put forward any argument.

Teras, a Malay NGO, now questions the motive of CPPS for doing such study. The organization did list some arguments but somehow has failed to prove the 18.9 % claim right or prove the 45% figure wrong.

I agree with Teras that the Government should seriously look into the disparity of income within the same ethnic groups rather than only focus on the disparity of income between the different races. We do not want to see any of our Malaysian community being marginalized in our own country.

We hope the Prime Minister could share with us the methodology used by his administration to reach the 18.9% figure, now that the figure has been seriously challenged by ASLI and other prominent academicians.

Meanwhile, Prof Dr Lim has openly requested those who disagree with the CPPS findings could challenge them with facts and figures and the methodology applied.

In February 2006, Professor Dr Lim Teck Ghee submitted a report that showed as at 30 September 2005, Bumi ownership of shares in Bursa Malaysia amounted to 45% or RM 325.08 billion out of the market capitalization of RM 715 billion. The CPSS is set up by the independent think-tank Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute as an independent research group, headed by Professor Dr Lim Teck Ghee. Professor Dr Lim indicated that if the Bumi had not sold off their shares, their equity stake would easily have been higher than the 45%. An estimated 40% of the preferential shares given to Bumis were sold by them for profit gains.

On the other hand, DAP Secretary General Lim Guan Eng believes that the 18.9% figure was incorrect because “the 18.9% Bumi equity is based on par value of share capital of limited companies.”

He said “the value of share capital is a false reflection of the real or true worth of the company. A more accurate assessment, though not the most comprehensive and objective test, would be to take the market value of Bumi equity of all listed companies in Bursa Malaysia (BM).”

Lim further argues that “the more important question then is therefore not attaining 30% Bumi equity which has been achieved but who amongst the Malays owns the 45% Bumi equity of BN based on market capitalization.”Lim also argues that the Barisan Nasional Government should adopt the correct macroeconomic policy and discard nationally divisive and outdated policies of quotas and subsidies.

“Such racial policies like the NEP must be replaced by those which forges national unity and encourages competition, value creation and meritocracy.” He argued.

Lim has urged all Malaysian to abandon the racial premise of the NEP and its false pursuit of 30% Bumi equity.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

Chinese marginalized: Kuan Yew Vs Abdullah

2006-10-01T02:12:00.000+08:00

I did not expect our PM actually wrote a letter to Minister Mentor of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew for clarification on "systematic marginalization"

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Saturday, 30 September 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

According to a report by The Straits Times, Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has written to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi over his recent remarks about the Chinese being marginalized in Malaysia.

Lee told a forum on good governance in Singapore on Sept 15 that the attitude of Malaysia and Indonesia towards the republic was shaped by the way they treated their Chinese communities.

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

"And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese - compliant," Lee had said.

His press secretary, YY Yeong said the letter was now with the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. I did not expect Abdullah to write to Lee for clarification over the controversial remarks.

That’s because I’m afraid that MM Lee may decide to give evidences and example to illustrate or prove his point, and that would be even harder for Abdullah to stomach.

For instance, what if MM Lee decides to cite some of these examples…

· Under the NEP, many non-Malays have been deprived of their rights in many fields, such as scholarship, licenses, privatization projects and allocation of shares, making the NEP looks like Not Equal Policy.
· Every year, more than 3,000 best students graduated from various Chinese Independent High Schools (including Foon Yew High School, Johor Bahru) were recruited by Singaporean universities and colleges as their qualification were not recognized by the Malaysian authority.
· Very little chances of promotion for the non-Malays in the civil service.
· No non-Malays make it to the top in police and armed forces and public universities.
· Only less than 4 percent of the total allocation for primary schools went to the non-Malays.
· No new Chinese/ Tamil schools policy since the eighties.
· No new licenses to operate petrol stations for the non-Malays.
· 8 out of 10 banks were in the hands of Malays although most of the banks were founded by the non-Malays.
· Non-Malays have to build their own temples and churches.
· Non-Malays have no chance to take up senior portfolios in the Cabinet like before ( such as Trade and Industry, Finance, Education)
· No more non-Malay state Governors ( Leong Yew Koh was the first Governor of Melaka)
· Not a single District Officer (DO) is a non-Malay.
· As an unstated policy, all contracts awarded by Petronas must go to Malay-owned companies.
· All Government printing jobs must go to Malay printers.
· More than 90% of the Universiti Malaya medical faculty seats were given to matriculation students (few were non-Malays).
· Only a fraction of the fund for religious purposes was given to non-Malays.
· No Chinese/Tamil subtitles were allowed for Chinese/ Tamil TV commercials.
· Chinese/ Tamil characters for outdoor advertising billboards were not allowed.
· No religious programs other than Islam were allowed over TV and Radio Malaysia.

These are just a few examples MM Lee could have cited. He may have many other examples and evidences he could give.

My suggestion to the Prime Minister is not to collect the letter written by MM Lee in order to save him from some embarrassment.

“无校”风波暴露马华当家不当权的窘境

2006-09-30T16:39:00.000+08:00

“无校” 风波暴露马华当家不当权窘境
马华中央教育局毋须模糊焦点自圆其说

民主行动党全国中委兼非政府组织局主任刘天球文告
2006年9月30日

随着副教育部长诺奥马在民主行动党国会议员古拉的步步紧逼之下，在国会坦言第九大马计划下兴建的180间新校，无一是华小或淡小，而且表明这是国阵向来的政策之后，华社才惊觉事态严重，对马华和国阵口诛笔伐。

虽然诺奥马在发言时态度嚣张，但是他直接道出真相，我们还是应该要感谢他。没有他的真话，马华和其它国阵领袖，不晓得还要继续蒙骗华社和印度社会多久。

内阁为了挽救马华，避免选票流失，赶快推出一间早在七年前就批准迁校的古来二小，以及属于宏愿学校计划的布特拉高原敦陈修信小学，当作新的华小来作出“交待” ，不但形同欺骗华社，而且当华社是乞丐一般来施舍，令人愤慨！

向来高喊“与华小共存亡” 的马华，在争取建校的事件上节节败退，可是还是发表不确实的言论来掩盖本身的过失，意图模糊焦点，逃避现实。

民主行动党创党四十年以来坚决捍卫华教，众所周知；虽然因此付出严重的代价，却从来不敢邀功。反对党领袖林吉祥提起古拉在国会逼问诺奥马的事件，纯属就事论事，马华大可不必紧张。

内阁在重大压力之下仅仅宣布兴建两间不算“新” 的华小，根本是杯水车薪，解决不了华小严重缺乏的问题，马华不必也不应太过高兴，反之应该做好本分，继续努力争取增建华小。

董教总已经宣布，目前全国总共缺少134间华小，而且已经提出详细的报告，还在等待与首相会谈，马华不应从中作梗，而且应该停止自我矮化和自我边缘化。

马华中央教育局的文告提出的所谓两个重点(内阁及教育部申明政府会增建华小的政策，以及政府打破以往的做法，自2000年以来，开始为一些华小承担100%的兴建费) ，其实“言过其实” ，根本“另有文章” 。

其实，国阵政府只有在大选或补选的压力，才会兴建一些华淡小来捞取选票，充其量是“政府策略”，并不是什么政府政策。

白小就是一个最典型的例子。2000年，因为行动党和华社上下大力反对关闭白小原校，内阁被迫打破先例，拨款一千两百万令吉，并且“破天荒”在八个月内建起新的丽阳镇白小(相对与陆庭谕老师常提起，等待了18年才建好的大古来华小)。这是华社的压力促成，绝对不是国阵新的政策。

过后的巴生兴华小学，也是因为面对行动党的严峻挑战，为了破解2004年大选的压力，不得不由政府拨款兴建。

至于万达镇的培才二小，也是为了破解行动党的威胁，担心流失八打灵华裔选票，将当地过剩的一间国小校舍(当地有三间国小过剩) 直接列为培才二小，成为“史无前例” 的大选糖果。

以上的事实，都是八打灵和巴生华教人士最清楚不过的事实。

该局文告所列的柔佛再也华小，帝沙再也华小，康乐二校，安邦二校，都属于同样的性质，都是为了破解反对党大选压力的产物。马华还敢邀功，说是” 经过马华领导等人士，通过策略性不间断的游说，争取及营造而得“，更是令人不敢恭维，甚至有点那个了。

至于敦陈祯禄学校和敦陈修信学校，同属宏愿学校，都不是华社所要的学校，当然只好由政府100% 出钱啦！

此外，该局主任指这项决定已经记录在案，其实并不确实；把教育部长在新闻发布会的谈话当作是“增建华小是政府的政策，不增建华小不是政府的政策” ，更是有意误导华社，欺骗华社。

事实上，马华，国大党和其它华基政党的部长，早在八十年代就在内阁集体同意巫统的建议，不再兴建任何华小和淡小。这是他们从来不敢公开承认的事实。

这也是为什么第六，第七，第八以及第九大马计划，从来没有列入兴建任何华淡小的计划的真正原因。

所有的地方政府大蓝图，从来只有马来学校和宗教学校保留地，也是因为国阵这项未明文的既定政策使然。

我们希望华社和友族社会上下一心，在兴建华淡小方面拒绝国阵“乞丐式的施舍教育手段”，不要被一两间所谓的华小所轻易打发，反之全面争取兴建更多华淡小，同时更要打醒精神，严防华淡小变质。

/ 刘天球

Dr Wong Sai Hou caught red-handed

2006-09-30T14:12:00.000+08:00

Kg Tunku state assemblyman Dr Wong Sai Hou had promised the residents that he will "wash his hands" over his illegally erected service centre located opposite the Paramount LRT station in a dialogue.

But he quietly influenced the PJ Draft Plan committee to insert an item to "legalize" the plan.

He was caught red-handed by DAP PJ Action Team. When the local residents were informed about the plot, they staged a protest last Wednesday and submitted 15 sets of protest to MBPJ on the same afternoon.

I have requested the new Mayor in my courtesy call last Friday to visit the site and take the necessary actions.

Here are two seperate stories published by Sinchew and China Press on the protest on Wednesday morning...

居民反對建服務中心要求展延修改大藍圖期限
updated:2006-09-29 11:30:47 MYT

■居民手持布條表示不要他們身後的建築物成為服務中心，希望涉及者表態有關建築的真正用途。(放大)

（八打靈再也訊）百樂花園20/24路的居民週五將要求八打靈再也市政廳，展延修改靈市大藍圖聽證會的最後期限，以讓居民有足夠的時間向有關方面做出反對。約20名居民今早在八打靈再也火箭行動隊主席劉永山、顧問劉天球和財政吳炳順陪同下，拉布條堅決抗議6947號地段被發展成服務中心的工程。

擔心服務中心引人潮

有關地段處於百樂花園布特拉輕快鐵站對面。居民表示，該地屬私人所有，原是一片空地。他們指有關建築非常礙眼，更擔心服務中心日後吸引人潮，引發更嚴重的交通阻塞、吵雜等問題。

抗議行動領導人陳文龍指出，居民於2003年至今，已先後會見甘榜東姑區州議員黃世豪和八打靈再也南區國會議員拿督林祥才，表達他們不願興建有關建築的意願。

“黃世豪在我們的面前指出，他將不再處理有關工程（Wash hand on this project）。可是，我們卻在本月1日發覺市政廳在打藍圖中，建議把此地段的用途，從房屋改為服務站中心。

“我們必定會在聽證會期限結束之前，呈交抗議書堅決反對修改有關大藍圖的建議。”

劉永山指出，20/24路共有32人家，他們在2003年就已開始反對上述工程。但為何市議會在眾人反對聲之下，堅持己見批准策劃準證給發展商發展土地，直至一連串的民意反彈之後，才停止工程？他非議，市政廳不但不拆毀該建築屋，還選擇以修改大藍圖的方式，來合理化之前的錯誤。

“八打靈再也火箭行動隊將于明日致函市政廳，在1976年城鄉規劃法令第十三（三）條文下，要求將聽證會展延4個星期，以便讓更多靈市市民能夠前往市政廳檢閱藍圖修改。”

黃世豪：尊重居民意願

另一方面，黃世豪受詢時表示，他們已決定尊重居民的意願，不會在有關地段興建服務中心。“修改的大藍圖只是一項建議，並非最後決定。地主已通知市政廳這項決定。”他強調，有關建築的用途將會用來充作住宅，不是服務中心。（星洲日報／大都會‧2005/09/28）

今日焦點:住宅地段變會所居民致函反對沒受理
● 地點：靈市24/20路
位于民宅旁的服務中心建築已成雛型，經過居民多番反對，現已停工。

（八打靈再也28日訊）居民不滿八打靈再也市政廳“靜悄悄”把靈市20/24路某住宅地段改為“民眾會堂或服務中心”地段，以及有人在未獲批准信下，即大興土木建2層樓會所。

居民懷疑當地州議員透過本身在市政廳的“影響力”，更改相關地段用途，以興建本身的服務中心會所。

不過，有關州議員已作出否認，並強調市政廳已決定把該地段改回房屋用途，相關建築工程已終止。

根據八打靈再也火箭行動隊主席劉永山指出，該地段原是片空地，居民于2003年9月3日接獲八打靈再也市議會（現為市政廳）通知來信，通知該空地將興建民眾會堂或服務中心，影響逾40戶居民。

他說，居民以民宅範圍不宜建民眾會堂，他們無需服務中心為由大力反對這項工程，但當局一直沒有回應，居民于去年杪再度呈信給市政廳作出反對，同樣沒結果。

地段空間有限

他表示，市政廳于今年2月發信通知居民，當局決定發出策劃批准信給地主，當局未發出批准信，地主就于半年前動工，引起居民極度不滿。

他今日會見居民后，這么指出。隨同者包括行動隊顧問劉天球、財政吳炳順及居民行動委員會主席陳文龍。

陳文龍指出，他們曾2度向市政廳提呈反對工程的備忘錄和意願，甚至會見涉及的甘榜東姑州議員拿督黃世豪和八打靈南區國會議員拿督林祥才，卻沒有結果。

他強調，這裡是住宅區，相關地段空間有限，不適宜建民眾會堂或服務中心。

劉永山指出，他們于上週會見市長商討此事，發現地方發展修改草擬圖中，該地段已由房屋地改為民眾會堂或服務中心用途，而居民也揭發發展工程地主與土地局註冊地主身份有出入。

居民要求州議員能清楚交代，並協助要求市政廳處理因停工而遭廢置的建築物。

接受意見期限沒公佈險錯失反對機會

八打靈再也市政廳在地方藍圖草擬圖測出爐后，未對外公佈正式接受意見為期1個月，導致居民直到截止期限前一天才知曉此事，差點錯過提呈反對建議書的機會。

八打靈再也火箭行動隊主席劉永山指出，該草擬藍圖于9月1日出爐，並開放給居民提供反建議至本月29日，但當局卻未對外公佈這項訊息，反而是他們前往市政廳偶然發現此事。

“市政客廳此舉將讓居民失去針對本身地區發展提呈意見的機會，尤其不利居民的計劃。”

他以百樂園20/24路的問題為例，居民不知情而沒提呈反意見，市政廳就批准當地興建民眾會堂或服務中心工程。

他今日會見居民后，這么指出。

行動队顧問劉天球吁請市政廳把相關藍圖貼上網讓居民過目，及透過電郵方式提供意見。

劉永山指出，他們明日將要求市政廳援引1976年城鄉規劃法令第13（3）條文，延長公眾檢閱地方草擬藍圖期限至10月杪，讓居民能有更充足時間檢閱和提供意見。

另外，百樂園居民行動委員會已成功收集15份反建議書，明日（29日）呈上市政廳。

黃世豪：考量後認同意見工程6月已停工

甘榜東姑州議員拿督黃世豪承認，百樂園20/24路的空地並不適宜建民眾會堂暨服務中心，而八打靈再也市政廳已終止有關工程。

同時，市政廳將會在地方藍圖內，把該土地修改為房屋用途。

他說，市政廳是因為居民極力反對，及考量該空地不適宜建民眾會堂暨服務中心，而作出上述決定。

“該工程已在6月停工。” 他今日接受本報電訪，針對居民指責他聯合私人地主在當地興建服務中心一事，這么指出。

居民透露，他們6月與靈南區國會議員拿督林祥才和黃世豪對話期間，黃世豪曾說明該地是私人地段，他本身也已決定放棄在該處興建服務中心會所，不想再受牽連。

黃世豪表示，他是受地主獻議，在當地建設服務中心，后來經過多番視察和考量，大家都認為在當地建服務中心非常不當，而他也認為不適合，決定停止有關工程。

DAP Education Forum: Crisis and Breakthrough

2006-09-29T11:27:00.000+08:00

华教运动反守为攻时机到
华总受促配合董教总行事
MALAYSIAKINI 郭史光庆Sep 29, 06 10:21am

华教反攻的时机已到！政治工作者与华社华团，应该趁华小拨款遭“干捞”和政府宣布不增建华小的课题闹得沸沸扬扬时，顺应目前的政治局势，反守为攻，展开行动恢复身为公民的母语教育权利。

这是数位主讲人在昨晚一场讲座“从希山慕丁VS翁诗杰看：华小危机，如何突围？”上发出的呼吁。

这场由行动党主办的讲座，邀请了国会反对党领袖林吉祥、行动党大山脚国会议员章瑛、华总副总会长周世杨和黄汉良主讲，主持人为胡逸山。

民众必须有强大的意愿

林吉祥表示，人民应该趁目前的时机，发动一场浩大的民间运动，纠正半世纪以来的边缘化政策，要求政府公平对待各族母语教育的发展。“民众必须有强大的意愿，否则行动党在国会只有12名议员，国阵政府的部长人数都多过这个数目。”

也是森华堂主席的周世杨也表示“时候到了”，认为华教运动目前是时候反守为攻，为政者应该拟定短、中、长期目标全盘计划，结合所有的力量进行突围。“关键时刻到来的时候，人民很重要，力量必须发酵......华教多年来都在防守，没有进攻，以致多年来都节节败退。”

章瑛：不建华小不给票

他呼吁在朝的华基政党必须更加勇敢，在野的政党则应该更有智慧，“希望行动党能够改变策略，配合华团”。

章瑛则希望人民看透国阵政府的“糖果政治”，在来届大选里壮大反对党，让反对党更有效地监督政府施政。“人民必须通过投票传达讯息，不建华小不给票！”

此外，副教育部长诺奥玛指政府无意在第9大马计划下增建华小，之后教育部长希山慕丁却宣布政府将“增建”两所“新华小”，还指自己和马华总会长黄家定早已进行讨论，只是诺奥玛不知情的政治骗局，也为林吉祥一语道破。

林吉祥：诺奥玛被迫吃死猫

林吉祥说，“两个人偷偷摸摸讨论，教育部怎么会这样？就连两个副部长（诺奥玛和韩春锦）都不知道”。

“我骂过诺奥玛很多次，但是这次他是说真话，是代表教育部的政策，现在却被迫吃死猫。”“如果诺奥玛说错话，黄家定和希山慕丁为什么没有立刻纠正，要等到一周后的内阁会议后才出来做戏？”

他也调侃阿都拉通过内安部指示媒体停止报道华小拨款遭骑劫事件。“人民以为自己投选了一个包青天，如果出现干捞事件，他应该叫他身边的王朝和马汉进行调查，但是他反而指示媒体把新闻压下来。”

黄汉良：国小教华文有利华教针对国小教华文的新政策

也是隆雪华堂会长的黄汉良认为，让友族学生学习华语对华教的发展有利，“使人们学习华文就象各国人民学习英文一样，华文不再成为敏感课题，问题就可能获得解决”。

他表示，随着中国的崛起和华文的国际上的地位，间接推动友族学生学习华语，这有助于将华教问题变成全民问题，让发展华文转化为各族人民的共同意愿。

“当然有心人可能有其不可告人的幕后动机，但是，我认为总的方向是好的，我们要将坏念头变成好主意，将坏事变为好事。”

周世杨：华总不应逃避责任

黄汉良主张在当前的客观环境下，华教运动必须坚持以董教总为中心，团结一切可以团结的力量，配合全国华团和政党，尤其是朝野政党，共同维护华小不变质。

“坚持母语教育，反对数理英化、反对243方案，争取2008年小学检定考试数理科保留母语出题。”

另外，他也提出华教运动的3项任务，既以学生的利益为依归，不断改革创新、以家长的意愿为取向、全球化、国际化的思维作指导，跨越国界、跨越地区的思维来看待我国的华文教育。

周世杨强调，目前的华总领导层，以董教总的大方向为行事依归，在面对华社课题时，不逃避推搪责任，坚持与华社站在一起。他指出，在面对华社课题时，华团经常出现两极化的现象，对此，华总有责任凝聚华社的力量，拒绝政党的分化。他说，华总将继续凝聚华团的力量，扩大华团的阵容，有系统、策略地进行争取。

好几次周世杨忍不住批评马华，但是却欲言又止，惹得出席者阵阵笑声。

“董教总遭边缘化，但是身为华总很难指明道姓是谁，但大家都知道，华总又是需要保守点，希望大家体谅原谅。”“华团1年前已呈备忘录，为什么执政的马华和国大党现在才来争取？有一句话很传神，但是不能讲，什么当，什么家的。”

讲座获得超过200位出席者的捧场，挤爆隆雪华堂的视听室，一些出席者被迫在视听室外，通过主办当局准备的投影机观看主讲人的风采。

行动党秘书长林冠英也在致开幕词时，揭露教育部长希山慕丁和马华总会长日前所公布的布特拉高原敦陈修信华小，实际上是一所宏愿学校。

Comments on " Unstated BN policy- no more new Chi/Tamil schools"

2006-09-29T10:53:00.000+08:00

My statement entitled "Unstated BN policy- No more new Chinese/ Tamil schools" was published by Malaysia-Today.net and it has attracted two 2 comments so far .

I find the second comment in particular contains some highly relevant points and full of optimism. And certain proposed ideas were controversial but certainly mind-provoking.What do you think?

2 Comments:

Don'tPlayGod said...
I have also heard from MCA friends that the MCA had agreed to UMNO's order that no new Chinese schools would be built more that 25 years ago! One can see that is true as no Chinese schools have been built for the last 35 years!

Just take a look at K.L/P.J. where the population has increased by lelaps and bounds, and so many housing areas have sprung up. UMNO's wish is that mother-tongue education is to be eventually removed in time.

Education is something that is very close to the hearts and minds of the Chinese. So MCA, please stop saying that you represent the Chinese community.
Friday, September 29, 2006 12:16:59 AM

Cinama said...
Education is the basic rights of a citizen. Responsible Government must provide it.

I am an advocator of "Muhibbah" and Bangsa Malaysia. I believed in "Unity in Diversity".

Imagine the Chinese in Malaysia attracting investors from China, exporting to China thru common bond. The Indian attracting FDI from India and selling to India e.g. Samy Velu (though an ass-hole) can get construction project from India under B.O.T. The Melayu can attract oil money from the Middle East and other muslim countries. Exporting Islamic banking, halal food and turn Malaysia into an Islamic Hub.

Negara Malaysia will be the envy of the Universe and the exchange rate will be RM1.00 = S$2.345.

The World scenario have changed. I think we should built more SRJK(c) and SRJK (t) and religious school for Muslim. At secondary level, all should integrated into a single SMK. The University should then accept students based on merit.

Common university entrance examination and no more matriculation for Melayu and STPM for non-Malay etc. No more discrimination. Maybe you can have just one university(govt funded) strictly for Melayu and see if there is a demand for their graduates.

LKY is RIGHT. The non- Melayu, although Malaysian, are marginalised and discriminated. This should be STOPPED.

RPK, You are right, the UMNO General Assembly (according to The Star) will be postponed until the next General Election.If the UMNO General Assembly were to be held, I am sure AAB will receive a NO CONFIDENT vote and ousted.

If the GE is held within the next six months, BN will be wiped off. If I have to, I will voted for a monkey instead of BN.
Friday, September 29, 2006 10:23:44 AM

不建新的华淡小，是国阵的既定政策

2006-09-29T02:59:00.001+08:00

国阵的未明文既定政策-不建任何华/淡小

民主行动党全国中委兼非政府组织局主任刘天球文告，28/9/2006

从八十年代开始，国阵有一项既定的母语政策，那就是不兴建任何新的华小或淡小。

这是马华，民政，国大党和人联党部长不敢公开承认的事实，因为他们早就在内阁集体接受这项由巫统提出的政策。

唯有在极大的压力之下，通常是在大选或补选期间为了确保国阵胜利，国阵才会破例增建一两间华小或淡小。

鲁乃淡小就是一个很好的例子。为了赢取当地印度人选票，政府在补选期间答应建淡小，可是来得太迟和太少，结果国阵兵败如山倒。

另一个例子是培才二小。为了避免八打灵选民在2004年大选投票给民主行动党，国阵赶紧在万达镇兴建培才分校，过后还100%拨款兴建丽阳镇白小，结果取得大胜。

教育部长希山姆丁刚宣布的所谓两间新的华小，其中的古来二小其实不是新校。早在七年前就获得政府答应迁校的古来原本是大选糖果之一，后来迟迟不见踪影是因为第八大马计划没钱了(根据马华林时清的说词) 。
.

如今教育部长将它当作新的华小来宣布，简直是一派胡言，又骗得了谁呢？

所谓的布特拉高原敦陈修信华小，原本是属于在柔佛的一间宏愿学校，已经被林良实在上届大选之前(也是在大选的压力下)宣布取消，如今被部长拿来借尸还魂，当作新的华小。

需知布特拉高原是一个尚在兴建中的新镇，暂时尚未真正需要华小。

如果国阵政府真的有诚意发展母语教育，她应该先在已经兴建好的成熟新镇，如吉隆坡的旺沙马朱和雪州的双溪龙和皇冠镇新建华小和淡小。

因此，诺奥马其实说得是一项事实。他在国会回答行动党国会议员古拉说，在180间新校之中，没有任何一间是华小或淡小。他甚至强调，强化国小才是国阵政府的政策。

教育部长在内阁会议后的宣布其实是一片谎言。他甚至懒得欺骗印度社会(教育部长没有宣布兴建任何一间淡小，之前说会建14间淡小的三美威鲁应该作何自圆其说？)

我想只有好像黄家定那样的领袖，才会称赞教育部长英明。只是兴建两间不算新的“新校” ，值得那么高兴吗？又不是20间，200间！！！

若和第九大马计划的180间新校相比，那算得了什么？

若和董教总建议的134间华小相比，那又算的了什么？

对于已经被‘边缘化“的华人部长来说，你要怎么说呢？

或许，华社应该拒绝“乞丐” 式的“施舍” ，大声向政府说不！

五年才兴建两间实在太少，有本事“收回去”，宣布一间新的也不建，看看华裔选民如何看待这项“待遇” ，也好让还在“睡觉” 的同胞从梦中惊醒！

/刘天球

Unstated BN policy- no new Chinese/Tamil schools

2006-09-28T17:20:00.000+08:00

Unstated BN policy- no new Chinese/Tamil schools.

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Thursday, September 28, 2006 in Petaling Jaya

There was an unstated BN policy on mother-tongue education since the eighties, i.e. no more building of new Chinese and Tamil primary schools.

This is a fact MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP ministers would never dare to admit openly because they have agreed to it more than two decades ago.

New Chinese or Tamil schools could only be built when the BN government was under tremendous pressure, usually used as sugar-coated gimmicks for winning votes in general elections or by-elections.

One such good example was SJKT Lunas in Kedah. It was built to garner Indian votes for the Lunas by-election. Nevertheless, BN has lost the seat simply because it was too late and too little to win the hearts of the local Indian community at that time.

The other example was SJKC Pui Chai II in Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya. It was built to prevent Chinese votes from switching to DAP in the 2004 general election. BN did very well here in spite of "killing" the original SJKC Damansara. Some 80 students are still putting up at the temple nearby to continue the struggle.

SJKC Kulai II, one of the so-called two new schools announced by Hisham yesterday, was in fact not a new school. It has gotten an approval seven years ago to be relocated as one of the election pledges.

It was not built until today because there was no more money under the 8th Malaysia Plan (according to Lim See Ching of MCA). And Hisham has shamelessly called it a new school!

And I suspect the so-called SJKC Tun Tan Siew Sin in Putra Heights was originally planned as a Vision School somewhere in Johor (which was called off and announced by Ling Liong Sik prior to the last general election).

Putra Heights is largely a new township still under construction. The demand for a SJKC would only come much later.

If the BN Government is really sincere and honest about promoting mother-tongue education, Hisham and company should be building new Chinese/ Tamil schools in matured townships like Wangsa Maju in Federal Territory and Bandar Sg Long and Bandar Mahkota Cheras in Selangor.

So, Noh Omar was correct when he answered M. Kula of DAP (MP of Ipoh Barat) that none of the 180 schools planned under the 9MP were Chinese or Tamil ones.

Hishammuddin Hussein’s response after the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday was nothing but lies. {Guess why Hisham did not even bother to lie about building any new Tamil schools, Komala ( and Samy Vellu?)}

Only people like Ong Ka Ting would praise Hisham for such a sham. How could he be so happy about the so-called two (not 20 or 200) ‘new schools” which were not “new” after all?

What is that compared to 180 new schools under the 9MP?

What is that compared to 134 Chinese schools that we need (according to DongJiaoZong’s proposal)?

But that’s the mentality of a ‘marginalized’ Minister as such. So sad.

YB Chew, what have you got to say to these two Malaysiakini readers?

2006-09-28T15:11:00.000+08:00

The crime rate in PJ is climbing up rapidly just like any other urban towns. But all the elected reps like Chew Mei Fun of PJ Utara could do was to hold PR dialogues with residents and police force.

They were not bothered with the fact that only about 7,000 out of 92,000 police personnels were actually involved in combating crimes.

Neither do they care about the setting up of IPCMC or police reforms.

Chew, who lives in gated properties like Aman Suria, has been advocating for gated communities as a "solution".

She even abused her position by asking the PJ police to send patrol cars right into where she's staying, and to patrol "within the gated community"!!!

Two Malaysiakini readers have written letters to the Editor to express their disappointment with Chew. Just wondering whether she would bother to respond to their queries.

Letter 1: Safe in her little enclave M Chang Sep 26, 06 6:05pm

With regard to the article in The Star titled Chew is all for gated communities, I have to say that the MP for Petaling Jaya Utara, Chew Mei Fun, has demonstrated that she is not only oblivious to the real issues of the day, but her opinions are naïve, condescending and insensitive, to say the least.

Is she advocating that we all move to gated communities – which are basically enclaves for the wealthy - just so we can feel safer.

Shouldn't we, as taxpayers, be able to rely on the police to keep our country safe for all Malaysians?

Isn't she just as concerned as the rest of us that her government (I didn't vote for BN) hasn't really got a concrete plan to reduce crime and corruption in this country?

Not only does she not say much in Parliament, she doesn't seem to have a stand in matters that are of concern to the people.

We have hardly heard her opinions on PJ issues, such as the billboard issue, the pest control issue (when it was raging), the increase in assessment rates, etc.

And what, pray tell, YB, is your stand on the IPCMC?

Letter 2: Gated community: How many can afford its lifestyle? YY Sep 27, 06 6:36pm

When member of parliament and Women, Family and Community Development parliamentary secretary Chew Mei Fun, a victim of snatch theft and burglary, openly declared that “I was scared”, many would have identified with her situation.

Here at last was a voice in the government that would be calling for steps to be taken to make the streets and neighbourhood safer for all.

Would she press the government for increased police patrols, for example?

What Chew advocated was, alas, a disappointment. It is true that gated communities and condominiums, being private properties with restricted access, do provide a greater measure of security.

However, such safety comes at a cost. It is not only the private security services that have to be paid for. When street lights don’t work or if potholes appear in the streets inside of the community gates, the bills for repair and maintenance go to the residents. Hence, here is no such thing as a ‘cheap’ gated community that can be well-run.

I have nothing against those who can afford the lifestyle gated communities offer. If they have worked hard to achieve success in life, let them taste the fruit of their labour.

But we have to accept that most Malaysians will not be among this group. There are also the existing non-gated properties, where the overwhelming majority of the population live, to consider.

Will personal safety and security then be available only to those who can afford it? Should not ordinary folk living outside the high walls of exclusive gated communities expect good neighbourhood security to be provided by the police?

Chew can look forward to feeling even safer before long. The up-and-coming parliamentary secretary is only a few steps away from becoming a minister, at which time she would be assigned her own personal bodyguard.

Until the streets are made safer, the rest of us (we, too, are scared) who can afford neither gated communities nor personal bodyguards will just have to take our chances.

笑一笑，没烦恼！

2006-09-28T14:07:00.000+08:00

某华商发明了一种智商测试仪，献给马华公会。

陈广才来试一试,把头脑往里面一伸。机器说 [ 智商 70 ] , 陈广才很高兴。翁诗傑也把脑袋放到里面。机器说 [ 智商 75 ] 翁诗傑也很高兴。黄XX看见大家这麽高兴，也来试一试 , 把脑袋往里面一伸。机器说：[ 机器珍贵，要小心使用。。请不要把狗头往里面放啊"。

事件发生後，华商急忙升级，很快推出改良2号版。

陈广才又来试一试，机器说 [ 智商 75 ] ,广才大呼[ 长了 5分 ]。翁诗傑见到了，也来试一试 , 机器说 [ 智商 80 ] , 诗傑大喜。黄XX看到了, 心想这次应该没问题了 , 也来试一试。机器良久不说话"。

正当大家以为机器有问题的时候，机器说， [ 哦。。。！这粒狗头好面熟啊！]连续 2 次让总会长出醜，华商立刻高薪聘请美国专家，使用最新的技术，进行全面升级。

经过300位专家的努力 , 终於推出了升级 3号版。"。

陈广才又来试一试, 机器说 [ 智商 80 ]。广才大叫[ 这次测得更準啊! ]。翁诗傑也来试一试, 机器说 [ 智商 85 ]。诗傑大喊[ 这次真的测得更準呀! ]大家很高兴，马上叫黄XX也来试一试。

黄XX这回学乖了。他捉了一只狗往里面放，要看机器有什么反应。

机器良久不说话,正当大家以为机器又有问题的时候，突然大家听到一阵阵
[ 咚咚咚咚锵咚锵咚锵! ] 的锣鼓声，大家吓了一跳。接着，只见机器打出几个大字：

[ 欢迎总会长光临，多多指教！]

Lessons for corrupt politicians back home

2006-09-27T12:16:00.000+08:00

Thaksin Shinawatra lost his power in a recent coup detat. But what has really triggered his downfall in disgrace?

It's greed and corruption.

Thaksin was already a telecommunication business tycoon before he becomes the numero uno of Thailand.

He should not (and need not) have used his power and position to enrich himself any further.

But he did. And he has done it to a level which the interest of the entire country was at stake.

That has angered the people of Thailand.

The opposition parties capitalised on these sentiments. They have joined forces to boycott Thaksin.

Thaksin might have won the elections but he has lost the faith of many more Thais.

And the King was not happy at all.

There is a need to save Thailand from going to the dogs.

The General must have felt that a coup is what Thailand needed at the moment.

And the General's action seems to go down well with the Thais in general.

Even the rest of the world watched the coup in cool.

The action was, of course, undemocratic.

Because it was not through the ballot box.

We only hope that the soldiers would withdraw as soon as possible and return the power to a new democratically elected government.

There is a nice article in The Nation today. Readers may find some similarities 'terribly similar' between Bangkok and Putrajaya.

I hope our PM and his Cabinet members would also read the article and learn a lesson or two from Thaksin. Happy reading!

Thaksin's Family network

Chulalongkorn professor lectured last year on how he used his power to build up Shin Corp and other family businesses. The Nation.Sep 27, 2006

An extensive study by a Chulalongkorn University economy lecturer gave what could be a complete picture of the extensive business empire of the Shinawatra family.

Phasuk Pongphaichit, the lecturer, gave this lecture on money politics in a seminar held by Economic Politics Centre of Chulalongkorn late last year - before the recent military coup that ousted him.

The new government is investigating into possible corruption and, if found, confiscation of the Thaksin assets.

Her study has found that Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra had created wealth for himself, his relatives and his political affiliates during the past five years by practicing corruption in the policy level.
It includes granting business privileges, reducing taxes and concession fees for his affiliates and getting rid of business rivals as well as trading national interest with their groups' business interest.

They also set up firms to bid and win state projects and use the stock market as tools to increase the values of their firms.

Excerpts of her lecture:

Since Thaksin took office as prime minister in 2001, his government issued several economic policies, which directly benefited listed firms with close connections to the prime minister and Cabinet members.

The policies also benefited and protected businesses of the politicians and their affiliations. Such policies included tax privileges, deduction of concession fees, blocking new business rivals to enter market, and delaying policies, which could affect businesses of the Thaksin network.

Businesses, which are taking part in the operation to eat up the country in all possible means, include businesses belonging to Shinawatra family and relatives, Mahakijsiri family, Jungrungreangkit family, Maleenon family, Chearavanon family, and Asavabhokin family. All of the families are on the top list of richest families in Thailand.

Shin Corp receives a lot of benefits

During the past over five years, the Thaksin government issued several policies and measures to benefit and protect telecom businesses of Shin Corp in several cases:

First, the issuance of excise decree on telecom businesses was a tool to protect the businesses of Advanced Info Services and other firms in the same type of businesses from competitions. That is, the decree requires new operators to pay the excise taxes in full while current telecom operators can deduct their concession fees from the amount of excise taxes they have to pay. The question is which law the government invoked to exempt the current telecom operators from having to pay excise taxes in full.

Second, the government allowed AIS to deduce the expenses of roaming services before sharing its revenue with the state. This allowed AIS to share less revenue with the state. AIS was also benefited from the amendment of its contract with the TOT Plc by allowing AIS to pay only 20 per cent of its revenue from prepaid phone services instead of 25 per cent to TOT. All of these caused the state to lose its revenue by over Bt1.6 billion. AIS also benefited from the reduction of import tariff on mobile phones from 10 per cent to 0 per cent. The government cited regulations of the World Trade Organisation to provide the tax reduction. Moreover, the government amended its regulations to allow permanent officials from C8 to C11 to reimburse their phone expenses up to Bt4,000 a month, compared with Bt1,000 in the past. There are about 40,000 officials who enjoy the benefit.

Third, the exemption of Shin Satellite from paying taxes on its revenue worth Bt16.349 billion generated from its foreign customers of its IP Star satellite was unjustifiable. This is because the exemption did not lead to any investment in Thailand and Thai people did not receive any benefit. Only the foreign customers and shareholders of Shin Satellite received the benefits.

Fourth, the government transferred the business risks of Shin Satellite from the firm to the Finance Ministry by having the Export-Import Bank of Thailand grant a 12-year-term soft loan of Bt4 billion to the Burmese government. The loan was used by the Burmese Post and Telecom Ministry of Burma to buy telecom equipment to link with IP Star to use the satellite's services to provide mobile phone and broadband Internet services. The government had the Finance Ministry guarantee the loan of the Ex-im Bank, instead of Shin Satellite.

Fifth, the Thaksin government tried to protect its telecom businesses by not opening up the telecom industry in the country. Instead, it opened up other sectors in exchange for liberalization of services which would benefit businesses of government politicians. An example could be seen in the free trade agreement between Thailand and Australia. The Thaksin government opened up the cattle indusry in Thailand in exchange for telecom and auto spare parts industries in Australia. This allowed Shin Satellite and businesses of the Jungrungreangkit family to benefit at the harship of Thai cattle farmers.IP Star will also benefit from FTA agreements with India and China. Analysts of the Stock Exchange of Thailand said Shin Satellite's revenues would tremendously increase once India and China use transponders of IP Star. It was expected that IP Star's service fees from the two countries would be worth about Bt15 billion.

Sixth, the government helped Tele Info Media, which changed name from Shinawatra Directories, to increase its business chances from phone number inquiry services by exempting from contract's requirement to print White Pages phone books.

Seventh, the Thaksin government helped AIS and Shin Satellite by failing to enact a competition act to prevent monopoly and regulate merger.

Eighth, after Shin Corp held stakes in iTV, the television was allowed to pay much less concession fee or only Bt150 million per year for 20 years. This caused the sate to lose its revenue for Bt17.43 billion. The government also allowed iTV to change its programme content to have more entertainment programmes than news and documentary programmes, and thus allowing it to have more income from commercial advertisement.

Ninth, the government's open sky policy allowed Shin Corp to invest in Air Asia, which is a low-cost airline. The government allowed Air Asia to open new domestic and international routes in overlapping of the routes o Thai Airways International. This allowed Air Asia to see income growth worth Bt3 billion at the end of 2005, compared with the shrinking income of THAI. THAI reduced its domestic and international flights and cancelled some of its route although the routes were profitable for the airline, amid allegations that it was forced by the government to make way for Air Asia.

Tenth, the government launched real estate development projects to benefit daughter companies of Shin Corp. For example, the Bangkok Boulevard project of SC Assets Plc on Ram Intra-Ring Road-Navamin roads benefited from the a Cabinet resolution on July 4 2003 to cut a new road from Ratchadapisek to Ram Intra at the kilometre marker No 4.5 The new road immediately increased the value of the plot of SC Assets, turning it from a plot with no access to a golden plot.--

It is known that Pojaman Shinawatra, the wife of Thaksin, likes to buy up land. Moreover, she managed to buy land at cheap prices. For example, she bought a 33-rai plot opposite from the Korean embassy near Thailand's Cultural Centre from the Thai Assets Management Corporation at the price 50 cheaper than its market price.

This caused the state to lose Bt715 million from what it should have received for the land price. The plot was sold at the price Bt700 million lower than the price offered in the first round of bidding and the government did not received land transfer fee worth Bt15 million.

She also owns Alpine Golf Course worth Bt747million, which Thaksin bought at very low price amid allegations that he cheated a temple out of the plot.

Moreover, Shin Corp also expanded its business to personal finance business by setting the Capital OK and providing personal loans. The firm uses customer database of AIS and obtains fund from DBS Singapore.

Thaksin's son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, also set up an advertisement agency to take up a Bt90 million-worth concession in the compound of subway system.

Members of Shinawatra-Wongsawat families expand businesses to take all

Thaksin's close relative, who became rich overnight, included his sister, Yaowapha Wongsawat. She set up M Link or M Link Asian Corporation Plc, which is a main business of her family. The firm generated annual revenue worth several billions of baht for the Wongsawat family.

M Link has expanded its businesses by buying stakes in several firms, and thus allowing the Wongsawat family to expand its business empire to other businesses on top of mobile phone selling business. Key firms, whose major shares had been bought by the Wongsawat family, are companies which compete for government projects.

Cut for brevity. For full report visit:
http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/26/politics/politics_30014674.php

Nazri, the ball is now in your court.

2006-09-27T03:18:00.000+08:00

In the forum organised by DAP two weeks ago, Nazri has siad that he was not convinced that there were sufficient reasons to review the 1988 judiaciary crisis and he wanted new evidence before he could raise the issue in the Cabinet.

And now Tun Salleh Abbas has answered Nazri Aziz with his 5-point letter...

[Malaysia Today] [News & Commentaries] Salleh pleads his case

Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas today (Sept 26, 2006) responded to a Cabinet Minister's recent call for new and important facts to emerge to justify a review of the 1988 judicial crisis.

In a five-page statement, Salleh rebutted Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz's argument for not agreeing to a review, and touched on five incidents which should trigger a review.

Nazri's argument: That he did not agree to the review because the decision of the two tribunals which decided on Salleh and his five colleagues were accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the government in 1988.

Salleh's rebuttal: According to the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as a constitutional monarch is not even allowed to refuse advice tendered by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister. No emphasis need be placed on such an acceptance.

The five incidents that Salleh referred to in his statement have been touched on or discussed in his 1990 book 'May Day for Justice'. Since he never appeared before the tribunal that tried him, they are in effect "new facts".

The incidents are:

His short meeting with then Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr (now Tun) Mahathir Mohamad on May 27, 1988, when he was asked to step down for being biased in the discharge of his judicial duties;

A visit on the same day by a very important officer of the government who offered an appointment to a lucrative post in an Islamic bank in Jeddah if he resigned;

On June 24 1988, a month after his suspension as Lord President, he was summoned to an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong where he was to ask for forgiveness for a letter he wrote to him regarding the judiciary and the executive. That mission failed because of the intervention of two senior government officers;

The suspension of his colleagues with the eventual dismissal of two of them. This was engineered for the purpose of thwarting them from hearing Salleh's judicial review application challenging the legality and constitutionality of his suspension and the composition of the tribunal to deal with his dismissal; and

The government's action to deprive the Rulers of their immunities.

Salleh referred to a discussion he had with the Sultan of Johor who was the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the time of his dismissal.

Read on for more:

Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas today responded to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz's statement regarding a proposal to review the 1988 Judicial Crisis.

Salleh thanked Nazri for agreeing to the review of that dark day in judicial history if "new and important facts" emerge.He said Nazri has also not agreed to the review because the decision of the two tribunals - the first tribunal which decided on Salleh and the second tribunal which decided on his five other colleagues - were accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Government in 1988.

Salleh said Nazri seems to place great reliance on the fact that acceptance of the recommendations by both tribunals were also accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

He said according to Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as a Constitutional Monarch must act "in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as provided by this Constitution."

"Thus, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not even allowed to refuse advice tendered by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister."

This is further provided in Article 66(4)(a) where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong cannot refuse to assent to a bill passed by Parliament. He is given three months within which to assent to the bill. If he fails to do so, the government is free to gazette the bill into law."

The history of this country has shown that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has never acted against the wishes of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet including on the issue of depriving the Rulers of their own immunity."There is therefore no way for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to refuse consent to accept to the recommendations of the two tribunals when they were submitted to His Majesty."

The government's action to deprive the Rulers of their immunities.

"In my view, no emphasis need therefore be placed on the acceptance of the recommendations of the two Tribunals by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, since in the light of the constitutional provisions and practice, His Majesty's powers have become, with respects, almost procedural and reflect the wishes of His Majesty's Government, even if the Prime Minister of the day is dictatorial."

Salleh said as for the call for "new and important facts" to trigger a review, these should be presented to a tribunal or commission charged to investigate the matter, should the government decide to do so.He said since Nazri has placed this as a condition for agreeing to a review, he has decided to touch on five incidents only in general terms.

FIRST INCIDENT:The first incident relates to my meeting with the then Prime Minister in his office on Friday 27th May 1988 in the presence of the then Deputy Prime Minister and the then Chief Secretary to the Government. I was asked by the then Prime Minister to step down because I was accused of being biased in the discharge of my judicial duties. My understanding of this accusation was that it must have been connected with the impending Umno 11 case when I decided to establish a nine-member panel of the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. I strongly denied the accusation and told him that I was not prepared to resign. Then he threatened to dismiss me by instituting a tribunal under the Constitution. I told him I was prepared to be dismissed rather than leave the judicial office under a cloud. This was a very short meeting and after I had left the Prime Minister's office and returned to my chambers, I immediately wrote by way of an aide memoir a note of what had transpired during that meeting. That note coincidentally appears in the latest issue of Aliran.

SECOND INCIDENT:The second incident relates to the visit to me on the same day of a messenger who was a very important officer of the Government. He came with the idea of persuading me to resign or go on long leave and at the same time threatening me with dismissal should I choose not to. Were I to resign, I would be appointed to a lucrative job in Jeddah as a director of Islamic Bank with a high salary I could never have dreamed of, coupled with an unlimited amount of entertainment allowances and travelling expenses. The officer said he had been authorised to pass this message to me by a very important Minister. When I told him I could not accept the offer, I was then threatened with dismissal and the ignominy of having to face a tribunal. My answer to the messenger was the same as I had given to the Prime Minister earlier on in the day."

THIRD INCIDENT:The third incident took place on 24th June 1988, almost a month after my suspension as Lord President when two benevolent messengers arrived at my home to tell me that some Malay Rulers then gathered at Istana Kelantan at Jalan Kia Peng and wanted to see me. Post haste, I made my appearance before Their Royal Highnesses. I was informed that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (HRH the Sultan of Johor) had just left the meeting. Taking the lead upon my appearance was HRH the then Raja of Perlis and also present were the other Malay Rulers or their representatives. (The Sultans of Kedah and Selangor were away abroad and the Sultan of Pahang was unable to attend on account of the serious illness of his then Consort who in fact passed away the following day). I was informed by HRH the late Raja of Perlis that agreement was reached between the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers then present that should I tender my apologies to and ask forgiveness from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for writing my impugned letter to His Majesty at His Majesty\'s Istana Bukit Serene in Johor Baru, my suspension would be lifted and the matter would end there. I was to travel to Istana Bukit Serene with my chief counsel, Yang Mulia Raja Aziz Addruse. Since we could not get seats on the plane, I decided to travel to Johor Baru by car whilst Yang Mulia Raja Aziz chartered a private aircraft for that purpose. Upon my arrival in Johor Baru, I was admitted into the Istana but Yang Mulia Raja Aziz, despite all the trouble he took to charter the plane, could get only as far as the gates of the Istana as he was prevented from entering the palace. At the Istana, contrary to my expectation, my mission was a failure because the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had earlier been briefed by two very senior government officers from Kuala Lumpur not to forgive me for the wrong I had committed.

FOURTH INCIDENT:The fourth incident relates to the suspension of my colleagues with the eventual dismissal of two of them. The suspension was engineered for the purpose of thwarting them from hearing my judicial review application challenging the legality and constitutionality of my suspension and the composition of the tribunal to deal with my dismissal. A particular High Court judge who was reluctant to hear my application feigned illness on the day fixed for hearing. His replacement did his utmost to delay hearing my application and when he finally did so, my application was dismissed. I appealed to the Supreme Court and succeeded. An Order of the Court must always be sealed before it is served on the respondent. The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court was the keeper of its seal but when I succeeded in my appeal, the seal could not be found as it was purposely hidden. However, after a search by the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman, the seal was discovered. The sealed copy of the Order had then to be served on the respondent tribunal which was located at Parliament House. But when my counsel Raja Aziz Addruse attempted to effect service of the Order on the respondent, he found that the authorities had ordered the Parliament gates closed. However at the request by the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman for assistance from the office of the IGP (Inspector-General of Police), the gates were opened and the Order was served. Despite receipt of the Order, the Tribunal proceeded with its deliberation. The end result of this incident was that upon my refusal to recognise the composition of the Tribunal, especially with regards to the appointment of its chairman on grounds of a serious breach of natural justice, I was, in my absence, adjudged guilty and subsequently dismissed. The five Supreme Court judges which allowed my application were themselves suspended. Another Tribunal was established to try them and two of these valiant judges, namely the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Seah were dismissed. The other three, namely the Tan Sri Eusoffee Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah were reinstated. If the Supreme Court Order were obeyed, my reinstatement would have automatically followed and this would have been unacceptable not only to the government of the day but also to those who would benefit from my dismissal. Thus my five colleagues were innocently suspended with all the consequences that have adversely affected them and their families until this day."

FIFTH INCIDENT:The fifth incident relates to the government's action to deprive the Rulers of their immunities. The late Tun Suffian and I acted as advisors to the Rulers. By then, the Sultan of Johor was no longer the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and His Royal Highness was very concerned about the government's intention. This was my first audience with His Royal Highness after my dismissal. HRH said to me in no uncertain terms that he very much regretted what had happened to me as he said he then realised that he had been "made use of." I told HRH that there was no need to feel sorry for me personally but he should express his regrets and apology to the people of this country for losing a Judiciary that was independent and could look after their rights. I was later summoned again by HRH to Istana Bukit Serene for advice after HRH learned that a bill had already been introduced in Parliament to disband the Johor Military Force (JMF). My advice to HRH was that the JMF, which was established long before the Malay Regiment, was and is part of the privileges of the Sultan of Johor and, without the consent of His Royal Highness, such privileges could not legally be withdrawn. My opinion was confirmed by Mr Neil Lawson, Q.C., the legal adviser to the Malay Rulers during the negotiation for Merdeka. There was no doubt that HRH was very pleased with my effort over HRH's then predicament and, in appreciation thereof, offered to make a public apology in Johor Baru over HRH's role in my dismissal. The Johor Palace then began to put in place arrangements for the occasion but, once again, mightier hands from Kuala Lumpur managed to persuade HRH from keeping to his pledge.The above are some of the new facts which I hope could persuade Nazri to change his mind. These incidents undeniably go to show that come what may, I must be made to give up my judicial office. There would of course be other incidents and other details which would emerge if the review is held but for the time being, I shall keep the identity of those unnamed persons in this statement concealed. As regards responses from the other two judges who were also dismissed, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman is no longer with us. His widow, has nevertheless, supported the call for a review. But the speech made by the late Tun Suffian (Hashim) during a special reference organised by the Malaysian Bar in Tan Sri Wan Suleiman's memory and honour should give an indication on the role played by my late colleague during the crisis which, in the learned Tun Suffian's opinion, certainly did not deserve his dismissal. Datuk George Seah is currently unwell to make any contribution to Nazri's call for "new facts" but the series of articles on the crisis written by him not so long ago continue to appear in the websites of both the Malaysian Bar and Aliran. Knowing the character of the late Tan Sri Eusoffee Abdoolcader, I am sure that he too would support a review. Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin has already come out publicly for a review. I believe Tan Sri Wan Hamzah is also of this view.

For these reasons, I hope Nazri will present the proposal to the Cabinet for a review of the 1988 Judicial Crisis so that the truth of this important episode in our nation's history is uncovered. --

Posted by Raja Petra Kamarudin to News & Commentaries at 9/26/2006 10:07:00 PM

Malaysia Todayhttp://www.malaysia-today.net/index.html

That's Samy Vellu for you!

2006-09-27T02:51:00.000+08:00

In my media statement yesterday, I liberally predicted that Samy Vellu would not apologise for his mistakes (he madea false claim that 21 Tamil schools were built over the last 5 years) and he would argue that "new school buildings were as good as or equavalent to new schools".

True enough! In his rebuttal to Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, he actually said that "when we rebuild, they become new schools"! Hahaha...

Anyway, do you still remember what he said prior to the Lunas by-election? He said that he will not return to Kuala Lumpur if Barisan Nasional loses its seat in Lunas, Kedah. When the opposition managed to block some 20 buses of phantom voters on the polling day and eventually wrested the seat from MIC, he just pretended that he has never said such a thing.

Shame on you, Samy Vellu!

Here's an extract from a Malaysiakini report...

Rebuilt schools are new schools

Reacting to this today, Samy Vellu said that Lim was just trying to harp on the issue unnecessarily.

“He (Lim) is trying to poke to get more information he could harp on unnecessarily. Why should I give him the list of new schools ... let him go find it himself,” said Samy Vellu.

Samy Vellu also rejected claims that the 21 schools were not newly built. “There are new schools. When people relocate, we have to build a new school. Although it is replacing an older school, it is still a new school.

“We have more than 500 Tamil schools in the country and out of these more than 100 schools need to be rebuilt. When we rebuild, they become new schools,” he said.

Shame on you, Samy Vellu!

2006-09-26T12:38:00.000+08:00

An education ministry official who has chosen to remain anonymous has told The China Press yesterday (Monday, September 25, 2006) that the claim made by the MIC President was incorrect.

In fact, not even a single Tamil school was built under the 8th Malaysia Plan and it is very unlikely that any new Tamil school will be built under the 9th Malaysia Plan.

The official also explained that the so-called new schools were merely new school buildings constructed within the existing Tamil schools.

Samy Vellu has earlier “proudly” announced that a total of 21 new Tamil schools were built over the last five years and he is now asking for another 14 new ones to be built over the next 5 years.

Samy’s statement also “stunned” the MCA leaders because they were unable to persuade the Barisan Nasional Government to build any new schools except for moving or replacing those schools that were shut down because of poor or no intake. To MCA, one Chinese school must ‘die’ before a new one could be built.

Samy has made this announcement in response to Nor Omar, the deputy Education Minister who disclosed that none of the 180 new schools being planned under the 9MP were Tamil or Chinese one.

(Incidentally, Nor Omar’s announcement has ironically testified the claim made by Minister Mentor of Singapore, that the Chinese in Malaysia were marginalized systematically by the Government).

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang has since challenged Samy to prove his claim as Lim was very sure that there was no truth in his announcement.

Lim has even publicly stated that he is prepared to say sorry to Samy if Samy could prove his claim.

Now that Samy was caught lying, would he be bold enough to admit his mistake and apologize to the Indian community in particular and to the Malaysian public in general?

Knowing Samy’s character, he would rather argue that new school buildings are as good as or equivalent to new schools!?

On the other hand, the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang has decided to register a protest by moving an unprecedented motion in the coming Parliamentary session in November 2006 to cut the pay of the Education Minister, his two deputies and also the Parliamentary Secretary by RM10.

Lim has also decided to hold a roundtable in the Parliament in early October to discuss the matter. He calls on the civil society throughout the country, associations, educational bodies or school boards, to come forward to make their voices heard.

DAP MP for Bukit Mertajam, Chong Eng, who is the DAP parliamentary spokesperson on education, will be the coordinator for this Parliamentary Roundtable.

Lim hopes that all political parties, in particular MPs and leaders from MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP, as well as Umno, will participate fully in the roundtable.

Anyone who is interested in participating in the Parliamentary Roundtable can also contact Chong Eng.

(Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO Bureau Chief on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 in Petaling Jaya )

Happy Ramadan to all my Muslim friends!

2006-09-25T12:16:00.000+08:00

Ramadan, the month of fasting for Muslims all over the world, has just begun yesterday.

I wish all my Muslim freinds a happy and meaningful Ramadan.

It has has been said that all religions is one.

A good friend of mine, who is a Buddhist for some years now, opines that "A good Muslim is at the same time a good Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/ Sikh/Jew/Taoist...". And I agree with him.

In a multireligious society like ours, we must learn to respect all other religions practised and followed by our brothers and sisters of other faiths.

No one (including the politicians) should make use of religion for selfish gain or to serve his or her personal agenda.

And freedom of religion must include the freedom to join and the freedom to leave any religion. Merely leaving a religion must not be construed as a traitor of that religion.

Salam sejahtera!

Chong King Liong-A Man of Action

2006-09-25T02:35:00.000+08:00

走好，张景良先生！

隆雪華堂聯辦追思會逾百人追思張景良
中国报CHINA PRESS （吉隆坡24日訊）

逾150名華社團領袖、華教人士、在野黨領袖及公眾，今日出席“張景良先生追思會”。

追思會是由隆雪華堂、留台聯總、台大校友會及華社研究中心聯辦。

出席者包括隆雪華堂會長拿督黃漢良、大馬留台聯總會長劉天吉、國立台灣大學大馬校友會會長陳丹生、華社研究中心董事主席林忠強、大馬校友會聯總會長周素英、董教總代表、大馬工程師協會主席林富佐、中國駐馬大使館參贊申永先、孝恩集團主席朱林秀琴、民主行動黨領袖陳勝堯、方貴倫和劉天球等人。

呼籲發揚死者精神
張景良家屬也在場。追思會于上午11時開始，全場肅立默哀3分鐘。爾后，大會播放張景良生平事跡投景簡介以及宣讀追悼文。

張景良于今年9月8日與世長辭，其辭世不僅是其家屬親友的損失，也是留台聯校友會，乃至是整個華社的重大損失。

張氏生前是留台聯總的重要奠基人之一，當年不論在籌組留台聯總或籌建留台聯總大廈等重要大事上，都積極參與其盛，而且扮演著舉足輕重角色，對留台聯總的卓著貢獻是所有留台人都應感恩載德、永遠銘記在心的。

張景良從1970年代初期，便全心投入華團華教行列。30多年來身體力行、鞠躬盡瘁，成果影響深遠。

林忠強致詞時說，張景良不幸與世長辭，紀念死者最好的辦法，就是學習和發揚死者的精神。
“我們要學習張先生一生勤奮，為社會服務，公而忘私的精神。我們要學習他作為專業人士，實事求是，身體力行的奉獻精神。我們也要學習他平易近人，虛懷若谷，光明磊落的作風。”

此外，陳丹生表示，邱祥熾贊美張先生是“A man of action，意即行動的巨人”，他雖不善于出點子，但一有良好建議，必坐言起行，以祇于成。這與他推崇“知行合一”孫文學說的思想不謀而合。

此外，聯辦團體、友好團體、張景良遺孀盧秋菊及公眾獻花，祝福張先生在天之靈永遠安息。

Kuan Yew is correct to say that Chinese were marginalized in Malaysia

2006-09-24T17:07:00.000+08:00

劉天球：政府應承認事實

CHINA PRESS (吉隆坡23日訊）

民主行動黨非政府組織局主任劉天球今日表示，在新經濟政策下，大馬非巫裔族群確實被邊緣化，更甚于政經文教及其他領域。

他說，這並非民政黨主席拿督斯里林敬益，所指大馬華裔沒被邊緣化的說法。

他補充，林敬益于週五反駁新加坡前總理李光耀的言論，指大馬華裔沒被邊緣化，但沒提出很好的理由。

他表示，最近，新經濟政策借屍還魂，被抬出桌面。第9大馬計劃強調上述政策，這樣一來，大馬華裔繼續被邊緣化。

劉天球在記者會披露，最近發生巫青要求檳州首長輪任制，以及甲洞國會選區改由馬華候選人上陣問題，顯示民政黨在國陣大家庭內也被邊緣化。

“從我國獨立迄今，國內不曾有非馬來人擔任政府大學副校長職，或警察總長或三軍總司令，難道非馬來族群沒有資格嗎？”

針對李光耀指出我國華裔與印尼華人一樣，面對被邊緣化問題，劉天球說，政府應該承認事實，逐步糾正。

他認為，國家領袖必須嚴正看待此事，以馬來西亞人為優先，不是種族性的看待問題。

“為了阻止非馬來人被邊緣化，大馬政府應該取消新經濟政策。”

Zaid Ibrahim-the maverick in UMNO

2006-09-24T16:11:00.000+08:00

In my mind, Kota Bharu MP Zaid Ibrahim is a maverick in UMNO. He was suspended as the division chief of UMNO Kota Bharu for an allegation he denied vehemently.

He first caught my attention when he took part in a roundtable organised by the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang on the issue of freedom of religion immediately after the Moorthy "body snatch" tragedy.

He impressed me further when he took the challenge to speak in a forum on the same issue organised by Article 11 in Petaling Jaya. He spoke freely as a good Muslim in the forum, drawing much appreciation from the attentive crowd.

And recently, he spoke in the Parliament without fear on the need of political reform in the country, expressing his great disappointment with the Abdullah administration. He even warned the BN Government of the consequences of failing the rakyat.

He was interviewed by NST and here's the full story...

‘I speak because I believe in his vision’

New Straits Times

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim raised eyebrows recently when he stood in Parliament and said that the government’s reform agenda had slowed to a halt. KOH LAY CHIN speaks to him about his provocative view while Tangga Batu MP Datuk Idris Haron tells her why patience is a virtue.

Q: You have said publicly that the prime minister has yet to make real reforms. What do you mean?

A: The prime minister put forth a historic and paradigm moving manifesto in the 2004 elections. He promised difficult but urgently needed reforms in the government and judiciary. He promised to fight against corruption, restoring integrity in the government, transparency and accountability.He spoke the language of change the people had waited for so long. And he got the biggest mandate from the people to govern.

When I said he failed to push reforms, I was saying that he had failed to get his ministers, the Chief Ministers and the civil servants with him on these issues. That’s why I said in Parliament that he must be prepared to do radical things, including getting the right people to perform the tasks.

Q: It would seem that for you it’s more of a problem of the PM’s "executioners" or his "team".

A: The prime minister is only as good as the Cabinet he assembles. It’s quite common for the PM in other jurisdictions to reshuffle and change his Cabinet whenever he feels necessary for executing policies the government has undertaken.I get the impression that the reason our Cabinet is so large was because the PM wants to be nice to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad by retaining those appointed by Dr Mahathir.Did it appease Dr Mahathir? Not at all. Being nice in this way is not necessarily a good thing. Would Pak Lah cause political instability if he were to undertake radical Cabinet change? Not at all.

Q: In your speech in Parliament, you commented on the openness in the system under the PM.

A: In my speech, I said the openness that we have in our society today is entirely due to Pak Lah’s sense of trust and tolerance, a much desired trait in our leader.But openness must have purpose and if not managed properly will only fester discontent.

Openness in the government means we must be prepared to amend the Official Secrets Act so that people will not use the Act to hide acts of corruption or incompetence.

Openness means all contracts must be by open tender save for certain legitimate exceptions and not the other way around.

Openness means sensitive matters are dealt with intelligently and objectively and not to resort to the closed-door bargaining style of the past.

The prime minister cannot do all these alone, he needs a team. As to my suggestion for the undoing of the Dr Mahathir years, I did not mean to suggest that Dr Mahathir did nothing good. In fact he built Malaysia as a modern state with all the infrastructure and facilities.

The undoing of Mahathirism is the doing away with authoritarianism, with lack of accountability and the absence of the rule of law.

I believe the country will be better placed for the 21st century if the policies of human capital development, of transparency and accountability under the present PM are implemented. More so if the judiciary is fully empowered, and Parliament becomes a chamber fully accessible for the rakyat to see, watch and learn.

Q: Before Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over from Dr Mahathir, you said in an interview that you felt "reassured" because the person who was about to lead the country was a profound thinker and thought things through.

A: In an interview three years ago I said that I believed Pak Lah is man of integrity, and will be considerate in his dealings on all matters. Have I changed my mind about him? No. I want him to succeed for the sake of all. There are delicate issues that we face as a nation and we need a leader who is fair and considerate to all, which he is."

Am I disappointed with his leadership so far? Yes, maybe I was expecting too much but then again I don’t know what his constraints are. Still he himself said that failure is not an option, which suggests that he will fight.

Q: While other politicians have tread on these issues rather delicately, you are seen to have come out with guns blazing.

A: Was I not as discreet as others in my criticisms of the PM? I am a discreet person, but in matters of public interest you have to be open and forthright. It’s also because I want the prime minister to succeed. If not for him I would not be an MP today as I was not the first choice candidate for Kota Baru. But that will not deter me from telling him what I think is good for the country and his administration.

If you believe in the PM’s vision of integrity, of fairness and prosperity for all then you must help to realise his reforms, even if it means having to criticise him.

--Posted by Raja Petra Kamarudin to News & Commentaries at 9/24/2006 10:59:00

Alleged funding for UM campus election:DAP wants police to investigate MB Selangor

2006-09-23T16:57:00.000+08:00

民主行动党向警方举报雪州大臣涉滥用公款收买学生

■日期／Sep 23, 2006 ■时间／03:16:15 pm
■新闻／家国风云 ■作者／MERDEKAREVIEW.COM

实习记者周小芳

(PIX: Lau Weng San, Chairman of PJ DAP Action Team;Batumalai ,Selangor DAP Committee member;Francis Chang, Sg Way Subang DAP branch chairman; and Ronnie Liu, Advisor to PJ DAP Action Team)

【本刊实习记者周小芳撰述】雪州行动党宣传秘书刘永山要求警方介入调查雪州州务大臣莫哈末吉尔（Mohd Khir Toyo）涉嫌动用公款赞助“亲校方”阵线学生入住高级酒店事件。

刘永山说：“作为马来西亚公民，任何人都有责任向警方报案，不然，整件事情就会不了了之。” 他在八打灵再也警察总部报案时如此表示。

今天与民主行动党非政府组织秘书刘天球到八打灵再也警察局向警方报案。

据《当今大马》在9月21日的报道，42名马来亚大学“亲校方”阵线候选人在上周入住八打灵再也的四星级皇冠酒店（Crystal Crown）一晚，并在酒店的餐厅用餐，以作为参选的奖赏。但是，这笔超过5千元的帐单却由雪兰莪州务大臣莫哈末吉尔的办公室支付，换言之，就是使用纳税人的金钱支付。

《当今大马》证实，这些学生预订了32间套房，包括一些位于酒店顶楼的“行政顶楼套房”。不过，无法确定这些学生在居住期间是否有进行其他的活动或节目。

刘永山说，他曾在2006年9月20日发表紧急文告，要求州务大臣莫哈末基尔交待此事，即他本人是否曾经滥用公款，以支付马来亚大学“亲校方”阵线候选人的酒店住宿和膳食，干涉校园选举。可是，州务大臣迄今依然没有针对刘永山的质问做出任何的回应，所以刘永山才选择向警方报案，要求警方彻查此事。

“既然州务大臣胆敢自我宣布雪州为先进州，那么他理应展示一个先进州领导人的风范，正视这个指责，立即交待此事。我也是基于透明与良好施政的基本原则要求州务大臣这么做。”

针对博特拉大学流传影片，显示民主行动党和博大前进阵线有关联之说，刘永山认为这是校方尝试抹黑在野党的作为，是错误的概念。他对校园选举的情况严重到这种地步表示担忧和悲哀。他表示，当议员们在国会里辩论时，又如何和遥远的校园选举有关联呢？他指出，民主行动党只是观察校园选举，并没有干涉在其中。

刘天球也说，他们并没有干涉和影响学生，只是在学生受到打压时才会声援，他认为，声援学生是很自然和公平的事，也是理所当然的。

刘天球认为，动用公款这种滥权的行为会对校园选举的民主产生很大的破坏。

刘永山说，虽然这笔马币五千元的款项并非是一笔巨额款项，但是始终是纳税人的金钱。而且，雪州州务大臣莫哈末基尔之前也曾经涉及多宗滥用公款和权利的丑闻。

民主行动党国会领袖也曾就校园选举向高教部部长慕斯达化提问，可是高教部长并没有直接给与答复，只是表示，今年的校园选举更加开明、开放和公平。

此外，马大校方在上周二至周三于吉隆坡珍珠国际酒店（Pearl International Hotel）举办一场名为“创业工作营”的活动，出席者都是即将参与校园竞选的“亲校方”阵线准候选人。这些准候选人在该酒店住宿一晚。

消息透露，马大副校长阿查里和其他校方官员，以及一名巫青团全国领袖，都是该工作营的讲师，培训内容包括演讲技巧、团队合作、情绪管理等等，也涉及一些关于校园竞选宣言的讨论。
消息指该工作营只是“挂羊头卖狗肉”，实际上是一场不折不扣选举备战工作营。

DAP PJ Action Team brought urban pioneers problems to MBPJ

2006-09-23T14:14:00.000+08:00

木屋區第二第三家庭不獲安頓

火箭行動隊吁市長關注
SINCHEW-updated:2006-09-23 11:13:49 MYT

■劉天球（左二）、劉永山（右二）及居民與市長會面，希望市長能關注木屋分配問題。(放大)

（八打靈再也訊）八打靈再也火箭行動隊委員及木屋區居民會見八打靈再也市長莫哈末羅斯蘭，希望他關注木屋區住戶的第二、第三家庭不獲安頓的問題。

八打靈再也火箭行動隊顧問劉天球表示，由於一些當地的國州議員或地方政府協調不好，導致有些木屋居民沒有獲得分配屋子，或原本分配的屋子給外人拿去。

他舉例說，千百家村木屋區的第二、第三家庭，在木屋拆除後，並沒獲得屋子分配，目前住在哥打白沙羅。

他指出，當初雪州行動黨支持零度木屋計劃，是有條件的，即安頓居民，提供廉價屋及搬遷費予木屋居民。

為此，他希望市長別忽略木屋第二、第三家庭的困境，否則該黨將收回對零度木屋計劃的支持。

他要求市長在1個月內解決上述問題，而市長也表示答應。該行動隊也將繼續跟進有關課題。

與市長會面的居民來自雙溪威、海盜村及達南村。

建議拆會堂建遊樂園

劉天球在這次與市長的會面提到，靠近雙溪威1路的甘榜敦姑停工已久的民眾會堂，原本是兒童遊樂園，有關民眾會堂大約建好80%，不過在2年前已停工。他表示，希望市長能實地視察，並建議拆除該民眾會堂，恢復原有的兒童遊樂場。

要求恢復空地原貌

八打靈再也火箭行動隊主席劉永山指出，靠近百樂花園輕快鐵站第20/24路的一塊空地，有項建辦事處的工程，不過，有關工程已廢置。他週五向市長要求收回承建該工程的批准信，並恢復空地的原本面貌。他說，該地區是單層排屋，但有人在該處建約2層樓高的辦事處，這將影響居民的生活素質；過後市長也答應會去調查。

八打靈再也火箭行動隊財政吳炳順也提到，在八打靈再也市政廳內看到靈市大藍圖有更改，而讓公眾發表意見x的期限是在本月29日。他說，藍圖的前後差異很大，若靈市居民對藍圖計劃有任何意見，希望他們可以儘快提出。

（星洲日報／大都會‧2005/09/22）

Are Chinese being marginalized in Malaysia?

2006-09-23T03:24:00.000+08:00

Last Friday, Singapore Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew has commented that Chinese in Malaysia (and also Indonesia) were being marginalized systematically.

Lee must have said this to serve his party's agenda, i.e. to influence Singaporean Chinese to support PAP so that his party could continue to rule Singapore. But I'm afraid what he has said was not very far from the truth in Malaysia.

Gerakan's outgoing chief Lim Keng Yaik and his heir apparent Koh Tsu Koon have no credibility to tell Kuan Yew off as their party, Gerakan, is being marginalised by their own partners in the Barisan Nasional coalition, i.e.UMNO and MCA.

Keng Yaik should know more than anybody else that how Chinese and other non-Malays were being marginalized in this country.

As a long-serving minister, I believe he knows exactly how the non-Malays were being discriminated and marginalized under the New Economic Policy(NEP). And looks like the non-Malays will be haunted by the NEP for many more years to come if people like Khairy Jamaluddin and Hishamuddin Hussein continue to have their say.

Keng Yaik should know how the Chinese schools were being marginalized in this country.If UMNO continues to push for the 2-4-3 formula and finally decided to hold examinations only in English for Maths and Science come 2008, that will be the end-of-the-road for Chinese schools in Malaysia.

He should also know that the cultures of the non-Malays were not even considered as part of the national culture. He should still remember how Lion Dance was almost forced to change to Tiger Dance, and how Chinese signboards were almost forced to be taken down without any justification.

Keng Yaik should not forget that until today, non of the non-Malays have made it to the top in the police force, armed forces and public universities. Do you mean we could not find a single non-Malay who was qualified for the top job?

He should still remember that we used to have a Chinese Governor in Melaka, and non-Malays were used to be given the opportunity to lead some important ministries, such as the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Trade and Industry. Not anymore. We do not even have a single Chinese DO (District Officer) in the entire country.

Keng Yaik could not agree with Kuan Yew probably because he felt ashamed for not being able to saveguard the interest of the non-Malays in this country as a minister. He probably realised that by admitting that the Chinese in Malaysia were being marginalized would not be a good reflection on him.

I may even argue that even the Malays were being marginalized in this country under the rule of Barisan Nasional Government. Only UMNO-putras, MCA taikos and MIC warlords stand to benefit with their special political connections. They run the country as if they own the whole country, and the rest of poor Malaysians were being marginalized by them for the past half a century.

I like to quote the statement made by DongJiaoZong yesterday to illustrate how Chinese schools/ Chinese were being marginalized...

"188 years to build 134 schools

From 1970 to 2006, it is estimated that the country saw an increase of 2,900 national schools.

During the same period, a total of 193 vernacular schools - 58 Chinese schools and 134 Tamil schools - closed down.

According to DJZ, there is a demand for 134 Chinese schools nationwide at present.

“If the government only builds five or so Chinese schools every four years once when an election comes, then it will take 188 years, or 47 elections, before the 134 schools will be completed.

“But by then, the population will increase and more schools would be needed,” said the movement. "

My first impression of the new Mayor of MBPJ

2006-09-22T12:28:00.000+08:00

I have met the new Mayor of MBPJ for the first time this morning together with Lau Weng San ( PJ Action Team chairman) and Thomas Goh (Treasurer) at his office. He has kept the tradition of seeing resdients of Petaling Jaya on every Friday.

He appears friendly and warm with the DAP PJ delegation and nice to all the villagers who came along with us.

He listens to our complaints and suggestions carefully and in fact promises to resolve the mess created by the local MCA elected reps within a month.

In the meeting, we have brought to his attention about the mishandling of squatters problems on the part of MCA elected reps and the flaws and weaknesses of the Zero Squatter Policy in general, and a number of specific issues, namely:

1. Insufficient low-cost units for villagers from Kg Damansara Dalam, Kg Cempaka and Kg Micheal Chen (of Sg Way).
2. Status of housing alternatives for second,third and fourth families, especially for Kg Cempaka (about 40 families) and Kg Micheal Chen, Sg way.
2.Investigation into units taken by outsiders (Kg Damansara Dalam, where several police reports were made by some villagers two months ago)
3. Abandoned Balairaya project in Kg Tunku ( initaited by Dr Wong Sai Hau, SA of Kg Tunku).
4.Abandoned Service Centre building related to Dr Wong Sai Hau ( right in front of Paramount LRT station).

PRO Zainun Zakaria was also in the meeting.

此时此刻，我们更加怀念张景良先生。

2006-09-22T02:07:00.000+08:00

此时此刻，我们更加怀念张景良先生。

真要“感谢” 副教育部长诺奥马坦白公告，在第九大马计划下兴建的180间学校，无一间是华小或淡小！

诺奥马虽然面目难看，但是相对于之前一直含糊其辞的韩春景和马华民政人联党头头，不是更加可憎复可恶吗？

在此风雨飘摇的时刻，令人更加怀念张景良先生。如果张老仍然在世在位，必然身先士卒，将诺奥马之流痛骂一顿。

我有幸认识张老，由于他领导的雪兰莪中华大会堂推动“精英文化义演” 全国巡回演出，得到我服务的广告社客户健力士公司的大力赞助，使我有机会参与其盛，略尽棉力。

纪念张老的最好方法，莫如继承他的遗志，在华教和文化事业上“有一分热，发一分光” ！

民主行动党总部已经联络主办单位准备花圈，以示追思和表扬张先生对民主和民族事业的贡献。

让我们一起来出席本星期天在雪隆华堂举办的张景良追思会。

相关新闻如下：

四团体联办追思会
表扬张景良贡献

隆雪华堂Sep 20, 06 2:57pm

吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂、马来西亚留台校友会联合总会、国立台湾大学马来西亚同学会，以及华社研究中心定于9月24日（星期日），上午11时正，假隆雪华堂举行《张景良追思会》，以表扬及追思已故张景良先生对我国华人社会的贡献。

张景良（1933-2006）出生于1933年，祖籍广东新会。他在吉兰丹接受华小教育，在槟城钟灵中学毕业，1962年毕业于国立台湾大学电机工程系，先后获得马来西亚、新加坡、英国以及美国工程师协会会员的专业资格。

从1970年代初期开始，张景良便积极参与社团，活跃于各项社会工作。他先后担任台大校友会会长、留台联总会长、雪兰莪中华大会堂会长、全国十五华团领导机构联委会主席、全国华团民权委员会主席、关注政府修改1961年教育法令行动委员会主席、华社研究中心管理委员会主席等等。

他曾荣获1990年留台联总最高荣誉贡献奖、2003年被中华民国侨务委员会推选为世界十大杰出校友之一。

张景良的重要贡献，在留台联总方面，主要包括推动留台联总的成立及购置会所、发起组织留台工程组，争取留台工程师、化学师的权益、争取政府承认留台学位、创办“文化之夜”等等。

在隆雪华堂方面，张景良参与了1983年的全国华人文化大会、参与推动首创全国华人文化节；1985《全国华团联合宣言》发表后，张景良便通过全国十五华团领导机构推动成立全国华团民权委员会，大力推动民主人权的思想教育工作。

1987年在吉隆坡天后宫举行的华团与朝野政党捍卫华教大会，张景良担任大会主席；他也积极争取政府释放在“茅草行动”中被扣留的社团人士。

此外，他也促成了“精英文化义演”的全国巡回演出。

张景良坐言起行，树立了知识分子剑及履及，以行动来奉献社会，以无畏无私的道德勇气争取民主人权的典范。

张景良于今年9月8日与世长辞。他的辞世，不但是家属痛失亲人，也是华社的重大损失。

为了表扬张景良对华社的贡献，同时树立良好的社会典范，于是隆雪华堂等四个团体联办《张景良追思会》。

《张景良追思会》的程序如下：
1. 追思会正式开始，介绍联办单位代表及嘉宾
2. 全体默哀三分钟
3. 张景良生平事迹电脑投影片介绍
4. 宣读追悼文
5. 联办团体及友好团体献花
6. 联办单位代表致词
7. 友好致词
8. 张景良遗孀献花
9. 家属代表致词
10. 公众献花
11. 追悼会结束/自助午餐

联办单位呼吁社会各界，包括各社团代表，以及张景良先生生前的战友和友好，踊跃出席这项深具意义的追思会以及小型展览。

联办单位也代为安排定购花圈的服务，每个花圈100令吉。除了联办单位之外，已经确定敬献花圈的主要团体包括董总、教总、校友联总、南大校友会、中国驻马大使馆、留台工程师协会、驻马台北经济文化办事处、钟灵校友会、双溪大年新民校友会等。

任何询问，可联络隆雪华堂秘书处蔡美莲小姐（电话：03-22746645），或留台联总李宗顺先生（电话：03-7876 4542）。

Denial the best answer of MCA leaders like Chew

2006-09-20T19:33:00.000+08:00

In a Malaysiakini report today, PJ Utara MP Chew Mei Fun has denied that she and her colleagues have actually said that they have "90%" gotten the 'nga lan' (land titles) for the people living in Kg Micheal Chen, Sg Way in the thick of 2004 general election campaigns.

Chew's response was expected as denial is always the best weapon MCA leaders like Chew could use when they were finally proven wrong or exposed. They will never admit their mistakes even if you throw their own letter and the newspaper cuttings (filled with what they have said or promised) to them.

And they would never answer your questions directly because avoiding difficult questions is the best option to them.

But what can the Sg Way people do now that their homes were destroyed?

Some of them turned out in force to join the Barisan Nasional/ MCA procession on the nomination day of last election with a big banner with supportive messages for Chew. Would they turn around to teach Chew a lesson in the coming elections now that they felt cheated by her?

Lim Bee Choon said he would certainly do that. He hopes other victimised residents could do the same. Lim's family spent a lot of money to renovate their two-storeyed house here when they were convinced that the MCA reps were genuine and sincere in obtaining the necessary land title for them.

Another victim Tee Chai Huat blames Chew for misleading the residents. " If she cannot get the titles for us, the least she could do was to get straight and focused on getting the rightful compensation for us." he added.

Here's the report from Andrew Ong of Malaysiakini...

Villagers accuse MCA reps of breaking promise

Andrew OngSep 20, 06 6:57pm

MCA leaders broke their promise! This is what several evicted residents of Kampung Michael Cheng in Petaling Jaya claim.

According to them, two MCA elected representatives had promised them land grants but this never materialised.

Demolition works carried out by the Petaling Jaya City Council (MPBJ) since Aug 31 has reduced the 141 brick-and-mortar single-story terrace houses to rubble.

However, Petaling Jaya Utara MP Chew Mei Fun denied that she had promised them the grants prior to the 2004 general election.

The MCA leader claimed that opposition party DAP was exploiting the issue and taking advantage of the residents. “What I promised is that I will try my best to obtain the grants for them. I have tried and delivered whatever I can,” she said when contacted.

The residents’ ordeal started in the 1970's when they were urged to move to the village located in Seri Setia during the communist insurgency. Most of them agreed when told they would receive grants to the land. Since 2002, there have been repeated threats to demolish their houses as the villagers were deemed as squatters, despite a majority of them being legitimate ratepayers.

Appeal letter

This morning, former residents Lim Bee Choon and Tee Chai Huat showed reporters their recent utility bills, assessment receipts and news clippings during a press conference organised by the DAP PJ Action Team (PAT).

Their point of contention was a letter carrying the signatures of Chew and Kg Tunku assemblyperson Wong Sai Hou distributed during the politicians’ door-to-door election campaign in the area.

The appeal letter urged Selangor Menteri Besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo to expedite the grants. The letter also bore Khir’s signature with a short note from the menteri besar calling on the district officer to ‘consider’ the appeal. Mohd Khir’s note was dated March 14, 2004 - one week before the general election.

During election time, Lim and Tee said villagers were assured that their grants were ‘almost ready’ and that the letter was the proof. “We were told (by several MCA representatives) that we cannot seek help from the opposition and maintain a ‘low-profile’ in handling the matter,” said Lim.

False hope

Meanwhile, PAT advisor Ronnie Liu lambasted MCA elected representatives for making empty promises and giving the residents false hope. He said the representatives should admit their mistake and apologise.

In defence, Chew said MCA had tried its best to obtain the grants but they could not supercede the state government’s decision to develop the land. “As far as we are concerned, the villagers are well taken care of,” she added.

There was also an allegation that some evicted residents were allowed to only buy one low-cost flat unit when their house in Kampung Michael Chen housed more than one family. Commenting on this, Chew said: “My door is always open. If there are still problems they can come see me.”

The residents are currently housed in transit homes in Kota Damansara and Lembah Subang. They have been offered low-cost flat units which will be built on the site of their former houses.

To the MCA, the meaning of 'Nga Lan' is ' rotten teeth'

2006-09-20T15:59:00.000+08:00

"Chew Mei Fun, where is my 'Nga Lan' ? "
This senior folk (pix on the top ) turned to his demolished home on Sg way Road 4, also known as Kg Micheal Chen or Huo Jie Xian (High Tension Wire Zone) , after asking this question which YB Chew has been avoiding these days.

He brought the reporters and DAP PJ Action Team members to his broken home for one ' last look'. The poor man has been living here for almost half a decade. He regreted for trusting the MCA. He said the residents here should not have turned the DAP away when the party has came to offer help. It's all too late now.

Loh Chee Ming (pix at the bottom) ,42, also lost his home on this Merdeka Day without any compensation. He too has trusted Chew to help. But now, he was being kicked around by MCA and MPPJ (now MBPJ) officers like a "human ball". He has not received the letter of offer for a low-cost unit with the rightful compensation just because his house was wrongly marked ( with a same number as his neigbour) by MPPJ officers. That was not his fault. (Note: We will bring him along when we weet the new Mayor of MBPJ this Friday. See if the new Mayor can clear the mess created by the MCA reps in PJ.)

PJ Utara MP Chew Mei Fun has promised them that they will be given land titles immediately after the 2004 general elections on the condition that they must return her as an MP for another term. But Chew was already fully aware at that point of time that the entire Kg Micheal Chen was given to Taipan Focus for redevelpment under the Zero Squatters Policy 2005. I have with me a document, which Chew has put down her signature, as an evidence.

In fact, Chew and Dr Wong have appeared together with the developer as early as 2002, in a meet the residents session held at a local Chinese temple, on the issue of redevelopment. They may (or may not) know that I was there throughout the meeting that night!

I have informed all the 141 house-owners here about the 'ugly truth' but most of the residents here have chosen to believe Chew. Majority of them have voted for Chew, thinking that she would not lied to them.

Others who have made similar promise include Dr Wong Sai Hou ( state assemblyman of Kg Tunku) . Both Chew and dr Wong issued a joint letter on 17 March 2004, just a few days before the polling, plus a supporting letter choped and signed with a remark by the Selangor MB Dr Khir Toyo. This letter, plus the verbal promise and open statement in the press made by the two ( and also the weekly meeting with the residents) have convinced many residents here to vote for them.

The other person who has given false hope and empty promise to them was none other than the MCA President Ong Ka Ting. At a mass dinner held in 2002 here, he openly told the residents that their homes would not be demolished and individual land titles were in the process. He too told the residents not to believe in DAP leaders, and MCA will be able to help. Needless to say, his words did carry some weight at that time. But not anymore. Because the residents in Sg way finally realised that 'Nga Lan' to the MCA could only mean 'bad teeth'.

Chew and Wong have now gone hiding now that the houses were demolished, finally. I was told that many of the second or third families have yet to be alloted with a low-cost unit.

So, where is the 'Nga Lan', YB Chew ?

( The MCA State Assemblyman for Damansara Utama C.K.Lim also screwed up 'big time' in his constituency. More than 40 second and third families from Kg Cempaka(demolished last year) have yet to be alloted with low-cost units. They were stucked at the Kota Damansara temporary flats. And more than five families living in Kg Damansara Dalam were denied their rightful homes and they have reasons to believe that their units were taken but C.K Lim's right hand man illegally. They have made police reports with the PJ Police some months back. And the police have yet to act, as usual)

Note: 'Nga Lan' , land title, could also mean ' bad teeth'.

行动党支持警员加薪

2006-09-19T13:23:00.000+08:00

行动党支持警员加薪，认同加薪有助减低贪污受贿行为

民主行动党中委兼非政府组织局主任刘天球文告
2006年9月19日星期二
八打灵再也

民主行动党认为普通警员薪金低微，与他们所承担的工作和职责不符，更追不上通货膨胀，因此曾经多次在国会要求政府调整警员薪金。

我党也认为调整警员薪金至合理水平有助于维护警员的尊严，进而提升士气，提高效率，为人民提供更良好的服务。

目前普通警员的最低薪金低微，每月只有马币六百五十元。警员贪污受贿现象日益严重，与他们的待遇有一定的关系，虽然提升薪金不能确保所有警员都不再涉及贪污受贿的行为，毕竟警队与其它政府部门一样，其中不乏害群之马。

新上任的总警长慕沙哈山提出提升警员薪金的要求，理应获得政府的正视。我党希望政府从善如流，严正检讨警员薪金(尤其是普通警员的薪金) ，制定一套实际的警务人员薪金制，从而提高警队士气和警员的形像。

当然，民众也希望政府早日落实皇家调查委员会的建议，包括全面改革警队，成立IPCMC来监督警队的操守。

由于国家行政管理不当，经济发展遇阻，市道欠佳，再加上警队办事不力，目前犯罪率急升，已经达到人人自危的地步。民众对于警务人员早有烦言。

总警长日前誓言全面打击罪犯，民众有所期盼，我们拭目以待。

但是总警长较早前开反对成立IPCMC，已经令民众感觉警队不思改革，已经进一步导致警队公信力和威信荡然无存。

如果总警长只是提出要求加薪，对于IPCMC的成立却带领全体警务人员大力抗拒，则难以取信于人民，甚至最终挫败加薪的诉求。

民主行动党促请阿都拉政府双管齐下，早日成立IPCMC以配合改革警队，同时制定合理的警务人员薪金制，以便全面提升警队士气和提高打击罪犯的效率。

/ 刘天球

从台湾倒扁总统大集会到翁诗杰评干捞小风波。。。

2006-09-19T07:08:00.001+08:00

台湾倒扁静坐运动其实是一项规模盛大的人民反贪运动。最终阿扁政府是否因而倒台有待揭晓，但其包含的重大社会/历史意义和影响力，则无庸置疑。

反观阿都拉政府肃贪行动有气无力，“得个讲字“(广东话)，结果贪污指数只升不降，比起老马时代实“有过之而无不及”，人民即使不愿走上街头静坐，至少也应该齐齐“呛声”才对。可是马来西亚人民却似乎无动于衷，令人叹三声！

马华的 “独行侠” 这次纯粹针对学校拨款被“干捞” 事件评论两句，就被国阵“自己人”修理得体无完肤，同党同僚同志又不愿也不敢为他讲一两句公道话；结果被内阁责骂不算，顶头上司竟然还代为道歉，确是人间奇事一桩，再次印证“MALAYSIA BOLEH”。(顺便一提，此口号本是小弟的旧公司为客户美禄创作者，没想到后来被政府领袖敢敢盗用，没付一分钱版权费)。

本来对翁“大侠”感到不平，不过后来想想，独行侠虽然被同僚责骂，但是在民间得到美名。只要懂得自我克制，暂时封口，官位还是保得住的；而骂人者如希山，不是也得到内阁和一些极端分子所吹捧吗。所谓“一家便宜两家着”，戏正上映，华校待遇一如既往，吃亏的最终还是老百姓。

今早在<当今大马>读到杨白杨先生的大作，一贯的嘻笑怒骂，反讽侧击，特此转载。。。

请勿在此高喊反贪

杨白杨Sep 18, 06 3:29pm

杨白杨，原名杨文波，另有笔名欧阳恩、李安、马明、胡先及陈默等，马来亚大学中文系及教育系毕业，擅长散文、杂文及时评。他在我国报章撰写过多个专栏，其文字多变，或正经严肃、讲情说理，或嬉笑怒骂、反讽侧击，或直抒胸怀、真情流露，极受读者欢迎。已结集出版者有《坦然集》、《华团漫步》、《神伤中国》、《黑白之间》、《无关政治》及《百字书》。杨白杨简介及他所写过的专栏杨白杨电邮: yangbaiyang@gmail.com

眼前的台湾，进行着轰轰烈烈的反贪污反腐败运动，成千上万的普通老百姓走上街头，高喊反贪倒扁的口号。我们马来西亚的观众，天天追看剧情的发展，一面看，一面叹息，口中念念有词：这种事情，绝对不会在马来西亚发生！

我不知道这些观众的叹息和念念有词是什么意思。他们也许是说这种一百万人走上街头反贪腐而没有被镇压的事情绝对不会在马来西亚发生，因为他们看过几百个人走上街头反对汽油涨价而被镇压的镜头。几百个人走上街头反对汽油涨价都会被镇压，一百万人走上街头反贪腐而不被镇压，对他们来说，简直不可思议。

说“这种事情绝对不会在马来西亚发生”的人，也有可能认为像台湾的贪腐现象绝对不会在马来西亚发生，因为我国首相不是台湾总统陈水扁，他的女婿不像陈水扁的女婿，他的家庭成员不像陈水扁的家庭成员，他们没有被检察署调查。而且，执政的巫统前主席马哈迪不像民进党前主席施明德，可以发动百万人游行高喊阿扁下台。

因此，发生在台湾的事情绝对不会在马来西亚发生。

我国政府清明廉洁，部长们都是玉洁冰清的政党领袖，他们反贪反腐惟恐不及，怎么会干贪污舞弊的事情呢？部长们以身作则，属下官员当然一个个分文不贪，要是有人乱喊反贪污，对他们就是一种很大的伤害。所以，在我国马来西亚，高喊反贪污反腐败，是一种禁忌。不要说高喊反贪污，即使听到有人揭发贪污事件，也不要随便评述，因为这样也可能惹祸上身。大家要明哲保身，就像听到邻居高喊有有人打抢的时候，不要一马当先冲出来，这样可能会被强盗砍死。

副高教部长翁诗杰最近不小心评述华小拨款被干捞事件，结果惹来一身蚂蚁，还祸延他的上司高教部长要站出来代表他道歉，就像小孩子做错事情，父母出来道歉一样。

一切都是翁诗杰的错，他没有看清我国是个清廉的国家。有人揭露华小拨款被骑劫，他听到了应该当场加以驳斥，洗刷同僚的清白，那里可以附和着来评述，讥讽贪污者干捞政府的拨款。这样有辱有关部门官员的清白。翁诗杰是高教部的，他只能针对高教部的贪污现象加以评述，对其他部门，他就不应该多管闲事。

看到台湾反贪倒扁大游行，不禁想要奉劝翁诗杰，要喊反贪污反腐败，到外国去喊吧。比方，可以到中国去喊。这有例可循。翁诗杰如果是福建人，可以到中国的福建省去喊反贪污，我国的报纸今年四月间已经大事报导过，福建籍的马来西亚大官到中国福建省去喊反贪污反腐败，结果“博得全场如雷的掌声”。翁诗杰是海南人，可以到海南岛去喊反贪污反腐败，他如果引述中国前总理朱容基的名言，说已经备好一百副棺材，誓和贪官污吏同归于尽，相信也一定能够博得全场如雷的掌声。

所以，不要把台湾和马来西亚来比，台湾是中国的一部份，在中国，反贪污反腐败会博得如雷的掌声，在马来西亚，要喊反贪污反腐败的人，要自己多多保重了，绝对不会有百万人民走上街头和你一起喊的。这种事情，绝对不会在马来西亚发生。

皇冠镇VS GRAND SAGA 大道收费站公司

2006-09-18T19:22:00.000+08:00

要求无条件开放主要通道 300居民徒步请愿 2006/09/17 18:11:13●南洋商报

（吉隆坡17日讯）皇冠城居民在忍无可忍情况下，由皇冠城开路委员会带领，首次徒步游行高举大字报至500公尺的收费站和平请愿，要求无条件开放主要通道。

逾300名居民扶老携幼带着愤怒的情绪，从皇冠城主要通道边走边高喊“BUKA JALAN”（开路），横跨整个11英里收费站到大道收费公司，游行队伍约300公尺长，霎时引起车龙，所有的车辆也鸣笛以示支持。

车辆鸣笛支持

加影警区首席警长法兹在收费站质问委员会主席陈文华时，居民情绪一度高涨涌上前，表示不满。尽管整个和平请愿在烈日当空下，警方、居民与大道公司职员之间不断燃烧冲突的情绪，警方也如往常派出12名联邦后备队维持持续，但始终没有发生不愉快事件。

大道公司执行董事再纳阿比丁首次会见蕉赖区国会议员及居民代表，并公开部分信件，陈国伟在会见后指出，大道公司所出示的信件说明，如果任何引起大道公司金钱上的损失，当局有权力进行封路行动。“但是，这只是大道公司单方面所提供的信件，公说公有理，婆说婆有理，我们必须看完发展商及政府的信件才能作为标准。”

后备队员解散人群 2006/09/17 18:11:13●南洋商报

（吉隆坡17日讯）早上10时25分时，法兹首次与陈文华交涉，要求在10分钟内解散人群，但居民在长期被欺压下，游行至大道公司。当人群抵达加影前往蕉赖收费站方向时，警方出动12名联邦后备队成员，谕令在10分钟后解散人群。

刘天球与法兹交涉时，法兹说明该区属于公共地方，不允许任何聚会，否则采取行动。但刘天球坚持居民只是要会见大道公司代表，只要大道公司肯出来交代，居民一定离去。

随后，居民在刘天球及陈文华带领下，走入大道公司办公楼，然而警方却尾随于后，在大道公司门口与刘天球发生口角。

皇冠镇VS GRAND SAGA 大道收费站公司

2006-09-18T19:04:00.000+08:00

步行到大道公司大廈請願 300人抗議甘榜路封鎖
星洲日报 SINCHEW updated:2006-09-18 12:42:41 MYT

■居民聚集在鐵柵前要求見地主，可是不成功，當時該處已經有加影警方人員駐守。(放大)
■加影警方召來十多名聯邦后備隊駐守，並揚言如果居民不解散，就會採取逮捕行動。(放大)
■劉天球（左二）和弗茲（右）交涉，要求警方讓居民等到會見大道公司代表之後才解散。雙方一度僵持，氣氛緊張！(放大)
■劉天球（左起）、陳國偉、陳文華向再納汀解釋居民和平情願的心聲。(放大)

■約300位皇冠城居民情緒高漲，步行到約400公尺外的大道公司，要求會見負責人，聲勢浩大。(放大)

（加影訊）蕉賴皇冠城主要通道旁邊甘榜路安裝鐵柵風波升級，約300名居民情緒高漲的居民，週日早步行到距離該通道400公尺外的大道公司大廈和平請願，過程中多次和警方交涉，警方甚至揚言要採取逮捕行動，使氣氛一度緊張！

不過，最後在行動黨蕉賴國會議員陳國偉、皇冠城開路委員會顧問劉天球和主席陳文華代表會見蕉加大道（GRAND SAGA）大道公司執行董事再納阿比汀，雙方取得一些協議后才使風波結束。

連續第11個週日請願

這一個小時會談的結果是，居民委任陳國偉為中間人，負責安排居民、大道公司、皇冠城發展商和政府部門進行對話會，儘速解決皇冠城主要通道問題。

週日早也是皇冠城居民連續第11個星期日，在被封鎖的主要通道路口舉行和平請願，不過卻是首次步行到位於蕉賴11英里收費站旁的大道公司大廈，要求會見大道公司高層。

聯邦後備隊卡車維持秩序

由於居民情緒高漲，不時高喊要求開放道路，原本只是駐守觀察的加影警方，最后召來十多名聯邦後備隊及大卡車維持秩序。直到中午12時45分，在上述3名代表會見大道公司代表進行會談後，居民才解散。

委任陳國偉為中間人

劉天球說，與再納阿比汀會談時，對方出示一些文件，證明大道公司在合約上的一些權力，不過那只是大道公司單方面的說詞。“我們還需要再向蕉賴皇冠城發展商和政府相關部門求證，才能確定大道公司的權限，所以陳文華也提出了建議，要求委任陳國偉為中間人，安排各造針對此事會談，尋求解決方案。”

陳國偉說，大道公司、發展商和人民在這事件上各有所持立場，這些立場基本上都沒有錯，最大錯誤是政府，政府至今在這課題上，沒有給以明確訊息。

陳國偉說，他受委為中間人，會安排各造進行會談，儘速尋求方案，解決此事。

蕉賴皇冠城居民和平請願流程表：

10.00am：約60名居民聚集在鐵柵處抗議，要求見地主解釋為何封路，不果。當時該處已經有數名警員駐守，也有保安人員看守該鐵柵。
10.30am：居民越來越多，情緒開始高漲，一些人手持寫上封路或不滿字眼的卡紙，一起步行大道收費站及大道公司大廈外和平請願。警方旁觀，許多途經駕駛者則按車笛，以行支持。10.40am：加影首席警長弗茲開始干預，要求人民解散，勿聚集在收費站前，並揚言要採取逮捕行動，隨後十多名聯邦後備隊出現。在劉天球出面交涉後，弗茲答應讓居民請願至11時。11.00am：居民進入大道公司大廈內，聚集在辦公室入口處。
11.15am：弗茲再次要求居民解散，並揚言居民不解釋，他會採取強硬手段，這番話引起居民不滿，雙方僵持不下。
11.20am：陳國偉到來，居民鼓掌歡迎。他向居民發表談話，指警方應保護人民，不應以恐嚇方式，阻止居民為自己爭取使用道路的權利，他表示行動黨之前還在國會內為警方爭取加薪。11.25am：弗茲阻止陳國偉繼續發言，雙方僵持一陣后，居民仿傚台灣倒扁，不過是以“靜站” 方式，要求會見大道公司高層。
11.40am：再納阿比汀出現，會見陳國偉、劉天球和陳文華，陳國偉司機梁國民要隨著進入辦公室受阻。
12.00pm：加影警區公共秩序及交通組主任再汀副警監到來。
12.40pm：雙方會談結束，陳國偉受居民委為皇冠城主要通道事件中間人，安排各造會談解決此事。
12.45：居民解散，和平請願結束。

新聞背景

· 主要通道旁邊的甘榜路段於上週五（15日）被人安裝上鐵柵封鎖，禁止民眾使用該路通往蕉加大道。
· 甘榜路封鎖後，許多車輛被迫迴轉，必須使用雙溪龍鎮主要通道，以及經過蕉賴11哩的收費站，往返目的地。
· 甘榜路段長約60公尺，自蕉賴皇冠城主要通道被封鎖後，成為皇冠城和雙溪龍鎮居民避開蕉賴11哩收費站，通往蕉加大道的交替路。
· 之前，市議會曾根據甘榜居民的投訴，兩度以石墩以及挖掘深坑封鎖該路。不過，在蕉賴皇冠城居民的抗議以及行動黨協助下，兩項行動都宣告失敗。
（星洲日報／大都會‧2005/09/17）

BMC residents Vs Grand Saga

2006-09-18T03:15:00.000+08:00

(pix) Fauzi, the man who threatened to use force against the BMC and Sg Long residents.

Bandar Mahkota Cheras residents had a protest this morning. They marched from the barricades to the Grand Saga office nearby. They managed to force the Grand Saga management to come to talk with them although today is Sunday.

The police has earlier threatened to use brutal force to chase away the residents but was wooed away by the 500- strong crowd.

Grand Saga deputy chairman Zainal Abidin bin Ali (former OCPD of Dang Wangi) finally appeared in his office to hold a meeting with Tan Boon Wah ( Bandar Mahkota Cheras Free Access Action Committee Chairman), Ronnie Liu (Advisor to the action committee) and YB Tan Kok Wai ( DAP Cheras MP) but offer no solution. He just kicked the ball to the developer, Narajaya Sdn Bhd of the Lion Group (controlled Tan Sri William Cheng).

The action committee has appointed Tan Kok Wai to be their coordinator. Tan is trusted to hold an all-party meeting ( incl developer, Grand Saga, Works Ministry, MPKj and the action committee) to find a solution.

Currently, BMC residents were forced to travel an extra 6.5 km everyday. They also have to pay RM1.20 (to and fro) everyday and get caught in traffic jams during peak hours.

Today's action was the 11th gatherings organised by the action commitee with the help of the DAP every Sunday.

I have confronted the police officer in-charge (Chief Inspector Fauzi) who threatened to use force to disperse the residents and even to arrest them. I wanted him to withdraw his threat and told him off openly.I said the duty and responsibilty of the police were to maintain law and order and they should not be taking side with the developer or the toll concessionaire.

Tan Kok Wai also took the opportunity to tell the police to arrest robbers and thieves instead of arresting the residents. He said the DAP has asked for higher pay and allowance for the police force in Parliament. He urged the police to protect the residents instead of causing trouble to them.

He said the Works Minister is expected to reply questions raised by the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang in the Parliament next week.

Here's a report published by China Press...

皇冠城封路風波300人再請願求開路

（加影17日訊）皇冠城開路行動委員會今早10時，再次召集居民在封路處和平請願，要求私營化公司開路讓居民通行。

逾有300人集合在被封的蕉賴-加影大道路口及甘榜私人地路口，並頻頻詢問把守甘榜私人地段的守衛，以了解到底誰下令築鐵柵門封住甘榜私人地段路口，不給車輛當交替路通行。

較后，眾人拉大隊走約半公里路程，前往附近的私營化公司克蓮沙嘉辦事處求見公司董事。

行動黨雪州領袖劉天球、蕉賴區國會議員陳國偉到場協助。

他們在克蓮沙嘉方面允許下，陪同行動委員會主席陳文華，前往辦公室會見副董事主席再納阿必汀談約1小時才結束。

此外，居民從皇冠城被封的路段，越過蕉賴-加影大道蕉賴11哩收費站到辦事處，也沿路大喊“開路，開路”口號。

逾20名制服或便服警方調往駐守；和平請願者也遵循警方人員指示，站在辦事處的路邊，以免阻礙交通和發生意外。

警長與居民小爭執

儘管如此，到場維持秩序的加影警區首席警長弗西卻數度下令居民離開，與居民發生小爭執。
他表示，若民眾不聽令離去，將促下屬採取強硬行動驅散人群。不過，在劉天球、陳文華及其他人勸說，警方沒有採取行動。

在辦事處大門前集會時，警官也走入干涉，並命令群眾在10分鐘內離去，但陳國偉基于是私人地，認為警方沒有權力這么做。

惟他願意停止向集合在場的居民發表演說，並吩咐眾人靜坐一旁，以等候3各代表進入辦事處會談的最新消息。

整個請願行動由早上10時許開始至下午1時許結束。在這2小時，並沒有不愉快事件發生。

陳國偉答應當協調員聯絡各造商討對策

蕉賴區國會議員陳國偉答應成為封路風波的協調員，並將聯絡發展商、私營化公司和政府部門等各造，開會商討解決方案。

他今日會見克蓮沙嘉副董事主席再納阿比汀后，這么表示。

他說，從再納阿比汀出示的文件中，發現情況與較早前發展商所提供的資料有出入。

他說，文件指出，地方政府于1994年批准皇冠城發展籃圖，包括修建出入口，而1995年才批准大道計劃。

情況不明確未能開放

“無論如何，政府有責任解決此風波。”

此外，開路行動委員會顧問劉天球說，“該私營化公司與發展商的說法南轅北轍，不懂誰才正確，目前，我們也須等待皇冠城發展商怎么說，無論如何，被封鎖的路口暫時還不能開。”

他將協助開路行動委員會找出真相，並協助聯絡各造召開商討會議，解決封路問題。

另外，行動委員會主席陳文華表示，已委任陳國偉為總協調員，協助召集各造會議。
他促請發展商提供一切所需文，讓各方代表來討論。

他表示，下週的行動尚須視情況而定，同時也通過短訊聯絡居民。

(Grand Saga Toll Plaza @ Cheras 10th Mile)

history of independence - Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad et al

2006-09-17T04:11:00.000+08:00

Bukan tokoh Umno saja perjuang kemerdekaan negara

Oleh Azamin Amin KUALA LUMPUR, 15 Sept (HARAKAH) -

Perjuangan menuntut kemerdekaan negara bukan sekadar 'dimonopoli' Umno semata, malah turut disumbang dan mendapat pengorbanan daripada para pejuang yang dianggap 'kiri' oleh penjajah British pada ketika itu.

Keberanian perlu ada untuk merungkai semula fakta sejarah dan memberi pertimbangan adil dalam mendedahkan pengorbanan para pejuang seperti Ustaz Abu Bakar Al-Baqir, Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy dan Ahmad Boestamam melalui pertubuhan-pertubuhan pimpinan mereka seperti Hizbul Muslimin, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API) Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS), Baris Tani Se-Malaya (BATAS), Majlis Agama Tertinggi Se-Malaya (MATA) untuk memerdekakan negara ini.

Jangan lupa jasa mereka... Dr Dzulkifli, Rustam Sani, Ronnie Liu dan James Wong dalam forum "Pensejarahan Semula Perjuangan Kemerdekaan" mahu sejarah dikaji semua dalam mengangkat dan menyanjung pejuang yang dilabel radikal dan 'kiri' yang dinafikan sejarah pengorbanan mereka yang turut menuntut kemerdekaan sebagai wira negara.

Inilah antara lontaran hujah dan perbincangan di antara ahli panel yang terdiri daripada Pengarah Pusat Penyelidikan PAS (PPP), Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad; bekas Timbalan Presiden Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM),Rustam Sani; AJK DAP, Ronnie Liu dan Ketua Strategik Analisis Malaysia(SAM), James Wong dalam forum 'Pensejarahan Semula Perjuagan Merdeka' semalam.

Forum yang dianjurkan 'Youth for Change' (Y4C) di Dewan Perhimpunan Cina Selangor itu dimoderatorkan oleh Lee Khai Loon dihadiri oleh seramai 50 orang peserta yang terdiri daripada pelbagai lapisan masyarakat.

"Perjuangan sebenar menuntut kemerdekaan sedari awal bukanlah dipelopori oleh Umno/Perikatan tetapi pemimpin-pemimpin dan pertubuhan-pertubuhan di labelkan radikal dan berhaluan kiri oleh British," kata Dr Dzulkifli.

"Perlu ada keberanian untuk mendedahkan perkara ini. Justeru, selagi mana fakta sejarah sebenar dirahsiakan dengan menonjolkan pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan secara selektif; dengan menyatakan perjuangan menuntut kemerdekaan hanyalah dipelopori oleh pertubuhan moderat Melayu iaitu Umno, lantas menafikan peranan para pemimpin dan pertubuhan lain, maka selagi itulah semangat meraikan kemerdekaan secara bersama tidak akan tercapai," katanya lagi.

Kata beliau Umno dan Perikatan hanya menyambung usaha menuntut kemerdekaan daripada British setelah pemimpin-pemimpin yang dilabelkan radikal ini ditahan oleh British.

Rustam Sani pula mahu penafsiran dan definisi kemerdekaan dikaji semula dengan fikiran yang telus dan tajam supaya jati diri dan keperibadian bangsa Malaysia serta maksud kenegaraan sebenar dapat dicapai di samping mengelak pertembungan perbezaan, keistimewaan, hak dan konflik antara kaum dapat diatasi dengan sebaiknya.

"Sewajarnya kemerdekaan bukanlah dengan membahagi-bahagikan penduduk negara ini kepada kaum Melayu, Cina dan India yang menjurus ke arah konflik antara kaum dan inilah rangka kemerdekaan yang dimahukan oleh British pada masa itu," katanya.

Selain itu, isu sensitif perjuangan Parti Komunis Malaya bersama parti-parti nasionalis Melayu yang diharamkan telah mengangkat senjata menentang British turut dibincangkan demi memberikan keadilan dalam sejarah menuntut kemerdekaan.

"Bayangkan Ketua Polis Negara (KPN) yang pertama selepas merdeka menggelar anak tempatan seperti Adullah CD, Rashid Mydin, Shamsiah Fakeh dan Musa Ahmad sebagai pengganas," kata James Wong.

" Dia (KPN) adalah British yang lahir dari London dan ini hampir sama dengan Bush yang lahir di Amerika pergi ke Afganistan memanggil anak tempatan Osama ben Laden sebagai pengganas," katanya.

Dr Dzulkifli menegaskan pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan negara ini amat penting demi menjamin keadilan dan kebenaran fakta sejarah kemerdekaan keseluruhannya.
Secara sinis menyatakan kepada khalayak bahawa tidak mahu berlaku seperti pepatah 'The victor writes history, the loser writes poetry' (Yang juara menulis sejarah, yang kalah menulis sajak).

Majlis tersebut menjadi rancak apabila ahli panel dihujani dengan pelbagai soalan termasuk isu-isu sensitif tentang perjuangan Chin Peng dan Komunis berakhir sekitar jam 12 tengah malam. - lanh

BN reps endorsement letters "No Value"

2006-09-17T03:37:00.000+08:00

'No value' endorsement letters from BN reps

Andrew Ong- Malaysiakin

Sep 16, 06 12:41pm

The world came crashing down on S Subramaniam, 45 and unemployed, when he was diagnosed with a tumour on his right kidney in early June. But he saw a glimmer of hope when friends told him that MIC leaders gave financial aid to worthy cases.

After seeking advice from the MIC headquarters, he headed for the office of party deputy president G Palanivel who is also women and family development minister which oversees the Welfare Department. That was when he met Palanivel’s private secretary, Dr Vijay Shanmugam, who listened to his plight and subsequently issued a letter of appeal to the hospital concerned to waive Subramaniam’s medical bills which was about RM2,000.

“Dr Vijay told me that I needn’t worry, as the letter would settle everything,” said Subramaniam (right), a former lorry driver. Back at the hospital, Subramaniam was met with a rude shock when admissions staff refused to entertain the letter and demanded a RM1,000 deposit for his treatment, despite his repeated pleas.

“I was told that the MIC issue these letters all the time and that they were tidak laku (worthless),” he said, adding that he spent the whole day at the hospital as he was given the run-around to meet various admission department officers.

Given run-around

“I have a tumour in my kidney and doctors said it would leak anytime. But eventually, they sent me away. I was humiliated and embarrassed. If it wasn’t for that letter and assurance that I don’t have to foot the bill, I would have found ways to finance the operation,” he added.

Eventually, Subramaniam sought a guarantee letter from the Employees Provident Fund which agreed to release enough funds for his medical bills and had the kidney removed on Aug 3.

But this was not before having sought Vijay's help again, who issued another letter, this time urging the Hulu Langat Social Welfare Department to provide supporting documents for the medical bill waiver. Even the department’s letters, was met with the same response from the hospital, said Subramaniam.

“If government institutions, such as hospitals, do not accept these letters, why is the deputy minister’s office issuing them? They have done me more harm than good,” said an upset Subramaniam, who had to travel from Semenyih to Kuala Lumpur frequently by public transport during the three-month ordeal.

Repeated attempts yesterday and today to contact Vijay at his office were futile.

Placebo effect

Two opposition leaders known for their grassroots activities said such letters often give false hope to the lesser informed members of society.

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice youth chief S Manikavasagam said Subramaniam’s cases was not isolated as he has in possession plenty of ‘endorsement letters’ signed by top MIC leaders which did not solve anything. “Take for example the letters by (MIC president) Samy Vellu which asked local authorities to stop demolition of Hindu temple. Not even one worked,” he said. Other problems which commonly lead to individuals seeking such letters from elected representatives include scholarship applications, eviction of squatters, welfare and medical benefits.

Democratic Action Party NGO bureau chief Ronnie Liu believes that a system exits which allows Barisan Nasional elected representatives to gain undue credit through issuing such letters. For example, he said many squatters in the Petaling Jaya area facing eviction had sought endorsement letters from elected representatives thinking that it would help them secure rights to low-cost accommodation, when it was actually based on merit and that the letters carry no weight.

“Likewise, genuine cases get discounts at the hospital. It’s a matter of procedure. But those with such letters thinks they work!” said Liu, adding that even the Menteri Besar’s endorsement letter did not help Ulu Yam villagers in their protracted land tussle.

Letters sometimes crucial

Meanwhile, Subang Jaya state assemblyperson of Lee Hwa Beng told malaysiakini that he is normally very reluctant to issue such letters. “In most cases it is a waste of time. If my constituents have a problem, I would try to help them by facilitating a meeting with the (government) agency concerned,” said Lee, who is also a MCA central committee member.

He said issues such as squatter problems for example, must usually be dealt with at the Menteri Besar’s level, but there are cases whereby endorsement letters from elected representatives were crucial. These include application for hawker, lorry and bus licenses from elected representatives in his area, application for citizenship and in certain cases, letters to endorse a student’s wish to be transferred to specific school.

“But if they still want a letter, we would issue one as it is better than nothing. But one must make sure he is sincere in giving them,” said Lee.

Puchong Parliamentarian Lau Yeng Peng said an endorsement letter should not be treated as a solution to one’s problems. “I've explained to people who see me that if they are genuine cases, I will lend my support. But they must also understand that the other party has the right to consider and even reject the letter,” said Lau, when told about Subramaniam’s allegations.

Helping delivery system

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister Department M Kayveas, who is also Taiping MP, explained that without proper vetting of the applicant, such letters have no value.

“In most cases, I meet them first and not through their agent,” he said, adding that in the past, some unscrupulous individuals acted as agents for others to obtain such letters in return for a fee. He said such letters help in many areas such as job recommendation, reducing hospital bills and matters involving the customs, immigration departments and the local authorities.

He explained that this was a way to help the government’s delivery system, as at times, technical problems might stall a person’s request from a particular agency.

“The good part of it is that the letters get a 99.9 percent positive response. They (recipients) really appreciate that I have personally vetted the applicant (for the letter) as a deputy minister and a party leader,” added Kayveas.

history of independence-ronnie liu & rustam sani

2006-09-16T01:05:00.000+08:00

鲁斯旦：建设共同国族特征才是独立的真正意义

MALAYSIAKINI 黄凌风Sep 15, 06 5:37pm

社会学者鲁斯旦沙尼（Rustam Sani）指出，独立的意义不只是摆脱殖民地，而在于建设一个所有国民可以接受和分享的共同国族特征。也是前人民党署理主席的鲁斯旦沙尼昨晚在Youth For Change（简称Y4C）和隆雪华青年团举办的“重写独立斗争历史”（Pensejarahan Semula Perjuangan Merdeka）讲座会上，提出本身对独立意义的看法。

该讲座会的主讲人包括回教党中央研究中心主任祖基菲里阿末博士 (Dr. Dzulkifri Ahmad) 、民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球，以及大马战略分析机构首席分析员兼《当今大马》专栏作家黄永安。共有大约60人出席这场讲座。

人民宪法定义“马来人”为诞生本地者鲁斯旦沙尼指出，当时由各族团体组成的泛马联合行动理事会（Putera-AMCJA）曾经提出替代人民宪法，反映他们要成立有主权和独立的马来国土（Tanah Melayu）的愿望。

这份文件将马来人定义为任何诞生在这片土地、要定居在这里和把这个国家当作是国土的人。“如果这份人民宪法获得通过的话，当今大马将不再有土著和非土著之分。当时他们的思想已经非常前进，他们并非抗拒华人保有华人的特征，而是在这片土地上，大家都是'马来人'。这已经获得当时人民的认同。"

“现今的人民都无法接受先贤们的前进思想，他们把独立只是看成是在1957年摆脱英国殖民地而已。遗憾的是，没有任何历史学者为这方面进行详细的分析研究，他们的理想越来越小，从来不曾深入探讨泛马联合行动理事会。

”独立并非为了“解放”马来亚.他也表示，当我们提到独立，我们都想到是在1957年获得独立及摆脱英国的殖民，而以前的斗争是为了要解放一个所谓的“马来亚”（Malaya）的国家，但这是不正确的。

“因为一直到40年代都不曾出现马来亚的名称，就算有被使用，也是马来人用来贬低其他种族的词语。因为成为在英国殖民地前，马来亚是不曾出现的。这就好象如果没有英国殖民，就不会出现印度；如果没有荷兰殖民也不会出现印尼；如果没有西班牙和美国殖民也可能不会出现菲律宾。所以，马来亚本身只是一个概念。”

他表示，单纯对抗英国殖民并不代表真正的民族主义，因为后者必须拥有塑造民族特征及国家的理想。他认为，有许多其他因素促使我国从英国手中取得独立，这包括马共的武装斗争，以及1950年代的世界气候，当时有许多国家也正争取独立。

联盟成立非关独立只为选举他说，独立不是一个解放既有国家的运动，而是塑造一个不曾出现过的理想中国家。“由巫统、马华和国大党组成的联盟，其目的并非要争取独立，他们组成联盟的目的是为了应对1952年的吉隆坡市议会选举。由于取得巨大胜利，因为他们继续以这种方式存在。”

他批评，每当出现纷争时，就会有人高喊“和谐”（muhibbah），“这并非是国家建设，只是处理纷争，直到现在。我们哪里有国家建设？我们只是处理纷争”。

为何陈祯禄没出席伦敦谈判？

刘天球则提出一些鲜为人知的史实，包括马华公会创办人陈祯禄并没有代表马华出席联盟与英国在伦敦举行的独立谈判。

“在1956年1月18日至2月8日举行的谈判中，陈祯禄被指身体抱恙无法出席，并由李孝式代表。陈祯禄是一名能够捍卫华社基本权利的领袖，并且曾经代表马华向华社保证会把华人的一切要求带到独立的谈判桌。但是，他最终却无法代表华社出席。”“陈祯禄作为马华总会长是否不够资格出席谈判？当时的华社一直质疑，李孝式和陈东海是否敢在谈判桌上提出华社的诉求？马华到今天都无法给予满意的解释。”

刘天球：陈东海扔掉华团备忘录典当权益

刘天球也引述已故国父东姑阿都拉曼在《星报》的文章说，当时身为联盟总秘书的陈东海在伦敦一间酒店内，把华团备忘录丢进垃圾筒。

“原来马华从独立开始就典当了华族的基本权利和利益。”

除了陈祯禄缺席之外，刘天球指出，国大党也没有任何代表参与上述伦敦谈判，连最有资格的国大党主席森本善（V.T.Sambanthan）也未受邀。

他也引述阿莫波士达曼（Ahmad Boestaman）著作《Merintis Jalan Ke Punchak》表示，我国目前中五使用的历史教科书指马来亚马来民族党（PKMM）、醒觉青年团（API）、醒觉妇女团（AWAS）和泛马农民阵线（BATAS）支持马来亚联盟（Malayan Union）是一个谎言，因为当时所有政党包括由阿莫波士达曼领导的马来亚马来民族党都是反对成立马来亚联盟。

刘天球说，较后在1948年2月1日成立了马来亚联邦（Persekutuan Tanah Melayu）来取代马来亚联盟，其中一个因素是当时的巫统并没有争取独立。

“事实上，最先争取独立的政党并非巫统和联盟。比巫统更早成立的马来亚马来民族党是使用'独立'（Merdeka）作为它的标语。巫统的标语是'马来人万岁'（Hidup Melayu），一直到一些政治领袖如敦嘉化巴巴加入巫统后才开始使用'独立'的标语。”

刘天球表示，无可否认的是，大部分独立斗士如马来亚马来民族党领袖都具有社会主义色彩，同时被视为偏向马来亚共产党。英国相信一旦马来亚交由马共或其他社会主义色彩政党管理的话，英国的经济利益将受到剥夺。

“因此，马来亚马来民族党和其他左派政党被禁，一众领袖也遭到监禁。独立的谈判只限于英国和联盟的领袖之间进行。”

马共准备放弃武装斗争参政

此外，刘天球也表示，马来亚共产党总书记陈平曾经在1955年6月致函马来亚的英国政府，陈平表明马共准备参与1955年7月27日的首次普选，但是遭到英国的拒绝。“

接着在1955年12月28日至29日举行的华玲谈判，东姑建议马共投诚及接受宽赦，但遭到陈平拒绝。陈平要求政府批准马共成为一个正式的政党也遭到东姑的拒绝。

在马来亚独立后，陈平再次於1957年10月12日致函东姑要求重新谈判，但是政府在未给予任何理由的情况下给予拒绝。”

刘天球说，马共在独立后已经展现出有意结束武装斗争的意愿，但不幸的是，他们的要求遭到联盟政府的拒绝。

“如果当时马共被政府接受为正式政党的话，大马的历史将大大不同，许多无辜生命也不会被牺牲。”

history of independence-zulkifli ahmad & james wong 2

2006-09-16T00:54:00.000+08:00

马来亚独立斗争史应重写
真正独立斗士不能被遗漏
MALAYSIAKINI黄凌风Sep 15, 06 5:22pm

回教党研究主任祖基菲里阿末博士指出，我国官方历史必须重写，除了大马人民耳熟能详的联盟（Perikatan）领袖的功劳之外，其他真正独立斗士如马来亚共产党（PKM）和马来亚马来民族党（PKMM）等领袖的贡献和牺牲也不能被刻意遗漏。

昨晚由Youth For Change（简称Y4C）和隆雪华青年团举办的“重写独立斗争历史”（Pensejarahan Semula Perjuangan Merdeka）讲座会，所有主讲人一致认同目前国官方版本的历史过于偏重联盟领袖如巫统、马华和国大党向英国争取独立，而刻意忽略了其他独立斗士的牺牲，导致新一代国民无法认识我国真正的独立斗争历史。

该讲座会的主讲人包括回教党中央研究中心主任祖基菲里阿末博士 (Dr. Dzulkifri Ahmad) 、
社会学者兼前人民党署理主席鲁斯旦沙尼（Rustam Sani）、
民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球，
以及大马战略分析机构首席分析员兼《当今大马》专栏作家黄永安。

共有大约60人出席这场讲座。还原历史真相，厘清误导史实祖基菲里阿末表示，在明年即将庆祝50周年国庆之际，我国有必要重新评价国家历史，以便还原历史真相，厘清一切被误导的史实，提供未来一代新独立史的论述。

他认为，我国已经独立50年，人民理应拥有政治的成熟度，来接受和对各种史实作出评价，厘清历史将有助于达到人民互相尊重和了解。祖基菲里阿末曾经在回教党党报网站《哈拉卡在线》发表一篇题为“重写独立斗争历史：一个正义的诉求”重点评论文章，质疑现今的独立历史记载受统治者撰写，单只突出巫统和其联盟伙伴马华、国大党，从一开始就为独立而奋斗，而忽略了其他真正的独立斗士如阿布巴卡、布哈奴丁医生（Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmi）和阿末伯斯达曼（Ahmad Boestaman）。

回教和马共领袖作出重大牺牲他也确认马共在抗日抗英战争中，“对独立的诉求，扮演一定角色” 。祖基菲里阿末表示，我国现有的历史只是把巫统领袖写成是主要的独立斗士，这是一个巨大的错误。而历史应该对所有人公平，既不论任何派系，公正地记载一切史实。

“与巫统和联盟的舒适相比，许多回教领袖为国家独立作出巨大的贡献，马来亚共产党也是一样，甚至是以天为被，以地为铺般的斗争。阿布巴卡等人也被关在监狱内。

这当然也包括巫统领袖在谈判桌上处理独立事务，虽然这很简单，但是也应该被历史记载下来。”

他说，如果当初马共被允许正式参政的话，马来亚不一定会变成共产国家，而共产主义将能够在我国民主制度内“存而不同”和竞争。“这才是真正的民主，那就是我不一定同意你，但是我会捍卫你的发言权。这将考验谁才是真正的民主。”

黄永安：独立应意味摆脱所有外来势力

黄永安则对马来亚在1957年8月31日获得独立提出质疑。他问，东姑阿都拉曼在1957年与伦敦签署《英马防务协议》，允许数以千计的英军和共和联邦国家军队在马来亚半岛界内驻扎和进行反华反共的军事与情报活动，这是真正的独立吗？

他笑称，“由于《英马防务协议》迟至1971年才期满，而最后一批英共和联邦驻军在1984年才从马来亚半岛撤出。如果要对独立重新作出诠释，我国是在1984年才真正独立，而国父将是马哈迪医生”。“同样的，在那么多英美军队驻扎之下，我们是否可以认为现在阿富汉独立了吗？”

他也表示，“独立”是一个相对使用的字眼，“我们从哪方面独立？我们不只是曾经受过英国的殖民，还有荷兰、日本等国家。因此，独立应该包括摆脱所有的外来势力”。

history of independence -Rustam Sani

2006-09-16T00:31:00.000+08:00

鲁斯旦：国阵只有危机处理厘清国家概念再谈独立功臣
■日期／Sep 15, 2006 ■时间／11:57:34 pm
■新闻／家国风云 ■作者／獨立新聞在線主編-庄迪澎

【本刊庄迪澎撰述】著名马来知识份子鲁斯旦沙尼（Rustam Sani）非议，联盟／国阵的所谓“亲善”模式，马来西亚并无所谓“民族国家建设”（nation-building），只有彼此协商分配利益及“危机处理”（managing crisis）而已。

他说，马来亚独立前，巫统、马华公会及印度人国大党结盟，并非为了争取独立，只是为了参加1952年吉隆坡地方议会选举；由于在此次地方议会选举大胜，所以三党继续维持合作关系。

“1957年独立之后，他们延续这种合作关系，没有争吵时，大家就协商分配利益；我要这个多一点，你要那个多一点。有争吵时，就有人站出来说要‘亲善’（muhibbah）。”

鲁斯旦沙尼质问道：“这哪里是民族国家建设？只是危机处理而已。刚过去的国庆日，我们伟大的‘优雅的沉默者’（指首相阿都拉巴达威）还在谈‘亲善’，他还停留在50年前那里。以前华人、马来人、印度人一起吃榴连，现在哪有？”

鲁斯旦沙尼昨晚在吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂青年团及“动力青年”（Y4C）昨晚主办《重写马来西亚独立历史》座谈会上，发表他的看法；这场座谈会的其他主讲人是民主行动党中委刘天球、回教党中央研究中心主任朱基菲利阿末（Dzukifli Ahmad）及马来西亚策略研究机构（Strategic Analysis Malaysia）首席分析员黄永安。

鲁斯旦沙尼说，提到“独立”，许多人只是简单地联想到1957年脱离英国殖民统治，但事实上马来西亚独立的史实及意义远比此复杂许多。

“所谓‘独立’，不只是脱离殖民统治，而是要建立一个大家都可以接受的新的身份认同。这在我国历史上发生过，只是历史学家们都没有去探索。”

鲁斯旦所谓“历史上发生过”的事，是指跨族群的激进国族主义组织泛马联合行动委员会（Putera-AMCJA）。泛马联合行动委员会提出的《人民宪法》（People Constitution）乃由马来人及非马来人共同草拟，并且提出以“马来由”（Melayu）作为新国家的“国族”概念称谓。

鲁斯旦说：“如果这个概念成为事实，今天刘天球和鲁斯旦沙尼都一样是‘马来由’。当时所谓的‘马来由’并不是否定非马来人的差异，而是强调大家都是一样的国族。”

“我们的先贤当时接受这个概念，但是今天如果有人这么提，很多人会马上晕倒。”

history of independence-Zulkifli Ahmad & JamesWong

2006-09-16T00:13:00.000+08:00

独立近半百应有勇气检视历史
马来知识份子促承认马共贡献

■日期／Sep 15, 2006 ■时间／07:43:07 pm
■新闻／家国风云 ■作者／獨立新聞在線主編-庄迪澎


【本刊庄迪澎撰述】官方历史教科书向来将马来亚共产党（马共）标签为发动武装斗争的“华人”游击队，不过在马来西亚独立近半百之际，承认马共争取独立有功的声音开始浮现，而且格外有意义的是，提出此主张的乃“回教党”的“马来人”知识份子和新生代。

回教党研究中心主任朱基菲利阿末（Dzukifli Ahmad，左图）昨晚在吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂说，马来西亚明年就要庆祝50周年国庆了，此时此刻的马来西亚应已有政治成熟重新检视历史，包括马共在反殖民统治及独立斗争中的历史地位。

他说，一般上历史学家都承认，在马来西亚的独立史中，有两个阵营：一个是反抗殖民统治的阵营，而所谓反抗殖民并不只是指谓反抗英国的殖民统治，也追溯到更早的反抗荷兰统治及日本侵占马来亚；另一个是与英殖民政府合作的阵营。前者被英殖民政府标签为“左派”，而后者则标签为“右派”。

但是官方历史却只承认与英国合作的阵营是争取独立的功臣，其他不属于这个阵营者就被遗忘。他说：“如果我们认为巫统这么做是个重大错误，我们就别重蹈覆辙。”

吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂青年团及“动力青年”（Y4C）昨晚主办《重写马来西亚独立历史》座谈会，朱基菲利阿末在会上演讲时，重申他对承认马共贡献的观点。

这场座谈会的其他主讲人是民主行动党中委刘天球、著名马来知识份子鲁斯旦沙尼（Rustam Sani）及马来西亚策略研究（Strategic Analysis Malaysia）首席分析员黄永安。

那一代人的政治成熟

朱基菲利说，追溯久远的历史，马共令人钦佩之处，是诸如阿都拉西迪（Abdullah C.D.）及拉昔迈丁（Rashid Maidin）等马共领导人，能够与其他左翼人士如依布拉欣耶谷（Ibrahim Yaakub）及阿末博思达曼（Ahmad Boestamam）建立携手反殖的共识。

他说：“这显示了他们那一代人的政治成熟，但不幸的是，这种政治成熟在联盟／国阵里消失厥如。独立之后，在独立时产生的合作精神消失了。”

朱基菲利认为，倘若在1955年12月的“华玲会谈”，东姑阿都拉曼有勇气接受马共总书记陈平的条件，承认马共是个合法政党，让它从事政治活动，我国的历史也许就改写，政治局面也将截然不同。

他认为，东姑阿都拉曼不敢接受陈平开出的条件，是因为害怕马共的实力，也是害怕“异议”。朱基菲利演讲时一再强调，民主制度最美之处就是包容“异议”，真正信仰民主理念的从政者，应该有“我完全不同意你的观点，但我将维护你说话的权利”的精神。

“我们没有处理异议的公义。陈平在1945年获英女王颁授英帝国员佐勋章（OBE）表扬他抗日有功，但是三年后却因为陈平与英国对抗而撤销勋章；哪来公义？”

今年国庆前夕，回教党研究中心曾在该党党报Harakahdaily.net发表专文《重写独立斗争史：公正的诉求》（Pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan: Satu tuntutan keadilan），主张承认左派志士争取独立的贡献。【点击：承认左派独立斗士重写独立史还原史实】

那是一场战争

马来西亚分析机构（Strategic Analysis Malaysia）首席分析员黄永安也说，他尊敬所有已经牺牲的先人，但是在英殖民地政府所谓的“紧急状态”期间，除了军警伤亡，马共也有四、五千人牺牲性命。

他说，英殖民地政府把1948年至1960年政府与马共的对峙称为“紧急状态”，但实际上那是一场牵涉两个阵营的战争；既然是战争就有人伤亡，只有“我方”和“敌方”，没有所谓的“恐怖份子”。

黄永安（左图）认为，时下人们所谈论的“反殖斗争”往往都只是指涉马来亚脱离英国殖民统治，却忽略了指涉葡萄牙、荷兰及日本统治马来亚的历史。

“所谓反殖斗争，应该是从对抗所有外国势力开始算起，因此马共作为一个‘反殖政党’的历史事实，不可遗忘。”

日本入侵马来亚，英国殖民地政府撤逃；后来英国与马共合作，由马共抗日。黄永安指出，在1945年至1948年间，马共是个合法政党，也像今天的马华公会等政党那样召开代表大会。

黄永安也驳斥马共是华人政党的说法，力陈马共是个多元族群政党，除了马共总书记陈平之外，其他著名的马共领导人如阿都拉西迪（Abdullah C. D.）、拉昔迈丁（Rashid Maidin）都是马来人。

“马共以前也有很多印度人，但是没有记录，而且当中许多人已遭杀害。英国殖民政府的政治宣传‘华人共产党’是个大谎言。马共远比国民党阵营本土化，因为它承认本土的许多反殖志士如末吉劳（Mat Kilau）、马哈拉惹乐拉（Maharajalela）的地位。”

看到国家纪念碑就想哭

其中一名与会者、年轻艺术工作者法米惹扎（Fahmi Reza）发言时，激动的说，我们应该承认那些反抗英国的人为独立所付出的贡献，而马共肯定有功于独立。

法米（左图）说：“马共是真的为独立斗争，他们愿意进入森林反抗英国；如果没进入森林，他们就得进监牢了。单单是左翼马来人，就有超过一千人被监禁。”

“你说马共是个意识形态政党也好，马克思主义政党也好，它并没有规定只有华人才可以进党。”
法米说，看到在吉隆坡湖滨公园毗邻的国家纪念碑，他就不自觉想哭。“你们看看，国家纪念碑有士兵站着，有人躺着被士兵踩在脚下，躺着的这些人就是马共。纪念碑还有刻上英军的徽章，英国士兵的名字；到底我们尊崇谁？英国人，还是马来亚子民？”

“国家纪念碑”建于1966年，是世界上最大的独立青铜雕塑之一；根据官方说法，建造铜像的目的，是为了纪念在1950年代对抗马来亚共产党的“英勇烈士”。马共在1989年与马来西亚及泰国政府签署和平协议之前的谈判，曾提出拆毁国家纪念碑的条件，不过无功而返。

2006-09-15T03:46:00.000+08:00

Forum “Pensejarahan Semula Perjuangan Merdeka”

Penganjur:
(a) Youth for Change (Y4C)
(b) Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section

Tarikh: 14 September 2006 (Khamis)
Masa: 8.00pm-10.30pm
Tempat: Auditorium, KLSCAH

Sejarah Kemerdekaan sebenar - Jasa dan pengorbanan pejuang-pejuang sebenar mesti dirakamkan, dikenangi dan disanjungi

Bendera Union Jack diturunkan di hadapan Banguanan Sultan Abdul Samad, Padang Kelab Selangor (kini Dataran Merdeka) pada pukul 12.00 tengah malam 30 Ogos 1957 sebagai menandakan berakhirnya penguasaan British di Malaya.

Tanggal 31 Ogos 1958 di Stadium Merdeka, Duke of Gloucester yang mewakili Ratu Elizabeth II menyerahkan dokumen pengisytiharaan kemerdekaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu kepada Tunku Abdul Rahman, Perdana Menteri yang pertama.

Tunku melaungkan “MERDEKA” tiga kali dan disambut dengan laungan yang sama oleh ribuan rakyat yang berbilang kaum sebagai menandakan tamatnya pemerintahan British di Malaya.

Jasa Tunku dan rakan-rakannya dalam Perikatan telah direkodkan dalam sejarah rasmi dan Tunku sendiri diiktirafkan sebagai Bapak Merdeka.

Tetapi jasa dan pengorbanan pejuang-pejuang sebenar yang lain mesti juga direkodkan dalam sejarah rasmi, dan dikenangi dan disanjungi oleh kita semua.

Itulah sebab saya menulis sebuah artikel yang bertajuk “The real Independent fighters” (pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan yang sebenar) untuk memberi penghormatan kepada mereka. Saya juga ingin generasi muda memahami sejarah kemerdekaan yang sebenar dan jangan menerima versi rasmi semata-mata.

Ada beberapa fakta yang saya ingin sentuh di sini :

1. Pengenalan Malayan Union pada tahun 1946 merupakan usaha British untuk menghapuskan negara dan bangsa yang telah dibina sekak zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka. Kuasa politik orang Melayu telah dikurangkan dan ini telah membangkitkan semangat orang Melayu untuk menentang penjajahan British.

Semua parti politik termasuk PKMM yang dipimpini Ahmad Boestamam membantah Malayan Union. Buku teks Sejarah tingkatan lima yang ada hari ini mengatakan PKMM, API , AWAS dan BATAS menyokong Melayan Union adalah satu pembohongan.

“Dalam Kongres PKMM (1 Mach – 4 mach 1946), pucuk pimpinan PKMM bersetuju menyertai Kongres UMNO yang akan berjuang menetang Malayan Union. Keputusan diambil berdasarkan bahawa “ Melayan Union yang akan menjadi tanah jajahan British bulat-bulat tidak ada gunanya kepada rakyat jelata sebab ia bererti perhambaan ke atas mereka semata-mata.Sebab itu ia harus ditentang habis-habisan dan dihancurkan sehingga menjadi debu.

Prinsip penentangan PKMM ini haruslah didasarkan atas kepentingan rakyat jelata dan demi membela maruah dan kedaulatan mereka dan bukan didasarkan untuk membela kedudukan kaum feudal.

Berdasarkan hakikat ini perwakilan PKMM haruslah menghadiri kongres bangsa Melayu tersebut untuk mengemukakan sikap dan pendirian itu.Dengan lain perkataan, PKMM “bersetuju Malayan Union ditentang dan dihancurkan dengan tenaga raksasa seluruh rakyat tetapi di atas runtuhan Melayan Union itu MALAYA MERDEKA SERATUS PERATUS haruslah ditegakkan. Rombongan PKMM diketuai oleh pengerusinya Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy.”

- dipetik dari “Merintis Jalan Ke Punchak”, Ahmad Bostamam

2. Satu faktor utama mengapa Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dibentukkan pada 1 Februari 1948 untuk menggantikan Melayan Union adalah kerana UMNO tidak menuntut kemerdekaan pada masa itu.

“British memilih UMNO dan Raja-Raja Melayu kerana kedua-duanya hanya menuntut rundingan untuk menolak Malayan Union, Mereka tidak menuntut kemerdekaan daripada British. Faktor inilah yang menyebabkan British menerima pembentukan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. British juga bimbang orang Melayu akan dipengaruhi oleh gerakan politik Indonesia yang dikuasai oleh golongan radikal seperti PKMM, API,AWAS dan BATAS. Tambahan pula, Piagam Atlantik 1945 yang dikeluarkan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (UN) tidak menggalakan penjajahan baru, sebaliknya, meminta negara-negara kolonial memberikan latihan berkerajaan sendiri kepada penduduk tempatan.” (Dipetik daripada buku teks Sejarah tingkatan 5).

Sebenarnya, parti-parti yang terawal memperjuangkan untuk kemerdekaan bukannya UNMO dan Perikatan. Slogan “Merdeka” adalah slogan PKMM yang ditubuhkan lebih awal daripada UMNO. Slogan UMNO ialah “ Hidup Melayu”. UMNO menggunakan slogan “Merdeka” hanya selepas tokoh politik seperti Tun Ghafar Baba menyertai UMNO.

Kenapa Perikatan dipilih oleh British sebagai “partner” politik mereka

Memang tidak boleh dinafikan bahawa najoriti pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan seperti pemimpin-pemimpin Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) bercorak sosialis. Mereka dianggap sebagai memihak kepada Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM).

Oleh itu, British merasa lebih senang dan selesa dengan pemimpin-pemimpin Perikatan yang bercorak kapitalis. Tunku dan rakan-rakannya dalam Perikatan dianggap sebagai kawan orang British.

British percaya bahawa kepentingan ekonomi mereka tentu akan dirampas dan hilang sama sekali jika PKM atau parti bercorak sosialis dibenarkan memerintah Malaya.

Oleh demikian, PKMM dan pertubuhan politik berhaluan kiri yang lain diharamkan dan para pemimpinnya dipenjarakan. Rundingan kemerdekaan hanya boleh dijalankan di antara British dan pemimpin Perikatan.

Dua faktor yang mempercepatkan Kemerdekaan

Dalam manifesto pilihan raya umum tahun 1955, Perikatan berjanji untuk berusaha mencapai kemerdekaan dalam tempoh empat (4) tahun. Namun, kemerdekaan dapat dicapai dalam tempoh yang lebih singkat, iaitu dua tahun lebih awal.

Ini adalah kerana dua faktor yang tidak boleh dinafikan. Pertama, kesanggupan ketiga-tiga kaum terbesar bertolak ansur dan berkerjasama dalam satu parti politik bagi menyelesaikan segala masalah yang sulit sebelum memulakan usaha ke arah kemerdekaan. Kedua, wujudnya ancaman komunis dan kesan-kesan darurat*.

Kerajaan British meletakkan syarat bahawa setelah ketiga-tiga kaum terbesar boleh bertolak ansur dan berkerjasam dalam bidang politik, barulah mereka bersedia merundingkan soal kemerdekaan.

Syarat ini dikenakan dengan alasan untuk mengelakkan kekacauan dan pertelingkahan antara kaum.British merasakan bahawa ketiga-tiga kaum terbesar tentu akam memgambil masa yang panjang untuk menyelesaikan pelbagai perbezaan yang wujud di kalangan mereka. Halangan ini akan membolehkam British terus mengekalkan kuasa pemerintah di Malaya.

Namun, anggapan itu ternyata meleset kerana kemenangan besar Perikatan dalam pilihan raya umum tahun 1955 mendorong mereka untuk menyelesaikan banyak perkara dengan lebih mudah, setelah mendapat mandat besar dalam pilihan raya.

Ancaman komunis dan darurat juga turut mempercepatkan lagi usaha ke arah kemerdekaan.

Darurat membolehkan kerajaan British berkerjasama dengan penduduk tempatan untuk menumpukan tenaga untuk menghapuskan ancaman komunis. Kerajaan British sedar bahawa usaha untuk memerangi ancaman komunis tidak boleh dilaksanakan melalui tindakan ketenteraan semata-mata. Sebaliknya, perubahan politik dan perlembagaan juga perlu di ambil kira. Oleh itu, kemerdekaan yang dicapai telah melemahkan percubaan PKM untuk mempengaruhi orang ramai dengan menggunakan dasar antipenjajahan.

Selain itu, dasar Perikatan yang berasaskan system ekonomi bebas telah menyakinkan kerajaan British kerana dasar tersebut membolehkan syarikat dan pemodal British meneruskan perniagaan di Malaya selepas merdeka. Kepentingan ekonomi British akan terus dipelihara, tanpa merasa bimbang diambih alih oleh kerajaan baru.

Kemerdekaan tercapai tetapi kepentingan masyarakat bukan Melayu dikorbankan

Saya tidak bercadang berucap panjang lebar dalam hal ini tetapi ada beberapa perkara yang saya ingin sentuh untuk pengetahuan dan rujukan semua.

1. Tun Tan Cheng Lock tidak mewakili MCA dalam rundingan kemerdekaan penentuan di London yang berlangsung selama tiga minnggu, iaitu dari 18 Januari hingga 8 Februari 1956. (Nota: Kemerdekan tercapai dalam rundingan ini dan 31 Ogos 1957 ditetapakan sebagai hari kemerdekaan bagi Malaya).

Pengasas merangkap Presiden MCA Tun Tan Cheng Lock merupakan pemimpin yang sedia mempertahankan hak-hak asasi masyarakat Cina dan beliau bagi pihak MCA memang pernah memberi jaminan kepada komuniti Cina bahawa segala tuntutan mereka akan dibawa ke meja rundingan kemerdekaan. Tetapi akhirnya beliau tidak mewakili masyarakat Cina. Beliau dikatakan “tidak sihat” untuk pergi ke London. Tempat beliau diambil alih oleh Tun Sir H S Lee. Apakah Tun Tan selaku Presiden MCA tidak layak untuk menyertai rundingan? Masyarakat Cina pada masa itu sering bertanya, adakah HS Lee dan TH Tan berani mengemukakan tuntutan-tuntutan komuniti Cina di atas meja rundingan? MCA tidak dapat memberi penjelasan yang memuaskan sehingga hari ini.(Nota: Tun Tan juga tidak memegang sebarang jawatan dalam Kabinet pertama tahun 1955. Beliau ditewaskan oleh Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu pada Mac tahun 1958.)

2. T.H. Tan membuang Memorandum Tuntutan Masyarakat Cina ke dalam tong sampah

Seorang lagi yang mewakili masyarakat Cina dalam rundingan kemerdekaan ialah Tan Tong Hai selaku Setiausaha Perikatan. Mengikut Tunku dalam satu artikel yang disiarkan dalam The Star, T.H.Tan telah membuang Memorandum Tuntutan Masyarakat Cina ke dalam tong sampah di sebuah bilik hotel di London.

Rupa-rupanya MCA telah bermula menggadaikan kepentingan dan hak-hak asasi kaum Cina sejak dari era kemerdekaan!

3. MIC tidak diberi peluang menghantarkan wakil untuk rundingan kemerdekaan di London yang berlangsung dari 18 Januari hingga 8 Februari 1956.

Seorang pemimpin yang dianggap berhak mewakili Malaya dalam rundingan kemerdekaan tetapi juga tidak dijemput bersama ialah V.T. Sambanthan, walaupun beliau berada di London. MIC tidak langsung diberi peluang duduk atas meja rundingan kemerdekaan pada 18 Januari 1956. Wakil rundingan kemerdekaan terdiri daripada Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Ismail ( UMNO), Tun Sir HS Lee(MCA) dan T.H. Tan ( Setiausaha Perikatan). Mengapa Pengerusi MIC Tun Sambanthan tidak dijemput ke meja rundingan kemerdekaan? Bukankah British telah meletakkan syarat bahawa ketiga-tiga kaum terbesar mesti diwakili dan berkerjasama? Siapa yang mewakili komuniti India untuk menuntut hak-hak asasi mereka? MIC juga bisu dalam perkara ini sampai hari ini.

*Ancaman komunis dan kesan-kesan darurat –

Kesan politik- terdapat 4 alsan utama yang memaksa British mempercepatkan proses kemerdekaan:

1. Semakin ramai penduduk tempatan merasa tidak puas hati terhadap pemerintahan British. Keengganan memberi kemerdekaan mungkin boleh membawa kepada kebangkitan rakyat secara menyeluruh menetang kuasa penjajah seperti yang berlaku di Indonesia dan Indo-China.
2. Kerajaan British bimbang Malaya akan diperintah komunis, jika mereka lambat memberi kemerdekaan.Kebimbangan itu semakin jelas apabila PKM bertindak melancarkan pemberontakan bersenjata untuk mengusir British kelaur dari Malaya. Oleh itu, British perlu mangambil tindakan segera menarik sokongan penduduk tempatan supaya tidak memihak kepada PKM. Satu daripada strategi itu ialah melalui saluran politik dan perlembagaan.
3. Melalui pemberian taraf berkerajaan sendiri dan seterusnya kemerdekaan, PKM tidak ada alasan lagi untuk untuk meneruskan perjuangan mereka.
4. British berhasrat untuk memelihara dan mengekalkan hubungan politik yang berterusan dengan Malaya selepas merdeka bagi menjamin kepentingan ekonomi mereka, terutamnya dalam sector perlombongan dan perladangan.

Pada peringkat awal, British mengambil tindakan keras terhadap parti-parti politik berhaluan kiri yang dilihat bersimpati dengan perjuangan PKM. Ramai pemimpin politik kiri diberkas dan dipenjarakan seperti Ahmad Boestamam dan Ishak Haji Muhammad(Pak Sako).

Parti-parti politik yang terpaksa dibubarkan seperti PKMM, Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API )dan Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS).

Kesan ekonomi – British membelanjakan sebanyak $ 250,000 hingga $ 300, 000 setiap hari bagi tujuan keselamatan untuk membanteras pemberontakan bersenjata PKM. Bagi keperluan pertahanan, British membelanjakan sebanyak $ 136.2 juta dan sejumlah $721.9 juta lagi dibelanjakan sepanjang tempoh darurat untuk melengkapkan pasukan keselamatan. Pada tahun 1953, Malaya mengalami defisit sebanyak $1.46 juta.

Tindakan PKM memyebabkan banyak ladang dan lombong menjadi sasaran serangan dan tindakan sabotaj. Serangan ke atas landasan kereta api dan kenderaan awam menjejaskan kegiatan perdagangan.

PKM dan Rundingan Baling 1955

Pada awal bulan Jun 1955, kerajaan British di Malaya menerima sepucuk surat daripada wakil “Ibu Pejabat Pemerintah Tertinggi Tentera Pembebasan Malaya” yang dihantar dari Haadyai di selatan Negara Thai. Dalam surat tersebut, Chin Ping menyatakan PKM bersedia untuk menghadapi pilihan raya umum pertama yang dijadualkan pada 27 Julai 1955. Permintaan ini ditolak oleh British.

Pilihan raya umum menyaksikan kejayaan besar Perikatan dengan menguasai 51 daripada 52 kerusi yang dipertandingkan. PAS menang hanya satu kerusi dan Parti Negara pimpinan Datuk Onn Jaffar tewas dalam semua kerusi.

Pada 9 September 1955, Tunku selaku Perdana Menteri menawarkan pengampunan beramai-ramai kepada Chin Ping dan semua komunis yang pernah melakukan pembunuhan. Twawaran itu diumumkan melalui 40 juta risalah yang digugurkan dari kapal terbang ke dalam hutan belantara.

Tiga minggu kemudian, Chin Ping memberi jawapan secara bertulis menminta diadakan satu gencatan senjata yang disusuli dengan rundingan untuk menamatkan darurat. Surat itu dialamatkan kepda Tunku, David Marshal dan beberapa ahli politik yang lain.

Selepas mendapat kebenaran daripada British, Tunku memberi jawapan bahawa beliau bersedia merunding dengan Chin Ping. Rundingan itu dijadualkan berlangsung dalam empat sesi selama dua hari, iaitu pada 28 dan 29 Disember 1955 di Baling. Dalam rundingan itu, Tunku mencadankan supaya PKM meletakkan senjata dan meyerah diri tanpa syarat serta menerima pengampunan daripada pihak kerajaan. Chin Ping enggan menerima cadangan itu dan menuntut PKM dibenarkan bergerak sebagai parti politik yang sah. Tuntutan itu ditolak oleh kerajaan. Rundingan Baling berakhir tanpa sebarang keputusan muktamad.

Semasa Malaya mencapai kemerdekaan, Chin Ping sekali lagi menulis kepada Tunku pada 12 Oktober 1957 dan meminta diadakan semula rundingan, tetapi pihak kerajaan menolak permintaan itu tanpa memberi sebarang penjelasan.

Oleh itu, PKM telah membuktikan bahawa mereka berhasrat untuk menamatkan perjuangan bersenjata mereka selepas kemerdekaan tetapi malangnya permintaan mereka ditolak oleh Kerajaan Perikatan pimpinan Tunku Abdull Rahman. Banyak nyawa tidak akan berkorban jika permintaan tersebut diterima oleh kerajaan Perikatan.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew (liu.ronnie@gmail.com)

(Source of reference: Sejarah Malaysia, Rulan Zainuddin, Ed II, Penerbit Fajar Bakti.)

2006-09-12T02:20:00.000+08:00

Nazri:If you think the BN was wrong, vote them out!

That's the challenge issued by Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz at the DAP Forum: The 1988 Judiciary Crisis: To Review or Not?

Nazri told the 800 strong audience that he was not convinced that a review is necessary. He urged Malaysians to move on.

He said, "Jika rakyat rasa kerajaan tidak betul, rakyat boleh beri undi kepada pembangkang."( If the people think that the government is wrong, they can vote for the opposition).

He also argued that there were nothing wrong with the two tribunals that led to the sacking of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas, Supreme Courts judges Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Seah. He also revealed that the Cabinet has yet to discuss the issue and unless he is convinced, he would not raise the matter as the minister in-charge of law in the Cabinet.

He was bombarded with many questions and comments from the floor during the Q&A session. Practically every argument put forward by Nazri was torn apart by the audience. His mission of "defending the indefensible" was disastrous if not for his oral skill and "cool" appearance he maintains throughout the debate.

Lawyer Tommy Thomas questioned the composition of the two tribunals. He emphasized on the importance of separations of powers (executive, legislative and judiciary) and also the independence of the judiciary. He siad the 1988judiaciary crisis has eroded the above fundamentals and wanted the government to set up a truth and reconcialation commission like the one initiated by Nelson Mendela in South Africa.

HAKAM Chairman and the spokeperson of Article 11 Malik Imtiaz Marwar, who's also a lawyer, also supported the move initiated by Yeo Yang Poh, i.e. to set up a Commission of Inquiry to review the 1988 judiciary crisis. He too suggested that while there's a need to restore the dignity of the three Supreme Courts judges, there should be no witch-hunting for the culprits or accomplices. He felt that the important thing now is to start a healing process within the legal circle and to return the powers to the courts ( which was taken away by the Executive soon after the crisis).

Malaysian Bar Council President Yeo Yang Poh was the man who initiated the call for a review. He suggested that there was a change of political climate in the country now that the Dr Mahathir has stepped down. He pointed out that the second tribunal ruled that the standard of proof should be " proven without reasonable doubts" where the first tribunal has opted for " ponderance of evidence". He also opined that there was no transparency as both proceedings of the tribunals were done in camera.

DAP Chairman Karpal Singh categorically said that the government was wrong and the sentiment of the rakyat now is clearly in favour of the setting up of a royal commission of inquiry. He said Nazri is the only panelist that says no to a review. He has, however, suggested an alternative, i.e. PM Abdullah should make a ruling in the Parliament to nullify the decisions of the two tribunals.

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang said that the 1988 judiciary crisis has many casulaties; he cited cases such as Param Cumarswamy, Lim Guan Eng, Irene Fernandes, Anwar Ibrahim and Ezam Mohd Nor. He said the crisis has caused a destruction to the entire judicairy system. He also quoted the late Tun Suffian to support his call for the restoration of an idependent judiaciry system. He siad a nationwide campaigh should be launched in support for the setting up the much needed Royal Commission of Inquiry.

"There is no fanality until justice prevails", he declared.

“What happened to Tun Salleh and our Supreme Court Judges has shown that what took generations to build up can be destroyed in one day and will take many generations to rebuild.”- Tun Suffian

DAP SG Lim Guan Eng, in his opening address, sets the mood of the debate with the famous quotation of Voltaire, " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right of saying it."

2006-09-11T11:41:00.000+08:00

See U at the DAP Forum "The 1988 Judiaciary crisis: To review or not?"tonight!

" It's not su much my personal interest and that of my dismissed colleagues which need to be rectified but more importantly, the democratic institution and the rule of law which have to be restored."
- Sacked Lord President Tun Mohamed Salleh Abbas.

Tun Salleh Abbas has backed the call for the probe into the 1988 judicairy crisis initiated by Yeo Yang Poh, the Bar Coucil President.

Yeo has probably made the call after reading the detailed account of events written by one of the dismissed Supreme Court stalwarts Datuk George Seah.

Former AG Tan Sri Abu Talib was reported as saying that the sackingl was done according to the Constitution and therefore no review should be granted. He must be a worried man now simply because he was one of the main accomplices who played a pivotal role in resulting the sacking of Tun Salleh.

The other main accomplice was Tun Hamid, the former Lord President who took advantage of the crisis.

Without the "expertise and skill" of both Hamid and Abu Talib, Dr Mahathir the culprit would not have such an easy ride in carrying out the sacking.

Who would have thought that our Yang DiPertuan Agong could possibly go to work on May Day.
Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Cabinet minister who rejected the call for review outrightly, has taken up the challenge to debate the matter at the DAP forum.

We must acknowledge his courage for doing so. Let's see how he is going to defend the indefensible at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall tonight.

Jom kawan-kawan!Datanglah beramai-ramai!

2006-09-10T03:15:00.000+08:00

PUBLIC FORUM

“The 1988 Judiciary Crisis – To Review or Not?”
(Language: English)

11 September 2006 (Monday)
7.30 p.m.

Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall,
Jalan Maharajalela,
Kuala Lumpur

(PIX) The man who sacked the Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas.

Panel Speakers:

Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz -Minister in the Prime Minister Department

YB Lim Kit Siang-Parliamentary Opposition Leader

YB Karpal Singh-Chairman DAP

Datuk Param Cumaraswamy-Former UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers

Mr Yeo Yang Poh-Chairman Malaysia Bar Council

Mr Malik Imtiaz-President HAKAM

Mr Tommy Thomas-Counsel for former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas during crisis

SEE U THERE!

2006-09-10T01:55:00.000+08:00

Bandar Sg Long and Bandar Mahkota Cheras Solidarity Dinner a great success!

"We want free access! "..."We want a Chinese primary school!"

These were the two legitimate demands made by the Bandar Sg Long and Bandar Mahkota Cheras residents.

(Pix) The young chap with the loud hailer is Tan Boon Wah, the chairman of the action committee.

More than 500 of them turned out at the dinner organised by the Sg Long DAP branch and co-organised by the BMC Free Access Action Committee held last night (Saturday, Sept 9,2006) in Bandar Sg Long.

For the last two months, the residents here have been coming out in full force every Sunday morning to demand for the opening-up of the main access road, which was currently blocked by Grand Saga, the toll company.

The residents have taken their woes to the Parliament and they have also met up with the Works Minister Samy Vellu. Samy have given some unacceptable answers ( he passed the buck to the developer, and even called the access road as illegal because JKR has not approved the road...). He has yet to come back with a concrete solution until today.

The residents were also disappointed with the developer ( The Lion Group) because the company has chosen to keeping mum on the issue instead of making efforts to open up the access road.

We were also diasappointed with Ong Ka Ting. As the Minister of Housing and Local Government, he behaves as if the BMC problem has got nothing to do with him. He has yet to explain why CFs were issued without the access road.

The BMC Residents Association has not been seen doing its job. It is believed that its committee was controlled by the MCA.

Everyday, residents here were forced to travel an extra 6.5 km and often caught in the traffic jam before leaving for Kuala Lumpur.

On top of that, they have to pay at least RM1.20 (in and out) to the toll company.

Many residents here have been calling Samy the "minister of toll" because he seems to have taken side with Grand Saga.

On the other hand, the demand for a SJKC for Bandar Sg Long was made as early as 2001.

There are about 20,000 families (mainly Chinese) living in these two townships.

Speakers for the night include Lim Guan Eng(DAP SG), Tan Kok Wai(Cheras MP) , Ong Chee Keng (DAP Selangor Chairman), Ean Yong Hian Wah(DAP Selangor secretary) , Yap Lum Ching ( DAP Serdang parliamentary liasson committee chairman) and H K Tan( DAP Sg Long branch chairman) and Ko Bing Liyong(Assistant secretary of Dong Zong).

I spoke in the capacity of the Advisor to the BMC Free Access Action Committee.

In my speech, I have touched on the success of several campaigns to motivate the residents.

These include the recent cancellation of the RM1.5 billion Broga incinerator and the Sg Long open market (where the hawkers were forced to move to a site right at the smelly oxidation pond). Both campaigns were initiated and championed actively by the DAP.

I have also criticised the MCA for their failure of building new SJKCs in Sg Long and other parts of the country.

I have described the so-called "moving school" policy adopted by the MCA as a serious let down to the community. It simply means that an SJKC can only be built on the "demise" of an existing one.

Shame on you, MCA.

2006-09-09T02:29:00.000+08:00

Still no official announcement from Malaysian government on cancellation of Broga incinerator

Malaysians once again have to rely on foreign news agencies to know the truth behind the cancellation of the world's largest incinerator in Broga.

Ebara has annouced that the project has been scrapped by the Malaysian government according to Reuters.

I was informed by a journalist from a Japanese TV station this morning that Ebara Corporation has received a letter from the Malaysian authority on September 1, 2006. But he cannot confirmed whether the letter was about the cancellation of the RM1.5 billion project.

I have earlier received information from an MP that the project has been cancelled by the Cabinet. He got the news from a Cabinet minister.

Both Business Timess and The Straits Times of Singapore have published reports on the cancellation of the incinerator recently. Business Times also reported that Ebara has put forward a claim of compensation to the tune of RM500 million.

We would not consider the project is off unless and until there is an official statement from the Housing and Local Government Minister Ong Ka Ting or any of the Cabinet minister. Ong's ministry is in-charged of the project.

On the other hand, the next hearing for the Broga incinerator case has been fixed on September 22, 2006 at the Shah Alam high court. The case was brought by the Broga No Incinerator Action Committee.

Malaysian government would be able to save a lot of money if the judicial review was in favour of the Broga residents; the Malaysian government would not be held as "breaching the contract" as the decision came from the courts and not from the government.

Such decision would also save the the present administration of the need to explain to the former Prime Minister. Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the one who have given the green light for the project. Ong Ka Ting has obviously lacked the courage to tell Mahathir the truth i.e. the incinerator is like a humongous cancer factory.

DAP has been fighting against the construction of the incinerator in the forefront ( from Kg Bohol to Broga) for two reasons-it's both bad for health(even life-threatening) and our pockets.

The site of the incinerator has been confirmed within the valuable Semenyih water catchment area.More than 2 million residents living in the Klang valley depend on the water supply from the water treatment plant here.

Besides, the cost of incineration was estimated at RM230 per metric tonne, which is 10 times higher than the conventional landfill method.

I have written open letters to Mahathir and Abdullah, urging them to drop the project in the interest of the Malaysian people.

Selangor DAP has submitted several memoranda to the DOE and Ong's ministry in the past. We even came up with alternatives for the management of solid wastes for their consideration.

Malaysiakini has a story today...

Ebara announces Broga incinerator scrapped

While the government continues keep mum on the status of the proposed mammoth incinerator in Broga, the Japanese firm contracted to build it announced today that the project has been torched.

According to a Reuters report, engineering firm Ebara Corp said it had lost the order worth more than 50 billion yen (RM1.57 billion) to build Malaysia's first mega-incinerator, touted as the biggest in the region.

The cancellation of the controversial project, which drove Ebara shares down by as much as 5.2%, could erupt into a diplomatic spat between Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur.

Residents near the proposed site just south of Kuala Lumpur had mounted a strong campaign against the incinerator, voicing concerns about emissions. Ebara spokesperson Toshiaki Suzuki said that he was aware of the protests but did not know if this had prompted the cancellation of the plant, which would have been able to process 1,500 tonnes of trash a day.

The termination of the contract, worth about 10 percent of Ebara's revenues in 2005, is unlikely to affect its earnings, said Suzuki.

This is because it happened at an early stage of a project that would have lasted more than four years, he said. Construction for the mega-project had not yet started.

Waiting for confirmation A senior official at Hartasuma Sdn Bhd, Ebara's Malaysian partner for the project, said he had no immediate comment. "We will wait for official government announcement on the project," Mazlan Mohamad told Reuters.

Singapore's Straits Times newspaper said this week that Japan had warned Malaysia of dire consequences if it terminated the project. Japanese diplomats were not immediately available for comment but the newspaper reported the Japanese embassy in Kuala Lumpur had questioned why Malaysia was reviewing the project after a contract had been awarded.

While government sources revealed that the incinerator project had been shelved, there had been no official confirmation.

Last Friday, Housing and Local Government Minister Ong Ka Ting maintained that there was no official announcement on the matter.

The government’s stand had irked the residents in Broga, who are demanding for an answer.

2006-09-08T13:21:00.000+08:00

Koh should dissolve Penang state assembly to defend his dignity as the head of state

Penang CM Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon should seriously consider dissolving the Penang state assembly now that the Prime Minister was not happy with his performance and his own peers in the BN ruling coalition (UMNO) have condemned him for marginalising the Malays in Penang.

Earlier, many Penangites have complained about the bad shape of Penang ( poor public transport system, rubbish everywhere, rivers polluted, factories moving away and FDI were not coming in, etc ) under his administration.

The way he handled the PORR ( Penang Outer Ring Road) issue has also came under heavy criticism from local NGOs and members of the public.

The Penang I know used to be a beautiful and scenic island, with nice trees and gorgeous buildings at every corner. Not anymore under Koh.

Koh was talking about keeping Balik Pulau as it is for eco-tourism. But what has he done for eco-tourism in Balik Pulau?

Khairy Jamaluddin and the Penang UMNO Youth have accused Koh for neglecting the Malays. In actual fact, Koh has neglected the interest of the entire Penang people, not just the Malays.

For instance, Koh has done very little for the Chinese and Tamil schools in the state.

He also did not do much in preserving the heritage unique to Penang.

He really should not be keeping cool as reported by the Sun today. He should seriously consider about dissolving the state assembly immediately and let the Penang people to decide who should be leading Penang and to chart a new course for the state.

For Koh has led Penang for too long and he has seemed to have ran out of ideas.

The DAP Secretary General Sdr Lim Guan Eng has criticised the manner in which Koh has been treated as a head of state ( the banners, the call for resignation, etc) by UMNO. But that should not be construed as support for Koh as widely claimed by various newspapers today.

Koh and Gerakan should insist for a public apology from the Tanjung UMNO. Keeping quite over such rude incidents could only be construed as cowardice in politics.

And Koh should not be afraid of meeting the Penang UMNO Youth leaders. To quote the need for a cooling-off period between him and UMNO Youth is not a good excuse.

Also yesterday,Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hiushammmuddin Hussein has wanted Koh to meet the Penang Umno Youth to thrash out the concerns raised by the UMNO Youth.

Take a look at what Hisham has said yesterday...

"Personally, I think this is not about the banners or the chief minister quitting or the rotation of the chief minister. The issue is there is something wrong in Penang.

At a PC in the Parliament House recently, the DAP SG Lim Guan Eng commented that the move by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in directing the setting up of an agency to uplift and resolve the problems faced by the Malay community in the state does not bode well for Koh.

"Tsu Koon will only be known as a puppet chief minister," said Lim, adding that Koh should have more backbone when dealing with various issues and affairs in the state.

2006-09-07T03:05:00.000+08:00

Khir Toyo did the right thing,this time.

The Sun reports today that the Selangor State Government has overruled the decision by MPSJ and MPS to award a multi-million ringgit pest concession to a consortium of companies and force businesses to use their services.

DAP Selangor has earlier urged the Selangor MB to intervene in order to safeguard the principle of keeping a free and fair market without granting monopoly rights to a single company or consortium in the state.

We have aslo wanted him to withdraw the monopoly rights given to certain companies on billboards, extraction of sands and collection of scrapped metals in the state.

Here's the story from the Sun...

Selangor cancels pest control concessions

Maria J. Dass

SHAH ALAM: The Selangor government today (Sept 6, 2006) overruled the decision by two local authorities to award a multi-million ringgit pest control concession to a consortium of companies and to force businesses to use their services.

Speaking after chairing the state executive council meeting today, Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo said: "There will be no consortium, we have agreed already."

He was referring to the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) and Sepang Muncipal Council's (MPS) awarding concession to consortiums to carry out pest control operations in their municipalities.

All companies were required to use their services before they could renew business licences. This arrangement, dated back to July in the case of the MPSJ and even earlier for the MPS.

theSun had earlier reported that most of the companies in the consortium were not even registered with the Pesticides Board. Some of the companies, which were RM2 set-ups, also shared common directors.

It was also stated that the local governments have no business dictating what pest-control companies businesses must use.

Asked about the MPSJ board decision on Aug 30, 2006, to award a 20-year pest control concession to Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn Bhd, Mohd Khir said no agreement had been made yet to seal this arrangement.

In any case, he said, the state has decided to stop it.

Asked whether those who had engaged the services of the consortium would be refunded, he said: "That's up to the company, it's beyond the state's decision.

"
Today's exco meeting also decided:

that all licensed pest control companies be allowed to offer their services to food and beverage outlets in the municipalities, provided they are registered with the respective local authority's pest control panel and are licensed;

only food outlets are required to fumigate their premises as provided for under the Pesticides Act 1974 (amended in 2004). Those which do not deal with food and beverages are exempted.
(The earlier decision by MPSJ forced all companies, including non-food outlets, to fumigate their premises from 2009).

there will no longer be control on pricing for the services as was done earlier. The earlier annual rates ranged from RM600 to RM1,000, depending on floor space.

Khir said pest control companies which do not follow the regulations will be penalised and dropped from the local authority's panel.

2006-09-06T14:30:00.000+08:00

Selangor MB must explain to the Auditor General and Malaysian public for ignoring illegal billboards

Dr Mohd Khir Toyo cannot be keeping mum on the issue forever.

I have made a police report against the Menteri Besar of Selangor over the privatisation of billboards inSelangor based on a series of reports carried in The Sun on Saturday, Aug 19,2006 at the Petaling Jaya police station. The police have yet to respond or investigate on my report.

I have issued a statement a day earlier, entitled "No More Free and Fair market in Selangor?", demanding the MB to come clean on granting monopoly right on outdoor advertising to a private company, Bernam Kiara Sdn Bhd.

Today, the front page story of The Sun reports that the Auditor General has slammed the Selangor state government for ignoring illegal billboards.

The AG claims that the Selangor land offices have failed to act on billboards which were built without Temporay Occupation Licenses (TOLs). I have raised similar questions on the same matter in my statement on Aug 18,2006, arguing that land rights must be obtained from the land office before erecting any billboards.

We will make a new police report following the report in The Sun today.

Here's the story from The Sun...

Land offices failed to act
Giam Say Khoon

PETALING JAYA: The Auditor-General's (A-G) Office has taken to task Selangor land offices for not acting against outdoor advertising companies which built billboards on state land without Temporary Occupation Licences (TOL).

In a report on the activities of Selangor's departments and agencies released in Parliament today (Sept 5, 2006), A-G Tan Sri Ambrin Buang said failure to collect TOL fees has indirectly affected the state's income.

The report said the offices did not fully adhere to rules and procedures when processing TOL applications, but did not spell out where the shortcomings were.

Also, it charged that there was no coordination between the state government, the land offices and the local authorities when it came to ensuring billboard licences were issued only after the companies could produce their TOL.

The statistics provided in the report was an eye-opener:

> a total of 475 TOL applications were received by the state's land offices from 2003 to 2005, but only 38 applications were approved, 79 rejected and 358 delayed; and

> audited records of advertising licence from six local authorities of Hulu Langat, Hulu Selangor, Klang, Kuala Langat, Kuala Selangor and Petaling showed that 527 billboards were built although only 38 TOLs were approved.

The A-G report explained that the incident occurred because advertising companies did not realise the need to obtain a TOL even after they have obtained a billboard licence from the local authorities.

The lack of cooperation between the land office and local authorities on billboard management has contributed to this problem.

All it would take is for the local authority to insist on TOL being produced before a licence can be approved.

The issue of illegal billboards has been the subject of many headlines in newspapers of late. There was also criticism that Petaling Jaya had turned into a billboard jungle.

On July 12 (2006), theSun reported that the apathetic attitude of local authorities had contributed to the mushrooming of such billboards. For instance, letters had been sent to a billboard company to remove a total of 77 illegal billboards in Petaling Jaya since mid last year, but no action has been taken so far.

The local authorities had said it was costly to remove such billboards.

2006-09-06T12:52:00.000+08:00

PDRM=Police Raja Di Malaysia?

We are glad to hear that Suhakam has finally decided to proceed with the public inquiry on the "Bloody Sunday".

I was one of the 37 witnesses who were interviewed by the Suhakam prior to the public inquiry in October.

I was arrested in the midst of my speech at the "No to fuels and electricity hikes" protest rally on 28 May,2006 outside KLCC.

We are sad to note that letters from the Suhakam to the PDRM were not replied until today. This is utter arrogance on the part of PDRM. No wonder many has started to insinuate the PDRM as "Police Raja Di Malaysia".

According to a Malaysiakini report, Commissioner KC Vohrah disclosed that three letters had been written to Criminal Investigation Department head Aman Fauzi Sahari, on Aug 8 and 21 respectively, and again on September 4 .

“We have not received a written reply,” he told a press conference at the Suhakam headquarters in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

He said the inquiry dates have been fixed for Oct 5-6, 11-13 and 16-18, with daily proceedings to be held between 9am and 4.30pm.

Vohrah, who will head the four-member inquiry panel, said only Suhakam would be involved in conducting the inquiry. The other commissioners involved are Choo Siew Kioh, Michael Yeoh and Zaitoon Othman.

2006-09-05T16:55:00.000+08:00

Anwar would not rejoin UMNO

The Advisor to Parti Keadilan Rakyat(PKR) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (DSAI) has once again reiterated that he would not rejoin UMNO.

He was responding to rumours that Abdullah will be using him to fend off possible challenges from Najib and those enjoyed the support of the former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

I for one strongly believe that DSAI would not rejoin UMNO because he has a duty and responsibility to build up PKR as a sound and viable opposition party, so that PKR can join forces with other opposition parties in the country to challenge the Barisan Nasional.

I also strongly believe that UMNO top leaders in general would not want DSAI to return to UMNO because such move could unseat their own positions in the party. Najib and companies know that none of them could confine DSAI the minute he is back to the party.

So it's not just the question of whether DSAI would want to return to UMNO. It also depends on whether those in power would allow him to be back.

Malaysians who were sick and tired of Barisan Nasional are counting on DSAI to play a pivotal role in uniting the opposition forces in the country to give BN a real challenge.

To save Malaysia, we need to change the government or at the least, deny the two-thirds majority of the ruling coalition in the Malaysian Parliament.

if we fail to do so in the coming general elections, it would take another ten to twenty years for such an opportunity.

For the same reason, DSAI cannot fail the people. As a new icon of democracy, he is in a good position to bring about great changes to Malaysia.

Malaysians must also give themselves and DSAI a chance to do it. For all Malaysians.

2006-09-05T10:49:00.000+08:00

The call for “Undurlah Pak Lah” started much earlier. This photo was taken at one of the “No to fuels hike” rallies organized by PROTES early this year.

The placard I was holding was drawn up by one of the young demonstrators walking side by side with me.

When I asked him who should take over from Pak Lah (he insists that Abdullah is weak and more importantly, he does not seem to care about inflation and the heavy burden suffered by ordinary rakyat), he said Najib is no better.

When pressed further, he wanted the entire Cabinet to resign! The young man in his twenties wanted a bigger thing, i.e. “Tukar Kerajaan!” (Change the whole government).

From blog.limkitsiang.com, Lim Kit Siang for Malaysia (Monday, 4 Sept 2006)

“Who would have imagined that when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should be at the height of his power and influence, having just won the biggest general election landslide victory ever achieved by any Prime Minister in March 2004, announced the RM220 billion Ninth Malaysia Plan and presented the biggest ever budget in the nation’s history on Friday totaling RM159.4 billion, there is a strong voice calling for his resignation.

Such a call has not come from his political enemies – whether inside UMNO like Tun Mahathir or outside. This is from outside UMNO and it was made only yesterday, by a Malaysian surgeon in California, M. Bakri Musa, a prolific writer on Malaysian affairs on the Internet, printed media and books.

Yesterday, he emailed me his four-page call “Undur lah, Pak Lah”. I do not agree with the harsh, unkind and cutting language Bakri used against Abdullah in several places.
Bakri urged Abdullah to step down now, which he described as “the one right decision at the right time and for all the right reasons, something that has sorely eluded him since becoming Prime Minister”.

He felt that this would be an appropriate time for Abdullah to announce his resignation to be effective following the election of a new leader at UMNO’s forthcoming annual assembly in November.

I do not intend to comment on Bakri’s call to Abdullah to step down as Prime Minister, but it must be recognized that Bakri’s underlying theme that Abdullah is not providing leadership will find considerable resonance among the people.

In fact, more and more Malaysians are asking who is the Prime Minister in Malaysia and whether there is a Prime Minister in Malaysia – in the same way that more and more are asking whether we have a Finance Minister or an Internal Security Minister in the real sense of the term, in the latter case in view of the runaway crime situation with the farce of the Royal Police Commission’s key recommendation for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission meant to be established in May this year.

Abdullah must come to grips with the drift and malaise in his administration, assert leadership, shakeup and downsize the Cabinet, “walk the talk” and implement the election pledges for which he had won the unprecedented mandate of a 91 per cent parliamentary majority – if he is to leave behind a worthwhile legacy as the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The above is what I said in Parliament in today’s debate on the 2007 Budget.

Several UMNO MPs interjected questioning the credentials, credibility, loyalty and patriotism of Bakri to call on Abdullah to step down as Prime Minister.

MP for Kota Bahru Zaid Ibrahim asked whether at this stage there is a better person in the Cabinet untainted by cronyism who could take over as Prime Minister.

I made it clear that I am no spokesman for Bakri, that I have not met him at all and do not know him, and I am not defending him. I leave to Bakri to respond to the attacks levelled against him by some MPs, such as the MP for Jerai and MP for Kinabatangan.

I stressed that it is a fallacy to trot out the general election mandate to shut up debate or dissent as in the ICT era, the views expressed on the Internet whether blogs or websites should be given serious attention as they can be more genuine and reflective of actual feelings of the people than those in the mainstream media because of government “control”.

Furthermore, in a borderless world, when anyone anywhere can express opinions, what is important is not who but what is said, whether the contents can find resonance among the people.

I reiterated that I am not taking up Bakri’s “Undur Lah, Pak Lah” call and that I do not associate myself with the harsh and excessive language used by Bakri against Abdullah.

However, Abdullah and the political leadership should take cognizance of the intense dissatisfactions and disappointments with the Prime Minister’s performance coursing through Bakri’s call which resonate among the people.

I stressed that I had brought up this matter to draw Abdullah’s attention to such public dissatisfactions and disappointments so that he could belatedly deliver the reform pledges which he has yet to fulfill.”

2006-09-04T14:04:00.000+08:00

Has Khairy gained popularity or destined to fail as an UMNO leader?

Of late, the 31 year-old UMNO Youth Deputy Chief Khairy Jamaluddin must have thought that he has gained much by playing racial card.

He must have enjoyed seeing his comments being played up prominently on front pages of various newspapers and he certainly does not give a damn to the negative consequences on ethnic relations, racial harmony and national unity.

But has he gained popularity or destined to fail as an UMNO leader?

It’s interesting to note that apart from Hishamuddin and Abdullah, none of the other UMNO/ UMNO Youth/Wanita UMNO / Petera UMNO/ Puteri UMNO leaders care to comment on the Khairy’s episode.

Are they condoning Khairy’s act quietly or simply not interested in Khairy?

Why Khairy resorts to racial card

Besides the possibility of making himself a Malay hero in his own party, I think Khairy is doing this to deflect criticism heaped on him by the former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who has openly claimed that Khairy is the de facto prime minister due to his close ties and strong influence over Abdullah.

Mahathir, who is on a warpath with Abdullah, has repeatedly questioned Khairy and his close aides and business associates having great influence over the current administration.

He has wanted everyone operating from the fourth level of the PM Department be sacked enbloc.

Mahathir also questioned Khairy’s stake in ECM Libra Avenue.

Subsequently, Khairy could not withstand the pressure but to sold all his shares in ECM Libra Avenue to a Malay buyer, ostensibly to “protect the bumiputera equity ownership” despite claiming there were better offers from non-bumiputera.

He vows to focus all his energy in carrying out his duty and responsibility as the UMNO Youth deputy chief and concentrates in politics.

Double-faced Hishamuddin Hussein

UMNO Youth chief Hishamuddin Hussein plays a “double face” on the Khairy blunder.

Initially, he was reported as saying that “young leaders should be cautious in making statements and he feels that Khairy should explain his stand. He even warned that leaders should refrain from making statements which could cause disunity among the Barisan Nasional coalition.

After hugging and shaking hands with MCA Youth leaders in the latter’s national conference, he expressed his anger simply because the MCA Youth has wanted Khairy to apologize.

And Khairy, on the other hand, has openly retorted that he would not apologize when come to defending religion and race. Khairy has earlier softened his stance by blaming the media for misunderstanding what he has really meant.

The Prime Minister, who happens to be his father-in-law, merely responded by saying that he would want Khairy to explain himself clearly to the leaders of other component parties in the coalition.

It’s also interesting to note what Khairy’s peers in the ruling coalition has said and see if they will follow through with some real actions to teach Khairy a lesson, in the event that Khairy refuses to back off.

Who says what about Khairy

MCA vice-president Dr Chua Soi Lek called Khairy a political novice who does not understand the 55-year-old history of MCA as component party within the Barisan Nasional. He said Khairy’s view is “unfair and wrong”. He said that MCA had never exploited Umno’s power struggle to benefit the Chinese community.

Gerakan President Lim Keng Yaik called him an opportunist, someone who wants to climb up in political ladder using race card.

Gerakan Youth chief Mah Siew Keong describes him as an “L-licensed driver” in politics. He even urged Gerakan members not to waste time in responding to Khairy.

Gerakan Vice President Chang Ko Youn said only ‘educated’ people use racial issues for selfish gains and to rise up the ladder in the party and such politician should be “drowned” in the sea of politics.

MCA secretary-general Ong Ka Chuan advised Khairy not to create more opportunity for the opposition parties to gain political mileage out of his unwarranted remarks.

MCA Youth chief Liow Tiong Lai argued that Khairy was seeking to create an “imaginary enemy”. Liow said Khairy was wrong in characterising the relationship between the Malays and Chinese as ‘win or lose’ situation - that should the Malays have the upper hand, it would mean that the Chinese are at the losing end.

Gerakan deputy secretary-general Lee Kah Choon and Gerakan Youth deputy chief Lim Si Pin have described the Umno Youth rising star’s remarks as “inappropriate” and gave the assurance that Gerakan would not exploit the current split within Umno.

An editorial in Nanyang accused Khairy of playing to the gallery to portray himself as a Malay hero. The editorial pointed out that Khairy, as one of the few Malaysians who have graduated from the prestigious Oxford and Cambridge universities; he should recognise the fact that Malaysia is a multiracial society.

In a way, both MCA and Gerakan have indirectly and unknowingly exposed their true colours and standing in the BN coalition, that they were subservient to UMNO and certainly not in any position to question UMNO in any manners, and they too have depended on racial sentiments for their political survival.

Khairy was the one who tried to stir up trouble over my article on the history of Independence in 2005

Incidentally, Khairy was the one who tried to stir up trouble over my article entitled “The real fighters for Independence”.

The little storm kicked up by Khairy lasted about two to three weeks over Malaysian TV and other media.

Three police reports were made against me amidst a series of attacks in the media. Several UMNO leaders have threatened to use ISA to detain me. One of them even suggested my citizenship to be stripped!

I have no choice but to challenge Khairy for a public debate in defending myself, to which he has declined.

2006-09-03T16:29:00.000+08:00

贪污的社会成本和代价

贪污不亚于盗窃行为，叫人深恶痛绝！

首相阿都拉化身为现代包青天，以扑灭贪污为竞选主轴，赢得空前的胜利，正是人们痛恨贪污的一种反映。可惜阿都拉狂胜之后表现得软弱无能，力不从心，令人失望。

最近掀起的一亿五千万元华小校长贪污事件，在社会上激起千层浪，再次说明贪污受贿虽然不比杀人放火那么严重，但是绝对不被社会所认同和接受。

奇怪的是，除了贪污自肥，或惯以贿赂的手段获取商业利益，又或者通过贿赂为自己开脱的人士之外，社会上还有一些人对于贪污不以为然，并不认为贪污是一件很要不得的行为。

这些人自以为本身不是贪污的受害者，经常摆出一副“事不关己，己不劳心” 的姿态。

他们更不明白，原来贪污的社会成本何其高昂，代价何其惨重，殊不知任何人都会因为贪污成风而蒙受不同程度的损失，承受负面的影响。

人们应该明了，因为贪污，孩子们的书本更贵了三，四十巴仙，书包也加重了几公斤，还要面对永远做不完的作业，令孩子们失去童真，叫孩子们太沉重！

因为贪污，原本售价二十万元的排屋，因为发展商被迫付了五万元疏通费，购屋者得付出超过二十五元的代价，才能实现拥有本身房子的美梦。这还未加上因为贷款额外五万元所付出的银行利息！

因为贪污，离家不远的夜店通宵营业也从未受到取缔，害你经常‘无觉好睡’！

因为贪污，原本两三元的NASI LEMAK叫价三，四十元，害得国营航公司年年亏大本！

因为贪污，在新年打麻将的几位老人家，被警察抓了去剃光头！

因为贪污，一块沼泽地卖了比市价高出四十巴仙的价钱！

因为贪污，一笔奖学金二十年不曾动用，贫穷的学子只能望门兴叹！

因为贪污，刚刚建好的学校电脑室，竟然不能使用，需要被迫拆掉！

因为贪污，动手打人没事，被打的人却被警察关进扣留所里用私刑修理！

因为贪污，一位完全不懂交通规则，从来没到过现场考车，却也拿到执照的新车手，把一位刚毕业的大学生给活活撞死！

因为贪污，一栋几十层楼高的公寓，在违反自然和偷工减料的情况下获得批建，二十年后轰然倒下，害得许多人家破人亡！

原来贪污有时还会闹出人命，可见贪污的社会成本何其高昂，代价何其惨重？

因为贪污，许多人直接或间接增加了痛苦，失去了欢乐！

贪污有如癌症，一发不可收拾！

贪污受贿的行为，源自心中的贪念。

消除贪念，或者制定抑制贪污的机制，才是扑灭贪污之道。

由于贪污的社会成本太高昂了，整个社会各个阶层，都有权利和义务去消除贪污，扑灭贪污。

平时说要反对贪污，自己交通违规被逮个正着却第一个掏钱来打发警察的人，是没有资格高喊贪污是如何不对的！

消除贪念需要靠良好的教育和正确的宗教信仰。

单单喊喊口号，说要“堂堂正正做人，清清白白做官” ，纯属自欺欺人的把戏。

就曾经有一位政治领袖出书立说，三分之一的内容是探讨如何防止贪污和扑灭贪污；可万万没想到，他后来的贪污行为却举世闻名！

扑灭贪污少不了一套完善的机制。

如果学校从小开始灌输和培养正确的观念，从小懂得打击贪污受贿的重要性和必要性，当能事半功倍。

制定完善有效的反贪污机制(香港的廉政公署是其中的佼佼者) ，更是这个社会不能或缺的制度。

减少贪污风气，就能直接减低社会成本，立竿见影。

一旦贪污成风，泛滥成灾，不但老百姓受苦，政府也会倒台，国家也会陷入动荡不安的局面，不可不防！

/刘天球

2006-09-02T12:25:00.000+08:00

Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin a good example of Malaysian First

According to a news report in malaysia-today.net, the deputy chair of Angkatan Muda Keadilan was criticised by one of his comrades from Perlis Hasmuzair Hassan in the party assembly for openly stated his support for Article 11.

To me, Shamsul Iskandar has always been a man who dares to speak his mind.

He impressed me very much when he openly described the present Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi as a weak leader during a live-telecast Debat Perdana over TV1. He did not yield to his co-panelist MCA Youth Secretary Wee Kah Seong who wanted him to retract his remark on Abdullah.

Listen to his reply on the issue of Article 11...

"Menjawab isu berkenaan dalam sesi pengulungan kemudiannya, Shamsul memulakannya dengan serangkap pantun:

Apabila Perlis membuka bicara,
Seluruh perwakilan memberi tumpuan;
Memang adat Angkatan Muda,
Tidak gentar dengan kritikan.

Menurut Shamsul, Angkatan Muda perlu konsisten dan jujur dengan prinsip perjuangan.
"Tahun lalu kita luluskan usul mewujudkan sebuah negara perlembagaan.Artikel 11 itu menjamin kebebasan beragama dalam (perlembagaan) Artikel 11.

"Kalau mereka hendak berforum, berbincang dan berbahas, apakah kita parti politik yang progresif kita hendak gunakan seluruh jentera polis untuk menghalang forum ini (seperti kenyataan Pemuda Umno Johor) - sudah pasti tidak," katanya.

"Sebab ketika hendak berceramah, polis halang tidak beri permit, kita lawan polis, kita kata ini hak kita untuk bersuara. Dalam hal yang sama ini, kita kena tetapkan pendirian dan beri pandangan kita," tegasnya.

--Posted by Raja Petra Kamarudin to Berita &Komentar

Article 11 deserves the support of all Malaysians for freedom of religion is vital for a multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural society like ours.

PM Abdullah has made a grave mistake for banning all talks on freedom of religion.

Shamsul has once again demonstrated to all his courage in upholding the freedom of expression and freedom of religion despite of pressure from his peers.

We need more cool and courageous young politicians like Shamsul (certainly not KJ /Hisham of the UMNO Youth or Wee/Liow / Ling of the MCA Youth ).

Well done, Shamsul.

2006-09-02T03:42:00.000+08:00

Let's take a read, one more time --> The real fighter for MERDEKA

From Wengsan's blog

As we celebrate our National Day, there are several incidents which took place for the past few months that are worth to be given serious thought in terms of how far have we moved on in building a multi-racial, multi-lingua, multi-religious society.

Before that, we have textbooks in Universities that told our students that DAP caused the May 13 riots, and that one of the reasons for Peristiwa Kampung Medan was the anti-social behaviour of the Indian youths in Kampung Medan.

We have UMNO MP named Badruddin from Jerai, Kedah that asked the non-Muslims to leave this country if they don’t like Malaysia to be an Islamic State.

We have another Cabinet Minsiter called Rafidah Aziz who had recently been making fierce statements, such as “no compromise” with the New Economic Policy of 30% Bumiputera equity to the extent of saying that Malaysia was prepared to say “bye-bye” to FDI.

We also never forget that UMNO Youth Deputy Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin said that Chinese could exploit the current internal split of UMNO to advance its interests, giving examples as the memorandum by MCA Ministers to the Prime Minister on freedom of religion and the 1999 Malaysian Chinese Election Appeals (Suqiu) following UMNO disunity during Reformasi following the expulsion of Anwar Ibrahim from UMNO and his persecution.

Ironically, this person (Khairy Jamaluddin) who becomes the running dog was also the person taken charge on Ronnie’s article one year ago. I still remember very clearly that UMNO and mainstream newspaper launched an all out attack led by Khairy on Ronnie and DAP.

PAS leader, Husam Musa also stood up to defend the Chinese.And now the PAS Central Research Centre issued a Malay statement entitled “Pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan: Satu tuntutan keadilan” (Re-historying the independence struggle: A demand for justice”.The article said: “History cannot ignore the fact that the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had also played a role in fighting for the independence of this country.”Maybe this is the time for us to re-read Ronnie’s writing one year ago.

Time passes very fast, at times and situation like this, I don’t think Ronnie’s article can stir up any sentiment. Instead, reasons and rationality take the ground. Khairy certainly has more to answer than Ronnie at the moment.

Khairy, please explain!

/Lau Weng San

The real fighters for MERDEKA
Media Statementby Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew(Petaling Jaya, Saturday):

We have just celebrated our nation’s 48th birthday yesterday.

Many Malaysians, especially the young generations born after the Independence, know very little about the history of Malaya (now Malaysia).

The History textbooks they studied in schools do not give them the real picture.

Contrary to what they have learned from the textbooks, UMNO leaders were not the real fighters for Independence.

Most of the UMNO leaders in the Merdeka era were actually senior servants of the British government.

Just take the first four Prime Ministers in the country as example.

The first Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra AlHaj Ibni Almarhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah, was serving the colonial government in Kedah as a District Officer in districts like Langkawi, Kulim and Sg Petani.After obtaining his LLB at the Inner Temple, London in 1945, he served as a DPP and later promoted to the position of a session court president in Selangor.

His deputy Tun Abdul Razak bin Datuk Hussein (Malaysia’s second Prime Minister), was serving the British as the State Secretary of Pahang in 1952 after obtaining his LLB at the Lincoln’s Inn as a Queen’s Scholar in 1950. Razak served as the Chief Minister of Pahang in 1955.

Tun Hussein bin Dato Onn, the third Prime Minister of Malaysia, was a police depot commander in Johor Bahru in 1945. He later served as an Assistant District Officer in districts like Kuala Selangor and Klang in the fifties. He obtained his law degree at Lincoln’s Inn in 1958.

The fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, was serving as a medical officer in Alor Star, Langkawi and Perlis in the fifties after graduating as a medical doctor in 1953 from Universiti Malaya (Singapore). He opened his own clinic in Alor Star in 1957.

UMNO leaders were treated as friends of the British. Together with the leaders of MCA and MIC, they cooperated with the British master to negotiate for the Independence of Malaya.

Little wonder why The Times of London reported the birth of Malaya with a resonant chord of approval. In particular it pointed out the impeccable credentials of its conservative Malay leaders, who, unlike the troublesome radicals of the Left, had showed that they were of a decidedly more moderate and accommodating temper. It reassured its readers that:‘Malayan nationalism had not been born out of conflict and there was not a single Malayan Minister who had ever spent a day in prison for sedition’. (The Times, August 31, 1957.)

One may even argue that the Alliance leaders were not the ones that put up real sacrifice for the Merdeka struggle.

On the other hand, many of the real freedom fighters were thrown into jails.Young Malaysians should know that PKMM (Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya) leaders like Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestaman, Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmi, Ishak Haji Mohammad (Pak Sako), Arshad Ashaari, Dahari Ali , Baharuddin Tahir,Khadijah Ali, Ibrahim Karim, Kamarulzaman Teh( Pak Zaman),Abdul Rahman Rahim and many others have played a pivotal role in the struggle of Independence.(Merintis Jalan Ke Punchak ,1972)

PKMM sent a big delegation to the historic UMNO (United Malays National Organisations or Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu) congress which was held from March 1 to 4, 1946 in Kuala Lumpur.

In the inaugural congress, PKMM proposed to “reject the Malayan Union and demand for a truly independent Malaya” (menolak Malayan Union dan menuntut Malaya Merdeka yang seratus peratus).Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the congress and the PKMM delegation staged a walkout as a protest on the third day of the congress. Its leaders continued to step up its struggle for a truly independent Malaya, unlike the other conservative UMNO leaders who wanted to maintain their status quo.

The British started to clamp down on PKMM and API members in 1948. Many members and leaders were jailed and some of those who escaped from the police went into the jungle to join the arm struggle led by MCP. This has created a political vacuum, which was quickly filled up by UMNO with the consent of the British.

Both MCA and MIC were also formed after the establishment of UMNO with the encouragement from the British.

It must be pointed out that without the struggle and sacrifice made by these freedom fighters and the pressure mounted by the Malayan Communist Party led by Chin Peng (as acknowledged by Tan Sri Rahim Noor, IGP on signing the peace accord with MCP), the British would certainly not willing to cooperate and negotiate with the Alliance leaders for an “Independence without bloodshed”.

We must also not forget about the struggle put up by visionaries like Ibrahim Haji Yaakob (KMM, Kesatuan Melayu Muda) who dreamed of forming Malaya Raya in the 1940s.

Some of these freedom fighters continued fighting for MERDEKA during the Japanese Occupation.

We could even trace some of the freedom fighters way back in 1890s. Some of these legendaries include Dato Bahaman, Mat Kilau and Mat Kelubi.

Note: Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) was formed on 17 October 1945 in lpoh, Perak, a year before UMNO was formed. Founding leaders include legendaries like Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestaman and Dr. Burhanuddin al-Helmi (later became President of PAS). The objective of PKMM was to fight for a truly independent nation, free from the stranglehold of the British colonials. Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS) and Barisan Tani Se-Malaya (BATAS), Majlis Agama Tertingga Se-Malaya (MATA) were all wings set up under PKMM to fight for Independence.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

(3/09/2005)

2006-09-01T14:25:00.000+08:00

Amanah Saham Wawasan 2020 fiasco: A big joke a day after the 49th Merdeka

My house phone and handset rang at about the same time this morning. These were calls made by a relative of mine and a member of the public who were upset by the Wawasan 2020 unit trust fiasco.

According to them, ALL units were sold off within the first 30 minutes at all participating banks ( Commercial Bumiputra Bank and Maybank).

One of them told me that she was told to transfer fund from another bank to the Kelana Jaya Commercial Bumiputra branch prior to the commencement of sales on 1 September 2006. After completing the transfer two days before the sales, she went to the branch before it opens for business this morning. She managed to obtain No.6 in line but she too could not purchase a single unit. Only the first two in the long queue got to buy some units.

Amanah Saham Wawasan 2020 should explain to all potential investors what has really happened this morning.

This fiasco came as a double jeopardy to my complainant.

Only last week, she, as an agent for a successful unit trust company, has complained to me about the Prime Minister who made a “knee-jerk” reaction to the so-called RM600 million losses “suffered” by EPF. She said the PM should not have made such negative comment ( he threatens to freeze the exercise if unit trusts continue to perform badly) on unit trust market without knowing the true picture.

Unit trust agents in the country were upset by the irresponsible statements made by EPF and the negative comment from the Prime Minister. They clamed that the so-called RM600 million losses reported by EPF was inaccurate and even baseless. How EPF has reached such a figure was highly questionable. And EPF has not clarified the figure until today. The unit trust market as a whole, in actual fact, appreciated value by more than 30 percent in the last three years.

No doubt that some unit trusts were not doing well in the market. EPF should have advised its members to be extra careful with such underperforming unit trusts instead of making sweeping statements which were unfair and even hurtful to other performing ones.

My complainant insists that as the Prime Minister (who also holds the position of Finance Minister) of the country, he should never make comments on such an important industry without checking his facts. I could not agree more with her.

2006-08-31T19:52:00.000+08:00

Bukit Aman "lost" to Kg Taman Aman: A victory for all victims of police brutalities

11 years ago, I was beaten up badly by the FRU of the police force when I was trying to help the residents of Kg Taman Aman, Petaling Jaya, whose houses were being demolished.

Dr Syed Husin Ali (President of Party Rakyat Malaysia at that time) and his wife Puan Sabariah were with me when the ugly incident took place on 18 September 1995 at around 9am in the morning. I was then the National Secretary of DAP Socialist Youth.

I have wanted the Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor and OCPD of Petaling Jaya Datuk Johar Che Din to apologize to me and also take disciplinary actions against the FRU commander ASP Suleiman and those who have used brutal force on me but to no avail.

I have no choice but to bring the matter to courts two years after the incident. I would not have sued both the IGP and PJ OCPD if they have apologized to me.

The case was dragged on for nine years and finally On Tuesday, 11 July 2006, I was awarded a total of RM 21,220 in damages by the Sessions court judge Latifah Mohd Tahar.

She ordered the defendants to pay RM3, 000 in general damages, RM 18,000 in aggravated damages and RM220 in specific damages, plus cost and interest.

"Although the police were given powers to execute their duties, no one is above the law," she said.

She also described the FRU's action was "melampau" (too much, overreacted).

However, Latifah said she was not awarding exemplary damages because the defendants' action cannot be categorized as an act of arbitrary or contravenes the Constitution. I beg to differ on this point of contention.

I must thank my councils Gobind Singh Deo and A Magesan of Karpal Singh & Co. for putting up a great performance in both cross examinations and submission of my case. Gobind has taken up my case on pro bono basis out of comradeship, friendship and solidarity. I must also thank all members and well-wishers who have given their support and encouragement to me throughout the trial.

I have described the victory as a victory for me and all other victims of police brutalities when I was asked to comment to the reporters outside the courts.

The message sent out by the judge is crystal clear- the police cannot simply beat up any civilian in the course of their duties.

I also hope that the court's decision would go a long way in helping to reduce police brutalities in future and Malaysia could become a safer place for all Malaysians.

For living without fear is a basic human right.

And I hope the PDRM would not appeal* to the higher courts as 11 years is already "too long" a delay for justice.

And Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

*Note: I was informed by my council A. Magesan that the PDRM has decided not to appeal. You can ask me for a drink the next time you see me:-)

2006-08-31T18:41:00.000+08:00

Thursday August 31, 2006

Taking their woes ‘to parliament’
By YIP YOKE TENG
teng@thestar.com.my

After nine weeks of peaceful demonstrations to oppose the closure of a toll-free access road, Bandar Mahkota Cheras residents brought their predicament to the attention of Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang at the Parliament House on Tuesday.

The 32-strong group also took the opportunity to submit a memorandum to the Works Ministry, which was received by Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu’s political secretary.
In the meeting, the residents lamented that they have to travel an extra 6.5km to get to the Cheras-Kajang Highway, sharing a usually congested access road with Bandar Sungai Long residents.

They also protest at having to pay a 60 sen toll at Cheras 11th Mile to head to town.

Bandar Mahkota Cheras Free Access Road committee chairman Tan Boon Wah updating residents on the matter at a recent protest.They said the developer had promised them the toll-free access road at point of purchase.

Therefore, even though the concessionaire for the Cheras-Kajang Highway, Grand Saga Sdn Bhd, has built concrete barriers on the completed road to prevent traffic leakage, Bandar Mahkota’s developer should keep its word and fight for residents with its financial ability.

Also present at the meeting with Lim were five DAP MPs, namely Tan Kok Wai (Cheras), Fong Kui Lun (Bukit Bintang), Teresa Kok (Seputeh), Chong Eng (Bukit Mertajam) and Fong Po Kuan (Batu Gajah), as well as Bandar Mahkota Cheras Free Access Road advisor Ronnie Liu.

Lim said he would personally discuss the issue with Samy Vellu, and would bring it up in parliament especially when the debate on the 2007 Budget began next week.

“This matter reflects the government’s attitude of siding privatised companies such as road concessionaires, while turning a deaf ear to the people’s cries, unless if there’s enormous pressure,” Lim said.

He commended the determination shown by residents, “even in a situation where the MP and assemblyman of your area do not help you much on the matter”.

Tan commented that the matter reflected the nucleus of problems resulting from government’s privatisation moves.

“We see no transparency. We have no access to the documents that are always said to be private and confidential. Moreover, these privatised companies are always protected.”

“I have learned that the developer obtained approval to build the road in 1994 while the concessionaire was granted the right to collect toll at the highway in 1995.

“Grand Saga started collecting toll on the highway on Jan 1, 1999, and until June 30 this year, the collection has already amounted to RM253mil.

“The concessionaire will be able to cover its costs even before June next year. It is granted right to collect toll until 2027, and permitted to revise toll rates next year, the profit it makes is too substantial to imagine,” Tan added.

Liu said Grand Saga did not have legal ground to barricade the access road, as the area belonged to the developer.

“Every time we stage a protest, more than 50 police personnel will be manning the area. On several occasions they even issued compounds to motorists who parked their cars there. This is unfair,” he said.

Bandar Mahkota Cheras residents have been staging peaceful protests every Sunday.

At the last demonstration, Liu related an unofficial meeting with Samy Vellu. “Datuk Seri said the government approved the road on the ground that Bandar Mahkota Cheras developer has to compensate Grand Saga for their loss, which is estimated to be RM442mil in total in 27 years. But the developer has refused to do so. Now it is up to us to settle the matter, we need to voice up,” he said to a round of applause.

He also told the crowd that Grand Saga had responded to the matter in a press statement published in China Press the day before, that they have the right to prevent leakage of traffic.

The MPs expressed their approval on the residents’ firm stand, and urged them to continue voicing their discontentment through gathering more like-minded persons until their will was fulfilled.

Developer Narajaya Sdn Bhd’s spokesperson said the company had fulfilled its obligation by completing the said access road in compliance with conditions required under the approval.

She added that the company has had several meetings with residents, relevant authorities and the concessionaire, and would continue seeking ways to resolve the matter.

Grand Saga executive director Zainal Abidin Ali, when contacted, said the concessionaire had referred the matter to the Malaysian Highway Authority and was in no position to comment any further.

Source:Metro - The Star 31 Aug 2006

2006-08-31T17:52:00.000+08:00

Interview at Suhakam on Sat 26 Aug 06

I was interviewed by two Suhakam officers (the Head of Complaints Department and the Principal Assistant Secretary) prior to the pending public hearing on the May 28 "bloody" incident where Amran and few other protesters (against fuels and electricity hikes) were beaten up badly by FRU members outside the KLCC.

I have officially registered my complaints with the Suhakam officers about the excessive violence used by the FRU and other police officers, and the helicoptor which was hovering dangerously above the crowd throughout the peaceful gathering.

I was arrested in the middle of my speech without any warnings from the police. The first shot of water cannons was targeted right at me. I was arrested by ASP Yahya and another Chinese police officer from the Dang Wangi police station.

The protest was organised by NGOs and opposition parties including the DAP. The action committee was headed by Dr Hatta Ramli of PAS.

2006-08-31T17:42:00.000+08:00

2006-08-31T16:57:00.000+08:00

Racial slurs and dangerous trend under the Abdullah administration.

Khairy Jamaluddin and Rafidah Aziz were both under heavy attack by the former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad. It’s therefore no surprise to us that both of them now resorted to play racial cards to save their own skins.

And the criticism targeted on Khairy and Rafidah during the assemblies of MCA and its both youth and women wings were nothing but calculated moves by Ong Ka Ting, Leow Tiong Lai and Ng Yen Yen as both of these UMNO leaders will not be able to defend themselves as both of them were now struggling for their own political survival in their own party.

But the racial slurs made by various UMNO leaders were not checked by its top leaders like Abdullah and Najib and this is really worrying.

But can you blame Khairy and Rafidah when even the Prime Minister himself is now talking about projects in Penang should only be given to Bumiputras when he was asked to comment on the so-called marginalization of Penang Malays.

We can now rightly say that Abdullah is a leader not for all races as he claims. He is also not as liberal and open as he claims.

Because he has drawn up the Nine Malaysian Plan which is by and large a revival of New Economic Policy. Several menteri besars including the Selangor MB have started to introduce monopoly on trades and licensing to Bumiputra companies and we have yet to see any reactions or interventions from the Prime Minister. The distribution of fuels, rice, sugar and the extraction of sands and even printing jobs were being transferred one by one from the hands of Non- Bumis to Bumis.

Because he has ordered Article 11 and other NGOs to stop all public discussions on freedom of religion. But he allowed the Muslim groups to hold such discussions.

Because he has hinted for a press with even more restrictions. Even the Internet would be scrutinized closely by his administration.

Because he has stopped many projects given to the cronies of the last administration but allowed his own cronies and even family members to take up new projects under his administration. Conflict of interest does not seem to have any relevance in his eyes. Even Tun Mahathir is now suggesting that Abdullah is more blatant than him in the respect of business dealings involving their own children.

Because he has even publicly claimed that vernacular schools like Chinese and Tamil ones were not good for national unity. He has subsequently denied what he has said through one of his personal secretaries.

Malaysians must wake up to the fact that they cannot depend and trust Abdullah as their Prime Minister anymore. He is a weak and indecisive leader. He has failed to implement things that he has promised to deliver.

We hope he can prove us wrong by implementing all that he has promised to do in the last general elections. Until then, he cannot be seen as a leader for all Malaysians.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew
(posted on malaysia-today.net and dapmalaysia.org on monday aug 28 2006)

2006-08-31T16:12:00.000+08:00

About the lack of enthusiasm in celebrating Merdeka.

Malaysians are celebrating its 49th Independence Day today.

Some top government leaders have complained about the lack of enthusiasm in flying the national flag and even accused those who fail to do so as unpatriotic.

It’s true that there is a serious lack of enthusiasm in celebrating Hari Merdeka among Malaysians.

But do those government leaders know the reasons behind the phenomenon?

It has something to do with how far we have succeeded as a multiracial, multireligious and multicultural society after 49 years of Independence.

Racial slurs from the mouths of top government leaders could be heard every other day and numerous biased and divisive pro-Bumiputra policies are here to stay. These two factors itself have turned away many from the Merdeka celebration.

Do these government leaders realize that many Malaysians were disillusioned by various racial policies and racial slurs practiced and uttered by them? I believe more will fly the flags without persuasion if they feel that they were being treated fairly in their own country.

The current inflation and sluggish market have further dampened the mood of Merdeka celebration. Would Ahmad, Gurusamy and Ah Chong bring his families to Dataran Merdeka if they have not even gotten enough money to buy milk powder to feed their children?

Workers who were denied of minimum wages have no reasons to celebrate Merdeka.

Malaysians who were troubled by the escalating crime rates would also not celebrate Merdeka.

Small traders who cannot get enough sugar to run their tea stalls and coffee shops would also unlikely to gear up for the celebration.

And do you expect the Bandar Mahkota Cheras residents, where their main access road was blocked by the toll company to celebrate Merdeka?

Even MPs were not in any mood to fly the flag until they were given the flag free of charge by the Minister in the Prime Minister Department Datuk Nazri Aziz.

The powers that be cannot even look at our history of Independence straight and truthfully. They have chosen to write the history to serve their political agenda instead of giving credits to all our forefathers who really fought and sacrificed in the struggle for Independence. This is another reason why some Malaysians were not too keen in joining the celebration.

I am glad to note that PAS, as a political party, has openly acknowledged the contributions of various leftist movements and the Communist Party of Malaya in the struggle for Independence.

Top government leaders should stop pointing fingers to the ordinary citizens but to repent for their misdeeds and take steps to remove all racial policies.

That would certainly go a long way in creating a truly fair and just society.

When the day has come, no one needs to remind Malaysians to fly the flag.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

malaysian first

colour-blind.org is born!!!

Please go to Colour-blind while Malaysian First under repair

“马华对不起华社”- 谨此呼吁马华基层党员向大山脚马华看齐，集体退党。

Najib too has failed to convince Malaysians that the 18.9% Government figure was correct

An open letter to Muhyiddin over equity debate

Too late and too little in tackling haze

MCA Makes Chinese Angry?

The Iconic Che Cuevara

More reports on 528 Bloody Sunday public inquiry

BMC Lantern protest : Samy Vellu! Buka Jalan!

Ong Ka Ting, where's the RM4 million?

Another report on '528' Bloody Sunday public inquiry

Complaints and suggestions I made to Suhakam yesterday

Muhyiddin, dedahkan cara pengiraan ikuiti anda

烟霾笼罩的下的马来西亚，路在何方？

Saya disapina oleh Suhakam pada 6 Oktober

Be fair to our people back home

韩春锦毫无建树 若开除毫不足惜

生日快乐！HAPPY BIRTHDAY！

Bumi equity- 18.9% or 45%?

Chinese marginalized: Kuan Yew Vs Abdullah

“无校”风波暴露马华当家不当权的窘境

Dr Wong Sai Hou caught red-handed

DAP Education Forum: Crisis and Breakthrough

Comments on " Unstated BN policy- no more new Chi/Tamil schools"

不建新的华淡小，是国阵的既定政策

Unstated BN policy- no new Chinese/Tamil schools

YB Chew, what have you got to say to these two Malaysiakini readers?

笑一笑， 没烦恼！

Lessons for corrupt politicians back home

Nazri, the ball is now in your court.

That's Samy Vellu for you!

Shame on you, Samy Vellu!

Happy Ramadan to all my Muslim friends!

Chong King Liong-A Man of Action

Kuan Yew is correct to say that Chinese were marginalized in Malaysia

Zaid Ibrahim-the maverick in UMNO

Alleged funding for UM campus election:DAP wants police to investigate MB Selangor

DAP PJ Action Team brought urban pioneers problems to MBPJ

Are Chinese being marginalized in Malaysia?

My first impression of the new Mayor of MBPJ

此时此刻，我们更加怀念张景良先生。

Denial the best answer of MCA leaders like Chew

To the MCA, the meaning of 'Nga Lan' is ' rotten teeth'

行动党支持警员加薪

从台湾倒扁总统大集会到翁诗杰评干捞小风波。。。

皇冠镇VS GRAND SAGA 大道收费站公司

皇冠镇VS GRAND SAGA 大道收费站公司

BMC residents Vs Grand Saga

history of independence - Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad et al

BN reps endorsement letters "No Value"

history of independence-ronnie liu & rustam sani

history of independence-zulkifli ahmad & james wong 2

history of independence -Rustam Sani

history of independence-Zulkifli Ahmad & JamesWong

韩春锦毫无建树若开除毫不足惜

笑一笑，没烦恼！