SHAH ALAM: A controversial ruling by a district council in Selangor
banning unmarried Muslim couples from sitting together in a cinema has
been shelved, with the MCA slamming the use of religion in politics.
MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said he was shocked that Islamic values were imposed by the council.
He
cautioned that friction among the people could happen in a multi-racial
country like Malaysia should religion be used in politics.
Separately, the Kuala Selangor district council (MDKS) had been directed to put the ruling on hold immediately.
It is learnt that the decision was made by the MDKS full board council meeting in May.
MDKS councillor P. Thirumoorthy said the ruling was proposed by a councillor from PAS last year.
State executive councillor Ronnie Liu said the state government was not consulted before the decision was implemented recently.
“I
only found out from the press. In other local councils, there is no
such ruling. So I will ask the MDKS president to delay the ruling and
bring it to the full board for further discussion,” he told a press
conference yesterday.
A Chinese daily reported yesterday that the
only cinema in Kuala Selangor had recently put up notices reminding
patrons of the new ruling.
It is believed that cinema operators who did not abide by the ruling were informed that their licences would not be renewed.
A source from the Lotus Five Star cinema described the ruling as “unbecoming and unfair”.
“This has caused fear among Muslims and deterred them from coming to our place,” he said.
In Petaling Jaya, Selangor MCA Youth chairman Dr Kow Cheong Wei
said the DAP kept emphasising the equal status of all parties in
Pakatan, claiming that for a policy to be implemented, there had to be
consensus by all three parties in Pakatan Rakyat.
“If this is
truly the case, then why has this cinema gender separation proposal
become law? Is this an act by a unified administration by Pakatan?” he
said in a statement.
Debunking
claims by DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang that Mahathirism stoked racial
fears and went against decades of nation building, the former prime
minister said it was just a figment of Lim's imagination.
The former leader added that Mahathirism was dead and gone and there was no need to fear it.
Lim
had said in response to earlier remarks by Dr Mahathir that he did not
hate the former prime minister as a person but was only against the
Mahathirism policies that allegedly stoke racial fears and went against
nation-building efforts.
“I wonder why Kit Siang is so afraid of me, what he calls Mahathirism.
“I don't know what is Mahathirism but obviously it conjures in the mind of Kit Siang something fearful.
“So,
he has declared his intention to fight Mahathirism,” the country's
longest-serving prime minister said in his latest blog posting
yesterday.
“I don't care whether he destroys Mahathirism or not.
It is an exercise in futility as Mahathirism is a figment of his
imagination.
“He should not be afraid of this toothless tiger, figuratively speaking,” he said, adding Mahathirism died in 2003 when Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as prime minister.
Furthermore, he added, Najib had his own team of advisers. “His policies are his own.”
Dr Mahathir admitted that he was actively campaigning for Umno and the Barisan, saying it was time to return the favour.
“I became prime minister because Umno and the Barisan backed me strongly.
“I
owe a debt of gratitude to them. And that gratitude can only be
manifested through helping them to be accepted by the people and to
win,” he said, adding he would go all out for his son, Deputy
International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, should he be chosen as a candidate.
He said he could now back Mukhriz as he was no longer in a position of power.
Singer or sister? Speculation is rife over who this woman is. Photo: AFP/KCNA via KNS
A mystery woman pictured accompanying North Korea's new
leader Kim Jong-un to recent events has prompted speculation in Seoul
about whether she is his partner or his younger sister.
The North's state television on Sunday aired footage of the
woman joining Kim Jong-un as he paid tribute to his late grandfather Kim
Il-sung on the anniversary of his death in 1994.
Some South Korea media reports suggested she was Kim's younger sister Yo-Jong. Others suggested she may be Kim's wife or lover.
Top officials including ceremonial head of state Kim Yong-nam
and army chief Ri Yong-ho accompanied the leader to Pyongyang's
Kumsusan Palace, where the embalmed body of the nation's first president
lies in state.
Who is she? Kim Jong-un is pictured during a visit to Kumsusan Palace with an unidentified woman. Photo: AFP/North Korean TV
The TV footage showed the woman, apparently in her twenties
or thirties, walking next to the leader. She bowed with him before a
portrait of Kim Il-sung.
The short-haired woman, clad in a black suit, was also pictured
sitting next to Kim Jong-un at a concert by a state orchestra on Friday.
Some South Korea media reports suggested she was Kim's
younger sister Yo-Jong, who is believed to have studied in Switzerland
along with him in the 1990s. Others suggested she may be Kim's wife or
lover.
This screen grab shows North Korean leader Kim
Jong-un, centre, with a mystery woman paying tribute to his late
grandfather Kim Il-sung. Photo: AFP/North Korean TV
Seoul's intelligence agency and unification ministry, in charge of cross-border affairs, declined to comment.
The speculation highlighted the degree of secrecy in the North about the private lives of its rulers.
Kim Jong-un took power after the death of his father Kim
Jong-il last December but the outside world does not even know his exact
age.
An unidentified woman pictured standing behind Kim Jong-un
during mourning for his late father last December was identified by some
sources as the new leader's younger sister.
JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said the woman pictured in recent days may be Hyon Song-wol, a famous state singer rumoured to be the leader's lover.
It said she disappeared from public view in 2006 but was seen on TV again in March, apparently late in pregnancy.
"Hyon was a friend of Kim since they were teenagers and there
is a rumour among the North's elites that she was his lover," it quoted
an unidentified Seoul intelligence official as saying.
But Yang Moo-jin of Seoul's University of North Korean
Studies said there was "little chance" the mystery woman was Kim's
partner, given that the country's past first ladies have rarely made
public appearances with leaders.
"She could be Yo-Jong or perhaps a daughter of one of the
mistresses of the late Kim Jong-il ... so that Jong-un can publicly
showcase the solidarity in the ruling family," Yang said.
Not content with ambitious plans to dominate space exploration over
the coming decades, China is also looking to master the ocean with the
development of a deep-sea station which could be its first step towards
large-scale underwater mining.
Plans for the nuclear powered mobile deep-sea station were unveiled
earlier this year by China Ship Scientific Research Centre – the
state-owned venture whose Jiaolong manned submersible recently reached
depths of over 7,000 metres – according to South China Morning Post.
The craft would have dimensions of 60.2m x 15.8m x 9.7m, weigh about 2,600 tonnes, and have enough room for 33 crew members.
It would have propellers to move submarine-like underwater and
several ports to allow smaller craft to dock with it, the report said.
On that note, a smaller prototype which could carry 12 crew on an
18-day expedition is currently in production, with an expected delivery
date of 2015.
While China’s plans in space appear to revolve heavily around
military strategy, its deep sea efforts have more to do with the country
finding an answer to its current energy problems.
Drilling for oil and mining copper and other natural resources both
appear to be high on the list of China’s deep-sea priorities, although
technological limitations may hold back advances in the project for some
time, the report claims.
When China wants something it usually succeeds in the end, however,
so it would not be out of the question to see the launch of a full-sized
deep-sea station by 2030, according to SCMP.
As with most elements of Chinese technology innovation, the PLA is
never too far away – this deep-sea project is apparently funded by 863
Program, a hi-tech state scheme.
A Chinese company is set to build a nuclear-powered mobile
deep-sea station in the western Pacific, according to local
reports.
The China Ship
Scientific Research Centre's proposed station -- which will
have huge propellers to enable free movement in the ocean depths --
will be manned by 33 crew for up to two months at a time and
powered by a nuclear reactor.
Its main goal, according to reports in the South China Sea
Post, will be to mine for precious metals. The nation,
which recently announced it is
stockpiling rare earth elements amid fears of shortages, would
use the facilities to hunt mainly for copper, lead, zinc, silver,
gold and oil.
Underwater mining is typically a costly affair, full of
potential dangers and problems. Canadian-owned Nautilus Minerals
Inc was the first commercial copper-gold mining venture to be
granted permission to explore the Bismarck Sea floor
surrounding Papua New Guinea, but has already run into problems
with environmentalists warning the mining could destroy marine life
and cause devastating oil spills. China's Tongling Non-ferrous
Metals Group had signed up as the project's very first customer in
April 2012, but a dispute with Papua New Guinea also stands to halt
the mining project's 2013 launch completely
The Chinese company appears to be wary of these issues, and is
therefore treading carefully, with plans for the bold venture
slated for a more reasonable 2030 launch -- according to experts
the South China Sea Post spoke to -- and a smaller 12-crew
prototype capable of 18-day dives set to launch by 2015. The larger
60-metre-long craft will weigh in at 2,600 tonnes.
In preparation, the China Ship Scientific Research Centre has
been engaging in test dives of manned vehicles -- its Jiaolong
model reached a record-breaking 7,020 metres at the Mariana Trench
in the Pacific Ocean on the same day that China's
Shenzhou-9 spacecraft docked at the Tiangong 1 space
station.
Reports suggest that the project is being funded by the state's
863 Program, a fund specifically for the development of
innovative technologies, which has links with the military.
Nevertheless, mining for oil and copper seem to be the most likely
priorities on the agenda, with crew on the station able to spend
two months at a time living and mining underwater.
Shanghai is hosting the 41st Underwater
Mining Institute conference October 2012, and further
details could potentially be revealed then. In the meantime, a look
at the China Ship Scientific Research Centre's website reveals fields
of interest that range from manned submersibles such as the
Jiaolong vessel to atmospheric one-man diving suits and
autonomous
underwater robots -- the latter would be exponentially
beneficial in aiding aquanauts during danger-filled underwater
mining missions.
The centre also appears to be keen on waterslides.
Definitely one to watch.
Strong criticisms have emerged against the use of drones for killing people in several countries.
THE
use of drones by one state to kill people in other countries is fast
emerging as an international human rights issue of serious public
concern.
This was evident in the recent session (June 18-July 6)
of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, both in the official meetings and
in NGO seminars.
The use of drones, or pilotless aircraft
operated by remote control, by the government in one country to strike
at persons and other targets in other countries, has been increasingly
used by the United States in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Instead
of following clear legal standards, the practice of drone attacks has
become a vaguely defined and unaccountable “licence to kill”, according
to a 2010 report of a UN human rights special rapporteur.
According to an article in The Guardian,
the American Civil Liberties Union estimates that as many as 4,000
people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002. Of those, a
significant proportion were civilians.
The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Barack Obama became president.
Recent
criticisms and concerns raised by officials, experts and governments
about the use of drones include the high numbers of deaths and
casualties of innocent civilians; possible violation of sovereignty and
international human rights laws; lack of information, transparency and
accountability; their being counter-productive; and the indirect
encouragement to other countries to similarly use drone attacks.
The
UN High Commissioner on Human RightsNavi Pillay in her overall report
to the Human Rights Council on June 18 said that during her recent visit
to Pakistan she expressed serious concern over the continuing use of
armed drones for targeted attacks particularly because it was unclear
that all persons targeted were combatants or directly participating in
hostilities.
She added that the “UN secretary-general has
expressed concern about the lack of transparency on the circumstances in
which drones are used, noting that these attacks raise questions about
compliance with distinction and proportionality.”
She reminded
the US of their international obligation to take all necessary
precautions to ensure that attacks comply with international law and
urged them to conduct investigations that are transparent, credible and
independent, and provide victims with effective remedies.
On June
26, Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram told the council that his country
was directly affected by the indiscriminate use of drones, and at least
a thousand civilians, including women and children, have been killed in
drone attacks.
“The government of Pakistan has maintained
consistently that drone attacks are not only counter-productive but a
violation of international law and Pakistan’s sovereignty,” said Akram,
adding that Pakistan’s Parliament has called for an immediate end to
these attacks.
“Regrettably this call has not been heeded. The
drone attacks continue in violation of the UN Charter, international
human rights and international humanitarian law. The international human
rights machinery must clearly reject attempts to justify these
actions.”
At the council on June 16, Christof Heyns, the UN
special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
called for more transparency and accountability from the US, according
to a IPS news report.
He urged that a framework be developed and
adhered to, and pressed for accurate records of civilian deaths. “I
think we’re in for very dangerous precedents that can be used by
countries on all sides,” he said.
At an event organised by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Heyns said the US drone attacks
would encourage other states to flout human rights standards and
suggested that some drone strikes may even be war crimes, according to a
report in the London-based Guardian.
Criticisms are also
coming from US groups and a former president. “The US has cobbled
together its own legal framework for targeted killing, with standards
that are far less stringent than the law allows,” Hina Shamsi, a
director of the ACLU told the council on June 20, according to IPS.
Shamsi
also took issue with the lack of transparency of military programmes
based on what she called “a secret legal criteria, entirely secret
evidence, and a secret process”.
“The international community’s
concern about the US targeted killing programme is continuing to grow
because of the unlawfully broad authority our government asserts to kill
‘suspected terrorists’ far from any battlefield, without meaningful
transparency or accountability,” Shamsi told IPS.
The lack of a
legal framework allows for drone strikes to be implemented at will, in
non-conflict zones and on the basis of loosely defined terrorist
threats, without permission from the host nation, added the IPS article.
“In essence, drones cancel out national sovereignty,” Tom Engelhardt, co-author of Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050, told IPS. “The rules of the game are one country’s sovereignty trumps that of another.”
Former US President, Jimmy Carter, writing in the New York Times (June
24), noted that the use of US drone attacks “continues in areas of
Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know
how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these
attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington.
This would have been unthinkable in previous times.
“These
policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and
military officials as well as rights defenders in targeted areas affirm
that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families
toward terrorist organisations, aroused civilian populations against us
... As concerned citizens we must persuade Washington to reverse course
and regain moral leadership according to international human rights
norms.”
Drones were originally developed to gather intelligence.
More
than 40 countries have this technology and some have or are seeking
drones that can shoot laser-guided missiles, according to a pioneering
2010 report by the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston.
They enable targeted
killings with no risk to the personnel of the state carrying them out
and can be operated remotely from the home state.
The second debate between MCA and DAP leadership was less about
convincing the audience about whose policies had better served the
people than two fierce Chinese leaders slugging it out for the Chinese
vote.
THERE was much less hype in the run-up to the second debate between the two leading figures in Chinese politics.
The novelty of the DAP and MCA leadership going head-to-head in a public debate had passed.
Both
MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim
Guan Eng had proven after the first debate that they are more than
capable of taking on each other before a live audience.
As in the
first debate, Lim had the advantage of being the top dog because he is
the Chief Minister of Penang, an MP and an assemblyman.
Dr Chua,
on the other hand, has only his party post to ride on and his party is
struggling to regain the confidence of Chinese Malaysians.
Given
that Lim is in charge of one of the most developed states in the
country, he would have more bragging rights as regards the topic of the
debate – “Whose policies benefit the country most?”
But not long
after the opening remarks by both speakers, Lim went off the debate path
and ventured into ceramah mode and after a while, Dr Chua felt
compelled to address him on at that level.
Both launched into attack mode, with neither really answering the questions raised.
They were both more interested in scoring points with accusations rather than giving good, convincing answers on issues.
As
Fui Soong, the CEO of the CENSE think-tank, said in her forthright way:
“It was like cock-fighting. Lots of posturing and both men going at
each other, back and forth. There was not enough intellectual content.”
In fact, the whole thing became rather childish at times, an example being when Dr Chua poked holes at Pakatan Rakyat’s Buku Jingga.
Lim, instead of defending the allegations, said that Dr Chua must have read the wrong Buku Jingga.
That is the sort of answer one would give at a ceramah and not at a national debate.
He did that right at the start and again towards the end.
By
the time the moderator called for a five-minute break, the two debaters
had gone well off-topic and were instead taking well-aimed shots at
each other.
Dr Chua had accused DAP of being a chauvinist party
that is more interested in the “politics of hate and blame” rather than
nation-building while Lim declared Barisan Nasional as corrupt and
bashed Umno left, right and centre.
Lim is not exactly the best
orator on the political ceramah circuit but he is a seasoned speaker and
his ceramah style was in full display for much of the two hour-long
session.
He had a lot of punchy and pithy lines.
But the
thing about the ceramah mode of speaking is that it leans towards drama
and exaggeration which is entertaining, but less suited for a debate
audience.
Lim was in his street-fighter element when running down Barisan and mocking Umno.
This
forum, which comes more than four years into his Penang tenure, would
have been the ideal platform for Lim to showcase his achievements as the
chief administrator.
But through much of the debate, he was far
more successful in rubbishing Umno than convincing the audience that his
government and his policies had benefited the people more than the
policies of Barisan.
Dr Chua does not have the ceramah flamboyance of his rival.
But he has shown in both debates that his forte lies in being factual and analytical and he thinks quite well on his feet.
He
is no drama king and he does not embellish the facts to entertain the
people although he can be quite caustic in his rebuttals.
But as
many who watched the debate would agree, it is evident that Dr Chua
understands policies, is good at facts and figures and his experience in
the Government comes across quite clearly.
For instance, when
Lim tried to politicise the privatisation of the Penang port, Dr Chua
argued the rationale of the move with statistics.
His other
advantage was that he could sell the “Najib brand name” whereas Lim was
rather reticent about the “Anwar brand” even while endorsing him as the
prime minister candidate.
Dr Chua came across as rather staid and serious compared to Lim’s more showy style.
But Lim might want to moderate his ceramah style when speaking before a thinking audience.
He has what the Malays term a senyum kambing
side about him when running down his opponents and while that goes down
well with his supporters, those less acquainted with his style may find
it sarcastic or even arrogant.
A little humility would have served him better.
He is the Chief Minister of a key state and he should try not to sound like an Opposition leader.
Both men started well but as the debate progressed, Lim’s ceramah style put him ahead.
However,
Dr Chua made a much more sensible summing up while Lim went over the
top with a rousing speech rather than a conclusion.
Said Fui: “I feel kind of cheated. I had expected more but I feel like I didn’t learn anything new.”
ANALYSIS By JOCELINE TAN
Chua vs Lim debate: DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit the Country More?
KUALA LUMPUR: MCA's Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek
and DAP's Lim Guan Eng took to the podium together for a second time in
months on Sunday as both leaders took each other on over whose policies
had better served the rakyat.
They engaged in a fiery two-hour
debate themed DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit The Country More at
the Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre here yesterday, organised by the
Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli).
In his opening remarks, the MCA president highlighted the policies and programmes put in place by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak after he took over the nation's helm.
Lim,
who is Penang Chief Minister, spoke about the island state being the
“most liveable city in the country” while attacking MCA ministers with a
string of allegations.
At one point, Dr Chua, who spoke off the
cuff, took a swipe at his debate adversary, chiding him for reading from
a prepared text and turning the debate into a political ceramah.
Dr
Chua noted that with the government's policies in place, Malaysia's
share market continued to rise as proof of the local and foreign
investors rejecting DAP's theory of gloom and doom of the Malaysia
economy.
He hit out at Pakatan Rakyat, saying that its ultimate aim was to grab power in the coming general election “at all costs”.
Likening
Pakatan's battle cry, Ubah (change) to “Power First, and Chaos
thereafter”, Dr Chua said Pakatan was only good at instigating the
people to hate the Government, demonising the country's institutions and
causing friction among the various races in the country.
He also
pointed out that the coalition was known to be good at making promises
to the people when more than 95% of their promises had yet to be
fulfilled.
Lim spoke about the various improvements in Penang
including poverty reduction, adding it was the first state to provide
free WiFi access in public places.
Lim: "MCA is not qualified to talk about politics here, as it is not MCA who decides - it is Umno who decides.
"The MCA speaks only for the Chinese, and those from the Peninsula - not Sabah or Sarawak.
"It is different for DAP - we want to speak for all Malaysians. Malay, Chinese, Indians, Iban, Kadazan.
"We are all Malaysians. Look at the NFC scandal," he said.
"Who gains? The cronies. The losers are the citizens of Malaysia.
"For
last 50 years, consumed by race and religion. For the next 50 years,
let us be consumed with the tasks of economic wellbeing.
"BN has never spoken truthfully to the people. Let Pakatan Rakyat speak truthfully to you.
Dr Chua stressing a point during the debate with Lim listening intently
"DAP believes a clean government can always perform better than a corrupt government.
"If
Penang dares to review the assets of the CM, why is the PM afraid of
reviewing his assets and those of his ministers?" he said.
Dr Chua:
"Just now YAB asked why the PM didn't want to debate with Anwar. I want
to say here, it hasn't happened because he is the prime minister. He is
busy with the transformation policies, to improve the country. "From
2008 to 2011, the ease of doing business improved compared from 2003 to
2008. Malaysia is the fifth most favoured FDI nation in Asia.
"They
haven't been empty promises like those from Pakatan Rakyat. The
promises were fulfilled. These three years, the rakyat has gotten what
was promised under the leadership of Najib."
"Anwar is full of
rhetoric, no specifics, short on delivery. He has to convince us to
translate this rhetoric into what we call delivery.
"MCA
has been involved in nation building from day one. We were the one
involved in the fight against the communist insurgency, the resettlement
of the Chinese in new villages, the fight for independence, the rights
of citizenship after independence. That's why citizens like Guan Eng are
citizens of the country.
"We laid down the foundations. We have
progressed, advocated integration not assimilation. That's why Guan Eng
is not called Sukarno Lim.
"This is all history. All part of nation building. DAP has no role to play."
"What has PR done for us? No clear direction.
"Look at the four PR states, 95% of the promises are janji janji kosong.
A section of the crowd enjoying the debate
"Everyday tell the whole world you give hundred dollars to the old people.
"Two hundred to the newborn and they must be voters. We give RM200 to our newborn babies.
"State government giving RM100, RM200 all populist policies. Does not address fundamental problem of country."
"DAP
has only one thing to show. They collect a lot of money from the
rakyat. Despite calls of accountability, transparency - nothing to show.
Transparency, Accountability, where are they? Where has the money
collected gone to?
Question: Mr President... Many
urban voters perceive MCA has not done enough. The perception is that
many urban voters are not supporting MCA. What would you do to try
regain more support for MCA?
Dr Chua: We accept the fact
this is a multiracial country and the policy of BN is the policy of
balancing. DAP likes to tell the Chinese they are marginalised. The
poverty rate of the Chinese is still lowest among three major races.
Employment rates the highest. Property ownership largest. Cannot deny in
the implementaion process there are people who benefit more than
others, this is the bone of contention, causes a lot of Chinese to be
angry with the government and MCA bears the burden of this.
"DAP tries to portray itself as a multiracial party, but only dares to contest in Chinese constituencies.
"Why don't you contest in multiracial constituencies? We are a mono-ethnic party, but our aims are clear.
"In this country we have to balance the needs and sensitivities of all countries. No particular race will feel happy.
The crowd at the Debate 2.0
"In the same way we sometimes feel government giving too much to bumiputra. But some bumiputras not happy with government."
Question:
Many people still see DAP as Chinese-based party. Are you a Chinese
party or multi-racial party, how would you try to win more support among
other races if you are multiracial.
Lim: From the very
start we are a multiracial party. Our chairman is Indian, we have Indian
MPs, have Malay MPs and state assemblymen in the past. We are fair to
all regardless of race and religion. Would like the MCA president know
that not every Chinese rich as the MCA leaders.
Not every Chinese can apply for PR in Australia.
Don't forget that the Chinese community pays the most taxes in Malaysia.
At the same time we want to see justice and see our Malay brothers and sisters are assisted.
Why is it poor Chinese can't get scholarships but rich bumiputras can?
Don't go and talk about DAP forming a kindergarten. We are a political party to determine the future of Malaysia.
TAR
College is clearest example of failure of MCA. Why was it established?
Because of unfair quota policies where qualified students cannot enter
public universities. so you formed TAR College. Shame on you MCA.
Don't say we haven't built low cost housing. We have built. Don't lie.
Question:Is MCA scared of Umno, that they don't dare to question corruption claims? Is there equal partnership in BN?
Dr Chua:
I take objection to that question to say MCA is sacared of Umno. Not a
fair question. If I say - and I've always said - if the state Cabinet,
state exco and federal Cabinet, all the discussions are taped. The
government should declassify the tapes and then they understand better
the role of MCA in a multiracial country.
Why is DAP so quiet about Anwar's alleged account of RM3bil, this from a statutory declaration?
This
is equal partnership, let me tell you PR claims equal partnership but
until today PAS have never openly endorsed Anwar as prime minister.
You can't even agree on a party common symbol and logo and register the party.
Question:
I've read your Buku Jingga, stated among other things that if party win
GE, forms central government they are going to abolish all road tolls,
PTPTN and give income to houses that make less than RM4,000 to make up
that amount. Lots of other goodies. How are you going to implement these
policies bearing in mind annual revenue does not exceed RM200bil.
Lim:
This the first time I'm hearing from a minister admitting corruption
cost us RM26bil. Question is, what you doing about it? Are you accepting
the fact that BN permits corruption? That's why I say shame on you
again.
Don't talk about collections from public. When DAP
organises dinners, we don't give free dinners like MCA or Umno. We
charge because we rely on public funds to survive. We don't steal the
government's money. That is the difference between BN and PR, the
difference between MCA and DAP.
I think you need to read the
right Buku Jingga, I think you read the wrong one. Abolish tolls,
estimate of RM35mil. If you don't believe can be done, vote us into
power and we show you can be done.
Question: On Chinese independent schools.
Dr Chua:
I only wish DAP is more specific. Why is it not written more clearly
they will build more Chinese schools? Independent schools? Recognise
UEC?
I openly asked Anwar, are you going to build more Chinese schools? More independent schools?
Because if it is from DAP, I dont trust it. Why? Cos DAP will say this is not common policy framework.
Lim:We are not like MCA leaders who go to jail for cheating rakyat of its money.
When
you talk about building of schools, judge by the deeds of the PR
government in Selangor and Penang. We have given land, we have given
funding, we have given funding every year. If PR can give to all these
schools, independent, Indian, Chinese, every year funding, why BN cannot
do so?
Don't question our openess to allow independent Chinese schools.
When you talk about Anwar if PR wins power he will be Prime Minister.
Question: What national education policy should there be to generate competent citizens?
Lim:We cannot ignore the fact that human talent will be the future of our country.
Not a question of building human talent but retaining human talent.
Since Merdeka two million Malaysians left the country because they see no future for themselves or Malaysia.
They
see they don't have freedom, integrity or justice. That's why we are
fighting for freedom, democracy, integrity, justice. To fight corruption
is not hard, only depends on whether you got political will. No laws
(to combat corruption) in Penang but we have wiped out corruption in
Penang, I am proud to say.
If we win power in Malaysia, we will do the same in Malaysia. That is why so many people are afraid.
Dr Chua:
When people are educated or talented, they have economic independence
and social mobility. Almost all developing countries face brain drain.
This no justification. That's why when I say we trained 200,000 talented people, the Penang Chief Cminister says shame on us.
Look
at our meritocracy policy, number of non-Malays in tertiary gone up.
Last year, JPA gave more scholarships to all races, 20% to needy,
disadvantaged in Sabah and Sarawak.
Talent Corp
is another good example of reaching out. When we train talent they say
shame on you. If you can't do it, admit you can't. No country in the
world can meet needs of education for all citizens.
Self-proclaimed centrist Anas Zubedy, who has just published a book titled Bodoh Politik 101: Easy Guides on How (Not) to Choose a Malaysian Leader, insists he takes no sides in politics.
BODOH
Politik is when you think those who do not support you are disloyal to
the country or have been bought over by the other side.
Bodoh Politik is when you spend public money like it's your own.
Bodoh
Politik is complaining that certain media is biased to the other side
but you think it is okay when other media is biased to your side.
Bodoh Politik is when you say Malaysian students have no right to get involved in what is happening in their own country.
Bodoh
Politik is when you ask and advise others to vote FOR or AGAINST
someone simply because he or she is from BN (Barisan Nasional) or PR
(Pakatan Rakyat).
Dose
of humour: Anas has compiled some of his tweets on the silly politcs
practised in this country into a book 'Bodoh Politik'. The easy-to-read
book pokes fun at both sides of the political divide.
These are some of the amusing quotes found in a little book by Anas Zubedy called #Bodoh Politik 101:Easy Guides on How (Not) to Choose a Malaysian Leader.
Cute? Funny? Does any of these hit a mark?
The
quotes are actually some of his tweets from late last year and Anas
thought it would be a good laugh to compile them into an easy-to-read
book.
And he has dedicated it to so-called “Clever Malaysians”.
“We
need to cheer up a little because in our zest to make Malaysia a better
place, Malaysians are getting angry with each other to the extent of it
sometimes getting ridiculous on both sides of the political divide,”
Anas says.
“We must remember at the end of the day that while we might oppose each other's ideas, we are not enemies.”
He
believes there is a bunch of Malaysians who are active on the Internet
who have become “ugly Malaysians” and are using nasty words on Facebook,
twitter, blogs and the web sphere and who are also going around
screaming and shouting to disrupt the other party's ceramah.
It bothers him that political leaders on both sides are not doing anything against it.
“They should tell their supporters to not do it because it's not helping them or the country,” he says.
His book of tweets, he adds, is in jest and “yet deep”.
Bodoh Politik, he explains, means Silly (not Stupid) Politics.
Anas
insists he is a centrist who does not support any side of the political
divide. His tweets do take pot shots at both Barisan Nasional (BN) and
Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
Bodoh Politik is when you make chauvinistic jokes about women politicians.
Bodoh Politik is when you keep predicting the date of the next general election as though it is your day job.
Anyone
following politics in the country, including parliament sessions, is
able to tell for sure the first is directed at Barisan (thanks to some
of their MPs sexist remarks) and the second at Pakatan.
Then there are a few quotes that are very personality-specific.
Bodoh
Politik is when you run for politics and then go and bite the ears of a
policeman. It is a no-brainer that this tweet was aimed at PKR's Tian
Chua, who bit the ear of a policeman in 2007 after the latter threw a
punch at him.
The following year, Tian Chua was voted into parliament as Batu MP.
For the biting incident, Tian Chua was charged and fined RM2,000 but the policeman who punched him was never charged.
Describing him as “nonsensical” and “gila” (mad), Anas makes no secret what he thinks of Tian Chua.
“Why
so silly? How can you be a political leader and go and bite someone's
ear? There must be some kind of wrong make-up there (in the head) for
him to do that.
“Also, during the Bersih 2.0 protest, Tian Chua
got a bunch of followers to rush towards the policemen. For what? These
kinds of things make Bersih look bad.
“He's gila. But the good news is he's calming down and maturing.”
About
a year ago, Anas (who says he doesn't belong to any political party)
called for the resignation of the DAP's respected leader Lim Kit Siang,
which understandably got party members really angry.
They called Anas an Umno tool and attacked him ferociously in cyberspace.
One
of his tweets in the book pretty much sums up what he thinks about the
matter: Bodoh Politik is demanding old-timers from the other side resign
from politics but getting emotional when the same is asked from your
side.
Anas bristles when asked about him being seen as an Umno tool.
Stressing
that he has always been a centrist, he points out that before 1998, he
was seen as being anti-establishment and hence a leftist.
And it
was only after the 2008 elections, “when the left has gone so far left”,
that he who has remained in the centre now appears like a rightist.
“I've
never changed my position for the past 20 to 25 years. When I say be
fair to both sides', people say cannot'. To the opposition, anyone who
is not with them has been bought over or is with Barisan.
“Barisan used to be like that too. If you are in the centre, they used to call you a traitor, but not any more.
“I
take offence when people say I am an Umno tool. I refuse to take money
for my business from cigarette, beer and gambling companies, so do you
think someone like that will take money from Barisan or the Opposition?
“I will sue the next person who says I have been paid by Barisan,” he says.
People should vote for the candidate rather than the party, Anas stresses.
“We
have good people in both Barisan and Pakatan but the problem is the
good people might not be in the forefront so we need to support them so
that they can come up,” he says, adding that party members shouldn't be
too extreme to support their leader when he makes a mistake.
Anas
also takes to task race-based and religious-based political parties,
saying that PKR probably has the best multi-racial party at this point
in time.
He adds that macho political structures like having the main wing, a Wanita, Youth and Puteri wings is “so old school”.
To have more good leaders, he says, you have to allow people to rise and not segregate them into male and female wings.
“Women make up 50% of the talent pool. In the business world, we would be dead meat without the women.
“But
in Umno, it's the Wanita and Puteri who are doing the work but when
it's time to make the speech, it's the men who go up in front (to take
the credit).
“As for the Puteri, why call them Puteri in the first place? Princess? Come on, are we living 400 years ago?”
Anas
believes the 2008 general election changed the political landscape for
the better because “the government cannot take the people for granted
any more” although, at times, he thinks “the Umno fellows haven't woken
up yet”.
Another thing Anas finds hard to stomach is when the
opposition parties start compromising on principles in their desire to
get to Putrajaya.
“My favourite politician is Karpal Singh who
has always been anti-frogging (against elected representatives jumping
parties) but now he is silent on it because his own party wants to go to
Putrajaya.
“The opposition has betrayed us because they are not fighting against frogging any more.”
Pointing to Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
as being responsible for the opposition parties' compromising on their
principles, he says: “We do not have a checking mechanism any more so we
need a third group of people who are neither Barisan nor Pakatan who
are willing to voice out whichever side is wrong. Without that, we lose
our conscience.”
On Bersih, Anas says it is good to clean up the
electoral roll but saying that there is massive fraud and cheating in
the elections is too much.
Bersih 3.0 should have held their
rally in the streets of Putrajaya instead of Kuala Lumpur, he feels, and
he is sorry for “poor Ambiga” (Bersih 3.0 co-chairman) because he
thinks she got “played out” for working with the opposition parties.
Anas also has a number of tweets on the NEP.
He is all for affirmative action and says it should be celebrated for helping millions out of poverty.
But
he believes it was “designed wrongly” because it was a race-based
affirmative action, which meant huge chunks of very poor Indians in the
estates were missed out.
“I don't believe in equality. I believe
the poor must be helped. I think now we need a special Indian-based NEP
to help the Indian poor in areas like housing, schooling to jobs.”
One bad thing about the NEP, he says, is that it has created a nation of blamers.
The
Chinese who don't do well or are not rich blame it on the NEP, while
the Malays lack self confidence as they think they cannot be successful
and cannot survive without the NEP, he elaborates.
Anas is also
known for taking full-page advertisements in newspapers to celebrate
festivals. Even this has critics accusing him of being publicity-hungry.
In his defence, he says there's nothing wrong with publicity: Zubedy is the brand of his company and that brand is unity.
“We
have been advertising for almost every festival not only the major ones
but even for Vaisakhi and Vesak Day for so many years. I was also
advertising Sept 16 Malaysia Day since 2001.
“We are a business
organisation and we have a marketing motive. The world will be a very
boring place if nobody wanted publicity.
“The only problem is when people get publicity to do wrong things. I am trying to get publicity to win people's hearts to unite.
“I
don't think there's anything wrong with that,” says Anas, who points
out that accusations of him being publicity-crazy only started after he
asked Kit Siang to step down.
On the back cover of #Bodoh Politik, Anas has put a popular Malay idiom in bold. “Siapa yang makan cili, dia yang terasa pedasnya (Whoever eats chilli, he will feel the spiciness which means whoever has done something wrong, he will feel the guilt).”
For sure, some will feel the sting with this book.
When the world continues to discuss China’s impact even when there are other issues to consider, China has clearly ‘arrived’.
CHINA’S
unrelenting growth is continuing to fuel speculation about the
implications of its spectacular rise for the rest of the world.
Its
irrepressive re-emergence as a major world power shapes and colours
private discourses, academic analyses and bilateral and multilateral
discussions, whether or not intended originally to discuss China.
It
permeates strategic discourses behind closed doors, casual coffeeshop
talk and everything in between. The recent Germany-Malaysia Security
Forum in Kuala Lumpur, sponsored by Konrad Adenaur Stiftung (KAS) and
organised by ISIS Malaysia, was an example.
Germany’s political
foundations like the KAS are affiliated with their respective political
parties, and with the KAS it is with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s
rightwing Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
It is significant
that even with a conservative CDU government, Germany has no qualms
about the rise of China. German delegates instead looked constructively
ahead to an even more prosperous China with which to work, above and
beyond any ideological differences.
A Malaysian delegate
privately remarked that Germans had been trading successfully with China
for centuries. China had been a major world power then and, after a
period of isolation and internal upheaval, it is becoming a major world
power again.
Countries East and West that have had similarly
positive experiences with China feel the same. Those that might have
upset China through war, invasion, occupation or squabbling over tiny
islets might feel differently, but exactly how an unprovoked China would
perceive them today is another matter.
A larger conference in
Berlin some years ago attended by delegates from various countries, and
sponsored by Germany’s Defence Ministry, was similarly positive about
China. At that time, Merkel’s government comprised her CDU, the equally
rightwing Christian Social Union (of Bavaria) and the left-of-centre
Social Democratic Party (SPD) of her immediate predecessor, Gerhard
Schröder.
Since then, Merkel’s CDU-led coalition had substituted
the SPD with the Free Democratic Party (FDP), a centrist party that
became another right-of-centre party. That Germany’s formal posture
towards a rising China has not changed indicates that its positive
outlook on China is deep-seated and enduring, unaffected by political
ideologies in Germany or China.
Nonetheless, some classic
questions about a rising China and its impact on Asia and the world
linger. These tend to refer to developments such as the increasing
defence expenditure of countries in East Asia.
Other slick
assumptions are that Asean countries are “hedging” against China, and
the world has moved from the Westphalian concept of national sovereignty
to that of “responsibility to protect”. The former is untested and the
latter is still disturbing.
It is easy to make a superficial
connection between these issues and a rising China, and then to conclude
that there is an arms race in the region, and the arms race must
therefore have resulted from a region alarmed by China’s rise.
These
points had been raised erroneously 20 years ago, and they will still be
raised 20 or more years from now. The problem with these simple-minded
assumptions is that they neglect both the key details and the big
picture.
All countries spend continually on defence, routinely
preparing for contingencies from any quarter and not just to arm against
any particular threat. This happens everywhere all the time, regardless
of the prevailing strategic situation in a country or region.
A
Malaysian delegate explained that it was part of the normal course of
running defence establishments, when countries need to renew their
ageing arsenals or when they become more developed and can afford to
spend more. It might be added that defence procurement is the most
lucrative industry in the world, so it easily acquires a logic and a
momentum of its own.
However, at a time when Philippine and
Chinese officials have had uncomfortable brushes with each other over
the disputed Scarborough shoal in the South China Sea, blips in national
defence budgets may appear suggestive.
But alarmist presumptions
about regional threats and the need to “arm” against them can easily
acquire a logic and a momentum of their own as well, however
unjustified. At the same time, some parties may be hoping to see
conflict in the region to profit from it through the arms trade,
strategic leverage or recruitment of allies.
Such a prospect militates against this region’s collective interests and several of its abiding realities.
First,
the political stability and economic prosperity of countries in East
Asia depend on the stability and propensity for growth in the region as a
whole. Injury to the region’s prospects also hurts individual national
prospects.
Second, the countries in East Asia, particularly those
of Asean, are clearly dwarfed by China. No amount of individual
“arming” can address the gulf in national defence capacities between
them and China.
Third, Asean countries are still unable to act as
one militarily even if by doing so their collective clout can achieve
some “balance” with a hulking China. Age-old border issues, disputed
maritime territory and other niggling bilateral concerns have prevented
any sense of an Asean security entity from developing until now and for
the foreseeable future.
Fourth, the immature presumption that
smaller countries in East Asia can always bank on the US for protection
is both mistaken and dangerous, because that notion becomes very
destabilising whenever it is proven untrue.
The notion of a US
acting as a countervailing force against China derives only from those
instances when US and indigenous concerns coincide in ways that are
dissimilar to China’s. When US and East Asian interests diverge, as they
will at certain points, the regional strategic picture will change.
US-China
joint interests have grown tremendously and will continue to grow.
They may already have surpassed the shared interests between the US and
East Asia minus China.
The US itself is the sole superpower with
an agenda and priorities of its own. Beyond a limited convergence of
interests with other countries, it will not deign to act as a servant or
bodyguard of smaller nations.
China remains inundated with
domestic problems of its own. These span pressing social, administrative
and environmental concerns as well as restive provinces and an economy
running out of steam.
Meanwhile, it has witnessed the collapse of
the Soviet Union that had suffered excessive arms expenditures, and a
troubled US economy weighed down by overspending on foreign wars.
Pragmatic Chinese leaders today would know better than to repeat those
mistakes.
Modern China’s success also depends considerably on a
peaceful East Asia that has enabled it to boost its exports worldwide.
And since the regional peace has also been maintained by a US military
presence in the Asia-Pacific, China as its greatest economic beneficiary
might perhaps be asked to help pay for that presence.
When I mentioned that to Martin Jacques, the British academic and author of When China Rules The World, he chuckled. But that is a modern-day reality that a country like Germany may be able to understand.
Clearly,
not all Western views of a rising China are created equal. The
differences between the German and US views are interesting, and they
become more telling when Germany is a leading country and the strongest
economy in Europe.
Perhaps that has something to do with Germany not having to “guard” its status as the sole superpower in the world.
He
cautioned that friction among the people could happen in a multi-racial
country like Malaysia should religion be used in politics.
He
cautioned that friction among the people could happen in a multi-racial
country like Malaysia should religion be used in politics.
Who is this mystery woman from North Korea?
This screen grab shows North Korean leader Kim
Jong-un, centre, with a mystery woman paying tribute to his late
grandfather Kim Il-sung. Photo: AFP/North Korean TV
