Beras Pula kena serang

Terbaharu kemelut kapitalis ialah Padiberas National Bhd (Bernas) sekarang ini dimiliki oleh Wang Tak Co Ltd, syarikat yang berpengkalan di Hong Kong. Syarikat itu muncul sebagai pemegang saham tunggal terbesar dengan menguasai 147.51 juta saham atau 31.36 peratus daripada keseluruhan saham 470,402 juta saham Bernas.

Bernas ialah syarikat strategik yang memonopoli aktiviti pemgimportan dan pembekalan beras di negara ini. Syarikat ini ditubuhkan pada 1994 berikutan pengkorporatan Lembaga Padi dan Beras Negara (LPN) dan disenaraikan di Papan Utama Bursa Malaysia pada Ogos 1997.

Ada beberapa fakta yang ada dihadapan untuk difikirkan bersama implikasinya.

Pertama menurut Datuk Salleh Majid, mana-mana pemegang saham tunggal syarikat itu meningkat melebihi 33 peratus, maka ia boleh membuat tawaran am mandatori (MGO) untuk membeli keseluruhan pegangan dalam syarikat berkenaan. Ini bermakna dengan menambahkan lagi 2 peratus syarikat ini boleh menawarkan untuk membeli keseluruhan saham dalam syarikat.

Kedua; Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri, Datuk Mustafa Mohamed berkata, semua pihak tidak perlu bimbang kerana penguasaan syarikat ini tidak akan menjejaskan pengurusan Bernas termasuk perubahan kenaikan harga beras. Kerajaan mempunyai saham emas atau Golden Share yang berkuasa mutlak untuk menentukan hala tuju Bernas.

Ketiga; Pemegang majoriti sebenarnya masih milik Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar AL Bukhary melalui Budaya Generasi dan Serba Etika dengan 36.81 peratus. Beliau menguasai melalui Budaya Generasi 144.83 juta saham atau 30.79 peratus dan Serba Etika Sdn Bhd 28.829 juta saham atau 6.11 peratus ketika ini.

Keempat; Syarikat ini diberi Permit Import (AP) beras.

Kelima; Khairy Jamaluddin bertanya kenapa tiada sesiapa yang kesan pembelian saham ini terlebih awal. Walaupun dibeli di pasaran terbuka. Malah sesiapa yang beli lebih daripada lima peratus ekuiti mesti mengistiharkannya pada Bursa Malaysia.

Keenam; ekoran daripada itu pelbagai pihak ahli politik, tokoh akademik dan badan bukan kerajaan mahu kerajaan segera campur tangan untuk mengelakkan syarikat strategik pembekalan beras negaras di kuasai firma asing.

Ketujuh; Diberitakan Bernas berhasrat untuk membeli separuh daripada ekuiti milik Wang Tak Co Ltd. Sudah tentu Bernas kena bayar lebih mahal lagi harga saham daripada apa yang dibeli oleh Wang Tak Co Ltd.

Idea dua sen aku;

Pertama; Semua pihak mesti berkerja dalam bidang masing-masing untuk menjaga bidang-bidang strategi negara termasuklah membabitkan keselamatan makanan. Sekarang ini rakyat hanya mengetahui sesuatu perkara itu diperingkat terakhir dan kadangkala susah untuk kita menangganinya. Sudah tentu rakyat tidak dapat menerima saham syarikat strategik negara berada di tangan orang luar.

Kedua; Bukan sahaja keselamatan makanan; sektor komunikasi; harta tanah; air; letrik; Kita pohon, kita minta, kita gesa ihak-pihak yang berwajib mengeluarkan statistik dari masa kesemasa pemilikan rayat negara ini dan pemilikan oleh orang luar bagi memboleh kita sentiasa berhati-hati dalam semua sektor strategi dan tindakan yang sewajarnya boleh diambil.

Ketiga; kadang kala kita diruncingkan dengan statistik antara pemilikan bumiputra dan bukan namun yang lebih besar lagi kita rakyat mestilah didedahkan selalu statisktik antara rakyat negara ini dan rakyat luar.

Melayu tak wujud sebenarnya

Ditulis oleh Zaidel Baharudin dari The Malaysian Insider

JULAI 29 — Hang Tuah sebenarnya bukan Melayu; Hang Tuah sebenarnya orang berketurunan dari China mengikut kata sesetengah orang lah (bukan saya OK). Mengapa pula dikatakan begitu? Sebab diambil contoh dari Hang Li Po seorang puteri dari China, namanya bermula dengan Hang, atas dasar itu orang keturunan dari China maka namanya bermula dengan Hang dari perkataan “Han” iaitu nama satu dinasti lama di China. Hang Li Po bererti Li Po orang Han, itulah ceritanya maka atas sebab samalah Hang Tuah itu bukan Melayu. Kalau nak diikut begitulah Hang Jebat, Hang Lekir, Hang Lekiu dan juga Hang Kasturi. Malah ada yang lebih jauh mengatakan yang Hang Tuah itu namanya sebenar adalah Han Too Ah, Jebat pula Han Jee Fat (macam watak utama dalam komik Alam Perwira pulak) manakala Hang Lekiu pula adalah Han Lee Kiu.

Ada ada kemungkinan, mungkin betul, bunyinya macam betul, tapi kalau hendak diikutkan kesimpulan begini bolehlah saya mengatakan yang sebenarnya “Tong Sampah” bukanlah perkataan Melayu akan tetapi ianya berasal dari China. Ini adalah kerana Tong Sampah adalah dari Thong Sam Ah seorang ushawan karung guni berbangsa Hakka yang suka mengambil barang-barang lama di sekitar tahun awal 1930an di Taiping. Maka apabila ada barang hendak dibuang orang kampung suka berkata “ahh ko bagi la barang nak dibuang tu ke Thong Sam Ah, dia memang ambil barang hendak dibuang”. Bunyinya memang macam betul tapi itu tidak menyebabkan ianya fakta bukan walau berapa puluh kali saya mengulangi cerita ini sesungguhnya Tong Sampah bukanlah Thong Sam Ah.

Penulis telah beberapa kali juga terserempak dengan sesi perbincangan atau perbualan mengenai bagaimana sebenarnya konsep atau orang “Melayu” itu sendiri tidak wujud. Jangan kata Hang Tuah bukan Melayu, Melayu itu pun bukan Melayu. Dikatakan sebenarnya Melayu itu adalah ciptaan atau rekaan penjajah British yang hendak memudahkan pemerintahan di Malaya (Tanah Melayu tidak wujud ye dalam konsep ini).

Orang Melayu itu adalah rekaan semata-mata, kalau ikutkan “hakikat” yang ada adalah orang Jawa, Bugis, Minang, Siam, Acheh dan sebagainya. Malah orang Melayu (kerana ianya tidak wujud) bukanlah orang asal keturunan di semenanjung Malaya (Semenanjung Tanah Melayu tidak wujud) akan tetapi orang asal adalah Orang Asli dan bukanlah orang Melayu. Merekalah Bumiputera yang sebenarnya dan yang lain adalah rekaan semata-mata. Hujah ini banyak digunakan apabila sesetengah pihak hendak mempertikaikan atau mendebatkan mengenai Dasar Ekonomi baru atau hendak memarahi suatu parti politik tertentu. Penulis tidaklah mengatakan yang hendak memperdebatkan Dasar Ekonomi Baru itu salah, tapi janganlah sampai adat resam dan keturunan terus dipertikaikan dan dipersoalkan atau diperlekehkan. Hanya kerana kegiatan berpolitik berlebihan dan taksub marah terhadap sesuatu tak tentu pasal habis dijahanamkan dan dikorbankan adat resam dan kebudayaan yang umurnya bekurun-kurun lamanya. Maka terpaksalah sejarah ditulis semula yang Hang Tuah pernah mengatakan yang “Takkan Bugis, Jawa, Minang, Acheh, Bali, Baweyan dan sebagainya (bukan Melayu) hilang di dunia.” Penat tu nak sebut.

Itu yang membuatkan penulis rasa terkedu sedikit sejak kebelakangan ini kerana seolah-olah persepsinya bahawa segala yang penulis dibesarkan dengan, diajar dan bahasa ibunda sendiri adalah penipuan semata-mata. Rupa-rupanya segala adat resam seperti pantun, gurindam, Bahasa Melayu, baju Melayu, sepatu, kuih raya dan sajak malah sejarah sendiri adalah rekaan British semata-mata. Malah kalau nak diikutkan terpaksalah kita mengubah Rukun Negara nampak gayanya. Ini adalah kerana orang Melayu itu tidak wujud. Maka atas dasar itu terpaksalah kita mengakui yang Raja-Raja Melayu bukanlah pemerintah yang hak negara ini, masakan ada kesultanan Melayu kalau Melayu itu sendiri tidak wujud. Maka Rukun Negara yang kedua iaitu Kesetiaan Kepada Raja dan Negara terpaksalah dipinda, maka tak gunalah kita memakai baju kuning berarak ke Istana Negara dan menjerit Daulat Tuanku sambil menyerahkan memorandum.

Pembaca sekelian kalau hendak dikatakan Melayu itu tidak wujud atas sebab-sebab di atas maka bolehlah kita pertikaikan macam-macam. Kita bolehlah mengatakan bahawa orang Cina juga tidak wujud kerana yang ada adalah orang-orang Manchu, Hakka, Canton, Han dan sebagainya. Mandarin adalah ciptaan pemerintah kejam yang memaksa mereka ini berada dibawah pemerintahan Maharaja dan menghapuskan susur galur etnik. Begitu juga dengan tidak wujudnya orang India akan tetapi yang ada adalah Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam, Sinhala dan sebagainya. Bahawa India itu juga adalah ciptaan British. Maka atas dasar itu buat apa diadakan sekolah jenis kebangsaan yang mengajar dalam Bahasa Mandarin kerana Bangsa Cina itu tidak wujud, sepatutnya di Pulau Pinang diajar dalam bahasa Hokkien manakala di Kuala Lumpur diajar dalam bahasa Cantonese. Malah kalau nak diikutkan juga konsep bangsa Malaysia itu juga adalah ciptaan British kerana sebelum ini tidak wujud Malaysia sehinggalah pihak British mencadangkan untuk menggabungkan Semenanjung Tanah… Malaya dengan Sabah dan Sarawak. Oleh sebab kini Melayu sudah tidak wujud maka timbul juga persoalan tentang Brunei nanti, ye lah orang Brunei ini orang apa? Jawa? Bugis? Yahudi?

Seperti biasa pastinya banyak yang akan mengatakan bahawa semua ini adalah salah sebuah parti tertentu yang mempunyai nama Melayu didalamnya. Bahawa segala sejarah yang kita belajar ini adalah rekaan agenda politik tersembunyi dari mereka. Kalau anda berpendapat begitu itu adalah hak anda akan tetapi berfikirlah sebelum berkata-kata. Sesungguhnya kalau nak diikutkan begitu, orang yang paling berdosa adalah ketua pembangkan sekarang kerana suatu ketika dahulu dia adalah Menteri Pelajaran dari tahun 1986–1991 ketika mana banyak dasar-dasar dan buku teks sejarah ditulis ketika itu. Malah jangan lupa ketika itu dialah jaguh ketua pemuda yang hendak mengumpulkan setengah juga umat Melayu di Dataran Merdeka yang mencetuskan Operasi Lalang 1989. Tapi ye lah, itu dulu, masa bersongkok berbaju Melayu menjerit hidup Melayu. Sekarang dunia politik sudah berubah, lain padang lainlah belalang. Tapi betullah kalau hendak dikatakan semua masaalah politik sekarang berpunca dari satu parti, mana taknya kerajaan dan pembangkang sekarang semuanya berasal dari tempat yang sama.

Tidak salah kalau kita hendak mengkritik, berdebat atau kita hendak membincangkan tentang konsep kenegaraan dan hal-hal melibatkan politik. Demokrasi membenarkan ini semua dan ianya adalah suatu aktiviti pembetulan yang menyihatkan. Tapi janganlah sampai dikorbankan, dibunuh dan dipijak adat resam dan keturunan yang telah berlangsung selama beratus-ratus tahun hanya kerana aktiviti politik taksub yang berlebihan. Mungkin ini adalah perasaan penulis semata-mata tapi sejak kebelakangan ini banyak dilihat anak muda Melayu sendiri malu hendak mengaku Melayu.

Saya terus-terang mengatakan bahawa saya bukan anak Bangsa Malaysia, saya rasa saya tidak perlu malu, takut ataupun merasa berdosa mengaku diri saya ini orang Melayu. Saya adalah seorang Melayu yang merupakan warganegara Malaysia. Malah kalau nak diikutkan perlembagaan sesiapa sahaja tidak kira keturunan boleh mengaku dirinya Melayu, pergi baca. Dan kalau anda hendak mengaku diri anda Bangsa Malaysia, Iban, India, Cina, Hakka, Kadazan atau apa sekalipun saya tidak mempunyai masaalah, kita semua rakyat Malaysia. Suka hatilah janji anda bahagia, tapi janganlah hendak memadamkan identiti saya — itu salah dan tidak patut.

Saya hanya mempunyai masaalah dengan orang-orang yang dengan bangga dan lantang mengaku dirinya Bangsa Malaysia tapi sepatah haram Bahasa Malaysia pun tidak tahu. Bahasa Malaysia adalah bahasa yang digunakan hanya ketika hendak memesan nasi lemak dekat gerai makcik depan rumah. Tatabahasa yang ada cumalah nasi lemak, satu, bungkus, rendang daging, sambal kurang dan thank you. Yang kelakar apabila orang-orang ini dilihat lebih “Englishman” dari “Malaysian”. Saya ingat lah kan, tak perlulah kita buang identity Melayu, Cina, India, Iban, Kadazan atau apa-apa sekalipun kalau kita hendak bersatu dan mencapai perpaduan. Anggaplah macam kita ni semua rojak, lain rasa lain warna tapi bila campur dalam satu kuah sedap rasanya. Kalau semua sama pun bosan jugak kan. Nak tulis panjang lagi tapi tak pelah saya simpan lain kali.

Jangan terkejutlah kalau artikel ini masuk dalam artikel popular dibaca di dalam The Malaysian Insider, almaklumlah tajuknya sendiri memang dekat di hati pembaca TMI.

Najib janji untuk membaiki 6 medan.

PM pledges improvements in six key areas By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

PUTRAJAYA, July 27 — The prime minister is betting the future of his administration on six key areas including a pledge to bring down the crime rate on the streets by 20 per cent in 2010.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak also promised that 80 per cent of all children will get access to pre-school education by 2012.

Six ministers have been appointed to lead efforts to realise the six National Key Results Areas (NKRA): accessibilty to quality and affordable education; crime reduction; battling graft; improvement of living standards; rural development; and improvement of public transportation.

For the first, Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yasin will take lead and the second has been designated to Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz will head the battle against graft while Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil of the Women and Family Development Ministry takes charge of the improvement of living standards.

Rural Development Minister Datuk Seri Shafie Afdal is in charge of rural development and Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat takes public transportation.

In an effort to curb graft, Najib said the government has decided that all contract procurements will be go through an open tender process or a limited tender process for certain cases as part of reaching its Key Performance Index (KPI) target.

As for the improvement of living standards KPI, the government plans to hand out financial assistance on the 1st of every month beginning January 2010. It will also be increased to as many as 4,000 women enterpreneurs, the number of women participants in a programme to groom and enlarge the female business community by 2012.

[Ong (right), Nazri (centre) and Hishammuddin are three of the ministers tasked to lead efforts to realise the six National Key Results Areas (NKRA). ]

Ong (right), Nazri (centre) and Hishammuddin are three of the ministers tasked to lead efforts to realise the six National Key Results Areas (NKRA).
For the fourth NKRA, the government will allocate RM4 billion to build 1,500km of roads in rural areas nationwide by 2012 while Sabah and Sarawak will see the development of 750km of roads by 2010.

Under this programme, the government will seek to increase clean water supply in Sabah and Sarawak to 70 per cent from the current 62 per cent by the end of the Ninth Malaysia Plan. It will target a further 20 per cent increase by 2012 which will cost the government RM2 billion.

It will also target a 15 per cent increase for power supply in the two eastern states and has already allocated RM3.9 billion to meet this objective.

As many as 50,000 houses will be built and undergo repairs in a three-year time frame as part of efforts to fight poverty under the same NKRA.

For the sixth NKRA, the government will purchase and add 35 sets of four-car trains for the Kelana Jaya Putra LRT route.

All the lead ministers in charge of the six NKRAs will also be subject to KPIs, said Najib, adding that he would personally oversee their performances by holding a meeting once a week with them for this purpose.

All Cabinet ministers will be sent to three workshops to assist and provide guidance in stepping up their performance.

"We are committed to conduct this transformation process through a management based on the NKRAs and the KPIs. All this is done to ensure that the people will benefit from it at the end," said Najib in his speech.

Najib made the announcement when addressing government servants in a convention held here today.

Ku Li says Petronas must pay Kelantan oil royalties

Ku Li says Petronas must pay Kelantan oil royalties
By Lee Wei Lian

KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 - Former Petronas chairman Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has rubbished reasons given by the federal government over its dismissal of the Kelantan state government's claim on oil royalties and says that the national oil company is obligated by law to pay up.

The Kelantan state government has claimed that is is owed RM1 billion in royalties from oil that has been extracted in an offshore area bordering Thailand.

In response, Information Communication and Culture Minister, Datuk Seri Rais Yatim had said that the Kelantan demand for oil royalty had no legal basis and was made to earn political mileage.

According to Tengku Razaleigh however, the vesting deed agreement, which he signed on behalf of Petronas as founding chairman and CEO, entitles the state to five per cent of any revenue derived from hydrocarbon deposits found on or offshore of the state.

"If I am chairman still of Petronas, I will pay without all the fuss," he told The Malaysian Insider in an interview earlier this week. "And I feel all the more it should be paid because I signed the agreement! There is no two ways about it. It must be paid."

The former finance minister declined to comment on whether political considerations played a part in the decision not to pay Kelantan oil royalties but noted that Terengganu oil royalty payments were suspended when it was under the opposition but was reinstated when it returned to Barisan Nasional rule last year.

"I don't know what kind of politics they are playing," he said.

He also agreed with the view that the government is currently overdependent on Petronas oil revenue and that it needs to scale down expenditure.

The following is the conversation between The Malaysian Insider (TMI) and Tengku Razaleigh, who is also known as Ku Li:

TMI: The Kelantan state government has requested that the Federal government pay them RM1 billion worth of oil royalties due to them since 2004. Do you agree with this request?

Ku Li: I think it is a very straightforward issue. It shouldn't be an issue because we signed the vesting deed agreement with all the state governments, including Sabah and Sarawak. And it's very straightforward and very simple piece of legislation. Anybody who reads it will understand it without having to consult a lawyer.

Simply put, we agreed to pay any state in the federation if oil is found onshore or offshore. In this instance, oil is found offshore, which is a joint development area with Thailand. And it became like that because we did not file with the Law of the Sea Convention in Geneva to reiterate that that was our offshore area. So the Thais
decided to move ahead and as a result, through negotiation, we adopted the same area as a joint development area. Now that is just off the state of Kelantan.

Under the vesting deed agreement, if oil is found there and Petronas make profit from the joint development and of course it is 50:50 share (with Thailand), Petronas will earn 50 per cent of profit. If they earn that much money, then 5 per cent must be paid to the state in cash.

TMI: So the question of the fact that it is a disputed area does not arise at all?

Ku Li: No, no. Because Petronas is operating in what is an offshore area of Kelantan. It is very straightforward. Otherwise Petronas cannot have a joint venture with Thailand.

TMI: Is there any legal redress available to the state?

Ku Li: I don't think there is a legal redress, I think it is obligatory on the part of Petronas to pay. You see, the whole thing behind this issue was, I went to Tun Razak, who was prime minister then. I said: let's do this vesting deed agreement because Selangor and Perak were difficult with us at that time, to sign the vesting
deed agreement. So I told Tun Razak that on the east coast, there is potential for oil and gas. And why not we also do the same to bring in uniformity and we pay 5 per cent even if oil is found offshore in the area that is under the federal jurisdiction. So it was agreed and since we signed with the mentri besar of Kelantan, or I signed with the mentri besar of Kelantan the vesting deed agreement, if oil is found in the offshore area, although it is under the federal jurisdiction, even though it is in joint venture with the Thais today, 5 per cent must be paid to the state. As simple as all that.

TMI: So with that agreement, the state can take Petronas to court?

Ku Li: I don't think there is a need to take Petronas to court. Petronas has to pay, that's all. If I am chairman still of Petronas, I will pay without all the fuss. Because, look, we have this money and we want to help states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah because those states are poor states, undeveloped states, like Sabah, Sarawak, they are also undeveloped states. Why grudge the pay? Those people are tax payers all the same. They may have supported PAS in the last election.
But it does not mean they are not citizens of this country. They have same rights as the others.

TMI: Do you feel that's the reason why they are not getting paid?

Ku Li: I am not making any guess. But I think they should be paid because the law says so. And I feel all the more it should be paid because I signed the agreement! There is no two ways about it. It must be paid. Previously they suspended payment to the state of Terengganu, when it was previously receiving this cash payment from Petronas. I don't know why they did that. Maybe for political reasons. Now it has
been restored because under the law, you have to pay the state. You cannot pay to the federal government departments here. Because they're not entitled to it. It's the state concerned that it entitled to the payment. Similarly with Kelantan. There is no escape. I don't know what kind of politics they are playing.

TMI: Do you think the federal government is overdependent on Petronas for revenue? As of last year, 45 per cent of their revenue came from Petronas. According to the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, the government operating expenditure is going to exceed revenue.

Ku Li: It would, because of the pension bill and all the extraneous expenses incurred. Naturally, it will. And the interest, the cost of money, that the government bears is large. Unless they scale this down. I am sure the expenditure is going to be more than revenue and because of that, I think they are quite dependent on Petronas revenue now. But the Petronas revenue is falling, because of the fall in the price of crude oil. The world price has fallen.

TMI: I get a sense from the people I speak to at Petronas that they are not happy about the pressure being applied on them.

Ku Li: Well, the government has no money (chuckles). Basic. I'm told that some of the contracts awarded prior to this, are being delayed because payment has not been made, because the government has to reschedule the repayment of the contract work.

Hindraf seeks a fresh start By A LETCHUMANAN

Hindraf seeks a fresh start
By A LETCHUMANAN

dipetik daripada
The founding members of the outlawed Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) want to erase the militant image created by those who hijacked the movement for their own political interests.

RAMACHANDRAN Meyappan may not be a familiar name among Malaysians but he is a respected figure within the country’s largely Tamil and Hindu community.

Lesser known is the fact that he is one of the original founders of the outlawed Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).

The 50-year-old bearded Hindu scholar and law graduate is also known to many Hindus in the South-East Asian region and in parts of India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Hong Kong and even in the West.

He is the man who coined Hindraf, a word that is now deeply entrenched in the Malaysian political vocabulary.

Ramachandran, popularly known as Ramaji, is currently on a new mission – to put the movement back on the right and original path.

Ramaji started his working life as a civil servant in the early 80s before moving on to become an officer in a bank.

He eventually ended up dedicating his entire life to religion, working full time at the Hindu Sevai Sangam (HSS) in 1988. (He set up the HSS in 1983.) A year later, he took up law and finished his studies in 1993 but did not go into legal practice.

Ramaji, who is always dressed in traditional Indian clothes, said Hindraf was meant to be a non-political non-governmental organisation.

He explained that it was set up primarily to oppose unfair religious conversions, wanton demolition of Hindu temples and shrines and to champion the rights of marginalised Indians.

He said he and founding secretary V. K. Regu actually invited the five personalities who later assumed the helm of Hindraf – P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, K. Vasantha Kumar, V. Ganabatirau and R. Kengadharan –to be speakers for the movement.

However, he said, the five who were later detained under the Internal Security Act and have since been released, effectively hijacked the movement to further their own political aspirations.

“It is a great disappointment that they failed to stick to the Hindraf ideals and fulfil the expectations of the community to fight for their rights.

“We are also sad that they now seem to be accusing each other and making contradicting statements. They must realise that they are who they are today because of the support from the community.”

In the beginning

Recalling the birth of the movement, Ramaji said it began with 48 Indian NGOs meeting and deciding to work together in the aftermath of the Dec 2005 “dead body” snatching of Projek Malaysia Everest 1997 expedition member M. Moorthy who had converted to Islam without the knowledge of his family.

The meeting also decided to appoint P. Waythamoorthy as Hindraf chairman, by virtue of him being a lawyer.

He said it was Waythamoorthy who brought in his brother, Uthayakumar, who was then heading an NGO movement called Police Watch to represent Hindraf in several cases of temple demolitions and religious conversion.

After more meetings and discussions, the group decided to set up a legal team to collate documentary and historical evidence to file a class action suit on behalf of Malaysian Indians against the British government in July 2007 for its failure to protect the minority community’s rights when it drafted the Malaysian Constitution 50 years ago.

“The HSS spent about RM70,000 to send Uthayakumar, Waythamoorthy and Regu to the United Kingdom for the task,” he said.

“Kengadharan compiled the affidavit which was jointly filed by Waythamoorthy and Regu at the London High Court registry an hour before Malaysians started celebrating the country’s independence on Aug 31, 2007.”

Upon their return, road shows were organised throughout the country in which Uthayakumar, Manoharan and Kengadharan spoke, and Vasantha Kumar and Ganabatirau were also roped in as speakers later, Ramaji recalled. He said Hindraf had, on Aug 12, 2007, presented an 18-point memorandum on the issue to then Prime Minister (now Tun) Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi but there was no response from the Government.

The movement decided to go ahead with a planned demonstration on Nov 25, 2007 as it appeared that no one, even those at the highest levels of authority, wanted to listen to its pleas.

The massive demonstration was to present a memorandum to the British High Commission on the suit filed by Hindraf.

The five were eventually detained under the Internal Security Act on Dec 13, 2007 while Waythamoorthy fled to London, purportedly to file the supporting documents for the case there.

According to Ramaji, the community was relieved and elated when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak released Kengadharan and Ganabatirau as soon as he took office in April and the other three a month later.

However, its expectations that grievances would be resolved through a “united” Hindraf were soon shattered, he said.

“The fact is, the plight of the community is no different from the pre-Nov 25 days. The only difference is that there are now more political parties claiming to represent the 1.8 million Malaysian
Indians.”

Indians who supported Hindraf almost wholeheartedly before and after Nov 25 also look at the movement very differently these days, especially with the focus and reverence given to some personalities over others.

Supporters o Uthayakumar, for example, are known for not taking any negative perception of him lightly from anyone, including from the media.

Last Monday, supporters of Uthayakumar stormed the office of the Makkal Osai newspaper after it reported that the launching of his new Human Rights Party (HRP) and a book written by the lawyer during detention was aimed at raising funds for him.

(Uthayakumar had also formed Parti Rakyat Insan Malaysia after walking out of the Reformasi movement in 1999 but the party did not progress beyond the pro-tem stage.)

Uthayakumar and Waythamoorthy also appeared to have lost ground among the non-Indian supporters of Pakatan Rakyat after they initiated a protest against the DAP government over the Kampung Buah Pala issue in Penang.

Questions have also been raised about former Hindraf coordinator R. Thanenthiran, who set up the Malaysian Makkal Sakthi Party (MMSP) and reportedly wants to hand the new party to any of the five leaders if they are interested.

Participation in Hindraf certainly helped to revive Manoharan’s political career. Despite being in detention, he was elected to the Kota Alam Shah state seat in the last general election. In the 1999
and 2004 elections, he had contested the Segambut parliamentary seat and lost on both occasions.

Surprisingly, he was not among the DAP leaders who came out to support the party and its secretary-general and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng over the Kampung Buah Pala land issue, unlike Ganabatirau, who is believed to have been promised a senatorship as a reward for his stand.

S. Nagarajan, a former journalist who is now an independent scholar and researcher on Indian affairs, said there was already a rising tide of anger over the grievances felt by the community when the five
jumped on the bandwagon.

He said they started doing things on their own without consulting Hindraf leaders and NGOs.
“The Government made the mistake of arresting them and making them a symbol of the Hindraf movement. If they had not been arrested under the ISA, they would have exhausted themselves and would not have achieved anything,” he said.

Nagarajan said this was because they did not have clear political thinking and problem solving strategies in a multi-ethnic environment.

The way forward

Ramaji said the original leaders of Hindraf have decided to start al over again and want to promote the true objectives of the movement and its vision for the community to the Government.

He said the movement felt that Najib is sincere in wanting to right the wrongs and is committed to being fair to all races, as exemplified by his 1Malaysia slogan.

He also voiced hope that other ministers in the Cabinet too would be equally committed to the Prime Minister’s concept of unity and fairness to all.

“We believe Najib’s government will be reciprocal and listen to us. We are not a militant group but a NGO looking after the interests of the community. We hope the Government will consider our request to legalise Hindraf.

“Everyone has a role to play. There should be no heroism here,” he said.

Ramaji said Hindraf wants to be a pressure group and bring its concerns to both the Barisan Nasional as well as the state governments under the Pakatan Rakyat.

“We know that as a political party, we will have to be aligned to either Barisan or the Opposition as no single Indian party can play a significant role on its own.

“The days of Hindraf being dependent on the emotions of the Indians for support are over. We need to win them over them with sound policies and actions,” he said.

Remembering Robert McNamara oleh Jonathan Schell

dipetik daripada http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jschell6

NEW YORK – I first met Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defense who presided over the American buildup in Vietnam, in the summer of 1967. I had just returned from a trip to South Vietnam, where, as a reporter for The New Yorker, I witnessed the destruction, by American air power, of two provinces, Quang Ngai and Quang Tinh.

America’s policies were clear. Leaflets dropped on villages announced, “The Vietcong hide among innocent women and children in your villages….If the Vietcong in this area use you or your village for this purpose, you can expect death from the sky.”

Death from the sky came. Afterward, more leaflets were dropped, informing villagers, “Your village was bombed because you harbored Vietcong….Your village will be bombed again if you harbor the Vietcong in any way.”

In Quang Ngai province, some 70% of villages were destroyed. I was 23 years old at the time, and had no notion of what a war crime was; but later it became clear that that was what I was witnessing. (Five months later, in March of 1968, American troops committed the massacre at My Lai.)

The familiar figure with the glinting, rimless glasses and the rigid hair forced back, as if it were spun glass, greeted me at the door of his seemingly tennis court-size office. I felt a prodigious, restless energy that I suspected he could not turn off if he wanted to. Soon after I began to recount my observations, he took me to a map of Vietnam and asked me to locate the areas of destruction. I felt that the request was a test – one that I was prepared to take, as I had carried maps with me in the forward air-control planes. He seemed deeply engaged, but made no comment, asking me only if I had anything in writing. I said that I did, but that it was in longhand. He suggested that I produce a typed copy, and provided me with the office of a general who was away.

What he did not know was that the article was book-length. It took three days to dictate it into the general’s Dictaphone. I handed the finished project to McNamara, who thanked me, but said nothing further about the matter, either then or at any time thereafter.

Fifteen years later, in 1982, when Neil Sheehan was researching his book about the war, A Bright and Shining Lie, he came across documents concerning my Pentagon-assisted manuscript. They showed that McNamara had sent the manuscript to the American Ambassador in South Vietnam, Ellsworth Bunker, who requested a certain Bob Kelly to write an overall report, with a view to discrediting my reporting, and arranged to get The Atlantic magazine (where Bunker mistakenly thought my article was scheduled to appear) to “withhold publication.”

A memo recommending these steps was circulated to McNamara, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach, and Assistant Secretary of State William Bundy. The “action” officer was Secretary of State Dean Rusk. The forward air-control pilots, were re-interviewed, and affidavits were taken. Two civilian pilots were dispatched to fly over the province and check my calculations of the damage. Plans were considered to publicly rebut my findings. But the resulting report inconveniently found that “Mr. Schell’s estimates are substantially correct.”

Perhaps frustrated by his failure to find factual errors in my reporting, the author of the report offered some editorial comments that epitomized the flawed thinking on which the war rested. I had been unaware, he thought, of some extenuating factors for the destruction I witnessed. I had not known, he thought, that “The population is totally hostile…” Indeed, in the eyes of the Viet Cong, “the Viet Cong are the people.” Thus, the main reason for not fighting the war in the first place, namely the perfectly obvious hatred of the majority of the population for the American invasion and occupation, became a justification for the war.

When I next spoke at length with McNamara, in 1998, it was not about Vietnam but about nuclear arms, on which we agreed as much as we had disagreed about Vietnam. We both believed that the only sensible thing to do with the bomb was to get rid of it. McNamara’s turnabout on this issue was dramatic. More than any other government official, he was responsible for institutionalizing the key strategic doctrine of the nuclear age, deterrence, otherwise known as mutual assured destruction.

Now he wanted to dispense with it. But, in fact, by then we were closer on Vietnam as well, for he had, after two decades of silence regarding the war, published his book In Retrospect , in which he repudiated his former justifications for the war, famously writing of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, “We were wrong, terribly wrong.”

Many of McNamara’s critics assert – rightly, I think – that he stopped short of full understanding, that he sought to hold fast to claims of noble intentions that the record could not sustain. How noble are intentions when the facts showing their horrific results are readily at hand yet overlooked?

Should McNamara have been more forthcoming in his regrets? He should. Should he have expressed them earlier? Certainly. Should he never have recommended the war, or presided over it in the first place, and should there never been an American war in Vietnam? Oh lord, yes.

The twentieth century left heaps of corpses in its wake, and now they are piling up again. And yet, how many public figures of McNamara’s importance have ever expressed any regret for their mistakes and follies and crimes? I can name only one: Robert McNamara. In the unlikely event that a statue of him is ever unveiled, let it show him weeping. That was the best of him.

Tidak boleh, tidak mahu dan Tidak Selesa bahasa Melayu

Terjemahan bebas petikan artikel "Leaders To Bring Us Together" daripada M. Bakri Musa

Di sana terdapat seni bagaimana untuk mengerahkan pandangan orang ramai dan saya tidak membiasakan diri dengan kebanyakan perkara-perkara yang menonjol. Bagaimanapun, Saya tahu ramai yang berkongsi perasaan kecewa saya pada suatu penghimpunan awam memperingati kematian Teoh kebanyakan daripada mereka yang berucap tidak mampu untuk menyatakan kemarahan mereka dalam bahasa nasional. Ramai daripada mereka orang muda dan besar kemungkinan lahir dan dibesarkan di Malaysia, tetapi masih lagi tidak mampu, tidak bersedia atau tidak selesa untuk bercakap dalam bahasa nasional. Sudah tentu ini bukanlah caranya untuk mendapatkan sokongan orang ramai.

Dengan cara yang serupa tidak meninggalkan kesan kepada saya teriakan perhimpunan HINDRAF, Makkal sakthi (Kuasa rakyat). Adalah wajar bagi meraih sokongan orang ramai di Kerala, tetapi sekiranya rakan Malaysia yang ingin mereka pengaruhi, adalah lebih baik kamu dapat menyatakan dengan jelas hujah-hujah kamu dalam bahasa kebangsaan. HINDRAF harus menukarkan lebih banyak lagi bagi mencapai tujuan atau terpaksa menukarkan slogan dengan Kuasa Rakyat.

...............

Bahasa Melayu adalah bahasa strategik. Bahasa perpaduan. Bahasa milik semua orang Malaysia. Sangat malang mereka yang ingin menjadi pemimpin bangsa Malaysia tetapi tidak mampu, tidak berkebolehan dan tidak selesa untuk bertutur dalam bahasa Malayu.

Mereka ini sebenarnya ingin menjadi pemimpin di mana ?. Bumi Malaysia bahasa strategiknya ialah bahasa Melayu. Bahasa Inggeris penting. TETAPi sekiranya ingin berkomunikasi dengan rakyat Malaysia bukannya dengan bahasa Inggeris gunakan bahasa Melayu.

Sangat sedih, hiba dan memeningkan kepala komunikasi dengan rakyat Malaysia ramai kalangan yang mengaku dirinya pemimpin bercakap dalam bahasa Inggeris. Mereka ini nak tunjukkan apa. Mereka elit. Mereka lebih bijak. Atau apa ? Guna bahasa Melayu semua rakyat boleh faham.

Bagaimana menguruskan orang muda

Ini kutipan tulisan drpd Nobisha.

Sewaktu sesi soal-jawab, seorang peserta bertanya mengenai bagaimanakah hendak menguruskan anak-anak muda yang mempunyai pandangan yang kritikal dan berbeza dengan orang dewasa dalam politik.

Dr Marshment berkata, "Semua kerajaan di dunia sedang mencari jawapan kepada soalan itu. Bagaimanapun, masalahnya bukan dengan anak-anak muda, tetapi dengan orang politik itu sendiri!"

Jawapan beliau membuatkan hadirin ketawa. Saya juga sering dikemukakan soalan sedemikian. Seringkali anak-anak muda dikatakan tidak matang, tidak faham isu dan tidak berpandangan jauh. Inilah "youth bashing" yang berlaku apabila anak muda berpartisipasi dalam politik.

Anak muda masih lagi menjadi "punching bag". Ia samalah seperti mengaitkan anak-anak muda -- walau bagaimana baik sekali pun mereka -- dengan istilah-istilah negatif seperti Mat Rempit, penagihan dadah, melepak dan sebagainya. Ia adalah satu proses "stereotyping" generasi muda yang belum berakhir -- dan kini merebak dalam politik.


......

Anak muda selalu dipersalahkan terhadap apa sahaja perkara-perkara yang orang-orang yang dah berumur nampak seolah-olah bermasalah. Masalah yang lebih besar ialah orang yang berkuasa sekarang ialah orang-orang-orang yang berumur itu. Merekalah yang sedang melakarkan apa yang dipandang baik dan apa yang dipandang buruk.

Mereka sendiri kelihatan tidak konsisten, selalu berubah-ubah arah mengikut angin. kadang kala kata-kata mereka boleh menjadikan orang lain keliru. Apa yang benar dan apa yang salah. Apa itu pandang yang benar dan apa itu pandang yang salah. Adakah semua yang dikeluarkan daripada musuh politik kita semua salah. Dan semua yang keluar daripada diri dan parti kita sahaja yang betul.

Anak muda sedang memerhati dan mereka keliru.

Untuk Saya Bahasa Melayu itu Bahasa Strategik Untuk Perubahan

Daripada tulisan Tukar Tiub

Untuk saya Bahasa Melayu ini adalah bahasa stratejik untuk perubahan.

Perubahan gagal berlaku. Ruang demokrasi masih sempit dalam negara kita ini. Kegagalan ini terjadi kerana para pemikir, pengerak orang ramai, aktivis badan-badan Ngo tidak menggunakan bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa stratejik untuk mengembangkan pandangan molok-molok yang ada dalam fikrah mereka.

Mereka berkelintau di sekitar Lembah Klang. Mereka bercakap , berseminar dan menulis kertas kerja yang mereka rayakan sesama sendiri. Pandangan dan fikrah mereka amat maju dan cukup baik. Tetapi pandangan ini tidak pernah sampai kepada orang ramai. Justeru tidak ada sesiapa pun yang dapat memahami apa yang cuba mereka sampaikan.

Mereka hanya pancut atas perut. Tidak melahirkan benih perubahan.

Tetapi kenapa kita gila-gila hendak mengajar bahasa Inggeris – seharus – warga dalam negara majmuk ini wajib terlebih awal mengetahui bahasa di sebelah rumah mereka. Kenapa anak Malayu tidak diajar bahasa Mandrin dan Tamil dari awal lagi? Sama seperti anak Cina/India belajar bahasa Melayu.

Ini lebih masuk akal untuk kita lebih mengenali dan merayakan kehidupan satu sama lain. Jika ada manusia Melayu yang menolak pembelajaran bahasa yang bukan bahasa ibuandanya maka inilah contoh manusia Melayu sombong bodoh.

Biasanya mereka ini akan berkumpul dengan slogan Hidup Melayu ! Tetapi nama persatuan mereka dalam Bahasa Inggeris

Ucapan Tengku Razaleigh berkenaan DEB

Tengku Razaleigh's speech on NEP
Written by Tengku Razaleigh Saturday, 11 July 2009 00:28

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's speech at the Public Relations Consultants Malaysia "StraightTalk" series held at HELP University College

1. Thank you for inviting me to address you. It's a pleasure to be here, and to learn from you. You have asked me to talk about Najib's First 100 Days, and this lecture is in a series called Straight Talk. I shall indeed speak plainly and directly.

2. Let me begin by disappointing you. I am not going to talk about Najib' s First 100 Days because it makes little sense to do so.

3. Our governments are brought to power for five year terms through general elections. The present government was constituted after March 8, 2008 and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's tenure as Prime Minister resulted from a so-called "smooth transfer of power" between the previous Prime Minister and himself that took a somewhat unsmooth twelve months to carry out. During those months, Najib took on the de facto leadership role domestically while Abdullah warmed our international ties. The first 100 days of this government went by unremarked sometime in June last year.

4. Not only is it somewhat meaningless to talk about Najib's First 100 days, such talk buys into a kind of political silliness that we are already too prone to. It has us imagine that the present government started work on April 2 and forget that it commenced work on March 8 last year and must be accountable for all that has been done or not done since then. It has us forget that in our system of parliamentary, constitutional democracy, governments are brought to power at general elections and must be held accountable for promises made at these elections. It leads us to forget that these promises, set out in election manifestos, are undertaken by political parties, not individuals, and are not trifles to be forgotten when there is a change of individual.

5. It is important that we remember these things, cultivate a more critical recollection of them, and learn to hold our leaders accountable to them, so that we are not perpetually chasing the slogan of the day, whether this be Vision 2020, Islam Hadhari or 1Malaysia. As PR Professionals, you would see my point immediately. Slogans without substance undermine trust. That substance is made up of policies that have been thought through and are followed through. That substance is concrete and provided by results we can measure.

6. Whether or not some of our leaders are ready for it, we are maturing as a democracy. We are beginning to evaluate our governments more by the results they deliver over time than by their rhetoric. As our increasingly well-educated and well-travelled citizens apply this standard, they force our politicians to think before they speak, and deliver before they speak again. As thinking Malaysians we should look for the policies, if any, behind the slogans. What policies are still in place and which have we abandoned? What counts as policy and who is consulted when it is made? How
is a proposal formulated and specified and approved before it becomes policy, and by whom? What are the roles of party, cabinet, King and Parliament in this process? Must we know what it means before it is instituted or do we have to piece it together with guesswork? Do we even have a policy process?

7. The mandate Najib has taken up is the one given to Barisan Nasional under Abdullah Badawi's leadership. BN was returned to power in the 12th General Elections on a manifesto promising Security, Peace and Prosperity. It is this manifesto against which the present administration undertook to be judged. The present government inherits projects and policies such as Islam Hadhari and Vision 2020. If these are still in place, how do they relate to each other and to 1 Malaysia? How do we evaluate the latest slogan against the fact of constitutional failure in Perak, the stench of corruption in the PKFZ project and reports of declining media freedom? What do we make of cynical political plays on racial unity against assurances that national unity is the priority?

8. It is not amiss to ask about continuity. We were told that the reason why we had to have a yearlong 'transfer of power' to replace the previous Prime Minster was so that we could have such policy continuity. The issues before the present BN government are not transformed overnight with a change of the man at the top.

9. Let me touch on one issue every Malaysian is concerned with: security. The present government made the right move in supporting the establishment of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Police in 2004. Responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the government allocated the PDRM RM8 billion to upgrade itself under the 9th Malaysia Plan, a tripling of their allocation under the 8th Malaysia Plan.

10. Despite the huge extra amounts we are spending on policing, there has been no dent on our crime problem, especially in the Johor Bahru area, where it continues to make a mockery of our attempts to develop Iskandar as a destination for talent and investment. Despite spending all this money, we have just been identified as a major destination for human trafficking by the US State Department's 2008 Human Rights Watch. We are now in the peer group of Sudan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea for human trafficking. All over the world the organized cross-border activity of human trafficking feeds on the collusion of crime syndicates and corrupt law enforcement and border security officials. Security is about more than just catching the criminals out there. It is also about the integrity of our own people and processes. It is above all about uprooting corruption and malpractice in government agencies, especially in law enforcement agencies. I wish the government were as eager to face the painful challenge of reform as to spend money. The key recommendation of the Royal Commission was the formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. That has been shelved.

11. Royal Commissions and their findings are not to be trifled with and applied selectively. Their findings and recommendations are conveyed in a report submitted to the King, who then transmits them to the Government. Their recommendations have the status of instructions from the King. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police have not been properly implemented. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video clip might as well not have been conducted, because its findings have been completely ignored. Both Commissions investigated matters fundamental to law and order in this country: the capability and integrity of the police and of the judiciary. No amount of money thrown at the PDRM or on installing CCTV's can make up for what happens to our security when our law enforcers and our judges are compromised.

12. Two Royal Commissions undertaken under the present government unearthed deep issues in the police and the judiciary and made recommendations with the King's authority behind them, and they have been ignored. The public may wonder if the government is committed to peace and security if it cannot or will not address institutional rot in law enforcement and the rule of law.

13. The reform of the police and the judiciary has been on the present government's To Do list for more than five years.

14. I want to reflect now upon where we stand today and how we might move forward. We are truly at a turning point in our history. Our political landscape is marked with unprecedented uncertainty. Nobody knows what the immediate future holds for us politically. This is something very new for Malaysians. The inevitability of a strong BN government figured into all political and economic calculations and provided a kind of stability to our expectations. Now that this is gone, and perhaps gone for good, we need a new basis for long-term confidence. No matter who wins the next General Election, it is likely to be with a slim majority. Whatever uncertainty we now face is likely to persist unless some sort of tiebreaker is found which gathers the overwhelming support of the people.

15. We need to trust less in personalities and more in policies, look less to politics and more to principle, less to rhetoric and more to tangible outcomes, less to the government of the day and more to enduring institutions, first among which must be the Federal Constitution.

16. We need an unprecedented degree of openness and honesty about what our issues are and what can be done; about who we are, and where we want to go. We need straight talk rather than slogans. We need to be looking the long horizon rather than occupying ourselves with media-generated milestones.

17. Those of us who think about the future of Malaysia have never been so restless. The mould of our past is broken, and there is no putting it back together again, but a new mould into which to pour our efforts is not yet cast. This is a time to think new thoughts, and to be courageous in articulating them.

18. Such is the case not just in politics but also in how the government manages the economy. In a previous speech I argued that for our economy to escape the "middle income trap" we need to make a developmental leap involving transformative improvements in governance and a successful reform of our political system. I said the world recession is a critical oppo rtunity for us to re-gear and re-tool the Malaysian economy because it is a challenge to take bold, imaginative measures. We must make that leap or remain stuck as low achievers who were once promising.

19. We are in a foundational crisis both of our politics and of our economy. In both dimensions, the set plays of the past have taken us as far as they can, and can take us no further. Politically and economically, we have arrived at the end of the road for an old way of managing things. The next step facing us is not a step but a leap, not an addition to what we have but a shift that changes the very ground we play on.

20. This is not the first time in our brief history as an independent nation that we have found ourselves at an impasse and come up with a ground-setting policy, a new framework, a leap into the future. The race riots of 1969 ended the political accommodation and style of the first era of our independence. Parliament was suspended and a National Operations Council put in place under the leadership of the late Tun Razak. He formed a National Consultative Council to study what needed to be done. The NCC was a non-partisan body which included everyone. It was the NCC that drafted and recommended the New Economic Policy. This was approved and implemented by the Government.

21. The NEP was a twenty year programme. It had a national, and not a racial agenda to eradicate poverty and address structural inequality in the form of the identification of race with occupation. It aimed to remove a colonial era distribution of economic roles in our economy. Nowhere in its terms is any race specified, nor does it privilege one race over another. Its aim was unity.

22. The NEP's redistributive measures drew on principles of social justice, not claims of racial privilege. This is an important point. The NEP was acceptable to all Malaysians because its justification was universal rather than sectarian, ethical rather than opportunistic. It appealed to Malaysians' sense of social justice and not to any notion of racial privilege.

23. We were devising a time-limited policy for the day, in pursuit of a set of measurable outcomes. We were not devising a doctrine for an eternal socio-economic arrangement. Like all policies, it was formulated to solve a finite set of problems, but through an enduring concern with principles such as equity and justice. I happen to think it was the right thing for the time, and it worked in large measure.

24. Curiously, although the policy was formulated within the broad consensus of the NCC for a finite period, in our political consciousness it has grown into an all-encompassing and permanent framework that defines who we are. We continue to act and talk as if it is still in place. The NEP ended in 1991 when it was terminated and replaced by the New Development Policy, but eighteen years on, we are still in its hangover and speak confusingly about liberalizing it. The NEP was necessary and even visionary in 1971, but it is a crushing indictment of our lack of imagination, of the
mediocrity of our leadership, that two decades after its expiry, we talk as if it is the sacrosanct centre of our socio-political arrangement, and that departures from it are big strides. The NEP is over, and we have not had the courage to tell people this. The real issue is not whether the NEP is to be continued or not, but whether we have the imagination to come up with something which better serves our values and objectives, for our own time.

25. Policies are limited mechanisms for solving problems. They become vehicles for abuse when they stay on past their useful life. Like political or corporate leaders who have stayed too long, policies that overrun their scope or time become entrenched in abuse, and confuse the means that they are with the ends that they were meant to serve. The NEP was formulated to serve the objective of unity. That objective is enduring, but its instrument can come up for renewal or replacement. Any organisation, let alone a country, that fails to renew a key policy over forty years in a fast-moving world is out of touch and in trouble.

26. There is a broad consensus in our society that while the NEP has had important successes, it has now degenerated into a vehicle for abuse and inefficiency. Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays approve of the way it now works, although there would be multiracial support for the objectives of the NEP, as originally understood. The enthusiasm with which recent reforms have been greeted in the business and international communities suggests that the NEP is viewed as an obstacle to growth. This was not what it was meant to be.

27. It was designed to promote a more equitable and therefore a more harmonious society. Far from obstructing growth, the stability and harmony envisaged by the NEP would were to be the basis for long term prosperity.

28. Over the years, however, and alongside its successes, the NEP has been systematically appropriated by a small political and business class to enrich itself and perpetuate its power. This process has corrupted our society and our politics. It has corrupted our political parties. Rent-seeking practices have choked the NEP's original intention of seeking a more just and equitable society, and have discredited the broad nation-building enterprise which this policy was meant to serve.

29. Thus, while the NEP itself has expired, we live under the hangover of a policy which has been skewed from its intent. Instead of coming up with better policy tools in pursuit of the aims behind the NEP, a set of vested interests rallies to defend the mere form of the NEP and to extend its bureaucratic sway through a huge apparatus of commissions, agencies, licenses and permits while its spirit has been evacuated. In doing so they have clouded the noble aims of the NEP and racialized its originally national and universal concerns.

30. We must break the stranglehold of communal politics and racial policy if we want to be a place where an economy driven by ideas and skills can flourish. This is where our daunting economic and political challenges can be addressed in one stroke. We can do much better than cling to the bright ideas of forty years ago as if they were dogma, and forget our duty to come up with the bright ideas for our own time. The NEP, together with the Barisan coalition, was a workable solution for Malaysia forty years ago. But forty years ago, our population was about a third of what it is today, our economy was a fraction the size and complexity that it is now, and structured around the export of tin and rubber rather than around manufacturing, services and oil and gas. Forty years ago we were in the midst of the Cold War, and the Vietnam War raged to the north. Need I say we live in a very different world today. We need to talk to the facebook generation of young Malaysians connected to global styles and currents of thought. We face global epidemics, economic downturns and planetary climate change.

31. We can do much better than to cling to the outer form of an old policy. Thinking in these terms only gives us the negative policy lever of "relaxing" certain rules, when what we need is a new policy framework, with 21st century policy instruments. We have relaxed some quotas. We have left Approved Permits and our taxi licensing system intact. We have left the apparatus of the NEP, and a divisive mindset that has grown up around it, in place. Wary of well-intentioned statements with no follow-through, the business community has greeted these reforms cautiously, noting that a mountain of other reforms are needed. One banker was quoted in a recent news article as saying: "All the reforms need to go hand in hand..Why is there an exodus of talent and wealth? It is because people do not feel confident with the investment climate, security conditions and the government in Malaysia. Right now, many have lost faith in the system."

32. The issues are intertwined. Our problems are systemic and rooted in the capability of the government to deliver, and the integrity of our institutions. It is clear that piecemeal "liberalization" and measure by measure reform on a politicized timetable is not going to do the job.

33. What we need is a whole new policy framework, based on a comprehensive vision that addresses root problems in security, institutional integrity, education and government capability. What we need to do is address our crisis with the bold statecraft from which the NEP itself originated, not cling to a problematic framework that does little justice to our high aspirations. The challenge of leadership is to tell the truth about our situation, no matter how unpalatable, to bring people together around that solution, and to move them to act together on that solution.

34. If the problem is really that we face a foundational crisis, then it is not liberalization of the NEP, or even liberalization per se that we need. From the depths of the global economic slowdown it is abundantly clear that the autonomous free market is neither equitable nor even sustainable. There is no substitute for putting our heads together and coming up with wise policy. We need a Malaysian New Deal based on the same universal concerns on which the NEP was originally formulated but designed for a new era: we must continue to eradicate poverty without regard for race or religion, and ensure that markets serve the people rather than the other way around.

35. Building on the desire for unity based social justice that motivated the NEP in 1971, let us assist 100% of Malaysians who need help in improving their livelihoods and educating their children. We want the full participation of all stakeholders in our economy. A fair and equitable political and economic order, founded on equal citizenship as guaranteed in our Constitution, is the only possible basis for a united Malaysia and a prerequisite of the competitive, talent-driven economy we must create if we are to make our economic leap.

36. If we could do this, we would restore national confidence, we would bring Malaysians together in common cause to build a country that all feel a deep sense of belonging to. We would unleash the kind of investment we need, not just of foreign capital but of the loyalty, effort and commitment of all Malaysians.

37. I don't know about you. I am embarrassed that after fifty years of independence we are still talking about bringing Malaysians together. I would have wished that by now, and here tonight, we could be talking about how we can conquer new challenges together.

Keadilan dan Meritokrasi

A. Kadir Jasin berhujah tentang meriktoraksi

Orang bukan Melayu dan sesetengah orang Melayu kini asyik bercakap mengenai keadilan sosial dan meritokrasi.

Bukankah kerana keadilan sosial dan meritokrasi di bawah DEB maka begitu ramai orang bukan Melayu mampu ke universiti-universiti ternama di dunia atas pembiayaan sendiri mengatasi bilangan Bumiputera yang dibiayai oleh Kerajaan?

Mengapakah apabila Kerajaan memberi biasiswa atau bantuan kepada Bumiputera, ia dituduh memberi tongkat, tetapi apabila bukan Bumiputera mendapat hak yang sama, ia dikatakan hak dan meritokrasi?

Apabila Bumiputera berjaya dalam perniagaan dia dituduh kroni. Tetapi apabila korporat Cina dan India menjadi raksasa kerana kontrak, francais dan lesen kerajaan ia dikatakan meritokrasi?

Siapa yang memegang monopoli gula sampai hari ini atau menjadi kaya raya kerana lesen judi, lesen TV satelit, lesen IPP dan kontrak berbilion ringgit membina hospital, kereta api laju dan sekolah?

Dan berapa kerat tahu atau masih ingat bagaimana Tun Abdul Razak Hussein terpaksa “menyelamatkan” Malayan Banking pada tahun 1965 apabila pengasasnya, mendiang Khoo Teck Puat, disingkirkan atas tuduhan melencongkan wang bank itu kepada syarikat persendiriannya di Singapura?

Begitulah juga dengan pengambilan oleh IPTA. Apabila keutamaan diberikan kepada Bumiputera, bukan Melayu merungut. Tetapi apabila Kerajaan membenarkan penubuhan IPTS yang majoriti pelajarnya bukan Melayu, tiada siapa pun mengucapkan terima kasih atau bersungut?

Hari ini, ada 20 Institut Pengajian Tinggi Awam (IPTA) yang tersenarai dalam laman web rasmi Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi, tidak termasuk 24 politeknik. Bilangan IPT swasta yang disenaraikan berjumlah 450 – ya, 450.

Dengan pengambilan bukan Bumiputera yang semakin ramai ke IPTA dan kemasukan ke IPTS yang terus dimonopoli oleh bukan Bumiputera, adalah tidak mustahil dalam masa yang singkat pengajian di IPT akan didominasi oleh bukan Bumiputera.

Soal pokoknya adakah situasi berat sebelah yang memihak kepada kaum-kaum minoriti ini menyokong pemulihan Umno dan pembentukan 1Malaysia yang sejahtera, aman dan makmur?

Sudah lupa yang sejahtera, aman dan makmur itu adalah cogan kata manifesto BN tahun lalu?

Dan apakah sudah dikaji dan difahami implikasi sistem biasiswa dua tingkat (two-tier) kepada nisbah kemasukan dan prestasi pelajar Bumiputera dan bukan Bumiputera ke IPT?

Ada Bumiputera Tak Sedar Untung Nasib

Hujah A. KADIR jASIN ada bumiputra yang tak sedar untung

Bumiputera yang menolak DEB atau berasa bersalah mendapat bantuan DEB sebenarnya tidak kenang budi dan tidak sedar diri.

Apatah lagi kalau mereka membuta tuli bercakap mengenai meritokrasi dan liberalisasi yang mereka sendiri tidak faham implikasinya.

Kalau tidak kerana sekolah asrama penuh, MRSM, biasiswa dan pinjaman pelajaran, adakah mampu bilangan profesional Bumiputera dinaikkan ke tahap sekarang?

Pada tahun 1970, ada hanya 6.8 peratus akauntan adalah Bumiputera, 4.3 peratus arkitek, 3.7 peratus doktor dan 7.3 peratus jurutera. Yang agak banyak adalah doktor haiwan (40 peratus) sebab pada waktu itu Melayu pelihara haiwan. Tetapi pada tahun lalu, 24.5 peratus akauntan adalah Bumiputera, arkitek 38.2 peratus, doktor 52.9 peratus dan jurutera 52.4 peratus.

Apakah Melayu dan Bumiputera profesional ini boleh berada di mana mereka sekarang jika bergantung nasib semata-mata kepada pembiayaan ibu bapa mereka yang mengerjakan bendang, dusun dan huma untuk mendapat pelajaran tinggi?

Sekalipun mereka sudah berdikari dan tidak perlu tongkat lagi, tetapi ingatlah banyak lagi orang Melayu, Iban, Kadazan dan Orang Asli yang miskin dan melarat.

Dan bagi setiap rumah besar yang doktor atau jurutera Melayu miliki, orang Cina miliki lebih banyak dan lebih besar.

Jangan berbangga sangat dengan aset-aset Permodalan Nasional Berhad, Tabung Haji, Felda dan Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera. Hari ini semakin banyak kawasan bandar seperti Seri Kembangan, Petaling Street dan Bukit Bintang, hampir-hampir tidak ada penyertaan Bumiputera malah India pun hampir-hampir tidak ada.

Jadi, apakah yang buruk sangat dengan DEB sehingga begitu ramai orang, termasuk orang Melayu, berasa ia merugikan dan wajib dihapuskan?

Adakah DEB menyekat perkembangan ekonomi negara

A. Kadir jasin tanya dan A.Kadir Jasin tolong menjawab.


Saya hendak mulakan dengan bertanya: Selama 30 tahun Dasar Ekonomi Baru berkuat kuasa, adakah ia menyekat perkembangan ekonomi negara?

Jawabnya tidak. Malah kerana pelaksanaan matlamat-matlamat dan program-program DEBlah, ekonomi Malaysia berkembang pesat.

Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (GDP) meningkat daripada RM12 bilion pada tahun 1970 kepada RM120 bilion 1995 dan RM357.9 bilion 2007, menjadikan ekonomi Malaysia ke-29 terbesar di dunia.

Adakah ia menyekat kemajuan kaum-kaum bukan Bumiputera dan membantutkan kemasukan modal asing seperti yang didakwa oleh begitu banyak pihak sehingga membuatkan sesetengah pembesar Umno berasa bersalah dan defensif?

Pun tidak. Kadar kemiskinan dikurangkan dan pendapatan semua kaum meningkat. Tetapi pendapatan kaum-kaum bukan Bumiputera, khasnya Cina meningkat dengan lebih pantas kerana mereka menguasai dunia perdagangan dan profesionalisme.

Masalah kita dan Keupayaan Mereka

Bola sepak Malaysia tidak habis-habis dari menghadapi satu kemelut kekemelut yang lain. Terbaru pasukan bola sepak Perak menjadi mangsa kepada kekurangan wang yang sekali gus menimbulkan masalah kepada pemain skuad Seladang itu.

Sebelum daripada ini beberapa pasukan termasuklah UPB-MyTeam mengesahkan untuk menarik diri daipada saingan Piala Malaysia kerana menghadapi masalah yang sama. Sudah ada desas desus ada beberapa pasukan lagi yang akan mengikut jejak langkah UPB-MyTeam sekiranya masalah kekurangan wang terus menghantui


Menurut Raja Bola sepak negaa, Datuk abdul Ghani Minhat," Fenomena ini sangat membimbangkan kerana ia bakal memberi kesan kepada perkembangan dan kemeriahan liga tempatan tanah air."

Itulah antara masalah kita..

Mereka pula telah menunjukkan keupayaan yang luar biasa. Mereka tidak lama lagi akan bertandang ke Malaysia untuk perlawanan persahabatan dengan Pasukan Malaysia. Stadium akan penuh saya kira bukan untuk memberi sokongan kepada pemain Malaysia tetapi bagi melihat secara dekat pemain-pemain pujuaan rakyat Malaysia yang datang dari England untuk membelasah pasukan kebangsaan kita.

Baru-baru ini seorang dari anak didik pasukan dari England itu dijual kepada kelab yang lain dengan harga terbaru rekod dunia.

Inilah kata-kata pemain yang dijual itu," Saya masih budak ketika tiba di Old Trafford. Kini saya sudah meninggalkannya. Kelab dan peminat Red Devils sentiasa dihati saya."

Sebagai membalas budi kepada jurulatih yang banyak mempengaruhi kariernya pemain itu bekata," Dia banyak mempengaruhi perjalanan karier saya. Dia buat saya menyedari kemampuan diri untuk menjadi pemain terbaik dunia. Dia memberi jersi nombor (7) kepada saya kerana percaya akan kebolehan saya."


Itulah kita dan itulah pencapaian mereka.

Virus yang biasanya merebak pada babi

KUALA LUMPUR, 1 Julai (Bernama) -- Mungkinkah istilahnya yang asing, influenza A (H1N1), atau kes kematian yang jarang didengar dalam kalangan mereka yang positif, menyebabkan masih ramai rakyat Malaysia tidak begitu pedulli dengan ancaman selesema ini.

Berdasarkan laporan berita, penyakit "baru dan berjangkit" ini sudah berada di sekitar kita dan setakat 30 Jun, terdapat 158 kes H1N1 yang di negara ini.

Menurut Pertubuhan Kesihatan Sedunia (WHO), setakat 30 Jun, terdapat 71,076 kes H1N1 yang dilaporkan di 116 negara dengan jumlah kematian 311.

Malangnya sesetengah masyarakat Malaysia masih belum bersedia untuk mengambil langkah berjaga-jaga di sebalik peringatan harian yang dikeluarkan pihak berkuasa kesihatan serta pelbagai langkah pencegahan yang dilaksanakan.

"Saya tak tahu apa itu Influenza A (H1N1)," jawapan daripada seorang pendengar radio, mungkin dianggap kes terpencil, orang yang sengaja tidak mahu ambil tahu kisah di sekelilingnya.

Bagaimanapun, bila hospital meletakkan kain rentang dan poster mengingatkan pelawat jangan bawa kanak-kanak ke wad melawat pesakit, ramai yang dilihat tidak menghiraukannya.

Mungkinkan sikap tidak begitu peduli ini selagi penyakit itu tidak mengenai keluarga sendiri?.

Jururawat Rohaiyah Majeed berkata: "Masih ada ibu bapa yang membawa anak kecil mereka melawat saudara-mara atau kenalan yang sakit di hospital.

"Sememangnya larangan membawa kanak-kanak bawah 12 tahun masuk ke dalam wad adalah peraturan tetap di hospital, apatah lagi dengan masalah selesema babi sekarang yang mudah berjangkit.

"Kadang kala seolah berlaku satu karnival di mana anak-anak kecil kelihatan berlari ke sana-sini membuat bising," katanya.

Lebih teruk lagi jika orang dewasa sendiri bila bersin dan batuk, tidak menutup mulut dan hidung mereka dengan sapu tangan atau tisu, walaupun di hospital.

MASIH ADA YANG TIDAK TAHU

Seorang pengamal perubatan swasta Dr K. Mathew berkata: "Ini menunjukkan masih ramai rakyat Malaysia yang tidak tahu tentang Influenza A (H1N1), apatah lagi tentang bahaya penyakit ini", kata beliau.

Menurut pihak berkuasa kesihatan, H1N1 ialah penyakit respiratori (pernafasan) yang disebabkan virus jenis Influenza A yang biasanya merebak pada babi.

Biasanya virus H1N1 tidak menyerang manusia tapi jangkitan manusia kepada manusia sedang hebat berlaku ketika ini, sama seperti jangkitan selesema biasa yang bermusim.

Virus baru ini mula diketahui menjangkiti manusia di Amerika Syarikat pada April 2009 dan semakin banyak negara melaporkan kes selesema ini.

Tanda dan gejala Influenza A H1N1 sama dengan selesema biasa dan ini termasuk demam yang tinggi dengan suhu lebih daripada 37.7 darjah Celsius, batuk, sakit tekak, sakit otot, menggigil, keletihan, cirit-birit dan muntah.

Pada bulan Jun, Pertubuhan Kesihatan Sedunia (WHO) mempertingkat amaran tahap pandemik selesema ini kepada enam, satu aras yang tertinggi.

Ini ialah pandemik pertama di dunia sejak tahun 1968. Pada 11 Jun 2009, WHO mengesahkan virus H1N1 sememangnya pada tahap pandemik, di mana 30,000 kes disahkan berlaku di seluruh dunia.

JAHIL?

Istilah H1N1 yang asing ini juga berkemungkinan antara faktor orang ramai keliru dan merasakan ancamannya juga jauh daripada mereka.

Menteri Penerangan Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan Datuk Seri Rais Yatim mengesyorkan istilah selesema babi digunakan bagi memastikan orang ramai sedar akan bahaya selesema ini dan mesej mengenainya dapat disampaikan dengan lebih tepat.

Bagaimanapun Menteri Kesihatan Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai berkata di Parlimen, istilah Influenza A (H1N1) patut dikekalkan sebagai merujuk kepada ancaman penyakit ini untuk mengelakkan kekeliruan dalam kalangan rakyat.

Sementara itu di Putrajaya, Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan Tan Sri Dr Mohd Ismail Merican berkata 14 kes baru Influenza A (H1N1) dilaporkan di negara ini, menjadikan jumlah kes sebanyak 158.

Dr Mohd Ismail berkata jumlah pesakit selesema H1N1 yang masih dirawat di hospital pada masa ini berjumlah 47 orang dan kesemua mereka menunjukkan respons yang baik kepada rawatan tanpa sebarang komplikasi.

Seramai 111 kes Influenza A (H1N1) telah sembuh dan dibenarkan keluar daripada hospital, dan setakat ini tiada kematian dilaporkan, katanya.

Orang ramai dinasihatkan supaya pergi segera ke hospital jika mengalami batuk, sakit tekak, selesema dan demam tinggi.

Pastikan jika ke hospital, guna laluan khas untuk bertemu doktor, dan jika sudah dikuarantin, pastikan semua arahan dipatuhi untuk kesihatan diri dan kesejahteraan semua.

-- BERNAMA

Setiausaha Politik PM yang baru

KUALA LUMPUR, 2 Julai (Bernama) -- Oh Ei Sun, penceramah motivasi, perunding, usahawan dan ahli akademik terkemuka, dilantik sebagai Setiausaha Politik kepada Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak.

Seorang pegawai di Pejabat Perdana Menteri berkata pelantikan itu berkuatkuasa pada 16 Jun.

Oh, 35, berasal dari Sabah, yang menerima pendidikan dalam bidang perundangan, pengurusan, kejuruteraan dan bahasa mempunyai pengalaman luas dalam pelbagai pertubuhan antarabangsa dan dunia di bawah Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (PBB).

Oh mempunyai tiga ijazah sarjana muda - kejuruteraan aeronautikal, kejuruteraan mekanikal dan bahasa, selain dua ijazah sarjana - Sains dan Pengurusan Antarabangsa, serta Doktor Perundangan dalam Undang-Undang (J.D.), yang diperolehinya dalam tempoh lapan tahun pengajian di University of Califonia.

Pengalaman kerjanya termasuklah berkhidmat dengan pertubuhan antarabangsa seperti Kesatuan Telekomunikasi Antarabangsa (ITU) dan Kumpulan Kerja mengenai Telekomunikasi Kecemasan, kedua-duanya di Geneva, Switzerland.

Fasih dalam lima bahasa -- Bahasa Malaysia, Inggeris, China, Jerman dan Perancis, Oh melakukan pelbagai kerja perundingan untuk organisasi multinasional dan antarabangsa selain memberi nasihat kepada perusahaan kecil dan sederhana dalam isu perundangan dan untuk memulakan perniagaan.

Tidak hanya terhad kepada sektor korporat, beliau juga menggunakan kepakarannya dalam memberikan nasihat strategik, teknikal dan perundangan kepada pelbagai organisasi antarabangsa, kerajaan dan agensi kerajaan, parti politik, pertubuhan bukan kerajaan, selain pertubuhan profesional, awam dan kebudayaan.

Oh yang pernah berkhidmat sebagai Perunding Pakar PBB, memberi nasihat kepada banyak kerajaan mengenai komunikasi kecemasan.

Beliau juga bekerja rapat dengan agensi rakan PBB termasuk Suruhanjaya Tinggi bagi Pelarian PBB (UNHCR), Program Makanan Dunia (WFP), Organisasi Penerbangan Awam Antarabangsa (ICAO), Bank Dunia, Tabung Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF) dan Program Pembangunan PBB.

Beliau juga pernah berkhidmat sebagai Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif bagi syarikat telekomunikasi yang berpusat di Hong Kong dan terlibat dalam perkhidmatan perkongsian perdagangan pelbagai saluran mobile di China.

Oh juga berkongsi kepakarannya dalam pengurusan latihan peringkat profesional, menyampaikan lebih daripada 500 modul kepada lebih 20,000 pengarah korporat di mana beliau baru-baru ini mengembangkan kepakarannya dalam bidang pengurusan kewangan dan pendidikan.

"Saya rasa bangga kerana dapat berkhidmat kepada negara dan rakyat pada masa yang kritikal, dari segi politik dan ekonomi," katanya kepada Bernama di sini hari ini.

Pelantikan itu hadir pada ketika yang tidak diduga apabila beliau terpaksa beralih daripada peranan biasanya sebagai penilai, pakar motivasi dan pengendali kepada sesuatu yang lebih mencabar -- menjaga misi politik pemimpin utama negara.

Ditanya tentang misi pertamanya selepas dilantik ke jawatan itu, Oh berkata beliau akan mempromosikan konsep 1Malaysia dan mengadakan dialog dengan lebih ramai rakyat daripada pelbagai latar belakang dan masyarakat.

Ini penting terutama untuk memahami perasaan rakyat selain mendapatkan maklumbalas daripada rakyat.

"Ada satu elemen dalam 1Malaysia yang saya begitu suka. Ia berkenaan integriti, dalam sektor awam dan swasta. Saya mahu lihat lebih banyak penekanan dalam hal ini ketika kita terus mempromosikan 1Malaysia," katanya.

Bekas pelajar Sekolah Menengah Kian Kok di Kota Kinabalu itu juga merupakan Profesor Adjung di Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).

--BERNAMA

Ternak No Makan untuk orang Bukan Islam Yes.

Dap yang hanya menang satu kerusi di Kedah mengistiharkan nak keluar Pakatan Rakyat Kedah disebabkan pihak berkuasa meroboh tempat penyembelihan babi di Mergong. Kononnya kerajaan PAS tidak mengambil berat tentang orang China.

DAP dalam pengistiharan demikian telah lupa bahawa ianya parti berbilang kaum walaupun majoriti ahli partinya orang China dan memenangi kerusi di kawasan orang China. Dasar partinya adalah dasar berbilang kaum. Namun cara ia berpolitik, cara ia memainkan isu seolah-olah ia parti orang China sahaja. DAP seharusnya menghilangkan persepsi ianya parti untuk orang China sahaja sedangkan dasarnya jelas ianya parti berbilang kaum.

Dalam kes babi di Mergong itu jelas dan jelas sekali tempat pemyembelihan itu tidak berlesen duduk dalam kawasan majoriti orang Melayu. Dalam kes seselma Babi ysng sedang menular sekarang ini persepsi Babi yang sudah pun negatif ke atas orang Islam kian bertambah negatif disebabkan penyakit-penyakit yang disebabkan pembawaan oleh Babi itu.

Seharusnya Malaysia sebagai negara Islam yang mejoritinya orang Melayu Islam seharusnya boleh berkomporomi dengan orang Bukan Islam yang ingin makan babi sebagai makanan mereka. Namun adalah tidak bijak dalam keadaan babi itu jelas sebagai bawaan berbagai-bagai penyakit kita masih membiarkan haiwan itu diternak di Malaysia. Ternak No Makan untuk orang Bukan Islam Yes.