24/01: Bernas, Malaysia's leading rice smuggler

Posted By: Raja Petra

In August 2003, I wrote about Bernas, the cash cow of Shahidan Kassim, the Menteri Besar of Perlis. There was no Malaysia Today then of course because Malaysia Today was only launched in August 2004 so no one took any notice of what I wrote at that time. Recently, Bernas made the headlines when the New Straits Times reported that the ACA had launched an investigation on the goings-on in the company. Maybe it is now time to revisit what I wrote five years or so ago and explore in what way the Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is involved in the conspiracy to scam the Malaysian public.

ACA probes import of RM60m rice

(New Straits Times, 5 January 2008) - The Anti-Corruption Agency has started a probe against rice distributor Padiberas Nasional Bhd (Bernas) and the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry. Investigations centred around 25,000 tonnes of fragrant rice worth RM60 million imported from Thailand without an import permit. A team of ACA officers interviewed several ministry staff on Thursday.

Yesterday, ACA officers went to the Bernas offices in Petaling Jaya where statements were recorded. ACA investigations director Mohd Shukri Abdull confirmed the investigations. “Checks at the two premises are being conducted as part of investigation. So far, only the statements of several officers at the ministry and Bernas have been recorded,” he said.


Investigators are also probing whether the rules and regulations regarding imports had been followed. The ACA is also investigating whether there is any hanky-panky going on.Meanwhile, ministry secretary-general Datuk Dr Zulkifli Idris said Bernas officials met ministry officials and Customs officers yesterday. “Bernas apologised for importing rice above the permitted quota without referring to the ministry. It also given assurances that such a mistake will not be repeated,” he said.

He added that Bernas claimed it was forced to place an early order for rice because of anxieties that it would be difficult to get supplies of rice as there was currently a shortage in the world market. “In a situation of first-come, first-served, Bernas placed an order for 16,000 tonnes of rice for last year and an additional 19,000 tonnes for this year although the overall quota for 2008 has yet to be decided,” Dr Zulkifli said.

He added that an AP had been issued for the rice which exceeded the permitted quota. All parties also agreed on a more effective mechanism for the process of importing rice and to hold more frequent meetings. The ministry also agreed to issue APs immediately for importing rice within the permitted quota and additional APs within a week if the imports exceeded the quota.

Last Monday, Bernas had imported fragrant rice without an AP resulting in 10,000 tonnes to be held at the Pasir Gudang port. An additional 10,000 tonnes could not be unloaded on a ship in the Kota Kinabalu port and 5,000 tonnes at Port Klang.

Bernas is said to have submitted an AP application to the ministry on Dec 20, as soon as the ships carrying the rice docked at the ports. It is an offence to import fragrant rice without an AP as the rules state that the AP has to be issued prior to the rice being imported and not the other way around.

MPs want Bernas to be reviewed

(Bernama, 15 November 2005) -- Syarikat Beras Nasional (Bernas) which has the sole rice importing licence in the country has received much criticism from members of parliament who want its functions and structure to be reviewed. Datuk Badruddin Amiruldin (BN-Jerai) said the government must intervene in the matter as he claimed the company's functions had contradicted its original objectives.

He told the Dewan Rakyat the move by the government in giving the import permit (AP) to Bernas had resulted in the company focusing on importing rice instead of producing rice for the country. “Importing (rice) is easy but processing it entails much problems. What has happened to the conditions imposed on Bernas? What we see now is that Bumiputera-owned rice mills have closed down...where are they now?” he asked when debating the Ministry of Agriculture and Ago-based Industry's Supply Bill 2006 at the committee stage Tuesday.

Badruddin also questioned the national rice stockpile which was 92 metric tons at any one time which was previously located at Anak Bukit. He said it was an offence for the national rice stockpile for use during an emergency to be kept by a private company as it involved national security.

Meanwhile, Datuk Bung Moktar Raden (BN-Kinabantangan) when debating on the same bill said the government must be firm on the country's direction in terms of agriculture, whether to continue to be an importing country or to realise the objective of strengthening the agricultural sector to become a producing country. “Why do we want to be both (importing and producing rice) which would eventually bring us nothing and people see that Bernas is making the profit,” he said.

Bernas was making money by importing rice and selling it instead of buying from the farmers, he said. Also touching on the same issue during the debate were Datuk Raja Ahmad Zainuddin Raja Omar (BN-Larut), Mo'kiman Kobran (BN-Hulu Langat), Ir Shaari Hassan (BN-Tanah Merah), Dr Mohd Hayati Othman (PAS-Pendang) and Mohd Razali Che Mamat (BN-Kuala Krai).

Pagar makan padi: The Bernas story

(Free Anwar Campaign, 26 August 2003) - Padiberas Nasional Berhad, better known as Bernas, wants to retrench a couple of thousand of its staff because, according to the company, it is losing money. And the reason it is losing money, laments the company, is due to the rampant rice smuggling.

Actually there is more than meets the eye and it is not as straightforward as they try to make it appear. In the latest issue of Seruan Keadilan out today, the official newspaper of the National Justice Party reveals what is really going on.

Last year, Bernas made a pre-tax profit of RM60 million on a turnover of RM1.76 billion. No doubt the company could argue that this is a drop of 54% from the figure of RM128 million the year before that. Nevertheless, the ‘suffering’ Bernas still saw fit to pay its Directors RM4 million in salaries and its shareholders RM21 million in dividends. That’s RM25 million in all.

If an austerity drive is necessary, should it not be the Directors and shareholders who suffer the cuts first rather than retrench more than 2,000 staff just because the company is not happy with the lower profit it made? And take note, it still did make a profit, though lower, and not make a loss as they claim.

Bernas’ profits have been yo-yoing from one year to another. Three years ago it made a mere RM18 million while the year before that it made RM111 million. Its turnover too fluctuates between RM1.7 billion and RM1.9 billion a year, still an impressive enough figure and not one of a company about to go under. In fact, on average, it made RM80 million in profits a year over the last four years from 1999 to 2002.

Bernas is far from floundering if this is the impression the company is trying to give. Bernas, which was given the rice import monopoly for Malaysia, is actually going great guns acquiring various companies in the food industry. The truth is, Bernas wants to reduce its dependence on the rice industry to 60% by diversifying into other food related businesses. Bernas, to quote what the company says, wants to become another Nestle.

Bernas has set aside RM300 million for these acquisitions. It paid RM55 million to buy a 30% stake in Gardenia and RM14 million for Burger King. It also acquired an interest in Rasa Sayang Food Industries and is said to be making a back-door entry into Kentucky Fried Chicken for RM110 million. It has also entered into ‘strategic alliances’ with other food conglomerates like QAF Ltd of Singapore and Dewina, a company linked to the Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s family.

Is Bernas’ ‘strategic alliance’ with Dewina a business move or is it ‘investing’ in the next Prime Minister of Malaysia?

But is this what Bernas was set up for? Certainly not! Bernas is supposed to ensure that Malaysia’s dependence on rice imports is reduced to 35% or less. This is to ensure that, in the event of a war or a major catastrophe in any of the rice exporting countries like Thailand, Vietnam, China, etc., Malaysia will not be starved of rice -- reminiscent of WWII when Malayans then had to eat Tapioca.

Malaysia is the only rice producing country in South-East Asia that is highly dependent on rice imports. Malaysia is at a great security risk and all our neighbours have to do is to stop selling us rice and we will be brought to our knees. And Bernas’ role is to reduce this dependence.

But this is not happening. Instead, Bernas wants to transform itself into another Nestle rather than safeguard the needs of Malaysia’s rice consumers and padi farmers. If we want another Nestle there are many other trading giants that can play that role. Why must Bernas dabble in affairs it was not set up to be involve in?

By the way, out of curiosity, who are these people who are enjoying this RM25 million per year in Directors’ fees and dividends? The Perlis Menteri Besar, Shahidan Kassim, and his immediate family, are these beneficiaries. Incidentally, they are attempting to sell off their stake in the company and may be hundreds of millions of Ringgit richer soon.

Bernas says that rice smuggling is crippling it. If making RM80 million per year is being crippled, then I don’t mind being crippled any time. Better being crippled with RM80 million in my pocket every year than walking upright but being broke to boot.

But who are these smugglers that Bernas is complaining about? According to the rice millers association that has about 300 members, it is the rice importers who are doing all the smuggling. And isn’t the sole importer of rice Bernas itself. Hmm…maybe Bernas is right about the rice smuggling. The question is, who is the one doing the smuggling? It appears like Bernas is this rice smuggler so why are they complaining?

The Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi says he wants to arrest the rice smugglers under the Internal Security Act. Do I take it there will be a vacancy for the position of Perlis Menteri Besar soon?

The TV stations once showed clips of so-called rice smugglers walking across the Malaysian-Thai border. According to a retired Police Inspector, Mansor, these people are merely couriers. They are paid a certain amount for every sack of rice they carry across the border.

“I used to be the Inspector of Rantau Panjang,” said Mansor. “We didn’t bother about these people walking across the border. These people are not smugglers. They are just couriers earning a living. If we stop them from earning a living this way, then they may resort to other means to make a living, like crime.”

True enough, these ‘smugglers’ walk across the border with sacks of rice on their heads right under the very noses of the police, immigration and customs officers. And, to the authorities, they are not committing any crime.

“Sometimes we need to take action just to show we are doing our job,” said Mansor. “So we tip off the bosses that we will be making a raid that night. We then agree that they will abandon one or two lorries for us to confiscate.”

“The driver will of course ‘escape’,” said Mansor laughing.

“Once we arrested some of those couriers and guess who came to bail them out?” asked Mansor. “Hussein Ahmad!”

Hussein Ahmad is the kingpin of Umno Rantau Panjang, one-time Minister in Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s government who achieved ‘fame’ when he fired his pistol during an Umno division meeting. He was understandably never arrested nor was his pistol confiscated.

“Zaman Khan’s family is also involved in this business,” revealed Mansor. “His family in fact comes from Golok and they have many businesses there such as hotels and so on.”

“How then to take action when the top guns themselves are involved?” laments Mansor. “If I clamp down I might find myself transferred out of Rantau Panjang super-fast. So we just close our eyes and, once in awhile, stage these ‘successful’ raids and confiscate a few sacks or rice just to keep everyone quiet.”

“But these couriers are small-time. They just carry one sack across the border. And how many sacks can they carry in a day? It’s the legal importers who are the big-time smugglers. They bring rice in by the containers. And they can do so because they have import permits.”

And the question is, how much rice do they bring in? According to some sources, the ‘imports’ far exceed what their permits allow. This is how the smuggling is done. And, again I ask, who are these permit holders? No prize for the right guess.

The Malays have a proverb for this, ‘harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi’, which means ‘you depend on the fence, but the fence eats the rice’ or those entrusted to look after the rice are actually those eating the rice.

How the Shahidan clan acquired the Bernas cash cow

(Free Anwar Campaign, 27 August 2003) - Lembaga Padi Negara or LPN was privatised about eight years ago into what is known today as Padiberas Nasional Berhad (Bernas). Though it is supposed to be a public company, Bernas is very much controlled by one family, that of the Menteri Besar of Perlis, Shahidan Kassim.

How did Shahidan get his hands on Malaysia’s rice monopoly that brings in a turnover of almost RM2 billion per annum and profits averaging about RM80 million per year? The story of Bernas is not a rags-to-riches story but one of richer-to-even-richer.

Shahidan was then the Member of Parliament for Arau, Perlis, the Chairman of Parliament’s Back Benchers Club (BBC), Chairman of FAMA, Chairman of Yayasan MARA, Director of MARA, and many more. The then Menteri Besar of Perlis was Dr Hamid Pawanteh who was slotted for ‘retirement’ due some ‘indiscretions’ that was threatening to blow up if he continued as Menteri Besar. Shahidan was identified as Dr Hamid’s successor.

Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad summoned Shahidan and told him that he and Dr Hamid would have to switch jobs. Dr Hamid would be contesting the 1995 General Election on a Parliament seat while Shahidan would in turn take over his state seat. The reason being, Shahidan would have to take over as the next Menteri Besar of Perlis.

However, much to Dr Mahathir’s surprise, Shahidan declined the Prime Minister’s ‘offer’. He told the Prime Minister he was not interested in the Perlis Menteri Besar’s job. He was more interested in getting rich and would rather do business.

And this was what Shahidan discussed with the Prime Minister as revealed by one of his business partners whose company Shahidan was the Chairman of.

“Why should I want to be the Menteri Besar of Perlis?” asked Shahidan Kassim when I met him just before the 1995 General Elections. “What has Perlis got?”

“At least if I am Menteri Besar of Kedah that is something. Kedah is big. There are a lot of business opportunities there. Perlis is so small, it has nothing!”

“And that is what I told the PM,” said Shahidan. “I told him I am not interested in being the Perlis MB. I want to do business.”

“The PM was taken aback,” added Shahidan. “He asked me what business I wanted to do and I told him I wanted to take over the privatisation of Bernas.”

“The PM was puzzled. He told me he has offered me the Perlis MB’s post and I reject the offer. Other people would jump at the chance.”

“I told him I am more interested in getting rich,” laughed Shahidan.

“The PM said he will think about it and get back to me later. A few days later the PM told me that he will agree to me taking over Bernas if I agree to become the MB.”

“I asked the PM, how is this possible? The PM replied to leave that to him. He will clear it with the Cabinet. He will explain to the Cabinet that the Bernas deal is part of the terms for me accepting the MB’s post.”

And that was how Shahidan ended up with control of the privatised Bernas.

FAC News spoke to one senior officer of LPN to get his side of the story on the wheeling and dealing of that one-time national rice board. This officer, on being told that LPN would be privatised, decided to throw in the towel and seek early retirement.

“Once I saw what they were going to do, I decided to quit,” explained the officer.

“I saw the move to privatise LPN as just one more move to make some people rich and I wanted nothing to do with it.”

“I spent practically my entire working life serving LPN. Our only mission in life was to serve the rice farmers and ensure that their welfare was well taken care of. But what they wanted to do to LPN is criminal. So I just left in disgust.”

“It’s not only what they wanted to do that was so wrong. It is also the people who were behind the whole exercise that was not right.”

“I personally know Shahidan so I know what type of person he is. He is just out to make money. And he was going to do so at the welfare of the rice farmers.”

“There are 160,000 rice farmers in Malaysia,” argued the retired LPN officer. “And most of them live in poverty.”

“For example, for the year 2000, an estimated 9% or almost 16,000 rice farmers have incomes below the poverty level.”

“The estimated annual average net income from rice cultivation in Peninsula Malaysia for that same year ranged from RM1,500, or RM125 per month, in areas like Telok Intan, Kelantan and Terengganu, to RM6,000, or RM500 per month, in advanced areas like MADA.”

“How does one support a family with that low income level?” asked the retired officer.

“It is time the truth is revealed and Malaysians are made aware of the exploitation the rice farmers are being subjected to.”

Despite government expenditures for infrastructure development and financial assistance through input subsidisation and price support policies, a high level of poverty still exists amongst rice farmers. The situation did not improve much since the eight years after the privatisation of LPN into Bernas. Under Bernas, the individual shareholders of the privatised entity are now making profits at the expense of several hundred thousands rice farmers, their families, and other public stakeholders.

For example, for the year 2001, Bernas made a RM128 million profit before tax. For the year 2000, it made RM83 million and, in 1999, RM117 million. In 2002, it made about RM60 million.

But who really benefits from this profit? The rice farmers? Of course not! Those who benefit from these hundreds of millions of Ringgit every year are the major shareholders of Bernas.

And who are these shareholders?

One of them is Budaya Generasi Sdn Bhd (BGSB), which owns 34% of Bernas. The single largest shareholder of BGSB is Permatang Jaya Sdn Bhd (PJSB), which has a 44% interest in BGSB or, effectively, 15% of Bernas.

And who are the shareholders of BGSB?

The shareholders of BGSB are Dohat Bin Shafie and his daughter Nur Daliza Binti Dohat. Dohat Bin Shafie is the brother-in-law of none other than Shahidan!

The point is, the Shahidan family of Perlis owns 15% of the privatised national rice entity which is of strategic importance to the country and which the government acknowledged in its National Agriculture Policy 3 (NAP3) to be the backbone of the food security policy of the country!

Then, Sebiro Holdings Sdn Bhd, another shareholder, owns 5.5% of BGSB. A prominent Director of the company is Megat Junid Bin Megat Ayob, the Prime Minister’s henchman.

The other four (public) shareholders of BGSB representing the interests of several hundred thousand rice farmers, farmers and fishermen, own the other 34% of BGSB or only 11% of Bernas. These four are:

· Pertubuhan Peladang Kebangsaan (NAFAS)

· Persatuan Nelayan Kebangsaan (NEKMAT)

· Syarikat Perniagaan Peladang (MADA) Sdn. Bhd.

· Syarikat Perniagaan Peladang (KADA) Sdn. Bhd.

Just for the record, Yayasan Pok Rafeah Berdaftar, is the 11th largest shareholder of Bernas. Yayasan Pok Rafeah funds the Pok Rafeah Chair at Institut Kefahaman Malaysia dan Antarabangsa (IKMAS) at UKM. And Pok Rafeah is the mother to Tun Daim Zainuddin, another Umno kingpin and one-time Finance Minister of Malaysia.

Despite being a registered foundation, interestingly enough, the Registrar of Societies apparently did not have any information on Yayasan Pok Rafeah as to its Board of Trustees or any other information.

Last year, Bernas paid its Directors RM4 million in salaries. And, to add insult to injury, it declared a 10% dividend to its shareholders amounting to RM21 million! Just figure out how much the individual shareholders of Bernas are getting out of this?

Presumably, all this was the ‘reward’ for a ‘brilliant performance’ of turning in a RM128 million pre-tax profits for 2001 on revenues of some RM1.6 billion -- roughly 7.5% on sales. But then Bernas is about to retrench more than 2,000 employees on the excuse it is losing money.

Bernas is Malaysia’s sole licensed rice importer until 2010. In short, it has a monopoly on Malaysia’s rice import business and it is continuing to extend its grip on the rice market. Bernas derives most of its profits from cornering the rice industry so it is not that difficult to make money. Why, therefore, the need to generously reward its Directors?

Another very important point to consider is: the government has acknowledged the importance of rice in the food security policy of the country. This is especially so after the 1997-98 currency crisis and the ever-increasing import bills for rice and other food products. Under the NAP3, the Self-Sufficiency Level (SSL) for rice is set at 65% until 2010.

Malaysia, therefore, is still very far from self-sufficiency and needs to import the balance 35% of its needs while other countries surrounding Malaysia not only DO NOT import their rice, but exports it -- to Malaysia. Even China, which needs to feed 20% of the world’s population, can export rice.

Why does Malaysia still depend on a high level of rice imports to feed the nation? And why does the government allow this? The answer is simple! This is so that Bernas can have the monopoly for all rice imports into Malaysia until the year 2010 and make tons of money out of it.

However, one has to remember that a 35% reliance on the open global rice market is risky given that rice is thinly traded. Only 5% of the world’s rice supply is traded in the open market compared to, for example, 12% for wheat. And, in the event of a bad harvest in one or two of the major exporting countries such as Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam, or bad harvests in a number of major consuming countries such as India, China or Indonesia, or worse, bad harvests for both exporting and consuming countries as was the case during the el Nino catastrophe -- thus forcing the exporting nations to supply only their domestic needs, and forcing the major consuming nations to buy rice in the open market -- there will not be any rice left in the open market for Malaysia.

The reality is, the cash cow for the whole rice industry in Malaysia is the rice import license and this has been solely awarded to Bernas. Thus, it is high time for Bernas to fulfil its obligations to its other stakeholders and not just focus on enriching its few privileged shareholders.

But Bernas is ‘buying protection’ in case pressure is put upon it by the incoming administration of Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. It has just formed strategic alliances with the incoming powers-that-be to ensure that the new administration that will take over after Mahathir retires in October 2003 will continue to look upon Bernas favourably.

And, to achieve this, Bernas has just agreed to distribute and market Dewina Trading Sdn Bhd's products locally and internationally.

Dewina Trading is the sales and marketing arm of convenience food manufacturer Dewina Bhd. Now, who owns Dewina? Isn’t this company associated with Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahamd Badawi’s family?

22/01: Trojan Horses in the opposition ranks

Nothing would be more fantastic than PAS, an Islamic party, offering the HINDRAF 5, Hindu activists, seats to contest under its party banner. The HINDRAF 5 need not convert to Islam or become PAS members to contest a seat under the PAS party banner.

CHALLENGES 2007-2008: Civil Society Ready for Regime Change

By Baradan Kuppusamy

29 Dec 07 (IPS) - As the year draws to a close no solution is visible for Malaysia’s worsening ethnic and religious divide, either from the political establishment led by an indecisive Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi nor a judiciary tainted by charges of corruption.

“People are disappointed, disgusted and alienated by the lack of direction and vision and the missing political will to make the tough decisions the country badly needs,” said Steven Gan, political commentator and editor of Malaysiakini.com, an independent on-line news magazine. “We enter 2008 on a very discordant and very uncertain note,” he told IPS.


The year saw two major demonstrations that shook the country, revealing that behind the superhighways and gleaming tall buildings that dot the urban areas lurks biting poverty, insecurity and deep alienation. One protest by urban Malays, on November 10, demanded fraud-free elections and a rewriting of policies that presently favour the ruling elite. The second protest, on November 25, by ethnic Indians, a minority that forms eight percent of the population of 26 million, decried what is perceived as official marginalisation and exclusion from socio-economic development.

Instead of sympathy and a willingness to listen, harsh police action was unleashed on the protestors, including use of the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) that provides for indefinite detention without trial. Five ethnic Indian leaders are now being held without trial, accused of having links with terrorist organisations such as Sri Lanka’s separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), while over 100 others of all races have been charged with illegal assembly. Many were imprisoned for weeks without trial and only released on bail after public anger spiked against the administration’s misuse of judicial authority to incarcerate protestors.

Badawi has not offered any evidence to back charges of extremism or terrorism, though the action has been condemned by top opposition leaders. “The harsh police action is clearly intended to cow the public from protesting against government inefficiency and corruption and failure to solve the major problems the country faces,” said top opposition leader Lim Kit Siang. “The country is at a crossroads,” he told IPS. “There is rampant corruption, no accountability, and major promises by Mr Abdullah are not fulfilled. The talk is there but the political will to make the necessary changes is missing.”

Political Islam gained throughout the year at the expense of constitutionally-guaranteed secular rights and is set to make a bigger impact in 2008 as the Islamisation of Malaysia’s multi-ethnic society takes deeper root. In June, the country’s highest court ruled that a Muslim cannot opt out of Islam, closing the doors on a tiny group of Muslims who want to convert out of conviction, marriage, or migration. In December, the same court ruled that a Hindu woman cannot stop her estranged husband from converting their youngest son to Islam, adding another strain to the social fabric and heightening non-Muslims fears that majority Muslims were trampling on secular rights. The court held that since the husband has converted to Islam he is therefore governed by Islamic or Shariah law.

Conflicting family laws have become an emotional battleground among the country’s multi-ethnic communities that may worsen in 2008 as several highly-emotional cases come up for hearing. It is not just Hindus and moderate Muslims who are upset over 'creeping Islam' but also the long silent Christian community of 2.5 million adherents, mostly ethnic Indians and Chinese. Christians have been ordered not to use the Arabic word 'Allah' in their publications. One weekly magazine of the Catholic Church has been banned for that reason and many publications with the word were seized by the internal security ministry, headed by Badawi himself. In a rare protest, the church has filed a suit against the government to keep their right to call god 'Allah' and to stop the government from seizing Christian text with the word.

More repression lies ahead in 2008, going by a new government policy to disallow any form of public protest and reverse Badawi’s 'sunshine' policies on dissent while taking power in November 2003. The government-controlled mainstream media is now being unashamedly used to prop up Badawi and the repression he has unleashed against pro-democracy activists and civil society movements.

“We expect the government to resort to more repression in 2008 because it is facing serious setbacks and would suffer badly in the upcoming a general election,” said Yap Swee Seng, executive director of SUARAM, a prominent rights NGO. “The public mood is to vote for the opposition, especially after the harsh police action against peaceful demonstrations,” he told IPS.

The general election in 2008 is expected to be rough with a shaken administration facing angry voters, unhappy with the lack of direction and political will to solve not just contentious issues but also ordinary problems like rampant crime, corruption and mismanagement of public resources. Opposition icon Anwar Ibrahim has publicly urged Badawi to investigate the root causes of the country’s malaise, from disrespect for human rights to a slowing economy and rising ethnic tension. “Don’t treat the bark when the roots need remedy,” he told supporters at a recent opposition rally. “Show the leadership and vision, walk the talk.”

That’s exactly what Badawi has been struggling to get right for the best part of 2007, but with mixed results. On the political front, he has not succeeded in closing the widening gap between the races. On the economic side, foreign direct investment (FDI) has slowed dramatically and his 'regional growth corridors' for the north, east, and south of the country -- sold as the final solution to the economic malaise -- have not taken off in the way it was intended. Badawi said last month he needs another five-year term to carry out all his plans to success, but increasingly voters are not buying it.

“I know voting for the opposition is not going to solve the country’s malaise but it will tell Mr Abdullah that we are unhappy with his administration,” said Vincent Wong, a retired engineer at an opposition forum last week. “We want to send him a message -- 2008 is when we do it,” he said as the crowd of 800 people applauded.

-------------------------------------------

A pretty accurate analysis of the mood on the ground by my good friend, Baradan Kuppusamy, whom I have known for some years now. But it takes more than just a ruling party on self-destruct mode to decide the outcome of the general election. It also needs a united, well-coordinated, and level-headed opposition. But the opposition has not quite got its act together yet. So a floundering ruling party does not help if the opposition is even worse. And this is where the problem lies. The opposition is no better than the ruling party.

Are the voters, therefore, being offered any choices? Granted, there is much that is to be desired from the ruling party. But after 50 years of an Umno-led government, about 15 or 16 years of that under the Alliance Party (Parti Perikatan) and the rest under Barisan Nasional, there does not appear to be any good alternatives on offer. This is the problem facing the voters. What are the alternatives?

We were blessed with good news last week when it was announced that the opposition had already come to an agreement on the seat allocations for Penang Island. We were told that PAS, DAP and PKR had agreed on how to carve up the state. And in the event that the opposition does win enough seats in Penang to form a state government, then DAP would be given the post of Chief Minister.

Okay, that is only one state, and a 'Chinese' state at that. But what about the other states such as Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, Perak, Selangor and Sabah where the opposition also has a good chance of either winning outright or at least of denying the ruling party its two-thirds majority in the State Assembly? Has an agreement been reached for these states as well?

Before this question could be answered, DAP surfaced to officially declare that the party does not have any electoral pact with PAS. Why the need to deny that an agreement has been reached for Penang? Okay, maybe Gerakan had 'revealed' that a secret pact between PAS and DAP exists. But the voters were elated. They were happy that an electoral pact, secret or otherwise, had been made. The voters expressed no problems with the announcement that DAP has 'gone to bed' with PAS. But DAP appears to see this as a problem and has publicly denied it.

DAP's reason for 'keeping its distance' from PAS is because PAS represents the face of Islam. DAP's rejection of PAS, therefore, is to maintain the spirit of rejecting Islam. How does DAP think the Malay voters would take this? Islam is dear to the hearts of the Malays. A rejection of Islam means DAP is taking the religion of the Malays as the enemy. Does DAP now expect the Malays to vote for it?

PAS has demonstrated a very tolerant face of Islam. In its 18 years rule in the state of Kelantan, PAS has been very accommodating to the other religions. Pigs, which during the rule of Umno could not be slaughtered in Kelantan, now can. Invariably, pork is easily available anywhere in the state. Kelantan has the biggest Buddhist statue in Malaysia while the Umno-ruled State of Sabah has issued a fatwah (religious decree) declaring Buddhist statues as haram (forbidden) and has banned the erection of Buddhist statues. The Umno-led government has banned the use of the word 'Allah' in Malay language Bibles. In fact, they are even trying to ban Malay language Bibles altogether. When PAS first came to power in 1990, the Menteri Besar called the Hindus for a meeting and offered them approval to build a Hindu temple in the state -- while Umno-ruled states like Selangor demolishes Hindu temples, which triggered the HINDRAF protests.

If DAP opposes PAS because PAS represents Islam and PAS' brand of Islam has been unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory, etc., towards the non-Muslims, then it would be quite understandable to reject PAS merely because it happens to be an Islamic party. But to reject PAS just for the sake of opposing Islam would certainly rub the Malay voters the wrong way. Is PAS being made to pay for the sins of Umno? If Umno is the culprit why should PAS be made the whipping boy? This is what is most perplexing about DAP's paranoia against Islam which PAS is being made to pay for.

There are hardly any Chinese majority constituencies. There are hardly any Indian majority constituencies. But there are many Malay majority constituencies where the Malay voters exceed 90% of the voting population. Almost all the Chinese and Indian candidates win with the help of the Malay voters. So the Malay vote is very important. You can form a government, although with a mere simple majority, just on Malay votes alone. But you can't form a government, or even win a seat, with just Chinese and Indian votes alone. And Ali Rustam, the Chief Minister of Melaka, said it very bluntly during the PPP state convention that Umno has ruled this country for 50 years and can rule for another 50 without Chinese or Indian support. In fact, added Ali, Umno does not even need Sabah and Sarawak as well.

So what is DAP's game plan? Is DAP committed to the opposition cause or is it but a mere Trojan Horse? It boggles the mind that we, those who are not in the front-line of politics, can see the need for racial unity while the DAP leaders have this impression that all it needs is Chinese support and the Malays can go to hell. DAP can't even form the government in a 'Chinese' state like Penang with just Chinese votes and without the support of the Malays. We 'simple' people can see this. You mean to say that the politically-savvy DAP leaders who have been playing politics since when we were still mere school-kids can't?

The opposition has been plagued with Trojan Horses since the opposition parties were first formed. Not only DAP but all the opposition parties suffer from this. PAS has split many times because of this and PAS splinter parties have cropped up from time to time. Hamim, Berjasa, etc., were created to bring down PAS just like how Semangat 46 was launched as a nemesis of Umno. Some PAS leaders even left the party to join Umno to prove, in the end, that they were planted in the party by Umno to work as the enemy within. DAP too has seen people like Lee Lam Thye and others eventually leave the party to go back to work for their real boss, Barisan Nasional.

The question is, have all the Trojan Horses in PAS and DAP already left the opposition or are there many still around? Looking at the way the opposition is conducting itself, it appears like there are still many enemies within whose task is to ensure that the opposition stays disunited because a united opposition would spell the doom of the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional.

PKR, of course, is not spared this same problem either. Take the case of Nallakarupan. He was almost allowed to contest the recent Ijok by-election. At the eleventh hour he was dropped in favour of Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. No doubt, many thought that an Indian should have contested that seat and the fact that the Indian was sidelined in favour of a Malay attracted allegations of racial discrimination. But Nallakarupan is a known pimp who procures women for the rich and powerful, in particular rich and powerful politicians who walk in the corridors of power. And he is an Umno Trojan Horse. Dropping him was probably the best decision Anwar Ibrahim has ever made in four years.

Nallakarupan now has his own 'Indian' party that is backed by no less than Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Rosmah would be best advised to limit contacts between Nallakarupan and her husband lest she wants to see some Bollywood bombshells land on her doorstep. It is no secret that Nallakarupan was almost sent to the gallows ten years ago if not for the fact that he has a fat bank account and was able to pay all and sundry a total of RM100 million to be allowed to walk free. But RM100 million is a fraction of the money he has stashed away in Singapore and staying alive to enjoy the balance of your money is a better proposition than being hanged by the neck until you die.

Barisan Nasional is in trouble. Umno is being torn apart by internal bickering. MCA too is, yet again, going to be split into two. The Team A and Team B factions that ripped MCA apart awhile back has now become Team A, Team B and Team C. And the Chua Soi Lek pornographic DVD controversy has not ended the political career of the one-time Minister of Health. Instead, it has just made him more determined to oust the MCA leadership and he has embarked on an aggressive nationwide campaign to take over the leadership of the party -- which will happen later this year and thereby place him in a strategic position to succeed the Presidency in 2012.

The MIC veterans of the pre-Samy Vellu days have got together and are accumulating 100,000 signatures to prove that the Indians no longer support the MIC leadership. MIC Youth has been ordered to embark on a nationwide road-show to regain Indian support. At the meeting with MIC members in Kulim on 6 January, 2,000 angry Indians booed the MIC Youth leader and pelted him with eggs. The police had to be brought in to restore order and prevent what was going to become a riot if left to its own devices.

The Indians have made it very clear they no longer support MIC. Abdullah Badawi agreed to meet the Indians to listen to their grievances but he wanted Samy Vellu in attendance. Samy Vellu is the problem. The problem can never be the solution. The Indians realise they do not have the sympathetic ear of the Prime Minister and the only way they are going to get justice would be to take matters into their own hands. MIC or the Prime Minister are not going to help them. They have to help themselves.

The Indians have finally woken up from their 50-year slumber. They know their future lies in their own hands. But DAP is still sleeping. Two of the five HINDRAF leaders under ISA detention are DAP grass-root leaders. DAP should have announced it is going to give the five HINDRAF leaders under ISA detention seats to contest the coming general election. If DAP can't find places for the five HINDRAF leaders, at least offer seats to the two who are DAP grass-root leaders. Surely out of the 800 or so seats up for grabs DAP can find places for at least two. Better still if they can find places for all five.

But the HINDRAF 5 under ISA detention are not being offered any seats. Okay, DAP might be stingy. But surely PKR, which does not have enough candidates of calibre anyway, can find five slots for the HINDRAF 5. Five out of 800 seats should not be that hard to find. And if PKR too is not prepared to offer the HINDRAF 5 any seats, what is to stop PAS from doing so? PAS may be an Islamic party. Maybe only Muslims can become members of the party. But there is nothing in the rule book that says PAS can't allow the HINDRAF 5 to contest the election under its banner.

Nothing would be more fantastic than PAS, an Islamic party, offering the HINDRAF 5, Hindu activists, seats to contest under its party banner. The HINDRAF 5 need not convert to Islam or become PAS members to contest a seat under the PAS party banner. And by allowing the Hindu activists to contest the general election under the banner of an Islamic party would prove that PAS does not just preach religious tolerance but actually practices it as well. That would, in one swoop, repair the damage to PAS' reputation and erase the allegation of PAS being a Taliban party. Why do the opposition leaders not see this? Or do they see this but the Trojan Horses within the opposition are bent on ensuring that Barisan Nasional remains in power forever?

The general election is just around the corner. But the seat negotiations are nowhere near settlement. While the 14-party ruling coalition is putting its election machinery together, the three-party opposition is still bickering over the spoils of war. And the war has not even started yet. In fact, the opposition is far from winning the war. But they are already quarrelling over a mere dream that may remain a dream long after we are all dead and buried in our graves. What the fuck is wrong with the opposition? Do we need to boycott the opposition and vote for the ruling party to teach the opposition a lesson?

The issue of candidates is another important factor. If you try to squeeze a round peg into a square hole, the voters will reject the opposition candidate and will vote Barisan Nasional. The opposition accuses the ruling party of propagating cronyism. But the opposition practices cronyism as well. The opposition leaders play favourites and will give their cronies the best seats. The non-cronies will be given the not so favourable seats. We will see winnable seats lost to Barisan Nasional merely because they placed the wrong candidate in that seat. Candidates should be allotted seats not because they are close to the party leadership but because they are able to win those seats. If not we will never see the opposition winning 60 Parliament and 200 State seats as what we hope will happen this time around.

This is the opposition's last chance. For 50 years we have seen the same party ruling this country. This has to change. This, in fact, can change. But if they miss the boat this time around, the opposition will not be able to try again in the next election in 2012 or 2013. They either make it this time around or else we will see what Ali Rustam said is going to happen -- we shall see Barisan Nasional in power for another 50 years.

No, I don't believe I am smarter than the opposition leaders. No, I don't believe the opposition leaders are that stupid. I believe the opposition leaders are smart enough to know what needs to be done. It is just that many within the ranks of the opposition leaders are Trojan Horses planted in the opposition by Barisan Nasional to ensure that the opposition remains divided and continues squabbling over petty issues so that a very weak Barisan Nasional can remain in power in spite of it being so weak. I just hope that these Trojan Horses do not include people like Lim Kit Siang, Anwar Ibrahim, Husam Musa and those many others who are the main decision-makers and who will determine whether the opposition continues as a weak opposition while an even weaker Barisan Nasional stays on as the government.

22/01: Malays, the enemy of Islam

Posted By: Raja Petra

Yes, let us all go to the Kuala Lumpur High Court at Jalan Duta on 17th and 18th January 2008 and take a good look at the defenders of the dignity of Islam, those 'moral police' who arrest Malay girls and boys who work in discos and then photograph them in the nude and then demand sex as out of court settlement.

If you really, really have nothing to do with your time, then you should attend the noonday Friday prayers at the mosque and listen to the imam lament about the enemies of Islam who all have an agenda to destroy Islam. If not, then don't waste your time. Do something else instead.

Yes, non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam, according to these imams, and they are all united in their effort to 'kill' Islam.

Actually this is not true at all. The enemies of Islam, at least in Malaysia, are the Malays themselves. The only thing is the Malays are just too bodoh (stupid) to realise this. Malays say that there are two types of bodoh. One is bodoh sepat -- you pretend to be stupid but are actually very devious. Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi would probably fit this bill. He pretends to be bodoh but is actually very crafty. The second is bodoh sombong -- you are actually very stupid but are too stupid to realise that you are stupid and think you are very clever.

Most Malays fall into this category of bodoh sombong.


On 17th and 18th January 2008, a case is going to be heard in the Kuala Lumpur High Court. I was told this is the new courthouse near the Wilayah Persekutuan Mosque along Jalan Duta in Kuala Lumpur. A woman is suing the Malaysian government, the Federal Territory Religious Department (JAWI) and RELA (a volunteer paramilitary force that is infamous for extorting immigrant workers of their hard-earned money), plus one or two other Malaysian government agencies. Karpal Singh is the solicitor for the plaintiff, which promises to be a very exciting case indeed considering Karpal is known to take no prisoners.

It seems this woman, a Muslim, was arrested during a 'vice raid' on a certain disco in Kuala Lumpur. She was an employee of that disco and, according to the 'rules', Muslims are not supposed to work in any establishment that sells liquor. So, for that 'crime', she was arrested together with about 16 or so other Muslim men and women.

Now, when the authorities issued the disco its licence, it was not stipulated anywhere in that licence that any establishment selling liquor is prohibited from employing Muslim staff. If this is the law then certainly our national airline, MAS, would have to retrench all the Malay staff and employ only non-Muslim Chinese, Indians, Portuguese, Dayaks, Kadazans, etc., because MAS serves liquor. Not only the cabin crew would have to be sacked but the entire staff including the ticketing staff, administration staff, accountants, managers, board of directors, and so on, would have to go.

The 'haram' ruling would not only affect those directly involved in serving the liquor on-board the flights but anyone whomsoever even remotely linked to the organisation. I mean, the 'criminal' is not only the stewards and stewardesses who serve the liquor but anyone who may be 'collaborating' with the stewards and stewardesses to make it possible for the stewards and stewardesses to serve liquor on-board the flights. So, those who sell the tickets and those who check you in and those who handle your baggage and those who usher you to the plane and those who sit in the office to count the money and those who sit in the boardroom to conduct meetings, and many more, are 'partners-in-crime' and would also have to leave the organisation.

If you drive the car that the bank robbers used to rob the bank you too would be arrested for bank robbery although you just sat in the car and did not walk into the bank to rob it. If you lent the bank robbers the car that they used to rob the bank then you too would be arrested for bank robbery although you did not follow them to the bank but just stayed home. If you lent the bank robbers the guns they used in the bank robbery you too would be arrested for bank robbery although you did not follow them to the bank but just stayed home. If you gave the information to the bank robbers on when and how they should rob the bank so that they can maximise their takings and make a successful getaway you too would be arrested for bank robbery even though all you did was just offer them information and did not actually take part in the robbery.

Yes, all of them would be regarded as being part of the bank robbery ring even though their only role was to assist the bank robbers in pulling off a successful bank robbery and did not actually take an active part in the robbery and were not even there.

So, are Muslim waiters and waitresses who work in discos committing a crime? Yes, according to the Federal Territory Religious Department who arrested 17 or so Muslim staff who were working in a disco in Kuala Lumpur. And all except one pleaded guilty and paid the RM400 fine. One, however, decided to sue the Malaysian government, the Religious Department, RELA and two other government agencies for RM5 million. And Karpal Singh is handling the case.

According to the police report that this Muslim woman made, which is the basis of the suit, she plus all the others were handcuffed and placed in the police truck. After some time she needed to answer the call of nature and requested permission to go to the toilet. However, they refused to allow her to go to the toilet and asked her instead to just pee in the truck.

This woman could not hold her bladder and had no choice but to pee there and then. Her colleagues helped guard her modesty by placing a scarf in front of her so that she could at least have some privacy. But the RELA officers pulled away the scarf and started taking photographs of her peeing, of course with her private parts fully exposed.

In the police station, the men were separated from the women. The women were then taken to a secluded part of the police station and photographed. But they were not photographed in the normal 'criminal' way with their numbers on their chest and so on. Instead, they were told to assume sexy positions -- bend forwards, backwards, sideways, etc. Basically, they were asked to pose in erotic and sensuous positions for the benefit of the cameras, sort of like the centrefold of Playboy or Penthouse, if you know what I mean.

Then the women were told they could avoid getting charged by settling the case 'outside court' in exchange for sexual favours. All they had to do was drop their panties and after a quickie they would be allowed to go home without any further action taken against them.

Actually, this sort of thing is not new. This has been going on for more than 30 years. Why do you think these perverts fall over each other and rush to sign up as RELA guards? And they would drop everything and volunteer their time free-of-charge to participate in a 'vice raid'. Of course, they will tell their wives and children they only have the interest of Islam at heart in arresting 'immoral' Malay men and women who work in discos that serve liquor. Their interest is only to protect the dignity of Islam. Yeah, sure, and I with five children and four grandchildren am still a virgin.

No, if you have free time on your hands don't waste it by going to the noonday Friday prayers to listen to the imam scream, rant and rave about the enemies of Islam plotting against Islam in their secret agenda to destroy Islam. Instead, go to the Kuala Lumpur High Court at Jalan Duta on 17th and 18th January 2008 and hear the case that Karpal Singh is going to argue. Hear how the 'moral police' -- officers of the Federal Territory Religious Department and RELA -- round up women and photograph them nude and demand sex as out of court settlement.

Yes, these are the upholders of the dignity of Islam. These are the defenders of Islam. These are the officers of Islam Hadhari, the new Islam, the invention of Abdullah Badawi. Now do you know why the non-Muslims fear the prospects of Malaysia being turned into an Islamic State? Hey, I don't blame them. If this is the Islam they are talking about then I too fear Malaysia being turned into an Islamic State. I fear my wife and daughter getting picked up by these perverts because they are perceived as dressing too sexily and then being asked to grant these 'officers of Islam' sexual favours as out of court settlement.

Hmm, this reminds me of another RELA officer from Terengganu whom I personally knew who raped and murdered a Malay schoolgirl. They eventually hanged him of course but this did not bring the unfortunate schoolgirl back to life. I suppose after getting horny from photographing waitresses in the nude they need to let off some steam by raping schoolgirls and then murdering them after that to prevent them from talking.

Yes, let us all go to the Kuala Lumpur High Court at Jalan Duta on 17th and 18th January 2008 and take a good look at the defenders of the dignity of Islam, those 'moral police' who arrest Malay girls and boys who work in discos and then photograph them in the nude and then demand sex as out of court settlement.

Someone sent me this piece below. I don't know who the author is but I thought maybe I should share it with you because it best describes what I am lamenting about.



Oh man, I love this country

I called it the land of political absurdity

Full of ludicrousness amid stupidity

First in the pipeline is Mr. Badawi

The country's fifth Perdana Menteri

Hailed from notable ulama's family

In that spirit he created a new Islam Hadhari

The so-called modern Islam resembling Turkey

Some touted it as Islam Ada Hari

When the original Islam turned awry.



He loves to travel in style like big celebrity

Making grand entrance in any opportunity

So he insisted a private jet paid by Treasury

He got it despite hullabaloo by bloggers community

He said the government didn't purchase it out rightly

The government is leasing it from SPM, a GLC

For him, this is a good strategy

By doing that he thinks he can save money

Oh yeah, he thinks people believe his story.



Perth seems to be his favourite city

Last December he opened Nasi Kandar Puteri

And then went on sailing trip with Todt of Ferrari

Back home worst flood hit Johor Kota Tinggi

17 died and 90,000 evacuated in that tragedy

But yet, the jet setting PM was outside the country

He might use remote control key.



Badawi has son-in-law by the name of Khairy

He married Badawi's daughter Nori

Recently both blessed with the baby

That has longest name in the country

I can only remember the last name, Khairy

This young chap is Pemuda Umno deputy

Claimed to have "protection" from Mr. Badawi

Has a big wish to be PM by age of forty

So he is gathering support from Putera and Puteri

At the same time accumulated wealth aggressively

Through ECM Libra and some crony

Media was at his helm through NST

Now he has potent tools – money, media and machinery

And his father-in-law alias Perdana Menteri



Meanwhile Hisham is putting up a new strategy

His keris wielding attracts flak of Malay supremacy

It backfires especially to Chinese community

His reasoning draws conclusion that he is puny

Najib is not convince Hisham to be his deputy

Najib may consider a big mouth Nazri

Provided that Rosmah is okay to work with Nazri

You know why lah, Najib takut bini.



We don't have to elaborate the story

You have to come here to enjoy the absurdity

We have quite a few funny ministers and MP

Such as hilarious Work Minister Mr. Samy

Before Hindraf he represents Indian community

The longest serving minister that heads MIC

In press conference he got agitated quite easily

When Umno conference was held on Deepavali

He said no "open house" as sign of hostility

He twisted the decision maybe after talking to Indrani

This MIC leaders share similar trait and personality

The latest one was Cameron Highland MP Mr. Devamani

He has broken ranks with fellow BN MP

When he accused government not doing enough for Indian community

After meeting with BN Whip, he regretted and say sorry.



Let me continue my story

Well, you probably have heard it already

About the biggest anti-government rally

Not exactly same scale as 98 Reformasi

On Nov 10 more than 40,000 flooded the city

To protest unfair election practice against EC

Dirty ruling party tactics are legendary

Short-notice on Election Day is customary

Just a day before Pak Lah was basking in glory

In annual affair of UMNO general assembly

Full of hypocrisy and puji-memuji

Pak Lah shouted it loud "don't challenge me"

Despite threats and warning from Pak Lah and Khairy

People are defiant and take no heed from Badawi

They chanted God is Great, Daulat Tuanku and Reformasi

November is a month of illegal assembly

School holidays thus parents are quite free.



The rally was given wide publicity

The rally was headlined in Al Jazeera and BBC

Foreign media questioned our brand of democracy

Water cannon and tear gas were fired indiscriminately

Umno leaders are in denial state naturally

Such as Zam who head the Info Ministry

Zam was trembling uncharacteristically

In an interview that becoming laughing stock in the country

Scrambling for words and chew out frantically

He can't censor it as we are in digital technology

You can just Google or YouTube easily.



Well that is one example of political absurdity

What do you expect from half past six menteri

Some are in complete ignorance and dreary

Some will resort to unthinkable publicity

Giving broom as reward never in history

Some will slaughter cows in parliament for kenduri

To celebrate the matrimony of our own Sleeping Beauty

Another stupid joke by backbencher MPs.



You can't find this in your country

A journalist like Michael Backman will agree

So many things to write for your Daily

No wonder he keeps coming here for juicy story

Malay tabloids prefer to write about ghost and celebrity

That's saleable among ordinary

Maybe they got sick of constant spat by political party

They prefer to idolise people like Siti or Mawi

Do you think they care who is their MP?

15/01: Phony War

Legendary Brazilian football coach Mario Zagallo once said coaching Brazil was near impossible because every Brazilian thinks he or she knows the national football team better than he does.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi might as well share the same view with Zagallo about the timing of the country’s next general election. It seems like everyone knows just when the 12th general election is going to be held.

There is no doubt the country is in the grip of an election fever. Popular bloggers like Raja Petra (Malaysia Today) have been writing articles speculating on the election date(s) for months and even claimed a feng shui master has gave Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi several auspicious dates to hold the election. Recently, the mainstream newspaper jumped onto the bandwagon. The general election is coming, screamed The Star a few days ago. Quoting political analysts, the newspaper claimed it could be held “in a matter of weeks.”

The Star even ventures a time frame for the election to be held, March 7 to 16, to coincide with the school holidays. To give its prediction a hint of credibility, it quoted a senior minister as saying BN had completed dry runs in five states. Why the senior minister was not named is anybody’s guess because I can’t find anything controversial about his statements. (Perhaps the senior minister is fictitious, made up by the writer in a moment of inspiration.) I do however, find his next statement funny. Funny because the senior minister was quoted as saying “If we wait any longer, fatigue will set in.”

Come on. The BN has just conducted dry runs in five states and he/she is worried about fatigue settling in among party workers? Maybe the senior minister (writer) underestimated the size of BN’s war chest. Maybe what the senior minister, if he or she really exist, actually meant was “if we wait any longer, we will have to spend more money campaigning (and less for ourselves).” It certainly makes more sense.

What about the opposition? Senior opposition leader Lim Kit Siang has made several predictions about the date of the next general elections. If he truly believes them, then he would have mobilised DAP’s election machinery in preparation a few months ago? Ditto PAS and PKR. But have they? And if the opposition parties have started campaigning earlier than BN component parties, wouldn’t their supporters be even more fatigued now compared with BN component party workers?

Okay, I hear what you say. I can’t compare BN party workers and opposition party workers right? Opposition party workers are more committed to their cause compared with BN party workers right? You are probably right but party workers, no matter how committed they are, can’t be kept on tenterhooks for too long less they become frustrated.

I believe the election won’t be held until the later part of the year. I believe BN and opposition leaders are currently waging a phony war, the prelude to the real war – the general election. What we are witnessing now is a war of nerves aims at catching your opponent s off guard.

There are good reasons why BN and opposition leaders are engaging in a psych war. For BN, it means keeping the opposition on its toes. Badawi and his advisors know the opposition parties would not be able to match BN financial resources. Opposition parties could not sustain a long drawn election campaign. By fanning speculations of an impending election, he hopes slowly and steadily to drain PAS, DAP and PKR of its strength. When he sees the opposition parties are exhausted, he moves in for the kill by calling for the shortest election possible (don’t be surprised if the 12th general election turns out to be the shortest election held ever). He unleashes the full might of the BN on the weakened opposition in one swift and mighty blow and before you can shout “People Power,” or “Takbir,” or “Re-for-ma-si,” the election is over and BN is back in power for another five years.

There are good reasons too why opposition parties agree to play along in the charade. I remember asking the astute and experienced Kelantan PAS election director Cikgu Wan Rahim Wan Abdullah (the current Kelantan state assembly Speaker) in 1998 why PAS did nothing to address the nervous anticipation of its supporters of a snap election following the sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He told me the rumours serve the purpose of keeping PAS supporters “battle ready.” “Otherwise they become complacent. As long as we did not start the rumours, let it be.”

I suspect there will be a few more attempts by BN to bluff the opposition parties and the opposition parties to call BN’s bluff over the next few months. Whether the war, the 12th general election will be held in the next few weeks or during the second part of the year, time will tell. But make no mistake; the war has begun, even if it is only a phony war.

ends

By NICK LEONG

(Jan 15, 2008)

15/01: Empty pockets on rich soil

Despite hard work and commitment by the government, hardcore poverty still exists in Sabah, which ironically is rich in natural resources. JASWINDER KAUR visits the northern part of the state and sits in on a multi-stakeholder roundtable dialogue on challenges and programmes for poverty alleviation

THERE was the baby, her wrinkled and dull skin blemished by signs of dryness brought on by malnutrition and epilepsy.

She reached out her tiny hand to clutch the striped towel her mother had placed her in as a group of strangers walked into their one-room home built using left-over wood, zinc and dried leaves.

Lanora John, who is just over a year old, threw a glance at her 20-year-old mother for assurance before turning again to view the five or so people who crammed into the house on stilts which leak when it rains. She did not cry.

“Anak saya sakit. Dia kena sawan. (My daughter is sick. She has epilepsy),” Lanora’s mother, Isrin Basitul, said in a soft voice.
Probably shy, and looking undernourished herself, Isrin refused to say much despite being prodded by a group of reporters. Instead, she looked towards her husband, 51-year-old subsistence farmer John Leesa.

“Sejak anak kami sakit, dia tidak bising dan menangis macam bayi lain (Ever since our daughter fell sick, she stopped crying aloud like other babies),” John said at the house which does not have electricity or water supply, much less proper sanitation.

The family uses firewood to cook when there is no money to refill the gas cylinder.

“We take her to the Likas hospital for children in Kota Kinabalu every two months to get treatment. It is very expensive for us to travel to the city but we are trying to do what we can to save our baby.

“We cannot afford powdered milk but sometimes I buy Nestum when I have money to spare. We mix rice with water in a bottle and this is what Lanora drinks instead of milk.”

The couple’s older daughter, Eva Irene, is 5 years old, and John’s son from a previous marriage lives with them.

The 25-year-old son is mentally challenged and has become an added burden on the family’s already tiny income of about RM150 a month, which John earns clearing shrubs at a rubber estate close to his home in Kampung Simpang Empat, Pitas, in northern Sabah.

“I re-married after my first wife died. My eldest son is 27 and he has been working at a factory in Singapore for the last two years.

“He only managed to send RM50 to me once. It’s OK, I know he has many expenses there. My main concern now is to make sure that our baby will get well.”

John’s situation illustrates some of the problems the 21,568 hardcore poor families in Sabah face — living in remote areas, under-utilisation of resources, malnutrition, underage marriages, sickness and disabilities and lack of access to critical infrastructure such as electricity, clean water and clinics.

It also brings to light the fact that 41.61 per cent of children in Sabah are living in poverty, according to statistics released in the Malaysia. Measuring and Monitoring Poverty and Inequality report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in co-operation with the Economic Planning Unit.

Dr Richard Leete, UNDP resident representative for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, said the country had success stories regarding eradication of absolute poverty but that, somehow, a quarter of the population in Sabah was still living below the poverty line.

“It is rather shocking. About 42 per cent of Sabah’s children are currently living in poverty. This is shocking because that is where peninsula Malaysia was 50 years ago,” Leete said at a roundtable dialogue in Kota Kinabalu last week.

“Inequality in Sabah is getting worse. Despite great natural wealth, Sabah has not been able to translate this into reducing poverty.

“We need answers to questions such as what lies behind aggregate figures, how to tackle high fertility and child rates, women’s issues and how to create decent employment.”

The dialogue titled “Overcoming Challenges and Devising Sustainable Strategies and Programmes for Poverty Alleviation in Sabah” was jointly organised by the UNDP and the Centre for Poverty and Development Studies at Universiti Malaya.

Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, who is also minister in charge of rural development, acknowledged the daunting task facing the government in eradicating hardcore poverty by 2010.

Hardcore poverty in Sabah is at 6.9 per cent while poverty stands at 24.2 per cent based on 2004 figures.

“Scrutiny into the state’s poverty data would reveal that the majority of the poor and hardcore poor are subsistence farmers and traditional fishermen,” said Pairin.

“Both the federal and state governments have planned and implemented various programmes, with the Ninth Malaysia Plan and the state’s development agenda placing special emphasis on poverty eradication.”

He said the northern regions covering the districts of Kudat, Pitas, Kota Marudu and Kota Belud and central parts — including the districts of Beluran and Tongod — registered the highest number of hardcore poor households.

“These areas have undergone commendable economic development, especially in agriculture and basic infrastructure. However, pockets of poverty persist due to remoteness, inaccessibility and under-utilisation of resources.

“This is our challenge, trying to re-settle hardcore poor families in new areas through which we can introduce them to small programmes, such as making parang. There is a spectrum of target groups in different areas. We need everyone to be involved, we can’t do this alone.”

Pairin said his ministry was establishing 30 mini oil palm and rubber estates and setting up aquaculture programmes for the hardcore poor.

Universiti Malaya’s Centre for Poverty and Development Studies director, Associate Prof Dr Sulochana Nair, said not all strategies were “pro-poor".

She said what could work in one area, might not work in another place and that it was necessary to determine differences in poverty across regions.

“The second issue is that current programmes are top-down. Programmes should be based on needs and should be bottom-to-top. Look at what the poor need,” she said. “There is also a need to minimise leakages and to track expenditure.”

Nair said there was a need for better synergy between the different sectors, including non-governmental organisations and private bodies, adding that it was pertinent to link rural producers to the global supply chain while preserving traditional indigenous knowledge.

The dialogue also saw several prominent members of civil society and elected representatives giving their views, often opposed to one another, on why poverty still existed and what could be done to stop it. NST

13/01: The ten-year mood swings

Posted By: Raja Petra

The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us.


They say the economy works in ten-year cycles. I can't remember what happened before Merdeka because I was still too young then, but by the time I went out into the world to make my living in 1974 I became conscious of these economic down-turns. Last year, the world struggled to keep its head above water. The expected crash did not happen only because governments took pains to keep banks and countries from collapsing. It is no secret that when America sneezes, the rest of the world, in particular the developing part of the world, catches a cold. So America needed to be saved just so that the rest of the world could save itself.

China and the Middle Eastern countries in particular had invested a lot in the United States Dollar so they could not afford for the Dollar to crash. It is said that between them they hold an estimated three to five trillion Dollars. So, if the Dollar crashes, they have as much to lose as does the United States. It is therefore prudent to keep the Dollar alive just so that they themselves would not crash alongside a crashing Dollar. This is no charity. They do not have the interest of the United States at heart. It is merely a matter of survival, their own survival, so keeping the Dollar going was to keep themselves safe and a way of preventing their investments from getting wiped out.

But what is the real worth of the United States Dollar? Is the Dollar worth a Dollar? No one knows expect maybe those who walk in the corridors of power in Washington, Beijing, Riyadh, and so on. The rest of us lesser mortals can only hope and pray that what we may be trading in or holding onto by way of the Dollar is worth the paper it is printed on. It is clearly understood that the Dollar, as are all paper money, is merely a promissory note. It is a promise by the issuer of the note that they would pay on demand the figure printed on that paper. But what if they don't? What if they dishonour their promise? There is very little you can do, really, except to 'blacklist' their paper from thereon and refuse to accept it any longer in future. But the damage would have already been done. The three or five trillion Dollars that you hold would be worthless scraps of paper and refusing to further accept that paper would not help you recoup your loses but would instead guarantee that the paper you hold would become like the Japanese 'banana' money, if any of you still remember the Malayan currency of the Second World War.

Anyway, for all intents and purposes, 2007 could be said to be a critical year for the world economy. The only thing is the economy was artificially propped-up so many of us did not realise it. What we saw were just the bells and whistles, which was what we were meant to see. Ten years ago, in 1997, we again suffered an economic downturn -- at least our part of the world did -- due to what is now infamously known as the Asian Financial Crisis. In 1987, ten years before that, again, the entire world went through an economic slump that saw some tycoons suffering jail terms when they attempted to prop up their ailing companies through fair or foul means and many chose the easier foul means alternative. And ten years before that, in the 1970s, yet another economic crisis.

Yes, every ten years expect an economic crash and if the ten-year theory is correct then this year, 2008, we are due for yet another economic downturn. Of course, predictions are just that, predictions, but predictions are based on signs and the signs seem to indicate that we may not be too far off the mark. In fact, as I said, it should have happened last year rather than this year if not for the propping-up by the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries which had more to lose than the Americans if the Dollar collapses. But the economy can still be saved, and if the United States attacks Iran, which many think may happen this year, then we may be seeing better days ahead of us -- at least as far as the economy is concerned though I can't say the same for the Iranians. Yes, wars are good for the economy and an American-Iranian war will see the economy strengthen. But people will have to die, many people of course, so that the capitalists can see a healthy return on their investments.

This ten-year cycle theory holds true for politics as well, at least as far as Malaysia is concerned. Every ten years or so we see a shift in voters' sentiments. Sometimes the shift is large enough to make an impact like in 1969 and 1999. Sometimes it is a minor shift but only because the Malays shift one way with the non-Malays going the opposite direction one election, and then the non-Malays reverse direction with the non-Malays again moving in the opposite direction the following election. Now, if only the Malays and non-Malays both shift the same direction then the election results would have been totally different. But the Malays and non-Malays love playing see-saw. When one goes up the other goes down, and vice versa. Maybe they should start playing swings instead so that both can swing up and down at the same time. But such are the mood swings of the Malays and non-Malays. When one is in the mood, the other is not, and then when the other finally gets into the mood, the mood of the first moves the opposite direction. It's like when tonight your wife has a headache and is not in the mood and tomorrow night when she is in the mood you in turn get a headache. If only you can both get your headaches at the same time so that you can synchronise your moods.

I remember in 1968 -- I was 18 then -- when Malaysians went through their first mood swing. Resentment against the government was high and both the Malays and non-Malays voted against the ruling party in the 1969 general election giving the opposition 55% of the votes. No doubt the ruling party still formed the government even though it had just 45% of the votes but it lost many states and ruled without a two-thirds majority. History was almost repeated 30 years later in 1998 but in the 1999 general election the Malays and non-Malays were not as united as in 1969 (though in 1969 the Malays and non-Malays were not really united in that sense but just that both wanted the government out without working in concert to achieve this).

Now, we must remember, 1969 was not long after Merdeka and not long after the ruling party swept almost all the seats in the first parliamentary elections in 1959. Ten years before that the voters gave the ruling party a landslide victory. Ten years later they took it back.

Let us look at the First Parliamentary General Election again. What really happened in that first election in 1959, merely two years after Merdeka? Did the ruling party do that well, only to lose it all again ten years later?

In the First Parliamentary General Election in 1959, the voter turnout was only 73.3% or 1.55 million voters. 600,000 people decided to just stay home and not bother to come out and vote. The Alliance Party, which had won the Municipal Elections four years before that in 1955, managed to garner only 51.8% of the votes. That's right, the Alliance Party won slightly over half the votes in the First Parliamentary General Election. And the Alliance Party was a coalition of three parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC. Therefore Umno, on its own, won less than half the votes.

In terms of seats, though, the Alliance Party won 74 out of the 104 seats or around 71% of the total seats contested. This means they managed to form the government with a comfortable two-thirds majority in spite of winning slightly over half the votes.

Five years on, in the Second Parliamentary General Election in 1964, the voter turnout increased slightly to 78.9%, a 5.6% increase. In this election the Alliance Party garnered 58.5% of the votes, an improvement of 6.7%, more or less corresponding with the increase in voter turnout. The increase in votes which the Alliance Party won can easily be attributed to the increase in the number of registered voters. The number of registered voters had increased by 28% but the Alliance Party saw an increase in votes of 50%. This means the Alliance Party saw a real increase and not just because there were more voters. In short, 500,000 'new' voters came out to vote in the 1964 general election and 80% or 400,000 of these votes went to the Alliance Party -- an impressive performance indeed. The number of seats the Alliance Party won increased to 86%, which more or less gave them a landslide victory.

Five years later, in 1969, the voter turnout dropped back to 73.6%. In this historic election (historic only because of the racial riots that followed) the Alliance Party managed a paltry 44.9% of the votes. Out of the 144 seats contested, the Alliance Party managed only 74 giving them slightly better than half (72 seats is 50%) and FAR SHORT of the two-thirds they needed to form an effective government.

That’s when all hell broke loose -- organised chaos if you wish -- infamously known as the May 13 incident.

The ruling party, by then called Barisan Nasional, performed better during the 1974 general election. They managed to garner 60.7% of the votes. But this is only because the old Alliance Party no longer existed and the new coalition called Barisan Nasional comprised all those opposition parties that, in the election before that, had denied the ruling party its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

In terms of seats it was almost a clean sweep for Barisan Nasional as the opposition managed to win only 19 out of the 144 seats contested. Something must be wrong with the system when the opposition won only 13% of the seats though 40% of the rakyat voted for them. In this election the voter turnout was only 75.1%. Again, 600,000 people did not come out to vote just like in the two elections before that.

The 1978 general election was not any better and was almost a repeat of 1974. Only 75.3% of the voters came out to vote. The ruling party won 57.2% of the votes, but this time their number of seats won dropped to 130. The opposition managed to win 24 seats on the now enlarged total of 154 seats -- a slightly better performance for the opposition.

The 1982 general election was, again, a duplicate of the election before that -- 74.39% voter turnout, 60.54% votes to the ruling party giving them 132 seats, and 22 seats to the opposition, which was almost status quo.

From thereon PAS seemed to be going downhill. The following general election in 1986 was a disaster for PAS when it won only one seat and lost Kelantan to UMNO. Ironically, DAP saw its best ever performance by winning 24 Parliament seats. Barisan Nasional, which got 57.28% of the votes, won 148 seats or 84% out of the total of 177 seats. This was the turning point for both PAS and DAP -- PAS its lowest point and DAP its highest.

One interesting point to note is that the voter turnout in 1986 was the worst in the history of our general elections. Only 69.97% of the voters came out to vote. It was said the low voter turnout was one factor that worked against the opposition. More than 2 million people stayed home in that election.

1990 was the most interesting year. In the general election held that year, the ruling party managed only 53.38% of the votes. Voter turnout was only slightly better at 72.7%. A 'record' 2.2 million people stayed home and did not bother to come out and vote. Considering the ruling party managed only around 3 million votes and the opposition obtained 2.6 million votes (giving the ruling party a mere 400,000 vote majority), the 2.2 million voters who stayed home was quite significant indeed. If 8% more people had come out to vote, and if they had voted for the opposition, the results would have been quite different. Of course, if they had voted for the ruling party instead then it would not have mattered much.

Anyway, DAP lost four seats and managed to retain only 20. PAS & Semangat 46 shared 15 seats between them from a mere one seat the election before that. PBS in Sabah got 14 seats and four independent candidates got in. Out of 180 seats contested, the ruling party still managed to win 127 or 70% of the seats on slightly more than HALF the votes they garnered. Again, this showed, in Malaysian elections, it is SEATS AND NOT VOTES THAT MATTER.

During the 1995 general election, PAS and Semangat 46 got one seat less each and, combined, managed to win only 13 seats. DAP did quite badly at nine seats while PBS got only eight seats this time around. There were nine million registered voters that year but, just like in 1990, more than two million people stayed home. The ruling party garnered 65.2% of the votes and won 162 out of the 192 seats contested giving it 85% of the seats.

In the 1999 general election, Barisan Nasional won 102 or 70.8% of the 144 seats it contested in Peninsular Malaysia. This gave it 4.2% more than what it needed to retain its two-thirds majority in Parliament. With the 46 seats it won in East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional sailed in comfortably with 148 seats, 20 more seats than what was required to maintain its two-thirds majority and 52 more seats than what it need to form the government with a simple majority.

Now, it must be noted that while Barisan Nasional won more than the two-thirds of the seats, it failed to win two-thirds of the votes. Out of a total of about 5.8 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional managed to convince only 3.1 million voters to vote for it while 2.6 million voters voted for the opposition. This came to less than 54% of the total voters who cast their votes -- far short of the two-thirds it needed to legitimately claim that the people support the ruling party.

What is most interesting to note is that only 73% of the voters came out to vote. Perak was the lowest at 66% followed by the Federal Capital at 70%. Why this low turnout?

Thousands of complaints were received that voters who had voted in that same area for the last few elections suddenly found their names missing from the electoral list. Others complained that someone else had voted in their place. When they went to vote they found that their names had been 'cut off' from the register, which means they had already voted. Then there were cases where voters’ names had been transferred to another state so they could not vote as there was no way they could make it across the country in time to vote.

It was estimated that around 80% to 82% of the registered voters would have come out to vote this time around, if they had been allowed to. This would have made it one of the highest ever in Malaysian election history. Many did in fact come out but were sent home disappointed.

If these 7% to 9% had not been denied their right to vote, and if the 680,000 voters who had registered earlier but could not vote were included in the voters’ list, an additional one million people would have voted in the 1999 general election.

According to the Elections Commission, 95% of these 680,000 disenfranchised voters were below the age of 30. The Alternative Front or Barisan Alternatif claimed that more than 70% of these people barred from voting were their supporters. If this were true, then Barisan Nasional would have garnered 3.4 million votes while the opposition would have won 3.2 million. This would have changed the results drastically, probably even giving the opposition an additional 30 to 40 Parliamentary seats. Looking at the wafer-thin wins the Barisan Nasional candidates obtained, this assumption is more than possible.

A couple of years later, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted during the Umno General Assembly that if the 680,000 disenfranchised voters had been allowed to vote, Barisan Nasional would have been kicked out of office.

The opposition officially won 42 of the Parliament seats contested. They claim the number should have been between 70 to 80 if the elections had been free and fair. And all they needed was 65 seats to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Then came the 2004 general election, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first general election, and the tide turned yet again in favour of the ruling party. Even with just roughly two-thirds of the votes, Barisan Nasional managed to win 92% of the seats, never before achieved in 50 years of election history. Now, what is 2008 going to look like? Well, we have eleven previous general elections to look at so take your pick. But whatever it is, take note that:

1) even with 45% of the votes Barisan Nasional will still form the government;

2) they do not need two-thirds of the votes to win two-thirds of the seats;

3) and finally, in 1959 the ruling party garnered 51.8% of the votes, in 1969, 44.9% of the votes, in 1978 (which should have been held in 1979), 57.2% of the votes, in 1990 (they held elections every four years instead of five during this period so that is why there is an 'extra' two years), 53.38% of the votes, and in 1999, 54% of the votes.

Now, what is 2009, the next ten years (which may be 2008 rather than 2009 if they call an early election) going to look like? We have seen a voters' mood swing every ten years, just like we saw an economic downturn. Can we expect a downturn of the ruling party's performance as well?

Most likely. If the Malays and non-Malays unite under a united opposition we can see a 50-50 split in the votes. Of course, Barisan Nasional will still form the government. But it will be without a two-thirds majority and with the loss of a few states.

Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis may fall. Barisan Nasional may lose its majority in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Sabah. And 80 Members of Parliament will sit in the opposition aisle giving Barisan Nasional a mere 64% of the seats, slightly less than the two-thirds it needs to blatantly amend laws such as the recent one that allowed the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission without seeking the approval of the Agong.

Yes, let us force the opposition to unite. And if they don't then let us boycott the opposition. Let us show them we mean business. As Lim Kit Siang said, “The people are the boss.” So let us show them that we really are the boss by telling them what we want and by rejecting them if they refuse to listen to the boss. We want 80 opposition members in Parliament. And we will get it even if we have to vote against the opposition or by not coming out to vote just to teach the opposition a lesson and to show them that if we can't have it our way then we do not want it any way.

The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us. Malaysia Today will soon launch a campaign called ONE OPPOSITION OR NO OPPOSITION. The civil society movements and NGOs will soon launch a PEOPLES' DECLARATION or DEKLARASI RAKYAT. If the ruling party accepts this Declaration we shall support them. Whomsoever accepts it we shall support them, never mind which party they are from. It is time we took back the streets. It is time we took back the ballot box. It is time the Wakil Rakyat learnt the meaning of wakil rakyat. It means we are in charge and they are merely our wakil.

12/01: The law of relativity

Posted By: Raja Petra

Mankind is quick to judge and pass judgement according to their own values and beliefs. They believe that if they believe it is right then it has to be right and if they believe it is wrong then it has to be wrong.


As I write this piece I am sitting in Starbucks at the Pantai Medical Centre awaiting the arrival of my fourth grandchild. He is due any time now and probably by the time you read this I will already be the proud grandfather of my third grandson. This is my 35-year old daughter's third child. She had a daughter and a son about a year apart some five to six years ago. My third grandchild was born in Manchester barely a few months ago so this latest one is going to be almost the same age.

A few hours ago I was at another hospital, the Sunway Specialist Centre. My friend, Adlan Benan Omar, the same age as my daughter, is dying and by the time you read this he would probably be dead. Yes, it has been one heck of a day for me rushing from one hospital to see a dying comrade to another to see my daughter of that same age bringing a fragile little being into this world. Such is life. One goes away and another one comes along. It makes you wonder whether everything is worth the effort when at the end of the day all you get is a hole in the ground and you revert to dust and ashes.

Anyway, that is not what I want to discuss today. It's just that I just had to mention them because these two events are going to have a great impact on my life. What I really want to talk about is the issue of right and wrong and our perception of what is right and what is wrong and how right can be wrong and wrong can be right, depending on the time and place and how you were brought up.

The Minister of Health had to resign because he committed a crime. The Minister of Health had to resign because public opinion says he committed a crime and a Minister is subject to public opinion. The Minister of Health had to resign because he was fixed up so that they could pressure him into resigning. The Minister of Health had to resign to save himself the embarrassment of getting sacked, which would have happened had he not resigned. The Minister of Health had to resign because he was ashamed of what he did. The Minister of Health had to resign because he knows it is impossible for him to continue commanding the respect of those under him and this would make him ineffective as a Minister. The Minister of Health had to resign because he was caught committing a crime and anyone unfortunate enough to get caught has to resign. The Minister of Health had to resign so that he could launch a challenge against the MCA leadership and the only way he could do this would be from the 'outside' because if he remained on the 'inside' he would have to 'toe the line' and 'behave himself'.

Which do you think is the real reason for the Minister of Health resigning? Different people would of course have different views as to why he resigned. And your view would all depend on the values you uphold and your perception of what is right and what is wrong. But right and wrong are subject to time and place. At different times and places, right could be wrong and wrong could be right. This is what I would call the law of relativity. Your judgement about what is right and wrong would be in relation to certain criteria and yardsticks.

For example, I am a poor man. I am poor in relation to the wealth that Bill Gates has. And Malaysia Today is making me poorer by the day. But in relation to a Bangladeshi labourer who washes dishes in a Mamak restaurant for a living, I am a rich man. After all, how many Bangladeshi labourers live in a semi-detached house overlooking a golf club? So perception is therefore everything. And this perception can be influenced or clouded by time and place.

There is another thing that influences how you see things. And this would be your own values and beliefs. If you believe that such a thing is right then it would become right, and vice versa. And this belief, again, would be influenced by time and place.

In the pre-Islamic days, women in the Arabian Peninsular were allowed more than one husband. And daughters would be buried alive because women are 'worthless' compared to men. Women are merely 'property' that can be passed down just like sheep and camels. Nevertheless, in spite of women being regarded as property, they could have more than one husband. In Europe, at around that same time, women would be made to wear chastity belts to ensure that they did not indulge in sex with another man. And halfway across the world the women there, 'second-class' people according to Arab standards, could legally enjoy sex with many men.

The same time but in two different places and what was right for one society was very wrong for another. So who are we to judge what is right and what is wrong? Right and wrong all depends on when that particular thing happened and where it happened.

Right and wrong are very much in the mind. It very much depends on how you have been brought up and educated and what your mind has been conditioned to become. And religion of course plays a very big part in all this.

Let us look at another example. Muslims would be very offended if you invite them for dinner and the food is non-halal or there is pork on the table. Even if there is no pork on the table but the kitchen cooks pork they would still feel offended. You have to ensure that the restaurant is totally pork-free and that the food is halal. It is not enough that pork is not on the table.

But Muslims do not feel offended if they invite vegetarians, Hindus or Buddhists for dinner and there is beef on the table. While Muslims may become very violent if you serve them pork, they are cool about serving vegetarians, Hindus and Buddhists, beef. If you point out to them that according to your religious belief beef is not halal, they would just suggest you lay off the beef. They would not apologise and instruct the waiter to remove the beef. They would then continue consuming beef in front of you. Try eating pork in front of them and see how they would react.

To Muslims, it is wrong to serve pork or even have it on the table or cooked in the kitchen. But it is right to serve beef and have it cooked in the kitchen and even eat it in front of you while you look on totally repulsed by the sight. The Muslim view of right and wrong would be what is right and wrong in Islam. What about what is right and wrong in the other religions? Muslims regard only Islam as the true religion and all other religions as false so they will only take what Islam says is right and wrong as the criteria. The right and wrong for the other religions need to be ignored or else you would be regarded as 'practicing' the values of another religion.

Unfortunately, this value system and the yardstick adopted to gauge right from wrong make Muslims very selfish. They only worry about what is right and wrong from the Islamic perspective while totally ignoring what may be allowed or taboo for the other religions. They would not bother to find out the religious persuasions of their dinner guests or ensure that the right menu is prepared in compliance to that particular religious belief. But they expect you to know that they are Muslims and that Islam forbids pork. And it is your duty to ensure that the restaurant is totally halal and that not only there is no pork cooked or served anywhere in the restaurant but that the beef and other livestock have been properly slaughtered the correct Islamic way.

Mankind is quick to judge and pass judgement according to their own values and beliefs. They believe that if they believe it is right then it has to be right and if they believe it is wrong then it has to be wrong. And they will use the present time and place and according to how they have been brought up and educated into believing as the criteria.

In the days before the French Revolution, cat burning was a popular form of entertainment. Cats would be rounded up and placed in a cage and then lowered slowly into an open fire. The cats would scream with pain, and as they burned the spectators would clap and squeal with delight. Yes, this was a very popular form of entertainment in France in the days before cable TV, the internet, computer games and the like.

There is of course nothing wrong with that form of entertainment. This is not considered cruelty to animals. Yes, there is nothing wrong and it is not cruel against the backdrop of France 500 years ago. Try doing that in Paris today and see what happens. Therefore, what was right 500 years ago in France is wrong today. And 500 years ago even the 'primitive' and 'backward' Malays in this country would not burn alive hundreds of cats for entertainment. It was wrong for Malays to subject cats to what today would be regarded as cruelty even 500 years ago when it was fashionable in France and a very popular form of entertainment. Right and wrong therefore depends on who you are, where you are, and at what point of time or when you are considering all this.

Now let us look at religion. Every religion, not only Islam, says it is right and that all the other religions are wrong. But which one is the really right religion? Do you know? Of course you do know. And your answer would be: the right religion is the religion you were born into and which you were brought up in and taught to believe in. All the others are wrong.

But how can you be sure of this? Is it because you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated so? Okay, what if you were born into a Muslim family instead of a Christian family? Would you still say that Jesus was the last Prophet and that Muhammad was a fake? You were taught your entire life that Islam is the true religion and all other religions are false. Your entire family is Muslim and you have been taught to believe that if you do not believe in Islam you will be sent to hell where you will remain forever. How would you not believe this is so?

Right and wrong all depend on how you were born. If you were born in Sweden to a Christian family then your beliefs would be moulded along that society's value system. And if you were born in Saudi Arabia to a Wahabbi family then your beliefs would be moulded along that society's value system. In both situations you would believe you are right. And in both situations you could actually be wrong.

How could both be right? One has to be right and the other wrong. But the right and wrong would all depend on which family you were born into. So right could be wrong and wrong could be right according to who you are in terms of time, race and religious beliefs. Therefore, since right and wrong are not static but would change according to which family you were born into and at which point of time, then there cannot be any right and wrong. Right and wrong do not exist. Right and wrong are merely how you perceive things and perceptions -- since they are influenced by time, place, upbringing, etc. -- are not real.

But mankind will not accept this. No one would declare that the religion they believe in is wrong while the religion they do not believe in is right. Right is always what you believe in and wrong would be all which is opposed to what you believe in. That is the value system you will uphold.

But how do you even know in the first place that there is such a thing called religion and that it came from God? You don't. You only have faith. And you will allow your faith to decide your beliefs. This is what you have been taught and what those who have taught you have been taught before that. So it is a hand-me-down 'knowledge' that cannot be proven but must be believed only because those before you have believed the same.

If I tell you that God listens to my prayers every night you would believe this because you believe the same thing. In fact, billions of people believe this same thing so as long as this belief is shared by the majority then it must be right. But if I tell you that God talks to me through my notebook computer and He leaves me messages on my word processor you would not believe me mainly because no one else believes the same thing. Your beliefs and your perception of right and wrong therefore is based on majority view. As long as the majority thinks the same then this is correct. It is wrong only when it goes against the majority view. Cat burning, if made into an international event, would be right only if many think so, as was so in France 500 years ago. Would you think that boxing is an acceptable sport if 99% of the world condemned it? If boxing is acceptable why not duels with pistols?

You may think this statement is ridiculous. Well, it would not be considered ridiculous during the time of the Romans when gladiators battled to the death in the Coliseum. It may be wrong today but it was very right then. And as recent as 150 years ago witches were burned alive at the stake in 'modern' Europe and America. An estimated 20,000-50,000 witches were burned alive over 300 years or so and it was very much right then and sanctioned, in fact encouraged, by the church. It is only wrong to burn witches today.

So right is wrong and wrong is right depending on who you are, where you were born, and when you were born. Your values are your values and it does not mean that they are right values. It just means that they are your perception of what are right values. So keep your values to yourself. Do not impose your values on me. And 200 years ago the Minister of Health would be allowed hundreds of mistresses in keeping with his status as a Minister of the Ruler. And he would not have to resign. But for plotting the downfall of his boss he would not just be fixed up and forced to resign but his head would be spiked on a stake outside the city gates.