Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The day ‘they’ sold out Sarawak (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Mon, 20 May 2013 23:26:02 +0000

The Chinese who kept Taib in power were rewarded for their support and all the transgressions, abuse of power and corruption that is being perpetuated by Taib and his family, and which you are complaining about, is being perpetuated in collaboration with his Chinese cronies.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Many people are calling the Sarawakians stupid and are disparaging the natives of Sarawak for keeping what they say is the most corrupt Chief Minister of that state in power for so long. Taib, who took office in March 1981, has been in power for more than 32 years now.

I take it these people saying all this must be quite young (meaning below 30-35) and do not know much about Malaysia’s history. If they did, they would know what really happened in the past and why things are what they are today -- and hence would be very ashamed and would not talk so much.

Actually, the attempt to kick out Taib Mahmud was launched 26 years ago in 1987 by none other than his own uncle together with Dayak leader, Leo Moggie anak Irok, the one-time President of Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS), a breakaway party from Parti Kebangsaan Sarawak (SNAP).

That attempt, however, failed mainly because the Chinese supported Taib and not the natives. Thereafter, Taib launched his divide-and-rule counter-strategy and stayed in power for another 26 years until today (and will probably ‘rule’ Sarawak for more than 35 years before we see his exit).

Malaysia Today, in fact, wrote about the logging and timber scam in Sarawak back in 2004 and we even named names. Nevertheless, nine years on and the situation has more or less remained the same and will probably remain unchanged right up to the coming Sarawak state election in three years time.

********************************************

Excerpts from Chapter 6: The Ming Court Affair

The Broken Shield

The Ming Court is a hotel in Kuala Lumpur where a group of politicians headed by the former Governor of Sarawak, Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub, gathered some time in March 1987 and discussed a plan to topple the state government of Sarawak under the leadership of Taib Mahmud, Rahman’s nephew. The Ming Court Hotel became the ‘headquarters’ of these politicians who were dissatisfied with Taib’s government. Thus, the name of Ming Court Hotel Affair came about.

Dissatisfaction with Taib’s leadership started as early as in 1985, when Bumiputera politicians accused him of neglecting the interests of Bumiputeras -- the Malays, Ibans and Bidayuhs -- and giving so much face to the Chinese. Many big projects, timber concession areas and large tracts of land were given to the Chinese and SUPP. Because of a special relationship between Taib and the SUPP leaders, SUPP became very daring in its demand. SUPP even asked the state government to give it a piece of land in each of the seven divisions in the state for the construction of its premises. This request by SUPP angered the Bumiputeras.

Wilfred Nissom, the independent State Assemblyman for Bengoh, was among those who were critical of Taib Mahmud. Nissom accused Taib of being a ‘weak’ Chief Minister who always gave in to demands by SUPP. He said that it was only a weak Chief Minister who tried to make a criminal out of a Bidayuh who had made a private application to join PBB under him.

http://thebrokenshield.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/excerpts-from-chapter-6-ming-court.html

READ MORE HERE:

The Dayak dilemma (Part 1) by Sim Kwang Yang, 20 December 2008 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/081220_dayak.htm

The Dayak dilemma (Part 2) by Sim Kwang Yang, 27 December 2008 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/081227_dayak.htm

The Dayak dilemma (Part 3) by Sim Kwang Yang, 10 January 2009 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/090110_dayak_dilemma.htm

The Dayak dilemma (Part 4) by Sim Kwang Yang, 17 January 2009 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/090117_dayak.htm

********************************************

What more can SUPP ask?

Joseph Tawie, Free Malaysia Today, 14 August 2010

Former councillor of Parti Rakyat Sarawak Joseph Allen has slammed SUPP leaders for neglecting the interests of Bumiputeras in their constituencies.

“Look at longhouses and villages under their constituencies in Pelawan, Bawang Assan and Dudong in Sibu, Sarikei and Bintangor: many of them have no clean water, electricity and proper roads compared with Chinese areas under their control,” Allen said.

“Clearly the interests of Bumiputeras have been neglected,” he said, adding that SUPP (Sarawak United People's Party) paid only 'lip service' to the Bumiputeras.

Allen was commenting on the proposed meeting between SUPP leaders and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

The SUPP leaders want Najib to exert pressure on Chief Minister Taib Mahmud to give equal opportunities to the Chinese community in business, contracts, employment in the civil service, scholarships and places in institutions of higher education if the Barisan Nasional leaders want to see the party doing well in the coming election.

“I am surprised to hear that SUPP is asking for equal opportunities business, tenders and government contractors. After the Ming Court affair in 1987, SUPP was given everything,” he said.

(The Ming Court affair refers to group of rebel state ministers and assistant ministers who plotted to topple Taib by moving a vote of no confidence in the state legislative assembly. The plotters met at the Ming Court (now Corus Hotel) in 1987 to hatch their plan but Taib retaliated by the dissolving the state assembly. He won in the fresh polls.)

“Who owns Class A and Class B licences? And who are being awarded big projects, given timber concessions and given provisional leases to plant oil palm in native customary rights land? Who are the millionaires and billionaires in the state?” Allen asked.

Allen, who is a contractor himself, alleged that Bumiputeras, who own class F licences, can only get government projects if they promise to sub-contract such projects to Chinese contractors, because the majority of the Bumiputera contractors do not have capital.

“This arrangement is being done in Sarikei, Bintangor, Sibu, and I am sure in other towns often with the full knowledge of certain authorities,” said Allen, who is being dubbed the 'Ibrahim Ali' of the Dayak community.

Said Allen: “What SUPP leaders are seeking are projects for their cronies. The fight now is between their (SUPP) cronies and cronies of Taib. They are meeting and asking the prime minister to pressure Taib to give them some of the projects."

“They are not doing it for the ordinary Chinese,” he added.

********************************************

How would you describe the politics in East Malaysia, specifically in Sarawak, compared to the days when you were a politician?

The Star, 18 December 2010

Even in Sarawak, the public is more cynical now, compared to say, ten years ago. More so among the urban population with access to all sorts of information or misinformation. So, politicians are subject to greater scrutiny, which is a good thing.

Rural Sarawakians by and large are still respectful of authority. They are uncomfortable with the aggressive confrontational style of campaigning seen in Semenanjung. They still need basic infrastructure. They need potable water supply, electricity, access to roads, access to good education while trying to make a living on smallholdings and family farms. For instance, our area, including my own longhouse, is accessible by road. We are just an hour from Sibu Airport. But our lighting comes from our own small diesel gen-set. It is difficult for people in the Semenanjung to comprehend that. Until these basic needs are met, the dynamics of politics in Sarawak will remain unchanged. -- Tan Sri Leo Moggie

Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable

********************************************

他們‘典當’砂勞越的那一天

那些支持泰益上位的華人們換來的就是泰益家族的各種貪污，濫權，非法勾當等。你們現在譴責他的罪名都是當年他和他的華裔狼友們共謀的勾當所留下來的後遺症。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

很多人都大罵砂勞越人民是蠢蛋，同時閒也一併詆毀砂州原住民們，說就是因爲他們這群人泰益這個史上最貪污的首席部長才能夠在位那麽久。直1981年3月上任后，泰益已掌權了將近32年。

我想發表這些言論的都是30-35嵗的年輕人，他們根本就對馬來西亞歷史不大了解。如果他們真懂的話，他們肯定會知道是什麽歷史因數導致今天的結果。他們進而就會感到恥辱而不敢就此事發言。

事實上，早在1987年泰益的叔叔就連手達雅族的領袖們和Leo Moggie（Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak PBDS的一屆主席, PBDS是從Parti Kebangsaan Sarawak SNAP分支出來的）企圖要把泰益拉下馬。

他們的計劃最終失敗了，原因是當時的華人都支持泰益，而不是原住民們。過後，泰益實施了‘分而治之 ’的政策來鞏固他往後26年的政權（此後他應該還會繼續掌權多35年吧）。

早在2004年MT就揭露了砂州伐木業的醜聞，我們甚至還把那些牽涉者的名字給張貼出來。無論如何，9年過去了，他們還是馬照跑，舞照跳。這種情形還會維持多3年吧，直到下一屆砂勞越州選舉爲止。

********************************************

摘錄于第六章：明園的内幕

The Broken Shield

明園（The Ming Court）是位于吉隆坡的一家酒店。當時前砂勞越總督Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub于1987年3月閒在此召開了會議商討推翻砂州領導人泰益（泰益是Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub的侄子）的計劃。這就是明園酒店的内幕這個標題的起源。

早從1985年起（他們）對泰益的不滿就漸漸的浮現。土著政客們都指責泰益忽略了土著們----馬來人，伊班人和比达友族----的利益，和他太給華人面子了。很多大型計劃與土地都判給了華人和SUPP。因爲泰益和SUPP領導人的微妙關係，SUPP變得越來越不可理喻。SUPP甚至還要求州政府在7個不同的地區划出地盤來讓他們建築。這個要求惹怒了許多土著。

（下文省略）

http://thebrokenshield.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/excerpts-from-chapter-6-ming-court.html

慾閲讀更多：

The Dayak dilemma (Part 1) by Sim Kwang Yang, 20 December 2008 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/081220_dayak.htm

The Dayak dilemma (Part 2) by Sim Kwang Yang, 27 December 2008 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/081227_dayak.htm

The Dayak dilemma (Part 3) by Sim Kwang Yang, 10 January 2009 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/090110_dayak_dilemma.htm

The Dayak dilemma (Part 4) by Sim Kwang Yang, 17 January 2009 http://www.sapp.org.my/mkini/090117_dayak.htm

********************************************

SUPP還要些什麽？

Joseph Tawie, Free Malaysia Today, 14-08-2010

前Parti Rakyat Sarawak委員 Joseph Allen大力撻伐SUPP的領袖們都忽略了他們選區裏土著的利益。

“你可以去看看Pelawan, Bawang Assan，Dudong，Sarikei和Bintangor選區裏的長屋，很多都是沒有水電供應和馬路設施的，不像選區裏的華人地區般。”

（下文省略）

********************************************

相比起以前你還在從政時，你會怎樣形容現今東馬，特別是砂勞越，的政客呢？

The Star, 18-12-2010

相比起10年，現今的砂勞越大衆變得更憤世嫉俗了。這種現象在資訊（包括正確的和錯誤的資訊）發達的市區更爲顯著。這對社會來講是件好事，因爲政客們必須面對更大的審查。

鄉區的居民們還是對掌權人士還是保持尊敬的。他們對西馬那種來勢洶洶的競選方式是感到很不舒服的。他們還是需要基本設施的；他們還是現在生活在家庭式的田園裏，他們需要清潔可食的水源，電源，道路，和良好的教育。給你個例子，我們那距離詩巫只有1小時車程的長屋區是有道路可通的，但我們的電源是來自我們自家的柴油發電機的；這對西馬人來講是很難理解的。在擁有這些基本的需求之前，砂州的政治環境是不會有所改變的。-- 丹斯利Leo Moggie

The rats leaving the sinking ship

Super Admin — Mon, 20 May 2013 00:24:18 +0000

So they are now embarking on an asset-stripping exercise. Chua Soi Lek, Tan Chai Ho, Vincent Lee Fook Long, Kat Swee Sang, and a few other MCA taikos are shifting MCA’s assets so that they can eventually bury an empty shell that was once the second-most powerful and richest political party in Malaysia. They will then ride out into the sunset and all live happily ever after while the Malaysian Chinese continue to argue about who should hold power and who should be represented in the government.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

While the Malaysian Chinese are arguing over whether MCA should be closed down, whether there should be any Chinese representation in the Federal Cabinet, whether Paul Low Seng Kuan should or should not be in the government, and so on, the MCA leaders have been quietly planning to abandon ship since a couple of years back.

MCA knew back in 2009, soon after Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister, that the 2008 general election was the signal that MCA and Gerakan were finished. The writing was already on the wall. MCA is a sinking ship. Hence, as is normal in all sinking ships, the rats had better leave the sinking ship or else drown.

The early life of MCA in the pre-Merdeka days was as a grouping of wealthy Straits Chinese, some who did not even know how to speak Chinese but spoke just Malay at home. Over time, MCA has become an economic giant and is considered wealthier than Umno by far.

Remember what happened to Umno back in 1988? The Registrar of Societies deregistered Umno and all its billions in assets got frozen. That was when Umno decided to change its strategy. Instead of parking all its wealth under the name of Umno, it embarked on an asset-stripping exercise and transferred all the party’s assets into the names of nominees.

Now you can no longer tell which of those billions belongs to Umno and which belongs to certain individuals who are allegedly mere nominees of Umno. The demarcation between what belongs to the party and what belongs to certain individuals behind the party is very blurred. Most likely it is the other way around -- the party is actually the ‘nominee’ of certain individuals.

Now MCA is going to suffer the same fate as Umno in 1988, with a slight twist, of course. Umno of 1946 died but from the ashes of the old Umno arose the new Umno (Umno Baru). But the new Umno no longer owned the assets of the old Umno. The new Umno was as poor as a church mouse although certain key people in the new Umno may be wealthy like hell.

MCA has learned from this Umno episode of 1988. (So who says the Chinese cannot learn from the Malays?) The ‘old’ MCA is in its death throes. But there is not going to be a MCA Baru à la Umno Baru. For all intents and purposes, MCA Baru, if there ever were going to be one, would be DAP.

Hence they need to do some asset stripping because MCA, without a doubt, is a sinking ship. The plan is: they need to bail out of the sinking ship with all the assets. Let the ship go down but it must be an empty ship, not a ship laden with wealth.

I thought the Chinese voter was one sharp cookie. Apparently they are not any smarter than the Umno supporter in the rural kampongs of Malaysia. They quarrel over nothing while the taikos rob them blind in broad daylight.

I suppose with a guru like Umno how can MCA go wrong? And while Umno’s slogan is ‘Ketuanan Melayu’, MCA’s slogan is ‘Just Duit’ -- or is it ‘Just do it’, à la Nike?

***********************************************************

Tan Chai Ho

MCA's Huaren Holdings sells stakes in MCIL

(Bernama, 24 September 2010): Huaren Holdings Sdn Bhd, the investment arm of the MCA, has sold its entire 3.6% equity in the Media Chinese International Ltd (MCIL).

Huaren chairman Datuk Seri Tan Chai Ho said the Huaren board had in August disposed of 60,394,191 ordinary shares of 10 HK cent per share for a total cash consideration of RM47.88 million.

Huaren’s 3.6% equity in MCIL was the result of a merger and a scheme of arrangement undertaken in 2008 by Ming Pao Enterprise Corp Ltd, Sin Chew Media Corp Bhd and Nanyang Press Holdings Berhad.

"The board of directors is of the opinion that the disposal is in the best interest of the company," Tan, who is also the MCA treasurer-general, said in a statement today.

Huaren had earlier owned up to 72.3% in Nanyang, paying RM230 million or RM5.50 per share, for the stake which was approved by the MCA at its extraordinary general meeting on 24 June 2001.

Later, it sold off 15.4 million Nanyang shares (a 21% stake then) in March 2007 for RM67.7 million to Ezywood Options Sdn Bhd, a vehicle controlled by timber tycoon Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King.

After the disposal, Huaren was left with 17.1 million shares or a 23.1% stake in Nanyang, which were exchanged for new shares in MCIL following a merger between Tiong’s Sin Chew Media Corp Bhd, Hong Kong-based Ming Pao Enterprise Corp Ltd and Nanyang in early 2008.

After the exchange, Huaren ended up with 3.6% stake in the enlarged media group called Media Chinese International Ltd (MCIL) which currently owned various Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong and Malaysia -- Ming Pao (Hong Kong), Sin Chew Daily, China Press, Nanyang Siang Pao and Guang Ming (Malaysia).

***********************************************************

Menara Multi-Purpose, which is 99% occupied, has rental income of RM2.1mil per month

MPHB sells Menara Multi-Purpose to MCA for RM375mil

The Menara Multi-Purpose office tower in Kuala Lumpur will be sold to the MCA for RM375mil cash.

In a filing with Bursa Malaysia, Multi-Purpose Holdings Bhd (MPHB) said it had entered into a sale and purchase agreement with MCA for the sale of the 17-year-old office tower together with 414 car park bays within the Capital Square development.

The office tower has a total net lettable area of 541,424 sq ft, and is 99% occupied with a rental income of RM2.1mil per month as of July.

The net book value of the office tower and car park bays was RM175.4mil as of Dec 31, 2010, based on the audited financial statements of MPHB.

However, a valuation by Henry Butcher Malaysia Sdn Bhd on April 20 deemed the office tower and car park bays to have a market value of RM384mil.

MPHB said its original cost of investment in the office tower from 1993 till 1996 and car park bays in 2004 was RM289mil.

Proceeds from the sale, which is due to be completed by the end of this year, will be utilised to repay MPHB's bank borrowings.

MPHB said the rationale for the sale was part of the group's asset rationalisation exercise to dispose of its non-core assets.

The group's gearing would drop to 0.88 times from 1.1 times (as of April 28) after the sale is completed.

***********************************************************

Chua Soi Lek

Matang, Scope agree on deal

(The Star, 20 November 2012) - Matang Holdings Bhd has entered into a business merger agreement with the Bursa Malaysia ACE market-listed Scope Industries Bhd to transfer its entire business and undertaking including assets and liabilities to the latter for RM145mil.

Scope Industries is an electrical and electronics manufacturer.

In a press statement released here, the company said the transfer would be satisfied with the issuance of 580 million new ordinary shares of 10 sen each in Scope at an issue price of 25 sen per share. This would path the way for the a proposed merger of the business of Matang with the businesses of Scope.

Upon receiving approval for the merger, Matang would carry out a capital reduction and repayment exercise under Section 64 of the Companies Act 1965 to distribute the shares to its shareholders.

***********************************************************

Press Statement 20 April 2013: Proposed Business Merger Agreement between Matang Holdings Bhd and Scope Industries Bhd.

The reason for this Press Conference is to publicly appeal to Huaren Holdings Sdn Bhd, the controlling shareholder of Matang Holdings Bhd with 10.72% of the share capital to refrain and abort the Business Merger Agreement with Scope Industries Bhd dated 19 November 2012 failing which we would request all existing Matang Holdings Bhd shareholders to be present and vote against the proposal during the EGM to be convene in due course.

The Minority Shareholders are of the opinion that:

(i) The Board of Directors of Matang has in disposing off the Matang landed assets including cash at a grossly undervalued amount of RM145,000,000.00 has acted in bad faith and has failed to discharge diligently their fiduciary duties to the shareholders.

(ii) The value of RM145,000,000.00 is inclusive of CASH held by Matang and to date the CASH so held is more than RM25,000,000.00 which effectively means that the landed assets is disposed off at only RM120,000,000.00. A valuation done by Henry Butcher in July 2012 valued the landed assets at RM168,000,000.00 The difference in valuation alone is RM48,000,000.00. If the cash sum of RM25,000,000.00 is taken into consideration, the amount of difference is RM73,000,000.00

(iii) The consideration for the disposal as stated in the Business Merger Agreement is for an exchange of shares in Scope Industries Bhd and not for cash is in total disregard of the fact that the shares received in exchange by the shareholders of Matang Holdings Bhd is subject to a moratorium of 4 years and cannot be sold off immediately but only over a period of 4 years

The Minority Shareholders have appointed Messrs Lau Kok Guan Liana & Associates to act on their behalf. We would like to appeal to all shareholders regardless of their shareholdings to take the appropriate action to stop the proposed Business Merger with Scope Industries Bhd based on the facts above. You have only yourself to blame if you do not take action to protect your own investment.

***********************************************************

Highlights of the disadvantages of Scope Industries Bhd shares in exchange for Matang Holdings Bhd shares

1. Moratorium

i. The shareholders of Matang cannot immediately dispose of all of the Scope shares received.

ii. For the 1^st six months after the shares are listed, none (0) of the Scope shares can be sold.

iii. From the 7^th month to the end of the 12^th month, only 15.4% of a shareholder’s Scope shares can be sold.

iv. From the 13^th month to the end of the 24^th month. only 28.2% can be sold.

v. From the 25^th month to the end of the 36^th month, only 28.2% can be sold.

vi. From the 37^th month to the end of the 48^th month, only 28.2% can be sold.

In addition to that, bear in mind that at the same time Scope is also issuing up to 126,880,000 shares for the acquisition of Benua Mutiara Sdn Bhd. These shares are not subject to moratorium.

Share capital of Scope No. of Shares Amount(RM)

Existing Issued share cap 384,382,000 38,438,000

Issue to Matang for merger 580,000,000 58,000,000

Issue to Benua Mutiara for acquisition 118,118,000 11,812,000

Assuming full exercise of all o/s warrants 118,598,000 11,860,000

Enlarged Issued & paid up 1,201,096,000 120,110,000

Also note that, except for the 580,000,000 Scope shares issued to Matangs’ shareholders, all the rest of the Scope shares can be freely traded and are not subject to moratorium.

The moratorium is imposed on Matang because after completion of the merger but before the Scope shares are distributed to the Matang individual shareholders, Matang has temporary control of Scope Industries Bhd holding more than 50% of Scope paid up capital.

However, even though Matang has more than 50% of Scope the BOD of Matang has failed to seek for control of the Board of Scope as Matang can only appoint three Board members whereas the existing number of BOD in Scope is five.

(2) Value of Scope Industries Bhd Share.

Scope’s audited FYE 30 June 2012

Earnings per share 0.21 sen

Net Assets per share 12 sen

Matang’s audited FYE 30 June 2012

Earnings per share 4.3 sen

Net Assets per share 118.9 sen

The value of RM0.25 as used by Scope to value its shares in exchange for Matang shares is at a Price Earnings Ratio of 119.0 times. The price used cannot be fundamentally supported and is grossly overvalued.

As its net assets is only 12 sen, it is also not justifiable to value its shares at RM0.25 which is 2.1 time to its book value.

Scope will be highly dependent on Matang’s earnings to support its business for the forseable future. Matang shareholders is much better off not taking part in the business merger as Matang shareholders do not enjoy any synergy benefit but is actually contributing its profit to the enlarged group.

Conclusion (extracted from circular sent to Scope shareholders).

Availability of Land for Cultivation.

The availability of agricultural land that possesses suitable soil and terrain characteristics for oil palm cultivation is critical in the supply of oil palm and ultimately palm oil products. Without land oil palm cannot be cultivated and hence FFBs cannot be harvested.

Plantation companies wishing to expand their operations will also need to secure suitable and arable land. However, globally, land is becoming scarce and expensive. It is reported that Malaysia is left with 800,000 hectares of land suitable for further oil palm cultivation, and that the country will run out of available oil palm land by 2015 or 2016.

***********************************************************

Vincent Lee Fook Long, Executive Deputy Chairman, Star Publications (M) Bhd

No buyout plans, says Star Publications

(The Star, 16 May 2013) - Star Publications (M) Bhd has denied talk that there are plans for a management buyout from the MCA, the majority shareholders of The Star.

Star Publications chairman Tan Sri Dr Fong Chan Onn said neither the management nor the staff had initiated such a plan.

“I have received calls from the media making enquiries as to whether there are plans for a management buyout.

“I regard such talk as malicious and speculative in nature.

“It also appears to be politically motivated as it comes at a time when the MCA is undergoing a difficult period.

“Such rumours are not helpful and serve no purpose.

“I do not intend to elaborate on such rumours as such baseless talk does not deserve to be given credence,” he said in a statement.

***********************************************************

ADDENDUM

Head

Investor Affairs and Complaints Department

Securities Commission Malaysia

No 3 Persiaran Bukit Kiara

Bukit Kiara

50490 Kuala Lumpur

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

28 December 2012

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Proposed Merger of the Businesses of Scope Industries Bhd and Matang Holdings Bhd through the transfer of the entire Business and Undertakings, including all assets and liabilities of Matang to Scope for a total consideration of RM145,000,000 as announced on 19 November 2012.

Introduction

Matang Holdings Bhd was established some 36 years ago and most of its members consist of MCA members from the state of Johor.

Currently the paid up capital of Matang Holdings Bhd is RM60,000,000 made up of 120,000,000 shares of RM0.50 per share, with 19,984 shareholders as at1 October 2012, of which the largest shareholder is Huaren Holdings Sdn Bhd with 12,864,000 shares or 10.72% of the share capital.

A copy of the latest Annual Report of Matang Holdings Bhd is enclosed.

Questions to be posed to the Board of Directors of Matang Holdings Bhd

1. As the chief financial officer of Matang Holdings Bhd, I was not allowed to be engaged in the negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Business Merger Agreement with Scope and I was also kept in the dark as to the signing of the Business Merger Agreement until it was signed. The act has resulted in that I was not able to carry out my fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Needless to say the BOD has also failed in its fiduciary duty.

2. In my opinion, the Business Merger Agreement is detrimental to the shareholders of Matang Holdings Bhd because:

A the valuation of the assets of Matang is grossly undervalued.

A valuation performed by Henry Butcher on 23 July 2012 (certificates enclosed) had valued all the 3 properties of Matang at a total value of RM168,000,000.

A subsequent valuation was performed by KGV on 10 November 2012 (certificates enclosed) which had valued all the 3 properties at only a total value of RM119,550,000.

My guess is that this second valuation was done in order to be in line with the offer price proposed by Scope.

B the cash in hand as at 30 June 2012 held by Matang was RM22,732,000. This amount will form part of the assets to be taken over by Scope. Matang has been paying dividends for the past 10 years and because of the proposal, the BOD has for that financial year not declared a dividend. Shouldn’t all the cash be returned to the shareholders rather than be part of the proposal? As of the date of this writing, the cash in hand has increased to RM24,698,986.

C Matang’s assets are all income generating and its business has always been profitable. Why should any right thinking shareholder wants to exchange his Matang shares for shares of Scope based on an exchange price of RM0.25 per Scope share and for paper only. Scope’s exchange share price of RM0.25 cannot be fundamentally supported. In an earlier exercise, in June 2012, Scope shares was only valued at RM0.15.

D the moratorium to be imposed by Bursa on the Matang shareholdings in Scope will not allow Matang shareholders to dispose of their Scope shares as and when the proposed merger is completed. Matang shareholders will be better off finding a suitor listed on the Main Board.

E the composition of the BOD after the completion of the proposed merger does not reflect the controlling shareholdings of Matang in Scope after completion, as the existing number of directors in Scope is 5 whereas in the Business Merger Agreement, Matang is only to nominate 3 directors.

Based on the above information, I sincerely hope that the Securities Commission would look into the proposed merger as the existing shareholders of Matang are being oppressed and has nothing to gain but a lot to lose if the proposed merger in its current form is allowed to proceed.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further information.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Wong Pang Nam

Chief Financial Officer

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 13) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Thu, 16 May 2013 03:51:50 +0000

While Barisan Nasional was confident it is guaranteed no less than 130 parliamentary seats -- with 145 as an achievable target -- Pakatan Rakyat, in turn, was equally confident it could win 135 parliamentary seats -- the worst-case scenario being at least 120 seats. And, just like Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat, too, did its maths and had a basis for this confidence.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The jury is now in. A post mortem has been done on the performance of both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional in the recent general election on 5th May 2013 and this is what the jury has decided.

Both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional made tactical blunders that cost them seats.

No doubt Barisan Nasional won 133 parliamentary seats, which is higher than Pakatan Rakyat’s 89. However, the worst-case scenario for Barisan Nasional was 130 while the best-case scenario was 145. And Barisan Nasional’s war room had hoped to at least duplicate the 140 seats they won in 2008 even if they cannot touch the best-case scenario of 145.

The differential in Barisan Nasional’s seven or so parliamentary seats came basically from the Chinese-majority constituencies. Barisan Nasional felt that at best it could garner at least 10% of the Chinese vote. So all it needed to do was to get an additional 5% to make this 15%. Then, with the increase in Malay and Indians votes, they can get close to 140 parliamentary seats.

Barisan Nasional was shocked that it not only did not get the 10% of the Chinese vote it thought it would, or increase this by another 5% that it hoped could happen, the Chinese vote was as low as 2-3%. This stunned Barisan Nasional to speechlessness.

Barisan Nasional’s strategy was to break the war into a few battles with different generals for each battle. The 31 parliamentary seats in Sarawak would be left to Taib Mahmud to manage. The 26 parliamentary seats in Sabah/Labuan would be left to Musa Aman to manage. Pusat would not interfere in those two East Malaysian states. Then the 165 parliamentary seats in West Malaysia would be divided into rural and urban. The rural seats would be fought on the ground via perjumpaan kelompok, ceramah and rapat umum while the urban seats would be fought on the Internet via the social media and Blogs.

Barisan Nasional now admits that while the battle in Sarawak, Sabah and the rural areas of West Malaysia were to a certain degree successful, they failed in the urban battle on the Internet and in the social media. They admit that Pakatan Rakyat was just too good for them and they underestimated the opposition’s strength.

And this is going to be Khairy Jamaluddins’ job for the next five years, to win the battle of the hearts and minds of the youth, the Internet- and social media-savvy population of Malaysia. How he is going to achieve this would, of course, be something we find out later. However, by calling Bloggers monkeys would certainly not be one of the strategies to adopt.

And that was why Anwar Ibrahim dared issue the promise that if Pakatan Rakyat does not win the election he would retire and go back to teaching. He was confident he would not need to carry out this promise.

This reminds me of Samy Vellu’s promise during the Lunas by-election in November 2000 where he said that if MIC does not win he will never go back to Kuala Lumpur. Well, MIC lost and Samy quietly sneaked back to Kuala Lumpur.

Barisan Nasional found out the hard way regarding Pakatan Rakyat’s strength in psywar and in the Internet war. Even before the election, Pakatan Rakyat’s cyber troopers already said the 5th May 2013 general election was going to be the mother of all battles plus the dirtiest election in Malaysian history. The fact they said the same thing in 2008, 2004, 1999, and so on, escaped many people’s attention.

Every general election, according to the opposition, is the mother of all battles plus the dirtiest election in history. Yet every election (except in 2004) the opposition does better and better. Ah, yes, but if there had not been any cheating then they would have done even better still.

This was well planted in the minds of many Malaysians and Barisan Nasional failed to counter that argument. Hence Pakatan Rakyat won the hearts and minds of the urban voters while Barisan Nasional lost.

Then, as early as 7.00pm on Polling Day, even as the votes were still being counted and no one really knew the full result yet, Anwar announced that he had already won the election.

Again, Barisan Nasional did not counter this and, again, Pakatan Rakyat won that round.

Then Pakatan Rakyat announced that there were blackouts all over Malaysia plus extra ballot boxes were being brought into the counting centres. And that was why at 7.00pm Pakatan Rakyat won the election but three or four hours later Barisan Nasional won instead.

And, yet again, Barisan Nasional did not counter this and, yet again, Pakatan Rakyat won that round. The fact that the counting centres that had blackouts plus extra ballot boxes smuggled into them were never named escaped many people’s attention. And none of the Pakatan Rakyat PACA ever came forward to name the counting centres that they were on duty at when all this happened.

Then Anwar announces that his exit from politics and his retirement will have to be put on hold since he does not accept the election results. He also said he will campaign non-stop all over Malaysia until he gets what he wants.

He did not, however, say exactly what he wants.

Does he want certain seats (he said Pakatan Rakyat had won 30 seats, which were ‘stolen’) to get declared null and void and for new elections to be held for those seats? Does he want the Election Commission to ‘call off’ the entire election and hold a new general election?

In that case, what will happen to Penang, Selangor and Kelantan where Pakatan Rakyat has already been sworn in as the government? Would the Pakatan Rakyat governments of these states all resign and would new elections be held in those states as well?

Pakatan Rakyat never explained and Barisan Nasional never asked or countered. So one more round for Pakatan Rakyat!

Barisan Nasional is so sloppy. No wonder they lost the urban vote. Maybe that is where Khairy should look for the monkeys -- amongst the Umno cyber troopers. Aiyoh! Send them for training lah. The DAP cyber troopers make them look like fools.

*****************************************

5月5之後（十三）

儅囯陣祭出130席-145席的信心時，民聯也不遑多讓，擺出了個120席-135席的信心。而正如囯陣一樣，他們也打好了算盤來確認他們的自信。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

陪審團已經有結果了！囯陣和民聯在5月5大選表現的解剖報告經已出爐，而這就是陪審員們所認爲的:

囯陣和民聯都同樣地在策略上做出了錯誤而失去了席位。

雖然說囯陣確實贏得了133席，比民聯的89席還要多，但囯陣的最壞打算是130席而最好的則是145席。他們亦希望如果達不到最好情況的話，那他們至少也能贏囘2008年的140席。

他們那7席的失算基本上都是來自華人選區。他們覺得他們至少能奪得10%的支持率，他們的戰略是再增加個5%至15%，然後配合馬來票和印度票的回流，他們就有很大的機會奪得140席。

儅囯陣看到他們那5%策略不只沒有奏效，就連那10%的基本票也保不住時，他們愣傻了；華人票直接降到了2-3%，他們真的是無語了。

囯陣的戰爭策略大抵上就是讓不同的將軍全權地去佔領他們的選區。砂勞越的31個選區由泰益Taib Mahmud 説了算，而沙巴的26個席位則由慕沙Musa Aman做主，黨中心不會去干涉這兩個州屬。西馬的選區則分成兩個區塊，城區和鄉區。鄉區採取的政策是perjumpaan kelompok，ceramah和rapat umum，而城區的則是社交媒體和博客的網絡大戰。

囯陣承認沙砂兩州與西馬鄉區的策略確實都有奏效，但城區的網絡大戰則輸到趴地；民聯在此真的太強了，他們根本無法招架。他們也承認他們低估了對手的實力。

這就是凱利未來5年内得做得，他需要從新奪回年輕一代與網絡狂熱者的心。他要怎樣達到目的是我們即將看到的，但現在一開戰就罵博客們是猴子絕對不是個好方法。

儅囯陣祭出130席-145席的信心時，民聯也不遑多讓，擺出了個120席-135席的信心。而正如囯陣一樣，他們也打好了算盤來確認他們的自信。

這也是爲什麽安華一早就講説如果民聯贏不了的話他會退休去教書。他很有自信他不必兌現他這個諾言。

這令我想起了三美威魯在2000年Lunas補選時的口出狂言。他當時說如果囯大黨贏不了的話他就永遠都不會吉隆坡。結果是囯大黨輸了，而三美則靜悄悄地夾著尾巴逃囘吉隆坡。

囯陣付出了很大的代價來摸清民聯在心理戰和網絡戰的實力。就在大選之前，民聯的網絡打手已經聲明了5月5大選將是‘所有戰爭之母’和馬來西亞史上最骯髒的選舉。但沒有人記得他們在2008年，2004年，1999年等就發表過一模一樣的言論。

對民聯來講，每屆大選都是‘所有戰爭之母’和馬來西亞史上最骯髒的選舉，但他們都是表現得一屆比一屆好（除了2004年那一屆以外）。對了，如果沒有舞弊的話，那他們肯定能表現得更好。

這個想法已經根深蒂固的留在很多大馬人腦海里面了，而囯陣根本沒得反駁。所以民聯贏得了城市選民的心而囯陣敗陣下來。

安華早在選舉日當天的傍晚7點還在計算選票和沒有人知道成績時就宣佈他已經贏得了大選。囯陣根本就沒有反應過來，民聯當時就贏了一侷。

然後，民聯再對外宣稱全馬多処發生了停電和有多個票箱出現在算票中心裏。這就是爲什麽民聯在7點贏了但在三四小時以後囯陣卻贏了。

這時囯陣還是沒有站住來反駁，民聯又贏了一侷。很多人都沒有注意到民聯根本就沒有表明到底是哪個算票中心停電了和出現了多出來的票箱。根本就沒有一個民聯的PACA站出來講明他們當值的選票中心出了以上的問題。

安華過後又站出來講說他輸了就要退休的諾言必須延期，因爲他不接受大選結果。他也講到他會在全國各地舉行巡迴集會知道他得到他想要的結果爲止。

但他沒有闡明他想要得到的結果是什麽。

他是想要某些議席（他說民聯贏得了30個議席，但被‘偷走’了）宣佈無效而從新在這些選區來個選舉嗎？還是他要選舉委員會宣佈整個大選無效然後再全國來個新大選？

如果是這樣的話，那已經宣誓組織政府的檳城，雪蘭莪和吉蘭丹政府該怎麽辦？他們這三州的政府會辭職以便新大選能舉行嗎？

民聯從來沒有講清楚而囯陣從來沒有問明白。民聯又贏了一侷！

囯陣真窩囊啊，怪不得他們輸掉了那些城市選區。這可能就是凱利開始尋找猴子的地方----巫統的網絡打手。唉喲，把他們送去訓練唄，行動黨的打手都把他們給打得腦殘了！

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 12) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Wed, 15 May 2013 03:28:46 +0000

If I were to hazard a guess I would say that Khairy is the man to watch. He is going to be the ‘face’ of the reformed Umno who will be interacting with the younger generation to try to win back their support, which Umno lost in the recent general election.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My initial response to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s new Cabinet is: SHIT! (See the full Cabinet list here). There are still many crooks, scoundrels, scumbags and slime-balls on that list. Are we going to see the new group photograph of the hall of fame or the new group photograph of the rogues’ gallery?

I fear it is the latter.

This is no reform government, for sure. If that is what Najib promised the voters in his Election Manifesto and during the election campaign then you can perish the thought. What we are seeing is not only old wine in a new bottle but also old wine that has turned to vinegar.

I see some of the recycled faces such as Shahidan Kassim (Perlis), Mustapa Mohamed (Kelantan), Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz (Perak), Ahmad Shabery Cheek (Terengganu), Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (Melaka but now Putrajaya), Hilmi Yahaya (Penang) and Idris Jusoh (Terengganu). And should not Malaysia be spared the likes of Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (Perak), Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (Perak) and Hamzah Zainuddin (Perak), all rascals of the first degree?

Come on, Najib! Those are all expired goods plus tainted like hell.

Now, some of these people are personal friends of mine (I am even related by marriage to one of them). Nevertheless, although I can consider myself close to them, that has never stopped me from criticising those who I feel need to be criticised.

I can see Najib’s logic in selecting these people to be in his Cabinet. First of all, Najib needs representatives from each state. Secondly, he needs to ‘pacify’ the warlords and get them on his side in the event anyone tries to push him out like what happened to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi soon after the 2008 general election.

I suppose you need to keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. Hence Najib has surrounded himself with his friends as well as warlords who can turn enemy if he does not bring them into the Cabinet.

Is this new team good for Malaysia? I doubt it is good for Malaysia but it most certainly is good for Najib. Some of those people are his people. Some are Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s people. But what I do not understand is why Najib appointed Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar the Minister of Youth and Sport.

I believe Khairy will be given a freehand to do what needs to be done to pacify and satisfy the younger generation. And I also believe he has the brains and the political skills to deliver the youth vote.

Anyway, time will tell whether Khairy may yet end up as Najib’s ‘secret weapon’. But they have five years to do that and one week is a long time in politics while five years is a lifetime.

As for the others, well, I can only say I hope Najib knows what he is doing. But from where I am sitting it looks like a disaster. But then maybe Najib is more worried about the next party election than about the next general election. In that case then maybe Najib made the right decision after all.

Anyway, read the letter from a reader below. I am not going to analyse or comment on the letter since the contents are self-explanatory enough. You can make up your own mind as to whether you agree with the writer or not.

*******************************************

Chinese votes did make an impact

FMT LETTER: From Paraman Subramaniam, via e-mail

In the recently concluded General Election, the total numbers of eligible Chinese voters were 3.94 million. In Penang they constitute 53.3% of total voters and in Kuala Lumpur 52.2% of the total voters are of Chinese origin.

Even though by population the Chinese constitute about 22.56% of the total population in Malaysia but by the number of voters their strength is 29.68% of the total 13.3 million voters in Malaysia.

There are also many mixed seats where Chinese voters are present in significant numbers and the way the electoral boundaries are drawn they allow the Chinese voters to be quite influential.

The EC states that 84.84% of the total number of registered voters had cast their vote on May 5. This would mean that we can assume at least 3.4 million Chinese votes were cast. It goes without saying that the majority of Chinese voters are pro Pakatan Rakyat.

What no one knows is the actual total percentage of Chinese votes that went to PR. Considering the number of Chinese supporters that did outnumber all other races at most PR’s ceramah’s nationwide, many suspect anywhere between 75% to 95% of the Chinese may have voted for PR in the recent GE.

It was also reported that a huge number of Malaysians based in Singapore (mainly Chinese) had returned to cast their vote causing a massive traffic jam at the causeway. If the numbers were at least 85% then it would mean that more than half of PR’s popular votes amounting to 5.6 million would have consisted of mainly Chinese votes.

After deducting the Indian votes as well as the Sabah/Sarawak votes that went for PR, this would leave the Malay votes in PR quite a minority. A conservative estimate could give PR only attracting 40% of the Malay vote in total.

Even though they may have received considerable amount of new, young urban Malay votes, at the same time PR had lost a lot of their traditional Malay voters that they had in the 2008 GE. If PR had amassed at the very least 45% of the total Malay vote then they would have easily won the elections.

In the 4 predominantly Malay majority states Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Trengganu, BN lost an average 0.8% of the popular vote as versus PR gained an average 0.53% of the popular vote when compared with the 12th GE.

The overall increase of 2.9 million new voters (28% increase) could have contributed to this. The majority vote difference between BN and PR in these 4 states in the recent elections is a mere 9,149 votes in favour to PR, however it must be noted that Kedah itself has more than 160,000 registered Chinese voters.

*******************************************

5月5之後（十二）

如果我必須做出猜測的話那我會說凱利將會很有看頭。凱利他會成爲新巫統的‘臉孔’來和年輕一代進行互動以贏囘他們的支持；巫統在最近大選失去了大部分年輕人的支持。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

我看到首相納吉新内閣名單的第一反應是：我操！那名單上還是佈滿了混蛋，流氓，人渣，和爛泥。我們到底會看到一個名人大合照或是一個海盜大合照呢？

我擔心我們會看到的是後者。

這根本就不是什麽政府大改革；如果這就是納吉在選舉宣言裏和助選時的諾言那你真的得自求多福了。這不只是新瓶裝舊酒，這簡直就是舊酒發酵變醋了！

我注意到有許多循環再用的臉孔如Shahidan Kassim (玻璃市), Mustapa Mohamed (吉蘭丹), Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz (霹靂), Ahmad Shabery Cheek (登嘉樓), Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (馬六甲，現今為布城), Hilmi Yahaya (檳城) 和Idris Jusoh (登嘉樓)。還有，馬來西亞究竟犯了什麽錯，需要去接受Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (霹靂), Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (霹靂) 和Hamzah Zainuddin (霹靂)這些‘第一級流氓’為内閣成員呢？

納吉你嘛卡拜托一下！這些全都是過期的商品，而且還他媽的髒得很呢。

這些人當中有些許都是我的朋友（我甚至還是其中一人的親家）。雖然我覺得我是和他們很親近，無論如何儅我覺得我必須批評他們時我是從不手軟的。

我看得出納吉挑選這些人入閣的邏輯。第一，他想要每個州屬都有個代表；第二，他想要安撫各地軍閥，儅有人想要逼宮時他可以拉攏他們（還記得2008年大選后阿都拉的下場嗎？）。

我想你必須親近你的朋友，但你更必須親近你的敵人。納吉他把他的朋友拉的很近，但與此同時他的身邊也圍滿各地軍閥，而這些軍閥在沒有被召入閣時隨時會變身成爲他的敵人。

所以這個組合對馬來西亞來講好嗎？我並不認爲，但這對納吉來講絕對是好的；這個組合參雜了他和敦馬的人。但我不了解的是，爲何納吉會委任凱利（Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar，阿都拉女婿）為青年與體育部部長。

如果我必須做出猜測的話那我會說凱利將會很有看頭。凱利將會成爲新巫統的‘臉孔’來和年輕一代進行互動來贏囘他們的支持。巫統在最近大選失去了大部分年輕人的支持。

我相信凱利他會得到絕對的支持，他可以隨心所欲地去做他想做的事情來安撫和滿足年輕一代。我也相信他有那個頭腦和政治技術來奪回年輕人的選票。

時間會見證到底凱利會不會成爲納吉的‘秘密武器’。他們有五年的來達到他們的目的，但在政治世界裏，1個星期已經是很長時間，而五年可以説是一輩子了。

對於其他内閣成員呢，我只能將我希望納吉知道他自己在做著什麽。從我的位置那看起來像是個大災難，但對納吉來講他可能更注重黨大選而不是來屆國家大選。如果情況是這樣的話，那很有可能他做出的選擇是對的。

最後，讀讀以上的讀者來函吧。我不會加以分析或評論，因爲這封信的内容已經解釋得很充分了。你可以自行決定你同不同意他所說的。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 11) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Tue, 14 May 2013 00:20:49 +0000

They recently did a poll in Pakistan and 11% voted in favour of a democracy, 22% in favour of military rule, and 53% in favour of the Khalifah system. The Khalifah system would basically mean a Monarch as the head of religion plus head of the nation. “What has Pakistan got to do with Malaysia or the Malays?” you may ask. Well, many Malay ulama’ (religious scholars) received their education in India/Pakistan (Nik Aziz Nik Mat included).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Umno relying more on rural Malay support, says writer

(The Malaysian Insider, 14 May 2013) - The results of the recent general election show that Umno is as strong as ever despite Barisan Nasional losing the popular vote, according to a Straits Times report today.

Writing in the Singapore daily, James Chin, a senior visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Iseas), argued that many Malaysians are misreading the situation and think that Umno is weak.

He said Umno today is as strong as it was in 1971, adding that it is BN that is dying, not Umno.

“The Malay heartland, all in rural areas, backed Umno and that is why it increased its number of parliamentary seats and why there is an Umno-alone government in Kuala Lumpur today,” he wrote.

In his article, he gave a rundown of the evolution of Umno from its formation in 1946 under various leaders including Datuk Onn Jaafar, Tun Abdul Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and how the party has changed over the years.

Chin wrote that the flaw in Dr Mahathir’s Malay state building was the scourge of money politics. “With so much money flowing out of the government into selected Umno elite, the competition became so intense that the only way to get support was to ‘buy’ support.”

He said money politics in Umno was tolerated because it did not contradict Malay or Islamic dominance of the system. As long as the money did not threaten Umno or Ketuanan Melayu, it was seen as a necessary evil for the functioning of Umno.

Chin also wrote that despite losing the two-thirds parliamentary majority in the 2008 general election, Umno failed to tackle the corruption issue or move to the middle ground. It cared only about control over Malay minds and control of the federal government.

He argued that reforms undertaken after 2009 were mainly cosmetic and in the economic arena; real political reforms did not take place and that is why the urban polity rejected Umno this year.

“For example, on the issue of Ketuanan Melayu, rather than deal with it, the party simply ‘subcontracted’ the work to Perkasa, a Malay right-wing organisation established after 2008.”

He said the urban public did not buy the argument that Umno had reformed when Perkasa’s president and deputy president became BN candidates this year. It became clear that Umno would not change its political leanings.

Chin said it has become increasingly clear in the past two decades that Umno is now BN and BN is Umno. Umno accounts for just less than half of Cabinet ministers. In Parliament, the overwhelming bloc within BN is always Umno. In 2008, Umno won 79 seats out of BN’s 140. This year, Umno won 88 out of BN’s 133 seats. In percentage terms, this translates to 56 per cent and 66 per cent respectively.

“Today after 56 years of independence, Umno still controls the rural Malay mind. Yes, it is true Umno has lost control over large sections of the Malay community in urban areas. Under Malaysia’s electoral system, it is the rural seats that decide the federal government, not urban seats. Urban seats account for less than a quarter of Malaysia’s 222 parliamentary seats while about 150 seats are Malay/Bumiputera-majority seats,” he wrote.

Chin argued that Umno is unlikely to reform in time for the 14th GE, and does not need to. “As long as the first-past-the-post system continues to allot disproportionate weight to rural voters, all Umno has to do is to keep the fire of Ketuanan Melayu and Ketuanan Islam burning brightly in rural Malaysia,” he said.

**********************************************

Najib to have an audience with Agong tomorrow for approval on new cabinet line-up

(Bernama, 14 May 2013) - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak is scheduled to have an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah at Istana Negara here at noon tomorrow to get approval for his new Cabinet line-up.

According to the statement issued by the Prime Minister's Department today, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had agreed that ceremony to present letters of appointment, as well as for the appointed ministers and deputy ministers to take the Oath of Office, Loyalty and Secrecy be held at the palace at 9.30am on Thursday.

**********************************************

Well, there you have it. Khalid Ibrahim has been sworn in as the Menteri Besar of Selangor for a second term and Azmin Ali, who called Khalid a lame duck (mainly because Khalid tunduk or kowtow too much to DAP and PAS), has openly supported Khalid (not that he has any choice in the matter).

What Azmin is not happy about, according to him, is that Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail did not check with him first before replying to His Highness the Sultan’s letter when he (Azmin) is the Director of Elections for Selangor. After all, the candidates contesting the general election are within his (Azmin’s) authority so he should have the final say as to who amongst the winners go where.

Khalid was very coy about his list of EXCO Members, though. He would not reveal whom he is going to propose as EXCO Members, only saying that his list is ready. The issue is, Khalid first needs to get the Sultan’s approval before he makes his announcement. Most likely His Highness will approve the list, unlike in Kelantan where the Sultan wanted some names removed, Husam Musa amongst them.

The question is, the Sultan is merely a Constitutional Monarch, so does the Menteri Besar need to get the Sultan’s approval? Can’t the Menteri Besar announce it first and, as a formality, just inform the Sultan as to what has already been decided? And if the Sultan is not happy or does not approve the EXCO list, can the Menteri Besar go ahead anyway even if this meets the Sultan’s displeasure?

A lawyer such as Malik Imtiaz Sarwar or Tommy Thomas would probably argue that it is within the Menteri Besar’s power and authority to appoint the EXCO Members of his choice and the Sultan does not have the power and authority to interfere in the running of the government. Furthermore, the Sultan must swear in the Menteri Besar that has been decided by the party with the most number of seats in the State Assembly and His Highness cannot reject this candidate.

On point of law plus according to the Constitution this would most likely be very true. The Ruler must take the advise of the Menteri Besar (or the Agong the advise of the Prime Minister). Remember what the First Agong, His Majesty Tuanku Abdul Rahman said: the Prime Minister (Tunku Abdul Rahman) can remove me but I can’t remove the Prime Minister.

Hence that sums up the ‘relationship’ between the Rulers and the Chief Executives. However, we are not just talking about the law or the Constitution here. We are talking about Malay tradition/culture and Islam as well. And that is what many non-Malays do not seem to understand about the Malay psyche. The law/Constitution takes second place to adat dan agama (tradition and religion).

And we have to understand that the Menteris Besar (in those states that have Monarchs) are Malays/Muslims first and politicians second. Hence they just cannot sidestep adat and agama even if doing so would be sidestepping the law and the Constitution instead. After all, the Monarchs are what the Malays would call Raja-Raja Melayu (Rulers of the Malays) and Ketua Agama (Head of Religion).

Bernama reported, “Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak is scheduled to have an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah at Istana Negara here at noon tomorrow to get approval for his new Cabinet line-up.”

So, it seems the Prime Minister, too, needs the ‘approval’ of His Majesty the Agong before announcing the Cabinet line-up. So, again, the Prime Minister has to be Malay/Muslim first and politician second. And he needs the ‘nod’ of His Majesty the Agong before doing something or else he would not do it.

Malaysian politics is a very complicated animal. Malay politics is an even stranger animal. Malay politics does not follow ‘rules’. It follows sentiments, emotions, adat and agama. And this is what one needs to understand to be able to win the battle of the hearts and minds of the Malays.

“What has Pakistan got to do with Malaysia or the Malays?” you may ask. Well, many Malay ulama’ (religious scholars) received their education in India/Pakistan (Nik Aziz Nik Mat included). Hence they are indoctrinated or influenced by the Indian Continent’s brand of Islam. People like Hadi Awang, of course, received his education from Medina and Cairo. Nevertheless, they still subscribe to the Khalifah system and aspire to one day see Malaysia become a Caliphate (although they agree that would not be something you can see now but must be a plan for the future).

If you were to poll, say, 10,000 Malays, you will find that 60% regard themselves as Muslims first, 30% as Malays first, and just 10% will say they are Malaysians first. So how do you handle these types of people?

The fallacy is those ultra-Muslims are mainly people from the rural areas or from the Malay heartland. In other words, these are kampong Malays who are less educated than the urban Malays.

That is where you are wrong. There are more ultra-Muslims amongst the professionals living in Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Damanasara, Bangsar, etc., than you thought. This may surprise you but most of my Malay friends living in the ‘up-market’ residential areas in the big towns and cities have ‘disowned’ me because of my ‘liberal’ views. They cannot accept the fact that I propagate the rights of apostates and gays.

So, Malays living in multi-million ringgit homes in gated communities and driving BMWs are not as ‘modern’ as you may think. In fact, they are even more intolerant of liberalism compared to the Malays in the rural areas. And the more affluent the Malays become, the more religious they become as well, and the more intolerant they are of liberalism. And most of them vote for PAS, not for Umno.

Does that surprise you? Well, how then do you explain why PAS can win in a place like Shah Alam, a city that is predominantly ‘wealthy’ Malay, while Umno can win in a ‘backward’ place like Gua Musang? And I will bet you RM10,000, if Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah contests in Shah Alam against Khalid Samad, PAS will still win.

Hah! You thought you understood the Malays, did you? The ‘upper crust’ Malays are not as anti-corruption as you thought. They are more pro-Islam.

*******************************************************

5月5之後（十一）

他們最近在巴基斯坦做了個民調，發現有11%的受訪人士想要民主制，22%的想要軍人制，而有53%的人則想要卡利法Khalifah制。卡利法制指的就是由一位君主成爲國家與宗教首領。“巴基斯坦跟馬來西亞或馬來人又有什麽關係呢？”你可能會問。有很多馬來Ulama（宗教師）都是在印度或巴基斯坦接受教育的（聶阿玆就是其中一個）。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

好，你看到啦，卡立已宣誓成爲雪蘭莪大臣，而之前把他稱爲‘跛腳鴨’的阿玆敏（因阿玆敏認爲他軟弱，經常向伊黨和行動黨磕頭）則公開地表示支持（阿玆敏根本沒有其他選擇吧）。

根據阿玆敏的説法，他不高興的是黨主席旺姐沒有向他説明就直接跟蘇丹回信，再怎麽講，他也是雪州的選舉總監，是他委派那些候選人上陣的，所以他應該擁有決定哪個候選人能上位的決定權。

卡立呢則是很保密他的行政議員名單。他對名單上的名字只字不提，只講說他已準備好了但必須先得到蘇丹的批准才能公開。雪州蘇丹有很大機會會照單全收，不像吉蘭丹蘇丹般會把某些名字刪除掉，Husam Musa就是被刪的其中一個。

問題是，蘇丹只是一個憲法制君主，大臣需要先得到他的准許嗎？大臣難道不能先對外作出公告，然後在出於形式地向蘇丹報告他的決定嗎？而如果蘇丹不高興的話，那大臣又能否照著原本的意願走呢？

律師們如Malik Imtiaz Sarwar或Tommy Thomas可能會爭辯說委任行政議員是大臣的權利而蘇丹沒有干涉政府的權力。再者，蘇丹必須承認贏得多數州席的政黨所推薦的人選為大臣，他不能拒絕這個人選。

從法律上和憲法上來講，這很有可能是對的。州蘇丹/元首必須取納大臣的建議（最高元首則是首相的）。第一位最高元首曾經說過：首相（當時的東姑阿都拉曼）可以罷免我的我不可以罷免首相。

以上説明了君主們和首席行政員們的關係。無論如何，我們談到的不只是法律或憲法而已，我們談到的還涉及馬來傳統文化和回教教法。這就是很多非馬來人不懂得，就馬來人的觀念來講，法律或憲法是排在adat dan agama(傳統與宗教)後面的。

我們也必須了解，那些大臣們也是穆斯林身份為先而政客身份為后的，所以即使他們需要偏離法律和憲法他們也不會偏離他們的adat和agama。終究到底，那些君主們還是馬來人心目中的Raja-Raja Melayu（馬來人的統治者）和Ketua Agama(宗教領導人)。

Bernama早前報道：“首相納吉明早會在皇宮會見最高元首已取得同意來組織他的新内閣。”

所以你看，就連首相也必須獲得元首的‘同意’才能向外界宣佈他的新内閣成員。在此你就能看到首相也必須是穆斯林身份為先而政客身份為后。他必須事先得到元首的‘點頭’不然他不會去做某些事情。

大馬政治文化是個很奇怪的異种，而馬來政治文化則更爲奇特。馬來政治文化不是跟隨‘統治者’的，而是跟隨情緒，情感，adat和agama的。這就是那些想要贏得馬來人心的政客所必需了解的。

他們最近在巴基斯坦做了個民調，發現有11%的受訪人士想要民主制，22%的想要軍人制，而有53%的人則想要卡利法Khalifah制。卡利法制指的就是由一位君主成爲國家與宗教的首領。

“巴基斯坦跟馬來西亞或馬來人又有什麽關係呢？”你可能會問。有很多馬來Ulama（宗教師）都是在印度或巴基斯坦接受教育的（聶阿玆就是其中一個），所以他們是受到南亞伊斯蘭文化的熏陶的。當然其他人都是在開羅或莫地那等地接受教育，如哈迪阿旺，但他們還是很相信卡利法制且希望有朝一日馬來西亞可以變成一個卡立法制的國家（雖然他們都同意這不是現在你會看到的情況而是需要長久計議）。

如果你現在針對1万個馬來人做個民調的話，你會發現60%都會認爲他們是穆斯林為先，30%馬來人為先，只有10%才會以馬來西亞人爲先。請問你應該怎樣應付這些人呢？

這裡有個錯誤的觀點，那就是那些‘超馬來人’都是來自鄉區或馬來心臟地帶的；換句話來説，這些人都是些生活在鄉間地區，教育程度不高的馬來人。這就是你出錯的地方；那些住在Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Damanasara, Bangsar等等的馬來知識分子都是些‘超馬來人’。你可能會覺得很驚訝，但我有很多住在市内高級住宅區的馬來朋友都因我的‘開通’想法而‘疏遠’我。他們對我宣揚同性戀自由和離教自由一事都很不能接受。

所以說，住在價值百萬豪宅和駕寳馬的馬來人並沒有你想象中的摩登，事實上，他們比住在鄉區的馬來人還抗拒開放主義。儅一個馬來人變得越富裕時，他就會變得越篤信宗教，進而也變得很抗拒開放主義，而且他們投的都是伊黨而不是巫統。

怎樣，覺得很驚訝吧？不然你要如何解釋爲什麽伊黨能夠在‘很富有的馬來人’選區如沙亞南勝出而巫統能夠在‘很落後的地方’如 Gua Musang勝出呢？我敢跟你打賭1万塊錢，如果東姑拉扎利在沙亞南上陣對壘Khalid Samad的話，伊黨還是照樣會勝出。

哈哈，你以爲你很明白馬來人？那些馬來‘上等人’並沒有你想象中的反貪污，他們更多的是親回教。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 10) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Mon, 13 May 2013 02:23:23 +0000

Out of the 89 parliamentary seats that Pakatan Rakyat won, 53 are non-Malay/Muslim seats while only 36 can be said to be Malay/Muslim-majority seats. Umno, however, won 88 seats just by itself (almost the same as for DAP, PKR and PAS combined). Then there were another 12 non-Malay/Muslim seats with 33 from the native areas in East Malaysia.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Okay, let’s say Pakatan Rakyat won or wins the general election. Then let’s say Pakatan Rakyat does what it promises to do: it cancels the citizenship of 1.5 million ‘illegal’ citizens, mostly from East Malaysia, and kicks these people out of the country. Then Pakatan Rakyat ends the gerrymandering and, like some countries, passes a law so that the variance between seats is, say, within plus-minus 20%.

Can this be done?

Unfortunately it can’t. Currently, Sabah and Sarawak control 25% of the seats in Parliament even though it has about 19-20% of the population of Malaysia. And if you cancel the citizenship of one million or 1.5 million citizens, it would be even less than 20%, maybe just 15-16%. However, they will still control 25% of the seats in Parliament.

Hence, due to the agreement, it would be impossible to implement the plus-minus 20% variance between seats since, if you do this, you will then create more seats in West Malaysia and thus you will have to correspondingly increase the number of seats in East Malaysia to ensure that you maintain their 25% share of the seats.

And this would make it worse. The variance, because of East Malaysia, would get wider and you actually increase more seats in Barisan Nasional’s ‘fixed deposit’ region. For every three seats you increase in West Malaysia, you need to increase one more seat in East Malaysia.

What will happen in the end is: the seats will be divided into three categories. For the urban areas the seats may be, say, 80,000-120,000 voters (roughly 20% or so variance calculated on 100,000 voters per seat). For the semi-urban areas they may be 50,000-79,000 voters (roughly 20% or so variance calculated on 65,000 voters per seat). And for the rural areas they may be 30,000-49,000 voters (roughly 20% or so variance calculated on 40,000 voters per seat).

And after you redraw the election boundaries and increase the number of seats, you will end up creating more seats in the rural areas and East Malaysia, which can only work to Barisan Nasional’s favour. Furthermore, you need a two-thirds majority in Parliament to do this and you are never going to see a two-thirds majority for either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakayat for a long time to come. The days of two-thirds majorities are gone.

But will Pakatan Rakyat support whatever proposal is tabled by Barisan Nasional? Certainly not, because whatever proposal Barisan Nasional tables will certainly be in its favour. And vice versa for Pakatan Rakyat if it happens to be in power: because whatever proposal Pakatan Rakyat tables will also be in its favour.

And that would mean Pakatan Rakyat’s supporters would all be lumped in the urban and semi-urban areas while Barisan Nasional’s supporters would be spread out in the rural areas and in East Malaysia. And this would also mean that Barisan Nasional could still stay in power with less than 50% of the popular votes while Pakatan Rakyat cannot get into power even with 55% of the popular votes.

Now, what was the strategy for both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat in the recent general election on Sunday, 5th May 2013? I am not sure what Pakatan Rakyat’s strategy was but I think it was mainly to get the crowd.

And this they did.

Barisan Nasional, however, had a more devious strategy (devious only if you look at it through the eyes of an opposition supporter but clever if through the eyes of Machiavelli). Barisan Nasional’s strategy was to turn Pakatan Rakyat into a Chinese-dominated coalition and Barisan Nasional into a Malay-dominated opposition.

And this they did.

Without the MCA/MIC/Gerakan seats included, Umno and the ‘natives’ won 121 seats in Parliament -- enough to form the government even without the help of MCA, MIC and Gerakan.

Umno intentionally wanted Pakatan Rakyat to appear Chinese and less multi-racial. They also wanted the Malays in Pakatan Rakyat to appear like ‘tools’ of the Chinese. And to do this they need to play the race card -- which they are currently doing.

Can you now understand the reason for this sudden surge in Chinese-bashing? It is all part of the plan to make Pakatan Rakyat appear Chinese. And the Chinese supporters of Pakatan Rakyat are not helping much either. The more Malay-bashing you indulge in, the more you strengthen Umno’s strategy.

TO BE CONTINUED

***********************

5月5之後（十）

在民聯勝出的89個議席裏，有53個是非馬來人區而另36個則馬來人選區。相比起來，囯陣的巫統所贏得的88個選區（幾乎和民聯三黨的總數一樣）都是馬來人區。他們只有12個非馬來人選區，其他的33個則來自東馬。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

好，就讓我們儅民聯勝出好了，而且還落實了他們之前所答應的：他們把150万‘非法’公民的身份給收回來（多是東馬人）然後再把他們踢出我國國門。民聯過後再通過立法，把每個選區的選民數訂位彼此的差別不可多過20%，徹底地結束了‘不均勻選民分gerrymandering’。

但這真能做到嗎？

很不幸的，答案是不能。沙巴和砂勞越的人口雖然只是佔了大馬的19-20%，但他們卻牢控了25%的囯席。如果你再收回150万的公民權，那他們的人口將會降至15-16%，但仍然還是會掌控25%的囯席。

所以說，立法落實鉗制每個選區的選民數是行不通的，因爲有之前的協議給牽制著。如果你真的要這麽做的話，你會為西馬增加席位，但與此同時你還是得為東馬增加席位來保持他們的25%囯席率。

這只會把事情弄得更糟。選民數的差別會因爲東馬而變得更大，而你做的正是增加著囯陣的‘鉄票區’。你每在西馬增加一區，你也必須在東馬增加一區，情況是這樣子的：

選區將會被區分為三個類別：城市區將會有80000-120000選民（取100000為中間點，所以20%的差別是+/- 20000），半城鄉是50000-79000選民（65000為中間點），而鄉區則是30000-49000選民。

儅你從新規劃選區的界綫和增加選區數后，你會發現更多的鄉區和東馬選區會被規劃出來，那是對囯陣大大有利的。再者，你需要2/3多數席才能從新規劃選區，而在可見的將來我們是不會再見到2/3多數權的政府的出現；2/3多數權政府的日子已不再歸來了。

你認爲民聯會認同囯陣的獻議嗎？當然不會，囯陣搬上桌子的所有東西都是只有對囯陣有利而已。當然，如果民聯上臺的話他們也會這樣做：民聯搬上桌子的所有東西都是只是對民聯有利的。

這也代表民聯的支持者始終會聚集在城市區而囯陣的則分散在鄉區和東馬；這也代表囯陣只要靠少過50%的選票就能當選而民聯即使搬出55%的選票也未必能上位。

那現在，囯陣和民聯在過去的5月5大選裏採取了什麽策略呢？我不能很確鑿地知道民聯的，但我猜他們是想得到大衆的支持。

他們確實達到了。

囯陣在另一方面則使出了個更狡猾的計謀（反對黨支持者來看就是狡猾，但對马基亚维利來講則是聰明）。他們的策略是把民聯渲染為一個華人主導的政黨聯盟而自己則是由馬來人主導的。

他們確實做到了。

在民聯勝出的89個議席裏，有53個是非馬來人區而另36個則馬來人選區。相比起來，囯陣的巫統所贏得的88個選區（幾乎和民聯的總數一樣）都是馬來人區。他們只有12個非馬來人選區，其他的33個則來自東馬。

如果我們不要算馬華/囯大黨/民政黨的議席，單單巫統和‘土著’政黨就贏得了121個議席----他們本身就足夠組織政府了。

巫統特意地把民聯油漆成‘很華人’而不是很‘多個種族’，他們也把民聯的馬來人弄得看起來已變成了華人的‘工具’。他們打的正是種族這張牌----到現在爲止他們還是正在打著。

你現在明白爲何突然之間有這麽多針對華人的言論湧現了沒？這全是要民聯看起來‘很華人’的策略，而民聯華裔支持者的動作也正為這策略‘加分’：你越是發表干屌馬來人的言論，你越是陷入巫統的策略陷阱裏。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 9) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Mon, 13 May 2013 00:30:09 +0000

You may argue that the Chinese voters have rejected the Chinese from Barisan Nasional and hence the Chinese should not be in the government. But if the Sultan says he wants Chinese in the government then Barisan Nasional will have to make sure that there are Chinese in the government. And if the Sultan says he does not want certain people in the government then these people will have to be dropped from the EXCO list (or as the Menteri Besar).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Azmin: I will respect and uphold Sultan’s decision

PKR deputy president Azmin Ali said the decision on who would be the Selangor Menteri Besar lies ultimately with the Sultan of Selangor and he will respect it totally. Despite his earlier strong objections over the way party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had submitted a candidate's name, allegedly without the knowledge of the state party's leadership, Azmin said that whoever was eventually chosen would have his full backing.

READ MORE HERE

***************************************************

Okay, how do you ensure that the percentage of seats you win almost matches the percentage of popular votes that you win (say 50% of the votes versus 50% of the seats as opposed to 40% of the votes versus 60% of the seats)?

This was what I wrote in part 8 of this series:

I followed the rally in Ipoh last night (on live streaming) and would like to touch on what Dr. Lee Boon Chye and Anwar Ibrahim said in that rally. Dr Lee lamented that he won with a majority of only 15,000 votes while if there had not been any cheating he would have won with a majority of 30,000 instead.

Can you see that Dr Lee was complaining that he won but that he won with half the majority that he should have? According to Dr Lee, his majority should have been 30,000 instead of just 15,000.

Now, I am not going to argue whether Dr Lee is right or wrong. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that he is right: that he was cheated out of a 30,000 majority and because of that his majority was only 15,000.

That, to me, is not what Dr Lee should be focusing on. In fact, this is what most Pakatan Rakyat people talk about: the majority that they won. And that is not what a good election strategy is all about.

Barisan Nasional cannot get these large majorities that Pakatan Rakyat can. In many seats that Barisan Nasional won their majorities were very slim. But this does not upset Barisan Nasional as it does Pakatan Rakyat. And this is because Barisan Nasional is not focused on vote majorities like Pakatan Rakyat is but on seat majorities.

Pakatan Rakyat’s support base is concentrated -- hence these large majorities. Barisan Nasional’s support base is spread out, especially Umno. So, with the same number of votes, Barisan Nasional can win 50 seats versus only 30 seats for Pakatan Rakyat (see below).

Pakatan Rakyat can win 30,000 or more vote majorities in the seats it contests. But that would mean it is ‘robbing’ another seat of a win. Barisan Nasional may win with a mere 10,000-vote majority but if it wins with a 10,000-vote majority in three seats, this would be three seats versus only one for Pakatan Rakyat.

That is how to win an election with less than 50% of the popular votes like Barisan Nasional -- or lose the election with more than 50% of the votes like Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, on the issue of the Menteri Besar of Selangor.

I wrote earlier that His Highness the Sultan of Selangor had written to DAP, PKR and PAS asking the three Pakatan Rakyat parties whom they want as the Menteri Besar. All three replied to the Sultan’s letter naming Khalid Ibrahim.

Some readers, probably Azmin Ali’s supporters, posted some very nasty comments calling me a liar and saying that no such thing happened (I deleted these nasty comments which were very personal in nature). Well, you can choose to believe it or you can choose not to believe it. Nevertheless this did happen.

Azmin has been told (which he admits) that the power and prerogative to appoint the Menteri Besar lies with His Highness. The Sultan can even choose to reject the name or names suggested by Pakatan Rakyat and need not explain the reason why. His Highness can even reject the names of the EXCO Members, as His Highness the Sultan of Kelantan did last week.

Yes, Their Highnesses the Sultans (and His Majesty the Agong) are just Constitutional Monarchs who must ‘listen to the advise’ of the Menteri Besar (or to the Prime Minister for the Agong). But this does not mean the Monarchs are Rubber-Stamp Monarchs even if they may be Constitutional Monarchs.

Can you remember in 2008 when His Highness the Sultan of Selangor rejected Pakatan Rakyat’s candidate for Deputy Menteri Besar, a Chinese from DAP? Finally this man was appointed the Speaker of the Selangor State Assembly as a sort of ‘compromise’.

The bottom line is: the Monarchs do have a certain amount of power and authority. It is just how far they want to exert this authority. Most times, by convention, the Monarchs do not meddle too much in issues concerning politics. But did not His Highness the Sultan of Johor just issue a statement saying that he insists that some Chinese representatives be appointed to the Johor EXCO?

You may say you don’t like this and you want the Sultans/Agong to butt out. Well, what if they don’t? Do you want to launch a revolution and ‘storm the Bastille’? Remember that His Majesty the Agong is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces while the state Monarchs are Colonels-in-Chief of the different branches of the Armed Forces.

So, who holds the guns? Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat, or the Monarchs?

And it is the Agong, not the Prime Minister, who holds the power to suspend Parliament and declare an Emergency. And the Agong with 100,000 guns and I don’t know how many tanks behind him will have the final say.

TO BE CONTINUED

****************************************************

5月5之後（九）

你可以爭論說華裔選民已經否決了囯陣的華裔候選人，所以華人不可在政府裏掌權。但如果蘇丹下令要有華人為州政府辦事的話，那囯陣就必須跟著辦。同樣的，如果蘇丹不想某些人成爲行政議員，那這些人也必須落榜（就算是州務大臣也一樣）。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

阿玆敏：我會尊重和支持蘇丹的決定
公正黨副主席阿玆敏阿裏表示，雪蘭莪州務大臣的最終任命權是蘇丹陛下的，而他會毫無保留地尊重和跟從蘇丹的選擇。
（下文省略）

***************************************************

話説回來，你要怎樣確保你的得票巴仙率和你的囯席巴仙率相差無幾呢（比如説50%的得票換來50%的席位而不是40%的得票換來60%的席位）？

讓我重復一遍我在上一篇寫到的：

我昨晚透過綫上的直播來觀看怡保的集會，我要看看安華和李文才醫生到底講了些什麽。李醫生認爲如果此次的大選沒有舞弊的話，他將會以3万票勝出而不是現在的1万5千票。

你看得出李醫生是在投訴著他只是以一半的多票數勝出的嗎？根據他的説法，他的多票數應該是3万而不是1万5。
我不會爭辯他的對錯，就讓我們儅他是對的：他的多數票應該是三万，但現在因爲舞弊所以他只以1万5票勝出。

那對我來説不是李醫生應該注重的。事實上，除了他以外很多民聯人都很注重這一點：他們贏的多票數。但你必須了解這不是一個良好的競選策略所應該注重的。

囯陣不能像民聯般奪得如此大的多票數，他們有些議席都是靠少量的多票數勝出的。但他們對此並沒有抱著太多的憂慮，不像民聯般。這是因爲他們並沒有太注重多票數的多少，他們注重的是席位的多少。

民聯的支持者一般都聚集在一些特定的選區，所以他們的多數票是很大的。囯陣的支持者則是分佈均勻，尤其是巫統的。所以，一樣的選票，囯陣可以換來50席而民聯只能換來30席（請看上表）。

民聯可以以30000多數票拿下一個議席，但這都是從另一個議席‘搶’回來的。囯陣可能只能以10000多數票拿下一個議席，但只要他們以10000多數票拿下三個議席，那就代表他們贏出了3個席位，對比民聯的1個席位。

這就是怎樣以少過50%的選票來贏得大選的方法----或怎樣以多過50%的選票來輸掉大選的方法。

現在，回到雪州大臣一事。

我之前寫到雪州蘇丹給民聯三黨寫了信，問問他們心目中的大臣人選是誰。他們三回答的都是卡立。

有一些讀者，應該都是阿玆敏的支持者吧，爲此寫下了很多難堪的留言（我都把這些給刪掉了，因爲都是一些人身攻擊），罵我是個騙子和講説以上一切根本就沒有發生過。好，信不信由你，但那確實是發生了。

阿玆敏曾被告知（他自己也有承認）欽選大臣是蘇丹的權利與特權。蘇丹甚至還可以拒絕民聯的建議而不需給出任何理由，他當然也可以拒絕行政委員的提名，正如吉蘭丹蘇丹上個星期的作爲般。

是的，蘇丹（和最高元首）只是必須‘聽從’州務大臣（或首相）的憲法制君主，但這並代表這些君主只是‘橡皮蓋章君主’而已。

你還記得在2008年雪州蘇丹曾拒絕委任一名行動黨的華裔人選為雪州副大臣嗎？之後這個人被委任為州議會的議長，類似一種‘補償’吧。

底綫是，君主在某個領域還是擁有特定權利的，只是眎乎他們要不要運用而已。一般上君主們都不會太插手政治課題，但柔佛蘇丹最近不是指示柔佛州的行政議會裏必須有華裔行政委員嗎？

你可以爭論說華裔選民已經否決了囯陣的華裔候選人，所以華人不可在政府裏掌權。但如果蘇丹下令要有華人在州政府裏的話，那囯陣就必須跟著辦。同樣的，如果蘇丹不想某個人成爲行政議員的話，那這些人也必須落榜（州務大臣也一樣）。

你也可以說你不喜歡蘇丹/元首插手來管這些事而要他們讓步。但如果他們不讓步呢？你會要弄出個大革命來‘佔領巴士底狱’嗎？記住，最高元首是國家的最高軍事將領，而蘇丹們也在軍隊裏有不同的統領權利。

所以是誰控制了武力和槍械？囯陣，民聯，還是君主們呢？

還有，懸吊國會和宣佈全國進入緊急狀態是最高元首的權利，不是首相的。最高元首背後的10万支槍支和數不清的坦克車會確保這一點。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 8) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Sun, 12 May 2013 23:26:52 +0000

Hence the percentage in votes has never matched the percentage in seats. This has always been the case since Merdeka and is called gerrymandering, perfectly legal all over the world unless that particular country passes a law where the variance between seats must be within plus-minus 10% or 15% (something I have been talking about since 1999).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar vows never to surrender until GE13 results validated

(The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim vowed last night never to surrender Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) fight to ensure the pact claims its rightful place in Putrajaya, maintaining his stance that Barisan Nasional (BN) had cheated its way to victory on May 5.

READ MORE HERE

***************************************************

I followed the rally in Ipoh last night (on live streaming) and would like to touch on what Dr. Lee Boon Chye and Anwar Ibrahim said in that rally.

Dr Lee lamented that he won with a majority of only 15,000 votes while if there had not been any cheating he would have won with a majority of 30,000 instead. Anwar, on the other hand, said since Pakatan Rakyat won with more than 51% of the popular votes this proves that Barisan Nasional lost the election. Furthermore, he had known as early as 7.00pm (even as the votes were still being counted) that Pakatan Rakyat had won.

Okay, I would like to talk about three very crucial issues here, two of those issues that I have been talking about for a very long time since 1999. And the first issue is about gerrymandering or the fallacy of popular votes while the second issue is about crowds.

On Sunday, 5th May 2013, Barisan Nasional won less than 50% of the popular votes and yet it still won almost 60% of the seats in Parliament. Hence this is the evidence of fraud, said Anwar, because it is impossible to win less than 50% of the popular votes and still win the election.

Well, in that case, look at the following results of the last 12 general elections from 1959 to 2008 and tell me: is it impossible?

Even in the worse election for the ruling party, 1969, they won less than 50% of the votes but yet were only 0.7% short of getting a two-thirds majority in Parliament. One more seat and the Alliance Party would have controlled two-thirds of Parliament.

Hence the percentage in votes has never matched the percentage in seats. This has always been the case since Merdeka and is called gerrymandering, perfectly legal all over the world unless that particular country passes a law where the variance between seats must be within plus-minus 10% or 15% (something I have been talking about since 1999).

So, how can Anwar say Pakatan Rakyat won the election since it won more than 51% of the seats? I have warned Pakatan Rakyat that Barisan Nasional can win 45% of the popular votes and still form the government with a simple majority and that if Pakatan Rakyat wants to take over it needs to win about 60% of the popular votes (based on the current system).

The next point I have always talked about, and which was the basis of my Harakah article back in March 2000 regarding the Sanggang by-election (the article was called ‘Crowds do NOT translate to votes’) is that, well, crowds do not translate to votes.

For the first time in Malaysian history, there was a huge crowd in the usually ‘sleepy’ town of Sanggang and the traffic jam into town was five kilometres long. Judging by the crowd alone, PAS had definitely won that by-election. When the votes were counted, however, Umno won 6,743 votes against Hishamuddin Yahya of PAS’s 4,780 votes.

Hishamuddin Yahya, the Managing Director of Harakah, published my article because, according to what he told me, he agreed with what I said and felt that the opposition should seriously take note of this very important point.

But they did not. In January 2002, there were large crowds at the opposition rallies during the Indera Kayangan by-election. I had to park my car three kilometres from the ceramah and walk the rest of the way because of the massive jam. The crowd was at least 50,000 or more.

Earlier, I drove pass Menteri Besar Shahidan Kassim’s residence and saw less than 100 people there. No way MCA was going to win. Cikgu Khoo from PKR was definitely going to win and PKR forecasted a majority of at least 2,500 votes. When the votes were counted, it was indeed a majority of 2,500 votes but in favour of MCA, not PKR.

That is the reality but the opposition never listens and still thinks that crowds of 50,000 or 100,000 at their ceramah means they are going to win the election. This has never been the case and it is time that the opposition wise up to this reality. You need to win seats, not crowds at your ceramah, to win the election.

I shall continue this ‘story’ in the next episode because Malaysia Today readers get very upset when my articles run into more than two pages.

TO BE CONTINUED

**************************************************

5月5之後（八）

所以說選票的巴仙率從來都不等于議席的巴仙率。自獨立以來情況就是這樣的了，這英文就叫做 gerrymandering，是個100%合法而全球多個國家都採用的做法，除非那個國家有明文規定所有選區的選民人數差別不可超過10%/15%（我直1999年就開始強調這點了）。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

我昨晚透過綫上的直播來觀看怡保的集會，我要看看安華和李文才醫生到底講了些什麽。

李醫生認爲如果此次的大選沒有舞弊的話，他將會以3万票勝出而不是現在的1万5千票。另一方面安華則強調，既然民聯奪得51%的選票那就代表囯陣已經輸掉大選了。再者，他早在晚上7點時（他們還在算選票時）就知道民聯經已獲勝了。

那好，在此我想跟你們談談三件很重要的事情，其中兩項是直1999年以來我就不斷地提醒你們的：第一是選區分佈，第二則是人群出席數的問題。

囯陣在5月5贏得了少過50%的選票但卻拿下了多過60%的囯席。這對安華來講就是舞弊的證據，因爲你沒有可能在贏得少過50%選票的情況下還能在大選勝出。

請看看下表列出的12個大選成績，然後請告訴我：這真的沒有可能嗎？

在1969年的大選，執政黨迎來了最差的成績；但即使他們只贏得了少過50%的選票，他們還是奪得了約66%的囯席，而且只要他們再奪得一席的話，他們就能以2/3多議席執政了。

所以說選票的巴仙率從來都不等于議席的巴仙率。自獨立以來情況就是這樣的了，這英文就叫做 gerrymandering，是個100%合法而全球多個國家都採用的做法，除非哪個國家有明文規定所有選區的選民人數差別不可超過10%/15%（我直1999年就開始強調這點了）。

所以安華他怎麽可以講説民聯因取得了51%的選票就贏得了大選呢？我早就警告過民聯，依據現今的系統，囯陣單靠45%的選票就可以執政了，但如果民聯想要推翻囯陣的話那他們至少得贏得60%的選票。

下一個課題我想講的，也是我曾在2000年3月Sanggang補選期間在Harakah刊登的文章的中心點（那篇文章題爲“人群並不代表選票”），也就是人群並不代表選票
Sanggang當時見證了史上第一次的人潮大聚集，這個‘沉睡的城市’當時的堵車車龍長達5公里。單看當時的人群出席率，伊黨鐵定會贏得此次的補選，但儅結果出爐時，巫統竟以6743票擊敗了伊黨的Hishamuddin Yahya。Hishamuddin Yahya也是Harakah的管理總監，根據他的説法，他是因爲很認同我的論點和很想把我的論點傳達給反對黨所以才把我的文章發表在他們的黨報上面的。

但他們並沒有聼進耳裏。2002年1月，Indera Kayangan 補選，反對黨當然也舉辦了助選集會。我當時因爲堵車堵得太過分而必須把車停在距離演講會的3公里処再步行到達集會。當時大約有5万人出席吧。

在那之前，我駕車經過州務大臣Shahidan Kassim的住所，看到那裏只有少過100個人，所以馬華根本就贏不了吧。公正黨的朱老師看起來也一樣鐵定會贏得那次的補選，他們預測他會以2500多數票勝出。開票時，沒錯，多數票是2500，但是馬華的2500票而不是公正黨的。

這就是現實，但反對黨永遠都聼不進腦子裏。他們到現在還以爲只要有5万人10万人出席他們的講座會他們就鐵定會贏得大選。但情況一直都不是這樣子的嘛！他們必須得開始接受現實：你需要囯席來贏得大選，而不是講座會的人群。

我想我必須在此停筆，在下一篇文章才繼續我的‘故事’；儅我寫長過兩頁時，MT的讀者是會發飆的。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 7) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Fri, 10 May 2013 23:33:54 +0000

The problem is not so much what to do with Najib. If Najib were to be ousted, just like Pak Lah was soon after the 2008 general election, then Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin would automatically take over as Prime Minister. The problem is: who would then become the new Deputy Prime Minister? By convention, once the Prime Minister retires/resigns/dies and the Deputy Prime Minister takes over, then one of the three Vice Presidents of Umno becomes the new Deputy Prime Minister. And who would this person be?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Husam akan lawan jika kerajaan baru Kelantan ‘kaut balak’

(The Malaysian Insider) - Timbalan Pesuruhjaya II PAS Kelantan Datuk Husam Musa tidak terkilan kerana tidak dilantik sebagai Exco Kerajaan Negeri tetapi menegaskan akan memperbetulkan jika kerajaan negeri pimpinan Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakcob lari dari landasan Islam dan melakukan aktiviti ‘duniawi’ seperti ‘mengaut balak’.

Husam baru-baru ini tidak dilantik semula sebagai Exco kerajaan negeri selepas bekas menteri besar, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat menyerahkan kepimpinan negeri kepada Ahmad yang sebelum ini merupakan timbalan menteri besar.

“Tetapi kalau kerajaan ini bersifat duniawi yang nak mengaut balak, lombong, Nauzubillah… Ampunkan saya kalau saya berdiri di dalam dewan untuk memperbetulkan kerajaan,” kata Naib Presiden PAS itu dipetik dari Sinar Harian Online.

“Saya masuk dalam perjuangan ini bukan main-main. Saya masuk ini untuk melihatkan apa yang kita usrahkan Islam yang syumul, Islam yang komprehensif, yang menjaga khazanah negeri dan negara supaya miskin dan yatim piatu, mereka itu dibela dan Islam menjadi model. Ini cita-cita saya,” tambah beliau lagi.

Husam (gambar) yang naik dalam politik bermula dengan menjadi “orang belakang” Nik Aziz ditamatkan kariernya dalam kerajaan negeri Kelantan sebaik sahaja bekas menteri besar bersara dari memimpin negeri.

Nik Aziz yang juga Mursyidul Am PAS itu sekali lagi berjaya memimpin parti Islam tersebut untuk menang dalam Pilihan Raya 2013 menyaksikan Pakatan Rakyat (PR) berjaya mendapat 32 daripada 45 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN), sekaligus mempertahankan negeri yang diperintah semenjak 1990.

Pada PRU13 PAS menguasai 32 kerusi DUN berbanding Barisan Nasional (BN) yang menang di 12 kerusi manakala PKR satu kerusi.

Ahmad, yang juga Timbalan Pesuruhjaya PAS I Kelantan, menang kerusi DUN Pasir Pekan dengan mengalahkan calon BN Nik Noriza Nik Salleh dengan majoriti 5,644 undi.

Husam tewas di kerusi Parlimen Putrajaya di tangan Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor akan tetapi berjaya mengekalkan kerusi DUN Salor.

Selain Husam, pemimpin-pemimpin kanan PAS yang turut kalah dalam PRU13 adalah Timbalan Presiden Mohamad Sabu, Naib Presiden Salahuddin Ayub dan Ahli Jawatankuasa Pusat Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

***********************************************

I first met the ex-Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, face-to-face 15 years ago in 1998. The meeting, which was arranged by Mustafa Ali, was actually for an interview. Harakah, the party organ of the Islamic party, PAS, then translated this interview into Bahasa Malaysia.

One important point I made, and which I discussed with Tok Guru, was that PAS Kelantan is Nik Aziz and Nik Aziz is PAS Kelantan. Hence, without Tok Guru, the PAS Kelantan government would most likely cease to exist. PAS Kelantan is more or less synonymous with Tok Guru.

I actually met a few kaki gedebeh (sort of street thugs) at the Kota Bharu taxi station and many of them expressed support for Tok Guru. Yes, I do have many friends amongst the kaki gedebeh who would escort me to Golok when I cross the border to visit the Buddhist temples in Thailand (why else would I go to Golok?).

These kaki gedebeh are not good Muslims. They do not pray or fast. They go to Golok for R&R (for wine, women and other merriment). You can hire them to ‘fix up’ your enemy either with a bullet in the chest or a kapak kecik (small axe) on the forehead. They smuggle rice across the border and involve in gunrunning. And so on. Yet they support Tok Guru, not because of Islam or PAS, but because they have tremendous respect for him.

Hence, if even ‘bad’ people support Tok Guru, how can PAS go wrong? But what would happen if Tok Guru were no longer the Menteri Besar? Would PAS still get their support? I doubt so!

Tok Guru agreed and explained that this was why he was grooming lapisan kedua (second layer) to prepare them to take over from him. And he had about two or three candidates in mind who he was grooming as his successor, one of them, of course, Husam Musa.

Tok Guru further said that on a few occasions he absented himself from functions he had been invited to so that these lapisan kedua could attend in his place. This, explained Tok Guru, was not only to ‘train’ them, but also to give them exposure so that that rakyat can familiarise themselves with these second-in-commands.

Now, Tok Guru has retired. And all the lapisan kedua whom he groomed these last 23 years have been ‘retired off’ as well, Husam Musa one of them. And the reason they have been ‘retired off’ is because His Highness the Sultan of Kelantan wants them out.

According to the ‘palace talk’, His Highness wanted a timber concession and Husam turned His Highness down and told the Sultan to follow the ‘normal procedure’ by submitting a tender. Hence the reason for the heading of that news item above: Husam akan lawan jika kerajaan baru Kelantan ‘kaut balak’.

No doubt Tok Guru retired for health reasons. In fact, he has not been in the best of health for some time now. But is this the one and only reason or is he bailing out quickly before the fireworks start: meaning the new state government is going to go on a timber session orgy?

Anyway, Husam has warned he would lawan (oppose/fight) if that happens. But the fact he even needed to issue that warning does not bode well. Are we soon going to see another Kelantan palace crisis like in the late-1980s? The only thing is the Kelantan palace crisis in the late-1980s saw the downfall of Umno in Kelantan. This time around it may see the downfall of PAS in Kelantan.

Talking about the palace, soon after the Sunday general election, His Highness the Sultan of Selangor wrote to DAP, PKR and PAS individually asking these three Pakatan Rakyat parties whom they want as the new Menteri Besar. All three parties replied to the Sultan’s letter naming Khalid Ibrahim.

This upset Azmin Ali because Pakatan Rakyat did not hold a meeting to come to this ‘consensus’. In fact, PKR, too, did not hold any internal meeting to decide on who should be the Menteri Besar. The party President replied to the Sultan’s letter without the party’s ‘approval’.

DAP and PAS won 15 seats each in the Selangor State Assembly while PKR won 14. However, although PKR won one seat less than DAP and PKR, Azmin still considers that PKR won 15 seats and not 14 because PAS engaged PKR in a three-corner fight in Kota Damansara (the PSM candidate contested under the PKR banner). And if you combine the votes that both PAS and PKR got, then the opposition (PKR) would have won that seat instead of Barisan Nasional.

Hence, unofficially, PKR won that seat and thus PKR also unofficially won 15 seats, just like DAP and PAS. The fact that PKR won 14 seats and not 15 is because PAS ‘sabotaged’ PKR.

That is how Azmin looks at it -- that DAP, PAS and PKR are ‘equal partners’ with 15 seats each in the Selangor State Assembly. And if you were to read between the lines regarding what Azmin told the press conference yesterday, it is very clear he is challenging the party President’s action in replying to the Sultan’s letter naming Khalid as the Menteri Besar when the party had not made such a decision.

So now it is in His Highness the Sultan’s hand. And, according to the Sultan, it is His Highness’s authority to decide who gets to become the Menteri Besar although the palace can first of all ask for the pandangan (view/opinion) from the parties that won the election.

Finally, it is the Sultan that decides and no one else.

The much-expected meeting between Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and the de facto Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has finally been held. In fact, it was Najib who requested the meeting.

Najib is now under siege. His people predicted that Barisan Nasional would win 145 seats in Parliament -- three seats less to get a two-thirds majority in Parliament but five seats better than what Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi did in 2008 (which resulted in his ouster).

Days before the general election it was already confirmed that Barisan Nasional would win more than 130 seats but most likely less than in 2008 -- and for sure without a two-thirds majority in Parliament (I distributed this ‘130-145/worse case-best case’ message to many of my close friends last week).

Tun Dr Mahathir had earlier publicly warned Najib that if he could not better Pak Lah’s 2008 performance then he is in deep shit. After the general election, Dr Mahathir said it is up to Umno to decide what happens to Najib. So now Najib is in a state of panic because Umno will ‘decide’ whatever Dr Mahathir wants.

By convention, once the Prime Minister retires/resigns/dies and the Deputy Prime Minister takes over, then one of the three Vice Presidents of Umno becomes the new Deputy Prime Minister. And who would this person be?

The three Vice Presidents of Umno are Zahid Hamidi (who won by 1,592 votes), Hishammuddin Tun Hussein (who won by 1,515 votes), and Mohd Shafie Apdal (who won by 1,445 votes). This would mean, by convention, Zahid should be the new Deputy Prime Minister. And if Zahid declines the post, then Hishammuddin would be the new Deputy Prime Minister instead. Only if Hishammuddin also declines the post would the job go to Shafie from Sabah -- the first time in history that the second top job is going to an East Malaysian (which means he would most likely become the Prime Minister if anything were to happen to Muhyiddin).

Interesting, is it not? Why would Sabah want to now support Anwar Ibrahim when there is a strong likelihood that a Sabahan is going to become the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia with a possibility that he would become the Prime Minister later on?

The problem with this, though, is that Shafie is a Najib crony and a member of Najib’s ‘inner circle’ -- as is Hishammuddin, Najib’s cousin -- while Zahid, who was then the Umno Youth Leader, was the man who worked as Anwar’s ‘hatchet man’ in trying to bring down Dr Mahathir in the pre-Reformasi days.

So can Dr Mahathir afford to oust Najib and allow Muhyiddin to take over when Muhyiddin’s second-in-command would be one of the people who Dr Mahathir does not like? That may yet be Najib’s saving grace. It is not about Muhyiddin but about who will replace Muhyiddin.

***************************************************

5月5以後（七）

其實問題並不在於納吉是否會退下來。如果他真的退了，那現任副首相慕尤丁將會接手成爲下一任首相，但問題是，誰會頂上慕尤丁的副首相之位呢？根據以往的做法，儅首相退休/辭職/死亡后副首相將會接手，然後巫統的三名副主席的其中一名會出任副首相。那這些人是誰呢？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

我第一次和前吉蘭丹大臣聶阿玆見面是在15年前，即1998年。那一次會面是由Mustafa Ali安排的，目的是要和他進行採訪面試。爾後伊斯蘭黨報Harakah把此次採訪翻譯為馬來文刊登出來。

我當時提出了一個很重要的論點，那就是聶阿玆既是吉蘭丹伊黨，吉蘭丹伊黨既是聶阿玆。沒有了Tok Guru（聶阿玆的尊稱），那吉蘭丹的伊黨政府將不會出現。吉蘭丹伊黨或多或少是Tok Guru的同義詞。

我在哥打巴魯的計程車站看見了許多kaki gedebeh (類似私會黨員)，而他們都表示支持Tok Guru，是的，我認識很多kaki gedebeh，而他們都會護送我到Golok再越過邊境去參觀泰國的佛廟（不然我去Golok幹嗎呢？）。

這些kaki gedebeh 都不是好的回教徒。他們不會祈禱和齋戒，他們會去Golok‘享福’（酒，女人，其他服務等）。你可以聘請他們為你‘解決掉’你的敵人：在他們胸口開一槍，或在他們額頭上送上一把kapak kecik (小斧頭) ；他們還會走私稻米和販賣軍火等等。不過他們還是很支持Tok Guru，不是因爲他來自回教或伊黨，而是因爲他們對他的尊重。

由此可見，如果連‘壞人’都支持Tok Guru的話，那伊黨還會出錯嗎？但如果Tok Guru不再是大臣了，他們還會支持伊黨嗎？我看很難吧!

Tok Guru認同我的論點再加于解釋他現在正在訓練著第二代接班人來接手。他當時有兩三個人選，其中一個當然就是胡桑慕沙Husam Musa。

Tok Guru進一步的釋他有時會缺席某些集會以便那些第二代能夠代表他出席。這不僅僅能夠訓練他們，這還能讓他們有機會和人民見見面，讓人民對他的助手們不會太生疏。

現在Tok Guru退休了，而他的第二代也和他一樣一起‘退休’，而其中一個就是胡桑。他們‘退休’的原因是因爲吉蘭丹蘇丹要把他們踢出局。

根據‘宮廷傳言’，蘇丹想要一片伐木地的主權，但胡桑拒絕了他並且要他根據規章來招標。所以我們看到以上的新聞標題是：如果吉蘭丹新政府要得到伐木地的話，胡桑將會進行抗議。

毫無疑問的，Tok Guru是因健康原因而引退，他的健康在近幾年已大不如前了。但這是他急流勇退的唯一原因抑或他想要在新政府展開伐木鬧劇之前抽身呢？

無論如何，胡桑已經警告說他會進行‘抗議’，但問題是，他必須公開提出抗議這件事已代表了事件的難搞了。我們會否再一次看到1980年代的吉蘭丹危機重演呢？不同的是，在1980年危機后倒臺的是巫統，而這次有可能倒臺的會是伊斯蘭黨。

談起宮廷，在上星期日大選后雪蘭莪蘇丹分別給行動黨，伊黨和公正黨寫了信，問問他們心目中的大臣人選是誰，而他們的回答都是卡立。

這把阿玆敏給惹毛了，因爲他們沒開會就給出了這個一致的答案。事實上，就連公正黨也沒召開内部會議來商討誰會成爲大臣；黨主席在沒有得到黨的‘同意’就回信了。

行動黨和伊黨分別贏得15席而公正黨只贏得14席，但阿玆敏堅持地認爲他們贏得了15席。伊黨在Damansara和公正黨上演了一場三角戰，他認爲如果選民們都把伊黨的票投給公正黨的話，那他們將會擊敗囯陣來贏得那個州席。

所以非正式來講，公正黨是如行動黨和伊黨般贏得了15席而不是14席；他們只贏得14席是因爲伊黨在搞破壞。

這就是阿玆敏的觀點----民聯三黨都是各以15席鼎立雪州州議會的。如果你聼得出阿玆敏昨天記者招待會的弦外之音，他很明顯地挑戰著黨主席在黨還沒做出決定前就寫信給蘇丹提名卡立為大臣的舉動。

所以現在是看蘇丹要怎樣做了。根據蘇丹表示，他有欽點大臣的最終權，然而宮廷可以先聼聼贏得大選的政黨的意見再作決定。

但最後，還是蘇丹説了算，沒有其他人可以作決定。

那備受矚目的首相納吉和實權首相敦馬的會議終于展開了。事實上，這次是納吉親自要求要和老馬見面的。

納吉現在正前後受敵，他的團隊之前預測他能贏得145個囯席 ----比2/3的148席少3席但比阿都拉在2008年的140席（阿都拉因此而下臺）多5席。

但大選前幾日就有人確定了囯陣只能贏得少過2008年的140席但至少能過130席，而要想贏得2/3多數席就甭談了。（上個星期我向很多朋友傳出了130-145席的消息）。

老馬之前就公開警告過納吉，如果他的表現未能比阿都拉的2008年來得好，那他就會代誌大條了。大選后，老馬又站出來講說巫統會決定納吉的去向。那真的把納吉嚇破膽了，因爲納吉知道巫統會做出老馬想要看到的‘決定’。

其實問題並不在於納吉是否會退下來。如果他真的退了，那現任副首相慕尤丁將會接手成爲下一任首相，但問題是，誰會頂上慕尤丁的副首相之位呢？根據以往的做法，儅首相退休/辭職/死亡后副首相將會接手，然後巫統的三名副主席的其中一名會出任副首相。那這些人是誰呢？

現在巫統的三名副主席為Zahid Hamidi (1,592票當選), Hishammuddin Tun Hussein (1,515 票)，與Mohd Shafie Apdal (1,445票)。意思就是，根據傳統做法，Zahid將是第一人選；如果他拒絕，那機會將會被判給Hishammuddin。而只有連Hishammuddin也拒絕那副首相這個職位才會傳給來自沙巴的Shafie –-這將會成爲馬來西亞史上第一次第二最高職位由一個東馬人出任（也代表他很有可能在未來會出任首相一職，如果慕尤丁發生什麽冬瓜豆腐的話）。

很有趣，不是嗎？現在正當有一個本土沙巴人有機會出任副首相（未來的首相）一職時，他們還有必要支持安華嗎？

背後的問題是，Shafie是個納吉的裙帶關係人兼‘圈内人’----正如納吉的表弟Hishammuddin一樣----而Zahid在烈火莫熄前夕是安華的頭馬，他當年官拜巫統青年團長且曾致力協助安華推翻老馬。

所以敦馬現在能把納吉拉下來讓慕尤丁上位嗎？那些副首相人選都是老馬不喜歡的，這可能會成爲納吉的救命稻草；這事件跟慕尤丁不大有關聯而是跟誰會取代慕尤丁大有關聯。

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 6) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Fri, 10 May 2013 04:05:04 +0000

We once found a few names registered at a cemetery (now that is what I would call real phantom voters). In fact, Azmin Ali’s dead father was still a registered voter in 2004 and, more importantly, he actually voted in the 2004 general election. How was that possible? This is where your election workers need to be good. The fact that Azmin not only found out that his father was still a registered voter but that he had also ‘voted’ shows that his machinery is on the ball.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Okay, now let’s get back to what I spoke about in part 4 of this series regarding election fraud. In part 4, I said, “First of all, you need to buy the list of the registered voters from the Election Commission (SPR). Your election workers then study this list to see whether there are any dubious voters on this list.”

This list comes in the form of a CD and you can either buy the one just for your constituency or you can buy the entire set for the whole country. So, if you wish to contest the election or you are working in the party ‘war room’ or the operations centre of the candidate, you must first arm yourself with this list. And you buy the final list that is going to be used for the coming election.

That final list will not change until after Polling Day -- which means anyone who registers as a voter after that final list is complete will not appear on the list and cannot vote in the election. This could be the list that is closed, say, six months or so before the date of the election.

You then need to carefully study the voters’ list and see if you can find any dubious voters on the list. These could be names of dead people still on the list or 300 names registered at the same house address or names of people registered at an address that does not exist and so on.

You need to know the names of the streets and the number of houses on that street. For example, Jalan 222 in, say, Petaling Jaya could have houses numbered from 1 to 99 on one side of the street and 2 to 100 on the facing side. Hence house number 122 on Jalan 222 in Petaling Jaya is a fake address.

Once all the discrepancies are detected you need to bring this up with the SPR and get these names removed. If not you may have a high incidence of phantom voters. It is YOUR job to do this if you want to contest the election and you have only yourself to blame if you are sleeping on the job.

(So it is not that easy to contest the election after all, is it? It requires a lot of hard work).

Then you need to train your election workers who will be on duty on Polling Day. These would be the observers or agents at the polling centres as well as at the counting centres. They need to know the election laws plus what to do on Polling Day and how to file a protest if they find something wrong, which can later be used as evidence in the event you wish to file an Election Petition to contest the result.

Before the ballot box is sealed, your agent needs to inspect the box to ensure that no ‘stuffed votes’ are already in the box. Only then can the ballot box be sealed, once it is confirmed that it is empty.

You already know how many voters will be voting in your saluran or stream because you have the registered voters list. Let us say, for argument’s sake, 1,000 voters will be voting in your saluran.

When the first voter comes in to vote, his/her identity card will be checked. Then his/her name will be announced loudly with the number on the list to confirm that he/she is a registered voter. You then cancel this name, which means this person has already voted and cannot vote again.

At the end of the day, after polling has ended, you count how many names from the 1,000 turned up to vote. Let’s say 820 names have been cancelled. This means there should be 820 ballot papers in the ballot box.

The ballot box is then sealed and you stay with the ballot box and do not take your eyes of it. If the ballot boxes are transferred to another place, say to the counting centre, you escort the ballot box and never take your eyes of it, even if a naked girl walks in to the room (or a jambu youth if you are gay).

The seal for the ballot box is then broken and the ballot papers are poured onto the table and counted (make sure no ballot papers are ‘stuck’ in the box). The number of ballot papers counted should come to 820. And if it shows a number other than 820, you fill in the form and file a complaint. Normally the number of ballot papers in the box would tally with the number of names on the list that have been cancelled -- in this case 820.

After counting the ballot papers and confirming that the numbers are correct -- meaning 820 -- you then sort the ballot papers. Let’s say there are only two contestants -- Barisan Nasional and DAP. All the Barisan Nasional ballots are put into one pile and the DAP ballots into another.

As they sort the ballot papers one-by-one, they have to first show you whether they are Barisan Nasional or DAP ballots. Once you are satisfied and you nod in agreement, the ballot papers are placed into the correct pile, Barisan Nasional on one side and DAP on the other.

Once all 820 ballot papers have been correctly sorted to your satisfaction -- Barisan Nasional ballots on one side and DAP on the other -- you then count the ballot papers in each pile. The sum total of the two piles must come to 820.

If the votes for Barisan Nasional come to 420 and, for DAP, 400 and you are not satisfied, you can demand a recount. If the recount is 419 for Barisan Nasional and 401 for DAP and you are still not satisfied, you can demand that they be counted yet again. Say the third count shows that it is again 420 for Barisan Nasional and 400 for DAP and this time you are satisfied, then this is the figure that is recorded on the form.

This form is then signed by the SPR with the agents for all the candidates also counter-signing the form. You then demand a copy of this form for your records. That would be the final result.

So how can they cheat? The number of registered voters in your saluran is 1,000. This has been confirmed by your party HQ or the operations centre of your candidate.

The number of people who voted was 820. You confirmed this.

The number of ballot papers in the ballot box is also 820. You confirmed this.

The total votes for both candidates is 820. You confirmed this.

They sorted out the ballot papers correctly. You saw this yourself.

They counted both piles correctly. You saw this yourself.

And the sum total for both piles comes to 820. You confirmed this.

Hence Barisan Nasional won that particular salurn with 420 votes versus DAP’s 400 votes. All this was done in front of you with you as the witness.

So, pray tell, how can they cheat as far as what happened in your saluran on Polling Day is concerned?

TO BE CONTINUED

********************************************************

5月5之後（六）

我們曾經在名單上看見過一些已經向墓地報到的選民（這真的是名副其實的幽靈選民！）。事實上，阿玆敏已過世的父親在2004年的名單上出現過，而最重要的，他還在2004年投了票。這怎麽可能呢？這就是你的志工需要有真功夫的地方。阿玆敏不僅找出他的父親來，而且還知道他投了票，這代表了阿玆敏的方法是有效的。
原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

好，現在讓我們回到第四篇文章繼續談談選舉舞弊。在那篇文章裏，我講道：“第一，你必須從選舉委員會購買選民名冊，然後你的選舉志工必須審查這個名冊來看看到底有沒有些可疑的選民。”

他們是以CD方式把名單賣給你的，你可以只買你選區的，或者全國的都可以。所以，如果你想要競選或為你政黨的‘作戰指揮室’工作的話，那你必須擁有這份名單。你也必須確保你買的是最新的。

最新的是指在大選前都不會有改變的----亦即指在最新名單出爐后再去登記的選民將不得在此次大選獲得投票權。這些最新名單一般在大選前6個月就出爐了。

你必須很小心來審查這個名冊來看看到底有沒有些可疑的選民。這包括那些已死掉的選民或那些數以百計登記在同一個地址的選民們。

我們曾經在名單上看見過一些已經向墓地報到的選民（這真的是名副其實的幽靈選民！）。事實上，阿玆敏已過世的父親在2004年的名單上出現過，而最重要的，他還在2004年投了票。這怎麽可能呢？這就是你的志工需要有真功夫的地方。阿玆敏不僅找出他的父親來，而且還知道他投了票，這代表了阿玆敏的方法是有效的。

你還必須很清楚街名和那條街上可以有多少房子。打個比方，八打靈再也的222路有1到100號的房子。所以222路上的122號房就是個假地址。

一旦發現這些問題后你必須向選舉侷投訴把這些選民給去除掉。如果你不這樣做的話拿你的選區將會出現大量的幽靈選民。這是你要競選的職責，如果你想偷閑，出了問題就得自己負責。

(所以說競選並不容易，對嗎？你必須做很多後備工作）

接下來你必須訓練你選舉當天會值班的志工們，這些是你的監督員和算票員。他們必須知道選舉法令是什麽，投票當天必須怎樣做，和出了問題時應該如何提出抗議。他們的抗議在未來你提出選舉上訴時將會成爲證據。

在投票箱被封起來之前，他們必須細心檢查以確保裏邊沒有被‘塞進’選票。只有在你的志工確定那些投票箱是空的以後，那些投票箱才可以被封。

你應該以知道你的Saluran會有多少選民（因爲你的選民名冊）。爲了簡化以下要講的，就儅你的Saluran有1000人好了。

儅有一選民要投票時，他們先會核對他的身份證，然後他們會把他的名字和名單上的號碼大聲念出，讓你知道他真的是個選民。然後你必須把他的名字刪掉，代表著這個人已經投票了，他不可以再回來投第二次。

投票結束后，你算算看那1000個選民有多少個出來投票。就讓我們講說你刪了820個名字，那就代表那個投票箱裏應該有820選票。

現在那個投票箱就會被封起來，而你就得24小時跟著這個投票箱且把你的視線定在它上面。如果說這些箱子會被運送到其他地方的話，如計票中心，你就必須緊貼著它們，且視線不離半寸，即使是有個裸女在你面前走過（或者是個粉嫩美男，如果那合你口味）。

那些封條會被他們撕開，然後他們會把選票都倒在桌子上開始算票（確保選票沒有卡在箱子裏）。選票總數應該會有820票，如果不是的話，那你應該立馬填寫表格做出抗議。一般上，選票總數會和名單上所刪除的一樣的----即820票。

儅算完以後----即選票總數為820票----你就可以開始把選票分開來。讓我們講說你的選區只有兩個候選人好了，囯陣與行動黨，他們會把囯陣票堆在一邊和行動黨票堆在另一邊。

他們會一票一票地算，每打開一票他們就會出示給你看，讓你看看到底是囯陣的還行動黨的。只有你點頭答應了，他們才會將選票放在正確的票堆裏邊，囯陣在一邊，行動黨在另一邊。

在所有820票都（經你滿意后）分好了以後----囯陣在一邊，行動黨在另一邊----你可以開始算兩邊的票堆。兩邊的票數必須加起來是820票。

在算完以後，譬如說囯陣420票和行動黨400票，你覺得不滿意，你可以要求重算。第二次算出來的是囯陣419票行動黨401票，你還是不滿，你可以再要求再算多一遍。第三次算出來時囯陣420票行動黨400票，你滿意了，然後他們就會把這結果記錄在表格裏。

這張表格會有選舉委員會的官員簽名，再由各個候選人備簽。你然後收取一分拷貝給你自己做參考，這就是最終的成績。

所以他們應該怎樣出千呢？你的Saluran的選民數為1000人，你的黨總部和你的候選人辦事處都證實了這一點。

投票人數為820人，你鑑定了這一點。

投票箱裏的票數是820票，你鑑定了這一點。

兩位候選人的票數加起來是820票，你也鑑定了這一點。

他們把選票都分對了，你親眼看到的。

這兩堆選票他們都點算對了，你親眼看到的。

這兩堆選票的總數是820票，你親自確定的。

然後囯陣以420票在這個Saluran擊敗了行動黨的420票。這全都是在你面前做的，而你本身就是個證人。

所以，請您告訴我，就您的Saluran來講，請問投票當天他們能怎樣欺騙呢？

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 5) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Fri, 10 May 2013 01:48:04 +0000

And that would mean Umno’s days are numbered when more Malays move away from Umno and swing over to PAS and PKR in the spirit of Pakatan Rakyat. And this would happen when the ‘power struggle’ changes from a vertical divide into a horizontal divide (a struggle between the rulers and the ruled -- like what is already happening in the recent general election).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

GE13 not a ‘Chinese tsunami’, says Merdeka Center

(The Malaysian Insider) - Election 2013 was not simply a “Chinese tsunami” as it showed a major swing among the multiracial urban and middle-class electorate against Barisan Nasional (BN), independent pollster Merdeka Center said yesterday.

Sinar Harian Online reported Merdeka Center executive director Ibrahim Suffian (picture) today as saying that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s reading of the May 5 general election as a “Chinese tsunami” was inaccurate as urban Malays had also voted for Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

“There were differences between the low-income and the middle-income areas, as well as between the urban and rural areas,” Ibrahim was quoted as saying.

Analysts have noted that BN’s historic losses in Election 2013 were the result of a middle-class and urban exodus from the coalition that further widened the urban-rural rift in the country.

In their preliminary reading of the vote trend, analysts pointed out that despite the increase in Chinese support for PR, the political tsunami had also swept with it a large number of Malays who form part of the country’s middle- to upper-class electorate.

Ibrahim was also quoted as saying today that several constituencies had shown marginal BN victories that reflected a tight competition between BN and PR.

BN lost the popular vote for the first time since 1969 when it was then the Alliance.

BN also bled an additional seven federal seats to PR in Sunday’s polls. BN and PR won 133 and 89 federal seats respectively.

**************************************************

Why do we call the 1600s uprising in England the English Civil War while we call the 1700s uprising in France the French Revolution? Basically, they were both almost the same but one is called a civil war while the other a revolution.

In England, the fight was between two ruling blocs, a power struggle of sorts, while in France it was between the ruling elite and the ruled. Hence England was divided vertically (so we call it a civil war) while France was divided horizontally (so we call it a revolution). But both countries were still divided nevertheless.

Then, in the 1800s, Europe was again divided. But this time they very cleverly used nationalism (or we can also call it ketuananism, ‘unification’, racism, parochialism, etc.) to divide the people. And that worked even ‘better’ than what happened earlier in the 1600s and 1700s.

Basically, we unite the people by dividing them.

Does this sound contradictory or appear like an oxymoron? No, that is called Machiavellian politics, the best and most effective form of politics because it never fails and always works.

No doubt the 1800s rise of nationalism managed to demolish the very powerful Hapsburg and Holy Roman Empires and helped create Germany and Italy plus many smaller nation-states such as Serbia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Albania, Poland, Holland, Switzerland, etc. But that also badly divided Europe. Hence while nationalism may have united the people into nation-states, it also divided the people by race.

So you gain one thing but you lose something else. And, not long after that, in the 1900s, Europe was dragged into two world wars. Hence a good thing such as ‘independence’ and the creation of democratic republics also brought with it a terrible toll in loss of life when racism took over. (Remember what happened in India?)

Hence, when you unite the people according to language and culture, like in Europe in the 1800s, the spectre of racism rears its ugly head.

So, to unite the Chinese or the Malays amongst themselves (or even the Indians and the natives of East Malaysia amongst themselves) racism is the key and racism would also be the end product.

The Chinese are now united. The fact that more than 90% of the Chinese voters voted en bloc for DAP is proof of this. The Malays, however, are not. Umno, PAS and PKR all have to ‘share’ the Malay vote. And that is the main dilemma facing Umno. DAP has more than 90% of the Chinese ‘cake’ while Umno has to share the Malay 'cake' with PAS and PKR.

In West Malaysia, Barisan Nasional is basically just Umno (the rulers). However, Pakatan Rakyat is DAP, PAS and PKR (the ruled). Hence it is three against one: DAP, PAS and PKR versus Umno almost alone. Therefore, without East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional (meaning Umno) is a dead duck.

So that is what they mean by the ‘Chinese Tsunami’. It does not mean only the Chinese voted Pakatan Rakyat while the Malays, Indians and ‘others’ did not. It means Pakatan Rakyat almost has a monopoly of the Chinese vote while the Malay votes are shared by three political parties. Umno has only about half the Malay vote and the other half is shared between PAS and PKR. Umno does not have an almost monopoly of the Malay vote like Pakatan Rakyat has with the Chinese vote.

So the term ‘Chinese Tsunami’ has been misused or misunderstood here. It is not that only the Chinese voted Pakatan Rakyat. It is that Pakatan Rakyat has an almost monopoly of the Chinese vote. And this has frightened the daylights out of Umno.

However, take note of one thing, if Umno wants to unite the Malays like how DAP has united the Chinese, then Umno has to play the nationalist card like they did in Europe in the 1800s. Then we are going to see the same tragedy that Europe saw in the 1900s (and are still seeing to a certain extent until today).

And not one more thing: another word for nationalism is racism or parochialism.

TO BE CONTINUED

***********************************************

5月5之後（五）

這也表示儅越來越多馬來人轉向伊黨和公正黨時，巫統下臺是指日可待的。而儅‘權力鬥爭’從縱向轉成橫向（即鬥爭變成人民對壘掌權的政府----在此屆大選我們已經開始看到各端倪了）時，這很可能會發生。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

第13屆大選並非是個‘華人海嘯’，默迪卡中心如此表示
(大馬内幕者) - 第13屆大選並非是個‘華人海嘯’，因爲有一些多種族選區與中產階級集中的選區都倒像民聯，獨立民調中心默迪卡中心昨天如此表示。
（下文省略）
**************************************************
爲什麽我們把1600年的英國起義稱爲‘英國内戰English Civil War’但我們會把1700年的法國起義稱爲‘法國大革命French Revolution’呢? 這兩本質差不多都一樣，但一個稱爲内戰，而另一個革命。

在英國，那場抗爭是兩組權利之間的戰爭，類似于權力之爭，但在法國則是平民與貴族之爭。因此，英國是縱向分離（所以是内戰）而法國是橫向分離（所以是革命）。但無論如何，這兩個國家都作出了分離來開戰。

然後，再1800年間，歐洲再一次分離。但這一次他們用了一個很聰明的詞，叫做民族主義nationalism (或我們可稱爲ketuananism, ‘聯合’, 種族主義, 狹隘主義等) 來分離人民。那比1600和1700的效果還要來得好。

基本上，我們通過分離人民來統一他們。

這聼起來是不是很矛盾呢？不是的，這就是马基亚维利Machiavellian 式政治，史上最好最有效的政治模式，它從來沒有失敗過。

1800年間的民族主義瓦解了強大的哈布斯堡王朝和神圣罗马帝国，使得許多國傢如德國，意大利，塞爾維亞，波黑，斯洛文尼亞，斯洛伐克，奧地利，匈牙利，羅馬尼亞，保加利亞，捷克共和國，阿爾巴尼亞，波蘭，荷蘭，瑞士等得以誕生。但與此同時它也分裂了整個歐洲。所以，雖然說民族主義雖然能把人民團結出來組織國家，但它也能把人民以種族來作出區分。

在你得到某些東西的儅兒你也會失去某些東西。就在那不久后，即1900年間，歐洲被捲入了兩次世界大戰。好事是他們得到了‘獨立’，有許多共和國在此后組成，但壞事是種族主義所導致的人命的傷亡（還記得印度所發生的事情嗎？）。

所以，儅你是通過語言和文化把人民給團結起來時，那正如1800年的歐洲，醜陋的種族主義也會慢慢地擡起頭來。

要把華人或馬來人團結起來（即使是印度人、東馬土著也一樣）種族主義是個關鍵，而種族主義也將是個最終成品。

華人現在團結起來了，多過90%的華族一窩蜂地投個行動黨就是個很好的證據。馬來人則還沒有，巫統，伊黨和公正黨還在瓜分馬來選票。這也是令巫統很糾結的：行動黨擁有90%的‘華人蛋糕’，但巫統必須和伊黨與公正黨‘公司’。

這也表示儅越來越多馬來人轉向伊黨和公正黨時，巫統下臺是指日可待的。而儅‘權力鬥爭’從縱向轉成橫向（即鬥爭變成統治者對壘掌被統治者的鬥爭----在此屆大選我們已經開始看到各端倪了）時，這很可能會發生。

在西馬，囯陣相等于巫統（統治者）而已，但民聯確是伊黨，行動黨和公正黨（被統治）。所以嚴格來講這是個三對一的戰爭。因此，如果沒有了東馬的話，那囯陣（既是巫統）只是一只軟腳蝦而已。

所以這就是他們口中‘華人海嘯’真正的意思。它不只是代表只有華人投給民聯而馬來人，印度人和其他人按兵不動。它更大指的是民聯幾乎壟斷了華人票但馬來票卻有三個去向。巫統只能掌握一半的馬來票源，而民聯另一半；巫統並沒有絕對地壟斷馬來票，不像民聯已壟斷華人票般。

所以說‘華人海嘯’這個詞在此被誤解了，它並不單單指華人一概投給民聯，它指的是民聯已壟斷了華人票源。而這以把巫統嚇破膽了。

對了，請看清一點，如果巫統想要像行動黨把華人團結起來般地團結馬來人，那巫統就必須像是1800年的歐洲般打出民族主義這張牌。然後，我們就會看到1900年歐洲歷史悲劇重新在馬來西亞上演（其實我們現在還可以看到某程度的悲劇正在歐洲上演著）。

還有一件事情你得看清：民族主義的另一個稱呼是‘種族主義’或‘狹隘主意’。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 4)

Super Admin — Thu, 09 May 2013 23:43:03 +0000

Anwar’s knee-jerk reaction when the results were announced on Sunday night was that Pakatan Rakyat won 51% of the votes so this means Pakatan Rakyat won the election. In 1933, Adolf Hitler won only 43% of the votes and 33% of the seats and yet his party took power. Al Gore won 48.4% of the votes but George W. Bush took power with 47.9% of the votes. In 1969, the Alliance Party won 49% of the votes and still managed to form the government.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Democracy blackout

On May 5th, millions of Malaysians called out in a single voice that you wanted change. Change from a corrupt regime of UMNO-BN that has held on to power for more than five decades. It was a voice that was strong and clear.

You said to the UMNO-BN leaders: Enough! Enough of corruption and abuse of power! Enough of racism, bad governance and mismanagement of the nation’s wealth! Let Pakatan Rakyat take over now!

But they refused. To stay in power they cheated. They want to continue to rob from the nation. Working hand in glove with the Election Commission they resorted to all kinds of fraud and declared themselves the winner.

By this act of cheating they turned the brightest hour in our nation's history into its darkest.

But last night YOU responded. Hundreds of thousands Malaysians from all races and walks of life, young and old – came to Stadium Kelana Jaya to show your outrage against the injustice and fraud. You showed courage and determination. You braved the traffic jams, walked kilometres and stood in the pouring rain because you believe your cause is a noble one.

You were peaceful. You showed your allegiance to the Yang diPertuan Agong and sang the national anthem with pride. You demonstrated clearly that we are a nation united as Bangsa Malaysia.

Some say that you gathered because you cannot accept defeat. This is a gross insult and lie. The truth is that your victory has been stolen from you. It is they who cannot accept defeat and who have resorted to cheating to stay in power. You are on the side of truth and truth will triumph over falsehood.

You have every right to be outraged that your vote for change has been hijacked. You have every right to feel hurt and insulted by the accusations of being ungrateful and greedy just because you voted for Pakatan.

Our mission is clear. We are no longer just campaigning. We are building a movement. We will protest against the fraud and this disgraceful act of denying the people their victory. We will bring together all Malaysians to fight to end corruption, racism and the abuse of power.

They are now playing with the fire of racism and hate-mongering and trying every means possible to intimidate you. As long as we stay united there is nothing to fear. Together we will show the illegitimate UMNO-BN government that our voice is not easy to silence. We will show them our resolve and the courage of our convictions. We will not stop until justice and victory is returned to us.

If you believe in this mission I give you my word that the Pakatan Rakyat is with you. We will stand firmly with you all the way. We will never surrender.

Thank you,

ANWAR IBRAHIM

**************************************************

Anwar Ibrahim’s statement above is interesting mainly for the reason that it is merely rhetorical but lacks details. Anwar was very vague as to what type of cheating he was referring to. We must remember that most Malaysians do not understand how the electoral process works so this may not only confuse people but will mislead them as well.

If you have worked as an election worker in an election then you would know how the process works. You would then not be satisfied with mere allegations of fraud but would like details about how this fraud was perpetuated.

It is not that easy to cheat during an election but it is possible to cheat before the election. But then some of this cheating is not really cheating. It is called gerrymandering and is quite easy to do plus is perfectly legal. Everyone does it, even in advanced and civilised societies, and that is how parties get into office with less than 40% of the popular vote, but just as long as they win 51% or so of the seats with those 40% votes.

So it does not mean if you win 51% of the votes you have won the election. Hence Anwar should not confuse the people by saying that since Pakatan Rakyat won more votes than Barisan Nasional then Pakatan Rakyat won the election. The winner is not based on how many votes you win but by how many seats you win, and Anwar knows this.

Now, how do you run an election to make sure you are not ‘cheated’ and you win? If Anwar does not know the answer then he should just retire. Actually he does know the answer to this question but he is mischievously leaving it vague. And this is very naughty of him.

First of all, you need to buy the list of the registered voters from the Election Commission (SPR). Your election workers then study this list to see whether there are any dubious voters on this list.

For example, you may find 300 voters registered at the same house address. Your election workers then visit this house to determine whether it is true that there are 300 people living in this one house. Most likely there are less than 10 people living in that house so this would mean the 300 registered voters are ‘phantom’ voters.

Now, this does not mean these 300 people do not exist. It could mean these people are living somewhere else but have been ‘moved’ to this area and since they do not have a home in that area they are ‘tompanging’ (‘squatting’) in this address.

These are what they refer to as ‘phantom’ voters -- people living somewhere else from where they are registered to vote. But they do exist. They are not really phantoms in the sense they are non-existent people.

If you are sure of winning in a certain area and your majority in that area is traditionally very large (say like Marang in Terengganu), then you can afford to shift some of your voters to the neighbouring area where the situation is normally 50:50 (say like Kuala Terengganu in Terengganu).

You are not worried about Marang. That is PAS President Ustaz Haji Abdul Hadi Awang’s area and no one can defeat him there. But Kuala Terengganu always swings between PAS and Umno (and even Parti Negara and Semangat 46 at one time) so you need to ‘strengthen’ that seat. So you shift some of the Marang voters to Kuala Terengganu so that you can win both seats instead of winning one and losing one.

That was why PAS won 15 of the 32 state seats in Terengganu (Umno won 17) and 4 of the 8 parliamentary seats (a tie). PAS very cleverly spread out their voters.

Kelantan is another case in point. Thousands of Kelantanese no longer live in Kelantan. They work and live all over Malaysia, many even in Singapore. But they do not transfer their place of voting to where they work/live. They remain registered in Kelantan and then go back to Kelantan to vote. This is to make sure that PAS can retain Kelantan.

Umno can, therefore, call these voters PAS’s phantom voters.

So PAS and Umno are actually cleverer at this game than DAP or PKR. DAP and PKR lump their voters in one place. Hence they win large majorities. PAS and Umno shift their voters and spread them out strategically. Hence with lesser votes they can win more seats whereas the reverse would happen for PKR and DAP.

But why did DAP win more seats than PAS? Well that is because PAS, PKR and Umno are sharing the 60% Malay votes while DAP monopolises the Chinese voters. Hence DAP gets more than 90% of the Chinese votes (in some saluran it was actually 100%, which shocked Umno) while PAS, PKR and Umno have to split the 60% Malay voters three ways.

And this is what concerns Umno. Umno can see that DAP now has a monopoly on the Chinese votes whereas Umno needs to compete with PAS and PKR for a share of the Malay votes.

Nevertheless, while Umno has to share the Malay votes with PAS and PKR, Umno won 88 seats versus 51 for PAS and PKR. And not all PKR seats are Malay seats. Some are Chinese/Indian seats. Hence, if you minus these seats, then Umno won 2:1 versus PAS and PKR.

TO BE CONTINUED

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 3) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Thu, 09 May 2013 05:44:13 +0000

What Najib did not suspect was that some other Barisan Nasional leaders from Sabah and Sarawak wanted to follow Lajim Ukin and Wilfred Bumburing when they crossed over. However, Anwar told them to stay put in Barisan Nasional and contest the general election under the ruling party banner and then cross over after the general election.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You may love Anwar Ibrahim or you may hate him. But one thing you must not do is to underestimate him. That would be a big mistake if you were a ‘struggling’ Prime Minister like Najib Tun Razak.

Anwar knew that if Najib could not do better than Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in the March 2008 general election then Najib would be in deep shit. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad would cut off his balls and nail it to the wall. (And Dr Mahathir is sharpening his knife even as you read this).

So that was Anwar’s first aim. Even if you cannot take over the government just make sure that Najib does not get more than 140 parliamentary seats. And Najib did not do better than what Pak Lah did in March 2008. In fact, he did worse -- he won seven parliamentary seats less than in 2008.

So now Najib is facing so much internal problems with Dr Mahathir breathing down his neck he no longer has any time or energy to worry about Anwar or about what Anwar is up to.

And that works fine for Anwar as far as he is concerned. He can now distract Najib even further with his road shows that started last night in Kelana Jaya -- which means Najib now has two major battles to fight.

Do you think Anwar can walk in to Putrajaya by organising rallies and road shows? Do you think the Election Commission will call for fresh elections just because Anwar says they must?

If you believe that then you are sillier than I first thought. The Election Commission has just told Anwar to go screw himself. But that is not a problem because that is not Anwar’s real game plan. His real game plan is to ‘steal’ the government through crossovers -- just like Barisan Nasional ‘stole’ it through election fraud.

Many may have been puzzled as to why Pakatan Rakyat created such a mess in Sabah and Sarawak. Even a political novice knows that you need Sabah and Sarawak to march in to Putrajaya since these two East Malaysian states control 25% of the seats in parliament.

Sabah and Sarawak will always control 25% of the seats even if they have only 10% of the nation’s population. That is what was decided in the Malaysian Agreement. (Hence the one-man-one-vote system cannot work in Malaysia because then Sabah and Sarawak can never have 25% of the seats in parliament).

Anyway, Anwar is not as stupid as you may think. It may appear like he messed up in Sabah and Sarawak. Actually he was not interested to win Sabah and Sarawak through the ballot box because he knew that would be very difficult to do and you would be wasting a lot of time and money while achieving very little.

Hence he just made a token effort in Sabah and Sarawak and did not worry too much about how many seats he would win. After all, he was not going to win that many anyway, other than the ones that DAP won in the predominantly Chinese constituencies.

Of course he wanted Sabah and Sarawak. But he wanted them not through the elections. He wanted them after the elections once he knows how many seats he can win in West Malaysia and how more seats he needs to be able to form the federal government.

So now, while the entire nation is focusing on the rallies that are going to be organised all over the country, Anwar is secretly negotiating with the Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament from Sabah and Sarawak.

Pakatan Rakyat needs at least 23 more parliamentary seats to form the federal government. 25 would be better. Then Pakatan Rakyat would have six more seats than Barisan Nasional.

Anwar’s ‘war room’ masterminds are Dr Rahim Ghouse, Saifuddin Nasution, Johari Abdul and Azmin Ali. These are the people hatching all the plots and planning the strategies. They were also the masterminds behind the Free Anwar Campaign, which I headed from 2000 to 2004. So I have personally worked with them since more than ten years ago and I know how they do things and what makes them tick.

So all of you who wish to scream and shout in the stadium rallies please continue to do so. I know it is great fun because we too used to do all this back in the old days. But do not expect anything great from that other than just having a good time.

Those rallies are not going to allow Anwar to walk in to Putrajaya because no new elections are going to be called. Even the Election Petitions are not going to achieve much unless you have strong evidence of fraud -- and you do not.

All the ‘evidence’ of election fraud is mere hearsay and rumours. There were no extra ballot boxes. Hell, there were no blackouts as well. So how do you win your court cases based purely on gut feel?

Sabah and Sarawak know they are now the Kingmakers. If they stay with Barisan Nasional then Anwar is screwed. If they jump then Najib is screwed. But before they make the decision whether to stay or to jump, they want to know what’s in it for them.

Can they get extra federal cabinet posts? One Deputy Prime Minister’s post maybe? Can they see an increase in oil royalty from 5% to 20%? Can they get more autonomy like what the 18- and 20-Point Agreements promised them?

So the horse-trading is now going on. Anwar is making his offers and Najib will have to counter-offer something better. So we may yet see Anwar become the new Prime Minister if Najib cannot better Anwar’s offer and the Members of Parliament from Sabah and Sarawak cross over.

In the meantime, while all this is going on, Najib has Dr Mahathir to worry about while Anwar has to try to pacify Azmin to make sure he does not jump if he is not made the Menteri Besar of Selangor. If not then Anwar might as well abandon the negotiations because the crossovers from Sabah and Sarawak will be neutralised by Azmin and gang once they declare themselves ‘independents’.

Sigh….and you want me to enter politics? You must be crazy! Why would I want to suffer all this aggravation and anxiety?

TO BE CONTINUED

****************************************************

5月5之後（三）

納吉所預想不到的是有些沙巴和砂磱越的囯陣領袖其實是想追隨Lajim Ukin和Wilfred Bumburing跳槽的。無論如何，安華要他們繼續待在囯陣以他們的黨旗來參加大選，然後在贏得大選以後才跳進民聯。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

你可以愛安華，你可以恨安華，但你千萬千萬不可以低估他。那是個很致命的錯誤，尤其你還是個‘一身蟻’的首相，如納吉般。

安華知道如果納吉的大選成績不比前首相阿都拉的2008大選成績來得漂亮的話，那他真的代誌大條了；敦馬會把他的LP切下來釘在墻上（儅你讀到這時，老馬正磨利著他的切刀）。

這就是安華的首要目標；如果你贏不了的話那就讓納吉也得不到多過140個囯席吧。納吉最終真的並沒有做得比阿都拉好，事實上他把事情給搞砸了----比起2008年，他多輸了7席。現在納吉正面對排山倒海的内部問題和老馬不停地在他頸后吹氣，他根本就沒有時間精力去擔心安華和安華的舉動。

對安華來講，這是最好的。他現在可以運用昨晚的格拉納再也集會來更進一步地轉移納吉的視線。現在納吉有兩場戰要打。

你以爲單靠舉行集會安華就能踏入布城嗎？你以爲選舉委員會真的會因爲安華而召開新的選舉嗎？

如果你真的這樣相信的話那你比我想象中的還要笨；選舉委員會剛剛才發言叫安華去自己吃自己。但這並不是一個問題因爲它並不是安華真正的遊戲計劃。安華真正的計劃是通過跳槽方式來‘偷得’政權----正如囯陣通過選舉舞弊來‘偷得’政權般。

納吉所預想不到的是有些沙巴和砂磱越的囯陣領袖其實是想追隨Lajim Ukin和Wilfred Bumburing跳槽的。無論如何，安華要他們繼續待在囯陣以他們的黨旗來參加大選，然後在贏得大選以後才跳進民聯來。

很多會很覺得很奇怪，爲什麽民聯會在沙砂這兩州搞砸了。即便是一個新手也知道要想步入布城他必須依靠這兩個州屬，因爲它們的囯席數佔了全國的25%。它們永遠都會佔據25%的囯席數，即便他們人口總數只佔大馬人口總數的10%，因爲這是《馬來西亞協議》賜予它們的權力（所以說1人1票的投票系統在馬來西亞是行不通的，因爲如果這樣做的話那沙砂就會得不到25%的囯席）。

安華並沒有你想象中那樣笨；他可能真的是搞砸了，但他並不是要通過投票贏得沙砂兩州因爲他知道這會花掉很多金錢時間，而換來的可能只是一點效果。所以說他採取的是漁翁得利的策略，他並不擔心現在他到底能贏多少席。他打從一開始就很清楚他能贏的並不多，最多只是在行動黨所向無敵的華人選區而已。

當然他很垂涎沙砂兩州，但他是不會通過投票贏得它們的。一旦大選后，他就知道他在西馬贏得了多少囯席，然後他就能算出他需要多少東馬囯席來組織政府了。

現在，正當全國都把注意力放在即將在全國各地舉辦的集會時，安華已暗地裏和東馬的國會議員們展開談判了。民聯需要多23席才能執政，若能得到25席的話那就更好，因爲那將使他們多出囯陣6個席位。

安華的‘作戰指揮室’的智囊是Rahim Ghouse, Saifuddin Nasution, Johari Abdul和Azmin Ali，就是他們這群人在背後部署和策劃所有策略的。他們之前也是‘釋放安華運動’的大腦，而我正是此運動2000-2004年閒的負責人。我曾和他們工作過，所以我知道他們的做事方法和他們喜歡用的招數。

你們當中如果有人想要繼續在集會内大喊大叫的話那請便吧。我知道這是恨刺激的，因爲在過去我們也是這樣做的。但請別奢望這樣做會帶來些什麽，你能得到的最多只是一個很激昂的晚上而已。

這些集會並不會把安華送進布成，因爲根本就不會有新的選舉。就連選舉上訴也不會為他帶來些什麽，因爲他根本就沒有很給力的證據。

那些所謂的選舉舞弊的‘證據’全都是些謠言與道聼途説的傳言而以。根本就沒有多出來的選票箱，連停電都是他媽騙人的。你指望法院能因你的‘直覺’來判你贏嗎？

沙砂兩州現在很明瞭他們才是造王者；如果他們留在囯陣那安華就悲劇了，但如果他們跳出來那就輪到納吉悲劇了。在他們在做出決定之前，他們想要看看他們會得到的是什麽。

他們能得到額外的内閣職位嗎？副首相聼起來很不錯嘛？石油稅能否從現在的5%增加到20%？他們能否得到更多的自主權，正如之前簽署《18點協議》和《20點協議》時所答應他們的呢？

現在談判交易正式開始，安華會開出他的條件而納吉必須開出更好的。所以說安華還有機會成爲首相，如果納吉拿不出一個更好的條件而造就東馬國會議員跳槽去民聯的話。

正當情況如此危急的與此同時，納吉有他的老馬要擔心而安華有他的阿玆敏要擔心，因爲如果阿玆敏儅不成雪州大臣的話安華得確保他不會跳槽。如果安華喬不好的話，那他乾脆放棄掉東馬好了，因爲東馬人跳了進來而阿玆敏又跳了出去，於事無補啊。

嗐，你要我從政？你燒壞腦袋了吧你！我爲什麽要如此折磨我自己呢？

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 2) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Thu, 09 May 2013 03:12:34 +0000

Umno has still not recovered from this shock and even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is pissed big time. He is blaming Najib for wasting his time and the government’s resources in trying to woo back the Chinese when that time and money could have been better spent in the rural areas where the Malays are the majority.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In part 1 of this series I said, “Luckily Najib Tun Razak is the Prime Minister. If I were the Prime Minister I would send my people in there with a bomb to create havoc and make sure that some people die. Then there would have been a lot of anger against Pakatan Rakyat for its poor security. Furthermore, I can then declare an emergency and suspend Parliament and the State Assemblies. And once I rule by martial law I can make changes that only a two-thirds majority in Parliament can.”

Okay, what would I do if I were Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader, instead?

Well, then for sure I would arrange for my agent provocateurs to plant a small explosive device at the far end of the stadium, farthest from the stage where I would be sitting. This explosive device is meant to take just a few lives and create a reasonable amount of injury, plus trigger a panic followed by a stampede (which will take more lives than the explosive device itself).

No doubt some lives would be lost but then this is what politics is all about -- collateral damage. After all, if the ballot does not work -- as Sunday, 5th May 2013 has proven -- then you need to choose the bullet over the ballot. So in that sense Anwar is a more decent person than I am. If I wanted federal power as desperately as Anwar does then I would allow the ends to justify the means.

I mean when the Germans advanced on Leningrad during World War II, Stalin ordered a scorched-earth policy to defeat the Germans, as they did about 130 years earlier to defeat the French. He allowed hunger and the cold to weaken the Germans and with a scorched-earth policy the Germans would be denied food and shelter.

The downside to this, of course, would be that Russian civilians would also die and about 12 million of the 20 million deaths were non-combatants. However, in the bigger scheme of things, civilian loses are unavoidable. This is what the fight for power is all about, sacrificing pawns in the game of thrones.

If something untoward did happen in the Kelana Jaya Stadium last night everyone would blame Umno and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. No one would dream that it was an ‘inside job’. Even more sympathy for Pakatan Rakyat would be gained plus the people would rise in anger and bring down the government. Was not Suharto and Marcos brought down only once people died? And Marcos and Suharto were far more powerful and stronger than Najib is.

I suppose that is why it is dangerous to allow me to become a politician. I am too devious and merciless and would not allow anything to stand in my way of reaching the top. Luckily Anwar is not as cold-blooded as I am. That is one thing Malaysia has to be thankful for.

On another note, the Team Khalid versus Team Azmin tussle for power is causing a stalemate in Selangor. PAS and DAP want Khalid as they can work with him better than they can with Azmin. The PKR Supreme Council, however, is in support of Azmin. To complicate matters further, Anwar supports Azmin while Anwar’s wife and daughter support Khalid.

Umno is watching this crisis with great interest and anxiety. Umno too wants Khalid because they feel that Khalid is the weaker of the two while Azmin is just too sharp for his own good. With Khalid at the helm, Umno has a better chance of capturing Selangor in the next election than with Azmin in charge.

Azmin may not have the administrative skills that Khalid has but Azmin is a far better politician and he will know how to retain Selangor in the next general election four or five years from now. (Azmin is as ruthless as I am and he too would be comfortable with collateral damage. So in that sense I admire his guts as a politician although I dislike him as a person).

Azmin has Anwar over a barrel. If Anwar chooses Khalid then he would be going against his own party’s Supreme Council and there would be the added danger of Azmin leaving with at least 11 or even 15 of his supporters. And that is the second reason why Umno wants Khalid rather than Azmin as the Menteri Besar.

Note that most of the candidates in the recent general election are Azmin’s people and handpicked by him. Hence they are loyal to him and would follow him if he were to leave the party and become an ‘independent’.

Umno knows that its survival depends on the Malays and Indians (plus the natives of East Malaysia). In the recent general election, more than 90% of the Chinese voted for Pakatan Rakyat, mainly DAP. In some saluran, 100% of the Chinese voted opposition. Not a single Chinese vote went to Barisan Nasional.

This has shocked Umno. They knew that the Chinese would not vote Barisan Nasional but they did not expect it to be this bad. They thought they could get at least 10-15% of the Chinese vote. They did not think that the Chinese vote for Pakatan Rakyat would be in the high 90s and in some places 100%.

There are about 50 or so of the 222 parliamentary seats that are Chinese majority. Another 57 of the seats are in West Malaysia, some of them Chinese majority seats as well (so there is some overlap here).

Hence Umno has to make sure that a minimum of 95 of the 120 Malay majority seats plus at least 45 of the East Malaysian seats are retained. Then Umno can afford to write-off the Chinese totally.

Ideally they should increase the parliamentary seats by another 10 or 15, mainly in the rural areas plus in East Malaysia. This would ensure that Barisan Nasional would be able to retain power in 2018 even if Pakatan Rakyat increases it share of the popular vote to 55%. Then Barisan Nasional can still be in power even with just 45% of the popular vote.

But to do this they need a two-thirds majority in Parliament and they are hoping that Azmin and his gang will cross over to give them the two-thirds that they need to increase the number of seats in favour of Barisan Nasional. And for both those reasons Umno is hoping that Khalid gets the job of Selangor Menteri Besar.

I just love Malaysian politics.

TO BE CONTINUED

****************************

巫統至今還未從此震驚中囘過神來，就連敦馬也爲此而深感忿怒。他正怪罪納吉，指他浪費時間和國家資源來討好華人。那些時間和資源大可以用在馬來人聚集的郊外地區上。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

在上一篇我寫到：“幸虧納吉是我國首相，如果我是首相的話，我會派人拿個炸彈在裏面引爆來製造死人的浩劫，然後就會有很多人把矛頭指向民聯，說他們沒有做好保安。再者，我可以宣佈我國正式進入緊急狀態，屆時我就可以瓦解國會和州會以戒嚴法令治國，令我可以如奪得2/3國會議席般隨心所欲地修改國家法令。”

好了，那如果我是反對黨領袖安華的話，那我又會怎樣做呢？

我會安排我的‘臥底’在體育館内離我講臺最遠的邊緣放個小炸彈。那個小炸彈的目的不是要奪得很多人命而是要令多人受傷和引發恐慌來製造人踩人的悲劇（這將會比那個炸彈致死更多人）。

無疑的將會有很多人因此死亡，但這正是政治的‘精髓’----附帶犧牲。底限是，如果投票解決不了問題的話----5月5號的大選已證明了這一點----那就用子彈來解決吧。所以說安華他比我有道德，如果我像他一樣那麽亡命地渴望權力的話，我會讓結果合理化我的行動。

我的意思是，當年二戰期間德軍進軍列寧格勒時，斯大林用了‘燒掉一切’的對策來擊敗德軍，正如130年前他們用來擊敗法國般。他用飢餓和寒冷慢慢地削弱德軍的戰鬥力，因爲‘燒掉一切’策略主要就是不給德軍留任何食物和避寒地。

這個策略犧牲的當然就是俄國的人民。這場戰役2000万死亡人數中就有1200万是普通人，但爲了保全大益，人民的犧牲是無可避免的。這就是權力鬥爭的中心----在王位鬥爭遊戲中犧牲掉那些小卒。

如果昨晚真的發生了不幸的事故的話那所有人一定會把罪怪在巫統和納吉身上，因爲沒有人會懷疑這是‘自己人’干的。民聯將會迎來更多的同情而人民也會憤怒地把政府給推翻。蘇哈多和馬可思不就是在有人死掉後才被推翻的嗎？當年的蘇哈多和馬可思可比現在的納吉還要強大得多了。

我想如果我從政的話那是件很危險的事情。我太奸詐無情了，我不會讓任何事情阻擋我掌權。幸虧安華並沒我這般冷血，這是馬來西亞應該感到慶幸的。

另一件事情，卡立對壘阿玆敏之戰已讓整個雪蘭莪都僵持在那了。伊黨和行動黨都挺卡立上位，因爲他們跟卡立比較合得來，但公正黨最高理事會的心水人選是阿玆敏。而更絕的是，安華本身是支持阿玆敏的，但他的妻子和女兒都支持卡立。

在另一邊觀望的巫統則是又好奇又擔憂。巫統想要卡立上位，因爲對比起阿玆敏他較爲軟弱而阿玆敏則是太尖銳聰明了。如果卡立掌權的話，那巫統要重奪雪州就相對地容易得多。

阿玆敏的管理能力可能沒比卡立好，但他是個很強的政客，他知道如何在未來4，5年保住雪州政權（阿玆敏同我一樣殘酷，他對附帶犧牲不會覺得反感。所以我很敬佩他的政客膽量，但我對他的爲人則深感厭惡）。

阿玆敏把安華弄得很糾結；如果安華任卡立為大臣的話那就會違反了最高理事會的意願，與此同時阿玆敏可能會帶領他10個，甚至是15個支持者離黨。這就是巫統要卡立上位的第二個原因。

請記住，此屆大選很多候選人都是阿玆敏親點上陣的，所以他們對他都很忠心且會為他脫離公正黨成爲‘獨立人士’。

巫統很明瞭他們必須靠馬來人和印度人（再加上東馬土著）來生存。在此屆大選，多過90%的華人都投給反對黨，尤其是行動黨。在一些地區甚至有100%的華人都投給反對黨，沒有一票是投給囯陣的。

這對巫統來講是很震撼的。他們知道華人不會投給囯陣，但他們沒有想到情況會是這樣糟糕。他們以爲他們至少會得到10-15%的華人票，他們根本就沒想到90%，甚至100%的華人會投給民聯。

在222個囯席當中大約有50個是華人居多的議席。在東馬的57個囯席當中，也有一小部分是華人議席（這裡有一些重疊）。

所以說巫統必須確保他們保得住（總數120個的）95個馬來席和至少45個東馬囯席。只有這樣巫統才能完全地忘掉華人的威脅。

在理想的情況下，巫統他們是想在鄉村地區和東馬囊括多10-15個席位。這將會確保他們在2018年也會繼續執政，即使是民聯在那個時候擁有55%的票選。囯陣屆時凴45%的票選也能執政了。

但他們現在需要2/3多數議席才能達成他們的目的，所以他們希望阿玆敏能夠帶領他的追隨者跳槽到他們那邊，這樣他們就能有2/3多數議席了。以上這些原因足以解釋爲何巫統希望雪州大臣是卡立而不是阿玆敏了。

我真的很愛大馬的政治。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

In the aftermath of May 5th (part 1) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Thu, 09 May 2013 01:27:28 +0000

Once the election results are officially gazetted, Pakatan Rakyat should immediately file Election Petitions in court. In the meantime they should gather the evidence in preparation. Umno and Barisan Nasional will be doing this, at least Umno Terengganu will, and if they win their cases then Pakatan Rakyat is going to lose a few more seats.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Polis akan memanggil 28 individu termasuk beberapa pemimpin pembangkang yang berceramah pada Himpunan Suara Rakyat Suara Keramat di Stadium Kelana Jaya, malam tadi.

Ketua Polis Selangor, Datuk Tun Hisan Tun Hamzah berkata, kesemua mereka akan dipanggil dalam tempoh terdekat bagi membantu siasatan mengikut Seksyen 4 (1) Akta Hasutan 1948.

***************************************************

I refer to the statement by Selangor CPO today that 28 Pakatan leaders who spoke at the Kelana Jaya rally on 8th May will be probed for sedition: N. Surendran (READ MORE HERE)

***************************************************

The gathering last night was meant to pressure the Election Commission (SPR) into invalidating the 13th General Election of Sunday, 5th May 2013. If they do agree to do this then this would be the first time in Malaysian history that we are seeing such a thing happen. Anyway, is there any provision in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia for such a thing?

One thing we are very concerned about, and which we are fighting the government over, is that the Constitution is not being respected and upheld. That is one of our bones of contention. Therefore I shy away from pushing for something ulta vires. (Remember Karpal Singh was arrested and charged in court for using that phrase, ultra vires, in describing the action of His Highness the Sultan of Perak?)

You may say we cannot trust Malaysia’s judiciary but there have been instances such as in East Malaysia and Penang (Permatang Pauh: Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail) where the opposition has won its Election Petition cases. And remember, I, too, won both my habeas corpus cases in 2001 and 2008. And did not Anwar Ibrahim win his Sodomy 2 and other cases as well (plus Zainur Zakaria, Azmin Ali, and so on)?

Hence we never know: it all depends on the judge. So Pakatan Rakyat should file their Election Petitions and, for sure, contest the ones filed by Umno and Barisan Nasional. At worst, even if Pakatan Rakyat does not win, they can prove to the world that they do have the evidence of electoral fraud. And if the evidence were strong enough the judge would not dare rule against Pakatan Rakyat.

We always talk about cases that the opposition lost and then we accuse the judiciary of being corrupt. We never list down those cases that we won -- and which are as many as or more than the ones we lost (the opposition has won all the illegal assembly cases thus far since 1998). I personally know some of these judges and not all are slime-balls and scumbags. Some of them are actually very decent and God-fearing people.

Nevertheless, after saying that, it is your luck as to which judge you come up against. You may get a good judge or you may get a bad judge.

On the news report that 28 opposition leaders are being investigated for sedition, now we can see why the police suddenly did a U-turn and allowed the rally last night to proceed after initially declaring it an illegally assembly and warning everyone to stay away from the venue.

This morning I checked with my deep throat to find out what was going on. First of all, they allowed the rally to go on to see how many people would turn up. It seems the seating capacity of the stadium is only 25,000 and if you include the field then it should come to a total or 35,000-40,000.

The pro-opposition websites say that 100,000-150,000 people turned up. That could be true, I will not dispute that, but I would never enter a stadium built for 25,000 if 150,000 people are squeezed into that stadium. That stadium would become a death trap.

I have personally seen what happens when you over-pack people into an area meant for half that crowd (like in Mekah, Mina, etc). Hence even 50,000 in the Kelana Jaya Stadium would be a huge risk. In the event of panic or a stampede, many are going to get trampled to death. And all you need is a small explosive device for the panic to start.

Did the organisers buy public liability insurance? Did they scan all the bags being brought in to the stadium? Did they scan the people entering the stadium? How sure were you that there were no agent provocateurs in the crowd who would trigger something? In short, how good was the security last night?

Luckily Najib Tun Razak is the Prime Minister. If I were the Prime Minister I would send my people in there with a bomb to create havoc and make sure that some people die. Then there would have been a lot of anger against Pakatan Rakyat for its poor security. Furthermore, I can then declare an emergency and suspend Parliament and the State Assemblies. And once I rule by martial law I can make changes that only a two-thirds majority in Parliament can.

But I suppose Najib is not as cruel as I am. A good thing I am not the Prime Minister or else Saddam Hussein will appear like Gandhi by comparison. (Oh, don’t sound so shocked. Everything is fair in love and war. And if you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.)

Secondly, they allowed the rally to go on so that the various speakers can utter ‘seditious’ statements. Then they can be investigated and possibly charged for sedition. And if they were found guilty they would have to vacate their seats and we would see many seats going for a by-election.

According to my deep throat, many intelligence officers were amongst the crowd last night and the feedback from them is that 80% of the crowd was Chinese and mostly young urban Malaysians mainly from the Kelang Valley area. Hence it was basically an ‘already converted’ crowd, Pakatan Rakyat diehards. What the government was worried about is that the crowd would be 80% Malay -- which would dispel what the government is saying: that Sunday was a Chinese Tsunami.

TO BE CONTINUED

***************************************************

5月5之後（一）

在大選結果一被正式承認的儅兒，民聯就應該立馬向法庭提出上訴並且同時收集證據。巫統和囯陣絕對會這樣做（至少登嘉樓巫統會），而如果他們真的嬴的話那民聯將會失去一些議席。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

警方將會召見有份參與昨晚格拉納在也體育館人民之聲集會的28名出席者。他們當中包括數位當晚有演講的反對黨領袖。

雪州縂警長Datuk Tun Hisan Tun Hamzah表示，警方將引用1948年煽動法第4（1）條文召見這些人士以協助調查。

***************************************************

昨晚集會的主要目的是向選舉委員會施壓，迫使他們宣佈5月5的大選無效。如果他們真的低頭的話，那這將是大馬史上第一個無效大選。但，大馬憲法裏有這樣的規定嗎？

一個令我們很擔憂進而與政府抗爭的原因是因爲我們的憲法不被尊重；這是我們抗爭的其中一個主軸。這就是爲什麽我盡量避免作出太越權（ulta vires）的事（還記得卡巴星因形容霹靂蘇丹‘越權’而被提控嗎？）

你可以講說大馬司法是不公平的，但請記得反對黨曾多次在東馬與檳城（旺姐的Permatang Pauh 議席就是一個例子）贏得上訴。我也曾在2001與08年獲得我的人身保護令，安華不也是贏了兩次肛交官司和其他官司嗎？

所以說世事無絕對的，全看那個法官是誰。民聯應該向法庭提出上訴跟囯陣打官司，如果他們輸的話，那至少他們可以把選舉舞弊的證據公諸於世。而如果他們的證據充足的話，那法官肯定不敢偏私。

我們只會去談那些反對黨輸掉的官司，再來大罵司法不公，但我們從來沒有去列出反對黨勝利的例子。他們勝出的與輸掉的其實是同樣多的（自1998年起他們從沒輸過非法集會的官司）。我自己本身有認識一些法官，他們並非全都是混蛋人渣，他們當中有人其實是很有道德和敬畏上帝的。

話雖如此，這些到頭來是很看運氣的：看你踫到的法官是誰。你可能踫到一個好法官，你也可能踫到一個坏法官。

以上的新聞講到會有28名反對黨領袖被控煽動；我們現在可以看到爲什麽警方在之前宣佈其集會是非法，但後來又來個大U-轉讓集會進行了。

剛才早上我和我的深喉打聽消息，看看這到底是怎麽一回事。原來他們准許的第一原因是想看看到底會有多少人出席。那個體育館的座位有2万5千個，如果草場中間站滿人的話那整個體育館的容量是35000-40000人，但親反對黨網站說昨晚有10万-15万個人。那可能是真的，我不會去反駁，但我本身絕對不會去和15万人擠進一個只能容納2万5千人的體育館；那個體育館絕對是個死亡陷阱啊！

我自己本身曾親眼見過人潮200%過度擁擠的後果（如聖城麥加等）。所以格拉納在也體育館容下5万人其實是很危險的了，如果發生恐慌事件或人踩人意外的話，那很多人將會被踩死，而你只需要一個小型炸彈就能令出席者感到恐慌。

舉辦單位買保險了嗎？他們有沒有徹底檢查所有人的包包？他們怎樣知道有沒有‘臥底’混了進來製造問題？簡單一點來説，昨晚的保安作得怎樣？

幸虧納吉是我國首相，如果我是首相的話，我會派人拿個炸彈在裏面引爆來製造死人的浩劫，然後就會有很多人把矛頭指向民聯，說他們沒有做好保安。再者，我可以宣佈我國正式進入緊急狀態，屆時我就可以瓦解國會和州會以戒嚴法令治國，令我可以如奪得2/3國會議席般隨心所欲地修改國家法令。

我想納吉並沒我這樣殘忍，而辛好我也不是首相，不然的話你們會看到薩達姆重生（是的，請別感到驚訝，在愛情與戰爭裏，所有東西都是平等的；如果你受不了熱氣的話那請別待在廚房裏。）

他們准許集會的第二個原因是要引誘那些給出煽動的演講，那樣他們就能展開調查再把那些演講者控上法庭。如果那些領袖真的都入罪的話，那他們得放棄他們的席位，然後我們就會看到很多補選。

根據我的深喉，昨晚有很多情報人員混進了集會裏。他們的報告是有80%的出席者都是華人和住在巴生一代的年輕人，所以説昨晚出席的都是民聯的‘死忠’支持者。而政府所擔心的情況是80%的出席者都是馬來人----因爲那將粉粹政府的‘華人海嘯’理論。

（敬請期待下一篇文章）

The expected happened

Super Admin — Wed, 08 May 2013 01:46:15 +0000

Now do you understand the reason behind all this talk regarding the Chinese Tsunami? You may hate Umno but you have to take your hat off to them for how well they strategised the 13th General Election. Umno is years ahead of the Chinese. And the DAP Chinese are still political novices save a few people like Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Since last year I have been having a few meetings in Bangkok, Singapore and Jakarta with our ‘team’ in the run-up to the recent 13th General Election. We also had our ‘operatives’ moving on the ground, even in East Malaysia, to ‘feel the pulse’ of the voters.

Just for your information, our financier spent a lot of money to fund the activities of this team in this recent general election. And don’t ask me any details because you will not get any, although Haris Ibrahim can suspect whom I am talking about. (I bet Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Bukit Aman are now curious like hell).

That is the only way to get a correct reading of the sentiments of the voters. The comments posted in Malaysia Today, Malaysiakini, Malaysia Chronicle, The Malaysian Insider, etc., plus all those comments in the Blogs, are not an accurate reading. That is the work of the Umno and DAP cybertroopers -- whose aim is to confuse and distort plus play a psywar game.

I have to admit that Pakatan Rakyat is not as good at psywar as Umno is. Many times Pakatan Rakyat’s spin-doctors spin out of control. For example, they spun stories as early as 7.00pm on Sunday that Pakatan Rakyat had already won the election and that there were blackouts all over Malaysia at the vote counting centres. That has now all been proven false.

In between those meetings in Bangkok, Singapore and Jakarta, we conducted daily Skype ‘conferences’, sometimes going on for hours. And that was how we managed to get accurate feedback as to what to expect on 5th May 2013. And that was also why I was able to send out text, Black Berry and WhatsApp messages to many of my friends, days before 5th May, that Barisan Nasional was going to win the election with no less than 130 parliamentary seats but not more than 145 seats.

One thing that we discovered was that Umno had planned for DAP to win the most number of opposition seats. In fact, the plan was for DAP to win half the opposition seats with the other half being shared by PAS and PKR. And if DAP can’t get exactly half then the non-Malay seats in PKR, if added to the DAP seats, must give Pakatan Rakyat half the non-Malay seats versus half Malay seats.

Hence, to achieve this, the Malay candidates from Pakatan Rakyat must be defeated at all cost while the Chinese/Indian candidates can be allowed to win.

This sounds silly, some of you will say. Why would Umno want to allow the non-Malay candidates to win while targeting the Malay candidates for defeat? I agree, if looked at from the context of just the 13th General Election, this does not sound logical. But it would be logical if you look at it long term, such as the next general election in 2018.

And that was why the Bersih 3.0 rally was allowed. In the Bersih 2.0 rally, they discovered that a large segment of the crowd was Chinese. Hence if Bersih 3.0 attracts an even larger Chinese crowd, then the perception would be, while 2008 was a Hindraf or Makkal Sakti Tsunami (meaning Indian Tsunami), then 2013 could be touted as a DAP or Chinese Tsunami.

And this Umno successfully did. Hence people like Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim who disagreed with the Bersih rally were correct. Unfortunately, when Tunku Aziz spoke out, he was disparaged and vilified by mainly the DAP Chinese crowd -- and anyone who is treated the way Tunku Aziz was would feel kecil hati and leave the party under very unhappy circumstances. (Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad felt kecil hati and unhappily left Umno in 2007 when they did the same to him).

I suppose old men are like that; me included. They get kecil hati when people the age of their grandchildren are biadap towards them. I, too, feel kecil hati with the younger generation Chinese DAP supporters who disparage and vilify me. Hence I too have grown to hate these people when just a few years ago in 2008 I campaigned exclusively for DAP.

Anyway, the plan was to make Pakatan Rakyat appear more like a Chinese-dominated coalition while Barisan Nasional is made to appear like a Malay-dominated coalition. Remember my articles about the 3Rs (race, religion and royalty) -- which was also the gist of my talk in Cambridge University recently?

Of course, when I spoke out against the Bersih rally -- in the context of Bersih being hijacked by the politicians -- plus about Umno’s 3R strategy, even people like Haris Ibrahim whacked me and called me a racist. And when I said I disagree with the ABU (anything but Umno) approach, Haris and all my other friends disowned me and called me a traitor, turncoat and so on.

Now what we expected has happened. Umno increased its seats from 79 to 88 (plus won almost half the 505 state seats contested) while DAP is now the dominant opposition party and second in size to Umno. And the perception being created is that Pakatan Rakyat’s success was made possible because of the Chinese Tsunami (just like the Indian Tsunami in 2008).

Is this true? Never mind if it is true or not. It is the perception that counts and politics is about perception, not about the truth.

The bottom line is the Malays are better at this political game than the Chinese are. And the Chinese walked right into the trap that Umno set up and then got snared.

And remember one reminder I kept repeating over these last two years. The anti-Malay rhetoric by the Chinese DAP supporters is just going to send the Malays back to Umno. When I said that you shouted ‘bullshit’. Do you still think it is bullshit? Because of your racist comments what should have been a Malaysian Tsunami was turned into a Chinese Tsunami.

So, who gains now? First step: split the Malays from the Malaysian Tsunami of 2013 and turn it into a Chinese Tsunami. Next step: finish off the non-Malay political base in 2018. Can’t be done? Well, compare the 1999 general election to the 2004 general election. Was that not what happened?

A stroke of genius I would say.

On another note, watch Selangor. There is currently a tussle going on between Team Khalid and Team Azmin for the post of Menteri Besar. I have, in fact, written about this a few times in the past.

PAS and DAP have both issued statements endorsing Khalid Ibrahim. Azmin Ali, however, insists that he be made Menteri Besar and if Khalid is given the post instead then he will leave the party together with his supporters.

Anwar Ibrahim is now in a dilemma. First of all, his wife and daughter support Khalid and not Azmin. Secondly, most of the candidates in the recent election were handpicked by Azmin. Hence many of the 30 PKR Members of Parliament are his people.

Hence, also, if Azmin leaves with, say, just 15 of this supporters and they declare themselves as ‘independents’, then added to the 133 Members of Parliament that Barisan Nasional has, Barisan Nasional will now have a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

So, either Azmin is made Menteri Besar or else Barisan Nasional will get its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

By the way, Kelantan is also having a crisis almost similar to Selangor.

Interesting, is it not?

Have you heard of Catch 22?

Super Admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 23:25:09 +0000

The problem is we are in a Catch 22 situation. We need a two-thirds majority in Parliament to be able to change the system. But the system will not allow us to get this two-thirds majority in Parliament. This is the Catch 22 situation I am talking about. So how do you win the elections? More importantly, how do you win with a two-thirds majority so that you can change the system when the system itself does not allow you to win two-thirds?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Today I want to talk about what Wan Saiful Wan Jan said in The Malaysian Insider news report below. Who is Wan Saiful? Well, this is what Wikipedia has to say about him:

Wan Saiful lived in the United Kingdom between August 1993 and October 2009. He worked for several organisations there, including the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit think tank, the British Conservative Party’s Research Department, and Social Enterprise London. From 2007 to 2009, he was vice chair of Luton Conservative Association and Head of Policy for the Conservative Muslim Forum. In May 2007, he contested in the English local elections as a Conservative Party candidate.

While in the United Kingdom, Wan Saiful was very actively involved in the PAS-linked organisation, Al-Hizbul Islami or HIZBI. He was Secretary General in 1997, President in 2000-04, and Mursyid in 2004-2006. The post of Mursyid, or chair of the Syura Council, is the highest position in the organisation. The organisation, however, forced him to resign from the post of Mursyid after he joined the Conservative Party in 2005, arguing that such an action is against PAS' policies.

The last meeting he chaired as Mursyid was on 8 April 2006, at Bewley Hotel, Manchester. It was in that meeting that the subsequent Mursyid of the organisation proposed that Wan Saiful must resign, and suggested that joining a British party is unIslamic. Wan Saiful, however, remains a life-member of PAS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wan_Saiful_Wan_Jan

I personally know Wan Saiful, whom I first met in London. He is a young man, born in 1975 (so he is two years younger than my daughter, Raja Suraya). Therefore I am in a way a ‘Pak Chik’ to him (going by ‘Malay culture’).

In 1975, the year that Wan Saiful was born, I had just ‘migrated’ to Terengganu and soon after that got ‘exposed’ to politics, Islamic politics in particular (since I lived in a PAS neighbourhood and had neighbours such as Mustaffa Ali and Harun Jusoh, plus the then Mufti of Terengganu).

In 1975, the year that Wan Saiful was born, we already knew that Malaysian elections are neither free nor fair. They are not free because they cost a lot of money (at least RM1.5 billion or so, which is what Barisan Nasional spends in a general election) and not fair because Malaysia uses the British Westminster system of Parliament where gerrymandering helps you win in a first-past-the-post race.

Hence the adage that the majority rules is not true at all. It is the minority that rules. And that is why Hitler came to power with only about 30% of the votes -- and then took the world into a world war that took tens of millions of lives (20 million in the Siege of Leningrad alone).

So what is free and fair about an election system where those with the most amount of money and with the absolute power to gerrymander wins?

And that was why in the late 1970s, soon after Wan Saiful was born, we opposed the current system and wanted a different system of choosing our government. Of course, at that time I was ‘swept’ by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and thought that an Islamic revolution was the best way to go, as opposed to the kafir system that Malaysia uses.

I have since changed my mind about that, though, after seeing what happened in Iran, but in 1982 I did join the Iranians in the largest demonstration ever organised in Mekah. They organised a second one the following year, which ended in bloodshed and the deaths of many people (the actual numbers never revealed).

Wan Saiful talks as if he has just discovered a secret. “These issues conspired against non-BN parties, therefore creating a very uneven field. Due to these reasons, we conclude that GE13 was only partially free and not fair,” said Wan Saiful. And that is the ‘secret’ he is sharing with us.

As I said, we knew this ‘secret’ the year that Wan Saiful was born. And, as I wrote in my earlier articles over the last two days, we were screaming about this back in 1999, soon after the 10th General Election -- four general elections ago. And we said we need both political as well as electoral reforms. And that was why we planned Bersih back in 2007. And that is also why I am upset that Bersih was hijacked by the political parties.

We know what is wrong with the system. We already knew what is wrong with the system the year you were born. And 13-14 years ago we already tried to fight the system and get it changed.

So don’t tell us about what is wrong with the system. We know what is wrong with the system. We already knew what is wrong with the system the year you were born. What we need to know is what can we do about it?

You need a two-thirds majority in Parliament to increase the number of seats. But you do not need a two-thirds majority in Parliament to redraw the electoral boundaries (meaning gerrymandering), which can be done every ten years.

So how do you win the elections? More importantly, how do you win with a two-thirds majority so that you can change the system when the system itself does not allow you to win two-thirds?

Catch 22!

************************************************

GE13 ‘partially free but not fair’, say think tanks

(The Malaysian Insider) - Non-Barisan Nasional (BN) parties played on a very uneven field for Election 2013, said think tanks Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) and the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) today.

The uneven playing field was caused by issues such as a media with a heavy bias towards BN, the use of government facilities during campaigning and doubts over the Election Commission’s (EC) impartiality — all of which are seen to have benefited BN in the polls.

“Although the official campaign period and electoral processes may have proceeded smoothly and without major issues, wider issues that are not within the EC’s purview have built up over the last few years,” said the think-tanks’ joint report ‘Was GE13 Free and Fair?’ today.

“These issues conspired against non-BN parties, therefore creating a very uneven field. Due to these reasons, we conclude that GE13 was only partially free and not fair.”

While presenting their report here today, both think tanks agreed to recognise the result of the polls, saying the EC ran the polls according to the proper procedures and by the book.

“To me, I think the result is credible the way it is now because we followed the process; it is simply just not a fair election.

“It is the best result we can get, bearing in mind the challenges that we’re facing,” said Wan Saiful Wan Jan, the chief executive officer of IDEAS.

IDEAS and CPPS were partly-funded by the EC as observers, and the team sent 311 short-term observers to 99 out of 165 parliamentary constituencies in peninsula Malaysia. The report, however, encompasses the whole electoral process across Malaysia.

During their observation, they have found out that the integrity of the electoral roll was questionable, the Registrar of Societies (RoS) was not free from partisan interference, and funding of political parties was not transparent.

The team also discovered that despite the sizeable participation of ethnic minorities in the polls, manipulation of racial issues was widespread, including the increase of racial rhetoric that sometimes bordered on the incitement of racial hatred.

The biggest issue concerning the team was the unequal delineation of constituencies, which they feel should be fixed as soon as possible now that the polls are over.

In the report, several recommendations have been made towards the EC, including making its members explicitly accountable to a permanent and bipartisan special parliamentary committee. Its members should also be recruited from experts of the field, instead of being seconded from the civil service

To improve the electoral roll, the team suggested that the EC co-operate with more specialist groups who have undertaken in-depth studies about the roll.

The report by IDEAS and CPPS will be available on both organisations’ websites starting today.

In Sunday’s elections, BN won 133 out of 222 federal seats, short of a two-thirds majority and worse than in the previous polls.

It also lost the popular votes to Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties, and was bested on the popularity front for the first time since 1969, when it had contested as the Alliance Party.

Towards the 14th General Election (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Super Admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 03:37:03 +0000

Would PAS agree to separate religion from politics when religion is what puts them in power? Would Umno, MCA or MIC agree to separate race from politics when race is what puts them in power? Would DAP agree to drop ‘Chinese causes’ when ‘Chinese causes’ is what puts them in power? Would PKR agree to dump Anwar Ibrahim when the party’s cause is to make Anwar the Prime Minister? Would Barisan Nasional agree to electoral reforms when gerrymandering helps them get into power with less than 50% of the votes?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I joined the Liberal Democratic Party soon after I ‘landed’ in the UK in early 2009 and almost a year before the 2010 UK general election. So I joined Lib Dem not because they won the election (in 2009 they had not won yet) but because I wanted them to win the election. And I am paying a RM50 a year membership fee (as opposed to only RM1 for Malaysian political parties).

The reason I joined Lib Dem and not Labour, the then ruling party, or Conservative, the then opposition party, is because Lib Dem is pushing for political reforms while Labour and Conservative are just fighting each other to be in power (just like Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are in Malaysia).

Hence, while in Malaysia we are still talking about a two-party system, in the UK we already have that. Now what we want is a strong third force to balance the two equally strong parties because both Labour and Conservative are equally bad (dua-dua pun sama).

If you can remember, soon after that, also in 2010, I mooted the idea of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM). I needed someone in Malaysia to head the MCLM because I was ‘stuck’ in the UK and that would have made it difficult for me to manage the MCLM since all our activities would be in Malaysia. I then approached various people to ask them to head the MCLM. One such person was the late Tunku Vic (photograph below).

Tunku Vic, however, could not head the MCLM yet at that time for reasons I am not at liberty to reveal. (Those who knew Tunku Vic would know why and would also know whom he was related to -- it was a family matter). I then asked Haris Ibrahim to head the MCLM and, at first, he, too, did not agree. Later, after some persuasion, he agreed, but only if I agreed to be the Chairman.

My plan for the MCLM is that it would be a third force. But it would not be a third force in the form of a political party like Lib Dem in the UK. It would be a NGO or movement that would engage both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat to push for political reforms. Malaysia needs political reforms (such as to abolish race and religion politics) and within those political reforms would be electoral reforms (such as a plus-minus 10% seat variation and to abolish postal voting).

Haris and I agreed (which we announced during the MCLM launch in London) that all those who sit in the MCLM committee must not be directly involved in any political party or participate in the elections as a candidate. If they want to contest the elections then they must resign from the MCLM or not get involved with the MCLM in the first place.

Sad to say, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat ignored us. In fact, Pakatan Rakyat viewed us as an enemy whose objective was to help Barisan Nasional by engaging in three-corner contests and thus splitting the votes in favour of Barisan Nasional.

Somehow they interpreted ‘third force’ as meaning three-corner fights. One DAP leader from Johor actually told me that their HQ had instructed them to not cooperate with the MCLM while one PAS leader phoned me to tell me that unless Anwar Ibrahim endorses the MCLM then PAS cannot work with us.

I make no secret of the fact that that broke my heart. I really felt hurt. If they do not want to take us seriously that is one thing. Politicians only work with people who can get them votes and they don’t think that the MCLM can get them any votes. But to accuse us of being saboteurs was hitting below the belt somewhat. For everything that we have done for the opposition over 35 years since the late 1970s, the last thing that we deserve is to be called traitors to the cause.

And what they are not able to accept is that ‘cause’ here means political reforms and not meaning to help any particular political party get into power.

I was involved in Bersih in 2007. In fact, the late Tunku Vic, Din Merican (the Blogger) and I were the ones who lobbied Istana Negara to agree to meet the Bersih committee to accept the Memorandum for electoral reforms. His Majesty the Agong consented to receive the Bersih delegation but limited to only ten representatives.

Ten was good enough for us.

We spent months planning Bersih. I even met the Umno people to ask them to support Bersih. Many did, but ‘off the record’, for obvious reasons. Some Umno people even donated caps and T-shirts, which I distributed to all and sundry.

On the day of the Bersih march, which attracted tens of thousands of people, we successfully reached the palace gates. Then we were asked to wait outside and not go in yet. It seems some of the political leaders were coming to join us. But why did they not march with us? Why come later only after we successfully reach the palace gates (and not without incident, too, mind you)?

We waited about an hour before the political leaders arrived and ten of them went into the palace. The rest of us, all those who had worked for many months to make Bersih a success, were left standing outside the gates. After handing the Memorandum to the representative of His Majesty the Agong, the political leaders came out to ceramah to the crowd.

In short, the politicians hijacked Bersih. Then, of course, they organised Bersih 2.0 and Bersih 3.0 under the patronage of the politicians. We wanted Bersih to be a people’s movement, not a tool of the political parties. And we wanted that because we also wanted Barisan Nasional to support Bersih. Now Bersih is just the fourth coalition member of Pakatan Rakyat. Would the Umno people now support Bersih like they did with Bersih 1.0 in 2007?

Because of what I viewed as the failure of Bersih (‘failure’ in the sense of not being an independent third force but rather part of a political party) I felt we needed a new third force to fight for political reforms. And that was the whole reason for the MCLM.

But the MCLM too failed. And it failed because the politicians could not control it like they could Bersih so they refused to have anything to do with the MCLM. And the rest of the story is now all water under the bridge, which you all know about.

The 13th General Election is now over. There is very little we can do about that. We now need to prepare for the 14th General Election in the next four or five years time. But what are we going to do? And how do we do it? Plus who is going to do what needs to be done?

That is what we now need to ponder upon.

I still believe we need an independent movement to push for political reforms. And within those political reforms must be electoral reforms. And it must be the people and not the politicians who do this. The politicians will not push for political reforms.

This is not a decision for me to make. I live in the UK and have no plans or wish to return to Malaysia. Another one million other Malaysians also live outside Malaysia and many also do not plan or wish to go back to Malaysia. It is you 28 million Malaysians who live and work in Malaysia who need political reforms. Hence you need to make the decision as to what you are going to do to face the 14th General Election in 2018 or so.

Your call!

*******************************

邁向第14屆大選

伊黨是靠宗教上位的，他們能否分得開政治和宗教呢？巫統，馬華，和囯大黨都是靠種族主義來掌權的，他們能否在他們的政治思想裏把‘種族’這個因子給拿掉呢？行動黨是靠“華人鬥爭”起家的，他們能否摒棄“華人鬥爭”呢？公正黨的鬥爭目的是要把安華捧上首相寶座，他們能否把安華換下來呢？囯陣是靠不公平的選區劃分才有辦法以少過50%的票數執政的，他們能否支持選舉改革呢？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

我在抵達英國不久后就加入了自由民主黨（LibDem），當時是2009年初吧。我加入他們並不是他們已經贏得了大選（他們在2010年大選才獲勝的），而是因為我要他們贏得大選。我還爲此繳付了RM50的年費呢（馬來西亞政黨會員費只是RM1而已）。

我當時加入LibDem的原因是因爲他們要帶來政治改革而工黨（當時的執政黨）和保守黨（反對黨）要的只是斗個你死我活（就像大馬的囯陣和民聯一般）。

所以說，儅我們還在大馬大談兩綫制時英國他們早已做到了。我們現在需要的是一個給力的第三勢力來平衡這兩個大頭，因爲工黨和保守黨都是一樣的爛(dua-dua pun sama)。

如果你還記得的話，我在2010年閒提出了大馬公民自由運動（Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement，MCLM）。我當時急需有個人來帶領MCLM，因爲我正被“卡在”英國，這導致我很難親身管理MCLM因爲大多數的活動都是在大馬舉行的。我因此接觸了很多人，希望能找到人來擔此重任，而其中一個就是敦姑維克Tunku Vic（上圖者），但是他因某個原因不能出任（你們有人認識他的話那肯定會知道那個原因是什麽----那是個家庭原因）。爾後，我找Haris Ibrahim商談此事，而他一開始也不同意。但經過我的游說后他終于答應了，條件是我必須成爲主席。

我的計劃是要MCLM以非政黨模式組成第三勢力。它將以非營利團體方式來接觸囯陣和民聯以推動政治改革；馬來西亞急需政治改革（如廢除種族宗教政治）和選舉改革（如所有選區的選民總數不可以有多過10%的差別和廢除郵票等）。

Haris和我當時同意(我們在倫敦的MCLM‘開幕儀式’時有做出宣佈)MCLM的委員一概不得和任何政黨有直接接觸和不得參與大選；如果他們想要參選的話就得退出MLCM。

遺憾的是，囯陣和民聯都忽視我們。更絕的是，民聯直接把我們看成敵人，講說我們的目的是要以3角戰的方式在大選時分散民聯的票源來幫助囯陣獲勝；他們把‘第三勢力’了解成大選三角戰。柔佛的某位行動黨領袖私底下跟我說黨總部已下令不准跟MCLM合作，而也有一名伊黨領袖給我打電話，跟我表示除非安華點頭支持，伊黨是不會跟我們有任何瓜葛的。

我從未掩飾那一切對我的傷害有多大，我真的很受傷。政客只會跟那些會為他們帶來票源的人合作而他們認爲MCLM不會為他們帶來任何選票。他們不重視我們是一回事，但他們倒過來冤枉我們，說我們專搞破壞，那簡直跟在我們的下陰踢上兩腳沒什麽兩樣。自70年代開始，我們所做的一切都是爲了反對黨，但得來的就只是一個叛徒的駡名。

我們的目的是想要政治改革，不是幫任何政黨奪權。

07年我參與了Bersih。事實上，是我，Tunku Vic和Din Merican 三人遊説皇室來和Bersih委員們見面和接受選舉改革備忘錄的。最高元首最後同意和最多十個代表見面。

十個代表對我們來講，已經很足夠了。

我們用了數個月來策劃Bersih，我甚至還和巫統的某些人見面，要求他們多多支持。他們很多人都支持（當然都是私底下），有些人還捐了帽子T-恤等，而我也把這些給派光了。

到了Bersih那一天，我們吸引了數万人前來參加，也成功地遊行到了皇宮大閘。但就儅我們走到了皇宮時，有人叫我們暫時還不要進去，留在外邊等，因爲有些政黨首領正趕著過來加入我們。奇怪了，爲什麽他們不和我們一起遊行呢？爲什麽要等到我們成功抵達皇宮了才出現呢？（請記得我們一路遊行過來是多麽的艱難）

我們等了大約有一個小時之久，那些領袖們終于到了，然後就一行十個人頭也不囘地走進了皇宮，而我們這群爲了Bersih嘔心瀝血的就呆呆地被遺忘了在大閘外邊。在把備忘錄轉交給最高元首代表以後，這一群政客就走了出來，然後就地給人群來個講座。

簡短來説，Bersih被一群政客騎劫了，而接下來他們就順手推舟地舉辦了Bersih 2.0 和 3.0。我們要的Bersih是個全民的運動，不是某個政黨的政治工具，我們要的是巫統也有份支持Bersih。但現在Bersih已成爲了民聯的第四個成員，那請問巫統還會像在2007年般地支持以後的Bersih嗎？

因爲Bersih失敗了（失敗是指Bersih再也不是第三勢力了而是政黨的工具），我覺得我們必須再來一個新的第三勢力繼續我們的改革鬥爭，這就是MCLM成立的原因。

但MCLM也失敗了，原因是政客們不能像他們之前控制Bersih般地控制MCLM，所以他們拒絕和MCLM有任何聯係。往後所發生的你們都知道了。

現在第13屆大選已經結束了，我們對此所能做的是非常有限的。我們現在要做的是替5年后的第14屆大選備戰。但我們應該做些什麽呢？我們應該怎樣去執行呢？我們應該找誰來執行呢？

這是我們該深思的事情。

我還是相信我們需要一個獨立的個體來持續我們的政治改革。我們的政治改革必須涵蓋選舉改革，而我們的改革必須是由人民而不是政客來推動的。政客根本就不會想要看到任何政治改革。

伊黨是靠宗教上位的，他們能否分得開政治和宗教呢？巫統，馬華，囯大黨，它們都是因種族主義掌權的，他們能否在他們的政治思想裏把‘種族’這個因子給拿掉呢？行動黨是靠“華人鬥爭”起家的，他們能否摒棄“華人鬥爭”呢？公正黨的鬥爭目的是要把安華捧上首相寶座，他們能否把安華換下來呢？囯陣是靠不公平的選區劃分才有辦法以少過50%的票數執政的，他們能否支持選舉改革呢？

這些都不是我說了算的。我現在生活在英國，沒打算再囘馬來西亞，在我之外還有1百萬的馬來西亞人也在國外生活，當中也有很多人都不打算回國。這是你們這些2千8百萬生活在馬來西亞的急需的選舉改革。你們必須作出決定，你們必須選擇要如何面對2018年的第14屆大選。

這是你們的選擇！！

The horse-trading in 2004

Super Admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 01:53:10 +0000

I have been saying for years that Umno does not need to win 50% of the votes to win 50% of the seats. In 1969, the Alliance Party of Umno, MCA and MIC won only 49.3% of the votes but 65.97% of the seats -- less than 1% short of two-thirds. And that involved only three parties mind you -- Umno, MCA and MIC. The opposition, which won 50.7% of the votes, won only one-third of the seats.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

SPR: Calon tidak puas hati dengan keputusan boleh fail petisyen

Calon yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan pilihan raya umum ke-13 (PRU13), boleh mengemukakan petisyen atau bantahan terhadap proses pengundian itu selepas pewartaan keputusan oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR).

Timbalan Pengerusi SPR Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar berkata tempoh untuk berbuat demikian ialah 21 hari selepas tarikh pewartaan.

Menurutnya, SPR dijangka selesai mewartakan keputusan PRU13 itu dalam masa dua minggu.

Katanya petisyen itu boleh dikemukakan di Mahkamah Tinggi di negeri masing-masing dan akan diselesaikan dalam masa enam bulan.

“Sekiranya mereka masih tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi, mereka boleh membuat rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk keputusan muktamad,” katanya ketika diwawancara dalam rancangan ‘Helo Malaysia’ terbitan BernamaTV, malam tadi.

Menurut beliau pada PRU 2004, SPR menerima lebih 30 petisyen berhubung keputusan PRU dan petisyen yang paling banyak diterima ialah pada PRU 1999 yang melibatkan 40 petisyen.

Pada PRU 2008 hanya 26 petisyen yang dikemukakan sedangkan ketika itu berlaku tsunami politik yang tidak berpihak kepada Barisan Nasional.

Katanya sesuatu petisyen boleh dibuat atas sebab-sebab perbuatan rasuah atau sebarang salah laku yang mungkin telah menjejaskan pilihan raya, ketidakpatuhan undang-undang dan peraturan pilihan raya.

“Rakyat berhak mencabar keputusan PRU, tetapi melalui saluran undang-undang.

Jangan pergi ke jalan raya berdemonstrasi dan memanggil seluruh dunia menceritakan kami tolak PRU,” katanya. – Bernama

***********************************************

The Election Commission has asked all those who are not happy with the election result to file Election Petitions in court and get the results declared null and void. That is actually very good advice and I hope Pakatan Rakyat will do that as soon as possible because there is a deadline for this. Once past the deadline you will miss the boat.

I was working in the PKR party HQ back in the 1999 general election. We expected the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, to win the election back then -- mainly because of the ‘Reformasi Tsunami’ that was sweeping Malaysia. That is what happens when you get psyched by the huge crowds that attend the opposition rallies or ceramah.

Unfortunately, although Barisan Alternatif won 43.5% of the votes -- mainly in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah -- they managed only 23.32% of the seats. Barisan Nasional, which won 56.5% of the votes, won 76.68% of the seats.

More disappointing was the fact that the Chinese voters rejected both Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh who lost the election. Lim Kit Siang was then the Opposition Leader in Parliament but because PAS won the most number of seats, the PAS President Uztaz Fadzil Noor took over as the new Opposition Leader.

Soon after that we lodged a protest and demanded a meeting with the Election Commission. PAS and PKR were represented and, if my memory serves me right, DAP did not attend the meeting. Mustaffa Ali and Azmin Ali were amongst those who attended the meeting.

That was about 13 years ago.

Amongst some of the electoral reforms that we pushed for were to abolish the postal voting system and to redraw the election boundaries. As it stands, Barisan Nasional can win just 50% of the popular votes but get 60% of the seats while the opposition’s 50% share of the votes gives them only 40% of the seats.

See the graphics below where it shows that for the same number of votes (about 2.5 million each) Barisan Nasional can win 50 seats opposed to only 30 seats for the opposition. (I have picked up just 80 seats representing 50% of the 10 million voters as an example but you can do your own analysis for the entire 222 seats if you wish -- it is not that difficult).

Hence, a law should be passed in Parliament where each seat should have only, say, 60,000 voters with a plus-minus 10% variation. Hence the seats would have between 55,000-65,000 voters each -- a variance of only 10,000 voters between seats. Only then would 50% of the votes give you close to 50% of the seats (I said close, not exactly).

The Election Commission did not do what we demanded in 1999/2000. So, in 2004, some of us urged the opposition to boycott the general election. Only some of us thought that this was a good idea. Most people, especially PAS, did not. That was because PAS was running Kelantan and Terengganu and they expected to add Perlis and Kedah to their list. Hence why would PAS want to boycott the election and ‘lose’ four states?

However, come the 2004 general election, the opposition got massacred. Barisan Nasional won only 63.9% of the popular vote (not even two-thirds) and yet they won 90.41% of the seats. PKR, which had won 5 state seats and 5 parliamentary seats in 1999, lost all but one seat -- Party President Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail’s seat of Permatang Pauh. The PKR Deputy President, Abdul Rahman Othman, not only lost but lost his deposit as well -- a huge embarrassment for the party.

And PAS, who had hoped to add Perlis and Kedah to their list, lost Terengganu and got reduced to a three-seat majority in Kelantan. Two more seats for Barisan Nasional and Kelantan would have fallen as well.

We then compiled evidence of ‘irregularities’ and filed Election Petitions in court (as Wan Ahmad Wan Omar mentioned in the news report above). Then the ‘other side’ also filed Election Petitions. Hence, while the opposition may have been successful in some of its Election Petitions, there was a danger that Barisan Nasional too would win some of their cases. And that may mean that Kelantan may fall to Barisan Nasional.

One Election Petition that may work against PKR was the one filed against Dr Wan Azizah -- their sole candidate. Dr Wan Azizah actually lost on the first count but won on the second count. She was then declared the winner when they should instead have done a third count and take the two-out-of-three result.

Clearly Dr Wan Azizah was in trouble, as the court would agree that it must be two out of three unless both counts are the same. When the first and second counts differ, then you must do a third count (unless you win both counts).

PAS then struck a deal with Umno that they would withdraw their Election Petitions if Umno also does the same. So both PAS and Umno withdrew their Election Petitions but the deal was only between PAS and Umno. PKR was not included in the deal so the Election Petition against Dr Wan Azizah proceeded in court.

Luckily the court ruled in Dr Wan Azizah’s favour or else PKR would have got zero seats. Hence there were allegations by Umno that the court was unfair and biased while PKR said that the court was just and fair.

Why did PAS agree to a deal with Umno to withdraw the Election Petitions? Well, PAS also committed some ‘irregularities’ and they were worried that while they may succeed in getting some Umno seats declared null and void, Umno may also succeed in getting some PAS seats declared null and void and the result would be they would lose Kelantan.

Dr Wan Azizah, however, was left as the sacrificial lamb to make this deal possible.

So why are we now screaming? Back in 1999 we already warned the opposition about this. In fact, we even urged the opposition to boycott the 2004 election unless the Election Commission gives us a level playing field. Furthermore, we took the case to court and went to all that trouble of compiling the evidence to support our Election Petitions so that we can win our cases in court.

Then they make a deal with Umno and abandoned the court action -- except the one that Umno filed against Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

So stop screaming. You people sound pathetic. We have been telling you for four general elections that the gerrymandering is stacked in favour of the ruling party. Unless we can get the government to agree to the plus-minus 10% variance for seats, Pakatan Rakyat is never going to win the election.

How many times must I keep repeating this?

The unanswered question surrounding Realmild

Super Admin — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:00:00 +0000

Both Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim need to answer the question surrounding Realmild. At the centre of this controversy is PAS’s candidate for the parliamentary seat of Tasek Gelugor, Penang, Abdul Rahman Maidin. Is Rahman Maidin, a known Tun Daim Zainuddin crony, really a PAS candidate or an Umno mole that will ‘jump ship’ once he wins?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(The Malaysian Insider, 30 October 2010) - Realmild Sdn Bhd was a brainchild of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim when he was in government as a means for Umno to protect its business interests, a lawyer told the High Court here today.

The former deputy prime minister had also hand-picked four media people — Datuk Khalid Ahmad, Datuk Kadir Jasin, Datuk Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Mohd Noor Mutalib — to be its first shareholders and act as nominees for the ruling party, said Alex De Silva.

“In 1992, Realmild was formed in Malaysia. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim created it as a new Bumiputera vehicle to take care of Umno’s interests.”

“This is the genesis of Realmild,” De Silva said in making the case for his client Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin.

Khalid, a former TV3 boss, is suing Abdul Rahman to pay up the remaining RM10 million of RM15 million the former claims was the agreed sale price for the block of shares.

But Abdul Rahman disputes the amount — he told the court the agreed price was RM10 million and he had paid half before finding out from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Umno president, that he did not have to pay.

Now Abdul Rahman wants his money back.

De Silva argued today that Khalid, as the seller, was not in a position to demand payment for the sale of a block of Realmild Sdn Bhd’s shares wholly held in trust for Umno.

“My submission is that none of them were actually running MRCB. They were just put there by the powers-that-be...to take care of MRCB, NST and etc.”

“It’s completely illogical for Umno or anyone to own only 70 per cent [of the shares] and for 30 per cent to be shared out among the others,” he added, noting previous testimony from another successive Realmild director, Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail, showed that Umno owned all the shares.

Syed Anwar is the younger brother to the Raja of Perlis Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Ibni Al-Marhum Tuanku Syed Putra Jamalullail who also held the position of Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the time of the contentious takeover at the turn of the millennium.

Anwar, who happened to be in court today for his Sodomy II trial, was evasive when asked to comment on his role in the Realmild-Umno deal.

“Seventy per cent was held by Dr Mahathir. It has nothing to do with me,” said the 63-year-old politician, now PKR’s advisor.

Khalid’s RM10 million suit against Abdul Rahman, over the sale of a five per cent stake in the company in 1999 took place during a shake-up and buy-out related to Anwar’s sacking from government.

“Yes, I was supportive of it back then but 30 per cent of the shares was owned by Khalid, Kadir, and Nazri, Mohd Noor,” Anwar said.

“It was only when I exposed them in court, Dr Mahathir called for Realmild surrender 70 percent,” he added.

Asked if he saw the controversial 100-storey Menara Warisan announced by Prime Minister Najib Razak reflected in Umno’s continuing bid to protect the party’s interests, the Opposition Leader remarked: “All mega deals protect the interests of the Umno elite.”

“Realmild is a classic example, proven, it was led by Dr Mahathir. I’m convinced there are cronies involved,” he said.

Back in court, De Silva stressed that Realmild was a “sendirian berhad” (private limited company) with four ex-NST journalists and accountant who became stakeholders of MRCB, a public-listed company, supposedly bought from Renong Berhad for RM800 million.

“It’s clear as daylight none of the shareholders had the means or capacity to do so,” De Silva said.

“Yes, they testified they raised the money on their own. [But] nobody wakes up one morning and says, ‘Yes! I’m going to take over NST and TV3. Can you do this on your own? Impossible!”

“My Lady, from the start of the scene, government hands or Umno hands were involved...to keep the media under control of Umno.”

“It was not for personal benefit but for the benefit of the party. That’s why Realmild took control from Renong. That’s the genesis of Realmild,” Abdul Rahman’s lawyer repeated for emphasis.

De Silva also pointed out that none of the four had exercised their rights as owners after the buy-over from Renong and instead continued their daily duties as newsmen, which was typical of nominees.

Trial judge Datuk Mary Lim asked if they were nominees, whether it meant they can’t transfer the title deeds to the shares; and whether it would not then require the defendant to show he had a title to pass on.

“Not necessary. What we are looking at is the concept of real ownership,” De Silva replied, before adding, “Who were the real owners?”

He moved to back his argument by pointing to the large number of lucrative projects given to Realmild’s construction subsidiary, MRCB, including building a power plant.

“MRCB was bestowed and granted huge government contracts and loans, subsequently...in 1997, the government awarded MRCB the KL Sentral project...two years later, they got a support loan of RM336 million,” De Silva cited.

“All these point effectively to the fact they were formed by the government because MRCB was effectively owned by Umno,” he argued further.

“Yes, the shares were held in their names, but when instructed to transfer, they transferred.”

“And they all transferred all, together,” he said slowly, lending emphasis to his submission.

But lawyer Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Perdaus, in pushing the case to be ruled in the plaintiff Khalid’s favour, submitted that Abdul Rahman had failed to show documentary evidence that proved an Umno “trust” existed, adding the defendant’s entire argument was pulled from oral testimony by parties not brought to court, including the former prime minister.

Ahmad even suggested that Abdul Rahman should have taken legal action against Dr Mahathir to recover his money instead of claiming it from Khalid.

“Why the defendant chose not to take action when he found out about the trust?”

“His line, his basis is what was told to him by the PM [then, Dr Mahathir] that he would not get his money back and that the shares belonged to Umno,” Ahmad said, referring to Abdul Rahman’s testimony in court.

“It’s not for the defendant to say the plaintiff held it in trust, held it as a nominee...that he was not accountable to pay...”

“The transfer was valid. He was the registered owner, legally, and [it was] common for nominees to transfer shares to [their] principals; it’s not for defendant to say no.”

“If such a case, defendant still liable to pay for the purchase price as agreed upon for the transfer of shares at the material time,” Ahmad concluded.

The nexus between Umno and certain conglomerates has been revealed in the court hearing that started in August this year involving the past shareholders of Realmild, the shadowy company that took over media giant The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd in 1993, and Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB).