(Bernama) - Second Education Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh will sue Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and its strategy director Mohd Rafizi Ramli for slander.

Mohd Rafizi alleged that 24 Election Commission (EC) staff were locked up on polling day to ensure they voted in Besut parliamentary in 13th general election (GE13).

“I’m studying the allegation with lawyers to ensure it does not tarnish my image as member of parliament for Besut. I will sue them for making a public statement without proof to discredit me and the party,” he told a victory function organised by Gong Nering district polling station in Kampung Gong Guchil, Jerteh here yesterday.

Idris said he did not know where they sourced the allegation spread via Facebook and Blog Keadilan ‘exposed’ by PKR secretary-general Datuk Saifudin Nasution Ismail as quoted by party organ Keadilan Daily.

“The allegation is baseless because how could the EC staff be locked-up. They must be responsible for the allegations,” he added.

Barisan Nasional (BN) should be given the chance to implement promises made in its manifesto and the opposition should not continue to destroy the peace of the country just to achieve Anwar Ibrahim’s ambition to become Prime Mminister.

“We may have lost the cyber war in GE13 but BN won right to form the government and all parties should be respect the election results,” said Idris.

In GE13, Idris beat Riduan Mohamad Nor of PAS to win Besut parliamentary seat with a majority of 8,342 votes.

(TMI) - Khairy Jamaluddin has defended the manner in which Elections 2013 was conducted, arguing in a letter to international current affairs magazine The Economist that there was not “one shred of evidence” of fraud in the polls.

The newly-appointed sports minister also took a swipe at Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, by accusing the opposition leader of not accepting the results because “of his own personal, lifelong ambition to become prime minister.”

“Allegations that foreign nationals were paid as ‘phantom voters’ have proved to be false, with not even one recorded case on polling day. All votes were cast and counted in front of representatives from all the contesting parties who signed off on the results.

“If any evidence of fraud does emerge the government encourages the relevant party to file an election petition in the courts to allow due process to take course.”

Khairy’s (picture) letter to The Economist was in response to a scathing report last week in the magazine of Malaysia’s elections.

The Umno Youth leader has been given the task of improving the Barisan Nasional (BN) government’s image abroad and his first job recently was to soft pedal the angry reaction by Umno politicians towards Chinese Malaysians in the aftermath of GE13.

In its reports, The Economist noted that national reconciliation appears a distant dream post-Election 2013 for a country scarred by the “nasty, divisive” electoral campaign led by Umno and BN in the rural heartlands.

It observed that Umno, to shore up its base of rural Malay voters, had alienated the Chinese and other communities already fed up with the alleged cronyism and corruption associated with affirmative action policies that favour the country’s largest ethnic group.

“Mr Najib has said he wants to be prime minister for all Malaysians. Sadly, however, he presided over an ugly campaign by his... Umno, the main component of Barisan,” the magazine wrote, referring to Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who was sworn in for his second term as prime minister after BN emerged victors again for its 13th general election running.

“In the rural Malay heartlands, Umno was as negative, racially divisive and pro-Malay as ever,” it added.

Adding salt to wound, The Economist said blaming BN’s losses on a “Chinese tsunami” had been unwise of Najib as the vote trend had clearly shown a massive swing in votes from the young and rising urban middle class, which cut across racial lines.

“Casting the election in such racial terms is neither wise nor accurate,” the magazine wrote in one article titled “A dangerous result”.

“Despite professing to promote a multi-ethnic Malaysia, Barisan’s election strategy has left the country more divided than ever, both along ethnic lines and between urban and rural areas,” it said in another, titled “A tawdy victory”.

READ MORE HERE

Tuaran PKR chief Ansari Abdullah is deeply disappointed that the party did not follow the “due process” in suspending him.

Queville To, FMT

KOTA KINABALU: Suspended PKR Tuaran chief Ansari Abdullah today announced he has resigned from the party which he joined 14 years ago.

In a brief statement posted on his Facebook this morning, he noted that he had decided to quit politics much earlier, but out of respect to the requests from friends, he withheld the announcement until today.

“I have lost faith in the party’s leadership. I am now suspended as a member without any time period. I did not receive a ‘show cause letter’. So much for justice and due process,” he added.

“I criticised the leadership since they were wrong in allowing 2/3 of the seats in Sabah to be contested under Parti Keadilan’s (PKR) symbol by non-members in the form of APS (Angkatan Perpaduan Sabah) and PPPS (Pertubuhan Pakatan Perpaduan Sabah),” he explained.

He went on to note that both APS and PPPS lost in all the parliamentary seats they contested and each won a state seat (Tamparuli and Klias).

Ansari, a practising lawyer, has also had a troubled relationship with other PKR members and leaders in the past.

In the run-up to this month’s elections on May 5, Ansari made a preemptive attempt the day after the dissolution of Parliament to push through the seven divisions’ list of candidates which included himself for the Tuaran constituency.

When his ‘proposal’ was shot down, he accused Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim of not being sincere in wanting to return political autonomy to Sabah when PKR rejected a move by him to nominate seven candidates to contest for PKR.

He said the rejection of three-quarters of the candidates proposed by the seven divisions in the Sabah west coast north zone, showed that the party’s headquarters was adamant about maintaining control of the state from Kuala Lumpur.

(Bernama) - Preliminary investigation by the Election Commission (EC) revealed that a photograph posted on the internet showing that a blackout purportedly occurred during vote-counting for the 13th general election (GE13) was an act recorded even before the GE13.

EC deputy chairman Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said this conclusion was arrived at after a thorough scrutiny by him together with his officers.

“They had staged the act even before the election to spread it on the internet as a ploy to show that a blackout had purportedly occurred, whereas it was a lie.

“The photograph showed that EC staff were purportedly counting the ballot papers and had to use a auxiliary lamps whereas the staff were not wearing the EC uniform,” he told Bernama when met recently.

He said the most obvious proof was when the photograph showed that there were many reporters and photographers present in the vote-counting area whereas no one was allowed into the area except for the EC staff and agents of the candidates.

“The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and work procedure shown on the photograph were totally incorrect…they have forgotten, (they) want to cheat but do not understand the work procedure and were immature.

“In fact the tray used for placing the ballot papers on were also not the EC trays, the material and size were different…(there were) many things in the photograph that did not follow EC SOP,” he said.

Wan Ahmad said so far there had been no police report lodged regarding the alleged ‘blackout’ which showed that it was clearly a slander and concocted story.

“If there had been a blackout, certainly the party agents would have lodged police reports. They represented the candidates, they were present at the counting venues. If there had been a blackout, they would have been the first to lodge police reports, but there were none,” he said.

Meanwhile, commenting on an allegation by an opposition newspaper that 24 EC staff in Besut, Terengganu had been confined to mark their ballot papers, Wan Ahmad said he left it to the police to investigate the allegation.

Meanwhile, Wan Ahmad said the proposal by the opposition that a People’s Tribunal be set up was dangerous because it ignored the national constitution and law.

“Who will represent the People’s Tribunal? Their people, NGO (non-governmental organisation) leaders who have been against the system and the general election all this while? Those who are spreading unhealthy culture to the young generation?” he asked.

Ida Lim, TMI

The police today released three men who were detained for a probe under the Sedition Act 1948 and the Penal Code after a magistrate rejected requests for further remand.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) had earlier described the arrests as part of a national crackdown on the federal opposition.

Politicians Chua Tian Chang, Tamrin Ghafar, political activist Haris Ibrahim were arrested for sedition yesterday and held overnight at the police lockup in Jinjang, purportedly for a probe under section 4(1)© of the Sedition Act and section 124 of the Penal Code.

“We praise a very courageous magistrate. A brave magistrate has heard the legal arguments and decided that our detention is without basis,” said Chua after walking out of the lock-up with his lawyers, referring to magistrate Norashikin Sahat.

“That’s why we were released without condition,” said the PKR vice-president who was the last to walk out, with Tamrin and Haris walking out together earlier on.

Earlier today, a small group of supporters had staged a mini-protest outside the lockup, shouting slogans and holding up placards to demand the release of the trio.

Haris’s lawyer Gobind Singh Deo yesterday said he was not yet informed of which “seditious statements” his clients or the two others were detained over.      

All three were believed to be detained over their involvement in a forum on May 13 over the results of the just-concluded general election.

Yesterday morning, student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim was charged with sedition for his involvement in the same forum where he was accused of rallying Malaysians to take to the streets to topple the BN government.

The 24-year-old pleaded not guilty and was released on RM5,000 bail with his trial set for a mention on July 2.

Despite the release of the three today, Chua claimed to have knowledge that more people would possibly be arrested.

“With the same arguments, we hope that the court will take firm action to defend not just the rights of individuals, but also the basic principles of the law,” said the Batu MP popularly known as Tian Chua.

Politicians need to be very careful in how they talk. Barisan Nasional boasts about the higher number of seats it got and claims it represents the majority. Pakatan Rakyat boasts about the higher number of votes it got and claims it represents the majority. But both got roughly only 20% each of the votes. What about the rights of the 80% other Malaysians who did not vote for you? Are you saying they do not matter?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There appears to be some misconception about the term ‘minority government’. Over the last fortnight or so I have been receiving a number of media statements from DAP and PKR referring to ‘Najib Tun Razak’s minority government’ or ‘Barisan Nasional’s minority government’ and so on.

I am not sure whether the people issuing these press statements do not understand what ‘minority government’ means or they are intentionally misleading Malaysians. Nevertheless, whatever it may be, the term ‘minority government’ is being misapplied in the case of what happened in the recent general election on 5th May 2013.

A minority government is a government in which the main party has more members (MPs or ADUNS) than any other single party but not more members than all the other parties combined.

A minority government exists where a government, lacking an outright majority of seats, depends on the support of other parties or independents that hold the balance of power in Parliament or the State Assemblies. This would apply in a situation where a party or coalition does not have an outright majority of seats to be able to form a federal or state government.

A minority government or a minority cabinet is a cabinet of a parliamentary system formed when a political party or coalition of parties does not have a majority of overall seats in Parliament or the State Assemblies but is sworn into government to break a ‘Hung Parliament’ election result. It is also known as a minority parliament. 

Hence, in Malaysia’s case, the Barisan Nasional government is not a minority government because it did win enough seats to form the federal government although without a two-thirds majority in Parliament. All Barisan Nasional needed was 112 seats and it won 133 seats -- 21 more seats than required to be able to form the government.

Now, assuming we only look at Umno (that won just 88 seats), and assuming that Barisan Nasional did not exist, then Umno by itself would be a minority government if, say, Umno and PKR (an opposition party) agreed to form a coalition government (which would now give them 119 seats in Parliament).

Maybe those opposition leaders issuing these press statements should take note of this and not wrongly refer to the present government as a minority government because it is not -- so this is very misleading. A minority government means you got less than 112 seats in Parliament and in Barisan Nasional’s case this is not so since it won 133 seats. 

Nevertheless, if it makes you happy to continue referring to the Barisan Nasional government as a minority government because it garnered less than 50% of the popular votes you are of course at liberty to do so just as long as you understand that this is the wrong application of the term.

Now, why am I so particular about the right application of terminology? Well, I have always been sensitive about terminology that has been wrongly applied. First of all, it makes ignorant Malaysians even more ignorant. Secondly, it is unfair and we are talking about fairness are we not?

For example, Muslim terrorists are always referred to as ‘fundamentalists’. I take offense to that as well. A fundamentalist Muslim does not make that Muslim a terrorist or extremist. It just means that that Muslim subscribes to and complies with the fundamentals of Islam. This makes that person a good Muslim. That does not make that Muslim a terrorist or extremist.

And what are the fundamentals of Islam? Well, we have talked about that issue so many times over the last nine years or so -- so I really do not need to turn this into a debate on Islam. Suffice to say that there are fundamentals in everything, even in bookkeeping or accounts. And if you deviate from the fundamentals of the debit and credit rule, then your books do not balance. Hence, in Islam as well, if you deviate from the fundamentals of the religion, your ‘book’ will also not ‘balance’.

So it is important that we understand each terminology and apply the proper terminology. A fundamentalist Muslim is a good Muslim. Why wrongly apply the term and make a good Muslim appear like a bad Muslim just because he or she complies with proper Islamic teachings?

Let me put it another way. A terrorist may be a fundamentalist Muslim (or he or she may think he or she is a fundamentalist Muslim) but a fundamentalist Muslim is not necessarily a terrorist. It is just like a Nazi during WWII was a German but a German was not necessarily a Nazi. And a Zionist is a Jew but a Jew may not necessarily be a Zionist. An IRA terrorist is Irish but an Irishman may not necessarily be an IRA terrorist. A Tamil Eelam terrorist is a Tamil Indian but not all Tamil Indians are Tamil Eelam terrorists. And so on.

Anyway, back to the issue of majority and minority. We always talk in terms of democracy and that democracy means majority rule. Hence when we talk about the rights of the majority it is about what the majority wants and what the majority wants overrides everything else.

Is this what democracy is all about and if so then is democracy really that good after all?

Why must the world be about the majority and not the minority?

In 1948, 82% of Brits smoked. By 1970, it had dropped to 55%. By 2007, it had dropped to 22%.

Hence, in 2007, the majority of Brits did not smoke and two-thirds of Brits supported the banning of smoking in public/enclosed places. So, to protect the rights of the majority two-thirds who supported the banning of smoking in public/enclosed places, smoking was banned in the pubs in 2007. But what about the rights of the minority one-third who do not support the ban or the rights of the 22% who do smoke? Well, the wishes of the minority do not count. Only the wishes of the majority count.

Is this considered fair and just? Because of this smoking ban, pubs all over the UK are closing at the rate of almost three a day (one of the reasons at least). That comes to about 1,000 pubs a year and this has been going on for quite a number of years now and some of these pubs are more than 200 years old.

So, in the UK, the rights of the majority override the rights of the minority. And the fact that pubs are closing at an alarming rate shows that more people who go to the pubs smoke than those who do not smoke. But the majority pub-goer has to ‘suffer’ because the minority non-smoker who goes to the pub wants a smoke-free environment. Finally, the pubs just close and both the minority as well as the majority are denied the ‘pleasure’ of going to the pub.

So can you see that 78% of the Brits do not smoke but the 22% who do smoke have to live by the rules of the 78% who do not? But in the pubs more people smoke than those who do not smoke. Yet the majority in the pubs need to follow the rules of the minority (although they are the majority outside the pubs).

Complicating, is it not? The issue of majority and minority is not so simple after all. It all depends on at what point of time you are the majority and at what point of time you are the minority. You can be the majority in one situation and yet get reduced to a minority in another situation. 

Okay, maybe pubs are not the best example to use after talking about fundamental Islam. Let me use another example instead.

Let’s say the 88 Umno MPS and the 21 PAS MPs and, say, another 20 PKR/PBB MPs gang up to make it 129 MPs and they vote in favour of elevating the status of the Sharia court to be above the common law common. (It used to be below until Tun Dr Mahathir made it at par). So now the Sharia court has more power than the ‘normal’ courts and it starts prosecuting people for ‘crimes against God’.

Since the majority Muslim MPs voted in favour of this would you consider it as acceptable? Do the majority Muslim MPs represent the majority voice of 28 million Malaysians? Well, under the concept of majority-rule no one can really challenge this other than just protest. Outside Parliament they may be the minority but in Parliament they are the majority. Hence the minority passes laws that the majority does not want mainly because while they may be the minority outside Parliament in Parliament they are the majority. 

Okay, maybe you can argue that 5 million voters voted for you so that makes you the majority. But what about the 10 million who did not vote for you or the 13 million more who did not vote for you because they did not register to vote or are not old enough to vote? Only 5 million votes out of 28 million Malaysians do not really give you the absolute right, does it? You do not represent just 5 million Malaysians but 28 million Malaysians.

For all intents and purposes, your 5 million votes are not the majority but the minority if against the backdrop of 28 million Malaysians. Hence your policies must consider 28 million Malaysians and not just 5 million Malaysians. To just consider 5 million Malaysians while ignoring the other 23 million Malaysians can be called democracy at work but cannot be considered just and fair.

However, that is how democracy works. A small percentage of the people vote for you and you regard this as having the right over the entire population. What if 6 million Malaysians want the military to take over? Is not 6 million more than your 5 million? And since this is the majority can Parliament be abolished and military rule be established? We are talking about who has the higher ‘votes’ are we not?

Politicians need to be very careful in how they talk. Barisan Nasional boasts about the higher number of seats it got and claims it represents the majority. Pakatan Rakyat boasts about the higher number of votes it got and claims it represents the majority. But both got roughly only 20% each of the votes. What about the rights of the 80% other Malaysians who did not vote for you? Are you saying they do not matter?

This is what the politicians tend to forget when laying claim to who is more legitimate than the other. Don’t just talk about the 20% who voted for you. Also take note of the 80% who did not. They, too, have rights.

(The Star) - Selangor remains the only state whose exco line-up has yet to be named following the impasse over the number of seats to be allocated to the respective Pakatan Rakyat member parties.

Speculation is rife as to who will make it to the highest decision-making body in the state government and how the 10 exco seats are to be divided between PAS, DAP and PKR.

So far, DAP has expressed disappointment over the three exco seats allocated for it as announced by Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim recently.

Khalid's political secretary Faekah Husin said the mentri besar was expected to arrive home from Frankfurt, Germany, today after seeking treatment for an old leg injury.

She said Khalid would immediately seek an audience with the Selangor Sultan over the appointment of exco members.

Selangor DAP deputy chairman Tony Pua, meanwhile, said the party was still in discussion with PAS and PKR over the distribution of exco positions.

“We met twice again recently. Our discussions have been friendly.

“Now we are just waiting for the MB to come back for some confirmation,” he added.

DAP previously expressed shock and puzzle when Khalid announced the party would be getting three exco positions and also the Speaker's post.

Khalid also said PAS would get four exco positions and PKR three.

Pua was reported to have said previously that DAP was promised four exco seats.

Meanwhile, it is speculated that most PKR exco members would be replaced with new faces.

PKR's previous exco members were Dr Yaakob Sapari (Kota Anggerik), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan), Dr Xavier Jayakumar (Sri Andalas) and Rodziah Ismail (Batu Tiga).

Among PKR new names tipped to join the exco rank was Seri Setia assemblyman Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. For PAS, new names mentioned include state commissioner Dr Abdul Rani Osman.

Bukit Antarabangsa assemblyman and PKR deputy president Azmin Ali was earlier speculated to be an exco member, but this idea has been shot down by a party source.

Residents of areas largely populated by immigrants are suffering from segregation, anthropologist Carlbom told AFP. "Living as a young person in these segregated areas can be very hard in many ways. You have virtually no contact with other Swedes and a lot of times I don't think you have a good understanding of Swedish society," he said.

(Bernama) - Siasatan awal Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) menunjukkan sekeping gambar dimuatkan di internet menunjukkan kononnya berlaku insiden lampu padam semasa pengiraan undi pada Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 (PRU13) 5 Mei lalu adalah fitnah dan lakonan itu dirakamkan sebelum PRU13 lagi.

Timbalan Pengerusi SPR Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar berkata kesimpulan itu dibuat hasil penelitian beliau bersama pegawai-pegawainya.    

"Mereka telah melakonkan perkara ini sebelum pilihan raya lagi untuk disebarkan di internet sebagai helah bagi menunjukkan kononnya berlaku kejadian lampu padam, sedangkan ini semua cerita karut.
    
"Pada gambar tersebut ditunjukkan kononnya petugas SPR sedang mengira kertas undi dan terpaksa menggunakan lampu bantuan kerana lampu padam sedangkan petugas itu langsung tidak memakai baju SPR," katanya kepada Bernama ketika ditemui baru-baru ini.
    
Beliau berkata bukti paling nyata apabila gambar tersebut menunjukkan terdapat ramai pemberita dan jurugambar berada di dalam tempat pengiraan undi sedangkan hakikatnya tidak ada sesiapa yang boleh berada di tempat tersebut melainkan petugas SPR dan ejen calon.
    
"Prosedur Operasi Standard (SOP) dan tatacara kerja seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh gambar itu langsung tidak betul... mereka sudah terlupa, hendak menipu tetapi tidak faham tatacara kerja dan tidak matang.
    
"Malah dulang yang digunakan untuk meletak kertas undi juga bukan dulang SPR, bahan dan saiznya berbeza.. banyak perkara dalam gambar tidak ikut SOP SPR," katanya.
    
Wan Ahmad berkata sehingga kini tiada sebarang laporan polis dibuat berkaitan dakwaan lampu padam dan itu membuktikan bahawa ia ternyata fitnah pembohongan yang direka-reka dan tidak berasas.     

"Kalau ada lampu padam, tentulah ada ejen-ejen parti membuat laporan polis, mereka mewakili calon, mereka ada di tempat mengira undi, jika lampu padam dia yang akan mula-mula sekali berlari buat laporan polis, tetapi tidak.
    
"Malah pada malam pengiraan undi itu juga, saya apabila mendapat 'tweet' mengatakan lampu padam oleh 'cybertrooper' yang tidak bertanggungjawab, kita terus semak kawasan mana, kita semak dengan pengarah negeri kita, Pegawai Pengurus dan saluran sekolah yang dituduh tetapi ternyata tdak ada apa-apa," katanya.
        
Dalam pada itu, mengenai dakwaan sebuah akhbar pembangkang bahawa 24 petugas SPR di Besut, Terengganu telah dikurung bagi memangkah kertas undi, Wan Ahmad berkata beliau menyerahkan kepada pihak polis untuk menyiasat dakwaan berkenaan.    

Beliau berkata namun kesemua mereka dipercayai masuk ke satu bilik itu untuk memangkah kertas undi masing-masing memandangkan kesemua mereka mengundi secara pos kerana bertugas pada PRU13.
    
"Salah seorang daripada mereka didapati telah membuat laporan polis... itu keputusan yang bagus dan betul agar polis dapat membuka kertas siasatan.    

"Namun dipercayai mereka mendapat sampul surat yang berisi kertas undi untuk mengundi cara pos dan itu hak mereka untuk pangkah di mana-mana lokasi termasuk di dalam bilik yang dikatakan itu.. namun apa yang sebenarnya berlaku kita tidak tahu," katanya.
    
Katanya, masyarakat tidak harus membuat andaian dan rumusan sendiri dengan hanya membaca melalui media pembangkang sedangkan semua yang dilaporkan berkaitan SPR adalah buruk dan berbaur fitnah.
    
Sementara itu, Wan Ahmad berkata cadangan pembangkang agar Tribunal Rakyat ditubuhkan adalah amat berbahaya kerana ia membelakangkan perlembagaan dan undang-undang negara.
    
"Siapa yang akan mewakili Tribunal Rakyat itu? Orang-orang mereka, pemimpin NGO yang selama ini yang menentang sistem dan dasar pilihan raya? Mereka yang menyemai budaya tidak baik dan tidak sopan pada anak muda?" katanya.

He said the Chinese essentially split their vote; a smaller portion voted for the MCA/Gerakan while the majority supported the DAP. Another way was to vote for MCA/Gerakan at the state level while giving the parliamentary vote to DAP. This “split vote” tactic lasted more than two decades — until the 2008 general election.

The Malaysian Insider

The only way forward for Chinese politics in Malaysia is multiracial politics, according to an article in the Singapore Straits Times today.

Writing in the Singapore daily, James Chin said Chinese politicians must win positions in multiracial parties not because they are Chinese but because they are accepted as Malaysian leaders.

“While many may doubt this will happen given the demise of multiracial parties in recent Malaysian history, they forget that citizens of Chinese descent have successfully been elected by a largely non-Chinese population to the top offices in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines,” wrote the senior visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

In the article, Chin wrote about the arrival of Chinese in then Malaya in large numbers in the 19th and 20th centuries, and their later involvement in politics through various Chinese-based parties like the MCA, Gerakan and the DAP.

He also detailed the partnership of the MCA with Umno, first in the Alliance party and later in the expanded Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.

Chin wrote that the New Economic Policy (NEP) caused the Chinese community to ask: should we support MCA or the opposition DAP to show our frustration with NEP’s ethnic discriminatory policies?

While the Chinese towkays decided that they had to support BN to “do business”, ordinary Chinese wanted it both ways, he said.

He said the Chinese essentially split their vote; a smaller portion voted for the MCA/Gerakan while the majority supported the DAP. Another way was to vote for MCA/Gerakan at the state level while giving the parliamentary vote to DAP. This “split vote” tactic lasted more than two decades — until the 2008 general election.

“In that GE, the Chinese, including the usual apathetic middle class, decided it was time for change and threw their support behind DAP. In this year’s May 5 polls, the Chinese hardened their attitude and basically wiped out MCA/Gerakan in all 22 Chinese-majority constituencies. And for the first time in Malaysia’s political history, Chinese-majority constituencies in Sabah and Sarawak voted en bloc for the DAP,” he said.

He wrote that having it “both ways” no longer works. “A new generation of young Chinese do not want to play it safe. To them, Malaysia is their homeland and they do not see why they should be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to politics. To them, what is wrong in Malaysia is best exemplified by the ethnic-based approach of the BN.

“In a globalised world, the young voters see themselves as global as well as Malaysian citizens. They do not want to participate in ethnic and religious politics, the norm thus far in Malaysian politics,” Chin wrote.

He said the most sensible approach is for them to work with enlightened Malay politicians who are willing to accept the Chinese as full citizens and isolate those who continue to call the Chinese pendatang (immigrants).

Meena Lakshana, fz.com

Amidst a crackdown on political dissent, Pakatan Rakyat leaders implored about 4,000 people gathered at the field opposite Amcorp Mall to keep their hopes for a better Malaysia alive.

(Rappler) - 'OPEN' CHURCH. Pope Francis kisses the feet of prisoners, including a Muslim, in this year's Holy Thursday service. 

Having blasted a self-centered Catholic Church, Pope Francis on Wednesday, May 22, criticized “intolerant” believers who think, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good.”

The Pope said all human beings, whom God created, “have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil.” He stressed this applies to “all of us.”

“'But Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him,” Francis said in Wednesday's homily at the Domus Santae Martae, his modest papal residence.

The Pope, who has consistently urged the Church to “come out of herself,” said intolerance will do the Church no good.

“Instead, this 'closing off' that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”

'Let's meet'

Despite differences between believers and non-believers, he said their common denominator is doing good. He said the commandment to uphold goodness is a “beautiful path towards peace.”

“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good,” Francis said.

He continued, with an atheist's possible response in mind: “'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Read more at: http://www.rappler.com/world/29788-pope-atheists-good 

The US$1,700 entrance fee to Taib’s showcase dam building conference, which opened at the Borneo Convention Centre today, is well beyond the means of all the poor folk who stand to be affected by his catastrophic plans to swamp Sarawak.

Sarawak Report 

However, they gathered in protest outside and made their voices heard and their presence felt anyway.

Taib had made provision for a group of selected stooges from Murum and elsewhere to be allowed inside the conference to give an impression of native support.

However, at least 300 demonstrators had made their way to Kuching to protest outside and they claim that it is they who represent the majority of their people and they demanded to know why they too have not been allowed representatives to attend the International Hydropower Conference?

Baram’s contested seat

Thanks to today’s protest International delegates from the dam building industry can no longer be in any doubt that if they get involved in SCORE they are betraying the ‘Sustainability Protocol’ they claim to uphold.

This Protocol requires proper information for and consent from native communities affected by dams; proper environmental assessments and an overall consensus that there is no sensible alternative to a dam being built.

None of this has been achieved with any of Sarawak’s dams so far, including the Murum Dam now completing construction.

To the contrary, Taib’s extraordinary SCORE programme is being pushed through against massive native opposition and with no justification other than that the Chief Minister reckons it is a pretty fine way to get even richer than he already is.

Richard Taylor, the Executive Director of the International Hydropower Association comes out to say he is ‘listening’ 

The dispute over the results in the Baram seat at the recent election is also a heightened embarrassment.

Taib will want to tell delegates that he won this seat and that this shows the popularity of his projects.  However, everyone in Malaysia knows Baram is the most disputed of the marginal seats that are now coming under scrutiny for blatant rigging earlier this month.

Usual intimidation by riot police, but the occasion passed off peacefully

This rigging concern comes on top of the existing gerrymandering and the refusal to enfranchise well over half the population in key areas and also after the outrageous bribery of impoverished voters.

Despite such disadvantages and the iron control of the media and all government employees by BN, the Baram count was first won by the opposition candidate Roland Engan.

Engan had fought his anti-dam focused campaign against the huge power and wealth of BN in this enormous seat, where government types travel by helicopter while the rest struggle about in longboats or on useless state roads.

But after the initial declaration in favour of Engan, the far too familiar scenario of lights going out in counting centres and disputed counts set in.  Eventually, lo and behold, when the lights came on and the ‘confusion’ cleared, Engan was judged by BN’s tame Election Commission to have lost Baram after all, by Malaysia’s slenderest majority of 198 votes!

Baram is one of the key seats that is due to be contested by PR in court and the full details of this particular scandal and of Taib’s overall handling of elections in his rural seats will come under scrutiny then.

Read more at: http://www.sarawakreport.org/2013/05/protestors-make-their-voice-heard-at-hydro-power-conference/ 

(Huffington Post) - This man has given a platform for other men to act (rape) and then get away with it (marry the victim). 

Or watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz-RnaDRPo0 

In an unfortunate turn of events in a Malaysian rape case, a 40-year-old man accused of rape has married the teenage victim.

Riduan Masmud was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl last February. On Monday, his counsel Loretto Padua revealed to the court that Masmud is now married to the young girl he was accused of assaulting. As The Daily Express notes, Padua had previously told the court that Masmud was in the process of seeking a lawful marriage to the teen in Syariah Court -- a separate court system that has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to Islamic law.

While the prosecution must make a decision by June 6 on whether to pursue the statutory rape charge in light of the news, on Wednesday, Malaysian Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail vowed to press on in the case, Ntv7 News reports.

Malaysia's Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development is also advocating that Masmud be prosecuted. Minister Datuk Rohani Abdul Karim told Bernama, Malaysia's national news agency, the ministry is concerned that Masmud's action may set an example by providing an escape route in cases of statutory rape.

"In order to protect public interest and prevent such incidents, the Ministry urges that the man be charged under Section 376 of the Penal Code in the Sessions Court or Section 80 of the Sabah Syariah Offences Enactment 1995 in the Syariah Court for having sex outside of marriage," she told the news agency.

The rape, which allegedly took place in a parked car in Sabah around 10 a.m. on Feb. 18, was not brought to light until the 13-year-old's aunt filed a police report. Masmud, who has four children with his first wife, was charged with the crime 10 days later; however the teen later withdrew her report of rape on April 18, The Star reports.

Masmud, for his part, is defending the marriage. Outside the courtroom Monday, he explained to reporters that the marriage was consensual.

"There are many cases of men marrying underage girls. I do not see why my case should be any different," the man said, according to The Star.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/malaysian-man-rape-marries-victim_n_3321086.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 

There is no doubt in my mind that with the highly questionable way Barisan Nasional has won this election and subsequent divisive statements by Najib, his ministers, and UMNO loyalists, and the unjust crackdowns on Adam Adli, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Ghafar, we can expect to see even more citizens rising up to play a direct and active role in the political process of this country. 

Thomas Fann 

The 13th General Election is over and the result showed that majority of Malaysians wanted to “Ubah”, that is, to see change. Many who have worked hard for it are disappointed with the outcome but we realise that we must move on and prepare ourselves for GE14.

We salute the tireless efforts of politicians and civil society leaders at the forefront of this push for change. Many of them travelled the length and breadth of this country, keeping an insane schedule for the past few months just to make themselves heard at the hundreds of ceramahs or rallies across this nation. It was almost a superhuman effort. Though they have lost the battle to take Putrajaya this time, they are still heroes of this struggle for a better Malaysia.

But this struggle is not theirs alone. Throughout these last few years and especially in the last few months in the run-up to the 5th of May, it has been my absolute privilege to have served together and to have known ordinary Malaysians from all walks of life who shares a common passion for this country. To me they are no less heroic in their efforts and their sacrifices are no less significant. I want to sing the praises of some of these unsung heroes of GE13.

• Felicia is a Malaysian who has lived in Singapore for many years, never registered and never voted before. Just after Parliament was dissolved and election called, she checked her voting status at the SPR’s website and found herself registered not only as a voter but as an advance voter in Putrajaya. Not wanting anyone to cast her vote on her behalf, on 28th April, the day advance voters were supposed to vote, she got into her car very early in the morning and drove the 340km from Singapore to Putrajaya to cast her vote by 9am and then turned around and head back to Singapore.

• I met Boon at the campaign office of a candidate. He has volunteered himself to help out with some of the administrative stuff there and we got talking. I found out that Boon and his family have been living in the UK for many years but have keenly followed the political developments of Malaysia and decided to fly home with his wife to cast their votes, for the very first time.

There were probably thousands of folks just like Felicia and Boon, Malaysians who live and work overseas who came back to vote. Some thoughtless individuals might have considered these overseas Malaysians unpatriotic but I challenge them to find me more committed people than these, who came home at great personal expense to cast their one vote. For them it was more than a vote but a stake in the future of this country, a country they love.

• When the call went out for volunteers to serve as polling and counting agents, literally tens of thousands of Malaysians came forward to be trained and deployed on Polling Day to do their part for a clean and fair election. Many came out with no expectation of payment and if they received any allowances for their services, they donated back these allowances. Money cannot buy such people and they can’t be bought, they are priceless.

• Thanks to the news of foreigners being flown in to vote in our election, thousands of citizens came forward to volunteer as election observers or as “ghostbusters”, standing guard under hot sun or rain outside polling stations. At several of the polling stations I visited that day, I saw between 30-50 residents standing outside their own polling stations until polling ended and for some, they followed the ballot boxes all the way to the main counting centres. All this they did on their own accord without anyone telling them what to do.

• Ariff and his friends were one of those who stood guard outside a main counting centre. At around 10.30pm they saw a taxi bringing in additional ballot carriers with a uniformed but unnumbered policeman in it. They stopped the taxi and challenged the legality of such last minute additional ballots. The taxi turned around and sped off with them in pursuit by foot.

• In the early hours of May the 5th, a factory manager in Johor found out from his HR manager that 100 of his foreign workers were not turning up to work. They told the HR manager that their agent was coming to fetch them to collect ICs so that they could vote. The factory manager rushed to the police station to make a report and with the report he managed to stop the workers from voting. But he didn’t stop there. He made copies of the police report and pass it to as many election observers as he could find so that they would be on the lookout for foreign voters. A true patriot!

• Ben and his wife went to cast their votes early and decided to stay back to help those who were queuing up to check their salurans (channels) number. They told those who already knew their numbers to go straight to join the queue at the saluran so as to save some time. But their efforts to help were not appreciated by the SPR officer-in-charge who insisted that all must check for their salurans before queuing again to vote. They were ordered to leave but they remained outside the school gate to continue assisting those coming to vote till the end of polling at 5pm.

• I know of a young man whose life was miraculously saved from the burning wreckage of his car seconds before it exploded on 8th April. He was hospitalised for more than 3 weeks and still suffered serious spinal injuries when polling day came. He insisted on casting his vote and was wheeled from the hospital to the polling station to cast his vote for change. A life spared, a vote counted.

Read more at: http://thomasfann.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/the-unsung-heroes-of-ge13/ 

Get your party to withdraw from BN coalition and stay independent if you are not comfortable to join Pakatan Rakyat. Or if withdrawing party is not possible, then go independent as an individual. 

Richard Loh 

Pre 505, umno bn leaders including the caretaker PM, Najib, have claimed that voters need not have to change the federal government cause umno bn can change themselves if voted in. Many have seen through this lie and the popular votes proved it. Umno bn did win the GE 13 but what are we seeing now post GE 13? They have indeed changed, not for the better but even worst.

Read more at: http://ousel.blogspot.com/2013/05/open-letter-to-those-bn-elected-members.html 

Kuala Lumpur police today warned that they will not hesitate to arrest those who take part in candlelight vigils for detainees. 

(New York Times) - The Malaysian government began a crackdown on political opponents on Thursday, arresting three government critics, including a prominent member of Parliament, and charging a student activist with sedition.

The arrests come two and a half weeks after elections that showed the governing party, which has been in power since independence from Britain in 1957, losing support from broad portions of the electorate.

The crackdown may be an attempt to pre-empt a demonstration planned for Saturday to protest accusations of fraud in the election, analysts said.

The opposition, which is led by a former deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, won the popular vote in the May 5 election but failed to take control of Parliament because of a lopsided electoral system that gives a stronger voice to rural areas, where the governing party is strongest.

Mr. Anwar says the election victory was fraudulent and has been leading rallies across the country since the election results were announced; the demonstration on Saturday is being organized by a coalition of several dozen civic organizations.

The member of Parliament arrested on Thursday, Tian Chua, is Mr. Anwar’s deputy in a multicultural party that is challenging the dominance of the single-race United Malays National Organization.

Mr. Chua, who won re-election to Parliament May 5, posted on Twitter as he was being arrested Thursday, “No dictators could ever repress the rise of people’s power.” He said a police officer told him that he was being charged with sedition.

The two other people arrested are Haris Ibrahim, who leads an antigovernment group, and Tamrin Ghafar, the son of a former deputy prime minister who is a member of an Islamic party that is allied with Mr. Anwar. In addition, Adam Adli, the student activist, was charged with sedition on Thursday and released.

The Malaysian government, which has begun numerous crackdowns against dissidents during its decades in power, issued a statement late Thursday calling the arrests “a matter for the police.”

“The detentions came after the police received numerous reports against the defendants by members of the public,” the statement said. “In such circumstances the police are required to investigate and are following due and proper process.”

Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/world/asia/malaysian-opposition-figures-are-detained.html?_r=3& 

They have used this archaic and draconian Sedition Act, even though the Prime Minister, the government has said before that they would repeal this act, because it's no longer relevant in the modern setting, but unfortunately, it's not repealed and they continue to use this draconian act to stifle dissent.

Sen Lam interviews Fadiah Nadwa at Radio Australia 

Listen at: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/asia-pacific/malaysian-opposition-face-full-force-of-the-sedition-act/1135426 

Malaysian authorities have arrested a high-profile Opposition politician and three others under the country's controversial Sedition Act.

Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak pledged last year to strengthen civil liberties, including possibly repealing the Sedition Act.

The law has been described as oppressive by critics, who say it's been invoked often in the past to silence dissent.

Human rights lawyer Fadiah Nadwa is representing one of the four men detained. She spoke to me from Kuala Lumpur.

Presenter: Sen Lam

Speaker: Fadiah Nadwa, lawyer representing student activist Adam Adli, one of four Malaysians charged with sedition

FADIAH: The four people are Tian Chua, the vice president of (opposition) Parti Keadilan Rakyat. The second person is Thamrin Ghafar, he's a PAS member (Parti Islam SeMalaysia), the Islamic party, PAS, and the third person is Haris Ibrahim, he's the chief of this movement called 'Anything But UMNO'. And the fourth person is Adam Adli and Adam has been charged this morning, and he has been released on bail. These four people are now in the Jinjang remand centre.

LAM: You represent Adam Adli, who was detained five days ago, but he's out on bail, is that right?

FADIAH: Yes, correct. Basically, they're just punishing him for speaking his mind and they have used this archaic and draconian Sedition Act, even though the Prime Minister, the government has said before that they would repeal this act, because it's no longer relevant in the modern setting, but unfortunately, it's not repealed and they continue to use this draconian act to stifle dissent. So Adam Adli has been detained for five days, after being arrested last Saturday - they (police) applied for a remand order from the magistrate, and the magistrate granted five-day remand against Adam Adli, and he was subjected to continuous interrogation even though he kept telling the police that they could have just referred to the video that contains his speech. They (the police) are just trying to send a message to the Malaysian people, Do not say something that's not favourable to the government, or else you'll be arrested and detained under the Sedition Act.

LAM: And Fadiah, can you tell us what is it exactly that Adam Adli had allegedly said that was considered so seditious?

FADIAH: Adam Adli basically called for the Malaysian people to go to the streets to protest against the fraud committed during the (May 5th) elections.

LAM: Tian Chua is of course the high-profile spokesman and also VP of the opposition Parti Keadilan. The opposition of course has been holding meetings about alleged electoral fraud - do you think Tian Chua's arrest might fuel emotions that're already running in Opposition ranks?

FADIAH: Yes, I believe so, because I think right now, after the elections, the government is obviously very insecure with how the Malaysian public is reacting to the allegations of fraud in the elections and how the Malaysian people are assembling to protest against the recent arrest of Adam Adli. The government is using the power that they have to tell the Malaysian public that they will do anything they can to stop the Malaysian public from expressing themselves, from protesting, from participating in peaceful assemblies and so on.

LAM: Prime Minister Najib prior to this month's elections, had vowed to strengthen civil liberties, including the possibility of getting rid of the Sedition Act. Do you think he's having second thoughts now?

FADIAH: I believe so, I think for political survival, the government knows that by having this (Sedition) Act, they can try to instil fear, because it's been used for so long. The Sedition Act is the legacy of the British and it has been used to stifle dissent. It's very, very clear that people who get arrested under the Sedition Act are people who're very vocal and critical of the government. So, this is a very powerful tool that is being used by the government, to stifle dissent, because the Sedition Act is very broad and wide. It can cover everything, and that's why it's being abused by the government, to stop people from speaking out.

LAM: One of the reasons the government had given for the need for the Sedition Act, was that it was relevant to multi-racial Malaysia, and there is a great need to keep racial harmony. You don't think the Sedition Act has a role or a place in Malaysian society?

FADIAH: No, I don't think that the Sedition Act is relevant. We can clearly compare this to the seditious statements issued by some people who're calling for racial hatred, racial violence, for example, recently. But no one was subjected to this Act. But when it comes to the Opposition, when it comes to the activists, the authorities are very fast to take action under the Sedition Act. So you can selective prosecution, and also how the government is not really serious in trying to build harmony and trying to deter racial hatred and also racial violence. So if they're very, very serious, they should repeal this Act and they should come up with new legislation that can deal with hate speech, for example, that can deal with racial violence, racial discrimination, in line with the international standard, International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in order to ensure that everyone has the civil and political rights. 

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Before I start let me warn you that this is going to be a cheong hei article so if you are one of those who are incapable of reading more than one page I would suggest you just skip this article and read something else.

First of all, before any of you jump up and down and scream that I am anti-reform, let me caution you that I am one of the early birds who was clamouring not only for electoral reforms but for political reforms as well -- under which would include electoral reforms.

And I have already openly declared that I joined the Liberal Democrat party because of this desire to see not just electoral reforms but political reforms here in the UK as well, a country that is now my home and where I will eventually be buried when I die in a few years time (hopefully more than 10 years more).

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

When we look at something we always use the yardstick of where we stand and when that time may be to measure that thing we are looking at. What may be fair at one time and in another place may no longer be fair today in the place where we live. Hence nothing is constant and the only constant thing is change -- an oxymoron of sorts. (If it changes then it is not constant, is it not?)

Let us take voting as one example. In some countries in the past, only the landowners and the elite were allowed to vote (the serfs and landless could not vote). That meant roughly only 20% of the population could vote. In some countries only the whites and/or only the males could vote. ‘Blacks’ and women were not allowed to vote.

By today’s standards that would be most unfair. In those days, though, and in those countries concerned, there was nothing unfair about that. That was the law and the law must be obeyed. Whether this is ‘rule of law’ or ‘rule by law’ is another matter for another discussion (just like Malaysia’s Sedition Act issue).

Okay, that was in the past. Let us talk about today and let us talk about Malaysia.

In the UK, anyone who resides in the country can vote (as long as you have a UK address). Since you reside in the country, whatever happens in the UK affects you -- so you can vote. Hence even Malaysian students who hold Malaysian passports and are Malaysian citizens can vote in the British elections -- as long as you are old enough.

Malaysia, however, does not allow this. And if you are not a Malaysian citizen and you vote then you would be regarded as a ‘phantom voter’. Is this fair (to regard non-citizens as phantom voters)? In the UK it is not fair. But in Malaysia this is fair.

Now, if British citizens can go to Malaysia and are allowed entry into the country without the need of a visa then, to reciprocate, Malaysian citizens can also enter the UK without the need of a visa. However, while Malaysian citizens can vote in the UK, British citizens cannot vote in Malaysia. Is this reciprocating and hence is this fair?

Let’s, say, a British citizen votes in Malaysia. What will happen to him or her? Absolutely nothing -- other than getting beaten up by the Pakatan Rakyat supporters, of course. But what will happen if a Malaysian citizen votes in the UK? Well, he or she can lose his/her Malaysian citizenship. Is this fair? It is fair in Malaysia but not in the UK.

In 1969, the voting age in the UK was reduced from 21 to 18. And that is why foreign students can vote since most are above 18 anyway. In Malaysia, the voting age is still 21. But you can drive a car at 18 plus you can also get married at that age. So, we trust 18-year-olds to drive a car and get married but we do not trust them to vote? Is this fair?

Up to 1969 it was fair in the UK. Today, however, it is no longer fair. In Malaysia, though, it is still fair. Hence the interpretation of ‘fair’ changes over time and over place. In 1969, I was only 18 and could not vote in the 10th May 1969 ‘historic’ general election in Malaysia. But I would have been able to vote in the UK had I gone there to study instead of choosing the life of a hippie in Malaysia. 

So, in reviewing our electoral system, we need to redefine what is fair and hence we need to consider a total overhaul of the system to keep up with the changes in the world. Children of 13 were still considered children back in the time of Merdeka. Children of 13, today, are more exposed to the world and have become more mature partly due to cable TV and the Internet. Children of 13, say, 500 years ago, already went to war and got married and by 30 were considered too old (not many lived beyond 50 anyway in those days).

Hence, the issue of the age of maturity plus the voting age itself needs to be reconsidered and probably changed to keep up with ‘world norms’. Even how we look at 16-year-olds changed from 1813 to 1913 to 2013.

Are 18-year-olds old enough and mature enough to be entrusted with the ballot paper? If they are old enough to be sent to jail or to be sent to the gallows then they should be old enough to be allowed to vote.

But what will happen if 18-year old Malaysians are allowed to vote? Well, that would mean Barisan Nasional is finished because then most likely the opposition would garner 60% of the popular vote and if this happens then no amount of fraud or gerrymandering can make any difference. You can only cheat up to a certain extent, mainly in borderline cases. If the swing is too massive, to the level of a Tsunami, then even cheating cannot help any longer.

So the government has to very carefully look into all these issues in the expected re-delineation exercise, which may be conducted soon. However, what is the priority of the Election Commission (SPR)? Malaysia practices the first-past-the-post system. How do we incorporate the one-man-one-vote system into that system? That is the billion-dollar question. And, again, the issue of ‘fair’ needs to be carefully considered.

But then I have just explained that fair or fairness is relative. It all depends on who you are and what era you live in and in which region you are living. The interpretation of fair changes from time-to-time and from place-to-place and from person-to-person as well. So how do we establish ‘fair’? And who will be the one establishing what is fair?

Okay, you may argue that the ones establishing this yardstick of ‘fair’ must be the majority. But what if what the majority wants is not fair to the minority? Do we then ignore the rights of the minority because we must comply to majority-rule? What if in that particular society the majority happens to be Shia Muslims and the minority are Sunni Muslims? Can the majority Shias pass a law that persecutes the minority Sunnis? Do the minority Sunnis not also have rights?

Say, the majority Shias decide that Sunni Islam is not Islam and Sunnis are heretics who should be put to death. The Sunni Books of Hadith are banned and anyone found in possession of the Sunni Books of Hadith will be arrested and sent to jail.

But Sunni Islam is far larger than Shia Islam. There are an estimated 80-90% Sunnis compared to only 10-20% Shias in the world. In Malaysia, Malaysians who follow Shia Islam are arrested and jailed (unless you are a foreigner). So is it fair that the ‘majority’ Shias who are actually the minority worldwide pass such laws even though in that particular country they may be the majority?

So, can you see that the issue of majority-rule itself can be disputed because, yet again, it is subject to who you are and where you happen to live at that time and what era you happen to be living in?

Okay, back to Malaysia’s election system, what would Barisan Nasional consider fair? Fair to Barisan Nasional is whatever it is that can keep them in power. What about Pakatan Rakyat? To Pakatan Rakyat, fair is whatever it is that can kick out Barisan Nasional.

Hence, to start off, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have different interpretations of fair. So how do we come to a consensus on what is fair? If we go by the majority in Parliament then Barisan Nasional has 133 votes compared to Pakatan Rakyat’s 89. So, if majority rules, then Barisan Nasional wins.

You may argue that Barisan Nasional may have 133 seats in Parliament but then they won these 133 seats with less than 50% of the votes. Okay, but is Malaysia’s election based on votes or based on seats? Undoubtedly it is based on seats and not votes. And if on seats then Barisan Nasional will win the shouting match.

The bottom line is: both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have two different interpretations of fair and have different priorities in the re-delineation exercise. So there is no way they can meet in the middle. One has to lose while the other will win. The question is: which one will lose and which one will win?

In the meantime, be prepared for a long-drawn shouting match and probably even more street demonstrations before this issue is going to be resolved. And at the end of it all, one party is going to benefit and another is going to be frustrated. And the whole reason for this is because the present system is not perfect. Any system that can be manipulated and exploited cannot be perfect.

Is the solution, therefore, to look for another system?

Yes, something to mull over and sleep on, don’t you think so?

Nevertheless, treat this piece of mine as merely an academic exercise to discuss the issue of what is fair. 

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

PSC recommended fairer election system, DAP rep reminds BN, EC

Clara Chooi, The Malaysian Insider

Barisan Nasional (BN) was reminded today of recommendations approved last year by Parliament to improve the country’s current electoral system and for the coming redrawing of boundaries to ensure fair weightage is given to every vote. 

DAP election strategist Dr Ong Kian Ming mocked BN leaders Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Datuk Seri Noh Omar for criticising those who dared to challenge the alleged unfairness of the current system, pointing out that their own colleagues had made the recommendations as members of the Parliamentary Select Committee for electoral reform.

The recommendations, tabled in the Lower House on April 2 last year, included a call on the Election Commission (EC) to use a “fair and equitable” formula when determining the number of voters in one constituency, after taking note of the proposal to follow the “one-man, one-vote, one-value” principle.

The bipartisan PSC also took note of the proposal to improve the country’s current use of the simple majority or first-past-the-post system by considering a more proportionate system of representation for elections.

Ong (picture), the newly-elected MP for Serdang, told both Ahmad Zahid and Noh to take a week-long study leave abroad to better understand how other countries practising the same simple majority “first-past-the-post” system adhere to the “one-man, one-vote, one-value” principle in the drawing of their electoral boundaries.

“If the home minister (Ahmad Zahid) and the MP for Tanjong Karang (Noh) are too busy... I would be more than happy to sit down with them for a one-hour briefing to show them how other democratic countries using the first-past-the-post system redraw their boundary lines in order to reduce the disparity in the number of voters per seat,” Ong said.

He explained that if constituencies are fairly delineated, any party or coalition that wins the vote majority in any first-past-the-post system should win the majority of seats contested.

But in the just-concluded Election 2013, the ruling BN government emerged victors again by snapping up 133 seats or 60 per cent of the 222 federal seats to Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) 89 seats, despite losing the popular vote when it garnered only 48 per cent of votes cast to PR’s 51 per cent.

The outcome triggered the string of “Black 505” protests nationwide as indignant opposition leaders and voters rallied against BN’s return to power despite failing to win the majority number of votes cast.

Responding to the protests, Ahmad Zahid sparked an uproar when he wrote in Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia that Malaysians should accept PR’s failure to win federal power in Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system, saying those unwilling to accept the system could live elsewhere.

In a separate remark, Noh had said that those who do not like Malaysia’s electoral system to go “live in the jungle”.

Ong accused the home minister of failing to remember that prior to Malaysia’s independence, the maximum rural weightage given to votes had been two to one which, he said, effectively means that the largest constituency can only have twice as many voters as the smallest constituency.

“Instead, what we have now in Malaysia is a ‘bastardized’ form of the first-past-the-post electoral system where the largest constituency — P109 Kapar (144,369 voters in GE13) — has nine times the number of voters of the smallest constituency — P126 Putrajaya (15,798 voters in GE13),” he said.

“Indeed, if the home minister had done his research, he would have realised that the United Kingdom passed a Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act in 2011 which specified that the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency can only be 5 per cent,” he added.

In Australia, which uses the Alternative Vote (AV) in Single Member Constituencies, Ong said the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency is 10 per cent.

“However, there is an additional, stricter rule which requires the Australian Election Commission to project the number of voters per constituency 3½ years after a re-delineation exercise.

“This rule allows for a maximum of a 3.5 per cent deviation. The strict rules observed in Australia results in the one-man-one-vote principle being observed,” he said.

For example, Ong said the largest constituency in Australia in terms of geographical area is Durack in Western Australia with 88,177 voters when the last redelineation exercise was conducted in 2008.

Durack’s land size, he said, is 1,587,758 square kilometres, which is almost five times the size of Malaysia.

The smallest constituency, he said, is the constituency of Wentworth in New South Wales, Sydney, with 98,979 in 2009 when the last redelineation exercise was conducted.

Wentworth covers approximately 30 square kilometres which is about the size of Ipoh Barat, Ong added.

“The rural-urban weightage in Australia is 1.12. In other words, the number of voters in the smallest urban constituency is only 112 per cent the number of voters in the largest rural constituency.

“If Australia, given its large geographic area, can follow the one-man-one-vote principle, there is no reason why Malaysia cannot follow suit,” he said.

The EC is expected to kick off the re-delineation exercise at the end of this year, shortly after all election petitions for the May 5 polls are heard.

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

時間和地點是決定公平的因數

這是篇以公平爲主題的學術討論文章。我在下方附上的選區劃分文章僅僅是爲了加強我們的内容而已。我想說的是，如果你是相信‘相對’主意（即一件事情的狀況完全是依賴其它事情來定下來的），那所有事情都是可以被開放式地詮釋的，詮釋的主軸則依賴于時間，地點和你是誰。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

在我開始之前我想警告你這會是一篇很長的文章。如果你是受不了長過一頁的文章的那我會建議你跳過此文去讀其他的。

第一，在你大喊大叫講我反改革之前，我要慎重地提醒你我是第一批吵著不但只要選舉改革而且還要政治改革的人-----政治改革當然也包括了選舉改革。

我之前就曾公開地宣佈我加入英國自由民主黨的原因是因爲我不止想看到選舉改革；我還要看到政治改革。英國現在已是我的國家了，是我在三四年（當然最好還能有個10來年）歸天以後所葬身的地方。

這是篇以公平爲主題的學術討論文章。我在下方附上的討論選區劃分的文章僅僅是爲了加強我們的内容而已。我想說的是，如果你是相信‘相對’主意（即一件事情的狀況完全是的話依賴其它事情來定下來的），那所有事情都是可以被開放式地詮釋的，詮釋的主軸則依賴于時間，地點和你是誰。

儅我們看待一件事情是我們會以我們當時的立場和時間背景來做準繩。在某個地方某個時間點很公平的事情有可能在現今我們生活的地方變得不公平。所以說沒有東西是不變的，只有改變是不變的。

就讓我們拿選舉作例子。在過去某些國家裏，只有地主和貴族才可以投票（農奴和無地階級是不可投票）。那也表示只有20%的人口有資格投票。在另一些國家只有白人或男人才可以投票，黑人和女人一概不准。

對現今的標準來説這是絕對不公平的，但在當時那些國家這則是沒有所謂的不公。這是當時的法律，所以他們得遵從法律。當然這種做法是‘法治精神’抑或是‘以法制人’則是另一個有待討論的課題（就像馬來西亞煽動令一樣）。

好了，那都過去了，現在讓我們談談現在和談談馬來西亞。

在英國只要你是個居民（只要你有個英國地址）你就可以投票；因爲你居住在英國所以所有一切發生在英國的事情都能影響你，所以你就有權投票。因此，就連持大馬護照在英國讀書的大馬籍學生也可以投票----只要你夠年齡的話。

無論如何，馬來西亞是不允許這種做法的。如果你不是大馬人而你又投票的話那你就是個‘幽靈選民’。這公平嗎？在英國這是不公平的，但在馬來西亞卻公平得很。

如果說英國公民可以免簽入境大馬，那同等的，大馬公民也可以免簽入境英國。但，儅大馬公民可以在英國投票的同時英國公民是不可以在大馬投票的，這又同等和公平嗎？

就讓我們講說有一個英國公民在大馬投票，那他會發生什麽事情嗎？他跟本就不會有什麽事情-----除了會被民聯支持者痛毆一頓以外。但儅一個大馬公民在英國投票時他又會出什麽事情呢？他會因此而喪失大馬公民權。這公平嗎？這在大馬是公平的但在英國則反之。

在1969年英國把投票年齡從21嵗降到18嵗，這就是爲什麽留學生都可以投票，因爲他們一般都過了18嵗。在馬來西亞，投票年齡還是21嵗，但你只要過了18嵗就可以駕車，你甚至還能在那個歲數結婚呢。換句話說，我們認可18嵗的那一群可以駕車結婚但我們不認可他們可以投票？這公平嗎？

在1969年以前英國認爲這是公平的，但現今則不是。在馬來西亞這種情形到今天爲止則都還是很公平。所以你看，‘公平’的詮釋是隨著時間和地點的不同而改變的。我在1969年時因爲我還是18嵗而錯過了那場‘歷史性’的大選。但如果我當時選擇放棄在大馬過上嬉皮士的生活而到英國讀書的話那我就會有投票在那兒機會。

所以說，在審查我們的選舉系統之前，我們必須為‘公平’給定義下來；爲了能趕上世界的改變我們必須在這系統裏來個大翻修。獨立時代那些13嵗的小伙們還被認爲只是孩子，但今天的13嵗小伙因大量地接受外邊的信息而被認爲是很成熟了；反過來說，500年前的13嵗則已經上戰場打戰和可以結婚了，而儅他們30嵗時他們已是很‘老人’了（當時很多人都會活不過50嵗）。

所以我們必須從新考慮有關成熟年齡和投票年齡的關聯，從而很大可能要做出‘與時並進’的更改。我們對18歲的看法在1813年，1913年和2013年是各有不同的。

18歲是否就足夠成熟進而我們可以把投票這個責任交給他們了嗎？如果他們滿18歲就可以坐牢和被送上吊頸台，那同時閒他們也應該可以投票了。

如果18歲的大馬人可以投票的話那後果又是什麼？答案是，國陣就會因此‘玩完’，因為反對黨奪得60％選票的幾率會高出很多，屆時就連舞弊和不均勻的選區選民數也幫不了什麼。你能欺騙的其實並不多，一般都是在邊界上的課題。如果形勢是都往一邊倒而達到大海嘯的程度的話，那就連欺騙也改變不了大局。

政府在即將進行的選區從新規劃計劃中必須把這些課題探討得一清二楚。話說回來，那選舉委員會的首要目的是什麼？馬來西亞是採取多數制first-past-the-post系統的，我們要怎樣才能把一人一票one-man-one-vote系統整合在內呢？這才是一個很值得深思的問題。與此同時，‘公平’這個課題還是需要很小心地來思考的。

我已解釋過了，公不公平是很‘相對’的。那要視乎你是誰，你住在什麼地方和你存在在哪一個時間背景裡。每個人對‘公平’的定義會隨著時間，地點，和個人的不同而改變的。所以我們應該怎樣來做得很‘公平’呢？我們又要誰來確立公平的準則呢？

好，你有可能會講公平的準則應該是由多數人來決定的。但如果多數人要的對少數人來講是不公平的呢？我們是否要因為必須跟從‘多數為先’的管理規則而忽視掉少數人的權益呢？如果說在這一個社會裡多數人為什葉派而少數人是遜尼派，什葉派就是否可以通過法令來迫害少數的遜尼派？遜尼派穆斯林在這裡難道就沒有權力了嗎？

打個比方，多人數的什葉派有可能認為遜尼式回教並不是回教所以遜尼教徒都是應該被送上斷頭臺的異教徒。遜尼版的Hadith經是被禁止的，而持有者將會被控進監牢。

但現實生活當中遜尼派遠比什葉派大得多。大約全球穆斯林人口中有80-90%是遜尼派而只有10-20%是派。在大馬，什葉派教徒是會被捉進監牢的（除非你是個外國人）。所以說，在什葉派是主流的社會裏，他們通過法令壓制遜尼派的舉動是‘公平’的嗎？

所以在此你就可以看到所謂的‘多數為先’的管理規則也是有問題的，因爲它也是因時間，地點，和個人而改變的。

好了，讓我們囘到來馬來西亞選舉系統。請問對囯陣來講何謂公平呢？他們會認爲只要是能讓他們繼續掌權的那就是公平的。民聯呢？他們則會認爲只要能把囯陣拉下馬的就是公平的。

如此可看到，打從一開始囯陣和民聯對公平的詮釋就已經很不同了，我們又要怎樣來達成共識呢？如果我們以國會的多數權來看，囯陣會有133個投票權，對比民聯的89個。所以，以多數為先的主意來看，囯陣鐵定會贏。

你可以爭辯囯陣雖然有133席但他們所奪得的選票只有不到50%。對的，但請問馬來西亞選舉系統是以選票還是以席位來做定奪的呢？很不幸的，我們是以席位來定奪的，所以囯陣在爭辯中肯定會勝出。

底綫是，囯陣和民聯各自都有對公平的不同詮釋，並且兩黨在選區從新規劃計劃上各有自己的目的，所以他們根本沒有可能會做出妥協。其中一個將會勝出而另一個則會敗下來。問題是：勝利者會是誰？失敗者又會是誰？

現在，你應該要做心理準備去接受即將上演的持續性爭吵和更多的街頭示威，直到這個課題被解決爲止。最終，這兩個的其中一個將會獨獲所有的甜頭而另一個則會很煩躁。這背後的真正原因是因爲我們的系統是很不完美的。一個能夠被操縱和被利用的系統就是個很不完美的系統。

故此，我們最佳的解決方案是不是應該尋找一個全新的系統呢？

是的，一個徹底不同且一勞永逸的新系統，你覺得呢？

無論如何，請你只把我的這篇文章當作是對‘公平的定義’的學術討論來看待。

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

PSC薦舉更爲公平的選舉系統，行動黨如是提醒囯陣和選舉委員會

Clara Chooi, 大馬内幕者

囯陣今天被提醒有關去年國會曾提出的建議來改良國家現今的選舉系統。國會也建議應該更爲妥善地從新規劃選區以確保每一票的權重性都是更加相等且公平的。

（下文省略） 

(Harakah Daily) - Selepas Harakah, kini akhbar lidah rasmi parti Keadilan Rakyat Suara Keadilan juga dilaporkan dirampas oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) di beberapa buah negeri sejak semalam.

Menurut Setiausaha Agung Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Saifuddin Nasution Ismail ribuan naskah akhbar Suara Keadilan telah dirampas dari kedai-kedai pembekal dan pengedar di seluruh negara.

Dalam tempoh 24 jam mulai semalam, katanya pegawai-pegawai KDN,  telah bertindak merampas dan mengancam untuk menangkap pembekal dan pengedar akhbar Suara Keadilan di beberapa tempat.

Katanya, di Ipoh Perak malam tadi, tujuh orang pegawai KDN telah menyerbu premis salah seorang pembekal Suara Keadilan dan merampas 214 naskah akhbar tersebut.

Jelasnya, pegawai-pegawai tersebut bagaimanapun enggan memberi sebarang bukti surat kuasa rampasan.

"Di Melaka pula, pada jam 10 pagi hari ini 70 naskah Suara KEADILAN telah dirampas dari seorang pengedar yang menurut beliau, pegawai-pegawai KDN hanya memberi alasan bahawa ia telah menyalahi Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan 1984," katanya.

Tambahnya, kejadian yang sama juga telah berlaku hari ini di Johor Bahru, Johor, Seremban, Bangi dan juga di Kota Bharu, Kelantan.

"Kita menjangkakan bahawa tindakan kasar, zalim dan sangat tidak demokratik ini akan berterusan, seperti yang dilihat dalam penangkapan beberapa tokoh dan aktivis pembangkang seperti  Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, Adam Adli, Tian Chua, Haris Ibrahim dan  Tamrin Ghafar dan 18 orang aktivis lain yang menunjukkan sokongan kepada  Adam Adli," katanya.

PKR mengecam tindakan rampasan akhbar Suara Keadilan yang jelas melihat ia sebagai satu lagi pembuktian bahawa kerajaan Umno BN terus-terusan mahu memperbodoh rakyat Malaysia dengan cubaan menyorokkan berita dan laporan alternatif dari rakyat yang sebenarnya mampu menilai dengan bebas tentang perkembangan politik negara.

Malah, tegas Saifuddin rampasan akhbar Suara Keadilan ini bermotifkan politik dendam serta cubaan menyekat penyebaran maklumat terutama mengenai penipuan pilihanraya.

"Tindakan ini juga jelas membayangkan ketakutan kerajaan Umno BN sendiri kerana mereka memperolehi kuasa hanya berdasarkan mandat minoriti dan kerana itu terpaksa mengunakan kaedah tidak demokratik untuk mengekalkan kekuasaan," katanya.

(Bernama) - A study on the re-delineation of electoral constituencies, which was postponed two years ago, will begin soon, said Election Commission (EC) deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar.

Azril Annuar, fz.com

The RM145 million price tag for the merger of Matang Holdings Berhad into ACE market-listed Scope Industries Bhd should be reviewed by the Valuation and Property Services Department (VPSD), MCA vice president Datuk Donald Lim said.

This is necessary as there are two different valuations for the deal with the RM145 million valuation being the lower one, Lim told a press conference here today.

“There were two valuations and one was lower by around RM20 to RM30 million. So I think it’s best that the VPSD conduct a third valuation on how much it really costs,” said Lim.

He also pointed out that the current Matang shareholders should have the option to sell out their shares instead of just being granted shares by Scope Industries.

“By giving shares there will be a four-year moratorium and the shareholders cannot sell it. We won’t know what will happen in four years. What happens if the share prices go down? Maybe from RM1 to RM0.30 in four years.

“Matang has nearly 20,000 shareholders controlling 90 per cent of the shares. The other 10 per cent is held by the MCA-owned Huaren Foundation. So for the sake of the other shareholders they should allow them to cash out if they want to.

“And for the upcoming Annual General Meeting on May 31, Huaren should not vote. Since it is owned by MCA and there is no mandate from MCA’s Central Working Committee, Huaren should abstain from voting,” said Lim who also owns 3,000 units of Matang’s shares.

Matang Holdings entered into a business merger agreement with electrical and electronics manufacturer Scope Industries sometime in November last year and transferred its entire business and undertakings including assets and liabilities to the latter.

In Malaysia’s case however, GST will be replacing a pre-existing tax and at a rate that is lower than the prevailing rate. Under those circumstances, the impact should be a one-time decrease in the price level, not an increase.

Hisham H.

Here are the facts:

1. Malaysia is one of the last countries in the world to implement a full fledged value-added tax. The only countries of note that have yet to implement a VAT are the United States, Hong Kong, Brunei, and the countries under the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Everybody else either has it, or are implementing it.
2. Malaysia currently levies two forms of consumption tax – sales tax and service tax (henceforth SST).
3. Sales tax is levied on all goods sold or produced in Malaysia, with the exception of petroleum and exports. The current standard rate is 10%, but a lower rate of 5% is applicable to fruits, certain foodstuffs, timber, building materials, cigarettes and tobacco, and liquor and alcohol.
4. Service tax is applicable to restaurants, hotels, parking lots, golf courses, clubs, discoes, insurance agents, phone companies, professional services like accountants, lawyers and consultants, and many more at a rate of 6%. Some of these services require a minimum corporate income threshold before the tax is levied. Credit cards are also subject to a service tax, but in this case it’s a flat fee levied on principal and supplementary cards.
5. GST is going to replace both these two taxes (with the possible exception of credit cards), and from which certain essential goods will continue to be excluded i.e. zero-rated (exports, petrol and basic foods for instance).

So, let’s assume that a 7% rate will be implemented:

1. For food, the tax on basic staples will go from 5% to 0%.
2. For other foods, the tax rate will go from 10% to 7%.
3. For the “sin” goods, the tax rate will increase marginally from 5% to 7%.
4. For everything else, the tax rate falls from 10% to 7%.
5. Certain other goods, like books and petrol, will continue to attract no tax.
6. For services, the rate will increase from 6% to 7%.

When the basic tax rates on most goods at point of sale are set to fall, how on earth can this be inflationary?

Both in theory and in practice, the implementation of a VAT or an increase in the VAT rate is almost always accompanied by a one time increase in the price level (cost of living), but not the rate of price increases (inflation). There are umpteenth examples of this over the last couple of decades.

In Malaysia’s case however, GST will be replacing a pre-existing tax and at a rate that is lower than the prevailing rate. Under those circumstances, the impact should be a one-time decrease in the price level, not an increase.

The regressive nature of GST is completely irrelevant in this discussion, because we’re replacing one regressive tax with another, and moreover one that is proven to be more efficient in raising tax revenues.

Almost all the gains in revenue collection from the switch to GST from SST will come from enforcing tax collection across the chain of production and distribution of goods and services, and not an increase in the overall tax burden to consumers.

Again, how can replacing SST with GST be inflationary?

Read more at: http://econsmalaysia.blogspot.ae/2013/05/gst-and-inflation.html?spref=fb

A political analyst disclosed that despite BN's overall win in Sabah, statistics showed the ruling coalition had lost to Pakatan on popular votes "even among the Malays".

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) political science lecturer Arnold Puyok said there was a “political tsunami in Sabah”, but it “wasn’t strong enough to cause significant change”.

Lisa J. Ariffin, FMT

In the run up to the 13th general election, several parliamentary seats in Sabah were reportedly under severe threat from opposition Pakatan Rakyat.

In fact it was widely speculated that the outcome of these seats would be the “clincher” for Pakatan’s Putrajaya aspirations.

But eventually that did not happen, noted political analysts who spoke at a forum here last night.

Despite the opposition’s “Ini Kali Lah” wave which was widely spported by the Kadazandusun Murut and Chinese areas, they failed to loosen Barisan Nasional’s grip on Sabah.

BN had secured 48 of the 60 state and 22 of 25 parliamentary seats as opposed to Pakatan’s three parliamentary and 10 state seats.

Pakatan’s failure to threaten BN’s hold on Sabah came as a surprise to two political analysts, who had expected the opposition to capture “at least 15″ parliamentary seats in East Malaysia.

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) political science lecturer Arnold Puyok said there was a “political tsunami in Sabah”, but it “wasn’t strong enough to cause significant change”.

“The opposition was making inroads. There were a lot of unhappiness in the Kadazandusun and Chinese areas,” he said during a forum organised by Merdeka Centre here.

“With the rise of STAR (Sabah State Reform Party) and “Ini Kali Lah”, a lot of Sabahans thought it was time for change,” he added.

Swing in Malay popular votes

Arnold also noted that in Malay-Muslim majority areas in the state, support for Umno-BN had increased significantly in GE13.

“The BN-Umno vote bank remains strong in rural Muslim-Bumiputera areas. There is strong dominance by Umno,” he said.

He then pointed out that BN was instead losing support in Kadazandusun and Chinese areas.

READ MORE HERE

The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God’s representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

As I write this, thus far student activist Adam Adli has been arrested (and charged plus is now out on bail) for sedition and, today, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Tun Ghafar (ex-Umno MP and ex-MARA Chairman) have also been picked up. I expect Hishamuddin Rais (who spent 20 years in political exile in Manchester) and Cikgu Bard (Badrul Hisham Shahrin) to be added to that list very soon plus probably a few more, Anwar Ibrahim included.

Maybe we shall be seeing a repeat of the ‘Reformasi 10’ roundup that we saw in April 2001. In April 2001 the arrests were under the detention without trial Internal Security Act. This time it is under the Sedition Act, which means they will be given a trial.

But why the Sedition Act and what is so ‘special’ about this law? 

The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God’s representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.

When Queen Mary I took over in July 1553, she restored Roman Catholicism and had over 300 Protestant religious dissenters burned at the stake over five years in the Marian persecutions. In November 1558, Mary’s younger sister, Elizabeth took over as Queen Elizabeth I and she restored Protestantism and did to the Catholics what Mary did to the Protestants.

Then England saw its first Civil War in 1640, a power struggle between King Charles I and Parliament. There were many reasons for this conflict but amongst the key factors was religion. Charles was viewed as ‘Catholic-friendly’ (his wife and mother were both Catholics) while the majority of the Parliamentarians were Puritans who viewed Catholics as heretics and deviants.

Charles I was toppled and executed in 1649 and for 11 years England was ruled as a Republic until Charles II, his son, took the throne in 1660. And that’s when the sedition law was formalised as the Sedition Act (1661) -- to put down any further ideas of turning England into a Republic or of restoring Roman Catholicism. In fact, 100 years earlier, Elizabeth I had already got Parliament to pass a law that forbids a Catholic from sitting on the throne of England. Hence to even talk about it is a crime and punishable by death.

And then the British came to the Malay states. In 1824, the British and Dutch exchanged Bencoolen in Sumatra with Melaka. Earlier, in 1786, the British took Penang and then Singapore in 1819. In 1941, the British lost Malaya to the Japanese, and when the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II, the British returned to Malaya and created the Malayan Union, which was opposed by the Malays and triggered the formation of Umno. Due to this strong opposition, in 1948, the British abandoned the Malayan Union and created the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Nevertheless, while the nationalist Malays (in particular those in Umno) accepted this, the more radical Malays plus the Socialists and Communists opposed it. To stifle this dissent, the British introduced the Sedition Act (1948) and those opposed to the British and to the formation of the Federation of Malaya took to the jungles to continue their opposition as an armed struggle.

And that is the history of the Sedition Act. It started life as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those aligned to Rome and those who criticised the English Monarch. It was then ‘exported’ to Malaya as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those who opposed the British and the Federation of Malaya.

Now it is a weapon used to stifle dissent or act against those who ‘violently’ oppose the results of the general election or, like in my case, those who criticise and ‘bring hatred’ to the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia (now wife of the Prime Minister, of course).

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

The Sedition Act (1661)

The Sedition Act 1661 was an Act of the Parliament of England, although it was extended to Scotland only in 1708. Passed shortly after the Restoration of Charles II to the throne of England (after 11 years as a Republic), it is no longer in force (abolished on 1st January 2010), but some of its provisions continue to survive today in the Treason Act 1695 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. One clause which was included in the Treason Act 1695 was later adapted for the United States Constitution (US Sedition Act 1798 and repealed in 1920).

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

The Sedition Act (1948)

In 1948, the British colonial government of Malaya enacted the Sedition Act to combat the Communist insurgency. Amendments were made through an Emergency Ordinance 1971, not long after the May 13 riots of 1969, to criminalise any questioning on Part III (on citizenship), Article 152 (on national language), Article 153 (on the special positions of the Malays and the rights of other races) and Article 181 (the Rulers’ sovereignty) of the Federal Constitution.

The Act has a very wide definition of ‘sedition’ and places many limitations on freedom of expression, particularly regarding supposedly sensitive political issues -- and this legal uncertainty very much favours the prosecutor. It also means that what is seditious is not just a legal but also a political issue.

A ‘seditious tendency’ is defined in section 3 as follows:

1. To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government.

2. To seek alteration other than by lawful means of any matter by law established.

3. To bring hatred or contempt to the administration of justice in the country.

4. To raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects.

5. To promote ill will and hostility between races or classes.

6. To question the provisions of the Constitution dealing with language, citizenship, the special privileges of the Malays and of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the sovereignty of the Rulers.

http://cijmalaysia.org/miniportal/2010/09/the-sedition-act-1948/

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

Sedition Act (1948) cannot be challenged

(NST, 25 June 2012) - The Sedition Act 1948 is constitutional and its validity cannot be challenged.

The Federal Court today ruled that the act is a good Act in dismissing an appeal by lawyer P. Uthayakumar (HINDRAF) against the decision of the Court of Appeal on Feb this year, which had rejected Uthayakumar's application to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional.

Uthayakumar, 49, a former Internal Security Act detainee, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Dec 11, 2007, with publishing a seditious letter on the "Police Watch Malaysia" website, dated Nov 15, 2007, addressed to then prime minister of Britain Gordon Brown.

He made the declaratory application (to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional), in a bid to have the charge against him under the act to be revoked.

In Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s view, Malaysians ‘must’ remain silent about the unfairness of the electoral system.

Luke Rintod, FMT

Public outrage over Umno vice-president and Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s childish tantrum telling Malaysians to shove off if they don’t like the electoral system is far from over.

The ‘wet behind the ear’ Home Minister was quoted in the Malay daily Utusan Malaysia last week telling off those unhappy with the first-past-the post electoral system to migrate to countries that practice Single Transferable Vote (republics).

His retort set off an avalanche of criticism from the general public and political writers, including Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK), and DAP leader Tony Pua.

Raja Petra dared Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to sack Zahid should he refuse to publicly apologise and resign.

Pua said that Zahid was being arrogant by denying Malaysians the right to a better voting system by telling them to migrate if they were unhappy with a flawed system.

Two days later, newly-minted Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaludin said that Zahid “was merely expressing his own opinion” and that “it did not reflect Najib administration’s official position”.

While most reasonable Malaysians are still furious with a curlish Home Minister, many, including Zahid, may not be aware that thousands of Malaysians have already left the country.

More than one million Malaysians decided to migrate but perhaps not for the reasons Zahid wished for.

People migrated mainly for jobs, opined a well known economist Dr James Alin in Kota Kinabalu.

In his paper “Should I Stay or Should I Go” (published in June last year), the academic wrote that Malaysia was experiencing a serious brain-drain problem.

Malaysia losing ‘skilled talents’

The country, he noted, was losing highly skilled individuals aged 25 years and above with academic and professional degrees.

In 2010, there were 121,662 highly skilled Malaysians working in Singapore as compared to 66,452 in year 2000.

According to Alin, Malaysian emigrants to Australia in year 2000 was 38,620. But this increased to 51,556 in 2010.

Smilar trends were noted by the United States of America. The numbers had spiked from 24,085 to 34,045 in 2010.

In the UK it moved from 12,898 to 16,609 while in Canada it increased from 12,170 to 12,809. Other countries also saw similar shifts.

Emigrants to Brunei shot up from 6,438 to 10,208; India 1,509 to 4,503; China 2,655 to 3,496 and Taiwan 2,916 to 3,235..

“Malaysia needs talent, but talent seems to be leaving. With more Malaysians migrating, the skills and talents base will be shrinking,“ warned Alin.

He further said that in addition to higher earning potential and better career prospects abroad, Malaysians migrated to seek a better quality of life that includes superior education standards for their children, good governance and more political freedom.

Alin told FMT that the Chinese Malaysians who made up majority of the brain-drain feel that the Bumiputera policy has caused social injustice.

“They voiced dissatisfaction; they are fed up at being constantly reminded that Chinese have fewer rights than the Malay. Brain-drain is not a new phenomenon,” said the economist.

READ MORE HERE

A Rolls Royce and flashy jet cover his transportation, while a vast war chest has kept his political authority unrivalled in 32 years in charge of the resource-rich Borneo island state, which remains one of Malaysia's poorest.

(AFP) - Despite earning a civil servant's salary for three decades, Taib Mahmud, the powerful chief minister of Malaysia's Sarawak state, is reputed by critics to be one of Asia's richest men.

(Bernama) - Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is to file 27 petitions in court soon over the results of the 13th General Election, its vice-president Tian Chua said today.

(The Star) - PKR vice-president Tian Chua says he has been detained by police under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act.

He said in a tweet message that he was detained at the LCCT before going through the security check as he was to board a flight Thursday.

He believed he is being taken to the Jinjang police station.

Meanwhile, activist Haris Ibrahim was also picked up by police in connection with the May 13 forum which saw student activist Adam Adli Abd Halim being charged with uttering seditious words.

It is learnt that Haris was picked up while having lunch in Segambut and was being taken to the Jinjang police station.

(The Star) - Gerakan, which has decided not to hold any Federal Government position after its dismal showing in the general election, will look into the matter again following objections from within the party.

The party's acting president Datuk Chang Ko Youn said the matter would be discussed at their next central committee (CC) meeting set for next month.

“We will relook the issue. In our last CC meeting, we decided not to take up federal posts but some have disagreed with us,” he said at a press conference here yesterday.

He admitted that some issues were not adequately addressed during the May 11 CC meeting as emotions were high following the party's shock defeat in the May 5 polls.

Chang said it was his personal opinion that the party should hold federal positions, adding that both MCA and Gerakan should take up federal positions as they were part of Barisan Nasional and agreed with the coalition's policies.

Chang, who was speaking at his first press conference as acting president following Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon's resignation, said Barisan should merge into a single multi-racial party and change its approach, given the advent of more young voters in urbanised areas over the next five years.

“In the elections, we saw that the trend of urban voters went across racial lines, such as Chinese voters who voted for PAS candidates and vice versa.

“We can no longer rely on race-based parties. It is getting out of fashion. We must seriously look at the issue of young voters across racial lines. They are looking at transparency, governance, human rights and other issues,” he added.

Barisan, Chang added, must adapt as old methods could not be used any more.

“If we use the same methods, I am afraid that we will have worse results in the next elections, which will see an additional two million new voters,” he said, adding that Gerakan had always advocated non-racial politics.

Chang also hit out at Pakatan Rakyat and said it should admit defeat and use the parliamentary process to advocate change instead of having rallies that could provoke people.

(The Star) - PKR may postpone its elections due to be held this November to reconsolidate its support base.

Party secretary-general Datuk Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (picture) said the political bureau had discussed the suggestion to put off party polls.

“We just went through a big battle in the general election, and having the elections in November may be too soon as they take up a lot of time and energy.

“There are views within the leadership to reconsolidate our support base and to close ranks first ... maybe that could be reason enough to postpone our elections,” he told a press conference at the party headquarters here yesterday.

“We are currently considering both options to have our elections in November as planned or to postpone the polls,” he said.

He added that the supreme council will be discussing the matter further after the party's annual congress, postponed from last year, ends this weekend.

Saifuddin said that if the leadership wanted to postpone the party elections, it would have to convene a special congress to amend the constitution, which now only provides for triennial elections. The last party elections were in 2010.

Saifuddin, who coordinated the previous party elections, said that he was getting feedback to improve the polling process.

Previously, he said, the members had to meet twice to elect their leaders first to elect their division leaders and then to elect the supreme council members.

“The grassroots members say that this is double mobilisation and it takes up too much time, and they are asking if we could vote for both at once,” he said. “But a change in procedure would require a constitutional amendment.”

He also said the ninth annual congress to be held here this Saturday would see 2,500 delegates from 221 divisions nationwide attending the one-day event.

The Youth and Wanita wings will meet on Friday.

Saifuddin said the theme of the congress was Suara Rakyat, Suara Keramat (The Voice of the People, The Supreme Voice).

(The Star) - Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) is set to review its ties with Pakatan Rakyat after its losses in GE13 due to the alleged underhand tactics against their candidates.

“The issue will be brought up for discussion at our annual congress on June 28.

“We are leaving it to our members to decide if we should continue ties with Pakatan,” PSM secretary-general S. Arutchelvan (picture) said, adding that the decision to work with the Opposition pact was made at the party's 14th Congress in June last year.

He added that PSM was also demanding a meeting with PKR and PAS leaders over the Kota Damansara and Semenyih state seats in Selangor.

“We want an explanation from PAS over the loss of the Kota Damansara seat, and PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang referring to us as communists,” he said.

Arutchelvan added that PKR should also explain its role in PSM's loss in Semenyih.

On May 6, PSM president Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim said his loss in Kota Damansara was due to votes being split and “stolen” by the PAS candidate.

Barisan's Halimaton Saadiah Bohan polled 16,387 votes against Dr Nasir's 14,860 and PAS' Ridzuan Ismail's 7,312.

Arutchelvan was said to be the victim of Pakatan's internal politicking in Semenyih which saw Barisan's Datuk Johan Abdul Aziz getting 17,616 votes compared to PKR's Hamidi Hasan (13,471) while he only polled 5,568 votes.

PSM also contested the Sungai Siput parliamentary seat in Perak with incumbent Dr Michael Jeyakumar successfully defending it while M. Sarasvathy lost the Jelapang state seat.

His lawyers are planning to file an application at the High Court to declare the case against him is frivolous.

K Pragalath, FMT

Student activist Adam Adli was this morning charged under the Sedition Act at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making a seditious statement. He claimed trial.

Sessions Court judge Norsharidah Awang fixed the bail at RM5,000 with one bailor, and fixed July 2 for mentioning.

Adam, 24, was arrested in Kuala Lumpur on May 18 for remarks he allegedly made during a post-GE13 forum on May 13. He was held in remand for five days.

This morning, deputy public prosecutor, Mohd Abazafri Mohd Abbas, sought to set bail at RM5,000 “to ensure his (Adam’s) attendance in court”. Abazafri was assisted by deputy public prosecutors Azrina Ali and Nadia Tahyuddin.

Adam was represented by lawyers N Surendran, S Ambiga, Afiq M Noor and Michelle Yesudass.

Both Surendran and Ambiga argued that the bail amount was high, and said the case was frivolous without prima facie.

“The Sedition Act is also going to be repealed. We will file an application to strike out the case at the High Court as soon as possible,” said Surendran.

Upon his release on bail, Adam addressed his supporters at the court lobby.

“It is an experience in defending democracy. Thank you all. This is why I love this country,” he said. Funds collected during his remand period was used to bail him out.

Adam was arrested under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act and Section 124(B) of the Penal Code on May 18 in Bangsar for making statements during a May 13 forum held at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.

Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act provides that it is a criminal offence to make any oral, printed and published statements or acts with “seditious tendency”.

Section 124(B) of the Penal Code states that “whoever, by any means, directly or indirectly, commits an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years.”

If Adam is found guilty of sedition, he could be imprisoned for up to three years, fined up to RM5,000, or both.

In the forum, Adam, along with other activists, had called for a street demonstration to protest alleged electoral fraud during the general election.

READ MORE HERE

IN DECEMBER 1997, an unusual outcry arose from the normally placid Senate or Dewan Negara when its members reacted to a dismissive label given to the Upper House by the then parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang – he had called it a "rubber-stamp to a rubber-stamp."

N Dharmendran’s body was covered with bruises and both his ears were stapled. A pathologist confirms he died from multiple blunt force trauma. The police have now reclassified the case as murder although they initially said Dharmendran died from breathing difficulties.

Charles Santiago, Member of Parliament, Klang 

It has always been one death too many. According to official statistics, there were 147 deaths in police custody last year. This shook the conscience of the country and deeply angered Malaysians. But nothing changed.
 
The recent death does not just add to the escalating number. The lurid details of the victim’s body is shocking as it points to a rising level of physical abuse and torture by police officers.
 
N Dharmendran’s body was covered with bruises and both his ears were stapled. A pathologist confirms he died from multiple blunt force trauma. The police have now reclassified the case as murder although they initially said Dharmendran died from breathing difficulties.
 
His lawyers have described it as the worst case of police brutality, since the death of Kugan Ananthan in 2009.
 
The deep wounds on Dharmendran’s body plus the staples with dried blood indicate he died from physical torture. The pathologist also found staples on both his legs on the ankle area.
 
Dharmendran’s death and the shocking wounds on his body clearly signal that the police have no qualms abusing their powers or indulging in torture despite the nationwide uproar. And this is more so as they are not accountable to anyone.
 
This has to stop.
 
The government must immediately set-up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission or IPCMC instead of shuffling it along.
 
The police continue to act with impunity as they enjoy absolute power. The inertia demonstrated by the government in implementing the Independent Commission has contributed to the rising number of deaths in the hands of the police.
 
As the year began, three people died under police custody. And aside from deaths in police custody, police also shoot dead several people, each month, on average. Police say they were either returning fire or the people were suspected criminals. But many are shot dead just for failing to stop at police roadblocks.
 
Peoples’ confidence in the police has been taking a steady dip over the past few years, largely triggered by a deep-seated suspicion of the force. Their concern holds water.
 
We have read about newly minted Home Minister, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, thumping his chest and vowing to act on anyone who dares to hold peaceful rallies or question the country’s electoral system.
 
I now ask that he bucks up and does the right thing as the minister in charge of Home Affairs by ordering and open inquiry into Dharmendran’s death and instructing the police chief to suspend all officers who were involved in interrogating the deceased until the investigation is completed.
 
Reclassifying the case as murder is not enough.
 
We have been disappointed many times with the outcome of the police investigating themselves. But as the new government has promised transparency and accountability, I urge the police not to play Houdini by trying to make crucial evidence disappear or attempt to cover up for their fellow colleagues.
 
BN’s shortcomings have become a huge liability to the country and its people for decades. Let’s hope that, for once, fairness and justice will prevail.
 
Or Dharmendran will become just another number, adding to the rising statistics.
 

At 1% Silver Nitrate concentration, the silver nitrate in the indelible ink is only good enough for use in an eyewash.

PY Wong 

Tindak Malaysia’s founder, PY Wong calls on the Election Commission chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof to be upfront about the indelible ink.

He was responding to Abdul Aziz’s recent comments that the EC would set up a team to probe the indelible ink.

“The issue of indelible ink,” he said, “is an important step towards restoring the people’s confidence in the Election Commission, tasked with conducting a clean and fair election. However, the rakyat have raised doubts over the issue of the indelible ink and told the EC on how to best implement it based on world standards.”

For example, Code ESI of Canada produces indelible ink with a concentration of silver nitrate in the range of 7% - 25% and under the UNDP Procurement Guide, “live” human trials by the public should be conducted to gain public acceptance. All this information is available online, for example, in Tindak Malaysia website (http://www.tindakmalaysia.com/showthread.php/5267-Indelible-ink-Suppliers) since July last year.

Wong pointed out that the finger also has to be dipped into the ink with a sponge and the bottle shaked to make sure that the silver nitrate is on top of the ink and stains the finger. “The ink has to stay on the finger for a minimum of 30 seconds to take effect,” he said.

While the EC Deputy Chairman, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar claimed ink can dry in 3 seconds, Wong claimed that experts say it is impossible. “We demand the EC reveal the solvent used in the indelible ink that can dry in 3 seconds.”

By failing to use the indelible ink in a manner that is prescribed by the ink manufacturers, despite the advices given through the Public Accountability Committee in 2011, Abdul Aziz runs into the risk of doing things ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy.’ “Abdul Aziz, as the EC Chairman, has to take responsibility for any foul play,” he said.

Abdul Aziz, he added, had on many occasions denied that the ink was easily removed; instead, he had claimed that the ink was able to last for seven days. He had also stated that the EC received a letter from the Ministry of Health stating that the silver nitrate content in the ink should not exceed one percent, because he claimed that silver nitrate could cause cancer or damage to the kidney.

A voter, who is trained as a chemist, had earlier disputed the claim that silver nitrate could be carcinogenic or damage to the kidney. “Silver nitrate is used in laboratory very often. In its 99.99% purity form, it can even be purchased online (www.silvernitrate.com), and the Material Safety Data Sheet of silver nitrate from reputable laboratories made no mention about the chemical being carcinogenic or able to cause damage to the kidney,” he said.

Wong wants to know who in the Ministry of Health had written to the EC, and on what basis was the false claim made or whether the EC chairman himself had lied to the public about the content of silver nitrate. “Abdul Aziz should publish the content of the letter,” he added. “He should also reveal the name of the manufacturers.”

Wong said that it is clear now that the silver nitrate content of the ink was a mere one percent. “At one percent silver nitrate content, I do not see the need to even shake the ink,” he said. “There is no need for the EC to set up a special team to probe the ink, especially when Abdul Aziz had made several statements that are blatant lies.”

If the EC wants a team to probe, it should include all stakeholders in the team. “This would have to also include representatives from both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional, as well as representatives from NGOs and the Bersih movement,” he said. 

We, the undersigned, are greatly saddened by the violence and bloodshed which have characterised Sunni-Shia relations over time. Thousands have been killed in feuds between the two, mostly in certain Muslim countries. It is tragic that many innocent women and children have been among the victims. 

sect or doctrine. The OIC could perhaps set up a task force that will examine the Sunni- Shia divide in depth and submit concrete proposals for the political and religious leaders of the ummah to act upon.

Read more at: http://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2013/05/sunni-syia-message-of-peace-by-tun-dr-m.html 

Kuo Yong Kooi 

The world hydropower congress is to be held in Sarawak soon. Sarawak's dam projects will flood 2,300 square kilometres of rainforest and displace around 30,000 to 50,000 indigenous people from their native customary rights land.

The first-past-the-post system will always be advantageous to BN, a forum was told last night.

(TMI) - Barisan Nasional’s (BN) rule will continue as long as Malaysia uses the first-past-the-post voting system despite redelineation, academic Amer Saifude told a forum here last night.

The Universiti Malaya Centre for Democracy and Elections (Umcedel) deputy director said the expected redelineation of constituencies by year-end would benefit Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s coalition and even better its Election 2013 performance.

“As long as we practice this first-past-the-post system, it will be advantageous to BN,” Amer told a forum on the 13th general election outcome.

“History has shown that every time there is a re-demarcation process, BN would perform better,” he added.

Despite winning only 47 per cent of the popular vote in the May 5 elections, Najib saw his coalition keeping the government with a simple majority, bagging 133 federal seats against Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) 89.

Amer pointed out that Najib was the first BN chief to score a weaker mandate in his maiden bid for power, a reflection of the faulty fundamentals of the first-past-the-post system.

The Umcedel deputy director said the system’s glaring defect could be seen in how BN, bar a few exceptions, had never won the popular vote by more than 60 per cent but yet managed to win a huge number of the seats it contested in.

He also highlighted how several constituencies nationwide had been gerrymandered without reasonable justifications.

“Sometimes you see the re-demarcation is illogical and unfair… the redelineation process is often made to serve the interest of certain parties,” he said.

The panel of speakers at last night’s forum. — Picture by Saw Siow FengAmer, however, noted that any move to redraw the constituencies must first have the consent of at least half of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.

PR federal lawmakers have signalled their intention to make full use of their increased parliamentary numbers to ensure constituencies are fairly redrawn when the Election Commission (EC) kicks off the redelineation exercise this year-end.

PKR’s Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli has said that if the exercise involves an increase in seat numbers, a two-thirds majority vote is needed to approve the changes before they are passed by the lower House.

The allegedly unfair dispersal of voters in constituencies has been used as a major argument point by PR lawmakers to back accusations that gerrymandering in favour of BN has helped the ruling pact stay in power.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysias-election-system-drawn-to-sustain-bns-dominance-don-tells-forum/ 

For the ruling politicians to describe these voters as being easily "duped" and "taken for a ride" – or basically plain stupid – for exercising their democratic rights is not going to earn them any respect.

Azam Aris, fz.com 

Read more at: http://www.fz.com/content/ignore-scaremongering-and-lets-move-forward#ixzz2U5AoxzKW 

Sorry for the BAD NEWS but here's some reality...

"THIS" is our NEW "HOME MINISTER" who is a GANGSTER and BEATS-UP people by himself!

Curi-curi Wang Malaysia

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=635413693154081&set=a.536740686354716.136640.535906203104831&type=1&theater 

(The Star) - Two journalists were among those caught up in a confrontation when a group of unidentified men disrupted a candlelight vigil in Esplanade to show solidarity for student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim (picture).

The vigil which started at about 8pm was attended by more than 100 non-governmental organisation (NGO) members, students, social activists and several state Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

Some 45 minutes into the vigil, a group of unidentified men arrived and one of them disrupted the vigil by using a loud hailer to claim that the gathering is illegal.

The group of men were also heard chanting “Satu Malaysia (1Malaysia)” repeatedly and saying that Adam Adli, who was arrested on Saturday (may 18)for offences under the Sedition Act, was rightfully detained.

About 15 minutes later, the participants of the vigil dispersed.

It was believed that one of the vigil organisers who were leaving, had uttered the word “samseng” (gangster) towards the group of unidentified men.

One of the men from the group then allegedly tried to run over the vigil organiser Sean Ho with a motorcycle.

Oriental Daily's reporter Ooi Chun Nam and Sin Chew Daily reporter Cheah Chin Liang tried to help Ho and were caught in the scuffle.

Ooi's glasses were broken and he suffered a cut on his arm in the scuffle.

There was about 15 minutes of intense shoving between the organisers and the group of unidentified men before everyone dispersed when police intervened.

Ooi and Cheah said they will be lodging a police report.

The event, which was held at 8.30pm in front of a fast food restaurant opposite Universiti Sains Malaysia's Sungai Dua entrance, saw about 30 students and social activists taking part.

(The Star) - At least 18 people were arrested after failing to disperse following a candlelight vigil outside the Jinjang police station in support for Adam Adli Abd Halim, 24 (picture).

At least 1,000 had gathered outside the police station since 8pm.

Roads leading to the police station were barricaded since evening as police stood watch to keep the protesters away from the entrance of the police station.

It is learnt when Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo was giving his speech to the crowd at 9.45pm, he was told by a senior police officer that the crowd was given 10minutes to disperse.

However when the crowd failed to leave in the stipulated time, the police moved in towards the crowd and began arrests.

It is learnt among the 18 arrested were four women.

This was the fifth night that crowds of protesters held candlelight vigils outside the police station in support of the release of the activist.

(Sinar Harian) - Seramai 18 aktivis termasuk empat wanita yang sedang bersoladariti bagi menuntut pembebasan aktivis mahasiswa, Adam Adli Abdul Halim (gambar) telah ditahan ketika kira-kira jam 9.45 malam tadi.

Pengerusi Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM), Muhammad Safwan Anang berkata, mereka yang ditahan termasuk pegawai khas kepada Ahli Parlimen Subang, R Sivarasa iaitu Peter Chong dan semua yang ditahan telah dihantar ke Balai Polis Jalan Travers.

Zurairi AR, TMI

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won in 59 mixed-race federal seats, almost double its 30 wins in Chinese-majority seats in Malaysia’s Election 2013, according to a new research, debunking Barisan Nasional’s (BN) claim of a “Chinese Tsunami” that cost it more losses.

Independent online research house PoliTweet.org also said the ruling BN gained most of its votes from rural federal seats while PR increased its support from urban and semi-urban areas in the South-east Asian nation chasing developed nation status by 2020.

“BN represents the rural majority and can retain power with rural and semi-urban seats alone. This election highlighted PR’s weak areas which are rural seats, Bumiputra Sabah majority and Bumiputra Sarawak majority seats,” said the report, which can be found on PoliTweet’s official blog.

According to PoliTweet, 108 out of the 133 seats (81 per cent) won by BN came from rural seats, while PR won urban or semi-urban seats with almost the same percentage (72 out of 89 seats).

PR won all 16 urban Chinese-majority seats, 12 urban Malay seats and12 urban mixed seats, giving them 40 out of the total 43 urban seats (93 per cent). In comparison, BN only won four urban Malay and one urban mixed seats.

Out of the 54 semi-urban seats, PR won 34 of them (63 per cent). BN won the rest of the semi-urban seats, with Malay semi-urban areas making the bulk of it at 12 seats.

PoliTweet also pointed out that PR had won more urban and semi-urban Malay-majority seats than BN, effectively making Malay-majority seats no longer a guaranteed win for BN.

For its research, PoliTweet categorised seats into three categories which do not follow Election Commission’s (EC) own classification, but rather were based on Google maps satellite imagery and EC’s maps.

PoliTweet defined “rural” areas as those containing villages, small towns or farmlands, and tend to be physically large with a low population. “Urban” areas are cities covered by some form of urban development. “Semi-urban” areas are a mix of the two.

Under the three categories, PoliTweet grouped 125 seats as rural, 54 as semi-urban, and 43 as urban.

Urban areas made up slightly more than half of Chinese-majority seats, but Malay-majority seats are still predominantly rural. There are however more Malay-majority semi-urban seats than Chinese-majority and mixed areas added together.

The research house also highlighted the low probability of BN regaining urban seats, as BN obtained only 47 per cent of popular vote in semi-urban seats and 36 per cent in urban seats, compared to the 57 per cent it had amassed in rural seats.

The last Population and Housing Census in 2010 showed that urban population in Malaysia has been on a steady increase since the 1960’s, with 71 per cent of Malaysians living in urban areas. The World Bank put the number slightly higher at 72 per cent.

READ MORE HERE

(ST) - Malaysia's Election Commission on Wednesday gazetted the official results of the 13th General Election, the official Bernama news agency reported, citing the commission's chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof.

Candidates and political parties who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the May 5 polls have 21 days to file objections or petitions, starting from Thursday, said Mr Abdul Aziz in a statement.

He added that petitions can be filed at high courts in the respective states.

The student activist was arrested on May 18 for remarks he allegedly made during a post-GE13 forum on May 13.

(FMT) - Student activist Adam Adli, whose five-day remand expires tomorrow, will be charged with sedition at the Jalan Duta Sessions Court tomorrow morning.

Lawyer Latheefa Koya today said the police had officially informed about the matter today.

“The police had informed that Adam will be charged under the Sedition Act tomorrow morning at Jalan Duta. Lawyer N Surendran will be representing Adam,” she said in a tweet.

Adam, 24, was arrested in Kuala Lumpur on May 18 for remarks he allegedly made during a post-GE13 forum on May 13.

In the forum, Adam, along with other activists, had called for a street demonstration to protest alleged electoral fraud during the general election.

He is being detained at the Jinjang police detention facility and is being investigated under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act and Section 124(B) of the Penal Code.

Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act provides that it is a criminal offence to make any oral, printed and published statements or acts with “seditious tendency”.

If Adam is found guilty of sedition, he could be imprisoned for up to three years, fined up to RM5,000, or both.

Earlier today, Amnesty International called for the immediate and unconditional release of Adam. The rights watchdog said Adan was arrested solely for peacefully expressing his views.

It also said it was told by credible sources that Adam “was subjected to interrogation from 10am until 6pm on May 19 and May 20, with the interrogators repeatedly asking the same questions”.

Adam has refused to answer the questions in the latter part of the interrogation, telling the police to just watch a video of his speech during the public meeting instead, said Amnesty.

Amnesty also urged the Malaysian government to stop using the Sedition Act and provisions in the Penal Code to stifle people’s right to free expression.

READ MORE HERE

The absence of Chinese representatives in the Cabinet should it happen will not pose major problems to the government or Chinese community, an academician said today. Selangor DAP chief Teresa Kok said her party is standing firm with its decision to seek four seats in the Selangor state executive council, and hinted that all four nominees are Chinese, Sin Chew Daily reported.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

No Chinese in government no problem

(FMT, 13 May 2013) - The absence of Chinese representatives in the Cabinet should it happen will not pose major problems to the government or Chinese community, an academician said today.

Dr Ser Wue Hiong, senior lecturer at the Foreign Languages Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, said any concerns if such scenario takes place would only be for a short-term period and could be overcome.

Following the just concluded 13th general election (GE13), which saw MCA and Gerakan almost wiped out, both parties had announced that they would not take up any cabinet posts “out of respect to the voters decision”.

The decision prompted debates from all quarters.

While some feared that the community could be neglected if they had no voice in the cabinet, many including Ser think otherwise.

Ser told Bernama that the fact that Chinese voted most MCA and Gerakan candidates out in the general election proved that the issue of Chinese representation in the Cabinet was also not a concern to them.

He said politics in this new era should also break away from tradition and more importantly, elected politicians should be representing all races and not a particular race or political party he or she represented.

He added that a politician who only championed for one race would also not bode well for the multiracial fabric of this country.

“I think this is the reality of today’s Malaysia. We need to move away from tradition,” he said.

Ser, who specialises in Malaysian Chinese studies, opined that the only sector that may be impacted was Chinese education, but he was quick to argue that the problem could just be temporary.

He was also confident that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak would not sideline development of the Chinese community including on education post-GE13.

“I believe that he will make adjustments and look into new approaches to address the needs and interests of Chinese education.

“One of the ways I can see is that he will appoint a Chinese educationist to sit in his government to take care of Chinese education,” he added.

Prior to this, the portfolio for Chinese education was held by a deputy minister from the community.

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

Mary Yap is unfamiliar with the Chinese language

(Sin Chew, 22 May 2013) - Just as the entire Chinese community was still wrapped in bewilderment over the prospects of Chinese education in this country, the appointment of Mary Yap, who is not well versed with the Chinese language, as deputy education and higher learning minister undoubtedly added some new uncertainties.

One of the major changes in the new Cabinet has been the merger of the education and the higher education ministries into the ministry of education and higher learning. Prior to the merger, there were one minister and two deputy ministers for each of the two ministries. The merged entity now has minister I, minister II and two deputies, at a total of four, two short of its predecessors.

In other words, the work which used to be accomplished by six people will have to be borne by only four now.

MCA used to have one deputy minister each in the two ministries prior to the merger, namely Hou Kok Chung and Wee Ka Siong. Since the party had decided not to join the new Cabinet, a representative from PBS was picked to fill the vacancy.

Different from either Hou or Wee, Mary Yap is unfamiliar with the Chinese language. To be exact, none of the four ministers and deputy ministers in the new entity knows the language.

As a result, the Chinese community is forgivably apprehensive whether issues pertaining to Chinese education would fall into capable hands in the days to come.

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

DAP demands four Chinese EXCO Members

(fz.com, 22 May 2013) - Selangor DAP chief Teresa Kok said her party is standing firm with its decision to seek four seats in the Selangor state executive council, and hinted that all four nominees are Chinese, Sin Chew Daily reported.

The daily quoted her as saying that she has submitted the four names to Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, and that the party has no alternative plan at the moment.

“If there is any change, we need to sit down and discuss with (the other two parties in Pakatan Rakyat). For now DAP maintains its stand; we have to wait until the MB returns from Germany on Friday for further discussions,” she was quoted as saying.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng had earlier announced that Sungai Pinang state assembly member Datuk Teng Chang Khim and Seri Kembangan state assembly member Ean Yong Hian Wah will be recommended for the Selangor exco posts.

The other DAP assembly members in the state are Ng Suee Lim (Sekinchan), Lau Weng San (Kampung Tunku), Hannah Yeoh (Subang Jaya), Lee Kee Hiong (Kuala Kubu Baru) and V. Ganabatirau (Kota Alam Shah).

The Chinese press had speculated that Ganabatirau stands a good chance of being chosen, but  Sin Chew today said that Kok has given an indication that all four DAP nominees are Chinese.

If DAP secures four exco posts, then PKR’s Bukit Lanjan state assembly member Elizabeth Wong will be dropped from the line-up.