Can you see that long before the 2008/2013 Tsunami, the Malays and Chinese of Kuala Terengganu already set aside their racial/political differences and supported the candidate rather than the race or party? The Chinese supported and worked/campaigned for an Islamist from PAS while the Malays supported and worked/campaigned for a ‘kafir’ from MCA.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I spoke (by telephone) to Tan Sri Wong Foon Meng a couple of months ago after more than 20 years of no contact. So, today, is my story about my good friend Wong who I was so pleased to have been able to contact after more than 20 years of ‘absence’.

From late-1978 to 1990, Wong was with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment in Kuala Terengganu. Now he is the Chairman of Bina Puri Holdings Berhad, a very successful construction and property development company that used to be aligned to Anwar Ibrahim and was regarded as one of Anwar’s many crony-companies in the days when Anwar was the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The ‘problem’ with Wong, if I may be permitted to call it that, is that his friends were mostly (if not all) Malays. And if you sat with your back to him when he spoke, you would swear on your mother’s grave that it was a Malay person who was talking.

Wong can speak fluent Bahasa Malaysia and he would use phrases like ‘ya-Allah’, ‘insha-Allah’, alhamdu-lillah’, ‘masha-Allah’, and so on. And no one, the Terengganu Religious Department included, would get upset that a ‘kafir’ was using the Allah word. That is only a problem in ‘developed’ places like Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. In ‘backward’ places like Terengganu this is not an issue at all.

Terengganu has eight parliamentary seats and 32 state assembly seats. Only one of them, the Bandar Kuala Terengganu state seat, is a MCA seat. The rest are all Umno seats.

Tok Teng Sai

Prior to 1990, Tok Teng Sai, the MCA chief for Terengganu, was the wakil rakyat (State Assemblyman) for Kuala Terengganu. After a long and illustrious career, MCA decided to replace Tok with Wong. MCA had always won that seat so it should not be a problem for Wong to win as well since he is a more likeable person and certainly more a ‘rakyat’s man’ compared to Tok.

Or so they thought.

In the 1990 general election, Wong lost to PAS’s Harun Jusoh who won 4,628 votes against Wong’s 3,958. And that was a real shocker for many of us.

Both candidates were my friends (still are). In fact, Harun was my neighbour and I was very close to him, as I was to Wong.

Now you know why sometimes I need to be ‘neutral’? This is not about not having a stand. What do you do when two very close friends contest on opposite sides of the political fence? I lived next door to Harun (in fact, Harun let me stay in his house almost rent-free for about a year when my house was being rebuilt) while I had breakfast with Wong almost every morning in Hamid Buyung’s coffee shop. 

Anyway, Harun won, surprisingly, while Wong lost. But what was more interesting is that the Chinese in Kampung Cina boycotted Wong and would slam the door in his face when he did his door-to-door campaign. And they did this for two reasons.

Wong Foon Meng

One was that Tok was still very popular amongst the Chinese compared to Wong (Tok had done a lot for the Kuala Terengganu Chinese while Wong had done nothing -- mainly because Tok was the wakil rakyat and not Wong). Secondly, Wong was more ‘Malay’ than Tok (Wong spoke Malay like a Muslim and all his friends were Malays).

Now, during the election campaign, the Chinese from Kuala Terengganu helped put up Harun’s flags, banners and posters. It was hilarious seeing the Chinese climbing the trees and lampposts to put up the PAS flags, banners and posters.

The Malays did the same for Wong -- they climbed the trees and lampposts to put up the Barisan Nasional flags, banners and posters.

Can you see that long before the 2008/2013 Tsunami, the Malays and Chinese of Kuala Terengganu already set aside their racial/political differences and supported the candidate rather than the race or party? The Chinese supported and worked/campaigned for an Islamist from PAS while the Malays supported and worked/campaigned for a ‘kafir’ from MCA.

Nevertheless, with the Chinese ‘united’ against Wong and the Malays split between Umno and PAS, Harun won and Wong lost. If the Malays had been ‘united’ as well (against PAS), then Wong would have won because there are more Malay than Chinese voters in Kuala Terengganu.

In 1995, though, the Chinese ‘forgave’ Wong and this time around he won the election against PAS’s Mustafa Hassan with 6,970 votes against PAS’s 5,562 votes.

In 1999, however, Wong, again, lost -- but with a very narrow 6,245 votes against Md Azmi Lop Yusof of PAS’s 6,756 votes. Azmi Lop was another very good friend of mine. So, yet again, I had two very close friends contesting against each other on opposite sides of the political fence.

By the way, Azmi Lop was ex-Umno who had joined PAS so I was very close to him when he was still in Umno and not just since he joined PAS. And Wong and Azmi, of course, knew each other very well -- hence this was a contest between friends and not between enemies.

So you see, when you live in a town like Kuala Terengganu, it does not matter what race you are and what your political inclinations are as well. We are all friends, very good friends, and we do not hate each other just because we happen to be of different races or of different political loyalties.

In fact, if you can remember, when at different times in our history we have seen race riots in Singapore, Johor, Penang, Selangor/Kuala Lumpur and so on (the biggest but not the only being May 13, 1969, of course) Terengganu and Kelantan were peaceful. There were no curfews there and people went about their business as usual without a single incident. 

So don’t be too fast in condemning the ‘backward’ and ‘stupid’ Malays of the Malay heartland. They are more civilised than you give them credit for. Ask any Chinese or Indian who has lived or worked there and they can testify to this.

Oh, and regarding Harun Jusoh, not too long ago his wife died and recently two of his sons and a grandson drowned. Sigh...I have never known a friend who has had to bear so many tragedies in such a short space of time.

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

丹斯利王弗明

你看到了嗎？其實早在2008/2013海嘯很多年以前，瓜拉登嘉樓的華人和馬來人就學會了撇開他們的種族/政治包袱來選人而不選黨/種族。華人在那時候就會支持和為伊黨的回教主義分子競選而馬來人則會為馬華的‘異教徒’效力。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

我在兩三個月前和已有20多年沒聯絡的丹斯利王弗明通了電話。我今天的故事主提就是我這位好友丹斯利王，而我真的很高興還能在20年以後跟他重逢。

1978年到1990年間，來自瓜拉登嘉樓的丹斯利是當時的科技與環境部長，他現在已在Bina Puri Holdings Berhad 這一家很成功的建築和房產管理公司儅公司主席了。這閒公司在安華還是副首相和財政部長時常被認爲是安華的‘裙帶公司’。

丹斯利的‘問題’（如果你容許我用這個形容詞的話）是他所有朋友幾乎都是馬來人。如果你背對著他聼他講話的話，你肯定會以爲他是個馬來人。

丹斯利的馬來文流利得很，而且他會用一些專有名詞如 ‘ya-Allah’, ‘insha-Allah’, alhamdu-lillah’, ‘masha-Allah’等等。從來沒有人，包括登州的宗教侷，會對一個‘異教徒’引用阿拉的詞句而感到生氣。這是一個在‘發展地區’如吉隆坡和雪蘭莪才有的問題，在一個‘落後封建’的地區如登嘉樓這根本就不是件事兒。

登嘉樓總共有8個囯席和32個州希，而當中只有瓜拉登嘉樓城這一個州席是馬華選區，其他的都是巫統的。

祝聖才先生

1990年以前，登州馬華主席祝聖才是瓜拉登嘉樓的州議員。多年以來他在那給出了顯著的成績，然而馬華過後決定讓丹斯利王上位替代祝聖才。馬華認爲他們都已經在那個席位贏了這麽多年了，所以讓王上位絕對是沒有問題的，再者，王相比起杜來講是個更容易親近且‘親民’的候選人。

他們當時的確是把事情編得很理想化。

1990年大選，丹斯利以3958票數給了伊斯蘭黨Harun Jusoh的4,628票，這令我們很多人都跌破了眼睛。 這兩個候選人都是我的朋友（現在還是），事實上，Harun他還是我的鄰居呢，我和他的交情不下於我和丹斯利的交情。

你現在明白了爲何有時我必須保持‘中立’了嗎？這不是有沒有立場的問題，儅你兩個好友因政治背景不同而必須對著幹時，請問你會怎麽做？我就住在Harun隔壁（事實上，Harun曾在我裝修房子時幾乎不收費地讓我在他傢住了將近一年），而我幾乎每天早上都會和丹斯利王在Hamid Buyung咖啡店吃早茶。

無論如何，Harun贏了而丹斯利輸了。但有趣的是，當時華人新村的華人都在杯葛著丹斯利王，他們在他上門拜票時都會狠狠地關上大門，而這背後有兩大理由。

丹斯利王弗明

理由一是當時杜先生還是比丹斯利王更受歡迎（杜為選區的華人作了很多貢獻而王則沒有----這可能是因爲杜是人民代議士而王不是）。而理由二則是王比杜還要‘馬來人’（王講起馬來話來跟真正的馬來人沒什麽兩樣，而且他的朋友多為馬來人）。

大選期間，華人們都幫Harun挂上他的黨旗，布條和海報。看到華人爬上樹木或街燈為伊黨結上黨旗，布條和海報其實是個很搞笑的場景。而馬來人也為丹斯利王做同樣的事情----他們爬上樹木或街燈為囯陣綁上黨旗，布條和海報等。

你看到了嗎？其實早在2008/2013海嘯很多年以前，瓜拉登嘉樓的華人和馬來人就學會撇開他們的種族/政治包袱來選人不選黨/種族。華人在那時候就會支持和為伊黨的回教主意分子競選而馬來人則為馬華的‘異教徒’效力。

無論如何，就是因爲當時華人都‘團結’起來對抗丹斯利王但馬來人則各自地支持伊黨和巫統，所以造就了丹斯利的敗選。如果當時馬來人能‘團結’起來（對抗伊黨）的話，那丹斯利老早就贏了，因爲瓜拉登嘉樓的馬來選民多過華裔選民。

1995大選華裔選民‘原諒’了丹斯利王，他因而以6970票打敗了伊黨的Mustafa Hassan；Mustafa Hassan 當時的票數為5562票。但他在1999年又輸了，伊黨派出的Md Azmi Lop Yusof以6756票險勝丹斯利的6235票。Azmi Lop也是我很好的一個朋友，所以我再次見證了我的兩個好友因政治立場不同而相互競爭。

對了，Azmi Lop是前巫統黨員，但我是在他還是巫統人的時候已經跟他很好了，而不是他加入了伊黨以後才開始跟他交朋友的。丹斯利王和Azmi Lop也是相互認識的好朋友，所以他們之間的是友誼的競爭而不是敵對的競爭。

所以你看，儅你生活在像瓜拉登嘉樓這種小城鎮時你並不會太看重你的種族或政治立場是什麽。我們所有人都是朋友，都是很好的朋友，我們不會因爲膚色和政治忠誠的不同而彼此憎恨對方。

事實上，如果你還記得的話，儅馬來西亞各個不同地區如柔佛，檳城，雪蘭莪/吉隆坡在不同的歷史時刻發生種族暴動時（最嚴重的當然數513事件）登嘉樓和吉蘭丹都是很平靜的。那邊當時根本就沒有所謂的戒嚴，人們都猶如往常一般地過他們的日子，也從沒聽説發生過什麽不愉快的事情。

所以別一下子就為生活在馬來中心地帶的馬來人灌上‘落後封建’和‘笨蛋’等形容詞，他們比你想象中文明多了。你可以去問問曾生活在那兒的華人和印度人，他們都是可以站出來做供的。

對了，談到Harun Jusoh，在不久前他的愛妻不幸逝世而他的兩個兒子和一個孫子也不幸溺水死亡。嗐。。。。我身邊的朋友從來沒有一個是像他一樣，必須在這麽短的時間内面對如此多的打擊的。

You can see the Malay swing in 1946. Then they swung back and took another swing in 1959. Then they swung back and took another swing in 1969. Then they swung back and took another swing in 1990. Then there was another swing in 1999 after swinging back in 1995 (and then swung back in 2004). In 2008, we saw another swing and a slight swing back this time around in 2013. Will the Malay ‘pattern’ prove true and will we see yet a bigger and maybe a ‘terminal swing’ (for Barisan Nasional, that is) in the 2018 general election?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Basically, Malays live by the principles of rukun. And the fact that Malays, by definition as well as according to the law, also means Muslims, then the Islamic rukun plays a big part in shaping the mind of the Malay.

We must understand that Malay kids are sent for Qur’an recital classes and religious lectures (kitab/scripture classes) before they learn how to read and write (at least the Malays in the rural heartland are). Hence the ustaz shapes the mind of the Malay before the teacher in primary school does.

Hence, also, don’t be too fast in labelling Malays as stupid, as some of you love doing. Any society that has been subjected to indoctrination would turn out the same. It is not about whether the Malay mind is stupid or not. It is about how the Malay mind has been shaped.

Remember this: there is no such thing as a bad student -- or someone who is born ignorant or stupid. It is only because there are bad teachers that we have bad students. Hence, how the student turns out depends a lot on the teacher.

The first rukun the Malays have to follow is Rukun Islam. According to the ‘Jakarta Charter’, Rukun Islam is ‘the five pillars of Islam’, also called ‘Sharia Islam’ (or Shariat Islam in Bahasa Malaysia). This has nothing to do with the Islamic laws, also called Sharia laws.

The five pillars of Islam are:

1. Belief (that there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad is God's messenger).

2. Worship (the five daily prayers).

3. Giving charity (paying Zakat and Fitrah).

4. Fasting (during the month of Ramadan).

5. And embarking on the pilgrimage to Mecca (the hajj, to be done at least once in a lifetime).

Then we have ‘Rukun Iman’ or the commandments. Iman generally means faith.

The six pillars of faith are:

1. To believe in Allah, in His Existence, His right to be worshipped, His Oneness, His Attributes, and His right to legislate.

2. To believe in God's angels.

3. To believe in the Holy Qur'an and the other Holy Books, (the Torah, the Gospel of Jesus, and the Psalms of David).

4. To believe in God's Messengers (of whom Adam was the first and Prophet Muhammad the last).

5. To believe in the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment.

6. To believe in Divine Preordainment.

The above two rukun makes a person a Muslim and, by extension, a Malay. A Malay is not a Malay unless he or she subscribes to the above.

Finally, we have the Rukun Negara. And as follows is what the Rukun Negara is all about, basically the doctrine of what makes you a Malaysian.

A rejection of even one part of the Rukun Islam or Rukun Imam causes you to cease to be a Muslim. And a rejection of even one part of the Rukun Negara causes you to cease to be a loyal Malaysian. You may still be a Malaysian citizen by operation of law but you will be regarded as a treacherous or treasonous Malaysian and therefore can be tried for treason as far as the government is concerned.

And the Malay-in-the-street would not deviate too far from the thinking of the government regarding what makes a Malaysian a treacherous or treasonous Malaysian.

Remember the Al Maunah episode 13 years ago back in 2000 (photograph above)? These people were arrested and charged for the crime of waging war against the King and were subsequently found guilty of treason and then executed by hanging.

This may sound ridiculous (it did to me at least), but when the Rukun Negara says ‘loyalty to King and Country’, waging war against the King, therefore, would be considered treason and punishable by death.

Those hung (and jailed for life) were all Malays. But did the Malays express outrage? They did not, and neither did the non-Malays for that matter. Malaysians never questioned this charge and never protested the hanging of those alleged to have committed treason by waging war against the King.

Now study the rest of the Rukun Negara. When the government classifies someone as a traitor to the country, they are basically referring to the Rukun Negara as this yardstick. Of course this is mainly a political ploy. I do not need to tell you that nor do you need to tell me. However, to the ‘conditioned’ mind of the Malay, this may not sound too silly or preposterous. To demonstrate disloyalty to the King (Agong or the State Rulers) constitutes treason. And the same would apply if you dispute the Constitution, God, the rule of law, and so on.

We need to slowly and carefully un-indoctrinate the Malay mind. We need, as they would say in the IT world, to reformat the hard disk and reinstall the updated version of the operation system because the old operation system has been corrupted or is just outdated like hell.

But you do not do this by taking a hammer and by beating the computer. That will just damage the hardware and no amount of new software can make the machine run better.

Two weeks after I started Malaysia Today, I told BBC during the interview they did with me outside the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya on 2nd September 2004 that it was a long six-year battle to free Anwar Ibrahim from jail (referring to the Free Anwar Campaign, of course). Now that Anwar is free, I need to go into phase two of my job, the Free Malaysia Campaign.

BBC asked me what I meant by the Free Malaysia Campaign and I replied, “We need to free the minds of Malaysians. The minds of Malaysians, in particular the Malays, have been shackled due to indoctrination. We need to recondition the thinking of Malaysians and drag them screaming and kicking into the modern world.”

And you may have noticed that in the beginning (in the early stages of Malaysia Today) I targeted the Malays. I insulted them. I whacked them. I called them Melayu bodoh (stupid Malays). I criticised the Muslims and the ulama’ (religious scholars). And that, of course, resulted in me getting detained for the ‘crime’ of ‘insulting Islam’.

I admit that I lost many Malay-Muslim friends as well as Malaysia Today lost many Malay-Muslim readers. However, against that backdrop, many Malays also started thinking and started rationalising. Some Malays began opening their minds.

Then I eased up on the Malays. The seed had been planted. We must now allow the seed to germinate. In time the Malays would be able to see that just because DAP opposes the Islamic State or DAP leaders such as Karpal Singh says ‘over my dead body’ (in reference to the Islamic State), this does not make them the enemy of Islam.

Malays must begin to accept ‘modern’ values such as freedom of speech and allow others to disagree with Islam if they so wish based on the principle of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of association, etc. Malays must accept the doctrine of agreeing to disagree and live and let live.

In the past, that would have been a resounding “no way!” Today, the Malays can accept this. For all intents and purposes, the Malays have come a long way. The Malays can now allow you to disagree with Islam or reject the Islamic State and still call you friend (when before they would have called you enemy).

I have always been telling you: leave the Malays to the Malays. Let us Malays slowly coax the Malays out of the old feudal era into a new era of tolerance and moderation. It is not easy for the Malays. This is a paradigm shift in doctrine. It took the Chinese 5,000 years to reach where the Chinese are today. It took the Europeans 2,000 years.

How long are you prepared to give the Malays? Just 56 years?

I know many of you are puzzled as to what I am trying to do, my Malay ex-friends in particular. However, as they say, there is a method in the madness however mad it may appear to you.

Do you think March 2008 could have happened had the Malays remained the Malays of 1957? More importantly, do you think 5th May 2013 could have happened had not the seed of change been planted in 1946, 1959, 1969, 1990, 1999, and finally in March 2008?

Some societies took thousands of years to change. Some took just a few hundred years. Nevertheless, whatever time it took, it still took time to see that change. And someone must always be the one to bell the cat.

We must also remember one thing. The non-Malays suddenly swung only in 2008. Before that the non-Malays were living in ignorance as well. The Malays have been swinging back and forth since before Merdeka. The Malays swung this way and then that way from time to time. However, each swing the Malays make, it is always larger than the last time.

You can see the Malay swing in 1946. Then they swung back and took another swing in 1959. Then they swung back and took another swing in 1969. Then they swung back and took another swing in 1990. Then there was another swing in 1999 after swinging back in 1995 (and then swung back in 2004). In 2008, we saw another swing and a slight swing back this time around in 2013. Will the Malay ‘pattern’ prove true and will we see yet a bigger and maybe a ‘terminal swing’ (for Barisan Nasional, that is) in the 2018 general election?

That is all up to you. If you know how to handle the Malays you are going to see that. But how do you handle the Malays? I think I have written about that so many times in the past I really do not need to repeat myself.

So you see, Malaysia Today is not just about exposing corruption. It is also not about kicking out Umno. And for sure it is not about campaigning for Pakatan Rakyat or helping Anwar Ibrahim to become Prime Minister. Malaysia Today has a much bigger fish to fry. This goes beyond just the general elections, which is merely a means to an end.

And if by this point of my article you are very confused, then this just means you are not the type of reader that I want and you are welcome to leave us and never come back.

Good-bye!

So, yes, we too in the UK were not happy with the system. And we ‘sold out’ the ruling party and ‘toppled’ the government because we were not happy with the system. But no one told us if we are not happy with the system then we can get out of Britain and go live in another country. If they had done that they would have been crucified. They would have been hung upside down from the nearest tree. We would have nailed their balls (or tits) to the wall.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The first thing that Home Minister Zahid Hamidi did on taking office was to tell Malaysians who are not happy with Malaysia’s political system to leave Malaysia and go live in another country.

If Zahid were a British Cabinet Minister, by now he would have been asked to resign. In the UK you are forced to resign for an even lesser offense than that. And he would have had to resign, no two ways about it. 

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak should, at the very least, demand that Zahid publicly apologise to Malaysians. Forcing him to resign is the correct thing to do but at the very least he must be made to apologise.

Is Najib prepared to demonstrate to Malaysians that he is really serious about his transformation program by doing this? The ball is now in Najib’s court. I would suggest Najib walk the talk and do something about this rather than pretend that this never happened.

Look at the two graphics below. In 2010, 23% of us (yes, me included) voted for Liberal Democratic, an opposition party, because we wanted political reforms. However, because of gerrymandering, our 23% of the popular vote gave us only 57 of the 650 seats.

Now do you know why we wanted political reforms? Even though we won 23% of the popular votes we won only 8.8% of the seats. What a bloody unfair system!

The only silver lining in that dark cloud is that the ruling party, Labour, as well as the main opposition party, Conservative, both did not win enough seats to form the government either.

They needed at least 326 seats to form the government. Labour won only 258 seats while its challenger, Conservative, won 307 seats -- both less than the required 326 seats to form the government.

The insult to this injury is that Labour won 39.7% of the seats with 29% of the popular votes while Conservative won 47.2% of the seats with 36.1% of the popular votes. And this also meant that with just 65% of the popular votes (less than two-thirds majority) they could have won 87% of the seats in Parliament (way above two-thirds majority).

What the hell! Bloody unfair, is it not?

Well, we from Lib Dem, the 23% or almost a quarter of the voters, were bloody pissed about this. How can we win 23% of the votes and yet win only 8.8% of the seats while Labour (the government) and Conservative (the main challenger) win only 29% and 36% of the votes respectively and yet win 40% and 47% of the seats each respectively?

Before the election we already knew that we were going to see a hung parliament. We knew that no party was going to win enough seats to form the government. In fact, probably 90% of the British citizens knew this and the media was talking about it every day. Hence no one thought that anyone was going to be able to form the government.

Before the election, Lib Dem said that in the event of a hung parliament it would choose Labour as its partner in a coalition government. But that did not happen for two reasons.

One was that Labour’s 258 seats added to Lib Dem’s 57 would give the coalition only 315 seats, still short of the 326 it required to form the government. Hence Labour plus Lib Dem cannot form the government either. Only by teaming up with Conservative, where the total would now come to 364, could it happen.

Secondly, Labour promised us electoral reforms, which was not good enough, while Conservative promised us political reforms (which would include electoral reforms), which is a better deal.

Hence for two reasons Lib Dem ‘sold out’ Labour, as Malaysians would normally say, and went to bed with Conservative.

Hence also, the Labour government was ‘toppled’, as Umno loves to say, and 59% of the voters controlling 56% of the seats formed the new coalition government.

So, yes, we too in the UK were not happy with the system. And we ‘sold out’ the ruling party and ‘toppled’ the government because we were not happy with the system. But no one told us if we are not happy with the system then we can get out of Britain and go live in another country. If they had done that they would have been crucified. They would have been hung upside down from the nearest tree. We would have nailed their balls (or tits) to the wall.

And what was it that Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said? Ah, yes, Malaysia is a country with a first world infrastructure but a third world mentality. How true!

Zahid Hamidi, apologise! Najib Razak, sack him if he refuses to apologise.

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

再希·哈密迪有必要辭職

是的，我們這些在英國的也對這個系統深感不滿，我們還因此‘出賣’了執政黨和‘推翻’了政府。但從來沒有人敢告訴我們如果對系統感到不滿的話我們大可離開英國到其他國家居住。如果他們膽敢那麽做那他們會被活生生地給宰了。他們將會被倒吊在隨便一棵樹上面，我們也可以把他們的LP（或者是乳頭）切下來釘在牆壁上。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

内政部部長再希·哈密迪Zahib Hamidi上位后所作的第一件事就是叫那些不滿馬來西亞選舉系統的人離開本國到其他地方去生活。

如果再希是個英國内閣成員的話，那現在他已被要求下臺了。在英國，他會因犯了比這還要小的錯誤而被要求下臺，而且他也必須辭職，這是沒有得談的。

首相納吉他最起碼也要要求再希向全馬人民公開道歉。強迫他辭職是件正確的事情，但最少最少他也必須得道歉。

請問納吉他準備好要通過要求再希辭職/道歉來向大馬人民宣示他改革政府的決心了嗎？現在行動權在納吉手裏。我會勸告納吉真正去做他曾答應會做的改革而不是對此事視而不見。

請看看以上的圖表，在2010年，我們有23%（是的，連我在内）都因要看到政治改革而投給了反對黨之一的自由民主黨。無論如何，因爲選民分佈不均（gerrymendering)的問題，我們23%的選票只換來了650個囯席中的57個。

你現在知道爲什麽我們要政治改革了沒？我們贏得了23%的選票，但是只掌控了8.8%的議席。真他媽個不公平的系統！

在這一片黑暗中的唯一曙光就是執政黨工黨和最大在野黨保守黨都沒有贏得足夠的議席來組織政府。他們需要至少326席，但工黨只贏得了258席而它的挑戰者保守黨則是307；他們雙雙都沒有達到最低所需的席位數。

最往傷口上撒鹽的就是，工黨以29%的選票贏得了39.7%的議席而保守黨以36.1%的選票贏得了47.2%的席位。這也表示，他們只需以65%的選票（少過2/3）就能夠奪得87%的國會議席（多過2/3）。

我靠！真他媽的不公平，對嗎？

我們這些23%的自由民主黨的支持者真的都給惹火了。我們怎麽有可能以23%的選票來換得8.8%的議席，而工黨（執政黨）和保守黨（最大反對黨）只是以29%和36%的選票就能分別奪得40%和47%的席位呢？

大選之前我們已知道我們將會看到一個懸吊的國會，我們知道沒有單獨一個政黨會贏得足夠的議席來組織政府。事實上，至少有90%的英國人民都知道這一點而媒體也天天在談論。所以根本就沒有人會相信會有異軍突起來獨食這個國會。

大選之前，自由民主黨也站出來開說了，如果懸吊國會真的發生了，那他們就會和工黨組織聯合政府。但這到最後因兩個原因而沒有發生。

第一，單凴工黨的258席和自由民主黨的57席，我們還是沒有326席來組織政府。只有和保守黨的307席聯合在一起，我們才能以364席來組織新政府。

第二，工黨只是答應我們會做出選舉改革，但這對我們來講是不夠的。另一方面，保守黨則是答應我們政治改革（這包括選舉改革），這明顯的是個更好的選擇。

自由民主黨以這兩個原因‘出賣’（馬來西亞人會經常用到這個詞）了工黨而同保守黨一同上床。所以說，工黨政府被‘推翻’（巫統很喜歡用這個詞）了，而59%的選民通過他們控制的56%議席組織新的聯合政府。

是的，我們這些在英國的也對這個系統深感不滿，我們還因此‘出賣’了執政黨和‘推翻’了政府。但從來沒有人敢告訴我們如果對系統感到不滿的話我們大可離開英國到其他國家居住。如果他們膽敢那麽做那他們會被活生生地給宰了。他們將會被倒吊在隨便一棵樹上面，我們也可以把他們的LP（或者是乳頭）釘在牆壁上。

前首相敦阿都拉講過了什麽來著？啊，對了，馬來西亞擁有先進囯的設備但只有落後囯的思想。真被他講中了！

再希哈密迪，道歉！納吉，如果他不道歉就把他給辭掉！ 

Now, what I do not understand is: why emphasise ‘on a Chinese woman’? The Chinese scream that they are not racists. Yet they send me this very racist e-mail. This woman was humiliated or treated badly. That is wrong. Period! But to play up this issue as a racial issue is more wrong. And this is what Malaysians like to do. They like to emphasise that so-and-so who is Chinese or Indian is a victim of such-and-such.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are some who say I am being too idealistic by comparing Malaysia to the UK. You have been in the UK too long you are no longer realistic, some say. Malaysia can never be like the UK because Malaysians do not have a mature mind like those in the west, some others say.

Saying that Malaysia can never be like the UK because Malaysians do not have a mature mind like those in the west is as good as saying that YOU (those saying this) do not have a mature mind. ‘Malaysians’ here would mean the first party and not the third party. You might as well have said WE Malaysians, which means you included.

If you start off by believing that this or that cannot be done because WE Malaysians are backward then we will never move forward. This is just like the old folks of the pre-Merdeka days believing it is useless to send their children to school because they are better off planting padi. After all, sending them to Qur’an reading classes is good enough. What more do they need?

If the Malays had continued believing this then, until today, the Malays would still be in the padi fields. It took the British (more than 100 years ago) to convince four Malay Monarchs (Sultan Idris of Perak, Sultan Suleiman of Selangor, Yang di-Pertuan Besar Mohd Shah of Negeri Sembilan, and Sultan Ahmad of Pahang) to agree to the setting up of a school to educate the sons of the elite so that one day the Malays could take over the running of the country.

This school, the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (no longer a school for the elite), was the brainchild of R .J. Wilkinson, the Inspector of Schools for the Federated Malay States (F.M.S). In a letter to the Resident-General dated 24th February 1904, he wrote about “establishing at a suitable locality in the F.M.S., a special residential school for the education of Malays of good family and for the training of Malay boys for admission to certain branches of Government service.”

A 1910 report said, “From this school the Government have great hopes that the sons of Malays of the Raja and higher class will be educated and trained on the lines of an English Public School and be fitted to take a share in the Government of their Country.”

So, the Malays were dragged screaming and kicking into the 20th Century to receive an education in the British tradition -- in what was then known as ‘the Eton of the East’ -- so that they could one day become ‘Brown Englishmen’ in thinking and mentality but yet still retain their ‘old values’ regarding Malay customs and traditions and Islam as the religion of the Malays.

And that is why those of you who are in your 60s (like me), or in your 70s-80s, always lament that the Malays you knew back in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s were very different people compared to the Malays of today. You admired and loved the Malays of the old days but find the Malays of today very obnoxious and lacking principles, ethics, honour, etc.

Yes, that is very true. Just ask the Chinese and Indians who are in their 60s or 70s and they will sigh and talk about the good old days. And that is why those Malays, Chinese and Indians of my age (or older) can agree with what I say and do, while the younger Internet/social media generation whack me. You in your 20s and 30s (or even you in your 40s) just do not possess the same values that we do. 

Hence I would blame what we used to call back in the 1960s ‘the generation gap’ as being the reason for this. You do not understand the meaning of principles, ethics, honour, etc. To you, the ends justify the means. However, those of our generation would regard this as ‘not cricket’. It is not winning that counts but how you play the game that was our code of conduct and ethics back in the old days.

But it would be useless to try to explain this to you post-Merdeka Malaysians. You have not received the type of breeding that we did back in the 1950s and 1960s. You have been corrupted by the education system that was ‘modified’ back in the 1980s. And that is sad because what we are seeing today is what I call ‘The Ugly Malaysian’ (after the 1958 book and 1963 movie ‘The Ugly American’).

Hmm…I wonder which Education Minister I should blame for this.

I received the e-mail below entitled ‘HUMILITATING TREATMENT BY BULLY COPS.....on a Chinese woman’. A number of Chinese friends from various parts of Malaysia sent me this e-mail.

Now, what I do not understand is: why emphasise ‘on a Chinese woman’? The Chinese scream that they are not racists. Yet they send me this very racist e-mail. This woman was humiliated or treated badly. That is wrong. Period! But to play up this issue as a racial issue is more wrong. And this is what Malaysians like to do. They like to emphasise that so-and-so who is Chinese or Indian is a victim of such-and-such.

And don’t try to pretend that this e-mail being circulated has nothing to do with race. It is all about race. You want us to know that it is a Chinese woman who was humiliated by Malay police officers.

Lim Kit Siang said he feels sorry for Umno Youth chief and Rembau MP, Khairy Jamaluddin, who was appointed Youth and Sports Minister. “I am no friend of Khairy’s but it is unfair to him that he is put in charge of one of the most minor posts in the Cabinet,” he said, adding that Khairy was an Oxford University graduate and deserved better.

Actually, exactly 30 years ago, back in 1983, Anwar Ibrahim too was appointed the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports. But then Anwar is not an Oxford graduate like Khairy. Anwar went to Universiti Malaya. So maybe that is why Kit Siang did not feel sorry for Anwar back in 1983.

Ravinder Singh sent a letter to Free Malaysia Today (read the letter below) asking: “Is gerrymandering halal or haram?”

This is like asking is beer, which has only 5% alcohol, halal or haram?

Why do we even need to argue whether gerrymandering is halal or haram? If you really want to kira halus, the Westminster system of choosing the government itself is not halal. Malaysia’s system is already un-Islamic. So why bother about whether gerrymandering is halal or haram when the system itself is in a way haram?

Let me put it another way. Ask any Malay-Muslim what makes a Muslim and he/she will reply anyone who accepts Prophet Muhammad as the Last Prophet and follows the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Hadith, plus precedence.

Okay, now quote me one verse of the Qur’an regarding the Westminster system of government. None? Okay, if the Qur’an is silent on this issue, then you need to look at the Sunnah and the Hadith plus by using precedence.

How was the successor (caliph) to Muhammad chosen? The successor to Muhammad, Abu Bakar, was chosen by a committee after a three-day ‘conference’. Umar, who was Abu Bakar’s deputy, took over because he was the deputy (but he did not appoint any deputy when he took over). Usman, the third successor, was appointed by a Committee. And Ali took over because he was the last of the four comrades of Muhammad still alive (but he was bitterly opposed by many).

So, was there any Westminster system in appointing Muhammad and his four successors to the leadership? Hence is Malaysia’s system Islamic? And hence, also, should we worry about whether gerrymandering is haram or halal when the system itself is not halal?

Beer is not haram. It is the alcohol in the beer that is haram. So alcohol-free beer would be halal. So I suppose you can argue that a Westminster system without gerrymandering is like alcohol-free beer. Why bother to drink beer then? You drink beer to get high. You play gerrymandering to make sure that the minority can rule over the majority.

And is this not what politics is all about? Even the committee that decided on Muhammad’s successors was a minority decision and the majority just had to accept what a handful of people decided.

Is that halal or haram, Ravinder Singh?

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

Is gerrymandering halal or haram?

FMT LETTER: From Ravinder Singh, via e-mail

Just days ago well known Malaysian cleric Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin stated that it was haram for Muslims to incite tensions between peoples of different races and religions. While his words are still ringing in the ears, more racist words have been spewed out. No one, not even the Chief Executive, seems to care about what Asri pointed out.

Asri was surely not giving his personal opinion, but stating a fact from the teachings of Islam. When racist words continue to be spewed out by people in high and privileged places, what is to be made of the “haramness” of their actions?

Now, one of the main complaints about our elections and not just the 13GE, is about gerrymandering. This is not something that was raised only after the elections but had been raised long before that.

Gerrymandering is clearly about cheating in the elections by giving undue advantage to a certain party over its opponent(s). It is cheating because the ruling party does not have any right, legal or moral, to change electoral boundaries to favour it. The Constitution does not give it any such right.

The cheating is done by manipulating the boundaries of the constituencies such that supporters of the ruling party are put into smaller groups (constituencies) and the non-supporters into very much bigger constituencies. This is how with about 47% of the popular vote the BN has about 60% of the Parliament seats.

How does the EC find out who supports whom? Very easy. Votes are now counted in the very same room they were cast. Voters are streamed into the different rooms based on their residential locality, which is only a short distance from the polling station. Thus based on the results from each room, i.e. a maximum of about 600 voters in a stream, the EC can draw maps showing the voting trend of each locality with great accuracy.

Each locality’s votes are therefore no more secret as the EC knows what percentage of a locality voted for whom. This information is then used to draw up new electoral boundaries. In fact our votes are no longer truly secret as the EC knows how voters in a small area voted.

The new electoral boundaries are drawn in such a way that the ruling party will have advantage over its rivals. In other words, it is like moving the goalposts.

So, could anyone please tell us whether gerrymandering, which is a cheating game, is halal or haram? This is very relevant as Malaysia is said to be an Islamic state. The non-Muslims, I’m sure, would like to know whether an Islamic State condones cheating in this way to remain in power?

Let it be remembered that the Constitution orders the EC to ensure that the number of voters in the different constituencies must be approximately equal. In Padang Rengas P61 there are only 28,518 voters but in Kapar P109 there are 144,159 voters.

Now, in the eyes of the EC, is it halal to say that the number of 28,518 voters in Padang Rengas is approximately equal to the 144,159 voters in Kapar?

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

啤酒合乎伊斯蘭教規嗎？

我很不明白的是：為什麼要注重在‘一個華裔婦女‘上面呢？華人們都大聲喊叫說他們不是種族主義者，但他們都給我發了很‘種族’的郵件。這個婦女被警方侮辱了，這是錯的，句號，還扯這麼多幹嘛！把這件事情粉飾為一件很‘種族’的做法是錯的，而這就是馬來西亞人很喜歡做的。他們很喜歡強調那某某人是個華人或那某某受害者是個印度人。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

有人說我比照馬來西亞和英國的舉動很理想化：你在英國太久了，你已經變得很不現實了。也有些人會講因爲馬來西亞人沒有西方人那種成熟的思想所以馬來西亞不可能變得像英國般。

講說‘因爲馬來西亞人沒有西方人那種成熟的思想所以馬來西亞不可能變得像英國般’就好比講説你們（講出以上這段話的）沒有成熟的思想。‘馬來西亞人’在此應該是第一人稱而不是第三人稱，你更好直接就說‘我們馬來西亞人’，因爲這也包括了你。

如果你一開始就相信‘我們馬來西亞人’是落後而做不到某些事情的，那我們永遠都不可能會進步。這好比是獨立之前有一些老一輩的人相信把孩子送上學校是在浪費時間，他們更好跑去種田。把他們送去古蘭經學習課已經很足夠了，他們還需要其他的東西嗎？

如果馬來人到現在還是有這樣的思想的話，那他們將還只是生活在稻田而已。在100年前英國人得苦口婆心地説服4位馬來君主（霹靂的Sultan Idris，雪蘭莪的Sultan Suleiman，森美蘭的Yang di-Pertuan Besar Mohd Shah，還有彭亨的Sultan Ahmad）建立學校來給貴族子弟供書教學以便有朝一日馬來人能夠自行管理國家。

這閒學校就是瓜拉江沙馬來學院Malay College Kuala Kangsar（現在已經開放給非貴族），而它是當時聯邦馬來亞（Federated Malay States，F.M.S）學校監察員R .J. Wilkinson的智慧結晶。在他1904年2月24號寫給當時地方總督的信裏提到：“。。。坐落于F.M.S 一個適當的地點，一閒專門供給馬來名門望族教育的特別學校和訓練馬來男孩以便他們日後能考進特定的政府部門。”

一份1910年的報告裏也寫道：“政府給予這閒學校厚望，希望馬來君主和貴族的兒子們能夠接受到質素相等于英國公立學校的教育與訓練；也希望他們（日後）擁有足夠的資格來一同管理他們國家的政府。”

所以馬來子弟們一個個都在喊叫聲中被拖進20世紀的傳統英式教育系統裏----當時被稱爲‘東方的伊頓公校’------終而希望有一天他們能像‘棕色皮膚的英國人’般來思考問題但與此同時也保持著他們對於馬來傳統文化和伊斯蘭教的‘老舊價值觀’。

這也是爲什麽你們當中60（就像我），70或80嵗的讀者都會哀嘆四五十年代和現今馬來人的大不同。你們會喜歡且敬重那些日子的馬來人但你們都認爲今日今時的馬來人都是可惡且缺乏原則，操守，尊嚴。。。等等的。

是的，你可以問問那些六七十歲的華人和印度人，他們會嘆氣與緬懷過去的日子。這也是為什麼和我年級相當的華巫印都會贊同我所講的，而那些年輕的網絡一代則會干屌我。你們這群二三十歲的（甚至是40歲的）真的不俱有我們這群人的價值觀。

所以我在此會引用我們在1960年代的說法‘年代隔膜’來形容你和我的差別。你們都不懂原則，操守，尊嚴。。。等是什麼。對你來講，結果能合理化你的行為。無論如何，對我們這個年代的人來講這不是一場‘板球遊戲’。這不只是勝利而已，而是你玩那個遊戲的方法是符合體育精神和操守的，正如我們那個年代所注重的。

但這對你們這群獨立以後的大馬人來講都是對牛彈琴。你們不是猶如我們在50,60年代般給培養起來的，你們都是在1980年後那個‘被改革后’的教育系統裡成長的。這是很可悲的，我們近日所看到的是‘醜陋的大馬人’（這個名字源於1958年的書和1963年的電影‘醜陋的美國人’）。

哼，我在想我們應該怪罪哪個教育部長呢。

我收到了一封電郵，題為“一個華裔婦女受辱於一群霸權警察”。我的很多華人朋友都給我送了同樣的郵件。

我很不明白的是：為什麼要注重在‘一個華裔婦女‘上面呢？華人們都大聲喊叫說他們不是種族主義者，但他們都給我發了很‘種族’的郵件。這個婦女被警方侮辱了，這是錯的，句號，還扯這麼多幹嘛！把這件事情粉飾為一件很‘種族’的做法是錯的，而這就是馬來西亞人很喜歡做的。他們很喜歡強調那某某人是個華人或那某某受害者是個印度人。

還有，請別假裝這封郵件的背後不含任何種族主義，這完全是種族主義的寫照。你想要我們知道一個華裔婦女被馬來警官給侮辱了。

林吉祥講到他為巫統青年團長凱利被委任為青年與體育部長一事感到抱歉：“我不是凱利的朋友，但我認為他被委任為一個最不重要部門的部長是很不公平的。”他繼續談到凱利是個牛津畢業生和應該得到更好的。

其實在30年前安華曾被委任為文化，青年與體育部長，但可能安華他並不是牛津畢業生吧，他畢業于馬大，所以林吉祥在1983年時並不為安華感到可惜。

Ravinder Singh給 Free Malaysia Today寫了封信 (請讀以上原文) 問道：“不均選民分佈是違法halal還是合法的Is gerrymandering halal or haram?”

這好比你問到5％酒精濃度的啤酒到底是合法還是犯法？

為什麼我們要爭議那是合法犯法的呢？如果你真的要很嚴謹來講，那西敏寺系統都是犯法的，而馬來西亞的系統是很不符合回教教義的。所以當整個系統都是不符合教義時，你幹嘛還問選舉的選民分佈不均是否haram/halal呢？

讓我這樣來進一步講解，你去問任何的穆斯林／馬來人什麼是真正的穆斯林，他們都會回答你只要那個人接受默罕默德先知相信古蘭經,Sunnah經和Hadith經等等那他就是個穆斯林。

那好，現在請你給我來一段古蘭經中談及西敏寺系統的經文。沒有？那好，如果古蘭經沒有談及的話，那你就必須參考Sunnah經和Hadith經等等。

請問先知的後繼人（卡利法）是怎樣被挑選出來的呢？先知的繼承人阿布巴卡是由一個委員會經3天3夜的‘會議’後選出來的。而阿布巴卡的助手，Umar，于他之後掌權，因為他是阿布巴卡的副手（但Umar並沒有委任任何副手）。Usman，第三個繼承人，是由委員會委任的。Ali隨後出任，因為他是先知時代四大將軍儅中唯一一個還沒死掉的（但很多人都反對他）。

所以說當時有任何西敏寺系統來委任先知和他的四個繼承人來成為領導人嗎？再者，馬來西亞的系統合乎回教教法嗎？所以說當整個系統都是不符回教是，我們還有必要談論選舉的選民分佈不均是否haram/halal呢？

啤酒本身是不犯法的，啤酒裡的酒精才犯法，所以無酒精啤酒是合法的。所以我想你可以爭論沒有Gerrymandering的西敏寺系統是合法的，正如無酒精的啤酒一樣。如果是那樣，那為何你還要喝啤酒呢？你喝酒是為了要high，而你打出gerrymandering這張牌是為了確保少數人民可以統治多數人民。

這不是政治世界裡所追求的嗎？就連挑選先知繼承人的委員會也是個少數人的委員會，而多數人必須接受他們這群少數人所決定的東西。

這又是Halal或Haram呢，Ravinder Singh? 

Okay, I am also not happy with some Muslims, even some Muftis for that matter. I think they are very intolerant, unreasonable and narrow-minded. What are you going to now tell me? You are going to tell me, “If you are not happy with some Muslims then you can leave Islam,” is it? Is this the way you think?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

New Malaysian home minister tells unhappy Malaysians to emigrate

(Straits Times, Singapore) - Malaysia's newly-appointed Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has reportedly said that Malaysians who are unhappy with the country's political system should leave the country, stressing that loyal citizens should respect the rule of law.

Malaysian news website fz.com reported on Thursday that in his first opinion piece printed in the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia daily since receiving the portfolio on Wednesday, Mr Ahmad Zahid wrote that the illegal gatherings held across the country by opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition was a form of escapism and the denial of the fact that it failed to take control of Putrajaya.

"Malaysia inherited the political system from the United Kingdom and many Commonwealth countries also use the first past the post system where political parties contesting in the election will only have one representative in each constituency with the principle of a simple majority of votes," he said in a column.

He said opposition leaders, especially those from Parti Keadilan Rakyat and the Democratic Action Party, had been "irresponsible" in confusing young Chinese voters and their followers who are "politically blind" to dress in black to protest against the result of the 13th general election which they believed went in their favour, going by the popular vote.

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

Zahid Hamidi, the one-time Umno Youth Leader, was Anwar Ibrahim’s ‘Ghurkha’ (hatchet man or assassin) whose job was to try to bring down Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. And the manner he was supposed to do this was to reveal the list of Dr Mahathir cronies who had benefited or had become rich from the Prime Minister’s patronage.

One thing they did not take into consideration, though, is that Dr Mahathir is better at this game than Anwar is. Dr Mahathir then released the names of Anwar cronies and family members who had also benefited and had become rich from the patronage of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Checkmate! Zahid Hamidi came out looking like the village idiot that he is.

Now Zahid, yet again, is looking like a village idiot by telling those who are unhappy with Malaysia’s political system to leave the country and migrate to another country.

Actually, I did just that. I was so pissed with the manner in which Malaysia’s Federal Court handled (or mishandled) the Attorney General’s appeal against my release from detention without trial by the Shah Alam High Court that I left the country. I then challenged the Malaysian government to file their appeal in a UK court and see whether they can fuck around in the UK like they can in Malaysia. 

The Malaysian government then met up with the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur to explore the possibility of getting me kicked out of the UK or to extradite me. The British High Commission then summoned my lawyers to their office to get further details about the case against me, which they then sent to the Home Office in the UK.

After studying my case, the Malaysian government was told to go screw itself (though in more diplomatic words). And to add insult to injury, which is certainly kebetulan (by chance), a few months later the UK abolished both the sedition and criminal defamation laws (the two other cases against me). And because you need to pass the ‘dual criminality test’ before you can apply for extradition that more or less killed the other two cases against me as well.

So, three strikes, and the Malaysian government lost. Boy someone upstairs sure loves me.

Anyway, I digress. Now Zahid, the newly appointed Home Minister, in his maiden announcement, is asking those who are unhappy with Malaysia’s political system to leave Malaysia for greener pastures.

Hah! That is the first thing he does on taking office -- ask Malaysians to leave Malaysia if they are unhappy. I wonder what the next five years is going to be like with him heading that Ministry.

Hello, brader! Malaysians are not unhappy with the political system lah. Malaysians are unhappy with the ABUSE of the system. And that means two different things lah. Not happy with the abuse of the system does not mean not happy with the system. Aiyoh!

Zahid, you are beginning to sound like Pakatan Rakyat people. When I say I am unhappy with SOME people in Pakatan Rakyat they interpret this as I am not happy with Pakatan Rakyat and instead am happy with Barisan Nasional. The Pakatan Rakyat people, just like you, think that if you are not happy with some people that means you are not happy with everything under the sun.

Alamak, Zahid! Pakatan Rakyat people are supposed to be stupid so we can forgive them for being like that. But you, Zahid, are a Minister. Janganlah otak macam tu!

Okay, I am also not happy with some Muslims, even some Muftis for that matter. I think they are very intolerant, unreasonable and narrow-minded. What are you going to now tell me? You are going to tell me, “If you are not happy with some Muslims then you can leave Islam,” is it? Is this the way you think?

I am also not happy with the Arabs and I think they are giving Islam a bad name. So are you going to tell me to leave Islam and become a Christian? The problem is I am not happy with some of the Christians as well. So what do I do?

I got it! Then I become an atheist. But even if I become an atheist people are still not happy. They tell me you must support one or the other (Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat). You cannot NOT support both. That is not allowed.

So, if not happy with some Muslims then must become a Christian, cannot become an atheist. If not happy with some people in Pakatan Rakyat then must join Barisan Nasional, cannot become apolitical. If not happy with the abuse of Malaysia’s system then must become a British citizen, cannot remain in Malaysia.

But what happens if Britain won’t grant you citizenship? Live on a boat in the North Sea, is it?

I thought only DAP Chinese supporters think like this. It seems Umno Malays also have the same mindset. No wonder DAP is the reverse side of the same coin called Umno.

The IGP, Ismail Omar, will be retiring tomorrow. Do you know that many senior police officers do not think highly of him? That is because he is considered too lembut (soft) and he allows the Prime Minister to tell him what to do rather than the other way around. They are actually breathing a sigh of relief that he is finally retiring after being at the helm of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for almost three years.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Pensyarah Pusat Pengajian Sejarah, Politik dan Strategi UKM, Prof Mohammad Agus Yusoff, berkata mengikut Perlembangaan Perkara 28(2) menyatakan: “Tiada seorang pun yang dilahirkan di dalam Persekutuan boleh menurut kuasa Perkara ini dilucutkan kewarganegaraan di bawah Perkara 25.” Ini bermakna kerakyatan Anwar yang merupakan warganegara melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang sama sekali tidak boleh dilucutkan. (Harakah Daily)

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

The ex-PKR Deputy Chief Minister of Penang wants Anwar Ibrahim’s citizenship to be withdrawn or cancelled. And he is not the first ex-PKR or ex-PAS leader to say this. A few others before this have said the same thing -- as have some Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders.

Now read what Prof Mohammad Agus Yusoff said in the Harakah Daily news item above. Basically, what he said is, you can’t do that. There is no provision in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to withdraw or cancel the citizenship of someone born in Malaysia.

Now, what interests me here is: why is it that so many politicians who hold high office do not know this? This is downright shocking and shameful. Would you be given a driver’s licence if you did not pass your traffic laws test? You will be refused a licence if you do not know the traffic laws but yet you can become a wakil rakyat if you do not know the Constitution.

And steering the country is more important than steering a car, mind you.

I feel anyone who wants to become a wakil rakyat (people’s representative -- Member of Parliament and/or State Assemblyperson) should be first tested on his/her knowledge of the Constitution. If you do not know the Constitution you do not deserve to hold public office. This would avoid silly statements coming out of these people’s mouths.

And the other thing they should be tested on is their proficiency in the National Language, Bahasa Malaysia. Do you know that in some states if you cannot speak Bahasa Malaysia properly you will not get a Datukship or JP? Hence you should at least be able to speak the National Language before you should be allowed to sit in Parliament or in one of the State Assemblies -- which is more important than a Datukship or JP.

No, this is not meant as a racist comment. You do not need to be able to speak Bahasa Malaysia the way Pak Samad does. (To be honest, even I cannot understand Pak Samad’s puisi or sajak and I am sure 95% of you in the Pakatan Rakyat rally in Kuantan last night could not either). But at least you should have a fair command of the language.

In Wales, the Local Councils and the National Assembly for Wales (Welsh Parliament) conducts its business in Welsh -- the Brythonic branch of the Celtic languages. No doubt all Welsh can speak English but English is not used as the official language of Wales. Hence if you cannot speak the National Language of Wales you are in deep shit. How to become a Welsh wakil rakyat or councillor? 

Gyda llaw, yr wyf yn codi'n gynnar bob dydd i weithio. (That means: “By the way, I get up early every day to work”.) Worse than Tamil, is it not? Anyway, if you want to sound Welsh all you need to do is to speak English with an Indian accent. That’s what I do when I want to sound Welsh. 

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

Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar dilantik sebagai Ketua Polis Negara berkuatkuasa Jumaat (17 Mei) menggantikan Tan Sri Ismail Omar, yang akan tamat tempoh pelantikan secara kontrak selepas bersara pada 16 Mei ini. Menurut kenyataan Jabatan Perdana Menteri hari ini, Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Bukit Aman, Datuk Seri Bakri Zinin dilantik sebagai Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara berkuatkuasa pada hari yang sama. (Bernama)

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

The IGP, Ismail Omar, will be retiring tomorrow. Do you know that many senior police officers do not think highly of him? That is because he is considered too lembut (soft) and he allows the Prime Minister to tell him what to do rather than the other way around. They are actually breathing a sigh of relief that he is finally retiring after being at the helm of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for almost three years.

Do you also know that in the past those who become the IGP had to serve a stint in the Special Branch? Then, a few IGPs ago, they started appointing IGPs from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) branch of the police force. And that, I believe, was when the standards of the police force began to decline. (That is my assumption, which, of course, cannot be proven).

Anyway, the two people who will be taking over as IGP and Deputy IGP respectively are Khalid Abu Bakar and Bakri Zinin. Now, these are two very ‘tough nuts’ compared to Ismail Omar. I may even be so bold as to declare them as ‘gangsters’ -- well, sort of, if you know what I mean (not in the literal sense, though).

Note that these two are, yet again, not from the Special Branch (or have served a stint in the Special Branch) but are from the CID as well. And this is why I feel we may be seeing some ‘problems’ ahead of us -- especially those who are planning rallies and demonstrations because both Khalid and Bakri are known to have a low tolerance for ‘anti-government’ activities.

Why are the IGPs and DIGPs that are selected from the CID (and not from the Special Branch) more ‘brutal’? I suspect this is because the Special Branch does not have direct interaction with the public but work ‘behind-the-scenes’ (mostly intelligence gathering) while the CID has to deal directly with criminals. Hence the IGPs and DIGPs from the Special Branch do things differently (more subtly) compared to those from the CID who are more brutal in their methods.

Anyway, those planning ‘street activities’ better be very careful. Ismail Omar was more lembut (much to the chagrin of the other officers) while Khalid and Bakri are ‘street brawlers’.

That is only my suspicion, but then I may be wrong like I was wrong about how many people would turn out for the post-May 5th rallies.

Now, just like many of you, I was ecstatic in March 2008 when Pakatan Rakyat won five states and managed to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament by winning 82 of the 222 parliamentary seats. Then things began to take a turn and things were no longer honky-dory and peachy-rosy. We began to detect some characteristics of Barisan Nasional in Pakatan Rakyat.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not going to repeat what I have already written in parts 1-11 in my series of post-May 5th articles in The Corridors of Power. Just read the parts marked red above, which reinforces what I have already said. I will just say: I rest my case.

Now read the news item below regarding former British Cabinet minister Chris Huhne.

People ask me what the hell I want. I whack Barisan Nasional. Then I whack Pakatan Rakyat. They tell me that I must make up my mind and decide which of the two I support. I need to support one and whack the other. I cannot whack both at the same time and not support either one.

Well, that is how the mind of a third-world citizen works. And, as Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said, Malaysia has first-world infrastructure but people with third-world mentality. And even back when Pak Lah said that (at the time he was still the Prime Minister) I agreed with him and said so openly (even though I opposed him with zeal). 

Yes, just because we may disagree with the man that does not mean we must disagree with everything he says. When he is right we agree and when he is wrong we disagree.

Okay, before I go on, I have titled my article today ‘The wheat from the chaff’. This means ‘to choose what is of high quality over what is of lower quality’ or ‘to choose the things or people that are of high quality from a group of mixed quality’. In short, as I have said many times before, we avoid pouring old wine into a new bottle.

Now, just like many of you, I was ecstatic in March 2008 when Pakatan Rakyat won five states and managed to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament by winning 82 of the 222 parliamentary seats. Then things began to take a turn and things were no longer honky-dory and peachy-rosy. We began to detect some characteristics of Barisan Nasional in Pakatan Rakyat.

That was in 2010.

We soon found out that corruption was being perpetuated in the new Pakatan Rakyat state governments. You may argue that the corruption is not as serious as when these states were under Barisan Nasional. There may be some corruption, but it is ‘small’ corruption, not ‘big’ corruption, like in the federal government.

Okay, the corruption may be small, you may say. Agreed! But it is small only because Pakatan has been in power for only two years (in 2010) and they are running just a few states and not the federal government. Do we want to wait 50 years when the corruption is already cancerous before protesting? Would that not be too late and would not too much damage have been done by then?

We found out that certain Pakatan Rakyat leaders were collaborating with big-time businessmen who are actually Barisan Nasional cronies and who made hundreds of millions ripping off the country with the help of Umno/Barisan Nasional.

We found out that the sand-mining scam, which used to be an Umno cash cow, is now a PKR cash cow.

We found out that the PKR lawyers and their cronies/families are getting legal work at higher prices than what the non-crony/family lawyers would have charged. Furthermore, the invoices for the legal work were based on lump-sum figures with no details or breakdown.

Do you know that Anwar Ibrahim wanted Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim to pay John Soh Chee Wen RM2 million, the outstanding rental on PKR’s headquarters, but Khalid refused to do so?

Now you know why ‘they’ are so angry with Khalid Ibrahim and accuse him of being so tight-fisted (kedekut) -- because he refuses to use or abuse state government money to pay for the party’s expenses. Khalid should be given a medal rather than vilified and called a lame duck.

And all that is merely the tip of the iceberg. Many more ‘funny’ things are going on which many of you are not aware of. However, if I were to list down all the transgressions, you will scream ‘fitnah’ and will demand proof. On the legal fees involving the PKR lawyers I did publish the evidence. But what happened after that? Yes, what happened after that? Tell me!

As the Malays would say: Dah malas nak cakap! You people can go on and believe what you want to believe. No need for me to say anything any more.

Okay, now look at the news report below. A British Cabinet Minister, Chris Huhne, was sacked and was sent to jail together with his wife for a mere traffic offense. That’s right, a mere traffic offense. Yet he lost his job and got sent to jail.

Now, Chris was a Member of Parliament for Eastleigh and a Minister from my party, the Liberal Democratic Party. In the by-election, however, Lib Dem won back that seat (so it looks like the voters forgave us for that ‘mistake’).

So you see, in the UK, we jail a Minister and his wife for just a traffic offense. And Chris is finished. Kaput! His political career has been totally destroyed. In Malaysia, however, we select them to, again, contest the 2013 general election and allow them a second term.

I have not seen Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim’s list of EXCO Members but I am prepared to bet that some of these crooks and scoundrels are going to, yet again, be appointed EXCO Members. And I shudder to imagine who will be on Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s Cabinet Minister list.

And you want me to declare whom I will support and whom I will whack, is it? You cannot understand why I whack both and don’t support either, is it? You cannot understand why I want politicians, even if they are Ministers, to be sent to jail for a mere traffic offense, is it?

Well, you cannot understand because you are dishonest. You have no principles. You will scream when it comes to Barisan Nasionals’ corruption but you will tutup mata (close your eyes) when it comes to Pakatan Rakyat’s corruption.

And don’t give me that crap about Malaysia is not the UK and Malaysia is not ready for such ‘high standards’ and all that other nonsense. There is no such thing as ‘right time’ and ‘wrong time’ to be honest. Either you are honest or else you are a crook. No two ways about it.

And also don’t start asking that stupid question that you always ask me: so you want us to reject Pakatan Rakyat and choose Barisan Nasional, is it? That is another third-world mentality type of question. I am asking you to separate the wheat from the chaff irrespective of political affiliations. And if you don’t get this then you deserve the government you currently have.

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

Former UK minister and ex-wife freed from prison

(AP, 13 May 2013) - LONDON: Former British Cabinet minister Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce have been freed from prison after each serving two months of their eight-month sentences.

The pair had been convicted of charges stemming from a 2003 speeding ticket. Pryce had told authorities she was driving even though her then-husband was at the wheel. 

The 58-year-old Huhne had pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice; Pryce was convicted after a trial. 

Pryce, 60, said in a statement Friday she is pleased to be home and looks forward to returning to her career as an economist. 

Former Energy Secretary Huhne did not offer an immediate comment. Many experts say his political career has been virtually destroyed by the speeding ticket scandal.

Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The word ‘racism’ is currently being very freely used to describe what happened last Sunday. DAP accuses Umno of being racist while Umno accuses DAP of the same thing. The problem is some of these people do not understand what the word ‘racism’ means.

In fact, many Chinese readers have accused me of being a racist mainly because they do not understand what the word means. Maybe this is because there is no equivalent word in Chinese -- as there is none in Bahasa Malaysia as well. What is the Bahasa Malaysia word for racist anyway (other than ‘rasis’)?

(Utusan Malaysia, 12 May 2013) -- UMNO bukan parti rasis – PM: Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak menegaskan, UMNO bukan parti rasis kerana ia sentiasa memberi keadilan kepada rakyat tanpa mengira kaum di negara ini.

Many people are confused about the meaning of racism (the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others -- or discrimination/prejudice based on race), parochialism (narrowly restricted in scope or outlook such as provincial) and nationalism (devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation).

For example, during World War II, the Americans thought that Japanese pilots would never be able to beat American pilots because of the way the Japanese are ‘built’. Due to their short body and slit eyes, they make poor pilots. Or so the Americans thought until the Japanese whacked them good and proper.

This would be racism. The Americans considered the Japanese inferior to the ‘whites’ because the Japanese were not built like the ‘whites’.

For a long time, the European Christians (plus the Vatican) considered the natives of the Americas, in particular those of Latin America, as not human -- a sort of animal on two legs that could talk. Hence it was not wrong to kill the Native Americans (or what they used to call the American Indians) because these people, just like animals, do not have a soul.

You only need to look into the eyes of the American Indian to know that they do not have a soul, said the Pope in Rome. And this, too, was why it was considered okay to capture and sell the black Africans as slaves and kill them like pigs if they resisted or tried to escape. It is because they are not white so that would mean they are not really human beings.

Now, what happens if Kelantanese want a ‘local’ political party to rule their state (such as PAS, as opposed to Umno, which is a ‘Kuala Lumpur’ party)? This would not be called racism. That is parochialism. It is not that the PAS candidate is Malay while the Umno candidate is Chinese. Both are Malay. But one Malay is from a ‘Kelantan’ political party while the other Malay is from an ‘outsider’ political party.

In Terengganu, if a person from Besut contests in, say, Kemaman, this Besut candidate would most likely lose. The voters may be Umno members but if the Umno candidate is from Besut while the PAS candidate is a local Kemaman chap, then there is a strong possibility that the Kemaman voters will vote PAS rather than Umno even if these voters are Umno members. Hence it is not party loyalty but the spirit of daerah (district/province) that prevails. ‘Anak Kemaman’ (a child of Kemaman) is more important to the Kemaman voters than keahlian Umno (Umno membership).

A Chinese born in Melaka can contest in Penang or a Chinese born in Penang can contest in Johor and would most likely win because the Chinese support the party. This may not work on the Malay voters. Only in rare cases can a Malay candidate cross state boundaries (or even district boundaries) and still win. The Malay candidate who crosses boundaries must be an extremely ‘strong’ personality to win in another kawasan (area). 

But don’t think that the Chinese are not sometimes parochial as well. I have known DAP to get a ‘headache’ because the Hakka voters insisted that the DAP candidate must be Hakka. If not then they will vote MCA (who fielded a Hakka candidate) instead of DAP. Is this racism? How can it be racism when both candidates are Chinese? The only thing is he or she must be Hakka Chinese and not a non-Hakka Chinese.

As I said, there are ‘exceptions to the rule’, even amongst the more parochial Malays. For example, Onn Jaafar from Johor won in Kuala Terengganu and Mat Sabu from Penang won in Kelantan. Then we have Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, the PKR Sec-Gen, who was born in Singapore and yet won in both Kedah and Kelantan on a PKR and not PAS ticket (but lost this time around in Kedah against a ‘local boy’).

Finally, there is nationalism. Japanese will only buy Japanese products even when they travel to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur to shop. The Japanese are not racist for buying Japanese products. They are nationalistic in wanting to support Japanese industries. Some Malaysians only fly MAS even if they have to pay more or buy fuel from Petronas even if they have to drive farther to find a Petronas petrol station for the same reason.

I whack the Chinese. And for that I am being called a racist. But do I think that the Chinese are not ‘real’ citizens of Malaysia and therefore do not deserve equal treatment or I think that the Chinese are inferior people? Far from it! In fact, I think the opposite.

But I also whack the Malays (and have been doing so for a long time). So does that make me a racist when I am also Malay? A racist is supposed to be someone who discriminates or looks down on another race. You may argue that for the last two years I have not been whacking the Malays much whereas for the 20 years before that I was whacking the Malays kau-kau.

Well, what more can I say about the Malays that I have not already said? I have already repeated so many times the same criticism and anything more I can say about the Malays will just be more of the same thing, which I have already said hundreds of times (yes, hundreds of times at hundreds of articles a year over the last almost twenty years since 1994).

For 20 years I was never called a racist for whacking the Malays. In fact, I was called a ‘towering Malay’. Only when I started whacking the Chinese am I suddenly a racist.

The bottom line is you can whack your own race as much as you want, and the more the better, but you must never ‘touch’ the other race. In that case, should we criticise the Arab extremists for killing innocent Jewish schoolchildren when we are not Arab? Should Australians criticise the Umno Malays for what the ‘whites’ view as fraudulent general elections in Malaysia?

You can only whack someone of your own race but not someone from another race even if there is cruelty and injustice involved. So that would mean non-Malays or foreigners should not criticise Umno or the Arabs unless you are Malay or Arab. Is that how it works? And if you do not follow this ‘rule’ does that make you a racist?

Okay, let us now talk about the so-called Chinese Tsunami last Sunday, 5th May 2013. Never mind whether it was or was not a Chinese Tsunami. Umno says it was. DAP says it was not. However, even if it was a Chinese Tsunami, what is wrong with that? Is that racism? That is called parochialism. So you voted for your community. So what? That does not make you a racist.

Let’s go to another example. Would a Chinese win if he/she contested in, say, Besut? Let’s say a PAS Chinese candidate born in Bagan, Penang, contested in Besut against an Umno Malay candidate born in Jertih, Terengganu. Would the PAS members in Besut vote for PAS or for Umno?

Hence both PAS and Umno would not only field Malay candidates in Besut but the Malay must also be local born. Even Anwar Ibrahim may lose against a local boy like, say, Idris Jusoh. So this is not about race. This is about ‘good politics’. And it is not race that decides but parochialism. And that is the same reason why Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail will never win a seat in Singapore even though she was born in Singapore and even if Singapore laws allow her to contest. She is not Singaporean. Period.

Racism is foul. Parochialism is normal. Nationalism is commendable. Just don’t confuse one with the other. And do not label everything as racism. If not then the ‘Malay’ government of Malaysia will have no business to protest if one day the US attacks China. Umno is neither Chinese nor ‘white’.

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

Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't constitute discrimination. Critics argue that the term is applied differentially, with a focus on such prejudices by whites, and defining mere observations of racial differences as racism. Some definitions would have it that any assumption that a person's behaviour would be influenced by their racial categorization is racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative. Other definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination. 

Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include symbolic or institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of ethnic stereotypes through the media, and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component. Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviours and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.

Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, and superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere.

In history, racism has been a major part of the political and ideological under-pinning of genocides such as The Holocaust, but also in colonial contexts such as the rubber booms in South America and the Congo, and in the European conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia. It was also a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the USA in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid. Practices and ideologies of racism are universally condemned by the United Nations in the Declaration of Human Rights.

READ MORE HERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

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

種族主義

“种族主义（英语：Racism）指一套意識型態，其基本信仰為人類可以被分類成不同及互不附屬的「種族」實體，因此主張遺傳的肉體特質直接決定人性、智識、道德等等文化及行為的特性，並主張某種族在本質上比其他種族優越 。”----- 维基百科

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

‘種族主義’這個詞被很多人很隨意地運用來形容上星期天所發生的事情；行動黨用這個詞來形容巫統，而巫統也用同一個詞來形容行動黨。問題是，這些人都有可能不完全地明白這個詞的真正意思。

事實上，很多華裔讀者都因不明白這個詞而罵我是個種族主義者。可能在中文裏找不到一個意義相等的詞吧----正如馬來文裏沒有這個詞一般。馬來文除了‘Rasis’以外還有別的詞嗎？

“(Utusan Malaysia, 12 May 2013) --UMNO bukan parti rasis – PM: Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak menegaskan, UMNO bukan parti rasis kerana ia sentiasa memberi keadilan kepada rakyat tanpa mengira kaum di negara ini”

很多人把‘種族主義racism’（相信種族會決定一個人的特質和本領，所以某些種族會比其他種族來得優越，或會看不起其他種族），‘地方/本位主義parochialism’（把眼界定得很狹小，泛指定在特定地區）和‘民族主義nationalism’（把一個國家的利益和文化放在第一位）給混淆了。

給你個例子，二戰期間，美國人都認爲日本飛行員沒有可能會強過美國飛行員的，因爲他們不夠‘大只’。日本飛行員都是身體矮小和單眼皮的，所以他們都是技術很差的飛行員。老美一直都是這樣地認爲，直到在戰場上日本人狠狠地幹掉爲止。

這就是種族歧視；美國人就只是因爲日本人的體格沒有美國人壯碩就認爲日本人比白人還要低一等。

有很長一段時間，歐洲的基督徒（包括梵蒂岡）都認爲美洲土著，特別是拉丁美洲的，都不是人，他們只是能夠講話且有兩只腳的動物而已。所以殺害這些土著（或者他們稱之爲美洲印第安人）並沒有錯，因爲正如動物，他們是沒有靈魂的。

羅馬的教宗曾經說過：只要你看進印第安人的眼睛，你就會知道他們是沒有靈魂的。這也是爲什麽販賣非洲黑人是OK的，而且在他們反抗或嘗試逃跑時把他們像豬一般給宰了也是沒問題的。就只是因爲他們的皮膚不是白色，他們就不算是人類。

現在，如果吉蘭丹人要一個‘本土’的政黨來管理他們的州屬（例如是伊黨，而不是‘來自吉隆坡的巫統’），那這算是什麽？這不算是種族主義，而應該是地方主義；這不是說伊黨的候選人是個馬來人而巫統是個華人；他們兩都是馬來人，但一個是‘吉蘭丹政黨’的馬來人而另一個是‘外來政黨’的馬來人。

再講講登嘉樓，如果一個Besut人到Kemaman競選的話，那這個人輸的幾率會很高。那些選民可能都是巫統的人，但如果伊黨派出一個Kemaman本土人對壘巫統的besut人的話，那這些選民很有可能會把票投給伊黨的Kemaman候選人。所以說這不是對黨忠心的問題而是對Daerah（地區）鍾愛的問題。‘Anak Kemaman（Kemaman之子）’在這比‘keahlian Umno（巫統黨籍）’更爲重要。

一個在馬六甲出生的華人可以在檳城競選或一個在檳城出生的華人可以在柔佛競選，而他們都很有可能會勝出，因爲華人都支持他們的政黨。但這對馬來人來講可能是行不通的。馬來人去到另一個州（甚至是另一個地區）勝出的情況是很少見的。那些過江的馬來候選人必須是條很猛的猛龍才能在其他地區勝出。

但請別因爲這樣就認爲華人是不具地方主義的。我知道行動黨曾經就因爲客家選民而頭疼。這些客家選民堅持要行動黨派客家人上陣，不然的話他們就會把票投個馬華的客家籍候選人。這是種族主義嗎？這兩個人都是華人呢！唯一的區別是這個候選人必須是個客家人而不是一般的華人。

當然在地方主義很重的馬來人地區，例外還是存在的。翁嘉化是個柔佛人，但他在瓜拉登傢樓勝出，Mat Sabu是個檳城人但他在吉蘭丹勝出。然後我們還有公正黨的縂秘書Saifuddin Nasution Ismail,他是在新加坡出生的，但他以公正黨黨旗在吉打和吉蘭丹勝出（但最近他在吉打輸給了個本地人）。

最後，讓我們來談談民族主義。日本人只會買日本產品，即使他們是在新加坡或大馬購物的話。他們只購買日本貨，但這並不代表他們都是種族主義者。他們是因愛國而想要支持日本的商傢們。有些馬來西亞人只會選擇乘搭馬航，即使他們必須多付錢，或他們只會打Petronas的汽油，即使他們需要去得更遠來尋找Petranas的加油站。他們背後的原因是一樣的。

我經常干屌華人，然後就被罵我有種族歧視。但我從來有想過華人並不是‘真正的’公民所以不應該得到同樣的對待，或我從來有認爲過華人是個低劣的人種嗎？從來沒有！事實上，我的看法還是相反的呢。

我也經常干屌馬來人（我一直以來都這樣做），但我也是個馬來人，我是不是個種族主義者呢？一個種族主義者應該是鄙視其他種族的。你可以抗議，說我在過去2年裏不大有罵馬來人，但在之前的20年裏我都是‘厚厚’地干屌馬來人的。所以請問我還有什麽是還未對馬來人說的？我已經對他們重復地批評了上百遍，我對他們的批判是找不出新玩意兒的了（是的，自1994年開始每年有上百篇文章，重復地寫了上百遍）。

20年來從來沒有人說我是個種族主義者，事實上他們還稱我為‘馬來巨人’。只是在我開始干屌華人后才有人罵我種族歧視。

底綫是，你可以盡情地罵你的族人，越狠越好，但你不可以‘動到’其他種族。如果是那樣的話，好，我們現在不是阿拉伯人，那我們又能否批判阿拉伯極端分子殘殺無辜的猶太學童呢？那澳大利亞人又否應該批評巫統，說大馬的選舉系統以‘白人的標準’來講是充滿舞弊的呢？

你只可以干屌你自己族人，而儅其他種族做出不公和殘暴的舉動時你是不可以出聲的。即是說，非馬來人或外國人是不可批評巫統或阿拉伯人的。這是對的嗎？如果你不遵從這些‘規則’你就是個種族主義者？

好了，讓我們回到5月5所謂的‘華人海嘯’，別理它到底是不是‘華人海嘯’了。巫統説是而行動黨說不是。但如果那真是一場‘華人海嘯’又如何？這是種族主義嗎？那是個地區主義，你把票投給了你的社區，所以呢？那並不會把你變成種族主義者。

給你另一個例子，如果有個華人在Besut競選的話他贏得了嗎？就講説一個檳城華人到Besut和巫統的出生在登嘉樓Jertih的候選人競選好了，你猜Besut區的伊黨黨員會把票投給誰？

所以說伊黨和巫統不止會派出馬來候選人，他們還會派出在本地出生的馬來人來競選。就連安華親自在此對陣一個本地人，名字叫Idris Jusoh好了，安華也會敗陣下來。所以這並不是種族的問題，而是‘良好政治’的問題。這不是看種族來決定的，而是看地區來決定的。這也是爲什麽如果新加坡法律允許旺姐在新加坡競選的話（她是在新加坡出生的），她也會敗下來。她不是新加坡人，如是而已。

種族主義是很卑污的，地方主義是很正常的，而民族主義是很可取的，但請別把它們都給混淆了。也請別把每樣東西都標簽為種族主義，不然如果有一天老美向老中開戰的話馬來西亞的‘馬來’政府將不能提出抗議。巫統它不是華人也不是‘白人’。

慾閲讀更多：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

But since March 2008 many of you have become very arrogant. You no longer care about what you say. And you no longer care whether anyone gets hurt by what you say. And you declared that the Chinese are going to finish off Umno (ABU! ABU! ABU!). So the stupid Malays and Indians (plus those stupid natives from East Malaysia) had better wake up.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

KPN buat pusingan U

Ismail Omar berkata kenyataannya disalahertikan.

(FMT) - Ketua Polis Negara (KPN) Tan Sri Ismail Omar telah membuat pusingan U dalam isu permit untuk perhimpunan Suara Rakyat Suara Keramat yang akan berlangsung di Stadium Kelana Jaya malam ini.

“Saya dah sebutkan tadi, pertama, saya tidak membenarkan perhimpunan yang menyalahi undang-undang, perhimpunan hendaklah menepati Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012.

“Syarat-syaratnya seperti yang telah saya sebutkan tadi; maklum Ketua Polis Daerah, penganjur kena jumpa dengan Ketua Polis Daerah dan penganjur kena tentukan perhimpunan itu adalah perhimpunan aman.

“Para peserta tidak boleh membawa apa-apa bentuk senjata merbahaya, tidak ada apa-apa bentuk hasutan, provokasi, untuk menggugat ketenteraman,” kata Ismail menerusi Penolong Ketua Urusetia KPN (Komunikasi Korporat) ACP Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf.

“Jelas bahawa daripada ungkapan soal jawab di atas, KPN tidak membuat apa-apa kenyataan mengenai keperluan permit,” kata Ramli.

Pagi ini, Ismail dilaporkan sebagai berkata bahawa penganjur perhimpunan memerlukan permit.

Ekoran itu, peguam kebebasan sivil Syahredzan Johan berkata bahawa Ismail tidak memahami Akta Perhimpunan Aman dan keperluan permit hanya wujud di dalam Akta Polis.

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

If I were a suspicious person -- which I am -- and if I suspect Umno of being devious -- which I do -- I would speculate that the above ‘U-turn’ is a trap. Take note, though, that I am merely speculating and this is not based on confirmation. At best this is an educated guess so I could be wrong. But even educated guesses need a basis. And I do have a basis.

First of all, both DAP and PAS are happy with the election result. PKR, though, is not. Hence is this rally tonight a Pakatan Rakyat event or a PKR event?

Bersih was successful because both the Chinese and the PAS supporters came out in full force. If left just to the PKR supporters we would not have seen a huge crowd like what happened in the Bersih rally in 2007 and the Bersih 2.0 and Bersih 3.0 rallies later on.

I doubt many Chinese will turn out tonight. First of all it is a working day. More importantly, though, the Chinese may have been spooked by all this talk of a Chinese Tsunami on 5th May 2013.

We must remember that the 1969 general election was on 10th May. The race riots did not happen on that day, though. It happened three days later during the rally. Hence tonight’s rally, which is being held three days after Polling Day, would be reminiscent of what happened in 1969. Hence, also, I believe most Chinese would stay away and we will not see the 100,000 Chinese crowd that we saw during the Bersih rallies.

Another point would be if anyone wants to trigger any trouble then tonight would be the best opportunity. That is an even stronger reason to not be seen anywhere near that rally.

In the past, the PAS leaders issued statements ordering their supporters to come out in full force to attend the rallies. Then they bussed in their supporters from all over Malaysia, which took months to organise.

I have not seen any statements from PAS leaders regarding tonight’s rally and it is too late to bus in their supporters from all over Malaysia. Hence we may not see many PAS people there tonight.

This means they would have to depend on just the PKR supporters to make up the crowd tonight. And in the past, if you just depended on PKR supporters, the crowd would not be even 1,000 strong.

Hence I speculate that tonight is going to be a failure. And I believe this is what Umno wants to show, that PKR failed to get support. But then I may be wrong.

Now, on another note regarding my comment that the Chinese DAP supporters were posting too many racist comments in the Blogs and that they proudly declared that 5th May 2013 was going to be a Chinese Tsunami.

Actually I do not need to reply to the part about the racist comments in the Blogs and Facebook. You all know it is true. In fact, I have so many times chided you regarding these racist comments and I warned you that you risk upsetting the Malays and will send them back to Umno. You know and I know that this happened so don’t try to bullshit by saying that it never happened.

I even remember commenting that I can’t wait to see the faces of these racists on 5th May 2013 when they discover that they have lost the election. One arrogant Chinese reader replied that he also can’t wait to see my face on 5th May 2013 when Pakatan Rakyat wins the election.

Why so arrogant?

Over the last few months, especially the period between Nomination Day and Polling Day, my email inbox was flooded with messages from all over Malaysia of people sending me photographs of large Chinese crowds at the rallies and ceramah. I even received messages from Sabah and Sarawak. I also received Viber, Black Berry and WhatsApp messages with photographs attached of the same thing.

The message these people were sending me is that the Chinese have risen and are going to kick out Umno and Barisan Nasional. The Malays and Indians (plus the natives of East Malaysia) had, therefore, better ‘wake up’. They also commented that the Malays and Indians are stupid for being fooled by Umno and Barisan Nasional. And if the Malays and Indians (plus the natives of East Malaysia) do not join the Chinese to kick out Umno and Barisan Nasional then it is confirmed that they are stupid.

Take the example of Hindraf. Just read what these people say about the pariah Indians and that if you see a snake and an Indian you kill the Indian first. And why so much Mamak hatred? Some of my closest friends are Mamaks.

Is that necessary?

And what about the comments regarding the backward Malays and the subsidy mentality of the Malays and how the Malays would be failures without the benefit of the New Economic Policy? Malays are rent-seekers, these people said.

Is that also necessary?

Again and again I reminded you to tone down the racial rhetoric or else you are going to send the Malays back to Umno. Many of you responded with even more racist comments and you even attacked Islam and Hudud.

What we wanted to see on 5th May 2013 was a Tsunami bigger than the March 2008 Tsunami. And, yes, the March 2008 swing is being called a Tsunami. Everyone refers to it as a Tsunami.

But since March 2008 many of you have become very arrogant. You no longer care about what you say. And you no longer care whether anyone gets hurt by what you say. And you declared that the Chinese are going to finish off Umno (ABU! ABU! ABU!). So the stupid Malays and Indians (plus those stupid natives from East Malaysia) had better wake up.

Sheer arrogance!

There is nothing wrong with the Chinese waking up. In fact, I was one of those who whacked the Chinese and called them hypocrites and cowards and asked them to wake up. And there is also nothing wrong with calling 5th May a Chinese Tsunami.

What is wrong with calling it a Chinese Tsunami? The Indians are proud that March 2008 was an Indian Tsunami. They keep reminding us every day since then that 2008 was an Indian Tsunami. They keep telling Pakatan Rakyat that March 2008 was possible only because of the Indian Tsunami.

So call it a Chinese Tsunami and be proud of it. I would if I were Chinese. But you do not need to insult the Malays, Indians and natives of East Malaysia in the process?

That is what many of you do not understand. It is not about what you did on 5th May 2013. That is commendable. It is what comes out of your mouth that is detestable. I do not hate the Chinese. I hate the foul mouths of some of you Chinese.

And yes, I too bash the Chinese. And I bash the Chinese because I know you do not like it. But I need you to feel what it is like when your race in generalised and bashed. And if you hate that then consider how the non-Chinese feel as well.

Kapish?

In the run-up to the 13th General Election, the Chinese were boldly and proudly screaming that this time around the Chinese are going to unite and vote against Barisan Nasional. This time we are going to see a Chinese Tsunami, bigger than the 2008 Tsunami. Expect more than 90% of the Chinese voters to swing to Pakatan Rakyat, they kept repeating again and again.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Umno won 79 parliamentary seats in 2008. This time around it won 88 seats.

MCA, MIC and Gerakan won 20 parliamentary seats in 2008. This time around they won only 12 seats.

So the total for Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan this time around is 100 seats compared to 99 in 2008, an increase of one seat.

The balance of the seats were won by the East Malaysian Barisan Nasional component members who won 140 seats minus 99 (or 41 seats) in 2008 and 133 seats minus 100 (or 33 seats) this time around, a reduction of 8 seats -- while Umno saw an increase of 9 seats and MCA, MIC and Gerakan saw a reduction of also 8 seats. 

Umno also won 244 state seats out of the 505 seats being contested (or 48.32% of the state seats) this time around compared to 239 state seats in 2008, an increase of 5 seats.

In the run-up to the 13th General Election, the Chinese were boldly and proudly screaming that this time around the Chinese are going to unite and vote against Barisan Nasional. This time we are going to see a Chinese Tsunami, bigger than the 2008 Tsunami. Expect more than 90% of the Chinese voters to swing to Pakatan Rakyat, they kept repeating again and again.

They even declared that the Chinese Tsunami is going to beat the Indian Tsunami of 2008. They also whacked the Malays and asked the ‘stupid Malays’ to wake up and discard the subsidy mentality and discard the ‘crutches mentality’ that the New Economic Policy has created. Either the Malays join the Chinese to kick out Barisan Nasional or get left behind, warned the Chinese.

Now Umno is also calling it a Chinese Tsunami, just like what the Chinese were screaming about over the last year or two since Bersih 2.0 and Bersih 3.0. But the Chinese resent Umno calling it a Chinese Tsunami. The Chinese can call it that. The Chinese have been calling it that since Bersih 2.0. But Umno must not call it that.

So what is it then?

Pakatan Rakyat is alleging that the 5th May 2013 general election was fraudulent. Have they compiled the evidence and will they be filing Election Petitions in court like what we did in 1999, 2004 and 2008 (which I was personally involved in doing)?

I am sure there are hundreds of video recordings considering that almost everyone (if not everyone) has a mobile phone and all mobile phones nowadays can take pictures and video clips. That would be the only way to get the 2013 general election declared null and void and for fresh elections or by-elections to be held all over Malaysia. 

Pakatan Rakyat refuses to recognise the 2013 general election. That is good. After all, 10 years ago back in 2003 I already asked the opposition to boycott the 2004 general election. Now they can boycott the results -- just as good. And that would mean they should not get sworn in as Members of Parliament or State Assemblypersons or else people will say we now recognise the election.

Let me put it this way. We do not recognise Israel so we do not talk to them or have diplomatic relations with them or set up an embassy in their country plus our citizens cannot travel to that country. We do not deal with them in any way whatsoever. Period!

Hence if we join the government as opposition Members of Parliament or opposition State Assemblypersons, or worse, we form the state governments, that would mean we recognise the election and consider ourselves duly and legally elected into office.

So what is it then?

Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said: “The Lib Dem vote is more concentrated than it was, because they have targeted certain seats. But it is still more evenly distributed than Labour and the Tories. They may get 30 per cent of the vote everywhere, for example, but one of the others will tend to get 40 per cent, and the Lib Dems will lose.”

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday, 6th May 2010, to elect members to the House of Commons. The election took place in 650 constituencies across the United Kingdom under the first-past-the-post system.

None of the parties achieved the 326 seats needed for an overall majority. The Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, won the largest number of votes and seats but still fell twenty seats short. This resulted in a hung parliament where no party was able to command a majority in the House of Commons.

This was only the second general election since World War II to return a hung parliament, the first being the February 1974 election. Unlike in 1974, the potential for a hung parliament had this time been widely considered and predicted and both the country and politicians were better prepared for the constitutional process that would follow such a result.

The coalition government that was subsequently formed was the first coalition in British history to eventuate directly from an election outcome.

Labour garnered 8,608,517 votes or 29.0% of the popular votes and won 39.7% of the seats.

Conservative garnered 10,703,654 votes or 36.1% of the popular votes and won 47.1% of the seats.

Liberal Democrat garnered 6,836,248 votes or 23.0% of the popular votes and won only 8.8% of the seats.

As you can see, the ruling party then, Labour, won only 30% of the votes but 40% of the seats. Conservative, the opposition party, won 36% of the votes but 47% of the seats. Both parties did not win enough seats to form the new government. Hence Lib Dem, who won 23% of the votes but a mere 9% of the seats, became the kingmaker.

Conservative and Lib Dem then formed the government with a total of 59% of the votes and 56% of the seats.

Initially, Lib Dem was supposed to have gone with Labour (as promised before the election) but that would have given them only 52% of the votes and just 48.5% of the seats, not enough to form the government.

And that is what the “first past the post” voting system is all about, the same system that Malaysia has. And to understand why this is so, read the following article.

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

UK General Election 2010: most votes may still mean the least seats (April forecast before the May general election)

The Liberal Democrats could get more votes than Labour or the Conservatives yet still win the least number of Commons seats.

The Telegraph, 2010

This is due to our “first past the post” voting system, which means a party's share of the national vote does not equate to the number of seats it wins.

It rewards the party whose supporters are most efficiently located around the country, which is not necessarily the party with the most supporters overall.

The Liberal Democrats suffer because their support is more evenly spread.

This was illustrated in the 1983 general election. The Liberal/SDP alliance, as it was then known, received 25.4 per cent of the vote to Labour’s 27.6 per cent, yet won only 23 seats to Labour’s 209.

Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said: “The Lib Dem vote is more concentrated than it was, because they have targeted certain seats.”

“But it is still more evenly distributed than Labour and the Tories. They may get 30 per cent of the vote everywhere, for example, but one of the others will tend to get 40 per cent, and the Lib Dems will lose.”

Anthony Wells, of the UK Polling Report website, said: “In areas they have not targeted, they now have too much of a mountain to climb.”

Assuming the Lib Dem surge is spread evenly, they will hold their existing seats more safely, and pick up a handful from the Tories and Labour.

But because Labour piles up votes in safe urban seats, as the Conservatives do in safe rural seats, the swing to the Lib Dems will usually not be enough.

The system is more heavily biased towards Labour, as their safe seats tend to have fewer residents, who are also less likely to vote.

This is why Labour could come third in the share of the national vote and yet still win the most seats in the Commons.

Many are waiting for my ‘I told you so’ article. No, I am not going to write an ‘I told you so’ article. Instead, I am going to remind you of the 13 predictions that were made for the 13th General Election that came true -- although there are actually more than 13 predictions that came true.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Prediction 1: About 80% or roughly 10.4 million of the 13 million or so registered voters would come out to vote.

What did happen: About 10.5 million Malaysians came out to vote on 6th May 2013.

Prediction 2: Barisan Nasional would win more than 130 parliamentary seats but less than the 140 seats it won in the 2008 general election.

What did happen: Barisan Nasional won 133 parliamentary seats.

Prediction 3: Pakatan Rakyat would not win more than 100 parliamentary seats, as what the bookies predicted, but more than the 82 seats it won in the 2008 general election.

What did happen: Pakatan Rakyat won 89 parliamentary seats.

Prediction 4: Barisan Nasional can still form the federal government with a simple majority in Parliament even if it won just 45% of the popular votes.

What did happen: Barisan Nasional is forming the federal government with about 46-47% of the popular votes.

Prediction 5: Pakatan Rakyat would need to win at least 55% of the popular votes to see a hung parliament and about 60% or so of the popular votes to take over the federal government.

What did happen: Pakatan Rakyat won slightly over 51% of the popular votes and still can’t form the federal government.

Prediction 6: If Pakatan Rakyat retains Selangor there is going to be a power struggle for the post of Menteri Besar.

What did happen: Pakatan Rakyat still cannot decide who should be the Selangor Menteri Besar while all the other states (plus Parliament) are already swearing in their new governments.

Prediction 7: DAP would emerge the largest opposition party. 

What did happen: DAP is now the largest opposition party after winning 38 parliamentary seats versus 30 for PKR and 21 for PAS.

Prediction 8: Pakatan Rakyat would lose Kedah.

What did happen: Pakatan Rakyat lost Kedah.

Prediction 9: Perak is a 50:50 situation.

What did happen: Barisan Nasional won 31 state seats in Perak and Pakatan Rakyat won 28 (giving BN a 3-seat majority) with Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat each winning 12 of the 24 parliamentary seats (50:50).

Prediction 10: Terengganu is a 50:50 situation.

What did happen: Barisan Nasional won 17 state seats in Terengganu and Pakatan Rakyat won 15 (giving BN a 2-seat majority) with Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat each winning 4 of the 8 parliamentary seats (50:50).

Prediction 11: There are 165 parliamentary seats in West Malaysia and Barisan Nasional will win 83/85 with 80/82 going to Pakatan Rakyat.

What did happen: Barisan Nasional won 85 parliamentary seats in West Malaysia and Pakatan Rakyat won 80.

Prediction 12: There are 57 parliamentary seats in East Malaysia (including Labuan) and Barisan Nasional will win at least 45 seats and not more than 12 going to Pakatan Rakyat.

What did happen: Barisan Nasional won 48 parliamentary seats in East Malaysia and Pakatan Rakyat won 9.

Prediction 13: Pakatan Rakyat would see a reduced majority in Kelantan.

What did happen: Barisan Nasional increased its seats from 6 to 12 in the Kelantan State Assembly and increased its parliamentary seats from 2 to 5.

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

第拾叁屆大選的拾叁個預測

很多人都在等著我那篇“我已經告訴過你了”文章，但在此我想聲明我並不會寫篇那樣的文章。我只是想要提醒你我做出的13個預測都成真了----事實上，有多過13個預測都發生了。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin
譯文：方宙

預測壹：大約80%的選民，即1千3百萬所有選民中的1千萬名，會參與投票。
結果：大約有1千零50萬選民在5月5號出來投票。

預測貳：囯陣會贏得至少130席，但不會比上屆的140席多。
結果：囯陣贏得133席。

預測叁：民聯正如卜基所預測般不會贏多過100席，但會比2008年的82席還要多。
結果：民聯贏得89席。

預測肆：即使只是贏得45%的選票，囯陣仍然能以簡單多數議席執政。
結果：囯陣以46-47%選票組織政府。

預測伍：民聯必須贏得55%選票才有機會促使懸吊國會，而如果他們要執政的話他們必須至少贏得60%選票。
結果：民聯贏得51%選票，但仍無法執政。

預測陸：如果民聯成功保住雪蘭莪，那他們將會為誰會出任州務大臣而頭疼。
結果：民聯至今還未宣佈誰會出任雪州大臣一職，而其他州屬經已做出宣佈了。

預測柒：行動黨會成爲最大的反對黨。
結果：行動黨現在以38席成爲最大反對黨。公正黨與伊黨分別贏得30席與21席。

預測捌：民聯將失守吉打州。
結果：民聯輸掉吉打州政權。

預測玖：霹靂將會是5-5波。
結果：囯陣贏得31個州席而民聯贏得28個（囯陣以3席之差獲勝）。在囯席方面，他們各自贏得12席。

預測拾：登嘉樓將會是5-5波
結果：囯陣贏得17個州席而民聯贏得15個（囯陣以2席之差獲勝）。在囯席方面，他們各自贏得4席。

預測拾壹：在西馬165個議席裏，囯陣會贏得83/85席，民聯80/82席
結果：囯陣在西馬贏得85個囯席而民聯則贏得80個

預測拾貳：在東馬57個議席裏，囯陣至少會贏得45席，民聯最多12席
結果：囯陣在東馬贏得48個囯席而民聯則贏得9個

預測拾叁：民聯在吉蘭丹會失去議席。
結果：囯陣從以往的6個州席增至12席，囯席則從2席增至5席。

Now, if I were to bet RM100,000 on Pakatan Rakyat winning more than 100 seats, I might most likely win RM100,000. However, if I were to bet RM100,000 on Pakatan Rakyat NOT winning 100 seats, then I might lose my RM100,000 but, if I win, I will win RM1 million.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The graphics below from The Malaysian Insider are very interesting. Malaysians understand pictures better than long cheong hei pieces so maybe you can look at those graphics to understand what is going to happen this Sunday, 5th May 2013.

Umno is contesting 120 out of the 222 parliamentary seats. The non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional are contesting the balance 102 (60 in West Malaysia, 11 in Sabah, 31 in Sarawak, and 1 independent/Ibrahim Ali).

Assuming the 60 non-Umno/Barisan Nasional candidates in West Malaysia are going to get reduced to just 5 (MCA only), then Umno must win at least 70 of the 105 seats in West Malaysia.

That would give Barisan Nasional a total of 75 out of the 165 parliamentary seats in West Malaysia while Pakatan Rakyat would have 90 seats.

Then Umno needs to win another 10 seats in Sabah (losing 5) to make it a total of 85 seats.

Then the non-Umno/Barisan Nasional candidates in Sabah must deliver at least 6 seats (losing 5) and this would give the opposition 10 parliamentary seats in Sabah with Barisan Nasional controlling 16 of the 26 seats.

PBB in Sarawak must deliver 12 seats with another 12 from the other Sarawak coalition members giving Barisan Nasional a total of 24 seats and the opposition 7.

Hence the non-Umno/Barisan Nasional candidates in East Malaysia will deliver 30 seats combined to add to Umno’s 85 to make it a total of 115, with 107 seats going to Pakatan Rakyat

That is what the Chinese bookies are giving Pakatan Rakyat, more than 100 parliamentary seats.

And if you bet on Pakatan Rakyat NOT winning more than 100 parliamentary seats and they do not, then you will walk away with RM10 for every Ringgit that you bet, odds of ten to one.

Good money, no, if Pakatan Rakyat does not win more than 100 seats?

Now, if I were to bet RM100,000 on Pakatan Rakyat winning more than 100 seats, I might most likely win RM100,000. However, if I were to bet RM100,000 on Pakatan Rakyat NOT winning 100 seats, then I might lose my RM100,000 but, if I win, I will win RM1 million.

Hmm…if I were a gambling man which do you think I would bet on?

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

归根究底

现在，如果我下注10万块钱，赌民联会赢多过100席的话，那我赢得10万块钱的机会会很大。无论如何，如果我把那10万赌在民联不会赢的话，虽然说我输的机会很大，但如果我赢的话，我就会获得100万。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

以上大马内幕者刊登的图表是很有意思的。比起‘长气’的文章，大马人一般会更容易看得懂图表，所以你可以看看这些图表来更清楚地了解这个星期日到底会发生什么事情。

这次在所有222个国席当中，巫统会在120个国席竞选（西马105席，沙巴15席）。而剩余的102个将会由非巫统的国阵成员党竞选（西马60席，沙巴11席，砂劳越31席，独立人士/土权会的伊不拉欣阿里1席）

假使西马60席的非巫统国阵候选人只输剩5席（其他都输光，只有马华胜出5席），那巫统就必须从西马的105席中赢得70席。那既代表，西马165席当中，国阵只胜出75席，而民联90席。

巫统然后在沙巴的15席当中赢得10席，现在国阵就有85席。非巫统的国阵候选人再赢多6席（输掉5席），那国阵在沙巴26个国席中就会控制16个，其他10个则归民联。

砂劳越的PBB必须胜出12席，再配合其他成员党的12席，那国阵在砂劳越就会牢控24席，而民联只赢得7席。

既是说，东马的非巫统国阵候选人必须交出30个议席，加上巫统自己本身的80+5席，那他们的总数会是115席，对垒民联的107席。

这就是华人卜基开给民联的，他们认为民联将会赢多过100个国席。

如果你赌民联不会胜多过100个国席的话，那你的赔率会是1赔10，即你下1块钱注，庄家赔你10块钱。

如果民联真的赢少过100席的话，那你将会赢得很多钱，不是吗？

现在，如果我下注10万块钱，赌民联会赢多过100席的话，那我赢得10万块钱的机会会很大。无论如何，如果我把那10万赌在民联不会赢的话，虽然说我输的机会很大，但如果我赢的话，我就会获得100万。

哼。。。如果我是名赌徒的话，你们猜我会下哪个注呢？

However, I have monitored the news reports from both the mainstream media and alternative media over the last week since Nomination Day and what are the issues they are talking about? We are focused on discussing the symptoms of the disease. We are ignoring the causes of the disease. So how can the fence-sitters be sure about who is going to make a better government?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I would like to refer to the very convincing letter by Robert Leong below, which was published in The Malaysian Insider. It is a good letter, I must admit, but we must be very careful that we do not regard fallacies as historical facts and then end up doing wishful thinking rather than political strategising.

Robert Leong said, “For the first time in recent memory we, the rakyat, have the option to vote to either maintain the status quo, or to radically change the government of this nation by handing the baton to the Pakatan Rakyat coalition.”

That is a fallacy. We have always had the option to vote for another party other than the ruling party (‘ruling party’ meaning the Alliance Party in 1955 and Barisan Nasional in 1974).

PAS was founded in 1948 as the Parti Orang Muslimin Malaya (Hizbul Muslimin) and re-registered as the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party (PMIP) in 1955. The name was later changed to Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) during the Asri Muda era in the 1970s.

The Labour Party (LPM) was founded in 1952, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) in 1953, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) in 1965, and Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan) in 1968.

PAS, LPM, PPP, DAP and Gerakan all contested the 1969 General Election as opposition parties and gave the ruling Alliance Party a whacking of its life.

In between that were many other opposition parties, mainly ‘splinter’ parties of PAS, Umno and/or Barisan Nasional. We had Parti Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Sabah (BERJAYA) in 1976. Barisan Jemaah Islamiah Se-Malaysia (BERJASA) in 1977. Parti Hizbul Muslimin Malaysia (HAMIM) in 1983. Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) in 1985. Semangat 46 in 1988. Parti Keadilan Nasional in 1999. And many more (especially in East Malaysia).

In terms of coalitions, we had Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah and Gagasan Rakyat in 1990 and 1995, Barisan Alternatif in 1999 and 2004, and Pakatan Rakyat in 2008 and now, 2013.

Hence for 12 general elections and one municipal election since 1955, two years before Merdeka, we always had choices of parties and coalitions. It is just that we never accepted these choices (and everyone will offer all sorts of reasons and excuses as to why we did not accept these choices). Hence, also, Robert Leong’s statement that “For the first time in recent memory we, the rakyat, have the option to vote to either maintain the status quo, or to radically change the government of this nation….” is not correct.

That is what I mean by fallacy. We always had choices. It is just that we did not care. Now, apparently we do. But that does not mean this is the first time we have a choice. This is the first time we care. In the past we did not care.

Robert Leong then said, “Many of us have already made our minds up as to which political party we shall vote for. However, there is still a large segment of the voting population that has not. These voters constitute the ‘fence-sitters’.”

This is true. I have always said that there are between 20-40% fence-sitters, depending on which election we are talking about and which segment of the population plus region that we look at.

For the Chinese voters, the fence-sitters could be as low as 10% in some areas and 20-25% in some. There are about 20% Malay fence-sitters and as high as 40% in some areas. The Indian and natives of East Malaysia fence-sitters are about the same as the Malays depending on which constituency you look at.

On average, a 25% fence-sitter voter population would be a safe estimate.

Now, the rest of Robert Leong’s letter explains the reasons why we need a change of government but I do not need to dissect his arguments. Mostly are correct. What I do wish to talk about, however, is that all these reasons cited by Robert Leong have basically remained unchanged for a long time.

In others words, the reasons Robert Leong gave as to why we need a change of government are the same reasons we gave for more than 40 years since the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Nothing has changed. We are still facing the same problems now as we did over the last 40 years. These are, as what many Malaysia Today readers are fond of saying, ‘nothing new’.

However, I have monitored the news reports from both the mainstream media and alternative media over the last week since Nomination Day and what are the issues they are talking about? We are focused on discussing the symptoms of the disease. We are ignoring the causes of the disease. So how can the fence-sitters be sure about who is going to make a better government?

They are telling us about everything that is wrong with the country. We know what is wrong with the country. We have been telling you ourselves what is wrong with the country but you would not listen. What we need to know is how are you going to fix all these problems?

That is what is missing in this election campaign.

Okay, let us agree that the country has gone to the dogs. But what do we need to do to save this country? Well, we need to change the government, you will say. Okay, let us also agree that the solution is we need to change the government. Now, can you tell us how this new government is going to address all the issues that make Malaysia a poorly governed nation?

Number one problem: corruption, mismanagement of the country’s resources, and wastage of public funds.

Number two problem: racism, discrimination, persecution and religious intolerance.

Number three problem: no respect for fundamental rights, no civil liberties, and no freedom of thought, freedom of association and freedom of religious beliefs.

In a corporate turnaround exercise, we normally tackle the top three problems and once the top three problems are solved we would normally solve about 90% of the problems. So let us talk about the top three problems and ask: have all the politicians who are campaigning in the general election addressed all these issues in their ceramah?

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

An appeal to fence-sitters

Robert Leong, The Malaysian Insider

Dear fellow Malaysians,

After almost 56 years of uninterrupted, one-coalition rule by the Alliance and its successor, Barisan Nasional (BN), we have reached a critical juncture in the history of Malaysia. Despite misgivings about the handling of the forthcoming 2013 general election by the Election Commission, this election provides ordinary Malaysian citizens with the best opportunity to stake a decisive claim to the future governance of their nation.

For the first time in recent memory we, the rakyat, have the option to vote to either maintain the status quo, or to radically change the government of this nation by handing the baton to the Pakatan Rakyat coalition. Your vote will be crucial because at this time the likelihood of which coalition will win is too close to call.

Many of us have already made our minds up as to which political party we shall vote for. However, there is still a large segment of the voting population that has not. These voters constitute the “fence-sitters,” for want of a better term, and it is to them that I am directing this appeal.

I appeal to you to ensure that your vote will be a serious reflection of what you dearly wish for your country and for your children’s future. Please do your due diligence to assess the political parties that are contesting this election. Specifically, consider the track record of BN as a barometer of its ability, or inability, to properly govern Malaysia.

We Malaysians are now a people that are divided in race and socio-economic class more than ever before. Racial and religious slurs from bigots such as Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifli Noordin go unchecked. Corruption has reached dizzying heights, contributing to a massive illicit capital outflow of RM870 billion over the past 10 years. We are faced with a rising national debt equivalent to 53 per cent of our gross domestic product in 2012 that is forecasted to approach RM1 trillion by 2020.

Despite decades of pro-Bumiputera policies that seem to benefit mainly the cronies of the ruling BN class, some of whom have disproportionately made billions, poverty continues unabated, affecting particularly rural Malays, Indians and indigenous people. Illegal drug addiction continues to plague the poor, and crime is prevalent despite rosy official statistics. Disclosures of significant scandals, such as the Port Klang Free Zone, National Feedlot Corporation (“Cowgate”) and Scorpene submarine scandals committed by members and relatives of the ruling BN parties are still awaiting resolution.

Pillar institutions such as the judiciary and the legislative have been so severely compromised since Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s time in office that they can no longer provide the necessary checks and balances that a true democracy demands and expects. Prosecutory decisions by the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General are now viewed with suspicion and scorn by the general public.

Partisan coverage of political events in the mainstream media, almost wholly owned by the ruling parties, which denigrates the federal opposition and even falsifies news are considered the norm. Deaths in police custody are hushed up and police brutality goes unpunished. Justice for the deaths of Altantuya Shaariibuu, Aminurasyid Amzah, Ahmad Sarbani, Kugan Ananthan and Teoh Beng Hock, among many others, remains but an elusive hope for their grieving families.

Shenanigans such as manufactured sex videos to smear prominent federal opposition figures, miscarriage of justice such as in the sodomy case against Anwar Ibrahim and in the murder case of Altantuya, and persecution and demonisation of non-governmental organisations such as the coalition for clean and fair elections Bersih and the human rights group Suaram are rampant. In fact, the only sex video that has been validated was that exposing an extra-marital affair of Dr Chua Soi Lek, who is now president of the MCA, a BN coalition partner.

Substantial numbers of phantom voters continue to exist that the pliant Election Commission refuses to clean up, and a citizenship-for-votes scandal in Sabah is now being unearthed. Voting constituencies have been gerrymandered to provide an unfair advantage to the ruling BN coalition such that in the last general election BN won a disproportionate 112 of the 139 smallest seats with a simple majority to form the federal government with just 19 per cent of the total voter population. Last but not least, the hostility shown by the BN coalition towards clean and fair elections as advocated by Bersih is telling, for why would a legitimate government be opposed to this basic tenet of democracy?

In contrast, in a short span of five years, Pakatan Rakyat has shown itself capable of ruling the states under its control with competency and transparency. The states of Penang and Selangor have received commendations from the Auditor-General for their fiscal rectitude by achieving surpluses that put the BN-controlled states to shame.

Please take all of the above into consideration when you make your final decision on which party to vote for, come Election Day. I hope that you will vote decisively according to your morals and conscience for the good of the rakyat and for the betterment of your country. Every vote counts, so please vote wisely as the stakes are high. The results of this election could decide the fate of our beloved country.

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

谬论不是真理

无论如何，自从上个礼拜提名日后我不断的关注主流媒体和其他媒体的新闻，但他们谈的都是些什么东西？他们着重的都是疾病的症兆而把疾病的病因都给忽略掉了，那你要这些中间选民如何知道那个党派将会是更好的政府呢？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

我想对梁先生Robert Leong刊登在大马内幕者一篇很具说服力的文章发表看法。我必须承认那是一封很好的信，但我们必须很小心，不可把谬论当成历史事实，否则我们很可能只是纸上谈兵而不是提出具体的政治战略。

梁先生说：“最近记忆以来，这是人民第一次有机会投票选择保持现状，或把指挥棒交给民联来个根本彻底的改变。”（“For the first time in recent memory we, the rakyat, have the option to vote to either maintain the status quo, or to radically change the government of this nation by handing the baton to the Pakatan Rakyat coalition.” ）

这是个谬论，因为一直以来我们都有机会选择执政党以外的其他政党（这里的执政党指的是1955年后的联盟和1974年后的国阵）。
伊斯兰党在1948年建党，当时取名Parti Orang Muslimin Malaya (Hizbul Muslimin)。1955年，他们以Pan-Islamic Malayan Party (PIMP)这个名字从新注册。在1970年代Asri Muda管理期间，他们正式易名为Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS)。

工党Labour Party (LPM)于1952年成立，人民进步党Progressive Party(PPP)于1953年，民主行动党Democratic Action Party (DAP)于1965年，而民政党Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan)则于1968年。这四个政党都参与1969年大选而把当时的执政党联盟打得跪地求饶。

往后期间出现了很多反对党，它们大多数都是伊党，巫统或国阵分解出来的‘碎片’，计有于1976年成立的Parti Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Sabah (BERJAYA)，1977年的Barisan Jemaah Islamiah Se-Malaysia (BERJASA)，1983年的Parti Hizbul Muslimin Malaysia (HAMIM)，1985年的Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS)，1988年的46精神党Semangat 46，1999年的Parti Keadilan Nasional。。。。等等，不尽其数(东马尤数更多)。
如果是以反对党联盟来算的话，我们有1990年和1995年的Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah和 Gagasan Rakyat，1999年和2994年的Barisan Alternatif和最近的民联。

所以说，自1955年（独立前两年）以来，在12次国家大选和1次市政府选举里，我们一直都有不同的政党和联盟可以选择。问题是，我们都不选择这些反对党而已（所有人一定都会跳出来给他们不选择这些反对党的原因和借口）。故此，梁先生所讲的“最近记忆以来，这是人民第一次有机会选择投票保持现状，或来个根本彻底的改变。。。”是不正确的。

这就是我讲这是个谬论的所在。我们有得选，问题是我们无心去理会而已。现在看来我们已开始关心了，但那并不代表过去我们没有选择，过去我们是毫不关心。

梁先生接下去说到：“我们当中很多人已经决定要把票投给哪个政党了，但还有大部分的选民还未做出决定，这些选民就是所谓的‘墙头草’。”（“Many of us have already made our minds up as to which political party we shall vote for. However, there is still a large segment of the voting population that has not. These voters constitute the ‘fence-sitters’.”）

这是真的，我已经讲过了，中间选民占了20-40%，视乎我们谈及的是哪一届大选，选民的年龄层，和选区等。

对华裔选民来说，某些地区的中间选民可以低至10%而其他的可以有20-25%。马来中间选民可以在某些选区占有20%而其他选区可以高达40%。印度选民和东马土著也和马来选民拥有大致一样的巴仙率，都是很视选区而不同的。

总体来讲，中间选民大约占了25%，你可以把这25%看成个合理的数字。

梁先生接下来提到的都是我们要改朝换代的原因。我在此不必一一剖解，他大致上都讲得很对。但，我必须指出的是，他所引用的原因都是那些老久前就存在的问题了。

换句话说，梁先生所谈及到的原因和我们在70，80，90年代时提起的都是一样的。40年来情况并没有改变，我们还是面对着同样的问题。这就像是很多MT读者喜欢讲的‘没什么新意嘛’。

无论如何，自从上个礼拜提名日后我不断的关注主流媒体和其他媒体的新闻，但他们谈的都是些什么东西？他们着重的都是疾病的症兆而把疾病的病因都给忽略掉了，那你要这些中间选民如何知道那个党派将会是更好的政府呢？

他们所报的都是我们国家的问题，我们都知道我们国家出了什么问题。我们已经重复又重复地告诉你们我们出的是什么问题了，但你们从来都没听进耳朵里面。我们现在想知道的是你们要如何把这些问题给解决掉？

这是那些竞选活动都没有碰到的。

好了，就让我们都认同我们国家真的是‘代誌很大条’，那我们应该怎样来打救我们的国家呢？你说，我们必须要换上新政府，那好，让我们都认同我们必须换新政府。那现在新政府上位了，请问你能否告诉我这个新政府会以什么方式把马来西亚给‘医’好呢？

问题一：贪污，不当管理国家资源，浪费公帑。

问题二：种族主义，歧视，人身骚扰，宗教排斥

问题三：基本权利不被尊重，没有民间自主，没有思想、集会、宗教自由。

在企业界里，我们在面对困境时通常会圈出三个最大的问题。如果我们能把这三个大问题给解决掉，那我们大约就解决掉了所有问题的90%。所以让我们专注在以上这三个问题，然后我想问的是：那些所有参加此届大选的候选人，他们在助选会/讲座会上都谈到这些问题了吗？
 

Say Pakatan Rakyat does win the general election in two weeks time. How many of those pro-Umno or pro-Barisan Nasional people will remain pro-Umno or pro-Barisan Nasional? Would they not swing over to the government-of-the-day and become pro-Pakatan Rakyat?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I remember an incident back in the 1980s when the Director of the Terengganu Anti-Corruption Agency or ACA (now called the MACC) took two weeks leave to campaign for PAS during the general election. He drove around all over Terengganu with his Volkswagen covered with PAS flags.

One general election later I was in Lembah Pantai to help the Umno candidate, my old school friend Kamal Husein, who was contesting against Marina Yusoff from Semangat 46. It was actually tough going because the Umno people aligned to Razak Abu Samah and Abu Bakar Lazim were sabotaging him. Hence because of the internal sabotage Marina had a strong hope of winning.

I then met up with two Special Branch officers to seek their help. They agreed to help but for a price so I introduced them to Kamal Hussein. Of course, the price was quite high but Kamal paid the price and won the election. Kamal is now with PKR so no doubt whatever I did is no longer a secret and PKR and Anwar Ibrahim would now know my black-ops operation and how I paid off (or rather Kamal did) the Special Branch officers to sabotage the other side.

In 1998 I received information from an ex-military man -- Lt Col (Rtd) -- whose brother was a Special Branch officer regarding what they planned to do with Anwar Ibrahim, who was then already incarcerated in the Sungai Buloh Prison. I then informed Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail about it and she raised this matter in Parliament.

After I was released from my first ISA detention in 2001 I met up with PAS leader Mahfuz Omar who asked me whether I knew where I was kept during my detention. I replied that I did not so Mahfuz told me where the detention place was. He had received this information from a Special Branch officer who was sympathetic to PAS and was in a way their mole in the Special Branch.

Then we have the many senior police and military officers who have since retired and have joined the opposition. Then we have the many senior Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders who have left the ruling party to join the opposition. Then we have the many Deep Throats that I myself have in the government, Umno, MCA, Gerakan, MIC, PPP, etc., plus the MACC, Police Force, Attorney-General’s Chambers, and whatnot, who feed me information and for sure would join the opposition once they retire or no longer have a future with the government or Umno/BN.

So you see, you never know whom you can trust nowadays. Even the Father of Independence (Bapak Merdeka), Tunku Abdul Rahman, and Tun Hussein Onn left Umno and died outside Umno and supported Semangat 46, as did people like Datuk Harun Idris (infamous for May 13) and a host of other government people turned opposition supporters.

And the latest, of course, is Muhammad son of Muhammad, who actually hoped to become Prime Minister one day but now that that is not going to happen he has crossed over to the opposition.

Therefore, all those who are saying that I am making or wish to make a deal with Umno so that I can return to Malaysia are mad if they think I am that stupid. Even if I do wish to make a deal who in the government, Umno, the Police, or whatever can I trust? How would I know that these people I talk to will not one day cross over to the opposition? And once they do what would happen to the secret that we share?

Say Pakatan Rakyat does win the general election in two weeks time. How many of those pro-Umno or pro-Barisan Nasional people will remain pro-Umno or pro-Barisan Nasional? Would they not swing over to the government-of-the-day and become pro-Pakatan Rakyat?

As I said, even if I do harbour ambitions of returning to Malaysia I would not know whom to trust. I do know a lot of people on the ‘other side’ -- that is certainly very true. I even have many friends in Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s office, some of them my old school mates. But I cannot guarantee that they would not cross over if things on the other side do not pan out to what they had hoped.

Hence you insult me when you say I am making a deal or wish to make a deal with Umno. That is so stupid and only you can be stupid enough to think that. And just because you are stupid does not mean I am stupid as well.

Let me put it another way. How do you think I know that Vincent Tan paid Hee Yit Foong RM25 million to cross over? And would any of you have known this had I not revealed it? Well, I got it from the horse’s mouth, people who were involved in the whole thing. Hence if they could readily reveal that they paid Hee RM25 million would they not also readily reveal they are paying me if I make a deal with them?

So, yes, I do have friends in high places from the other side. But I would be exposing myself to great risk if I use these connections to make a deal. And only silly people will make this mistake. And I may be many things, but silly is not one of them. And if you think I would make that silly mistake then you are sillier than you dare admit.

I have been in this game for 35 years so I know how to play my black-ops. I suppose many of you are Johnny-come-lately armchair politicians so you know nuts. Hence you do not know what I would call self-preservation. And making a deal with someone who may later sell you out is NOT self-preservation. And in this game the ‘other side’ can become ‘your side’ with a flick of an eyelid and what do you do then?

Kapish?

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

你現在明白了嗎？

就說民聯在兩周内會勝出好了，有多少現在親巫統和親囯陣的還會繼續親巫統和親囯陣？他們難道不會變成親民聯這個新政府嗎？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

我記得在80年代某個大選時，登嘉樓反貪侷總監特地拿了兩個禮拜假為伊斯蘭黨助選。他把他的富士偉根轎車圍上伊斯蘭黨旗，然後駕著它全登嘉樓逛。

而後，就在下一次大選我去了Lembah Pantai幫我的老朋友Kamal Husein助選。他當時是巫統代表，而他的對手是46精神黨的Marina Yusoff。當時他面對著很大的問題，因爲巫統内部成員與Razak Abu Samah和Abu Bakar Lazim聯手來扯他後腿，導致Marina勝出的機會變得很高。

我爲此和特別單位官員見面，看看能不能得到幫助。他們答應了，給了我一個價格，所以我把Kamal Husein介紹給他們。那個價格當然很高，但Kamal Husein還是付了，而最終他贏了那次的大選。現在Kamal Husein已經是公正黨的人了，無疑的公正黨和安華肯定知道這個我干的勾當以賄賂（其實是Kamal付的錢）特別單位來破壞伊黨。

1998年，我收到一個前軍官—一個中校—的消息。那個中校的哥哥來自那個特別單位，他們給我放風聲說他們準備對當時已被監禁在Sungai Buloh監牢的安華動手。我把此消息告訴給旺姐，然後她再帶到國會裏。

2001年，我被釋放出來（我的第一次因ISA被扣留）后，我和伊黨領袖Mahfuz Omar見面。他當時問我是否知道我被扣留的地點，我回答說我不知道，然後他把答案告訴了我。他的這些消息是從一個特別單位官員打聽回來的，那個官員對伊黨特別感到同情所以成了伊黨的内鬼。

我們有很多高層警官和軍官在退休后加入了反對黨。我們也有很多前囯陣領袖加入反對黨。然後我們還有很多‘深喉’提供信息，政府，巫統，馬華，民政，囯大黨，反貪侷，警方，律政署。。。。等都有我的人。而這些人在退休或在囯陣找不到前途后都會毫無異議地加入反對黨。

所以你可看到，你不會知道到底有誰是信得過的。就連我們的國父東姑阿都拉曼和前首相敦胡先翁也離開巫統加入46精神黨。還有很多的政府領袖如Datuk Harun Idris （513事件的幕後人）也成了反對黨成員。

現在最新的當然是默罕默德，默罕默德的兒子（前雪蘭莪大臣，泰益）。他曾經夢想成爲首相，但如今他知道已不大可能了，所以他跳槽了。

所以說，那些整天說我因爲要回來馬來西亞而甘願跟囯陣談條件的都是瘋的，因爲他們都以爲我很笨。如果我真的要那麽做，請問有誰是信得過的呢？我怎能知道有哪一天他們會跳槽到反對黨呢？如果他們真的跳了，那我和他們的秘密該怎麽辦？

就說民聯在兩周内會勝出好了，有多少現在親巫統和親囯陣的還會繼續親巫統和親囯陣？他們難道不會變成親民聯這個新政府嗎？

我已經講了，即使我真的有囘大馬的想法我也不知道我該相信誰。我的確認識很多‘另一邊’的人，那是毋庸置疑的。我甚至在首相納吉的辦公室裏有很多朋友，有些還是我的老同學呢。但我不敢保證他們在事情變得不如意時不會跳過界。

你們指責我已經和巫統或想要和巫統僑事情。那是笨得不能再笨的，只有你這種蠢蛋才想得出來。就因爲你的智商有問題並不代表我的智商也有問題。

讓我這樣講好了，你想我是怎樣知道陳至遠付了許月鳳2千5百萬要她跳黨？如果我沒有揭發的話你們有多少人會知道呢？我是從那些局内人的口中得到消息的。既然他們能把許月鳳的事情說出來，那如果我真的和他們談條件的話，他們是不是也會把他們付錢給我的事情也說出來呢？

我的確在另一邊的高層有很多朋友。但是，如果我通過他們來僑事情的話，我將冒著很大被揭露的風險。只有愚蠢的人才會做出這樣的錯誤。我是很多東西，但我可以肯定我並不愚蠢。如果你認爲我會做出如此低級失誤的話那你真的有夠愚蠢了。

我已經在這個遊戲裏混了35年，我知道怎樣來玩這個遊戲。我猜想你們很多都是剛入門的，所以你們什麽也不懂。你們根本就不懂自保是什麽意思，跟那些有可能出賣你的人僑事情根本就不是自保。在這個遊戲裏，‘敵方’可能在一眨眼閒就成了‘我方’，那到時你該怎麽辦？

明白了嗎？

Can we Malaysians ever play the game with sportsmanship? Can we ever fight using Queensberry rules? Unfortunately when we Malaysians play or fight there are no rules or sportsmanship. Everything goes. Hence the losers lose with a bitter taste in their mouth and with revenge in their heart.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The danger with vilifying and disparaging your political opponent is we never know when we will have to lick back our spit. Hence it may be better to debate issues and ideologies rather than make personal attacks on one another.

There are many examples where foe has turned friend and we have had to pretend that we never said those nasty things that we said about our one-time foe that is now our friend.

No doubt we can always excuse our actions by saying that there are no permanent friends and permanent enemies in politics. That is, of course, very true. And sometimes we even make a friend of an enemy just so that we can face and defeat an even bigger enemy.

Hence an enemy of our enemy becomes our friend, at least for the meantime until we can defeat that bigger enemy. And then, once that mutual enemy has been defeated, we can revert to becoming enemies again.

The Allies becoming ‘friends’ with Russia during the Second World War is one example. The common enemy was Nazi Germany but once Germany was defeated the West went into a Cold War with Russia that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust that would have destroyed the entire world had not Khrushchev blinked first during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The US-Iraq alliance against Iran is yet another example but once Iran had been ‘neutralised’ then the US invaded Iraq and sent that nation back to the Dark Ages. Afghanistan is, again, another example. The US trained and armed the Taliban to fight the Russians and then when the Russians went home to Moscow the Taliban was declared the enemy of democracy.

When we need someone as our friend we have to close our eyes to their misdeeds and transgressions. The Russians were already Communists since long before WWII. Iraq was a violent regime that oppressed and persecuted its own citizens long before the Iranians sacked the US Embassy in Teheran. And the Talibans were extreme fundamentalist Muslims even before they migrated from Pakistan back to Afghanistan.

The only thing is, since the West needed their goodwill we pretended that all this was not going on. Only when we no longer need them do we raise these issues against them. It is as if these things only just happened or we were not aware of these misdeeds and transgressions earlier.

Basically, in politics, the ends justify the means. Hence making a pact with the devil is quite acceptable as long as there is a bigger devil to fight against. When we need to fry a bigger fish we must close our eyes to the ikan bilis (anchovies). Later, once the bigger fish has been fried, we can make nasi lemak out of the delicious ikan bilis.

And that is the job of the diplomats. The politicians scream blue murder. The diplomats step in when toes are stepped upon and there is a danger of war being declared. And when the diplomats fail, then the military takes over and handles the war. And that is when the citizens die, when war is declared.

Hence politicians start wars. But when the war does start it is not the politician who suffers. It is we the citizens who suffer. In the Siege of Leningrad, 20 million people died, more than half of them non-combatants. But who benefited? Why, the West, of course.

But why must 20 million Russians, more than half of them the common folk, die just so that the West can go on to become a better place? Well, that is called politics. And we are what the military would call cannon fodder. We die so that the politicians can win their argument.

A few years ago Muhammad son of Muhammad was one of the most despised men in Selangor -- maybe even in the whole of Malaysia (alongside Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Taib Mahmud, and so on). Today, he is a Hero of the Revolution. Vive la Révolution!

But can you remember the nasty things we used to say about the man with two Muhammads in his name? Today we need to take back everything we said about him and ask for his forgiveness and kiss his hand.

I remember the days when PAS used to call Anwar Ibrahim ‘Anwar al Juburi’ (Anwar the asshole). In fact, that was Mat Sabu’s favourite chant. Today, Mat Sabu has to openly declare that Anwar and only Anwar is PAS’s choice for Prime Minister. Looking back now, Mat Sabu wishes he had not called him ‘Anwar al Juburi’ after all.

The other problem with vilifying and disparaging those who do not share your same political ideology or affiliation is that Malaysians simpan dendam (hold a grudge). For example, many Malays have still not forgotten or forgiven the events leading to May 13 and neither have the non-Malays forgiven and forgotten the events of May 13.

Hence grudges remain long after the event even though the wounds may have already healed and the scars may have disappeared. The fact that people still grudgingly talk about May 13 not as a historical event but as unfinished business demonstrates the still-open wounds and visible scars that many people carry.

And mind you, many of those who grudge May 13 were not even born yet 44 years ago. Hence wounds and scars are transferable, so to speak.

I know many who had voted for Pakatan Rakyat back in 2008 are, today, fence sitters. And many who were fence sitters back in 2008 today are going to vote for Barisan Nasional. And it is all because of the unpleasant words that some of us are using. Of course, many who did not vote back in 2008 are going to vote Pakatan Rakyat this time around as well.

The question is, would the gains be offset by the losses or are the gains bigger than the losses -- which means Pakatan Rakyat is going to garner more votes this time around compared to 2008? We will know in two weeks time, no doubt.

But what about the grudges? Never mind whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat is going to win the coming election. My concern is not about the winners but about the losers. Would the vilifying and disparaging create so much bad blood that the losers will want to take revenge for this bad blood?

I remember a football game once between Terengganu and Negeri Sembilan in the Kuala Terengganu stadium where Terengganu won 2:1. Immediately after the game the Terengganu fans rioted and cars and buses with Negeri Sembilan registration plates were burned. I was there to watch the ‘fun’.

Terengganu won the game. So why riot? Well, it is not about the outcome of the game but about how the game was played. Terengganu may have won but a lot of bad blood was created during that game. Hence even though Terengganu won the fans still wanted their revenge on Negeri Sembilan.

Can we Malaysians ever play the game with sportsmanship? Can we ever fight using Queensberry rules? Unfortunately when we Malaysians play or fight there are no rules or sportsmanship. Everything goes. Hence the losers lose with a bitter taste in their mouth and with revenge in their heart.

Then what happens when later the enemy crosses over to become our friend? What do we say to someone who we used to call a dog, pig and prostitute? Do we pretend we never said all those things?

And what do we do when someone we used to call ‘God’s gift to Malaysia’ crosses over to the other side? Do we now call him or her a dog, pig and prostitute after licking that person’s asshole and calling him/her the reincarnation of Mother Teresa and Gandhi two-in-one?

Yes, be careful with your spitting lest you are forced to lick back your spit later on. And what would you do if that person you spat at happens to be a sore loser? Have we not seen how words can change to fists easily enough when the loser is not so graceful in defeat?

And how many of you signed the petition asking for Dr Wan Azizah to be given a seat to contest the coming general election? Do you know and do you care? Well, let me tell you. From the more than 13 million registered voters, less than 2,000 signed the petition. So that comes to only…hell, who cares anyway?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The nation reeled in shock last week as private investigator P. Balasubramaniam abruptly passed away, just days before, declaring he would continue to seek justice for the murdered Altantuya Shaariibuu.

But as the shock wears off and Malaysians move on, his family is left picking up the pieces of a shattered life – a life already strained five years ago, when Balasubramaniam’s declarations regarding the prime minister forced his family to flee the country.

Now, with Balasubramaniam dead, his wife, A Santamil Selvi, and three teenaged children are stranded in Malaysia with diminishing funds and a rapidly dimming future.

Funeral expenses, education fees and mortgages are weighing heavily on the widow’s mind, who is currently homebound in accordance with Hindu tradition.

“I visited Bala’s wife last night to talk about how her family was coping – she showed me her IOUs, how she is well in debt. She has even resorted to pawning the items she owns,” Kelana Jaya MP Loh Gow Burne told reporters today.

“Unfortunately, despite Bala’s sacrifice for the country, his family is now in serious trouble.”

In a bid to keep the bereaved family afloat, Loh is now initiating a fund-raising campaign and is appealing to the public to donate any money they can spare for the widowed Santamil Selvi and her fatherless children.

“The priority is for Bala’s children to be given the opportunity to finish their education, and to ensure that someone who sacrificed all he had for the nation, would not have his family left in poverty,” said Loh.

Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, said the funds would immediately be used to help Santamil Selvi and her children return to India, where they had been residing for the past five years.

“His children must go back to India as they have been schooling there for five years. It would be too difficult for them to adapt to the school system here, especially after all the trauma they recently went through,” said Americk.

“The funds will also go towards basic requirements such as food, clothes, mortgage, education… Monthly expenditure can easily reach up to RM15,000,” he added.

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

The above was what was reported one month ago on 20th March 2013. Do any of you reading this know where Bala’s family currently is? Do you know how much money was collected and are they now out of their financial predicament? Are Bala’s children back in school in Chennai?

I think a more important question to ask is: do any of you care now that Bala is no longer of any use to the ABU cause? Yes, tell me honestly, do any of you reading this know and care?

Malaysians suffer from the NATO Syndrome. Do you know that 53% of the voters are women? And do you know that the manner in which Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail was treated will have some effect on the women voters, especially the Malay women from the Malay heartland?

Yes, I bet you did not know this.

And how many of you signed the petition asking for Dr Wan Azizah to be given a seat to contest the coming general election? Do you know and do you care? Well, let me tell you. From the more than 13 million registered voters, less than 2,000 signed the petition. So that comes to only…hell, who cares anyway?

And then when the Malay women vote Umno you scream and say that the Malays are still sleeping. Really? Is it the Malays who are still sleeping or is it you who is still sleeping?

Haris Ibrahim posted this in his Blog early this morning:

A bad case of rhinitis in the early hours of Saturday morning kept me from going to the nomination centre to lend support to Arul’s candidacy in Semenyih. Later that day, tracking all the nominations and seeing so many multi-cornered fights, especially in Sabah, only served to remind me again why I am pro-rakyat, and not pro the opposition parties.

I would just like to say “welcome home Sam.” I thought I had lost you. I am glad that we still share the same doctrine -- which is we are pro-rakyat and not pro-party, either ruling or opposition.

I admit that we may have different methods in trying to meet our objective but, as we say in England, there are many ways to skin a pussy, or even pricks for that matter. And we must admit that Malaysian politicians are a bunch of pricks, no doubt about that.

Well, you as an avid Qur’an believer will be very familiar with the verse ‘show me the straight path’ and ‘to you your path and to me mine’. Ultimately, our journeys are both the same -- to seek the truth. And while there are many routes to the truth there is only one truth.

I trust now that Nomination Day is over and we are all awaiting Polling Day, you can reflect on the fact that God made us of different creeds on purpose, as Islam says, so that we may know one another, and that you can accept that this diversity, therefore, makes us differ in how we think and do things.

Nevertheless, as long as we can remember that we were placed on the face of this earth to serve the ummah and not the rulers, then God’s mission and vision would have been served. And that, in the final analysis, is what it is all about as we wait to take our place in the land of the dearly departed just like how our comrade Bala did recently and whom we shall all be joining in the not too distant future.

My salam to you my friend and comrade and may we accept whatever happens as takdir or God’s will, the ultimate decider of all things.

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

NATO綜合症

你知道有多少人簽了讓旺姐在大選競選的請願書嗎？你知道和你關心嗎？讓我來告訴你，在馬來西亞1千3百萬選民當中，只有區區那2000人簽了那請願書。那百分比就是。。。。他奶奶的，誰想知道啊？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin
譯文：方宙

上個星期，人們都為私家偵探P. Balasubramaniam的突然去世感到驚訝。而在去世前不久，Bala宣佈他會繼續地為阿丹杜亞的死亡尋找公道。

但驚訝總會漸漸的逝去，馬來西亞人民也漸漸地淡忘了Bala的去世。現在他的家人正嘗試從他們破碎的生活回歸正常----早在五年前Bala第一份指控首相的宣誓書開始他們就被迫離開大馬。

現在，隨著Bala的死亡，他的妻子A Santamil Selvi和3名孩子被迫以日漸減少的金錢在馬來西亞過上逐漸暗淡的生活。

葬禮費用，教育費和房屋貸款正往他的寡婦增添壓力。而依據興都習俗，她現在不能離家半步。

“我昨晚探訪了他的妻子，想要知道他們過得如何----她給我看了她們的賬單，讓我知道她們的欠賬到底有多嚴重。她現在以把值錢的東西當掉來維持生活。”格那再也國會議員羅國本昨日如此對記者說。

“很不幸的，雖然說Bala為國家做出了很多犧牲，他的家庭現在過得很困難。”

爲了能讓維持這個家庭的生活，羅國本已經開始了募款活動。他懇求各界能夠多餘的錢捐出來給這家孤兒寡婦。

“。。。。這些捐款將會充作日常消費如食物，衣服，房屋貸款，教育等。。。。他們的月開銷可高達1万5千令吉。”羅國本如此表示。

******************************************
以上這篇文章是在今年3月20日寫的。你們知道現在Bala的家庭狀況如何嗎？你知道總共湊得多少錢和現在他們脫離財政困境了嗎？現在Bala的孤兒們是否已經回到印度金奈（Chennai）上學了呢？

我想更重要的問題是：現在Bala對‘只要不是巫統運動’（ABU）來講已經沒有利用價值了，你們還關心他嗎？是的，請你很誠懇的告訴我，你們現在讀著這篇文章的還關心嗎？

馬來西亞人民都患上了NATO（No Action Talk Only，只講不做）綜合症。你知道高達53%的選民都是女性嗎？你知道旺姐現在的遭遇會為馬來西亞婦女，特別是馬來人聚集區的馬來婦女，所帶來影響嗎？

我敢打賭你根本就不懂得這一些。

你知道有多少人簽了讓旺姐在大選競選的請願書嗎？你知道和你關心嗎？讓我來告訴你，在馬來西亞1千3百萬選民當中，只有區區那2000人簽了那請願書。那百分比就是。。。。他奶奶的，誰想知道啊？

当馬來婦女把票投給巫統時你在那大喊大叫說馬來人還在睡覺。真的嗎？是馬來人在睡覺還是你在睡覺？

Haris Ibrahim今早在他的博客寫到：

這個星期六早晨的鼻炎讓我無法到士毛月的提名中心為Arul打氣。稍后我看到了沙巴州如此多的多角戰，這令我想起了爲什麽我是支持人民的，而不是支持反對黨的。

我只是想說“Sam，歡迎回家”；我一度以爲我已經失去你了。我真的很高興我們還是擁有共同的理念----我們是站在人民後面的，而不是站在政黨後面的，無論是執政黨或反對黨。

我承認爲了要達成目的我們可能有了不同的方法，但，正如英國人講的，你可以用很多方法為一只貓扒皮，當然你也可以為蠢人扒皮。而無可否認的，馬來西亞政客都是一群蠢人。

如果你相信可蘭經的話，那你肯定很熟悉“給我一條直路”和“你有你的路而我有我的”這些句子。最縂我們的目的都是一樣的----我們在尋找真理；有很多條道路，但只有一個真理。

現在提名日已經過了，我們都在等待著選舉日的來臨。你可趁現在好好地想想上帝特地地賜予我們不同的信條，所以我們能夠彼此認識並接受我們的不同的做事與想法。

無論如何，只要我們記得我們來到地球的目的是爲了追隨ummahand而不是統治者，那我們就會保全上帝的使命。這就是所有東西的根本，而就像同志Bala一樣，我們將很快地和他在另一個世界裏會合。

我在此想要和我的朋友和同志們說聲“Salam”，希望我們都能接受即將發生的事情為‘Takdir'，或上帝，所有事情決定者，的旨意。