‘pakatan to dump NEP if it seizes power‘ so goes the headline in malaysiakini.

whoa! ain’t that good news or what? (er… of course not good news at all for umnoputersa). but will pakatan seize power? this coming sept. 16? next year? 5 years time? or is this just a gimmick of anwar?

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim reiterated he would dismantle the controversial New Economic Policy (NEP) if he seizes power.

MCPX

Anwar said he would replace the policy, which was launched in the early 1970s, with a system to boost all poor Malaysians, whether they are majority Malays or from the minority Chinese and Indian communities.

"We will do everything in our power and disposal to help and assist the poor and the marginalised, which means the vast majority of the Malays and the poor Chinese and the poor Indians, but we do it on a needs basis," he said.

will the umnoputera jumped up and accused anwar of selling out the malays? "see, you vote for anwar/pakatan, and now they want to do away with NEP."  methink not many can forget how umno penang protest like hell when penang CM, lim guan eng just made a casual remark of ’studying the NEP’ (not doing away with the NEP). all the big wings umoputera, mind you including ex DCM and the now penang opposition leader. (hmm… i wonder was ahmad ismail involved in the protest too? i’m sure yes!). 

The NEP was launched two years after racial riots broke out in 1969, in an effort to narrow the wealth gap between the Chinese – who control the business sector – and Malays, who dominate government.

But critics say it has failed and that the policy’s beneficiaries have been Malay entrepreneurs who cash in on an array of perks including discounts on property purchases and specially allocated government projects.

true of course. it benefit most the top big-wings umnoputera!!

oh beside the NEP, anwar also said they will do away with AP (approved permit) for cars.

He also promised to abandon the Approved Permits (AP) scheme for importing cars, which it is claimed has corruptly enriched a small number of Malay entrepreneurs.

"Those talking about Malay dominance would realise that the AP is a classic case where the Malays and the Malay name has been abused, raped and plundered by the few," he told a press conference.

haha. when i read that, who do you think i have in mind? none other than the fat lady minister… oops. ex minister.

well to see these 2 – NEP and AP be done away with, we have to wait and see will pakatan become the federal government?

… but oh no, not on the quran or in mosque regarding his sodomy charge. (it’s a good thing that he didn’t want to.) he’s not like the sinful one or the najis one, you know.

anwar is going to swear in as a member of parliament today, after his big win in the permatang pauh by-election. (if you no subsribe to malaysiakini, you can read about it here at beritamalaysa from other sources).

i can’t wait to see/hear/read about parliament sitting with anwar (the new opposition leader!) around.

on another matter, since popular website ‘malaysia today’ by RPK had been blocked by malaysian communications and multimedia commission (MCMC), please access it via these url:

http://202.75.62.114/
http://mt.harapanmalaysia.com/2008/

thank you to the great people of permating pauh for giving anwar an over-whelming majority! i knew anwar would win but i thought maybe only 1000 or so majority. boy, was i glad when i found out it was over 15,000 majority! my reaction was the exact opposite of my reaction when i heard that the arrogant son-in-law won in rembau on 8 march!! now, i hope, with anwar in parliament, he will go bury khairy!! (say, it rhyme. all together now – bury khairy! bury khairy! bury khairy!).

parliament sittings will never be the same again with anwar present i guess. i just can’t wait to see how it will go. i just hope we won’t hear some sore losers BN/umno people shouting ‘liwat! liwat’ in parliament! with people like that bung around, who knows, it is possible. after all didn’t they already use this ‘liwat’ case so much in their campaigning… which to me is one of the main cause of their downfall.

which reminds me, ok my analysis of why BN/umno lost heavily (in no particular order).

1. playing the racial card. (but really, what else do they know?). they talked so much about anwar selling out the malays and accusing him as a ‘chinese agent’. also about penang falling into a chinese CM (with the banner of LGE and words ‘penang gua punya’. the mention of ketuanan melayu all the time frightened the non malays voters.

2.  character assassination.  (but really, what else can they do?). attacked, attacked, attacked anwar was all they did. especially on his sodomy charge of course. then they also attacked anwar as being a US agent or israel agent. of course part of no. 1 there also falls here (eg attacking anwar of selling out the malays).

3. playing the saiful-swear video over and over again. huh? i thought they did sort of mention they won’t use anwar’s sodomy charge as part of their campaign? ha! talk big! instead, it was the opposite – they used it to the hilt! methink playing the video over and over again somehow pissed off a lot of people. maybe even those who do support BN, felt pissed off!! for one thing, many of them might not believe saiful and for another, many might felt uneasy with what saiful said in his swearing… you know lah the ‘insert __ into my __’ part.

4.  umno’s swearing culture. first the boy saiful then the boy  er… man…. ‘i do not know altantuya’ DPM.

5.  saiful’s swearing on eve of nomination day and the petrol price reduction of mere 15 cents on 24 aug. instead of the scheduled 1 sept.

6.  final one. people are now very much wiser! wise not to be fooled or bullied by umno!! they are fed up of umno already! though some may not like anwar but they hate umno more so they are willing to give anwar a chance.

oh wait…. this is the final one…
7.  the son-in-law KJ’s arrogant call of ‘we will bury anwar!’. sorry, maybe this is not the reason but i just can’t resist it.

i will not leave you with my views but the view of dr lim teck ghee, taken from malaysiakini ‘now we’ve a reason to celebrate merdeka‘.
(btw, for pictures of the D-day, go to susan loone’s. the picture here is taken from malaysiakini).

———————————————————————–

Malaysiakini
by Lim Teck Ghee

On Aug 26, five days before 51th Merdeka, voters in Permatang Pauh went to vote for what they want – of a better Malaysia for themselves and their children.

MCPX

The outcome: they voted for the opposition candidate not by a small majority as predicted by many observers but by a resounding majority that shatters once and for all the many stereotypes held of the Malaysian electorate as fearful, docile, easy to manipulate, and captive to the racial fears stoked up by an opportunistic, cynical and increasingly out of touch and desperate Barisan Nasional coalition.

All Malaysians should salute the Malay voters especially as they were subject to intense pressure to vote for the Barisan candidate so as to safeguard “the future of the Malay race” and “Malay supremacy”.

Rejecting one of the most blatantly racist election campaigns run by the BN one example was a widely disseminated flyer of a “babi (or pig) cabinet” coming into power should the PKR candidate win; turning a deaf ear to the smear and fear campaign waged against Anwar Ibrahim, his PKR colleagues and the Pakatan Rakyat parties; ignoring the mainstream mass media which again showed its true colours by largely churning out a torrent of propaganda extolling the present government and running down the opposition candidate, the great majority of this semi-rural constituency voted for a leader and for the Pakatan Rakyat coalition and their hope that through their vote, decency, good governance and good sense will be restored to our body politics and to the other major institutions subject to abusive and repressive BN control and influence.

All those who voted for the opposition party in Permatang Pauh may not be fully aware of the momentous ripple effects of their decision in the voting booth.

The elections result is likely to intensify the infighting within the top Umno leadership with each faction blaming the other for the devastating scale of defeat. It could also widen the growing rift between Umno and the non-Malay BN coalition parties – the latter will surely be concerned at how the Permatang Pauh campaign was so much focused on the restoration of “Ketuanan Melayu ala Umno” and the Malay agenda.

Other ripple effects are an even larger question mark over BN’s grip on power in the country with the possibility of a snowballing loss of confidence in Umno’s ability to reform itself leading to a possible mass exodus of BN parliamentarians to the Pakatan side.  

Fatal dent to Najib’s hopes

Finally, the decisive margin of victory achieved by Anwar – despite a considerable investment of time and personal attention put into the campaign by the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak to destroy Anwar’s political career – may put a fatal dent to Najib’s hopes of succeeding to the prime ministership position when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi steps down.

The key issues pushed by the BN election machinery did not touch only on race and economy but they also focused on that of character – principally through the sodomy allegation against Anwar.

If Permatang Pauh is a gauge of the concerns of the larger Malay population on the character issue, it would appear that there are considerably more concerns with the moral deficiencies and lapses on the government side that those attributed to opposition figures and parties.  

Whatever the larger macro political ripple effects arising from this by election results, Permatang Pauh voters should not be punished for exercising their democratic right to vote.

Continued neglect of the socio-economic and livelihood that beset many in the constituency; deliberate delay of development projects or malicious singling out of localities, kampungs, voters and their families for discriminatory action to penalise politically incorrect behaviour will not only be counterproductive but it will also reinforce the perception of many voters in Permatang Pauh and the rest of the country that the BN is beyond reform.

well, so anwar had to spent the night in the police custody. however, malaysiakini reported that it was not sure if he would be spending the night in the KL police HQ or some other locations.

the reason, the police gave for him to be detained overnight, was for further questioning. huh? he was already in police custody for over 5 hours, what did they do with him? let him sit around and makan angin? it was really a silly reason. methink the police just want to detain him overnight to see the reaction of his supporters. they are hoping that his supporters will demonstrate! i hope his supporters will stay calm and not fall into their trap, as what the press statement from anwar’s office had stated.

anwar’s arrest had been making (and still is) waves all over the blogosphere… and of course into the world too. once again, malaysia is world famous! yippy! will we get to see the same drama that unfolded 10 years ago, like seeing a mattress being carried in and out of the court? a black eyed anwar?

it is really embarrasing to me to see that such news made world headlines. i mean the sodomy charge news. sodomy in many countries is not illegal. and to me sodomy is something private/personal between 2 persons, why should it be wrong? if we made world headlines such as ‘anwar arrested for corruption of1 billion’ or ‘anwar arrested for being a US spy’ – these are not so bad but for sodomy? gee, we will be made a laughing stock in the world!

speaking of the sodomy charge, let’s assume that anwar really did it to saiful… then it would be very safe to say saiful consented to being sodomised! it would be very silly to think a young healthy 23 years old man gave in to an old 60 years old man with back pain to be raped!! and also why did he waited so long to report, if he really was raped? it just doesn’t figure. oh yeah and if the police believe that anwar sodomised saiful, then why shouldn’t saiful be arrested too, as he too was involved in an illegal (hic. personal) act? oh silly me, the police believe saiful – that a 60 years old man raped him, so they didn’t arrest saiful.

i was pretty irked when i read a comments in one of anil netto’s post which said:

Of course he would be arrested as he is involve with his sodomy case. You don’t expect suspect of the case to be walking freely in this place, right?

It doesn’t matter if he is innocence or otherwise, let the law of justice decide it all.

how naive! law of justice? do we still have justice in malaysia? law? what law! we are now a police state!

"of course he would be arrested as he is involve with this sodomy case." – oh yeah right, and saiful was not involved?

"you don’t expect suspect of the case to be walking freely…" – very very naive! you mean to say every suspect of cases must be arrested? then all the lock up/prisons in the bolehland won’t be enough to hold them! oh yeah… and ‘every suspect’? wasn’t a certain no. 2 person a suspect in the altantuya’s case, especially after the infamous statutory declaration by PI, bala? but he was not arrested! not even hauled up for questioning! so where’s the law, you tell me. ("damn lucia! you are so silly. there are 2 laws in bolehland lah!" a voice rang in my ears).

ok going through many of the blogs that talked about anwar’s arrest, i found several comments which i can relate to and fully agree. i will share some here. first from lim kit siang’s blog:

The Inspector-General of Police’s statement that the arrest is a due process of the law is inane to these point of absurdity. Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of the due process of the law is able to understand the difference between a police report and a criminal case. The police is obliged to investigate a police report and can instruct the person concerned to attend and give a statement. If this person refuses, the police can apply to the court for a warrant of arrest. The court is obliged to satisfy itself the a crime has been committed involving the person names in the warrant. However if the police is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the person so detain has commit crime tot eh extent that a criminal charge can be preferred against This power is limited to a short duration after which the police will have to apply to the court to extend the remand. What the police cannot do is to modify this due process. It cannot arbitrarily arrogate to itself the right to declare that a mere police report constitute sufficient evidence to be classified as ‘sufficient evidence’ This is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law without which we would be living in a police state. This must surely be the last nail on the coffin of BN. What is the difference between Malaysia and the fascism of Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF government in utilising a state apparatus of the state to suppress the opposition – for its political end..

good coments there about the process of law. oh and yes, sometime ago, someone did mentioned about malaysia turning into a fascist country!

the following comment was also from the same post of lim kit siang:

My God! A 60 year old man accused of forcibly sodomizing a 23 year old youth and the police threw all their resources at it like it’s the security of the nation is threatened.

yep! the police/goverment is afraid of one man!

don’t the police have other better things to do? isn’t it more important to use all their resources to search for the killers of little nurin or the disappeared sharlinie?

the following comment i spy on susan loone’s blog, but i think this person had made similiar comments in other blogs too.

CnP direct from malaysiakini, pictures and all. (sorry… this is what malaysiakini had label it as ‘lazy blogging’. well… i am lazy and tired now so no comments from me).

————————————————-

Malaysiakini
15 July 2008

Anwar vs Shabery in historic debate

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim and Information Minister Shabery Cheek participated in a historic debate which was carried live on TV tonight.

MCPX

The debate entitled ‘Form the government today, reduce fuel prices tomorrow’ was held at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in Kuala Lumpur.

It began at 9pm and lasted for one hour.

Viewers watched the debate either live on the Internet – from websites Global Media Channel and BernamaTV -  or live on TV on TV9, Astro Awani and Bernama TV.

Both Anwar and Shabery, who stood on a stage in a similar set-up to the United States presidential debate, kicked off the session with a 4-minute opening statement each.

This was followed by questions from a three-member panel.

The event was moderated by Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka chairperson Johan Jaafar and two other panelists – current affairs weekly Siasah editor Zulkifli Sulong and Universiti Utara Malaysia vice-chancellor Nordin Kardi.

After their opening speeches, Shabery and Anwar were questioned by the panelists. Following this, both debaters were given the chance to ask each other one question.

The debate ended with a 90-second wrap-up speech.

Anwar: We can slash 50 sen off

Anwar, 60, who was casually dressed in a beige sports jacket and white shirt, was the first to speak and in his opening, he declared that should Pakatan Rakyat come to power, it would, as an early measure, reduce fuel prices by 50 sen per litre.

In order to finance such a measure, Anwar proposed that leakages be plugged and that national power supplier Tenaga Nasional (TNB) reduce their reserve capacity from 40 percent to 20 percent, thereby reducing the amount of funds going to independent power producers (IPPs).

“We have the highest (electricity) reserves in the world. Who profits? IPPs. Why should we allow that? Petronas and TNB have to incur the costss. But IPPs profit,” he said.

By doing so, Anwar argued that the government would have saved RM2 billion. He said an additional RM3 billion needed to finance the 50 sen reduction in fuel prices would be sourced elsewhere.

“Five billion is enough to help lighten the burden on the rakyat. The Perwaja bailout was RM13 billion of government’s money,” he added.

Shabery: Why only 50 sen?

In Shabery’s opening statement, he went on the offensive, pointing out that Anwar’s claim of reducing fuel prices was made prior to the March 8 general elections and as such, the 50-sen reduction should be for the price before the recent fuel price hikes, which was RM1.92.

“If we were to maintain prices of fuel at RM1.92, the amount of subsidies needed is RM50 billion. This would mean that a lot of development projects – schools, rakyat, roads (cannot be implemented) – to maintain our lifestyle,” he said.

Shabery, 50, who was more formally attired in a black jacket and pink shirt, then spent about two minutes arguing that the fuel prices were not the fault of the government but the result of a rise in global crude oil prices.

By the three-and-a-half minute mark, Shabery launched his first of many personal attacks against Anwar by highlighting the opposition politician’s role in organising street demonstrations when he was a youth leader.

Round 2 – questions for debaters

The second phase of the debate involved both speakers responding to a question posed by Johan which reads as follows:

“At the moment, Petronas has only a 20 percent market share of the fuel pumps. This means that the government has to subsidies several giant oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Shell. How do you view this?”

In response, Shabery touched on the question fleetingly, admitting that the subsidies may go to foreign companies, the rich and foreigners, and then attacked Anwar’s opening statement claim that stemming corruption and government leakages can lead to lower fuel prices.

“Ask Norway and Finland. Ask developed countries with are said to have few cases of corruption. They don’t subsidise their fuel yet they their economies perform well. Malaysia should head in that direction,” he said.

Petronas is rich enough to help

Quick to reply, Anwar chided Shabery for comparing Malaysia with Norway which has a per capita income 10-folds that of Malaysians and this was not a basis for comparison.

Anwar reiterated that subsidies were portrayed negatively by the government when it was not described as such when the government used taxpayers money to help big businesses.

“The amount spent on Perwaja, MAS (Malaysia Airlines) and other bailouts are known as ‘financial aid’ and ‘saving the economy’. But to help the farmers and the fishermen, it is known as ‘subsidies’ – a very negative term,” he said.

Anwar said that Petronas was a rich company which could afford to spend a small portion of its profits to help the public.

This could be done without impeding its ability to operate and invest further.

Round 3: Questions from panelists

The third-phase of the debate involved their appointed panelists taking turns to pose questions to the speakers.

Shabery’s appointed panelist, UUM vice-chancellor Dr Nordin Kardi, instead of posing a question, made a short speech on how Anwar’s plan to use Petronas’ profits to keep fuel prices low was akin to a ‘fighting over the spoils’ in order to be popular.

Anwar answered that Pakatan Rakyat’s policy was not to touch Petronas’ coffers but the dividends the company returns to the government and denied that he was trying to be popular.

“The amount we specified – 50 sen – is not an amount which is overboard. This is an early measure. Shabery said I promised more. Correct.

“The reason why I said it is an early measure is because the negative effects on the economy (caused by fuel price hikes) is not supported by the people. It is only supported by Barisan Nasional MPs,” he said with a wide smile.

But Shabery failed to answer

Meanwhile Anwar’s appointed panelist, Siasah editor Zulkifli Sulong, then asked Shabery on the government’s claim that the RM4 billion saved from the March 2006 fuel hike to be spent on improving public transport.

“But according to what was told in Parliament, only RM834.7 million was spent. How did this happen? This time however, the government can save RM13 billion… what would happen to the ‘bigger savings’ this time?” asked Zulkifli.

Shabery shot down Zulkifli’s question by saying that at the time of announcement, oil prices were US$70 per barrel while now it was US$140 per barrel, but did not respond to the question on public transport.

Instead Shabery went to talk about how Venezuela and Iran had low oil prices but staggeringly high inflation and how the Malaysian government had weathered through the ongoing food crisis and still keep rice prices lower than even Thailand, a rice producer. 

“So what we’re trying to say is that (problems) can be solved with proper subsidies. We don’t have to have street rallies and we should thank God that we can gather here today (to debate) and not get involved in obscene concerts,” he said, who received wild applause from half of 300-strong crowd who were supporters from BN.

Zulkifli tried to jump in to say that Shabery did not answer his question but this was waved off by moderator Johan, who asked the magazine editor to ask his question to Anwar. 

Anil Netto’s minute-by-minute summary

———————————————————————————————-

Malaysiakini
July 15 2008
by Chan Kok Leong

Debate: Mayhem in the media

The historic live debate between a government minister and an opposition stalwart might have been a civil affair but things however got a little rowdy in the media room.

MCPX

The event at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka building in Kuala Lumpur tonight was marred by punches, kicks and a broken camera.

The situation got out of hand when overzealous marshals attempted to stop the photographers seeking to leave the media room located above the hall right after the debate.

The marshals had attempted to stop the photographers and camera persons from getting out until the speakers and other VIPs had left the hall.

When the Edge Financial Daily executive producer Othman Abu Bakar got as far as to the staircase, one of the marshals stuck out a leg causing him to trip and fall.

According to Channel News Asia cameraman Hanafiah Hamzah, one of the marshals allegedly punched Othman when he picked himself up.

The ensuing melee resulted in Othman’s camera being broken while two more photographers from Berita Harian and The Sun were punched and kicked.

"This happened right in front of the police who came to escort us down," said Hanafiah.

Hanafiah, Zulkifli Ersal (The Sun), Khairul Hasnor Mohamad Khalili (The Edge), Halim Barbar (Sipa Press) subsequently made a police report regarding the assault at the Dang Wangi police station at about 12 midnight.

The debate

As for the debate itself, it was not quite a walkover by PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Shabery, who is younger by 11 years, managed to hold his ground against the 61-year-old seasoned politician known for his fiery oratory skills.

Looking sharp in an all-black suit with gold buttons, the minister cut a picture of confidence as he fielded questions from the former deputy premier and the panel.

However, many felt Anwar emerged victorious in the debate while others pointed out that the duo had merely skimmed the surface of such a complex subject within the allocated one hour.

While Anwar stuck to his guns by promising immediate slashing of the fuel price by 50 sen and the failure of the Barisan Nasional government to address leakages and corruption, Shabery defended the hike with the "world phenomenon" argument.

At times, Shabery even resorted to personal attacks, recounting the days when Anwar was in government.

The Terengganu-born minister used up precious minutes in the hour-long debate to question Anwar’s record as finance minister, especially the lopsided independent power producer (IPP) agreements and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis during his watch.

One particular failure of the minister was his inability to answer Anwar’s appointed panelist, Siasah editor Zukifli Sulong’s question on why the government has not improved public transportation after the 2006 petrol hike as promised.

Malaysians ultimate winners

But Anwar himself also fell a bit short in some areas.

His main point of re-negotiating IPP agreements to recover RM2 billion and to use that to subsidise fuel cannot be considered as a long-term solution.

Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Shahrir Samad, who was part of the audience, questioned the argument.

"Even if the IPP agreements were re-negotiated, the additional income is Tenaga Nasional Bhd’s, not the government’s," he said after the debate.

"It still doesn’t solve the issue of higher fuel prices and the higher subsidies which the government has to bear," he added.

Despite their different political affiliations, both debaters behaved well, though the same could not be said about their respective supporters in the hall, who shouted and booed during the debate.

However, outside Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, some 200 PKR supporters kept their cool under the watchful eyes of police personnel.

There may have been no winners tonight but there were 25 million Malaysians who no doubt would have taken a liking to a new phenomenon – live political debates on TV.

Watch a 55-min video of Anwar vs Shabery

Malaysiakini poll: Who’s the winner?