Every right thinking Malaysians must watch and listen to this presentation by Patrick Teoh on how Malaysia is going downhill into a failed state. The signs are all there. Please pass on to your friends and relatives to spread the dark news and act in GE13 before all is lost to these pirates.
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Friday, September 17, 2010
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Theology Versus Secularism
Raja Petra Kamarudin
It appears like the Turkish Prime Minister is in trouble with Turkey’s court. They have accused him of being anti-secular, which is a crime in Turkey. They say the Prime Minister want to abolish or remove the anti-tudung law, which means Turkey’s citizens will no longer be forced NOT to wear the tudung. If you remember, recently, a Turkish lady Member of Parliament was evicted from parliament for insisting that she wear her tudung in the building. University student too must remove their tudung before they enter the university gate.
Turkey is on the other extreme of Afghanistan where the “religious police” would throw acid on faces of women who do not wear the tudung.
Malaysia of 2008 is a far cry from Malaysia of 1958, the first Anniversary of Merdeka. Then, skirts and bare-backs were the order of the day and the tudung was a rare thing at best, the more “decent” Malay women would wear a selendang wit the front hair revealed. Today, women who wear bare-back clothes are arrested.
What happened over those 50 years? Have Malays become more religious and more conscious of their Islamic duties? Over the last month, three women have been charged for corruption and fraud. All are pretty senior Malay government officers. And all wear the tudung. So, the wearing of the tudung can’t be equated with being more religious or being a better Muslim. If not, they would not accept bribes or cheat. Wearing the tudung is merely a symbol. It is a symbol that you are very Islamic. But this does not mean you really are.
Malays, today, talk about restoring the Caliphate and implementing Islamic laws. In short, rejecting a Secular State in favour of a Theology State – meaning an Islamic State of course. But do these some people know what an Islamic State is? And do these people also know how the many experiments of Islamic States have gone horribly wrong and the new “Islamic” government was worse than the old government it replaced?
In a nutshell a Secular State or Theology State is just a name. Names are not crucial. What is would be the function rather than form. Form must follow functions, and not the other way round.
Let us examine some of the failed experiments. Some predominantly Muslim countries have flirted with the idea of changing their government and have discovered that the newly installed Muslim leaders were no better, or worse, that the “kafir” leaders. Millions have died because of this, Muslims killed at the hand of Muslims.
Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Pakistan, Serbia, Gratis, Syria, Bosnia – just think of any country where either Muslims, Christians or Jews make up the majority population and I will show you a tragedy. No, theology is not the answer. We can’t solve problems by replacing a Secular State with a Theology State. History has shown us that, in fact, more damage is caused. The system is not the solution. It is those behind the system that matter.
A year after the end of the Second World War the Algerians wanted the French Colonialists out of their country. The eight-year war led to the loss of more than a million lives. Both sides wee equally guilty of the barbaric killings where old folks, babies and women were not spared. Finally, in 1962, the French decided to go home. But until today the killings continue; except now it is not Muslims killing Christians but Islamists killing Secularists – and vice versa.
The Turks too wanted the kafir out, so millions of Armenians were massacred. The Kurds were the willing servants to rape and murder the Armenians. This was ethic cleansing of the kind perpetuated by the Germans during World War 2; though maybe only a quarter in number died compared to the Jews.
Later the Kurds were themselves exterminated by the Iraqis and Turks. And the same went for the Afghans where they first killed each other to establish an Islamic State and then the Islamic State killed off as many as the previous “kafir” state did. In Iran, too, more died in the new Islamic State than in the Shah’s “kafir” state.
An Islamic State is no guarantee that you would get a good government. Neither would a Secular State. So it is best that the rhetoric and setting up an Islamic State be discarded and instead we focus on the issue of the setting up of a just state of whatever kind.
We have seen too many deaths over the last 60 years, people killed in the name of Islam. Tens of millions have been killed. Two million in Afghanistan. One million in Iran. One million in Iraq. One million in Turkey. More than one million in Algeria. Many more millions in other Muslim countries. The list goes on.
The Iranians say: those Iranians who died fighting Iraqis are going to heaven as the Iraqis are “kafir”. The Iraqis say: those Iraqis who died fighting Iranians are going to heaven as the Iranians are “kafir”. So, both Iranians and Iraqis are “kafir”. Or is it both Iranians and Iraqis who kill each other are going to heaven since both kill and die in the name of Islam?
With all this killing and the tens of millions of deaths over the last 60 years, all the so-called “Islamic States” are nothing short of failed states whereas “God-less” states like Sweden are heaven on earth.
Maybe you need to choose an Islamic State to go to heaven. But thus far all the Islamic States have proven to be hell. Maybe this is because they talk more about life after death rather than about life itself.
By Selcuk Gokoluk and Ibon Villelabeitia
ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was involved in anti-secular activities, a top court said on Friday, explaining a decision to fine his AK Party that could reignite political tensions in the EU applicant country.
The constitutional court's legal reasoning marks the first time a sitting prime minister in predominantly Muslim Turkey has been blamed by the court for undermining the country's secular principles.
The ruling could put pressure on Erdogan to sack some members of his cabinet in an expected reshuffle.
The court, the highest judicial body in Turkey, decided in a close vote in July to fine the Islamist-rooted AK Party for Islamist activities, but dismissed a prosecutor's case to have it closed down and Erdogan and other leading members barred from politics for five years.
"It was found that the head of the party Recep Tayyip Erdogan, member of the party and former parliament speaker Bulent Arinc, Education Minister Huseyin Celik...were involved in determined and intense activities which were against article 68 of the constitution," it said.
In a 370-page legal explanation, the court singled out Erdogan and other senior members of the AK Party for attempts to lift a ban on the Muslim headscarf at university and efforts to lower the age at which students can attend Koran classes.
It also mentioned statements made by Erdogan in the past, including one in which he said "religion is the cement of Turkish society" and an interview to a Malaysian newspaper in which he described Turkey as a "modern Islamic state."
"Erdogan made it clear that his opinions on freedom of belief were aimed at creating an unlimited freedom for political Islam. This point of view was reflected in Erdogan's and other prominent party members' words and activities. There was an attempt to transform and restructure the state within the framework of the rules of a certain religion," it said.
The court, however, said it voted against banning the AK Party because it had not incited violence and because of its EU reforms, including giving more rights to minorities and to women.
Turkish markets are largely focussed on the global economic crisis and shrugged off the court's legal reasoning.
WARNING
Analysts said the court's ruling was a further warning to Erdogan, whose party is locked in a power struggle with the powerful secularist establishment, including judges and the military.
Secularists say the party is seeking to bring back religion to public life. The AK Party, which has its roots in political Islam, denies the charges and points to its liberal record since it first came to power in 2002.
"This shows the AK Party escaped closure very narrowly. The court is telling the party it must regulate itself and stay away from provocative policies such as the headscarf," said Yusuf Kanli, a veteran Turkish columnist.
"It is also telling the party that the court might be compelled to ban it if it continues with its present trend," he said.
Erdogan said on Thursday he might seek to trim the powers of the court after a ruling in June overturned an amendment to lift the restriction on wearing headscarves at university.
The AK Party, which includes former Islamists, conservatives and pro-business liberals, won a sweeping re-election last year. (Editing by Diana Abdallah)
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Rose Parade In Kuala Lumpur
Speech by hindraf leader Mr. Waythamoorthy on 16/2/08 in front of Malaysian High commission about Rose Parade in KL by Hindraf
Hindraf Rally in London - Speech by Mr. Waytha Moorthy in front of No.10 Downing Street.
Demo lead by London lawyer on 1/2/08
London CNN india interview
London India CNN interview
Hindraf London Demo; Speech by Mr. Raja on 1/2/08
Hindraf London Demo
MALAYSIAN INDIANS PROTEST AT LONDON, 01/02/2008 Part 1
MALAYSIAN INDIANS PROTEST AT LONDON, 01/02/2008, Part 2
MALAYSIAN INDIANS PROTEST IN LONDON, 01/02/2008, Part 3
Hindraf Rally in London - Speech by Mr. Waytha Moorthy in front of No.10 Downing Street.
Demo lead by London lawyer on 1/2/08
London CNN india interview
London India CNN interview
Hindraf London Demo; Speech by Mr. Raja on 1/2/08
Hindraf London Demo
MALAYSIAN INDIANS PROTEST AT LONDON, 01/02/2008 Part 1
MALAYSIAN INDIANS PROTEST AT LONDON, 01/02/2008, Part 2
MALAYSIAN INDIANS PROTEST IN LONDON, 01/02/2008, Part 3
Monday, January 21, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Constitution and Malay Rights
Friday, January 18, 2008
Constitution and Malay Rights
The recent HINDRAF demonstrations against racial marginalization of Indian Malaysians have again brought into focus the issue of Malay “privileges” as provided for under the Constitution. Judging from public utterances in the press and websites, there seem to be continuing wide-spread ignorance, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what our Constitution precisely provides on this issue.
The center of controversy is Article 153 of the Constitution which provides for what is popularly known as Malay “privileges”. Due to misrepresentation by UMNO in the past, many have come to identify Article 153 – and even the entire Constitution – as racially discriminatory. This is not so. In spite numerous constitutional amendments, the egalitarian spirit of our Constitution in respect of racial equality remains largely intact. Public misunderstanding is attributed to UMNO hijacking Article 153 to practice unbridled racial discrimination for self-enrichment in the past few decades.
Due to the heightening racial tensions caused by UMNO’s retrogressive move to intensify its racial agenda under the NEP (New Economic Policy) and brewing racial discontent by HINDRAF, it is imperative and urgent that the truth be known with regards to the true legal standing of the various races as provided for in our Constitution - the legal foundation upon which this nation is built. For this reason, I am reproducing as follows the main part of an article I wrote three years ago (see note below), which analysed and clarified these controversial issues.
(commencement of previous article) Forty seven years after Independence, racial issues continued to monopolise national politics, and championing Malay rights remains the single dominant ideology of UMNO - the only ruling power that this nation has known since
Independence. Thousands of speeches have been made championing this Malay cause, using various terminologies such as Malay “special rights”, Malay “special privileges” or simply Malay “rights”, often invoking the nation’s Constitution as the legal back-up. But, of the many politicians who have used these terminologies, how many have read through the Constitution to find out what these “rights” really are? Very few, I am afraid.
Our Constitution is printed in a small booklet titled “Federal Constitution” that can be bought for RM10 in the book shops. Buy one copy and read through to find out what it says about these “rights”. After all, these issues - more than any others - have dominated our lives, and all citizens should know what these rights truly are as spelled out in our Constitution.
If you have read through the Constitution to look for an answer to these Malay “rights”, perhaps the first thing that has struck you is that, familiar terminologies such as Malay “special rights”, Malay “special privileges” or Malay “rights” are no where to be found in the Constitution. Instead, we only find the term “the special position of the Malays”, which appears twice, in Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 153, which is titled “Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak”.
(The words “natives of Sabah and Sarawak” were only incorporated into the Constitution upon the formation of Malaysia in 1963, during which Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were merged with Malaya to form Malaysia. In this article, these words will not be repeated after the word “Malay” when I quote from the Constitution, for abbreviation purpose).
Anyone who has read through Article 153 might be surprised to discover that the provisions favouring Malays are in fact quite moderate, and certainly no way as stretched out in intensity and scope as our politicians would want us to believe. Similarly, those provisions protecting the non-Malays as a counter-balance to the special position of the Malays under the same Article 153 are also surprisingly quite well conceived and fair. In fact, when read in conjunction with Article 8 (Equality) and Article 136 (Impartial treatment of Federal employees), Article 153 cannot be construed as having significantly violated the egalitarian principles of our Constitution, contrary to common perception.
Since the egalitarian nature of our Constitution is largely intact, in spite of the presence of Article 153, then why should it have acquired such an adverse reputation as the legal root of all kinds of racial inequalities in this country?
Answer: the fault is not with our Constitution, but with our politicians twisting, misinterpreting and abusing it.
ARTICLE 153
It is perhaps high time we get to the bottom of Article 153.
Clause (1) of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article”.
So, the first understanding that we must have on Article 153 is that it is meant to protect the interests of not only the Malays, but also those of the non-Malays.
Next, note the deliberate use of the words “safeguard” and “special position” (instead of “special rights” or “special privileges”). The choice of these words must be understood in the historical context of the drafting of this Constitution half a century ago when Malays were economically and educationally backward in relation to other races. It was thought fit and proper then that there must be “safeguards” to protect the Malays from being swarmed over by other races.
Hence, the creation of the “special position” of the Malays, which was obviously intended for defensive purpose: to protect for survival. The meticulous avoidance of using words like “rights” and “privileges”, and the choice of the word “safeguard” were clearly calculated to reflect its defensive nature. Under that historical context, the provision of the special position of the Malays in the Constitution certainly could not be interpreted to mean the endowment of racial privileges to create a privileged class of citizenship. If it were otherwise, this country would have been turned into a racist and feudal state right from day one of our Independence.
Clause (2) says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall safeguard the special position of the Malays by reserving positions “of such proportion as he may deem reasonable” in a) the public service b) educational facilities and c) business licenses.
Clauses (3) & (6) say that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, for purpose of fulfilling Clause (2), give general directions to the relevant authorities, which shall then duly comply.
There is a separate clause covering the allocation of seats in tertiary education – Clause (8A). It says that where there are insufficient places for any particular course of study, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may give directions for the “reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.”
As for the protection of non-Malays against possible encroachment of their existing interests, there are several provisions under different clauses in this Article, prohibiting the deprivation of the existing facilities enjoyed by them, whether in public service, education or trading licenses. Of these protective clauses, Clauses (5) and (9) are particularly significant.
Clause (5) consists of one sentence, which reads: “This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.
Article 136 also consists of one sentence, which reads: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.”
Clause (9) consists of one sentence, which reads: “Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays.”
ARTICLE 8
Reading Article 153 will not be complete without reading Article 8 (Equality). I will quote the more significant Clauses (1) and (2) of this Article in full, as follows:
Clause (1) of Article 8 states: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”
Clause (2) states: “Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.”
After reading through these Articles of the Constitution, we are able to draw the following conclusions:
1. The present clamour for Malay “special rights” as sacrosanct racial privileges of a privileged race, especially under the ideological ambit of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay the master race), is in conflict with the letters and spirit of the Constitution.
2. The special position of the Malays as prescribed under Article 153 of the Constitution is limited in scope to only the reservation of reasonable quotas in these 3 sectors: public services, educational places and business licenses. Hence, the present rampant racial discriminations practiced on almost every facet of our national life are mostly violations of the Constitution. Examples of these violations are:
a) Racial discrimination in the appointment and promotion of employees in publicly funded bodies, resulting in these becoming almost mono-raced bodies (particular so in their top strata). These bodies include: the civil service, police, army and various semi and quasi government agencies.
b) Barring of non-Malays from tenders and contracts controlled directly or indirectly by the government.
c) Imposition of compulsory price discounts and quotas in favour of Malays in housing projects.
d) Imposition of compulsory share quota for Malays in non-Malay companies.
e) Blanket barring of non-Malays to publicly funded academic institutions.
f) Completely lop-sided allocation of scholarships and seats of learning in clearly unreasonable proportions that reflect racial discriminations.
3) Our Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship and all citizens are equal before the law. The presence of Article 153 does not alter this fact, as it is meant only to protect the Malays from being “squeezed” by other races by allowing the reservation of reasonable quotas on certain sectors of national life. However, this Constitution has now been hijacked through decades of hegemony of political power by UMNO to result in the virtual monopoly of the public sector by a single race. The ensuing racism, corruption and corrosion of integrity of our democratic institutions have brought serious retrogression to our nation-building process in terms of national unity, discipline, morality and competitiveness of our people.
At this critical juncture, when nations in this region and around the world are urgently restructuring and shaping up to cope with globalization, our nation stagnates in a cesspool that has been created through decades of misrule. Unless urgent reforms are carried out, beginning with the dismantling of the anachronistic racial edifice, we are in for serious troubles in the days ahead.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
I love Malaysia, but Malaysia don’t love me
I love Malaysia, but Malaysia don’t love me
“I love Malaysia, but Malaysia don’t love me” said a Malaysia-born translator who is working for Sultan of Brunei now. This sentence is quoted from one of our chinese dailies few days ago. This particular person has been made good use of by Sultan to strenghten the ties between Brunei and China.
Another heartaching story where by the boss of “Secret Recipe” is a Malaysian but he started this multimillion business in Indonesia. I do not know what are the reasons however I think it maybe due to the cheaper stuff in Indonesia.
Do you know who invented pendrive? Don’t get a shocked…a Malaysian invented the pendrive. It is a sad story whereby he went around Malaysia looking for investors to invest in his invention but no one seems to be interested and at last he had no choice and went to other country to find investors. Taiwan is the country that has favoured him and we must really thank him for his brilliant mind.
During Tun Dr Mahathir premiership, he visited Singapore’s National Science Centre. The amazing design of the centre caught his eyes and he asked the person in charge one qustion, “Whose idea is this?” The person in charge answered, “It is a Malaysian idea .” It is really embarassing.
Below are some facts that have affected the people I mention above chose to live a better lives outside of Malaysia.
I duno if 100% of the statistics below are true, but i’m sure tat more than 85% are true. and a sad fact… more n more of the chinese are migrating… even a few of my acquaintances… tat’s wat our government was crying about … brain-drain.
—
The government said that if we are unhappy, we should speak with our votes. Let’s do that!
Chances are that BN will win the election but let’s make the victory so slim that they will think twice before making decisions that disadvantage and prejudice against the non-Malays.
Tell Pak Lah that enough is enough! Send him and his arrogant team a clear signal. We can cause a chance for the better. Think well before you vote in the next General Election.
Below is the result of extreme discriminations and marginalization by the BN govt for too many years. Let’s keep circulating this especially before the next election.
This list, which needs further update and clarification, covers a period of about 49 years since Independence Day in Malaysia (1957):
(1) Out of all the 5 major banks in Malaysia, only one bank is own by multi-racial, the rest are controlled by Malays.
(2) 99% of Petronas (the only one petroleum company) directors are Malays, and the former Prime Minister works as Consultant in Petronas.
(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese.
(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by Malays.
(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be “bumi’s status” (Malay).
(6) 0% of non-Malays staff are legally required in Malay’s companies. But there must be 30% Malay staffs in Chinese companies and as shareholders. Which means non-Malays who own companies need to give
their property to Malays. And non-Malays citizen can’t really own their business.
(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, is non-Malays.
(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), dropped from 40% in 1960.
(9) 2% is the percentage of non-Malays government servants in Putrajaya (Malaysia main government office). But Malays make up 98%.
(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), dropped from 30% in 1960. Only 2 positions for non-Malays in political status.
(11) 95% of government contracts are given to Malays; even if it is an open tender. Non-Malays contractors who tender lower prices and use better materials can’t get the contract that the government gives.
(12) 100% all business licenses are controlled by Malay government e.g. Taxi permits, Approved Permits, etc. and all the license are given to government officers families.
(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah (north of Peninsular Malaysia had to be sold to Malays and controlled by Bernas (Government Org.) since 1980s. Otherwise, life will be made difficult for Chinese rice millers.
(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by Malays since 1970’s e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, etc. This company now is the sole company.
(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other Malay transport companies due to rejection by Malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses.
(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor (South of Peninsular Malaysia) Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given.
(17) 0 non-Malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar (city in south Peninsular Malaysia ) bus station (November 2004).
(18) 8000 billions ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to Malays’ pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatization of government agencies like Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period.
(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down from 1968 to 2000
(20) 144 Tamil primary schools closed down from 1968 - 2000
(21) 2637 Malay primary schools built from 1968 - 2000
(22) 2.5% is the government budget for Chinese primary schools. Tamil schools got only 1%, Malay schools got 96.5%
(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a Malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible.
(24) All 10 public universities’ vice chancellors are Malays. And politics in universities are held by Malays. If non-Malays want to form a political party, there is no way to get approval.
(25) The non-Malay lecturers in major universities have been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004. The reason that the Ministry of Education gives is that the government gives full support to Malays only.
(26) Only 5% is given to non-Malays for government scholarships over 40 years.
(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under “Look East Policy”.
(28) 128 STPM (High Study / A Level) Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired i.e. Medicine/Doctors in 2004. Malays without qualifying results got into the course.
(29) Of the 10% place for non-bumi students in MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, only 7% were filled. Before that it was 100% Malays.
(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, were beaten up in the National Service program since 2003.
(31) 25% is the Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, dropped from 45% since 1957 because the government does not support non-Malays like they support the Malays.
(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% since 1957.
(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians have emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago due to unfair politics.
(34) 0.5 million Indians Malaysians have emigrated overseas.
(35) 3 millions Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with Bumi status.
(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indians Malaysians with “red I/C” (a temporary identity card) and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compared to the Chinese and Indians
(37) 5% - 15% discount for a Malay to buy a house, regardless whether the Malay is rich or poor
(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compared to 98% of what Malays villages got for rural development budget..
(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names.
(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to another name ( e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sorts) after being officially used for a few days. Government tries to shun Chinese names.
(41) 0 temples/churches were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate MUST have at least one mosque/surau built.
(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970 with full government support. No temples, no churches are built in housing estates that is supported by the government.
(43) 1 Catholic Church in Shah Alam took 20 years to get its application for construction approved. But it was told by Malay authorities that it must look like a factory and not like a church. Still not yet approved since 2004.
(44) 1 publication of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)
(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, and TV3) have directors of non-Malay origin.
(46) 10 times, at least, Malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969.
(47) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or, these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed
(48) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racist re-delineated so that Chinese voters were diluted and Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates, lost in elections since 1970s
(49) 20 reported cases whereby Malay ambulance attendants treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and Malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200
(50) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths, being beaten up by Malay youths in public places. We may check the police reports provided the police took the reports - otherwise there will be no record
(51) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down Malays were seriously assaulted or killed by Malays
(52) 12% is what ASB/ASN (Malays owned ) received per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum.
Malaysia should be for all Malaysians. Why should the Malays become the exclusive Malaysian race? Even the so-called Bumis came from other lands. Some of them even came later than the early Chinese and Indian traders.
We do not seek for more privileges but equal rights. Every Malaysian citizen should be given the opportunities and rights to contribute to the nation and at the same time also benefit from her.
Malaysia should belong to all Malaysians… if not, then we are no better than the foreign workers in the Middle East.
In fact, some government officials say that if the Malaysian Chinese and Indians don’t like to be treated like this, they can get lost. That is why many of Non-Bumi are migrating.
Why Non-Bumiputras Are Migrating?
With all the vitrolic spewing out of UMNO, it is not surprising that there is an exodus to migrate. Over the past few weeks I have spoken to at least half a dozen professionals, mainly in their late-20s and early-30s who have applied for migration. Many are highly skilled accountants and IT personnel.
The main reasons given are;
1. Fear that there will me another May 13th. in the not too distant future, with consequences far worse, than the 1969 episode.
2. Limited educational and job opportunities for their children in the future, as many feel that there is a strong possibility that Malaysia will be economically marginalised and that we are in a downward spiral towards economic doom, once the petroleum reserves are depleted.
3. Deep anger at the racist policies and open discrimination practised by the UMNO based government.
4. Lack of confidence in the Badawi administration in curtailing the extremist Islamic and Malay agenda.
5. Gradual drift of the country towards an Islamic administration, with the eventual implementation of syariah laws for all.
6. Better financial remuneration outside Malaysia, as salaries appear to have relatively stagnated here.
7.Anger that most of the taxes paid by the non Malays are used to support the Muslim bumiputras and very little is left behind for others.Unlike in Australia, Canada & New Zealand where taxes are used to provide educational,social and health subsidies for all, irrespective of religion, race or creed.
Many of these potential migrants possess skills that the country desperately needs.
This brain drain is further going to jeopardise our competitiveness vis a vis our neighbours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)