“Ten Million Telekoms share were offered to MIC at $5 a share. Maika acquired only one million shares the rest were for the account of those identified by Samy Velu. When Telekoms shares were first traded it fetched RM6.15 per share. By mid 1992 the Telecom shares were worth RM11 to RM13.”

ABC Company had a good year. The company decided to dispose of one of its subsidiaries for a handsome price to focus on what it called its core business. But before they disposed the subsidiary, each director was alloted a certain number of shares at book value.

These fictitious directors would have been charged for CBT. Why would they be charged when BN can do it? Well, BN is above the law. Moreover, Telekom was losing money at that time, according to Dr Mahathir. That is just trying to rationalize. For why would the Ministers want to take a personal loss? A personal contribution to public service? My foot! Why would Samy Vellu want to hijack the shares then, if he knows that the more Telekom shares he takes, the more he is going to lose. That RM6.15… was there a behind-the-scene effort to depress the price so that the thieves don’t look that bad?

Jaswant :
“It is clear that the term Malay was only introduced by the British when Malaya became a colony.”

Errrrr, did I get it wrong? Read this article in Malay Wikipedia where I was also one of the contributors:

“Perkataan Melayu mungkin berasal daripada nama sebuah anak sungai yang bernama Sungai Melayu di hulu Sungai Batang Hari, Sumatera. Di sana letaknya Kerajaan Melayu sekitar 1500 tahun dahulu sebelum atau semasa adanya Kerajaan Srivijaya… Ada juga sumber sejarah yang mengatakan bahawa perkataan “Melayu” berasal dari “Sungai Melayu” di Jambi.”

“Istilah “Melayu” untuk merujuk kepada nama bangsa atau bahasa adalah suatu perkembangan yang agak baru dari segi sejarah, iaitu setelah adanya Kesultanan Melayu Melaka. Walaupun demikian, tidaklah sehingga abad ke-17 bahawa istilah “Melayu” yang merujuk kepada bangsa semakin digunakan secara meluas. Sebelum itu, istilah “Melayu” hanya merujuk kepada keturunan raja Melayu dari Sumatera sahaja.”

“Istilah “Mo-lo-yu” juga dicatat dalam buku catatan perjalanan pengembara Cina pada sekitar tahun 644-645 Masihi semasa zaman Dinasti Tang. Para pengkaji bersependapat bahawa perkataan “Mo-lo-yo” yang dimaksudkan itu ialah kerajaan yang terletak di Jambi di Pulau Sumatera, serta juga Sriwijaya yang terletak di daerah Palembang.”

Errrrr…. Sumatera, Sumatera, Sumatera! Does it mean that historically, Melayus are royalties from Sumatera? And the so-called Malay race did not exist before the 17th century? 400 years of history must mean that the Malays as a race is probably the youngest in the world. But who are their ancestors? Can’t be that they suddenly exist in this world, rite? Obviously, their ancestors are not a homogeneous race…. a hotchpotch of many many races, just like the term “Malaysian”. Thus, Melayu di Tanah Melayu… a term akin to Malaysians in Malaysia. So why can’t we have a Malaysian Malaysia in as much as Tanah Melayu for the Melayus?

Greed, human greed… obviously, they don’t believe in life after death. They only believe in life in this world and they are going to hoard as much ringgit as possible so that they can live luxuriously as if this life is their last. Or do they still think that there is life after death and they can buy their way into Syurga, just like they do in Malaysia? Buy a cushy angel position in Syurga and lead another easy life, LOL.

Hi Loh, with the claims to Ketuanan Melayu, I have been very interested in the origins of the Malays in Malaysia and have done quite a bit of reading up on this matter. What I understand is that the concept of “Tanah Melayu” was introduced by the British, but the use of the word “Melayu” to mean at first the rakyat of Melaka began sometime in the 17th century.

History of Malaya by J. Kennedy says: “Each state was a world unto itself, and there was no idea of a larger Malay world, or of a union of Malay states… (NOTE: The union of Malay states were later introduced by the British when it began intervention in Peninsular Malaysia.) Even among the Malay population, the sense of common racial feeling did not extend beyond the state. A Malay from another state might be regarded as a foreigner, although Islam did provide a common bond. Many Malays were descendants of immigrants from Sumatra. The majority of these were Minangkabaus, but there were also Korinchi, Rawa, Mandiling, and Batak groups. In addition, there were Malays form Acheh and Java as well as Malays of old Peninsular stock (NOTE: I think Kennedy was referring to Deutero-Malays and Orang Laut.) There was a small but influential group of Arabs and people of mixed Arab-Malay descent, and there were Bugis, whose forefathers had come from Celebes. Despite a common general culture, the Malay population was very much aware of the differences between these groups, as shown in their language and customs.”

In short, there was no political entity called “Tanah Melayu” because the British intervention of the Malay states in Peninsular Malaya although there were many distinct Malay states.

History of Malaya, written by J. Kennedy in 1919 before we have a lot of flakes and adulterations to try to change Malay history, says: “Many Malays were descendants of immigrants from Sumatra.”

Would not that make many Malays pendatangs too, ie. pendatangs from Sumatera? So what is this Ahmad Ismail, a third generation mamak whose grandfather came from India, trying to say? His geography must be damned bad that he must have thought that India is part of Malaysia, LOL.