When he was announced as the Barisan Nasional candidate for Bagan Pinang by-election on Tuesday, Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad declared that he did not “commit a crime, but had violated the party elections’ code of ethics” in addressing the issue of his qualification and credibility as a candidate on account of his money politics in Umno which caused him to be suspended as an Umno for three years.
This is a fallacious argument and it does not speak highly of the commitment of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, the Cabinet Ministers and leaders of the Barisan Nasional parties whether Umno, MCA, Gerakan, MIC or the Sabah and Sarawak parties that no one finds anything wrong with such an argument or prepared to make a stand of principle.
Technically Isa had not committed any crime, as he had not been convicted, in fact, not even charged in court for corruption arising from Umno money politics which led to his three-year party suspension.
But was this because money politics in Umno was a mere party infraction and not a criminal offence of corruption, or was it just another example of the double-standards of the Attorney-General and the anti-corruption agency failing to uphold the law without fear or favour, regardless of status, wealth or position?
As far back as in 2003, the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of the law portfolio, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim had called on Umno to allow the Anti-Corruption Agency to investigate its leaders alleged to be involved in money politics as it fell within the definition of “corruption” under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.
Clearly, it was not because the law was inadequate to charge Umno leaders guilty of money politics for corruption, but because neither the Anti-Corruption Agency at the time nor the Attorney-General was free, independent and professional enough to carry out their duties in accordance with the law and the Constitution.
In an interview with the New Sunday Times on January 25, 2009, the Chief Commissioner of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdah declared categorically that money politics is corruption within the purview of the MACC.
This I what he said in a Q and A of his interview:
Q: Do you see any difference between money politics and corruption?
A: When you pay people to vote for you, that is corruption. People call it money politics but not us. Under the law, anybody who sells or buys votes is guilty of corruption, so we go on that basis.
Q: Is the MACC focused on cleaning up Umno?
A: Not just Umno, please be clear about that. We will take action against any political party involved in corruption. It seems that way only because it is now Umno season. The party itself asked us for help.
Q: Why then are we hearing about corruption only in Umno?
A: Others do not report. They get the money and keep their mouths shut. Umno members on the other hand are factional and report against each other.
As there is no statute of limitation for corruption offences, will the Attorney-General charge Isa in court for the corruption of money politics in Umno for which he had been suspended for three years as Umno member?
What is the stand of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhuiddin Yasin, the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, as well as the leaders of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and other Barisan Nasional parties on this question?
Malaysians are shocked that the latest Umno Minister who had come to the defence of Isa’s candidature is Hishammuddin, who uses the logic of “good guilt, bad guilt” like “good cops, bad cops” to justify and legitimize the selection of Isa as the Barisan Nasional candidate for Bagan Pinang by-election, ending with the conclusion that Isa is “good guilty” as distinct from “bad guilty”.
Just like his other outrageous statements since becoming Home Minister in the past six months, like his initial defence of the Shah Alam cowhead protest sacrilege or his sadness at the death of terrorist and mass murderer Noordin Md Top at not having the opportunity to “rehabilitate” him, Hishammuddin is continuing to alienate more public support like his earlier keris-wielding days as Umno Youth leader.
#1 by mycuntree on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 2:29 pm
I guess UMNO’s choice of Isa is not exactly a shocker.Not at all.It does however very closely represent what UMNO is and has been for more than 4 decades.
On the upside, for those who truly love Malaysia, it will be another nail in UMNO’s coffin. More and more right thinking Malaysians are giving up on UMNO every day that the UMNO regime muddles through running,terrorizing,robbing,imprisoning and killing Malaysian rakyat.
UMNO and their cohorts are making hay when their sun still shines, but their time is running out.They will not have another 5 years to do their crimes.
All good Malaysians are ready to abandon them at the earliest possible opportunity.
#2 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 2:31 pm
If the AG had been doing his job properly, the findings of the UMNO disciplinary board would have been the starting point of a criminal charge of corruption but the alas the AG seems to be like most civil servants with the attitude that BN=government therefore proper action has already been taken with the suspension.
If we want to see proper law enforcement we really need to change the government and let others try where the BN has failed.
#3 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 2:51 pm
There are three sets of laws in this country; the civil laws for the people, the syariah laws for muslims and then there are the laws of UMNO. (Lets leave the Royalty out OK?). Each has its own jurisdiction which may not necessarily overlap.
Isa comes under “UMNO laws” and his “good guilty” under their laws are forgivable and can be forgotten if he becomes a good and obedient boy and have the “talent and experience” to deliver the goods in envelopes or otherwise.
UMNO laws are very flexible and can bend with the winds and earthquakes. Their sentences are therefore very flexible too so the “good guilty” ones (as contrasted to the baaad guilty ones like Ibrahim Ali etc.) can be rehabilitated to rise from the ashes to become a SA, MP, Senator, Minister, maybe even PM, without any problems and scruples. And it is nobody else’s business but UMNO’s. Besides, it is aidil fitri time to forgive and forget.
So the Attorney General, MACC, RPK, LKS or any other busybody or kpc should not butt in. You all have no “locust standing” in internal UMNO affairs. Only the “good guilty” ones ada standing dan boleh tanding. Besides, UMNO evidence is only good for their internal use or misuse and is usually stamped with the word “fleksibel”.
Word is emerging that the other “good guilty” ones e.g. the CM of Melaka, are all jumping for joy because Hishamuddin has now authoritatively clarified that they have all committed “good crimes” but this is OK in UMNO as they have very flexible standards and rules to suit just about any occasion, situation and personality. Khairy knows this well. So does Hishamuddin, Mohyiddin, Muhammed Muhammed Tyson, Toyol etc etc.
And Tengku Rithauddin and the UMNO Disciplinary Committee who passed their sentences must be relieved too, that they were not harsh after all as in UMNO, everything can be sorted out. They can all sleep in peace.
Semua-nya OK dalam UMNO. But not so for Pakatan. They are subject to overules.
#4 by Godfather on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 2:54 pm
UMNO warlords are immune from prosecution. If Isa had jumped ship to PR, he would have been prosecuted.
#5 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 3:05 pm
Over lunch, the conversation turned to whether Isa, the tainted one, is a good candidate for UMNO in Bagan Pinang.
My friend said: “Tried as they did, they couldn’t even find one clean member in UMNO, so they decided on the next best and the “good guilty” one will have to do”.
Better than Najib’s blue or green government comment (joke?) yesterday which attracted total silence from the audience. (He didn’t mention “red”, I don’t know why).
#6 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 3:12 pm
“Awaiting moderation”?
Can’t you fellas ever take a joke or a tongue-in-cheek?
#7 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 3:34 pm
Prosecute Isa? Might as well ask Isa to volunteer to go into jail without trial. Those who knows Isa know that his deals reached into Kuala Lumpur and other states. How else do you think he command such loyalties that even UMNO top leadership dealth with him so lightly? The man contested for Deputy President of UMNO and was in fact leading the contest – that took a huge amount of money, money not possibly accumulated just in Negri Sembilan alone…
If Isa was prosecuted, he would take down so many foot soldiers of UMNO, it would tear it apart.
This was not just about losing Bagan Pinang, it was about a blow right in the heart of UMNO if the
#8 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 3:56 pm
UMNO’s levels of guilt.
14. door closed
13. knocking on the door of good
12. still not in good territory yet
11. on the threshold of good
10. absolutely good guilty
9. brilliantly good guilty
8. excellent good guilty
7. very good guilty
6. good guilty
5. just about good guilty
4. not so bad guilty
3. so-so bad guilty
2. a bit bad guilty
1. totally bad guilty
0. hopeless case, stinko guilty
#9 by Hugos on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 4:41 pm
“Hishammuddin is continuing to alienate more public support like his earlier keris-wielding days as Umno Youth leader”.
In that case why complain? DAP should encourage him and not criticise him. He is no Phi Beta Kappa.
#10 by yhsiew on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 4:51 pm
We will take action against any political party involved in corruption…..(Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdah)
=================================================
Now only I know Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdah is a “Big Talker”!
If he is serious about wiping out corruption, he would have arrested Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad.
#11 by johnnypok on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 5:32 pm
Isa is the best among the worst….” No Fish, so Prawn also OK”
#12 by K S Ong on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 5:45 pm
Now, those charged in court for corruption have a chance to redeem themselves.
“So how do you plead?”
“Guilty, Your Honour, but the good one, Your Honour.” “I wish to mitigate my offence by saying that I have always been faithful to Umno and never talk bad about the party. Can I go now?”
#13 by yhsiew on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 6:22 pm
Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad declared that he did not “commit a crime…..
=================================================
It is not that Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad did not commit a crime, but rather the AG and MACC turned a blind eye to his misdeed.
#14 by ReformMalaysia on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 7:02 pm
By selecting Mohd Isa as Baisan Nasional’s Bagan Pinang’s by -election ADUN candidate, UMNO and Barisan Nasional is sending a signal that ‘money politics and Corruption’ is acceptable to UMNO/Barisan Nasional – which has been for so long their culture and way of life!
Are the people going to give signal that corruption as ‘a way of life’ is acceptable to them by voting the UMNO/Barisan Nasional candidate who is guilty of corruption?
The people of Bagan Pinang must not send the ‘wrong signal’ to BN!
#15 by Taxidriver on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 7:30 pm
Corrupt politicians have ‘good market value’, are more ‘trustworty’ in the eyes of UMNO Baru and unlikely to become ‘kataks.’ For so long as they remain loyal to the party, their guilt is “good guilt” and no action will be taken against them by PDRM or Macc. Hence the reason they picked Isa Samad to contest in BP. Another plus point in picking him is because, after 22 years as MB, Isa has got lorry-loads of money to throw in Bagan Pinang.
My personal advice to the voters in BP accept whatever amount of money being offered them and, kalau boleh, ask for more. His money is your money afterall. But PLEASE…PLEASE do not vote for him for doing so would be selling your ‘maruah’
#16 by son of perpaduan on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 8:54 pm
Isa Samat dividen payout- (BN) $6win-$5place.
Pas Zulkefly dividen payout- (PR) $55win- $15 place. Eventually favourite horse fell halfway through. Bet on good dividen horse, at least came out second place got $15 back not losing money.
#17 by rahmanwang on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 8:56 pm
Yes.What Isa said is true.Corruption is not a “crime” in the eyes of BN.They are used to it anyway.For the past 20 years that Isa was the MB in N Sembilan,nothing was done.I am appaled with UMNO bigwigs in choosing him.No other talented person in UMNO or BN.Maybe all went to join DAP,PAS & PKR.
#18 by son of perpaduan on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 8:57 pm
aiyoyo, BN so desperate lah, no more candidate to put, putting Isa obviously shown BN is no more good caliber member in their party.
#19 by son of perpaduan on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 9:01 pm
Hello Rahmanwang, talented malay went oversea working with big firm oledi, Umno now brain drain left only dead brain member’s, you don’t know meh?
#20 by monsterball on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 9:38 pm
Since after 12th GE..and with the internet…Malaysians can easily identify what UMNO is…who UMNO is.
Daily reading their reasons to put Isa as candidate….makes them think Malaysians are really bloody fools. Are we?
No need to argue or comment.
UMNO is always right..as long as UMNO governs the country.
Let the voters vote with their conscience…facing Allah…in the mosques every day.
TRUTHS have been distorted..misinterpreted ..twisted by UMNO..day and night….that any Malaysian with clear mind and hungry for REAL truths….can easily see who they are.
Will UMNO govern forever?
If so…majority Malaysians are real idiots….full of weird logic in their brains.
hi…pro UMNO voters…open your eyes and see..USA…Indonesia..Thailand….Philippine..and many more.
Do not vote without thinking!!
If you think…surely you will want to vote UMNO out.
#21 by c730427 on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 10:24 pm
Teoh has not broken any code of ethics and he died while under the care of MACC.
Isa broken the code of ethics but he walks free.
What is this?
#22 by Taxidriver on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 10:38 pm
Is Hismoodin really a loyar by training? I am beginning to suspect his certificate is fake.
#23 by johnnypok on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 10:47 pm
Mr. Good Guilt is a loyar buruk. He only knows how to bark like a dog.
#24 by GilaPolitic on Thursday, 1 October 2009 - 11:52 pm
An Indian constable V Navindran was charged at the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court today with causing hurt to Kugan, a 23-year-old Indian detainee.
Public Questions:
Why AG selectively charged a lowest rank Indian constable on Kugan case but free other policemen ?
Why charge an Indian constable but not other policemen involved in Kugan case after 9 months delayed during the Bagan Pinang by-election is coming ?
Why AG or MACC afraid and dare not charge ISA for his political corruption under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 ?
Navindran pleads not guilty ! Suspended his jobs but yet to convict.
ISA pleaded guilty! Suspended for 3 years & still eligible to contest in the by-election.
Who is good guilt ? & Who is bad guilt ?
NO WONDER, THE CRIMINALS ARE VERY BRAVE TODAY AND INCREASE CRIMES RATE BECAUSE BAD GUILT LEADERSHIP BY BAD EXAMPLE.
1 MALAYSIA BOLEH – GOOD GUILT
#25 by Jeffrey on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 7:50 am
MACC says, money politics (“When you pay people to vote for you”) that is corruption. “
YB Kit asks, “As there is no statute of limitation for corruption offences, will the Attorney-General charge Isa in court for the corruption of money politics?” Of course not. He is “good guilty” and even selected as BN candidate to contest Bagan Pinang by-election.
There are three things to be remembered here.
First, hypocrisy is a human trait since time immemorial. This means we rail against corruption if its expedient (against others) but that doesn’t mean against our ownselves or ilk. We can always sugarcoat it with euphemisms and draw distinctions between “good guilt” and “bad guilt”, violation of party’s code of ethics as opposed to violation of country’s laws on corruption, and so on….
Second, whether anti corruption laws (with no reprieve from statute of limitation) are supported and enforced consistently or selectively; whether corrupt leaders are thrown out or reinstated and supported ultimately depend on level of community (or majority of community)’s attitudes towards these issues.
This is where (indirectly) UMNO takes the case directly to the people: if you say Isa was found guilty of money politics, and money politics is corruption, and corruption is not acceptable, show it to us by voting our candidate – the epitome of money politics – out and voting the Opposition’s epitome of piety (Pas NS state commissioner, Zulkefly Mohamad Omar) in. UMNO’s argument is basically Isa is popular with majority of rakyat/voters there who are indifferent about Isa Samad’s tainted history in terms of money politics.
Now here is where the argument on democracy comes in : one man one vote, majority votes decide. If majority still vote for BN’s candidate, it means that majority tacitly tolerate hypocrisy and accept money politics – that it reflects majority community norms, so who are you the Opposition, minority of critics and detractors to rail against the operation of democracy in favour of hypocrisy and money & patronage politics/corruption, nepotism etc if majority voters choose to discount, ignore, condone these practices?
This is what PM Najib stressed on the importance of acceptance over tolerance : “I think there’s quite a big difference between the two (tolerance and acceptance). I think when you say you tolerate, you don’t quite like it, but you accept it because you have no choice. But if you talk in terms of acceptance, it indicates a state of mind that you are embracing something positively. I think it’s important for us to migrate from this concept of mere tolerance to acceptance. Acceptance in the sense that you are ready to accept things. If you’re willing to accept things, if you embrace things willingly, then I think your capacity to look at things in a more positive manner is much better than mere tolerance.”
So one may not like hypocrisy, corruption money politics etc but if majority of voters still vote for – than against – the very epitome of it (represented by BN’s candidate), then by operation of majority principle in democracy, there’s nothing you can do about these and you must learn to “embrace” and accept this as part of our political culture consented to and accepted by majority of the voters and not thwart the majority will! One may argue that 4000 postal votes helping BN to win is no reflection of majority of people’s will. But here’s rebuttal : aren’t the army and uniformed services in NS entitled democratic right to vote? What if discounting postal voters, BN’s candidate still get a majority over
PR/PAS’s ? This is the thrust of the argument and challenge BN is putting on the table.
#26 by Jeffrey on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 8:08 am
The basic exchange on the table based on feudal principles that has always worked is basically this: we as leaders uphold race and religion, in exchange for the subjects (voters)tolerance/acceptance of our less than esteemed practice of money patronage politics, nepotism. You think it is Ok exchange keep voting us in; if not you can vote us out. Which will the majority voters choose? Our argument is that the basis of exchange is still relevant. We put up as candidate, this person, that stands for this time honoured exchange between leaders and subjects. Prove us wrong that this exchange no more holds by defeating our candidate in the by election, if you can. If not, then just shut up and accept this as reflecting majority preferences under democratic tradition of majority will prevails over the minority.
#27 by taiking on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 8:45 am
Altanunya was murdered.
Beng hock was murdered.
Kugan was murdered.
These are all good murders and the wrongdoers are therefore goodly guilty.
Now about the pkfz scandal, At one point there are clear attempts to dilute the scandal by attributing the problems there to mere incompetence. Will they next describe the pkfz scandal as the result of good incompetence? And that the loan sharking problem in the country has been allowed to grow to such monstrous scale because they are operated by good criminals. Or that the stadium roof collapsed because of good negligence or some other good misdeeds or omissions? Or that our broadband service is goodly slow as a consequence of some goodly unhealthy monopoly.
Honestly, umno is amazing. Truly amazing! Then again umno stands for (-)meritocracy. So we should not expect anything more than what we now see.
#28 by Loh on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 9:24 am
///The basic exchange on the table based on feudal principles that has always worked is basically this: we as leaders uphold race and religion, in exchange for the subjects (voters)tolerance/acceptance of our less than esteemed practice of money patronage politics, nepotism.///– Jeffrey.
It is supplemented by the argument of less-man-more-share, and that is why only the selected people benefits over the others. So race and religion was just a classification, to divide the good from the bad deserving people. The practice of nepotism was just a reward for the hard work carried out by the leaders to ensure that the divide and vote basis work for the benefit of the selected, though the latter should not expect to enjoy as much as those who created and operate the good-bad classification.
#29 by LG on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 9:30 am
If Isa is found guilty of money politics then he is guilty of corruption under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.
Under the law, anybody who sells or buys votes is guilty of corruption. This statement were confirmed both by present Chief of MACC and the previous Minister of law.
Why then the AG and MACC not charging Isa on corruption? Aren’t they accountable to uphold the law regardless of favouring any person and any political party. Thus it is a very clear cut of double standard practice by AG and MACC.
This situation further revealed that UMNO is truly a corrupted political party. Not only the UMNO members in Bagan Pinang even the top leaders of UMNO came out to support a corrupted person like Isa. Their conscience are ship-wrecked, numbed concerning corruptions.
#30 by k1980 on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 10:14 am
From http://www.jeffooi.com/
* MIC members: 2.5 million
* M. Kayveas’ PPP: 1.5 million
* T. Murugiah’s PPP: 157,231
* IPF: 320,245
* Makkal Sakti Party: 2.1 million
* P. Uthayakumar’s Human Rights Party: 1.5 million
* Hindraf supporters: 2.2 million
* K.S. Nallakaruppan’s MIUP: 250,782
* Kimma: 300,057
If you add them up, wow! There would be 9.5 million pro-BN Indian supporters — which add up to about 40% of the national population of 25 million.
(This % does not include the Indians who support PR)
#31 by OrangRojak on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 11:21 am
40% of the national population of 25 million
9.5 million pro-BN Indian voters is more people than voted in the last election, according to Wikipedia. Malaysian politics could be in for real trouble!
#32 by jbozz on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 11:53 am
Any form of aid within UMNO is welcome, will they reject the generosity of ISA? UMNO has no choice after losing key region within Peninsula.
They continue to spread lies like Nazi, Fascist and the Japanese Imperial. Already people work together to oust them. What credibility is require now?
#33 by taiking on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 12:58 pm
So wot next will come from kerismudin? That the hand is guity but not the mind? That the hand is guilty in the taking and the giving for which the mind has no part to play nor control to exert? I thought samy was being absolutely ridiculous when he blamed incompetent workers for the structural defects found on the elevated mrr2 bridge. It is now clear that Kerismudin is one whole level above (more appropriately, below) samy.
Way to go umno. Keep it up! You have my support.
#34 by johnnypok on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 1:18 pm
UMNO/BN = Good corrupt government, with good half-past six leaders.
#35 by rahmanwang on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 1:50 pm
Son of perpaduan,you are correct.Not only smart malays left malaysia working at big corporations.All other chinese and indians are doing the same.The ones left at BN are the smart and corrupted ones.Spot on.
#36 by limkamput on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 5:14 pm
So are we saying Isa Samad is a bad choice for BN? I thought that is the problem for BN to be concerned with. As for PR, I think we should just focus on winning the seat now that BN has given us a lousy candidate. I think the seat is winnable contrary to general belief. May be it is PR’s strategy to say that the seat is not winnable.
#37 by monsterball on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 5:28 pm
The differences between a professor trying to lecture or teach students on politics…compare to one…who is a self made politician….with less reading skills…the said self made politician will laugh off simple minded advises to them.
But if it is from an MCA man trying to be sarcastic to PR…he is making a fool of himself.
If finding crooked UMNO is so simple and straight forward….UMNO would have lost long long ago and MCA …dead and buried.
#38 by limkamput on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 5:35 pm
Yes, the majority may still support a corrupted candidate as stated by someone. So are we saying there is nothing much we can do about it since the majority has spoken? I think it is not as simple as that. Democracy is also about leadership and selling of ideas. The majority may be misled and it is up to right thinking Malaysians from right political parties to do the education, convincing and persuasion. Of course in the process, they must show leadership by example – always above reproach and always do the right things. I believe if Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore have not been kicked of Malaysia, they would be able to convince the majority of Malaysians to subscribe to its philosophy and governance. Time has changed, but I believe the basic principle remains the same. Most people, irrespective of race and religion, basically want a decent, effective and honest government. If there are bad politicians who constantly poisoned the minds of our people, it is also up to good politicians to counter and to fight such depraved indoctrination. The truth and the good should prevail. The question is: are there enough good men and women and do they have good ideas to sell?
#39 by monsterball on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 5:44 pm
Talk is useless.
Going to Began Pinang to lend my support is person to PAS and PR….with 5 friends…next weekend.
This is all I can do…to walk the talks.
#40 by limkamput on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 5:49 pm
By the way I was the first one to mention the Financial Procedure Act and someone has subsequently written eloquently on it without given me the due acknowledgement. Before that there was no mention of this act at all by this person. In fact, he even said that letters of support, if properly worded, could actually be letters of guarantee. I just want to keep the record straight.
#41 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Friday, 2 October 2009 - 6:41 pm
The public perception is that the AG is selectively blind to the faults of UMNO and its cabal of corrupt memebers.
Would be interesting for the AG to answer this question. BTW, this AG hardly ever speaks to the press or else it is not reported. Why? I think the answer may lie in the fact that this AG isn’t very bright …or, shall I say, not bright at all to face the press….and, shall I say, certainly quite a bit of baggage from Anwar’s trials etc. that weighs him down…no face to face the public.
#42 by johnnypok on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 1:07 am
In Singapore, this AG is NOT employable!
#43 by lkt-56 on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 2:00 am
Jeffery says:
This is what PM Najib stressed on the importance of acceptance over tolerance : “I think there’s quite a big difference between the two (tolerance and acceptance). I think when you say you tolerate, you don’t quite like it, but you accept it because you have no choice. But if you talk in terms of acceptance, it indicates a state of mind that you are embracing something positively.
Acceptance does not equate to embracing positively.
It basically means we accept (read understand) that some of us at that level of mental evolution that it is “ok” to exploit people’s weakness for one’s own gain. In this instance it refers to exploiting the fear of our Malay brothers that they will suffer if PR and their philosophy of meritocracy were to be prevail over UMNO’s stand of protecting Malay previleges.
Therefor please do not misunderstand that if BN wins it means the majority condone corruption or other wrong doings.
We should all remember Buddha’s advice to:
Do Good, Avoid Evil, and Purify the Mind…
One of the five precepts to cultivation of morality is: “Abstain from lying and false speech.”
#44 by Hugos on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 2:30 am
“Now here is where the argument on democracy comes in : one man one vote, majority votes decide. If majority still vote for BN’s candidate, it means that majority tacitly tolerate hypocrisy and accept money politics – that it reflects majority community norms, so who are you the Opposition, minority of critics and detractors to rail against the operation of democracy …” Jeffrey
I agree with Jeffrey. But that’s what democracy is all about. The candidate may be corrupt but since the party nominates him as its candidate he must be doing something right. Therefore, who are you to say the majority is wrong?? By definition the majority can never be wrong. And I’m not talking about morals here.
But the majority can be wrong. That if you will is the downside of democracy.
#45 by Hugos on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 2:39 am
It is also in the nature of a democracy that there will always be a minority opinion. So the rhetorical question asked by Jeffrey, “Who are you to question the will of the majority” goes to the very essence of democracy. It goes to the issue of dissent which is right at the heart of any free society.
#46 by Hugos on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 5:51 am
Who is this twat who laid claim to the Financial Procedure Act??
#47 by monsterball on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 9:46 am
If Lee Kuan Yew had his way while S’pore was part of Malaysia…racial clashes between Chinese and Malays…very possible.
It was actually happening in S’pore…and Tunku was wise and fast enough…to cut S’pore out.
One should think twice before talking….but then…political scholars are supposed to be smarter than one who have lived with it.
All political parties representing Malaysians agreed to the special help yo Malaysia.and therefore….LKY Malaysian Malaysia was not feasible at that period.
#48 by limkamput on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 11:25 am
The racial clashes were due to racist rabble-rousers. Rabble rousers are people who just want to create trouble but know nothing of significance for the long term good of the country. We have rabble rousers then, we have rabble rousers now. We have ignorant people then, we will continue to have ignorant people now – people who think and talk based on their own jaundice experience and observation.
#49 by limkamput on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 11:33 am
Majority and minority opinions can be changed, given time and given better ideas and more enduring policies and programmes. Who is the twat who said that opinion can not be changed? A minority today, given nurturing, can be majority tomorrow. That I think is the essence of democracy – your ability to change, your ability to sell ideas.
#50 by Loh on Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 5:22 pm
It was unfortunate that the organised violence in Singapore, by the late father of the former Home Minister, Syed Albar Jafar, made it an example that there were racial clashes in Malaysia, including Singapore.
Tunku solved the problem by sending Singapore off with the hope no doubt that Singapore might rejoin Malaysia in the event that Singapore could not survive without the hinterland. It was a curse to Malaysia that Singapore not only survives but prospers. Singapore’s success shows also that human resources are more important than natural resources, but above all, it is the intention, the dedication of the leaders of the country that counts.
Since 1981 July, Malaysia was made a public corporation controlled the UMNO-led secret societies. The rest is history.
There would not be racial clashes without UMNO-led violence, including May 13. Malaysia exports brains and Mahathir sometime back suggested that countries which received Malaysian brains should be asked to pay. Not only Mahathir dislikes non-Malays brains in the country, he even would not allow them to remain in other countries without severing ties from home. The evil of the man is completely exposed when the complained that non-Malays cannot be assimilated.
If the true original Malays change their polite culture and willing to state the fact, they would prefer Mahathir remained Indians, rather than having him accepted into UMNO. With mahathir in UMNO, they have to accept the 1.4 billion Muslims around the world as potential Malays. These NEWMalays compete for whatever provision of assistance non-Malays promised to support until Malays could stand on their own. But the types of Malays such as Mahathir, and those who became Malays following Mahathir’s path made original Malays losers in their own land, and they suffer the indignity that they rely on crutches perpetually.
The dilemma of Malays, the offspring of the original Malays at independence is that they are not even able to say they do not need the unequal protection; they will be termed ungrateful to government policy. They are so condemned because by saying that they support Malaysian Malaysia, they give UMNO no chance to pretend that UMNO work for Malays rather than working to enrich fabulously umnoputras. To prevent those enlightened Malays claiming their right respect in society, UMNO has never ceased to brainwash Malays that they should view themselves as entitled to favourable treatment irrespective of their capability.
Najib’s 1Malaysia is declared as a new objective so that the so-called developed country status for 2020 can be ignored. He cannot even remove the 1 country 2 prices, which was neither allowed in the constitution, nor a part of the objective of NEP. That 1country 2prices was implemented to prove Ketuanan Melayu. Until Najib remove the 2-price policy, he cannot be trusted as a person working for the interest of the nation.