Thanks to the Malay Breakwater, Barisan Nasional retains Putrajaya

May 6, 2013

by Joceline Tan@http://www.thestar.com.my

Barisan Nasional keeps its hold on power thanks to the Malay breakwater that held back a Chinese wave that swept over the country.

A CHINESE tsunami swept over the country last night. It ripped through all the seats that had a significant Chinese electorate and devastated Gerakan and MCA in the peninsula and SUPP in Sarawak.

The tsunami was basically about the Chinese electorate going for change. The result was that the DAP emerged the big winner, making new gains everywhere, including in Johor.

But it was evident that the Pakatan Rakyat slogan of “ABU, or Asalkan Bukan UMNO (Anything But UMNO)” had also resonated with the urban populace in general because Pakatan regained Selangor with a two-thirds majority.

The Chinese tsunami also helped to carry many of the PKR candidates in many of the mixed seats.However, the tsunami could not quite make it to Putrajaya.

At about 1am, a solemn-looking Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced that Barisan Nasional had a simple majority to form the government.

At press time, Barisan had attained 133 seats, still short of the 138-seat majority won by his predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Najib was clearly disappointed but he spoke in a calm and steady voice as he urged everyone to accept the election result as part of the democratic process.

The Malay electorate, especially those in the rural states, continued to back Barisan. It is a small consolation to Najib that the Malays have returned to UMNO in a significant way.

The Malay wall held back the Chinese tsunami and Barisan won back Kedah. It also held on to Perak, which was a subject of speculation until close to midnight.

At press time, Barisan won Perak with 31 state seats against 28 by Pakatan. But Pakatan continued to dominate in Penang with an increased majority.

PAS managed to hold on to Kelantan with a much reduced majority, which showed that Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat’s appeal as a religious figure still commands support in the state.

As predicted, PAS won the least seats among the Pakatan parties and DAP is now the dominant party in Pakatan with the most number of seats. It can also lay claim to having defeated a top UMNO leader, namely former Johor Mentri Besar Datuk Ghani Othman in Gelang Patah.

The Pakatan wins also mean that Johor and Sarawak are no longer the fixed-deposit states for Barisan.

The zero sum game of politics means that DAP’s gain is MCA’s loss because both parties contested in Chinese-majority seats. MCA won only seven parliamentary seats, far short of the 15 that it won in 2008.

MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek tweeted late last night that the party would not be accepting any government posts.This was in keeping with the pledge made that the party would not accept posts in the Government if it did not do better this time.

A big question mark hangs over the future of MCA as well as Gerakan and SUPP and they will have to do much soul-searching after this.

The Chinese rejection of Barisan is a big blow to Najib, who went out of his way to persuade them to come along on his economic and political transformation journey.

The Chinese have rejected a moderate and inclusive leader, who has made more overtures to the Chinese than any other Prime Minister before him, and Najib and his coalition will have to reassess all this in the months to come.

There will also be soul-searching on the part of PAS, given its loss in Kedah and the defeat of several of its top leaders, including its Deputy President Mohamed Sabu in Kedah and Vice-President Salahuddin Ayub in Johor. Another Vice-President, Datuk Husam Musa, lost in Putra­jaya.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the election result is that the ruling coalition is dominated by UMNO and the Malays while the opposition Pakatan is dominated by the Chinese-based DAP.

The impact of this will become clearer as the dust settles over the most closely-fought election ever.

GE-13: Najib targets Civil Servants

April 25, 2013

by Bridget Welsh@malaysiakini

E13 SPECIAL: In caretaker Premier Najib Abdul Razak’s political targeting, one group has received special attention – civil servants. Why would those in the heart of government garner such special focus for an election? The reality is that in Malaysia’s close electoral races, civil servants can be decisive in shaping the final tallies. This is one of the groups that I will be highlighting as decisive in this campaign.

Over the past few years Najib’s administration has worked to stem the erosion of support from his traditional base of government employees with mixed results.

A decisive constituency

Civil servants make up 1.4 million voters, or 10.5 percent of the electorate. The civil service is made up of senior appointments, the police, army personnel, teachers, and a variety of industrial and manual (IMG) groups. There are also an estimated 657,000 government pensioners.

Civil servants disproportionately comprise large shares of votes in key seats such as Putrajaya or Setiu in Trengganu, among others. Postal votes from the army and police have furthermore been decisive in shaping outcomes in many seats like Sibu and Kluang. Conservatively, we can see the numerical effect of civil servants in at least 20 percent of the national parliament seats.

Besides their numbers, however, there are three other factors that make this group impactful. First of all, civil servants are stationed throughout the country. They are national in scope and extend even into the most remote areas.

Second, they are often locally respected leaders having indirect influence – teachers, district officers, village headmen, religious teachers and government doctors are critical in shaping voting behavior within communities. This influence is particularly important in the semi-rural and rural areas, where ties in the community are strong.

Finally, civil servants are more exposed to developments in the capital, as they are on the political frontline, and thus are conduits for information ‘from outside’. This is important in the more remote areas in places such as Sabah and Sarawak.

Sources of disgruntlement

The civil service is arguably one of the most criticised organisations nationally. Over and over, they are lampooned for taking ‘tea breaks,’ engaging in corruption and portrayed an ineffective. Some of this is coloured by stereotypes of the different ethnic communities.

While there are some legitimate areas for concern, especially with the unchecked rise of corruption within the bureaucracy and perceived failure to adequately bring in non-Malays and East Malaysians, this sweeping negative assessment does a disservice to the variation within the civil service itself – which differs at the state and federal levels – and undervalues the important role that this group plays in governing the country.

They are engaged in work for the public, often thankless, and in many cases poorly paid for doing so. On many levels, the constraints the civil servants face are multiple, and many of the problems lie with the leadership and stalled efforts at political reform. The transformation of the civil service in areas such as governance,  inclusion and productivity is one of the pressing issues facing the country ahead.

Over the past four years of Najib’s government, many of the challenges have come to the surface. There has been contention over the engagement with the civil service, leading to unhappiness within its ranks. The causes are complex, combining resistance to reform and failures and management on the part of Najib’s administration.

The first issue has involved pay and fairness in the pay scheme. Najib’s originally disastrously proposed Public Service Remuneration Scheme (SBPA) pay scheme of 2011 did not consult the main civil service bodies especially the Congress of Union of Employees in the Public and Civil Services (Cuepacs) and introduced heavily skewed salary increases towards the top ranks.

Under the SBPA, the chief secretary to the government would receive RM60,000 and staff grade officers about RM36,000 a month. In contrast, some in the lower grades would get an increase of as little as RM1.70. The Najib government subsequently was forced to reach a settlement with the powerful civil service union, Cuepacs, and rethink how it would conceive the salary structure.

He retracted SBPA in March 2012. This contributed to the ‘retirement’ of a number of senior architects of the proposal last year.

Cuepacs continued to call for a review of pay scheme, which has essentially remained stagnant for 20 years. Right before polls in March this year, Najib proposed a new plan, the Malaysian Remuneration System (SSM). This plan offers salary raises for civil servants and kept in place most of the incentive schemes and allowances. It also offered sharp pay increases.

This plan (as detailed) below reversed the blatant bias toward the top ranks, but continues the significantly higher salaries for the senior officers, a source of discontent. Moreover, given the high cost of living, these increases are only marginally making an impact for the lower ranks of the service.

A second concern involves promotion and the criteria for promotions. Political loyalty has become the primary mode for promotions, rather than merit. It has been compounded by perceptions of race as a factor in promotion.

This is a legacy of the Mahathir Mohamad tenure, but has persisted and arguably deepened. Najib’s government attempted to introduce incentives at the top, to continue his pattern of financial rewards, but left out the average civil servant in the assessment, in what was seen as a grossly unfair move.

The appointment process has come under scrutiny. Efforts were made in 2011 to change promotions for teachers, for example, with RM7,500 incentives offered in February 2011 and a new promotion scheme in May of that year.

These efforts have had mixed results, as they have been skewed by the norms of loyalty and favouritism rather than genuine performance excellence. More and more of those talented in the system have become frustrated by decisions made as part of patronage personal ties rather than addressing the public good.

A third factor has been the limited buy-in on decisions that they have to implement. Many civil servants are professionals, who have opted for public service, and are hampered by the system in carrying out their jobs.

While those actually involved in policy are small, the mode has been one of limited consultation with civil servants on problems and possible reform. In fact, Najib has tried to side-step the civil service and relied heavily on consultants to formulate policy. The classic example of this is Pemandu, which clears economic policy through the Economic Council and Cabinet, but ends up ordering ministries to do things rather than getting their inputs and buy-in.

The fact that the high-paid private sector Pemandu staff often fail to understand the challenge of implementation is resented and frustrating. The mode has been to order the bureaucrats, rather than engage and consult the government service and this has thus sent a message of disrespect.

Perhaps the most salient has been the deepening of the corruption in the system. The system is skewed toward those who use their position for financial gain. The reports of corruption at the civil service, including those supposed tackled by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in areas such as customs and the police, have risen sharply.

The fact is that the corruption disease that has so infected the leadership of the country has seeped into its bureaucracy. District officers suddenly have new cars, new houses and overseas bank accounts. Those involved work with ‘consultants’ in areas such as infrastructure and procurement to pad spending that is taken from public funds for personal gain.

It is the civil servants who see the abuses first hand, in renovations for buildings and purchases of textbooks. They are also the ones who are instructed to distribute funds to the electorate, sometimes siphoning off funds to themselves. In many cases, much of the funds do not reach the ground. Those inside the system see this, and many are disgusted.

The leakages are undermining the services and affecting the public. More and more of those inside the system have become fed up. What makes it worse is that the anti-corruption efforts are selective, reinforcing perceptions of unfairness and favouritism. As part of the system, civil servants know first-hand what the impact of corruption has been on the country.

To make the situation more troubling, civil servants are instructed to support and defend the system. To be loyal to the BN at all costs. The pressures to go along are real and involve the livelihoods of families of these 1.4 million people. Many fear the loss of their jobs.

Whistleblowers are not adequately protected and thus the decay in the system in terms of professionalism and performance deepens. Najib’s tenure has only served to bring these issues closer to the surface, as many inside government are openly exposing the excesses and abuse.

Financial incentives

Given these underlying issues, it is thus no surprise that civil servants have been wooed. Najib’s campaign to consolidate support in the civil service has taken a two-fold approach – the carrot and the stick.

The incentives have taken the form of increases in salaries outlined in the SSM scheme above introduced the month before dissolution of parliament. In addition there have been increases in salaries in 2012, amounting to RM3.7 billion annual costs. This included a two month bonus in July and September last year (although this was actually part of the annual Hari Raya bonus repackaged as a ‘Najib’ salary bonus.)

These increases have had a significant impact on the national budget, as these increases are not one-off handouts. The costs of civil service emoluments from 2009-2013 are captured in the table below, as it shows an increase from RM43 billion to RM59 billion, an increase of 27 percent.

It is important to appreciate that these costs are part of Najib’s political electioneering with public money, and continue the pattern of record breaking costs for election related spending. Rather than engage in real public sector reform, the focus has been on treating the civil servants as those that can be bought.

In real terms the amount is marginal on the civil servants themselves. Even with these increases, many civil servants, especially in the lower ranks, are struggling to make ends meet.  As these measures have been introduced, there has been a cutback on allowances and other spending for the civil service as part of different budget priorities for wooing the public electorate.

For the first time in decades, the actual operating budgets of many of the departments have been cut under Najib, affecting civil servants’ work directly and curtailing performance.

In this vote-wooing effort, special accommodation was also made for different civil servant groups – teachers and security personnel.

Let’s take the example of teachers. Under Najib they now receive more access to training, a revamped promotion scheme in 2012, increased spending on schools and bonuses, as the Najib government recognised the reality of winning over teachers.

The impact of these initiatives has been mixed, as many of the teachers have felt that they are not incorporated into the decision-making of the reforms of the education system, do not receive these benefits fairly and are worried about the quality of education.

Like many Malaysians, teachers appreciate that there are real problems with improving the content of the curriculum and student performance. They know, for example, that there is a large number of students dropping out of high school and these dropouts lack the skills to find effective jobs. They know that money is not the solution to improving education.

Another targeted group of security personnel in the army and the police have also received special Najib treatment. The issues of corruption and contracts have challenged ethics of professionalism within the security forces. The police force in particular remains the least trusted institution in the country, which is of concern given the persistence of high crime and the critical role this organisation is supposed to play in security.

This time round the BN cannot rely on the unified support of security personnel, as shown by recent high-profile defections of army generals and legitimate concerns with the handling of Lahad Datu from the ranks, among others.

The last minute offer of pay increases for the army and police  immediately before polls, and promise to synchronise their pay scheme in line with SSM from next January is part of Najib’s continued efforts to stem the erosion in the traditional BN base.

Warnings and meetings

These organisations have also faced the stick in the form of a political barrage. Along with the salary increases and targeted engagement, the BN has simultaneously issued warnings to government personnel not to participate in politics, or rather not to participate in the politics of the opposition.

They have recently denied a respected veteran navy first admiral access to the Lumut naval base and issued orders not to allow the navy fair access to information from both sides of the political divide.

These directives come through meetings, in which staff are required to attend, explicit and implicit instructions and patterns of favouritism that discriminate against suspected opponents of the government.

While denying participation in opposition politics, civil servants are expected to actively support the BN. Given that the grey lines in using the bureaucracy and its resources in electioneering, many civil servants are further ‘encouraged’ to participate in the BN-related campaign activities, even if it is not directly stated.

Many are happy to go along. Some, however, understandably fear that they will lose their jobs if they do not go along with the politicisation, while others are quietly resisting. The level of leakages from the system speaks to the latter, as there are undercuts of angry and disappointment. No one likes being berated and ‘warned’.

Like Malaysians, civil servants are less afraid. In past weeks, the BN government has ratcheted up the ‘meetings’ and ‘instructions’ as the campaign period has approached, creating more pressure within the civil service.

Tough choices ahead

This election is perhaps one of the defining decisions for the history of the civil service itself. In 1999 the government servants rebelled and reflected the anger in society. In many ways the civil servants reflects the splits in society itself, especially in the Malay community.

But this election, they will play a decisive role. Civil servants will decide how they will balance loyalty to the party or loyalty to the country. They will ultimately choose whether there will be more reform to strengthen the service and how these reforms will take place. They will assess their own performance and the quality of the leadership.

In particular, they will evaluate Najib’s efforts to woo their support.  It is a mistake to assume that the civil servants are unaware of the challenges they and the country face ahead. In this election, civil servants have the power to shape the country’s future, and more than ever this will be the real test of whether they are public servants.

http://www.malaysiakini.com

---

DR BRIDGET WELSH is Associate Professor of Political Science at Singapore Management University. She is travelling around Malaysia to provide her GE13 analyses exclusively to Malaysiakini. Bridget can be reached at bwelsh@smu.edu.sg.

Muhasabah Lahad Datu

April 6, 2013

oleh Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang@http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

5hb April, 2013–Peristiwa berdarah di Lahad Datu menjadi ujian kebijaksanaan kerajaan dan kesetiaan seluruh rakyat terhadap negara.

Walau pun berbeza kaum, agama dan fahaman politik, namun tugas mempertahankan negara apabila diceroboh dan keselamatannya diganggu gugat adalah kewajipan bersama mengikut agama, adat dan akal yang waras.

Maka Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) dan seluruh ahlinya mendoakan Allah melimpahkan rahmat kepada anggota keselamatan yang terkorban dan dimasukkan ke dalam kalangan para syuhada, sekurang-kurangnya syahid akhirat dan disembuhkan mereka yang tercedera, serta dikembalikan keamanan dan keselamatan negara.

Walau bagaimana pun muhasabah wajib dilakukan terhadap kerajaan yang diamanahkan menjaga keselamatan negara. Dalam hal ini pihak tentera dan polis tidak boleh dipersalahkan, kerana banyak asas dari sudut politik yang kukuh menunjukan bahawa peristiwa seperti itu tidak sepatutnya berlaku.

Pasukan keselamatan juga tidak sepatutnya menjadi mangsa korban musuh yang tercipta dengan sebab kecuaian politik mereka yang memimpin negara sejak mencapai kemerdekaan lebih 50 tahun yang lalu.

Persoalan asas yang kita ingin tanya ialah: “Mengapa asas keharmonian yang sedia ada di daerah itu tidak dijaga dan dibina dengan baik?”

Hakikatnmya ialah, kedudukan serantau, kejiranan, serumpun, sekelurga dan se agama cuma dipisahkan oleh sempadan geografi dua negara. Malaysia mempunyai hubungan kejiranan dengan Filipina, dan sama-sama menjadi anggota ASEAN sejak penubuhannya pada 8 Ogos 1967 lagi.

Orang-orang Suluk, atau grup etnik Tausug pula mempunyai hubungan keluarga, agama dan budaya yang sama dengan sebahagian besar penduduk keturunan Sulu di Sabah yang sukar dipisahkan. Hubungan rapat ini menjadikan aktiviti keluar-masuk antara rakyat kedua-dua negara berada pada kedudukan yang paling sukar untuk dikawal secara keras oleh pasukan keselamatan yang bertugas.

Tragedi ini berlaku kerana pihak politik yang berkuasa tidak menyelesaikan akar-usul masalah ini secara bijaksanaan sehingga berlakulah kemalangan yang sangat menyayat hati itu. Di samping kemarahan membara terhadap penceroboh yang tidak beretika, namun sifat kemanusiaan tetap berada dalam setiap orang yang berperasaan.

Muhasabah wajib dilakukan dengan meneliti dan memahami kerana beberapa perkara.

Pertama, pemisahan secara sempadan negara yang berbeza dimulakan oleh penjajah asing terhadap rantau ini, mereka sengaja meninggalkan bom jangka selepas mereka meninggalkan tanah jajahan dengan niat jahat, setelah mereka melaksanakan agenda pecah dan perintah di zaman penjajahan dahulu. Bukan sahaja pembahagian rantau ini di antara penjajah Inggeris, Belanda dan Sepanyol dan selepasnya Amerika juga mengambil tempat di Filipina secara khusus.

Kedua, perjanjian juga di buat oleh penjajah ini secara menipu sultan-sultan dan raja-raja yang dilemah dan dihilangkan kedaulatannya.

Ketiga, setelah masing-masing mencapai kemerdekaan dengan negara yang berbeza dan mempunyai kedaulatannya, mengapa segala syarat perjanjian yang sudah lapuk di zaman penjajah yang sudah pulang ke negeri masing-masing, dengan pihak yang sudah diletakkan dalam lipatan sejarah masih lagi wujud? Mengapakah pihak kerajaan dalam negara kita ini masih menghidupkan lagi perjanjian seperti ini?

Keempat, negara Malaysia dan Filipina pula yang terlibat secara lansung dalam perjanjian damai yang memberi kuasa otonomi kepada bangsa Moro di Mindanao. Mengapa terlepas pandang terhadap wiliyah dan kepuluan yang lain bersamanya, sehingga penyelesaiannya tidak lengkap dan masalahnya tidak selesai?

Perkembangan pendidikan, ekonomi dan sosial terbiar dan terus terbiar, kerana kerajaan UMNO lebih menumpukan kepentingan politik mengejar kerusi mendapat takhta dan harta semata-mata, tanpa perhatian terhadap pendidikan, ekonomi dan social di kawasan berkenaan. Rakyat miskin terus di rumah dalam air sejak turun temurun, hanya segelintir di daratan dengan kemudahan yang terhad tanpa penyelesaian.

Semua kecuaian tanpa cakna ini boleh menempah kesan negatif dalam kehidupan dan boleh mencetuskan ketegangan berbagai kaum. Semua perkara ini perlu dimuhasabah dengan adil dan ikhlas walaupun tercalar diri sendiri.

Tindakan ketenteraan mempertahankan kedaulatan negara, langkah menjaga keselamatan rakyat wajib dilaksanakan dengan berhemat, dalam masa yang sama jalinan hubungan tersebut di atas wajib diperbetulkan.

Jangan ikut contoh buruk yang pernah dilakukan oleh penjajah semasa darurat dahulu, penyelsaiannya secara mengepung dan memaksa semata-mata tanpa pendekatan yang lain. Perlu difahami bahawa perasaan manusia tidak boleh dikepung dan dikongkong sepanjang masa, walau pun jasadnya dikepung dan dikongkong secara paksaan .

Peristiwa 13 Mei 1969 wajar menjadi iktibar apabila ianya ditangani sendiri oleh pemimpin di masa itu. Ditubuhkan Jawatankuasa Muhibbah melibatkan kerajaan dan seluruh pemimpin masyarakat, agama dan kaum yang berpengaruh tanpa mengira perbezaan agama, kaum dan politik. Seterusnya ditangani secara politik, ekonomi, pendidikan dan lain-lain.

Konfrantasi dengan Indonesia juga dapat ditamatkan dengan pendekatan ini, walau pun ada yang terkoban dan cedera, akhirnya berakhir dengan damai tanpa dendam.

Janganlah pihak kerajaan UMNO-BN terus menerus berdegil tidak mengaku kesilapan atau mahu menangguk di air keruh, kerana kedua-duanya akan menenggelamkan kita semua, atau laksana Pakistan yang melahirkan Bangladesh.

* Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang adalah Presiden PAS.

BN Ministers have no Common Sense, so let’s boot them out for good!

April 5, 2013

On March 22, Borders Bookstore won its judicial review against three recalcitrant government defendants namely JAWI, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister in the PM’s Department for Religious Affairs in the controversial case involving the book “Allah Liberty & Love” by Canadian writer Irshad Manji.

Nik Raina and her lawyer, En. Rosli Dahlan

I even hailed the Tudung Judge Dato’ Zaleha Yusof for her moral courage in making a bold judgment that I thought had restored some sense and sensibility into our government’s administration. See this link to my previous article: HERE

Malaysians were relieved that a senseless case had ended. That was what we all thought. But apparently not!

It now appears that JAWI, the Home Affairs and Religious Ministers and the Attorney-General do not have any common sense nor any sensibility. I am told that despite receiving a polite letter from the Malaysian premier legal firm of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill for the case to be withdrawn, JAWI has not done so.  See the letter below:

And the most scandalous thing is that A-G Gani Patail is instigating JAWI not to respect Judge Zaleha’s decision. The Syariah criminal charge against Nik Raina is still not withdrawn. Contrary to what we think, Nik Raina is still an accused person in the Syariah case. She is still the enemy of Islam. That is how vindictive JAWI, the BN Minister for Home Security and BN Minister for Religious Affairs and A-G Gani Patail have become towards Nik Raina. They want to drag her life into hell through eternity. That is why A-G Gani Patail filed an application to stay the Order given by Judge Zaleha. See below the application filed by AG Gani Patail:

What is most laughable in that application is to see JAWI saying- “Kami akan mengalam¡ múdarat yang serius dan seterusnya mengalami ketidak-upayaan untuk menempatkan semula kepada kedudukan yang asal” which means JAWI, the Home Minister and the Religious Ministers are saying that they will suffer if they cannot be allowed to prosecute Nik Raina, the poor victimised Malay manager.

JAWI akan mengalami múdarat yang serius dan seterusnya  ketidak-upayaan untuk menempatkan semula kepada kedudukan yang asal jika gagal melakukan sesuatu terhadap kes Nik Rania.

Hello! What is wrong with you people? Are you suffering from brain damage to say that in a formal court application? Obviously, A-G Gani Patail is taking the court process as a joke to be saying that. They should all be punished for contempt of court!

To make it worse, that was not how A-G Gani Patail behaved when Razak Baginda was acquitted for the murder of the Mongolian beauty Altantuya Sharibbu. In that sense, Nik Raina is treated worse than a murder accuse. So the saying that everyone is equal before the law is not true. In the Malaysian criminal justice system, you are treated according to who you are. So, if you Razak Baginda who is a close confidante of the Prime Minister, you will get preferential treatment.

Razak who hired the UTK Police sharpshooters to blow up Altantuya was freed while the UTK personnel were convicted. A-G Gani Patail did not appeal against Razak Baginda and Razak is now living in absolute luxury in London from the billions of ringgit commissions that he made from the Scorpene submarines sold to the Royal Malaysian Navy.

We have always suspected that the Scorpene submarines cannot dive, remain submerged nor defend our coastal line. And now all our suspicions are proven true. How do we know that? Well, in the invasion of Lahad Datu by the Filipino terrorists, we have seen that these terrorists can enter and leave our territories and waters at will. They can enter undetected and leave despite a sea blockade. And throughout the whole battle episodes, we have not once seen the Scorpene in action.

That is how the BN Defence Ministers have fleeced the public coffers in the name of buying sophisticated weaponry to protect the country. When the time comes to defend the country, it is the “tulang empat kerat” of our brave soldiers that are defending the motherland and not the sophisticated weaponry bought to line the pockets of these politicians!

The same goes for our internal or homeland security. The inept Home Minister said that these terrorists were harmless and toothless sarong clad old men. Believing that what the Home Affairs Minister said was true, our Policemen put their guard down and treated these foreign terrorists more kindly than they treated the BERSIH 3.0 rally goers. And in the end, it cost horrifying deaths to our Policemen who were brutally killed and mutilated by these harmless toothless old men.

So I say – let us honor our fallen heroes. Let us honor our fallen soldiers and policemen. But Never shall we honor or give credit to the BN politicians and Ministers who have caused these unnecessary deaths. We weep for the families of these fallen heroes, their wives and children. But we must also hold those who caused these wanton deaths accountable. We must!

Now that Parliament has been dissolved on April 3, these politicians will have to go back to the ballot box to seek the people’s mandate. It is time that we tell them who is master. It is time that we shape the fate of this country for the next 4 years. It is time that we, the People of Malaysia tell these inept leaders that they are no longer wanted.

It will be the job of the political parties to tear each other to pieces during their political rallies. But we too can play a role. It is time that we hold all these politicians and the Ministers to be answerable for the deaths of Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan, Ahmad Sarbaini and many others. The persecutions of Anwar Ibrahim, Rosli Dahlan, Datuk Ramli Yusuff and many other innocent Malaysians can happen to anybody when you have morally depraved politicians in power and an A-G beholden to them.

Whatever your status in the country, whatever your race, whatever your religion, your enemy is the one who is turning your country into a disaster zone and the sooner you vote those crooks out of power the sooner you can save your nation and get something better.

We can influence the political parties to offer to the people not only winnable candidates but also candidates whom have seen in the public domain to display impeccable strength of character and moral uprightness.

Gen (Rtd) Md Hashim Hussein is currently is the PKR’s candidate for Johor Baharu parliamentary seat.

The outcome of Lahad Datu could have been different if former CCID Chief Dato’ Ramli Yusuff gets elected into parliament and becomes Home Minister and former army chief Gen (Rtd) Md Hashim Hussein becomes Defence Minister. These are the people that we should get PAS, PKR and DAP to put into Parliament and boot out the BN Ministers who have no common sense to run the country !

Datuk Ramli  was charged by Musa Hassan for using the Police Cessna while he was conducting the aerial survey and boarder patrol to prevent Filipino infiltration which could have avoided the Lahad Datu incident !

Who is the Enemy?: Certainly not us Malaysians

March 28, 2013

by Dr. Kua Kia Soong@http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT: As the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, GDAMS 3.0 (April 15, 2013) approaches, it is time for Malaysians to ask: Who are Malaysia’s enemies and what appropriate weaponry do we need?

One would think this is the first question the Ministry of Defence should ask in the multi-billion decisions to procure armaments now that the arms merchants are here again for LIMA 2013. Yet our National Defence Policy has never even been properly debated in Parliament.

Just a few months ago, the Ministry of Defence would not have said that Malaysia’s enemies were among the Suluks who have been coming back and forth between Southern Philippines and Sabah all these years.

After all, hadn’t we helped to train MNLF fighters there against Marcos in the seventies? Wasn’t this the reason why the Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein(right) said that the invaders at Lahad Datu were “neither militants nor terrorists” during the two or three weeks that they were already there?

And haven’t we got a “Rapid Deployment Force” (10 Paratrooper Brigade) ready to be dispatched to any flashpoint? One wonders what flashpoint scenarios they are trained for?  Are they ready to be deployed only when there are secessionists fighting to take East Malaysia out of the federation? They certainly hadn’t been prepared for the Sulu Sultan’s army to “turn”.

Don’t be surprised if the “defence analysts” in the Ministry have now shredded all their previous analyses about Malaysia’s perceived “enemies”. With the new-found enemies of the Malaysian state, the arms lobby has at last found a raison detre for their fabulous arms procurements.

Heck, didn’t we finally get the chance to use our F18 fighter bombers and Hawk 208 fighter jets against this so-called “rag-tag army”? Wouldn’t armoured cars and tanks and mortars have sufficed in that four square kilometer area of land against that motley crew? In the end, were Malaysians given a clear picture of the efficacy of those fighter jet sorties?

Whatever the reasons for sending in the fighter bombers and jets, the international arms merchants have now come to town to peddle their wares. The French have started advertising their ‘Rafale’ fighter jets in our mainstream newspapers, alongside bargains by ‘Giant’ and ‘Tesco’ for the attention of Malaysians.

BAE are also desperately trying to flog their ‘Typhoon’ jet fighters in a RM10 billion deal they hope to clinch with a “Buy 1 – Get 1 free” gambit. They lost out recently to the French when the Indian government opted to buy 126 Rafale fighter jets instead, and are still fuming.

But do we need any fighter jets at all, considering their cost is spiraling way out of control and they so quickly become obsolete? They will be even more obsolete when future air wars are fought using drones (Unarmed Aerial Vehicles)!

Malaysians should be aware that the latest (US) F35 fighter jets cost at least half a billion ringgit a piece? Can we keep up with the race? What race? Who are we racing against? Who are our enemies?

Appropriate vessels for RMN

When the bombardment finally began at Lahad Datu, it was mentioned that the navy had formed a cordon to prevent the intruders from getting away. It became clear that there has never been a cordon to prevent any intruders from getting INTO Sabah all these years.

Looking at the geography of the area, it is evident that our two submarines (costing more than RM7 billion) sitting pretty in Sepanggar Bay and our six New Generation Patrol Vessels (costing RM9 billion) were not the most suitable vessels in such circumstances.

This mismatch raises the question of the need for our navy to prioritise the deployment of appropriate alternative vessels.  As part of the RM5 billion arms deal signed between Dr Mahathir and Margaret Thatcher in 1989, we procured two corvettes built by the Yarrow shipbuilders costing RM2.2 billion. (NST, Novembe 11, 1991).

At the time, the Royal Malaysian Navy said they required sixteen offshore patrol vessels but due to financial constraints, the RMN could only afford four or five of these locally-built OPVs. Mindef had budgeted RM85 million per OPV. (NST, November 25,1991).

Now, in the light of the latest incident at Lahad Datu, Malaysians will be in a better position to see the appropriate vessels that would be more suitable to secure the Sabah coastline.

Before the Lahad Datu incident, the main “enemies” testing the capacity of our armed forces were the pirates in the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.

There were no bigger “enemies” than those seafaring marauders. Are state-of-the-art fighter jets and submarines the appropriate defence equipment against pirates? These would likewise be inappropriate if “international terrorists” and suicide bombers choose to target Malaysia.

So, exactly how are decisions made in the Ministry of Defence to purchase the submarines, the corvettes, the frigates (costing billions) instead of more effective patrol boats to guard our coastlines?

ASEAN needs to take ZOPFAN more seriously

There is no end if we choose to embark on an arms race with our neighbouring countries. We simply cannot afford such an arms race and it is time ASEAN countries seriously talk about disarmament and joint defence agreements instead of an arms race within ASEAN.

Our economic priorities need to be diverted away from military production toward production for human needs, and public expenditure diverted to more and better social services throughout ASEAN.

Any disputes over territories should be settled through international arbitration as was done over Pulau Batu Putih with Singapore. The dispute of the Spratly Islands should be resolved the same way.

M’sian people not the enemy

The Lahad Datu incident should act as a wake-up call for the Malaysian government that seems preoccupied with treating its own people as the enemy. When we bear in mind that throughout the tenure of the Internal Security Act since 1960, more than 10,000 people had been incarcerated for being “threats to national security”.

But hardly any have been charged for any crimes involving violence against the state. Then again, there have been at least two cases of Malaysians who have been killed in neighbouring countries for alleged terrorist activities. Yet, none of them were ever arrested under the ISA!

This goes to show that our intelligence service has been focusing on the wrong suspects. As a former ISA detainee who was incarcerated for being a “threat to national security”, I can vouch for the wanton wastage of security personnel on Malaysians who are simply not “enemies of the state”.

When I think of the number of state operatives who had been spying on me, arresting me, guarding me, interrogating me, accompanying me on family and hospital visits, I immediately wonder how they could be better deployed to prevent crimes being committed and watching out for the real enemies of the state.  And when we multiply the cost 10,000 times since 1960, we will realize the enormous waste of human resources that could be better put to use!

It was recently reported in the New York Times (March 13, 2013) that Malaysia is among 25 countries using off-the-shelf spyware to keep tabs on citizens by secretly grabbing images off computer screens, recording video chats, turning on cameras and microphones, and logging keystrokes:

“Rather than catching kidnappers and drug dealers, it looks more likely that it is being used for politically motivated surveillance,” security researcher Morgan Marquis-Boire was quoted by NYT as saying.  This is what I mean when I say our intelligence service is not focused on the job but wasting valuable resources spying on and apprehending the good guys!

Indeed, if the Malaysian state had only focused on the job of catching the real criminals, Malaysia would be a much safer place instead of being the “nation of guarded communities” it has become today.

Militarism serves ruling class

Apart from the huge commissions that can be creamed from multibillion ringgit arms contracts, the ruling class requires militarism to contain the oppressed and disgruntled sections of the population.

A strong military is necessary to prop up the ruling class. At the same time, the military-industrial complex promotes the development of a specially favoured group of companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of munitions and military equipment for personal gain and profit. These armaments companies have a direct interest in the maximum expansion of military production.

Arms production is a green issue

Military spending and arms production are very much green issues. The military- industrial complex not only produces toxic products, they produce weapons that kill indiscriminately. LIMA and other defence fairs are certainly not congruent with Malaysian leaders’ stated commitment to peace and spiritual values.

The green movement has a responsibility to work toward an end to the culture of war. This involves re-ordering our financial priorities away from wasteful and destructive arms production and procurement to the social well-being of the people.

Ultimately, working towards a culture of peace is a vision that is only attainable in a society that respects human dignity, social justice, democracy and human rights.

Chinese Navy makes waves in South China Sea

March 28, 2013

by Calum MacLeod and Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 6:49p.m. EDT March 27, 2013

BEIJING – The appearance of a Chinese navy flotilla at an island chain 1,120 miles from its home shores is a clear sign that the new Communist regime is moving to enforce its claims to the entire South China Sea, experts said Wednesday.

James Shoal is 50 miles from the coast of Malaysia, one of several countries that have appealed to the United States for help in countering China’s aggressive attempt to seize 1 million square miles of fishing and energy resources.

The Chinese military drills in the southernmost part of the sea show that the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot,” which the White House said will refocus U.S. defense assets from the Middle East to East Asia, has produced few results for countries such as the Philippines and Japan, says Michael Auslin, an East Asia specialist at the American Enterprise Institute.

“We’re losing credibility with our allies and friends by not getting involved,” he says. “China has interpreted U.S. inaction as a green light to go forward.”

The flotilla includes China’s most advanced amphibious landing ship. Sailors on the ship’s helicopter deck declared their loyalty to the ruling Communist Party and vowed to “struggle arduously to realize the dream of a powerful nation,” said Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency.

In 2010, China planted a monument on the shoal declaring it the Chinese territory of “Zengmu Reef.” The act was part of China’s claims to all islands, fishing grounds and energy resources in a sea shared also by Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan. The South China Sea is also a major transit route for global shipping; half of all cargo in the world passes through the sea.

Malaysia says China’s claims are bogus and merely an attempt to seize resources such as possible oil and gas deposits that are well within the internationally recognized coastal territory of Malaysia.

Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, Northeast Asia director for the International Crisis Group, a non-profit working in conflict prevention, said the naval exercise is consistent with China’s “shift from a land-focused power to a maritime power.”

The strategy has been pushed over the past two years, during which China has grown more assertive over its maritime claims, she said.

Gary Li, a senior analyst with IHS Fairplay in London, described the flotilla mission “a surprisingly strong message” from the new Chinese leadership recently installed under President Xi Jinping.

“It is not just a few ships here and there, but a crack amphibious landing ship carrying marines and hovercraft and backed by some of the best escort ships in the fleet,” he told the South China Morning Post, adding that jet fighters had also been used to cover the task force.

“We’ve never seen anything like this that far south in terms of quantity or quality.”

Auslin said the United States should respond in its longstanding role of ensuring the sea is not controlled by any single nation. He said the White House should increase the frequency of U.S. warship formations in the area to show China “we’re going to be present.” It would also boost the confidence of allies that the U.S. is standing up to challenges from their mighty neighbor, he said.

The White House has said it wants all sides to settle their disputes peacefully through international legal structures. But in light of Chinese behavior that many in the region view as aggressive, that sends a message that the United States will not confront China, Auslin says.

China’s behavior could undermine 100 years of U.S. policy that “might makes right” cannot prevail in sea lanes open to all, Auslin said.

“Do we want to see that environment change to where relations between countries are determined by the strongest? That’s the 19^th century world,” he said.

MacLeod reported from Beijing; Dorell from McLean, Va.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/27/china-military-south-china-sea/2023947/

ASEAN won’t accept the idea of a “state within a state”

March 26, 2012

by Farish A. Noor @http://www.nst.com.my

INTRUSION: Unlawful for Kiram to have private army and wage war on another nation.

THE security breach in Sabah remains a lingering problem, thanks largely to the claims made by one person who has sparked off what is really a complex internal debate within Philippine society itself.

Jamalul Kiram III’s demand that he be recognised as the Sultan of Sulu with a claim on some parts of Sabah has raised an even deeper question that the Philippines has to address: can the Philippine republic accept the idea that within its republican framework there are citizens who claim to be more than citizens, and who claim that they have power and authority over parts of the republic which they argue are part of their own kingdom?

In short, can the Philippine republic accept the idea of a state within a state, or in this case a kingdom within a republic?The initial answer to this might seem to be a straightforward “no”.

As President Benigno Aquino himself noted during one of his press conferences, it is technically unconstitutional for any Philippine citizen to have a private army, to bear arms without licences and to declare war on another country. On legal grounds, Kiram’s stand seems shaky indeed.

But Kiram continues to probe into the soft underbelly of the post colonial state by invoking primordial attachments to the past, and this is where the modern post colonial state of the Philippines — like all other ASEAN states — has to address the question of its own complicated origins and genesis.

Let us remember that the states of ASEAN are a varied lot: when the countries of Southeast Asia became independent from the 1940s to 1960s, they emerged on the stage of world politics in different shapes and forms.

Today, when we look at the ASEAN region we see constitutional democracies, constitutional monarchies, republics, single-party states and so on. Each ASEAN country has had to find its own way of dealing with the legacy of the past.

But in this respect, Malaysia, Brunei and Thailand are more alike for none of these states has marginalised or eclipsed the older polities that pre-existed before independence.

The Federation of Malaysia, for one, maintains some degree of relative authority over the nine kingdoms where the Sultans of Malaysia remain as important figures in the context of their respective kingdoms.

Like Thailand, Malaysia is also a country with a constitutional head of state. But in Malaysia, as in Thailand, it is the government that prints the national currency, deals with other states and manages things like international relations and diplomacy.

The Philippines, on the other hand, is more akin to Indonesia and Myanmar which have opted to become republics, and where the former ruling elites have been integrated into the broader framework of universal citizenship.

Myanmar’s Royal family practically ceased to exist after the Third Anglo-Burmese war of 1885, and though traces remain in terms of some of their descendants, there has never been an attempt to revive the Burmese kingship in modern-day Myanmar. Indonesia, too, once had many royal courts in Java, Sumatra, Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi and Kalimantan. But most of the Royal houses were brought under the auspices of the centralised state after the tumultuous years of Indonesia’s war of independence between 1945 and 1949. Today, they exist in name only, but with no real political power or authority.

As far as the structure of the state is concerned, the Philippines bears a much closer resemblance to Indonesia than it does to Malaysia, and this is where the problem lies — though it has to be emphasised that this is a Philippine problem, and not Malaysia’s.

Like Indonesia, the Philippines does not accept the idea that there can be a state within a state in the republic, which is why Kiram is no different in terms of his rights and obligations from any other citizen.

In Indonesia, too, there remain many sultans such as the rulers of Cirebon, Yogjakarta and Surakarta in Java. But they, too, have no special powers or rights, and they too come under the law of the republic.

Indonesia has been better able to deal with some of the claims of the former rulers of the country, for the central government has displayed more sensitivity in according them the respect that is their due: in the history books of Indonesia, Indonesian children learn about the role played by the sultans in the anti-colonial struggle for instance.

And today the kingdom of Yogjakarta has been able to reposition itself very well, packaging itself as a tourist destination and presenting itself as the custodian of Javanese art, culture and heritage.

 Some of the less fortunate kingdoms in Sumatra and Kalimantan, however, have fallen into a state of despair and ruin. The fate of the sultanate of Sulu seems to be similar to that of some of the now-defunct Royal houses of Indonesia.

 Bereft of funds and with no real political authority, it relies on cultural capital and its claims to history to project itself.But Kiram’s armed incursion into Malaysia was probably one of his “biggest miscalculations”, to quote the Philippine analyst Joseph Franco; and has now turned into a major own goal that has robbed him and his followers of whatever residual sympathy others may have had for his cause.

The Royal families of Indonesia have also tried to project themselves internationally, but through their promotion of the arts, by appealing to UNESCO, and by maintaining their relevance as a bastion of culture and history — and certainly not by waging war against the Indonesian republic, which would be politically self-defeating.

However this crisis pans out in the near future is anyone’s guess at the moment, though one thing is clear for now: ASEAN, for all its strengths and weaknesses, is a still a region where no country accepts the notion of states within states, and that is not likely to change tomorrow.

NO Deal on Sabah: Sabahans are Malaysians

March 23, 2013

by Raymond Tombung@http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

The Sabah claim will continue to be raised by the Phlippines and Sulu as it is powerful and emotive international issue which many leaders in Manila will find convenient to bleed for political mileage. And the many “sultans” in Sulu will continue to cast their hungry eyes at Sabah, considered to be “the last gold coin” and aspire, albeit hopelessly, to try and achieve the impossible.

But Malaysians, especially Sabahans, should be able to give a cogent argument on the issue of this claim and in favour of Sabah.All Malaysians and Sabahans need is three or four historical facts, events or political realities to win the argument.

So let’s always keep clear knowledge of the following:

1. The controversy arising from the 1878 treaty between Jamalul Alam and British North Borneo Company.It can strongly be argued that it was a “cession” and not a “lease” as claimed by Filipinos.

Note that any argument on the matter was decisively clarified and settled when on April 22, 1903, Sultan Jamalul Kiram signed a document known as “Confirmation of Cession of certain Islands” in which he says the 1878 treaty was a CESSION.

The “confirmation” of the 1878 treaty says specifically that “We, the Sultan of Sulu, state with truth and clearness that we have ceded to the Government of British North Borneo of our own pleasure all the islands that are near the territory of North Borneo… This is done because the names of the islands were not mentioned in the 22nd January, 1878 [treaty]… that the islands were included in the cession…”

2. The purpose of the Madrid Protocol of 1885 was to recognise the sovereignty of Spain in the Sulu Archipelago and also for Spain to relinquish all claims it might have had over North Borneo.

Article III of the protocol states that “The Spanish Government renounces… all claims of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu [Jolo]….”

3. The signing of the Carpenter Agreement on March 22, 1915 in which Sultan Jamalul Kiram II was stripped off all temporal (worldly) power and retained only the empty title of Sultan. His claimed ownership of North Borneo was of no concern to the American colonists.

4. The Macaskie Dictum (Judgment) of 1939. This judgment doesn’t settle the argument although Macaskie said the annual payment was cession money and not rental money and that the nine plaintiff heirs were entitled to.

These payments, however, in no way had anything to do with territorial property. This is because a later translation by the Filipinos of the original 1878 treaty (written in Malayan Jawi) said the agreement was a “pajak” which they say meant “lease”.

(Today “pajak” can mean “purchase”). But even this judgment was preceded by the addition “cession” of 1903 and the Madrid Protocol of 1885.

Power of Attorney questionable

5. The Sulu “sultans” cannot claim Sabah because there is no more a Sulu sultanate and there is no more any real sultan. The only legitimate royal group in Sulu are the descendants of the nine heirs who went to Macaskie in 1939.

6. Sulu (a region of the Philippines without any national sovereignty) cannot claim Sabah which is part of Malaysia – a sovereign nation.Only a country can claim another country or a part of another country. This,therefore,means Sulu has no locus standi to claim Sabah. The power of attorney that was given to Macapagal by the Sulu Sultan to give Diosdado Macapagal the “authority” to claim Sabah on Sulu’s behalf (now withdrawn) has very questionable validity.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why Manila had not really pursued the claim using the so-called power of attorney.

7. Manila had denied and re-recognised the sultanate a number of times, but this does not change the fact that there has been not been any sultanate to speak of since the Carpenter-Kiram Agreement of 1915.

8. By July 15, 1946, the British government had taken over North Borneo when the North Borneo Company could no longer manage it after the devastation of World War II.

The company had the right to hand over North Borneo to whoever it wanted because the country had been ceded to it in 1878 (and confirmed by the confirmation of cession in 1903 and the nullification of Sulu’s ownership of the country by the Madrid Protocol of 1885).

9. Many Brunei historians actually argue that Brunei never gave away any part of North Borneo to Sulu. And there is no document whatsoever to prove this cession.

10. After Sabah became part of Malaysia and Malaysia’s sovereignty was recognised by the United Nations and the world, that had effectively superceded and nullified any claim on Sabah.

ICJ confirmed Sabah’s status as part of Malaysia

Sulu cannot be so arrogant and shameless to think that it can simply and freely take back a piece of land it “owned” 135 years ago after it has been developed by someone else for half a century.

11. The International Court of Justice (which is an arm of the United Nation) had recognised and confirmed Sabah as part of Malaysia when it made a verdict in 2002 that Sipadan and Ligitan islands belonged to Malaysia (and not Indonesia). This confirmation of ownership cannot be reversed in favour of Sulu (judgments of the ICJ  are not subject to appeal).

12. Whatever the arguments are, all the past agreements and treaties – whether they were valid, arguable or controversial – are now effectively useless historical references because they have been superseded by bigger and more important events.

Therefore the argument by Harry Roque, a law professor at University of the Philippines, who says that a legal principle known as “uti posseditis juris” (“accords pre-eminence of legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty”) is useless and ineffective. Also, this pre-eminence of legal title is a double-edged sword because it can also be applied to Malaysia.

13. Professor Dr Ramlah Adam recently said: “They cannot claim [Sabah] just based on history. For example, the Siam government handed Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu over to the British and [today] cannot claim the states.”

Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim said that if the Philippines’ argument can be accepted, then “Singapore should be returned to Johor and Penang be returned to Kedah”.

And for that matter why does Brunei not claim Sabah as well because there is a Brunei argument that it never gave Sabah to Sulu? Or why doesn’t Indonesia claim Peninsular Malaysia and southern Thailand? After all, weren’t these regions under the Srivijaya Empire in the eighth century?

14. Sabahans do not want to be part of the Philippines, as confirmed by the findings of the Cobbold Commission.Even today Sabahans feel a lot of trepidation at the mere thought of being under the so-called Sulu sultanate.

No referendum

15. There is an argument that Malaysia had agreed in the Manila Accord (signed July 31, 1963) that the formation of Malaysia was subject to the Philippines’ claim over Sabah.

But whatever was agreed in the Manila Accord has been superseded by later events, for example, the formation of Malaysia which included Sabah, two months after the Manila Accord.

In the Bangkok Talks of June-July 1968, Malaysia had unilaterally rejected the Manila Accord.With the benefit of hindsight, wasn’t the Manila Accord an exercise in futility, especially by the Philippines in trying to hang on to something which couldn’t be implemented and solved till the end of time?

If the terms of the Manila Accord were adhered to, there would have been no Malaysia.Of prime importance was the wishes of Sabahans – two-thirds of whom wanted to join Malaysia as the findings of the Cobbold Commission indicated the year before.

And noteworthy is Article 10 of the accord which says: “The Ministers reaffirmed their countries’ adherence to the principle of self-determination for the people’s of non-governing territories. In this context, Indonesia and the Philippines stated that they would welcome the formation of Malaysia provided the support of the people of the Borneo territories is ascertained by an independent and impartial authority, the Secretary-General of the United Nations or his representatives.”

There was not much time to carry out such a referendum, but wasn’t this condition (to allow Sabah to be part of Malaysia) already fulfilled by the Cobbold Commission the year before?

A virtual paradise

16. Even Sabahan Tausugs do not want to be part of the Philippines.Ed Lingao, a renowned Filipino author and journalist had on February 21, 2013, reported in Minda News that he had undertaken a random survey of the Tausugs in Sabah and found out that even they do not want Sabah to become part of the Philippines.

He wrote: “Many of the Tausugs we encountered detested the idea of the Philippine government reclaiming Sabah. Refugees from war and poverty, many of these Tausugs see little benefit in a Sabah under the Philippine flag; in fact, for them, it is a worrying proposition, not unlike jumping from the clichéd frying pan into an even bigger fire.

“One Tausug we encountered outside a mall in Kota Kinabalu bristled at the idea of the Philippines staking a claim on Sabah saying ‘sisirain lang nila ang Sabah. Okay na nga ang Sabah ngayon, guguluhin lang nila,’ (They will just destroy Sabah. Sabah is doing fine right now, they will just mess it up).

“It is hard to blame them for the cynicism. After all, they took great risks and fled their own troubled country in droves for a better life, only to have that same country reach out and stake a claim on what, to them, is already a virtual paradise where one can finally live and work in peace. That, to them, may be the ultimate irony, the ultimate tragedy.”

As such, what we see today is a group of desperate people trying to live in the glory of the distant past, stepping forward with their thick skins with no regard for the truth.Lingao described the nature of the situation on February 19 in an article, “Sabah as the last gold coin”.

In it he notes: “Sabah became their clutch when their own Sulu was sinking, so to speak, from the heavy weight of bloodshed that spiralled into poverty.

“Sabah became the vision of the last gold coin that could win back the possibility of rising again, getting back the worth of a name: the venerable House of Kiram.”

How very sad and tragic indeed. And now more blood is being spilled in the name of a great overstated lie!

Sabah remains in Malaysia permanently

March 23, 2013

by Rahmat Mohamad (03-22-13)

Malaysia again is put in the international radar when the disputed heir to the Sultanate of Sulu, Kiram claimed Sabah as part of the kingdom. Despite credible and strong arguments put forth by legal experts, Kiram maintained his stand that Sabah is part of Sulu and Manila has not dismissed his claim as similar echo was made by the President reported in the local newspaper to confirm the official stand of the Government of the Philippines.

In fact, in the ICJ case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v. Malaysia), Philippines had made an application for permission to intervene that, “the interest of the Republic of Philippines is solely exclusively addressed to the treaties, agreements and other evidence furnished by Parties and appreciated by the Court which have a direct or indirect bearing on the matter of the legal status of North Borneo” and the object of the requested intervention is said to be, “to preserve and safeguard the historical and legal rights of the Government of the Republic of Philippines arising from its claim to dominion and sovereignty over the territory of North Borneo”.

In short it is a claim to a territory that had been administered as a British dependency which later joined Malaysia in 1963 upon its own accord and legitimized by the United Nations.The intervention was rejected by the majority of the judges in the ICJ on the basis that Philippines has failed to demonstrate and has not discharged its obligation to convince the Court that specified legal interests may be affected in the particular circumstances of the case. The judges had given 14 votes to one as against Philippines in that case.

Apart from the determining the sovereignty of Malaysia and Indonesia over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, inter alia, in that case the decision by Justice Thomas Franck reiterated the importance of self-determination principle in the development of post colonial international law. In that case he articulated the point on self determination of the Sabah people to join Malaysia in 1963 through a legitimate process under the auspices of the United Nations. The right of self-determination if it is done in accordance with the law it must be given due recognition and indeed he rightly said that the Court judicial notice of the impact of so vital a legal principle and cited a previous decision in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case:

“The Court…as an international judicial organ, is deemed to take judicial notice of international law, and is therefore required in a case falling under Article 53 of the Statute, as in any other case, to consider on its own initiative all rules of international law which may be relevant to the settlement of the dispute. …”

Justice Franck further elaborated on the impact of self determination in the modern era and the traditional right to territory vested in rulers of States. For a claim to territorial title ergaomnes to be judicially determined, factors like the forms of international conveyancing, tracing historic title through to a critical date or dates to determine which State exercised territorial sovereignty at that point. He then made an important remark particularly in reference to post colonial era when he said:

“Under modern international law, however, the enquiry must necessarily be broader, particularly in the context of decolonization. In particular, the infusion of the concept of the rights of a “people” into this traditional legal scheme, notably the right of peoples to self-determination, fundamentally alters the significance of historic title to the determination of sovereign title.”

The Court judgments on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) and in Western Sahara are two important examples where the ICJ has contributed and recognized the development of the right of non-self- governing people to self-determination requiring the elements of “a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned”. Further, the Court recognized in the Namibia case that “the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all. In the later case of East Timor (Portugal v Australia), the Court further strengthened the principle of self-determination to be “one of the essential principles of contemporary international law”.

Strengthening the principle of self-determination through treaty laws, state practice and opinion juris.

Apart from the decisions of ICJ, universal treaty law, state practice and opinion juris must be taken as strong fundamental basis for the principle of self-determination to operate. Justice Franck cited Article 1, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter echoing the importance of the principle of self-determination as one of its purposes “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. This principle is reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Over the years treaty laws have been developed and re-enforced in volumes through resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.

On this point Justice Franck cited a few General Assembly (GA) resolutions for example GA resolution 637 (VII) adopted on 16 December 1952, an early recognition that “every member of the United Nations, in conformity with the Charter, should respect the maintenance of the right of self-determination, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA resolution 1514 (XV), adopted without dissent on 14 December 1960, regarded as fundamental to the process of decolonization. In GA resolution 1541 (XV) adopted with only two dissents on 15 December 1960, where the GA contemplated more than one method of self-determination for non-governing territories, including “integration with an independent State”.GA resolution 2131 (XX) on Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty”, adopted by 109 countries without dissent on 21 December 1965, declared that “all states shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of people and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”. The principle of self-determination was further included among the “basic principles of international law” set out in the “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” adopted by consensus as the Annex to resolution 2625 (XXV) on 24 October 1970. This document iterated that “all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social; and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Upholding Sabah’s Legitimacy in international law

Justice Franck then succinctly described the self determination of the people in Sabah where it was expressed wish of the majority of the people of the territory in a 1963 election. The Secretary General of the United Nations then was entrusted under the Manila Accord of 31 July 1963 with the task of ascertaining the wishes of the people of North Borneo, and reported that the majority of the people of North Borneo had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and:

“had concluded that they wish to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region with whom they feel ties of ethnic association, heritage, language, religion, culture, economic relationship, and ideals and objectives.”

Britain files its last report to the United Nations on North Borneo in 1963 as an Article 73 (e) Non-Self-Governing Territory and thereafter, the UN removed North Borneo from the list of colonial territories under its decolonization jurisdiction which omits North Borneo from the Committee’s list of territories and thereby accepting that the process of decolonization had been completed by a valid exercise of self-determination.

Thus, in his concluding judgment Justice Franck has this to say:

“Accordingly, in the light of the clear exercise by the people of North Borneo of their right to self-determination, it cannot matter whether this Court, in any interpretation it might give to any historic instrument or efficacy, sustains or not the Philippines claim to historic title. Modern international law does not recognize the survival of a right of sovereignty based solely on historic title: not in any event, after an exercise of self-determination conducted in accordance with the requisites of international law, the bona fides of which has received international recognition by the political organs of the United Nations. Against this, historic claims and feudal pre-colonial titles are mere relics of another international legal era, one that ended with the setting of the sun on the age of colonial imperium.

He further emphasized the principle of self-determination in Sabah:

“The lands and people claimed by the Philippines formerly constituted most of an integral British dependency. In accordance with the law pertaining to decolonization, its population exercised their right of self-determination. What remains is no mere boundary dispute. It is an attempt to keep alive a right to reserve the free and fair decision taken almost 40 years ago by the people of North Borneo in the exercise of their legal right to self-determination. The Court cannot be a witting party to that.”

Finally he has to say this:

“In so far as the Philippines has claimed a legal interest in protecting its claim to sovereign title on the basis of the historic rights of the Sultan of Sulu, that legal interest, however fascinating historically, has no modern purchase. It is, beyond reasonable disputation, barred by a legal principle firmly established in modern texts, judicial decisions and State practice. There is no point, therefore, in encouraging its further ventilation.”

“To allow the Philippines to proceed to intervene in the merits phase of this case, when the legal interest it claims would have no chance of succeeding by operation of law, cannot discharge the Court’s duties. Even if the probity of all the Applicant’s evidence were to be wholly confirmed, its interest would still be solely political: perhaps susceptible of historic, perhaps of political, but in any event not of judicial, vindication.”

Conclusion

1. It is crystal clear in the ICJ’s Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case that historical claim cannot now assures the success of any territorial claim under international law.
2. Claim based on historical or ancestral right can no longer withhold the dominant principle of self-determination in the modern context of international law.
3. The case illustrates the wisdom of the world court in upholding the voice of the people in determining the future of their nation through a legitimate process and any interference of claimant would tantamount to disrupting the continuous peaceful display of sovereignty.
4. Thus, it is unquestionable that Sabah remains in Malaysia permanently and any act to undo its legitimate act would tantamount to disrespecting Malaysia’s sovereignty.

http://sabahformalaysia.wordpress.com/

Sulu: Stop Payment of Cession Money by New Court Order

March 18, 2013

by Athi Shankar (03-16-13) @http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

The DAP has urged the Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail to obtain a High Court order in Kota Kinabalu to discontinue Malaysia’s cessation payment to heirs of Sultan Sulu over Sabah.

Chairman Karpal Singh called on Gani, who hails from Sabah, to spring to action immediately and file the necessary application as public interests demanded him to do so.

Senior parliamentarian Karpal noted that the cessation payment was on the authority of a 1938 order by then High Court of North Borneo.The order allowed a petition of nine Sulu heirs to receive and share among themselves RM5,000, or now RM5,300, as annual payment.

The 1938 order actually has reinforced the payment that commenced very much earlier when the British took over Sabah.Kadir Mohamad, Agent for Malaysia in the ICJ case between Malaysia and Indonesia, said that Kuala Lumpur needed to continue honouring the 1938 judgment on the ground that any violation of that order can be challenged in court by interested parties.

Karpal conceded that a court order must be complied with unless it was set aside judicially.“Contravention of a court order amounts to contempt of court and is punishable by committal to prison,” said Karpal, a veteran lawyer.

But, he said with the passage of time and with Sabah having joined Sarawak and Peninsular to form Malaysia, and recognition by Manila of Malaysia as a sovereign state by having ambassadorial level representation in the country, the Philippines cannot lay any claim to Sabah.

He said Malaysia was internationally recognised with Sabah as a sovereign state in the Federation of Malaysia since the North Borneo territory opted to join Malaysia on August 31, 1963.

“It’s ridiculous to continue paying the Sulu heirs when Malaysia and Sabah are independent and sovereign states,” Karpal told newsmen during a routine visit to his Bukit Gelugor parliamentary constituency here today.

‘Respect sacrifices of our forces’

He said the cessation payment was different from the “annual royalty” being paid by Penang to Kedah, as both these provinces were part of a sovereign Malaysia.

He said the fact that the payment has been continuously made for 131 years does not mean, having regard to passage of time and change of circumstances, that the case cannot be reopened with a view to the payment to be discontinued.

He stressed that the continued annual cessation payment pursuant to the 1938 order required review to discontinue the payment and this can be done by the High Court in Kota Kinabalu.

He referred to a 2011 Federal Court decision on Harcharan Singh Piara Singh vs Public Prosecutor where unanimously ruled that a a court of first instance, including High Court, must be equipped with residual jurisdiction to rehear and reopen its own earlier decision in a fit and proper case.

He said  that the cessation payment constitutes a fit and proper case for the High Court in Kota Kinabalu to review the 1938 decision and order it to be discontinued.

“The country’s sovereign should not be allowed to be compromised in any way. The sovereignty should and must stand pristine,” stressed the DAP supremo.

On the sedition charge against PKR vice-president Tian Chua for allegedly making statements linking the Federal government to the Lahad Datu shooting, Karpal acknowledged that the Batu MP had denied making such remarks.

But, he stressed that the DAP stand was clear that no one should make a statement insulting the armed forces, especially when they were defending the nation’s independence and sovereignty against alien forces.

He said the DAP stand was that all Malaysians should stand united against intrusions by foreign forces.“The DAP is united against any intrusions. The sacrifices of the armed forces must be respected, appreciated and honoured by all Malaysians. It’s wrong to insult the role of armed forces,” said Karpal

Sabah Insurgency: A Setback for Malaysia’s Role as Regional Conflict Mediator

March 17, 2013

Sabah Insurgency: A Setback for Malaysia’s Role as Regional Conflict Mediator

by Dr. Johan Saravanamuttu* (March 15, 2013)

The month-long crisis in Sabah, which has seen an incursion of rebel fighters from the Philippine island of Sulu into Malaysia’s northern-most state on the island of Borneo, is a stark reminder that Southeast Asia remains engulfed in unresolved territorial disputes and conflicts.

Malaysia has been deeply involved in several of these conflicts as both a stakeholder and a mediator. The Sabah crisis now presents Malaysia with a thorny domestic security challenge that also has implications for its regional role.

As a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Malaysia has so far subscribed actively to the ASEAN principle of “pacific settlement of conflicts” espoused in the organization’s 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, of which Malaysia was a founding signatory. Malaysia played a major role, as both host and mediator, in the negotiations that recently brought the conflict in the southern Philippines to a peaceful resolution.

On October 15, 2012, after 15 years of negotiations and 27 rounds of talks in Kuala Lumpur, the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front signed a comprehensive peace accord establishing a political settlement to the Islamic insurgency in the Muslim-majority region of Mindanao.

Malaysia also recently agreed to help try to broker an end to the conflict involving Muslim insurgents in four provinces in the deep south of Thailand. In a state visit to Malaysia on Feb. 28, 2013, Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra agreed to begin talks in Kuala Lumpur with the “Barisan Revolusi Nasional” (“National Revolutionary Front”), the main Muslim group involved in southern Thailand’s conflict.

In the past decade, Malaysia has also peacefully resolved external territorial disputes with both Indonesia and Singapore. Indonesia took a dispute over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan off the Sabah coast to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which in 2002 deemed the islands to be Malaysian. Singapore and Malaysia settled the dispute over Pedra Branca, called Pulau Batu Puteh in Malaysia, in 2008, again through the ICJ, with Singapore retaining the island.

Malaysia still has claims in the Celebes and South China Seas involving other Southeast Asian states and China. In all these instances, Malaysia has maintained a stance of peaceful conflict resolution and, where expedient and possible, has brought matters to international arbitration.

As an internal conflict with an external dimension, the current crisis in Sabah constitutes a hybrid case of the region’s conflicts and territorial disputes. When Sabah was included into the new Federation of Malaysia in 1963, Manila maintained that Sabah belonged to the Philippines instead. However, after a U.N. observer team ascertained that the majority of Sabah’s people supported joining Malaysia, the Philippines stopped pressing its claim, though no Philippine government ever formally rescinded it. Over the years, the dispute was shelved due to good relations between the two states.

But in the current crisis, a century-old sovereignty claim over Sabah has been revived by Jamalul Kiram III, the self-proclaimed sultan of Sulu, an autonomous Philippine island province in Mindanao that historically included the area of north Borneo now known as Sabah. Kiram says that his ancestors merely leased and did not cede the territory to the British in 1878.

On February 12, more than 200 fighters of the self-styled “Royal Sulu Sultanate” landed in Malaysia, near the southeast Sabah coast, and holed themselves up in a nearby village, ignoring calls by Philippine President Benigno Aquino to return home.

In Malaysia’s initial Police response, 12 armed men were killed along with two Malaysian Policemen. Malaysia then conducted air strikes on the village and sent in some seven army battalions, killing 32. Other incidents occurring nearby left five Malaysian policemen dead. At the time of writing, the Malaysian authorities have rounded up almost 100 intruders and the death toll has reached 63, including two Malaysian soldiers, making the crisis the most serious military action involving Malaysian forces since the communist insurgency of 1948-1960.

More ominously, Malaysia, a promoter of regional conflict resolution for Muslims, is for the first time engaged in a shooting war with Muslim insurgents within its own territorial boundaries.

With the initial standoff having given way to a series of one-sided skirmishes, the Sabah situation risks becoming an internal Malaysian insurgency, with the Tausugs — the main ethnic group from Sulu in the Philippines, where they are known as Suluks — as the principle protagonists. The crisis is further embedded in the fluid character of local politics in Sabah, where large numbers of the population are Muslim.

In recent hearings held by a Malaysian Commission of Inquiry on illegal immigration in Sabah, it was revealed that Kuala Lumpur had awarded Malaysian citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the southern Philippines for the sake of gaining an electoral advantage for the ruling party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).

For years, UMNO has considered Sabah to be a “fixed deposit,” safely delivering 24 seats to the ruling coalition in the 222-seat national parliament. The large Filipino Muslim population in Sabah that helped deliver these seats in the past could now turn against its former protector and patron, with implications for the UMNO’s supremacy in national politics in the general election that must be held by late-June.

Given Malaysia’s prized role as regional peacemaker, it is a bitter irony that the pendulum of internal conflict has swung from Mindanao to Sabah, with the gloomy prospect of the Malaysian government facing a long-term low-intensity war with the Suluks and their supporters. That would not only represent a disruptive distraction in the run-up to the general elections, but also a huge blow to Malaysia’s role as a promoter of regional conflict resolution.

Dr.Johan Saravanamuttu is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/

Suluk Invaders only flog a dead horse (kuda mati)

March 17, 2013

by Bunn Nagara @www.thestar.com.my

EVEN though foreign insurgents make a historical claim to Sabah, the facts of history refute it.

AS Malaysian troops and police continue mopping-up operations to flush out straying remnants of the Lahad Datu standoff, partisans on both sides trade emotive claims and insults.

Analysts, meanwhile, weigh the terms in historical documents like “rent”, “lease” and “cession money” to determine Sabah’s actual status. But not only are these documents read differently in translation (English and Sulu), the terms are also interpreted differently.

It makes more sense to focus on the events and circumstances of history. The known facts reveal at least 16 reasons why the Filipino Sulu claim to Sabah is unwarranted and unworthy of consideration.

First, today’s Philippines as a modern nation state and a republic by definition abrogates a former sultanate whose territory it occupies and whose sovereignty it denies.

The Republic of the Philippines has no claim to Sabah of its own. The on-off claim, originating from Sulu sovereignty made by certain quarters, is only a private matter of some revisionist individuals.

The second reason is that the Sulu Sultanate no longer exists, since there was no provision even for a constitutional monarch. Any claim requires a claimant and the property/territory in question, whether anyone else has effective control and ownership over it. If the claimant or the territory does not exist, the claim cannot stand.

The insurgents and their leader Jamalul Kiram III (right) are only pressing a notional claim, since they cannot represent a defunct entity.

Third, there is no agreed rightful heir to the last Sultan of Sulu, even if an heir were to press the claim. Jamalul’s claim to be that heir is disputed by nearly a dozen other hereditary “royal” personages.

Another reason for rejecting his claim to Sabah comes with denial of his claim to the throne: 10 other “heirs” had renounced all claim to Sabah in 2007. Nine did so in a signed statement, and Rodinood Julaspi Kiram II in a separate declaration.

It does not matter whether Jamalul was among the nine. If he was, he had unlawfully reneged on the signed agreement, and if he wasn’t, he is outnumbered and is challenged 10 ways.

Fifth, when Spain took over the Sulu Sultanate as part of the Philippines, it left North Borneo (Sabah) in British hands. Spain disrupted the Sultanate by removing 18-year-old Sultan Jamalul Kiram II in 1886, replacing him with a rival, only to “reappoint” him six years later.

Britain made North Borneo a protectorate in 1888. Under Spain, the Philippines and most of the Sulu Sultanate with it were going in one direction, while North Borneo and the British went in another.

Eventually, the sultanate was divested of political and administrative powers until it exercised authority only over religious matters. No effective, functioning sultanate existed any more.

Sixth, the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II in 1936 saw no successor, since he died childless. His younger brother and anointed successor, Mawalil Wasit, died the same year before he was crowned.

Thus ended the Royal House of Sulu’s lineage. After Spain passed the Philippines, including the territory of the former sultanate (excluding North Borneo) to the United States, the US officially abolished what remained of the sultanate in 1936.

Eighth, the British North Borneo Company also ceased payment to the sultanate that year, indicating that the business sector had considered the 1878 agreement voided. (Payment later resumed only after relatives of the deceased sultan brought the matter to court.)

Ninth, President Manuel L. Quezon (left) of the (then) Commonwealth of the Philippines declared in 1936 that Jamalul Kiram II was the last Sultan of Sulu. To emphasise the point, Quezon said the Philippine government would no longer recognise a Sulu Sultanate.

Britain had been exercising increasing proprietary moves over North Borneo, earning two rebukes from the US (1906, 1920). Britain ignored those reminders and annexed North Borneo in 1946, turning it into a crown colony.

Whatever the moral issues there, it again spelled the end of any vestige of Sulu royalty. For London, it was a justifiable move since it had taken over all the legal obligations of North Borneo.

Tenth, there was no question later (in the 1960s) about Sabah having to obtain independence from Britain. This underlined the fact that Britain was the sole governing authority up to that point.

Then as Sabah’s independence and the Cobbold Commission’s findings led to the scheduled formation of Malaysia on August 31, 1963, agitation flared from the Philippines. The date was postponed to September 16, such that Sabah was an independent entity for 16 days, ending any remaining claim from an extinct sultanate or the Philippines as belonging to it.

Twelfth, the very act of freely becoming part of the Malaysian federation negated all further claims on the territory by foreign partisans. The new state of Malaysia in its present form is recognised in all international organisations, including the United Nations and ASEAN, of which the Philippines is also a member.

Although former President Marcos tried to retake Sabah in the 1960s, the claim was later abandoned. At the Second Asean Summit in Kuala Lumpur in 1977, Marcos declared that the Philippines was taking concrete steps to end the claim.

Later, as Marcos’ rule clearly became a dictatorship, he made Punjungan Kiram “interim sultan” for Sulu. But this candidate ran off to Sabah, preferring to be a Malaysian instead.

Marcos then “appointed” Punjungan’s son Jamalul Kiram III successor to a non-existent sultan. This instigator of Lahad Datu is not only a dubious candidate since he is not the son of a sultan, but his claim to authority comes from a discredited and ousted dictator of a republic.

Not least, when President Corazon Aquino’s post-Marcos government planned a new Philippine Constitution in 1987, Malaysia lobbied for wording to end the disturbing claim to Sabah for good.

This would replace “historical right or legal title” with “over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction” (i.e. the status quo), which was accepted after the third reading in Congress.

So for Philippine citizens to invade Sabah to lay claim to it clearly violates their country’s Constitution. President Benigno Aquino III’s prosecution of these criminals is fully in accordance with the law.

It is also said that no rightful Filipino claim to Sabah exists because as a country, it had not consistently engaged in the activities of a de facto power there. Not only that, there has also been no consistent Filipino claim to Sabah.

Be Grateful and Loyal to our Security Forces

March 16, 2013

Be Grateful and Loyal to our Security Forces in Lahad Datu

by Tunku Abdul Aziz@www.nst.com.my

STEADFAST: They are in the front line risking life and limb to protect the nation

THE Royal Malaysia Police engaged in a series of life-and-death operations against Sulu terrorists in Lahad Datu and Semporna, Sabah,  have  once again demonstrated that peace and internal security cannot be taken for granted.

While admittedly the task of securing the borders of Sabah will be near to impossible given its geography, we have been somewhat cavalier, particularly in dealing with the movements of the people from southern Philippines.

It is both ironic and galling that while the Suluks are moving in and out at will, West Malaysians who are putting their lives at risk fighting to defend Sabah are treated as foreigners as far as Immigration control formalities are concerned.

Our Immigration laws have to be tightened to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants and other criminal elements from using Malaysia as a base for human and drug trafficking.

Malaysia has earned, and deservedly so, an unsavoury international reputation as a centre for racketeering and trafficking activities. Our enforcement of laws at entry points is at best cursory and at worst derisory. The Kuala Lumpur International Airport is the soft underbelly of our Immigration control. We have made it all too easy for foreign nationals to enter, in a bid to promote tourism. All perfectly understandable, but is the tourist dollar mightier than national security?

The Police have responded magnificently to the deadly threat posed by the (Sulu) terrorists and it is comforting to see how well they and their military counterparts have been working side by side.

It requires a high level of trust and understanding for two security forces with their different traditions and modus operandi to harmonise the complex operational elements of command and control.

There are not many countries in the world where such an effective integration exists between the Army and the Police in dealing with threats to internal security.

Questions were asked why the Army was not called into action as soon as the incursion was discovered.

The country was not invaded by a foreign army: public order and internal security falls within the jurisdiction of the police and the army is used in support of civil authority on request. This arrangement has worked well in the past.

Let us listen to what others had to say about our Police Force, with its long tradition of public duty in the interests of the nation.

According to Gen (Sir Rob) Lockhart, Director of Operations during the early phase of the Malayan Emergency: “The Police have been and are the spearhead of our attack as well the main source of our defence against the bandits in Malaya.”

Gen (Sir) Gerald Templer (above), who later assumed full military and civil control as high commissioner of the Federation of Malaya, paid this compliment: “I have great affection and admiration for the Royal Federation of Malaya Police force and its component parts.

“They are the people who have been continuously at the business of fighting militant communism all through the long 10 years of the Emergency in their country.”

According to J.W.G. Moran, the author of Spearhead in Malaya, “up to the end of 1965, 2,890 Police personnel were killed in action, as against the military force’s 518. During the same period, the communist casualties totalled 11,718, out of which 8,678 were bagged by the Police jungle forces”.

Nothing much has changed as far as our Policemen and women are concerned: they are there in the front line, at the sharp end, risking life and limb to secure and preserve peace and order for all citizens, irrespective of race, politics or religion.

They deserve our gratitude for their steadfast loyalty and commitment in protecting lives and properties under all circumstances.

I am pleased that the government has seen it fit to improve the conditions and services of the Police and Armed Forces. They perform a thankless job for such small material recompense. We are able to go about our business in peace and safety because they are there when we need them.

The Opposition’s cyber troopers, who hide behind the cyber skirt demonising those who face constant danger in protecting us, should desist from politicising what is a serious threat to the security of our nation.

If you are incapable of showing patriotism to your country, that is your business, but go elsewhere where you will be happy to peddle your pathologically obsessive hatred for the forces of law and order.This country is better off without you.

US Dirty Tricks? Malaysia Faces Uncertain War in Sabah

March 14, 2013

By Nile Bowie

Global Research, March 10, 2013

Tension is high in Malaysia’s eastern state of Sabah following an ongoing standoff between Islamic militants from the nearby southern Philippines and Malaysian security forces. 235-armed militants landed in eastern Sabah in early February and occupied several villages in an effort to assert a centuries-old claim over the territory. Both sides accuse the other of firing the first shot, but once the stand-off produced Malaysian causalities,Malaysian security forces deployed fighter jets and launched an unprecedented air assault on the militants with five battalions of solders deployed over the area in an operation to flush out the militant group, which they termed “Operation Sovereignty”.

At least 52 militants have been killed, in addition to several Malaysian policemen who were reportedly mutilated by the insurgents; reports claim that militants sent an e-mail message to Malaysian authorities that included images of beheaded police officers. The insurgents identified themselves as the “Royal Sulu Army”, representing the now-defunct Sulu Sultanate that controlled the territory for centuries before leasing the land to the colonial British North Borneo Company in 1878.

The Manila-based Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III, directed the insurgency, while his brother Agbimuddin Kiram led ground operations into Sabah. The Sultanate insists that Sabah is its homeland, and it will not budge on its claims over the territory even if its personnel are killed in the standoff. British colonialists leased the land from the Sultanate and eventually annexed Sabah in 1946 before turning over the disputed territory to the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. At the time, the Philippines contested the transfer, claiming that the British did not possess the authority to transfer ownership to Malaysia.

The British and the Malaysian authorities responded by asking the United Nations to conduct a referendum which came to the conclusion that two-thirds of the population of Sabah favoured joining Malaysia. The Malaysian government also began paying small annual payments to the heirs of the sultanate as compensation for their cession of the land, an arrangement that has continued to the present day.

Malaysia originally took a soft approach on the Filipinos militants by offering them the opportunity to lay down their arms and leave peacefully, leading many to criticize the government and security forces for allowing the militants to penetrate Malaysian territory. Local media referred to the gunmen as “intruders”, but soon after the gunmen engaged security personnel in a firefight, Malaysia began referring to the group as “terrorists”. Prime Minister Najib Razak authorized intense retaliatory strikes, calling for the total surrender of militants. Following the airstrikes, Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III told Filipino media that he was unable to contact his brother, militant leader Agbimuddin Kiram, and that he was increasingly worried over the safety of his “royal army” in Sabah, prompting the Sultan to call for a ceasefire. Malaysian PM Najib reiterated that he would not consider any request unless the militants in Sabah turn over their arms to the Malaysian authorities and surrendered.

Filipino militant groups call for retaliation against Malaysia

The Philippine government under President Benigno Aquino has sided with Malaysia and reiterated its call to followers of Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III to surrender to prevent further bloodshed.

Aquino has spoken of punishing the Sultan and his men for masterminding the armed rebellion in Sabah, prompting a domestic backlash that threatens fragile peace deals with separatist militant groups sympathetic to the Sultan’s cause. Fighters representing the Sulu Sultanate are ethnic Tausugs from the Philippines’ Sulu region, some of whom have aligned themselves with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) which has been fighting for autonomy over the territories in the southern Philippines. Nur Misuari, leader of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), warned the Aquino government of chaos if Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III is arrested or his men apprehended.

Nur Misuari founded the MNLF in 1969 with the aim of forming an independent egalitarian nation in the Philippines’ easternmost regions of Mindanao, Palawan, and Sulu. The organization has at times preached religious tolerance, and is composed of Muslims, Christians, members of indigenous faiths. An MNLF offshoot – the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) – is known to have perpetrated brutal violence and murder. The ASG maintain links to Al-Qaeda networks, and reports issued by AFP claim that US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks implicate a Saudi Arabian ambassador to the Philippines of bolstering Filipino terrorist networks with cash through religious charities.

At a recent press conference, Misuari stated, “And for what reason is he (Aquino) aligning this country with Malaysia, a colonial power occupying the land of our people? I am against that, totally against that with all my soul. I hope the president will be properly advised. I hope he will recant. Otherwise we won’t forgive him. And there is an attempt even to arrest the sultan, I understand. Let them do that. The country will be in total chaos if they do, I promise you.” MNLF political chief officer Gapul Hajirul has warned of civil war in Sabah waged by Filipino Muslims who have long resided there. Nur Misuari warned Malaysian PM Najib that targeting Filipino Muslims in Sabah “would be tantamount to war”.

After Malaysia’s assault on the Sulu militants, Princess Celia Fatima Kiram warned that the Sultanate would wage a “long civil war” in Sabah. The MNLF has claimed that thousands of ethnic Tausug fighters were planning to enter Sabah using small pump boats, and that many had already successfully slipped through a naval blockade set up by the Philippines.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that MNLF member Habib Hashim Mudjahab claimed that at least 10,000 Tausug people from islands in the southern Philippines were headed to Sabah to act as reinforcements in support of the Royal Sulu Army. Filipinos in Sabah who are not part of the Royal Sulu forces have reportedly joined the fighting in reaction to what they perceive as atrocities committed by the Malaysian government. Former MNLF member Hadji Acmad Bayam told the Manila Bulletin that MNLF forces may have a significant weapons arsenal hidden within Sabah’s thick jungles left behind by MNLF commanders who have moved in and out of the region over the years.

Allegations of political motives

Malaysia will soon hold a pivotal general election that pits incumbent Prime Minister Najib Razak against  Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. Najib voiced suspicion as to why the Sulu rebels chose to pursue their long-standing claim to Sabah when the country was preparing to hold a general election.

Reuters cited sources within the Malaysian government who claimed that the gunmen were suspected to have links to factions that were unhappy with the Philippines’ recent peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), another breakaway group from the MNLF which today is widely recognised as the mainstay of the Moro movement. Malaysia acted as the facilitator for that 2012 peace agreement.

Kuala Lumpur has played a key role in facilitating peace talks between Manila and Mindanao since 2001, and the MNLF publicly opposed MILF’s Framework Agreement with Manila. Furthermore, Reuters cited an anonymous Filipino military officer who claimed that Sulu rebels were “invited to Sabah by a Malaysian opposition politician to discuss land issues”. Najib then ordered Malaysian intelligence officials to investigate claims that an opposition leader had a hand in the armed intrusion in Sabah. Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim pressed charges against Malaysian broadcasters for running a story implicating his involvement in the insurgency, and vehemently denied his involvement.

Local analysts have criticized Ibrahim for accepting funds and training from US Government-linked foundations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), while pro-government mainstream media is routinely critical of Anwar’s links to foreign figures. Bloggers have also posted photographs of Anwar Ibrahim meeting with MNLF leader Nur Misuari, insinuating cooperation between the two in coordinating the Sulu insurgency.

Tian Chua, one of the leaders of of the Pakatan Rakyat opposition coalition headed by Ibrahim, accusing the ruling party of having orchestrated the gun battle with Filipino militants, claiming that the incursion was believed to be a “planned conspiracy of the [UMNO] government” to divert attention and intimidate the people in the run-up to elections, prompting unanimous denials from the ruling party.

Filipino sources claim that the Sulu Sultanate’s incursion of Sabah is an attempt to undermine President Benigno Aquino in midterm elections scheduled in May. Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III ran as a senator allied to former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo during elections in 2007 and Filipino politicians allied to him are seen as pressuring Aquino to pardon his predecessor, who remains under house arrest for electoral fraud.

Sulu Sultan calls for US intervention

Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has told media in the Philippines that he wants the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom to intervene in his claim over Sabah. The Sultanate claims that the United States must intercede, as agreed upon in a 1915 agreement signed with then US colonial government in the Philippines that mandated the US provide “full protection” to the Sulu Sultan in exchange for exercising sovereignty over the kingdom as the colonial administration. As calls for intervention and accusations of plots abound, mudslinging is rampant between the ruling parties and oppositions of both Malaysia and the Philippines. The Sulu militants have put aside “responsible conduct” by attempting to legitimize their force by invoking historic claims to the land.

The resource-rich state of Sabah is abundant in oil and gas reserves, which contribute to 14% of Malaysia’s natural gas and 30% of its crude oil reserves. Sabah’s fifteen oil wells produce as many as 192,000 barrels a day. Four new oilfields have been found in Sabah’s territorial waters over the last two years, and perhaps one of the motivations for the Sultan’s push to reclaim the territory is profit-driven. Even so, the highly unusual timing of the Sulu operation being so close to Malaysia’s general elections will naturally be perceived as suspect – and in following that line of thought, it is unsurprising that many are asking questions about the Sultanates’ arms sources and funding.

The Sulu Sultanate could have taken several alternative dialogue-based approaches with the nations involved to address this situation that would have yielded infinitely less destructive consequences for his followers and his cause. The insurgent approach taken by the militants undermines the Sultan’s claims entirely, and lends much credibility to alternative narratives that allude to the crisis being manufactured to bring about a conflict at a politically sensitive time. As figures of all political leanings ask themselves who stands to gain from this situation, there is not enough information available to make an accurate assessment.

Malaysia is not often faced with security crises, especially of the sort that this conflict could expand into if more Filipino militants take up arms. Malaysia’s upcoming general election is expected to be extremely close, and many fear that a wider crisis would delay polls. Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has spoken of foreign intervention as the only solution to the conflict, and wider war could likely be something he is trying to achieve.

As many Filipinos categorize the actions taken by Malaysia as “atrocities”, a credible threat exists in the prospect of wider war if MNLF soldiers establish a foothold in Sabah, or potentially even by conducting retaliatory attacks in Peninsular Malaysia population centers like Kuala Lumpur. While Malaysia’s position must continue to be firm, security forces must exercise restraint in quelling the insurgency to prevent the indiscriminate loss of life if the militants refuse to abandon their mission and turn over their arms.

Nile Bowie is an independent political analyst residing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com

RCI or White Paper on Lahad Datu Incursion?

March 14, 2013

by Bernama@http://www.malaysiakini.com

The Government does not dismiss the possibility of setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) or opening a white paper to investigate claims that third parties are behind the terrorist intrusion in Lahad Datu, Sabah, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein (right) said.

He said a thorough investigation needed to be done to find out the real motive for the intrusion, including if there were any parties that underwrote the terrorists from the southern Philippines to undermine the country’s stability and sovereignty.

“This can be done either by an RCI or opening a White Paper.I myself want to know who are the masterminds and who are funding the terrorists and did the planning because all these concern national security,” he said.

Hishammuddin said this at a press conference at the Sandakan Police Headquarters today after being briefed on the latest public order situation in Sandakan, the second largest town in Sabah, from Sandakan Police Chief ACP Rowell Marong. Meanwhile, he said overall, the security situation in Sabah including in Tawau, Semporna and Sandakan had improved.

On the Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM), he said a group led by Chief Secretary to the Government Dr Ali Hamsa (left) would be in Sabah tomorrow to identify the additional requirements for its establishment. He said enforcement in waters off Sabah’s east coast would also be stepped up to prevent illegal entry including via rat trails by Philippine nationals.

Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi today announced that the ministry would take over responsibility for security along Sabah’s east coast covering 1,400km, from the Prime Minister’s Department.

Wisma Putra to discuss with Manila

On the arrest by a Philippines Navy patrol unit yesterday of 35 Filipinos suspected to have ties with the Sulu terrorists, Hishammuddin said Wisma Putra would be discussing with Manila on the matter.

The Philippine media reported that the suspects were intercepted in two boats which were carrying weapons and explosives, in waters off Tawi-Tawi at 6.30am yesterday.

Meanwhile, Hishammuddin also took time off to visit L/Cpl Mohd Zariman Ibrahim, Corporal Affendi Rusli and Corporal Khairul Anuar Md Isa who were injured in the Ops Daulat to rid Sabah of the terrorists and are receiving treatment at the Duchess of Kent Hospital in Kota Kinabalu.

In KANGAR, Perlis’ Komuniti 1Malaysia (K1M) also urged the government to set up an RCI to get to the bottom of the armed intrusion. Its consultative chairperson Nordin Abdullah said the organisation sympathised with the families of the men who were killed in fighting the terrorists.

Fifty-six Sulu terrorists have been killed so far since the Ops Daulat offensive was launched while the security forces lost 10 men, eight from the Police and two from the military.

- Bernama

Sabah is Malaysia’s

March 13, 2013

http://www.nst.com,my

by Rahmat Mohamad,Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli and Muhamad Azim Mazlan

COURT JUDGMENT: 2002 ICJ decision on Sipadan strengthens the fact that the state has always been part of Malaysia

LAST month, several hundred armed followers of Jamalul Kiram intruded into Lahad Datu, Sabah, and refused to return to the Philippines despite being cornered by Malaysian security forces. Jamalul claimed sovereignty over Sabah by reiterating that the area was his ancestral territory.

Jamalul supported his contention by asserting that the rent paid by the Malaysian embassy is a recognition of his sovereignty over Sabah.

On March 2, Philippine President Aquino urged the armed intruders to surrender without conditions to prevent further loss of lives. The Sulu insurgents refused to do so, resulting in clashes with security forces.

Since the crime was committed in Malaysian territory, the Sulu aggressors should be punishable under the Malaysian law.If these criminals are non-Malaysian, then they could be liable and punished under Malaysian penal laws. On the other hand, if they are Malaysians, they could be charged for waging war against the Yang DiPertuan Agong, which is a grave offence under Malaysian law.

Territorial acquisition and recognition under International Law

There are a number of methods of territorial acquisition under international law, among others, through conquest, prescription and cession.

Conquest or annexation was recognised as a method of territorial acquisition in the past but has been deemed illegal under international law at least when the United Nations Charter came into force in 1945.

Therefore, the most relevant for Sabah is obviously through cession and prescription. A state may acquire sovereignty over a certain territory if the sovereignty is transferred or ceded by the sovereign to another.

If the British version of the 1878 Treaty is adopted, it is, therefore, clear that the sovereignty over Sabah has been, since 1878, transferred by the sultanate of Sulu to the British, which later, under the concept of uti possideti juris, to Malaysia.

In addition, under international law, prescription refers to acquisition of sovereignty by way of actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time that is effected without objection from any state.

Even if the British version is contested and the Sulu version of the 1878 Treaty is upheld, the sultanate may not be able to claim sovereignty over Sabah as Malaysia has, since 1963, exercised prescription and administered Sabah without any consistent objection from any member of the UN.

Malaysia’s exercise of sovereignty over Sabah is different with that of Indonesia in relation to Timor Leste. Timor Leste was annexed by Indonesia in 1975.

Due to protests from the international community and the Timorese themselves, Timor Leste became an independent sovereign state in 2002.

Sabah was never annexed as it, through the Cobbold Commission, voluntarily joined the Federation of Malaysia. Ever since 1963, Malaysia has installed a working government to administer Sabah, invested funds to develop its economy with the international community recognising Sabah as part of Malaysia.

This could be seen in the 2002 International Court of Justice decision, which awarded the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan located off Sabah, which were disputed by Malaysia and Indonesia, to the former. This decision has strengthened the fact that Sabah has always been part of Malaysia.The claim of Sabah as ancestral territory of the Sultan of Sulu may also seem to be baseless.

In the Malaysia-Singapore dispute over Pulau Batu Putih/Pedra Branca, the ICJ initially recognised the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Putih/Pedra Branca was with the Johor sultanate.Nevertheless, the ICJ awarded Pulau Batu Putih to Singapore when it was proven that the British government of Singapore has acquired it from the Sultan of Johor.

This basically shows that as far as this matter is concerned, the claim of ancestral territory does not carry much weight under international law.

If the claim of ancestral territory holds strong position under international law, then Pulau Batu Putih/Pedra Branca should remain with the Johor sultanate (Malaysia) and not with Singapore.

The continuous display of control by Singapore government over Pedra Branca and Malaysia over Sipadan and Ligitan superseded historical claims over these territories.

Conclusion

It is true that historically, Sabah was part of the Sulu Sultanate. Nevertheless, the political scenario of Sabah and the Philippines has changed since the Spanish, the British and the Americans came to this part of the world with the aim of colonisation.

Sabah is now part of Malaysia and has been progressing well towards development and modernisation, consistent with Malaysia’s vision to become a developed nation by the year 2020.

Indeed, the relative prosperity of Sabah has turned it into a gold-mine for most non-Malaysians residing in the state. If not for Sabah’s fair economic achievement, the Sultanate of Sulu would not put a claim on Sabah.

Regardless of the Sulu claim, the international community has acknowledged Sabah as part of Malaysia and it will remain as such. In this respect, the claim of Sabah by the sultan of Sulu could be seen as a reminiscence of a long-los’ sovereignty.

Rahmat Mohamad is secretary-general of New Delhi-based Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation, while Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli and Muhamad Azim Mazlan are lecturers with Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.

Malaysian Caped Crusader?

March 11, 2013

by Mariam Mokhtar@http://www.malaysiakini.com

Malays could be the masters of their own destiny, but decades of spoon-feeding, reinforced by an unhealthy belief that they are morally and spiritually superior, has robbed many Malays of the power of critical thought and analysis. It is as if the strain of thinking for oneself, is too great a challenge.

When a Malay criticises the ruling party, he is seen as ‘ungrateful’. He is told that he should be appreciative for all that UMNO has done for him – all the opportunities for education and work. It is conveniently forgotten that not all Malays benefit from the New Economic Policy (NEP).

Many middle-class Malay families complain that scholarships or study loans go to the children of well-connected parents. In businesses, and especially in government tenders, the same applies – connections count more than skills or expertise. Many senior politicians and their wives are more commonly known as Mr. or Mrs. “Ten percent”.

Conversely, Malays have not realised that receiving an education or business opportunity via the affirmative action policies, should not deprive them of a voice. Malays must learn that keeping the government on its toes does not mean that they are unappreciative or disloyal.

Some Malays have a child-like version of the world. In a discussion with a non-Malay, the Malay who cannot present his facts in a logical manner may invariably blurt out, “Go back to where you came from”. It is like the frustrated child who does not get his way and threatens his sibling with, “I’ll tell father what you did”. He does not care about the consequences. He just wants to hurt and get retribution.

When our leaders act in the same manner, this presents a very poor example for the Malays. As an example, former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had encouraged the stripping of Ambiga Sreenevasan’s (left) citizenship because she wanted true democracy.

When all else fails, some Malays bring Allah into the argument. Malays are adept at emotional blackmail, especially when the threat of eternal damnation is involved.

Malays fiercely defend their religious rights and condemn non-Muslims for entering the discussion. Some claim that as they do not interfere with other religions, then non-Muslims should not interfere in theirs. Could this be an explanation for the muted Muslim voices when a band of renegade Malays dragged a cow’s head through the streets of Shah Alam?

Why have Malays not acknowledged that for centuries, the word ‘Allah’ was used with no problems until UMNO Malays decided it was wrong?

Suffering trial by ordeal

Malays swearing on the Quran in a mosque debases the religion. Compare this with trial by ordeal in medieval England. If someone was accused of a crime against the monarch, he might suffer trial by ordeal. If he did not sustain injuries when his arm was placed in a vat of boiling oil, then he is found innocent.

Saiful Bukhari’s father, Azlan Mohd Lazim, has claimed that the sodomy charges against Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had been politically motivated. UMNO leaders treat Malays as simpletons. Will Malays ask Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to respond to Azlan’s latest revelation and also address the accusations made by carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan and former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Musa Hassan?

Why don’t Malays consider a range of other views, to help shape theirs? Sadly, some non-Malays also fall into the trap of not entering into a discussion because they are told that “it does not concern them”. Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, so all Malaysians are free to express the opinion on any aspect of Islam.

Malays dislike being told that they are in the wrong. Instead of having a rational discussion, some prefer to bottle their emotions, than risk running amok. Decades of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ have reinforced this flaw in their character.

Mahathir said that the opposition would destroy the Malays and bumiputeras in Selangor. Mahathir’s ‘Project M’ allowed illegal immigrants into Sabah. Najib and the Election Commission (EC) permit illegal immigrants into Malaysia.

Malays are being betrayed by UMNO Malay leaders. These policies of offering citizenship to illegal immigrants have contributed to the loss of lives in Lahad Datu.

Whilst Najib fell under Psy’s charms in Penang, and Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin had reportedly been in Indonesia for Chinese New Year, armed Sulu invaders had slipped into Sabah where they were allegedly plied with food and drink by the UMNO government during negotiations.

A news blackout did nothing to quell criticisms of the handling of the crisis, it merely festered the spread of rumours. Najib has only himself to blame for this debacle.

The country is being crippled by abuses of power, corruption, police brutality and high levels of crime, and the man in the street knows the perpetrators. Both Mahathir and Najib have portrayed Anwar as an agent of various foreign governments, a stud (from the various sex videos produced by UMNO), and the one who will bring the Malays down.

Anwar may be portrayed by UMNO as a supervillain, but he is not responsible for these crimes. On the contrary, he is the superhero who would like to avenge them.

People may have read on the Internet about the portly delivery van driver who dressed as Batman and marched a suspected criminal into a Police station in Bradford, England. If only Najib could have exercised his full powers when he was Prime Minister and put a stop to all the evil in Malaysia. Perhaps, he could have been the Malaysian Batman – The Caped Crusader.

Their similarities and differences

The original Batman was the son of millionaire philanthropists; Najib and his wife have become multi-millionaires from being in politics, but they are no philanthropists. Any largesse they exhibit is paid for by the taxpayer.

There are some significant similarities and differences between Batman and Najib. Batman lives in a gothic mansion, whereas Najib has a Louis-Farouk monstrosity. Batman has a Batmobile, but Najib has access to a variety of vehicles, including two submarines with slight technical glitches.

Batman has a ‘six-pack’, whereas Najib is blessed with a ‘12-pack’ figure. In the UMNO world, quantity matters. Batman has his sidekick, Robin “The Boy Wonder”.

Najib has three sidekicks – Hishammuddin Hussein the “Action Boy”, Zahid Hamidi “GI Joe” and Rais Yatim “The Disinformer”. Batman has eyes only for the femme fatale “Catwoman”, whereas Najib has Rosmah Mansor “The Bag Lady” and Ummi Hafilda Ali “The Wazz”.

The Malays must understand that if Najib cannot defend Lahad Datu from a gang of invaders, he has little chance of defending the name ‘Allah’, nor protecting Malaysians from a band of internal crooks.