War against Crime: Round 1 to Zahid Hamidi and PDRM

The Star has got some good news to start our week:

 

Click here for the full story

Cantas is Bahasa Melayu to describe a swift, clinical and brutal act of hacking, cutting, chopping, severing, or dismembering (especially the legs of a person). It means you cannot deal with crooks by putting on kid gloves. You must be quick and merciless. The criminal lawyer-politicians can still have their space in the newspapers and portals screaming about their clients' human rights but the rest of us Malaysian have our human rights, too, and we want the Home Minister and the Inspector-General of Police to continue defending our right to a safe Malaysia.  

Thank you, PDRM. Don't let your guards down yet. Many rounds to go.

An online love letter to Chin Peng

Excerpts from the reviled Farewell, Comrade Chin Peng - Abdullah CD

... He had loved very much his country — his place of birth. He had the wisdom and courage to bring peace to our country. He had done his part and yet he had been denied return to his beloved Motherland. History will point the finger of indictment at those who break the promises. Let it be, the people are not blind.
Farewell, Comrade Chin Peng — our beloved leader, our comrade, the courageous freedom fighter! 

* Abdullah CD was the chairman of the Communist Party of Malaya. 

** This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.

Chin Peng worshippers in the newsroom. There is only reason why Abdullah CD's love letter to Chin Peng got published in the Malay Mail Online: there are people at the Malay Mail Online who sympathize with Chin Peng, who do not know or care about the history of his atrocities against the people of this country, who idolize the Butcher of Malaya. 

I would not publish Abdullah CD's letter in my portal. The Star did not publish it. The NST didn't, either. Nor would Sinar Harian, Utusan Malaysia, the Mole. Maybe the Rocket would but I believe it didn't. Heck, even the Malay Mail print editor didn't publish it.

Why? The armed campaign led by Chin Peng against Malaya killed more than 10,000 Malayans. Those Commies didn't kill just the soldiers and the policemen, they tortured and butchered ordinary citizens, orang-orang kampung, women, children and old men, anyone who did not support their struggle for power, anyone they suspected to be a talibarut, anyone who stood in their way. No, I will not disrespect the children and grandchildren of Chin Peng's victims by giving someone space to glorify the monster. I will not insult those who gave their lives defending this country against a terrorist, a murderer.

Chin Peng was no freedom fighter. He waged war against us long after we, as a nation, had achieved our freedom. He was no patriot. If he was, he wouldn't have waged war against us when Malaya became Malaysia.

p.s. The Malay Mail Online's disclaimer is a joke and should read: 

** This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily NOT represent the views of The Malay Mail Online

Read also:

Propagating Communism by Zakhir Mohamad.

The blogger Big Dog calls on the authorities to arrest the editor of the Malay Mail Online, who used to head the anti-Najib political news portal The Malaysian Insider, "for allowing room to propagate the Communism ideology". 

In 1974, CPM incorporated target assassination as part of their rebellion. As such, IGP Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Hashim was assassinated in the heart of Kuala Lumpur on the way to work on 7 June 1974. Perak CPO Tan Sri Khoo Chong was shot on 13 November 1975 on his way for lunch.

Raising the Chin Peng spectre for a selfish political end by Shamsul Akmar
The editor of The Mole, writing in the NST, attacks Anwar Ibrahim and Tian Chua for trying to score political points with the Chin Peng issue.

... to promote "yang sudah, sudahlah" to those who had become Chin Peng's and CPM's victims, and suffered the atrocities with their families, is excessively presumptuous on Anwar's part.

 

The fact that most of these victims and families had chosen to not demand vendetta for the atrocities is a magnanimity becoming of believers of any faith.  

As for declaring Chin Peng a patriot; the retired teacher now realises that there is no cure for imbecility.

Wan Saiful: I did not call for Article 153 to be scrapped in 10-15 years

The Chief of IDEAS called me up yesterday afternoon to clarify his position on Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.  (refer my notes at the end of Wan Saiful's statement) 

from Wan Saiful Wan Jan via email to rockybru@gmail.com 20 Sept 2013 at 8.53pm

IT IS REALLY AMAZING how quickly things can go wrong if you take your eyes off the blogosphere and twitterland.  Even those who know you personally could change their minds simply by reading a few tweets.

I have recently been accused of calling for the abolishment of the special position of Islam and the Malays, based on what I said at an event in the afternoon of Malaysia Day (Monday 16 Sept).  But I missed the first few days of this development because I had to tend to my mother, who fell ill on that Monday evening and is now in hospital.  As a result of not following these developments, I am now accused by some as a traitor.

I am still not 100percent “back in the game” and I won’t be until my mother is fully discharged.  But I thought I should quickly come up with a brief explanation.  I called Dato Rocky earlier and he very kindly suggested I send this explanation to him so that other critics can also read it.  Please forgive me for the brevity and lack of details as I am typing this from a crowded emergency room of a hospital (with a non-functioning aircond and very stuffy).  I am happy to chat about all these later if necessary, but for now, I just want to clarify some of the wrong allegations against me.

My actual message is as follows:

-       I know quite a few people are talking about how the special position of Islam and the Malays is discriminatory.  I too have been debating this for quite some time.

-       But I am worried about how some quarters approach this issue.  Some are very aggressive and make demands for immediate change.  Others take it too emotionally such that the issue is treated as a taboo that cannot be discussed.  These dynamics have driven discussions underground, and this is not healthy.

-       The best way forward is for us to not treat this issue as a taboo, but instead engage in healthy conversation *if* we really want to discuss it.

-       And certainly no one should expect or demand for any change to happen immediately.  You will just end up frustrated and angry (and usually more aggressive too).  If any, you’ll be lucky to see a change 10-15 years down the line.  This is a huge issue and it will take time to be digested rationally, if at all.

Let me also clarify my own position on these issues:

-       I am a beneficiary of various government support programmes. I have also seen so many successful individuals who have benefitted from the same assistance.

-       As a result of what I have seen over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the position of both Islam and the Malays does not need legal protection.  Islam is a strong religion on its own.  And the Malays have proven that we can stand on our own two feet.

-       It is therefore better for the various protectionist measures to be stopped.  I see legal protection as a weakness. I believe in individual responsibility and we as individuals should defend our own identities.  I am fully aware that this position is new and is still unacceptable to many, and if so, I hope we can courteously agree to disagree.

So let me make this clear.  My belief comes out of conviction of our ability to compete and succeed. We are strong enough to stand on our own feet, and, most importantly, to help each other without being dependent on the government.

By extension I feel that protectionism is a sign of weakness and I refuse to accept that a whole ethno-religious group is weak simply because of who they are.  I appreciate that this worldview may differ from those who see protectionism as a right that must be defended, and I appreciate that even though we have different views, that view has its merit too. I just hope that we can focus on the end aim, which I think is, actually, quite similar, and make space for differences in the methods to achieve that ultimate aim.

Again, apologies for not responding earlier.  But I hope to be back “online” properly in the near future.

Ends

Notes:
1. Scroll down for the Bahasa Melayu version
2. The blog that gave Wan Saiful a drubbing over the Article 153 is Pure Shiite. Read the posting h e r e.
3. SatD aka Monkey (pic) based his posting on the news report by the Malay Mail Online, excerpts below; full article h e r e.
(The MM Online is run by defects - my apologies, the word I wanted was defectors - from the Malaysian Insider, the not-so-pro-Najib news portal).

------ Bahasa Melayu version:

Banyak sekali perkara yang boleh berlaku apabila kita tidak memerhatikan dunia blog dan twitter.  Mereka yang kita kenali secara peribadi pun boleh menukar pandangan semata-mata kerana membaca beberapa tweet.

Baru-baru ini ada yang menuduh bahawa saya mahu kedudukan istimewa Islam dan Melayu dihapuskan, berdasarkan laporan mengenai apa yang saya katakan dalam satu majlis pada petang Hari Malaysia (Isnin 16 September) baru-baru ini.  Tetapi saya terlepas pandang perkembangan ini semasa ia mula berlaku kerana pada malam Isnin yang sama, saya terpaksa membawa ibu saya yang sakit ke hospital.  Hasilnya, ada yang menuduh saya dengan pelbagai tuduhan.

Saya masih belum dapat kembali aktif sepenuhnya sehinggalah ibu saya sembuh.  Tetapi saya rasa elok juga saya memberi penjelasan ringkas dahulu buat masa ini.  Saya menelefon Dato Rocky tadi dan beliau berbaik hati mencadangkan saya menghantar email kepada beliau, agar orang lain juga boleh membaca apa yang saya tulis.  Tetapi saya mohon maaf kerana tidak dapat memberikan penjelasan yang panjang kerana saya menaip ini pun dari bilik kecemasan yang agak sibuk (dan panas) di hospital.  Jika perlu, boleh sahaja kita berbual lanjut.  Tetapi buat masa ini, saya mahu memberi penjelasan ringkas dahulu.

Mesej saya sebenarnya ialah:

-       Saya sedar ada yang sedang membahaskan betapa kedudukan istimewa Islam dan Melayu adalah satu diskriminasi.  Saya juga terlibat dalam perbualan-perbualan ini.

-       Tetapi saya bimbang mengenai cara sesetengah pihak membicarakan isu ini.  Ada yang begitu agresif menuntut perubahan serta-merta.  Ada pula yang amat emosional sehingga isu ini menjadi satu taboo yang tidak boleh dibincangkan langsung.  Dinamika ini menyebabkan wujudnya perbincangan di belakang tabir yang saya rasa amat tidak sihat.

-       Cara terbaik ialah untuk kita tidak menjadikan isu ini sebagai satu taboo.  Jika ia mahu dibicarakan, bicarakanlah dengan sihat.

-       Dan saya juga merasakan adalah tidak realistik membuat tuntutan merobah segalanya serta merta.  Jika inilah cara anada, anda akan menjadi kecewa dan marah (dan biasanya lebih agresif juga).  Jika anda bernasib baik dan boleh mengemudi isu ini dengan baik sekali pun, mungkin perubahan akan mengambil masa 10-15 tahun.  Ini isu besar yang memerlukan masa untuk dihadamkan secara rasional.

Izinkan juga saya menyatakan pendirian saya dalam isu ini:

-       Saya adalah produk daripada pelbagai program bantuan kerajaan.  Saya juga mengenali beberapa individu yang berjaya hasil daripada bantuan ini.

-       Hasil daripada apa yang saya perhatikan selama ini, saya kini yakin bahawa kedudukan Islam dan Melayu tidak memerlukan perlindungan undang-undang atau perlembagaan.  Islam adalah satu cara hidup yang kuat.  Dan bangsa Melayu juga telah membuktikan bahawa bangsa ini boleh berjaya dan berdikari.

-       Maka adalah lebih baik jika perlindungan-perlindungan yang wujud tidak dikekalkan.  Saya melihat prlindungan dan bantuan kerajaan sebagai satu kelemahan.  Saya yakin dengan konsep tanggungjawab individu dan kita sebagai individulah yang mesti mempertahankan dan memuliakan identiti kita sendiri.  Saya tahu pandangan ini agak baru dan masih tidak diterima oleh banyak pihak.  Maka saya harap jika kita berbeza pandangan, kita boleh berbeza pandangan dengan sihat.

 Jadi ringkasnya, pandangan saya adalah hasil daripada keyakinan bahawa kita boleh bersaing dan berjaya.  Kita cukup kuat untuk berdikari, dan, lebih penting lagi, kita juga boleh membantu satu sama lain jika perlu, tanpa bergantung kepada kerajaan.

Lanjutan itu, saya juga merasakan bahawa perlindungan adalah tanda kelemahan dan saya tidak menerima pandangan bahawa sesuatu bangsa atau agama itu lemah semata-mata kerana latar belakang keturunan mereka.  Saya faham bahawa pandangan ini berbeza daripada mereka yang merasakan bahawa perlindungan adalah hak yang perlu dipertahankan.  Dan walaupun kita berbeza pandangan, saya menerima bahawa pandangan itu juga mempunyai merit.  Saya hanya berharap agar kita boleh memfokuskan perhatian kepada matlamat akhir kita, dan, saya rasa sebenarnya matlamat akhir kita tidak jauh bezanya.  Dalam tu, buka lah ruang untuk wujud perbezaan cara dalam mencapai matlamat yang sama itu.

Sekali lagi, maaf kerana tidak dapat memberi respon lebih awal. Tetapi saya harap insha-Allah saya akan dapat kembali aktif secepat mungkin.

 

Ah, Dr Awang Hitam! (Do your homework, IDEAS)

Updated:

The Mole: Ideas without any idea of what a welfare state is?

Original posting: 

Simply taking an ideological stance against welfare spending without considering real-world evidence seems disingenuous, especially since Wan Saiful heads a "research" institute. - Is Malaysia a welfare state, Viewpoint, NST, 20/9/13

I've read Dr Awang Hitam (a relative of Utusan Malaysia's Awang Selamat, perhaps?) a couple of times in the NST. Reminds me a bit of the blogger SatD, minus the colourful language and mind-boggling graphics. The two are not the same person, let me assure you. Great minds think alike. Dr Awang Hitam's latest piece in the Business Times today, Is Malaysia a welfare state, counters the points made by Wan Saiful Wan Jan.; ncidentally, SatD took the Chief of IDEAS to task a couple of days ago over his call to scrap Article 153 h e r e.

Since most of you no longer read the NST, I reproduce Dr Awang Hitam's piece in full.

6.2PC OF GDP: Our social spending pales in comparison with the 18pc to 22pc in OECD countries, according to finance ministry data

RECENTLY, the chief executive officer of the Institute of Democracy Economic and Social Affairs (Ideas) Wan Saiful Wan Jan argued that Malaysia is fast becoming a welfare state. 

He raised an alarm that if we don't cut our welfare spending, we will have a big crisis down the road. Unfortunately, his claim - which is not backed by any analysis or data - is not correct on several counts. 

First of all, let's see how much we have spent on welfare.  

Quick calculations using data from the Ministry of Finance show that in 2012, our welfare spending - which in-cludes energy subsidies, social services (housing, education, health) and direct wel-fare is equivalent to 6.2 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP). If we exclude the energy subsidies and social services, the spending on direct wel-fare is less than 0.04 per cent of GDP. This is peanuts compared with other countries.  

The social spending of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries ranges between 18 per cent and 22 per cent of GDP, much higher than Malaysia's. 

Yes, welfare spending has increased slightly since 2000, but to claim that Malaysia is fast becoming a welfare state is a bit far-fetched. 

Is it wrong to spend on programmes to help farmers and fisherman increase their production? Is it wrong to spend on educational assistance programmes, which include nutrition programmes, transport and allowances for poor pre-school and school children? Is it also wrong to give financial assistance to the poor, senior citizens, the disabled, Orang Asli and other vulnerable groups?  

Second, using Greece and the United Kingdom as examples for "on the verge of bankruptcy" due to welfare policies is again blatantly ignoring economic evidence.
Yes, Greece was one of worst affected countries during the sovereign-debt crisis but this is due to decades-long twin deficits, while in the UK it was due to a bailout of their weak banking sector. In both countries, welfare spending is NOT the source of the crisis. 

Even if we assume that huge welfare spending is the reason for the crisis, then we would expect those countries that spent the most on welfare to be the hardest hit or in crisis. 

The top five social spenders - France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Finland - are not on the verge of bankrupt 

Iceland, a country which did default in 2008, is not even in the Top 25 list. Neither Greece nor the UK are among the top 10 spenders in Europe. 

It is therefore important for the author to clarify what he meant by welfare state because the countries he had chosen as examples to undermine welfare poli-cies are not the biggest social spenders in Europe.  

He also argued that welfare is bad because it rarely breeds competitiveness. That is again wrong and not supported by empirical evidenc 

If welfare rarely breeds competitiveness, then why have European welfare states such as Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark always been highly ranked in the Global Competitiveness Index by the World Economic Forum? These are countries that have maintained their positions as top competitive countries, despite high public social spending.  

Simply taking an ideological stance against welfare spending without considering real-world evidence seems disingenuous, especially since Wan Saiful heads a "research" institute.  

While ideology may appear to be principled, overzealousness can lead to misuse or misrepresentation of data to suit the convictions of their advocates. 

It is also puzzling that he is against the assistance for the poor and disadvan-taged considering that the political party of which he is a life-time member is a strong proponent of "Negara Kebajikan" 

One wonders then whether the output of such an insti-tute can have the intellectual rigour and honesty to be trusted. 

But what is certain is that it is totally irresponsible to argue for the reduction of already low welfare spending, as this will expose the vulnerable to economic shocks over which they have no control to change or mitigate. 

Even the Asian Development Bank in a report in July suggests that middle-income status countries in Asia Pacific should strengthen their systems of social protection. 

Our middling income per capita, rising costs of living and astronomical increase in housing prices have created an urgent need for social assistance for the poor, nee-dy and middle-income class citizens - who are slowly but surely falling through the cracks. 

To simply ignore them and the human cost of such disregard because of rigid adherence to dogma is indeed a great injustice. 

Read more: Is Malaysia a welfare state? http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/itam/Article/index_html#ixzz2fOlLhYN6