28 July 2015

An Email to a Friend Who Had Migrated to the UK for Not Believing in Malaysia Anymore


Dear Friend,

I have no issues if documents from journalists are not false and given to authority straight away. In this case, both Sarawak Report (SR) and the Edge have tampered documents (according to the Thai Police and internet cyber expert from the UK which many have conveniently forgotten to consider whenever debating with me) and that they held information to be released strategically with the intention to tople the Government given their meetings with opposition Member of Parliament - both Tony Pua admitted as well as the Edge owner whatever his name is. 

I cannot accept Tony Pua having secret meetings with Clare Brown of SR while Tony is also on a bi-partisan Public Accounts Committee ("PAC"), a committee appointed by the Parliament. Clearly this lack or absolute non-existence, or disrespect for objectivity, independence and segregation of interest destroys the credibility of the entire package of tampered documents, SR, the Edge, Tony and sadly, the PAC as well. 

Also, do not try to hide behind Whistleblowing Protection Act (711) 2010 (the "Act") because clause 11.1.b of the Act says that if docs are procured illegally and being made exposed when the person exposing it knows very well that it is false, they are not eligible for protection under the Act. In fact, given the scenario we are dealing with, the authorities have fair ground to charge them under other statutes or common law for treason! Yes I will wait with patience for the results of the investigations by the Malaysian Royal Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Bank Negara Malaysia, the Auditor General, thr Attorney General and, sadly, the PAC, assuming Tony's conflict of interest have been addressed. 

I am not going to disrespect the application of law especially when we are going to charge someone with criminal offence. Hence, law must be followed as stipulated in our Rukun Negara, "Kedaulatan Undang-Undang" (Rule of Law), as well as "Keluhuran Perlembagaan" (Upholding the Constitution) if we are to talk about the treason against a democratically elected leaders. If law is followed and evidence suggest that so and so is guilty, so be it. Until then, I do not intend to behave like the rest of the crowd that jumps to every opportunity to critisize without proper consideration for due diligence. 

You and I know that as much as we are guessing the guilt of some party, the same guess is also made on the innocence of that same party. The difference is, you accuse the notion of Guilt on the basis of journalism that have yet to be verified, whereas, I assume the notion of Innocence in the absence of verified information until proven otherwise. Your approach, if ended up incorrect, demands an apology. My approach, if ended up incorrect, entitles me to change my mind from the notion of Innocence to Guilt. Truly with my concept, I should be awarded with the credibility of being "non-partisan" and "advocate of proper law and order" as opposed to your ways of "anti-ruling Government regardless of the existence of proper evidence" and a non believer of "Kedaulatan Undang-Undang" and "Keluhuran Perlembagaan". 

So my friend, the next time you want to debate with me, make sure you cover all angles that I have presented to you. I am fair. If your arguements are valid then I will agree with you on some matters but never to accuse without proper due diligence. If we allow chaos for not following the Rule of Law, then we will be destroyed like many nations such as some of the Middle Eastern nations. What is happening now should not be our way. This clearly shows how unprofessional some of our opposition politicians are when they get themselves involved with the likes of SR. You have always make fun of me by saying "Conspiracy Theory from Movies", well joke it may seem (initially), but look at what has been uncovered from this saga? 


* kopihangtuah

| mcmlxxv:viii:xxix |

22 July 2015

Part 2: Merdeka and Independence Carry Different Meaning


The non-Malays were allowed to have their share of the prosperity of the country as citizens and they continue to do so as provided under the Federal Constitution. Our Federal Constitution provides for both Malays and non-Malays.

2014 MERDEKA had me thinking about what is the true meaning of Merdeka - hence I wrote in my previous post Part 1: Merdeka and Independence Carry Different Meaning. This year I decided to write a month earlier than 31 August simply because I found more facts and answers to this 50 over years struggle of our multicultural society. Many of my friends, particularly non-Malays, expressed concerns over my article that I posted last year. It seems that my views can be taken as racism. I never intended to portray racism. I was sincere to express that the Malays are a majority lot that needs their position to be safeguarded particularly on economy, land, culture and the right to govern matters. The non-Malays were allowed to have their share of the prosperity of the country as citizens and they continue to do so as provided under the Federal Constitution.

Our Federal Constitution provides for both Malays and non-Malays. The right term to use should be Bumiputeras and non-Bumiputeras. The link above should tell you sufficiently how the Malays struggled to protect their very existence on their own land. I had also written way back in 2010 about how Tunku Abdul Rahman had negotiated with Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Sambanthan in arriving at a win-win "Social Contract" that was to be the prelude to what is now a Federal Constitution that looks after both sides. It is worth while reading it, hence, I present to you the link here - NEM Means?

The so called Social Contract is supported by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. For reference, Article 153 (1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution in which Sub Article 1 "Special Position of the Malays and the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak, collectively known as Bumiputera" and Sub Article 2 "Legitimate Rights of Other Races (that include the right of citizenship)" were cemented in reciprocal basis (i.e. Jus Soli). Jus soli in Latin means the right of the soil that is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship as an unconditional basis for citizenship. Both were not written in isolation to each other.

This has been agreed upon by our founding fathers in furtherance from the terms originated from the 1948 Federal Agreement that predates the Independence Day and even the formation of what it is now known as Malaysia. Can the Bumiputera status be challenged? Well, if you try, it'll probably fall under Sedition Act. Not only that, even the Bumiputera also find it difficult to challenge the legitimate rights of the non-Bumiputeras as it is equally seditious and a act of crime. This is a demonstration of the reflection of the principle where the two Sub Articles do not stand in isolation.

If someone is to legally revoke this, they'll have to get at least two thirds of the Parliamentary majority and with the Royal consent from the Majlis Raja-Raja (Conference of Rulers). This is why the Malays hold dearly their Kings as they are the guardians of the Federal Constitution that stipulates their rights as Bumiputeras. The non-Bumiputeras should, logically, also have the same view about the Kings from the perspective of protecting their rights under Sub Article 2 as mentioned earlier.

I came across a relevant blog post that actually tells the history of the relationship of the Malays and the non-Malays with the land we now call Malaysia (Credit to Blogger, Seademon, in his post on 23 August 2012 entitled “The Road to Merdeka – Being Malaysian (Part One)). It gives us why our Merdeka carries a different meaning to the concept of Independence of the other nations. The article has been summarised and re-edited as follows:

  • The Malays have always been the recognised natives of the land. The Malay Peninsula has always been the home of the Malays. The Malays then lived without boundaries, and flowed between islands in the Malay Archipelago, even with the conquest of Malacca by the Portuguese who were there to seek revenge against Muslims in 1511, and the subsequent colonisation of Malacca by the Dutch in 1641, there was no stop to the flow of Malays between one point to the other until the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, a treaty that split the Malay Peninsula with Sumatra and the rest of the Malay Archipelago.

  • The British were cunning when it comes to acquiring territories. As in the case of Australia, in order to avoid any problems with the native people, they would declare the land as terra nullius (no-man’s land), and this, to a certain extent was applied to the Malay Peninsula. Although in the Federated Malay States the British were employed by the respective Sultans, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the British were here to reap the benefits of this land without wanting to give much back to the native people, but with a degree of subtlety.

  • In order to keep the Malays from creating trouble for the British, land reservations were introduced to transform the native Malay population into permanent agriculture peasants. It worked for the British well in 1900 when they introduced the Punjab Alienation of Land Act to control and supervise Punjabs as agricultural tribes. This was done on the basis of protecting and preserving the native people by secluding them from the immigrants who were invited to explore the country. The Malays were asked to grow food for the immigrants.

  • The British brought in lots of immigrants directly for their benefit. Undeniably, they were the workforce badly needed to develop the country. The Indians were British subjects (India was a Colony, while Malaya was not). They were made to work in the estates, and as British subjects, were given basic necessities such as very basic accommodation and Tamil schools. The first Tamil school was opened in Penang in 1816. As the number of estates grew, so did the number of Tamil schools. By 1905, there were 13 government and Christian missionary Tamil schools, the latter were set up as a mean to proselytising Christianity.

  • The Chinese were brought in to work the tin mines. Most were in Malaya to make money to be brought back to their families left back in the Mainland. As they had an allegiance to none, enriching themselves in order to achieve a good life once they return to China was a dream of virtually all the Chinese immigrants. Unlike the Malays, they were self-sufficient and very hard-working.

  • While the British set up the Pauper Hospital (now the Kuala Lumpur Hospital), the Chinese united and collected amongst them enough to set up the first Chinese hospital, the Tung Shin Hospital, where it still stands now, to treat Chinese miners who refused to seek treatment at the Pauper Hospital when the number of Chinese miners who died at the latter hospital increased drastically. They thought the British were killing them on purpose. As the Chinese came from different parts of China, tribal and gang wars were rampant. The British allowed Opium in in order to control them.

  • This was the way the British divided and ruled. Eventually, swayed by the profit they were earning from the Malay States that they forgot their promise to the Sultans which was to protect the interest and welfare of the Malays. The bulk of the Malays lived in rural areas and they had very minimal contact with the other races, the Chinese were basically in towns and tin mines, while the Indians were in rubber plantations. The effect to this was that the Malays remained backwards and were told to stay as peasants or tillers of the soil, the Chinese inherited all the tradings in the Malay States and became the richest residents, and the Indians remained as rubber-tappers without proper infrastructure.

  • As a result, the Malays who were given land to cultivate, forced by economic disadvantages, began charging or creating a lien (collateral) over their land to the Chettiars. The Malays, already in a disadvantaged position, cried foul and started the “Malaya for Malays” movement in the late 1800s. EW Birch, the 8th British Resident of Perak, recognised this dire situation and quickly proposed a policy of preserving the Malay land. The only way to him to preserve the Malay race was to “free them from the clutches of those people who now remit to Indian large sums of money, which they bleed from the (Malay) people.” This later became the Malay Reservation Land Act which spirit is preserved in the Malaysian Federal Constitution.

  • For the same reason the British ignored Tan Cheng Lock’s cry of “Malaya for the Malayans.” In the 1930s, Chinese and Indian leaders addressing the Straits Settlements Legislative Council, appealed for some measures of self-government, and to be considered as Malayan Chinese and Indians having a stake in their country of birth and adoption. The non-Malay Malayan Democratic Union and the Java-leaning Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya supported the formation of the Malayan Union and had sought for immediate citizenship for the immigrants and a rule other than by the Malay Rulers respectively. It was at this juncture that the British had first offered Malaya its independence, but was rejected by UMNO fearing that the Malays, being minority in his own country, lacking education and economic backbone, might not survive against the other races soon after independence. The Singapore Institute of Management Malay Cultural and Muslim Society noted that the Malay man was an immigrant in his own country; confronted in his own world which he had little control.

  • When the Communists ousted the Kuomintang from China in 1949, many overseas Chinese including those in Malaya and Singapore, did not know where to return to; while others sought for the unification of the Chinese in Malaya, with Communist China, through armed struggle. The more broadminded Chinese associations united to form the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), and together with UMNO, set aside their differences to work together in the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Elections in 1952. It was also in 1952 that the British gave Malayans their term: we can only discuss independence if the people of Malaya are united.

  • This happened when the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), that was previously formed to support the fight for the independence of India from the British, joined the Alliance in 1954. The MIC, under Sardhar Budh Singh, was very critical of the Malayan Union. Together under the Alliance, these parties won the first General Elections in 1955, winning all but one seat. This solid mandate by the people of Malaya, comprising of the Malayan Malays, immigrant Chinese and Indians, paved the way for the road to Merdeka.

  • The Reid Commission was formed in 1956, its members, Lord William Reid (Britian – Chair), Hakim Abdul Hamid (Pakistan), Sir Ivor Jennings (Britain), Hakim B Malik (India), and Sir William McKell (Australia) were proposed by the Constitutional Conference (comprised of members of Her Majesty’s Government, the four Malay rulers, and representatives of the Malayan government that had won the elections in 1955) and agreed by the Queen of England, and the four Rulers of the Federated Malay States representing the Malay States in Malaya. The Commission’s duty was to draft a proposal of the Constitution of Malaya that would incorporate the concepts of Federalism and Constitutional Monarchy, special position for the Malays, Islam as the religion of the Federation, and Bahasa Melayu as its official language, although the Chinese and Indians had their right to vernacular schools protected.

  • The Reid Commission was not, as portrayed by some quarters, a party to the discussions between the British and Malayan governments, and the Malay Rulers. Their duty was to draft and make recommendations to the Constitution of Malaya. These recommendations were accepted or rejected in agreement by the Constitution Conference – namely the British Government, the four Malay Rulers, and the Government of Malaya that had the mandate of 98 percent of the Malayan people.

  • The Malayan (subsequently Malaysian) Federal Constitution became the foundation of this nation, agreed upon by our forefathers who were united in their resolve to build a nation where all three races respect the historical background, rights, and nature of the other races, and to live as one in a country they call their own.

* kopihangtuah

| mcmlxxv:viii:xxix |

AWO has spoken, "Is the Malaysian Economy on a Good Track?"


"Factors such as psychological liberation, democratic maturity and scientific progression are some of the key elements for societal development if we are to achieve Vision 2020" - Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar

ABDUL WAHID OMAR (Datuk Seri), or, also known as AWO, is a figure that I have been closely monitoring since his days as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Telekom Malaysia Berhad. Back then, I was an audit manager who had to present to him the audit findings of Telekom Malaysia Berhad. With sincerity, I must say, AWO is man of integrity. He is a no-nonsense man and keeps a clear mind to focus on issues at hand. He has a very structured thinking process yet approaches matters from out side the box. He is both left brain and right brain. No wonder he is both a Chartered Accountant as well as a bass player when jamming with his fellow CEO-Musician friends such as Izham Omar (TV3/8TV/TV9/ntv7), Dato' Sazalli (Celcom) and Dato' Zamzamzairani (Telekom).

So what is the deal with this man called AWO? From an already dignified position as the CFO of Telekom Malaysia Berhad, he was then entrusted by the Government to take over the management of the Renong/UEM listed group of companies from Tan Sri Halim Saad. Once Renong/UEM was back on its toes, the trust brought him back to Telekom Malaysia Berhad as its Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Whilst it is normal for CEOs of Government Linked Companies (GLC) to move from one GLC to another (as CEO), to move from Renong/UEM to Telekom Malaysia Berhad and then to Malayan Banking Berhad and finally being appointed as a Senator to assume the role of a Special Minister within the Prime Minister's Office, is, in my honest and professional opinion, a damn good CV to be proud of - not so much of the glorious roles but of the trust that AWO has managed to earn.

As you can see, my first two paragraphs are meant to build up his reputation so that readers can have the comfort of a trusted person managing the affairs of the country. Hence, I must declare that he (AWO) has my utmost trust (as a Rakyat). Although his appointment is somewhat political, I find his ways to be very much non-partisan with the sincerity to serve the nation. For these, I recommend that you too (the Rakyat) to also trust him. Nevermind the political roller-coaster that is on air at the moment. What is important is that the country's economy is being looked after while we, as a nation, sort out the political drama. To enlighten us (of the state of our economy), AWO has spoken, "Is the Malaysian economy on a good track?" (As summarised from the New Sunday Times, page 8 - 9, 3 May 2015). AWO had these to share:


AWO believes that Malaysia is on track to achieve its aspiration of becoming a high-income nation with Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of above USD15,000 (RM53,900) by 2020. In 1990, the gap of our income benchmarked to the World Bank high income nation was at 66%. Today it is at 22%. AWO is confident that by 2020, the gap will be nil. Income alone is not a good indicator. Factors such as psychological liberation, democratic maturity and scientific progression are some of the key elements for societal development if we are to achieve Vision 2020. This, he intends to address.   


The recent plunge in the oil prices has negatively impacted the economy. This will reduce tax revenue collection, investment and export earnings.However, via various aspects of fiscal policies, the Government has managed to handle the situation as evident by the country's growth of 6% for 2014 and an expected 5.5% for 2015. Malaysia is kept on a balanced exposure so that it is not over-exposed in any one industry or commodity. For example, whilst commodities make up 23% of Malaysia's total exports, more than three-quarters of that comprise manufactured exports that are diverse in terms of product and market. Such diversity can cushion any significant fall in any one of the commodities. 

Basic economics need to be harvested. The country (he believes) should take advantage of the excess disposable income whenever oil prices are low. The extra disposable income should boost consumption expenditure and that will in turn restart the economic growth. Like wise, investments in non-oil related industry should now experience a boost. Although commodity exports are negatively affected, manufactured exports should experience positive growth on the back improving global economy.


Subsidy cuts are not popular moves, but it works (for the sake of the economy). Since 2013 the Government has been reducing the petroleum subsidies echoing the declining prices of the crude oil prices. As a result, the country has extra funds that came from 1.3% subsidy reduction in 2013 and 6.4% subsidy reduction in 2014. This led to a lower budget deficit. The extra income also made it possible for BR1M that helped increase the disposable income of the low income earners. As mentioned earlier, increase in disposable income can only lead to increase in consumption expenditure that boosts the economy. 


The Economic Transformation Programme, or the ETP, is not just another abbreviation. People need to know that it carries substance that is essential to the economy. The ETP was formulated to achieve three main objectives: (i) avoid crowding out the private sector, (ii) increase the liquidity of the capital market; and (iii) improve the country's fiscal position. The Government will move away from the role of an investor to facilitator. The Government will systematically reduce ownership and control in selected services and assets particularly in some of the GLCs via outsourcing, privatisation and divestments. This will improve quality, promote flexibility, reduce costs and improve Government's fiscal position whilst creating greater opportunities for the private sector participation.


GST implementation was tabled in the 2014 Budget together with an "offset" package such as a lower tax rate and longer list of zero-rated and exempt items. This is to ensure that the Rakyat is not over burdened by GST. GST is also one of the tools to battle with the reduced oil related tax revenues. GST itself is an efficient way of taxation. As of mid April 2015 alone we have more than 350,000 companies registered for GST. This higher-than-expected volume is expected to give us extra RM1 billion revenue. Had we not done this, we would have depressed ourselves with the reduced oil related tax revenue. In other words, we must not let ourselves be exposed to a concentration of source of revenue.


Key Malaysian ports such as Port Klang and Port Tanjung Pelepas, are ranked as top 20 busiest ports in the world. Penang Port is popular among ships from Thailand for rubber exports to Japan and China. Those from Iskandar region who uses air freight prefers Changi Airport as it offers better air network. Of course, we should use our own ports as much as possible. However, if better services can be procured from Singapore, then it makes sense to use Singapore. The Government (via Economic Planning Unit - EPU) has, however, recently released five strategies and 21 action items to position Malaysia as the preferred logistics gateway. Cargo exports via Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) will be boosted and infrastructure at Port Klang will be upgraded. Cargo clearance process will also be simplified to minimise throughput time.


The growth of mean income for the Malaysian household in the Bottom 40% of income earners (B40) grew by 9.9%, lower than the Middle 40% (M40) growth of 8% and Top 40% (T40) that grew at 7.4%, from 2009 to 2014. This is a positive sign that wage levels are catching up with the rising cost of living and at the same time reducing the disparity between the income groups. It is difficult to compare to Singapore and Korea (as many have voiced out) because those countries have high income earners driving the economy. Malaysia is primarily driven by middle-income earners. This is why we need to structure our economy to be high knowledge-based where we could have more high income paying jobs. 

For this, various initiatives will be implemented to create high-skilled jobs with high pay. This will be a conscious effort from the Government's side when making investments. The focus will be on knowledge-intensive and innovation-based workforce. Existing industries will be pushed to contribute more to the Gross Domestic Product from 33.6% in 2013 to 40% in 2020. This is partly done via minimum wage policy but productivity must be increased. Both Government and the citizens must work together. The Government will facilitate in the quest to produce more technical knowledge based workforce via its Malaysia Board of Technologies. In addition, performance-related pay schemes need wider implementation and upskilling and reskilling of the existing workforce is something very crucial for  a total workforce shift (upwards).

I must declare that he (AWO) has my utmost trust (as a Rakyat). Although his appointment is somewhat political, I find his ways to be very much non-partisan with the sincerity to serve the nation. For these, I recommend that you too (the Rakyat) to also trust him. Nevermind the political roller-coaster that is on air at the moment. What is important is that the country's economy is being looked after.

* kopihangtuah

| mcmlxxv:viii:xxix |