5. Nik Aziz, the so-called religious leader of PAS, openly declared that the overthrow of the Government by demonstration is halal – permissible in Islam. He openly admitted that he gave money and urged PAS members to participate in the demonstration.

6. His followers are fanatical about obeying his orders regardless of their being against the accepted teachings of Islam.

7. A quiet and peaceful demo in a stadium would not create the impression of police brutality or Government oppression. And so the organisers insisted on holding their demo at the Dataran Merdeka, the place where the British flag was lowered and the Malaysian flag hauled up to mark Malaysia’s independence.

8. Then of course the police must be provoked so that they would use force against the demonstrators. Video clips showed clearly that the demonstrators, apparently of a signal from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, broke the barriers. Then they equally clearly attacked the police pushing and breaking the windshield and overturning the police car.

9. The video showed a demonstrator kicking a policeman who had fallen down. Later a policeman related how he was beaten on his back with some kind of truncheon. He vomited because of the beatings.

10. Many reporters and media photographers were also attacked and beaten.

11. If the police used force it is because they were provoked, they were beaten up and had to defend themselves and because their colleagues were beaten up.

12. But apart from the alleged police brutality against the demonstrators, what other evidence is there that the Malaysian Government is oppressive and deserving of being overthrown through extra legal means.

13. In elections it is obviously possible for the Opposition to defeat the Government party in both State and Federal Constituencies. Some states have fallen into Opposition hands.

14. It is true that the same party won all the elections at federal levels and formed the Government but the support was not consistent. In 1969 the party almost lost. Although in 2004 the party won 90% of the seats in 2008 the party won with only a small majority.

15. Certainly the ruling party never won with 99% of the votes that happens in dictatorships. Is there freedom of expression and press freedom in Malaysia? Read the vernacular papers, and listen to the racist and provocative speeches at Opposition meetings. The Malaysian press is freer than in most developing countries.

16. Do innocent people get arrested, incarcerated and tortured and disappeared as happens in many authoritarian countries and even in the United States? No, people in Malaysia do not fear arbitrary arrests.

17. Are the leaders of Government highly protected and inaccessible to the public? I was in Egypt for a meeting. Mubarak was supposed to attend. The street and side-streets from his residence to the meeting place were cleared, soldiers lined the streets and snipers were stationed on the roofs of buildings. This has never happened in Malaysia. Leaders move freely among the people with minimal security personnel.

18. There are accusations of corruption by the leaders. But there is no public agitation to charge them in court even after they have retired. I appreciate that it is difficult to get evidence of corruption. I am sure that if there is the people would agitate for action to be taken by the Government against retired leaders.

19. The opposition agitated against the ISA, against detention without trial and the Government did what was demanded of it. Many other allegedly oppressive laws have been amended or abolished.

20. No one can deny that the rapid development and increasing prosperity of the people are all the result of Government policies and actions.

21. There are crimes committed in this country but by and large this country is much safer and secure than most of the developing countries practicing democracy or totalitarian rule.

22. In the 55 years of independence the per capita rose from USD 350 to USD 8000. The cities and towns are provided with all the amenities normally found in developed countries. The people have been given access to education and training so that they can earn better incomes. Unemployment is minimal.

23. Roads and express ways connect the cities, towns and villages. Water, electricity, schools and medical facilities reach the remotest villages.

24. Malaysia with its multi-racial population, speaking different languages, believing in different religions, with different cultures and economic disparities, is a difficult country to rule and even more difficult to develop. But Malaysia has been well administered, maintains the rule of law, is secure and safe and gives the people a good life.

25. The Opposition may think they can do better but they must accept that it is for the people to decide. And this they can do through the General Elections.

26. In Malaysia there is no justification for ignoring the law and seeking the overthrow of the Government by street demonstrations and violence.

5. Obviously they must try to stop this hooliganism. They had a need to use force. They cannot just stand by and do nothing or allow themselves to be beaten up or allow public property to be damaged. To prevent this violence they need to use force.

6. In other countries they would not just threaten but would probably shoot their assailants. As far as can be ascertained they did not use their side arms. They must have restrained themselves.

7. I would like to see what members of the Bar Council would do if people kick them, smash their cars’ windscreen and overturn them. They would be running to report to the police. When the police are assaulted who do they run to?

8. We owe much to the Malaysian police. It is not a perfect force but we do feel safe and secure when they are around. How would we like to do away with the police altogether? How would we fare if the police are not allowed to use force against their assailants?

9. Next time let’s have members of the Bar Council to keep law and order during violent demos and riots. I am sure Bersih 4.0 will be free of violence as the demonstrators would not be stopped from breaking rules and laws.

5. When a party in power uses Government to implement policies, plans or strategies so as to ensure support by the people, can we say it is abuse of Government authority. On the other hand when the opposition loudly proclaims that they would do things which would gain them public support, are they not making use of Government authority for their popularity?

6. The opposition says that it would increase subsidies for fuel and fertilizer, replace PTPTN with free higher education and raise petroleum royalty to 20% to the states instead of 5%, isn’t it also making use of Government authority to win support of the voters?

7. Indeed whereas the incumbent has to be cautious as it knows the financial capacity of the Government, the Opposition has no such constrains. If it wins it can have all kinds of excuses for not keeping promises.

8. Abuse of Government authority is not confined only to the ruling party. The Opposition is also bent on abusing Government authority.

9. There may be areas for improving the conduct of Malaysian elections. But the fact remains that in Malaysia the Opposition can and have indeed defeated the Government party. If the Opposition fails to win at federal level, it is simply because the people chose not to support them with the required majority.

5. Penang went to the opposition in 1969. In that election Perak and Selangor could not form Governments as neither the opposition nor the Government party had a clear majority.

6. Sabah was also lost to the opposition in one of the elections.

7. The worst result for the Government Party i.e. the party controlling the Federal Government was in 2008 when BN lost five States and one federal territory.

8. At the Federal level although the Government party never lost, but its majority was not constant. In 1969 it virtually lost, winning with an unworkable majority. In other elections the margin were sometimes above two-thirds and sometimes below two-thirds. In 2008 it won such a slim majority that there was real possibility that it would fall because a significant number of BN members of Parliament were expected to switch to the opposition.

9. The lack of consistency and absence of any pattern in the results of the elections showed that the elections were not fixed or manipulated. There were the usual accusations of foul play from both the Government party and the opposition and some of these went to the courts. The courts also did not show special favour for the Government party through their decision. There was no proven case of Government manipulation or hanky-panky in any of the cases.

10. All indicators point to reasonably fair conduct of the elections by the Election Commission. The Government could not rig or influence the EC.

11. Compare this with the advanced democracies and it would be very clear that the results are quite similar to them. The margins are never extreme one way or another.

12. It is absolutely certain that in the 13th General Election the opposition would win a fair number of seats in the State and Federal elections. Almost certainly Kelantan would go to PAS. There would be great difficulty for BN to win back the States it had lost.

13. So why the demonstrations and the demands for the elections to be clean and fair? Well should the opposition lose in the States or at the Federal levels, then one can safely assume that the opposition will claim that the Government had not conducted the elections fairly, that the Government cheated.

14. There would then be more demonstrations, perhaps bigger and more violent. Demands would be made for new elections to be held, or for the Election Commission to be disbanded and a new Commission set up.

15. Seeing how repeated anti-Government demonstrations have brought down Governments in the Arab countries, Nik Aziz of PAS now declares that over-throwing the Government through demonstration is ‘halal’. Obviously PAS is already contemplating Bersih-type violent demonstrations as a way of seizing power if it loses the 13th General Elections. The country will then suffer from violent demonstrations frequently. This will affect business and growth. Already Nik Aziz considers the present Government as oppressive and dictatorial and it is right to overthrow it.

16. The attention of the world would be sought and the Western Press would be co-opted to paint as black a picture as possible of the people’s opposition to the democratically elected Government. The support of foreign Governments and NGOs would come in as we see in the Arab countries. Their agenda would be different but they would see opportunities for pushing their regime change, for putting their candidate in power as Prime Minister.

17. This possibility is not far-fetched. The average Malaysian always think what happens in other countries will not happen here. But the Bersih 3 demonstration shows it can happen here. We know that almost every demonstration in Malaysia has been organised by Anwar. Now he is teaming up with Nik Aziz. Both see much to be gained by seizing power through unconstitutional means.

18. And when they are in power we can kiss goodbye to peace, stability and economic growth in this beloved country.

5. This increase should not worry the Government. But it should worry the private sector. Already Malaysia’s wages and salaries are higher than all the Asean countries excepting Singapore. It is certainly higher than China. This might deter both domestic and foreign investors.

6. If investments do not come in, the number of new jobs created would be diminished. This might increase unemployment.

7. Unless Government revenue increase substantially the increased salary bill would have to be met by reducing development budget. This will have other unwelcome side effects.

8. I am sure the Government financial experts have already taken into consideration all these things when they advised the Cabinet. It is just that I worry. Some rating agencies have been talking about down-grading this country. I hope they are not serious. Malaysia has always managed its finances well. I am sure that productivity would increase to compensate for the higher wages and overall costs.

5. But the NATO forces were there only to watch. They may not shoot at the murderous Serbs. When in Srebrenica the Dutch troops, tasked with protecting the Bosnians saw the Serb soldiers killing 8,000 Bosnians in front of their eyes, they simply moved away. The Serbs used axes to bash in the heads of Bosnian men and boys in one of the worst massacres in Europe.

6. Perhaps it was this massacre which prompted the West to stop the fighting. Apparently they could stop the Serbs if they wanted to.

7. But in a travesty of justice America imposed on the Bosnians the Dayton Plan in which Bosnia-Herzegovina was divided into two.

8. The Serbs were rewarded with an independent state completely under their rule although it is supposed to be a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is called Republika Srpska.

9. The rest of Bosnia-Herzegovina would have three presidents all the time. There would be a Serb President, a Croatian President and a Bosnian President. Every decision by this coalition Government must be agreed to by all three Presidents.

10. As can be expected the Serb President never agreed to anything that can contribute to the rebuilding of this part of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11. The west talks ad infinitum about justice and the rule of law. Rewarding the murderous genocidal Serbs with an independent state and frustrating the Bosnian Muslims’ quest for independence by giving veto power to the Serbs and the Croats is an example of justice for the West. They have ensured there would be no Muslim state in Christendom.

Below is part of an article by Brian A Burchill of Global Research E-Newsletter, Canada which seems to validate my stand. For the full article please see “>here

IRAN: THE TERRORISM TRUMP CARD

By Brian A. Burchill

Global Research, April 3, 2012

The UK’s Guardian recently interviewed “current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran,” and concluded that the United States, its European allies, and even Israel, agree that Tehran is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.

Twice in recent weeks, CBC News anchor Peter Mansbridge has closely questioned two leaders who hold a different view.
In a January 18th interview, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Mansbridge that he thinks that “the evidence is…overwhelming” and that it “is just beyond dispute at this point” that Iran’s purpose is to develop nuclear weapons. When pressed about Iran’s insistence that it has no intention to build nuclear weapons, Harper said “I think there is absolutely no doubt they are lying”.

Harper’s claims are all-too-reminiscent of US Former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February, 2003, statement at the UN that, with “facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”.

There was no doubt in his mind that Saddam Hussein was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

That intelligence has since been exposed as lies. In fact, the Iraqi chemical engineer who perpetrated the false intelligence, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, confessed his lies on British television April 3rd.

Also troubling is that Harper cited the International Atomic Energy Commission, but in the March 22nd Guardian, the agency’s former director-general, Hans Blix, raised concerns about its recent credibility. The IAEC has been charged with over-reliance on unverified intelligence, and pro-Western bias, since the 2009 arrival of its new chief, Yukiya Amano.

More recently, Harper’s conclusion was thrown into question during a CBC News One on One interview with US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, aired last weekend.

Panetta first stated that the best US intelligence has concluded that Iran has not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. He went on to say that Iran is involved in providing non-nuclear weapons to terrorist-associated groups outside the country.

However, when Mansbridge queried whether containment was an effective policy (sealing off the country to prevent weapons exports to outsiders), Panetta then contradicted his own intelligence claim by saying the US was going to apply economic and diplomatic sanctions because “we cannot allow a country that supports terrorism to have a nuclear weapon.”

When pushed to justify the sanctions, Panetta played the debate-ending trump card – the supposed threat of Muslim terrorism – the card spawned by 9/11.

Thus ended the Panetta news segment – Mansbridge did not challenge whether hidden, ubiquitous, amorphous terrorism was a factor in the case of Iran.

Brian A. Burchill is Mechanical Engineer based in British Columbia

5. The private sector has not done badly either. Many have grown and expanded. Kuok Bros, building on its sugar and flour monopoly business, expanded into luxury hotels. The Shangri-La Hotel chains are all over East Asia and beyond. Palm oil plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia contributed billions to the corporation.

6. Lim Goh Tong came to Malaysia penniless. A casino license granted by the first Government of independent Malaysia contributed to the creation of one of the biggest corporations in the world. Resorts World operates casinos in Malaysia, Singapore, USA and UK, and elsewhere. Additionally, his Malaysian corporation owns huge palm oil estates and cruise ships.

7. The Genting group has more hotel rooms than any other hotel chain in the Far East.

8. Yeoh Tiong Lay (YTL) is another Malaysian company, which started as a construction company but now owns valuable properties in KL and other Malaysian towns. It owns a profitable power plant in Malaysia and a water supply utility in the UK.

9. Datuk Azman Shah owns a hotel chain, the Holiday Villa, largely in Malaysia but also in London, Sudan and other locations.

10. Vincent Tan has many businesses. He is also a big property owner in KL and in other parts of Malaysia. His most remarkable success in the Cosway chain of stores, with thousands operating in East Asian countries, in the USA and in Mexico.

11. Ananda Krishnan made his first million trading in oil. Coming home he started Astro and Maxis, telecommunication and paid television businesses. He is the owner of three satellites, which provide telecommunication service covering most of Southeast Asia. He owns and operates mobile phone services in many countries, including in India.

12. Eversendai is not a Japanese company. It is a Malaysian company, which has done very well in the Middle East especially. The main business is steel framework for building, including the Burj Khalifa, currently the tallest building in the world. The owner is an Indian.

13. And there are many more companies, which had their head start in Malaysia but have grown and expanded to many parts of the world. They may not be as big as the ones I have listed but they have done quite well for themselves.

14. For a relatively small country, still not a developed country, Malaysia can be proud of the successes of its sons. I am sure that these successful people must also be proud of themselves and their achievements. I am also sure that they never forget their small beginnings in Malaysia, the kick-start that set them off to achieve great things.

15. There are many other kinds of successes that Malaysians can be proud of. We were once the biggest producer of tin and rubber in the world. Now we are the biggest producer of palm oil in the world.

16. Malaysians now bought and own brand name companies like Laura Ashley, Crabtree & Evelyn.

17. Yes, Malaysia is a small country but it has provided Malaysians of all races the opportunities to excel and succeed beyond the dreams of its founding fathers, perhaps beyond the dreams of the Malaysian tycoons themselves.

5. Apart from subsistence padi cultivation and inshore fishing the Malays of Kedah had no source of income. They were very poor.

6. The Chinese were involved in shop-keeping even in the Malay villages. The rice-mills belonged to them.

7. What we in Kedah saw in those days was continued poverty and conflicts between the races. The Malays felt threatened and their reaction was to unite and form a Malay political party – the United Malays National Organisation. It was solely dedicated to fighting the Malayan Union and upholding Malay rights. There was no desire to cooperate with the Chinese at all, certainly not for achieving merdeka.

8. After the Malayan Union was scrapped and replaced by the Federation of Malaya (officially Persekutuan Tanah Melayu), the British misjudged Malay sentiment and persuaded Dato Onn to open up UMNO to non-Malays. His proposal was rejected and he had to leave UMNO.

9. To cut a long story short, Tunku Abdul Rahman, realising that he needed Chinese support in order to achieve independence, came up with a unique solution.

10. UMNO could remain a purely Malay party but it would work with the purely Chinese Malaysian Chinese Association to allay British suspicions that independence would lead to seizure of Chinese properties by the Malays.

11. The cooperation worked so well that the Malayan Indian Congress decided to join it. And so the alliance of racial parties was formed. It was appropriately called the Alliance. Together they obtained independence for Malaya and this same concept enabled Sabah, Sarawak and for a time Singapore parties to join and set up independent Malaysia.

12. But Malay animosity towards the Chinese and Chinese dissatisfaction with the terms of the social contract was still extant, so that in 1969 race riots broke out. Foreign as well as many Malaysians concluded that the fragile coalition had failed. But Tun Razak resurrected it and formed an even bigger coalition, the Barisan Nasional or National Front.

13. Fear of race riots recurring helped to keep the Barisan Nasional parties together. And so from 1971 until today the country enjoyed peace and stability under Barisan Nasional Governments. Unprecedented growth took place and Malaysia became an industrialised country.

14. Admittedly the Barisan Nasional did not do well in 2008. But it is not because of the Barisan Nasional as a concept or as a party failed. The poor performance was due to extremely poor leadership.

15. The essence of this kind of racial parties cooperating is the willingness of every party to make sacrifices. No party should expect to get 100% of what it considers its entitlement. Everyone must give up something in order to gain much more from growth and development.

16. The coalition concept worked so well that the opposition try to copy it. Today Pakatan is a loose coalition of sorts involving the three opposition parties; the PAS, DAP and Keadilan.

17. There is one other element that is needed for a coalition to work. Although it is an alliance of equals, it needs a strong core which can act as the first among equals. The core will act as referee whenever the other components fail to agree with each other. The core must of course be fair at all times.

18. On the other hand the core must not be too strong as to be able to go on its own. If it fails to get the support of the others it will also fail.

19. Clearly the parties of the Barisan Nasional coalition are dependent on each other.

20. However, should the coalition achieve only a small majority, it will be constantly threatened by the possibility of any one of the parties defecting and bringing down the Government. This is its Achilles’ heel. But otherwise the coalition has functioned well in Malaysia.

21. For a country to develop it needs a strong Government that can ensure stability. No one party in Malaysia can provide a strong Government. Certainly the “Pakatan” cannot provide this.

22. The peoples of Malaysia must realise this and choose their Governments wisely. They must not allow racial sentiments to cloud good pragmatic common sense.

23. Malaysia had enjoyed half-a-century of peace and growth under the Barisan Nasional. No one can honestly say that he had not benefitted from Barisan Nasional rule.