On 31 May 2019, when asked about the possibility of China using Huawei to spy on Malaysia, Dr Mahathir who was the Prime Minister then said, “What is there to spy in Malaysia? We are an open book.” (The Independent, 31 May 2019).
Recently, there was a newspaper report about an Israeli spy plane that flew over Malaysia. Many people ask me about this. Why was an Israeli spy plane allowed to fly over Malaysia?
Firstly, it is not a spy plane. It is a test bed. It is not a military plane. It is a civilian aircraft with civil registration, operated by civilians and not the military. It does not belong to the Israeli Armed Forces but to the IAI Elta Systems, and that company is a vendor of one of the systems being used by the Republic of Singapore Air Force. The Israeli Air Force operates 4 types of aircraft for airborne early warning and command, as well as for intelligence gathering. This Boeing 737-400 is not one of them.
Secondly, it flew over Malaysian airspace according to a flight plan approved by our Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM). You cannot simply fly anywhere. Like roads, the airspace has routes. It has a civilian registration. Like at sea, the air also has a Freedom of the Air concept, and overflying a country without landing to get to another country is the right of any civilian aircraft. This is all based on the concept of mare liberum.
Thirdly, if Israel wants to spy on Malaysia using an aircraft, it would be stupidly obvious to use a spy plane. They can always use one of their El Al flights to Melbourne to do it. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USSR frequently used its Aeroflot flights flying into Subang to try and spy on our Butterworth Air Base. The use of civilian aircraft as spy planes is nothing new. The US is thought to have used Korean Airlines flight KAL007 to spy on Soviet installations before it was shot down.
Fourthly, the Israeli Armed Forces has 16 spy satellites in the skies above us. The latest was launched on 16 July 2020. Why bother send a spy plane to Malaysia? There are many sensitive information on Malaysia available on Google anyhow. Furthermore, what can the Israelis learn from a failed government by flying over Putrajaya, or from Malaysians who are hell-bent on spreading the COVID-19 virus to their parents during Hari Raya?
The CIA has been working with Google, Twitter and Facebook to spy on people and other government agencies through its technology investment arm In-Q-Tel.
The CIA has been working with one of the world’s largest ad agency network, WPP, to mine user data. The CIA and Google has been together since 2004 when Google bought a company called Keyhole that specialised in mapping technology. This has become Google Earth.
Israel companies produced apps such as Waze and WhatsApp that can be used to spy, not only on specific users, but also on what is where.
Not too long ago we had people who checked into sensitive buildings using Foursquare. They created new locations just by standing at the location and filled in the descriptions. One of the places on Foursquare that you could check in to is our Ministry of Defence’s Defence Operations Room, the heart of our defence operations. Through Foursquare they could monitor the movements of military users.
Then we had Pokemon Go, a seemingly innocent game being played anywhere and everywhere. But it not only utilises your location, every time you throw that red ball at a monster, it captures the background scenery as well, creating a virtual jigsaw puzzle of sceneries of one location provided by multiple users.
Stop watching too many Hollywood movies! Malaysian seem to fear Israeli spies compared to the COVID-19 virus!
Baru-baru ini kita dikejutkan dengan kehadiran seorang diplomat dari Israel ke sebuah persidangan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu di Kuala Lumpur. Pihak pembangkang dengan segera telah menghentam kerajaan kerana telah membenarkan perkara tersebut berlaku seraya mengatakan bahawa kerajaan bersikap hipokrit dalam memperjuangkan hak-hak Palestin tetapi pada masa yang sama telah menjemput seorang warga Israel untuk datang ke Malaysia.
Lantas Kementerian Luar Negeri telah mengeluarkan sebuah kenyataan untuk menerangkan perkara tersebut. Di dalam kenyataan tersebut, Wisma Putra menerangkan bahawa segala jemputan ke persidangan tersebut telah dilakukan oleh pihak Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu melalui Artikel III kepada Perjanjian Negara Tuanrumah yang telah dibuat di antara kerajaan Malaysia dengan pertubuhan tersebut.
Kenyataan ini juga menerangkan bahawa sebagai negara tuan rumah, Malaysia terpaksa menerima kehadiran delegasi dari Israel walaupun berkeras tidak mahu. Malangnya, sebagai memenuhi kehendak diplomasi pelbagai hala, Ianya tidak bermakna Malaysia telah mengubah pendiriannya terhadap Israel dan Palestin.
PKR PERLUKAN PENGARAH KOMUNIKASI YANG BARU
Saudara Fahmi Fadzil, Pengarah Komunikasi PKR telah membidas kenyataan Wisma Putra. Di dalam laman Facebooknya, Fahmi telah mempersoalkan kuasa Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia untuk menafikan mana-mana individu yang tidak dikehendaki untuk masuk ke negara ini.
Saya berasa amat kecewa kerana sebagai seorang yang memegang jawatan penting, Fahmi tidak memahami undang-undang. David Yitzhak Roet, diplomat Israel yang telah ke mari, adalah merupakan seorang diplomat dari negara Israel yang memegang passport diplomat yang bermakna beliau adalah merupakan seorang diplomat bagi negaranya.
Ini bermakna, David Roet tidak boleh dikategorikan sebagai “pendatang yang tidak diingini” (undesirable immigrant) mengikut Seksyen 8(k) Akta Imigresen, 1959/1963. Mari kita undur beberapa tapak untuk memahami keadaan sebenar sebelum mempercayai segala kebebalan yang ditulis oleh Fahmi tadi, atau kenapa Malaysia tidak membantah, dan juga kepada persoalan mengapa Malaysia tidak batalkan sahaja persidangan tersebut.
Pertama sekali, persidangan ini dalah sebuah persidangan yang dianjurkan oleh pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu. Perjanjian Negara Tuanrumah di antara pertubuhan tersebut dengan Malaysia telah ditandatangani pada bulan Mac 2017.
Setelah perjanjian tersebut dibuat, penganjur (UN Habitat) membuat lain-lain persiapan berhubung keperluan persidangan tersebut. Hanya pada bulan Jun 2017, UN Habitat telah menghantar surat-surat jemputan kepada Menteri Luar Negeri setiap negara ahli pertubuhan tersebut termasuk Malaysia dan Israel.
PBB ada mempunyai satu format Perjanjian Negara Tuanrumah yang seragam untuk digunakan oleh agensi-agensi di bawahnya, termasuk UN Habitat. Cuma susunan Artikel adalah terpulang kepada agensi-agensi tersebut, di antaranya menyebut:
“Konvensyen Mengenai Keistimewaan dan Kekebalan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu yang diterima pakai oleh Perhimpunan Agung pada 13 Februari 1946, yang mana negara tuan rumah adalah satu pihak, hendaklah terpakai bagi Persidangan tersebut. Terutamanya, wakil negara-negara akan menikmati keistimewaan dan kekebalan yang diberikan di bawah Artikel IV Koenvensyen tersebut.”
Dokumen di atas menerangkan dengan jelas bahawa wakil-wakil setiap negara yang menghadiri persidangan yang telah dijalankan di Kuala Lumpur, hendaklah diberikan keistimewaan dan kekebalan yang telah kita persetujui sebagai salah sebuah negara ahli PBB yang telah mengiktiraf Konvensyen tersebut.
Ianya tidak berakhir di situ:
“Semua orang yang disebut di dalam artikel II (artikel III dalam perjanjian dengan Malaysia) hendaklah mempunyai hak untuk masuk dan keluar dari negara tuan rumah, dan tiada halangan dikenakan terhadap perjalanan mereka ke dan dari kawasan persidangan.”
Semua di atas adalah berkenaan dengan Konvensyen Vienna Mengenai Hubungan Diplomatik, 1961, yang dipersetujui oleh Malaysia, dan juga Akta Hubungan Konsular (Konvensyen Vienna), 1999. David Roet adalah diplomat yang dihantar oleh negaranya. Maka, Malaysia tidak banyak pilihan kerana telah menandatangani perjanjian tuan rumah, serta perlu menghormati konvensyen Vienna.
Kalau itu sahaja yang boleh diketengahkan sebagai hujah-hujah, maka saya rasa amat elok sekali sekiranya parti tersebut menukar Pengarah Komunikasi mereka memandang Fahmi Fadzil begitu dangkal daya pemikirannya.
TIDAKKAH KERAJAAN MEMBANTAH JEMPUTAN YANG DIBUAT KEPADA ISRAEL OLEH PBB?
Ramai penyokong pembangkang serta mereka yang termakan hasutan pembangkang dalam isu ini bertanyakan tidakkah kerajaan membuat bantahan terhadap jemputan kepada Israel oleh PBB?
Saya petik laporan sebuah akhbar Israel, The Jerusalem Post, yang menyebut:
“Malaysia yang ternyata anti-Israel membenarkan penyertaan Israel dengan penuh marah hanya setelah Israel mengenakan tekanan diplomatik yang hebat sehingga ke pejabat Setiausaha Agung PBB, Antonio Gutteres.
Ini adalah kerana dengan menaja sebuah acara yang berkaitan dengan PBB, Malaysia menjadi suatu kewajiban bagi Malaysia terhadap PBB untuk membenarkan penyertaan dari semua negara.”
Jelas Malaysia telah berkeras untuk tidak membenarkan penyertaan Israel tetapi terpaksa akur dengan perjanjian yang telah dipersetujui.
Walau bagaimanapun, ianya berbeza bagi rakyat biasa Israel. Pada tahun 2015, Malaysia telah tidak membenarkan dua orang peluncur layar dari Israel untuk menyertai Kejohanan Pelayaran Belia Sedunia. Keputusan kerajaan ini telah dibantah bukan sahaja oleh Persatuan Layar Israel, malah oleh badan pelayaran dunia.
Pada tahun 2016, Malaysia telah enggan mengeluarkan visa bagi pasukan ping pong Israel untuk menyertai Kejohanan Ping Pong Sedunia yang telah diadakan di sini.
JADI, SIAPA YANG MENYOKONG ISRAEL?
Pada 25 Mac 1997, seramai 2,000 orang penunjuk perasaan telah berarak ke Jabatan Perdana Menteri untuk menyerahkan satu memorandum kepada Perdana Menteri ketika itu membantah keputusan kerajaan Malaysia untuk membenarkan pasukan kriket Israel untuk menyertai Kejohanan Kriket Sedunia yang dilangsungkan di Kuala Lumpur. Pada 30 Mac tahun yang sama, seramai 2,500 orang penunjuk perasaan telah menyerbu padang kriket di mana pasukan Israel dijadualkan bermain serta membakar papan-papan tanda iklan berkenaan kejohanan tersebut.
Anwar Ibrahim yang kononnya memperjuangkan Islam ketika itu, dalam sokongan terhadap bosnya berkata, sukan dan politik tidak sepatutnya dicampur-adukkan.
Pada tahun 1993, Mahathir yang ketika itu merupakan Perdana Menteri telah menulis sepucuk surat kepada Perdana Menteri Israel, Yitzhak Rabin mengenai Perjanjian Oslo I.
Ianya mungkin sukar dibaca. Jadi saya sediakan terjemahan kepada transkrip surat tersebut seperti berikut:
Encik Yitzhak Rabin
Perdana Menteri Israel
Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih di atas surat anda pada 17 Oktober yang memaklumkan kepada saya tentang Perjanjian Prinsip dan Pengiktirafan Bersama di antara Israel dan PLO.
Kerajaan saya menyokong perkembangan positif ini dan memandangnya sebagai langkah pertama ke arah merealisasikan penyelesaian menyeluruh kepada masalah Timur Tengah. Sebagai demonstrasi sokongan Malaysia terhadap pembangunan ini negara saya telah diwakili pada Persidangan Penderma untuk menyokong Perdamaian Timur Tengah yang diadakan di Washington dan seterusnya memberikan sumbangan kewangan yang sederhana kepada rakyat Palestin untuk membantu tugas baru mereka. Kerajaan saya juga telah menawarkan bantuan teknikal untuk Palestin di bawah Program Kerjasama Teknikal Malaysia.
Sebagai perkara prinsip umum Malaysia bersedia untuk membangunkan hubungan dengan Israel pada masa yang sesuai. Dalam pada itu, kami ingin melihat kemajuan yang ketara dalam pelaksanaan perjanjian damai.
Masalah di Timur Tengah terutamanya isu Palestin telah menjadi punca ketidakstabilan di rantau tersebut dan saya berharap perjanjian yang dibuat baru-baru ini di antara Israel dan PLO akan menyumbang kepada keamanan yang kekal di kawasan itu.
Saya menanti hubungan normal dengan Israel.
DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Sepertimana yang terkandung di dalam dua bahagian surat tersebut, Mahathir menyatakan hasrat untuk mengadakan hubungan yang normal dengan Israel. Pada tahun 2014, Presiden Obama telah mengadakan hubungan normal dengan Cuba. Ini berakhir dengan penyambungan perhubungan diplomatik di antara kedua-dua buah negara tersebut. Mahathir telah menyatakan hasrat untuk memulakan hubungan diplomatik dengan Israel. Bahagian akhir yang digaris di bawah itu telah ditulis sendiri oleh Mahathir dengan menggunakan sebatang pen.
Berlanjutan dengan perkara tersebut, Chua Jui Meng dari PKR yang pada ketika itu merupakan Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri berkata Israel boleh menjadi destinasi pelaburan Malaysia (Shanti Nair, Routledge, 1997 p.252).
Hasilnya, pada tahun 1999, eksport Israel ke Malaysia berjumlah USD107 juta. Pada tahun 2000, ia adalah USD732 juta, dan USD615.5 juta pada tahun berikutnya. Pada tahun 2002, laporan Kementerian Perdagangan Israel mengenai hubungan perdagangan dengan Indonesia dan Malaysia menasihatkan warga Israel yang berminat untuk menjalankan perniagaan dengan syarikat Malaysia bahawa “tiada sebarang bangkangan untuk mengadakan perhubungan perdagangan selagi ianya dibuat secara senyap-senyap“.
Di akaun Twitternya pula, Mukhriz juga menyatakan bahawa “Di atas permintaan daripada pelabur asing yang besar di sini pada tahun 1996, Kabinet mengarahkan MITI untuk meluluskan import dan eksport ke Israel.”
Kabinet tahun 1996 yang dimaksudkan adalah kabinet yang dipimpin bapanya, Mahathir Mohamad. Tulis Mukhriz lagi pada tahun 2011:
“Apabila kita meluluskan pelaburan langsung asing, bukanlah untuk kita mengenakan syarat bahawa mereka tidak boleh berdagang dengan Israel. Sesetengah pelaburan ini berjumlah berbilion Dollar di negeri-negeri di bawah Pembangkang.”
Ini bermakna negeri-negeri di bawah pentadbiran pihak pembangkang pada tahun 2011 telah menerima pelaburan langsung asing dari Israel. Pada tahun tersebut hanya tiga buah negeri yang berada di bawah pembangkang, iaitu Kelantan, Pulau Pinang dan Selangor. Dan saya tak fikir Kelantan terlibat dengan dana dari Israel.
Jadi, siapakah sebenarnya pencinta Israel yang wajib kita sanggah?
When Israeli diplomat David Roet attended a United Nations conference in Kuala Lumpur recently, the Opposition went into full swing trying to discredit the government saying that it wants to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.
In a statement, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) explicitly states that the invitations to the Israeli delegates was issued by the UN as per Article III of the Host Country Agreement signed by the organisation and Malaysia so that the UN is able to conduct its conferences away from any of its established headquarters.
The Article states, in part, that the Forum shall be opened to all UN member states and its Specialised Agencies. This was confirmed by Israel’s Hadashot TV which reported that Malaysia was compelled to host the Israelis, since it was required to grant visas to all delegations in order to hold the international conference. Therefore, it is immaterial whether or not Malaysia has diplomatic relations with Israel. It is for the same reason that Fidel Castro was able to attend the UN summit in New York in 1976, 1995 and 2000.
If you walk along Jalan Zainal Abidin in Pulau Pinang which is just off Burmah Road near the Tune Hotel, you will come across an old cemetery. That is a Jewish Cemetery. Jalan Zainal Abidin was once called Jalan Yahudi or Jew Street, the only evidence that a Jewish enclave once existed on the island.
Israel first established contact with our pre-independence government in 1956 when Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett visited Malaya to propose the appointment of an Israeli consul in Malaya. Israel also voted in favour of the Malayan bid to become a UN member in 1957. Trade between the two countries was in place. This was banned in 1974, after the Yom Kippur war, but indirect trade (through third countries) was in place.
An Opposition supporter was quick to point out that according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, between 2008 and 2011 trade between the two countries fluctuated considerably. Israel’s exports to Malaysia peaked at USD798 million in 2010 while imports from Malaysia peaked in 2011 at USD93.6 million.
Although the preriod shown above shows the statistics was for the period between the end of Abdullah Badawi’s administration and the commencement of the Najib Razak administration, the flourish in trade could be traced back to the Mahathir administration. In December 1993, as a consequence of the Oslo I Accord, Mahathir wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
The photo of the letter may be a bit difficult to read but I shall provide the transcript here:
PRIME MINISTER, MALAYSIA
21 December 1993
His Excellency Mr Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel, JERUSALEM
I would like to thank you for your letter of 17 October informing me about the Agreement of Principles and Mutual Recognition between Israel and the PLO.
My government supports this positive development and views it as a first step towards the realization of a comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem. As a demonstration of Malaysia’s support to this development my country was represented at the Donor’s Conference to support The Middle East Peace held in Washington and subsequently pledged a modest financial contribution to the Palestinians to assist in their new tasks. My government has also offered the Palestinians technical assistance under the Malaysian Technical Cooperation Programme.
Malaysia as a matter of general principle is prepared to develop relations with Israel at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we would like to see tangible progress in the implementation of the peace agreement.
The Middle East problem particularly the Palestinian issue has been a cause of instability to the region and I hope the recent agreement between Israel and PLO would contribute to lasting peace to the area.
I look forward to normal relations with Israel.
DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
I intentionally made bold the last line because, while the rest of the content which, obviously was drafted by someone else, Mahathir wrote that bold part saying he looked forward to normal relations with Israel himself. Yes, it was handwritten.
In the most recent diplomatic history, Obama wished to have normal relations with Cuba. Diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba was subsequently restored. The following year, PKR’s Chua Jui Meng, who was the then-Deputy Minister of International Trade and Industry, suggested that Israel could eventually become a destination for Malaysia’s investments (Shanti Nair, Routledge, 1997 p.252).
As a result, in 1999 Israeli exports to Malaysia totalled USD107 million. In 2000, it was USD732 million, and USD615.5 million the following year. In 2002, the Israel Ministry of Industry report on trade relations with Indonesia and Malaysia advised Israelis interested in conducting business with Malaysian companies that “there is no opposition to trade and commerce relations as long as a low profile is kept“.
Discretion is essential for these companies, not just in Malaysia but also in Indonesia. Reputation and financial damage are the risks for companies in these two countries if they are known to be doing trade with Israel. According to Emanuel Shahaf, the vice chairman of the Israel-Indonesia Chamber of Commerce, “There are two contradictory trends. The pro trend is that Indonesia demands more high-tech things… The negative trend is the political situation is not getting better (when it comes to Israel), in fact it’s getting worse.”
Mukhriz tweeted “Upon request from large foreign investors here, in 1996 the Cabinet instructed MITI to approve import from and export to Israel.” The relevation came as a surprise, especially as the trade ties were established during the Mahathir administration. Mahathir has been a vocal opponent of Israel and continues to project this false stand via his Perdana Leadership Foundation which openly opposes Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Najib took over from Abdullah only in 2009.
So, thank you Mahathir for his eagerness to start a diplomatic relationship with Israel in 1993.
Congratulations also to the Opposition states as they received a lot of FDI from Israeli companies. Don’t forget to thank Mukhriz for that information and confirmation.
It is bad enough that there is a large number of non-Malays who do not have good command of the Malay language despite it being the National Language, and despite this nation’s being in existence for 60 years, but nothing can be worse than Malays who do not understand the language themselves.
Left-leaning media have been slamming the speech by UMNO Vice-President Hishammuddin Hussein, who is also the Defence Minister, on the so-called deployment to Jerusalem in response to President Trump’s recognition of the city as Israel’s capital.
“The international conflict in Jerusalem is a political issue. It is best left to diplomacy to sort out this historical mess. If diplomacy fails, the next course of action can be international condemnation. Blindly making a declaration to commit our troops is unwise,” he said.
“I would like to know who authorised Hishammuddin to prepare the army to be deployed in the Middle-East? Was there a special session of parliament on this matter for the matter to be debated?” asked DAP’s P Ramasamy.
You can see how this issue is being played in Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported it as:
Whereas, in relatively sober Malaysian media it reads as:
However, if one were to listen to the speech made by Hishammuddin, nowhere in the speech did he mention about committing the troops to defend Jerusalem. All he said was if the need arises, if the King as The Commander-in-Chief decrees it, then the Malaysian Armed Forces is always ready to contribute in any manner. You can listen to the part where this is mentioned from 18:19 to 19:47 of the following video:
The issue also sparked a debate between myself and a fellow defence blogger Danny Liew versus two of his Facebook followers who criticised the speech saying that our troops are not ready nor trained for desert warfare.
The truth is, our troops have had its fair share of desert operations that started off with the UNIIMOG mission of 1988-1991 to monitor the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq after a lengthy war. This was followed by UNTAG in Namibia (1989-1990), a country named after the vast Namib Desert that makes up the most of its countryside. We still maintain our presence in the Western Sahara as part of MINURSO and we have been there since 1991. We were deployed to monitor the Kuwait/Iraq border as part of UNIKOM, after the first Gulf War and were there from 1992 to 2003. Don’t also forget that we were in Somalia from 1993 to 1994 as part of UNISOM, and this was where we saw full combat rescuing US troops from their disastrous unilateral operation at the Bakaara Market. We have been deployed in South Lebanon as part of UNIFIL since 2007. And we are part of Exercise North Thunder in Saudi Arabia as part of the International Military Alliance To Fight Terrorism (IMAFT), a coalition that was formed to combat Da’esh. You may read more about that HERE.
The NPA picks and chooses its quarrels, and the quarrels are mainly with the government despite Arshad Raji having said that they are apolitical. But the apolitical nature of the NPA is the same as that of BERSIH. It never attacks the Opposition.
The NPA also claims to be loyal to the Rulers Institution and the Country. Yet, they only provided deafening silence when U-Turn Mahathir and DAP’s running dog Zaid Ibrahim were rude towards the Sultan of Johor and Sultan of Selangor. So, what are they patriotic about? Supporting a DAP-led coalition to form the next government?
Maybe their pension is not enough to support them.
“Was this an inadvertent snub to Mahathir? After all, the British are known to have a wicked sense of humour.
Thatcher and Mahathir had little in common. Their acquaintance started by air-craft landing rights disputes, the dawn raid on Guthrie companies in the London stock exchange, the tin corner scandal and university fee increases for Malaysian students to the UK. Despite Mahathir’s “Buy British Last” call, he conducted secret deals with Thatcher which culminated in the Pergau Dam scandal.
Thatcher, despite her unpopularity, was quick to defend those territories under British control. Her decision to send troops to defend the Falkland Islands in 1982 against an Argentinian invasion, and the subsequent British victory, made her a hero and instilled patriotism.
The same cannot be said of a prime minister who gave out several hundred thousand identity cards to foreigners, in Sabah, in exchange for votes.
British prime ministers like Thatcher, rarely interfere in politics once they have retired from public office. Mahathir has remained active in politics to the detriment of the caretaker prime minister.
Both Thatcher and Mahathir had humble origins with fathers who told them to work hard to succeed. On her resignation, Thatcher made millions, legitimately, from giving public lectures on both the local and international circuits.
Mahathir is allegedly a multi-billionaire and his children have benefited from allegedly dodgy deals emanating from his time as prime minister.
During Thatcher’s funeral, the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, gave a sermon in which he related the story of a nine-year-old boy, David Liddelow, who had written to Thatcher about Jesus. David asked Thatcher, “Last night when we were saying prayers, my daddy said everyone has done wrong things except Jesus. I said I don’t think you have done bad things because you are the prime minister. Am I right or is my daddy?”
Thatcher was known for her ability to reach out to the young and she replied to say that David had posed a “difficult question” but that she would “try to answer it”.
In a handwritten letter she said, “However good we try to be, we can never be as kind, gentle and wise as Jesus. There will be times when we do or say something we wish we hadn’t done and we shall be sorry and try not to do it again…
“As prime Minister, I try very hard to do things right and because Jesus gave us a perfect example I try even harder. But your father is right in saying that we can never be as perfect as He was.”
Contrast this with a letter written by another 10-year-old English boy, Darrel Abercrombie, to Mahathir in 1987. The letter has been mentioned in articles in “The Star” and “Sin Chew Jit Poh”. Darrel had requested Mahathir to stop logging activities in Malaysia because he wanted to study animals in the tropical rainforests when he grew up.
In a lengthy three-page typed document, Mahathir said: “It is disgraceful that you should be used by adults for the purpose of trying to shame us because of our extraction of timber from our forests.
“The timber industry helps hundreds of thousands of poor people in Malaysia. Are they supposed to remain poor because you want to study tropical animals? Is your study more important than filling the stomachs of poor people? Are Malaysians expected to lose millions of pounds so that you can study animals?
“If you don’t want us to cut down our forests tell your father to tell the rich countries like Britain to pay more for the timber they buy from us… I hope you will tell the adults who made use of you to learn all the facts. They should not be too arrogant and know how best to run a country…”
I have written on how racist Lim Kit Siang is in Part 1 dan Part 2 prior to this final part.
Lim Kit Siang is not only a racist, he was also against any attempt by the government to counter communist revolutionary ideology.
Two days prior to the 3rd General Elections (1969), Kit Siang held a press conference to accuse his now right-hand man Christopher Ross Lim’s stepfather as “Lying Education Minister.” Christopher Ross Lim now uses the name Zairil Khir Johari. No “bin (Arab for ‘son of’)”.
Kit Siang accused the Alliance government then of enrolling Malaysia into the World Anti-Communist League, an accusation denied by Khir Johari.
Question: why did Kit Siang slam the government even if it was true that Malaysia had joined the World Anti-Communist League?
Answer: the Opposition at that time was teemed with members and sympathisers of the Communist Party of Malaya.
A month before that, on 24 April 1969, an UMNO worker, Encik Kassim bin Omar, who was on his way home after the end of campaign hours for the day was stopped by Opposition supporters as he passed the Datuk Keramat section of Pulau Pinang and brutally murdered. His face was smeared with red paint used to paint anti-government slogans by the Opposition supporters. This is among the reasons long campaign periods can be detrimental to public safety and order.
Since July 1968, that is a month after the commencement of the Second Malaysian Emergency (second armed uprising by the Communist Party of Malaya) that ended 21 years later, Kit Siang fired up racial hatred among the Opposition supporters.
Among the events of incitements that he did were:
On 27 July 1968, at a DAP rally in Tanjung Malim, Perak, Kit Siang on purpose twisted the facts of the National Education Policy by telling the audience that the policy had been designed to eradicate the Chinese newspapers, Chinese schools as well as the Chinese language.
On 24 August 1968, at a rally in Slim River, Perak, Kit Siang intentionally twisted the facts of the policy on the National Language to raise suspicion of and hatred for the Malays .
On 7 September 1968, at a DAP rally at KM38, Jalan Sungai Besi, and on 21 September 1968, at the Sungai Way new village, Kit Siang intentionally incited hatred towards the Malays and the Government by slandering MCA accusing the party of assisting a Malay government to eradicate the Chinese language by not recognising the Nanyang University project.
On 29 September 1968, at a DAP rally in Batu Pahat, Johor, 2 November 1968, in Lawan Kuda Bahru, Gopeng, Perak, and on 26 January 1969, at Jalan Yow, Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang incited hatred by informing the audience that the government’s policies are racist policies by giving priority to the Bumiputera to enter the public universities, automatically placing the other races as second-class citizens.
On 12 February 1969, at a DAP rally held at Jalan Lengkongan Brunei, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang once again incited racial sentiments by telling the audience that the Government has shown its racist character by giving priority to the Malays to enter public universities, giving government jobs and distribution of land.
What Kit Siang did not tell any of his audience is that even in government posts (except for the Malaysian Armed Forces), the percentage of non-Malays in the civil service far surpassed the number of Malays as evident in the excerpt from the National Operations Council’s (MAGERAN) White Paper below:
It is evident that Kit Siang’s racist and agitative character has never diminished till today. The General Election was conducted on Saturday 10 May 1969. The Alliance party (UMNO, MCA and MIC) won 66 seats, 23 lesser than in the 2nd General Election while the Opposition won 54.
At 5.30pm, 11 May 1969, DAP held a victory parade without police permit that comprised of five cars and 15 motorcycles that started from Brickfields towards Jalan Lornie (now Jalan Syed Putra).
When they passed in front of the Brickfields Police Station (now demolished), the mostly Chinese participants shouted:
“What can the police do? We are the rulers! Throw out all the Malay policemen!“
At 10pm on the same day, while parading in front of the Jalan Travers Police Station, they shouted:
“Death to the Malays! Sakai (derogatory term for aborigines) go back to the jungle!“
The same insults were hurled at policemen on duty when they again passed the Brickfields Police Station.
At the same time at Changkat Thamby Dollah near the old Pudu Jail (behind Berjaya Times Square), about 40 Opposition supporters shouted:
“Kuala Lumpur belongs to the Chinese!“
On the next day, Monday 12 May 1969, 500 scooters rode by Opposition supporters passed Jalan Ipoh, Jalan Parlimen, Jalan Gombak, Jalan Raja Laut before returning to Jalan Ipoh shouting at every Malay person they encounter:
“The Malays are now powerless. Now we are in control!“
When this convoy arrived at the threshold of Kampung Bahru, they shouted to the Malays:
“Malays get out! Why are you still here? We’ll beat you up! Now we are bigger (more powerful)!“
At night, more insults and abuses were hurled at Malay policemen on duty:
“Mata-Mata Lancau! (Penis Constables)”
“Butoh Melayu! Pergi matilah! (Fuck the Malays! Go and die!)“
I did not make all the stuff above up. You can read them in the MAGERAN report as per the images below:
Where was Lim Kit Siang when abuses and insults were hurled at the Malays in Kuala Lumpur?
Lim Kit Siang on the morning of Tuesday 13 May 1969 was ready to flee to Kota Kinabalu so that he would not be in Kuala Lumpur if any untoward incident was to happen.
The moment he arrived in Kota Kinabalu he immediately went to a DAP public rally in Kampung Air. Sabah was scheduled to vote on the 25 May 1969 and Sarawak on 7 June 1969. In Kota Kinabalu he not only incited hatred towards the Malays but also towards the religion of Islam.
He told the audience that the Government was trying to create a Malay Malaysia by dividing the rakyat into Bumiputera dan Non-Bumiputera. He also lied by saying that the Government wants to turn the Sabah Government into a Malay Government. He also incited hatred towards Islam by saying that the Government would send Malaysians including non-Muslims (including Sabah Christians) to fight and die in the Middle East to help other OIC members to free Jerusalem from the clutches of Israel.
That is how racist and despicable Lim Kit Siang is as well as the DAP that he leads. Almost 48 years have passed since 13 May 1969, Kit Siang is still attacking what he calls the ‘Malay’ government. Back then, the Malays were united in protecting their rights that have been in existence way before the arrival of Lim Kit Siang’s ancestors – rights that have been agreed upon by representatives of all the Nation’s races and enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Unfortunate for us now there are those who claim that they are Malays but forget easily. Now this traitor and his worshippers stick a straw up Lim Kit Siang’s rear orifice and suck up to the DAP Supremo.