A flight of B-52 bombers from the USAF flew around Second Thomas Shoal and Mischief Reef in the Spratlys and were quickly challenged by Chinese Air Traffic Controller during the weekend of the 8th and 9th November 2015.
US PACAF released the transcript of the exchange between the bombers and the Chinese ATC and was reproduced by Alert 5 and are as follows:
Chinese ATC: “You have violated my reef. Change your course to avoid misjudgement.”
Chinese ATC: “You have violated the security of my reef. Change course to avoid misjudgment.”
Reply from the B-52: “I’m a United States military aircraft conducting lawful activities in international waters, and exercising these rights as guaranteed by international law. In exercising these rights as guaranteed by international law, I am operating with due regard to the right and duties of all states.”
China has been making de facto claims on the Spratlys by doing reclamation works on reefs that include the construction of airfields and enforcing its “Nine-Dash Line” policy all the way into Malaysian Exclusive Economic Zone. Being the sole regional Big Brother China has been flexing its muscle against its smaller neighbours economically and militarily. China’s runway at Fiery Cross reef has a runway that could land a H-6G bomber that could operate 5,700 kilometres from a home base, not to mention Shenyang J-11 fighters that could operate within a radius of 1,400 kilometres. Malaysia is now within a 45-minute strike distance.
As if that is not enough, the threat if asymmetric warfare from Sulu in the southern Philippines is also a clear and present danger. On the 15th November 2015, the Abu Sayyaf was reported to have met with elements from the IS to conduct terrorist attacks in Malaysia. The Abu Sayyaf is also notorious fir the kidnappings of westerners and Malaysians alike.
RMAF assets involved in Ex Paradise 2/15 – photo by Marhalim Abas
With the above in mind, the Royal Malaysian Air Force conducted and concluded Exercise Paradise 2/15 from the 9th until the 20th November 2015. With the objective to test its combat readiness and capabilities in the Second Air Region, the RMAF deployed assets such as the F/A-18D Hornet, Su-30MKM Flanker, BAe Hawk, 108/208, C-130H-30 transport aircraft, KC-130 tankers, CN-235 transport aircraft, helos such as the Sikorsky S61A4 Nuri and the Eurocopter EC725 and also involved the RMAF Special Forces regiment. The Malaysian Army’s 10th Brigade (Para) provided a team of air despatchers.
A RMAF F/A-18D Hornet from No.18 Squadron – pic by Capt Rahmat
Up until the 18th November 2015, a total of 198 air sorties had been flown. During the Field Training Exercise (FTX) RMAF assets successfully conducted Air to Ground firing exercises as well as Air Drop operations and insertion of special forces elements to support ground operations.
During the War Exercise (WAREX), the assets were then combined for Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR), High-Value Air Asset Protection (HVAAP), Combined Air Operations (COMAO), Mixed Fighter Force Operation (MFFO) and Large Force Employment (LFE).
According to Exercise Chairman, Major General Dato’ Mohd Shabre bin Haji Hussein RMAF, the exercise achieved more than 90 percent of its objectives in accordance with the Scenarios of Exercise (SOE) and was a success.
The media was also invited to witness the exercise in a bid by the Ministry of Defence as well as the RMAF in educating the media, and in turn the public, on the capabilities of the RMAF and the importance of public support towards the Malaysian Armed Forces in general.
Members of media had the privilege to take part in a Aircraft Force Down exercise involving fighter and transport assets.
Members of the media experiencing aircraft force down procedures in a side-exercise – photo by Fadzli Hafiz
In an observation by this writer, the Ministry of Defence has to seriously look at beefing up the assets of both the Royal Malaysian Air Force as well as the Royal Malaysian Navy. The Chinese government gets away with murder in the South China Sea simply because Malaysia lacks effective deterrence. The RMAF for example should be equipped with AWACS aircraft as well as the still-elusive MRCA.
A KC-130 tanker leading a formation of F/A-18Ds, Su-30MKMs and Bae Hawks – photo by MINDEF
This writer opines that in line with the principles of force projection, MRCAs should also be based in Labuan in sufficient numbers to deter the advance of PLAAF and PLAN assets, while the Hawks concentrate especially in providing air support for the ESSZONE by having forward operating bases in Tawau and Lahad Datu or Sandakan. Without strong deterrence, Malaysia will never be able to have diplomatic bargainjng power against any larger forces in the region.
Almost three years ago the nation witnessed the slaughter of several police officers and men by a bunch of low-life thugs from the Southern Philippines, men of the self-proclaimed Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III landed in Kampung Tanduo in Lahad Datu and demanded for the return of Sabah to the Sultanate.
The women above lost their husband and their children have lost forever a normal life.
Treachery must run deep in Anwar’s family. On the 9th November 2015, his daughter and MP for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah, went to lend her support to Jacel Kiram, daughter if the now rotting Jamalul Kiram III. Talk about insensitivity! Jacel Kiram still claims that Sabah belongs to Sulu.
To add insult to injury, DAP’s Teresa Kok had this to say to reporters about Nurul Izzah’s visit:
The visit is not serious, she said, and the events that took place at Kampung Tanduo is a bit of an old story.
I hope she could tell China to now stop asking for an apology from the Japanese, and that the Jews should forget the Holocaust ever happened.
Whoever votes for these MOs again ought to be castrated and raw iodine poured on their wound.
Tiada Akta Parlimen yang menamatkan atau menyekat penggunaan bahasa Inggeris bagi apa-apa maksid yang disebut dalam Fasal (2) hingga (5) Artikel 152 boleh mula berkuatkuasa berkenaan dengan penggunaan bahasa Inggeris dalam Fasal (2) Perkara ini sehingga sepuluh tahun selepas Hari Malaysia.
Malangnya, dalam video yang kita saksikan sebentar tadi, Ahli Parlimen DAP tersebut tidak menyebut mengenai had sepuluh tahun selepas Hari Malaysia, iaitu pada 16 haribulan September 1973. Sebaliknya, bekiau berkeras menyatakan bahawa ianya menjadi hak beliau sebagai orang Sarawak untuk terus menggunakan bahasa Inggeris di dalam sidang Parlimen.
Setelah Hari Malaysia 1973, iaitu tamatnya perlindungan hak sepuluh tahun berbahasa Inggeris, Akta Bahasa Kebangsaan 1963/67 (semakan 1971) secara automatik berkuatkuasa di seluruh Persekutuan Malaysia. Ini bermakna bahasa penghantar rasmi bagi Sabah dan Sarawak juga adalah Bahasa Malaysia. Walau bagaimanapun, Seksyen 5 Akta tersebut memberi kelonggaran untuk seseorang Ahli Parlimen mahupun Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri dari Sabah dan Sarawak untuk berucap dalam bahasa Inggeris di dalam majlis Parlimen tetapi dengan izin Speaker Dewan. Ianya bukan lagi suatu hak mutlak. Sekiranya tidak diizinkan oleh Speaker Dewan maka setiap Ahli Parlimen mahupun Dewan Undangan Negeri hendaklah menggunakan Bahasa Kebangsaan. Malah Akta tersebut dipinda semula pada tahun 1983 dan diperluaskan lagi.
Saya berasa hairan akan kedegilan pihak DAP yang terus menggunakan bahasa Inggeris sedangkan tidak berapa lama dahulu mereka memperjuangkan penggunaan Bahasa Kebangsaan dalam Kitab Injil malah tetap dengan pendirian mereka bahawa penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam kitab Injil adalah sebahagian dari ajaran Kristian yang tidak boleh diabaikan.
Oleh kerana mereka kini berkeras ingin gunakan bahasa Inggeris di dalam Parlimen, adakah ini juga bermaksud kalimah Allah tiada lagi kepentingan dalam perjuangan DAP?
Ini bukan kali pertama Ahli Parlimen Kuching daripada parti DAP ini mempersenda dan mempertikai apa yang termaktub dalam perlembagaan dan bersuara bagai menanam kebencian terhadap Malaysia.
Pada 17 September tahun lalu, Chong menganggap lagu kebangsaan Negaraku sebagai memalukan dan mengarut sebelum meminta maaf.
M&Ms are nice. They melt in your mouth, not in your hands. Easy to swallow. Not so the M&M that are being referred to in this latest article posted by Sin Chew .
Muhyiddin isn’t new in the arena of backstabbing. He was rescued by Mahathir in 1995 after he fell out of favour with the then-Sultan of Johor when he was the Menteri Besar of Johor. Mahathir had him switch posts with Ghani Othman who was then the Minister for Culture, Youth and Sports.
He quickly aligned himself with Anwar Ibrahim whose meteoric rise to the Deputy Premier’s post was orchestrated by none other than Mahathir himself. So confident was Muhyiddin then that he announced to several reporters that “when Anwar becomes the PM, I will be his deputy.”
When Anwar fell out of favour with Mahathir, Muhyiddin immediately abandons Anwar and pledged allegiance to Mahathir while another close ally of Anwar then, Zahid Hamidi, languished in a cell of the Kamunting detention center under the ISA courtesy of Mahathir.
The Master of Backstabbing however isn’t Muhyiddin. He should remember, he is not the second person who thinks that the MM thing stands for Mahathir-Muhyiddin. Mahathir’s one-time deputy, Musa Hitam found that out the hard way.
Mahathir and Musa was thought to have forged a concrete partnership that made UMNO formidable. MM, people thought meant Mahathir-Musa. Both once were presented with a motorcycle each bearing the plate number MM1 and MM2 respectively. But a journalist once asked Mahathir what MM meant and he replied, “Mahathir Mohamad.”
Anwar too was almost certain of becoming the PM. Before he became DPM, Anwar used to go horseback riding with Mahathir,something the elder politician still does even when he is abroad in Argentina. When Anwar ousted Ghafar Baba, Mahathir said to his younger apprentice, “No more horseback riding, Anwar. It would be a security risk for us to be together.” Of course, in private Mahathir said something to the effect that “we might have a Brutus in the party.”
Mahathir ousted Musa, blocked Razaleigh, did nothing to help Ghafar Baba, ousted Anwar, and finally ousted Abdullah Badawi as the Prime Minister, reportedly with the help of Muhyiddin. Abdullah was too nice a man. Now he tries to get rid of Najib come what may.
Mahathir would oust anyone who disagrees with him as the puppet-master. Muhyiddin would likely face the same fate if he had become the PM. And when he doesn’t get things to go his way, he plucks stories from the sky and feeds them to thr masses, creating panic and distrust of the Najib administration. The universe, he thinks, must revolve around him.
3,228 years ago, someone with that similar thinking, that the world revolves around him, ruled Egypt with an iron fist, and lived as long as Mahathir is now.
And for someone who “gate-crashed” the “Nothing To Hide” program a few months ago because he was interested to speak out on behalf of the “oppressed” rakyat, I find it amusing that Mahathir did not take the opportunity to question Arul Kanda at this morning’s event where Arul explained and took questions on the 1MDB issue.
It is true then that he never had any evidence on 1MDB. And he is only interested in hoodwinking the rakyat to serve his interests, and those of his cronies.
I am not defending the minister but I would like these people to not behave like zombies, inattentive to their surroundings.
Don’t be like this man who blabs aimlessly and as admitted, without a scintilla of evidence to back his claims, yet zombies still believe him:
Let me point you to a video of the press conference and see for yourself if the minister had asked you zombies to wake up early if you don’t want to pay tolls – clique ici please.
Mahathir seems to have a lot to say, mostly without substance, and as he recently admitted, without evidence to put his money where his mouth is. This is Miss Lim Sian See’s take on the whiny old man’s latest post:
There’s a new blog post from Chedet today.
Tun M is still intent on defending his two MACAIs, the selfie-fan Khairuddin Abu Hassan and hunger-strike-until-death-fan Matthias Chang from charges of sabotage.
I wonder if Tun M knows what documents did both of them give to the foreign countries’ agencies – something which Khairuddin himself admitted he has done?
Were they real OSA documents from govt or were they faked ones?
If both of them gave confidential Malaysian govt documents to foreign agencies, is it a crime?
if both of them gave fake documents to foreign agencies, is it a crime?
Anyway, Chedet ended his blog post with this:
“Since it was Najib who created 1MDB, borrow 42 billion Ringgit and invested the money and losing it, Najib should also be charged with sabotage.
Alternatively everyone, from the initial set-up of 1MDB to the borrowing, to the newspaper reporters and the reports to the police should all be charged with sabotage of Malaysia’s financial and banking systems.”
I am not sure RM42b was completely “lost” as Tun M said. If lost then how did Arul and 1MDB recover it?
And if RM42b was lost or billions were lost, how come two top international auditing companies could not detect such losses for five straight years? They useless is it?
I am also not sure you can say that newspaper reporters reporting on 1MDB can be considered the same as passing real or fake confidential govt documents to foreign countries and hence should also be arrested.
Anyway, what do I know? I am not “anugerah allah” PM for 22 years hence my logic will not match his.
But, if Tun M still needs further clarification that RM42b did not lesap, perhaps he should also participate in the upcoming Arul-Tony Pua debate/live talk show and ask questions too.
If don’t want to show face and participate, you can always WhatsApp your questions to Tony to ask on your behalf.
1MDB being settled and debts being wiped out on schedule- hence it seems Arul now has time to come out to debate Tony Pua and even went on a full 1 hour Q&A with the assembled press last Saturday.
As a side-note, it is interesting to see that his continued rants on his blog is no longer as popular.
Previously, for almost a day after a new post was posted, you would have difficluty accessing his blog due to high traffic.
Now, it’s really super-fast: Here: http://chedet.cc/?p=1904
Maybe Mahathir should just have a debate with Arul Kanda once and for all.
I cannot really make out what Tony Pua really is. What, not who. Either he is showing one of the early signs of dementia, or he truly is a retard.
Mr Puaka, as he is fondly referred to with a hint of sarcasm on social media, mentioned to the press that the DAP should contest in all the now-defunct Pakatan Rakyat seats held by former partner, PAS. That has brought about negative responses from PAS office-holders who still cling to the past and forgetting that DAP has welcomed PAS splinter-group PAN, as its partner in the recently announced Pakatan Harapan that has replaced the Pakatan Rakyat (except in Selangor).
The only reason for the Pakatan Rakyat to still exist in Selangor is because the Menteri Besar, Azmin Ali, knows if PAS is excluded then he would have to face the possibility of being ousted from office by the real holders of Selangor political power – the DAP. That is why I used the term Pakartun to describe the loose political cooperative.
Of course Mr Puaka talks big only when he is in Selangor, or when protected by immunity in Parliament.
Puaka has been using his privilege as a member of the Public Accounts Committee to hit out at 1MDB’s Arul Kanda. He dared Arul Kanda to an open forum or debate bit received no response from the latter. Now that Arul has turned around and accepted the debate challenge without terms and conditions, Mr Puaka has seemed to chicken out, giving all sorts of excuses not to debate, including saying:
“It should be a question-and-answer session and not a debate because I am asking the questions. There’s nothing for him (Arul) to ask me.”
He said the above to Pakartun’s unofficial media, Malaysiakini.
Like I said, I don’t know what to make out of Mr Puaka. He surely suffers from short-term memory loss. It was he who dared Arul Kanda to an open debate, but now wants to protect himself from being scrutinised by the latter. Lest we forget:
He is a bright spark from the DAP. Therefore he can’t be suffering from dementia. But it sure proves that he is nothing but a yellow-bellied, milksop!
N.B: for some reason I can hyperlink the NST story on Puaka and PAS but cannot hyperlink Malaysiakini’s story. So you can copy the URL here and paste into your browser’s address bar.
Sir William Jervois (seated) with JWW Birch standing to his left, and Frank A Swettenham right most by the staircase
Delegation of Authority
141 years ago Perak became the first sovereign state in the Malay peninsula to come into a treaty with the British for the latter to provide the former with protection, while the former has the “right” to interfere in the internal administration of the state – by the appointment of a Resident or Adviser to the Sultan, on the payroll of the Sultan, and whose “advice” must be asked and “acted upon” in all matters other than the ones affecting the Malay religion and custom (C.D Cowan, 1961; Emily Sadka, 1968; Eunice Thio, 1969). Between 1874 and 1930, similar but not identical treaties were signed with the other Sultans and Head of States. The treaties notwithstanding, the Sultans and Head of States remain the sovereign ruler of their respective sovereign state. De facto however, the British assumed the unstated “right” to administer the states as well with the exception of Kelantan through the Kelantan Treaty of 1910 (signed in Kota Bharu on 22 October 1910) when the government of King George V undertook not to interfere in the “internal administration” of the state or to curtail the “administrative authority” of the Ruler.
Sovereignty of the Rulers
Although the Rulers had divested much of their independence, both they and their state remained sovereign. Independence is not equal to sovereignty. As a principle of international law, sovereignty denotes, in its purest form, the concept of a ‘supreme authority’ be it an individual or a collective unit and implied power to exercise independence both internationally and domestically. Paradoxically, inherent in this conception of sovereignty is the possibility that the sovereign state could also impose limits on its own independence without suffering a diminution of its inherent sovereignty (L Oppenheim, 1928 pp 135 and 250; Albert Lau, 1991). In other words, the Anglo-Malay treaties in no way compromised the de jure sovereignty of the Malay Rulers.
There were three test cases to determine the sovereignty of the Rulers and the State they ruled:
The infamous Mighell v Albert Baker a.k.a Mighell v The Sultan of Johore (1894) which I have also covered in a previous article when the issue of the Ruler’s immunity as a sovereign was raised in an English court, it was ruled that, although the Sultan by treaty had bound himself not to exercise some of the rights of a sovereign ruler, this did not deprive him of his character as an independent sovereign.
In Duff Development Company Limited v The Government of Kelantan (1924), the House of Lords similarly upheld the sovereignty of Kelantan and its Ruler was not intended to be qualified by the terms of the treaty.
In Pahang Consolidated Company Limited v State of Pahang (1933), the Privy Council summarised the constitutional position in Pahang as follows: subject to the limitations which the Sultan had from time to time imposed upon himself, he remained ‘an absolute ruler in whom resides all legislative and executive power.’ (See, 1894; Q.B 1924; A.C and M.L.J)
The above implied that Britain could do nothing in these states contrary to the terms of the existing treaties. W. Ormsby-Gore, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies put it in 1928:
“Our (Britain’s) position in every State rests solemnly on treaty obligations….We neither have the right nor the desire to vary this system of government or to alter the type of constitution or administration that now obtains.”(W Ormsby-Gore report, 1928).
This was later echoed by Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister, the 1st Earl of Swinton and a prominent British Conservative politician, on 14 July 1933:
“There is no question at all of altering in any degree, even by a comma, the Treaties which bind us…and which are charters of the agreements with the Rulers both of the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.”
Interesting, however, is that the Colonial Office came close to discussing the deposition of two Sultans namely the Sultan of Johore (1906) and the Sultan of Terengganu (1919). In the case of the Sultan of Johore, the Colonial Office was told that unless Sultan Ibrahim of Johore complied with His Majesty’s Government’s wishes, he must “retire from the business altogether.” In 1914, Sultan Ibrahim was brought to task again for allowing conditions in Johore to deteriorate “to that which called for decided action in 1906” and warned that, unless the administration improved, “the only alternative is his removal from the State.” In 1919, Malayan officials, increasingly piqued by the obstructive nature of Sultan Muhammed of Terengganu, similarly recommended that “sufficient pressure” should be put on him to “compel his resignation.” (Minute by Lucas, 30 March 1906 CO 273/324 no. 10619; Young to Harcourt, 19 March 1914, CO 273/406 no. 13282; and report by J. Humphreys, 3 December 1919, CO 537/797 no. 5002).
Having said that, it frustrated the British that they had no jurisdiction whatsoever by virtue of the treaties signed, and a movement was initiated by Edward Gent, to change all that.
Willan’s Mission and the Malayan Union
Among the thorny problems of pre-WW2 Malay States is the question of the Chinese immigrants brought in by the British. In the Strait Settlements of Penang, Melaka and Singapore, they could be given the status of British Protected Persons. In both the Federated Malay States (FMS) and the Unfederated Malay States (UMS) the British have no jurisdiction to apply the same rule to them, nor are they citizens of their respective host state. As far as the Malay Rulers were concerned, only the Muslim Malays are their subjects, not those who are alien, non-native and are non-Muslims. The British tried to convince the Rulers and also by asking the Chinese to pledge loyalty to the Rulers. However, the Chinese were disinclined to accept the Malay Rulers as theirs.
The problem arose when in 1929 the Chinese government passed the Chinese Nationality Law stating that all persons of the Chinese race, wherever born, were considered as subjects of China. As such, the Chinese government could intervene in cases where the Chinese are not being fairly treated.
In 1911, the Malays made up 53% of the population. By 1931, they were already outnumbered and in 1941 formed only 41% of the population. The Chinese community was at 43%, displacing the Malays as the dominant racial group. The Malays were in a disadvantageous position and this proved explosive in 1946 during the Bekor tragedy. The Malays remained as the minority until 1970.
The only solution out of this is for the Chinese in the Malay states to be declared as British Protected Persons, but such move is against the treaties. To put this into effect, Malaya has to come under a federation or a union where power is central, and the Anglo-Malay Treaties be reviewed and replaced by a new one.
Following the Fall of Singapore on 15 February 1942, the British saw that it was no longer possible to return to the pre-war system as they had failed to provide the Malay states the protection from the Japanese. Edward Gent saw this as an opportunity to streamline all the Malay States and the Strait Settlements excluding Singapore under one administration to be based in Kuala Lumpur. A month after the Fall of Singapore, he set up a team to quickly work out a solution and framework even though it was still not known then how the war would end.
When the war ended, this plan was quickly put in place. Between 8 to 29 September 1945, the Deputy Chief Civil Affairs Officer of Malaya, HC Willan, accompanied by the Senior Civil Affairs Officer for Johor, Colonel MC Hay, made his way to the Pasir Pelangi palace and interviewed the Sultan Ibrahim. Having studied files and found proof of Sultan Ibrahim collaborating with the Japanese, his task was to assess the Sultan’s reception of the British. Not once, noted Willan, did Sultan Ibrahim hinted that the British had let him down by losing Johor. More remarkably, Sultan Ibrahim wrote to Colonel Hay the very next day intimated his willingness to “serve under the British Military Administration.” Willan opined that Johor would sign the new treaty.
Of all the Malay Rulers, only the Sultan of Perak proved difficult. Willan proposed that Johor, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang should be approached in that order to sign the revised treaty. Once the rest have signed, there would not be any reason for Perak not to sign. When Harold MacMichael arrived in Johor, Sultan Ibrahim offered no resistance although he produced a memorandum containing points relating to the Sultan’s personal prestige and the status of Johor reproduced as Annex I in MacMichael’s report – Albert Lau, 1991). This is the “1946 agreement” made in conjunction with the signing of the Malayan Union agreement between the government of Johor and the British Military Administration that has been played up in the social media of late as the Federated Malay States agreement of 1948 had yet to be formulated. Johor was the first state to submit to being colonised by the British.
As expected, Sultan Abdul Aziz of Perak became the stumbling block. For Sultan Abdul Aziz, the central issue was still sovereignty. He wrote:
“It is true that under the Treaties I was bound to accept the advice of the British Resident, but nevertheless I was a Sovereign in my State having power to assent or withhold assent to legislation. I am now invited to sit as a member at an Advisory Council with the Governor assuming the function which rightly belongs to me. Being a member of the Advisory Council with authority over the other States is a doubtful honour. I neither desire to have any influence over the other States nor welcome any other Ruler to have influence within my State.”
The Sultan was also further incensed that under the new agreement the Malays in Perak would no longer swear allegiance to him but to the Malayan Union, thus in effect reducing him to the position of a Sultan without subjects:
“All these facts tend to show that my sovereign rights are in real danger. You can well imagine my feelings. I have no status, no State and no subjects.”(Sultan Abdul Aziz to Alexander Newboult, 20 February 1946, CO 537/1548 no. 50823/34 Pt.1)
By the latter half of February 1946, there was more cohesiveness amongst the Rulers in going against the Malayan Union. The Rulers had tactically rallied behind an informal united front presided by the Sultans of Perak and Kedah. In a concerted display of solidarity, the Rulers of Perak, Kedah, Pahang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan jointly petitioned to defer the implementation of the new Malayan Union constitution until an independent commission had first visited the country and consulted local opinion. (Newboult to Hall, 22 February 1946, CO 537/1548 no. 50823/34 Pt.1).
The movement against the Malayan Union was born and so was UMNO. The discussions on the formation of the Federation of Malaya began with the British, the Rulers and UMNO taking part in the discussions.
Proposals for the Federation of Malaya Agreement
Epilogue
The Anglo-Malay treaties were left relatively intact with more power given to the people to effect some degree of self-governance, the Rulers continued with their ceremonial roles and duties. The Federation of Malaya came into effect on 1 February 1948, replacing the Malayan Union.
On 31 August 1957, the Federation of Malaya became independent, not from colonisation, but from feudalism. Executive powers that were given to the British have been given to the people of Malaysia to determine how they are to be governed and by whom. All agreements and treaties made between the Rulers and the British since 1874 became void. Professor Datuk Dr Ramlah Adam said all agreements inked during the British colonial period are considered void automatically after Aug 31, 1957.
“These issues are over. The powers of the Malay royalty are now included in the Federal Constitution.”
There is no more “state citizenship” but only “federation citizenship,” which makes Malaysians who they are irrespective of where they were born. The Federal Constitution too does not provide for any state to secede from the Federation. This was further enhanced in Sabah where the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 specifically says the state cannot secede.
Unsolicited remarks should not be made and the spirit of history has to be understood in order to understand why are we where we are, and why are we who we are. Such talks only put the sacrifices of our predecessors in vain.
Some may have forgotten this statement by Mahathir asking Sunni Muslims to accept Shiites.
While Shiites, like Sunnis, pray to Allah and recognise Muhammad as Allah’s Messenger, that is where the similarities end.
Seriously, I have no idea why did Mahathir come out with such statement, doing a one-eighty just 26 months after he aaid this:
This may all seem déjà vu to you as this issue has been mostly forgotten, but I haven’t. I sincerely think there is something really wrong with that dinosaur, and this is why:
The recent hike in toll prices have riled users up, including those who have no qualms about spending RM13.80 on a packet of Dunhill cigarettes daily; queued 30 hours for an iPhone 6s rose/gold version; and spend a ridiculous amount of money for Starbucks’s Macchiato Frap.
And they blame Najib for the increase on toll rates.
Virtually all the concessions agreement were signed during Mahathir’s time, and for some like the Maju Expressway, built by Abu Sahid, a good friend of Muhyiddin and crony of Mahathir, and the Senai Desaru Highway built by Ranhill’s Hamdan Mihamad were built in 2004. Both had their concession agreement signed before Mahathir stepped down. The Senai Desaru Highway had its Development Order signed in the late 1990s.
PLUS’s North South highway was built initialy by the government via Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia. Planned during Tun Hussein Onn’s time in 1977, it began construction in 1980, a year before Mahathir became the PM.
Between 1980 and 1985, the LLM built 366km or 41% of the proposed 823km of the highway at a cost of RM3.2 billion borne by the government.
In 1986, the whole project was transferred to UMNO-crony, Halim Saad’s UEM, despite being the most expensive bidder and having had no experience whatsoever in constructing highways.
In the end the highway was delivered two years late and the government then had to finance half of the RM3.5 billion budget.
Yes, our money for half of that RM3.5 billion budget. In fact, it was RM1.65 billion.
If you think that that was a bad deal, try swallowing this: we also now have to pay 30 years of toll, and also pay 10% of the bill every three years if tolls are not allowed to be increased. This is reminiscent of the rip-off IPP deal that Mahathir gave YTL that agreement has ended and not renewed by the Najib administration.
In 2011, Najib’s administration took over PLUS from private hands, restructured the deal and avoided future toll hikes. The government owns 51% of PLUS while 49% is owned by the EPF.
All the concession agreements are now no longer being subjected to the Official Secrets Act. I am sure there is a link somewhere where we can view these agreements and the terms given to the concessionaires. However, MEX has this far declined to open up its concession agreement and we must all call for the agreement to be made public as it affects us all.
This brings me to remember what Miss Lim Sian See wrote a few months ago:
Dear Siti Nurhaliza (always wanted to write to her), the PEMUDA UMNO, Pakatan leaders, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, Khairy Jamaluddin dan yang lain lan penyokong Tun Dr M,
If I may seek your passion again, sirs and madams,
The last few days, you people have demanded to seek the truth about the Tabung Haji land purchase from 1MDB as you say it is shameful, putting Haji money at risk, against Agama, etc – with a vengeance and with a vigor thus far unseen.
Now, Malaysia Insider (not always correct nor 100% truthful, I must admit) has bongkar certain Lembaga Tabung Haji deals that seems to be clear bail-outs of the Maju group that has actually caused losses of depositor money. http://tinyurl.com/lmuaz45
These are the allegations by Malaysia Insider (citing Wall Street Journal) regarding Tun M’s govt bailing out private companies using Tabung Haji Money.
1) 1996,- LTH invested RM67m with Maju Holdings project in Johor – only for the project to immediately run into trouble:
Total loss to Tabung Haji: RM67m
2) 1998 – LTH paid RM436.38 million to Maju Group for two then uncomplete properties valued at RM267.92 million.
Total loss to Tabung Haji: RM168.46m
Other allegations include: -The chairman of Tabung Haji then was Tun M’s brother in law, the late Tan Sri Ahmad Razali Mohamed Ali – a clear case of nepotism.
– Immediate upfront payment RM220 million for a building yet to start construction even though Treasury guidelines only allow maximum of RM5 million – which was 15% value of the construction work.
—-
Let me highlight the differences between the deals then and now for you:
1) MAJU HOLDINGS deals of he 1990s – Tabung Haji paid RM504 million to a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL COMPANY for assets professionally valued at RM267.92m – causing REAL LOSSES to TH of RM235.5m
2) 1MDB TRX deal of the 2015 – Tabung Haji paid RM188.5 million to a 100% GOVT-OWNED COMPANY for assets professionally valued at RM195 million (and secured further with another asset worth RM370m) . But will soon sell off at a PROFIT to TH for a few million.
See the difference?
Tun M time:
One is LOSSES to TH and payment by TH to a private company- money never to be recovered for assets worth less than half of what was paid.
Najib time:
One is PROFIT to TH and payment by TH to a 100% GOVT company – money – money that will immediately be recovered within a week for assets worth more than was paid.
`
I am just asking you all to be fair and use the same enthusiasm, venom and vigor to seek the kebenaran on the Tun M era deals.
You have asked MACC, AG, PDRM to investigate 1MDB and TH and Najib.
Just to be fair, can you please also ask MACC, AG (actually already investigated and found wrong-doing), PDRM to investigate Maju and TH and Tun M?
And if Tun M is guilty as accused (or refuses to answer) then please condemn him as much as you have condemned others and please never again side with him.
Also find out who is responsible but make sure you ask about the case where Tabung Haji lost money and not the one where it made money.
Please be fair and act fairly – or be considered hypocrite.
SeaDemon Says 
You must be logged in to post a comment.