Malaysia is prepared to negotiate with China over a dispute between them in the South China Sea, Bernama reported on Monday, citing Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
As we are all aware, China claims virtually all of the 3.5 million sq. km of the waters of the South China Sea. Other claimants include Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and the Philippines, while Indonesia is an affected party through China’s blatant and frequent incursions.
“China is also staking claim over the area. I said as a small country that needs oil and gas resources, we have to continue, but if the condition is that there must be negotiations, then we are ready to negotiate,” he said.
Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is determined by Article 57 of Part V of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that was adopted in 1982. A total of 167 countries and the European Union are parties, and that includes China.
Article 57 states that the breadth of the EEZ shall not exceed 200 nautical miles from the baselines that have been used to measure a country’s territorial waters. Our waters are very definitely more than 200 nautical miles from China’s baseline shores, in case the government, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whose advice the PM depends on, doesn’t know about our EEZ.
And only Malaysia has the sovereign right to explore and exploit, conserve and manage all the natural resources within its EEZ. Not any other country. Therefore by negotiating, are we not giving clout to China’s delusional nine-dash line?
Furthermore, there is a Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling made in the Philippines v China case in 2016 that has ruled against the latter’s claim over maritime areas within the nine-dash line. The Court ruled that China not only has China exceeded what is entitled under UNCLOS, but that China, among others, has no legal basis to claim rights to resources within the nine-dash line.
It is puzzling that the government does not know this, or has forgotten about it. I am surprised that it has also forgotten that the previous Pakatan Harapan administration in 2019 filed a formal submission to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, detailing information on the limits of its continental shelf, beyond its 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). China, as always, rejected Malaysia’s claim and asserted its sovereignty and rights in the South China Sea with vague and ambiguous arguments.
If China cannot respect our rights given to us through legal means, why should we even care about what they think of our waters? Or are we so hard up for them to turn the billions in MOUs from the PM’s recent visit there into contracts?
If that is the case, are we not selling off our sovereignty like during Najjb’s administration?
One of the functions and roles of the Malay Rulers is to safeguard the interests of the Malay and Bumiputera communities enshrined in the Federal Constitution. That is what HRH The Sultan of Selangor did when he voiced out against ICERD and liberalism.
The Malay precedence had always been the mantle of the British Residents. Frank Athelstane Swettenham, the first Resident-General of the Federated Malay States, saw himself as the patron to an heir (the Malays) who was in danger of losing his inheritance to the immigrant Chinese and Tamils. He wrote:
“The position he occupies in the body politic is that of the heir to the inheritance. The land is Malaya and he is the Malay. Let the infidel Chinese and evil-smelling Hindu from southern India toil, but of their work let some profit come to him.” (Sir Frank Swettenham, The Real Malay (London, 1899): pp. 37-40)
The economic situation of the Malays, pushed to the hinterland by the immigrants, became dire that they had to take loans from the chettiars putting their land as collateral. When even the interest could not be serviced, these lands were taken into possession by the moneylenders.
The Federated Malay States government intervened and introduced a series of legislations to curb the Chettiars’ operations, one of which was the Malay Reservations Enactment, 1913, which objective was “to provide means for preventing the passing of Malay landholdings into the possession of foreigners”(Frederick Belfield, Legal Adviser, FMS, Report for the Secretary of State on the FMS Enactment 15 of 1913).
In 1910, E.W Birch, the 8thResident of Perak, noted the need for such Enactment:
“It will mean that we shall free our peasantry from the clutches of those people who now remit to India the large sums of which they now bleed the people.”(Hastings Rhodes, Objects and Reasons, Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913, quoting a Minute by E.W Birch dated 7 September 1910; in Selangor Secretariat, File 3013/1912, Conf. File 10/1912).
Two constitutional changes were introduced in 1909, the establishment of a Federal Council, and the enactment to change the title Resident-Generalin the FMS to that of Chief Secretary.
The Governor responsible for these introductions, Sir John Anderson, said that the intention of these changes, in his words, was for“the full safeguarding of Malay interests.” (Proceedings of the Federal Council, FMS, 11 December 1909).
Sir Laurence Guillemard, High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States wrote:
“The moral is clear that real danger lies ahead if the Malays do not get their share of the benefit of the development of their own country.”(C.O 273, Vol 539, Laurence Guillemard to Secretary of State, 3 May 1927).
To put things in perspective, not only were the Malays left out economically, they were also already minorities in the Federated Malay States. According to the census of 1931, the population of the FMS comprised of a Chinese majority (41.5 percent), followed by Malays (34.7 percent), Indians (22.2 percent) while various other ethnic groups made up the remaining 1.6 percent (Loh Fook Seng, Malay Precendence and the Federal Formula in the Federated Malay States, 1909 to 1939, JMBRAS, Vol 45, 1972: p.48).
When the discussions for the independence of Malaya took place, the MCA which represented the interests of the Chinese community in Malaya, agreed for the continuation of Malay special privileges that was already being enjoyed by the Malays under the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 (Straits Times, 28 August 1956).
Even on the issue of making Mandarin a national language at par with Bahasa Melayu, the MCA Central Committee which debated the Alliance memorandum to the Reid Commission put the issue to a vote: 15 votes were against the recommendation that Mandarin be recognised as an official language, 14 voted for, 31 abstained (Straits Times, 28 August 1956).
Reid Commission was required by its terms of reference to “safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities” (CO 889/6, C.C. 2000/15, Summary record of Commission’s meeting, 27 August 1956).
The Constitutional Bill was then debated in the England’s House of Commons. Three amendments to the Bill was sought. The third proposed amendment pushed by Conservative MP Joan Vickers (Devonport) noted that the 15-year limit for Malay special rights recommended in the Reid Report was omitted from the Bill.
However, the majority felt that any eleventh-hour amendment could upset the political compromises embodied in the Constitution (Commons Debates, 19 July 1957, pp. 1590-1591). The Secretary of State concluded that any accepting of proposed amendments would result in the reopening of all issues on which agreement had already been reached (Ibid., pp. 1592-1594). Therefore, all the proposed amendments were rejected and the Federal Constitution of Malaya, as part of the Malayan Independence Bill, was adopted unchanged.
These special rights were then extended to the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak through Paragraph 62 of the Malaysia Agreement, 9 July 1963, pages 43 and 44. But this did not come easy. Many non-Bumiputera groups were opposed to the idea of according the natives of Sarawak with special rights.
A group from the Sarawak United People’s Party led by Ong Kee Hui had a contempt for the backwardness of the natives and had regarded their leaders as men of no consequences. This prompted the SUPP’s leader in Sibu Jonathan Bangau, an Iban, to resign.
The Ibans, however, told the Cobbold Commission that they were all for Malaysia and some even emphasised on the need for a speedy arrival of better education and development for the Iban community. In North Borneo, the only negative views were given by the British officials and expatriates as well as the rich (non-Bumiputera) local businessmen.
Both Donald Stephens (Chairman of the Committee of the North Borneo Alliance) and Stephen Kalong Ningkan (Secretary-General of the Sarawak Alliance) both accepted the Inter-Governmental Committee report. Sarawak Council Negri voted unanimously to adopt the report on 8 March 1963, while the North Borneo Legislative Council unanimously adopted the report on 13 March 1963.
The special rights of the Malays and the Bumiputeras are there to protect their interests so that they do not get swallowed whole in their own land. The Fijians learnt this the hard way when the Indo-Fijian (Indian descent) minority which numbered less than 40 percent of the population, dominated everything from government to economy, leaving the ethnic Fijians on the sideline.
If the rights of the Malays and the Bumiputeras that was agreed upon by our forefathers are now being questioned, should they now not ask for a better position for themselves? Perhaps a 70-percent equity and quota in everything from now on, or something even better?
I see several Sarawak-related pages claiming that no one, including the mainstream media, cares or has given coverage to the flood situation in Sarawak.
Comparing the response both the government and non-governmental organisations gave to the floods on Kelantan and Pahang to the ones now in Sarawak, the Sarawak-related pages say that there is very little that is being done by the Federal Government.
All Federal Government agencies in Sarawak have been put on flood watch standby as early as December 2017. This includes, but not limited to, the Army 1st Division, the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM), and the Fire and Rescue Services Department (FRSD).
The FRSD has been evacuating people from flooded areas, and in one particular instance, evacuated Suriah Bakar, 35, of Kampung Parong, Kota Marudu, who was in labour.
Prime Minister Najib Razak himself is constantly monitoring the flood situation in Sarawak and has promised to ensure that relief reaches all flood victims.
As at noon today (Thursday 8 Feb 2018), only five areas in three divisions in Sarawak have recorded water level above the Alert level. They are in the Miri, Bintulu and Kapit districts.
Only the Bintulu-Belaga road in Bintulu, and Long Jegan and Long Panai in Miri have water levels that are above the Danger level, while Ng Merurung in Kapit and Kuala Binyo in Bintulu have water levels that are above the Alert level.
The areas that are affected by the floods are Samarahan. Sarikei, Sibu, Serian, Bintulu, Mukah and Limbang.
While the Borneo Post has been actively updating the flood situations in Sarawak, Sarawakians complain that the Peninsular-based media, especially the electronic media, have not been giving ample coverage.
This is absolutely not true. Just yesterday I pointed to a Sarawakian friend URLs of mainstream media reports on the flood situations there, including the ones by NST, Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia.
BERNAMA and RTM have been airing the plight of Sarawak flood victims. Even the station most hated by the Opposition, TV3, has been consistently reporting on the flood situations in Sarawak, covering flood relief centers as well as the latest evacuation operation this morning by the Civil Defence Force (APM) involving a woman in labour at Klinik Entabai, in Julau, Sarikei.
Social Media and Floods Fever
As far as social media is concerned, there is very little that the ordinary Semenanjung folks can do. While we can start collection centers here, sending stuff over there would not be economical at all.
Whilst there have been many flooding in the Peninsular, I made myself available for three – the Johor floods of 2006-2007, the Pahang floods of 2013, and the Kelantan floods of 2014. Those were the flood disasters that Peninsular people got together and helped government agencies to provide assistance to flood victims.
In Johor, I provided assistance between Parit Botak and Rengit. In Pahang, I assisted Her Highness the Tengku Puan Pahang in the Kuantan and Pekan areas. In Kelantan, my former classmates and I brought supplies from Putrajaya to the hospitals in Gua Musang, Kuala Krai and Jeli.
In Johor back in 2006-2007, two waves of floods hit the state. In the first wave, 90,000 people were evacuated. Just when they thought it was safe to return home, a second wave struck and caused 109,831 people to evacuate.
In 2013 Pahang, 40,819 people were evacuated.
In 2014 Kelantan, more than 170,000 had to be evacuated. The scale of destruction that I saw with my own eyes in Gua Musang, Manek Urai and Kuala Krai was just beyond comprehension. Even Kuala Muda in the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami did not look as bad. Yes, I was there too in 2004 with a Malaysia Airlines aircraft captain friend (he now flies for Air Asia).
I took the above photo at Kampung Bukit Tebuk near Chiku while on the way from Kuala Krai to Gua Musang on 31 December 2014 because I saw this man at the Manek Urai relief center queuing for food for his family earlier in the morning. At this point he had walked 14 kilometres to get home.
Pulau Pinang in November 2017 saw 71,294 people evacuated. This was when Lim Guan Eng was seen crying for help…literally.
In comparison, the total number of evacuees in Sarawak as of last night was 4,859 people. It is a number that is still very manageable by the state government and its NGOs.
I have not seen any NGO in Sarawak running a donation campaign to collect cash and kind for flood victims there. If there is such a fund I am sure people in Malaya (a term fondly used by Sarawakians for Peninsular people which isn’t a nice term) would be glad to chip in. After all, I have relatives in Samarahan, Kuching, Miri, and friends working on the Pan Borneo Highway project that are affected by the floods.
Nor do I see throngs of 4X4 vehicles (which happens to be in abundance in Sarawak) carrying relief items to affected areas like it was done in the Peninsular.
How can anyone start anything if the Sarawakians themselves don’t do anything for fellow Sarawakians? I promise not to ask how many Sarawakians actually donated to flood victims and relief missions in Kelantan, Pulau Pinang, Johor and Pahang. To where should we Malayans send our donations to?
So, the feverish pace you saw in the Peninsular was because of the magnitude of the floods and the destruction they caused. The absence of any social media hype by socmed practitioners in Sarawak on the flood situation says all that.
I am not saying that the flood situation in Sarawak is not bad. Any flood is bad. But it doesn’t do justice when people sit and complain about it on social media expecting to be spoon fed. Just start something instead of whining. There are many here on this side of the South China Sea who would want to help.
The question is, can it even deliver those promises?
In a recent article posted on Tian Chua’s Malaysia-Chronicle, Pakatan made a promise to Sarawakians – a promise that they claim the Barisan Nasional can never match.
If you have problems accessing the website, don’t worry. It has been spread via WhatsApp as usual and the content is as follows:
A DEAL NAJIB CAN NEVER MATCH: SARAWAK TO KEEP 50% TAX REVENUE, 20% OIL & GAS ROYALTY, DECISION & EDUCATION RIGHTS TO BE RETURNED TO STATE GOVT – HARAPAN
Politics | January 20, 2018 by | 0 Comments
Pakatan Harapan’s Sarawak manifesto pledges that the state will retain 50 percent of all tax revenues collected in the state.
The state will also receive 20 percent from oil and gas royalties or its equivalent value from the federal government, according to the manifesto titled ‘New Deal for Sarawak Part Two’, which was released today.
“The government of Sarawak shall use these funds to shoulder the fiscal responsibility of the federal government in education and health,” the manifesto states.
Harapan also promised to set up a Petronas equivalent in the state, to be named Sarawak Petrogas, which would be wholly owned by the state government.
Sarawak Petrogas, which will be directly answerable to the Sarawak legislative assembly, will jointly manage oil and gas resources within the territorial borders and waters of Sarawak, together with Petronas, the manifesto says.
This is similar to Petroleum Sarawak, an oil and gas company started by the current Sarawak state government, which is meant to be an equal partner with Petronas for oil and gas activities in the state.
‘State can localise education syllabi’
With the decision rights returned to Sarawak in education and healthcare, the state can localise the education syllabi, review staffing and administrative policies, improve and upgrade the quality of all hospitals in the state and equip hospitals with cancer and heart centres, among others.
Harapan will also focus on speeding up the supply of clean water and electricity to all houses in Sarawak, both suburban and rural, as well as roads connecting rural native heartlands to stimulate economic growth in the interiors of Sarawak.
It will also ensure top priority is given to competent and eligible Sarawakians for employment and promotion in federal government departments and agencies in Sarawak.
World-class coaching facilities and a sports institute will be developed in Sarawak, the manifesto states, to equip and harness the potential of Sarawakian athletes.
Aside from its commitment to restore Sarawak to its original status within the context of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, Harapan said it would also form a Royal Commission to review various legislations that affect Sarawak’s rights to its natural resources.
These legislations include the Continental Shelf Act 1966, the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the Territorial Sea Act 2012.
Harapan said Part Three of its New Deal for Sarawak would be released at a later date.
But before you even start to dance with joy, let me remind you that this is another one of those ad nauseam promises made, which can never be fulfilled, and will later be blamed on the Federal Constitution and the Federal Government.
Pakatan Harapan Sarawak cannot deliver fully on this promise because it is merely a state entity and cannot arrogate to the state what are Federal rights. As usual, Pakatan Harapan will refer to its non-existent utopian Federal Constitution when making such promises.
Even if it is a Pakatan Harapan Federal Government promise, it cannot fully deliver without the consent of the 11 Peninsular Malaysia states and Sabah because the Malaysia Agreement 1963 is an agreement inter se.
Any increase in the rights of one state vis a vis its position with the Federal Government diminishes the position of the other states vis a vis that one state as well as with the Federal Government . It will need the agreement of the other states in the Federation.
Therefore, Pakatan Harapan should stop making false promises and giving the people false hopes just because they (Pakatan Harapan) have false intelligence.
I received this copied in a Veterans’ WhatsApp group. I omitted some parts of the message as it was just gibberish talk:
_Copied from write up by Mej **** ***** TUDM (Rtd)_
Good afternoon to all. The fight for a free Malaysia must go on!
Let us get one thing clear – the country and the government are separate entities. Governments come and go, the country is eternal.
We owe our allegiance to the country, not to the government. Therefore, saying bad things about a bad government is not being anti-national. Most important of all, voting against a bad government is not being anti-national. A bad government does not deserve loyalty. Disloyalty to the government is not disloyalty to the country; in fact, voting out a bad government is being loyal to the country.
Right to dissent
Save our economy
Fine words they are, but for someone with some legal training to write as such shows how much understanding the author has of the Federal Constitution.
Let us address this “call”:
“Good afternoon to all. The fight for a free Malaysia must go on!
Let us get one thing clear – the country and the government are separate entities. Governments come and go, the country is eternal.
We owe our allegiance to the country, not to the government. Therefore, saying bad things about a bad government is not being anti-national. Most important of all, voting against a bad government is not being anti-national. A bad government does not deserve loyalty. Disloyalty to the government is not disloyalty to the country; in fact, voting out a bad government is being loyal to the country.”
The country and the government cannot be separated, neither can a state be separated from its state government. Yes, governments come and go, but a government is still a government. Officers and men of the civil service, the Armed Forces, the Police owe their allegiance to the King and Country. The King rules the Country, as do the Sultans their respective state, through a government that was picked by the people. Be they the Federal Government or the State Government, they administer the country and the states on behalf of the King and Sultans, as well as the Governors. This is prescribed by Article 39 of the Federal Constitution where the Executive Authority of the Federation is vested in the Yang DiPertuan Agong by him, or by the Cabinet, or by any Minister authorised by the Cabinet.
In the case of the Armed Forces, the King exercises his power through the Minister of Defence. Which is why the officers and men of the Armed Forces are required to salute the Minister of Defence who represents the King’s executive power over the Armed Forces, and the Prime Minister who is the King’s Chief Executive, representing the King.
Article 41 states that the King is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and therefore those representing the King as prescribed by Article 39 are performing their duties on behalf of the King.
Therefore, it is imperative that the Armed Forces, as well as the civil service and the Police, remain loyal to the government of the day as the government of the day represents the King – be it bad or otherwise. Whether or nor a member of the Armed Forces, or the civil service, or the Police subscribes to the government of the day politically is a secondary matter. The oath that was taken was to be loyal to the King and Country; therefore loyalty shall be given to the government of the day.
The Minister who represents the King in matters of defence is also made the Chairman of the Armed Forces Council which is responsible for the command, the discipline and the administration of the Armed Forces, except for matters relating to their operational use. This is prescribed in Article 137 of the Federal Constitution.
And it is the Parliament that passed an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the establishment, government and discipline of the Armed Forces is made which is called the Armed Forces Act, 1972.
It is also the Armed Forces Act, 1972 that gave the powers to the Armed Forces Council to enable Brigadier-General Datuk Fadzlette Othman Merican Idris Merican be promoted to Major-General while she is being seconded to a Federal Government Department. Section 5C of the Armed Forces Act, 1972 determines that she remains a member of the regular forces but her remuneration shall be paid by that Federal Government Department.
By the same token, even the ordinary people who are citiens of Malaysia must realise that the Federal Government represents the King, the state governments represent the resective state’s Ruler. These are governments chosen by the people but was appointed by the Rulers to administer the country and states on their behalf. The only way to change these governments is by a democratic process called ELECTIONS (unless you have not heard of that word before).
Since 1955, Pulau Pinang, Perak, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Selangor and Sabah have all seen a change in government. If the elections were not clean, would it have been possible for the Opposition to have won cash cows such as Pulau Pinang and Selangor?
I must admit there are bad hats in the government, be it the Federal government or the states government. This is why we have seen people like Harun Idris, Mokhtar Hashim, Khir Toyo, Lim Guan Eng charged in court for corruption. All but Lim Guan Eng have served jail time. Guan Eng, who said that he is not afraid to go to prison, has been delaying his corruption trial using technical issues.
Many more state excos have also been arraigned in a court for corruption. This is not possible without agencies such as the Auditor-General’s Office and the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission which act as checks and balances to ensure that the Federal as well as states governments are run efficiently and cleanly.
Of course there are those who have yet to face the music. For example those responsible for the Maminco scandal in 1985 that saw a loss of RM1.6 billion (about RM2.56 billion in today’s terms); the Perwaja scandal in 1982 that saw a loss of about RM10 billion (RM18.73 billion in today’s terms); the BMF scandal of 1983 that had caused a loss of RM2.5 billion (RM4.5 billion today); the 1986 Deposit-Taking Cooperative Scandal that caused a loss of RM1.5 billion (about RM2.58 billion today); the RM30 billion loss by Bank Negara Malaysis through foreign exchange gambling in 1994 (RM45.25 billion today); the Malaysia Airlines scandal of 1994 with the loss of RM9.4 billion (RM14.18 billion today); the PKFZ scandal of 1999 with a loss of RM12.5 billion (RM13.5 billion in today’s terms).
The above all happened during the tenure of a certain former Prime Minister. The grand total of losses is RM67.5 billion (or RM101.3 billion in today’s terms). The amount shown does not include the bailouts reported in various books, Opposition leaders’ blogs and so on.
I do hope that the cry for a clean government will also call for the arraignment for the Prime Minister during whose tenure the financial scandals happened. Had the RM101.3 billion been put to good use during those 22 years, Sabah and Sarawak would have had SIX toll-free Pan Borneo Highways, or 1,013 80-bedded Government hospitals all over the country!
Instead, it enriched the few and killed one person.
“Right to Dissent”
I have not seen any Opposition-leaning media being taken off print or air, unlike during a certain 22-year period of my life. Malaysiakini et al are still spinning their version of what they call “balanced news” (read: news the way we want you to see it). The way these media operate reminds me of a character in Netflix’s limited series called “Godless” called A.T Grigg, a newspaper owner-editor who writes news the way he sees it, not how it truly happens.
The ISA was repealed six years ago by this present administration. Although replaced with SOSMA and POTA, it doesn’t give powers to the authorities to hold anyone without trial as the ISA did. And the ISA was being used a lot against political dissenters especially in the late 1990s during the tenure of a certain former Prime Minister.
This administration also introduced the Peaceful Assembly Act, 2012 that has allowed more freedom to assemble peacefully, unlike during those days of a certain former Prime Minister where at the slightest hint of a political dissent, you get whisked away to the University of Kamunting.
Has the author of the message been arrested yet? Of course not. Even when he actually committed sedition against Malaysia by encouraging Sarawak to secede from Malaysia.
Now, how is that seditious? If you look at Section 2 of the Sedition Act, 1948 it tells you the following:
This former Armed Forces officer also committed a crime of sedition under Section 3 (1) (b) of the same Act for encouraging Sarawak to leave Malaysia:
And you thought that the Federal Constitution protects freedom of speech? Yes, it does. But as with all other liberties, they are subjected to restrictions. Article 10(1) guarantees that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, but at the beginning of the Article it also says the following:
To dissent is okay. To dissent seditiously, or criminally, or dangerously, or incitingly, is not okay.
Any legal-trained person ought to know this, right? What more a former officer of the Armed Forces!
“Save Our Economy”
In April 2017, the World Bank forecasted that Malaysia’s GDP would be at 4.3 percent. This was revised in June 2017 to 4.9 percent due to an acceleration in domestic economic activities (people in Malaysia are actually spending more) by 5.7 percent year-on-year. The GDP growth was revised again in October 2017 to 5.2 percent.
Let me quote several reports here by the World Bank.
World Bank Group lead economist Richard Record said at a media briefing on the update that Malaysia’s robust GDP growth in the first half of 2017 was largely underpinned by strong private-sector expenditure, with additional impetus from an improvement in external demand.
“Private consumption expanded firmly this year, supported by favourable income growth amid stable labour market conditions, and improved consumer confidence. Private investment also sustained rapid growth rates during the period, reflecting mainly continued capital spending in the manufacturing and services sectors,” said Richard Record.
“On the external front, gross exports rebounded strongly from the subdued growth experienced in 2016, supported by double-digit growth in commodity and manufactured exports,” he added.
Economic watchdogs are generally bullish on the Malaysian economy’s performance, buttressed by strong expansion in private consumption and private investment. In the latest update on its World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund has upped its GDP growth projection for Malaysia in 2017 to 4.8 percent from 4.5 percent previously.
Apart from that, the Asian Development Bank has also upgraded its 2017 growth outlook for Malaysia to 4.7% from 4.4%, and indicated that the two-year slowdown in economic growth is likely to have bottomed out last year.
Richard Record also predicted Malaysia’s economy for 2018 and 2019.
“We are forecasting Malaysia’s GDP to grow by 5 percent next year (2018) and 4.8 percent in 2019. Our prediction reflects how we are seeing the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals’ performance and the baseline scenario,” he said.
Online economics portal ‘Focus Economics’ also said the following:
“Economic momentum remained robust in Q3 as confirmed by more complete data. Export growth expanded by a double-digit pace in September, underscoring thriving external demand for Malaysian goods. Household spending was buoyed by a low unemployment rate in September and by higher wages, which were propped up by a thriving manufacturing sector, the key driver of industrial production growth in the quarter. The 2018 budget passed on 27 October is focused on fiscal consolidation and is expected to narrow the fiscal deficit from 3.0 percent in 2017 to 2.8 percent in 2018. Despite the tightening, the budget has consumer-friendly components that will increase disposable income. These include lower income tax rates, especially for middle-income earners; higher public wages; and increased assistance spending.”
Of course, with the oil prices continue to stay below the USD70 per barrel level, Malaysia as well as other countries will continue to experience some sluggishness in the economy. However, good fiscal policies have allowed us to grow unlike a neighbour of ours that is often quoted as being a model economy. That country’s growth have been at 2 percent in 2016, and 2.5 percent this year.
The outlook for the construction sector has taken a sharp turn for the worse, with poll respondents tipping a contraction of 4.2 per cent. The previous survey, released in June, had respondents forecasting 0.2 per cent growth in the sector.
The outlook for the accommodation and food services sector in this model country has also worsened – it is now expected to shrink 1.5 per cent, from previous estimates of a 1 per cent expansion.
Economists polled expect overall economic growth of 2.5 per cent next year for this model country, the same pace as this year.
Perhaps the author of the message we are discussing here should go down South and help revive the economy of that model country.
So, there have you. I really do not know what the fuss is about. All I can deduce is that the author of the message is all hot air – you can feel it blowing on your face, but there is no real substance there. This is the same as BERSIH, and the recycling of petty but stale issues by the Opposition just so that they can remain relevant, and justify for the allowances they receive from the pockets of the rakyat.
You can express your dissatisfaction, but always do so constructively. Especially if you are a member of the Malaysian Armed Forces and Malaysian Armed Forces Veterans.
Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) President Dr James Jemut Masing led the delegation to brief Najib Razak on the issues affecting the Upper Rajang basin.
“We are happy that the country’s top two leaders are giving us their time to meet up (with us),” Dr James added.
As usual, the Opposition and their supporters went to town with allegations of mistreatment of the longhouses chiefs and lack of funds on the PM’s part.
If only they know how special it is for these people to have been able to experience flying on board the RMAF’s A400M. But why fly in an Air Force plane rather than taking one of eight daily direct flights from Sibu to Kuala Lumpur?
Firstly, it would have been almost impossible to get all of them on board the same flight either on MAS (which has two flights) or AirAsia’s six flights. The logistics alone would have been an inconvenience to the passengers. Getting the A400M to fly them to Kuala Lumpur was the better choice.
I would imagine the Prime Minister’s Office would have written in to the RMAF asking if it could charter one or two of its airlifters to fly in these leaders. It is not uncommon for government departments to charter military aircraft for its departmental use.
When I was still in service, the RMAF’s S-61A4 Nuri helicopters were being used by the Department of Orang Asli Development to ferry Orang Asli on field trips to Kuala Lumpur. On 25 August 1990, a C-130H that was used to ferry support staff of a Royal visit to Sibu veered off the runway upon landing. A nurse died after unsecured luggage fell on her head.
The Ministry of Health also uses the RMAF helicopters to perform mercy flights for life-threatening cases that need immediate treatment elsewhere. You could too if you are wiling to pay a charter amount if it is not a life-threatening medical situation as long as the attending doctor says such a flight is necessary but not immediate, you are willing to pay, and the RMAF agrees.
Back to the story of the 150 community leaders, the RMAF probably provided the A400M for the following reasons: it had the seating capacity to carry 150 passengers comfortably and, it was a good opportunity for the RMAF to allow civiians to experience flying in the most sophisticated airlifter in the region. And if you think the in-flight ration is bad, you actually get more food to eat on board a RMAF medium-haul flights, and the fried chicken is good too!
Some may ask, why don’t the PMO or RMAF charter an AirAsia plane as it normally does for our peacekeepers serving overseas? Let it be known that the charter of an airliner is done based on deployment schedules. Chartering an airliner at such short notice would cause delays to many flights as the number of aircraft in any airline is limited, and the priority would be to serve their commercial destinations.
To be able to fly on board the A400M is an experience of a lifetime. Many in the RMAF including senior officers have never gotten the chance to, what more the rest of the Malaysian Armed Forces. So the part where Mr Voon says “Kami tidak senang dengan cara awak melayan Sarawakians” is just a statement made out of ignorance.
The community leaders now have something to talk about for generations – being able to meet the country’s two top leaders and air their concerns, and the experience of fying on board a sophisticated military airlifter.
“You belajar dulu jadi Menteri, lepas tu baru bercakap. Sebab, kita kena ingat. Dalam politik ni kita jangan cakap besar!“
Itulah kata-kata Menteri Kerajaan Padang Rengas yang ditujukan kepada Menteri Pelancongan, Kesenian, Kebudayaan, Belia dan Sukan Sarawak Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah selepas Abdul Karim menyatakan ketidaksetujuan beliau dengan cadangan mengenakan cukai bilik bagi hotel-hotel di negeri Sarawak.
“You cakap besar, you tunjuk samseng, kita lebih samseng lagi.“
Saya rasa tidak ada sesiapa pun yang akan mempertikaikan siapa samseng paling besar di negara ini.
Tindakan Nazri tersebut telah dipandang oleh bukan sahaja rakyat negeri Sarawak, malah seluruh Malaysia sebagai biadab dan keterlaluan. Ianya diihat sebagai takbur dan merosakkan usaha Najib Razak yang menjadi Perdana Menteri pertama yang membawa lebih banyak pembangunan kepada Sabah dan Sarawak setelah diabaikan sekian lama oleh Perdana Menteri yang mempunyai 22 tahun peluang.
Ianya seolah-olah beliau tidak menghormati semangat setiakawan parti-parti komponen Barisan Nasional, dan juga seolah-olah beliau bertindak sebagai seorang Menteri di dalam kerajaan beliau sendiri.
Tidak cukup dengan penghinaan yang telah dilakukan, beliau terus menghina Abdul Karim dengan gelaran “Menteri Setahun Jagung.”
Reaksi pertama ditunjukkan oleh Ketua Menteri Sarawak, Abang Zohari yang lebih dikenali sebagai Abang Jo. Beliau telah mengeluarkan kenyataan menarik keluar penyertaan negeri Sarawak dari Lembaga Pelancongan Negara.
Reaksi seterusnya dari Menteri-Menteri kabinet Malaysia adalah dari Abdul Rahman Dahlan yang berasal dari Sabah dan juga Fadillah Yusof dari Sarawak yang juga merupakan Pengerusi Belia Barisan Nasional negeri Sarawak.
Walaupun dalam video di atas Menteri Kerajaan Padang Rengas tersebut menyatakan bahawa tiada sesiapa patut bercakap besar dalam politik, beliau sering bercakap tak serupa bikin.
Sikap besar kepala beliau dikongsi bersama oleh isteri muda beliau yang juga merupakan Timbalan Menteri Kerajaan Padang Rengas, Haflin. Haflin, yang bukan Datin Bergelar kerana merupakan BUKAN isteri pertama yang masih hidup, telah mengejek Abdul Karim melalui akaun Instagram beliau.
Haflin juga telah mengherdik mereka yang tidak bersetuju dengan perbuatan Nazri.
Haflin adalah Timbalan Menteri Kerajaan Padang Rengas kerana sering menjalankan tugas-tugas di luar negeri bagi ihak beliau sedangkan Kementerian Pelancongan masih ada Timbalan Menteri, KSU, TKSU serta Ketua Pengarah Kementerian yang sepatutnya membuat tugas tersebut.
Siapa Haflin? Adakah beliau juga besar dari Abdul Karim dan Puad Zarkashi?
Apabila disoal siapakah dia dalam Kementerian Pelancongan, ini jawapan beliau:
Saya rasa orang-orang yang sering membalun Rosmah Mansor pun kini tahu Rosmah tak kepoh macam si Haflin. Malah Rosmah banyak menghabiskan masa memberi makan dan mengaji bersama anak-anak yatim dan para pelajar tahfiz hampir setiap malam di kediaman beliau.
Nazri bagaikan tidak menghiraukan kesan yang mungkin akan menjejaskan usaha Barisan Nasional Sarawak untuk memenangi pilihanraya DUN Pujut. Dalam video di atas, Nazri menyatakan bahawa DUN Pujut memang milik DAP. Sekiranya BN Sarawak kalah di Pujut maka ianya tidak memberi kesan kepada BN.
Persoalannya ialah: adakah tindak-tanduk Nazri ini dilakukan untuk mengalihkan tumpuan para pemerhati politik dan rakyat dari kemelut yang dihadapi rakan baik beliau Lim Guan Eng?
Lim Guan Eng yang kini bukan sahaja cuba menyelamatkan diri dari dibicarakan di atas tuduhan perlakuan rasuah, tetapi juga mengenai kepincangan pentadbiran kerajaan negeri Pulau Pinang serta kelemahan pengurusan kewangan negeri. Nazri yang secara terbuka berkawan dan memberi sokongan kepada Lim Guan Eng mungkin berfikir beliau perlu mengalihkan perhatian ramai dari isu Lim Guan Eng kepada Sarawak.
Tidak hairanlah apabila wanita pengamal media sosial tersohor Cik Lim Sian See juga membuat kenyataan mengenai perangai samseng Nazri yang dipelajari dari sahabat karibnya dari Pulau Pinang itu.
Mahu tidak mahu Najib Razak juga yang kini terpaksa membersihkan najis yang telah dilepaskan oleh Nazri. Telah terlalu banyak yang dilabur oleh Najib Razak untuk menentukan pembangunan yang dibawa ke Sabah dan Sarawak akan membantu menaik taraf kehidupan rakyat di kedua-dua buah negeri tersebut dengan harapan mereka terus memberi sokongan padu kepada kerajaan Barisan Nasional baik di peringkat negeri mahupun pusat. Terpaksalah Najib Razak membuat satu keputusan yang jitu untuk mengatasi najis yang telah dilemparkan oleh Nazri kepada rakyat Sarawak.
Sudah tiba masanya samseng tersebut diajar makna adab kerana perbuatannya terhadap sokongan yang diraih Najib Razak dari Sarawak itu tidak lain tidak bukan tetapi umpama Julius Caesar ditikam oleh Brutus dari belakang.
Pertama sekali, kejadian di atas bukanlah sepertimana yang telah digembar-gemburkan oleh penyebar kisah yang menggunakan nama Abam Supir di Facebook.
Abam Supir mendakwa sekumpulan penari berpakaian tradisional Sarawak telah dihalau keluar dari taman KLCC kerana berpakaian sedemikian.
Kisah ini telah mendapat perhatian rakan blogger saya, Bigdog.
Menurut Abam Supir kumpulan penari ini telah dihalau kerana berpakaian kurang bersesuaian di taman KLCC dan telah disembur dengan kata-kata kesat.
Kisah ini telah ditularkan oleh beberapa portal di Internet dan disebarkan terutamanya di kalangan orang negeri Sarawak. Di antaranya memberi komen seperti berikut:
Menurut Bigdog, kumpulan penari ini sebenarnya menunggu masa untuk ke Angkasapuri untuk membuat persembahan apabila mereka dibawa ke KLCC untuk bergambar.
Namun mereka telah membuat suatu tarian dan ini bercanggah dengan undang-undang kecil DBKL.
Pihak sekuriti telah meminta daripada mereka permit DBKL yang diperlukan tetapi mereka tidak dapat menunjukkan sebarang permit.
Ini mendorong pihak sekuriti untuk menyuruh mereka menghentikan tarian tersebut dan memberi mereka nombor pihak berkenaan untuk mereka hubungi untuk mendapatkan permit persembahan.
Malangnya, Abam Supir telah bertindak untuk memesongkan kisah tersebut dan membuat seolah-olah orang di Semenanjung tidak menghormati dan tidak toleran terhadap adat budaya Sarawak, dua minggu sebelum perayaan paling penting masyarakat Sarawak iaitu Hari Gawai dirayakan.
Abam Supir telah memadamkan posting Facebook beliau yang tersebut, tetapi tidak sebelum ianya menular di media sosial.
Apabila seorang pengguna Facebook yang juga penggiat aktif Twitter berhadapam dengan beliau di Facebook, Abam Supir akui bahawa kumpulan tersebut telah membuat tarian di taman tersebut.
Akibat tindakan tidak bertanggungjawab yang disengajakan okeh Abam Supir dan lain-lain yang hadir semasa kejadian tersebut berlaku, perasaan orang Sarawak telah terguris dan rasa marah terhadap orang Semenanjung mula membara.
Di atas perbuatan tersebut saya menggesa pihak Polis DiRaja Malaysia menyiasat Abam Supir dan lain-lain di bawah Seksyen 505(c) Kanun Keseksaan kerana dengan sengaja berniat hendak mengapikan atau yang mungkin mengapikan mana-mana golongan atau kaum melakukan sesuatu kesalahan terhadap mana-mana golongan atau kaum lain.
Semoga mereka menjadi contoh dan pengajaran agar tidak menyebarkan fitnah dan menyalahgunakan platform kebebasan bersuara.
This conspiracy would have begun eight years before Ah Choon was born. Those who drafted the Federal Constitution knew that Ah Choon would be born in Malaysia on the 31st October 1965, and then apply for a PR status in Australia on 5 May 1994 after entering the country using a student visa on 7 May 1994.
However, he had his application rejected on 3 April 1995. In 2007 and 2008, Ah Choon bought substantial number of properties and set up many companies, and then applied for an Australian citizenship under the INVESTMENT category.
You must be logged in to post a comment.