The Malaysian Concord (Part 3) – The Malay and Bumiputera Special Rights

Recent protest against ICERD – Bernama

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.

In the previous posts (The Malaysian Concord (Part 1) – The Sanctity of Islam and The Malaysian Concord (Part 2) – The National Language) I have shown you why Islam was made the religion of the Federation, and why the Malay language was made into the National Language.  I also explained why the Reid Commission was just a commission and not a party to the discussions and negotiations to the independence of Malaya and whatever put forth by the commission were recommendations for the Constitution, not the hard-and-fast rule.

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?

(This article was first published on The Mole)

Malaysia Is Buying Up The World According To Pakatan

5254_Sikhs_Malaya3
Everyone talks about Communist atrocities in Malaysia. Well, it was done by Malayans, not China. But we never talk about Japanese atrocities in Malaya. Why?

I refer to a WhatsApp message that says the following:

Listen to this (video) and think about it.

 It’s hard to believe that Malaysia is the perfect model for China after Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Jamaica & Greece.

We hv the history of atrocities by Communist Party (Terrorists).

Jack Ma is also the influential biz advisor to the PM.

Numerous lands & companies bought over by China, Xiamen university for students from China.

Enclavement (safe haven) in MCKIP, Forest Cities, flourishing China’s retail companies even in Aeon too.etc,

Strategic Tun Razak 106 Exchange overlooking KL area, with potential airport, ports and MISC shipping, railway lines, even purchase of Perwaja land within Kemaman Supply base etc….widespread corruptions, a condusive environment to China Belt Road Initiatives.

We hv to accept first that the threat is real.”

 

HISTORY OF ATROCITIES BY COMMUNIST PARTY

The atrocity done to Malaysians was by those born in Malaya, not China.  China merely gave its support for the setting up of a Communist satellite nation in Malaysia by Chin Peng, who is largely revered by the DAP.

In 1981, Mahathir’s political secretary was arrested by the police for being a communist agent.  Interestingly, Mahathir allowed Communist Cuba to open an embassy in Kuala Lumpur in 1997.  Mahathir also allowed Communist North Korea to open an embassy in Kuala Lumpur in 2003, several months before he stepped down.

Mahathir loved Communist China so much that he visited the country seven times and invited China to invest in Malaysia.  A year after he became PM the Sino-Malaysia trade stood at US$307 million.  A year before he stepped down, it was at US$14 billion.

Mahathir himself said in Bangkok after retirement that for 2000 years China has been a superpower, and it could have invaded the Malay states had it wanted to but never did.  So, if Mahathir has never been afraid of China, why should be we be afraid of it?

JACK MA IS INFLUENTIAL BUSINESS ADVISOR TO THE PM

Well, Jack Ma is the advisor to this country on E-Commerce.  If this is the concern, then Jack Ma is also the business advisor to Indonesia on E-Commerce.  By definition, China has also colonised Indonesia through Jack Ma.

Wait! Jack Ma is also the advisor to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on E-Commerce.  So, has China taken over the world?

NUMEROUS LANDS AND COMPANIES BOUGHT OVER BY CHINA. XIAMEN UNIVERSITY FOR STUDENTS FROM CHINA

Wow! Well written by a very ill-informed person.

Xiamen University Campus Malaysia has 700 students from China and 900 from Malaysia.  Last year it gave out scholarships to top performing local (Malaysian students).

Xiamen University Campus Malaysia is just a new face in a crowded space that already has nine branch campus of foreign universities that include Nottingham University, University of Reading, Monash University to name a few.

Why pick on Xiamen University alone? Is it because it is in a state held by the Barisan Nasional?  Before Xiamen University, we already have Hanjiang (Han Chiang) University in Pulau Pinang and New Era University College in Kajang, Selangor.  Why not ask why is the flag of China flying above those campuses as well?

As at the beginning of 2018, China’s investments received in Malaysia is RM63 billion.  Japan’s investments received in Malaysia totals RM70 billion.  Aren’t we selling the country to the Japanese more?

Furthermore, China’s FDI in Malaysia is at the 10th place and accounts for only 2 percent of the total FDI received by Malaysia.  The US debt to China is at US$1.2 TRILLION making its Debt-to-China-versus-GDP at 6.5 percent.  Is the US now owned by China?  You tell me!

ENCLAVEMENT IN MCKIP, FOREST CITY, FLOURISHING CHINA’S RETAIL COMPANIES IN AEON TOO

AEON is a company that has nine members of the Board.  Three of the nine are Japanese while the rest are Malaysians.  If the Japanese board members don’t give a hoot about China retail companies in AEON complexes, why should you?

The Malaysia-China Kuantan Industrial Park (MCKIP) in Kuantan is a 51:49 percent joint-venture between a Malaysian consortium and a China consortium.  How is it that we have sold our country to China when we have a 51-percent control of the park?

Why did the writer also write that there is a CMQIP in China?  Yes, there is a China-Malaysia Qinzhou Industrial Park which is also a 51:49 percent joint-venture between a China consortium and a Malaysian consortium. Has China also sold its ports, airports and country to Malaysia?

There are also the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (CSSIP) and the China-Singapore Tianjin Eco City (CSTEC), both in China. Has China sold its country to Singapore too?

Exchange 106 is only built by China’s CSCEC, but the master developer is Indonesia’s Mulia Group.  Since when is Exchange 106 a China-owned property?

Forest City is an exception.  Although only 40 percent of the development is owned by a Malaysian company, it is an enclave for foreigners, not just China’s citizens. About 15 percent is owned by other foreigners including those from the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East.  But does owning only 40 percent make Forest City essentially China-owned?

Similarly, the Marina One and DUO development in Singapore are 60 percent owned by Khazanah Nasional. 40 percent remains with Temasek Holdings.  Does that mean those developments are essentially Malaysian? Has Singapore sold itself to Malaysia? Has there been any noise by anyone in Singapore over this issue?

Of course not.  Singaporeans are not as stupid and foolish as Malaysians are who would believe anything especially lies and fake news.

(Originally sent as a WhatsApp message)

Drama Kera La

ST photo -SAF-PLA joint military exercise
Singapore Army invading China?

Recently, a video clip of how China is fulfilling its hegemonic ambitions using economic means was spread around especially in Facebook and WhatsApp groups.  The video compares the Sino-Sri Lankan joint-venture at the Hambantota Deep Water Port with the ones in Malaysia, proving that Malaysia, like Sri Lanka, could end up not only with a huge debt owing to China, but also lose its ownership of those assets.

On the surface, it sounds scary to have so much money owed to China for these projects especially so for the ill-informed.  But comparing Malaysia to Sri Lanka hardly does any justice.

The Hambantota Deep Water Port lies within the constituency of the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and costs more than $1 billion to construct.  Another project that was constructed in this constituency is the Mattala Rajapaksa Airport, located 30 kilometres away from the port, which until now flies only a few hundred passengers in and out weekly and has been dubbed “the world’s loneliest airport.”

Hambantota is a remote region in the South, 240 kilometres from Colombo and the nearest city, Galle, is 130 kilometres away.  The population of Hambantota is around 12,000 people and is very underdeveloped.  The problem with Hambantota’s deep-water port is that its waters are not deep enough for large vessels with deep draught, so large shipping companies shy away from it.  It is far from any development that hardly anyone wants to move there.  Both the port and the airport cannot generate enough income to sustain operations let alone pay back loans to the Chinese.

Sri Lanka owes its financiers close to $65 billion and of this, $8 billion alone is owed to the Chinese.  Its GDP stands at $81.32 billion, debt-to-GDP ratio stands at roughly 75 percent while its foreign currency reserves is at $7.2 billion.  The Sri Lankan government uses 95.4 percent of its revenue to repay debts.  These are the reasons for Sri Lanka to opt for a debt-for-equity solution for both projects.

Compare this with Malaysia’s $13.1 billion East Coast Rail Link, or RM55 billion in Malaysian terms.  Malaysia took a $11.14 billion loan (85 percent or RM46.75 billion) from China to finance the project while the balance is in the form of a sukuk programme managed by local financial institutions.

The Forest City project in Johor is a development programme that runs over 20 years.  How much is being allocated per project is a company confidential information but if we go by average, it would be at $5 billion per annum, with a total of $100 billion over 20 years.  The project commenced in 2015 and to date has completed about 11 percent.  At the end of December 2016, Forest City saw concluded contracted sales of $2.9 billion for 17,000 apartment units.  It still has another 17 years of development to go.

Our GDP now stands at around $320.25 billion (RM1.3 trillion) for 2017 which puts the cost of the ECRL project at 4.1 percent of the GDP while Forest City accounts to approximately 1.6 percent of the GDP per annum.  The total Government debt as at end of June 2017 was reported to be at RM685.1 billion or 50.9 percent of the GDP.  Of this total, RM662.4 billion was domestic debt while RM22.7 billion was offshore loans.

Interestingly, as of October 2017, the US debt to China is at $1.2 trillion, which is 19 percent of the $6.3 trillion in US Treasury bills, notes and bonds held by foreign countries.  The US GDP in 2016 was $18.57 trillion which makes its China-debt-to-GDP alone at 6.5 percent.

Of course, we could undertake to pay for all the above projects.  Our foreign currency exchange reserves are at RM414.71 billion ($102.17 billion) which is more than enough to pay for both projects.  If we use the Mahathir-era method, then Petronas has RM129 billion in cash ($31.8 billion) while the EPF has RM771 billion ($189.9 billion) worth of assets.  This does not include sources from other funds such as Khazanah, Tabung Haji, KWAP, SOCSO, PNB and others.

If our debt-to-GDP ratio of 50.9 percent is still a scary number to you, it was at 103.4 percent when Mahathir was the Prime Minister in 1985!  And an equivalent to 24 percent of the GDP went missing as a resut of the BNM Forex scandal also during his tenure as the PM in 1991!  That is RM315 billion if our GDP is RM1.3 trillion!  In contrast, Singapore’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 112 percent at tenth place out of 17 nations with the highest debt-to-GDP rate listed by Business Insider, UK.  Japan is first at 239.2 percent.

Still, we did not go bankrupt back then. So why should we fear a 50.9 percent debt-to-GDP ratio with much stronger economic fundamentals when we have reached 103.4 percent with a much weaker economy? And neither Singapore nor Japan has gone bankrupt.

And what is with the ownership of the land where Forest City is situated?  It is a reclaimed land; therefore, no part of mainland Johor was carved out to be “given to the Chinese.”  Johor has rights over the reclaimed land as accorded by the National Land Code, 1965 up to three nautical miles as given by Section 3(3) of the Territorial Sea Act, 2012.  Whether it is a freehold land or a leasehold land, Johor can always take it back, with provisions, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1960. Up to 12 nautical miles from the foreshore, the Malaysian flag flies no matter who holds the grant.

Mahathir recently said “I hope Forest City will truly become a forest… Its residents will consist of baboons (kera), monkeys (monyet) and so on”, fuelling unjustified fears among the people of Malaysia.

The Malaysia-China Kuantan Industrial Park (MCKIP) has MCKIP Sdn Bhd (MCKIPSB) as its Master Developer.  MCKIPSB is a 51:49 joint-venture between a Malaysian consortium and a China consortium.  In the Malaysian portion of the shareholding, IJM land holds 40 percent, Sime Darby Property 30 percent and the Pahang State Government holds the remaining 30 percent. Its twin sister, the China-Malaysia Qinzhou Industrial Park (CMQIP) in China is 49 percent owned by a Malaysian consortium (SP Setia Berhad and Rimbunan Hijau Group).

Going by Tun Dr Mahathir’s logic, has China just allowed Malaysia to colonise its land too?  Prior to this it allowed Singapore to colonise in two other areas, namely the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park and the China-Singapore Tianjin Eco City.

As bleak as Sri Lanka may sound, Japan, Singapore and India have expressed interest in building infrastructure and setting up shop in Sri Lanka.  Even with much weaker economic fundamentals compared to Malaysia, Lolitha Abeysinghe of Opportunity Sri Lanka remains optimistic.

Over-dependence on any country for investments, technology, and markets could result in some adverse impacts on national interest in the long-run, but if managed properly with a futuristic vision, Sri Lanka can mitigate such adversity and reap the best benefits for the rural domestic economy in one of the least developed districts in Sri Lanka,” he said.

Malaysia has that vision but sadly some of its people would rather see everything fail in the name of politics.  The politics of baboons and monkeys.

 

 

 

Forest City: Sustaining The Future

Forest City was under a considerable amount of pressure when it first started due to the knee-jerk reactions of some environmentalists and half-baked as well as over-ripe politicians seeking quick publicity to remain relevant.  While the environmental concerns have been addressed and continues to be addressed as the project progresses, it is notable that the political concerns seem to originate only from the Malay politicians.  It seems that the Chinese politicians realise the potential this development brings.

Almost, if not all the issues have been addressed in a recent posting of mine on the matter, but it seems that these politicians are hell bent on flogging an already decomposing horse.

In the meantime, Forest City continues to develop and progress, in very notable ways.

A UN Global Model

On the 31st October 2017, Forest City won the Global Model of Green Building Industrial Park for the second consecutive year.  The award was part of the Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements Award (SCAHSA) ceremony held in New York.

Forest City wins the Global Model of Green Building Industrial Park award for its industrial park which has boosted the construction industry

 

The SCAHSA award established by the Global Forum on Human Settlement (GFHS), a non-profit organisation with Special Consultative Status within the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It is a trend setter for urban construction everywhere that respects sustainable development.

Forest City, China’s Wuyi County and Indonesia’s Surabaya City were among the winning entries submitted from 23 countries and regions worldwide. Forest City won the SCAHSA Global Human Settlements Award on Planning and Design at the 11th Global Forum on Human Settlements (GFHS – XI).

Dr. Arab Hoballah (right), former Chief of the Sustainable Lifestyles, Cities and Industry Branch at United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) presents the Global Model of Green Building Industrial Park award to Forest City

Forest City, by taking full advantage of its technical resources, is creating a 1.7-square-kilometer construction-focused industrial park, to promote the development of a green building industry and improve building precision and quality, said Dr. Wang Jiying, vice general manager for overseas business at Country Garden.

Forest City will include several support facilities and a powerful water transportation system, all of which are expected to be operational in 2019, with the aim of creating a truly industrialised manufacturing base for the construction industry over the next three to five years.

Creating Potential Future Workforce

A month and a half ago when I was at Forest City, I was brought to visit one of five schools adopted by Forest City where children are given free Mandarin lessons for three months.  This is one of the ways by Forest City to ensure that the local community, especially those in the Tanjung Kupang area, have roles to play in the development.

The result is excellent:

The student above is from the first batch of students who started their Mandarin language course in August 2017 and has graduated.  Forest City is not stopping there.  Forest City’s master developer, Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd (CGPV), aims to give back to the community by offering three-month basic Mandarin language courses to some 100 school children there.

CGPV plans to continue to offer the Mandarin courses in the future as part of its corporate social responsibility effort for the community here.

The second intake will be conducted from January until March next year,” Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd corporate communications head Aeron Munajat told reporters when met at SK Tanjong Adang here today where she handed over certificates to the participants.

Aeron said that apart from learning Mandarin as a third language, the three-month language course will also help the students develop self-confidence which will further enhance their competitiveness in the job market in the future.

She said the course involved students and teachers from five schools, namely SK Morni Pok, SK Tanjong Adang, SK Tiram Duku, SK Tanjung Kupang and SK Pendas Laut.

The classes are conducted every Friday and Saturday from 10am to 12 noon, at the community centre in Kampung Pok,” she added.

Forest City Does Not Pawn Johor Land

The continued but futile attacks on Forest City by Malaysia’s Mugabe and his followers have again earned the ire of His Majesty The Sultan of Johor.

Has Johor ever pawned its land? What is the meaning of pawning? With Forest City, the state of Johor has increased in size. It is not about seizing land to be pawned. In Johor, there are international lots and Malay reserve land.  Anyone can buy at the international zone, be it the Mat Salleh from England or people from India, Japan, China. All of them can purchase it.  They can buy (property), but it does not mean they purchase the land to bring it back to their respective home country,” chided the Sultan.

In Johor, we have an international zone, which means that foreigners could buy. It has international status. In Forest City, we do not sell the land, we sell the strata (titles) and these strata (titles) are for permanent ownership in Johor,” he remarked.

The Sultan added that 40 percent of the investors in Forest City are Malaysians and that even the government has shares in the project, and that the project gave a lot of revenue for the state government, including quit rent and assessment, which the state of Johor benefits.

How much revenue will the Johor government get? When Forest City is completed, the assessment, quit rent will go to who? Who will get the jobs? There are transportation (initiatives), businesses and job opportunities. Don’t be narrow minded about this,” said the Sultan.

A throwback at the Sultan of Johor’s displease of Mahathir’s lies about the Forest City project

The Sultan also said that the most visible benefit of the Forest City project was the boost it has given to the value of real estate in its surrounding areas, particularly in Pontian district, which is now developing at a rapid pace.

He gave an example of how in the past, the people of Pontian were only picking buah duku (lanzones), but now people in Pontian own Mercedes Benz cars.

It means that Pontian has become a district that will see rapid development,” the Sultan stressed. “In the past, an acre (0.4 hectares) of land used to cost RM100,000, but now, it is valued up to RM3 million.”

It is no doubt that Forest City will boost the Iskandar region’s marketability.  With consumer prices 100 percent higher than in Malaysia, rent prices 500 percent higher than in Malaysia, many companies in Singapore were driven to relocate to Iskandar, while Johor Bahru’s shopping malls, food outlets and amusement parks have become a favourite for Singaporeans.  Bangkok’s recent wish for Malaysia to extend its High Speed Rail into Thailand will soon make the Iskandar Econmic Region attractive to the millionaires and billionaires of Indochina. And the green, affordable buildings of Forest City will definitely be a hit.

While they all win, the real winners will be the people of Johor and Malaysia.

Defence: The Funniest Multiple Launch Rocket Story

Malaysian Incite’s story on a Multi Launch Rocket System offer by China to Malaysia

Malaysian Incite today came up with another piece of hogwash (what’s new) on a supposed defence deal between Malaysia and China.

Up to 12 units of the AR3 multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) will be offered to Malaysia in a purchase programme with a loan period of 50 years,” wrote Malaysian Incite quoting an unnamed source (very credible this) believed by many local defence observers and writers to be a person with the surname of ‘Lam.’

50 YEARS?  This is just to rile up the stupid Opposition supporters who cannot distinguish the difference between the rain-unfriendly ASTRO DTU and the Army’s ASTROS II.  In just 30 years the ASTROS system has undergone so many upgrades and a new system called the ASTROS 2020 is already in development phase.  Do you mean Malaysia will be stuck with an obsolete system for half the system’s life and still has to pay for it?

Firstly, the Malaysian Army already has six batteries of the ASTROS II MLRS acquired in two batches in 2002 and 2007.  The ASTROS II are battle-proven and was first deployed during the Gulf War by the Saudi Arabian forces.  The obvious differences between the ASTROS II and the AR3 system that “China is offering” are the range of the rockets and the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) as opposed to the conventionally-targetted MLRS that the Malaysian Army employs.

Secondly, the timing of Malaysian Incite’s article on the MLRS coincides with Singapore’s National Day – and with Malaysian Incite being as bad as Malaysiakini (or is attempting to dethrone Malaysiakini as the bad boy portal), the best thing to do mid-week (which coincidetally happens to be Singapore’s National Day) is to create a sour point in the Malaysia-Singapore relations.

Thirdly, the MLRS is a offensive operations weapons system.  No one buys an MLRS unless someone next door has it first. In Malaysia’s case, Thailand became the first MLRS operator on this end of Asia.  So, we bought the ASTROS II.  Two years after we acquired the second batch, Singapore bought the US M-142 HIMARS.  Therefore, Singapore has no fear to add if Malaysia is given access to China’s AR3 as. if fired from Woodlands, the HIMARS would be able to hit Bangi and Kajang compared to the AR3 hitting Woodlands only if fired from Ayer Keroh.

Fourthly, a new MLRS is not something the Malaysian Army wants right now. It has other worries to address. It is adequately prepared to defend against land aggression and protect its infrastructure and fire units with its air defence systems if needed. As with Singapore, the asymmetrical threat is now the paramount concern, and instead of being concerned about fighting each other, Malaysia and Singapore are working closely (even with other countries) to combat asymmetrical threats.

Fifthly (yes, there is fifthly. It is just superfluous but more formal than fifth), being at the receiving end of a MLRS salvo is like being in a rain of steel and high explosives, saturation fire is the concept.  You don’t need it to be super-duper accurate because when the rockets hit the ground, there is nowhere safe that you can hide.  And what is this about the AR3 having a radar because airspace control issue has been a sore point between Malaysia and Singapore?  The AR3 is not designed to do air defence. It is a land-offensive system! It shoots targets on the surface, not in the air!

The Malaysian Incite tries to be scarily defence-savvy but sounds scarily stupid trying to sound intelligent

Finally, read Malaysian Incite only if you believe that China has the ability to remotely-control the AR3 that Malaysia “will be getting” to fire rockets at Singapore if Malaysia refuses to do so. The Malaysian Incite is definitely THE portal for empty-skulled sorry-excuse-for-human-beings.

I read this I so scare one lor! I scare oledi Singapore sure scare one mah!

If I were the Malaysian Army, and in a decade I want to replace my ASTROS II, I would probably get the ASTROS 2020 with the tactical missiles with a 300 kilometre range, if I really want such a system.  Else, I will look for a system with commonalities for easy operator transition.

And to add, Najib Razak does not go around making enemies with neighbours. We have had a lot of enemy-making for 22 years once upon a time.

Pulau Pinang Should Be Left To Be Plundered By Guan Eng

A dog cooked alive by people in China

A day ago, a video of a dog being cooked alive in a large wok made its rounds on the Internet.  As sickening as it was, I cannot help but think of the helpless dog as Pulau Pinang, the cook Lim Guan Eng, and the laughing crowd are the Pulau Pinang voters whom has allowed outsider Guan Eng to continue to plunder the island, literally screwing the locals painfully from behind while telling them that it is for their own good while only he is pleasured by the act.

Coincidentally today is the anniversary of Corrupt Minister Lim Guan Eng’s arrest for corrupt practices including using his office and position to influence the price of a property that he had bought.

So much for boasting that he would fight back to clear his name, he has been avoiding trial by claiming many things including that the Act used to arrest him is unconstitutional.  Even blabber-mouthed Tony Pua dared not walk the talk to ask the Tokong to step down from his post – and this has been almost 16 months to the date ball-less Tony Pua said to reporters that the Tokong should step down if charged for corruption.

Since then it has been “ops normal” for the Tokong, running Pulau Pinang like his little own business, selling virtually everything except the backside of the people of Pulau Pinang thus far. He is still not done screwing them from behind.

Not only has he not been able to answer or refute any of the allegations made by the Barisan Nasional, especially on the Pulau Pinang Tunnel project issue, he has been asking his little dog Chow Kow Yeow to do the answering for him, and like the dog in the video Chow Kow Yeow got into hot soup – literally.

Today, a former Pulau Pinang City councillor Dr Lim Mah Hui made a shocking revelation.  In an open letter, today Dr Lim claims that

a developer wants to develop a big project to build 600 high-rise apartments, even though 43 percent of their land exceeds a 25-degree gradient and qualifies as sensitive hill land.

This land was registered as hill land under the Pulau Pinang Land Conservation Act 1960, which means no development is allowed.

However, the developer bought the land in 2010 anyway and applied to the Pulau Pinang State Government in 2011 for the land to be released from protected status.

In the same year in Dec 2011, the State Planning Committee (SPC) approved the release and allowed the development in to commence the same month upon payment of just RM1 million from the developer.

Dr Lim made headlines in December 2016 when he walked out of the City Council before the expiration of his term.

In March last year, he was involved in a heated exchange with Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng during an NGO dialogue session over parking woes, road-widening projects and the council enforcement’s car-towing figures. Later in June 2016 he sent a letter to Unesco expressing fears that the PTMP would jeopardise George Town’s World Heritage Site status while in July 2016, Dr Lim criticised the state’s Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) and suggested an alternative better, cheaper, faster transport master plan.

According to Dr Lim, the gazetted Penang Structure Plan explicitly forbade development on sensitive hill land unless it is a “special project” approved by the state government. How a housing project could have been approved by MBPP under the rubric of “special project” is the subject of contention in this legal case.

What does Tokong care about the plight of the lower income group in Pulau Pinang? As long as money can be made to finance the ever-growing state government expenditure, everything is alright to them.  People who love the greenery, and fishermen can go fly kites for all he care.

The T-shirt worn by the wife of a Queensbay fisherman says it all

Not only has the Pulau Pinang state government’s operating expenditure has risen exponientially compared to when DAP took over the island from BN, parking charges, rates and water tariffs too have been on the increase to finance the extravagance. Just look at how much the spending by the state government under the Tokong has increased in just nine years.

The last seven years under BN compared to the years under DAP

To divert the attention of the people, Tokong today tried to stir the almost dead DoJ issue.  Despite the DoJ documents not listing MO1 or wife of MO1 as people affected by the investigation, and documented evidence that the misappropriated money used by Jho Low et al to purchase priceless goods have nothing to do with the 1MDB, he insists that that is the cause of the economy going bad leading to the government having to implement the GST which in turn led to the higher cost of living.

This does not explain why Saudi Arabia has decided to impose VAT in January 2018 and began a BR1M-like cash-transfer program for its lower income citizens.

Tokong’s argument also does not explain why the Singaporean economy will continue to be sluggish even without a 1MDB.

Nor does it explain oil-rich Venezuela’s extremely high inflation rates and the near-collapse of its economy.

Al Jazeera’s graph showing Venezuela’s volcanic inflation rate

The Tokong also dismissed claims that the DoJ suit is Opposition-driven, and was planned by the Opposition.

He said the United States could have used military might and need not file civil suits in its own country if it wanted to topple the Malaysian government.

US can use military instead of legal suit to topple government screams DAP and Malaysian Incite

This prompted Parti Cina Malaysia’s Deputy President, Datuk Huan Cheng Guan, to lodge a police report against the statement made by Tokong.

Datuk Huan Cheng Guan posing with his police report made against the Tokong

I don’t know if the Pulau Pinang people who are not like Penang Lang Datuk Huan Cheng Guan actually care if the Tokong wants gwei loh to run the country. Gawky Ah Lians who support the DAP and blackened their profile pics on Facebook during the last general election won’t mind having gwei lohs running the country either.  It probably makes them feel extra superior.

Of course, Pulau Pinang people have a price, and a cheap one too.  For a mere RM1 million, like Tokong, you too can screw their behind.  And they seem to love how Tokong does it to their backside while he continues to steal from them.

Did Lim Guan Eng Suggest Anarchy To Overthrow The Government?

Apparently on the 10th December 2014, Tokong Lim suggested that if the Barisan Nasional wins the next general elections when it does not get the popular votes, the change must be done from the streets.

He was speaking at the Lecture Theatre, Student Wing, Block S3.1 Level B3, Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

If the following recording is authentic then the Tokong is not just a corrupted politician and ex-convict, but also an agent provocateur for inciting an undemocratic method to change His Majesty’s government.

LIM GUAN ENG’S SPEECH
“We know that Barisan Nasional are sore losers. They are really sore losers and they will not give up power that easily. Now, what will happen if they refuse to give up power? And I think this is one very important question in people’s minds, especially in the last election when we won the popular mandate but not the number of seats, we can see the huge mess if this issue comes out.

Now, if we win power, both in terms of popular votes, that means the popular votes, but (also) in terms of the number of seats, and then we are not allowed to take power, I think the matter has to be resolved on the streets and it will be resolved on the streets.”
TERJEMAHAN UCAPAN LIM GUAN ENG
“Kita tahu bahawa Barisan Nasional adalah jenis yang tidak berpuas hati jika kalah. Mereka adalah jenis yang sangat tidak berpuas hati jika kalah dan mereka tidak akan menyerahkan kuasa dengan mudah. 

Sekarang, apa akan berlaku jika mereka enggan menyerahkan kuasa? Dan saya fikir ini adalah satu soalan yang sangat penting dalam minda rakyat, terutamanya dalam pilihan raya lepas bila kita menang mandat popular tetapi bukan bilangan kerusi, kita boleh lihat kacau-bilau besar jika isu ini timbul.

Sekarang, jika kita mendapat kuasa, di dalam kedua-dua dari segi undi popular, maknanya tentunya undi popular, tetapi (juga) dari segi bilangan kerusi, dan kemudian kita tidak dibenarkan untuk mengambil-alih kuasa, saya fikir perkara ini mesti diselesaikan di jalan-jalan raya dan ia akan diselesaikan di jalan-jalan raya.”

This is what the law says:

PENAL CODE

130G. Whoever knowingly— (a) incites or promotes the commission of a terrorist act; shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to thirty years, and shall also be liable to fine.

153. Whoever malignantly or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting is committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting is not committed, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.

DEFINITION OF TERRORIST ACT

(3) An act or threat of action falls within this subsection if it— (a) involves serious bodily injury to a person; 90 Laws of Malaysia ACT 574 (b) endangers a person’s life; (c) causes a person’s death; (d) creates a serious risk to the health or the safety of the public or a section of the public; (e) involves serious damage to property; (f) involves the use of firearms, explosives or other lethal devices; (g) involves releasing into the environment or any part of the environment or distributing or exposing the public or a section of the public to— (i) any dangerous, hazardous, radioactive or harmful substance; (ii) any toxic chemical; or (iii) any microbial or other biological agent or toxin; (h) is designed or intended to disrupt or seriously interfere with, any computer systems or the provision of any services directly related to communications infrastructure, banking or financial services, utilities, transportation or other essential infrastructure; (i) is designed or intended to disrupt, or seriously interfere with, the provision of essential emergency services such as police, civil defence or medical services; (j) involves prejudice to national security or public safety; (k) involves any combination of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (a) to (j), and includes any act or omission constituting an offence under the Aviation Offences Act 1984 [Act 307].

The police must act on this lunatic.