Malaysia squatting on Sabah, Sarawak

JS,

To answer your questions in the email below:

(1) Malaysia did not exist before 16 Sept, 1963. So, the question of Sabah and Sarawak joining Malaysia does not arise;

(2) Again, Malaysia came into being on 16 Sept, 1963. This Extraordinary Event (in history, law and Constitution) was not the result of independence but of Occupation of Sabah and Sarawak by Malaya on the heels of the British departure (In fact, the thinking in Malaya -- especially among the Malays -- is that the British gave them Sabah and Sarawak. That's why they behave likewise and why Mahathir Mohamad, who needs no introduction, handed out MyKads meant for citizens by operation of law to illegal immigrants and other foreigners and their children in Sabah without batting an eyelid and remains unrepentant, unapologetic and combative on the issue. Had Malaysia been set up properly, Mahathir would have been hanged for Treason.);

(3) 9 July 1963 refers to the date of the Malaysia Agreement; 31 Aug, 1957 refers to the independence of Malaya or the handover of the Administration to Malayans. There's some dispute on whether the British presence in Malaya was colonial rule. This was raised by history dons not so long ago at Universiti Malaya;

(4) What do you mean by asking whether Sabah and Sarawak signed any agreement with Malaya after their independence on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963? What Agreements are you referring to?

(5) Again, 9 July 1963 was the date of the Malaysia Agreement. There's no such thing as independence for Sabah and Sarawak through Malaysia. If that was the case, Sabah and Sarawak would not have become independent on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively. It was Singapore which obtained its independence through merger with Malaya via Malaysia which was supposed to have been facilitated by Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei.  This issue was put to the Singaporeans in a Yes or No Vote.

Note:

There was no Referendum in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Malaya on Malaysia. The Cobbold Commission in Sabah and Sarawak was not a Referendum. It was open British and Malayan defiance of the UN's Protocols on decolonization.

Dr Jeffrey Kitingan was still in school when Malaysia happened. Now, he has realized that his forefathers were conned into it and wants to do something about it so that future generations will not urinate on his grave too.

However, he's barking up the wrong tree by harping on compliance of the Malaysia Agreement. That will never happen in a million years. What's there to comply with when there was no Referendum on Malaysia? The fact that Dr Jeffrey is calling for compliance shows that there's no Constitution on Malaysia as demanded by an "Extraordinary Event". Had there been a Constitution, whether codified (written in one document) or uncodified (in separate documents), the Malaysia Agreement would have been one of the constitutional documents incorporated in a codified Constitution of Malaysia or one of the constitutional documents making up the uncodified Constitution of Malaysia. Now, we have the Federation of Malaya masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia and the codified Constitution of Malaya being passed off as the codified Constitution of Malaysia.

If Dr Jeffrey wants to contribute to the Debate, he should call for Malaya -- masquerading as Malaysia -- to end its colonial occupation of Sabah and Sarawak. We are not talking here about internal colonization, as in the case of the Indian Nation in Malaya, but colonial occupation.

I don't think that compliance is Dr Jeffrey's idea. Someone probably planted the idea in his head and he has been harping on it ever since without thinking too much about it. Did he sit down with a battery of lawyers and constitutional experts and historians before harping on non-compliance? Did he conduct any research on declassified documents in London and at the UN before harping on compliance? That's why the Malaysian Government doesn't take him seriously. Where they have commented, they claimed various things. Examples: the Malaysia Agreement is only a political agreement (meaning no need to follow); the 20/18 Points is a political guideline, is out of date, has been amended, has been incorporated in the Constitution etc. During GE13, the Sabah BN Manifesto claimed that it would comply with the "Spirit" of the 20 Points. This was an afterthought in response to Star.

A Constitution is not so much about law but politics. It's politicization of issues to gather the people's support which results in an Extraordinary Event -- war (victory or defeat), independence, merger, Revolution -- and the birth of a Constitution.

A Constitution is the ultimate Political Document. So, how can it be said that the Malaysia Agreement, had there been a Referendum and Malaysia set up properly,  is "only a political agreement" (meaning no need to follow/comply). Then, what's the basis for this so-called Malaysia?

Putrajaya is equating a political agreement  with an election manifesto. They are not one and the same thing.

I hope that you understand now why I wanted to be in the main organizing committee for the International Conference on Malaysia Agreement and to record the minutes of the committee meetings and make discussion notes on the meetings. You cannot have clowns running amok -- like a chicken running around with its head cut off -- with an issue like this. The Borneo Heritage Foundation is plagued by uneconomic and unproductive activities because there are too many headless chickens ruling the roost while Dr Jeffrey is torn between being the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand. the three monkeys in the collective: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; and the three blind men in the collective and the elephant. When asked to describe the elephant, one described the tail, another ears and the third the trunk. WTF is C.K. Low to decide on anything? It's because of people like him that many people want to quit Star and the reason while Nila Krisna James and Zainal Ajamain left the United Borneo Front.

Anyway, I have changed my mind.

I no longer wish to be in the main organizing committee, nor do I want to record the minutes. Besides, you have already appointed another to do the minutes and there has been no indication from you on whether Dato James Ligunjang and I will be invited to join the main organizing committee. It was not necessary for you to say that you would have to ask Daniel John Jambun first. Daniel told me that he has nothing to do with who attends or does not attend the main organizing committee meetings. Rosalind Bion too said the same thing.

I will also not be attending the said Conference. Ini bukan pasal merajuk. I see no point.

I want to have nothing to do with Dr Jeffrey's "Comply with Malaysia Agreement" movement. He will run into a dead end and end up banging his head on a brick wall. Then, he will have a third PhD to add to the one from Harvard and the other (Permanent Head Damage) from Kamunting. He must not think that he can secure a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on the Malaysia Agreement (Compliance Mechanism) in the same way that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman P. Waythamoorthy secured an MOU for the Indian Nation in Malaya to end their internal colonization. The issues are different. Colonization and Internal Colonization are not one and the same thing.

Dr Jeffrey won't secure an MOU even if he fasts to death.

The people of Sabah and Sarawak are not interested in compliance. That's the main reason why Star's campaign fell apart during GE13.

The people would only take an interest in local politics if the issue of the restoration of the sovereignty of Sabah and Sarawak is raised. Otherwise, they have no alternative but go along with Barisan Nasional's bullshit on development and Pakatan Rakyat's plea that the people must decide between the two Malaya-based national coalitions only in line with the idea of a so-called two-party/coalition system with no place for a 3rd Force in Parliament. 

In reality, the Umno-dominated BN has no political ideology and is bogged down by the ruling elite's `"Cina ini, Cina itu" mindset based on "jealousy of the Chinese, in particular those in business".

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is driven by greed, jealousy and revenge against Umno.

Pas is into political Islam and obsessed with hudud and an Islamic state.

Dap is for secular politics free of race.

Sabah and Sarawak would of course be much better off if they are on their own like Singapore, Brunei and so many other countries including South Sudan, Kosovo and Timor Leste to cite recent examples. Kurdistan is in the making. Besides, the Orang Asal would lose their countries if the Malayan colonial occupation of Sabah and Sarawak continues. Sabah being free of Malaya in Malaysia is the only way to resolve the problem of illegal immigrants and other foreigners and their children having MyKads meant for citizens by operation of law and entering the electoral rolls.

Singapore's progress, as observed by Mahathir Mohamad, can only be at the expense of Malaysia.

If Singapore has done well for itself, it's entirely due to the extreme stupidity of people like Mahathir and his Umno bunch of clowns. The Malays are more taken up by fairy tales and myths.

By right, Malaysia should have a much larger GDP than Singapore.

Singapore should at best be to Malaysia what California is to the US.

Instead, having failed to squat on Singapore, Malaysia is squatting on Sabah and Sarawak. Consider the fact that the World Bank declared in Dec 2010 in Kota Kinabalu that  the two Nations in Borneo were the poorest in Malaysia. Sabah is the poorest. Earlier, the World Bank also warned that Sabah was chasing its tail on poverty eradication because of the continuing influx of illegal immigrants.

Elsewhere, I hope to see a free Tibet, New Delhi freeing Sikkim one day and the rest of India emerging along the lines of the European Union instead of continuing to remain as an ungovernable unitary state masquerading as a federation. Why must New Delhi decide on everything? That's why the Sikhs in Punjab went on the warpath not so long ago and demanded Khalistan. Mrs. Indira Gandhi stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar and killed all the Khalistani militants instead of entering into a dialogue with the people. She paid with her life. Today, the Khalistanis are restive again and being aided by Pakistan as before Amritsar. I hope that Kerala, for example, will push for status as a sovereign nation in an Indian Union instead of being a state in India. Small is better. Big is evil. Less Government is better. More Government is evil.


J



From: Juliana S <jsvoutique@gmail.com>
To: Joe Fernandez <jfernandez14@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 3:00
Subject: Re: Three Nations

Dear Fernz the Great,

1.   Sabah and Sarawak never joined the Federation of Malaysia?

2.   Malaysia as it stands today has no Independence Day / date?

3.   Malaysia came into being on 9.7.63 but gained ' independence ' on 31.8.1957?

4.   Sabah and Sarawak gained Independence from the British on 31.8.63 and 22.7.63 respectively and thereafter did not sign any agreement with Malaya?

5.  9.7.63 was the signing of MA 63 not Independence 'through' Malaysia for Sabah and Sarawak?



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Joe Fernandez <jfernandez14@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Sabah and Sarawak's pre-Malaysia self-determination status of 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively remains undiminished for two reasons:

(1) there was no Referendum on Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak and none in Brunei and Malaya;

(2) the idea of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei being in Malaysia was to facilitate the independence of Singapore through merger with Malaya in the new Federation.

Brunei stayed out of Malaysia at the 11th hour and Singapore was expelled from the Federation two years later in Aug, 1965.

The oft-cited theory of security for Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia is an afterthought. Sabah and Sarawak did not get the security promised them.

Sabah, like Sarawak, continues to be overrun by illegal immigrants who continue to enter the electoral rolls and marginalize and disenfranchise the locals, especially the Orang Asal.


Posted by Fernz the Great to Fernz the Great . . . a matter of public record at 2 June 2013 09:54

Sent by DiGi from my BlackBerry® Smartphone

International Conference on Malaysia Agreement a travesty of justice

by Joe Fernandez

MY TAKE We are told that the Malaysia Agreement, had it been complied with in 1963, would have been 50 years old this year.

Sabah opposition strongman Jeffrey Kitingan has been in the forefront for many years in calling for the Federal Government to comply, whatever that means, with the Malaysia Agreement. He wants a compliance mechanism to be set up and probably headed by him like a latter day Huguan Siou (Paramount Chief). 

If Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak apologises profusely to Sabahans and Sarawakians for 16 Sept, 1963 and offers Jeffrey a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Malaysia Agreement (Compliance Mechanism), like what he offered on Indian rights to Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman P. Waythamoorthy,  he would no doubt jump up and down in his birthday suit with great joy in the high country in Tambunan and break open the rice wine bottles for an orgy of feasting, drinking, dancing and singing that would go on well past the next Pesta Kaamatan. Also, he probably would not only fall down and worship the man, but kiss his feet and his overkissed ample sun-protected Bugis butt as well.

Paul Low of Transparency International Malaysia is still kissing it -- "corruption will take some time to weed out", "no country is free of corruption", "anyway Malaysia is not that corrupt" -- and has erected a replica of Najib's butt for a shrine at home. How Low will Paul go!

At least, Waytha didn't engage in any shameful behaviour although his call to return the two-thirds majority to Barisan Nasional (BN) during GE13 was a monumental and unforgiveable blunder. He probably got more than a little carried away in a moment of weakness after signing the MOU.

Butt kissing would be nothing new to Jeffrey.

He kissed then Kerala-arrived Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's overtanned -- read black -- butt in 1994, reportedly with the blessing of his elder brother Joseph Pairin Kitingan, but nothing came out of it. Mahathir, being the no good lying son-of-a-bitch Malayalee devil that he was, wasn't impressed! He wanted the Kitingans out for good. He felt that Sabah was his grandfather's property. The brothers were simply standing in his way like annoying little Dusun mosquitoes in cawats who should know better than to cross "the great man that he was, as he had led himself to believe in his twisted Kerala mind".

Jeffrey has been confusing and distorting the Malaysia Agreement non-issue for many years for his own, narrow, selfish political ends and getting away with it in the face of widespread public ignorance, the tribal mindset of the Orang Asal -- Dusnic and Murutic groupings -- and even apathy especially among the Chinese who are universally anti-Malaysia. The Suluk and Bajau, having been marginalised and disenfranchised by Malaysia, are still in a state of shock after not knowing what hit them.

Like the Suluk and Bajau, the Chinese in Sabah consider the Orang Asal, Jeffrey in particular, as totally unreliable. The Orang Asal would have to redeem themselves in the eyes of the non-Orang Asal or continue to see Malaya occupy Sabah, Sarawak as well, for the next 50 years.

For example, in the recent GE13, Jeffrey's Star even fielded candidates in Suluk areas which he had conceded to the pro-tem Usno under a seat-sharing formula. Luckily, the Suluks didn't hit back after having been convinced by vice chairman Phillip Among that the double-cross was in fact perpetrated by some moles in Star on the take in millions from BN and their moneybags. Jeffrey was able to win the Bingkor state seat. The Chinese there and the two nearby state seats refused to vote for him and, as a result, he lost in the Keningau parliamentary seat.

Other activists in Borneo have been screaming themselves hoarse for the restoration of the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak, whatever that means. These point out rather proudly that the two Borneo Nations in Malaysia are not the 12^th and 13^th states in the Federation but in fact equal partners of Malaya.

Among these is the Sabah Progressive Party (Sapp) which broke away from the Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) in 1994 and was in cahoots with Umno to bring down the Sabah state government. Sapp, more than anybody else in recent history, has done the most to compromise the autonomy of Sabah, if there's any such thing. Now that they are out of BN -- they quit on 17 Sept, 2008 -- they are screaming autonomy once again in a bid to reinvent themselves. The result is that the party didn't win even one seat in the recent GE13 and lost its deposit in almost all the seats where it contested. 

Here, the autonomy groups disagree with the definition of Federation in the “Constitution of Malaysia” as inserted after the expulsion of Singapore in 1965.

The fact is that all these so-called activists are barking up the wrong tree.

The Malaysia Agreement, the Malaysia Bill, Malaysia Act, 20/18 Points, the Cobbold Commission Report and the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, all so-called constitutional documents relating to the so-called formation of Malaysia, should be flushed down the toilet, not the dustbin of history, without a moment’s hesitation.

It would be a grave injustice to the people of Sabah and Sarawak to dwell on all these documents and engage in continuing rhetoric and polemics on the issue on both sides of the South China Sea.

Sabah and Sarawak became independent of British colonial rule on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively in line with the Protocols of the United Nations on Decolonization.

This is an indisputable fact although the Malayan history books continue to spread the lie that “Sabah dan Sarawak mencapai kemerdekaan mereka melalui Malaysia”. How can a country achieve independence twice within weeks?

Having achieved independence in an act of self-determination, both Borneo nations did not rush on 16 Sept, 1963 into the so-called Federation of Malaysia.

Even if Sabah and Sarawak had wanted to embark on such a foolish act so soon, they would have held a Referendum on the issue. No such Referendum was held.

Instead, it was the British who set up the Cobbold Commission, the Inter-Governmental Committee, drew up the Malaysia Bill and passed the Malaysia Act in the British Parliament and came up with the Malaysia Agreement and collected the 20/18 Points from Sabah and Sarawak respectively.

All the British actions were null and void in view of 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963.

The British had no business deciding for two independent nations.

Both Sabah and Sarawak were effectively occupied by Malaya, the new colonial power, on 16 Sept, 1963.

This year, 50 years after that dastardly act, it’s time for Sabahans and Sarawakians to reflect not on the so-called Malaysia Agreement as Jeffrey’s Borneo Heritage Foundation plans to do on Sept 13 through an International Conference in Kota Kinabalu but on 16 Sept, 1963 as Occupation Day.

It's also a day to remember the many attempts made to fight the Malaysia yoke descending on the people of Sabah and Sarawak and, subsequently, to remove it.

The Azahari rebellion in Brunei in 1962  was against the idea of Malaysia in Borneo.

Indonesia launched the Ganyang Malaysia movement under its policy of konfrantasi.

The Philippines, like Indonesia, refused to recognise Malaysia.

The communists in Sarawak retreated into the jungles and fought a long war to eject the Malayan colonialists from Borneo. They joined forces with the Indonesians in Kalimantan.

The fight is not over yet if the thinking among the younger generation is any indication. The Young Turks in Star, in particular, are getting restive.

The bottomline is that the international community and the United Nations cannot standby and continue to watch the independence of Sabah and Sarawak continue to be compromised.

Malaya must be told in no uncertain terms by the UN, as it did with Indonesia in the case of East Timor, that it must end its 50-year colonial occupation of Sabah and Sarawak. Malaya must judge itself by the same standards it applies in Palestine.

Both Borneo nations, Sabah and Sarawak, must get back the independence that they won on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963.

The Palestinians are not the only people in the world crying out for justice!

International Conference on Malaysia Agreement of 1963

 by Joe Fernandez

CURTAIN-RAISER There's going to be an International Conference on the Malaysia Agreement in Kota Kinabalu on Sept 13. Had the Malaysia Agreement been complied with, it would have been 50 years old this year.

The Conference, sponsored by the Borneo Heritage Foundation, will be moderated by Tan Sri Simon Sipaun who has been preaching all his adult life that "life was better in Sabah before Malaysia". He was even interrogated once on this after a police report was lodged against him.

He's not referring to materialism but, judging from his past presentations, land issues, Native status not being confined to Orang Asal, Malayans invading the Federal civil service in Sabah, unfair revenue sharing, no petrochemical industries worth speaking of, no Sabah/Sarawak representation in Petronas, issues with scholarships, racial discrimination, religious issues created by the National Registration Department, racial polarization, no living wage, higher prices in Sabah/Sarawak and a higher cost of living and lower standards of living; poor internet, telephone, road, rail, air and sea connectivity; poor infrastructure, low industrialization, locals being edged out by foreigners in jobs and businesses, gerrymandering, statelessness, the influx of illegal immigrants and the violation of human rights. The street children, abandoned by the illegal immigrants, are not in school as provided for under the UN Charter.

Tan Sri Simon was a former Sabah state secretary, vice chairman of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission and Advisor to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

Malaysia is the only country in the world that doesn't teach the history of its formation, if any.

Instead, the history books claim in an outright lie that "Sabah dan Sarawak mencapai kemerdekaan mereka melalui Malaysia". How can that be when Malaysia was declared on 16 Sept, 1963 and Sabah and Sarawak became independent on 31 Aug, 1963 and July 22, 1963 respectively?

I am only interested in the issue from the Adat, historical, political, constitutional angle and from the viewpoint of jurisprudence.

This is the 21st Century. Look at what's happening in Turkey. No Army in the world can keep down a people who have stood up and are on the march.

Man does not live by bread alone. The GE13 results, for example, make that clear.

The people have rejected self-preservation being passed off as change. They want real change.

Several terms are important: no Referendum in 1963; Singapore; Security; the definition of Federation in the Constitution before and after Singapore left; the codified Constitution of Malaya; and the uncodified Constitution of Malaysia had there been a Referendum.

Cobbold Commission was not Referendum.

Sabah and Sarawak's pre-Malaysia self-determination status of 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively remains undiminished for at least two reasons:

(1) there was no Referendum on Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak and none in Brunei and Malaya;

(2) the idea of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei being in Malaysia was to facilitate the independence of Singapore through merger with Malaya in the new Federation.

Brunei stayed out of Malaysia at the 11th hour and Singapore was expelled from the Federation two years later in Aug, 1965.

The oft-cited theory of security for Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia is an afterthought. Sabah and Sarawak did not get the security promised them.

Sabah, like Sarawak, continues to be overrun by illegal immigrants who continue to enter the electoral rolls and marginalize and disenfranchise the locals, especially the Orang Asal.

A Constitution is not about law but politics. It's the ultimate political document although anything unconstitutional is unlawful, and therefore illegal.

An extraordinary event like Malaysia, had there been a Referendum, must have a Constitution.

There's no Constitution which incorporates all the constitutional documents on Malaysia and that's because there was no Referendum.

The fact that Jeffrey Kitingan is screaming himself hoarse on non-compliance of the Malaysia Agreement should tell us all something. No one can simply march in and steal other people's country. East Timor refers.

Under the UN Charter and international law, a people have the right to self-determination.

Again, Sabah became independent on 31 Aug, 1963 and Sarawak became independent on 22 July, 1963. That self-determination remains undiminished.

Sovereignty lies with a people.

I have often wondered how Sabah and Sarawak ended up in the situation that they find themselves in today after 50 years i.e. as colonies of Malaya.

God doesn't give everything to one person or one side.

I am sure that he provided many opportunities in the past for Sabahans and Sarawakians to seek redress.

If nothing happened, it could only be that some people capitalized on these opportunities to be co-opted by the corrupt system as proxies, stooges and rogue elements for their own narrow, selfish, self-serving ends.

The people have to be careful how they choose their leaders.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics

by Joe Fernandez

COMMENT There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

According to a chart in malaysiakini, from 2000 to 2013, there were 65 Malay deaths in custody, 33 Chinese, 35 Indians, 10 Others, and 15 Foreigners.

Considering the Indian population, there should not be more than 7 deaths if compared with the Malays and Chinese.

So, Indian deaths in police custody are disproportionate.

The figures exclude those who don't die in custody but are bashed up anyway near death and perhaps die not long after because of the beatings. The figures also exclude those who die in shootouts with the police, those rotting for years under "remand" pending trial and those banished or placed under restricted residence.

Indian suicide rates, the highest in the country, are mostly the result of an absence of a social safety network. These people, generally displaced from the estates without any marketable skills, should be provided with some land by the state so that they can fend for themselves.

The police can't maintain peace by extrajudicial measures. They tried this in Brazil and Indonesia and it didn't work. Eventually, Brazil and Indonesia were hauled up by the United Nations.

The police should also not appear to do the bidding of the wealthy, the Triads and elements of the criminal underworld.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/231759

Alternative media running amok for no rhyme or reason

by Joe Fernandez

COMMENT It's not surprising that malaysiakini has incurred the renewed displeasure of Umno Government supporters in the wake of GE13 on 505. http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/231538, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/231652

Aug 2010, to the best of my recollection, is the month malaysiakini did an about turn in its "making a difference for the better" editorial policy and began emulating the racist Malay media like Utusan Malaysia to degenerate into mindless rhetoric and polemics, often downright news manufacturing under the guise of straight news reporting, instead of contributing in a healthy manner like before to the debate. Janji Di Capati!

Going back and forth between trouble-creators, instigating or provoking them in the process, is not journalism. Journalism is following the news as it happens, not making things up. Why canai or goreng stories, adding sambal and belacan? We have better things to do in this country than indulge in endless politicking.

An example is shameless Anwar Ibrahim apologist Terence Netto writing a story alleging that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman and Deputy Minister-designate P. Waythamoorthy was maintaining an ominous silence on the death of a Dharmendran in police custody.  http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/231260

The May 27 story, complete with quotes in Netto's highly indisciplined language, but attributed to Opposition MP Kulasegaran, was obviously an attempt to blacken Waytha's image as much as possible. Pakatan Rakyat (PR) still seems to be smarting from the Hindraf leader's move to sign a non-political Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Barisan Nasional (BN) on the eve of 505.  http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/231592

In fact, Waytha did issue a stern statement on the incident on May 23 i.e. before the so-called Kula story. It was carried in Free Malaysia Today whose senior journalists were once with malaysiakini before they were hounded out of existence one by one. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/05/23/lame-excuses-from-the-cops/

Hindraf has an important role to play in Barisan Nazional, for want of a better term, re-inventing itself and re-emerging as Barisan Nasional through every component party in the coalition opening its doors to all races.

Hindraf activists, for example, could join Umno if they are interested in politics and strive to change the racist party from within to accept that there must be no deviations and distortions in the implementation of Articles 153 and 3 of the Federal Constitution and the New Economic Policy, among others.

Needless to say the onus is on Hindraf, as 3rd Force allies of Sabah and Sarawak, to ensure that the parti parti Malaya keep out of Sabah and Sarawak in line with the Malaysia Agreement.

The most dangerous trend in malaysiakini is to hype up the rhetoric and polemics on a particular issue for no rhyme or reason until things reach an explosive point.

A case in point is an ex-Judge citing the Federal Constitution to state that government schools must be in the Malay medium. What the Judge seemed to be suggesting was that the Government stop financing Tamil and Chinese schools. Of course, the Judge could have better articulated his presentation.

malaysiakini mindlessly went to town with the ex-Judge's remarks just as they did before GE13 with remarks by Mahathir, Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa and Zulkifli Noordin. The more the trio opened their mouths under malaysiakini's insatiable hunger for rhetoric and polemics, the worse for the BN if not Umno in Malaya.

Again, rhetoric and polemics is what malaysiakini is all about.

Good bullshit we can understand. At least, if for nothing else, it's entertaining.

But malaysiakini is just plain bad bullshit and it's getting to be more than boring and certainly dangerous.

They seem to begrudge giving even a little space to Sabah and Sarawak -- even for carrying Kaamatan and Gawai Dayak greetings on May 30/31 and June 1/2 respectively --  although these two nations will decide the future of politics in Malaysia. Witness the fact that PR obtained 80 parliamentary seats in Malaya and nine in Borneo, and BN obtained 85 parliamentary seats in Malaya and 48 in Borneo.

I can speak with some authority on the subject. I used to be the Sabah correspondent for malaysiakini from 2008. This was despite myself telling them in 2000 that they were not functioning like how an alternative media should, apparently toeing the dictates of its then known foreign backers and investors, and ticking them off for exploiting Indian journalists as cheap labour.

While it lasted, I seemed to have a carte blanc to publish anything in malaysiakini and Sabah and Sarawak got some space. Anything I contributed was uploaded within minutes. Of course, these were all initially non-political stories.

But it was not until Jan 2011 that I received an email from Editor in Chief Steven Gan laying out the new "more exciting" editorial policy.

Subsequently, malaysiakini first banned me from writing on PKR, next Dap, then Sapp, and thereafter on Jeffrey Kitingan and Hindraf Makkal Sakthi. I was banned from writing about Hindraf after P. Uthayakumar accused malaysiakini and Steven of being racists for not highlighting Indian issues especially deaths in police custody. (I notice that malaysiakini has begun carrying Uthaya's stories of late and  giving space to deaths in police custody.)

malaysiakini's agenda was clear: no adverse reporting on Pakatan Rakyat and no space to be given to any movement from Sabah and Sarawak towards a 3rd Force in the Malaysian Parliament or any alliance between Hindraf and Sabah, Sarawak activists. All that was deemed to be counterproductive for PR.

Finally, they placed a moratorium – whatever it means -- on my political stories for malaysiakini. I was not in the mood to go back immediately to writing non-political stories although I began with malaysiakini as a non-political writer. The political situation was building up towards 505.

malaysiakini, the last I know, also did not pay a lawyer who defended it and me in Sabah on a defamation case. The malaysiakini lawyer has only collected RM 1, 000 so far.

I prepared the entire case myself under the oversight of the lawyer who appeared in Court for us and worked out an out-of-court settlement with the concurrence of malaysiakini. The lawyer decided that I could present the case better in print. He stuck to authorities i.e. looking for the law and pointing it out to the Court and citing decided cases for principles.

I advised the lawyer, on behalf of malaysiakini, to file contempt of Court charges against the other side and the Court, as a result, struck out the case without a hearing. malaysiakini was upset over the contempt of Court filing and took the view that I had “exceeded” the bounds of my authority.

It seems that as in the Taib case, they rather cringe, crawl and grovel sadistically before the other side and apologise profusely in the local media and malaysiakini. The website is only brave when running stories. If someone sues them, they will run here and there like a chicken with its head cut off, shitting in their pants.


Expanding from the moratorium, malaysiakini decided not to upload my stories until the lawyer's bill was settled. What they meant is that I had to pay half the bill. This is unprecedented in world history, a publisher dumping the legal bill on a reporter instead of accepting the full responsibility as was the industry norm. No reporter will work for a publisher in that case.

After deciding that I should pay half the legal expenses, malaysiakini decided to cringe, crawl and grovel before the lawyer for a discount for their so-called half of the bill. One sob story they gave the lawyer was that legal firms in Kuala Lumpur were willing to handle their cases free. Why didn't they point out that I prepared the case myself and therefore they should get a big discount? Instead, they told me to lay off and that they will handle the lawyer themselves from Kuala Lumpur. The lawyer was firm: "no discounts can be considered until they accepted the principle that they are responsible for the entire bill as agreed from the very beginning."


malaysiakini's stand that I should pay half the legal bill does not hold water for two other reasons: (a) the Board of Directors gave a letter to the Court admitting that the story uploaded and which became an issue in Court was not what I emailed them. They wrote their own headline and mucked around here and there with the contents. In the language of the Court, I was not the Author of the story. I did not have to produce my original emailed story as it was privileged communication; (2) why should I pay any part of the bill when I prepared almost the entire case myself? In fact, both the lawyer and malaysiakini should pay me.

Over a period of four years, I produced at least one story daily, sometimes two, for malaysiakini. I don't see them thanking me even once or expressing gratitude. They take everybody for granted.

I was hoping that sanity would return to malaysiakini after GE13. No such luck since the politicking in the country continues and provides even more cannon fodder for malaysiakini. Even so, it did publish my pieces earlier this year on the Royal Commission of Inquiry in Sabah and other issues.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/219442, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/219964, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/220024, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/222048, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/222853,

We don't need an online version of the mainstream media from the Opposition angle.

The rot in malaysiakini began when Pakatan Rakyat leaders, especially one who thinks that he's god's gift to politics -- not Anwar Ibrahim -- began influencing the online news portal's editorial policy in the wake of Jeffrey's departure from PKR.

There's public suspicion that many malaysiakini reporters are on the take. Such perceptions, in any case, go with the job.

In line with the new editorial policy, a "racist" editor in malaysiakini allegedly began getting rid of the online news portal's Indian journalists. Perhaps they could now afford to pay more and no longer wanted cheap labour. They cannot afford to be stingy with non-Indians and get away with it. Those victimised, exploited for so long as cheap labour, have their own stories to tell.

Now, there appears to be moves afoot within the Najib Administration to act against malaysiakini.

If the Government can succeed with this move, the country can avoid the prospect of the people, especially the Malays, turning against each other. This is no exaggeration.

If any action is taken against malaysiakini over its editorial policy and direction, similar action must be taken against Utusan Malaysia.

However, while Utusan Malaysia has been a miserable failure in that the Malays are turning against it, malaysiakini has succeeded, and that's another reason to incur the wrath of Umno and the racist Malay media.

FMT, known to be run by moneybags who claim links with Daim Zainuddin, is no better. They wanted me to whack the shit out of PR.

malaysia chronicle is under the direction of the Chinese in Parti Keadilan Rakyat. They once rewrote a Jeffrey Kitingan piece that I did for them at their request. Black came out as white and white came out as black. The greys were removed. That was the first and last Jeffrey piece I did for them. They wanted me to whack the shit out of BN and the Kitingans. Obviously, they think that Sabah is their grandfather's property!

Malaysia Today, financed by moneybags linked to Umno warlords, is into post-GE13 bullshit to disorient and confuse non-Malay politics.

It must reckon that all Chinese are stupid. The Chinese can buy MT at a loss and sell it at a profit.

In a bizarre post-505 claim recently, MT said that Umno, BN and the Malays were light years ahead of the Indians and Chinese in politics. I suppose MT couldn't resist exposing its stupidity in this manner. Sometimes, one can be one's own worst enemy.

MT removed my login recently, insist that my comments be first screened by their so-called administrators, and no longer use my articles and now, it seems, my comments as well are no longed published. Others seem to have a licence to post their comments, unmoderated, complete with vulgarities.

This was after I posted an unmoderated comment identifying the moneybags who financed their so-called study on the ground conducted a year before GE13.

Daim Zainuddin's forecast of the GE13, indeed so-called prophecy, was based on the outcome of a year-long study.

I told Malaysia Today in my comment that I forecast the GE13 results, the cheating excluded, without being financed by any moneybag. The only error I made was that PKR, on the wave of a two-party/coalition system, collected the seats in Sabah which I had expected to fall to Star.

Daim’s concern, behind the MT hype, is understandable. The corporate sector has been contributing heavily to the Umno/BN coffers for GE purposes. The Opposition is making every GE an increasingly expensive outing for Umno/BN. Henceforth, the corporate sector would probably refuse to contribute even a sen to the ruling coalition. Umno is already in big trouble financially because of GE13.

MT doesn’t want to hear that Umno/BN is also in trouble on two other fronts: (1) the veterans and young Malaysians, especially Malays, who find themselves left out as candidates by a small clique in the ruling coalition are flocking to the Opposition; and (2) fewer and fewer Malays are registering themselves as voters and even when they do, they don’t turn up to vote because they see it as an exercise in futility.

Raja Petra Kamaruddin no longer seems to be in control of MT. He didn't seem to mind publishing things that he didn't agree with.

Other online news portals and Blogs are linked to various political parties on both sides of the political divide.

Their common enemy is the emergence of a Borneo-based 3rd Force in the Malaysian Parliament. Why should the people of Borneo be held to ransom by a struggle for power in Malaya?

No alternative media is truly free, fair and independent.

In that sense, they are no better than the mainstream media.

Again, while the mainstream media has been an appalling failure in recent years, the alternative media has had some dubious success to the alarm of Umno.