Sunday, June 28, 2009

THE JOHORE CAUSEWAY / TAMBAK JOHOR

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 26, 2009 11:51 AM

(Versi Bahasa Malaysia di akhir rencana ini)

1. I put the document on the financing of the construction of the Johor Causeway because a Minister in Tun Abdullah's Government claimed that it is jointly owned by us and Singapore. Therefore Singapore must agree before anything (demolition) is done to the causeway.

2. There has never been any agreement or treaty to say that the causeway is jointly owned. If at all 2/3rd of the causeway belong to Johore. And the 2/3rd must be the part which ends in Johore Bahru because the border on the Tebrau Straits is the deep water line which runs midway between Singapore and Johore. This must also be the border on the causeway. The northern half of the causeway therefore belong to Malaysia, a sovereign independent nation.

3. The suggestion that we may not touch the causeway without Singapore's permission is not part of any agreement with Singapore. What we do to the part of the causeway which is ours is our sovereign right. Not to exercise our sovereign right is akin to not being independent.

4. Why should we build a bridge to replace the causeway? That part of Johore Bahru where the traffic to and from the causeway meets the traffic going east and west in JB is often jammed. In future as more vehicles go on the roads the jam would certainly get worse.

5. The bridge will join the elevated road to and from the CIQ (Customs, Immigration and Quarantine complex) leaving the traffic east and west to flow freely.

6. Besides the traffic problem, the water in the straits is stagnant. If the causeway is opened up there would be constant flow of water in both direction, thus flushing out the water in the strait.

7. Without the causeway boats and yachts can sail in either direction. Transport of goods and people between Pasir Gudang Port to Tanjung Pelepas Port would be facilitated. This would be good for the growth of both ports - something which perhaps Singapore would not like to see.

8. The free movements of boats along the strait would itself create business. The bridge which would be wider than the causeway would speed up the flow of traffic. The CIQ was designed to handle this increasingly heavier traffic.

9. As to why it was not built during my 22 years, the answer is that the need for a bridge became clear towards the end of my term. In any case I had approved it before I stepped down. The work was started during my time. Had Abdullah not stopped it, the bridge would have been almost complete by now.

10. Since Singapore would only agree to a straight bridge if one billion cubic metre of sand is sold to it; since the people of Johore are against selling sand and allowing Singapore fighter planes to practice over Johore, the option for the Malaysian Government is to revert to building the scenic bridge in our territorial waters. This is the sovereign right of an independent nation.

11. Instead Tun Abdullah decided not only not to build the bridge but to stop negotiating over all the other issues including the refusal of Singapore to release CPF (Central Provident Fund) contribution of Peninsular Malaysians, the railway land, the 3 sen per 1,000 gallons which Singapore pays for raw water (Malacca pays 30 sen per 1,000 gallons).

12. All these issues are in Singapore's favour and not negotiating better terms because Johore people refuse to sell sand is like cutting one's nose to spite one's face. We are the losers. I think it is a very stupid way of punishing Singapore. Or is it the intention to punish Johore people for not agreeing to sell sand (somebody is bound to make a huge amount of money) and rejecting the honour of having Singapore warplanes practicing aerial combat and bombing over Johore.

*****

1. Saya siarkan dokumen berkenaan pembiayaan pembinaan Tambak Johor kerana ada Menteri di dalam pentadbiran Tun Abdullah yang mendakwa Tambak Johor milik bersama antara kita dan Singapura. Sebab itu Singapura harus bersetuju sebelum apa-apa tindakan (meroboh) dapat dilakukan terhadap tambak tersebut.

2. Tidak terdapat apa-apa persetujuan mahupun perjanjian yang mengatakan Tambak Johor milik bersama. Jika ada pun 2/3 daripada tambak tersebut adalah milik Johor. Dan bahagian 2/3 tersebut sudah semestinya yang berakhir di Johor Bahru kerana sempadan di Selat Tebrau merupakan laluan air yang paling dalam, kira-kira separuh dari selat tersebut antara Singapura dan Johor. Ini mestilah juga sempadan tambak. Dengan itu separuh tambak di bahagian utara adalah hak Malaysia, satu negara yang berdaulat dan merdeka.

3. Cadangan yang mengatakan kita tidak boleh sentuh tambak tanpa kebenaran Singapura bukan merupakan sebahagian daripada apa-apa perjanjian dengan Singapura. Apa yang kita buat pada bahagian tambak di sebelah kita adalah hak kita sebagai satu negara yang berdaulat. Tidak melaksanakan hak kedaulatan kita samalah dengan menganggap diri kita dijajah.

4. Kenapa kita perlu bina jambatan untuk gantikan tambak? Jalanraya di Johor Baru di mana lalu lintas dari dan ke arah tambak bertemu dengan lalu lintas menghala ke arah timur dan barat seringkali sesak. Di masa hadapan apabila lebih banyak kenderaan menggunakan jalan tersebut, kesesakan tentu akan bertambah buruk.

5. Jambatan akan disambung ke jalan jejambat dari dan ke kompleks kastam, imigresen dan kuarantin (CIQ), dan ini akan benarkan lalulintas dari timur ke barat untuk bergerak lancar.

6. Selain masalah trafik, laluan air di selat juga tidak mengalir. Jika tambak dibuka, air akan bebas mengalir di kedua-dua arah, dan akan membersihkan perairan di selat.

7. Ketiadaan tambak juga akan benarkan bot dan kapal layar belayar pergi balik di kedua-dua arah. Pengangkutan barangan dan penumpang di antara pelabuhan Pasir Gudang dan pelabuhan Tanjung Pelepas juga akan dipermudahkan. Ini akan bantu pertumbuhan kedua-dua pelabuhan - sesuatu yang mungkin Singapura tidak suka lihat.

8. Laluan tanpa halangan bot-bot sepanjang selat juga akan mewujudkan peluang perniagaan. Jambatan akan lebih lebar daripada tambak dan akan mempercepatkan aliran lalulintas. Bangunan CIQ juga direkabentuk untuk menampung jumlah trafik yang lebih tinggi.

9. Saya ditanya kenapa ianya tidak dibina semasa 22 tahun pentadbiran saya, jawapannya ialah keperluan untuk jambatan hanya jadi lebih jelas di akhir jangka waktu pentadbiran saya. Walaubagaimanapun saya telah luluskan projek tersebut sebelum saya berundur. Kerja-kerja pembinaan juga bermula semasa saya masih lagi mentadbir. Jika Abdullah tidak berhentikan, jambatan sudah tentu akan hampir siap sekarang.

10. Oleh kerana Singapura hanya akan setuju untuk membina jambatan lurus jika satu bilion metre padu pasir dijual kepadanya; oleh kerana rakyat Johor membantah penjualan pasir dan kebenaran bagi pesawat pejuang Singapura berlatih di ruang udara Johor, pilihan yang ada bagi Kerajaan Malaysia hanyalah untuk kembali pada pembinaan jambatan bengkok (indah) di perairan wilayah kita. Ini adalah hak sebuah negara berdaulat yang merdeka.

11. Sebaliknya Abdullah putuskan untuk bukan sahaja tidak bina jambatan di perairan kita tetapi juga untuk berhenti berunding berkenaan semua perkara lain termasuk keengganan Singapura meluluskan dana CPF (Central Provident Fund) yang dicarum pekerja dari semenanjung Malaysia, tanah keretapi, harga air mentah 3 sen untuk 1,000 gelen yang dibayar Singapura (Melaka bayar 30 sen untuk 1,000 gelen).

12. Kesemua isu ini memberi keuntungan pada Singapura dan dengan menghentikan rundingan untuk mendapatkan hak yang lebih baik dalam masalah tersebut kononnya kerana orang Johor menolak penjualan pasir yang rugi ialah kita. Yang kalah adalah kita. Saya rasa ini satu cara bodoh untuk hukum Singapura. Ataupun adakah ianya satu hukuman bagi orang Johor kerana tidak setuju jual pasir (ada orang yang akan buat banyak duit) dan menolak cadangan supaya ruang udara Johor Baru dijadikan tempat pesawat pejuang Singapura berlatih berperang dan mengebom.

Justify Full

TAMBAK JOHOR

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 24, 2009 3:36 PM

Seorang kawan saya telah membuat kajiselidik berkenaan Tambak Johor.

Saya tak nak komen apa-apa. Hanya di sini saya siarkan hasil kajian ini.

Image 1

Image 2

Komen pelawat adalah dijemput.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

SOUND BITES

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 23, 2009 5:14 PM

1. I read somewhere that the Singapore Parliament made up of 82 PAP (People's Action Party) members and two opposition (made bankrupt by the Singapore Government) have just passed a new law which defines one person as an assembly. Before according to Singapore laws, 5 people would constitute an assembly and police could arrest them if they had not obtained permission to be together.

2. The new Public Order Act (POA) gives power to the police to tell even one person to move on because he has now been defined as an assembly.

3. It is explained that this POA is to prevent destabilising street protests seen in Thailand and terrorist attacks such as Mumbai.

4. I am sure with this new law, Singapore will not see a one-man demonstration or riot.


THE LITTLEST MIDDLE KINGDOM

1. When I wrote about the Little Middle Kingdom I thought that it would annoy some Singaporeans. But apparently it angered this fellow who writes under the name of "Shuzheng" so much so that he is quite incoherent in his reply.

2. He talks of "Lee Kuan Yew comes around and flashes off at him like a mirror" which he concludes is "the reason he (Mahathir) hates Lee Kuan Yew".

3. The he praised Kelantanese Nik Aziz. I cannot quite understand him when he puts in brackets, "(reminds of the good Kelantanese Nik Aziz, excepting the moments that Nasha fellow came along to vomit on his lap)".

4. He is also upset with "a motley of St. Xavier types, drifting, selfish, quarrelsome, middle-aged and old men, endless days on the Net, illiterate in maths, science and history, jobless, absent of identity roots, confused personalities, Chinese who can't read Chinese, not even their mother's name, Tamil who cannot read Tamil and all write in bad English".

5. His writing are of course brilliant examples of good English.

6. He confesses that Kuan Yew "is concerned about preserving the Chinese identity" and apparently not of the Singapore identity which would include Indian and Malay.

7. He decried the Malay population, "drowned as they were into deadness by the bellicose shouting, name calling, quarelling and insults....", and then "Added to this dint** obstructing clarity is the drum beating from the sidelines of Mahathir, the Malaysia Today iliterate horde". (**Wonder whether he means "din")

8. He stated that I was English educated but I am sorry I cannot understand his English.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

SOUND BITES

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 17, 2009 10:40 AM

KEJU SUSU KAMBING

1. Mike, pengusaha keju mozzarella di Langkawi telah kembangkan perusahaanya dengan membuat keju dari susu kambing yang di ternak olehnya.

2. Kualiti kejunya amat baik dan diterima oleh hotel lima-bintang di Langkawi.

3. Mike menunjuk banyak lagi hasil dari proses membuat keju susu kambing dan semua by-products ini boleh diguna untuk buat pizza dan lain-lain.

4. Malaysia bukannya terkenal sebagai negara yang mengeluarkan keju. Tetapi saya fikir, setelah melihat pengeluaran mozzarella cheese dan keju susu kambing, tidak ada sebab kenapa kita tidak boleh adakan industri baru ini.

LISRAM (Langkawi International Shooting Range Malaysia)

1. Semasa kita mengadakan Sukan Komanwel sebuah lapangan sasar telah dibangunkan di Langkawi. Lapangan sasar ini mempunyai kawasan yang cukup luas, terletak di tepi bukit dan mempunyai air terjun. Ia di lanskap dengan cukup cantik.

2. Semua jenis sukan menembak boleh diadakan termasuk skit-shooting dan lapangan untuk tembakan jauh 1 kilometer.

3. Kerajaan telah belanja entah berapa juta untuk bangunkan Lisram. Untuk selenggara beberapa anggota pasukan keselamatan diadakan.

4. Kadang-kadang pasukan-pasukan keselamatan mengadakan latihan disitu. Tetapi biasanya Lisram tidak digunakan.

5. Saya terfikir ramai pelancong datang ke Langkawi. Di antara dua juta pelancong tentu ada sebilangan yang berminat dengan sukan tembak-menembak.

6. Jika disedia jenis-jenis alatan menembak di Lisram dan disewakan kepada peminat sukan ini di antara pelancong yang datang ke Langkawi, ia bukan sahaja akan memberi pulangan kepada pelaburan yang besar yang telah dibuat, ia juga boleh jadi satu tarikan untuk pelancong datang ke Langkawi.

7. Saya tahu Kerajaan amat curiga jika senjata disimpan tanpa kawalan rapi. Tetapi tentu kawalan rapi boleh diadakan di Lisram atau di balai polis di Kuah. Bukan sesuatu yang tidak dapat di lakukan jika kita ingin membuat sesuatu.

8. Ini adalah cadangan saya. Hanya yang berkuasa sahaja yang boleh laksanakan cadangan ini.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

THE MODERN MIDDLE KINGDOM

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 15, 2009 3:10 PM

1. Ancient China considered itself the centre of the world and called itself the Middle Kingdom. And well it should. It was far more advanced in every way than Europe of the Dark Ages. Maybe China is thinking of making a comeback.

2. But we already have a new Middle Kingdom now. During Lee Kuan Yew's triumphant visit to Malaysia he made it known to the Malaysian supplicants that Singapore regards the lands within 6000 miles radius of Singapore as its hinterland. This includes Beijing and Tokyo and of course Malaysia.

3. Of course this self-deluding perception places Singapore at the centre of a vast region. It is therefore the latter day Middle Kingdom. The rest are peripheral and are there to serve the interest of this somewhat tiny Middle Kingdom.

4. Kuan Yew also explained that the fear Singapore Chinese would control Iskandar whatever is not justified. Malays can also work there. It is good to know that Malays can also work in their own country. I wonder as what? Maybe someone should make a study of the Malays of Singapore just to know what it is like to be a Malay minority in their own country.

5. As for the 3 sen per 1000 gallons of raw water supplied to Singapore Lee says it was absurd for the former Prime Minister of hinterland Malaysia to ask to increase it to RM8 per 1000 gallons. I don't know where he got this. Some Malaysian officers did suggest this figure but we were ready to bargain and maybe settle for RM3. And why not? Johore sells raw water to Melaka for 30 sen, 1000% higher than to Singapore. And Melaka is, I believe, a part of Malaysia! Some Malaysians may see the irony of this.

6. The great 5th Prime Minister has decided that since the people of Johore did not want to sell sand to Singapore, Malaysia would not build any bridge, straight or crooked, or negotiate and settle the other issues like the Central Provident Fund, the Railway land. Maybe the 5th Prime Minister thinks he is punishing Singapore. Actually he is giving Singapore what its wants including the 3 sen per 1000 gallons water until 2061. Think of how many grains of nasi lemak we can buy with 3 sen in 2061. Imagine what 1000 gallons will earn for Singapore at that time. Can't think of a more astute PM for Malaysia.

7. All those who met the great man from the little country were lectured on how Malaysia should be run. We should not have anymore problems now. We have been told the direction to take. MCA must help UMNO to win because Singapore does not want an Islamic Party like PAS to win. We must ensure this. Sorry PAS. Working with the DAP, the offspring of PAP has not endeared you to Mr Lee.

8. I have a lot more to say about this little Emperor but I will reserve it for later.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

SEKOLAH

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 12, 2009 3:55 PM

1. Seorang tetamu datang berjumpa saya kerana masalah yang dihadapi olehnya. Semasa dia menuju pintu keluar dia berkata, " Saya sedih anak saya yang sedang bersekolah tak tahu langsung sejarah Malaysia."

2. Isterinya yang turut bersama mencelah, "Anak saya tak tahu pun ibukota negeri-negeri. Dulu semasa saya di sekolah saya hafal nama semua ibukota bukan sahaja negeri-negeri di Malaysia, tetapi negara-negara di dunia."

3. Saya baca dalam akhbar bahawa bahasa Inggeris tidak perlu diwajibkan. Jadi apakah yang diwajibkan jika sejarah tak wajib, bahasa Inggeris pun tidak.

4. Saya percaya kita hantar anak ke sekolah supaya dia akan menguasai ilmu. Kita tidak hantar mereka bersekolah untuk dapat sijil tanpa ilmu.

5. Sijil dengan sendirinya tidak akan melayakkan kita untuk apa-apa. Yang melayakkan kita ialah ilmu-ilmu yang sijil berkenaan menyenaraikan telah dikuasai oleh pemegang. Oleh itu jika kita kurangkan ilmu yang diwajibkan supaya kita lulus dengan mudah, catitan dalam sijil tidak punyai makna lagi. Sijil sudah tidak berguna lagi.

6. Mungkin sejarah tak ada kena mengena dengan jenis kerja yang akan dibuat oleh kita. Tetapi tanpa sejarah kita tidak tahu siapa kita, dari mana kita datang dan kenapakah kita berada di sini dan tidak di tempat lain. Apabila kita tidak tahu dari mana kita datang, maka sukar bagi kita menentukan kearah mana kita akan pergi. Mungkin kita percaya kita sedang maju kehadapan tetapi sebaliknya kita sedang undur ke belakang.

7. Semua mata pelajaran susah. Kalau senang apa gunanya kita adakan sekolah, apa perlunya guru yang terlatih. Sebenarnya sekolah mempermudah penguasaan ilmu melalui susunan dan tingkatan, sehingga yang lemah pun boleh belajar, dari satu tingkat ke satu tingkat.

8. Dahulu kita dikehendaki baca dan hafal. Di sesetengah negara Islam masih dilihat kanak-kanak berkumpul di keliling guru (ustaz) di masjid dan membaca Al-Quran dan kitab-kitab dengan suara yang nyaring. Apakah mereka faham atau tidak saya tak tahu. Apakah kelulusan guru dan adakah sijil yang dikeluarkan?

9. Sekarang kita bukan sahaja baca tetapi kita perlu faham apa yang dibaca dan kita tahu relevannya kepada kehidupan masa depan kita.

10. Sesungguhnya cara menyampaikan ilmu telah ditingkatkan sepanjang masa. Demikianlah peningkatan cara menyampaikan ilmu di zaman komputer ini sehingga guru pun akan dapat mempelajari bersama dengan murid.

11. Dalam mempelajari bahasa umpamanya, terdapat software (perisian) yang bersuara dan gambar bergerak yang boleh kita turuti.

12. Jika guru tidak cekap pun, software menerangkan apa yang perlu dibuat untuk mempelajari sesuatu.

13. Tulisan atas skrin akan dibaca oleh pakar dengan sebutan yang baik dan boleh diulangi sehingga sebutan pelajar menjadi cukup baik.

14. Soalan boleh ditanya kepada software dan pelajar boleh banding jawapannya yang ada dalam software. Jika salah jawapan boleh diulangi sehingga pelajar dapat lafazkan jawapan yang baik. Ulangan boleh dibuat berkali-kali.

15. Dinding bilik sekolah boleh diguna sebagai skrin dan ditayang gambar orang yang berkata sesuatu dan perkataan akan tertulis di kaki gambar seperti subtitle yang sering kita lihat.

16. Ia tidak bosan untuk mengulangi berapa kali pun. Pita rakaman boleh dibawa balik untuk mengulangi episod-episod tertentu.

17. Dalam menggunakan software ini guru juga akan mempelajari atau memperbaiki lagi penguasaan bahasa berkenaan.

18. Soal tidak cukup guru tidak timbul. Yang dikehendaki ialah latihan kepada guru bagaimana mengguna software berkenaan. Saya percaya siapa pun boleh belajar cara menggunanya.

19. Sesungguhnya sistem software untuk belajar bahasa amatlah berkesan dan berjaya. Kalau bersungguh-sungguh hanya beberapa hari sahaja yang diperlukan oleh guru atau pelajar untuk menguasai bahasa apa pun.

20. Saya belajar bahasa Perancis secara main-main tetapi saya dapat faham bahasa ini dengan menggunakan hanya piring hitam sebelum ada komputer. Kemudahan di zaman komputer ini jauh lebih baik daripada piring hitam.

21. Seperti bapa dan ibu yang kecewa dengan ilmu yang dipelajari oleh anak mereka, saya juga kecewa dengan desakan supaya dipermudah lagi perolehan sijil sekolah.

22. Jika sijil sudah begitu mudah diperolehi ia tidak akan dihargai lagi, tidak akan berguna untuk dapat kerja dan tak berguna untuk meneruskan pelajaran lebih tinggi juga.

23. Kalau sudah tak berguna, apa perlunya adakan sekolah dan sijil.

SOUND BITES

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 10, 2009 10:09 AM

DISHONOURING UMNO

1. Why is it that when I defend UMNO or the Malays I am labelled a racist but not when others speak up for Chin Peng?

2. If speaking up for the Malays is considered racist then are the Malays to be denied their right to speak for themselves?

3. Liberalism is fine but it should not benefit only certain people and not others. By definition not benefiting certain people contradicts the very concept of liberalism.

4. I really don't think openly slugging it out on racial issues in Malaysia is healthy. But if that is what Malaysians want then they should be prepared to slug and be slugged.

SISTERS IN ISLAM

1. I am saddened that PAS should suggest banning Sisters in Islam.

2. I don't always agree with the views of the SIS. But they have not negated Islam. In most instances they cite verses of the Quran and Hadith to support their views. If we don't agree then give the reasons why we don't agree. But to resort to banning is draconian.

3. We can imagine what a PAS Government for Malaysia would be like.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 8, 2009 4:37 PM

1. Finally Obama, the black President of the United States has made his much awaited speech outlining his views and policies on Islam, the Muslims and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a carefully crafted speech and certainly it is different from those of George W. Bush or even other US Presidents.

2. The arrogance and the preachings are out but two things American still stand out, and that is the United States is a world super power and that American loyalty to Israel is undiminished. Other things can change but not these two.

3. Hamas is asked to give up terrorism because like the struggles of the blacks of America and South Africa, violence achieves nothing. This is not quite true, at least with other national struggles for freedom and justice. The white Americans themselves fought a war against the British and another war to prevent the break-up of the United States.

4. Elsewhere the struggles for freedom and justice e.g. the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution just to name two, all involve violence.

5. It is not the Palestinians who choose violence. It was the Jews who violently seized Palestinian land, massacred the Arabs and expelled them from their country. With no one prepared to restrain the Jews, the beleaguered Palestinians had to resort to violence. The world, the United Nations, even fellow Muslims have deserted them.

6. I am against violence but when Israel seized more Palestinian land, build settlements, impose military rule, divide the Palestinians with high walls, barred the Palestinians from using roads built by the Israelis on Palestinian territory, denied the Palestinian right to a homeland, denied the right of return of the expelled Palestinian while upholding the rights of return of Jews who for centuries had been citizens of other countries, labelled Palestinians as terrorists while exonerating the Israelis for the massive attacks on Gaza and other places, left the Palestinians helpless when attacked by the Western-armed Israeli Military Forces, incarcerated thousands of Palestinians in Israeli jails, unnecessarily provoke the Palestinians by Sharon's visit to Jerusalem and many, many more assaults and provocations, is it any wonder that the Palestinians resorted to violence?

7. And now they are asked to stop violence to respect agreements. But what about the Israelis? Shouldn't they be told to stop their massive violence; shouldn't they be told to respect agreements and all the UN resolutions, such as those against their setting up settements on Palestinian soil, the occupation of land beyond the UN set boundaries for Israel?

8. Obama stresses America's strong bond with Israel. It is unbreakable. He recognises the aspiration for a Jewish homeland "rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied".

9. But what is the tragic history? It is that of European persecution of the Jews, of the regular pogroms culminating in the Holocaust? It is not the doings of the Muslims. Certainly not the doings of the Palestinians.The tragedy was caused by the Europeans through the ages.

10. Obama must know that before there was the United States, the Jews invariably fled to Muslim countries to seek refuge from European persecution. The Muslims did not turn them back. Before Israel there were millions of Jews in Muslim land. Even today quite a few are still there.

11. The Muslims have never been part of the tragic history of the Jews. Why then must they pay the price for the tragedy caused by the Europeans? Had the Europeans offered part of Europe or America for a Jewish state, there would not be the sustained violence that we see in West Asia. But the Europeans expropriated Arab Palestinian land to give to the Jews. Can an injustice in West Asia atone for injustice in Europe? The Muslim Arabs have to pay for the asylum they provided the Jews by having their land taken away to give to the Jews.

12. To make matters worse the Palestinian Arabs, Christians and Muslims, were violently expelled from Palestine. Israel is to be a racist state for Jews only.

13. America accepts people of different races and religious affiliations. But it supports the exclusivity of Israel as a Jewish state.

14. The Palestinians had tried conventional ways of getting back their land. But conventional ways had failed. They have been forsaken by Arab and Muslim countries. Everytime they try on their own they lose more land because the Europeans and Americans gave military support to Israel.

15. It is only after the failure of conventional wars of liberation that they resorted to unconventional attacks. Can they be blamed? Even the tiny mouse when driven into a corner will fight literally with tooth and nail.

16. We can label the methods of the cornered Palestinians terrorism. But they are themselves terrified and those who inflict terror on them cannot be less of a terrorist than them. State terrorism is no less terrifying than terrorism by irregulars. Indeed State terrorism is more terrifying as we witnessed in Nazi Germany and in Cambodia.

17. I will admit that Obama has brought change. It is a relief after eight years of Bush. But there is an area that he cannot change and that is the blind support for Israel. He has no choice. He will become a one-term President of the United States if he does not.

18. For all the talk about democracy in America, the American majority have no power to choose their President or their Government. That power lies with Israel. They can deny this. But that is the truth. The Americans have become the proxy of the Jews. The Americans will pay a heavy price for this.

Monday, June 8, 2009

MEMPERLEKEH PERJUANGAN UMNO

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 4, 2009 12:25 PM

1. Terdapat usaha berterusan untuk memperlekeh perjuangan UMNO dan orang Melayu untuk kemerdekaan.

2. Kononnya orang yang pertama memperjuangkan kemerdekaan ialah Chin Peng, pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya. Chin Peng lah yang cuba membebaskan Malaya daripada penjajah British sebelum mana-mana orang Melayu mencuba melakukannya.

3. Perjuangan UMNO adalah kemudian dari itu.

4. Chin Peng bukanlah orang yang pertama yang memberontak melawan British. Sebelum Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM atau MCP - Malayan Communist Party), sudah ada Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) yang bergerak sebelum Perang Dunia II. Mereka tidak mendapat sokongan penuh daripada orang Melayu Semenanjung kerana mereka cenderung ke kiri. Dengan itu perjuangan mereka tidak begitu berhasil. Namun terdapat beberapa pertubuhan yang secara tidak langsung mewarisi perjuangan mereka. Malay Nationalist Party atau Party Kebangsaan Melayu, Angkatan Belia Insaf dan Putera adalah di antara pertubuhan yang meneruskan perjuangan KMM. Mereka juga tidak mendapat sokongan daripada majoriti orang Melayu kerana disyaki dipengaruhi oleh Komunis.

5. Selepas KMM barulah datang Chin Peng dan PKM. Chin Peng berjuang untuk mendirikan sebuah Communist Dictatorship di mana dia akan menjadi diktator. Bagi orang yang bukan Komunis, terutama bagi orang Malayu kejayaan Chin Peng bukan akan membawa kemerdekaan tetapi mengganti penjajahan British dengan penjajahan Komunis pimpinan Chin Peng dengan majoriti daripada pemerintahan terdiri daripada kaum Cina. Melayu yang akan ada dalam pemerintahan Komunis ini hanyalah hiasan, seperti juga kita lihat keadaan di Singapura sekarang.

6. Bangsa Melayu dan Bahasa Melayu lambat laun akan terhapus.

7. Sebab itu Melayu yang sedikit yang mirip ke kiri pun tidak ingin menyertai MCP. Keadaan dalam MCP sepanjang ia mencuba rebut kuasa, mulanya daripada British dan kemudian daripada Kerajaan Campuran Perikatan dan Barisan Nasional, memberi gambaran akan pemerintahan Chin Peng jika ia berjaya. Orang Cina Komunis akan menjadi pemerintah tetapi Komunis Melayu dengan orang Melayu dan India akan diberi peranan yang kecil dan tidak bermakna sama sekali.

8. Inilah sebabnya yang orang Melayu tidak menyertai pemberontakan MCP melawan British, dan tidak anggapnya sebagai perjuangan untuk kemerdekaan Malaya.

9. Dengan kesedaran dan kepercayaan ini maka orang Melayu telah tubuh badan yang tersendiri untuk betul-betul memperjuangkan kemerdekaan daripada penjajahan British. Badan yang ditubuh ialah UMNO.

10. Orang Melayu tidak percaya yang pemberontakan bersenjata akan berkesan. Ini adalah kerana negara yang akan di warisi jika menang sekalipun sudah tentu akan rosak teruk kerana peperangan.

11. Pendekatan orang Melayu dan UMNO mengambilkira kemampuan mereka. Mungkin perjuangan UMNO tidak gah seperti perjuangan kemerdekaan bersenjata di negara-negara lain, tetapi kemerdekaan yang dicapai oleh UMNO lebih bermakna kerana Malaysia dapat menegak pendirian sendiri dan mengecam kuasa besar di dunia apabila mereka membuat kesalahan.

12. Sesungguhnya UMNO lah yang perjuangkan kemerdekaan sehingga berjaya mencapai kemerdekaan yang bermakna. Chin Peng berjuang untuk mendirikan pemerintahan diktator Komunis yang akan menjajah orang Melayu dan kaum-kaum lain juga.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

MALAYSIA INCORPORATED

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 3, 2009 1:30 PM

1. We don't hear much about Malaysia Incorporated nowadays. Maybe it is because people in the Government and private sector are doing things rather than talking. Maybe they are all still cooperating, the public and the private sectors, so as to grow this country.

2. But it would be good if the people are informed about the cooperation and collaboration.

3. I am not in the Government now but still people come to me to talk about their problems. I find that many of them have some very good ideas which would not harm the Government if it listens to briefings about them.

4. The Government of course would not be obliged to adopt these private sector ideas.

5. I was a great plagiarist when I was in the Government. Many of my ideas came from stealing other people's ideas. Fortunately no one has so far sued me. Of course many people, including civil servants like to say that everything done in this country is due to me. I don't always refute their statements and being human I like to bask in this undeserved glory.

6. A lot of people have voiced their unhappiness with the national education system. Some say there is too much stress on examinations, others say that getting 20As in examinations really does not mean anything. Others want to see history and other subjects be made compulsory. Others want to revert to the national language or mother tongue for teaching everything. Contrary views have been voiced on the teaching of mathematics and science etc etc.

7. Some who run private schools and universities have been extremely successful, despite charging fees, high fees sometimes. I am amazed at their dedication because the education industry will not make the educationists millionaires. But they seem to put their hearts and soul into their jobs.

8. Their teachers are also dedicated and many of their students have grown up, married and have children of their own. The ultimate endorsement of the private schools is when their former students send their children back to the school, to their alma mater so to speak.

9. I don't think the country will lose if we listen to their stories of success. There may be something to learn from them. We may be able to adopt some of their ways. We may even be able to detect the faults in our systems and make adjustments.

10. I hope that the Malaysia Inc. Concept can be revived, that is, if it is now dormant. It is a good concept. The private sector can learn a lot about the problems of governing and would be more tolerant. On the other hand the public sector can learn much about how the private sector functions, and their problems. The understanding engendered by the public/private sector cooperation cannot but benefit everyone and the country. Maybe something good will come of this.

11. I am not presuming to teach the Government. But so many of those who saw me believe I can be of help that I felt I need at least to indicate that they have problems and perhaps ideas which the Government might look at.

THE ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on June 2, 2009 12:16 PM

1. We need a law against corruption just as we need laws against all crimes. But sometimes the laws are so framed that they promote crime rather than prevent them. Such a law is the Malaysian law on corruption.

2. It seems logical and right that those who receive illegal gratification should be considered guilty of breaking the law and should therefore be punished. But when we talk of corruption we think of those endowed with power abusing their power in order to gain personal benefit. We think that those who offer gratification as being the victim and should be given some consideration.

3. But the law says that those who pay for the service they receive should also be considered as guilty and should be equally deserving of punishment.

4. Since both the giver and the recipient may be charged with corruption, both would be unwilling to report the incident. This of course make corruption difficult if not impossible to be brought to a court of law and tried successfully.

5. Besides the process of law would be much prolonged, as each would seek lawyers to argue on his behalf. Not only will the trial take ages but the result can be quite unpredictable.

6. But there is another factor. The person reporting would be marked by those sympathetic to the other party so that it would affect his dealings with them as well. If they are Government servants whose approval would be needed, the approvals may not be forthcoming at all later, even if other officers are involved.

7. Because of the ineffectiveness of the laws corrupt people often get away with their corrupt practices.

8. Yet corruption is such a bane on society that it must be stopped somehow. If the law is ineffective then it must be made to be effective. One of the ways is to give immunity to the aggrieved party reporting the case, provided that the evidence was substantial and not perjury.

9. In the case of political corruption both parties may be willing participants. The bribe is given by a candidate to a willing recipient to gain support for himself. Both are therefore unlikely to complain and reveal the act.

10. The recipients on the other hand would be glad to receive the bribe, unless he is a person of high principal unwilling to betray the cause his party was fighting for.

11. In political corruption it would be extremely difficult to get evidence of the bribe being given or received. Electronics now play a role to hide the act. The money is deposited into the account of the person (voter) concerned via the ATM machines. The recipient would be called via phone to ask whether the money had been received, giving the name of the candidate.

12. Despite the difficulties for detection, a Government that is truly determined to prevent corruption can find ways of detecting corruption. But if the Government itself is corrupt then corruption cannot be stopped. In fact corruption would spread in every direction and would become a way of life. At this stage nothing can really be done.

Monday, June 1, 2009

GAZA

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on May 31, 2009 7:33 AM

1. Saya berada di London pada bulan Mac bagi menghadiri forum berkenaan dengan pembunuhan beramai-ramai di Gaza oleh tentera Israel.

2. Forum ini diadakan bersama oleh Kementerian Luar Negeri dan KLFCW atau Yayasan Kuala Lumpur untuk menjadikan perang sebagai jenayah. Kementerian diketuai oleh Dato Seri Rais Yatim, yang semasa itu menjawat Menteri Luar Negeri sementara saya sebagai presiden kehormat KLFCW.

3. Peserta yang menyampaikan ucapan terdiri daripada adik ipar Tony Blair, Lauren Booth, Tony Benn, Bekas Menteri Kerajaan Buruh Britain, Rabbi Cohen dari satu mazhaJustify Fullb Hebrew dan Sir Gerald Kaufman, Ahli Parlimen British Zionis keturunan Yaudi dan Duta Besar Palestine ke Britain.

4. Kesemua mereka mengutuk Israel kerana serangan dan keganasan ke atas Gaza. Rabbi Cohen mempertikaikan kewujudan Israel sebagai sebuah Negara Yahudi. Mazhab yang dipimpin olehnya menegaskan sementara Zionisme hanya berusia seratus tahun, agama Hebrew berada lebih daripada dua ribu tahun. Dan agama Hebrew tidak mengizinkan orang Yahudi memiliki negaranya sendiri.

5. Sementara Sir Gerald Kaufman yang mendakwa dia adalah seorang Zionis yang menyokong penubuhan Israel tetapi dia berpendapat Israel sudah langgar sempadannya dengan menubuh bandar-bandar kecil Yahudi dalam Wilayah Palestine dan menyerang dengan amat tidak berperikemanusiaan Wilayah Palestine. Beliau menentang keras dan mengutuk serangan ke atas Gaza.

6. Di antara yang hadir dan membuat soalan terdapat juga orang Yahudi Zionis yang tidak bersetuju dengan cara-cara Kerajaan Israel.

7. Saya telah berbual dengan beberapa orang Arab dan saya dapati mereka tidak mempunyai matlamat atau strategi bagi melawan musuh mereka. Yang mereka utamakan ialah untuk membalas dendam. Tidak ada perancangan untuk menawan balik wilayah mereka. Tidak ada kata sepakat antara kumpulan-kumpulan mereka. Sebaliknya mereka bermusuh sesama sendiri dan ini memberi peluang bagi Israel dan Amerika Syarikat melaga-lagakan mereka.

8. Negara-negara Arab lain tidak berminat untuk membantu rakyat Palestine. Ternampak masalah Palestine ini akan berterusan.

9. Saya telah cadangkan supaya diwujudkan sebuah negara di mana orang Arab Palestine dan orang Yahudi menjadi rakyat bersama seperti yang terdapat sebelum Israel ditubuh.

10. Pendapat umum daripada perbahasan ialah Israel tidak boleh dihapuskan. Ia sudah jadi satu kenyataan (fact) yang tidak lagi boleh diubah barang sedikit pun.

11. Walaupun forum tidak berjaya mencetuskan idea untuk menyelesaikan masalah Palestine, tetapi peserta semua bersetuju yang ianya dapat mendedahkan keganasan Israel di Gaza supaya propaganda Israel tidak lagi boleh diterima.

Followers