Sunday, April 25, 2010


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 23, 2010 2:20 PM

1. The recession is not yet over in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe or in the United States. The British pound has devalued much against the Malaysian Ringgit and the Euro has come under strong attacks by the currency traders.

2. Not only are the businesses and banks being bailed out but whole countries (Greece and probably Spain) are being bailed out by the European Union. There seems to be no end to bailing out. They have completely forgotten what they told us in 1997-98.

3. The workers unions are still going on strike and the executives of failed banks and businesses are still demanding to be paid big bonuses. The public screams but there is nothing they can do about it as their money is used to bail out failed companies and banks.

4. It looks like the financial crisis will not be over any time soon.

5. We may feel like applauding. What they did to us in 1997-98 is now hitting them back hard. But unfortunately both America and Europe are big markets for us. If they go down they will drag us down with them.

6. What is certain is that both these continents will not regain their past prosperity. They will recover but not fully. They will be poorer than before the crisis. This is because their former wealth was acquired through abuses of their monetary, financial and banking systems. Since they cannot abuse these systems as freely as before and have to return to doing real business under Government enforced rules and laws they will not be making the big millions they used to i.e. through sub-prime loans, hedge funds, currency trading, leveraging, credit cards etc.

7. The real business of producing and sellling goods and trading will not yield the big money that the financial markets yielded for them. Besides they have lost most of their real industries and they cannot compete with the eastern countries.

8. It will take time for them to accept the new reality i.e. that they are no longer as rich as they were. But accept it they must.

9. I hope we Malaysians appreciate what is happening around the world. If we don't then we may become very poor and will not recover for a long time.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 21, 2010 7:45 AM

1. Saya lega membaca penafian Dato' Sri Najib, Perdana Menteri bahawa laporan Malaysia sudah hentikan bekalan "gasoline" kepada Iran kerana projek nuklearnya.

2. Iran bukan musuh Malaysia dan Iran tidak pernah soal dasar dan kegiatan dalaman kita. Justeru itu tidak ada sebab kenapa kita harus soal dasar dalaman Iran.

3. Benar atau tidak Iran sedang mencipta senjata nuklear seperti yang dituduh oleh Amerika Syarikat bukan masalah kita. Ia adalah masalah Amerika Syarikat, sebuah kuasa militari yang terbesar di dunia, yang mempunyai lebih daripada 10,000 senjata nuklear, yang kononnya begitu takut kalau Iran memiliki dua biji bom nuklear di masa hadapan tetapi rela Israel memiliki sekarang lebih daripada 200 senjata nuklear.

4. Benarkah Amerika takut dunia akan menghadapi perang nuklear yang akan di lancar oleh Iran dengan dua biji bomb nuklearnya. Gilakah Iran sehingga sanggup melancar perang nuklear dengan dua biji bomb nuklear dengan tidak menghiraukan kemungkinan Iran dihujani bom dan roket nuklear oleh Amerika Syarikat, Israel dan kuasa besar yang lain.

5. Sebenarnya kempen terhadap program nuklear Iran oleh Amerika Syarikat bertujuan menindas Iran sahaja. Kita tidak harus menyertai kempen ini kerana ia akan merosakkan kepentingan kita. Dagangan kita yang termasuk jualan kereta, konsesi minyak, bekalan minyak, projek perumahan dan lain-lain menguntungkan kita. Kalau kita bermusuh dengan Iran semua ini akan hilang. Amerika Syarikat tidak akan ganti kerugian kita. Lagi pun imej kita dalam dunia, terutama dunia Islam akan tercemar.

6. Sesungguhnya saya amat gembira apabila membaca dalam The Star bahawa laporan Dato Sri Najib menghentikan bekalan gasoline kepada Iran adalah tidak benar. Alhamdulillah.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 17, 2010 11:22 AM

1. I wonder who is hijacking "social contract".

2. In this brave new world people write about things with authority but without knowing anything or doing proper research.

3. True the constitution does not mention "Malay rights" but obviously the mention of the special position of the Malays implies recognition of certain positions and privileges that they hold. The leaders of the time, the Tunku, Tun Razak, Tun Sambanthan and Tun Tan Siew Sin understood the "special position" of the Malays as the indigenous people of Tanah Melayu, the "Malay Land".

4. For this recognition by the non-Malay leaders, something had to be done to reciprocate their acceptance. The Tunku agreed to waive the conditions for becoming citizens so that one million non-Malays could become citizens with all the citizenship rights, ignoring the required qualifying conditions.

5. The Malays did not fight against the Malayan Union only to give up all that they had gained. But their leaders were realistic enough to have a quid pro quo arrangement. Does anyone seriously think that the Malay leaders would reduce their majority from 80% in the 1955 elections to less than 60% after the gift of citizenship to unqualified citizens? Only the weak minded would think so.

6. Social contracts are almost never written contracts with everyone signing at the bottom. It is usually an understanding based on trust. It is a measure of Malay trust of the non-Malays that they were prepared to give up what they had gained in the fight against the Malayan Union in order to accommodate even those whose loyalty to the country was not proven.

7. The Malays hate turmoil. They prefer accommodation. Had they been like some other indigenous people, they would have insisted on their rights even if they had to be violent and to wait a longer period.

8. We should appreciate the wisdom of the leaders of the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians who laid the foundation of inter-racial cooperation for their beloved country. Far too many colonies of the West gained independence only to experience turmoil and instability and actual regression. The colonial powers had predicted that Malaysia with its multiracial population and numerous ethnic disparities and differences would also fail. But we haven't. And we haven't because our founding fathers understood the situation and devised wise solutions.

9. In making use of the provision for the "special positions" of the Malays, the post-1969 leaders came up with affirmative actions. These are undoubtedly "crutches" and crutches should be discarded as soon as strength is gained. Only the selfish would advocate throwing away the crutches of others simply because they have already made good use of their own.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 14, 2010 4:20 PM

1. I am disgusted to learn that Tony Blair is being paid one million dollars to come to Malaysia to give a talk to businessmen.

2. Currently the press in Britain is reporting on the unusual wealth of this less than three terms Prime Minister. He has a staff of 130, lives in a grand mansion and is a millionaire.

3. When we read of how British Members of Parliament spent millions of pounds of Government money to refurbish and decorate their city apartments and their own residences we can understand how a Prime Minister like Tony Blair can get so rich after serving less than three terms.

4. Twice Blair presented himself as a candidate for President of the European Union and twice he was rejected as unsuitable.

5. Enquiries have been held in England over the lies he told Parliament and the British people in order to go to war with Iraq. Caught lying he was unfazed or unashamed, claiming that his objective was to remove Saddam Hussein. For this he was prepared to kill 500,000 Iraqi children, another 300,000 Iraqi men, women and children and reduce to rubble historic Baghdad and other Iraqi cities and towns.

6. In the United Kingdom Tony Blair's name is dirt. Yet in Malaysia there are people who want to learn things from him. I can imagine what they will learn.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 12, 2010 5:04 PM

1. Saya sekarang berada di Albania, sebuah negara Islam yang dahulu menjadi sebahagian daripada Empayar Othmaniah. Setelah merdeka ia diserang dan dijajah oleh Itali. Pada penghujung perang dunia ke-2, Albania sekali lagi bebas tapi dikuasai oleh pemerintahan kuku besi puak kiri.

2. Pemerintah ini diketuai oleh seorang diktator, Enver Hoxha, yang menolak agama Islam sehingga sanggup mengharamkan Allah, Nauzubillah.

3. Rakyat tidak dibenar menganuti Islam atau apa-apa agama.

4. Akhirnya pemerintahan puak kiri ini jatuh dan diganti dengan pemerintahan pro-demokrasi pimpinan Sali Berisha.

5. Saya ke Albania buat kali pertama pada tahun 1993. Terdapat kemiskinan di mana-mana sahaja. Muka penduduk muram belaka. Tirana, ibu kota, tidak menunjukkan aktiviti ekonomi. Tidak ada kedai selain kedai kopi di tepi jalan. Tidak ada kenderaan. Bangunan-bangunan ternampak tua dan uzur. Ada beberapa masjid lama yang uzur dan sunyi sepi. Tidak ada sesiapa yang menunaikan solat Jumaat atau solat waktu di situ.

6. Kali ini saya sampai di Tirana pada hari Jumaat. Program saya termasuk solat Jumaat di masjid yang tertua, Masjid Ethem Beu, di tengah Bandar Tirana.

7. Alangkah terkejutnya saya apabila saya sampai ke masjid dan melihat jemaah melimpah sehingga ke tepi jalan besar jauh dari masjid. Saya amat gembira kerana Islam sudah kembali ke Negara ini. Alhamdulillah.

8. Kemudian saya berjumpa beberapa penuntut Albania yang telah menuntut di Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Malaysia. Kita bermesra dan mereka nyatakan perasaan hutang budi mereka kepada Malaysia. Mungkin juga UIA memainkan sedikit peranan dalam memperkenalkan semula Islam di Albania, wallahu'alam. Kalau pun tidak, saya bersyukur dengan kembalinya Albania ke pangkuan Islam. Alhamdulillah, segala puji bagi Allah subhanawata'ala.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 10, 2010 10:18 AM

1. I think it was the President of the Bar Council who pointed out that the law provides for a judge to accuse a person with contempt of his court and to punish him.

2. I am not disputing this legal provision. But we know of the cynical reference to some laws being an ass. In fact many lawyers would claim that the ISA which provides for detention without trial as bad law, and many have urged that the law be removed from the statute books. The reason cited is that without a hearing in a court of law, the executive has assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and executioner. In todays society this is a denial of justice.

3. But the same people, who strongly object to the Internal Security Act, support the law providing for contempt of court in which the aggrieved judge becomes the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.

4. Clearly we are seeing double standards in the implementation of justice.

5. To say that the judge knows best as to the culpability of the accused person is to once again breach the principles of justice. A judge should not know and prejudge a case. He should be quite ignorant of the case coming before him and he should allow himself to decide simply based on the evidence put before him, the words of the witnesses and the pleadings of the prosecutor and the counsel for the accused person. If a judge is also a witness to the case then he would be bias and cannot possibly do justice to the case.

6. There is certainly a need for a law against contempt of the court but it should follow the same procedures as applicable to all other cases including being heard by other than the aggrieved judge. The charge should be made properly. There should be no arbitrary arrest before a charge is made. The accused person should be given his right to hear the charge and to state his defences before a judge who is not personally involved.

7. Court procedures would take time but in the case of Matthias Chang, there was really no hurry as he was in fact given one week to pay the fine or be jailed. In fact when he turned up on the stipulated day the judge was not available and he was told to come back the next day.

8. Yet when he willingly went back the next day to surrender, he was told that his arrest would be made in the car park. I suppose this is again standard procedure but it would amount to additional punishment because it would humiliate him.

9. At the time of writing this in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, I am told he is unconscious because he had chosen to protest by fasting against the injustice of the way the law was used by the judge. The Government may not be moved by his act but if it does not than it would compare very badly indeed against the British Raj which responded humanely to the fast by Ghandi.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 1, 2010 4:09 PM

1. One of the principles in law which is believed to ensure that justice is done is that disputes must be settled by a third party.

2. No one should be the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner. In fact the aggrieved party should never be the prosecutor and the judge. Obviously the aggrieved party would be biased in favour of himself.

3. Matthias Chang is now in jail. His crime, if we can call it a crime, is that of allegedly showing contempt of court i.e. not showing the right respect of the judge. Because the judge feels he or she has not been shown respect, then the judge has punished him by sentencing him to a fine or jail. Matthias has refused to pay the fine because it would amount to admission of guilt.

4. It would seem that what was regarded as contempt on the part of the court was Matthias' expression of lack of confidence in the judge who for some reason seemed to Matthias to be biased. Matthias had said he was going to appeal to a higher court over the behaviour of the judge towards him and his lawyers.

5. Is a person, feeling aggrieved over his treatment by a judge not allowed to say that he is not happy with the judge and wishes to appeal to a higher authority?

6. Is an aggrieved person not allowed to claim that a judge is biased? In several recent cases an accused person has demanded that the judge recuse himself for being biased. Indeed we hear of an accused person demanding that the prosecutors be changed because of allegedly being bias. And in fact the persons concerned, who were only doing the work they had officially been tasked with, were not allowed to carry out their usual work.

7. I write this with trepidation because I too can be charged with contempt. But I feel there is a miscarriage of justice here, even if the law seems to uphold the process.

8. If a judge feels that a litigant or an accused person has been in contempt of his court, then the judge should get a third party, and another court to determine whether indeed there is a case for contempt or not and to determine the punishment.

Dear Kamaliuk1973...

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on March 31, 2010 3:24 PM

Thanks for your comments (HAS TERRORISM SUCCEEDED - March 29, 2010 7:11 PM).

I have looked at the pictures. They show nothing.

But most interesting they are from the Holocaust Museum, United States. They are obviously Israeli propaganda.

The "Holocaust" happened 60 years ago. The Jews were killed by Nazi Germans. Why don't the Jews punish the Germans instead of the Palestinians and Muslims?

Tribal wars take place in Sudan and most countries in that area since ancient time. Darfur was highlighted at a time when incarceration and torture of prisoners in Abu GhraibJustify Full was exposed. Obviously the intention was to deflect attention from Abu Ghraib.

Malaysian relief workers have gone to Darfur. They report no genocide, only a lot of starving people because of the tribal wars.

If you are interested I can send you pictures of torture of the genocide in Iraq where 500,000 children were killed by starvation and lack of medicine when sanctions were applied principally by the United States and Britain.

I agree there are no winners or losers in a war. That is why I have been campaigning to make wars of aggression a crime. Killing people in order to solve disputes is uncivilised and primitive. The right thing to do is to negotiate, arbitrate adjudicate in order to solve disputes.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on March 29, 2010 3:17 PM

1. I read in a magazine that an American airline lost one billion dollars since 9-11. Joseph Stiglitz wrote in a book that the Iraq war has cost the United States three trillion dollars. It must have cost the British and the others more billions.

2. Checking passengers at airports is now very stringent. Apart from inconveniencing travellers, the personnel and equipments cost billions. But every now and again a determined "terrorist" would break through. Besides examining shoes, now underwear has to be checked also.

3. But despite all these the fear of "terror attacks" has not abated. Nor has the war in Iraq and Afghanistan shown any sign of ending.

4. The terrorists may not have won but they have not lost either. The end is nowhere in sight. The cost is going up very rapidly. Even if the proposed attack against Iran does not take place, the Governments and the business commmunity in every country will suffer huge losses. So will people everywhere.

5. New weapons and equipment can be invented and developed. They will cost money again but it would take only one incident before there would be a scramble to counter the new methods of attack by the terrorists. Seems that all the sophisticated costly weapons invented and deployed have failed.

6. This state of affairs can go on and on. Short of killing all the Muslims in order to ensure that none of them would become "terrorists", I don't see how an end to terrorism can be achieved.

7. But we cannot do that can we? So what is the alternative? Well go for the root cause. Why are they doing these things, "terrorising" the world? The answer is that they feel a strong sense of injustice. Who are they? They are the people most affected; the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Iranians. But there are also those who for various reasons sympathise with them; their co-religionists and many others.

8. All these people feel for the Palestinians' loss of their land, for the invasions and killings of Iraqis and Afghans, the ill-treatment of Muslims everywhere, their demonisation and the demonisation of their religion, their humiliation etc. etc.

9. Until the Palestinians regain their country, until Iraq and Afghanistan are freed of foreign occupation, until the oppression of the Muslim people stops, the attacks by the terrorists would go on, and fear of such attacks would remain.

10. Don't surrender to the terrorists! It would only encourage terrorism. But look at it from their angle. If they surrender to the seizure of their lands, to their oppression by their enemies, then they would be encouraging their enemies to continue the seizure of their land and their continued oppression.

11. The super powers need to try to look from the viewpoint of those they have labelled as terrorists also and not just from their own viewpoint.

12. Until then we are going to see lives being lost, people living in fear and trillions of dollars wasted on efforts which will yield no worthwhile result for years and years.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on March 29, 2010 8:26 AM

1. Saya terkejut melihat sejenis ikan yu yang besar yang telah ditangkap oleh nelayan kita baru-baru ini.

2. Ikan Yu jenis ini dikenali sebagai "Whale Shark" atau Yu Paus. Ia tiak ganas dan pernah membiar orang menaiki belakangnya. Ia termasuk dalam jenis haiwan yang dilindungi (protected).

3. Setakat yang saya tahu isinya tidak menjadi makanan manusia. Mungkin siripnya boleh dikeringkan untuk sup sirip Ikan Yu. Tetapi apakah harus kita korban haiwan yang terbesar antara Ikan Yu kerana keuntungan daripada jualan siripnya.

4. Saya harap Kerajaan akan nasihatkan nelayan kita supaya tidak menangkap Ikan Yu Paus ini.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on March 24, 2010 2:08 PM

1. We hear a lot about how in Malaysia it is who you know rather than what you know that wins you contracts from the Government.

2. I must admit there is some truth in this. One has to know the background of the bidder before deciding to give the award. If awards are made entirely on the basis of the offer, mistakes can be made also. This is because the bidder can get professionals and others to make "cannot be refused" offer which in the end would prove impossible to carry out.

3. It is true that those tasked with evaluating bids would tend to favour known performers rather than totally unknown strangers. The more they know about the bidders the more would their decisions be influenced. It is indeed "whom" you know and not "what" you know.

4. Decision-makers cannot avoid being lobbied directly or indirectly. In any case no matter who succeeds, there will be unhappiness on the part of the others who fail. And of course the accusation would be made that they fail because they did not know the right people. However if they have a chance to pull strings and influence decision makers they would not hesitate to do so. That they don't like it when others get does not mean they won't like it if they get. As for the critical observers, given the opportunity they would do it too. That is why contracts given by a previous Government would be nullified by an opposition Government so the contractors they know would benefit.

5. People should know that in the private sector "whom you know" is even more decisive than in the Government sector. If we look at the private construction industry which is bigger than in the Government sector, if you don't know the right people you will not get a contract not even a small supply contract. To succeed in the private sector you must not only know what but most certainly you must know whom.

6.I have been asked by foreign gentlemen why is this so common in Malaysia and other developing countries. Isn't this wrong? Shouldn't the best bid win? Whom you know should not influence decisions.

7. Today I am amused by a news report about Ex-Labour Ministers in the United Kingdom being suspended because they offered lobbying service for cash. They can offer this because they know whom to lobby. "Byers, a former Transport Minister, boasted to the undercover journalist he had made a secret deal with Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis over the termination of a rail franchise contract." Everyone denied of course.

8. But in America, the greatest democracy in the history of mankind, Congressional and Senate lobbyists actually set up lobbying firms. Most of the firms' owners had been holding high positions in the previous Governments and they know the staff and the members of the current Government well.

9. They openly offer lobbying service for a fee. If you don't have the money, that is too bad. The moneyed ones can actually cause motions to be put before the congress which could be passed. In fact Government policies in America have been shaped by the rich in Wall Street. I will not say more.

10. Seems like those who take the moral high ground and criticise influence peddling in Malaysia and other developing countries should have a good look at themselves. Pots should not sneer at the blackness of the kettle.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on March 21, 2010 5:00 PM

1. Many people think that as soon as you accept democracy, then you will be practising democracy.

2. Unfortunately mere acceptance is not enough. It is not enough because everyone, from the top most person to the ordinary people, be they from a political party or of a nation, can find ways to abuse and frustrate the true democratic process. As a result we see democracies failing to work in most organisations or political parties and in many nations.

3. Basically democracy is about giving power to the majority. It is assumed that the majority knows what is best for the whole. The minority should therefore be prepared to accept the rule of the majority albeit after presenting opposing views and criticisms. The minority must be prepared to wait for the next election in order to make another bid.

4. In a mature democracy almost everyone respects the results of national elections. The majority forms the Government and the minority take their places in the legislature and try their best to influence policies and laws introduced by the majority Government. And so for the four or five years before the next elections, the legislature debates, approves or disapproves the proposals by the Government. But the minority and even the individual legislator may also move proposals or laws although in most instances they will not get through for lack of majority support. Playing their parts, both the majorty and the minority would contribute to the proper workings of a democratic Government.

5. Political parties love democracy as it seems to be fair to everyone. Anyone can bid for any place in the party, including the top most. That is the theory at least.

6. But the reality is that only certain people could aspire to lead because of the support of a substantial number of the members.

7. Ideally in a contest the one with the biggest number of supporters should win. Ideally as with Government the loser and his supporters should accept the decision of the majority.

8. Unfortunately the loser or losers may not want to accept the results. This can ultimately lead to the party being split and weakened.

9. The process may have been very democratic but the objective of choosing a leader by majority vote has not been achieved. The losers must also remember that when they win they same can happen to them. In other words a deocratic contest can only lead to the break-up of the party (I am speaking from experience).

10. I would like to cheer on the candidates who are contesting for any post anywhere through the democratic process. Obviously only one would win. If those who lose cannot accept the decision of the majority of the members, then it is better not to talk about democracy. You really do not know what democracy is about. *

* Of course I am assuming the contest is fair.