Monday, May 19, 2014


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on May 18, 2014

1. What goes up must come down. Airplanes can go up and stay up for long periods of time. But even they must come down eventually. They can land safely or they may crash. But airplanes don’t just disappear. Certainly not these days with all the powerful communication systems, radio and satellite tracking and filmless cameras which operate almost indefinitely and possess huge storage capacities.

2. I wrote about the disabling of MH370’s communication system as well as the signals for GPS. The system must have been disabled or else the ground station could have called the plane. The GPS too must have been disabled or else the flight of MH370 would have been tracked by satellites which normally provide data on all commercial flights, inclusive of data on location, kind of aircraft, flight number, departure airport and destination. But the data seems unavailable. The plane just disappeared seemingly from all screens.

3. MH370 is a Boeing 777 aircraft. It was built and equipped by Boeing. All the communications and GPS equipment must have been installed by Boeing. If they failed or have been disabled Boeing must know how it can be done. Surely Boeing would ensure that they cannot be easily disabled as they are vital to the safety and operation of the plane.

4. A search on the Internet reveals that Boeing in 2006 received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a pre-determined landing location.

5. The article by John Croft, datelined Washington DC (1st December, 2006) further mentioned “The ‘uninterruptible’ autopilot would be activated – either by pilot, by on board sensors, or even remotely by radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of the flight deck”.

6. Clearly Boeing and certain agencies have the capacity to take over “uninterruptible control” of commercial airliners of which MH370 B777 is one.

7. Can it not be that the pilot of MH370 lost control of their aircraft after someone directly or remotely activated the equipment for seizure of control of the aircraft.

8. It is a waste of time and money to look for debris or oil slick or to listen for “pings” from the black box. This is most likely not an ordinary crash after fuel was exhausted. The plane is somewhere, maybe without MAS markings.

9. Boeing should explain about this so-called anti-terrorism auto-land system. I cannot imagine the pilots made a soft-landing in rough seas and then quietly drown with the aircraft.

10. Someone is hiding something. It is not fair that MAS and Malaysia should take the blame.

11. For some reason the media will not print anything that involves Boeing or the CIA. I hope my readers will read this.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on May 15, 2014, an online aviation news portal reported the following on Dec 1, 2006;

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.” The rest of the news can be read HERE

Monday, May 12, 2014


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on May 09, 2014

1. Boeing is the designer and assembler of all Boeing aircrafts. It also subjects the new aircrafts to rigorous test. It is totally responsible for the certification of the aircrafts and all the parts, avionics and safety features of the aircrafts.

2. The parts may be supplied by contractors and vendors but Boeing is responsible for the correct installation, testing and certification. Certainly the communication system is selected, tested and installed under Boeing supervision.

3. The communication system is the lifeline of the aircrafts. In any emergency the aircraft can speak directly with ground stations. Under no circumstances should communication equipment fail.

4. Currently the location and movement of all commercial aircrafts are monitored. Anybody can see on their hand phone the symbol of the aircrafts flying anywhere in the world. Their registered number, their makes, their owners, departure airports and destination can all be obtained through anyone’s mobile phone. Yet MH370 could disappear completely apparently even from the monitors of the countries owning sophisticated spy satellites.

5. In the case of MH370 the only thing that we know for certain is that after the co-pilot said “Alright, Good Night” there was no more communication. There was no call from the aircraft and ground station could not contact the aircraft at all. In other words there was total communication breakdown.

6. How was this possible! The pilot may disable it! Are the communication systems in a Boeing 777 so easily disabled? Is there no backup? Is there no fail-safe system for so important a facility? Or did a third party disable MH370’s communication system?

7. Whatever the stoppage of communication was sudden and total. One or the other of the pilots must have become aware of this communications failure unless of course both were responsible for disabling the system. At some stage the cabin crew must notice that the aircraft was not keeping to the correct flight path. Did they not try to ask the pilots why? If they fail to contact the flight deck, wouldn’t they be concerned?

8. All the cabin crew must be carrying mobile phones. Surely upon not getting explanations from the pilots as to the flight path change, they would be alarmed enough to call someone on the ground. But as far as we know they did not. Were their phones disabled? Or were they incapacitated in some way?

9. The passengers too, at some stage must feel alarmed. Did any of them try to phone their relatives? They did not. Were they also disabled or their phones disabled?

10. Some relatives on the ground in Malaysia rang up the passengers. They could hear the phone ringing but was not picked up. There was no answer. Could it be that the passengers have all been disabled?

11. As I said the position of commercial aircrafts are constantly monitored. They all appear on the screen of our phones. MH 370 disappeared from the screen. Why? What equipments do passenger aircrafts carry so that their position can be chartered and broadcast? If a plane disappears wouldn’t someone notice. Yet the plane vanished and no one seems to know. Can Boeing explain how this can happen? But Boeing is deathly quiet! No explanation at all as to how the communication system and monitoring of position can fail in a Boeing aircraft.

12. If this can happen to MH370, a 777 Boeing, is it safe to fly in such planes. When will another plane disappear??

13. The assumption is that MH370 fell into the Indian Ocean. Can a plane that heavy, made of glass, aluminium, titanium and composites, plunge into the sea and not break up, leaving broken parts and oil slicks. Even if the sea was calm a plane would break up. The engines too can break off and leave traces of oil etc. Whether the pilots were in control or not, when the fuel was exhausted the plane must drop. It cannot achieve a soft landing like the Hudson River case. It must drop into the sea violently. Even if the sea was calm, the plane must break up. But the suggestion is that the whole plane sank intact into the sea! Is this possible?

14. Until now nothing has been found to indicate the breakup of the plane.

15. Boeing has a lot to answer. Until the plane is found and the causes of the failure of communication equipment and the disappearance are fully explained, one must conclude that Boeing aircrafts are dangerous to fly in.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on May 07, 2014

1. Helen Ang, in an open letter criticised me for welcoming MCA’s decision to rejoin the BN cabinet. She pointed out that the MCA won only 7 seats while DAP won 39 seats. The MCA therefore does not represent the Chinese.

2. The BN is a coalition of like-minded political parties. They may represent their race or they may not. But they believe in the creed of sharing the wealth and the political power of this country between the different races.

3. The DAP does not believe in sharing between the races. It believes in meritocracy – the best takes all, and the devil takes the hindmost.

4. DAP knows that for example on a basis of merit the indigenous people of Malaysia would stand little chance of winning a fair number of the scholarships. This will deny them the opportunity for improving their station in life.

5. Chinese parents can afford to send their children for university education at home and abroad. With Government scholarships largely going to them their numbers would even be bigger. Less number of indigenous people parents cannot afford to support their children for university education.

6. Currently the Chinese dominate the economy and own a large portion of the wealth. Even with the NEP the gap in wealth between Bumis and non-Bumis is very wide. Prior to the NEP, the Bumis who make up the 60% of the people own only 2% of the wealth. Even as Bumis’ wealth grows through NEP schemes, Chinese wealth with a higher base would grow faster. The disparity in wealth ownership would get worse.

7. At the moment the UMNO Malays seem to dominate politics. They are willing to share some political power with the Chinese and Indians. For this they are willing to give up some of their constituencies to their partners and to vote for them. Their political strength balances somewhat their lower economic power.

8. The DAP is bent on seizing political power from UMNO without giving up any economic dominance. It believes that through meritocracy and the split among the Malays it can do this.

9. The DAP does not want to join the BN coalition because of its Malay majority. In 1969 it was invited but when everyone else accepted, DAP refused. It rejects totally the concept of sharing with other races, unless the Chinese dominate completely in politics as they dominate in the economy.

10. Its willingness to work with PAS and PKR is simply because it needs their votes. It may even accept a PM from PAS or PKR. But as shown in the Pakatan Government in Perak, the DAP controlled the PAS-led Pakatan Government. The DAP will control the PM if Pakatan wins. PAS and PKR knowing what they are and will always be totally dependent on DAP and Chinese votes, will accept being subservient to the DAP.

11. The MCA maybe small. That is because it cannot counter DAP‘s racist politics. It knows very well that its commitment to share wealth and political power with UMNO Malays will cause it to lose Chinese support. But it still believes in the sharing concept of BN.

12. This is a multiracial country. No one race can have both economic wealth and political power. For so long as each, wish to retain their ethnicity, the sharing of political and economic power between races will be necessary. Until everyone is totally identified with this country, and everyone shares fairly political and economic power the fact of race cannot be ignored.

13. Whether the DAP has more Chinese support than the MCA is irrelevant. What is relevant and important is the rejection of dominance by any race and the willingness to share wealth and political power fairly between the races.

14. I therefore welcome the decision of the MCA to rejoin the BN cabinet.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on May 04, 2014

1. It is timely for Raja Nazrin (on April 18) to remind everyone, citizens, political leaders and rulers that ours is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. No one, but no one should for any reason think that absolute power rests with them, and that parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy can be ignored.

2. We see in other countries citizens trying to deny democratic majority rule by staging massive and continuous street demonstrations so as to overthrow a Government elected by the majority. We also see how often the generals seize power when civilian rule appears to be weak or overthrown by street demos or violence.

3. We also see the elected politicians abusing the powers conferred on them. And rulers too have been known to seize power and carry out unconstitutional rule even in democracies.

4. When the constitution is ignored and power is seized by anyone, sooner or later, the people will show resentment. This may lead to violence. Once violence is resorted to, it will not stop. And we have seen how demos and violence can overthrow Government whether elected or otherwise. Once such an overthrow is shown to be possible, resort to it will be made even for flimsy reasons. There will be no stability and anarchy may be the result. We are seeing this happen before our very eyes right now.

5. Malaysia is a peaceful and stable country. We are not prone to violence and assassinations to overthrown dictators or alleged dictators. It is the character of the people, a part of their culture if you like. But no one should invite such actions by abusing their positions.

6. We must respect the Constitutions and we must always ensure that in this blessed country the rule of law is upheld at a times. We may change the law as provided for by the Constitution. We may even change the Constitution if there is a need to. But we must not resort to extra-legal ways even though they may be non-violent. Nor should anyone take advantage of the reluctance of subordinates to refuse your demands.

7. Democracy is not perfect. It may result in weak or incompetent Governments. But democracy provides for changes in leadership. It may be through scheduled elections, it may also be through voluntary resignations. But no one should bypass the law and assume power supply because the elected Government is weak or incompetent.

8. Those in power must always remember that the power conferred on them is not for personal aggrandisement but for the performance of the duties for which they hold their positions.

9. As an old citizen I hope I am allowed to congratulate, the heir apparent to the throne of Perak for his willingness to say what the rakyat are unable or reluctant to say. The reminder is timely.


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on April 29, 2014

1. Democracy is a great system, perhaps the best system for governing a country ever invented by man.

2. What can be better than a government of the people, by the people, for the people. And most of the developed countries are democratic, obviously benefiting from the system.

3. Does this mean that all countries which are governed democratically will be stable, prosperous and developed? The great democracies of the West seem to think so. Such is their faith in the system that they are willing to kill and destroy in order to promote democracy. They have now decided to bring about regime change in order to democratise the undemocratic countries. If you resist democratisation they will kill you and destroy your country. And so they did in Iraq and are doing so in the Arab countries and elsewhere.

4. It is assumed that the people, or at least the majority of the people would be wise enough to choose the most capable people to rule them. Unfortunately the people do not always choose the most capable. They may be influenced by race, religion, ideology and a host of other factors when electing their governments.

5. They may also choose because of money. In fact in most cases their choices are based on immediate personal gain rather than national interest.

6. Because of all these democracy has often failed to provide countries with good governance. Indeed it may result in dividing the people into parties and groups and pit them against each other.

7. If there are only two parties it is possible for one or the other to achieve a clear majority and to form the Government. But when there are more than two, it is entirely possible for no one party getting a clear majority of the seats in the legislature to form a Government.

8. In a two party system a small majority may weaken the Government due to fear of defection by its members. Only a Government with a big majority can provide stable and effective Governments.

9. As stated above when there are numerous parties it is likely that none would achieve a majority (50%+) to form the Government. A coalition may need to be formed in order to achieve a majority. Such a post-election coalition Government would always be threatened by defections of a coalition partner and so losing the majority. The Government would thus always be weak and unstable.

10. However, a pre-election coalition stands a better chance of winning a good majority especially if the coalition acts as a party fielding only one candidate in each constituency.

11. When this is done and the single coalition candidate is supported by all the coalition members it is likely that he will win. The chances are good for the coalition to win enough seats to form the Government. Such a coalition would be more stable and strong.

12. In Malaysia the Alliance and then the National Front coalitions which at times had as many as 14 parties have won in all the 14 elections held since independence. Such has been the success of the pre-election coalition formula that the opposition parties, despite their deep differences have decided to form their own coalition. The result is that in Malaysia there is now effectively a two-party system operating, It is therefore possible for a majority to be achieved by one or the other coalition in elections.

13. So far so good. But a basic principle in elections is for the loser to accept losing, to accept the result of the polls and wait for the next election. This is what happens in mature democracies. But parties in new democracies seem quite unable to accept losing. They dispute the result and they resort to undemocratic ways to overthrow the elected party or coalition.

14. Democracy upholds the rights of the minority. They must be protected. Therefore they are allowed to show their disappointment at losing in a variety of democratic ways. In Parliament they may stage walkouts when unable to block Government action. They may carry out active campaigning through the media and rallies to discredit the Government. Now they can make use of the alternative media to cause disaffection for the Government.

15. When sometimes they may resort to strikes and demonstrations.

16. All these are still permissible in a democracy. But now the strikes and street demonstrations have become so huge and prolonged as to paralyse the whole country.

17. In a non-democratic totalitarian state such massive demonstrations may be justified as there is no other way to change Governments. But now even when elections can determine changes in Governments, the losers in democratic elections have resorted to these disruptive acts.

18. We see in Egypt, Ukraine and even Thailand the opposition resorting to mass demonstrations in order to overthrow duly elected majority Governments. In Egypt and Ukraine the elected Government have been overthrown. Strangely even when new elections are agreed to by the majority elected Government, the minority opposition would not agree and choose to continue with street demonstrations. They claim the elections would be fraudulent.

19. The net result is continuous instability and sufferings by people and in particular the small businessmen. A situation akin to anarchy would prevail.

20. So far Malaysia has been spared the instability due to massive prolonged street demonstrations. But the signs are already there. Obviously there are Malaysians who would like to bring down the elected Government through demonstrations.

21. The series of Bersih demonstrations are obviously meant to excite public support to discredit the Government and eventually to bring it down. The Government is accused of cheating in previous elections so as to justify rejection of the coming elections should the Government party win. Massive and continuous demonstrations would then be held.

22. So far the numbers in the demonstrations are not big enough to paralyse the country. Though disruptive, the businesses, including the small street stalls have not been stopped. But the hope of the organisers of Bersih must be to attract millions to participate and to be daily affairs so that the usual daily life of the people would be disrupted.

23. A next step may be to occupy Government buildings.

24. The police would be provoked into taking violent actions. International news agencies and their television crew would then record the violence which would be broadcast throughout the world to discredit the majority elected Government. Of course violence on the part of the demonstrators would not be recorded or shown.

25. Malaysians have not responded to the call. Maybe they will in the future and Malaysia would join the ranks of unstable countries incapable of being governed and much less being developed.

26. The world needs to make up its mind. Do we elect Government by voting or do we install Government through street demonstrations?

27. Democracy as we can see is not perfect. But it is by far the best system of Government that we have. But like all systems, abuses can negate the objective.

28. If democracy is to survive and to serve the purpose for which it is devised, there must be some acceptance of the limits to the freedom that we consider democratic.

29. Free speech, free press, demonstrations and strikes must be circumscribed to some degree so that they will not destroy democracies in the name of democracy.