POLITICIANS vs JOURNALISTS

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on October 14, 2013

1. The world is in a bad shape because politicians instead of journalists run it. I came to this conclusion after reading a copy of The Economist, the British magazine. The writers in the Economist seem to know everything that ails the world and they also know how all these ailment can be cured.

2. The copy begins with the front page illustration of the statue of Christ tumbling through the air from its pedestal on Sugar Loaf mountain in Brazil; down, I suppose to crash on Rio de Janeiro. I suppose it is to illustrate the grave situation in the country.

3. The articles on Brazil began with “Grounded”, followed by “A rough ride for (President Dilma) Rousseff”. Then “The price is wrong”, and an advice on agriculture, “Leaves Well Alone”, followed by “The Road to Hell”. “Money no Object” (on the football stadium), “Land of the Setting Sun”, “Look Good” followed by “Reality Dawns”. The articles describe all the wrong things that are being done by Brazil and how they should and could be corrected.

4. Other articles are entitled “A new Face of Terror” (which Western Governments do not know), “Sending the Wrong Smoke-Signal” (on E-cigarettes), “Angela’s Dilemma” (telling Angela Merkel to look to the Greens).

5. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” is to warn everyone not to put too much faith in Iran’s nuclear deal “and keep the sanctions on”. Cameron, the Prime Minister of United Kingdom is told to “Remember what you once were (the Prime Minister should reclaim the radical centre of British politics)”. “The Unquenchable Fire” is about the Al-Qaeda still being around and deplore the fact that Mr Zawahiri, its current leader is not dead yet. This seems like hinting that the United States should assassinate the Al-Qaeda leader as they did Osama Ben Laden. I suppose Zawahiri’s corpse would be dumped in the sea.

6. And now Malaysia. “Bumi, Not Booming” is about Najib’s announcement of a policy known as “the Bumiputra Economic Empowerment”. This hideous policy discriminates against the Chinese who make up 25% of the population but run much of Malaysia’s business, and Indians 7% but having disproportionate presence in the professions.

7. Apparently any attempt to give the Malays and the indigenous people (68%) a share in the business (and the wealth) and to become professionals is unfair, wrong and unjust. Liberal people should not do this. If they get no share of the wealth and places in the professions, they should just be poor spectators.

8. Prior to the Elections Najib had tried to win over the Chinese by ignoring the plight of the Malays. He even ignored the National Education Policy by supporting Chinese education with money. He tried to endear himself to the Chinese with more money. However the Chinese voters rejected him. Only 3% voted for him. Sounds like gross ungratefulness. For this Najib should dole out some more money, which would be the right thing to do.

9. But the Malays supported him. Apparently according to the Economist it is wrong to support those who support you. You don’t do that in civilised countries. Let the supporters rot.

10. The proper thing to do is to help people who are already well off to be even more well off.

11. In fact one should help the richer community get even richer and the poor community poorer. If there are poor people among the rich community make sure they become rich first before taking any notice of the poor in the poor community.

12. Now on Pakistan. They are giving the “Cold shoulder to Sheriff”. India’s informal economy has “Hidden Value”. Sri Lanka’s Tamils have to face “Harder Lines” – reconciliation is further off.

13. On scientific research “Looks Good on Paper”. Xilai’s “End of the Road” is worth gloating over. On China’s relations with America it is “one model, two interpretations”. The American Budget is about “Nightmares and Bedtime Stories”.

14. And so on, and so on and so on. Really the silly politicians should make way for western journalists. From the words of wisdom in the Economist and generally in the Western press, it is obvious that with journalists and the expert writers at the helm, the world can sleep easy. Why didn’t we think of this before?

Chin Peng

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on October 02, 2013

This article appeared in the New Straits Times, Oct 1, 2013

1. Attempts to declare Chin Peng a patriot, nationalist and freedom fighter reflect how far derailed some Malaysians are from what the Communist Party of Malaya represented and what was its real objective.

2. Firstly, it must be pointed out that the CPM continued with their insurgency long after Malaya and then Malaysia had gained independence in 1957.

3. In their fight against the Government of independent Malaysia, the CPM killed civilians and security personnel by the thousands without considering their role as defenders of independence or their innocence. Senior police officers were assassinated and police patrols were ambushed and gunned down.

4. Nationals of an independent country do not kill fellow nationals who were only doing their duty to provide security for the citizens who wanted just to earn a living, who wanted to live a normal life. Yet the CPM ignored the independence of the nation, the democratic rights of the people in its single-minded desire to create a Communist dictatorship in Malaysia. The CPM were prepared to use extreme violence so as to install its leader Chin Peng, as the authoritarian ruler of the country.

5. To make it more horrendous, much of the atrocities and mutilations committed by Chin Peng and the CPM are not only on soldiers but many civilians were their victims.

6. Government records show that the CPM in a classic move infiltrated the trade unions and political parties so as to destabilise the nation and bring down its elected Government.

7. In the 1969 General Elections, the CPM defied the Government by holding a funeral procession to arouse hatred against the Alliance party. This contributed to the inter-racial tension and the subsequent riots.

8. Until the Haadyai agreement of 1990 the CPM guerrillas planted booby traps which caused many policemen and soldiers to lose their legs, arms and eyesight. Many were killed.

9. The agreement was to stop to the mindless killings of members of the security forces even though there was no possibility for the CPM to seize power in Malaysia. The agreement provided for the laying down of arms by the CPM insurgents. Many of the insurgents chose to live in Thailand. A few who wanted to visit relatives in Malaysia were allowed to do so. Those who pleaded that they were forced or were mislead into joining the CPM and wished to reside in the country were allowed to do so. The agreement was a practical solution to the problems faced by the nation and it was a solution also for the CPM which had lost all support in Malaysia following the Government campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people.

10. The CPM would not have entered into the agreement if it still had substantial support of Malaysians. It must be admitted that certain extremist groups in the country still harbour the hope of a CPM-ruled Malaysia. Besides, after the visit of Tun Razak to China in 1974, the Chinese Government stopped supporting the CPM. It stopped radio broadcasts in support of the CPM that year. The nation celebrated this stoppage of China’s support for the CPM by giving the BN party a big majority in the 1974 elections.

11. All these point towards the fact that from the very start the war waged by Chin Peng and the CPM was with the objective of turning Malaya into a dictatorship with the CPM leader as the dictator. There was no intention to give the people the right to choose their Government. The CPM wanted to change British Colonial rule with a Communist dictatorship, not an independent nation.

12. It is important to remember that Chin Peng never made any effort to register as a Malaysian citizen. He has therefore forfeited all rights as a Malaysian citizen. But it is entirely possible for his leftist supporters to try and rally around his burial place as a symbol for the resurgence of the MCP in Malaysia. Already race relations in Malaysia has deteriorated. With Chin Peng as a symbol it is most likely that race relations might explode in violence.

13. The Government is right in not allowing the burial of Chin Peng in Malaysia or bringing his ashes back.