The Economic Reality of Malaysia Today

A speech by Y.B.M. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

The Perak Academy, Perak Lectures in Ipoh: 15th Series 2nd Talk

Saturday, 23rd November, 2013, at 8.00 p.m.

Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen.

I would like to thank the Academy for inviting me a second time to give a talk on the current state of the economy. After the presentation of Budget 2014 in Parliament last month and the ongoing debate in the august house, the state of the economy is indeed a relevant question to ask. Economic reality however may not be what it is made out to be when one engages in political debate in respect of the Budget: often it is the unstated issues in the Budget and its underlying strategies and proposals that should be of great concern to thinking Malaysians.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

2. The Budget 2014 projects that GDP growth rate next year will likely be around 4.5 to 5% and 5.5% in 2015. These figures had remained in that range for the past budgets since 2000, reflecting some kind of paralysis of policy given the global economic situation and our own model of growth that depends so much on our external markets and the optimism of foreign interests in our economy. But, these figures conceal some forewarnings that are not highlighted.

3. Take for instance, the budget deficits, which had remained in negative territory for over twenty years; now the Najib government has promised to bring the budget into balance by 2020. The federal deficit has been sustained by borrowings that are now reaching close to the statutory debt ceiling of 55% of GDP. In fact the federal debt levels in absolute terms doubled since Dato’ Seri Najib took over as Prime Minister. Coupled with private debt currently at 83% of GDP (an issue I will come back to later), the total debt exposure which will have to be carried over into the next generation will now approach 140% of GDP at current prices by the end of the year.

4. Of course this is not yet a worrying figure compared to the likes of Greece recently and Ireland previously. We know that the rule of thumb for sustainability (whether it can be funded by current output) of the national debt is something like: for any given year government debt plus outstanding loans of commercial banks must NOT be more than five times the sum of government revenues plus net foreign inflows.

5. Malaysia is not quite near that boundary yet. Or, using another more rigorous (statistically- based) measure to relate government debt to economic growth, the corrected Rogoff-Reinhart- Herndon limit of 90% debt-to-GDP ratio will imply the average growth rate of GDP will be around 2.2% per annum, while the level for countries with debt under 30% of GDP is 4.2% per annum; for countries with debt between 30 and 60% of GDP it is 3.1% per annum; or between 60 and 90% debt, 3.2% per annum. Countries may not hit a wall at 90%, in terms of growth prospects, but the going will be that much heavier if the government is not ever mindful of the consequences of high debt and deficits. By this standard then, the Malaysian situation is still manageable.

6. On this score then, the government’s attempt to lower the government deficit by 2020, and cap the debt level to below 55% is a prudent measure. And the broadening of the tax base through the introduction of the flat consumption tax, i.e. the GST, not a popular proposal at this time, could help government raise some revenue, provided it begins at a low rate and provided also it is secured by exemptions for essential items to prevent regressive impact on lower income groups.

7. But what is of greater concern is the fact that a good part of this deficit arises on the operating budget side from tax expenditures to support consumption to achieve growth, for example through the BRIM awards, and to finance the public wage and pension obligations. This consumption-based expenditure, together with the high energy and food subsidies given to industry and the public to sustain aggregate demand, is itself not sustainable. This type of expenditure to boost the economy does not add to the capacity building through investment that is necessary to enhance future economic growth.

8. The issue of subsidies, a major distortion that economists say will lead to considerable misallocation of resources, to me is the biggest problem in the Budget proposals this year. Total subsidies, covering a whole range of tax-funded fiscal support stands this year at RM42 billion, just under 20% of the total expenditure budget. This issue has not been addressed seriously enough in the Budget proposal. While support for the lower income groups have to be maintained, it arguably can be asserted that the subsidies are regressive especially those awarded to industry. This is because it is consumption-based, that is, you benefit more from it the more you consume, and business and rich households will tend to consume more than the lower income groups in absolute terms.

9. If we are seeking inclusive development, as expressly stated by the government, which means that development policies and programmes must be pro-poor, then the issue of rationalization of subsidies have to be confronted, no matter how unpopular the required measures are going to be. A switch to equity-based considerations is required, with appropriate means test and income verification, and as recommended by the World Bank greater targeting of subsidies to the lower income targets. This is even more urgent than any that this government has to face.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

10. Keeping still for a bit more on the Budget, my other concern on the economy is the fact that the operating budget has been secularly rising over the years, except for the recessionary years; I think something more radical needs to be done to rein in the fixed costs in the government spending plans. While growth in the size of the public sector may be due to economic necessity, to provide employment for instance, it would be more prudent to focus on productivity and efficiencies to enhance public sector service delivery. The increase in public sector fixed overhead costs cannot for instance be at the expense of development expenditure. The share of the latter has been decreasing as the operating budget increases, from in excess of 30% a decade ago to 17% of the total budget proposed for 2014. Just as the government debt limit has to be capped I think the share of operating expenditure to total budget must also be capped at some reasonable level. The dangers of financial crowding out will return to rear its head if this matter is not dealt with seriously.

11. When this issue of government overhead costs is set against the various reports of the Auditor-General concerning wastage, profligate spending, unaccountable losses, and sheer incompetency and intransigent corruption, both petty and in high places, we are excused from any restraint to express our anger and intolerance as taxpayers and ordinary citizens at the current state of affairs.

12. The lack of transparency, integrity and accountability in the public sphere, no less than governance issues in the private sector, is something that must engage all citizens of a free and democratic society. It is thus in the public interest that civil society organizations, social movements and other citizen groups, even political parties, continue to agitate for reforms, through acceptable and legitimate democratic means. It is for this reason also that a freer press and a freedom of information legislation is required, if we are serious about tackling this cancer in our political system, bureaucracy and society in general.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

13. Now to longer-term issues. We are at a critical juncture in our history, and a preoccupation with the short-term issues of the day will not get us much further forward. The result of the 13th general election (PRU13) and the so-called 2008 “political tsunami” demand a new action plan in order that we may be better prepared to deal with the recurring challenges facing us in the wake of the decisions by the voters. Among these are: the need for a clean government of integrity to combat the rampant and pervasive corruption, the rising cost of living and high personal debt levels, the economic imbalances that remain after 40 years of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and its variants, and the capability of an UMNO-led government to deliver on the economy, in view of the shift in Chinese votes to opposition parties.

14. The PRU13 results saw Barisan Nasional (BN) winning the election by a simple majority for the second time. The victory was achieved through a heavy reliance on the support of Sabah and Sarawak voters as well as that of the rural Peninsular Malay voters. Just as it was in 2008, a majority of the urban Malays, the middle class and the Chinese voted for the Opposition. A simple majority of the popular vote is captured by opposition parties. Moving forward, the national economic agenda will have to be recast to take into account these new political realities and the economic dictates, both domestic and foreign confronting us as a nation.

15. A forthcoming report by the UNDP on Inclusive Growth in Malaysia, analyzing the country’s experience over the last forty years since the launch of the New Economic Policy, has shown that, while real GDP per capita is seen to have steadily increased over the period while the incidence of poverty has dramatically declined from 49% of total households in 1970 to 1.7% overall; the Gini coefficient as a measure of income inequalities had declined from 0.51 in 1970 to 0.43 in 2012, a drop of 15%, while the average real wages have relatively stayed flattish from 2002 onwards. However, over the last twenty years the income disparity measure had actually remained stuck at the 0.43 level, whereas a Gini coefficient around 0.35 would be more desirable reflecting a better income distribution as a result of broad-based economic growth. The 90s and the first decade of the new millennium was a period during which the government had adopted economic measures aimed at liberalizing the market, and promoting the growth of the private sector through privatization and foreign investment.

16. Worse, whether it is a consequence of these policies or not, the distribution of wealth in the country, as expected, is extremely skewed. The wealth of Malaysia’s top 10% exceeds those of the bottom 70%, and about 12% of Malaysian households have no wealth at all. In fact, the wealth of the top one per cent is much higher than the whole of the bottom 40% combined.

17. This finding is consistent with what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found. In a recent 2013 report, studying the experience of how pro-poor and inclusive Asia’s recent growth has been, and what factors have been driving these outcomes, finds that while poverty has fallen across the region over the last two decades, inequality has increased, dampening the impact of growth on poverty reduction. As a result, relative to other emerging and developing regions and to Asia’s own past, the recent period of growth has been both less inclusive and less pro-poor. The analysis suggests a number of policies that could help redress these trends and broaden the benefits of growth in Asia. These include fiscal policies to increase spending on health, education, and social safety nets; labour market reforms to boost the labour share of total income; and reforms to make financial systems more inclusive.

18. At the same time, many countries, especially advanced economies, recorded growing concentration of income and wealth in the top one per cent, and the increasing power of finance. The global financial crisis of 2008 has renewed attention to functional distribution – wage and profit shares of national income – with concern that declining wage shares and expanding profit shares correspond with the skewing of economic conditions toward serving short-term financial interests. Inclusive growth warrants attention to the balance of power between elites and masses, and between financial and productive economies.

19. It is on record that Malaysia’s wage share of gross national income, at 28% is the worst in the region, compared to the share of profits. A reasonable share as in developed countries is around 45-50%. This means that we have a huge mountain to climb: we may achieve developed status by 2020 as the government hopes with US15,000 GNI per capita as the target, but this is pointless if labour’s share of the value added growth is skewed in favour of asset owners and the richer classes among us. What may the reasons be for this sorry situation in Malaysia? I would proffer a few factors that might explain the situation: the tax system and incentives that are pro- business, including the absence of a capital gains tax; the existence of monopolies, cartels and lack of competition; the relative weakness of the labour unions in collective bargaining; and corruption and leakages, to name a few. Teachers’ wages for instance have to rise (the lowest in the region now), together with plantation labour, and the informal sector as well. The minimum wage is a good move that warrant our support in this instance. The comparatively lower salaries for professionals is the main reason for the brain drain that had led to one million Malaysians working overseas.

20. But moving to a higher wage regime, and away from a cheap labor policy in order to maintain our competitiveness is not an insurmountable task, because data show that productivity especially in the manufacturing sector has been rising steadily over the years, but the wage- productivity gap has also been widening. This is one of the more critical issues if the goal of inclusive development for Malaysia is to be achieved. 21. Being an open economy and well integrated into the world economy through globalization, Malaysia cannot be isolated from these impacts on our national competitiveness. Our task at economic reform will therefore be that much harder. But at the same time more urgent.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

22. Another issue I would like to highlight concern the issue of the rising cost of living which affects everybody, but impacts the middle and lower income classes more than others. While the official figures for the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, as the measure of inflation has been around 3.0-3.5% give or take a few points, over the years, there is a suspicion among economists and some thinking lay people that this might not reflect the real situation on the ground.

23. It is possible that this seemingly acceptable inflation rate, for anything lower than 2% has been adjudged by professional economists as undermining incentives for producers and sellers to bring additional goods and services to market, could be due to the fact that a large proportion of the food items in the basket of goods going into the CPI calculation are control items. The rule of thumb used by MIER in its forecasts of inflation is to add nearly a percentage point to officially stated figures. This exogenous adjustment to their forecasting model for Malaysia perhaps was done to obtain a more realistic cost of living figure.

24. But if you take the core inflation figures covering energy, housing and transport (beside food), surely without subsidies these numbers would be closer to the real cost of living that people are facing. One of our prominent economists says that “the 2.3% estimated inflation rate is generally not taken seriously by the public. People hardly believe that prices are rising by only 2.3% per annum. People think that prices are rising at a faster rate in the real market place! The Budget should in fact have dealt with Structural Issues like Inflation and Corruption and Cronyism and more competition, in a more assertive manner. The main causes of rising prices are insufficient supplies to meet rising demands. Hence more could be done to Liberalise the economy. More licenses, less quotas, greater ease of doing business for especially the Small Medium Businesses and Traders, should have been be considered. Tenders and Contracts could be made more competitive. We can have lower prices and lower inflation only if supplies of goods and services are increased and we become more efficient. Too many layers for the award of tenders and contracts will only add to distorted pricing and price manipulation. The Cronies will obviously benefit, but the poor businessmen and ordinary consumers will have to pay higher prices and suffer from rising inflation. They will even feel the pain of low quality goods and poor services. Why should the poor and lower income groups pay the price to enrich the unproductive cronies? They will react and resent this unfair system, if not now, then later!” Cost of housing has been rising in major urban centres, and house prices have been accelerating due to demand engendered by foreign and local investors, not just for higher-end properties but also the lower cost categories. The UNDP Study I cited earlier has found that the House Affordability Index for Malaysians is comparatively high; in KL the housing affordability index is close to those of some major cities in the developed countries such as London and New York. The index for Sabah, and the west coast states are much higher than the rest of the country. This presents a particular challenge to young families and the middle class and puts further pressure on financing this important household asset.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

25. This leads me to another critical issue on the economy, and that is concerning household debt, which I had earlier alluded to, which is reaching a worrying level. The household credit exposure in the banking sector has increased by more than twofold over the past decade from RM243.2 billion in 2002 to RM754.6 billion in 2012, which is equivalent to an increase in debt to GDP ratio from 67.2% to 80.5% in the same period. In 2012, about 44% of household income is for debt repayment, which is an increase from 39.1% in 2006.

26. This is cause for alarm, as the rule of thumb suggests that the optimal debt repayment ratio should be kept within 30% and not to exceed 40%. The high indebtedness of Malaysian households, which is higher than optimum levels, means that they are sensitive to income shocks and interest rate adjustments. The lower income group, with lower savings capacity and higher leverage position at about 4.4-9.6 of annual income (as compared to 2.3-3.3 of middle and upper income groups), are most vulnerable to these shocks. More importantly, they will remain in a leverage-vicious cycle due to the nature of credit.

27. This brings us back full circle to the issue of employment creation and income. The high and sustainable growth rate supported by robust investment activities has created job opportunities in the labour market; as a result the unemployment rate in Malaysia has been reducing from 7.4% in 1970 to about 3% in 2012. Cross-country comparison shows that the unemployment rate in Malaysia is relatively low compared to regional economies, and even lower than many developed economies. For instance, the unemployment rates in OECD countries and high income countries in 2012 are about 8%, more than double the rate in Malaysia.

28. The challenge going forward, however, is the ability for the economy to create quality and high-paying jobs, especially for new entrants into the labour force who are gaining higher post- secondary and tertiary qualifications; not the low paying jobs that are now being filled by foreign workers in the plantations, construction and assembly-based manufacturing. If we are to move to a higher level of development, indeed to achieve developed status, a different structure of value- added growth and greater productivity is required. Shifting to a service-oriented economy may be part of the answer to this economic restructuring, but we cannot abandon higher-valued manufacturing altogether while maintaining our industrial competitiveness by importing such foreign labour to keep our unit labour costs down. Longer term sustainability of economic growth requires enhancing the knowledge content of our manufacturing, and yes even in the service industry, which all require innovation, technology and new entrepreneurship. Only in this way will we be able to raise wages and salaries, through increasing productivity. Thus, this involves not just up-skilling of our labour force, but also the provision of correct incentives and institutions to support such value-added growth. I wonder whether the New Economic Model is sufficiently geared towards the above tasks.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

29. I would submit that this national task will require new and bold ideas. These ideas need to be implemented over the next five to 10 years with supporting institutional reforms to generate maximum impact and to ensure success. Otherwise we are going to be left behind once again. I say this because South Korea, who in the 60’s was behind us, is now three times more in terms of per capita income. Our neighbors Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia are now ahead on their reform path. If we do not take rapid and serious action, they may get ahead of us again. I am confident that such an action will provide a new impetus to move the country forward. Ladies and Gentlemen,

30. It is unfortunate, however, that this needed reset of our economic policy comes at a time when the Malaysian economy is facing internal budget constraints and external structural adjustments in the world economy consequent to the financial crisis of 2008 that will have an impact on our growth prospects in the short and medium terms. While the government had forecast a growth rate of 5-5.5% next year, the needed recovery from the US and Europe is still in their nascent phase, though there are encouraging signs. Meanwhile we will have to look at our internal resources to create an alternative path forward with continued dynamism in our region, respectively in China and the prospect of AFTA in 2015.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

31. At the Official Launch of the Economic Roundtable sponsored by the Mahkota Foundation on 26th September, 2013, I had proposed such a new Plan, I called it the Amanah Plan. Let me stress that what we need, today, is a new economic plan that will ensure Malaysia’s future economic growth is accompanied by an equitable development of the nation’s wealth and prosperity; one that guarantees that all segments of the Malaysian society have a stake in the economy. I would like to propose that we establish a stakeholder economy for Malaysia over the next decade; an economic system that will ensure an equitable sharing of the benefits of development for all stakeholders and for future generations, under the protection of the Federal Constitution.

32. There is no space here to go into details on the Amanah Plan. You may want to go into the Economic Roundtable website to get access to the speech. I can say here that the Amanah Plan involves four strategic components. These are an Accelerated Infrastructure Development (AID) Strategy, a Human Capital Development (HCD) Strategy, an Agriculture and Industry (AI) Growth Strategy, and a Comprehensive Islamic Financial (CIF) Strategy to complement the ongoing implementation of the Financial Sector Master Plan. The question that was raised is how are we going to finance this Plan.

33. I had proposed that we adopt the Public-Private Partnership model (PPP) as a means to provide critical infrastructure service delivery. Previous Malaysian administrations have adopted this financing model including privatization vehicles and the aborted Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) funding model. But these have been marred by accusations of mismanagement and corruption due to the lack of an open tender system. It is unfortunate for us that private infrastructure investments merely provide political insiders with a disproportionate share of the investment returns leaving the public to hold on to the increased costs.

34. I think there are successful PPP/PFI models in other countries especially the United Kingdom which we can follow and learn from. I believe that this is the way we should move forward. I am suggesting that these PPP financing models using the conventional system be enhanced by adopting new Islamic financial instruments such as an Islamic version of PIPEs (Private Investment in Public Equities) and similar innovations, to enable wider participation in investment that currently are available only to asset-surplus players in the market, and thus enhance and broaden the asset acquisition game to the larger population.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

35 At the conclusion of the Amanah Plan speech, I had said that we, as an economy and society, do not have much time on our side to dilly-dally and fiddle on the margins of our great national concerns. We cannot afford the luxury of idly gazing at our political navels. The people expect bold changes. We certainly cannot deny them the answers to their concerns and aspirations. Leaders will have failed the mandate given to them if we are only toying with political slogans and creating myths about our development experience in the NEP and post-NEP years that do not hold up to the facts. We – you and I, and every Malaysian – must renew our resolve to build a united and prosperous nation on the foundation that the founding fathers had built, which are now threatened by political gamesmanship, empty promises and policy obfuscation. Only with this commitment to fundamental reform of our policies and the institutions that support them will we be able to restore the people’s trust in the government. Only with this resolve will we be able to offer our good people a secure feeling about Malaysia’s future.

Thank you.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 November 2013, 10:35 am and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Top priority for Pakatan Rakyat is to set up a high-level PR 14GE strategic council to plan for the capture of federal government in Putrajaya in next general elections

Congratulations are in order to PAS leaders and delegates for a very successful 59th Muktamar at national, youth and wanita levels, causing great disappointments to UMNO plotters and conspirators who had worked overtime through their printed or social media in cyberspace  to sow dissension and distrust within PAS ranks and to  sabotage the unity of purpose of Pakatan Rakyat and giving hope to enlightened Malaysians who comprise the majority of the electorate that two-coalition politics in Malaysia is here to stay as it is very much alive and kicking.

PAS Deputy President Mohamad Sabu struck the nail on the head when he pointed out in his winding-up speech at the 59th Muktamar that PAS would only be a regional party confined to the east coast of the peninsula if it had not entered into a pact with PKR and DAP in Pakatan Rakyat.

As Sabu succinctly said:

“Without Pakatan, our area of dominance would only stretch from Rantau Panjang (in northern Kelantan) to Kemaman (southern Terengganu).

“But with Pakatan, we conquered Selangor and, God willing, it will be Johor next.”

In 1999, when PAS benefitted most from the backlash against BN because of the 1998 political and economic crisis, it won 27 parliament and 98 state seats making it the largest opposition party.

However, 93% and 86% of the parliament and state seats won by PAS was in its “Northern” heartland of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu.

In 2004, as a result of the Pak Lah “Tsunami”, PAS was reduced to 6 parliament and 33 state seats (100% and 94% of which, respectively, were in the Northern states).

2008 marked a significant shift in PAS’s support outside the 4 Northern States. PAS won 23 parliament and 83 state seats in total, out of which 70% and 76% were in the 4 Northern States.

In 2013, PAS won 2 fewer parliament seats (21 vs 23) but won 2 more state seats (85 vs 83) and this time, 67% and 66% of parliament and state seats respectively were in the 4 Northern States (See Table 1 below)

State

1999

2004

2008

2013

Parl.

State

Parl.

State

Parl.

State

Parl.

State

Perlis

0

3

0

1

0

1

0

1

Kedah

8

12

1

4

6

16

1

9

Kelantan

10

41

5

24

9

38

9

32

Terengganu

7

28

0

4

1

8

4

14

Penang

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

Perak

2

3

0

0

2

6

2

5

Pahang

0

6

0

0

0

2

1

3

Selangor

0

4

0

0

4

8

4

15

KL

0

NA

0

NA

1

NA

0

NA

Negeri Sembilan

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Melaka

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Johor

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

4

P.Msia

27

98

6

35

23

83

21

85

Perlis, Kedah, K’tan & T’gganu

25

84

6

33

16

63

14

56

Others

2

14

0

2

7

20

7

29

Northern %

92.6%

85.7%

100.0%

94.3%

69.6%

75.9%

66.7%

65.9%

Others %

7.4%

14.3%

0.0%

5.7%

30.4%

24.1%

33.3%

34.1%

Being part of Pakatan has helped PAS venture beyond its core 4 northern states.

The setback faced by PAS in Kedah in 2013 cannot be explained in terms of PAS participation in Pakatan but more so because of internal factors. Similar explanations can be used for the slight decrease in support for PAS in Kelantan.

If being part of Pakatan hurt PAS in the Malay heartland, then PAS would not have made gains in Terengganu.

Moving forward, it is clear that the states which have and will continue to experience the largest population growth in Peninsular Malaysia are Selangor, KL and Johor. These are where most of the new seat increases (parliament and state) will occur.

Many of the new seats will be ethnically ‘mixed’ seats.

Hence, if PAS wants to continue to make inroads beyond its 4 Northern States, it must work together in the context of Pakatan to maximize its Malay as well as non-Malay support. In the 4 Northern States, PAS must look internally to strengthen itself and Pakatan.

Another way of examining PAS’ performance out on a state by state basis is to analyse the % of votes obtained by PAS in the seats contested by PAS in each state.

This information is shown in Table 2 below.

State

Parliament (As a % of Votes in PAS Seats)

Change 1999 to 2013

Change 2004 to 2013

1999

2004

2008

2013

Perlis

44.5%

35.6%

44.5%

44.7%

0.2%

9.1%

Kedah

48.4%

42.1%

50.6%

46.4%

-1.9%

4.4%

Kelantan

60.5%

47.2%

55.1%

54.4%

-6.2%

7.2%

Terengganu

58.7%

44.2%

44.9%

48.9%

-9.8%

4.7%

Penang

30.0%

28.2%

38.4%

46.8%

16.8%

18.6%

Perak

44.3%

35.0%

48.1%

43.6%

-0.7%

8.6%

Pahang

44.0%

32.6%

39.7%

42.1%

-1.9%

9.5%

Selangor

43.3%

32.6%

51.9%

54.3%

11.0%

21.7%

WPKL

47.5%

27.3%

48.7%

44.3%

-3.2%

17.1%

Melaka

34.0%

21.4%

29.4%

28.9%

-5.1%

7.5%

Negeri Sembilan

34.4%

23.0%

30.8%

39.5%

5.1%

16.4%

Johor

28.1%

17.6%

28.8%

35.2%

7.2%

17.6%

P.Msia

47.5%

34.4%

45.3%

47.3%

-0.2%

12.9%

PAS support in Kelantan and Terengganu reached its highest level in 1999 (60.5% and 58.7% respectively). PAS support in Kedah was the highest in 2008 when it won 50.6% of total votes in the seats it contested in. In 2013, even though PAS support is lower in Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu compared to 1999, it is still much higher than in 2004.

At the same time, PAS’ support outside the 4 Northern States have increased significantly since 1999 especially in Penang (16.8% increase), Selangor (11.0%), Negeri Sembilan (5.1%) and Johor (7.2%). This shows that being part of Pakatan has clearly paid dividends for PAS in these states.

Table 2: % of votes won by PAS in PAS contested parliament seats (1999 to 2013)

Being part of Pakatan definitely helped PAS win two new parliament seats in 2013 that it could not have won without Pakatan’s support.

In Temerloh, a 63% Malay, 26% Chinese, 9% Indian seat, PAS won with a 1070 majority with very strong support coming from the 35% non-Malay voters in this seat.

In Sepang, a 59% Malay, 23% Chinese, 18% Indian seat, PAS won with a 1142 majority against a former UMNO Minister again with very strong support coming from the 41% non-Malay voters in this area.

For PAS to win back some of the marginal seats which it lost such as Sungai Besar (34% non-Malay), Kuala Selangor (36% non-Malay) and Titiwangsa (32% non-Malay), it must utilize the strength of the Pakatan brand and cooperation.

It is not just PAS which had benefitted from its partnership in Pakatan Rakyat, as the same case can be made for both the DAP and PKR as well.

There can be no doubt that by forming the coalition, the three component parties of DAP, PKR and PAS could not only individually win  greater number of parliamentary and state assembly seats than when they are contesting on their own, they could also achieve a greater sum total of the overall number of parliamentary and state assembly seats countrywide.

The top priority for Pakatan Rakyat at present is to set up a high-level PR 14GE strategic council to plan for the capture of federal government in Putrajaya in next general elections as well as to achieve optimum election results for PR in the various states.

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/25/keutamaan-bagi-pakatan-rakyat-ialah-untuk-membentuk-majlis-strategik-peringkat-tertinggi-untuk-menyusun-rancangan-menawan-putrajaya-dalam-pilihanraya-akan-datang/

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 November 2013, 2:33 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on all DAP State Conventions in coming weeks to send out one clear message to Malaysians – one with DAP national leadership and Pakatan Rakyat parties to conquer Putrajaya in 14GE to achieve Malaysian Dream

After the DAP Special Congress on September 29, 2013 to re-elect the DAP national leadership, the UMNO national elections in October and the 59th PAS Muktamar last weekend to elect the PAS leadership for the next two years, the national focus for the coming weeks will be back on the DAP.

Beginning this weekend, most of the DAP State Conventions will be electing the new DAP State leaderships – and true to form, the Umno/BN plotters and conspirators are already working overtime to demonise the DAP leaders to cause maximum dissension,  division and damage to the DAP in particular and Pakatan Rakyat in general.

But just as the UMNO/BN plotters and conspirators, through their media, printed and Internet, had failed in their sinister design to destroy Pakatan Rakyat and the component parties of DAP, PAS and PKR, whether before, during and in the half-year after the 13th General Elections, DAP delegates to the DAP State Conventions in the coming weeks must mobilise to rally behind the national DAP leadership to send out  one clear and unmistakable message not only to Umno/Barisan Nasional but also to all Malaysians.

This clear and unmistakable message all DAP State Conventions in the coming weeks should send out to all Malaysians is that the  DAP at all levels in the country are one with the DAP national leadership and the other Pakatan Rakyat partners, PAS and PKR, to conquer Putrajaya in the 14GE to achieve the Malaysian Dream –  a Malaysia for all Malaysians regardless of race, religion, class or region where democracy, good governance and socio-economic justice could flourish to allow every Malaysian to achieve his or her fullest potential for the collective good and greatness of the nation.

I had said yesterday that all the three parties of DAP, PAS and PKR have benefitted from the partnership in Pakatan Rakyat.

From a regional party confined largely to its “Northern” heartland of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu, PAS has gone “national” in the 13th General Elections with parliamentary and/or state assembly representation in every state in Peninsular Malaysia, except for Negri Sembilan.

Performance of DAP (1999 to 2013)

DAP has also benefitted from being in Pakatan Rakyat and needs the Pakatan framework of cooperation and mutual reliance to continue to win more seats.

DAP has come a long way since 1999 in terms of the number of parliament and state seats won.

From 10 parliament and 11 state seats in Peninsular Malaysia in the 1999 general elections to 11 parliament and 15 state seats in the 2004 general elections, DAP took a big jump to 26 parliament and 72 state seats in Peninsular Malaysia in the 2008 general elections.

DAP made further gains in the 2013 general elections by winning 31 parliament and 91 state seats in Peninsular Malaysia. (See Table 1 below)

Table 1: Number of Parliament and State Seats won by the DAP in Peninsular Malaysia (including seats with <60% Chinese voters)

DAP (Pmsia)

1999

2004

2008

2013

# Parliament

10

11

26

31

# Parliament <60% Chinese

1

0

11

16

% Parliament <60% Chinese

10%

0%

42%

52%

# State

11

15

72

91

# State <60% Chinese

1

1

24

45

% State <60% Chinese

9%

7%

33%

48%

The growth in the number of seats won by the DAP in 2008 and 2013 have come in places where the DAP had previously failed to win, in ethnically mixed seats where the percentage of Chinese voters are less than 60%.

In 1999, for example, only one out of the 10 parliament seats won by the DAP had less than 60% Chinese voters (Nibong Tebal in Penang with 47% Chinese voters) and only one out of the 11 state seats won by the DAP had less than 60% Chinese voters (Bachang in Melaka with 45% Chinese voters).

In 2004, none of the 11 parliament seats won by the DAP had less than 60% Chinese voters and only one out of the 15 state seats won by the DAP had less than 60% Chinese voters (Sekinchan in Selangor with 57% Chinese voters).

This changed in 2008 when 11 out of the 26 parliament seats (42%) won by DAP in Peninsular Malaysia had less than 60% Chinese voters. Three out of these 11 parliament seats (Puchong, Seremban & Bakri) had more than 40% Malay voters.

Of the 72 state seats won by the DAP in Peninsular Malaysia in 2008, fully one-third or 24 seats had less than 60% Chinese voters. Two out of these 24 seats had more than 40% Malay voters (Sekinchan and Bachang).

Although Pakatan Rakyat had not been created prior to the 2008 general elections, DAP clearly benefitted from coordinating with PAS and PKR in avoiding three-cornered fights and also working with each other through movements like Bersih 1.0.

The formalized cooperation via Pakatan Rakyat helped DAP to win more seats in 2013.

Of the 31 parliament seats won by the DAP in Peninsular Malaysia, 16 (52%) had less than 60% Chinese voters. In fact, 9 out of these 16 seats had less than 50% Chinese voters (See Table 2 below).

Many of the parliament seats won by the DAP in 2013 which it did not win in 2008 are ethnically ‘mixed’ including Kluang (49% Chinese), Gelang Patah (52% Chinese) and Kulai (56% Chinese).

DAP also managed to win the Malay plurality parliament seat of Raub (49.7% Malay, 40.3% Chinese), a breakthrough for the DAP in many ways.

Of the 91 state seats won by DAP, just under half – 44 (48.4%) – had less than 60% Chinese voters. 15 out of these 45 state seats had less than 50% Chinese voters. (See Table 3 below)

Significantly, DAP won three state seats which were Malay majority seats, namely Derga in Kedah (56% Malay), Mentakab in Pahang (52% Malay) and Duyong in Melaka (50.3% Malay).

DAP would not have won the additional state and parliament seats without an increase in Malay support as a result of working within the framework of Pakatan Rakyat, particularly in the seats with a significant number of Malay voters.

It is this Pakatan framework of cooperation and mutual reliance that will strengthen the DAP and improve its performance in the 14th general election.

Table 2: 16 DAP parliament seats that had less than 60% Chinese voters in the 2013 GE

State

Parliament Code

Parliament Seat

MALAY%

CHINESE%

INDIAN%

OTHERS%

PULAU PINANG

P046

BATU KAWAN

20.5%

55.7%

23.2%

0.6%

PERAK

P060

TAIPING*

37.1%

47.9%

13.3%

1.7%

PERAK

P068

BERUAS

32.6%

52.3%

14.9%

0.2%

PERAK

P076

TELOK INTAN*

38.2%

41.9%

19.0%

0.9%

PAHANG

P080

RAUB*

49.7%

40.3%

6.4%

3.5%

SELANGOR

P102

SERDANG*

39.4%

48.6%

11.0%

1.0%

SELANGOR

P103

PUCHONG*

39.1%

43.5%

15.8%

1.6%

SELANGOR

P110

KLANG*

32.2%

45.8%

19.8%

2.2%

W.P. KUALA LUMPUR

P117

SEGAMBUT

33.1%

52.8%

12.0%

2.1%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P128

SEREMBAN*

43.6%

41.1%

13.5%

1.8%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH*

27.8%

48.3%

22.1%

1.8%

MELAKA

P138

KOTA MELAKA

35.7%

59.1%

3.6%

1.6%

JOHOR

P145

BAKRI

43.6%

53.2%

2.3%

0.9%

JOHOR

P152

KLUANG*

39.1%

49.3%

9.7%

1.8%

JOHOR

P162

GELANG PATAH

33.7%

52.4%

12.4%

1.5%

JOHOR

P163

KULAI

32.5%

56.1%

10.2%

1.2%

(*) Seats with <50% Chinese voters

Table 3: DAP state seats that had less than 60% Chinese voters in the 2013 GE

NEGERI

PARLIAMENT CODE

PARLIAMENT NAME

STATE CODE

STATE NAME

MALAY%

CHINESE%

INDIAN%

OTHERS%

KEDAH

P008

POKOK SENA

N11

DERGA*

55.9%

38.9%

4.4%

0.8%

PULAU PINANG

P043

BAGAN

N09

BAGAN DALAM

25.1%

50.6%

23.6%

0.7%

PULAU PINANG

P046

BATU KAWAN

N16

PERAI

11.2%

52.1%

35.7%

1.0%

PULAU PINANG

P047

NIBONG TEBAL

N19

JAWI

22.5%

53.5%

23.8%

0.2%

PULAU PINANG

P050

JELUTONG

N29

DATOK KERAMAT

28.9%

56.6%

13.8%

0.7%

PULAU PINANG

P050

JELUTONG

N30

SUNGAI PINANG

31.4%

54.1%

14.0%

0.5%

PERAK

P060

TAIPING

N18

AULONG

26.2%

56.8%

15.1%

1.9%

PERAK

P062

SUNGAI SIPUT

N22

JALONG

14.2%

56.1%

26.5%

3.2%

PERAK

P065

IPOH BARAT

N30

BUNTONG*

5.8%

44.0%

47.9%

2.3%

PERAK

P077

TANJONG MALIM

N57

SUNGKAI

23.3%

53.8%

18.6%

4.3%

PAHANG

P078

CAMERON HIGHLANDS

N01

TANAH RATA

12.7%

53.4%

20.2%

13.7%

PAHANG

P088

TEMERLOH

N30

MENTAKAB*

51.9%

40.1%

5.8%

2.2%

PAHANG

P089

BENTONG

N33

BILUT

32.5%

57.2%

9.3%

1.0%

PAHANG

P089

BENTONG

N34

KETARI*

44.7%

47.3%

4.7%

3.3%

PAHANG

P089

BENTONG

N35

SABAI*

36.4%

39.7%

19.9%

4.0%

SELANGOR

P093

SUNGAI BESAR

N04

SEKINCHAN

39.3%

57.3%

2.3%

1.1%

SELANGOR

P094

HULU SELANGOR

N06

KUALA KUBU BAHARU*

32.7%

42.7%

20.8%

3.8%

SELANGOR

P100

PANDAN

N22

TERATAI

34.7%

58.6%

5.8%

0.9%

SELANGOR

P102

SERDANG

N27

BALAKONG

33.4%

55.4%

10.3%

1.0%

SELANGOR

P103

PUCHONG

N30

KINRARA

24.9%

59.2%

14.6%

1.3%

SELANGOR

P104

KELANA JAYA

N31

SUBANG JAYA

29.1%

56.8%

11.8%

2.3%

SELANGOR

P110

KLANG

N47

PANDAMARAN

23.0%

59.0%

16.0%

2.0%

SELANGOR

P110

KLANG

N48

KOTA ALAM SHAH

15.4%

56.9%

25.4%

2.4%

SELANGOR

P112

KUALA LANGAT

N52

TELUK DATUK*

29.0%

44.8%

20.2%

6.0%

SELANGOR

P113

SEPANG

N56

SUNGAI PELEK*

45.4%

32.8%

20.6%

1.2%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P126

JELEBU

N01

CHENNAH

42.6%

50.8%

2.2%

4.4%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P128

SEREMBAN

N10

NILAI*

30.6%

45.5%

22.1%

1.9%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P128

SEREMBAN

N12

TEMIANG

30.9%

56.4%

11.2%

1.4%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH

N21

BUKIT KEPAYANG

17.0%

59.8%

21.6%

1.6%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH

N22

RAHANG*

30.7%

45.8%

21.0%

2.5%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH

N24

SENAWANG

22.4%

52.0%

24.7%

0.9%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P132

TELOK KEMANG

N30

LUKUT

18.3%

57.6%

23.7%

0.4%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P133

TAMPIN

N36

REPAH

36.7%

43.0%

19.4%

0.9%

MELAKA

P137

BUKIT KATIL

N15

BACHANG

48.4%

46.3%

4.5%

0.8%

MELAKA

P137

BUKIT KATIL

N16

AYER KEROH

35.5%

55.5%

8.0%

1.0%

MELAKA

P138

KOTA MELAKA

N21

DUYONG

50.3%

44.3%

4.8%

0.6%

JOHOR

P140

SEGAMAT

N02

JEMENTAH

36.3%

54.5%

8.7%

0.6%

JOHOR

P142

LABIS

N06

BEKOK

25.6%

53.6%

18.0%

2.7%

JOHOR

P144

LEDANG

N10

TANGKAK

37.7%

51.2%

9.7%

1.5%

JOHOR

P152

KLUANG

N28

MENGKIBOL

27.3%

58.3%

13.8%

0.6%

JOHOR

P159

PASIR GUDANG

N42

JOHOR JAYA

42.8%

47.1%

7.5%

2.7%

JOHOR

P160

JOHOR BAHRU

N45

STULANG

38.7%

55.1%

4.5%

1.7%

JOHOR

P161

PULAI

N46

PENGKALAN RINTING

42.5%

44.7%

10.6%

2.1%

JOHOR

P165

TANJONG PIAI

N55

PEKAN NENAS

39.3%

57.8%

1.2%

1.7%

(*) Seats with <50% Chinese voters

Tomorrow, we will continue our discussion of the strategic importance of Pakatan Rakyat to DAP, PAS and PKR not only in Peninsular Malaysia, but also in Sabah and Sarawak for the whole of Malaysia.

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/26/konvensyen-dap-negeri-dalam-tempoh-beberapa-minggu-akan-datang-perlu-menyampaikan-satu-mesej-jelas-kepada-semua-rakyat-malaysia-bahawa-pemimpin-dap-di-peringkat-negeri-bersama-sama-pemimpin-d-4/

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 12:02 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Facebook loses sparkle as Malaysian youth embrace messenger apps

by Boo Su-Lyn

The Malaysian Insider

November 26, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 26 — Fara Halina Rosli updates her Facebook status only once every three days, but the 24-year-old chambering student uses other messaging apps daily to text, and share photographs/cute digital stickers.

Social media analysts say that chat apps like WhatsApp, WeChat, LINE and KakaoTalk are cutting into the social networking giant’s youth customer base in Malaysia, where the entire Facebook population numbers about 13 million.

“Chat apps offer a higher level of privacy versus Facebook or Twitter,” Jagdish Singh Malhi, social media director at global media company Universal McCann, told The Malay Mail Online in a recent email interview.

“Although you can set your privacy level, once you’re friends with a parent, relative or minder, then your personal space is somewhat constricted… In fact, the fastest growing age group on Facebook are the boomers and one of my clients even had her grandma win an iPhone in a Facebook campaign!,” he added.

Facebook admitted last month that its usage among teenagers was dropping, with American business magazine Forbes quoting its chief financial officer David Ebersman saying that the site is witnessing a “decrease in daily users, specifically among younger teens.”

In Malaysia, teenagers between 13 and 17 years comprise about 14 per cent of the country’s Facebook users, while the largest age group is people aged 18 to 24  years, according to social network monitoring site socialbakers.com.

Fara Halina, who has over 1,000 friends on Facebook, is still on the popular social networking site to keep in touch with friends or acquaintances she does not see regularly, but uses WeChat, LINE and KakaoTalk much more frequently, or “most of the time”, citing her distrust of Facebook’s privacy settings and her desire to keep her interactions private.

“I don’t really update much on Facebook,” she told The Malay Mail Online recently.

“I don’t think the privacy settings work on Facebook right now. Most of your status and photos are public. So I think, sometimes, people may (misinterpret). To avoid that kind of issues, it’s better to just keep it very general and not too personal,” added the 24-year-old.

Fara Halina also said that KakaoTalk, WeChat and LINE are far more convenient apps than Facebook Messenger, which she said was “not that good” when it was first launched.

“Sometimes Kakao and WeChat have cute stickers, moving stickers, instead of normal emoticons,” she said.

Fara Halina also said that she regularly engages in group chats on those apps, such as with her schoolmates in one group, but not on Facebook Messenger as it is “not really convenient.”

Jagdish said Facebook messenger was recently revamped to halt the downward trend of teenagers’ Facebook usage, but noted that it has yet to take off.

“I suspect it’s because Facebook is already viewed as ‘my parents are on it’, so they naturally move away to something where their parents are not, instead of thinking ‘how can I go around it on the same platform?’ It’s easier to just switch,” he said.

Goh Su Gim, security advisor for the Asian branch of Finland-based computer security company F-Secure, pinpointed the rapid growth of messaging apps like US’s WhatsApp, China’s WeChat, Japan’s LINE and South Korea’s KakaoTalk in Malaysia to increased smartphone sales over the past two years.

Smartphone penetration went up from 47 per cent in 2012 to 63 per cent this year, according to a study by Ericsson ConsumerLab in South-East Asia released last September.

“FB is still the choice of platform for broadcasting generic posts to a more generic pool of friends, such as sharing their travels and food, or checking in at a location,” Goh told The Malay Mail Online.

“Messaging apps like WeChat, WhatsApp, LINE and KakaoTalk are used mostly to communicate with their closest friends, or first-degree friends, where it is more private, such as a group of friends/ common close friends sharing more private activities together.

Social media analysts say that chat apps like WhatsApp, WeChat, LINE and KakaoTalk are cutting into the social networking giant’s youth customer base in Malaysia.“Apps like these are now multi-platform (works across iOS, Android, Windows, Blackberry) and are able to create personal groups of friends to share activities that are relevant to the group, such as high schools friends, partying drinking buddies, and so on,” he added.

Many of the messaging apps—such as WeChat, KakaoTalk and LINE—do not just do messaging, but they also sport social networking features like games, digital stickers, and music sharing.

The exception is WhatsApp, whose founder Jan Koum was reported by UK daily The Guardian as saying that he does not plan to add games to his service, preferring to focus solely on communication.

Digital culture commentator Niki Cheong said that the boom in messaging apps is due to people wanting to return to more private communications, who are also attracted, at the same time, to novel features like “very cute” emoticons.

“We don’t walk around with loudhailers announcing everything to everyone. There are many things in life we still keep secret, we still talk personally to people we trust and care about,” Cheong told The Malay Mail Online recently.

“The fact is, it’s really not that easy to keep in touch with people on Facebook if you have lots of ‘friends.’ Even Facebook chooses who appears at the top of your chat box. It doesn’t always hit the right targets,” he added.

Cheong also noted that Facebook seems “less exciting these days.”

“Other than uploading photos, updating status and liking other people’s updates—really, what else does Facebook offer? Also, it constantly changes its algorithm on what appears and doesn’t on your timeline so people have to constantly readjust,” said Cheong.

Joanne Lai, a 26-year-old IT support officer, said that she only logs into Facebook once every few days.

“Facebook, there’s too much stuff already, too many ads, sponsored posts. Especially if you use mobile, they always have ads in between posts. That’s annoying,” Lai told The Malay Mail Online.

Lai said that she uses LINE to text and to subscribe to her favourite K-pop artistes, like JYJ and 2NE1.

“LINE is more user-friendly if I want to follow specific people, rather than Facebook,” she said.

Wind Koh, LINE Malaysia head, said that LINE features the official accounts of various celebrities, sports clubs, and local radio and TV stations for people to subscribe to the latest news.

He declined to reveal the number of LINE users in Malaysia as he deemed it sensitive business information, but pointed out that LINE Malaysia’s official account has over four million subscribers since it opened here in April this year.

“The trend is moving towards mobiles. Facebook was originally designed for the PC (personal computer), not mobile. We started from mobile,” Koh told The Malay Mail Online in a recent interview.

“Not only messenger apps, but also Instagram. That’s why they purchased Instagram,” he added.

Facebook bought the photo-sharing network last year for US$1 billion (RM 3.2 billion).

It also recently tried to purchase the evanescent photo-sharing app Snapchat—which deletes a photo within seconds after it is viewed—for US$3 billion (RM9.6 billion), but was turned down, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Snapchat, however, does not appear to be popular here, according to LINE Malaysia and Kakao Malaysia.

Koh said that LINE’s key attraction feature is the stickers of its popular characters like Moon, Cony the rabbit and Brown the bear. LINE has over 10,000 stickers and its designers come up with new stickers twice a week.

“Among teens, the most popular thing is the games,” he said, noting that LINE offers over 30 games for free.

Although the games are free, users typically purchase various things to get to the next level in a game, making games the main source of revenue for LINE. Some of its stickers are also free, but most are sold at US$1.99 (RM6.40) for a set of 40.

“Our stickers are a very good way to communicate. They’re very expressive,” said Koh, pointing out that Moon has varied expressions, while Cony represents the typical “office lady” who diets every day, and Brown expresses himself through body language.

He said that LINE, which has 300 million users worldwide as announced by LINE Corporation yesterday, plans to localise its popular characters for the Malaysian market, such as putting Cony and Brown in Hari Raya costumes, or Moon in a Santa Clause outfit.

“We’re still a messaging app… (but) we’re trying to enter the social market. That’s why we have a timeline. Everybody knows there’s a huge market in messaging,” said Koh.

WhatsApp has 300 million monthly active users globally, which may be beaten by WeChat which is estimated to have reached that mark in April 2013, according to a Forbes August report. KakaoTalk follows behind at 120 million users globally. Facebook reached 1.11 billion users worldwide in March.

Mellissa Lee, Kakao Malaysia senior vice president, said that KakaoTalk’s distinctive feature is games that users can play with their friends.

“We’re working with local developers for games and local designers for emoticons,” Lee told The Malay Mail Online in a recent interview.

“Kakao Friends are free emoticons…Frodo the dog, Apeach, Tube the duck, Muzi the radish, Jay-G, Neo the cat. Our characters are very strong,” she added.

Like LINE, KakaoTalk’s main revenue generators are its games and emoticons.

Lee said that KakaoTalk has three million users in Malaysia after it was launched in June, just less than half a year ago.

“We are growing at a very, very fast speed,” she noted.

“From what we see, Facebook has too many things right now. If you have 500 friends, they’re posting updates and news that are not relevant to you. You see a lot of ads, sponsored posts,” she added.

Lee pointed out that messaging apps, on the other hand, are “a lot more private”, which means that “you don’t have to filter your content anymore.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 8:28 am and is filed under
Facebook
,
IT
,
Youth
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


GE14 will be about PAS

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz| November 26, 2013

Free Malaysia Today

A progressive PAS can replace Umno and lead the Malays.

COMMENT

The only reason why Umno and its allies want the PAS ulamas to win all is because they know how easy it is to run circles around them.

Should PAS ever teamed up with Umno, all Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak will do is give PAS two cabinet posts and that’s the end of PAS.

It will be a repeat of what PAS went through when it joined Barisan Nasional a long time ago.

If PAS revere the foremost ulama, Tok Guru they will ensure that PAS never teams up with Umno. Tok Guru will never sanction PAS sleeping with Umno.

What use is teaming up with Umno? For what purpose?

So that the right wingers in both parties can stay under one roof and become racists?

A progressive PAS can replace Umno and lead Malays. Why should it want to extend a life line to a sick Umno?

A sick party like Umno can control the minds of Malays with sick policies and agenda.

There must be something wrong in this arrangement.

It can only do this because PAS limits its own potential. If PAS becomes a progressive party, Umno is finished!

Ignore Umno

PAS has to play the game intelligently.

As my friend Walla perceptively observed, GE12 was Hindraf. GE13 was DAP. So that GE14 will be PAS.

Now take the earlier statement that in this country our Malays can be the most globally-attuned community member and graft it onto the role that PAS can play towards total success in GE14, and we have immediately a new transformation wave for this tired land.

PAS can also do the same to dignify all life again. People should not be corrupted about their needs.

They can be helped by earnest and honest community work extended to all who suffer regardless of race or religion.

It’s not about forming an Islamic state. It’s all about forming and living an Islamic state of mind. And that has to be globally attuned in nature. After all, isn’t He global?

So what must PAS do?

First of all dismiss and ignore Umno. There is no need for Malays to unite under Umno if a progressive PAS is available.

It is more important for PAS to have an Islamic state of mind instead of an Islamic state.

That way it can build up its image as a progressive and inclusive party – something that Umno can never achieve

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 8:06 pm and is filed under
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Konvensyen DAP Negeri dalam tempoh beberapa minggu akan datang perlu menyampaikan satu mesej jelas kepada semua rakyat Malaysia –bahawa pemimpin DAP di peringkat negeri bersama-sama pemimpin DAP kebangsaan dan parti-parti Pakatan Rakyat akan menawan Putrajaya dalam PRU14 bagi mencapai Impian Malaysia

Selepas Kongres Khas DAP yang diadakan pada 29 September 2013 untuk memilih semula barisan pimpinan DAP kebangsaan, pemilihan agung Umno pada bulan Oktober, dan Muktamar PAS ke-59 minggu lalu yang telah berjaya mengadakan pemilihan untuk barisan pimpinan PAS bagi tempoh dua tahun ke depan, perhatian kini beralih semula kepada DAP.

Bermula hujung minggu ini, Konvensyen DAP Negeri akan memilih barisan pimpinan baru untuk DAP di peringkat negeri – dan selari dengan itu para konspirator Umno/BN telah mula bekerja lebih masa untuk memburuk-burukkan para pemimpin DAP dan berusaha memecah-belahkan parti ini dan juga Pakatan Rakyat secara umum.

Para konspirator Umno/BN menerusi media bercetak dan Internet telah gagal untuk menghancurkan Pakatan Rakyat dan parti-parti komponennya, iaitu DAP, PAS, dan PKR, sebelum, semasa, dan sepanjang setengah tahun selepas PRU13. Kesempatan yang baik ini perlu diambil oleh para perwakilan Konvensyen DAP Negeri yang akan diadakan sepanjang beberapa minggu akan datang untuk bersatu padu di belakang barisan pimpinan DAP kebangsaan bagi menyampaikan satu mesej yang jelas kepada Umno/Barisan Nasional dan juga semua rakyat Malaysia.

Mesej jelas yang perlu disampaikan ialah bahawa DAP di semua peringkat dalam negara berdiri teguh di belakang pemimpin DAP kebangsaan dan dua lagi rakan kongsi Pakatan Rakyat, iaitu PAS dan PKR, untuk menawan Putrajaya dalam PRU14 bagi mencapai Impian Malaysia – sebuah Malaysia untuk semua warga tanpa mengira latar kaum, agama, kelas, atau negeri; sebuah Malaysia yang di dalamnya demokrasi, tadbir urus, dan keadilan sosioekonomi berkembang dengan baik bagi membolehkan setiap warga Malaysia mencapai sepenuhnya potensi mereka demi kebaikan bersama semua rakyat dan demi keagungan negara.

Saya telah sebutkan kelmarin bahawa ketiga-tiga parti DAP, PAS, dan PKR telah mendapat faedah daripada kerjasama dalam Pakatan Rakyat.

PAS, misalnya, telah berkembang dari sebuah parti yang berpengaruh umumnya hanya di negeri-negeri utara, iaitu Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, dan Terengganu, menjadi sebuah “parti nasional” pada Pilihanraya Umum ke-13 dengan memenangi kerusi parlimen dan/atau negeri di setiap negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia, kecuali Negeri Sembilan.

Prestasi DAP (1999 hingga 2013)

DAP juga telah mendapat manfaat apabila menjadi anggota Pakatan Rakyat dan parti ini perlu terus bergerak dalam kerangka kerja Pakatan yang berasaskan kerjasama dan saling kebergantungan untuk memenangi lebih banyak kerusi.

Dari segi jumlah kerusi parlimen dan negeri yang dimenangi, DAP telah melangkah jauh sejak tahun 1999.

Dari hanya 10 kerusi parlimen dan 11 kerusi negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 1999 serta 11 kerusi parlimen dan 15 kerusi negeri dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 2004, DAP membuat lonjakan jauh dengan memenangi 26 kerusi parlimen dan 72 kerusi negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 2008.

Jumlah kerusi yang dimenangi DAP terus meningkat dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 2013 dengan 31 kerusi parlimen dan 91 kerusi negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia. (Lihat jadual di bawah)

Jadual 1: Bilangan Kerusi Parlimen dan Negeri yang dimenangi DAP di Semenanjung Malaysia (termasuk kawasan yang pengundi Cina <60%)

DAP (Pmsia)

1999

2004

2008

2013

# Parlimen

10

11

26

31

# Parlimen <60% Cina

1

0

11

16

% Parlimen <60% Cina

10%

0%

42%

52%

# DUN

11

15

72

91

# DUN <60% Cina

1

1

24

45

% DUN <60% Cina

9%

7%

33%

48%

Peningkatan jumlah kerusi yang dimenangi oleh DAP pada tahun 2008 dan 2013 berlaku di kawasan yang gagal dimenangi oleh DAP sebelum itu, iaitu di kawasan yang pengundi Cina kurang dari 60%.

Sebagai contoh, pada tahun 1999 hanya satu dari 10 kerusi parlimen yang telah dimenangi DAP mempunyai pengundi Cina kurang dari 60% (Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, 47% pengundi Cina) dan hanya satu dari 11 kerusi negeri yang dimenangi DAP mempunyai pengundi Cina kurang dari 60% (Bachang, Melaka, 45% pengundi Cina).

Pada tahun 2004, tidak ada satu pun kerusi parlimen yang dimenangi DAP mempunyai pengundi Cina kurang dari 60% dan hanya satu dari 15 kerusi negeri yang dimenangi DAP mempunyai pengundi Cina kurang dari 60% (Sekinchan, Selangor, 57% pengundi Cina).

Keadaan berubah pada tahun 2008 apabila 11 dari 26 kerusi parlimen (42%) yang dimenangi DAP di Semenanjung Malaysia mempunyai kurang dari 60% pengundi Cina. Tiga dari 11 kerusi parlimen ini (Puchong, Seremban, Bakri) mempunyai lebih 40% pengundi Melayu.

Dari 72 kerusi negeri yang dimenangi DAP di Semenanjung Malaysia pada tahun 2008, sepertiga (24 kerusi) mempunyai kurang dari 60% pengundi Cina. Dua dari 24 kerusi ini mempunyai pengundi Melayu lebih dari 40% (Sekinchan dan Bachang).

Walaupun Pakatan Rakyat belum dibentuk menjelang pilihanraya umum 2008, DAP jelas telah mendapat manfaat daripada penyelarasan dengan PAS dan PKR bagi mengelakkan pertembungan tiga penjuru, selain kerjasama menerusi beberapa gerakan, termasuk Bersih 1.0.

Kerjasama rasmi menerusi Pakatan Rakyat telah membantu DAP memenangi lebih banyak kerusi pada tahun 2013.

Dari 31 kerusi parlimen yang dimenangi DAP di Semenanjung Malaysia, 16 (52%) mempunyai kurang dari 60% pengundi Cina. Malah, 9 dari 15 kerusi berkenaan mempunyai kurang dari 50% pengundi Cina (lihat Jadual 2).

Banyak kerusi parlimen yang gagal dimenangi DAP pada tahun 2008 tetapi berjaya direbut pada tahun 2013 merupakan “kerusi campuran”, termasuk Kluang (49% Cina), Gelang Patah (52% Cina) dan Kulai (56% Cina).

DAP juga telah berjaya memenangi kerusi parlimen Raub yang majmuk (49.7% Melayu dan 40.3% Cina). Ini adalah pencapaian besar bagi DAP dari banyak segi.

Dari 91 kerusi negeri yang dimenangi oleh DAP, hampir separuh darinya – 44 kerusi (48.4%) – mempunyai pengundi Cina kurang dari 60%. 15 dari 45 kerusi berkenaan mempunyai kurang dari 50% pengundi Cina (lihat Jadual 3).

Lebih penting daripada itu, DAP telah memenangi tiga kerusi negeri yang merupakan kerusi majoriti Melayu, iaitu Derga, Kedah (56% Melayu), Mentakab, Pahang (52% Melayu) dan Duyong, Melaka (50.3% Melayu).

DAP tidak mungkin dapat meningkatkan bilangan kerusi yang dimenanginya tanpa peningkatan sokongan orang Melayu, hasil kerjasama dalam Pakatan Rakyat, khususnya bagi kerusi-kerusi yang jumlah pengundi Melayunya agak besar.

Kerjasama dan saling kebergantungan dalam Pakatan inilah yang akan terus mengukuhkan DAP dan memperbaiki pencapaiannya dalam pilihanraya umum ke-14.

Jadual 2: 16 kerusi parlimen DAP yang mempunyai kurang dari 60% pengundi Cina dalam PRU tahun 2013

Negeri

Kod Parlimen

Kerusi Parlimen

MELAYU%

CINA%

INDIA%

Lain-lain%

PULAU PINANG

P046

BATU KAWAN

20.5%

55.7%

23.2%

0.6%

PERAK

P060

TAIPING*

37.1%

47.9%

13.3%

1.7%

PERAK

P068

BERUAS

32.6%

52.3%

14.9%

0.2%

PERAK

P076

TELOK INTAN*

38.2%

41.9%

19.0%

0.9%

PAHANG

P080

RAUB*

49.7%

40.3%

6.4%

3.5%

SELANGOR

P102

SERDANG*

39.4%

48.6%

11.0%

1.0%

SELANGOR

P103

PUCHONG*

39.1%

43.5%

15.8%

1.6%

SELANGOR

P110

KLANG*

32.2%

45.8%

19.8%

2.2%

W.P. KUALA LUMPUR

P117

SEGAMBUT

33.1%

52.8%

12.0%

2.1%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P128

SEREMBAN*

43.6%

41.1%

13.5%

1.8%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH*

27.8%

48.3%

22.1%

1.8%

MELAKA

P138

KOTA MELAKA

35.7%

59.1%

3.6%

1.6%

JOHOR

P145

BAKRI

43.6%

53.2%

2.3%

0.9%

JOHOR

P152

KLUANG*

39.1%

49.3%

9.7%

1.8%

JOHOR

P162

GELANG PATAH

33.7%

52.4%

12.4%

1.5%

JOHOR

P163

KULAI

32.5%

56.1%

10.2%

1.2%

(*) Kerusi yang mempunyai <50% pengundi Cina

Jadual 3: Kerusi negeri DAP yang mempunyai kurang dari 60% pengundi Cina dalam PRU tahun 2013

NEGERI

KOD PARLIMEN

NAMA KERUSI PARLIMEN

KOD DUN

NAMA DUN

MELAYU%

CINA%

INDIA%

LAIN-LAIN%

KEDAH

P008

POKOK SENA

N11

DERGA*

55.9%

38.9%

4.4%

0.8%

PULAU PINANG

P043

BAGAN

N09

BAGAN DALAM

25.1%

50.6%

23.6%

0.7%

PULAU PINANG

P046

BATU KAWAN

N16

PERAI

11.2%

52.1%

35.7%

1.0%

PULAU PINANG

P047

NIBONG TEBAL

N19

JAWI

22.5%

53.5%

23.8%

0.2%

PULAU PINANG

P050

JELUTONG

N29

DATOK KERAMAT

28.9%

56.6%

13.8%

0.7%

PULAU PINANG

P050

JELUTONG

N30

SUNGAI PINANG

31.4%

54.1%

14.0%

0.5%

PERAK

P060

TAIPING

N18

AULONG

26.2%

56.8%

15.1%

1.9%

PERAK

P062

SUNGAI SIPUT

N22

JALONG

14.2%

56.1%

26.5%

3.2%

PERAK

P065

IPOH BARAT

N30

BUNTONG*

5.8%

44.0%

47.9%

2.3%

PERAK

P077

TANJONG MALIM

N57

SUNGKAI

23.3%

53.8%

18.6%

4.3%

PAHANG

P078

CAMERON HIGHLANDS

N01

TANAH RATA

12.7%

53.4%

20.2%

13.7%

PAHANG

P088

TEMERLOH

N30

MENTAKAB*

51.9%

40.1%

5.8%

2.2%

PAHANG

P089

BENTONG

N33

BILUT

32.5%

57.2%

9.3%

1.0%

PAHANG

P089

BENTONG

N34

KETARI*

44.7%

47.3%

4.7%

3.3%

PAHANG

P089

BENTONG

N35

SABAI*

36.4%

39.7%

19.9%

4.0%

SELANGOR

P093

SUNGAI BESAR

N04

SEKINCHAN

39.3%

57.3%

2.3%

1.1%

SELANGOR

P094

HULU SELANGOR

N06

KUALA KUBU BAHARU*

32.7%

42.7%

20.8%

3.8%

SELANGOR

P100

PANDAN

N22

TERATAI

34.7%

58.6%

5.8%

0.9%

SELANGOR

P102

SERDANG

N27

BALAKONG

33.4%

55.4%

10.3%

1.0%

SELANGOR

P103

PUCHONG

N30

KINRARA

24.9%

59.2%

14.6%

1.3%

SELANGOR

P104

KELANA JAYA

N31

SUBANG JAYA

29.1%

56.8%

11.8%

2.3%

SELANGOR

P110

KLANG

N47

PANDAMARAN

23.0%

59.0%

16.0%

2.0%

SELANGOR

P110

KLANG

N48

KOTA ALAM SHAH

15.4%

56.9%

25.4%

2.4%

SELANGOR

P112

KUALA LANGAT

N52

TELUK DATUK*

29.0%

44.8%

20.2%

6.0%

SELANGOR

P113

SEPANG

N56

SUNGAI PELEK*

45.4%

32.8%

20.6%

1.2%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P126

JELEBU

N01

CHENNAH

42.6%

50.8%

2.2%

4.4%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P128

SEREMBAN

N10

NILAI*

30.6%

45.5%

22.1%

1.9%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P128

SEREMBAN

N12

TEMIANG

30.9%

56.4%

11.2%

1.4%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH

N21

BUKIT KEPAYANG

17.0%

59.8%

21.6%

1.6%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH

N22

RAHANG*

30.7%

45.8%

21.0%

2.5%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P130

RASAH

N24

SENAWANG

22.4%

52.0%

24.7%

0.9%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P132

TELOK KEMANG

N30

LUKUT

18.3%

57.6%

23.7%

0.4%

NEGERI SEMBILAN

P133

TAMPIN

N36

REPAH

36.7%

43.0%

19.4%

0.9%

MELAKA

P137

BUKIT KATIL

N15

BACHANG

48.4%

46.3%

4.5%

0.8%

MELAKA

P137

BUKIT KATIL

N16

AYER KEROH

35.5%

55.5%

8.0%

1.0%

MELAKA

P138

KOTA MELAKA

N21

DUYONG

50.3%

44.3%

4.8%

0.6%

JOHOR

P140

SEGAMAT

N02

JEMENTAH

36.3%

54.5%

8.7%

0.6%

JOHOR

P142

LABIS

N06

BEKOK

25.6%

53.6%

18.0%

2.7%

JOHOR

P144

LEDANG

N10

TANGKAK

37.7%

51.2%

9.7%

1.5%

JOHOR

P152

KLUANG

N28

MENGKIBOL

27.3%

58.3%

13.8%

0.6%

JOHOR

P159

PASIR GUDANG

N42

JOHOR JAYA

42.8%

47.1%

7.5%

2.7%

JOHOR

P160

JOHOR BAHRU

N45

STULANG

38.7%

55.1%

4.5%

1.7%

JOHOR

P161

PULAI

N46

PENGKALAN RINTING

42.5%

44.7%

10.6%

2.1%

JOHOR

P165

TANJONG PIAI

N55

PEKAN NENAS

39.3%

57.8%

1.2%

1.7%

(*)Kerusi yang mempunyai <50% pengundi Cina

Esok kita akan meneruskan perbincangan tentang kepentingan Pakatan Rakyat bagi DAP, PAS, dan PKR bukan saja di Semenanjung Malaysia, malah juga di Sabah dan Sarawak.

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/26/call-on-all-dap-state-conventions-in-coming-weeks-to-send-out-one-clear-message-to-malaysians-one-with-dap-national-leadership-and-pakatan-rakyat-parties-to-conquer-putrajaya-in-14ge-to-achi/

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 6:44 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PAS sudah sedia mengambil alih tempat UMNO

Oleh
Sakmongkol AK47

PAS sekarang ada pasukan yang boleh menggantikan UMNO. Inilah yang sangat digeruni oleh UMNO dan sekutu2 media nya. berapa banyak akhbar arus perdana yang berkempen untuk golongan ulama? Termasuk yang saya sebut jezebel seorang pemberita dari akhbar STAR?

Utusan Malaysia apatah lagi- berkempen seolah olah mereka sukakan golongan ulama. Sejak bila UMNO yang tidak ada roh agama sukakan ulama? Mereka tidak suka tapi jika kumpulan ini menang dan mendominasi PAS mereka yakin dapat menundukkan PAS. Senanglah puak UMNO mengampungkan PAS dan menggambarkan para ustaz sebagai golongan kuno. UMNO dan sekutu mereka tidak mahukan barisan pimpinan yang streetsmart dan boleh membaca gerak geri UMNO.

Saya mengucapkan tahniah kepada jemaah pimpinan PAS yang semua nya disatukan oleh agenda politik PAS. Tidak ada belahan dalam misi perjuangan. Tidak ada ulama dan bukan ulama dan tidak syiah, sunni atau sebagainya.

Akhbar2 arus perdana milik BN semua nya menggambarkan pertandingan didalam PAS sekarang sebagai seolah2 pertandingan dan pertembungan antara golongan yang mahukan Islam dan golongan yang tidak mahukan Islam. Sepanjang masa penulis dari Star, Bernama, Utusan Malaysia. bahkan mereka yang sudah keluar dari Jemaah PAS sendiri menyokong puak ulama. Hassan Ali bukan seorang ulamak tapi menyokong golongan ulamak semata mata mahu membalas dendam keatas golongan bukan ulamak dalam PAS yang dia gagal menjadi ahli yang baik. Hassan Ali hanya seorang pakar motivasi yang boleh menangis semasa berceramah. Itu sahaja.

Pada muktamar yang baru2 ini, saya ada di stadium melawati shah alam. Ini muktamar yang bersederhana- tidak ada pertunjukan kehebatan dan kekayaan seperti persidangan agung UMNO. Kerusi dan meja untuk perwakilan adalah dari yang selalu disediakan untuk pelajar tapi dialas dengan kain. Perwakilan ada seribu lebih tapi ahli pas yang hadir sebagai permerhati dan menjadi perangsang kepada pimpinan PAS berjumalh 2-3 ribu. PAS ada lebih penyokong dari UMNO. Tenaga yang terpancar dari kesungguhan penyokong PAS membakar semangat pimpinan PAS.

Adakah saya ada kesangsian mereka yang hadir disini mempertikaikan agenda politik Islam parti PAS?  Jika saya ada kesangsian, ianya dinyahkan sama sekali bila berdepan dengan lautan warga PAS. Bahkan saya merasakan kehadiran yang begitu ramai mengukuhkan lagi iltizam menegakkan politik Islam. Tidak syak lagi, tenaga dari ribuan yang hadir berpindah kepada perwakilan yang berjumlah seribu lebih itu yakni, mereka mahukan pasukan yang kuat berkerja dan ligat mengejar agenda politik Islam. Mereka mahukan PAS mempunyai ketrampilan moden , dinamik dan inklusif. Ianya bukan pasukan yang terbahagi kepada golongan ulamak dam bukan ulamak. Ia nya satu pasukan yang disatukan oleh agenda politik Islam. Perbezaan ketrampilan dan pendekatan adalah biasa tapi tidaklah sampai untuk menghancurkan agenda politik Islam.

Ramai dari pimpinan yang dahulu dikekalkan. Ramai antara nya dari golongan professional dan bukan ulamak. Saya kenal mereka dari dekat dan saya tidak ada syak langsung mengenai komitmen mereka kepada agenda politik Islam. Saya juga kenal beberapa tokoh ulamak yang menjadi pimpinan tertinggi PAS kali ini. Ustaz Idris Ahmad ahli parlimen Bukit Gantang misalnya adalah golongan ulamak yang juga ligat dan cergas mendepankan agenda politik PAS.  Ustaz Nasrudin, Nik Abduh, Nik Zawawi, Ridhuan Mohd Nor, Dr Mahfudz adalah tokok2 ulamak yang akan mengukuhkan lagi agenda politik PAS.  Kita jangan lupa bahawa golongan ulamak PAS ramai yang jadi MP kali ini.

Barisan pimpinan PAS ini akan bergerak sebagai satu pasukan yang komited kepada agenda perjuangan PAS. Para perwakilan menghantar isyarat yang bijaksana, sementera semua mahukan agenda politik Islam didepankan, mereka mahukan pendekatan yang pragmatik dan praktikal.

Apa maknanya pemlihan PAS ini kepada UMNO? Ianya menandakan PAS mempunyai pasukan pimpinan yang boleh menggantikan UMNO. Menjelang PRU14, 75% dari pengundi adalah pengundi yang sudah dibandarkan atau separuh bandarkan. Jeneasi baru ini terdedah kepada pendekatan media dan cara berinteraksi yang baru. kita telah lihat anak2 muda enggan menerima indoktrinasi yang dilakukan melalui cara berpesta pestaan ala UMNO. Mereka tidak mahu penghinaan keatas intelijens mereka. Jika PAS berkerja sama dengan parti PR yang lain, PRU14 ialah kita yang punya.

—

Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de guerre of this blogger. His name is Dato’ Mohd.Ariff Sabri bin Hj. Abdul Aziz. He is now the elected MP for Raub Pahang.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 10:27 am and is filed under
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sabah bishop reminds Najib of his assurance to shun extremism

by Desmond Davidson

The Malaysian Insider

November 26, 2013

Sabah Council of Churches president, Bishop Datuk Dr Thomas Tsen, today sent a barb message to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak saying that while he is “inspiring people across the world in the fight against extremism”, back in his own backyard, Malaysians are “experiencing extreme action against the church”.

In urging Najib to urgently rein in extremism, Tsen claimed “religious intolerance has reached a dangerous level”.

Tsen then reminded the prime minister when he first mooted the idea for building a “Global Movement of Moderates”, in his maiden speech at the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 2010, Najib called on all faiths to reclaim the agenda for peace and pragmatism, and to marginalise the extremists.

“We, therefore, call on him to restore the middle ground for religious tolerance and to respect the constitutional rights of non-Muslims to freedom of religion and the right to manage their own affairs,” Tsen said in a statement.

He also reminded the prime minister he repeated the same call he made two years later at the inaugural International Conference on the Global Movement of Moderates organised by the alumni of the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

“We were encouraged by his assurance. The world has taken note of Malaysia’s message of reclaiming the middle ground from extremists.”

He also pointed out that only last month, British Prime Minister David Cameron praised Najib for uniting moderates in the fight against extremism at the 9th World Islamic Economic Forum (WIEF) in London.

“However, back in his own backyard, we are experiencing extreme action.”

Tsen pointed to the recent judgment by the Court of Appeal that upheld the Home Ministry’s right to ban the Catholic church from using the word Allah in its weekly publication, Herald, as one example of extreme action against the church.

Describing the judgment as “wholly unreasonable, irrational and repugnant”, he said he hoped the Federal Court, which the Catholic church had appealed to, would now do the right thing.

Tsen said an urgent clarification was also needed on the recent statement by Selangor Royal Council secretary, Hanafisah Jais, that the use of the word Allah in the Al-Kitab and in the Bahasa Malaysia edition of the Herald could not be used in Selangor.

No state or federal authority, he added, has any power or right over the exclusive ecclesiastical authority that lies solely with the church.

“An urgent clarification is needed as it raises concern over the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

“It must be remembered that the usage of the Al-Kitab and the word Allah are matters under the constitution and federal laws whereas Islam is a state matter under the respective sultans.

“State laws and gazette orders made by the respective state Islamic Religious Councils apply only to Muslims in these states and not on federal laws or to non-Muslims.”

Tsen gave the association’s assurance that they will resolutely join the prime minister’s efforts to build a Global Movement of Moderates and reject religious extremism. – November 26, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 7:46 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Show us your income tax returns, Najib

By
Kee Thuan Chye

Dear Najib,

You have come out to call tax evaders traitors. That’s a very strong word. If you had used it on corrupt public officials and politicians, especially government ministers, that would have been more apt. It would have struck a resonant chord. It would also have indicated your seriousness in fighting corruption within your ranks.

As it is, according to your minister Paul Low, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) arrested nine politicians who were reported to be involved in corruption between 2010 and August 2013, and only five have been charged. That’s a pretty low number over the course of four years. The minister did not clarify who these politicians were, but one would presume that they were part of the ruling party.

It may well be that Malaysian politicians, including those holding public office, are generally clean, but the unofficial allegations that have been brought up from time to time tell us a hugely different story. You may be aware of them yourself – allegations about this minister living beyond his means, like building a palatial home, and that minister receiving kickbacks or laundering money for his so-called “adopted son”. And of course the biggie surrounding Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and his relatives, some of whom were caught on video earlier this year by the international NGO Global Witness allegedly offering logging licences in return for profit.

Only a few days ago, Sarawak Report exposed another alleged scheme of Taib and his family in exploiting the Bandar Samariang low-cost housing project for their own financial gain. If these allegations about the family are true, what would you call the people involved? More important, would you launch an investigation and haul them in for corruption?

Okay, let’s get back to the tax evaders issue. I have a proposal for you that I hope you will accept to prove your sincerity and accountability as a leader.

Since you call tax evaders traitors, show us you are not one. Release your income tax returns to the public. Let us know how much income you make, what assets you own and how much tax you pay. Get your ministers to do the same. Show us that you are not a traitor, that you do not under-declare your income or resort to tax shelters in order to pay less tax.

Don’t try and back out of this one, with some excuse or other. The US president publicly reveals his income tax returns and declares how much tax he pays. And that’s good, don’t you think? He apparently has nothing to hide. Even if he tried to, it’s all out there in the open. If he’s found out later, he can be held accountable.

You should do the same. Since you condemn others for evading tax, it is all the more incumbent on you now to show that you are not doing it yourself. You probably know the saying, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

For your information, the tax returns of US presidents are protected by law from public disclosure, but since the late 1960s, most of them have chosen to release their returns publicly. Apparently, Gerald Ford is the only exception. Even candidates for the presidency do the same, including those contesting in party primaries.

If you want to look at the combined tax returns of Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, for 2012, please click here.

Barack and Michelle reported an adjusted gross income of US$608,611. They both paid US$112,214 in total tax. It could have been higher if they had not donated about 24.6 per cent of their adjusted gross income to charity. That’s a generous US$150,034.

Out of curiosity, may I ask how much you donate to charity? You may of course include your wife’s donations too, if you like. Oh, by the way, does she pay income tax?

On top of the federal income tax, the Obamas also released their state tax returns and reported paying US$29,450 to their home state of Illinois.

For Vice-President Joe Biden and his wife Jill’s combined federal tax returns for 2012, have a look here.

They reported an adjusted gross income of US$385,072 and paid US$87,851 in total tax. For state income tax, they filed separate returns, with Jill filing a non-resident one for the state of Virginia. They paid US$13,531 to Delaware and US$3,593 to Virginia.

The Bidens gave to charity US$7,190. That’s a small fraction of what the Obamas donated, but that’s not the point.

The point is, don’t you think this sort of declaration contributes to a wonderful and open system?

Other countries that operate with such openness and transparency include Sweden, Finland and Norway. In fact, there, everyone’s income tax returns are made public. It is said to cohere with the Scandinavian tradition of jantelag, which roughly means that nobody is better than anyone else.

It should also cohere with the “best democracy” that you promised for Malaysia in the speech you made on September 16, 2011. Don’t you agree?

If you recall, on that occasion, you announced the repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA), which effectively outlawed the use of preventive detention in Malaysia. Now that preventive detention is back – reinstated through the recent amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act – does your promise of “best democracy” still hold true?

In that speech, you also said the repeal of the ISA was part of the political transformation that your government was carrying out pertaining to human rights. You said, “The time has come for us to take another step forward not only in economics and education but also in upholding democratic principles.”

Do you still believe that?

If you do, walk the talk. For now, to put your money where your mouth is, disclose your tax returns publicly. And get your deputy and your other ministers to do the same. Be a leader and lead the way. Prove to us that you can lead.

Otherwise, you are just sounding like a prime minister who is talking in abrasive language because your coalition didn’t win the popular vote at the last general election in May.

Otherwise, we will not know for sure that you are not a traitor – like any vile, shameful, despicable, crooked, cheapskate tax evader.

Sincerely,

Chye

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 8:24 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP, PAS and PKR achieved their best parliamentary and state assembly results during their tripartite co-operation in the 1999, 2008 and 2013 General Elections

In the 1999 General Elections, faced with the challenge of the four-party  Barisan Alternative comprising DAP, PAS, PKR and Parti Rakyat,  UMNO/BN strategists and propagandists launched a fork-tongued campaign, warning the Malays one the one hand  that “DAP Plus PAS Equals Islam Hancur (destroyed)” while on the other hand warning the Chinese that a vote for DAP was a vote for PAS and an Islamic State where there would be no pork, no alcohol, no temples, no churches, no karaokes, no Chinese schools, women would  have to cover their heads, beautiful women could not find jobs and that there would be the chopping of hands and feet.

By and large, the Malay voters in the 1999 general elections did not take the bait but the non-Malay voters, particularly the Chinese voters, fell victim to the campaign of falsehoods and fear generated by the Barisan Nasional, resulting in an outcome where PAS was the biggest winner in the Barisan Alternative as the largest parliamentary opposition with 27 MPs and 98 State Assembly representatives, capturing Terengganu state government in addition to Kelantan while DAP suffered severe setbacks, securing only 10 parliamentary and 11 state assembly seats. PKR won 5 parliamentary and 4 state assembly seats.

In the recent 2013 General Elections, faced with the challenge by Pakatan Rakyat, Umno/BN strategists and propagandists returned to their traditional fork-tongued campaign of lies and falsehoods, warning the Malays on the one hand that PAS would be a puppet of DAP while warning the Chinese on the other hand that DAP would be a stooge of PAS.

Unlike the 1999 General Elections, the Chinese voters did not take the Umno/BN bait in the 2013 polls. However, unlike the 10th General Elections, the UMNO campaign of lies and falsehoods made some impact on the Malay voters.

As a result, UMNO emerged from the 13GE stronger than 2008, up 10 seats from the 79 to 88 seats, benefitting from the shift in rural Malay votes.

Based on the present constituency delineation, and taking more than 55 per cent vote secured as a “safe” seat, presently BN has 82 safe seats and 51 marginal seats while Pakatan Rakyat has 60 safe seats and 29 marginal seats.

The 82 BN safe seats comprise five urban and  77 rural constituencies, or 53 Malay-majority, 0 Chinese-majority, four mixed and 25 bumiputera constituencies.

The 51 BN marginal seats are 30 Malay majority, 0 Chinese majority, 9 mixed and 12 bumiputera.

The 60 PR safe seats comprise 16 Malay majority, 25 Chinese majority, 18 mixed and 1 bumiputera constituencies.

The 29 PR marginal seats comprise 20 Malay majority, 4 Chinese majority, 5 mixed and 0 bumiputera.

The 13GE results of  89 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, comprising 38 DAP MPs, 30 PKR MPs and 21 PAS MPs have been exploited and distorted by Umno/BN plotters and conspirators for their campaign of lies and falsehoods, like the baseless accusation that PAS is a puppet of DAP.

I am not surprised that UMNO cybertroopers have distorted my statement after the 59th PAS Muktamar to give the impression that I had declared that PAS could not develop without Pakatan Rakyat, when what I had said was that all the three parties of DAP, PAS and PKR have benefitted from the partnership in Pakatan Rakyat.

From a regional party confined largely to its “northern” heartland of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu, PAS has gone “national” in the 13th General Elections with parliamentary and/or state assembly representation in every state in Peninsular Malaysia, except for Negri Sembilan.

For the DAP, our partnership in Pakatan Rakyat has enabled the DAP to win 38 parliamentary seats and 107 State Assembly seats, including 16 ethnically-mixed  parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia with less than 60 per cent Chinese voters (nine with less than 50 per cent Chinese voters) and 44 “ethnically-mixed” State Assembly seats with less than 60 per cent Chinese voters (15 of which with less than 50% Chinese voters).

PKR Performance (1999 to 2013)

PKR leveraging Pakatan’s strength in ethnically ‘mixed’ constituencies

Like DAP and PAS, PKR has also benefitted from the partnership in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and this is not just about Pakatan Rakyat retaining the Penang and Selangor State Governments.

Ethnically mixed constituencies – where no one race is more than 60% of voters – used to be BN’s stronghold. However, with UMNO’s increasingly right wing positions and the poor record of governance by the BN, the opposition has capitalized by capturing a majority of these mixed seats in Peninsular Malaysia.

PKR best represents the model of leveraging on Pakatan’s inclusive message and the grassroot mobilization ability of the individual Pakatan parties in these ethnically mixed seats. These are the seats which PKR has managed to capture in the past two general elections.

In 1999, the only parliament seat which PKR won that had less than 70% Malay voters was Permatang Pauh (67% Malay). The only state seat which PKR won that had less than 70% Malay voters was Penanti (68% Malay) which is located in the parliament seat of Permatang Pauh.

PKR was decimated in the 2004 Abdullah Badawai ‘tsunami’, being reduced to just one parliamentary seat – Permatang Pauh.

In 2008, PKR emerged as the largest opposition party by winning 31 parliament seats. Out of these 31 parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia, 20 (or 65%) were ethnically mixed seats where Malay and Chinese voters are less than 60% of voters. Out of the 40 state seats which PKR won in 2008, 29 (73%) were ethnically mixed.

In 2013, PKR won 28 parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia out of which 22 (79%) were ethnically mixed seats. Out of the 42 state seats won by PKR in 2013, 29 (69%) were ethnically mixed seats. (See Table 1 below)

Table 1: Number of Parliament and State Seats won by PKR (1999 to 2013) including the number and % of seats which have less than 60% Malay and 60% Chinese voters (Peninsular Malaysia)

PKR PMsia

1999

2004

2008

2013

Parliament

5

1

31

28

State

4

0

40

42

Parl, <60%M, <60%C

0

0

20

22

State, <60%M, <60%C

0

0

29

29

Parl Mixed %

64.5%

78.6%

State Mixed %

72.5%

69.0%

Of the 4 new parliament seats won by PKR in GE2013, which it did not win in GE2008, 3 can be described as ethnically mixed – Lumut, Bukit Katil and Batu Pahat. The fourth, Alor Star, just falls outside the categorization but barely, with 61% of Malay voters. (See Table 2 below)

Table 2: New parliament seats won by PKR in GE2013

State

Parliament Code

Parliament Seat

Malay%

Chinese%

Indian%

Others%

KEDAH

P009

ALOR STAR

61.2%

33.6%

4.6%

0.5%

PERAK

P074

LUMUT

51.1%

35.4%

12.0%

1.5%

MELAKA

P137

BUKIT KATIL

52.6%

40.8%

5.7%

1.0%

JOHOR

P150

BATU PAHAT

51.5%

45.6%

1.4%

1.5%

This is part and parcel of PKR’s winning formula which is the ability to win a significant percentage of support from voters from all races by leveraging on the appeal and grassroot mobilization ability of all three Pakatan parties.

PKR is the main beneficiary of this winning formula but it can easily be applicable to PAS and DAP too. Indeed, in the 2013 general elections, out of 62 parliamentary seats with less than 60% Malay and Chinese voters, Pakatan won 41 (66%). PKR won 22 of these seats, DAP won 16 and PAS won 3.

Pakatan’s challenge in the next GE is to extend this winning formula to the remaining 21 parliamentary seats which are also ethnically mixed.

Johor requires special attention since 12 out of these 21 parliamentary seats are located in Johor.

Pakatan came close to winning a few of these seats in GE2013 including Cameron Highlands, Bentong, Labis and Pasir Gudang, all of which were won by the BN with less than 1000 votes.

Another four seats – Setiawangsa, Segamat, Ledang and Tebrau – were won by the BN with between 1000 and 2000 votes.

Another way to illustrate the point that all the three Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PAS and PKR have benefitted from the coalition partnership is the following table of the election results in the past thirteen general elections, showing that it is during the tripartite co-operation in the 1999, 2008 and 2013 General Elections that the DAP, PAS and PKR achieved their best parliamentary and state assembly results:

MP

DAP

PAS

PKR

Total seats

won

contest

won

contest

won

contest

1959

–

–

13

58

–

–

104

1964

–

–

9

53

–

–

104

1969

13

24

12

62

–

–

144

1974

9

46

–

–

–

–

154

1978

16

53

5

88

–

–

154

1982

9

63

5

82

–

–

154

1986

24

64

1

98

–

–

177

1990

20

57

7

30

–

–

180

1995

9

50

7

45

–

–

192

1999

10

38

27

62

5

58

193

2004

12

44

6

86

1

59

219

2008

(1+) 28

47

(1+) 23

66

31

97

222

2013

38

51

21

73

30

99

222

DUN

DAP

PAS

PKR

Total seats

won

contest

won

contest

won

contest

1959

–

–

42

200

–

–

282

1964

–

–

25

158

–

–

282

1969

31

57

40

185

–

–

360

1974

23

120

–

–

–

–

360

1978

25

127

9

204

–

–

276

1982

12

131

18

223

–

–

312

1986

37

118

15

265

–

–

447

1990

45

87

33

114

–

–

447

1995

11

103

33

171

–

–

394

1999

11

88

98

234

4

70

394

2004

15

104

36

265

0

121

505

2008

73

102

84

232

40

176

505

2013

95

103

85

236

49

172

505

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/27/dap-pas-dan-pkr-mencapai-keputusan-terbaik-di-peringkat-parlimen-dan-negeri-menerusi-kerjasama-ketiga-tiga-parti-dalam-pilihanraya-umum-tahun-1999-2008-dan-2013/

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 9:19 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
General
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.