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

Dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 1999, ketika berdepan dengan cabaran empat parti Barisan Alternatif yang terdiri dari DAP, PAS, PKR, dan Parti Rakyat, juru strategi dan propaganda Umno/BN menggunakan pendekatan lidah bercabang dalam kempen mereka dengan memberi amaran kepada orang Melayu bahawa “DAP + PAS = Islam Hancur” dan pada masa yang sama mereka memberitahu Cina bahawa undi untuk DAP sama dengan undi untuk PAS dan Negara Islam, sebuah negara yang tidak mempunyai babi, alkohol, kuil, gereja, karaoke, dan sekolah Cina; semua perempuannya perlu menutup kepala; perempuan cantik tidak akan mendapat kerja; dan hukuman potong tangan dan kaki akan dilaksanakan.

Umumnya, pengundi Melayu dalam pilihanraya tahun 1999 tidak terpedaya dengan helah tersebut, sedangkan pengundi Cina menjadi mangsa pembohongan dan gertakan Barisan Nasional. PAS lalu muncul sebagai pemenang terbesar dalam Barisan Alternatif apabila ia berjaya memenangi 27 kerusi parlimen, 98 kerusi negeri, dan membentuk kerajaan negeri Terengganu selain Kelantan yang memang telah dikuasainya, manakala DAP berdepan kekecewaan besar apabila berjaya mendapatkan hanya 10 kerusi parlimen dan 11 kerusi DUN. PKR memenangi 5 kerusi parlimen dan 4 kerusi DUN.

Dalam Pilihanraya Umum 2013, berdepan dengan cabaran Pakatan Rakyat, penyusun strategi dan propaganda Umno/BN kembali menggunakan pendekatan lidah bercabang dan menyebarkan pembohongan. Mereka mengingatkan Melayu bahawa PAS akan menjadi boneka DAP, manakala Cina pula diingatkan bahawa DAP akan menjadi alat PAS.

Tidak seperti Pilihanraya Umum 1999, pengundi Cina tidak termakan umpan Umno/BN dalam pilihanraya tahun 2013. Bagaimanapun, tidak seperti Pilihanraya Uum ke-10, pembohongan yang disebarkan oleh Umno telah memberi dampak pada pengundi Melayu.

Natijahnya, Umno berjaya mendapat keputusan lebih baik dalam PRU13 berbanding tahun 2009 dengan menambah 9 lagi kerusi, iaitu dari 79 kepada 88 kerusi, hasil daripada perubahan undi di kalangan pengundi Melayu luar bandar.

Berdasarkan sempadan kawasan pilihanraya sekarang, dengan mengambil kira undi 55 peratus sebagai “kerusi selamat”, BN kini mempunyai 82 kerusi selamat dan 51 kerusi majoriti tipis, manakala Pakatan Rakyat mempunyai 60 kerusi selamat dan 29 kerusi tipis.

82 kerusi selamat BN itu merangkumi lima kerusi bandar dan 77 kerusi luar bandar, atau 53 kerusi majoriti Melayu, 0 kerusi majoriti Cina, empat campuran dan 25 kawasan bumiputera.

51 kerusi majoriti tipis BN merangkumi 30 kerusi majoriti Melayu, 0 kerusi majoriti Cina, 9 kerusi campuran dan 12 bumiputera.

60 kerusi selamat PR merangkumi 16 kerusi majoriti Melayu, 25 majoriti Cina, 18 campuran dan 1 bumiputera.

29 kerusi majoriti tipis PR merangkumi 20 kerusi majoriti Melayu, 4 majoriti Cina, 5 campuran dan 0 bumiputera.

Keputusan PRU13 yang menghasilkan 89 ahli parlimen Pakatan Rakyat, merangkumi 38 ahli parlimen DAP, 30 PKR dan 21 PAS telah dieksploit dan diseleweng oleh konspirator Umno/BN untuk menyebarkan pembohongan, antaranya dengan membuat tuduhan tidak berasas bahawa PAS adalah boneka DAP.

Saya tidak hairan apabila cybertrooper Umno menyelewengkan kenyataan saya selepas Muktamar PAS ke-59 untuk menonjolkan seolah-olah saya telah mengisytiharkan bahawa PAS tidak mungkin berkembang tanpa Pakatan Rakyat, sedangkan saya telah menyebut bahawa setiap parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat, DAP, PAS, dan PKR, telah mendapat manfaat daripada kerjasama mereka.

PAS telah berkembang daripada sebuah parti yang lebih berpengaruh di negeri-negeri utara, iaitu Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, dan Terengganu, menjadi sebuah “parti nasional” dalam PRU13 apabila berjaya memenangi kerusi parlimen dan negeri di setiap negeri dalam Semenanjung Malaysia, kecuali Negeri Sembilan.

Bagi DAP pula, penglibatan dalam Pakatan Rakyat telah membolehkannya memenangi 38 kerusi parlimen dan 107 kerusi DUN, termasuk 16 kerusi parlimen di Semenanjung Malaysia yang mempunyai kurang dari 60 peratus pengundi Cina (sembilan daripadanya mempunyai kurang dari 50 peratus pengundi Cina) dan 44 kerusi DUN yang mempunyai kurang dari 60 peratus pengundi Cina (15 daripadanya mempunyai kurang dari 50% pengundi Cina).

Prestasi PKR (1999 hingga 2013)

PKR memanfaatkan kekuatan Pakatan di kawasan “campuran”

Seperti DAP dan PAS, PKR juga telah mendapat manfaat daripada kerjasama dalam Pakatan Rakyat.

“Kawasan campuran” – di mana tiada pengundi dari sesuatu kaum lebih dari 60% – dulunya merupakan kubu BN. Bagaimanapun, kecenderungan Umno terhadap isu perkauman dan rekod buruk BN dalam urus tadbir telah dimanfaatkan oleh pembangkang untuk menawan majoriti kerusi campuran di Semenanjung Malaysia.

PKR memanfaatkan mesej Pakatan yang inklusif serta keupayaan bergerak setiap parti dalam Pakatan untuk memenangi kerusi campuran sejak dua pilihanraya umum lalu.

Pada tahun 1999, satu-satunya kerusi parlimen dimenangi PKR yang mempunyai kurang dari 70% pengundi Melayu adalah Permatang Pauh (67% Melayu). Satu-satunya kerusi negeri dimenangi PKR yang mempunyai kurang dari 70% pengundi Melayu adalah Penanti (68% Melayu) yang terletak dalam parlimen Permatang Pauh.

Tsunami Abdullah Badawi pada tahun 2004 telah merebahkan PKR sehingga tinggal satu kerusi parlimen – Permatang Pauh.

Pada tahun 2008, PKR muncul sebagai parti pembangkang terbesar dengan memenangi 31 kerusi parlimen. 20 dari 31 kerusi parlimen yang dimenanginya (65%) itu adalah kerusi campuran di mana pengundi Cina atau Melayu kurang dari 60%. Dari 40 kerusi negeri yang dimenangi PKR pada tahun 2008, 29 (73%) adalah kerusi campuran.

Pada tahun 2013, PKR memenangi 28 kerusi parlimen di Semenanjung Malaysia. 22 (79%) daripadanya adalah kerusi campuran. 29 (69%) dari 42 kerusi negeri yang dimenangi oleh PKR pada tahun 2013 adalah kerusi campuran (lihat Jadual 1).

Jadual 1: Bilangan kerusi parlimen dan DUN yang dimenangi PKR (1999 hingga 2013) termasuk angka dan % kerusi yang mempunyai kurang dari 60% pengundi Melayu dan Cina (Semenanjung Malaysia).

PKR Semenanjung

1999

2004

2008

2013

Parlimen

5

1

31

28

DUN

4

0

40

42

Parl, <60%M, <60%C

0

0

20

22

DUN, <60%M, <60%C

0

0

29

29

Parl campuran %

64.5%

78.6%

DUN campuran %

72.5%

69.0%

Dari 4 kerusi parlimen yang dimenangi oleh PKR dalam PRU tahun 2013 dan tidak dimenanginya dalam PRU tahun 2008, 3 daripadanya boleh disifatkan sebagai kerusi campuran – Lumut, Bukit Katil dan Batu Pahat. Kerusi keempat, Alor Setar, tidak termasuk dalam kategori campuran, tetapi hanya 61% daripada pengundinya adalah Melayu (lihat Jadual 2 di bawah).

Jadual 2: Kerusi parlimen baru dimenangi PKR dalam PRU 2013

Negeri

Kod Parlimen

Kerusi Parlimen

% Melayu

% Cina

% India

% Lain-lain

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%

Ini adalah sebahagian daripada rumus kemenangan PKR, iaitu kemampuannya untuk mengumpul sokongan pengundi dari semua kaum dengan memanfaatkan daya tarikan dan keupayaan mobilisasi ketiga-tiga parti Pakatan.

Rumus kemenangan ini paling menguntungkan PKR, namun ia boleh juga diterapkan kepada PAS dan DAP. Malah, dalam pilihanraya umum 2013, Pakatan telah memenangi 41 (66%) dari 62 kerusi parlimen yang mempunyai pengundi Melayu dan Cina kurang dari 60%. 22 dari 41 kerusi itu dimenangi PKR, 16 DAP dan 3 PAS.

Cabaran Pakatan dalam PRU akan datang ialah untuk mengambangkan rumus kemenangan ini ke 21 lagi kerusi parlimen campuran.

Johor memerlukan perhatian khusus memandangkan 12 dari 21 kerusi parlimen itu terletak di Johor.

Pakatan kalah tipis di beberapa kerusi campuran dalam PRU13, termasuk Cameron Highlands, Bentong, Labis, dan Pasir Gudang. Semua kawasan itu dimenangi BN dengan perbezaan undi kurang dari 1000.

Empat lagi kerusi – Setiawangsa, Segamat, Ledang, Tebrau – dimenangi oleh BN dengan perbezaan undi antara 1000 hingga 2000.

Satu lagi cara untuk menunjukkan bahawa ketiga-tiga parti Pakatan Rakyat telah mendapat manfaat daripada kerjasama dalam pakatan ini ialah menerusi jadual di bawah yang menunjukkan keputusan pilihanraya sejak tiga belas pilihanraya umum yang lalu. Jadual di bawah menunjukkan bahawa kerjasama ketiga-tiga parti dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 1999, 2008, dan 2013 telah membolehkan DAP, PAS, dan PKR mencapai keputusan terbaik di peringkat parlimen dan negeri.

Parlimen

DAP

PAS

PKR

Jumlah kerusi

menang

bertanding

menang

bertanding

menang

bertanding

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

Jumlah kerusi

menang

bertanding

menang

bertanding

menang

bertanding

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

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/27/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/

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 7:43 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Impian Sabah – like Impian Sarawak is an integral part of DAP’s commitment in pursuit of the Malaysian Dream to create a Malaysia for all Malaysians

In the 13th General Election, Pakatan Rakyat had targetted 33 seats from the 3 UMNO-BN “fixed deposit” states of Johor, Sarawak and Sabah.  We failed to achieve our targets and won only 14 seats, with Sabah winning the least – 3 parliamentary seats – Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan and Penampang.

We were however able to “destroy” the “fixed deposit” moniker for Johor and Sarawak, by increasing our votes received significantly.  For Johor, Pakatan Rakyat was able to increase our popular votes by 10.3% to 45%, while for Sarawak, we increased by 8.9% to 37.3%.

However, for Sabah, we were only able to increase our votes by 3.4% to 35.9%.

Hence it is undeniable that Pakatan Rakyat must pull out all stops to increase our electoral support in the state with 26 parliamentary seats (including Labuan).

Sabah should logically be the state most ripe for change given the degree of corruption and mismanagement, the poverty level and the lack of employment opportunities as well as the infiltration of illegal immigrants with the associated social and security problems.

Despite being among the richest state in natural resources, as well as being the richest state per capita income in the early 1970s, Sabah is now the state with the highest poverty rates in the entire country.  As late as 2010, 43% of Sabahan households do not have access to clean or treated water while nearly 20% do not have access to electricity.

However despite the marginalisation of Sabahans and the pilferage of the state’s wealth and resources by the Barisan Nasional government, Sabah remains firmly in the hands of UMNO-BN.  Pakatan Rakyat should not remain despondent over the GE13 outcome, but instead double or triple up our efforts to penetrate rural Sabah.  We should win the hearts of Sabahans by proving our sincerity and commitment to the rural villagers, and demonstrating by deeds that we will not forsake their rights and needs.

There is no better way than to go to the ground to ease the burden of these marginalised villagers living in poverty and destitution.  Hence there is no better time to launch “Impian Sabah” to bring “Malaysian Dream Agents” into various Sabah villages to make a real difference to the villagers’ lives.

The choice delivering a gravity-feed water system to Kampung Samaritan Laut located in the Kota Marudu parliamentary constituency is of great significance as it is the seat held by Dr Maximus Ongkili, Deputy President of Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) as well as ironically, the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water.

More critically, Dr Ongkili won Kota Marudu with a majority of only 842 votes after garnering 15,168 votes in a four-cornered fight. Mahap obtained 14,326 votes, STAR candidate Majamis Timbong (2,228 votes) while Yuntau alias Kuntau Kolod (SAPP) only managed 444 votes.  If not for the splitting of votes with STAR, Pakatan Rakyat would have won the seat.  Hence every effort must be made in these marginal seats so as to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat will win these seats in the next General Election.

Impian Sabah will show Sabahans, and Malaysians throughout the country that the DAP is not just a party that talks, but is a party that will take all necessary actions to improve the livelihood of the people, especially the oppressed.  Together with the on-going Impian Sarawak campaign, their success in meeting the urgent needs of the people will go a long way not only towards winning Putrajaya, but to fulfill the Malaysian Dream, a plural society where all her citizens are united as one people, rising above their ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic differences as the common grounds binding them as one citizenship exceed the differences that divide them because of their ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural divisions.

Impian Sabah – like Impian Sarawak – is an integral part of DAP’s commitment in pursuit of the Malaysian Dream to create a Malaysia for all Malaysians.

(Media Statement at the launching of the Impian Sabah campaign at DAP Hqrs on Wednesday 27th November 2013 at 11 am)

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/28/impian-sabah-seperti-impian-sarawak-adalah-sebahagian-daripada-komitmen-dap-untuk-mengejar-impian-malaysia-bagi-membentuk-negara-malaysia-untuk-semua-warga-malaysia/

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 12:16 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rosmah oh Rosmah … Ready, Get Jet, Go!

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo! News

 Nov 24, 2013

Rosmah oh Rosmah, you are so endearing that Malaysians love you. So much that they are questioning why you used the Government’s jet to fly to Qatar for the International Business Women Forum earlier this month. And why you took with you the MP Azalina Othman, your hubby’s special adviser Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and several ministers’ wives.

Minister Shahidan Kassim said you went on “official business”, and that the Cabinet approved your use of the jet. Your own special officer Siti Azizah said you went to Qatar in the national interest.

She even explained what she meant: “It was not for personal reasons. … [Rosmah] does not represent the Government, but she went there for the sake of the Government’s interest. She is the prime minister’s wife, she went to give the keynote address [at the forum]. So she made the address not as a government representative, but in the national interest.”

Not a government representative and yet doing it in the national interest? Hmmmm … can what, right? Why not? Even many ordinary Malaysians go overseas to do things in the national interest without their even knowing it what, right? Like when they go on holiday and tell the foreigners they meet what a nice country Malaysia is or how delicious Malaysian food is. That’s in the national interest. That’s boosting tourism.

But your critics say there is no law that allows the prime minister’s wife to represent Malaysia in foreign diplomatic affairs, and you are neither a member of the Government nor an elected member of Parliament. Yet you had a meeting with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah to extend to him your hubby’s invitation to visit Malaysia next year. Surely, it wasn’t a personal invitation?

And then that girl Azalina said in Parliament that you were invited to Qatar in your personal capacity. Personal capacity means it was not official business. It appeared contradictory to what Shahidan had claimed. Why did she say that? It’s not good for your case. Why did she go to Qatar, anyway? And the ministers’ wives? And why was attending an Islamic fashion show part of your itinerary?

Oohhh, maybe after delivering your keynote address, you wanted to chill out with your gang, mix a little pleasure with business. Well, why not? What’s wrong with that? Maybe you brought the gang along to give them exposure to the high life. This would also be in the national interest too, wouldn’t it? Don’t we want our ministers’ wives to be savvy and sophisticated?

Well, but people say if you were not on official business, not representing the Government, you shouldn’t be entitled to using the government jet. They say the wives of past prime ministers never used their VIP position to request the use of the facility for personal use. Why should you be an exception?

But that is so trivial, isn’t it? Aiya, if Siti Hasmah, Jeanne and the late Endon didn’t take advantage of the opportunity when they could, that’s their own loss, isn’t it? If they didn’t want to get involved in government business, that was also their own choice. You’re not like them, you want to contribute. You can’t stand by and see your husband do all the donkey’s work. You have to be the supportive jenny.

And if you and your hubby work so hard – all for the sake of the country, not for yourselves – what’s wrong with a little luxury when you’re travelling abroad? Besides, there are good reasons.

First, it’s not every day that anyone can get to become the prime minister’s wife. Second, you’re the self-styled First Lady, so why shouldn’t you be treated as such? You look regal enough for the part, don’t you? With your upturned chin and your huge, ball-shaped hairdo? They should be calling you Queen Rosmah, no? Not as in royalty of course, but as a moniker. You know, like that of the actress Queen Latifah.

Third, when you land at your destination, you’ll need to be fresh to see to the work ahead. For instance, giving a keynote address might take only about half an hour, but it’s still work. The government jet will provide you the amenities to help you feel rested and relaxed, and avoid jet lag. It makes sense. So what’s the beef?

It’s right what you told the media: “I’m happy, I’m just going to do my work.” Ya, right. Work. What do they know?

You were also right in telling them: “I don’t talk, I don’t comment, I don’t go down to that level.” Of course, what can you say, right?

Now we know why your hubby is often quiet when he should be making statements about important national issues. He must have learned this virtue from you. Like right now lah. So much hoo-ha about your jet ride and also about his spending so much money on his overseas trips, and he has kept his mouth shut. He only lets his lackeys do the talking. That’s the way.

He is, after all, the prime minister. He has the power to decide things – where to go, how much to spend, whether to eat, say, Beluga caviar (if you both want to, that is) instead of simple ikura. And there’s no one to check him. Because he’s also the finance minister. He can choose how to spend the people’s money, and no one can stop him.

Ya lah, it will cost a bit more to take the government jet, but Malaysia is a rich country with plenty of natural resources. Paying for a jet ride is sahp sahp soei. Why are people griping about pennies? Especially when the returns are greater?

And Shahidan seems to think that they are. He talks appreciatively about the work you put in. The both of you must be very close. He said the outcome of your visit to Qatar was very positive. “We must be proud and thankful for the efforts and hard work put in by the prime minister’s wife. A visit to a foreign country is not for fun. It involves a lot of responsibilities.”

He scolded the media for creating hatred against you. He felt sad about it. “How many investors can you bring to Malaysia?” he challenged reporters. “Nothing! [Rosmah] has done so much for the country for free. If you are so good, you try bringing investors here.”

He tries so hard, kesian dia. He even said: “She has built this country.” Wah lau eh! Er … but don’t you think he’s a bit overboard on this? I mean, objectively speaking?

OK, so your critics say you have no business representing the country because you are not an elected representative. Why don’t you show them at the next general election by standing as a candidate? You are so well-loved, you will surely win. Maybe you can do it earlier, if a parliamentary by-election comes up in the interim. And if you win, your hubby can make you a minister. Then you can be a jet-setter and no one can bitch about it.

Alternatively, someone who’s doing fantastic business could be kind enough to buy you your own private jet. Maybe someone like Syed Mokhtar? Then people will not kacau you any more. Or will they still do so? Well, if they do, it can only be because they love you so much. True or not?

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 4:33 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Three slaves and the rakyat

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Nov 25, 2013

The three women in London who were imprisoned as slaves have much in common with the Malaysian rakyat. Their escape plan was hatched in secrecy but their story, which is slowly unfolding, has shocked the world. It is doubtful if many Malaysians realise the similarities between themselves and these three women.

For the past 30 years, the women were forced to serve a married couple from India and Tanzania. The oldest woman was a 69-year-old Malaysian who was denied medical treatment when she suffered a stroke, another was a 59-year-old Irish woman, and the youngest was a 30-year-old, who grew up in this family.

The women cleaned, cooked, shopped, ran errands and cared for their masters. As punishment, they would be beaten but despite their treatment, were too terrified to escape when an opportunity to flee presented itself.

The women were imprisoned for three decades, but the Malaysian rakyat have been metaphorically imprisoned for the most part of 56 years. The women were described as having been shackled by “invisible handcuffs”, just like the Malaysians.

Despite being aware of the injustices and abuse of power, older Malaysians are reluctant to embrace change. The married couple are just like the leaders of Malaysia. The tools of control for both the London slaves and Malaysian rakyat, are a combination of threats and emotional blackmail. Police said that the mental hold on the women was strong and “cult-like”.

Umno Baru leaders know how to pitch their stories. For instance, older and more conservative Malays are told that a vote for the opposition would mean that the Chinese and Christians would overrun Malaysia.

It is ironic that younger Malaysians, despite knowing only one system of governance, can lead the charge for change. Their easy access to alternative information sites means that the world is literally their oyster.

When Umno Baru splurges on defence contracts, weaponry or new gadgets like the automated speed traps (AES), they convince ignorant people, that the party is doing it in the name of national security or progress. Incredibly, the government makes the rakyat hand over their money as if it is doing the people a favour.

The BR1M payment of RM500 does not last long, especially as the government plays on the greed of the rakyat into parting with their money. For example, discounts on smartphones induce people to buy one.  Despite the discount, the BR1M recipient has to pay out more of his own money, either from his savings or by going into debt.

The company which sold the smartphones is probably a crony company and the smartphones are probably sold at an inflated price, regardless of the discount. The government’s investment of RM500 brings in a good return.

In addition, the BR1M payment divides communities, because the middle-classes do not qualify but find that they are subsidising the life-styles of the poor and government cronies.

Najib Abdul Razak justified the increase in sugar prices by saying it was necessary to prevent diabetes. Why stop at sugar, if he is sincere about the nation’s health? Why not increase the cost of cigarettes and stop the sale of unhealthy, fatty and non-nutritious foods in school canteens?

He could ban mamak shops. Some are filthy and many sell greasy, unhealthy food. The ones which open 24-hours-a-day encourage unhealthy sleeping habits, especially among schoolchildren.

He should promote cycling and outdoor activities and build cycle lanes in towns, and more sports facilities in housing estates. He could increase the amount of time devoted to sports in the school curriculum.

Extremism rampant, abuses common

The neighbours of the three women in London, saw them and their masters as a “normal family”. This is the same scenario which Najib presents to the international community. Malaysia is packaged as a moderate Muslim nation which cares for its women, children and indigenous communities.

The events which occurred behind the closed doors of the London house can only be described as modern-day slavery. Similarly, within Malaysian borders, extremism and nationalist policies are rampant and human rights abuses are common.

The three women waited on the couple, like slaves. Anyone who has been to a function hosted by an Umno Baru or BN politician will have observed members of the rakyat treating politicians like demi-gods, bowing and scraping and giving them deferential treatment.

The enslaved women are highly dependent on their masters. Their level of brainwashing was so strong, that they refused to flee when they had the chance. Similarly, Malaysians have been given the opportunity to reject Umno Baru at election, but many continue to vote for Umno Baru and BN.

The women were permitted to watch certain television channels. Likewise, Malaysians are only allowed to see pro-Umno Baru media news. The indoctrination of the rakyat restricts their activities.

Attending opposition ceramahs is discouraged and those who persist, face problems at work. Malaysians studying overseas are warned that their scholarships may be terminated, if they attend opposition talks. People who attend marches, face violence from Umno Baru thugs and the police. With these tactics, many people fear voting for the opposition.

Despite the hardships suffered, many Malaysians are afraid of change. The constant emotional blackmail over the past five decades has convinced them that they could not cope without Umno Baru.

People who have worked with former prisoners, know that ex-convicts have become institutionalised and cannot adjust to normal life, when they are released. Having been used to following orders, doing things at set times of the day, eating what is given them and sleeping when the lights are turned off, means that they are dependent on their wardens’ instructions.

That is what Umno Baru has done to many of us – reduced our ability to cope and to think independently.

The three women who planned their escape wanted to be free and punish the people who imprisoned them. The same rebuilding of our lives is possible. We just need the courage to take the first step towards freedom. This first step is to reject Umno Baru. You are not alone. Many Malaysians, especially Malays, think as you do.

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO).

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 10:52 pm and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Can Pakatan Rakyat rise to the occasion to decide the  political future not only of Sabah and Sarawak but the whole of Malaysia in the 14GE?

In my media statements in the past three days, I have argued the case, backed with facts and figures,  that the three Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PKR and PAS achieved their best parliamentary and state assembly results during their tripartite co-operation in the 1999, 2008 and 2013 General Elections.

This is not only the case for the Pakatan Rakyat parties in Peninsular Malaysia (which was the focus of my statements in the past three days), the same effect applies also in Sabah and Sarawak underlining the benefits of such co-operation among the Pakatan Rakyat parties.

Pakatan Raykat faces two unique challenges in Sabah and Sarawak.

The first is the accusation that the component parties, DAP, PKR and PAS are not ‘local’ parties but are merely extensions of the ‘main’ parties which are based in Peninsular Malaysia and are guilty of being peninsular-centric. As such, they cannot adequately represent the interests of Sabah and Sarawak.

The second is the much shorter history of cooperation among opposition parties, including between DAP, PKR and PAS in both states.

While both these challenges have not be totally overcome, the strengthening of cooperation within the Pakatan Rakyat parties have addressed some of these concerns and have been reflected in the election results.

As recent as 2008, the opposition could not avoid three-cornered fights in Sabah and Sarawak.

In 2008, both DAP and PKR contested in the urban seats of Stampin and Sibu. Stampin was an especially costly three-cornered fight because the opposition could have won that seat in a straight fight.

In Sabah, the situation was even worse. Of the 5 parliament seats which DAP contested in, 4 were three-cornered fights featuring PKR. Of the 10 state seats which DAP contested in, 9 were three-cornered fights featuring PKR.

The opposition was fortunate to win one parliament and one state seat despite these three-cornered fights but presumably, more seats could have been won with greater opposition cooperation.

After the formation of Pakatan Rakyat post GE2008, the situation improved and greater Pakatan cooperation bore fruit.

In the 2011 Sarawak state elections, Pakatan avoided three-cornered contests in all seats, with PKR contesting in 49, DAP in 15 and PAS in 5. Pakatan delivered 15 seats (DAP with 12 and PKR with 3) and swept nearly all of the urban seats.

The cooperation and performance of Pakatan Rakyat would pave the way for GE2013 where the opposition coalition in Sarawak bettered its performance of one parliament seat in GE2008 to 6 parliament seats (5 for DAP and 1 for PKR).

Although we were disappointed in not being able to capture non-urban seats, this was nonetheless a breakthrough performance in a state that had been dominated by the BN for such a long period of time.

In Sabah, Pakatan was able to avoid three-cornered fights in all seats but one (Labuan was contested by PKR and PAS).

At the parliamentary level, PKR contested in 20 seats, DAP in 4 and PAS in 3. At the state level, PKR contested in 43, DAP in 8 and PAS in 9.

Again, the results were encouraging. Pakatan won a total of 11 state seats, with PKR winning 7 and DAP winning 4, a marked improvement from the single state seat it won in 2008.

What is more encouraging is the fact that 6 out of the 11 seats are in Bumiputera majority areas.

At the same time, Pakatan has also put to rest the notion that we are less popular or credible than the Sabah and Sarawak based opposition parties.

In the 2011 Sarawak state elections, local party SNAP contested in 26 state seats, 25 of which featured contests against PKR. Not only did the SNAP candidates win fewer votes compared to the PKR candidates in all of these 25 state seats, SNAP candidates also lost their deposits in 24 of these seats.

In Sabah, in GE2013, STAR, led by Jeffrey Kitingan contested in 21 parliament seats, all of which featured Pakatan parties (PKR with 16, DAP with 3, PAS with 2). With the exception of Keningau, which is Jeffrey Kitingan’s stronghold, the Pakatan candidates won more votes than the STAR candidates in all the other 20 parliament seats.

SAPP, a Sabah based party, contested in 8 parliament seats and failed to win more votes than Pakatan in all 8 seats.

This pattern was repeated at the state level in Sabah.

STAR contested in 49 out of 60 state seats and won fewer votes than Pakatan candidates in 46 out of the 49 state seats.

SAPP contested in 41 out of 60 state seats and won fewer votes than Pakatan candidates in 40 out of 41 of these seats. One of these losses came in the Inanam state seat where the former Sepanggar MP, Eric Majimbun failed to win enough votes to prevent PKR’s Roland Chia from winning this seat. Another came in the Likas state seat, where SAPP president, Yong Teck Lee, lost out to DAP’s Wong Hong Jun.

The May 5, 2013 general elections is nonetheless an expensive lesson for the Opposition in Sabah, for the Barisan Nasional would have lost in another four parliamentary and eight state assembly seats if not for split votes among the Opposition candidates.

The four parliamentary constituencies are P. 168 Kota Marudu, P. 180 Keningau, P. 181 Tenom and P. 182 Pensiangan while the eight state assembly seats are No. 11 Kiulu, N.29 Kundasang, N. 31 Paginatan, N. 32 Tambunan, N. 34 Liawan, No. 35 Melalap, N.38 Nabawan and N.45 Elopura.

In fact, an united Opposition could have brought the total score of Parliamentary and State Assembly seats for the Opposition in Sabah to 11 Parliamentary (I.e the present three, plus four lost due to split votes and another four, viz. P. 177 Beaufort, P. 170 Tuaran, P. 179 Ranau and P. 169 Kota Belud) and 26 State Assembly seats (i.e. the present 12, plus eight lost due to split votes and another six, viz. N.2 Tanjong Kapor, N.30 Karanaan, N.36 Kemabong, N. 37 Sook, N. 44 Karamunting and N.46 Tanjong Papat).

The results in Sabah and Sarawak clearly shows that voters in both states want a credible coalition that can provide a strong opposition in both state and parliament and is also a credible option to form the government at the federal as well as state levels.

The purely local parties in Sabah and Sarawak cannot provide this credible option. Pakatan, with the combined strength of the individual component parties, is the only credible option in both states.

The challenges remain massive in Sabah and Sarawak for Pakatan.

Although we have made inroads, the rural areas still are very much BN’s stronghold where money politics reign supreme.

The challenges provided by defections, as we have seen lately in Sabah and Sarawak, are also part and parcel of the political landscape that Pakatan needs to overcome.

But there is no doubt whatsoever that every party in Pakatan has benefitted from being in the coalition and that the desired results can only be achieved by working together and strengthening Pakatan Rakyat in Sabah and Sarawak.

The political future of Malaysia in the 14GE will hinge on Sabah and Sarawak. This is the measure of the political challenge facing Pakatan.

Can Pakatan Rakyat rise to the occasion to decide the  political future not only of Sabah and Sarawak but the whole of Malaysia in the 14GE?

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/28/sanggupkah-pakatan-rakyat-bangkit-untuk-menyahut-cabaran-bagi-menentukan-masa-depan-bukan-saja-sabah-dan-sarawak-malah-malaysia-secara-keseluruhan-dalam-pru14/

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 November 2013, 8:56 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP MP: Gerrymandering protected Umno, not Malays

By Zurairi AR

The Malay Mail Online

November 28, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 28 — After an admission of gerrymandering by a former Election Commission (EC) chief, a DAP MP today claimed that past re-delineation exercises were only aimed at protecting the interests of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) rather than the Malay community.

According to Serdang MP Dr Ong Kian Ming, the EC would have added more seats in Malay-majority states Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu if it really was protecting the Malay interest as claimed by Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman earlier this week.

“If Tan Sri Abdul Rashid wanted to maintain Malay political dominance, why was it that no parliamentary seats were added to the Malay majority states of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu in the 2003 delineation exercise?,” Ong said in a statement here.

“The reason for the non-addition of parliament seats in these three states is simple …The BN was fearful that if more seats were added in these states, it would benefit the opposition, specifically PAS.”

According to Ong, some of the seats in the three states – such as Tumpat (69,948 voters), Kuala Terengganu (65,900), Kuala Kedah (73,942), and Baling (72,387) already have a high number of voters but no seats were added despite that.

However, opposition party PAS had performed exceptionally well in the 1999 general elections in those three states, and the re-delineation exercise in 2003 was done so to prevent PAS from capturing more seats, Ong alleged.

As part of the IKMAS (Institut Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa) study team from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia observing the process, Ong related that he remembered Abdul Rashid admitting of receiving instructions from then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir to create more ethnically “mixed” seats, rather than adding more seats in the three states.

The assumption behind the instructions, Ong claimed, was that Barisan Nasional would have captured them easily compared to PAS.

“Abdul Rashid was clearly taking instructions from this political masters in the BN during the 2003 delineation exercise,” the DAP MP added.

“The exercise was done in order to increase the political dominance of BN / UMNO and not to increase Malay political dominance per se.”

Ong’s comments today comes following an admission by Tan Sri Abdul Rashid that the three redelineation exercises during his term had ensured the continued political dominance of the Malays, even as the retired election chief insisted the redrawing of electoral boundaries were carried out in the “proper way”.

Rashid was reported to have made the comments after joining Malay rights group Perkasa, during the group’s Federal Territory annual general meeting earlier this week.

Yesterday, elections watchdog Bersih 2.0 had urged the EC to call off its re-delineation exercise as it cast further doubt on the looming revision that has been stained by allegations of gerrymandering.

Bersih 2.0 also repeated its call for the EC clean the electoral rolls and renew its members, claiming the current members of partisan, unethical, and non-independent.

The EC — which has been accused of gerrymandering to give more weight to rural constituencies, where the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) typically enjoys strong support — has said that it will begin redrawing constituency lines at the end of the year.

Polls watchdog Bersih, however, warned the EC last September that a repeat of the massive street rallies for electoral reforms was “inevitable” if the electoral roll is not cleared of irregularities.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 November 2013, 1:25 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ex-EC chief’s arrogance in violating the Constitution

– Ravinder Singh

The Malaysian Insider

November 28, 2013

Former Election Commission chief Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman’s bold admission that the three redelineation exercises he did were done in such a way to ensure Malays retained political power and that he did so “in a proper way, not illegally”, is not a surprise at all. He is very proud of what he did, despite the fact that he had breached Schedule 13 of the Federal Constitution which states that the number of voters in state and parliamentary seats must be approximately equal.

He questions how Barisan Nasional could have lost in Kelantan, Penang and Selangor if the redelineation was done to favour the BN.

This is a cheap question. Either he must be a fool not to realise why the BN lost these states, or he is trying to make a fool of those who question gerrymandering.

Why BN lost these states is because the EC did not dream that such a huge percentage of voters in these states would go against the tide. From previous elections, it must have drawn graphs showing a certain percentage of voters voting against the ruling party at each election.

Obviously, the number of voters voting for the opposition had been increasing. Projections based on these would have been used to carry out each redelineation exercise, splitting these votes to increase the number of voters in certain constituencies and reducing them in others so as to ensure “Malays retained political power”.

However, voter sentiments at GE13 did not follow the predictions of the EC. It was like a deluge breaking the banks of a river and causing massive flooding and destruction that was never thought could happen. This happened in the states that the BN lost. So, Abdul Rashid  need not try to pull wool over the people’s eyes. This bluff may work in some places, with some people, but not in all places and neither with all people.

 Schedule 13 of the Constitution is very clear. It says that the number of voters in the different constituencies must be approximately equal, or “lebih kurang sama banyak”. Where did Abdul Rashid learn that one (1) is approximately equal to ten (10) or even more?

Abdul Rashid, let’s go to a fish market. If you are asked to buy 10 kilogrammes of fish (regardless of type), but with firm instructions that each fish must be approximately (lebih kurang) one (1) kg in weight, do you buy one 10-kg fish, or eight (8) to twelve (12) fish which are approximately equal in weight, making up a total of 10 kgs?

Abdul Rashid, in which dictionary did you find that “approximately” means 1:10 or 1:15? Enough with the fooling. What you did was unconstitutional. It was a clear breach of Schedule 13 of the highest law of the country.

Now, I would like to ask: Does your religion permit you to carry out your public duty in breach of the Constitution? Do any of the Moral and Religious values that we teach our school children permit the kind of fraud that you carried out in violation of the Federal Constitution? – November 28, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:48 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Impian Sabah – seperti Impian Sarawak – adalah sebahagian daripada komitmen DAP untuk mengejar Impian Malaysia bagi membentuk negara Malaysia untuk semua warga Malaysia

Dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke-13, Pakatan Rakyat telah mensasarkan 33 kerusi dari 3 negeri “deposit tetap” Umno/BN, iaitu Johor, Sabah dan Sarawak. Kita telah gagal mencapai sasaran dan hanya memenangi 14 kerusi di negeri-negeri berkenaan, dengan 3 daripadanya kerusi parlimen di Sabah – Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan dan Penampang.

Bagaimanapun, kita telah berjaya “menghancurkan” label “deposit tetap” pada Johor dan Sarawak menerusi peningkatan besar jumlah undi keseluruhan. Di Johor, undi popular Pakatan Rakyat meningkat sebanyak 10%, iaitu kepada 45%, manakala di Sarawak peningkatan sebanyak 8.9%, iaitu kepada 37.3%.

Bagaimanapun, undi popular Pakatan di Sabah hanya meningkat sebanyak 3.4%, iaitu kepada 35.9%.

Maka, tidak syak lagi bahawa Pakatan Rakyat perlu berusaha sedaya-upaya untuk meningkatkan sokongan di negeri yang mempunyai 26 kerusi parlimen ini (termasuk Labuan).

Sabah secara logiknya adalah negeri paling bersedia untuk menerima perubahan kerana negeri itu berdepan dengan banyak masalah, termasuk tahap korupsi, salah urus, dan kemiskinan yang tinggi di sana, selain kekurangan peluang kerja dan kebanjiran pendatang haram yang dikaitkan dengan masalah sosial dan keselamatan.

Walaupun Sabah adalah antara negeri paling kaya sumber alam, selain pernah mencatatkan rekod pendapatan per kapita paling tinggi di tahun 1970an, negeri ini kini mencatatkan kadar kemiskinan paling tinggi dalam negara. Sehingga tahun 2010, 43% daripada rumah di Sabah belum mendapat bekalan air bersih atau air terawat dan 20% tiada bekalan elektrik.

Walaupun rakyat Sabah dipinggirkan dan kekayaan sumber negeri dirompak oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional, Sabah terus kekal di tangan Umno-BN. Pakatan Rakyat tidak harus putus asa melihat keputusan PRU13, ia perlu menggandakan usaha untuk menembusi kawasan luar bandar Sabah. Kita perlu memenangi hati rakyat Sabah dengan membuktikan keikhlasan dan komitmen kita terhadap penduduk desa, serta membuktikan menerusi perbuatan bahawa kita tidak akan mengabaikan hak dan keperluan mereka.

Tiada jalan lebih baik untuk mengurangkan beban penduduk desa yang terpinggir serta hidup miskin dan melarat itu melainkan dengan turun ke bawah. Maka, inilah waktu terbaik untuk melancarkan “Impian Sabah” untuk menghantar “Agen-agen Impian Malaysia” ke pelbagai kampung di Sabah bagi mengubah kehidupan penduduk kampung.

Keputusan untuk membekalkan sistem bekalan air berasaskan graviti ke Kampung Samaritan Laut yang terletak dalam kawasan parlimen Kota Marudu adalah penting kerana kerusi itu dipegang oleh Dr Maximus Ongkili, Timbalan Presiden Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) dan Menteri Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air.

Lebih penting, Dr Ongkili menang di Kota Marudu dengan majoriti hanya 842 undi setelah meraih 15,168 undi dalam pertandingan empat penjuru. Mahap mendapat 14,326 undi, calon STAR Majamis Timbong 2,228, manakala Yuntau alias Kuntau Kolod (SAPP) hanya 444 undi. Jika STAR tidak memecahkan undi, Pakatan Rakyat tentu telah memenangi kerusi itu. Justeru itu, tenaga mesti dikerah untuk merebut kerusi-kerusi marginal bagi memastikan Pakatan Rakyat menang dalam pilihanraya umum akan datang.

Impian Sabah akan menunjukkan kepada rakyat Sabah dan rakyat Malaysia di seluruh negara bahawa DAP bukan sebuah parti yang hanya pandai bercakap, sebaliknya ia adalah parti yang sanggup melaksanakan kata-katanya bagi memperbaiki kehidupan rakyat, khususnya golongan tertindas.

Kejayaan kempen Impian Sabah dan Impian Sarawak dalam memenuhi keperluan yang paling mendesak bagi rakyat bukan saja akan menyumbang ke arah usaha menawan Putrajaya, malah ke arah mencapai Impian Malaysia – sebuah masyarakat majmuk yang anggotanya bersatu-padu sebagai satu bangsa, melampaui latar kaum, agama, budaya dan bahasa.

Impian Sabah – seperti juga Impian Sarawak – adalah sebahagian daripada komitmen DAP dalam mengejar Impian Malaysia bagi membentuk Malaysia

Impian Sabah – seperti Impian Sarawak – adalah sebahagian daripada komitmen DAP untuk mengejar Impian Malaysia bagi membentuk negara Malaysia untuk semua warga Malaysia.

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/27/impian-sabah-like-impian-sarawak-is-an-integral-part-of-daps-commitment-in-pursuit-of-the-malaysian-dream-to-create-a-malaysia-for-all-malaysians/

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:21 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sanggupkah Pakatan Rakyat bangkit untuk menyahut cabaran bagi menentukan masa depan bukan saja Sabah dan Sarawak, malah Malaysia secara keseluruhan dalam PRU14?

Dalam kenyataan media yang dikeluarkan sepanjang tiga hari lalu, saya telah mengemukakan hujah, disertakan dengan fakta dan angka, bahawa ketiga-tiga parti Pakatan Rakyat, iaitu DAP, PKR, dan PAS, telah mencapai keputusan terbaik di peringkat parlimen dan negeri dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 1999, 2008, dan 2013, menerusi kerjasama mereka.

Kerjasama itu bukan saja membuahkan kejayaan untuk Pakatan Rakyat di Semenanjung Malaysia (kenyataan saya sepanjang tiga hari lalu memberikan tumpuan pada Semenanjung), malah juga di Sabah dan Sarawak. Ini menunjukkan dengan jelas faedah kerjasama di kalangan parti-parti Pakatan Rakyat.

Pakatan Rakyat berdepan dengan dua cabaran unik di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Cabaran pertama ialah untuk berdepan dengan tuduhan bahawa parti-parti komponen Pakatan Rakyat DAP, PKR, dan PAS, bukan parti ‘tempatan’ tetapi hanya meruapakan kepanjangan bagi parti-parti ‘utama’ yang berpangkalan di Semenanjung Malaysia dan cenderung hanya pada kepentingan Semenanjung. Justeru itu, parti-parti ini dianggap tidak mampu menjaga kepentingan Sabah dan Sarawak.

Cabaran kedua melibatkan sejarah kerjasama di kalangan parti-parti pembangkang, termasuk DAP, PKR, dan PAS, di kedua-dua negeri.

Kedua-dua cabaran ini belum dapat diatasi sepenuhnya, namun usaha mengukuhkan kerjasama di kalangan parti-parti Pakatan Rakyat telah berjaya merungkai sebahagian isu dan perkara ini tercermin pada keputusan pilihanraya.

Pada tahun 2008, pembangkang gagal menghindari pertembungan tiga penjuru di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Pada tahun itu, DAP dan PKR bertanding merebut kerusi bandar Stampin dan Sibu. Pertembungan tiga penjuru di Stampin paling merugikan, kerana pembangkang mampu menang di kawasan itu jika tidak berlaku pertembungan sedemikian.

Keadaan lebih buruk di Sabah. DAP telah bertanding di 5 kerusi parlimen, 4 daripadanya pertandingan tiga penjuru melibatkan PKR. Pertandingan tiga penjuru dengan PKR juga berlaku di 9 dari 10 kerusi negeri yang ditandingi DAP.

Pembangkang bernasib baik kerana tetap berjaya memenangi satu kerusi parlimen dan satu kerusi negeri di tengah-tengah pertembungan tiga penjuru berkenaan. Namun, kita percaya bahawa lebih banyak kerusi boleh dimenangi jika pembangkang bekerjasama lebih erat.

Selepas pembentukan Pakatan Rakyat pasca PRU tahun 2008, keadaan semakin baik dan kerjasama lebih erat telah membuahkan hasil.

Dalam pilihanraya negeri Sarawak tahun 2011, Pakatan berjaya mengelakkan pertembungan tiga penjuru di semua kerusi, dengan PKR bertanding di 49 kerusi, DAP 15, dan PAS 5. Pakatan berjaya memenangi 15 kerusi (DAP 12, PKR 3) dan menawan hampir semua kerusi bandar.

Kerjasama dan prestasi Pakatan Rakyat membuka jalan untuk menghasilkan keputusan lebih baik dalam PRU tahun 2013 apabila pakatan pembangkang di Sarawak berjaya meningkatkan jumlah kerusi parlimen yang dimenangi dari satu kerusi dalam PRU 2008 menjadi 6 kerusi (5 DAP dan 1 PKR).

Walaupun kita kecewa kerana gagal memenangi kerusi luar bandar, prestasi dalam PRU13 itu tetap memberangsangkan kerana ia dicapai di sebuah negeri yang telah lama dikuasai oleh BN.

Di Sabah, Pakatan berjaya menghindari pertembungan tiga penjuru di semua kerusi kecuali satu (kerusi Labuan ditandingi oleh PKR dan PAS).

Di peringkat parlimen, PKR bertanding merebut 20 kerusi, DAP 4 dan PAS 3. Di peringkat negeri, PKR bertanding untuk 43 kerusi, DAP 8 dan PAS 9.

Sekali lagi, keputusannya menggalakkan. Pakatan berjaya merebut 11 kerusi negeri apabila PKR memenangi 7 kerusi dan DAP 4 – peningkatan besar dari hanya satu kerusi pada tahun 2008.

Hakikat yang lebih memberangsangkan ialah bahawa 6 dari 11 kerusi yang dimenangi itu adalah bagi kawasan majoriti Bumiputera.

Pada masa yang sama, Pakatan juga berjaya menafikan tanggapan bahawa ia kurang popular atau kurang boleh diharapkan berbanding parti-parti pembangkang Sabah dan Sarawak.

Dalam pilihanraya negeri Sarawak tahun 2011, parti pembangkang tempatan SNAP telah bertanding untuk 26 kerusi negeri, 25 daripadanya melibatkan PKR. Calon-calon SNAP bukan saja mendapatkan undi lebih sedikit berbanding calon-calon PKR di 25 kerusi negeri ini, malah SNAP juga telah hilang deposit di 24 kerusi.

Di Sabah, dalam PRU 2013, STAR yang diketuai oleh Jeffrey Kitingan telah bertanding di 21 kerusi parlimen, semuanya melibatkan pertembungan dengan parti Pakatan (16 dengan PKR, 3 dengan DAP, 2 dengan PAS). Kecuali di Keningau, kubu kuat Jeffrey Kitingan, calon Pakatan mendapat lebih banyak undi daripada calon STAR di semua 20 kerusi parlimen yang lain.

SAPP, sebuah parti yang berpangkalan di Sabah, telah bertanding merebut 8 kerusi parlimen dan gagal memenangi undi lebih banyak daripada Pakatan di semua 8 kerusi.

Corak yang sama boleh dilihat di peringkat negeri di Sabah.

Calon STAR bertanding di 49 dari 60 kerusi negeri dan mendapat undi lebih sedikit daripada calon Pakatan di 46 dari 49 kerusi berkenaan.

SAPP bertanding di 41 dari 60 kerusi negeri dan mendapat undi lebih sedikit dari calon Pakatan di 40 dari 41 kerusi. Antara kegagalan besar SAPP ialah apabila bekas Ahli Parlimen Sepanggar Eric Majimbun gagal mempertahankan kerusinya daripada direbut oleh Roland Chia, calon PKR. Untuk kerusi negeri Likas pula, Yong Teck Lee telah kalah di tangan Wong Hong Jun dari DAP.

Pilihanraya 5 Mei 2013 menjadi pengajaran buat Pembangkang di Sabah, kerana Barisan Nasional sebenarnya dapat dikalahkan di sekurang-kurangnya empat lagi kerusi parlimen dan lapan lagi kerusi DUN jika undi tidak pecah di kalangan calon Pembangkang.

Empat kerusi parlimen itu ialah P. 168 Kota Marudu, P. 180 Keningau, P. 181 Tenom, dan P. 182 Pensiangan, manakala lapan kerusi DUN terbabit adalah N. 11 Kiulu, N.29 Kundasang, N. 31 Paginatan, N. 32 Tambunan, N. 34 Liawan, No. 35 Melalap, N.38 Nabawan dan N.45 Elopura.

Malah, jika Pembangkang bersatu di Sabah, ia sepatutnya telah mampu mengumpul 11 kerusi parlimen (3 yang telah dimenangi, ditambah empat yang terlepas kerana undi pecah, dan empat lagi, iaitu P. 177 Beaufort, P. 170 Tuaran, P. 179 Ranau dan P. 169 Kota Belud) dan 26 kerusi DUN (iaitu 12 yang telah dimenangi, ditambah dengan lapan yang terlepas daripada genggaman kerana undi pecah dan enam lagi, iaitu N.2 Tanjong Kapor, N.30 Karanaan, N.36 Kemabong, N. 37 Sook, N. 44 Karamunting dan N.46 Tanjong Papat).

Keputusan di Sabah dan Sarawak jelas menunjukkan bahawa pengundi di kedua-dua negeri mahukan sebuah pakatan yang boleh diharapkan untuk menjadi pembangkang yang ampuh di peringkat negeri dan parlimen, selain sebagai sebuah pakatan yang boleh diharapkan untuk membentuk kerajaan di peringkat persekutuan dan negeri.

Parti-parti yang sepenuhnya bersifat tempatan di Sabah dan Sarawak tidak mampu tampil sebagai satu pilihan yang ampuh. Pakatan yang menggabungkan kekuatan parti-parti komponennya adalah satu-satunya pilihan ampuh di kedua-dua negeri.

Masih berat cabaran yang perlu ditempuh Pakatan di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Walaupun kita telah mencapai beberapa kejayaan, kawasan luar landar yang ditakluk politik wang masih menjadi kubu kuat BN.

Masalah lompat parti yang kita lihat berlaku kebelakangan ini di Sabah dan Sarawak juga adalah sebahagian daripada lanskap politik yang perlu diatasi Pakatan.

Tetapi tidak dapat diragui sama sekali bahawa setiap parti dalam Pakatan telah mendapat faedah menerusi kerjasama mereka dan bahawa keputusan yang lebih baik hanya akan dicapai jika kerjasama Pakatan Rakyat dikukuhkan di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Masa depan politik Malaysia dalam PRU14 bergantung pada Sabah dan Sarawak. Itulah nilai cabaran politik yang sedang dihadapi Pakatan.

Sanggupkah Pakatan Rakyat bangkit untuk menyahut cabaran bagi menentukan masa depan bukan saja Sabah dan Sarawak, malah Malaysia secara keseluruhan dalam PRU14?

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/28/can-pakatan-rakyat-rise-to-the-occasion-to-decide-the-political-future-not-only-of-sabah-and-sarawak-but-the-whole-of-malaysia-in-the-14ge/

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 November 2013, 12:27 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


12-Point Strategy as Blueprint for Pakatan Rakyat to capture federal power in Putrajaya in 14GE

Yesterday, I posed the question whether Pakatan Rakyat could rise to the challenge to decide the  political future not only of Sabah and Sarawak but the whole of Malaysia in the 14GE.

In my media statements in the  past four days, I had illustrated with facts and figures that the three Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PKR and PAS had achieved their best parliamentary and state assembly election results not only in peninsular Malaysia but also in Sabah and Sarawak – at one time helming five State Governments in Kelantan, Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Perak – during their tripartite  co-operation in the 1999, 2008 and 2013 General Elections.

Today, in the last of a five-part series, I wish to present  the following 12-point  strategy for Pakatan Rakyat as a blueprint for capturing federal power in Putrajaya in the 14th General Elections.

1.	Full and immediate commitment by all three Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PKR and PAS, whether at national, state or local level, to enhance public support in next four years for Pakatan Rakyat’s quest for federal power in  Putrajaya in 14GE.

All three Pakatan Rakat parties, DAP, PKR and PAS, at all levels whether national, state or local, and embracing all wings, whether national, youth or wanita, should in the next four years, make full, conscious and immediate commitment to enhance and strengthen public confidence and support for Pakatan Rakyat’s quest for federal power in Putrajaya in 14GE.

This should be the common agenda for every DAP, PKR and PAS meeting, whether at national, state or local level, whether national, youth or wanita, in the run up to the 14GE – to increase and maximise not only Pakatan Rakyat’s  electoral and political capability in the quest for federal power in Putrajaya in 14GE but equally important to enhance public support and confidence in such a political objective.

The various DAP State Conventions to be held in the next six weeks, beginning with Negri Sembilan and Penang this weekend, will be excellent occasions to put into practice this first item of the 12-prong strategy for the Blueprint for Pakatan Rakyat to capture federal power in Putrajaya in 14GE.

2.	Ensure as fair of a delimitation exercise as possible

The upcoming electoral delimitation exercise is arguably the most important political development that will shape and influence GE14.

For the first time in history, the delimitation exercise will involve Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia.

Also for the first time in history, the Barisan Nasional will not have a two-thirds  majority in Parliament for it to ram through the delimitation exercise.

In addition, Pakatan has two-thirds control of the state legislatures in Kelantan, Penang and Selangor and more than one-third of seats in the Kedah, Terengganu, Perak and Negeri Sembilan state legislatures.

This means that the number of seats at the federal level and in these states cannot be increased without the support and consent of Pakatan Rakyat.

Pakatan’s challenge then is to ensure that the delimitation exercise is as fair as possible in terms of the apportionment of seats between the different states so that it follows the one-man, one-vote, one-value principle while at the same time, recognizing the unique positions of Sabah and Sarawak.

Equally important is to ensure that the same one-man, one-vote, one value principle is followed within each state for Parliament as well as State Assembly seats.

The most effective mechanism to ensure full transparency in the delimitation exercise is to establish a Parliamentary Select Committee for the Delimitation Exercise.

3.Target the areas which it failed to retain in GE2013

While Pakatan won seven more parliament seats in GE2013 compared to GE2008 (89 compared to 82), we also failed to defend 15 parliament seats which we won in GE2008.

If we had managed to retain all 15 seats, Pakatan would have won 104 seats. This would not have been enough to win power at the federal level but it would have put Pakatan in a much stronger position.

Pakatan’s challenge then is to target the areas which we failed to defend in GE2013. These areas are: Padang Terap, Pendang, Sik, Merbok, Baling and Kulim-Bandar Baharu, all of which are in Kedah; Ketereh, Tanah Merah and Machang in Kelantan; Balik Pulau in Penang; Bagan Serai in Perak; Hulu Selangor and Kuala Selangor in Selangor; and Titiwangsa in KL.

Focused, seat and state centric strategies will be needed to win back these seats.

For example, split-voting will have to be reduced in Ketereh, Tanah Merah and Machang in order for Pakatan to win back these seats. In all three areas, Pakatan’s votes at the state level were more than BN’s but yet Pakatan lost in all three parliament seats.

In Kedah, an effective state opposition, a credible line-up of leaders as a government in waiting and alternative state policies may be needed in order to capture the middle ground and win back the state.

4.Target the marginal BN seats/areas

In addition, Pakatan also needs to target the other BN marginal seats/areas which we failed to win in GE2013. There are 24 parliament seats which the BN won in GE2013 with less than 55% of the popular vote (excluding the above mentioned 15 seats won by PR in GE2008). These include seats such as Cameron Highlands (majority 462), Bentong (majority 379), Sungai Besar (majority 399), Labis (majority 353) and Pasir Gudang (majority 935), all of which were won by BN with less than 1000 votes.

5.	Defend the new seats/areas won in GE2013

Pakatan won 15 new parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia in GE2013. We cannot assume that all of these seats/areas will be successfully defended by Pakatan in GE14. Specific emphasis must be placed on these seats, especially those which were won by small majorities, so that we do not repeat the experience of GE2013 where we failed to defend the number of seats which we won previously. Specific seats that require special attention include Kuala Nerus (majority 610), Sepang (majority 1142) and Batu Pahat (majority 1524).

6.	Defend the marginal PR seats

Just as the BN have their marginal seats, so does PR. PR won 17 parliament seats with less than 55% support (excluding the new seats mentioned above). These seats need to be defended especially Bachok (majority 201) and Bukit Gantang (986). If PR is targeting areas where the BN is weak, one can be sure that the BN will be doing the same in areas where PR is perceived to be vulnerable.

7.	Continue to use the Pakatan governed states as examples of how Pakatan governs differently from BN

One of Pakatan’s biggest assets is the manner in which the state governments have differentiated themselves from the previous BN state governments, notably in Penang and Selangor. Pakatan’s challenge from now until GE14 is to take a further leap in its performance in the Pakatan held states so as to increase the contrast between the BN government and what a Pakatan government would look like at the federal level.

8.	Emphasize rural outreach

There is little doubt that Pakatan won a significant majority of votes in the urban areas in GE2013. What allowed BN to maintain power is their strength/Pakatan’s weakness in the semi-rural and rural areas. Pakatan’s challenge in the lead-up to GE14 is to have a focused rural outreach strategy, especially in the marginal BN seats/areas.

The expected increase in the cost of living as a result of the reduction in subsidies, expected increases in electricity tariff and fuel prices, and the widespread effect of the GST to be implemented in 2015, presents Pakatan with a unique opportunity to relate to the rural voters how the BN government has increased their financial burdens and decreased their disposable income.

Only when the rural voters feel the negative effects of the BN government in their own pockets will a majority of them vote against the BN and support Pakatan. This will have to be one of Pakatan’s main strategies in reaching out to the rural areas.

9.	Have a focused Sabah and Sarawak strategy

The seats mentioned above (both BN and PR marginal seats) are for Peninsular Malaysia only. Pakatan faces different challenges in Sabah and Sarawak and hence, requires a different approach in both states.

Pakatan Rakyat cannot take its new-found support in the urban areas in Sabah and Sarawak for granted. Four out of the 9 parliament seats in Sabah and Sarawak won by Pakatan in GE2013 are marginal seats – Sarikei (Majority 505), Sibu (Majority 2841) and Miri (Majority 1992) in Sarawak and Sandakan (Majority 1008) in Sabah. These seats need to be defended aggressively.

Pakatan also needs to target BN marginal seats. Four parliament seats in Sarawak were won by the BN with less than 55% popular support. One of them, Baram, was only won with a 194-vote majority. In Sabah, BN won 10 parliament seats with less than 55% popular support including Beaufort (Majority 672) and Kota Marudu (Majority 842).

However, unlike Peninsular Malaysia, PR in Sabah and Sarawak has to manage the additional challenge of local parties.

While a majority of voters have shown that they think that Pakatan is more credible as an alternative to BN than local parties, these parties can still act as ‘spoilers’ and take away enough votes to prevent Pakatan from wining some of these seats.

Pakatan will have to find a better way to co-operate with some of these local parties in order at the very least, avoid three-cornered fights, especially in the marginal BN areas.

In terms of rural outreach, the recently launched Impian Sarawak and Impian Sabah programs of bringing in small development projects to the rural areas may provide the template for Pakatan’s rural outreach strategy. If successful, this should be rolled out to as many areas as possible, especially in the marginal BN seats/areas.

The forthcoming 11th Sarawak State Elections will provide an excellent opportunity to put the Sarawak-focused strategy to the test.

The 2011 Sarawak state elections broke new ground for Pakatan, especially in the urban areas and allowed Pakatan to convert these results into parliament seats in GE2013.

The same can occur in the next Sarawak state elections. If Pakatan manages to make significant inroads into the rural areas during the Sarawak state elections, this would put more pressure on the BN and on Taib Mahmud and give Pakatan the advantage leading up to GE14.

10.	Enhance Pakatan cooperation at all levels

Pakatan Rakyat has come a long way in terms of inter-party cooperation since 2008. At the national level, the Pakatan Presidential Council has regular meetings where issues of strategic and national importance are discussed. PR has now passed three alternative budgets and presented its joint manifesto prior to GE2013. PR has also fought in the trenches together in the many by-elections before and after GE2013.

This cooperation needs to be enhanced at all levels, but especially in the frontline states of Johor, Sabah and Sarawak were inter-party cooperation has not had a long history.

Joint statements can be made by Pakatan state leaders on national issues and issues which are important to the particular state. More activities should be conducted on a cross party platform. Each party can leverage on its strengths to open doors for leaders of the other component parties.

At the same time, Pakatan needs to manage the internal disagreements between the component parties at the national as well as the state levels. Mechanisms can be identified at the national and state level to address some of these disagreements and manage them internally before they are blown out of proportion by the media, especially the BN controlled media channels.

11.	Emphasize inter-generational leadership

One of the great strengths of Pakatan is its mixture of experienced leaders and younger leaders both at the state and national levels. This stands in sharp contrast to the leaders in BN, most of whom are of the older generation and thus, more used to a politics-as-usual approach.

Pakatan needs to make full use of this mixture of leaders – both young and old – to enhance the credibility of the coalition. The experienced leaders provide the assurance of a certain amount of continuity and stability while the younger leaders provide and represents the ideas and idealism and dynamism of the younger generation.

If done well, this will be a very potent mixture which the BN will find hard to combat.

12.	Counter the lies and propaganda of BN

One of the most effective weapons used by the BN leading up to GE2013 was the ‘fear’ propaganda that somehow Malays in the country would lose their rights under a Pakatan government.

DAP was used as a bogeyman and its leaders were accused of all sorts of things – from being Communists to wanting to create a Christian state in Malaysia to being anti-Islam and anti-Malay. This propaganda was more obvious in the Malay mainstream media namely Utusan as well as in broadcast television, notably TV3 and RTM.

Pakatan has already begun to fight back against these lies and propaganda spread by the BN, especially through social and online media. But more needs to be done. More creative messages and channels are needed in order to assuage the fears of at least a majority of Malays that their rights and livelihood would not decrease under PR but that their lives would actually be better under a PR government.

Conclusion

If Pakatan can address each of the main challenges outlined above, I am confident that we will be in a good position to capture Putrajaya in GE14 with each party pulling its own weight and enhancing the appeal of Pakatan as a whole.

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/12/09/strategi-12-mata-sebagai-pelan-induk-untuk-pakatan-rakyat-menawan-putrajaya-dalam-pru14/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 November 2013, 8:45 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reform of the civil service: The NUCC is its last hope

– Koon Yew Yin

The Malaysian Insider

November 29, 2013

To say that the newly established National Unity Consultative Council has been greeted with a big yawn by the public is too kind. Feedback so far especially over the uncensored internet has ranged from scepticism – “a political wayang” to the dismissive – “a waste of taxpayers’ money and time” and “expect NUCC to go the way of the 1Malaysia slogan”.

One reader has already predicted that “it will soon be known as the ‘No Use Consultative Council (NUCC)’”.

Part of the reason for the criticism is that among the group appointed to forge a new direction in national unity are some well-known apple polishers who have risen to where they are because of their prowess in flattering the Barisan Nasional.

On the bright side, those appointed could have been much worse – think of what outcome we will have if the Government had appointed Riduan Tee or Awang Selamat.

Another problem is the restricted terms of reference set up for the Council which can discuss only four subject areas – laws, the federal constitution, values and programmes. Why this limitation if not to prevent discussion of sensitive areas is the obvious conclusion to reach.

Include civil service reform in NUCC agenda

For me, if the Council really wants to be taken seriously, it should include the civil service as one of the areas of examination covering all the four topics. There is no doubt that one of the pivotal players in national unity – perhaps the most pivotal – is the civil service. Unlike the politicians of whom there are only a few tens of thousands, the civil service employs over 1.5 million staff.  We have one of the highest if not the highest number of civil servants per capita in the world!  Their actions and decisions extend into every area of life and affect all Malaysians – from the time when the child is in the womb until after he or she dies.

Let me put a question to the NUCC. Is it not clear that the drastic decline in national unity has coincided with an increasingly Malay dominated civil service with the non-Malay bumiputera component, increasingly marginalised and reduced to single digit numbers in terms of their participation in key national ministries and agencies?

It will be revealing if the Government can reveal the racial composition of the civil service today. According to one estimate the proportion of Malays in the civil service had grown from 60% in 1970 to 77% for the year 2005. Today nearly 10 years later what is the proportion of non-Malays in the civil service?

Is it 20%? Is it 15%; or perhaps even less? I am happy to see that the Malays have made big strides in participation in the private sector since 1969. But what about the participation of the non-Malays in the public sector which was promised to by the New Economic Policy?

If the Government had upheld the provision of the NEP calling for restructuring of the civil service to increase non-Malay participation, I am sure that the thousands of racially and religiously sensitive or controversial incidents happening almost on a daily basis nation-wide will be dramatically reduced.

A multi-racial and multi-religious civil service is the cornerstone of a united and social cohesive Malaysia. It is also the cornerstone of social and economic development as it ensures a representative system based more on merit.

Suggestions for NUCC

I would like to propose the following steps to be taken by the NUCC when it meets.

1. Request for data on the civil service racial composition and for the number to be broken down by government department – police; land and district offices; Ministry of Education; public universities; local councils; etc. This should be a time series for the past 20 years so they can see the actual situation in each major sector of the civil service.

2. Undertake a thorough and full evaluation of the implications of the trend towards a mono-ethnic civil service and examine whether this trend is desirable in the interest of national unity and social cohesion as well as national socio-economic development.

3. Make use of policy studies on the civil service and their proposals as a basis for a strategy of reform and to make the civil service more multi-racial. The most relevant one is the paper, Towards a Representative and World Class Civil Service. This was part of the studies in the Centre for Public Policy Studies report, Proposals for the Ninth Malaysia Plan, ASLI, Kuala Lumpur, February 2006. It provides a methodology for recruitment of non-Malays and rebalancing towards a multi-racial civil service which protects existing Malay rights. Members of the NUCC should review the methodology which provides a compromise for a more racially representative civil service that can be accepted by all communities.

Civil Service as the key cog of development

Malaysia’s poor performance is largely due to the inefficient civil service. For any organization, business or government to do well, they must have good people to manage. The government must employ more non Malays and practice meritocracy in the selection and promotion of the employees.

Malaysians know that we started off in the 1960s well ahead of South Korea, Taiwan and on the same level as Singapore. Today, these countries are in a completely different league of development.  The answer to the riddle of why they have moved ahead so quickly is partially due to their civil service. Focused, efficient, based on merit and most of all, united, they have been the engines of growth accounting for the remarkable progress made in their societies.

In contrast, the Malaysian civil service has followed a different trajectory. Unfocussed, inefficient, with merit a secondary factor in recruitment, not representative and hence a dis-unifying factor – it is no surprise that the civil service is a critical blockage to unity and development.

I am confident that the majority of the NUCC members will agree that the present racial composition of the civil service is adversely affecting national unity, social cohesion and economic competitiveness.

I hope the NUCC can rise to the challenge to push for the reform of the country’s civil service which can enable all communities to be represented in reasonable numbers and help Malaysia to rise above race and religion. – November 29, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 November 2013, 12:13 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
nation building
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rashid has virtually confirmed that previous constituency redelineation exercises violated the “one man, one vote, one value” principle and establishing that the Election Commission totally lacks transparency, credibility, integrity and professionalism

The nation must thank Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, the one man with the most experience as Secretary and Chairman of the Election Commission who managed not only six of 13 general elections but responsible for three of the four constituency redelineations in Malaysia, for admitting that the Election Commission has never lived up to its constitutional responsibility of being an independent and non-partisan body but was only an appendage of UMNO/Barisan Nasional to ensure their perpetual hold to political power.

Rashid’s joining of Perkasa is shocking enough, but this is nothing compared to his virtual confession that he had been responsible for the gerrymandering of the parliamentary and state assembly constituencies in three of the four constituency redelineations in the nation’s history.

Justifying his joining Perkasa, Rashid said that power was a numbers game and he could ensure that the Malays remain in power as this was the agenda of three constituency redelineation exercises conducted during his time with the Election Commission.

Rashid has not only confirmed, but become the most notable witness, of the fact that previous constituency redelineations were gerrymandering exercises which violated the “one man, one vote, one value” principle and establishing that the Election Commission totally lacks transparency, credibility, integrity and professionalism.

But these “gerrymandering” exercises were not to ensure that the Malays remain in power but to ensure that UMNO/BN remain in power as they were also directed against Malays not in Umno.

This is best illustrated by the last redelineation exercise which came into force in 2003 and was used for the 2004, 2008 and 2014 general elections.

The Election Commission violated three redelineation guidelines in the 2003 redelineation of constituencies causing further deviation from the “one man, one vote, one value” principle, viz:

Deviation from the redelineation principle that the state in Peninsular Malaysia with the largest number of registered voters is allocated the most number of parliamentary seats;

Interpretation of “rural weightage” to place Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah above the parliamentary quota in peninsular Malaysia for the first time in the history of constituency redelineation; and

Reversal of the process to narrow the disparity in the number of electors among the constituencies started in the 1984 and 1994 redelineation exercises.

In the 2003 constituency redelineation, Johore was allocated six new parliamentary seats. Based on Johore’s allocation (totalling 26 seats) and the Election Commission’s redelineation guideline in previous exercises that the state in Peninsular Malaysia with the largest number of registered voters is allocated the most number of parliamentary seats, a fair and equitable redelineation of the electoral constituencies in 2003 would be to allocate ten new parliamentary seats to Selangor (giving Selangor a total of 27 seats instead of 22) and one new parliamentary seat each for Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah.

This is because Selangor had the most number of registered voters with 1,368,693 voters (an increase of 44.18% from the previous redelineation in 1993) as compared to Johore which was second with 1,223,532 voters (an increase of 24.5%).

Similarly, Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah should be allocated one new parliamentary seat each in view of the 16.2%, 21.76% and 17.4% increase of voters respectively since the last redelineation, as Negri Sembilan and Malacca were allocated one new seat each with 20.04% and 23% increase of voters respectively. Pahang, with 21.39% increase in voters, (less than the 21.76% increase registered by Terengganu), was allocated three new parliamentary seats.

The reason for violating this redelineation guideline that the state in Peninsular Malaysia with the largest number of registered voters is allocated the most number of parliamentary seats is purely political, as giving 10 new parliamentry seats to Selangor would be quite dicey politically for Umno/BN as in the 1999 general election, Umno/BN only secured 53.84% of the total votes cast, losing six state assembly seats to the Opposition.

Giving six new parliamentary seats to Johore, however, is regarded as a “sure bet” for BN/Umno as Johore was regarded as their fortress, with Umno/BN securing 71% of the votes cast in the state in the 1999GE, sweeping all the 20 Parliamentary and 40 State Assembly seats in the State.

Similarly the refusal to allocate additional seats for Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah as warranted by past redelineation practices was purely political, as it was directed againsst PAS to ensure that Umno (and not Malays) is entrenched in power at the federal level.

Very pertinent about the lack of independence and professionalism of the Election Commission in the past redelineation exercise is the statement yesterday by the DAP MP for Serdang, Dr. Ong Kian Ming, who said:

“I was part of an Institute Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa (IKMAS ) study team from UKM looking at the constituency delineation process and I remember distinctly Rashid telling the members of the study team that he had received instructions from then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad not to add any seats in the three northern states and also to create more ethnically ‘mixed’ seats.

“The presumption then was that non-Malays would not vote for the opposition, namely PAS, and having more non-Malay voters in these seats would help the BN.”

Rashid has clearly betrayed the constitutional trust bestowed on him when he was secretary and chairman of the Election Commission and is a living witness why the present batch of Election Commission members should be replaced by a truly independent, impartial and professional Election Commission, who commands the confidence of all political parties and NGOs to conduct the new constituency redelineation in a fair, democratic and unbiased manner.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 November 2013, 6:31 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir should end his game of mischief in trying to demonise Pakatan Rakyat parties and incite racial hatred and conflict

The Malaysian Insider today reported a column in Utusan Malaysia by Tun Dr. Mahathir showing that the former Prime Minister is still up to his game of mischief to demonise Pakatan Rakyat parties and incite racial hatred and conflict in the country.

Mahathir said PAS will never lead Malaysia and even if Pakatan Rakyat captures Putrajaya it will be a junior partner and a DAP puppet.

Before the 13GE, DAP was accused of being a PAS puppet among the Chinese and non-Malay voters while PAS was accused of being a DAP puppet among Malay voters.

It would appear that UMNO/BN leaders and propagandists want Malaysian voters to believe that DAP is puppet to PAS, while PAS is puppet to DAP – thinking that Malaysians can be easily fooled into believing that DAP could be puppet to PAS and PAS puppet to DAP!

This is of course utter nonsense, for DAP is no puppet of PAS just as PAS is no puppet of DAP. Just because UMNO can make the other Barisan Nasional parties its puppet does not mean that this is the operating principle in Pakatan Rakyat as well.

In his column, Mahathir said that PAS had never had any big wins in the general elections, which is another baseless and mischievious propaganda.

In actual fact, PAS scored its biggest win in the 1999 general elections when the Barisan Alternative was formed, as PAS won 27 parliamentary seats as against 10 by DAP and five by PKR. As a result, the PAS President Fadzil Noor was appointed the Parliamentary Opposition Leader.

At the state level, PAS retained the Kelantan State Government and won the Trengganu State Government – another big win by PAS. Countrywide PAS won 98 State Assembly seats as compared to 11 for DAP and 4 for PKR.

I would advise Mahathir to stop his game of mischief with lies and falsehoods to demonise the Pakatan Rakyat parties and to incite racial hatred and conflict.

[
Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Gelang Patah when opening the Forum “Bajet BN – Siapa Untung, Siapa Rugi?” at Century Hotel, Johore Baru on Sunday, 1st December 2013 at 4.30 pm
]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 1 December 2013, 6:03 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Mahathir
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP working the ground to realise Pakatan’s Sabah, Sarawak dreams

by Sheridan Mahavera

The Malaysian Insider

December 02, 2013

Instead of handing out flyers, holding ceramah and spewing propaganda against the ruling Barisan Nasional, DAP is now trying a different tack to win the hearts and minds of voters in rural Sabah and Sarawak.

It is on a building spree. Not highways or electricity grids. But small water systems, (kindergartens and micro-hydro projects) that help improve the lives of remote villages somehow overlooked by BN.

The new venture, called Impian Sabah and Impian Sarawak respectively, aims to break the psychological hold BN has over rural Sabah and Sarawak folk. It is an approach to show that DAP or any opposition party is not the demon that it is made out to be.

By making a real difference in the lives of rural Sabahans and Sarawakians, said DAP assemblyperson for Kapayan Edwin @ Jack Bosi, the party hoped to convince them that it was a party of action and not rhetoric.

But a Sarawak-based academic pointed out the DAP risked playing the same patronage game that Sarawak and Sabah BN had mastered. In the end, its successes could be used against the party in an election.

Building rural and deepening urban networks

This is the brainchild of DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang after the party and its allies in Pakatan Rakyat (PR) failed to make as much inroads as they had hoped to in the two states in the 13th General Election.

Lim, who is now party parliamentary leader, said the coalition has to redouble its efforts to penetrate the rural areas of Sarawak and Sabah.

“Although Sabah is among the richest states in terms of natural resources, it still has the highest poverty rate in the country. Until 2010, 43% of households in Sabah had no access to clean water and 20% did not have electricity.”

The campaign involves identifying villages that need and are willing to allow volunteers come in to provide assistance, said party rural outreach coordinator Tam Kar Lye.

“We identify what they really need like water or electricity and then we do a proposal for the project. After that, we source for funds from either the public or corporate sponsors.”

It has built gravity feed-water systems in two villages in Sarawak since September.

For the Impian Sabah initiative that was launched on November 27, it is also going to build a gravity feed-water system in a village in Kota Marudu and in Tenom.

The initiative relies entirely on volunteers. Not just party activists but non-party people who want to give back to society.

These are people like Zi Xiyang, who got tired of being a keyboard activist and a few months ago, plunged into the wilds of Sarawak to build a gravity feed water-system in a remote Bidayuh village near Bengoh.

“The villagers did not even get compensation after they were moved out to make way for a dam. They lost their native customary rights lands.

“We built ties with the villagers and now, some of the volunteers are helping to organise a fund drive to help them build a community hall,” said the 28-year-old.

Zi is still not a DAP member. But the goodwill that comes out of participating ensures that programme helps the party continue to deepen its appeal among urban youth like him.

To date, DAP has registered 300 volunteers for these projects.

Can’t fight fire with fire

But the initiative is also fraught with risks, said Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) political scientist Dr Faisal Syam Hazis.

He said DAP risks perpetuating the patronage politics of Sarawak BN that has kept the ruling coalition in control of rural Sarawak.

“It is the type of politics that BN is very good at and for which it has unlimited amounts of money. Once they catch on, they will go in and splash more money and projects and say that they are better at serving the people than DAP.”

That has occurred, admits DAP publicity chief Tony Pua. In Impian Sarawak’s third project, the state government came in to finish a water supply system the DAP was building in a village in Betong.

“But it is (state government’s involvement) a good thing, because it spurred the state government to do what it was supposed to in the first place,” said Pua.

Another risk, said Faisal, was that DAP could scare off more Malay and Melanau voters, Sarawak’s third largest ethnic community, by going into the rural areas alone.

“Before the 2011 state elections, there was a decrease in support among Malays towards BN,” says Faisal. But when DAP dominated the urban areas in 2011 and was perceived as being a Chinese party, support dropped.

“In the 2013 general election, support for BN among Malay-Melanaus was at 80%.”

Empowering the rural vote

But it is not just the physical infrastructure that DAP builds in these villagers.

According to Tam, who has been to many of the Impian projects, talks with the villagers after the tools had been put away for the day almost always revolved around politics.

“Many villagers don’t even know that their vote is secret. They have also been conditioned to think that if you vote for the opposition, you won’t get any development.

“Many still think of their elected representatives as their rulers. So we try to educate them that they are, in fact, the real rulers as they hold the votes. It’s part of our programme to empower them.”

It is this mental infrastructure along with the physical one that can alter the rural political landscape.

Faisal said any party that wants to be an alternative to BN in Sabah and Sarawak needs to offer a compelling counter to BN’s narrative of development-for-votes.

“If the projects are complemented with voter education and awareness programmes like teaching them the importance of voting, and differences between party and government, then these projects can have a real impact.”

But for the time being, said Pua, votes were secondary.

“We are there to make a difference in these people’s lives. If the votes don’t come then that’s too bad. But we are content to know that we have helped them.” – December 2, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 2 December 2013, 2:47 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


IGP, What is Seditious in Mariam’s Article?

By Kee Thuan Chye

news.malaysia.msn.com

2nd December 2013

I cannot see a fellow writer being threatened by someone in public authority for what she writes and not stand up for her. I’m therefore saying that the recent warning issued by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to political commentator Mariam Mokhtar against writing articles that could be deemed seditious is highly unwarranted and deserves to be censured.

Now, if the IGP was giving her friendly advice in saying she should not write articles that were seditious, he might have good cause to do so. Even if the articles she has written so far have not proven to be so. But that does not seem to be the tone and tenor of what he said a few days ago.

What makes his remark deserving of censure is what he added: “She had better watch out or we will go after her.” That comes across, undoubtedly, like a threat. And it’s inappropriate coming from someone like the IGP.

I don’t know Mariam personally and have never met her. (Sorry for sounding like Najib Razak talking about a different person – I think you know who.) I also can’t say I’ve read every article she’s written. But those I have do not strike me as being seditious. Certainly not as is spelt out in the Sedition Act.

In fact, her writing impresses me as that of someone who cares about her country and wants it to be better. She criticises wrongdoing by people in power, exposes their foibles and points out the contradictions between what they say and what they do in order to make Malaysians aware of right and wrong.

She provides a much-needed public service by highlighting issues of pressing and immediate concern to Malaysians, giving voice to thoughts that many of her fellow countrymen and women may share but are unable to articulate.

She has written about racial discrimination, social injustice, domestic violence, child abuse, the rise in crime, political scandals, the ‘Allah’ issue, the ineptness of Najib as prime minister, the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the illegal immigrants in Sabah, Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s attempt to muzzle the media, the disservice to the Malaysian electorate done by the Election Commission … and many, many more topics of public interest.

She should not be intimidated for creating awareness and putting issues in perspective. She should not be shut up.

IGP Khalid Abu Bakar is reportedly displeased with her article ‘One ideology, two reactions’ that appeared on the online news website Free Malaysia Today on November 29.

In it, she asked why the Government was willing to welcome home Siti Aishah Abdul Wahab from London when it had been dead against allowing even the ashes of the late Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng to be brought back from Thailand.

After all, Siti Aishah was also a left-winger. She was on the Malaysian police’s ‘wanted’ list in the 1970s for being considered an extremist. When she went to study at the London School of Economics, the police kept her under surveillance. Subsequently, she was allegedly held as a “slave” in London by a Maoist sect for 30 years, until she escaped several weeks ago.

Khalid said Mariam’s article was “highly seditious”.

I have since read it a few times, but I cannot in all honesty find anything in it that is seditious.

Mariam states the facts about Siti Aishah and Chin Peng. She asks a pertinent question: “Malaysians must wonder why Aishah is considered safe but Chin Peng’s ashes are deemed a national threat.” Indeed, that has been in the minds of many people this past week.

She informs us, “The High Commission in London has said that it would extend its full cooperation to reinstate Aishah’s citizenship if she had unknowingly lost her identification papers during her 30-year imprisonment. We are thankful that the global network of the Foreign Ministry is diligent in performing its responsibilities in assisting Malaysians in various parts of the world.”

She asks, again pertinently: “So why can’t the same assistance be made available by the necessary departments in Malaysia to serve the hundreds of thousands of stateless people who were not registered by their poor and uneducated parents? Parents who may be the rural Orang Asli, the interior bound Penan or Indians who live on rubber estates?”

What is wrong with any of that? What is seditious in what she has written?

She also writes: “Wisma Putra, the Women’s Ministry and the IGP are keen to help Aishah. By all means show compassion but make sure that compassion is extended to all Malaysians and not a select few individuals who just happen to be making headlines in the developed world. If Aishah is promised counselling, the same should be given to the traumatised victims at home; the ostracised Penan women and young girls who were raped by timber workers, the family members of people killed in violent incidents like Batangkali, Memali, Kampung Medan and May 13.”

Again, I ask, where is the sedition?

She is asking for social justice and compassion across a wide spectrum. That’s a positive thing. Does that constitute sedition?

So why is the IGP displeased?

And why must he invoke sedition? The Sedition Act has of late become too obvious an instrument being used by the ruling party to bully citizens who speak up because they want things to be better, like cartoonist Zunar, activists Hishamuddin Rais and Haris Ibrahim, student leaders Adam Adli and Safnan Awang.

On the other hand, people like Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali, ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and politician Zulkilfli Noordin and the newspaper Utusan Malaysia that have said things for the worse, like insulting the religions of others or causing hatred between the races, have not received even the slightest ticking off from the authorities. Ironically, what they have said subscribe more to the definition of sedition as spelt out in the Act. And yet they are seemingly immune to prosecution.

So, please, IGP, don’t threaten Mariam with sedition and appear so obviously selective with your targets. Go instead after the people who really commit sedition. Don’t turn this into another farce as you did with your explanation of how policemen lost their guns – that the weapons fell into the sea!

And do learn how to make a critical discourse analysis of a piece of writing so that you don’t see things that are not in it. I arrived at my conclusion that ‘One ideology, two reactions’ is not seditious by using logic and reasoning. What did you use to arrive at yours?

Oh, one last point. The Malaysian police were monitoring Siti Aishah when she was in London. How did they miss the moment when she got ‘enslaved’ by the Maoist sect? And were they unaware of it for 30 years? Can we conclude from this that the police were slack in their work? Or is there more to it than meets the eye?

These are not seditious questions, IGP, so please provide us the answers.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 2 December 2013, 6:26 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.