Tuesday, September 29, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. I don’t know whether we should copyright open houses but they are certainly a Malaysian invention.

2. I was gratified to see everyone, Malays, Chinese and Indians congregating at open houses during Hari Raya. They all seem to get along fine with each other. The Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sabahans and Sarawakians all seem to behave like true Malaysians, greeting the Malays with “Selamat Hari Raya” and being thanked by the Malays. Even little Chinese and Indian children were taught by their parents to shake hands and try to say Selamat Hari Raya.

3. It makes we wonder whether the country would not be better off if we don’t have politicians. Of course I am one. But it does seem that it is the politicians who keep on stoking the fires of racism. Left to themselves the people would accept the way of life that has kept Malaysia almost conflict free all these years.

4. Malaysia has different schools for different races. They also live in racial ghettoes, speaking their own languages and promoting their own cultures. Few have friends not from their language groups. They really never get a chance to truly mix with each other. We are truly different from Thailand or Indonesia or the Philippines or indeed any other country in the world.

5. But the religious or racial festivals are celebrated together. We had four days to be together for the Raya. And the open houses would continue for at least one month, giving us a chance to forget racial politics and be just Malaysians. Even leaders of the opposition parties went to the Prime Minister’s residence.

6. Maybe we should have continuous festivals throughout the year. Then we would come together the whole year long to celebrate and get to know each other. Maybe then we would be able to create a bangsa Malaysia.

7. Selamat hari Raya, Kong Hee Fatt Choy, Happy Deepavali and Merry Christmas to everyone.

Monday, September 28, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. There is much talk today regarding the Internal Security Act. Having released people and having detained people under the ISA, I think I know something about this act and its application.

2. Firstly one must remember that it is a preventive law, that is it is to be applied before a crime is committed. The law cannot be applied after the crime is committed. For this there are other laws.

3. Secondly it can be applied only in certain specific cases, as for example when there is a threat to the security of the country.

4. A possible armed uprising or possibility of civil violence would constitute a threat to the security of the country.

5. However it had been used in the past to incarcerate political opponents, as when Aziz Ishak was detained.

6. At this point visitors to this blog are likely to say I did the same. I admit I did detain people under the ISA in the 1987 Ops Lalang. But it was not because they were members of the opposition. The police had informed me that there was likely to be racial clashes over the issue of Chinese education and the intention of some UMNO members to hold a million strong demonstration in K.L.

7. The people detained were not only members of the opposition but included UMNO members. As soon as the threat passed the detainees were all released. The issue was not political opposition to the Government but the threat to national security.

8. I don’t expect this explanation would be accepted by my detractors. But that is normal. Detractors would never admit to being wrong.

9. On the ISA, it seems odd that some who were detained under the ISA supports this preventive laws. I am sure they don’t support abuses of the law though.

9. When the so-called war on terror was launched by Bush and Blair, they did not hesistate to detain so-called suspects without even being sanctioned by any law. They were so critical about our ISA before but not only did they detain thousands of the so-called suspects, they actually tortured the detainees when they felt threats to their security. I will not talk about their invading Iraq and Afghanistan and the killings of thousands of innocent people.

10. The so-called protagonists of human rights were clearly critical when others resort to preventive detention. When they felt threatened they not only detain people but they did this without any law which provides for such act.

11. Just because our critics are hypocrites does not mean that we should retain the ISA. But there is a need for preventive detention in Malaysia simply because without this threat racist extremists would undermine the stability of this country. That extreme racialism can lead to violence is not something we can take lightly. We must value our stability because it has made it possible for this country to develop much faster than other countries.

12. Can the ISA be replaced by a court hearing. In Malaysia courts take a long time to pass judgement; months or even years. By then the violence would have taken place, i.e. the court action would have failed to achieve the prevention that the law is meant for.

13. Still there is need to review the ISA. I don’t think it should be done away with but there must be a clear cut provision as to when it could be used. We cannot have people being detained for three days and then released because the detention was for the detainee’s safety.

14. Perhaps the period should be shortened to one year and the six monthly review be carried out by properly qualified individuals who have the country’s interest heart besides a desire to maintain human rights.

Sunday, September 27, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. I am glad to read the report that the new Prime Minister of Japan, Yukio Hatoyama intends to pursue the proposal for an East Asian Economic Community.

2. I had always felt that the countries of East Asia should speak with one voice when negotiating with the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). If we don’t then the Europeans and the Americans would dominate such negotiations. Obviously they would want to favour themselves to our detriment.

3. This is not about hating the West as someone suggested when I drew attention to a UN Agency proposal to have a special currency to replace the US Dollar for the purpose of trade settlements and reserves. It is simply because unlike other countries the US Dollar is not backed by anything.

4. They used to hold huge quantities of gold in Fort Knox to support their dollar. Today they have neither gold nor foreign exchange reserve to back their dollar. As a result the dollar value has been fluctuating. The only thing that is holding it up is the demand for it for trade payments. Other than that the dollar is nothing but just printed paper.

5. The US has twin deficits and no savings . Where then did the United States get the three trillion dollars to bail out the banks, industrial corporations and insurance companies? The obvious answer is that it got it from thin air. Just print the money.

6. Why is it that the US can print money to bail out companies while others may not do so? Malaysia did not print money when we bailed out our companies. The money came from revenues collected by the Government and loans raised by it.

7. It is not about hating people. It is about not condoning abuses of the monetary system that the proposal is made not to use the US Dollar.

8. Now the Chinese have come out with the same idea about a special currency to replace the dollar. If we think of the huge sums of dollars held by the Chinese, this suggestion would cause them to lose a lot of money. But they must have realised that the money they are holding is pretty useless.

Thursday, September 24, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Saya akui calon yang bersih pun boleh kalah dan calon yang kotor pun boleh menang. Di Bagan Pinang, saya percaya siapa juga yang dilantik sebagai calon, besar kemungkinan dia akan menang.

2. Sudah lupakah kita akan pilihanraya kecil di Permatang Pasir di mana calon Barisan Nasional terdiri daripada seorang peguam yang dikatakan terlibat dengan melesapkan duit pelanggannya dan berbohong berkenaan dengan jumlah isterinya? Kempen BN mudah dipatah oleh parti lawan. Apabila ia kalah ramai yang berkata BN harus selidik dahulu latarbelakang calon. BN tidak harus letak calon yang mempunyai latar belakang yang mudah dijadikan isu oleh parti lawan.

3. Imej UMNO sekarang sudah banyak tercemar dengan politik wang semasa pemilihan Majlis Tertinggi. Boleh dikatakan hampir semua yang dipilih terlibat dengan rasuah.

4. Sesungguhnya orang ramai tidak lagi hormati UMNO. Dan besar kemungkinan mereka tidak akan undi calon UMNO dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke-13.

5. Imej ini boleh diubah jika UMNO secara serius cuba bertindak membersihkan dirinya. Yang rakyat lihat ialah janji akan terus bertindak terhadap yang terlibat dengan penggunaan wang dalam pemilihan Majlis Tertinggi tidak dikotakan. Sebaliknya banyak tanda-tanda yang menunjuk yang kotor diterima juga. Jika yang dipilih sebagai calon di Bagan Pinang tidak bersih maka persepsi rakyat terhadap UMNO sebagai parti rasuah tidak akan berubah. Ia akan mempunyai kesan buruk dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke-13.

6. Memang benar saya disingkir daripada UMNO dan kemudian diterima balik dan dicalonkan dalam Pilihanraya Umum 1974. Tetapi saya tidak disingkir kerana jenayah rasuah. Saya disingkir kerana saya telah suarakan pendapat ramai ahli parti yang tidak senang dengan dasar Presiden ketika itu.

7. Demikian juga beberapa orang ahli Semangat 46 telah diterima balik, dicalon dan ada yang dipilih menjadi menteri. Mereka bukan diambil tindakan disiplin kerana rasuah atau politik wang. Kesalahan mereka bukan satu jenayah. Sebaliknya tindakan mereka disebabkan perbezaan pendapat politik dengan kepimpinan parti.

8. Tidak ada persamaan di antara kes saya dengan kes tindakan tatatertib keatas seorang yang menggunakan wang untuk mendapat jawatan dalam parti.

9. Jika ahli UMNO utamakan orang tertentu lebih daripada parti dan penerimaannya oleh masyarakat, janganlah hairan jika UMNO sekali lagi ditolak dalam pilihanraya umum.

10. Sebenarnya penolakan UMNO dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke-12 disebabkan kebanyakan ahli UMNO terus menyokong pemimpin yang tidak disukai oleh rakyat. Oleh kerana ahli UMNO tidak bertindak menukar pemimpin yang tercemar dengan rasuah dan nepotisme, maka rakyat sebagai pengundi terpaksa bertindak mengalahkan BN dan UMNO di banyak kawasan.

11. Kalau sayang pada parti, janganlah begitu utamakan individu tertentu sehingga imej parti tercemar lagi. Korbankanlah sedikit supaya akhirnya parti dapat dipulih semula.

Sunday, September 20, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
Saya dan isteri saya mengucapkan Selamat Menyambut Hari Raya Aidil Fitri kepada semua pembaca blog ini khasnya dan kepada semua umat Islam di Malaysia.

Saya harap kita dapat menyambutnya dengan meriah tetapi sederhana dan dengan penuh kesyukuran disamping menyedari bahawa ramai dikalangan kita yang tidak berkemampuan.

Kepada yang pulang beraya di kampung, berhati-hatilah di jalanraya dan pandu dengan cermat.

Selamat Hari Raya.

Maaf Zahir dan Batin

Friday, September 18, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. I have been asked again and again by the Press about what I felt regarding the garland of slippers suggested by an MIC member.

2. My reply is that it really is nothing new. As a politician one has to accept this kind of insult.

3. For example after I stepped down Umno leaders vilified me because I criticised Abdullah’s decision on the bridge and other things. I did not complain then and no one openly condemned the Umno leaders for insulting me. They feared that it might displease the Prime Minister. In other words condemning me was acceptable; it was not a sign of disrespect for a so-called elder statesman. Why should it be any different now.

4. Before the 2008 elections I had told a foreign TV station that the MIC would perform badly because of Samy Vellu. And he did. I think I am justified in saying that Samy should retire.

5. In Malaysia a politician can be a total failure but he would never think of resigning. In other countries Ministers would commit suicide if some tragedy happens in their Ministry. But not in Malaysia. Here you can destroy the whole country and you’ll get honorary doctorates for doing so.

6. The MIC should remember that there is not a single constituency with a predominantly Indian population. The MIC, a race-based party cannot contest in any constituency in Malaysia.

7. But to ensure the Indians get a say in the Government the BN had to allocate predominantly Malay constituencies to the MIC and then persuade the Malay voters to support the MIC candidate. The Malay voters did not like it but the Umno leaders had to persuade them.

8. When the MIC does things which would make it difficult for Malay voters to support its candidates, I think it is fair for a Malay to criticise. This could be done quietly by the leaders of BN. Others, including ex-leaders do not have that closed door access. They have to shout out aloud. So I shouted.

9. For almost 50 years the coalition of parties had done well in elections. That was due to their helping each other. But even so each must be generally acceptable. If their leaders forget this, the key success factors would be lost. They would lose.

Thursday, September 17, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Tidaklah penting kita tahu asal-usul kuota dalam pemilihan pemimpin UMNO. Namun demikian izinkan saya cerita sedikit berkenaan latar belakangnya.

2. Pada tahun 1986 Dato (Tun) Musa Hitam, musuh ketat Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah telah berjaya pujuk Tengku bertanding jawatan Presiden UMNO. Beliau sendiri sanggup jadi timbalannya.

3. Seperti biasa bahagian-bahagian (UMNO), dalam mesyuarat telah namakan calon mereka. Hanya 20 peratus menamakan Tengku Razaleigh.

4. Tetapi dalam Mesyuarat Agong Tengku Razaleigh mendapat hampir 50 peratus daripada undi wakil-wakil yang hadir.

5. Tentang bagaimana terdapat kelainan ketara antara bahagian-bahagian dengan wakil-wakil mereka, wallahua’alam.

6. Selepas itu mahkamah telah putuskan bahawa UMNO adalah parti haram. Walaupun UMNO dapat dipulih, sebilangan ahli dan pemimpin UMNO telah berpisah daripada parti untuk menubuh parti serpihan. Ternampak jelas pertandingan untuk jawatan tertinggi boleh memecah dan melemahkan parti.

7. Majlis Tertinggi UMNO, telah bincang kemungkinan perkara ini berlaku lagi dan memutuskan bagi mengelak perwakilan menidakkan keputusan Bahagian, sesiapa yang dicalon oleh Bahagian akan dapat 10 undi bonus.

8. Malangnya apabila Dato Seri Anwar mencabar Tun Ghaffar, entah bagaimana jumlah bahagian yang mencalonkan Anwar begitu tinggi sehingga undi bonus shaja pun boleh kalahkan Ghaffar. Tun Ghaffar terpaksa tarik diri dan Anwar pun naik jadi Timbalan Presiden dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri.

9. Ada sesuatu yang tidak kena yang telah berlaku kerana undi bonus. Nampaknya ada cara untuk menguasai bahagian sehingga perwakilan kehilangan hak mengundi sama sekali. Jelas sistem bonus boleh disalahgunakan.

10. Untuk meringkaskan cerita Majlis Tertinggi UMNO memutuskan untuk mengganti bonus dengan kuota. Jika seseorang calon betul-betul layak maka dia tentu mampu mendapat pencalonan secukupnya dari Bahagian. Bagi jawatan presiden tokoh yang layak perlu mendapat 60 pencalonan oleh Bahagian. Dengan cara ini hanya calon yang buruk, termasuk Presiden yang tidak akan dapat pencalonan yang mencukupi.

11. Malangnya penguasaan parti oleh Presiden yang juga Perdana Menteri amatlah kuat. Dengan cara-cara tertentu Presiden boleh memaksa supaya hanya dia sahaja yang dicalon. Pencabarnya bukan sahaja tidak akan dapat 60 bahagian tetapi dilihat hanya bahagiannya sendiri sahaja yang mencalonnya.

12. Sekali lagi sistem ini gagal untuk membebaskan bahagian dan ahli untuk bertindak mengikut kehendak mereka yang sebenar. Justeru itu memanglah baik sistem kuota ini dihapuskan.

13. Saya berdoa selepas ini penyalahgunaan kuasa oleh Presiden akan dihapuskan dan pencabarnya akan dapat bertanding. Tetapi setakat ini belum ada keputusan tentang cara mana seseorang dapat dicalonkan.

14. Sebenarnya tidak ada sistem yang tidak cacat. Samada sesuatu sistem berkesan atau tidak bergantung kepada pengamalnya. Apabila pengamal dipelbagai peringkat mudah di suap, sistem apa pun tidak akan menghasilkan yang terbaik.

Monday, September 14, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Ada orang politik yang berpendapat jika dapat jadi Presiden parti maka kemenangan mereka dalam pilihanraya terjamin.

2. Justeru itu mereka ini berusaha untuk menentukan kemenangan mereka melalui penyingkiran ahli yang tidak menyokong mereka, mengguna wang untuk membeli sokongan atau mengguna apa-apa kuasa yang ada pada mereka untuk menyogok, menjanji sesuatu kepada yang akan menyokong atau mengugut.

3. Hasilnya mereka menang dalam parti. Tetapi rakyat memerhati segala tindak-tanduk pemimpin dan ahli seperti ini. Apabila rakyat lihat perjuangan parti bukan lagi untuk rakyat; apabila mereka lihat rasuah dan ugutan yang menentukan kepimpinan, maka kepercayaan kepada parti dan pemimpinnya akan terhakis dan mungkin hilang lenyap.

4. Rakyat tidak dapat membuat apa-apa, terutama apabila mulut rakyat tertutup. Demikian juga ahli parti. Tetapi apabila Pilihanraya Umum diadakan maka rakyat sebagai pengundi akan nyatakan kekecewaan mereka.

5. Inilah yang telah berlaku pada Pilihanraya Umum ke 12, 2008.

6. Apakah kekecewaan rakyat disedari oleh pemimpin dan parti-parti politik. Hingga kini tidak ternampak yang parti dan pemimpin sudah betul-betul sedar.

7. Yang merebut jawatan masih merebut dengan penggunaan cara-cara lama. Pembersihan parti tidak juga dilakukan. Pengamal politik wang masih diterima dan diberi tempat.

8. Ahli-ahli biasa parti tidak memprotes sikap lama diteruskan. Bahkan ramai juga ahli yang berpendapat apa salahnya menabur wang. Mereka juga akan dapat sedikit habuan.

9. Apabila ramai rakyat sebagai pengundi sudah benci kepada parti kerana amalan rasuah dan bodoh-sombong, janji pembangunan dan menabur wang tidak akan berkesan lagi. Ingatlah apabila kelebihan undi sedikit sahaja, kehilangan sokongan daripada sebilangan yang kecil rakyat pun boleh sebabkan kekalahan.

Friday, September 11, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan which had ruled the country since World War II has been trounced by the Democratic Party of Japan in the recent election.

2. This follows the trend which many political parties which had struggled and achieved independence had undergone. The Mashumi Party of Indonesia, the Muslim League of Pakistan, the parties which wrested independence for numerous African countries have all but disappeared.

3. It seems as if the people no longer cared for the struggles and the sacrifices that had been made by those parties and their leaders. It seems as if the beneficiaries of these struggles do not know how to be grateful.

4. But is it true that they are ungrateful? There is some truth but if we care to examine we will find that the independence fighters, and their successors, the builders of the countries after independence have changed almost completely.

5. They have almost all become greedy and arrogant. They no longer care for the country or the people.They are almost invariably preoccupied with their status and their selfish needs. They have lost touch with their followers or the descendants of their followers. The spirit which had moved their founders seem no longer to be there.

6. Will UMNO and the BN – the successors of the Alliance which had wrested independence for Malaysia escape the fate that had befallen all these pioneer parties? From present showing it is likely that they would share the same fate.

7. That the rot has set in there can be no doubt. Corruption is now rampant in UMNO and the other component parties. Power struggles have emasculated them. Leaders have a strong desire to stay in office even though they have outlived their usefulness.

8. With such leaders the country and the people have been neglected. In the last decade despite talks of billions of Ringgit being allocated for corridors etc. there is no visible or tangible evidence. There is nothing to show for the 250 billion Ringgit extra that Petronas had paid to the Government.

9. It is strange to find that Malaysia has been outstripped by its neighbours. It is no longer the leading nation in the region. Certainly it is no longer regarded as a model.

10. Malaysia’s voters, especially the Malays have always been strongly loyal. Yet there is evidence that in 2008 many of these loyalists had voted for the opposition. States which had been Barisan Nasional strongholds are now ruled by the opposition.

11. Will the next election see the same phenomenon as in Japan? It is not entirely impossible. The younger voters are said to be disenchanted by the party that won the independence. That was history and it has less meaning for the young.

12. The only thing that would save the BN is the lack-luster performance of the opposition. The alternative is not a real alternative. But if the performance of the BN Government and parties fails to gain confidence, the frustrated voters might just do what the Japanese voters did – dump the party they had supported for more than half a century.

13. It behoves the BN to take notice of the inevitability of the demise of the party which had gained independence for the country. It had staved off the fate before. Can it do so again?

14. In just three years’ time the new elections will be held. Time is obviously running short. Unless some drastic change is shown in the way the country is run and the people are served, the BN will join the other grand old party in the rubbish heap of history.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. For a long time now Malaysians have been questioning why we must use the United States Dollar for international trade, why we cannot use a dinar or any other currency. But Malaysians are not supposed to know anything about money, about finance. So nobody listens.

2. Now it is the United Nations (UN) which is saying that its member countries should agree on the creation of a global reserve bank to issue a new currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, according to Bloomberg reporting on the Geneva -based UN Conference on Trade and Development.

3. The report said that China, Brazil and Russia this year called for a replacement of the Dollar as the main reserve currency after the financial crisis sparked by the collapse of the mortgage market led to the worst global recession since World War II.

4. The United States as the whole world knows is existing on unlimited loans by the rest of the world. US Dollar bonds are bought by every country in the belief that they would represent their reserves. Such bonds seem to be available all the time, unlike bonds issued by other countries which are for specific amounts.

5. If the US Dollar is not used for trade payments and loans, then there would be no demand for it. Obviously this would cause the US Dollar to be devalued. When it is devalued all the countries holding Dollar bonds would lose their reserves very substantially. So the countries with huge Dollar reserves would resist any move that would reduce the value of their reserves.

6. The US itself would resist as devaluation of the US Dollar would make it a very poor country. It cannot then remain the imperial power that it is now.

7. If the US Dollar is not to be used for trade and reserves, what currency should replace it? The Euro and the Yen seems suitable but it is doubtful if either Europe or Japan would want their currencies to be used the way we use the Dollar now.

8. The suggestion that a new currency be issued by a new global reserve bank is very attractive. Some people would like to use gold dinars.

9. The actual name of the currency is not important but backing by gold is important. If the new currency is used only for trade settlements (just as the US Dollar is now used) the proposal would be quite feasible.

10. Whatever, the world needs to discuss this proposal seriously. As the report says, a new currency would help to protect the emerging market from “confidence game” of financial speculation. And Malaysia falls into the category of emerging markets.

11. Maybe Malaysia might embolden itself to champion this proposal. Maybe!

Tuesday, September 8, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
For the Lawyers – The Constitution and Parliament

1. When I asked whether the Constitution or Parliament came first, I just wanted to make certain. But I am sorry that most who answered were not lawyers.

2. According to Tun Suffian in his book “An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia”, the Constitution was promulgated on Merdeka Day, 31st August 1957, i.e. before there was a Parliament. In fact the Constitution created the Parliament.

3. The question which arises is whether it is governed by the Interpretation Acts of 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) which in Part 1 section 2 under Application reads;

2. Application

(1) Subject to this section, Part I of this Act shall apply for the interpretation of and otherwise in relation to –

(a) this Act and all Acts of Parliament enacted after 18th May 1967;

(b) all laws, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act, revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(c) all subsidiary legislation made under this Act and under Acts of Parliament enacted after the commencement of this Act;

(d) all subsidiary legislation, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(e) all subsidiary legislation made after the 31st December 1968, under the laws revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(2) Part 1 shall not aply for the interpretation or otherwise in relation to any written law not enumerated in subsection (1)

(3) Part 1 shall not apply where there is –

(a) expressive provision to the contrary; or

(b) something in the subject or context inconsistent with or repugnant to its application

I hope my question would be answered by a few lawyers at least.


Kasitah Gaddam
(in response to comment by Amiir in KASITAH GADDAM published on Aug 20)


1. My friends cases are not like what happened to Anwar.

2. There was a clear-cut case against him. He was tried in a court of law and he had nine lawyers defending him.

3. He was convicted. He appealed three times. Of the 10 judges involved all except two found him guilty.

4. The two who acquitted him, in a written judgment stated that the prosecution got the date wrong but they also expressed the view that the offence had taken place probably on another day.

Saturday, September 5, 2009


blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Saya berasa amat sedih kerana terdapat ramai daripada Melayu yang terpelajar menolak Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) kononnya DEB menguntungkan hanya segelintir daripada kroni pemimpin Kerajaan terutama semasa saya menjadi Perdana Menteri.

2. Mereka ini cuma nampak beberapa kerat peniaga dan pengusaha Melayu yang berjaya. Pendapat mereka ialah semua yang berjaya tentulah kerana mereka kroni, terutama kroni Perdana Menteri. Kata mereka kejayaan Melayu bergantung bukan kerana apa mereka tahu tetapi siapa mereka tahu. Ayat ini datang daripada kecaman orang tertentu yang asalnya dalam bahasa Inggeris iaitu, “It is not what you know but who you know”, yang memberi kejayaan. Penggunaan ayat ini oleh orang Melayu sendiri membuktikan betapa mudah minda mereka dipengaruhi oleh orang lain supaya mereka sendiri akan memburukkan diri mereka.

3. Sebelum saya bincang samada benar atau tidak benar tuduhan ini, izinkan saya jelas sedikit akan Dasar Ekonomi Baru.

4. Matlamat ringkas DEB ialah:

a. Membasmi kemiskinan tanpa mengira kaum

b. Menghapuskan identifikasi kaum dengan fungsi ekonomi

5. Semasa DEB dilancar kemiskinan dalam Negara adalah lebih daripada 40 peratus. Hari ini kemiskinan telah turun pada lima peratus. Matlamat pertama jelas telah tercapai. Majority daripada yang miskin adalah Melayu dan Bumiputera lain.

6. Bagi matlamat kedua, kejayaan yang terbesar DEB ialah dalam bidang pelajaran. Ramai Bumiputera telah mendapat peluang dalam bidang-bidang profesional sehingga dalam bidang perubatan daripada hanya 8-10 peratus sahaja doktor perubatan yang terdiri daripada Melayu dan Bumiputera, sekarang bahagian mereka berjumlah 40 peratus. Ramai yang menjadi pakar.

7. Demikian juga dalam profesyen lain, pensyarah dan profesor dalam universiti.

8. Jumlah mereka beratus ribu. Apakah mereka yang mendapat pelajaran sehingga ke universiti semuanya daripada keluarga yang kaya yang ada hubungan dengan pemimpin Kerajaan? Apakah mereka mampu mendapat pelajaran ini tanpa DEB? Apakah bagi mereka ini DEB tidak berguna?

9. Berkenaan agihan saham dibawah DEB. Apabila ramai individu Bumiputera mendapat saham dari IPO (Initial Public Offer), semuanya menjual saham dengan serta-merta. Kemudian mereka pohon untuk saham baru.

10. Keuntungan daripada jualan saham dihabis secara hangus.

11. Kerajaan boleh hentikan agihan saham pada Bumiputera. Tetapi ini akan menjadikan syarikat yang tersenarai tidak dimiliki sahamnya oleh Bumiputera sama sekali.

12. Oleh itu ditubuhnya Permodalan Nasional Berhad yang akan membeli saham Bumiputera, memasukkannya dalam unit trust (saham amanah) untuk dijual kepada semua Bumiputera kalaupun mereka boleh labur hanya RM10 sahaja.

13. Melalui sistem amanah saham PNB hari ini lebih lapan juta Bumiputera memiliki saham dalam syarikat-syarikat besar. Diadakan had jumlah yang boleh dimiliki oleh seseorang supaya yang kaya tidak bolot terlalu banyak saham.

14. Tanpa DEB tidak mungkin begitu ramai Bumiputera memiliki saham syarikat-syarikat gergasi. Dapatkah kita tolak DEB kerana hanya menguntungkan kroni sahaja. Tidak adakah orang lain yang juga dapat manfaat.

15. Sekarang berkenaan Bumiputera yang kaya raya. Jumlah mereka sudah beribu. Hampir semua mereka mendapat peluang daripada Kerajaan. Sebab?

16. Sebabnya ialah hanya Kerajaan dan agensi-agensinya sahaja yang memberi peluang kepada mereka. Umpamanya, tidak ada kontraktor Bumiputera yang dapat kontrak daripada orang lain. Kerajaan melayan mereka kerana DEB.

17. Apakah mereka terdiri daripada kroni? Mereka yang berjaya pada mulanya mendapat peluang kecil-kecilan daripada Kerajaan. Jika mereka jual peluang ini, samada kontrak, lesen, AP atau permit lain, mereka tidak akan dapat peluang berkali lagi.

18. Bagi yang tidak jual, yang usaha sendiri dan membuktikan kebolehan mereka memangpun mereka patut diberi lebih banyak lagi peluang. Justeru itu ada yang amat berjaya hingga menjadi jutawan.

19. Apakah mereka kroni? Memang yang berjaya akan dikenali oleh ramai termasuk Perdana Menteri. Kalau nak elak daripada ada yang dianggap sebagai kroni, caranya ialah dengan menentukan tidak ada sesiapapun daripada Bumiputera yang akan berjaya. Ini mudah sahaja. Sesiapa yang Nampak Berjaya jangan bagi kontrak, atau lesen lagi.

20. Walaupun demikian adalah diakui ada yang ditolong secara keterlaluan oleh Menteri. Tetapi jumlah mereka tidak ramai.

21. Apakah kerana penyelewengan yang sedikit ini kita harus tolak DEB? Kata Mat Salleh, “Do you throw out the baby with the water in the wash basin?”

22. Jika kita buat perhitungan yang ikhlas kita akan akui yang DEB memanfaatkan bukan segelintir tetapi berjuta-juta Bumiputera. Amatlah menyedihkan apabila ada Bumiputera yang juga mendapat menfaat dari DEB yang begitu sekali ingin mendapat label “liberal and non-racist” dengan cuba menghapuskan orang sebangsa mendapat peluang dari DEB.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Dear PenyuMenagis (sic)

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
(This entry is in response to PenyuMenagis’ comments to Chedet in SOUND BITES (Hiroshima) published on Aug 12)


1. Your life makes interesting reading and so is your outlook on life. Long ago many poor Chinese gave their children to Malay families, which is why we often see many Malays who look like Chinese.

2. My son married a Chinese. The children are well-behaved and smart. They pray and read the Quran. The mother is very particular regarding their good upbringing.

3. You need not feel insulted being called Si Hitam (black). It is, or was common practice among Malays to give nicknames which seem to be opposite of the appearance of a person. We have many village girls in Kedah nicknamed “Udoh” (from “hodoh” or ugly). They believe that evil spirits would be cheated and leave the pretty one alone.

4. You said that the New Economic Policy will enrich further certain rich Malays. What really happens is that the help and opportunities were given to those able to benefit from them, whether they were rich or poor. When the rich failed no one would take notice. On the otherhand any Malay who succeeded was assumed to be from a rich family eventhough he was not. Worse still he would be regarded as a crony of the Prime Minister.

5. If those who succeed were all from rich families then there must have been a lot of rich Malays before the New Economic Policy. But we know there were only a handful of rich Malays before the NEP. Had there been, there would not have been the anger which led to the May 13, 1969 incident.

6. The only way to satisfy the critics is to ensure that no Malay be allowed to become rich. If we do that then the disparity between Malays and non-Malays would remain or get worse. If that happens then the anger and bitterness of the Malays would render this country unstable.

7. I agree with you that intermarriage would help. But few Chinese would accept conversion. But the Malays will insist on this.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Tun M diserbu rakyat tadi di Suria KLCC

Posted by Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad on Sunday, March 13, 2016