Monday, August 30, 2010

MERITOCRACY

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. I dislike to return to this subject but I need to explain myself.

2. I was prompted to write about the racism in meritocracy because of the reaction to Malay criticisms against the ideas coming out of the Chinese Economic Congress.

3. The leader who made the statement on doing away with quotas etc said that cannot we discuss anything without (the Malays) raising racial issues. He apparently considers his call for meritocracy was not racial.

4. It is racial beause he was advocating taking away the protection afforded by the NEP and quotas from the bumiputras and not from any other race. Obviously he believes that without these protections the bumiputera would lose against the non-bumiputera.

5. As much as giving protection to one race is racial, taking it away from that race so as to benefit another race must also be racial. The suggestion coming as it did from a racially exclusive economic congress must be because it is in the interest of that race. That must be racial even though the demand is for meritocracy.

6. I am not proud of the protection afforded the bumiputera. It implies weakness. I don’t think Malays and other bumiputera like to think that they are inferior in any way.

7. But the reality is that in Malaysia the bumiputeras need new skills and a new culture even. These cannot be had by them in a mere 20 years. The original planners of the NEP were too optimistic.

8. I had suggested merit for university entrance in order to shock the bumiputera into getting serious about their education and their own future. However it did not work.

9. In education whereas there is about 60% bumiputera in the Government universities, there are less than 10% in the private universities. And there are more private universities, university colleges and colleges than there are public (Government) universities. Even the 10% bumiputera are there because of scholarships by MARA. Take the scholarships away and there would be practically none.

10. Why is it that the focus is only on what is done by the Government? If the bumiputera in Government universities should be reduced, then the bumiputera in the private universities should be increased. Or else meritocracy would reduce the number of bumiputeras getting university education. Or is it the intention to deny bumiputeras higher education? They are not the best but they are qualified.

11. It is the same with foreign universities. Because they can afford it there are more non-bumiputera than bumiputera in foreign universities. This must increase the disparities in higher education between different races.

12. Lest I be accused of making unfounded assumption, a proper audit should be done by an impartial team.

13. When I was still PM, the Government decided to allow for private colleges and universities to be set up. They can twin with recognised foreign universities and should issue their diplomas and degrees. The reason for allowing private institutions of higher learning is to reduce cost of tertiary education so that the parents who could not afford to send their children abroad can have access to foreign qualification from local private institutions. You can guess who are the beneficiaries of this Government policy.

14. As for contracts even with the 5% advantage given to bumiputera contractors, many of the Government contracts do not go to them because of their lack of capacity. Even if they do get, non-bumiputera contractors get most of the sub-contracts etc.

15. Actually construction by the private sector is bigger than the public sector. In the private sector the bumiputera contractors get next to nothing. I suppose this is because the private contracts are given based on merit. Or maybe it is not. I don’t know.

16. Take away the minor protection afforded by the NEP and the bumiputera will lose whatever that they may have. Then racial division will be deepened by wealth division. I don’t think this would be good for the country. Remember it was the disparity between rich and poor in Europe which led to the violence of the Communist revolution.

17. I may be labelled a racist but fear of the label will not stop me from working for what I think is the good of the country. Nothing will be gained by dividing the people of Malaysia into poor bumiputera and rich non-bumiputera. The time is not right for disregarding the disparities between the races in the interest of equity and merit.

18. For 46 years this country enjoyed relative stability and consequently good growth. But today the races are more divided than ever. Everyone has become racist, talks about meritocracy notwithstanding. Everyone is thinking about his own race. If I am included it is because I think it is dangerous for the rich to take away what little the poor has.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

IS MERITOCRACY RACIST?

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. In 1964 Malaysia held its first elections. The Tunku had an understanding with the Chief Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kwan Yew that the PAP (People Action Party) would contest only in Singapore and would stay out of the rest of Malaysia. It was really not a smart kind of agreement. It was not put on paper at all. Only an understanding between two leaders.

2. It was not surprising that the PAP decided to contest in the peninsular. Lee had expected the Malaysian Chinese who had been represented in the Government only by the MCA could be persuaded to support him. If he defeated the MCA then the Tunku would replace the MCA with the PAP in the Alliance.

3. The PAP is a Chinese party largely. But it had always projected itself as non-racial. To win in Malaysia he had to appeal to Chinese chauvinism. However he could not do this openly.

4. Being the astute politician that he is, Lee came up with a slogan which did not sound chauvinistic but which played up Chinese sentiments to the core. The slogan was “Malaysian Malaysia”.

5. While appearing to be appealing for all Malaysians the slogan was clearly suggesting that there was no equality between the Chinese and the Malays. He and his party was made out to be fighting for equality between the Chinese and the Malays, whereas the MCA represented only the Chinese towkays.

6. The Malays were alarmed at the prospect of the Peninsular Chinese combining with Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak Chinese to outnumber them. Split as they were between PAS and UMNO, their chances of continuing to dominate Malaysian politics was at risk.

7. Strangely the PAP bid failed against the MCA. But the Tunku was shocked and decided that Singapore’s inclusion in Malaysia posed great danger. One year after the election Singapore was expelled. But the PAP chauvinistic legacy was taken up by the DAP. And the slogan “Malaysian Malaysia” continued to figure in Malaysian politics, evolving into a new catchword, “Meritocracy”. If “Malaysian Malaysia” conjures equality between races, “Meritocracy” implies something stronger. It implies dominance by the race with the greatest merit in every field; in education, in business and in all fields of human endeavour.

8. When the Malays, understanding the implications, protest against meritocracy, they were condemned as racists. Faced with being labelled as such, most Malays dared not support even the NEP. Some, perhaps due to mistaken pride have begun to support meritocracy, undermining the Malay position further.

9. Today we see a lot of Malay NGOs trying to defend the Malay position. Invariably they have been labelled racists. The unfortunate truth is that those who labelled them are equally racists because of their advocacy of meritocracy.

10. It is the same with political party which appeal on the basis of the religion of Islam. In Malaysia the Malays are all Muslims. There are quite a large number of Indian Muslims in Malaysia but they do not figure in the political party said to be Islamic. The party, by using Islam, knows full well they are appealing to Malays almost exclusively. But the intention is not to defend the Malays but merely to gain their support. One can say they are not Malay racists. Rather they are Malay political opportunists.

11. That is why they find no difficulty in switching tactics in order to win the support of the non-Malays. Where before they condemn UMNO for working with non-Muslims, today their co-operation with non-Muslims knows no bounds.

12. The difference between UMNO and the other parties is that UMNO is openly partisan, not hiding its concern for the well-being of the Malays. Unfortunately because of mismanagement it has become weak. That is why today we have Perkasa and other Malay NGOs who are as openly concerned about the Malays as the UMNO once was. The condemnation by those said to be advocating meritocracy is because they see the racism of the meritocrats, just as the Malays of 1964 saw the racism of “Malaysian Malaysia”.

13. What we are seeing today is not a campaign against racism but a campaign by racists against racists. The meritocrats are as much racists as the Malay NGOs, and Perkasa.

14. Incidentally by writing this I know the meritocrat racists will condemn me as racist. So be it.

****

ADAKAH MERITOKRASI BERSIFAT PERKAUMAN?

1. Pada tahun 1964, Malaysia telah mengadakan pilihanraya umum yang pertama. Tunku dan Ketua Menteri Singapura Lee Kwan Yew bersetuju supaya PAP (Parti Tindakan Rakyat – People’s Action Party pimpinan Kwan Yew) hanya bertanding di Singapura dan tidak di mana-mana kawasan di Semenanjung Malaysia. Ianya bukanlah satu perjanjian yang bijak. Tidak pun dimeterai secara rasmi. Hanya persefahaman di antara dua orang pemimpin.

2. Tidak mengejutkan PAP kemudiannya memutus untuk bertanding di Semenanjung. Lee menjangkakan yang kaum Cina Malaysia yang diwakili di dalam Kerajaan oleh parti MCA dapat di galakkan untuk menyokong beliau. Jika MCA Berjaya dikalahkan, Lee percaya Tunku akan gantikan MCA dengan PAP di dalam Perikatan.

3. PAP ialah sebuah parti yang didominasi kaum Cina. Tetapi ia sentiasa mengetengahkan ianya sebagai parti yang tidak berlandaskan kaum. Untuk menang di Malaysia dianya mesti menarik sokongan chauvinis Cina. Ini tidak dapat dilakukan secara terbuka.

4. Sebagai ahli politik yang cekap, Lee memperkenalkan slogan yang tidak terlalu berbaur chauvinis tetapi tetap menyemarakkan sentimen Cina. Slogan tersebut ialah “Malaysian Malaysia”.

5. Sementara ianya ternampak menarik bagi semua rakyat Malaysia, slogan tersebut sebenarnya menarik perhatian kepada tidak adanya kesamarataan antara kaum Cina dan kaum Melayu. Dia dan partinya diketengahkan sebagai memperjuangkan kesamarataan antara Cina dan Melayu, manakala MCA hanya mewakili golongan towkay Cina.

6. Orang Melayu berasa cemas akan kemungkinan penyatuan kaum Cina di Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak akan menyebabkan orang Melayu menjadi kaum minoriti. Perpecahan di antara PAS dan UMNO menyebabkan peluang orang Melayu untuk terus mendominasi politik di Malaysia menghadapi risiko.

7. Yang anehnya PAP gagal dalam cubaannya menentang MCA. Tetapi Tunku amat terkejut dan memutuskan yang penyertaan Singapura di dalam Malaysia membawa bahaya. Setahun selepas pilihanraya, Singapura disingkir. Tetapi legasi chauvinis PAP ini diteruskan oleh DAP. Slogan “Malaysian Malaysia” terus dimainkan di dalam politik Malaysia, dan berubah menjadi satu perkataan yang baru, “Meritokrasi”. Jika “Malaysian Malaysia” membawa makna kesamarataan antara kaum, “Meritokrasi” membawa maksud yang lebih keras. Ianya bererti dominasi oleh sesuatu kaum yang mempunyai merit di dalam setiap lapangan; di dalam pendidikan, perniagaan dan semua lapangan yang diceburi manusia.

8. Apabila orang Melayu, memahami akan akibatnya, mula menentang meritokrasi, mereka dicerca sebagai bersifat perkauman. Kerana tidak mahu dilabel sedemikian, ramai orang Melayu tidak berani menyokong Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Ada sesetengah, mungkin kerana sikap bodoh sombong, mula menyokong meritokrasi dan menekan lagi kedudukan orang Melayu.

9. Hari ini kita lihat banyak NGO Melayu bangkit mempertahankan kedudukan orang Melayu. Dan semestinya mereka ini dilabel sebagai bersifat perkauman. Malang sekali, sebenarnya yang melabel mereka ini juga bersifat perkauman kerana sokongan mereka terhadap meritokrasi.

10. Sama juga dengan parti politik yang meraih sokongan menggunakan agama Islam. Di Malaysia, orang Melayu kesemuanya beragama Islam. Terdapat juga sebilangan besar kaum India Muslim di Malaysia tetapi mereka ini tidak berperanan dalam parti politik yang dikatakan parti Islam ini. Dengan mengguna Islam, parti ini sedar yang ianya hanya untuk menarik secara eksklusif sokongan orang Melayu. Niat mereka hanya untuk meraih sokongan orang Melayu dan bukan untuk mempertahan kedudukan orang Melayu. Mereka ini boleh dikatakan bukan bersifat perkauman pro-Melayu. Tetapi mereka mengambil kesempatan politik ke atas orang Melayu.

11. Itulah juga sebab kenapa mereka tidak punyai masalah menukar taktik untuk menarik sokongan bukan Melayu. Jika dulu mereka mencerca UMNO berkerjasama dengan bukan Islam, hari ini kerjasama mereka dengan bukan Islam tiada batasan.

12. Perbezaan di antara UMNO dan lain-lain parti ialah UMNO secara terang menyebelahi sesuatu pihak, tidak menyembunyi akan perjuangannya untuk kebajikan orang Melayu. Malangnya kerana kelemahan urusan pentadbiran ianya menjadi lemah. Sebab itulah hari ini ada Perkasa dan lain-lain NGO Melayu yang secara terbuka memperjuangkan nasib Melayu sebagaimana UMNO terdahulu. Pencercaan oleh golongan menyokong meritokrasi ialah kerana mereka melihat NGO Melayu bersifat perkauman, sebagaimana orang Melayu pada tahun 1964 melihat sifat perkauman dalam “Malaysian Malaysia”.

13. Yang kita lihat hari ini bukanlah kempen menentang sifat perkauman tetapi kempen oleh pejuang perkauman menentang pejuang perkauman yang lain. Penyokong meritokrasi juga bersifat perkauman sebagaimana NGO Melayu dan Perkasa.

14. Sehubungan itu saya juga akan dicerca sebagai bersifat perkauman oleh pejuang meritokrasi yang bersifat perkauman. Biarkan.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

TONY BLAIR 3

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. I hate to return to this subject but since the Malaysian papers carry no news about Blair, Malaysians generally consider Blair as another great Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

2. Currently the British Government had set up an enquiry commission under Sir John Chilcot to look into the background of Britains war against Iraq.

3. Blair had been called to explain why he supported America in the war against Iraq. He claimed there was “some intelligence evidence about loose links between Al Qaeda and various people in Iraq – it would not be correct to say there is no evidence whatever of linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq”.

4. The former MI5 (Intelligence) Chief, Lady Eliza Manningham Buller, facing the same Chilcot Inquiry revealed that MI5 had sent a memo in March 2002 to the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office (Ministry of Home Affairs) telling him “that Saddam was not likely to use chemical or biological weapons unless he felt the survival of his regime was in doubt”. The memo went on to say, “We assess that Iraqi capability to mount attacks in the United Kingdom is currently limited”.

5. Manningham Buller also told the Chilcot Inquiry that “There was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection (Iraq and Al Qadea) and that was the judgment, I might say, of the CIA”.

6. Blair had told Parliament on 10 April 2002 that “Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also”.

7. To this Manningham Buller said, “We regarded the direct threat from Iraq as low – we didn’t believe he had the capability to do anything in the United Kingdom”.

8. With regard to terrorist attacks in Britain, Blair had told a labour party conference, 26 Sept 2006 – “This terrorism isn’t our fault. We didn’t cause it. It is not the consequence of our foreign policy”.

9. “If I am asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, I believe we are. The world is safer as a result”.

10. To this the former head of MI5 said “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised a generation of young people (in Britain) who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as an attack on Islam. We (MI5) were pretty well swamped – with intelligence on a broad scale that was pretty well more than we could cope with in terms of plots, leads to plots and things that we needed to pursue”.

11. Manningham Buller also asserted that, “We gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before”.

12. The British look down on Blair and forced him to resign because he is an inveterate liar. Some Malaysians think he is the fountain of wisdom!

Monday, August 16, 2010

GORE, WOLFOWITZ AND ANWAR

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. I am merely a Malay Muslim who once led a Third World country. I therefore do not understand democratic politics, the rule of law and justice.

2. And therefore when Anwar the great statesman and my deputy in the Government and the party, challenged me, I charged him with sodomy, beat him up severely and put him in solitary confinement for years.

3. Strangely for this cruel leader, when he was earlier attacked by another deputy who then collaborated with his own political enemy to challenge me in the 1986 elections, they were not charged with sodomy or anything and thrown into jail. One was actually made a special Malaysian representative to the United Nations with Ministerial rank while the other was free to form a splinter party, collaborated with opposition parties and contested against me in 1990 and 1995. This must have been an oversight by me. In fact one of them who supported the move to overthrow me, was actually chosen by me to be Deputy Prime Minister and succeeded me as Prime Minister.

4. Anwar was jailed by the courts for sodomy and abuse of power. But of course Malaysian courts take orders from me when I was Prime Minister.

5. Could it be that his “acquittal” after I stepped down was also due to influence? God knows.

6. And then Anwar was once again charged with sodomy during the time of the PM when he was “acquitted”. It is very unimaginative of the Government of the time to make the same charge. A smart Government would think up of something else more credible.

7. But this was still a brown-skinned Malay Government which just cannot be smart. Or could it be that it was actually the victim of anal rape who decided to tell things as they happened? I would like to say we should wait for the court to decide, but that can take a very long, long time or even never. The delay must be due to Malaysian courts taking orders from the Prime Minister so that Anwar would be able ot challenge the Government Party in the coming election.

8. Whatever, Malaysians must take heed of the advice by the great leaders of the United States of America, a truly democratic country which democratically exercises veto power in the United Nations, ignored the UN on Iraqi invasion, lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, uses bombs and cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells and bombs, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis, arrests and detains just about any Muslim without trial and without benefit of any law, legalised torture of detainees, and supports internationally illegal acts by its allies. Malaysians must never reject the advice of the great leaders of the United States of America, a country dedicated to killing people so they can enjoy democratic rights.

9. Thank you Mr Gore and thank you Mr neocon Wolfowitz, Anwar’s friend, adviser of Bush on the shock and awe invasion of Iraq which now enjoys so much peace and prosperity that thousands are regularly being blown to kingdom come.

10. We the Malay Muslims must democratically choose your bosom pal as leader of our country. After all he has been accused only of doing what you normally do in your great country.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

ISRAELI NUCLEAR BOMB

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Israel has consistently refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. When accused of having nuclear weapons Israel refused to either admit or deny the fact.

2. The international edition of the Guardian (British paper) of 24th May 2010 under the headline, “Revealed : How Israel offered to sell South Africa the bomb” reported that secret document made available to an American researcher Sasha Polakow Suransky, revealed that “in 1975, South Africa’s Defence Minister, P.W. Botha asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Defence Minister, now its President responded by offering them “in three sizes.”

3. This document proves that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel claims that “if” it has nuclear weapon, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be “trusted”.

4. One wonders about Israeli claim to be a responsible power when the whole world knows that Israel very often attack Palestinian villages such as Jenin and the Gaza strip during which bombs, rockets and missiles are used and bulldozers destroy houses while the occupants are still in it. Israel also builds settlements on Palestinian land, completely ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations. It had also built a wall through Palestinian villages, roads through Palestinian land which the Palestinians are not allowed to use, mount road-blocks in Palestinian territory. Are these the acts of a “responsible power” which can be trusted not to misuse nuclear weapons.

5. And lately the attack against the Mavi Marmara and the brutal killing of nine Turkish aid workers in international waters illustrate the kind of that cannot be associated with responsibility for a nation.

Monday, August 9, 2010

TO BE OR NOT TO BE A RACIST

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Recently I had occasion to talk to a group of former state and federal members of the Barisan Nasional.

2. I had extolled on the virtues of the BN coalition type of Government and the achievements under the BN Government at State and Federal levels.

3. Then came question time. Very sensible questions were posed by these ex-YB’s and I managed to answer them reasonably well.

4. Then an ex-MP or State Councillor rose and pointed out that under the Opposition Government he sees more Chinese holding high posts in the Government. The component parties also seem to be working much closer with each other. As an example, PAS women members not only attended the funeral of a Chinese but also helped to fold the paper money usually scattered at Chinese funerals.

5. Why is it that the BN did not give more posts to the Chinese and appoint Chinese Deputy PM and assistants to the state MB’s?
Why is Umno less tolerant of Chinese religious ceremonies?

6. I was startled by this criticism of the BN by an ex-member of the State or Federal BN Government. Do I answer truthfully or do I skip and gloss over things in order not to sound racist? But then in asking the question, isn’t the questioner being racist?

7. After the forum I debated with myself and finally decided that I must give the true reason for the fewer positions given to the Chinese in the BN Governments, and Umno appears to be less accommodating of Chinese religious practices.

8. The NEP has been on now for almost 40 years, far longer than originally planned. Admittedly the Malays had been at fault because they did not make correct use of the opportunities created for them in the NEP. But whatever the reason, the Malays have not gained for themselves the 30% target in corporate ownership even. But more than that if a proper audit is made their wealth is even less than 30% of total wealth of the people of Malaysia. Most of the wealth of the country belongs to the Chinese. It can also be said that the Chinese control the economy of the country.

9. In the political field the Malays appear to be in control. Most of the high posts i.e. PM, MB etc are held by the Malays. If these posts are held by the Chinese, then not only will the economy be under Chinese control but the political arena would also be under the Chinese. What will be the Malay stake in the country?

10. The NEP is about giving the Malays a fair stake in the economy of the country. Should they get this then they should be ready to relinquish a commensurate amount of control in the political field. Since they have not gained a fair share in the economy, then they should be allowed to retain this greater share in politics.
If PAS appears to be more accommodating of Chinese religious practices, it is simply because it wants Chinese votes. Remember at one time PAS condemned Umno for having MCA as a partner. Now PAS is willing to accept DAP as a partner. It is political hypocrisy, not sincere partnership.

11. I am talking about racial issues simply because my questioner raised racial issues. It is said that the poor showing of the BN in 2008 was because the people of Malaysia were sick of racial parties and racial politics. I doubt it. Since 2008 there have been more talks about race than previously. And my questioner has illustrated this amply. Race is still very clearly an issue in Malaysian politics.

12. If PAS is extremely supportive of the Chinese today, it is not because the party has become disaffected with race and religion. It is simply because it wants to play up Chinese racial sentiments in order to win Chinese votes.

13. Hypocrisy is very much alive in Malaysian politics.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

GENOCIDE – THE DESTRUCTION OF AN IDENTITY

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. There is something strange about the behaviour of Israel towards Gaza. Arrogance is of course a part of the Israeli character but beyond that they seem to have a long term plan. On the excuse that rockets had been fired at Israel from Gaza, Israel invaded that strip of Palestinian land, killing 1,400 Gazans, wounding many more and razing to the ground 20,000 homes, over 100 schools, hospitals and other Government buildings.

2. International pressure apparently forced Israel to stop the carnage and to withdraw from Gaza. A kind of peace appeared to have been established and numerous countries pledged billions to rebuild Gaza. After that, news about Gaza ceased to appear in the media and the assumption was that the pledges of aid were being honoured and rebuilding was in progress.

3. After months of silence in terms of media coverage, it was discovered that Israel had blocked aid material and aid workers from entering Gaza. Supported by Egypt, the border between that country and Gaza was closed. The crossing point at Rafah was guarded by Egyptian security personnel and only limited supplies were allowed to pass.

4. Then an NGO group called the Free Gaza Movement sent small boats to Gaza with supplies of food and medicine. Two or three boats got through but after that, of two other boats which tried, one was rammed by an Israeli naval ship, throwing the passengers and supplies into the sea. The other was boarded by Israeli commandos and forced to go to Ashdod port in Israel. The occupants were later released but nothing is known about what happened to the aid supplies.

5. It is clear that Israel with the support of Egypt was carrying out a siege of Gaza. Deprived of medical supplies and exposed in make-shift shelters to the harsh winters, many of the sick and wounded, the old and the small children died.

6. Hearing of the siege, the PGPO (Perdana Global Peace Organisation) of Malaysia suggested that a flotilla of passenger and cargo ships be sent to Gaza. In May 2010 the flotilla set sail but while the boats were still on the high seas, Israeli commandos attacked and killed nine Turkish aid workers on the Mavi Marmara, and injured many others.

7. The boats were forced by the Israeli warships to sail to Ashdod in Israel where the aid workers were detained but were subsequently allowed to make their way back to their own countries.

8. The boats remained at Ashdod. The Israelis reported that they themselves had sent the aid material to Gaza. How much of the material was sent is not known but certainly the Israelis found no weapons of any kind in the cargo carried by the boats. Otherwise they would have invited the world press to show these weapons as proof that the mercy workers were terrorists.

9. Since then Israel has threatened to regard any aid ship from Iran as warships and would attack them, while a Libyan ship with medicine and food is also threatened.

10. Why is Israel doing this? The ships never entered Israeli waters on the way to Gaza and there has been no evidence that weapons were carried. Nor were the people accompanying the cargo in any way connected with “terrorists”. There were old women and babies among the people on the MV Mavi Marmara.

11. But it is not only Gaza that the Israelis have put under siege. All the territories that should be under the so-called Palestinian Authority have also been made inaccessible.

12. When I and my small entourage tried to go to Palestine to see the destroyed village of Jenin and to go to Jerusalem, Israelis manning the border between Jordan and Palestine delayed us for more than two hours and so prevented us from seeing Jenin or going to Jerusalem as we had to leave Palestine by 6.00pm. It seems that Israel does not want visitors to visit Palestine and see what the Israelis are doing to Palestinian land.

13. As is well known, Israeli settlements have been built all over Palestinian territory. In addition roads were built which the Palestinians were not allowed to use. A high wall has been built not to separate Israel from Palestine but to break up the villages of the Palestinians.

14. The Palestinian Authority is an anomaly. The UN in 1948 had divided Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs to create two states – Israel for the Jews and Palestine for the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs were hounded out of Israeli territory through threats of massacre as happened in Deir Yassin.

15. There should therefore be two states on Palestinian land – Israel and Palestine. But after the 6-day war launched by Israel supposedly because it feared attacks by Arab States, much of the Palestinian territory, including Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Israel.

16. Even then after the attacks were stopped there should still be a state of Palestine on the parts not occupied by Israel. Somehow or other the state of Palestine ceased to exist. Instead there was created the Palestinian Authority and the world seem to accept this as a fait accompli.

17. During World War II much of France was occupied by Germany but the state of France continued to exist having its capital in Vichy. There is no reason why the state of Palestine could not exist even if its territory is much diminished. But the fact is that there is now no Palestine but only a Palestinian Authority.

18. With this the state of Palestine ceased to exist. However, despite the many Jewish settlements built on the remaining Palestinian land, despite obvious evidence of Israeli rule over much of Palestine such as Israeli check-points and control of Palestinian borders together with roads through Palestinian land reserved for Israelis, the world still thinks that there is Palestine and Palestinian land.

19. Although there is a Palestinian Authority, it has in fact no authority over any Palestinian land at all. The Israelis are free to do what they like in places said to be under the Palestinian Authority. Even the collection of taxes are done by the Israelis. At one stage the Israelis refused to hand over the taxes they collected to the Palestinian Authority.

20. Democracy was promoted as a solution to the Palestinian issue after Fatah was persuaded to go along with U.S. plans for a peace solution. However when elections were held Fatah lost to Hamas. Despite all the beliefs in democracy, the U.S. supported Israel in not allowing Hamas to form the Government of Palestine. Instead Fatah was recognised as the Government.

21. Frustrated by U.S hypocrisy Hamas set up a government in Gaza. Even though the Hamas Government was denied jurisdiction over all Palestinian territories, there was no way to dislodge its rule in Gaza.

22. The implication is that whereas the Israelis can build settlements and rule the part of Palestine supposedly under the Palestinian Authority, it cannot do the same in Hamas controlled Gaza. Israel must therefore find other ways of bringing Gaza under its control via the Palestinian Authority.

23. The invasion of Gaza by Israel was therefore to be expected. But so brutal was the Israeli war of occupation of Gaza that the world was revolted by it and forced the war to be stopped. But the Israelis were not going to be so easily frustrated. Without regard for its peace undertakings and international law Israel immediately blockaded supplies and contacts with Gaza by the outside world.

24. The strategy appears to be to weaken the resolve and spirit of the Gazans, to render them so physically weak that the next time Israel invaded the strip the Gazans would be incapable of strong resistance. Eventually it would have to surrender. With this the Israelis would be able to build settlements and exercise authority over Gaza as it has done over the other parts of Palestine.

25. If there should be a negotiation for a two-state solution, it is unthinkable that the Israelis would vacate their settlements or subject themselves to rule by a Palestinian state. They would physically be under Israeli rule and de facto if not de jure be a part of Israel. The bits and pieces of the remaining Palestinian land would still be under Israel control. There would be no recognisable Palestinian state. In fact agreements notwithstanding, there would be only Israel occupying the whole of the land once known as Palestine. There would be no Palestinian identity. Palestine and its history would be lost.

26. This is a form of genocide. A whole people will have been made to disappear very much as if they have all been exterminated. The world will forget there even was a Palestine.

27. My fear is that while the world may forget, the Palestinians and their descendents will not. They will always remember. And remembering they will continue their struggle, probably in ways that the world may have to pay a heavy price for. We are seeing some of it now but what we will be seeing would render peace for the world meaningless.

Monday, August 2, 2010

LANGKAWI INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAINBIKE CHALLENGE 2010

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Langkawi will see yet another international sports event from 6th to 8th August. This is not the Le Tour de Langkawi but this time the event, the Langkawi International Mountain Bike Challenge 2010, will be held entirely in Langkawi.

2. There will be participants from 16 countries including Malaysians. Others are from neighbouring Asian countries, Europe as well as from South Africa. It promises to be an exciting race and will be covered fully by the media.

3. I hope Malaysians will not miss this sporting event while enjoying the delights of Langkawi and tax-free shopping as well.

4. Come join the fun!

CABARAN MOUNTAIN BIKEANTARABANGSA LANGKAWI 2010

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. Langkawi sekali lagi akan menjadi tuan rumah kepada satu pertandingan bertaraf antarabangsa dari 6 hingga 8 Ogos. Ia bukanlah pertandingan Le Tour de Langkawi. Kali ini, acaranya ialah Cabaran Mountain Bike Antarabangsa Langkawi 2010, yang akan diadakan sepenuhnya di Langkawi.

2. Peserta-peserta yang bertanding datang dari 16 negara, termasuk peserta Malaysia. Yang lainnya datang dari negara jiran Asia, Eropah termasuk juga dari Afrika Selatan. Acara ini menjanjikan satu pertandingan yang amat menarik dan akan mendapat liputan menyeluruh dari pihak media.

3. Saya berharap rakyat Malaysia tidak akan melepaskan peluang untuk menyaksikan acara sukan ini disamping menikmati keindahan Langkawi serta membeli-belah di kedai bebas cukai.

4. Jangan lepaskan peluang ini!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Pendaftaran Keahlian PARTI PRIBUMI BERSATU MALAYSIA

Deklarasi Rakyat - Citizens Declaration
Part 2/3 Majlis Bicara Negara Bersama Tun M di Hotel Tower Regency, Ipoh

Tun M diserbu rakyat tadi di Suria KLCC

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