Tuesday, April 29, 2014


1. Democracy is a great system, perhaps the best system for governing a country ever invented by man.

2. What can be better than a government of the people, by the people, for the people. And most of the developed countries are democratic, obviously benefiting from the system.

3. Does this mean that all countries which are governed democratically will be stable, prosperous and developed? The great democracies of the West seem to think so. Such is their faith in the system that they are willing to kill and destroy in order to promote democracy. They have now decided to bring about regime change in order to democratise the undemocratic countries. If you resist democratisation they will kill you and destroy your country. And so they did in Iraq and are doing so in the Arab countries and elsewhere.

4. It is assumed that the people, or at least the majority of the people would be wise enough to choose the most capable people to rule them. Unfortunately the people do not always choose the most capable. They may be influenced by race, religion, ideology and a host of other factors when electing their governments.

5. They may also choose because of money. In fact in most cases their choices are based on immediate personal gain rather than national interest.

6. Because of all these democracy has often failed to provide countries with good governance. Indeed it may result in dividing the people into parties and groups and pit them against each other.

7. If there are only two parties it is possible for one or the other to achieve a clear majority and to form the Government. But when there are more than two, it is entirely possible for no one party getting a clear majority of the seats in the legislature to form a Government.

8. In a two party system a small majority may weaken the Government due to fear of defection by its members. Only a Government with a big majority can provide stable and effective Governments.

9. As stated above when there are numerous parties it is likely that none would achieve a majority (50%+) to form the Government. A coalition may need to be formed in order to achieve a majority. Such a post-election coalition Government would always be threatened by defections of a coalition partner and so losing the majority. The Government would thus always be weak and unstable.

10. However, a pre-election coalition stands a better chance of winning a good majority especially if the coalition acts as a party fielding only one candidate in each constituency.

11. When this is done and the single coalition candidate is supported by all the coalition members it is likely that he will win. The chances are good for the coalition to win enough seats to form the Government. Such a coalition would be more stable and strong.

12. In Malaysia the Alliance and then the National Front coalitions which at times had as many as 14 parties have won in all the 14 elections held since independence. Such has been the success of the pre-election coalition formula that the opposition parties, despite their deep differences have decided to form their own coalition. The result is that in Malaysia there is now effectively a two-party system operating, It is therefore possible for a majority to be achieved by one or the other coalition in elections.

13. So far so good. But a basic principle in elections is for the loser to accept losing, to accept the result of the polls and wait for the next election. This is what happens in mature democracies. But parties in new democracies seem quite unable to accept losing. They dispute the result and they resort to undemocratic ways to overthrow the elected party or coalition.

14. Democracy upholds the rights of the minority. They must be protected. Therefore they are allowed to show their disappointment at losing in a variety of democratic ways. In Parliament they may stage walkouts when unable to block Government action. They may carry out active campaigning through the media and rallies to discredit the Government. Now they can make use of the alternative media to cause disaffection for the Government.

15. When sometimes they may resort to strikes and demonstrations.

16. All these are still permissible in a democracy. But now the strikes and street demonstrations have become so huge and prolonged as to paralyse the whole country.

17. In a non-democratic totalitarian state such massive demonstrations may be justified as there is no other way to change Governments. But now even when elections can determine changes in Governments, the losers in democratic elections have resorted to these disruptive acts.

18. We see in Egypt, Ukraine and even Thailand the opposition resorting to mass demonstrations in order to overthrow duly elected majority Governments. In Egypt and Ukraine the elected Government have been overthrown. Strangely even when new elections are agreed to by the majority elected Government, the minority opposition would not agree and choose to continue with street demonstrations. They claim the elections would be fraudulent.

19. The net result is continuous instability and sufferings by people and in particular the small businessmen. A situation akin to anarchy would prevail.

20. So far Malaysia has been spared the instability due to massive prolonged street demonstrations. But the signs are already there. Obviously there are Malaysians who would like to bring down the elected Government through demonstrations.

21. The series of Bersih demonstrations are obviously meant to excite public support to discredit the Government and eventually to bring it down. The Government is accused of cheating in previous elections so as to justify rejection of the coming elections should the Government party win. Massive and continuous demonstrations would then be held.

22. So far the numbers in the demonstrations are not big enough to paralyse the country. Though disruptive, the businesses, including the small street stalls have not been stopped. But the hope of the organisers of Bersih must be to attract millions to participate and to be daily affairs so that the usual daily life of the people would be disrupted.

23. A next step may be to occupy Government buildings.

24. The police would be provoked into taking violent actions. International news agencies and their television crew would then record the violence which would be broadcast throughout the world to discredit the majority elected Government. Of course violence on the part of the demonstrators would not be recorded or shown.

25. Malaysians have not responded to the call. Maybe they will in the future and Malaysia would join the ranks of unstable countries incapable of being governed and much less being developed.

26. The world needs to make up its mind. Do we elect Government by voting or do we install Government through street demonstrations?

27. Democracy as we can see is not perfect. But it is by far the best system of Government that we have. But like all systems, abuses can negate the objective.

28. If democracy is to survive and to serve the purpose for which it is devised, there must be some acceptance of the limits to the freedom that we consider democratic.

29. Free speech, free press, demonstrations and strikes must be circumscribed to some degree so that they will not destroy democracies in the name of democracy.

Friday, April 25, 2014

MH 370

1. I am very upset over MAS employees being held hostage in Beijing by the relatives of the passengers of MH 370. I am upset because they are blaming the wrong people. The loss of the plane is due to the makers Boeing.

2. How can Boeing produce a plane that is so easily disabled? Normally it is entirely possible for the crew, the pilots and co-pilots to communicate even with KLIA. Maybe the captain did not want to. But surely the co-pilot would want to inform ground stations that the plane was not flying according to the scheduled route.

3. The passengers may not notice but the co-pilot would. So would the cabin crew. They are all trained to deal with emergencies if not immediately, at least later.

4. But none of them seemed to have tried. It must be because the whole communication system has been disabled. It must take some effort if the pilot tried to disable the system. The co-pilot would notice and for his own life he would have tried to do something. Was he disabled? Were all the crew members and the passengers disabled?

5. The flight of all passenger planes can be tracked even on a personal mobile phone. I can do it on my phone. If the plane landed I can watch it landing and taxiing. I can even get information on any plane anywhere – what make and model, who it belongs to and where it is flying from and its destination.

6. I believe there are equipments on the plane which allows it to be tracked – probably by Global Positioning System.

7. Sophisticated cameras on the spy-satellites operated by some countries can actually photograph a man on the ground and even identify him. Surely the cameras can see and photograph a 63-metre aircraft.

8. But the aircraft disappeared completely. I think on everyone’s mobile it has disappeared. Some equipment on the aircraft must have been disabled. Even the backup must have been disabled.

9. Boeing built this aircraft. Boeing must explain how all these means of tracking the plane can be disabled, can fail. Either Boeing technology is poor or it is not fail-safe. I would not like to fly in Boeing aircraft unless Boeing can explain how all its system can fail or be disabled.

10. Remote control technology is now very sophisticated and powerful. Is it true that Boeing has installed remote control equipment on the aircraft to prevent hijacking? If it did why did it not direct the aircraft to land safely? Is it possible for third parties to take control of the aircraft remotely?

11. When a plane crashes on land or sea there would be debris or oil slick. None has been found so far. Can it be that the plane remained intact on crashing and sank with no trace and no one launching the lifeboat doors as we are told all these aircrafts are equipped with?

12. Can one believe this plane quietly floated down into the raging sea and sank conveniently in the deepest part (7miles deep) of the Indian Ocean?

13. It is standard practice that when a plane crashes, a team of experts would arrive at the scene soonest so as to find the cause of the crash. Boeing and the authorities in the manufacturing country should be looking out for the plane. Maybe the plane type should be grounded. But Boeing has shown no interest and had said practically nothing.

14. MAS has been flying numerous kinds of aircrafts and has a good record. The pilots are well-trained. Even if the pilot wants to commit suicide the co-pilot and the cabin crew would not allow him to do so without trying something. But no one, not even the passengers did anything. Maybe it is because they have been somehow incapacitated.

15. Boeing must answer all these questions. Boeing must demonstrate possible ways for the communications system to be disabled. Boeing must accept responsibility for building an aircraft that can disappear in mid-air so completely.

16. MAS is not at fault, lax security or not. MAS flew a plane fully expecting it to perform the task. But the plane has somehow behaved differently. Who is responsible? Not MAS but certainly the makers of the plane – Boeing Aircraft Corporation.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014


1. Di mana Negara pun akan ada orang yang berkuasa. Mereka berada di berbagai peringkat. Di Negara yang demokratik pun terdapat orang yang berkuasa. Budaya orang Malaysia pula demikian sehingga orang yang berkuasa lebih berkuasa kerana tidak akan ada sesiapa yang akan menegur. Orang yang berkuasa boleh buat apa sahaja termasuk yang tidak dibenar. Hanya jika diadakan pemilihan oleh rakyat atau pengikut barulah ketidakpuasan hati mereka dilahirkan. Walaupun demikian faktor lain sering menenggelamkan faktor salahguna kuasa.

2. Saya mengaku bahawa inilah pengalaman saya semasa menjadi pemimpin yang berkuasa. Jarang terdengar teguran melainkan oleh musuh terutama parti lawan. Dan teguran oleh musuh jarang dapat diterima kerana ini memang sifat mereka. Saya dapati teguran pihak ketiga, pihak yang tidak punyai kepentingan biasanya lebih ikhlas dan perlu ditimbang secara serius.

3. Kebiasaannya ramai yang bersedia untuk menyokong dan memuji apa sahaja yang dilakukan oleh orang yang berkuasa. Sokongan mereka mungkin kerana mereka betul-betul dan ikhlas berpendapat apa yang dilakukan memang baik atau buruk. Tetapi ada juga yang menyokong dan mengiakan apa sahaja kerana ini akan disukai oleh yang berkuasa. Dan ini juga akan meningkat pengaruh mereka dan banyaklah nikmat yang akan dikecapi oleh mereka.

4. Mereka yang dapat mempengaruhi orang yang berkuasa sebenarnya mendapat sedikit dari kuasa itu. Lebih kuat pengaruh lebih banyaklah kuasa yang didapati oleh mereka. Dan ramailah mereka yang cuba mendekati dan mengelilingi seseorang yang berkuasa. Mereka akan cuba pengaruhi pihak yang berkuasa sehingga pendapat mereka sahaja yang diterima. Apabila ini berlaku maka kuasa yang didapati oleh mereka amatlah besar, begitu besar sehingga tiada pendapat atau nasihat lain yang akan diterima.

5. Jika pendapat mereka ini baik dan hanya untuk menjayakan pihak berkuasa tidaklah sukar untuk diterima. Malangnya yang kerap berlaku apabila sahaja seseorang atau sekumpulan orang keliling sudah dapat menguasai fikiran dan tindakan orang yang berkuasa, maka bermulalah usaha untuk memperalatkan orang yang berkuasa untuk kepentingan diri.

6. Ramai akan sedar dan melihat kesan buruk dari orang sekeliling pihak berkuasa. Ramai yang akan bercakap berkenaan perkara ini, Ramai yang tidak senang tentang apa yang sedang berlaku.

7. Tetapi di Malaysia mereka tidak sanggup untuk menasihat pihak berkuasa, takut dimarahi atau dipandang serong.

8. Tanpa teguran yang berani oleh mereka, maka akan lebih buruklah prestasi pihak berkuasa. Kemarahan orang akan meningkat menjadi kebencian.

9. Kita lihat dalam sejarah raja dan orang kuat pun akhirnya dihadapkan dengan tindakan keras dan ganas oleh rakyat untuk menjatuhkan mereka. Inilah yang berlaku kepada beberapa raja dan diktator di Timur Tengah.

10. Rakyat Malaysia belum tahu cara yang ganas. Mereka mungkin mengguna pilihanraya untuk memperbetulkan keadaan.

11. Tetapi janganlah kita terlalu yakin yang mereka terus berlembut.

12. Dalam sejarah raja yang berkuasa mutlak pun tindakan ganas untuk menyatukannya pernah berlaku. Sultan Mahmud dibunuh walau pun tabiat orang Melayu tidak menderhaka kepada raja.

13. Jika hendak berkuasa lama jangan salahguna kuasa yang diberi walaupun ada yang menasihat kita kebal dan segala salahlaku kita tidak akan diketahui dan jika diketahui pun tidak ada yang berani membuat apa-apa.

14. Pembodek diantara penasihat dan orang keliling ialah sebabnya yang berkuasa menyalahguna kuasa sehingga tersingkir.

15. Kuasa membawa kepada korapsi dan kuasa mutlak akan menyebabkan korapsi yang tidak terhad.

16. Bahasa Mat Salleh berbunyi “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

17. Mereka yang pegang kepada perpatah ini akan bertegas elak atau gugurkan sahaja kuasa. Bangsa yang korap dan negara yang terkenal dengan bangsa yang korap tidak mungkin maju, bahkan akan runtuh.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Kassim Ahmad

1. Saya sedih melihat pegawai Jabatan Agama Islam dibantu oleh polis menangkap Kassim Ahmad, 80 tahun.

2. Kita ingin jadi Negara Islam yang sederhana, tidak keterlaluan. Tetapi acara ini memperlihatkan Malaysia, seolah-olah ingin menjadi Negara Islam yang suka mengguna paksaan bagi menentukan orang Islam hidup dalam ketakutan kerana mungkin ditangkap apabila melanggar fatwa pihak berkuasa.

3. Kassim yang tidak sihat, berumur 80 tahun ditangkap, dibawa ke mahkamah, dituduh menghina Islam, dituduh tidak akur kepada fatwa Pejabat Agama Islam dan dikurung sehingga dijamin.

4. Yang menghina agama Islam di Malaysia ramai. Ada orang Islam yang memperlekeh Nabi Muhammad s.a.w, menghina Allah s.w.t, membuat fatwa sendiri, bahkan mengembang ajaran sesat. Tetapi mereka tidak ditangkap. Tegur pun tidak. Tetapi Kassim yang sudah tua, yang berjalan bertongkat dituduh anti-hadis dan ditangkap.

5. Yang anti-hadis ini ramai. Mereka tolak hadis dalam amalan mereka, tidak menurut banyak sunnah Rasul. Mereka tidak berjanggut.

6. Tetapi kita tahu dalam Islam ada dosa besar dan ada dosa kecil. Yang sunnat tidak wajib, tidak berdosa jika ditinggal pun. Islam bukan keras, bukan begitu bengis. Islam agama nasihat, agama sederhana yang tidak bertujuan menjadi beban kepada penganutnya. Islam bukan agama paksaan.

7. Tetapi ada pihak yang tidak puas hati kerana Islam lembut, bertimbangrasa, adil. Mereka ingin menjadi Islam agama yang keras, yang bengis pun.

8. Ada di sebuah Negara Islam di mana yang tidak berjanggut disembelih. Ada yang merejam dengan batu, menembak mati wanita yang dituduh berzina. Tetapi tidak pasangan lelaki mereka. Lelaki boleh berzina, perempuan sahaja yang salah. Al-Quran menghukum kedua-dua. Tetapi ramai orang Islam mengecualikan lelaki.

9. Alhamudillah banyak amalan yang ekstrim ini tidak terdapat di Negara tercinta ini. Namun ada yang hendak lihat ini juga dilaksanakan, diamal di sini.

10. Mereka yang dipertanggungjawab terhadap agama Islam di Negara ini ternampak seolah-olah ingin supaya sunnah Nabi dijadikan lebih tinggi, lebih wajib dari firman Tuhan dalam Al-Quran.

11. Kuasa mudah pergi ke kepala dan kuasa tanpa had akan rasuk akal fikiran. Islam adalah agama yang sederhana yang bertimbangrasa, agama nasihat, yang adil. Kalau ia sudah jadi agama yang keras, zalim dan bengis dan mengutama mazhab lebih daripada ajaran Al-Quran, kerana mudah taksub dengan ajaran pemimpin atau guru maka akan berpecah dan bermusuhlah orang Islam sesama Islam.

12. Saya sedih. Saya sedih kerana Kassim Ahmad umur 80 tahun, bertongkat dan sakit ditangkap dan akan dibicara. Kenapa Kassim? Kenapa tidak orang lain? Wallahuaalam.

Monday, April 14, 2014


1.​We all know what a lobby is. But in the U.S. lobby refers largely to people specialising in influencing the Government through their contacts with the Congressmen and Senators and members of the Government including the President. We don’t have lobbyistsin Malaysia. They would be considered as cronies of the Government.

2.​In the U.S. the lobbyists are paid to work for certain interests. The Cuban lobby at one time lobbied successfully for the U.S. Government to purchase sugar from Cuba. There was also a lobby firm which was hired by Malaysia to influence the U.S. Government not to undermine the tin, rubber and palm oil markets. We were not very successful.

3.​But the most powerful lobby in the U.S. is the AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee). It can reach the President, all members of the American Government and all Congressmen and Senators as well as their staff at any time. This lobby which was responsible for U.S. support for the setting up of Israel and subsequent pro-Israel policies, is so powerful that candidates for President and other offices in the U.S. Government have to literally pledge support for Israel to his lobby or they would lose in elections.

4.​An American Congressman of five terms lost the election after he wrote a book exposing the influence of the Jewish lobby. So powerful is AIPAC that not only does it ensure U.S. support for Israel policies but also U.S. funding of billions of dollars to the Israel Government.

5.​For the U.S. the lobby system is totally democratic as ownership of firearms by all citizens is democratic. Malaysians would never think of condemning this system. For Malaysians, especially the liberal NGOs, and the opposition, everything and anything that is done by the U.S. and the West are regarded as democratic. They would never condemn the US for this blatant fee-based influence-pedalling.

6.​And of course we will agree to the TPPA irrespective of how much the majority of Malaysians are against it.

7.​Clearly while the West condemns us for not allowing freedom of the press and cronyism, the west is blatantly practising censorship and cronyism.

8.​I will not mention other undemocratic practises of the great advocates and crusaders for democracy and clean Government. Tapping phone calls and writing dossiers on their own citizens are now accepted democratic practices in the name of patriotism and national security.

Thursday, April 10, 2014


This is a translation of the earlier posting KESELAMATAN NEGARA

1. During my time as Prime Minister, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were jointly responsible for national security.

2. At times I held the post of Defence Minister while the Deputy Prime Minister is the Home Minister responsible for the police. At times as Prime Minister when I decided to assume the Home Minister portfolio, the Deputy Prime Minister would be appointed Defence Minister. There were only on a few occasions when the situation demanded it, ordinary Ministers were appointed to the Defence portfolio. This is because the issue of national security is of great importance.

3. On Nov 20, 1985, I led a massive private sector delegation to China because I believed there were abundant trade opportunities with China which had then only opened up to external trade participation.

4. I cannot recall Tun Musa (Hitam) coming up to me to ask me not to go to Beijing but he was, with many others, at the airport, to wish me well on my trip to China. Even at that time I cannot recall if he (Musa) had advised me against going abroad.

5. The Memali incident took place on 19 November 1985, a day before I left. In a police operation such as this, a tragedy could happen. In this case four policemen and 16 criminals were killed. Quite a number were wounded.

6. I was very confident in the ability of the Deputy Prime Minister to handle the situation that I appointed him as Acting Prime Minister. It was he who replied to YB Gooi Hock Seng (Bukit Bendera) in the Dewan Rakyat on Nov 20, 1985. YB Gooi had asked for a postponement of the Dewan Rakyat to discuss, the “Perintah Berkurung akibat Pembunuhan di Baling, Kedah” – (Handsard) – (Imposition of Curfew due to the killings in Baling, Kedah).

7. I returned home on Nov 28, 1985. When I was abroad, there were no incidents that could not be handled by the Deputy Prime Minister who was then the Acting Prime Minister.

8. Each portfolio came with its own set of responsibilities. In dealing with crimes, the responsibility was with the police. In terms of making a decision when there is a major threat to national security, the Minister is responsible, at least in endorsing the action to be taken.

9) Tun Musa admitted that it was his responsibility. In the system of Cabinet that we practise, all Cabinet members, especially the Prime Minister bears responsibility.

10) I don’t believe Musa foresaw the loss of lives resulting from his decision. As he had said in his reply to YB Tuan Gooi Hock Seng, “it is the duty and responsibility of the Government to ensure that security of the country exists at all times for the welfare of its citizens and for the overall stability of the country. This, the Government will not compromise…”

11) The issue with regards to me not being in Malaysia when the incident occurred was not spread by me. I did not mention this at all in my book. What is publicly known is that Dato Musa Hitam was the Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister at that time. The Inspector General of Police discussed and reported to him as the Home Minister. The Home Minister is also involved in making the decision on actions that needed to be taken. It is surely unbecoming if when things were going well, only then one admits to the responsibility.

12) It has to be remembered that the policemen were killed before they returned fire. It is very unfortunate that while the deaths of Ibrahim and his followers are remembered and they were even declared as martyrs, the deaths of the members of the security forces are forgotten.

13) Yes, this incident should not have happened. But do we allow it to fester and spread before we act? Look at what is happening to other countries now. Look at what is happening in some other countries now because the police are not allowed to take act effectively.


1. Semasa saya menjadi Perdana Menteri, masalah keselamatan Negara dipikul bersama oleh saya dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri.

2. Adakalanya saya memegang jawatan Menteri Pertahanan dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri memegang jawatan Menteri Dalam Negeri yang bertanggunjawab ke atas Polis. Adakalanya apabila saya tentukan saya sebagai Perdana Menteri akan mengambil tugas Menteri Dalam Negeri, maka Timbalan Perdana Menteri akan dilantik sebagai Menteri Pertahanan. Hanya beberapa kali apabila keadaan mendesak maka jawatan Menteri Pertahanan diberi kepada Menteri biasa. Amalan ini disebabkan soal keselamatan Negara begitu penting.

3. Pada 20 November 1985, saya mengepalai satu rombongan swasta yang amat besar kerana saya anggap terdapat banyak peluang dagangan dengan Negara Cina yang baru sahaja dibuka untuk penyertaan peniaga luar.

4. Saya tidak ingat yang Tun Musa datang berjumpa saya untuk saya tidak pergi ke Beijing tetapi beliau berada di lapangan terbang bersama dengan ramai orang yang ingin ucap selamat pemergian saya ke Cina. Di waktu itu pun saya tidak ingat yang Tun Musa menasihat supaya saya tidak pergi luar negeri.

5. Kejadian peristiwa Memali berlaku pada 19 November 1985, sehari sebelum saya terbang. Memanglah dalam operasi polis seperti ini kemalangan boleh berlaku. 4 anggota polis terbunuh dan 16 penjenayah. Ramai juga yang cedera.

6. Saya begitu yakin yang Timbalan Perdana Menteri dapat menangani keadaan sehingga saya melantik beliau sebagai Pemangku Perdana Menteri. Beliaulah yang menjawab YB Tuan
Gooi Hock Seng (Bukit Bendera) yang telah mohon menangguh mesyuarat Dewan Rakyat pada 20 hb. November 1985 untuk membincang “Perintah Berkurung akibat Pembunuhan di Baling Kedah” (Hansard).

7. Saya kembali ke tanah air pada 28 hb. November 1985. Semasa berada di luar Negara tidak ada apa-apa yang berlaku yang tidak boleh ditangani oleh Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang memangku jawatan Perdana Menteri.

8. Sesuatu jawatan mempunyai tanggungjawabnya. Dari segi tindakan terhadap jenayah tanggungjawab ini dipikul oleh anggota Polis. Dari segi keputusan mengambil tindakan terhadap ancaman keselamatan Negara yang besar Menteri bertanggungjawab, sekurang-kurangnya merestui tindakan.

9. Tun Musa telah akui beliau bertanggungjawab. Dalam sistem kabinet yang kita amalkan semua anggota kabinet, terutama Perdana Menteri bertanggungjawab.

10. Saya tidak fikir Tun Musa telah ramal tentang kehilangan nyawa yang akan berlaku hasil keputusan yang dibuat olehnya. Seperti yang disebut olehnya di waktu menjawab usul oleh YB Tuan Gooi Hock Seng, “adalah menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab Kerajaan untuk mempastikan supaya keselamatan Negara wujud pada setiap masa demi kesejahteraan rakyat jelata dan demi kestabilan Negara pada keseluruhannya. Sebab itulah Kerajaan tidak akan berkompromi………..”

11. Soal peristiwa saya kononnya tidak ada dalam negeri semasa peristiwa berlaku bukan disebar oleh saya. Dalam buku saya pun saya tidak sebut perkara ini. Yang diketahui umum ialah Dato Musa Hitam ialah Menteri Dalam Negeri, disamping menjadi Timbalan Perdana Menteri pada masa itu. Sebagai Menteri Dalam Negeri rundingan dan laporan oleh Ketua Polis Negara dibuat kepadanya. Menteri Dalam Negeri juga terlibat dalam memutuskan tindakan yang diambil. Jika hanya apabila semua berjalan dengan baik pengakuan bertanggungjwab dibuat, tentulah ini kurang manis.

12. Harus diingat bahawa anggota polis dibunuh sebelum polis menembak balas. Amat malang sekali sementara kematian Ibrahim dan pengikutnya diingati, bahkan dilaung sebagai syahid, kematian anggota polis yang menjaga keselamatan kita dilupakan.

13. Ya. Sepatutunya insiden ini tidak berlaku. Tetapi sanggupkah kita membiar sehingga sesuatu itu sudah melarat baharu kita ambil tindakan. Lihatlah keadaan yang sedang berlaku di beberapa Negara sekarang ini kerana polis tidak dibenar bertindak secara berkesan.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014


1. Putrajaya is blooming. The trees along Persiaran Utara and Leboh Sentosa are like sakura trees, sometimes covered with pink and white flowers completely or with some leaves and more flowers.

2. It has never been like this. Perhaps it is because of the dry weather.

3. Unfortunately when it rains the flowers drop. But then the grounds under the trees are covered with pink and white petals, like snow.

4. It will not last long. But hurry to see Putrajaya in springtime.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014


1. During the time when I was leading the Government, I was accused by Western nations, in particular by the Western media of controlling the press. Since retirement I read a lot about the administration of Western countries. The censorship they practise on their press and publication is more stringent than anything we have seen here.

2. The American and Western media and publishers are totally forbidden to say anything unseemly about the Jews and in particular Israel. They may also not report about the unAmerican activities of the Jews in their own country.

3. I read a book on banking, on the setting up of the central banking system, on how the banks finance both sides in the wars of Europe, how they actually manipulate the politicians into going into meaningless wars so they can earn profits from lending the money they created out of thin air. They abuse the financial systems to such an extent that financial crises would plague the countries and even the world every now and again. And when they go bankrupt they force Government’s to borrow money from them to bail out their companies and banks.

4. The creator of the banking system and the setting up of the Federal Reserve System as the central bank of the United States was Rothschild and members of his family. Almost all the other great bankers in the U.S. and European countries were people with clearly Jewish names. Yet throughout the book of 600 over pages there was no mention at all that they were Jews.

5. Why is this so? It is because effectively this fact is not allowed to be mentioned. The Jews of the world demand that nothing bad may be said about Jews. All Western Governments all concur. Any unsavoury reference to the Jews and to their depredations will earn the condemnation not just of the Jews but also of Western Governments as “anti semitic.” In today’s world no one is allowed to be anti-semitic (Incidentally the Arabs are also Semitic people). And the media and publishers must never publish anything that may be considered anti-semitic. If they try they will be censored.

6. One can condemn any race or any nation for anything whether false or true but no one may condemn the Jews. If anyone does that, his statements or his book or article will not be published. Only unknown publishers or the writers themselves may publish. The great bookshops will not sell them.

7. It is clear that there is censorship in the West and it is even more rigid. In fact there are Western countries which have laws to punish anti-semitic utterances.

8. When a British journalist, David Irving, wrote that the number of Jews killed by the German Nazis may not be 6 million but less, he was arrested when he visited Austria, tried and jailed for being anti-semitic. That is the extent of censorship in Europe. Even if you say anything supposedly anti-semitic in another country, you may be jailed by any European country.

9. The West has therefore no right to lecture others about freedom of speech, of the media or of publication. They themselves do not practice what they preach. They are the worst censors in the world.
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