Burning Embers of Change in DAP

The Central Executive Committee results have left behind burning embers fanned by strong winds of change indicating internal forces at work to dislodge the Lim dynasty’s iron grip on DAP and bring about real change as espoused by their Ubah slogan.

The Iron Grip is Loosening

Regardless of whatever baloney pro-DAP media may spin, the heart of the matter is that that the delegates have sent a clear message to voice their discontent with Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng. Both of them had the BIGGEST drop in votes compared to the previous elections held in December 2012.

Lim Guan Eng tried to brush off the glaringly reduced number of votes that he received in the re-election today by a feeble proposition that it might be caused by a drop in the number of delegates who voted.

Last year during the CEC elections in Penang, there were 1,823 delegates present. This year, only 1,725 delegates voted. The reduction in attendance is only 5.3% whereas Lim Guan Eng’s drop in votes secured in 17.2%, more than three times HIGHER than the drop in attendance!

In December 2012, Lim Guan Eng garnered 1576 votes but yesterday, he only secured 1304 votes –  a drop of 272 votes or -17.2%, the highest decline of all twenty candidates.

Lim Kit Siang won 1607 votes in 2012 but only received 1436 votes yesterday – a decline of 171 votes or -10.64% decrease, the second highest drop in votes of all twenty candidates.

The fact that 1, 725 voters chose to vote this way instead of endorsing Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng via higher votes is indicative of DAP delegates rising to the clarion call that the Lim Dynasty

must end.

The same pattern persisted for unpopular candidates who have been negatively perceived andthis includes Nga Kor Ming, Tan Kok Wai, and Ngeh Soo Ham.

Name	Jan ’13 Results	Latest results Sept ‘13	Absolute Change	%age Change
Lim Guan Eng	1576	1305	-272 votes	-17.2%
Lim Kit Siang	1607	1436	-171 votes	-10.64%
Nga Kor Ming	1075	956	-119 votes	-11.07%
Tan Kok Wai	1199	1088	-111 votes	-9.26%
Ngeh Soo Ham	824	809	-15   votes	-1.82%
Tony Pua	1162	1158	-4 votes	-0.344%

Conversely, ALL the other 14 candidates, especially those who are overtly not in the Lim camp (with the exception of Zairil) received dramatic increase in votes. Liew Chin Tong received the highest votes (even more than Lim Kit Siang), Chow Kon Yeow (whom many feel should have been Penang CM but was deprived of that position despite seniority because Lim Guan Eng appointed himself as CM before anyone could say anything), Gobind Singh and Teresa Kok).

Name	Jan ’13 Results	Latest results Sept ‘13	Absolute Change	%age Change
Liew Chin Tong	984	1438	+454 votes	+46.138%
Zairil Khir Johari	803	1132	+329 votes	+40.971%
Chow Kon Yeow	986	1203	+217 votes	+22.008%
Gobind Singh Deo	1197	1409	+212 votes	+17.711%
Teresa Kok	925	1127	+202 votes	+21.838%

In terms of popular vote, it is crystal clear that both father and son have lost the popular vote of the candidates. Just as they lambasted Barisan Nasional for having lost the popular vote in GE 13 and should not rule, both father and son MUST STEP DOWN (in accordance to the same standard they set for BN) and let the new echelon of leadership take over. Failure to do likewise, despite the glaring message sent by 1, 725 voters, is akin to Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng hanging on for dear life to their party positions in Draconian fashion.

Rightfully, Liew Chin Tong and Zairil Khir Johari should be at the helm of leadership. Lim Kit Siang was Secretary-General of DAP from 1969 to 1999, which is THIRTY years in total. From 1999 till 2004, he was Chairman of the Party and is now Adviser. Having being in the party since 1966, Lim Kit Siang has been serving DAP for FORTY-SEVEN years and must step down now and let new blood take over.

Similarly, Lim Guan Eng has been Secretary-General since 2004 to the present – three terms and should step down.

Evidently, their cry for UBAH! UBAH! UBAH! has backfired on them for truly, DAP delegates want a change in leadership and if Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng do not step down, they are hypocrites shouting hollow slogans of UBAH – Change when they themselves cannot and will not change!

However, all that change remains a dream for after the CEC election, it’s status quo. The positions assigned do not reflect the type of votes/support each secured.

List of Office-Bearers

Chairman: Karpal Singh (Third term)

Deputy Chair: Tan Kok Wai

Vice-Chair: Chow Kon Yeow, Ariffin Omar, Chong Chieng Jen, M Kula Segaran, Teresa Kok

Sec-Gen: Lim Guan Eng (Third term)

Asst Sec-Gen: Chong Eng, Ngeh Koo Ham, P Ramasamy

Treasurer: Fong Kui Lun

Asst Treasurer: Nga Kor Ming

National Organising Secretary: Loke Siew Fook

Asst Nat Organising Sec: Vincent Wu Him Ven, Thomas Su Keong Siong

National Publicity Secretary: Tony Pua Kiam Wee

Asst Nat Publicity Sec: Teo Nie Ching, Zairil Khir Johari

International Secretary: V Sivakumar

National Political Education Director: Liew Chin Tong

Asst Nat Pol Edu Dir: Dr Boo Cheng Hau

Committee Members: Lim Kit Siang, Dr Tan Seng Giaw, Teng Chang Khim, Leong Ngah Ngah, Jimmy Wong Sze Phin, Edwin Bosi, John Brian Anthony, Gobind Singh

Dr Chen Man Hin reconfirmed as Party Life Advisor

Committees/Bureaus:

Disciplinary Comm: Headed by Tan Kok Wai

Legal Bureau: Headed by Gobind Singh Deo

Pakatan Rakyat Bureau: Headed by Teng Chang Khim

Cultural Bureau: Headed by P Gunasekaran

Labour Bureau: Headed by A. Sivanesan

Election Bureau: Headed by Tan Kok Wai

Dayak Consultative Council: John Brian Anthony

Kadazan Dusun Murut Consultative Council: Edwin Bosi

Guan Eng is serving for his third term as secretary-general and it will be his last because the recently amended constitution bars anybody from holding the post for more than three terms. After this term, we can presume he expects to become party chairman. That be the case, Karpalwill have to make way for him.

However, if you look at the results in the following diagram, we see the increasing popularity and rise of Liew Chin Tong, Zairil, Chow Kon Yeow, Gobind, and Teresa Kok. LGE should make way for new blood to be injected into DAP if he is true to his UBAH maxim.

A burning question remains.

How could DAP afford to hold the meeting at One World Hotel? Why the extravagance splashing money this way and then begging people for funds for the Ubah Sarawak campaign? It is senseless. If someone sponsored, who? Why? Reveal if they are true to their CAT principle. This extravagance is akin to MCA holding elections at Mandarin Oriental Hotel instead ofWisma MCA and UMNO holding their elections in Palace of Golden Horses instead of PWTC. For one of the Gerakan AGMs, eight delegates were assigned to one room in a cheap hotel around KL and ate packed meals. Why condemn the government for spending when they themselves are not practicing what they preach?

If they are so confident in securing the same committee, there is no necessity to lure delegates with a venue that has glam and glitz. Even so, note the drop in attendance!

Malaysians, the awakening should have dawned on you! Wake up! DAP aka Daddy-Anak Party

have shown us their true colours and the delegates have spoken. However, are the DAP warlords listening?

Just as the DAP warlords IGNORED the voice of DAP delegates by reinforcing their own position, they will subtly ignore the needs and concerns of Malaysians to further their selfish motives and agenda.

Do not be fools to be hoodwinked by empty promises. It is a case of Talk Cock by the Tokong with nothing to show in substance. Dispose of the misconception that DAP is doing well in Penang. It is NOT. More negative changes are in store for Penang…time will show who is the chameleon masquerading as a people-centric government.

Those burning embers will implode DAP one day. For all our sakes, let us hope it will be soon!

Major Huan Cheng Guan (K)

No Moral Ground to Preach About Integrity

Media local and abroad have gone to town slamming countries that are regarded as most corrupt in recent survey by Ernst & Young reported in Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013. Most dishearteningly, local media does not seem to have done their homework before writing those reports, some of which were headlined Malaysia one of the most corrupt nations, survey shows or Asia weakest against business fraud, Malaysian firms ready to cut corners. Realistically, the survey is highly flawed and it is shocking those governments and citizens of countries implicated have not taken umbrage to this highly flawed unreliable and unrepresentative report.  Just because an accounting firm released the report does not mean the results are conclusive or valid. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Researchers who conduct any research are often motivated by external factors, such as the desire to be published, advance their careers, receive funding, or seek certain results.

Questionable Research Methodology
Sample Size
Commissioned by EY and carried out by  Asia Risk, The Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey only polled 681 executives, senior managers and working level employees from March to May 2013 across  the Asia-Pacific area including Australia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam. 

The sample size for Malaysia (page 25) was only 103 executives. Can the views of 103 executives be representative of the integrity level of the business environment? How powerful, accurate, and reliable are the views of these elite 103 executives for the report to allege:

… bribery and corrupt practices are prevalent in Malaysia. Thirty-nine percent of respondents say that bribery or corrupt practices happen widely in Malaysia, which is nearly double the Asia-Pacific 
average of 21%. In addition, 29% of respondents say that bribery or corrupt practices have increased due to tough economic times and increased competition, which is the third highest amongst the countries surveyed.

How can such a minute sample of 103 out of a total population of 29.24 million is only 0.0003522571% of the population give Ernst and Young the audacious right to claim the right and authority to sermonize about corruption levels in Malaysia?

Sampling Method
The report makes no mention of the sampling method used to obtain the size of 108 executives. How or why did they select those 103 executives? 
All that is disclosed is that “the polling sample was designed to elicit the views of staff with responsibility for tackling fraud, bribery and compliance matters at multinational corporations, domestic companies and state-owned enterprises across sectors including Oil & Gas, Financial 
Services, Technology, Private Equity, Retail, Hospitality, and Mining & Minerals.
The phrase “the polling sample was designed to elicit the views of staff” undermines the reliability of the miniscule survey because it is a clear declaration that the sampling is flawed from the onset because it was highly probable that it was purposeful sampling designed to reap the intended findings.

Whenever possible, reliable studies MUST use random samples, utilize appropriate sample sizes, avoid biases, and must be conducted by researchers who remain objective and uninfluenced by funding or the desire to seek certain results. Randomization in sampling is critical to ensuring the validity of research. Is this evident in this highly biased research?

Who cares what Ernst and Young says when the report cited:
21% of respondents indicate they are not confident with the company’s existing internal procedures to detect fraud. Only a small portion of those polled considers tools other than the established 
methods. For example, only 12% of the respondents said that the use of technology, such as forensic technology, is a good method of detecting fraud.
Who doesn’t know a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller? Can there be representativeness when unreliability implies greater financial, other interest and prejudice or when the researchers are deliberately out on a chase of statistical significance as in this case?
Research Bias
This Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013 oozes with research bias from start to finish. We can see how the combination of various design, data, analysis, and presentation factors have been manipulated to produce research findings when they should not be produced in the first place.  Look at the methodology and analysis or reporting of findings. Clearly, the report displays selective or distorted reporting which is a typical form of such bias. 
Research Instrument
The report does not disclose the research instrument used. All we can deduce is that the researcher asked therespondents for their “opinions on what efforts are being taken successfully to mitigate those risks. All participants of our survey are employed at corporations with a turnover in excess of USD500 million equivalent and the industries covered range from industrial to financial services, from retail to natural resources.”
Was this done via administered or unadministered questionnaires? Alternatively, was it via structured or unstructured interviews? Were the questions open-ended or closed-ended? Each type has its own advantages and limitations. As it stands, we have no idea whatsoever as to how the survey was conducted.
As if to insult our intelligence, all that is disclosed is the following information (page 25) IF it is meaningful to anyone:

There is absolutely no value in this report. The governments of  countries mentioned and portrayed negatively including Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, China, Indonesia, New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam, must voice take umbrage to such deplorable standards in research and voice their objections to this report which possibly underlies a hidden agenda – be it political or commercial.
As it stands, the whole report is a play with words and a clever use of cosmetics in a feeble attempt to elevate the prestige of the company. In reality, the effort is a disaster. This survey should be thrown out of the window, as it does not attain pure gold standards in research.
With such standards in research, Ernst and Young has no moral ground to preach about corruption to the nations in the Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013.  Chris Fordham, Managing Partner of Ernst & Young’s Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services unit for Asia Pacific, gave the foreword for this research. Having worked on a large number of forensic investigations, and fraud, corruption and anti-money laundering risk consulting engagements, one would have expected him to benchmark higher standards of research and reporting to produce a reputable report that oozes with representativeness, reliability, and validity in results. Why it has turned out otherwise should be of concern not only to the nations in the survey but also to the board of directors and team leaders of Ernst and Young. It is most unprofessional to produce and to circulate such research findings that lack in-depth research that provides findings, which have high standards of integrity, representativeness, reliability, and validity.

DAP CEC: DAP Do Not Trust Ambiga.

The DAP CEC election has been filled with controversy, to the extent that it has affected the party credibility. Now, the members are focusing fully on the re-election that will be held on the 29th of September.

However, the public believe that the DAP election will not be done transparently and without any fraud. The doubt originates from the current development that shows that the action of DAP leaders is truly mind boggling.

People are getting sick of the DAP leaders, some of the delegates shows that they are being left out of the special meeting that was allegedly held to discuss the re-election. This meeting was never before held in the history of DAP. DAP leaders chose specific people to be elected and this particular action angers most of the DAP members who are not included.

            What’s puzzling is that, even though the issue is getting bigger to the extent that they were forced to hold a re-election, the party did not even investigate why 753 delegates did not receive any notice for the previous meeting. DAP leaders are trying to justify the absence of 753 delegates in the early election. In other words, DAP leaders did not admit their mistakes.

            They are trying to lie to the people by saying that 500 delegates had already sent a note saying that they could not come to the meetings. The DAP has yet to show to the public any of the notes.

            DAP Vice Chairman for the constituency of Ladang Paroi, David Dass, has asked for an injunction from the court so that they can stop the election before it is held again for the second time.

            Clearly it shows that DAP members do not trust the DAP to held the re-election they are seen as fail to held a clean and fair election.

            Thus, many people suggested that the DAP must appoint BERSIH to look into the re-election. Ambiga Sreevanesan, who were obsessed with clean election have to be ready to lead the surveillances unit, plus, she must understand that those who were side-lined were from her own race.

Ambiga should make sure that there are no racist elements in the re-election in the DAP CEC.

Because of racism, DAP do not trust Ambiga to put her in a position where she can look into the CEC. DAP are willing to pay an international company (PKF Accountants and Business Advisers) to look into the CEC re-election process. The company is responsible to ensure that the counting of the votes for 2,576 delegates who are eligible to vote. The vote count will be made manually and also by a cross checking computer software.

The action of using an audit company is a drastic change for the party that is seen as a way to return the faith to the party among its members. However, it is seen as a desperate move and it is a sign that the DAP’s credibility has been destroyed completely.

Just imagine, to count 2,576 votes, the DAP party have been surveillances by an international audit firm. In the same time the DAP accused that the Malaysian government hold an unclean election. Ironically, DAP leaders who are not even trusted by its people are being celebrated for their roles in BERSIH.

It seems that, they do not trust each other even though they are always working side by side and seems to be in the same zone as one another. It is true what they say about liars, a liar knows another liar, and they could not bear to trust their comrades even when they are in the same boat.

UMNO Vs PKR: Who is losing their edge?

PKR Deputy President, N Surendran was urged to look into a mirror before making such claim regarding UMNO. He made a statement saying that UMNO has lost their edge and the lack of credible leaders seems reflecting to him and his own PKR party.

Surendran said that in the current BN condition, after suffering a significant decline on the amount of votes and failed to recapture Selangor in the last 13th General Election, UMNO seems to be in a daze as they are heading towards a much more humiliating defeat in the next general election. More over when everyone in UMNO are refusing to admit that the weakness comes because of their inability to challenge the top post in UMNO today.

According to Surendran, this is the prove that UMNO is lacking credible leaders to replace the weak leadership of the current administration.

Surendran forgets that BN maybe in its worst state in the GE ever, but for UMNO, the increase of votes is certainly something worth noting. Thus, it is not fair to put the blame on what had happened in the last General Election is because of UMNO leaders. What is happening in the last PRU, is because of the racial slurs that is played too often by irresponsible parties which made 100% of the Chinese opposes Barisan Nasional.

As the leader of all of BN component parties, an UMNO leader holds dearly in the spirit of friendship and responsibility to safeguard the harmony of the people. Because of that, UMNO leaders cannot promise any special treatment with any race without taking into account the benefits of the other.
However, this is what the opposition are promising the country, the Chinese Supremacy for Chinese community, without taking into consideration the effect to this country and its diverse races. It is not shocking to see if almost all of the Chinese voted for the opposition in the last general election.

The truth is, any promise that has been brought on the table by the opposition is irresponsible because it only move us towards instability and maybe even destruction.

For Pakatan Rakyat leaders, to promise something that will eventually bring destruction to the nation, and this proves they are not even good citizen how come they can be a good leader of this country. PR also does not have a new generation of leaders that they can hope for in the future. All of PR members are copycats of their predecessor.

PR is actually having problems regarding the extinction of good leaders. The problem starts from the extreme nepotism that they practice. Father, mother, sons, daughters, in-laws and close friends are those who are eligible to gain access to high position in both of the parties. The results, Pakatan Rakyat are not moving forward and they cannot change even if they have existed a few decades now.
Different from UMNO, a leader come and goes. Leaders can be criticized by any of their members. Some were prosecuted and some were found guilty. Plus when there are party leaders who looks weak, even though at the helm of the party, is not excluded from being forced to leave their post.
This only happens because UMNO is strong enough so that the leadership can be changed anytime. It also proves that UMNO never had any problem to find a successor.
The same thing cannot be seen in Pakatan Rakyat. PKR is not the same without Anwar Ibrahim, DAP will be hollowed without or PAS with the absence of Nik Aziz and Hadi Awang. In short, these parties cannot change without destroying their identities.

Thus, the lack of new leaders is suffered by Pakatan Rakyat and not UMNO. Surendran must look into the mirror first before telling lies to the people of Malaysia.

Dr M: Pros and cons to regional currency

There are pros and cons to a regional currency said former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in an interview conducted after a seminar on "Assessing Asean Readiness by Country" in Thailand last week.
Here are excerpts from the inteview:

Q: Apart from Singapore and Malaysia, which are ready for the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015, how do we handle the rest? I think Indonesia, the Philippines are in good condition, not too bad. I'm not sure about Thailand. You can tell me about Thailand. What about the rest, how do they get ready?

A: Among the things we want to do is to remove our import duties between ASEAN countries. Whereas some countries like Singapore, even Malaysia, do not depend on import duties for their revenue but the other countries still depend a lot on import duties. Maybe Indonesia might have some oil but still (depends on import duties). If they allow free flow to the country, the goods they produce, motorcars they produce, cannot compete with the cars from a country where it's much better developed.
Thailand, for example, exports more than a million cars and of course, Malaysia tries to produce its own cars. If we import Thailand's cars into Malaysia, of course it would be cheaper than our national cars.

So we should take into consideration the strength and weakness of each member country and make allowances for these countries to retain their import duties, allow them some exclusivity on certain areas including among professions, things like that including studying the impact of the currency rate.

I propose that we should have a trading currency, purely for trading, but you retain your own national currency. We have to study carefully otherwise we might fall into a trap like the Europeans allowed themselves to be trapped in.

Q: Trading currency means you're talking about the currency of not the US dollar or euro or the yuan of China. What do have in mind?

A: A special currency which is particular for ASEAN or East Asia that is based on gold.

Q: But the gold price goes up and down every day.


A: Not as bad as the US dollar. The US dollar was 35 per one ounce of gold previously. Today it is 1,000-odd dollars per ounce of gold.

Q: You sound like you are jealous of Thailand in the automobile industry. You went your own way to build your national car. Thailand decided on a different direction, inviting outsiders to come and assemble their cars here. Now, would you confess that you made a mistake on the national car and that Thailand made a successful strategy?

A:When we proposed our national car, Thailand had gone far beyond us in terms of manufacturing cars. Thailand is adopting the strategy of assembling cars and when we give Thailand the right to call this as a national car, if they have 40-per-cent local content, we have 90-per-cent local content, so because of that our cars do not sell very well.

Yes, we export some cars to Thailand but a lot of cars built in Thailand are imported to Malaysia because they are cheaper. If they are imported from Japan, they cannot compete with our cars. It's not a question of being jealous. We are happy that Thailand is richer now. Because, we have the belief in the prosperity of our neighbours. We want our neighbour to prosper, because when they prosper, they create less problems for us and they become very good markets for our exports.

Q: I'm sure we also want our neighbour to be prosperous. Now what exactly should we do now, 2015 is very close. Otherwise, as you suggested, we might fall in the EU trap and we might fail, but we cannot afford to fail, as we are poorer than many countries in the world. For example if you look at Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, how can these poorer countries cope with 2015?

A: Firstly, we need to study the reason why the European Union went into a crisis. If we understand that then we can avoid what caused them to fail. One particular thing I want to point out is the use of a common currency, not only for trading but also for domestic use. Now if you are selling in baht, the baht is one-tenth of the ringgit. We name our price in ringgit, that about 10 times (the value) of the baht, but when you convert into a common currency, what is the rate?

The Europeans did not consider the varying value so when they convert their national currencies into the common currency, the prices (of goods and services) shot up. You see, the euro is stronger than the peso in Spain or the currency in Greece and Portugal, so the price (of goods and services) is coming up and when the price comes up tourists do not come. The prices of things you export become expensive. So you lose competitiveness.

So we must understand this before we come together in a single community. We must understand what happened to Europe and avoid the mistake they made. We have to understand the reality and position of the countries when we come together - which one is poor, which one is rich. What is the cause of poverty and other things. And then, we formulate a structure for the AEC that tries to avoid all the problems that may arise in the future.

Q: What will happen if they proceed with the original schedule in 2015?


A: I think some countries might find this very difficult for themselves.

Q: Will they be like Greece or Turkey?


A:If they stay out, they might be like Turkey but if they go in, they might be like Greece, which is bankrupt (laughs).

Q:So it is equally bad?

A: No, I think we should come together but we should make allowances for Myanmar, for Laos, for Cambodia. We should know why their economies are not developing as fast. We should have more investment from other ASEAN countries. We should allow them to protect their economies to a certain extent. Maybe if the tariff is 10 per cent, 20 per cent - we reduced it - but not to zero, while the others are reduced to zero. So consideration should be given to the level of economic development of these three countries.

Q: But, I have not heard from Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, that they are not ready. They said they are ready. Why are you concerned for them?

A: I'm concerned to see the ASEAN success when they become a community.

Q: You are over-concerned?

A: Perhaps, as I'm no longer in authority, nor power.

Q:If you were still prime minister of Malaysia, would you not say it like this?

I would say this and I would try to do something about this. Now I cannot do anything. All I can do is talk.


Q: That's good enough, have you talked to your prime minister?

A:He is busy with a lot of things, which affect him domestically and internationally. As you know we are going to sign the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) - that is very disastrous.

Q:You don't agree with that because it is an American product?

A: Yes, it is designed by them and the people who designed this, they do it only for their own good, not for you.

Q: You are still anti-America?

No, I have a lot of American friends but I don't like their policy. We can be good friends but their policies are not good for us and the rest of the world.

Q: So do you think Obama should bomb Syria?

A: That's one thing I very much oppose. I told the students at Thammasat University that if you bomb people, kill people, you are a terrorist. Whether you are a state or individual, if you go to kill people who are innocent you are a terrorist. So you cannot define a group of people as terrorists. There is also state terrorism.

Q: So you think Putin is right?

A:I think so, because even Obama accepts that idea.

Q: How do you see American policy to Asia, moving their navy from the Atlantic to the Pacific? How do you see the confrontation between the US and China in Asia?

A:I don't like this at all. We have been trading with China for almost 2,000 years. China was very big and was a most developed country in the past. They could have conquered, but they didn't. They came and lived in Malaysia but they didn't conquer us. The Europeans came in 1509, they came to Malacca. Two years later, they came with a fleet and conquered us.

I'm more worried about the European attitude than the Chinese attitude, and I don't want to be involved in any confrontation with China.

China is a good trading nation, 1.4 billion people and I used to say that if 1.4 billion people take one spoonful of palm oil a day, we will become very rich.

Q: So can I say you're pro-China, anti-America and anti-Europe?

A: Well, I'm not pro-China but I have no problem with China. Well, there is a little problem in the South China Sea but I don't like American policy. It's only talking about war, regime change and conquest.

These things cost a lot of money and lives of people. You see Saddam Hussein was a very bad man but he did not kill as many Iraqis as the Americans.

Q: How do you propose the conflict in the South China Sea between China and ASEAN members, including Malaysia, could be resolved?

I think we should come to the Chinese - they are quite willing to talk. They want to talk one by one but we would like to talk as a group. But, even to talk one by one, this is something we should try. The one we should not try is to bring a foreign military to confront with the Chinese. I don't think we could fight against China. I told the Japanese when I was in Japan recently that you can't go to war with China. If you kill 100 million, there will be 1.3 billion left.

Q: That's very logical. Did the Japanese listen to you?

A: I don't know what their rationale was but I pointed out the best way to resolve disputes between nations is either by negotiation, arbitration or going to a court of law. And that's what we did with our neighbours.

We have disputes with Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. With Singapore and Indonesia we went to the World Court. With Thailand, we decided that what we produced in the sea, where there is an overlapping claim, we would share 50:50.

We didn't go to war, we didn't kill any Thais.

Q: So you disagree with Singapore's position that there should be a proper balance between the US and China in Asia?

A: The Americans can confine China but I don't see why Malaysia should be involved in the American confrontation. I don't believe in war as a solution to conflicts between nations. You see, if we kill a person, we are a murderer. But if you kill a million people you have to give yourself a medal and a statue for yourself. Something is illogical.

Q: You don't see something called a China threat?

A:One time when China was a communist country and very poor, we called it a threat. Now China is hardly communist and it's very rich and we call it a threat. When will you stop calling China a threat?

I Joined Politics Not To Create Mahathir Dynasty - Mukhriz

Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir Thursday said his involvement in national politics was not to create a family dynasty although his father, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, was prime minister for 22 years, but because he himself was interested in politics.

In fact, he said, he was prevented from joining politics by his father while the latter was still prime minister and Umno president.

"If he (Dr Mahathir) had really wanted to create a dynasty, he could have much earlier got my elder brother (Mokhzani) and I into politics and government administration when he was prime minister and party president.

"I admit that my 'bin' (son of) attracts attention. It also props me up to a certain image as he (Dr Mahathir) was a national leader for a long time and he still has a lot of support today.

"I am happy to continue with his struggles for the party and country but I have my own ideas," Mukhriz said at a press conference after announcing his intention to contest an Umno vice-president post in the party elections this October.

He made the announcement at a function held at the Menteri Besar's official residence Seri Mentaloon, here, to introduce the candidates from Kedah contesting for party posts at the central level.

Mukhriz, who is also Kedah Umno Liaison Committee chairman, said there were now Umno delegates and ordinary people who had started judging his capability in administering the state and thinking of strategies for the party's survival.

Mukhriz said he would also be filling the nomination form to contest the Jerlun Umno division post in the party divisional election after the incumbent Datuk Abu Hasan Sarif made way for him to do so.

"Datuk Abu Hasan has informed that I actually would not be contesting for the post but that he would hand it over to me. We (Kedah Umno) totally believe in unity because of unity, we won back the state.

"In some of our "kawasan" (constituencies), I must admit there were some disunity before but just before the general election, we managed to consolidate and bring together all the different interests and showed a united front, and it worked," he said.

Aid for Bumi’s does not contradict 1Malaysia.

All of us predicted that the Chinese community will be the first one to criticize the “PemerkasaanEkonomiBumiputera”plan @ Bumiputera Economic Empowerment plan that was announced by the PM recently. MCA seems to be non-existent as the party has assimilated with the DAP. Thus, when we talk about the Chinese community, we mean the opposition or specifically the DAP. 

Holistically, the Chinese chose to oppose the BN in the 13^thGeneral Election because they refuse to acknowledge the special rights of the Bumi’s. For them, it is an unfair policy as it only affects only one group of people in the country. More than that, they think that the support (financial mostly) given to the Bumi’s comes from their hard work. Frankly speaking, they are accusing the government as taking their part of the cake and giving it to the Bumiputera’s.

They are refusing to admit that they would not be able to have what they have now if the government did not give them the ingredients in their recipe for success. If the government did not support them, for sure the Bumi’s would have a bigger portion of the financial cake.

By announcing the Bumi’s economic empowerment program, the government are not trying to pull out the Chinese from their businesses, and the government also won’t allow anything that has been obtained by the Chinese to be taken away from them. The government are giving the Malays/Bumis a new batch of success ingredients and they are trying to make the Malays to work hard.

The Bumis has already shared their fortune with the Chinese, while the government hopes that the Chinese and Bumis would share this wealth and engage in a friendly manner as what has been stated by the 1Malaysia concept.  

The fact of the matter is the economy of the Malays and the Chinese must be hand in hand. Because of that, many countries in the world also use the same type of positive discrimination in some situation. The United State of America, for example gave special accommodation and quotas for African Americans to enhance their economic standings. Policies like this is important to ensure that the government can focus on more important things rather than being plagued by social problems in the community as a result from the lack of progress from a specific group of people.  

Thus the Chinese cannot be so arrogant saying that they are the one who developed the country and they are the highest tax payer who generate the county’s economy. The Chinese cannot bear to see the Bumis as a hurdle for them to become richer than they are now. Their arrogance and selfishness will not benefit anyone because we will always depend on one another. But then again, the Chinese still need the Bumis as the Bumis still hold the buying power and workforce to make them richer.

The Chinese will not become richer by trampling the Bumis. If the Bumis are being left out of the economy, it will also disrupts the economic cycle of the nation. Social problems will be rampant especially poverty related problems. To make matter worst, it will also contribute to the instability and later destruction. 13 May is one of the most valuable lessons that we can all learn as a nation. Sadly, the Chinese refuse to learn from it and they tried to deny it has happened.

Not just the 13 May incident, but the Indonesian reformation movement also comes from the same problems, as the indigenous people of the country is being left out because there are no effort to close the economic gap.

It is true that the Special Rights of the Bumis that was coined up from the DEB carries a lot of side problems. But, as long as there are efforts, there is still hope that the goal will be achieve. If there are no policies similar to it, then the economic gap will become wider and will expose the nation to another tragedy similar to the 13 May incident.

Thus, the announcement of the New Economic Model, in a program to empower the Malay economy have to be accepted positively among the Chinese because it show that the government  is concern of the problem that arise form the DEB and they are putting all their got to remedy the problem.

Criticism from the Chinese community will oust the Chinese further from BN shows that they are simple minded even if they are not racist or greedy. The fact of the matter is, the better the economy of the Malays, the better it will be for the Chinese. More than that, the economic balance will decrease the crime rate and also social problems in the country.

The Chinese have to think further, not only from the perspective of profit and losses only. As the Malay saying goes “Greedy People Will Always Lose”.