PR: Game changers without a game plan?

From PM Sivalingam,

Paraman Subramaniam makes some interesting suggestions about how Indians, a minority community in Malaysia, can leverage their vote in the next GE in his letter, Indians advised not to give their votes away’. Although Paraman did not suggest it, the Indians could take a cue from last year’s US Presidential elections in which President Obama’s second term was largely secured by record numbers of votes from ethnic minorities. The Hispanics accounted for 10% of all voters in the election. Of these, 71% voted for Obama. A record number of Asian voters – 3% of the electorate – also turned out, with nearly three-quarters backing Obama. He also won a staggering 93% of African-American votes, according to some polls.

Paraman estimates that Malaysian Indian voter’s number 950,000 and they reside in two thirds of the Parliamentary seats in the peninsula. They could make up 10% – 45% of the total voter makeup of these constituencies. Also, he says Indians in Malaysia have recorded the highest percentage rise in new voters from 2008 to 2012, compared with all other races. Malacca recorded a 46% rise in new Indian voters, Selangor 22% and Perak and Negeri Sembilan 16% each.

Yes, Indians could be king makers in crucial constituencies, come GE-13. But the big question is: Where should they place their trust? Should it be in a person or persons who have a proven track record of helping Indians or in a person or persons who have repeatedly shown their disdain for Indians and their causes? In the latter category are Anwar Ibrahim, leaders in DAP and the Indian leaders in Pakatan.

The Indian leaders in Pakatan Rakyat especially have to answer:

Why they didn’t come up with a blueprint to bring about permanent solutions for the Indian poor.

Why they were quiet when PR failed to include ‘Indian’ issues in the PR manifesto although other races were included

Pakatan pretends to be a game changer for Indians, but it does not have a credible game plan.

On the other hand, what has BN’s record been, especially in the last four years since Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister?

Najib has been quick to publicly acknowledge the role played by the Indian community in the development of the nation. In a special media interview published today, he acknowledged the aspirations of the new generation of Indians who wish to leave the estates and move to urban centres in search of new and better opportunities.

The Najib’s government has, in just four years, rolled out more programmes for the upliftment of Indians than any other administration in the nation’s history. That’s a fact.

Najib has given Indians hope and a brighter future by addressing many longstanding issues of the community and improving opportunities and access for the Indian community in various major sectors such as education, higher education, economic and equity development. And rest assured, this will continue even after the general election should the Indian community gives Najib a new mandate.

Indians do not trust dubious game changers. They only trust those who won’t play games with them.

Time bomb ticking in Perak MIC

Insiders worry that the impending explosion will wipe the party off of the face of the Silver State.
COMMENT

TAIPING: There is enough intrigue in the power struggle within Perak MIC to inspire a Kollywood thriller.

The scheming, the backstabbing, the betrayals, the sabotage and other elements of high drama are playing out towards a climax that some insiders expect would come in the form of a near-total destruction of the party, at least in the state.

According to one insider, the ultimate blame must lie with the top leadership’s inability to deal with the kind of politics that has emerged since G Palanivel replaced S Samy Vellu as party president.

Now that they are free from the iron-fisted rule of Samy Vellu, MIC members nationwide have embraced the new wave of Malaysian politics that is characterised by outspokenness and the assertion of perceived rights. Many have turned away from the practice of adulating their leaders.

Palanivel is considered a gentleman politician in comparison with Samy Vellu, but too weak to rein in dissenters within his party. And there is plenty of dissent in Perak.

In 2008, MIC lost all of its four bids for Perak state seats. It lost Hutan Melintang and Behrang to PKR, Sungkai to DAP and Pasir Panjang to PAS.

The humiliation of 2008 has encouraged Umno to demand that its candidates replace MIC’s in Pasir Panjang and Behrang for the 13th general election. Both are Malay-majority seats.

Even before Samy Vellu’s departure, Perak MIC was already split three ways. The rivalry has apparently deepened since.

The warlords

The feuding factions are led by G Rajoo, R Ganesan and S Veerasingam, each of whom has enough political influence to qualify as a warlord. Rajoo is a former chairman and Ganesan a former secretary of Perak MIC. Veerasingam was Perak MIC chairman until early last year, when Palanivel took over his duties.

Rajoo is now MIC’s coordinator in Penang. He is a Samy Vellu man and insiders say Palanivel shipped him out because he was a thorn in the side of the new president’s bid to put his stamp on the state.

However, the ageing Rajoo is said to be still influential and making his voice heard in the selection of candidates for the Perak electoral contests.

When Palanivel took control in Perak, he practically booted out Veerasingam and installed Ganesan as his deputy in the state. Sources said Ganesan had by then established himself as a staunch supporter of the greenhorn president.

Many party members allege that Palanivel is Perak MIC chief in name only. They say he has not even stepped foot into the party’s office in Ipoh, much less coordinated state preparations for the coming election.

“He’s sitting cosy in his ivory tower in KL with his ill-informed advisers and not reading into the political realities at ground level,” said one insider.

Ambitious grassroots leaders are angry that Palanivel has decided to parachute outsiders into the state.

The current secretary of Perak MIC, S Jayagopi, was initially thought to be the party’s candidate for Buntong, where Indians make up 46.2% of the electorate. He is a local man and also the BN coordinator for the constituency. Insiders say he would have been the ideal candidate against DAP incumbent A Sivasubramaniam.

However, the winds of politics have apparently taken a sudden turn and Jeyagopi has been dropped like a hot potato, to be replaced by C Sivaraj of Selangor, who is MIC Youth secretary at the national level.

Jayagopi’s supporters say he has worked hard to gain the trust of Buntong voters with his community services. According to a source, about 45 NGOs in Buntong are angry over the decision to drop him and are contemplating withdrawing their support for MIC.

To add to MIC’s worries, a former party member has threatened to contest as an independent candidate in Buntong if Sivaraj is fielded there.

Expired candidates

In a recent news report, Perak Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir was said to be crossing swords with Palanivel over the latter’s insistence on fielding “expired candidates” like Ganesan and KR Naidu.

Zambry was quoted as saying that such candidates did not qualify as “winnable” in the sense that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak uses the word.

Ganesan is slated to contest in Hutan Melintang, his hometown. He has told FMT that everything is smooth sailing there, but other party sources say a storm is brewing, with local MIC leaders up in arms over the rejection of division chief R Subramanian in favour of Ganesan.

Indians make up 32% of the Hutan Melintang electorate. The Chinese account for 57% and the Malays 50%, giving some advantage to PKR’s likely candidate, S Kesavan.

T Murugiah, who joined MIC in 2010 following his sacking from PPP, was for some time in high spirits, confident that BN would field him in either Buntong or the Sungai Siput parliamentary constituency. He has now toned down his enthusiasm because, according to sources, MIC has decided to field him for the state seat of Sungkai instead.

Sungkai is the domain of two party veterans – Naidu, who is Tanjung Malim division chief and his deputy, K Ravi. These two have reportedly positioned their artillery against Murugiah’s parachute.

Sources say Murugiah also has to face the ire of MCA hopefuls because Chinese voters make up nearly 70% of the Sungkai electorate. Indian voters account for only 14%.

Another Chinese-majority state seat that BN might give to MIC is Tronoh, the potential candidates being Kampung Baru Lahat branch chief S Mokan and Parit division chief S Mogan. The electorate is composed of 67% Chinese, 20.9% Malays and about 2% Indians.

A worried MIC insider said: “Contesting in Tronoh will be a setback for the party because the Chinese there are pro-Pakatan. We are lucky if we can get 20% of the Chinese votes.”

Trouble in Sungai Siput

There is also trouble in Sungai Siput, the seat that Samy Vellu lost to PSM’s Michael Jeyakumar. Local warlords are said to be uncomfortable with the party’s decision to parachute SK Devamany from his Cameron Highlands perch down to this lowland.

These local chiefs reportedly proposed that Samy Vellu be brought back from retirement to reclaim his seat, but the idea was apparently shot down by Najib.

Devamany is a reluctant candidate for this hot seat, where the likeable and hard-working Jeyakumar is popular even among non-Indians. He would prefer to have stayed in Cameron Highlands, where the political atmosphere is nearly as cool as the natural air.

Insiders say MIC will have a fighting chance in Sungai Siput only if its candidate is Samy Vellu. Apparently, even his son S Vell Paari is scared of facing Jeyakumar, and so are party secretary-general S Murugesan and Palanivel himself.

Meanwhile, Palanivel is hoping that the clean air he will be breathing in Cameron Highlands will give new life to his political career – if he wins.

New pope, Jorge Bergogolio, adopts the name Francis

Rome (CNN) -- Pope Francis, the first non-European pontiff of the modern era, revealed himself to the world from a balcony at the Vatican on Wednesday.

Jorge Bergogolio, who served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, took the name Francis shortly after being elected by cardinals in what was apparently the fifth round of voting on the second day of the conclave.

"As you know, the duty of the conclave was to appoint a bishop of Rome," Francis told a cheering crowd of thousands packed into St. Peter's Square.

"It seems to me that my brother cardinals have chosen one who is from faraway. ... Here I am. I would like to thank you for your embrace."

Bergogolio, 76, is considered a straight-shooter who calls things as he sees them, and a follower of the church's most conservative wing.

As cardinal, he clashed with the government of Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner over his opposition to gay marriage and free distribution of contraceptives.

White smoke

Crowds gathered in St. Peter's Square -- as well as millions of people watching on television around the world -- erupted into cheers as Francis appeared on the balcony.

The result of the vote was heralded by white smoke rising from the chimney on the Sistine Chapel. Bells also rang just after 7 p.m. (2 p.m. ET), confirming that the 115 cardinals had elected a successor to Pope Benedict XVI, who resigned last month.

As people cheered the announcement that a winner had emerged from the conclave, Francis I was putting on his white papal robes for the first time.

Seventy-seven votes were required to confirm a new pontiff to step into the shoes left empty by the historic resignation of Benedict XVI at the end of last month.

White or black smoke?

Earlier, black smoke poured from the chimney at 11:39 a.m., indicating that no result came from the first two rounds of votes held Wednesday morning.

The smoke came somewhat earlier in the day than expected because once the cardinals are familiar with the voting procedures, they can move relatively quickly, according to the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman.

After the two morning ballots, the cardinal-electors -- those aged under 80 who are eligible to vote -- went to lunch in the Casa Santa Marta hotel, where they are staying.

'Intense period'

Black smoke also billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel Tuesday night, after the cardinals failed to choose a new pope in the first vote of their conclave.

Huddled under umbrellas as rain came down, crowds of onlookers watched the chimney and big screens set up in St. Peter's Square.

Filipino priest and CNN iReporter Joel Camaya was among a number of Catholic faithful in the square who watched as the black smoke poured out.

There was "a collective sigh of disappointment and everyone started heading home," he said. "There was no pope, yet."

The public interest reflects the "very intense and beautiful period" the church is experiencing at the moment, Lombardi said. "We are feeling the level of intensity of the wait. We saw many people in the square last night, a lot more than I myself had expected."

Pope emeritus Benedict XVI also watched on television as the black smoke rose on Tuesday, Lombardi said.

Benedict had earlier watched on TV as the scarlet-clad cardinals attended a special Mass and took their oath of secrecy in the Sistine Chapel to begin the conclave to elect his successor, he said.

The Vatican received calls Tuesday night from people concerned that the heavy black smoke might have caused damage to the Sistine Chapel or created problems for the cardinals, Rosica said.

But, he said, he could confirm that the frescoes have not been damaged and that the cardinals are enjoying good health.

Jirga justice: Man attempting to elope stoned to death

On Monday evening, Noorud­din came to Parachinar to elope with the girl but her family found out and locked him in a room after roughing him up. DESIGN: FAIZAN DAWOOD

A man was allegedly stoned to death for attempting to elope with a girl in Parachinar, the headquarters of the Kurram tribal region, on Tuesday.

An official of the political administration and three tribesmen, including an elder of the local tribe confirmed The Express Tribune on condition of anonymity that the man, Nooruddin, was stoned to death near a graveyard in Parachinar around noon.

The tribal elder said the accused was blindfolded and brought to the ground where more than 300 men started throwing stones at him until he died.

Sources said that Nooruddin, a resident of Mianwali district of Punjab, was a government employee in Parachinar where he started a love affair with a local girl. He was transferred to Azad Kashmir. However, he continued to maintain the relationship.

On Monday evening, Noorud­din came to Parachinar to elope with the girl but her family found out and locked him in a room after roughing him up.

A jirga was convened to decide his fate. “It was decided that according to the tribal code ‘tora’, both the man and girl would be killed.” The fate of the girl remained unclear till the filing of this report.

Officially, the political administration refused to confirm the incident.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 13th, 2013.

Hindraf may be overrating its own strength

COMMENT I would like to rejoin the debate on the Hindraf issue after having read DAP MP M Kulasegaran's opinion that the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) has waned in strength since the historic protest it organised on Nov 25, 2007, and his speculation as to the reasons for that.

I want to say that the response by Hindraf national secretary P Ramesh to the MP for Ipoh Barat's compelling opinion comes nowhere close to a rebuttal of the points made.

Instead it digresses to become a piece of grandstanding by Ramesh as if to imply that Kulasegaran (second from left) cannot speak for himself and needs the permission of his superiors in Pakatan Rakyat to say anything substantive on the consultations between Hindraf and the opposition coalition with respect to preparations for the GE13.

This stance only underscores the point Kulasegaran sought to make, that Hindraf has become so presumptuous about its standing in the Indian Malaysian community such that other political groups must engage with it - and other leaders of the Indian cause must stand down to it or risk losing Indian votes in the general election.

As Kulasegaran argued, the anecdotal evidence of the last two years casts strong doubt on the validity of this assumption of Hindraf's, that the movement is chief broker for the Indian vote.

Attendances at either PKR- or DAP-organised public events aimed at canvassing the Indian vote in the last six months at least, furnish strong grounds to believe that Indian Malaysians have moved on from having an emotional tie to the historic march of six Novembers ago.

That march, evocatively described by Kulasegaran as the ‘Rosa Parks' moment in the struggle for Indian socio-economic advancement in Malaysia, is now an inspiring but distant memory to Indians who have chosen to support the political parties in the opposition.

They don't want to be left out of the historic opportunity, now impending, for change to the Malaysian psychological and political landscape in which the urgent needs of the people as a whole must transcend sectarian considerations of race or religion that hitherto have created a disfiguring blight in our society.

Clearly, many Indian Malaysians have moved on. By declining to recognise this, Hindraf is in danger of being caught in the political backwash.

Need to engage other groups

Hindraf, with its stance of demanding that Pakatan comply with its race-specific blueprint for the Indian poor or risk losing their electoral endorsement, is in peril of being left marooned on the shores of a historic movement for political change.

Should this come to pass, I am certain history would recognise this misjudgment of Hindraf's as disastrous for its standing and for the shadow that this would cast on the excellence of its achievement in having organised the pivotal march of Nov 25, 2007.

Hindraf must realise that one swallow does not make a summer. The energising and sustenance of a movement for change is a long, patient and collaborative endeavour.

Minority groups should not overestimate their strength but must engage with other reform-minded parties to collectively bring about the fulfillment of goals that they jointly and severally strive for.

Upon the overall system opening up to the changes being collaboratively and jointly fought for, it would be very difficult for treachery to then occur and, if it occurs, much easier for criticism to be trained on these politicians such that rectification is made.

This is the new situation that the reformasi movement is headed for in Malaysia.

It is to the benefit of Indian Malaysians to join in this growingly popular endeavour and not broker their votes to the highest bidder as if this is an electoral stock exchange rather than a popular and broad-based movement for historic change.

---

R KENGADHARAN is one of the five Hindraf leaders who were detained under the Internal Security Act in the wake of the movement's historic 2007 rally in Kuala Lumpur.

Why both sides want to kill off Hindraf blueprint

COMMENT On this third day of my Hunger Viratham, I have begun limiting my physical movement so I can conserve the energy for what lies ahead.

The Viratham feeds me with spiritual strength that no food can substitute. That is the nourishment I truly need, and this period of Viratham is going to be a creative period.

Yesterday, in Part 1, I addressed the immediate plans for the way forward for the minority Indian poor. Today, I wish to discuss why I think the political class wants to kill off Hindraf's five-year blueprint to bring the Indian poor into the mainstream of national development.

Before I get into discussing the whys of this question, I need to put it clearly that politicians on both sides of the divide do indeed want to kill off the Hindraf blueprint.

Umno's first approach has been to completely ignore that any such initiative exists. This is the typical first response. They have not responded to our overtures to them for a discussion on the blueprint for a good six months now.

The next approach (and we are beginning to see traces of that) is to hijack portions of our blueprint, and maybe also the tone of the blueprint and hope to render this Hindraf document redundant in the process.
The BN's pretence

The proof will be in the BN election manifesto, when it comes out. Umno-BN are hoping to skirt the issue altogether for now and hope to sail through these elections and then, in the post-election period, hope for a natural death to the document. Their pretending is their biggest initiative to kill off the Hindraf Blueprint.

As for Pakatan Rakyat, the situation is a little bit more complex as we have been in discussions with them these last six months.

First, when the discussions started, we were given verbal agreements by the very top and they hoped we would accept that as sufficient commitment until they take over Putrajaya. But when we insisted on a binding endorsement, their gears began to shift.

Delay tactics by engaging us in meeting after wasted meeting to drag this process on for as long as possible to minimise any impact of a breakdown in our talks was attempted. But that did not work either.

If they could not kill the document, then kill the messenger was what they tried next. So they began to hit at our moral grounds, by insinuating that we were only interested in seats to contest in the elections, attempting to make us out as greedy, cheating politicians.

Pakatan tries to make us look like wolves in sheepskin. It did not have much more to go on, on that count, for we made it clear that our priority is the blueprint. But it persisted with this approach.

Backlash from the Indians

The next thing Pakatan tried was using argument that the blueprint demands were inconsistent with that sacrosanct Pakatan principle of "beyond racial boundaries".

It backtracked on that, too, because of the backlash from the Indian community. Pakatan then resorted to hijacking a clear portion of the Hindraf Blueprint for inclusion in its election manifesto to get by the backlash.

Now, the latest attempt has been to cleverly use the Indian leaders within their coalition to hit out at us - to further divide and rule, something that has been practised by Umno all these years.

There probably will be more attempts at this, for Pakatan has not succeeded in killing off the blueprint.

Now let me get to why both parties are so earnest about achieving this goal of destroying Hindraf and our blueprint.

Our theory is that both BN and Pakatan are just puppets. The real power lies with the puppet masters at the back. The puppet masters are the political and economic elite of the country. They are the people who own this country - all the major assets of the country are owned by them.

They call the policy shots as far as the allocation of the resources of the country is concerned and they use various devices, methods and processes to achieve this. BN or Pakatan, they are just tools to create an illusion.

Of course what I say is advanced political theory. But hold these thoughts and ruminate over them. This is a central theme all common people must become well aware of. This is central to our understanding of how things work in our universe.
We want historical injustices corrected

Hindraf's political platform is entirely about correcting the historical injustices and gross and serious violations of the human rights of the Indian poor since the time the Indian coolie was brought to Malaya by the white colonialists.

The injustice and violations of the rights of the poor continue till today. Our firm belief is that none of this happened as if in a fit of an absent mind. They were all the result of conscious decisions by the political and economic elite of the country. This is still true today.

So, Hindraf is meeting the elite, eye-to-eye, with our blueprint demands. Hindraf is effectively demanding that the elite accept that they committed these atrocities and demand they atone for it by implementing comprehensive programmes of correction.

The proposals in the blueprint are entirely justifiable, no matter which way you look at them. The issue of racism does not arise at all. Only the defenders of the elite - the puppets - use this as a convenient argument.

We are actually engaging in this conversation with the elite through the political party puppets. And look at how vehemently the political party puppets use convenient and self-serving arguments to defend the position of the elite .

The puppets may be two political coalitions, but the puppet master is only one. So, the fundamental policies will be one. In the contention between these political parties, one-upmanship becomes their real policy.

Remove the chaff and what you get is the same set of policies from the two coalitions at the end of the day.

We got a glimpse of that with Anwar Ibrahim's response to the Australian media when questioned about Lynas the other day. The same policy comes through. You can give any number of reasons to justify and once you are in power, a lot more comes into play for you.

Hindraf operates with this model. A model, in our opinion, that is devoid of the illusions that the elite want to create to control us, and everything else.

This, briefly, is my analysis of the reasons why both sides of the political divide want to see the Hindraf blueprint killed off. They do not think any such transgression has occurred as we insist. This is normal in their worldview. So what we ask is "terlalu".

---

P WAYTHAMOORTHY is chairperson of Hindraf.

Sulu Sultan says never agreed to negotiate ‘disengagement’ of army

KUALA LUMPUR, March 13 – Self-styled Sulu “Sultan” Jamalul Kiram III quelled all possibility of

withdrawing the Sultanate’s troops from Sabah today, saying he had never authorised anyone to negotiate “disengagement” with the Philippine or Malaysian government.

The 74-year-old Jamalul (picture) was quoting saying by several Philippine media today that he had never permitted his brother Bantilan Esmail Kiram II to explore the option during the latter’s meeting with Philippine Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas on Monday.

“The truth is I don’t like him to talk to anybody. If possible, I told him to stay with me,” Jamalul reportedly told a press conference at his residence in Taguig City, according to The Philippine Daily Inquirer.

“There is no (negotiation on disengagement). I don’t like that. It’s like playing baseball. I’m already on the third base, why would I leave? Why would I go out?”

“That (disengagement) will only happen after I talk with my brother in Sabah,” he continued, referring to Agbimuddin Kiram, who is leading the Sultanate’s armed incursion in Sabah.

Agbimuddin and 235 Sulu gunmen landed in Lahad Datu on February 9 to lay the Sultanate’s claim over the resourch-rich north Borneo territory, citing historical records of its ownership dating back to the 17th century.

According to ABS-CBN News, Jamalul also claimed that it was Roxas who had paid for Esmail’s plane tickets and his family’s to organise the meeting in Manila.

The report said the “Sultan” was baffled over why the secretary had not contacted him directly, pointing out that the “royal army” in Sabah answers directly to him.

The Philippine Star carried the same report, adding that Jamalul said he was surprised to learn that Esmail had discussed the possible “disengagement” of the Sulu troops in Sabah.

After their meeting on Monday, both Esmail and Roxas confirmed that their discussion had centred around “disengagement” of the Sultanate’s “royal army”, but would not elaborate on the matter.

Yesterday, Roxas said he had conveyed several queries raised by Esmail to Philippine President Benigno Aquino III and the latter has directed the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to relay them to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The Kiram family had called for a ceasefire last Thursday upon receiving reports that more of its gunmen were falling from battles with Malaysian forces but Putrajaya rejected the appeal.

But Najib, in an immediate reaction, told the invaders to surrender unconditionally or face death.

The “royal” Sulu army, led by self-proclaimed “crown prince” Agbimuddin Kiram, landed in Sabah’s coastal Lahad Datu township on February 9 to lay claim over the north Borneo territory.

Attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully failed, despite intervention from the Philippine government, sparking the first round of attacks between Malaysian security forces and the Sulu gunmen on March 1.

Last Tuesday, Malaysia launched Ops Daulat, kicking off the assault with an aerial strike of bombs and heavy artillery fire before dispatching its ground troops to make a clean sweep of the coastal villages in Lahad Datu where Aagbimuddin and his men were hiding.

But the elusive Agbimuddin and his men still slipped out of sight, and are believed to be receiving aid from local villagers in the area, some of whom have been detained for questioning.

His kinsmen in the Philippines have also claimed in the media that the rebel leader contacted them several times over the past week to inform them he was still safe and unharmed.

Bar AGM to discuss Bala’s SD2

If passed, the motion will allow the Bar to establish an independent panel to probe the facts and circumstances related to the preparation and execution of the SD.

PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Bar is to discuss the possibility of establishing an independent investigation committee to probe private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s second statutory declaration (SD) this Saturday.

The motion, tabled by Wan Hidayati Nadirah Wan Ahmad Nasir and seconded by 12 other lawyers, will be debated at the Bar’s 67th AGM at the Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur.

Last year, carpet trader Deepak Jaikishen revealed that he was one of the key persons involved in getting Balasubramaniam to retract his first SD in July 1, 2008.

The first SD implicated Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in the death of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu. However, he omitted the duo’s involvement in the second SD.

Deepak also alleged that a “Tan Sri” lawyer was involved in preparing Bala’s second SD.

Later, former MACC advisory panel member Robert Phang alleged that the “Tan Sri” lawyer was Cecil Abraham, who currently sits in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) panel.

If the motion is passed on Saturday, the committee would be allowed to enquire into the facts and circumstances relating to the preparation and execution of the SD by Bala.

Among other issues that will be discussed at the AGM are the death penalty and the e-filing system practised in courts.

Tussle for Hutan Melintang

The Perak state leadership wants to inject some new blood for the seat while MIC is hell bent on giving it to a party veteran.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Perak Barisan Nasional leadership and the MIC are at loggerheads over the candidate for the Hutan Melintang state seat in Perak for the upcoming general election.

Perak BN chief and Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir is said to be in favour of new blood to contest while MIC president G Palanivel is adamant that the seat should be given to the state assembly speaker R Ganesan, who was dropped as MIC candidate in the last elections.

A party source said Palanivel did not want to give in to the request of the state BN leaders for the party to nominate a fresh candidate to contest the seat.

“Palanivel is stubborn over this seat. And his stubbornness could very well ruin MIC’s chances of winning back the seat the in coming general election,” said the source.

Hutan Melintang, near Teluk Intan, has about 21,000 registered voters. In the 2008 general election, PKR’s S Kesavan defeated S Thangasvari of the MIC by a 1,721 vote majority.

“If Ganesan is chosen as the MIC candidate, then we would not be surprised if the party repeats its dismal performance in the seat in the general election,” said the source.

He said MIC should “listen” to the Menteri Besar and look at new, young candidates instead of focusing on veterans, who are on their way out of active politics.

“Unlike previous general elections, the upcoming one would be the most difficult in the history of Perak for the BN. It is important that BN wins seats to retain power of the state. We need the numbers to take control of the state,” he added.

Weakness of the Perak MIC

Ganesan was a two term Sungkai (Perak) state assemblyman before he was sidelined by former MIC president S Samy Vellu in the 2008 general election.

He was appointed state assembly speaker, after three Pakatan Rakyat state assemblymen quit the party to become pro BN independents. The decision by the three to quit Pakatan resulted in BN taking over the administration of the state in 2009.

Ganesan, said the source, carried “some excess baggage” which could be used against the BN in the run-up to the election.

In December last year two DAP assemblymen, V Sivakumar (Tronoh) and A Sivasubramaniam (Buntong), lodged police report after receiving an envelope each containing a two-page printout and a DVD, believed to be pornographic.

Speculation is that the video was of Ganesan being allegedly involved sex scandal in Thailand. The MIC man has on numerous occasion denied that he was involved in any such scandals.

On another matter, the MIC source also revealed that party members were in the dark on the number of state seats to be contested by the MIC in Perak.

“There is speculation that the party will give up two of its four state seats in Perak in exchange for two senators posts. The election is less than six weeks. But, party members are still unsure of the total number of state seats the party would contest.

“If the speculation is true then, it shows the weakness of the Perak MIC. The party is willing to surrender seats for safe posts like a senatorship,” he added. The state MIC is headed by Palanivel too.

At the last election, MIC lost all four state seats – Hutan Melintang, Behrang, Pasir Panjang and Sungkai – it contested in Perak.

The real power is not with BN or Pakatan

Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy pens his political thoughts while on his hunger strike – third day today.
COMMENT

By P Waythamoorthy

This is the third day of my hunger viratham (hunger strike). I have begun limiting my physical movement so I can conserve the energy for what lies ahead.

The viratham feeds me with spiritual strength that no food can substitute. That is the nourishment I truly need. This period of viratham is going to be a creative period.

Yesterday, I addressed the immediate plans for the way forward for the minority Indian poor.

Today I wish to discuss why I think the political class wants to kill off Hindraf’s five year blueprint to bring the Indian poor into the mainstream of national development.

Before I get into discussing the whys of this question, I need to clarify that indeed politicians on both sides of the divide do want to kill off the blueprint.

Umno’s first approach has been to completely ignore that any such initiative exists. This is the typical first response. They have not responded to our overtures to them for a discussion on the blueprint for a good six months now.

The next approach (and we are beginning to see traces of that) is to hijack portions of the blueprint and maybe also the tone of the blueprint and hope to render Hindraf’s blueprint document redundant in the process.

The proof will be in their election manifesto when it comes out. They are hoping to skirt the issue altogether for now and hope to sail through these elections, and then in the post-election period hope for a natural death to the document. Their pretending is their biggest initiative to kill off the document.

As for Pakatan Rakyat, the situation is a little bit more complex as we have been in discussion with them these last six months. First when the discussions started we were given verbal agreements by the very top and they hoped we would accept that as sufficient commitment, and then they take over. But when we insisted on a binding endorsement, then gears began to shift.

Delay tactics of engaging us in meeting after wasted meetings and hoping to drag this process on for as long, to minimise any impact of a breakdown of the talks was attempted. But that has not worked either.

If they could not kill the document, then kill the messenger was what they tried next– so they began to hit at our moral grounds, by insinuating that we were only interested in seats to contest in the elections, attempting to make us out into greedy cheating politicians.

Trying to make us look like wolves in sheepskin. They did not have much more to go on, on that count as we made it clear our priorities are the blueprint then the seats. But they persist with this approach.

The next thing they tried was using argument that the blueprint demands were inconsistent with that sacrosanct Pakatan principle of “beyond racial boundaries”.

They backtracked on that too because of the backlash. They then resorted to hijacking a clear portion of the blueprint for inclusion in their election manifesto to get by that difficulty.

The puppet masters

Now, the latest attempt has been to cleverly use the Indian leaders within their party to hit out at us – to further divide and rule, something that has been practiced by Umno all these years.

There probably will be more attempts as they have not succeeded in killing off the blueprint. Now let me get to why both parties are so earnest about achieving this goal.

Our theory is that both BN and Pakatan are just puppets. The real power lies with the puppet masters at the back.

The puppet masters are the political and economic elite of the country. They are the people who own this country – all the major assets of the country are owned by them.

They call the policy shots as far as the allocation of the resources of the country are concerned and they use various devices, methods and processes to achieve this.

BN or Pakatan, they are just tools to create an illusion. Of course what I say is advanced political theory. But hold these thoughts and ruminate over them. This is a central theme all common people must become well aware of. This is central to our understanding of how things work in our universe.

Hindraf’s political platform is entirely about correcting the historical injustices, and gross and serious violation of human rights of the Indian poor since the time the Indian coolie was brought in by the white colonialists into Malaya.

The injustice and violations of the rights of the poor continue till today. Our firm belief is that none of this happened as if in a fit of absent mind. They were all results of conscious decisions by the political and economic elite of the country. That is still true today.

So, Hindraf is meeting the elite eye to eye in its blueprint demands. Hindraf is effectively demanding that the elite accept that they committed these atrocities and demand they atone for it by implementing comprehensive programs of correction.

The proposals in the blueprint are entirely justifiable, no matter which way you look at it. The issue of racism does not arise at all. Only the defenders of the elite–the puppets use this as a convenient argument.

We are actually engaging in this conversation with the elite through the political party puppets. And look at how vehemently the political party puppets use convenient and self serving arguments to defend the position of the elite .

The puppets may be two political coalitions, but the puppet master is only one. So, the fundamental policies will be one.

In the contention between these political parties one-upmanship becomes their real policy. Remove the chaff and what you get is the same set of policies at the end of the day from the two parties.

We got a glimpse of that with Anwar Ibrahim’s response to the Australian media when questioned about Lynas the other day. The same policy comes through. You can give any number of reasons to justify and once you are in power, a lot more comes into play for you.

Hindraf operates with this model – a model, in our opinion that is devoid of the illusions that the elite want to create to control us and everything else.

That briefly is my analysis of the reasons why both sides of the political divide want to see the blueprint killed off.

They do not think any such transgression has occurred as we insist. In their worldview this is normal. So what we ask is “terlalu”.

Mengapa sumpah jawatan PM Najib secara rahsia?

Selain itu kekeliruan berhubung nama Najib dan status kerajaan turut dipersoal bekas Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Perdagangan Bukit Aman, Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim.

PETALING JAYA: Bekas Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Perdagangan Bukit Aman, Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim meggesa Ketua Setiausaha Negara, Datuk Seri Dr Ali Hamsa menjelaskan tiga perkara yang menyebabkan beliau menyoal sama ada Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak bersungguh-sungguh untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan negara.

Dalam sepucuk surat terbuka kepada Ali, Mat Zain menjelaskan tiga perkara tersebut iaitu kesahihan sumpah jawatan Najib sebagai Perdana Menteri yang dibuat secara rahsia, nama Najib yang berlainan dan status kerajaan yang memerintah selepas 8 Mac 2013.

“Najib telah mengangkat sumpah jawatan,taat setia dan sumpah simpan rahsia menggunakan bentuk sumpah yang lain daripada yang ditetapkan dalam Jadual Ke-6 Perlembagaan.

“Di sinilah timbul persoalan sama ada Najib layak menjalankan fungsi-fungsi jawatan Perdana Menteri memandangkan sumpah beliau tidak mengikut perlembagaan.

“Jika dalam lain-lain perkara, Najib bertegas untuk mengikut perlembagaan, mengapakah pula dalam perkara penting, iaitu mengangkat sumpah jawatan dan sumpah simpan rahsia beliau enggan mengikut bentuk sumpah yang telah ditetapkan semenjak wujudnya perlembagaan itu?

“Jika semua Menteri dan Timbalan Menteri boleh lakukan,mengapa tidak beliau?.

“Secara peribadi saya menyatakan bahawa sumpah jawatan dan sumpah simpan rahsia yang diikrarkan oleh Najib pada April 2009 tidak memenuhi ketetapan perlembagaan. Oleh demikian beliau tidak layak atau berkuasa menjalankan apa-apa fungsi jawatan Perdana Menteri atau melaksanakan kuasa yang diperuntukkan oleh perlembagaan dan undang-undang lain kepada seorang Perdana Menteri,” kata Mat Zain dalam surat tersebut.

Najib ada 3 nama

Mat Zain turut menyoal kewujudan tiga nama Perdana Menteri ekoran tindakan Najib yang menggunakan nama Muhammad di hadapan namanya.

“Ketika mengangkat sumpah jawatan sebagai PM ke-6 pada April 2009,dengan lafaz Wallahi,Wabillahi,Watallahi, beliau menyebutkan nama beliau dengan terang dan jelas sebagai Muhammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak.

“Semasa mengikrarkan affidavit-affidavit pada September 2011, beliau menegaskan nama beliau sebagai Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak dengan menggugurkan nama Muhammad dari nama beliau.

“Sementara ketika menandatangani Ikrar Integriti PRU-13 pada Februari 2013 pula,beliau memberikan nama beliau sebagai Najib Razak sahaja, dengan menggugurkan nama “Muhammad” dari nama beliau dan nama “Abdul”dari nama allahyarham bapa beliau.

“Isteri Perdana Menteri,Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor pula, mengikrarkan dalam affidavit berasingan pada 21 September 2011, bahawa nama suami beliau ialah, Najib bin Tun Hj.Abdul Razak.Dengan demikian itu mengesahkan nama suami beliau tidak ada nama Muhammad atau Mohd.

Mat Zain turut menyoal status kerajaan persekutuan yang dibentuk pasca pilihan raya umum Mac 8, 2008 kerana tempoh lima tahun kerajaan telah tamat minggu lepas.

Malaysia mengamalkan sistem demokrasi berparlimen di mana pilihan raya diadakan dalam tempoh lima tahun selepas mandat.

Show full respect for human rights, govt told

Suhakam calls for human rights principles to be respected in the arrest of 97 militant intruders.

PETALING JAYA: The government was urged to ensure fundamental human rights principles are fully respected in the arrest of the 97 persons suspected to be connected with Sulu militants.

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) today reminded Putrajaya that it was important for all parties to exercise prudence when responding to the crisis to avoid any misunderstandings which could worsen the situation.

“While the commission looks forward to seeing the displaced residents return to their homes and resume their normal routines, it strongly urges the authorities to continue protecting the residents through the existing security measures,” said Suhakam chairman Hasmy Agam.

Suhakam also expressed deep concern about the safety and well-being of all Sabahans, “particularly those who are directly affected by the ongoing security crisis”.

“These include residents who have been traumatised by the horrific attacks that took place in the crisis areas and those who have been displaced and relocated to community halls,” Agam said.

He praised the government for providing various assistance and support to the affected groups and hoped Putrajaya will continue to ensure that the basic needs and welfare are given primary consideration in its effort to overcome the crisis.

He also hoped “the relevant authority will continue to provide regular updates and information to the public on the status of the crisis and the events as they unfold”.

One week after ‘Ops Daulat’, the police had announced that Kampung Tanduo, the landing site of militant intruders a month ago, was free of the terrorists from southern Philippines.

Ninety-seven people were detained for suspected involvement with the terrorists, said Sabah Police Commissioner Hamza Taib.

He added security forces have also held 122 people for being in the prohibited zone of ‘Ops Daulat’.

My political thoughts during the Hunger Viratham Day Three 13th March 2013

Why do the politicians want to kill off Hindraf’s 5 year Blueprint? Before I get into discussing the whys of this question, I need to clarify that indeed politicians on both sides of the divide do want to kill off the Blueprint.

P. Waythamoorthy 

This is the third day of my Hunger Viratham. I have begun limiting my physical movement so I can conserve the energy for what lies ahead. The Viratham feeds me with spiritual strength that no food can substitute. That is the nourishment I truly need. This period of Viratham is going to be a creative period.

Yesterday in part 1, I addressed the immediate plans for the way forward for the minority Indian poor. Today I wish to discuss why I think the political class wants to kill off Hindraf’s 5 year blueprint to bring the Indian poor into the mainstream of national development.

PART 2

Why do the politicians want to kill off Hindraf’s 5 year Blueprint?

Before I get into discussing the whys of this question, I need to clarify that indeed politicians on both sides of the divide do want to kill off the Blueprint.

UMNO’s first approach has been to completely ignore that any such initiative exists. This is the typical first response. They have not responded to our overtures to them for a discussion on the Blueprint for a good six months now. The next approach (and we are beginning to see traces of that) is to hijack portions of the Blueprint and maybe also the tone of the Blueprint and hope to render Hindraf’s Blueprint document redundant in the process. The proof will be in their Election manifesto when comes out. They are hoping to skirt the issue altogether for now and hope to sail through these elections and then in the post election period hope for a natural death to the document. Their pretending is their biggest initiative to kill off the document.

As for Pakatan the situation is a little bit more complex as we have been in discussion with them these last six months. First when the discussions started we were given verbal agreements by the very top and they hoped we would accept that as sufficient commitment and then they take over. But when we insisted on a binding endorsement, then gears began to shift.

Delay tactics of engaging us in meeting after wasted meetings and hoping to drag this process on for as long, to minimize any impact of a breakdown of the talks was attempted. But that has not worked either.

If they could not kill the document, then kill the messenger was what they tried next – so they began to hit at our moral grounds, by insinuating that we were only interested in seats to contest in the elections, attempting to make us out into greedy cheating politicians. Trying to make us look like wolves in sheepskin. They did not have much more to go on, on that count as we made it clear our priorities are the blueprint then the seats. But they persist with this approach.

The next thing they tried was using argument that the Blueprint demand were inconsistent with that sacrosanct Pakatan principle of “beyond racial boundaries”. They backtracked on that too because of the backlash. They then resorted to hijacking a clear portion of the Blueprint for inclusion in their election manifesto to get by that difficulty .

Now, the latest attempt has been to cleverly use the Indian leaders within their party to hit out at us - to further divide n rule, something that has been practiced by UMNO all these years.

There probably will be more attempts as they have not succeeded in killing off the Blueprint.

Now let me get to why both parties are so earnest about achieving this goal.

Our theory is that both BN and Pakatan are just puppets. The real power lies with the  puppet masters at the back. The puppet masters are the political and economic elite of the country. They are the people who own this country – all the major assets of the country are owned by them. They call the policy shots as far as the allocation of the resources of the country is concerned and they use various devices, methods and processes to achieve this. BN or Pakatan, they are just tools to create an illusion. Of course what I say is advanced political theory. But hold these thoughts and ruminate over them. This is a central theme all common people must become well aware of. This is central to our understanding of how things work in our universe.

Hindraf’s political platform is entirely about correcting the historical injustices and gross and serious violation of human rights of the Indian poor since the time the Indian coolie was brought in by the white colonialists into Malaya. The injustice and violations of the rights of the poor continue till today. Our firm belief is that none of this happened as if in a fit of absent mind. They were all results of conscious decisions by the political and economic elite of the country. That is still true today.

So, Hindraf is meeting the elite eye to eye in their Blueprint demands. Hindraf is effectively demanding that the elite accept that they committed these atrocities and demand they atone for it by implementing comprehensive programs of correction. The proposals in the Blueprint are entirely justifiable, no matter which way you look at it. The issue of racism does not arise at all. Only the defenders of the elite –the puppets use this as a convenient argument. We are actually engaging in this conversation with the elite through the political party puppets. And look at how vehemently the political party puppets use convenient and self serving arguments to defend the position of the elite .

The puppets may be two political coalitions, but the puppet master is only one. So, the fundamental policies will be one. In the contention between these political parties one-upmanship becomes their real policy. Remove the chaff and what you get is the same set of policies at the end of the day from the two parties. We got a glimpse of that with Anwar’s response to the Australian media when questioned about Lynas the other day. The same policy comes through. You can give any number of reasons to justify and once you are in power a lot more comes into play for you.

Hindraf operates with this model – a model , in our opinion that is devoid of the illusions that the elite want to create to control us and everything else.

That briefly is my analysis of the reasons why both sides of the political divide want to see the Blueprint killed off. They do not think any such transgression has occurred as we insist. In their worldview this is normal. So what we ask is  “terlalu”.

'Don't query spending on security'

The New Straits Times

Host:  Are you ready now to call for the general election? 

Answer: I have been waiting myself (laughs). But when we call for the general election, first of all, it has to be predicated within the ambit of the Constitution. That's quite obvious. We will do it within the context of what is allowable within the Constitution. But more importantly, when I took office in 2009, I introduced a raft of reforms to the country, basically we call it the transformational agenda for the country. We were set to really transform the nation. Of course, we wanted to achieve Vision 2020 and we know it's quite a challenge for us to bring Malaysia to that level, to greater heights.

Host: But you could have called the election at that time (referring to the time soon after he became prime minister).

Answer: Yes, but I wanted to face the people and show to the people that our transformation programme is actually working and that there is real progress in the country; real change is taking place and that we are delivering and people can see for themselves, feel the results.

So I need the time because you know when we plan things, between planning and execution and delivering, it does take time. But, Alhamdulillah (praise to Allah), I'm very pleased that the outcome has been positive and the whole host of macro figures indicate that we have been able to achieve beyond our expectation, within four years.

For example, the external global economy is so weak and uncertain and Malaysia is able to perform in the sense that we are back on track. I mean, look at the euro zone countries. The economies there are contracting. Look at the United States, they are talking about one or two per cent growth. But Malaysia in the last quarter, we achieved 6.4 per cent. And I can quote you, I can read all kinds of statistics that indicate we have built a very strong resilience in terms of national economy.

And when you talk in terms of benefit for the people, within three years, from 2009 to the end of 2011, our GNI (gross national income) per capita, it grew from US$6,670 to US$9,970. That's roughly a 49 per cent (increase). There is no country in the world that has achieved that kind of result.

So when we go the polls, when we seek fresh mandate from the rakyat, the people, we are going on a very, very solid track record. We can show to the people that we have actually delivered.

Host: What will be your main message to the voters?

Answer: My main message to the voters is that the best is yet to come. They can see for themselves (what has taken place) in the last four years. The achievements have been quite remarkable against the backdrop of a very uncertain global economy.

Despite the weak external economy, Malaysia actually bucked the trend. We are going into the elections based on a very, very sound track record and our message to the people is that look, we have done so much over the last four years; if you give us the mandate, I assure you that we'll do even better the next five years.

Bulbir Singh, Seremban: Whatever the others may say, I know you will win and win comfortably in the coming elections. How do you think Barisan Nasional will fare?

Answer: I would say that we are cautiously optimistic. When I say cautiously optimistic, because when we come to elections, we cannot take anything for granted. But I'm very encouraged by the fact that from the people's response, especially when I go round, I see them turning up in big numbers, I see them excited and looking forward to meeting me, shaking hands with me.

At the same time, we have done our assessments, numbers and we believe the rakyat is behind us and the rakyat feel that their future is more secure with Barisan Nasional.

Raziff Mohd Razalli, Penang: What are the steps taken by the government in terms of electoral reforms?

Answer: Let me say categorically, that elections in Malaysia have always been free and fair. If elections have not been free and fair, we wouldn't have lost the two-thirds majority at the last general election in 2008 and we wouldn't have lost the five states either.

And Kelantan as you know, has been under opposition rule for more than 20 years. Nevertheless, we are committed to strengthening the electoral process.

To that end, we have established an electoral select committee to strengthen the electoral process. We considered demands of various groups. And most of the demands have been met.

The demands by Bersih, for example, seven out of the eight demands have been met. For the first time, we will introduce indelible ink in the upcoming elections. For the first time, Malaysians living overseas will be allowed to vote and the Election Commission is scrutinising the electoral list to make it as accurate as possible.

So, I can assure you that the government is committed to strengthening the electoral process and will do whatever we can to ensure that objective will be met.

Syed Abdul Rahman Syed Atan, Johor Baru: Have you come up with the (BN) candidates' list and what are the criteria to enable one to be picked as a candidate?

Answer: (The list) Almost done but this candidates' list is... every time we look at it, we always want to make changes or put up a better candidate. I think this will go on until the last minute when the candidates' list is announced.

I think there will be little changes later but the basics are there. Most of the seats have been decided and the criteria is winnable candidates. In our opinion, whoever is categorised as a winnable candidate, we will announce them as our candidate.

However, we have to consider our component parties as we are a big family of 13 parties. We cannot fulfil everyone's expectations but the candidate has to meet our criteria and be accepted by the local people.

Host: What are the main lessons we can draw from the Lahad Datu episode?

Answer: Basically, we shouldn't take security for granted. I think we have gone through a long phase of peace and stability in Malaysia. The communists laid down their arms in 1989 and since then it has been a long period of peace and stability in Malaysia.

But that (Lahad Datu, Sabah) incident, in a way, is a wake-up call for us, not only for the government but also the rakyat, especially the people in Sabah... that there are external threats and that we must deal with the threats. We must be prepared.

We must make sure that the armed forces are well trained (and) that includes the police as well. Our security forces should be well trained and well equipped. And so, when we decide to spend on defence and security, including for the police, people should not question that but instead should see it as protecting our security, sovereignty and our territorial integrity.

And I keep on saying that when it comes to security, sovereignty and territorial integrity, there are no compromises. We are doing what we can to ensure Malaysians, in any part of the country, feel secure, safe and that their future is safeguarded by the government.

But at the same time, when it comes security, it should not be a role just for the security forces or the government but the rakyat, too. It is important for the rakyat to do their part and provide support for the men in uniform as well as to what the government is doing.

ISKANDAR Naziri, Sarikei, Sarawak:  How far has the Sabah incident affected Malaysia's efforts in facilitating the peace process in southern Philippines?

Answer: Those two are quite separate because the peace process in southern Philippines is essentially between the Philippine government and the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front). And the MILF continues with their discussions and negotiations within the context of framework agreement. So, within a certain time frame, they will reach a final agreement. But the group that is causing problem is the group that is different from the MILF.

(As you know) They have certain groupings there or warlords so to speak and that is the result of an outlandish claims by the Jamalul Kiram group. They are seeking something that we cannot concede to nor something we can recognise.

As a result, they have resorted to violence and that is unfortunate but we will deal with it in a way we think that is appropriate.

Host: Your take on foreign media claims that this group of Sulu terrorists have been instigated by groups that are anti-Aquino (referring to Philippines president Benigno Aquino III), pro-opposition and those paid to create trouble. You have said that both governments (Malaysia and Philippines) would investigate this. What is your next course of action?

Answer: We have to continue with the investigations. When I spoke to president Aquino, he told me that they would begin their investigations. He made some interesting remarks and said : "Look, these people (the terrorists) are quite poor, they certainly do not have the means to launch such an operation against Malaysia and so, he (Benigno) thinks that they are funded from somewhere."

There appear to be some strong suspicions but we need to investigate and have some evidence first before we can point fingers at anyone. So, we are at the stage of investigating (and) we will work closely with the Philippines government. We must get to the bottom of this.

Agatha Martha Yong, Keningau, Sabah: I would like to thank the government for the setting up of the Special Security Area in Sabah which I see as a good move. My question is can the public infrastructure be improved as well?

Answer: We must carry out both (SSA and (improvement to) public infrastructure). We are aware that Sabah needs additional allocations for basic infrastructure such as power and road network. And if we look from the aspect of the National Key Results Area, a large portion of the allocations for public amenities is for Sabah and Sarawak. So, there will be a balance in public amenities between Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula.

Since Sabah is big, for sure, it will take time before we could put all the public infrastructure (in Sabah and Sarawak) to be on the same level as in the penisula. We are very committed and will continue to allocate large sums to improve the infrastructure in Sabah.

Host: In view of the recent armed intrusion, do our security forces have adequate capabilities and assets to safeguard the security of the nation?

Answer: Yes, they do. The assets that we have are sufficient but this is an on-going process. I think in terms of dealing with armed intrusion, we certainly have the assets.

But as I said, this is a wake-up call. There are gaps in terms of our capabilities but we hope we will be able to close the gaps. For example, the coastline of Sabah is simply enormous.

I mean the eastern seaboard, we are talking about 1,500km of coastline, is a huge area to cover. We certainly need to put in more assets (and) we certainly need to have a better surveillance system.

But no matter how strong a nation, like for example the United States, which shares a common border with Mexico, (it) cannot stop the Mexicans from crossing into the US.

Putting it into perspective, if you know the area, if you go and have a look on the ground and the situation in Sabah, then you will realise that it is a huge challenge.

Nevertheless, we have some ideas and we will certainly put in place a better surveillance system and tighten up the security in Sabah.

Host: Datuk Seri, the opposition in their recently-launched manifesto for the general election had promised that they will bring down the prices of cars. Do you think that this is only a gimmick?

Answer: I would also like to buy cheaper cars myself but it's a process that has to be seen in a realistic term. That's why the government has taken a step-by-step approach.

First of all, we have asked the companies to reduce the prices on a voluntarily basis and lately, for quite a number of models, the prices have actually dropped from RM3,000 to RM15,000. This is quite a significant reduction.

And according to our plans within the next five years after AFTA (Asean Free Trade Agreeement) kicks in and our Free Trade Agreement with Japan and Australia, the reduction in production cost for most foreign cars will be about 30 per cent.

Basically, Malaysians can look forward to cheaper cars but the same time, this approach has the advantage of not disrupting the second-hand car market and making Proton (national car) to be more competitive.

So, it will be a win-win situation and we believe that this is the way forward.

Sabariah Salman, Teluk Intan, Perak: The opposition's manifesto: abolish toll, reduce petrol price and free education, can these be achieved?

Answer: That's not all they have promised. They had made a lot of promises. That's just part of it. The hardest part to believe is their promise to increase household income to RM4,000 in five years' time. In their Buku Jingga, they had said two years but in their manifesto its five years.

Moreover, they also want to abolish toll, reduce petrol price, (give) free education and many other promises in the manifesto.

The question is, from where are they going to finance this? This was not stated in their manifesto. Many of their 2008 promises were not fulfilled. Many were just empty promises.

And even one of their leaders had said that manifestos are not promises. Based on their track record of 2008 manifesto, the confidence and trust are questionable, how and how far they will fulfil their promises.

The point is that it is not complete as it did not reveal how it's going to be achieved. Nothing is free in the world. There must be a party which will have to bear the cost for the abolishment and reduction.

Host: When will you launch BN's manifesto?

Answer: We will launch BN's manifesto at the right time, meaning not too soon and not too late, so that when we launch it, the rakyat will pay attention to it and we will have time to spread information about the manifesto. But I think, according to our plans, we will launch it after Parliament is dissolved.

Baharudin Mohd Shah, Subang Jaya: What is the government going to do about the issue of public transport?

Answer: We are doing it right now actually. As you know, we have a massive project, the MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) project, which is on schedule and within budget. We have implemented RapidKL, launched RapidPenang and RapidKuantan, our Light Rail Transit is picking up. So we believe that by embarking on this public transport system, we will provide the public with an alternative.

What the public wants is a public transport system that is reliable and affordable and the government is committed and in the next few years, we will see the government being able to deliver a public transport system meets the expectations of the people.

Nor Haslam Hamzah, Kuala Selangor: The Selangor state government seems to be shaky on the water issue, and will BN regain Selangor?

Answer: I hope so, too. We don't want power for the sake of it. In the past five years, we have seen that if the federal and state governments are not from the same party, problems may arise.

Problems that should not be politicised like water, where the (Ffederal) Government's intention to provide enough water with the Langat 2 project, which to date has yet to be given the development order by the state government.

(Now) we have to fork out RM600 million and another RM121 million just to look for a short term solution. But for the long term, we have to (carry out) the Langat 2 (water project).

If not, it will burden the people. And many projects are on hold now because of no guarantee in this water issue; the housing projects by private developers, investors opening factories, it's not certain (to take place).

This is making it difficult for the people and stunts the national development process.

That is why we are committed to work and hope that the rakyat will give us the confidence and trust that Selangor is too important to be left like this.

If we are given the mandate, God-willing, we will carry out development in line with the federal government.

Shah Raiduan Zaluha, Belawai, Sarawak:  What is the government's commitment to ensuring vibrant economic growth?

Answer: By transforming the economy, in essence, our transformation agenda for the country is predicated on a clear way forward, a road map actually, which indicates clearly how we want to achieve the status of  a fully developed economy, a high income economy by the year 2020.

That entails making the whole government process more efficient. For example, the World Bank has recognised us as a very competitive country, 25th in the world. Malaysia has been credited for being the 12th most efficient country in terms of ease of doing business. We are number one in terms of access to credit in the whole world. KL has become the fourth best city in terms of shopping destinations. There have been many accolades we have achieved within a short period of time. If we continue with this, I'm confident, God willing, we will achieve high income (nation status) by 2020 and realise our aspirations of being a fully developed nation.

Ali Kutty Mohamed, Kota Baru, Kelantan: People are saying BR1M (1Malaysia People's Aid) is just a temporary gimmick and a political one. We would like to know the reasons behind it.

Answer: I can assure you that this is part and parcel of our overall economic strategy new economic strategy for the country. As you know, we have been giving out a lot of subsidies in an indirect manner. For example, our petroleum subsidy. That costs us RM23 billion a year. And the other subsidies and incentives amount to RM30 billion a year. 

But by going through this route of indirect subsidies, there is a lot of wastage taking place. For example, when you give subsidy for petrol, people (in) the higher income bracket will also be able to avail themselves to that subsidy.

Foreigners, tourists and foreign workers will benefit from it. Not to mention, some of them will be selling diesel across the border. There is a lot of wastage that takes place because of subsidies which basically are not efficient and not targeted.

So, as a significant shift in our policy, we have gone for a more targeted, focussed subsidy. We have decided that people with income below RM3,000 will receive BR1M. And that's really the target group we want to assist. So by doing BR1M, even though there is BR1M 2.0, which is bigger than BR1M 1.0, the total cost is only about RM3 billion.

Compare that to the RM30 billion in terms of indirect subsidy and incentives. We believe BR1M is well received, it is fair and equitable, it helps the right people and so, we will continue with BR1M. BR1M is not an election gimmick, it is a deliberate shift in our economic strategy to be more targeted, focused.

In the future, when we continue with BR1M, we will see that we make adjustments in terms of the amount, depending on the affordability of the government, the level of income, all these things, we can compute. And there is also another argument in terms of economic impact. As you know, GDP or GNI increases. It's a combination of investment plus consumption, plus export minus import. When people get BR1M, they spend. So what happens (is that) the local economy gets a strong impetus. And that helps to fuel our economic growth.

So, you can see, in terms of being inclusive, helping the lower income group, BR1M is very effective and secondly, in terms of stimulating the economy. So the shopkeepers, the people who sell products, even petty traders, for example, will benefit from BR1M because when people get money, they go out and buy things and services that they require and services and that is good for the local and domestic economy.

Host: A reader from Sabah had asked if the government is doing anything about street crime?

Answer: Yes, we are committed to reducing crime but we did not promise that we will abolish or that we can do things that will abolish and reduce to zero crime in this country. We didn't promise that.

What we promised was a steady reduction of crimes in this country. And based on statistics, for example in 2009, the reported crime was at about 210,000 roughly. And in 2011, it went down to 160,000. And within the same period, snatch and street crimes came down as much as 40 per cent. But of course, you will hear your friends or family members or yourself, of situations of which you have been robbed or you know people who have experienced some sort of crime against them. That's because crime still takes place in this country. So, instead of arguing about statistics -- I don't think we want to engage in that kind of polemics -- what we need to do is to work closely together with the government, with the police, with law enforcement agencies, the private sector, local resident associations for example.

Help to reduce crime. For example, under the 2013 Budget, the government gave out quite a number of incentives so that people who invest in appliances and equipment to reduce crime, like CCTVs for example, will be able to get income tax reduction or corporate tax reduction.

This will help and if everybody pitches in and helps out, over time, you will see a reduction in crime rates. And, of course, there are new initiatives, like this patrol on motorcycles. We have approved 1,000 of them, to patrol the neighbourhoods and so forth. The government is thinking of new ways to combat crime. Yes. I would like to underscore that. The important thing is there must be a total effort by the rakyat to combat crime.

Amirul Fikri Mohd Zain, Terengganu: What is the government doing to check the brain drain, to woo back Malaysians working in Singapore? Answer: Since we launched the initiative, especially through TalentCorp, we found that between 2011 and 2012, (more than) 1,600 Malaysians overseas had returned home, as compared to the past 10 years where only 1,100 people had returned home. Based on the figures, the trend is encouraging. We also need to create jobs which give more reward because if our reward is not well balanced with the salary and rewards, like in Singapore and globally, because TalentCorp has no boundaries, it leans towards countries which offers better rewards.

If we are asking our Malaysians to return home, we must provide challenges or better opportunities than before. This is what we will do. We can give opportunities for Malaysians to come back and serve the country. I hope in the process of us moving to a high income and developed nation, more Malaysians will decide to come back.

Host: What are your plans, sir, for the Indian community in terms of economy, social status and leadership?

Answer: We recognise the contribution of the Indian community. For example, they worked our estates and made Malaysia the number one rubber producer in the world. They worked in our railways, in JKR (Public Works Department) for example, so they played their part in the development of Malaysia and we must recognise that.

The estate communities, the new generation, they want to leave the estates and so, we need to have a programme to manage this kind of urbanisation or the movement from the estate to the urban areas. Having recognised this, the government has undertaken a number of new initiatives, for example, more places for Indians in the universities. We announced matriculation programmes specifically for Indians -- 1,500 places. It used to be 500, we increased it by 1,000 more places.

I launched this programme in Port Dickson last week, this programme which gives more places for Indians in polytechnics, for example. Indians who otherwise would not be able to get diplomas and later on, degree programmes.

We have given out micro-credit, for example, for small businesses, micro-enterprises, through Tekun for example, through Amanah Iktihar Malaysia. We have given more money to Indian schools because the achievement of Indian students in Tamil schools must be increased so that they will be able to have better opportunities in the future.

We have increased the allocation for Indians in terms of skills training. We have done many things and this has been recognised by the Indian community and I use the Indian word nambikei. Nambikei in Tamil means having the confidence and trust. And if the Indian community gives us the confidence and trust, I'm sure we can do even more for the Indian community in the future.

Host: If BN is given a strong mandate in the coming general election, what will be your focus in making Malaysia a better place to live, work and do business?

Answer: I like to use the word "when" (instead of "if"). Insyaallah, when we get a fresh mandate from the rakyat, I would like to approach it with all humility. I'm not taking things for granted at all. I'm not just saying that the people must or will. I'm presenting a compelling case to the rakyat. I'm telling the rakyat, look, we need a strong government in this country. We cannot afford to have instability.

Instability will come from a weak government, and all the good things we have done, all the achievements we were able to deliver for 50 years, can evaporate in a short period of time.

This is not the time to experiment. This is the time for us to put our faith in a government that has a solid track record, a government that has a very clear plan for the future and a government which is able to deliver. We cannot gamble on the opposition because they don't have a common platform, they have different ideologies, dramatically opposing ideologies from one party to another and of course, fundamentally, they are not even registered as a political party.

They are standing on three different platforms, three different symbols. And even the question of who should lead the party in the event that they be able to form the government is open to a lot of uncertainties because they have not decided in terms of finality of who is to be their leader. So, my message to the people of Malaysia is we have a bright future.

Host: When you think of the rakyat and the nation, what comes to your mind and heart?

Answer: I think of the future of Malaysia and the rakyat all the time. As you know, I have put my heart and soul into the job. I have never worked so hard like I have done (since becoming prime minister).

And I believe we can do so much for Malaysia. We can bring Malaysia to greater heights, the potential for Malaysia is simply enormous. And that is why I'm seeking a strong mandate from the people.

The interview can also be viewed at www.tonton.com.my and www.nst.com.my