- Tiap-tiap hari dunia dapat membaca laporan berkenaan perbicaraan kes 1MDB yang diadakan di Amerika Syarikat.
- Dalam perbicaraan ini ramai nama tokoh-tokoh di Malaysia yang terlibat dengan jenayah mencuri duit 1MDB dilapor. Kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh mereka disebut. Di antara orang yang disebut berkali-kali sebagai terlibat dengan menipu 1MDB ialah Najib dan Rosmah.
- Laporan-laporan ini boleh dibaca dalam akhbar Malaysia. Tetapi yang peliknya ramai orang Malaysia tidak sedikit pun marah terhadap Najib dan Rosmah, jauh sekali merasa malu.
- Di PRN Johor parti Najib di sokong sehingga menang 2/3 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN).
- Dalam satu rakaman video Perdana Menteri (PM) ditolak ke belakang oleh Presiden UMNO, yang tarik Najib ke depan di tempat Perdana Menteri. Dari peristiwa ini adalah jelas Najib lebih dihormati oleh UMNO daripada Perdana Menteri.
- Apakah jenis Kerajaan yang didirikan oleh Ismail Sabri jikalau ia boleh dihina di hadapan dunia.
- Ramai ahli UMNO hendak supaya PRU 15 diadakan segera. Apakah Ismail Sabri akan jadi Perdana Menteri jika UMNO menang. Tentu tidak.
- Yang akan jadi PM tentulah penyokong kuat Najib. Bagi Kerajaan yang akan didirikan, yang utama ialah membebas Najib dari hukuman 12 tahun penjara.
- Contoh sudah ada. Anak tiri Najib terlepas dari penjara kerana bagi balik separuh dari duit yang dicuri.
- Najib boleh bagi balik banyak mana yang dikehendaki oleh Kerajaan Barisan Nasional (BN). Ia akan diampun.
- Setelah mencuri berbillion Ringgit Najib yang didapati salah, tidak dipenjara barang sehari pun.
- Ini keadilan di Malaysia. Curi seekor ayam masuk penjara serta merta. Oleh itu curi berbillion. Didapati salah oleh mahkamah. Bagi balik setengah billion. Bebas.
- Belum jadi. Tetapi boleh jadi. Saya agak-agak sahaja.
- Ya. Saya akan dipanggil untuk soal siasat.
- Di Malaysia ini satu tekanan yang menakutkan.
- Tutup mulut. Tutup telinga. Awak okay.
14. The Malay governments of the Malay states had always been friendly towards the Chinese migrants. They were allowed to govern themselves through a system of Kapitans.
15. Far from seizing the properties of the Chinese the Tunku at independence actually granted one million citizenships to unqualified Chinese and Indians.
16. The Malay governments of independent Malaya then dismantled most of the British restrictions in business including the abolition of the crown agent and the favoured treatment of British companies. Chinese businesses were allowed to replace the British companies in every field. Naturally they did well and grew big.
17. The role of the big British companies in the development of rubber and palm oil estates, in transport and shipping, in international trade were also diminished. Local companies largely owned by the Chinese found the Malay dominated Governments’ economic policies were far more friendly and open than the British.
18. Chinese businesses began to flourish. Chinese retailers no longer live in their premises but they retire to large and luxurious housing estates. Much of urban land was acquired by the newly rich Chinese traders in the towns and the suburban areas.
19. There is every evidence to show that the Chinese prospered more under Malay rule than under British. It should be noted that for almost 60 years of independence Malaya was ruled largely by a Malay party – the United Malays National Organisation.
20. The Malays could have ruled Malaya by themselves. At the beginning there were enough Malay constituencies. But deliberately the Malays under Tunku Abdul Rahman diluted the Malay dominance by giving non-Malays additional citizenship.
21. Additionally the Tunku appointed Chinese and Indians in his cabinet. The Government may be dominated by Malays but the views of the Chinese and Indians were given due consideration. The Governments have effectively become multiracial.
22. This belies the claims that in independent Malaya the Malays would seize Chinese property. Nothing of that kind happened. Instead all obstruction to Chinese businesses were removed.
23. One of the most significant act by the new independent Malay dominated government was to grant banking licences to two Chinese applicants. It should be noted that the British were reluctant to let locals go into banking. But the Malay dominated Governments were more forthcoming. With that the problems of finance for the Chinese businesses were mitigated.
24. Upon independence Malaya was ruled by a Malay dominated Governments for more than 60 years. It cannot be denied that it was during this period that Malaya developed fast and became known as an Asian Tiger. It was also during this period that Malaysian Chinese businesses expanded and overflowed into many foreign countries.
25. What should be noted is that Malay Governments were more liberal towards Chinese businesses than British Governments. Not only was there no Malay seizure of Chinese properties but the Chinese acquired more properties and citizenship.
26. Pejuang is a Malay party. It is going to contest in election with the aim of becoming the governments of States and the federation.
27. There is no reason for non-Malays to fear governance by Pejuang simply because it is a Malay party. It will follow the path laid out by former Malay leaders. It will work with non-Malays and it will adhere to the Rule of law and strive to reduce disparities between town and country, States and States and race and race. It should be noted that in the process of bringing up Malay participations in the economy, the Chinese and Indians also benefitted.
28. I have written about this aspect of the history of Malaysia because it is not common knowledge. The history books have not mentioned this. Generally it was thought the British provided benign Governments. In terms of competence, yes. But the fact remains that the British discriminated against the locals, in particular the enterprising Chinese.
29. By comparison the independent Malay Governments had been more liberal. Yet generally the impression given is that the New Economic Policy discriminates against the non-Malays, the Chinese in particular.
Saya dan isteri saya mengucapkan Selamat Hari Raya, Maaf Zahir Batin kepada semua rakyat Malaysia, khususnya kepada pembaca blog ini
1. Dalam Pilihanraya Kecil baru-baru ini ramai daripada pengundi gembira menerima duit, beras dan alatan elektrik.
2. Mereka tentu tahu mereka telah menerima suapan rasuah. Yang memberi pun tentu tahu mereka melakukan perbuatan yang salah di sisi undang-undang dan juga di sisi agama yang mereka anuti.
3. Kerana rasuah inilah, pihak yang menyogok mendapat kemenangan.
1. There are politicians and politicians. How they behave and how they react cannot fit into any mould.
2. When I was Prime Minister I was called all kinds of names. I was labelled an ultra, a firaun or pharoah, mahazalim, dictator, you name it, just anything derogatory or insulting or demeaning, and I have had it.
3. I did not take any action against them, I did not threaten them, I did not ask the police to question them, I did not arrest, detain and charge them for being terrorists, for sabotaging Malaysia’s banking system, sabotaging Malaysia’s economy.
4 And I did not threaten to sue them, nor did I sue them.
1. Saya dicela oleh Anifah Aman, Menteri Luar kerana memalukan negara dengan ditemubual oleh akhbar Amerika “The New York Times”.
2. Mungkin Anifah tidak pernah baca suratkhabar Amerika sebelum usaha untuk memburukkan nama saya dijadikan asas mempertahankan Perdana Menteri Najib. Tetapi seluruh dunia tahu berkenaan Dato Seri Najib, Jho Low dan 1MDB. Ini disebabkan akhbar terkenal Wasington, New York dan London telah menyiarkan rencana panjang sehingga empat muka berkenaan skandal 1MDB, Najib dengan cara hidup mewahnya, Jho Low sahabat karibnya dan Riza Aziz, anak tirinya yang membiayai filem lucah “The Wolf of Wall Street”.
1. There seems to be some confusion over repayment of debts and the loss of money by 1MDB.
2. Even if the debts are fully paid up through the sale of assets bought by 1MDB, that does not mean that 1MDB is free from the charge that it cannot account for the billions it had lost.
3. In business, money can be lost through bad investments or bad management. That is acceptable though the CEO and Managers would be sacked.
4. But when money is lost and the management cannot explain where it went and how it disappeared then management would still be responsible even if there is a bailout or the debts paid.
5. Thus with money claimed to have been invested in Cayman Islands and despite claims that it had been brought back and is now in Singapore, the money cannot be demonstrated to be there in tangible form, then management will be held responsible for its loss. The assumption must be that management had misappropriated the money unless otherwise proven.