IS HM YDP AGONG ALWAYS BEING TOLD THE TRUTH BY THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

READ HERE IN MALAYSIAKINI

Is the Agong always told the truth?

BY Zorro-unmasked

2:16PM Jun 4, 2013

• Does he know that since 2000, there have been 218 custodial deaths?

• Does he know that there have been three deaths in police custody within the last 11 days?

• Does he know why the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has not been held accountable for the deaths of Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed while the duo were in their custody?

• Does he know why the Defence Ministry (Mindef) agreed to pay Abdul Razak Baginda RM500 million for services rendered to the Malaysian government in the purchase of the Scorpene submarines?

• Did he know that royal titles are being sold, like in the 2006 case of Malaysian Armed Forces Veterans Association president Mohd Ali Baharom who paid a whopping RM250,000 in order to be called a 'Datuk'?

• Was he made aware that according to a report by influential London-based daily The Guardian, a Tax Justice Network's researcher estimated that US$283 billion (RM892 billion) has been transferred to tax havens from 1970 to 2010 - an amount that is three and a half times more than Malaysia's foreign debt of RM257.2 billion in 2011, and is second only to Nigeria (US$306 billion or RM964 billion)?

• Was he told that the toll companies have thus far collected more than RM20 billion, and that the government is still giving them license to plunder and pillage the rakyat?

• Is he made aware that despite the ‘1Malaysia’ claim, 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by the government, and later managed by Malays since the 1970s - e.g. urban transformation centres (UTCs), United Malayan Banking Corporation Berhad (UMBC), MISC Berhad and Southern Bank - as happened to rice millers in Kedah and Chinese-owned bus transport companies?

• Was he informed that the daughter of the recently-retired chief secretary to the government, Mohd Sidek Hassan - despite any proven track record in the energy field - has the “lion’s share” in the newly-introduced renewable alternative energy scheme, Feed-in Tariff (FiT)?

• Was it ever revealed to him, the wastages generated by:

1. The BMF Finance scandal - RM3.2 billion                               
2. The Maminco scandal -  RM1.6 billion
3. The forex losses scandal - RM30 billion
4. The Perwaja Steel scandal - RM 2.56 billion
5. The Scorpene submarines commission - RM500 million
6. Bank Islam losses and bailout - RM700 million                               
7. The Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal - RM12 billion
8. Sime Darby losses - RM964 million
9. Terengganu stadium collapse - RM292 million
10. National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) Cowgate scandal - RM250 milion
11. Bailout of Malaysian Airline System Bhd (MAS), twice - RM7.9 billion
12. Mindef paying RM1,146 for a RM160 technical pen;
13. Youth and Sports Ministry buying a RM50 carjack for RM1,664;
14. Paying RM2.57 million to deceased pensioners;                  
15. Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Mara) training centre paying RM25,500 for 150kg of sugar;
16. Tourism Ministry overpaying almost RM270 million for advertisements;
17. Marine Park Department paying RM56,350 for night binoculars valued at RM1,940; and
18. Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) spending RM770,000 to supply power to a single house.

• Was he told this truth that while the federal debt on paper inches closer to the 55 percent of GDP threshold, the “true debt” as of December 2011 was RM573 billion, or a whopping 67 percent of the GDP which included contingent liabilities such as government guarantees and “off balance sheet” borrowings.

• In 2009, these hidden debts totalled RM84 billion, which increased to RM117 billion in 2011. 

• Five years ago, our government borrowings stood at RM250 billion, but now it has reached RM520 billion.

• If we include the borrowings of government-linked companies (GLCs) such as MAS, TNB and others, total borrowings would hit almost RM700 billion.

• Was he informed that Malaysia (US$350 billion) is No 5 in the top 10 list of countries with the highest measured cumulative illicit financial outflows between 2000 and 2009?

• Was he made aware that the MACC is a declawed, debarked, toothless and tethered watchdog?

• Was he duly informed the three ministers in the new cabinet was sworn in without being appointed as senators?

• Was he told why Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and her family are still not been held accountable for the debacle in the NFC?

• Was he told that people who have never registered to vote is on the electoral roll? 

• Did he know that foreigners were given Malaysian identity cards (ICs) and citizenships to vote in the GE13?

• Was he told that among the 92 percent valid addresses, 74 percent of the voters could be recognised, and yet only 31 percent of the recognisable voters resided at their listed addresses?

• Was he told that the National Fatwa Council-approved indelible ink was diluted to dissolve some haram (forbidden) elements in the ink?

• He was definitely not told that an audit on the electoral roll has revealed a shockingly large number of dubious voter records, a total of about 200,000.

If he, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, was adequately informed of the above in a timely manner, would he have urged the rakyat to accept the results of the GE13 and to support efforts by the prime minister to restore national understanding?

FOR THE RECORD: FACTS AND FIGURES ON VOTERS IN THE GE-13

Read here for more

Population in the country                = 29 million ( 2012 official census)

Population under the age of 21        = 11 million  ( 2012 official census)

(* 29.4% of 0-14 + half of the 17.2% of 15-24 =38% of 29 million  = 11 million ( 2012 July census)

Registered Voters                          =  13 million ( SPR )

Voters who VOTED                       =   10.8 million (SPR)

Malaysians QUALIFIED  to Vote:   29 million (total)  -  11 million (underaged)  =  18 million

Malaysians who DIDN'T BOTHER to vote:  18 million (qualified)  -  13 million (registered)  =  5 million 

Malaysians who REGISTERED but STAYED AT HOME (did NOT turn up to vote):   
13 million (registered) -  10.8 million (who actually voted)  = 2.2 million  

 MALAYSIANS WHO DID NOT  VOTE:  --  11 million (underaged)
--  18 million (qualified) - 10.8 million (voted) = 7.2 million (qualified but did not vote)

TOTAL MALAYSIANS WHO DID NOT VOTE = 18.2 million

Of the 18.2 milliion who did NOT  vote, 60.4% (11 million) are under-aged to vote.

The actual number of voters who consciously chose to give up right to vote is 7.2 million only

Therefore,  the figure that there are 23 million ABSENTEE VOTERS  is a MYTH.

In  GE13,  a total of 10.8 million voters caste  their vote out of the 13 milliion  registered, so PR’s 51% is INDEED a majority of people as claimed!!!!

As far as the issue of which majority, seats vis-à-vis votes, that’s a MORAL  issue. 
 

MALAY HISTORY: WHAT'S MISSING IN MALAYSIAN HISTORY BOOKS.

BY

JOHN DOE

(first publish in CPI website 19 January 2011

Brunei has always been known to be one of the earliest Muslim Kingdoms in Southeast Asia. They pride themselves in this fact. All their neighbors pride themselves in this too, and of course, since it is fact, it is irrefutable. Right?

Good. Let’s quickly look at some FACTS then:

It is taught in school textbooks that Pateh Berbai, the brother of Awang Semaun and Awang Alak Betatar, discovered Brunei. Awang Alak Betatar subsequently became Brunei’s first Sultan and was known as Sultan Muhammad Shah. Awang Semaun and Awang Alak Betatar were the famous heroes in Brunei during that time.

Sultan Muhammad Shah was the first Sultan of Brunei. He ruled Brunei from 1363 to 1402. He was the first Muslim ruler of Brunei as a result of his conversion to Islam in 1363 for his marriage to a Johorean-Temasik princess. Prior to conversion to Islam, he was known as Awang Alak Betatar.

He sent a mission to China in 1371 by which his name is recorded in Ming historical record as Mo-ha-mo-sha. Sultan Muhammad Shah died in 1402. Sultan Muhammad Shah was the first Sultan of Brunei. He ruled Brunei from 1363 to 1402. He married the daughter of Iskander, a Johorean-Temasik princess introduced by Bal-Paki, her brother-in-law to be.

So far so good... Oh Really?

Read the above again very carefully !! Sultan Muhammad Shah married a Johorean-Temasik princess in 1363. Now, for all those products of Biro Tata Negara (BTN) out there, what year was Malacca formed? 1403. So, there was a Johor king already in 1363? Are you going to argue with Ketuanan Brunei on this? (By the way, he’s more Melayu than YOU!) Also for those who insist that Penang be handed over to Kedah, read the following again and again …

The Johor ruler was under the Thais. The entire Peninsular belonged to the Thais! The ‘king’ of Singapore (Temasik), whom Parameswara of the Malaccan Sultanate murdered in cold blood was in fact the brother-in-Law of the ‘King’ of Pattani, who was under Ayodthaya rule. For those who do not know, Ayodthaya is in Thailand. And that, my friend was already well established before 1363.

Next, Kota Gelanggi was also another Thai City, (yet to be publicized). And why not? Because it is a Thai Buddhist kingdom. Yes, it’s along the Johor River. All I’m allowed to say at this point is that Kota Gelanggi is REALLY along the Johor River. Expose Kota Gelanggi, and you will find its 30ft Buddha statues and its many Buddhist Temples, in all it's glory.

So, for Penang to go back to Kedah, ALL of the peninsula needs to go back to the Thais. Sarawak needs to go back to Brunei, Brunei needs to go back to Majapahit, Sabah needs to go back to the Philippines, and Parameswara needs to go back to Palembang, leaving the Orang Asli in charge all over again. (I find it ludicrous that the Orang Asli are disqualified as ‘Bumiputera’ although they have been here since 60,000 years ago)

Next, the year 1363 is of great significance. Why? That was the year that the first Sultan of Brunei converted to Islam. And he immediately became the Ruler of Brunei? What was he before that? A fisherman? A carpenter? A farmer? What was Awang Alak Betatar in 1362? And what happened the following year when he became a Sultan? Is becoming a Muslim enough to justify becoming a Sultan? Was he the first person in Brunei to convert to Islam?

Let's scroll back time by 100 years; the year is now 1264. A full hundred years BEFORE Awang Alak Betatar converted to Islam, and declared himself a Sultan. A trip to Bandar Seri Begawan is not complete unless one visits the Muslim graves at Rangas. Chuck your ‘pantang’ out the window if you want to enjoy this first-hand, and in real life. Amongst these tombstones is the one of a Chinese Muslim by the name of Pu Kung Chih-mu. He was buried there in 1264. He was a Muslim, buried in a Muslim grave! This is more than a hundred years earlier, before the ascension of Awang Alak Betatar as the ‘first’ Sultan of Brunei. Not only that, he is not the only Chinese Muslim there. I cross-checked against the Brunei Museum Journal of 1993, and found that this has been so well documented!! In fact, this grave had already been found since 1973. Whole communities of Chinese Muslims had already been living in Kampong Batu well before the 12th Century. It is clearly recorded in the 1973 Brunei Museum Journal, and was visited by professors from Japan and China. Pictures are on page 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12. Some are even in colour.

So, here's another nugget for BTN un-educators. The Chinese brought Islam to this region in 1264. Wait! That's not even correct. It was even earlier, because, this Muslim Chinese died in 1264. He had lived a full life in Brunei before he died. And before anyone even thinks of contesting this, let me draw your attention to yet another well-established fact, and let’s see how early the Chinese arrived.

According to records – as in the ‘Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources’ by WP Groeneveldt in 1880 – a Chinese Islamic trader arrived in Brunei in the 10th century. His name was P’u-lu-shieh. He was both a trader and a diplomat. SQ Fatimi writing in the Sociological Research Institute in Singapore in 1963 under an article entitled ‘Islam Comes to Malaysia’, P'u-lu-shieh name is akin to Abu al-Layth.

The Brunei King at that time was named ‘Hiang-ta’. The arrival of the diplomat-trader from China was greeted with great ceremony. If this is so, Islam actually arrived in Brunei in the year of 977.

If this is the year 977, and the Sultan’s name in the year 977 is Hiang-Ta, then how can Awang Alak Betatar be the ‘first’ Sultan of Brunei in 1363? For those with very bad logic (or timeline problems), the year 977 is 406 years older than 1363. And in the year 977, the Chinese were already sending Muslim ambassadors to Brunei. The real question should be, thus, who exactly was that ‘Hiang Ta’ who ruled Brunei in the year 977? An Iban? A Kadazan or a Chinese?

It gets even better. The MOST interesting thing was that the Brunei king’s delegation to China to return the emperor’s greetings was also headed by another Muslim official by the name of P’u A-li (Abu Ali).

Based on this fact alone, Abu Ali must have held an important position in the Brunei government if he was tasked to be Brunei’s ambassador in those days. This is again, irrefutable proof that there was already a government, with a King, and some members of his royal court were Muslims. Again, this is proof that Islam had already reached Brunei before the year 977. This is 75 years into the beginning of the Soong Dynasty, and only severely retarded people will say that Abu Ali was an Arab because of his name.

And by the way, Malacca was not to have been discovered for another 400 years. Is there a prawn under the stone? You can bet your bottom dollar (because Ringgit is worthless toilet paper) that whenever John Doe writes, there is. 

A number of European historians claimed that Brunei was still not a Muslim nation until the 15th century. However, the Ming Shih,Book 325, a Chinese reference book noted that the King of Brunei in 1370 was Ma-ho-mo-sa. Some say that this should be read as Mahmud Shah. In fact, local Brunei historians prefer to take this to refer to Muhammad Shah, the first Sultan of Brunei.

Robert Nicholl, a former Brunei Museum curator argued in another paper entitled ‘Notes on Some Controversial Issues in Brunei History’ in 1980 that the name Ma-ho-mo-sa could be pronounced as Maha Moksha which means ‘Great Eternity’. ‘Maha Mokhsa’ would make it a Buddhist name. Nicholl goes on to argue that even the Brunei Sultan who died in Nanjing in 1408 was not a Muslim. (History books always detail that the Sultan of Brunei went to China, but few will state that he died there),

Another historian Paul Pelliot said Ma-na-jo-kia-nai-nai was reconstituted as Maharajah Gyana (nai). But the closest title would have been Maharaja Karna. However Brunei historians have insisted that the King was Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan, who would have been the second Sultan of Brunei.

Nicholl further argued that Sultan Muhammad Shah converted to Islam as late as the 16th century and not during the 14th century as is widely known. However according to Brunei historians, Sultan Muhammad Shah converted to Islam in 1363 and that he ruled until 1402. After which time, it was Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan, who died in China who ascended the throne. That was when Sultan Ahmad reigned in Brunei beginning 1406.

And why did I bring up this detail? Simple !! Read the top all over again:

• Sultan Muhammad Shah married a Johorean-Temasik Princess in 1363.
• And that Kota Gelanggi and the entire peninsular Malaya belonged to the Thais. And if this is true and correct, then both the Sultan of Brunei and his wife, would have been Buddhists.
• In fact, the entire peninsular Malaya had been Buddhist and/or Hindu ever since the second century when Lembah Bujang was built. And since this is the year 1363, all of Brunei and Borneo was also under the rule of King Hayam Wuruk, who was King of the Majapahit empire. And what religion did they have? (I’ll give you a hint... they built the Borobudor. And for those who claim that Borobudor is a mosque in disguise, please learn to recognize temple architecture.)

Borrobudor in all its splendour.

Oh, and even more important is this:

“Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan whose proper name is Zein Ul-Abidin, frequented the near distant islands, that He called ‘Solook’ (Sulu) from 1402 to 1424. Marrying the daughter (Parmursuli) of the Sulu Tomaoi (chief) Baginda??? – it means he had a Filipino wife.

Also important to note, that since this is 1363, Parameswara had not yet swum across Pirate-Bay to reach Temasik yet. Hence, the need to locate the earlier kingdoms which pre-date ‘His Royal Pendatangness’.

During the reign of Wikramawardhana, the series of Ming armada naval expeditions led by Admiral Hajji Mahmud Shams (aka Zheng He), a Muslim Chinese admiral, arrived in Java for several times, spanning the period from 1405 to 1433. By 1430, Zheng He’s expeditions has established Muslim Chinese and Arab communities in northern ports of Java, and thus Islam began to gain foothold on Java’s northern coast. “Admiral Hajji Mahmud Shams (aka Zheng He) was so frustrated when he first arrived in Java, because he could not find a single halal restaurant there???, so wrote Mah Huan, his scribe, thus deciding to spread Islam to the “barbarians??? as Chinese records would write.

Also interesting to note is the following:

“In late Yuan Dynasty, China became chaotic, people who lived along the coastal area of Fujian, under the leadership of Ong Sum Ping’s siblings, escaped to eastern Kalimantan — they landed at the river mouth. When they were exhausted, facing a shipping crisis, someone lost their arms. After that, the Kadazans named it as Sungai Kinabatangan — the place where the Chinese lost their arms.

Ong Sum Ping and his sister, and the Chinese people developed the area of Sungai Kinabatangan, and they increased their influences there. With the increase of his prosperity, the natives named him Raja, or King. The Chinese named him as ‘Chung Ping’ - meaning the General. We can clearly see that Ong Sum Ping controlled Eastern Kalimantan.

This is Ong Sum Ping Rd in Brunei.

(Part 2 will appear tomorrow)

Bibligraphy

Kenneth Hall, Maritime trade and state development in early Southeast Asia, citing Wang Gungwu, 'The Nanhai trade: a study of the early history of Chinese trade in the South China Sea', JMBRAS 31, 2 (1958): 33,  citing Paul Wheatley, The Golden Khersonese, studies in the historical geography of the Malay peninsula before 1500, Kuala Lumpur, 1961, and other secondary sources;

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan', 

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan', citing Wan Zhen, Nanzhou yuwuzhi.

Louise Levathes, When China Ruled the seas, citing the Liang Shu (History of the Liang dynasty) and (i) Paul Shao, Asiatic Influence in Precolumbian art, Ames, Iowa State Univ 1976,  and (ii) David H.Kelley, 'Nine lords of the night', Studies in the Archaeology of Mexico and Guatemala, 16, Berkeley, Univ of California Dept of Anthropology, Oct 1972 & 'Calendar animals and deities', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 16, Albuqerque, Univ of New Mexico, 1960.
Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Ongkili, James P. "Ancient Chinese Trading Links." East Malaysia and Brunei. Ed. Wendy Hutton. Tuttle Publishing, 2001.
Saunders, Graham. A History of Brunei. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.
Wright, Leigh. "Brunei: An Historical Relic." Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 17 (1977).
"Background Note: Brunei Darussalam". U.S. State Department. Retrieved 2008-12-16.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/v/mvp111/karin.htm, citing vol.231 of The Great Chinese Encyclopedia, compiled by court historians of the Wang emperors from 502 to 556 AD (other refs give the editor's name as Ma Tuan-Lin);

Prof V.G.Nair, Buddhist mission visits America before Columbus, 

http://www.saigon.com/~hoasen/mission.htm; 

http://www.1s.com/hkmission/history/chinese.htm, citing hearsay of an 1100 page diary in the Chinese imperial archives of which only 75 pages of partial excerpts seen; 

http://users.wi.net/~maracon/;http://www.ventanawild.org/news/se01/fusang.html;

Kenneth L. Feder, Frauds, Myths and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, p113-4, citing Frost, F, 1982, 

The Palos Verdes Chinese anchor mystery, Archaeology, Jan/Feb 23-27, 

quoted onwww.kenspy.com/Menzies/Ships.html regarding irrelevance of these anchors.

J.V.G.Mills, introduction, to Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan; John Carswell, Blue & White, p.87; Louise Levathes, When China ruled the seas; Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan. Inscription in Galle

Malaysian Malay Rulers are Constitutional Monarchs. They Should NOT Engage Themselves in the Politics of the State. The Selangor Sultan Must Set a Good Example of a Constitutional Monarch in Dealing with the Rakyat's Representatives.

WE SAY,

THE  RECENT APPARENT STAND-OFF BETWEEN THE RAKYAT'S REPRESENTATIVES IN SELANGOR AND THE ROYAL PALACE IS UNTENABLE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY SYSTEM. 

IN OUR FORM OF DEMOCRACY, THE WILL OF THE RAKYAT  EXPRESSED  THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVES IN MATTERS OF THE RUNNING OF THE GOVERNMENT REMAINS PARAMOUNT. 

THE MENTERI BESAR IS THE ELECTED HEAD OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RAKYAT.   HE REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE RAKYAT, WHICH IS  TO BE RESPECTED BY ALL, INCLUDING THE  CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHS

UNLESS THERE ARE REASONS THAT AFFAIRS OF THE STATE WILL COMPROMISE THE WELL-BEING OF THE RAKYAT,  THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH IS TO SUPPORT AND FACILITATE THE  HEAD OF GOVERNMENT FOR HE/SHE REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE RAKYAT, NOT TO CREATE DISSENT AND OBSTACLES.

AS SUCH,  INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL WHIMS AND FANCIES OF  CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHS SHOULD NOT BRING TO BEAR ON  AFFAIRS OF GOVERNMENT, MORE SO IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE RAKYAT'S REPRESENTATIVES TO RUN THE GOVERNMENT

THUS, IT  DOES NOT DO ANY FAVOURS TO THE INSTITUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY IF THE ELECTED HEAD OF GOVERNMENT IS CONSISTENTLY BEING EMBARRASSED BY THE ROYAL PALACE AND MADE TO LOOK SUBSERVIENT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHS IN MATTERS OF RUNNING OF THE  GOVERNMENT.

Selangor exco saga - a tale with several twists

 READ HERE FOR MORE

 The  constitutional amendments that were passed in 1983 had actually removed whatever discretionary power the sultans had hitherto enjoyed in matters to do with the selection of the MB and the appointment of the state cabinet.

After those amendments were passed, state rulers were bound to accept the advice of the MB, loath as they sometimes are to do so.

The amendments had divested the rulers of their discretionary power, making the advice of the executive well-nigh irresistible.

But things THESE DAYS  are a long way removed from the 1980s when Umno was monarch of all it surveyed in the political realm.

Constitutional pundits were left scratching their heads as to how matters with respect to the selection and swearing-in of the exco could be as protracted as the Selangor saga turned out to be.

After the constitutional crisis in Perak in early 2009 when Umno-BN enjoyed royal favour in deposing the Pakatan government of Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin, the rulers began to claw back the powers and influence they had enjoyed prior to their 1983 decimation.

The exco saga in Selangor the past four weeks was played out against this backdrop of royals seeking to push back at the Umno-engineered limits placed on them by the 1983 amendments.

 Thus Pakatan MB-designate Khalid Ibrahim, days before he took the oath of office as MB on May 14, was subjected to the embarrassment of having a letter read out in his presence that was written by the Selangor PKR secretary to the sultan which not-so-subtly undermined Khalid's claims to a second term of office.

Senior state civil servants, known to be proxies of Umno, were present while the letter was read out at a royal audience, causing Khalid no small chagrin.

 Meanwhile, putting aside his pique at having elements in his own party deal him a low blow at a royal audience, Khalid kept his cool and continued the palaver with the sultan on the overall composition of the state cabinet, pirouetting within the narrow confines imposed by the sultan's insistence on the ratio of Malays to non-Malays (variously reported to be seven Malays to three non-Malays and, latter, six to four) and the advice of his own party that, pace the 1983 amendments, the constitution allowed the MB upper hand in the matter.

Despite two demonstrations by PKR adviser Anwar Ibrahim on how he, when he was deputy prime minister, had convinced rulers to abide by the advice of the executive in precisely such matters as the composition of the state exco, Khalid, either because of a lack of skill or a paucity of nerve, was unable to shift the sultan.

Further, his attempt to have Dr Xavier Jeyakumar retained in the PKR trio of exco members for the 2013-2018 term was shot down by the sultan who apparently revealed that he was deluged with letters and petitions from PKR types about the dentist's shortcomings.Khalid demurred that the claims against Jeyakumar were unproven allegations and, therefore, should not be held against the man. Khalid's pleas turned out to be unavailing.

Now party supremo Anwar is preparing to lead a PKR delegation for a requested audience with the sultan, presumably to discuss palace-to-party relations.

Perhaps what would be more useful to PKR would be an internal party seminar on the true import of the 1983 constitutional amendments and on how party functionaries could avoid undermining each other.

- Malaysiakini

Why is the Selangor Sultan, being a Constitutional Ruler, INTERFERING in the State Politics of Selangor by INSISTING ON THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE EXCO ?

Read  here

The Selangor sultan had  insisted that six out of the 10 exco members be Malays.



A malaysiakini reader wrote:

"Someone please advice the sultan that he is a constituitional monarch with no powers to select the exco members. The sultan has to accept what is chosen by the M.B. The blame should be on the weak M.B Never in the history of B.N's rule has a sultan insist on the composition of the excos. This is history in the making."

Another reader wrote:

"The Agong does not advice the PM on his cabinet composition... he just accepts the PM selection!!! Why is the Selangor Sultan insisting on this and that...!!! All Sultans are the heads of Islam in their respective states...or is it not true? Where are we headed?"

Malaysiakini  reports

DAP and PKR will be allocated three seats each in the Selangor state executive council while PAS will be given four in keeping with the Selangor sultan's insistence that six out of the 10 exco members be Malays.

Sources in Selangor Pakatan Rakyat told Malaysiakini that the 6:4 ratio meant DAP could not be allocated four exco positions as previously agreed, for all its appointments would be non-Malays and therefore leave no room for a non-Malay appointment from PKR.

"This comes despite a last ditch appeal by the menteri besar," said a Pakatan leader who did not want to be named.

Selangor Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim met with the state ruler on Monday to seek the royal consent for the new exco line-up.

All 10 exco members will be sworn in at the Istana Alam Shah in Klang tomorrow morning.

The positions of state assembly speaker and deputy speaker will be given to DAP and PKR respectively as PAS already has the highest number of exco posts.

"CHINESE TSUNAMI" WAS A LIE BY UMNO-BN AND PRIME MINISTER NAJIB

Read here for MORE

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won in 59 mixed-race federal seats, almost double its 30 wins in Chinese-majority seats in Malaysia’s Election 2013, according to a new research, debunking Barisan Nasional’s (BN) claim of a “Chinese Tsunami” that cost it more losses.

Independent online research house PoliTweet.org also said the ruling BN gained most of its votes from rural federal seats while PR increased its support from urban and semi-urban areas in the South-east Asian nation chasing developed nation status by 2020.

“BN represents the rural majority and can retain power with rural and semi-urban seats alone. This election highlighted PR’s weak areas which are rural seats, Bumiputra Sabah majority and Bumiputra Sarawak majority seats,” said the report, which can be found on PoliTweet’s official blog.

According to PoliTweet, 108 out of the 133 seats (81 per cent) won by BN came from rural seats, while PR won urban or semi-urban seats with almost the same percentage (72 out of 89 seats).

PR won all 16 urban Chinese-majority seats, 12 urban Malay seats and12 urban mixed seats, giving them 40 out of the total 43 urban seats (93 per cent). In comparison, BN only won four urban Malay and one urban mixed seats.

Out of the 54 semi-urban seats, PR won 34 of them (63 per cent). BN won the rest of the semi-urban seats, with Malay semi-urban areas making the bulk of it at 12 seats.

PoliTweet also pointed out that PR had won more urban and semi-urban Malay-majority seats than BN, effectively making Malay-majority seats no longer a guaranteed win for BN.

For its research, PoliTweet categorised seats into three categories which do not follow Election Commission’s (EC) own classification, but rather were based on Google maps satellite imagery and EC’s maps.

PoliTweet defined “rural” areas as those containing villages, small towns or farmlands, and tend to be physically large with a low population. “Urban” areas are cities covered by some form of urban development. “Semi-urban” areas are a mix of the two.

Under the three categories, PoliTweet grouped 125 seats as rural, 54 as semi-urban, and 43 as urban.

Urban areas made up slightly more than half of Chinese-majority seats, but Malay-majority seats are still predominantly rural. There are however more Malay-majority semi-urban seats than Chinese-majority and mixed areas added together.

The research house also highlighted the low probability of BN regaining urban seats, as BN obtained only 47 per cent of popular vote in semi-urban seats and 36 per cent in urban seats, compared to the 57 per cent it had amassed in rural seats.

The last Population and Housing Census in 2010 showed that urban population in Malaysia has been on a steady increase since the 1960’s, with 71 per cent of Malaysians living in urban areas. The World Bank put the number slightly higher at 72 per cent.

Federal Territories Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya both have reached 100 per cent urbanisation, while Selangor and Pulau Pinang – both currently ruled by PR – are the next highest with over 90 per cent of urbanisation.

Coincidentally, Selangor was the most populous state with 5.46 million people living in it, and together with Putrajaya, had the highest growth rates in Malaysia caused by migration and work opportunities.

In a forum organised by Universiti Malaya Centre of Democracy and Election (UMCEDEL) last week, independent pollster Merdeka Centre noted that voters were obviously split between different classes, with the working and lower-income classes mostly voting for BN, and the middle and upper classes for PR.

Pointing towards intra-ethnic differences, Merdeka Centre director Ibrahim Suffian suggested that the votes were not split according to races but more towards the different ideologies presented by both BN and PR.

MALAYSIA CANNOT GET A DUMBER CANDIDATE AS HOME MINISTER AS THIS ONE

Digest this and think about it: Who won GE-13?

It could have  gone Pakatan’ Rakyat’s way in the last General Elections. 

Can someone out in cyberspace explain this to me since I am wondering what the Election Commission did between 11.00 pm on May 5 and around 1 am on May 6 when the EC Chairman announced the results that the Barisan Nasional was the first to obtain 112 seats in Parliament. 

I watched him on NTV7 and his body language gave him away. Obviously he had done a good job for Barisan Nasional.

–Din Merican

http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/digest-this-and-think-about-it-who-won-ge-13/

BN HAS NO POLITICAL LEGITIMACY TO BE IN GOVERNMENT

BN is effectively a minority government

 by

Tommy Thomas

( Lawyer)

  In assessing the results of the long-awaited 13th general elections, it is imperative that one considers the actual conditions under which the elections were conducted.

Uninformed observers, particularly from overseas, assume that because Malaysia has a Westminister-style parliamentary democracy, our elections are conducted freely, fairly and in the spirit of fair play.

The reality is that our elections are never held as they are in mature democracies like the United Kingdom, India or Australia.

They are rather akin to another Commonwealth country, Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe has been in power for some 33 years, and where the ruling party always wins because it thinks it has a divine right to rule, and will cheat to remain in power. Institutions intended to be independent and impartial have never acted independently and impartially.

First, the Election Commission (EC). It does not even give the semblance of being an independent umpire in a contest between two coalitions.

Instead, the EC has been most partisan, always favouring the ruling BN. Bridget Welsh, a well-respected and independent scholar, highlighted in Malaysiakini, the impact of the increased numbers in the electoral roll which were out of line with historical patterns of voter registration.

As examples, she referred to the 21 percent increase in Bachok and 29 percent in Bukit Gantang. Apart from irregularities concerning early and postal voting of some 240,000 voters, double voting and phantom voting have also allegedly took place. Many others have already written about these flaws in the voting process.

Secondly, in appearing to uphold law and order, the police force had been equally partisan, and reportedly going to the extent of transporting and protecting newly-arrived ballot boxes which contained sufficient votes to tip the balance in favour of BN in closely contested seats.

When Malaysian voters attempted to ensure that nothing untoward like that would happen, the police brought in FRU trucks with heavily-armed police ready to intimidate civilians attempting to prevent abuse.

Thirdly, the mainstream media's sole function has been to print lies and distortions while not giving any mention to any good point that Pakatan may have made.

Fourthly, the caretaker government gave out money and other gifts which, by any yardstick, would constitute bribes and electoral offences. Yet, nothing was done to stop them.

Finally, and perhaps the worst offence committed by BN, with total complicity by EC, was allowing foreigners to vote.

In every nation, only citizens enjoy the privilege of voting in national elections. It is part of nationhood and citizenship. Article 119 (1) of the federal constitution confines the right to vote to citizens, and they further have to comply with residential and registration requirements. Yet, foreigners were allowed to vote in the thousands.

A stolen election

The scandal involving planeloads arriving in Malaysia days before polling has not been credibly answered. One wonders whether any other ruling party in the world will go to the extent of what BN has done. Mugabe may have to copy BN in this trick. All those who participated in this unconstitutional and wholly unacceptable conduct are guilty of treachery and treason.

Most Malaysians knew that this election would be stolen. That is exactly what happened on Sunday, May 5 between 5pm when the polls closed and when the results were announced.

The BN game-plan was to focus on about 30 parliamentary states. Winning them at all costs would ensure a return of power. Thus, they were not interested in Karpal Singh's seat in Bukit Gelugor which he won by 42,000 votes or Seputeh where Teresa Kok increased her formidable majority to 61,000 seats.

Rather, the focus was on closely contested seats. In these seats, recounts were ordered, which invariably resulted in BN victories. The results were announced very late. There was always a break in the chain of evidence, that is, between the sealing of the ballot boxes after counting in the voting centres, and the subsequent recounts and final announcement of results seven or eight hours later.

With the benefit of hindsight, it becomes clear why in the last week before the elections when all the evidence suggested a surge for Pakatan, the Umno "war room" was confident of winning 140 to 150 seats: they had "insider information" about cheating. The evidence is slowly being uncovered and no doubt by the time these results are challenged in court in the coming weeks, the picture would be much clearer.

An analogy would be a 100-metre race where the BN runner is wearing the best track suit while the legs of his Pakatan rival tied together. The starter, the official at the tape, the track announcer and the final appeal tribunal are all BN-friendly. What would be the outcome of that race?

It is against these absolutely lop-sided voting conditions that one must at once congratulate the people of Malaysia for voting in such large numbers to ensure a magnificent performance by Pakatan against all odds.

Massive gerrymandering 

Even when the results were officially announced by EC, there was discrepancy. The first announcements in the evening of May 5 placed the total national voter turnout at around the 80% mark. The EC subsequently announced on May 6 that it was at 84.84%, a significant increase.

Does the 4% increase represent phantom voters? Set out below is a table that has been compiled from election data published on the EC website.



On the assumption that the information provided by EC is reliable and trustworthy, the critical facts that emerge on our parliamentary elections are as follows:

1. Of the record-breaking voter turnout of 84.84% resulting in 11,257,147 votes being cast nationwide, Pakatan secured 50.85% while BN received 46.87%. Pakatan received 361,101 more votes than BN in the entire country.

2. Pakatan's margin of victory is more impressive if one considers the result in peninsular Malaysia. Pakatan received 53.26% of the popular vote, while BN had 45.55%. Pakatan received 688,288 more votes than BN. Yet it won five seats less than BN for Parliament.

3. Pakatan's best performances were in Penang (67.77%), Kuala Lumpur (64.65%) and Selangor (59.36%). BN did best in Sarawak (58.26%), Perlis (55.39%) and Pahang (55.18%). The two seats in Putrajaya and Labuan have been disregarded for this purpose.

4. Kelantan and Terengganu are states in the Malay hinterland. Malay voters constitute at least 90% of the electorate in each state. BN secured 51.42% in Terengganu and 46.24% in Kelantan. 48.47% of the voters in Terengganu supported Pakatan, while 53.7% of Kelantan voted for Pakatan.

This is the best proof that BN was telling another of its big lies when it described Sunday's result as a "Chinese tsunami". The plain and obvious fact is Pakatan could not have received a total of 5.62 million votes nationwide if only the Chinese had supported them. Instead, substantial numbers of Malays, Indians, Kadazans and Dayaks voted for Pakatan.

5. Perak has an interesting story of its own. For the parliamentary seats, Pakatan received 54.48% of the votes while BN received 44.71%. Thus, Pakatan received 111,893 more votes than BN.

For the state elections, Pakatan also received 54.48% of the votes, while BN received 44.4%. The votes cast were 625,710 for Pakatan and 506,947 for BN. Hence, Pakatan had a wide margin of 118,763 state votes over BN.

Yet BN formed the state government winning 31 seats to Pakatan's 28 seats. Only a combination of gerrymandering and outright cheating caused this massive imbalance.

On these facts, an objective case can be made that the BN federal government does not enjoy political legitimacy. It did not secure the mandate of the majority. It is a minority government insofar as public support is concerned.

It is only because of massive gerrymandering that BN has majority representation in the Dewan Rakyat, enabling it to form the federal government. If 25 to 30 of the results are declared void, and by-elections follow in a free and fair manner, the BN government may fall.

When the institutions which were intended to give sanctity to the voters in their once in a five-year opportunity to decide on their government failed disastrously, public confidence was shattered, both in the newly elected government, and in the institutions which allowed this to happen. This is Malaysia's tragedy, and an awakening.

Two final comments

One needs more time to reflect upon Sunday's events and their aftermath. Two comments can nonetheless be immediately be made.

In the second decade of the 21st century, it is difficult to believe that there are politicians in any part of the globe who question and insult the world's great religions and the contents of the Holy Books, who call for such books to be burnt and for places of worship to be destroyed.

Those were the hallmarks of the Nazi regime in 1930s. The declaration of the Atlantic Charter of Four Freedoms (freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear), the establishment of the United Nations and the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, were intended to make these terrible deeds a thing of the past.

When Malaya obtained Merdeka in 1957, our federal constitution expressly stated that freedom of religion is an entrenched, inalienable and fundamental right.

Yet in the months leading up to last weekend's elections, Umno's propaganda tool, Utusan Malaysia gave such pronouncements by the likes of Ibrahim Ali wide and extensive publicity. They were also selected to run as candidates.

One hopes that with the decisive defeats of Perkasa leaders Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifli Noordin, Umno will respect the will of the electorate and cease such abominable conduct. Umno must recognise that we are a moderate, tolerant people who accept plurality and diversity.

Secondly, the youth of Malaysia must not lose heart or give up hope. Those in the country must continue to engage in the reform movement. Wednesday night's mammoth rally was dominated by youths of all races. The experience was exhilarating.

The Global Bersih campaign opened the eyes of many Malaysians abroad. Millions of them are active in the social media. Thousands of them returned home to vote. You are our best and the brightest. You have the world at your feet. Your talents, intelligence and industry are recognised worldwide. You must not give up on Malaysia.

Stay steadfast for Malaysia. We need you to defeat BN at the earliest opportunity.

---

TOMMY THOMAS is a lawyer who had the privilege of being in Kelana Jaya stadium along with 100,000 fellow Malaysians demanding free and fair election results. Apparently, another 100,000 just could not get in.

Pengundi Cina BUKAN rasis; Ini Buktinya

PRU13: Pengundi Cina BUKAN rasis; INI BUKTINYA

oleh

Majdan Dagang

Baca disini: http://tinyurl.com/bmmm855

Tuduhan bahawa orang Cina rasis, tidak mengenang budi, dan ingin jadi PM, TIDAK BENAR DAN TIDAK TEPAT SAMA SEKALI.

Tuduhan-tuduhan ini hanyalah andaian TANPA berdasarkan fakta yang sebenar.

Adalah dibimbangi tuduhan ini BERTUJUAN MENCETUSKAN KEGELISAHAN DALAM KALANGAN ORANG MELAYU khususnya Melayu luar bandar agar terus berpaut pada Umno walaupun mereka terus-terusan menjadi mangsa kerakusan pimpinannya merompak hasil negara.

Umno juga sedar bahawa kemenangan mereka pada kali ini banyak bersandarkan kelompok Melayu ini. Jadi mereka akan berbuat apa-apa sahaja agar kumpulan ini terus kekal walaupun terpaksa meniupkan isu perkauman.

Namun, jika penyokong Umno RAJIN SEDIKIT membuat kajian mereka akan mendapati bahawa kenyataan pimpinan mereka tentang masyarakat Cina meleset sama sekali.

Selepas meneliti keputusan PRU13 ini, saya mendapati dengan jelas bahawa orang Cina bukanlah memenangkan DAP kerana parti itu berasaskan Cina, tetapi UNDI MEREKA KERANA MENOLAK BARISAN NASIONAL KESELUROHANNYA. .

Tambahan pula, mana-mana kawasan yang mempunyai MAJORITI penduduk Cina atau sekurang-kurangnya 40 peratus pengundi Cina, calonnya daripada Pakatan Rakyat akan menang selesa – TIDAK KIRALAH CALON ITU DARI MELAYU, CINA, MAHUPUN INDIA.

Antara kawasan yang mempunyai pola sedemikian ialah bagi:


(a) P48 Bukit Bendera, Pulau Pinang.

Pecahan pengundi mengikut kaum bagi kawasan ini ialah:

- Melayu (13.99 %),
-- Cina (73.74 %),
--India (11.22 %)
--dan lain-lain (1.14 %).

Parlimen ini dimenangi oleh Zairil Khir Johari yang berbangsa Melayu mengalahkan Teh Leong Meng yang berbangsa Cina.

Secara logiknya, Zairil Khir Johari boleh kalah teruk tetapi menang dengan majoriti 32,778.


(b) P80 Raub, Pahang.

Pecahan pengundi mengikut kaum ialah
Melayu (48.93 %),
-- Cina (40.99 %),
--India (6.60 %), dan
--lain-lain (3.47 %).

Parlimen Raub ini dimenangi oleh Datuk Arif Sabri Abdul Aziz yang berbangsa Melayu mengalahkan Hoh Khai Mun yang berbangsa Cina dengan majoriti 2,814 undi.

Pada PRU12 yang lalu Ng Yen Yen mengalahkan calon Melayu dengan majoriti 2752 undi. Pada kali ini berlaku sebaliknya.


(c) P100 Pandan.

Pecahan pengundi di kawasan ini asalnya Melayu adalah majoriti. Ketika itu Datuk Ong Tee Kiat berbangsa Cina telah menang selesa.
Namun pada PRU13 ini majoriti pengundi adalah Cina.

Pecahan mengikut kaum ialah
--Melayu (44.36 %),
--Cina (48.14 %),
--India (6.60 %)
--dan lain-lain (0.9 %).

Mohd Rafizi berbangsa Melayu menewaskan Lim Chin Yee dan Tan Yew Leng yang berbangsa Cina dengan majoriti 26,729 undi!


(d) N30 Mentakab, Pahang

Calon Melayu, Tengku Zulpuri Shah Raja Puji menewaskan penyandang kerusi ini yang berbangsa Cina iaitu Datuk Chuah Boon Seong dengan majoriti 1,554 undi.

Pada PRU12, Datuk Chuah menang dengan majoriti 2,439 undi. Pecahan pengundi bagi kawasan ini ialah

--Melayu (50.94 %)
--Cina (40.95 %),
--India (5.92 %)
--dan lain-lain (2.19 %).


(e) DUN N13 Sungai Abong, Bakri, Johor.

Calon PAS, Dr Sheikh Ibrahim Salleh berjaya mengekalkan kerusi yang dimenanginya pada PRU12 lalu.

Majoritinya turut bertambah dari 1,550 pada PRU12 kepada 3,813 pada PRU13.

Pecahan pengundi bagi DUN ini ialah:
--Melayu (51.33 %),
--Cina (45.22 %),
--India (2.96 %)
--dan lain-lain (0.48 %).


(f) N15 Maharani.

Calon PAS, Dr Mohammad Taslim juga telah mengekalkan kerusi yang dimenangi pada PRU12 dan menambahkan majoritinya daripada 158 pada PRU12 kepada 3,136 pada PRU13.

Pecahan pengundi mengikut kaum bagi kawasan ini ialah
--Melayu (54.98 %),
--Cina (41.98 %),
--India (2.50 %)
--dan lain-lain (0.54 %).


(g)N21 Parit Yaani
Calon PAS, Aminolhuda Hassan berbangsa Melayu telah merampas kerusi ini daripada calon MCA Teo Yew Chuan dengan majoriti kemenangan 1,188.

Pada PRU12, MCA menang dengan majoriti 3,857 undi. Pecahan pengundi ialah
--Melayu (55.61 %),
--Cina (43.06 %),
--India (1.82 %) dan
--lain-lain (0.23 %).

Keputusan ini juga membuktikan pengundi Cina bukan rasis kerana turut memberi undi kepada PAS.


(h) N41 Puteri Wangsa
Pengundi Cina dengan jelas membuktikan bahawa kempen menakut-nakutkan mereka dengan isu hudud kurang berkesan dan orang Cina tidak rasis. Hal ini kerana calon PAS, Syed Sis Abdul Rahman menang dengan majoriti 4,469 undi.

Pecahan pengundi bagi kawasan ini ialah
-- Melayu (40.27 %),
-- Cina (47.22 %),
--India (11.79 %)
--dan lain-lain (0.73 %).

Berdasarkan fakta dan maklumat tersebut:

-- Dengan sendirinya MENYANGKAN DAKWAAN bahawa orang Cina bersikap rasis kerana memenangkan calon bangsa mereka.

-- Orang Cina bukan menolak BN atau bangsa mereka sendiri tetapi mereka menolak pemimpin dan parti yang rasuah, salah guna kuasa, rasuah dan pelbagai lagi masalah.

---Selain itu, pengundi cina juga membuktikan bahawa mereka masyarakat yang matang dan celik maklumat serta tidak mudah melatah dengan propaganda politik.

MCA telah memainkan isu satu undi untuk DAP bererti satu undi untuk PAS yang mahu mengadakan hukum hudud.

Umno juga turut menakut-nakut pengundi melalui isu ini. Walaupun ada kalangan pemimpin DAP yang tidak bersetuju dengan hasrat PAS itu, tetapi para pengundi Cina semakin hari semakin memahami apakah hukum hudud.

Buktinya, mereka telah memberi sokongan yang padu dan memberikan kemenangan bergaya kepada calon-calon PAS di kawasan lebih 40 peratus pengundi Cina.

Jika anda rajin menelaah keputusan PRU13 yang lalu, banyak lagi bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa penolakan pengundi Cina bukanlah kerana bangsa atau parti tetapi penolakan total kepada sikap parti pemerintah itu sendiri.

Salah seorang rakan saya berbangsa Cina menyatakan rasa sedihnya apabila dituduh bangsanya bersikap rasis. Bagi beliau, tuduhan itu tidak berasas sama sekali dan tidak menghormati haknya sebagai pengundi untuk membuat pilihan.

Oleh itu, sebagai rakyat Malaysia yang cintakan keamanan, keharmonian antara kaum, dan kemakmuran negara menyeru agar jangan memainkan isu-isu yang boleh mengundang kebencian antara kaum.

Marilah kita bersama menuju Malaysia baru yang saling hormat-menghormati antara kaum dan agama.

-Majdan Dagang

------------------------------------------------------------

PAS Thanks Chinese Voters for Voting in MALAY Candidates in GE 13

Read here in Malaysiakini:http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/229514


PAS has EXPRESSED GRATITUDE to Chinese voters who backed MALAY Pakatan Rakyat candidates in the recently concluded general election, even if it meant having to VOTE AGAINST A FELLOW CHINESE.

PAS information chief Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man said the action of these voters proved the claim by Umno that the Chinese had rejected the Malays to be slander.

Tuan Ibrahim said,

“The Chinese voters were willing to vote for Malay candidates without any narrow racial sentiments, as claimed by Umno.

“There are tens of Parliament and state assembly seats that were contested by Malay candidates against candidates from the Tiong Hua (Chinese), in mixed constituencies, which were won by the Malays, proving that Chinese voters were willing to reject candidates of their own race."

He said the Umno claim could also be part of efforts through the mainstream media to create a smokescreen to hide possible cheating in the election and for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to secure his position in Umno.

Umno, Tuan Ibrahim added, must cease “playing with fire” by using the results of the 13th general election to stoke flames of Chinese-versus-Malay sentiments, especially since this was not based on facts.

MORE MALAYS IN PARLIAMENT DUE TO PAKATAN WIN

Meanwhile, in another statement, Pahang PAS information chief Suhaimi Md Saad explained that DAP’s big win in the election did NOT lessen the number of Malay MPs in Parliament.

In fact, Suhaimi said, the success of Pakatan’s candidates only served to increase that number by seven.

He citing various examples of Malay Pakatan parliamentary and state seat candidates from PKR, DAP and PAS defeating their BN challengers, including Chinese candidates.

Among the examples given are:

1. Rafizi Ramli (PKR, right) who won against Gary Lim (BN) in Pandan;

2, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud (PAS), who won against S Murugesan (BN) in Kota Raja;

3. Abdul Khalid Ibrahim (PKR) who won against Tan Kok Eng (BN) in Bandar Tun Razak;

4. Imran Hamid (PKR) who won against Kong Cho Ha (BN) in Lumut;

5. Mohd Arif Sabri Abdul Aziz (DAP) who won against Hoh Khai Mun (BN) in Raub;

6. Idris Ahmad (PKR) who won against K Parthiban (BN) in Ijok;

7. Tengku Zulpuri Shah Raja Puji (DAP) who won against Chuah Boon Seong (BN) in Mentakab; and

8. Mohd Rashid Hasnon (PKR) who won against Wong Mun Hoe (BN) in Pantai Jerejak.

As to how former Johor Menteri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman could to lose to DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang (left) in Gelang Patah, Johor, Suhaimi said GHANI HIMSELF “lLOOKED FOR TROUBLE , by choosing to contest in a Chinese-majority seat within a constituency that used to be “owned” by MCA.

To further debunk Umno’s claim that non-Malays went against Malays in the ballot box, he further cited 13 examples of seats where NON -Malay BN candidates WON in MALAY-MAJORITY constituencies.

Among the constituencies listed in Suhaimi's statement are -

-- Simpang Renggam (57 percent Malays),

--Tanjung Piai (51 percent),

-- Batu Sapi (51 percent),

-- Gurun (57 percent) and

--Kahang (74 percent).

LIVE REPORTS....5 May 2013: TODAY MALAYSIANS DECIDE THE DESTINY OF THEIR FUTURE GENERATIONS

COUNTING HAS BEGUN...
---------------------

Kelantan leads the way with a turnout of 62.02 percent as at NOON.

It is followed by

 Kedah (61.88%), 

Terengganu (60.9%),

 Johor (60.01%),

 Perlis (59.27%), 

Penang (59.04%),

 Pahang (59.02%),

 Selangor (58.9%), 

Negri Sembilan (58.35%), 

Sarawak (58.26%), 

Perak (58.08%) 

Sabah (57.1%), 

Putrajaya (55.82%), 

Malacca (55.67%) and

 Labuan (45.82%).

3.30pm: Segamat, Johor: PKR claims that its agent was told to leave a polling station in Felda Palong Timur after discovering that voting was being conducted in a disorderly manner there.

"Our officer was  told that his duty was done there and he should leave," says media officer Ong Jing Cheng.

"We were informed that the EC officers there did not print out the electoral roll and only recorded voter's information from the computer on a piece of paper with the 1Malaysia logo."

The polling station is Palong Timur 140/01/03 at SK Palong Timur 1.

PKR is mobilising its people to put pressure on the polling station which is 40km from town, deep within an oil palm plantation.

3pm: Penang - The DAP's Tanjong candidate Ng Wei Aik has lodged a report with the EC because ballot papers were not stamped with the official stamp.

Ng, who is the Penang DAP secretary, said complaints were received from three locations or polling centres:

- SJK(T)) Jalan Sungai (under the Jelutong parliament constituency)

- SJK(C) kong Min Cawangan Kedua (under the Bukit Gelugor constituency) and

- SK Taman Sejahtera under the Bukit Mertajam constituency.

Penang EC deputy director Mohd Faiz Syazwan Zainal Abidin says some ballot papers were not stamped due to the "negligence" of some officers.

"Whether stamped or not, we will accept the papers as it is according to the EC regulations," he says.

-------------------------
 WEATHER FORECAST FOR TODAY (SUNDAY)
 The Malaysian Meteorological Department has forecast that there will be no rain in the morning today in most states while some will have overcast skies.The states are Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Penang, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca and the Federal Territories.

However, there will be rain in the morning in some areas in Perak, Pahang, Sabah and Sarawak.

 "This weather forecast is only a guideline for voters. They are encouraged to come out early to vote as some areas will experience rain and thunderstorm in the evening," said the department. http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/229160