DAP is Racist!

LETTERS/SURAT

Sunday, 28 March 2010 admin-s

  

Please find below a description of the problems I face with DAP that seriously needs to change if it hopes to convince us to take it seriously as a genuine representative for Malaysians of ALL RACES and backgrounds.

By Captain Reinu Balakrishnan

I had previously raised numerous issues to DAP, being administrators of my area which included public works deficiencies as well as local illegal construction but they did not resolve any of those issues. Their explanation was that MBPJ does not listen to them.

Their inaction was so frustrating that the point came when I asked them if their apparent failures were just a ruse but that actually it was due to the fact that the complainant was not a Chinese. They did not deny this. I later went on to ask them if they only catered to Chinese-based issues and only if raised by a Chinese. Amazingly, they never replied or denied this. I had till then since GE12, never received a written reply or phone call of any sort from DAP in response to my complaints and follow up queries.

On 06/03/2010, I received an SMS soliciting support and funds for DAP. In short it stated:

‘DAP Paramount will be having a fund raising dinner on 17 April at 7pm in Sg Way Chinese School Hall. Tickets priced at RM50per pax, RM500per normal table n RM 1000 for VIP r on sale now.’ 

Taking into account my previous issues with DAP and the fact that they don’t reply when it affects the electorate but are fast to communicate when they want something, I took issue with that as well as the following:

a)      That the dinner, by being held at the Chinese school Hall, would give credence to allegations that DAP was only Chinese

b)      That no provisions were being made for Muslims, Hindus and vegetarians, all of whom form a segment in our society and who have special dietary requirements.

c)      That the ticket pricing and recognition was class conscious and as champions of a new Malaysia, we can do away with this classification. I suggested that even if all tickets were priced similarly and the seating ‘classless‘ it would not and should not impede any individual from donating funds of any amount to DAP. DAP not only disagreed with this but the rep decided to go on a personal attack of me which was meant to undermine my race, religion, upbringing and professional status (the text has been retained by me). She even threatened to use force against me. Now this is war.

d)      I wrote to and emailed DAP HQ on 06/03/2010 and phoned them repeatedly over the next few days about this latest development but,

a)      The phones were not answered until auto cut out.

b)      When finally answered, the staff told me that no one knew about my email or fax and then told me that there was no one who reads such emails and faxes and that there was no one to attend to me!!!

c)      When I finally insisted that I speak to someone as high as possible in the HQ, they told me to call a Ms. Foo who was supposed to be the assistant to Lim Guan Eng. However, they did not give me the contact number. After a lengthy debate again, I got the number and contacted the alleged Ms. Foo who first spoke to me in Chinese! When I told her I was not Chinese, she went “OH?“ and asked me why I had called her! Was she saying that only the Chinese should call her? That’s what it sounded like to me as she was not interested in the issue. I told her the issue and she stated that she was unaware of the issue, the staff concerned and  the problem of getting to her. She however denied the existence of anyone named Evelyn who I had claimed solicited funds for a dinner for DAP!!! She assured me that she was free to talk then but when I told her that her denial meant a police report had to be raised, the phone went dead … never to be answered again.

d)      Ms. Foo never got back to me and never answered my calls or sms again.

e)      I called DAP HQ again and was reverted to a Mr. Goh apparently from IT who then claimed that he now had found my email but had no idea of any of my previous communication and had been instructed not to say anything to me regarding the fundraising as well as the threatening and abusive behaviour of the DAP representative soliciting the funds. He said he was just a staff member and following orders.

f)        I demanded action and a written reply to the contents of my email of 06/03/2010 as it raised numerous issues including the fact that DAP was racist and only catered to the Chinese. I clearly stated to him that DAP should deny and prove me wrong if this was untrue and a failure to reply and/or deny would mean that all that I state becomes true at least in law. I told him that I would publish the issue and my accusations of DAP’s racism on the internet and even send it to Malaysia Today whom I regard as the most trustworthy of news providers that I know and I have travelled the world both in real distance and cyberspace (yah, yah think I’m crazy, tell me of another news provider so brave and at tremendous sacrifice, who so willingly posts absolute falsehood and lies that is propagated by the Government and tells you to read it and decide the truth for yourselves).

g)      Mr. Goh told me that he would get back to me immediately, within minutes after conferring with the ‘people he reports to',

h)      He did not get back to me again and 2 days later when I called, he told me that I could do as I wish.

i)        I then sent DAP a letter dated 23/03/2010 as found below which they have given me permission to state, publish and propogate without objection or denial.  In law it is called ‘ estoppel ‘ and I thank them for clarifying their position and informing the electorate.

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

DAP Headquarters                                                                                                  23 rd March 2010

No.24 , Jalan 20/9 Paramount Gardens

46300 Petaling Jaya

Selangor                                                                  by email / fax 79575718

Mr.Lim Guan Eng

c/o  No.14 Jalan Talipon

10400 Pulau Pinang                                                 by email / fax 604-2288514

Dear sirs,                     

                                   DAP ADMITS IT IS RACIST

I refer you to my email of 06/ 03/ 2010 and the complaints therein and my specific request for a reply / response. I also refer you to the numerous phone calls made by me in an attempt to get you to reply to my complaints and the conversations between myself and your racist Ms.Foo ( hp 012-3725852 ) and one Mr.Goh allegedly of  IT HQ and the conduct of your staff at the DAP HQ in response to communication.

As I have been very clear with my requests and queries and was assured of a prompt reply by your staff above and you have failed to reply and have not denied my statements and since more than sufficient time has lapsed , you have by at least this failure to address the issues therein and refusal to deny them , agreed to my contention.

 I would like to thank you for making this declaration to the electorate, to clarify any doubts they might have had and to contradict any previous statements that were made in the alternative from what DAP is stating below. This will certainly assist the electorate in it’s decision making process in preparation of the next General Election

I thank you for Confirming and agreeing that DAP under the full instructions of it’s leadership and working within it’s established policies, are a Political Party that

1)       lies , lies repeatedly and are happy to do so.

2)      is Racist and class conscious in it’s activities and it’s representatives are free to abuse, insult and humiliate the electorate

3)      does not wish to reply to phone calls, letters and  emails in relation to queries and complaints, especially if it originates from non-Chinese as I have made many over the years and none have received a response. When I raised this issue of racism, it has never been denied.

4)      does not attend to complaints of serious problems of failures , damage and maintenance of public property within it’s administrative boundaries and has additionally provided proof of  poor and corrupt public property maintenance in at least my area.

5)      unlawfully solicits monies from unsuspecting members of the public for activities that are racist and class conscious. DAP are unwilling to reveal how this solicitation took place and as to how the contact was enabled. When challenged, the DAP representative soliciting the funds ( Evelyn 0162675006 ) threatened to use force tantamount to ‘ criminal intimidation ‘ to silence the complainant .  

6)      is a Chinese chauvinistic mirror image of the criminal Barisan Nasional.

7)      does not deny the issues stated above as raised by me to them in the past.

I am sure that you agree that it is my duty to inform the public of your brave admission and declaration and will also assist in the propagation of you kind declaration to the electorate by posting this on the internet. I also thank you for the kind permission you have given me to do so.

Yours faithfully

Captain Reinu Balakrishnan

Copied to

1)      MT

2)      www

And fax.nos.  

• 603-7983 7576
• 603-78738017
• 604-2613003
• 605-2417402
• 603-79837576
• 603-77260443
• 603-33243096

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

The Blight of Hyperpartisanship

by Marina Mahathir

Reading through some articles about US politics recently I came across this term 'hyperpartisanship'. It mostly refers to a situation where politicians on different sides of the fence are so adversarial that nothing really gets done. Politicians get so wrapped up in fighting the other side that they forget about the real people they should be serving, which is their constituents. Whatever the other side says or does is wrong simply because they are on the other side. Nobody actually sits down to analyse the merits or demerits of anything properly and certainly never gives credit where it might be due.

The result is that in places like the US Congress sometimes bills don't get passed and there is paralysis in governing. Some people thus think that hyperpartisanship is something that needs to be eradicated. One commenter however says that " hyper-partisanship is properly understood not as the virus we seek to eradicate, but rather just another symptom of a much deeper affliction: laziness."

That may be applicable when thinking about our Parliament which is no doubt a hyperpartisan place. In the US, sometimes there is room for independent thinking which is why in the recent Healthcare bill debate, there were Democrats opposed to it even though the bill was the brainchild of the Democratic President. The opponents had their reasons for their opposition and all were given time to air their opinions, after which they had to be countered. In the end, the Healthcare bill was passed because some of the opponents were persuaded to switch their stand. (The bill passed with a tiny majority, 219 v 212).

But here I think hyperpartisanship is a real disease and often a real symptom of laziness. You so rarely see well-researched arguments against anything coming from the other side. It always seems as if knee-jerk reactions are the order of the day. "If it comes from them, it must not be good" seems to be the prevailing thinking. The debate then is less about the merits or demerits of the subject in question but instead just name-calling and politicising.

In the States, many people are fed-up with politicians because of the hyperpartisanship. Over here, I'm beginning to feel the same too. Can't anyone talk in a civilised manner anymore? Are good ideas the exclusive province of only one side and not anyone else?

Today I saw an excellent statement by Wanita PR decrying sexist remarks by a Minister. I thought it was great. But I think that the Wanita BN (who lead the women's caucus in Parliament) should also join in and do the same. After all, a sexist remark insults all women, not just some. Is it because the criticism came from Wanita PR? And is there a policy of never criticising your own no matter how badly behaved they are? Our women should learn that every time they are silent when their own men behave badly, they encourage the men to continue such outrageous behaviour with impunity. (Of course I am also keen to see if Wanita PR would criticise their own male colleagues should they also utter such remarks. But so far there has been no reason to do so, at least publicly.)

This is a prime example of how hyperpartisanship does nothing for the rest of us, we who vote these people in. Firstly we put them there because we want them to get on with work and not spend all their time insulting one another. And secondly, if any of them insults any of us, whether females, disabled, of a particular race or religion, we want them to be censured, regardless of who they are.

But today we even get Deputy Speakers using uncouth language. I have never heard of anyone who uses uncouth language on people who are not his close friends and then says it wasn't meant to offend. You can call your buddies whatever name you want and they would understand that you don't mean it. But you can't use it on anyone else and not expect them to be offended. "Tak sengaja" is not an excuse because when people are offended, they are offended.

(This is a bit different from the American commentator Ann Coulterwho actually sets out to offend. In a recent speech in Canada, she told a Muslim student to go take a flying carpet or failing that, a camel. At least the woman doesn't hide behind the 'tak sengaja' excuse.)

In our political scene, politicians insult others on the other side of the fence simply because they are on the other side of the fence. But they forget that in using sexist or racial epithets, they also insult those on their side. Their own colleagues may say nothing to them but that doesn't mean they are not disturbed by what was said . I hope at the very least there are private initiatives within the party to stop these insults, although judging by the continuing misbehaviour, they must be having no effect.

(I must say it is quite unique for a Malay to insult other Malays by saying that we used to live in the jungle on trees. What's up with that??? He should apologise to us all.)

The sum of it all is that politicians should stop talking rubbish and get to work. There are so many things that need to be fixed in our country; what else did we put them there for?

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

It is the mechanics, not the arithmetic that matters

NO HOLDS BARRED

Thursday, 25 March 2010 Super Admin

 

If you compare what the Malays owned in 1990 to the wealth of the Chinese and Indians in 1970, the Malays may already have a 30% share of the economic pie. But when you compare it to what the Chinese and Indians owned in 1990, it is not 30%. It is just 3%.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Zaid: Clueless Perkasa blames all but Dr M

By Stephanie Sta Maria, Free Malaysia Today

Pakatan Rakyat trouble-shooter Zaid Ibrahim believes that Malay right-wing pressure group Perkasa and its chairman Ibrahim Ali are trapped in a time warp.

According to the former law minister, the “Umno tentacle” appears to be clueless about the bigger picture, preferring instead to indulge in stone-age politics.

“They are worked up about Malay rights being threatened but do not care about what's happening to Petronas' money or about the massive corruption in the system,” he told FMT in a recent exclusive interview.

Zaid lambasted the movement for merely skimming the surface as opposed to diving deep into the issues which the Malay community is confronted with.

“Instead of conducting a serious analysis on the real reasons for the lack of progress among the Malays, they indulge in chest-thumping speeches.

“They blame everyone for the problem except themselves and (former premier Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad),” he said.

However, Zaid is confident that the Malays are much wiser now and will not fall for such political gimmicks.

Creating a sense of alarm

Last week, the PKR leader slammed Perkasa for twisting the facts concerning the special rights of the Malays, and described the movement as irresponsible.

He accused Perkasa of intentionally injecting a sense of alarm into the Malays in order to achieve its political aims.

Zaid also took its chairman to task for repeatedly stressing that Malay privileges as provided for in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution have to be protected.

"Even I am Malay but who wants to take our rights away that he (Ibrahim) has to protect them?" he added.

Perkasa is scheduled to hold its inaugural annual general meeting this Saturday, and was forced to make an eleventh hour change with regards to its guest of honor after the Sultan of Selangor decided to give it a skip.

Ibrahim is also mulling legal action against the Sun newspaper over a report which claimed that the sultan was concerned about Perkasa's image as a "chauvinist" group.

The Perkasa chief was particularly peeved with another report in the English daily which stated that the sultan had told Ibrahim to tone down his ultra-Malay image.

Now, Mahathir is slated to officiate the Perkasa annual meet.

*************************************************

For 35 years since the mid-1970s we have been trying to tell the government that the New Economic Policy is not working and unless the powers-that-be do something we are going to see the NEP end in 1990 with no solution to the grouses of the Malays. And when I say ‘we’, whom do I mean? I mean the Dewan Perniagaan dan Perindustrian Melayu Malaysia (DPPMM) or the Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia.

This was back in the mid-1970s, 35 years or so ago. But we did not see Ibrahim Ali then. He was nowhere to be seen. And neither were any of the other PERKASA people. We did not see their faces. They did not see fit to involve themselves in the Malay Chamber that was fighting tooth and nail with the government to correct the shortcomings of the NEP.

I recently wrote about this matter so I do not wish to repeat what I have already said. In that previous article I gave a long commentary about the history of our ‘struggle’ and the frustrations we faced over 20 years from the 1970s to the 1990s. I also mentioned how the government blamed the Malays for this shortcoming and that the government can’t keep giving to the Malays when the Malays themselves have no sustaining power, as the Minister of Trade Rafidah Aziz said.

Let us rewind to 1970 when the NEP was first conjured.

It is said the NEP was the result of the 13 May 1969 race riots. And it is said the May 13 race riots was because of the plight of the Malays and their unhappiness about the wealth of this country being monopolised by the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. So the Malays, Chinese and Indians from Umno, MCA and MIC respectively -- then under the coalition called the Alliance Party -- agreed that there would be a 20-year ‘correction’ policy so that the Malays can catch up with the rest and the gap between the haves and haves-not can be reduced.

This was a policy -- which was actually an aspiration (hasrat) -- which was agreed by the three parties in the Alliance Party. And it was agreed that it would run for 20 years.

But who were the architects of this policy? Who was the mastermind? Was this policy drawn up after consultation with the Malay business community or the Malay Chamber of Commerce or did some civil servant somewhere just put pen to paper and came out with the marvellous plan?

Back in the 1970s we already asked: why 30%? Someone decided that the target for the Malay share of the economic pie would be 30%. Where did this 30% target come from? Whose idea was it?

Malays make up more than 50% of this country’s population. Some say it is 60%, depending on what you consider Malay. So, if the objective of the NEP is to see a more equitable distribution of wealth according to the racial composition of this country, should the target not be 60% instead of 30%? Or, to be realistic, should the target not be 10% or 12% or 15% instead?

Yes, this was one of the questions we posed back in the 1970s. Is the 30% target realistic? Is it achievable? Is it fair? And whose idea was it that it should be 30%?

No one could tell us. In fact, no one appeared to know the answer. Someone, somewhere, said that the target for the Malay share of the economic pie should be 30% and everyone just agreed without exploring whether this is fair, realistic, achievable and whatnot.

We were not disputing the 30% target or stating that it should not be 30%. We just wanted to know what the basis was for pegging it at 30%. Was research done and did the findings of the research show that it should be 30%? Or was 30% a figure plucked from the air, a ‘look good’ figure, with absolutely no basis whatsoever?

No one could enlighten us. Someone, somewhere, somehow decided that the Malay share of the economic pie should be 30% and everyone went along with this because the figure of 30% looked good. 60% will make the Chinese jump and 10% will appear like Umno is not serious enough in helping the Malays. So 30% just looked like a great figure. It was a ‘look good’ figure.

The problem is, today, we are ‘locked’ in that 30% target. Never mind if it is fair, realistic or achievable. It had already been somehow decided by someone that the target should be 30% so we have no choice but to go along with that figure. It is too late to change it now.

That is the main problem with the NEP. A target had been set but no one knows whether this should have been the target. And now that target can’t be met so there is pressure to extend the NEP, although by another name, so that the 30% target can be met. They can’t change the target. So they change the duration to meet that target.

However, has anyone done any research on this matter? If the 30% target can’t be met in 20 years (and we now know it can’t), if it can’t be met in 40 years (and we know it still can’t because it is already 40 years), then how many more years will we need? Do we know? Does anyone know? Is this going to be a never-ending policy? In other words, will the NEP go on and on for as long as the 30% is not yet met, even if it needs to go on another 100 years or 200 years?

Perkasa wants the NEP to be fixed according to the target and not the duration. It should not be 20 years or 40 years or 100 years. It should be for as long as the 30% is still not yet met. That could be till the end of time.

Is this fair? Is it realistic? Is it achievable?

The next point that we raised 35 years ago back in the mid-1970s is about the implementation of the NEP. The NEP is good in theory even if we can question the logic of the 30% target. But the way it was being implemented would guarantee its failure. Malays are too focused on the arithmetic. No one talks about the mechanics. Even if the arithmetic (the 30% target) is correct, the NEP will not work if the mechanics is wrong. And the mechanics is very wrong, as I pointed out in my previous article.

The Malays blamed Umno and the GLCs. It is the unfair competition from the Umnoputeras and the GLCs that resulted in the problems faced by the Malays. The government, in turn, blamed the Malays. The government gave so much to the Malays but the Malays were not able to hold on to it. The Malays lost it all. And that is why the Malays failed to meet the 30% target, argued the government. If the Malays had held on to what the government gave them then the Malay share of the economic pie could even exceed 30%.

Then we had the ‘moving target syndrome’. The architect of the NEP and whoever it was that fixed the target at 30% assumed that the world would stand still for 20 years while the Malays tried to catch up. In other words, the Chinese and Indians would go to sleep and would not do business and would not increase their wealth for 20 years. Then, in 20 years, the Malays would have caught up with the Chinese and Indians and would own 30% of the economic pie.

But the Chinese and Indians did not stand still or go to sleep. They continued to do business and make money. And they increased their wealth over those 20 years. So, 20 years later, when the Malays compared what they own to what the Chinese and Indians own, they discovered that they had only 3% of the economic pie and not 30% as planned.

No doubt the Malays started at just 1.5% and therefore managed to increase their wealth 100% over 20 years. But the Indians and Chinese also increased their wealth over that same 20%. So, if you compare what the Malays owned in 1990 to the wealth of the Chinese and Indians in 1970, the Malays may already have a 30% share of the economic pie. But when you compare it to what the Chinese and Indians owned in 1990, it is not 30%. It is just 3%.

Let me put it another way. The Malays were jogging at a speed of 10kph (slow and easy). But the Chinese and Indians were not sleeping under a tree. They were running at a speed of 20kph like there was no tomorrow. But then the Chinese and Indians were already 20 kilometres ahead of the Malays to start off with. So, after an hour, the Malays had gained a distance of only 10 kilometres while the Chinese and Indians were 40 kilometres in front, 30 kilometres ahead of the Malays.

Now, if the Chinese and Indians had stopped running and instead had slept under a tree or had run backwards rather than forwards, today, we would have no more problems.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings: