مهاتير محمد's Blog, page 54

Chin Peng

This article appeared in the New Straits Times, Oct 1, 2013

 

1. Attempts to declare Chin Peng a patriot, nationalist and freedom fighter reflect how far derailed some Malaysians are from what the Communist Party of Malaya represented and what was its real objective.

2. Firstly, it must be pointed out that the CPM continued with their insurgency long after Malaya and then Malaysia had gained independence in 1957.

3. In their fight against the Government of independent Malaysia, the CPM killed civilians and security personnel by the thousands without considering their role as defenders of independence or their innocence. Senior police officers were assassinated and police patrols were ambushed and gunned down.

4. Nationals of an independent country do not kill fellow nationals who were only doing their duty to provide security for the citizens who wanted just to earn a living, who wanted to live a normal life. Yet the CPM ignored the independence of the nation, the democratic rights of the people in its single-minded desire to create a Communist dictatorship in Malaysia. The CPM were prepared to use extreme violence so as to install its leader Chin Peng, as the authoritarian ruler of the country.

5. To make it more horrendous, much of the atrocities and mutilations committed by Chin Peng and the CPM are not only on soldiers but many civilians were their victims.

6. Government records show that the CPM in a classic move infiltrated the trade unions and political parties so as to destabilise the nation and bring down its elected Government.

7. In the 1969 General Elections, the CPM defied the Government by holding a funeral procession to arouse hatred against the Alliance party. This contributed to the inter-racial tension and the subsequent riots.

8. Until the Haadyai agreement of 1990 the CPM guerrillas planted booby traps which caused many policemen and soldiers to lose their legs, arms and eyesight. Many were killed.

9. The agreement was to stop to the mindless killings of members of the security forces even though there was no possibility for the CPM to seize power in Malaysia. The agreement provided for the laying down of arms by the CPM insurgents. Many of the insurgents chose to live in Thailand. A few who wanted to visit relatives in Malaysia were allowed to do so. Those who pleaded that they were forced or were mislead into joining the CPM and wished to reside in the country were allowed to do so. The agreement was a practical solution to the problems faced by the nation and it was a solution also for the CPM which had lost all support in Malaysia following the Government campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people.

10. The CPM would not have entered into the agreement if it still had substantial support of Malaysians. It must be admitted that certain extremist groups in the country still harbour the hope of a CPM-ruled Malaysia. Besides, after the visit of Tun Razak to China in 1974, the Chinese Government stopped supporting the CPM. It stopped radio broadcasts in support of the CPM that year. The nation celebrated this stoppage of China’s support for the CPM by giving the BN party a big majority in the 1974 elections.

11. All these point towards the fact that from the very start the war waged by Chin Peng and the CPM was with the objective of turning Malaya into a dictatorship with the CPM leader as the dictator. There was no intention to give the people the right to choose their Government. The CPM wanted to change British Colonial rule with a Communist dictatorship, not an independent nation.

12. It is important to remember that Chin Peng never made any effort to register as a Malaysian citizen. He has therefore forfeited all rights as a Malaysian citizen. But it is entirely possible for his leftist supporters to try and rally around his burial place as a symbol for the resurgence of the MCP in Malaysia. Already race relations in Malaysia has deteriorated. With Chin Peng as a symbol it is most likely that race relations might explode in violence.

13. The Government is right in not allowing the burial of Chin Peng in Malaysia or bringing his ashes back.

REGIME CHANGE

1.      The British parliament, to the surprise (and probably relief) of Prime Minister David Cameron, rejected British armed intervention in Syria.  Then Barack Obama, President of America, decided that he would ask for Congress approval even for what he called limited military action against the Syrian Government despite his right to declare war without the approval of Congress.  In other words he is   not really willing.  It is a smart move on his part because if the venture fails Congress cannot blame him alone.

2.      It looks like the Western Powers have learnt something from their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They once thought that it would take only a few months of shock and awe to achieve regime change in these two countries.  In the event after ten years of war, after losing thousands of their own soldiers while killing hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, devastating these countries, the regime changes have not resulted in the democracy they expected.  If at all the present situation in these two countries is much worse than before invasion and the regime changes.

3.      The hesitation over a military adventure in Syria, even a limited one is understandable.  Yes, the use of chemical weapons probably killed over a thousand innocent Syrians.  But already about 200,000 people have been killed.  Is it acceptable to kill unlimited numbers of innocent people with bombs, rockets and bullets but not with chemical weapons?

4.      If a military invasion is to take place surely it would cause more deaths, definitely more than the number killed by chemical weapons.  And supposing the arsenal of chemical weapons are hit, would it not cause even more deaths.

5.      Supposing limited war takes the form of assassination of the President, would the war stop?  Would the opposition take over the Government and set up a democracy?  The killings of Saddam and Ghadafi have not resulted in stability for their countries.  Even the removal of Hosni Mubarak has not resulted in Egypt being stable and democratic.

6.      The experience in Iraq shows that killing Saddam Hussain did not end the war.  In fact the killings or disabling of the leaders have not brought about peace or a stable democratic nation.  The supporters of Bashar would very likely continue the fight against the rebels.

7.      But supposing the rebels win, what kind of a Government will they set up.  It is reported that the Al Qaedah are also with the rebels.  An election would probably result in a Sunni Government.  The Shiah and Muslim extremist would not like this.

8.      People who rise against their Government must know that it is risky and success is not guaranteed.  And outside help cannot be depended upon.  Such help would tarnish the image of the rebels.  They would lose the support of many.

9.      We see this happening in Egypt.  Some people are already beginning to think that Mubarak’s rule was better.  At least the country was stable and people could go about their business and earn a living.  With the demonstrations against Mubarak and then against Morsi and now against the military rulers, the instability is hurting ordinary people.  They wish the rebellion had never taken place.

10.    Regime change may be desirable but it is wrong for the West to force it on people who may not ready for it.  The process must be through education and the slow spread of the principles of democracy and its weaknesses.  The focus should be on the next generation, which will be more appreciative of the good points of democracy and understand how it works.  The most important point is that some will lose in elections.  They must then be patient enough to wait for the next election.  A bad Government is better than a destabilised Government.  If the Government is really bad, it will not win the next election.  The losers in the last election may then have a chance to win.  And when they win a genuine regime change would take place.

VIDEO:Dr M lancar tabung bantu pelarian Syria

Ihsan Sinar TV dan Sinar Harian

REGIME CHANGE

REGIME CHANGE 

1. The British parliament, to the surprise (and probably relief) of Prime Minister David Cameron, rejected British armed intervention in Syria.  Then Barack Obama, President of America, decided that he would ask for Congress approval even for what he called limited military action against the Syrian Government despite his right to declare war without the approval of Congress.  In other words he is   not really willing.  It is a smart move on his part because if the venture fails Congress cannot blame him alone.

2. It looks like the Western Powers have learnt something from their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They once thought that it would take only a few months of shock and awe to achieve regime change in these two countries.  In the event after ten years of war, after losing thousands of their own soldiers while killing hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, devastating these countries, the regime changes have not resulted in the democracy they expected.  If at all the present situation in these two countries is much worse than before invasion and the regime changes.

3. The hesitation over a military adventure in Syria, even a limited one is understandable.  Yes, the use of chemical weapons probably killed over a thousand innocent Syrians.  But already about 200,000 people have been killed.  Is it acceptable to kill unlimited numbers of innocent people with bombs, rockets and bullets but not with chemical weapons?

4. If a military invasion is to take place surely it would cause more deaths, definitely more than the number killed by chemical weapons.  And supposing the arsenal of chemical weapons are hit, would it not cause even more deaths.

5. Supposing limited war takes the form of assassination of the President, would the war stop?  Would the opposition take over the Government and set up a democracy?  The killings of Saddam and Ghadafi have not resulted in stability for their countries.  Even the removal of Hosni Mubarak has not resulted in Egypt being stable and democratic.

6. The experience in Iraq shows that killing Saddam Hussain did not end the war.  In fact the killings or disabling of the leaders have not brought about peace or a stable democratic nation.  The supporters of Bashar would very likely continue the fight against the rebels.

7. But supposing the rebels win, what kind of a Government will they set up.  It is reported that the Al Qaedah are also with the rebels.  An election would probably result in a Sunni Government.  The Shiah and Muslim extremist would not like this.

8. People who rise against their Government must know that it is risky and success is not guaranteed.  And outside help cannot be depended upon.  Such help would tarnish the image of the rebels.  They would lose the support of many.

9. We see this happening in Egypt.  Some people are already beginning to think that Mubarak’s rule was better.  At least the country was stable and people could go about their business and earn a living.  With the demonstrations against Mubarak and then against Morsi and now against the military rulers, the instability is hurting ordinary people.  They wish the rebellion had never taken place.

10. Regime change may be desirable but it is wrong for the West to force it on people who may not ready for it.  The process must be through education and the slow spread of the principles of democracy and its weaknesses.  The focus should be on the next generation, which will be more appreciative of the good points of democracy and understand how it works.  The most important point is that some will lose in elections.  They must then be patient enough to wait for the next election.  A bad Government is better than a destabilised Government.  If the Government is really bad, it will not win the next election.  The losers in the last election may then have a chance to win.  And when they win a genuine regime change would take place.

THE ROHINGYAS

1.  If you want to fight then pick on someone you can beat.  If you do this you will always win.  But then you will be called a bully.  That is alright.

2.  The weak of today are the Muslims.  And the Muslims are weak because they choose to be weak.  I say they choose because Allah has not just given them a good religion, a religion of high values which when practiced would make them strong and respected but Allah has also given them resources of wealth which enable them to have a good life doing nothing.  With money they can get others to do their work for them.

3.  Because of all these the Muslims are weak and can be bullied by anyone. And when they get bullied no one, certainly not their Muslim brothers will come to their help.  So whenever a bully wants to bully he will always pick on the Muslims.

4.  Almost all Muslim countries and people are in trouble today.  The latest are the Rohingyas of Myanmar.  They have been in Rakhine state of Myanmar for centuries but now they are being told by  Myanmar that they are not a people, that Myanmar is not their land.  They are being forced to leave their own homes and country, to flee in leaky boats, over loaded and prone to being wrecked and they would be drowned.  All countries refuse to help these unfortunate creatures and they and their leaky boats get pushed back into the sea. Certainly no Muslim country has lodged protests against the Government of Myanmar for tolerating violence against the Muslim Rohingyas.

5. Strangely, this time the bullies are the Buddhist monks of Myanmar.  It is strange because Buddhists are said to be against violence.  And Buddhist monks must certainly know about Buddhist non-violence.  They are supposed to abhor killing, in particular the killing of fellow human beings.  Yet the Buddhist monks lead the vicious attacks against the Muslims of Myanmar, burning their houses, chasing the Muslims as they flee and beating them to death with heavy wooden sticks.  They loot the houses and shops with impunity.

6. And they did all these in the Rakhine state and in Myitlenna in full view of the police and even the military.  The police and the military did nothing, did not stop the violence and killings.

7. As for the Government, they simply explain that these people are Bangladeshis as if this justifies the brutalities perpetrated against them.

8. The Muslims worldwide are weak.  Naturally they have not raised meaningful objection against the atrocities. It is as if Muslims care only for themselves and not their brothers, yet Islam enjoined upon them the brotherhood of all Muslims.

9. Since the Muslims care not for each other or for Islam anybody can beat any Muslim to death in full view of the other Muslims.  I feel sorry for the Rohingyas.  It is their turn today.  We Muslim in Malaysia think this will not happen to us.  So why should we care about what happens to the Rohingyas.  It is their problem, not ours.

MASA DEPAN UMNO

ARTIKEL IN TELAH DI SIARKAN DI DALAM AKHBAR UTUSAN MALAYSIA KELUARAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2013

 

1. Saya berasa serba salah. Saya setia kepada UMNO. Saya ingin lihat UMNO terus mewakili orang Melayu, mempertahan dan memajukan mereka. Saya sedar akan hakikat bahawa UMNO mengidap sakit tua, dan ia akan maut kerana sudah tua. Ini naluri manusia. Lambat laun manusia akan menemui ajalnya.

2. Pembaharuan umat manusia ialah melalui zuriat. Anak kita, cucu kita, cicit kita akan kekalkan kita secara tidak langsung di dunia, akan sedikit sebanyak meneruskan sumbangan kita yang terdahulu.

3. Saya cuba sedarkan UMNO akan usianya yang sudah lanjut. Saya menulis akan perlunya UMNO diperbaharui dengan penerimaan ahli serta kepimpinan dari generasi muda. Malangnya ada pihak yang berpendapat tulisan saya mempunyai agenda tertentu, kononnya kerana saya ingin kekalkan kepimpinan saya melalui anak saya. Mungkin secara kebetulan ini akan terjadi. Tetapi jika kerana tuduhan ini saya tidak berusaha untuk kebaikan UMNO, ini bermakna saya lebih utama imej saya daripada tanggungjawab saya kepada parti. Jika saya ingin tolong anak saya, sepatutnya saya berusaha semasa saya Perdana Menteri. Tetapi saya tidak berbuat demikian. Pada hakikatnya, UMNO sekarang memerlukan pembaikan, dan walau apa pun tuduhan saya terpaksalah ketepikan, jika sedikit sebanyak dapat saya sumbang untuk masa depan UMNO dan orang Melayu. Saya tidak penting. UMNO dan orang Melayu tetap lebih penting daripada saya, atau anak saya.

4. Saya ulangi UMNO sedang mengidap sakit tua yang tetap akan membawa maut. Hanya jika UMNO diperbaharui oleh yang muda barulah UMNO dapat meneruskan perjuangan-perjuangan yang diamanah kepada UMNO oleh bangsa Melayu. Ahli UMNO mestilah ditambah melalui kemasukan generasi muda yang bersemangat kebangsaan. Demikian juga dengan kepimpinan UMNO di semua peringkat, terutama di peringkat pusat, di dalam MajlisTertinggi. Ahli-ahli badan ini mestilah terdiri sebahagiannya daripada yang muda.

5. Saya masih ingat mereka yang menjadi pengasas UMNO. Mereka muda-muda belaka. Purata usia mereka belum pun setengah abad. Ramai yang hanya dalam lingkungan tiga puluhan. Mereka memiliki kecergasan minda orang muda, bersemangat, memiliki cita-cita besar untuk bangsa mereka. Dan UMNO pun bertenaga, aktif kerana mudanya pemimpin dan ini memberi harapan kepada bangsa Melayu. Dan mereka pun berjaya, berjaya menewaskan Malayan Union British, memerdekakan negara dan bangsa, mengatasi segala cabaran setelah mengambilalih pemerintahan, mengisi kemerdekaan secara bermakna sehinggalah negara yang kerdil, bangsa yang terhina dahulu dikenali dunia sebagai bangsa yang berwibawa, yang mampu bersaing dan memajukan negara ini berpuluh kali lebih baik daripada penjajah. UMNO membangunkan Malaysia sehingga menjadi negara contoh yang dikagumi dunia. Berduyun-duyun orang asing datang untuk mempelajari darinya, mempelajari ilmu berkenaan pembangunan negara dan bermacam lagi.

6. Sumbangan pengasas UMNO yang muda ini terhadap bangsa, agama dan tanahair tidak dapat dinilai. Orang muda, pemimpin muda yang melakukan semua ini memang berjasa. Negara terhutang budi kepada mereka. Bangsa Melayu terhutang budi kepada mereka. Jasa mereka tetap akan dikenang selama-lamanya.

7. Tetapi mereka dan pengganti mereka sekarang sudah tua. Masa mereka sudah terlanjut. Sumbangan mereka semakin merosot. Ya, menjadi pemimpin memang sedap. Segala kemudahan dapat dinikmati. Ramai yang membongkok disekeliling pemimpin, yang mengulangi cerita tentang keupayaan dan keberkesanan mereka sebagai pemimpin. Dan mereka pun percaya cerita pembodek ini. Lagi pun sedap sungguh kerusi yang diduduki. Memuaskan sungguh kuasa yang dimiliki. Kenapakah pemimpin perlu undur, tarik diri.

8. Tetapi mereka harus sedar akan pentingnya mereka tidak melampaui masa mereka. Lambat laun orang akan berasa bosan, bahkan naik meluat akan pemimpin ynag sudah lapuk dan ketinggalan zaman tetapi masih tidak terima kebenaran.

9. Untuk ini mereka sanggup buat apa sahaja. Tanpa mengambilkira kesan terhadap budaya bangsa mereka sanggup hulur wang untuk mendapat sokongan, untuk mengekal diri sebagai ahli Majlis Tertinggi atau jawatan-jawatan lain. Percayalah jika ahli memilih perasuah sebagai pemimpin, mereka akan amalkan budaya penerima rasuah semasa menjadi pemimpin. Kuasa mereka akan disalahgunakan. Kita dan bangsa kita akan rugi lebih daripada apa yang kita terima dahulu. Negara akan hancur. Maruah bangsa akan luput.

10. Malangnya ramai yang begitu mudah tergoda dengan sogokan wang. Tak banyak. RM200/- pun boleh mengalih pemikiran sesetengah ahli UMNO. Mereka bukan menjual undi. Sebenarnya mereka menjual bangsa, menjual maruah diri mereka. Hentikanlah amalan ini baik oleh yang menghulur mahupun yang menerima.

11. Kata pepatah Inggeris “Money is the root of all evil” (Duit adalah punca segala kejahatan). Duit boleh beli segala-galanya, membeli bangsa, membeli maruah, membeli masa depan, membeli agama pun.

12. Percayalah apabila pemimpin yang kita pilih adalah perasuah, mereka tidak akan teragak-agak menjual bangsa pun. Ingatlah Negara kita dahulu lebih besar tetapi kerana duit ia sudah jadi kecil. Ia akan jadi lebih kecil lagi jika perasuah memimpin Negara ini.

13. Kita harus akui bahawa UMNO sekarang tidak lagi dipercayai oleh ramai orang Melayu. Sebab itu mereka menubuhkan ratusan badan bukan Kerajaan (NGO). Jika mereka mempunyai banyak pilihan, UMNO sudah kalah PRU13. Tetapi janganlah ahli UMNO, pemimpin UMNO percaya walau apa pun yang dilakukan mereka, kerana tidak ada pilihan lain maka UMNO tetap akan menang. Kalau UMNO dipimpin perasuah, parti lawan akan ternampak lebih baik.

14. Justeru itu kembalilah kepada perjuangan UMNO. Ketepikan kepentingan diri. Berilah tempat kepada yang muda. Terimalah mereka ke dalam parti. Pilihlah mereka dan tolaklah yang sudah tua. Hanya dengan cara ini sahaja barulah perjuangan UMNO untuk bangsa, agama dan tanahair dapat diteruskan. Sesungguhnya perjuangan orang Melayu belum selesai. Janganlah anak cucu kita mengutuk kita kerana ketamakan kita memusnahkan masa depan mereka.

FUEL SUBSIDY

1. The Government has withdrawn subsidy for petrol by 20¢ or roughly by 10% of the pump price. Businesses are already talking about raising the prices of goods they sell. They say that they have to pass on the price increase to their customers.

2. How does the price increase affect business? That depends on how much oil including transport cost enters into their business or products.

3. Assuming oil makes up 10% of the input into their products or services. This will mean 10% of 10%, that is 1%. It is a percentage in terms of increase in cost which most business can easily absorb. There need not be any increase in prices of their products or services.

4. Of course some products or services may have 50% or more of fuel needed. For example transport business. Even here the fuel needed is not 100%. There are other costs to bear. The increase in cost should therefore not be 50%. It should not be even 10%. It should be only 5% or only slightly more.

5. Malaysians must accept prices to increase over time. It is not possible for prices to remain fixed over long periods of time. Generally incomes have also been increasing. Surely part of the income increase must go towards paying for the increase in cost of living.

6. Government I think should monitor the effect of fuel price increase on major industries. This is essential to prevent runaway inflation due to profiteering.

7. I think it is imperative that subsidies be reduced. But it should be done slowly so as to allow people to adjust.

8. It is difficult to regulate subsidies so that only certain deserving people or industries enjoy it. We know of people who sell subsidised petrol to other countries even. Still the idea of regulating subsidies should be considered.

9. The Government’s excuse for reducing subsidies on petrol is in order to reduce deficits. But this alone cannot help. Government need to be more prudent with regard to its expenditures. They should be properly budgeted for. Giving money for people in order to help them financially is good. But the Government needs to be more selective. I notice some of the BR1M receivers spot new cars and decent houses. If the Government wants to give money it should be to the really poor. It is not good to make the people too dependent on the Government. It should be noted that most socialist and communist countries have failed simply because revenues do not increase when people are not productive. Paradoxically it is at the time when people are not productive and revenues are low that Government needs to dole out more BR1M and subsidies.

10. I am no expert in this matter but I do hope that some Government people might read this.

Thank you.

SUNNI DAN SYIAH

1. Sejarah Islam dipenuhi dengan permusuhan antara Sunni dengan Syiah. Kerapkali peperangan berlaku di antara mereka. Hari ini kita baca dalam akhbar dan TV berkenaan dengan letupan bom yang membunuh dan mencedera beratus-ratus daripada pengikut kedua-dua mazhab ini semasa mereka sedang sembahyang Jumaat di masjid dan di lain-lain tempat di mana mereka berkumpul.

2. Melihat akan permusuhan dan bunuh-membunuh diantara Sunni dan Syiah, musuh-musuh Islam, Yahudi dan sekutu mereka amat gembira. Bagi mereka, samada Sunni atau Syiah, semuanya adalah orang Islam dan seteru mereka. Kerja mereka untuk melemah dan musnahkan Islam dan orang Islam sedang dibuat oleh orang Islam sendiri.

3. Permusuhan antara Sunni dan Syiah ini tidak berlaku di Malaysia kerana buat sekian lama semua orang Islam di Negara ini terdiri daripada Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, iaitu Sunni pengikut Imam Shafei. Mereka semua berpegang kepada ajaran Islam yang sama. Walaupun perbezaan politik memisahkan diantara orang Islam di Malaysia, tetapi ia tidak sampai kepada membunuh dan berperang.

4. Sekarang ini ajaran Syiah sedang dikembangkan di Malaysia. Jika Syiah bertapak di sini sudah tentu orang Islam Malaysia akan berpecah lagi. Jarak antara mereka yang terima ajaran Sunni dan Syiah akan semakin luas. Masing-masing akan adakan masjid berasingan dan bermacam lagi perbezaan.

5. Lambat laun permusuhan mereka akan meningkat sehingga mereka akan merusuh, membunuh dan berperang seperti yang berlaku di Iraq, Pakistan dan Syria.

6. Kesan daripada ini ialah Negara akan jadi tidak stabil dan tidak aman. Orang Islam di Negara ini akan ditimpa bala yang amat dahsyat. Mereka yang sudah pun lemah akan menjadi lebih lemah. Kerosakan yang teruk akan berlaku seperti yang kita lihat di Negara-negara di mana Sunni dan Syiah bermusuh.

7. Selama ini kita berpegang dan menganuti agama Islam tanpa banyak masalah. Kita tahu di Iran dan beberapa Negara Islam yang lain ada penganut agama Islam Syiah. Kita tidak ingin menimbulkan masalah bagi mereka dengan mencuba mengembangkan fahaman dan mazhab Sunni di kalangan mereka. Sebaliknya janganlah cuba membawa fahaman Syiah ke Malaysia yang aman kerana kita berpegang kepada satu mazhab yang sama.

8. Kepada kamu agama kamu, kepada kami agama kami (Lakum dinukum waliyyadin). Al Quran menerima adanya orang yang beriman dan ada yang kafir. Tidak ada paksaan dalam Islam. Mereka yang kafir bebas dengan kekafiran mereka dan mereka yang Islam juga bebas menganuti dan mengamal ajaran Islam. Dengan itu permusuhan tidak akan berlaku dan masyarakat menjadi aman.

MEROBOH SURAU

1. Ramai berpendapat surau yang telah diguna oleh orang bukan Islam tidak lagi boleh diguna sebagai tempat sembahyang orang Islam. Surau itu patut diroboh.

2. Saya berpendapat jika jemaah di qariah berkenaan tidak lagi suka untuk mengguna surau berkenaan, itu adalah hak mereka membuat apa-apa tindakan.

3. Apabila Sultan Mehmet II tawan Constantinople, ibu kota Byzantium, gereja Hagar Sophia yang terbesar, dijadikan masjid bagi bangsa Turki yang beragama Islam. Demikian juga beberapa gereja Kristian di Hungary dijadikan masjid apabila Hungary jatuh ke tangan Othmaniah Turki.

4. Di Cordoba (Kurtubah) dan di Granada, masjid orang Islam dijadikan gereja apabila wilayah-wilayah ini ditawan semula oleh orang Katolik Sepanyol.

5. Di Malaysia juga ada gereja yang dijadikan masjid. Kem Terendak di Melaka di zaman British diguna sebagai kem bagi askar British. Sebuah gereja didirikan oleh British untuk askar mereka yang beragama Kristian.

6. Gereja ini sekarang, jika saya tak salah, dijadikan masjid untuk askar Melayu.

7. Setakat yang saya tahu tidak ada kuil Buddha atau Hindu yang pernah dijadikan masjid.

Demonstrasi

1. Kita telah lihat Kerajaan Mesir yang dipilih melalui pilihanraya dijatuhkan oleh demonstrasi secara besar-besaran penentang Kerajaan Ikhwanul Muslimin pimpinan Morsi.

2. Kebebasan berdemonstrasi adalah hak rakyat dalam negara demokratik. Apakah hak ini lebih utama daripada hak mengundi dalam pilihanraya?

3. Sebenarnya walaupun berjuta yang berdemonstrasi, jumlah mereka kurang daripada jumlah pengundi yang memilih Kerajaan. Mereka, yang terdiri dari aktivis, adalah minoriti berbanding jumlah pengundi yang mengundi.

4. Jika minoriti ini diberi hak untuk menjatuhkan Kerajaan pilihan majoriti apakah hak ini secucuk dengan demokrasi?

5. Di Malaysia ada ahli politik yang ingin jatuhkan kerajaan pilihan rakyat dengan demonstrasi. Tetapi mereka gagal mencetuskan huru-hara secara besar-besaran sepanjang masa seperti di Mesir.

6. Sebenarnya demokrasi mempunyai banyak kecacatan. India berbangga dengan menjadi demokrasi yang terbesar di dunia. Tetapi India tidak pun berjaya mengurangkan kebuluran dikalangan hampir separuh dari rakyatnya. Sekarang ekonomi India merosot teruk.

7. Sebaliknya Cina yang tidak demokratik hari ini sudah menjadi kuasa ekonomi yang kedua terbesar di dunia. Berjuta dari rakyat mereka dapat melancung keluar negeri. Kemajuan sains dan teknologi Cina sudah sampai ketahap menghantar angkasawan ke stesen angkasa lepas. Dan berbagai lagi kejayaan Cina yang mengkagumi dunia. Sistem Kerajaan Cina tidak demokratik. Tetapi rakyat dan negara Cina lebih berjaya dari segi kemajuan dan keselesaan hidup.

8. Namum demokrasi masih lebih baik dari sistem pentadbiran kukubesi. Sebab utama ialah demokrasi memboleh penukaran pemerintah tanpa perang sivil atau demonstrasi ganas. Tetapi bagi mereka yang tidak faham kebebasan dalam demokrasi, ia tidak mendatangkan hasil yang baik. Ramai dari negara-negara yang baru mengamal demokrasi merosot prestasi mereka. Lihatlah apa yang sedang berlaku di Mesir.

9. Demokrasi memerlukan fahaman akan kelemahan-kelemahan sistem itu. Segala kebebasan dalam demokrasi mempunyai hadnya. Jika pengamal melebihi had maka demokrasi akan gagal membuahkan hasil yang dijanji darinya.

10. Satu daripada perkara yang boleh menentukan demokrasi berhasil ialah kesanggupan menerima keputusan pilihanraya. Dalam pilihanraya tentu ada yang kalah dan yang menang. Seperti yang menang akan terima keputusan, yang kalah juga perlu terima kekalahan.

11. Jika yang kalah tidak sanggup menerima kekalahan dan sebaliknya mencuba gagalkan penubuhan Kerajaan oleh yang menang, maka demokrasi tidak akan berjaya. Harus diingat bahawa jika yang menang pula kalah halangan terhadap penubuhan Kerajaan oleh lawannya akan diusahakan olehnya. Dengan itu demokrasi akan gagal.

12. Mungkin dakwaan oleh yang kalah akan penipuan oleh yang menang mempunyai asas. Perkara ini hanya boleh diputus oleh mahkamah. Perbuatan untuk menggagalkan keputusan pilihanraya dengan cara ganas akan menidakkan demokrasi.

ADVICE THAT WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION

1. I am happy that Tun Abdullah has explained that he did not write about how the nation would be bankrupt if he had followed my advice. It was the interviewer.

2. I hope he does not mind my clearing my name over what the interviewer wrote in “The Awakening”. Yes, I agree that I was a spendthrift Prime Minister who finished all the government money building the North South Expressway, Penang Bridge, West Port, KLIA, Putrajaya, Cyberjaya and an assortment of others.

3. Had Tun Abdullah succeeded me earlier all these would be stopped to save Malaysia from bankruptcy. As it is, he managed to stop the crooked bridge and the railway double-tracking and electrification project.

4. The bridge would have cost just under 1 billion Ringgit. The cancellation cost the Government 200 million Ringgit in compensation and unfinished work.

5. The railway project from Johor Bahru to Padang Besar was going to cost 14 billion Ringgit – slightly more than 2 billion per year for six years. Fourteen billion Ringgit was saved. But then it was found necessary to build the electrified double track from Ipoh to Padang Besar. The cost is 12 billion Ringgit.

6. A contract was given to a foreign company to build the track from Seremban to Gemas. I don’t know what it cost. Looks like the 14 billion saved was spent on very much shorter tracks, about one-third in length.

7. Still there must have been a lot of money saved. The small jet I used was good only for the Deputy Prime Minister. A big jet was bought not through the usual channels but by some private individual. There was denial by the Government that the A320 was bought for the use by the Prime Minister. But the aircraft is even today used by the Prime Minister. Wonder why the deal was struck. Who really owns the aircraft? How much money has been saved by the Government from this deal?

8. Then there were these corridors to be developed. Each would cost 70 billion Ringgit. Then it is learnt that the allocation include private sector investments. Before Government budget is about how the Government will spend Government money. Under Tun Abdullah the Government budgets for the private sector to spend. But that’s allright because the figures look good.

9. However since none of the corridors took off, billions were saved.

10. It must have been a very rich Government which went for the 12th General Election. Sadly the people did not appreciate the billions that were saved. They rejected the Government party, giving 5 states and one federal territory to the opposition, and just a small majority to the thrifty party.

11. Just imagine how many billions more would be saved if I had stepped down earlier before building the North-South Highway, Penang Bridge, KLIA, West Port, Putrajaya, Cyberjaya, the twin towers of Petronas and a host of other mega projects. We would be sitting on a mountain of Ringgits.