FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONS II

OCT18
201228 COMMENTSWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. We are often lectured by the West, their leaders and journalists on freedom of speech, of expression, freedom of the press and media. These are part of human rights which Governments, and certainly Governments which accept democracy and the accompanying rights must respect and uphold.

2. Yet this is an area which the West displays the greatest degree of hypocrisy, of double-standards. We know of many instances when Western Governments regulate and control their media. We know that the press often self-regulates in their wish to uphold Government policies or practices.

3. But the most blatant example of control over public expression is with regard to the protection of the Jews. Not only will any criticism of the Jews be condemned, but laws have been enacted in many European countries which makes it illegal for anyone to dispute any aspect of the Holocaust. No one may question the claim that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

4. Thus when David Irving a British historian doubted the 6 million figure, he was arrested and jailed in Austria even though his opinion was not expressed in that country. Since then no one has dared to openly question the veracity of the claim on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis. And David Irving himself has not been heard to question the legality of his arrest and incarceration for all the beliefs in freedom of expression. This extra-territorial enforcement of a country’s law is most unusual although we are seeing now such extension of the laws of powerful countries to other countries in the world.

5. The action of the Austrian Government and the existence of such a law forbidding free expression not only in Austria but elsewhere is a blatant example of total negation of free speech. And there are many other examples.

6. The American press is extremely good at investigative reporting. They will go to great length to expose the truth about any scandal or event.

7. One of the most newsworthy event of the last century is the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York. Such an event would have been thoroughly and repeatedly investigated, analysed and reported in the media even after years have passed. But very little has been reported about this event except for the first few weeks.

8. The results of investigations by private individuals and organisations have never been published in the media. The peculiar manner of the building collapsing on itself, the similar collapse of a third building which was not hit by the aircrafts; the total absence of debris where planes were said to have crashed into the Pentagon building and in the open field where the fourth plane was said to have crashed into the ground, the total absences of reports and recovery of the black boxes which all these planes must have carried; all these seem not to be in keeping with America’s talent for investigative reporting. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence. And this silence negates the loud claim of press freedom by the West.

9. And yet when an American spent large sums of money to produce a film to insult the Muslims and denigrate their Prophet in the most insulting manner; when the producer of the film knows full well that there would be violent reactions to the screening of this film; their deliberate provocation of the Muslims is defended by the American Government as a manifestation of the freedom of expression.

10. The reaction to this film by Muslims, including the killing of United States diplomats is condemned as extreme and indefensible. Muslims should understand that the film producer was only exercising his rights.

11. If that is so then why are there laws in many Western cities banning any adverse comments against the Jews. Why was David Irving arrested and jailed for doubting whether 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust? Was he not also exercising his freedom of expression!

12. The West condemns the lack of restraints among Muslims to such puerile provocation. They are asked to be rational and not be violent.

13. Should not they also advise their own people to exercise restrain regarding provoking the Muslims. If they expect the Muslims to be rational, shouldn’t they request their own people to be rational as well? Better still if they can pass laws regarding the sensitivities of the Jews, surely they can legislate similar laws regarding insulting the sensitivities of the Muslims.

14. But instead of restraining their people, at the very time when Muslims reacted violently over the insult to their Prophet, the Europeans published cartoons to insult and provoke the Muslims further.

15. Truly the hypocrisy of the great advocates of freedoms of all kinds is beyond compare. Such people should not take the high ground to lecture the world on anything.

Q E II – 2

OCT04
201242 COMMENTSWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. Q E II is not Queen Elizabeth the Second. It is a term invented in the West to describe printing money to pay debts or to revive the economy. It stands for Quantitative Easing No 2.

2. It is a great way to make money to replace the money that a nation has lost in a recession caused by abuses of the financial system. You just print more money.

3. Actually I don’t think they actually print currency notes amounting to the hundreds of billions of dollars or pounds to replace the money they have lost. The amount of printed currency notes would be huge and be very difficult to transport to the banks which has lost the money. There would be a stream of armoured cars from the mints to the banks.

4. I suspect what they do is to issue cheques in favour of the banks. The amount would be entered in the books of the banks.

5. If the banks need to pay or to lend money, again cheques would be issued or the amount credited to the person or entity in the books of the banks.

6. Should the persons or entities wish to pay for anything, again they would issue cheques. The amount in the cheques would be credited to the accounts of the persons or entities who would than be entitled to issue cheques in payment for whatever.

7. At no time will anyone get or be paid in cash. So what need is there to print money in the form of currency notes. Any time these countries lose money, all they need to do is to issue cheques to whatever amount they need.

8. However this Q E is a privilege for the rich nations only. When Greece lost money, it cannot print currency notes or issue cheques to pay debts. Greece needs to borrow money from European countries to repay loans. Again no currency notes would be involved. The amount lent would be credited to the Central Bank of Greece which then would issue cheques to the commercial banks.

9. We hear that banks like Goldman Sachs have recovered and are able to pay back the loans given them by the Federal Reserve Bank. The quick recovery is through borrowing the Q E money from the Fed at no interest or minimal interest and then buying Government bonds. Buying Government bonds is actually lending money to the Government. The Government has to pay interest on the money borrowed, which gives Goldman Sachs a good return. Hence the quick return to profitability of Goldman Sachs.

10. I am not a financial or monetary expert but I would like to hear the experts say that what I describe here is not happening.

11. The world is being taken for a ride by the great western countries and their systems for everything. It is a case of doing as I tell you and not doing as I do. Rightly both the United States and United Kingdom should be bankrupt. To recover they should be selling all their banks, industries and other assets at fire-sale prices. That was what the Asian countries were forced to do after the currency traders forced many of them almost into bankruptcy. But the bankrupt powerful countries of the West don’t have to do that. They carry out Quantitative Easing, print money (issue cheques) and refinance their banks and bankrupt industries. And they talk about transparency in business practice.

BERSIH 3.0 Pt 2

MAY08
2012LEAVE A COMMENTWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. Some who condemned my piece on Bersih 3 say that the ruling party abused the authority of the Government to ensure its success. They ask why rural constituencies have more seats for less voters. Why the gerrymandering.

2. This is because since the days of the British the urban areas tend to dominate politics and to be better served by the Government. To balance this, the poorly serviced rural areas have to be given higher representation in the legislature.

3. This is not new. It is common practice in the United States the state of New Jersey with less than five million people gets the same number of Senate seats (two) as California with more than forty million people. In most democratic countries some leverage is given to constituencies which for a variety of reasons are less developed.

4. As to the use of Government authority in elections; this is never clear-cut. There is no clear line when authority is exceeded.

5. When a party in power uses Government to implement policies, plans or strategies so as to ensure support by the people, can we say it is abuse of Government authority. On the other hand when the opposition loudly proclaims that they would do things which would gain them public support, are they not making use of Government authority for their popularity?

6. The opposition says that it would increase subsidies for fuel and fertilizer, replace PTPTN with free higher education and raise petroleum royalty to 20% to the states instead of 5%, isn’t it also making use of Government authority to win support of the voters?

7. Indeed whereas the incumbent has to be cautious as it knows the financial capacity of the Government, the Opposition has no such constrains. If it wins it can have all kinds of excuses for not keeping promises.

8. Abuse of Government authority is not confined only to the ruling party. The Opposition is also bent on abusing Government authority.

9. There may be areas for improving the conduct of Malaysian elections. But the fact remains that in Malaysia the Opposition can and have indeed defeated the Government party. If the Opposition fails to win at federal level, it is simply because the people chose not to support them with the required majority.

BERSIH 3.0

MAY04
201234 COMMENTSWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. Sunday’s Bersih 3 demonstration is no doubt the biggest and the most violent in the series. It is likely that future Bersih will be even bigger and more violent.

2. The stated objective is to demand that elections be cleaner and fairer. But is this the real objective? I think not. Malaysian elections have been more clean than those in the authoritarian countries where results have always been obviously fixed. There would always be 99.9% of the votes going to the Government party or the President. If at all the opposition were to win, it would get at best 10% of the seats contested. After that the opposition would be prevented from taking their places in the legislature.

3. But in Malaysia there has never been an election, whether at State or Federal levels when the opposition had not won a substantial number of seats. In fact whole states may be lost to the opposition. And no matter how the Government party tried, it just could not wrest Kelantan from the opposition.

4. At different elections throughout Independence different states were won by the opposition. Kelantan voted for the opposition in 1964 and 1969. In 1974 when PAS joined the Barisan Nasional, Kelantan was won by BN but continued to remain under PAS. It was lost to the BN only in 1978 but reverted to the opposition in subsequent elections.

5. Penang went to the opposition in 1969. In that election Perak and Selangor could not form Governments as neither the opposition nor the Government party had a clear majority.

6. Sabah was also lost to the opposition in one of the elections.

7. The worst result for the Government Party i.e. the party controlling the Federal Government was in 2008 when BN lost five States and one federal territory.

8. At the Federal level although the Government party never lost, but its majority was not constant. In 1969 it virtually lost, winning with an unworkable majority. In other elections the margin were sometimes above two-thirds and sometimes below two-thirds. In 2008 it won such a slim majority that there was real possibility that it would fall because a significant number of BN members of Parliament were expected to switch to the opposition.

9. The lack of consistency and absence of any pattern in the results of the elections showed that the elections were not fixed or manipulated. There were the usual accusations of foul play from both the Government party and the opposition and some of these went to the courts. The courts also did not show special favour for the Government party through their decision. There was no proven case of Government manipulation or hanky-panky in any of the cases.

10. All indicators point to reasonably fair conduct of the elections by the Election Commission. The Government could not rig or influence the EC.

11. Compare this with the advanced democracies and it would be very clear that the results are quite similar to them. The margins are never extreme one way or another.

12. It is absolutely certain that in the 13th General Election the opposition would win a fair number of seats in the State and Federal elections. Almost certainly Kelantan would go to PAS. There would be great difficulty for BN to win back the States it had lost.

13. So why the demonstrations and the demands for the elections to be clean and fair? Well should the opposition lose in the States or at the Federal levels, then one can safely assume that the opposition will claim that the Government had not conducted the elections fairly, that the Government cheated.

14. There would then be more demonstrations, perhaps bigger and more violent. Demands would be made for new elections to be held, or for the Election Commission to be disbanded and a new Commission set up.

15. Seeing how repeated anti-Government demonstrations have brought down Governments in the Arab countries, Nik Aziz of PAS now declares that over-throwing the Government through demonstration is ‘halal’. Obviously PAS is already contemplating Bersih-type violent demonstrations as a way of seizing power if it loses the 13th General Elections. The country will then suffer from violent demonstrations frequently. This will affect business and growth. Already Nik Aziz considers the present Government as oppressive and dictatorial and it is right to overthrow it.

16. The attention of the world would be sought and the Western Press would be co-opted to paint as black a picture as possible of the people’s opposition to the democratically elected Government. The support of foreign Governments and NGOs would come in as we see in the Arab countries. Their agenda would be different but they would see opportunities for pushing their regime change, for putting their candidate in power as Prime Minister.

17. This possibility is not far-fetched. The average Malaysian always think what happens in other countries will not happen here. But the Bersih 3 demonstration shows it can happen here. We know that almost every demonstration in Malaysia has been organised by Anwar. Now he is teaming up with Nik Aziz. Both see much to be gained by seizing power through unconstitutional means.

18. And when they are in power we can kiss goodbye to peace, stability and economic growth in this beloved country.

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

APR30
2012LEAVE A COMMENTWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. Twenty years ago the Serbs of Yugoslavia began their genocidal war against the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They made no attempt to hide their intention to kill all the Muslims. They openly declared they were carrying out “ethnic cleansing”.

2. Europe, according to the Europeans, is Christendom – the kingdom of the Christians. The presence of a European Muslim country in Europe seems to contradict this assertion.

3. Although Europeans are not as committed to Christianity today as they were in the past, nevertheless anti-Muslim feelings is still strong. So the elimination of Muslims from Europe is not unwelcome. The genocidal war waged by the Serbs was allowed to go on.

4. But the Serbs committed horrible atrocities against the Bosnians. A television report showed a British Army officer expressing horror and anger when Serbs burnt houses with the occupants still in them.

5. But the NATO forces were there only to watch. They may not shoot at the murderous Serbs. When in Srebrenica the Dutch troops, tasked with protecting the Bosnians saw the Serb soldiers killing 8,000 Bosnians in front of their eyes, they simply moved away. The Serbs used axes to bash in the heads of Bosnian men and boys in one of the worst massacres in Europe.

6. Perhaps it was this massacre which prompted the West to stop the fighting. Apparently they could stop the Serbs if they wanted to.

7. But in a travesty of justice America imposed on the Bosnians the Dayton Plan in which Bosnia-Herzegovina was divided into two.

8. The Serbs were rewarded with an independent state completely under their rule although it is supposed to be a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is called Republika Srpska.

9. The rest of Bosnia-Herzegovina would have three presidents all the time. There would be a Serb President, a Croatian President and a Bosnian President. Every decision by this coalition Government must be agreed to by all three Presidents.

10. As can be expected the Serb President never agreed to anything that can contribute to the rebuilding of this part of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11. The west talks ad infinitum about justice and the rule of law. Rewarding the murderous genocidal Serbs with an independent state and frustrating the Bosnian Muslims’ quest for independence by giving veto power to the Serbs and the Croats is an example of justice for the West. They have ensured there would be no Muslim state in Christendom.

MALAYSIAN MILLIONAIRES

APR25
2012LEAVE A COMMENTWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. I am sorry if I angered anyone for pointing out that the millionaires (and billionaires) of Malaysia made their first million in Malaysia. I do not claim to have helped them. I accept that they did not need my help. In fact many made their pile before my time. What I was trying to point out is that Malaysia, not me, gave them the leg-up or head-start, setting them on their journey to wealth and riches.

2. I believe all these people cannot but accept this fact. They cannot deny that what I said is true. But I must acknowledge that at least one of them made his first million abroad through trading in oil. With that money he came back and built his empire through opportunities created by the country.

3. Facts are facts whether you acknowledge them or not. One need not be grateful for the facts, but still they are facts. I was just stating facts. If I offend anyone I apologise.

AMERICA’S BLOCKADE OF IRAN

APR23
2012LEAVE A COMMENTWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. I have been criticising America’s blockade of Iran.

2. America’s action is said to be due to Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.

3. Israel has 200 nuclear warheads and obviously poses a greater threat to Iran than Iran’s threat against its neighbours.

4. Am I being unnecessarily critical of the United States?

Below is part of an article by Brian A Burchill of Global Research E-Newsletter, Canada which seems to validate my stand. For the full article please see the URL

IRAN: THE TERRORISM TRUMP CARD

By Brian A. Burchill

Global Research, April 3, 2012

The UK’s Guardian recently interviewed “current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran,” and concluded that the United States, its European allies, and even Israel, agree that Tehran is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.

Twice in recent weeks, CBC News anchor Peter Mansbridge has closely questioned two leaders who hold a different view.
In a January 18th interview, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Mansbridge that he thinks that “the evidence is…overwhelming” and that it “is just beyond dispute at this point” that Iran’s purpose is to develop nuclear weapons. When pressed about Iran’s insistence that it has no intention to build nuclear weapons, Harper said “I think there is absolutely no doubt they are lying”.

Harper’s claims are all-too-reminiscent of US Former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February, 2003, statement at the UN that, with “facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”.

There was no doubt in his mind that Saddam Hussein was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

That intelligence has since been exposed as lies. In fact, the Iraqi chemical engineer who perpetrated the false intelligence, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, confessed his lies on British television April 3rd.

Also troubling is that Harper cited the International Atomic Energy Commission, but in the March 22nd Guardian, the agency’s former director-general, Hans Blix, raised concerns about its recent credibility. The IAEC has been charged with over-reliance on unverified intelligence, and pro-Western bias, since the 2009 arrival of its new chief, Yukiya Amano.

More recently, Harper’s conclusion was thrown into question during a CBC News One on One interview with US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, aired last weekend.

Panetta first stated that the best US intelligence has concluded that Iran has not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. He went on to say that Iran is involved in providing non-nuclear weapons to terrorist-associated groups outside the country.

However, when Mansbridge queried whether containment was an effective policy (sealing off the country to prevent weapons exports to outsiders), Panetta then contradicted his own intelligence claim by saying the US was going to apply economic and diplomatic sanctions because “we cannot allow a country that supports terrorism to have a nuclear weapon.”

When pushed to justify the sanctions, Panetta played the debate-ending trump card – the supposed threat of Muslim terrorism – the card spawned by 9/11.

Thus ended the Panetta news segment – Mansbridge did not challenge whether hidden, ubiquitous, amorphous terrorism was a factor in the case of Iran.

Brian A. Burchill is Mechanical Engineer based in British Columbia

PEACE AND STABILITY

APR13
201242 COMMENTSWRITTEN BY CHEDET

1. I have often been asked by foreigners regarding Malaysia’s successful transition from an agricultural country to an industrialised country. Just as often, they wondered how a multi-racial country could stay peaceful and stable, thus enabling the transition to be made.

2. I myself did not, in pre-independence days dream that there could be stability for Malaysia and that it would change its economic base and prosper. I did not dream of this because when we were struggling against the Malayan Union and then for independence, the country was poor and there was a great deal of animosity between the Malays and the Chinese.

3. We have almost forgotten it now but the Japanese surrender saw the mainly Chinese Anti-Japanese guerrillas emerging from the jungles, declaring that they now rule the country. There were clashes between the Malays and the Chinese and several were killed on each side.

4. Anti-Chinese feelings among the Malays ran high. Part of their objection to the Malayan Union was because the British proposed to give citizenship to all including the Chinese.

5. Apart from subsistence padi cultivation and inshore fishing the Malays of Kedah had no source of income. They were very poor.

6. The Chinese were involved in shop-keeping even in the Malay villages. The rice-mills belonged to them.

7. What we in Kedah saw in those days was continued poverty and conflicts between the races. The Malays felt threatened and their reaction was to unite and form a Malay political party – the United Malays National Organisation. It was solely dedicated to fighting the Malayan Union and upholding Malay rights. There was no desire to cooperate with the Chinese at all, certainly not for achieving merdeka.

8. After the Malayan Union was scrapped and replaced by the Federation of Malaya (officially Persekutuan Tanah Melayu), the British misjudged Malay sentiment and persuaded Dato Onn to open up UMNO to non-Malays. His proposal was rejected and he had to leave UMNO.

9. To cut a long story short, Tunku Abdul Rahman, realising that he needed Chinese support in order to achieve independence, came up with a unique solution.

10. UMNO could remain a purely Malay party but it would work with the purely Chinese Malaysian Chinese Association to allay British suspicions that independence would lead to seizure of Chinese properties by the Malays.

11. The cooperation worked so well that the Malayan Indian Congress decided to join it. And so the alliance of racial parties was formed. It was appropriately called the Alliance. Together they obtained independence for Malaya and this same concept enabled Sabah, Sarawak and for a time Singapore parties to join and set up independent Malaysia.

12. But Malay animosity towards the Chinese and Chinese dissatisfaction with the terms of the social contract was still extant, so that in 1969 race riots broke out. Foreign as well as many Malaysians concluded that the fragile coalition had failed. But Tun Razak resurrected it and formed an even bigger coalition, the Barisan Nasional or National Front.

13. Fear of race riots recurring helped to keep the Barisan Nasional parties together. And so from 1971 until today the country enjoyed peace and stability under Barisan Nasional Governments. Unprecedented growth took place and Malaysia became an industrialised country.

14. Admittedly the Barisan Nasional did not do well in 2008. But it is not because of the Barisan Nasional as a concept or as a party failed. The poor performance was due to extremely poor leadership.

15. The essence of this kind of racial parties cooperating is the willingness of every party to make sacrifices. No party should expect to get 100% of what it considers its entitlement. Everyone must give up something in order to gain much more from growth and development.

16. The coalition concept worked so well that the opposition try to copy it. Today Pakatan is a loose coalition of sorts involving the three opposition parties; the PAS, DAP and Keadilan.

17. There is one other element that is needed for a coalition to work. Although it is an alliance of equals, it needs a strong core which can act as the first among equals. The core will act as referee whenever the other components fail to agree with each other. The core must of course be fair at all times.

18. On the other hand the core must not be too strong as to be able to go on its own. If it fails to get the support of the others it will also fail.

19. Clearly the parties of the Barisan Nasional coalition are dependent on each other.

20. However, should the coalition achieve only a small majority, it will be constantly threatened by the possibility of any one of the parties defecting and bringing down the Government. This is its Achilles’ heel. But otherwise the coalition has functioned well in Malaysia.

21. For a country to develop it needs a strong Government that can ensure stability. No one party in Malaysia can provide a strong Government. Certainly the “Pakatan” cannot provide this.

22. The peoples of Malaysia must realise this and choose their Governments wisely. They must not allow racial sentiments to cloud good pragmatic common sense.

23. Malaysia had enjoyed half-a-century of peace and growth under the Barisan Nasional. No one can honestly say that he had not benefitted from Barisan Nasional rule.