RETURN OF CHULIA STREET PROSTITUTE ,GERAKAN IS DOING WHORE HOUSE COSMETICS CHANGES WHILE MCA FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST

Return of Chulia Street Prostitute ,Gerakan is doing whore house Cosmetics changes while MCA Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

CARTOONKINI

 Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for Economic Planning Unit Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop. The central bank’s former deputy governor, Dr Rosli Yaakop, yesterday alleged in a Penang forum that Dr Mahathir was one of four individuals responsible for the losses. Rosli had reportedly said that the three others were former finance minister … Read more

Double talk over mother tongue education

Dr Kua Kia Soong is director of NGO Suaram.

Gerakan is doing Cosmetics changes while Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
These are important issues, and MCA cannot claim not to know. Or is Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin creating a smokescreen?

If we cannot build a new Chinese school, can we build a branch school? The ‘number’ of schools will still the same, or otherwise the DPM is trying to make things difficult and lacks sincerity.

Alternatively, we must also work with Pakatan Rakyat. Only when we change the government will we have a new policy. As is getting so usual with non-Umno parties in BN, their leaders cannot make a simple statement on behalf of their party and community without being apologists for Umno’s abuses and discriminating policies.

MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek, why do you have to explain what Muhyiddin actually meant, which essentially was that MCA and the Chinese can take a flying leap.

And to really keep at bay the likes of the two Alis (Ibrahim and Hasan), you place the blame on the Chinese schools themselves for “not meeting government requirements”.
‘The icing on the cake must be the deputy education minister’s statement, a case of a clown trying to be a comedian.’ Two plus two might not be four and that is coming out from the mouth of the MCA president. Any rational, ‘bersih’ straight-thinking Malaysian will tell you that the answer is four.

The best answer comes from MCA Youth leader Wee Ka Siong, the deputy education minister, when he said in jest my father has not met my mother and I was not born yet.

These are the leaders from MCA who shamelessly claim to represent the Chinese community for 55 years making comical statements over such an important issue to the Chinese.
Enough of rhetoric statements the game is over.Gerakan,MCA and MIC ghosts talks a lot You can shout louder but you will not be the signatory, those friends of yours in UMNO will decide how high you jump. If you believe you can contribute then leave and join the current party governing the state. Forget about … Read more

To these party leaders, the bidding of vehicle registration number ‘WWW’ is more important than the independent Chinese schools. Miss Tan Cheng Liang, instead of wasting your enrgy on trival matters like this, please focus on getting back Penang Port for penangites. Penang livelihood hinges on her ports.

The Chinese voters must use their vote wisely this 13th GE to send the message to MCA and Gerakan that it pays to speak up when the need arises and not just buat bodoh sahaja and collect the crumbs from Umno table. She is just trying to score brownie political point for MCA by highlighting this issue by giving it a different slant when in fact it is not factual. Anyway, MCA knows there is hardly a chance for them in Penang, must create an illusion that situations are not so good in Penang under PR governance. It is the good that Dr Lim himself clarified the situation for everyone to know it was not the case as mentioned by MCA. He is given the opportunity to present his concerns on June 25 at MPPP council meeting, therefore there is transparency and fairness by PR govt.All these running dogs of MCA are as usual bark and bark just for the sake of barking like mad dogs without using their peanut brain especially this corrupt Penang MCA wanita chief Tan Cheng Liang. Vote them out once and for all.This MCA wanita state leader looks like and behaves like someone who One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Even when Lim says there is no gag order; she claims there is. What a paranoic woman with extreme symptoms of delusion. Tan Cheng Liang, before you can criticise others for restricting freedom of expression, can you kindly look at your party’s very own newspaper, The Star. News about kickback to the tune of USD1billion was allegedly linked to Najib were splashed almost world wide, yet I haven’t read a single word on this issue. Now you are picking on this trivial issue which is denied by Dr Lim himself to boost you and your party’s image. The issues at hands are not how PR gagged his members, but corruption and abuse of power by your very own party members. Does MCA ever speak up on those issues both in the cabinet meeting or public. Maybe the leadership in MCA has given gag order on this topics to both its newspaper and members sucking I cannot see your face Who in Penang know State Wanita Chief Tan Cheng Liang who is trying to score points to have a chance to stand in the next election. She has manipulated such issue to be a gag order when Dr Lim Mah Hui has not even utter a single word of gagging on him. Such issue is typical of BN tactic thinking that they can gain favour to win votes BUT in reality this is BLUNDER which have so often been done by BN candidates and politician, similar to Liow Tiong Lie.

The Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin maintains that his “hands are tied” over the demand by the community for an independent Chinese school in Kuantan “unless there is a change in the education policy or the Education Act.” (The Star, 23.5.2012:12)

This statement by the education minister at least explains why, despite the constant claim by the government that they support mother tongue education, the number of Chinese and Tamil schools has been decreasing.

The politics of education policy in Malaysia certainly flies in the face of logic and consistency.

More Chinese and Tamil Schools in 1957

For the uninitiated, at Independence we had 1350 Chinese primary schools, more than 800 Tamil primary schools and 78 Chinese secondary schools.

There were at least six Chinese secondary schools in Pahang then.

Today, with our population doubled, there are only 1285 Chinese primary schools, 550 or so Tamil primary schools and 60 MalaysianIndependent Chinese Secondary Schools (MICSS).

In fact when the Education Act 1961 was legislated, the number of Chinese secondary schools shrunk to just 14 because the rest had to give up their mother tongue education system since they could not survive without government aid. From the Seventies, the number of MICSS grew steadily to sixty.

The most obvious question Malaysians might want to ask is, how did the education policy and Education Act 1961 allow the number of MICSS to grow to sixty between 1961 to 1980?

The next obvious question to ask is: how did the policy and the law suddenly insist that there cannot be one more MICSS once the sixtieth school had been built by the end of the Seventies?

Obviously, the education minister has not thought carefully about the implications of his statement. If he values critical thinking among Malaysian students, these are the questions they would be likely to ask:

Which education policy?

When the Education Minister refers to the education policy, we presume he is referring to the 1956 Razak Report which proposed: “the ultimate objective of educational policy…in which the national language is the main medium of instruction….whilst preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of other communities living in the country.”

Clearly, until the Education Act 1961 was legislated, this education policy (embodied in the 1957 Education Ordinance) allowed the 78Chinese secondary schools to exist.

We all know that the law overrides government policy but the education policy the Education Minister is referring to – embodied in the Razak Report – did allow the state-run Chinese Secondary Schools to exist right up to 1961!

Which education act?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question. We all know the latest law in question is the 1996 Education Act. However, many Malaysians including lawyers are not aware of the nuances of the education law in this country.

Before the 1996 Education Act, the mother tongue lobby had protested against Section 21(2) of the 1961 Act which stipulated that the Minister of Education “may at any suitable time convert all national-type primary schools to national primary schools.”

When the 1996 Education Act came in, as expected, Section 21(2) of the previous law was no longer there. However, under section 17.11 of the new law, all schools in the National Education System had to use Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of instruction. (Note that under the 1961 Act, only primary schools were affected.)

There were only two exceptions to this provision: (i) schools which are given exemption by the Minister; and (2) the “national-type schools” to be established in future under Section 28.

The national education system covers all educational institutions, viz. government, government-aided as well as private educational institutions . (s.16)

It practically comprises all types of schools providing pre-school, primary, secondary, post-secondary and higher education, but not expatriate schools. (s.15)

Double standards over English-language schools

The recent proliferation of international schools in this country and their liberal enrolment of rich Malaysian students also make a mockery of the government’s claim to implement a National Education Policy (specifying Malay as the main medium of instruction) for all Malaysians.

Why does the English-language have priority over the mother tongue of Malaysians?

If the government can allow hundreds of institutions in the country to use the English language, what is the problem with allowing one more MICSS school in which BM and English are compulsory subjects?

Of late, the government under Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has been appealing to the people to believe in their determination to reform the country.

Now if they are committed to support mother tongue education, why cannot the policy and the law be amended to allow the free development of mother tongue education? If laws relating to national security can be changed, why cannot educational laws be changed?

The contributions of MICSS to national development

The 60 MICSS have been surviving all these years through the support of the community which subsidizes their tuition fees. Although the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) is recognised round the world, our own government still refuses to recognise it.

Despite being treated like step children, graduates from the MICSS have been contributing to Malaysia’s development and growth. The inventor of the thumb-drive is a product of the MICSS and he has since come back to invest in this country.

The Chinese community has been paying double taxation while also nurturing these 60 schools since they have been forced to be self-financing.

Certain states, such as Pahang need at least one MICSS or their students have to travel to other states to study at other MICSS schools.

At this day and age, while the country is talking about educational reform and support for mother tongue education, surely ONE independent school in Kuantan is not too much to ask?

Far-sighted education policy wanted

For the 13th general election, let us make this demand on all political parties and candidates:

1. Reform the national education system to promote quality holistic education, equal opportunities, social justice, creativity, critical thinking as well as scientific and technological knowledge required for research and development and vocational skills;

2. Abolish discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, age, gender or creed relating to entry into educational institutions;

3. Uphold the spirit of the Education Ordinance 1957 by supporting mother tongue education, building Chinese and Tamil schools in areas where they are needed, ensuring proportionate financial support and training of adequate teachers for these schools;

4. Recognise the Unified Examination Certificate and provide financial support for the non-profit mother tongue secondary schools so that the students can enjoy free education as in other secondary schools;

5. Promote the preservation and development of the indigenous peoples’ mother tongue language and education.

BN Chief, but he has a big boss. SO what is so chief about this BN chief?

Teng should know that he has already lost the war but still trying to be a hero in the battle. Tua kor chua luan luan kong. What more nonsense can u expect from Gerakan, already a dead pig.Can we still trust Chang Yeow’s words… you tell me. I have said many a time before, whatever comes out from the BN leaders mouths, they are all lies and more lies. They have proven to Malaysians so many times, they are the king of Flips and Flops.Teng Chang Yeow,if I were in your shoe,I dont know where to put my face..Get your facts right Chang Yeow before you open your big mouth,dont make promise to Penangnites which you cannot deliver,otherwise what you get is a slap on your face given by your big brother Najib.You can change the Party Gerakan and MCA BN Manifesto to supporting the Privatisation of the Penang Port,after all,it is the SOP of just rubber stamping what big brother UMNO has decided..

Penang BN state chief Teng Chang Yeow is in hot water as Prime Minister Najib Razak had recently announced via a parliamentary reply that the concept of a free port no longer exists. Greenhorn Teng said he will be more assertive than his sleeping dick.Teng, didnt you say you would be more ASSERTIVE than Khor Tsu Koon ??? We are awaiting how assertive you can be !!! Assertive on erection, i think you can la. MCA, habis, Gerakan, lagi habis, Chinese have done their part. MIC I can see his tail between his legs are little firmer but that is about all. So much for assertiveness. Meow, meow…..the barking of Umno’s lapdog by the name of Chang Yeow.How can a lapdog do anything without the master’s consent? Now the lapdog will need to hide his tail in between its legs. Go to hell, please.Teng Chang Yeow got carried away by his appointment as BN head in the state. With the appointment he thinks that Najib has given him an open cheque to do what he likes. Being too naive or excited, he simply comes out with a promise of free port status for Penang, hoping Penangite will swallow the baits. Luckily the truth surfaces much earlier. Otherwise, Penangites will be taken fr another wild ride!! Will Penaangites ever believe him again? Even though , never again even free port status is given to penang.
Gerakan lost all their seats,,and they are still in the picture by virtue of their position in BN. Any right thinking leader of BN would have moved the leadership of the state BN chief to the party with the most seats. So this give a false sense of power to Teng, and he continues to talk cock like all Gerakan leaders. A test of their strength will be if Gerakan dares to contest in the election on their own banner. And I can guarantee that they will be BURIED. And a short passing note, please ask Najib or UMNO what to say before releasing having any press conference. That is what lap dogs are supposed to do.

Institutional integrity – a forgotten value?

One of the leading news papers in its edition of 15 May 2012 reported “government had deliberately withheld a few critical facts in a bid to protect Lt Gen Singh (meaning Lt Gen Bikram Singh) not only during the hearing but also while getting his appointment cleared by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.” The news paper goes on to state that in response to a PIL in the Supreme Court, “the attorney general and the solicitor general said since Lt Gen Singh was the “deputy force commander” on “the payroll of the UN” and an “international civil servant” he could not be blamed for the incidents of sexual misconduct.”

The fact however is different. Lt Gen Bikram Singh, besides being the deputy force commander, was also the General Officer Commanding (GOC) Eastern Division and was responsible for the North Kivu Brigade. He was indeed in the chain of command of the formation and troops operating under the Brigade.

The point here is not whether General Bikram Singh was responsible for the sexual misconduct by a few Army personnel or not. The accountability and culpability for the wrong doings if any are matters which need to be investigated by a court of inquiry. The convening authority thereafter has the right and the authority to take appropriate administrative or disciplinary action or even dismiss the case.

But the real question is, was it proper on the part of the government to hide facts from the highest court of the land if at all they did so, thereby appearing to be influencing its decision?  governments especially in a democracy are not expected to take sides or influence courts. What difference would it make to any government whether A, B or C became the Chief of the Army Staff excepting where some vested interests are involved?  If a government presents half truths, hides facts or fabricates evidences  what will be its impact on the rest of the government departments and government servants? Can a government be seen as siding someone even remotely?

It is this culture of hiding facts, telling open lies, brushing faults of individuals under the carpet and protecting individuals for no rhyme or reason which is haunting the nation today. In my days as a youngster in the Army, it was considered unofficer-like to scrutinize the monthly pay slip issued by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers) as; being a government department they were infallible. They can never make a mistake and if they did, even by mistake, they would correct it. No doubt the organisation never belied the trust of the officer class of the Indian Army. That was the implicit faith that people had on the government and its departments.

Today that very government is seen with suspicion every time they come out with some information or news. The specter of the government owned Public Sector undertakings such as BEML cheating on that very  government and probably bribing people has to be viewed in that context. government and those organisations owned by it delaying payment of petty contractors, workers, going back on agreements, twisting words in agreements,  imposing taxes with retrospective effect, failing to respect government or courts orders etc fall in the same category. Ask any businessman and he will tell you stories.

Take the issue of a supposed witch – hunt of General Suhag by General VK Singh. When the Chief of the Army Staff in his official capacity receives a written complaint from a member of Parliament, implicating a senior officer of misappropriation or mismanagement, should the Chief brush it under the carpet and behave as if nothing had happened? If indeed he had done so, wouldn’t everyone including the media castigate him for protecting a brother army officer?

Take the case of General VK Singh issuing a show cause notice to a Corps commander for failed military intelligence operation in Assam. The Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit which is supposed to have botched up the operation comes directly under the Corps Headquarters. It works under the Intelligence Branch of the Headquarters. The Brigadier General Staff, the Chief of Staff and the Corps Commander are the direct superiors of the unit in the chain of command. In the said operation, items such as pistol, cash worth 1.5 lakhs, a laptop gold ornaments etc were supposedly been lost. Of these items, the local police appear to have detected a havildar who had participated in the operation using one of the lost mobile phones. Shouldn’t the matter have been thoroughly investigated and the guilty punished? Should AFSPA be evoked to circumvent the non-bailable warrant issued by a court? As far as I know, the Army has the option of requesting the civil court to hand over the case to them for trial by a court martial after the individual had responded to the court’s warrant. Why not do that if considered appropriate and necessary?

A theory is being propagated that the intelligence operations had been launched without the knowledge of the Corps Commander. Well this may happen in civil but not in the Army. Even if the incumbent Corps Commander was on leave, such an action cannot take place without the express approval of the officiating incumbent, who happens to be the organizational head.

Every news paper today has pointed an accusing finger at General VK Singh for issuing a show cause notice to General Suhag and placing him on Discipline and Vigilance (DV) ban. This is the procedure followed in all cases where cognizance of an offence has been taken in respect of an officer of the Army irrespective of his rank or appointment. In a number of discipline related cases, the promotion of some have been delayed, some have lost on their promotion depending on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Should this rule be changed in respect of one individual either because of his rank or appointment? Should the Chief have kept quiet? What do we want? Should AFSPA been evoked to bury the case against the havildar in a bid to save a general becoming an Army Commander? It is this variety of brushing under the carpet which emboldens people to commit improprieties.

When a superior officer takes cognizance of an offence based on an enquiry, the laid down procedure demands the commanding officer to seek the explanation of the officer in the form of a show cause notice. It in actual fact is an opportunity given to the officer to state his position in his defence. Should Gen Suhag be denied an opportunity to put across his side of the story and defend himself?

Let me assure everyone with my experience in the armed forces – if you protect an individual wrongly or save someone who doesn’t deserve to be saved, may be even in the name protecting the good name of the institution, you will not be able to act on any other crime or a misdeed, or anyone else in the unit as that individual is sure to blackmail you into saving him. That will not be in the interest of the Army or its institutional integrity.

The larger point is if India is to recover from its present state of corruption, impropriety and falsehood, we need to respect and act on issues affecting institutional integrity promptly and without any consideration for individuals. The sooner we get this lesson into our heads the better it is for the country.

---