United Malays National Organisation - UMNO

PERNGKAT CAWANGAN - Bermula 15/7 hingga 31/8

nota : Pemilhan peringkat cawangan tiada perubahaan.

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

PERINGKAT BAHAGIAN - Bermula 14/9 hingga 13/10

(Pendaftaran utk bertanding dibuka bermula 26/8 hingga 27/8 )

_____________________________________________________________________

PERINGKAT PERHIMPUNAN - Bermula 2/12 hingga 7/12

(Pendaftaran untuk bertanding dibuka 9/11 hngga 10/11

The best ways to national unity In this Cafe Latte chat, we bring together Labis MP Datuk Chua Tee Yong, social entrepreneur and founder of Zubedy (M) Sdn Bhd Anas Zubedy, Bukit Gasing assemblyman Rajiv Rishyakaran and PKR central committee member Latheefa Koya to discuss national unity and what are the best ways to move forward as a nation. The chat was moderated by Star online editor Philip Golingai.

Philip: What is your take on National Unity?

Rajiv: I think there is definitely room for improvement. Definitely, we can work towards ensuring that the society feels Malaysian and they will also not feel the gap between other races. I think the Government can do more for the people to gel as rakyat.

Anas: I think we are treading on thin ice. It has been going on for the past five years; I think we have been hurtful to each other. As a nation we are wounded and I feel both sides (Opposition and Government) feel so too. Why they feel wounded, it's a secondary thing. Everybody is “kecilhati”. If we don't handle this, it will be even worse. I've even received things that have not been published, which is hurtful. We should calm things down.

Latheefa: I totally agree that we are walking on thin ice but I think it's easy to say that both sides are hurt. One side is attacking the other! Most obvious is Utusan where they mentioned ApaCinaMahu?. No action has been taken and it is obvious that the media is being used by the ruling party. If it's still there, we can't talk about national unity.

Tee Yong: May 5 is over. For national reconciliation to happen, we ourselves have to work for it. After the election process, we have to accept the results. I think the opposition is clearly saying things without looking at themselves. If you look at their cybertroopers, the hate message they are spreading is bad. They threaten and attack people who support the Government. Both sides should acknowledge that the elections are over. They have the right to send the petitions, likewise for BarisanNasional. Things like this, you have due process. The rallies are not helping. We have to wait for another five years for elections to come.

Anas: We have to diagnose the situation. We should look at our education policy and economic policy. Should we continue to look at race based politics and religious based politicians? We need to look at all these things. Politicians will look at things right now but I think they should look at what transpired in the past too. Let's look at the real issues, what has been happening for the past 14-15 years.

Chat time: Golingai (centre) moderating the Cafe Latte chat with (from left) Anas, Rajiv, Chua and Latheefa.

Latheefa: For example who? Don't simply say things without evidence.

Tee Yong: If you look at websites and pages on Facebook being created that support DAP or PKR most of them are in Mandarin and show so much hate against BN. The amount of videos they have generated are immense. If you look at these GE13 results, we lost 96% of the seats with at least 40% majority Chinese seats around Malaysia. We lost their votes.

LatheefaKoya: 96% Chinese voters or urban voters?

Tee Yong: 96% of Chinese voters that were in areas with 40% majority of

Anas: If you guys (Pakatan) are saying that there is no Chinese tsunami, you're lying. If you guys (Barisan_ are saying that there is no urban tsunami, you're lying. Forth line of unity is not about race, but it's also urban and non-urban. The fact is that both sides feel that there is no urban tsunami or Chinese tsunami, please sit back and research on the results. I speak hokkien and I've been to Penang, the Chinese were organizing themselves for the last 3-4 years for a change.

The fact is there is an element of Chinese tsunami and urban tsunami. You guys want to fight it over, it's your right but as a non-politician, most of us feel that it was a Chinese and urban tsunami

Tee Yong: Umno won 79 out of 88 parliament seats. Gerakan and MCA performed badly. Like what Zubedy is saying, I acknowledge that urban votes were also a factor but the Chinese swing was also there. For examples seats in Tebrau and Bachok, there have been swings. Both sides had their strategy but the opposition plan worked and they managed to get the votes. Personally, the term of Chinese tsunami to me is hurting especially after it was announced right after the results. People could not take it and they say whatever that comes into the mind first. We should analyse based on facts and not be too emotional about it. We also have to do a proper study when it comes to the results.

LatheefaKoya: When you say its Chinese tsunami and urban tsunami, what do you mean by that? It's because if you say it's a Chinese tsunami then the group of people who supported is overwhelming Chinese support which is also the urban support. To say it's both Chinese and urban tsunami, it's because they have access of information and have options to choose. In terms of Sabah, Sarawak and rural areas- they lack information.

We had a strategy or not, we had no access to media. It was a complete unfair field. You fly in via helicopter; we still go by boats to go into the area. You have to have some basis to say this. It depends back on what is our policy and constitution. This whole national unity discussion has been going on for years. The way it has been latched on, we do not have the same level playing field

Anas: I think parties should stop pointing at each other and look at their own flaws. In order to move forward, this is the best solution. Any party that says that they're not making any mistakes, they're lying to themselves.

Tee Yong: Question is, how we move forward, we have to accept that the elections are over. What is important, in these five years, how do we maintain our unity and don't implode. Some people disagree with the results and the opposition has been talking about popular vote. In this country, we have been using the first-past-the-post system for many years. It's like a badminton game.

Latheefa: Tilted a bit lah.

Tee Yong: This is the first-past-the-post system. There is no perfect election system. Even in the United Kingdom, they face the same problem. So, there is a problem. What needs to be done, it needs to be looked at and we should find ways to solve it. If Pakatan is sending the petition, I feel that is the right decision to make, I feel it's correct. When you file petition, they still cast their doubts. BarisanNasional also faced the same problems, but we accepted the results.

Philip: Idealistically, what is national unity? What kind of world Malaysia would see?

Latheefa: A wonderful world. Glimpses of unity have been witnessed in many ways. Some of us yearn for this. For me, it's not an issue about going to vernacular schools, for me if you provide proper national schools. Most national schools have become more one race based and more the policies have turned into Malay centric policy. Non-Malay kids have felt left out. I come from a mixed school, I remember not being reminded of my race. However, kids are now facing discrimination, they were questioned. If you want to talk about national unity, don't attack vernacular schools but go after what the teachers have been fed.

Philip: Ideally, according to you, we should be seeing each other as Malaysians?

Latheefa: Of course, yes! I think we have the potential to do it. For example, so many people have rallied and there were no racial incidents in these rallies. We can do it! I don't think because they go to vernacular schools, they are separated. It's because some of us prefer being in our own world. We are all living separately right now and it doesn't help with racial politics.

Anas: We can put 100% Chinese in our Cabinet and they think for all Malaysians. I think we have to work on that. The Cabinet was recently announced and we still talk about how many Malay, Indian and Chinese ministers. Whether you're from a particular race, you have to think for all Malaysians. I think that's the ideal way of coining things. That's the dream now! On schools, the teachers are saying hurtful things and we have to look into this. We have to look into our education policy. I disagree with kids that are being separated into different vernacular schools. We really have to look into our education policy.

Philip: To summarise, you feel that leaders should be leaders for Malaysians?

Anas: Yes, they should think for all and for the betterment of Malaysia.

Rajiv: I said it in the very beginning; everyone feels Malaysian, and everyone walking on the street feeling Malaysian. If they don't feel Malaysian, that's where you see problems coming. I don't necessarily feel that single school system is the way forward. There are lots of other things that we need to deal with. Let's have leaders of both sides feel Malaysian and speak for all Malaysians, think for all Malaysians and implement policies for all Malaysians.

Tee Yong: To me what has happened now is the trend. I send my kids to Chinese school because of the economic factor. Now I believe that there are more non-Chinese kids coming into Chinese schools. It has increased from 15% to 16%. For me, the key is improving the education system. We are not an assimilated society, we are somehow still mosaic.

Rajiv: Then perhaps you can explain the gap between national and Chinese schools?

Tee Yong: Probably some of the non-Chinese believe that the economic side of it is important. What is more important is that education system is dwindling and that's the reason why we didn't score so well in math and science. I think that's why the education blueprint was implemented recently. Besides education, I also agree that if we want to move forward, number one, during this period of after election, there will be a period of politicking.

Probably we need a bipartisan standing from both sides to resolve certain issues. All this while, under BN, they have always had 2/3 majority before the 2008 elections. I think two party systems have their merits and their check and balance. In federal, it shouldn't be overwhelmingly one sided because as a growing society, different people have different needs. I think it's best to have representation from both sides and to throw out ideas and give challenges to both sides. This will ensure improvement for them. Ultimately, what we hope is to build a better country. That is something we should acknowledge.

Philip: Is it a class thing? Do you think the middle class, working class or any class have a different mindset when it comes to national unity?

Latheefa: In a way, it is. You're in a setting where you're in a school where you communicate in English and watch American shows The middle class will have access to other parts, share information to each other more and be open to things. One should not be mistaken that the overwhelming support to Pakatan is because we were united to go against corruption. In other words, they are not rejecting BarisanNasional because Umno is Malay but they are rejecting it because it equates to corruption. This is how we sold ourselves. Never before, Pakatan Rakyat has said let's reject BN because it's Umno Melayu. It's a mixture of class issue and other pressing matters too.

Tee Yong: I think we shall just answer it in a simple way. When we go overseas and interview students, they will always find for Malaysian friends first. There is the tendency where birds of the same feather, flock together. So, sometimes it's because of the same wavelength. It's not just class but other factors. I think it's because of the cost of living, issue of corruption and crime and economic factors. It's a mixed bag. A lot of analysis still needs to be done. We have to look strategies to get the certain voters. I think at this current juncture, it's not confined to one class that supports which side.

Rajiv: I don't think it's a class thing. I came from a public university; it opened my eyes that peninsular Malaysia had four races. Among the English speaking Malay, Chinese and Indian students, they have no problem mingling with each other. It probably comes up to language, not so much class. Across all language, the income levels vary but it doesn't come to class. It probably comes up to language.

Anas: We have to agree that it's nothing wrong to be racial. In Malaysia, we don't want to erase this. Being Malaysian is a citizenship. I think it's a good thing. It's nothing wrong if you say you're Chinese. Actually, there are small splinter of people who prime for class. Whether we like it or not, they're just being racial. By natural tendency, we tend to mix with our own people.

If we start early, we should socialize our kids and see each of them like themselves. We should decide what language to talk. Decide our lingua franca. In the next 15-20 years, we should plan to have one stream schools. It's not a class issue, its natural tendency.

Latheefa: If you just have a fair policy, it will naturally happen. For example; an Indian kid doesn't get an IC - that creates resentment. Why are such policies still there? If you have clear discriminatory policy, things will never change.

Philip: How do we move forward?

Anas: You can join me in a Healing Malaysia campaign where both parties can call a truce from HariMerdeka to Hari Malaysia, no politics, no arguing. In the long term, we have to diagnose the whole issue economy, political and education. Do a real study and look what has happened. It should be done by an independent body.

Rajiv: Saying something nice is not a bad thing but it's a good thing. Not only the people, but the leaders should also do that. That's where it starts. There should also be a distinction. Just because you have to say something nice, that doesn't mean that you've stop speaking. You need to speak up to injustice. It may not be pleasant or fluffy but it's injustice and people have to recognise that. People on top have to set the right tone.

Tee Yong: When reading about Healing Malaysia, it's a great thing. First things first, we should stop resending or reposting any racist remarks. We have to ignore them! At the end of the day, there comes a time where there is a better future for my children. I do not want constant politicking to the extent that there is no reconciliation.

We have to move forward and avoid problems. What is important is that we let the election results speak for itself. At this juncture, people may be saying hurtful words to each other and I think we should all avoid that. It will create anxiety and having Healing Malaysia will help unite the people. For long term changes, I agree with Anas. We live in a democratic society and we will always go through changes. When society changes, there will be adjustments.

Latheefa: In order to move forward and heal Malaysia, you can't pretend that there is always a thing that allows it to happen. As long as there are discriminatory and unfair policies and also media restrictions, I don't think we can heal properly. We've got to give the right medicine; we've got to diagnose the situation properly. In order to move forward, dismantle those things first. We should pretend that it's a fluff. To me, it's not about politics, let's be real about it. I came from human rights background; I've got lots of cases about discriminatory issues. We have to look into all this in order to move forward.

Background of panelists

Rajiv Rishyakaran (Bukit Gasing Assemblyman)

A former MPSJ councilor, Rajiv Rishyakaran contested for GE13 as DAP's candidate for Bukit Gasing. Having served three terms with MPSJ, he triumphed in a crowded field that included BN candidate Juan Sei Chang and independents Mak Khuin Weng and Simon Lee. He once served as the assistant for Subang Jaya assemblywomen, Hannah Yeoh.

Latheefa Koya (PKR central committee member)

Latheefa Koya is the member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s central committee. A lawyer by profession, she is also actively involved with Lawyers of Liberty, a human rights and law reform group based in Malaysia.

Datuk Chua Tee Yong (MP for Labis, Johor)

A member of MCA, Datuk Chua Tee Yong is the Member of Parliament in Labis, Johor. Having joined politics in 2008, he succeeded his father, Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek for the seat in Labis. Previously he worked as an accountant and he was also chief financial officer for a government-linked company. In 2010, he was appointed the Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based industries minister.

Anas Zubedy (Founder of zubedy (M) SdnBhd)

Anas Zubedy is well versed with sales, promotions and brand management. Anas founded zubedy (M) Sdn. Bhd. in May 1994. In 1995, he branched out into training with a vision to add value to individuals and organisations through sharing and education. He has consulted on programs that integrate and unite people.

Leadership and nation building Ikim Views By ENIZAHURA ABDUL AZIZ

Being a leader is not just about holding an important position, but in carrying the amanah or trust, the leader will be held accountable to God.

THE 13th General Election has come and gone and the leaders have been elected into Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies.

They have been chosen by voters to represent their interests, care for the welfare of the people and also drive the country to greater heights. In this context, leadership is an important area that needs detailed discussion and focus.

Bryson & Crosby (1992) defines leadership as “the inspiration and mobilisation of others to undertake collective action in pursuit of the common good”.

Davis (1967) defines it as the human factor which binds a group together and motivates it towards goals.

In today’s world, leadership is about having a good understanding of the current political, economic and social dynamics. The ability of leaders to address the related concerns will enable them to face and overcome any adversity.

Leadership in Islam stresses on one important aspect of the whole process which is the concept of amanah or trust.

Leaders are appointed or even driven to their positions based on their ability to safeguard the trust given to them to carry out their responsibilities diligently.

Being a leader is not just a matter of filling up a specific important position or job, but in carrying the amanah, they are accountable also to God. Many leaders today lack this pivotal element in the leadership concept.

The hijrah of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina and his position as the ruler in the Islamic state of Medina offers an important lesson in leadership.

The Prophet’s ability to unite and lead a disintegrated society of different sects and religious beliefs was due to the essence of power bestowed upon him by the society and also through divine authority.

This aspect is seldom forgotten by leaders who only perceive leadership as a position of authority for them to further their personal interests.      

Islam also put serious emphasis on the concept of ‘adl or justice in leadership. To be just is not easy as personal inclinations and preferences might jeopardise the real elements of justice to be applied.

Allah the Almighty says in the Holy Quran: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be Just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah for Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (Chapter 5, Verse 8)

It is imperative to understand that leadership must be coupled with the aspect of good governance.

The success of any form of political leadership especially, depends on the ability of the leaders to govern well.

The problems of governance that arise in most nations today are the repercussions of poor management of public resources and failure in policy implementation by leaders who lack commitment, integrity and the relevant knowledge.

It is vital for leaders to be knowledgeable and capable of demonstrating high competencies and correct attitudes for their followers to replicate.

Through this working framework, leaders are expected to be able to contribute constructively and be directly involved in formulating, implementing, controlling and supervising policies that are specifically designed to address the problems of their constituents according to the right order of priorities.

When discussing the elements of leadership, one must realise that leaders are the prime movers in the nation-building agenda.

Nation building is the process of constructing or structuring a national identity through state power.

This process aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically, economically and socially stable.

In effect, this process will make the nation become strong and resistant in the long run.

In carrying out the nation-building agenda, leaders must be proactive and innovative in their approach to ensure that the objectives are achieved.

As Malaysia makes its way to become a developed nation by the year 2020, the aspect of nation building should not just be about making the country economically and politically strong, it also needs to include the creation of a nation that is united and resilient.

In Malaysia, diversity shapes the very essence of the country’s social structure and historical aspects.

These must be considered as great assets that must be properly handled with wisdom.

Good leaders will able to manage these diversities and leverage upon the cultural and ethnic plurality to become pillars of strength in building a better nation.

Malaysians are putting high hopes and expectations on the leaders that they have elected in the recent general election.

They expect these leaders to deliver what they have promised to their constituents and also to the public as a whole.

Most voters today have become more politically aware about the dynamics in democracy and would be more likely to scrutinise every action of the leaders that they have elected into office.

As Malaysians, we also need to be objective in analysing the performance of the leaders in delivering their promises and carrying out their duties.

Being politically and democratically matured also includes our ability to acknowledge improvements and positive changes that have taken place and currently being carried out by our leaders.

For leaders, the positions that they have today must be considered as great responsibilities that need to be shouldered with integrity, enthusiasm and dignity.

Leaders must learn to become agents of change and learn to accept the reality that the country and its populace have evolved rapidly with the challenges put forward by the world today.

In facing this, leaders must learn to be innovative and creative to ensure that they remain not just relevant but are also well-liked for the right reasons.

A tale of two Islamist parties CERITALAH By KARIM RASLAN

PAS and Indonesia’s PKS ponder their political future in the wake of new challenges ahead. In the case of PAS, will it make up for its failure in Kedah and Kelantan?

PAS is at a crossroads. The loss of Kedah as well as the fact that it has two seats less in the Dewan Rakyat weighs heavily on its leaders.

It must surely now be pondering the party’s direction as well as its place in the Opposition i.e. Pakatan Rakyat.

But PAS is not the only South-East Asian Islamist party pondering its future. Look at the challenges facing Indonesia’s Prosperous Justice Party (PKS).

First founded in 1998 as the Justice Party (PK), it made a splash in 2004 when it won 45 seats in the House of Representatives and then 57 seats in 2009.

Like PAS, PKS is an ideologically-driven and disciplined party.

I can still remember the ease with which PKS could call its supporters out onto the streets and the extraordinary order with which it undertook its demonstrations, with men and women clad in white, striding separately yet determinedly.

After the turmoil and drift of the Reformasi years, the PKS embodied the discipline that Indonesia appeared to desperately need.

Indeed, the party was a revolutionary experiment in Islamist politics.

Its moderate approach to social issues and firm anti-corruption platform gave it a wider appeal than most of Indonesia’s previous Islamist parties.

When I’d meet staff in hotels or shops across Jakarta and ask which party they supported, PKS was almost inevitably the first mentioned.

The party won respect from the youth due to its crusade against corruption, loose living and its emphasis on dakwah.

People want to be free, but they also want lives of purpose. The PKS was able to tap into that.

The party’s success also held the promise that political Islam could function, indeed thrive, in a democracy.

It’s arguable that PAS’ “Erdogan” faction modelled the Malaysian party’s dramatic move to the centre based on PKS.

But how the mighty falls!

Former PKS president Luthfi Hasan Ishaaq was forced to resign earlier this year after an aide, Ahmad Fathanah, was accused of accepting a Rp1bil (RM301,000) bribe from a beef import firm.

Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Comm­ission (KPK) last week attempted to seize cars at the PKS headquarters, claiming the vehicles were purchased with bribe money linked to Luthfi’s case.

The KPK has also investigated or questioned Luthfi’s successor, Anis Matta, as well as other party leaders like Agriculture Minister Suswono and PKS elder Hilmi Aminuddin.

The PKS responded by vowing to lodge a report against the anti-graft body with Indonesia’s National Police, who have no great love for the KPK.

One cannot help but feel that the party is fast becoming part of the discredited establishment.

One wonders whether the PKS’ problems are part of a wider trend of Islamist parties failing to perform once in office, as evidenced by the failure of Mohamed Morsi’s Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt or the descent of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) into authoritarianism in Turkey.

Ironically, all three of these Islamist parties have failed to deliver the “justice” promised in their names.

It seems the PKS is in for an electoral drubbing come the republic’s 2014 national elections.

An Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI) poll on March 17 found public support for PKS at a measly 3.7%.

On the other hand, Ahmad Heryawan and Gatot Pujo Nugroho’s victories in the recent West Java and North Sumatra gubernatorial elections suggest it remains a force in Indonesia’s provinces.

At the same time, it suggests that the PKS is losing the wider appeal it gained from outside the party’s hard-core supporters.

Now, I’m not at all suggesting that PAS’ leadership is guilty of the same moral or financial improprieties that PKS’ is.

But the two parties’ bold attempts to become broad, national parties have reached a crisis point – albeit for different reasons.

PAS should deserve credit for winning broad support from the Chinese-Malaysian community. It’s natural and logical for it to do so.

But its failures in Kedah and Kelantan robbed Pakatan of making further gains in the 2013 elections. It seems to be better at winning power than at governing.

How it makes up for these deficiencies will determine its future.

UK spends £2bn housing homeless in B&Bs, hostels and shelters

Rising private rents, lack of affordable housing, benefit cuts and low levels of home-building force costly short-term solution, investigation finds


The UK has spent almost £2bn housing vulnerable homeless families in short-term temporary accommodation, according to figures that demonstrate the scale of Britain's housing crisis.

Rising private rents, a shortage of affordable housing and benefit cuts have forced local authorities, particularly in London, to place increasing numbers of households in bed and breakfast accommodation, hostels and shelters.

With the number of houses built in Britain falling to new lows, according to figures released last week, a four-month study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, has revealed that £1.88bn has been spent on renting temporary accommodation in 12 of Britain's biggest cities over the past four years.

Campaigners have said welfare changes will exacerbate the problem. Official figures show that in London alone 7,000 families dependent on benefits stand to lose more than £100 a week under the benefit cap, and many are expected to become homeless as a result.

Leslie Morphy, chief executive of the homelessness charity Crisis, said: "For the sake of cutting just a few pounds a week from their benefits, families and individuals are being forced out of their homes, to be put up in B&Bs or temporary accommodation that costs us all far more."

A separate investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that London councils are rapidly accelerating the rehousing of homeless households outside their home boroughs. Some 32,643 homeless households have been rehoused out of their borough since 2009.

In the year to April, 10,832 households were rehoused in this way – a 16% rise on the previous 12 months. Most left the more affluent districts of inner London for the cheaper outer suburbs, although an increasing number of London's homeless are being moved to towns outside the capital, such as Dartford in Kent, Slough in Berkshire and Spelthorne in Surrey.

The "destination" boroughs have said the influx of households has put a significant strain on local services. Councillors in Enfield in outer London, where more properties and B&B rooms are secured by London authorities than anywhere else, have said the demand from inner London authorities is pushing up private rents and placing untenable pressure on school places.

"The pressure will not abate," said Edward Smith, a Conservative councillor in Enfield. "Before long we will have to build more secondary schools."

The Labour leader of Slough council, Robert Anderson, said: "If authorities put people in our area with complex needs, or even just families; they need to inform us. If we know where they have come from we can make sure the borough does not shirk responsibilities and just pass on their more difficult clients. You can't just pitch up halfway through a year and expect to get a school place. It's not McDonald's."

The housing minister, Mark Prisk, insisted on Sunday night that councils should be careful about placing families in B&Bs far from their home borough. "There is absolutely no excuse for families to be sent miles away without proper regard for their circumstances, or to be placed in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for long periods of time," he said. "The law is clear: councils have a responsibility to take into account people's jobs and schools when securing homes for those in need."

But Prisk also defended the policy of removing families on benefit from central London. "Nor is it right that those living on benefits should be able to live in parts of the capital that those who aren't reliant on this support couldn't afford to," he said.

Households accepted as homeless by their local council will often be placed in temporary accommodation until a more permanent home can be found for them.

As latest government figures show there were 53,130 households living in temporary accommodation at the end of 2012 – 9% higher than the previous year – a leading law firm is preparing a class action against councils that keep families in B&B for longer than the statutory maximum of six weeks. It is believed a third of British local authorities are in breach of the limit, largely because of a shortage of suitable temporary accommodation.

Official guidance says B&B accommodation should be avoided wherever possible. Lack of privacy and amenities for cooking and laundry means it is "not suitable" for families with children or pregnant women "unless there is no alternative accommodation available and then only for a maximum of six weeks".

Bureau data shows the amount spent on temporary accommodation across 12 of Britain's biggest cities was up 5.7% to £464m last year. And London councils have budgeted for further significant overall rises this financial year.

Since 2009, London councils have secured 5,827 properties and B&B rooms in the three London boroughs of Enfield, Waltham Forest and Haringey alone.

The borough suffering the worst homelessness crisis in the country appears to be Newham, in east London which has spent £185.2m placing people in temporary accommodation since 2009.

THE 13TH GENERAL ELECTION AND ITS AFTERMATH Chandra Muzaffar

It is a shame that eight days after the 13th General Election, there are some Opposition leaders who continue to denounce the result as a “massive fraud.”
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s scurrilous allegation about 40,000 Bangladeshis and other foreigners being air-lifted to vote in the election has been exposed as a monstrous lie. Opposition parties such as the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) have not been able to produce a single foreigner who had voted in the election!
In fact, it is Opposition vigilantes who have harassed and humiliated legitimate Malaysian voters who they claim looked like Bangladeshis. If this isn’t vicious racial profiling, what is?
Opposition leaders and their supporters know that if they have any evidence of electoral fraud, they can always petition the Courts for remedy. A cursory look at the record of our Election Courts will show that they have been fair in their decisions.
It is wrong of leaders like Anwar and Lim Kit Siang to whip up mass passions on the outcome of a general election which both local and ASEAN observers have assessed as free of fraud. There is a lurking danger in this sort of mobilisation. Since the vast majority of attendees at the rallies organised by them come from a certain community, they could easily give rise to ethnic tensions.
These rallies also have implications for our national sovereignty. There is no doubt at all that Anwar has the backing of some powerful interests in the West. The overtly biased reporting in many Western media channels on the election and the post-election scenario testify to this.  By keeping alive in the media, challenges to an election result which did not go in their favour, these interests are seeking to undermine the legitimately elected government of the day and install their proxy in power. The larger aim is to pursue the US’s geopolitical agenda in Asia, specifically in relation to China, with the help of this proxy, as has been analysed by various commentators such as Tony Cartalucci. (see Global Research 9 May, 2013). Malaysians should be fully aware of the game that is unfolding before us.                    
 There are other important facets of the 13th General Election which we should reflect upon.
• UMNO remains the most formidable political actor in the country. It increased its parliamentary representation to 88 from 79 in 2008 and its representation in the state assemblies to 242 from 239 five years ago.
• The MCA, Gerakan, PPP, and SUPP continue to decline. Would this lead to their demise? Should the Barisan Nasional  itself be re-structured? What sort of role can UMNO play in this?
• Opposition parties command substantial support among the populace. Their growing strength means that a two-third majority in Parliament for the BN is a thing of the past. The emerging situation calls for greater mutual respect between the BN and the Opposition.
• Since Merdeka there has been both Malay and non-Malay opposition to the ruling coalition. There is rural as well as urban opposition. That pattern repeated itself in the 2013 Election.
• Three out of thirteen state governments are in the hands of the opposition parties. Given this scenario which may well continue into the future, it is imperative that the centre and the states cooperate closely for the well-being of the people.  The BN and the Pakatan Rakyat should be committed to ensuring the success of federalism as a mode of governance.
• What is unique  about the 13th General Election is the almost unanimous rejection of the BN by Chinese Malaysian voters and their complete endorsement  of Pakatan, especially the DAP. It is estimated that 90% of the Chinese who voted chose the Opposition.  The driving force behind their choice was the desire to “Ubah”( change)  --- to get rid of the UMNO led BN.
• What explains this rejection? Is it because many Chinese --- like the non-Chinese voters --- perceived the BN as corrupt and guilty of wrongdoings? Is it because they, like other Malaysians, were yearning for good governance?
• While integrity and governance were important considerations, they do not tell the whole story. If good governance was uppermost in the minds of the Chinese voters, why did they reject Dato Seri Muhammad Ali Rastam in Melaka and Dato Seri Abdul Ghani Othman in Johor? There is a deeper reason for their en masse vote against the BN.
• From the very beginning of the Malaysian journey, a lot of Chinese have felt that they are discriminated against, that they are marginalised, that they are “second-class” citizens. It explains why achieving equality with the Malays has been their overriding political goal --- a goal which they sought in the 13th General Election through “ubah.”
• This goal galvanised into a powerful emotion in 2013 for a number of reasons. 1) The DAP’s stunning victories in Perak and Selangor in 2008 which indicated that they could control power in Malay majority states. 2) The leadership provided by a Malay politician --- Anwar Ibrahim --- who was prepared to criticise “Malay supremacy”, pledge to end the NEP and eliminate “racial discrimination.”  3)  The enlargement of democratic space through the abolition of the ISA and other restrictive ordinances and the enactment of new laws such as the Peaceful Assembly Act which has emboldened the Chinese community to act as seen in their participation in Bersih 3 and Perhimpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat. 4) The emergence of a host of new Chinese civil society groups focussed upon democracy and change and 5) The skilful exploitation of the new media by the proponents of  Ubah to create a mass emotional wave within the community.
• The critical question is:  are the Chinese justified in seeing themselves as a marginalised community? Is it true that the Chinese are the victims of inequality and injustice?  If we examined the real situation of the Chinese in almost every sphere of society what is the picture that emerges? Who dominates the upper stratum of the economy? Which community is the most significant component in the middle stratum of the economy? Given the cultural background of the land, isn’t the Chinese language and culture overwhelmingly pervasive in Malaysia --- a situation which has few parallels anywhere else in the world?  Even in politics, isn’t Chinese participation remarkable, considering that Malaysia evolved from Malay Sultanates?  Is it fair to describe a community with such a powerful role in society as
“marginalised” and “unequal”?    
• How can we correct this widespread misconception that an entire community labours under? Are Chinese politicians, community leaders, business elites, social activists, academics and others with influence prepared to tell the truth to the community? Are they prepared to explain the background and the context of this nation to them for principles such as equality can only be understood if they are grounded in reality?  Are they prepared to make the Chinese aware that in reality the people who were actually unequal in the economic sense at the time of Merdeka were the Malays, 64% of whom lived below the poverty-line? Since their leaders were prepared to confer citizenship on a million Chinese and Indians on incredibly liberal terms, the Special Position of the Malays and later the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak was incorporated into the Constitution in order to safeguard their economic interests.  
• Are Chinese and Indian opinion makers willing to admit that all said and done Special position and the New Economic Policy (NEP) that grew out of it have contributed immensely to the nation’s well-being? Without the accelerated development of the Malays which the NEP was largely responsible for, a strong Malay middle-class with significant representation in almost all professions, and in the upper echelons of commerce and industry would not have emerged in less than a generation. It is this Malay middle-class which has stabilised ethnic relations.  It is because a once impoverished people enjoys an appreciable  degree of equity and justice today that the Malays continue to place their faith in a market economy and parliamentary democracy which in turn have benefitted everyone, including the Chinese.
• By acknowledging the positive aspects of the NEP, one is not denying that in its implementation there have been accesses and abuses. In a number of instances, opportunities for non-Malays in education and the economy have been unjustly restricted. Well-heeled Malays and other Bumiputras have also sometimes taken advantage of what is essentially an affirmative action policy meant for the poor and deprived, to advance their own interests.
• In the last four years Prime Minister Mohd Najib has sought to address some of these issues. Non-Malay recipients of Federal Government scholarships have reached an all-time high. There is a concerted effort to increase the number of non-Malay public servants and non-Malay personnel in the police and the armed forces. All 1Malaysia ventures are blind to ethnicity and religion. Even in strengthening Malay entrepreneurship, new approaches that discourage rent-seeking are being tried out.


These and other worthwhile efforts should continue, the negative Chinese electoral response notwithstanding. They should continue because it is a question of justice and fairness. Who knows they may persuade a small segment of the community to do some soul-searching.

It is this soul-searching within the influential stratum of the Chinese community that is the greatest need of the hour ---- a serious, sincere reflection on prevailing realities and the Chinese position; on its understanding of equality in the context of the larger nation; and on its future in a society whose very survival rests upon multi-ethnic cooperation.


Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Yayasan 1Malaysia.


Petaling Jaya.


13 May 2013.

Malaysia: Failure of U.S. to Subvert the Elections and Install a “Proxy Regime” US "Pivot" Toward Asia Trips in Malaysia By Tony Cartalucci Global Research, May 09, 2013

 Wall Street and London’s hegemonic ambitions in Asia, centered around installing proxy regimes across Southeast Asia and using the supranational ASEAN bloc to encircle and contain China, suffered a serious blow this week when Western-proxy and Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s party lost in general elections.While Anwar Ibrahim’s opposition party, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) or “People’s Alliance,” attempted to run on an anti-corruption platform, its campaign instead resembled verbatim attempts by the West to subvert governments politically around the world, including most recently in Venezuela, and in Russia in 2012.Just as in Russia where so-called “independent” election monitor GOLOS turned out to be fully funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Malaysia’s so-called election monitor, the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED. Despite this, Western media outlets, in pursuit of promoting the Western-backed People’s Alliance, has repeatedly referred to Merdeka as “independent.”

Image: Despite the US mobilizing the summation of its media power and pouring millions of dollars into the opposition party, including the creation and perpetuation of fake-NGOs such as Bersih and the Merdeka Center, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak sailed to a comfortable victory in this year’s general elections. The cheap veneer has begun peeling away from America’s “democracy promotion” racket, leaving its proxies exposed and frantic, and America’s hegemonic ambitions across Asia in serious question.

The BBC in its article, “Malaysia election sees record turnout,” lays out the well-rehearsed cries of “stolen elections” used by the West to undermine the legitimacy of polls it fears its proxy candidates may lose – with  the US-funded Merdeka Center cited in attempts to bolster these claims. Their foreign funding and compromised objectivity is never mentioned (emphasis added) :

Allegations of election fraud surfaced before the election. Some of those who voted in advance told BBC News that indelible ink – supposed to last for days – easily washed off.

“The indelible ink can be washed off easily, with just water, in a few seconds,” one voter, Lo, told BBC News from Skudai.

Another voter wrote: “Marked with “indelible ink” and voted at 10:00. Have already cleaned off the ink by 12:00. If I was also registered under a different name and ID number at a neighbouring constituency, I would be able to vote again before 17:00!”

The opposition has also accused the government of funding flights for supporters to key states, which the government denies.

Independent pollster Merdeka Center has received unconfirmed reports of foreign nationals being given IDs and allowed to vote.

However, an election monitoring organization funded by a foreign government which openly seeks to remove the current ruling party from Malaysia in favor of long-time Wall Street servant Anwar Ibrahim is most certainly not “independent.”

The ties between Anwar Ibrahim’s “People’s Alliance” and the US State Department don’t end with the Merdeka Center, but continue into the opposition’s street movement, “Bersih.” Claiming to fight for “clean and fair” elections, Bersih in reality is a vehicle designed to mobilize street protests on behalf of Anwar’s opposition party. Bersih’s alleged leader, Ambiga Sreenevasan, has admitted herself that her organization has received cash directly from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy’s National Democratic Institute (NDI), and convicted criminal George Soros’ Open Society.

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan:

“…admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march.”

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.



Photo: NDI’s website before taking down any mention to Malaysia’s Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)

….
The substantial, yet carefully obfuscated support the West has lent Anwar should be of no surprise to those familiar with Anwar’s history. That Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy’s “Democracy Award” and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony – the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called “independent” election monitor Merdeka – paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.


Photo: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy’s 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a “panelist.” It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)

….
In reality, Bersih’s leadership along with Anwar and their host of foreign sponsors are attempting to galvanize the very real grievances of the Malaysian people and exploit them to propel themselves into power. While many may be tempted to suggest that “clean and fair elections” truly are Bersih and Anwar’s goal, and that US funding via NED’s NDI  are entirely innocuous, a thorough examination of these organizations, how they operate, and their admitted agenda reveals the proverbial cliff Anwar and Bersih are leading their followers and the nation of Malaysia over.

As Bersih predictably mobilizes in the streets on behalf of Anwar’s opposition party in the wake of their collective failure during Malaysia’s 2013 general elections, it is important for Malaysians to understand the true nature of the Western organizations funding their attempts to politically undermine the ruling party and divide Malaysians against each other, and exactly why this is being done in the greater context of US hegemony in Asia.

Anwar & Bersih’s US State Department Backers

The US State Department’s NED and NDI are most certainly not benevolent promoters of democracy and freedom.Does Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, the SOPA, ACTA, CISPA-sponsoring US Chamber of Commerce, and America’s warmongering Neo-Con establishment care about promoting democracy in Malaysia? Or in expanding their corporate-financier interests in Asia under the guise of promoting democracy? Clearly the latter.

The NDI, which Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevasan herself admits funds her organization, is likewise chaired by an unsavory collection of corporate interests.

The average Malaysian, disenfranchised with the ruling government as they may be, cannot possibly believe these people are funding and propping up clearly disingenuous NGOs in direct support of a compromised Anwar Ibrahim, for the best interests of Malaysia.The end game for the US with an Anwar Ibrahim/People’s Alliance-led government, is a Malaysia that capitulates to both US free trade schemes and US foreign policy. In Malaysia’s case, this will leave the extensive economic independence achieved since escaping out from under British rule, gutted, while the nation’s resources are steered away from domestic development and toward a proxy confrontation with China, just as is already being done in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

Stitching ASEAN Together with Proxy Regimes to Fight China


Image: Lemuel Gulliver on the island of Lilliput, having been overtaken while asleep by ropes and stakes by the diminutive but numerous Lilliputians. Western corporate-financier interests envision organizing Southeast Asia into a supranational bloc, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), to use the smaller nations as a combined front to “tie down” China in a similar manner. Unlike in the story “Gulliver’s Travels,” China may well break free of its binds and stomp the Lilliputian leaders flat for their belligerence.

….
That the US goal is to use Malaysia and other Southeast Asian nations against China is not merely speculation. It is the foundation of a long-documented conspiracy dating back as far as 1997, and reaffirmed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as recently as 2011.



In 1997,  Fortune 500-funded (page 19) Brookings Institution policy scribe Robert Kagan penned, “What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment,” which spells out the policy Wall Street and London were already in the process of implementing even then, albeit in a somewhat more nebulous manner. In his essay, Kagan literally states (emphasis added):

The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them.

Here, Kagan openly admits that the “world order,” or the “international order,” is simply American-run global hegemony, dictated by US interests. These interests, it should be kept in mind, are not those of the American people, but of the immense corporate-financier interests of the Anglo-American establishment. Kagan continues (emphasis added):

In truth, the debate over whether we should or should not contain China is a bit silly. We are already containing China — not always consciously and not entirely successfully, but enough to annoy Chinese leaders and be an obstacle to their ambitions. When the Chinese used military maneuvers and ballistic-missile tests last March to intimidate Taiwanese voters, the United States responded by sending the Seventh Fleet. By this show of force, the U.S. demonstrated to Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of our Asian allies that our role as their defender in the region had not diminished as much as they might have feared. Thus, in response to a single Chinese exercise of muscle, the links of containment became visible and were tightened.

The new China hands insist that the United States needs to explain to the Chinese that its goal is merely, as [Robert] Zoellick writes, to avoid “the domination of East Asia by any power or group of powers hostile to the United States.” Our treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, and our naval and military forces in the region, aim only at regional stability, not aggressive encirclement.

But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America’s military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region’s hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will “play Gulliver to Southeast Asia’s Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes.”

Indeed, the United States blocks Chinese ambitions merely by supporting what we like to call “international norms” of behavior. Christensen points out that Chinese strategic thinkers consider “complaints about China’s violations of international norms” to be part of “an integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from becoming a great power.

What Kagan is talking about is maintaining American preeminence across all of Asia and producing a strategy of tension to divide and limit the power of any single player vis-a-vis Wall Street and London’s hegemony. Kagan would continue (emphasis added):

The changes in the external and internal behavior of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s resulted at least in part from an American strategy that might be called “integration through containment and pressure for change.”

Such a strategy needs to be applied to China today. As long as China maintains its present form of government, it cannot be peacefully integrated into the international order. For China’s current leaders, it is too risky to play by our rules — yet our unwillingness to force them to play by our rules is too risky for the health of the international order. The United States cannot and should not be willing to upset the international order in the mistaken belief that accommodation is the best way to avoid a confrontation with China.

We should hold the line instead and work for political change in Beijing. That means strengthening our military capabilities in the region, improving our security ties with friends and allies, and making clear that we will respond, with force if necessary, when China uses military intimidation or aggression to achieve its regional ambitions. It also means not trading with the Chinese military or doing business with firms the military owns or operates. And it means imposing stiff sanctions when we catch China engaging in nuclear proliferation.

A successful containment strategy will require increasing, not decreasing, our overall defense capabilities. Eyre Crowe warned in 1907 that “the more we talk of the necessity of economising on our armaments, the more firmly will the Germans believe that we are tiring of the struggle, and that they will win by going on.” Today, the perception of our military decline is already shaping Chinese calculations. In 1992, an internal Chinese government document said that America’s “strength is in relative decline and that there are limits to what it can do.” This perception needs to be dispelled as quickly as possible.

Kagan’s talk of “responding” to China’s expansion is clearly manifested today in a series of proxy conflicts growing between US-backed Japan, and the US-backed Philippines, and to a lesser extent between North and South Korea, and even beginning to show in Myanmar. The governments of these nations have capitulated to US interests and their eagerness to play the role of America’s proxies in the region, even at their own cost, is not a surprise. To expand this, however, the US fully plans on integrating Southeast Asia, installing proxy regimes, and likewise turning their resources and people against China.

In 2011, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled the capstone to Kagan’s 1997 conspiracy. She published in Foreign Policy magazine, a piece titled, “America’s Pacific Century” where she explicitly states:

In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

To “sustain our leadership,” “secure our interests,” and “advance our values,” are clearly hegemonic statements, and indicates that the US’ goal for “substantially increased investment,” including buying off NGOs and opposition parties in Malaysia, seeks to directly serve US leadership, interests, and “values,”  not within US borders, but outside them, and specifically across all of Asia.

Clinton continues:

At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over — and continues to do so.

The “architecture” referred to is the supranational ASEAN bloc – and again Clinton confirms that the US’ commitment to this process is designed not to lift up Asia, but to maintain its own hegemony across the region, and around the world.

Clinton then openly admits that the US seeks to exploit Asia’s economic growth:

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia.

Of course, the purpose of an economy is to meet the needs of those who live within it. The Asian economy therefore ought to serve the needs and interests of Asians – not a hegemonic empire on the other side of the Pacific. Clinton’s piece could easily double as a declaration by England’s King George and his intentions toward emptying out the New World.

And no empire is complete without establishing a permanent military garrison on newly claimed territory. Clinton explains (emphasis added):

With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

And of course, by “advancing democracy and human rights,” Clinton means the continuation of funding faux-NGOs that disingenuously leverage human rights and democracy promotion to politically undermine targeted governments in pursuit of installing more obedient proxy regimes.

The piece is lengthy, and while a lot of readers may be tempted to gloss over some of the uglier, overtly imperial aspects of Clinton’s statement, the proof of America’s true intentions in Asia can be seen clearly manifested today, with the intentional encouragement of provocations between North and South Korea, an expanding confrontation between China and US proxies, Japan and the Philippines, and with mobs taking to the streets in Malaysia in hopes of overturning an election US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim had no chance of winning.

Clean & Fair Elections?

While the battle cry for Anwar Ibrahim, his People’s Alliance, and Bersih have been “clean and fair elections,” in reality, allegations of fraud began long before the elections even started. This was not because Anwar’s opposition party had evidence of such fraud – instead, this was to implant the idea into people’s minds long before the elections, deeply enough to justify claims of stolen elections no matter how the polls eventually turned out.

At one point during the elections, before ballots were even counted, Anwar Ibrahim declared victory - a move that analysts across the region noted was provocative, dangerous, and incredibly irresponsible. Again, there could not have been any evidence that Anwar won, because ballots had not yet been counted. It was again a move meant to manipulate the public and set the stage for contesting Anwar’s inevitable loss – in the streets with mobs and chaos in typical Western-backed color revolution style.

One must seriously ask themselves, considering Anwar’s foreign backers, those backers’ own stated intentions for Asia, and Anwar’s irresponsible, baseless claims before, during, and after the elections – what is “clean and fair” about any of this?

Anwar Ibrahim is a fraud, an overt proxy of foreign interests. His satellite NGOs, including the insidious Bersih movement openly funded by foreign corporate-financier interests, and the equally insidious polling NGO Merdeka who portrays itself as “independent” despite being funded directly by a foreign government, are likewise frauds – drawing in well-intentioned people through slick marketing, just as cigarette companies do.

And like cigarette companies who sell what is for millions essentially a slow, painful, humiliating death sentence that will leave one broken financially and spiritually before ultimately outright killing them, Anwar’s US-backed opposition is also selling Malaysia a slow, painful, humiliating death. Unfortunately, also like cigarettes, well-intentioned but impressionable people have not gathered all of the facts, and have instead have based their support on only the marketing, gimmicks, slogans, and tricks of a well-oiled, manipulative political machine.

For that folly, Malaysia may pay a heavy price one day – but for Anwar and his opposition party today, they have lost the elections, and the cheap veneer of America’s “democracy promotion” racket is quickly peeling away. For now, America has tripped in mid-pivot toward its hegemonic agenda in Asia, with Malaysia’s ruling government providing a model for other nations in the region to follow, should they be interested in sovereignty and independent progress – no matter how flawed or slow it may be.