'MCA go home' vs 'Where was DAP 13 years ago?' at Jonker Walk
What?! Gan qualified his being there as a survey, not to protest? Let alone to lead the protest? Did Mr. Gan Tian Loo realize that the MCA protest carries more weight than DAP protest many times
over. The state government, being UMNO-led government, considers the DAP as the opposition working hand-in-hand with PAS and PKR to oust UMNO from power, rescinding the directive on the request
from DAP leaders will make the party even more popular. I thought, at first, here come the MCA, finally to do what it's supposed to do. Then the expected happened. He got cold feet. The
reporter who covered the protest reported Gan was suddenly cautious . He was like ..."I'm here to lend my support to..the .. no, wait! I am not here to support the traders - but just to do a quick
survey! But I am glad to be standing here with the protesters but reporters, please put it down in black and white I am not, I repeat, am not here as part of the protest. This is the reason the MCA
was shunned, I mean has been shunned by the Chinese. They do not represent the Chinese anymore. They cannot get things done anymore unlike in the old days. Gan admitted his meeting with the chief
minister was fruitless, but would keep trying. Keep trying for what? He should stop embarrassing the MCA and reducing its credibility further by continuing to beg despite being rebuffed earlier.
Again, this proved that the Malaysian Chinese Association has really completely lost its usefulness. If a small matter like Jonker Walk closure was beyond its power then, that 's it.
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women
THE DRL BLOG
Links You May Like
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Links You May Like
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He was Prime Minister?>More Here
How To Stop Drinking Without Stopping!>Read More Here
Opportunist Writers From Indian Community> Read More
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women>More here
Israel Can Stop Palestinians' Roket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >More
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins A No-No>More
Clinton Or Trump>More
How You Intend To Vote in November?>More
Obama Took The Crown>More Here
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf>More..
Abdullah Rebuffed Them>More
Lim's Horrendous Success>More Here
Lim Guan Eng A Phenomenon>More
Even The Once Mighty British Seem To Have Thrown In The Towel>Read More
Clash Of Titans> More Here
Not Easy Being DAP>Read More
Pak Lah Was Too Kind To Do What Was Expected Of Him>More Here
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired>More
Not Easy Being MCA Leaders>More
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One>More..
Nobel Prize Winners>More..
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise>More
Warning For The Rich And Powerful>Read More
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
MCA Must Demand Return Of All Its Traditional
Seats>Read More
A British Adventurer Who Became King By His Own
Hand>Read More
Where's The MAS Flight MH370 Now>More..
The Greatest Medicine
Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His
Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All)
>Read More...
The Greatest Medicine Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >Read More...
By David Lang
The following stories may fire your imagination, pique your interest. Some say 1MDB is Malaysia's Sovereign Wealth fund; to others they asked what wealth fund when its total capitalization is just One million ringgit? But, then again, if you think you can look down on the pet idea of the Malaysian prime minister, think again. His idea has the potential of turning the now world famous - or shall we say, infamous - 1Malaysia Development Berhad into a giant corporation you can ever imagine - even bigger than Bill Gate's Microsoft! At least, it could be, if the original course is stayed. It was supposed to inspire Malaysians to think big besides advance growth, according to its slogans screaming out of giant bill boards throughout the country. 'Backed' by the finance ministry who owns it - which means money will never be the problem - it can only succeed. But..it didn't. It failed! That's why it may have piqued many people's curiosity. How can a company flush with cash and can borrow any amount (billions) anytime could fail? Well, this may be in line with your thinking. People have seen since its inception - I mean after its name was changed in 1999 from Trengganu Investment Authority (TIA) to the present - it hasn't done any business! I have used present tense deliberately. It hasn't done any business yet. I mean if you are in business you need to make profit or find ways to make profit. Or close shop. Oh, I had heard about their filings of tax returns and hiring of a couple of internationally known auditors to sign off on their balance sheets; but these concerned only the company's borrowings and interests to be paid. Two massive bonds were issued to the tune of $7 billions. To buy up power plants. Again I want to say if you are in business to make money even investing in independent Power Plants, it should be done with the view to making a profit. The decision may be long term or short term, it doesn't matter, it has to make money, or no deal. May be they have done the right thing. Maybe luck was not on their side. Still, the amount is staggering. I didn't know having or managing so much money can be a problem! But many - especially the Malays - have not given up hope yet. Yes, may be the durians are just ripening; may be they need time and may fall soon!
This is a automatic time
Malaysia's Woes
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Why 1MDB Sovereign Wealth Fund Failed?
Local politics
Opportunit Writers From Indian Community
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Alcohol Effect: (PAS' Muslim Now Concerned About Non- Muslims' Health?
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One
Israel Has No Choice But To Deter
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired
About Dr Mahathir
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He Was Prime Minister?
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Recent Articles
This video is presented courtesy of Sally Page:
Malaysia's Vision 2020
By:David Lang
Malaysia is supposed to be on its way to becoming a developed nation, by the year 2020. Will she make it (in less than five years -tick-tuck, tick-tuck)? There is no doubt the year 2020 is coming whether the country is ready or not, and if that will be the only requirement then Malaysia will attain that developed nation status on schedule. There is a question, though, Will Malaysia, or Malaysians, for that matter, be ready for that status as far as their affluence, quality of life's concern? Currently Malaysia's GNI per capita stood at US$10060. According to the World Bank high income economies are those with GNI per capita of US$12,745. And until Malaysians earn much more to be there, the developed nation status may not be achieved even by the year 2020. The futility of declaring a country a high income country when it's not, achieves nothing. May be even counter-productive; it lulls the country into false sense of success and premature celebration. Don't forget China reportedly overtook Japan as the world's second largest economy, but in actual fact China's citizens' ca pita income is a fraction of the incomes of the Japanese who earn $37,000. Chinese incomes range from $13,000. China's gross domestic product, taken as a whole, may beat Japan's, but in term of quality of life, and GNI per capita income, the criteria for a developed nation status, China still has a lot of catching up to do. That's why China still qualifies as recipient of Japan's economic aid meant for developing countries. Comparing with the Chinese per capita domestic product, Malaysia is even worse off. Unless the government bucks up and rushes to create more wealth for its citizens, the Vision 2020 dream may remain just that ..a dream.
Jun 29, 2013
Jun 22, 2013
Apr 20, 2013
Apr 6, 2013
Apr 1, 2013
Feb 15, 2013
How To Repair Your Own Refrigerator And Save A Bundle
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Dec 30, 2011
This is what I wrote in my Newsvine column which earned me a fabulous reward you can imagine
m-612920, with 25. you really never get it, do you? It's the way of the United States of America to go invading other countries for one reason or another.
Whether to avenge for the bombing of the World Trade Center, or help the French to extricate itself from the hopeless fight in Vietnam, or to remove a leader of a foreign country the sitting US president doesn't like; so it's not that former President George Bush was trigger-happy or blood-thirsty to attempt such an adventure, which was what many of you all Obama supporters like to condemn him for.
It's in the interest of the US and its people to deploy American forces wherever they are needed. All US president did it and will do it. Even president Obama, your beloved president, just did it! And he did it with the least reason or rational (to boot). Now that's what you should call a foolhardy, reckless, unjustified, unscrupulous, needless, unethical, naive,bubbling,dangerous,misleading......adventure. That's what it was ..the so-called No-Fly zone joke. The whole world - or at least it seemed - bought into Obama's pitching (snake oil) wholesale. They believed what Obama told them (speculated) that up to 70,000 people would be slaughtered unless Col. Qaddafi was stopped), hook, line and sinker! No one, no one, was wise enough to rationalize that there was no way the Libyan strongman could have killed so may people short of using weapons of mass destruction. Or the need or desire to do so. Yet, no one came forward to call him what he was: a liar! No! a murderer! Wait a minute, there was one: Pat Buchanan of MSNBC's talk show "Morning Joe fame. But before I get Pat Buchanan into trouble, I want to add that Pat Buchanan did not say Obama was a liar.All he said was: "..hard to believe what Obama said (speculated), for even after months of fighting, there was not even a single report of Qaddafi or his loyalist troops going on killing spree, and (what's more) all the reporters covering the war were anti-Qaddafi!" Never before in the history of the US intervention in other countries, when the siting president was so emotional that he allowed his 'enemy' (Col. Qaddafi) to be killed in cold blood. He cannot escape blame by saying he didn't kill Qaddafi himself. He didn't need to. As US president everything or everyone is on his call. Where would these murderous NTC rebels/fighters be today without NATO's help, and guess who controls NATO? US general, of course. Who controls British prime minister David Cameron and his cruise missle firing military: President Obama! Would those guilty of hasty killing of Qaddafi face justice? Not likely. You know why? Because they are in the good book of President Obama. They are Obama's 'Red Guards', if you will. Even the international Court of Justice preferred to not get involved (so much for its noble objectives of ensuring justice for all). Since President Obama came on the scene, everything in the world, the world court, the UN, to name a few, have become fake. (it's the most devilish thing ever happened to our world, after Hitler). He must be the most selfish man ever lived, after Hitler; he wanted to be seen as keeping his campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq - which he used to exploit the weariness of Americans towards the Iraq war - to his advantage during the US presidential general election - so he withdrew troops from Iraq, regardless...He knew exactly what would happen once US military was withdrawn; but for a man who would do anything to get elected - or shall we say get reelected - as president of the world's only super power, expect nothing unless it helps him get another four years as the king of the universe! If he could get away with murder, what do you expect? He could even betray his own country's (American) interests, for crying out loud. He knew he failed in Iraq, even though not started by him, so he took the easy way out: he withdrew. Oh, he did make some half-hearted attempts to ask Iraqi leaders for permission to leave behind a residual force of fifty thousands (which his generals said was needed to see to things that could be unpredictable). Who said the US, the conqueror of Iraq should be submissive to its leaders? It should dictate terms, not being dictated to. He could put his foot down and say: enough wrangling already; now it's time for a brand new prime minister (like when on Bush's watch when a few prime ministers were replaced by the American government). It seemed clear that Obama had been treating Iraq as Bush's problem - not American problem - so he didn't do anything to make the occupation of Iraq a success. He didn't force the present prime minister out when he lost the election (like Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast, remember?) and refused to make way for his Sunni opponent, the winner. Later after some maneuverings it turned out al-Mlikki , the current premier, had the numbers to continue to helm the Iraqi government. Nobody could tell what happened, but it's clear Nouri al-Miliki, like all incumbents every where, didn't want to give up what he loved, being prime minister. It was Obama's job - if his intention was to serve the interests of the United States of America, and not his own, to see to it that Iraq remains stable, reasonably stable; and that the US, being its conqueror, shall be accorded the respect it deserved , like becoming the most favored friend of Iraq forever. During almost entire term in the presidency, nothing much happened in Iraq, except violence, of course. This, I am sure, Obama was aware of. Unless the hundreds of people whom he called advisers he surrounded himself with at the expense of American tax payers, are all morons, he knew Iraq was going to the dogs. He should have done something; he should leave his predecessor alone, or ask his liberal supporters like those on Newsvine.com panels, who keep on bashing former President Bush as if it has become an obsession, to stop. It saps their brain cells which turn them into the likes of robots. I say this because if someone keeps hounding another for one mistake - which, what's more, actually was not a mistake - relentlessly, then perhaps the wheels are coming off (to use Keith Doberman of MSNBC's talk show host).</p><p>If we like to hound on people, there plenty we can hound on. Take the US president, for instance. He's far from being an angel. Actually he's the devil, ten times worst than Bush. He attacked a country's leader solely because that leader looked likely to buck the trend (throw a spanner into his Arab Spring works). He said he wanted to cleanse the Middle East, but he meant not those parts that contained Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, or Bahrain. Kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are no better than the hounded Syrian president, yet they 're left alone. When former Thai prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, or something, fired on women and children beside men and old men in Bangkok not long ago when more than 90 people were shot dead, where was President Obama? His silence was deafening. Abhijit was worse that Qaddafi, he was also left alone. I could go on and on. Because of the failure of Obama as president, Iraq, which had turned around after the surge, had now started to descend into a free-for-all mayhem. If only he did his duty, properly instead of venturing into Libya and wasted billion of US dollars tax payers' money..for what? If only he was fair and firm when dealing with Iraqi leaders, like former President George Bush. Make them work things out among themselves, or replace the prime minister. He could appoint another Shiite prime minister if necessary. Instead, he did nothing other than sending his vice-president to shake a few hands. He views himself as tough president because of his signature success - the killing of Osama Bin Ladin and the murdering of Col.Qaddafi - but actually he's a weakling president. Although he may have regained his courage somewhat after shouting across the bow in South China Sea and Australia against China, basically he's a weakling person. Seen, viewed as weakling. A strong or commanding personality doesn't necessarily need to be aggressive to deter or awe his opponents. People like former President Bush. When dealing with Chinese leaders, one of Obama's failures, Bush was firm and fair. (When he sent the American aircraft carrier to the China Seas for naval exercise with South Korea, the Chinese kept quiet (what's the big deal; only an exercise the Chinese thought), but when came Obama's turn to do so, Beijing was outraged, and demanded Obama move his carrier to conduct the exercise elsewhere. Why? And Obama obeyed). I don't know if Bush would relent in the face of Chinese similar demand; but I am sure of one thing, with Bush, it would never have come to that, issuing ultimatums. It largely boils down to if you're highly respected; respected by the way you do things: firmly but fairly. To know how President Obama scores in this department look no further than our long-term ally Pakistan. When some Pakistani soldiers are killed by mistakes, all hell breaks loose, every time. No amount of apology is accepted or sufficient for its leaders. They usually close the border-crossing faster than the fall of the hat. Even after Obama dispatched his special representatives to offer sincere and personal apologies, Islamabad did not move. To rub salt into Obama's wound they gradually opened the crossing at their own pace. Such was the gratitude the multi-billion dollar recipient of American aid for the US government or shall we say, the respect the Pakistani leaders accorded to the US president. Do you wish to know more?
It's in the interest of the US and its people to deploy American forces wherever they are needed. All US president did it and will do it. Even president Obama, your beloved president, just did it! And he did it with the least reason or rational (to boot). Now that's what you should call a foolhardy, reckless, unjustified, unscrupulous, needless, unethical, naive,bubbling,dangerous,misleading......adventure. That's what it was ..the so-called No-Fly zone joke. The whole world - or at least it seemed - bought into Obama's pitching (snake oil) wholesale. They believed what Obama told them (speculated) that up to 70,000 people would be slaughtered unless Col. Qaddafi was stopped), hook, line and sinker! No one, no one, was wise enough to rationalize that there was no way the Libyan strongman could have killed so may people short of using weapons of mass destruction. Or the need or desire to do so. Yet, no one came forward to call him what he was: a liar! No! a murderer! Wait a minute, there was one: Pat Buchanan of MSNBC's talk show "Morning Joe fame. But before I get Pat Buchanan into trouble, I want to add that Pat Buchanan did not say Obama was a liar.All he said was: "..hard to believe what Obama said (speculated), for even after months of fighting, there was not even a single report of Qaddafi or his loyalist troops going on killing spree, and (what's more) all the reporters covering the war were anti-Qaddafi!" Never before in the history of the US intervention in other countries, when the siting president was so emotional that he allowed his 'enemy' (Col. Qaddafi) to be killed in cold blood. He cannot escape blame by saying he didn't kill Qaddafi himself. He didn't need to. As US president everything or everyone is on his call. Where would these murderous NTC rebels/fighters be today without NATO's help, and guess who controls NATO? US general, of course. Who controls British prime minister David Cameron and his cruise missle firing military: President Obama! Would those guilty of hasty killing of Qaddafi face justice? Not likely. You know why? Because they are in the good book of President Obama. They are Obama's 'Red Guards', if you will. Even the international Court of Justice preferred to not get involved (so much for its noble objectives of ensuring justice for all). Since President Obama came on the scene, everything in the world, the world court, the UN, to name a few, have become fake. (it's the most devilish thing ever happened to our world, after Hitler). He must be the most selfish man ever lived, after Hitler; he wanted to be seen as keeping his campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq - which he used to exploit the weariness of Americans towards the Iraq war - to his advantage during the US presidential general election - so he withdrew troops from Iraq, regardless...He knew exactly what would happen once US military was withdrawn; but for a man who would do anything to get elected - or shall we say get reelected - as president of the world's only super power, expect nothing unless it helps him get another four years as the king of the universe! If he could get away with murder, what do you expect? He could even betray his own country's (American) interests, for crying out loud. He knew he failed in Iraq, even though not started by him, so he took the easy way out: he withdrew. Oh, he did make some half-hearted attempts to ask Iraqi leaders for permission to leave behind a residual force of fifty thousands (which his generals said was needed to see to things that could be unpredictable). Who said the US, the conqueror of Iraq should be submissive to its leaders? It should dictate terms, not being dictated to. He could put his foot down and say: enough wrangling already; now it's time for a brand new prime minister (like when on Bush's watch when a few prime ministers were replaced by the American government). It seemed clear that Obama had been treating Iraq as Bush's problem - not American problem - so he didn't do anything to make the occupation of Iraq a success. He didn't force the present prime minister out when he lost the election (like Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast, remember?) and refused to make way for his Sunni opponent, the winner. Later after some maneuverings it turned out al-Mlikki , the current premier, had the numbers to continue to helm the Iraqi government. Nobody could tell what happened, but it's clear Nouri al-Miliki, like all incumbents every where, didn't want to give up what he loved, being prime minister. It was Obama's job - if his intention was to serve the interests of the United States of America, and not his own, to see to it that Iraq remains stable, reasonably stable; and that the US, being its conqueror, shall be accorded the respect it deserved , like becoming the most favored friend of Iraq forever. During almost entire term in the presidency, nothing much happened in Iraq, except violence, of course. This, I am sure, Obama was aware of. Unless the hundreds of people whom he called advisers he surrounded himself with at the expense of American tax payers, are all morons, he knew Iraq was going to the dogs. He should have done something; he should leave his predecessor alone, or ask his liberal supporters like those on Newsvine.com panels, who keep on bashing former President Bush as if it has become an obsession, to stop. It saps their brain cells which turn them into the likes of robots. I say this because if someone keeps hounding another for one mistake - which, what's more, actually was not a mistake - relentlessly, then perhaps the wheels are coming off (to use Keith Doberman of MSNBC's talk show host).</p><p>If we like to hound on people, there plenty we can hound on. Take the US president, for instance. He's far from being an angel. Actually he's the devil, ten times worst than Bush. He attacked a country's leader solely because that leader looked likely to buck the trend (throw a spanner into his Arab Spring works). He said he wanted to cleanse the Middle East, but he meant not those parts that contained Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, or Bahrain. Kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are no better than the hounded Syrian president, yet they 're left alone. When former Thai prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, or something, fired on women and children beside men and old men in Bangkok not long ago when more than 90 people were shot dead, where was President Obama? His silence was deafening. Abhijit was worse that Qaddafi, he was also left alone. I could go on and on. Because of the failure of Obama as president, Iraq, which had turned around after the surge, had now started to descend into a free-for-all mayhem. If only he did his duty, properly instead of venturing into Libya and wasted billion of US dollars tax payers' money..for what? If only he was fair and firm when dealing with Iraqi leaders, like former President George Bush. Make them work things out among themselves, or replace the prime minister. He could appoint another Shiite prime minister if necessary. Instead, he did nothing other than sending his vice-president to shake a few hands. He views himself as tough president because of his signature success - the killing of Osama Bin Ladin and the murdering of Col.Qaddafi - but actually he's a weakling president. Although he may have regained his courage somewhat after shouting across the bow in South China Sea and Australia against China, basically he's a weakling person. Seen, viewed as weakling. A strong or commanding personality doesn't necessarily need to be aggressive to deter or awe his opponents. People like former President Bush. When dealing with Chinese leaders, one of Obama's failures, Bush was firm and fair. (When he sent the American aircraft carrier to the China Seas for naval exercise with South Korea, the Chinese kept quiet (what's the big deal; only an exercise the Chinese thought), but when came Obama's turn to do so, Beijing was outraged, and demanded Obama move his carrier to conduct the exercise elsewhere. Why? And Obama obeyed). I don't know if Bush would relent in the face of Chinese similar demand; but I am sure of one thing, with Bush, it would never have come to that, issuing ultimatums. It largely boils down to if you're highly respected; respected by the way you do things: firmly but fairly. To know how President Obama scores in this department look no further than our long-term ally Pakistan. When some Pakistani soldiers are killed by mistakes, all hell breaks loose, every time. No amount of apology is accepted or sufficient for its leaders. They usually close the border-crossing faster than the fall of the hat. Even after Obama dispatched his special representatives to offer sincere and personal apologies, Islamabad did not move. To rub salt into Obama's wound they gradually opened the crossing at their own pace. Such was the gratitude the multi-billion dollar recipient of American aid for the US government or shall we say, the respect the Pakistani leaders accorded to the US president. Do you wish to know more?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment