Lee Kuan Yew Made A Sweeping Allegation:
UMNO Leaders Trying To Topple Abdullah

Singapore’s Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, was quoted by Bernama today as saying that “UMNO leaders, particularly from Johore” were trying “to topple” Malaysian Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

This is the full Bernama report from Singapore:

Don't Expect Special Treatment In IDR, Singaporean Investors Told

By Jackson Sawatan

SINGAPORE, June 30 (Bernama) -- Singapore companies intending to invest in the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) cannot expect privileged treatment from Malaysia just like the "generous treatment" accorded by China to investors from Hong Kong in Shenzhen province, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said.

"Singapore cannot expect the same treatment from Malaysia," he said in a special interview with Berita Harian to mark the daily's 50th anniversary tomorrow.

Lee, still an influential figure in the Singapore cabinet, said Singapore companies must evaluate whether their presence are welcomed at IDR as there are protests from among Umno leaders, especially from Johor.

"On one side Pas is trying to topple the prime minister but when Umno leaders, particularly from Johor, are also doing the same, Singaporean investors must seriously ask themselves when this attitude will change and whether they welcome us in IDR," he said.

The IDR, straddling 2,217 sq km in south Johor, is a massive project undertaken by the Malaysian government, which many observers say will complement its ultra-modern neighbour Singapore, just like Shenzhen to Hong Kong.

Lee said IDR could pose pressure to Singapore just like Shenzhen to Hong Kong.

The Singapore founding father said Shenzhen was wooing industries from Hong Kong to the province and to nearby towns.

"This has left Hong Kong with only a few manufacturing plants and with high unemployment rate. Hong Kong's economy is now dependent on the service sector," he told Berita Harian, the sole Malay newspaper in the republic.

"If Singapore loses many industries to IDR, we will face serious unemployment problem as not all factory workers can find jobs in the service sector," he said.

He, however, said Singapore would support IDR as the two countries are bound to gain from the multi-billion ringgit project.

"From a wider perspective, we believe it is good for the two countries, with Malaysia savouring the spin-offs from Singapore's economic growth, and similarly Singapore," he said.

Internal politics and protests to Singaporeans investing in IDR are to exploit the issues and to erode support to Abdullah's leadership and the co-operation in the development region, he added.

-BERNAMA

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/printable.php?id=270520
June 30, 2007 13:10 PM

Comment:

The allegation made by LKY is extremely serious. What is he up to this time? To create chaos in UMNO? To cause instability in Malaysia? To shut up IDR’s critics? Or, is it just a reversed psychological warfare aimed at putting a gag on Abdullah’s critics?

So, what is UMNO’s response to it? How is Abdullah’s administration going to treat such a statement? What is Wisma Putra’s reaction going to be? – Ruhanie Ahmad

Playing With Numbers

Several weeks ago, RPK of http://www.malaysia-today.net/ had forewarned us to beware of 18 June 2007. I am not sure why he did that. But nothing had happened on that particular date.

A few days ago, a friend of mine asked me to watch these three dates – 7th July 2007, (7707), 17th July 2007 (17707) and 25th August 2007 (25807).

I did ask him: “what are the significance of these dates?”

He answered with a broad smile: “just watch these three dates closely, you will know why!!!”

Now I am very puzzled. What do these dates stand for? The possible dates for the general elections? It cannot be. Then what? Dooms day??

I already made several guesses. But, I still can’t find the answer. What am I supposed to do now? Just wait and see? Consult a soothsayer? Look for a fengsui master? Find a gypsy crystal-ball gazer?

I am helpless. Those three dates really bogged my mind. I am not an expert in guessing game. Nor am I good at playing with numbers. So, please help me. I don’t want to be caught by surprise, especially when plenty of surprises are now happening in this country.

Till then, let us remind ourselves - united we stand, divided we fall. And, as a Johorean, I am always reminded by the State motto: to God we submit. – Ruhanie Ahmad

Don't Meddle In
Malaysia's Domestic Affairs
Warns Najib

KUANTAN, June 23 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak expressed regret over the statement by the Ambassador and Head of the European Commission Delegation to Malaysia with regard to the New Economic Policy (NEP), saying that the envoy should not interfere in Malaysia's domestic affairs and policies.

Refuting the facts presented by the envoy, the Deputy Prime Minister said that as an ambassador accredited to this country, Thierry Rommel should play a role to forge closer relations between the two countries.

"Normally, an ambassador or envoy does not comment on the affairs of the country they are accredited to. This has been the practice because when we comment on the policies adopted by the country concerned, it means that we are interfering in the affairs of the host country," he told reporters after launching the national level Campaign On Early Intervention To Prevent Children's Disability, here.

Najib said this when asked to comment on Rommel's remarks on Thursday which were carried by foreign wire agencies.

A foreign wire report quoted Rommel as saying that the government was using the NEP as an excuse to practise "significant protectionism of its own market" and urged the Malaysian government to roll back its affirmative action policy for the Malays.

The foreign news reports had stated that the NEP gave a host of privileges in jobs, education, business and other areas to ethnic Malays.

As part of the NEP, all public-listed companies are required to allocate 30 per cent of their shares to the Malays. Companies without Malay directors or employees are excluded from lucrative government contracts, the report said.

On Malaysia's action or official protest against the statement, Najib said: "Wait first, I will seek the opinion of the Foreign Ministry."

"The role of an ambassador is to forge close relations between the country he represents and the host nation. In terms of diplomatic principles and practices, Rommel's remarks contradict the practice that we adopt.

"What was raised can certainly be disputed factually," the Deputy Prime Minister added.

-- BERNAMA
June 23, 2007

Comment:

Bravo Datuk Seri. We are proud of you. Really proud. But will you please explain to us why your boss, I mean the PM, agrees to do away with NEPism in Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in south Johore? Will you kindly find out for us, who influences him to do that? Temasek?

Secondly, how do you rationalize the role of the Malaysia’s High Commissioner to Singapore who lately seems to be acting as if he is the spokesman to that “little red dot” in the Equator? Since when does he works as a part-timer to his host government? – Ruhanie Ahmad

The Plane, The Plane!
It’s Coming On 17.7.7

The RM 200 million Airbus Corporate Jet (ACJ) 319, purchased by Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad, for use by the Malaysian Prime Minister, is scheduled to arrive in Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2007.

Sources told this blog today, the ground handling of the VVIP aircraft will be managed by a sendirian berhand company - not by the Malaysian Royal Air Force (RMAF).

It is believed that the company is linked to one the Prime Minister’s political secretaries through his son’s shareholding in the said company.

Two other shareholders of the company are said to be personalities allegedly being behind the sale of Sukhoi fleet to the RMAF. – Ruhanie Ahmad

Welcome To Malaysia
Mr. Whoever You Are

A blogger friend of mine alerted me today of the news item below. He said I must voice out my concern about what the PM had said last night. I assured him, I will do it. But, before that, you have to read this:

Don't Restrict The Entry
Of Skilled Workers, Says PM

KUALA LUMPUR, June 14 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Malaysia should not "overly restrict" the entry of skilled workers particularly in strategic sectors as it could actually bring benefit to the country.

The Prime Minister said he believes the Malaysian working population will benefit from having greater interaction with foreign talent.

"Indeed, we can only improve ourselves if we work and learn with talented others," he said in his address "Looking Back, Forging Ahead: 50 Years of Business in Malaysia" at the Kuala Lumpur Business Club dinner, here.

To get the skilled workers, he said, Malaysia should facilitate skilled foreign students to stay on after graduating.

Abdullah said Malaysia must benefit from the globalised flow of human capital.

"I believe that Malaysian professionals can hold their own amongst the global talent pool and that they remain the employees of choice by businesses in Malaysia.

"This does not necessarily conflict with a policy of drawing more foreign knowledge workers to our shores," he said.

-- BERNAMA
June 14, 2007

A very happy news indeed. Foreign professionals, welcome to Malaysia, truly Asia. In the name of globalization, our beloved PM has just issued an order – Malaysia should not "overly restrict" the entry of skilled workers, particularly in strategic sectors as it could actually bring benefit to the country.

If you need my opinion, the best place for you is the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in south Johore. You can stay in Singapore and work in IDR. No problem. You can just use a smart card to daily commute to this sovereign land!

And, please don’t worry about us. We know that some of us [about a few thousands actually] are still unemployed. But, that is our problem. We Malaysians, especially the Malays, have our kampungs to go back to. There, we can plant kacang panjang or even jaga lembu, just like the cowboys in the early days of America.

Friends, Malaysians and countrymen. Please lend your loyalty and support to our PM. He is brilliant, extremely brilliant. His thinking is out-of-the-box, progressive and pragmatic. We must return him to power with a landslide victory in the coming general elections rumoured to be in August 2007. We need him for at least five more terms! – Ruhanie Ahmad

Alumni Objects
To UM's Relocation

PETALING JAYA, June 14 (Bernama) -- The Universiti Malaya Alumni Association has objected to any plan to relocate the university to allow its present site to be redeveloped by a private company.

Its president, Datuk Noordin Abdul Razak, said the university sat on a strategic location and was complemented by the presence of public transport services like buses and LRT which had greatly benefited the students.

He was responding to a newspaper report on Tuesday that a company had submitted a bid to develop the site and to relocate the university to Sepang.

The university management was surprised with the report and said that it would not let the university to be relocated.

- BERNAMA
June 14, 2007

Comment:

I am very happy to note that Datuk Noordin Abdul Razak and his UM’s Alumni Association had objected “to any plan to relocate the university to allow its present site to be redeveloped by a private company.”

Keep it up Datuk. Your alumni is the strongest bastion to protect the UM from this latest onslaught.

So, please be pro-active and always be on the alert. Who knows someone might just bulldoze the proposed move irrespective of objections by you and the alumni! – Ruhanie Ahmad

We Are Not Moving
Stresses UM Don

PETALING JAYA: Universiti Malaya (UM) has no plan to relocate to its campus, describing the present location as one of its strengths.

“UM would like to state categorically that it is not relocating from its current location nor is it in any negotiations with any parties to that effect,” said the university's International and Corporate Relations Office director Associate Prof Dr Khoo Boo Teong in a statement yesterday.

According to a news report on Tuesday, property developer GuocoLand (Malaysia) Bhd, controlled by Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan, had made a bid for the UM grounds.

The report said that if the bid was approved, the development would complement GuocoLand's planned RM1.2bil Damansara City development project and the university would be relocated to Sepang, where the company has a landbank of 4,860ha.

A company source was quoted as saying that such a development was estimated to have a gross development value of RM10bil.

Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed also said it was “absolutely not true” that the university was relocating.

“UM's location is very historic. It is staying put,” he said after chairing the ministry's post-Cabinet meeting yesterday.

UM vice-chancellor Datuk Rafiah Salim expressed shock.

“The university is a heritage. You can't just pluck it out and put it somewhere else. The university management will not allow it,” she said from London yesterday.

Nota: Kadang-kadang resistance tidak berupaya membendung barbarian yang sudah kecor air liur melihat piece de resistance.

The Star Thursday June 14, 2007

Comment:

Now, who should we believe? Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed? UM’s vice-chancellor, Datuk Rafiah Salim? UM’s International and Corporate Relations Office director, Associate Prof Dr Khoo Boo Teong? Or the recent report by bt@nstp.com.my which said “GUOCOLAND (Malaysia) Bhd, a property developer controlled by Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan, has made a bid to relocate University Malaya from Petaling Jaya to Sepang.”? – Ruhanie Ahmad

GuocoLand In Bid
To Develop UM Land?

GUOCOLAND (Malaysia) Bhd, a property developer controlled by Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan, has made a bid to relocate University Malaya from Petaling Jaya to Sepang, sources said yesterday.

As part of the plan, GuocoLand will then own the land in Petaling Jaya and develop it into a commercial and residential township. The proposal is based on a private finance initiative.

A company source said such a development is estimated to have a gross development value of RM10 billion.

GuocoLand officials declined to comment on the plan.

If the bid is approved, the development in Petaling Jaya will complement GuocoLand's planned RM1.2 billion Damansara City development project.

The Damansara project is due to be launched this year.

Guocoland's share price rose by 30 sen or 10 per cent to close at a 10-year high of RM3.26 yesterday. The stock has gained 87.3 per cent over the last six trading days.

GuocoLand has a 4,860-hectare landbank in Sepang. Part of the land is being used by GuocoLand to develop the Pantai Sepang Putra project, where it plans to build seafront villas and waterfront bungalows.

A Hong Leong Group spokesperson also declined comment.

University Malaya, the country's oldest university, has its main campus that sprawls from the heart of Petaling Jaya right up to the footsteps of Bangsar. - bt@nstp.com.my

From Wikipedia:

The University of Malaya (or commonly abbreviated as UM) is the oldest university in Malaysia, and is situated on a 750 acre campus in southwest Kuala Lumpur, the capital city. It is widely recognised as the top university in Malaysia, and many prominent Malaysians are alumni of UM. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Malaya

Comment:

Are we going to allow this to happen? What will UM’s student bodies and alumni say about this?

The Americans
Love Abdullah
[Wishes From US]

www.politica-net.blogspot.com

PUTRAJAYA: The United States Ambassador Christopher J. Lafleur congratulated Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on his wedding.

“On behalf of the American people, I wish both the Prime Minister and Jeanne Abdullah, as well as their families, all the best for a long and fulfilling future together. Tahniah (congratulations),” he said. – Bernama [The Star, Thursday June 7, 2007]

*Malaysian PM is so popular and powerful. The US government loves him. Never before has the US government send any personal greeting to a Malaysian Prime Minister. Right? What do you think? – POLITICA

Prime Minister To Wed
Jeanne Abdullah Saturday

PUTRAJAYA, June 6 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will marry Jeanne Abdullah, 53, on Saturday, the Prime Minister's Office announced Wednesday.

The wedding will take place at the prime minister's official residence, Seri Perdana, here and will be attended by close relatives, the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement.

Jeanne was born in Kuala Lumpur on July 29 1953 and is the eldest of four siblings.

She was educated at Sekolah Menengah Assunta and has wide experience in administration and hotel management and has worked as supervisor of the official residence of the deputy prime minister and manager of the Seri Perdana Complex.

Jeanne has two daughters, Nadiah and Nadene.

Abdullah's wife, Datin Seri Endon Mahmood, died on Oct 20 2005 after a long battle with breast cancer.

Abdullah, 67, has two children, a son Kamaluddin and a daughter Nori, from his marriage of 40 years with Endon.

www.bernama.com

Asean System Can Be Used
To Manage Peace, Security
In Asia-Pacific: PM

KUALA LUMPUR, June 5 (Bernama) -- The Asean system of managing peace and security can be used to bring stability and predictability in the wider Asia-Pacific region, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Tuesday.

He said although the Asean system of managing peace and security needs to be further developed, there was similarity between Asean and the Asia-Pacific region when it comes to managing peace and security issues.

"The Asean experience could in fact serve us equally well in the wider Asia-Pacific region," he said in his keynote address at the Asia-Pacific Roundtable entitled "The Way to Mutual Security in the Asia-Pacific" organised by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS).

Abdullah said Asean had taken the bold step by recognising that its destiny lay with member states, realising that peace was possible without hegemony and security was attainable without maintaining preponderant power.

This had resulted in a system of managing peace and security embedded within a wider framework for cooperation embodied in Asean even though the system was by no means perfect.

"There is still some lingering lack of trust. Occasionally, there are strong disagreements. Sometimes, naval vessels are deployed to keep an eye on each other in disputed waters. Some still feel the need to be reassured of their security by having linkages with outside powers.

"All things considered, however, the framework within Asean has done a remarkable job. It has helped bring stability and predictability to the region," he said, adding that this has led to full reconciliation among all member states and across political divides, with confidence having improved tremendously.

Abdullah described war as having become unimaginable, many territorial disputes were being settled through peaceful negotiations or through judicial settlements, no major military build-ups with vestigial defence arrangements remained but they were essentially for exercise and training.

"The window of opportunity to make a similar choice is open to the countries of the Asia Pacific.

"I think the countries of Asean were able to make the right choice because their judgement was sober and sound. We did not exaggerate threats and we did not overreact to exaggerated threats. We saw the rivalry among the major powers and chose to distance ourselves from the rivalry," he said.

Abdullah said Asean had opted to engage with the major powers for mutual peace and prosperity, with priority for political and economic engagement even though it included the field of security.

"When we discuss security, we make sure that it is about security cooperation that engages all, and is for all. This kind of engagement has brought enormous benefits not only to Asean but also to the entire region," he said.

He said Asean retained its existing security arrangements and military alliances as they were already in place and there was no need to dismantle them but it did not seek to strengthen or widen its membership while, at the same time, it did not spend excessively on weaponry.

"We recognise that many of us lack capacity in so many areas, including defence capabilities. We do not therefore question or seek to deny to others what we think would have been proper even for ourselves," he said.

Therefore, Abdullah said, Asia-Pacific leaders could emulate the Asean spirit of enlightened rather than narrow interest as well as recognise that influence and strategic stature ensue much less from military preponderance than from economic weight, technological prowess and cultural appeal.

Abdullah also said that he does see the present situation in the region as a delicate one -- on the one hand, countries are strengthening the infrastructure for cooperation while, on the other, they seem to be allowing the preparation for confrontation to continue.

"But I would like to ask the question whether we are in fact giving sufficient attention to building peace while preparing, at the same time, for eventualities of conflict and of war.

"I am concerned whether we are inadvertently putting in place mechanisms that in fact invite the very instability and conflict that we want to prevent and manage," he said.

Therefore, Abdullah said, he believed the window of choice was still open in the Asia-Pacific region as "the concrete has not quite set to make the structure for managing regional security unalterable".

"I think we can do more, much more, to lay down a firm foundation for enduring peace, stability and prosperity in the region than we are doing now. The choice is ours," he said. - http://www.bernama.com

Comment:

Asean nowadays is not like before. Today, some Asean member countries are even willing to discard and disrespect the Asean “spirit of brotherhood and consensus” by participating in the so-called war-on-terror – a war being created by the US aimed at disrupting the Muslim worlds, killing their innocent population by the hundred of thousands, and forcing their society, politics and economy down to the drains.

So, Mr. Prime Minister Sir, do you really think at this point of time “the countries of Asean” who participated in the war-on-terror in Iraq are the ones “able to make the right choice because their judgement” is “sober and sound.”? – Ruhanie Ahmad

May 13 Tragedy
A Coup D’etat?

Ruhanie Ahmad

The May 13 - a new book being written based on information purportedly obtained from the British Public Records Office, at the Kew Garden, London, is a gross misrepresentation of history.

Therefore, it is important for us to find out why such a book is being written at this very point of time and what are the motives behind it.

We have to ask these questions because Malaysia currently seems to be facing several onslaughts from certain quarters especially concerning the fact that Islam is the official religion of the country and also about the status, rights and privileges of the bumiputera as being instituted in the Federal Constitution.

The emergence of this new book - May 13 - in the market should therefore be examined whether or not it forms as part and parcel of such onslaughts. Or, is it just an isolated and uncoordinated move, but could still be construed as part of the same game?

More significantly, why is this book being published now - in the year when we are celebrating our 50th Independence celebration? Any specific reasons for this? Why is it not being written and published in 1999, soon after the public records which form the basis of the book were being declassified by the British authorities?

Why does the book claim that the May 13 riots of 1969 “were carefully planned and organized” by a group of people categorized as “the then emergent Malay capitalist class” to enable “a coup d’etat” and a regime change in Malaysia because the Prime Minister at that time, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, “represented the outdated Malay aristocracy”? Does it mean to imply that the bloody incidence was created to justify the formulation and the implementation of the New Economic Policy?

Subvert Solidarity

Why publish the book now when several super powers are seen to be most active in their efforts to establish hegemony and dominance in south east Asia since they launched the so-called war on terror against the Muslims and several Muslim countries in central and west Asia beginning 2001?

Is the book aimed at subverting the unity, solidarity and resilience of the multi-ethnic Malaysians in the face of the mounting subtle pressures from some neo-imperialist powers and its staunch allies in the region?

Is the book aimed at instigating certain quarters in Malaysia to revolt against the government through the general elections which is about one year away from now?

Does the writer intend to revive the old provocative slogan of “blood for blood” as being propagated by elements of the Communist United Front (CUF) on the polling day of the May 1969 general elections?

I know the writer of May 13. He was a one-term Malaysian member of parliament (DAP-Petaling Jaya) - from 1990 to 1995. I am familiar with his prejudices, political bias, attitude towards the government of Malaysia, perceptions about the west, statements about the New Economic Policy and remarks about the Malays and Bumiputera in general.

But, I am not sure if he is a friend of the imperialists, neo-imperialists or even their allies in this region. Neither do I know whether he is a communist sympathizer or not. But, how do we describe a writer who attempts to re-write the May 13 history in Malaysia purely and solely based on the perceptions of British diplomats in Malaysia who claimed to have put their ears “close to the ground” during the May 13 incidence; based on the accounts of a British journalist who claimed to be an eyewitness during the curfew; based on intelligence gathered by diplomats from Australia and New Zealand; based on the observations of white man diplomats stationed in Singapore and Indonesia; based on remarks by a Singapore leader who propagated the Malaysian Malaysia concept; as well as based on reports by a foreign magazine which was widely believed to have intimate association with the CIA?

Historical Data

If the writer is dead serious to write about his allegation that the 13 May 1969 incidence purportedly aimed at deposing Tunku Abdul Rahman as the prime minister in the early era of independent Malaysia, why only now he writes about it? Why does he totally ignore historical data, facts and figures found in Malaysia?

We may say that the writer wants to wait for the secret records about the May 13 in the British Public Records Office to be declassified so that he can have a full access to them. But, aren’t the records already being declassified in 1999? Then, why does he wait until eight years after the records were being declassified? Because the writer thinks now is the most opportune time to launch a pro-Chinese propaganda aimed at evoking a fresh anti-Malay feeling to a new height in Malaysia? Why, to eradicate what the writer believes as the dominance of the Malay power in this country?

So, what actually is the true and ultimate objective behind the publication of this book? To ridicule the wisdom of Malay leaders in handling a crisis like the May 13, 1969? To blame the Malaysian Armed Forces for allegedly being anti-Chinese? To amplify the prejudice of the British colonialists and neo-colonialists on the independent and sovereign Malaysia? To belittle Malaysis’s 50th Merdeka celebration? To further the interest of certain foreign powers, especially those who are allegedly buying into some Malaysian GLCs through proxies?

I tend to agree with the writer on one thing - the May 13 riots “were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence in a multi-racial society.” However, I am in total disagreement with him that the riots “were carefully planned and organized and that they were an excuse for the new regime to declare an emergency to effect the regime change.”

Malaysian leaders are not like US President, J W Bush, who needed a 911 tragedy to launch pre-emptive wars on Afghanistan and Iraq which had blatantly killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroying the heritage of independent nations. As such, Malaysian leaders did not need to plan a bloodshed to formulate the New Economic Policy.

Violence

In the context of the May 13 1969 incidence in Malaysia, no democratic Malaysian leaders had ever chosen to resort to violence in order to obtain absolute powers in this country.

But, according to a white paper - The Path Of Violence To Absolute Power - being tabled in Parliament by Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, on 8 November, 1968, it was elements of the CUF which had planned to resort to violence in order to achieve an absolute power in Malaysia in 1970s.

That was why several elements of the CUF had decided to boycott the 1969 general elections. And, it was during the 1969 general elections that the CUF elements played its central roles to disrupt the parliamentary democracy in this country.

The National Operations Council cited one example of such disruption on May 10, 1969 - the polling day for the 1969 general elections. The disruption came in the form of a mass funeral procession. The police had earlier permitted the procession to be held on May 9, 1969. But, the CUF elements illegally held the procession on May 10, 1969, to coincide with the polling day.

The report said: “These (CUF) elements defied Police instruction and organized a large parade in which an estimated number of ten thousand persons took part and marched through the centre of Kuala Lumpur, flouting every Police instruction. They chanted Maoist slogans, sang “the East is Red”, and displayed portraits of Mao Tse-Tong and the Red Flag. The parade passed through the heart of Kuala Lumpur and tied up traffic in almost every major street in the city, and provoked Malay bystanders with shouts of “Malai si!” (Death to the Malays!) and “Hutang Darah bayar darah (Blood debt will be repaid with blood).”

I am very sure the writer of the May 13 knows about the above procession. But, I wonder if any records about the same procession are being kept by the British Public Records Office. I also wonder if the British Public Records Office keeps newspaper reports about the same procession and its related background information.

Instigation

Well, if the records are there, why does the writer choose to write that the May 13 riots “were carefully planned” coup d’etat? If the records are there, why does the writer put the blame on the Malaysian government for what had happened? Why does he put the blame on Tun Razak for being “in complete control from the start of the riots and with the emergency in place, had a free hand in planning the post-1969 political makeup with the backing of the armed forces”? Does he expect the Malaysian government to just keep quiet and see that the country being torn to pieces?

Anyway, this game of blaming the Malaysian government for what had happened in May 1969, as being voiced out by the writer of The May 13, is actually almost similar in tone to the voice of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in June 1969.

A white paper - The Resurgence Of Armed Communist In West Malaysia - being tabled by Tun Dr. Ismail Abdul Rahman, in the Dewan Rakyat on October 1, 1971, stated that in June 1969, the CPM had issued one statement accusing “the Rahman-Razak complot to blatantly killing the people of Malaysia, especially the Chinese” to enable them enforce a “fascist military rule” in Malaysia. The CPM statement also urged Malaysians not to forget the “blood for blood” slogan and those responsible for the bloodshed, i.e. the so-called (Rahman-Razak complot).

So, do we trace any similarity about what is being stated in the above white paper with this book May 13 book? If you don’t, please refer to page 65 of the book and read this statement: “The 1969 riots were the works of Malay thugs orchestrated by politicians behind the coup d’etat.”

When the CPM accused that it was the so-called “Rahman-Razak complot” which was responsible for the 1969 bloodshed, the CPM said it with an intention to instigate Malaysians, especially the Chinese, to go on with its struggle against the Malaysian government.

So, when the writer of May 13 says that it was the so-called Malay thugs being backed by Malay politicians who started the bloodshed in 1969, what does he have in mind? Does he want to instigate another ethnic riot in Malaysia?

Historical Amnesia

At the same time, why writer does not say about the activities of the CUF, about the subversive activities of the communist elements in some of the opposition parties in 1969, about the provocations “death to the Malays” on May 10, 1969, and about the maoist elements who held illegal procession on the polling day of May 1969 general elections?

Yes, what about all those facts Mr. Kua Kia Soong? Don’t tell us that you are suffering from a very acute historical amnesia syndrome? Or, have you forgotten the meaning of a Malay saying that you learnt in Batu Pahat that “terlajak perahu boleh diundur, terlajak cakap parah padahnya”?
Mr. Kua Kia Soong, the May 13 incidence is not as what you have said - a coup d’etat. Neither it is as what you want to portray - being started by Malay thugs backed by politicians behind the so-called coup d’etat. The May 13 incidence was the creation the neo-imperialist, the chauvinist, the extremist and the communist elements in Malaysia.