Gaji & Elaun Untuk Agong, Sultan, PM/Menteri

So, mari kita lihat berapa gaji dan elaun yang diberi pada orang orang ni semua. Orang-orang penting negara kita ni..Aku mulakan dulu allowances untuk Agong dan Permaisuri Agong.Elaun untuk Agong dan Permaisuri AgongIni adalah dibawah Undang-undang Malaysia Akta 269 (Akta Peruntukan Diraja 1982).

So, mari kita lihat berapa gaji dan elaun yang diberi pada orang orang ni semua. Orang-orang penting negara kita ni..Aku mulakan dulu allowances untuk Agong dan Permaisuri Agong.Elaun untuk Agong dan Permaisuri AgongIni adalah dibawah Undang-undang Malaysia Akta 269 (Akta Peruntukan Diraja 1982).

Ini budget tahunan untuk Agong. Akan dibayar secara bulanan kepada Agong. Selain dari elaun untuk Agong ni, mereka masih dapat elaun Sultan di negeri masing masing.

1. Privy Purse – RM360,000 (bermakna bulanan adalah RM30,000).
2. Elaun kerajaan – RM120,000 (bulanan sebanyak RM10,000)
3. Elaun diraja Istana Negara – RM144,000 (bulanan sebanyak RM12,000)

So, total setiap bulan seorang Agong dapat adalah sebanyak RM52,000 .

Elaun untuk Permaisuri Agong ialah

1. Privy Purse – RM67,200 (iaitu RM5,600 sebulan).
2. Elaun kerajaan – RM21,600 (RM1,800 sebulan).

Total sebulan Permaisuri Agong dapat ialah RM7,400.

Selain daripada tu, setiap tahun Agong dapat lebih RM53 million untuk perbelanjaan istana, sambutan tetamu dan untuk gaji pekerja dia. Breakdown nya adalah seperti berikut

1. Perbelanjaan istana dan sambutan tetamu – RM52,259,100
2. Gaji kakitangan istana – RM1,004,880

Elaun untuk bekas Agong dan bekas Permaisuri Agong

Aku tak pernah tau wujud nya elaun ni. Bermakna setiap bekas Agong yang tukar setiap 5 tahun tu akan dapat elaun bekas Agong dan bekas Permaisuri Agong. Ini adalah dibawah peruntukan Undang-undang Malaysia Akta 270 (Akta Istana Negara Elaun-elaun Diraja 1982) pindaan 2006.

Dibawah akta ni elaun akan dibayar kepada bekas Agong dan bekas Permaisuri Agong setiap bulan untuk seumur hidup. Contoh nya lah kan , macam Sultan Azlan (bekas Agong), selain dari elaun Sultan dia dapat tiap bulan, dia juga dapat elaun bekas Agong.

1. Elaun Diraja Istana Negara untuk bekas Agong – RM15,180 sebulan.
2. Elaun Diraja Istana Negara untuk bekas Permaisuri Agong – RM4,500 sebulan.

Boleh dikatakan kat Malaysia ni kebanyakan Sultan dah pun jadi Agong, just imagine berapa banyak kerajaan belanjakan untuk kesemua bekas-bekas Agong dan bekas-bekas Permaisuri Agong yang masih hidup?

Pencen khas untuk balu Agong

Ini adalah pencen untuk balu Agong. Bermakna kalau Agong tu meninggal semasa dia tengah jadi Agong, so balu dia akan dapat pencen ni. Contohnya pencen khas ni Siti Aishah dapat sebab Sultan Selangor mati masa tu dia tengah jadi Agong kan . Kira untung lah Siti Aishah ni sebab dapat pencen khas. Anyway, ini adalah di bawah Undang-undang Malaysia Akta 223 (Akta Pencen Khas Raja Permaisuri Agong 1979).

So, ini lah yang Siti Aishah dapat.1. Pencen seumur hidup – RM4,500 sebulan.

2. Kereta (cukai jalan dan bayaran pendaftaran percuma) atau wang pukal RM250,000 untuk kereta. Juga dapat RM2,590.87 sebulan untuk driver dan maintenance of car.
3. Rumah Kerajaan yang akan disenggara oleh Kerajaan atau wang pukal RM750,000.

Elaun Sultan dan kerabat (contoh Kedah)

Elaun untuk Sultan dan kerabat kat setiap negeri adalah dibawah peruntukan negeri masing-masing. Setiap negeri ada Enakmen Peruntukan Diraja. Ini contoh untuk Kedah. Basically, kat negeri negeri lain pun lebih kurang sama juga amount nya.

1. Elaun Sultan – RM52,600 sebulan.
2. Elaun keraian Sultan = RM15,480

So, setiap bulan Sultan (contoh disini ialah Sultan Kedah) ialah sebanyak RM68,080.

Untuk Sultanah pulak elaun nya adalah

1. Elaun Sultanah – RM12,000 sebulan
2. Elaun peribadi Sultanah – RM2,600 sebulan.

Sebulan Sultanah akan dapat RM14,600.

Elaun lain lain untuk kerabat ialah
Raja Muda – RM13,000
Raja Puan Muda – RM5,200
Tunku Bendahara – RM4,000
Bini Tunku Bendahara – RM1,250
Tunku Temenggung – RM3,500
Isteri Tunku Temenggung – RM900
Tunku Laksamana – RM3,000
Isteri Tunku Laksamana – RM600

Banyak lagi elaun untuk kerabat bergelar.

Selain daripada tu kerabat-kerabat lain pun dapat allowances juga. Contoh macam anak anak Sultan dapat allowace dalam RM1,000 sebulan and kerabat jauh sikit (bukan anak Sultan) dinamakan kerabat kategori 2 juga dapat allowace sebanyak RM500 sebulan.

Gaji dan allowances untuk Perdana Menteri, Menteri dan Ahli Parlimen

Ini semua adalah dibawah Undang-undang Ahli Parlimen (Saraan) pindaan 2005 ….

Gaji untuk Perdana Menteri, Menteri, MP adalah seperti berikut,

Perdana Menteri – RM22,826.65 sebulan
Timbalan Perdana Menteri – RM18,168.15 sebulan
Menteri-menteri Kabinet – RM14,907.20 sebulan.
Timbalan Menteri-menteri Kabinet – RM10,847.65 sebulan
Setiausaha Parlimen – RM7, 187.40

Ahli Dewan Negara – RM6,508.59
Ahli Dewan Rakyat (ni kira MP lah) – RM4,112.79

Ini formula untuk calculate pencen bekas MP.

Pencen:
1/144 x tempoh perkhidmatan (bulan) x Gaji

Minimum pencen dapat ialah separuh dari gaji MP. Bermakna kalau jadi MP satu penggal pun akan dapat pencen paling sikit pun RM2, 056.40. Lagi lama jadi MP lagi banyak pencen dia akan dapat.

Gratuity:
1/48 x Gaji x 12 x tempoh perkhidmatan (bulan)

Aiyo... Wat Lah?! Awards 2013 'honour' the sexist, homophobic

Statements and actions by public figures and institutions which grabbed headlines for the wrong reasons were given a ‘due recognition’ yesterday at the “Aiyoh...Wat Lah?! Awards 2013”.

The second edition of spoof awards is organised by Action Group on Gender Equality (JAG) -- a coalition women’s rights NGOs-- and gave out awards in seven categories on statements and policies deemed
‘sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic.’

The awards was hosted by Ribena Berry, the stage name for playwright Jo Kukathas, in a stand-up comedy style. None of the winners turned up to receive their medals.

The winner of the “Insulting Intelligence” category was Prime Minister and former Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, over a statement he reportedly made last year in October.

Najib’s statement: “There is no need for a women’s rights movement in Malaysia because equality has been given from the start” apparently garnered a ‘slidelide victory’.

Winner of the "Foot in Mouth" category was the statement “I don’t sleep with my son, I’m not gay,” reportedly made by former Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, over his explanation over his son’s relationship with a Sabahan timber trader.

Bagging the "Least Helpful to the Sisterhood" category was former Women, Family and Community Development Minister, Datuk Seri Sharizat Abdul Jalil. It was over her reported statement, “It is because of the achievements of the UMNO-Barisan Nasional government that … we don’t need to be activists, we don’t need to burn our bras to get gender equality.”

Winning the "Cannot Ignore" category was an allegation that women have a tendency to exaggerate about a sexual act, reportedly made by High Court judge Zamani Abdul Rahim when overturning the conviction of a kindergarten operator accused of raping a four-year old child.

While not strictly an individual, the Kelantan state government also received the win in the "Policy Fail" category over the summons received by a woman hairdresser in a Kota Bharu, Kelantan, mall for cutting a male customer’s hair.

Crowned in the "Enough Already!" category is the 'continued harassment of Bersih 2.0 co-chair S Ambiga'. The harassments include, among others, the ‘bottom exercises’ conducted by ten men from the Malay Armed Forces Veterans Association in front of Ambiga’s house and a statement made by a former member of parliament calling her a ‘traitor to the Agong’ and a call to ‘sentence her to hang’.

Coincidentally, Ambiga was among the audience and medals was passed to her so that she could 'share them' with the winners.

Not all awards were for inappropriate, jaw-dropping or 'facepalm' statements though and the policy which won the "Right on Track" category was an amendment by the Dewan Rakyat to its Standing Orders to prohibit members of parliament from making sexist remarks.

“It is equally important to recognise those who are making the right efforts to fight discrimination on the basis of gender and sexuality. The Right on Track category aims to do just that,” All Women’s Action Society Assistant Programme Officer Hew Li-Sha said.

The awards were held to encourage higher standards of public discourse from authorities in relation to gender and sexuality. More than 1,700 people voted to choose the winning nominated statements or policies.

Members of the public are encouraged to nominate sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic statements made by public figures in 2013 for the awards next year by visiting aiyohwatlah.tumblr.com.

In the 2012 awards last year, the winners included “Wives who don’t satisfy their husbands are the cause of illicit sex - The Obedient Wives Club” for the “Least Helpful to the Sisterhood” category. Another winner for the “Foot in Mouth” category was “Unwanted buildings are like an old woman - Penang Gerakan chief Teng Hock Nam”.

Among other nominated entries were:

CATEGORY: FOOT IN MOUTH
“Pakai sarung tangan pegang isteri nanti tak terasa.”- Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (13 March)

“I don’t think beautiful girls will want the indelible ink to mar their pretty hands or nails. How are they supposed to paint their nails afterwards? They might not even want to meet their boyfriends after voting or they might not even vote.”- People’s Progressive Party (PPP) president M. Kayveas (10 June)

“Women are easier to bully and tackle. Women never change. They always like to bring lots of money in their handbags. That is why they are attacked. That’s the problem.”- Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation executive committee member Robert Phang (27 June)

CATEGORY: INSULTING INTELLIGENCE

The ban on Irshad Manji’s roadshow on grounds that her lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) ideology contradicts Malaysia’s position as an Islamic country and would spread “fahaman songsang”- Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Jamil Khir Baharom (19 May)

Pakatan Rakyat is “like a gay marriage where one doesn’t know who is the father and who is the mother.”- Puad Zarkashi, a member of parliament (BN-Batu Pahat) (21 November)

Extremists introducing “budaya negative” including street demos and LGBT practices are more dangerous than communists - National Social Extremist Threat Division Assistant Director Mohd Sofian Md Makinuddin (29 July)

LGBTs have no rights under the Federal Constitution -- Statement by Mashitah Ibrahim, Deputy Minister in the PM’s Office (19 June)

CATEGORY: CANNOT IGNORE

Dismissing the application of ex-Guppy women workers who challenged their forced early retirement.- Courts (13 August)

Dismissing Seksualiti Merdeka’s application for a judicial review on the police ban of their event. (1 March)

“We will ensure that any deviant culture, such as the behaviour of the LGBTs and deviant thoughts such as liberalism and pluralism, will not get any place in this country.” - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak (25 June)

Dismissing the application challenging a law that makes it illegal for Muslim men to dress as women. - Courts (11 October)

CATEGORY: LEAST HELPFUL TO THE SISTERHOOD

“It's what wives must do, we give strength to our husband.” -- Rosmah Mansor, wife of Prime Minister(13 January)

"Some women prefer to become senators instead of elected representatives, simply because of the less work that comes with a senatorship.” -- Wanita MIC Chief Komala Krishnamoorthy(11 Sept)

Read more at:http://english.astroawani.com/news/show/aiyo-wat-lah-awards-2013-honour-the-sexist-homophobic-15028?cp

Eight reasons why Najib’s legitimacy as Prime Minister is questioned

There are at least eight reasons why there is widespread questioning of the legitimacy of Datuk Seri Najib Razak as the Prime Minister of Malaysia after the 13th general elections on May 5.

1. Najib and Barisan Nasional have only won 47% of the popular vote, while Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat won the majority popular vote at 51%.

2. The 13GE was the dirtiest elections in the nation’s 56-history of 13 general elections – where there was unprecedented money politics and massive unethical and unprincipled electioneering summed up by Umno/BN triple strategy of “Money Money Money”, “Lies Lies Lies” and “Fear Fear Fear”.

There was also the grave problem of the gerrymandering of the constituencies to benefit Umno/BN, where one vote in Putrajaya (16,000 voters) is equal to nine votes in Kapar (140,000+ voters) – making a total mockery of the “one man, one vote, one value” principle.

If the 13GE had been a clean, free and fair one, the popular vote won by Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat would have exceeded 60 per cent and even reached two-thirds of the total vote, securing the majority of the parliamentary seats to PR (even reaching a total of 125 parliamentary seats comprising 45 for PKR and 40 each for DAP and PAS) instead of the present 89 seats for PR and 133 seats for BN.

3. The peaceful and democratic protest of some one million Malaysian voters, mostly from the young generation of all races, since the 13GE results three weeks ago in “Black 505” ceramahs throughout the country demonstrating the depth and gravity of the problem of public doubts about Najib’s legitimacy as Prime Minister;

4. Najib’s premiership lacks legitimacy as a 1Malaysia government despite his post-election pledge to be Prime Minister for all races, because of the escalation of racial polarisation post 13GE, with Najib himself responsible for initiating such escalation with his statement on the night of the 13GE that the general election outcome was a “Chinese tsunami” – when in fact it was a Malaysian, urban, semi-urban and youth tsunami!

This was followed by a series of provocative, inflammatory and racist reactions and campaigns such as the incendiary headline by UMNO mouthpiece Utusan Malaysia : “Apa Lagi Cina Mahu”; the speech by the former Court of Appeal judge Mohamad Noor Abdullah, which is the most racist and seditious speech ever made in Malaysia in 44 years; the seditious call by the former Education Director-General, Tan Sri Ahmad Arshad for the abolition of Chinese and Tamil primary schools and the attempt by some NGOs to boycott Chinese goods.

5. Najib’s Cabinet does not represent all Malaysians, a belated awareness which has led to the proposal inside the Barisan Nasional that BN parties should respond to the demand by more and more Malaysians for an end to race-based politics and race-based political parties, by merging all component parties under the coalition into a multi-racial party.

6. Najib’s chairs a Cabinet with two illegal Ministers (Paul Low and Abdul Wahid Omar) and three illegal Deputy Ministers (P. Waythamoorthy, J Loga Bala Mohan and Ahmad Bashan Md Hanipah) as these five have not been sworn as Senators before taking their Ministerial oath of office – in fact the five have been left in a constitutional limbo in the past 11 days, as they have not yet been sworn in as Senators and they themselves dare not claim that they are lawful Ministers or Deputy Ministers.

This long-running constitutional farce and charade, causing unprecedented embarrassment to the Yang di Pertuan Agong as well to the nation’s international image, has only underlined the grave question about the legitimacy of Najib’s Cabinet and premiership.

7. The increasingly repressive and undemocratic regime of the Najib premiership, following the partnership of the most “political” Home Minister with the most “political” Inspector-General of Police trampling on democratic and human rights of Pakatan Rakyat leaders and social activists in the past week – with arrests, selective prosecutions and crackdown of freedom of assembly and expression.

8. Continued dependence of the Najib premiership on lies and falsehoods as a form of communication which is totally against all principles of accountability, transparency and good governance, not to mention the Election Integrity Pledge of Transparency International-Malaysia which was signed by Najib with such fanfare during the 13GE campaign.

The latest example of this dependence on lies and falsehoods as a basis of governance is the threat by the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, to carry out a witch-hunt against pro-Pakatan Rakyat social media whether Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or blogs, because of the ludicrous claim that DAP had spent RM108 million to employ a “Red Bean Army” of cybertroopers to demonise Umno/Barisan in the cyberspace.

How can a government which could act on such a ludicrous and baseless claim as a basis for state policy enjoy any respect or legitimacy from the citizenry?

My dream: A united Malaysia

— Aruna Sena 

MAY 24 — Malaysia, the land of multiethnicities, faiths and cultures, harmony and stability, not to mention the tagline “Truly Asia” But is that truly the case with the people of Malaysia? Yes and no.

Why?

Because of racism.

Yes. Racism exists in Malaysia. There’s no point beating around the bush. As much as we love to sugarcoat the image of this beautiful country, this disease called racism exists and thrives. It is something we can’t deny and it is becoming worrying of late. Politicians continue to vocally play the race card. We have mainstream media doing it, we even have everyday Joes who walk among us doing it. Honestly, at times we ourselves are guilty of it without us realising.

Many of us point fingers at the politicians for these sentiments and the media for hyping it up, especially during the recent events which unfolded after GE13. We look at the numerous race-based political parties that cater to different ethnicities. Some of us continue to support them. But I believe if we truly dream of a single united Malaysian, this manner of racial politics must come to an end.

Say we kill off racial politics to pave way for parties that champion the rights of Malaysians. Does racism die with it? No. We, the people, are the carriers of this disease. We need to be cured and there’s no doctor to do it but ourselves.

I had a conversation recently about racism and it was pointed out to me that there are people who still refer vegetables based on race. For example, I’ve heard someone say, “sayur cina untuk masakan cina, sayur India untuk masakan India” (“Chinese vegetables for Chinese dishes, Indian vegetables for Indian dishes”). I’m guilty of this myself, as my parents taught me the same thing when I was growing up. For example, buah murugay is referred to as “sayur India” and something only Indians know how to eat.

Schools are segregated into Indian- and Chinese-type schools, apart from national schools. Forms that we fill up still have the category of race on them. Why do we need race in forms that we fill up for subscription to service providers? Are we getting services specifically tailored to which ethnicity we are born into?

Why can’t we just be labelled as Malaysian? Why can’t we have a single type of school or an education system which churns out a single kind of school that caters to all ethnicities and provides language and culture classes for the diverse ethnic groups in the country? Why can’t we be recognised as Malaysians first, followed by ethnicity and religion in our birth certificates?

How do we combat this? By teaching our children, the future of this nation, to put their race behind and identify themselves as Malaysian. Our parents and their parents’ parents were taught to identify themselves by race first, and then religion. I’m not saying that you don’t have to be proud of your ethnicity. Be proud of it, but take pride in being a Malaysian first and foremost.

I never once thought it was impossible to have a united Malaysia, free from racism and race politics. I believe it is possible. There are many NGOs which champion this cause.

Politicians should start doing the same. Race politics and racial parties are an outdated concept. Things have changed in this country. The people’s mindset has changed. The government needs to uphold the law and punish those who stir up racial sentiments, even if it means those people are one of their own.

My dream is to have a united Malaysia. It might not happen now, but I’m doing my part to achieve that dream, by filling up forms with “Malaysian” when I am asked for my race, and by educating my parents and relatives to identify themselves the same way, but I cannot do it alone. I need you, my brothers and sisters, to join me.

Yes, you. — loyarburok.com

The Rural-Urban Divide in Malaysia’s General Election(PoliTweet.Org)

108 out of 133 seats won by Barisan Nasional (BN) came from rural seats. 72 out of 89 seats won by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) came from urban and semi-urban seats.

While it is true that PR won every Chinese-majority seat, there are only 30 Chinese-majority seats in the country. That leaves at least 59 seats won with the support of other races.

When comparing Malay-majority seats, PR won more seats than BN in both semi-urban and urban categories. A Malay-majority seat cannot be seen as a guaranteed victory for BN.

In terms of the popular vote, BN obtained 57% of the popular vote in rural seats, 47% of the popular vote in semi-urban seats, and 36% of the popular vote in urban seats. Looking at the winning majorities of individual seats, the probability of BN regaining urban seats is low. This gap in the popular vote is illustrated in the infographics at the end of this post.

That is the picture of the political urban-rural divide. BN represents the rural majority and can retain power with rural and semi-urban seats alone. This election highlighted PR’s weak areas which are rural seats, Bumiputra Sabah majority and Bumiputra Sarawak majority seats.

Research methodology

For this research we defined 3 categories of urban development:

Rural = villages (kampungs) / small towns / farmland distributed within the seat. Rural seats tend to be physically large with a low population.

Semi-urban = larger towns and/or numerous small towns, may include villages as well

Urban = cities where a majority of the seat is covered by some form of urban development

This classification was done by us based on Google Maps satellite imagery and SPR maps. This is not the same as SPR’s own internal classification of seats. You can find our reference maps here (link). The methodology was:

1. Find the constituency on Google Maps (and Bing Maps, when the image wasn’t clear).
2. Identify the area covered by urban development, and the degree of development
3. Define the seat as rural, semi-urban or urban based on the guidelines above

This method was not ideal but it was practical given the lack of time and resources we have. A better method would be gridding (which you can read about here). We will re-examine the rural seats in the future and divide them into 2-3 categories.

We define an ethnic majority to be an ethnicity that is represented by more than 50% of the seat’s registered voters. A seat without an ethnic majority is defined as Mixed.

What follows is a summary of ethnic stats for each Parliament seat based on their category of urban development. The number of registered voters is shown in parentheses.

Total Seats

125 rural (5,756,489 voters)

• 78 Malay majority
• 16 Bumiputra Sabah majority
• 18 Bumiputra Sarawak majority
• 2 Chinese majority
• 11 Mixed

54 semi-urban (3,952,432 voters)

• 27 Malay majority
• 12 Chinese majority
• 3 Bumiputra Sabah majority
• 1 Bumiputra Sarawak majority
• 11 Mixed

43 urban (3,559,081 voters)

• 14 Malay majority
• 16 Chinese majority
• 13 Mixed

Seats won by BN

108 / 125 rural (4,598,255 voters)

• 66 Malay majority
• 15 Bumiputra Sabah majority
• 18 Bumiputra Sarawak majority
• 9 Mixed

20 / 54 semi-urban (1,303,937 voters)

• 12 Malay majority
• 3 Bumiputra Sabah majority
• 1 Bumiputra Sarawak majority
• 4 Mixed

5 / 43 urban (330,193 voters)

• 4 Malay majority
• 1 Mixed

Seats won by PR

17 / 125 rural (1,158,234 voters)

• 12 Malay majority
• 2 Chinese majority
• 1 Bumiputra Sabah majority
• 2 Mixed

34 / 54 semi-urban (2,648,495 voters)

• 15 Malay majority
• 12 Chinese majority
• 7 Mixed

38 / 43 urban (3,228,888 voters)

• 10 Malay majority
• 16 Chinese majority
• 12 Mixed

Infographics (click for full interactive version)

Seats vs Voters by Urban Development

Seat Comparison by Urban Development

Popular Vote Comparison by Urban Development

This shows the number of votes cast for candidates from each coalition, divided by seat category.

Seat Comparison by Ethnic Majority – Urban Development

This shows the number of seats categorised by the ethnic majority group and level of urban development. To see all the labels, please view the interactive version.

Malaysia’s election system drawn to sustain BN’s dominance,

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid May 23, 2013

The first-past-the-post system will always be advantageous to BN, a forum was told last night.PETALING JAYA, May 23 — Barisan Nasional’s (BN) rule will continue as long as Malaysia uses the first-past-the-post voting system despite redelineation, academic Amer Saifude told a forum here last night.

The Universiti Malaya Centre for Democracy and Elections (Umcedel) deputy director said the expected redelineation of constituencies by year-end would benefit Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s coalition and even better its Election 2013 performance.

“As long as we practice this first-past-the-post system, it will be advantageous to BN,” Amer told a forum on the 13th general election outcome.

“History has shown that every time there is a re-demarcation process, BN would perform better,” he added.

Despite winning only 47 per cent of the popular vote in the May 5 elections, Najib saw his coalition keeping the government with a simple majority, bagging 133 federal seats against Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) 89.

Amer pointed out that Najib was the first BN chief to score a weaker mandate in his maiden bid for power, a reflection of the faulty fundamentals of the first-past-the-post system.

The Umcedel deputy director said the system’s glaring defect could be seen in how BN, bar a few exceptions, had never won the popular vote by more than 60 per cent but yet managed to win a huge number of the seats it contested in.

He also highlighted how several constituencies nationwide had been gerrymandered without reasonable justifications.

“Sometimes you see the re-demarcation is illogical and unfair… the redelineation process is often made to serve the interest of certain parties,” he said.

The panel of speakers at last night’s forum. — Picture by Saw Siow FengAmer, however, noted that any move to redraw the constituencies must first have the consent of at least half of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.

PR federal lawmakers have signalled their intention to make full use of their increased parliamentary numbers to ensure constituencies are fairly redrawn when the Election Commission (EC) kicks off the redelineation exercise this year-end.

PKR’s Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli has said that if the exercise involves an increase in seat numbers, a two-thirds majority vote is needed to approve the changes before they are passed by the lower House.

The allegedly unfair dispersal of voters in constituencies has been used as a major argument point by PR lawmakers to back accusations that gerrymandering in favour of BN has helped the ruling pact stay in power.

In a recent article for news portal FZ.com, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) chief executive Wan Saiful Wan Jan had pointed out that the existing delineation of constituencies defies logic in terms of size and the number of voters.

The issue has also earned the attention of the foreign media, with the Wall Street Journal, in a comment written by its Hong Kong-based journalist Philip Bowring, pointed to how PR had lost the election despite winning 51 per cent of the popular vote ― an outcome that opposition lawmakers and civil society groups have blamed on gerrymandering.

Speaking to The Malaysian Insider, the DAP’s publicity secretary Tony Pua said with the polls now over and efforts under way to challenge some of the results through election petitions, the next step for PR would be to focus on the coming redelineation exercise as well as campaigning for a proportional representation system.

Segregation happens in national schools too — Lutfi Hakim

The air is toxic in our national schools. Not by design surely, but the schools do little to remove the spores of prejudice that the children bring into the schools from their homes. These absent outside influences spread quickly along the sweat-drenched hallways of ugly concrete and colour the minds of the pupils who spend the significant years of their lives trapped within those confines.

It would be unfair to solely lay the blame on the school teachers or its administrators. The teaching staff, overloaded with work as they are, are ill-equipped to stem the torrent of hate that pours every day through the school gates, replenished everyday in living rooms, mamaks and newspapers. That is, almost, the sole fixation of our race-aware minds — that is we may not feel racists ourselves, but we will find it very difficult to shift our way of thinking from a race-centric point of view. Few things in our lives seem to happen in absolute isolation of the “other”, our identity is constructed around what the other person is not. It is not “foreign influences” that are poisoning the minds of our young, it is ourselves, yet we point to schools and blame them for failing to stop our children from thinking the way we have taught them. 

What I will argue against here is this reheated paranoia against “vernacular” schools, and how they apparently segregate and pit the races against each other. If by vernacular we mean that a school discriminates to accept only a certain group of people, I could claim to have experienced time in a “vernacular” school because the school I went to only accepted Muslim students. I hear the opposition against my use of the term, but if the heart of the matter is the absence of students from diverse backgrounds than this particular school fits the bill. Now my experience there, whether you’d like to believe it or not, was markedly non-racial. 

We were Malay-Muslim, all of us, but nothing was ever said to us that taught us that we were better than people who were of different backgrounds. The Malaysian education syllabus may not have significantly addressed the issue of race relations but our dinniyah curriculum certainly did. There no two ways about it, we were taught, the circumstances of your birth does not make you superior to other; it was the contents of your heart and your actions that mattered to God. Or Allah, if that sits better with you.

Imagine my surprise when I left the musty confines of my small segregated utopia for the harsh sunlight of a Subang Jaya SMK after my PMR. Everything that I and my friends were allowed to ignore in our urban madrasah came crashing back upon us and suddenly we were again first identified as Melayu, before our names, before our selves. Beyond a small cabal of English-speaking kids from privileged backgrounds (who also happened to be the only group excelling at anything in school), my Sekolah Kebangsaan was strictly carved along linguistic lines: Malay, Cantonese, Tamil. 

Looking back I don’t think there was any malice in us arranging ourselves in that way; I don’t think anyone of my Melayus really hated the Chinese kids in a real way, it was more an extension of the norms we practised with our families in our neighbourhoods. Then as now, people tended to congregate around areas that they know to be Malay areas or Chinese areas or Indian areas. In this regard, schools and their diverse makeup of races would be the anomaly to the students rather than the opposite.

The problem is not schools, vernacular or otherwise. I do not claim that my experience in a SAR is representative of other types of segregating schools although I have many friends who went to similar schools who can share similar experiences. Likewise, I certainly don’t think that my SMK nightmare is true for everyone despite the fact that I frequently hear products of our national education system harbour deep suspicion against every person who looks different from themselves. 

The problem, in the view of my humble confused self, is that our society keeps perpetuating rancid beliefs that reduce others, and ourselves, into less-than-human beings not worthy of real empathy or respect. The fact that schools have not been equipped to deal with this significantly only compounds the problem further, but even if they did, their efforts would only amount to a small prod against this boulder barrelling down upon us from up the hill.

So it’s up to us really, not the schools, or some National Unity Department and their Filem Negara PSAs. Shall we bicker and spit at each other over the same things over and over again and suffer the consequences, or are we going to band together to throw away our old beliefs and work collectively towards creating a real national identity?

MALAYSIA BOLEH!!! THIS EXPLAINS HOW WE HAVE STUDENTS WITH 20 As.

The objective of SPM is to pass people?

How do you explain the fact that 87% of the students passed the exams of the Sijil Peperiksaan Malaysia (SPM)

Are students getting smarter? Or are SPM questions getting easier?

Let me put things in their proper perspective. 

During your grandfather's time, they would ask exam questions like:
"In what year did Parameswara find the kingdom of Melaka?"
The correct answer was "1402", and they found that only 10% of the students managed to answer the question correctly.. This didn't go down too well with the authorities, because the objective of the exams was to pass people.

I mean, what's the point of having exams if people fail?

So later, they found another way to ask the same question:

"Parameswara founded the kingdom of Melaka in the year:

(a) 2001
(b) 2004
(c) 1986
(d) 1975
(e) 1402

Tick the correct answer."

The results were better in that 20% of the students passed. But it was still not good enough, so the authorities tried a different tactic a few years later.

"Parameswara founded the kingdom of Melaka in the year 1402. True or false?"
Well, half of the students guessed "True" and the other half guessed "False".

Fully 50% passed. 

The results were getting pretty acceptable by now but still not good enough. Most other countries would be satisfied with a 50% passing rate, but not us.

We are a better country, because we are a boleh country. The authorities then cracked their heads and then came out with this one:

Read the following sentence carefully.

"Parameswara, the cousin of Proton-Iswara, founded the kingdom of Melaka in the year 1402. Underline the name of the person who founded Melaka."

60% underlined "Parameswara", 30% underlined "Proton-Iswara" and 10% underlined "1402".

Yeah!!!!....60% managed to pass! So krever!

But for some reason, the authorities were still not contented. So last year, they came out with this gem:

"One day in the year 1402, Parameswara founded the kingdom of Melaka.
Then he went home to have dinner. What did he eat?"

13% (smart students) handed in blank answers, 57% wrote "Maggi Mee", 10% wrote "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and 20% wrote "Nasi Lemak".

The correct answer was anything concerning "Food" of course!

After the marking was over, it was found that 87% of the students had passed.

87%!!!!!............now that's pretty impressive!

So it's true. So now the authorities are very happy that the students are indeed getting smarter. Well done!

Perhaps, this is why we have a host of students with an impressive string of 'As' who can hardly construct a decent sentence!

Never mind, our super-duper gomen can find a job for us one.

Duh……

BN Indians vs PR Indians(Sharmalan Thevar)

It has been a week since elections (GE13) ended. It is probably the most controversial elections in our nation's history. When I started this blog, I told myself to avoid writing about politics. But I can't help it. I decided to start writing whatever that I feel as necessary.


Alot of Barisan Nasional (BN) supporters particularly those from Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) believe that Malaysians of Indian origin can only be represented by BN at both state and federal level. They have played the race cards for too long.

I decided to do some calculation to check on this matter. 

During the elections, we will select candidates for 2 different seats. One is for the state level, the other is for the federal level.

The state seats are known as Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) in Malaysia. A person who wins a DUN is known as Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN). Federal seats are referred to as Parliament seats. A person who wins the Parliament seat is referred to as Member of Parliament (MP).

Let's take a look at the statistics if what BN-MIC says is true.

Indian reps in federal and state level after GE13.

Barisan Nasional fielded a total of 33 candidates of Indian origin. Of these 33 candidates, 4 won the parliament seats and 5 won the state seats. The majority lost in the elections.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) fielded a total of 42 candidates of Indian origin. Of these 42 candidates, 10 won the parliament seats and 19 won the state seats. The majority won in the elections.

79% of Indian ADUNs are from Pakatan Rakyat. Only 21% of Indian ADUNs are from Barisan Nasional.
71% of Indian MPs are from Pakatan Rakyat. Only 29% of Indian MPs are from Barisan Nasional.

We need to keep in mind that MIC is an all Indian party. Yet, they did not win as many seats as the Indians of PR who are mainly from the multiracial parties of Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

Take a look below for the list of candidates, their constituencies and total votes. The winners have been highlighted. You can also compare the difference of votes gained. Click to download it.

Indian candidate performance for parliament.

The picture above is for the parliament seats. 

Both BN and PR fielded 13 Indians each for parliament seats. 7 of them met head to head. PR won 5 out of the 7 meets. The remaining candidates competed with candidates from other ethnics. 


Of those 6 non-Indian meets, BN only won 2 but PR won 5. These shows that at the parliament level, the Malaysian voters preferred PR candidates more than the BN candidates.

BN gained a total of 321,528 votes and PR gained a total of 538,568 votes. On average, a BN candidate gets 24,733 votes but a PR candidate gets 41,428 votes. 

Here are the details for the state level.

Indian candidates performance for state

BN fielded 20 Indian candidates and PR fielded 29 Indian candidates. 

13 of them met head to head. PR won 10 out of the 13 meets. The remaining candidates competed with candidates from other ethnics. 


Of those 7 non-Indian meets, BN won only 2. 
Of those 16 non-Indian meets, PR won 9. 

BN gained a total of 181,065 votes and PR gained a total of 333.877 votes. On average, a BN candidate gets 9,053 votes but a PR candidate gets 11,513 votes.   

Once again, the Malaysian voters have shown that the majority of them preferred Indians candidates from PR, and not Indian candidates from BN.

This clearly shows that the major representation of the ethnic Indian community actually comes from Pakatan Rakyat and not Barisan Nasional.