TR EMERITUS

1) Out of all the 5 major banks in Malaysia, only one has multi-racial owners . the rest are controlled by Malays. 2) 99% of Petronas (the only one petroleum company) directors are Malay and the former PM is Consultant to Petronas. 3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese. 4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are Malay-owned. 5) 100% all contractors working on Petronas projects must be ‘Bumi’. 6) 0% of non-Malay staff legally required in Malay’s companies. But there must be 30% Malay staff and shareholders in Chinese companies. 7) 5% of all intake for government police, nursing, army etc non-Malay. 8) 2% is present Chinese staff in RMAF – 40% in 1960. 9) 2% non-Malay government servants in Putrajaya – Malays 98%. 10) 7% Chinese government servants in whole government (2004) – 30% in 1960. 2 non-Malays in political hierarchy. 11) 95% government contracts to Malays – even for open tender. 12) 100% all business licenses for Malay government officers – e.g taxi permits, Approved Permits, etc. to Malay government officer families. 13) 80% of Chinese rice mills in Kedah had to be sold to Malays and controlled by Bernas since 1980s. 14) 100 big companies owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians taken over by government and put under Malay managment since 1970s – UTC, UMBC, MISC etc. 15) At least 10 Chinese-owned bus companies throughout Malaysia had to be sold to MARA or other Malay transport companies due to rejection by authorities to applications by Chinese-owned bus companies for bus routes and new buses. 16) Chinese taxi drivers barred from driving in Johor from Larkin bus station – only 3 out of about 30 taxi drivers 3 are Chinese (October 2004). 17) 0 non-Malays allowed shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004). 18) 8000 billion Ringgit total amount government channelled to Malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA and privatization of agencies like Tabung Haji etc through NEP over 34 years. 19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed (1968 – 2000). 20) 144 Tamil primary schools closed (1968 – 2000). 21) 2637 Malay primary schools built and opened (1968 – 2000). 22) 2.5% of government budget to Chinese primary schools, 1% to Tamil schools. Malay schools get 96.5% 23) Chinese parent with RM1000 monthly salary cannot get school-text-book-loan – Malay parent with RM2000 salary eligible. 24) All 10 public universities vice chancellors Malay. 25) 5% (2004) – public university lecturers non-Malay origins, from 70% (1965) 26) 5% government scholarships to non-Malays over 40 years. 27) 0 Chinese or Indians sent to Japan and Korea under ‘Look East Policy’. 28) 128 STPM (High Study / A Level) Chinese top students not able get into courses they wanted – eg. Medicine. 29) 10% places for non-Bumi students in MARA science schools from 2003 - but only 7% filled. 30) 50 cases Chinese and Indian Malaysians beaten up in National Service program since 2003. 31) 25% the Malaysian Chinese population in 2004 – drop from 45% in 1957. 32) 7% Malaysian Indian population (2004) – drop from 12% in 1957. 33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians emigrated overseas over 40 years. 34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysian emigrated overseas over 40 years. 35) 3 million Indonesian immigrants into Malaysia to become Malaysian Citizens with Bumi status. 36) 600,000 Chinese and Indian Malaysians holding ‘red I/Cs’ (temporary identity cards) as their applications for Citizenship over 40 years not approved - 60% already passed away from old age. 37) 5% – 15% discount for Malay to buy house, regardless whether rich or poor 38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compared with 98% that Malays villages get in rural development budget. 39) 50 road names (at least) changed from Chinese to other names. 40) 0 temples/churches built for each housing estate – every housing estate MUST have at least one mosque/surau. 41) 3,000 mosques/surau built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970 with full government support. 42) 1 Catholic Church in Shah Alam took 20 years for application to be constructed to be approved – but told by authorities must look like a factory and not like a church. 43) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (2002) 44) 0 government TV stations (RTM1,RTM2, and TV3) with non-Malay directors.    Note: The above was posted by a John Quek initially as a comment here.  Read More →

Dear Straits Times, I refer to the letter by Mr Beh Seng Tatt dated 16 Sept 2010. Mr Beh regards MM Lee as a giant of our times. So too was Stalin during his time, a giant who terrorised and was feared by all in his country. Mr Beh attributes what Singapore is today and its turning into a beacon of hope to MM Lee. But Singapore was already a beacon of hope to many long before MM Lee was born. Soon after Singapore was founded in 1819, thousands of poor, desperate Chinese peasants made the long, arduous journey across the South China Sea in search of a better life in Singapore. Singapore is what it is today because of the hard work of our pioneers since 1819 rather than the work of any one man. Mr Beh thanks MM Lee for showing how a successful nation can be forged through honest governance. Should Mr Beh thank Chen Shui Bian for showing how a successful nation can also be forged through dishonest governance? If a nation can be successful with either honest or dishonest governance, surely something else explains a nation's success? Mr Beh thanks MM Lee for turning Singapore into a refuge for those seeking to realise their potential without unfair constraints. But that privilege has in turn placed an unfair burden on Singaporeans. Mr Beh thanks MM Lee for a Singapore that stands in stark contrast to corrupt and bankrupt governments everywhere. If Mr Beh were to broaden his mind a little to include Hong Kong, he will have to start wondering who he should thank for another equally honest and prosperous city. Eventually, he will have to conclude that both Singapore and Hong Kong were the benefactors of excellent British law and British civil service which have been instrumental in shaping these two ex-British crown colonies into what they are today. Mr Beh urges young Singaporeans to put themselves in the shoes of our neighbours and be profoundly grateful to our 'founding fathers'. But the cosmopolitan and globally aware young Singaporeans would rather put themselves in the shoes of those from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe and be profoundly woken up to the fact that the Singapore achievement is just one of many around the world. Mr Beh wishes for God to grant MM Lee peace. But MM Lee has done many terrible things including locking innocent people up for more than thirty years thus robbing them of the most fruitful years of their lives. It will take a man with very little conscience to be able to live in peace after having done all these. Thank you   Ng Kok Lim  Read More →

Based on the new article here : http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC100916-0000117/IRs-shuttles-were-part-of-casino-promotional-activities--Minister One simple question was ask to LTA "why it authorized the IRs' buses services" but LTA try to confuse the situation as seen below. "The Land Transport Authority, when asked why it authorised the IRs' bus services, said operators running free shuttle bus services did not need LTA approval, but permission was needed if public bus stops are used. To encourage the use of public transport, LTA allows non-basic bus services, including the free bus services, to use bus stops for passenger activities. "In this case, LTA had worked with RWS on ways to ease the traffic congestion into Sentosa," an LTA spokesman said." There is something seriously wrong with the above paragraphs. Paragraph 1. LTA say no approval requires for free shuttle service unless public bus stops are used. (I can confirmed that RWS shuttle bus uses public bus stop, LTA would definitely need to approve RWS shuttle bus. But upon first reading, it seems like LTA try to distant themselves from the situation by saying that no approval required.) Paragraph 2. LTA then try to confuse people by saying that it allow free shuttle bus to use public bus stop, but did not confirm if approval was given nor did it say why it was approved. Paragraph 3. Finally LTA admits the reason for approval was to ease traffic congestion into Sentosa. After finally decoding the statements above, we know that LTA has approved the free shuttle buses to alleviate the congestion going into Sentosa. Now that the shuttle buses are removed, who is going to be responsible when there is an increase in the traffic congestion into Sentosa? MCYS or CRA? Of course not, traffic is not part of their job scope. Who is ultimately responsible for traffic in Singapore, LTA right? LTA should have the final decision on this issue and should stick with their original approval since they mandate is to ensure a smooth and seamless journey for all. Throughout this whole shuttle bus saga, there is one other party that should be involved but did not say anything. The Public Transport Council (PTC) is an independent body that regulates bus services, bus service operators, ticket payment services, and bus and rapid transit system fares. PTC’s core functions include licensing of bus service operators. The free shuttle bus service comes under the category of "Special Bus Services" (http://www.ptc.gov.sg/regulation/industryAndRegulatoryFramework.htm) and would require a license to run. We need to know if PTC approved the shuttle bus and if they approve the shuttle bus, we need to know why they approve it. How come MCYS can openly say that the free shuttle is not part of any public transport when there is a specific public transport category of "Special Bus Services" assigned to them. Night services like NR1 and NR6 are also assigned the same category, how come MCYS never say anything about it? If MCYS choose not to order the termination of service NR1 and NR6, we can therefore conclude without a doubt that there are some hidden agenda behind this shuttle bus issue and the gamblers are just a smoke screen. To add on to the conspiracy theory, we all know that PTC only make their presence known whenever there is a need to explain to the public why the transport operators need to increase their fares. I am sure our reader know if the PTC, being an independent body, actually supports commuters or the transport company.   Finally, I hope everyone will come and support my facebook group to bring back the free shuttle bus. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=113586455367007&v=wall&ref=ts For more on the conspiracy theory https://www.tremeritus.net/2010/09/15/mcys-stopping-of-ir-shuttle-buses-a-conspiracy/.   Chimes of Freedom  Read More →