1. Immediately after Germany was defeated in the Second World War, the Western Alliance made it clear that the new enemy was Russia, their partner in the war against Germany.
2. A “defence” grouping of the European countries and the United States of America was set up with the obvious exclusion of the Soviet Union. It was equally obvious that the enemy to be defended against was Russia.
3. Not surprisingly Russia set up the Warsaw Pact, an alliance of East European countries to deter the Nato nations from any aggressive acts against the Eastern Bloc and Russia.
4. A costly Cold War resulted with Nato and the Eastern Alliance convening and attempting to get the countries of the world to join the Western countries or the Eastern “Communist” bloc.
5. Proxy wars and regime change were attempted as the European tried to line up the countries of the world in support of the two groups. Eventually the Russians realised the futility of the confrontation between the two blocs. Under the leadership of Gorbachev, the Warsaw Pact was disbanded and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were allowed to break up. Many communist countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia became independent.
6. Not so Nato. Far from disbanding Nato went all out to gain more members especially among the former Warsaw pact countries. The Russians were not invited. They were apparently still the enemy.
7. The membership drive by Nato came ever closer to Russia.
8. The Russian military had been weakened by the break up of Soviet Union. Nato simply regarded the weakening of the Russian defensive strength as a godsend. This did not affect the Nato countries from recruiting more members especially among those close to Russia. War games were held among Nato countries, again directed at Russia.
9. Russia rearmed as Nato got more members and came closer to Russia.
10. One of the agreements between the Nato countries is that an attack on one would be regarded as an attack against all the Nato countries.
11. What is the implication in the present situation. Ukraine is not yet a member. If Russia attacks, Nato is not obliged to war against Russia. On the other hand if Ukraine is accepted as a member of Nato, an attack by Russia would result in war with Nato.
12. And war between Nato and Russia would escalate into a third world war. And nuclear weapons would be used.
13. Russia is not likely to accept defeat. Nor will Nato. And so again the Europeans will destroy the world.
All posts by Che Det
THE RULE OF LAW
1. Every country, every society, every organisation needs rules and laws. Without them there would be anarchy, a state of disorder and confusion which would lead to the society eventually disintegrating. In such an anarchy nobody would feel safe. Everyone will be in a state of fear.
2. But for various reasons certain individuals are placed above the rules and the laws. Still to ensure justice and fair treatment for everyone, being above the rules and the laws does not mean that the laws and rules would be totally disregarded.
3. For example, the laws forbid killing or murder. Being above the law does not mean that murder can be committed with impunity. And there are many laws, rules and policies which cannot be breached even by those above the law.
4. Those who are exempted must still avoid breaches which are harmful to society or to individuals. In other words, being above the laws does not mean total disregard for the laws, the rules and regulations.
5. It is fortunate that in Malaysia privileges are not often abused. Even if the privileges are abused, Malaysians are tolerant and forgiving. But of course, we do not know the limit of such tolerance. It is far better to avoid abuses. The privileged must bear this in mind.
PEGGING THE RINGGIT
- Bank Negara knows best about the management of the Ringgit. It should not be pegged.
- However, I am curious about how pegging the Ringgit in 1998 helped in the economic recovery of Malaysia. I say this because even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank agreed that Malaysia did the right thing.
- Admittedly, the financial situation then was worse than now. And our reserves then was not as big as now. Still, we overcame the financial and economic problems caused by the depreciation of the Ringgit through pegging the Ringgit at RM3.80 per USD.
- When the Ringgit is pegged would it cause the outflow of foreign investments in Malaysia? From the little that I know about finance, outflows of foreign investment is due to the expectation of further depreciation of the Ringgit or shares. When the Ringgit was pegged there would not be further depreciation against the USD. Assured of the value of their investments, the need to divest was removed.
- Let’s say an investor invested 1 million USD at the time when the Ringgit was stronger – say RM 3.80 per 1USD. Effectively his investment would be worth 3.8 million Ringgit in Malaysia. This value would be sustained when the Ringgit is pegged.
- But if the Ringgit depreciates to 4.5 to 1USD, he would get only 844,000 USD from his 1 million Dollar investment should he divest. Fearing further depreciation he would change the Ringgit into USD and get out with 844,000 USD. He would have lost 156,000 USD.
- A merchant importing in USD would have to change RM4,500,000 to get 1 million USD if the Ringgit depreciates to 4.50 Ringgit to 1 USD. Obviously when the Ringgit depreciates, the cost of I million imports in USD would be RM4,500,000.
- On the other hand, if the Ringgit is pegged at 3.80 the cost of import would be only 3.8 million Ringgit per 1 million USD. A pegged Ringgit would save 700,000 Ringgit in the cost of import.
- When the Ringgit depreciates the cost of production would be lower if there is no pay revision upwards. On the other hand, the cost of imported raw materials and components would increase and negate the gain from lower wages. Logistical cost would also increase, again reducing the gain from production cost. A depreciated Ringgit does not necessarily reduce cost of production.
- Assuming that the Ringgit remains pegged at RM3.80 per USD, the cost in Ringgit would not change. Budget estimates would be sustainable.
- Wherever an importer wishes to buy something in U.S. Dollar, the Central Bank should have enough USD to sell at the pegged rate i.e. RM3.80 per USD.
- In 1998 the Central Bank had less reserves. We did not know whether the reserves were held in cash, and if in cash, in what currency. Still, we were able to change Ringgit into USD so as to pay in USD. Now the Central Bank has more reserves in USD, I believe. Earnings in USD should be deposited with the Central Bank, in exchange for Ringgits. There should be no shortage of USD when needed.
- There were problems of course. But we were able to set up subcommittees to deal with them in 1998. This included the recapitalisation of banks and businesses.
- The fact remains that the pegging was successful. As mentioned above the IMF and World Bank admitted that Malaysia did the right thing and helped other countries to overcome the serious devaluation of their currencies also. We were even able to deal with CLOB, the stock market set up by Singapore.
- I am just curious. We have more savings and reserves now compared to 1997- 8. Yet I am told that if we peg, we may go bankrupt?
- And neither have they suggested any possible solutions?
ZAHID PENIPU
1. Saya disaman Dato Seri Zahid Hamidi kononnya saya memfitnah beliau berkaitan beberapa pertemuannya dengan saya semasa saya menjadi Perdana Menteri Kerajaan Pakatan Harapan.
2. Ianya berkisar tentang kenyataan saya bahawa dia minta saya campur tangan dalam urusan perbicaraan kes mahkamah yang beliau hadapi.
3. Oleh kerana perkara ini akan menjadi kes mahkamah, saya tidak bertujuan untuk ulas panjang tentang tuduhan Zahid di sini.
4. Saya akan jumpa dia di mahkamah dan telah arah peguam saya menyampaikan kesediaan saya.
5. Sebenarnya saya bosan dengan sikap Zahid. Tindakan saman yang diambil hanya sebagai usaha untuk tutup penipuannya menerusi proses mahkamah.
6. Zahid ini penipu. Orang putih kata “compulsive liar”, pembohong tegar. Dulu semasa kempen pilihanraya umum ke-14, dia keluar kenyataan kononnya kad pengenalan saya yang asal menamakan saya sebagai Mahathir a/l Iskandar Kutty.
7. Dia dakwa bahawa IC biru saya dengan nama tersebut dihantar kepadanya oleh Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara. https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/390299
8. Dakwaan ini dibuat Zahid kerana hendak tuduh bahawa saya berketurunan India dan telah mempergunakan orang Melayu selama 22 tahun saya jadi Perdana Menteri.
9. Saya tunggu apakah Zahid akan keluar bukti ini pada khalayak ramai. Tetapi sampai habis pilihanraya tidak.
10. Dia nak burukkan saya sedemikian untuk mempamer kepada umum yang saya menipu mengenai status bangsa saya.
11. Dengan itu dia mahu pertikai kelayakan saya pimpin UMNO, parti-parti Melayu yang lain dan seterusnya orang Melayu keseluruhannya.
12. Kononnya saya “anak lelaki” dan bukan “bin”, jadi saya ini bukan Melayu.
13. Ya, saya memang pun ada darah keturunan India dan ini saya nyatakan dalam buku saya. Saya tidak nafi. Tapi hakikatnya sijil lahir dan kad pengenalan saya adalah Mahathir bin Mohamad.
14. Mengikut takrifan perlembagaan Malaysia (Perkara 160) saya Melayu dan perjuangan saya adalah untuk pertahan kepentingan bangsa saya.
15. Ibu dan bapa saya dilahirkan di Tanah Melayu sebelum Merdeka dan kami semua beragama Islam. Sejak kecil, pertuturan keluarga saya di rumah adalah Bahasa Melayu serta adat yang kami amal adalah adat Melayu.
16. Sebelum ini saya tidak gemar mengguna mahkamah walau ramai yang memfitnah saya kerana saya sedar di dalam kempen politik akan ada yang bertindak di luar batas dan had.
17. Tetapi kali ini saya merasa perlu bertindak kerana sikap pembohong Zahid ini amat memualkan dan tidak boleh dibiar begitu sahaja. Ia bukan saja kerana ia merosak reputasi saya tetapi penipuannya kepada penyokong Umno dan orang Melayu lain demi untuk dia mahu kekal berkuasa amat merbahaya.
18. Saya sedang pertimbang untuk ambil tindakan undang-undang kerana pembohongan Zahid yang memfitnah saya.
19. Saya cabar Zahid untuk tunjuk bukti tentang identiti saya yang pertikai diri status bangsa saya sebagai orang Melayu.
20. Jika dia tidak meminta maaf dan menarik balik fitnah itu, saya akan ambil tindakan mahkamah.
MATA WANG
1. Saya takut memberi pandangan saya terhadap nilai Ringgit kerana saya akan diketawa pakar kewangan. Tetapi walaupun saya akan diketawa orang saya memberanikan diri memberi pendapat saya berkenaan duit Ringgit kita yang naik turun nilainya. Pendapat saya didapati semasa menangani krisis mata wang pada 1997-8. Walaupun tindakan Malaysia dikecam hebat tetapi ia berjaya menghentikan ketidaktentuan nilai Ringgit dan kewangan kita dipulih semula. Akhirnya pihak IMF dan World Bank mengakui bahawa tindakan Malaysia berjaya menghentikan ketidaktentuan nilai Ringgit dan kemiskinan yang berlaku kerananya.
2. Semua orang sedar bahawa bank dibenar memberi pinjam duit yang tidak ada pada mereka. Syaratnya apabila hutang dibayar, jumlah wang itu dijadikan sebahagian dari aset bank. Dan berhaklah bank memberi pinjam duit yang telah menjadi aset hari ini. Benar atau tidak pakar boleh godam saya.
3. Demikian juga dengan peniaga mata wang. Mereka boleh beri pinjam atau jual duit yang tidak ada pada mereka. Pinjaman atau penjualan ini menjadi sah apabila duit ini disampaikan kepada peminjam atau pembeli kemudian.
4. Tetapi penjualan Ringgit oleh mereka menyebabkan pasar kewangan dipenuhi dengan Ringgit. Mengikut teori supply and demand, apabila supply bercambah, permintaan akan berkurangan. Apabila tidak ada demand untuk Ringgit, nilai Ringgit akan jatuh.
5. Apabila nilai Ringgit jatuh permintaan akan meningkat. Peniaga mata wang akan beli Ringgit yang sudah jatuh nilai dan akan deliver kepada pembeli yang telah beli Ringgit pada nilai yang tinggi sebelum jatuh nilainya.
6. Maka beruntunglah peniaga kerana menjual Ringgit di masa nilainya tinggi dan membekal kemudian dengan Ringgit yang dibeli semasa nilainya rendah.
7. Malangnya, apabila nilai Ringgit jatuh, pihak yang pinjam atau peniaga akan rugi. Mereka perlu bayar dengan lebih banyak Ringgit yang sudah jatuh nilai. Katakanlah mereka pinjam RM1,000 diwaktu nilainya tinggi, apabila nilai jatuh 50 peratus, mereka mesti bayar hutang atau harga belian asal dengan RM2,000. Maka rugilah peminjam atau peniaga, sementara peniaga mata wang untung RM1,000 kerana di waktu pinjam RM1000 cukup untuk kos tetapi di waktu nilai Ringgit jatuh 50%, lebih banyak Ringgit diperlukan.
8. Inilah yang berlaku pada 1997-8 diwaktu mana nilai Ringgit jatuh kerana peniaga mata wang menjual banyak Ringgit yang bukan pun dimiliki oleh mereka. Harapan mereka ialah apabila nilai Ringgit jatuh, mereka boleh beli Ringgit murah ini untuk dibekal kepada pembeli asal.
9. Apabila kita tetapkan nilai Ringgit pada RM3.80 satu Dollar U.S., dan kita jamin bekalan U.S. Dollar kepada sesiapa yang sanggup membayar RM3.80 untuk 1 Dollar U.S. maka nilai Ringgit tidak lagi akan turun naik. Dan peniaga mata wang pun tidak dapat turunkan nilai Ringgit dengan menjual Ringgit dengan banyaknya untuk jatuhkan nilainya.
10. Sebaliknya jika peminjam hutang Dollar dan nilai Dollar naik, lebih banyak Ringgit diperlukan untuk membayar hutang satu Dollar. Ini merugikan peminjam dan menguntungkan peniaga mata wang.
11. Sekarang kita lihat nilai Ringgit naik turun kerana nilainya tidak ditetap dan dijamin oleh Kerajaan. Dagangan Malaysia melonjak naik yang mana ini menyumbang kepada ekonomi negara. Tetapi di masa wabak Covid-19 nilai Ringgit tidak stabil. Ada masa ia naik dan ada masa ia menurun.
12. Bagi peniaga yang import bahan dengan Dollar America atau meminjam Dollar America, jatuhnya nilai Ringgit berbanding Dollar America meningkatkan Ringgit kos pengeluaran dan harga pasar produk. Kerana kenaikan ini harga baru jualan perlu ambil kira nilai Ringgit berbanding dengan Dollar Amerika.
13. Tetapi jangan cakap berkenaan fixed exchange rate. Ini taboo, haram. Ya. Pada 1997-8 fixed exchange rate selamatkan kita. Tetapi itu kerana orang politik tidak faham sistem kewangan. Jangan ikut mereka.
PENAMATAN PERKHIDMATAN TAN SRI APANDI ALI
1. Tan Sri Apandi Ali telah fail tuntutan di Mahkamah terhadap saya setelah saya letak jawatan sebagai Perdana Menteri. Dia tuduh yang saya berniat jahat dan tidak turut undang-undang dalam menamatkan perkhidmatannya sebagai Peguam Negara.
2. Saya telah beri kenyataan saya kepada pihak Peguam Negara. Saya pertahan tindakan saya dan percaya bahawa saya telah ikut prosidur yang ditetapkan dengan menasihati Yang di-Pertuan Agong bagi menamatkan perkhidmatan beliau sebagai Peguam Negara.
3. Pada masa itu saya berasa Tan Sri Apandi tidak dapat bertindak bebas kerana beliau merupakan peguam UMNO sejak sekian lama.
4. Dia tidak mungkin dapat berlaku adil dalam siasatan terhadap 1MDB dan salahlaku Dato Seri Najib. Malahan dia telah kata bahawa Najib tidak bersalah kerana kononnya tiada kes, sebelum apa-apa tindakan siasatan dibuat.
5. Sikap berat sebelah Apandi ini terbukti apabila Najib didapati bersalah oleh hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dan Rayuan dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 12 tahun serta denda RM210 juta.
6. Semasa saya beri keterangan kepada pihak Peguam Negara (Tan Sri Idrus Harun) bagi persediaan kes saman Apandi terhadap saya, saya telah dimaklum bahawa proses penamatan perkhidmatan itu betul dan mengikut prosidur dan Rule of Law.
7. Mereka maklumkan bahawa saya dan kerajaan telah memberi nasihat betul pada Yang di-Pertuan Agong supaya Tan Sri Apandi Ali ditamatkan perkhidmatan.
8. Saya terkejut apabila baca berita baru-baru ini tentang satu penyelesaian diluar mahkamah dibuat diantara Kerajaan dan Apandi. Terma penyelesaian juga dirahsiakan.
9. Saya tidak pun dimaklum tentang terma penyelesaian walaupun saya merupakan saksi utama.
10. Saya menulis pada Peguam Negara. Saya tidak bersetuju dengan cara penyelesaian tersebut dibuat. Saya berasa kerajaan tidak sepatutnya tunduk memandang bahawa tindakan penamatan perkhidmatan Apandi mengikut semua urusan dan kuasa yang ada pada Kerajaan.
11. Saya tidak faham kenapa terma penyelesaian harus dirahsia dari saya serta rakyat. Rakyat berhak tahu. Lebih-lebih lagi jika ianya melibatkan pampasan.
12. Apakah pampasan perlu dibayar jika tindakan dibuat mengikut undang-undang? Di mana prinsip Rule of Law.
13. Saya berpendapat penyelesaian memberi pampasan besar itu untuk seorang yang gagal melaksanakan tanggungjawab dengan baik adalah amat dikesali diwaktu mana sekalipun. Saya tidak mengaku salah dan bersedia untuk tuntutan Apandi di adili di mahkamah.
THE DESTRUCTION OF MALAYSIA
1. No one can deny that the Malaysia of today is not the country that the world acclaimed as the Asian Tiger. It is not even a shadow of its former self. It is now a kleptocracy – a country of thieves led by thieves.
2. How did this come about? How did a tiger descend so low as to be a failed country? The answer lies in the corruption of the country by specifically a corrupt leader.
3. When a person says “cash is king” he means that “corruption is king”. That was what Najib Razak said when he became Prime Minister of Malaysia. It is shocking but he meant it. His actions before and after his declaration proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he believed in corruption as a way to achieve anything that he wishes. And among these was his ambition to continue to be Prime Minister of Malaysia for as long as he lived.
4. He apparently believed that in order to be effective corruption must be big. The size must be such that the recipient would find it difficult to reject. Just imagine a man who had never seen a thousand Ringgit is given a million Ringgit to do something wrong or immoral. Few would be able to resist.
5. And so when everyone is aware that he has stolen huge sums of Government money, none of the UMNO leaders or members would criticise him, not even to ask him to explain. They continued to support him.
6. As mentioned above Najib believed that to be effective the bribes must be very substantial. He needed to have billions of Ringgits for the schemes he had in mind. He was not thinking only about the money to be given as bribes. He wanted a lot of the money for himself and his wife.
7. He therefore conceived of very big projects which cost billions of Ringgits. Among the projects were the East Coast Railway and the high-speed train between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. He also decided to buy power plants.
8. For these projects money that he borrowed run into billions of Ringgits. By overpricing some of the money could be hived off and disappear.
9. But Najib found a way to exceed the ceiling the Government was allowed to borrow. He set up a Government – owned company ostensibly to invest. Normally such a fund would come from excess revenue earned by the Government. But this fund is to be borrowed.
10. Although 100% owned by the Government, the company, 1MDB (1 Malaysia Development Berhad) was not subject to the Government ceiling for borrowing. At that time the ceiling was 53% of the GDP. He borrowed 42 billion Ringgit, the biggest loan ever raised by the country.
11. Part of this money was used to buy power plants at above the market prices. Much of the rest of the fund just disappeared after having invested in dubious oil and gas projects in the Middle East. Some money was moved through banks in the Caribbean, in the Seychelles and Singapore. Somehow a substantial sum ended in Najib’s account in the AmBank.
12. Later Najib claimed that billion plus in his bank account was gifts from Saudi royalty.
13. This claim can be verified. But little attempt was made to trace the movements of the money. Large sums of money are not easily moved. Cash would be so huge that it is not practical to move it around. It has to be in the form of documents; cheques for example or electronic transfers.
14. There must be records held by the banks issuing the documents or receiving the documents. There will be records both at the issuing banks and the receiving banks.
15. Then the banks must record how the money came to be in the banks, the depositor or depositors, the way the money was earned. If the investigators cared, they would be able to trace the movements of the money and prove whether the claim that it was a gift is true.
16. But there is no evidence that a thorough investigation was carried out. And so the claim that it was a gift was accepted.
17. The sum is very big. The Saudis may be rich and generous but even they would not reward a foreign leader such a huge sum of money for his role in helping the Palestinians.
18. Then there is the money and expensive articles found in the Pavilion. Initially the police claimed that the money and the articles were bought with money from 1MDB.
19. Later it was claimed that the Government could not prove that the money and the purchase of luxury articles were with money stolen from the Government – principally from 1MDB.
20. And so it was decided to give the money and the gifts back to Najib as they were the gifts to him. As pointed out above, tracing the source of the money was not thorough. It is more likely that they were not gifts. Imagine the Saudi king giving so many luxury handbags to Rosmah. There are no documents to prove this. But jewellers in New York claims they sold jewellery to Rosmah. Has the Malaysian authority investigated this.
21. If Najib cannot prove that the gifts were gifts, they should not give the money and the gifts to Najib. Like the Government the proof that these were gifts were not adequate. The Government should retain the money and gifts until the sources are proven.
22. At this moment no one knows where the rest of the 42 billion Ringgit has gone to. It was suggested that Jho Low had taken the money. I suspect that blaming Jho Low is because he could not be reached. It is not possible to investigate him.
MALAYSIA TODAY
1. I am prepared to accept that, in terms of development, Malaysia has fallen behind Indonesia and Vietnam lately. Of course we have always been behind Singapore.
2. But I was shocked when I discovered that we are also behind some African countries. We are not prepared to use the latest technology to achieve efficiency and limit corruption. We reject this technology because it may expose the wrong doings of our Members of Parliament.
3. I am told that if we adopt this new technology there would be loud protests from members of Parliament. It would seem that many of them are involved in the export and import business.
4. And so the country continues to lose lots of money because we reject better ways of management.
5. But African countries are saving billions because their management, using the new equipment is more efficient. They are already drawing ahead of us.
6. Of course we need not feel ashamed about our being overtaken by African countries. Haven’t we been told that stealing Government money is not something we should feel ashamed about. If our boss does it, it is okay.
7. After all the boss throws a few crumbs to us. That is how generous the boss is. We have shown our appreciation by supporting the party of the boss. They may shamelessly steal more money and give us some in appreciation. That’s okay.
8. Don’t adopt the new technology because if may cause our law makers to lose money. Reject it. Let the country go bankrupt. Its only the country losing money. You don’t lose. It’s okay.
THE WAR AGAINST CORRUPTION
1. For a long time now Malaysians have expressed disgust with the corruption of the politicians.
2. It is one thing to be against corruption but it is another thing to act against corruption.
3. Many would say that there is no opportunity to act against corruption. But really there is.
4. The state election and elections in general will provide opportunities to act effectively against corrupt practices.
5. In the Johor State Elections we should see the corrupt parties being challenged and defeated by the anti-corruption people.
6. Most of the parties fielding candidates for the Johor Election are from parties tainted by corruption in the past. They were so corrupt that the electorate rejected them in the fourteenth Election.
7. But now they are back. Maybe they will field new candidates. But the parties and the leadership are still the same. They may talk about wanting to do away with corruption. But their campaign would depend much on bribing the voters in one way or another.
8. Against these corrupt parties will be newer parties, led by politicians who had refused to be bribed into overthrowing the Government elected by the people in the 14th General Elections. They uphold democracy even if they had to make costly sacrifice.
9. For the corrupt the choice will be very simple. They will vote for the candidates from the corrupt parties. But for those voters who are against corruption their votes will reflect their strength in their stand against corruption.
10. It will be difficult. For numerous elections they had remained loyal to their chosen party. They had overlooked some deviations by their party, gave them the benefit of their doubt and supported the party. But now the corruption, the deviations have become very serious. They have affected the good reputations of the past. In fact the good name won by the party has been reversed not only in Malaysia but also in the world. Corruption has actually overthrown a Government chosen by the people, a democratic Government.
11. Some loyalists may choose not to vote. If they do that, the diehard loyalists would still vote. And the corrupt candidates would win. The Government would be corrupt and continue to be corrupt.
12. But if they, the anti-corruption voters are still truly against corruption they would come out in great numbers and vote for the anti-corruption candidates. The result would be a clean Government.
13. But will there be enough votes for those against corruption to win. If the 14th General Election is any indicator, they can win.
14. The 14th General Election showed the determination of the free voters. i.e the voters who were tied to no party, exercising their right to support candidates of their choice. Thus the opposition won.
15. This time around the anti-corruption voters would be more because of their disgust with the two governments which had seized power through party hopping – through non-democratic means.
16. But will the anti-corruption party win enough seats. It is possible that it will not. There would be a need to form some kind of coalition with partners who are not involved with corruption.
17. Remember UMNO by itself could not form a Government. Although UMNO is also a Malay party it accepted the need to work with non-Malay parties.
18. Pejuang too would be a leader in a coalition with multiracial parties which subscribe to its anti-corruption principles and is aware that disparities between people and states need to be corrected in a fair and equitable way.
WAR IS A CRIME
1. War is about killing people. And killing people is a crime. Yet so-called civilised people choose war in order to settle conflicts between them.
2. I had tried to criminalise war. But I was unsuccessful. Today wars are being fought. They are terrible because everyone is regarded as legitimate targets, not just the soldiers but all the non-combatants, men, women, the old, the sick, children and the babies. No one is spared.
3. And now the weapons. They are more powerful. They destroy whole cities and the people living in them. Buildings, old and new are pulverised and levelled to the ground.
4. The destruction is beyond imagination. The wounded are left unattended, crying and screaming with pain. The dead, sprawled and decomposing on streets, twisted, without limbs or heads, being eaten by dogs and other animals.
5. And all these are done by men, so-called civilised men. And they do it on the instruction of older men. Now they are committing genocide.
6. I would like to appeal to the leaders of powerful countries to stop this carnage. War does not solve anything. But the cost is horrible.
7. Please stop it.
8. Please go back to negotiations, to arbitrations, to courts of law.
9. The result may not be satisfactory. But wars also produce no satisfactory results.
10. But at least no one gets wounded, no one dies, no devastations of whole countries when we do not war.
11. I would like to appeal to the leaders of great powers to stop resorting to wars as a means of settling conflicts.
12. Stop inventing new and more destructive weapons.
13. Stop selling arms.
14. Strengthen international institutions for peace.