fkheng's Xanga

How BN spent RM500k in less than 60 days

Tue, 13 May 2008 19:21:50 GMT

check out Lau Weng San's blog, DAP state assemblyman, here...amazing, appalling

http://wengsan.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-bn-finished-rm500k-in-less-than-60_12.html

Breaking News: Malaysia ends protection for carmaker Proton -report

Tue, 13 May 2008 19:17:50 GMT

am i just day dreaming or what??? or is Reuters making a mistake???

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINKLA00750220080513?rpc=611

is the Malaysian government really withdrawing its protection over Proton?

Monday, May 12, 2008

Mon, 12 May 2008 12:34:41 GMT

BN component parties 'like beggars', says Keng Yaik
PETALING JAYA (May 12, 2008): Gerakan adviser Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik has likened MCA, Gerakan and MIC to "beggars" in the Barisan Nasional (BN) as the coalition did not treat its component parties equitably.

Criticising the lack of equitability in BN, Lim stressed that although the constitution guarantees the special rights of the Malays, it also safeguards the rights of non-Malays.

He said he believed that the people, who had indicated in the recent general election their desire for multi-racial parties to work together, would also want the BN to become a multi-racial political set-up which treats all people equitably.

Lim said this in an interview with Sin Chew Daily in which he gave his views on the new political order in the country and the shape of things to come.

The former Gerakan president and former Energy, Water and Communications Minister predicted that Umno-led BN's model of cooperation will be discarded by the people one day.

He also foresaw that the coalition will change the way it operates given another two general elections.

He felt that under such circumstances, race-based parties like Umno, MCA and MIC will have to disband if BN goes multi-racial.

He said over-emphasis on cooperation among race-based parties will not make the people comfortable.

The people not only hope to see BN become a coalition of multi-racial parties but also want BN to play roles that reflect its multi-racial characteristics.

Lim pointed out that 39 years after the May 13, 1969, riots, the people have seen through the domination of a race-based party.

He said the fact that there was no repeat of the (May 13) bloodshed when the Opposition won big this time around showed the maturity of the people.

He said although Gerakan espouses political multi-racialism, it suffered a major setback in the general election mainly because its candidates were fielded in non-Malay-majority constituencies.

"Why were the non-Malays angry with BN? (It's) Because of the arrogance of Umno, the dominant party in BN. Many people also felt uneasy with the racist remarks made by Umno leaders. These had also caused all BN component parties to suffer in the polls."

He believed that if BN takes the multi-racial path, at least Umno leaders would be more careful with what they say in the future.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Mon, 12 May 2008 12:31:05 GMT

Anwar: BN MPs to announce their defections
Tim Leonard, The Sun

PETALING JAYA (May 12, 2008): Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today confirmed that several Members of Parliament from Barisan Nasional (BN) and its component parties will be crossing over soon, fuelling speculations that the ruling coalition may lose its grip on power.

In a packed press conference in his Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Section 16 office today, Anwar disclosed that the respective MPs will make announcements by themselves soon.

"I don't necessarily need to make it. They might do it themselves," said Anwar.

"We have the numbers and we will determine the timing (to announce the crossovers) after observing necessary rules and procedures under the constitution," said Anwar.

"BN and and Umno are not at ease now as they are panicking," claimed the former deputy prime minister.

"They are bringing up issues of racial sentiments and survivals of Malays, and we sense that this might not go down well if we make the announcements now," he added.

"We have to take into account many issues before making any announcement but let them (BN) speculate," he said.

Anwar added that the defections will be carried out according to the law and no "money" will be involved.

He said if the constituents disagreed with the move taken by their respective MPs, then they can protest or even report it.

When asked if he had support from MPs in Sabah and Sarawak, Anwar said the support is now sufficient for the Opposition to form the federal government.

He also reiterated claims he made earlier that a new federal government led by the Opposition can be formed before Malaysia Day (Sept 16).

On another matter, Anwar said he has been advised by friendly parties to enhance his personal safety. "I will not disclose this further but I had been advised to take precautionary safety measures."

Asked to comment on former premier Tun Dr Mahatir Mohamad’s claims that he had purposely exposed the Datuk V.K Lingam tape, Anwar said: "Those are his personal views ... the facts speak for themselves. Furthermore, the incident occurred in 2001 and at that time, I was in prison."

Mahathir had earlier lambasted Anwar, saying the issue was aimed at incriminating him.

Anwar said he welcomed the submission of the report by the Royal Commission to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and called for it to be made public.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:01:57 GMT

There is a God

Written by Michael Gleghorn

A Much-Maligned Convert

I remember how astonished I was when I first heard the news of his “conversion.” In 2004, longtime British atheist philosopher Antony Flew publicly announced that he now believed in God! I could hardly believe it. Professor Flew had been an atheist for the greater part of his life and, until 2004, his entire academic career. As the “author of over thirty professional philosophical works,” he “helped set the agenda for atheism for half a century.”{1} But then, in 2004, at the age of eighty-one, he changed his mind!

As one might expect, the reaction to Flew’s announcement varied widely. Theists naturally welcomed the news that one of the most important atheistic philosophers of the past century had come to believe in God. Skeptics and atheists, on the other hand, made little effort to conceal their contempt. Richard Dawkins characterized Flew’s conversion as a kind of apostasy from the atheistic faith and implied that his “old age” likely had something to do with it.{2} Others suggested that the elderly Flew was trying to hedge his bets, fearful of the negative reception he might have in the afterlife. And Mark Oppenheimer, in an article for The New York Times, argued that Flew had been exploited by Christians and that he hadn’t even written the recent book that tells the story of his “conversion.”{3} That book, There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, is the subject of this article.

By his own admission, the eighty-four-year-old Flew suffers from “nominal aphasia” and has difficulty recalling names. Nevertheless, it’s quite unfair to insinuate that his belief in God is due to something like senility. He may have problems with his short-term memory, but he’s still capable of explaining what he believes and why. In the introduction to his book he responds to the charge that he now believes in God because of what might await him in the afterlife by pointing out that he doesn’t even believe in an afterlife! “I do not think of myself ‘surviving’ death,” he explains.{4} The charge that Flew didn’t actually write his book is also misleading. While it’s true that he didn’t physically type the words, the content was based upon his previous writings, as well as personal correspondence and interviews with Mr. Varghese. In other words, the ideas in the book accurately represent the views of Professor Flew, even if he didn’t type the text. With that in mind, let’s now take a closer look at some of the arguments and evidence that led “the world’s most notorious atheist” to change his mind about God.

Did Something Come from Nothing?

In a chapter entitled “Did Something Come From Nothing?” Flew addresses issues surrounding the origin of the universe. Is the universe eternal, or did it have a beginning? And if it had a beginning, then how should we account for it?

Flew observes that in his book The Presumption of Atheism, which was written while he was still an atheist, he had argued that “we must take the universe itself and its most fundamental laws as themselves ultimate.” {5} He simply didn’t see any reason to think that the universe pointed to some “transcendent reality” beyond itself.{6} After all, if the universe has always existed, then there may simply be no point in looking for any explanation why.

However, as the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe became increasingly well-established among contemporary cosmologists, Flew began to reconsider the matter. That’s because the Big Bang theory implies that the universe is not eternal, but that it rather had a beginning. And as Flew observes, “If the universe had a beginning, it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning.”{7}

Of course, many scientists and philosophers felt quite uncomfortable about what a universe with a beginning might imply about the existence of God. In order to avoid the absolute beginning of the universe, an event which seems to smack of some sort of supernatural creation, they proposed a variety of models that were consistent with the notion that the universe had existed forever. Unfortunately, all these models essentially suffer from the same problem. When carefully examined, it turns out that they can’t avoid the absolute beginning of the universe. Thus, according to Stephen Hawking, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”{8}

Reflecting upon his initial encounter with the Big Bang theory while he was still an atheist, Flew writes, “it seemed to me the theory made a big difference because it suggested that the universe had a beginning and that the first sentence in Genesis (‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’) was related to an event in the universe.”{9} He concludes his discussion by noting that “the universe is something that begs an explanation.”{10} He now believes that the best explanation is to be found in a supernatural creative act of God. Interestingly enough, this view finds dramatic confirmation in the exquisite “fine-tuning” of our universe which allows for the existence of intelligent life.

Did the Universe Know We Were Coming?

Flew observes that “the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life.”{11} Just how carefully crafted are these laws? According to British physicist Paul Davies, even exceedingly small changes in either the gravitational or electromagnetic force “would have spelled disaster for stars like the sun, thereby precluding the existence of planets.”{12} Needless to say, without planets you and I wouldn’t be here to marvel at how incredibly fine-tuned these constants are. The existence of complex, intelligent life depends on these fundamental constants having been fine-tuned with a precision that virtually defies human comprehension.

So how is the observed fine-tuning to be explained? Flew notes that most scholars opt either for divine design or for what might be called the “multiverse” hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, our universe is just one of many others, “with the difference that ours happened to have the right conditions for life.”{13}

So which of these two theories best explains the amazing fine-tuning of our universe? Flew correctly observes that “there is currently no evidence in support of a multiverse. It remains a speculative idea.”{14} The fact that multiple universes are logically possible does absolutely nothing to prove that they actually exist. Indeed, the multiverse hypothesis appears to be at odds with the widely recognized principle of Ockham’s razor. This principle says that when we’re confronted with two explanations of the same thing, we “should prefer the one that is simpler, that is, the one that uses the fewest number of entities . . . to explain the thing in question.”{15}

Now clearly in the case before us, the theory of divine design, which posits only one entity to explain the observed fine-tuning of our universe, is much simpler than the multiverse hypothesis, which posits a potentially infinite number of entities to explain the same thing! The philosopher Richard Swinburne likely had Ockham’s razor in mind when he wrote, “It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.”{16}

The observed fine-tuning of our universe is one more reason why Antony Flew now believes there is a God. And as we’ll see next, the mystery of life’s origin is yet another.

How Did Life Go Live?

One of the reasons consistently cited by Flew for changing his mind about the existence of God has to do with the almost insuperable difficulties facing the various naturalistic theories of the origin of life. In particular, Flew observes, there is a fundamental philosophical question that has not been answered, namely, “How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and ‘coded chemistry’?”{17}

When considering the origin of life from non-living matter, it’s crucially important to note a fundamental difference between the two. “Living matter possesses an inherent . . . end-centered organization that is nowhere present in the matter that preceded it.”{18} For example, lifeless rocks do not give evidence of goal-directed behavior, but living creatures do. Among the various goals one might list, living beings seek to preserve and reproduce themselves.

This leads naturally to the second difficulty, namely, providing a purely naturalistic account of the origin of organisms that are able to reproduce themselves. As philosopher David Conway points out, without this ability “it would not have been possible for different species to emerge through random mutation and natural selection.” Since different species can’t emerge from organisms that can’t reproduce themselves, one can’t claim that self-reproduction emerged through the evolutionary process. Conway concludes that such difficulties “provide us with reason for doubting that it is possible to account for existent life-forms . . . without recourse to design.”{19}

The final difficulty Flew raises concerns a purely naturalistic origin of “coded chemistry.” Scientists have discovered that the genetic code functions exactly like a language. But as the mathematician David Berlinski asks, “Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages?”{20} In other words, if every other code and language we’re aware of results from intelligence, then why think the genetic code is any different? As physicist Paul Davies muses, “The problem of how meaningful . . . information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.”{21}

Ultimately, such challenges became too much for Flew. He concludes his discussion of these difficulties by noting, “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.”{22}

The Self-Revelation of God in Human History

In a fascinating appendix to his book, Flew has a dialogue with prominent New Testament scholar N.T. Wright about Jesus. Although Flew is not a Christian and continues to be skeptical about the claims for Jesus’ bodily resurrection, he nonetheless asserts that this claim “is more impressive than any by the religious competition.”{23} But why is this? And what sort of evidence is there for the resurrection of Jesus? This is one of the questions to which N.T. Wright responds in his dialogue with Flew.

Although we can only scratch the surface of this discussion, Wright makes two points that are especially worth mentioning: the historicity of the empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. But why think these events actually happened as the Gospels claim? Because, says Wright, if the tomb were empty, but there were no appearances, everyone would have concluded that the tomb had been robbed. “They would never have talked about resurrection, if all that had happened was an empty tomb.”{24}

On the other hand, suppose the disciples saw appearances of Jesus after His crucifixion. Would this have convinced them of His resurrection if His tomb were not empty? No, says Wright. The disciples knew all about “hallucinations and ghosts and visions. Ancient literature—Jewish and pagan alike—is full of such things.”{25} So long as Jesus’ body was still in the tomb, the disciples would never have believed, much less publicly proclaimed, that He had been raised from the dead. This would have struck them as self-evidently absurd. For these and other reasons, Wright concludes that the empty tomb and appearances of Jesus are historical facts that need to be reckoned with. The question then becomes, “How does one account for these facts? What is the best explanation?”

Wright concludes that, as a historian, the best explanation is that “Jesus really was raised from the dead,” just as the disciples proclaimed. This is clearly a sufficient explanation of Jesus’ empty tomb and post-mortem appearances. But Wright goes even further. “Having examined all the other possible hypotheses,” he writes, “I think it’s also a necessary explanation.”{26}

How does Flew respond to this claim? Asking whether divine revelation in history is really possible, he notes that “you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence.”{27} Flew has indeed come a long way from his former atheist views. For those of us who are Christians, we can pray that he might come further still.

Notes

1. Roy Abraham Varghese, preface to Antony Flew, There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins, 2007), vii.
2. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam, 2006), 82; cited in Varghese, preface to There Is A God, xviii-xix.
3. Mark Oppenheimer, "The Turning of an Atheist," The New York Times, November 4, 2007, http://tinyurl.com/2lvkaj.
4. Flew, There Is A God, 2.
5. Ibid., 134.
6. Ibid., 135.
7. Ibid., 136.
8. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20; cited in William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 478.
9. Flew, There Is A God, 136.
10. Ibid., 145.
11. Ibid., 114.
12. Craig and Moreland, Philosophical Foundations, 483.
13. Flew, There Is a God, 115.
14. Ibid., 119.
15. Craig and Moreland, Philosophical Foundations, 244.
16. Richard Swinburne, "Design Defended," Think (Spring 2004), 17; cited in Flew, There Is A God, 119.
17. Flew, There Is A God, 124.
18. Ibid.
19. David Conway, The Rediscovery of Wisdom (London: Macmillan, 2000), 125; cited in Flew, There Is A God, 126.
20. David Berlinski, "On the Origins of Life," Commentary (February 2006): 30-31; cited in Flew, There Is A God, 127.
21. Paul Davies, "The Origin of Life II: How Did It Begin?" tinyurl.com/yq4geu; cited in Flew, There Is A God, 129.
22. Flew, There Is A God, 132.
23. Ibid., 187.
24. N.T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N.T. Wright," in Flew, There Is A God, 210.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 212-13.
27. Flew, There Is A God, 213.

with so much news on crossover talk in the news today, Anwar has now issued a statement

Mon, 12 May 2008 08:38:35 GMT

Anwar defends morality of crossovers

Chan Kok Leong | May 12, 08 7:51pm

Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim has defended the morality of inviting Barisan Nasional representatives to form the next federal government.

At a press conference in Petaling Jaya today, the tone and atmosphere changed when questions were thrown at him about the morality and ethics of crossovers.

“The conduct of the recent elections was full of cheating, including the cancellation of the use of indelible ink,” said Anwar.

“What is immoral is cheating, buying of candidates or parliamentarians or false election promises. What has transpired in all our discussions is about our (Pakatan) agenda.

When pressed on the issue, the normally unflappable Anwar fired back, “I’m puzzled as to why you are all questioning the morality of crossovers now.

“What kind of morals is it when there are unsolved murders and or when there are no investigations when someone has stolen RM500 million? What kind of morals is it when there is fraud in the election process? Why don’t you ask those questions?

Those who understand the situation and realise that this (new government) could bring goodness, give their support. They are not only talking about benefits to the Malays. What kind of morals do we talk about when Hindu temples are destroyed without reason?”

He said that morals and ethics must be consistent and should not be limited to certain races.

“It is also no longer morally defensible for a MP to feel comfortable in defending his position when corruption is endemic, abuse of power is being condoned, when the judiciary is not independent, when crime is increasing and the media is not free.

“Why has there been no discussion on morality before? Over the last 50 years, you (were able to) find MPs crossing over to BN (as) morally defensible and now (there is) a question mark (about this)?”

The issue, he said, is not about crossing over but about the basis for such a major change being made.

During the 40-minute session, the former deputy prime minister offered no new information pertaining to the crossovers.

There were no revelations on who would cross the floor to Pakatan. No date was put forward other than that (Sept 16) being bandied about, after a journalist had suggested it during his recent tour of Sabah.

There was no hint either of whether he would announce the newcomers to his Pakatan coalition.

“The timing (in forming a new government) is when BN and Umno are more at ease. Now, they are quite panicky and inciting racial sentiments and the issue of Malay survival. Rather than continue that debate, which I consider as obsolete, we will consider our options.”

The only substantive factor was the presence of Jeffrey Kitingan - Sabah deputy chief minister Joseph Pairin Kitingan’s brother - at the press conference, alongside PKR officials Syed Husin Ali, Mustafa Kamil Ayub and Shamsul Iskandar.

Lingam tape report

At the start of the press conference, Anwar delivered a brief statement, saying he welcomed the submission of the report of the Royal Commission on the Lingam video clip to the King yesterday.

“We call for its full ventilation to the Malaysian pubic. If Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is serious about judicial reform, than he should take this report to its logical culmination which is the investigation and prosecution of those who the report deems to have deviated the course of justice.

“These issues are of deep concern to the Malaysian people and should not be taken lightly by the present administration. A half-hearted attempt at restoration would be as unsatisfactory as no restoration at all.”

He also responded Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s accusation he had used the tape to blackmail VK Lingam, who is the former premier’s lawyer.

“That his (Dr Mahathir) personal view and I don’t need to respond to that. The facts speak for themself. The video clip was (recorded) in 2001.

“I can understand and forgive Mahathir for forgetting the fact that in 2001 I was in Sungai Buloh jail (serving sentence after being convicted of corrupt practice.”

'No such thing as social contract'

Mon, 12 May 2008 07:45:05 GMT

'No such thing as social contract'

Monday, 12 May 2008

(New Straits Times) - There is no such thing as a social contract between the ethnic communities in the country, Royal Professor Ungku Abdul Aziz said.

At a forum organised by the Alumni Look East Policy Society here yesterday, he said the so-called social contract was created by politicians and interpreted according to their interests.

Instead, Ungku Aziz said the arrangement between the races should be called an "economic contract" to justify affirmative action in areas of education and health for groups that needed it.

He said many Bumiputeras were embarrassed to talk about affirmative action.

"It's good in Selangor, Putrajaya and also Johor but when we go to Kelantan or Kedah, what kind of houses do they live in?" he asked.

Speaking to the press later, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was also a panelist at the forum, said a social contract did exist but not in written form.

Another panelist, Public Services Department director-general Tan Sri Ismail Adam said the social contract was an understanding between the leaders of the Alliance government at the time of independence.

He said it was an understanding that included the sharing of political power and the economic cake, of which the bigger portion went to the Bumiputeras.

cross over claims intensify...

Mon, 12 May 2008 07:41:42 GMT

Over 30 Barisan MPs have decided to cross over, says PKR Sabah chief

Monday, 12 May 2008

(The Star) - KOTA KINABALU: Parti Keadilan Rakyat is in “real” discussions with Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament (MPs) to cross over to Pakatan Rakyat.

“The discussions are on. They are very real. Over 30 Barisan MPs have decided to join the opposition coalition. The opposition only need 30 more MPs from Barisan to form the federal government. It is only a matter of time,” said PKR Sabah liasion chief Ansari Abdullah.

He dismissed Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s claim that PKR was only playing politics with their statements about Barisan MPs ready to cross over to the Pakatan Rakyat.

“At this very moment, there are Barisan MPs in discussion with our leaders in Kuala Lumpur and some have also talked to me,” Ansari told reporters here yesterday.

He said that Najib’s claims that PKR statements was just a political gimmick was his own reading, unlike former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who had a better understanding of the political situation in the country.

On the issue of DAP chairman Karpal Singh questioning the powers of the Perak Sultan, Ansari said it was impolite to raise the matter.

However, he asked why no action was taken against Umno leaders who questioned the Perlis and Terengganu rulers during the confusion before the appointments of their respective Mentris Besar.

“If they want to take action, they should also act against those Umno leaders who publicly voiced their unhappiness over the Rulers’ decisions,” he said, adding that Karpal, who should not have voiced it publicly, was only discussing the powers on points of law.

more talk on defections from east malaysia...

Mon, 12 May 2008 07:31:53 GMT

Cracks in BN unity widening in Sabah, Sarawak

KOTA KINABALU, May 12— Datuk Yong Teck Lee is not a happy man. He has been upset since his request for the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) to contest the Sandakan and Kota Kinabalu seats were rebuffed by the state Barisan Nasional leadership.

He has been disgruntled that his party has only two parliament and four state seats, remarking that the SAPP cannot forever be content with its limited political representation. He and his party are prime candidates to cross over to the Pakatan Rakyat, a move that will give the Opposition two more parliament seats and adding four state seats to the one they currently have.

Worse yet, the changing of political colours could set off a domino effect and embolden other MPs to join the Opposition.

That is why Yong Teck Lee’s name is on the lips of many BN politicians and why some of them are making a beeline for Sabah to appease him and persuade the former Chief Minister of Sabah that he will have a role to play in Kuala Lumpur, possibly as a senator.

But this olive branch may not be sufficient to entice Yong. He is prepared to wait a while and find out if Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi can hush his critics in Umno and stay on in power.

In this regard, he is like many other Sabah politicians who are upset with Abdullah for not recognising the role that the state played in keeping BN in power. They feel that Sabah and Sarawak should have obtained a large share of ministerial positions than states like Selangor.

Abdullah knows that they are restless and has made several promises to them including appointing more Sabahans to senior positions in the Federal civil service and government-linked companies. But they sense that the PM is vulnerable and are going for the jugular.

Today it was Datuk Seri Ghapur Salleh’s (BN-Kalabakan) turn to up the ante. Referring to rumours that many BN MPs in Sabah may join the Opposition, he said: “We have never jumped. We can move by simply forming a new party. Then we can decide as to where we want to sit, here or there."

Debating the Royal Address, he noted that Sabah had been sidelined by the federal government and had the Opposition breaking out in applause when he said: "Kita di Sabah mahu keadilan." Realising that there were Parti Keadilan Nasional politicians in the House, he declared that he wanted justice for Sabahans and was not referring to Anwar Ibrahim’s party.

He argued that Sabah and Sarawak formed the backbone of the Barisan Nasional but yet were not being treated fairly.

"Without Sabah and Sarawak there would be no BN government. Sabah and Sarawak has saved the Barisan Nasional. But what we got in return was three ministerial positions. There are double standards in the BN," he said. Sabah and Sarawak contributed 56 of the 140 parliamentary seats won by BN.

"We were given a portfolio to take care of the museums...is this fair?" he asked, referring to the Unity, Culture, Art and Heritage portfolio held by Datuk Shafie Apdal.

The other ministers are Bernard Dompok (Minister in the Prime Minister's Department) and Datuk Maximus Ongkili (Science, Technology and Innovations).

Ghapur said: "There is a state which has seven ministers while another lost to the Opposition has four Ministers," he said, referring to Johor and Selangor.

Ghapur wanted this imbalance to be addressed by a Cabinet reshuffle.

"I call on the Prime Minister to reshuffle his Cabinet to reflect the current power equation...If nothing is done to address the grouses raised by Sabah folk the state will fall into the hands of the Opposition. The political tsunami will hit us and the BN will lose, I will lose," he said.

He also asked for an increase in oil royalty from 5 percent to 20 percent, increasing the yearly allocation from RM500 million to RM2 billion.

"We can solve problems ourselves with that chunk of money," said the veteran politician, who told reporters later that he had not met Anwar Ibrahim to discuss crossing over to Pakatan Rakyat.

Ghapur is an influential politician in Sabah and his stark comments will unnerve Abdullah. The PM cannot afford any crossovers from Sabah and will have to move quickly to win over Yong, Ghapur and others. He has ruled out a Cabinet reshuffle until after Umno elections in December but may have to consider more meaningful gestures to politicians in the state in the mean time.

Otherwise, Abdullah could face more than just sabre-rattling words. He could face a revolt.

Sabahans poised to defect in the next few weeks?

Mon, 12 May 2008 07:24:31 GMT

KK abuzz with talks of possible defections

Tony Thien | May 12, 08 5:27pm

Kota Kinabalu is abuzz with speculations that the first batch of Sabah parliamentarians are likely to cross over to Pakatan Rakyat 'sooner than expected', possibly in the coming weeks.

When contacted today in Kota Kinabalu to comment on the rumours, state PKR chief Ansari Abdullah told Malaysiakini, “I am not privy to the timing but I am certainly privy to the fact that some are contemplating such a move.”

“Just wait,” was the response from his colleague and party’s deputy chief Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, who lost by a small margin to his brother PBS leader and Deputy Chief Minister Joseph Pairin in the Keningau parliamentary seat.

Speculations of possible defections are rife after Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman's brother Anifa Aman, the Kimanis MP who turned down a deputy minister post from Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, said in Parliament last week that there was nothing wrong in switching sides if there “was no more room” in the present ruling coalition.

Anifa had harboured hope that he would be promoted to a full minister after having served as deputy minister in the previous government.

Meanwhile, Pairin (left), a former chief minister and head of a Kadazandusun-based party that once ruled Sabah in the 1980s, dished out more fodder for the rumour mill two days ago.

He was quoted as saying that it would be the “natural feelings” of Sabahans to switch parties if demands from state could not be met by the federal government.

Pairin was apparently referring not only to the reported dissatisfaction of BN component parties when the prime minister failed to appoint more Sabah MPs in the federal cabinet but also the federal government’s inability to take action on many of the long-standing grievances of Sabahans.

Among them are the allegations that identity cards were issued to many illegal immigrants and the problems these migrant communities have brought to the state where they now outnumber local Sabahans.

Ansari told Malaysiakini that the only plausible reason why BN MPs want to cross over was their unhappiness over a litany of issues affecting Sabah.

To a question, he said the BN MPs contemplating the move are not only from Umno Sabah but also a number of other component parties.

Ansari declined to name the parties, saying this was out of respect for those who were mulling the move, but the people would know in due course.

Malaysiakini, however, learnt that among the MPs likely to cross over to Pakatan are those from PBS and SAPP - both member of the ruling BN coalition - in addition to a number from Umno.

Less talk of crossover in Sarawak

A Kota Kinabalu-based senior journalist told Malaysiakini that one compelling reason for the BN MPs to seriously considering joining Pakatan is that they would stand a good chance of being offered full ministerial positions in the new government and to be able to do more to resolve some of the serious problems affecting Sabah.

“'The possibility of that happening is very great, especially if it is felt by these people that the Abdullah-led government could fall due to internal party problems within Umno and problems among BN coalition partners and the increasing dislike for BN policies which have been rejected by many voters,” he added.

“Sabahans are fed up. They want meaningful change and that change can only come about with a change of regime with the opportunities now offered by Pakatan comprising PKR, DAP, PAS and the home-grown political parties in Sabah as well as Sarawak.”

According to observers, talk about some Sabah MPs crossing over in the coming weeks has not come as a surprise as their defection could induce more to follow suit before Sept 16 - the date PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has indicated as 'D-Day' for Pakatan to take over the federal government.

Anwar at a press conference has reiterated that the federal government would fall by September.

However, there is less talk of a crossover in Sarawak. Nevertheless, many leaders in the state BN component parties have said Pakatan's threat to take over federal government should no longer be taken lightly.

Sarawak and Sabah have a total of 56 MPs and the BN controls 54, with the two remaining parliamentary seats in the hands of DAP (Bandar Kuching in Sarawak and Kota Kinabalu in Sabah).

Without Sabah and Sarawak, the federal government will not have a simple majority to form the federal government.

But even with the defection of all Sabah MPs, Pakatan would still fall short in forming government - it needs at least 30 and perhaps another five to 10 more should it wants to form a stable regime.

However, a switch by a sizable number of parliamentarians could further destabilised Umno.