Proposed GST will not burden the people, just a little rap on the knuckle

In drafting legislation, it is important to assess the intention and the problem the law seeks to address hence in interpreting legislation, British judges use certain approach such as the Mischief rule.

So when I look at the penalty provisions of the draft GST, I wonder why the penalty imposed is so harsh, especially when compared to Income Tax Act, 1967.

Taken from China Press's excellent report:
消費稅法案嚴懲逃稅初犯罰20倍 重犯罰40倍
SEVERE PENALTIES UNDER GST; fine for first offense is 20 times the tax payable , 40 times the tax payable if repeated offense

According to the draft GST legislation, GST evaders or people assisting acts of evasion shall be fined 10 to 20 times the tax payable amount, of face 5 years imprisonment , or both.
(note this is for first time offenders)
Repeated offenders shall be fined between 20 to 40 times the amount of GST evaded or imprisoned not more than 7 years of both. If the amount evaded cannot be determined, the fine shall be between RM50,000 till RM500,000, in addition to maximum 7 years imprisonment or both.

If you were to compare with the penalty provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1967:

An offence is committed under the Income Tax Act 1967 under the following circumstances :
Failure to notify chargeability ( Subsection 77(2) or 77(3) )
Penalty imposed is 10% of the total tax payable subject to a minimum of RM 300 and a maximum of RM 5,000.

In addition, there are other avenues such as appeal and settlement with the Inland Revenue Board, rather than being bunched together with murderers, rapists and other violent criminals.

An appeal may be settled :
a. By agreement between the taxpayer and the IRBM, or
b. By a decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax / the High Court / the Court of Appeal

Please note that if you are not satisfied with the decision of the IRBM regarding your appeal, it will be forwarded to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. If you are dissatisfied with the Special Commissioners decision, you can appeal further to the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Why such harsh penalties imposed on GST offence, especially when compared to income tax? (who is so desperate for $$$?) 

Is this a good approach to create a business friendly environment and attract foreign investors?
What is the intention for such harsh penalties?

Regardless of whether this provision is amended or not, the intention, mind set of the Barisan Nasional administration is exposed. Rakyat diutamakan illustrated.
Ahmad Husni (Second Finance Minister) added that companies with annual turnover amounting to not more than RM500,000 will not be required to collect GST hence under this condition, more than 70% of the Small Medium Industries will not be affected by GST.

Rubbish. SMIs purchase stocks, office supplies, incur repair and maintenance expenses and whatever not from wholesalers, service providers, financial institutions, factories etc which turnover easily exceed half a million a year.

SMIs who purchase something at RM10 now have to fork out RM10.40 and guess who they want to recoup from? Malaysian businessmen are great at raising prices and not so great at lowering them,Why give business people an excuse to raise prices? remember the aftermath of petrol pump price drop after Badawi's suicidal increase?

Once the legislation is passed, enforcement officers are empowered to arrest without a warrant. In addition, once with sufficient (note: can be pretty judgmental, this one) evidence, the officers are empowered to search any place, properties or transport vehicle without a warrant.
"if the officer has sufficient reason to believe that a delay in issuance of warrant will result in tax evaded items being removed, the officer can also commence search operations before obtaining a warrant".
- I wonder if the legislation left out this, "in the event of a death of a willing witness in the course of assisting tax evasion investigation, no enquiry shall be carried out provided that the officers involved declared that they have no reason to act in bad faith."

Ok, silly jokes aside, this is no laughing matter.

1st reading of draft legislation, protest of Pakatan Rakyat MP overruled.
Pakatan Rakyat MP protested at the first reading of draf legislation for GST act, 2009 because there were other legislation which were still being debated and not finalized.
DAP MP Manogaran, upon the submission by the Second Finance Minister (note: why we tax payer have to pay double? we used to pay for only 1!) for 1st reading, tood up and protested and appealed for the legislation procedures to be postponed.
他說,下議院內仍有許多未處理的法案等著議員辯論。 他的反對卻不獲下議院副議長拿督旺朱乃迪的理會
He stated that there are currently many draft laws unattended to and awaiting debates. His protest were not heeded by Deputy Speaker Dato Wan Junaidi (note: you never get to read this kind of things in Utusan).

- remember the last time a legislation ws bulldozed through Parliament? It was the MACC legislation and we got Teoh Beng Hock as a present from the BN administration.

The government shall set up a "GST appeal tribunal" to tend to appeals by taxpayers.
Those who are unhappy can submit an appral within 30 days and are required to submit all relevant documents otherwuse their case would not be entertained.

The tirbunal's decision shall be final and no avenue of appeal is possible.

In tax dispute cases, time is needed to collate documents, substantiate facts etc. 30 days?

Ok, if a company has proper documentation processes and diligent staff. Many SMIs are either ignorant, sloppy or tak apa and GST documentation is one of the most tedious filing undertaking. 30 days deadline for a GST case that requires the tax payer to back track a couple of years worh of paper work may not be feasible.

Shell Singapore, as I saw it with my own eyes (given its volume of transactions and resource available) has a GST department headed by an experience accountant with a full time staff just to keep track of all the sales and purchase invoicesplus submission and remittance records.

Obviously, people drafting the law has no idea how an accounting department works.

Section 96: those who have seek excessive GST refundc shall be liable to a fine of not more than RM50,000 or 3 years imprisonment; or both. The person so convicted shall face a fine double the amount refunded (not the excess refund??? - lost in translation ...or not).
Some fler, obviously a cybertrooper commented in YB Teo Nie Ching's blog that "we must trust the government in GST matters..." or something to that effect, well I hope he or she is happy now.

I wonder of other countries' GST legislation, carries such harsh terms...DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE? I can do further research if you want me to.....


Is the Speaker being objective or partisan

While RPK has his own piece of mind about the absent 20 MPs, I am attracted by this.

“The opposition should not have taken advantage of the situation when there weren’t enough BN MPs,” he said when commenting on the narrow 66-63 approval for Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s first Budget as prime minister.

Whether PR has a tactical decision to make it is up to them.

By talking this way, is the Speaker inferring his preference that the opposition should just keep quiet, roll over and comply, and by extension the rakyat of Malaysia?

and we do not call opposition opposition for nothing. Remember Najib's infamous "MPs cannot vote according to their conscience" remark following Shahrir Samad's agreement with Lim Kit Siang's motion?

If BN's MPs are just towing the line ala-feudal fashion, did Teresa Kok get a hairdryer from Lim Kit Siang for below?

Ucapan Perbahasan Bajet 2010 Oleh Teresa Kok, Ahli Parlimen Seputeh Pada 3 November 2009 di Dewan Rakyat

Datuk yang diPertua, memandangkan saya hanya diberi 20 minit untuk berucap dalam perbahasan bajet 2010, saya ingin terus menumpu kepada isu-isu yang dekat pada hati saya.

1.Pembangunan Teknologi Hijau: Feed-in Tariff Adalah Penting Datuk yang diPertua, di antara cadangan yang dibentangkan dalam ucapan bajet Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Kewangan, saya amat bersetuju dengan cadangan kerajaan yang memberi penggalakan dan insentif kepada pelabur teknologi hijau, kerana penggunaan teknologi hijau merupakan ‘trend” atau hala tuju kebanyakan negara di dunia ini sebagai langkah untuk menghadapi krisis tenaga.

The Speaker's rant continues...

“It should not be a question of catching the government with their pants down because that would not be a gentlemanly and honourable kind of thing,” Pandikar explained to reporters in his chambers here.

He added that Parliament is a gentlemen’s club for both the opposition and the government to debate questions of national interest.

- gentlemen's club? What has the Speakers done about the infamous "bocor-gate"?

The Speaker then did not raise a fuss and only after much public outrage, Bung Mokhtar and the other offender sat glumly next to Sharizat and apologised, "if only people are offended and not to the opposition" (correct me if my memory is playing tricks on me, there has been too many conditional apologies from Barisan National leaders, except Ahmad Ismail, not a product of SRJKC)

- and what about the UMNO Youth's jantan action on Karpal Singh

- and I am watching what will happen to the incident involving Shafie, the Dep Minister in PM department over his behaviour against YB Wee Choo Keong of Wangsa Maju

Maybe the Speaker is angry because "Najib had to rush from a dinner, organised by Cheong Hwa Private Secondary School, and changed his batik shirt before entering the Parliament."?

When Mahathir's policy goes wrong, Negeri Sembilan feels it too!

When Mahathir first mooted the Malaysia Incorporated Concept, it was explained as follows:


Prime Minister's Department Malaysian Administrative Modemisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) Director General DR. ABDULLAH BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

The Honourable Prime Minister has broadly definedthe concept of Malaysia Incorporated to mean a system of cooperation between the Government and the private sector towards the creation of a Malaysian company to achieve progress and where the profits accruing will be shared by all. The government is a shareholder in this company, and if the company progresses and makes profit, a portion will accrue to the government and subsequently to the people as a whole.

With that, privatization of Malaysian public service went into fever pitch from utilities to waste and cark park management etc, creating creatures such as Indepedent Power Producers, Indah Water (you never know how they calculate charges for the shit water), Alam Flora, Plus etc.

One of the basic tenets of democratically elected government is to look after the interest of the people who pays their salaries. The elected government must reign in, when necessary, when profit orientated entrepreneurs are acting against public interest e.g. polluting the environment, producing hazardous products and services, exploit and oppress worker etc.

Through enactment and enforcement of relevant laws and legislation, it would achieve such objectives. However, what happens when a government that is suppose to be monitoring and overseeing commercial activities goes into business?

Menteri Besar Incorporated is a creature of Malaysia Incorporated.

According to the Auditor General Report on N Sembilan for 2008, flood occured in Lenggeng as a result of logging activities approved by the State Government to Syarikat Real Strong (M) Sdn Bhd, a joint venture with Menteri Besar Incorporated N. Sembilan.

Source: Laporan Ketua Audit Negara, Aktiviti Jabatan/Agensi Dan Pengurusan yarikat Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan Tahun 2008

According to Pejabat Menteri Besar, one of the key function is

~ Pejabat Menteri Besar juga bertugas menjadi tenaga pemantau kepada semua dasar dan projek yang dilaksanakan oleh Menteri Besar.

Commonsense will tell us that there is a conflict of interest. You can't oversee / regulate commercial projects when you are doing it yourself. The state government can't approve a commercial project whereby the head of the administration stands to profit from it.

Companies Act, 1965, provides that when a company is deciding on a commercial transation with another company where its director are aslo having an interest in, which would result in a conflict of interest situation, the director so affected must declare his interest in the other company and cannot vote in the board of director meeting that decides whether to enter into that transation/venture of not.

So why is there 2 sets of laws for Malaysians?

If the Pejabat Menteri Besar is an effective "Pemantau" then how come,

* Menteri Besar Incorporated borrowed more than RM260 million from state coffers and made no repayments from 2004 till 2008?

* The Auditor General has this to say about the MBI:

“Penurunan (pelaburan saham negeri) ini antaranya adalah disebabkan oleh Lain-lain Pelaburan berjumlah RM1.82 juta yang merupakan pelaburan oleh Menteri Besar Incoporated telah dikeluarkan daripada Penyata Akaun Memorandum. Pelaburan tersebut diuruskan oleh Menteri Besar Incoporated telah dikeluarkan daripada Penyata Akaun Memorandum secara berasingan. Semua hasil pelaburan yang diperolehi tidak diperakaunkan sebagai hasil Kerajaan Negeri.Kerajaan Negeri juga tidak mempunyai sebarang pegangan saham dalam syarikat milik Menteri Besar Incoporated.”

See, Mahathir wanted the following:

@ a system of cooperation between government and private sector

yet and our NS MB, along with other MBIs, dabble directly in business or as joint venture partner, which in itself already result in losing independence and put itself into position of conflict of interest

@ profit accrued shared by all?

MBI "borrowed money" without repaying (as good as taking a special bonus) and took over state investment fund without being accountable at all.

@ the state government is suppose to be a shareholder but how come MBI NS excluded the state government as a shareholder? the original spirit of Malaysia Incorporated is gone, replaced by a bastardise version of convenience.

Is this a result of all this foul up?

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 30 — Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan has found himself in a pickle over his alleged transfer of RM10 million to London, due to the perception that he should have known better than to send the money through a money changer.

I tried to google MBI NS but found that it does not have an official website. Is this right?

For such an important, powerful administrator and recepient of public funds, it needs to be accountable, transparent and open with its purpose, objective, activities, results, achievement, membership and other relevant information which affect the welfare and livelihood of the people who pay the taxes or purchase the goods and services that finance MBI NS.

Nazri slagging off his old boss

Nazri calls Dr M a racist for defending BTN

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 7 — Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has called Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad a “bloody racist” for defending the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) courses, and reasserted the Cabinet’s earlier decision to overhaul the programme.

Nazri pointed out to reporters in Parliament today that patriotism was not meant only for the Malays but for all Malaysians.

The above exchange just makes me wonder:

How come the status of a man who was so reverred until demi-god status can drop so low after retiring a few years ago? Compared to someone the grand old man despised, the other guy recently was called a legend by the first non-white President of the United States.

How much does UMNO value and respect its past leaders once he or she step down? Apart from Mahathir, Rafidah was reverred, so was Anwar at the high of his influence in UMNO.

What will be the reaction of DPM as the DPM himself was defending BTN openly not so long ago?

Here is an update since the outburst.

- DPM seemed muted and diplomatic...or is there simmering under currant not apparent to us outsiders?

- if Badawi's administration was riddled with his lieutenant's contradicting each other, Najib's one appears to be the same; so much for strong leadership.

- BN can't claim in-fighting as the sole characteristic and sign of disquiet of Pakatan Rakyat. If anything, Pakatan Rakyat's squabble is usually inter-party (a departure from BN where 1 party calls the shots over others) whereas in UMNO and MCA as well as MIC, the intra-party struggle are more prevalent.

Nazri is a smart man and he has the ability to talk cock with a straight face. The above talk back was 1 statement I agree with him thoroughly.

However, just google up his past deeds and one wonders why he does not articulate the things he probably know is right, but sticking to the host of nonsense like Lingam is innocent crap.

YB Lim Kit Siang's blog carries plenty of Nazri's excellent adventures:

Nazri insists Kelantan not entitled to oil royalty

Lingam Tape –
Nazri’s lame excuse and test for Cabinet tomorrow

How did
Nazri (Protocol No. 16) become Minister for Ahmad Fairuz, when CJ is No. 11 on protocol list?

Hindraf demo – Indian Parliament in uproar over
Nazri’s outburst

The ‘Stupid, stupid, stupid!’ Minister

Nazri stressed that BTN was funded by public money and that the funds should be spent properly for the betterment of all communities.

- has he been reading my rants? that's my line!

Assessing a BTN presentation material

Given the recent hoo-ha over the BTN thingy, I stumbled across this BTN course materialErti Kebijaksanaan” by Dato’ Dr. Nordin bin Kardi, Ketua Pengarah. Biro Tatanegara, Jabatan Perdana Menteri.

The subject is intriguing. The title of the presenter, a PhD, a Dato’, a senior officer of the nation’s top bureau, sounds impressive and I have high expectation of getting enlightened

According to Wikipedia,

"Wisdom is knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight….the application of knowledge needed to live a good life…. emphasized various combinations of the following: knowledge, understanding, experience, discipline, discretion, and intuitive understanding, along with a capacity to apply these qualities well towards finding solutions to problems."

Ok, does our good Dato’ Dr’s presentation imparts knowledge, insight and lead the participants to appropriate action plans for the benefit of the nation?

Page 1 to 4 gave a historical background to the nation’s path to independence. I suppose his message was our forefathers exercised their wisdom in rejecting the other existing approaches in gaining independence.

“Ada pula pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan yang ingin merdeka bersama dengan Indonesia….”

“Ada pula segolongan yang mahu mengiytiharkan negara ini merdeka seperti negara Islam seperti Pakistan…”

“Ada pula yang ingin merdeka dengan cara meniru cara India dimerdekakan, iaitu dengan melakukan pengorbanan”

“Ada pula yang mahu meniru bagaimana yang berlaku di Palestine…

Tetapi, pemimpin kita akhirnya memilih untuk sanggup memenuhi apa yang disyaratkan oleh British iaitu dengan cara berkongsi negara ini dengan kaum-kaum yang telah dibawa oleh British sebagai subjek untuk kepentingan ekonomi mereka."

I have no trouble with the Dr. having his own interpretation of historical facts but when there are too many “ada pula” this, “ada pula” that without giving complete factual references to historical figures and events, it dilutes his credibility.

Is it so hard to mention names of those involved? Was the Dr referring to Ibrahim Yaakob, Dr Ahamd Burhanuddin or who ever? Without supporting facts, I wonder is he expressing his personal opinion or commenting on historical facts?

In page 3, the Dr. wrote that “Pemimpin kita mengambil keputusan untuk berkongsi dengan kaum lain yang dibawa British ke sini dan berjanji akan menjaga kebajikan mereka”.

The presentation lacks a clear explanation on what is “menjaga kebajikan mereka”. Yes the Dr. elaborated that UMNO gave MCA and MIC seats to contest in the 1955 elections. However, to make a presentation more complete and objective, material facts must not be omitted.

In the course of “menjaga kebajikan mereka”, economic contributions of the “kaum lain” have to be considered as without these wealth so generated, there is no resource to be talked about let alone utilized.

On page 4 – 5, I think his historical commentary is insufficient.

“…British baru lepas menang dalam Perang Dunia ke-2!...kita tewaskan ini bukan calang-calang kuatnya...mereka mempunyai kekuatan senjata yang tidak boleh ditandingi oleh mana-mana negara di dunia ketika itu.”

Actually, in the 1950’s the United Kingdom was war weary after 2 shattering conflicts and started to grant independence to its colonies.

Fighting against the Communist Party of Malaya was also a drain of their resource they could not afford. To call the Brits unmatched by any nation then would be pure ignorance of the position of power occupied by the United States, Soviet Union and even the newly formed People’s Republic of China (who placed 1.3 million troops in North Korea and fought the United States and United Nations to a stalemate then.)

Remember the ruckus when Dr. Lim Teik Gee produced his research that Bumiputra shareholding has exceeded 30% and various BN government officials were adamant that it was still well below 30%? Well, on page 8, Dr Nordin mentioned that,

“Pada tahun 2000 misalnya di papan pertama terdapat 55.79 billion saham Bumiputra, 52.60 billion adalah milik bukan Bumuputra … jumlahnya 132.22 billion”….that makes it Bumiputra at 42.2% and the non-Bumiputra 39.8%....

If both the Main and the Second Board are combined, the Dr wrote that

“…konteks bursa saham. 59.68 billion ialah Bumiputra, 59.03 billion bukan Bumiputra…” that makes is Bumi 41.6% and non Bumi 41.1%...."

Well done, NEP….now who are we to believe now?

At this stage I wonder what “Kebijaksanaan” the Dr is talking about, apart from Tunku Abdul Rahman (the only name he mentioned, or capable of mentioning) sharing the country with the British’s imported labourers.

Then from page 9 till 16 onwards, I believe the Dr’s true feelings were honesty advocated in his presentation.

“Kepada kaum Bumiputera yang begitu berminat dan bercita-cita untuk bekerja di sektor kerajaan, mestilah berusaha dan menanamkan dalam diri “Aku mesti mengubah” …”Aku mesti berlatih deripada sekarang untuk memasuki bidang perniagaan supaya keadaan ini berubah”

- the Dr has every right to advocate whatever in his mind in a civilised manner but the above statement belongs more to a Malay Chamber of Commerce Workshop rather than a Biro Tata Negara financed by all Malaysian taxpayers.

“….mahasiswa lepasan universiti tidak mempunyai pekerjaan….kalau tidak ada syarikat-syarikat milik Bumiputra yang memiliki sazi seperti yang dinyatakan tadi, kita tidak boleh mengharapjan orang lain untuk menyerap kaum Bumiputra bekerja di syarikat mereka”.

- dear Dr. first of all, are all our graduates supposed to be graduates in the first place?

- Ok, leave that aside, are they employable with the kind of education process that they went through?

- Finally why oh why Bumiputra graduates have to be employed by Bumi companies ONLY? *

- Isn’t it better to produce graduates that are employable human capital that can be hired by local companies as well as MNCs whether they are in Malaysia or outside Malaysia?

- How does this reconcile to Najib’s call for going “Glokal” and "1Malaysia" when Bumi graduates only congregates in Bumi companies?

- How does this reconcile with our calls for foreign direct investments when we are interested in producing local graduates only fit for working in companies set up by their own race?

- How can this kind of human capital qualify for “high value jobs” the PM recently advocated in his budget speech?

* if vernacular schools are being mentioned as a block against national unity process then what about the Dr.'s call that Bumiputras only work in Bumiputra companies????

On page 11, the Dr talked about the average monthly income of the various races, RM2,038, RM3,737 and RM2,038 for Indians respectively.

The distribution of income is more relevant. If the Malays are really poor, how come there are Istana Zakaria, Khir Toyol’s “RM2 million++” mansion, AP Kings, Datuk K's wonderfully arranged and televised wedding ceremony with Siti Nurhalizah, Bumi entrepreneurs & professionals owning and working in Petronas, Maybanks, MNCs etc?

If the Dr talk about the Malays are having the lowest average income hence I wonder why with many rich Malays around, the overall average is the lowest? Does this suggest among all the races, the distribution hence fairness among the Malays have the most issues? I suppose contributions to zakat, fitrah, ASB could have address the issues to some extend, right?

I would say the Dr. ignored the Gini co-efficient consideration.
According to the link, the equality income of the selected countries are as follows:

USA 15.9, UK 13.8, Singapore 17.7, Thailand 12.6 and New Zealand 12.5….and Malaysia, officially, is at 22.1, which bear resemblance to Swaziland 25.1 and Zimbabwe 22.

On page 12 the Dr talked about the room for improvement for Bumiputera’s education achievement, notably in STPM results in 2002 and close his paragraph with “Dengan keadaan yang sebegini semestinya Bumiputera akan terus ketinggalan

- at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to repeat, is this the right platform? When we tax payers paid for a nation building seminar for civil servants, just what are we getting? The above belongs to a Bumiputera self-help camp and please by all means establish that and address it there.

On page 14 and 15, the Dr. talked about Purchasing Power Parity. While admitting Malaysia (at USD8,340) is about 4 times lower than the natural resource poor little red dot which Mahathir despised (USD24,910), the Dr. consoled us that we are better off than Thailand, Philipines, Myanmar, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Indian, etc

It is easy to look good when you just pick people worse off than us to compare. When one needs to improve, try to benchmark against the better ones so that it would make us strive better. Try asking successful world class companies whether they benchmark against poorer competitors to shiok sendiri or not.

Going back to the definition of Wisdom, one of the expectant result of wisdom is “solutions to problems”.

After a good load of moaning, the Dr ended with page 18 “Marilah kita pertahankan apa yang ada, dan pada masa yang sama kita perbaiki. Jangan kita buangkan yang sudah elok.”

Just what are the participants are suppose to take from the above to develop into action plan I have no idea whatsoever. You can’t be more vague than that, can you? If the above comes from a Form 3 student, I can accommodate that but coming from ….sigh.

The above are just the few points I put down here to share. Of course I have much more to say but worry this would turn into too long an article.

My final thoughts is that the material presented failed to address its topic – “Wisdom” at a national level spirit building camps for civil servants working under the slogan of 1 Malaysia. This material, thought would be good for presenting at a Bumiputera self-help gathering or Chamber of Commerce.


unclear message and strayed from topic

tax payers' money wasted

I have not been enlightened, inspired and should have spent my time time watching S Factor on Youtube

MCA peace plan subject to UMNO's approval

Muhyiddin: PM will have final say on MCA peace plan
By Tim Leonard

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 30, 2009) : Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin yesterday said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak will review and have the final say on the next course of action to solve the leadership crisis in MCA on his return from overseas.

MCA peace plan subject to UMNO future how do they "fight for Chinese" as they always claim as their primary objective? What is MCA's problem? Greed? Face? Lust? or disagreements in really solving "Chinese" problem?

Also, does this make MCA as much as a puppet of UMNO as Nizar a puppet of DAP as claimed ?

Just after GE, some quarters in MCA claimed that it was UMNO's antics resulted in BN's (actually MCA, MIC and Gerakan) defeat in the polls. Yes, UMNO won and won well in its fight in rural areas. Since the little voices was raised, there were no more keris brandishing in the annual bash.

Since then, we notice how calm Koh Tsu Koon was when his photo was torned apart by some small UMNO local leaders and subsequent kiss and make up between Gerakan and UMNO in Penang.

Now, from unprecedent open air grumble by MCA on UMNO's antics, MCA now meekly accept peace plan to be approved by UMNO? Imagine the following 2 scenario:
  • in 1988, when Mahathir and Razaleigh fought and resulted in de-registration of UMNO, Ling Liong Sik or Samy Vellu stepped in before that happen and order them to accept peace plan formulated by MCA or MIC (gulp)
  • in 2009, as PAS's pro-and anti unity fraction bicker and threaten to break up the party, DAP step in and tell them how to stop the bickering, kiss up and make up.
    ..... perhaps UMNO should consider the viability and practicality of it going alone and ditch the potential achilles heels. Besides, in a poll run by Ong Tee Keat, more than 3/4 of the voters say it is better to leave BN, right?