Wither English, wither the nation

— Thomas Fann

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 21, 2012

JUNE 21 — The title of this article is inspired by a presentation I heard at an English language conference I attended recently. It was a gathering of educators involved in the teaching of English in schools and people who are committed to raising the standard of spoken and written English in our nation. Coincidentally, another article by Stephen Doss was published at the same time entitled “Whither the standard of English.” (http://stephendoss.blogspot.com/2012/06/whither-standard-of-english.html)

CURRENT SITUATION

For me, a few facts stood out. Firstly, the height from which our command of English has fallen in our nation as a whole. Most of the invited speakers spoke impeccable English, especially the “dinosaurs” amongst them. But they were from a bygone era, an era where English was the main language of instruction in our schools and our proficiency in the language was among some of the best in the world.

Secondly, there is a sense of haplessness among the educators that they are going against the flow, that the political will is not there to stem the downward slide despite all the chatter from politicians about improving the standard of English in our country. The reversal in the decision to teach maths and science in English is one such example of this inconsistency.

Thirdly, that the fruit of this decline is now maturing in our society, where we heard a newspaper editor and a hotel owner bemoaning the fact that they are finding it increasingly difficult to secure employees who are able to speak and write good English, which is a vital criteria in their industries. We used to laugh at signage and product manuals from China but now we laugh with them.

But alas, all is not lost especially when we heard from some of the younger teachers who spoke. Their passion, creativity and commitment to raise the level of English in our schools and their use of new technology are encouraging and gave us hope that there are still many out there who believe that English as a language is still important in this country.

ENGLISH AND OUR DESTINY

The link I want to make in this article is the link between English proficiency and the destiny of a nation, thus the title “Wither English, Wither Nation”, that is, if we allow our command of the language to decline, we invariably assign our nation to a bleaker future.

Through advancement in communication and transportation systems, we live in a world where we are intertwined to each other economically, financially, culturally, and socially. All these connections are facilitated by languages and in most cases, it is the English language.

In Stephen Doss’ article, he listed the following data related to the use of English in different situations:

1. 380 million speak English as a second language;

2. One billion speak English as a foreign language;

3. There are an estimated 1.7 billion users of the language. English dominates the Internet, the print media, business, aviation, conferences, other international events, etc;

4. Approximately one billion are learning English worldwide;

5. Over the Internet, about 80 per cent of home pages and 60 per cent of e-mail are in English;

6. English is the medium of higher education in many countries, e.g. India, the Netherlands, Oman, South Africa, Sweden and Turkey;

7. 85 per cent of the world’s knowledge is in English; and

8. 98 per cent of scientific papers are written in English.

NEW CHALLENGER TO SHAKESPEARE ENGLISH

Even with the rise of China as an economic superpower and along with it becoming a super influencer in all spheres and the fact that even now, by the sheer number of Chinese in the world, Mandarin is used by the most number of people, the place of English as the lingua franca of the world is unlikely to be displaced in the foreseeable future.

Renowned linguist David Graddol in the introduction of his book “English Next” (2006) said: “People have wondered for some years whether English had so much got its feet under the global office desk that even the rise of China — and Mandarin — could ever shift it from its position of dominance. The answer is that there is already a challenger, one which has quietly appeared on the scene whilst many native speakers of English were looking the other way, celebrating the rising hegemony of their language. The new language which is rapidly ousting the language of Shakespeare as the world’s lingua franca is English itself — English in its new global form, this is not English as we have known it, and have taught it in the past as a foreign language. It is a new phenomenon, and if it represents any kind of triumph, it is probably not a cause of celebration by native speakers.”

OPEN-SOURCE LANGUAGE

In other words, English is no longer owned by native English speakers but by the global community. Increasingly so it is no longer considered as a foreign language and in its evolving form certainly not exotic. Its development as a language is no longer determined by the native speakers and not constrained by the technical rules of English grammar and sentence construction but are shaped by practical functionality and by the global community. For the purists, this is scary and disturbing but for the rest of the world, it is our global language.

Another way to understand what is happening is to borrow a term from the IT world. English is an “open-source” language because unlike French or Arabic, I am told, it doesn’t have an official governing body to decide what can or cannot be added to the language. As a result, newly invented words are added to the English vocabulary every day by individuals and organisations across the globe.

MISGUIDED NATIONALISM

While the nations of the world are waking up to the fact that for globalisation to work they must have a global language and most have voted to go with English, including China. We as a nation have chosen to walk away from the rich heritage we inherited from the British and have systematically dismantled our advantage in this language. Why, when and how did it happen? It has to do with nationalism and nation-building.

Some may argue that our standard of English is still all right, like the gentleman from the state education department who closed the above-mentioned English conference by giving his speech entirely in Malay. He presented glowing statistics of the passing rates of English in national and vernacular schools. Impressive stats, 85 per cent passing rates, 75 per cent, etc. But these figures are meaningless! I know of a private school whose Grade 2 class (eight year olds) are able to pass the UPSR English with scores of 60 and above. Let’s not fool ourselves. English in the nation has withered! Lowering the standard to raise the passing rates fools no one but ourselves.

The ultra-nationalists amongst us may argue that giving priority to the teaching of English in our country tantamount to linguistic imperialism for we are reverting back to the language of our colonial masters. Whilst one does recognise the importance of Bahasa Melayu as the national language in forging a Malaysian identity, we must not condemn our children to a future where they are not equipped with the language skills needed to communicate with the rest of the world.

DIRE CONSEQUENCES

If we believe that learning is a life-long process and does not end with our formal education and exams, we would be severely restricting our children’s ability to access the vast repository of knowledge if they cannot understand English. The information age would pass them by if they can’t read the information. Have you ever been to a country where all the signage are written in a language foreign to you? I have. You might as well be a blind and mute man!

Another outcome of not making the English language one of the main languages in our national school system is that we are creating a new class system based on one’s proficiency in the English language. Those who can afford private or overseas education would pay top dollar for a good English education to ensure that their children have a head-start in life because they know that when it comes down to a choice between two equally qualified candidates, the one with the better command of English would have the advantage. I wonder how many of the same politicians who condemned our children to a national education policy that marginalise English also send their own children to our national schools? Or are they hypocritically sending their own children overseas to get a good English education? A new ruling class is being created at the great expense to the majority of Malaysians!

IT’S ABOUT MULTI-LINGUISM

Proponents for the reintroduction of English in our schools are not calling for the doing away with the national language but for multi-linguism. Malaysia, being a multi-cultural society, is uniquely placed on the world stage to be a truly multi-linguistic society where we can be proficient in Malay, English, Mandarin and Tamil. A typical Malaysian should be able to speak and understand at least three languages, the national language, English and his or her mother tongue. This is something many in the world would be envious of and would give us an advantage in the world.

In his book “English Next”, David Graddol saw a trend that “… in an increasing number of countries, English is now regarded as a component of basic education, rather than as part of the foreign languages curriculum. A surprising number of countries now aspire to bilingualism”. Basically, to retain a national identity, countries would continue to teach their national language but in order to be relevant in a globalised world, English is taught, not as a foreign language but as a core component of education.

IT IS NOW OR NEVER!

What should be the way forward? I believe we need to have an education system that best prepares our children for the future. By being proficient in English, we are giving them the essential skill to communicate with the rest of humanity, accessing knowledge and information, and become a contributing member of the global community.

It will take political courage and will to bring about a revamp of the education system and raise the standard of English in our country. Short-sighted and populist policies may appease some but in the end undermine the foundation for a strong and competitive nation. The longer we delay the reversal of making English a priority in our schools, the harder it would be for us to climb out of the pit as the generation of teachers who have had an English education retire or have already retired. It is now or never!

Benjamin Disraeli, a British prime minister once said: “Upon the education of the people of this country, the fate of this country depends.” Truer words were never spoken!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 21 June 2012, 12:41 pm and is filed under
Education
,
English
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Fixed term not ‘fairer’ without clean polls, says Pakatan

By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 22, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, June 22 — A fixed five-year parliamentary term would not be a “fairer” system for any party without the guarantee of a clean and fair election process, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lawmakers said today.

Ipoh Timor MP Lim Kit Siang said minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had “missed the point” when the latter made the suggestion for a fixed term yesterday, pointing out that many other countries that still allow the early dissolution of Parliament do not misuse that power.

“The problem in our case is when the decision for early dissolution is camouflaged in such secrecy,” he said, referring to the current uncertainty over the date for the 13th general election.

Lim said that in other nations, adequate notice is given to all parties on the date of the polls, as well as a lengthier campaign period, to allow all election candidates enough time to woo voters.

In Malaysia, according to the recently approved recommendations by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on electoral reforms, campaigning for parties has been set at a minimum 10-day period. The opposition and election watchdog group Bersih 2.0 have been lobbying for a minimum 21-day campaign period.

Several dates have been bandied about over the past two years as potential polls dates for Datuk Seri Najib Razak to gain his own mandate after taking over from Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 2009, leading to concerns in the economy over uncertainty in policymaking.

Opposition lawmakers have complained that Najib’s purported dithering was likely designed to throw their campaign off balance while the business community said the constant speculation over election dates has created uncertainty in their trades.

“This element of surprise that they hold in their hands, they have been using it in a very unfair manner,” said Lim.

Nazri had suggested yesterday that Malaysia allow a fixed five-year mandate for those elected in a general election, much like that provided for in the newly-passed “Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011” in the United Kingdom.

The Act, which received royal assent last September and officially comes into force in 2015, stipulates that the British Parliament will “automatically” dissolve 17 working days before the polling day of a general election.

The date for polls is fixed, and must occur on the “first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election”, beginning with May 7, 2015.

Malaysia, which follows the Westminster parliamentary system, currently allows the prime minister to dissolve Parliament at any time of his choosing before his full, five-year mandate expires.

However, the PSC had in April proposed a minimum four-year mandate for governments, stipulating that Parliament can only be dissolved after it has passed its four-year mark.

“Nazri is missing the point here. A fixed term or a non-fixed term is not the most important thing,” Lim told The Malaysian Insider.

“The point here is the abuse of power… in making use of money, media and machinery to win the elections. That is the real problem here.

“So you can remove that element of surprise by allowing a fixed-term system but it does not guarantee free and fair elections. Rather, it is about whether the Election Commission… is it competent? Will elections be conducted without bias?”

PKR vice-president and Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar concurred with Lim on the matter, saying that the implementation of a fixed-term Parliament would come to “naught” if elections are not free and fair.

“Agreed. It does help in levelling the playing field somewhat, reduce level of politicking and allows politicians to focus on day-to-day work.

“However, without a free and fair electoral process, everything comes to naught,” she said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 June 2012, 6:45 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Guan Eng wins second defamation suit against Utusan

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 22, 2012

UPDATED @ 03:45:31 PM 22-06-2012

KUALA LUMPUR, June 22 — The Penang High Court today found Utusan Malaysia guilty of defaming Lim Guan Eng, the second such ruling in six months, and ordered the Umno daily to pay him RM200,000 in damages and RM20,000 in costs.

The Penang chief minister had claimed a March 12, 2008 article headlined “Tiada Lagi DEB (No More NEP)” in the Malay-language newspaper which said he would abolish the New Economic Policy was inaccurate.

The DAP secretary-general said he had merely said his administration would be free from the “cronyism, corruption and systematic inefficiency” stemming from the policy.

The Bagan MP claimed damages as the article implied that he was an “irresponsible and unworthy” leader.

Although he had repeatedly clarified to the media on March 13 and 14 of the same year that he did not want to abolish the NEP, Utusan Malaysia continued to make the claim, Lim said.

The series of articles led to an Umno-led protest against Lim by about 1,000 people around the state government headquarters in Komtar after Friday prayers on March 14.

The ruling follows the December 2011 judgment by the Penang High Court that an Utusan article titled “Kebiadapan Guan Eng” had “maliciously defamed Lim, and made him and the DAP look as if they are anti-Malay and anti-Islam.”

In his statement of claim, the Air Putih assemblyman said the words used, among others, were meant to portray him as a racist who objected to anything related to Malays.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 June 2012, 3:26 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Media
,
Penang Government
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


JAWI ignores justice and fairness

— P. Ramakrishnan

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 22, 2012

JUNE 22 — Justice and fairness is the much emphasised virtue in the Islamic faith and tradition. There is no dispute regarding this. But does the Jabatan Agama Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI) project this virtue in its conduct and deed? This is disputable.

The Barisan government for reasons known only to itself banned the book “Allah, Liberty and Love” by the Canadian author Irshad Manji. The book was apparently banned on May 29, 2012 and this was made public 16 days later on June 14, 2012.

But before the book was officially banned, JAWI officials raided the Borders bookshop at The Gardens Mall in Mid-Valley City, Kuala Lumpur on May 23, 2012 and seized these books that were on sale. This raid took place six days before the book in question was officially banned.

In other words at the time of the raid there was no ban and no announcement that these books should not be sold. There was no justification for the raid. There was no fatwa issued by JAWI prohibiting the sale of these books. There were, therefore, no grounds for JAWI to act. Under the circumstance, the only conclusion that could logically prevail is that it was legitimate to sell these books on May 23, 2012.

The day following the raid, JAWI officials came again to the shop accompanied by members of the media and questioned another female Muslim employee of Borders. When she informed them that the books had been removed from the shelf as directed by JAWI the previous day, she was unjustly accused of lying.

On what basis they refused to believe this Muslim woman is beyond comprehension. The JAWI officials searched the premises thoroughly but found no evidence or trace of the book. They did not apologise to the Muslim woman for not believing her version of the truth. That would have been the decent thing to do.

On June 19, 2012, strangely the manager of the bookshop, Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz, was charged by JAWI in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court under section 13(1) of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 for distributing Irshad Manji’s book which was deemed to be against Islamic law. If convicted Nik Raina faces a RM3,000 fine or a maximum of two years’ jail or both.

But the fact was no such books were distributed or sold after May 23, 2012. This episode exposes the officials of JAWI as not living up to justice and fairness — the core value in the Islamic faith.

They were not just and fair in their conduct in this instance:

● It was not just and fair to charge Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz simply because the book in question was not banned on May 23. Under the law, Borders bookshop was justified in selling the books on that day. It was a legitimate transaction of a registered entity.

● It was not just and fair that the female Muslim employee was accused of lying without any proof. In fact, the search that was conducted in the bookshop produced no trace of the book in the premises.

● It was not just and fair that on May 30, 2012, when Nik Raina — together with two other colleagues and accompanied by a Borders-appointed lawyer — turned up to attend an investigation by JAWI, they were treated roughly and issued with an arrest warrant. They had turned up in compliance with the directives issued by JAWI. There was no justification for this conduct.

● It was not just and fair that Nik Raina was denied legal representation. This is a serious violation of her human right to legal counsel.

● It was not just and fair that both the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for Islamic Affairs, Senator Major-General Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, did not respond to Berjaya Books Sdn Bhd, which had sought their assistance and intervention on June 5 with regard to JAWI’s action.

Berjaya has rightly applied to the High Court on June 18 for a judicial review.

It is our sincere hope that the High Court would rule on the side of justice and fairness.

But what is disturbing is that the prime minister has not uttered a word in an issue that is glaringly unjust and unfair. Keeping a not-so-elegant silence may be construed as concurring with the unjust action of JAWI.

Our former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir, who seems never lost for words in commenting on issues and who finds it difficult to hold his peace, has not uttered a word on this glaring violation of fundamental rights. – aliran.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 June 2012, 3:53 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir’s remarks cause for concern

— Lim Sue Goan

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 22, 2012

JUNE 22 — Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has made many shocking statements after leaving office. In January 2010, he claimed that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were staged by the US government.

In a recent speech, he openly criticised Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s liberalisation policy. He said that the government was too soft in handling the Bersih rally and warned that too much freedom risked stirring an ethnic hornet’s nest. He later implied that he was not impressed by the government’s gesture to revive a Chinese independent school in Kuantan, believing that the vernacular school system has divided the country.

We should not overly discuss Mahathir’s remarks since he is no longer in office. However, it is worrying that his remarks might trigger the nerves of the party’s hawks and conservatives, resulting in more obstacles to the work of reviving the Chinese independent school in Kuantan.

During his administration, Mahathir adopted the authoritative style of leadership, which led to many disgraceful events, including Operation Lalang, suspension of judges and the movement to save government enterprises. Therefore, it has been expected that he would not agree with Najib’s transformation plans. However, Najib is the prime minister candidate of his choice. He did not severely criticise Najib like how he did Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Has he lost control recently?

Mahathir is opposed to openness and liberalisation. It shows that he has fallen behind the times. Democratisation is now a general trend, something which can’t by stopped by individuals, political parties or even governments.

He said that racial confrontation has become more intense nowadays and changes brought by liberalisation could inflame Malays. He wants to make liberalisation the scapegoat. Inharmonious racial relations are a result of racial politics, which has reduced mutual trust among the people. And he cannot not shirk the responsibility.

There are racial problems in the US and other democratic countries, too. However, black slavery might not have been overthrown without the help of democracy and the country might be facing a more serious racial problem today. A democratic system allows the Americans to openly debate, fight and resolve sensitive issues, preventing contradictions from turning into conflicts.

Therefore, liberalisation is not the cause of racial polarisation. Without liberalisation, the country would not be able to retain talents and attract foreign investment, causing the economy to shrink. The country will fail to move forward and the people will turn conservative and extreme.

Similarly, vernacular schools are not the obstacles of communication among young people. Instead, it is politics that has caused mistrust among them.

Vernacular schools show the country’s advantage of diversity. If mother-tongue education is suppressed for so-called national unity, it is actually just turning the clock back.

Najib’s transformation plans are heading in the right direction. The country will never get rid of the middle-income trap without liberalisation. The BN and Umno might not be able to keep power in the next general election without democratisation.

Even Myanmar has announced a second round of reforms to attract foreign investment. We have no reason to continue implementing a protection policy.

However, some people, particularly people living in remote areas, still believe in Mahathir, while the conservatives and hawks who have kept quiet “for the sake of the overall situation” might also have received orders.

Hopefully, all these are just unfounded speculation and the country will not stop its pace of transformation. Otherwise, we might fall into troubled times even before the election is scheduled. — mysinchew.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 June 2012, 4:09 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is there a need for more interfaith dialogue in Malaysia? (Part 1)

— Dina Zaman

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 23, 2012

JUNE 23 — Malaysia is not unique in its multicultural make-up, and the problems it faces. What makes Malaysia unique is Islam is the largest practised religion, (not unlike Indonesia) with a huge percentage of people who practise other faiths and beliefs. Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that Islam is the religion of the Federation, and that this does not affect the other provisions of the Constitution (Article 4(3)). Therefore, the fact that Islam is the religion of Malaysia does not by itself import Islamic principles into the Constitution but it does contain a number of specific Islamic features:

States may create their own laws to govern Muslims in respect of Islamic law and personal and family law matter. States may create Syariah courts to adjudicate over Muslims in respect of State Islamic laws. States may also create laws in relation to offences against precepts of Islam but this is subject to a number of limitations: (i) such laws may only apply to Muslims, (ii) such laws may not create criminal offences as only Parliament has the power to create criminal laws and (iii) the State Syariah Courts have no jurisdiction over Islamic offences unless allowed by federal law (see the above section). Much has been said about the country and its tolerance for the many faiths practised by its people. Malaysia makes for a fantastic advertisement on multiculturalism, and the infamous Malaysia, Truly Asia advertisement seen on television is proof of that.

The Myth of Malaysia, Truly Asia

Note the word ‘tolerance’, and herein lies the root of all the problems the country faces. In the past seven years, religious tensions dominate the news on a regular basis. “Perkasa (an all Malay ultranationalist group) ready to crusade against ungrateful Christians,” “Tension rise among Malaysian Muslims and Christians”, to name a few are some of the headliners seen by Malaysians and global community. These examples are rather tame, to put it mildly, especially when other news of animal heads being thrown into the compounds of mosques and temples dominate and promote an even more fearful, distrustful atmosphere.

Jakim’s (Malaysia’s Department of Islamic Development) guidelines for Muslims participating in non-Muslim festivals are cited as follows:

(Muslims may attend) the event (as long as it) is not accompanied by ceremonies that are against the Islamic faith (aqidah).

For example:

to include religious symbols such as the cross, installing lights, candles, Christmas tree and so forth; to sing religious songs; to put any religious markings on the forehead, or other markings onto parts of the body; to deliver speech or gestures in the form of a praise to the non-Muslim religion; to bow or conduct acts of honour to the religious ceremony of non-Muslims. wearing red costumes like Santa Claus or other garments that reflect religion; serving intoxicating food or beverages and the likes; having sounds or ornaments like church bells, Christmas tree, temple or breaking of coconuts; having ceremonies with elements of gaming, worship, cult, superstitions and the likes. [2] Leaders of religious communities and political parties have condemned such actions, and Malaysians have taken it upon themselves to quell this paranoia. Among young people and up and coming activists, dialogues, forums and gatherings have been organised where ‘The Other Meets The Other.’

There have been studies on ethnic relations in Malaysia, but on the macro level. If there is (micro) then these studies have yet to come into the public domain. Dr Patricia A Martinez’s survey on Muslim identities and their concerns, which is highly quoted and a reference, was published in 2005. The picture has changed in many ways, but this is best left to be discussed in another essay. Merdeka Centre publishes social surveys on a regular basis and its 2011 survey on ethnic relations showed that the divide is increasing; 39 percent identified themselves as Malaysians first, while 41 percent saw themselves as followers of a faith first. There was a 12 per cent decline in respondents who said that “ethnic relations were good.” “44 per cent thought it was just superficial unity. They (respondents) were mostly Chinese (50%), below 30 (52%), high educated and high income (> 50%),” the survey quoted. In another finding in the survey, “Those who stated ethnic relations have grown “further apart”  were mostly are Indian & Malay respondents, male and younger people.” Yet, there is hope. 96 per cent said that inter-ethnic relations were very important, “… to avoid conflict, create unity among each other and understand one another (culture).”

An Observation

As an observer and commentator of faith in Malaysia, I would like to say that this essay is by no means a solid study of inter-faith dialogue in this country. The work I do is a combination of research, interviews and observations. Some are anecdotal.

For instance, when the Jakim fatwa on non-Muslim celebration went viral on Facebook, and a debate on an Al-Azhar University thesis which said that the hijab was cultural, more than a religious obligation, an outcry was heard. The one comment I kept hearing was that such incidents should not be exposed, as Islam and its people would be ridiculed and mocked at. It was interesting to observe the outcry: the liberals went to town within their own clique, and the conservatives raged in their own circles. When I suggested that perhaps a dialogue, however angry, should be held, between the two parties, the suggestion was turned down. Both parties had their own opinions and were not willing to discuss and negotiate. Also, “… an Islamic state (and her ruler) has every right to censor what may be unhealthy for the ummah. If a debate can split a people, then it must not be allowed.” This goes against the principle of Syura (consultation among those affected)

Another observation which was ironic and comic in a way: the hijab thesis sparked a debate among women, and these women were observant Muslims who wore the veil. The women who donned the hijab, but were exposed, educated abroad, well-read were more forthcoming and willing to meet halfway, while the women who were educated locally in predominantly Malay institutions (not universities), had little exposure to global affairs and reading materials were the current pop flavour of the month, were vehement and refused to engage, preferring to condemn the thesis and the debate which followed it. They were also of the opinion that non-Muslims should stay clear away from discussing Islam because “… they were not Muslims.”

If within a faith, the believers (and this is by no means just a Muslim problem. Even the Christians have their moments) refuse to engage with each other, how will this help inter-faith dialogue?

There have been many inter-faith dialogues organised but they tend to be urban-centric and attended by stakeholders, the elite activists and public intellectuals, the converted and the ‘urban-curious’ or ‘urban-concerned.’ Then there is the arrogance (defensiveness?) of believers and non-believers – I will listen to what you say, but my way is still the right and best. Add to the mixture the generation gap: The new wave of ulamas who want to engage and meet with their non Muslim brethren. Here’s the old guard who view such interactions suspiciously. At end of the day, the agenda is the same, we may live together, and tolerate each others’ sentiments, but remember that Malaysia is a Muslim country, and it is populated by a predominantly Muslim people. We must protect our people.

Some recommendations I would like to humbly suggest when dealing with such prickly topics. The culture of thinking and reading critically is largely absent from the Malaysian psyche. Even among academics, religious and cultural priorities may influence their work. Objectivity and emotional detachment are not easy to inculcate but are needed. Sadly, our national education system no longer supports the study of literature and the art of the essay. The list of complaints is long but what we must do is inculcate this culture in ourselves.

Second — we need to learn to agree to disagree. As a former editor at Internet news websites, the commentators seem to be prone to hysterionics. Now that the Internet has allowed the space to vent, Malaysians, who are still infants at thinking and communicating objectively and critically, verbalise their thoughts, and not always in the most healthy fashion. The silent readers who are articulate and prefer to keep mum for reasons such as (a) being intimidated by a vocal crowd (b) not interested in being in a debate, should be encouraged to speak out. We must learn that disagreement does not mean to paint one in a bad light: it’s just an opinion.

Thirdly, the dialogues must move away from the cloistered worlds of NGOs and urbanites. It cannot be the domain of the intellectual and power elites, and the stakeholders.

Can The Media Help?

At the end of the day, news sells, and that is the business of the media, in spite of its lofty goals of upholding the truth. While it is responsible for the articles it churns out, it wants a readership. I am not saying that the media, mainstream or otherwise, create falsehoods to retain and attract readership, but sometimes both of them do not help the situation.

Just look for ‘Cow’s head’ ‘Perkasa’ ‘Muslim-Christian relations in Malaysia’ in the search engines of the media, and in Google. The reader would probably think that we are hammer and tongs at each other every day. Yes we do have problems, but it is not as if cows’ heads and porcine matter are flung at every mosque and temple on a daily basis.

And when a media organ seems to side a certain leaning — conservative, liberal, what have you — it stokes the ambers of fear and hate. It’s all very well to speak to the editors and ask them to tamper the contents of their newspapers, but realistically, editors have no time to deal with such issues, even if the issues are close to their hearts. Deadlines; content; sub-editing; closing the print newspaper; updating online on an hourly basis — the editor is a juggler.

We must also be mindful of contributing to the hysteria. The Internet which has allowed such sites like The Malaysian Insider, Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today to thrive, has created a monster in some of its readers. Columnists are well read and learned help very much in the fight against xenophobia, but with a population that is still struggling to understand the truth of its country and lacking the tools to do so, the fight can be futile. Internet penetration may be high, but is this influence positive? Are Malaysians reading more news, educating themselves about human rights and civil society, or are they watching pornography? What do Malaysians use the Internet for?  The European Travel Commission’s findings show the following,

Once online, Malaysians primarily use social networking sites. Almost three-quarters (71%) are keeping in touch with friends and family via these sites, a 24% increase from 2009. Instant messaging and reading local news rounded out the top three online activities. (The Nielsen Company, April 2011)

Malaysian internet usage is driven primarily by people in Central Region. The Central region, which consists of Negeri Sembilan, Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, led as the most dominant region for online usage, accounting for 54.4% of the total internet audience in Malaysia in August 2010, 51.3% of pages consumed and 52.6% of minutes spent online in the country, according to comScore.

Regional breakdown in Malaysia, August 2010 (Total Malaysia internet audience, Age 15+ – Home & Work Locations):

Total Audience: 100.0% of unique visitors

– Central Region: 54.4%

– Southern Region: 14.9%

– East Coast: 4.0%

– Northern Region: 14.9%

– Sabah: 5.9%

– Sarawak: 5.9%

The Star reported on October 13, 2010 that “Malaysians have the most number of friends on social networking websites like Facebook. They also spend the most hours per week on such sites. According to a survey conducted by international firm TNS, a Malaysian has an average of 233 friends in their social network, followed by 231 in Brazil and 217 in Norway. Japanese users had the least number of friends, averaging 29. The survey was based on recent interviews of 50,000 consumers in 46 countries.”

In light the abovementioned, how is the media to assist with such dialogues when Malaysians prefer to Facebook? — New Mandala

* Dina Zaman is an Asia Pacific Intellectual (API) Senior Fellow 2012-2013 and her research is on saints and their impact on Malaysia. Her column Holy Men, Holy Women is published by The Malaysian Insider and is on hiatus, as she pursues research. She has a keen interest in socio-religious issues and hopes to work on inter-faith dialogues and matters in the future.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 23 June 2012, 11:35 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Media
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ali Hamsa! Lepaskan jawatan KSN, tanding atas tiket BN!

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 24, 2012

24 JUN — Baru sehari dua menjadi Ketua Setiausaha Negara (KSN) Dr Ali Hamsa sudah bercakap politik,  sedangkan beliau adalah ketua kepada 1.4 juta perkhidmat awam yang sepatutnya tidak menyebelahi mana-mana pihak dan bekerjasama dengan sesiapa atau mana-mana parti yang dipilih rakyat.

Kakitangan kerajaan merupakan pelaksana kepada apa-apa dasar yang telah digubal oleh sesiapa yang memerintah yang diberikan mandat oleh rakyat.

Ali menyeru kepada semua kakitangan kerajaan supaya memberikan sokongan kepada kerajaan yang ada pada hari ini dan jangan mendengar janji-janji kosong dari pihak pembangkang. Walaupun beliau berasa berterima kasih kepada kerajaan kerana dijadikan KSN manggantikan KSN yang lama ia tidak bermakna Ali boleh menafikan hasrat rakyat yang ramai yang merupakan empunya kepada negara ini.

Penjawat awam itu pun kepunyaan rakyat dan dibayar gaji mereka oleh rakyat termasuk gaji Ali itu sendiri. Penjawat awam seperti Ali ini nampaknya mesti melalui kursus sivik yang asas untuk memahami apakah jenis negara dan sistem yang ada yang beliau akan tadbir ini.

Malaysia tidak lagi mempunyai KSN sehebat Abdullah Ayub, Abd Kadir Shamsuddin, dan beberapa orang yang lain semasa pentadbiran Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Dari menjadi seorang yang “impartial” Ali Hamsa menjadi seorang ahli politik. Jika begitulah keadaannya maka kita layan KSN ini sebagai seorang ahli politik.

Seruan yang pertama saya jika didengari elok Ali Hamsa meletakkan jawatan dan bertanding diatas tiket Barisan Nasional dan berkempen keseluruh negara untuk membuktikan yang parti pembangkang memberi janji kososng.

Inilah yang menyebabkan kerajaan sekarang sudah menjadi haru biru kerana mereka bercakap tentang isu yang mereka tidak sepatutnya bercakap.

Sekarang kita lebih diyakini bahawa kita mempunyai sebab yang lebih besar kenapa BN mesti ditolak oleh rakyat kali ini. Sikap seorang penjawat awam berpangkat KSN ini amat memalukan.

Mentang-mentanglah beliau melangkahi ramai penjawat awam yang lebih berkelayakkan dari beliau, beliau memilih untuk mengampu dan membodek pimpinan yang “incumbent”.

Kita ingatkan apabila Sidek Hassan bersara,  kita akan mendapat seorang KSN yang lebih mulia tetapi nampaknya hari demi hari kita mendapat pentadbir yang lebih keliru seperti beliau (Sidek).

Segala-galanya sudah menyimpang jauh. Pastikanlah yang PRU13 ini akan mengubah segala-galanya. Setidak-tidaknya kita akan ganti seorang KSN yang tidak sewel seperti ini. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 24 June 2012, 11:07 pm and is filed under
Politics
,
public service
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Civil servant or politician, Mr Ali Hamsa

 —  Gomen Man

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 24, 2012

JUNE 24 —  I get it, Ali Hamsa. You are so thankful to Najib Razak for jumping over the queue of more senior civil servants to become the Chief Secretary that today you did something unprofessional: you urged your subordinates who are supposed to be non-partisan to become supporters of Barisan Nasional.

By doing so, you have forgotten about the great tradition of the Malaysian Civil Service, that great body which once upon a time produced stellar gentlemen as Abdullah Ayub, Malek Marican, Bhupinder Singh. Civil servants who understood that their loyalty was to King and country and the taxpayers.

That is why they were so careful with how government funds were used and why they fought off any attempts to turn the civil servants into puppets for politicians.

But of course being a proper gatekeeper and neutral party is lost on Ali Hamsa. He headed the privatisation unit of the government and we all know that privatisation has bled the country of its resources, making the rich and connected even more richer.

You can picture this Chief Secretary being a yes man to all which his Umno masters tell him…and this will hasten the path of ruin our country has been set on.

Instead of telling the one million civil servants to be impartial and do serve the rakyat, he tells them to support BN and not believe the Pakatan Rakyat.

So let’s treat him like a politician.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 24 June 2012, 2:51 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Crime: Perception and publicity

— The Malaysian Insider

Jun 24, 2012

JUNE 24 — Datuk Seri Idris Jala has a tough job, to manage the performance and delivery of key government initiatives and targets from the economy to cutting index crime.

So, the minister and the PEMANDU chief executive has to work with the private and public sector on all these targets.

But telling the media how to report crime — be it solved or unsolved — isn’t really his brief. That’s just window-dressing, and there’s a limit to window-dressing, don’t you think?

The Sunday Star today carried an interview with Jala, where he called on the media to play its role in fighting crime and help arrest the “doom and gloom” by reporting on solved cases and not sensationalising crime by repeatedly reporting the same news.

“They should work closely with the police on communicating the cases that they have successfully solved. Sometimes, we need to arrest the doom and gloom by also focusing on the positives.

“If the statistics are not convincing, perhaps then we should try to dwell into how the police were able to bring the crime rates down in a specific area, for example, one of the hotspots,” he was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

Putrajaya’s efficiency unit has staunchly defended statistics showing street crime has fallen by 40 per cent in the past two years despite a recent spate of high-profile kidnappings and assaults.

These cases in the Klang Valley, one of which has left a teacher fighting for her life, have led to questions over PEMANDU’s claim that crime dropped by 11.1 per cent last year with street crime falling by 39.7 per cent in the last two years since crime reduction was made a National Key Result Area (NKRA) in 2010.

Yes, police statistics, where available, are pretty impressive.

But even within government circles and among some Cabinet ministers, there is little belief in PEMANDU’s figures or statistics.

Numbers don’t tell the stories that people pass on to each other, the violence and the fear among those who have been robbed in broad daylight or in the wee hours of the morning in what are supposedly safe areas.

In addition, there are several hundred thousand foreign security guards who protect Malaysian neighbourhoods, some which are now gated but still report incidents of crime.

It is an open secret that a fair number of Malaysians have lost trust in the police force and therefore don’t report crimes when they happen. Or often enough, are discouraged from reporting petty crime.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 24 June 2012, 3:04 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Media
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Monkey see, monkey do

Rom Nain

Malaysiakini

Jun 21, 2012

As the 13th general election looms on the not-too-distant horizon, the incumbents seem to flinch at giving us all a date when it will be held.

Indeed, the coast seemed clear for them to set a date some months back. But three letters, N, F and C, some related cows, cars and condos – and the predictable disappearance of few million ringgit of our tax money – started to screw things up.

Of course, no sooner had the minister involved been chastised and then, of course, cleared and forgiven, then the mainstream media got all that off our radar.

But, as the saying goes, it doesn’t rain, it pours.

So, despite the goodies increasingly being dished out from the taxes we pay, to soften most of us up – from one BR1M to the next, from one material promise to the next – truly ‘unfortunate’ official screw-ups still occur to further stall matters.

These screw-ups have really been too many to count. Very quickly, nonetheless, there was the brutality of the boys in dark blue on peaceful marchers, including news reporters, on April 28, the day of Bersih 3.0.

Such brutality, unfortunately for the perpetrators, was almost instantly broadcast on YouTube for all to see, complicating things further.

And in the aftermath of that worldwide event, the stupidity of the incumbents’ supporters, in intimidating the woman lawyer who had helmed the rally in late April, certainly lost them even more potential friends (and voters).

It is often said that unbridled arrogance will lead to our shooting our own feet. So, when the much-maligned Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Rais Yatim, declared condescendingly  that only about 22,270 people attended the Bersih rally, many shook their heads in disbelief.

And then, when it was later, officially, stated that 967 gas canisters and grenades were fired at these people, meaning that a gas canister or grenade was fired for every 23 people, going by Rais’s guesstimate, this same minister then had to explain (which he didn’t, of course) why the extravagance, why the excessive force.

Which, nonetheless, perhaps isn’t as bad as the truly moronic comment – by yet another federal minister, I’m afraid, this time the minister in the prime minister’s department – about the revolutionary potential of salt and water bottles.

Unbelieveably, he was quoted as saying: “Don’t underrate salt and bottles. If supported by the public, it can topple governments.”

While he’s renowned for his frequent ‘foot-in-mouth’ disease, this latest attempt at depicting April 28 as an attempted coup was clearly his most pathetic effort to date.

Even if we move away from the truly inane comments made about Bersih 3.0, other unfortunate events have turned up to make some  of the wannabe – though not necessarily ‘winnable’ – candidates look rather silly.

The recent ‘WWW’ number plate shambles was certainly one such event. It was truly ‘geli-fying’, as my 11-year old daughter, Elayna, would put it, the way that the (health) minister concerned tried to squirm his way out of explaining how and why he got the quite-expensive ‘WWW15′ registration number for his official car.

And I’m sure all this didn’t endear him – or his party and coalition partners – to an increasingly fed-up Malaysian public.

15 minutes of fame – or shame

But, of course, this is the land of ‘monkey see, monkey do’. Or as my French-speaking expatriate friend, Dr Matthews, would put it, singe qui voit, singe qui fait.

And in such a land, deliberately or otherwise, the underlings, the minions, the unfortunate wannabes also want their 15 minutes of fame. Sadly, more often it turns out to be 15 minutes of shame.

Indeed, though uninvited, they nonetheless start crawling out of the woodwork making seemingly profound, but decidedly inane, statements.

Such was the case very recently when one wannabe state chief pledged ‘free port’ status for the island state of Penang, only to be contradicted by his ‘big boss’, PM Najib Abdul Razak, who categorically declared that “the concept of a free port no longer exists” and that “the issue of Penang becoming a free port does not arise”.

But, nonetheless, despite the crass missteps, despite the utter stupidity, in spite of the vacuous comments made by supposed leaders, we are heartened by the words and deeds of seemingly ordinary Malaysians.

In this regard, I think we should now – and for a long, long time – remember the name Paulino Miranda.

His is not a common Malaysian name. But, I believe, that is because he is an uncommon Malaysian.

Rev Father Paulino Miranda, according to one news report, is the parish priest of the ‘only Catholic church in Shah Alam’. He is on trial for taking part in a peaceful candlelight vigil against the Internal Security Act (ISA) four years ago.

He could be fined RM10,000 or jailed for a year if found guilty. But he refuses to pay the fine and is willing to go to jail, if found guilty.

Amidst all the stupidity, selfishness and self-promotion, it is thus reassuring for us mere Malaysian mortals to have a true leader to look up to; someone who, according to the activist-lawyer-blogger Haris Ibrahim, “does not just attend to his flock from the pulpit, but also stands shoulder to shoulder with them when it counts most”.

ROM NAIN is a media analyst and  academic who is weary of incompetent, unethical leaders and their apologists and spin doctors in the media who try to get away with murder while professing to rub shoulders with God’s angels.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 24 June 2012, 2:28 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Corruption
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Najib prepared to declare that those who regard Chinese and Indians as “kaum  pendatang” are lunatic,  anti-national,  must be condemned by all patriotic Malaysians and will have no place in Malaysian politics or public service?

In trying to downplay the “pendatang”  (immigrants) slur oft made against non-Malay Malaysians, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is admitting to two things:

•	Firstly, the failure of his 1Malaysia Policy which he announced when he became Prime Minister  39 months ago with the objective to create a Malaysia where every Malaysian regard himself or herself as Malaysian first and race, religion, region and socio-economic status second;

•	Secondly, his inability and impotence to do anything to counter and wipe out this  divisive and insidious  mindset which perpetuates  a false, mischievous and anti-national  division of Malaysians, which is particularly ludicrous when the first-generation local born of one community could  call on a fourth, fifth or sixth-generation local born of another community to “balik China” or “balik India”!

In his dialogue with Chinese youths at University Malaya yesterday, Najib urged the Chinese community not to be offended by people who call them pendatang (immigrants) because such remarks are made by a handful of “lunatics” with “loose screws”.

He said those who utter such remarks intentionally say so to hurt the feelings of the Chinese community and that his administration does not share such  views.

He said: “I hope we are not too hurt by one or two comments. In every community, there are always one or two individuals whose heads are not quite right.”

Najib’s answer would be most assuring if it is true that it is only “one or two lunatics” with “loose screws” who made such offensive, insidious and anti-national remarks.

However, this is not the case.

In actual fact, the “pendatang” slur is most potent proof of the failure of Malaysian nation-building in the past five decades as well Najib’s 1Malaysia policy, as it is not confined to “one or two lunatics” but infected the highest levels of politics and government because of decades of Biro Tata Negara (BTN) indoctrination of civil servants and public officers.

Najib’s own special officer to the Prime Minister, Datuk Nasir Safar for instance had  labeled Indians and Chinese as “pendatang” and added insult to injury in declaring that “Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially women came to sell their bodies”.

Two years ago, at the launch of the Merdeka celebrations of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Kulai, the school principal Hajah Siti Inshah binti Monsar said:

“Pelajar-pelajar Cina tidak diperlukan dan boleh balik ke China ataupun Sekolah Foon Yew. Bagi pelajar India, tali sembahyang yang diikat di pergelangan tangan dan leher pelajar nampak seakan anjing dan hanya anjing akan mengikat seperti itu.”

Malaysians of course  still remember the incident in the Permatang Pauh parliamentary by-election in August 2008 where an UMNO division chief referred to the Malaysian Chinese as pendatang orang tumpang and totally untrustworthy Malaysians.

The “pendatang” slur is not the result of “loose screws” of “one or two lunatics” but the result of decades  of the poison of anti-national  indoctrination by state agencies like the BTN perpetuating Malaysians into two classes of people.

What has the Najib administration done under its 1Malaysia policy to develop an official policy backed up by a  national consensus that only “lunatics” with “screws loose” would make the  “pendatang” slur, and classifying it as a divisive, treacherous and anti-national point of view which must be condemned by all patriotic and rational Malaysians?

Malaysia will be celebrating our 55th National Day on August 31.  Is Najib prepared to send out a clear and unmistakable message that in line with his 1Malaysia policy, those who continue to regard the Chinese and Indians as “kaum  pendatang” are lunatic, positively anti-national who must be condemned by all rational and patriotic Malaysians in unequivocal terms and who should have no place in Malaysian politics or public service?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 June 2012, 2:57 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who do you trust on crime?

 — Justice Seeker

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 24, 2012

JUNE 24 — Who do we trust? I tell you who we should trust: Those who have a track record of telling the truth; those whose track record of performance can stand up to scrutiny.

Just think about all those people who you have trusted all through your life: your parents, siblings, classmates, colleagues, religious leaders, etc. Even when you did not agree with what they told you, you knew that it was probably for your benefit and, ultimately, truthful.

So we should use the same yardstick or gut feel to evaluate what Idris Jala is telling us about crime.

What is the track record of this man? He rode on the glory of the supposed turnaround of Malaysia Airlines, basking in the glory of accolades and reaping financial rewards for saving the airline.

Every publication talked up his “achievement” of turning around the national icon.

Now we are told that MAS was not really saved. There was huge cost-cutting, which hurt the brand immensely, but little was done to actually improve the airline structurally. Its business model was hopeless then and hopeless now.

I would suggest The Malaysian Insider actually do some old-fashioned probing on dodgy contracts given to spouses of union officials in the name of “industrial harmony”.

Or better yet, ask Ahmad Jauhari Yahya to come clean on what happened at MAS during the Jala’s reign.

Let us move on. Jala then became a member of Najib’s administration and czar of the so-called government transformation unit. Christians remember him very well.

In the run-up to the Sarawak elections, when the Najib administration was fearful of losing the Christian vote, Jala was tasked with the job of resolving many issues that were upsetting Christians, especially the seizure of Malay-language bibles.

He famously announced that the government had come up with a 10-point plan to resolve unhappiness felt by Christians. That plan was famously knocked back by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein and not much has happened since then. Even the Catholic Church’s right to use to word Allah has been swept under the carpet.

In recent days, Jala has been chastising the media for sensationalising the crime situation in the country, pointing to his crime statistics.

Should you trust what he says about crime? Does his track record hold up to any scrutiny? Just think about how many members of your family have been victims of crime over the past few months?

Do you trust them or do you trust Jala?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 June 2012, 8:08 am and is filed under
Crime
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anti Islam: DAP tidak bodoh

by Subyky Latif

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 26, 2012

26 JUN — Jika Umno ada kejayaan besar dalam perjuangannya setakat ini ialah ia dapat menenamkan persepsi di kalangan orang Melayu yang tebal Umnonya bahawa DAP anti Islam.

Inilah yang dijaja di merata-rata oleh agen Umno sebagai usahanya menyekat kemaraan Pakatan Rakyat ke Putrajaya.

Dan antara dalih orang Melayu tidak berapa mahu PAS menggantikan Umno ialah kerana PAS berkawan dengan DAP. Ada pun momokan DAP itu anti Melayu mulai reda kerana mulai ada benih Umno — dua bekas ADUNnya — menyertai DAP.

Maka yang rancak disabut dalam perjumpaan Umno ialah DAP anti Islam.

Saya tidak berhajat untuk membela DAP, tetapi saya hendak tanya, adakah DAP itu sebagai sebuah parti politik dalam masyarakat yang ramai penduduk Islam begitu bodoh untuk menampilkan politik anti Islam?

Sebagai parti politik ia bukan sekadar hendak melihat hasil dari perjuangannya betapa Malaysia jadi sebagai negara bersih dari rasuah, kerjaannya baik dan adil, rakyatnya rukun dan damai, tetapi ia juga bercita-cita menerajui negara atau sekurang-kurangnya parti pembangkang yang kuat dan disegani.

Bagi mencapai semua impiannya itu ia mesti mendapatkan sokongan rakyat dan majoriti rakyat Malaysia adalah orang Islam. Walaupun ada dalam sejarah kerajaan dapat ditegakkan melalui rampasan kuasa, tetapi amat sukar dilakukan di Malaysia, malah ia  tidak lagi mudah bagi kebanyakan negara di dunia.

Dalam apa keadaan pun jalan terbuka bagi membentuk kerajaan ialah melalui pilihan raya. Demi menentukan DAP terus berperanan dalam politik di Malaysia baik menjadi pembangkang atau pun lebih dari itu ialah kekal sebagai parti politik yang demokrasi, dianggotai oleh rakyat berbagai kaum, agama dan kebudayaan.

Kerana ia adalah benih dari Singapura, maka di awal kemunculannya ia tidak menarik semua kaum kerana Umno berjaya melebelnya sebagai parti perkauman Cina, anti Melayu dan anti Islam.

Selain dari kepungan itu, ruang yang terbuka baginya ketika itu ialah sokongan dari masyarakat Cina. Lalu ia menumpukan semua usaha bagi mendapatkan sokongan orang Cina bagi menjadikannya pembangkang yang boleh mengosongkan sokongan kepada MCA.

Ia dapat dilakukannya. Maka sekarang ia tidak perlu lagi bercakap banyak tentang kemahuan orang Cina kerana mahu tak mahu kerajaan terpaksa ikut bagi mengelakkan semua Cina dan India lari daripada BN. Walaupun kerajaan cuba bagi apa yang Cina dan India mahu tetapi Cina tidak tertarik kepada BN kerana ia mengekalkan rasuah dan berbagai penyelewengan.

Saki dan daki perkauman yang masih ada dalam politik Malaysia DAP tahu ia tidak boleh bersendirian dan ia memerlukan sekutu Melayu dan Islam. Untuk sekurang-kurangnya 50 tahun lagi Melayu dan Islam menjadi kuasa penentu politik.

Yang terbaik bagi DAP dalam masa 50 akan datang ialah menjadi sekutu kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh orang Melayu dan orang Islam. Ia dapat sekutu yang baik itu iaitu PAS. DAP tahu PAS tidak sebodoh yang Umno sangka. Ia tahu PAS juga adalah sepintarnya. Maka bodohlah DAP jika ia kira PAS itu bodoh dan boleh diperbodohkan.

Jika DAP menjadi juara orang Cina saja, tidak mempedulikan keperluan orang Melayu, maka sukarlah hendak mengekalkan muafakat dengan PAS. Jika ia jadi anti Islam seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh politik Israel dan setengah negara Eropah, maka DAP akan kehilangan sekutu PASnya dan akan hilang langsung sokongan orang Islam.

Dengan ia bersekutu dengan PAS dan PKR, tinggal Melayu yang berkarat Umno saja mengatakan DAP parti perkauman Cina. Orang Melayu di luar Umno sudah menerima DAP badan politik yang rasional.

Dan rata-rata pemimpin muda DAP sekarang mengikuti perkembangan Islam dan mulai melihat Islam sebagai kebuyaan yang baik. Kerana ia adalah parti yang menganut faham sekularisma, maka tidaklah ia menganut aqidah Islam. Pegangannya itu samalah dengan MCA, MIC, Gerakan, malah tidak banyak bezanya dengan Umno dalam aspek syariyah.

PAS merasa munasabah sikap DAP itu. Kalau sama saja akidah DAP itu dengan PAS, maka tidaklah perlu kedua-duanya berada dalam parti yang berlainan.

Oleh itu DAP akan memastikan dan melakukan apa yang boleh menarik sokongan orang Islam. Orang Islam tidak akan tertarik kepada yang anti Islam, dan bodohlah DAP kalau ia mahu menjadi anti Islam sedang orang Islam sekarang mulai senang dengan penampilan DAP. Ia tidak akan rosakkan apa yang ia sudah capai.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 June 2012, 8:35 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hanya ‘mutu mengenal manikam’, bukannya ‘Muthu mengenal Maniam’

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 26, 2012

26 JUN — Saya bersetuju dengan Dr Mahathir bahawa kita tidak perlu mengikut jejak cara Arab Spring untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan, kerana diantara Malaysia dan negara-negara arab itu berbeza. Di negara-negara Arab itu tidak ada demokrasi dan saya bersetuju dengan Dr Mahathir itu.

Kita tidak mahu terjadinya Arab Spring disini untuk mendapatkan kuasa. Kita memilih untuk mendapatkan kuasa melalui pengiraan undi didalam pilihanraya yang diadakan secara demokratik. Tidak ada siapa yang mahukan kekecohan dalam politik ini, lebih-lebih lagi pihak pembangkang.

Kerana tidak mahu berlakunya Arab Spring itulah, rakyat mendesak kerajaan untuk membetulkan sistem pilihanraya di negara kita ini. Negara kita telah melalui pilihanraya demi pilihanraya sejak merdeka tetapi rakyat sekarang sedar bahawa sistem pilihanraya dan demokrasinya yang telah terlaksana selama ini tidak sampai ketahap yang munasabah. Ianya berat sebelah dan sentiasa memberikan kelebihan kepada BN sahaja.

Pihak kerajaan yang “incumbent” tidak mahu melaksanakan sistem pilihanraya dengan betul kerana sistem yang betul akan menjatuhkan keyakinan rakyat terhadap BN dan akhirnya akan kehilangan kuasa yang mereka tamakkan selama ini. Rakyat tidak mendapat penerangan dengan adil kerana kerajaan tidak membenarkan parti pembangkang untuk menyampaikan perancangan dan kempen mereka melalui media massa perdana contohnya.

Di setiap pilihanraya pihak pembangkang tidak dapat bertanding dan bersaing diatas “level playing ground” dan ini tidak lagi disukai rakyat yang kian hari kian bermaklumat dan pandai menilai baik buruk setiap pihak; tidak kira parti yang memerintah atau pun parti yang membangkang. Dalam pada pihak kerajaan menghambat segala maklumat dan pengetahuan kepada rakyat,  pihak pembangkang dapat juga memenangi empat buah negeri-negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia ini dan telah mampu memberikan perkhidmatan yang baik kepada rakyat jika di bandingkan dengan negeri-negeri yang ditadbir oleh BN.

Tidak ada sesiapa pun mahukan cara mengambilalih kuasa dengan mengikut cara Arab Spring itu dan itulah sebabnya kerajaan sepatutnya memberikan keadilan kepada pihak pembangkang untuk merapati rakyat untuk memberikan pilihan kepada rakyat untuk menilai pihak mana yang lebih bersesuaian mengikut keadaan semasa pilihanraya itu diadakan.

Dr Mahathir berkata rakyat tidak perlu melakukan peralihan itu sambil beliau bertanya, “buruk sangat kah BN sekarang ini?” jawapannya ada kepada rakyat… Mahathir mungkin kata BN itu lebih baik dari Pakatan Rakyat. Tetapi itu pandangan Dr Mahathir. Pandangan rakyat mungkin lain pula. Itulah sebabnya kerajaan sepatutnya melaksanakan pilihanraya ini dengan adil dan saksama supaya rakyat dapat mengadili keadaan semasa itu nanti.

Apabila rakyat dibenarkan untuk mendapatkan maklumat secara adil, maka mereka (rakyat) boleh memberikan penilaian samada untuk mendengar kata-kata atau kempen Dr Mahathir atau untuk mendengar pandangan pihak pembangkang. Yang pentingnya dalam demokrasi setiap rakyat mesti diberikan peluang untuk mendengar pandangan dari kedua-dua belah pihak secara bebas dan beretika.

Kalau media itu adil maka pembangkang tidak payah berkempen dan berceramah dan BN pun tak payah untuk membawa pemimpin-pemimpin besarnya berkempen dengan “aggressive” di setiap tempat kerana jika BN berkempen ia adalah kempen yang sangat mahal harganya dan ia melibatkan wang rakyat.

Contohnya, apabila Najib dan Muhy melawat dan berkempen di Perak sahaja, belanja untuk membeli karipap sahaja memakan belanja puluhan ribu ringgit. Karipap-karipap itu tidaklah tembam macam mana pun. Itu tidak termasuk belanja untuk menaikkan khemah dan sewaan bas yang beratus buah untuk membawa orang ramai datang mendengar temberangnya disetiap tempat beliau melawat. Jumlah perbelanjaannya sampai ketahap jutaan ringgit.

Oleh itu Dr Mahathir jika benar beliau jujur beliau sepatutnya meminta pimpinan yang ada sekarang memberikan liputan yang adil di antara pihak kerajaan dan pembangkang. Tetapi beliau sendiri tidak mahu melakukan perkara yang baik ini kerana pihak yang memerintah begitu banyak perkara yang hendak dilindungi dari pengetahuan rakyat. Apabila kita tuduh begitu Mahathir dan pimpinan yang ada sentiasa menafikan yang kerajaan tidak ada apa yang hendak diselindungkan.

Jika tidak ada apa yang hendak diselindungkan apa perlu takut dengan liputan diberikan kepada pihak pembangkang. Tetapi pimpinan BN akan berkata yang pembangkang akan membuat fitnah melalui media massa perdana itu. Jika benar pembangkang membuat fitnah bukan kah itu baik untuk BN kerana pembangkang melakukan fitnah itu melalui media massa perdana yang ditonton oleh semua rakyat. Apa yang kerajaan takut sangat?

Saya tidak menjangka yang BN yang berkuasa sekarang ini akan memberikan kelonggaran ini, tetapi insyaallah kebenaran akan timbul juga akhirnya. Malahan sekarang rakyat nampak pembohongan BN dan pemimpin-pemimpin mereka melalui media massa perdana itu dan itu sahajalah tempat pembangkang untuk berpaut. Pembangkang tahu dan berkeyakinan yang media massa perdana itu “bias”, justru apa pun yang dikatakan oleh mereka melalui media massa arus perdana itu sudah dianggap sebagai pembohongan oleh kebanyakkan rakyat.

Kepada Dr Mahathir, beliau tidak perlu khuatir akan datangnya cara Arab Spring untuk mengambilalih kuasa dari BN itu. Itu tidak mungkin terjadi di sini kerana rakyat mahukan pengambilalihan kuasa itu melalui pilihanraya yang adil dan saksama.

Jika Dr Mahathir masih mempunyai pengaruh, beliau sepatutnya mendesak supaya kerajaan menerima dan melaksanakan lapan tuntutan Bersih 3.0 yang lalu. Tetapi kita tahu mereka (BN) tidak akan memenuhi tuntutan-tuntutan itu. Sedangkan tanpa memenuhi tuntutan itu pun BN akan tewas apatah lagi jika mereka secara “gentleman” memenuhi tuntutan itu.

Apa yang dikatakan oleh Mahathir itu benar, tetapi beliau jugalah yang tidak akan bersetuju untuk melaksanakan pilihanraya secara bersih kerana sudah terlalu biasa mendapat kuasa melalui cara yang tidak bersih.

BN menganggap jika mereka boleh mendapat kuasa melalui cara kotor, apa perlunya mendapatkan secara bersih? Yang pentingnya mendapatkan kuasa dengan cara apa pun seperti yang dijanjikan oleh Najib beberapa bulan dahulu.

Hanya kali ini rakyat diharap mampu menilai pihak mana yang lebih baik. Bak kata perpatah, “hanya mutu mengenal manikam”, bukannya “Muthu mengenal Maniam”. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 June 2012, 10:45 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sand, Sensibility and Singapore Bashing

by Koon Yew Yin

CPI

Every few months or so, the subject of selling sand to Singapore flares up in the media.

When this happens in the websites, the discussion takes on a polemical turn – with ‘patriots’ proclaiming how disloyal it is to sell sand to our neighbor; how we are selling out our national interests; etc.

The latest report out in the media states that a private company employed by the operator of the Tanjung Agas Gas and Oil Logistic Park in Pahang is being investigated for smuggling sand into Singapore (see
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/5/31/nation/20120531065041&sec=nation
).

Dr. Mahathir’s Double Speak

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why there is such an irrational reaction, especially when this comes from the like of the former Prime Minister of the country.

Readers will remember that when Dr. Mahathir became the Prime Minister, he stopped sand exports.

More recently in 2010, following reports that 34 Malaysian civil servants were arrested for facilitating sand smuggling to Singapore, Dr. Mahathir condemned corrupt officials in the following way:

“What these people are doing is selling a little bit of Malaysia, dig, keep digging Malaysia and give her to other people,” he said.

This is an irresponsible statement aimed at provoking Malaysians into treating Singapore as an enemy and instigating us to hate our closest neighbor.

The fact is that during Dr. Mahathir’s time, our economy grew as a consequence of our exploitation of natural resources such as minerals, timber, forest products etc. which we sold to the highest bidder in the market.

In turn Malaysia imported natural resource products from other countries.  This trade and international exchange is not only normal. It is also desirable and in the interests of all nations.

When Thailand sold us minerals or quartz products, would Dr. Mahathir want the former Prime Minister of Thailand to publicly denounce the sale and say

“What these people are doing is selling a bit of Thailand; keep digging Thailand and give her to other people.”

Safeguards Needed

Of course, we need to ensure that the exploitation of our sand and other resources is undertaken responsibly and transparently.

This means a system of open tender with the federal and state governments opening their books to the public on the licenses given out to quarries, dredging companies, timber companies, etc.; the licence fees collected;  the duration of the licence; winning and unsuccessful  bidders; and other key information.

All of this is missing right now in the current system of sand licences and needs to be corrected.  I recommend that this be done by the Pakatan Rakyat states so that they leave behind a legacy of transparency and accountability in this important sector.

But let us not forget that the corrupt system of negotiated and closed tender and lack of transparency and accountability emerged as standard operating procedures during Dr. Mahathir’s rule.

If anyone is to be blamed for the mismanagement and abuse in the exploitation of our natural resources, the finger of blame must be pointed at our country’s present leaders.

Environmental Considerations and Public Interest

We also need to ensure that environmental concerns are fully taken into consideration before exploitation of sand and other natural resources is permitted. I have sympathy with the environmentalists who are concerned with the adverse environmental impacts of uncontrolled sand mining on our picturesque beaches.

For this reason, proper studies need to be conducted and fears of adverse environmental consequences must be addressed in an open and transparent way before any licences are given out.  This is necessary for all projects including the Lynas one which has gathered so much controversy over the health and environmental concerns.

Sand Sales As Part of a Win Win Situation

About 30 years ago, Mudajaya Construction, the company I founded, was given the contract to fill up the Kelantan Medical University site with sand from Sungei Kelantan.  It is a well-known fact that Kota Bahru and other towns upstream are flooded because Sungei Kelantan is clogged up with sand. Hence the contract was akin to killing two birds with one stone.

Mudajaya was also given the contract to dredge sand from Sungei Tiram in Johore for export to Singapore.  The sand from the river was used to create the beach at Sentosa Resort in Singapore. In the process we not only cleared our Malaysian river and solved its flooding problem but we also generated jobs and income from the revenue received from Singapore.  This is a win-win situation for our two nations.

I am now no longer associated with Mudajaya nor have I any business interest in the construction industry. However I will support exploitation of our sand resources subject to the caveats I have set out earlier. If our country can sell 50 million cu m. of sand to Singapore at Rm 50 per cu m. Singapore will pay us Rm 2,500 million which can help fill the shortfall in Government coffers. At the same time, if properly planned, the dredging can eliminate the flooding for us.

What is wrong with this business transaction if it is carried out properly and with full transparency and accountability?

For us to be jealous of Singapore’s beaches created out of Malaysian sand is plain stupidity just as it is stupid for Singaporeans to want to see the Iskandar Development fail.  The fact is that economic exchange is in the interest of both countries.

A more prosperous and appreciative neighbor is always better than a poorer or disgruntled one.  Let us not cut our nose to spite our face or pay heed to the ranting of politicians who are anxious to recruit others to fight their personal ends.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 June 2012, 10:28 pm and is filed under
environment
,
Lynas
,
Mahathir
,
Singapore
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What Malaysians want in 13GE is not a revolution but a normal democracy where peaceful transition of power at national level is accepted by Najib, UMNO and  all stakeholders

Yesterday, former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad questioned the “clamour by some quarters to push for a revolution to topple the government when the latter was already giving a lot of priority to the people’s interests”.

In a forum entitled
“Discussions with a statesman – The commitment of graduates will be a catalyst for national progress
” at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Mahathir said there was no necessity for Malaysians to act outside of the law to topple the government as Malaysia had a democratic system that was much better than many countries affected by the “Arab Spring”.

Mahathir is in his classic and irresponsible self spouting perverse illogic, deliberately and mischievously couching the present phase of the democratic battle in Malaysia in misleading and tendentious context by invoking  the images of bloodshed, chaos, violence and riots by referring to “a push for a revolution to topple the government”.

Only very recently, there was  the monstrous lies about the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 as a “coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government” when  hundreds of thousands of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender gathered peacefully in a common national cause for a clean election for a clean Malaysia, armed at most with salt and water mineral bottles to defend themselves against irresponsible police  firing of tear gas and chemically-laced water cannons.

But whether on April 28 or in the run-up to the next general election, there is no “push for a revolution” in Malaysia.

Let it be spoken, loud and clear, that what Malaysians want in the 13th General Election which the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has kept postponing is not a revolution but a normal democracy where peaceful transition of power at the  national level is accepted by Najib, UMNO and  all stakeholders.

Najib is clearly very upset by a recent article in the Canadian daily The Globe and Mail which has categorized him as a “false democrat”, putting him in the same league as the world’s autocrats.

The article by award-winning journalist Mark Mackinnon entitled
“A 21st-century checklist of the new autocrats”
 categorises autocrats into four groups – false democrats, mad egotists, violent populists and callous capitalists.

Najib is  put into the first category, together with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

The ‘ex-members’ of the club are former Yugoslavia president Slobodan Milosevic and former Egypt president Hosni Mubarak.

This is Mackinnon’s description of the “false democracies”:

*Key characteristics: They hold elections but have no intention of giving up power. Serious political rivals are jailed and their parties are outlawed on legal technicalities. Mr. Putin’s spin doctors call it “managed democracy” – giving voters the appearance of choice while ensuring they have very little to choose from on election day.

*Reason for hope: Because they allow the trappings of democracy – opposition parties, some independent media, the very process of going through an election every few years – these false democracies create the possibility of change. Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Mubarak were ousted because citizens used the political space allowed them in a false democracy. Russia’s opposition has similarly been on the advance over the past seven months. The next election in Malaysia promises to be interesting.

*Reason for despair: False democracies give the impression of being freer than they really are, which means they rarely face the kind of international pressure that the really nasty regimes get.

The question at issue in the 13th General Election is not whether there will be “a revolution to topple the government”, as the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No”.

The Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PAS and PKR are fully committed to the ballot box  as the sole avenue for political and democratic change.  The 13GE will be the 11th general elections for the DAP in over four decades and the history and record of the DAP is unswerving commitment to the democratic and constitutional process to effect political change.

The real question at issue in the 13GE  is whether Najib and UMNO are equally committed to see Malaysia mature as a normal democracy where change of the federal government through the ballot box is accepted as a healthy democratic process and not one to invite threats of violence, bloodshed, chaos, riots or coups.

A week ago, I had asked Najib to declare publicly whether he is prepared to accept the verdict of the electorate to ensure a peaceful transition of federal government if Pakatan Rakyat wins the next general election.

It is significant that at the  post-UMNO Supreme Council press conference last Friday, Najib studiously avoided answering this question when it was posed by the press.

The question Malaysians and the world are asking is whether Najib is a “false democrat”, who “hold elections but have no intention of giving up power”.

This is why Najib cannot continue to evade the question – whether he is prepared to make a public pledge that he and UMNO would  freely and democratically accept the verdict of the  national electorate in the 13th general election and that he would ensure a peaceful transition of the federal government if this is the will of the voters?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 June 2012, 4:37 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Egypt: The 12 million losers!

By Ali Ibrahim

Al Arabiya News

27 June 2012

Simply following the comments of activists and observers on social networking websites during the press conference held by the head of Egypt’s electoral commission, Farouk Sultan, who was forced by law to issue a lengthy legal preamble before the election result was announced, was fun in itself. These activists, in their nervous state, posted various comments claiming that Sultan’s narrative or use of certain words meant that Shafiq would be declared the winner, only to return later to post other comments claiming that the indications now suggested that Mursi would be declared victorious! Some comments accused the head of the electoral commission of being sadistic, because he did not immediately announce the election result but instead left everyone on the edge of their seats as he reviewed the work of the electoral commission and the difficult conditions it operated under.

Despite a flood of conspiracy theories, claims of voter fraud, and talk about secret understandings being reached behind closed doors, no one was sure of the name of the winning candidate until Farouk Sultan announced that Mohammed Mursi had won ahead of Ahmed Shafiq. Hence a new chapter in post-25 January Egypt has begun, and the challenges of this stage are no less difficult than the previous transitional period, which lasted for around 16 months and was full of turmoil.

There was a winner and a loser, each with a large support base who voted for them, and neither can cancel the other out. The end result was decided by a difference of less than 3 percent, or about 900 thousand votes out of a total of roughly 26 million according to the commission’s figures, including more than 800 thousand invalid votes. In the end, everyone must accept the outcome of the ballot box even if the difference is so small.

There are several implications to such a small difference in the votes cast for Mursi and Shafiq, most importantly nobody can say they have an absolute popular mandate. Secondly, there seems to be an almost fifty percent split along societal divisions in the Egyptian electorate’s voting.

It was a good sign that the losing candidate, Ahmed Shafiq, sent a personal note congratulating his rival and wishing him well following the announcement of the election results. Perhaps Obama’s advice to the losing candidate, namely do not withdraw from political work but benefit from the experience, will serve Shafiq well, especially considering that he was able to win so many votes. It was also a good sign that in his first statement, president-elect Mursi confirmed that he would be a president for all Egyptians, referring to all the governorates, even those that did not vote for him, especially in the Nile Delta. If we want to lay the foundations for a continual democratic experience then we must establish a tradition of the loser accepting defeat and the winner reassuring those who did not vote for him, so that no election will lead to blood and violence, as some expected, or fiery and antagonistic statements in the countdown to the electoral commission’s announcement.

The reality that should be in the minds of the political players on the Egyptian scene today is that 13.2 million Egyptians voted for Mursi and won, whilst 12.3 million voted for Shafiq and lost. However, the concerns and views of the “losers” must be part of the new equation if we want to continue to move forwards, especially since there is a widespread belief that several million voted for a certain candidate purely because they hated his rival and had no other options.

The final two candidates who appeared in the Egyptian presidential run-off election, was a surprise in itself, and came contrary to the expectations of most analysts. No one expected Mursi or Shafiq to be victorious in the weeks and days leading up to the first round of elections, as other candidates were viewed as being frontrunners. However, it seemed that the public had a different opinion.

(The writer is Asharq Alawsat’s Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The article was published in the London-based daily on June 26, 2012)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 June 2012, 9:15 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
General
,
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Scandalous! Outrageous! Najib administration not serious about bringing Teoh’s killers to justice when MACC could take three times longer  than TBH RCI to conduct internal probe into RCI findings on criminal transgressions of MACC officers

It is downright scandalous and outrageous – the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission  (MACC) taking three times longer than the Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to conduct its internal probe into the RCI findings on the criminal transgressions of MACC officers resulting in Teoh’s death at MACC headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.

And what is the outcome of such MACC internal probe? To decide on the disciplinary action to be taken against the three MACC officers whose “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” had “driven” Teoh “to commit suicide”!

The MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Abu Kassim Mohamed said today that the MACC would first make its recommendations to its complaints committee before meting out appropriate disciplinary action against the trio.

The message is very simple and crystal clear – the Najib administration and the MACC are just not serious in wanting to bring Teoh’s killers to justice!

The TBH RCI took less than four months to conduct public hearings and finalise its report, holding its first public hearing on 24th February 2011 while submitting its report on 22nd June 2011. The 124-page TBH RCI report was made public on July 21, 2011.

The  RCI was formed after public uproar over  the “Open verdict” of an inquest 18 months’ after the tragedy of  Teoh’s death.

When the TBH RCI report was made public, MACC announced that it accepted with an open heart the findings of the RCI on the death of Teoh Beng Hock and pledged that appropriate action would be taken on RCI findings and recommendations.

When there was no action against any MACC officer, this led to another nation-wide outrage resulting in MACC succumbing 48 hours later to public pressure suspending  three MACC officers named by the RCI as responsible for Teoh’s death from further investigation duties pending an internal probe.

What is needed now is  an independent inquiry as to why the MACC has taken three times longer than the TBH RCI and has still not been able to complete its internal probe into the RCI findings with regard to the MACC officers who must be held responsible for Teoh’s death.

If  MACC has  really accepted the RCI findings and recommendations, have all the MACC officers concerned who had acted with impunity in utter disregard of the law resulting in the death of Teoh Beng Hock, and then conspired to cover up the truth and commit the crime of perjury both at the TBH Inquest and at the Royal Commission of Inquiry public hearings with false evidence, been  charged in court for various crimes, including the murder of Teoh Beng Hock?

On the approach of Teoh’s third death anniversary, let the Prime Minister and the Cabinet not only answer the above question but also declare whether the MACC or the Government are  prepared to publicly accept responsibility for causing the death of Teoh Beng Hock and make a generous ex-gratia compensation payment to TBH’s family, among other things, to minimise the family’s sufferings and to facilitate a closure of the tragedy?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 June 2012, 4:33 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.