The best (acting) prime minister

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Sep 9, 2013

No one will dispute the filial piety and devotion shown by Tawfik, the eldest son of Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, who was once called “The man who saved Malaysia.” Dr Ismail died in office, in his capacity as acting prime minister, effectively the best prime minister we have had.

tun dr ismail abdul rahmanDr Ismail was remembered for his non-ethnic approach to issues and his concern about racial polarisation. He had a strong work ethic, was a strict but fair man who adhered strictly to rules. He despised incompetence and lateness. He was feared and respected. He refused to grant favours even to relatives and close friends. He was highly principled and enjoyed debating.

He avoided conflict of interest and the British High Commissioner said in despatches, “Ismail was a man of formidable reputation for integrity and talent in all communities.”

Tawfik has sullied his father’s memory by aligning himself with the present, undistinguished Umno Baru politicians by suggesting that the controversial film, Tanda Putera be made into a mini-series.

Tawfik noted that many facts in the book, The Reluctant Politician by Dr Ooi Kee Beng, were excluded from the film and reasoned that this was why people had called Tanda Putera a piece of propaganda. It would be more judicious to say that many people consider the film propaganda because fictional scenes were inserted, to influence thinking and undermine people’s understanding of what really happened.

tan siew sinIt was stated in the book, that Tan Siew Sin (left), who was the MCA president in 1969, pulled MCA out of the government, after being severely criticised by Umno members for his party’s poor performance in the election. The present MCA president, Chua Soi Lek, did something similar after GE13 this year.

Unaware of the MCA withdrawal, Dr Ismail later called Tan “irresponsible and childish” for letting down the Malays and Chinese who had voted for the MCA. In letters to his friend Robert Kuok and the chairperson of Guthrie, Eric Griffith-Jones, Ismail had tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Tan to revoke his decision because the action by the MCA had initiated the riot.

As the book explains, Ismail had warned Tan of further polarisation and that the MCA withdrawal would play into the hands of both Malay and Chinese extremists.

Interestingly, the book also claims that Mahathir Mohamad, who had lost his seat to a PMIP (the precursor of PAS) candidate, had advocated that the MCA be excluded from the government. Ismail had also warned of “extreme racialists in the ruling party who were making a desperate bid to topple the leadership”.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that there were no riots after GE13 in 2013 because the rakyat has wised up to Umno Baru’s tricks, which are designed to create ethnic clashes. Multiracial Malaysia has been tested by the cow-head incident, the Allah issue, butt dances and cooking of beef burgers outside Ambiga’s house, the pig’s heads in the suraus, the forced child conversions and the seditious Utusan Malaysia articles.

The rakyat act with restraint whilst the government does little to diffuse the tension. There has been no repeat of May 13 because the government cannot pull the wool over the rakyat’s eyes any more, unlike in 1969 when the riots were a distraction, to mask the internal power struggles within the old Umno party.

Tawfik said that the opposition parties, DAP, PAS and Gerakan had “plied on politics of polarisation” in 1969. Could he explain why Umno Baru is dividing the rakyat in 2013 and not learnt its lesson from history?

Why did Tawfik say there was no need to find out who was responsible for the riots?

Isn’t Tawfik interested in learning the truth? Surely, the people who were responsible should be punished, if they are still alive. At the very least, the people who suffered deserve an apology.

An RCI is about finding the truth

Strangely, Tawfik said that no one would be happy with the outcome of a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) if one were set up.

An RCI is not about placating people. It is about finding the truth.

Tawfik tried to justify the reasons for not having the RCI by asking who would lead the investigation? He wondered where to look for the evidence? As in any RCI, a panel of responsible and trusted people would be chosen, then terms of reference will be set.

may 13 generic may13 riot racial race communal 190507Has Tawfik heard of primary and secondary sources, which are used to evaluate a historical event? These could be in the form of letters, diaries, news report, foreign despatches, intelligence reports, internal memos, eyewitness accounts, hospital and mortuary records, doctors and nurses’ testimonies, reports from the police, Special Branch and the armed forces, autobiographies, film reels. These are important sources to interpret a past event.

Tawfik’s justification of the historical inaccuracy which the producer allowed, because of a shortage of time, is disgraceful. His father would have found the slipshod approach quite unacceptable.

Other facts from the book would have been damaging to this government and to former PM Mahathir Mohamad. Some of the more interesting ones are:-

Ismail advised Tunku not to hand over power to the military. He said, “Once you do that, you won’t get it back.”

Robert Kuok asked Ismail who had suffered most in the riots, and Ismail replied, “Of course, the Chinese.”

NONEIsmail had wanted Hanif Omar, the police chief assigned to the National Operations Council (NOC), formed after May 13, to arrest the then-Selangor menteri besar, Harun Idris, “for murder”. Hanif persuaded Ismail to investigate the claims first. In the end, Harun was not arrested.

Wahab Majid of Bernama wrote that Abdul Razak toyed with the idea of “benevolent dictatorship” but was discouraged by Ismail who pushed for a return to parliamentary democracy.

In 1969, the Singapore High Commissioner, Maurice Baker, said that Ismail was strict and decisive, that he would arrest anyone who caused trouble, irrespective of race.

General Ibrahim Ismail, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the NOC, also said that Dr Ismail’s direct manner and uncompromising stance helped restore law and order, whilst Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen, an under-secretary in the Defence Ministry, recalled Ismail declaring that he would arrest his own mother, if she had done something illegal.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah claimed that Ismail had wanted Mahathir expelled from Umno and stopped two attempts to readmit him to the party.

NONETo gain an objective portrayal, Tanda Putera should have shown Ismail’s preference for Dom Perignon because his taste buds were destroyed by medication; he hated the term “bumiputera” and had stipulated a time limit on the NEP; Ismail had said that the special position of the Malays was a handicap to them and according to Tengku Razaleigh, the Chinese did not have confidence in Razak, but they trusted Ismail.

The book revealed that after May 13, Ismail was deputy PM and involved in an important piece of legislation, the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22.  Under this ruling, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had the authority to freeze or forfeit “ill-gotten” assets of public officials and politicians.

Ismail said that as the country was ruled by the NOC, there was no functioning parliament, and corrupt practices were not exposed. He pushed this new ordinance through because Malaysian politicians refused to resign even after being caught perpetrating unconstitutional acts.

Ismail knew that with the new ordinance, corrupt individuals would be treated as criminals. The act resulted in the removal of the Perak and Trengganu chief ministers, for corruption.

One hopes that the film did say that Ismail once told his Danish counterpart, that “we want to create a United Malaysia of Malays, Chinese Indians etc, just as the United States is a fusion of many different elements.”

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 September 2013, 11:29 pm and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“I was apolitical before… May 5, 2013, changed it all”

BY
DINA ZAMAN
 | September 10, 2013

The Malaysian Insider

Mazlyn Mustapha is a doctor. She enters the cafe we are in, in a crisp-like manner. Dressed in a blouse, long skirt, tudung and sporting sunglasses. Her hands are clasped tightly as she begins talking. She may cut a diminutive figure, but her speech is clear and measured, and she has very firm ideas.

She is from Petaling Jaya, and leads “a normal life. Nothing unusual.”

Her late father wanted one of his children to be a doctor, and when she received a scholarship to study medicine in Ireland, she did what he had planned for her. She did very well academically.

In short, she was the quintenssential school girl who excelled, and was expected to come back with a degree, marry, and practise, all of which she did.

A stranger in her own country

When she and her husband came back to Malaysia, they lived in Kelantan for awhile.

“To be honest, I had never been to Kelantan before that sojourn.”

She was a stranger in her own country. Everything was different there; the food was sweet, the Kelantanese spoke in their dialect, and life was quiet.

“I don’t mean to say Kelantan is bad, because it’s not, but it’s not home. I’m a city girl, and Kuala Lumpur is vibrant. I am sure the Kelantanese themselves don’t see KL as home, and wouldn’t want to stay here unless they have to. I need my polluted air!”

It is not just the few years in Kelantan that she has found rather unsettling. Having lived abroad, albeit for only seven years, but being trained, and used to a very efficient administration in Ireland, living and working in Malaysia has been eye-opening.

In Ireland, and Europe, many things are done online and within a stipulated time period. Telephone calls are responded to efficiently and with politeness.

“Now in Malaysia, if a doctor is not able to attend to a patient, his absence will be attended to by a locum. Our doctors are professional. But the administrative, operations side of things – you call and you are led around. In Ireland, they leverage technology, the Internet – it makes things so easy. ”

Being home in Malaysia has its pros and cons.

“The pay cut wasn’t very nice,” she laughs, “but you do have to sacrifice for your country.”

Malaysia has a lot of potential that has yet to be fulfilled. She can be so much better.

“I debate with my friends all the time, how come we have yet to blossom?

“Let’s take Singapore for example. Malaysia has so much more (natural) resources, and yet Singapore has achieved so much more. I think this has to do with the policies that we have. It is not based on meritocracy.

“We should recognise people who are good, whatever background they come from. They should be rewarded. Then you get good people working (here) and we keep them in the country. However, I realise that not all Malays agree,” she said.

It is time for change

She noted that Islam in Malaysia is practised in a peculiar way. When she was overseas, she welcomed the curiosity as she could explain her faith. It gave her happiness and satisfaction to be able to tell people what Islam meant to her.

Back home, she does not know what to tell her children when Muslims do not practise the basic tenets of their faith.

Again, she stresses that Malaysia has much to offer, but “things can get better”.

The Allah debacle, the Sunni-Syiah divide that she sees, is something she cannot grasp. She cannot see why there is a fuss.

“Islam has always been the same. It is the people who politicise Islam.”

She looks up as she mulls over her situation.

“It’s time for people in power to realise that the rakyat want a change, and not to expect special treatment. The recent general election has exhausted everyone.

“I was a different person before May 5. I felt politics was dirty and I refused to discuss it. After what happened, I realised I had to change. I could not not care anymore.

“I really thought we would have a new government, new leadership. I actually cried that morning. I had to work too and I felt that it was such a black Monday.”

So she has begun Facebooking with zeal now. Before it was just to socialise. Now she engages with her friends on issues and gets involved in causes and NGOs, as a volunteer.

“I have been thinking of participating in politics and I was thinking of joining a party. But my husband and friends are concerned. ‘Don’t Mazlyn, politics is dirty. You won’t be able to handle it’.”

Malaysia has progressed, she admits. Transportation is good. The LRT has been a godsend. Migrants working in Malaysia prosper in their way, and expatriates lead a good life.

“Malaysia is a place of opportunity. But at the same time,  there is still a lot to improve on. Students find it difficult to study because they have no money. There’s still poverty in Malaysia.”

She hopes when she is 50, and that would be when Malaysia is 70, things would have improved greatly and that she is part of the change.

She leaves the cafe in a very precise manner. One gets the feeling she will be part of the change. – September 10, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 September 2013, 9:42 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When was RoS DG co-opted into the Umno/BN Demolish/Destroy DAP (DDD) campaign and if not, why the modus operandi of RoS DG acting on the Umno/BN DDD script in the past few months?

When was the Registrar of Societies (RoS) Director-General (DG) Datuk Abdul Rahman Othman co-opted into the UMNO/BN Demolish/Destroy DAP (DDD) conspiracy and campaign, and if not, why the modus operandi of RoS DG acting on the Umno/BN DDD script in the past few months?

Initially, in the early phase of the UMNO/BN “Demolish/Destroy DAP” campaign, the RoS Director-General was fairly independent, impartial and professional, as evidenced from Abdul Rahman’s statement in January that DAP CEC re-elections “would only occur if there was concrete evidence there were discrepancies in the CEC election process”.

But in the past few months, the RoS DG succumbed to the pressures of the Umno/BN DDD conspiracy to undermine, destabilise and destroy the DAP as evident from the fact that the RoS DG was unable to state in writing the “concrete evidence” of the “discrepancies in the CEC election process” as to justify his directive for a CEC re-election to be held.

A study of the UMNO/BN DDD conspiracy and campaign in the past few months will show a  pattern of the Umno/BN DDD battalions setting the stage to attack the DAP leadership, and which are subsequently followed up and acted upon by the UMNO/BN leadership, including the Prime Minister or Cabinet Ministers, and the RoS DG, justifying the inference that the RoS DG had been co-opted into the UMNO/BN DDD conspiracy and campaign.

After the 13th General Elections results on May 5, the UMNO/DDD campaign has taken on a new agenda and purpose to try to undermine, destabilise and destroy the DAP as part of a larger plan to destabilise and destroy Pakatan Rakyat – initially centred on the mysterious booklet “The Equity Report (CEC Election Fraud)” by a phantom author “Father Augustus Chen”.

Although it was an illegal publication, having  neither printer nor publisher as required by law, and crammed with some 100 lies and falsehoods in its 12 pages, it was given “royal treatment” and  quoted liberally in the Umno/BN controlled media, whether print, radio or television, and distributed throughout the country.

From recent publicity and propaganda offensives against the DAP  in the Umno/BN controlled media, it is clear that the Umno/BN DDD conspiracy and battalions have undergone a revamp, as  lies and falsehoods against the DAP have been expanded beyond  Bahasa Malaysia and English media unlike in the first seven months of the year to rope in Chinese and Tamil media, as well as  recruiting new digits into the Umno/BN DDD campaign battalions like the so-called Jaringan Cina Malaysia (JCM).

Lies and falsehoods  continue to be generated by the UMNO/BN DDD campaign to give a false picture of division and disunity in the DAP leadership, the latest being that DAP Chairman Karpal Singh disagree with the various matters relating to the  holding of the DAP Special Congress on September 29.

There is no truth or basis in these latest lies, just like there was no truth in  the earlier allegations and lies  that “753 delegates, mostly Indians” were not notified of the DAP Party Congress in Penang last December and therefore deprived of the right to attend and vote in the CEC elections.

The facts were that all delegates to DAP Party Congress in Penang had been notified and that there was no truth in the allegation of “753 delegates, mostly Indians” not being informed. Furthermore,  only 100 of the 753 delegates who  were absent from the DAP Congress in Penang were Indians.

In the past, the DAP had ignored these lies and falsehoods, but this allowed  the Umno/BN DDD battalions to repeat the lies, pretending that our silence meant there was truth in their false allegations.

Just for the record, the  decision on the holding of the Special Congress on September 29, and all matters related to the Special Congress, received unanimous support of all CEC members, including Karpal.

The question now is whether the RoS DG will be acting on the script of the latest episode of the Umno/BN DDD campaign, following up on the latest lies and falsehoods of the Umno/BN DDD conspiracy.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 September 2013, 3:14 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Counter fundamentalism with “critical Islam”

 – Nazry Bahrawi and Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib

The Malaysian Insider

September 11, 2013

When the World Trade Center twin towers came crashing down 12 years ago, it was not just non-Muslims who were shocked – many Muslims were equally horrified. Consequently, it led to deeper introspection. For many Muslims, it was a turning point.

Just over three decades ago, prominent Arab intellectual Sadik Al Azm wrote a devastating critique of the Arab world’s political stagnation after the Arab defeat at the hands of Israel in the 1967 war. The loss gave impetus to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism worldwide. The solution to Muslims’ social, economic and political humiliation, it was believed, lay in returning to “Islam” as a complete ideology. Islam-ism would rival all other isms, from secularism to capitalism to communism.

At the heart of Islamism is an orientation that upholds the supremacy of “Islam” versus everything else deemed “unIslamic”. Syed Qutb, in his famous treatise Ma’lim fi al-tariq (Milestones), pretty much sums up the tension between what he deemed an “Islamic society” versus the “jahili (paganistic) society”.

Over nearly three decades, certain frustrated Muslim youths became attracted to this orientation known as Islamic fundamentalism. It was also a period of struggle for many Islamic movements to establish “daulah islamiyah” or the notion of an “Islamic state”.

This project failed, and its proponents continue to be frustrated by authoritarian secular regimes and their own intellectual deficiency in defining and operationalising the notion of an “Islamic state”. French sociologist Olivier Roy, in his insightful 1996 book, termed it “the failure of political Islam”.

Since the 1990s, the world has seen an increase in violent acts committed by Islamist movements which draw upon such frustrations. This culminated in the attack on New York’s twin towers.

If the 1967 defeat of the Arabs had propelled the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, 9/11 has paved the way for rethinking and critical reflection.

Could Islam accommodate the separation of religion and state, thus admitting that secularism is not anathema to Muslim political thought? Could Muslims be at home with modern values without positing these as an antithetical to the Islamic notion of what is “traditional” and “authentic”?

Was the dichotomy between “Islam” and “the West” tenable or even intelligible? These were some of the issues that posed a new challenge to Islamic fundamentalism. Critical Muslim scholars such as Mohammed Arkoun (Algerian), Nasr Abu Zayd (Egyptian), Abdullahi An-Na’im (Sudanese), Nurcholish Madjid (Indonesian) and Abdolkarim Soroush (Iranian) continue to push the boundary of Muslim sociopolitical thought — and ultimately challenge the dominance of fundamentalist conceptions of Islam.

As the world focuses on the continued threat of extremism within Muslim circles, it is equally important to acknowledge the work done by such critical scholars in the field of Islamic reform. Yet, this field of critical Islamic scholarship is not new: It was there in classical Islam where Muslim thinkers challenged existing ways of thinking and engaged with the corpus of tradition.

Take the work of Al Ghazali, Al Farabi and Ibn Sina, who were some of the most illustrious Muslim philosophers of the 10th and 11th century CE (Al Ghazali himself was subjected to criticism by the 12th century Andalusian thinker Ibn Rushd). Today, Muslims continue to acknowledge them as some of the faith’s most brilliant and diverse thinkers who set the foundation for the revival of Europe from its own Dark Ages.

In the face of recent growing conservatism in Muslim societies, this critical strand within Islam must be upheld. Its penchant for embracing new ideas could better equip Muslims to deal with the rapid societal changes that typify today’s knowledge economy.

Consider, for example, the Arab “awakening” period — the Nahdah movement in the late 19th and early 20th century — which set the course for intellectual and cultural modernisation of the Muslim world, as typified by the attempt to incorporate some of the best ideas and institutions from Europe and to critically re-evaluate a Muslim heritage beset by fossilisation and decay.

The height of Muslim civilisation in the 9th and 10th century, too, was typified by a spirit of openness and incorporation of sources of knowledge – from neoplatonic mysticism to Aristotelian philosophy to Indic metaphysical sciences.

In other words, it was the cosmopolitanism of Islam that gave rise to what Lene Goodman described as “Islamic humanism”. And it is this confident form of Islam that can provide an alternative to the apologist and constrictive vision of contemporary Islamic fundamentalist thought.

Today, much resources have been poured into addressing physical violence perpetrated by a small group of Muslim extremists driven by a warped agenda of planting the supremacist flag of Islam worldwide.

There is, however, a limitation to looking at the problem through a pure security lens. Violence, as the late sociologist Syed Hussein Alatas expounded, can also exist in the form of “intellectual violence”.

In fact, physical violence is a manifestation of violence in thought. The former cannot exist without the latter. The project of addressing extremism in Muslim societies, thus, must also start with addressing all forms of intellectual violence.

One form of such violence is to deny the rich and diverse intellectual heritage of Islam, and to argue that Islam is necessarily in opposition to everything else deemed as “secular”, “liberal” or “Western”. It is this tendency to adopt a monolithic and essentialised form of Islam that poses a danger to the dynamic, creative and critical tradition within Islam.

To reclaim this tradition is the task of Muslim intellectuals today who are at the forefront of developing new thinking in Islam. Against the backdrop of growing intolerance within Muslim societies, the way forward can only be through an honest, serious and committed rethinking of fundamentalist assumptions.

In this, “critical Islam” as Muslim thinker Ziauddin Sardar argues, can be a counter narrative for the Muslim public against the dominance of fundamentalist Islam. Where the latter generated an intellectual mess and a stagnation of Muslim sociopolitical thought, critical Islam can salvage the situation by reconstructing a new, cosmopolitan vision of Islam that is ethically grounded, socially committed, politically progressive and intellectually sound for today’s world. – Todayonline.com, September 11, 2013.

* Dr Nazry Bahrawi is a research fellow at the Middle East Institute-NUS. Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib is a founding member of Leftwrite Center. This commentary is based on a discussion on “Critical Islam as Counter-Fundamentalism in Muslim Southeast Asia” organised by the Middle East Institute-NUS, Leftwrite Center and Select Books on September 11.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 9:11 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Home Ministry, police turn a whodunit into a who’ll buy it?

by Elizabeth Zachariah

The Malaysian Insider

September 11, 2013

Wanted: A detective who can solve this mystery.

The whodunit: The Home Ministry says it wants to know who in the ministry had released to the media the names of 30 gang leaders – a name list which includes an MIC politician who has since threatened to sue the government.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar told The Malaysian Insider that ministry officials were perplexed about who released the names.

“We don’t know who did it but we want to know as well,” he said, adding that he did not know if the list was real or not.

The players: Bernama, the state-owned, pro-government news agency which took a rare stab at investigative journalism and reported the names on Friday, citing the Home Ministry as its source.

Another player, the police. They report to the Home Ministry but say they did not give these names to the ministry… to which they report, by the way.

“I don’t know who is the source at the Home Ministry but the input did not come from the police. We have our own list and some gangs listed by the ministry were already under our watch,” Federal Police secret societies, gaming and anti-vice (D7) principal assistant director Datuk Abdul Jalil Hassan told The Malaysian Insider in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

He added that police will contact The Star daily and Bernama to find out the source for the name list they published.

The backstory: the names of more than 30 leaders of Gangs 04, 08 and 36 and their “areas” were first reported by Bernama on Friday and picked up by The Star the next day.

This expose came as Malaysian were already reeling from reports of deadly shootings that came in daily within one week and still continue at a simmering pace. Public anxiety about crime has hit an all-time high but politicians and police continue to blame gang leaders released from detention without trial for the frequent shootings.

Quoting Home Ministry sources, the
news reports that last week offered the names of 30 gang leaders
, also said the suspects were active on their own turf.

Among those whose identities were made public as allegedly top gangsters were Tiram Sasi (Johor), Sungai Way Sugu (KL), Prai Bala (Penang), Langkap Sasi (Perak) from Gang 04; Indren (Penang), Dark (KL), Siva Guru (KL) from Gang 08; Cendol Kanna (KL), Devan (leader of the gang in KL and who is also a millionaire drug trafficker) and Kajang Kalai (Kajang) from Gang 36.

That last name refers to an MIC Youth Exco member, Kalai Arasu Muniandy. He has denied any such links and threatened legal action against the Home Ministry for tarnishing his reputation.

Meanwhile, Wan Junaidi has told The Malaysian Insider that he discussed the mystery of who released this list with Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and the Inspector-General of Police as soon as the story broke.

“All of us, including the ministry’s secretary-general, are in the dark about this. These days, anything can happen,” he lamented.

It is a serious matter releasing a bunch of names like that, lawyers told The Malaysian Insider.

They said the move to publish the names of suspected gangsters was unprecedented and should have been well thought out. As the Home Ministry was named as the source, Putrajaya is opening itself to lawsuits, lawyers warned.

“I wonder what defence the government will employ should there be civil suits for defamation filed,” said lawyer Amir Hamzah Arshad.

He said it was the taxpayers who would pay for damages if the courts find the government liable.

Things certainly could come to a boil if someone sues, but for now there is only the threat of a suit.

So the question of who released the names remains just that, a question.

The timeline to solve this mystery: well, it took all of five days from the day the names hit the media on Friday to yesterday for the police and the Home Ministry officials to express their befuddlement.

You may want to take your time to solve this mystery. – September 11, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 8:53 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Good Governance
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Look, who’s unhappy with our education system!

— Ravinder Singh

The Malay Mail Online

September 11, 2013

SEPT 11 — Well, well, thank you Education Minister II Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh for confirming what many Malaysians have long known.

He has spilled the beans, not realising that when you point a finger at someone, you have three pointing back at yourself.

Please tell us dear minister, how many children of how many elites in the country are attending Sekolah Rendah/Menengah Kebangsaan in Malaysia?

Do us a favour please. Besides having leaders of the country declare their assets, get them to also declare the schools their children are attending.

When the rakyat could see that the children of the leaders are also attending the local schools, you will not need any other promotional campaigns to tell Malaysians that our local schools are “setanding” (i.e. of equal standing) with schools in advanced countries such as Germany and the US.

So why tell parents who are not happy with the proposed changes that if they are not happy with the education system here, they should send their children overseas when the elites in the country, including some if not all of the top politicians, have already been doing so for donkey years?

Your call should therefore be to these elites and politicians to bring back their children to Malaysia and enrol them in the local schools for they are wasting money sending their children away from home when schools at home are just as good, if not better.

Actions speak louder than words. When the elite and political leaders all enrol their children in Sekolah Rendah/Menengah Kebangsaan, then you can ethically chide those who have no faith in the local schools. Until then, you do not have the ethical credentials to claim that the local education system and schools are among the best in the world.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 11:06 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Using Dr Mahathir’s logic

– The Malaysian Insider

September 11, 2013

Raise your hand if you expected Dr Mahathir Mohamad to have a conscience attack and blame himself and the Barisan Nasional (BN) government for Project IC – that not-so-secret initiative to hand identity cards to thousands of illegal immigrants in Sabah.

Well, if you didn’t raise your hand, you are in good company because the former prime minister does not do well before a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

He had an acute case of amnesia when he appeared before the commission looking into the V. K. Lingam video clip in 2007 and there was every chance that he was going to hit the didn’t-do-it can’t remember-it mode today.

Why? Because the former prime minister does not lose sleep just because millions think he is being charitable with the truth. In his own perverse way, he must always come out on top.

So, going before the RCI in Kota Kinabalu and sticking to his own story, no matter how ridiculous it is, is a win in his eyes.

So let us play along with the Dr Mahathir storyline. He said the government was not responsible for immigrants being given ICs illegally.

And his explanation: “These illegal immigrants may have been issued the identity cards erroneously or it may have been the wrongdoing of certain low-ranking civil servants.”

So, according to Dr Mahathir, thousands upon thousands of ICs were accidentally given to Suluks and other illegal immigrants from The Philippines. And this was either through the negligence or crooked ways of some clerk in a government department.

And while this was happening, should we also assume that the bigwigs at the National Registration Department and police were comatose?

Using Dr Mahathir’s logic, no blame should accrue to the BN government for anything. Because it is either an accident or the fault of a low-level civil servant.

There is no duty of care for a minister, deputy minister, parliamentary secretary or senator to ensure that a ministry or government agency runs efficiently and is not a nest of corruption. None whatsoever.

So using Dr Mahathir’s logic, we can also say NO ONE should blame the government for:

* the spike in crime. The failure of the police to do their job rests solely with the cops, not with the Home Minister or Prime Minister.

* inflated contracts and one-sided privatisation projects. The failure rests with the civil servants at the Economic Planning Unit, and not with the ministers who endorsed and lobbied for the project to be pushed through. Or for the Umno politician who was awarded the contract for loyalty to the party.

* for appointing an unqualified person to be the ambassador to Indonesia. Blame the foreign service official who acted beyond his pay grade and picked the least likeliest candidate in Malaysia for the prestigious job.

With Dr Mahathir and his ilk, it is always the same story: it is someone else’s fault. Even with a mountain of evidence, it is always someone else’s fault. – September 11, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 11:48 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Mahathir
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When is it patriotic to like crap?

Erna Mahyuni

The Malay Mail Online

September 11, 2013

SEPT 11 — You would think I set fire to the flag and declared my allegiance to North Korea, judging from the vitriol I got for my “Tanda Putera” review.

Someone even said that I shouldn’t have been so hard on the film since it was “a local film.”

So if it is a local film, I shouldn’t expect it to have a coherent script?

So if it is a local film, I shouldn’t hope the actors are more than decorative furnishings that speak?

So if it is a local film, I should fully expect it to be bad and be pleasantly surprised if it does not suck

If a film is about any of our historical leaders, painting them in a beatific light then I have to like it before even watching it?

I swear we live in a nation populated by brainwashed sheep. Where when you point out the wolves, the sheep will bite you in retaliation.

My hate for “Tanda Putera” was also, supposedly, a sign of my “not getting laid enough.” It is bad enough that is a hateful, sexist remark but the person who said it was a woman.

I may not agree with what many people say about many things (or even about me) but opinions are what they are, opinions.

But it is not an “opinion” to say that a person’s opinion of something is directly correlated to what goes on in the bedroom.

So are you saying that the decisions of noted celibates like the Pope, the Dalai Lama and other religious figures are motivated by their lacking a sex life?

Dear Malaysians: you can have 20 orgasms a day and still find “Tanda Putera” lacking.

There is nothing wrong with having high standards or at least aspiring to such.

Why must we always set the bar 100 per cent lower whenever we critique Malaysian productions or anything from Malaysia for that matter?

I refuse to like or dislike anything purely on the basis that it is Malaysian. My taste for it will entirely depend on whether I really like it or whether it really is good.

And for the people who are giving me crap for my “Tanda Putera” review?

Here is my opinion: you don’t watch good films enough. And that really has nothing to do with your sex life.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 11:18 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Yuen Yuet Leng is wrong – as the 1969 general election result was a greater blow to the MCP although it was a set back for the Alliance

In a news report headlined “
’Communists helped opposition win seats’ in 1969
”, former Special Branch deputy director Tan Sri Yuen Yet Leng was quoted as saying that “the communists had helped opposition parties, including the DAP, to win a substantial number of seats in the 1969 election”.

The Sun report states:

‘Communists helped opposition win seats’ 1969

Posted on 9 September 2013 – 09:38pm

Vathani Panirchellvum

[email protected]

KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 9, 2013): A retired senior police officer today hinted that the communists had helped opposition parties, including the DAP, to win a substantial number of seats in the 1969 general election.

Former special branch deputy director Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng said the communists infiltrated the Opposition prior to the election, which led to them making inroads into areas held by the alliance government.

“The communist had infiltrated many legal organisations, including political parties, and that is what led to the Opposition winning (in the 1969 general election),” he said at Telekom Malaysia’s “Cerita Tanah Airku” (Story of my Homeland) event in conjunction with Malaysia Day.

The Opposition in 1969 comprised the DAP, the People’s Progressive Party, Gerakan and PAS.

However, he said that the Opposition electoral victories did not lead to the race riots on May 13 that year.

He said the riots were caused by provocation by some Chinese celebrating the election victory in an inappropriate manner which was countered with “over-reaction” by the Malays.

“Some Chinese hooligans were shouting extreme racial slurs and this made the Malays very angry. The initial 48 hours were hard to contain, and at the end of the incident, more than 200 people were killed and 43 shot by the police,” he said.

“It took the efforts of all three major races to put an end to the riots. I have only one message to the younger generation … stop racism. We did not save the country for it to be lost to racism.”

He said the blowing up of racial issues will only lead to the destruction of the country.

Yuen’s claim that the communists helped the opposition to win seats in the 1969 general election is news to me, running counter to what actually happened in the run-up to the 1969 general election and studies whether books or articles by scholars of the 1969 general election.

I do not deny that the communists, like the Special Branch, had tried to infiltrate the Opposition, and DAP had done its utmost to ensure that we were not infiltrated either by the communists or the Special Branch.

Yuen, however, is way off the mark when he said that the communists helped the Opposition to make inroads into areas held by the Alliance government in the 1969 general election.

The facts were the exact opposite, as the communists were calling for a boycott of the 1969 general election and the Opposition parties which participated in the 1969 general election were condemned by the communists as “stooges” and “puppets” of the Alliance for going against their call to the people to  reject the ballot box and  democratic process and to take to street protests and  extra-constitutional struggle.

Far from aiding Opposition parties, the communists wanted the people to boycott the 1969 general elections and the Opposition to fare badly.

This was the reason why 44 years ago, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on August 5, 1969  from the Muar Detention Centre where I was incarcerated under the Internal Security Act, expressing my anxieties for the future of Malaysia and urging the Tunku to embark on a course of national unity and reconciliation.

This is what I said in my letter:

The May 10 General Elections result was a defeat for the Alliance Party. But it was graver blow to the MCP.

During the general elections campaign, the MCP and its open auxiliaries campaigned for a boycott of elections to discredit parliamentary democracy and to prepare the political base for its second armed insurrection.

The people rejected the MCP line and came out solidly to vote. This proved that the people had faith in the democratic process to peacefully bring about the changes they want.

The result of May 10 was the people’s verdict for democracy, as against the MCP campaign. There was joy and expectancy, after the results, not to deprive anyone of his rights, but at the new hope to work for a more just, equal and fulfilling society.

The May 13 disturbances and the subsequent events, however, had greatly undermined the people’s faith in democracy.

I believe that the situation, though grave, is not irretrievable, if the government can spearhead a national, all-part, all-races effort to restore communal confidence through the pursuit of genuine multiracial politics and policies.

I do not know what was the basis for the Special Branch arriving at its conclusion in 1969 that the communists had helped the opposition parties to win a substantial number of seats in the 1969 general election when the communists had been doing the very opposite in the run-up to the 1969 general election to campaign for a boycott of elections.

What are the “substantial number of seats” won by the DAP, Gerakan, PPP and PAS in the 1969 general election as a result of the “assistance” by the communists?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 1:42 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ex-top cop Yuen Yuet Leng confirmed that the May 13, 1969 “urination” incident at the Selangor MB’s residence was totally fictional as he never heard of it although he was based in KL during the riots

I thank former top police officer, Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng for his two postings on my blog statement yesterday:
“Yuen Yuet Leng is wrong – as the 1969 general election result was a greater blow to the MCP although it was a set back for the Alliance”

I had expressed my disagreement with a Sun report on Monday headlined
“’Communists helped opposition win seats’ in 1969”
 quoting Yuen as saying that “the communists had helped opposition parties, including the DAP, to win a substantial number of seats in the 1969 election”.

I had said that Yuen’s claim that the communists helped the opposition to win seats in the 1969 general election was news to me, as it run counter to what happened in the run-up to the 1969 general election and studies whether books or articles by scholars of the 1969 general election.

This was because the communists had called for a boycott of the 1969 general election and the Opposition parties which had participated in the 1969 general election were attacked and condemned as “stooges” and “puppets” of the Alliance for going against their call to “shatter the parliamentary path” and to opt for the  “mass struggle”.

But the communists failed in their campaign calling on the voters to boycott the 1969 general election, as the voter turnout reached some 72% –  though  less than the 79% voter turnout in the 1964 and 73% in the 1959 General Election, it was  still higher than the 70% voter turnout in the 1986 and 71% voter turnout in the 1999 General Election.

This was why I lamented both in my writings while in detention under the Internal Security Act in 1969 and in my speeches immediately after my release in 1970 that the country had missed a great opportunity to promote the cause of democracy in Malaysia.

For instance, in my speech in Penang on November 22, 1970 on the occasion of my release from detention, I said

•	“the general election of May 10, 1969 was the high-water mark of democracy in Malaysia” which was “crushed ruthlessly by the violence and bloodshed” of May 13, 1969 riots.

•	That while the Alliance party suffered grievous electoral set-backs, the greatest losers of the May 10 general election were those forces which had actively campaigned for a boycott of general election, on the grounds that “democracy in Malaysia was a farce and trickery on the people”.

•	 That May 10, 1969 was a declaration by the people of Malaysia that they preferred the democratic process to undemocratic methods of political struggle, that they preferred the road of reason in Parliament and the State Assemblies to the road of force and violence to bring about the social, economic and political changes they desire.

Yueh and I (he in the Special Branch and I in the DAP)  may not see eye-to-eye on all that happened 44 years ago as we have very different perspectives about the political scene in 1969,  but we do not doubt each other’s integrity and patriotism.

It is  therefore most disgusting, distasteful and outrageous that some UMNO/BN propagandist and cybertroopers have jumped on the Sun report on Yuen’s comments to  virtually insinuate that I am a communist!

Let Malaysians learn from the tragedies of the past, like the May 13, 1969 racial riots, not to point an accusatory finger such as to pinpoint the culprits as 44 years have elapsed but for the country to learn the truth about the past so as the better to build a united, harmonious, just and prosperous Malaysia for all Malaysians.

Recently, a  lot of lies and falsehoods have been told about the May 13, 1969 riots, as accusing me of provoking the riots with anti-Malay slogans in the street processions in Kuala Lumpur after the May 10, 1969 general election when I was never in Kuala Lumpur at all, and the  lies about the outrageous “urination” incident.

I asked the former Special Branch deputy director over the phone just now whether he had ever heard about the “urination” incident at the flagpole of the Selangor Mentri Besar’s residence  as Yuan was on duty in Kuala Lumpur in the dark days of the May 13, 1969, and in his autobiography, “Nation Before Self”, Yuen had declared: “I was proud to be a policeman on May 13, 1969”.

Yuen not only confirmed that the May 13, 1969 “urination” incident at the Selangor Mentri Besar’s residence was totally fictional, he rightly remarked that if there was any such a person who committed such an outrageous act, he would  not have left the Selangor Mentri Besar’s residence alive!

Note:

Tan Sri Yueh’s  two comments on my blog are:

1.
	by strong eoiTS Yuen Yuet Leng on Thursday, 12 September 2013 – 12:54 am

From: yuen yuet leng [mailto:
[email protected]
 ]

Sent: Tuesday, 10 September, 2013 4:26 PM

To:
[email protected]

Subject: Your article

Dear Vathani,

While I appreciate your article in general summarised well what I wanted to be known to the nation on what were greater truths I have to make clarifications. Information I imparted are in deliberate interest of objective nation and so that nation gets the right tutoring message and feel strongly why May 13 incidents should not ever be allowed to happen again either because of too much insensitivities or too much sensitivities on any side. The major redeeming factor in 1969 was the courage of non-racial Malaysians who were still there to put to shame the worse of their respective communities who rampaged, hurt or killed. This best of Malaysians dared to risk their lives in saving or sheltering fellow Malaysians of another ethnic community.

The 43 frenzied rioters or looters or organised counter forces were shot by both police and the army mainly after Tun Razak had authorised such action when imperative during the first 48-72 hours of devilish racism and counter-action. Thus was the security situation effectively contained. A couple of days later an attempt was made to aggravate the situation in Kuala Lumpur by ultras to create similar incidents in Penang island and the mainland in the north. This was pre-empted by very good Special Branch intelligence. CPO Penang was directed to put on a very, very tight curfew enforced by the police and ranger army units Nothing could move not even UMNO.

Many Malaysians think that the communist struggle which started with the 1st Emergency in 1948, ended in 1960. Only the armed struggle did. From 1961 the communists had commenced on the new phase of “open and legal struggle” which was the secret subversion or penetration of legal political and other organisations either from within or outside, known or unknown or both at the same time. Most notably affected and within were the Socialist Front and the Labour party. In fact after May 69 a number of these communist or pro-communist elements who had evaded arrests, fled across the Thai border to join the CPM, were trained militarily and came back as members of the new CPM Assault units , Some were killed in in 1971 in a combined police/SB/army in the Kulim area and in which I was involved. They were positively identified as committee members of political parties.

Communist known or unknown support cannot be said to be the one and only reason which made the “victory” of Opposition parties.. It was however of supporting assistance. I do not agree that any single and particular political party, other than the more active Socialist Front and Labour Party should be identified in discriminating or partisan manner. It must however not be misconstrued also, as some tend to think, that the communists was behind or prompted the 1969 racial riots. They might prompt riots but not racial riots because they are essentially a non-racial party. If they could have it their way they would have preferred continuing success of their open and legal struggle.

However, it was chauvinistic Chinese overjoy made worse and even more hurtful and “unbearable” by stupid Chinese and some Indian hooligans broke the camel’s back of Malay tolerance, and which had already been dented so sensitively earlier by the shocking loss of electoral seats and stoked communal survival anxieties in the future. Communal ultras could only made things even more worse by capitalising on already explosive emotions.

A very sad Director of the Special Branch, Tan Sri Rahman Hashim came to my division located well away from Bukit Aman a couple of days after May 13. Very disheartened, he told us he had failed in his job and intended to tender his resignation. We told him we would all resign with him if he did. That would be disastrous for the nation. First of all we should get the intelligence to restore sanity, peace and order. Soon after we obtained the vital intelligence was received by our intelligence network in the north that some radical ultras were planning to escalate the security situation in Kuala Lumpur by starting another situation in Penang and the mainland. This was pre-empted by a very tight curfew in the areas for a number of days which was enforced forcefully by the police and army ranger units. I suggest that you get a copy of my book , “Nation Before Self” (MPH) which you saw yesterday. (Pages 157-181)

Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng

2.
	by strong eoiTS Yuen Yuet Leng on Thursday, 12 September 2013 – 2:19 pm

This was in context of Tanda Putera as I felt better research would have not result in so much fuss over its production and showing. Subjective media interest crafter another story. I spoke for the nation I believed in and still do as I saw it first hand and professionally. All are privileged to not agree. The truth hurts all round. That is why history is hard not to be subjective

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 12 September 2013, 5:48 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
nation building
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sabah Illegal ICs: The Buck Stops with Mahathir

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo! News

13th Sept 2013

Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad drew considerable laughter last Wednesday when he gave testimony at the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants in Sabah. One hopes the laughter was laced with irony and scepticism.

Irony and scepticism because it seems unlikely, going by reports of the proceedings, that anyone listening to some of the things he said could find them acceptable.

The most unacceptable was his saying that he had not heard about Project IC or Project M (for Mahathir) until only recently, and that the Government could not be held responsible for the issuance of illegal identity cards (ICs) to immigrants who had entered Sabah illegally.

“These illegal immigrants may have been issued the identity cards erroneously or it may have been the wrongdoing of certain low-ranking civil servants,” he said, expressly passing the blame on to others.

Well, if it were a matter of only a few hundred ICs, we might say these civil servants acted corruptly on their own and out of their personal greed, but a key witness has earlier testified at the RCI that in 1993 alone, about 100,000 ICs were issued to immigrants in Sabah. One hundred thousand in one year is a staggering number. How likely is that to have been a private enterprise undertaken by “low-ranking civil servants”?

It is a requisite of leadership that the leader is accountable for what his underlings do. Especially when it is something serious – in fact, treasonous. We’re not talking here about giving out free food vouchers or concert tickets. We’re talking about giving out citizenships illegally. Mahathir’s disavowal of knowledge about its happening does not exonerate him. He was the CEO of Malaysia. Ignorance is no defence. He has to take responsibility.

Besides, it’s extremely unlikely that he was not aware of it at the time when so many ICs were given out, under what was apparently an organised programme, and leaders of Sabah political parties were making a hue and cry about it. The prime minister does not live in a cocoon, much as Mahathir would want us to believe.

We can also bet our bottom ringgit that he could not have found out about Project IC or Project M only recently when the issue has been out in the media for years, with specific naming of the project. A man like Mahathir who is so well-informed of developments must surely have heard of Project IC or Project M way before “recently”.

In fact, people were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for alleged involvement in the issuance of identity cards to foreigners, like Hassnar Ebrahim (who was arrested in 1988), Akjan Ali Mohamad (in 1995), Ramli Kamaruddin (in 1995), Mohd Nasir Sugip (in 1995),  Kee Dzulkifly Kee Abdul Jalil (in 1995) and Abdul Rauf Sani (in 1996).

Most of them have testified at the RCI and admitted issuing tens of thousands of ICs illegally. Some have also alleged that they received instructions to do this from then deputy home minister Megat Junid Megat Ayub. They have also claimed that they carried out their operations in the Kampung Pandan home of Aziz Shamsuddin, Mahathir’s then political secretary.

They were detained when Mahathir, apart being from the premier, was also minister of home affairs. He held the portfolio from 1986 to 1999. In that capacity, he would have known about the arrests and the reasons for them. He probably signed the detention orders himself.

So how could he say to the RCI, “Hassnar? I have never heard of him. I am also not aware that he had been arrested under the Internal Security Act.”?

He also said something outrageous when he said it could have been the decision of the National Security Council (NSC) to detain Hassnar. Who was he trying to fool? Since 1971, the function of the NSC has been that of coordinating policies related to national safety. It does not detain people under the ISA. Surely, Mahathir knows this since the NSC is part of the Prime Minister’s Department and chaired by the prime minister.

Would he claim “I don’t remember” to something like this? As he did numerous times when he testified at the RCI on the V.K. Lingam case in 2007 involving the fixing of judges? As he has also done now at the Sabah RCI in claiming that he didn’t remember giving specific instructions to former Sabah chief minister Mustapha Harun when the latter allegedly sought his approval to issue ICs to illegal immigrants?

Mahathir’s performance at the RCI was expected. From the media reports, his characteristic arrogance came through. He toyed with the questioners. He played to the gallery, cracking jokes and making light of the serious proceedings. He avoided giving meaningful answers by making jokes.

When the RCI chairman, Steve Shim Lip Kiong, asked him why Joseph Pairin Kitingan was not made chairman of the State Security Council when by convention he should have been as he was the chief minister, Mahathir said, “I don’t know the exact reason, but there were many reasons.” What kind of an answer is that?

Mahathir was, however, unequivocal in his sympathy for the immigrants. “We are very considerate about their plight and try to help them as much as possible,” he said. “Our neighbours don’t want to accept these people. We can’t just throw them into the sea. This was my view when I was the prime minister.”

This is a real surprise coming from the man who when he was deputy prime minister said in 1979 that if Vietnamese illegal immigrants tried to land on Malaysian shores, the Government would shoot them. However, the next day, the Government had to deny it, because of an international outcry. And Mahathir – adopting the habit we are now so familiar with – blamed foreign correspondents for misinterpreting his statement. But he didn’t say how he had been misinterpreted.

Well, over the decades, Mahathir has shown that he is never wrong. That he has never made a mistake. Not even once during his premiership. As far as Mahathir Mohamad is concerned, Mahathir Mohamad is perfect. When have we ever heard him admit a mistake? When have we ever heard him apologise for anything?

But even so, much as he would deny responsibility for the IC disaster in Sabah, much as he would claim that he was not responsible for everything Megat Junid had allegedly done in that regard, the fact remains that he is. The buck stops with the prime minister. That’s the crux. And it’s about time he admitted that.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 13 September 2013, 10:19 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why my father, an ordinary man, took to the streets during the elections

by Sugasini Kandian

Special to the Malaysian Insider

September 13, 2013

My father is a Malaysian citizen. At least, that is what his identity card (IC) says.

But ask him what it means to be a Malaysian citizen – and he will probably say, “I don’t know.”

My father is an ordinary man. He was born in Kuala Lumpur, raised in Pahang, completed his high school education at St John’s Institution, KL, and then left to study accountancy in the United Kingdom.

Growing up in a family where political commentary was the norm at dinner, I used to ask my dad, “Why didn’t you just settle in the UK? Then we wouldn’t have to deal with this messed up system!”

His answer, “I don’t know. Family. Plus Malaysia today isn’t the same as it was back in the 1980s. The economy was booming then and prospects were good.”

However, over the years, as I learned about the sacking of Tun Salleh Abbas and the forced resignation of Tan Sri Ani Arope, I would tell my father, “Your generation let us down. You allowed the politicians to plunder our institutions.”

My dad would retort with a smirk, “What should I have done then? Take to the streets?”

Still, I would argue that my father’s generation failed as citizens. Because citizenship necessitates participation. But with the baby boomers, participation seemed like it was left to the fringe few who were bold enough to believe they could effect change.

Then came the 2008 tsunami, the Bersih movement and the recent general election.

And something changed.

It started because I volunteered to be an election observer. When my dad found out, he signed up too (as did my mum but her application was rejected). In fact, my dad even signed up to be a long-term observer, which means being on duty from the start of the campaign to the final tally.

And it was during this period that I saw my father take on a civic responsibility which was hitherto alien to our middle-class, English-speaking family. On nomination day, he arrived at the centre well before time, took down the necessary notes and duly reported his observations.

Every day, he would go to the various ceramahs in Lembah Pantai (the constituency we had been assigned to) and every day he would come back and fill out the observer forms diligently.

Bear in mind that my father, who had studied entirely in English, was not fluent in Bahasa Malaysia.

Every day, he would look up where Nurul Izzah Anwar and Datuk Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin were going to be campaigning (the latter hardly had speaking events though) and he would map his route accordingly. Rain or shine, even if we were at a function or visiting relatives, my dad would excuse himself in order to catch at least one campaign event for his log.

My father may have grown up in KL but during the elections he visited parts of the city we never even knew existed – the Malay heartland areas of Abdullah Hukum, Taman Sri Sentosa, Kampung Kerinchi, etc.

But there he was with his “PEMERHATI” badge every night for more than two weeks, snapping pictures, counting the number of attendees, listening to speeches and taking down notes.

On voting day, my dad studied the voting procedures carefully and went about doing the job he had been assigned to do. No fuss, no complaints.

I cannot figure out why my dad displayed so much gusto as an observer when even I found the role fairly mundane after a while. Perhaps it was the cheering-on he received from his golf buddies.

Nevertheless, once the elections were over, I asked my father why he volunteered. He said, “My generation was happy to accept half-truths. But it’s intriguing to see your generation fighting back… I felt like I needed to support that.”

Observing the elections isn’t much at all in the larger scheme of things.

But as Malaysia grows, so does her citizens.

My father is an ordinary man. An ordinary man who, for the first time ever, chose to participate. – September 13, 2013.

* Sugasini Kandiah is a Malaysian, just like her dad.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 13 September 2013, 9:42 am and is filed under
Elections
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


At Last, the Right Decision on English

By Kee Thuan Chye

msn.com

11.9.2013

One of the brightest things to emerge in these gloomy days is the Education Ministry’s announcement that English will be a must-pass subject at the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examinations from 2016.

This is something that has been a long time coming. English used to be a must-pass subject until it was stopped from being such so long ago that I can’t even remember when. But what resulted after that was a drastic drop in the standard of our competency in that language. Then the ripple effect caused the standard to drop even further as people who were not proficient enough in English came to be trained to teach it in schools. I have heard many horror stories emerging from that situation.

At one time, Malaysia was among the top countries in Asia that were proficient in English. But nowadays, most Malaysians can’t string a sentence together properly and without making grammatical errors. These include English-language teachers themselves – not just those teaching in schools but also those teaching students learning Teaching of English as a Second Language (TESL), and even English Literature, in universities. This is embarrassing.

In June 2009, Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin asked whether English should be made a must-pass subject at SPM after he found out – reportedly to his surprise – that it was not. At the time, it seemed as though he was just floating the idea to see if it would get the right responses, considering that the issue of English can be a sensitive one, especially to so-called nationalists who are fearful it might supplant the position of the national language. It has taken him four years to announce his ministry’s decision in the affirmative.

The Government must have finally woken up to the realisation that English is important as a global language, and no Malaysian child should be left behind in the quest to master it.

Nonetheless, the announcement came as a bit of a surprise. Few hints had been given lately to herald its coming. Furthermore, the target year for implementing the new ruling is only three years away. To some, that seems rather soon. After all, the number of students who failed SPM English last year amounted to a substantial 23 per cent.

The big concern is over whether the education system would be prepared for the compulsory pass. Do we have enough competent teachers? Are they well-equipped and well-trained? Would the students who have to face it in 2016 and are currently weak in the language be able to catch up?

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim has expressed reservations. He asks if students are ready for it. “I agree it should be made mandatory for students to learn English,” he says. “I agree that English proficiency should be boosted. But mandatory to pass? The quality of teachers and infrastructure should be upgraded first.”

He’s right about upgrading the teachers and infrastructure, but as for students being ready, it may just need their being thrown into the deep end for them to get serious and study the language with purpose.

Right now, many of them don’t even care to learn English, and that’s why they are so poor at it. They are misguided into thinking that it plays no part in their lives. They are even told by some quarters that it might have a negative influence on their culture and identity, which of course is utter rubbish. But once it becomes a compulsory pass at SPM, the students’ attitude will change.

The stamp of official recognition for the language will also reinstate its place in the collective consciousness. This was lost after 1970, with the resurgence of neo-nationalism, to the detriment of Malaysians. Now that we have been left behind because of our English decline, it is time to catch up fast.

So, even if the quality of teachers and infrastructure is still not satisfactory, once the political will to promote English has been asserted, the upgrading must proceed right away. It needs a jolt to the system to get things rolling; this surprising decision is the jolt we’ve been waiting for. It is not something that should be given too much preparation time for, because as we have seen often in the past, when this is the case, the people involved will merely drag their feet. Nothing gets done till the deadline draws near, so there’s hardly a difference between a short deadline and a long one. The latter merely delays the process, and we can’t afford to delay improving our English any more.

To be sure, it will meet with resistance. And the obligatory reaction from groups calling for the upholding of the supremacy of the national language.

Even Anwar makes that grumble. He wants the Education Ministry to uplift Malay first and strengthen students’ command of the national language before addressing their command of English. But this will always be a perennial issue – and after more than half a century of Malay being the national language, the champions of that language are still not satisfied. It doesn’t look like they will ever be. Simply because they will politicise the issue of language no matter what. And Anwar is obviously doing that, too. To try and win the support of the rural population, including that of Sabah and Sarawak as well.

But the time has come to stop politicising the study of language and the issue of education as a whole. Malaysian students through the decades have suffered enough because of politicisation. The study of history in schools, for example, has been so narrowly focused on Malaysia, Islam and Umno that our young know hardly anything of world history. This is pathetic.

Of course, Malay must be accorded its appropriate status as the national and official language, but this has been a given since independence. And its position was further emphasised after 1970. Many hours are dedicated to teaching it in schools. And all subjects in national schools except English are taught in Malay. So how could its status be threatened?

Indeed, the time has come for our politicians to think of the people instead of their own self-interests. They should think of the benefits that the mastery of English will bring to Malaysians, and the country as well. It will help open minds, and also create opportunities. And if we don’t start now to bring English back, we may never get started. This is what should propel us to action in order to move forward. Not the unlikely threat to Malay. Not the short time being given to get things going. And certainly not whether our students are ready for it.

When they are faced with pass or fail, they will be ready.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 September 2013, 10:59 am and is filed under
Education
,
English
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Fracturing along racial lines, BN needs to start healing Malaysia

News Analysis by The Malaysian Insider

September 14, 2013

Somebody, someone better step in because never before has the stereotyping been this bad, this widespread, this debilitating and potentially irreversible for Malaysia.

And the big loser along this road to perdition will be Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN).

In the eyes of a significant number in Umno, the non-Malays who voted with their feet in GE13 are traitors and ingrates who must be punished, the harder the better.

The form of punishment yearned for ranges from depriving the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) supporters of cash handouts to penalising businesses owned by Chinese to completely erasing the concerns of non-Malays in policy-making.

No doubt some of this is just talk, borne out of anger and frustration by BN members not being able to deliver what they believed was a minimum target: regaining two-thirds majority control of Parliament.

But there are enough Umno politicians bending Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s ears about a more punitive approach against non-Malays to suggest that this toxic thinking will poison decision making, sooner rather than later.

At the very least, they want him to publicly thank Malays, especially those in rural areas, and Bumiputeras for returning BN to power.

Already, Najib is showing signs of being led down the narrow road of vindictiveness, indicating recently that BN-held states will benefit from having friends in Putrajaya.

Weakened and wounded after not delivering the big victory he promised, Najib is more preoccupied with surviving the Umno elections in October than playing the role of statesman. And if it means that victory can be achieved by pandering to Utusan Malaysia as he did yesterday, so be it.

And if it means keeping silent in the wake of scurrilous and coffee shop talk against Christians being dressed up as fact by Umno’s right wing, so be it.

When the rabid Utusan Malaysia tore into a senior Ministry of International Trade and Industry official who is leading the Malaysian delegation in trade negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, Najib only voiced his regret behind closed doors. The official is a non-Malay and the Umno newspaper’s attack was way below the belt.

But here is the reality.

This punish-those-who-did-not-vote-for-BN strategy will not only polarise Malaysia further but will also entrench a them-versus-us syndrome that will pit Malaysian against Malaysian in every sphere of life. Imagine the fractious nature of Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan without the bloodshed.

And for those right-wing Umno and BN supporters urging the dawn of this day, here is a more sobering message: You will end up with a smaller support base by the time the next polls are called in five years.

Surveys of the voting pattern in GE13 show that despite its fighting rhetoric from 2011 till 2013, Umno/BN only managed  to snare 61.6% of the Malay vote, a mere 1.5% increase from 2008. Also, the most right-wing of candidates – Datuk Ibrahim Ali, Datuk Zulkifli Noordin and Datuk Dr Puad Zarkashi – were rejected by voters in Malay-majority seats.

Pollsters and researchers believe that if Umno/BN just focus on playing the Malay and Muslim card, the share of the Malay vote could drop to as low as 58% in five years. This is based on several assumptions, including the fact that natural attrition will be highest amongst those aged 60 and above, Umno’s largest support base.

There are other warning signs for an Umno bent on rewarding its own, punishing its opponents and playing divisive politics.

The East Malaysian state of Sabah is no longer a fixed deposit and Putrajaya’s policy of alienating the largely Christian Kadazandusun community with its confrontational approach against the church will only hurt it further at the ballot box.

On May 5, BN won less than 45% of the votes in Kadazandusun-majority seats. This percentage will certainly go down if the knot of outstanding Christian issues remain unresolved and the government continues to treat the illegal immigrant situation with wanton disregard.

Sarawak will remain a strong BN state only as long as strongman Tan Sri Taib Mahmud is around. Without him, the fear factor will be gone as well as the organisational capability that allowed Taib to block PR from making headway in the state.

But this state, with its collection of different groups of indigenous people, has never been one that supports right-wing Malay rhetoric. Indeed, Taib still cannot understand Putrajaya’s decision to outlaw the use of the word Allah by Christians.

Then, there is steady growth in the number of Malaysians who depend on the Internet as the source of political and current affairs news. In GE13, nearly 57% of those aged 40 and above received their news about Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Najib from news portals and blogs.

This percentage will only increase as the Internet penetration in the country grows. And despite Putrajaya spending millions of ringgit on bloggers and cyber troopers, the Internet is the domain of the opposition and anti-establishment forces.

It is here that the increasingly right-wing tendency of Umno is being exposed, dissected and debated robustly. There is no free pass for Najib and his comrades in this medium and the more Umno slides down the way of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Ibrahim Ali, the more the push back from Malaysia’s netizens, many of them the same voters who gave PR the bragging rights of winning the popular vote at the May 5 general election.

Against this backdrop, it is stupid and reckless for Umno/BN to still persist with its racist and narrow politics which only allowed it to hold on to power narrowly. Surely, regaining the two-thirds majority of Parliament will be out of the question without the return of some non-Malay votes.

Unless its only ambition is to keep power with an ever smaller majority. – September 14, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 September 2013, 7:32 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In Umno blogs, a window into a party divided

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

The Malay Mail Online

September 14, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 14 — A renewed and inward-facing agitation among Umno-friendly blogs hints that all is not well within the Malay nationalist party ahead of its polls.

Since the general election, prominent blogs aligned to the party such as bigdogdotcom and outsyedthebox began turning up their criticism against Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak. And with the party’s election drawing nearer, their volume has only grown louder.

They are also not a force to be trifled with; ostensibly created to protect and promote the conservative interests of those aligned with former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, they were partly credited for the campaign that saw Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi forced out to make way for Najib in 2009.

But the grace accorded to Najib since he took office in April 2009 has since ended. Now, the son of Malaysia’s second prime minister has come in for the same treatment from the very blogs that helped put him in power.

And as much as Najib and his allies try to tell the public that Umno is doing well and remains united in the aftermath of Barisan Nasional’s (BN) worst ever electoral performance, the increasing attacks in the blogs paints a much grimmer picture that the ruling Malay party is divided.

“They are testing the ground, to see if any attempt to challenge Najib would gain traction,” said one a senior Umno leader, who spoke to The Malay Mail Online on condition of anonymity, when explaining the reasons behind the intensifying blog attacks on the Umno president.

Outwardly, Najib’s position is seen as secure, with top party leaders calling for the presidency and deputy presidency to go uncontested. But this was done more for the sake of stability, the Umno leader said.

“If there is a challenge this party will be divided, and if we are, by the next general election we will be defeated,” the Umno leader said.

Analysts noted that the Umno blogs had been critical of Najib’s liberal economic and political policies but they remained negligible until after Election 2013, when the ruling BN coalition not only failed to regain its coveted parliamentary supermajority but also lost the popular vote for the first time since 1969 the last time it contested as the Alliance Party.

Now, not only have attacks in the blogs grown more vicious, but influential old guards such as Tun Daim Zainuddin, a former finance minister and confidante to Dr Mahathir, and former New Strait Times group editor-in-chief Datuk A. Kadir Jasin have joined in to publicly criticise Najib’s tactics.

“They’re not happy with how he ran the show. He had people who were more of a yes-man and smartasses around him and the old guards see this as weaknesses on the part of Najib,” said another Umno leader, who also asked not to be named.

These are also long-standing grouses with the group. Daim and Kadir both have criticised the prime minister for retaining leaders that they say are past their prime.

Others believe that the needling was to remind Najib of whom Umno claims to champion — the Malays.

Since taking office, Najib embarked on a raft of economic and political reforms, including a controversial New Economic Model (NEM) that was to gradually dismantle a defunct but still enforced pro-Bumiputera affirmative action policy for greater meritocracy.

But the idea was savaged by sections of his party as well as Malay rights groups such as Perkasa. Since then, little has been heard of the NEM.

“I believe the attacks are a warning to Najib, to ensure that he sticks with the Malay agenda,” said Wan Saiful Wan Jan of think-tank IDEAS.

But Wan Saiful said that whether or not these attacks are intended to find a challenger to Najib remains unclear, but the intense condemnation reflected a party divided in its direction.

“Najib is trying to bring the country forward but some groups are trying to make it stay as it is. This will be a contest between taking the country forward and maintaining the status quo,” he said.

Najib has already delayed on some of his promises for greater economic and political reforms.

In July, global ratings firm Fitch Ratings lost patience with the pace of Najib’s promised overhaul and subsequently downgraded Malaysia’s credit rating outlook from “Stable” to “Negative”.

Ibrahim Suffian, director of independent polling house Merdeka Centre, said the rising heat facing Najib from within Umno will definitely impede the rollout of necessary reforms.

“It may be hard for him to try and bring the party back to the centre as it would be upsetting to the party’s conservative,” he said.

Nominations for the Umno Youth, Puteri and Wanita wings go on until September 21, with elections for posts contested to take place during their annual meeting on October 12. Nominations for supreme council posts are open until September 28 and the election will be held on October 19.

This is the first time that 146,500 Umno members from the party’s 191 divisions will directly elect the members of the supreme council the president, deputy president, three vice-presidents and 25 members ? after an amendment to its constitution in 2009. Previously, only some 2,500 members were eligible to vote in the election.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 September 2013, 7:45 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


While wishing Malaysia “Happy Birthday” …

by Art Harun

Special to The Malaysian Insider

September 15, 2013

On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr, among others, led a civil rights march on Washington for “jobs and freedom”. There, he delivered his famous “I have a dream” speech, saying he was there to “cash a cheque” for “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

He spoke of an America where his children “will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”.

He concluded:
“And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last’.”

Nineteen days later, our father of independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman, stood before a nation and said:
 “Now finally, the peoples of Malaysia are celebrating the establishment of Malaysia. This is the time to think earnestly and hopefully on the future of Malaysia as the whole country resounds with joy.

“So I pray that God may bless the nation of Malaysia with eternal peace and happiness for our people.

“The Federation of Malaya now passes into history. Let us always remember that the Malayan Nation was formed after many difficulties during a long period of national Emergency, yet its multi-racial society emerged, endured and survived as a successful and progressive nation, a true democracy and an example to the world of harmony and tolerance.

“As it was with Malaya, so it can be with Malaysia. With trust in Almighty God, unity of purpose and faith in ourselves, we can make Malaysia a land of prosperity and peace.

“In doing so, let every Malaysian in all the States of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah ensure that our Malaysia is truly worthy of the aims and hopes we have shared, the trials and stress, we have endured, in working together to achieve our common destiny.

“MERDEKA! MALAYSIA!”

Both of them are great men. Both shared a dream. While King dreamed of a day “when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands”, the Tunku recognised that Malaysia’s “multi-racial society emerged, endured and survived as a successful and progressive nation” and he wished for a Malaysia that “is truly worthy of the aims and hopes we have shared”.

Fifty years on and now America has a black President. Unfortunately, Malaysia is still grappling with the “ownership” of the word “Allah”; which race should get more or less; which institute of higher learning should be restricted to which race; who should be empowered to determine the religion of a child and the likes.

We should not, however, forget that Malaysia is only 50 years old while America is 237 years old. In terms of nation-states, Malaysia is but a small kid in pre-school.

The greatness of any country is not measured by the absence of crisis but, in my opinion, by how the country rises itself from a crisis to become better, stronger and wiser.

May 13, 1969, for example, left a huge black blot on Malaysia’s white historical canvas. But the real question is whether we have learned anything from that sad and very unfortunate episode and whether we have emerged a better nation since then. There is of course the Tanda Putera film which suggests that to some people May 13, 1969 is all about finger pointing and blame games. However, the strong public opinion against that film and the general reaction of distaste at the film is suggestive of a citizenry which is matured, idealistic and adverse to racial polarisation. That is heart-warming.

Oh yes, we have had our moments of shame. The Memali incident. The rape of the judiciary. The famous black-eye incident. The Al-Ma’unah botched uprising. The sodomy trial. The Operasi Lalang. The cow head shame. The Allah issue. The body snatching incidences. And so on.

But each of them was met with incredulity by the society at large. And each time it happened, there are brave voices of dissent fighting to be heard and were in fact heard. Never mind that the powers that be had sometimes brushed aside these voices. That’s politics. The bulk of the mature and level-headed citizenry dabbles in politics but are not consumed and drowned by politics. That to me is a good sign. It is a good sign for a young child in pre-school to notice all these; to analyse and to learn from them.

At the end of the day what marks a great country are not the monuments, the highways, the racing tracks or the administrative centres. It is the soul of the country. It is the soul and spirit of its people. It is US, the children of the country.

We determine everything. Regardless of what is thrown at us, we hold the option. Do we want a Malaysia which is “is truly worthy of the aims and hopes we have shared” or a Malaysia with endless hatred, bigotry, bickering and fractiousness?

Do we, as a people want the next 50 years to define us?

Or do we, as a people, wish to define the next 50 years? – September 15, 2013.

* Azhar “Art” Harun is a Malaysian.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 September 2013, 8:21 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Former foes hold no grudges against Chin Peng, they want to move on

by Eileen Ng and Diyana Ibrahim

The Malaysian Insider

September 16, 2013

Two former policemen who fought Chin Peng and his communist    troops have called on the public to move on, with one saying that he was sad over the death of a “friend”.

Former Special Branch deputy director Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng who led the fight against the communists, said he has come to terms with the Malayan Emergency and considers Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader Chin Peng a friend.

“I lost a friend, an enemy who became a friend. Rest in peace my friend,” said Yuen.

After the signing of the 1989 Peace Accord in Haadyai, Thailand, between CPM leaders and government officials representing Malaysia and Thailand, both Yuen and Chin Peng were seen talking and joking with each other, surprising those who were present.

One of them asked Yuen, “Don’t you have resentment against this man?” – referring to the feared Communist leader.

“I turned to Chin Peng and asked him whether he wanted to answer the question. He said no and asked me to answer instead.

“I said: we tried to kill each other (previously) but today, we are alive and in Haadyai, so where’s the resentment?” he told The Malaysian Insider in a telephone interview today.

Yuen said there were no hard feelings between them as each was working for the people in their own way.

As they grew older, he said, they were respectful and less antagonistic towards each other.

“When we were both young, we fought against each other very hard because of differences in ideologies. But after the peace accord was signed, we understood each other better,” he said.

Three years ago, Yuen sent a book,  “The First Emergency Revisited” to Chin Peng for the latter’s birthday.

Yuen described Chin Peng as an intellectual and not a hardcore killer as he was portrayed to be.

“Unlike some of his comrades, he still had his humanity,” he said.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who fought the communists as a police officer, described Chin Peng as a “professional”.

Wan Junaidi said he and Chin Peng were “professionals” who believed in different political ideologies.

“I was doing my job and he was doing his,” said Wan Junaidi, who is president of the Sarawak Ex-Policemen Association.

Asked to comment on his death, Wan Junaidi said, “I felt nothing. There was no sentiment. It (the death) meant nothing to me personally,” he said.

“Yes, I was sad when my men got killed. But I was also trained by a commander who taught me to be a professional. I was just a policeman doing my duty against people who broke the law. There was no sentiment.

“I never tortured those communists we captured nor hurt any of them, unless he stood armed before me and I had no choice but to shoot.

“I guess it was the same with Chin Peng,” he added.

Wan Junaidi, however, agreed that Chin Peng’s death would be the passing of another chapter in the history of Malaysia. – September 16, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 September 2013, 7:08 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hari Malaysia

Video by Pete Teo

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 September 2013, 3:11 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has Najib finally abandoned the  New Economic Model (NEM)?

One question for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak following his announcement of the Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Agenda  on Saturday is whether he has finally abandoned the New Economic Model (NEM) which he announced three years ago on 30th March 2010.

The NEM admitted  that “the excessive focus on ethnicity-based distribution of resources has contributed to growing separateness and dissension”.

NEM  stated in Chapter 6 (p. 117):

“Existing affirmative action programme and institutions will continue in NEM but, in line with views of the main stakeholders, will be revamped to remove the rent seeking and market distorting features which have blemished the effectiveness of the programme. Affirmative action will consider all ethnic groups fairly and equally as long as they are in the low income 40% of the households. Affirmative action action programmes would be based on market-friendly and market-based criteria together taking into consideration the need and merits of the applicants. An Equal Opportunities Commission will be established to ensure fairness and address undue discrimination when occasional abuses by dominant groups are encountered.”

Because of opposition from racist and chauvinists, Najib had abandoned the idea of an Equal Opportunities Commission.

Has he now abandoned the entire NEM with regard to a needs-and-merit based transformation of the affirmative programme, to promote building of capacity and capability, focusing on the low income 40% of the households?

Chapter 7 of NEM warned: “The time for change is now – Malaysia deserves no less.”

When the NEM was unveiled in March 2010, the country was warned of the dire consequences of the failure to undertake a major economic transformation.

The NEM said:

“Our shortcoming are preventing us from getting out of the middle income trap. Almost all economies of South East Asia are poised to achieve high economic growth in this decade. But Malaysia runs the imminent risk of a downward spiral and faces the painful possibility of stagnation.”

The NEM rightly identified “political will and leadership to break the log-jam of resistance by vested interest groups and preparing the rakyat to support deep-seated changes in policy directions” as “the most important enablers” of the NEM.

It called for political will and leadership to put emphasis on coherent explanation of the vision and agenda of the NEM and transformation process and “to put in place a critical mass of bold measures” to “create an unstoppable wave of support from all segments of society for this vision”.

It warned:

“The government must take prompt action when resistance is encountered and stay the course”.

Najib should state whether he has finally given up the ghost of the NEM, as he lacks the political will and leadership to defend the NEM and stay the course so that the country could get out of the middle income trap  when confronted with opposition and resistance from within his own ranks in UMNO?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 September 2013, 6:23 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
NEM
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.