Mahathir rewriting history on Ops Lalang

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is rewriting history when he blamed the police for the 1987 Operation Lalang mass Internal Security Act (ISA) arrests, claiming that he was furious over the mass crackdown.

In the new book,
“Doctor M: Operation Malaysia – Conversations with Mahathir Mohamad”
 by Tom Plate, Mahathir said:

“Well, I would have handled it differently, except that the police wanted to do these things because they say it is necessary…

“I actually met all of the opposition members (beforehand) and assured them that they would not be arrested. And you know what the police did? They arrested them. My credibility is gone.”

Mahathir is  not only  suffering from selective memory and  faulty memory but is spinning untruths about his misdeeds in his 22 years as Prime Minister.

I never met Mahathir and he never gave me any assurance that I would not be arrested before the launch of Operation Lalang on Oct. 27, 1987, although a day earlier I had spoken in Parliament in the 1988 budget debate warning of escalation of racial tensions and  calling on all political parties “to agree to a one-year moratorium where no racial, language, cultural or religious issues will be created or raised for every Malaysian to concentrate on the national priority of achieving economic recovery and growth”.

Let Mahathir name the Opposition leaders had had met and given assurance that they would not be arrested but subsequently overruled by the police in the Operation Lalang crackdown!

It is unworthy of Mahathir to “pass the buck” to the Police for the responsibility for the Operation Lalang crackdown, as he not only defended the initial 106 arrests by the police under Section 73 of the ISA, he exercised his powers as Home Minister under Section 8 to formally issue two-year ISA detention orders for  49 Malaysians, including seven DAP MPs!

Mahathir had always made the false and baseless claim that DAP MPs had not been detained because they were MPs or their  political beliefs, but for “trying to stir racial unrest”.

For instance, Mahathir told
Asiaweek (11th November 1988)
: “A few are still under detention because they refuse to give up stirring racial hatred. (Lim) was arrested not because he was leader of the opposition but because he was stirring racial tension in the country…They will be detained until they come around to thinking it is not the right thing to do…”

I did not change a jot of my thinking during my detention that none of the Operation  Lalang detainees should have been detained especially as “the real culprits of the tensions and grave situation” in Malaysia in October 1987 were left free completely, and not a single police officer interviewed me to secure my agreement to purportedly “give up stirring racial hatred”   before my release in April 1989.

This applied to all the six  DAP MPs detained under Operation Lalang – Karpal Singh,  Lim Guan Eng, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw, the late P. Patto, the late V. David and  Lau Dak Kee – who were released without the so-called “come around to thinking it is not the right thing to do”, when they had done nothing wrong in the first place!

In fact, the personal, petty and vindictive nature in the misuse of an already very oppressive ISA  was further  highlighted by the fact that Guan Eng and I were the last two of the 49 Operation Lalang detainees to be released in April 1989 – when the various batches of releases started in June 1988.

I had always conceded that there were racial tensions in October 1987, but these racial tensions were not created by DAP MPs or others detained under Operation Lalang, but solely the deliberate and irresponsible creation of certain power-seekers in UMNO at a time when there was general insecurity at all levels of the UMNO leadership because of deep UMNO party split between two factions, one led by Mahathir and the other by  Tengku Razaleigh-Musa Hitam.

As Bapa Malaysia and the first Prime Minister,  Tunku Abdul Rahman said  immediately after the Operation Lalang crackdown in November 1987, “It’s not a question of Chinese against the Government but his own party, UMNO, who are against him”. – The London Times, 9th November 1987.

The Government White Paper
“Towards Preserving National Security”
 issued in March  1988 to justify the Operation Lalang detentions referred to the UMNO Youth Rally at the Jalan Raja Muda Stadium in Kuala Lumpur on 17th October 1987 with banners displaying slogans:
“MAY 13 HAS BEGUN”
 and
“SOAK IT (KRIS) WITH CHINESE BLOOD”
 but no action was taken against the UMNO Youth leaders who enjoyed immunity and impunity for such seditious and criminal incitements.

The UMNO Youth leader at the time is none other than the present Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Mahathir  cannot shirk responsibility by passing the buck to the police but must come clean and apologise to the nation  for masterminding Operation Lalang,  the darkest chapter of  human rights in Malaysia, paving the way for a wholesale clampdown  and subversion of  the media, the judiciary and organs of state, whether the Police, the Election Commission or the Anti-Corruption Agency in the rest of his premiership.

Or is Mahathir going to blame the judiciary, the police, the Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Agency, the media and the key national institutions for their failure to stand up to oppose him to  protect, preserve and promote their efficiency, independence and professionalism during his premiership?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 February 2011, 2:17 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
ISA
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Freeing Education From Politics

 by
Zairil Khir Johari

There is one particular issue in this country that never fails to incite fierce debate, with passionate arguments – and the occasional flying brick – from all sides of the divide. This has been the case for a very long time, and its history is one that runs parallel to our nation’s own. To chronicle its story would be to journey through the annals of our own ethno-political experience, from early immigrant settlements to colonial dominance and finally to the many compromises that have been effected since political independence was achieved. Today, the story is by no means over; it is one that is constantly evolving (and tormenting) our socio-political structure.

And what is this matter that is as naturally fundamental as it is exasperatingly sensitive? Why, it is this little matter called education.

Few would dispute the contention that there is something fundamentally wrong with the education system in our country, but polemics abound when solutions are proffered or undertaken. Take, for example, the recent remonstrations surrounding the reversal of the PPSMI (teaching of mathematics and science in English) or the sudden announcement that history will be made a mandatory SPM pass subject from 2013. Or better yet, consider also the replacement of the PMR by a school-based assessment programme. Initially reported to take place in 2016 in order to provide sufficient time for a transition that would not burden the affected students, it has now been abruptly brought forward to 2014. And then there are the really thorny issues, such as the question of vernacular education and its place in our national polity, or the standard of our national school model and curriculum, viewed by many as tools of political indoctrination and partisan propaganda.

No doubt most of the issues faced today are legacy problems, the result of a colourful history peppered by missionary zeal, colonial policies, nationalist fervour and political compromise over decades if not centuries.

So how do we even begin to approach such a complex matter?

Actions and solutions taken thus far have been symptomatic fixes. Yet as one symptom is alleviated another appears, for the root cause remains untouched. This article thus contends that the only way out of this befuddling quagmire is to produce a solution that is innovative in approach, holistic in scope, and one that would correctly address the core of the problem.

A Political Problem or a Problem with Politics?

A quick glance at the problems aforementioned would reveal one common feature that reverberates throughout, and that is the distinctive presence of the political hand. The structure of our education system is such that all departments, bodies and boards that are related to the planning, implementation and monitoring of education are entirely encompassed within the Ministry of Education. Hence, it is then not far-fetched to say that the system in its entirety, from the curriculum, the syllabus, the examinations, the teachers, all the way to the funding and auditing, are under the direct patronage and behest of the Minister of Education, and as such extremely susceptible to political influence. Thus, it is not surprising that we constantly see arbitrary decisions to abolish this or to implement that, decisions that seem to be made with lesser reference to true societal and educational needs than they are to gratify the political flavour of the day.

In short, our national education system has been far too politicised.

The teaching body, for example, appears to be beholden to the political order of the day. As a case in point, take the directive from the Ministry that effectively disallows national schools in Penang and Selangor from inviting elected representatives to their school events simply due to their political affiliation, even when the representatives are members of the state governments in question! On the other hand, representatives of the federal government face no such problems and are constantly attending these events. The underlying message here is clear and obviously partisan and political in nature.

The current system, politicised as it is, has resulted in a severe crisis of faith, leaving a disenchanted Malaysian populace that is far from convinced not only of the quality of education, but also its impartiality. Hence, are we really surprised by the recent shocking and clearly seditious remarks made by two national school principals in Johor and Kedah? To compound the incredulity, no disciplinary action has since been taken!*

Separation of Power

This article now proposes that in order to create a world class education system, then the one pervading impediment needs to be resolved. In other words, the political element has to be removed.

This can be done by transferring authority over certain key areas away from the Ministry of Education to a new, independent commission that consists of stakeholders representing all interested groups such as academics, teachers, parents, civil society, religious groups, vernacular educationists, sports bodies, institutions of higher learning and of course representatives from the Ministry. Crucially, the political executive, i.e. the ministerial office, must have no direct influence over the commission except via its representatives.

Key areas under the direct purview of this commission should be control over the curriculum, school syllabus, examinations, monitoring activities such as audits and inspections, and very importantly, the teachers. This is to say that under the proposed system, the entire teaching faculty all the way to the Director-General of Education will report directly to the commission instead of to the Ministry, and by extension, the Minister.

Currently, the Education Ministry is a dichotomy of an administrative division headed by the Secretary-General, and an education division headed by the Director-General of Education, a post that is subordinate to the Secretary-General. In the proposed systemic reform, the Ministry will continue to oversee the administrative aspects of education, such as streamlining, financial operations and implementation of policies and infrastructure, while the teaching faculty will be directed by an independent and transparent commission that is responsible directly to the public.

A comprehensive and inclusive syllabus can then be devised for the approval of the commission. This is important, as not only will the commission’s views reflect the collective consensus of all interested parties, it will also very importantly be free from undue political influence. Only then can we achieve an education system that is effective, fair and objective. Teachers that espouse racialist jingoism will no longer be conveniently rescued by their political masters. The potential repercussions from this are immensely positive, and would effectively trigger a snowball effect that would increase the quality and attraction of national schools, a trend that has been suffering a downward spiral for the last three decades.

In short, there needs to be a clear delineation of power separating the education system from political abuse. At the same time, this proposal cannot on its own, result in a reformed and ‘world class’ education system. It must also be complemented by other measures to improve the quality of teaching. As the common adage goes, there are no bad students, only bad teachers. Thus, it is equally as important to find ways to expand the talent pool of our teachers.

That being said, the buck doesn’t stop with primary and secondary education. Tertiary education needs also discover its independence in order to recapture its lost glories. As long as our universities adhere to the status quo, we will never achieve our ambitions of developed nationhood. However, that is a story for another day.

*At the time of writing.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 February 2011, 10:03 am and is filed under
Education
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Missing the ocean for the ships

by
Zairil Khir Johari

The Malaysian Insider

February 10, 2011

FEB 10 — Our government recently announced that it has decided to set aside RM6 billion for the purchase of six offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) for the Royal Malaysian Navy. These OPVs are to be produced by Boustead Naval Shipyard, Malaysia’s only naval shipyard company.

This comes up to roughly RM1 billion for each boat with all its trimmings: guns, radars, missiles and what have you. It is a princely sum to be sure, but security is without doubt an important national concern. This fact should not be underestimated. However, it also does not mean that we can discard transparency and due diligence, two characteristics that are rarely associated with the arms industry.

I would like to raise some questions about this project, due in no small part to the chequered history of defence deals concluded by our government in recent times. Firstly, let us talk about need. From what I gather, these OPVs should more appropriately be called Second Generation Patrol Vessels, or SGPVs. The name is also a misnomer for it belies the fact that they are corvette-type warships rather than “patrol boats.”

Put in this context, it would appear that the price of the SGPVs is pretty much in the region proposed. However, this gives us no reason to understand why they are necessary in the first place. Ostensibly, our country’s peacetime maritime threats are usually manifested as illegal fishing (recent reports estimate an unconfirmed loss of RM1 billion annually), piracy and theft of natural resources such as oil and gas, and, of course, the pervasive attempts by illegal immigrants to find their way onto our shores.

If these are indeed the purported threats, then it sounds to me like we need more patrolling rather than warships, unless there is an imminent threat of war with our neighbouring countries that we are unaware of.

Still, I must qualify my stand. In making the above assertion, I am speaking not as a defence analyst but instead from the point of view of a foreign policy neoliberal (though far from Wilsonian). It is my suggestion, therefore, that in this era of social, cultural and economic globalisation and interdependence, an all-out war, especially one pitting us against our neighbours, would simply be quite unlikely.

Political reasons alone no longer shape international relations, especially in this day and age. Social, economic and even domestic political ramifications would in effect prevent the advent of conventional warfare.

Secondly, the turnkey vendor for the project, Boustead Naval Shipyards, is being awarded the project through direct negotiation. Even if the argument is made for the case of our local defence industry, I believe the Malaysian public would be greatly reassured if they knew the government had at least held an international tender and considered various options before deciding to award it to a local company.

Lest we forget, Boustead Naval Shipyards is the restructured and rebranded Penang Shipping Company Industries, a company which had to be bailed out half a decade ago after its failure to deliver on a shipment of OPVs. While there is no reason to believe that Boustead is likely to repeat its predecessor’s failures, I would like to assert the necessity for greater public scrutiny, given what has happened in the past.

Finally, the main point of my argument is the need for democratic governance and oversight on defence procurement. Government apologists suggest that defence matters are too complex for the layman, and go so far as to suggest that the matter is beyond even Parliament’s comprehension.

That, I am sorry to say, is the same kind of patronising excuse used by dictators to justify authoritarian rule.

 A parliamentary select committee to oversee defence procurements will not consist of laymen but selected MPs. If there are selected members of the House who are deemed competent enough to fill the various posts in the Cabinet, and indeed also the role of Minister of Defence (or should this post now be held by an un-elected General?) then it makes no sense at all to say that such matters are beyond the purview of the august House. To suggest otherwise would be an ignominious affront to the very notion of our statehood.

The essence of my concern is the matter of democratic principle. When a substantial amount of state funds are used, there needs to be transparency and accountability. Malaysians want to know whether we really do need these boats, whether other options have been considered, and whether due process has been adhered to in formulating a decision.

Discourse on the issue should therefore be framed around these arguments. To debate the minor points would be, to paraphrase an old expression, missing the ocean for the ships.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 February 2011, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Defence
,
Zairil Khir Johari
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Present NEM for formal adoption by Parliament next month if Muhyiddin’s denial that it had been “watered down” is to have any  credibility

The New Economic Model (NEM) should be presented to Parliament next month for formal adoption if Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s denial that it had been “watered down” is to have any credibility.

In fact, the revelation by National Economic Advisory Council member Datuk Dr. Zainal Aznam Mohd Yusuf on Tuesday that the NEM had been “watered down” due to pressure by Perkasa and other right-wing groups had not come as a surprise, as it merely confirmed what had been  obvious to many.

The theme of my speech in Parliament on the Tenth Malaysia Plan on 21st June last year (less than three months after the official launching of the NEM by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak), was
“Tenth Malaysia Plan: Long live NEP – RIP NEM”
:

“The Prime Minister unveiled the New Economic Model on 30th March and presented the Tenth Malaysia Plan in Parliament on 10th June. A sea-change took place in the intervening two months, with Najib retreating from his national transformation programme when he succumbed to pressures from extremist groups making baseless and incendiary claims such as that the Malays are under siege and that the Chinese would take over the economy and country.

“As a result, instead of the first policy operationalisation of the NEM, the Tenth Malaysia Plan is a funeral requiem for the NEM.

“The NEM admission that ‘the excessive focus on ethnicity-based distribution of resources has contributed to growing separateness and dissension’ is completely absent in the Prime Minister’s presentation of the Tenth Malaysia Plan.”

What is there for Muhyiddin to deny when Zainal, as NEAC member,  had only confirmed what is known to all?

The most significant “watering down” of the NEM is the abandonment of the most important of the eight Strategic Reform Initiative (SRI) described as “fundamental to achieving the NEM” – on “Transparent and market-friendly affirmative action”, viz:

“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 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.”
(Chapter 6 of NEM – p. 117)

The promises of the NEM of a needs-and-merit based transformation of the affirmative programme, to focus assistance on the low-inocme 40% of the houeholds earning less than RM1,500 per month (of which 77.2% are bumiputras), to promote building of capacity and capability, which will mean a dismanting of ethnic quotas, preferences, APs, closed tenders and other non-competitive processes, were very short-lived – all because of failure of political will and leadership.

The  NEM had warned of the dire consequences of failure of political will and leadership to carry out far-reaching national political, economic, social and government transformation.

It rightly identified the most important enablers of the NEM are 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.

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”.

But all the NEM vision, agenda and warnings have come to nought with the “watering down” of the NEM as a result of opposition of Perkasa and other right-wing extremist groups.

Lets put  Muhyiddin to the test when he denied any “watering down” of the NEM? Is he prepared to support the tabling of the NEM to Parliament when it reconvenes for a month from 7th March for MPs to adopt and endorse the NEM without any “watering down”?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 February 2011, 2:14 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
NEM
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sibu Hospital : A sad story of Sarawak

Letter by Mimi

This is a sad story of Sarawak and the Sarawakians.

What went wrong in Sarawak?

From the photos taken at the Medical Ward at the Sibu in Hospital, no one would believe Sarawak is one of the largest contributors to the Federal fund.

End of Dec 2010, I spent some time caring for a relative who was admitted at the Sibu Hospital.  From the outside, this hospital looks like a 3 star resort.  However, inside the hospital, the story is totally different.

This is 2011. How come there is no air conditioning in the Medical ward (I didn’t have the time to check out the other wards)?  During the day, the ceiling fans are merely swirling warm, muggy air in the ward.  It’s so hot & balmy that the patients leave their tops unbuttoned (yes, even the female patients).

Some patients brought their own table fans but were still too hot and did not wear their hospital blouse. In the afternoons when the heat is most unrelenting, the patients sweat and wet their pillow cases and bedsheets, especially those who are unconscious or unable to turn on their own.

Judging from the time I spent at this hospital, at least 80 per cent of the patients are natives from the interiors of Sarawak. Many of these patients are illiterate.  They don’t know the definition of “standard of living”.  Whatever the condition of the hospital, they quietly accept it.  Do they have a choice?

At night, practically all the native carers sleep on the floor.  If they had come from the interior via public transport, they wouldn’t have brought with them their own cumbersome lounge chair (if they could afford it in the first place).  The ward has plenty of unusable lounge chairs dumped in the store room.  We were lucky we could afford to buy a decent lounge chair.

The restroom inside this Medical ward is wet and stinks of urine 24 hrs a day. There’s no toilet paper or soap.  The soap dispensers are devoid of liquid soap.  It’s ironic that there are posters above the soap dispensers reminding people to wash their hands but there’s no soap provided.

The restroom outside (opposite the lifts) has no toilet paper either and it also stinks of urine.  By the way, there are only 2 toilet cubicles in both the Men’s and Ladies’ Restroom. The ladies toilet near the lifts are dimly lit. The only light is above the mirror. The blown light bulb remains unchanged (it is now Feb, maybe the bulb has been changed).

The  corridor outside the Medical ward is very wide but not a single chair was in sight.  It was a sorrowful sight to see such the relatives of the patients huddle together on the floor. They probably came from too far interior to go home and they were taking turns to care for the patient.  There is restricted number of visitors allowed to care for each patient by their bedside.

Is Sarawak so short of funds that it is not possible to make the Sibu Hospital (and other district hospitals in the state)  more hospitable?

I suspect the state of the hospital has been left status quo for many years because majority of the patients who come here are really poor and not knowledgeable  or even illiterate, hence, they don’t complain.

Yet, when it comes to garnering for votes, our
PM Najib Razak so blatently dangled RM5 million in front of the noses of the people of Sibu
.

I had sent these pictures to the Star and the New Straits Times however, neither of them were interested in the story.

Perhaps Mr. Wong can look into this.  We must really improve the Sibu Hospital and other government hospitals in the state.  We  contribute so much in petroleum revenue.  Why should our hospitals be in such a sorry state?

Thank you.

Apa Pun Boleh

Pictures :

Admirable Vision & Mission

Carers sleeping on the floor

Carers of patients resting on the floor

Carers sleeping on the floor

Carers sleeping on the floor

Carers sleeping on the floor

The ONLY usable lounge chair on night of Jan 1, 2011

The rest of the lounge chairs – spoilt

This lounge chair is spoilt too

Posters all over regarding washing hands

Soap dispenser that has no soap

Wash hands with soap poster but dispenser is soapless

Ladies toilet in the dark

The light above the toilet cubicle has blown

The only light is at the sink

img src=”http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5137/5433286210_87c19cef82.jpg” width=”500″ height=”375″ alt=”6. Wide corridor outside the medical ward but nothing for visitors to sit” />

Wide corridor outside the medical ward but nothing for visitors to sit

Just outside the Medical Ward, no chairs

No air-con, it is unbearably hot & balmy during the day

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 February 2011, 6:59 pm and is filed under
Health
,
Letters
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A blackly comic whodunit

By
Kee Thuan Chye
 | FMT

OPERATION Lalang was a black day in Malaysian history. On Oct 27, 1987, 106 people were detained under the ISA in one fell swoop. Most of them were from opposition parties and NGOs. A few newspapers were suspended. It traumatised Malaysians and made them submit to the culture of fear. Some have yet to recover from it.

Whoever initiated Operation Lalang did a strong disservice to the nation. It was a shameful exercise of power. Whatever the reason or reasons may be for invoking the ISA on that occasion on so many individuals, there is no fair justification for doing so.

Perhaps that is why Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was the prime minister then, has recently come out to say he was not responsible for it. In typical Mahathir fashion – for he is accustomed to blaming others for things he might have done – he blamed it on the police.

In his interview with Tom Plate for the recently published book Doctor M: Operation Malaysia – Conversations with Mahathir Mohamad, he said:

“Well, I would have handled it differently, except that the police wanted to do these things because they say it is necessary …

“I actually met all of the opposition members (beforehand) and assured them that they would not be arrested. And you know what the police did? They arrested them. My credibility is gone.”

It’s almost laughable – in a scary way – to note that the PM had no control over what the police were going to do on such a large scale and with such disastrous effects. How could the police have been given so much power then? Are they still as powerful today? Does that make Malaysia a police state?

Apparently, in 1987, the police did have that power – according to Hanif Omar, who was the inspector-general of police (IGP) at the time. He has just come out to corroborate Mahathir’s finger-pointing the police for launching Operation Lalang.

But more than that, he says he consulted Mahathir before swinging into action, and even though Mahathir was against it, the police took it upon themselves to steam ahead. Whoa! Is this a black comedy? The PM was against it but he had no power to forbid the IGP from carrying it out? Who’s the boss? The CEO of the country or the IGP?

Well … “(The police) were independent, at least during my time,” says Hanif.

Really scary! Are we safe any more? Who protects us from the police? During Operation Lalang, did Mahathir renege on his duty to protect the people?

Well, most of the 106 were released before the 60-day detention order was up, but at least 40 others were authorised to be detained for two years. This authorisation could only have come from the Home Minister. And the Home Minister then was Mahathir.

Wow! The plot thickens! Mahathir tells Plate he was against Operation Lalang and yet he signed the orders to detain at least 40 people for another two years! Where’s the logic? Was Mahathir unaware of what he was signing? Did he have his eyes closed? Did he say, “I don’t want to know la, just let me sign.”?

Racial flare-up

Mahathir certainly has some heavy explaining to do.

He also has to explain the suspension of the three newspapers, namely, The Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh. Did the police order the suspension too? Of course not! That could only be done by the Home Minister. And who, pray tell, might that be?

By most accounts and from the list of people detained, Operation Lalang seemed targeted at social and political activists critical of the government and mainly opposition politicians. Several of them were DAP and PAS members. But Hanif says the police action was not politically motivated.

To be sure, Operation Lalang was the outcome of the racial flare-up sparked by the controversy over the Education Ministry’s appointment of senior assistants and principals to Chinese schools who were not Chinese-educated, but why were only certain groups and individuals arrested?

Najib Tun Razak, who was then head of Umno Youth, led a huge rally in Kampung Baru, right inside Kuala Lumpur’s Malay heartland, obviously the place to whip up racial sentiments. Did that not qualify for ISA detention? And yet Najib was not taken in.

Umno announced it would hold a rally drawing half a million people. It said the event was to celebrate its 41st anniversary, but given the timing at such a potentially incendiary moment, the real agenda could be something more sinister. And yet no action was taken against those who mooted it.

Mahathir told Plate he assured the opposition politicians that they would not be arrested, but DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang, who was among those served with the two-year detention order, has come out to say he never met Mahathir before the big swoop. Neither did Mahathir give him assurance that he would not be detained.

Who is lying – Kit Siang or Mahathir?

Either way, the big-dollar question still pops up: If Mahathir said he gave that assurance, why then did he sign the order to detain Lim (and six of his DAP comrades) for two years? Again, was Mahathir unaware of what he was signing? Did he have his eyes closed? Did he say, “I don’t want to know la, just let me sign.”?

Disgraceful episode

More so than ever, we can now see how dangerous the ISA can be. Whether it grants power to the police or the Home Minister, it is subject to abuse. Now more than ever, it is clear that such a dangerous law should be abolished. What does the current administration have to say to that?

Ultimately, for Operation Lalang, regardless of who really initiated it, Mahathir, as the PM then, has to take the blame. One can’t imagine him being distressed when the cops took those 106 people in. It was to his advantage. So much so that he signed those orders to detain the unfortunate 40 for two years.

If he indeed allowed the police to call the shots, he clearly reneged on his duty to protect the people.

And what of Hanif? Now that he has “confessed” his role in that disgraceful episode, does he get off scot-free? Or should he be made to face the music for giving Malaysia a black day?

But you know what is really the sad thing to emerge from all this? For all that Mahathir and Hanif have just said, most people who can think and are sensible don’t believe either of them. That’s how low their credibility seems to have sunk.

Mahathir needs to be careful. The more he talks these days, the more disruptive, contradictory, incredulous and machiavellian he appears. Now seen to be more of a divisive than a unifying element, he might just end up becoming the most despised prime minister we’ve ever had.

As they say, history will judge him. And Operation Lalang will loom large in that judgement.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 February 2011, 11:48 am and is filed under
ISA
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mubarak speech pulls plug on Tahrir Square party

(I stayed up to watch Mubarak’s live telecast at about 5 am Malaysian time, expecting to see a peaceful Egyptian Revolution on-the-make but Mubarak’s speech and demeanour filled me with great sadness with the premonition that a tragedy is to befall the great Egyptian people. Kit)

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 11, 2011

CAIRO, Feb 11 — Joy turned to despair and then anger in Cairo’s Tahrir Square yesterday when President Hosni Mubarak’s dashed the hopes of hundreds of thousands of Egyptian protesters demanding his resignation.

The huge crowed squeezed into the square danced, sang, chanted and waved a sea of red, white and black Egyptian flags as a sense of expectation mounted through the afternoon that Mubarak would meet their demands to give up power.

“Tonight he leaves, tonight he leaves,” sang some, their confidence growing steadily through the afternoon as news reports suggested Mubarak would step down.

Rumours were rife. Some said he would leave to Germany, others were confident he would go to the United Arab Emirates.

Protest organisers painted Egyptian flags on the faces of those arriving. Tahrir Square seemed to be hosting a carnival more than a protest.

As usual, Egyptians of all walks of life and political persuasions rubbed shoulders, from bearded Islamists to secular leftists, liberals and entire families on a day out.

One girl, sitting atop her father’s shoulders, had the word “leave” written on her forehead, echoing the demand that has drawn ever larger crowds to Tahrir Square this week. As Mubarak was about to speak, protesters said they were about to witness history. “Sit, sit, sit,” chanted some.

Thousands responded, sitting on the ground in a scene that reflected the spirit of cooperation in the protest camp.

On the projector screen ahead of them, the appearance of the 82-year-old president prompted calls for quiet. Again, the crowd cooperated, a blanket of silence falling over the square.

SHOES

Under a clear night sky and a half moon, soldiers standing atop tanks and armoured vehicles were paying as much attention as anyone. Some smoked cigarettes as the president began talking.

Within less than a minute, the crowds’ joy had given way to despair. One man bowed his head as it became clear Mubarak intended to stay on.

Some took off their shoes, waving the soles at the screen. Others wagged their fingers disapprovingly or gave Mubarak the thumbs-down. Some wept.

Half-way through the speech, the protesters’ patience appeared to wear out. They stood up, chanting: “Leave, leave, leave.”

“He doesn’t want to understand. The people don’t want him in power,” said Hesham al-Bulak, 23. “He is holding onto power in a way that is utterly bizarre.”

Some demonstrators left right away, while others stayed where they were, chanting slogans into the night.

Addressing protesters as they left, one organiser, his eyes welling up with tears, shouted: “Don’t despair, don’t despair”. “There is no despair,” replied one protester. “There is not despair and there is no surrender.” — Reuters

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 February 2011, 10:38 am and is filed under
Egypt
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Would Opposition leaders have let off Mahathir for two decades if he had broken his assurance before Operation Lalang that they would not be arrested under the ISA?

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has maintained what he said in Tom Plate’s new book
“Doctor M: Operation Malaysia – Conversations with Mahathir Mohamad
” that he had “actually met all of the opposition members (beforehand) and assured them that they would not be arrested”.

Following my rebuttal that I had never met Mahathir and that he never gave me any assurance that I would not be arrested before the launch of Operation Lalang on Oct. 27, 1987, Mahathir repeated yesterday: “I met Kit Siang and his friends as a group”.

He said he felt some of the political figures did not need to serve detention at that time.

“It was the police who took action against them and I accepted their decision.”

I had challenged Mahathir to name the Opposition leaders he had met and given assurance that they would not be arrested – now reduced to “Kit Siang and his friends as a group” –but subsequently overruled by the police in the Operation Lalang crackdown, but Mahathir has not been able to name anyone of the others.

The simplest rebuttal to Mahathir’s claim would be to pose the question – Whether the  Opposition leaders to whom Mahathir had given an assurance that they would not be arrested in an Internal Security Act (ISA) crackdown would have let off Mahathir for two decades if he had broken his solemn word to us before Operation Lalang of no ISA arrests?

We would have ridiculed him as a impotent Prime Minister and Home Minister at the beck-and-call of the Police –  which everybody know was not true.

Former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar has come out to corroborate Mahathir’s version of Operation Lalang, claiming that “it was entirely the police’s decision”.

If so, can Hanif explain why the UMNO Youth leader at the time, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, was not arrested in the Operation Lalang crackdown as it was the Umno and Umno Youth leaders who were chiefly responsible for creating the racial tensions of October 1987?

Or was Najib in the police arrest list but overruled by Mahathir?

I did pose this question to Mahathir after my release together with Guan Eng from Kamunting Detention Centre on April 19, 1989 – the last two Operation Lalang detainees to be set free after 18 months of detention.

Both of us were released without conditions but there were 16 former Operation Lalang detainees who were subject to restrictive conditions relating to freedom of speech and movement depriving them of their civic and political rights.

In my meeting with Mahathir on 6th May 1989, I had asked Mahathir point-blank why Najib had not been detained if Operation Lalang was allegedly to deal with the racial tensions in October 1987, referring in particular to the Umno Youth rally at Jalan Raja Muda Stadium in Kuala Lumpur on 17th October 1987 with banners displaying slogans: “MAY 13 HAS BEGUN” and “SOAK IT (KRIS) WITH CHINESE BLOOD”.

There was no proper answer from Mahathir, only the typical illogical Mahathir retort: “Who asked you to provoke him?”

Mahathir never told me that it was the Police who wanted to make the Operation Lalang arrests and that he had no choice as Home Minister but to go along.

Despite Hanif’s collaboration, nobody would believe that Mahathir was not the mastermind of the Operation Lalang arrests to consolidate his power position in Umno.

It is public knowledge at the time that Hanif was on his way out, and the man who had the full confidence of the Prime Minister was the then Special Branch Director, Tan Sri Rahim Noor, whom everybody expected to take over as IGP after Hanif. May be, an explanation from Rahim Noor might be more appropriate than from Hanif.

Be that as it may, what is intriguing is why Mahathir is trying to rewrite history as to who was responsible for the Operation Lalang arrests – some two decades after the darkest chapter of human rights in Malaysia.

This is not the first time that Mahahtir had passed the buck of responsibility for Operation Lalang to the police. He did it the first time in August 2006 and I had immediately rebutted him at the time.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 February 2011, 1:45 pm and is filed under
ISA
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Of Sin, Siti and small-minded men without sagacity

By
Martin Jalleh

Siti Nor Bahyah Mahamood is a well-known Islamic motivator on local television and a popular TV personality, with Semanis Kurma on TV9 and Astro being her biggest hit.

As a famous personality, one would expect her to have all the facts on her fingertips in her efforts to educate, motivate and even propagate her faith! Surely her experience as a professional motivator would teach her that you can’t motivate people by humiliating others!

Recently, she decided to discourage Muslim youth from celebrating Valentine’s Day. It is actually quite a noble effort. I too do not believe in V’s Day (Catholic though I be) and I think it is tragic to have to say “I love you” only once a year and with a blooming rose that costs a bomb!

But I have no problem with the rest of the world who are caught up by the commercialization of love and romance (though now its extended to more than just a celebration of lovebirds) and are ready to pay a crazy and costly sum, probably to make up for their neglect of 364 days in the year!

V’s Day has become a day when, love is blind, the florists flourish, and hotels and restaurants reap roaring profits by holding the ridiculous! It has no religious significance whatsoever! As for those who wish to unleash their lust on V Day, VD (a different kind of rose) might await them!

Sadly, Siti’s ignorance showed when she, in an RTM programme last week, linked V’s Day to Christianity and immoral activities. She said “immoral activities, partying and unmarried couples associating in private are traditions of the Christian community”!

Surprisingly, as a motivator, Siti is glaringly show of understanding. V’s Day is not a Christian tradition and all Christian traditions and tenets do not condone, in fact abhor “immoral activities”, and “unmarried couples associating in private”.

If only Siti would sit quietly and ponder she will realize that vice and virtue lie in the adherents of every faith and there is really no need of making a scapegoat of other religions and insulting them for the sins of the people of her own faithful!

A Christian Conspiracy to Corrupt Muslims?

The Malaysian Insider reported on 11 Feb. 2011 that both the KL Islamic Department (Jawi) and Selangor Islamic Department (Jais) have banned Muslims from celebrating V’s Day, calling it “a Christian tradition” in a Friday sermon delivered in mosques on that day.

Alas, if Jawi, Jais or Jakim want to reduce themselves into one big Joke, it is really none of our business, but claiming that V’s Day is a Christian tradition and inferring that it is part of a Christian conspiracy to “corrupt” Muslims, is to say but the least, a jaundiced view…very unislamic indeed!

The sermon continued with its slanderous spree: “Remember that the Jews and Christians would continue to deceive Muslims. They will do everything to undermine the Muslims’ belief and personality”!

Prepared by the Selangor’s Islamic authority, the sermon also said that V’s Day “is celebrated in many ways, starting with greeting cards, flowers and dance parties. In fact some celebrate it with a date which would eventually lead to illicit sex”!

What about the illicit sex that takes place on non-Valentine Days? Who is to be blamed?  What about the sex scandals committed by Members of Parliament, Ministers and a host of people in high places….were they all committed on V”s Day? Were they the result of a conspiracy by the Jews and Christians?

Jais caused quite a jolt when it pointed out that there were 257,411 births out of wedlock between 2000 and 2008 and blamed V’s Day celebrations as one of the causes. You mean to say nine V’s Days could produce 257, 411 births?  Is this what Najib’s model of moderate Islam is all about?

Not only are they insulting the Christians but they are so condescending in how they view the Muslims in Bolehland – who have in recent times been portrayed as people who are so very easily confused, convinced, converted and corrupted! But then again, we are told that is none of our business.

It appears that Siti, Jawi, Jais and Jakim need to do a lot of soul searching. Surely the strength of Islam does not lie in creating a “siege mentality” and in their ignorance, insulting other religions.

The different faiths in this country are often faced with many similar challenges which could be more easily overcome if we were to synergise our earnest efforts rather than creating slurs and suspicions on the supposed salacious conspiracies of other religions to turn young Muslims into sex fiends!

May I wish Jawi, Jais and Jakim Happy Anti-Valentine’s Day! And to those who celebrate it in a big way, Happy Valentine’s Day – whatever it means!

To PAS Youth, instead of conducting “immorality checks” on V’s Day in opposition-ruled states, why not take a break from politics and be romantic enough to spend precious time with your beloved under the moon, always conscious that God is watching you from a distance!

To the Muslims who really want to celebrate V’s Day but cannot as a result of the recent ban, please do not be angry but in keeping with the spirit of the day, send a rose to Siti, Jawi, Jais and Jakim – unless the rose is deemed by them as a Christian flower used to seduce Muslims into immorality!

(13 Feb. 2011)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 13 February 2011, 5:05 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #53

by
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 7:  Enhancing Human Capital

Adding Value to a Routine Airport Taxi Ride

The second anecdote concerns an airport trip in Atlanta my wife and I took after a medical convention.  On discovering that a limousine was only slightly more expensive than a taxi, we decided to go in style.  We stepped into this luxurious limousine, with the driver in tuxedo no less, dutifully opening the door and helping us in.  I felt like a celebrity, or perhaps a sultan.  The driver inquired of our flight and he immediately phoned ahead to find its status.  As the flight was going to be delayed, he suggested we take the scenic country road.  Normally he would charge extra for such a detour but since he would be saving gas by not getting stuck on the freeway at peak commuting time, he would dispense with it.  Delighted, we cheered him on.  He also welcomed us to some complimentary beverages and fresh fruits from his small fridge.  We felt vindicated; the extra cost more than compensated by the freebies!

       The driver too was very informative.  We drove by some stately historical mansions around the city with his giving us a running commentary on the history.  We felt as if we were being taken through the Civil War, tracing the destructive path General Sherman took.  It turned out that our driver was a history major at the local university.  The point is, he was more than just a driver.  Because of his education he was an informative tour guide and a history lecturer to boot!  He added value to a routine airport trip, and we tipped him accordingly.

Contrast that with our experience recently at Malaysia’s spanking new multibillion-dollar Sepang airport.  First, the “limousine” was nothing more than a fancy taxi.  Second, the poor driver spoke not a word of English (imagine serving an international airport!) and only a smattering of Malay.  As we had not been to Malaysia for sometime, we were suitably impressed first with the airport and then with the gleaming new freeways and all the new constructions.  But for every question we asked the driver, we received a grunting, “Tak tau” (Don’t know).  And when we reached our hotel, because of the lineup at the entrance, he tried to drop us by the curb.  After we protested, he reluctantly drove us up to the lobby.  He never so much as got out of his seat to help us.  And this character expected a generous tip from us!  Unlike my Atlanta driver, this Malaysian driver was probably a school dropout.

       My last example is from Japan, a country famed for producing top quality goods.  One of the reasons is that Japanese workers are highly trained and well educated.  They all have at least a high school education.  William Deming, the American quality control guru, was revered there for his work on statistical quality control.  He wrote about a factory that tried very hard to improve the already high quality of its products.  But it reached a plateau.  Try as the workers might, they could not better their figures.

       One day one of the workers noted the machines were shaking from the rolling of a nearby freight train.  She immediately sensed the significance and intuited the cause of the factory’s product defects.  Sure enough, on further analysis she found that statistically, goods produced on days the train was not running had a lower rejection rate.  Supported by this finding the company decided to build a deep moat around the factory to shield it from the train’s vibrations.  It worked, further dropping the already low rejection rate of the factory’s products.

If factory workers were merely simpletons working like robots, the significance of the train would have been missed.  Again this proves the importance of education and training even for factory workers.  Training and education alone are not enough by themselves.  Workers in authoritarian countries may be equally well educated and highly trained, but because of their environment of repression and tight control, it is unlikely for them even if they were aware of the problem to even think of alerting their superiors.

       These three anecdotes give a qualitative sense to the differences in the caliber of the workforce in different countries.  The UN Development Program (UNDP) has created its Human Development Index (HDI) to quantify these differences.  The HDI is actually a measure of the quality of the populace and thus indirectly, the workforce.  Marked variations occur not only between but also within nations.  The UNDP used a variety of measures to assess HDI, among them health indices, literacy rate, percentage of students completing high school, and per capita income.

According to the 2001 Index, Norway leads the way with United States, sixth.  At the bottom are the three African states of Burundi, Niger, and Sierra Leone.  Malaysia stands at 56 (it was 61 in 2000, and 56 way back in 1999).  We are right behind Russia but ahead of Bulgaria.  The three model states I discussed earlier stand at:  South Korea, 15; Ireland, 18; and Argentina, 34.  Our ASEAN neighbors are headed by Singapore at 26; Brunei, 32; while Thailand, Philippines, and Indonesia rank respectively at 60, 70 and 102.

        Within Malaysia I would anticipate significant differences between regions, sexes, and most significantly from the political viewpoint, between Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras.  As an aside, because of the sensitive issue of race in Malaysia, it is important that we appreciate the nuances and differences in these figures and be cautious in attributing the differences purely to race.  Apparent differences in the school dropout rates between Malays and non-Malays for example, may not be due to race, rather to urban and rural factors.  Until we can sharpen our statistical analysis, we should not be quick to attribute differences purely to race.

        Another equally important factor is how the nation treats its talented and gifted.  Every year we read in the popular press about students, usually non-Bumiputras, who have done well in their public examinations, only to be denied admission into Malaysian universities.  A lucky few would be offered scholarships by foreign entities.  Not surprisingly these individuals rarely return, their talent forever lost to the country.  Nor is the treatment of bright young Bumiputras any better.  It is widely acknowledged that Petronas scholars are among the best.  Having met many of them, I agree.  I congratulate Petronas for its ability to attract these promising young Malaysians.  But when I meet these students I am struck that many of them are pursuing a field of study that is not their first choice or even one they really like.  They simply accept the scholarship because that is the only way to get their studies funded or for going overseas.  I wonder at the missed opportunities and unfulfilled dreams had these students been given the freedom to choose their own courses.

       Malaysia has considered development mainly in physical terms – factories, roads, ports and airports.  A more enduring and effective strategy would be to improve the nation’s greatest asset: its people.  Enhancing the quality of the citizens, quite apart from being the “right thing” to do, would also better prepare the nation to meet the challenges of globalization.

Next:   Enhancing Human Capital Through Better Health

                This entry was posted on Monday, 14 February 2011, 5:44 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Taib will dissolve Sarawak assembly this week, say sources

By
Yow Hong Chieh

The Malaysian Insider

February 14, 2011

Feb 14 — Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud will meet with the Sarawak Governor this Friday to seek his consent to dissolve the state assembly, sources say.

A source at Astana Sarawak told The Malaysian Insider the chief minister’s office had called last week to fix a February 18 appointment with Tun Abang Muhammad Salahuddin Abang Barieng for that purpose.

Another source in the state government said district officers have been asked to freeze leave for their staff as of February 19, when the dissolution is expected to be announced.

A February dissolution would lend weight to speculation that Taib will call for state elections in March or April, ahead of the expiry of the state assembly’s term in July.

The Election Commission (EC) is required to hold elections within 60 days of the assembly’s dissolution.

The Malaysian Insider reported yesterday that the Barisan Nasional (BN) has decided not to hold a general election simultaneously with Sarawak as Datuk Seri Najib Razak wants to finish touring the country first.

The prime minister is said to be delaying earlier plans to seek a fresh mandate in the first half of 2011 to allow big-ticket economic projects to gain traction.

Najib said last week that Sarawak BN will hold a convention on March 6, raising the prospect of early state elections.

Also, Taib is due to celebrate his 30th anniversary in power on March 26 and an election victory will cap his career as the state’s longest-serving chief minister.

Umno officials and BN lawmakers told The Malaysian Insider in January that Najib favoured holding elections only after projects like the construction of the city’s mass rapid transit (MRT) and Sungei Besi development kick off.

Taib, who leads Sarawak BN and also its largest party, Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu Sarawak (PBB), has kept political observers guessing when state elections will take place.

The 74-year-old veteran intimated last year that he had received inspiration on when to call the election during his pilgrimage to Mecca, but stop short of revealing the date.

“I have the inspiration but I won’t tell you (the date),” he told reporters in November.

Taib, who has served as Sarawak chief minister for the past 29 years, is said to be under pressure from BN partners to step down due to his waning popularity amid abuse-of-power allegations.

The DAP’s victory in Sibu last year on the back of a major vote swing — which some saw as a referendum on Taib — has given BN cause for concern in a state long seen as a “fixed deposit” by the ruling coalition.

The Sarawak BN holds 63 seats in the 71-seat assembly, with 35 held by PBB, 12 by the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP), and eight each by Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) and the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP).

Of the remaining eight seats, DAP has six and PKR one, while the last is held by an independent.

The EC has announced its readiness to hold the Sarawak polls at any time, with its chairman stating that the commission had “long made preparations” for any eventual dissolution of the assembly.

The BN is expected to keep the state with a comfortable majority although there is concern that the DAP might be able to secure more seats in the urban areas.

A senior DAP leader told The Malaysian Insider that it has heard of a possible dissolution of the state assembly this weekend and has made preparations for snap polls.

“We are as ready as we can be for the state polls,” said the DAP leader, who declined to be named.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 14 February 2011, 10:34 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir should make a greater effort to remember his astounding meeting before Operation Lalang giving assurance of no ISA arrests

Yesterday, despite denials by DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh (who was one of the seven DAP MPs detained by Tun Mahathir’s  Ministerial order in 1987) and I that there had been such a meeting or  assurance before the Operation Lalang crackdown, the former Prime Minister stuck to his version, saying:

“This happened 20 years ago. I remember distinctly having the meeting. I don’t really remember the faces of those who were there, but I am quite certain that Karpal Singh was not there and that Lim Kit Siang was there.”

This is most untypical of Mahathir, who is credited with elephantine memory except when for political reasons he chose to be a victim of amnesia  – as during his 90-minute testimony before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Videotape Scandal in January 2008 where he said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 14 times!

Could it be possible that he had “met all of the opposition members and assured them that they would not be arrested” and he could not remember their faces except mine – or when, where or who else from his side who were present or party to the meeting?

Mahathir should make a greater effort to remember this astounding  meeting before Operation Lalang mass arrests where he allegedly “met all of the opposition members and assured them that they would not be arrested” – not only the who, but all other details as to the where, when and how the meeting came about, together with eye-witness accounts.

There is no reason why any Opposition leader should hide the truth of such a meeting and assurance of no-ISA detentions if they had actually happened, for it would have been the chief reason for the ISA detainees and the civil society to argue against  their detention in national and international campaigns  – but which was never used during the entire Operation Lalang period  as nobody knew about it.

I had mentioned that after my Operation Lalang release from Kamunting Detention Centre in May 1989, I had met Mahathir in the Prime Minister’s Office where I had asked him point-blank why the Umno Youth leader, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had not been detained for escalating the racial tensions in the country in Oct. 1987 while innocent ones were made victims of Operation Lalang.

The first question I would have popped to Mahathir at that meeting would be to ask him why he had broken his word why he had failed to honour his assurance to opposition leaders that there would be no ISA detentions, if Mahathir had indeed met with opposition leaders and given such an assurance before the launch of Operation Lalang.

This speaks volumes and the more interesting question is why Mahathir is now trying to rewrite history to clear himself of the infamy of the Operation Lalang mass crackdown.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, 4:08 pm and is filed under
ISA
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A race with no winners

by
Zairil Khir Johari

I recently read about a family who had returned to Malaysia after many years abroad. Their six-year-old was enrolled into a local kindergarten. One day, during his first week in school, he came back excited about some race everyone was talking about.

Thinking there was a competition, his parents asked the teachers at school the next day. As it turned out, the other students had been pestering their son about his ethnicity, seeing as he had no discernibly stereotypical features, being a child of mixed parentage. The couple did not quite know what to make of it, as up till then, their son had no understanding of an identity other than his nationality — Malaysian.

Reading this story triggered a distant memory. I was around the same age during a brief sojourn in the United States, when one day a boy in the neighbourhood called out to me.

“Hey, Asian boy!”

I did not quite know what to make of it. Like the boy in kindergarten, I too had no grasp of the concept of ethnicity, and so failed to pick up on the racial epithet. I rationalised that he must have been referring to a country. However, having memorised the names of most of the countries in the world, I was quite certain that there was no country called “Asia” (clearly, I was also unaware of the concept of continents).

And so I replied: “I’m not Asian. I’m MALAYSIAN. I’m from MALAYSIA. Asia isn’t even a country!”

Though slightly older, he was probably confused by my retort. He continued with a tinge of doubt in his voice.

“He’s Asian,” he said to the posse around him, some of whom nodded their agreement. He grinned, slightly reassured. “You’re an Asian boy.”

I realised much later that he had been referring to my race. Of course, with time and age, I soon familiarised myself with the racial construct, with particular reference to our unique Malaysian manifestation. There is no doubt that race is an important identity, as is religion.

After all, it is our culture, traditions and mores that render colour into an otherwise sepia existence. However, nothing is without its traps. The ubiquity and convenience of race also opens itself to exploitation as a means of division and control.

When our country was founded, there was neither a common language nor identity. We had inherited a colonial legacy that had stratified our society along racial lines. However, efforts were set in motion to integrate the country — a national language (Bahasa Malaysia), a shared identity (Malaysian), an economic policy designed to socially re-engineer racial inequities (NEP), and of course the 1 Malaysia concept, an amalgamation of the “Bangsa Malaysia” notion.

After half a century, we now have three generations of post-Merdeka Malaysians. Technically, we should have moved on by now. So why then, in this day and age, is our national discourse still dominated by race?

Stripped of its racial façade, the questions of poverty, equality, freedom and justice are merely that. Quantifying problems through racial statistics does not actually assist in solving anything. If being poorer is harder because you are of a particular race, then it is the system that is broken. Let’s fix that.

Thoroughly eradicating poverty would mean that no one of any race would suffer hardship. If deaths in custody and police violence seem to affect one community more than others, I say it shouldn’t even happen in the first place, to any Malaysian. We should thus focus on restoring the independence and credibility of our enforcement agencies.

Wouldn’t it be better for Malaysia, and by extension, all Malaysians, if we focused on solving issues, rather than preoccupying ourselves with its racial contextualisation?

While I am not suggesting that we disregard our racial identities, I am proposing that our national discourse would benefit greatly from a wider and less parochial paradigm. There is a coloured tint in our looking glass, and it is obscuring our vision.

Racialising issues will only lead to greater division and irrational quarrels. In the long run, it will be counter-productive to nation-building. If we continue along the current path of excessive racialism, in which every social, educational and political issue is portrayed as a case of one race against another, the Rubicon will soon be crossed.

This is not a competition that we should partake in, for in a race of races, there will only be losers.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 16 February 2011, 12:47 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians sympathise and support the decision of Teoh Beng Hock family to pull out of RCI as it has no confidence in its independence and professionalism

Malaysians sympathise and support the decision of Teoh Beng Hock’s family to pull out of the Royal Commssion of Inquiry as it has no confidence in its independence and professionalism to get to the bottom of Teoh’s mysterious death at Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters at Shah Alam on July 16, 2009 after falling from MACC’s 14th floor.

The family’s confidence in the independence and professionalism was greatly crushed when the RCI today refused to accede to its requests, made through lawyers Karpal Singh and Gobind Singh Deo,  firstly, that Commission Chairman Tan Sri James Foong should recuse himself as he is a sitting Federal Court judge and secondly, to be given time to seek judicial review over the appointment of deputy public prosecutors from the Attorney-General’s Chambers as conducting officers of the RCI.

How can anyone have confidence in the independence and professionalism of the Teoh Beng Hock RCI when on the one hand, officers from the AG’s Chambers are responsible for the conduct of the RCI while on the other hand, the Attorney-General is actively seeking a revision of the “Open Verdict” of the Teoh Beng Hock inquest?

As nobody believes that the Attorney-General wants to overturn the “Open Verdict” of the inquest because the coroner, Azmil Muntapha Abas, should have returned a finding of “death by homicide”, the only conclusion left is that the AG wants to repudiate the Coroner’s finding and return a verdict of “Death by Suicide”, i.e. that the MACC is completely exonerated for Teoh’s death.

How can the Teoh Beng Hock family or ordinary Malaysians have confidence in the independence and professionalism of the RCI when the officers responsible for the conduct of the RCI are officers from the AG’s Chambers – when at the very same time  the Attorney-General is actively seeking to challenge the inquest finding ruling out “suicide” as the cause of Teoh’s death?

The least that the Attorney-General should have done to ensure public confidence in the Teoh Beng Hock RCI is to withdraw his  application for revision of the inquest finding into Teoh Beng Hock’s death into one of suicide and to allow the appointment of independent counsel not beholden to the Attorney-General for the independent  conduct of the proceedings of the RCI!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 16 February 2011, 5:58 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Syabas to Penang’s interfaith panel

By
Thomas Lee

Mysinchew.com

2011-02-16

Penang has become the first state in the country to establish a state executive council portfolio to handle religious matters relating to the non-Islamic religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism, Taoism and Hinduism.

The high-profile Exco Non-Islamic Religious Affairs Committee is headed by Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng himself, with Deputy Chief Minister (II) Prof Dr P. Ramasamy as the deputy chairman.

The proposal for the committee was tabled by Ramasamy at the recent weekly state executive council meeting and approved.

The establishment of the exco committee marks the high point in the state’s celebration of the United Nations World Interfaith Harmony Week this week.

According to Guan Eng, the exco portfolio seeks to promote diversity and positive human interaction on cultural, religious and social spheres, matters which are consistent with George Town as a UNESCO World Heritage city.

“Despite our differences, we are united by our common aspirations for good practices and universal moral values of peace, justice, moderation and harmony. Co-operation not confrontation, mutual respect not tolerance, and understanding not ignorance will be the governing creed of this new Penang exco portfolio,” Guan Eng said.

As a demonstration of his sincere and pragmatic approach to the matter of racial and religious harmony, Guan Eng has offered to co-operate and work with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to prevent any extremist or militant groups from threatening the unity and security of the country.

Najib had expressed similar hopes when he addressed the United Nations 65th general assembly last year.

Guan Eng said that the Penang state government is concerned at the existence of extremist groups which seek to racialise every event for their own selfish interests.

He pointed out that the Pakatan Rakyat-controlled Penang state government has been under siege with constant unwarranted attacks of being anti-Malay even if a simple and small matter involves merely 10% Malays or one Malay out of 10 affected parties.

Guan Eng urged the people to embrace the future by embracing every Malay, Indian, Chinese, Kadazan and Iban, as Malaysian brothers and sisters, Malaysian sons and daughters, so that “we grow together, learn together and enjoy the success together”.

Guan Eng must be given full support for dealing with the inter-faith issue sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than mere rhetorical and theoretical considerations.

The setting-up of the high-profile Exco Non-Islamic Religious Affairs Committee in Penang is certainly a very positive practical first step in dealing with and managing the most highly sensitive inter-racial and inter-religious potency in our pluralistic multi-faceted society.

In every human society throughout the world and throughout history, the various religions and their theologies, ethics, and traditions influence everything else, shaping socio-economic and political ideas and ideals, attitudes and institutions. Religious teachings and traditions shape how people respond to each other in their daily social inter-course and interaction in the community at large.

Most of us jealously preserve and protect our own religious beliefs and traditions as generally they symbolize our essential identities, theologically, historically, culturally, socially, and even politically. Ultimately, our religious faiths symbolize for us as communities and individuals our dignity as persons and our very souls.

Hence, in our multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, and multi-ideological society, the only way for us to live in peace and harmony is for us to live in peaceful co-existence, recognizing, understanding, accepting, respecting, and even enduring patiently and lovingly with each other.

Obviously, there are some of us who believe that we must “share our faith” with those whom we consider “lost”, and will go all out to convert people of the other faiths.

Of course, such motivation to bring about redemption for those whom we believe are doomed may not be bad or wrong, but the way we “share our faith” or propagate our religious beliefs must take into consideration the fundamental human and divine rights of others to believe and practise their particular faiths.

In the preocess of seeking to evangelise or seeking to win others to our own faith, we must not run down, denounce or condemn the religious systems of others. About the only legitimate way we can share our faith is just to tell and explain our faith to those who are willing to hear, period. It is certainly not at all right and proper to deprecate and desecrate the religious beliefs of others.

Hence, I believe the most vital tool in the promotion of religious harmony among people of various faiths and belief systems is dialogue.

Guan Eng’s Exco Non-Islamic Religious Affairs Committee should perhaps consider holding regular roundtable dialogues for the leaders of the various religious groups in the state as a mean to promote understanding and fellowship.

The issues to be discussed should be those of common universal ethical values and matters of common interests in the socio-economic and political fields.

Such a roundtable dialogue could be held whenever some socio-religious issues that cause confusion and controversy among the people. For example, the recent controversy over the Valentine’s Day celebration could easily have been resolved following a declaration by a roundtable consensus.

Actually, the Valentine’s Day controversy was not a real issue but exploited by some silly brainless people to gain public attention and promote their narrow political-religious agenda. The storm in the Valentine tea cup stirred up by the not-so-intelligent and not-so-informed smart alexes could have simply be dismissed as a petty trivial matter.

One significant way for a plural society like Malaysia to cultivate, promote and develop interfaith harmony is through education. Much of the confusion and conflicts concerning religion is caused by the lack of understanding and appreciation of the real teachings and practices of each other’s religion.

Hence, I believe that have religious studies as a compulsory subject in school could help promote understanding, appreciation and acceptance of each other’s faith.

Currently, only the Muslim students have the privilege to attend lessons on their faith from primary to secondary school level. It is time to make the study of comparative religions a subject for all students, so that our young people will grow up with a balanced attitude towards people of other faith. And to ensure there is no accusations or charges of deceptive presentation of the various religions, the textbooks for the various faiths should be written and recommended by the religious authorities of the faiths concerned.

There are several things that Guan Eng’s Exco Non-Islamic Religious Affairs Committee should initially do.

First, it should draft a code of interfaith relationship, listing out the various areas where religious leaders can jointly work together, and the sensitivities of each religious faiths.

Secondly, it should appoint a panel of religious experts to monitor the state of interfaith relationship in Penang.

Thirdly, it should hold an annual interfaith conference over one weekend, inviting respected world religious leaders to share and talk on issues of common universal religious-moral values and practices.

Finally, it should embark of an information cum education campaign among the people by publishing a weekly state government newspaper to let them know what the state government is doing. The mainstream media have not been fair to the Pakatan Rakyat-controlled states, and have been ignoring important messages by the elected leaders of the state. For example, Guan Eng’s Chinese New Year was not given any coverage in the mainstream newspapers.

Guan Eng’s Exco Non-Islamic Religious Affairs Committee deserves the support of all the people, especially the religious authorities of the various faiths. Our plural Malaysian society is currently in a frail state, with fragile grip on the racial-religious reality we are in. Hence, we must support Guan Eng’s very noble effort at seeking to bring together the people of all faiths to live and co-exist in peace and harmony.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 16 February 2011, 11:03 pm and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang Government
,
Religion
,
Thomas Lee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Refusal to set up IPCMC the strongest proof of continuing lack of political will to eradicate police abuses and corruption

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s reiteration that the government still has no plans of forming an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) is the strongest proof of continuing lack of political will to eradicate police abuses and corruption.

Malaysians will remember that it was Hishammuddin when he was Umno Youth leader who led the opposition to the establishment of the IPCMC more than five years ago when it was proposed by the Dzaiddin Royal Police Commission as the most important of its 125 recommendations to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class police force, going even against the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who had publicly committed himself to accept and implement the IPCMC recommendation.

It was the combination of political opposition from Umno and police opposition led by the police leadership at the time which forced Abdullah to backtrack and finally scuttled the IPCMC proposal.

The spate of high-profile cases of police abuse and custodial deaths in the past few years, whether A. Kugan, 14-year-old student Aminurasyhid Amzah, framemaker Chia Buang Hing and pregnant store owner Chow Soo Meng, as well as human rights abuses by the police as in the weekend mass arrests of 59 Hindraf marchers protesting the controversial use of Interlok as school textbook have again highlighted the need for an IPCMC where public complaints of police abuses could be seen to be addressed with full seriousness, authority, independence, impartiality and professionalism.

The Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission’s recommendations, including those for increased allowances, improved emoluments and upgrading of posts have largely been implemented except for the most important one going to the root of public confidence in the efficiency, integrity and professionalism of the police force – an IPCMC to demonstrate that the police will never be a law unto itself but is equally to account to the public for abuses and misuses of power.

With the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s “People First, Performance Now” slogan, Hishammuddin as Home Minister should table a formal proposal to ask the  Cabinet to revisit the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission’s IPCMC recommendation instead of continuing to spearhead opposition to IPCMC.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 17 February 2011, 12:35 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Auditor-General rues unchecked spending in GLCs

by
Aidila Razak

Malaysiakini

Feb 17, 11

Hundreds of government-linked companies (GLCs) have been established in Malaysia, but their performances have been mediocre.

So declared Auditor-General Ambrin Buang, who added, “sometimes, I question if they (these companies) are even relevant in the 20th century”.

Speaking at forum on public governance in Putrajaya today, Ambrin (right) said GLCs could do well to adopt the private sector’s code of governance, since it was in these public companies where much of the public funds were wasted.

“It is this sphere of government that is very loose, where people are awarded for not doing anything,” he told the audience of about 80 people, made up mostly of academicians.

Mismanagement in GLCs have featured prominently in the many reports of the auditor-general. In 2009, for example, the report to Parliament highlighted RM1.45 billion in losses incurred by Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd.

In 2005, his office ticked off the Treasury for guaranteeing loans amounting to RM47.5 billion for GLCs without sufficient supervision on how the money is to be repaid.

Stop rewarding the crooks

However, Ambrin said today that it is “not fair” to say the government wasn’t doing much to curb excessive spending, particularly in GLCs, as the cabinet had instructed that all those responsible be brought to task.

“But action by the heads of department has been lacking. (They) condone or kesian (feel pity) because they are retiring, etc. That must change,” he said.

Panelist and Umno disciplinary board member Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas, said the size of the bureaucracy made corruption difficult to police.

“We have one federal government, 13 state governments and more than 100 local governments. We have too much government that is becoming ungovernable. There are many layers of power, overlapping half of the time,” Megat Najmuddin said.

However, good public governance, the former Kelana Jaya assemblyperson said, could not take place without political governance.

“Funding for political parties is totally opaque and this is where the problem starts, it creates corruption… Our political system is built for corruption,” he said.

Megat Najmuddin added that Malaysia’s system of reward and punishment was “upside down, for we punish the good and reward the crooks”.

“That is the general view, if you look at who gets a datukship or becomes a Tan Sri,” he said.

Safeguards are weak

Agreeing with him, UiTM professor of law Shad Saleem Faruqi said corruption in Malaysia had become “institutionalised”.

“The tender system, for example, is the mother of all corruption… The electoral system, too, limits the amount spent on individual candidates, but not that spent by the (political) party.

“(The government) tries to solve problems using populist measures, like in education, where we shave the mountain instead of preparing students so they can mount the peak,” Shad Faruqi (right) said.

In a speech he made earlier, he noted that several instutitional safeguards of good governance in Malaysia were weak, including the judiciary, which he described as “having become part of the problem”.

Federalism, which aimed at limiting power and areas of corruption, Shad Faruqi said was “not working very well” as Malaysia practised a “quasified system”, as had been evident in the appointment of Selangor state secretary Mohd Khusrin Munawi without the menteri besar’s consent.

“Surely, the chief executive (of the state) should have a say. That adheres to the spirit of federalism. There may be legality (in the appointment), but there is no legitimacy,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 18 February 2011, 12:43 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Critical test for Najib’s 1Malaysia

Yesterday, political scientist  Farish Noor  told the forum on public governance by the Perdana Leadership Foundation and the National Professors’  Council that Malaysia is dangerously close to absolutely breaking down if racial politics is not kept in check.

Farish, who said that Malaysia’s patterns of politics seem to reflect that of other countries which have suffered severe racial and religious discord, told the forum:

“I’ve spent more than 10 years studying dysfunctional countries and I believe we are going down the path of countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh.

“I have seen enough race and religious riots to see that Malaysia is close to going down that path.”

A week ago, former US ambassador to Malaysia John Malott warned that racial and religious tensions are higher today than when Datuk Seri Najib Razak took office in 2009 and even worse than at any time since 1969.

Najib’s 1Malaysia, which he promulgated as the signature theme of his premiership, is facing a critical test when more and more warnings are made inside and outside the country that racial and religious relations in Malaysia are at their worst since he became Prime Minister just short of two years ago.

Any independent, objective and dispassionate observer would agree with the analysis that despite all the massive publicity and propaganda about Najib’s 1Malaysia policy to create a more united, vibrant, productive and competitive Malaysia, race and religious relations have never been more jeopardised in the past two years  because of the unrelenting  stoking of communal poison and religious intolerance by quarters which seem to enjoy immunity and impunity  for such criminal incitements.

What is worse, those most guilty of sowing and escalating racial distrust and religious disharmony emanate from the ruling circles, particularly from Umno ranks and Umno’s official media, particularly Utusan Malaysia.

Why is Najib indulging in the irresponsible and dangerous game of advocating an inclusive 1Malaysia on the one hand while allowing Umno leaders and mouthpieces to poison the wellsprings of 1Malaysia nation-building with incessant extremist, exclusivist, intolerant and incendiary race and religious baiting?

Is Najib the mastermind of such devious, hypocritical and hydra-headed 1Malaysia campaign or is he captive and helpless to check such  irresponsible politics of race and religion from Umno ranks?

Furthermore, why are the other leaders of the other Barisan Nasional component parties silent, indifferent or utterly impotent in the face of such relentless  escalation of hate politics of race and religion from Umno ranks and media, which make a total mockery of Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan and policy?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 18 February 2011, 6:21 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


People’s Call for Regime Change – Part 1

By
NH Chan

17 February, 2011

(The People’s Judge reflects on the turmoil in the Middle East – a people’s revolution inspired by the power of the new media on the internet such as Facebook and Twitter – and the lessons for us in Malaysia. He ends with a personal note of his own political awakening, and a call to action for all of us who care for this country.- loyarburok.com)

The uprising in Egypt, the uprising in Tunisia,the uprising in Yemen and even in Jordan there are rumblings in the kingdom. The message is clear. The people do not want their dictators.

And what is the difference between kings, dictators and oligarchs? They are all totalitarian regimes – this means a system of government consisting of only one leader or party and having complete power and control over the people.

But the people do not want that kind of government; they want democracy – this word means a form of government in which the people have a say in who should hold power; they do not want despotism. And this wish of the people could only mean that they want a government of the people, by the people and for the people which is what a true democracy actually is.

In other words, they do not want repressive rule in any shape or form. They want human rights. They do not want draconian and oppressive laws.

In short, they do not want to live under a perennial state of emergency because all emergency laws are only excuses for tyranny. They also want freedom of speech and a free press.

In other words they want a government which is accountable to the people. They want change from authoritarian – this word, which is an adjective, means demanding strict obedience of authority – rule.

And what is the antithesis of totalitarianism? It is democracy, which is what the people really want. In a democracy, the people can choose their own representatives in government. If the people’s choice did not perform up to their expectations they could be replaced by the people.

In a true democracy, there will be no such thing as intervention from an illegitimate source to hijack the people’s choice of representatives in their government.

The foreboding of a dictatorship

What has happened in Egypt and in the Middle East was a people’s call for regime change. The dictators there who have clung to power should have seen the writing on the wall; it was time for them to leave. The people, especially the young people because they are educated and well informed, did not want them. They have overstayed their tenure.

They became corrupted by power; there is a well known adage which says power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any dictatorship is tyrannical – the word means ‘using power in a cruel and oppressive way’ – as was seen in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak who had clung to power for 30 years. In recent events there, we have seen water cannons and tear gas being used on peaceful protestors by the regime. Mubarak’s Gestapo like police have tortured and killed dissenters: I saw a peaceful protestor exclaim on TV “They have shot me! What am I? The enemy?”

In this country we have been governed by the Barisan Nasional (BN) for some 53 years. This country is supposed to be a democracy. But it is not. Guided democracy is nothing more than an excuse for tyranny. We still have draconian laws. People are still being incarcerated under the ISA which is detention without trial. There is police brutality which seems to be endemic in the force. The people’s fundamental freedoms have been muzzled; they have even used the Sedition Act against the country’s citizens.

Respect cannot be forced. If you are good respect comes naturally. The people do not want their legitimately elected state government to be hijacked by the autocrats. What happened in Perak and in Selangor are the clearest examples of governmental wrongdoings. So that if these autocrats are not careful, the tyrannical happenings in this country could easily turn into a catalyst for change.

But we do not want to follow the trend as played out in the Middle East. It is necessary, therefore, that we earnestly take steps to make the change from the BN regime at the next general elections by replacing it with a democratic one.

We do not want autocrats – the word means ‘rulers or persons with absolute power who expect obedience’ – to tell us with supercilious arrogance what is good for us, for that is another excuse for tyranny.

We want our rulers to be answerable to us, the people. Despots are not needed to run this country because they will always be corrupted by power – that is the reason why the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet should not be allowed to stay in office for more than two terms. The same should apply to the Menteri Besars and the Excos.

Animal Farm

If you have read Animal Farm -a novel by George Orwell, published in 1945 – you will know what I mean. The book is a satire in fable form. The pigs (whose leader is Napoleon) become corrupted by power and a new tyranny replaces the old. The ultimate slogan runs ‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others‘.

The BN has been with us for 53 years and on each succession of the BN government a new tyranny replaces the old. I say this because nothing has changed since the BN came to power. We have the same repressive laws. But there is now a new tyranny. The new evil is the hijacking of a legitimately elected state government in Perak and this, in my estimation, is the last straw for the people of Perak to tolerate. For the rest of the country, remember this, if it can happen in Perak it could happen again elsewhere in this country.

This was mainly the reason that made me change my mind from being apolitical to decide to vote for the underdogs because what the BN had done to Perak was wickedly unfair and unjustifiable.

After reading the book Perak: A State of Crisis I realized that these people do not even know right from wrong. They even gloat in their wrongdoings. We do not want the oligarchy – this word means a country governed by a small group of people – to be more equal than us.

I don’t have to tell you who they are – even in the BN some ‘animals’ are more equal than others. Look at their opulence.

It is a good thing if every member of the Cabinet and every member of the Exco are investigated as to their financial status and assets before they can assume office. And when they leave office they are to be investigated again. They are to be accountable if they are found to be richer than what they could have earned while in office when they leave.

That is why democracy requires the representatives of the people to be accountable to the people. Look at Mr Lim Kit Siang, he has been in politics for as long as I can remember and his son is currently the Chief Minister of Penang. Another was the late Dr Lim Chong Eu. The Perakians and the Penangites know that they are not rich.

One should be in politics to serve the people, not to get rich.

NH Chan, a much respected former Court of Appeal Judge, is a gavel of justice that has no hesitation in pounding on Federal Court judges with wooden desks for heads. Retired from the Judiciary to become the People?s Judge. Wrote the explosive “Judging The Judges”, now in its 2nd edition as “How To Judge The Judges”. Once famously hinted at a possible “case match” between lawyer and judge by remarking that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (see Ayer Molek Rubber Company Berhad & Ors v Insas Berhad & Anor [1995] 3 CLJ 359). We need more people like NH Chan. That?s why you should buy PASOC and his book.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 18 February 2011, 11:10 am and is filed under
Egypt
,
Human Rights
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.