MACC should explain why no disciplinary action taken against Mohd Nadzri when Teoh Beng Hock RCI Report made adverse comments about Nadzri’s role in Beng Hock’s mysterious death

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has urged the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) to remove Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim, its sole investigator, from investigating death-in-custody cases.

This is MACC’s response to the query by two DAP MPs, Zairil Khir Johari (Bukit Bendera) and Steven Sim Chee Keong (Bukit Mertajam) whether EAIC’s integrity would be in doubt if Mohd Nadzri was the MACC officer who was part of the MACC probe causing the mysterious death of DAP aide Teoh Beng Hock at Selangor MACC headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.

A MACC statement issued late last night said:

“SPRM does not want any SPRM officers linked to any controversies, whether it involves SPRM itself or the EAIC.

“In this matter, SPRM wishes to stress that Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim, an SPRM officer who was seconded to the EAIC since more than a year ago, is an officer who has always conducted his duties professionally.

“Like SPRM, SPRM is confident that the EAIC, which is an independent commission, would also want to ensure justice for all parties involved in the issue of deaths in custody.”

This is meaningless bureaucratic gobbledygook designed to confuse rather than to  illuminate the public, just because the government agency concerned has got embarrassing things to hide from the people.

Stripped of all its gobbledygook, the MACC statement is an admission that Mohd Nadzri, seconded from MACC to EAIC, was implicated in mysterious circumstances resulting in the death of Teoh Beng Hock at MACC headquarters nearly four years ago, but the MACC does not want to whole sordid tale to be re-opened and this is why the MACC is asking the EAIC to remove Nadzri from death-in-custody cases.

It is no business of MACC to make such a request, for it has neither powers nor jurisdiction to dictate to EAIC what its sole investigator, even seconded from MACC, should investigate or not.

This problem is not whether the EAIC investigator should investigate death-in-custody cases but that Nadzri should not have been seconded from MACC to EAIC to be chief investigator in the first place.

In fact, MACC should explain why no disciplinary action had been  taken against Mohd Nadzri when Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) Report made adverse comments about Nadzri’s credibility and integrity as well as role in Beng Hock’s mysterious death.

The TBH RCI Report, in Para 119, pronounced its finding on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, as follows:

“119. Having considered all the evidence in its entirety, we found that TBH was driven to commit suicide by the aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation to which he was subjected by certain officers of the MACC who were involved in the ongoing operation by the Selangor MACC on the night of the 15th and into the morning of the 16th.”

Malaysians of course cannot accept the RCI’s verdict of “forced suicide” as the cause of TBH’s death.

Clearly MACC officers were responsible for his death at MACC headquarters at Shah Alam on July 16, 2009 through “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” – leaving to everybody’s imagination of the unlawful and even lawless torture Beng Hock was subjected to when he was entirely at the mercy of the “oppressive and unscrupulous” MACC officers for 12 hours on those fateful hours on the night of July 15 and the early hours of July 16, 2009.

Although the TBH RCI report failed  to clearly and unmistakably pinpoint the MACC officers responsible for Beng Hock’s death, it is clear from the report that the commissioners came to the conclusion that MACC officers were responsible for Beng Hock’s death.

This is evident from two paragraphs in the TBH RCI report referring to the testimony of one MACC officer Raymond who had testified that he saw Beng Hock at 6 am on the 16th July 2009 “lying on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room”.

Expressing “grave reservations” over Raymond’s evidence, the TBH RCI said (Para 198):

“In our opinion, he was not a reliable witness and was used by those responsible for TBN’s death to distance them from their wrongdoings by creating an impression that TBH was not only alive at 6am on the 16th but was also resting comfortably and peacefully on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room.”

In Para 201, the TBH RCI said:

“ As it become obvious to us that Raymond’s evidence was tailored to fit certain objectives which in this case dovetailed those of the MACC officers responsible for TBH’s death, we rejected his evidence as being unworthy of any weight or consideration in respect of the time he claimed to have seen TBH at 6am on the 16th.”

Nadzri was one of the MACC officers suspected of causing TBH’s  death at the MACC headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.

The TBH RCI Report contained caustic comments about Nadzri’s professionalism, credibility and integrity.

For instance, the TBH RCI Report reprimanded  Nadzri for raising his voice when interrogating TBH in the early hours of July 16 (“Third Interrogation”), castigating Nadzri’s conduct as  “rather unnecessary and uncalled for”, that Nadzri “should have been more professional in his approach”, and Nadzri’s treatment of Beng Hock “certainly unwarranted” – “unless there was an agenda to put pressure on TBH by continuing to record his statement in these circumstances.”  [Para 53]

The TBH RCI even asked whether Nadzri “had deliberately prolonged this process ( the two-hour “Third Interrogation”) to torture TBH mentally and disorient him to agree to turn against his boss out of despair” [Para 160], and  condemning Nadzri’s interrogation “not only duplicitious of work but contravenes sections 30 (1)(a) and 30(8) of the MACC Act”.

In these circumstances, with the approach of Beng Hock’s fourth death anniversary with the cause of his death at the MACC headquarters in Shah Alam remaining an indictment of the institutional injustice of the country, Malaysians are entitled to a full account as to what the MACC had done to punish Nadzri and other MACC officers responsible for Beng Hock’s death by their unlawful abuses of power.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 June 2013, 6:23 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should get tough with racists like Mahathir and Utusan Malaysia seeking to destroy the message of peace and moderation with their ceaseless and reckless racist lies and falsehoods

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has urged the government to no longer be soft towards the opposition “who continue to insult the nation’s democratic system”, declaring “We need to be a bit tough, and not give them face”.

If the time has come for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to be tough and to stop “giving face”, it is to racists like Mahathir and Utusan Malaysia who have been seeking to destroy the message of peace and moderation with their ceaseless and reckless racist lies and falsehoods.

New Straits Times today carried a page headline:
“Najib tells tour bikers to relay moderation message”
, where the Prime Minister expressed hope that the “1Malaysia World Endurance Ride 2013” high-powered motor-cycle tour team would spread the message of peace and moderation to the world on behalf of Malaysia.

The question that immediately begs answer is why for the past 40 days since the May 5 general elections results, Najib had allowed racists like Mahathir and Utusan Malaysia both immunity and impunity to escalate their racist campaign of lies and falsehoods to engender racial distrust, hatred and conflict, completely against Najib’s signature policy of 1Malaysia as well as over five decades of Malaysian nation-building?

I am utterly shocked that Mahathir, despite being Prime Minister for 22 years and whose political career was saved by the Chinese voters in the 1999 general elections, could be so reckless and irresponsible during and after the 13th general elections as to openly foment racial distrust, hatred and conflict, based on pure lies and falsehoods.

In the run-up to the 13GE, Mahathir spewed racist lies and falsehoods that I was contesting in Gelang Patah because I want

•	the Chinese in Gelang Patah and Johor to “reject working together and sharing with the Malays”;

•	the Chinese in Johor “to dislike and hate the Malays” to create “conflict and antagonism between the races”;

•	create “an unhealthy racial confrontation” between the Malays and Chinese in Johor, which will be “disruptive and will not be conducive to the development of Malaysia”.

In a  rabid and racist rant, the former Prime Minister wrote in his blog on “Gelang Patah”:

“An unhealthy racial confrontation would replace Sino-Malay cooperation which has made Malaysia stable and prosperous. That cooperation will end when Kit Siang wins Gelang Patah. Even if there will not be violent clashes as seen in many countries where people are divided by race or religion, but confrontation between the three major races in Malaysia will be disruptive and will not be conducive to the development of Malaysia.”

Is Mahathir remorseful that he had written such racist garbage in the run-up to the 13GE?

My more than 14,000-vote majority y in Gelang Patah, which would not be possible without the support of Malay voters in my constituency, and the inroads made by Pakatan Rakyat in the 13GE, were not a sign of racial confrontation among the Malays and Chinese but the very opposite – a hopeful sign for the future of Malaysia where all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region, had united to reject the politics of race, corruption and abuses of power of UMNO/BN and to support a new politics of a common  Malaysian Dream rising above the politics of race to end corrupt and crony rule and the advent of clean, safe, green and good governance.

But not content with the rejection of their message of racist falsehoods, lies and hatred, Mahathir and Utusan Malaysia have returned to the irresponsible and reckless tactics of Chinese-bashing and racist provocations with a vengeance after the 13th General Elections.

In his recent blog on “Racial Polarisation”, Mahathir returned to more racist lies and falsehoods, even creating new ones like accusing  DAP and me of “hatred of Malays”.

This must qualify as “the Lie of all Mahathir Lies”, which Mahathir never made even when he was Prime Minister for 22 years from 1981-2003.

Why have Mahathir to concoct  “the Lie of all Mahathir Lies” after the 13GE?

Right from the very beginning of the DAP 47 years ago in 1966, DAP was founded as a political party for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region.

In fact, DAP is the first Pan-Malaysian political party, the first political party to operate in all states in Malaysia, whether Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak with membership comprising all Malaysians i.e. Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans and  Ibans.

From the first general election contested by DAP in 1969, DAP had fielded a multi-racial slate of candidates with the election of two Malay DAP State Assemblymen in 1969 itself.

The question of me, DAP or any DAP leader having “hatred for Malays”, or “hatred for Chinese”, “hatred for Indians”, “hatred for Kadazans” or “hatred for Dayaks”,  is  a most dangerous and contemptible lie, especially coming from one who had been Prime Minister for 22 years.

But this is a reflection of Mahathir’s increasing sense of desperation facing a diminishing market for his racist vituperations and fulminations.

If Mahathir is all the influential, I would not only have been defeated in Gelang Patah, he would have succeeded in tarring me as “No. 1 anti-Malay” in the country.

I was at first apprehensive as to what divisive and destructive effects Mahathir’s lies and racist vituperation could have on the Malays in Gelang Patah in particular and in Malaysia in general.

But I am glad and more hopeful about the future of Malaysia because I find that Mahathir’s racist lies and falsehoods have little market even among the Malays – and wherever I go after the 13thGeneral Elections, Malays regardless of background and age have come forward to congratulate me for my victory in Gelang Patah.

Clearly, the Malays are not only forsaking UMNO, they are forsaking Mahathir even more – showing that the former Prime Minister is facing the law of diminishing returns in his political influence.

I agree with Mahathir that it is time that Najib  and the government should stop give face to irresponsible and reckless racists like Mahathir and Utusan Malaysia who are seeking to destroy the message of peace and moderation with their incessant racist lies and falsehoods.

But is Najib capable of “walking the talk” of 1Malaysia and his preachings about the “Global Movement of Moderates” starting inside Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 June 2013, 2:04 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We need our police to be human again

 — May Chee

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 13, 2013

JUNE 13 — Ours is supposed to be the time of humanism, yet many have died in custody. Some went for supper, their last. They never made it home. God must have cried an ocean when He saw the police stapling Dharmendran’s ears. How could one creation of His torture another, just as precious in His eyes?

Would anyone dare to surrender himself to the police now, for whatever reason? Would anyone dare to walk into a police station now, for whatever reason? I’d think twice!

It isn’t bad enough that we cannot trust them to arrest the alarming crime rate in the nation. Precious lives are now lost in their hands. That, too, after being tortured! How can this be? What kind of people are being enlisted into the PDRM? What does it take to be a policeman, here in Malaysia?

Pope John Paul ll once said, “We recognize that in the creative restlessness of every man, there beats and pulsates what is deeply human – the search for truth, the insatiable need for the good, hunger for freedom, nostalgia for the beautiful and the voice of conscience.” And it’s because of this, one man cannot force himself on another, take away from the other or to enslave another human being.

Society is made up of a group of individuals who share something in common.

That “something” may be made up of such things as land, possessions, colour, religion, or anything at all. The important thing is that each person within that group recognizes the right of his neighbour to a share of what they hold in common.

This is the 21st century; we cannot have entire groups of human persons violated and denied by clear injustice of civil laws and the right to integrity. Humanity of this age tells us we must rightly acknowledge the greatness and misery of individuals; manifest, sustain and foster the total dignity of the human person.

Do our police not know that the very next person, under whatever and however the circumstances they meet, possess an equal dignity?

Yet, when merely a suspect or in some cases just a witness, once brought into custody or for questioning, this man can be subjected to degrading and humiliating forms of treatment that reduces him to a “non-person”. With some, this culminates in death. And we worry about perception and morale? What about a human life? Is it not more precious by far?

Our police must learn that the dignity of the person constitutes the foundation of equality of all people among themselves.

That a man or a woman, is person, a conscious and free being and precisely for this reason, the centre and summit of all that exists on earth. It is this dignity that demands everyone to treat another the way he wants to be treated, not merely tolerated or even respected but to be revered as life is to be revered.

Our police has to be in solidarity with their people, with a firm and persevering  determination to commit themselves to the common good – the good of all Malaysians. I, for one, long for the day when I can feel safe once more, walking around in the city.

When I have a problem, who do I call? Can I call PDRM?

Can I walk into a police station and come out alive? Or is it a point of no return?

Honestly, PDRM, I wished it wasn’t so. I believe there are good cops out there but who’s to know our luck which type we would meet. Please, all these unnecessary loss of lives and property, including the sense of insecurity we live with everyday, is a result of sheer irresponsibility and incompetence on your part.

My dear PDRM, you really need to arrest this decline. It’s hardly funny when a life is lost, even if he is suspected to have committed a crime. He has a right to a fair trial. If he were your son or husband, you would want justice, too. You would want the truth, too.

Not to be tortured and have your ears stapled! How does a man, once he dons a uniform of authority, become an animal? A murderer?

Yet, only in Malaysia can we have authorities still unconvinced we need the IPCMC, mooted way back in 2005. How many more must fall victims to crimes? How many more must die in custody? Apa lagi kau mahu, BN? Your own flesh and blood to die in custody?

Take my word, you cannot afford to wait till then. You are human, too.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 June 2013, 6:55 am and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lost for the last half century: Will it be the same for the next five years?

 — Ahmad Mustapha Hassan

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 13, 2013

JUNE 13 — We left a path that we had created to travel forth to achieve what we had desired when this blessed motherland of ours was freed from the colonial yoke in1957. Now in order for us presently to go forward, we need to reflect whether we had moved in the right direction or had we wandered away from what our founding fathers wanted to achieve.

As the Malay proverb goes “Sesat di hujung jalan, balek ka pangkal jalan”, meaning that if we have lost our way, then we just have to go back to where we started the journey.

But of course, we have to know whether we have indeed lost our way. We had been travelling for over half a century and we have to ascertain whether we have achieved anything at all.

In the first place, why did we clamour for independence or did we? A certain section of the people did organise themselves for that struggle but they were crippled by the British. As for the rest, they were simply caught up in the wave of nationalism that was engulfing all the countries still under colonial rule, after the Pacific war.

The British colonial power was not naive to all the happenings that were taking place. They thought they knew how to play their cards. Of course they knew whom they could trust to safeguard their interests. And they ruthlessly annihilated those they knew would be detrimental to their well-being.

The British were masters in the art of pacifying those who mattered to them. Malay society was feudal in structure and that made it that much easier for the British to control them. So long as the structure was kept intact, peace and economic exploitation of the land could proceed unabatedly.

To exploit the riches of the land, they brought in outsiders from various territories under their control and at the same time kept the Malay societal structure intact.

The Malays were happy and of course the British were much happier as they were able to merrily exploit the vast natural resources available.

But then there emerged among the British colonial administrators those who did not understand the political and social conditions in the country. They thought that all the people in their colonised territories were the same in character and would accept whatever changes that they wanted to bring in.

The British now wanted to impose direct political rule so as to make the administration more compact and efficient for them. This policy switch naturally hit at the very heart of Malay society. The introduction of the Malayan Union had shaken the Malay feudal establishment and thus created animosity.

The Malays demonstrated, not because there was mass hunger in the country, or because they wanted freedom and equality or independence for that matter. They demonstrated because their societal structure had come under threat.

There was no cry for independence “Merdeka” like in Indonesia or the battle cry in India “Jai Hind” (Victory to India) but instead championed “Hidup Melayu” (Long Live the Malays). It was a call to preserve the age-old structure based on feudalism. The Malays had been under this societal structure for centuries and a threat to it would mean the Malays would have no protector.

Thus Umno came into being, born in the royal palace in Johor to lead the Malays against this threat.

The British again in a clever twist made use of Umno to cripple all other radical movements against them as they knew Umno would shield their economic interest. Umno readily accepted and danced to the tune of the British colonial administration. And Umno was very proud that the transfer of power was smooth and peaceful. The British had won in this political battle.

With independence, how would Umno move? They had not planned for this and thus they said the country would follow the political system of the free world as compared to that of the centralised economies.

The first attempt towards this concept failed and the country experienced a very major disaster in 1969. Changes were made to pacify the various groups but the goals, whatever they were, were not met.

This was a case of losing the way right from the very beginning. And that was what has been happening for the last half a century. The country had moved backwards rather than forward. It is a case of one step forward and two steps backward.

And the future? It will also be another five years of losing the way.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 June 2013, 12:13 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib likely to face leadership challenge

by Bridget Welsh

Malaysiakini

Jun 14, 2013

COMMENT
 One month after GE13, attention has turned to the Umno election. Rumours are already circulating about possible challengers to the ruling party’s No 1 post. While the Black 505 rallies continue to mobilise protest against the May 5 general election that many recognise as seriously flawed, the dominant political party is myopically focused on its party polls and who will lead the party after October.

The flurry of activity in recent weeks – from the call to make Umno more inclusive ethnically to the pleas for the return of the 2,000 delegates as electors (rather than 146,500 members) are all part of the now intensifying internal Umno political jockeying.

All eyes are on the contest for the top leadership position, especially given that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak performed poorer electorally compared to his predecessor and did not fully deliver on his promise of winning back Selangor and a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

More and more calls are being made to keep the two top positions uncontested. In Umno, however, the real politics is happening behind the scenes. The grassroots are mobilising for the first stage of the party electoral process – the divisional polls.

Despite the public rhetoric, current conditions point to a competitive contest, in which if conditions do not radically change, Najib will likely face a credible and substantive challenge to his position.

Five factors

 There are five underlying factors that point to a challenge:

 First, the modus operandi in Umno is money politics. This was a legacy of the Mahathir years and has become deeply entrenched, feeding into the concerns over corruption and governance. For many of the delegates, they join the party for the perks and invest in positions for potential financial gains.

Elections are an integral part of the financial rewards in the system as they involve the distribution of incentives. The logic is simple – the more the competition within the party, the more the incentives. Given the modus operandi in Umno, there are vested interests in fueling contests.

The higher the level of competition, the greater the promise of rewards. This election involves more people, so competition is costly, involving mass outlays of funds to more people than ever before. Part of the call for the return to the old 2,000-delegate system is driven by this economic ‘money politics’ reality.

There is a tension here between those who would like to minimise costs, with those who would like to receive dividends. The numbers are on the receiving ends, thus the systemic pressure for greater competition.

 Second, Umno as a party is deeply factionalised. This is not unique. In fact for dominant one-party system this is the norm, as seen in Taiwan, Japan and Mexico. All political parties have some degree of internal divisions. These divisions, however, feed into competition as the leadership has to accommodate the various warlords.

In some cases, such as recently in Negeri Sembilan, the leadership has had to take sides on who to elevate to positions in the state government. Warlordism fuels competition by bringing national politics to the state level and vice-versa. Currently, the intensity of conflict at the state level and underlying resentment against Umno’s current leadership for perceived favouritism contributes to pressure for more leadership competition.

Malay chauvinism under challenge

 Third, Umno as a party is being pressured to reform its identity after GE13. To be more precise, its Malay chauvinism is being challenged. The challenge is taking the form of calls to move the party into a more multi-ethnic entity, and be more inclusive of non-Malays. This is in response to the effective death of the BN as a multi-ethnic power-sharing coalition in GE13.

This measure initially mooted by Najib has yielded a strong reaction from the rank and file, who have come out of a polls where ethnic Malay chauvinism was stoked and ignited to bring the party faithful together against the opposition. The disconnect between the multi-ethnic initiative promoted by a national leader seeking national representation and the party grassroots embedded in their ethnic nationalist framework is real, and has caused disgruntlement among some and anger among others.

The push to maintain the openness in the party electoral system taps into this, as more numbers can openly display their rejection of transforming the party outside of Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Malay chauvinist mode.

 Fourth, there is the reality of generational pressures within the party. Najib was not successful in having many of ‘his men’ elected in GE13, as he hoped to garner a new cadre of leaders to support his push to consolidate his position within the party. After all, he has yet to be elected to the presidency.

The push for younger, new faces remains, but the bottleneck in the leadership is substantive. The impact is that younger leaders will by nature ally with different actors with the hope of moving up the ranks in a system that has been slow to engage in generational transformation.

 Finally, amidst the structural concerns is the long-standing push for statesmanship. Many in Umno hark back to the good old days when Umno leaders were respected across the Malaysian society, and seen as national leaders to be proud of. There is division within Umno, and nationally, regarding Najib’s leadership as well as his statesmanship.

He has not taken a prominent role post-GE13, and this raises questions. Najib, like his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, faces the difficulty of meeting conflicting demands and higher expectations. This push for ‘statesmanship’ leadership will be a driver for some of the potential contenders for power.

Najib seeks new allies

 These party dynamics – money politics, warlord factionalism, party identity, generational pressures and statesmanship – all contribute to increased possibilities of a leadership challenge and greater party contention. At issue will be the new electoral system, the timing of the polls (with early polls apparently favoured by Najib) and the composition of the challenge itself.

The question being asked is whether Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, who is 66 last month, will feel this is his last chance to take a shot at the top spot or someone else steps up to the challenge. Also openly being discussed is Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, 76, who has shown a willingness to contest for Umno president in the past. It is unlikely, given the systemic issues at play, that no one will step forward.

Despite the questions around GE13 and the continued concerns with electoral irregularities, Umno feels victorious and is being portrayed as the ‘winner,’ contributing to more risk-taking and competition.

umno special briefing abdullah ahmad badawi announce resignation date 100708 04We have seen after the May 5 general election, new alliances are being forged – at least temporarily – ahead of the Umno polls. Najib has brought many of the Abdullah allies into the cabinet and he has reached out to Sabah.

He has not significantly rocked the warlord interests in most of the states as he sought more allies. His biggest ‘new’ ally appears to be Mahathir who said there was ‘no alternative’ to Najib in a speech in Japan. But history has shown that Mahathir’s fidelity as an ally is uncertain at best.

Najib has simultaneously thrown down the gauntlet by not giving Muhyiddin a senior cabinet position and holding his people at bay by not including them in the cabinet. The contest effectively began when the GE13 results came in, continued with the cabinet selection and is ongoing. The strategy of the marginalisation of Muhyiddin has begun.

 In the weeks ahead, the backroom politics will only intensify. It is much too early to write off a challenge. In fact, current conditions suggest the opposite – a growing competition within Umno.

Najib will rely on the incumbency advantage, something which he had used effectively in GE13. But despite the power of incumbency, Najib’s position should not yet be seen as secure, as he has to pass the test of his party in what may very well be the fiercest contests for the party leadership yet.

——————————————————————————–

DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University. Bridget can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 June 2013, 12:21 pm and is filed under
Bridget Welsh
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Police should not be super-efficient to arrest peaceful Malaysians, including women and child while utterly helpless at worsening crime situation with new fear among Malaysians – not safe eating out in restaurants and public eateries

The police arrest of 16 participants of the peaceful  Black 505 flashmob at the Sogo shopping centre vicinity  in Kuala Lumpur, including women and one child, has  raised many questions about the role of the police in ensuring public peace and order as well as upholding human rights which are not complimentary to the police force.

The first question is whether it is not possible for the police to ensure public peace and order as well as uphold human rights without having to arrest the 16 people, including women and a child – bearing in mind Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s boast of wanting to make Malaysia the world’s best democracy?

The second question is whether the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is now cracking the whip in the Barisan Nasional government as it is only yesterday that he urged the government to be “tough and not to give face” to  the Opposition which he alleged to “continue to insult the nation’s democratic system”?

Last Saturday, Najib launched a highly-publicised war against crime, and the most powerful critique is not that it came four years too late, resulting in crime becoming the number one worry among Malaysians, exceeding their concern about bread-and-butter issues, but that it marked a new fear of crime among Malaysians.

This is the mass armed gang robbery of shop owners and customers at restaurants and eateries, starting with an open air steamboat restaurant in Cheras by a group of 10 persons armed with parangs and iron rods who robbed more than RM20,000 from  the owner and patrons, which has been followed up by a spate of similar crimes of mass armed gang  robberies at open restaurants in Kepong, Cheras, Kajang and Petaling Jaya in the past few nights.

Crime in Malaysia seems to have reached a level where criminals are not afraid of the police anymore.

Nobody is impressed by the establishment of a Crime Prevention Department, whose first job is to commission an independent international consultant, Frost and Sullivan,  to conduct a study on the level of public satisfaction regarding the effectiveness of police service and their sense of security in the country.

This study is to be done in two phases with the first phase expected to be completed by the end of the year. Second phase to take another year?

Are Malaysians, whether in the Klang Valley, Johor Baru and other “black” areas of crime to continue to live in increasing fear of crime, with the unchecked phenomenon of mass armed gang robberies at public restaurants and eateries, until the international consultants Frost and Sullivan have completed their two phases of study in two years?

The new Home Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi and the new Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar should realise that Malaysians want police to be effective to make their homes, the public places and the country safe from crime and not to continue to play politics to be super-efficient to arrest Malaysians including women and a child  taking part in the peaceful Black 505 flashmob today.

The police must arrest serious loss of public confidence that despite the highly-publicised war against crime launched  by the Prime Minister last Saturday, the police do not have a clue as to what they should do to restore to Malaysians their fundamental right to be free from crime and the fear of crime until they have to commission a study by international consultants – to the extent that there is now a new phenomenon of crime creating horror among Malaysians, where they do not feel safe any more eating out at public restaurants and eateries.

What is the response of  new Home Minister and new IGP to this escalation of the crime situation in Malaysia apart from commissioning a study by international consultants?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 June 2013, 7:36 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rohani Leads in Early Iran Results

By FARNAZ FASSIHI

Wall Street Journal

June 15, 2013.

BEIRUT—Iran’s preliminary election results show that the candidate backed by the opposition and reformist political factions, Hassan Rohani, is leading in polls by a landslide, giving a decisive victory to Iranians calling for change.

Mr. Rohani has 51.76% of the estimated 12 million counted votes, with the second runner up, Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, scoring only 15.78%, according to official preliminary results announced by the Interior Ministry.

Mr. Rohani needs 50% plus one vote to win the presidency and if early results are an indication, the election might not go to a runoff as predicted.

Conservative candidates did poorly in vote counts so far, especially the candidates perceived to be the closest to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The current nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, ranked fourth and Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister, was fifth. Mohsen Rezaei, the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, who made the economy his top campaign issue, ranked third. The votes for all three men are below 13% so far.

Iran analysts and media pundits say if Mr. Rohani wins with a large margin, it should serve as wake-up call for Mr. Khamenei and his circle of conservative advisers that their hard-line policies ranging from the standoff over the nuclear issue to the dire state of the economy have been rejected by the majority of the population.

“Mr. Khamenei has to understand that his policies have failed. The people came out and voiced their protest in the most civil way and hopefully they will be heard,” said Ali Mazrui, a former parliamentarian and member of the main reformist party, to BBC Persian on Saturday morning.

The government announced that 70% of the country’s estimated 50 million voters had cast ballots at 60,000 polling stations across the nation.

Overshadowing the election process for many voters were memories of the last presidential ballot in 2009, when large-scale unrest followed allegations that authorities had rigged the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

On the eve of Iranian elections, RAND senior international policy analyst Alireza Nader discusses how the outcome could shape U.S.-Iran relations.

Mr. Khamenei was the first official to cast a ballot early on Friday morning. He said that not even his family members were aware of his preferred candidate and urged election officials to handle ballots with care and honor the public’s choice.

He also said that Washington “can go to h—” for suggesting that Iran’s elections were unfair and undemocratic.

Five candidates hailed from conservative political parties loyal to Mr. Khamenei’s hard-line positions, while only one, Mr. Rohani, had been endorsed by opposition supporters and reformist parties, which seek democratic changes.

That endorsement galvanized enough voters that polls suggested Mr. Rohani would make it to a runoff ballot against one of the conservatives. Mr. Qalibaf, a former military commander with a reputation for management skills, appeared likely to emerge at the front of the conservative ranks. Mr. Jalili was the one remaining candidate seen as most strident in defending Iran’s current policies.

Many opposition supporters considered a boycott of the election, complaining that there was no candidate representing their interests and voicing fears that the outcome would be rigged.

During the campaign, candidates offered varying views on issues important with voters such as the state of the economy, foreign policy as it relates to sanctions and nuclear negotiations, and personal and social freedoms. Most voiced harsh criticism of the status quo and pledged change if elected.

The presidential election, which occurs every four years, is a critical milestone for the Islamic Republic that offers the regime a chance to boast to the world that it maintains a legitimate political system backed by the majority of the population.

Across Iran, turnout was reported stronger than expected, but not as large as 2009 when lines snaked for several miles outside of polling stations, according to witnesses.

The candidates are all seen as close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, casting his ballot on Friday.

In Tehran, some larger polling stations, such as Hosseinieh Ershad, where the government had a camera broadcasting live on state television were packed, while smaller polling stations in schools and mosques had no lines.

“Voter participation was much better than we anticipated but nothing like four years ago,” said Ali, an election supervisor for Mr. Rohani’s campaign who visited polling stations throughout Tehran. He declined to provide his last name.

Voter apathy appeared stronger at two opposite poles of the population: the secular affluent and the religious poor, with each saying they had little hope that the government would improve their lives. Polling stations in their neighborhoods weren’t crowded, witnesses said.

A day laborer in the industrial city of Arak said he and his family boycotted the vote this year out of frustration with the economy. He said his salary had shrunk to a third of its value with the dropping currency and rising inflation.

“I voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad in both previous elections but we only suffered more. All these years I was loyal and voted and they did nothing for us,” he said.

Many opposition supporters of the Green Movement and reformist parties had a change of heart about boycotting the vote and decided to back Mr. Rohani. Influential political figures, political prisoners and artists and musicians began rallying behind Mr. Rohani as a way to challenge hard-line conservatives and call for change.

“The government must realize that fundamentalism is over and people aren’t supporting it,” said Niloufar, a 27-year-old student from Isfahan who said she voted for Mr. Rohani.

Mr. Rohani also benefited from conservatives’ lack of unity and divided votes among five candidates. Witnesses and election supervisors who surveyed voters in conservative neighborhoods in Tehran said votes appeared to have been divided between Mr. Jalili and Mr. Rezaei.

State television ran a live broadcast of the election all day and most voters interviewed repeated government rhetoric. One young man said his vote was a “big defiance against our enemies.”

Several problems were reported that prompted concern about the fairness of the election.

Mr. Rohani’s campaign put out a statement saying the name of a reformist candidate, Mohamad Reza Aref, who withdrew last week, was still on the ballot in some polling stations, including the one where Mr. Rohani voted—suggesting an effort to dilute reformist support for Mr. Rohani. The name of a conservative candidate who withdrew, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, wasn’t on the ballots.

The Interior Ministry said supervisors were investigating reports that pieces of paper with Mr. Jalili’s name typed on the header were being distributed to voters in some south Tehran polling station.

Mr. Rohani suffered other setbacks. His campaign website was blocked early on Friday after he called on voters who picked him to register their names and where they cast their ballot on his website. Election monitors working for Mr. Rohani’s campaign also had trouble obtaining credentials in time from the Interior Ministry, according to Iranian media.

“Elections today showed that the critics of the regime are growing in size and significance to include a much larger portion of the society because even conservatives are shouting for change,” said Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, a former parliamentarian with the main reformist party who now lives in the U.S.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 June 2013, 8:56 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time to lead, Mr PM

By THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

June 15, 2013

COMMENT
 June 15 – The time for feeling sorry, betrayed and wallowing in self-pity is over.

With a new mandate from the Malaysian electorate and a 44-seat advantage over Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in Parliament, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak should be energised, selling his vision of the future to Malaysians daily and getting on with the job of governing this diverse nation.

After all, isn’t this what he has craved for since taking over from Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in April 2009: his own mandate? Instead, six weeks after the polls, visitors to Putrajaya still paint a picture of a leadership still wondering why the sought-after two-thirds majority was not attained; of a leadership still talking about betrayal by Chinese voters and of a leadership mulling what was not achieved instead what has been gained.

Of course, it is wonderful to own a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Besides bragging rights, allowing for Constitutional amendments in the House, winning two-thirds of the 222 parliamentary seats would have made Najib invincible in Umno.

But let us face the reality here: This is not the Malaysia of the Mahathir era. This is a country where every election will be contested, where the Opposition is packed with solid and charismatic politicians, where a more educated electorate is demanding something more than the Barisan Nasional (BN) formula of developmental politics and where the monopoly of information and news no longer lies with the Government.

Going forward, it is likely that a two-thirds control of parliament will be as at the rare as a gold medal for Malaysia Olympics. In this environment, having a majority of any sort will have to do. Najib and his Cabinet have to understand this fact soon. Because what Malaysians have been treated to post-election is more of the same: strident right-wing rhetoric from Utusan Malaysia, Perkasa and talk about punishing groups of Malaysians who presumably did not vote for the BN.

Completely absent from any discussion has been the concept of 1Malaysia, reconciliation, a plan to rationalise subsidies, the future of GST, a detailed plan to handle prickly race relations.

It is a known fact that within Umno, there is a push to bury the 1Malaysia concept, with many arguing that since many non-Malays did not vote for BN, it is time for Najib to forge ahead with policies which have a strong pro-Bumiputera bias.

There is also a growing consensus within the government that it will be politically challenging to introduce the GST now. And that it will be financially taxing to continue BR1M, the direct dispensation of cash to millions of Malaysians in the run-up to the polls.

We would like to hear what the Najib administration has to say on 1Malaysia, on the future economic direction of the country, on fighting crime.

Malaysians want to see the winners at the polls govern. We dare say even Umno wants to see strong leadership.

In the absence of exuding power and control, there will endless speculation over disgruntled Umno leaders “testing the PM’s resolve”, meeting Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and “shopping around for options’’. Already, there is some suggestion that there are some Umno politicians who won parliamentary seats, but were not rewarded with government positions, are agitating.

And then there is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad offering his thoughts on the need for a contest for the top position in Umno.

The fact is that Umno respects power and strong leaders. If Najib shows strength and leadership and governs Malaysia without fear, and at the same time marshals a team of influential Umno types around him, he can go into any contest for the president’s position with confidence.

As the incumbent party president and the sitting PM, he has powers at his disposal to stay on and fight off any challenge, and govern the country effectively.

But every day spent thinking about what may have been is a complete waste of a mandate.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 June 2013, 5:12 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Analysis: Iran moderate’s poll triumph is mandate for change

By Marcus George

Reuters

DUBAI | Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:51pm IST

(Reuters) – Iranian voters weary of years of economic isolation and tightening political restrictions threw down a blunt demand for change on Saturday by handing a moderate cleric a landslide victory in a presidential election.

Having waited throughout Friday night and most of Saturday, millions of Iranians at home and abroad greeted Hassan Rohani’s victory with a mix of euphoria and relief that eight years under hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were finally over.

That Rohani, a former nuclear negotiator, trounced hardline “Principlist” rivals most loyal to the theocratic system and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Friday’s contest left many in the Islamic Republic in shock.

A second surprise was that the country’s first presidential poll since a disputed re-election of Ahmadinejad in 2009 appeared to be free and fair.

His victory goes some way to repairing the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, badly damaged four years ago when the disputed poll led to mass unrest. And it may herald an increase in political space for the sort of reformist groups which bore the brunt of the security crackdown that ended the disturbances.

“Though hardliners remain in control of key aspects of Iran’s political system, centrists and reformists have proven that even when the cards are stacked against them, they can still prevail due to their support among the population,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council.

After final results were announced and the nerve-racking wait came to an end, Iranians revelled in having delivered their message to Iran’s theocratic leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose loyalists dominated the field of candidates.

From the streets of Tehran came reports of a festive atmosphere, as crowds of Rohani supporters dressed in his campaign colour purple gathered to celebrate his emphatic victory. Some chanted “Ahmadi Bye Bye” heralding the imminent end to incumbent Mahmoud Ahamdinejad’s presidency.

The long wait quickly became the subject of rich humour. “Don’t be in a rush. It is the first time they are counting votes. They didn’t expect it would take so long,” quipped one Facebook message, alluding to the widespread allegations of vote-rigging four years ago.

ECONOMY AND SANCTIONS

Victory will be followed by the colossal challenge of putting Iran back on its feet, repairing the damage done by eight years of growing mistrust between Tehran and the West.

Iran has been battered by economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies over its nuclear activities, resulting in soaring inflation and unemployment.

While Iran maintains it will not develop nuclear arms, it has refused to curb what it says is its rights to nuclear power.

With such a strong mandate and a clear intent to reach out his hand, there will be guarded hope that the 64-year-old cleric can progress nuclear talks. But with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, deciding state policy, Rohani will face limits to his area of operations.

“(Mr Rohani) will choose the core cadre at the foreign ministry and Supreme National Security Council and this can definitely have an impact. But the general orientation is decided by the Supreme Leader … and naturally Mr Rohani will cooperate with him,” said conservative member of parliament Ahmad Tavakoli, the ISNA news agency reported.

Equally intractable will be the issue of two reformist leaders who have been under house arrest for more than two years over their role in what critics have decried as their seditious role in the post-election protests in 2009.

Throughout the campaign Rohani supporters have stirred the memories of 2009, chanting the names of the two imprisoned leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, at campaign events and intensifying calls for their release.

But that means confronting powerful elements of the conservative establishment who may not yet be prepared to welcome people they call “seditionists” back into the fold.

“A Rohani landslide will have to deliver substance, not just cosmetics, and this requires quite a few people to admit that the last eight years have been an aberration,” said Ali Ansari, professor at St Andrew’s University in Scotland.

“I don’t see that coming from the pages of Kayhan (a hardline newspaper). I still have reservations,” he added.

SUPPORT FROM LIBERALS

The 64-year-old cleric has pledged to draw up and implement a “civil rights charter” and has spoken up for the rights of women and ethnic minorities. He was heavily critical of the atmosphere of tight security ahead of the election and garned strong support from liberal Iranians as a result.

But voters seemed most preoccupied with the desperate state of the economy.

Between them Rohani and the runner-up Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf – the pragmatic modernizing mayor of Tehran who is very popular in the city for his clear managerial skills – took more than two thirds of votes cast.

Even many conservatives had called time on Iran’s overtly ideological stance for not providing for the Iranian public.

“The defeat of the Principlists was necessary,” read an editorial on the Tabnak news website affiliated to Mohsen Rezaie, a conservative election candidate and former head of the Revolutionary Guards who came fourth in the election.

“The Principlist current must understand that one cannot be inefficient and expect the people to still support them in throngs.”

Despite widespread calls from conservative activists to get behind a single candidate, three big-hitters all remained in the contest, pulling their shared power base apart at the seams.

The man many expected to be at the front of the pack, current nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, slumped to third place.

“Iranians are worried about their future. (The prospect of) a Jalili presidency and a harsh securitized domestic environment – I think people thought it would lead to a situation of confrontation inside the country,” said Farideh Farhi of Hawaii University.

Iranians may have to wait patiently for change because of Iran’s multi-tiered power structure, which has gradually eroded the office of the president over the last two decades.

“Rohani’s upset victory has effectively redeemed Iran’s electoral system, which was tainted after the 2009 presidential poll,” said Ali Vaez, an analyst at International Crisis Group.

“Remember that Iran is governed by complex institutions and competing power centres that inherently favour continuity over radical change.”

(Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati and Zahra Hosseinian; Editing by William Maclean and Andrew Roche)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 June 2013, 11:59 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Najib to put his  War on Crime as top Cabinet agenda on Wednesday to ensure the police are not  totally helpless in the latest rampage by criminals, including new-fangled mass armed robbery of owners/customers of restaurants and eateries

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak declared a “War against Crime”  when he launched Pemandu’s United Against Crime Day at the KLCC Park in Kuala Lumpur the previous Saturday on 8th June, but it  has turned into a nightmarish week for Malaysians with criminals going on a rampage including the new-fangled mass armed robbery of owners and customers of restaurants and eateries.

The headlines given by the BN-owned/controlled media, like
“Criminals beware: Its War”
 and
“All-out fight against crime”

(Sunday Star 9.6.2013)
 turned into ashes when it was the criminals who declared war last weekend starting with a group of about 10 parang-wielding men in crash helmets who held up the owner and several customers who were having early-morning supper at Simmei Seafood and Steamboat restaurant at Taman Taynton View in Cheras  and got away with RM20,000 in cash and valuables.

This new criminal phenomenon has been repeated in the past week with similar crimes of mass armed gang robberies of customers and owners  at open restaurants and eateries in Kepong, Cheras, Kajang and Petaling Jaya, transmitting a new fear of crime throughout the country that it is not safe in Malaysia  to be eating out at restaurants and eateries!

The following comment last night on my blog in response to my statement
“Police should not be super-efficient to arrest peaceful Malaysians, including women and child while utterly helpless at worsening crime situation with new fear among Malaysians – not safe eating out in restaurants and public eateries”
 reflected both the severity and gravity of this scourge:

“The crime situation in the country seems to have worsened markedly after the recent GE and has now reached alarming levels.

“I think the police have got their priorities wrong by paying too much attention on peaceful gatherings by the Opposition and others.

“In today’s Sin Chew Daily, just on the national news alone (excluding the regional news), there were a total of 8 cases of serious crimes being reported, including (i) two robbers entered a school compound in Ipoh in broad daylight to rob a teacher; (ii) in Kuala Kurau, Perak, four armed robbers attempted to rob some villagers, a villager was shot and seriously wounded; (iii) in Senai, Johor, 5 men impersonating as tree cutters robbed a house of RM10,000 in valuables; (iv) in Kota Tinggi, Johor, 4 armed robbers robbed a goldsmith shop of RM1 million worth in jewellery; (v) 2 men masquerading as guests robbed a budget hotel in Batang Kali, Selangor; (vi) in Kuantan, 5 thieves first stole a lorry, then attempted but unsuccessfully to cart away BSN’s ATM machine using the stolen lorry; (vii) 8 parang wielding robbers robbed 3 diners of RM5,100 in valuables at Jalan Lapangan Terbang Lama; (viii) in Petaling Jaya, 2 robbers attempted to rob a car accessory shop, a worker was shot.

“Well, the Star only has two pieces of robbery news today. If you read the Star, you would think that everything is quiet on the Western Front.

“By the way, my brother-in-law also had his gold necklace snatched away by a lone robber early this morning. Just last night, we were discussing the sudden hike in crime lately.”

Actually, the commentator who goes by the pseudonym of
“tuahpekkong”
 had missed  another Sin Chew report (P.2) yesterday which reported that at least 10 DJs of a local television channel had been robbed.

Why did Najib launch a “war against crime” four years after his Government Transformation Programme (GTP) which had the reduction of crime as one of its top NKRAs, especially after the government’s claim of success that it has reduced the country’s crime index by 26.8% since the first phase of the GTP in 2009?

The reason is very simple – the growing gulf between the police’s claim of success to reduce the crime index and the people’s perception and  fear of crime, arising not only from their direct and indirect experiences with rampant crime but the government’s  inability to instill public confidence that  the police can  protect the safety and security of citizens, tourists and investors.

What the country needs today is a new Home Minister and a new Inspector-General of Police whose sole pre-occupation is how to wage and win the War against Crime, make Malaysia safe for its citizens, tourists and investors as well as  also eliminate  the fear of crime haunting and hounding Malaysians for over a decade.

Instead, we have a new Home Minister and a new IGP who have made clear from their public postures that their topmost priority is not the  War against Crime but a War against Pakatan Rakyat leaders and social activists to serve the UMNO/Barisan Nasional agenda to use the police to protect the regime instead of protecting the life, limb and property of ordinary Malaysians!

The government and the police establishment have clearly lost their way to discharge their most fundamental duty as a government, which is to keep the citizenry safe from crime, when they  commissioned  an international consultant Frost and Sullivan to conduct a study on the level of public satisfaction regarding the effectiveness of police service and their sense of security in the country.

A government and a police leadership which needs consultants, whether national or international, to report on how to carry out its fundamental duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens, tourists and investors, is just not fit and qualified to hold their high offices.

I call on Najib to put his  War on Crime as top Cabinet agenda on Wednesday to ensure that the police are not  totally helpless in the new  rampage by criminals, including the new-fangled mass armed robbery of owners/customers of restaurants and eateries.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 June 2013, 3:08 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UiTM VC denies calling Lim’s aide ‘pengkhianat’

By
Aidila Razak
 | 3:32PM Jun 14, 2013

Malaysiakini

UiTM vice-chancellor Sahol Hamid Abu Bakar has denied calling Lim Kit Siang’s new political secretary Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud a “traitor to her race and to UiTM” on Twitter.

Contacted by Malaysiakini this afternoon, Sahol (left) said it was beneath him to respond to such things.

“I don’t engage in that way. I am a senior professor. I don’t go down to that level. Even if Malaysiakini asks me questions I don’t respond,” he said.

Sahol said he could not have posted the contentious tweet as he was in a lecture with the chief secretary to the government Ali Hamsa when it was posted using the @datosahol Twitter handle about 1.40pm today.

Confirming that he does have a Twitter account, Sahol, however, said it would not come as a surprise if this account had been hacked.

“Even my Facebook account has been hacked before,” he said.

In the contentious posting, the user @datosahol responded to those referring to Dyana by saying:

“Inilah contoh terbaik pengkhianat bangsa dan UiTM.” (This is the best example of a traitor to her race and to UiTM.)

This was in response to a conversation initiated by Umno blogger Yuseri Yussoff, in which he urged that a debate be held between UiTM students and Dyana, an alumnus of the university.

Tweet not deleted as at 3.10pm

Dyana is this week’s curator for the unofficial UiTM weekly curatorship account @twt_uitm, where UiTM alumni, staff and students take turns to tweet to the account’s followers on topics they deem relevant to the community.

As at 3.10pm today, the contentious tweet had not been deleted from the @datosahol timeline. However, another similar tweet made just before it has disappeared.

Replying to another user, who questioned why he would call Dyana a “traitor” for being a DAP supporter, Sahol said:

“Are you sure it came from me? I don’t tweet that way. I’ve been always careful. Not my style and not my level.”

Dyana, who was appointed as political secretary to the Gelang Patah MP after the May 5 general election, has been receiving much flak from Twitter users, especially whenever she comes out in defence of the DAP.

She has also had her faith in Islam (akidah) questioned by Umno Youth exco member and its Unit Media Baru chief Tun Faisal Ismail Aziz.

“Malay Muslims who join the DAP are confirmed to have identity and akidah issues,” Tun Faisal said.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 June 2013, 11:11 am and is filed under
DAP
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Which is which, Datuk Mary Yap?

 — BH Toh

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 15, 2013

JUNE 15 — One of the earliest statement made by Datuk Mary Yap upon her appintment as Deputy Education Minister was “I believe that one of my roles at the ministry will be to ensure the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 is well-implemented”

Today, she was reported saying “the shelving of the policy to teach Mathematics and Science in English is only temporary.”

What a puzzling surprise! I do not recall reading or hearing any such statement from PM, DPM, Education Minister or Ministry ever they made the decision to abolish PPSMI. I am very certain because I have been following this issue closely as my son was almost a direct casualty of this decision made in 2009. Just to be extra sure, I even spent the afternoon googling but found zero articles that reported so – nothing from either the online or printed medias.

To top it all, this “temporary” was also not specified anywhere in the Malaysian Education Blueprint!

So, which is which, Datuk Mary?

When Prime Minister Najib announced your appointment, many lauded the decision for it supposedly brought a breath of fresh air very much needed in the education environment of our country.

But within a short few weeks, you appeared to have mastered the oratory skills of a politician. Why did you not just be outright as hoped for by the rakyat and make a courageous decision by talking straight – that the new cabinet (or at least you as Deputy Education Minister) has now decided to re-look into this PPSMI issue.

In another three years, a whole cohort of primary school children (beginning from those who started Std 1 in 2011 to those who will in 2016) would have been denied their option to study Science and Mathematics in English.

How long will this “only temporary” be?

It is time our leaders stop attempting to conjure something out of nothing. We parents are very sharp and constantly watching like a hawk.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 June 2013, 10:31 am and is filed under
Education
,
English
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A matter of choice

 — Clive Kessler

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 17, 2013

Late last week, an interesting rejoinder was offered to my two-part retrospective account of GE13, Malaysia’s recent national elections “GE13: What happened? And what now?” (The Malaysian Insider, June 12 and 13).

A news and political commentary site that goes by the name “The Choice” published a critique of my analysis, and of my attitude and approach, entitled “An Artful Exercise in Pseudo-Intellectual Spin”).

It can be read at:
http://www.thechoice.my/top-stories/64889-an-artful-exercise-in-pseudo-intellectual-spin#sthash.du76qoeY.uxfs
 and reading it is without doubt a worthwhile use of time and mind.

It is no “cheap shot”.

In its own way, it takes what I had to say very seriously. Somebody clearly thought my GE13 review worth the effort of a serious response.

And it is quite exquisitely written. By someone who evidently enjoys a wonderful “native-speaker” command of the English language — and the benefits of a far better education and apprenticeship in this kind of writing than I myself ever had.

It does not come from the pen of any amateur.

So regardless of its content, I welcome it. And not just as an unintended acknowledgement of my own commentary. More, as a much needed contribution to raising the standard of political writing and public debate in Malaysia.

More well-written, incisive and decidedly opinionated comment from people who clearly know their own minds is much needed. One has only to consider the woeful level of so much political writing in Malaysia these days to see how great that need is.

So this was, in my mind, a welcome contribution.

Welcome even though I consider it altogether wrong-headed.

As I hastened to suggest to the editor at “The Choice”.

An immediate response I wrote as follows:

“Thank you for providing this the wonderful portrait of who I really am.

“It is so clever I can scarcely recognise myself in it!

“Yes, I have at times, and especially of late, been critical of Barisan Nasional and Umno, for falling short of what they might be and need to be. Of what the obligations of genuinely inclusive national leadership require of them.

“And I am often criticised by opposition people for being a closet government sympathiser. For seeing, and for asking (those on the government side) to display and act upon, what is good on that side of the political fence.

“And, what is more, various opposition people often do not like what I say about their side and its leadership, as well as its failure to articulate a clear political identity, programme and policies.

“I know that you cannot please everybody.

“I generally please nobody.

“And that is how things should be.

“That is what happens when you are not a partisan but try to apply some clear analytical vision to everybody.

“Oh, yes, and one other thing.

“I put my name on what I write.

“That is my ‘CHOICE’ and my commitment.

“Where do you guys stand on that?

“Do you dare put your names on what you write?

“Today would be a good day to start!”

The main objection

The main objection voiced by “The Choice” is that I chose to present a different view of what happened — of how the Umno/BN campaign was conducted, especially at the “ground level” among the conventionally-minded Malay majority in the in the Malay heartlands — than most of the international press.

Well, yes. True. I did present a different view.

Different does not, of course, necessarily mean wrong or unacceptable. Whether you quote the tenets of liberal democracy or some well-known prophetic hadith, difference of opinion is to be welcomed as a source of vitality in public life, not condemned.

Here, my view of these matters is different from the standard or official view that “The Choice” seems to welcome and encourage for several reasons.

Unlike the members of the international press, I am not a journalist. So, unsurprisingly, I see and experience what happens here differently from how they do, and I write, as I can only do, on that basis.

I am a scholar, one who has devoted a great part of his efforts over more than half a century considering and seeking to fathom, in an informed way, the deep currents flowing through Malay, Malayan and Malaysian society.

Even as a scholar, I am not a political scientist. My initial education was in anthropology, sociology and Asian social history.

So my work, when I write about Malaysia, often differs, or is differently “pitched” and expressed, from what the expert or specialist political scientists write.

I write about Malay and Malaysian society and culture more generally than they. I see politics within that broader context: as an aspect of a wider story, as a theme in a more complex panorama.

And when I write, it is the wider society that interests me, not the political struggles that throw light upon it. Bismarck was right when he observed that the business of politics is very much like making sausages; it’s best not to look too closely at what goes into it and how it is done, and instead simply to focus upon what comes out from it.

And I try to see Malaysia as a normal country, not a special case. I think and write about it in the same way that I write about and comment upon developments in some other countries that I know and care about — including Australia, where I was born and mainly live, in England where I lived for several years, and the United States, for a decade.

In all those places — not Malaysia alone — politics, for me, is to be understood in more than narrow and conventional political terms. I view political life with the distinctive eye of a “broad-gauge” scholar, one whose scholarly work over the years has ranged across perhaps some half dozen different academic field and disciples in the social sciences and humanities, not a specialist political scientist or political writer.

So, do I often have a different view than others of these developments? A different “take” from the standard or “default mode” view of these matters?

Of course I do. Not all the time, but frequently.

And if I did not, I would not bother, or waste my time, to write about them.

My Malaysian pre-occupation

As I have explained to readers in earlier columns, I wrote my first essays about Malaya, as it then was, as a high school history student in the Merdeka year, 1957. I first set foot, briefly, on Malayan soil in 1960.

I have been studying Malaysia seriously now for over half a century. From the time when the Malaysia idea was first floated and brought to fruition, and into the era of Indonesian “confrontation”. And from the time when, following its victory in Kelantan in 1959, the Islamic Party, or PMIP as it was then generally known, and its leaders were targeted for allegedly sympathising with, and even criminal complicity in, Indonesiankonfrontasi. That was the charge that was then made in the government white paper entitled “A Plot Exposed”.

That interest eventually led me to Kelantan, where I lived and conducted local rural research for a doctoral degree, for almost two years, from August 1967 to July 1969. It has become an interest and connection that has continued, and even grown deeper as my “Malaysian pre-occupation”, ever since then.

So, do I have a different relationship to Malaysian society, and a different view of what goes on in the so-called “Malay heartlands” and of the national government’s approach to those who live there, than  most working journalists these days?

Of course I do. How could I not?

How can I not understand those things differently, and write about them with a different view and understanding, than today’s foreign correspondents and media practitioners? And will I see what is going, below or outside of the range of vision of those overseas journalists, in the Malay heartlands as central to Malaysian national politics? Of course I will.

When an election is called, that is what I think about and focus on, rather than succumbing, as so many of the visiting journalists do, to a fascination with “celebrity” political leaders on all sides who are eager to “cut a good figure” internationally.

If that somehow fails to satisfy the editors and authors at “The Choice”, I am sorry to disappoint them.

But they can hardly expect otherwise. Not from someone with my scholarly background, interests and focus.

A partisan hack? A ‘shill’?

But, to be fair to my latest critic, there is more to the charge made against me by “The Choice” than the disappointed claim that I am simply different.

I am said to be different, unacceptably different, in a specific way.

The suggestion made there is that my writing is partisan, outrageously partisan. Specifically, that I have “offered one of the most intellectually sophisticated, clever, subtle examples of pro-Pakatan Rakyat propaganda we have seen in some time.”

This accusation conveniently ignores the fact that, over recent times, I have consistently characterised the Pakatan Rakyat coalition as an improbable partnership and one lacking any coherent political outlook or, as distinct from an inclination towards popularly pleasing gestures, clear policies.

So much, then, for the author’s claim that “Kessler completely ignores the complete lack of any genuine economic or social policy from Anwar and Pakatan.”

The critique made by “The Choice” suggests that what I write is simply palatable pap to comfort an opposition readership with antagonistic attitudes and closed minds.

Yet, perhaps strangely, there were some on the same side of the political fence as those at “The Choice” who were quite happy to quote me, as and when and how it suited them.

For example: after I had observed in these columns that, viewed in long-term historical perspective, so far only the old Alliance and its successor the Barisan Nasional had ever shown the ability to fashion a competent “governing bloc” in Malaysia, and that the Pakatan opposition had so far given no sign at all of being able to replicate the achievement, the editors at TV3 were quite happy to lead the 8 o’clock news one evening with their neatly excerpted citation of my verdict on Pakatan’s plausibility as a prospective national government.

And as for the charge of being a partisan “shill” for Pakatan, or anybody, in what I write, I simply point out that that, once the election was called and candidates were nominated, I fastidiously chose not to write about the election campaign — or anything else — in these pages. And I did not resume writing about Malaysian  society and politics until last week’s two-part retrospective to which “The Choice” now takes such elegant and finely outraged exception. It was written some five weeks after election day.

Hardly a rush to judgment, a hasty bid for opposition approval, or an eager gesture of ingratiation to a readership harbouring anti-government sentiments.

I did not write during that voluntary moratorium because, in my view, once the serious business of the elections was under way, that was a matter for the Malaysian people, for the voters, to decide and not one into which I should seek to intrude my own views.

Was that the action of a partisan meddler? Hardly.

My principled fastidiousness here seems to have been wasted, or to have gone unrecognized at “The Choice”.

Had I wanted to be partisan, I certainly might have acted differently during those weeks from mid-April to mid-June and written differently all along throughout all the preceding months and years.

A ‘split-level’ campaign

The proof of my supposed animus, and the refutation of my prejudiced view, that is offered by “The Choice” focuses largely upon the action of the Prime Minister.

Just look at how he sought Chinese and Indian support! At his visits to temples! His attendance at their various religious festivals and cultural ceremonies! And, just look, too, at his principled efforts to generate economic change and administrative transformation! Legal reform too! And so on.

But what my review of GE13 had emphasised was the “split-level” nature of the campaign waged by the Umno/BN side.

The more genteel part, and the part that captured the attention of much of the foreign media, is the part that my critic at “The Choice” now reiterates.

But that was not the campaign that was pitched at the great mass of voters in the Malay heartlands, and which in the end ensured their support.

That campaign was waged, above all, by and in Utusan Malaysia. By Umno, that is to say, in and through the pages of Utusan and their far-reaching reach and impact throughout peninsular Malay society.

After all Utusan is “tidak asing” to Umno, is no stranger to the governing party. It is owned by Umno. It is not just of the same “darah-daging”, the same flesh and blood, as Umno but is its voice, the authoritative and authentic voice of Umno’s deepest soul. Or so it boasts, and so also does Umno of it.

So it must be taken seriously.

Some of us do. Do the writers at “The Choice” do likewise, I wonder.

We read it daily, some of us. Not to learn “gospel truth”, so to speak, to have objective reality laid bare and revealed to us, but to learn what issues are being developed and how they are being presented in the leading Malay media to the core Malay component of the national political community.

My point in my GE13 retrospective was simply that what Utusan and its media consociates offered was in many ways the key to the “real campaign”, and central to it, so far as the great majority of the nation’s Malay voters were concerned.

And that campaign, one that in its tenor and content was totally at odds with the more genteel “official” campaign that Umno/BN was offering in full public and international view, was not a campaign to which the foreign journalists and international media (because of their own limitations, I said, and not because of their own folly or any Umno trickery!) had any access.

It was campaign that was literally beyond their view, their cultural and communicative reach, one that was conducted and passed largely unnoticed “under their radar”.

But it was — who can possibly deny it? — a critically important, even decisive, part of the successful Umno/BN national campaign.

It was a campaign that some people saw and took seriously, and to which they gave the attention that it incontrovertibly deserved.

And that is why anyone who took that “Malay ground level” campaign seriously saw the whole election drama quite differently from the international media: those whose good sense and sound judgment “The Choice” wishes to commend, in criticism of the rather different view that I recently suggested.

Well, of course they must be right, and I wrong, “The Choice” wishes to suggest. After all, just look how many of them took that view and were satisfied with it.

Invoking the numbers may prove something. But doing so does not vindicate the view that the majority were content to offer, based upon the very partial and inadequate view that they had of the nature of the campaign and how it was waged.

A plea to be political “wimps”?

Here the writer at “The Choice” makes a truly strange defence of this Malay populist aspect of the Umno/BN campaign. “Kessler,” he says, “also attacks Najib for making a hard play for Malay hearts and. One must ask: why not? It may have escaped his notice that Najib heads a party called the United Malays National Organisation. One would naturally expect him to seek their votes and sympathy, especially in the Malay heartland.”

My criticism was not that Najib should have played the “wimp” rather than been a bold leader of his people. It was that he chose precisely not to do so.

My complaint was not that Najib and Umno had sought mass Malay support. My criticism was of how they went about doing it. My criticism of Prime Minister Najib and his party is the same that is to be made against the party’s public political vehicle, Utusan. Against the role that, at Umno’s direction, Utusan is assigned to play in national life.

In the end a government that does not seek to educate and uplift its people, to enlarge their understanding and open up a vision wider than that afforded long afforded them between their familiar cultural blinkers, is not really a government. It is merely a system of rule and administration.

Regrettably, Utusan exists at Umno’s behest not to widen the cultural horizon of the great majority of the nation’s Malays but to keep their vision narrowly framed by the same archaic perspective of their political grandparents.

Good enough for them then, perhaps, but these days, for today’s Malays and the challenges that they face, no longer.

But that was the part that Umno had Utusan play in GE13. In its “split-level campaign”, the party’s marching orders to the flagship Malay newspaper were — if one may parody the old song — “you take the low road and we’ll take the high, and we’ll all get back to Putrajaya together”.

It worked.

But it was not an edifying spectacle.

Mine was not an argument to Umno, as historically the nation’s main Malay-backed party, that its leaders should be political wimps.

It was an argument, or an expression of the hope, that Malaysia might soon become as good as it can be. And also a reminder that Umno has a major responsibility, and is uniquely positioned, to enable it to do so.

A ‘different view’

The critique levelled against me in “The Choice” appears to come from somebody close to the Prime Minister’s Office or from his media and communications management experts.

If that is the case, then “fair enough!” I have no complaint with them or the case that they make on that account.

That is their job.

And, though I may disagree with what they say and in some ways also with how they choose to say it, I can readily acknowledge that they do their job not just dutifully but with some unusual verve and welcome elegance.

Yet I also hope that, on their part, they can see and accept that my role, as a long-time student and observer of Malay and Malaysian society, is not the same as  theirs, nor is the viewpoint that my professional work affords me the same as that which they derive from theirs.

That, I believe, ought to be something that my critics might be able to see and accept, if not in uncomplaining silence, then in good grace and spirits.

In writing what and as I do, I am not politically partisan. I certainly try not to be. But I am not neutral so far as my own principled scholarly commitments are concerned.

My responsibility as a scholar is not to make Umno/BN look good and smell fragrant. Nor is it my job or desire to “do them in”. Equally, my role is not to make the opposition look good or to give them comfort. Nor to wage a polemic against it for not yet having become what it aspires to be. Or might.

I seek to cast my own eye — neither partisan nor objective but my own independent eye and critical sense — on what I write about.

And when I write about Malaysian matters, I seek to do so in my own way, informed by my own historical sense of “where things are now at” and how, over the half-century that I have been following Malaysian developments, they have got to where they now are.

That, for me, is “a matter of choice”, of informed and responsible choice.

It would be good if others, even when they disagree, could bring themselves simply to accept that fact.

That too, on their side, is, or should be, a matter of sound choice.

An afterword

I had barely finished drafting the foregoing reply to the “The Choice” when I learned that a second part to its critique had appeared.

It may be found at:
https://www.thechoice.my/iconoclast/64895-kessler-part-two-pure-propaganda-from-the-pro-pakatan-partisan-professor-

Where the first had seen my work, though disputable, as brilliant, the second now called it “drivel”.

For my part, I had welcomed its first rejoinder as an elegant and stylish exercise in political commentary and debate.

Its second now descends from criticism to caricature, from critique to abuse.

And against abuse one can offer little other than a dignified silence.

But before shutting up, several points are relevant.

(i)  The complaint is made that I have not provided the detailed factual evidence to back up my claim that, through the Malay-language press and media, Umno pitched what was to prove a very successful campaign of ethno-communal fear and outrage to the majority of the Malay voters.

In a brief commentary one cannot provide detailed evidence.

Others may now lay out that evidence, “chapter and verse”, in a specialist research monograph. Perhaps somebody will.

But I indicated what that evidence is and where it is to be found. In distressing profusion.

The evidence is to be found, above all, in the pages of the Umno’s own Utusan throughout the months leading up to the election and in the weeks since then. That evidence merits some detailed expert analysis, both for its content and its rhetorical stylistics. Here I say no more.

(ii)  From criticism to caricature and abuse: a second matter.

“The Choice” brands me as a “Pro-Pakatan professor”. But to stigmatize and then dismiss somebody is not to counter their argument.

What, I ask, can make anyone think that after a lifetime of “being my own man”, often in difficult times and places, I would now sell out and become a “shill” for a political party or grouping that, on my own expressed view, lacked plausibility?

It makes no sense. The claim is simply absurd.

(iii) I am guilty, my recent critic blandly asserts, of “intellectual dishonesty”.

I make no such counterclaim.

I am ready to concede that, even though I disagree with them and it, the writers at “The Choice” are presumably sincere in putting their case, that they genuinely believe what they say.

I do charge them, though, with drawing a clever caricature, with fashioning a convenient straw man or “Kessler soft doll”, to knock down. So much easier to demolish that “pro-Pakatan professor” than to rebut the man’s considered argument.

(iv)  In their second rejoinder, the writers at “The Choice”, charge that I lapse from offering brilliant if controversial analysis to providing simply drivel.

It is easy, when awkward matters are raised, to “shoot the messenger”. It hardly seems worth doing so here. How awful was the message?

It hardly seems so awful a message, meriting vehement denunciation: that Umno/BN could have done a better job during GE13 of living up to its proclaimed ideals, and that Malaysia might be a better and gentler place if did.

How despicable, how disputable, is that claim really?

(v)  In one way, however, my new critics have been honest and lived up to the claims that they make for themselves.

When it comes, not to strategizing and managing the Umno/BN campaign but to giving some account of its conduct and why it succeeded, people thanks to “The Choice” now truly do have a choice.

Between my account and that of my recent critic.

One of us, one of those two opposed accounts, must be from some counterfactual parallel universe, and the other somewhat closer to reality.

Readers may make their pick.

It is their choice.

Before they do, one important point.

My critic’s account asserts that what it says, and that alone, is what happened. It vehemently denies, rhetorically rather than factually, the entire account that I have offered.

My account, by contrast, does not deny but accepts the case that my critic makes.

It simply says that his account is only a part, perhaps one-half, of the story. But there is another part too, it argued, and that other part of the total campaign — which was fought out of sight of those not “plugged into” the Malay media nor attuned to the Malay world — was decisive in “winning the day” for Umno/Bn where it really mattered.

In the battle for bulk Malay votes, for Malay hearts and souls and allegiance, a “no holds barred” campaign was waged. And it was successful. But this triumph of Realpolitiksat very uneasily with, and many of its claims and themes ran counter to, the genteel public campaign embodied in the Prime Minister’s “1Malaysia” exercise.

You do not have to reject my recent critic’s account to accept mine. But to accept his is to reject my argument “out of hand”. Without any grounds or evidence, I might even say.

(v)  Finally, as I have noted, I prefer to think and write about society and culture broadly, not the all too often dispiriting spectacle of politics.

But during a long and protracted “political season” of the kind that Malaysia has recently been through, when virtually everything becomes political, it is very hard to avoid politics in one’s writing. What is central, what is pervasive, cannot be ignored.

But now some relief is perhaps in sight. The high political season is now over. And with its passing I look forward, when I write about Malaysia from time to time, to writing about those broader social, cultural and historical themes and concerns that most immediately interest me, not about the unedifying sausage-making of national political life.

Political writing I happily leave to the writers at “The Choice”.

They can be very good at it. They have both the taste and the aptitude.

The acquisition alongside those qualities of some greater discernment, a capacity for measured argument rather than reckless polemical overkill and wrong-headed abuse, would also be a good thing.

Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology & Anthropology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:26 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s denial syndrome claiming that he only lost in the “war of perception” in 13GE will condemn his “national reconciliation” plan to failure and a recipe for the resounding defeat of UMNO/BN in the 14GE

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s denial syndrome in his  luncheon  talk to  Malaysian students in Indonesia at the Malaysian Embassy in Jakarta yesterday that the Barisan Nasional had won the GE13 but  it lost  in the “war of perception” will condemn his “national reconciliation” plan to failure and a recipe for the resounding defeat of UMNO/BN in the 14GE.

Najib said Barisan had carried out many transformations in terms of delivery over the last four years and had validly won the GE 13, but it lost in the war of perception because of the slander and lies churned out by the Opposition through the alternative media, which many people believed in more than the truth provided by the mainstream media.

Najib said: “For the next general election, Barisan must equip itself well to fight the war of perception”.

Is Najib promising more Umno/BN lies and falsehoods on the cyberspace in the next five years, despite the abject failure of the 10,000 UMNO/BN cybertroopers trained in a series of nation-wide 1Malaysia Social Media Conventions involving hundreds of millions of ringgit of public funds  in the run up to the 13GE?

I am no apologist for the alternative media, but is Najib prepared to establish an independent  commission of inquiry to ascertain why the mainstream media  have lost all credibility and authority ceding the ground to the alternative media?

Let such an independent commission of inquiry delve into the lies and falsehoods of UMNO/BN mainstream media, whether Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, Berita Harian or Star alleging that DAP funded the alleged “Red Bean Army” of 300 to 3,000 cybertroopers, spending from RM108 million to RM1 billion in the past six years to demonise and character-assassinate UMNO/BN leaders.

Even now, the UMNO mouthpiece, Utusan Malaysia, is continuing to publish such lies and falsehoods about the DAP funding the “Red Bean Army”!

In the 13GE, UMNO/BN lost the majority popular vote but won the majority parliamentary seats because the UMNO/BN coalition failed the test among Malaysian voters on delivering the great national issues of a safe, clean, transparent and moderate Malaysia although Najib managed to scrape through to victory because of the absence of a clean, free and fair election system.

Najib’s claim of “transformation” is a totally empty one, as highlighted by the fact that Malaysians today have never felt so unsafe in public places and even in the privacy of their homes, with the crime situation seemingly gone out of control – with Malaysians for the first time feeling unsafe eating out with the spate of mass gang armed robberies  of owners and customers in open restaurants and eateries.

Can Najib, the new Home Minister Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi and the new Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar empathise with the following comment on my latest blog on crime?

“I was seething with anger today when I read a news item about the police providing hourly checks on ATM machines!!!

“Why? ATM machine security is the responsibility of the banks.

“Where are the PDRM’s priorities? The people are being robbed, slashed, rape and all manner of harm done to their properties and personal well being and the police are more worried about the banks’ ATM machines?

“Banks pays more taxes? Banks’ ATM machines more important than human lives?

“We have reached the stage where our streets have been hijacked by criminals and we are too afraid even to step out of our houses.

“I would be more than happy to settle for two hourly patrol by the police on the streets on crime hotspots.

“And where is that large number of motorcycles recently presented to the police with much publicity to help them in their patrols?

“I have NEVER seen any policemen anywhere near the street where my house is either on motorcycles or cars over the last six months. And I live less than 2km from a police station that was opened with much fanfare less than 3 years ago.”

Can Zahid or Khalid answer these questions?

Is it any wonder that for the first time in Malaysia’s 56-history after 13 general elections, Najib’s legitimacy as Prime Minister is such  a widespread question among Malaysians in the country?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 June 2013, 1:03 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.