Pemansuhan ISA Tidak Bermakna Kerana Kuasa Tahanan Luasnya Digantikan Dengan 3 Rang Undang-undang

(Ucapan Setiausaha Agung DAP Dan Ahli Parlimen Kawasan Bagan Lim Guan Eng Di Parlimen Semasa Membahas Rang Undang-undang Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012  Di Dewan Rakyat Pada 16 April 2012)

Dengan pemansuhan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) maka berakhirlah satu era penindasan rakyat oleh Kerajaan BN. Berakhirlah satu sejarah hitam buat negara kita, di mana sepanjang 52 tahun pelaksanaan ISA dijangka lebih 10,000 orang mangsa telah ditahan tanpa bicara di bawah akta tersebut.

Tetapi adakah kita rakyat harus rasa gembira?

Saya rasa ini bukannya masa untuk diraikan kegembiraan dengan membaca Al-Fatihah kepada ISA kerana ia masih belum benar-benar meninggalkan tanah air Malaysia. Di samping itu keengganan kerajaan BN mengambil tanggungjawab ke atas kezaliman yang diperlakukan ke atas mangsa-mangsa ISA dengan meminta maaf secara terbuka atas tahanan tanpa bicara yang melanggari segala asas perikemanusiaan serta lunas undang-undang hak asasi manusia dan due proses.

Setengah mangsa yang tidak bersalah mahupun berdosa terdiri daripada Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri-menteri, ketua pembangkang aktivis sosial dan rakyat biasa. Apakah kesalahan sehingga boleh memudaratkan keselamatan negara selain daripada menentang pemimpin BN yang rasuah dan menggugat monopoli kuasa rakus BN daripada terus menindas rakyat.

Apakah kesalahan Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Mat Sabu yang selalu ini menegakkan kedaulatan undang-undang dan sistem perlembagaan beraja sehingga perlu merengkok dalam tahanan di bawah ISA tanpa bicara dan dituduh melakukan kesalahan dengan sewenang-wenangnya tanpa bukti langsung. Malah mereka yang buat tuduhan palsu bukan sahaja tidak dikenakan tindakan sebaliknya dinaik pangkat dan diangkat ke jawatan yang tinggi.

Sebagai seorang bekas orang tahanan ISA, saya tahu secara peribadi daripada pengalaman pahit macam mana ISA ini boleh disalahgunakan. Bila saya ditahan dalam 1987 di bawah Operasi Lallang, saya hanya berumur 26 tahun dan baru dipilih sebagai Ahli Parlimen Kawasan Kota Melaka.  Dalam umur yang begitu mentah ini, saya dituduh mengancam keselamatan negara sehingga boleh mencetuskan negara menjadi huru-hara sekiranya saya masih bebas. Kalau begitu dengan umur saya sekarang menjangkau 52 tahun, bukankah saya lagi mengancam?

Proses 60 hari “solitary confinement” sukar dilalui kerana nyawa kita terletak di bawah tangan seorang dua pegawai polis yang boleh buat apa-apa pun secara suka hati ke atas saya. Saya dipersoalkan mengapa menentang Perdana Menteri Malaysia, adakah saya mahu dibebaskan dengan syarat saya mengaku atau bertaubat di depan kaca mata televisyen bahawa saya terlibat dalam kegiatan subversif dan dianiayai secara mental.

Saya diletakkan di dalam sebuah bilik berwarna biru habis tanpa cermin dengan sebuah kipas tidak bergerak dengan 4 cangkuk besar. Saya tidak dibenarkan tidur lebih 24 jam dengan dipaksa duduk di atas bangku dengan pegawai polis berteriak ke dalam telinga saya setiap kali saya nak mengantuk untuk memaksa saya “bertaubat”. Saya sudah dikira bernasib baik kerana tidak dipukul dan dibelasah dengan ganas macam berlaku ke atas YB Ketua Pembangkang dan ramai rakan-rakan lagi.

Sebagai peneraju dan pewaris ISA, adakah BN bersedia meminta maaf secara terbuka ke atas semua mangsa-mangsa kezaliman. Selagi BN enggan berbuat demikian susah untuk menemui penutupan atau “closure” dan menimbulkan keraguan bahawa pemansuhan ISA hanya permainan silap mata untuk menyembunyikan muslihat jahat BN nak meneruskan ISA dalam bentuk dan rupa lain(in in different guise and form).

Hakikatnya, kita harus mengingati bahawa ISA ini sebenarnya telah diwujudkan sebagai langkah pencegahan komunis di Malaya dan kemudiannya Malaysia pada zaman darurat. Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang pertama, Tunku Abdul Rahman sendiri telah berkata bahawa:

“ISA yang telah diperkenalkan pada tahun1960 telah dirancang untuk digunakan semata-mata untuk melawan komunis… Sayadan para jemaah menteri saya telah berjanji kepada Parlimen dan kepada negara bahawa kuasa besar yang diberi kepada kerajaan di bawah ISA tidak akan digunakan untuk menyekat pembangkang yang sah.”

Sekiranya apa yang dikatakan Bapa Kemerdekaan kita ini benar, maka ISA sepatutnya dimansuhkan selepas tamatnya pemberontakan senjata komunis secara rasmi pada tahun 1989 dengan perjanjian damai di antara Parti Komunis Malaya ditandantangani dengan Ketua Polis Negara Tan Sri Rahim Nor di Haadyai pada 2 Disember 1989. Ini kerana tujuan utama undang-undang ini diperkenalkan sudah tidak lagi relevan. Tanpa ada lagi ancaman komunis, ISA seharusnya tidak diperlukan lagi. Namun, ISA diteruskan sebagai senjata ke atas musuh politik BN yang menentang BN secara aman dan berlandaskan Perlembagaan.

Sejarah hitam ISA harus dikuburkan buat selama-lamanya, dan ini tidak akan berlaku selagi Kerajaan tidak mengambil langkah untuk meminta maaf dan memberi jaminan bahawa undang-undang kuku besi seperti ISA tidak akan diulangi lagi, mahupun secara tidak langsung. Selagi Kerajaan tidak meminta maaf, selagi itulah hantu ISA akan membayangi legasi mereka. Ini jelas tertera secara langsung atau tidak dalam tiga RUU yang dibentangkan untuk menggantikan ISA, RUU Kesalahan Keselamatan (Llangkah-langkah Khas) 2012, RUU Kanun Tatacara Jenayah(Pindaan) 2012 dan RUU Kanun Keseksaan(Pindaan) 2012

Hakikat ini dinyatakan oleh YB Menteri Dalam Negeri dua hari lepas bahawa “The new law replacing the Internal Security Act (ISA) will not hamper the abilities of the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) to protect the safety of the public” Dengan kata lain, pihak polis masih mempunyai kuasa samada adanya atau tidaknya ISA sepertimana yang termaktub dalam Perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang membolehkan sesiapa ditahan untuk apa tujuan pun.

RUU ini pada permulaannya menyebut bahawa“tindakan telah diambil dan tindakan lanjut diancam oleh sekumpulan besar orang di dalam dan di luar Malaysia”, sebagaimana yang disenaraikan. Siapakah kumpulan besar itu, dan apakah tindakan-tindakan yang telah diambil dan yang diancam? Saya rasa bahawa ahli-ahli yang berhormat hendaklah diberitahu terhadap kumpulan manakah RUU ini ditujukan, kerana hanya selepas itu bolehlah Dewan yang Mulia ini meneliti dengan baik RUU ini.

Pada mukadimah RUU ini adalah disebut bahawa, dengan izin: “action has been taken and further action is threatened… to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law established”. Inilah satu contoh penggubalan undang-undang secara“cut-and-paste”. Sepatutnya, “anything” itu hendaklah merujuk kepada“something” atau “certain things” yang sudah diketahui. Ancaman yang dirujuk,adakah ia benar-benar wujud atau hanya dalam khayalan Kerajaan sahaja?

RUU ini dicadangkan untuk digubal di bawah Perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, yang membenarkan undang-undang khas diperbuat bagi tujuan menentang tindakan subversif walaupun undang-undang itu bertentangan dengan hak-hak asasi yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan. Kita semua tahu bagaimana lagi satu Akta yang digubal di bawah Perkara 149, yakni ISA yang sepatutnya bertujuan untuk menentang kempen keganasan Parti Komunis Malaya,tetapi telah disalahgunakan oleh Kerajaan BN untuk menzalimi dan menganiayai rakyat Malaysia yang tidak bersalah walaupun kempen komunis itu telah tamat lebih daripada 23 tahun lalu, pada tahun 1989.

Sebenarnya, Perkara 149 pada asalnya hanya membenarkan undang-undang khas diperbuat untuk setahun sahaja. Jika ia tidak dilanjutkan setiap tahun, maka undang-undang khas itu seharusnya luput.Demikianlah perlindungan yang wujud di bawah Perlembagaan zaman Merdeka, tetapi Kerajaan Perikatan dan BN telah meminda Perlembagaan kita untuk menghapuskan perlindungan hak-hak rakyat. Jika Kerajaan benar-benar patuh kepada semangat Perlembagaan dan hak-hak rakyat, RUU ini harus dipinda supaya ia luput jika tidak diperbaharui setiap tahun oleh Parlimen.

Fasal 4 RUU ini membenarkan pihak polis untuk menahan seseorang bagi tempoh selama 28 hari tanpa bicara dan tanpa dibawa ke hadapan majistret. Fasal ini amat bahaya. Perkara 5(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa: “Jika seseorang ditangkap dan tidak dilepaskan, maka orang itu hendaklah tanpa kelengahan yang tidak munasabah, dan walau bagaimanapun dalam tempoh 24 jam … dibawa ke hadapan majistret dan orang itu tidak boleh ditahan dalam jagaan selanjutnya tanpa kebenaran majistret itu.”

Dengan fasal 4 ini, hak asasi yang dijamin oleh Perkara 5(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah dirampas dan dicabuli. Jika mana-mana orang boleh ditahan selama 28 hari tanpa dibawa kehadapan majistret, manakah jaminan bahawa orang itu tidak akan dibelasah dan diseksa polis selama tempoh itu? Siapakah yang boleh tahan diseksa selama 28 hari? Dalam masa satu bulan orang tahanan boleh dibelasah sampai lebam, dan selepas itu ditahan sehingga lebam itu pudar.

Sekurang-kurangnya, seseorang yang ditahan patut dibawa ke hadapan majistret selepas 24 jam pertama, dan selanjutnya selepas setiap 7 hari yang berlalu. Mengapakah Kerajaan dan pihak polis begitu takut membawa orang tahanan ke hadapan majistret? Bagaimanakah hak asasi rakyat yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan boleh diketepikan dengan begitu senang?

Bagi orang tahanan yang mampu mendapat perwakilan peguam dan mampu menyaman pihak polis, memang tindakan mahkamah boleh diambil terhadap polis sekiranya kuasa tahanan disalahgunakan. Namun realitinya, lock-up dan penjara-penjara di seluruh negara kita penuh dengan orang tahanan, termasuklah pemuda-pemuda bawah umur, yang tidak mampu mendapat perwakilan undang-undang. Oleh sebab itu, penyeliaan badan kehakiman adalah mustahak. Sekali lagi, saya ingin tanya, mengapakah Kerajaan dan pihak polis begitu takut membawa orang tahanan ke hadapan majistret?

Tanpa penyeliaan badan kehakiman, kami rasa bahawa pihak polis boleh melanjutkan tempoh tahanan orang tahanan selepas akhir 28 hari, dengan membebaskan dan menahan semula orang tahanan itu selepas setiap 28 hari, seperti yang sering dilakukan di bawah ISA. Dengan ini, tempoh tahanan itu boleh dilanjutkan bertahun-tahun tanpa had. Bolehkah YB Menteri memberi jaminan bahawa tempoh tahanan 28 hari itu tidak boleh dilanjutkan secara membebaskan dan menahan semula orang tahanan?

Bahagian IV RUU ini memberi kuasa kepadaPendakwa Raya berkenaan dengan kes-kes yang melibatkan “maklumat sensitif”.Pentakrifan “maklumat sensitif” ini amat luas, dan merangkumi apa-apa dokumen,maklumat dan bahan yang berkaitan dengan Jemaah Menteri dan jawatankuasanya atau yang menyentuh kedaulatan, keselamatan negara, pertahanan, ketenteraman awam dan hubungan antarabangsa, sama ada bahan itu dikelaskan sebagai rahsia atau tidak. Pentakrifan ini adalah terlalu luas, dan nampaknya adalah bertujuan melindungi kepentingan Kerajaan dan bukan kepentingan awam atau kepentingan negara. Keperluan menjamin keadilan perbicaraan tidak disebut sama sekali dalam Bahagian ini. YB Menteri patut menjelaskan sama ada mahkamah mempunyai budibicara untuk menolak permohonan Pendakwa Raya di bawah fasal 8 jika perlu untuk menjamin keadilan perbicaraan. Ini hanyalah satu contoh peruntukan dalam RUU ini yang tidak adil dan tidak wajar.

Kalau dilihat secara keseluruhan, semua peruntukan-peruntukan RUU ini jelas bertujuan untuk membolehkan Kerajaan menyabit dan memenjarakan sesiapa sahaja atas kesalahan keselamatan dengan bukti yang direka-reka. Fasal 8 RUU ini membolehkan Pendakwa Raya menyembunyikan fakta-fakta yang menunjukkan bahawa orang dituduh itu tidak bersalah atasalasan maklumat itu sensitif.

Fasal 14 membolehkan bukti diterima daripada saksi yang menyembunyikan identitinya daripada pihak tertuduh. Fasal 18 membolehkan penyata  yang kononnya dibuat oleh orang yang mati, hilang atau tidak dapat hadir ke mahkamah diterima sebagai bukti. Fasal 19 membolehkan orang dituduh disabitkan kesalahan atas testimoni kanak-kanak yang tidak disokong. Fasal 20 membolehkan apa jua dokumen yang kononnya disita oleh polis, walaupun secara menyalahi undang-undang,diterima sebagai bukti.

Fasal 22 membolehkan senarai dokumen atau benda yang kononnya disita oleh polis diterima sebagai bukti kewujudan dokumen atau bend aitu walaupun dokumen atau benda itu tidak boleh dikemukakan di mahkamah. Fasal 23 membolehkan eksibit yang dikatakan sensitif tidak dikemukakan di mahkamah tanpa menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. Fasal 25 membolehkan apa jua dokumen yangdibuat dengan komputer diterima sebagai bukti. Fasal 26 membolehkan testimoni rakan sejenayah dan polis yang memprovokasi tindakan kesalahan itu diterima sebagai bukti.

Fasal-fasal  13 dan 30 pula membolehkan orang dituduh ditahan bertahun-tahun walaupun ia belum disabitkan kesalahan atau didapati tidak bersalah oleh mahkamah, sehingga habis rayuan terakhir. Sungguhpun hak orang yang ditahan boleh menuntut perbicaraan selepas 28 hari tetapi berkemungkinan tidak dapat menikmati kebebasan kerana Fasal 30(1) menyatakan boleh terus direman di dalam penjara sementara menunggu notis rayuan difailkan terhadap pembebasan tertuduh itu oleh Pendakwa Raya dan semua proses undang-undang ditamatkan.

YB Menteri perlu menjelaskan, apakah kaitan khas antara kesalahan keselamatan dan testimoni kanak-kanak? Apakah saksi yang berkaitan dengan kesalahan keselamatan lebih sering mati atau hilang (mungkin kerana diletup dengan C4), kalau berbanding dengan kes-kes yang lain?Apakah cetakan dari komputer lebih boleh dipercayai dalam kes kesalahan keselamatan? Mengapakah  kes kesalahan keselamatan harus lebih senang dibuktikan jika dibandingkan dengan kes bunuhatau kes rogol? Ini semua menunjukkan bahawa undang-undang di negara kita tidak digunakan untuk melindungi rakyat, malah untuk melindungi Kerajaan.

Badan Peguam Malaysia juga telah menyatakan kebimbangan mereka terhadap RUU ini, termasuk sama ada RUU ini patut digubal dibawah Artikel 149 jika syarat-syarat perlindungan memadai, definisi “kesalahan keselamatan” yang terlalu luas, kekurangan pengawasan kehakiman atas penahanan serta penyekatan atas komunikasi, kekurangan perlindungan atas komunikasi peguam-pelanggan, dan yang paling penting sekali keberlainan dengan peraturan-peraturan biasa berkaitan perbicaraan jenayah.

Selagi bayang-bayang, sisa dan saki-baki ISA masih wujud dalam RUU Kesalahan Keselamatan (Llangkah-langkah Khas) 2012, RUU Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) 2012 dan RUU Kanun Keseksaan (Pindaan) 2012, maka ia akan mengujudkan ketakutan di kalangan orang ramai terhadap kerajaan yang bersedia menggunakannya untuk niat dan hasrat politik mereka. Buat apa  Let me close by quoting from American President Thomas Jefferson,

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny;

When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

By continuing to instil fear amongst the people, there is false liberty or no liberty at all but BN continues to exercise tyranny over Malaysians. Pemansuhan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri(ISA) tidak bermakna kerana kuasa tahanan luasnya digantikan dengan 3 RUU Kesalahan Keselamatan (Llangkah-langkah Khas) 2012, Kanun Tatacara Jenayah(Pindaan) 2012 dan Kanun Keseksaan(Pindaan) 2012.

Oleh itu parti DAP menyokong pemansuhan ISA tetapi menentang kesemua tiga RUU yang dibentangkan bersama ini.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 April 2012, 6:33 pm and is filed under
ISA
,
Lim Guan Eng
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reforming Education: Part 4 of 6: Enhancing Residential Schools

By
M. Bakri Musa

Fourth of Six Parts

My first three essays dealt with the challenges facing kampong schools and how we could leverage technology to alleviate those problems. I discussed enhancing the educational opportunities through improving the schools, recruiting superior teachers, and enriching the curriculum. Failure to do so would doom these unfortunate students to perpetual mediocrity and poverty, with dire consequences for them as well as the rest of Malaysia. This essay explores ways of maximizing the potential of residential schools. Again here as with kampong schools, we are dealing primarily with Malay students.

            Our residential schools get the top students, have the best teachers, and consume more than their fair share of resources. Yet their aggregate performance has been underwhelming. When I visit top American campuses, the Malaysians I meet there are from other than our supposedly elite residential schools. That is the most telling indicator.

            Malaysia’s oldest residential school, Malay College Kuala Kangsar, only recently (June 2011) started a matriculation program, the International Baccalaureate. Despite the luminaries on its board and the institution’s special status, it took a full decade to implement the program. Imagine the glacial pace at lesser institutions!

            Prior to the IB, MCKK students had to go elsewhere for their matriculation, reducing the school (and others like it) to nothing more than a glorified middle school, and a very expensive one at that. This has not always been the case. Up till the late 1960s, MCKK still had its Sixth Form. For over the past 40 years – two generations – the institution has been emasculated academically; the same with Tunku Kurshiah College and other residential schools. What a colossal lost opportunity for Malays, one that cannot be readily quantified. My surprise is that Malay leaders, especially the Perkasa types, are totally oblivious of this loss.

            The issues with residential schools are principally with reducing their cost and enhancing the output.

Reducing Costs

The comparable cost for private schools in Malaysia ranges from about RM25-45K annually for tuition, plus another RM15-20K for full boarding per student. The facilities (academic and non-academic) at MCKK and other government residential schools are nowhere comparable to such private ones like Tuanku Jaafar College, so I would put a lower figure, conservatively at RM40K per student. That is still at least 8-10 times more expensive than the regular government day school.

            The government bears the entire cost regardless of the families’ economic status. Thus one quick way to reduce cost would simply have parents bear the costs based on a sliding scale, depending on income and assets. Beyond a certain level they would have to pay the full cost; below that, nothing, the students effectively on full scholarship. With the extra revenue the schools could enhance their curriculum and facilities.

            The immediate impact would be to discourage well-to-do Malays from enrolling their children at these schools, preferring the much superior private ones instead. That would effectively free up more slots for children of the poor.

            Another way of reducing costs would be to make these schools only partially residential, restricting hostel facilities only to those from out of town. Another would be to limit the intake of students from within the state or adjacent ones, thus reducing transportation costs, although that is only a minor component.

            With the increasing urbanization of Malays I would build these schools in the cities to cater to poor urban families. Then with most of the students coming from nearby areas, this would obviate the need for full hostel facilities.

Increasing and Enhancing The Output

As our residential schools get the best students, we must ensure that the output of these schools must be superior both in quantity as well as quality. At a minimum all their students must qualify for university; anything less would be a failure both for the students as well as the institution. It would also be a loss for Malays.

            Again, because they get our best, these schools must be challenged and compared with the best in the region, and not to SMK Ulu Kelantan. If today we were to compare MCKK to Kolej Tuanku Jaafar or KYUEM, the results would be embarrassing.

            By far the most effective way of reducing cost and at the same time increase the output would be to eliminate the lower forms. Focus only on the last four years, meaning, take in students only after Form Three. Resources and facilities currently devoted to the lower forms could now be diverted to the all-important upper forms.

            MCKK takes in over 100 pupils at Form One, but five years later fewer than 50 would be in its IB program. I would rather get rid of Forms One to Three and double up on the IB class. That would boost both the quality as well as quantity of the output.

            Another way of increasing the quality would be for these schools to offer specialized programs. Some schools could for example, emphasize the sciences, others foreign languages, performing arts, or sports. Or these schools could admit only boys (as with MCKK) or girls (TKC). The government recently started one specifically for the children of FELDA settlers. There could be one catering only to children of Orang Asli, or those who would be the first in their family to enter college.

            I would also have the headmastership of these schools be a terminal appointment. Let it be the job he or she will retire in (contingent upon performance of course). That would be the incentive for the individual to strive for a significant legacy. During the tenure, superior performance would be recognized by increasing the pay, and not, as is the current practice, by being promoted and transferred out.

            It is a crying shame that Malay College had nearly twice as many headmasters during the past 47 years when locals took over than in its first 60. One local headmaster stayed barely a few months, just enough time to put an entry on his resume, before being promoted to be a functionary at the ministry. Then we wonder why MCKK has slid so far behind.

            Other schools in Malaysia trumpet their students who are being accepted to top universities, but MCKK and other residential schools are still obsessed with and fixated over their students’ SPM scores, with their graduation exercises (“Speech Day”) attended by sultans and ministers. That, more than anything else, reveals the standards as well as aspirations of these students, their teachers, and our society.

            The government is building many more residential schools. However each new one merely replicates and is being run like existing ones. There is little innovation in curriculum, management or philosophy. Consequently the same mistakes get repeated, and they call that experience!

Next:   Fifth of Six Parts: Post-Form Five Options

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 April 2012, 12:03 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Suhakam joins call for review of ISA replacement law

By Anisah Shukry

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 16, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, April 16 — The newly-proposed security law to replace the Internal Security Act (ISA) must be reviewed to ensure it is in line with human rights principles, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) said today.

Suhakam highlighted that the Bill did not provide for judicial oversight in the extension of the detention period for up to 28 days, and expressed concerns over how it gave police the power to deny detainees immediate access to legal representation.

It added that the power to intercept communications under Clause 4(6) should be exercised through a court order rather than by the police, as it could “infringe personal liberty and the right to privacy”.

“The provisions in the Bill as well as the amendments to the other relevant laws must strike a balance between national security and fundamental liberties and human rights,” Suhakam Chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam said in a statement today.

“The Commission looks forward to further and continuing engagements with the government agencies… to ensure that obsolete and irrelevant laws are abolished and replaced by laws that are consistent with universally accepted human rights principles,” he added.

But he noted that certain provisions in the Bill were consistent with Suhakam’s recommendations from its 2003 report, such as for suspects to either be released or charged with specified security offences after having been detained for up to 28 days.

Hasmy also said that Suhakam will continue to monitor the implementation of the new law to ensure that it complies with international human rights principles and norms.

Putrajaya’s Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 has been met with growing criticism that it denies basic liberties, after being tabled in Parliament last week.

The Bar Council and the international civil liberties watchdog Human Rights Watch have warned that the Bill “could open the door to a range of future abuses.”

The ISA replacement law was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat last Tuesday, removing the government’s option to detain individuals without trial and providing a maximum detention of 28 days for investigation purposes.

Under the ISA, an individual believed to have committed a security offence can be detained for up to two years without trial, on orders from the home minister.

The Bill seeks to provide for “special measures” relating to security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for connected matters.

The new law also notably states that no individual can be arrested solely for his political belief or any political activity, as promised by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak last year when announcing a raft of reforms aimed at increasing civil liberties.

But the Bill still allows any police officer to arrest and detain “any person whom he has reason to believe to be involved in security offences” without warrant for 24 hours for investigation.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 April 2012, 11:19 pm and is filed under
General
,
Human Rights
,
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘We won’t cower to BN’s scare tactics’

by Joseph Tawie| April 15, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

Twelve windscreens of cars belonging to DAP members were smashed in Mas Gading constituency whilst the owners were attending a campaign dinner.

BAU: Sarawak DAP’s launch last night of its campaign to wrest the Mas Gading parliamentary seat, which is a Bidayuh-majority constituency, was marred by a group of motorcyclists who smashed the windscreens of 12 cars while the owners were attending a party dinner at Kampung Sg. Pinang.

Local and national DAP leaders were addressing more than 1,000 people at the dinner when a group of motor cyclists were seen smashing the windscreens of the cars which were parked quite a distance from the venue.

Commenting on the incident, visibly upset Sarawak DAP secretary Chong Chieng Jen said: “Obviously it was a sabotage work by BN members or their supporters.

“Such behaviour only goes to show they are afraid of us. Only cowards do that sort of thing; only someone who is in fear will do a dirty tactic trying to scare the people,” he said.

Chong added that neither the car owners nor the crowd were perturbed by the attacks, as they had come to terms with such ‘scare tactics’ by the ruling regime.

“The people are not scared, and from their response when we made the announcement, no body rushed out to check their cars. This is something like crisis management.

“I was afraid that the people would start to rush out and look at their cars. The response from the people was very calm and the scare tactic of BN does not have any intended effect of what they want,” said Chong, who is the MP for Bandar Kuching and Kota Sentosa assemblyman.

“To us in DAP, it is a form of encouragement as it means that DAP has an impact. Otherwise, if it has no impact, nobody will bother to disturb our function,” Chong added.

Party to subsidise cost

He said that one of DAP supporters, who is in the car accessories business had offered to  replace the windscreens of affected owners for a special rate.

Chong said, DAP on its part would meet half of the costs of the smashed windscreens.

Mordi Bimol, who is the potential DAP candidate for Mas Gading, said that he would not be cowed by this dirty tactic.

“I will organise more dinners. In fact there would be another dinner at Kpg Paun, Sematan on Sunday night.

“Every day I visit the various villages in the constituency. The response is good, and it is a good sign.

“The people who smashed the windscreens of the cars are scared of us, and at least they realise our presence here,” Bimol added.

Earlier in his speech, Bimol urged people to vote for change saying the the BN government had failed to look after the people’s interest.

“They were more concerned in looking after their own interests and in enriching themselves by getting timber licences, involving themselves in government contracts and taking away native customary rights land from you.

“They never raised issues that affect the people in the State Assembly; in fact some even slept in the state assembly,” he said.

DAP targets 12 seats

He said that a large number of the about 100 villages in the Mas Gading constituency have no tar-sealed roads, no clean water supply and no electricity.

“How can the BN representatives speak on your behalf when they consider themselves as the ‘towkay’ (boss) and they will not allow you to fight the boss (jangan lawan towkay).

“They have forgotten about you who have voted for them. Before the election, they promised to give the people this and that and they also promised various projects.

“But after the election, they regarded themselves as your masters and treated the voters as their servants.

“Not only that, they took away your land.

“We need to change and I beg all of you to support me, and support DAP.  Today I apply for a job from you all. Give me a chance to work for you,” Bimol said.

Mas Gading has about 19,472 voters (according to the 2011 electoral rolls), more than 80% of them are Bidayuh voters.

The incumbent is Tiki Lafe who is now partyless after being expelled from Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party.

It is one of the Dayak seats that DAP is eyeing in the coming election. Another confirmed Dayak seat is Serian.

Other seats like Mambong and Sri Aman are still under discussions with its partner PKR.

DAP is expected to contest between 10 and 12 seats in the coming election.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 April 2012, 7:46 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What a load of rubbish

— Lucius Goon

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 16, 2012

APRIL 16 — This is what we learnt today. We learnt that Najib Razak is in his element when making promises. He will sound like a true believer when you give him the floor, as they did in Parliament today.

He promised “more reforms”. I love it that he assumes that his replacement laws are reforms and that Idris Jala’s sleight of hand EPP, ETP and GTP qualify as real change.

He will do away with the Publishing and Printing Presses Act and amend the Sedition Act, he said, but left out a time frame. This is a superb tactic given that it is likely this is the last Parliament session before the polls!

Najib is a prime minister who will say anything and pretend to do something to win our votes. He said today that the era of the “government knows best” is over. Are you sure?

Now the majority of Malaysians, or at least those staying near Gebeng, don’t want the toxic Lynas investment, so why is the Najib administration still shoving this project, which will make some Aussies super rich, down our throats? If the era of “government knows best” is over, then why aren’t they listening to us?

Because Najib is the sound-bite PM.

We also learnt that Dr Mahathir Mohamad is troubled that Abu Sahid Mohamed may be making an inordinate amount of money from the sale of Maju Expressway, which links KL with Putrajaya and Cyberjaya.

In case the good doctor forgot, he was the PM who made it possible for Abu Sahid to become the “entrepreneur” he is today. Dr Mahathir gave him the Perwaja Steel project and it was the Mahathir administration that gave Abu Sahid the concession for MEX, not to mention the RM976 million grant to build the highway.

It is a bit late to lament about the sale of the project, which is expected to net Abu Sahid up to RM1 billion.

As I like to say, another “project” by Barisan Nasional.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 April 2012, 11:00 pm and is filed under
ISA
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Pakatan Rakyat government in Putrajaya will set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal

Firstly, I thank the organisers for inviting me to this book launch for Dato’ Lee Hwa Beng’s publication
“PKFZ: A Nation’s Trust Betrayed”
 (written with co-authoress Lee Siew Lian) in the company of Datuk Ong Tee Keat, one of the early “transformation” ministers in the “transformation” Cabinet of Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

I commend Dato’ Lee Hwa Beng for his book  on his three-year “national service” as Port Klang Authority Chairman after the 2008 general elections to try to pry open the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal to promote a culture of accountability, integrity and good governance.

Unravelling the full horrors of the PKFZ scandal – which I have described as not only “a can of worms” but “a swamp of crocodiles” – and bringing to justice those responsible for this “heinous crime” against the nation is, however, a still very uncompleted work.

The PKFZ scandal was one of the dominating issues in Parliament  before and after the 12th general elections on March 8, 2008.

On 27th November 2007, I moved a censure motion in Parliament by way  of a token RM10 salary cut against the then Transport Minister, Datuk Chan Kong Choy for the consistent wall of denial, equivocation and prevarication in refusing to give full and proper parliamentary accounting for the PKFZ scandal.

I tried to make things easy by reducing the public furore over the PKFZ scandal into five simple questions. After each question, I specifically asked Chan to give a “yes or no” answer – to deny if the facts I had mentioned were untrue, and to explain and justify what he and the government had done if what I had said was undisputed and true.

The five questions were:

1. Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development cost of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

2. In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development cost of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever been sought for every RM100 million increase in development cost.

3. The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor, to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Ling’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Chan.

4. Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Ministers had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in mid-year (2007) to give retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

5. Why no action had been taken against the Transport Ministers, Ling and Chan, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support”.

In his reply in Parliament on the RM10-cut motion, Chan completely ignored the five questions on the core issues of the PKFZ scandal, as well as other questions which I had posed, including:

How Chan could claim that he did not know that as Transport Minister he did not have the powers to issue Letters of Support which were tantamount to government guarantees in the issue of RM4 billion bonds by Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd, as only the Finance Minister had such powers and also after getting prior approval by the Cabinet. How could Chan claim ignorance of this important financial principle when Chan had been Deputy Finance Minister for close to four years from Dec. 1999 to June 2003? Did Chan completely waste his close to four years as Deputy Finance Minister and learnt nothing?

Why Chan did not seek the advice of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Transport on whether he had the authority and powers to sign the Letters of Support but relied instead on advisers from outside the Ministry?

Why for more than three years from May 2003 to December 2006, the Finance Ministry was in the dark and completely unaware that four unauthorized Letters of Support involving RM4 billion bonds had been issued by the Transport Ministers as it was only in December 2006 that the Treasury was informed by the lead arranger for the bonds that such Letters of Support had been issued by the Transport Ministers and that they constituted government guarantees for the bond issues?Wasn’t this shocking evidence of a shambolic government, with the right hand not know what the left hand was doing?

Datuk Ong Tee Keat inherited these questions after he took over as Transport Minister after the 2008 general elections, but despite all the post-308 political tsunami developments, like the Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) audit report into the PKFZ and the ongoing charges against two former Transport Ministers, Tun Ling Liong Sik and Chan Kong Choy, the full story of the PKFZ scandal including adequate answers to the questions I posed in Parliament in November 2007 have still to be told.

In one of my 108 questions which I had posed during my three-questions-a day on the PKFZ in mid 2009 after the Prime Minister had publicly said he had directed his Transport Minister to “provide answers on every question raised by any party” involving the PKFZ scandal, I had asked Ong why he had misled Parliament and the nation in denying that his two predecessors as Transport Minister, Ling and Chan, had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor, to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market.

May be Ong can throw some light on this question, now that he is no more in the Cabinet.

As recounted by Hwa Beng’s book, after the PwC report, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a “Super Task Force” on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal in September 2009, headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan.

What has happened to this PKFZ “Super Task Force” as two and a half years later, Najib has not released even an iota of news with regard to the activities and findings (if any) of this Super Task Force.

It is a timely reminder that only a handful of people involved in this mother of all scandals have been investigated and charged. To date, the following six people have been charged: OC Phang, former general manager of the Port Klang Authority (PKA) for criminal breach of trust; Steven Abok, the former Chief Operating Officer of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd for making false claims; Architect Bernard Tan Seng Swee of BTA Architect for making false claims; Law Jenn Dong, former engineer at Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) for making false claims; Tun Ling Liong Sik, the former transport minister, for cheating the Malaysian government; and Chan Kong Choy, another former transport minister for cheating former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Badawi.

But as Lee Hwa Beng’s book shows, there are many people associated with this scandal who have not been properly called to account. As such, Najib should immediately release the findings of this “super task force” and let the public know the answer to the following questions:

(I) Whether former Port Klang Authority chairman, Ting Chew Peh, should be charged for his role in signing the agreement, known as LA1, to buy the land for RM1.088 billion “calculate at the rate of RM25 per square foot on special value basis” and to interest at a rate of 7.5% “before the port authority even received the Cabinet’s formal approval”. Ting, together with OC Phang, signed this agreement even though he knew, from his experience as a Cabinet Minister for 9 years, that it was “the usual practice” for “a Cabinet decision to be carried out only after receiving the official extract”.

(II) Whether former Port Klang Authority chairman and current Housing and Local Government Minister, Chor Chee Heung should be charged for any actions taken on his part as a result of possible conflicts of interest during the 4 month period in which Chor was both a non-independent director and deputy chairman of Wijaya as well as the PKA chairman. During this period, the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal noted that “Minutes of the Board did not indicate that Datuk CHor Chee Heung either declared his previous involvement in [Wijaya] to the Board or withdre himself from the deliberations”.

(III) Why only Steven Abok, the former COO of KDSB was charged, while Tiong King Sing, former controlling shareholder and CEO of Wijaya Baru Global Berhad and KDSB, and former UMNO treasurer, Azim Zaibi, former chairman of Wijaya as well as KDSB have been let off scot-free despite having played key roles in the land sale to PKA and the subsequent turnkey development contracts and bond issuance.

(IV) Whether former Sementa state assemblyman, former Koperasi Pembangunan Pulau Lumut Bd (KPPLB) chairman as well as PKA director, Rahman Palil, had shortchanged the members of KPPLB by arguing against a compulsory acquisition of the PKFZ land by the federal government.

(V) Whether Najib himself knew that PKA could not service its long term debt commitments when he, sitting in for Abdullah Badawi in a Cabinet Meeting in June 2007, approved the RM4.6billion soft loan to PKA.

Najib’s ‘elegant silence’ on the PKFZ scandal since 2009 makes a mockery of the Government Transformation Program’s Corrruption NKRA which list one of its chief objectives as eradicating ‘grand corruption’.

With this non-existent commitment on the part of the Prime Minister to bring those responsible for this massive scandal to justice, it is no surprise that Malaysia’s ranking on the Transparency Corruption Perception Index dropped four places from 56 in 2010 to 60 in 2011.

The lack of action taken by this ‘Super Task Force’ is yet another example of a long list of gigantic U-turns made by Najib and his administration since becoming Prime Minister in 2009.

After the publication of the PwC report, I had in June 2009 given notice to Parliament Speaker to move an emergency motion of urgent public importance to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scndal, stating:

“The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) audit report into the PKFZ made public on May 28, 2009 was most unsatisfactory as its terms of reference were restricted to ‘a position review’ instead of wide-ranging inquiry as to how a RM1.1 billion scandal in 2002 under Tun Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, could more than quadruple to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister in 2007 and now further doubled to RM7.453 billion and heading towards the figure of RM12.5 billion under the present Transport Minister!

“Although the Prime Minister had on 29th May publicly directed the Transport Minister to answer every question raised by any party on the PwC report on PKFZ, and I had been posing three questions a day on the PKFZ since 30th May, no satisfactory answers had been forthcoming from the Transport Minister.

“RM12.5 billion is not chicken-feed. It is equivalent to five RM2.5 billion BMF scandals. RM12.5 billion can be used to build 25 universities at RM500 million each; 125 hospitals at RM100 million each; 1,250 schools at RM100 million each; 312,500 low-cost houses at RM40,000 each or give everyone of the 27 million Malaysians regardless of age a payout of RM338!

“Only a Royal Commission of Inquiry, where previous Transport Ministers, PKA Chairmen and Board members, as well as the relevant government officials in the Transport Ministry and Finance Ministry are summoned to testify on their role can do justice for accountability and integrity in the ‘scandal of scandals’.”

This motion was denied.

I posed this question in my introduction to Hwa Beng’s book: “Would Malaysians have to await a new government in Putrajaya before the full story of the infamous PKFZ story is fully told and all the parties involved in PKFZ ‘mother of all scandals’ brought to book?”

Let me conclude by declaring that if Pakatan Rakyat makes it to Putrajaya in the next general elections expected any time now, a Royal Commission of Inquiry would be set up to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

(Speech at the launching of Lee Hwa Beng’s book:
“PKFZ: A Nation’s Trust  Betrayed
” in Bandar Utama, Selangor on Tuesday, 17th April 2012 at 11 am)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 April 2012, 12:29 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 3.0: A double-edged sword

— Vivek V. Velan

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 17, 2012

APRIL 17 — Nine months have passed since thousands of Malaysians from all walks of life went to ground in anger and hope, tired of the continued deceit, fraudulent politics and false promises of the current regime. Their actions in some way can be derived from the somewhat lack of faith even in the opposition for it takes more than mere economic scandals and backhanded politics to stir up the emotions of the common man to take to the streets. And take to the streets they did for in their hearts they believed that the time for change has come. The Bersih sterling committee headed by Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and Datuk A. Samad Said as chairpersons could not have envisaged the sheer magnitude of response that would follow when Pakatan Rakyat threw its support behind the movement.

In a simpler context, Bersih’s aim was to push for cleaner elections wherein dirty politics is to be abhorred and the entire election system is to be overhauled either by reforms or revamping current systems. The Najib Razak administration’s gross mishandling of the rally where police force was used against unarmed protestors, tear gas shot at hospitals and the unlawful arrests of hundreds of protestors have been highlighted both locally and internationally.

Without going into detail, Barisan Nasional’s ratings fell drastically and the government was under pressure to rectify its mistakes for the people were enraged at the government’s stance in handling what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.

Nine months have passed since thousands of Malaysians from all walks of life went to ground in anger and hope, tired of the continued deceit, fraudulent politics and false promises of the current regime. Bersih 3.0 is upon us nigh in a fortnight from now and although the demands in essence remain the same, the movement in itself is now threefold.

Firstly, the Parliamentary Select Committee’s (PSC) proposed recommendations involve the Election Commission in implementing 22 proposed reforms or undertaking further study and reporting back to establish a system that will enable the PSC to monitor said implementation. Bersih’s response was that the drawbacks to the reforms do not satisfy the major criteria for the push for reform and has stated the Election Commission is incapable of handling the reforms required due to a lack of credibility as well as that most of the proposed reforms proposed can be implemented immediately in light of the coming general election.

Secondly, in addressing the issue of Lynas, a potentially dangerous radioactive waste site slated to be built in Kuantan, Pahang has been bulldozed by the government with complete disregard for public opinion. While the safety of the site remains in question, it is the incumbent regime’s somewhat ostentatious flaunt of power is what angers most, for yet again the people become subjected to grandiose lordship of the very men elected to serve them.

Finally, the somewhat relatively minor issues that have since been associated with Bersih, namely the student protest regarding amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act (AUKU), the march for liberty and freedom in protest against the Peaceful Assembly Act where again note that Parliament pushed through the Bill without taking into account public opinion and of course the Anything But Umno/BN (ABU) movement, where blatant anti-government sentiments are often displayed. A tangible pattern begins to emerge and what was initially intended to be a non-partisan movement has now to some degree aligned itself with the opposition and thus turned the entire agenda to seem almost anti-government.

While the intentions of the organisers and many participants and supporters alike are noble, there will be a certain faction of people who intend to use Bersih as a front to promote and disseminate their own ideologies and interest and it is this which I fear the most for the current quandary in which our political landscape is based on is so fragile and fraught with layers of complex dispositions, one false move, one error in judgment will lay waste to all the hard work put in thus far.

Being a firm believer in the doctrine of democracy where freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are basic rights accorded to the people, the question that follows is what are we actually fighting for? Are we merely sheep being shepherded around to follow the group or do we have a clear picture, a common dream that we envisage for this country? The maxim “nothing is more dangerous than a man without direction” comes to mind and to this I ponder on even so when there is not just one common direction but many intertwined goals forced to come under one banner for the sake of convenience.

Product innovation and sustainability are often cited as the main reason behind Apple’s success. The technique involved uses a polarised time frame to gauge public receptiveness to a new product. Hence the reasoning behind the release of new versions of the Iphone and Ipad every few months is to maintain interest and market share. Similarly, the success of Bersih’s predecessor, which resulted in a political tsunami in 2008, followed through in 2011 and now in 2012 can be seen as a similar approach in politics as to maintain public interest and to ensure that the resulting publicity re-create the hype that ignited the spark in the 2008 general election.

Bersih 3.0 will no doubt once again test the resolve of the Najib Razak administration in its promise for change and in all our zest for change, we leave ourselves open to the fact that the coming peaceful sit-in will provide a golden opportunity for the government to portray to the public that it is indeed sincere in its promise for change by allowing the protest to go ahead undisturbed and providing the public with police protection. Should this happen, the general outcome would be catastrophic for Pakatan Rakyat’s hopes to take over Putrajaya for outcome of the coming elections will not be decided by the 30 per cent Barisan Nasional loyalist or the 30 per cent opposition hardcore but rather the middle ground and neutral voters who will judge both sides based on performance and lucid reasoning and they will if they begin to question the motives of Bersih, for credibility is like paper, once crumpled cannot be returned to its original state.

To conclude, there are simply too many factors to be taken into account to predict the overall perception to a second rally in nine months and adding into the fact that almost all national press and media are controlled by the incumbent regime, it would be child’s play to handle the Bersih 3.0 protest with dignity and then portray the ill-effects of said protest in terms of economic losses and negative international publicity to the public thus undermining the need for Bersih 3.0. The recently published article by Professor Ong Kian Ming, on the dubious voters that will determine the outcome of the 13th general election, cannot be taken lightly and changes have to be made within the electoral system and the Election Commission itself if Malaysia is to move forward and be released of her parasitic shackles that for so long has ailed her.

However, Bersih must strive to ensure that it is their voices that will be heard on the day and not the many blocs of assemblage who clamour to join under the pretext of a cleaner and fairer election but instead only serve to do more harm than good. The stance taken should be a firm, non-partisan and an absolute emphasis on a single cause.

Should they fail to do so, I fear that overriding political factors will shadow their cause and thus call an end to a movement that has become the people’s voice, Malaysia’s only hope for change.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 April 2012, 1:17 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Blogger Ipohgal’s review of No More Bullshit

by Ipohgal

April 15, 2012

Book review

Title: No more bullshit, please, we’re all Malaysians

Author: Kee Thuan Chye

Publisher: Marshall Cavendish

Price: RM39.90 (West & East Malaysia)

Available at: Kinokuniya, Borders, MPH, Popular and Times nationwide

The air is thick with rumors that PRU 13 is coming our way anytime this year. While most Malaysians have already decided whom to vote for, there are still some fence-sitters out there, undecided and left things to the last-minute. This does not bode well for the nation because their hazy decisions will either make or break the hopes of many to see some positive changes for this beloved country of ours.

In his new book, “No more bullshit, please, we’re all Malaysians”, well-known writer Kee Thuan Chye, has put together a compilation of previously published articles to help these undecided voters make up their mind. These articles chronicled recent political developments in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Poems as well as excerpts from his plays were included to show the readers how those in power, past and present, were caught in the same net of deceit – greediness, selfishness and their desperation to stay on beyond their shelf lives.

The chapter that is of particular interest to everyone was “Mahathir the mess-maker.” Here, the author takes great care to explain the messes this authoritarian had created. Twenty two years of his totalitarian rule saw how the population was divided by race and religion in all aspects of daily life. The media was gagged, the education system was politicized, the judiciary was neutered and other public institutions like the police, the arm forces, the election commission and anti corruption agency were reduced to mere lapdogs. The height of his mismanagement was to create a culture of fear among the people as was shown in Operation Lalang on October 27, 1987. It was a black day in modern Malaysian history.

Also discussed in the chapter titled “March 8 and more” is the political tsunami of 308 and its after effects whereby people got braver because we knew we have a choice now – between BN and PR. The side that did not deliver to the people’s expectations will be kicked out in subsequent elections. Yes, it is important for us to realize this – we the people, are the bosses and the government is our servant, not the other way round!

Kee Thuan Chye also brings some logical argument to another equally interesting chapter called “Najib the salesman and flip-flopper.” The author does an excellent job in highlighting the current prime minister’s showmanship – peddling different slogans to different audiences. To one particular race, he will defend their special position at all cost but to others, he urged them to close ranks and see themselves as one people. In the end, it was exposed that 1Malaysia is nothing more than an empty slogan to win our hearts and minds but the man behind it was furthest from being sincere about his own ware!

In the chapter “Race and Religion Rumbles”, the author spoke about recent racial and religious clashes including the cowhead incident, burning of churches and banning of certain words in religious books. These happenings pointed to one thing – we are 2Malaysia, not 1Malaysia!

The author reminded his readers that the CEO of the country had yet to address things like corruption, rent-seeking, wasteful spending, cronyism, our pathetic education system, the judiciary, the police, the AG, the EC and MACC. The prime minister also proposed to reform the ISA, withdraw printing licenses and introduce the Peaceful Assembly Bill to guarantee more freedom to gather in public. Of course all these were just scams because there is really no change; in fact things got worse than before.

Besides the main party in the BN coalition, its weaker partners like MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP were painted exactly like how they were – no longer relevant to their respective communities because they could not speak effectively nor dare to stand up for the people they claimed to represent. In this time and age, multiracial parties were seen to bring the people together because they are perceived to fight for common causes, not communal ones that divide the people.

Another very interesting chapter that will be useful to convince the voters was “Bersih 2.0 and all that dirt.”  This chapter revealed how Perkasa and Umno Youth went all out to sabotage the people’s demands for a free and fair election on 9th July 2011. Read up how the prime minister, the home minister, the police and Ibrahim Ali demonized the noble demands of Bersih 2.0, a coalition of NGOs. Hardest hit were Ambiga Sreenevasan and A. Samad Said, two prominent leaders of the steering committee. Some activists were arrested, then branded as terrorists and were alleged to wage war against the King!

An eye opener for the younger generation of voters certainly has to be “The truth about the Baling talks?” In this well-written chapter, we will get a glimpse into a part of history that has not been fully told and not taught in our schools. Kee Thuan Chye wrote about the contributions by MCP and other organizations that were downplayed by the government then. It is a known fact that millions of Malaysian students do not know the full and real story in our fight for independence from the British. He suggested it was time for us to reclaim our true history. The dialogues between Chin Peng, Tuanku Abdul Rahman and David Marshall will make interesting read.

The book also discussed a subject of utmost importance – the decline of the English language and why nothing much was done to arrest this decline, simply because it is not politically feasible to do so for the ruling party. Finally, the author also gave an honest and straight forward opinion on why the Chinese in Malaysia had forsaken BN and will continue to do so. He outlined the simple and basic wants of the community; they are so sensible that you have to agree with him.

I think anyone who is interested in Malaysian politics should make it a point to read this book. Fence-sitters, especially those born between the years 1969 and 1991 (ages 21 to 43) should not give it a miss. This is mainly because the author gave much insightful information which voters from this age group could not get from mainstream media. For those of us who grew up with distorted news from government controlled newspapers and TV stations, many events like Operation Lalang and how the judiciary got hijacked by Mahathir became clear to us now.

This book deserves our attention and support because it was written by a Malaysian who cared enough to speak up for its betterment. He rightly pointed out in a quote by Howard Zinn, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” It is equally patriotic for each of us to know what is good and what is bad for our country; and demand the wrongs to be right again through the power each of us possessed in our hands – our ballot papers on polling day. Use it wisely, our children’s future depended on our decisions.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 April 2012, 1:40 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Kee Thuan Chye
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


It’s not about BN or PR — it’s about changing the system

by Pak Sako

CPI

Monday, 16 April 2012

“If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves.” – Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

“[T]o dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day… This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest… “The people” are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the “business” of the country.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States of America, An Autobiography.

The million-dollar question for the voting public is not about choosing between a Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat government based on who is more generous, holier or less corrupt.

It should be
what to do to shake up the system.

That should be the prime concern of the voting public.

That should be the focus of political analysis and commentating.

The system is where the problems that bedevil the people originate, and it there where the seeds of real change lie.

If there is no intention to review and alter the system, all talk of ‘reformasi’ or ‘transformation programmes’ is meaningless.

What is ‘the system’ and why bother about it?

The system is the set of political and economic arrangements, relationships and mindsets under which government and society operate and with which they interact.

A democracy like Malaysia is defined by government under the control of the public, using everything at its disposal to unerringly serve the public interest.

The basic understanding is that the people are the owners and controllers of their political and economic destinies.

In a democracy, therefore, the system can have only one legitimate purpose:
it is to give its all in the service of the people’s interest.

Politicians, business interests and religious leaders, as elements of the system, are bound by this higher purpose. The state is not to be misused for their enrichment, for lavish ceremonial purchases, for religious mind-control or for promoting free markets everywhere.

A constitutional monarchy is likewise also bound by this purpose. The claim that Malaysian society is “semi-feudalistic” (see Zairil Khir Johari, ‘Of songkoks, uniforms and managing expectations’, The Malaysian Insider, 1 July 2011)— which implies service also to rulers and lords— is false and dangerous.

Suppose the public purpose of the system is undermined.

Suppose special interests have hijacked the system, that they are able to manipulate it for their gain at the expense of the public, behind whatever guise (‘public projects’, ‘the national interest’, ‘for the glory of God’).

Suppose also the government of the day stands idly by or even takes part in the abuse.

Switching between new but passive leaders or governments will not help.

The public must instead be able to investigate and alter every single institution and political and economic arrangement to restore rule by the people and fulfill the ‘public-interest-only’ criterion.

That is the condition for real change. Any compromise short of the people taking charge of the system is defeat.

How is the system like in Malaysia?

The Malaysian political-economic system is not geared towards maximally serving public purposes and needs. Certain ‘leakages’ and mindsets block it.

The situation is rooted in events related to the nation’s foundation.

The system assembled after Independence saw influential political and business interests secure advantageous positions and establish mutually-benefiting interrelationships (see Tricia Yeoh, ‘Malaysia after regime change’, The Malaysian Insider, 24 March 2012).

This lopsided starting condition and dilution of public priority became entrenched over time under regime constancy. Lax internal oversight is to be expected.

A feudal mindset— of leaders lording it over the people and the people hand-kissing their “superiors”— contributes. Transparency and asking questions become taboo.

Government decision-making in matters such as economic ownership and wealth distribution filter through consideration for the elite as a matter of routine, without protest. Free-market economics becomes the excuse for privatising public assets (oil refineries, power generation, ports) to corporate ‘captains’.

The culture of ‘the cut’ is emulated in the bureaucratic layers of government and government-founded companies. In Petronas, a company established by law ostensibly to protect and serve the national interest, some top managers set themselves six-figure monthly salaries and bonuses from revenue streams—30 times the average national income.

Other examples abound. The foregoing is sufficient to make the case for intervening in the system.

Regime change as a tool to change the system

A way forward is to raise the prospect of regime change and tying it to an ultimatum to initiate a reshaping of the system.

This threat should force an unresponsive government to act.

This ultimatum must also be brought to bear on the opposition, who should be made to declare commitment to it.

If the ruling government shows scant commitment in delivering meaningful systemic change, the apple cart should be upset by an overthrow via elections.

The successor government is then to be held ransom to the same demand.

Failure to perform should trigger another change of government, and so on until the goal is achieved.

Regime change is desirable for the following reasons. It gives the people the needed window of opportunity, however small, to mount an attempt to regain the freedom to intervene to change the system.

It creates a momentary vacuum in which old connections become temporarily uncoupled. The vista opens for reconsidering old rules, norms and contracts. A chance is had to dramatically alter old institutions and relationships and drawing up new rules.

If nothing else, regime change rattles up the system such that some activities of some parasitic elements are disrupted.

Change can also be a source of renewal.

It allows for a different experience and viewpoint, a chance for stock-taking and reflection, and a refreshment of the collective spirit upon breaking out of a stale old shell.

The people would feel liberated knowing that they can sack a government and assert greater control over it and thus the system.

Choosing between BN and PR

In Malaysia, significant power is concentrated at the federal level that could be used to massively impact the system in a way not possible at lower levels.

The federal route is the least-costly and quickest democratic route for rocking the boat.

A practical rule for deciding on regime change would thus be to remove a ruling government from federal power after a reasonable duration of time if it fails to effect sweeping change to the system with the aim of restoring eminence to public interest.

In applying this rule, governments that persistently collude with or maintain an unjust system are to be rejected. Governments that benefit from an unjust status quo might not have the incentive or motivation to change the way things are.

It would also be morally questionable to continue to reward with federal power a government that has against it allegations of serious past wrongdoings and abuses.

So do we keep or remove BN? Three points swing the case towards the removal of BN:

BN has had a formative role and remains a vested interest in the status quo; it would be difficult if not impossible for it to affect the needed changes on the system from within;

In spite of the current BN administration’s reformist proclamations, its economic and political transformation programmes contain no plans for inquiring into and reshaping the system; their implementation seems to show that they are intended to work within the confines allowed by the existing system, seeking some efficiency improvement perhaps, but not modifying the superstructure itself;

BN has against it a string of allegations of wrongdoing and abuses stretching back to at least the 1980s that await proper investigation and redress; to re-elect it under the circumstance would invoke a moral crisis.

If, after an appropriate evaluation of the opposition, regime change is chosen, what next?

The people must see to it that the successor government executes a radical plan for changing the system.

Such a plan would be extensive in scope and detail, and cannot be covered here. But among the least that a successor government should do is

to subdue, neutralise and remove negative elements and structures of the system (the crony capitalist structure, domineering religious institutions), and not just swap old components with new ones (e.g., replacing BN cronies with PR cronies);

to desist from introducing undemocratic elements and structures in the system (e.g., the shifting of power to religious (syura) councils or other anti-democratic committees);

to prevent public policymaking from being undermined by assertive ideologies (whether these be the supremacy of religion or the supremacy of free markets);

to consider changes that empower the people (e.g., the people having greater ownership of their economy and greater say in how the economy is to serve them; fostering in the individual a sense of intellectual independence and self-confidence).

Needless to say, a successor government should practice sportsmanship and obey the public’s will to replace it in the future.

There must be hope yet for a reformed BN.

There must be room too for a ‘third force’ beyond BN and PR, in the event that both are captured by a corrupt system.

Concluding remarks

Because an overhaul of the system and its institutions would involve actions such as aggressively going after the corrupt, reviewing land ownership and land-use patterns (timber, oil palm), investigating corporate ownerships and relationships, and generally dislodging the elite from the commanding heights of state control and policymaking, the elite are likely to fight back.

Resistance should be anticipated and planned for. It is vital for a new government not to get weak in the knees and make compromises.

Civil society movements have a role to play and should push for more transparent and participatory decision-making. They could also inspire self-sustaining, community-based action (a network of active residents’ associations, for instance). The rare example of Bersih as a broad grassroots movement seeking to bring systemic change in the area of elections should be encouraged elsewhere.

In the economic sphere, the neoliberal/free-market economic ideology promoted to the government and opposition by libertarian think-tanks such as IDEAS (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs) needs urgent counterbalance.

Other organisations, such as CPI (Centre for Policy Initiatives), could contribute towards providing a variety of alternative ideas for policymaking.

The public should not be straight-jacketed into choosing only a free-market economic model or its neoliberal variant, the so-called German ‘social market economy’.

They must also be able to deliberate on other more egalitarian economic models and approaches such as those practiced by Australia and Norway, two countries at the top of the U.N. Human Development Index.

There could be other side benefits of regime change.

A BN that is free from an incumbent’s stress could refuse to play the game of escalating the ‘religious arms race’. It could capitalise on the secular position supported by the Federal Constitution and act as a compelling force for it. If this happens, it could counteract a possible slide towards greater theocratic influence in governance under PR.

Lastly, public personalities who propose the soft-softly approach that does not so much as scratch the surface of the system should prove they are not spineless or in cahoots with a crooked system.

Would Najib Razak and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah tell the elites to exit the control-room of the state and submit to the public’s will?

Can Anwar Ibrahim and other opposition leaders highlight their specific strategies for changing the system?

Would Mahathir Mohammad join the chorus?

Who dares say “change the system”?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 April 2012, 5:00 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time to separate govt and political party

By
Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz
 | April 18, 2012

A political party does not own the government. A political party may legislate but the implementation is carried out by civil servants who are beholden to the constitutional ruler.

We should be able to separate government and political party.

Development is not something unique to Umno. Every party that has power can carry out development.

As such, Umno can’t go around claiming only they can bring on development. The governments in Penang, Kelantan, Selangor, and Kedah also carry out development, indeed the development there has been achieved on more meritorious grounds.

These states have better reserves, operated and achieved surplus budgets and have been able to avoid wasteful spending. Those are sterling qualities of good governments.

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak recently lectured the people not to repeat their mistake.

What mistake is he talking about? Is he alluding that the people’s decision in the historic elections in 2008 was a mistake?

The only mistake which people are now realising is that Umno and Barisan Nasional have fleeced the country. This is a government that subsidises its falsehoods on mounting debt.

The public debt in relation to our GDP is almost reaching the breaking point.

Yet the country’s incompetent and ignorant leaders are proclaiming it’s all right. And we have not even counted the value of guarantees given by this government to incompetent government-linked companies (GLCs) which, if they default, places all the questionable loans given to questionable people with questionable business proposals, on the shoulders of the people.

Umno has lost legitimacy

Don’t forget RM1.3 trillion of ill-gotten money has been spirited out of the country over a period of 10 years. A small percentage, RM130 billion, of which could have been injected into the national budget to finance development.

Also, we have the RM20 billion a year lost on leakages – an euphemism for corruption. Let us kick out the deceivers.

The fact is Umno has lost its legitimacy. It has forfeited all the powers it inherited since 1957 to accomplish what it set out to do, which was to uplift the Malays.

Why? Because it started on the wrong premise and that premise wasn’t adapted and evolved into the engine to uplift Malays first and then country.

This now, is the overriding fear of Umno because it can no longer defend its legitimacy and therefore its reason to continue to be in power.

The only reason why Umno is coming to its inglorious end is because its myths are no longer sustainable.

Umno has survived on several myths spun and drilled into the Malay subconscious over generations.

It has survived on the myth that Malays and Umno are inextricably linked. The myths we mean include: the fate of Malays rests on the fate of Umno; the fate of Malay rulers is linked to the fate of Umno; and the fate of Islam depends on the fate of Umno.

This is Umno’s trinity of falsehoods which formed the foundation of Umno’s legitimacy with the Malays.

A party that survives on myths and falsehoods and not sustained by principles, can never endure. And so it is that Umno has reached its end.

We can neither hasten nor postpone its demise.

The writer is a former Umno state assemblyman but joined DAP earlier this year. He is a FMT columnist.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 April 2012, 12:14 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bullying is cowardly, is this the kind of leadership our young will inherit?

— May Chee Chook Ying

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 19, 2012

APRIL 19 — Read that at 3 this morning, the university students and protesters at Dataran Merdeka were attacked by 40-50 thugs. Their tents and supplies were torn down. They were both physically and verbally abused. Some women were kicked in the faces while fast asleep, many injured and one reportedly hospitalised.

No second guesses to whom these thugs are beholden to. Raiding in the middle of the night, at 3am? If they dared to flash the colour of their shirts, why didn’t they justify their actions in broad daylight? This is not the first time our courageous young people have been attacked or needed to seek medical treatment after being attacked. Is “lawlessness” acceptable by the powers-that-be but not peaceful assemblies? This is senseless!

Just yesterday, while having our evening walk, I told my husband, let’s try to go up to KL to buy our young friends some dinner. If I were their age, honestly, I wouldn’t be brave enough to “risk it all”, like what they are doing now, to make their stand. They have a right to be heard. This is supposedly the best democracy in the world. They are the future of the nation. Their dreams today will be the reality of tomorrow. And you bash them in their faces while they assemble peacefully? What were you thinking?

These bravehearts out there at Dataran could be our very own children. I cried when my eldest came back from school one day, knees bloodied, when she was in Standard 1, just staring school. Apparently someone raised the bar as she was about to jump over it during her PE lesson. There were days when she came home with rather short colour pencils when she actually went to school earlier with long ones. I shared this with some of my friends. I was just teaching across the road and could very well have gone there to tell the bully off. My friends told me to hold my horses. My girl needed to fight her own battles. I subscribed to this till my youngest. Some bullies are monsters! They think they need to denigrate you till you fall into depression. They think they “win” when your every dignity is stripped for all to see.

And do you think these bullies actually fight their own battles? Of, course not. They use “hired hands”. Those stupid enough to believe the tales they spin. Those stupid enough to be outraged by the lies they are told. Or in this case at the Dataran, those perhaps paid to do what they do best. Thuggery, and nothing else!

From what I read, the police present stood by, watched and took videos. I try very hard to respect those who are supposed to maintain law and order. I do try. In fact, I do pity them for what they have to resort to, to make ends meet. I think of the amount of money I have to fork out for my kids’ tuition and I ask myself, with their pay, how can their kids pay for these extra lessons? My son used to say that he daren’t tell his friends how much his father’s salary was.

But this is not acceptable. Even if your own beat up a defenceless person into a pulp and you stood by, not doing anything, I think it’s double whammy! You are supposed to protect the public and those students are your public. Their parents pay your salary and are your paymasters. Those thugs are breaking the law. Aren’t you supposed to bring them in? Those police who were on duty at 3 this morning at Dataran must be hauled in themselves! They have been negligent in performing their duty! What if those injured were their own kids? Funny, haha, is it now?

By throwing every obstacle at our young when they try to express themselves peacefully, the powers-that-be, let me tell you this — you are not going to win their hearts or minds. They will be hardened and disillusioned. I just hope, not bitter!

To those bravehearts out there at Dataran: Thank you for being so brave, for trying to make a difference. I do hope your injuries are not too serious and your spirits dampened. Do not let those goons put a stop to your cause. You know you have a right to be heard. You know you are stakeholders in this country, one whose direction you will be responsible for, soon in the near future. Learn, and do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you. Continue to be brave, continue to be positive, continue to fight for others, even if not for yourselves.

Touch your hearts and know that the Almighty is with you every step of the way. The truth will prevail. Justice will see the light of day. Be part of that light that will illuminate the path of this beloved country. One, whose hope rests on you.

May God bless you all and those lovely people who gave birth to you.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 April 2012, 11:28 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Police
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Captain Ahab, Pequod vs Moby Dick

 — Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 18, 2012

APRIL 18 — We like it when Dr Mahathir speaks as often as he wants to. While I have often described him as the man who can walk on water, in this article he is Captain Ahab to Najib’s Starbuck as far as the Umno mother ship is concerned. The Umno ship is the Pequod which sails out under Captain Ahab seeking revenge on the sperm whale Moby Dick. Captain Ahab is completely consumed by revenge to seek out and kill off Moby Dick. Because Moby Dick has bitten off a portion of one of his legs.

What’s with Dr Mahathir really? The ghosts of misdeeds past are haunting him? Have we the people bitten off part of his left leg? Right leg? Well, we know eventually the ship went down bringing along Ahab to his watery grave.

Please don’t stop him. We want Dr Mahathir to speak more about Malaysian politics. The more he says, the faster is the demise of Umno. Apparently he has forgotten why Pak Lah in 2004, got the largest majority in the history of BN. Dr Mahathir and NOT Pak Lah was the main factor giving BN the largest mandate.

Not that the people thought Pak Lah would be a good PM. He turned out to be a sleepy head on the many issues facing the country. History will probably remember him as the PM we got as a result of a mistake.

The main reason why Pak Lah got the biggest majority was that the people were rejoicing at the exit of Mahathir. Malaysia is today what Africa was 20 years ago. Malaysia is fast becoming a frontier town with gunslingers around.

Since 1981 to be exact, Umno has changed in character completely. It has evolved into an evil empire devouring the wealth of the country through a complex network of cronies and a labyrinth of shady deals leading back eventually to the upper reaches of the Umno leadership. The buck does indeed stop there.

How does the Malay man react to the unending list of felonious acts? I find it distressing when grown up men, intelligent ones at that, justifying and rationalising all the evil that Umno has done as forgivable because they are committed by Malays. When a Malay rapes and pillages, that is all right and forgivable because he is one of us? Has Umno since 1981, evolve into an old boy network of thieves and murderers?

When a Malay contractor gets a project at an Umno price, it’s ok because at least a Malay got it. The Malay gets 20-30 per cent, the rest goes to his Chinese subcontractor. The Umno Malay is a profiteering parasitic intellectual gnome.

Where will Umno and BN get their votes from? From the over 60s who are not that large number? Those who have crossed over to the other GOOD side are not likely to come back to BN. Umno and BN will also get votes from the instant Malaysians — the immigrants who came and were given MyKads.

Perhaps privy to the biggest electoral scam ever in our history, Captain Ahab wants to help steer the Umno ship to its ocean grave. We must encourage Dr Mahathir to seek out Moby Dick. Moreover, we have a lame duck PM who has declared war on the people. The PM is also forgetful that the people, who made the mistake of wrongly voting in the last elections, were in the 49 per cent group of popular voters. The 51 per cent group must have gotten it right. Stick to it people. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 April 2012, 11:42 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let’s send Hishammuddin a message

 — Gomen Man

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 19, 2012

APRIL 19 — So the man who believes that it is birth right to become prime minister has decided to speak more often.

See, Hishammuddin Hussein after being blamed by his cousin for the Bersih 2.0 fallout decided to maintain radio silence. He figured that with 40 per cent of the voters in his Sembrong constituency Chinese, he needed to slip under the radar and make sure he actually retains his seat in the coming polls.

He and his advisers figured that if he kept quiet and didn’t antagonise anyone, then people would forget about the keris, about his handling of the cowhead protest and his demonisation of Bersih rallygoers as thugs.

So he said little about the replacement ISA law but you can’t keep someone who believes in noblisse oblige down too long.

This smug man today is belittling Bersih 3.0, saying that it will not have much traction. This is the Umno man talking, the arrogance of incumbency.

He even said that the students at Dataran Merdeka who were beaten up early this morning should not be believed. I suppose the beating was “self-inflicted”. The pattern of thuggish behaviour by Umno, Perkasa and Pekida has been evident over the last few months.

Even a woman, Nurul Izzah Anwar, was not spared.

My advice to the voters of Sembrong is save Malaysia from Hishammuddin. Don’t give him your vote and this will be the best gift for Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 April 2012, 5:01 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Police
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians ‘owe’ Sabah the truth

by Aneesa Alphonsus | April 19, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed between Federated Malaya, North Borneo (now Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore, was not a deed of subservience but rather an invitation to share equally a political table.

FEATURE

Come July 9, it would be 49 years since Britain, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (now known as Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore entered into an agreement that gave rise to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. But how many of us knew that?

The fact is we remember, easily enough, Aug 31, 1957 as Merdeka day and of late Sept 16, 1963 as Malaysia Day but what about July 9, 1963 – the day the Malaysia Agreement was signed by a then independent Sabah and Sarawak?

The agreement was not a deed of subservience but rather an invitation to share a political table and march ahead into a bright future.

But that did not happen. History has distorted the facts and killed off its proverbial leaders. A generation of children have been born into thinking that Malaysia is one and not 1+2 (Singapore withdrew from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 leaving only Sabah and Sarawak).

FMT took to the streets in downtown Kuala Lumpur recently to ask if Malaysians have heard of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement that lured the Borneo states into the federal loop.

Of the 50 people we spoke to only three had heard of it but they couldn’t elaborate on what they knew of the agreement.

The shoulder-shrugging, furrowed foreheads and sheepish smiles were testimony to the fact that this might just be something not important enough to remember, to teach or to acknowledge.

As shallow as this sounds, perhaps what makes it harder to remember this day is that it’s not a public holiday. One has to tell it like it is sometimes. We call a spade a spade.

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 – in a more contemporary nutshell – would be living in an apartment building, or a guarded/gated housing area.

Being in this collective protective enclave doesn’t in any way mean that a person has to give up their individuality or privacy.

Sabah, Sarawak not ‘states’

It just means that no matter how different these homes and apartments are, they will all be given the same kind of protection by the company mandated to do just that.

That is no different with Sabah and Sarawak’s agreement with then Malaya and Singapore.

North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak agreed to enter into the Malaysia Agreement 1963 with the Federation of Malaya based on the terms of a 20-point and 18-point agreement respectively.

For the record, the formation of the Federation of Malaysia was not conceived with the idea that Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak would be “included” and recognised as the 12th, 13th and 14th states of the new federation, thus adding to the 11 states in the federation of Malaya.

What was agreed upon was that the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak would come together to form the federation of Malaysia as equal nation-state partners within that new federation.

This was agreed upon on the grounds that there would not be any loss or decrease in their respective status as independent sovereign nations.

Look closely at Clause 18 of the 20-point agreement in relation to Sabah and you will find that it hypothesises that the head of the state of Sabah was to be called “Yang di-Pertua Negara” and not “Negeri”.

Clause 3 of the 20-point agreement, which relates to Sabah, states: “Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances.”

The real kingmakers

An avid Kuala Lumpur-born Sabah observer who gives his name as Sharif, opined that Peninsular Malaysians and Putrajaya “owe” Sabahans and Sarawakians the truth.

“I think Peninsula Malaysians and the government owe it to the people of Sabah and Sarawak to get to the truth of what was agreed in 1963.

“It is imperative that we demand that all that was agreed on be carried out no matter if a new or old government takes over post-general election,” Sharif said.

He also stressed the importance of perusing the contents of the Malaysia Agreement as tedious as it may be – to take a good hard look at the 20- and 18-point agreements and re-learn what it’s truly about with particular attention to the status and position of Sabah and Sarawak.

DAP national adviser and parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang, during his visit to Kota Belud, Tuaran, and Kota Kinabalu in February 2010, declared that the natives of Sabah were ‘kingmakers”.

The term “kingmaker” drew rousing applause and supporters billed Lim’s visit as a “powerful political whirlwind of change” stirring in the whole of Sabah, state party publicist Dr Edwin Bosi said in a press statement.

To this, Sharif added: “Native leaders of Sabah in the past and now are being touted as the real ‘kingmakers’ in Sabah and Malaysian politics.

“Some believe that the banned book ‘The Golden Son of the Kadazan’ gives a good account of the struggle of the local natives, especially the Kadazan community. The book which describes the struggle of the Sabah native Peter Mojuntin was banned, while the book by [former premier] Dr Mahathir Mohamad ‘Malay Dilemma’ has been lifted.

“Where is the fairness in that?”

Sabah betrayed

He also spoke of the betrayal the BN government has inflicted on the Sabah native community.

“This became obvious after the reverse takeover of power in Sabah in 1994. Anyone who is familiar with what happened will recall that the rotation system of the Sabah chief minister had only allowed Bernard Dompok to serve as CM for nine short months.

“After winning the following election, Umno-led BN government decided to drop the rotation system, and that is the end for a Kadazandusun and Murut chief minister,” he added.

Sharif is also of the opinion that the state’s political history must be a reminder to Kadazan natives of their role in the rise of Berjaya and Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) governments.

He said the Kadazan natives had been marginalised and emasculated.

“The future is in the hand of the Sabah natives. They have fantastic power that they can release and become equal citizens, ” Sharif said.

Another Sabah observer encapsulates the situation lucidly when she proferred, “Before any nation building can happen, Sabah needs to first consolidate its identity.

“The 13th general election is perhaps the most significant election for Sabah because for the first time, Sabahans feel like someone is there to champion their cause.

“Barisan Nasional will win, but the question of what would that victory mean remains.

“If the opposition were to secure a 10-seat [majority] win, this will be very significant. Because then, there might be the possibility that Sabah will be looked at as a nation.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 April 2012, 1:14 pm and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.