Interesting Quotes By Najib In 2009

KUALA LUMPUR,
Dec 24 (Bernama)
 — The year 2009 has opened a new chapter for Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak who took over the country’s leadership in April.

As the new prime minister, every speech, directive and comment made has claimed attention from the masses. Below are some of the interesting quotes by the prime minister this year.

I urge us to rise to the challenge of building a 1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now. (April 3: On assuming office as the sixth prime minister)

BN will keep the promises and we will deliver them. We will do away with the practice of announcing “instant noodle” projects during elections. If certain projects would benefit the people and we had promised that to them or committed on them in the elections, we will definitely implement them. (April 5: Commenting on the Bukit Selambau, Bukit Gantang and Batang Ai by-elections results)

I don’t crave power for the sake of power but I need power to serve the people and ensure successful nation building. (May 20: Addressing a farewell reception at the Finance Ministry)

The 1Malaysia is not a new concept or formula but its ultimate objective is national unity, which is the primary vision of previous administrators translated into various forms over the last five decades or so.

In other words, 1Malaysia is a concept to foster unity in Malaysians of all races based on several important values which should become the practice of every Malaysian. (June 15: Replying on the 1Malaysia concept during question time in the Dewan Rakyat)

“We need not carry the label ‘development with Islam’ because we have been championing the cause of Islam for a long time and had provided a prosperous life to Muslims because we don’t want the Muslims to be poor and without strength. (10/9: at a breaking of fast at Felda Teloi Timor)

I’ve gone to several places to meet the people. As leaders, if we go visiting without protocol and without the red-carpet welcome, the bunga manggar or any special reception, but we sit down with the people over drinks and hear their problems, the people will remain with us (13/9: speaking in Tawa at a breaking of fast and handing-over of charity contributions to orphans and the poor.)

I would like to see that we all have a sense of belonging in Malaysia, irrespective of our race, and feel that this is our country. This is our birthplace, this is the country that we will give our undivided loyalty and commitment to. If we can have the resolve, it means we have already reached the stage of embracing the 1Malaysia concept. I always say “One Dream, One People, One Nation.(13/10:exclusive interview with Bernama in conjunction with the 2009 Umno General Assembly)

Umno should be seen, regarded and trusted as a party that is capable of looking after the lot of the people. Umno cannot be seen as a party which is only passionate about struggling for the interest of a small group. Instead, we want Umno to be seen, felt and fully trusted as a party that is inclusive and that puts the interests of the people before personal interests. Therefore, the perception that Umno is a party for people to “cari makan” (earn a living) must be erased and discarded. (15/10: maiden speech as Umno president in conjunction with the 2009 Umno General Assembly)

Believe it, that our strugle is the right struggle, that our struggle is a true struggle. We are Umno, the one party that brings the flame of hope and is capable of charting a bright future for the people.

Whatever the challenges, whatever the hurdles, with a mount of hope, we continue this journey with confidence, all dreams will be fulfilled, a drop will become an ocean, a clump will become a mountain. (15/10: maiden speech as Umno president in conjunction with the 2009 Umno General Assembly)

After we’ve made the amendments, we begin a new journey by leaving behind the negative elements such as money politics, so that we become a clean and respected party. (15/10: maiden speech as Umno president in conjunction with the 2009 Umno General Assembly)

I have to make a decision in the interests of the BN. I am not merely the president of Umno; I am also the chairman of the BN. I am the prime minister not only for the Malays; I am the prime minister for all Malaysians. (1/11: opening Gerakan national delegates conference)

We will change for the better. I give you the commitment, we will change for the better. But I ask (that it should be) not only me. Do not just look at the prime minister; we all must reflect the change. We must be like the train. (When) the train is moving … it cannot be the locomotive alone … everybody else must work together. (1/11: opening Gerakan national delegates)

There is no need to bang tables or throw files at them but those who do not perform must be told of their dismal performance and the need for them to improve. (2/11: Prime Minister’s Department staff at its monthly gathering)

Subsidies is an illness, once you enjoy it, it is hard to give up. (4/11:speaking at Bankers Club Luncheon Talk)

I believe that as the Prime Minister of all Malaysians, it is vital that I personally supervise the effectuation of the first budget under my administration. (11/11: Blog 1Malaysia: Implementing the 1Malaysia Budget)

I have been saying privately, but I might as well say it publicly, that the thing I liked about President Bush’s foreign policy is that he was very pro-free trade. Frankly I don’t like the other policies, but I like his policy on free trade. (14/11: panel session at the Apec CEO Summit 2009).

Our diversity must be a blessing if it is not to be a curse ( 21/11: keynote address to open Asia Society’s Asia 21 Young Leader Summit).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 December 2009, 12:21 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Compulsory voting for Malaysia

By
Dr Chen Man Hin
, DAP life adviser

COMPULSORY VOTING IS BETTER WAY TO ENSURE HIGH TURN OUT OF VOTERS, AND ENSURE THAT ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS ARE ENFRANCHISED

It was revealed by the Election Commission Deputy Chairman that out of 16 million people eligible to vote, only 11 million have been registered to vote. It meant that 5 million eligible voters were not registered.

This is most unsatisfactory as it means that one third of eligible voters have been denied of the right vote because of a small technicality –  failure to be registered as a voter.

It is also most unfair as these unregistered are composed of the poorer deprived section of the community, who need to have their voices heard and their problems aired and their grievances sttended to in parliament or the state assemblies.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.

The registration of voters has prove to be a tiresome and unproductive method of registration of voters. There is too much paper work, and very incovenient for the people, who have to travel long distances to registration centres.

This is most unfair. There is a better system to ensure all eligible voters are properly registered and entitled to vote.

COMPULSORY VOTING.

Malaysia should follow the example of some 38 countries who practise compulsory voting, and achieve a high percentage of voting. Australia which practices compulsory voting records 98% of voters turning out to vote.

In europe, Italy and France have compulsory voting. In Asean Singapore, Thailand and Phillipines have compulsory voting.

It is time for Malaysia to follow suit by abandoning the present system, and save much money and labor. The compulsory system allow for automatic registration of those eligible to vote.  The present arduous procedure of registration at a specified centre is scrapped.

With compulsory voting, the main advantage is that all eligible voters can exercise their voting rights and have their say in the running of the government and demand their rights. This is democracy, as all strata of society can exercise their right to vote.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 December 2009, 11:53 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Enhancing The Role of Private Sector in Education – Part 5

By
M. Bakri Musa

[Fifth of Six Parts]

[In the preceding four parts, I discussed the rationale and benefits of enhancing private sector participation in education, surveyed the various models in the rest of world, and summarized the current state of affairs in Malaysia. This fifth part contains my specific prescription for private sector participation at the pre-schools and schools, while the last (and sixth) part, for tertiary level.]

Private Sector Participation in Preschools and Schools

Private sector participation at the preschool level is already robust; there is not much more that can be done to increase that.  However, the glaring deficiencies must be remedied. One, these private preschools cater only to those who can afford them. No surprise there as they are profit-making ventures. Two, there is minimal regulatory oversight; it is strictly a case of buyer (or more correctly, parents) beware.

Private preschools catering to the poor and disadvantaged are non existent except those few set up by religious and charitable entities, as well as public social agencies. The government could increase that number considerably by granting generous subsidies.  As we want to encourage our young to integrate early, these grants should only be given to those preschools whose pupils reflect the general population. If the subsidies were generous enough, there would be plenty of takers. I envisage a chain of brand name preschools set up all over the country catering to the poor.

The government must regulate these private preschools more stringently to ensure safety. Such issues as adequacy and safety of the physical facility, criminal background checks on the staff, and qualifications of the licensees must be clearly established before these preschools could be set up.  The facilities should also be regularly inspected to ensure their compliance.

Private Schools

There has been a remarkable increase in private sector participation worldwide at the school level both in developing as well developed countries. In resource-challenged Benin, enrolment in private primary schools increased from 3 to 12 percent from 1990 to 2005, and 8 to 25 percent for secondary schools, reflecting the vast potential for contributions from the private sector even in a poor country.

Private sector participation can take two forms:  on its own, independent of the government except for regulatory compliance, or in partnership with the public sector (public-private partnership – PPP). Both would require an official recognition of the fact that while education is a public good, the government is not the only entity that can provide it.

As schools are concerned with the nurturing of young minds – the future citizens – permits to operate a private school even one free of government funding should not be granted liberally as if one were dispensing licenses to sell ice cream. Even operators of ice cream parlors have to meet certain rules with respect to public health.

Private schools too must be subjected to certain rules not only with respect to protecting its consumers (students) but also in serving legitimate national interests. An example of the first would be to require these schools to post performance bonds such that if they were to fail, the students would be compensated for their inconvenience and time loss. Beyond that I do not think the government has any legitimate right to demand these schools follow the national curriculum or dictate the teachers they employ.

As for serving the national interest, these schools must assume their appropriate responsibility of preparing their students to be citizens of a plural Malaysia. Thus their students must be sufficiently fluent in our national language, and be familiar with our history, society, and system of governance. Specifically the school must teach Malay language every school day and at every level. To prevent such classes from being a sham, their students’ aggregate performance must match those of government schools.  If not, these schools would risk losing their license.

All the current private schools – international, independent Chinese, and private religious schools – meet these minimal physical standards, except perhaps some of the private pondok religious schools in Kedah and the East Coast. This is evident from the regular news reports of students succumbing to food poisoning or being burnt to death in dorm fires.

The greatest demand is for international schools, in part because they do not follow the national curriculum. This tells us something of what citizens feel about our national curriculum. These schools are still few in numbers and expensive. If we liberalize the setting up of such schools and open up the admissions, many more would be set up. Then the wonders of the marketplace would take over: Their fees would come down because of the competition and more Malaysians could afford them.

As with anything else, we will never know how such a policy would actually turn out. Thus it would make sense to start out small, like giving out permits for about 20-25 such schools initially and then study the results for the first few years.

My hope is that the experiment would be so successful that there would unanimity to expand it. By this I mean that these schools would provide quality education, with their students flawlessly fluent in as well as proud of our national language, and have a faculty and student body representative of Malaysian society. The poor would also be sufficiently represented, made possible through scholarships. In short, they would emulate the successful “private” non-profit American prep schools.

Of course many things could go wrong. There could be corruption in the awards of these permits. The schools would then be expensive, ineffective, and merely a repository for spoilt rich kids who would be illiterate in our national language and have no appreciation of our history. That would only generate a backlash.

Or these schools could be set up by extremist groups (secular and religious) bent on perpetuating their own brand of intolerance or on proselytizing rather than educating. That too would not be healthy.

Should any of these were to happen, then the policy or its implementation would have to be reexamined and modified.

Public-Private Partnership

The other avenue for private sector participation would be through a variety of public-private partnership (PPP). The World Bank recently analyzed the global experience with PPPs. At one extreme is the Netherlands where the government is merely the provider of financing, with the private sector the provider of services. At the other end is Chile with its extensive use of vouchers. In between we have charter schools (America), direct subsidies (Quebec), or where private contractors are engaged to run public schools (America).

Nearly two thirds of Dutch pupils attend private schools, which can either be fully or partially funded publicly. This model obviously works for it receives wide support. Dutch students also consistently score at the top in various international comparisons like TIMMS.

If such a model were to be adopted locally without any modification, there would be the inevitable self-segregation based on class, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. That would not be healthy. There would also be the question of inequity of access based on geography, with the good schools in affluent areas and beyond the reach (physically as well as psychologically) of the poor.

The best for Malaysia would be to have PPP along the concept of charter schools. Charter schools are fully funded by the state but run by private (usually non-profit) entities. The state would pay the school the same amount what it would normally cost for a pupil to attend government school.

The main barrier to charter schools in America is that such permits are issued only by the local public school board. That immediately sets up a conflict of interest because for every charter school it approves, funds would be taken away from the board’s budget. Further, to maintain their charter these schools have to satisfy the local school board, which views such schools as unwelcome competitors.

I suggest that Malaysia adopts the charter concept but with some adaptations. The first is that these charters should be given only to entities that meet the openly stated criteria put forth by MOE.  These should address the financial and academic requirements, specifically the qualifications of senior academic officers like the headmaster. He or she should have a degree from a recognized university and have specified years of relevant experience.  I would also put as a requirement that the governing board has significant representation from parents and teachers.

The student body of these schools must also reflect Malaysian society with respect to race and socio-economic class. To minimize inequity of access based on geography, these schools must also have sufficient hostel facilities to cater for those who live beyond commuting distance.

The admission policy too must be fair and transparent. Where there are more applicants than space, the school must have a fair method of selection (a lottery for example) to prevent favoritism or corruption. This would also avoid these schools from skimming the top talents. There must be exceptions of course, to accommodate the siblings of present students and children of staff members.

As for the curriculum, the only requirement would be that these schools teach our national language for one period a day at all levels.  Again as with private schools, the students of these charter schools must collectively demonstrate competency in Malay comparable to those attending national schools.

If at any time these schools fail to maintain these standards, they would be given a specified time (three years, for example) to correct the deficiencies, or risk losing their charter.

In return such schools would get preferred government funding and credit for capital projects like new buildings and instituting new programs, in addition to their per student grants.

Beyond those guidelines these schools would be free to carve their own path, including the freedom to choose the curriculum and language of instruction. I venture that if there were to be sufficient demand from a broad section of Malaysians for a charter school using Swahili, there will be one.

Again, as with the private school program, I would start small, limiting such charter schools to about 15 or 20 each for primary and secondary levels per state. Study the development, and if successful expand it. I would also allow for the conversion of existing schools into charter schools upon petition by a majority of the teachers and parents.

Malaysia should also be open to other models of PPP.  One would be to have private entities (local or foreign) run a national school under a management contract. That would include recruiting the teachers to designing the curriculum, subject to the same conditions as charter schools. The difference is that the contractor would not own the physical facility; the buildings and land would remain government-owned. Likewise, the government would select the students entering such schools.

My first candidate for such private management would be our residential schools. I would invite experienced operators locally and abroad to bid in running such schools. The contract would specify the goals, like the type of matriculation examinations the students would sit, as well as the costs.

Imagine the operators of Exeter running Malay College! We need not go far; we have many existing excellent private schools that could be encouraged, through proper incentives, to run some of our residential schools.

Another PPP would be the reverse, where private companies bid to build the entire school complete with desks, chairs and blackboards to the government’s specifications and then lease it back to the government. The government would run the school, just like any other government school. The P3 program of Canada’s Nova Scotia province is one such program. Such a scheme would lighten the strain on the government’s capital budget.

The government, spearheaded by Khazanah, has initiated a PPP with its Trust Schools scheduled to be operational by 2010.  It has wisely started with a small pilot project.

There are a number of commendable features to the concept, principally the granting of greater autonomy to the schools and the possibility of supplemental funding from the sponsoring private entities. However, this autonomy extends only to administrative matters, and a very limited one that. For example, the teachers would still remain as civil servants, and thus the school management would still be unnecessarily constrained by civil service rules especially in critical matters of hiring and firing.

From what I can see from the preliminary design, a private entity would form a non-profit body to run the trust school. So far so good! Then this non-profit body would engage a for profit “operator” to actually run the school. This is an unnecessary intermediation, adding another layer of cost structure (the operator is for profit) and administrative hurdle. I do not see why the non-profit entity cannot run the school itself, thus dispensing with the “operator.” I can just see it: the awarding of these contracts to the “operators” would be yet another source of local corruption and political lobbying. I can predict who the owners of these for profit operators would be. Yes, companies associated with the local UMNO chiefs.

More problematic is that these schools will have to follow the national curriculum. What is at issue is that the national curriculum itself that is wanting. This critical point is missed by the originators of the Trust Schools concept. True, these schools are free to add beyond the national curriculum, but that is a meaningless freedom.  The national curriculum already consumes the entire school day; there is little time left for anything else.

Similarly, the freedom to prepare students for other examinations (like GCE or IB) is also a meaningless because these schools must also prepare their students for national examinations. Imagine a school trying to prepare its students to sit for the IB as well; it would be a horror to design the curriculum and train the teachers.  This is just not practical.

Lastly, the trust schools designers have not addressed the issue of access, specifically equity of access, and increasing racial as well socio-economic segregation. I would hope that a condition for such schools must be that their students and teachers broadly reflect the greater Malaysian society, and that these schools must have adequate boarding facilities to cater for those who live far away, specifically those in rural areas.

Truly the opportunities for meaningful private sector participation in education, either alone or in partnership with the government, are limitless, bounded only by our creative imaginations and self-imposed limitations.

There is a great pent-up demand for a school system other than what is being offered today by our national schools with its hide-bound culture and outmoded curriculum. We see this in the backlog of applications to international schools, and more dramatically in the daily convoy of school buses carrying our young across the causeway in Johor. It is time we address this desperate need with the help of the private sector.

Next:   Last of Six Parts:
 Private Colleges and Universities

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 December 2009, 9:29 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Thanks, Tee, for drawing votes for Pakatan

By
Thomas Lee

I wish to thank Utusan Malaysia columnist Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah for being so clever to suggest that Malay-Muslims have more rights because they form the majority in Malaysia. His articulate political reconnaissance will surely contribute a much bigger swing of votes to the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) at the next general election.

Tee has proposed in his article a formula based on the racial and religious breakdown of the 27 million population of the nation, to apportion the share of what is due to each community in terms of rights, festivities and celebrations.

His so-called formula is based on the statistical breakdown of races and religions in the Year 2000 census, where the percentages of Malaysians by religions were 60% Islam, 22% Buddhist-Taoism-Confucius, 9% Christian, 6% Hindu, 3% other races and religions.

Am I correct to interpret the Tee formula to mean that the numbers of residential houses, number of festive and religious holidays, allocation of land for places of worship and burial ground, permits and premises for business and trading, number of educational institutions and scholarships, quota of jobs in both the public and private sectors, number of professionals in all fields, or even the number of inmates in old folk’s homes, orphanages and prisons, must be all be apportionable or assigned according to 60% for the Malay-Muslims, 22% for Buddhist-Taoism-Confucius devotees, 9% Christians, 6% Hindus, 3% followers of other religions?

Tee said that his formula can be applied in the context of the nationalisation (read: forced enforcement), including the justification on the rights of religious festivals and celebrations of all races.

He claimed that there was an overwhelming number of non-Muslim places of worship, with their festival celebrations actually drowning the Muslims celebrations even though the non-Muslims are the minority races.

As a university lecturer, Tee must provide tangible evidence from empirical observation and indepth studies to justify such a general sweeping accessment. Otherwise he stands condemned as a mere rumour-monger for his speculative conjecture.

The authorities should haul up people who made such unsubstantial and seditious allegations which could incite racial disharmony.

Tee gave as an example the widespread celebration of Christmas, with the shopping malls going all out to promote the festival, although Christians constituted only 9% of the population.

Such an example reflects uninformed and shallow thinking, unbefitting someone who holds a doctorate degree and is a university lecturer.

Such a person simply do no understand that the Christmas celebration, although associated with the Christian faith, has now evolved into an international multi-racial commercial cultural festival. Christmas is celebrated nationwide in even a Shinto-Zen Buddhist country like Japan, with nothing much to do with the Christian faith.

It is sad, but true, that the real meaning and significance of Christmas, which is the birthday of the Lord Jesus Christ, have been degenerated into a mere cultural event. Even a so-called “educated” person like Tee associates Christmas with Santa Claus. He has condemned a state excutive councillor for taking a Santa Claus to meet his leader, implying that what he knows or understands about Christmas is merely all about Santa Claus.

Tee also accused the DAP, which he labelled the “ultra kiasu group”, of alledgedly raising sensitive issues that could lead to racial chaos similar to that of the May 13 riots in 1969.

If what the DAP has been doing since its establishment more than 40 years and is still doing — that is raising issues and fighting for true democratic practices, social justice, human, civil and constitional rights of the citizens — is being “ultra kiasu” (meaning extremely afraid of losing), then people like Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Lim Guan Eng, the late P. Patto and many others would have been thoroughly broken and destroyed by their unjust incarceration under the oppressive legal instrument called the ISA (Internal Security Act), and the DAP would have disappeared from the face of this Earth years ago. It is simply their brave, bold and bona fide conviction and commitment to the causes of  democracy and social justice and their passionate love for the country that they have the strength and courage to go through the intense emotional sufferings of separation from their loved ones while under detention.

To alleged that the DAP, by implication its leaders, are “ultra kiasu” is simply the most unkindest cut of all, and armchair critics like Tee should be thoroughly be ashamed to have made such an unjust allegation.

The DAP and its leaders have proven over the last 40 years that they have been consistent in their vision of a fair, just and united Malaysian Malaysia, and have worked and struggled truthfully and tirelessly, without fear or favour. The party’s clean, corrupt-free record is testimony to the character and conduct of its leaders.

Kiasu? Please conduct an honest scholarly research studies into the political history of post-Merdeka Malaysia, Dr Tee. I also give you the benefit of doubt that you are not writing what you wrote to draw attention of the political bosses.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT
: Sometimes I wonder about the intellectual capacity or even the simple level of intelligence of many of the so-called doctorate degree holders in our country, given the way many of them articulate about the vital issues of the nation. For example, there is a Ph.D holder who did a thesis on the evil of the Internal Security Act (ISA), but then endorsed and support of the oppressive law. Another Ph.D holder and university lecturer wrote a thesis about social justice but made unfounded and unjust allegations against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

NOTE
:
Thomas Lee, who retired as a deputy editor in The Star in June 2009, has been a socio-political analyst for nearly 35 years.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 December 2009, 4:20 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When did Malaysia’s police chiefs develop “egg-shell skull” paranoia

I had tweeted in Osaka yesterday:

“Police 2interrogate another DAP rep – Sel State Exco EanYongHianWah after Penang CM/DAP SG LimGuanEng. Sel CPO – what r u up to?”

In response, I got this snide remark from the Umno MP for Kota Belud, Rahman Dahlan in his retweet:

“Same old tactics LKS!”

This could mean many things but at present, I am only concerned about the Selangor Chief Police Officer, Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar, whom I had always thought as a solid and professional policeman, raising many questions.

Let me for the moment pose two:

Firstly, when did Malaysia’s police chiefs develop the “egg-shell skull” paranoia?

Secondly, would the police lodge a police report against Khalid for committing the offence of publishing “false news” under Printing Presses and Publications Act?

Any law student would have come across the eggshell skull rule, or the legal doctrine in  tort and criminal law that holds  a wrongdoer liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tort or crime leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage – even if a person had a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg.

Are Malaysians to believe  that seasoned and toughened  police chiefs in the country have suddenly developed egg-shell skulls that an unexceptional call by the DAP Selangor State Chairman and Selangor Exco member Ean Yong Hian Wah urging the police to cease their baseless investigation of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng for sedition on his speech at the Pakatan Rakyat national convention on December 19 about the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock could have an “intimidating” effect on the police?

Is this one consequence of the KPI/NKRA mania of the Najib administration?

If police chiefs in Malaysia have developed such egg-shell skull paranoia, how can Malaysians have confidence that the police can roll back the tide of  endemic crime in the country, which has got worse in the past  nine months since Datuk Seri Najib Razak became Prime Minister despite all the  empty propaganda of the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein about the country becoming a safer country?

Secondly, when Khalid said that Hian Wah had “directed”: the police to cease its investigations of Penang Chief Minister, he had in fact committed the offence of publishing false news under the Printing Presses and Publications Act, for Hian Wah never issued such a “directive” to the police.

Would the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail believe that Hian Wah could have issued such a directive? Hian Wah has clearly denied have done so.

Would the police lodge a police report against the Selangor CPO for committing the offence of publishing false news in connection with Hian Wah’s statement, which is an even more serious offence that the one Khalid is accusing Hian Wah. If the police is not going to lodge such a police report against Khalid,  why not?

These  two and many other questions arising from the highly questionable and unprofessional actions of Khalid in the past few days are the reasons why I had raised the question in my tweet:

“Sel CPO – what r u up to?”

Can Khalid respond?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 December 2009, 5:37 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib rejects royal commission to probe Dr M

Dec 29, 09 7:42pm

Malaysiakini

Prime Minister Najib Razak said there was no need for a royal commission of inquiry to look into allegations hurled at former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the book ‘Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times’ authored by Barry Wain.

“There is always this call for a royal commission, everything you want royal commission, but (this) is not appropriate to call for a royal commission just because somebody has written a book.

“What is important for us is to look forward to the future. Each prime minister has made a lot of contribution, otherwise we wouldn’t be what we are today, Malaysia will not be a successful nation and regarded as a role model if all the PMs in the past had not made their contribution,” he said.

On Dec 21, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang in his blog had urged Najib to set up a royal commission to probe the allegations contained in the book, which among others had claimed that Mahathir had squandered up to RM100 billion during his 22 years as prime minister.

In an immediate response, Mahathir in his ‘Chedet’ blog welcomed the call for a royal inquiry and said he would cooperate fully with the commission.

Wain, who is the former managing editor of Asian Wall Street Journal, has estimated that Mahathir had squandered up to RM100 billion in his years as PM.

– Bernama

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 December 2009, 10:44 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PR common policy framework

Letters

by
Michael Chew

The PR Policy Statement should include the abolishment of GST and the Credit Card tax as these are a burden to the middle class and the lower income group, they will be grateful to YB at the next GE.

The inquest into TBH’ s death should not be unduly postponed to avoid complications, Dr Pontip’ s findings should not be subjected to pre-bargaining.

The Climate Change Summit’ s resolution should begin at Home, here in Malaysia, take action to eliminate the annual haze which aggravates our health for half a year every year, pointless to ask for USD200 bil from the USA! We want clean air not money here!

The MACC should be answerable to Parliament and not to PM’ s Dept only.

Petronas and Govt should account for the RM270 bil as stated by Tun Dr M, account to Parliament. Do not save the pennies but waste the pounds.

Full account should be made transparent to Parliament and the Public at large how the Jet Engines were lost or stolen, who exported the engines, who received payments, Bank transactions, who approved the export permit, which shipper, transporter, which minister or ministers are answerable,

Reduce Road accidents of Express Buses! Provide motor cycle lanes for motor cyclist who dont obey traffic regulations, they are most rude and most daring in the world!

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 December 2009, 1:54 pm and is filed under
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The myth of the indispensable hero Tee Keat

By
Thomas Lee

The PKFZ issue has been branded about by certain people as the reason Ong Tee Keat should remain the MCA president and transport minister. These people seem to think that if Tee Keat is not holding these positions the probe into the multi-billion ringgit PKFZ scandal will grind to a stop.

Such thinking is simply simplistic and utterly uncanny, especially when many of those arguing in support of Tee Keat are supposed to be educated and intelligent people, some of them being leaders in political parties and non-governmental organisations.

Such people should know and understand that the PKFZ buck does not stop at the desk of Tee Keat but at the table of Umno boss and Prime Minister Najib Razak. The ultimate decision on what to do with PKFZ issue is not in the hand of Tee Keat but that of Najib. It doesn’t matter who the transport minister is as it is the prime minister who will finally call the shot and make the decision. The transport minister is merely his executive officer for carrying out his will and decision.

Another argument in support of Tee Keat is that he is supposedly one who could stand up to Umno and be able to make demands from the Umno-controlled government to serve the Chinese community which the MCA claims to represents in the government.

Such a fanciful fantasy is believed only by the gullible goons and macabre morons. Anyone with even some semblance of political insight and maturity will know and realise that almost all the concessions won for the people are the result of the massive inroads made by the opposition parties like the DAP. The overwhelming support the people gave to the opposition parties during the general elections has forced the Umno-controlled Barisan Nasional coalition federal government to concede to the demands of the people. It is not that Tee Keat and the MCA or, for that matter, Koh Tsu Koon and Gerakan or S. Samy Vellu and the MIC, that had been successfull in their bargaining for the concessions.

So the myth of the indispensable hero Tee Keat being the saviour of the MCA and the Chinese community is just that — a myth. And it is not a good and justifiable reason to insist on having him remaining at the helm despite losing a vote of no-confidence against him by the MCA grassroots leaders.

The contention that Tee Keat could only be removed as the party president by a two-third majority of the general assembly delegates is certainly legally valid, but morally void as he had, prior to the no-confidence vote, vowed that he would step down if he were to lose by a simple majority. The failure to honour his public pledge has resulted in him losing his credibility and integrity for which he would have a difficult time to redeem. No wonder he is reluctant to hold a fresh party election now as he will certainly be thrown out by the party delegates.

On the issue of a fresh party election, I believe that Tee Keat and many central committee members are not willing to take the risk and put their necks on chopping board. This is in view of the most likely scenario of many so-called written-off party leaders will take the opportunity to stage a comeback by contesting for the key positions. People like Ong Ka Chuan, Fong Chan Onn, Donald Lim, Tan Chai Hoe and even Ting Chew Peh are no political lightweights within the MCA, and a fresh party election in the midst of a choatic struggle will afford them the chance to be resurrected into the party leadership hierachy.

If a fresh party election is held, I expect the three possible presidential candidates of Tee Keat, Chua Soi Lek and Liow Tiong Lai to be overwhelmly thrown out by the delegates, for the simple reason that they are perceived to be an embarrassment and a liability to the party.

Tee Keat’s reneging on his pledge to quit if he lost the no-confidence vote has caused him to be a subject of ridicule, not only among the party members, but also among the Chinese community and within the Barisan Nasional. One of the fundamental principles of the Chinese ethos is the word of honour (“hou jee” in Cantonese), and anyone who does not honour his vow or pledge loses the respect and honour of the people. Hence, I doubt Tee Keat will be able to survive if a fresh party election is held.

As for Soi Lek, his soiled moral misadventure, although forgivable, is not easily forgotten. He may be an excellent grassroots leader, but his indiscretion may become a big liability to the MCA as he may be blackmailed into toeing the Umno line to accept and implement policies and programmes which may not be favourable to the party and the Chinese community.

Tiong Lai is perceived by many in the party and the community to be an impatient upstart who had betrayed his former boss Tee Keat to climb to the top of the party leadership hierarchy. The allegation of a gift of a luxury car to his wife by a private company purportedly awarded a contract by his ministry, although yet to be proven, has already taken a toll on his reputation. Obviously, his support in the party has eroded, and I doubt he will be able win in the party election.

I expect Fong Chan Onn or Ong Ka Chuan, or even Donald Lim to stake a claim on the MCA presidency, and one of them will like be elected to give the party a completely fresh start to reform, regenerate and rejuvenate itself.

Chan Onn, a former don with a Ph.D in economic who had served as a cabinet minister, has an almost impeccable credentials compared to many MCA leaders, and will stand a very good chance of getting elected if the delegates are non-partisan in their voting and want a renewed life for the party following the mess under the Tee Keat regime.

Ka Chuan is another presidential material but have the disadvantage of being former party president Ong Ka Ting’s brother. I said disadvantage because many party grassroots leaders have reservation on whether Ka Ting will be pulling the puppet strings if his brother is the MCA president. I believe Ka Chuan should consider being the running mate of Chan Onn. The duo can be a formidable force to provide the general assembly delegates with a viable alternative to Tee Keat, Soi Lek and Tiong Lai.

As it is, it seems unlikely that the required number of central committee members will resign to pave the way for a fresh party election. If that is the case, the ball should be thrown into the court of the general assembly delegates. The delegates should move a motion at the impending party general assembly to have the central committee dissolved for a fresh election to be held.

Quo vadis, MCA?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 December 2009, 11:18 am and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After nine months, “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” has proved to be mere publicity and propaganda puff of Najib premiership with no meaningful change or consequence to the lives of Malaysians

Malaysians enter the new year of 2010 with Datuk Seri Najib Razak completing three-quarters of his first year as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

After nine months, “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” has proved to be mere publicity and propaganda puff of the Najib premiership with no meaningful change or consequence to the lives of Malaysians.

Are Malaysians of diverse races, religions and regions more united as one Malaysian people or even more divided than ever?

Do Malaysians feel safer from the endemic tide of crime which had deprived them of the two fundamental freedoms of any citizen in any civilized society – to be free from crime and the fear of crime?

Is Malaysia becoming a country where accountability, transparency and integrity are not just slogans but taken seriously by the government with the political will to take action against the “sharks” and not just “ikan bilis”?

Have Malaysians started to regain confidence in the credibility, professionalism and integrity of the key national institutions in the country, in particular the judiciary, police, Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the Election Commission?

Have the government started to check the brain-drain and migration of the best and brightest Malaysians?

Has Malaysia regained her international competitiveness to ensure economic growth and development to become a high-income country with justice for all Malaysians?

The answers to these questions are a clear and categorical negative.

These are among the issues Malaysians should ponder and  confront with the ushering in the new year for they comprise the challenges to  be surmounted if Malaysia is to regain her rightful place not only to in the international comity of nations but to fulfill the founding aspirations of our forefathers on national independence in 1957 and the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 31 December 2009, 10:03 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Court rules Herald free to use the word “Allah”

By Lisa Goh

The Star

31.12.09

KUALA LUMPUR: The Catholic weekly Herald is now free to use the word “Allah” in its publication after the High Court quashed the Home Minister’s prohibition against it using the word, declaring the order as “illegal, null and void.”

In her decision, Justice Lau Bee Lan also declared that under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, applicant Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam had the constitutional right to use “Allah” in Herald in the exercise of his right that religions other than Islam might be practised in peace and harmony in the country.

She further ruled that the Constitution, which states Islam as the country’s religion, did not empower the minister to make such a prohibition.

“In pursuant to Article 10, the applicant also has the right to use the word ‘Allah’ in the Herald in the exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression.” she said in her oral judgment Thursday to a packed courtroom.

Justice Lau ruled as grounds for her judgement that both the respondents – the minister and the Malaysian government – had failed throughout the trial to prove how the use of the word “Allah” could threaten national security.

On Jan 7 last year, the Home Ministry had approved the Herald’s publication permit on condition that the usage of the word “Allah” was prohibited and the word “Limited” (Terhad) be endorsed on its front page to mean that it must be circulated only to Christians.

The minister had prohibited the usage on grounds of national security and to avoid misunderstanding and confusion among Muslims.

The Archbishop, as Herald’s publisher, had filed an application on Feb 16 for a judicial review to seek a declaration that the minister’s decision for the prohibition was illegal and that the word “Allah” was not exclusive to Islam.

Representing the Archbishop were counsel Porres P. Royan and S. Selvarajah while senior federal counsel Datuk Kamaludin Md Said stood for the respondents.

Following the ruling, Kamaludin sought a clarification for the declaration to be only confined for the permit in question, which was for the period from Jan 1 to Dec 31 last year, and not future permits.

“It does not relate to an order or decision relating to future permits,” he said, adding that future permits would require a fresh application.

However, Royan argued that the permit for the period between Jan 1 and Dec 31 this year had already been issued, subjected to the same condition pending the court’s determination on the matter.

“The order speaks for itself. I believe the minister will be bound by the words he has used and that he will respect the court’s decision.

“Of course, they have other remedies. The court has granted declarations to allow the use of the word ‘Allah’ that must bind the parties,” he said.

Kamaludin then said he would seek direction from the minister on whether they would file a stay of execution application or an appeal.

In an immediate reaction, Herald’s editor Father Andrew Lawrence told the press that this was a “long-awaited” decision, hailing it as a “landmark case for our nation”.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 31 December 2009, 10:11 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir the Maverick at it again

by A

Subject: Re:
BERNAMA – Forget The Origin Country, We Are Malaysians – Mahathir

On my way to London yesterday, I finished 3/4 of the book on the Maverick, my conclusion long before reading this book was; all of us , Malaysians ( my ancestors came from China to Malaysia more than 150 yrs ago) have been divided ( or screwed) by all these greedy and heartless politicians, whether they are from UMNO, MCA, Gerakan or MIC, and they are all the same. The wealth in the country should be shared by all of us, but UMNO started NEP, AP, MARA, etc etc to split us in the name of wealth distribution. But after 40 years since May 13 1969, what have we achieved? The govt still think that all the targets set under NEP have not been achieved? How could these be possible if 30pc of PLC shares must be allocated to bumiputras, Non-bumis not allowed to get APs, open new petrol stations, scholarships, all govt contracts must have Bumis equity, certain sectors of the businesses were not opened to non- bumis until the recent years but still tightly controlled, and Bumi controlled companies so as GLCs don’t have to hire non-bumis. So how could the nation be united, progress or the lastest favour of the day, 1Malaysia be successful if meritrocracy is not relevant in practice? And each day we become more suspicious of each other’s co-existance.

When I decided to move my family abroad and take up the CEO job managing a small MNC with revenue of USD2b and 20k employees in 4 countries, my UMNO and MCA friends said to me; how could you abandon your country and work in Spore? I told them to find me a GLC position and I don’t mind a loss making one for me to turnaround. A couple of them told me, they would look into it. More than 5 yrs had since passed, I received no reply, except every time when I met them, they would say, when are you coming back?

Pete and Jalil know me very well. For the rest to know, I am now managing China’s second largest fridge and freezer maker with more 3m units sales a year, China’s largest diesel engine producer with close to 500K diesel engines sold this year, plus the largest building materials supplier in Spore. Under me, one co is listed in NY, one in KLSE and three in Spore. Am I not qualified to manage a GLC?

Don’t get me wrong that I need a job, but to move abroad after 46 years, was quite a painful experience!

I would love to return to my home land, share my experiences and contribute my knowledge to the development of the country. But with all these greedy politicians (P) fighting for positions (P), leading them to power (P) and finally the big P – PROFIT; why should they place the rakyat’s interests above theirs? Look at the mess in MCA, and the 6 Indian parties fighting to exist, and investment for a seat in the UMNO supreme council. It is all about the big P, not the Malaysians.

How many of the current ministers are qualified or fit to manage a ministry? Managing a ministry is very similar to managing a business which involves in managing various resources, especially the huge financial resources allocated to the ministry for the benefits ( security and safety, environment, less toll, education) of the people who paid taxes ( in business is ROSF or dividend paid to the investors), for the poor to improve their livings, for national development on infrastructure to create future values hence sustainbility. But hardly any of them has any clue on what Human Resources or Financial Management are all about. They are too occupied with cutting ribbons, party meetings, overseas trips, identify contracts for pockets (the big P).

All these started with the Maverick’s 22 years in power. 1n 1986 I started with a salary of RM2400 working in a bank, bought a Nissan Sunny for 13k, and 4 years later bought a double storey terrace house in PJ for 120k. I sold the house in 1997 for 350k ( now probably worth 450k), and a 1300cc car easily costs 30K or more now, but today new graduates still get their starting pay of RM2000. What went wrong in our country?

As a Chinese origin, let me share with our fellow Malaysians, we are no threat to this country, economically or politically. We are the minorities, we don’t aspire to govern the country, even the opposition wins the next election, Prime Minister will still be a Malay. MCA is not relevant to us anymore. What have they done to protect us? So don’t listen to all the Politicians, that the Chinese are trying to grab power, Is this possible? We want a fair govt to treat us as Malaysians, and play no racial politics to divide all of US.

Look at the Airports and certain government buidlings, we have signages in Arabic and Japanese, but not in Chinese or Tamil. If you look at Renminbi (Chinese currency), there are 6 different languages printed on the notes to represent the 6 major races in China , although the Hans ( most the Malaysians Chinese are Han origins) easily constitue 90pc of Chinese population. Minorities are not respected in our homeland. In China , the one child policy is mandatory for the Hans, not the other minorities.

After 52 long years, it is time we give another political party a chance to govern. If we don’t change, there is Malaysia , but there will be no Malaysians! For our Children, our future, think about it.

Merry Christmas and happy new year to all of you. Thank you for your time.

The following is the
Bernama
 report which inspired the above musings by another member of the Malaysian diaspora:

Forget The Origin Country, We Are Malaysians – Mahathir

PENANG, Dec 23 (Bernama) — Everyone in Malaysia have to set a side their origin country and start calling themselves Malaysians for the success of the 1Malaysia concept, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said.

The former prime minister said they had to put aside their origin country such as India or China and start calling themselves Malaysians.

“They must put aside their origin country and call themselves Malaysians for 1Malaysia to be successful,” he said during an appreciation dinner with the Association of Muslim Kadayanallur here Wednesday.

Tun Mahathir called on the people to help realise the government’s aspiration of strengthening racial unity and harmony in line with the 1Malaysia concept.

He said people in Thailand and Indonesia called themselves Thais and Indonesians respectively but this did not happen here.

To a claim that the Indian Muslims in the country had been neglected, he said they should choose to either become a Muslim or an Indian.

“The country is very liberal and I think they (Indian Muslims) will be accepted by all if they can pick either to become a Muslim or Indian.”.

Tun Mahathir said there was no difference between the various races as everyone were Malaysians.

“The federal constitution also defined a Muslim very clearly. If they want to become a Muslim then just follow the constitution.”

He said if Indian Muslims in the country still called themselves as such, others might think that they still had links to the origin country.

“The problem of Indian Muslims will be resolved if they can decide and choose to become either a Muslim or an Indian,” he added.

— BERNAMA

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 January 2010, 11:08 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
nation building
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Two days to read Maverick Mahathir and 58 days to decide whether it jeopardizes national security and public safety – what KPI/NKRA and “Performance Now”?

Last Saturday, Home Ministry deputy secretary-general Datuk Ahmad Fuad Abdul Aziz denied that Barry Wain’s biography, “Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times” is being put through any additional scrutiny by the Home Ministry.

He said it was being withheld to undergo the normal process for any foreign publication, to ensure that its contents would not jeopardize national security and public safety.

The ministry has 60 days from the time it was submitted to decide if the book should be allowed to be distributed in the country.

Nobody believes that Wain’s biography of Mahathir is lying in a mountainous pile of foreign publications waiting to be read for decision to be taken whether to release or censor it.

Wain’s book would have been read voraciously by those responsible for the subject-matter in the Home Ministry  within a day or at most two days – which means we are having a situation where the book is read in two days but withheld for the next 58 days to decide whether the book should be allowed into the bookshops in the country  or banned for jeopardizing national security or public safety!

What a mockery of the  slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”! What a shameful and outrageous KPI/.NKRA regime!

Wain’s biography would not only have been read by the authorities concerned the instant copies of the book reached the Home Ministry – copies would have been sent as “topmost urgency” separately to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister and I have no doubt that both would have read it as a top priority or they would have failed their political duties.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has virtually confirmed reading the book when on Tuesday he dismissed my call to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate Wain’s allegation that Mahathir had burned or wasted RM100 billion in grandiose projects and corruption in his 22 years of premiership.

Did Najib think that Wain’s book would “jeopardise national security and public safety” and indicate to the Home Ministry that it should be held up and given the full treatment of 60-day scrutiny?

If Najib had not found Wain’s book to jeopardise national security and public safety, and should be held up by the Home Ministry, shouldn’t the fact that the Prime Minister having read the book be sufficient authority for Wain’s book to be released to the Malaysian public without any more bureaucratic obstacles?

It is only proper that Najib make clear his stand on whether the Home Ministry should continue to hold up the public release of Wain’s biography of Mahathir in the country.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 January 2010, 2:35 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Are police reports by police/MACC against Guan Eng, Ean Yong, Dr. Pornthip and Suara Keadilan part of a high-level sinister design/conspiracy to clamp down and strike out at fair comments on important national issues?

On Christmas Eve, the Selangor Police lodged a police report of sedition against DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, for his speech at the Pakatan Rakyat national convention in Shah Alam on December 19 expressing national sentiments that  the mysterious death of  DAP aide Teoh Beng Hock at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters in Shah Alam was a case of murder.

Three days later, the Selangor Chief Police Officer Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar alleged that the DAP Selangor Chairman and Selangor State Executive Councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah had “intimidated” the police in “directing” the police to stop their investigation of Guan Eng – when all that Ean Yong had done was to call on the police to stop their baseless investigation.

Yesterday, two MACC officers, Mohd Yusoff and Raub Ghani, lodged police reports against Suara Keadilan for an article in the Parti Keadilan Rakyat newspaper “which confirmed as murder the death of Teoh” as well as against Thai pathologist Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunan for “leaking” the information to unauthorised people the forensic report of the second post-mortem on Teoh on Nov. 22.

In the Top News of 2009 for the various media, Teoh Beng Hock invariably topped the list for his tragic death at the MACC headquarters last July.

One electronic media even named the MACC “the Malaysian of the Year” – not for the breakthrough it had achieved in fulfilling its parliamentary mandate to spearhead an anti-corruption drive to catapult Malaysia among the least-corrupt nations but for so dismally and disastrously failing its mandate, or as Malaysian Insider has put it, MACC “stood out as an unfortunate symbol of all that is wrong in the country, unkept promises”.

Collectively, the police and MACC reports against Guan Eng, Ean Yong, Dr. Pornthip character as they bespeak of a sinister design or conspiracy in high places to clamp down and strike out at fair comment on important issues and developments in the country.

Those in authority and power have got their priorities all wrong.

Instead of making Malaysians safe and secure in  the streets, public places and even the privacy of their homes, so that gated communities are being dismantled instead of being installed at unprecedented rates in various parts of the country, the police are more pre-occupied with wasting precious police resources and man-hours on the political agenda of the Barisan Nasional to with its political opponents.

Instead of declaring war on corruption, the MACC continues to give top priority to its agenda as the catspaw of the Umno/Barisan Nasional political masters by declaring and continuing its  war against the Pakatan Rakyat.

Unless the MACC can win public confidence by operating as an independent, non-partisan and professional anti-corruption body, it is heading for another run as top newsmaker in 2010 for  perverting its statutory mandate and abusing the vast powers and resources entrusted to it by Parliament to combat corruption.

The police are also undergoing a similar crisis of public confidence.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 January 2010, 1:35 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Police
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Walk the talk, Tee Keat!

COMMENT

By
Thomas Lee

[email protected]

Monday 1 January 2010

MCA president Ong Tee Keat has made a bold declaration in his New Year message that he would be ready to lead the party to stand up to injustice, and engage any other like-minded forces to seek redress on issues of public concern.

“We have to be bold and we have to be loud if and when we have to. We need to transform and energise the MCA that will be fearless in championing equal opportunities and a level playing field, not only for the Chinese community, but for all Malaysians,” Tee Keat said in his message.

Brave words, indeed, but can Tee Keat really fulfill such a tall order he has set for himself and the MCA?

Since he was elected MCA president in October 2008, many major issues concerned with civil liberties and human and constitutional rights of the people have emerged, but has he or the MCA taken any firm and principled stand on them?

Take the case of the “Allah” issue. The matter basically concerns the fundamental human and constitutional rights of the people to freely use, without restraints or restriction, Bahasa Malaysia, the national language, in their worship and practice of their faiths. It is contended that Bahasa Malaysia rightfully belongs to all citizens of Malaysia and there should be absolutely no monopoly of its usage of any Bahasa Malaysia words by any one particular race or religion.

What has Tee Keat and the MCA done to fight for this fundamental citizenship right of the people? Has Tee Keat or the MCA make any stand concerning this issue?

Take another case, this time concerning the long-standing oppressive legal instrument called the Internal Security Act or the ISA in short. What is the view of Tee Keat and the MCA on the use of this harsh law to detain opposition politicians and human right advocates by the authoritarian regime of which the MCA is a part?

Tee Keat has boldly stated that he will lead the MCA to fight injustice. I challenge him make a public stand that he will support the revocation and repeal of this diabolical and repugnant legistration.

Another serious matter concerns the comments by Senior Federal Counsel Mohamad Naser Disa, who was quoted in theSun on Wednesday 25 November 2009, relating to proposed amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 dealing with the situation where one spouse in a non-Muslim marriage converts to Islam.

If Naser is correctly quoted, then it seems that the Federal Government is mainly concerned that a man who converts to Islam is “cruelly treated” because he cannot break his previous marriage contract and get a divorce.

What has Tee Keat and the MCA to say about Naser’s comments which, if they accurately reflect the proposed amendments, show that the gross injustices currently being committed against non-Muslim spouses, mostly women, by their husbands who convert to Islam, by the syariah courts and syariah authorities, and by the civil courts will likely continue? The worrying thing is that he proposals, if accepted, could indirectly result in Islamic law being enforced on the non- Muslim spouses, especially wives.

If Tee Keat is truly concerned about fighting against injustice, let him come out with some concrete actions on the matter. Let him and the MCA ministers in the cabinet ensure that the non-Muslims will not be put at a disadvange by any amendment to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

These are just three of the major issues. There are many more. If Tee Keat is truly sincere and honest in wanting to “stand up to injustice, and engage any other like-minded forces to seek redress on issues of public concern”, then he must come out and make a clear stand on these fundamental issue. If he is not prepared to walk the talk, he should shut up, pack up and go into oblivion.

NOTE: Thomas Lee, who retired as a deputy editor in The Star, has been a socio-political analyst since he returned from studies in Australia in mid-1975.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 January 2010, 10:12 am and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MACC police report against Dr. Pornthip – double test case for Selangor CPO Khalid and new MACC Chief Commissioner Abu Kassim

Last week, Selangor Chief Police Officer Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar announced a second police report lodged by the police over the mysterious death of DAP political aide, Teoh Beng Hock at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16 last year.

Khalid said the police would be hauling up the Selangor DAP State Chairman and Selangor State Exco member Ean Yong Hian Wah under Section 506 of the Penal Code and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for allegedly intimidating the police in “directing” the police to cease their investigation of Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng for sedition.

Will Khalid direct the Selangor police to lodge a police report against himself, for Khalid had been guilty of the offence of publishing “false news” under the Printing Presses and Publications Act as Hian Wah never “directed” but merely urged the police to stop their baseless investigation of Guan Eng.

Three days earlier, the Selangor police had lodged police report against Guan Eng for his speech at the Pakatan Rakyat national convention on December 19 for expressing national sentiments that the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock was a case of murder.

On New Year’s Day, the MACC lodged two police reports over the Teoh Beng Hock case – one by MACC officer Hisham Mohd Yusoff against Suara Keadilan and the other by MACC officer Raub Ghani against  Thai pathologist Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand for “leaking” information to unauthorised people on the forensic report of the second post-mortem on Teoh on Nov. 22.

In his police report, Raub said: “This report is made because every action of Dr. Pornthip was contrary to court’s decision and would further undermine MACC’s image”.

What Raub did not realise is  that it is short-sighted and malicious actions like the MACC report against Dr. Pornthip which are responsible for plunging public confidence in the efficiency, independence and  professionalism to a lower depth – especially as Dr. Pornthip has denied being responsible for any “leak” of information in an interview with Sin Chew Daily.

The question Malaysians want to know is whether the Selangor CPO Khalid will lodge or direct the Selangor police to lodge police report against MACC for trying to intimidate Thai pathologist Dr. Pornthip over her inquest testimony in October of 80 per cent probability that Teoh Beng Hock’s death was homicide and not suicide!

The MACC police report against Dr. Pornthip has in fact become  double test case for Selangor CPO Khalid  and the new MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed.

Abu Kassim Mohamed cannot take the report by his MACC officer Raub against Dr. Pornthip lightly and pass the buck to the police, claiming, “If they have lodged police reports, let the police conduct their investigation”.

This is in fact Abu Kassim’s first critical test as the new MACC Chief – whether he approves of  the police report lodged by MACC officer Raub against Dr. Pornthip with all the  implications and consequences including the MACC endorsing or condoning the MACC being used to intimidate Dr. Pornthip from giving truthful testimony at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest.

As the new MACC chief, Abu Kassim cannot wash his hands and disclaim responsibility for a police report lodged by a MACC officer which further undermines public confidence in the MACC.

Either Abu Kassim assumes full responsibility for the MACC police report against Portnthip or he should direct the MACC police report to be withdrawn by Raub if it does not have sanction and authorization of the MACC and the MACC does not want to start off under him with a new scandal of the MACC maliciously trying to intimidate Dr. Pornthip from truthfully giving her expert testimony on the cause of Teoh Beng Hock’s death at the inquest.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 January 2010, 1:23 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Police
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng fields the 10 questions posed to him by our readers.

Saturday
January 2, 2010 | The Star Biz

Your 10 questions

1. Administering the state must be a steep learning curve. How has the journey been so far and what is the biggest challenge?
 – Johnny Wong, Kepong

Administering an entire government with nearly 10,000 personnel, including both local government councils, definitely has been a steep learning curve. But as long as we are clear on our vision, mission and the governing strategy, we can fulfil the yearning for change and reforms. Our vision is to transform Penang into an international city that is a location of choice for investors, a destination of choice for tourists, and a habitat of choice for those who desire sustainable living. Our mission is establishing a people-centric government that does the three Es – enables the people with education and knowledge, empowers them with rights, freedoms and opportunities, and enriches them with a share in the economic fruits of success. Our governing strategy is to realise both our vision and mission through governance based on CAT (competency, accountability and transparency). An efficient, clean and world-class civil service is a prerequisite to transforming Penang into a high-income economy.

The biggest challenge is changing the mindset in the civil service to accept CAT as our core governing strategy, which emphasises education over propaganda, competency over political background, and excellence over indoctrination. We have to prove that a clean government can perform better than a corrupt one. Everyone is evaluated not on his skin colour, religion, gender or political background, but on performance. The public must be served fairly and treated equally.

2. How do you juggle your many roles in government, party and family?
 – Sarah Ibrahim, Muar

Multi-tasking works when there is teamwork with congruent goals, excellent back-up from my colleagues and staff, problem resolution gleaned from experience and trust, as well as good time management. But I must admit that I do not spend enough quantity and quality time with my growing children.

3. The Penang government is fighting hard for financial autonomy. How does that limit your aspirations for the state?
 – Angie, Malacca

Penang never had financial autonomy. From 2001 to 2008, Penang paid to the Federal Government RM25.67bil in the form of taxes and customs duties, but only received RM794mil in federal grants. In other words, Penang got back only 3% of what it contributed between 2001 and 2008.

We have no choice but to go back to basics. Penang’s past successes was grounded in developing our human resources and talents, relying on the private sector and private investments to drive economic growth and development, and providing good governance. That is why we have set up a 200-acre Education Hub in Balik Pulau, supported the expansion of an incubator doing R&D in Penang Skills & Development Corp, and focused on CAT governance. I have tremendous faith in the energy, expertise and entrepreneurship of Penangites.

4. Penang is still filthy due to lack of stringent monitoring and enforcement by local councils. Can Penang sustain its tourism industry given the polluted sea water and indiscriminate land clearing along Batu Ferringhi?
 – Josephine, Penang

We are continuing the efforts to clean up Penang, and these have gained the recognition of a Minister, who commented that Penang is now cleaner. But it is not easy to clean up the excesses or change the mindset of the past 51 years in a single stroke. Such efforts are complicated by past approvals for hillside development. Understanding the concerns of the local community, my government has not given a single approval for hillside development at Batu Ferringhi despite pressure from developers.

5. Do you feel it’s fair that Khazanah Nasional Bhd is managing the funds allocated by the Federal Government to conserve Penang’s heritage sites?
 – Oh, Malacca

This has been a sore point as George Town and Malacca were jointly listed as Unesco World Heritage Sites and should be accorded fair and equal treatment as promised by the previous prime minister. But what we have seen is the Heritage Department getting RM30mil for Malacca whereas Khazanah gets RM20mil for Penang, despite George Town being 50% larger and having 250% more heritage shophouses. Khazanah’s RM20mil has nothing to do with heritage and was submitted before the conferment of World Heritage status. We should not discriminate against George Town and must take cognisance that a World Heritage status is an honour that must be preserved, protected and promoted.

6. The Indian community was disappointed with your handling of the Lorong Buah Pala issue and there are concerns that you washed your hands off before exhausting all legal avenues to help the residents. As it was the last traditional Indian village in Penang, are there plans to set up an “Indian heritage village” as some Penangites have suggested?
 – Jimmei Morinae, Prai

The Penang government has never washed its hands off the issue. That is why Lorong Buah Pala will remain on the same piece of land when the 24 double-storey terrace houses for the affected residents are completed. Unfortunately, there are several residents who have placed their trust in people who are offering a RM75,000 apartment instead of my government’s RM600,000 double-storey house. We are willing to consider all proposals, provided they comply with the law and Federal Court rulings.

7. You have adopted CAT in running the state. Do you agree that the monitoring should start from procurement of contracts through open tender system and evaluating the qualified bidders with proven track records? To what extent is this being done?
– Sheng, Batu Pahat

Penang is the first government to implement not only an electronic open tender system but also a two-week objection period to allow a review if there are valid complaints from competitors. To further reduce financial temptations, we have cut out the “middle men” by disbursing the money into the accounts.

Previously, one may need “political cables” to win contracts. Now all we need is a simple computer cable.

To protect and encourage whistleblowers, an Integrity Award of RM10,000 was introduced for civil servants.

We have reaped benefits from our reforms by having surplus budgets for 2008 and 2009 despite projected deficits of RM35mil and RM39mil respectively. For 2008, we recorded a surplus of RM88mil.

8. The number of Malaysians migrating in 2008 has more than doubled from that in 2007. Do you think this will get worst, and why? What ought to be done?
 – Karen Yeoh, Kuala Lumpur

The brain drain is our country’s most acute problem and it must be resolved if we are to transit ourselves into a high-income economy. The brain drain will only worsen if the country continues to treat our best and brightest with indifference bordering on disdain. To arrest the decline, we have to focus on merit and higher productivity.

Then only should Malaysia offer higher pay to not only retain but also attract human talent. By imposing glass ceilings unrelated to performance, we are inflicting damage to ourselves and serving as a recruiting pool for neighbouring countries such as Singapore. There must also be greater diversity of views as a source of strength and sustainable development.

9. Apart from your family members, who stood by you in the most difficult times of your political career?
 – Yap Koon Roy, Malacca

My family members, especially my wife and parents, have been as solid as a rock in terms of emotional support. But I have also being sustained by my fervent belief in justice, freedom and truth, and nourished by my faith in God. When we walk the talk, we never walk alone because God is always there. Suffering is unfortunately at times a necessary path to understanding the pearls of wisdom that allows us to treasure the “free” air we breathe and the simple joys of being with our loved ones that we take for granted.

10. Your administration aims to transform Penang into an international city. How are you going to achieve that when the officers in your administration don’t have the “international city mindset”?
 – Penangite & ex-Singapore civil servant

Training a world-class civil service cannot be achieved overnight. To inculcate a culture of excellence will not be easy after 18 years of mediocrity and inertia. I have faith in the capabilities of my civil service if it is allowed to realise its potential. To succeed, government leaders must lead by example through prudent budgeting, integrity in leadership, and a thirst for learning and mastering English and new knowledge. Everyone realises that not only do we have to be the best, but that those who perform will rise speedily through the ranks.

The Penang government will commit to promotions based not on skin colour, gender or political affiliation, but on performance and integrity. Let the word go forth that Penang has not only the best Malay, Chinese and Indian male and female professionals, but also welcomes our best Iban and Kadazan brothers and sisters.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 January 2010, 5:10 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang Government
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PM must lay the foundations to achieve his new year promises

By
Dr Chen Man Hin
, DAP life adviser

PM Najib’s new year promises cannot succeed without first laying the foundations of real reforms.

In his new year message, the Prime Minister announced for the new year 2010,  his government would achieve a high income economy for the people with the help of a NEW ECONOMIC MODEL AND BUILDING A RESERVOIR OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO MOVE AND MAN THE NEW ECONOMY.

These are stirring words, but the promises will remain a dream, because the Prime Minister has not laid the proper foundations for a New Economy.

The first step he should take is to LIBERALISE THE ECONOMY in the manner that China and the Four Asian Tigers have liberalised – which is a Free Market economy. A free market means there will be no regulations to hinder investors to come to Malaysia or stifle the ambitions of local businessmen.

The Prime Minister declared that his reforms will only impose a 12.5% bumiputra quota unlike the previous 30% of the NEP. Unfortunately, both foreign and local investors have not responded favourably, and FDIs (foreign investment inflows) are only a trickle. Foreign investors prefer to put their money in Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore.

Other restrictions which discourage foreign investors are, despite what PM says, atill there – the old NEP structure, the tens of thousands of APs given out to UMNO cronies, NO OPEN TENDERS and a second extravagent EXPOMATRADE CENTER. The old NEP culture is very much in existence, and are discouraging the entry of both foreign and local investors into Malaysia.

It is tragic to see that the Prime Minister is unable to bring in genuine reforms to attract foreign investors.

FOREIGN INVESTORS BRING IN HARD MONEY AND MUCH NEEDED TECHNOLOGY.

To achieve a high income economy, the present system of low wage manufactring must give way to large scale high tech industries. Foreign investors have the technology, and it is therefore vital to attract foreign investment.

They will come only if the prime ministers jettisons away the NEP, cronyism, closed tenders, the APs and restricted procurement practices.

CREATING HUMAN CAPITAL.

It is vital that high quality education to given to our students to ensure that the graduates are trully qualitifed in all the disciplines necessary for a new economy –  business, accounting, lawyers, engineers, IT technocrats, and research scientists. These are the people we need for the industriesa and factories. The universities and colleges must be top class. It is no use producing poorly qualified graduates who later cannot find employment because they are unemployable.

The MSC (Multimedia Super Corridor in Cyberjaya) was planned to be a California ‘Silicon Valley’ bristling with high-tech industries. It failed but India succeeded to create a Silicon Valley of the East in Bangalore, because their colleges  produced armies of qualified engineers and technologists.

IMPORTANCE OF GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY.

The government announced in parliament that last year, over 300,000 Malaysians have emigrated overseas. This is a tremendous loss of vital human capital with skills and talent. Unless the Prime Minister produces fundamental reforms to democracy and good governance, hundreds of thousands of young Malaysians may continue to migrate for greener pastures — with disastrous effect on the economy.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 January 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Enhancing The Role of Private Sector in Education – Part 6

By
M. Bakri Musa

[Last of Six Parts]

[In the preceding essays, I discussed the rationale and benefits of enhancing private sector participation in education, surveyed the various models in the rest of world, and summarized the current state of affairs in Malaysia.  This last piece is my prescription for private sector participation at the tertiary level.]

As with schools, opportunities for private sector participation at the post-secondary level are also endless. At one end would be the completely independent proprietary universities free of governmental control except those that govern any private enterprise. At the other would be the various public-private partnerships.

The advantage of being independent is just that. As Thomas Kealey, head of the only independent private university in Britain, the University of Buckingham, observed, “Every other university … works solely to government targets. The government gives them money, and therefore they do whatever the government wants.  …. [O]ur economic success is determined by our students’ satisfaction. The other universities’ success is determined by how much they please the government.”

Kealey’s assertion reveals something else, and that is the basic philosophy of any commercial enterprise: Give your customers (in this case, students) what they want, not what they need. It is not my purpose to challenge the legitimacy of such a viewpoint, or support the traditional view of the university as a community of teachers and scholars concerned only with the pursuit of knowledge and truth. In reality, we need both types of institutions.

Just because a college is private and free from governmental funding does not mean that the government can abrogate its responsibilities to regulate these institutions. They too must be regulated, like other private providers of services like hospitals and restaurants.

The purpose of regulatory oversight is to prevent and weed out fraudulent operators and institutions; that is, to protect the public and the industry. Our students must be assured that when they enroll in a private college and part with their parent’s hard-earned cash to pay for the tuition, they are indeed getting an education and not be the victim of a degree mill. Of course there is no way any regulator could prevent a shady character with money and eager to burnish his qualification from getting a fake degree from one of the many fraudulent purveyors.

Such regulations would also protect the industry. If it were to be infested with shady operators and degree mills, then the industry as a whole would suffer. The value and marketability of the genuine providers would decline. This applies to providers of education as well as purveyors of Gucci leather goods.

This oversight function gets complicated in these days of “non-traditional” learning. The line between a degree mill and legitimate “non-traditional” on-line degree program can be blurry. A “dissertation” can be nothing more than a few pages of your “life experiences,” and heavily coached at that, or even ghost written.  That these fraudulent operators are becoming more sophisticated is reason to remain vigilant.

One way to achieve this would be to have strict definitions of terms and clear criteria to qualify. Just as private doctors and lawyers must have certain qualifications and experience before they hang out their shingle, so too private colleges and universities must meet certain published and transparent standards.

Thus before any institution could grant a degree or diploma, it must satisfy certain academic and non-academic criteria. The former would include the qualifications of its key faculty and academic leaders, entry requirements, and quality of courses.  The non-academic criteria relate to the facilities, financial soundness, and the posting of a performance bonds.

As for the quality of the academic offerings, these institutions would have to acquire accreditation from recognized foreign bodies. Alternatively they could seek accreditation from Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN).

Unfortunately LAN is not an independent agency; it is just another government bureaucracy. Further, it accredits only private institutions, not public ones. We need an independent agency staffed not by civil servants but relevant professionals from both the public and private sectors. That is the only way to enhance LAN’s credibility.

Once the regulatory requirements are met, any entity, foreign or local, should be able to set up a private college using whatever language of instruction it chooses.

Private, Non-Profit Post-Secondary Institutions

As indicated earlier, there is no model of a successful truly private or proprietary university anywhere in the world. Hence I suggest we adopt the American model of private but non-profit universities.

Like America, we should grant our private non-profit universities tax-free status; free from paying income, property and other taxes. Additionally, donations to these institutions should be tax deductible. The government should also treat the students attending these private institutions no differently from those of public ones in terms of eligibility for scholarships and student loans. Likewise, the government should not discriminate the granting of research funds between public and private universities; those should be given to those most competent to conduct the study. These universities should also have access to government-guaranteed loans so they could lower their funding costs for capital projects.

Additionally the government should give direct financial grants to these non-profit universities. After all it has done that to foreign universities, like Ohio University (US), the Royal College of Surgeons (Ireland), and Cambridge.

In return for those privileges, these universities would have to agree to some mutually agreed and beneficial goals, like having their faculty and domestic student body broadly reflect Malaysian society. However, there would not be any rigid quota. The university should recognize that diversity in the classroom enhances the learning experience. It would also be a wonderful and effective way of preparing your students for the diverse global marketplace.

In short, these non-profit private universities would be like my proposed charter schools.

My concept could be extended to technical and vocational institutes. I envisage a consortium of construction companies banding together to set up a vocational institute to produce electricians, plumbers and carpenters. Another would be a group of major hotel operators establishing a school training chefs, tour guides, and hotel workers.

In America, there are many bridges between private and public institutions so students could seamless move from one system to the other at many levels with minimal loss of academic credit.  This is particularly useful during this time of economic crisis when many parents find their priories have shifted and they can no longer afford private universities.

On an administrative level, I would not put these universities and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) as that would impose significant conflict of interest. Those folks at MOHE see themselves first and foremost as looking after the interests of public universities.  They would see these private universities as unwelcome challenges to the growth of public universities.

Instead these private tertiary educational institutions should be under the Ministry Of Trade and Industry (MITI). After all the initial idea of having them was essentially economic – to save and earn foreign exchange – the same mission of the ministry. Besides, there is precedent for this, with the International Islamic University under MITI. That was a sneaky maneuver to overcome the government’s prohibition on the use of English in public universities. By having IIU under MITI, the university is considered under the law as a commercial enterprise rather than an educational institution, and hence could use English without incurring the wrath of the language nationalists.  Brilliant!

Apart from establishing these non-profit universities, there are other avenues for public-private partnership involving our public universities. On many American campuses, the food, housing, and many other non-academic services are run not by the university but by private entities, relieving the university of the financial, human, and other strains of running such ancillary services.

Another would be for public universities to employ practitioners from the private sector as adjunct faculty members. That would not only supplement the teaching staff but also bring a much needed practical perspective to the curriculum.

Like everything else, such private-public partnerships can go too far as to undermine the universities core academic mission. A major concern on American academia today is to what extent these collaborations with private for-profit entities would compromise the intellectual and academic integrity of the research and the institution. In many instances especially in medical research, the findings are often tainted because key investigators are too generously funded by interested commercial parties.

Such conflicts are experienced even on such hallowed campuses as Harvard. Recognition of the problem is the first step towards solving or even preventing it.

The Malaysian government tried to loosen its stranglehold on our public universities through the exercise of “corporatization” in the hope of freeing them from the tight leash of ministry bureaucrats. The result? Nothing much has changed despite the costs, flurry of paperwork, and legal maneuverings. The reason is that the same people with the same mentality remain in charge, only their titles are changed.

Take one example. A few years ago the newly corporatized University of Malaya went into partnership with a private entity to develop part of the campus.  Unfortunately it was not to build a new laboratory, convention center, or student residence, but an exclusive gated community! Not even under the most generous interpretation would such an arrangement be viewed as advancing the university’s mission. The units were so luxurious that that they were beyond the reach of the faculty members! Such one-sided arrangement is not the sort of PPP I envisage.

My criticism is not directed at corporatization, rather how it was done, again illustrating my earlier point about a sound policy having flawed implementation. My proposals as outlined here would entail first of all a change in mindset of those in charge.

A vigorous private sector involvement in higher education would lead to greater competition for our public universities.  That could lead to their improvement. We already see this.  The recent decision by many public universities to improve the English proficiency of their students is directly the consequence of the competition from private universities.  Employers (other than the government) are preferring graduates of private institutions over those from public ones.  Consequently public universities have to respond to this challenge.

Such is the consequence of competition. That alone is a good enough reason for the government to engage the private sector.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 January 2010, 12:39 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.