Questions for Parliament (2nd meeting) late June

Among the questions I have submitted for the second meeting of the 12th Parliament beginning on 23rd June 2008 are:

1. To ask the Prime Minister why a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the long-standing problem of illegal immigrants of Sabah has not been established as all government efforts to deal with it has proved to be ineffective and unsatisfactory.

2. To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to promote the Bangsa Malaysia objective of Vision 2020 in the face of worsening racial polarisation with greater communal clamour for “ketuanan Melayu” and “kedaulatan Melayu”.

3. To ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce Prime Minister’s Question Time with regular personal appears in Parliament to answer questions, to set good example of parliamentary responsibility for all Cabinet Ministers?

4. To ask the Prime Minister to list and give particulars of five projects undertaken by Petronas which had caused the greatest losses in its history and what remedial action had been taken in each case.

5. To ask the Prime Minister to list the proposals for electoral reform which had been submitted by the Election Commission after the March 2008 general election and the outcome of each proposal.

6. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs the result of measures to expedite processing of issue of (i) P.R. and (ii) citizenship to foreign spouses of Malaysians; why complaints of inordinate delays persist; and to give number of such P.Rs and citizenships issued in past 20 years.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 June 2008, 12:43 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Should I cross over for those millions?

by Azly Rahman

[email protected]

http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/

That is a two million ringgit question.

How much does one get for ‘crossing over’ these days? I do not know. But if there are millions of ringgit involved, this nation will continue to rot as corrupt politicians continue switching allegiances, getting appointments to good positions, and making horror decisions for you and your children.

We must destroy this culture and heal anew.

We were convinced things will be better after the elections. We were sure that the revolution was going to benefit the masses and no party hopping would occur.

We are wrong. Things are getting more complex, in a complex time of rising prices.

This is my template letter to anyone on the verge of party hopping for money:

Dear sir/madam,

Don’t make this mistake.

Don’t do it if it’s for two million ringgit. Stay to be free, and speak up against internal party corruption.

You will die satisfied that you have not sold your soul to any other party in whose ideology you actually do not subscribe to.  These ‘party jumpers’ have no clear intention, just clear benefits for themselves.

Principles not resource

If resource is the issue, think of how you can take your party  to newer heights without more money. Make your party appeal to the younger generation. Know your party’s roots and make it dynamic.

You may not have the money, machinery, and the media at your disposal as means to influence the masses, however you have the will. Focus on helping people and problem solving at the grassroots level.  ‘Small is beautiful’

Think about the ‘class’ struggle we are in. Prevent a generation of our children from the dehumanisation of a new class system. Worker rights need championing in this globalised economy and you can win them their minimum wage for starters.

Figure out how to deliver what you promised and will promise, and find your place in the party’s equation. Phenomenological questions that can help you understand your existence and purpose. Without it you are just part of a game of hypocrisy.

Don’t flatter yourself with state honours and your finer language. You are not meant to be a ‘yes man/woman’ for powerful people and make others beg for your favour. Politics is about doing societal good not Machiavellian scheming.

A simple life is a virtuous life. Love others and commit yourself to good.

On the question of limited financial resources, here are some thoughts.

Leverage the Internet as a cheap and powerful tool of your campaign, while leaning on traditional methods of appeasing your constituency. Also the SMS system to mirror ‘multilevel marketing’ for effective campaigning.

Brainstorm with the young. Be creative. The greatest tool of human progress is the two pound universe one carries around – the human brain.

Past wisdom

The great soul MK Gandhi did not have much at his disposal yet he brought down the British empire. He was armed with a deep sense of spirituality and the principle of satyagraha.

Ahmad Boestaman, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Dr Ismail, Onn Jaafar,  Nik Aziz, Lim Kit Siang, V Rajaratnam, and others have shown us what dignity and ethics mean. Learn from them but enrich these concepts of ethics to meet the needs of changing times without losing sight and vision of political realism. Learn from the many around you who are not servants of money.

However if you are logically convinced that your party is on the road to destruction due to massive corruption amongst its leaders, then by all means leave! You have one life to live – make it the best life, for yourself and for others. At a time when we have entered the world of multiculturalism, do not revert to blind ideology of racism.

Ultimately if you take those millions offered, sit in Parliament making decisions for our children, you will be a major crook who continues to rationalise his or her crookedness. You too will sink with the Bahtera Merdeka.  The rakyat will help you sink with your two million, bahtera and all.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 June 2008, 12:48 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A really hefty price increase!

Fuel hike: 78 sen more to RM2.70 per litre

Malaysiakini

Jun 4, 08 4:55pm

The government has just announced that
petrol price will go up by 78 sen at midnight
 – a 40.6 percent jump from RM1.92 per litre to RM2.70.

The price of
diesel will go up RM1
, or 63.3 percent – from RM1.58 per litre to RM2.58.

The price hikes are among government measures to cut the spiralling bill for oil subsidies, which is expected to amount to RM56 billion this year.

At a press conference held at 5.30pm, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi also announced that the government plans to offer rebates to motorists to offset the fuel price increase.

Under the scheme, vehicles below 2000cc will receive a RM625 rebate annually – to compensate for 800 litres of fuel used under the new price.

Meanwhile, motorbikes will be given a rebate of RM120. The money will be paid by postal order.

Rebate will be paid when motorists renew the road-tax for their vehicles.

The government is expected to save RM4 billion under this new subsidy restructure.

However, the government is slowly expected to head towards totally abolishing the fuel subsidy.

If petrol is to be sold at full market prices, it could be as high as almost RM4 a litre – about 50 percent above current levels.

Since 2004, petrol has gone up by 97.1 percent, while diesel increased by a whopping 231 percent [see chart below].

Higher TNB tariffs

Abdullah also announced that the road tax for vehicles above 2,000cc will be reduced by RM200. For motorbikes above 250cc, their road tax will be slashed by RM50.

The diesel subsidy for fishermen will be fixed at RM1 per litre while vessel owners will have to pay RM1.20 per litre.

The premier also announced a price hike in gas supply for electrical and industry sectors.

The premier further said that the electricity tariffs too would be increased.

He added that the power tariff rate would remain the same for households which use about 200 kilowatt of electricity, which would still cost them RM43.60.

Any usage beyond this would fall under the new price which will be announced by power supplier Tenaga Nasional soon.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 June 2008, 7:04 pm and is filed under
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Protest at unconscionable oil price increases

Ipoh, Perak

Venue : Perak Office of Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs

at Federal Building (opposite Dewan Bandaraya Ipoh ), Green Town, Ipoh

Date : Thursday, 5th June 2008

Time : 11am

Kuala Lumpur

Venue : Jalan Pasar, Pudu (indirectly opposite RHB and Am Bank)

Date : Thursday, 5th June 2008

Time : 11.30am

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 June 2008, 10:02 pm and is filed under
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PM should seek Parliament approval on June 23 for hefty oil price increases

Ipoh’s protest :

KL’s protest :

Some hundred people, including DAP MP for Ipoh Barat, M. Kulasegaran, Perak State Assembly Speaker Sivakumar,   Perak DAP State Excos Su Keong Siong, A. Sivanesan and  Chen Fook Chye and DAP Perak Assembly members Leong Mee Meng (Jalong), Lim Pek Har (Menglembu), Ong Boon Piow (Tebing Tinggi) and  Siva Subramanian (Buntong), together with representatives from trade unions and NGOs, gathered outside the Perak Federal Building this morning to fire the first salvo of protest on behalf of Malaysians at the hefty and unconscionable increase of oil prices yesterday.

The half-hour protest went off smoothly, with Kula, Su, Sivanesan, Chen and myself speaking briefly on the protest.

In Kuala Lumpur, a similar protest, attended by five DAP Federal Territory MPs (Dr. Tan Seng Giaw, Fong Kui Lun, Tan Kok Wai, Teresa Kok, Lim Lip Eng), Manogaran (MP – Teluk Intan) and Selangor DAP State Assemblywoman  Jenice Lee Ying Ha  (Teratai), was held at the Pudu Market, Jalan Pasar.

Excerpts of my remarks at the Ipoh Protest this morning:

The sudden hefty oil price increases – 40.6 per cent and 63.3 per cent increase in pump petrol price and diesel price respectively – creating a seven-hour nation-wide chaos is an outrage as it is  most unconscionable, unjustifiable and deplorable reflecting poorly on good governance in Malaysia  especially after ministerial undertaking that there would be no changes until August.

The introduction of annual cash rebate of RM625 to those who own cars of 2,000 cc and below, and pick-up trucks and jeeps of 2,500 cc and below, and cash rebate of RM150 a year for owners of motor-cycles of 250 cc and below, as well as road tax discounts,  will not be able to fully cushion the low and middle-income Malaysians from the inflationary spiral which would be unleashed by the greatest hike in oil prices in the nation’s history.

Equally of concern will be the deterioration of the public safety index, with the expected worsening of the crime situation which has already become an endemic problem causing Malaysians, tourists and investors to fear for their personal safety, their loved ones and the safety of property as well!

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said yesterday:

“We cannot keep subsidising at the current rate. We must reduce wastage. If we can change our lifestyles, we will not suffer a terrible situation.”

However, the present government has no credibility in setting an example of “change of lifestyles” in eradicating the parasitic subsidy mentality as it has shown no political will to eliminate the rampant waste, extravagance, abuse of public funds, lack of accountability  and corruption rife in the public sector, as illustrated by  Malaysia’s worsening reputation on corruption whether nationally or internationally,  the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal, the lack of accountability for the Petronas billions,  etc.

In the previous oil price increases in February 2006, the government promised radical improvements in the public transport system – but nothing has come out of it.

The Prime Minister and all the Cabinet Ministers owe Malaysians a full and acceptable explanation why they could not fully involve the Malaysian public in the restructuring of the fuel pricing system which is fair and equitable to the low and middle-income Malaysians and  done in a competent ,  professional and accountable manner as to avoid the seven-hour nation-wide chaos yesterday.

Parliament, which ended its meeting last week and would meet again on 23rd June, should have been the forum to decide on the fuel pricing system which is fair, equitable and efficient.

Why was Parliament by-passed altogether by the Cabinet?

The first item of business of the forthcoming parliamentary meeting should be a motion to seek approval of Parliament for the hefty and unconscionable oil price increases yesterday. This motion should be moved by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 June 2008, 12:25 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Indonesia’s Battle for Religious Pluralism Continues

By
Farish A. Noor

Over the past months Indonesia has witnessed, once again, mass demonstrations and mobilisation on its streets. Throughout the month of May, the campuses of the country spilled open and large demonstrations were organised in almost every major city across the Indonesian archipelago to raise awareness about the rising costs of living and in particular the rising cost of oil and gas; in a country that was once a major oil producer but which – over the past five years – has been reduced to being a net oil and gas importer.

While the students of Indonesia’s universities and colleges have taken to the streets to protest on matters that are related to the political economy of the country, other groups have also taken to the streets in protest over issues that have less to do with the material well being of the nation. Since April, Indonesia has also witnessed a string of demonstrations led and organised by right-wing communitarian religious parties and organisations such as the Fron Pembela Islam (Islamic Defenders’ Front, FPI) on matters that have little to do with the economic welfare and future of the country.

One such protest came in late April when the FPI, along with several other allied right-wing conservative Islamist groups, protested over the ruling that the Ahmadiya Muslim minority community was allowed to exist in the country as long as they did not openly declare themselves to be Muslims. For more than a century the Ahmadis have been living in Indonesia and historians will point to the fact that the founding fathers of Indonesia’s nationalist and anti-colonial movement were educated and drawn from the Ahmadi community as well.

Yet, the theological disputes between conservative hardliners and the Ahmadis (the former of whom regard the latter as deviants) have come out into the open and led to the eruption of violence and hostility in the streets. Right-wing groups like the FPI have called on the state to disband the Ahmadis altogether, failing which death threats have been issued to prominent Ahmadi leaders and intellectuals, and Ahmadi mosques have been destroyed by mobs of right-wingers.

Thus Indonesia today is once again in the throes of crisis as both external economic-structural factors now impinge on the already fragile social-cultural balance in this, perhaps one of the most complex, diverse and plural of Muslim societies in the world.

The challenge now faced by the government of President Bambang Yudhoyono is to keep the country on an even keel while rising costs made worse by the global energy crisis and the rise of imported fuel prices are raising the level of domestic inflation to an unprecedented level. Massive unrest is brewing though this is not entirely due to the fault of the Indonesian government: for in neighbouring Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand the rising cost of fuel has also led to rising levels of inflation as well.

The danger, however, is this: Those familiar with the Byzantine world of Indonesian domestic politics will know that right-wing radical groups like the Fron Pembela Islam have never emerged out of a political vacuum without some degree of institutional and party-political support. One other group that attained world-wide recognition was the notorious Laskar Jihad, a right-wing paramilitary group that sent off its members to fight, kill and die as Jihadis in the religious war against the Christians in the Moluccas years ago. Later it was discovered – and admitted by the leader of the Laskar Jihad itself, Ja’afar Umar Tholib – that his paramilitary outfit had received support, patronage and protection of key figures in the political and military establishment of Indonesia itself. Which leads us to the obvious question: who, then, are the real power-behind-the-throne that is pulling the strings of groups like the Fron Pembela Islam?

This week the Indonesian security forces have finally begun to act against the FPI by arresting some of their members and leaders after storming the FPI stronghold in downtown Jakarta. Much to the relief of Indonesia’s mainstream moderate and liberal Muslims, this has come at a time when there is the need to keep such sectarian and divisive forces in check. However analysts remain perturbed by the rise of such right-wing religious groups when Indonesia seems once again to be teetering on the verge of a major economic crisis, made worse by external economic and political variable factors it cannot control.

In the wake of the 1997-98 economic crisis that rocked Asia and crippled the economies of Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea; many an extreme right-wing group came to the fore to occupy the centre of the public domain in Indonesia. With hindsight it can be seen that the sudden mobilisation of these sectarian groups that preached inter-religious hatred and conflict was one of the by-products of an economic crisis that had been badly handled. Others suggest that these groups were also useful in distracting public attention from real issues such as economic mismanagement and the failure of governance in the country.

Now that Southeast Asia seems to be on the verge of yet another economic crisis instigated by the global energy crisis, will there be a repeat of the scenario of 1997-2000, when right-wing religious and communitarian groups came to the fore to add to the chaos? Indonesia’s battle to retain the plural spirit of its secular constitution continues, and all eyes are on the government of Yudhoyono to ensure that the fiery tempers that led to the burning of the Ahmadi mosques across the country in April are not reignited again, with a vengeance.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 June 2008, 10:35 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lim Kit Siang’s blog written by a Malay?

by
Azly Rahman

[email protected]

Brave new Malaysian identity emerging?

Dear readers,

On a website I read the following honest opinion, I thought in the spirit of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic I’d share with you wonderful bloggers:

——————————————————————————–

Lim Kit Siang’s blog written by a Malay?

There is something that is quite funny about one opposition leader blog which seems to be written by someone else and not the owner of the blog.

That blog is
blog.limkitsiang.com
and there are many posts by someone who calls himself by the name of Dr. Azly Rahman.

Whether that person do exists or is a pseudonym of Lim Kit Siang, nobody can tell.

The latest posting by Dr. Azly Rahman titled “All Malaysians have special rights” gives the following excerpts:

“Therefore, the rakyat must unite and never raise issues regarding Malay rights and special privileges because it is quid pro quo in gratitude for the giving in of citizenship (beri-paksa kerakyatan) to 2.7 million non-Malays into the Tanah Melayu federation….Thus, it is not appropriate for these other ethnic groups to have citizenship, only (later) to seek equality and privileges,” said Tengku Faris, who read from a 11-page prepared text.

As a Malaysian who believes in a social contract based on the notion that ‘all Malaysians are created equal’, I do not understand the ‘royal statement’. I have a view on this.

The fact remains that the Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is responsible for safeguarding the rights and privileges of the Malay and other indigenous people of Malaysia, referred to as Bumiputra.

I don’t see anything wrong with Tengku Faris’s statement which had made the Pakatan Rakyat leaders sees red.

I think that Dr. Azly Rahman had forgotten about the sacrifices made by our forefathers in order to gain sovereignty for our beloved Tanah Melayu as it was known then.

We have to agree to the social contract.

Dr. Azly, have you ever heard of the social contract, the agreement made by our country’s founding fathers in the Constitution which refers to a quid pro quo trade-off through Articles 14-18 of the Constitution, pertaining to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malay people of Malaysia, and Article 153, which grants the Malays special rights and privileges?

I bet a cold fish like you does not care about your own race who seems lagging behind other races in terms of the economy where the Malays since the establishment of the New Economic Policy had not even achieved the 30% quota of the economic cake which seems to be controlled by the Chinese now.

Maybe you even like to see the Malays becoming slaves to the other races here in Malaysia since you are so adamant about Tengku Faris’s statement.

Source:
http://www.isuhot.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=414

——————————————————————————–

MY COMMENTS:

I respect the view above and declare that I am a real human being and not a pseudonym. The last thing I wish to use in my writings is a pseudonym.

I have seen my articles appearing in numerous political blogs — from those of Opposition, Supposition, TunnelVision, Utter-Confusion, or Brink-of-Destruction parties. I am humbled by these appreciations of what I have  been sharing for the last three years through my 200 pieces of writing.

We must allow democracy of ideas to grow and flourish. Let our world become a carnival of ideas and celebration of differences. We may wish to disagree with each other, but the powerful must not agree to jail/imprison the powerless. We must make sure that all instruments of oppression and tools of the totalitarian regime — such as the Internal Security Act
http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/8410/84/
, the University and University Colleges Act including the fascistic pledge of Akujanji, and other acts used to breed the corrupt in power — must be dismantled. This, we leave up to the Ministers in charge. We the rakyat will make the new ministers will do the job of dismantling the oppressive components of these Acts.

http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/2007/05/119-how-low-must-higher-education-go.html

Back to the suggestion that “Azly Rahman is a pseudonym of Lim Kit Siang.”

Simply put, I am always attracted to progressive ideas, whether they come from Lim Kit Siang, Mahathir Mohamad, Samy Velu, Chin Peng, Rashid Maidin, V. David, David Bowie, David Copperfield, the HINDRAF leaders, Hells’ Angels, New York Giants, ABIM leaders, Easy Riders, UMNO, Yoko Ono, Edward deBono, U2’s rocker Bono, Noam Chomsky, Nim Chimpsky, Puff Daddy, Snoop Dogg,  P. Ramlee, Ramli Sarip, Temmengung Jugah, JP Morgan, Rolling Stones, Strolling Bones, or even the creators of the hugely successful Canadian series South Park.

The same thing goes with my view on political parties and ideologies. Like many of you, I can choose which one to contribute my ideas, time and energy to and still be apolitical; as long as the party does not serve the interest of the few or of a particular race — as long as the party’s mission is not to imprison the mind of the Malaysians through long-term propaganda and indoctrination strategies that divide and teache them to hate each other just for being born into the wrong ethnic group or religious belief.

I can choose to quietly cast a blank ballot paper on election day, or to campaign loudly, passionately, ferociously for this or that political candidate, including for the old woman from Terengganu who ran around campaigning in GE-12 on her bicycle — an example of such an existentialist and fiercely liberated woman. I have these choices not bound by political ideologies. To me, the idea of “personacracy” is more appealing than modern “democracy”.

To me the idea of “government of the self, by the self, for the self” must be practiced as a form of true government. Only than that one’s participation in public life is meaningful and least damaging to the greater good. [see my essay on this:
http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/2008/01/152-limits-of-democracy-and.html
]

I do not think this social contract you mention exist, nor the myth of Sang Sapurba and Demang Daun Lebar must be glorified and be repeated nauseatingly. Provide me with alternative views if you must. I will defend your right to dissent. I believe we live in a reality of a Malaysian multicultural world in which equality, equal opportunity, and equitability must be the philosophy of how we govern our economic, political, and social lives; a reality that demands realistic and peaceful solutions based on sound ethical principle derived from the wisdom of the timeless classics, radical political theories,  and inspirational scriptures.

I suggest you read the French Enlightenment thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau’s idea of “social contract” to get a historical perspective of the issue you raise in regard to the “royal speech”.

Even if such a contract in Malaysia exist, you and I and the rakyat must together dismantle it and create a better and more inclusive system — not an economic apartheid system, Malaysian-styled. We need to revisit the principle of “jus soli”

Your statement above on Malays lagging behind must be supported well with hard facts and not with emotional outbursts. I suggest to begin, read the findings of the Asian Strategic Leadership Institute’s study conducted and headed by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, a respectable academic [see summary of ASLI’s corporate equity study report http://www.cpps.org.my/downloads/A_%20Overview.pdf.]. You will benefit from the valuable suggestions that takes into consideration the paradigm of economic research reporting we have been engaging in.

The essential questions are :

1] In what ways are the Malays left/lagging behind?

2] In what ways are the Indians, Chinese, Kadazans, Ibans, and other races left behind?

3] How do we bridge the gap and redistribute our resources to benefit all in their own special way? In fact, in what ways are a class of people (the underclass, the lower class, and the impoverised middle-class of Malaysians) lagging behind as a consequence of policies and political practices that benefit the upper class whose capitalism will never trickle down but trickle up into their heads and out of the country.

Nobody is going to enslave anyone if we destroy race-based politics that is currently the root of distributive injustices. It is all those racist-organizations spreading fear and propaganda of “enslavement” and of ketuanan this or that that is weakening the Malay mind.

My piece below echo my view on race matters. I hope you will learn from it. I welcome your response to the ideas presented.

——————————————————————————–

A Malay child of Merdeka

Azly Rahman

Sometime ago in a column I
wrote
 the following:

We are in the 21st century. About three years from now, we will arrive at the year 2010. The non-Malays and non-bumiputeras have come a long way into being accepted as full-fledged Malaysians, by virtue of the ethics, rights and responsibilities of citizenship. They ought to be given equal opportunity in the name of social justice, racial tolerance and the alleviation of poverty.

Bright and hard-working Malaysians regardless of racial origin who now call themselves Malaysians must be given all the opportunities that have been given to Malays since 40 years back.

Islam and other religions require this form of social justice to be applied to the lives of human beings. Islam does not discriminate one on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, creed nor national origin. It is race-based politics, borne out of the elusiveness of nationalism, that creates post-industrial tribalistic leaders; leaders that will design post-industrial tribalistic policies. It is the philosophy of greed, facilitated by free enterprise runamuck that will evolvingly force leaders of each race to threaten each other over the control of the economic pie. This is the ideology of independence we have cultivated.

I want to elaborate the point further:

A Malay child of Merdeka

As a child born into a Malay family a few years after the shouts of “Merdeka” filled the nation’s stadium, and as a child privileged to be given the opportunities accorded to a “bumiputera,” I have a statement of hope to convey to our nation.

As an adult growing learning multiple ways of knowing about the world, through people of multiple cultures, I often ask the question of what will happen to the children and grandchildren of Mr Wong Seng Kuang, my Jawi teacher in Johor Bahru, Ah Lan the lady who taught my mother how to sew clothes for a living, Dr. Das of Jalan Ah Fook near Sungei Segget who treated my childhood illness and taught me how to be “patient” about wanting to make changes in the world, Mr PV Kulasingam my fearful-looking headmaster, Miss Chan my favourite Maths teachers who suddenly became angry at me a day after the May 13, 1969 riots, Miss Yap,  Mr Ambrose, and Mr. Ng my English teachers who taught me to love the language when I was struggling with other subjects, and countless other “non-Malays non-bumis” I have come to be indebted to – those who have contributed to the “subjectivity” of what I am as a “cultural being living in an ever changing and evolving world of shifting cultural constructs.”

In short, I ask the question – what have this nation done to the children and grandchildren of these people through the policies we create to alienate each other?

Because in my profession as an educator, questions are more important than the answers, I present them as such below:

After this Merdeka, celebrations will we all be called the “new bumiputeras”? Will the false dichotomy of “Malays” versus “non-Malays” and “bumiputeras ” versus “non-bumiputeras” be abolished? Will we come together as “true blue Malaysians” that will progress through the guiding national development philosophy crafted by the principles of scientific socialism, multiculturalism, affirmative action and meritocratic principles in a balance, and the respect, cultivation, and preservation of indigenous cultures that sustain the dignity of each race?

Will more financial aid be given to the deserving students of all races? Will more scholarships be given to “non-Malays” or “non-bumiputeras” so that they too will enjoy the fruits of labour of the parents and grandparents who toiled for this nation? Will more deserving “non-Malays” be given the much needed aid to study abroad and to come home and serve, so that they will take pride in building the nation that has been kind to them? Will this new preferential treatment cure the ill-feeling and silent animosity over the awarding of resources amongst the different races?

Will the children and grandchildren of great Malaysians – Soh Chin Aun, V Arumugam, Santokh Singh, (the grand-daddies of the real Beckhams of the Malaysian cultural iconoclasm) and Andre Goh, M. Jegathesan, be given scholarship they deserve?

Will preferential treatment be given to those born after the Aug 31, 1957 to their children and grandchildren as well?

It will be a shame to the hard work of the “founding fathers” of Merdeka if we do not work towards providing equality, equity, and equal opportunity to the children of all races. It would kill the spirit of Merdeka.

Our Merdeka gone astray?

This Merdeka, we have gone astray. Race-politics has reached its boiling point. It is predictable as a consequence of the outgrowth of politics in a pluralistic nation. Scholars who write about the difference between nationalism and socialism have predicted the bankruptcy of the former, in an age of globalisation and mass consumption – in an age wherein blind nationalism has become a blinder for the politics of plunder.

This Merdeka, let us extend our special rights to all who deserve to live a life of dignity, based on the principles of universal declaration of human rights. In a nation wherein the three major races help build the nation, the nation must now belong to the children of all these races. It is the logic of the brighter side of Social Darwinism – that all must be made fit to survive, not through natural selection but through an inclusive philosophy of developmentalism. It is an antidote to racial discrimination based on a sound philosophy of peaceful evolution.

We cannot continue to alienate each other through arguments on “social contract” that is alien from perhaps what Jean Jacques Rousseau the great wrote about some 300 years ago – a philosophy that inspired the founding of America, a nation of immigrants constantly struggling (albeit imperfectly) to meet the standards requirements of equality, equity, and equal opportunity especially in education.

How do we come together as Malaysians, as neo-bumiputeras free from false political-economic and ideological dichotomies of Malays versus non-Malays, “bumi” versus “non-bumis’ and craft a better way of looking at our political, economic, social, cultural, and psychological, and spiritual destiny – so that we may continue to survive as a specie of Malaysians the next 50 years?

As a privileged Malay and a “bumiputera”, I want to see the false dichotomies destroyed and a new sense of social order emerging, based on a more just form of linguistic play designed as a new Merdeka game plan. Think Malaysian – we do not have anything to lose except our mental chains.

—

The essential is: what kind of Malaysian citizen of Merdeka do we wish to live as? I leave the skeptic with a quote from a news-story in Malaysiakini, May 11, 2008:

Don: No such thing as ‘social contract’

Rahmah Ghazali | May 11, 08 5:47pm

.”..Royal professor Dr Ungku Abdul Aziz today made a startling claim today that there was no physical social contract between Malaysia’s diverse ethnic communities.

“There is no such thing as social contract,” said Ungku Aziz, a panelist in the 25th Anniversary Look East Policy Forum in Shah Alam today.

Deviating from his original speech during the event, the celebrated academic said that the social contract was

“a fantasy created by politicians of all sorts of colours depending on their interest”.

Ungku Aziz said the social contract should rightly be called an “economic contract” to justify affirmative action in areas of education and health for groups that needed it the most…. ”

ENDS.

With my explanation above — are my ideas a “threat” to the Malays and if they are, how is that so?

Or — is a radical mental revolution for the Malays in response to postmodernity and the logic of late capitalism long overdue?

Who has been enslaving who? Just look at the fate of this oil-rich country called Malaysia
http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/petronas-rm570-billion-what-happened-to-this-money/.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 June 2008, 1:55 pm and is filed under
Azly Rahman
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Please help Malaysia!

Letters

by KKLow

I am one of your supporter and touched by Gobi/ Theresa Kok/ Lim Kit Siang talk prior to election recently on the party ‘s fight for Malaysian right to improve standrad of living for all Malaysian and first class citizenship…., i also watch all the youtube regarding DAP and was impressed.

We hope the promises to the rakyat can come true such as:

1) fight for lower toll rate (especially LDP) we pay to stuck in traffic jam everyday – status – not yet done.

2) and the hottest issue now – petrol price hike – status – worsen with Abdullah annoucement…even with the rebate or incentives still we need to pay an increase of appx 30% petrol hike…

3) food price increase without any control – with petrol price increase …well….food price will soar and squeeze our standard of living

4) with the poor standard of living – social ills especially ah long/ robbery cases will be frequent and tough to fight…

5) revision of the objective of NS program to youth – as a tax payee, we don’t think the NS program help to curb youth ills…waste money…spend wisely (upgrade our transportation situation)…hope you pay a visit to golden triangle area (bukit bintang)/ pudu/ central market on friday onward till Sunday and you will understand our feeling on social ills

6) and many many more….

Concerned citizen

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 June 2008, 11:11 am and is filed under
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No Tun Samy Vellu?

This will be the reaction of most Malaysians to the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s
birthday honours list
 today – why Tun Dr. Lim Keng Yaik but no Tun Samy Vellu.

Is MIC leaving Barisan Nasional?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 June 2008, 9:11 am and is filed under
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sabah the reason for the hefty unconscionable oil price hikes?

When in Kota Kinabalu last Saturday, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced “goodies” to tackle “long-standing issues” in Sabah which needed “urgent” solution, including:

•	Abolition of Sabah Federal Development Department (JPSS);

•	RM1 billion special allocation for rural development;

•	Direct channeling of development allocations of 11 ministries;

•	Federal government to allocate RM1 million each to MPs and RM400,000 each to assemblymen in Sabah;

•	High-powered Cabinet Committee headed by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to tackle Sabah’s long-standing illegal immigrant and refugee problem;

•	Appointment of  Sabahan Prof Datuk Kamarulzaman Ampong as the vice chancellor of` Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) effective June 18 and another Sabahan Yusof Saringit as federal Chief Financial Officer for the state; and

•	Petronas and Sabah Foundation to build a power plant with the capacity to generate 300mw in Kimanis.

The real motive for Abdullah playing the role of early Santa Claus is not because of any solicitation for the welfare and interests of the people of Sabah as they had long disappeared from the radar of the Barisan Nasional (BN)  federal government, but to consolidate Sabah Barisan Nasional support  as a consequence of the March 8 political tsunami in Peninsular Malaysia and in particular to buy the loyalty of Sabah BN MPs to ensure that they will not collectively withdraw support from the Barisan Nasional  federal government.

Was Abdullah given such a glowing report of Sabahan reactions to his  “goodies” last Saturday in securing  the loyalty of  Sabah BN MPs to ensure the stability of the BN national government that it also encouraged the Prime Minister four days later to announce hefty and unconscionable oil price increases ranging from 41 to 63 per cent?

Is Sabah the reason for the hefty unconscionable oil price hikes?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 June 2008, 3:23 pm and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ensuring Our Oil Bounty Will Not Be A Curse

by
M. Bakri Musa

www.bakrimusa.com

With Malaysia forced to end or at least reduce its petroleum subsidy, it is well to learn from the experiences of other oil-producing countries.

            There are enough lessons in the world today on how we should manage our precious God-given oil bounty.  Prudently done, as in Alberta (Canada) and Norway, it would bring peace and prosperity.  Anything less and it would be a curse; the new wealth would breed corruption and tear the socioeconomic fabric of society, as seen in today’s Iraq and Nigeria.

            I would rather that Malaysia emulates and enhances the Albertan and Norwegian models.  Malaysia should, like Canada and Norway, remove all subsidies on petroleum products.  This would encourage conservation.  It would also prod Malaysians into the global economic reality instead of being insulated from it.

            In order for this giant step to be accepted, the government must divert the savings into a separate trust fund for use by future generations when our oil would run out, with a small portion devoted for current use in subsidizing cooking gas for the poor, and users of public transportation.

The Lessons from Norway and Alberta

Norway, with a land mass slightly larger than Malaysia and a population only twice that of Perak, ‘sterilizes’ its oil revenue by diverting it into a separate trust fund for use by future generations.  The wisdom of that initiative is that the new wealth did not disrupt the social and economic fabric of Norwegian society.  There was no runaway inflation as in Nigeria, and the Norwegians did not become lazy profligate consumers dependent on their new oil wealth, as with the Arabs.

            The Norwegians pay the same world price at the pump for their petroleum, currently at about RM 7 per liter, nearly three times the new Malaysian price.  One consequence is that while they have one of the highest per-capita incomes, car ownership among Norwegians is one of the lowest in Europe.  To them, a car is simply a means of transportation, not for ostentation.  Everybody knows that they are already wealthy; they do not need to flaunt it.  Further, the cars on the streets of Oslo are mostly fuel efficient brands like Volkswagen rather than luxurious Mercedes.  In fact there is a stiff tax for gas-guzzlers.

            Among the many positive consequences are that their roads are not congested and their air less polluted.

            Today the Norwegian Petroleum Trust is the world’s second largest sovereign fund, and fast expanding.  It may have already exceeded half a trillion (500 billion) dollars.  When the oil wells run dry, as they inevitably will, the Norwegians could still enjoy their present lifestyles as the Trust Fund’s income could cover the country’s budget till perpetuity.

            Like everyone else, the Norwegians do not like paying high prices for petrol, or anything else for that matter.  However, they willingly do so because they see the direct and tangible benefits of such an enlightened policy.

            The Albertans too pay world price for their energy, with their government diverting the extra bounty into a separate Heritage Fund.  Unlike the Norwegians who invest in global stock markets, the Albertans invest in their schools, universities, and hospitals.  Consequently, as noted in the Economist and also from my firsthand knowledge, Alberta is the only place where the rich send their children to public schools!  The University of Alberta (which happens to be my alma mater) is now regarded as one of the finest, thanks to generous funding from the Heritage Fund.

Malaysian Petroleum Trust Fund

Malaysia can improve on the Norwegian and Albertan models.  We must commit to remove all subsidies on energy, and do so in a phased and predictable manner, perhaps over a couple of years.  This must be coupled with a properly thought out plan to protect the poor.

            For example, there must be subsidized cooking gas for the poor, and only for them.  We can easily estimate the energy needs for the typical poor family, and limit the subsidy or even direct grants only for that amount, and nothing more.  It should be fairly easy to devise such a poverty-ameliorating program with minimal leakage.  We could model it after America’s “food stamps” program.

            Likewise, we should subsidize and thus encourage public transportation.  In British Columbia, season pass holders (rich and poor) for public transit get a rebate from the government.  There is a public good in this; for by not using their cars for commuting, the air is less polluted and streets less congested, and thus require less maintenance.

            The money saved from removing the subsidies should be diverted to a special Petroleum Heritage Fund.  The corpus (or principal) would be invested locally in a broadly diversified portfolio to include stocks, bonds, real estate, and venture capital.  The fund should be passive investor, concerned only with profit making.

            The Norwegians limit their holding in any company to no more than 5 percent, meaning, they are in it purely for the profit potential and not to seek control or management.  It is for this reason that unlike other sovereign funds (Singapore’s Temasek and China’s many funds), the Norwegians are the most sought after investors.

            Like the Alberta Heritage Fund, the income from the Petroleum Fund should be used to improve our schools and universities, as well as providing affordable housing and better health care.  Just as the corpus must be invested locally, the income too must be spent locally.  Thus no scholarships to send students abroad, instead the money should be spent to improve local universities so as to benefit the greatest number of students.

            The country now has many such trust funds, from Tabong Haji to Employees Provident Fund.  All too often they serve as nothing more than as sources of cheap funds for the politically well connected.  They are also not well managed.

            To sell this idea, the Petroleum Fund must be professionally managed and free of political interference.  This is a very high but achievable order.  This means its governing board must have wide representations, including nominees of the opposition political parties and NGOs.  Anything less and it would be hard to sell the policy.

            Pakatan Rakyat’s leader Anwar Ibrahim rightly expressed the public fear and mistrust that the funds saved from reducing or abolishing the subsidy would be used to benefit Abdullah’s political cronies and family members.  Anwar and Malaysians generally have good reasons for this suspicion.

            I am not impressed with Abdullah’s proposal to provide tax rebates for car owners.  If they can afford to buy a car, then they do not need any subsidy or rebate from the government.

            Abdullah must also spend the petroleum dollars locally to benefit especially the residents of the oil-producing states.  It is morally indefensible and politically foolish to see residents of the three states where oil is produced (Trengganu, Sabah, and Sarawak) among the poorest in Malaysia.

            If Abdullah does not handle this petroleum subsidy issue wisely, it could prove to be the final straw to his downfall.  On the other hand, if he could learn (a big if) from the Norwegians and the Albertans, he could not only salvage his political future but more importantly, leave a significant legacy

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 June 2008, 9:45 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Let the great battle to get  Anwar back to Parliament begin

Anwar Ibrahim is reported  yesterday as saying that

“This year is a good timing for  a by-election”
, with some newspapers like
Sin Chew Daily
giving it page headline treatment.

I will go one step further.  There is no better time than NOW for a by-election for Anwar to get back to Parliament in the wake of the nation-wide anger and outrage at the unconscionably drastic and hefty  oil price increases of  41 per cent for petrol and 63 per cent  for  diesel  with no overall plan to cushion their  painful impact on the vulnerable sectors of the population.

There is also no awareness or  consciousness of the need by the Abdullah government and leadership to set an example of radical change in  lifestyles and government expenditures as well as to be fully accountable for the Petronas billions and to begin to institute good governance of accountability, transparency and integrity.

Let the great battle to get Anwar back to Parliament begin!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 June 2008, 3:06 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Minyak Oh Minyak…!

Letters

by Dr. ASM

Harga minyak kita jauh lebih murah jika dibandingkan dengan negara jiran. Kenaikan harga tak dapat dielakkan lagi. Rakyat digesa ubah cara hidup. Itulah antara kenyataan yang menguasai dada akhbar dimasa ini. Semua ini seolah-olah memperbodohkan rakyat Malaysia.

Harga minyak kita jauh lebih murah dari negara jiran, Singapura, Thailand dan juga beberapa negara lain. Jangan bandingkan harga kita dengan negara jiran yang bukannya pengeluar minyak. Bandingkanlah harga kita dengan negara pengeluar minyak lain (Iran(0.35), UAE (1.19), Arab Saudi (0.38), Venezuela (0.16), Mesir (1.03), Bahrain (0.87), Qatar (0.68) , Kuwait (0.67), Nigeria (0.32) dll). Jangan fikir rakyat Malaysia bodoh dan mudah diperdayakan dengan fakta dan perbandingan yang tidak tepat.

Rakyat digesa ubah cara hidup. Kita disuruh ubah, tapi pemimpin semuanya masih berkereta mewah. Kerajaan sepatutnya ubah cara berbelanja. Tangguhkan dulu projek mega. Tukar semua kereta mewah kepada Proton Perdana. Barulah cakap serupa bikin.

Kerajaan tidak pernah menjawab soalan yang ditanya. Kita tanya, kemana pergi minyak yang dikeluarkan oleh negara kita sehingga kita terpaksa membayar harga minyak mengikut pasaran antarabangsa. Kerajaan jawab, harga pasaran minyak antarabangsa telah meningkat berlipat kali ganda. Tahun lepas USD40 setong sekarang mencecah USD140 setong. Kerajaan boleh bankrap jika subsidi diteruskan. Jawapan ini bukan sahaja diberikan oleh pihak menteri kerajaan bahkan oleh pakar-pakar ekonomi dan professor universiti yang kononnya ahli. Mungkinkah ahli pengampu kot. Kalau ikutkan teknik peperiksaan disekolah mereka semua ini akan gagal kerana jawapan yang diberi tidak menepati soalan. Lain yang kita tanya lain pula yang mereka jawab. Maklumlah pakar semuanya. Pakar apa, anda fikirkanlah sendiri.

Jadi, kalau nak tutup cerita ini senang sahaja. Jawab soalan yang ditanya:

Kenapa harga kita jauh lebih tinggi daripada negara pengeluar minyak yang lain.

Kenapa kita tak guna minyak kita untuk dalam negara terlebih dahulu sebelum diekspot apa jua lebihan keluar negara.

Kemana dana atau keuntungan yang disumbang oleh Petronas dibelanjakan selama ini.

Kerajaan tidak perlu takut untuk berterus terang dengan rakyat. Rakyat bukannya tak berakal. Sekiranya jawapan yang diberikan tersebut memuaskan hati rakyat, maka mereka sudah tentu boleh menerimanya. Tetapi jika sebaliknya, maka perasaan tidak puas hati akan berterusan. Dan seperti biasa, rakyat akan tersenyum simpul. Ramai antara mereka hanya akan memendam perasaan dalam hati mereka. Tak semua yang berani untuk keluar memboikot dan protes dijalanan. Sampai masanya PRU-13 kita semua akan tahu apa yang perlu dibuat.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 June 2008, 4:17 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Revisiting the judicial darkness of the past two decades

Blast from the Past

This is a statement I issued on 12th June 2001 calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Judicial Independence which would also investigate into Justice Muhammad’s shocking expose of telephone directive from a judicial superior to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing as well as similar  directives to other election judges in Sabah and Sarawak:

(Petaling Jaya, 12.6.2001 Tuesday): Justice Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang deserves the gratitude of the nation which  is seeking to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary for exposing the telephone directive from a judicial superior in September 1999 to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing.

Yesterday, Muhammad Kamil said that the Likas election petitions were brought to his court in mid-1999, following the Sabah state general elections on 13th March 1999.

He said that after many preliminary objections were raised by the lawyers, he announced on September 24, 1999 that he was setting aside technical objections in favour of justice.

Muhammad Kamil said: “That started it. That’s when the phone call came.”

He said  he told the caller, who had identified himself, to “drop me a note for that” but it never came. The hearing of the petitions then began on Sept 27, 1999.

Muhammad Kamil said he had disclosed the identity of the person to Chief Justice Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and related the incident to several other judges in Sabah and Sarawak at that time, as they had confided in him that they had also received similar directives from the same person on election petitions before them.  There were three other election judges in the two States.

He said: “They asked for my view. I told them to ask their conscience.  My allegiance is not to human beings but to God.”

Muhammad Kamil has made it very clear that the person responsible for the telephone directive was his judicial superior, narrowing the circle of possibility  as  he had only three judicial superiors at the time – the Chief Justice Tun Mohamad Eusoff Chin, President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Lamin Yunus and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Chong Siew Fai.

When asked by reporters yesterday if the person  was Eusoff “as widely speculated”, he said: “I can’t confirm it”, adding  “Most of the lawyers make a guess and everybody seems to be guessing well.”

Lamin has denied that he had ever issued any directive to Muhammad Kamil, stating that High Court matters were not under his jurisdiction.

As both the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi have both publicly denied being the person who issued the telephone directive, and as Muhammad Kamil has pinpointed the person as one of his superiors in the judicial hierarchy at the time, the time has come  for Eusoff Chin to immediately clear himself or admit to having made the telephone directive to Muhammad Kamil, which constituted a blatant obstruction with the administration of justice.

The  Cabinet tomorrow should  set up a  Royal Commission of Inquiry into Judicial Independence which would also investigate into Justice Muhammad’s shocking expose of telephone directive from a judicial superior to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing as well as similar  directives to other election judges in Sabah and Sarawak.

Such a Royal Commission of Inquiry should investigate into all cases and causes for the undermining of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary in the past decade.

I would urge the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim to formally propose such a Royal Commission of Inquiry at the Cabinet tomorrow to demonstrate the government’s seriousness and commitment to support the new Chief Justice in his mission to restore public confidence in the judiciary.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 11:57 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


High Court judge makes explosive judicial disclosures

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

Borneo Post

High Court judge makes explosive judicial disclosures

By Danny Wong

SIBU: A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.

The Barisan Nasional candidate, Ding Kuong Hing, won the seat with a slim majority of 51 votes.

Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.

He said complaints had been made against him in an earlier case that he had failed to disclose the detention of his father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970.

Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.

He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.

“I take this course also because I am smarting over the complaint that the detention of my father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970 should have been but not disclosed. (See Sabah Foundation & 2 Ors vs Datuk Syed Kechik & Anor, Kota Kinabalu High Court at http://kkhighcourt.com/Completed Civil Matters/SabahFoundation.doc)

“What I am going to disclose relate to what happened after two of my judgements were handed down. One was the judgment in a libel case which I handed down on February 5 1997 (see Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon & Ors at http://kkhighcourt.com/Completed Civil Trials/RaveychandranNST.pdf) by which I distinguished MGG Pillai V Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases,” he said.

Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.

“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24 1997.

The then prime minister was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.

“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”

Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.

Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.

“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.

“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.

“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.

“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”

Chin went on to say that to commemorate his “dialogue” with the judges a group picture was taken (which can be viewed by going to http://www/kkhighcourt.com/ JudgesnMahathir.htm).

To rub it in, he said, Bernama circulated a press release with one appearing in a Sabah newspaper (The Daily Express May 25 1997) which “was far from stating the truth”. A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.

He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.

“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.

“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?

“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.

“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.

“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.

Chin told the court that he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure by the Chief Justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter making a decision based on the law and evidence.

The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.

He said he had also heard other election petitions, namely Yusuf Abdul Rahman v Abdul Ajis & Ors and Lee Hie Kui v Song Swee Guan & Darrell Tsen.

“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.

“The petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of a party to which he belongs.

” So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they (counsel or parties) in this case entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.

“After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgment that I had handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.

“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”

Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties digest what he had said and to consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.

However, they expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 1:32 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why not slash entertainment allowances of Cabinet Ministers by 50%?

The first of  many questions that come to the mind of Malaysians on the RM2 billion  cost-cutting package announced by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is:

If the government can increase oil prices from 41 to 63 per cent, why can’t it slash the entertainment allowances of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers by 50% and not just a paltry 10%?

The question becomes all the more poignant when it is disclosed that the current entertainment allowances are RM18,865 for the prime minister, RM15,015 for the deputy prime minister, RM12,320 for ministers and RM6,000 for deputy ministers.

What about all the other allowances, including tips allowances which run into hundreds of ringgit a day, which ministers and deputy ministers are entitled to?

For a start, all the various forms of allowances which cabinet ministers and deputy ministers are entitled to should be made public not only as a a form of  leadership by example in terms of accountability, transparency and good governance but also to demonstrate that the ministers and deputy ministers feel the pain of the people caused by the unconscionable and  callous oil price hikes ranging from 41 to 63 per cent.

Abdullah’s statement  that the cost-cutting measures he announced yesterday “will not be the first or the last” and that many other announcements will be made by the government is testimony that these measures are “after thoughts” after the manifestation of public anger and outrage over the  brutal and hefty oil price increases when mitigation measures should have been part of any Cabinet decision causing  far-reaching inflationary repercussions imposing  great financial hardships on all vulnerable sectors of the Malaysian population.

The public anger and outrage at the unconscionable and callous oil price hikes had been aggravated by the  lack of  any sign that the government is prepared to end its waste, extravagance, misappropriation of public funds, lack of accountability  and the many mega-scandals like the Petronas billions and the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal – further example that the Cabinet had not learnt the lessons of the March 8 “political tsunami” to be a caring,  responsible, just and people-oriented administration.

It is no wonder that  Malaysians regard the RM2 billion cost-cutting measures, described as the “first” of such measures, as not only too little and too late, but shows lack of seriousness to provide proper government leadership by example to lead Malaysians to tide through the hard economic hard times  facing the country.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 11:32 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sanusi sacked as UIA President – Abdullah  not ready for “1st-world infrastructure, 1st-world mentality”

The
sacking
 of Sanusi Junid, who was formerly Cabinet Minister, Kedah Mentri Besar and Umno secretary-general,  as International Islamic University (UIA) president because he had left Umno together with former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad,  is most shocking, deplorable and testimony that the Abdullah administration is not ready for a  “first-world infrastructure, first-world mentality” culture to catapult Malaysia into the ranks of fully developed nations.

The  UIA termination  letter dated June 2 but which Sanusi  received only yesterday (eight days later) did not give any reason for the abrupt sacking  although his contract is not due to expire for another two years.

It would appear that quitting Umno has become a proper reason for the sacking of administrators and academicians in  Malaysian universities.

Shouldn’t the authorities adopt a “hands-off” policy on the political inclinations of university administrators or academicians so long as they do not allow their political affiliations to intrude into their university duties?

An explanation is clearly called for from Abdullah for Sanusi’s sacking from UIA.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 June 2008, 11:17 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Education
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Business of Dialogue

 By
Farish A. Noor

Dialogue is a funny business, particularly when it happens to be dialogue of the inter-civilisational and inter-religious kind. Having just attended yet another Dialogue between Islam and the West in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, I find myself compelled to pen these thoughts before my blood pressure rises any further and I risk doing serious damage to myself and the furniture in my office…

The theme of the dialogue conference I attended was ‘Islam and the West: Bridging the Gap’. Now, allow me to state some rather commonsensical yet important observations at this point. If we were to begin the dialogue process by stating that there exists a gap between the Western and Muslim worlds, then in a sense we have introduced the very same problem that we wish to rectify in the first place. How and why has such a gap emerged between the West and Islam; what are the historical and more importantly, political, processes and mechanisms that contributed to this gap; and do Muslims and Westerners perceive there to be a gap in the first place?

It is important to emphasise again and again that the Western and Muslim worlds have been among the oldest civilisational neighbours in the history of humanity. After all, the Muslim world has lived side-by-side next to Western Europe for more than 1,400 years; and if after such a long period we still do not understand each other then we really must be the worst of neighbours. History, however, is replete with examples and instances of genuine dialogue and interaction in all forms and all registers: from the cultural-intellectual borrowing and cross-fertilisation that took place in both communities leading to the renaissance of both the European and Muslim worlds to the enduring traces of cross-cultural contact and appreciation that exists in the hybrid pop culture of both societies until today.

A cursory look at the modern urban landscape of every single postcolonial Muslim-majority country today would testify to the fact that modern Muslims live in a hybrid social space where the public domain is just as much coloured by Islamic norms as it is by Western norms and values: Muslims dream of living in suburban homes, owning two cars, having two kids, two pets, membership to the country club and spending their weekends going to the mall and dining of Western fast food. (When they can afford it) Likewise Europeans and North Americans have no problems eating kebabs and bryani, listening to Rai music, appreciating the poetry of Rumi and the aesthetic delights of Ottoman or Moghul art. (When they can afford it.) So where on earth is this ‘gap’ between the West and Islam?

On a societal level it is hard to see how and why Westerners and Muslims should look askance at each other, for social interaction and dialogue have, in fact, been going on for centuries. If there is a gap to speak of, it is a political one and one that is determined by the workings of power and power-politics on the global stage.

The aim of such dialogues, we are told, is to correct the misunderstandings and misperceptions of Islam in the eyes of the West that have arisen as a result of the escalation of ‘religiously-inspired’ terrorism in the name of Islam. But ask yourselves this question: Prior to the creation of the state of Israel; prior to the intervention into Arab political and social affairs by the American government; prior to imposition of the Washington economic consensus on the economies of the Arab-Muslim world, were there so many instances of Arab-Muslim ‘terror’ against the West?

And if and when these instances of ‘terrorism’ occur, who and what are their targets? Why is it that the attacks on the West seem primarily directed towards the symbols and emblems of American political, military and economic hegemonic power? Why is it that it is Western oil companies, embassies and military bases that are attacked time and again?

Surely it can be seen that much of what fuels this resentment towards the West, and towards America in particular, is the perception that the elites of Western societies have their own agenda to manipulate, control and dominate the economic and political systems of the Muslim world. And surely much of this can and should be seen as a political response to what is primarily a political-economic problem, and not a theological one?

So why is it that Islam is put on trial and Islam has to account for itself? My concerns about these dialogue conferences are manifold, but they can be summed up as follows: Most of these dialogues are held on an inter-governmental level, and they involve the participation of elites from both Western and Muslim societies. Hence the predominance of Ministers, Prime Ministers, Presidents and princes at these high-level meetings that take place in 5-star, 6-star or even 7-star hotels and resorts. Yet these are precisely the very same elites who are collaborating in the skewered geo-political process that has created and perpetuated the gap of power and power-differentials in the first place; and in many ways it is the politics that they practice that is the source of the problem, and not the solution.

My second concern is how these dialogues have rarely ever taken off on an even footing, where both sides engage in meaningful, frank exchanges on an equal basis. In fact, more often than not what happens is that the same coterie of Muslim apologists are invited to ‘explain’ Islam to the West, and to ‘explain’ why Muslims take the course of violence by recourse to some theological explanation. Such an approach places all the blame of Muslim theology and none of the blame of geo-politics and the workings of global capital. But consider the oddity of it all: When a Muslim walks into Mc Donalds to order a Big Mac, nobody asks him if Islam compels him to do that, or suggests that it is the Qur’an that determines his tastes and preferences! Yet when a Muslim protests against American oil companies exploiting the resources of his country, the explanation for this anger and indignation has to be found in Islam somehow.

So how then do we account for the protests against America that have been taking place in Mexico, Venezuela, the rest of Latin America and Africa; where Muslims are few and far between and Islamic religious scripture has little impact? The only conclusion I can come up with is that Islam is once again being set up as the nasty culprit responsible for every act of defiance against Western hegemony that we see in the Third World today.

All in all, the cynical conclusion I have come to is that these high-level inter-religious and inter-civilisational dialogue conferences and seminars that are held routinely in hotels and resorts the world over have become an end in themselves: A convenient meeting point for Western elites and their third world compradore counterparts to come together and agree upon the terms of the Washington neo-liberal consensus. A waste of time they certainly are, but more than that they also mean big bucks for those who have to foot the bill. Perhaps the only ones who really benefit from them are the hotel managers and owners, who seem to be doing a roaring business whenever dialogue season starts. The funny business of dialogue has become a business, in the end.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 June 2008, 6:00 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Islam Hadari and the Politics of Banning

By
Farish A. Noor

There are ideas, and there can be stupid ideas; but to ban an idea simply because of its stupidity seems to be a rather stupid thing to do in itself.

Among the ideas that circulate in the congested bowels of Malaysia’s public domain is the somewhat nebulous idea of ‘Islam Hadari’; loosely translated at times as ‘civilisational Islam’ or ‘societal Islam’. Others of a less charitable bent have dubbed it ‘theme park Islam’, ‘Crystal mosque Islam’ and even ‘Badawi’s brand of Islam’. Branding aside, it would appear that this brand of Islam has come under close scrutiny and admonition of late. In May the Pakatan-led state government of Selangor announced that henceforth the state would no longer promote Islam Hadari and this was later followed up by a similar move on the part of the Pakatan-led state government of Penang.

The rationale behind this prohibition leaves us with some unanswered questions that might as well be raised at this point. Who called for the prohibition of Islam Hadari and on what grounds? And if Islam Hadari is to be banned by the Pakatan-led state governments, what does this entail for the Muslims and non-Muslims of Malaysia? What, in the final analysis, was the objective of this ban?

Now this academic would hardly call himself a fan of Islam Hadari, as anyone who has read these columns would realise. Time and again we have pointed out the shortcomings, contradictions, double-standards and downright hypocrisy between the ideals of Islam Hadari and what has been put into practice. Islam Hadari – as a broad statement of inter-related intentions crafted in the form of a statist religio-political discourse – promised us the opening of the Muslim mind, the creation of a more open civil space, the protection of pluralism and difference and the promotion of gender equality.

Yet what we have seen thus far falls short (and very short, mind you) of the abovementioned objectives. In Trengganu I walked into the Islam Hadari theme park that seemed more like a vulgar imitation of Disneyland than a concrete affirmation of rationalism and the spirit of enquiry. The famous ‘crystal mosque’ that accounted for the whopping price tag of the whole theme park failed to impress and was certainly a pale mimic of what Islamic aesthetics could achieve. And one wonders how such grand and money-devouring projects would serve the ends of opening up the Muslim mind when all we see are posters and banners celebrating the ego and image of the man said to be the mastermind of the grand logic of Islam Hadari itself, the Prime Minister.

Criticisms like these, however, serve to keep the powers-that-be in check and to remind them of their public commitments to ideas and values that they fail to practice in office. How, pray tell, can you open up the minds of Malaysians when the very same government that preaches Islam Hadari remains as a passive witness to the spate of book-banning and the narrowing of discursive space in the country?

This, however, should not be taken as the license to simply ban Islam Hadari – or any other ideas or interpretations of Islam – outright. For if we were to say that Islam Hadari is wrong in toto simply because the people who thought it up don’t even understand it themselves, then would we not also be rejecting some of the better ideas and values that have been inculcated into the general framework of the project itself? Islam Hadari, on paper at least, calls for the respect of difference and pluralism and the promotion of gender equality between men and women. Are these ideas to be rejected too, simply because they have been brought within the ambit of Islam Hadari? For my part, I am quite happy to see any party or politician, be they of the ruling parties or those in opposition, endorsing pluralism, democracy and gender equality at any time of the day…

Which leads us to the actors and agents behind the prohibition of Islam Hadari in Selangor and Penang. Now according to reports, the calls for the ban on Islam Hadari have come from those who claim to be representatives of the Muslim community and this includes members of political parties, Muslim lobby groups, Muslim NGOs and former Muftis. The justification for the ban, we are told, is that some of these individuals feel that “the teachings of Islam are perfect as they are” and that “there is no need for supplements”. Their calls for the prohibition of Islam Hadari, it would seem, is fuelled by the desire to “return to the true teachings of Islam”. But this immediately leads us to the obvious question: Is defending gender equality, promoting openness and recognising pluralism and difference (both among Muslims and between Muslims and others) not essentially Islamic anyway? How, pray tell, does promoting gender equality amount to ‘supplementing’ or ‘deviating’ from the teachings of Islam?

Despite assurances that this move to prohibit the promotion of Islam Hadari is not political, we find it ludicrous to suggest that the move is void of any political motivation. Islam Hadari itself began as a political project – to politically engineer the opening of Muslim discursive space, though this did not happen – and the reactions to it have been political as well.

Those who claim that any modern revisionist attempt to re-think Islam is deviant or dangerous, and that Islam is perfect as it is, are obviously missing the point: We all know that Islam in its essential, fundamental, literalist form conjoins and promotes equality, freedom and justice. But a cursory overview of the normative religio-cultural and social praxis of Islam in the daily lives of Muslims the world over today will show that the Muslim world is riddled with the problems of sexism, racism, feudalism, communitarianism and sectarianism. The appeal to ‘return to the Quran’ or the fundamentals of the Muslim faith ring hollow when we look around us and see how the politicisation of Islam has served only the agendas of elites who manipulate the sentiments of the majority, who have organised and led pogroms against racial and religious minorities, who have been the first to accuse other Muslims of being ‘kafirs’, ‘munafikin’ and apostates. Why, all this talk of Islam being singular and perfect makes me glance to our neighbours next door in Indonesia where at this very moment the Ahmadiya minority are being labelled as deviants, apostates, enemies of Islam, etc. while the self-proclaimed ‘true Muslims’ are calling for them to be banned, their mosques burned to the ground and their members harassed, attacked and murdered.

So let us not kid ourselves with the worn-out cliché that Islam has not changed over the past fourteen centuries, or that Islam does not require a modernist interpretation that meets the needs and reflects the realities of the modern age. For Islam to remain a meaningful and dynamic belief and value system today, it has to undergo a process of serious, thoughtful, objective and critical interpretation that allows it to reflect the complexity of Muslim social life in the present. This means evolving a contemporary theology and orthodoxy that reflects the strides that have been made in promoting gender and racial equality, the advancement in Muslim thought, the openness of Muslim society today. We don’t need some conservatives telling us to go back to the Golden Age of Islam 1,400 years ago, because frankly I would rather live in Malaysia in the present, thank you.

And if Islam Hadari is to be criticised – and it deserves to be criticised constantly, too – it should be for the reason that those who have tried to promote it have failed to meet the standards they have set for themselves. Cakap tak serupa bikin, as they say. I don’t need some tawdry crystal mosque to impress me about Islam, Prime Minister. Lets see you lift the ban on the Ahmadis and recognise other Muslim groups like the Shias, and maybe my opinion of you might be revised somewhat.

The Pakatan-led state governments, on the other hand, would do well to focus on real issues such as governing this country well; as the previous lot obviously had no idea how to do that. The banning of books, ideas, belief and value-systems and alternative cults and sects should be relegated to the past and the dark ages of the Barisan Nasional government. The March 2008 elections was a vote for a new Malaysia, one where pluralism and diversity would be defended. Lets not let this vote be misunderstood as an endorsement for an Islamic state shaped according to the mould of UMNO, PAS or any sectarian Muslim party or organisation. Banning should be a thing of the past, like the BN; and if Islam Hadari is to be dumped into the dustbin of history, it should be relegated there on account of its contradictions and mis-application by incompetent politicians, and not because some Mullah wanted it so.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 12 June 2008, 2:27 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI on boot camp for delinquent judges – critical test of Abdullah’s political will for judicial reforms

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim have both
poured cold waters
on calls  for an inquiry into the latest allegation levelled by High Court judge, Justice  Datuk Ian Chin against former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

“No need…there will be no end to this. Instead, we will carry out reforms to restore confidence in the judiciary” said Abdullah.

“Another inquiry will not reveal anything more than what we already know. It will be a waste of time and money. Instead, we need to look at ensuring such incidents do not happen again…” said Zaid.

Both cannot be more wrong.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the two decades of judicial darkness, including the boot camp for delinquent judges, is vital and imperative as critical test of the political will of the Abdullah administration to fully restore public confidence in the system of justice in Malaysia.

Although there have been promises of judicial reform after the March 8 political tsunami, it is still an open question whether the Prime Minister has the political will to carry out root-and-branch reforms to fully restore the Malaysian judiciary to its heyday before the past two decades of judicial darkness, when it enjoyed international recognition as a world-class judiciary.

Whether Abdullah has the political will to fully see through judicial reforms will be judged by two factors.

Firstly, whether the Abdullah premiership has the political will to end its denial syndrome about the rot and decay of the judicial system in the past two decades.

Datuk Ian Chin has made very serious allegations of Mahathir’s  interference with judicial independence when he was Prime Minister , viz:

•	Mahathir had gone to a judges conference “to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before”.

•	Mahathir expressed unhappiness over Chin’s decision on a libel suit and an election petition, and expressed the view that people should pay heavily for libel.

•	Mahathir had promoted a judge to the Federal Court because he approved of his suggestion of RM1 million as damages for libel.

•	Chin also said he was sent to a “boot camp” with selected judges and judicial officers in “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending to hold the view that the government’s interest” was “more important than all else when we are considering our judgments”. He accused the then president of the Court of Appeal as the one who made the “devilish notion”.

Zaid had admitted that he was hearing about the “boot camp” for delinquent judges for the first time, adding that it was something that should not have happened.

But why is he hanging back from supporting a full inquiry into the “boot camp” allegation, which until it is fully cleared up, will be an eternal blot and ignominy on both the judiciary and the executive in the annals of Malaysian nation-buiding?

The Prime Minister and de facto Law Minister should realize that the best way to ensure that there is no recurrence of  judicial outrages and scandals like those exposed by Chin is to unearth all the skeletons hidden in the cupboards, nay silos,  during the two decades of judicial darkness and subject them to  the glare of public scrutiny and opprobrium.

Abdullah said he has finally heard the voice of the people after the March 8 “political tsunami”, and if so, he should set up a full Royal Commission of Inquiry into the two decades of judicial darkness because this is what the overwhelming majority of Malaysians want.

I have no doubt that this will be the finding if there is a national opinion poll as to whether there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the two decades of judicial darkness – not so much to demand any pound of flesh from anyone, but to allow the nation to undergo a national  catharsis which will be the best insurance against any recurrence of such prolonged judicial aberrations.

The second test as to whether Abdullah has the political will to be  fully committed to judicial reforms is whether the appointment of the new Chief Justice in a matter of months will be under a regime of full accountability, transparency and integrity regardless of whether any proposed judicial reforms are put in place or not.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 12 June 2008, 12:59 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Unconscionable oil price hikes – Abdullah govt would have fallen if in South Korea

(Speech at the DAP Public  Ceramah/Consultation  held at Dewan Sri Mentaloon, Residen Rasmi Menteri Besar Kedah on Wednesday, 11th June 2008)

The Abdullah government would have fallen because of  the 41% to 63% unconscionable and brutal oil price hikes if he is in South Korea, which saw the new South Korean President’s popularity plunging in less than four months from  a presidential victory with the biggest margin in the nation’s history to a support rate of under 20 per cent and his entire Cabinet offering to resign – after a month of mammoth demonstrations against the planned resumption of US beef imports.

Malaysians are still puzzled as to the reckless and sudden  manner in which the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced the unconscionably brutal petrol and diesel price hikes, after a Cabinet Minister had given the assurance that no oil price increases were on the cards until August.

The failure to announce a holistic package of  mitigation measures to cushion the  most vulnerable sectors from  the sharp impact of the drastic oil price increases until five days later strengthened the impression that the decision was driven more by political than economic considerations.

Was the euphoria from his Sabah visit four days earlier believing that his slew of goodies had  “fixed” up the Sabah problem and stabilized his government which had been fighting speculation that large numbers of Sabah MPs were seriously contemplating abandoning the National Front ship the cause for his recklessness in suddenly deciding to announce the drastic and brutal oil price increases on 4th June?

Abdullah’s euphoria proved to be short-lived, for he had to rush to Sarawak to placate the  Sarawak political leaders from Barisan Nasional, who felt doubly aggrieved from being left out of the largesses given out to Sabah as well as the adverse effects of the new  oil price hikes.

As a result, even the RM2 billion austerity measures announced by the government appeared to be panicky reactions to the widespread and deepseated public anger and outrage at the oil price hikes which seemed to have taken the Prime Minister and his advisers by surprise.

The Minister or adviser who proposed a 10 per cent cut of entertainment allowances of Ministers and Deputy Ministers, for instance, should be sacked, for it had fuelled greater anger and outrage for two reasons – the paltry sum of 10 per cent cut for entertainment allowances and the revelation for the first time that Ministers and Deputy Ministers enjoy such entertainment allowances which even MPs, let alone the ordinary public, are not aware of!

All in all, the impression created is a most unprofessional and  ham-fisted handling of the oil price increase crisis – which is  aggravated by a lack of compassion and care for the vulnerable sectors of the society, as seen not only by the quantum of the  drastic oil price hikes but also by the continuing government mindset which takes waste, extravagance, lack of accountability such as the Petronas billions and financial scandals like RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout  scandal as an acceptable part of the Abdullah administration.

Unless the Cabinet is prepared to sincerely and  actively win over the support and co-operation of the Malaysian people in the fight against inflation, by involving them and their representatives in the anti-inflationary strategy and to eradicate waste, extravagance, corruption, financial scandals and establish high benchmarks of accountability and transparency which also affect Petronas, the government has only itself to blame if it is seen as completely irrelevant to the needs, sufferings and hopes of Malaysians in their daily lives.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 12 June 2008, 4:35 pm and is filed under
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“Boot camp for judges” – Mahathir should speak up

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has declared that he is
prepared to be investigated
over allegations he had interfered with the judiciary when he was prime minister.

He said he was not afraid of being investigated and would give his full assistance to the police.

Malaysians hope that Mahathir  is sincere and truthful in pledging full co-operation in any such  investigation and that he would not do another repeat of the Lingam Videotape Royal Commission of Inquiry where he pleaded a massive  attack of loss of his famous elephant memory!

Mahathir should demonstrate his bona fide in wanting the truth about the two decades of judicial darkness to be told and that he has fully recovered his elephant memory  by giving details about the “boot camp for judges” which were held during his premiership to indoctrinate judges to be servile and subservient to the government-of-the-day.

The “boot camp for judges” were first revealed by High Court judge Justice Datuk Ian Chin when he revealed that a month after the April 1997 judges’ conference where Mahathir expressed unhappiness over Chin’s decision on a libel suit and an election petition and  issued “a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before”, he was “packed off to boot camp with selected judges and judicial officers to be indoctrinated to hold the view that the government’s interest was more important than all else when considering our judgements”.

How many such “boot camps” to indoctrinate judges to be servile and subservient to the government were held during the last decade of Mahathir’s 22-year premiership and who were the judges who aided and abetted in organising such “boot camps”?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 13 June 2008, 3:17 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.