Singapore University of Technology and Design

Global Economic Intersection

Christopher Magee Interview: Impressions of Singapore

by John Lounsbury

21 August 2011

Introduction: Christopher L. Magee, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently concluded an assignment in residence in Singapore.  Prof. Magee has agreed to share interesting aspects of that assignment with Global Economic Intersection readers, by way of an interview by Managing Editor John Lounsbury, which follows.

Question 1: What was the nature of your assignment in Singapore?

Prof. Magee:  The government of Singapore is launching a new university, the Singapore University of Technology and Design (
SUTD
), that is scheduled to take in its first freshman class in April, 2012.   MIT and Zhejiang University (China) are collaborating with Singapore to organize the new university.

Question 2: That sounds exciting.  How many people get the opportunity to do this sort of thing – I mean organize a major university from the ground up?

Prof. Magee:  I do not have any overall statistics but can say that of the approximately 75 faculty from various universities I have talked with, none have had the opportunity before.  So there is some excitement about doing this with many people involved.

Question 3: What are some of the key challenges that the project faced?

Prof. Magee:  The goal of the new SUTD is to establish a world class university center that leads in education for both research and for design.  There are some synergies between the two domains but also some conflicts.  Research-intensive missions and design innovation can pull in opposing directions at times but the fundamental synergy of research and design (or science and engineering) is at the heart of modern technological progress.  Most universities are not as effective at cross-disciplinary work as is desired to ideally support this mission.

Question 4: Are there other challenges for the project?

Prof. Magee:  There are numerous challenges with starting “a world class university” from scratch including attracting outstanding faculty and students.  Moreover, the vision for this modern research university is global.  That means that the technical mission must span cultural differences.  The new university must embrace “western culture,” “eastern culture,” “national cultures,” “global culture”, “cross-disciplinary culture” and “innovation culture.”  The involvement of a leading western university and a leading Chinese university with SUTD is designed to tackle some of these cultural issues head on.  These challenges are also discussed in the paper due out next year.

Question 5: Can you comment on any of the educational process differences you see around the world?

Prof. Magee:  Relative to the U. S. University system, the systems I have seen in Europe and in Asia are much more top-down. Examples of what I mean by top-down include:

•    Faculty in general are seen as unapproachable by students (not true in UK);

•    Senior faculty have real power that junior faculty cannot resist;

•    Leading administrators make binding decisions that the faculty overall cannot resist; and

•    Governmental ministries have much more say as most universities in the rest of the world are government funded (including tuition for students) and this can lead to less flexibility and innovation in the educational sphere.

The advantages to the US of these differences are not uniform but in general the US university system is much more capable of nurturing technological-based innovation which is the fundamental economic driver in the current world.

Relative to K-12, the US is far more varied and dependent upon local funding. The US also has less attention given by voters (and parents) overall to educational issues (this is particularly true relative to Asia).

Question 6: If you were given the opportunity to say in a few words what the U.S. needs to change in its educational system, what would that be?

Prof. Magee:  Relative to the critical K-12 issues faced by the US, I would recommend much more Federal funding to local schools with minimal Federal oversight.  I would like to see individual states encouraged to go far beyond current aspirations as there is no reason for every state to be tied to the same goals.  Some of our states should move to have much more qualified teachers of math and science and not wait for everyone to agree.  It would be nice if some states could move to higher teacher salaries (in exchange for “pure pay for performance”).  I think success in some states would  lead fairly soon to national improvement just as the changes led by New England states in the  early 19th century  spread across the country. I believe this earlier “education revolution” was fundamental to the economic success of the US in the late 19th and 20th centuries. I believe we need another one now to maintain our leadership for the 21st  century.

Relative to Universities, having a competitive system that has a strong private university foundation is a basic US strength. Finding ways of opening up new opportunities so the universities do not get complacent is also important because success (which the US research university system is enjoying) can be a pathway to overconfidence and weakness. Although I do not know much about it, the recent efforts by New York City to attract a new technologically strong University might be a good example that should be followed by other cities and states.  I believe increasing the funding for technologically-relevant research and raising the level of competition to get such funding are both good ideas.

Question 7: This is shifting focus slightly – Do you have any thoughts regarding how the economic benefits of new innovations in technology and design will be distributed around the world in the next 10-20 years?

Prof. Magee:  The economic benefits flowing from technological-based design and innovation have been steadily broadening over the past century.  Although the US has been a major contributor and beneficiary of technological-based innovation, other countries in Europe have long played key roles. In the past decades, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other Asian countries have played an expanding role and there is no reason why larger roles will not be played by the “Asian Giants”- China and India. As long as the US pays sufficient attention to its own educational and enterprise-forming capabilities, it will continue to contribute and benefit greatly from technological-based innovation. However, similar to changes in wealth over time, the US will necessarily have a smaller overall fraction of the innovation economy as time goes by.

Question 8: The impression of many in the US is that the Far East has a great economic dynamic and is just exploding with growth.  Have you seen evidence that would support this?

Prof Magee:  It would be quite difficult to not see the dynamism in places like Singapore and Hangzhou.  Construction cranes alone are hard to miss and the numbers of them are far greater than are present in any western city.   Bustling shopping areas and highway modernization are further clear signs of rapid growth.

Question 9: Shifting focus again – We have been reading a lot of reports about how the U.S. has declined to a very low ranking in the world for wealth distribution.  How does that compare to your observations of poverty as you have traveled?

Prof. Magee:  I have no real evidence of different wealth distributions but will note that Singapore has health care for all their citizens and does so for far less than what the US spends only taking care of 80% of its citizens.

Question 10: We assume you mean the per capita healthcare costs in Singapore are less than the US?  Do you have any observations that might give insight into how “good” (effective) healthcare is in Singapore?

Prof. Magee:  Oh yes, I meant per capita.  A point of reference is that Singapore spends less than 4% of GDP on healthcare, whereas the US is over 16%.  A good blog reference as to how Singapore manages to keep healthcare costs down and results high is available
here
.   Although I only used the system modestly, the services I sampled were clearly of very good quality.  The last time the World Health organization provided a ranking of global healthcare systems was in 2000.  At that time Singapore ranked sixth in the world and the US ranked 37th.  By all accounts Singapore has efficient and effective healthcare.

Question 11: In recent years some unofficial estimates of population of Singapore have been shrinking.  The official estimates have continued to show growth near 2% per annum.  You have remarked about the real estate development visible in Singapore.  Do you have any thoughts on why commercial growth could be continuing at a fast rate when population is growing slowly or possibly even contracting slightly?

Prof. Magee:  I was aware that the birth rate for Singapore based citizens was falling (not as low as Korea) as in almost all developed countries. However, I had not seen overall population figures nor thought about economic growth despite population growth saturation. There could be several reasons. First, Singapore companies are hiring strongly outside of the country.  (
See Hiring Spree in Singapore.
)  Secondly, there are a number of people who are not full-time residents of Singapore who maintain apartments and sometimes even homes in Singapore.  Singapore is a city-state and should be compared to similar political entities, like Hong Kong and Macao.  I have no further insight into the political economy of Singapore, but it seems to be an attractive international city with the advantages of being a financial center, social and politically stable and having very attractive surroundings.

Question 12: You have had a unique opportunity to view a dynamic part of the world.  Do you have any concluding thoughts that would summarize how your personal perspectives have changed as a result of this experience?

Prof. Magee:  I would simply emphasize that people in many parts of the world are fully capable of viable and useful societal innovations. I often hear from others that such innovations are not applicable to the US for reasons such as the comparator country is much smaller, or more homogeneous or different in some other way. What I know from technological innovation is that study of other technological domains catalyzes breakthrough thinking not by direct transplantation but by a more complex and interesting process that the cognitive scientists have labeled “analogical transfer”.  US states, cities and even the country can benefit by close study of Singapore as part of our (needed) next wave of societal innovation. Such study does not obviate the need for our own innovations but can instead enable them.

Conclusion: Thank you Prof. Magee.  We appreciate all that you have shared with Global Economic Intersection readers.  The world is changing faster than ever and “eyes on the ground” reports and opinions are quite valuable.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 27 August 2011, 1:35 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


False news on TV1

Media Statement by Tony Pua, DAP National PublicitySecretary and Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday, 28 August 2011

Rais Yatim must take responsibility for the most despicable piece ofincendiary false news reporting on national TV and ensure that thoseresponsible for it are sacked immediately.

TV1 last nite reported in its 8pm prime-time newson the existence of “Murtads in Malaysia & Singapore” Facebookgroup.  What is most despicable andsickening is TV1 highlighting the alleged association of DAP leaders such asTan Kok Wai, Charles Santiago, Dr Boo Cheng Hau, Ean Yong Hian Wah with theGroup.  TV1 even placed the spotlight onthe chairman of Parti Socialis Malaysia (PSM) and ADUN for Kota Damansara DrNasir Hashim insinuating the betrayal of his own faith.

The “news” report is obviously calculated toinflame sentiments and anger among Malays and Muslims in the country,especially towards Pakatan Rakyat whose leaders’ names were “found” to be part of the group.

The problem is those responsible in TV1 obviouslydid not bother to find the truth to the story but went ahead to make the baselessinsinuations above.  TV1 either were tooignorant to know, or did not want to know the fact that the “add to group”function in Facebook is such that you cannot prevent a group administrator fromadding you to any group.  There is norequirement to secure one’s permission or approval for adding a Facebook memberto a Group.

Therefore all of the accused “supporters” of theFacebook page did not intend to, or never knew they had “joined” the Group.  TV1 was completely unethical in its reportingby not first verifying the above information with the relevant people who were “implicated”by the Facebook page, especially since they were Pakatan Rakyat leaders whowere easily accessible.

Hence instead of making a news report to cite theexistence of the “Murtads in Malaysia & Singapore” Facebook page andcriticising the administrators for wantonly adding Pakatan Rakyat leaders tothe page and to cause anger among the people, TV1 chose to emphasize thesupposed support shown by these leaders to the page.  TV1 must be charged for making anddisseminating false news to incite hatred among ordinary Malaysians.

The false TV1 news report follows closely anotherfake news aired by TV3 on 21 August which claimed the proselytization by atuition centre in Old Klang Road after complaints by a non-existent “SurauAl-Musyrikin”.

It is absolutely clear that the above incendiaryand seditious false news reports by the Government-owned and UMNO-associatedmedia organisations are part of a systematic and orchestrated campaign todivide the people and retain power for Barisan Nasional in the next generalelections.  The desperation of the Najibadministration is so deep that “to win at all cost”, BN is willing to not onlyspread false news, but also to use the highly-charged religious sentiments totear the country apart.

We condemn the actions of the TV stations in the strongestpossible terms and demand that the Minister of Information, Communications andCulture Dato’ Seri Dr Rais Yatim apologise on behalf of the TV stations formaking false and seditious news reports. Dr Rais must also conduct an immediate investigation into the completelylack of professionalism in both TV1 and TV3 and insist that the responsibleparties are removed from the posts.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 28 August 2011, 9:51 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Media
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Air Asia MAS tie-up – ordinary Malaysian consumers will be the losers?

By
Teh Chi-Chang |

REFSA

Ordinary Malaysians must view the MAS-Air Asia Collaboration announced on 9 August with dismay. When previously fierce competitors such as MAS and Air Asia  choose to collaborate instead, consumers tend to be the losers. This arrangement, called the MAS-Air Asia Comprehensive Collaboration Framework might be more appropriately named the MAS-Air Asia Comprehensive Collaboration Framework Against the Rakyat:

REFSA believes at least some of the synergies and savings to be reaped by MAS-Air Asia will be paid for by Malaysians in the form of higher ticket prices, less frequent flights, poorer service levels and reduced job prospects.

The advent of Air Asia and the breaking of MAS’ dominance of Malaysian air travel gave millions of Malaysians the opportunity to fly. The competition introduced by Air Asia resulted in in more connectivity, choice and jobs for Malaysians.

As the airlines competed, Malaysians got the opportunity to fly to more destinations, more frequently and at cheaper prices. In the process, MAS itself introduced yet another new airline – community carrier Firefly, whose turbo-prop planes opened up yet more destinations and more choice at reasonable prices.

It is not just consumers who benefited. Working Malaysians also benefited. Those in the airline industry – whether flight crew, or cabin crew or ground services and other support personnel – now had a choice of employers. And the millions of new passengers flying around also contributed to economic growth across the country as they consumed other goods and services during their travels.

The MAS – Air Asia collaboration will end much of this. What is good business sense for collaborating airlines is bad for the consumer:

1. For a start, low-cost community carrier Firefly is already pigeon-holed and pushed up the cost curve away from Air Asia. From being able to freely compete in whatever way it deemed fit, it is now slated to be a “full-service regional airline”;

2. Flight frequencies will likely be reduced. For example:

 •Let’s say Air Asia and MAS both have Kuala Lumpur – Kuching flights; one at 11.00am and the other at 12 noon;

 •Each airline on average fills 65% of the plane;

 •When Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines were competing, both would run flights to fight for market share;

 •Now that they are collaborating, it makes good business sense to just run one flight which will be over-booked all the time;

 •All good business sense, but bad for the consumer who now has less choice;

3. Air fares will also likely go up. Where previously both airlines would compete to offer the lowest possible fare, they can now collaborate to raise prices. And they can also help push up prices by reducing frequencies, as mentioned in point 2 above;

4. Airline employees will now have fewer job options, and likely smaller pay hikes. Air Asia, MAS and Firefly competing for talent must have surely been good for employees. Collaboration between them would mean fewer options for employees.

It is ironic that such a potentially rakyat-unfriendly deal is proposed and facilitated by GLCs – government-linked companies. Khazanah Nasional, party to the share swap exercise, is steward of our national resources. CIMB, which is the principal adviser, is nearly half-owned by government agencies (Khazanah 29%; EPF 13%, KWAP 3%, PNB, Valuecap and others 2%).

It might appear that the implications to the rakyat were not completely thought through as the government strived to save MAS, our national carrier.

Surely it cannot be the intention of the government to boost MAS’ profit at the expense of ordinary Malaysians? However, that will almost certainly be the case now that a previously fierce competitor in the form of Tan Sri Tony Fernandez is brought into the fold to ‘collaborate’.

Tan Sri Tony is no doubt a proven entrepreneur in the airline industry. But we suggest that the needs of Malaysians and MAS would be better served if Air Asia and Firefly remained as competitors, and another suitable candidate be hired from the global aviation industry to turn around MAS.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 29 August 2011, 10:14 am and is filed under
Corporate
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Islamic Financial Intermediaries

by
Bakri Musa

Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #80

Reform in Islam

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Trade had been flourishing for centuries in Arabia, immediately before and after the prophet’s time.  All that buying and selling, together with the caravan expeditions, could not have taken place without there being a satisfactory financing mechanism.  There must had been a system for connecting the owners of money (savers) and the users of cash (investors and traders).  Yet despite that flourishing head start and seemingly workable system, Islamic finance later went into decline.  It is instructive that the decline in Islamic economics parallels the decline in Islamic civilization.

            Today Western financial institutions are preeminent.  Western banks and other financial intermediaries did not develop overnight. They have been refined, modified, and strengthened over the centuries. The process continues to this day.  Today’s banks are a far cry from what they were a century earlier.  The essential ingredient to the success of banks is the faith people have in them.  Absent that, not even the strongest institution could survive.  All the regulations and innovations in banking serve only one purpose:  to strengthen that faith and confidence.

            Bank failures and runs on banks were common in America during the depression.  Those events are thankfully rare today, in part due to the diligence of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the regulatory agencies of the federal government, together with strengthened prudential rules on reserves, heightened fiduciary responsibilities, and improved auditing. These refinements have been incremental, each in response to specific problems and crises.  Banks still fail today, but thanks to the FDIC, depositors (at least the retail consumers) simply transfer their accounts to another bank without any hitch.  The system is by no means perfect, as was painfully demonstrated by the massive Savings and Loans scandal of the 1980s.

             The spectacular economic achievements of modern societies are attributable to the efficacy and efficiency of their financial intermediaries. Countries that have efficient and stable financial systems advance; those that don’t, decline, as demonstrated by Thailand, Indonesia, and a host of Third World nations.  To many thoughtful analysts, the Asian economic crisis of 1977 was in essence a crisis of the banking system.

            Within the last few decades, Islamic-based financial institutions are trying a comeback.  As with everything Islamic, the concept sells with Muslims.  America now has mutual funds and mortgage companies run along Islamic principles.  Even venerable Western banks like Citibank are entering the fray.  Academic papers and conferences proliferate. Harvard’ Institute  of Islamic Finance and Information Program (HIFIP), with intellectual contributions from its renowned business and law schools, has been organizing annual conferences for the last few years that brought in luminaries from all over.

            Much has been said of Islamic banking in which supposedly no interest is charged.  This is purely semantics.  Sure these banks do not charge interest in the usual sense; instead they tack on “service” fees and points.  In the final analysis there is still a cost for the loan.  I can give someone a 0% percent loan but charge exorbitant points, commissions, or fees to recoup the cost (interest) of my capital.  The end result is the same; the borrower pays a price and the lender gets a reward.

            There are American finance companies that cater specifically to Muslim homebuyers who are squeamish about mortgage interest payments. To obviate this, the prospective homeowner goes into partnership with the company to buy the house.  The homeowner pays 20 percent of the price and the company the other 80, as in a traditional mortgage. But instead of paying the mortgage as in a traditional loan, the homeowner pays a market rent to the company for use of the house, with 80 percent of the rent payment going to the company and 20 percent credited to the homeowner.  Every few years the house is reappraised and when the total payments cover the cost of the house based on the latest appraisal, the house would then be transferred exclusively to the owner.

            If the rental market declines, the homeowner will pay less every month, which would be to his or her advantage.  But if the market appreciates, as it typically does, so will his rent, and he will end up paying more cumulatively.  Not only that, the company gets to reap the bulk of the benefit (80percent) of the gains on the house’s price appreciation.  So the consumer gets bilked twice, once in his higher monthly rent and second, in not getting the full benefit of the price appreciation.  This is also an inherently a bad system as it creates a perverse economic incentive for the homeowner not to keep up or improve the house so its value would drop, and his payments would similarly fall.  That is no way to run a modern economy! In addition, there are all those costs of the appraisals that are being borne by the homeowner.

            In reality what these companies are doing is nothing than more an equity-sharing scheme.  This has not caught on in America precisely because of the perverse economic incentive.  A more popular variation of equity sharing is where the homeowner goes into partnership with a friend or family member to pay for the down payment and then together they would secure a traditional mortgage.  When it is time to resell the house, the profit would be shared based on their contributions towards the down payment.  With this scheme, there is still the issue of interest payments on the mortgage.

            With a traditional mortgage in America, if the borrower is unable to keep up with the payments, he could sell the house and whatever is left after he paid off the loan balance is his to keep.  But if the value of the house were less than the amount owed (as had happened in declining markets), and the bank forecloses on the home, the borrower would not be saddled with the outstanding balance.  This is because all home mortgages have a “non recourse” clause.  The borrower would lose only what he has paid into the house (his equity).  So if the concern of the Islamic groups that borrowers would be saddled with debt payments forever, than there could be a similar “non recourse” clause in selected loans like study loans and loans for one’s primary residence.

            Similarly if the borrower is unable to repay the loan because of a legitimate reason like illness or death, the loan contract could be designed to cover such eventualities.  Many loans now have mandatory disability and life insurance policies attached to them to cover such calamities.  But insurance too is anathema to traditionalist Muslims, but I will come to that shortly.

            I have a traditional home mortgage and I am quite comfortable with paying the interest on it.  I rationalize the interest I am paying as being the rent for the house, and the principal as the payment towards the house.  Technically this is correct as the bank has priority over me to the title of my house.

             Most of the activities carried by Islamic “banks” are really not the proper purview of traditional banks.  Thus leasing (Ijaara), another common service provided by Islamic banks, is done in America by finance companies or directly by the dealers and manufacturers. Islamic bankers also make a big deal on the supposed difference between leasing, which is halal because there is no interest, and traditional loans and mortgages, which are haram because of riba.  But this is a meaningless difference.  I could easily convert my mortgage into a long-term lease with the same terms, and at the end of the “lease” (mortgage) I would have an option to buy my property at an agreed upon nominal price.  One could just as easily calculate the imputed interest rate on all leasing arrangements.  Similarly, the profit sharing and “equity participation” lending that Islamic banks partake are properly the function of mutual funds and venture capital firms rather than banks.

            By using the familiar term “bank” to describe activities that are properly the purview of other non-bank institutions, proponents of Islamic banking are misleading consumers.  All these deferred sales, service charges, and lease payments are nothing but euphemisms for the cost of borrowed funds, more commonly referred to as interest.  As Islamic banks do not function like a traditional bank, they should not use the label “bank.”  Instead they should use the more generic term, Islamic Financial Institutions (IFI), so as not to mislead the public.  I would not however, recommend the acronym “iffy!”

Next: Islamic Financial Intermediaries (Cont’d)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 29 August 2011, 9:56 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Revised law rewards judiciary’s top three, works other judges longer

By Debra Chong

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 29, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 29 — Unlike his predecessors, Tun Zaki Azmi will retire on a full pension when he clocks out for the last time from the Palace of Justice on September 12 despite serving less than three years as Chief Justice, thanks to a recent revision of a remuneration law for the country’s judges.

It used to be a minimum of 15 years for judges from the High Court upwards to get their full pensions but few in the courts appear aware of the revisions to the Judges’ Remuneration Act (JRA) 1971, passed in Parliament two months ago, that gave senior judges a shorter time to get pensions while junior judges now have to spend 18 years to get their full pension.

“The whole thing is purposely catered to Zaki,” DAP federal lawmaker Lim Kit Siang told The Malaysian Insider when contacted.

The Ipoh Timur MP said the proposal had been debated in the Dewan Rakyat in June but that the costing was not known then.

The new law is effectively immediately.

The few lawyers who know the amended law, also known as Act 45, have attacked it as being tailored to reward the outgoing CJ. They added that the changes are discriminatory to judges.

The most significant change involves enabling those holding the judiciary’s top three posts, namely that of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of Malaya or Sabah and Sarawak, to be rewarded with a full pension.

A new provision rewarding the country’s top three judges was created under section 9 of the JRA, which reads: “Notwithstanding anything in this Act but subject to section 8, a person holding the office of Chief Justice, President or Chief Judge shall be entitled to maximum pension if he has held either office or all the offices for a period in the aggregate of not less than three years.”

For Zaki, the son of a former Lord President of the Federal Court, Tun Mohamed Azmi Mohamed, this amendment to the law is most opportune.

The former Umno lawyer was directly appointed into the judiciary as a Federal Court judge on September 5, 2007 and fast-tracked to the post of Court of Appeal President on December 11 that same year.

Ragunath said there should be no distinction between judges.

Less than a year later, on October 8, 2008 Zaki was elevated to the judiciary’s topmost post as Chief Justice — setting a record for the fastest-rising judge in the country.

Under the new law, full pension now amounts to three-fifths of the top-ranking judge’s last drawn salary, revised upwards from half the amount.

Lim said the opposition pact had raised questions over the motive for the amendment, if it was to benefit “only Zaki”.

However, the veteran politician was silent when asked if there were objections to the second significant amendment, to extend the number of years of service for the other judges from 15 to 18 in order for them to qualify for full pension.

Former Bar Council chief Ragunath Kesavan said the amendment to section 5 of the JRA was even more unfair, contrasted against the acceleration of the judiciary’s top three while other judges saw their years in service added on to qualify for full pension.

“That is obviously unfair to the judges. If you’re a judge, you’re a judge. There should not be a distinction made between them,” he said, adding that few of those currently on the Bench were aware of this piece of news.

The lawyer said that 99 per cent of judges were promoted from the pool of government lawyers in the Attorney-General’s Chambers and spent an average two years as judicial commissioners (JCs) or probation judges before being confirmed.

The other one per cent were experienced lawyers from private practice. None of them had a choice in how long he could serve as a judge as the retirement age is set at 66, Ragunath said.

Veteran lawyer Sankara Nair echoed the Bar chief’s view, noting further that the discriminatory amendments appear to be in conflict with the Federal Constitution, the highest law in the country.

Article 147 of the Constitution, which provides for the protection of pension rights states that: “The law applicable to any pension, gratuity or other like allowance granted to a member of any of the public services, or to his widow, children, dependent or personal representatives, shall be that in force on the relevant day or any later law not less favourable to the person to whom the award is made.”

Sankara feels the government is trying to cut costs with the pension move.

Both Ragunath and Sankara explained that it meant a person who was currently a judge or a JC would be subject to these changes to the JRA, now in effect, despite it not being the terms of their deal when they accepted their appointment.

“This is when the Bar Council must come out and take a stand. The Bar Council must ask for a review. Even the judges must be protected,” Sankara said.

He said the judges have been “emasculated” by the amended law because they are unable to even hear the case if it was challenged in court because of the limits of their job.

Malaysian Bar president Lim Chee Wee has yet to respond to The Malaysian Insider when contacted last week for comment.

“I think the government is trying to cut costs,” Sankara replied to The Malaysian Insider when asked his view of the motive for such amendments.

“The cost of the judiciary is rising because the number of High Court judges has increased,” he said.

Records show that the federal government will incur extra spending of about RM1.854 million a year due to the increase in the number of judges, including those in the newly-formed special anti-corruption courts.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 29 August 2011, 9:55 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Salam Aidilfitri & Selamat Hari Merdeka-54

Maaf Zahir Batin & Happy Merdeka Day!

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri, Maaf Zahir dan Batin to all Muslims in Malaysia.

The coinciding of Hari Raya Aidilfitri, the 54th National Day and the 48th Malaysia Day should be a special triple occasion of joy and celebrations for all Malaysians.

It must be a matter of concern to all Malaysians, however, that this is not the case with the recent irresponsible and incessant ramping-up and incitement of race and religious hatred and tensions through baseless and incendiary allegations by certain media.

A call must urgently go out to all Muslim and non-Muslim Malaysians to dedicate themselves to promote the values of justice, freedom, love and compassion on the triple occasion of Hari Raya Aidilfitri, 54th National Day and 48th Malaysia Day – values which are common to all the great religions which have found a home in the country.

Whether we are Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans or Orang Asli, whether Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Taoists or Sikhs, let us unite as one Malaysian people first and last to give real meaning to the triple occasion of Hari Raya Aidilfitri, the 54th National Day and 48th Malaysia Day.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 29 August 2011, 2:56 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih says vindicated by new poll

By
Debra Chong

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 30, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 30 — Bersih 2.0 has said it had expected the overwhelming two-thirds support for free and fair elections published by a local research house yesterday, adding it was inspired to ramp up its campaign to educate Malaysians nationwide on polls ahead of the 13th general election.

The electoral watchdog’s chief Datuk Seri Ambiga Sreenevasan said she had expected the overwhelming support from Malaysians polled by the Merdeka Center and published yesterday.

“That accords with our stand and the reason for that is because our demands are so wholly reasonable,” she told The Malaysian Insider.

But the lawyer disputed the pollster’s analysis that “Malays were also the only group where more agreed with the way the Najib administration handled Bersih than not, with 53 per cent saying they were satisfied with how the government reacted to the rally”.

Ambiga’s fellow Bersih 2.0 steering committee member, Maria Chin Abdullah, however, seemed to sport a different view when she said the Merdeka Center poll finding was a “fair observation of Malaysians’ view of electoral reform”.

“We definitely need to do more work to reach out to those out of town and in the rural areas, not just to Malays. It’s an indication for Bersih. We don’t think our demands have reached out to every city in Malaysia, for example, Sabah and Sarawak,” Chin said.

The head of Empower, a non-government linked group to Bersih 2.0, said the committee will also unroll a new programme to attract more support after the week-long Hari Raya-National Day twin festivities.

Chin also told The Malaysian Insider it had drawn up its strategies to promote its eight demands to free up the electoral process but will only announce them later.

She however, was overjoyed at the positive response from ordinary Malaysians towards the 62-member coalition, which the Home Ministry had outlawed last month.

“We need people from every state,” she said.

Thousands of Bersih supporters flooded the streets of the capital on July 9 to demand for free and fair elections after talks between the election watchdog and the government broke down.

This was despite an unprecedented intervention by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who called on both sides to reach an amicable solution for the sake of national stability.

Bersih has demanded that Putrajaya execute eight electoral reforms before the next general election, expected to be called soon.

The survey by the Merdeka Center of 1,027 randomly selected registered voters aged 21 and above was carried out between August 11 and 27.

Over two-thirds of Malaysians agree with the demands mooted by Bersih 2.0 while close to half disagreed with the way Putrajaya handled the July 9rally and the events leading up to it, the latest Merdeka Center poll results showed.

Seventy per cent agreed that foreign observers should be allowed to monitor elections while 68 per cent felt opposition parties should be given access to government-owned television and radio stations for at least one hour a day.

Support for foreign observers and greater opposition access to media were strongest among the Chinese (74 per cent and 84 per cent, respectively) while Indians were most likely to agree to the use of indelible ink (83 per cent).

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 30 August 2011, 10:18 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


50+4 Malaysia: Malaysia, I Still Love You..

by
QuaChee

(As per my previous years, I’m continuing my writings for beloved Malaysia this 2011.. in conjunction with her 54th birthday.)

Dear Malaysia

You seem so cool when I was younger

You seem near perfect when from abroad

But now that we are together

The imperfections are clear

Racism

The antics of politicians

Rising cost of living

The 3 main things preventing from making you wholesome

Plus a few more..

All these easily blind me

From the beauty that you have inside

It takes more (effort)

To find those beauty now

Something that I keep reminding myself

To not forget

Cos I want to still love you

Like the way I admired you when young

Or when I look at you fondly when abroad

And the moments when we were reunited

So despite all these imperfections you have

I am choosing to see the other side of you

I still believe in you

And that you still boleh

But just remember

Don’t take too long to change those imperfections

But do it while the longing heart is still here with you

For Malaysia, I Still Love You

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 September 2011, 9:55 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Humane decision as Malaysian plan springs a leak

David Marr

The Sydney Morning Herald

September 1, 2011

Opinion

‘A devastating blow for the government’

It’s about fairness. For a long time the High Court has ticked off on the remarkable difficulties Australia puts in the way of asylum seekers who come here by boat. Even mandatory detention for life has been given the nod by the court. But lately the judges have ruled boat people must at least be dealt with fairly while they are caught up in the system.

Yesterday’s emphatic six to one decision extended that principle to those men, women and children Australia had wanted to send away to Malaysia. The court could find no guarantee they would be dealt with fairly once they arrived there. So the minister Chris Bowen’s choice of Malaysia as a safe haven was declared invalid.

It was not enough, said the Chief Justice Robert French, for the minister to have a “hope or belief or expectation” that the asylum seekers would be dealt with properly by Malaysia. They needed laws to protect them now and in the years ahead. “It is an agreed fact,” French observed, “that Malaysia does not recognise the status of refugees in domestic law”.

The court was not plucking these human rights obligations out of the air. When the ”Pacific solution” was hurriedly set up in 2001, strict criteria were laid down in the Migration Act to identify the kinds of countries we might export asylum seekers to. These safe havens had to allow refugee assessment and meet “relevant human rights standards” in protecting asylum seekers before and after that assessment process.

Bowen brought to the court the arrangement he signed with Malaysia, the Malaysia order exempting the 800 we planned to send there from the harsh provisions of local laws – fines, whippings and imprisonment – and his own sense that “the Malaysian government had made a significant conceptual shift in its thinking about how it wanted to treat refugees and asylum seekers”.

Six of the judges declared this was not enough. Justices William Gummow, Ken Hayne, Susan Crennan and Virginia Bell said in their joint judgment that access to the protections demanded by law must be provided by Malaysia “as a matter of legal obligation”.

Bowen brought to court Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice on the harsh reality in Malaysia for the 100,000 or so asylum seekers – mainly Burmese – already living there. The minister claimed the advice backed his declaration of Malaysia as a safe haven. But six of the judges declared, on the contrary, that the advice demonstrated Malaysia could not meet the requirements of Australian law.

Justice Dyson Heydon was the government’s only friend in court. All Malaysia had to provide, he said, was “practical access, practical protections, and a meeting of standards in practice”. He cautioned that Australia’s dealings with Malaysia “are within the province of the Executive. Intrusion by the courts into those dealings may be very damaging to international comity and good relations”.

Perhaps the best ammunition the plaintiffs had were the reiterated claims by governments through the years that every tough action taken against boat people was an expression – not a repudiation – of Australia’s obligations under the refugee conventions. The court took the politicians at their word and reached yesterday’s humane conclusion.

Nauru and Manus may survive under their ruling – with strict legal safeguards in place – but if Canberra wants to try once again to set up machinery as vindictive as the Malaysian plan, it’s going to have to come clean and admit, for the first time, that we are backing away from our international obligations. Admit that fact and almost any law is possible.

Or Canberra will now abandon these schemes to send our problems away and do what other countries do and the recent Nielsen poll showed most Australians want: simply assess these people here.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 September 2011, 11:53 am and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Merdeka! Are we truly free?

Jeswan Kaur

Free Malaysia Today

August 31, 2011

Corruption, nepotism, cronyism and the abuse of the judiciary and legislation have marred the significance of Aug 31.

COMMENT

Aug 31 is a day of reflection, of taking cognisance of the fact that the country’s independence or Merdeka can no longer be taken for granted, that too by the “keepers” of this nation.

Regrettably, it is the “powers that be” that have marred the meaning of Merdeka. Corruption, nepotism, cronyism and the abuse of the judiciary and legislation have marred the significance of Merdeka, especially for the younger generation.

Instead of imparting profound meaning to Malaysians, Aug 31 had been reduced from the sublime to the ridiculous by the power-hungry and “self-first” politicians-leaders of this country.

The fact is Malaysia is “independent” but only in name, not in act. The existence of draconian laws that are continuously abused by the “powers that be” to safeguard its position have turned the understanding of Merdeka into a laughing stock.

To worsen matters, politicians never tire of playing the racial card, not the least bothered that they have relegated the nation’s Merdeka, the respect all but diminished. As for patriotism, it had become very much a case of “to each their own”.

Had the country’s Merdeka been given due respect, the rights and sentiments of its people of all races would have been equally respected. We would not have had the incident where former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad cautioned the non-Malays to “behave” themselves if they were to continue living in this country. For Malaysia, he said, belongs to the Malays, simply because at one time this nation was called Tanah Melayu (the Malay land).

If Merdeka held any meaning to the country’s leadership, there would have been no such case where the present deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin unabashedly proclaimed that he is a “Malay first and Malaysian second”.

Misusing the keris

Had the meaning of Merdeka been understood by Umno, the country’s dominant party championing Malay rights, its key players would not have misused the keris or Malay dagger by swaying it at the party’s general assemblies to remind the non-Malays to back off from questioning Malay rights.

Under Article 153 of the country’s Federal Constitution, the Malay rights are guaranteed, thereby creating a deadlock as far as debating these privileges is concerned.

Indeed, if Merdeka truly holds meaning, the Aug 28, 2009 episode would not have happened – where a cow head that had been severed was stepped on by a group of angry Malays who could not tolerate and accept the fact that a Hindu temple would soon be built in their neighbourhood of Section 23 in Shah Alam. Merdeka, really?

What was unbelievable was that such an act of desecration went on to receive the support of the Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein. Did he not know that the cow is considered a sacred animal to Hindus? Merdeka, are we?

Yes, the painful truth is that Merdeka is no longer synonymous with freedom or liberty, more recently depicted by the July 9, 2011 “Walk for Democracy” rally calling for free and fair elections.

The police brutality vis-à-vis tear gas and water canons and beatings would always serve to remind Malaysians that they, albeit living in an independent and democratic nation, have no avenue to voice out their unhappiness with the government.

The Barisan Nasional-government which had been ruling the country since 1957 is no longer taking any chances, not after the political debacle it faced three years ago, when it lost five states to the opposition in the 12th general election.

The BN-agenda now is to, by hook or crook, silent all dissenting voices and impress a rosy picture of the country, the aim being to give BN the chance to enjoy the two-third majority that was denied in 2008.

Merdeka –but from whom?

The federal government’s refusal to do away with draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act 1960, the Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) 1969 and the prohibitive Official Secrets Act 1972 and Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 all confirm that Merdeka had long been manipulated by the BN-government and Umno, both of whom are led by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

The June 26, 2011 arrest of 30 activists from Parti Sosialis Malaysia under trumped up claims of waging war against the country’s monarch and spreading subversive beliefs is another proof that truth has no place in the heart of the country’s leadership.

To summon the police to “finish off” certain people because of the “danger” they pose had put the police force in a shameful position. Deaths in police cells have become the norm more than an exception. The Najib-led government’s refusal to acknowledge the importance of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) in helping reform the police force signals that all is definitely not well where Malaysia’s democracy and Merdeka are concerned.

Tampering with the country’s judiciary to stifle the truth, as seen from the “suicide verdict” announced in the case of the DAP-aide Teoh Beng Hock and detainee A Kugan who ended up dead while in police custody give the rakyat much reason to question the validity of Aug 31.

When long-serving estate workers as in the case of the Bukit Jalil estate residents are made homeless by City Hall under the pretext of development, can they be blamed for questioning if Merdeka truly exists for Malaysians?

Unity vital for Merdeka

Does unity i.e. camaraderie between the rakyat exist? If the non-Malays are incessantly chastised and threatened, as done by the extremist Malay-rights group Perkasa and the Umno-owned Malay daily, Utusan Malaysia and coupled with the poor example shown by the country’s leaders, the answer at best is ambiguous.

Name-calling and threats are not going to sustain the Merdeka spirit for long. For a nation as young as Malaysia, there is much to learn in preserving the independence it had achieved from its British masters.

But it seems that the country’s politicians, this includes Najib, the ever-racist Hishammuddin, Perkasa founder Ibrahim Ali and the Umno honchos are far too foolishly arrogant to want to learn from the annals of history on what it takes to promote unity and sustain the independence gained.

Malaysians like Perkasa’s Ibrahim through his racial discrepancies has tainted the whole struggle towards Aug 31, when the nation finally achieved independence back in 1957.

The likes of Ibrahim believe their onslaught of threats would blench the non-Malays into subservience towards the dominant race, often times promising bloodshed should the non-Malays dare question Article 153 of the Constitution.

The damage, however, had long been done. In 2009, churches were attacked with petrol bombs after a court lifted a government ban on the use of “Allah” as a translation for “God” in Malay-language bibles.

The ban had been in place for years but enforcement only began in 2008 out of fear the word could encourage Muslims to convert.

Najib decided meeting Pope Benedict XVI in July this year to facilitate relations with the Vatican would somehow placate the Christians back home. But once again, Najib failed to walk his talk, unwilling to control the reigns of the overzealous respective state religious departments.

Using faith to rebuke and condemn as well as the repeated threats to persecute the non-Malays is a recipe for disaster.

The most recent case of “attack” by the Selangor Religious Department (JAIS) which on Aug 3 raided the Damansara Utama Methodist Church under the claim that it was investigating complaints of apostasy among the Muslims who attended a farewell dinner there have placed unity between the people in a very precarious position.

Just five days before the nation’s 54th “birthday”, a death threat made its way to non-governmental organisation Harapan Komuniti, organiser of the thanksgiving dinner held at DUMC.

FMT reported on Aug 27 that the threat, in the form of a handwritten note, was written in Malay and contained a warning to Christians that Muslims would not “lose”. Fearing for the lives of those under its care especially children, Harapan Komuniti had no choice but to “relocate” its outreach centre for single mothers and people living with HIV/AIDS as well as its tuition centre for needy children.

Umno marred Aug 31′s significance

The government is upset that Malaysians are not patriotic enough, looking at the pathetic display of the Jalur Gemilang, the name given to the Malaysian flag, be it at homes, offices or restaurants.

But had the BN government bothered to figure out what is dissuading the rakyat from flying their national flag come Aug 31?

For one, looking at the threats to racial unity and the political agenda of BN and Umno, there is no reason to be convinced that Merdeka is very much alive and kicking in Malaysia.

The BN government has to work very hard to bring back the people’s profound feeling for Aug 31 and not dismiss it as yet another public holiday.

It appears that the blemish and nightmare left behind by the May 13, 1969 racial riot is lost on Umno in particular and BN in general. Democracy had been taken for granted by Najib and his cronies, when abusive laws despite having overstayed their welcome, are used as a weapon to threaten the rakyat, forcing them to crouch under fear.

Malaysians are fed up with the BN- government’s bullying tactics. The 2008 general election verdict was the rakyat’s way of saying they had had enough. But a stubborn BN refused to listen and learn.

Once again Malaysians’ showed their displeasure with the dirty tactics of the BN-leadership, this time when they supported election watchdog Bersih 2.0.

But did the Najib-administration listen? Unfortunately, not and it went on to make the mistake of manhandling the participants. And then Najib is puzzled as to why Malaysians are indifferent to the Jalur Gemilang.

The answer is obvious, is it not? But still, here is wishing the rakyat Selamat Merdeka!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 September 2011, 10:57 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Bersih
,
Corruption
,
nation building
,
Teoh Beng Hock
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MRT project: Chinatown traders slam SPAD for broken promise

By
Yow Hong Chieh

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 01, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 1 — Jalan Sultan traders, who risk losing property to the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit (KVMRT), have slammed the public transport regulator for going back on its promise to leave their buildings intact.

Spokesman Judy Tan said the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) should not have reneged on its promise to allow landowners to return to their buildings once construction of the planned station and tunnel under Jalan Sultan is finished.

“From what I understand, SPAD has no right to imply that the affected owners in Chinatown will stand to lose their properties,” she told The Malaysian Insider via e-mail.

“This should be said directly to our Jalan Petaling/Jalan Sultan committee at the recent closed-door dialogue with SPAD and not 24 hours later at another unrelated event.”

SPAD had reportedly told traders, whose land would be acquired, they could hold on to their property at a closed-door meeting on August 23 brokered by MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

The commission had earlier insisted it would have to demolish buildings within the corridor of the station and tunnel prior to construction to ensure public safety given their age and uncertain soil conditions.

“The government will proceed with acquisition but also strengthen the buildings that are affected for safety of the household,” Dr Chua had told reporters after the meeting, calling it a win-win situation.

But SPAD chief executive Mohd Nur Ismail Kamal told The Malaysian Insider the next day there was “no guarantee” the 31 Jalan Sultan landowners affected by the acquisition there will be able to return to their property, while stressing that the regulator was still working on a solution.

Tan further warned in her e-mail that if acquisition and demolition were carried out in the historic Chinatown enclave as originally planned, “no Malaysian is safe”.

“We are just one of the unfortunate ones. If this acquisition goes through, no Malaysian is safe. If the government can destroy 100-plus years of heritage and history, what would stop them from acquiring more?” she asked.

She also criticised the government for its haphazard planning, pointing out that the Jalan Sultan traders had only been informed of the land acquisition some two weeks ago.

“Coincidentally, both victims in Chinatown and [Bukit Bintang] also experienced short notices from the authorities. Where are we going to go in such a short time?” she lamented.

“Even to relocate our business takes time, not to mention we have mouths to feed. Is there any truth to our PM’s slogan ‘rakyat didahulukan’?”

Outgoing KVMRT project owner Syarikat Prasarana Negara Bhd (SPNB) said last Monday that 20 lots in Bukit Bintang, the capital’s main shopping district, will be acquired to make way for tunnelling work and an underground station.

Disgruntled owners have accused the government of robbing their prime land in the Golden Triangle.

SPNB project development director Zulkifli Mohd Yusoff, however, has said that the government could not develop the land without acquiring it first due to safety concerns over the tunnel.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 September 2011, 10:11 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Quo Vadis Malaysia

Never in recent decades had Merdeka Day on August 31 been marked  with a greater sense of angst and disquiet by Malaysians than yesterday because of incessant disunifying developments not only over the past several months but also the past few days.

Malaysians flew the national flag yesterday but most of them have a common disquieting question – Quo Vadis Malaysia?

The third National Day of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should have been celebrated as a high-water point of his administration, coinciding with Hari Raya Aidilfitri festivities, but this was  not the case.

In actual fact, many of National Day messages intended to inspire greater national unity and to exhort moderation and tolerance among Malaysians fell flat, failing not only to inspire the people but merely achieved the opposite of evoking alienation and disaffection because they were so empty and hollow, shouting out the loud contrast between word and deed of those in power.

Calls for greater national unity only served to remind Malaysians as to how divisive and discordant the Malaysian landscape had become of late, while exhortations of moderation and tolerance served to highlight the great contradiction of the Prime Minister’s call for a global movement for moderates on the world stage with his dismal lack of political will to provide “moderate” leadership inside the country.

In the run-up to  the 54th National Day, irresponsible and reckless  attempts to polarize the country along race and religious lines continued unabated as  when a government television station, TV1, made the false, sick and diabolical insinuation that a few DAP leaders and the Chairman of Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) were associated with a “Murtads in Malaysia & Singapore” facebook group.

Coming in the wake of an orchestrated mainstream media frenzy of  Christian proselytization, including the fake news by TV3 of proselytization by a tuition centre in Kuala Lumpur based on complaints by a non-existent “Surau Al-Musyrikin”, the impunity and immunity with which such incitement and sedition could be hurled freely, irresponsibly and recklessly raises the fundamental question whether the Prime Minister and his administration really stand for the rule of law, moderation, an united and harmonious plural Malaysia.

How can the Prime Minister make his signature 1Malaysia slogan as a nationally unifying and  inspiring theme when he dare not openly and courageously defend it in the face of dissent by his Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin with his infamous declaration of being Malay first and Malaysian second?

The MCA President, Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek made the call to all Malaysians to come together to celebrate in the 1Malaysia spirit and strive for peace and harmony, but he chose to close his eyes to the fact that the very elements who had been systematically undermining the 1Malaysia spirit, inter-racial and inter-religious peace and harmony had come from within Barisan Nasional – Umno – for months and years.

Lies have become the staple diet served by the mainstream media, whether the canard that DAP wants to create a Christian Malaysia and  have a Christian Prime Minister or the falsehood that the PAS Deputy President Mat Sabu glorified the communists and regarded Datuk Onn Jaafar and Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman as traitors.

This is not building a 1Malaysia but disunifying our beloved multiracial and multireligious Malaysia nation.

If Najib sincerely and seriously believes in 1Malaysia and holds himself as the Prime Minister for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region or political affiliation, the time is almost up for him to walk the talk to provide leadership or be exposed as an purveyor of empty slogans whether 1Malaysia, NEM, GTP, ETP, PTP, etc.

But all is not bleak and dark. The successful Bersih rally of July 9 is proof that if Najib and those in power refuse to act, then ordinary Malaysians whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans,  Ibans or Orang Asli, whether  Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Toaists, Confucianists or Sikhs  are prepared to act in unison to save Malaysia.

Let  the overwhelming majority of Malaysians demonstrate that they  are the true  patriots and nationalists who will not succumb to the irresponsible and reckless politics of race and religion but are united by a common nationalism to work together as Malaysians to build an united, harmonious, just, progressive and competitive Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 September 2011, 10:15 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Bersih
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What is Merdeka without free and fair elections?

by
Ashvin Raj

Malaysiakini

Aug 26, 11

As we draw near to Merdeka Day, I begin to reflect on the real meaning of Merdeka. We may have gained independence from the British in 1957 but have we gained true freedom from our colonial masters?

Have we grown as a nation united with one common goal or vision? Or have we become more disunited since 1957, having lost our direction as to where we are heading to as an independent nation.

Despite 54 years of independence, are we really free when we have oppressive laws in place, such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Emergency Ordinance and The University and University Colleges Act (UUCA)?

For me, the real meaning of Merdeka is achieved when we have freedom to determine our destiny through a free and fair electoral system. As a young Malaysian, I realise the importance of being an agent of change, not because we want change for the sake of change, but because we want real change that will transform this nation to be an Asian tiger once again.

Many took part in the Bersih 2.0 rally because they know how unjust the Malaysian electoral system is. On July 9, Malaysians braved tear gas and water cannons because of their strong desire to see real change for a better Malaysia.

These are the true present generation of Merdeka warriors in the 21st century. It is simply incomprehensible that as a nation, we still have to rely on archaic laws, such as the recently used Emergency Ordinance on Malaysians who had no intent to declare war on His Majesty but merely to demand free and fair elections as a tax payer and as an ordinary citizen.

It is simply unacceptable for a modern nation like Malaysia to depend on such laws which are increasingly being used as a political tool for oppression to scare Malaysians into submission when they have done no wrong but merely to wish for a more transparent and corrupt free electoral system.

It is with this backdrop, that the BN government has clearly lost its moral authority to rule with their brutal crackdown on Bersih participants during both pre and post-July 9peaceful rally.

What moral authority does BN have when freedom of assembly and freedom of speech under the Federal Constitution is rendered meaningless? Instead, oppressive laws such as the Police Act are being used as a political tool to deny us of our basic human rights by giving flimsy and lame excuses such as protecting public safety and security.

We should not be cheated of our basic freedoms, but rather we must draw inspiration from the Bersih 2.0 rally when the true spirit of Merdeka was on display, when Malaysians from all races walked together hand in hand demanding free and fair elections.

These are the true Malaysians who have overshadowed the celebration of Merdeka Day this year.

Merdeka to me means freedom from fear, as well as freedom from oppression. It is a precious personal characteristic that we must have as ordinary Malaysians fighting for our basic freedom in determining our destiny as Malaysians.

If we truly love our country, we must take up the fight for freedom and justice in our land. The most basic fight for freedom now is for free and fair elections. It is only when this is achieved, that we can at last experience the real meaning and true spirit of Merdeka.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 September 2011, 10:06 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Media lynching and academic collaborators

By Dr Lim Teck Ghee

Every once in a while the government-controlled or government-associated media engages in a public lynching of individuals that dare to challenge the Umno-scripted truth about the political system, religion, the monarchy or just about any subject which may be seen as threatening to Umno’s political and ideological dominance.

The latest case involves Mohamad Sabu and the reason for his lynching relates to a speech he made in Tasek Gelugor on Aug 21 in which the PAS deputy president touched on the Bukit Kepong incident of Feb 23, 1950.

In that incident, armed members of the Malayan Communist Party attacked and killed 25 police personnel and some of their family members. In his speech reported by Utusan Malaysia, Mat Sabu allegedly glorified the MCP by claiming that they were the real heroes for fighting against the British and for leading the country’s struggle for independence.

Following the Utusan report, the New Straits Times had four articles including an entire page by its group managing editor Zainul Arifin attacking Mohamad Sabu for allegedly “rewriting history for political gain” (NST, Aug 28).

This has since been followed by Utusan’s Sunday edition Mingguan Malaysia devoting extraordinary coverage (spreading over six pages) to the excoriation of Mat Sabu.

Mat Sabu even featured in the Prime Minister’s Aidilfitri-cum-Merdeka anniversary speech where Najib Abdul Razak sanctimoniously lambasted anyone that dared to discredit the sacrifices of the country’s forefathers and security forces in the path to independence.

Missing from the historical narrative

At the end of his article, the NST’s chief Zainul – who surely must be aware that most people in our country know fully that not only history but also media editorials and pieces such as his have been written for political gain – makes the plea for history “to be debated by historians, and not politicians”.

Whilst he makes the valid point that “a relooking at history is important …. [and that] some say it is biased and a tool of political dominance”, Zainul will know too that those looking for a debate or relook will not find it in the pages of his newspaper.

So what is the verdict of professional historians on the communist insurgency and its contribution to the movement for independence from which a real debate and the historical truth can have its starting point?

There is not enough space in this piece to reproduce the various analysis but readers interested in the MCP and its role in the struggle for independence may want to consult the following:

C.C. Chin and Karl Hack, Dialogues with Chin Peng: New Light on the Malayan Communist Party

Anthony Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948-1960

Richard Clutterbuck, The long long war: the emergency in Malaya 1948-1960

Richard Stubbs, Hearts and minds in guerrilla warfare: the Malayan emergency, 1948-1960

Especially useful is the latest scholarly assessment of the MCP’s role and place in Malayan history which is found in the journal ‘Kajian Malaysia’ (Journal of Malaysian Studies), Vol. 27, No. 1 & 2, 2009.  It is available online at
http://web.usm.my/km/vol27(1&2)2009.html

In the volume, Richard Mason has an article ‘Revisiting 1948 Insurgencies and the Cold War in Southeast Asia’ that provides an overview on the almost simultaneous revolt against colonial regimes in Malaya, Indonesia and Indochina. Also three writers, C.C. Chin, Leon Comber and Abdul Rahman Hj. Ismail, provide new insights into the MCP and the tumultuous events and nationalist stirrings of the period.

What is noticeable about the NST media coverage is not only the way the paper has ignored the real scholars that have undertaken the studies of the MCP but also its reliance on the preferred modus operandi to trot out what appear to be court academicians in the guise of Malaysian academic firepower to provide intellectual justification for their public lynching exercise.

One such academician, Prof. Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim – who is prominently featured in the NST and other government controlled media – should know better.

Mat Sabu’s intellectual honesty

Prof. Khoo’s field of specialization is not the Malayan Communist Party or Chin Peng or recent Malayan political history.

Although his PhD was on the topic ‘The Beginnings of Political Extremism in Malaya 1915-1935’, it does not cover the period of the 1940s and 1950s when the struggle for independence took place in earnest and during which time the MCP underwent various metamorphosis and change in ideological direction in its objective to free Malaya from the colonial yoke of the British.

Prof. Khoo could have waited for clarification or explanation from Mat Sabu, and for any justification the latter may have provided for his views. That would have been the correct academic etiquette.

Or if Prof. Khoo was in haste, he could at least have relied on scholars that have done more authoritative work on the MCP and through their studies provided an academic and more truthful historical context and explanation for the Bukit Kepong incident and the communist fighters.

Instead he was reported to have stated that “Mohamad should not lie to the people when the rakyat today was easily led astray and misinformed” (NST, p.10).  Not only has he dismissed Mat Sabu’s account without checking with the victim of the public lynching but he has diverted the issue away from Mat Sabu’s focus on who were Malaya’s freedom fighters to the international origins and orientation of the Malayan Communist Party in the 1920s and 30s!

Readers can view
Mat Sabu’s talk at this link

http://www.ukm.my/knam/data/Peristiwa_Bukit_Kepong.pdf

Prof. Khoo is no academic innocent or virgin when it comes to press coverage. He must know that the NST has its knives out for Mat Sabu and other opposition or civil society leaders that stand in the way of UMNO’s agenda. He must know or at least he should know that there would be no fair trial and that the pursuit of academic facts and intellectual truth is the furthest away from being a concern or priority of the NST.

Mat Sabu is feared by Umno and its mouthpieces, the NST and Utusan for good reason. He is PAS’s thinking, progressive and committed face – not simply a face but someone who possesses not only the intellectual honesty to raise uncomfortable questions about how our history is being written but also is prepared to take a contrary position to defend his take on historical truth.

In doing so, Mat Sabu puts to shame the academic hangers-on that are quick to bray when called upon by the government.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 September 2011, 10:36 am and is filed under
History
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rakyat Merdeka: Tidak mahu lagi dijajah oleh sentimen perkauman

– Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 02, 2011

2 SEPT — Hari ini hari ketiga syawal dan umat Islam di seluruh negara masih di dalan mood lebaran. Hari Raya tahun ini merupakan perayaan berkembar dengan hari kemerdekaan negara yang jatuh pada hari semalam, iaitu hari rakyat negara kita memulakan pentadbiran negara oleh rakyat kita sendiri. Tarikh yang menjadi hari sambutan kemerdekaan ini ialah 31 Ogos.

Usaha mencapai kemerdekaan ini bermula jauh sebelum penubuhan Umno pada tahun 1946 dahulu tetapi pertubuhan-pertubuhan yang bergerak itu merupakan pergerakan individu oleh puluhan pertubuhan yang semuanya mengarah kepada pencapaian kemerdekaan negara.

Badan-badan atau pertubuhan yang bergerak itu tidak bersatu di antara satu dengan yang lain kerana semasa itu kita belum ada negara yang bernama Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.(PTM). PTM hanya wujud pada 2 Februari 1948. Sebelumnya itu negeri-negeri yang kini berada di dalam sebuah negara Persekutuan, adalah negeri-negeri yang di tadbir oleh kerajaan beraja masing-masing.

Kedah dengan kerajaan Kedahnya. Begitu jugalah Selangor, Perak, Johor, Pahang, Terengganu dan Kelantannya. Itulah sebabnya sejarah telah menunjukan bahawa negeri-negeri tersebut adalah negeri yang berasingan, maka itulah sebabnya gerakan menuntut kemerdekaan itu di gerakan oleh pertubuhan-pertubuhan yang berbeza dan tidak bersatu dalam tindakan mendesak British melepaskan negeri-negeri ini untuk mencapai kemerdekaan.

Jika British memberikan kemerdekaan kepada 9 negeri-negeri ini secara berasingan maka kita tidak dapat menjangka apa keadaan yang wujud sekarang ini. Jika tidak ada Perjanjian Persekutuan yang ditanda tangani pada 2 Feruari 1948 dahulu mungkin hanya beberapa negeri di Semenanjung masih belum mencapai kemerdekaan lagi.

Usaha untuk menuju kearah pencapaian kemerdekaan ini secara kolektif hanya berlaku bermula pada 11 Mei 1946 apa bila Umno di wujudkan menyatukan 43 pertubuhan di bawah pertubuhan yang satu yang di namakan Umno (Umno asal, bukannya Umno yang sekarang).

Apa yang kita mesti fahami ialah gerakan mencapai kemerdekaan bukan di mulakan oleh Umno tetapi telah bermula 20 tahun sebelumnya tetapi di gerakaan oleh pertubuhan yang banyak bertaburan di negeri-negeri yang ada di dalam Semenanjung ini.

Gerakan mencapai kemerdekaan secara kolektif di dalam negara kita hanya melalui pertubuhan Umno asal. Oleh yang demikian kita juga wajar mengenangkan jasa-jasa penggerak yang bergerak sebelum wujudnya Umno asal itu seperti Ahmad Boestaman dan ramai yang lain yang tidak di gemari oleh pihak British. Tetapi mereka-mereka ini tidak lagi menjadi kenangan kepada rakyat terutamanya generasi muda masa kini.

Umno merupakan parti gabungan 43 pertubuhan untuk menguruskan usaha pencapaian kemerdekaan yang akhirnya kita kecapi pada 31 Ogos 1957 dahulu. Umno asal merupakan parti yang mampu merundingkan kemerdekaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dahulu kerana pemimpin-pemimpinnya seperti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Datuk Abd Rahman Ismail, Tun Dr Ismail, Datuk Abdul Razak Husein, Abdul Wahab Bukit Gantang, Jamil Rais dan ramai lagi yang tidak dapat di sebutkan hari ini.

Mereka ini adalah gulunagn elit yang menyambung usaha pejuang-pejuang sebelum itu kerana mereka adalah di kalangan Melayu yang elit yang mudah bagi pihak British untuk berunding mengenai kemerdekaan Malaya setelah wujudnya Persekutuan Tanah Melayu pada 1948 dahulu.

Dalam isu ini kita sebagai rakyat yang telah menikmati kemerdekaan ini wajar juga memperingati jasa-jasa pejuang-pejuang tersebut yang telah berjuang untuk matlamat yang sama sebelum wujudnya Umno asal itu. Jangan kita mempersoalkan peranan mereka kerana sebagai bangsa yang mengingati dan menghormati orang lain pejuang-pejuang ini juga tidak patut dilakukan.

Walaupun Umno asal itu yang telah menyudahkan perjuangan mereka ini adalah wajar mereka ini diingati sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan yang awal sehingga wujudnya Umno. Tanpa pertubuhan-pertubuhan ini Umno asal ini mungin tidak wujud dan jika wujud pun mungkin keadaannya berbeza dengan apa yang kita telah alami dan lihat selama ini.

Seperti ramai orang Melayu memperingati tarikh matinya Umno asal itu sendiri, kita juga perlu dan wajar memperingati jasa-jasa pemimpin pejuang kemerdekaan sebelum Umno asal itu wujud.

Kesemua pertubuhan yang bergabung dalam Umno asal itu telah tidak wujud lagi malahan Umno asal itu pun sudah tidak lagi wujud kerana terpaksa dimatikan oleh orang yang sudah tidak lagi menmerlukan parti itu kerana kepentingan politik peribadi beliau dan penyokong-penyokong beliau.

Tidak mengapalah begitu kerana itu kehendak mereka. Tetapi kehendak penulis sejarah kita wajar memperingati semua pemimpin-pemimpin pertubuhan yang besatu untuk mewujudkan Umno itu wajar ditulis dan diperingati setiap masa termasuk parti dan pemimpin Umno yang telah sengaja dimatikan pada tahun 1988 dahulu.

Ramai pemimpin-pemimpin Umno asal dahulu meninggal tanpa parti seperti Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Tun Husein Onn, Tuan Haji Sulaiman Palestin, Hamzah Abu Samah dan ramai lagi yang tidak dapat di sebutkan yang masih hidup dalam kesepian politik mereka. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad merupakan Presiden terakhir parti itu kerana beliau memilih untuk menjadi Presiden Umno baru yang pertama.

Saya tidak bercadang untuk mengulangi isu pembunuhan Umno ini tetapi yang saya ingin pentingkan kali ini ialah untuk kita memperingati semua perjuangan kemerdekaan bukan sahaja dari pemimpin-pemimpin dalam Umno asal itu tetapi juga pemimpin-pemimpin kepada pertubuhan-pertubuhan sebelum penubuhan Umno asal itu yang memainkan peranan kepada penubuhan Umno asal yang sudah dilenyapkan itu.

Memperingati kembali sejarah yang tepat dan benar itu merupakan perkara yang penting kerana sejarah yang di ubah dan di selewengkan akan memberikan gambaran yang tidak benar kepada generasi yang akan datang.

Segala apa yang berlaku itu ada pengajarannya. Onn Jaafar yang bersusah payah menubuhkan Umno itu untuk menentang Malayan Union dahulu akhirnya meninggalkan Umno yang asal itu kerana cadangan beliau untuk memberikan keahlian Umno itu kepada bangsa lain ditolak oleh perwakilan Umno pada tahun 1951 dahulu. Beliau meninggalkan parti yang ditubuhkannya untuk menubuhkan parti negara.

Umno diambil alih kepimpinannya oleh Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra dan Tunku telah menubuhkan Perikatan untuk bekerjasama di antara kaum dalam menuntut kemerdekaan itu. Matlamat penubuhan Perikatan iu ialah untuk memperkuatakan parti-parti yang berdasarkan kaum dalam satu coalition yang kuat.

Namun masa berlalu dan sekarang keadaan sudah berubah kerana masing-masing parti di dalam komponen Perikatan yang sekarang dinamakan Barisan Nasional sudah tidak lagi mempunyai daya maju perjuangan. Semakin hari semakin lemah sehinggakan setiap parti di dalam BN itu telah memainkan isu perkauman yang menebal sehinggakan matlamat Perikatan dan BN itu telah dinodai dengan begitu teruk sekali.

Orang Melayu yang sudah sinonim dengan Umno sudah berpecah belah kerana kepimpinan Umno (baru) yang tidak mempunyai daya perjuangan yang teguh kerana dirasuk oleh elemen rasuah dan banyak lagi elemen negatif yang akhirnya melemahkan parti itu.

MCA sudah hampir tidak relevan kerana isu yang sama kerana bangsa Cina tidak mahu lagi isu rasis yang menebal terus dimainkan oleh pimpinan MCA. Masa berubah. Sekali ombak membadai sekali pasir berubah.

Orang-orang Melayu yang berpecah sebenarnya mahukan penyatuan tetapi oleh kerana Umno itu begitu lemah dan sudah hilang bentuk dan perjuangan asalnya maka orang Melayu sedang menuju kearah perpaduan di luar Umno yang baru itu. Maka berpindahlah perhatian orang Melayu kepada parti-parti alternatif seperti PAS.

Bagi bangsa Cina pula mereka telah menunjuan sikap terbuka dan lebih liberal dan memberikan sokongan kepada DAP, sebuah parti yang di dorminasi oleh kaum Cina tetapi berbentuk “multiracial” dan boleh disertai oleh semua kaum di negara ini.

DAP sekarang ini serius untuk membuktikan yang parti itu adalah sebuah parti “multiracial” yang sebenarnya dan sedang berusaha menghilangkan pandangan negatif bangsa Melayu terhadap parti itu hasil dari momokan Umno terhadap parti itu.

Bagi orang Melayu yang membelakangkan Umno yang sudah diyakini oleh mereka bertindak menyertai PAS atau PKR dan juga akan bettindak membantu DAP bagi membersihkan pandagan serong yang dimomokan oleh Umno selama ini.

Rakyat sudah tidak mahu lagi membiarkan isu rasis dimainkan kerana ramai mengakui hakikat yang setiap bangsa memerlukan di antara satu dengan lain bagi mencapai keharmonian bangsa Malaysia yang tulin.

Umno tidak akan berjaya lagi untuk mempertahankan cara mengekalkan sokongan rakyat khususnya orang Melayu dengan memainkan isu rasis lagi. Rakyat mahukan kehidupan yang harmonis di antara jiran tetangga yang terdiri dari berbilang kaum dan mereka tidak mahu lagi terpengaruh dengan isu rasis yang dimainkan oleh ahli-ahli politik kerana kepentingan mereka sahaja.

Oleh yang demikian maka usaha Onn Jaafar untuk menjadikan kehidupan berbilang kaum yang harmonis dahulu akan menjadi kenyataan setelah beliau meninggalkan kita 40 tahun yang lalu.

Orang Melayu nampaknya akan berhijrah pemikiran mengikut keadaan waktu dan masanya yang juga merupakan satu kehendak agama kita yang meminta umat Islam hidup mengikut zaman dan waktunya.

Jika Umno masih tidak berubah maka rakyat akan menubahnya. Orang Melayu dan Cina serta India sudah tidak lagi menerima isu rasis lagi dan nampak jelas sedang meninggalkan di belakang mereka isu rasis yang tidak membawa apa-apa keuntungan selain dari perpecahan sesama kita.

Rakyat nampaknya akan memberikan dukungan kepada PAS yang bukan parti perkauman serta DAP yang serius memperjuangkan masyarakat berbilang kaum yang bersatu. Kedua-dua parti ini jelas merupakan parti yang serius dan berdisiplin yang tinggi untuk menjadi elemen yang meyakinkan rakyat yang sedang dalam pencarian sekarang ini.

PKR juga menjadi pilihan yang satu lagi. Jika PKR dapat meninggalkan cebisan sikap yang ada kepada Umno dan parti-parti BN yang lain, parti ini juga akan menjadi alternatif yang paling hampir kepada rakyat sekarang ini.

Kerjasama yang ikhlas di antara PKR, PAS dan DAP juga merupakan perkara yang amat dinanti-nantikan oleh rakyat. Rakyat sudah jemu dengan terlalu banyak politing yang memualkan selera mereka.

Rakyat kini mahukan kejujuran perjuangan parti-parti serta kepimpinan mereka. Mereka idamkan sebuah kerajaan yang “descent” yang mempunyai “governance” yang tinggi serta etika politik yang maju mengikut kehendak masa dan zamannya sekarang ini.

Isu perkauman sudah menjadi isu yang basi dan tidak dapat diterima oleh mereka lagi. Inilah hakiktanya. Rakyat mahukan kemerdekaan yang sebenarnya. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 September 2011, 3:20 pm and is filed under
History
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno turning right leads BN downhill

—
Ooi Kee Beng

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 02, 2011

SEPT 2 — On July 9, the streets of Kuala Lumpur played host to animated engagements between demonstrators and the police. Bersih 2.0, which started out as a simple and hesitant attempt to revive public interest in electoral reforms, became a huge demonstration that captured the imagination of many young Malaysians.

It seized their imagination more strongly than anyone expected, leaving little doubt that Malaysia is in transition.

But what needs studying is what it is transiting away from, and what it is transiting to. The two are, of course, strongly related but what is this widespread eagerness for change a part of, which now pervades the country?

The situation is complicated no doubt but we do not need to go very far back in time to find an answer.

Let us remind ourselves that the long-lived Barisan Nasional (BN) ruling coalition enjoyed its best electoral results as late as in 2004, under then prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. As many as 91 per cent of voters supported him and the honeymoon period that the public gave him as prime minister was a long and gracious one. It was only in 2007 that signs appeared to say that a lot was not well under Abdullah.

So what was it that happened? And why is it that the BN has not been able to turn things around since then? It still has a lot of power; why can’t it correct itself?

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s recent comment that the problem was not with the BN model as such but with the lack of good leadership, was but the latest and rather desperate attempt to limit the credibility crisis that the ruling coalition suffers from.

After the General Election of March 8, 2008, the country went through an uncertain though exciting period. This was to be expected after the shock results that saw five states coming under the rule of opposition parties and the long-lived BN losing its power to amend the Federal Constitution at will.

The opposition parties immediately had their share of problems — ranging from a serious lack of experience in governing, to sabotage by civil servants unable to distinguish party from government, and the economic and political measures by the federal government to punish and undermine them.

The federal government naturally tried its best to control the damage it had suffered. This included putting on trial — again — opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy; regaining the state of Perak through dubious means in February 2009; and manoeuvring PM Abdullah Badawi from power in April 2009 and replacing him with a more dynamic and debonair Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Najib’s main task was to generate public confidence in the BN’s ability to respond to changes for the national good, to regain the trust of the Malay middle class and to rejuvenate the coalition.

The Sarawak state election on April 11 this year, when the opposition made impressive gains, showed that he was not doing enough and that he was not succeeding. Bersih 2.0 showed that the government was more alienated from public sentiment than ever before.

Things began to go seriously wrong when Umno began turning right after its historic victory in April 2004.

In mid-2005, Umno Youth brought the Malays-first New Economic Policy back into the national consciousness and the swing towards the right was most noticeable in how the movement’s leader, the present-day Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, unsheathed and brandished his keris at the party’s general assembly. He would continue to do that for two more years despite extensive criticism.

The arrogance stemming from the 2004 victory spread quickly and with the absence of a national vision following Dr Mahathir’s retirement, divisions in Malaysian society became worse and deeper while Umno thinking was vulgarised into simple racialism. Religious tensions began rising when Muslim authorities and individual leaders recognised the new freedom being allowed them to win political points through creating friction with other religions.

What we see today — the impudence of right-wing Perkasa, the use of draconian legislation instead of criminal laws, the steady subsuming of government institutions under the ruling coalition and the conjuring of a Christian threat to Islam — are the results of this imprudent swing to the right that began six years ago.

In short, the strong longing for change now evident in Malaysia is largely a public reaction to the inability of the BN model to create a society that is open-minded and diverse enough to be the harmonious and liberal Malaysia that the founding generation had imagined possible. — Today

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 September 2011, 9:44 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The NEP and the downfall of Malays

Mariam Mokhtar

FreeMalaysiaToday

September 2, 2011

The NEP may have caused an increase in the wealth of the Malay urban middle class but on the whole, many Malays remain poor.

COMMENT

Dr Mahathir Mohamad came to the defence of the New Economic Policy (NEP) when economist Ramon Navaratnam and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim condemned the NEP for discouraging foreign investment and for promoting corruption.

However, Mahathir failed to note that the NEP, like many of the government’s other programs with catchy, meaningless acronyms are only publicity stunts which fail to address the underlying problems that face many Malaysians, principally the Malays.

He said: “There may be corruption involved in some cases but the charge is not warranted because in most cases, the benefits of NEP have been enjoyed by almost every Malay and bumiputera. In fact, indirectly and, in some cases, directly it has benefited the non-bumiputera as well.”

The former prime minister’s selective amnesia serves him well. The NEP’s short-term benefits may have impressed his Cabinet colleagues but in the long term, the NEP has disadvantaged all other Malaysians.

The warped policies have destroyed racial harmony and in East Malaysia, the bumiputeas are more desperate than ever. There is increasing resentment against the Malays who many believe, have squandered the benefits they have been given.

The NEP may have caused an increase in the wealth of the Malay urban middle class but on the whole, many Malays remain poor.

Despite the housing privileges and discounts, how many Malays can afford to buy houses? How many possess the business acumen to sustain a business without going bust in the first year?

Undeniably, those who benefit the most are Umno cronies, whilst the majority of Malays remain marginalised, hoping that things will get better, only because Umno says so.

Thus, many live in hope and some shun jobs because one day, they hope to become rich without putting in any effort.

The business incentives may have given the Malays a kick-start in life but many did not use them wisely. They did not reinvest the money in the company but instead spent it on the teak desk, the gold watch and the Mercedes car.

It was not just his work that was a sham. His private life was just the same. There was no personal responsibility and those Malays who entered into polygamous marriages with two or three families to support, invariably ended up with dysfunctional families. The kids would be feral, without a father figure and no rôle model in their lives.

Many of the children do not have a family life to speak of and education is not an important factor in their lives. Many grow up lacking aspiration and become adults who are just as irresponsible.

There are some decent people amongst this lot, but they are trapped in the system, with no way out.

Moving forward together

Mahathir claimed that under the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) scheme, the settlers were much better off with higher incomes and children who were better educated.

He failed to note that there were serious issues that have cropped up. Few of the children of the original Felda settlers want to make a living off the land like their grandparents or parents did.

The social problems are many and Mahathir may have praised the businesses and jobs that the children and women have gone into, but none of these are to do with the land.

They are things like tailoring or aircraft maintenance, which are totally unconnected to Felda.

It would have meant more if some of the children had diversified into the downstream oleo industry like soap making, bio-diesel fuels or some other small-scale cottage industry from the  palm oil that they produce on their farms.

Mahathir said: “The settlers have much higher incomes while their children are much better educated. All these are due to NEP”.

Like the NEP, Mahathir has not addressed the problem of what happens to the small holding of the Felda settler as his children have no desire to carry on the tradition and many farmers resort to hiring foreign workers to make a success of the land.

Projects like the NEP are doomed to fail. Most important of all, the Malays will get a hammering from the other races and very few people will appreciate the efforts of the Malays who have struggled on their own to achieve their ambitions.

How many more stupid acronyms must the Malaysians endure? When will this government realise that helping only one section of the community is detrimental to the nation, as a whole?

As a society, the Malays must accept that we must move forwards as one nation. That means that we include the other races in our policies.

The system that our leaders have implemented for us isn’t working.

Not if making it easier for the Malays means never having to learn to do things the hard way, never having to take responsibility for themselves and not having to follow the rules that most of us have to go by.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 September 2011, 2:02 am and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.