Malay-ness this, Malay-ness that

Dina Zaman

The Malay Mail Online

July 21, 2013

JULY 21 — When asked the following questions in a closed group on Facebook, “In a 1921 census, the Malays were a minority in their own country because of the British open door migration policy, which served their economic interest. (Hussin Mutalib, Islam and Ethnicity in Malay Politics). Zainah Anwar in a Star 2010 op-ed piece said, political power will always remain in Malay hands. Is this relevant still post-GE13?” the responses were mixed, though a majority disagreed with the sentiment in the question(s).

A number expressed that such sentiments were legitimate during that era, but today, this fear that the Malay race would be extinguished economically, psychologically and physically is irrelevant.

Gregore Lopez, academic, political analyst, activist and visiting fellow at The Australian National University, found the whole idea “… a little rich”, and many debunked the notion.

Yet communal politics is alive and well here. Every year, every month leading up to a by-election, general election, Malaysians are subjected to rumours and hatred is fuelled. Malay supremacy is at stake. The non-Malay bogeymen are out to sap the country dry. Is the 1921 census coming true?

Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, academic and Director of Project Dialog (a non-profit organisation dedicated to inter-faith dialogue) wrote in The New Mandala, a website, on the pathologies of Malay nationalism. Rahmat argued that the nationalist agenda of the country is at odds with the realities of Malaysian life.

“The problem begins with the nation-state ideal; for its coherence depends on there being a people deemed as the rightful owners of a land. It is rooted to the belief that territory is property — a thing to own — and that loyalty to the people means, among other things, the readiness to uphold the integrity of territory to ensure it belongs to the nation,” Rahmat wrote.

Islam, Rahmat as well as other political observers have noted, has repeatedly become a legal tool of uniting the Malays, and as well as control. For Muslims, Islam is already a way of life but for Malay Muslims, Islam has become an identity crutch.  In another essay, we will discuss what Islamisation is about. But we must think: is the Islam practised in governance today holistic and healthy?

Gaik Cheng Khoo from the University of Nottingham Malaysia, is of the same opinion as Rahmat. “Constitutional patriotism is in fact growing, partly as a response to the concatenation of Islamisation and the discourse of Malay ethnic hegemony (ketuanan Melayu) which perpetuates identity boundaries between Malays and non-Malays and between Muslims and non-Muslims.” (2013 Constitutional Patriotism in Malaysian Civil Society)

For non-Muslim Malaysians, and non-Malay Muslim Malaysians, this divide is creating a chasm in their relations with their Malay counterparts. Khoo’s paper is a shrewd and objective analysis of Malaysians’ shared identities.

What is apparent is that the recent general elections was really not about racial votes, but rather about the discontentment of the middle class. “Today the BN is discredited, particularly among the urban-based educated middle classes and those who have not benefited from its policies, for its abuse of power and its corruption — especially its sponsorship of corrupt networks of patronage and its engagement in money politics.”

This sentiment is echoed by a sizeable number of even BN stalwarts who are of a different generation. Their patriotism cannot be denied, but they too want change from old politics. The current style of leadership is not in keeping with this social media savvy, articulate generation.

The latter is part of a global phenomenon, an effect from the failure of governments to meet the rising expectations of the newly prosperous and educated (‘The Middle Class Revolution’, Francis Fukuyama , The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2013.)

The middle class, whatever race, creed they are, will be the most powerful impact on politics. The numbers are burgeoning, and this is not a silent group. They are critical, articulate and financially savvy: they will support only the causes they feel passionately about.

Fukuyama quoted a 2012 report by the European Union Institute for Security Studies which predicted that the number of people in that category would grow from 1.8 billion in 2009 to 3.2 billion in 2020 and 4.9 billion in 2030 (out of a projected global population of 8.3 billion).

“The bulk of this growth will occur in Asia, particularly China and India. But every region of the world will participate in the trend, including Africa, which the African Development Bank estimates already has a middle class of more than 300 million people.”

“(The) middle-class status is better defined by education, occupation and the ownership of assets, which are far more consequential in predicting political behaviour. Any number of cross-national studies, including recent Pew surveys and data from the World Values Survey at the University of Michigan, show that higher education levels correlate with people’s assigning a higher value to democracy, individual freedom and tolerance for alternative lifestyles. Middle-class people want not just security for their families but choices and opportunities for themselves.”

Still, the issue of the Malay standing in our country’s politics is widely debated. For professionals like JVC (names have been changed to protect their identities) the question of whether Malays will impact the country’s governance is relevant. JVC is in his thirties, loves travelling and is widely read. He is proud to be Malay.

“My being biased is simply because throughout history, the Malays have always been a wonderful host. And this has always been taken advantage of. Our ‘guests’ over the years have become our compatriots, of which in itself a difficult issue to explain. I have no qualms about migration as I think this a basic human right. But being a traveller myself, I will always have that special respect for my host and the country I am in.”

The thing was, he observed, that it seemed that “Our ‘guests’ are unhappy with almost everything with the Malays. From administration to daily living.” He accepted the very fact that Malays were to blame for some of the quandary, but this did not mean that the Malays would have to forego their “rights.” And this is made complicated knowing that once we were a minority.

“Political hegemony is needed anywhere, much less by the majority. But more often than not, when you have the majority scraping for power, the nation would naturally be in turmoil. And to make it even more difficult, racial polarisation and the mixture that we have now in Malaysia. But to say that political power will always be in Malay hands is a bit childish. This country has gone through a period where non-Malays are controlling the economy and continued to doing so. “

The gist of the issue is trust. A country with mistrust among her citizens will never be short of issues, he concluded.

“Malay-ness” crops up every so often in discussions, and many times, shows the divide between class and education. “The Malays of Yore” that the writer Kam Raslan depicts in his stories are liberal, accepting of others, humorous and remind contemporary Malaysians of a past they would have only read or heard about, a past of a Perfect Malaysia.

And yet on the other hand, there are also many men and women of the same generation who share a deep mistrust of non-Malays. They are not lesser educated, but their political beliefs veer to the right. These prejudices are still apparent among younger, educated Malaysians, whose views have more than raised eyebrows during heated debates on Malaysian politics. This will be discussed later.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 21 July 2013, 5:13 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Wayang kulit’ elections

 — Ravinder Singh

The Malay Mail Online

July 21, 2013

JULY 21 — The game plan was simple. Malaysia is supposed to be a democratic country. That was the foundation on which it was born. The Federal Constitution is there to prove it.

On the other hand, after the time of Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Umno-dominated Alliance (changed to Barisan Nasional later) felt that it should remain in power all the time, for reasons best known to it.

However, this had to be done in a “democratic” way to show the world that democracy was alive. A simple way to do this was to move the goalposts from election to election. A game plan was mooted to do this constitutionally. Using its two-thirds majority in Parliament, which is needed to amend the very same constitution, the plan was put into action. First, the 15 per cent difference allowed in the number of voters in the different constituencies was changed to 50 per cent.

A further amendment was made some years later which removed the 50 per cent figure and left only the words “approximately equal” for the Election Commission to interpret as it chose fit. This resulted in some constituencies becoming umpteen times bigger than others. It was no co-incidence that these huge constituencies were pro-opposition voters.

This game of changing the goalposts had to be further refined to make it easier to accurately identify the sentiments of small pockets of voters. This was done by changing the vote-counting system. Instead of taking all the marked ballots to a central counting station, where a different group of election workers would do the counting, the counting was now to be done in the very room that the ballots were cast, by the same election workers.

This ballot counting in the balloting rooms was a very well disguised operation for spying on the voters.
 People were fooled into accepting this method of vote counting by telling them that this way the results would be known several hours earlier than before. People being anxious to know the results as soon as possible, did not raise an eyebrow and see the mischief behind the move.

The mischief was that the EC now had very detailed information about how the voters in each and every stream, numbering from 200 to 600 or so, had voted. Now, knowing the addresses of these voters and how a majority in each stream had voted, the pencils were out drawing lines around these addresses, either grouping them on the pro-government side or the pro-opposition side. Thus electoral boundaries began zigzagging in ways defying logic and unseen before.

When the question of gerrymandering was raised, and the EC asked to explain the huge disparity in electoral constituencies despite the Constitution clearly saying that the number of voters in them must be “approximately equal”, the EC had the gall to say that the Constitution had been followed in drawing up the boundaries.

It must also be noted that the EC is actually a department in the Prime Minister’s Department and not an Election Commission that is independent. It is under the direction of the PM. All re-delineation reports must first be handed to the PM for his approval. If the EC were independent, these reports should go straight to Parliament without the PM seeing them, let alone approving them first.

To hoodwink the world that the elections department was an independent body, it had to be officially called a Commission. Maybe by a slip of the tongue, one of the commissioners recently confirmed that the Commission was not independent when he said that the commission’s proposal to draw up rules for a caretaker government after dissolution of Parliament was shot down by a government ministry. The chairman of the Commission has not denied this.

With calls for the Commission to use indelible ink growing louder, it chose to placate the people by getting some coloured liquid, which a Minister confirmed was food colouring, for which over RM7 million was paid.

If any members of the Commission have any conscience, they should resign. Would the member who publicly stated that the Commission was stopped from making rules for a caretaker government please lead the way. Have you got anything to lose by resigning?

Your chairman and his deputy never stop claiming that the EC is truly and honestly an independent body. If so, why did the Commission even have to inform the government of its intention to make rules for a caretaker government? Can you honestly continue serving the Commission which loudly claims to be independent but which is NOT independent of government control as you have publicly acknowledged? Your integrity is at stake.

Times have changed. Dr M’s philosophy of governance that if you tell a lie and repeat it often enough people will believe it is the truth, no longer works.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 21 July 2013, 5:25 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What will give Egypt’s ruler ‘legitimacy’?

A pivotal question leaps from political science departments to the street.

By Thanassis Cambanis |  Globe Correspondent

July 21, 2013

CAIRO — The troop of bearded Islamists carried wooden clubs and wore motorcycle helmets. They marched in time beneath a sweltering noonday sun, rehearsing for the clashes they expected any minute with the Egyptian army. A military ultimatum was set to expire that evening, and the president was about to be deposed.

When they finished their drill, however, they didn’t want to talk about street fighting. Instead, they started a heated debate over a point of political theory—specifically, whether it is acceptable to question the legitimacy of a popularly elected leader.

“If they threaten President Morsi’s legitimacy, everyone will pay for it. There will be an Islamic revolution,” said a 49-year-old construction worker named Taha Sayed Ali, a lifelong member of Gamaa Islamiya, the group that waged an armed insurgency in Egypt in the 1990s.

What grants legitimacy to a leader? The question usually arises in the abstract realm of political theory, but in today’s Egypt, it has become one of visceral, daily importance. How big does a crowd of protesters have to be to indicate an elected leader is no longer the voice of his people? When do self-interested or authoritarian policy decisions go so far as to invalidate the mandate of an elected government? On the streets of Cairo, these questions have come to occupy the center of a serious, messy conversation about how to build a healthy and accountable new state.

Many supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, who was ousted just after the demonstration, argue that an election confers a legitimacy that only another fair election can take away. They are challenged by a coalition of secular liberals and nationalists, who suggest that even a fairly elected ruler can lose his legitimacy if he fails to deliver on his responsibilities to his citizens. The result, in Egypt, has been a popularly elected leader ousted by what many are calling a “legitimate coup”—an idea that would be almost unimaginable in the longstanding democracies of the West.

“People must believe that we are legitimate, that we represent the majority, or else there is no hope,” said Basem Kamel, a liberal politician who supported the unseating of Morsi and who is determined that the military’s intervention not be seen as a coup. “The only guarantee is the people.”

The Egyptian people are aware that if they’re going to establish a government they all can believe in, they’ll need to settle on a shared understanding of what gives a leader authority and how to determine when a government has lost it. They aren’t there yet. In his final speech before being deposed, ex-president Morsi used the Arabic word for legitimacy—shar’iya—56 times, as though it might serve as a protective cloak against mounting public unrest. With Morsi out and the clashes that followed injuring hundreds and killing dozens, it’s clear that his mere insistence was not enough.

As the debate over legitimacy plays out in Morsi’s wake, the questions at stake resonate far beyond Egypt. The same issues apply in other Arab states in transition, as well as in other countries that have some trappings of democratic rule but are plagued by weak checks and balances and corrupt, authoritarian rulers. As Egypt sorts it out, the country is blazing a path forward that Egyptians, political theorists, and others in the Arab world are watching anxiously.

For much of world history, “legitimacy” wasn’t a question at all—kings ruled by force and claimed legitimacy from a divine order. The modern belief that “legitimacy” can be defined by the people themselves—even that it derives from their consent—dates back at least to the influential writings of John Locke in the 17th century. Political philosophers have debated how legitimacy is created ever since, but a common idea runs through all the different views: To establish its legitimacy, a government must fulfill its core obligations to protect its people and help them thrive.

Today the broad consensus in the West is that legitimacy arises from the voting booth. Citizens should be able to have profound, even violent, disagreements about the direction of their nation without questioning the basic legitimacy of the government; if they want to depose the party in power, they can do so in the next election.

The revolutionary forces that overthrew Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak in 2011 tried to establish a new system that might enjoy this kind of popular legitimacy. There would be elections and a process to write a constitution. The president, duly elected, was the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi. Voters also chose an overwhelming Islamist majority for Parliament.

In the presidential runoff, Morsi explicitly appealed to voters who hadn’t chosen an Islamist in the first round but were convinced by his promise that he would govern with everyone’s interests in mind. At the time, even critics of the Brotherhood and the revolution conceded that the ballot was fair and the new president legitimate.

That, however, is where agreement ended. The president proceeded to push through laws—and, ultimately, a new national constitution—without buy-in or input from the opposition. Morsi ditched all his non-Islamist allies. The ruling Muslim Brotherhood and its even more conservative Salafi allies believed they had public support to enact their platform, which among other things called for a doctrinaire application of Islam to the law. In effect, they claimed both God and the electorate on their side. At one point, after the Parliament had already been disbanded, Morsi tried to put himself above judicial review, which would have left his authority with no check at all.

To the politically broad spectrum of Egyptians who had helped overthrow the previous absolute leader, the president had overstepped. On the one-year anniversary of Morsi’s inauguration, at the behest of the Tamarod, or Rebel, campaign, millions took to the streets. In advance, the Tamarod organizers claimed to have gathered 22 million signatures of citizens demanding Morsi’s ouster—significantly more than the 13.2 million who voted for him. By failing to rule either effectively or inclusively, the organizers of the Tamarod petition said, Morsi had lost “ethical, legal, and popular legitimacy.” Their petition cited his administration’s practical failures and the fact that it had rammed through a new constitution with no regard for the objections of sizable chunks of his own citizenry, including secularists, Christians, and women. They even coined a new term to describe the authoritarianism of a fairly elected leader: “ballotocracy.”

By this definition of legitimacy, the ballot box isn’t the last word. In essence, the Egyptian protesters were turning to a tradition that sees the roots of legitimacy in justice and in tangible results. The American Civil Rights movement made similar arguments: It didn’t matter if Jim Crow followed the letter of the law in Mississippi, or had the support of a majority; in failing so many of its citizens, it forfeited legitimacy. This broader notion of legitimacy underlay the original rebellion against Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship, and prompted the June 30 uprising and the coup that followed. By this way of thinking, how a leader rules may matter more than how that leader came to power.

It might seem strange to have to choose between majority rule or inclusive governance as sources for legitimacy; one tends to think legitimacy requires both. But in the kind of government Egypt is trying to establish, which will have to satisfy a significant Islamist constituency, that balance is not so easy. A state can’t be driven purely by majority interest and also protect the rights of its minority groups. It cannot be both Islamic and secular. And, yet somehow, the various factions must agree to respect the governance of whoever ends up in power, or the messy business of writing laws and addressing the nation’s ills will never get underway.

Esam Haddad, one of Morsi’s closest advisers, wrote in a posting on his Facebook page that the coup interrupted a legitimate political process. “In a democracy, there are simple consequences for the situation we see in Egypt: the President loses the next election or his party gets penalized in the upcoming parliamentary elections,” Haddad said. “Anything else is mob rule.”

Others think that in Egypt right now, proper electoral process isn’t enough. Critics of Brotherhood rule, like Brookings Institution fellow H.A. Hellyer (who coined the term “popularly legitimate coup”), argue that any ruler of Egypt today needs to at least address, if not solve, the country’s vast economic crisis while also appearing sensitive to popular opinion. Morsi, Hellyer says, had legal legitimacy but lost all popular legitimacy. “With theoretical legal legitimacy alone, no executive can function,” Hellyer said. Now, the transitional president appointed by the military faces the same challenge.

With enough will to cooperate, some of the problems of the Egyptian state may be reconciled. The experience of the West suggests that, given enough checks and balances, majority rule through popular elections is compatible with minority rights. Other directions for the state may be mutually exclusive, like theocratic concepts of justice and secular law.

How Egypt attempts to resolve these tensions could prove pathbreaking. In modern times, there have been cases like Iran, where an Islamist majority simply overwhelmed the country’s secular faction; or like India and Indonesia, where pluralism and minority rights were instituted initially by fiat, and haven’t always survived intact when put to electoral test.

In the coming months, whether Egypt manages to confer a lasting legitimacy on any particular governmental arrangement will go a long way to foretelling where the country is headed. Arguments over legitimacy quickly veer into dangerous territory; once the discussion is about who is morally right, rather than a simple power struggle or policy disagreement, it becomes hard to give the other side any credit whatsoever. Ultimately Egypt will settle on some governmental solution and see its constitution harden into established practice. But so long as the sole arbiter is not law but legitimacy, the people will remain on high alert, ready to spill back out into the street.

The government installed by the coup doesn’t include any Islamist members, repeating the exclusionary practice of the Muslim Brothers it replaced—a move that is sure to leave all this government’s decisions subject to a legitimacy challenge by Islamists. This toxic cycle will continue until legitimacy becomes not a rhetorical feint but a reality. It’s the first and most vital step toward a viable rule of law.

  Thanassis Cambanis, a fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of “A Privilege to Die: Inside Hezbollah’s Legions and Their Endless War Against Israel.” He is an Ideas columnist and blogs at thanassiscambanis.com.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 21 July 2013, 6:42 pm and is filed under
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Response to Rafizi Ramli

– Aerie Rahman

The Malay Mail Online

July 22, 2013

JULY 22 – In an article dated July 22, Rafizi Ramli admirably tried to defend the forced implementation of  TITAS in private tertiary institutions. His primary argument is that TITAS being made compulsory is a vehicle that is able to promote greater understanding among the various cultures in Malaysia.

Rafizi dissected the content of TITAS and concluded that the implementation would be of benefit to all. I would like to commend Rafizi’s direct clarification on this matter. Unlike Khairy Jamaluddin who only tweeted on this issue, Rafizi recognises the importance of discourse that is not confined to mere sound bytes and ipse dixit assertions.

I agree with Rafizi that if there is an issue with the syllabus, we should amend it to make TITAS palatable to all cultures. This is a practical point and not a principle concession. If Islamisation is the problem like what Dr Lim Teck Ghee is worried about, then the syllabus should be revamped to ensure that Islamisation doesn’t happen.

However, my concern with Rafizi’s article is twofold. Rafizi did not address the negative consequences of compulsion. Rafizi also failed to answer the point of practicality; does TITAS have any utility to students, who need to accumulate essential skills to secure a job upon graduation.

The preliminary point that I would make about TITAS is that it is merely a cosmetic solution. We must firstly look at the structural problems that Malaysia has on ethnic relations.

Affirmative action policies still endure despite being imposed since the 1970s. Racial inequality in terms of wealth is still pervasive. Vernacular schools – a bastion of segregation – are alive and well.

The civil service is bloated with one ethnic group. Deserving secondary students are unscrupulously denied places in local universities by virtue of their ethnicity.

Against this backdrop, the implementation of TITAS is a mockery of all the ethnic problems that Malaysia is facing. Instead of trying to have a discourse on the problems that we have, we shove down people’s throats the need to hug each other, while knives are still sticking at our backs. Real understanding only comes in trying to solve structural issues.

Rafizi’s argument on the need for greater intercultural understanding is made in good faith. But as the timeless saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We must not only look at the end, but also the means to that end. In this case the means – being compulsion – is an undesirable one.

It is unfortunate that Rafizi did not address the issue of compulsion. Rafizi’s logic is that if we make a course mandatory, students will automatically internalise the content and understanding would be fostered.

In form, yes, the government would be able to record that 100% of students are learning TITAS.

But in substance, the amount of people internalising what they learn is minimal. Even if they do

internalise it, they’re just doing it to pass the exam and when that’s over, forget about it. There’s no incentive to follow up on what you learn. Thus, what you learn is eroded by time.

Inversely, I would argue that by making a subject compulsory, students would trivialise the subject and reject it. They’ll drag their feet to classes and make a mockery out of the subject.

Is it justified to treat university students as if they are still children? Aren’t they supposed to be adults who are rational enough to decide for themselves?

The philosophy of compulsion stems from the belief that we are superior to another and hence are justified in forcing the other. This might be true in lower education. Children are in their formative years and hence would better appreciate the content of cross cultural understanding. Heck, most remain blissfully unaware of the structural problems that I have mentioned.

I firmly believe that the state should only play a supervisory role and not an authoritarian role in society. Sincere understanding happens from bottom-up and not top-down. Rafizi’s case of working in an accountancy firm is an example of bottom-up approaches. Campaigns, optional courses and inter faith dialogues are catalysts to greater understanding. Not compulsion.

Of course cultural integration is needed when we start working (probably not in the civil service). It is important that we prevent and are competent to diffuse interracial tensions while at work. However, university students are anxious about maximising their academic capabilities. Companies do not complain that there is a lack of intercultural understanding at work. They complain that graduates do not have the necessary skills to do the task at hand.

I apologise if I am unable critique the TITAS syllabus. I’ve exhausted my search and am unable to find any of the TITAS content here in the internet or here in London (a blessing?).

Nevertheless, I do recall that during my time as a UiTM student, I was forced to learn the Islamic Hadhari values, since Pak Lah was in power. Naturally, I heard that the syllabus was modified when Pak Lah was replaced.

My concern is not about politics. It’s about fighting for local university students to be given autonomy. This is because a corollary of autonomy is dignity. The “we know better than students” is an arrogant worldview that was also used to justify AUKU sometime back.

University is the best time of any individual’s life. Don’t mar that by disrespecting the choices tha we want to make.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 July 2013, 10:47 pm and is filed under
Education
,
nation building
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MACC, election panel must answer on money politics

Josie Fernandez

Malaysiakini

Jul 22, 2013

COMMENT
 At the launch of a book on Reforming Political Financing in Malaysia in 2010, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Abu Kasim Mohamed said, “Political corruption is the mother of all corruption. The MACC Act 2009 is clear about the offence of using public office for any form of gratification.”

 And for Wednesday’s Kuala Besut by-election in Terengganu, PAS has circulated a list of projects announced by the BN, which include RM343,000 upgrade to Masjid Haji Ishal in Kampung Dengir and the construction of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Alor Peroi, Tok Saboh, which will cost RM28 million.

PAS has claimed that rival BN is pouring cash on the constituency in a bid to cover up the weaknesses of its candidate, Tengku Zaihan Che Ku Abdul Rahman.

The claims of PAS on the pouring of cash and announcement of projects worth millions of rinngit for the Kuala Besut constituency during this by-election period surely requires an investigation by the MACC, which claims to be independent.

 PAS is right in asking BN to declare the sources of the money being poured into the small fishing town of Kuala Besut during the by-election campaign period. The Election Commission (EC) should be in the forefront raising this question, not PAS.

It is the responsibility of the EC to act on the use of money in elections. It is funded by taxpayers’ money and entrusted with the role of running free and fair elections, without bribery and use of money to garner votes.

For too long, the Election Commission has claimed that it is unable to act on the use of money, gifts and projects to garner votes during elections in the country. The EC continues to claim that it is powerless to do anything about widespread vote buying under the current Election Offences Act.

EC only sees the tip, MACC nothing

Yes, election expenses are like an iceberg – only the tip is visible. The EC for too long has been seeing only the tip of widespread use of money by the BN in general elections and by-elections. The EC has left the investigation of the widespread use of money by the BN to entice voters in elections to the ordinary citizens.

Considering the cost and time required to investigate the sources of funding for vote buying and suspicion of fraud, it would be too burdensome for the Malaysian public to be involved in such an exercise. It is the EC that has the powers and the resources to act on the widespread use of money by the BN in elections in Malaysia.

 However, the EC continues to watch only the tip of the iceberg of political financing in this country and with the assistance of the MACC, ensures the iceberg will not melt. As such, the EC is only an election management office, not a commission.

Malaysians are therefore right in calling for the members of the EC to resign.

As Malaysia’s independent anti-corruption agency, the MACC sees nothing. That the monetisation of politics is a widespread phenomenon in Malaysia has been acknowledged by the MACC. But its interest in addressing bribery and fraud in elections in this country remain an expressed interest, without action. What happened to the investigations by MACC of the RM40 million that Sabah Umno received from a businessman?

 The MACC is in no hurry to reform the monetisation of politics in this country. It needs to build its capacity in forensic accounting and tracing the money trail of opposition political parties.

To be fair, the MACC has admitted that the anti-corruption legislation needs more bite to act against campaign financing and vote buying. The MACC cannot distinguish between development aid during election campaigns and during implementation of projects in non-election periods. Where there is abuse of power, the MACC has been mulling.

 Strong non-partisan civil society needed

Only a strong civil society can bring about change, by mobilising public support for political reforms in this country. Prof Yoon Jongbin of the Myongi University in South Korea said at a meeting in Petaling Jaya on Feb 8, 2010: “It can be argued that civil society has been playing a significant role in leading Korean elections to be clean and fair.”

 The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) has since 2007 been calling for free and fair elections in Malaysia. One of the reforms it proposed in the memorandum submitted to the Yang di-pertuan Agong calls for transparency of election campaign financing to eliminate corrupt practices.

Seven years on, the people’s movement for free and fair elections remains a struggle. The reforms needed for free and fair elections are being stalled by the BN, the party in power, and supported by the so-called independent agencies, MACC and the EC.

Unfortunately, there are also so-called civil society organisations in Malaysia that have been co-opted and are partisan and still believe in engaging with government on reforms for free and fair elections in the country. A divided civil society weakens the advocacy for electoral reforms in this country.

 It is critical that the position of Bersih is not compromised. NGOs too close to the government are likely to be used to cover up money politics and electoral fraud.

 Civil society groups need to support a voters revolution, like the June 1987 democratic movement in South Korea that led to popular mobilisation and brought down authoritarianism in that country.

 Civil society in Malaysia needs to be mobilised to ensure the restructuring of the MACC and the EC to enable them to initiate the melting of the iceberg – money politics in this country and not provide safety nets for those caught in the melting waters of fraud, bribery and money.

——————————————————————————–

JOSIE FERNANDEZ is an anti-corruption and environmental activist and an Asian Public Intellectual Fellow.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 July 2013, 5:42 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Respect all races and faiths

Jeswan Kaur | July 21, 2013

Free Malaysia Today

With all the racial tension and unhappiness taking place, it is a wonder how Najib intends to pull off the national reconciliation agenda.

COMMENT

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad keeps insulting the non-Malays all the time and not a word comes of concern comes out from the mouth of the country’s leading party, the Barisan Nasional alliance.

Likewise, Mahathir’s protege, Ibrahim Ali who founded the Maly  extremist party Perkasa and his deputy Zulkifli Noordin who have little to fear each time they take pot-shots at the non-Muslims.

Then there are others in powerful positions who keep stirring racial tensions by warning the non-Malays to refrain from using the word ‘Allah’.

The word “Allah” has been used by the Sikhs and Christians for a long, long time or for that matter Arab Christians have been using the term “Allah” for over 600 years before the Muslims began doing so?

The word “Allah” is used 12 times in the Sikh holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, by Sheikh Farid, Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan Dev while Sant Kabeer has uttered the word 18 times.

Despite that, Umno continues to live by its fallacy that only Muslims have the right to use the word “Allah” despite the fact that the term has been used by the Sikhs and the Arabic-speaking Christians of Syria and the rest of the Middle East.

Now Kedah menteri besar Mukhriz Mahathir has decided to follow in the footsteps of the rest by barring the non-Malays there from using the word ‘Allah’.

National reconciliation not happening

The country’s Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak talks a great deal about unity and national reconciliation but when politicians like Kinabatangan MP Bung Mokhtar Radin accuses the non-Malays of causing trouble and violating the Federal Constitution when they use the word ‘Allah’, why does the premier not feel compelled to do the right thing i.e. defend the non-Malays?

And as long as insensitive and racist politicians like Ibrahim contine to enjoy ‘immunity’ and go unpunished for insulting the non-Malays, there is no hope for any national reconciliation.

Ibrahim had once publicly demand that Malay Bibles be burnt and yet there was nothing seditious about what he had said.

Just as worrying is the warped outlook displayed by Perak mufti Harussani Zakaria who  last year said that non-Muslims who insist on using the word “Allah” to refer to their Gods should convert to Islam if they refused to accept that the word belongs only to Muslims.

The controversial cleric also went on to accuse the Christian community of intentionally provoking Muslims by pressing on with their demand to use “Allah” in their holy book.

Pressuring, threatening and intimidating the non-Malay communities of this country to accept that the word ‘Allah’ is exclusive only to the Muslims is definitely not helping as far as calling it a truce between Malaysians of diverse faith goes.

What is worrying is that there is no stopping the ultra-Malay politicians from  pursuing their agenda of condemning the other faiths and portraying Islam as an antagonistic religion.

When bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee published a photograph in Facebook, greeting Muslims “Selamat Berbuka Puasa” by eating Bah Kut Teh ( a dish with pork serving), it was a case of ‘do or die’ for Umno, the country’s largest political party.

In the end, with pressure coming down hard on the couple, they were  charged under Section 4 (1) (C) of the Sedition Act 1948 for allegedly insulting Islam and the holy month of Ramadan. Their bail was rejected and the two went sent off to jail, with Tan to the Sungai Buloh Prison and Lee to the Kajang Prision.

If found guilty, Tan and Lee could face a three year imprisonment or a fine, or both.

Maybe Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail found it “easier” to prosecute the young couple but not the nation’s real trouble makers, i.e. Ibrahim, Zulkifli etc for sowing racial discord?

Respect all races and faiths

The fact that Abdul Gani continues to overlook the racist and seditious remarks made by the likes of Ibrahim and Zulkifli recently prompted several Indian based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to lodge a police report against the AG.

The People’s Welfare and Rights Organisation (Power) president S Gobi Krishnan has accused Abdul Gani of practising selective prosecution by charging sex bloggers Tan and Lee in court but not Ibrahim and Zulkifli.

Looks like Abdul Gani is more worried about displeasing the ‘powers that be’, hence the quick action to drag Tan and Lee to court and then to jail.

If Tan and Lee have been accused of being insensitive, so too are Ibrahim and Zulkifli and also the Education Ministry when it rejected the application of a student who had secured a 3.8 CGPA in her foundation year in Universiti Malaya simply because the ministry found her name sounding “foreign and Christian”.

Because some Education Ministry official holds a grudge against the non-Malays, this student lost the chance to pursue medicine not only in UM but also other public universities.

So it looks like the problem is not all about Malays and Islam. But why then do leaders of this country not treat the other races with respect?

In September 2010, deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin was quoted as saying that no one would be spared prosecution for insulting any religion practised in the country.

He said the government viewed the matter seriously as it could incite anger in the people and disrupt racial harmony and security.

“We cannot allow anyone, whether the individual is a Muslim or non-Muslim, to belittle any religion,” he said then when asked to comment on an insult to Islam in an account of the Facebook social website.

Three years later, Mahathir, Ibrahim, Zulkifli, Harussani, Bung Mokhtar and many others continue to deride the non-Malays.  Can Muhyiddin tell the rakyat why BN refuses to prosecute these people and continues to indulge in selective persecution?

Until then, with all the racial tension and unhappiness taking place, it is a wonder how Najib intends to pull off the national reconciliation agenda.

The truth however is that the rakyat knows the national reconciliation is yet another ‘all talk no action” gimmick coming from the BN government.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 July 2013, 7:55 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


TITAS is about cross learning in a multicultural society

 — Rafizi Ramli

The Malay Mail Online

July 22, 2013

JULY 22 — I must begin by conveying my gratitude to Dr Lim Teck Ghee and S. Thayaparan for their views on the position I took with regards to the implementation of TITAS at private tertiary institutions (IPTS).

While the ensuing exchange of views on the matter had earned me many labels from some of the readers of Malaysiakini (including lumping me as another Umno prototype), I look at it positively. If Malaysia were to progress, we must be able to debate openly and accept criticisms both ways.

I will explain the basis for the position I had taken before I respond to some of the issues brought by both of them.

Will understanding of each other build a better Malaysia for all?

The most important question is the simplest: given the state of the society now, will we benefit from knowing more about each other? Can we reduce the misunderstanding and prejudice against one another if we have a better understanding of the fair representation of Islamic, Malay, Chinese and Indian civilisations since they form the greatest influence on our society?

I believe we do.

In fact, I think it will help a lot if younger Malaysians see each other’s perspectives positively even if they disagree on certain issues because stereotypes and polarisation is bad. Lack of understanding and appreciation of the basis for cultural differences in a multiracial society like ours does contribute to stereotyping and polarisation.

My support for TITAS stems from this very simple premise: I do not see anything wrong if we compel our youngsters to learn more from each other and about each other.

Much of the fuss about TITAS has revolved around the alleged creeping Islamisation that Umno is trying to sneak into IPTS. While there is a basis for the suspicion, yet we have totally overlooked the positive impact that TITAS may have on producing more Malays who understand and appreciate multiculturalism.

I spent my tertiary education and early working life in the United Kingdom.

I did my A-Levels in a Scottish boarding school — that means going to the chapel every morning together with the rest of the school for morning prayers. I did not sing the hymns yet I learnt to appreciate that Christians, like Muslims, also take the position that a strong emphasis on religious and universal values is good for the society. As a member of the school’s orchestra, once a year we performed in the church.

I started my working life in an accounting firm in London with 90 per cent of the partners who were of the Jewish faith. While the issue of Palestine had always been uneasy (so we avoided it), I got special treatment simply for being a Muslim. There was a small space in the office where we could pray (although there were only four of us in the firm who were practising Muslims) and I had extra holidays for Eidul Fitri and Eidul Adha.

In spite of this experience, I was not converted. If any, I become more grateful of my Islamic identity in a foreign land. It provided me with the strength and sense of solidarity with others. I came out a more sensitive and confident Muslim precisely because I understood Christianity, Judaism and other religions better.

Every now and then, I make sure that my interns come from the different faiths so that we learn from each other. One of my earliest interns (Galvin Wong who is now studying in Australia) taught me more about the Christian community in this country than I had ever learnt from any textbooks.

My point is: we should encourage our young people to be open-minded to learn about each other and of each other’s religions and cultures. I would not have been as open on multiculturalism if I had not gone through the process to appreciate the religion and culture of the majority ethnic group when I was a minority in the UK. If my experience as a Muslim minority in a Western (predominantly Judo-Christian) society has been positive, I am confident that if done correctly, it will have a positive impact in our society too.

It is dangerous to send a signal that any move that compels or encourages the cross-learning of religions and cultures among our young people is bad.

If we can agree on this premise, then we can concentrate on the practical problems that often cloud our judgment on TITAS.

If the concern is on the alleged unfair representation of other civilisations or disproportionate Islamic content in the syllabus, then we shall focus on fixing the syllabus. Yet we cannot object a subject that intentionally aims to promote greater understanding among the races on the excuse that the syllabus is flawed; it is akin to objecting the use of car because it carries a risk of accident!

If the concern is on the lack of manpower to teach the subject effectively, we should focus on mitigation plan to roll this out to IPTS. And so on.

This is where I might have differed with Lim and Thayaparan. While I take this as a major factor in arriving at my position on TITAS, I do not see much discourse from them on the need for cross learning. Much of their opposition to TITAS comes from their suspicion and cynicism of Umno which they alleged would have authored the syllabus to “reconfigure Malaysian and world history as well as civilisational studies taught in schools to fit in with their “ketuanan Melayu” and “ketuanan Umno” mindset”.

Should the state interfere in syllabus?

Perhaps another aspect of the issue that was almost left out completely from Lim and Thayaparan’s pieces is the state interference in deciding syllabus for institutions of higher learning.

I personally feel that the state must be given the instrument to compel certain values to be taught in institutions of higher learning. If the government is responsible for the well-being of society, it must be allowed to use education (including setting syllabus) to shape society, especially if education has proven to be an effective tool at societal reengineering.

If we are honest about a Malaysia that is free from race bias, we have to be concerned at the level of polarisation in our society. We are divided by economic classes and different clusters of people have less interaction with people of other clusters (the clusters maybe economic or racial in nature, or both). Even if the polarisation is not considered chronic, we should do our best to remove any form of polarisation because it leads to stereotyping in a society.

Against this backdrop, I think it is fair that a government of the day interferes with private tertiary institutions (as they had done with the public institutions in the past) to compel a subject that can promote understanding and greater appreciation among the younger Malaysians.

Whether it should be a universal and uniform syllabus imposed on all or private institutions are allowed to develop their own syllabus that later pass the accreditation process is a subject for further debate. But the debate is on the practical aspect of the implementation, not on the opposition to a subject that can promote understanding and appreciation of each other.

How Islamic-bias is the TITAS syllabus?

As much as Lim and Thayaparan were disappointed with my position, I too am disappointed that despite all the criticism and suspicion of TITAS, both of them did not touch at all on the most contentious part of TITAS i.e. the syllabus.

While I am sure both of them had indeed gone through the syllabus before; I am baffled why they did not comment on it.

Most of the readers who call me names had in fact not gone through the syllabus.

Based on the structure of the courses at the public universities, TITAS is taught over a period of 14 weeks. The breakdown of the time allocated for each component of the subject (hence a degree of emphasis) is as follows:

● Topic: Introduction to civilisation — definition, interaction between civilisation, growth and fall of civilisations; number of weeks allocated (2); weightage (14 per cent);

● Islamic civilisation — definition, development of Islamic civilisation, contribution, contemporary issues in Malaysia; number of weeks allocated (2); weightage (14 per cent)

● Malay civilisation — definition, Malay civilisation as the foundation, contribution, contemporary issues in Malaysia; number of weeks allocated (2); weightage (14 per cent)

● Indian civilisation — definition, values and society system, achievements and contributions, contemporary issues in Malaysia; number of weeks allocated (2); weightage (14 per cent)

● Chinese civilisation — definition, values and society system, achievements and contributions, contemporary issues in Malaysia; number of weeks allocated (2); weightage (14 per cent)

● Western civilisation — emergence, value system, achievement and contributions; number of weeks allocated (1); weightage (7 per cent)

● Contemporary issues of civilisations — concept of knowledge, challenges of globalization, survival of Islamic and Asian civilisations; number of weeks allocated (2); weightage (14 per cent)

● Summary — building civilisation past, present and future; number of weeks allocated (1); weightage (7 per cent)

The Islamic content of the syllabus is equivalent to the respective contents on Malay, Chinese and Indian civilisations. In fact, in a study carried out in 2002 in UUM to establish the effectiveness of TITAS, a majority of respondents surveyed believed the syllabus did not have enough Islamic content and had failed to raise an understanding of Islam!

While I may be sympathetic to Lim’s list of suspicions against Umno and its malpractices, it is irresponsible to make a blanket objection on the pretext that everything will be manipulated as Umno’s secret agenda without going through its proper merits if implemented correctly.

My record so far speaks for itself of my opposition to Umno and Barisan Nasional. Yet I did not enter politics to be dogmatic and prejudiced against anything and everything that happens to be initiated while my political opponent is in power. Doing so speaks volume of the respect (or lack of) we accord to the civil service. They may have to answer to an Umno federal government, yet there are enough independent and good souls in our civil service who want to do the right thing.

Crudest political opportunism?

I have tried to stay objective in evaluating the pros and cons of TITAS.

It is Lim’s right to think that it was political opportunism on my part when I voiced my caution not to fuel the right-wing elements of Umno with this issue, especially when I feel his (Lim’s) fair suspicion against Umno had clouded his objective assessment of the merits and demerits of TITAS.

Nor will I feel offended by Thayaparan’s comments, though I wish he had not so easily concluded that my response is “symptomatic of the intellectual poverty of many in the Malay intelligentsia” as if to assert his personal views that Malay intelligentsia is generally not intellectual.

The very language and stereotyping he uses is the very fuel that will be manipulated by irresponsible quarters to feed further the fire of divide in our country.

In the final analysis, I want to remain ideal in my political views. I want to speak for the benefit of Malaysians, not for the Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans or anyone. I want to be able to voice my opinion on policies that I think will bring greater goods to the majority of Malaysians and assist nation building, even if my views are not popular.

When we speak against NEP to the chagrin of the Malays, we did not do it to please the non-Malays. We were firm because it is fair and it is the right thing.

When I was adamant that Pakatan’s manifesto would not be written along racial lines and no mention of specific programmes for a specific ethnic group, I was vilified for weeks by Hindraf. It did not perturb me because the manifesto speaks for all Malaysians.

Thus, my support for TITAS has nothing to do with pleasing the Malay voters. I had benefited from greater interaction with different people and cross learning of different cultures and I believe each Malaysian will benefit too. Any issues with the implementation should be confined to the discussion on the practical aspect of TITAS not the philosophy of cross learning at our tertiary institutions.

One day, I hope to see a Malaysia made up of younger Malaysians who understand multiculturalism like my young friend Galvin Wong. For that to happen, it makes common sense for them to learn different cultures (even if it is imposed initially).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 July 2013, 10:42 pm and is filed under
culture
,
Education
,
nation building
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


At last, the cat is out of the bag – “meritocracy”student intake system into public universities “more quota than quota”

At last, the cat is out of the bag – that the university “meritocracy” student intake system which replaced the ethnic quota system for entry into the public universities in 2002 is “more quota than quota”.

According to the MCA Youth leader, Datuk Dr. Wee Ka Siong, the intake of Chinese students for eight major courses in public universities –  medical, dentistry, pharmacy, electronics and electrical engineering, chemical engineering, law  and accounting –  has been declining in recent years from 26.2% in 2001 to 25.3% in 2001 and 20.7 per cent this year.

I commend Wee for finally making the public admission that the so-called “merit system” which replaced the quota system in 2002 was an even worse form of quota system in reality, resulting in the dropping of Chinese students to 19 per cent from more than 30 per cent in the early years, and the general drop in non-Malay students in the eight critical courses in public universities.

In May 2002, I had sent an urgent email to all Cabinet Ministers asking them to rectify the injustice of the so-called “merit-based” university selection system, as the formula used to match the matriculation results and STPM grades was “unprofessional, unfair and gives meritocracy a bad name as it is without any professional merit”, like comparing an apple with an orange.

I had argued at the time that it was quite absurd to compare the results of the STPM and matriculation courses as they are completely different systems, with different kind of evaluation procedures.

This is what I said in 2002: “The STPM is a well-tested, open  and standardized system with external moderation and affiliated with the Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, while American-based matriculation system is a  totally different creature altogether, with evaluations based not just on the final examination but on attendance, assignment, presentation and with lecturers having a greater say in determining the grades in the 22 matriculation centers.  Musa Mohamad (the then Education Minister) has himself confirmed that the matriculation marking is based on coursework (30%) and examination (70%).”

I had in my urgent email to Cabinet Ministers eleven years ago urged them  “to ensure that the meritocracy system adopted for university selection is transparent and professional – a race-blind system founded on a level academic playing field based purely on examination results to ensure academic excellence and ameliorated by socio-economic considerations to take account of the more disadvantaged groups to ensure social justice”.

After three Prime Ministers,  four MCA Presidents, 12 MCA Ministers together with a MCA Deputy Minister in the Higher Education Ministry for five years from 2008 – 2013, Malaysians are now told by the former MCA Deputy Education Minister that the so-called “merit system” for student intake into the public universities  introduced in 2002 had  in fact wrought greater injustices and is a worse formula than the “628” quota system of 55:45 for bumiputra and non-bumiputra students in force from 1979 to 2002.

The questions that immediately come to mind is why the these facts and figures were denied to the Malaysian public in the past decade despite repeated demands for them, both inside and outside Parliament; why the 12 MCA Ministers and three times the number of MCA Deputy Ministers in the past decade had aided and abetted in their non-disclosure in the past 11 years, and how  the UMNO/Barisan Nasional government and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak propose to  remedy this gross injustice if they are serious about 1Malaysia policy, raising Malaysia’s educational standards in the international sphere and enhancing Malaysia competitiveness to become a high-income economy.

I had proposed a solution 11 years ago, the reform of pre-university admissions with a race-blind needs-based merit system with 75% places based on merit and 25%  allotted to cater to the socio-economically backward students to people our public institutions of higher learning – based on a common university entrance examination.

I again commend this proposal to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 2:54 pm and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reform TITAS to ensure fair and balanced teaching of civilisation studies

— Lim Teck Ghee and Din Merican

The Malay Mail Online

JULY 23, 2013

JULY 23 — We owe a debt of gratitude to Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli and other supporters of the proposed Islamic and Asian Civilisation Studies (TITAS) course for opening the Pandora’s box on the educational value and desirability of this officially decreed course previously imposed on public universities and now planned to be extended to private universities.

For now, there has been nothing offered by way of justification or in defence of the course design by the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin and his subordinate, Higher Education Department director-general Morshidi Sirat, to allay the concern that the introduction of the course is politically motivated to serve the ruling government’s agenda, and not the interest of our young.

We should have no illusions that even with the spotlight of public criticism strongly on it, the authorities will not continue with the planned enforcement of the course. The political stakes are too high for the minister of education, soon contesting the Umno elections, to do an about-turn.

Recognising that it is well-nigh impossible to expect the authorities to withdraw its proposal, we urge Rafizi and others in favour of the course to support the following measures to ensure that TITAS does not become another platform to load our young with politically, racially or religiously skewed knowledge. A narrowly conceived, ethnocentric and politically biased TITAS is counter-productive in a world characterised by diversity and pluralism and in our homeland which is one of the major cultural and civilisation crossroads of Asia.

If indeed the intention is noble and aimed at instilling cross cultural learning and appreciation of the major civilisations of the region among all students, Malays and non-Malays, surely no one in their right mind will object to the safeguards below to ensure that this intention is achieved and not subverted.

Proposals for reforming TITAS and ensuring transparency and public accountability in its implementation

1. Make the course an optional and not a compulsory one in both public and private universities

2. Post the present content of the required course on a website that is accessible to the public and request for feedback on it. This should include any compulsory textbook requirements and other special conditions imposed by the ministry

3. Do away with the system of ministry-ordained recommended or required texts written by half baked or officially-sanctioned academics in favour of one which allows the use of diverse authoritative texts

4. Permit the use of English as a medium of instruction for the course in both public and private universities to encourage exposure to the rich corpus of English-language material. The insistence on Malay as the language of instruction in private institutions is unreasonable as students should be allowed to study in the language that they are most conversant with, especially on what is held up to be such a critical subject. Also the ministry is not defraying the costs of the course and has no right to impose such a condition.

5. Appoint a team of independent education experts to undertake an open review of the current course content and teaching methods

6. Introduce changes to ensure that what is being taught is inclusive of all civilisations — great and little. The pre-Islamic civilisation of Malaysia including that stemming from our Orang Asli and Orang Asal heritage which has been marginalised in our educational system needs to be given a special place

7. Since Islam had its origin as a religion in the Middle East, its inclusion in the course on Asian civilisations needs to be justified.

8. Strive to have multi-racial and multi-religious teams of lecturers and instructors to conduct the course. This will be the best check against racial or religious bias in any form and help to ensure inter-racial understanding and academic balance.

We emphasise that our fears of the course being hijacked by prejudiced and opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats as well as partisan lecturers are real and not imaginary. We have seen this happen time and again with various compulsory courses run by the government agencies and in the schooling system.

Besides what we have proposed above, key stakeholders such as the vice-chancellors of public and private universities must use their positions and authority to carve out autonomous positions. They must honour their mission of providing relevant and quality education by ensuring that any ministry-required compulsory course is free from political interference and political bias, and has primarily or purely educational and intellectual reasons to account for their inclusion in the university curriculum.

Vice-chancellors of private universities in particular should not take the easy way out or pander to the dictates of the authorities on TITAS just so their teaching licences are easily renewed, and other government-required approvals are expedited. Their students are paying hard-earned money to receive a non-state sponsored education. They are entitled to a TITAS course that is balanced and free from the blinkers and bias shackling the national educational system.

Finally, to ensure that TITAS and other ministry-imposed courses lead to the opening and blossoming rather than closing of young minds, we need transparency, accountability and a vigilant public.  We cannot expect it from the Ministry of Education or from politicians who may have been lulled into false optimism based on their educational experiences abroad.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 9:27 am and is filed under
culture
,
Education
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Once we were beautiful

– Art Harun

The Malaysian Insider

July 24, 2013

I am blessed.

So are many of my friends who are of or around my age.

So are many who are older than me.

As a child of the 60s, I went through my formative years in an English-stream school. It was a big school in town.

And there were hundreds of us Malays, Chinese and Indian boys (it wasn’t co-ed).

Our first headmaster was a Chinese gentleman who was as fierce as they came those days.

When he left, he was replaced by an Indian gentleman, who also was as fierce.

My first class teacher was Ms Leong, all long haired and short skirted.

And yes, armed with a wooden ruler, she would knock my knuckles for failing to properly write the number 8.

My first English sentence, learnt on the first day at school was to be uttered after raising my right hand, “Please teacher may I go out?”

That was to be said if any of us had to go to the toilet to do the normal stuffs we all do in the toilet (and not to eat).

Then there were Mr Linggam, Cikgu Aziz and wife, Sharom, Mr Lee the karate guy, Mr Khor, Cikgu Mutalib and various others.

We were a happy bunch. We played together, ate together, learned together and of course, at times, punished together.

And we were equal. In standard 5, I began fasting.

The school canteen stayed open for the whole month.

No renovation. No closure. Muslim and non-Muslim kids, who did not fast, ate as usual.

If they bought a proper meal, such like nasi lemak or mee goreng, they would eat at the canteen.

If it was some kind of snack, they would just eat while walking around, in the class or where ever.

No fuss. No issue. No problem.

My impressionable years were spent in a boarding school. It was the same scenario.

All of us, regardless of race or religion studied together, ate together, played together and at times, getting one or two rotan together.

Visiting a non-Malay house was not a problem.

Eating there was not a problem too. Sharing food with non-Muslims was not an issue.

Things have however, sadly, changed.

And change for the worse. Nowadays, non-Muslims don’t send their kids to national school anymore.

They prefer to send the kids to the vernacular schools.

The ones who could afford would send their kids to private schools.

National schools are almost invariably filled with Muslim/Malay students.

National schools would recite prayers before class begin in the morning.

Quranic verses and hadith would adorn walls in the canteen, school office and even classes.

Ustaz and ustazah would even ask school kids to raise their hands if their parents do not pray 5 times a day.

In secondary schools, the tudung is not compulsory for girls – according to the Ministry of Education’s circular, if I am not mistaken – but girls without tudung would be viewed askance by schoolmates and teachers alike.

Due to the small number of non-Muslim/Malay kids in national schools, the Malay kids do not have the opportunity to mix around and integrate with non-Malays in their formative and impressionable years.

The small number of non-Malay kids also gives a sense of false superiority complex to the Malay kids as well as teachers.

Thus, my race and my religion are more important than you, your religion and everything else.

Hence the closure of the school canteen during Ramadhan.

This is prevailing in many national schools. Apparently, this is done to “respect” the Muslim students who are fasting.

Forget the fact that non-Muslims do not fast and they, like any other human beings or animals, have to eat and drink.

Forget the fact that there are Muslim kids who do not fast.

Anybody who just about mentions the word “food” would have been taken as insulting Islam.

On Facebook last week, there were two guys admonishing a hotel which advertised its breakfast package on its page.

They viewed it as disrespectful.

But to be fair, the two were widely condemned by other Muslim facebookers.

The eating-in-the-changing-room debacle yesterday is just the surface of a far unhealthier trend in Malaysia.

Beneath that surface is a society which is fractious, intolerant, selfish and uncompromising.

The obvious question is how did we, as a nation, become like this? As a nation we started so well.

The Federal Constitution was agreed upon by consensus between three major races anchored to give-and-take and win-win camaraderie.

There was a blemish in 1969 but that was quickly nipped in the bud and we soldiered on.

In football, we were in the Olympic final in 1972 and 1980.

By the law of progression, we should be in the World Cup by now. By contrast, Japan and Korea, whom we used to beat, were already in the quarter-finals of the World Cup.

We now struggle to beat the likes of Vietnam and even Singapore.

Like our football team, the state of our racial integration and inter-faith relationship has moved in reverse gear.

Years of political posturing utilizing religion and race have now begun to show its ugly consequences.

The so-called Islamisation that we embark upon, which is shorn of any meaningful spiritual understanding of the religion, but rather born out of political necessities, convenience and mired in political one-upmanship has now produced a nation which is unsure of itself and a people who are fractious, angry, suspicious and at odd with each other.

We need to take a real good look at ourselves and examine our ways. And we need to reboot our operating system if we want to avoid a total crash. And we need to reboot fast. – July 24, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 12:54 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stupid Prank and Double Standards

By Kee Thuan Chye

msn

23 July 2013

Alvin Tan Jye Yee and Vivian Lee May Ling, collectively known as Alvivi, are now in prison, awaiting trial. The judge denied them bail after they pleaded not guilty to three charges related to alleged sedition, causing enmity between people of different religions, and displaying pornographic pictures on their blog.

The charges – under the Sedition Act, the Film Censorship Act and the Penal Code – are pretty serious. If found guilty, they could go to jail for some years. Not a bright prospect for two supposedly smart people in their mid-20s.

But why were they not granted bail? What further harm could they inflict? Whom could they harm? How severe, really, is their offence? Even people charged with committing far worse offences, like rape, have been given bail.

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail says Alvivi were denied bail because of their tendency to post content on their blog that could potentially anger the public.

I think that’s being presumptuous. It is not backed up with any evidence. Besides, potentially angering the public is a poor excuse. And since we are engaging in making assumptions, I would hazard that it’s very unlikely that the duo would still opt to arouse public anger after having faced those serious charges. In fact, even before they were arrested, they had already apologised.

Is it more likely that bail was denied because the authorities want to punish the duo? And show an example to appease the conservatives? Is this the right thing to do?

Don’t get me wrong. I think Alvivi deserve to be charged for posting their Ramadhan bak kut teh greeting. (As for the pornography charge, why only now when they have been doing it long before?) What they allegedly did, even as a joke, was utterly insensitive and stupid. Not only because it put them in jeopardy, not only because they should not show disrespect – not only to Islam but to anyone and any religion – but also because their unthinking action has put non-Muslims in a negative light and caused tension between non-Muslims and their Muslim brethren.

Being Chinese themselves, Alvivi have also given the impression, especially to those who are quick to generalise, that the Chinese are arrogant. And they have given the Home Minister greater cause to justify his determination to retain the Sedition Act.

Already, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has been quick to now say he supports Prime Minister Najib Razak’s proposed replacement, the National Harmony Act, because the latter “has promised that the spirit of the Sedition Act will remain”. To all intents and purposes, we may eventually get back the same Act but under a different name.

In fact, Zahid has added something ominous in his remark, “We support the move to strengthen the Sedition Act as even though it has a new name, its spirit remains.” He now talks of strengthening the Act. Given the present circumstances, it may not take much for the Cabinet to agree to that. Then what would the rakyat eventually get but stronger oppression?

In the first place, we shouldn’t even continue with the Sedition Act. Especially when it is being abused for selective prosecution.

Look at the people who have been charged with it lately. Pakatan Rakyat politicians Husam Musa, Tian Chua and Tamrin Ghafar, activists Haris Ibrahim and Hishamuddin Rais, student leaders Adam Adli and Safwan Anang – all opponents of the Barisan Nasional (BN)-led government.

But what has happened to the police investigations into the Umno-owned newspaper Utusan Malaysia for its incendiary May 7 front-page article ‘Apa Lagi Cina Mahu?’ (What More Do the Chinese Want?)

What about pro-Umno blogger Papagomo who in the aftermath of the 13th general election (GE13) allegedly wrote about fighting the Opposition DAP even if it entailed bloodshed, and Shahrizad Mohd Diah who allegedly posted on Facebook a call to the Malays to rise up and kill all the Chinese for voting for the Opposition?

It’s been more than two weeks since investigations were launched. Why hasn’t any action been taken yet? Is it because it is all right for them to express what they did? On the other hand, why has action against the Government’s opponents and Alvivi been so swift?

What about the case involving the politician and vice-president of right-wing Malay rights group Perkasa, Zulkifli Noordin? Earlier this year, he made sacrilegious remarks about Hinduism. A video clip of it went viral on youtube.

Among other things, he questioned the validity of Hindu gods because they could not prevent their believers’ shops from being flooded, and he questioned how Hindu gods could be considered holy when the broken parts of their statues could be mended with plaster.

Are these remarks not insulting to Hindus? Would they not cause enmity between people of different religions? But why did Zulkifli get away with making such remarks? Is it because it is all right to insult Hinduism?

Well, only a few days ago, Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar revealed that the police submitted its investigation report on Zulkifli’s alleged insult to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) but were told to drop the case.

The reason given by the AGC? Lack of evidence.

Why is there lack of evidence when the video clearly shows what Zulkifli said? He even apologised for it, which means he admitted performing the deed. Was the investigation stopped because at the time, Zulkifli was standing for elections at GE13 under the BN banner?

And what about the case involving politician and Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali? In January, he called on Muslims to seize and burn copies of Bibles which contained the word ‘Allah’ and other Arabic religious terms.

Is that not causing enmity between people of different religions?

Instead, we saw a minister jump to his defence a few days ago. Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan said what Ibrahim did was normal. It was to correct a printed error in the Bibles, and burning was a proper way of doing that because Muslims even burned copies of the Quran that carried misprints.

However, the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) has since pointed out that the appearance of ‘Allah’ in the Bibles was not an error.

“It is offensive and unacceptable for the honourable minister to attempt to justify the urging by Ibrahim Ali to burn our holy scripture by saying that our holy scripture contains errors in printing,” it said. “Such a suggestion is insensitive, insulting and inflammatory.”

Abdul Rahman also said that Ibrahim’s case could not be compared to Alvivi’s because the latter’s deeds were aimed at attacking another religion, and could threaten inter-faith harmony.

I doubt Alvivi’s silly prank was meant to be an attack on Islam. It was, as I said, a silly prank. Not excusable, for sure, but also not sinister. Mischievous, yes, but not malicious. They probably had no idea they would get into this kind of trouble before they did it.

Rahman says Alvivi’s action could threaten inter-faith harmony. Ibrahim’s doesn’t? Or does he really mean that one particular faith takes priority over the others?

And when he was asked by the media about Zulkifli’s case, he evaded it by not commenting.

The sad thing to come out of this is, ministers will say anything – regardless of whether it is logical or not – that serves the Government’s cause or what it decides is right. And then when they are rebutted, they will sometimes ignore it. Their main concern is that their target audience gets to hear what they say. The rest of the people can go to hell.

This is the underpinning of why the BN-led government appears to have two sets of laws for different sets of people. From what we have seen, it is crystal-clear which set of people Alvivi and some others belong to.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 12:32 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Wanted in Malaysia: Empathy

by The Malaysian Insider

July 24, 2013

How did Malaysia come to this point? Where billions have been spent on national unity programmes, Bangsa Malaysia initiatives and grandiose 1Malaysia schemes and yet EMPATHY for each other is so glaringly missing from daily life.

The Oxford Dictionary defines empathy as the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Some may see it as “standing in someone else’s shoes” or “seeing through someone else’s eyes”.

Whatever the definition, implicit in it is a feeling of compassion for another.

If the feeling of empathy courses through the veins of Malaysians, we would be very slow to ridicule the religious practices of another or even place each other in racial pigeonholes. Very slow. Because we would feel the hurt that a wayward word or action could cause another group of Malaysians.

In addition, we would be quick to condemn or disapprove of behaviour not in keeping with our national psyche.

That is why the incident at SK Seri Pristina in Sungai Buloh is disappointing, depressing and frankly, deflating.

Why couldn’t the headmaster put himself in the shoes of the non-Muslim students and see how wrong it was to make them have their canteen break in a shower room during the fasting month?

Why didn’t the afternoon school supervisor put himself in the shoes of the parent who complained about the insensitive and unsatisfactory eating arrangement?

Why didn’t any of the teachers tell the headmaster or school supervisors that no Malaysian child should be treated in this manner in his own country?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that an increasing number of Malaysians have grown calluses in our hearts and that as long as hardship or injustice does not affect our kin, it is not something to be concerned about.

Unfortunately, in the Malaysia of today, our speed of response and empathy is dictated by race or religion, not citizenry or the simple fact that offering a helping hand or fighting for the cause of another is the right thing to do.

Perhaps, it is a by-product of looking at everything in this country through racial and religious lenses and believing that everything is a zero-sum game. Perhaps it is a natural progression from a country where racial polarisation has reached a point where colour of skin trumps place of birth.

Today, the children at SK Seri Pestina will be allowed to consume their food in the canteen. Not because the school administrators suffered an attack of conscience but because they are obeying an order from the Education Ministry. No empathy here just a grudging respect for the power on hiring and firing which the ministry possesses.

In slightly over a month, the Malaysian government will put on another grand parade to celebrate Merdeka, roll out a couple of heart-tugging Petronas advertisements of Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sikhs and Kadazandusuns smiling and hugging each other.

Increasingly, that picture of postcard-perfect happiness and love for each other only belongs in postcards and in advertisements.

In most parts of Malaysia, empathy is missing. – July 24, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 12:15 pm and is filed under
culture
,
Education
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UMNO/BN must thank Election Commission for fixing polling day on Wednesday for its slight majority in the Kuala Besut by-election

UMNO/BN must thank the Election Commission for fixing polling day on Wednesday for the slight UMNO/BN majority in the Kuala Besut by-election, which resulted in a lower voter turnout of 1,193 voters or 79.78% compared to 87% in the 13th general election on May 5.

The Umno/BN candidate Tengku Zaihan Che Ku Abd Rahman secured 8,288 votes as against PAS candidate Endot@Azlan  Yusuf, who polled 5,696 votes – a majority of 2,592 votes which is an increase of 158 votes from the 2,434-vote majority secured by Umno/BN in the recent general election.

UMNO Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has claimed that BN’s inability to achieve its 4,000-vote majority target in Kuala Besut was due to overconfidence among BN supporters who did not turn up at the ballot box.

He also attributed the 7 per cent lower voter turnout than the last general election to the slower pace of life during the month of Ramadan.

However, the opposite is more likely to be the case, as the lower turnout is the result of the polling day being fixed on a working day, causing many outstation voters not returning to cast their vote.

If voter turn-out in the by-election had been as high as during the general election, with the majority of those who did not return to Kuala Besut to vote in the by-election voting for the PAS candidate, the Umno/BN majority in the by-election  is likely to be lower than the 2,434-vote majority in the  recent general election.

Such an outcome with a smaller majority, despite victory still going to the UMNO/BN candidate, would have been seen as a setback for UMNO/BN especially after goodies of some  RM500 million have rained down  the constituency and the voters  during the by-election by both the Federal and state governments – turning the Kuala Besut by-election into one of the most expensive “buy-elections” in history.

PAS has secured a respectable result in the Kuala Besut by-election as nobody really expects the Umno/BN candidate to lose in their stronghold.

The biggest loser is Umno/BN because of their failure to achieve the target of a 4,000-vote majority victory in the by-election.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 25 July 2013, 1:09 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Decades-old Sad Story

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo

26th July 2013

The intake of students into Malaysian public universities is a sad, sad story. A story that has been around for decades. A story that doesn’t want to end.

Since the establishment of the quota system for Bumiputera students in 1973, non-Bumputera ones have had to take part in what is virtually a lottery when they apply for places. They may not get admitted, or they may not get the course of study they applied for even though they have the best results.

When the system was introduced, 55 per cent of places were reserved for Bumiputeras, although apart from Universiti Malaya and Universiti Sains Malaysia, other universities reportedly admitted more Bumiputeras than was specified in the quota.

Non-Bumiputera families that couldn’t tolerate the unfairness of the system decided to emigrate with the chief aim of securing higher education for the young. New waves of emigration have since followed, resulting in a massive brain drain that is highly disadvantageous to the country’s development.

Those who stayed gave up on public universities as they did not want to put up with uncertainty over their children’s future. They resolved to work harder to earn money to send their children overseas.

This caused a huge flow of currency outflow. So to stem it and also to make Malaysia a future net exporter of tertiary education, the Government instituted the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act in 1996 that led to the sprouting of private colleges and universities locally.

By the end of 1999, according to Government figures, about 203,000 students had enrolled in private institutions, compared to about 167,500 in public universities. This showed the high demand among Malaysians for higher education.

Before private colleges and universities were set up in Malaysia, many bright non-Bumiputera students could not pursue higher education because their parents could not afford to send them overseas. They were deprived of the opportunity to better themselves and improve their lot in life.

I remember arguing with a Chinese multi-millionaire businessman who was then pro-Mahathir Mohamad and pro-BN (he has since changed his stance) because he didn’t seem to acknowledge the unfairness of the system and the plight of the poor non-Bumiputeras. What he said still rings in my head, “No worries, the Chinese can always go to KTAR.”

He was referring to Kolej Tunku Abdul Rahman which at the time was not a university college (it was established in 1969 and became a university college only in May 2013), and its graduates were awarded only diplomas. That remark was nauseating coming from a multi-millionaire.

Today, non-Bumiputera students still depend on being admitted to public universities to obtain higher education. Many of them come from poor families that cannot afford to send them even to local private institutions.

In 2002, the Government replaced the quota system with a “merit-based” one, but even under this, studies have shown that the Bumiputera intake since has been at least around 60 per cent.

In 2004, 128 non-Bumiputera students did not get into Medicine, which was their first choice, although they had obtained the highest score of 5As in the STPM (Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia) examination. The Government’s shocking response to this was that they were not good enough. All of them were eventually accepted by private institutions, but some did not pursue Medicine because they did not have sufficient financial support.

This year, the sad old story is re-told.

The intake of Chinese students has sunk to 19 per cent. And it has been far worse for the Indians, with only 4 per cent admitted.

Shockingly, some non-Bumiputera students with the perfect CGPA (cumulative grade point averages) of 4.0 were not given places at all. And some who got in were not given courses of their choice.

After 40 years, we are still hearing this old story. What is happening to Malaysia?

MCA Youth chief Wee Ka Siong has now come out to say he is “tired” of facing the same issue every year.

He even said things had got worse after the merit-based system was introduced. “It is called merit system in name, but it is actually a quota system, in fact more quota than quota,” he said.

He also pointed out that the intake of Chinese students for eight major courses, like Medicine, Dentistry, Law, Chemical Engineering, had been declining in recent years.

“From 26.2 per cent in 2011, it dropped to 25.3 per cent in 2012 and 20.7 per cent this year,” he said. On the other hand, the intake of Bumiputera students for these eight courses this year went up to 70.2 per cent.

He gave the example of Chinese students with CGPA 4.0 and 9.8 co-curriculum marks who applied for Medicine but were offered Agriculture Science instead.

Well, Wee is one to talk about this issue now. When he was deputy education minister from 2008 till the last general election, did he do anything to stop the slide? Did he speak up against the system then? Or did he quietly collude with the MCA’s partners in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN), especially big brother Umno, to maintain the system?

It therefore looks like the Chinese did the right thing in rejecting the MCA at the last general election, causing it to fall from grace by winning only seven parliamentary seats and having to stick to its threat of not taking up government positions for the poor performance. Now at least it has some guts to say something about this issue when in the past it would keep quiet.

Now it is the MIC’s P. Kamalanathan who is in Wee’s former position, and he is feeling the heat – even from his own party.

Instead of coming clean in the face of his community’s wrath over the low admission for Indians and high-scoring students not getting their course of choice, he said the problem could have been caused by some students wrongly filling in their university application forms.

Wee rightly dismissed it as a “silly explanation”. MIC treasurer Jaspal Singh was even tougher: “Sadly, even Kamalanathan … is a part of this deceitful trickery … (he) would do well to remember that he is there as the representative of MIC and the Indian community, not to cover up for the Education Ministry.”

Meanwhile, a few questions remain.

Did Malay students with CGPA of 4.0 fail to get into courses of their choice? Did any of them fail to get a place at all? When we talk about a merit-based system, should it still be restricted to so many per cent for Bumiputeras and the rest for non-Bumiputeras? If so, how does that fit the meaning of “merit”?

In 1984, I wrote a play called 1984 Here and Now in which a character, a Prole (meaning of minority race), says this:

Like our Prole party lah. Weak like anyting. Everyting Big Broder say, OK. Like balls shaking in der pants, man. And now, quarrelling some more, der leaders. Wan more power, wan top post. Firs, dey should be more strong to bring our problem to Big Broder. … No shame la, dese people. Meanwile, our people suffer. Our chiren carn get place in university. Every year, only so many people can go in. Not fair la.

I wrote it with the hope that not long after that, the university intake issue would be resolved. Today, nearly 30 years later, my hopes have not been fulfilled. The situation has actually become worse. And sadder.

So much for 1Malaysia.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 26 July 2013, 9:08 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.