Malaysian health reforms socio-economics: Part 5

— David KL Quek

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 11, 2012

FEB 11 —
Why the need for Health Reform now?

This is the question that has been posed by many people. What indeed are the key reasons for the government to embark on such a radical transformation of our health system? There is no easy answer. But I would venture some socio-economic and health economic possibilities.1

Although one cannot discount or exclude political reasons or even patronage-linked considerations, I would not wish to embark on this line of speculation, because essentially this would only detract from the real issues at hand. Also, it would be hard to prove what are at best, innuendoes and almost surely shaped by partisan motives and beliefs. But it would also certainly be impossible to allay public fears and anxieties that these sorts of political interjections might play a role in any government policy makeovers. So perhaps, these possibilities should at least be highlighted so that they might be forewarned and prevented from hijacking such a monumental policy shift for personal or partisan reasons.

Major reasons for this proposed health reform are: widening public-private disparity in healthcare delivery; attempt to slow down rising healthcare costs; government policy shift to reduce health care subsidy; implementing W.H.O. mandate to provide so-called universal coverage for health; social health insurance to tap into another copayment mechanism for healthcare payment; and forming an autonomous national health authority.

Widening Public-Private disparity in health care delivery

I think that thus far, perception-wise there appears to some official discomfort that the two disparate arms of our health system—one publicly funded and the other privately so—seem to be widening in their capacities and efficiencies at delivering health and medical services.

Perhaps, there is that unspoken belief even among the government officials that the privately funded sector appears to be superior or at least more effective at delivering healthcare for the public, albeit at a higher price. But, the health ministry has seldom, remotely and reluctantly acknowledged this. Instead, there have been highlighted public complaints of exorbitant charges, costs, or other mistakes on the part of private facilities so much so that a raft of special laws had been enacted to regulate them, i.e. the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act (1998) and the Regulations (2006).2 There have also been raised concerns that GPs are poor at chronic disease management, which many private doctors have debunked and found discriminatory without proof.3

Yet, we know that the public sector health care delivery has been at best checkered and often notoriously congested, that its efficiency has been called into question time and time again. Considering the huge volume of patient turnover seen by the public health sector vs. its limited resources and bureaucracy, this is not so much a criticism, but a reality-based commentary. I believe that under the circumstances, the public health sector is functioning the best it could, although one can argue that there is much that can be improved and made more effective and productive. Moreover, staff and personnel migration to the private sector has caused difficult manpower and expertise problems at maintaining competency and safety of medical services for the less-endowed public users of these services.

So like it or not, there is in reality some inequity in access, where the public sector patients appear to have a lesser or more delayed (possibly less senior and/or experienced specialist care) access to some of the more special medical or surgical services.4 Such a disparity to a certain extent, poses some degree of unfairness on the system as a whole, and creates perhaps a 2-tier approach for our patients—one for the poor and the other for the better-off.

So there is this wish to consolidate and streamline the system so that these two streams could be integrated to provide greater ‘solidarity’  for our rakyat without the need to consider the ability to pay. This seems to be the ideal.5 But in reality perhaps this is pushing fairness and equality too much. As I have tried to explain, our system has indeed an inbuilt pro-poor mechanism that is progressive, relatively fair and to some degree based on cross-subsidisation on the part of those who can afford to pay more in the private sector. Conversely, the government and the public sector cater to those who are poor or who have less disposable household income, albeit with some inconvenience and possibly some unavoidable delays due to rationing economics and triaging of services based on need and urgencies.

Attempt to slow down rising costs of healthcare

There can be no denying that healthcare costs are rising everywhere. The question is whether this health cost escalation is more disproportionately so in Malaysia. I have argued that this is not altogether true. Most Malaysians can afford our current healthcare services—each according to their means—although sometimes begrudgingly!

We have relatively low household expenditure on necessary or catastrophic healthcare services, with arguably the lowest tendency toward medical bankruptcies in the entire Asia Pacific region.6 So the fear that our relatively high out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for healthcare is probably unfounded and not based on the research data available.7 I would challenge our health officials to provide proof that we indeed have a problem with excessive OOP payments that contributes to household impoverishment.

Perhaps more realistic is the policy-shift by the government to consider healthcare as a capital-intensive and resource-consuming ‘unproductive’ economic activity, so much so that the budgetary allotments appear to be reaping low or no returns. Increasingly there has been official talk that this healthcare budget is too much of a ‘subsidy’, which could be reduced in fiscal monetary economics consideration. I argue that this is actually a government prerogative to provide as a mandatory social good, as part of all good civil governance. This is a must in ensuring the basic tenet of human rights to health! The 2 per cent of GDP spent on healthcare, I would argue is a necessary social good, which the public demands. More should and must be allocated.

Government policy shift to reduce health care subsidy

The budgeted amount for health care is simply too low.8 It is argued that the lack of concomitant increase in allocation from government tax revenues over the years, is what has made that proportion of health care spending appear as if there was a huge surge in out-of-pocket spending for the individual or household. Of course, this is reflected and stimulated by the stupendous growth in our private sector healthcare, which was encouraged by the government since the mid 1980s. Overall, there is widespread belief that there is gross underfunding on the part of the government. And that this contributes to the lower morale and lesser competencies of the public health sector.

I have elaborated at length that we have to seriously explore alternative approaches to health equity for Malaysians, where out-of-pocket, OOP payment is just one aspect. Taken together with other health economic parameters and analyses, our health system to date appears ‘progressive’  (i.e. fair and equitable) in terms of health financing options and mechanisms.  Of course, the system can and should be improved, but this might simply require some elaborate and painstaking tweaking rather than a wholesale revamp!

Indeed, will the proposed de facto ‘socialisation’ or corporatisation of our health care systems through the proposed integration of public-private sectors, be the correct mechanism to forestall the trajectory of escalating health care costs, while promoting health care access and equity as envisioned by the government?9

Or, would allocating or injecting more public funds into the public sector to boost services be the more immediate and more cost-effective approach towards increasing universal access and widening the already available basket of services to the public, at little or no cost? After all over several decades now the government has only been spending just around 2 per cent of the nation’s GDP toward health care. What if this allocation were to be increased to say 4 per cent, even it this means diverting or cannibalizing some funds from other areas such as defence, or other non-critical services?

Healthcare subsidy would almost certainly benefit more people as a whole, while increasing healthcare accessibility without the threat of inability-to-pay. Our public increasingly feels that our tax revenues could be put to better and more sensible use, and would certainly welcome such an increase in healthcare funding.

I believe the public will consider this as a generous bequest from a prudent and caring government. This will stimulate growth and capacity for the public sector and probably strengthen the delivery of services to the public especially those in the lower income stream, so as to narrow the perceived gap of public-private disparities. When this sector is improved, the private sector would be forced to compete even more aggressively and cost-effectively so that overall, the delivery of health services across the board would be enhanced!

So what about this obsession with our out-of-pocket (OOP) payment for health being too high? I am not particularly impressed about this risk, taking into consideration the peculiarities within our Malaysian health system.

Can medical bankruptcies or impoverishment be prevented if our out-of-pocket payments are reduced enough, through another mechanism of healthcare reimbursement plan i.e. an additional compulsory tax of sorts, via the social health insurance? Other neighbouring countries such as Singapore have even higher OOP payment percentage but have done well.

WHO’s recommends Primary Care-led Universal Coverage…

This appears to be one of the main reasons, our health officials feel we should show solidarity with global aspirations. However, the W.H.O. is essentially more concerned about universal coverage and access to health care for the underdeveloped nations around the third world. Arguably these levels of development of health systems have been way below our own. These arguments generally do not apply to the more developed first world nations.

The different W.H.O. officials whom I have met and discussed with have also cautioned against too drastic a health reform, urging instead for more public consultations, systematic pilot projects as well as improving tailored systems and delivery based on our strengths. Some have urged for graduated evolution of reform because there is no system the world over that is the right one for healthcare delivery. Local and regional conditions and peculiarities should be considered and factored in.

In fact Dr Margaret Chan, the W.H.O. Director-General has said that ““no single mix of policy options will work well in every setting… Any effective strategy for health financing needs to be home-grown. Health systems are complex adaptive systems, and their different components can interact in unexpected ways. By covering failures and setbacks as well as successes, the report helps countries anticipate unwelcome surprises and avoid them. Trade-offs are inevitable, and decisions will need to strike the right balance between the proportion of the population covered, the range of services included, and the costs to be covered.” Thus, no ‘one-size-fits-all’ model exists for the perfect health care system!10

It is true however, that the W.H.O. has been big in urging for a primary care-led health delivery system.11 This is underpinned by economic considerations that the primary care-led health initiative can help slow the trajectory of healthcare costs, by serving as a gate-keeper and helping to ration healthcare to meet finite healthcare resources. It is argued that when patients have unfettered access to secondary and tertiary care at will and on demand, specialist care often trumps cost considerations because, health needs almost always carry unregulated individual moral hazards and conflicts of interests!

Moreover, with the primary care-led system, some degree of orderliness and rationing can help provide at least a modicum of basic healthcare services for everyone, the quantum or the size of the basket of services would necessarily depend on the capacity of the state to provide, but would need constant negotiated enhancement over time.

What about for Malaysia? Our GP services already cater to about 62 per cent of all the primary care needs of the population, even if this was via OOP payment mechanisms; while the public outpatient clinics cater to the other 38 per cent of the poorer population. If the public clinics cannot cope with the patient load, it has been argued that the GPs should be roped in to help provide the decongesting exercise. The public sector can actually purchase GP services to help offload the patient congestion at public institutions. This is actually the mechanism of healthcare partnership in most of the European health systems from France to Germany. It is in the finding of workable solutions and bureaucratic reimbursement mechanisms that is at present holding back this potential partnership.

Social Health Insurance and Authority, another GLC?

What about having a social health insurance at this point in time? Are Malaysians ready for this form of individual or family-group taxation i.e. contributing towards a community-rated health insurance scheme, which will be run by an appointed autonomous authority that will control and disburse all funds from ‘womb to tomb’ for all health-related problems? Not every health policy expert agrees that SHI is superior to tax-based health payment mechanism, indeed SHI have many detractors.12

Many countries such as Australia, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have maintained predominantly tax-financed systems since the 1960s. In fact, the NHS of UK is almost 88 per cent funded from tax revenue allocations. Other countries that have maintained a SHI system since the early 1960s, includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Turkey. One major criticism about the SHI model is that healthcare spending per capita tends to rise more than tax-based health systems, although achieving less coverage.13 These gaps and inequalities in coverage in SHI systems are likely to translate into inequalities in per capita health spending, which in turn produce below average levels and delivery of health care. In fact, some countries improve their universal coverage only when they switch more toward tax-based systems of health financing, e.g. southern European countries.14

Are Malaysians ready to relinquish control of their health dollars to an independent authority, which is sanctioned by the government? Is this one other form of a GLC (Government-linked corporation), which could potentially be an affirmative-action patronage-linked connotation? This is not likely to persuade many Malaysians towards its acceptability. Why empower another huge conglomerate, where we cannot control, but which can limit our choices while also costing us more immediately?15

Can we accept perhaps a more limited and constrained version of health care access, but which would provide a modicum of guarantees against the vagaries of catastrophic illness, so that as a whole, our eventual health care costs would be lower in the long run?

Can we accept that there might even be some reduction in the basket of healthcare services, medicines or therapies, which are deemed too costly or not ready to be included? How much copayment would we be willing to accept while we are already mandated to contribute some percentage of our wages toward this Social Health Insurance?

Would Malaysians become more patient and accepting that some non-urgent medical care might not need to be sought immediately, every time? That, many ailments could be safely waited upon, albeit with some slightly prolonged discomfort and possibly pain, so as to preserve and spare our finite healthcare resources more efficiently?

Malaysians would have to learn and accept that this is the usual response time for most ailments, which are non-medical emergencies. But changing such ingrained mindsets take time, and would need the appropriate inculcation of values and buy-in options from the public. It would be foolhardy to push through such radical reforms that could potentially disrupt our hitherto vaunted and respected even if imperfect, health services!

Are Alternative Health Reforms Possible?

Perhaps, we should work towards some structure of reform in a more gradual manner. Let the system evolve by setting up pilot projects of change first within the already hugely subsidized public sector. For our civil servants and their dependents, they could be absorbed into this enhanced system, where the general government revenues can be allocated more concretely. Perhaps, the government could start some SHI model at the same time, thus involving some 1.2 million civil servants and their dependents, to see if this manner of co-contribution to some risk-pooling insurance could work well.

Other private sector companies would necessarily be viewing this development with keen interests and they too could be incentivized to participate or join in voluntarily, if and when they see the practical and cost-benefits of the ‘new’ system, for their own employees. However, we must caution that they should not be coerced into accepting some basket of health services for their charges, which are inferior to what is currently available–change must be for the better and not the other way round! It is critical that the transformed public sector is seen to function seamlessly and competently, so that those outside its reach would feel justified that this is the possible better option.

Currently, most companies big and small, purchase some forms of company assisted health insurance or some negotiated empanelling of GP clinic groups to provide healthcare benefits for their employees. These have been serving most companies well all this while. However, as with any new model it is possible that in time, these companies could see the benefits and preference for the government initiative. Then over some decades perhaps, this could be expanded to include more and more of our citizens, because this is indeed the better way forward. This would ensure gradual buy-in on the part of the public, when they can be assured that the option of SHI is the best method of health care reimbursement for most nations. But let the rakyat have that choice and make it themselves!

Implications & Concerns of Single Payer Gate-keeping Primary Care

Malaysians are accustomed to our current healthcare system where they can consult or even change any doctor or specialist at will, when they fall ill. It is true that sometimes this can be a costly exercise, which has led to duplication of services, investigations and wastage of unconsumed medications and lack of continuity of care.

However, it is debatable whether these doctor hopping or shopping practices among some of us, are such a major problem that we have be devise an entirely new scheme to curtail this. Would this make much sense if only a small minority does this, or is this simply a command or arbitrary health economic measure that the government wishes to impose, just because it can?

Under the new proposed 1Care system, unless deemed necessary and referred by a gate-keeping primary care doctor, any other self-referral to another non-designated doctor or specialist would not be reimbursable. In other words, you will be required to pay out of pocket if you choose to bypass the new system, and see second or third opinions when not referred by designated doctors. Remember that these doctors have been contractually advised and are also controlled by the new authorities, to only refer when they think is necessary, and that their performance or failure to carry out some of these measures, might also not be reimbursed or might even be penalized!16

Knowing the penchant for Malaysians to be quite critical and choosy, and in some ways empowered, there is that distinct possibility that many people might continue to do this and thereupon incur even more self-paying for services that they demand. Can we wean the public out of this kind of thinking or practice? Or should we allow the free market to determine and dictate the terms of reference of how they can access their own preferred doctor, based on the concept that our rakyat should have the right to decide and to choose?

What if gate-keeping doctors fail to be as competent or as satisfactory as they are supposed to be? Especially, when these designated doctors are often not from personal or free choice. Would there be any recourse to any form of dispute resolution or arbitration for change or complaint? Could this lead to uncalled-for delay of diagnosis, treatment or even serious consequences, which the system will tolerate? Would medico-legal challenges be allowed if negligence and poor outcomes occur, and would patients have a choice to pursue some remedial recourse for themselves or their loved ones?

During the 2010 General Practitioner’s Summit, some 300-odd doctors spent 2 whole days debating their roles and the merits and concerns about the proposed 1Care health reform.17 While most agree on some consensus of supporting a primary care-led health system, many were very concerned as to the scope and extent of the far-reaching reform proposals. Gate-keeping might be an acceptable model to adopt to regulate unwarranted access to specialist health care referral, but flexibility was considered critical for the public to buy in.

There were also fears of the mandatory social health insurance, the single payer system, capitation or global budget fee arrangements, and the need for the GPs to be under layers of bureaucrats whether family medicine specialists or so-called quality or safety officers from different agencies, which could only increase logistic as well as running costs! Ultimately there is fear that higher costs of practices would be passed on down to the public and the patients.18

So, are Malaysians ready to evolve into a system of healthcare, which is controlled and restricted in large measure by a designated family physician or GP, i.e. primary care-led, and an overarching National Health Authority? What about checks and balances of misuse, abuse or simply technical glitches from venal or incompetent practitioners or armchair medical managers?

These are the concerns that are difficult to dispel. Because the possible limitations of the proposed single authority could easily stifle access and promote extraordinary expenses out-of-pocket for a sizable portion of our citizens, who might find this single payer mechanism too tiresome and bureaucratic, what with the enforced gate-keeping and possible inefficiency adding as a serious stumbling block to free choice!

If it ain’t broke…

Again, the system isn’t broke, and public acceptance of our current dichotomy of services appears strong without the compelling need to change and/or abolish this functioning system at this point in time.

With an established private sector system in full flight, the 1Care reform plans have cast distracting shadows on the future of private health facilities and private medical practitioners. Are we resorting to some form of de facto ‘socialization’ or underhand corporatization of our health services? Is this compatible with our free-market economic practice, with our established concomitant and much vaunted public health sector safety nets? Would this plan spook investors in the health care sector? Would this also contribute towards more talent migration and capital flight? Most importantly, would the public actually benefit or suffer more from such a radical change?

Or, is this an attempt to create another huge quasi-corporatisation exercise worth tens of billions of ringgit? Still, is this reform going to concentrate all the nation’s health resources into the reach and control of onemega-conglomerate or government-linked corporate body? Would this once again stifle true competition and allow rent-seeking patronage practices now so entrenched and yet so reviled by our enlightened citizens?19

There is great fear that by concentrating all the power, the financing and the discretion to access healthcare in the hands of one authority, many people could be worse off, and might be shortchanged even further due to bureaucratic or possibly biased practices and flawed implementation. Ironically as feared by many, we might be forced into paying more than we have to date, and yet might get much less in return for our healthcare needs, in the so-called reformed future!

Preferential and selective referrals or designations of primary care doctors are also feared possibilities, in sharp contrast to our current approach where this is decided by free choice. To make matters worse, if one bypasses this gate-keeper pathway to healthcare (which we fear will happen, if dissatisfaction, glitches and delays occur with the new system), then one is saddled with having to pay out-of-pocket once again, thereby defeating the premise of why this reform is needed in the first place. Excessive out-of-pocket (OOP) payment is one of the major why’s the proposed health reform is touted to be necessary in the first place, the aim being to abolish or reduce this aspect of reimbursement!

So perhaps for once, before this actually materialize, the public must be protected from poorly conceived and potentially commandeered plans to benefit questionable parties, which could drastically impact Malaysians for the worse!

There remains serious confusion, uncertainties and huge but foreboding unknowns pertaining to the proposed health reform of 1Care. If our system ain’t broke, don’t change it so drastically so as to make it potentially much worse! For goodness sake, please for once, listen to the people!20

*Dr David Quek is past-president of the Malaysian Medical Association, but the opinions expressed are strictly his own and does not reflect those of the MMA.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 11 February 2012, 2:00 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s prime minister loses most from Anwar trial

— by Barry Wain

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 10, 2012

FEB 10 — Malaysians expressed a collective sigh of relief when Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted of sodomy charges in early January.

Their groan of dismay over the prosecution’s subsequent decision to appeal was equally palpable.

For most Malaysians, despite being divided in their opinions of Anwar, the acquittal marked a chance to move away from the sleazy politics that has long dominated daily life. Now, they expect more of the same. Aware of public exasperation, Prime Minister Najib Razak was quick to seize on the not guilty verdict as proof of his ‘reformist’ agenda and Malaysia’s supposedly independent judiciary. But the appeal leaves him stranded, inclined to delay calling a general election, and acutely aware that he is under threat as much from within his own ranks as from the opposition. It seems likely that Najib will win the next election, but unless he scores big — which seems unlikely — his leadership could be at risk.

The old guard in Najib’s United Malays National Organisation (Umno), the core of the Barisan Nasional coalition government, has been trying to have Anwar convicted of sexual misconduct for more than 13 years. His first sodomy trial in the late 1990s was regarded as a miscarriage of justice, and the recently completed second trial was just as dubious, according to international legal and human rights organisations. Kuala Lumpur has a thriving gay club scene and nightlife, and the police — to their credit — do not hound homosexuals. But Anwar was hauled into court twice on a charge of ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

The government’s deliberate targeting of Anwar is obvious. His arrest in 2008 came soon after he led a revitalised opposition to unprecedented gains in a general election, depriving the Umno-led Barisan Nasional of its usual two-thirds majority in parliament. Subsequently, Anwar has spent much of the past three years caught up defending himself in the sodomy trial, when he might have otherwise engaged in consolidating the opposition coalition.

Despite, or perhaps because of, these efforts, the trial has become a liability for Najib. The value in distracting Anwar and trying to knock him out politically has been offset by the damage to Najib’s reputation as a putative reformer. Conscious that the long-term electoral trend is running against the ruling coalition, which has held power since independence in 1957, Najib has positioned himself as an agent of change, who is in touch with Malaysia’s younger generation. He has attempted to roll back unpopular elements of an affirmative action program designed to benefit the country’s majority ethnic Malay community, liberalise press restrictions and replace controversial security laws, including detention without trial. Still, Najib is yet to convert the rhetoric of reform into reality, which he must do to win back the alienated centre of Malaysian politics, where cynicism and anger run deep.

Najib is encountering entrenched opposition within Umno, particularly from conservatives who favour continued Malay privileges and the flow of patronage to the party faithful. These older Umno Malays and their supporters in the business world and bureaucracy — especially the police and prosecutors — strongly objected to Anwar being freed and lobbied hard and successfully for the appeal. In the end, Najib will lose the most. It seems he failed to stand up to these factions — again — and lost the public relations gains from Anwar’s acquittal.

The loss of the momentum that Anwar’s freedom initially gave Najib may persuade him to wait until later this year to call an election, which must be held by March 2013. Najib must gamble that the electoral climate will improve by this time. But the economy could slow and more political scandals could emerge — rampant corruption involving Umno politicians has already hurt his government.

Free to campaign, Anwar will lift the spirits of the three-party opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition. But he is looking and sounding tired, and his own People’s Justice Party is rife with factionalism and squabbling. Although Anwar said recently: ‘My gut tells me we will win [the election]’, most analysts believe he will fall short, even if not by much.

While the opposition will surely live to fight another day, Najib may not have it so easy, even if he wins. Only the recovery of a two-thirds parliamentary majority will ensure his continued leadership of UMNO and Malaysia. Failing this, Najib could face pressure to step aside if he loses more seats, a fate that befell Abdullah Badawi, his predecessor. — East Asia Forum

* Barry Wain is Writer-in-Residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 11 February 2012, 5:36 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Greece set to agree to bailout as Germany demands action

By Harry Papachristou and Matt Robinson

Reuters

Sun Feb 12, 2012

ATHENS (Reuters) – Greek lawmakers looked set to agree to a deeply unpopular bailout deal on Sunday to avert what Prime Minister Lucas Papademos warned would be “economic chaos,” and Germany demanded Athens dramatically change its ways to stay in the euro.

The austerity bill sets out 3.3 billion euros ($4.35 billion) in wage, pension and job cuts as the price of a 130-billion-euro rescue package from the European Union and International Monetary Fund – Greece’s second since 2010.

Greece needs the funds before March 20 to meet debt repayments of 14.5 billion euros and the bill has stirred anger on the streets and turmoil within the coalition government.

Addressing the nation late on Saturday, Papademos warned that failure to back the bill would mean a disorderly default and “set the country on a disastrous adventure.”

“It would create conditions of uncontrolled economic chaos and social explosion,” he said.

“The country would be drawn into a vortex of recession, instability, unemployment and protracted misery and this would sooner or later lead the country out of the euro.”

Greece’s Communist Party accused him of “lying and scaremongering.”

But euro zone paymaster Germany ratcheted up the pressure, saying Europe needed action, not words.

“The promises from Greece aren’t enough for us any more,” German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in an interview published on Sunday in Welt am Sonntag newspaper.

German opinion polls show a majority of Germans are willing to help, Schaeuble said, “but it’s important to say that it cannot be a bottomless pit.

“That’s why the Greeks have to finally close that pit. And then we can put something in there. At least people are now starting to realize it won’t work with a bottomless pit.”

“Greece needs to do its own homework to become competitive – whether that happens in conjunction with a new rescue program or by another route that we actually don’t want to take…”

When asked if that other “route” meant Greece would have to leave the euro zone, Schaeuble said: “That is all in the hands of the Greeks themselves. But even in the event (Greece leaves the euro zone), which almost no one assumes will happen, they will still remain part of Europe.”

DIRE WARNINGS, STORMY DEBATE

He said that the rescue efforts for Greece were proving more difficult than efforts to unify Germany in 1990.

“The reason is the realization that there is a need for change, and change dramatically, still needs to develop further with a lot of people in Greece.”

The 300-seat parliament is due to begin debating the bill at 2 p.m. (1200 GMT) before a vote expected late in the evening.

Demonstrators have pledged to turn out in force at 6 p.m. (1600 GMT) on the main square in front of the assembly, although rainy weather may limit the numbers of protesters.

The austerity measures include 300 million euros in pension cuts and a 22 percent reduction in the minimum wage from about 750 euros a month.

The bill aims to cut Greece’s bloated state sector workforce by about 150,000 people by 2015.

It also provides for a bond swap to ease Greece’s debt burden by cutting the real value of private investors’ bond holdings by some 70 percent.

On a day of dire warnings and stormy debate on Saturday, leaders of the ruling coalition told uneasy lawmakers to support the bill or be dropped from party lists for an election that could come by April.

At least 20 deputies from the two main parties in the Papademos coalition threatened on Saturday to vote ‘No’ – but the bulk of the coalition’s 236 MPs are still all but certain to approve the package. Six members of his cabinet have resigned.

Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos said the deal had to be approved by Sunday or the country would miss a February 17 deadline to offer the debt “haircut” to its private-sector bondholders.

Euro zone finance ministers also expect Greece to explain by then how 325 million euros from this year’s total budget cuts, as yet unspecified, will be achieved before it agrees to the bailout.

Bailout documents released on Friday left blank the amount of the full rescue package, and Venizelos said Greece might need 15 billion euros more to save the country’s banks, confirming estimates from EU officials.

The EU and IMF say they will not release the aid without clear commitments by the main party leaders that reforms will be implemented, whoever wins the next election.

(Editing by Louise Ireland)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 February 2012, 8:45 pm and is filed under
international economic crisis
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hasan Ali: Dari Umno dia datang, kepada Umno jugalah dia akan kembali

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 11, 2012

11 FEB — Dr Hasan Ali, bekas Exco kerajaan (PAS) negeri Selangor, yang dipecat dari PAS baru-baru ini nampaknya mendapat tempat di media perdana terutamanya di TV3. Setiap malam kita melihat Hasan Ali diliputi oleh TV3 dan beliau ditonjolkan sebagai seorang pelakon Bollywood seperti Shah Rukh Khan.

Kita melihat lakunannya setiap hari dengan berdoa sambil menangis serta kembali bercakap dengan nada yang tinggi beserta dengan gerak tangannya yang menunjukkan beliau memang hebat berlakon dan berdrama. Hasan akhir-akhir ini selalu menggunakan air mata beliau dalam membahaskan isu politik untuk menagih sokongan ramai. Beliau boleh menangis serta merta jika perlu dan air matanya jelas meleleh keluar.

Beliau mendapat liputan TV3 setiap hari dan kenapa beliau diberi tempat didalam media letronik ini tanpa henti itu memang sudah menjadi perkara yang maklum kepada orang ramai. Berbagai-bagai cara beliau menonjolkan diri seperti bintang filem Bollywood. Yang belum beliau lakukan hanyalah menari dari gunung hingga ketepi laut sambil menyanyi dan naik kembali kegunung dengan pakaian yang bertukar-tukar silih berganti.

Sesungguhnya Hasan tidak selayaknya menjadi ahli politik. Oleh itu selepas beliau dipecat dari PAS ini, saya mencadangkan supaya Hasan pergi ke India dan menguji bakat lakonan bersama ramai yang minat berlakon dalam Industri filem di Bollywood. Beliau sememangnya mempunyai bakat berlakon dan saya merasakan beliau tidak akan melalui jalan sukar untuk berjaya dalam uji bakat berlakon di situ. Beliau memang seorang yang sangat berbakat dalam lakonan.

Walaupun saya tidak pernah kepanggung wayang sejak puluhan tahun yang lalu, saya berjanji akan membeli tiket yang secukupnya untuk se isi keluarga saya pergi menonton lakonan beliau dalam filem pertama yang beliau lakunkan nanti. Saya percaya pihak yang beliau caci sekarang ini iaitu PAS, PKR dan DAP tidak teragak-agak untuk bersama-sama menonton lakonan beliau.

Hasan merupakan seorang ‘failed broker’ kerana niatnya untuk menjadi orang penting dalam usaha penyatuan Umno dengan PAS telah menemui kegagalan. Kegagalan untuk menyatukan Umno dan PAS itu telah meranapkan cita-citanya untuk menjadi MB Selangor. Hasan mengharapkan untuk menjamah kerusi MB itu jika Umno dan PAS bersatu kerana jika itu berlaku maka beliau akan berjaya melaksanakan ‘intrigue’ politik seperti mana yang telah berlaku di Perak sebelumnya.

Apabila niat dan matlamat untuk menjayakan ‘compromise’ di antara Umno dengan PAS itu maka beliau terus sahaja membidas PKR dan DAP dan menjadikan Anwar sebagai ‘punching bag’ untuk beliau melakukan serangan kepada pihak-pihak yang telah menggagalkan niat beliau untuk mendapat munafaat jika Umno dan PAS berjaya di satukan.

Rasa kempunan beliau inilah yang menyebabkan Hasan sudah hilang arah politiknya. Beliau rasa malu yang besar kerana disebabkan tapak dan langkahnya telah dengan mudah dapat dikesan dan difahami oleh semua pihak yang telah memerhatikan lagak dan lakunannya sejak usaha untuk merapatkan Umno dan PAS itu jatuh sebelum ‘taking off’.

Sekarang Hasan sedang mengaruk dan beliau menyalahkan semua pihak dalam Pakatan Rakyat. PAS dan DAP itu adalah pihak yang salah kepada Hasan PKR pula salah kerana jawatan MB yang beliau hendak tagih itu datangnya dari PKR. Hasan juga menyanggah secara peribadi terhadap Khalid Samad yang pernah menjadi timbalanya dalam PAS Selangor. Hasan juga membidas Anwar kerana kononnya PAS tidak mahu mengikut kehendaknya (Hasan) adalah kerana pengaruh Anwar Ibrahim.

Sekarang Hasan telah menyalahkan semua pihak dalam PR kecuali peribadi beliau sendiri. Beliau kini bergerak untuk mewujudkan ‘force ketiga’ untuk kononnnya untuk menjai penentu dalam pilihanraya nanti. Bagi saya, Hasan tidak mempunyai rupa untuk menjadi ‘third force’ dalam politik tanah air sekarang ini.

Dalam situasi politik kali ini mana-mana pihak yang cuba untuk meletakkan diri mereka sebagai ‘middle left’ atau ‘middle right’ tidak akan membawa apa-apa keuntungan. Rakyat kini mahukan kumpulan yang ‘decisive’, samada kanan atau pun kiri. Tetapi jika diselidik kepada keadaan hari ini, Hasan mungkin menyertai Umno juga akhirnya. Umno adalah parti yang beliau pernah sertai sebelum isu Anwar pada tahun 1998 dahulu.

Jika Hasan kembali menyertai Umno maka ‘dari Umno beliau datang, kepada Umno jugalah beliau akan kembali’. Buat sementara waktu Hasan boleh bersalaman ketat-ketat dengan Ibrahim Ali, Zulkifli Nordin dan Zaharin Hashim. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 February 2012, 10:46 am and is filed under
DAP
,
PAS
,
PKR
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How myths can be necessary and also dangerous

— Farish A. Noor

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 12, 2012

FEB 12 — Over the last two days I have been interviewed three times by three different media publications over the question of where I stand on the latest silly debate in Malaysia, namely the question of whether Hang Tuah existed or not, and whether it ought to be taught in schools.

This is, I have to confess, one of the smaller histories of Malaysia that has been in the footnotes of my mind for ages, and I recall how I was once asked by an elderly gentleman during a forum discussion in Kuala Lumpur in 1998 if it was true that Hang Tuah was of Chinese origin.

Let me state what little I know of the matter, and make my stand relatively clearer:

Firstly, I don’t know or care if Hang Tuah was Chinese, Malay, Japanese, Eskimo or Serbo-Croat. He could have been a mix of all of the above with a Martian wife and a Venusian mother-in-law, for all I care.

Secondly, no, there is no record of the keris Taming Sari either, and every antique shop that claims to have one is lying to get your money.

Thirdly, please note that in the Hikayat Hang Tuah, we also have stories of kerises that fly, magical potions, demons and monsters, and a magical bean that when swallowed allows you to speak all languages. (A bit like the Babel fish in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy methinks.)

Look, for the umpteenth time, may I state that in my opinion the Hikayat Hang Tuah is a work of fiction. Looking for facts in fiction is like trying to find the exact location where the battle of the Mahabharatta was fought, or the exact spot where King Arthur removed the sword Excalibur from the stone. It’s a story, for heaven’s sake!

Though I have not read the exact comments made by Professor Khoo Kay Kim that sparked off this debate, I was made to understand that all Prof Khoo said was that Hang Tuah did not exist in the form of an actual, living, historical human being. On that count he happens to be right, as there are also no written records to show that Marco Polo ever went to China — and some historians have even claimed that his account of China was entirely fabricated, and put together from other accounts of other travellers who did make the journey to the land of the Celestials themselves.

Hang Tuah was, and remains, a myth. And Myths are only that — grand narratives that make it into the national consciousness and become part of a nation’s symbolic and discursive repertoire. Some works of fiction may indeed have historical details in them, and Tolstoy’s War and Peace stands out as a prominent example. Nobody doubts that Napoleon existed, that Napoleon invaded Russia, that the battle of Borodino was fought in 1812. But just because these places and dates are true does not mean that Pierre Besuhov or Prince Andrei Bolkonsky existed too. Tolstoy simply weaved a monumental tale that was spun through a combination of fiction and facts, and the product was a classic of European literature.

And this is where my gripe lies: That for decades too many extreme right-wing nationalist buffoons in Malaysia have sought to instrumentalise the myth of Hang Tuah as a vehicle for all sorts of nefarious and dubious ideological ends: as a testament to ethnic majoritarianism, as a primordial claim to land and belonging, as a means to proclaim ethnic dominance etc.

And yet — until today — an overwhelming number of semi-literate Malaysians pontificate at length about a text they have never read in full. People claim Hang Tuah as a member of their “race”, despite the fact that in the second part of the Hikayat Hang Tuah the character renounces all worldly belonging to kingdom and kind.

Right-wing nationalists claim him as an ethnic hero, despite the fact that by the end of the story Hang Tuah gives up his keris, abandons his kingdom, turns his back on power and becomes a wandering everyman mystic-emissary of peace. He finds/found salvation through a denial of the world and its attendant riches and power, and becomes a nobler man because he denies racism, nationalism and forms of parochial sectarian power-politics. That is why he is a hero, for heaven’s sake. And despite all that — which can be found in the Hikayat if only people took the time to read it — Malaysians still ask if Hang Tuah was Malay or Chinese???

I agree with Prof Khoo that history has to begin by teaching students to differentiate between fact and fiction, data and myths.

The Hikayat Hang Tuah falls in the latter category — but as a myth it is, and should be seen as, truly inspiring, uplifting and noble for the manner in which it valorises our common humanity above all else. Hang Tuah, in the end, does not care about race: So why should we??

In the final analysis, the Hikayat Hang Tuah ought to be taught in our schools — but only if it is taught in full, and equal emphasis is given to the development of the character who eventually becomes a universal figure, standing above narrow ethnic and political loyalties, and who sees the human race as his family and the world as his home. What a great message that would be for a new generation of global and globalising Malaysians!

But for that to happen Malaysia still has to evolve a little further, and we need to render ourselves immune to the crass and vulgar attempts to turn our national heroes, myths and legends into parochial tales to frighten the masses and to compel blind loyalty from people who can’t even read beyond page one. — aliran.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 February 2012, 8:01 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Greece facing disorderly default?

By Barry Neild and Irene Chapple, CNN

Feb 10, 2012

Greece is in negotiations over its latest bailout deal, but needs to meet harsh new terms

The country is implementing austerity measures but faces protests and deteriorating finances

The default of a eurozone member is politically and economically charged

London (CNN) — Will Greece default?

Greece is negotiating to repay some creditors less than what it owes in order to avoid a disorderly default. If Greece is unable to repay its bills at all on the day they fall due, this would trigger a sudden default which would send shockwaves through the market. Greece faces its next large bond redemption, of €14.5 billion, in March, and is in negotiations over its latest bailout deal as the deadline to this payment approaches.

However, it needs to meet harsh new terms laid out by Europe’s leaders. Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg and head of the Eurogroup, has said three elements must be nailed down in order for the country to access the funds.

The sweeping reform package agreed to by Greece and the so-called troika, made up of the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, must be approved by parliament this weekend.

Secondly, Greece’s political leaders must pledge that they will continue to implement the measures after elections in April. Finally, Greece must also find a further €325 million in “structural expenditure” cuts for 2012.

Greece has been implementing harsh austerity measures to try to balance its books, but has faced protests on the streets, and finances that are worse than expected. Its economy is deteriorating, and it cannot raise money with investors due to the high premiums they demand — leaving it dependent on the bailout funds.

Why is Greece still being supported?

The default of a eurozone member is politically and economically charged. The common currency lies at the heart of the “European dream” and a default by one its members would be devastating.

So Greece is being financially supported by its eurozone peers as Europe’s leaders, led by Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy, desperately attempt to figure out how to fix the problems. But the situation is getting worse as the eurozone economy heads toward recession.

The potential for the crisis to spread to Italy and Spain — the so-called “contagion” effect — is a powerful incentive to contain the problem. Bailouts of Greece, Ireland and Portugal have created backlashes in countries such as Germany; the prospect of holding up the bloc’s far larger economies is economically and politically unpalatable.

So what are Europe’s leaders doing?

Most European leaders have agreed on a fiscal pact which strengthens a financial firewall and is designed to prevent governments running excessive deficits. The €500 billion permanent bailout fund — called the European Stability Mechanism — is being introduced mid year, rather than next year as originally planned.

But Europe’s leaders have come up with grand plans before and been knocked back by the markets. Unless this plan addresses all the concerns with some force, the crisis is likely to escalate.

How serious is default?

It depends if it is disorderly, or controlled. It is now clear some creditors will not be paid back in full, and markets will likely be relieved once a deal on this is done. However, there have been numerous grim predictions should Greece be suddenly unable to pay its bills. Most doomsday scenarios see global panic and market sell-offs. A default might mean French and German banks exposed to the debt will begin to struggle, resulting in a credit lockdown by the wider banking sector.

If banks are forced to take this hit, it could have global economic consequences similar to those seen in the financial crisis that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

Investors would also begin looking at which other countries are facing financial difficulties, including Italy and Spain. If investors stop supporting these countries, the eurozone’s stronger countries could again be leaned on for financial assistance.

But that’s where the help from Europe, and further afield, could run out of capacity. Italy’s economy, for example, makes up 17% of the eurozone — nearly seven times bigger than that of Greece. These countries are regarded as “too big to fail,” because bailouts would be too expensive.

How did we get here?

Greece’s economy has struggled since the country joined the euro in 2001. In 2004, it admitted its budget deficit was higher than allowed under rules of entry.

By 2008 the government had narrowly passed a belt-tightening budget, designed to trim its massive national debt burden, triggering massive protests. In 2009, Greece admitted its deficit would be more than 12% of gross domestic product — far higher than previous estimates and more than four times the requirements of entry into the eurozone.

The country was hit with ratings downgrades, pushing its sovereign bonds into so-called “junk” territory. At the same time, resistance to the austerity measures and a contracting economy have made it extremely difficult for Greece to clamber its way out of the financial problems.

Is it time for Greece to drop out of the euro?

Greece is running out of options as pressure grows on its finances. Unless it can make good on massive debts it faces financial collapse, with heavy consequences not only for the eurozone countries but for the global economy.

The ECB, IMF and eurozone countries have poured money into Greece to prevent this outcome and may have to continue doing so unless another solution can be found.

This has led some to call for Greece to be allowed to quit or be thrown out of the euro, to ease the burden. Some Greeks also support this since they believe it would spare them from harsh austerity measures demanded as conditions for assistance.

Economists are divided. Many say it is impossible for Greece to drop out because the consequences would be so disastrous that eurozone economies will not allow this to happen.

However, the likelihood is increasing as Greece continues to struggle with its financial obligations.

How would quitting the euro affect the Greeks?

This would liberate Greece from the eurozone’s fixed exchange rate, allowing it to become a more competitive exporter and an even more attractive tourist destination.

But it would come with a heavy price. It would still leave Greece in debt and reliant on handouts that former eurozone partners would be less willing to supply. It would also mean Greeks would face higher prices for imported goods.

It is also likely to drive people out of the country, as they face lower wages and higher taxes, leaving the country unable to recover for years.

CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark and CNNMoney’s Ben Rooney contributed to this report

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 February 2012, 8:16 pm and is filed under
General
,
international economic crisis
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why revamp our healthcare system with 1 Care?

— CK Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 11, 2012

FEB 11 — Many have written on this subject. Most are concerned about the implementation, costs, bureaucracy and effectiveness of the 1 Care scheme. Perhaps there is another holistic approach the government can consider.

Best treatment for the rakyat

Even in most developed countries those who did not have medical insurance will have to accept public health care and those who can afford it are treated in private hospitals. This is a reality of life, all citizens accept this. Have we heard anyone complain that he should be treated in a five-star private hospital when he knows well that he cannot afford it? The government cannot lose votes on this score. Malaysian citizens are mature enough to realise this fact —not all men are equal! We have the poor, the middle class and the rich — every society has this social structure.

Malaysia’s public health care is highly rated

Compare with even advanced countries, our public healthcare system is highly rated. The equipment in public hospitals are second to none, even more sophisticated than in private hospitals. But better trained staff are required to operate them.

Waiting time

Sure there are long queues, waiting up to two or three hours is normal. Even at private hospitals, seeking an appointment with a specialist incurs a waiting time of an hour or more. The government should have a solution to the long waiting time due to the huge numbers of patients. Increasing the number of health care staff is a simple and good solution. Have separate queues for senior citizens and the handicapped — these people should have priority. This would ease the “pain” for these people.

Managing increasing costs

No citizen will hold a grudge if medical fees are reasonably increased over two or three years. After all, these fees go back to the government and not to any third party, thus avoiding criticism of cronyism. Citizens can accept this. Perhaps for those above 60 years and the handicapped, medicine and fees can be waived to alleviate their medical costs.

There are huge numbers of non-citizens seeking treatment in public hospitals and this is a burden on healthcare costs. While it is a moral responsibility to treat these people, the government must recognise that citizens must be given priority. Perhaps these non-citizens can be charged on a moderate scale for consultation and medicine, say, 50 per cent subsidy. No country in the world subsidises medical treatment to non-citizens. Not even the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Korea, etc. So why must the government and the rakyat be burdened by non-citizens. By doing so, public healthcare costs and government subsidy are lessened. This may sound callous, but let us face reality. Citizens must come first!!

Healthcare budget

With only two per cent of our budget allocated to health care, it must rank low by world standards compared with developed and other developing countries. The government must and should double or triple this amount. Cut from unnecessary and ego-promoting projects! Plug leakages and corruption — billions can be saved and utilised for health care. Do we need 270 units of armoured personnel carriers totalling some RM7.6 billion (and reportedly the cost from Turkey was only RM1.6 billion?) Do we need six littoral patrol vessels at RM1 billion a piece when the US Navy has only two? We can afford health care if we can save from all these.

Unnecessary 1 Care costs

While no specific numbers of staff and costs are available, implementing the 1 Care scheme will incur additional staff and further costs. The civil service is already bloated. What transparency can be expected? Why do we need to “invent” and copy from the UK’s NHS — which incidentally is facing lots of criticisms when the British government wanted to reduce its healthcare coverage.

Politicians must remember this — “privileges” once given out can never be abolished even though there are justifications, even when the government cannot afford it, even when facing bankruptcy. Look at Greece, Spain, Italy —strikes and demonstrations are the order of the day. This brings social and economic unrest.

Shouldn’t we try not to re-invent the wheel. We have a good healthcare system — all it needs are improvements. Something that can be achieved fairly easily and quickly.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 February 2012, 6:46 am and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Happy ending for NFC saga

— Whistleblower 57

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 13, 2012

FEB 13 — Nazri Aziz is the Prime Minister’s troubleshooter and his statement in Sinar Harian about the case must be seen in this light. His suggestion that everything will be fine after Shahrizat Jalil’s family/her repay the RM250 million loan is not his idea but a compromise put together by Putrajaya.

As part of this drama script, the police will recommend that some form of charge be brought against NFC directors but the MACC aka the protectors of corrupt practices in government will clear Shahrizat.

Shahrizat’s family will be given a slap on their wrist and she will not have to resign. The audit firm hired by the government will come out with a report to talk about weaknesses in the NFC process and make a suggestion for the government to either shut it down or take over.

The audit firm will make some recommendations which the government will promise to implement.

The family behind Cowgate will have to relinquish their properties, etc and will be expected to fade away. But Shahrizat will not be forced to resign from Wanita Umno or the government.

This is the brilliant ending to the NFC saga but there is only one spanner in the works and that is the fact that more than RM150 million of the RM250 million was used without proper authorisation.

Therefore, this is not some internal dispute or administrative foul up which Nazri is talking about.

This is either CBT or a lesser criminal offence. But I suppose when corruption is part of the DNA of the ruling party, it is unable to see how disgusting it is to just believe that all the Shahrizat family has to do is make a restitution and everything will be ok.

Are we going to offer all white collar criminals or those who abuse government funds the same  deal?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 February 2012, 10:46 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


It’s our money

R. Nadeswaran

The Sun

12 February 2012

HAVING followed the issue of the National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp) from afar and having had access to both sides of the divide in the past, it makes an interesting change to look at it up close from a local perspective and feel the pulse of the ordinary citizen.

Even if resolved, this issue is not going to go away and die a natural death as it involves people’s money. It has been argued that it is a misuse of public funds and that every sen must be accounted for and spent prudently. But NFCorp CEO Wan Shahinur Izmir Salleh does not think so and came out with guns blazing last week claiming otherwise.

Short of saying that “it is our money, we can do what we want with it”, he declared: “On the note of investing in short-term investments, NFC retains the prerogative to invest the funds in the best interests of the company.”

Wan Shahinur charged: “The idea of NFCorp’s loan money being equated to public funds by hardline critics is a political play intended to deceive the public.”

This writer is not a politician and believes in honesty and integrity. Neither am I a hardline critic but an ardent campaigner for transparency and accountability and practise them to the hilt. However one looks at it, ultimately, it is the people’s money – hard-earned money from taxpayers who keep the administration and business machinery ticking, working hard, sometimes at odd hours and under adverse conditions.

It would be foolhardy to draw a line between “government money” and “people’s money”. Whatever money the government gives out in loans, subsidies or outright gifts, comes from the people. Let us agree on that.

In a statement issued by his public relations agency, Wan Shahinur unwittingly let the cat out of the bag. He said: “The loan agreement does not stipulate any express prohibitions on investments.”

So this begs the question as to why no conditions or restrictions were placed by the government. Surely RM250 million is not someone’s weekend rojak money or loose change after a day’s shopping. Do loans from the government come with a carte blanche on spending?

But reading and re-reading Wan Shahinur’s 600-word repartee to critics, one can only ask: “Even if there are no covenants to the loan, would it be morally right to use the money for personal investment rather than the company’s?”

From what has been reported in the media, the luxury condominiums are either in his name or in the name of his siblings. If it was an “investment” of the company, shouldn’t the properties have been bought and retained in the name of NFCorp?

So, is Wan Shahinur telling us that he and his siblings were given loans from “that” loan from the government to buy property? Are we to assume that the M & A of NFCorp allows for loans to be given to directors and shareholders? Are we to assume that a resolution to this effect was made before the purchase of the condominium units?

Even if all the legal requirements had been met, the morality of the whole case comes into question. If people’s money is advanced as a loan to help the country’s dependence on imports, would it be ethically right to use that money for something else?

On Jan 17, I wrote: “This problem will not go away with terse and selective statements. There’s a Tamil proverb which says that you cannot hide a whole pumpkin in a plate of rice, which is exactly what NFCorp is trying to do.

“Once and for all, put all the cards on the table, come clean and put up your hands if you have done wrong. Only then will the whole nation believe anything that comes from NFC itself or through consultants and counsellors.”

This position has not changed – neither mine nor that of journalistic colleagues or millions of ordinary people. If there’s nothing to hide, why don’t you face the media instead of hiding behind releases full of jargon which explain nothing or perhaps, little at the most?

R. Nadeswaran takes over from where he left off with a timely reminder that government money is the people’s money. He can be reached at:
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 February 2012, 8:07 am and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan vows to fix judiciary if voted into power

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 13, 2012

PR lawmakers said it was essential to return to the courts the independence that was removed from it during the 1988 judicial crisis.

PETALING JAYA, Feb 13 — Pakatan Rakyat leaders today pledged to remove legislative amendments to restore the independence of the judiciary if the opposition pact wins the next general election.

Their remarks came as a response to former chief justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah’s claims that the judiciary has become subservient after former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed clipped its wings in the 1980s when he amended Article 121 of the Constitution.

“Pakatan Rakyat’s stand is that we want a free, independent judiciary,” Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told reporters here.

“It is essential for the restoration (of the judiciary) to pre-1988 (conditions)… restoration of judicial powers means a removal of amendments to Article 121,” added DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang.

Evidence of government control over the judiciary, said Anwar, could be seen from the “persecution” and “one-sided” judgments in high-profile cases involving opposition leaders, including himself.

“This has heavy implications… the decisions have been one-sided against political leaders,” said the Permatang Pauh MP.

Last week, Mohd Dzaiddin, who once headed the country’s courts, said the amendment was repugnant “because Parliament attempted to dictate to the judiciary that it only has judicial powers which Parliament itself says the judiciary has”.

He added that the judiciary should be completely independent of both the executive and legislative arms of government, and stressed that the courts should not be used as a tool for political expediency.

Mohd Dzaiddin pointed out that Dr Mahathir’s clashes over the roles of the two arms of government with then-Lord President Tun Salleh Abas led to the latter’s sacking in 1988.

In response, the former prime minister called Mohd Dzaiddin’s remark a lie.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 February 2012, 10:35 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A sad day to be Malaysians and Muslims

— Islamic Renaissance Front

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 12, 2012

FEB 12 — The Islamic Renaissance Front strongly condemns the deportation of Hamza Kashgari over his allegedly offensive tweets.

Due to the irresponsible and cowardly actions of the Malaysian government in enabling the deportation, Mr Kashragi now faces the possibility of the death penalty in his home country of Saudi Arabia for the simple act of demanding his right to practice the most basic human rights – freedom of expression and thought.

Since the Syri’ah Law that is practised in Saudi – just like any other Muslim countries that implement Syari’ah – is subject to individual interpretation by the clerics, and Saudi is known to have a very poor record in ensuring fair trials compounded by a history of denial of rights to lawyers and clients; we do not feel that Hamza Kashgari will stand a fair trial.

More importantly, Mr Kashgari has already removed the tweets and apologized for his statements. We believe no further punishment is necessary upon the trauma he had already endured being on the run for such an innocuous act what more while facing the risk of punishment by death.

In this, we wish to remind Muslims of the importance of forgiveness in Islam.
 The importance accorded to forgiveness in Islam is very much tied to another key value of the deen which is the freedom of speech and conscience. This can be seen clearly in verse 256 of Al-Baqarah which states that “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error…”

Humans were created as subjects of freedom, divinely endowed with the rational faculties needed to be able to determine what is right and wrong on their own accord without the threat or imposition of external forces. The development of character depends on our ability to make that journey towards the good on terms we can relate to and understand most.

This is the core of any ethical system whereby meaningful choices and virtuous acts find their meaning on the basis that they have been willed freely by the person. For if coercion is what is needed most to ensure good conduct, then notions of love, solidarity, genuine trust or sincerity lose their meaning.

In appealing for the humane treatment of Mr Kashgari, the Islamic Renaissance Front once again points to the values of freedom, justice and democracy in Islam.

We are also deeply disappointed with the complicity of the Malaysian government for succumbing to pressures to deport Mr Kashragi. As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Malaysia could have used this opportunity to set an example to the region, if not the entire Muslim world, of what responsible governance based on human rights could be.

Instead, with barely a pause in its conscience, the Malaysian government saw no problems deporting someone accused guilty for the supposed crime of tweeting his opinions.

The Islamic Renaissance Front adjures that the Malaysian government should just step down from the Human Rights Council so that the world would no longer be led to believe that Malaysia somehow stands for something it actually does not. The reality is that beneath the proliferation of malls and skyscrapers, we are still of an administration that does not understand basic human compassion.

This will save everyone’s time.

The deportation of Hamza Kashgari despite a High Court order preventing it is clearly a show of disrespect and a contempt of court. The Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein must be held resposible for this wicked and egregious act. Considering that Malaysia has no extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, the deportation is a clear insolent and uncivil act and in breach of international laws.

There is nothing to be proud of being a part of the so-called Global Movement of Moderates. It is just another superficial and manipulative evocations of democracy and rights. Today is indeed a very sad day to be Malaysians and Muslims.

Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, Edry Faizal Eddy Yusuf and Muhammad Nazreen Jaafar from the Islamic Renaissance Front sent the above article.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 11:07 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Islam Wasatiyyah should lead defence of Kashgari’s rights

By
CPI
 | 14 February 2012

The BBC, reporting on Hamza Kashgari’s deportation from Kuala Lumpur back to his native Saudi Arabia, said the charge hanging over the young man’s head of insulting the Prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemous in Islam and punishable by death.

Kashgari, 23, fled his country was detained upon his arrival here on Thursday en route to New Zealand where he was planning to seek political asylum. A journalist, Kashgari was recently sacked by Saudi daily al-Bilad where he had a column.

Three allegedly blasphemous tweets were made about Muhammad on the prophet’s birthday (Maulidur Rasul) last week and sparked vociferous calls for the death penalty to be imposed on him.

The climate of fear and caution has been such that – even merely for the purpose of reference – it’s difficult to find Kashgari’s tweets reproduced in reputable websites (although some independent blogs have carried them). One website which initially reproduced them has withdrawn the tweets.

One tweet (out of the three) can be read in
this article
 in the The Guardian.

Amnesty International’s deputy director for Middle East and North Africa, Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, warned that Kashgari “could be executed if his statements are deemed to amount to apostasy.”

An influential Saudi cleric Nasser al-Omar had called for him to be tried for apostasy, a crime punishable by decapitation. A committee of top clerics branded Kashgari “an infidel” and demanded he be tried in an Islamic court.

Nasser’s call elicited a massive and emotional response from supportive Muslims, including on Facebook and Twitter where campaigns began within 24 hours of the controversy erupting and with tens of thousands netizens demanding Kashgari’s head.

Another Islamic state hogging world headlines for its controversial death penalty under hudud law for the blasphemy offence is Pakistan.

Pakistani clerics have similarly engineered protests, that predictably turned violent, to entrench the enforcement of the blasphemy law. Two politicians – Pakistan’s minister for minorities Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer – have been assassinated for their opposition to this law.

In Pakistan, the hudud laws do not apply to just Muslims alone. Between 1988 and 2005, Pakistani authorities charged 647 people with blasphemy offences where half or 50 percent of these were non-Muslims (even though the religious minorities represent only 3 percent of the country’s national population).

Several Pakistani Christians are on death row for allegedly insulting Prophet Muhammad, awaiting their death penalty by hanging to be carried out. It is a grave and dangerous mistake for complacent non-Muslims to think that hudud will not affect them.

Hudud is a slippery slope where once it is imposed, the surrounding social climate degenerates into proscribe-and-punish landmines of hypersensitivity. This particularly leaves the vulnerable religious minorities increasingly treading on eggshells as the Pakistan experience amply forewarns.

Although Hamza Kashgari has had to immediately flee for his life, and now faces the possibility of a death sentence, many still do not know what were his exact words and in what way the remarks could be construed as offensive.

In religiously soaked environments that are highly intolerant of ‘insult’ (purportedly blasphemous) as well as at the mercy of mob rule in the form of spontaneous riots, who will dare to gainsay the accusation levied that Kashgari’s words were indeed insulting?

In tandem with the hudud slippery slope is the parallel war of attrition by religious orthodoxy on our freedoms.

Stealthy step by stealthy step, we retreat by instinctively self-censoring our critical thoughts and comments until the day comes when we reflexively silence our voices altogether. By then, we would have totally succumbed to the intimidation and coercion of religious conformity.

CPI is reproducing below a statement by the Islamic Renaissance Front on the plight of the Saudi journalist who has been deported from Malaysian soil.

Malaysians should support and endorse the arguments and sentiments expressed in this enlightened statement by the IRF and appeal to the Saudi government for the humane treatment of Hamza Kashgari. In particular, proponents of Islam Wasatiyyah and a moderate outlook should lead the defence of Kashgari’s rights, and not look the other way.

We should also ask the Malaysian government to explain its decision which is likely to prove a permanent stain on our humanitarian record and our defence of basic individual rights. It is a blot that will not go away especially if the young man is put to death.

We need to remind the authorities that we are not living in medieval times where actions such as these can pass unnoticed and be ignored. We are confident that the great majority of the international community and Malaysians – Muslims and non-Muslims – will join in the appeal for the just, compassionate and humane treatment of Mr Kashgari.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 11:37 am and is filed under
Foreign
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Restructuring the Malaysian health system: Is there a need?

— Academy of Medicine of Malaysia

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 14, 2012

FEB 14 — We observe with concern and interest the recent discussions by the ‘rakyat’ and explanations by the Ministry of Health Malaysia (MOH) in the print and electronic media regarding the planned National Health System Transformation. We agree that there are deficiencies in the present system that need to be addressed and applaud the Director-General of Health’s pledge to engage the ‘rakyat’ and stakeholders in its planning.

There is no denying that the Malaysia’s Health System is acknowledged internationally as being successful in providing health services to the ‘rakyat’. Notable successes include:

1. Reduction in mortality and morbidity and increased life expectancy, rising from 56 yrs for male in 1957 to 72 years in 2006; and 58 yrs for females to 76 years correspondingly. Infant mortality rate is comparable to developed countries.

2. An equitable public sector and universal access to comprehensive treatment; where everyone has access to medical treatment up to tertiary level at a nominal fee; and for the poor for free.

3. An effective Public Health Service focused on health promotion and disease prevention.

4. An efficient and effective rural health service; this has been used as a model for other developing countries by WHO

All these were achieved with a total health expenditure amounting to 4.8 per cent of GDP; with the government spending less than 3 per cent of GDP. This is way below that recommended by WHO which is 7.6 per cent.

The MOH in its Concept Paper dated 11th August 2009 had proposed a complete restructuring of the Malaysian Health System. The reasons given were:

1. Ensuring that services provided meet clients’ needs

2. Enhancing performance to improve equity of service

3. Providing higher quality care

4. Overcome limited and mismatched health care resources

The question arises whether there is a need for major transformation of the Malaysian Health System to achieve the stated objectives. What is the logic behind public-private integration? Private Hospitals are for profit entities run by private corporations. Should public funds be used to finance such institutions? Why do we need such public-private integration to improve quality and outcome?

It is mind-boggling to think that such an integration will result in such a change without first finding the reason behind such a problem.

The two-tier health system, separate public and private health services, complement each other. The private general practitioners play a vital role in providing primary care to a large portion of Malaysians in urban areas.

We are one of the rare few where private GPs offer 24-hour service. This had helped tremendously to reduce the load of emergency rooms in public hospitals. Primary care for those in the rural community is taken care off by the public health clinics and centres. Secondary and tertiary care are similarly complemented although all the private institutions are concentrated in urban areas.

The MOH had explained that all this is still in its planning stage, with 11 technical working groups discussing the final blue-print. One must understand that these groups are working on the micromanagement of the whole transformation based on the Concept Paper; which is total restructuring of the Health System with a Social Health Insurance Scheme and Public-Private Integration. The path has been fixed from the very beginning; there is no discussion as to the needs to be fixed and how to go about doing it. Since the DG of Health has pledged the he is willing to engage with the ‘rakyat’ regarding this major transformation, we hope that good sense will prevail and the interest of the ‘rakyat’ shall be foremost in everyone’s mind.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 6:41 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stop slandering land tender, Lim tells Umno leaders

Malaysiakini

Feb 14, 2012

Umno leaders have been warned to stop claims that the tender of state land in Bayan Mutiara by the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) was done through a negotiated tender.

The tender was carried out via an open tender system, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said, and therefore enemies of the state should stop their claims that the developer, Ivory Properties Group Bhd, only needs to build affordable houses in Batu Kawan as part of the deal.

Lim, who is DAP secretary general, described the remarks by Umno leaders as “slanderous”.

He said the 102 acres of land south of the Penang bridge was sold via an open tender in 2010 and the developer was bound by the terms of the sale) to build affordable houses, schools and places of worship.

“The sale was conducted via a request for proposals and the open tender was advertised in the newspapers in 2010. The highest bidder was chosen, it was not negotiated,” Lim said in a statement.

“The reserve price of RM200 per square feet (psf) was far higher than the valuation price obtained by the PDC,” he added.

“(We obtained) the highest price of RM240psf, which amounts to RM1.07 billion in total, and this will be paid in five years.”

Umno MP: Price too low

Last week, Umno MP for Kota Belud, Abdul Rahman Dahlan, said the price of the land was reached through negotiated tender.

Penang Umno chief Zainal Abidin Osman questioned why the land was not developed by the PDC, which is the owner.

Zainal also criticised the tender price of the land as “too low”, compared with prices in the surrounding areas such as Queensbay, where a popular mall is located.

However, Lim questioned why these “Umno cronies” did not bid for the land if they thought the selling price of RM240psf was very low.

It was not true, the chief minister said, that the developer was exempted from building affordable houses or was allowed to do this only in Batu Kawan on the mainland.

Lim said the state government would use the profit from the Bayan Mutiara land tender – amounting to RM500 million – to build about 12,000 affordable houses in Batu Kawan. This project is the state’s own initiative and has nothing to do with the Bayan Mutiara developer.

The developer, he said, was bound by the terms of the land tender to build affordable houses on the island, not just on the mainland.

“It is very malicious of Umno to lie to the people that the state wants to chase the poor away to Batu Kawan by asking the developer from the island to build houses in Batu Kawan,” Lim said.

“This is not true at all as developers from the island are not allowed to migrate to Seberang Perai to build affordable houses.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 6:19 pm and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang Government
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Target: Lim Guan Eng

— Whistleblower 57

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 14, 2012

FEB 14 — This is some friendly advice to Lim Guan Eng. Watch your back. Team Najib have identified you as a main target, a real problem for them in the coming general elections.

In the power circles in Putrajaya, Lim Guan Eng is a problem, not only in Penang but in urban areas and even in East Malaysia where the feedback is that the Penang CM is popular.

So the strategists in Umno have decided that Lim must be kept busy fending off attacks. He must be kept off balance and so worried that he will not leave Penang to campaign for Pakatan Rakyat.

Aiding and abetting Umno in this task are some turncoats in DAP and PKR and Chinese businessmen. They have been promised a big payoff.

Guan Eng, you can expect your name to be dragged in the mud just like Anwar Ibrahim’s.

The only difference is that the administration will not use the mainstream media because they know that you will sue. They are going to employ the Umno bloggers to destroy you.

If you have skeletons in the closet, you are in trouble. If you don’t have, they will make it up.

This so-called expose on the Bayan Mutiara land deal should be see in this light. I don’t expect Rahman Dahlan to take up your dare and challenge you that the land was sold through open tender. The last thing he wants is for you to show him up to be what he is.

He and other Umno politicians just want to distract you and tar your image.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 6:53 pm and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Unity among Chinese nothing to do with MCA

By
Stanley Koh
 | February 14, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

The Chinese community in rejecting MCA at the 2008 general election is indicative that the community has not only awaken to the fact the party is no longer relevant and effective in representing its interests, but that it has expanded its political horizon towards a two-party system.

Moreover, new perceptions are emerging that the unity of the Chinese community is no longer dependable or factored by the prevailing leadership status of MCA.

Today’s scenario remain status quo even as in 1988, the Chinese Guilds and Associations blamed MCA leadership under Dr Ling Liong Sik as weak and did not truly live up to the aspirations of the community.

MCA in short has failed to feel the pulse of the community as many younger generations are colour blind and have no confidence in a race-based policy-making nation.

Its survival is threatened by the growth of a two-party system nurtured by a growing population of old and young voters irrespective of racial groupings.

In 1988, Michael Yeoh currently Asli’s CEO who was the chief administrative director presented a classified paper on a number of options for MCA to choose at the crossroads.

MCA was at a political crossroads during a time when Umno was dragged to the courts and was declared unlawful.

When Umno Baru was formed to replace the Umno that was declared unlawful, MCA led by Ling was placed in a leadership dilemma in terms of placing its patronage and loyalty.

Pros and cons of partnership

Five options were stated in the classified paper for MCA leadership to consider.

Firstly, accept the status quo of Umno led by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Secondly, MCA leaders to resign all government posts but remain in BN.

The third option was to quit BN and stay as independents.

To consider whether MCA should quit BN and form new alliances as the fourth option and the last resort to de-register the party.

Umno was split into Team A (Umno Baru quoted as status quo) and a splinter group under Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah leading Team B.

Michael in listing out the “pros and cons’ argued the advantages and disadvantages of MCA facing the crossroads.

“Merits supporting the status quo of Umno Baru would prevent uncontrollable outcome of an Emergency Rule and that might allow a two-party system to take root,” stated the paper.

“By threatening of a MCA withdraw from BN might place the party in a better bargaining power to negotiate as such a move could trigger other component parties leaving the coalition.

“Perhaps, MCA can get some crumbs and even more crumbs,” Michael wrote.

MCA threatened by two-party system

Arguments against supporting Umno Baru (Team A) included that MCA should not be dragged down with the sinking ship and that the MCA could no longer trust Umno under the Dr Mahathir’s leadership because of the leadership’s arrogance and failure to deliver its promises to MCA.

“The mood of the people clamouring for change expected MCA to be a leader and not a follower,” the 1988 classified paper stated.

Today the MCA under the leadership of Chua remains at a crossroads.

Threatened by a two-party system and a predicament of worsening lack of confidence from Malaysian voters, the MCA’s future political survival is at stake.

It is becoming a political parasite to Umno and its survival is doubtful even within Chinese majority electoral constituencies.

Hence, how relevant or true is MCA’s claim that the two-party system is becoming a race system? The answer perhaps lies within Umno, the predator of race-based policies.

MCA is misguided into challenging DAP onto a formal debate on the race system.

The historical evidence above justified that the answers should lie within the MCA-Umno hegemony since both are predominantly race-based parties.

The Chinese proverb – “one step in the wrong direction will cause a thousand years of regret” – remains true today.

Would the same be happening if MCA in the 50s had joined a multiracial platform instead of a single race-based party called Umno?

Indeed, wisdom lies in the following Chinese proverb, which says: “ren jian li er bu jian hai, yu jian shi er bu jian gou”. Translated it means MCA at that time “like a fish only saw the bait but not the hook”.

Stanley Koh is a former head of MCA’s research unit. He is a FMT columnist.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 12:16 pm and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What every Malaysian needs to know about ‘race’, Part 1: Words and the world, or ‘bangsa’ in question

By
Clive Kessler
 | February 14, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

FEB 14 — Do people still remember — many older folk do — that best-seller of the early 1970s (later a Woody Allen movie), David J. Reuben’s “Everything you always wanted to know about sex … but were afraid to ask?”

The following discussion might be entitled (and, alas, there is no hope here of any Woody Allen movie “tie-in”) “What every Malaysian needs to know about ‘race’ … and probably needs, like it or not, to be told.”

So this now tells you.

This comment is offered as a straightforward and, it is hoped, clear and accessible discussion of what every Malaysian needs to know about “race”, and all else that swirls around it in everyday Malaysian linguistic usage and popular understanding.

What is involved here is no trivial or arcane “academic” question. It is a nationally important, even fateful, matter.

But, luckily, these matters are not all that difficult to understand. All that is required is, first, the right tools and, second, the principled will to use them carefully.

Let us begin to prepare and assemble those tools.

In Malay, “bangsa”; in English, what?

Some readers may have been a little puzzled by my recent remarks on “Race and Malaysian ‘exceptionalism’” and my related comments about “blood and soil nationalism” in my “Malaysia: Why do I care?”

The present overview may help to clarify those matters.

It seeks to explain the generally received understanding of the key terms that must be used — in Malaysia as elsewhere — in any coherent discussion of matters of “race.”

It is offered, both as an overview of what every Malaysian really needs to know about race and as a guide to something else.

It identifies the rather overdue help that the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, working together with the scholarly community of Malaysian social scientists, must provide if the majority of Malaysian citizens are to be enabled and “empowered” to begin to grasp these hugely important matters.

Of this latter aspect — that of the urgency of some apposite “linguistic engineering” to embody and promote the necessary conceptual clarification urged here — more will be said later, in Part 5.

If, working together, these experts do not manage to provide these necessary tools, this essential equipment, for clear thinking on this hugely fateful matter — if the generality of Malaysia’s citizens are not provided and do not acquire the necessary means and conceptual equipment to understand these fraught issues — then the whole “Malaysian national project” is likely to founder amidst bitter and unending contention.

So the exploration to be conducted here is an important one for its contemporary Malaysian readership.

That exploration is one that must begin by probing the English word “race” from a Malaysian point of departure.

What needs to be sorted out, or as some people these days like to say “deconstructed”, is the Malay word “bangsa”.

What, in particular, must be unravelled is its wide range of referents (or the things that it refers to, or “denotes”) and its routine uses.

That is the central task and challenge.

Bangsa: a multifunctional, “all-purpose” term

To understand, rather than be “bamboozled” by, all the complications of so-called “race” and “ethnicity” — and the entire field in which the phenomena denoted by these and similar terms occur and are used — one must begin in the Malaysian context by giving some precise attention to the Malay word “bangsa” and how it is variously used.

“Bangsa” is a most versatile and “mercurial” — meaning changeable — idea, one that keeps “morphing” from one thing to another. It is as changeable in its forms and uses as “quicksilver”, since it is an all-purpose or multifunctional and widely variable term. Like spilt mercury, it continually changes its configuration as you try to grasp it, and as it rolls about in front of you from place to place.

Much of the public, including political as well as scholarly, discussion of matters of “race” in Malaysia is vitiated, or thrown in to murky confusion, by this “in-built” variability and versatility of its various meanings.

Or, rather, by the way in which virtually all participants in those fateful discussions forever slip and slide between different meanings or senses of that key term “bangsa”.

Of which, more in the four parts that will follow this introductory one.

So far, so simple

This, so far, has been a gentle introduction to the term “bangsa” and to the confusions and distortions in our thinking to which it repeatedly, and dangerously, gives rise.

This, so far, is not the analysis, merely the preamble.

The next part of this discussion will be a little more difficult.

It is perhaps the most difficult of all the four parts of this commentary.

But it is important. It is in many ways “the heart of the matter”.

Following it may prove a little demanding.

But is should be interesting.

And I shall be trying to keep things simple!

As simple as I can — for an incorrigible, old academic writer.

Until next time…

*
Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the School of Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

In this series:-

Part 1 – Words and the world, or ‘bangsa’ in question

Part 2 – Exploring and disaggregating ‘bangsa’

Part 2b – Exploring and disaggregating ‘bangsa’

Part 2c – Exploring and disaggregating ‘bangsa’

Part 3 – Distorted reasoning — or thinking ‘bamboozled’ by language

Part 4 – Race and history

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 11:30 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.