Shafie Apdal not fit to be Cabinet Minister and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Chairman

Shafie Apdal not fit to be Cabinet Minister and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Chairman if he does not know that an amendment to motion of thanks for royal address is customary parliamentary practice and not an assault on the institution of monarchy

Mingguan Malaysia on Sunday, 11th April 2010 carried the following report under the headline “
Kit Siang wajar di kenankan tindakan
”:

“HULU SELANGOR 10 April – Ahli Parlimen Ipoh Timur, Lim Kit Siang wajar dikenakan tindakan atas perbuatannya yang disifatkan sebagai mengganggu-gugat institusi diraja apabila cuba meminda titah ucapan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin di Dewan Rakyat, 1 April lepas.

“Naib Presiden UMNO, Datuk Seri Mohd. Shafie Apdal berkata, langkah itu perlu kerana perbuatan Penasihat DAP tersebut dianggap melampau dan keterlaluan.

“Beliau mengakui sebagai seorang ahli Parlimen, Kit Siang berhak serta bebas untuk bercakap tetapi ia tidak harus sehingga ke tahap tidak menghormati institusi tertinggi di negara ini.

”’Perbuatan ini tidak sesuai untuk seseorang yang kononnya bergelar Yang Berhormat. Jika di United Kingdom mereka boleh dianggap cuba meminda ucapan Ratu.

”’Saya sebenarnya bimbang dengan trend yang dibawa oleh pihak pembangkang ini dan bagi saya ia harus segera dibendung bagi mengelakkan kejadian berulang,” kata Mohd. Shafie yang juga merupakan Pengerusi Persatuan Parlimen Komanwel.

“Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas menyampaikan dividen dan melancarkan tahun produktiviti RISDA kepada para peserta agensi itu di Hulu Bernam dekat sini hari ini.”

This is a most irresponsible and despicable politics by a top Umno leader and senior Cabinet Minister as well as current Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA).

In the first place, I did not try to amend the Royal Address. What I moved was an amendment to the motion of thanks for the royal address.

Shafie is not fit to be Cabinet Minister and  Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Chairman if he does not know that an amendment to the motion of thanks for royal address is customary parliamentary practice and not an assault on the institution of monarchy.

For the information of the CPA Chairman, motion of thanks for the royal address or its equivalent are regularly amended in established Commonwealth Parliaments, for the Royal Address is not the monarch’s personal address but the policy speech of the government-of-the-day setting out its programme for the year.

Any amendment to a motion of thanks is not an attack on the monarch or head of state but an opportunity to table new policies, programmes or perspectives that should have been included in the government’s policy speech.

In Lok Sabha in India, hundreds of amendments are moved every year to the Motion of Thanks for the President’s Address. For instance, for the year 1993, there were 932 amendments to the motion of thanks for the President’s Address.

Similarly, such amendments are regularly made to motions of thanks in Commonwealth Parliaments, whether House of Commons in United Kingdom or the Parliaments of Australia, New Zealand or Canada.

Even in Malaysia, I had occasion to move an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address in the Parliament meeting of October 1982, although it was rejected  at the voting stage.

But is Shafie suggesting that the previous Prime Ministers, Umno Ministers and Parliament Speakers were traitors to the country and the Malay Rulers in attacking the institution of monarchy in allowing amendments to be moved in Parliament to motion of thanks in the past?

I do not think Shafie is so ignorant of parliamentary practices, procedures, convents and traditions, which makes his attempt to twist and distort my amendment to the motion of thanks in the current meeting of Parliament even more heinous and unforgivable.

He knows that my amendment to the motion of thanks constituted no attack whatsoever on the institution of Malay Rulers but he could be  so without scruples, unprincipled and opportunistic as to distort the issue to mislead rural Malays to make them believe that I am anti-Malay and anti-Malay Rulers – all  just to secure Malay votes in the forthcoming Hulu Selangor by-election.

This shows the desperate extremes UMNO leaders are prepared to resort to for political advantage for themselves and or Umno, which is facing a crisis of relevance and survival.

Whatever the reason, there can be no justification for the irresponsible and despicable politics practised by Shafie who should have the decency and honesty to admit that he was wrong in resorting to racist politics and distorting customary parliamentary practices in Malaysia and Commonwealth countries as an attack on the institution of Malay Rulers.

Shafie should apologise for his transgressions.

[
Speech (2) on the first 2010 Supplementary estimates in Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday April 13, 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 8:59 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


US President Obama’s praise of  Najib during their Washington meeting which was blacked out in all Malaysian mainstream media

Today’s mainstream media continues the publicity blitz of how successful is the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s visit to the United States, with front-page photograph of what has been described as the “historic bilateral meeting” between him and United States President Barack Obama.

However, a strange thing happened.  Obama  praised Najib in their meeting but this praise from United States President has been completely blacked out by the Malaysian mainstream media when it would normally be trumpeted not only nationally but also internationally.

I have here the statement issued by the United States White House on the duo’s bilateral meeting.

It said: “The President congratulated Prime Minister Najib for recent action on the Strategic Goods Act, which will strengthen the ability of Malaysian authorities to take action against individuals and entities engaged in proliferation.”

One would have thought that such praise from the US President to the Malaysian Prime Minister would have become the screaming headlines of the Malaysian mainstream media, but no, there was not a word of the US President’s praise for the Malaysian Prime Minister in the mainstream media in Malaysia, whether New Straits Times, Star, Utusan Malaysia or Berita Harian.

Najib seems to be embarrassed by such praise from the US President that it is blacked out by the Malaysian mainstream media. Why?

One reason is the revelation that Parliament had been treated shabbily as it had rush through the enactment of the Strategic Goods Act to time it for Najib’s visit to the United States to meet with President Obama – and this fact was hidden from knowledge of Parliament.

This is shame, disrespect and contempt of Parliament.

The Strategic Trade Bill 2010 was first tabled in Parliament on a Thursday (1st April) and its debate and passage was rushed through on the following Monday (5th April) – not giving MPs adequate time to study its implications and ramifications, all to suit the Prime Minister’s timetable of meeting the US President in his Washington visit.

In the event, Najib was given praise by Obama but which had to be blacked out in all the mainstream media!

On the eve of Najib’s visit to the United States, the Malaysian Ambassador to the United States Datuk Seri Dr. Jamaluddin Jarjis boasted about his publicity success with the US media, showing off a whole-page newspaper coverage for Malaysia in conjunction with Najib’s visit.

But this full-page coverage for Malaysia is not in the two leading US dailies, Washington Post or New York Times but the little-known Washington Times. Washingtion Post has a daily circulation of 673,180 copies and on Sunday, 890,163 while New York Times has a daily circulation of 1 million which shoots up to 1.4 million on Sunday.

What is Washington Times’ circulation?  A paltry 102,258 copies.

Washington Times is a struggling low-circulation newspaper which was founded by Rev. Moon from South Korea and is now looking for a new buyer.

Is Malaysia, through its world-wide publicity consultant agency, APCO, considering buying over Washington Times?

The full-page coverage of Malaysia by Washington Times appears to be an advertorial, which means it was paid to publish it. How much did the full-page advertorial  on Malaysia in Washington Times cost and was it paid by Malaysian taxpayers, directly or indirectly?

Najib is scheduled to launch the Malaysia-United States (Congressional) Caucus in Washington tomorrow.

I call on the Prime Minister to postpone the launching of the Malaysia-United States (Congressional) Caucus until there could be Pakatan Rakyat parliamentary representation or the caucus he would be launching would merely be a Barisan Nasional-US (Congressional) Caucus, which would only embarrass himself and the nation making him and the country the butt of jokes in the Washington cocktail circuit.

I have received information from Washington through email which does not throw a flattering light on the so-called launching of the Malaysia-US (Congressional) caucus.

Let me read from this email:

The launching of the Malaysia – United States Parliamentary Caucus about which you have posted on your blog is a most curious animal! I did a Google and also a search on the US Congress website but found nothing about this “great  entity” ; nor did I see any references to the upcoming event other than from Malaysian sources!

The only reference I could find was a brief one on the homepage of Congressman Gregory W. Meeks’ (which reads as below) and also a reference  to Congresswoman Barbara Lee being a member. Neither of these are very senior in the Congressional leadership hierarchy.  Both are Democrats. Thus it does not appear to be a bi-partisan group.

“Malaysia Caucus:

“As a Member concerned with maintaining and promoting a close, positive relationship with Malaysia, we are expanding the Congressional Malaysia Trade, Security and Economic Caucus. This Caucus will promote a mature political relationship between the U.S. and Malaysia. Also, it will serve as an independent vehicle for Members of Congress to articulate their views on U.S. – Malaysia relations and as a source of information on political, security, and economic related issues. Finally, it will work to strengthen the discourse on bilateral and regional issues by engaging Malaysia perspectives on issues of mutual interest.”

This description, vague as it is, says little about the practical ways it will contribute to enhancing relationships. As I understand it, these Caucuses have no role in the legislative or other congressional/parliamentary processes. In a sense they are contact points for lobbyists and they operate as talk shops. The bottom line is: they represent no big deal and I do not understand why Najib, Nazri & company are making a big song and dance. It is also far from clear how the Malaysian side will operate in what is largely a US entity. On the other hand if there is going to be Malaysian participation in the Caucus, it is far from clear what it will entail. Cynically, one can assume that there will be visits, golf tournaments and other forms of entertainment at the tax-payer’s expense.

In the interest of our international reputation as well as the Prime Minister’s good name, Najib should cancel the launching of the unrepresentative Malaysian-US (Congressional) caucus  only represented by BN and “independent” MPs from Malaysia on the one side and low-level Congress representatives on the part of the United States.

[
Speech on the first 2010 Supplementary estimates in Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday April 13, 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 6:20 am and is filed under
Media
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Video : US President Obama’s praise of Najib during their Washington meeting which was blacked out in all Malaysian mainstream media

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 1:05 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Video : Why MCA leadership dare not ask for Senate President to be filled by MCA for the rest of two years and four months?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 3:03 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why MCA leadership dare not ask for Senate President to be filled by MCA for the rest of two years and four months after Wong Foon Meng’s mini-term of eight months so as to make a full term of three years?

The term of Datuk Wong Foon Meng as Senate President expires yesterday on the expiry of maximum of two terms totalling six years as Senator.

I understand that the new Senate President is going to be an  Umno nominee,  former MP for Kuala Pilah and currently President of Majlis Bekas Wakil Rakyat (Mubarak), Tan Sri Abu Zahar Datuk Nika Ujang.

As Wong’s predecessor, Tan Sri Dr. Hamid Pawanteh served two terms comprising six years as Senate President from July 2003 to July 2009, why the MCA leadership dare not ask for Senate President to be filled by MCA nominee for the rest of two years of four months after Wong Foon Meng’s mini-term of eight months so as to make a full term of three years?

This incidence showing the increasing irrelevance of MCA even in Barisan Nasional.

In the first place, why should the appointment of Senators and Senate President be parcelled out like “spoils of office” among the Barisan Nasional component parties, which is completely against both the letter and spirit of the Merdeka Constitution.

Article 45 (2) provides for the appointment of Senators who have “rendered distinguished public service or have achieved distinction in the professions, commerce, industry, agriculture, cultural activities or social service” – but  the majority of the appointed Senators do not meet this billing or they are mostly party hacks from Barisan Nasional component parties  who are appointed to the Senate because they cannot get into Parliament by election and have to come in through the backdoor.

It is a matter of concern that the new Senate President is the  President of Mubarak who has become an ally of of the loud-mouth President of fringe, extremist and racist Perkasa.

When have the Mubarak members, who comprise former MPs and Assemblymen, given the mandate to Abu Zahar to be an ally of Perkasa, which is now putting pressure on Umno leadership?

[
Speech (3) on the first 2010 Supplementary estimates in Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday April 13, 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 9:47 am and is filed under
MCA
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on government to stop RM770 million payout this year to KDSB for the RM1.25 billion PKFZ scandal until full accountability by the Cabinet super-task force headed by Chief Secretary

In September last year, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced the setting up of a Cabinet super task force headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, to investigate the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

I had specifically asked at the time why the Chief Secretary Sidek Hassan was appointed to head such an inquiry into the PKFZ scandal, and why he had failed to conduct such an inquiry earlier as this was resolved by the Cabinet in July 2007 when it decided on the RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ, including giving retrospective approval to the four illegal Letters of Support unlawfully given by the two previous Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy which have landed the country in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

Although the Attorney-General and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had publicly promised that action would be taken against “grand corruption” in the PKFZ scandal, meaning the “big fishes”, why no action has been taken against such “big fishes” with only a few mid-fishes being arrested and prosecuted for corruption?

I want to specifically ask why the two former Transport Ministers Liong Sik and Kong Choy have been left off scotfree.

In this connection, I call on the government to withhold further payments due to PKFZ turnkey contractor Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) pending full accountability of the investigations by the Cabinet super task force headed by the Chief Secretary.

The payments due this year to KDSB is the astronomical sum of RM772 million.  In the last two years, KDSB were paid RM660 million each year.

Why should the government continue to throw good money after bad money in the “mother of all scandals”?

[
Speech (5) on the first 2010 supplementary estimates in Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday 13th April 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 12:54 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #10

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 2:  Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Next:   The Economics of Geography

Modern economists can quantify the effects of geography on the economy.  Jeffrey Sachs, now at Columbia University, introduced the concept of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) density, a function of per capita GDP and population density, and showed that coastal, temperate Northern-hemisphere economies have the highest economic densities.  They form the core of the economic zones of the world.  These areas include Western Europe, the coastal regions of China, Japan, Korea, and the Western and Eastern seaboards of North America.

            Geography affects economic development in three major ways.  First is through the ease of transporting goods, people, and ideas.  Because water transportation is much cheaper and more efficient than overland, coastal areas have distinct advantages over the hinterland.  Second, geography affects the prevalence of diseases, especially those involving vectors (malaria and mosquitoes; schistosomiasis and snails).  These diseases are endemic in the tropics and hold back economic development by significantly reducing workers’ productivity.  Malaysia’s remarkable economic progress is in part attributable to its success in eradicating or at least controlling vector-borne diseases, especially malaria.
Such diseases also alter the country’s demographic and fertility patterns.  Last, geography affects agricultural productivity.  The seemingly lush tropical jungles hide a fragile thin layer of topsoil that could be easily washed away in a heavy tropical downpour.  Soil erosion is a major ecological as well as agricultural problem in the tropics.  The burden it imposes on the economy is severe.

            Climate also affects the crops that can be grown.  In temperate zones there is little specie variation in the fauna or flora.  An acre of temperate forest yields only a few species; an acre of tropical jungle, literally thousands.  Thus temperate lands are uniquely suitable for large and efficient mono cultural cultivations.  The American Midwest has thousands of acres of wheat, barley, and corn.  Such large farms would be impractical in the tropics as they would easily succumb to pests and diseases.  The biological diversity of the tropics is an intricate and complex ecological protective mechanism preventing the spread of pests and diseases.

            Many tropical countries have successfully adapted the highly productive and efficient mono cultural agricultural techniques of temperate zones.  Malaysia has its rubber and oil palm plantations.  Despite this seeming success, the underlying fragility of the system cannot be over emphasized.  Brazil’s entire rubber industry was wiped out by a single fungus infestation.

            The hot tropical climate is not all liability.  That warm weather brings with it equally warm waters and pristine beaches.  The temperate countries may have their beautiful beaches but they are only for sightseeing.  You cannot swim, not even in mid summer, as the water is too cold.  Smart tropical nations capitalize on their warm climate to create a new major industry:  tourism.  The entire Caribbean is now a tourists’ paradise.  Previously isolated and undeveloped fishing villages like Cancun in Mexico have become prized destinations for holidaying Europeans and Americans.  In Cabos San Lucas and Mazatlan, Mexico, sport fishing is now much more lucrative and a steady source of income than commercial fishing.

            Malaysia too should take advantage of its warm sandy beaches and market itself aggressively to the affluent and densely populated areas like Japan and Europe.  Many rubber plantations are now converted into golf resorts that in the aggregate produce more for the economy than the old rubber trees they had replaced.  As a foreign exchange earner, tourism is now second (albeit a distant second) only to manufacturing.

            The least important aspect of geography is the bounty nature has bestowed on some countries.  Why the Good Lord chose to place hydrocarbons, precious minerals, and other valuable resources in some countries and not others is not for us to question.  But God’s bounty alone is not enough, as evidenced by the continuing poverty among citizens of the rich oil-producing Arab nations.  Throughout history we have seen the same story repeated, of well-endowed nations and their leaders squandering their God-given wealth.  That old adage, easy come easy go, applies to nations as well as individuals.

            Additionally, what we consider as valuable varies with time and age.  Hydrocarbon may be considered black gold today but there was a time at the dawn of the nuclear age, with its promise of cheap and bountiful energy, when the price of gasoline merely reflected the cost of production; the commodity itself had minimal value.

            Current Malaysian headlines carry the news that the country is selling fresh water to Singapore at a ridiculously low price.  And we are committing to a long-term contract.  Clean water is now more precious than oil.  In American supermarkets and elsewhere, bottled water costs more than gasoline!  Water rights are highly contentious issues in the dry Western states of America and the Middle East.  Canada is protecting its fresh water lakes and rivers from pollution, recognizing that they are now truly valuable natural assets on par with its oil and gas fields.  Malaysia too must protect this precious resource more carefully.

Next:
Culture Matters

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MIC/BN politicians acting like cattle which could be bought and sold at market place

When I read the Malaysian Insider report “
Palanivel offered senatorship, likely deputy minister’s post
” in return for not being fielded as Barisan Nasional candidate in Hulu Selangor parliamentary by-election, I immediately stood up in Parliament to protest at the political abuse and corruption signified by such a deal.

Parliament had just completed the division on the vote on the Foreign Ministry estimates during the committee stage of the debate on the 2010 supplementary estimates, and was starting debate on the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industries.

I said that if there could be such blatant and cynical abuse of public trust and offices like Senatorship  and Deputy Ministerships, what public confidence is there that there won’t be gross abuse of budget allocations approved by Parliament whether for the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industries or other ministries.

I called on the Hulu Selangor voters to teach the Barisan Nasional and MIC leaderships a severe lesson by voting against the Barisan Nasional candidate in the by-election to protest against such breach of trust and flagrant disregard of the most rudimentary notions of ethical and honest political standards.

This brought the House down and pandemonium ensued. When the BN MP for Sri Gading Datuk Mohd Aziz stood up to object, I challenged him to protest and denounce the cheap and dirty politics of buy-and-sell of political offices as illustrated by the offer of Senatorship and Deputy Ministership to Palanivel for not be fielded as BN candidate for Hulu Selangor by-election, he was stumped and said nothing.

When I asked those who supported me in condemning the blatant “market trading” of political offices in the case of Palanivel to stand up in the House, all Pakatan Rakyat MPs from PKR, PAS and DAP stood up – except for BN MPs!

The issue is now in the hands of the Hulu Selangor voters on April 25, 2010.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 4:47 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Parliament
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nazri Aziz – the Minister of Lies

By
Martin Jalleh

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz acts tough, talks big and throws his weight around. He thinks he is very smart and knows everything! After all, he is also the minister in charge of parliamentary affairs and the de facto Law Minister.

Those who refuse to tolerate Nazri’s nonsense have to contend with his temper tantrums and theatrics. Apart from his childish threats and taunts, the Minister has become adept through the years with turning and twisting the truth whilst calling others liars.

It was typical of him to accuse Thai pathologist Dr. Pornthip of being a liar: “She lied in the inquest and she is lying now”. Dr. Pornthip has claimed that Putrajaya has exercised “political pressure” which “could affect her work” in Southern Thailand thereby forcing her to pull out from testifying in the on-going Teoh Beng Hock inquest.

It is indeed ironic that the Minister should be so quick to accuse others of lying, for when it comes to telling lies no one has left such an indelible mark on Malaysian politics than Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz.

Below are some examples of him lying (intentionally or unintentionally) especially in Parliament!

Compulsive Liar

In May 2004 Nazri bluffed Parliament that Suhakam’s annual report is never meant to be debated in Parliament. The truth is that it is a legislative requirement for Suhakam, a creation of Parliament, to submit annual reports to Parliament so that its findings can be debated and its recommendations deliberated on.

In April 2005, Nazri tried to fool parliament by claiming that the “Cabinet’s plan to form a select committee on water privatization was dropped because the King wanted water privatisation to be in place by the end of the year”. Lim Kit Siang told Nazri not to drag the King into the issue and that “…the Royal address is the policy pronouncement of the government of the day”.

In the same month, Nazri came up with a tall tale that “Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia cannot be circulated in the country as this could be seen as an effort to spread Christianity among the Malays….The prohibition had been in force since Independence and was in line with the Constitution” (Star, 13 Apr. 2005). A week later the then PM Abdullah Badawi said that there was no such ban.

In June 2006 Nazri misled parliament into believing that there “is no basis for the allegation of corruption in the judiciary as contained in a letter written by former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid (for) the case has been investigated by the Government, the ACA and the AG” (Star, 28 June 2006). The judge who resigned in 1996, wrote a 33-page letter highlighting corruption, abuse of power and personal misconduct in the judiciary.

Contrary to what Nazri had claimed, Syed Idid in a NST interview (11 June 2006) revealed that the allegations were “never really investigated”. This was confirmed by a former Attorney-General, Abu Talib Othman (Mingguan Malaysia, 4 June 2006) who added that “on the other hand, the poor judge who wrote it was investigated”.

In July 2006, Nazri conveyed a false sense of security in Sabah when he told parliament that the presence of foreigners, including those with IMM13 documents, do not cause social, security and economic problems in Sabah. A leader of the Sabah Progressive Party (then a member of BN) said “it would be better for him (Nazri) to keep his mouth shut”.

In May 2007, Bernard Dompok, another Minister in the PM’s Department, resigned as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity because he disagreed with Nazri over the committee’s scope of duties. Nazri tried to explain away the resignation by saying that Dompok was influenced by Lim Kit Siang. Dompok’s reply to his colleague was: “It’s a cheap shot!”

On 21 August 2007, after opening a seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim the then Chief Justice (CJ) Ahmad Fairuz in a press conference advocated the abolition of the English common law system. Nazri denied on behalf of Fairuz, in Parliament, that the latter had made such a proposal. Lim Kit Siang released a newspaper tape transcript as proof that Nazri was lying on behalf of Fairuz!

When the country did not have a Chief Judge for eight months Nazri created the wrong impression that the Chief Justice can act as the Chief Judge of Malaya. He challenged his critics: “Show me where it says, either in the Constitution or elsewhere, that it cannot be done” (Star, 19 Aug. 2007).

The Bar Council showed him that provisions in the Constitution state that the posts of Chief Justice and Chief Judge of Malaya are independent of one another and therefore if read together with the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the CJ should appoint a Federal Court Judge to act as the Chief Judge of Malaya!

On 25 Sept. 2007, about two thousand lawyers, defying police, marched from the Palace of Justice to the PM’s office in Putrajaya to hand over a memorandum calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to probe the brokering of the appointment of judges and to establish an independent commission for the appointment of judges.

The “Minister for the Chief Justice” (as Nazri described himself!) preferred to lie to himself and to the whole nation as to the state of the judiciary: “There’s no need for such a judicial commission (in charge of judicial appointments) as there is no crisis in our judiciary…No crisis, no problems. I don’t see any scandal.”

Conman of Parliament

In Oct, 2007, Anwar Ibrahim who had made public the Lingam video clip said that the source of the clip would come forward only if there was a setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry instead of an independent panel, as such a panel would not be able to provide protection to the whistleblower.

Nazri gave the assurance that the person or persons who took the video had no reason not to cooperate. He said “a new identity or even new look can be arranged”. Such measures were defined under “the Witness Protection Bill tabled recently in Parliament” (Star, 8 Oct. 2007). He later admitted there was no such bill!

In May 2008, Nazri told Parliament that the Election Commission (EC) was to be blamed for the last-minute decision to cancel the use of indelible ink in the March polls. This was far from the truth because the EC chairman had unwittingly revealed that the cabinet had objected to the use of the indelible ink and that he was ordered to take the blame for the decision!

In Nov. 2008 Nazri told Parliament that former Lord President Salleh Abas and other senior judges involved in the judicial crisis in 1988 were not “sacked” but were asked to “retire early”. Karpal Singh insisted that action be taken against Nazri for allegedly lying to the House.

Nazri, in a press conference, claimed that he had made a mistake, adding he had no intention of misleading the House. But he refused to explain or apologise to Parliament. Telling the press would suffice! For the first time, a press conference took precedence over Parliament! And of course Nazri got off scot free again!

On 9 Nov. 2009 Nazri sparked an uproar in Parliament when he said “judiciary fixer” V.K. Lingam had been let off the hook “because he had broken no law”…as he might “have just acted to fix the appointment of judges as if he was brokering the appointment of senior judges to impress people”.

“I am not denying that it was Lingam in the tape. But I am also saying that there are a lot of conmen in this world. Who knows he might have just acted when he was calling the so-called judges to impress,” he said.

Nazri continued on his charade by declaring that he would persuade the AG to engage Karpal Singh to prosecute Lingam! The AG declined and the issue is now history!   Can there be a bigger conman in Parliament than Nazri?

The truth that Nazri could not twist or turn is that the Royal Commission of Inquiry had found sufficient reason for the relevant authorities to take appropriate action against those implicated for breaches of the Sedition Act, the Penal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Legal Profession Act and other laws.

In Jan. this year Nazri implicitly placed the blame of the aftermath of the court decision on the Allah case on the Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Murphy Pakiam. He said it was too late for a dialogue and that the court is the only way to bring an end to the “Allah” debate.

He claimed that his Cabinet colleagues, including fellow Minister in the PM’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, have been “pushing to bring religious leaders to the table to settle the simmering stew” and it was “the failure of the rundingan that resulted in the matter being brought to court”.

“It’s not the fault of the government. Let it be known that it was Tan Sri Pakiam, not the government, who brought the matter to court,” Nazri added (Malaysian Insider, 18 Jan. 2010). There was in reality no “rundingan” since the Allah controversy began but only the rude and ridiculous dictates of the then Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar.

In March this year, in the course of the verbal war in parliament over APCO and the government’s decision to refer Anwar to the Parliament’s Rights and Privileges Committee, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (PKR-Machang) said that Nazri should also be referred to the committee for misleading the House last year.

Nazri had used a repealed law in his speech when winding up the debates on the 2010 Budget touching on the oil royalty issue requested by the Kelantan state government. Saifuddin pointed out that Nazri “being the minister in charge of laws…knew it cannot be used but he continued doing it. This is clearly an act of misleading the House”.

Nazri replied that whatever he said in the House was never with an intention to mislead the MPs. (Sounds familiar?) As an “anak jantan” (one who is brave), he was willing to be investigated (The Sun, 22 Mar. 2010).

Nazri is really a coward. He knows he can hide behind the Speaker and his deputies who will “protect” and give him all the leeway to lie and get away with it – surely the examples above are proof enough!

On April Fool’s Day this year it was reported that Information Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim has urged government information officers to be more aggressive in countering “lies” spread by the opposition against the government so that the people will receive correct information.

Instead of taking the rakyat for a ride and getting all riled up over lies supposedly spread by the Opposition, Rais should do a “post-mortem” and get his own house in order, beginning with the Prime Minister’s Department!

Nazri will one day leave behind a legacy of lies!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 12:49 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Video : Commonwealth Parliamentary Association President does not know Parliamentary Practices?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 3:47 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Video (Part 2) : US President Obama’s praise of Najib during their Washington meeting which was blacked out in all Malaysian mainstream media

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 2:12 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Video : Umno fighting for its life

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 3:46 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What did Malaysia gain from Najib’s meeting with President Obama and visit to Washington apart from a photo op and new image projection at home?

Eight years ago, when the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad wanted to wangle a meeting with United States President Bush in the White House, lobbyist Jack Abramov had to be tapped and it cost RM4.6 million.

Eight years later, to wangle a meeting with United States President Barack Obama for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, RM77 million had to be spent to engage publicity consultancy agency APCO.

Let me ask a straightforward question: What did Malaysia get from the US side in the trip of the Malaysian Prime Minister to the United States? Thus far there does not appear to have been much apart from the 40 minute conversation with Obama and some other meetings with US officials. Perhaps the most direct benefit was in terms of a photo op and image projection at home in Malaysia.

Washington Post today in its report about the nuclear summit and about Obama seeking global help in sanctioning, as this to say:

“Obama also met Monday with Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia. As a condition for Najib attending the summit, the Obama administration demanded that the Malaysian government adopt stricter import and export controls to prevent the country from being used as a transshipment point for smuggled nuclear materials and technology, officials said. “

Is it correct that Malaysia has succumbed to pressure from the United States?

The Deputy Foreign Minister, in his reply, should clarify this as well as other questions raised by Najib’s visit, including:

Caning – the settlement of the Kartika caning issue was crucial and done earlier via diplomatic channels after the US had pulled up Putrajaya sharply.

The trafficking issue statement which was raised in the Senate was also crucial.

The joining of the TransPacific Partnership. This was a recognition de facto that an FTA could not happen, but the Malaysians are staying at the table. I understand that the Malaysian Ambassador to the United States, Datuk Seri Jamaluddin Jarjis  is pushing for a mutual investment agreement, but this is not going to actually benefit much.

The Iran issue was from the US side of critical importance. It would appear that Malaysia will allow some checks on the flow of capital from there. This was crucial for the US. This could impact on Petronas.

Agreement to work with the new Obama non-proliferation framework, in short to get a personal meeting, the Malaysians delivered on many fronts.

The Prime Minister delivered a speech at the Seminar on “U.S.-Malaysia Relations: Looking Ahead at Key Pillars of Cooperation” organised by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC & Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

This is the comments from a Malaysian who had heard the Prime Minister’s speech:

“I am left underwhelmed by this oration. There is nothing about vision or even a coherent theme. It is essentially a rehash of recent pronouncements and a repetition of slogans many of which are either stale or hardly of interest to an audience in Washington DC.

“The first part, the so-called international part, is largely silent about the state of the global economy, something that should be of concern to a small open economy such as Malaysia. There is nothing about global financial re-engineering that is needed. He could have easily made mention of the G20 and how it is attempting to bring about a transition to a more equitable global system of economic governance. What role does Malaysia wish to play; what does it propose to contribute? He could have taken the high road by wishing to call for an open trading environment and to urge that the big powers do not slip towards protectionism. While lamenting the failure to agree on a FTA, what alternatives are there? What does Malaysia seek? How will it move forward?

“Mahathir would have used the occasion to bash the West to catch the headlines for the wrong reasons. Najib should have attempted a very different approach by being bold in arguing the case for reform both globally and domestically.

“The second part of the speech is rather wishy-washy. All those abbreviations are fine but where is the substance. What are the means that will be employed to get to the goals and to escape the “middle income trap”? He missed an opportunity to elaborate on a whole slew of issues and failed to address the skeptics. No attempt was made to counter the bad press Malaysia enjoys as regards human rights, the breakdown in the rule of law, the perverted judicial system and the increasing intolerance. He did not attempt even in a modest way to assert that Malaysia aspires to remain a moderate Islamic state contrary to what the international media project. He could have mentioned the Inter-Faith dialogue that is planned.

“This is not the speech of a reformer or a visionary leader. It is more the speech of a bureaucrat who is somewhat lost and is fumbling after a year in office. Alas, APCO has failed him by not guiding him to speak about issues that are high on the list of friends of Malaysia.”

Finally, let the Deputy Foreign Minister explain whether the ridiculous launching of the Malaysia-United States (Congressional) Caucus in Washington for yesterday had gone on as scheduled or postponed as I had suggested so that we do not become an international laughing stock.

[
Speech on the Foreign Ministry committee stage of the 2010 Supplementary estimates on Thursday, 15th April 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 April 2010, 3:53 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Samy Vellu and Palanivel have completely lost face in the Hulu Selangor Barisan Nasional candidature farce while Umno hegemony in BN has reached new apex

MIC President Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu and his deputy Datuk G. Palanivel have completely lost face in the Hulu Selangor by-election Barisan Nasional candidature farce while Umno hegemony in Barisan Nasional has reached new apex.

This is the most shameful and humiliating episode in the history of MIC, one of the oldest political parties in Malaysia, which was founded as far back as August 1946.

In the 64-year history of MIC, was there a single time that the MIC could not decide and determine who should be its parliamentary or state assembly candidate – that its choice could be blocked and vetoed by other political parties including UMNO.

If this had never happened before, why is it happening in the long 31-year  reign of Samy Vellu as MIC President?

This is most ironic. The UMNO and BN leadership continue to the blind and deaf to the message of the March 8 political tsunami of the 2008 general elections two years ago – which  is a massive national vote against Umno political hegemony both in Barisan Nasional and in Malaysian politics.

Ironically, the  Palanivel-Kamalanathan  candidature farce has seen Umno’s hegemonic grip in Barisan Nasional reaching new dimensions, as all the other Barisan Nasional component parties, whether MIC, MCA, Gerakan or the Sabah and Sarawak component parties have never been so weak and emasculated in their history  as compared to Umno’s over-reaching hegemony in the BN coalition.

Now, Umno is not only usurping the right of individual BN component parties to determine who should be their candidates, but also taking over their right to determine the leaderships in the other BN component parties.

In eliminating Palanivel as a candidate in the Hulu Selangor parliamentary by-election, the Umno leadership has virtually delivered a death knell to the political future of Samy’s heir-designate in MIC.

No wonder  Palanivel was not present at the Barisan Nasional function in Ulu Selangor yesterday to announce the BN candidate.

No wonder Samy Vellu quickly announced that he would not seek re-election when his term of office as MIC President ends in 2012, when he had earlier promised to hand over the MIC Presidency to Palanivel before the expiry of his term.

The writing on the wall is clear – Palanivel has been eliminated not only as the BN candidate for Hulu Selangor, he has been eliminated as the successor to Samy Vellu as MIC President.

Will Palanivel drown his sorrows and setbacks with the consolation of  a Senatorship with vague but clearly not-intended-to-be-fulfilled lure of a deputy ministership in exchange for his exit from the political scene?

UMNO Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin told Sin Chew that the selection of the Hulu Selangor by-election candidate must be decided collectively by the Barisan Nasional and not alone  by Umno or MIC.

Is Khairy joking or taking Malaysians for four-year-old children?

The Barisan Nasional is a coalition of 14 political parties. Is Khairy seriously suggesting that apart from Umno objecting to Palanivel’s candidature, there were other BN component parties who objected?  MCA? Gerakan? Can Khairy name them?

Can Khairy name a single instance since the formation of BN in 1973 that Umno had acted as such a “big bully” as to interfere in the selection of candidature of a BN component party by arrogating to itself the power of veto to  the “one and only” candidate proposal of the BN component party?

Would Khairy agree to submit the decision-making of candidature for  BN parliamentary or state assembly seats  to majority decision of the Barisan Nasional parties in the BN Supreme Council – to the extent that the other BN component parties can decide by majority vote who should be the Umno President, Deputy President and UMNO Youth leader?

Khairy is just adding salt into the wounds of the MIC leaders and members, divisions and branches.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 16 April 2010, 12:08 pm and is filed under
Election
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Teoh’s family wants PM to issue guarantees

Malaysiakini

Apr 15, 10 3:59pm

Teoh Beng Hock’s family today urged Prime Minister Najib Razak to give Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand the necessary guarantees to enable her to testify in the inquest which is probing the cause of death of the political aide.

At a press conference at the Parliament lobby today, Beng Hock’s sister Lee Lan read a prepared statement on behalf the family, expressing their sadness over news that Pornthip would not be testifying.

“We don’t want the inquest to end with a question mark,” she said.

Lee Lan added that Pornthip’s presence at the inquest was vital because the prominent Thai pathologist was their best hope in unearthing the truth behind Beng Hock’s death.

“We hope that Pornthip can help us to find out the truth. But all of a sudden… she was not able to come to testify. Everything is now back to square one. How can we not be disappointed?”

Lee Lan said that if the case remains unsolved, it would be the family’s “greatest regret”.

She also reminded Najib that he had once said “no stone will be left unturned in finding out the real cause of death”.

Najib, at a meeting with members of Teoh’s family in July last year, also vowed that action would be taken should there be foul play.

Lee Lan said that the prime minister should provide Pornthip the following:

1) An official guarantee from the government and the attorney-general regarding her safety;

2) That she be allowed to perform her professional duty as an independent witness in the Teoh case; and

3) Her on-going investigations in southern Thailand, which require her to travel to Kelantan, will not be affected by her involvement in the inquest.

According to Lee Lan, Pornthip’s testimony, when the inquest resumes next Tuesday, will be “the best birthday present for Beng Hock.”

The inquest which is set to resume next week coincidentally falls on the same date as Teoh’s birthday, April 20.

‘Instantaneous action’

Ipoh Timur parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang, who was also at the press conference, demanded an immediate response from Najib.

“In this day and age of instantaneous communication, with a prime minister that is IT savvy – he has a blog, he has Twitter and Facebook – I hope that he will find out about this and respond instantly.”

Najib is currently overseas in the US and will only be back next week after a three-day visit to Japan.

He also questioned Home Minister Hishammudin Hussein’s “wobbling” response to the issue.

“He should stop wobbling and waffling. The home minister should give his unconditional and unequivocal guarantee of Pornthip’s safety. How difficult is that? If he cannot, let someone else be home minister.”

Hishammuddin had demanded Pornthip to furnish him with exact details of the alleged threats before he can guarantee her personal safety.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 16 April 2010, 12:50 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When Muhyiddin repeats he is Malay first, Malaysian second, no wonder there is blackout at the MCA 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme briefing

Yesterday there were two 1Malaysia programmes – the launching of the 1Malaysia Motivation Expedition Squad by Gagasan Pelajar Melayu Semananjung (GPMS) by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) briefing organisd by the new MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek and featuring the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Idris Jala.

When Muhyiddin proudly reiterated that he is Malay first and Malaysian second at the GPMS launch, no one is surprised that there was prolonged blackout at the 1Malaysia GTP briefing in MCA headquarters on the same day.

In fact, every time Muhyiddin declares that he is Malay first and Malaysian second, he is delivering an open slap in the face of the 1Malaysia and KPI Minister, Senator Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon.

Forty, thirty or even 20 years ago, the twisted logic and reasoning given by Muhyiddin to justify his “Yes, I am a Malay first and no apologies” stance might have a powerful market, but in the 21st century and the second half-century of Malaysia’s nation-hood, such ultra views are facing a diminishing support base.

If Muhyiddin had espoused the view that he is Malay first and Malaysian second in the sixties, seventies, eighties and even nineties, not many would criticize him.

But for him to remain unchanged even in the year 2010, while the country has undergone over five decades of nation-building, Muhyiddin should not think he could get away with such ultra views so easily.

It is  precisely because Malaysia has evolved in the past 53 years to become a more united multi-racial Malaysian nation that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had come out with his signature theme and campaign of 1Malaysia, where everyone regards of himself or herself as Malaysian first and ethnicity, whether Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban second.

It is of course not possible to make everyone of the 27 million Malaysians to adopt such a 1Malaysia objective overight, but if the Deputy Prime Minister himself is not prepared to set an example of being a Malaysian first and Malay second; the MCA President, Datuk Chua Soi Lek and Gerakan President Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon  dare not declare that they are  Malaysian first and Chinese second; they are making nonsense of the entire 1Malaysia concept and slogan.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 16 April 2010, 10:56 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia over the last two years has entered into a deep and inexorable “systemic crisis”

By
Clive Kessler
, Professor of Sociology at the University of New South Wales

A second major post-independence regime crisis.

The first post-independence political dispensation lasted from 1957 to 1969, when it collapsed in the wake of national elections that demonstrated rapidly diminishing support for the inter-ethnic governing coalition among both the nation’s Malay and non-Malay citizens.

A second dispensation was accordingly created, designed to last for twenty years until 1990.   Grounded in the view that the 1969 crisis had stemmed from a profound sense of Malay exclusion from the benefits of independence and national development, its core political imperative  was a far-reaching national project of pro-Malay affirmative action. Implementation of these bold programmes required the development of an ever-stronger state that came increasingly to dominate Malaysian society.

But even after 1990 the same policies continued to be pursued, in fact even from strongly than before. These expanded measures were now justified not as necessary for the overcoming of Malay relative social deprivation and exclusion but in the name of assuring “ketuanan melayu” or comprehensive Malay political dominance, ascendancy, or “hegemony”.

At the same time, the period from 1970 saw the pronounced rise of new forms of militant political Islam in Malaysia, which the government, especially under Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s long prime ministership, sought [with a major contribution from his protege Anwar Ibrahim from 1982 to 1997] to co-opt and outflank with its own Islamic “modernist” project of counter-IslamiSation.

Ultimately, competition between Dr. Mahathir’s government and the Malaysian Islamic Party [PAS] served to promote only the interests of PAS and the new Islamic political activists, not those of Dr. Mahathir, his government and party.

As a result, during Dr. Mahathir’s long prime ministership, the Malay political agenda became increasingly demanding, insistent and central; the Islamist political agenda and its promoters became increasingly adamant and ambitious;  and, to the extent that they remained distinct, the Malay political agenda itself increasingly became an Islamic, or Islamist, agenda. A convergence occurred, one that became increasingly central to and powerful within national political life.

The Islamic agenda had its own autonomous sources and impetus.  But the Islamist agenda also fed upon and was fuelled by Malay ethnic sentiments and ambitions. Conversely, the Islamist imperative  with its powerful political “idioms” and rhetoric were now increasingly employed to drive, and also served to promote–and even politically to “sacralise” and so place beyond question–the new imperative of “Ketuanan Melayu”/Malay ascendancy, a nationally defining project that the ever more powerful Malaysian state now saw as its main task to promote.

The cost of this growth in the power and centrality, even irresistibility, of the new Islamist and Malay “ethno-supremacist” agenda was threefold. These developments made it increasingly difficult for the state’s non-Malay citizens to support, or even respect, the government, its purposes and assurances; similarly, it offended the sensibilities of many younger, more inclusive and “democratically-inclined” Malays who gave high importance to social justice and the equality of all of the state’s citizens, irrespective of gender, religion and ethnicity; and it involved a largely covert reinterpretation of the Malaysian constitution, which had been promulgated in 1957 as the foundational charter for an emerging modern, social democratic, multiethnic, religiously pluralist and secular nation.

So long as Dr. Mahathir held power, he was able to hold together this ever more explosive mix, or bundle of policy contradictions. But under his milder successor  Abdullah Ahmad Badawi this was no longer possible.

As a result, the government, led by Abdullah Badawi to the polls in 2008, suffered a massive political reversal–again, as in 1969, among both Malay and non-Malay voters.  In effect, Malaysia’s second post-independence political dispensation, which under Dr. Mahathir was made to maintain an unduly protracted afterlife far beyond its 1990 “sunset-date”, was simply “blasted away” by the massive expression of anti-governments sentiment at the 2008 elections. Malaysia’s long serviceable governing formula and its underlying logic, that had been placed under growing strain by Islamist and Malay ethnosupremacist pressures [working both independent and ever more in concert] from 1970 to 2008, simply collapsed. It no longer enjoyed adequate public credibility or confidence.

In response, the Malaysian government since 2008 has sought to restore its position not by moving to the centre and restoring political and religious moderation and inter-ethnic conciliation. Instead it has decided that the major, and immediately urgent, imperative is to “shore up” and consolidate its position among the nation’s “core” political community, the Malays–who not only are the demographic and electoral majority but the group from whom in overwhelming part the nation’s police and armed forces are drawn.

To do this it has abandoned any pretence of commitment to a modernist Islamic “counter-mobilization”.  Instead, it has sought to recapture, corral and “harvest” Malay ethnic and committed Islamist support in  its radical Malay and Islamist opponents’ own preferred terms.

After half a century and more of an  ”Islamist policy auction” between the government and the opposition Islamic party, the government has bowed out, ceased to make counter-bids. In a different metaphor, it now sings the same song as the Islamic opposition, the opposition’s chosen tune: perhaps in a whisper rather than in loud voice but none the less with full conviction [and out of perceived pragmatic necessity!].

Long-term developments over the preceding decades reached their culmination after the 2008 elections.  Except among a few brave and principled opponents outside of “official circles”, Malaysia has seen and assented to the retreat of the Islamic modernist and the secularist alternatives to the new assertive Islamism.   Those who had long been the main opponents of militant political Islam from within the government and political establishment have now capitulated to Islamist pressures and demands.

As early as 1969 the Islamic party had made clear its determination to use the political system of electoral democracy tactically and strategically: to deprive the Islamically more moderate and secular government of popular Malay support and so make the government ultimately dependent on the votes that the islamic party could mobilize. By denying the government popular malay support and religious legitimacy, it sought to acquire the leverage enabling it to make the government do its bidding, to become its hostage in policy terms. That strategy has now succeeded and come to fruition. The next stage of malaysian politics now begins.

As Malaysia now seeks, after the collapse of the second, to construct its third post-independence political “dispensation”, it is doing so under conditions where the ideas and goals, as well as the continuing political dynamism and impetus, of the ethnically-minded Malay Islamists now set the ideological terms of the national agenda and, as both government and Malay Islamist opposition alike now view things, its unfolding “narrative”.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 April 2010, 2:04 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib Greases His Way To Washington D.C

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz

And so it has finally happened. What a great honour for Malaysia. Najib, the Prime Minister of 1Malaysia fame was thrown a few crumbs, a few brief moment to savour, exchanging pleasantries with US President Obama on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit. Naturally, it was not quite the same as being driven down Pennsylvania Avenue to be welcomed at the portal of the White House, but I am being churlish as usual where Najib is concerned. Najib did get to see Obama via the tradesman’s entrance.

What irks me about this non-event meeting is that we had to resort to employing a very expensive public relations firm, for which read grubby Washington lobbyists, for close to 25 million dollars, give or take a million dollars here and there. Small change I suppose when it is not your hard-earned money.

 We maintain, for a small country, far too many embassies, all the result of Mahathir Mohamad’s megalomaniac years when he developed a special interest in trafficking with some of the vilest and most violent regimes particularly in North and Sub-Saharan Africa that others would not have touched with a long barge pole. For maverick Mahathir, that was his regular breakfast fare.

Maintaining diplomatic missions abroad requires a huge budget, and ours in Washington D.C must cost us an arm and a leg. So Malaysian tax payers have every right to expect to get value for money, especially when we were assured by Prime Minister Najib that his choice of our ambassador to the US was based on the gentleman’s credentials, whatever those might be.

One of his qualifications, so we were told, was that he had developed extensive networking, Washington D.C style, into a fine art, and could be reasonably expected to pave the way for getting Malaysia into the inside track. Our man in D.C. could not, on this occasion, even arrange a fleeting “hello and goodbye” meeting without resorting, in the time honoured Malaysian culture of corruption, to that offensive practice euphemistically referred to as “cheque book diplomacy.” The Prime Minister could not have picked a better candidate for the job, and I wonder if there would ever be an end to the perceived sleaziness, rightly or wrongly, that has come to be associated with Najib. For the all our sakes, the Prime Minister has to be a little more circumspect and open in his dealings.

What has this visit achieved for the money and time expended? A photo opportunity at most for Najib, but for Malaysia, toeing submissively the American/Israeli policy against Iran. We decried Junior Bush’s attack on Iraq because we were not convinced that the claimed weapons of mass destruction really existed. Why are we so quick of the mark this time to believe the Israeli-inspired conspiracy against Iran? Where is the incontrovertible evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons? What have we done to urge the Americans to dismantle Israeli nuclear warheads? On this issue, there has to be a great deal of soul-searching to be done on our part if we are to remain true to our sense of justice and if we wish enhance our standing among the morally decent nations of the world. I am not suggesting that we should oppose every American policy that impacts on global peace and security. We have to resist the temptation, however, of living in each other’s pockets in our relations whether with mighty America or pinhead Singapore.

I am not against Israel, per se. I admire the energy of the country and its people many of whom are friends of mine. With one, I went on two holidays, shared kosher food and enjoyed many hilarious moments.  They are as honest and decent as the rest of humanity, and they, like us want the best for their country and the Jewish people. That having been said, anyone familiar with the workings of the American system on the international policy level will realise that no matter how often you meet Obama, nothing will happen unless the very powerful pro-Jewish Congressional committees want it to happen.

 Rather than swimming in circles in the murky Potomac inhabited by totally disreputable money-grabbing grey-suited lobbyists just to pay homage to the White House, it would be easier and a great deal less costly to recognise, yes, recognise Israel. It is there; it is not a mirage in the desert. All this pretence that it does not exist has to make way for a pragmatic new policy. We have to exorcise the ghost of Mahathir’s rabid anti-Jewish ghost or we will get nowhere. We are not helping the Palestinians if we do not talk and walk with the Israelis. That does not mean we agree with their inhumanity to the Palestinians.

We will get all the support and backing of the very influential American Jewish interests, and will be able to engage Israel on a number of critical international and humanitarian issues, including the Palestinian conundrum. I think we should give this serious consideration. The Jews are anxious to cultivate us.

I recall in 2006 while serving with the UN in New York I was invited to deliver a talk at a conference in Jerusalem. Despite attempts to deny that I was a Malaysian official, they saw me as such, and not as a special UN adviser who I really was. They were delighted that for the first time in history that they had a ranking “Malaysian official” addressing a public meeting in Israel. They were not particularly interested in what I had to say about good governance, and the vital importance of fighting corruption. They wanted to know why Malaysia did not recognise Israel and, yet at the same time our government leaders saw nothing wrong in depositing huge sums of money in Israeli banks. I had to tell them I could not answer their questions as I was not a member of the Government of Malaysia. Mahathir may care to comment when he chooses to remember this bizarre aspect of his glorious administration.

By all means get close to Washington, Najib, but not at any cost.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 April 2010, 2:08 am and is filed under
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Twitter updates from Hulu Selangor

Homecoming Rasa where I spent nite Frequented Rasa 37 yrs ago in HS byelection Met members n supporters some were children then On way 2KKB

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 08:01

Infernal jam from Rasa 2KKB Bumper2bumper crawl May have 2walk 2nomination centre Centre of political gravity in KKB 2day n 4good reason

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 08:18

1km 2junction trunkroad 2KKB Will walk in 2KKB if jam continues HS will b cynosure of country n even world 4this week as barometer 13GE

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 08:30

By foot/bike reached nomination centre 2get in must run thru gauntlet of security obstacles Wished @ZaidIbrahim luck b4 he submitted papers

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 09:10

All top PR leaders here Anwar Hadi Khalid LGE(on bike) Nizar Azmin Nasha Mustafa KJ Sallehuddin KokWai Teresa Rama Tony EanYong Ronnie Teng

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 09:17

Spirit of PR highest ever in HS showing greatest sense solidarity n commitment by DAP PKR PAS 2usher in new Msia BN team not shown up yet

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 09:25

Finally BNcandidate K arrvd escorted by ‘I am Msian 2nd’ DPM BN spirit/morale appear  lower than usual represented by dilatory BN arrival

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 09:39

Altho PR not yet registered n no common PR symbol pride of PR identity/mission oredi excel dat BN n will b moulded in2 powerful force in HS

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 10:05

HS nomination closed 4 names ZI PR;K BN n 2 independents Objection 10-11am then officially d contestants 4this titanic battle on Msia future

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 10:13

Tutor Anuraadhaa Jeyasingam whose father is founder of MIC HS strongly protested that she was blocked by security from filing papers as ind

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 10:38

Went over 2BN tent when heard SamyVellu hurt himself He fell on barbed wires w other MIC leaders Altho right leg (cont) http://tl.gd/t92a7

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 11:19

But Perak Speaker-pretender Ganesan hurt even more righthand heavily swathed Also saw rejected Palanivel who said he is never more relieved

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 11:26

All 4candidates accepted in HS byelection Battle begins

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 11:29

Visited 2nd BN tent 2talk 2Hishammuddin told him police shd stop barbed wires @poll centres treating Ministers/leaders like terrorists

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 11:54

Hisham sort of agreed He introduced his 19yr old son told him he cannot b involved in politics wearing all BN gear or he shd join PR

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 11:58

At Nomination PC I said @ZaidIbrahim is man 4the future very embodiment of 1Msia who speaks 4all Msians regardless of race/religion (1) #P94

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 12:21

PK coalition 4future fielded @ZaidIbrahim n call on HS voters 2b constituency 4future on April25 2pave way 4PR power Putrajaya 13GE(2) #P94

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 12:27

Jam-stucked 1hr KKB trying 2go2Kerling 4lunch-covered only 500 metres Driver Med can claim slot in Guinness Book of Records 4slowest drive

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 13:03

1k police 4HS Where r they?How can they allow such infernal jam in nation’s history 2take place in KKB?W 1k police at least ensure no jam!

Saturday, 17 April, 2010 13:11

Finally left KKB jam n maze Imagine 2hrs 15mins 2come out of KKB! Skipping Kerling as jam piling up 4road north Hope route south 2kl smooth

04/17/2010 02:22 PM

Historic journey KKB-Rasa takes 3 hours which normally takes 10 mins Stop for long-deferred lunch Memorable start 2HS most twittered byelctn

04/17/2010 03:03 PM

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 April 2010, 11:28 am and is filed under
Election
,
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Another attack of Muhyiddin’s “foot-in-mouth” disease when he claimed that Kamalanathan is truly 1Malaysia as “Kamal” is Malay, “Alan” a Chinese and “Nathan” an Indian name

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had another attack of his “foot-in-mouth” disease when he claimed that the Barisan Nasional candidate for Hulu Selangor P. Kamalanathan is truly 1Malaysia as “Kamal” is Malay, “Alan” a  Chinese and “Nathan” an Indian name.

Muhyiddin is insulting the intelligence of the 65,000 voters of Hulu Selangor with such “garbage”.

Would Kamalanathan respond and answer in a crowd if someone shouts “Kamal” or “Alan”?  Clearly not.

If Kamalanathan’s name comprises of “Kamal”, “Alan” and “Nathan” then he has a longer name and should be called “Kamalalannathan”!  The BN  candidate for Hulu Selangor will stare at you for being hostile and unfriendly if you call him that!

Does Muhyiddin Yassin’s name qualify to be a “1Malaysia” name? Where are the Chinese and Indian components? What about Kadazan and Iban components?

All existing names of Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans and Ibans in Malaysia are truly 1Malaysia names, for this is proof of the wealth of diversity as well as the unique feature of Malaysia’s national unity from multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-linguistic diversity.

Muhyiddin should not trivialise the names of all Malaysians, whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans or Malaysians cannot but question his suitability and credibility as Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister.

It is sad that coming from someone who had declared that he is Malay first and Malaysian second, he should now come out with another blooper trying to play on the name of Kamalanathan as if the Pakatan Rakyat candidate Datuk Zaid Ibrahim does not have a sufficiently 1Malaysia name!

Muhyiddin should realise that he is making  Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia slogan and concept into a big joke!

[
Speech at launching the DAP SuperSunday 18 walkabouts by DAP MPs, State Assembly members and leaders in 18 Chinese new villages, Malay kampongs and Indian settlements in Hulu Selangor constituency at the DAP Kuala Kubu Baru by-election centre on Sunday, 18th April 2010 at 9 am
]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 18 April 2010, 11:52 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hulu Selangor by-election is no sure-winner for Zaid – winnable provided PAS, PKR and DAP fully mobilise to get out every single Malay, Chinese, Indian and Orang Asli vote on April 25

We are launching this SuperSunday18 walkabouts by DAP Members of Parliament, State Assembly members and leaders from all over the country  even from Sabah (we have MP for Kota Kinabalu Hiew King Cheu and DAP Kadazan leaders with us) in 18 Chinese new villages, Malay kampongs and Indian settlements in the Hulu Selangor constituency in the only available Sunday in this eight-day by-election.

Hulu Selangor by-election is no sure winner for the Pakatan Rakyat and our candidate Datuk Zaid Ibrahim.

In the March 2008 general election,  PKR candidate Datuk Zainal Abidin defeated Barisan Nasional candidate G. Palanivel with a slim majority of 198 votes.

However, in the three constituent state assembly seats, all won by BN, the three majorities secured by BN totalled 6,176 votes, comprising 3,548 majority in Hulu Bernam (contested by PAS), 2,179 majority in Batang Kali (contested by PKR) and 448 majority (contested by DAP).

What is the reason for the reversal of the total BN majorities of 6,167 votes from the three constituent state assembly seats into a 198-vote majority for the PKR?

Was it because 6,167 votes for BN at the state assembly level turned around to vote for PKR at the parliamentary level?

Clearly not, as the parliamentary vote for PKR (23,388) is only 54 votes more than the total votes polled by the PR candidates in the three state assembly seats (23,334).

Could this be explained by the spoilt votes, as there was a big chunk of 1,466 spoilt votes for the Hulu Selangor parliamentary seat.

The answer is again no, as the total number of spoilt votes for the three state assembly seats were quite sizable, accounting for 1,271 votes.

Palanivel secured 23,190 votes for the Hulu Selangor parliamentary seat, which is 6,320 votes less than the total of 29,510 votes cast for the three BN state assembly seats.

Clearly over 6,200 voters in the last general election who voted for the Barisan Nasional at the State Assembly level did not vote for Palanivel. What is significant is that these more than 6,200 votes also did not vote for Datuk Dr Zainal Abidin.

Where did these more than 6,200 votes disappear to? There should be an inquiry as to where these over 6,200 votes went to, as every voter is issued a parliamentary and a state assembly ballot at the polling station – and the total for parliamentary and state assembly votes issued should tally for the same constituency.

For our purpose however, it should be a salutary reminder that over 6,200 voters in the last general election who refused to repeat their vote for the BN at the parliamentary level as they had voted at the State Assembly elections also did not vote for PKR candidate, and if 2,000 or 3,000 of these  voters come out to vote for BN on April 25, BN candidate would win.

All PKR, PAS and DAP leaders and campaigners should realise therefore that Hulu Selangor by-election is not a sure winner.

I still believe that Datuk Zaid can be elected the new MP for Hulu Selangor but very hard work is called for, as every vote counts.

Things have changed in the past two years – the sterling performance of the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government and the hopes for far-reaching changes in the 13th General Elections following the March 8 political tsunami of the 2008 general elections.

However, we cannot be complacent. In fact, we should all be under a sense of great test and crisis.

This is why DAP has launched this SuperSunday18 – and the message is Pakatan Rakyat must get every Malay, Chinese, Indian and Orang Asli voter to vote for Zaid and national change in the country if Zaid is to win and become the new MP for Hulu Selangor.

[
Speech (2) at launching the DAP SuperSunday 18 walkabouts by DAP MPs, State Assembly members and leaders in 18 Chinese new villages, Malay kampongs and Indian settlements in Hulu Selangor constituency at the DAP Kuala Kubu Baru by-election centre on Sunday, 18th April 2010 at 9 am
]

Errata
 :
Please refer to a new statement issued on 20th April 2010

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 18 April 2010, 12:36 pm and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyiddin

By
M. Bakri Musa

[Last of Four Parts]

Salvaging Najib

There are many lessons that Najib could learn from his predecessors.  The first necessary exercise however, would be for him to determine which leader he identifies with or resembles most.

            One thing is certain:  Najib is not his father’s son, neither politically nor intellectually.  Najib also does not have his father’s personality or trait, in particular the Tun’s acute sense of probity and prudence.  In persona, Najib lacks his father’s great presence; the late Tun Razak commanded instant respect.  No one would dare crack a joke in his presence, not out of fear but of awe and respect.  With Najib, he would probably join in with his own ribald riposte to an off-color joke by his colleagues or juniors.

            In physique, Najib should have a commanding presence; after all he is much taller than his father, and broad-shouldered as compared to his father’s perpetual stooped posture.  Alas your body-build would take you only so far.

            The late Tun would never let his wife loose on extravagant shopping sprees.  In his sympathetic biography of the late Tun, William Shaw described an exchange where the Tun’s children were instigating their father to install a swimming pool at Sri Perdana.  The Tun would haven none of it.  “What would the people say?” the Tun reminded his children.  Najib never learned that important lesson from his father.

            For sure Najib does not have Mahathir’s vision, charisma, or single-mindedness.  Thus there is not much that Najib could learn from the mercurial Mahathir, no matter how hard the latter tries to influence Najib.

            To me, Najib resembles the Tunku the most; smart enough to be accepted into a British university but not brilliant enough to have a transformational vision for his country.  Najib’s attempt at having one – his now crumbling “1Malaysia” – proves more an embarrassment than inspiration.

            Like Tunku, Najib has a fondness for the good life.  I would not however, recommend that Najib pattern himself after the Tunku in this regard, like resorting to regular nightcaps.  The cultural environment today is far less forgiving; it would be political suicide were Najib to indulge in such worldly pleasures.  Pleasures of the flesh are more tolerable to today’s crowd than pleasures of the palate.

            Very unlike the Tunku however, Najib is burdened by an overbearing spouse.  With Tunku, Malaysians had a soft spot for his wife, the late Sharifah Rodziah.  There was a good reason for that; she was humble, modest, and stayed in the background.  She was the very antithesis of Rosmah.

            Najib could usefully emulate Tunku in one respect, in having an able, young and brilliant deputy.  That is, have his own Tun Razak.  That someone should be like the late Tun, smart, competent, diligent, and not corrupt.  That someone should also be satisfied if not actually enjoy wielding power in the background while letting the number one hogs the limelight and credit.

            Tunku was only 52 when he became the country’s first leader, only a few years younger than Najib when he became prime minister.  Tunku’s deputy, Najib’s father, was only 33.  Like Tunku, Najib should groom someone young to be his deputy, a generation younger.  He needs to cast his net far and wide, within and outside the party, to find fresh talent to entice into UMNO.  He must be willing to gamble and take on those who are initially not sympathetic or even hostile to UMNO in the quest for his own Tun Razak.  Who knows, by co-opting them into government they might just become UMNO members.  The late Ghazali Shafie was not an UMNO member when Tun Razak brought him into his cabinet.

            Najib should consider including in his team such individuals as Khairy Jamaluddin, even though I risk puffing up his already inflated ego.  Khairy is not even half as smart as the late Tun, but then that is all UMNO has to offer these days.  By specifically bringing in Khairy, Najib would be declaring that he is out of Mahathir’s shadow, or at least could not care less what he thinks.  That would be quite a statement!

            The danger is that unlike the late Tun, Khairy, apart from being not half as smart, is not content remaining in the background; he likes to hog the headlines.  Khairy is also “damaged goods” because of his earlier overbearing ways while the under “protection” of his father-in-law, Abdullah Badawi.  However, if a discredited politician like Nixon could be rehabilitated, so could Khairy.

            As the search for his own Tun Razak would be slow and difficult, Najib needs to do something quick in the interim.  First, he would have to dump Muhyiddin; he would of course still retain UMNO’s deputy presidency as he was elected to that position.  To make that move palatable as well as lessen the repercussion, Najib would have to appoint someone with gravitas to replace Muhyiddin, someone who would command instant respect and credibility not only among Malaysians but also the world.

            Fortunately UMNO has such a person in Tengku Razaleigh.  Muhyiddin would not dare squeak if he were to be replaced by someone of undisputed integrity, competence, and stature as Razaleigh.

            Early in Abdullah’s tenure I suggested that he should pick Razaleigh as deputy prime minister, but for a whole set of different reasons.  Had Abdullah done that, his fate as well as Malaysia’s would be far different today.

            If Najib were to be bold enough to dump his current deputy, he would accomplish many objectives simultaneously.  One, he would certainly make all Malaysians take note.  For another, he would reassert his leadership of the party.  After all there is nothing in the party’s constitution to stipulate that the deputy leader should also be deputy prime minister.  That is only a tradition.  By boldly breaking the party’s hallowed practice, Najib is signaling his commitment to a new path, for his party as well as country.

            Muhyiddin cannot be unceremoniously dumped; that would trigger a severe backlash and precipitate a leadership crisis.  We are an Asian culture where ‘saving face’ is supreme.  Thus instead of dumping Muhyiddin, Najib would have to sell the exercise as a ‘promotion’ for Muhyiddin – to undertake the more important and immediate task of ‘revitalizing’ UMNO.  After all he heads the management committee to reform the party; that crucial job has yet to be completed.  To further soften the impact, Najib would have to compensate the loss of Muhyiddin’s ministerial income by offering him a lucrative chairmanship of one of the GLC’s, like the Iskandar Development Project.

            Najib should not be satisfied only with ‘promoting’ Muhyiddin; he should simultaneously radically revamp his cabinet by reducing the bloat and getting rid of the dead woods.  I would begin with such old tired characters as Nazri, Rais, and Hishammuddin.  Replace them with fresh young candidates.

            All those ministers are tainted.  If any were to squeak or in any way try to undermine his leadership, Najib could always unleash the MACC upon them.  That ought to shut them up.  We saw how quietly even the boisterous Rafidah Aziz went when Abdullah fired her.  And he was a meek leader!

            As deputy, Tengku Razaleigh would pose no political threat to Najib.  Razaleigh would be focused on serving the nation; he is too senior to be involved in mere politicking or conniving to topple Najib.  Together with Razaleigh, Najib could aggressively recruit fresh bright young talent into public service and revamp UMNO.

            There is only a limited time window for Najib.  If he were to delay revamping his cabinet till just before the election, that would be dismissed as political gimmickry.  Then there is the UMNO leadership convention; if Najib were to delay making these changes, those dropped UMNO ministers would retain their clout and be re-elected.  By removing them now, their influence would have waned come party election time.

            These radical changes may be unpalatable to Najib and he may shy away from undertaking them, but then he has to ponder the consequences of his staying the course.  At a minimum he risks becoming another Abdullah Badawi, except more pathetic.  At worse, the battle between Najib and Muhyiddin would consume more than just the two.  It would also take down UMNO, the RAHMAN prophecy coming true.

            It is not enough for Najib to endlessly declare that he is “ready to make the difficult changes that Malaysia needs.”  He needs to demonstrate that through his deeds, or as my old kampong folks would say, “Bikin saja, jangan cakap!” (Just do it, dispense with the hollering).

            Najib and Muhyiddin may have bad karma and ill feng shui, but as practitioners of those ancient occult arts will tell you, those can be mitigated though appropriate actions.  In short, Najib’s destiny lies in his own hands, on whether he is willing and capable of undertaking these much-needed radical changes.

            If he does not, then it is time for voters to take actions.  In P. Ramlee’s movie, Labu and Labi’s strict taskmaster Haji Bakhil would punish the pair by making them perform ketok-ketampi, a Malay version of humiliating pushups, every time they goof off.  It is time for voters to make our political Labu and Labi perform their ketok-ketampi by booting them out at the next election.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 19 April 2010, 12:25 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Condemns “Alcohol” attack on Zaid Ibrahim – Pakatan Rakyat candidate in Hulu Selangor by-election

Section 6 provides that disclosure of improper conduct may be made against a member of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly.

Just received this Star news flash: “20/4 Kinabatangan MP Bung Mokhtar Radin pleaded guilty at the Gombak Timor Lower Syariah court to committing polygamy without the court’s consent.”

Does this fall within the “improper conduct” in Section 6?

Do the “drinking” habits of MPs fall under this term, as this has become the weapon used by Barisan Nasional in the Hulu Selangor by-election campaign in its “alcohol” attack on the Pakatan Rakyat candidate Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, calling him “kaki botol”.

I challenge UMNO and Muslim Ministers, in particular the Umno Youth leader and MP for Rembau Khairy Jamaluddin, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak whether they dare to declare that they had never drank alcohol in their youth in the past!

If having had drinks in the past incapacitates one from holding office, then we will lose half the Cabinet as well as the Malaysian Ambassador to the United States and we will need to have a by-election in Rompin.

Why is UMNO and Barisan Nasional so desperate in the Hulu Selangor by-election that they have to resort to such gutter politics?

Let us have higher standards in politics and elections, as it is the avenue to serve to peope and nation and not to indulge in personal attacks and character-assassinations.

We can do the same but we refuse to do so. Zaid has regretted his drinks in his youth. But he has gone one step further to declare that he will not follow the gutter politics of the Umno leaders.

This is what Zaid said:

 “I won’t name those leaders in Umno who had done the same… (drinking alcohol). I’m not like Umno. I’m a human (being), so I think it is better for me (not to retaliate). I know that some of my friends there were womanisers, went to casino and other stuff that other rich people would do.

“But I won’t name any of them because I have more pedigree than them and my friends in the Cabinet won’t have to worry about that.”

Let us raise a higher standards in politics and electioneering. As example, DAP has instructed our campaigners not to touch on the Chua Soi Lek tape subject.

It is also an insult to  use “kaki botol” for those who have social drinks, as this would be condemning Chinese, Indians, Kadazans and Ibans who drink but are not drunkards.

I want to ask why the Bill mentions MPs and State Assemblymen but no reference to Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Chief Ministers and Mentris Besar as if they are exempted from this provision.

This is not acceptable as Malaysians are aware of the rampant corruption at the state government level.

Let me quote from a Star report in February 2001 about corruption in Sabah:

“Ask politicians and journalists about the rotation system, and they will jokingly say: ‘One CM took the hills, one gave away the sea, one signed off the valleys and another bet on watery deals.’

And now, according the DAP Sabah State Assemblyman for Sri Tanjong, there is now a “vacuum cleaner” in Sabah cleaning up everything in the state!

Section 6(2)(b) provides that there is no statute of limitations for “improper conduct” under this Bill, i.e.  “although the improper conduct has occurred before the commencement of this Act”.

Are the authorities concerned therefore going to investigate into the past “improper misconduct” of Ministers and political leaders, like whether Umno Cabinet Ministers had drank alcohol in the past?

Similarly, will the “improper conduct” of the Chief Justice who had  previously deceived the authorities by burning the original marriage certificate of his first marriage in order to illegally register his second marriage going to be re-opened, investigated and action taken?

I must protest that in the debate on such an important bill, MPs are limited to 10 minutes for each speaker which does not demonstrate that there is real political will on the part of the Barisan Nasional government to stamp out corruption by creating a new environment of openness, accountability and transparency.

I have material to talk for two hours but in view of the time restriction, I will touch on the main headings of some of these subjects:

RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal

MACC – why no Anti-Corruption Action (AC) action on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal although the first police report was lodged six years ago?

Why the Chief Secretary failed to take action although directed by the Cabinet in July 2007 against those responsible for the PKFZ scandal, in particular the unlawful issue of four Letters of Support by two Transport Ministers, Liong Sik and Kong Choy?

Yesterday, Sun’s front-page headline was: “
Ex-PKA directors off the hook
” (Sun)

No “big fish” had been caught by MACC  and there is no response to my call in Parliament  that  the government suspend its RM770 million repayment this year to PKFZ turnkey contractor Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) which had raised bonds under misrepresentation and irregular circumstances – until the Cabinet Task Force under Chief Secretary  had come out with satisfactory solution.

There are tons of information for action by MACC on the Internet. For instance, MCA Deputy Education Minister Wee Ka Siong is accused on internet to have 34 accounts at Maybank and 2 accounts at RHB –  with RM4.2 million in cold hard cash in these accounts.  I do not know whether there is any truth in this but there must be proper explanation and accountability, both by the MACC and Wee himself.

Asia Sentinel’s latest report “
Malaysia’s submarine scandal surfaces in France
” – why is there silence in Malaysia.

We are debating the Whistleblowers Protection Bill but the two Malaysian Whistleblowers Par Excellence are on the run outside the country – firstly, Raja Petra Kamaruddin who has tons of materials and information on his Malaysia Today blogsite and Private Investigator Balasubramaniam about the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Sharriibuu.

If the government is serious in wanting to fight corruption and to encourage whistleblowing, it should welcome  and co-operate with these two Whistleblowers Par Excellence instead of allowing an inclement environment which have driven into exile overseas.

Have MACC taken the materials exposed and whistle-blown in RPK’s Malaysia-Today seriously by conducting full and proper investigations?

In ending my speech, I must protest at the short time allowed to speak in the debate on this bill.

[
Speech in Parliament on Tuesday, 20th April 2010 on the Whistleblowers Protection Bill
]

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 April 2010, 4:17 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.