Behind the colour of change

by
Azly Rahman

In Malaysia, are the leaves turning yellow, too?

Are we witnessing the total deconstruction of the race-based political ideology and a breakdown of the economic and social relations of production?

Is the nation being haunted by a ‘yellow wave’ of change demanded by those alienated by the developmentalist agenda that seems to have favoured a privileged segment of society?

At the speed of how things are turning yellow, it seems that we have to content with such signs and symbols of systemic change as a reality.

Around three decades ago, the ‘yellow culture’ carried a negative connotation especially in relation to the invasion of the ‘decadent aspects of the western culture’. Today, we see a deconstruction of this perception; a mental revolution that is taking the colours of the constitutional monarchy as a symbol of war against the colours of the present race-based regime.

It is a war over the definition of ‘democracy’. It includes the question: who has the monopoly over Malaysian democracy? Can we continue to think like dinosaurs in an age of dolphin-think?

One of the nagging questions for our nation as we enter this challenging period for civil rights is this: what is Malaysian democracy and what is its future?

Key spokespersons of the government think that we are doing fine with the system and that we need to only improve the process.

Key spokespersons representing the wave of change and who challenge the ‘system’ think that the system is no longer working, as we face the realities of changing race-relations.

These are contending views of what ‘Malaysian democracy’ is – an interpretation of what the process of development of the people, by the people, for the people means. These are the views of the words ‘demos’ and ‘kratos’ of what a ‘government of the people’ should mean.

Democracy is rooted in economics. Our existence – including that of the king and the pauper, rebels and reformists, the Sultans and the hamba sahaya – as Marx would contend, is defined by the economic condition we are in or have created.

In Malaysia, the condition is defined by the pie baked by those who created the New Economic Policy that is now becoming a system of the New Economic Plutocracy.

Systemic corruption

I think the root of the showdown between the ‘yellow wave’ movement and the ‘red- faced’ power structure is economic in nature – true to the idea that we are all economic beings or of the specie homo economicus.

We still talk about an economic pie as if it is a constant. The faulty tool is popular with policy makers who are bankrupt of alternative perspectives of looking at systemic change. They continue to defend the indefensible in a time when change is imminent and coming at a very fast pace.

Even newer generation of race-based leaders are ill-equipped with the fundamental character of these radical changes. They use rock logic to meet the demand of a fluid society. Rock logic includes the use of force to prevent demands to these changes.

We must now abandon the metaphor of the pie; one that is increasingly becoming synonymous with the race to meet the gains of material standards at the expense of the real issue – distributive and regulative justice. We ought to adopt a new form of justice that cuts across racial lines and one that looks at the poor in the eye and into their souls.

That form of justice will meet our nation’s physical, emotional, and metaphysical needs. The present wave of dissatisfaction is not only an emanation of frustration over the issue of the judiciary and confusion over the line between the Legislature and the Executive; it is an emanation of a class-based issue, of which we are in denial.

Race is merely a sugar-coating of that nagging argument of this and that rights of this and that people; a coating that has become calloused with fossilised viruses that have corrupted the entire system since the British handed Malaya her independence on a silver platter. Race is a convenient basis for argument as it masks the issue of the ownership of power, knowledge and ideology.

Class-based system

The new issue facing us is class-based. We can longer use race and its sentimentality as a perspective to analyse what is gravely wrong with the developmental project we are pursuing.

We have subdivided ourselves into classes of the rich and poor from all the major races and the classes of those who owns the material and cultural capital. Our pattern of consumption, our daily grind, the kind of car we drive, the school our children go to, and how widely travelled we are, all reflect the class we are in.

But our politics is renewed every now and then to re-state the commitment to “correct the imbalances” using econometrics, without engaging in a sustained deep inquiry into the harder reality of living.

We are engaging in another exercise in keris-wielding, to renew of political-economic spirit that wishes to see the creation of more and more multi-million perhaps multi-billionaire Malays, Chinese, Indians, and other pribumi, but fail to inquire into the impact of such continuing policies that will further divide us into classes. No longer do arguments on racial imbalances, to me, seem to be attractive. Classes create antagonism.

Revelations of the issues of the distribution of wealth as in the multitude of unresolved cases of high-level corruption reflect how much public interest is intertwined with personal greed.

It reflects how much those in power invoke the mantras of “economic progress for this or that race” yet create a system that benefits this and that person/s. This is the game of equity we play. Our voters are either ignorant of the nature of interlocking directorate-ship in politics, or are too comfortable playing this game of patronage politics.

We somewhat do not get the clearest picture of what 30 years of ‘growth by equity’ policy has taken shape; who benefits? how are the benefits distributed? and why have the benefits of growth not trickle down as they theoretically should?

Price of progress

The human cost of development has taken its toll on the nation – that of those marginalised and lost-in-the-numbers game of the economic policy we design. We are startled by the nature of by-products of developments such as:

 The growing poverty (urban and rural) among Malaysians of all races, and we will also see rising poverty among immigrants who are helping build our economy;

 An increasing percentage of drug addiction among the Malays – especially those marginalised by an uncaring, uncreative, and uninspiring educational system that measures people by numbers and by truncated notion of achievement alone – and I am sure of other races in general;

 An increasing number of persons living with HIV/Aids as a possible result of the nature of the economic developmental paradigm we have constructed and the nature of schooling system that promotes a few and marginalises and alienates many;

 A growing population of our youth disenfranchised in our school system as a result of the slow-paced growth of teaching-skills acquisition – skills that are needed to make the school a very happy place one wherein children do not get bored and translate their boredom into drug addiction or gangsterism;

 A growing breed of our elected representative that cannot articulate logical analysis, prognosis, diagnosis to issues of distributive and regulative justice, but instead choose to continue to verbally clobber each other based on race sentiments;

 A clear continuation of the political paradigm in which our politicians are engaged – one that needs lots of money to keep one’s constituency happy and even worse, to keep one’s political position stronger;

 A clear picture of how our society has developed – the dangerous growth of classes of the multi-cultural rich and the multi-cultural poor and the relegation of the multi-cultural middle class into a new class of ‘urban poor’ whose life is tied to an increasingly dangerous pattern of hyper-modern consumption;

 A picture of the breaking down of families as a result of the changing patterns of our economy after the implementation of the NEP – there’s too much drive in human beings to earn more to make the first million Ringgit so that they will be ‘on par with the other races’. This has resulted in a dangerous form of psychological breakdown as a consequence of the mental breakdown of modern life. The work ethic imposed on Malaysians by global companies, especially profit-driven ones from the advanced nations, have impacted the way we look at work, juggle family life, pursue leisure and pleasure, and the way we create or break families;

 A dangerous trend of a breakdown of race relations, reflected in the nature and style of arguments we engage in, be they in Parliament or in our public schools – this is a continuing pattern of mistrust of the other race based on the struggle to outwit and out-greed each other in our pursuit of material wealth;

 A continuation of the grooming of political-economic dynasties based on the struggle to protect family interests as well as to create more wealth so that money can further sustain power – the idealism and ethics of the early years of Independence are now in the dustbin of history; we now watch a saga of what looked like a war between the Jacobins and the Girondins during the French Revolution, only this revolution is played silently, not for the future well-being of peoples of all races, but for the purpose of empire-building.

There are possible inroads to the long-term economic solutions we can undertake in order to rekindle the spirit of restructuring society and eliminating poverty.

Our current pursuit is creating the opposite effect. It is still-based on the protection of the interest of each race, ideologically derived from  the British legacy of divide and rule.

The current path is creating classes of the extremely wealthy few and a growing population of poor.

We need to go back to studying human nature and what kind of society we wish to recreate. The wealthy class wants to be ensured of control of economic resources so that the system can be maintained and be fine-tuned.

To meet the challenges of a nation that is beginning to think like a dolphin, we have to reject the notion of using force and violence to promote Dinosaur Age thinking.

I suggest we abandon Dinosaur Age thinkers in our march for real-time progress; one in which dolphins surf the yellow waves – elegantly and intelligently.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 November 2007, 8:27 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
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.


Exercise best preventive medicine and as important as eating and sleeping

by
Dr Chen Man Hin

It is commonly known that exercise has beneficial effects on the human body, especially the heart, lungs, kidneys, bones and muscles.

It  also help patients to control their  hypertension, diabetes, and mood disorders like stress and depression.

There is increasing evidence that exercise is also beneficial for mental health. Many discoveries have been made

Professor Arthur  Krammer from the Beckman Institute in Illinois, USA found clear evidence that aerobic exercise boost performance in key areas of the brain and that exercise could improve ‘decision making’. The research team scanned thousands of rains of voluneers using  the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Next, a neuroscientist, Professor Comon at University of California Irvine has found that during exercise, the nerve cells release chemicals (neurotrophic factors) which protect nerve cells from injury and prompt nerve cells to multiply and grow. The frontal lobes have shown to increase in size by MRI scanning.

Other neuroscientists also claim that exercises delay the onset of dementia and Alzheimer disease, prevent Parkinsonism and help spinal cord injuries.

More good news. Neuroscientists from Brunel university, UK have evidence to show that exercise induced secretion of Human Growth Hormone. This is a hormone secreted in large amounts during youth and is  responsible to maintain the body healthy and young.

This is important as there is an aging problem in the world, as people live longer. exercise  will generate the exercise induced growth hormone response (EIGR) and keep the older generation healthy.

Thus there is mounting evidence that exercise has become the most effective form of preventive medicine for the people.

There is a need to have a national awareness and campaign to promote the importance of taking exercise as a daily habit like eating and sleeping.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 November 2007, 1:42 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape RCI – what actually did the Cabinet decide yesterday?

Malaysians are utterly confused as to what the Cabinet decided on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the Judiciary yesterday.

Did yesterday’s Cabinet, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah  Ahmad Badawai was in Singapore for the ASEAN Summit, make the decisions on the terms of reference, scope of power and composition which are to be announced by the Prime Minister — as was the impression given by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in his
comments
 to the press at the Parliament lobby?

Or did the Cabinet yesterday just decided that decisions on these aspects of the Royal Commission of Inquiry are put off to the next Cabinet meeting, as appears to be
gist
 of what Abdullah said in Singapore last evening?

Whatever the case, it  paints a picture of  a bumbling  and shambolic Cabinet which is neither  serious nor  professional in handling vital national issues, especially one so critical in determining Malaysia’s international competitiveness such as  national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

It has taken the Prime Minister and the Cabinet two months to decide that there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape, when  this would have been the right, proper and immediate thing for a government which is serious about accountability, integrity and good governance to do.

Why is the Abdullah government continuing to drag its feet on the Royal Commission of Inquiry, as if this  is the least of its concerns?

Furthermore, why has the Haider Panel Report not yet been made public, another implicit undertaking of the Prime Minister?  What has  the government got to hide in refusing to immediately making public the Haider Report?

Special Cabinet meetings outside the weekly Wednesday meetings had been held before.  This is one subject whose import would justify a special Cabinet meeting  so that the necessary decisions could be taken if they had not been taken yet — and I call on Abdullah not to delay any further but to act decisively to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry with untrammeled powers not only to investigate into every aspect of judicial impropriety disclosed in the Lingam Tape but also probe into the 19-year series of crisis of confidence on the independence and integrity of the judiciary so that judges, lawyers and all Malaysians can feel proud again about the Malaysian judiciary and system of justice.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 November 2007, 1:08 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ong Tee Keat has disgraced and insulted his own Minister, Mustapha

Deputy Higher Education Minister, Datuk Ong Tee Keat has disgraced his own Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad in admitting that promoting Malaysian university places to foreign students in overseas trips like a salesman is demeaning and insulting.

During my supplementary question in Parliament yesterday, I had criticized the Higher  Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad for a misplaced  sense of priorities in going on a China tour to promote Malaysian university places to Chinese students at a time when his greatest challenge is to ensure that Malaysian universities win international recognition for academic excellence and quality as world-class institutions.

This is particularly pertinent at a time of Malaysian higher education crisis when the latest world’s Top 200 Universities Rankings released by Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) a fortnight  ago showed a continuing “free fall” of Malaysian universities, with not a single Malaysian university in the Top 200 Universities.

University of Malaya, the nation’s premier university only two years ago, had been falling in the THES ranking from 89th in 2004 to 169th in 2005, 192 in 2006 and 246 in 2007 — or a fall of 157 placings in three years!  When will this plunge in the rankings for the  University of Malaya stop?

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia has plunged from No. 185 in 2006 to 309. The plunge of Universiti Sains Malaysia in the past three years is even worse than University of Malaya — a plunge of 196 places from 111 in 2004, 326 in 2005, 277 in 2006 and 307 in 2007.

More worrying, Malaysia is also losing out not only to universities of developed countries but to  more and more developing countries such as  Thailand, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa.

I never said that it was wrong for Mustapha as Higher Education Minister to be salesman in foreign countries to attract more foreign students to study in Malaysian universities and colleges, but that his priority particularly at present is to restore Malaysia’s international reputation for university quality and excellence.

Furthermore, the best advertisement and magnet for foreign students to Malaysia is the international reputation of Malaysian universities for academic excellence and quality, and not through any salesmanship even if the salesman is the Higher Education Minister.

In his
reply
, Tee Kiat accused me of insulting Mustapha in describing him as a “salesman” in overseas trips to promote Malaysian university places for foreign students, and in the process, it was the Deputy Minister who had disgraced and insulted Mustapha — as I had never said it was demeaning or insulting to be salesman except he must have the right order of priorities.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 November 2007, 1:27 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sothi vs Pokuan – MIC National VP should stop being a lout and unconditionally apologise for his boorish conduct

It is shame that MIC National Vice President and Deputy Minister for Natural Resources and Environment, Datuk  S. Sothinathan is not prepared to admit his wrong in challenging woman DAP MP Fong Po Kuan (Batu Gajah) to a fist-fight and is instead trying to deny the undeniable.

Yesterday, Sothinathan said:
“No man in the right frame of mind would physically fight with a lady. Not in our culture.”

Sothinathan is right this time, and this is why his “right frame of mind” came under question when he challenged Po Kuan to a physical fight, and not to  an electoral contest in the next general election as he now claims.

Eye-witness accounts of what happened in Parliament on Monday are more reliable and better testimony than Sothinathan of the despicable  behaviour of  the MIC National Vice President on Monday.

The body language of Sothinathan was so unmistakable that the Chinese newspapers,
Sin Chew Daily
,
Nanyang Siang Pau
,
China Press
,
Guang Ming
,
Oriental Daily
  the next day reported the next day that Sothinathan had challenged me to a physical fight outside the Chamber.

The Chinese newspapers were wrong as  Sothinathan did not challenge me to a fight. The challenge was directed at Po Kuan in the expanded exchange between DAP MPs with BN MPs.

The mistake of the Chinese newspapers is understandable as there was a lot of confusion in the Chamber at the time, with voices coming from all directions in Parliament.  A  video of the parliamentary episode is available on
YouTube
.

This is what Hansard of 19th November 2007 recorded of this challenge by Sothinathan directed at Po Kuan:

Dato’ S. G. Sothinathan: Siapa takut?  Berani, mari lawanlah!!

Tuan Pengerusi: [Datuk Dr. Yusuf bin Yacob]: Ya, ya, Timbalan Menteri, teruskan, teruskan.

Dato’ S.G. Sothinathan: Oh, cakap macam lelaki bukan?  Mari lawan, mari lawan!! Jangan cakap no gender bias.

A poster on my blog,
Jeffrey
, had delivered the most eloquent rebuttal of Sothinathan’s denial of the undeniable in his following comment on my blog on the thread
“Sothinathan challenging Po Kuan to a “fight” on YouTube”
 yesterday:

Sothinathan denied challenging Po Kuan to a fist-fight. At the press conference, Sothinathan clarified that in politics, the term ‘fight’ refers to elections and not to the exchange of blows. He has given the word “fight” a twist.

To divine what he meant one must look at the context in which the “fight” was mentioned.

He said, Siapa takut? Cakap seperti seorang lelaki bukan? Berani, mari lawan lah. Jangan cakap “gender bias!”

When he told the person he addressed not to raise “gender bias”, he obviously meant, in context, “fist-fight” in respect to which the issue of gender inequality only arises, since it is common nowadays for women to contest in elections in respect to which the question of gender bias does not arise at all.

It is apparent that in the heat of arguments he directed the challenge of a fist-fight to Po Kuan, whether he actually meant it or not.

As Sothinathan in his moment of lucidity has admitted that “No man in the right frame of mind would physically fight with a lady”, the MIC National Vice President should do the only decent thing open to him — stop being a lout,  stop prevaricating and to  unconditionally apologise for his boorish behaviour in challenging Po Kuan to a fight in Parliament on Monday.

If Sothinanthan continues to be obstinate, unapologetic  and unrepentant, we will leave it to the people of Malaysia to decide as we will show the videoclip of the boorish behaviour of the MIC National Vice President which is available on YouTube all over the country.

The parliamentary fracas on Monday erupted because Sothinathan came out with the classic Barisan Nasional “red herring” that I was trying to “politicize” the the Kedah quit rent controversy, where 120,000 signatures of protest had been collected from a broad cross-section of Kedahans of all races and which had been submitted to the Kedah Mentri Besar last Sunday.

Let all face the brutal reality –  nobody in Malaysia  can run away from politics. It affects every aspect of one’s life. Those who talk about “politicising”  like Sothinathan were just looking for escape routes to avoid addressing controversies close to the heart of the people  and to  evade  accountability, and should therefore be condemned in no uncertain terms.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 November 2007, 12:46 pm and is filed under
Gender
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


UPM’s one-semester suspension of Lee Song Yong – motion to cut salary of Higher Education Minister

The one-semester suspension of second-year computer science student Lee Song Yong by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) for obstructing campus officers from confiscating his personal belongings in the run-up to the campus polls in October is not only a grave violation of human rights but also a chilling reminder of  the stultifying control of Malaysian academia by Little Napoleons which can only perpetuate  a culture of mediocrity.

It is most regrettable that the UPM had completely ignored the call by Suhakam to stop the university disciplinary proceedings against Lee to pave the way for Suhakam investigations into  complaint of human rights abuse by the university authorities.

This is another case where the higher education authorities have failed to distinguish  between the core functions of universities to be centres of academic excellence from the petty details of regulatory control of lecturers and students which are the refuge of “Little Napoleons”.

In the latest world’s Top 200 Universities Rankings released by Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) a fortnight ago, Universiti Putra Malaysia, which had never been listed in the Top 200 Universities Ranking, still slipped 72 slots  from No. 292 in 2006 to 364 in 2007.

It is most disappointing that  the university administrators  are unable set an example in the nation  to respond to calls for a “First-World mentality”  so that Malaysia can march towards fully developed nation status but continue to be mired by mindsets and approaches which could only produce universities and generations of mediocrity.

I propose to focus parliamentary and national attention on the disease of mediocrity in the Malaysian universities as highlighted by the free-fall of Malaysian universities in international rankings and the Little Napoleon regimes resulting in victimization of free spirits like Lee Song Yong which are antithetical to the development of a creative  academic environment and towering Malaysians  in keeping with the Abdullah administration’s slogan of “Cemerlang, Gemiling, Terbilang”.

I will give notice to move a motion  to cut the salary of the Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad during the 2008 Budget committee state debate on the Higher Education Ministry in Parliament on Dec.5 to focus on the issues of government failures to  restore a culture of excellence and academic freedom to create world-class universities.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 November 2007, 4:54 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


An Indictment of Malaysia’s Media

by
M. Bakri Musa

Editors and journalists serve as nothing more than as chief errand boys and girls for the establishment.

If you were a Malaysian and had relied only on the mainstream media for news, you could be excused for being befuddled over what happened in Kuala Lumpur on the Saturday of November 10, 2007.  You would be confounded too on the day before to see the normally busy streets eerily empty except for police trucks and personnel.  Tourists could be excused into thinking that they were visiting a banana republic in the midst of another routine military coup.

            It turned out that the only folks befuddled on both days were ministers and officials. The citizens knew exactly what was going on despite the news blackout by the mainstream media.  That more than anything demonstrates the irrelevance of these mainstream editors and reporters.

            No amount of post event editorial contortions could alter that fact.  These editors and journalists have little left of their personal pride and professional integrity; they have completely prostituted themselves to being instruments of the state’s propaganda machinery. They may have fancy titles as Group Editor or Editor-in-Chief, their functions however are nothing more than as “chief errand boys and girls” for the establishment. They acceded only too willingly to orders from their political masters.

            Their once informative news pages are today filled with nothing more than ministerial speeches and press releases. Their formerly critical and influential Op-Ed columns are today reduced to carrying unashamedly toadying pieces praising the current leaders.

            Malaysians are fully aware of this reality and react accordingly. The mainstream papers’ declining circulation, readership, and influence attest to their lack of credibility. These papers are eagerly read only by members of the ruling party, where the obsession is on tracking which party operatives are being featured on the front page and which ones have been relegated to the middle.  The paper is effectively reduced to being the ruling party’s newsletter.

Uncurious Bystanders

            The Malaysian mainstream media have failed in their basic duty to keep the public informed and holding those in power accountable. The media have become part of the establishment; their role model is Pravda.

             As for any investigative journalism, it is a sad commentary that the mainstream media have remained uncurious bystanders in the major evolving public scandals. The infamous Lingam videotape purportedly showing a politically connected lawyer fixing judicial appointments with a senior judge was exposed not in the mainstream papers rather in blogs and Internet news portals. Similarly, the government’s purchase of a luxurious Airbus jet for the use of the prime minister was revealed by Raja Petra’s Malaysia-Today.net. He was able to secure such details as the exorbitant costs, extravagant customization, and tail number.

Time and again the government (as well as the mainstream media) had to react to revelations in blogs and the alternative media.

            In a plural and diverse society as Malaysia, the media have the additional and essential role in mediating the contesting and often polarizing demands of the various constituencies. The more those contests and rivalries are played out on the editorial pages the less likely they are to spill onto the streets.

            Again on this important dimension, the mainstream media have failed miserably. Instead of mediating they have become active participants, adding to the divisions.

             In this news and information vacuum the alternative media, especially the Internet news and commentary portals like Malaysia-Today and Malaysiakini, have been a roaring success, regularly registering daily hits in excess of millions. The mainstream media would be ecstatic to have a fraction of those figures.

Mahathir’s Legacy

            It is a singular tribute to former Prime Minister Mahathir that he granted freedom to the Malaysian cyberworld. Although when he did it, Mahathir was not in the least concerned with citizens’ rights to independent information, it was more to attract investors to his Multimedia Super Corridor. They would not take kindly to any hint of censorship. This freedom albeit restricted only to the Internet may yet prove to be Mahathir’s greatest legacy. It is ironic that he would benefit personally from this initiative now that the mainstream media have completely ignored him with his being out of office.

             This blooming of the Internet is the reason why Malaysians are no longer easily befuddled. On the contrary they have become better informed despite the relentless propaganda of the mainstream media.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 November 2007, 12:36 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Economic masters and economic slaves

by
Dr. Chen Man Hin

The frustration in the hearts of Malaysians at the stubborn attitude of Umno leaders and the greed of their cronies is mounting by the day.

Even the advice of foreign dignitaries like Thierry Rommel had been rejected haughtily by DPM and  the Umno Youth chief.  The EU envoy had no axe to grind except to see that justice is done.

World Bank statistics have shown that the NEP is jeopardising the economy, and is marginalising the poor whether Malays or non-Malays.

Umno leaders are the economic masters and the non-Malays are the economic slaves.

Umno has seen to it that government money is channelled to GLCs and their cronies.  All government contracts are the preserve of the cronies, not one for the rest.

And yet they must demand their pound of flesh by imposing the 30% tax on non-Malay businesses.

Foreign businessmen fight shy of Malaysia. FDIs are very low compared even with Vietnam and Thailand.

The situation is desperate. The economy is in jeopardy, corruption is rife in every level of society, and the man-in-the street suffers because of greedy politicians and cronies.

Petronas money will not be fothcoming to  save the country come 2111 as oil reserves are depleting, and there will be hell to pay for the corruption and greed of Umno.

Who will pay?   Poor Malaysians!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 November 2007, 9:15 am and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf rally – police stop over-reacting, dismantle roadblocks and issue permit

The police should not repeat their over-reaction and high-handed action on Nov. 10 over the peaceful 40,000-people  Bersih gathering to hand over a petition to the Yang di Pertuan Agong for electoral reforms to ensure free, fair and clean elections and should immediately dismantle the roadblocks creating massive jams in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley since yesterday.

The massive Nov. 10 traffic gridlock creating massive congestions in Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley were largely the creation of the police and could have been avoided or ameliorated considerably with enlightened and sensitive police handling of peaceful gatherings by citizens exercising their fundamental constitutional rights to get their voices heard in a meaningful democracy.

If the Police had issued a police permit for the Bersih peaceful gathering on Nov. 10, demonstrating greater sensitivity and respect for human rights guaranteed in the Malaysian Constitution as recommended by  the Dzaiddin Royal Police Commission 30 months ago, all legitimate concerns would have been met — the concerns of the police and government with regard to law and order and the concerns of aggrieved citizenry to petition the Yang di Pertuan Agong for an end to  electoral abuses.

For the Hindraf rally on Sunday, the Police has not only refused to learn any lesson to respect  the human rights of Malaysians to peaceful assembly, but has decided  even earlier to impose roadblocks — starting since yesterday on various roads and expressways in the Klang Valley.

Headlines of such traffic gridlocks are already in the media —
“Klang Valley chokes up”

(The Star)
,
“Roadblocks mounted ahead of Hindraf rally”

(The Sun)
,
“Massive traffic jams leading into the city”
 (
New Straits Times)
 and
“Police roadblocks jam up roads, again”

(Malaysiakini)
.

From all indications, the traffic gridlock in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley  this time is going to be worse than a fortnight  ago — no thanks to the police.

The police should stop over-reacting, dismantle the roadblocks creating massive jams in KL and Klang Valley and issue police permit for the Hindraf rally.

The Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan has again threatened prosecution against parents for bringing their children to any  peaceful assembly.

Musa and all police personnel must be reminded that such warnings cannot absolve them of responsibility to ensure that the police do not harm children and women by abuse of power and excessive use of force in any  crowd control.

The world has unforgettable images of the Myanmar military brutalizing defenceless monks in the September “saffron revolution”.  Does Musa want the world to have equally unforgettable images of the Malaysian police brutalizing children?

The Inspector-General of Police must ensure that nothing is done to turn Nov. 25 into a bloody Sunday in Kuala Lumpur, which can only add shame and ignominy to Malaysia’s international reputation.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 November 2007, 10:24 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kee Thuan Chye interview (2) – A culture of fearing the truth

Helen Ang

Malaysiakini

Nov 22, 07 12:45pm

{
Last week
, Kee Thuan Chye opined that many non-Malays have been conditioned to swallow wholesale Ketuanan Melayu propaganda from the exhaustive indoctrination and would probably vote Barisan Nasional again come the general election.

Part 2 of the Q & A continues. The views expressed here are strictly the interviewee’s own and do not reflect the stand of any organisation that he is with.)

Helen: Let’s examine the nuances of non-Malay support for the incumbency. Pundits are predicting that disgruntled Chinese will swing to the opposition this time around. So it may actually turn out that a large percentage of the community will indeed buck the status quo.

What I think is that while Chinese are prepared to secretly (they will refuse to tell anyone who they voted for) cast their once-every-five-years ballot in favour of the opposition, their mindset in the remaining four years and 364 days will remain as you say, conditioned: fearful, refusing to engage and self-centred.

But given the uneven electoral playing field and lack of proportional representation, popular disenchantment may nonetheless not translate into a diminished BN influence. Sadly true?

Kee: The gerrymandering that has been done has really made it harder for the Chinese to swing votes in many constituencies. I was in Balakong a couple of weeks ago and the residents there told me that their constituency used to be opposition-controlled, but lately with the redemarcation exercise, the BN has been winning.

There used to be about 70 per cent Chinese in the constituency but that has been diluted to about 50 per cent. The other 20 per cent has been moved to another constituency. They don’t foresee the opposition winning it back this coming election unless a huge majority of the remaining 50 per cent vote for them. Many Chinese, however, tend to vote BN.

Surely they can see that BN is a gross disservice to their community? Who are those still so blinkered?

Those in business, those who fear PAS, those who think BN will provide the peace and order to allow them to pursue their livelihood, those who don’t want to rock the boat, those with vested interests and enjoy the patronage of the ruling establishment — these are the Chinese who will stand by it.

The BN needn’t worry about not winning. It would be a great shock if they lost. But I think BN’s greatest fear — more so Umno’s, really — is not getting a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Without that, they can’t have things their way. The Ketuanan Melayu agenda might not be so easily promoted. They will also find it difficult to settle for anything less when they’ve had it so good since elections were introduced in this country. A loss of the two-thirds could spark the beginning of a decline, which in the long term could result in Umno going through what the Indian National Congress or the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan have gone through.

I agree about the two-thirds majority being a matter of standing and ‘face’ for Umno. But what helps BN keep face is the thick layers of make-up that the mainstream media are prepared to paint on the coalition. The Bersih rally is the most recent example of the MSM’s cosmetic enhancement to conceal the heavy-handed and unwarranted approach by the authorities.

We can note that one of the reforms called for by Bersih is that opposing views have free and fair access to the mass media. Isn’t an impartial media the essence of a democracy?

Yes, that’s the essence of a democracy. This should have been one of the cornerstones of the ‘101 East’ forum on Al-Jazeera TV last week featuring lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz and Umno Youth deputy leader Khairy Jamaluddin. The forum discussed Bersih’s Nov 10 march ending in the handing over of their memorandum to the King calling for fair and free elections.

Yet for all that Khairy said on the show about the reforms that have been made by the Elections Commission such as the use of indelible ink, transparent ballot boxes, etc, he still ignored the main plot — how can elections be fair if the opposition is virtually blacked out in the media and the usual airing they get is when something negative is reported about them?

I’m sure he’s smart enough to know that free media access to all parties is the key issue, but he also appeared smart enough to deflect it by bringing up the cosmetic improvements.

Nazri, on the other hand, was far less brainy. In fact, he proved to be deficient at debating. And when he ran out of argument, he resorted to arrogance.

He said, ostensibly without thinking, that there was no need to reform the political system, that the views of civil society didn’t carry any weight. He implied that the government was always right because “we are the representatives of the people”. If the people have grouses, use the ballot box. Which he kindly pointed out comes about once every five years. That’s a pretty long time to wait to air your grouses. Why not air them at any time? Isn’t that standard practice in a true democracy? He said what the public demands is not necessarily right. At the end of the day, he asserted, “we will decide”.

So clearly, as you’re saying, we’re not a true democracy, we’re a flawed one premised on an even more flawed electoral system. And, yes, the BN, for which one can read Umno, decides on everything. But this is not something you’d grasp reading our local media. Is this ‘oversight’ due to over-regulating?

Khairy said the PM had announced that in the near future, the media would be allowed to regulate itself. “In the near future” sounds vague. But more importantly, what would be the real point of self-regulating if the media continues to have the Printing Presses and Publications Act around its neck? As we know, that Act requires all print media in this country to obtain a licence that has to be renewed annually — at the discretion of the Home Ministry. What an effective mechanism to encourage self-censorship, don’t you think?

Well, what I think about the newspapers’ self-censorship can only be expressed in unladylike language, I’m afraid.

Can one blame newspapers, which survive or close down at the pleasure of the Home Ministry, for being cautious about what they publish? Obviously, no. But being cautious and being subservient are two different things. Hiding the truth, choosing not to report significant news because it may be damaging to the government, putting a spin to certain events in the reporting of them to protect the government — these are the practices of the subservient. But is there always a choice between being one or the other? There is, if newspapers don’t get instructions from political leaders or their lackeys on what not to publish.

I’ve written this time and again. Newspapers toe the line set by their owners, who are the political masters of this country or their cronies. Correct?

Yes, many newspapers are owned by political parties, usually through a third party. And this does affect newspaper policies. Even so, the control was not as tight until Dr Mahathir Mohamad came along. Curbing the press and causing it to cower started with him. His suspension of several newspapers in 1987 was a watershed. Since then, no newspaper — indeed, no radio or TV station either — has dared to criticise the PM. It has become a tradition!

But, surely, the PM can’t always be above censure. He’s here to serve the people. So are his ministers. They can’t speak down from their high horse and declaim, “We will decide.”

Nazri is not the only minister who exhibits arrogance. Some of his colleagues share the same trait. It shows in their intolerance of criticism. Which usually results in their inability to handle flak. Then, they get defensive and start saying the most inane things.

One good example is Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin. From the things he’s been saying in the past months, you can’t imagine he was once a journalist. And a former chief editor, would you believe?

Easily! (laughs out loud). It — the inanity — comes with a Datukship.

Zainuddin’s bungling response to the Bersih march is now famous — or is it notorious? But let me first address what he said more than two weeks ago, just before the Umno general assembly, about young Malay writers being used by the English press to attack the Malays. He even named names — Azmi Sharom and Amir Muhammad. I know both of them well; they’re not the sort who would allow themselves to be used by anyone. They wouldn’t write what they didn’t believe. Zainuddin’s remark amounted to nothing less than an insult. He should apologise to Azmi and Amir.

As for his rebuke against Al Jazeera for its coverage of the Bersih demonstration, he will go down in history as saying that there is no point in holding protests because we have elections in Malaysia. How that logically connects, only ‘he’ knows. In any case, there was a protest in Kuala Lumpur when Condoleeza Rice was in town and another last month against the actions of the Myanmar junta. Khairy himself was involved in both. In fact, he took centre stage. And both were presumably issued permits. So, what gives?

What’s not given! Bersih’s permit application was rejected as was Hindraf’s for this Sunday to hand over their petition (to Queen Elizabeth) at the British High Commission
.

In any case, Bersih was not disputing that there are no elections, it only wanted a free and fair one. And even with elections, it doesn’t mean that such protests are unnecessary. If the people feel unhappy about the way things are run in the country, they should have the recourse to make it known. One such recourse is holding a demonstration.

I’m not drawing parallels between Malaysia and the Philippines, but if there had been no People’s Revolution, no masses of people taking to the streets to express their disgust for a corrupt regime, Ferdinand Marcos would have continued to stay in power and possibly milked the country dryer.

BN’s chokehold on ‘the system’ from winning every election has made it impervious to recognising the people’s rights, one of which is the freedom of assembly and, as you say, utilising this freedom to protest.

The other day, I was watching Fahmi Reza’s film Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka, which documents big demonstrations, big rallies in our own Malaya of 1947. These were allowed then — 60 years ago, when we weren’t even independent. Now we are an independent country and certain demonstrations are not allowed — especially those that don’t belong to the right camp. It’s ironic. What’s the meaning of Merdeka then?

Actually, I think the Bersih demonstration only made the government look bad after the fact because of the unseemly handling of the situation — after the water cannon used on the marchers, after Zainuddin’s boo-boo, after Nazri and Khairy’s confirmation of the government’s double standards, after the news spinning in the media for days afterwards.

If it had been given a permit in the first place and the media had given it neutral coverage, it wouldn’t have attracted such unwarranted attention. An event that big could not have gone unnoticed. The sensible thing would have to been to let it be recorded objectively. Malaysians would have read it and probably said, “Hmmm …  okay, it happened” and gone on with their daily lives. Surely, it wasn’t going to revolutionise their lives or change their mindset radically.

When something is a normal part of existence, we don’t respond to it with extra excitement, we just take it as it comes. That is something that the government should surely realise. For instance, if you ban a book because you don’t want it widely distributed, the banning could actually make it even more popular. People become curious. And so, people became curious about Bersih.

Unfortunately, people’s curiosity will not be assuaged by the mainstream media we now have. Aside from getting a true picture of events like Bersih’s Nov 10, why else do we need a free media in Malaysia?

A free media will open the way for us to speak freely to one another as citizens of the nation, regardless of race. Then, we can have dialogue about ethnic issues with our Malay, Chinese and Indian compatriots and express our concerns candidly. As it is now right now, if you’re Chinese, don’t you often feel you can’t discuss, say, the NEP with your Malay friends — and vice versa? No matter how close that friend is, there will be a barrier.

After all, these are — as we are always reminded by our leaders and the media — “sensitive” issues. As long as we think that, we will be wary of not offending each other, an act that could lead to a loss of friendship. I have a Malay friend I consider to be my brother, but I would never engage him in face-to-face discussion of race issues or tell him how disenfranchised I often feel.

However, if there were a free media and any issue could be discussed openly, we would have a different world. I wouldn’t have that same hang-up. It would be the norm to speak freely. I could have a dialogue with my Malay friends, colleagues, acquaintances. Or even just complain about inequalities. We could agree with each other or we could agree to disagree. They would know where I’m coming from, and I would know where they’re coming from. We wouldn’t be holding a knife or a
keris
 behind our backs. It would be actually much healthier. Better than bottling up frustrations and resentments, as is the case now.

When we can speak freely and frankly, only then can there be a real and deep connection among the people of different races. Despite all the government’s propaganda, the so-called racial unity and harmony that we have now is merely superficial. Polarisation is still the order of the day. Central issues are unresolved. All it takes is for things like the economy to take a turn for the worse and the unresolved tensions will flare up and threaten peace and stability.

There is really no need to fear a free media. We are 50 years old as a nation. If our leaders are mature and responsible, they will advise their respective tribes to be rational and take part in fruitful discourse rather than resort to violence. Besides, we have the law.

One excellent test case was the discussion of Article 11 of our Constitution, organised by the Article 11 Coalition and Aliran. That should have been a forum for rational exchange of ideas. Instead, we gave in to the violence-mongers. The authorities didn’t put them in their place and warn them against taking the law into their own hands. Instead, the authorities pampered them, let them have their way, let them get away with their threats.

I feel very strongly about this, so I’m going to have my say here too. The Chinese are too fearful and apathetic, too short-sighted and self-serving! That’s why they will not stand up for Article 11 and Lina Joy, but compliantly bend to the expediency that she’s a Malay-Muslim “problem”. She’s not! She’s a Malaysian issue, and affects every single of us.

You are right, but there are those who will tell you that if we discuss such issues openly, the consequences may be disastrous. I think they are exploiting this to keep us in line, keep us fearful and therefore thankful for their protection. If we go by the rule of law and our police act according to the law, those who threaten violence can be contained. Unless, of course, they are organised by powerful parties.

To come back to your question: why, indeed, do we need a free media? At the very least to expose corruption, malpractices and inexplicable practices. For instance, a free media would surely conduct a thorough investigation into the case of the Perak state building in Belum that collapsed. To get at the ‘real’ truth. And that’s just for starters. The media should indeed give us a regular dose of investigative journalism, but it would be pointless instituting that when there will always be some party blocking you from telling the truth.

We have heard it said many times before that ours is a culture of fear. Truly, it’s also fast becoming a culture of fearing the truth.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 November 2007, 12:29 am and is filed under
Election
,
Human Rights
,
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lee Song Yong one-semester suspension – Mustapha should quash it so that Malaysian undergrads do not become zombies

Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapha Mohamad should quash the one-semester suspension of second-year computer science student
Lee Song Yong
by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and  send a clear message to all universities to be single-minded in the national objective   to create a world-class university system.

The national contribution and  challenge of all universities and university administrators in the country is  to achieve a world-class university education system without which Malaysia cannot  succeed in the transition and transformation from a production-based to a knowledge-based innovative economy.

It is simply outrageous that the UPM should be obsessed with the pettiness of Little Napoleons to penalize independent-spirited students when  all universities and university officials should be united by one objective –  how to reverse the free fall of international rankings of Malaysian universities confirmed by  the latest Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World’s Top 200 Universities Rankings 2007 which  demonstrate that no Malaysian university  is   competitive internationally.

What is Lee Song Yong’s offence?

On Aug 22, Lee was stopped by security guards at the university’s exit and his notebook was seized on grounds that he was being investigated for being a member of an illegal student organisation.

Lee initially refused to cooperate because the campus officers were not in their uniforms which led to the university accusing him of obstructing its officers from executing their duty.

In the background was the unfair and one-sided rigging of campus student elections, orchestrated  by the university student affairs department in cahoots with the campus security personnel.

Should such a minor and trivial matter result in the empanelling of a disciplinary proceeding, where Lee was denied legal representation, leading to his university suspension for six months?  Or even the arrogant and contemptuous dismissal of the Suhakam appeal for a suspension of the disciplinary proceedings?

One would have thought  from the university’s response that   Lee was guilty of some heinous crime, like being a member of some militant terrorist student outfit planning  to throw bombs in the campus — when  it was nothing of the sort whatsoever.

Lee’s guilt was being too idealistic and independent-minded in wanting to work for change in the university to foster student activism and academic freedom.

Is that a virtue or a vice, or even a crime?

In May this year, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said that members of the MSC International Advisory Panel (IAP), many of whom are renowned academicians and industry experts, had made the observation at their annual meeting that Malaysian students lack a “questioning culture” and are too passive — which are not the qualities to propel Malaysia to become a dynamic  and responsive knowledge-based innovative economy in the era of IT and globalization.

Clearly Lee does not fit into this unquestioning, unthinking student mould which was the lament of the IAP,  and such students like Lee should be tapped and encouraged instead of being penalized to kill  their independent spirits, which will only drive more students to become zombies.

University security personnel are to protect the personal safety of lecturers and students  and security of their property in the campus  but  not to become their minders or to be  their “thought police”.

The Lee  Song Yong case is as much a test of the preparedness  and seriousness of UPM and Malaysian universities to achieve a competitive position internationally as well as a test of Mustapha’s vision,  leadership and commitment as Higher Education Minister to create the requisite academic culture and environment for the public universities in Malaysia to attain world-class status.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 November 2007, 1:38 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Truth and justice are no longer Malaysian way

By
Michael Backman

The Age

November 21, 2007

THE Government of Australia will probably change hands this weekend. There will be no arrests, no  tear gas and no water cannons. The Government of John Howard will leave office, the Opposition will form a government and everyone will accept the verdict.

For this, every Australian can feel justifiably proud. This playing by the rules is what has made Australia rich and a good place in which to invest. It is a country to which people want to migrate; not leave.

Now consider Malaysia. The weekend before last, up to 40,000 Malaysians took to the streets in Kuala Lumpur to protest peacefully against the judiciary’s lack of independence, electoral fraud, corruption and a controlled media.

In response, they were threatened by the Prime Minister, called monkeys by his powerful son-in-law, and blasted with water cannons and tear gas. And yet the vast majority of Malaysians do not want a change of government. All they want is for their government to govern better.

Both Malaysia and Australia have a rule of law that’s based on the English system. Both started out as colonies of Britain. So why is Malaysia getting it so wrong now?

Malaysia’s Government hates feedback. Dissent is regarded as dangerous, rather than a product of diversity. And like the wicked witch so ugly that she can’t stand mirrors, the Government of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi controls the media so that it doesn’t have to see its own reflection.

Demonstrations are typically banned. But what every Malaysian should know is that in Britain, Australia and other modern countries, when people wish to demonstrate, the police typically clear the way and make sure no one gets hurt. The streets belong to the people. And the police, like the politicians, are their servants. It is not the other way around.

But increasingly in Malaysia, Malaysians are being denied a voice — especially young people.

Section 15 of Malaysia’s Universities and University Colleges Act states that no student shall be a member of or in any manner associate with any society, political party, trade union or any other organisation, body or group of people whatsoever, be it in or outside Malaysia, unless it is approved in advance and in writing by the vice-chancellor.

Nor can any student express or do anything that may be construed as expressing support, sympathy or opposition to any political party or union. Breaking this law can lead to a fine, a jail term or both.

The judiciary as a source of independent viewpoints has been squashed. The previous prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, did many good things for Malaysia, but his firing of the Lord President (chief justice) and two other Supreme Court judges in 1988 was an unmitigated disaster. Since then, what passes for a judiciary in Malaysia has been an utter disgrace and the Government knows it.

Several years ago, Daim Zainuddin, the country’s then powerful finance minister, told me that judges in Malaysia were a bunch of idiots. Of course we want them to be biased, he told me, but not that biased.

Rarely do government ministers need to telephone a judge and demand this or that verdict because the judges are so in tune with the Government’s desires that they automatically do the Government’s beckoning.

Just how appalling Malaysia’s judiciary has become was made clear in recent weeks with the circulation of a video clip showing a senior lawyer assuring someone by telephone that he will lobby the Government to have him made Lord President of the Supreme Court because he had been loyal to the Government. That someone is believed to have been Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim, who did in fact become Lord President.

A protest march organised by the Malaysian Bar Council was staged in response to this, and corruption among the judiciary in general. But the mainstream Malaysian media barely covered the march even though up to 2000 Bar Council members were taking part. Reportedly, the Prime Minister’s office instructed editors to play down the event.

Instead of a free media, independent judges and open public debate, Malaysians are given stunts — the world’s tallest building and most recently, a Malaysian cosmonaut. Essentially, they are given the play things of modernity but not modernity itself.

Many senior Malays are absolutely despairing at the direction of their country today. But with the media tightly controlled they have no way of getting their views out to their fellow countrymen. This means that most Malaysians falsely assume that the Malay elite is unified when it comes to the country’s direction.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, a former finance minister and today still a member of the Government, told me several weeks ago in Kuala Lumpur that he could see no reason why today Malaysia could not have a completely free media, a completely independent judiciary and that corrupt ministers and other officials should be publicly exposed and humiliated.

According to Tengku Razaleigh, all of the institutions designed to make Malaysia’s Government accountable and honest have been dismantled or neutered.

It didn’t need to be like this. Malaysia is not North Korea or Indonesia. It is something quite different. Its legal system is based on British codes. Coupled with traditional Malay culture, which is one of the world’s most hospitable, decent and gentle cultures, Malaysia has the cultural and historical underpinnings to become one of Asia’s most civilised, rules-based, successful societies.

Instead, Malaysia’s Government is incrementally wasting Malaysia’s inheritance.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 November 2007, 2:11 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Judiciary
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Aligning Private Aspirations with Public Good

by
M. Bakri Musa

Bravo to Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar Mohamad Hasan!  In awarding RM25,000 to each first-class honors graduate of local public universities, he clearly demonstrated where the priorities should be.  He went further and forgave the students’ loans if they were given by his state agency.

             To put that cost in perspective, at a total of about RM300,000 it is less than the inflated cost of one corrupt school laboratory construction project.  Yet the benefit far exceeds that of any school computer lab, even if it were well built.  As a bonus, unlike a poorly built building, this award program poses no danger to anyone.

            Malay leaders, especially those in UMNO, continually lament on the generally backward status of our people despite decades of ever increasingly generous preferential treatment.  Unfortunately that is all they are capable of doing — lamenting.  Occasionally a bright leader might emerge who in a show of bravado would chastise and upbraid us by degrading our cultural heritage and questioning our biological endowment.

             Only very rarely would a leader like Mohamad Hasan do something right, like having an appropriate mechanism in place and aligning the incentive system that would encourage the development of those qualities that we desire in our people.  My complimenting Hasan would I hope encourage other leaders to follow his fine example.

Mechanism Design Theory

It is instructive that this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to three economists whose collective intellectual contributions under the rubric of “Mechanism Design Theory” help us understand better the real world in which we humans interact.  Their insights could help us create our own institutions that would encourage the development of desirable behaviors and traits in our people by realigning our private and public incentives accordingly.

            To purist disciples of Adam Smith, the open marketplace, guided only by the omnipresent “invisible hand” that would smack those who make the wrong decisions and pat those who had the right ones, is the best mechanism to ensure this.  However we all know that competition — and thus the marketplace — is hardly ever “pure.”  Unrestrained, the human tendency is to collude and conspire.  Unrestrained “pure” capitalism would produce only conscienceless capitalists of Dickens’s era.  We still see those characters today, in such places as China, resulting in millions of children being poisoned by their cheap but dangerous toys.

            Malaysia too, under its “world’s happiest Prime Minister” Tunku Abdul Rahman, was enamored with unrestrained free enterprise, at least as understood by him.  The result was disastrous, and no sane Malaysian would want a repeat of the May 1969 tragedy.

            To economists of that era, like the eminent Ungku Aziz, the problem of poverty, specifically Malay poverty, would be solved if only we could remove the stranglehold of the monopolists and monopsonists.  Broke them we did, with Pernas, Petronas, and other ‘Nases in the form of the various government-linked corporations.  We also legitimized the “natural monopolies” in providing essential public services like utilities.

             Unfortunately, those monopolists, whether state-sponsored or guided by individual greed, behave essentially in the same manner.  Meaning, the public is ill served by them.  It turned out that nothing improves service as much as competition.  This applies to air travel as well as healthcare.  Witness the improvement in air travel with the approval of Air Asia to compete with government-owned Malaysia Airlines.  The healthcare of Malaysians is also much better served with the presence of a vibrant profit-making private sector.

Preference Falsification

Mechanism design theorists recognize the world as it is and take humans as we are.  That is, we are neither saints nor satans and that we respond to incentives in what we believe to be in our best self interests, our public declarations notwithstanding.  What we consider as incentives however may vary.  To capitalists, interest income is a powerful incentive to save; to devout Muslims, an invitation to a life of sin and thus a definite disincentive!

             A more monumental problem is that what we profess publicly may at times be at variance to what we believe or want privately, a phenomenon economist Timur Kuran refers to in his book,
Private Truths, Public Lies
, as “preference falsification.”  This is the greatest barrier to formulating sound public policy.

            The insight of mechanism design theory is in implicitly recognizing this and designing institutions that would best align public and private goals.  This could be reconciling the seller wanting to maximize his profit and the buyer demanding the cheapest product; to universities upholding meritocracy and admitting only “top” students over the demands of influential alumni in “legacy” admissions favoring their children.  On a broader public order, it could be the government wanting the greatest revenue from its broadwave spectrum to making sure that the public is well served.

             In my book
An Education System Worthy of Malaysia
, I suggest ways how we could encourage excellence among our students by guaranteeing them scholarships when they manage to secure admissions to elite universities of the world.  Not only that, we would give them the freedom to choose whatever field of study they wish in order to pursue their dreams.  They and Malaysia would benefit from such a policy, a congruence of public policy and private aspiration.

            In a later book,
Towards A Competitive Malaysia
, I suggested that public contracts be preferentially awarded to companies whose work force reflects the greater Malaysian society regardless whether the company is foreign or locally owned.  It matters not whether the company is a subsidiary of Temasek or Guandong State Development Corporation, if its workforce reflects the greater Malaysian society, which in a practical sense means enough Malays at all levels, it would get preferential treatment.

            This would align the public goals of attracting foreign investments, getting the best contractors, and integrating the private sector work force with the private one of encouraging Malays to pursue practical subjects so as to make them employable.  We thus effectively align incentives such that private gains are compatible with the pubic good, or to use the language of the mechanism design theory, “incentive compatibility.”

            Locally, our leaders may want to groom “glokal” Malays, but they unhesitatingly “protect” their children and even in-laws, a clash of stated public goals with individual’s private agenda!  By rewarding generously those who excel scholastically, Mohamad Hasan is attempting to reconcile public policy with private aspirations by designing his own mechanism or institution albeit on a very tiny scale.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 November 2007, 12:19 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Public policy
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ambiga as commissioner to ensure credibility and legitimacy of Royal Commission of Inquiry

In completely excluding the Bar Council members as members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry in the Lingam Tape, the government is only undermining its own case and cause that it is concerned about the restoration of national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said yesterday that there was
no possibility
 that Bar Council members could become royal commissioners themselves.

He said: “There is no chance of that happening. How can they act fairly and be unbiased if they have already marched against the judiciary.  They have already made their stand.”

This is classic perverse illogic.  The 2,000 lawyers who participated in the historic “March for Justice” in Putrajaya on 26th September 2007 did not march against the judiciary.  They marched against a judiciary which is subservient, decadent and corrupt.  But they also marched for an independent, honest and incorruptible judiciary.

Going by Nazri’s perverse illogic, isn’t the Executive itself compromised  by the 19-year  history of a tainted judiciary, because of the acts of omission and commission by the Executive, which should render the Ministers unfit and unqualified to exercise powers to appoint members of the Royal Commission concerned about the independence and integrity of the judiciary?

Cabinet Ministers cannot feign innocence in the nearly two-decade-long ravages and degradation of the Judiciary as they are fully part of the process in the undermining of the independence of the judiciary and the undermining of the fundamental doctrine of the Separation of Powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

Let good sense prevail.  The Bar Council should not only be allowed to take part in the Royal Commission hearings, the Bar Council President Ambiga Sreenevasan should be seriously considered as a member of the Royal Commission to ensure its acceptability, credibility and legitimacy.

Nazri’s statement yesterday is a cause of concern for he seems to confirm the worst fears  about the Royal Commission of Inquiry — that it would have very narrow and restricted terms of reference.

In declaring that the government was happy with the present system of appointing judges despite calls to set up an independent judicial appointments and promotions commission, Nazri might have inadvertently disclosed the restrictive nature of the Royal Commission’s terms of reference.

If so, then the terms of reference and scope of power of the  Royal Commission of Inquiry when announced, will only spark a new outrage and controversy inimical to the speedy  restoration of national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 November 2007, 1:54 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


IPCMC Bill – make public after Cabinet Wednesday to give MPs and civil society at least two weeks to study

The current 42-day budget meeting of Parliament scheduled to end on Dec. 13 has been extended by three days till Dec. 19 to debate a spate of bills, seven of which had been presented for first reading while  several others have yet to be brought to the House.

One of the bills which have yet to be presented for first reading but which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has promised would be debated before the end of the current parliamentary meeting is the long-delayed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission  (IPCMC) Bill proposed by the Royal Police Commission as the most important of its 125 recommendations to create an  incorruptible, efficient, professional world-class police service.

The Royal Police Commission had proposed the IPCMC as the centre-piece of its police reform proposals to achieve what it recommended should be the three core objectives of the Police –  to keep crime low, eradicate corruption in the police force and uphold human rights.

The Royal Police Commission placed such importance and priority on its IPCMC proposal that it even took the trouble to include  a draft  IPCMC Bill in its Report  to facilitate its establishment, which it envisaged should begin to be operational by May 2006.

However, the Police mounted a strong opposition to the IPCMC proposal threatening even  an open revolt in the initial stages, with some top police officers blatantly displaying  insubordination to the political masters of the day.

More than 18 months have elapsed from the timeline proposed by the Royal Police Commission for the establishment of the IPCMC, and we are still waiting for the proposed IPCMC bill to surface into the public domain.

The question is whether the final  IPCMC Bill when presented to Parliament will still be recognized as basically constituting  the external oversight mechanism to check police abuses of power as proposed by the Royal Police Commission or so  shorn of the substantive features and “teeth”  of the IPCMC proposed by the Royal Police Commission as to be a completely different creature altogether.

The protracted delay in implementing the most important recommendation of the Royal Police Commission in establishing an IPCMC symbolizes widespread and deep-seated public disillusionment with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s failures  in the past four years to “walk the talk” to honour his reform pledges for the public service and national institutions.

As a result, the three core functions for the police highlighted by the Royal Police Commission had suffered the worst.

Firstly, crime and the fear of crime have  worsened since the Royal Police Commission Report two-and-a-half years ago in May 2005, becoming  endemic and a nightmare to Malaysians, tourists and investors.

Even Malaysian angkasawan Mej Dr. Faiz Khaleed was not spared when he sustained injuries requiring more than 100 stitches  from two parang-wielding men during a robbery outside his house in Cheras, Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday.

The Chinese press today highlighted two crimes illustrating the tragedy that nobody in Malaysia today is safe or could feel safe anymore —  the irony of lawyer and KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Wanita chief, Lee Sok Wah, being a victim of snatch theft herself after repeatedly warning the public to be on the lookout for such crime.  In Johore Baru, a female undergraduate was nearly abducted by two  Indonesian males while waiting at a bus stop in Skudai for her family to pick her up on her return home from Malacca.

Crime index has continued to soar since the publication of Royal Police Commission Report, although the report in May 2005 had  expressed alarm  at the “high incidence of crime” — which “increased dramatically in the last few years, from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,465 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent”.

The Royal Police Commission Report said this increase “seriously dented Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country”  and called on the police to “allot the highest priority to the campaign against crime”, proposing an immediate crime-reduction target of a  minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category within 12 months.

The reverse had however taken place in the past 30- months — as there was not only no reduction in the crime index, there was galloping crime instead!.

In the first nine months of this year, the crime index stands at 163,802 cases — which already exceeds the crime statistics for the whole of 2004, i.e. 156,465 cases, which the Royal Police Commission had found “alarming” and unacceptable.  For the whole of 2007, the crime index would gallop and soar to exceed 200,000 cases for the first time in the nation’s history.

Just to give one illustration to show the gravity in the deterioration of crime –  there were nine  reported cases of rape a day in the first nine months of this year as compared to four cases a day in 2003 and 6.7 cases a day in 2006!

This is one price being paid by ordinary Malaysians for the delay in the establishment of the IPCMC, which would have the power to hold the Police to account for such failure in crime control.

As for the other two core police  functions recommended by the Royal Police Commission –  to eradicate corruption and protect human rights — police records in the past two-and-a-half- years are  sorry tales of going backwards instead of charting progress.

The Cabinet on Wednesday should not sit on the IPCMC Bill any longer but release it to the public for the fullest public discussion and debate, as it would also involve a review of the success  and failure of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to create an incorruptible, efficient, professional world-class police service.

If the decision to make the IPCMC Bill public is not taken next Wednesday,  there are only two other Cabinet meetings left, Dec. 6 and 13, before the end of the current parliamentary meeting – which will mean that MPs and the civil society may get only a matter of days to study and discuss the IPCMC  Bill before it is debated and passed in Parliament.  This will make  a full mockery of the  public consultation process and  the meaning of participatory democracy.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 November 2007, 12:16 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf rally – excessive use of police force with firing of tear gas and water cannons

The excessive use of police force with the firing of tear gas and water cannons against the Hindraf gathering in Kuala Lumpur this morning to present a memorandum to the British High Commission is most high-handed, ham-fisted, undemocratic and a grave disservice not ony to the Malaysian Indian community but to Malaysia’s international reputation in wanting to be a first-world developed nation.

If the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had “walked the talk” of creating a Malaysia with “First World Infrastructure, First World Mentality”, today’s disgraceful display of excessive police force would not have happened.

Peaceful demonstrations and marches are common  and accepted occurrences in First World developed nations which Malaysia aspires to become.  As has been rightly pointed out recently,  in Britain, Australia and other modern countries, when people wish to demonstrate, the police typically clear the way and make sure no one gets hurt. The streets belong to the people. And the police, like the politicians, are their servants. It is not the other way around as in Malaysia where the first reflex of the police and the government to any peaceful demonstration is to impose a ban and to fire tear gas and water cannons to deny Malaysians the fundamental right to a voice in national affairs.

During the  world-wide anti-Iraq war demonstrations in late 2002, the Malaysian government had applauded mammoth  peaceful  demonstrations in the Western capitals, whether in London, Paris, Rome or   Washington where crowds ranging from hundreds of thousands and even millions came out to peacefully voice their anti-war aspirations.

If the Police had issued a permit to Hindraf for their gathering to submit a memorandum to the British High Commission this morning, the whole incident would have ended in a  peaceful, orderly and swift manner,  which will not only be a  credit to the police but to the nation’s international reputation as well.

This is a case where the Police has failed to  make the important  distinction between their role from that of their political masters in the Barisan Nasional.

The Barisan Nasional parties and leaders feel threatened by the Hindraf initiative, for it is a reflection of their failures in the past 50 years to accord justice, fair play and equality to the Malaysian Indians who have become the new underclass in the country as a result of relentless marginalization of their citizenship rights.

The Barisan Nasional parties and  leaders have reason to feel threatened, but not the police, for the Hindraf peaceful gathering to the British High Commission was not a challenge to the Police and never posed a threat to peace and security.

The Police must demonstrate a “First World Mentality” of respecting  peaceful marches and demonstrations as a norm for citizens of a would-be  first-world nation to exercise their fundamental democratic rights.

They should be mindful of the Rukunegara objective to maintain a democratic way of life in Malaysia and abandon the  “Third-World Mentality” of suppressing peaceful expression of legitimate opinion by the citizenry with tear gas, water cannons and excessive police force and instead transform themselves into allies for democracy by respecting the fundamental rights of Malaysians to peaceful marches and demonstrations while safeguarding law, order and security.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 November 2007, 12:30 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Another Local Demonstration Gone Global

By
Farish A. Noor

Let there be no mistake about it: We live in a globalised world. But then again, what’s new about that? Only someone totally ignorant of the history of greater Asia would be surprised to learn that our neatly-compartmentalised nation-states are, after all, bound together by a common shared history that overlaps across so many levels and interfaces. Long before the European ships arrived on our shores, Asians have been travelling all across the great land mass, making tracks from the furthest end of China, across Southeast Asia and the land of the mighty Indus, all the way to the scorching deserts of Arabia and the Gulf and down the West coast of Africa. What colonialism did, however, was to interrupt this movement of peoples, cultures and ideas in two distinct ways: Firstly by dividing the nations of Asia into distinct nation-states with fixed (and artificial) borders; and secondly by attempting to control the movement of people by commodifying human beings into human capital instead.

The net result has been the creation of the world map as we know it today, with intrusive lines rudely and crudely drawn between areas that once overlapped and communities that were once closer united to each other. The Indian Ocean, for instance, was once the corridor between South and Southeast Asia, and that is why so much of Southeast Asia (till today) bears the cultural imprint of India. It was from India that the religions, philosophies, aesthetics and norms of society and governance of Southeast

Asia were derived; and it was no mere coincidence that the Malay archipelago was once referred to as ‘Greater India’, testimony to how close the two regions were — both geographically and culturally.

Sadly today the division of Asia into neat compartments has managed to sever these long-established bonds, leaving the residents of both regions confused as to why they seem so similar yet different. Many a conservative nationalist in Southeast Asia is still loathe to admit that his or her culture shares so much in common with that of India’s, while many South Asians fail to realise that much of what they regard as familiar there is also present in Southeast Asia next door.

But perhaps the biggest tragedy of all is the fate of the millions of South Asians who have settled in Southeast Asia over the centuries, who were later categorised as colonial subjects and then systematically instrumentalised and exploited by the logic of colonial development and its divisive mode of racialised capitalism. Following the retreat of the colonial powers in the wake of the Second World War, millions of people of South Asian origin were left behind in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore. Having been classified as migrants by the Western colonial powers and denied a place by the newly emerging nationalist forces of Southeast Asia, the Indians of Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries stood in that liminal space where they were neither local residents nor alien migrants, with their identity and citizenship put on a probationary basis.

The Indians of Malaysia — who are, by the way, Malaysian citizens — stand out as one community that has been triply blighted by the injustices of history, the accidents of geography and the failure of Malaysia’s divisive racialised politics for decades. This week a huge demonstration took place in the heart of Kuala Lumpur that was organised by the Malaysian Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) that aimed to highlight the inequalities that they have suffered under for so long. The HINDRAF demonstration that was 10,000 strong was met with the now-familiar response of tear gas and baton charges by the police, and the group’s leaders were accused of all things under the sun ranging from sedition to deliberately inflaming racial tension in the country. But while the Malaysian government predictably tries to dismiss this massive public outburst of anger and frustration, it remains a fact that Malaysians of South Asian origin still rank among the poorest in the country, are less represented in the local universities, and have largely been left to fend for themselves. Furthermore to add insult to injury over the past two years scores of Hindu temples have been demolished under the eyes of the same government that claimed to be sensitive to the voice of the Malaysian people. Needless to say, all of this has contributed only to worsening racial ties in Malaysia and has brought to the world’s attention the plight of one significant minority in multicultural Malaysia today.

Which brings us back to where it started, and the globalised world we live in today. Globalisation has merely developed upon the same communications and information technologies of the past, and accelerated the process of information gathering and dissemination as never before. While the Malaysian police were spraying the demonstrators with tear gas and water-cannons at lunchtime, by the afternoon of the same fateful Sunday images of the soaked and beaten demonstrators were already appearing on the internet via
Youtube.com
and other such sites. The reaction from Hindus worldwide has been quick, and now there is much speculation about how — or rather when — the Hindu lobby in India, Europe and the United States will react. As was the case of the concerted global reaction of the Chinese diaspora community to the anti-Chinese pogroms in Indonesia of 1998, the recent crackdown on Hindus of Indian origin in Malaysia may well lead to a wider-than-expected reaction from Hindus all over the world.

Globalisation has therefore proved to be a boon for minorities worldwide, who no longer feel that they are isolated and vulnerable before the onslaught of the majority around them. Thanks to the internet and improved media communication services today, even the plight of the smallest minority group anywhere may soon become a matter of international concern and debate. The Malaysian government, typically, has reacted to these developments with its own Jurassic brand of institutional inertia and denial syndrome, decrying any attempt to highlight the situation of the minorities in the country as yet another episode in the ongoing devilish plot to tarnish the country’s image by the ever-present ‘neo-colonial’ forces of the West. But it has to be remembered that those Malaysian Hindus were not being bashed and gassed by the police of a Western country, but rather by the Malaysian police themselves. And the Malaysian Hindu temples have likewise been levelled to the ground not by some multinational corporate hegemon but rather by the corporations and corporate interests of Malaysia, mostly homegrown. No, the plight of Malaysia’s Hindu minority is a singular Malaysian problem and the responsibility for it falls on the Malaysian government itself. In the meantime, while the government wrestles with yet another instance of people’s power taking to the streets, another local demonstration has gone global.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 November 2007, 7:40 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Indians
,
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.


Between a rock and a hard place

See on
YouTube
 two parliamentary episodes during question time today — the first,  “Hindraf rally was a cry of desperation by the Indian community” when I asked a supplementary question to the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department pointing out that the Hindraf demonstration was the upshot of the long-standing marginalization of the Malaysian Indians into a new underclass; and the second, when the MIC MP for Cameron Highlands Devamany a/l S. Krishnasamy was asking a supplementary question to the Deputy Internal Security Minister and I intervened to expose his hypocrisy and outrageous Aljazeera interview yesterday attacking the Hindraf demonstration.

Devamany has been caught between a rock and a hard place as illustrated by the following Malaysiakini report:

MIC MP: Rally reflects govt’s failure

Yoges Palaniappan

Nov 26, 07 6:59pm

A Barisan Nasional MP departed from the norm today when he said the rally organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) reflected the Indian community’s disgruntlement towards certain government policies.

K Devamany (MIC-Cameron Highlands) added that the rally proved the failure of government policies which do not benefit the Indians.

The ruling politician made the remark after interjecting Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timor) who argued that the rally was a cry of desperation from the Indians.

“Some 50,000 people took to the streets yesterday. It shows the government’s failure and it needs to be looked into carefully,” said Devamany.

The MIC MP stressed this point again during a different question which saw Deputy Internal Security Minister Mohd Johari Baharum providing statistics on the number of Indians in the military, police and other security forces.

Johari said there are 3, 292 Indians in the police force, which makes 3.5 percent of the 94,729 police personnel in the country.

“We have also advertised in the media like newspapers, radio and television stations to increase the percentage,” he added.

High hopes, limited avenues

Dissatisfied with the explanation, Devamany said even though the government promised many things to the Indians under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, the community’s reaction through the rally demonstrated its frustration.

“Youths from the lower and middle class participated in the rally. This goes to show that they are given high hopes but limited avenues to achieve.

“What are the actions taken by the government to prove that it is serious in eliminating poverty in the Indian community?” he asked.

At that point, Lim stood up and told Devamany not to be a hypocrite by practising double standards.

He was referring to Devamany’s interview with satellite station Al-Jazeera yesterday, in which he condemned the rally.

Met at the Parliament lobby later, Devamany claimed that he was ‘set up’ by Al Jazeera which deliberately cut him off halfway during the interview.

“Al Jazeera did not allow me to finish my interview. I was initially told that the crowd was unruly and violent. So I gave my opinion that violence must not be condoned.

However, I wanted to add that if the crowd came in peace, the police must be cautious in exercising force,” he explained.

Devamany also stressed that the government must give priority to underprivileged Indians.

“More opportunities must be given in the civil service, education and SME in terms of training and funding,” he said, adding that the rally was a “voice from below” which must not be brushed aside.

“It is high time that the government give consideration to the grievances of the Indians,” he said.

Resign from MIC

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, commenting on Devamany’s response in the Dewan Rakyat, questioned where the latter got the fact that 50,000 people participated in the rally.

“Has he been demonstrating with the others to know that there were 50,000 people there?” he asked, adding that parliamentary debates must be based on facts.

“If he says that the government has failed, what does he stand for in MIC?” he asked.

He said if Devamany feels that the government has failed, the only honourable way is for him to resign from MIC.

“I believe the MIC is 100 percent behind the government,” he added

Devamany must now decide whether he is going to be true to himself by apologizing for his Aljazzera interview and stick to the views he expressed in Parliament today, or kowtow  to Nazri and the Barisan Nasional.

Where do you stand, Devamany?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 November 2007, 9:37 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Free and peaceful demonstration is provided for in the constituition

by
Richard Teo

Why should the govt stifle dissent by refusing to give permits for its citizens to demonstrate? It does not matter whether the govt thinks that the issue is not justifiable or for some imaginary reason it is a threat to national security. Whether their grievances are legitimate or not is something the public will have to judge. The govt’s role is merely to ensure that the demonstration is held peacefully and without any violence.

      When people take to the street to demonstrate it is always for a cause. History has shown us repeatedly that when the voice of the people is continually and contemptously ignored the only recourse is to show their displeasure by demonstrating. After all this liberty to demonstrate peacefully is provided in our constituition and it is the inalienable right of every citizen to exercise this right.

    I disagree with some view that because the rally was specifically for a certain community the demonstration should not proceed. This view is in direct contradiction with the basic principle that the right to peaceful assembly is enshrined in the constitution and if the aggrieved party is of the view that their grievances have not been addressed than they should have every right to demonstrate.  It does not matter whether their grievances merely highlight a particular community interest as long as they perceive there is a need to publicise and convey their message.

      It is totally irrational to say that the demonstration is acceptable only if it also espouses the grievances of the other community.What if the other community is not interested in joining the cause? Does that means then they cannot proceed with their own cause?

     Free and peaceful demonstration is one of the cornerstones of a democracy and the govt cannot repeatedly come out with preposterous excuses that it causes inconvenience and an imaginary threat of racial disturbance.

     By denying people the right to demonstrate the govt is implying that it has indeed something to hide and that the issue which caused the demonstration is indeed a legitimate one.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 November 2007, 7:58 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.