Time for PAS to Demonstrate Its Ability to be a National Party

By Farish A Noor

This week will witness the fifty-fifth General Assembly of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), that has been on the political landscape of Malaysia since 1951, though its actual historical presence in Malaysia dates back even further, to the country’s first Islamic party Hizbul Muslimin, in 1948. Malaysia-watchers and analysts are looking very closely at PAS today, and there has been ample speculation about the fate and future of key PAS ideologues and leaders, notably the representatives of the two camps in the party otherwise known as the conservatives and progressives.

Distinctions such as ‘conservatives’ and ‘progressives’ are not very useful in cases such as these however, for they tell us little about the goings-on in PAS and they lend the mistaken impression that the differences within the party can be essentially reduced to such simple binary opposites. Needless to say PAS’s opponents are likewise tempted to use such dichotomies in their own lame efforts to divide and weaken the party, and such divisive tactics are long familiar to those who have studied Malaysian politics over the past half a century or so…

The fact is that PAS is an infinitely more complex party that outsiders may think, and that its complexities run deep into its history. In the 1950s PAS was seen and cast as a Leftist-Islamist party while it was under the leadership of Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy and Zulkiflee Mohammad; and the party’s concerns were directed towards the national liberation struggle against colonialism and all forms of neo-imperialism in Asia and Africa. In the 1970s PAS transformed itself to an ethno-nationalist party during its brief courtship with the ruling UMNO party. Since the 1980s the party has become one of the most vocal and visible Islamist parties in Asia and the Muslim world, standing on par with the Jama’at-e Islami of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh on the one hand and the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan’ul Muslimin) of the Arab world on the other.

Despite the rise in its profile and its growing standing in the arena of Malaysian politics, PAS has remained a Malaysian party that has sought to gain power on the stage of Malaysian politics. Following the elections of march 2008 when the opposition alliance broke the two-thirds majority of the ruling National Front coalition, PAS is now poised to become a national party with national aspirations.

Which brings us to the question of what the Malaysian nation is today, and whether PAS can speak on behalf of the new Malaysia that is more complex than ever.

Regardless of whether the leaders of PAS describe themselves as moderate, liberal, progressive or conservative, the fact is that Malaysia and the Malaysian nation they hope to lead and represent is far more complex than even their own party. PAS and whoever leads the party, must come to realize this by now and must have the political will to deal with the complexities of Malaysia in a rational and objective manner. The days when it was assumed that all Malay-Muslims were simple pious Muslims are over: In the urban industrialized zones of West Malaysia, we have seen the proliferation of a myriad of new social constituencies that defy all the stereotypes of the nation thus far. Malaysia is now a country where Malaysian of all walks of life, ethnic and religious background, gender orientation etc are coming to the fore to demand their share in the politics of representation. I am personally acquainted with a number of Gay Muslims who have openly and privately declared their support for the Islamic party, but can the Islamic party they support also show them the same level of support, sympathy and understanding?

PAS needs to understand that to be a national party with national aspirations means having to develop an inclusive political rhetoric and platform that reflects the multifarious character of the complex Malaysia we see around us today. This is what all political parties need to do, be they Islamist, Socialist, Liberal or Conservative anyway. Failure to do so would mean ignoring the realities on the ground to their peril and at their own long-term political expense.

Skeptics have claimed that PAS can never succeed in re-inventing itself ever since the 1980s, when it adopted the mould of being a politically Islamist party similar to its counterparts in the Arab world and South Asia. But the historian would remind us that political parties, like nations and communities, are abstract collections of individual subjectivities that merge and melt and reconstitute themselves all the time. PAS was always a dynamic party that dealt with the realities of the day, from the realities of colonialism in Malaya to the rise of authoritarian politics in the 1980s. Today, PAS has seen and felt the goodwill of millions of non-Malay and non-Muslim Malaysians who have given the party a shot at becoming part of the new government of Malaysia, should the opposition parties take over sooner than later. PAS has also benefitted from the goodwill of millions of moderate liberal Muslims who are prepared to give the Islamic party a chance to demonstrate its commitment to a new politics of accountability and transparency.

Thus for the sake of those Malaysians who are prepared to give PAS a chance, the party now has to set its sights on the biggest prize of all, to become a national party that reflects the pluralism of Malaysian society. The vote swing that took place in march 2008 was not an endorsement for an Islamic state, or moral policing, or a theocracy under the thumb of a bunch of Ayatollahs. It was a sign that PAS’s time has come, and that the party should delve back to its complex past to recover a means to becoming a modern Islamic party that can finally be a Malaysian party as well.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 June 2009, 5:39 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Dear Sabah BN leaders…

Dear

Maximus Ongkili, Bernard Dompok, Shafie Apdal, Anifah Aman, Joseph Kurup, V.K. Liew, Abdul Rahim Bakri, Lajim Ukin, Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin, (Liow Tiong Lai-dissapointedly excluded)

This again is to highlight to you , in the midst of basking in glory of having more Sabahan cabinet Minister and Dep. Minister and being so proud representing Sabah. I would like to remind you people regarding the true and sad state of affairs in the Land below the wind and of course hope you can do something.

 We often discuss regarding the poverty rate and how poor is sabah even until the cow comes home, but below is a best and glaring example of how ill is the whole condition!

One can never dispute that ratio of doctors to population is a good comparisonof ones health care standard. Below is the list of number of medical officers in few district hosp. in Sabah. Bear in mind that these hospitals are very far away from specialist centers. They are often left alone to handle all cases irrespective of how tough it is.

Hospital Papar          3+1 (3 medical officers plus one director)

Hospital Kota Marudu    4+1

Hospital Ranau          3+1

Hospital Pitas          3+1

Hospital Kudat          4+1

Hospital Beluran        3+1

Hospital Kuala Penyu    3

Hospital Beufort        4+1

Hospital Tenom          4+1

Hospital Tambunan       3+1

(plus one means the pengarah, they are often involved in admin duties, meetings, seeing big bosses eg ministers when they visit Sabah. So, hardly contributes in seeing patients)

So in simple conclusion, 3-4 doctors are seeing total of hundreds of patients in clinic everyday, running all the wards, overseeing deliveries, performing operations like C-sections. Managing ill babies and adults. And not forgetting, doing night duties as well.

The same district hospitals in Selangor mostly have more than 10 medical officers running the hospital. And they have voted the govermenc out. So tell me sir/ madam ,don’t you know this ? and what have you done so far in representing Sabah ?

Sincerely

One of the 3 or 4 from the above

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 June 2009, 4:54 am and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PAS finding its way still : Some Observations on the Speech by PAS President Ustaz Hadi Awang

By Farish A. Noor

The opening speech to the 55th Muktamar of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS should be read closely and given the consideration that is due to it, particularly as it comes from the party President himself, Ustaz Hadi Awang, and in some respects gives an accurate reflection of the state of the party and the mindset of its senior leadership. Having said that, the speech of Hadi Awang that was delivered during the opening session of the Muktamar was both rich and complex, and should be read closely  by those of us who are interested in the political fortunes of PAS and the future of the party in Malaysia.

Perhaps the most salient feature of the speech was the straightforward declaration of PAS’s oppositional stand vis a vis UMNO, which was described by Hadi in his speech in rather negative terms. The tone of Ustaz Hadi’s speech would resonate with the members of PAS who were worried about any possible compromise on the part of their own Islamist party and the possibility of a PAS-UMNO tie-up in the near future. After describing UMNO as a party that was materialist, corrupt and a lackey to the British colonial powers in the past, one can safely assume that any notion of a PAS-UMNO marriage of convenience has been put on the shelf for the moment at least…

However it was also noted by this observer that Ustaz Hadi’s speech had few references to the Pakatan Rakyat, whose other component parties – notably the PKR and DAP – were casually referred to as fellow travelers in the long cause. One wonders how and why the references to the other parties of the Pakatan seemed rather tame and lukewarm at best, and where PAS was locating itself in the overall constellation of Malaysian politics in the immediate present. Indeed, where is PAS heading?

It is interesting to note that the slogan for the Muktamar was ‘Islam leading the process of Change’ (Islam Memimpin Perubahan). Furthermore the speech was littered with numerous references to the Ulama of PAS and the role that the Ulama have played not only in the development of the party but also in the history of Malaysia as a whole.

Thus all in all, one had the distinct impression that this was a speech that was meant primarily for internal consumption, and somewhat self-referential. PAS is still looking for its place and role in Malaysian politics, and by distancing itself substantially from UMNO and symbolically from the Pakatan, we get the impression of a PAS that feels the need to stand on its own two feet. Or does this reflect the concerns of the Ulama of PAS in particular, and can this be read as a return to the Ulama-led politics of PAS from the 1980s to the late 1990s?

There are several key themes and concerns that perhaps should be looked at closely and critically:

The first issue is that of the Ulama of PAS, the definition of what and who constitutes an Ulama and what role the Ulama are meant to have in society and politics. This, for me, was the first stumbling block to the Muktamar and the speech by Ustaz Hadi. With all due respect to the Ulama of PAS (and I write this as a fervent admirer of Tuan Guru Nik Aziz) I would like to re-state the obvious fact that the term ‘Ulama’ should not be confused and essentialised solely to refer to religiously-trained and educated scholars. For since the earliest days of Islamic education going back to the Ferenggi Mahal madrasah of Lucknow and its Dars-e Nizami curriculum, it should be noted that the term Ulama referred to scholars who were trained as both scientific and religious scholars. Hence it would be totally wrong for us to maintain this divisive dichotomy of ‘Ulama’ and ‘Professionals’ as the latter are likewise educated individuals trained in their special sciences and skills. So why was the dichotomy introduced in the prelude to this Mukatamar, and why hasn’t anyone pointed out that professional scientists, technocrats, engineers and educationists should qualify as ‘Ulama’ too, to mean persons of skill and knowledge? The subtle power-play between the two factions became rather obvious with too many references to the Ulama of PAS and the lament that their contribution have been marginalized. No, nobody has undermined or downgraded the role of the Ulama in PAS or Malaysian politics: We are simply stating the historical fact that PAS’s development was the result of the efforts of Ulama, Scholars, professionals, activists and lay members as well… Some Ulama in PAS (as in other Islamic parties worldwide) may not be comfortable with the idea of sharing power with professionals, but we need to understand that in the complex modern world of today we are not going to get anywhere in areas such as finance, transparency, anti-corruption etc without the help of some professional technocrats and accountants too. The religious scholars of PAS simply have to understand this simple fact once and for all.

Secondly I was struck by the tone of the speech when it came to address the issue of East Malaysia. Ustaz Hadi once again reiterated the call for PAS to spread its message to East Malaysia in terms of its political outreach and missionary (Dakwah) work. But has anyone bothered to ask what our fellow East Malaysians want? As a Malaysian who grew up in East Malaysia, I am sympathetic to our East Malaysian brothers and sisters who seem to be cast as our ‘poor neighbours’ who need our help all the time. When will West Malaysians realize that the flow of ideas and expertise can and should go both ways, and that West Malaysians have a lot to learn from East Malaysians too, especially in the area of harmonious inter-communal relations? (After all 13 May happened in West Malaysia, not East Malaysia, remember?) So rather than talk about the need for West Malaysian parties (both from the BN and Pakatan) going to East Malaysia all the time, why don’t we listen to our East Malaysian counterparts who may teach us a few useful lessons in nation-building as well?

Thirdly, the stand that the Assembly took on the Language issue was problematic to say the least. On more than one occasion, the national language – Bahasa Malaysia – was described as Bahasa Melayu, and thus re-essentialised as the linguistic and cultural backbone of one specific ethnic community. We need to get our semantics right and de-racialised Bahasa Malaysia as the language of all Malaysian citizens if we seriously wish to build a new Malaysia that is racially, culturally and politically equal, to be shared by all Malaysians. One of the first steps that has to be taken is to de-essentise our languages so that Madarin is no longer seen as the exclusive monopoly of Malaysian Chinese, Tamil no longer seen as the monopoly of Malaysians of Indian origin, and Bahasa Malaysia as the common language of all Malaysian citizens. But how can this ever happen if every community sticks to its narrow sense of identity and claims exclusive monopoly over the very language we use to communicate with each other?

All in all, it is clear that PAS has come a long way and credit is due to this party that was built over half a century of hard work and selfless dedication by its members. Once again, I was impressed by the professionalism of those present and the efficient performance of the organizers.  But we sincerely hope and pray that PAS will throw its lot with its comrades in the Pakatan, and remember that PAS’s gains in March 2008 was the result of it being in the Pakatan. For that reason, PAS’s leaders need to recognize the needs and demands of the Malaysian public, and be sensitive to the new political realities on the ground in Malaysia. PAS has a vital role to play in Malaysia today and long into the future. We wish it all the best, and sincerely hope that as it struggles to find its way it will cast a glance to its comrades who have stood by it all along- not least the plural and complex society that is the Malaysian public of today. Don’t let us down, PAS.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 June 2009, 7:25 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Question No. 21 to OTK – what would have been the fate of MCA/BN leaders responsible for creating the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off if this had happened in China?

This is the seventh day of my “three questions a day” to the Transport Minister and MCA President, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) Rip-off
.

Question No. 1 (No. 19 in series)
:

Last Saturday’s New Straits Times (30.5.09) carried the following report headlined: “Port Klang Free Zone Scandal: Najib tells Ong to provide the answers”:

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has directed Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat to respond to queries involving the audit report on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ).

He said Ong would provide the necessary information on the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) that was released on Thursday.

“I have asked Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat to provide answers on every question raised by any party on the audit report. You can refer to him.

“He will provide the explanation,” Najib said after chairing the Umno supreme council meeting here yesterday.

In his blog
on the same day, Ong said
:

The Prime Minister, YAB Dato’ Sri Najib Razak has entrusted me to answer queries pertaining to the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ). I am thankful to the Prime Minister for his confidence and his support, and this reflects the mutual understanding that we have established in the handling of this issue.

I had acted immediately on Najib’s open invitation, which has been confirmed by Ong, and posed three questions a day in the past six days on the PKFZ “mother of all scandals”.

Ong has not given a proper answer to anyone of the 18 questions.

Can Ong deny that he has been daily breaking the Prime Minister’s open directive “to provide answers on every question raised by any party”, despite his claim in his blog that by entrusting him to answer queries on PKFZ, Najib was demonstrating his confidence and support, as well as reflecting the “mutual understanding that we have established in the handling of this issue”?

Why is Ong betraying Najib’s confidence, support, understanding and trust in him by failing to live up to the Prime Minister’s open commitment that the Transport Minister will answer every question on the PKFZ scandal?

Is the MCA President letting down the Umno President and Barisan Nasional Chairman?

Question 2 (No. 20 in series)
: In his blog of 28th May, the day of the public release of the PricewaterhouseCooper audit report on PKFZ,  Ong said he had directed the Port Klang Authority to act on four fronts, viz:

To seek legal recourse for contractual shortcomings or irregularities.

To seek professional advice on the restructuring of financial obligations of PKA.

To improve and tighten governance issues at management and board levels of PKA.

Finally, to further beef up the day to day management of PKFZ to strengthen operations and improve its financial returns.

He  also directed the Chairman of PKA, Dato’ Lee Hwa Beng to submit a copy of the report to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and two days ago, blogged that he had directed the PKA Chairman to “submit fourteen (14) copies of the report as well as the appendices to members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and it will do so as soon as possible”.

Does Ong agree that he is giving the impression that the PKA Chairman and Board are a bunch of useless lot who have to be micro-managed and micro-directed to seek legal redress, to seek professional advice, to tighten governance, to beef up day-to-day management and not only to submit copies of the report to the PAC, but also  the number of copies!

If the PKA Chairman and Board are so useless and incompetent that they have to be so micro-managed, why don’t he sack the whole lot and take over as PKA Chairman himself?

Question No. 3 (or No. 21 in series):
 As Ong is still in China, this question is particularly pertinent: what would have been the fate of MCA and BN leaders responsible for creating the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off if this had happened in China?

Or would Ong claim that not a single MCA leader, present or past, is culpable or blameworthy in any degree for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-off whether his two predecessors as Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, or the three previous PKA Chairmen Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon and Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung?

Would Ong think such a claim by all these five MCA stalwarts would be acceptable in China? Or would anyone  of them end up having to face the firing squad?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 June 2009, 2:49 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“Unity talk” for PR-BN government – never arose or discussed at any PR leadership meeting

I attended the 15th PAS Muktamar opening ceremony at Stadium Melawati, Shah Alam this morning and left after lunch.

The media have been chasing after me to comment on what PAS President, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang said in a media conference after his presidential address.

I do not know what Hadi actually said, but in view of the public interest on  the question  of “unity talks”,  I have two  comments while making the general observation that political parties and political leaders must be  prepared to talk to anyone on any issue concerning public interest, viz:

Firstly, that the question of unity talk to form a Pakatan Rakyat-Barisan Nasional government never arose or discussed at any Pakatan Rakyat leadership meeting.

Secondly, on the so-called unity talks to form Umno-Pas government, it is something I read in the media. The subject was never discussed or raised in any PR leadership meeting.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 June 2009, 2:59 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Confidence motion in Parliament  – Is Najib afraid that he will not get 100% support from Umno/BN MPs?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said in Beijing  yesterday he would not emulate his father Tun Razak and dissolve Parliament on his return to Malaysia after his China visit.

Tun Razak returned from his historic six-day visit to China in 1974 and dissolved Parliament the next month and the fourth general elections were held on 24.8.1974.

The climax of Tun Razak’s visit to China was the establishment of diplomatic relations between Malaysia and China on 31st May 1974, an objective the DAP had been advocating for eight years since the founding of the party in 1966.

For instance, I just came across a speech I made at the National Day reception of the Muar DAP Branch on 2nd Sept. 1973, where the subject of my speech was:
“DAP calls for full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China”.

In saying that he would not follow his father’s example 35 years ago and return home to dissolve Parliament, Najib was fully aware that he is in a completely different political position from that of his father.

Tun Razak and the Barisan Nasional that he had just formed were at the height of their political power and influence in 1974, while Najib and the Barisan Nasional are now in the opposite polar position, struggling with lowest popularity ratings and to avoid the fate of United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Labour Party which suffered a complete wipe-out in yesterday’s local council elections.

Although Najib said there will be no dissolution of Parliament after his China trip as he has many “uncompleted things to do”, is Najib prepared to do what is right and proper, to seek a motion of confidence when  Parliament reconvenes on June 15 to secure a clear mandate and establish his credibility, integrity and legitimacy as Prime Minister?

This is what his immediate predecessor Tun Abdullah did in his first week as Prime Minister on Nov. 3, 2003, and what the third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein did in the first fortnight as Prime Minister in an emergency session of Parliament in Jan 1976.

Najib has enough questions and doubts dogging him and casting a dark cloud on his ascent as Prime Minister without acquiring another serious one, that he dare not seek a clear mandate through a motion of confidence in Parliament, as if he has doubts about the total allegiance of the Umno and Barisan Nasional MPs and do not trust them to vote solidly for him in a parliamentary motion of confidence.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 June 2009, 12:23 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Questions – will OTK present Ministerial statement on PwC report to Parliament followed by parliamentary debate on RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-off?

Acting on the public commitment of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that every question on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) Rip-off will be answered by the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, my three questions today to Ong (No. 22 to 24 of the series)  are short, simple and straightforward,viz:

1.	It is five days since I had asked for a set of the three-and-a-half high annexure of 20 appendices to the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PcW) audit report into the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) Rip-off, which are not accessible to the public except in the library of the Port Klang Authority (PKA) library.

Of course, if I can get a set of these documents for fuller study, I might have more ammunition to grill Ong and the PKA Chairman, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng about the PKFZ “mother of all scandals”, but this is what accountability, transparency and good governance is all about, isn’t it?

When will Ong declare whether he is going to direct the PKA Chairman to give  me a set of the appendices or come out with a refusal publicly, without running away from the question?

2.	Does Ong agree with my proposal that the PwC audit report on PKFZ currently  available online at www.pka-report.com should not be for only a period of two weeks from 28th May to 10th June 2009, to be removed on Wednesday, but  should remain on the PKA website so long as the PKFZ scandal is not resolved?

I had suggested that the 20 appendices of the PwC report should be uploaded on the same site so that all Malaysians can access them to find out why the interests and rights of present and future generations should be pawned away by a RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off. Has  Ong or PKA any  technical problems in  putting the appendices on the website as the DAP IT team can volunteer free services?

3.	Parliament is meeting on Monday, June 15. Is Ong prepared to give a Ministerial statement on the PwC audit report on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-off, to be followed by a parliamentary debate on the Ministerial statement and the PwC audit report on the PKFZ?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 June 2009, 2:01 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Confidence motion in Parliament June 15 – another reason why Najib needs it

There is another reason why the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should seek a motion of confidence when Parliament reconvenes on June 15 to secure a clear-cut mandate to establish credibility, integrity and legitimacy of his premiership.

This is to secure parliamentary sanction for his “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” slogan.

Najib said yesterday that the
1Malaysia concept does not deviate
 from the essence of the Federal Constitution, express or implied.

He said it is not a new concept or formula and that its ultimate objective is national unity, which was the primary vision of previous administrators translated into various forms over the last five decades.

But is Najib prepared to ascertain why  his 1Malaysia concept had generated so much division and discord  among Malaysians, which was not the case with, for instance, the Bangsa Malaysia concept introduced by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad when proclaiming the Vision 2020 in 1991?

In fact, the very need for Najib to come up with a 1Malaysia slogan is eloquent testimony  of the failure of Malaysian nation-building efforts in the past five decades to create one united Malaysian nation.

What is tragic is that Najib’s first two months as Prime Minister had been overwhelmed by examples of the lack of 1Malaysia mentality, mindset and commitment not only by the Barisan Nasional government but also by the key national institutions in our society, whether the civil service, Parliament, judiciary, police, mass media, etc.

Malaysians are asking, for instance, how with Najib as Prime Minister, there could be 1Malaysia when he is chiefly responsible why there is no 1Perak!

Another example of the lack of 1Malaysia mentality, mindset and commitment is provided by Najib’s recent visit to China, where he acknowledged the loyalty of the Malaysian Chinese and their “great” contribution to the country’s economic development. Najib expressed appreciation of the loyalty of the Malaysian Chinese as illustrated in badminton competitions between Malaysia and China, where Malaysian Chinese will support the national team.

But Najib’s acknowledgement of the loyalty of the Malaysian Chinese to the country was not reported in the Bahasa Malaysia mainstream media.

What is worse, we see UMNO-owned Mingguan Malaysia trying to fuel racial discord by referring to non-Malays as “kaum pendatang” or immigrants, which has been slammed not only by DAP National Publicity Secretary and MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua, but also provoked the ire of MIC President, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu who has called on the police to institute sedition charges against  Awang Selamat  for the “racial slur” against the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia which is totally against Najib’s 1Malaysia concept.

But Awang Selamat and Mingguan Malaysia remain unrepentant and recalcitrant, coming out with another provocative, insensitive and offensive sequel today, entitled

“Sampai bila kemurahan hati Melayu?”
.

If the Chinese press had carried a piece “Sampai bila kemurahan hati orang Cina?” or the Tamil press carried “Sampai bila kemurahan hati orang India?”, would the writers, editors and publishers be immune from instant police visits and actions under the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Sedition Act or even the Internal Security Act?

What is clear however is the shocking absence of a 1Malaysia mentality, mindset and commitment, which appears to be quite prevalent among the movers and shakers in the corridors of  federal power.

Eyebrows all round were raised when it was announced that the
Biro Tatanegara
(National Civics Bureau) will organise courses and seminars to explain 1Malaysia for the people to understand Najib’s concept – for the end product is definitely  not 1Malaysia but “No 1Malaysia”!

In fact, if Najib is serious about 1Malaysia, the first thing he should do is to close down BTN, notorious for  spreading communal poison and national divisiveness, as illustrated in the following letter-to-the-editor in Star a fortnight ago, which is quite a typical complaint:

Friday May 22, 2009

BTN course teaches disunity

AS parents we are glad that our grown up children attend the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) course, which is compulsory for government servants. They are all mature professionals.

But what angers me is that, instead of talking integrity, unity and harmony among the various races, participants are taught about disunity and racial hatred. Is this what our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib wants for 1MALAYSIA?

Throughout the five days of the course, participants are repeatedly told not to question Malay rights and so on. The course coordinators keep talking about social contracts and telling non-Malays not to question Malay rights and so on.

Many participants, including my Malay friends, are upset.

Are we still living in a primitive age? If the BTN course is to be conducted in this manner, it is better to abolish it or let it concentrate on only one ethnic group.

The course is not bringing unity but only arousing anger and hatred.

As it is handled by the Prime Minister’s office, please do not say that they do not know what is going on.

DISAPPOINTED,

Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur.

This is why the first item of business when Parliament reconvenes after Najib’s takeover as Prime Minister is a confidence motion not only to provide credibility, integrity and legitimacy for his premiership but to provide parliamentary endorsement for his motto of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 June 2009, 12:24 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Home Ministry bans T shirts

FROM KUALA LUMPUR

On 2nd June 2009, the Publications & Quranic Texts Division of the Home Ministry raided my T-shirt stall in Central Market for the 3rd time and seized 83 shirts they claim are “obscene and contain Communist elements”.  You can see the images they confiscated by following
this link…

That the Ministry is clamping down on items they allege glorify (Chinese) Communism at the very moment our beloved leader is grinning for photocalls with the flatcaps in Beijing is flash-bulb irony so blinding it requires uncommon talent to miss it. The Ministry, of course, missed it by a mile.

Not many people know this but lightweight, low level officers of the Publications & Quranic Texts Division are entrusted with absolute power to make on-the-spot judgments about what is obscene, subversive, subliminally seditious, distasteful, inartistic, drug drenched, Communist, radical, Swedish.  Er, ok, maybe not Swedish,
but apart from that they can pass instant judgment on just about everything else under the sun.  Worse, having judged, they are empowered to confiscate anything that offends their fragile sensibilities.  They can say your cupboard is a badly disguised coffin, your toothbrush is a sex aid or that your plastic KL Tower statuette so thoughtfully bought for you by Aunt Mimi is plainly a male sexual organ.  Having so proclaimed, they have the unchallengeable right to then cart everything away.  In a blink of an eye one is judged, juried and executed by the same single entity.  Issues of abuse of power loom large.  You only have to click on the link above to realise that the Ministry tends towards irrational excitability in their interpretations, betraying the government’s impatience with the mildest satire and discomfort with the freedom of expression that is our guaranteed constitutional right.

What this means in practice is that the Ministry has a bunch of people running around seizing things under the flimsiest pretext. They took half my stock – 3 times – but they could just as easily have taken all. If you run a business selling things, they have an unquestionable right in law to do so and there is not much you can do about it.  When a government deliberately denies a citizen his fundamental right to make a living, it had better have weighty, considered reasons for doing so.  Here, we allow low level staffers to snatch away our rice bowls on a whim, without warning.  Accountability, reason and judiciousness be damned.

By logical progression, since the images are now presumably “illegal”, are we to see enforcement squads jumping out from behind lampposts to rip T shirts bearing similar images off the backs of recalcitrant wearers? Will we have T shirt evaluators sitting alongside the H1N1 scanners at airports and entry points around the country? Will tourists be warned to leave their Viagra at home?

You may think that the images have no artistic or comedic merit.  You may think them stupid and juvenile.  But to say that they glorify Communism, are obscene and illegal, is really stretching it.  And, surely, confiscation on those grounds is wholly unwarranted.  Are we, as Malaysians, so sanguine that we accept the government has a right to intrude in such a way into our lives, compromise our professional integrity and devastate our businesses on nothing more than one person’s inadequate understanding of the word “obscene”??

You can read Malay Mail’s article about the
raid here
…

You can read the Malay Mail’s editorial about the
issue here
..

You can read the Star’s article about the
raid here
…

Rgds

Patrick Saw

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 June 2009, 9:58 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
Lifestyle
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ scandal — suspend Chor as deputy finance  minister until he is cleared of conflict-of-interest

My three questions to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
 RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

Question No. 1
 (No. 25 in series): What are the real reasons for the sudden resignation of Ong’s hand-picked Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager and Port Klang Free Zone Sdn. Bhd (PKFZSB) executive chairman Lim Thean Shiang.

Is it because of his failure to perform in his two positions to bring in investors and tenants to PKFZ, which continues to be a “ghost town” and a white elephant?

Is it also because of the special briefing of Barisan Nasional MPs on the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) audit report on the PKFZ, allegedly without the knowledge or authority of the Transport Minister?

Who organized the mysterious briefing of BN MPs on the PKFZ, was it the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club Chairman Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing, who is also the main stakeholder of the PKFZ turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn.Bhd?

How many BN MPs attended the special briefing and can the Minister give a full list of the MPs concerned, or is it covered by the Official Secrets Act?

What exactly transpired at the “special briefing”?

Question No. 2
:
The five principal MCA leaders  who must bear great responsibility for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal are the two MCA Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy; and the three PKA Chairman, Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon and Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung.

As the PcW audit report on the PKFZ had named Chor as one of those who could have potential conflict of interest, will the MCA President and the MCA Presidential Council ask Chor to step down as Deputy Finance  Minister or ask the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to suspend Chor from his deputy ministerial post until the full outcome of probe into PwC audit report on his potential conflict-of-interest in the RM12.5b PKFZ scandal?

Question No. 3
: After the publication of the PwC report on PKFZ, Chor  who was PKA Chairman from April 2007 to March 2008, made the following statement:

“During the short nine months at the PKA as non-executive chairman, other than visiting the PKFZ and receiving reports pertaining to the development of the PKFZ from the then general manager at every board meeting, I was never involved in any other activities on the PKFZ. The purchase of the land in the PKFZ together with the massive development taking place therein were already approved way back in 2002 and 2004.

“Whatever terms and conditions between the Government and vendor/developer on the sale/purchase and subsequent development were already decided a long, long time before I even stepped into PKA as non-executive chairman, and I was not aware of the transactions at all”.

Can Ong as Transport Minister and MCA President accept that the MCA nominee as PKA Chairman from April 2007 to March 2008 (which is not “short nine months”,  could disclaim all responsibility for the PKFZ scandal during his stewardship as the No. 1 man in PKA?

How much was Chor paid as PKA Chairman and how much allowances and other payments made to him during his period as PKA Chairman?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 June 2009, 5:20 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Public Forum – RM12.5 billion PKFZ Scandal: Will Heads Roll?

Admin :
We would try to live webcast from KLSCAH. However, we do not have a reliable Internet connection.
 Sorry, 3G connection could not sustain the webcast.

Public forum – RM12.5 billion PKFZ Scandal: Will Heads Roll?

Venue :  KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Jalan Maharajalela, KL (
MAP
)

Date : 10 June 2009

Time : 8.00 pm

Panelist :

Tan Sri Dr Ramon Navaratnam
 – Chairman of the Asli-Center of Public Policy Studies, former President of Transparency International Malaysia*, prominent Malaysian economist, former Transport Ministry Secretary-General

Captain Yusof Ahmad
 – former pilot superintendent of the Klang Port Authority and pioneer general manager of West Port

Teh Chi Chang
 – Economic Advisor to DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng

Tony Pua
 – DAP Publicity Secretary, MP for PJ Utara

Lim Kit Siang
 – DAP Parliamentary Leader, MP for Ipoh Timur

Dr Tan Seng Giaw
 – DAP Deputy Chairman, PAC Deputy Chairman, MP for Kepong

Enquiries

Phone :  03-79578022, 016-5941995

Email : dap [at] dapmalaysia [d0t] org – Subject: PKFZ Public Forum

Or Comment below.

*correction made

View
DAP’s Point of Interest
 in a larger map

Subscribe to DAP Malaysia Events

  Email:

Visit this group

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 June 2009, 7:54 pm and is filed under
Announcement
,
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Demonisation and the Politics of Banning : Why PAS Should Look To Its Own History

By
Farish A. Noor

The recent general assembly of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS has left us with a rather mixed serving of results and outcomes, some of which will linger for a while and some of which may prove harder to digest than others. Despite the re-iteration of PAS’s stand vis a vis the UMNO party that was couched in oppositional terms, we are left with the question of PAS’s long-term orientation and objectives, and where the party will go from here. It is clear that the party remains divided over the question of dialogue and co-operation with UMNO, which has been its nemesis since its genesis in 1951.

But when it comes to the question of dialogue and engagement, PAS’s stand seems clearer with regards to other Islamic movements and NGOs in the country: While PAS has demonstrated its willingness to work with some of the more conservative Muslim groups in Malaysia, it has steadfastly refused to work with other groups, notably Muslim feminist organisations such as Sisters in Islam (SIS).

What has shocked many of us, however, was the call on the part of PAS to have SIS investigated by the religious authorities of the country on the grounds that it is a movement that has allegedly ‘misled’ Muslims and which has been tainted by liberal ideas. More worrying still was the call to have SIS banned if it is found to be somehow ‘anti-Islamic’ in its activities.

Let us cut through the hogwash of political correctness and state the matter as bluntly and clearly as possible: For a political party like PAS to call for the banning of an NGO like SIS is nothing less than a determined move to close the space of public discourse and debate in a country where civil liberties are already compromised by a host of repressive laws. SIS has borne the brunt of numerous attacks from right-wing movements since it was formed, and the attacks have always been the same. The accusations leveled against SIS have been that it is a ‘liberal’ movement, that it promotes a ‘free interpretation’ of Islam, and that its members – mostly Muslim women – are ‘not qualified’ to speak and discuss on matters related to normative Muslim socio-religious praxis. I will return to these accusations in the following articles, but for now let us look at the latest move to ban SIS and understand its implications.

The term ‘ban’ has an etymological link to the term ‘banish’, and to ban a movement, a book or even an idea is to banish it beyond the pale of the public domain. Any political party that calls for the banning of an NGO, book, individual or idea is a party that is no longer able and willing to engage in an open, plural and inclusive public domain where the exchange of ideas and opinions is encouraged and respected. It would therefore be hypocritical for PAS to boast about its willingness to engage with non-Muslims in Malaysia if it cannot even engage with Muslim sisters in Islam. So where is PAS’s commitment to the inclusive, plural and democratic Malaysia that it talked about at the last general elections of March 2008?

 This latest attack on SIS is a repeat of the politics of demonization that Malaysians have grown accustomed to over the past five decades. It is just another attempt to silence a group of activists by demonizing their activities and very presence in the public domain by accusing them of all manner of nefarious activities, rather than to take them seriously and listen to what they have to say. Accusing SIS of being ‘liberal’, ‘secular’ and ‘Western’ are rather outdated clichés by now, but this also points to the bankruptcy of ideas in our public domain at the present, thanks to the long process of de-politicisation of Malaysian society and the way in which our political culture is shaped by emotion-laced, sectarian and exclusive political concerns.

But PAS should be doubly wary of resorting to such tactics to silence other groups that it may disagree with, for PAS was itself the victim of such politics of demonization from the 1980s onwards. PAS should remember that in the 1980s and 1990s it too was demonized as a ‘radical’, ‘militant’, ‘extremist’ threat and that despite the fact that it has remained a constitutionalist party from the outset PAS was cast as a threat to the nation. During the first half of the 2000s, PAS was even linked – falsely and without any evidence – to radical militant groups in an attempt to silence it. PAS too has experienced firsthand the politics of silencing and demonization, and cried foul when it was the victim of such dirty politics. So why is PAS engaged in the same dirty politics today with regards to SIS?

Again I repeat my assertion that the vote for PAS at the elections of March 2008 was a vote of goodwill given by a Malaysian electorate that was prepared to see beyond the negative stereotypes of PAS and to give PAS a chance to be part of the reformist wave of the new Malaysia we see around us today. The Malaysian public was prepared to look beyond the negative stereotypes of PAS and give the party their vote as long as they were genuinely committed to the process of democratization and reform.

PAS therefore should remember that democratization and reform begins from within, and the first thing that PAS has to revise is its own jaundiced view of other alternative Muslim organisations like Sisters in Islam. It is no exaggeration to say that in Malaysia, no Muslim group has said and done more for the plight of Muslim women than SIS. If this is a sin in the eyes of PAS, then one wonders where PAS’s moral compass is pointed. Our advice to PAS – given with sincerity – is simply this: Wake up to the new Malaysia around you and realize that Malaysian society today is more complex than ever. If PAS wishes to entertain the notion of becoming a national party one day, it has to adapt its own discourse and political praxis to reflect this diversity, rather than suppress, deny and ban it. Sisters in Islam is here to stay, and many of us are happy for that. We may not agree with each other all the time, but differences of opinion is a fact of life and living in the adult world. The call for the banning of any movement you disagree with, even if it is enacted via the legal process, is perhaps the highest form of violence of all, the violence of silencing the Other. If this is the course that PAS wishes to pursue in the near future, than many of us will be inclined to believe that the stereotype of PAS as an intolerant, extremist party may be true after all. And that would be a tragedy for PAS, ultimately.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 June 2009, 2:40 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib’s great analysis about failings of BN leaders with himself as foremost example

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has  made a great analysis  about Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders too obsessed with positions and failing to “learn and change” after the political tsunami electoral defeat last year – except he did not realise he was describing himself as such a foremost BN leader.

Speaking at the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) annual assembly opening yesterday, Najib scolded BN leaders who were too obsessed with party posts, saying they should focus on the people and regain support for the ruling federal government coalition after its dismal Election 2008 results.

This is the
Malaysian Insider
report of Najib’s speech yesterday:

Najib said the fight for posts was a problem within the Barisan, which has been in power for so long and has not realised that “nostalgia, sentiment and even kindness” can be forgotten.

Instead, Barisan must “feel the pulse of the people” and “not think it is business as usual.

“When will we learn and change? Losing two-thirds of parliament and four states should be lesson enough,” Najib said, adding that Barisan parties must accept the reality that it was the ruling coalition’s worse ever performance in its 52 years in power.

He added that a “tsunami” was an accurate description for the last general elections as “it is a phenomenon where you do not see the waves until it is too late.”

“Do not underestimate the Malaysian public, who can smile and shake your hand but inside they say wait until elections and I will show my power,” he warned.

It is a great irony that Najib is not aware or conscious that he is most guilty of the malady among  the Barisan Nasional leaders he diagnosed yesterday.

It is also an indictment of the “business-as-usual” mindset of the Barisan Nasional leaders, who have failed to “feel the pulse of the people”, that there is not a single Barisan Nasional leader, whether from Umno, MCA, Gerakan or MIC, who  dare to point out to Najib his own great failure to “learn and change”!

If Najib had followed his own edict to  constantly “feel the pulse of the people”, he would have realized  that the biggest Achilles heel in the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of his premiership is the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.

As Najib himself warned, “Do not underestimate the Malaysian public, who can smile and shake your hand but inside they say wait until elections and I will show my power”.

This is precisely the current thinking of  voters, not only in Perak but throughout the country, waiting for the next 13th general election to teach Najib and Barisan Nasional a lesson for the illegal coup de’tat in Perak.

It is not too late for Najib to make amends for his greatest political blunder on becoming the sixth Prime Minister – orchestrating the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak – by dissolving the Perak State Assembly and  returning the mandate to the Perakians to elect the government of their choice in a state-wide general election.

Is Najib prepared to practise what he preached at the PPP annual assembly yesterday – not to “underestimate” the voters of Perak and Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 June 2009, 7:39 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM12.5b PKFZ Rip-off – OTK should apologise on behalf of MCA as scandal occurred under watch of 3 MCA Transport Ministers/4 PKA Chairmen

My three questions (No.28 to No. 30 on the 10th day in the current series)  to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

Is Ong prepared as MCA President to make a public apology on behalf of MCA  to the nation and Malaysians for the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal as it occurred under the watch of three MCA Transport Ministers and four MCA Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairmen?

From a RM1.1 billion  scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, it has more then quadrupled to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister, and now skyrocketed to RM7.453 billion under Ong’s watch, and likely to require another RM5 billion bailout with public funds to reach the astronomical total cost of RM12.5 billion.

If everyone of the three MCA Transport Ministers and the four MCA PKA Chairmen (Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon, Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung and Datuk Lee Hwa Beng) had acted fully conscious of their public trust and responsibilities, the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal would not have reached the present proportion and magnitude!

After the publication of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report on PKFZ, Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung, who was PKA Chairman from April 2007 to March 2008, issued a statement disclaiming all responsibility and even knowledge of the PKFZ scandal, raising questions not only about any conflict-of-interest when he was PKA Chairman but also his fitness to continue as Deputy Finance Minister.

Chor said: “During the short nine months at the PKA as non-executive chairman, other than visiting the PKFZ and receiving reports pertaining to the development of the PKFZ from the then general manager at every board meeting, I was never involved in any other activities on the PKFZ. The purchase of the land in the PKFZ together with the massive development taking place therein were already approved way back in 2002 and 2004.”

Is Chor seriously suggesting that he need not be responsible in any manner for the worsening of the PKFZ scandal during his 11 months as PKA Chairman from April 2007 to March 2008, when important developments in the PKFZ scandal during this period included:

the pull out of Dubai-based Jebel Ali Free Zone (Jafza) which was to manage PKFZ on July 18, 2007, citing “strategic purposes” though correspondence between Jafza and PKFZ exposed by The Sun the following month indicated that Jafza quit due to red tape, bureaucracy, interference by politicians and those with interests, deliberate incorrect minuting of meetings, issues pertaining to the chain of command and even attempts at tax evasion by Malaysian negotiators.

Cabinet decision on a RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ.

These were among the major developments  in the long sorry tale of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal which happened during the period Chor was the PKA Chairman. How can Chor be allowed to throw up his arms and claim ignorance and innocence over what happened to the PKFZ while he as PKA Chairman, and what credibility, integrity and legitimacy has be to be Deputy Finance Minister?

What is Ong’s stand on Chor Chee Heung vis-à-vis his role in the PKFZ scandal?

Last December, Ong publicly said that the events surrounding the entry and exit of Jebel Ali Free Zone in the PKFZ project would be in the PwC full report.  This is not the case – raising the question whether the PwC audit report that was released by the PKA Chairman, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng on May 28  is the full and uncensored  PwC report.  Malaysians are entitled to an unequivocal answer from Ong.

My invitation to Ong to the
public forum on “RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal: Will Heads Roll?”
 at the KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 10th  June 2008 at 8 pm, stands.

He can ask for clearance from the Cabinet on Wednesday morning to give him the greenlight to attend the forum.

The speakers of the forum are:

Tan Sri Dr Ramon Navaratnam
 – Transparency International Malaysia President

Captain Yusof Ahmad
 – former pilot superintendent of the Klang Port Authority and pioneer general manager of West Port

Teh Chi Chang
 – Economic Advisor to DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng

Tony Pua
 – DAP Publicity Secretary, MP for PJ Utara

Lim Kit Siang
 – DAP Parliamentary Leader, MP for Ipoh Timur

Dr Tan Seng Giaw
 – DAP Deputy Chairman, PAC Deputy Chairman, MP for Kepong

Specially invited to the PKFZ scandal public forum is the Parliamentary Public Accounts (PAC) Deputy Chairman Dr. Tan Seng Giaw, as the PAC met twice on Sept. 6 and 25, 2007 on the PKFZ. At the time the PAC was chaired by Datuk Shahrir Samad.

Seng Giaw should be able to brief the public forum what the PAC had discovered during the its  investigations into the PKFZ scandal in the previous Parliament and what the PAC in the present Parliament in doing about the PKFZ scandal, now that it has mushroomed further from a RM4.6 billion scandal into a RM12.5 billion monster.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 June 2009, 10:59 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


USM Apex Uni admission foul-up – USM shld put online full list of 4,574 students forwarded to UPU

Higher Education Minister  Datuk Seri Mohamad Khaled  Nordin said the
special committee
 headed by Higher Education Ministry deputy chief secretary (management) Omar Abdul Rahman to investigate the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) Apex University student intake foul-up is expected to complete its report by end of this week.

Yes, the reasons for the inexcusable USM student intake foul-up, where the names of all the 8,173 pre-qualified applicants were incorrectly uploaded on its website as successful when only 3,599 were successful, leaving 4,574 students roller-coasting between euphoria and despair in a matter of hours, should be thoroughly investigated and publicized;  and those responsible dealt with severely.

But this  should not distract the higher education authorities from the proper things that they should do.

The first thing that must be done is that USM should put online the full list of 4,574 victim-applicants it has forwarded to UPU for selection to other public universities  so that the students could personally verify to make sure that there will not be another foul-up.  One cannot run away from the fact that the foul-up has created a confidence problem in the integrity of the USM administration.

Secondly, clear assurances should be given to  everyone of the 4,574 pre-qualified USM students that they will be offered places in the other public universities.

The 4,574 students come from all ethnic groups comprising 67.4 per cent Malays, 26.4 per cent Chinese, 1.8 per cent Indians and 4.3 per cent others.

For the 2009/2010 academic session,  UPU has received 61,027 applications for  40,366 places for public universities.

I call on the Cabinet on Wednesday to make a policy decision to ensure that all the 4,574 students would be offered places in the other public universities without  jeopardizing or denying the chances of the other eligible applicants.

This can be done with a two-step formula, viz:

•	Selection of the placement of 40,366 places for the public universities from the 61,027 applications in accordance with  the UPU “meritocracy” system.

•	Those from the 4,574 group who are not offered places in the first round of UPU selection for the 40,366 university places should all be given places in the public universities, through an increase in the total number of  public university places this year.

As the 4,574 students were “pre-qualified” by USM from over 22,000 students, I will be surprised if there is even five per cent or less than 250 students from this group who are not offered places by UPU.

If the government cannot increase the number of public university intake by 250 places or one per cent of the targeted 40,366 places for admission this year, something is very wrong and rotten with our national system of higher education.

This however requires a policy decision to be made by the Cabinet and I look forward to such a policy announcement by the Higher Education Minister after the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

 Concerns have been expressed that the USM’s 4,574 student intake foul-up may jeopardize the university’s Apex University status.

I agree with Professor Dr. Shad Faruqi from UiTM that USM’s Apex University was achieved on the basis of a number of objectives and demanding criteria and a computer glitch or a data processing error should not be used to challenge USM’s apex status.

A sense of balance should be maintained and this is where the special committee set up by the Higher Education Committee to probe into the USM student intake foul-up can make recommendations to ensure that such computer glitches or human errors are not permitted to recur in our universities  in future.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 June 2009, 2:17 pm and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Congrats Zaki for being conferred a “Tun” but where is Court of Appeal judgment in Nizar vs Zambry case?

Congrats to Chief Justice
Tun Zaki Azmi for being conferred a “Tun”
 on the occasion of the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s birthday on Saturday.

But where is the Court of Appeal judgment in the Nizar vs Zambry case after its
five-minute shotgun unanimous decision
 18 days ago overturning the landmark decision of Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim of Kuala Lumpur High Court by  declaring Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir (self-claimed 3-in-1 Mandela, Gandhi, King) as the lawful Perak Mentri Besar?

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif had promised on May 22 that the written judgment would be made available in a week when Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin’s counsel Sulaiman Abdullah gave notice of leave application to the Federal Court to appeal, but it is now 18 days since the Court of Appeal decision.

This long delay is in sharp contrast to the lightning speed with which the High Court judgment declaring Nizar as the lawful Perak Mentri Besar was “stayed” in a matter of hours in a single-judge Court of Appeal decision!

These developments are not conducive to the restoration of national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

When he was appointed Chief Justice in October last year, and in response to allegations that the country was having an Umno Chief Justice for the first time in view of his long service to Umno in various capacities, Zaki said that he would not hear cases involving Umno which come to court.

What else has Zaki done to ensure that he distanced himself and is not any way involved with the Nizar vs Zambry case, the most high-profile Umno case in court since his appointment as Chief Justice?

This is a pertinent question as it is not just Pakatan Rakyat leaders, but lawyers and independent jurists like Prof Abdul Aziz Bari, Professor of Law at the International Islamic University, who said in a public forum in Ipoh last night that the judiciary and other institutions like the civil service, police and  mainstream media had been used by the federal government to topple and seize power from the lawful  Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak.

It is no business of the judiciary to help the incumbent federal government to topple any Pakatan Rakyat state government!

No wonder another constitutional law expert, Professor Shad Faruqui had presciently warned that  the Perak crisis has become “a hydra-headed monster that cannot be eliminated by ding-dong judicial decisions”.

This is in fact a critical test for Datuk Seri Najib Razak as Prime Minister as he should be aware that the judiciary is coming under adverse spotlight both nationally and internationally in the Nizar vs Zambry case.

If Najib is serious about the great task of restoring public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of key national institutions, as well as winning public support for the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of his premiership, he should spare the judiciary from such an adverse national and international spotlight and  cut the Gordian knot of the four-month-old Perak political and constitutional crisis by dissolving the Perak state assembly for a Perak state general election to be held.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 June 2009, 4:57 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Pakatan Rakyat facing first crisis of confidence since its formation after the March 8 political tsunami last year

Pakatan Rakyat is facing its first crisis of confidence among members, supporters and well-wishers  since its formation after the March 8 political tsunami last year.

I had made a short comment to reporters on the theme of the speech of the PAS President, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang after the opening ceremony of the 55th PAS Muktamar in Stadium Melawati, Shah Alam on Friday.

I said that the theme Hadi had chosen for his opening speech, “Islam Memimpin Perubahan”, would be a great challenge for PAS to become a national party capable of representing the rights and interests of all citizens in plural Malaysia at a historic moment in the nation’s history undergoing unprecedented political change.

Some of the  speeches of PAS leaders  and resolutions at the 55th PAS Muktamar like the focus on Umno-PAS “unity talks” and the call for the ban of Sisters-in-Islam have however an opposite effect, creating a crisis of confidence in the  Pakatan Rakyat among members, supporters and well-wishers.

UMNO Youth leader, Khairy Jamaluddin and other UMNO leaders are trying to press home the advantage of using the Umno-PAS “unity talks” to split Pakatan Rakyat and undermine public confidence in Pakatan Rakyat.

This is a test of the wisdom and capability of DAP, PKR and PAS leaders to measure up to the expectations of the people as expressed in the March general election last year to advance the cause of  Pakatan Rakyat.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 June 2009, 10:33 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Politics
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The simple things that we ask…

Letters

by
Malaysian student overseas

Regarding:Koh Chon Weng case recently.

I sincerely think that this should not even happen. I felt really shocked after finding out the news from
malaysia-today.net
. Not just me alone who felt this, but my other friends as well. Even friends from other countries. We are also shocked why they’re not much news covered on this topic by local media.

As a student studying abroad, we choose to leave the country for higher education  because

1. The certification here is more recognized.

2. We can obtain a Permanent Residents here once we finish our study. WHY?? because we don’t believe that younger generation like us will be able to live in Malaysia in future. A country where we were born. This is somehow sad.

Kugan’s death was something that shocked us, but why after a short while this happens again?

We the nation is not looking for a party that can make us rich, study the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and understand it. What we want is a party that can provide us safety and future.

I know nothing is perfect and we don’t ask for it to be completely perfect. I also studied Yin n Yang and understand that “the evil cannot be fully vanquished, but it can be controlled.” Therefore, we are not hoping to close down the entire PDRM but at least make those who are responsible to face the law, make us ( Missing-home students overseas) believe that there’s no place like home and we will want to go back to serve our country once we graduate.

Look at places like Hongkong, why do cops in Hongkong have their respectfulness from the people, why don’t Hongkong citizens feel bad about joining the police force.

Their police force consist of Chinese only??? No, they have Indians, and white and some Portugese and some Malaysia born Chinese as well.

The entertainment industry made a big success in projecting Hongkong police?? No, Malaysia has its own “Gerak Khas”( and i think that’s a good series) as well.

I strongly recommend that you read the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and you will find that what we – the nation –  is asking for.

Finally, I would like to wish you all the best in fighting for the nation and hope you are blessed with health and happiness.

”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 June 2009, 6:32 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Who was the MCA President most responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – Liong Sik or Kong Choy?

My three questions (No.31 to No. 33 on the 11th day in the current series)  to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

Who was the MCA President most responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik or Datuk Seri  Chong Kong Choy, who were Ong’s predecessors as Transport Minister?

Furthermore, among the MCA Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairmen from the start of the ill-fated PKFZ project, who was the one who must bear the greatest blame – Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon or Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung or were all three blameless?

PKA Chairman Datuk
 Lee Hwa Beng said in the press today that he had a good team
 in both the boards of PKA and PKFZ to monitor the developments in the PKFZ issue.

He said: “We have representatives from the Ministry of Transport, Treasury, Economic Planning Unit (EPU), Malaysian Industrial Development Authority and also the Selangor government in both the boards (to monitor and study developments in the PKFZ and the problems affecting it).”

If the board members of PKA and PKFZ had always been such “good team”, then could how PKA’s accumulated healthy reserves of about RM500 million a decade ago could be so run down completely to the extent that the PKA is today technically insolvent as a result of the ballooning of the PKFZ from RM1.1 billion under Liong Sik in 2002 to RM4.6 billion under Kong Choy and now RM7.453 billion under Ong, and heading towards a grand total of RM12.453 billion rip-off?

The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) held two meetings in 2007, Sept. 6 and Sept. 25, on PKFZ and made various observations and recommendations. Can Ong list a full report of the actions that had been taken by the Transport Ministry, PKA and the Port Klang Free Zone Sdn. Bhd (PKFZSB) arising from the PAC report, or was the PAC investigations, observations and recommendations just a big waste of time and public funds as there was just no follow-up actions?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 June 2009, 11:50 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How Soon We Forget: Malaysia’s Ahistorical Politics

By
Farish A. Noor

How soon we forget. Malaysian politics is characterized by a curious form of ahistoricity and a willful neglect of history in general. The contribution of the diverse communities of Malaysia to the country’s nation-building process is often forgotten in the official narratives of the country, the role of women in our national history is seldom even mentioned.

Malaysian politicians and political parties are likewise blind to history, and even recent history at that. Which has prompted many of my students to ask me the same question: “How come people don’t seem to remember anything in this country, and how come alliances can be made one day and broken the day after?” Well that, dear students, is precisely what Malaysian politics is made up of: Pragmatism that is grounded on political ambitions rather than the empowerment and education of the people. Politics here seems to be more directed towards the acquisition of political power for politicians than the political empowerment of the public; for the latter means having to educate the public, and to remind them of their history as well.

Now that all of Malaysia is abuzz with talk about the impending collapse of the Pakatan Rakyat and the moves to bring the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS closer to UMNO, let us revisit the history of these two parties for a while…

PAS, it should be remembered, began as a splinter party of UMNO when the Dewan Ulama of UMNO left the party in the wake of the Nadrah/Mariah Hertog debacle in the early 1950s. PAS’s founder-leaders, who included men like Dr Abbas Elias accused UMNO of not doing enough to defend the status of Islamic law and Muslim converts against the whims of the British colonial authorities then. From 1951 to 1969 PAS was led by men like Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy and Dr Zulkiflee Muhammad who took the party down the path of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism; supported numerous workers movements and liberation movements across the Third World and aligned themselves with progressive Islamist forces in Indonesia and further abroad.

UMNO in turn dubbed PAS a left-leaning Islamist party, and even referred to it as the ‘Red-Green menace’ that was in cohorts with the banned Malayan Communist Party MCP.

The war of words between UMNO and PAS continued up to the 1980s, with both sides accusing each other of being un-Islamic and even anti-Islamic at times. In the mid-1980s PAS leader Hadi Awang issued the famous ‘declaration of Hadi Awang’ that accused UMNO of being a kafir party led by impostors and hypocrites. UMNO in turn branded PAS a party of religious extremists, militants and fanatics, and this battle of words culminated in the killings that took place in the village of Memali in 1985. Since then scores of PAS leaders have been detained under the ISA and numerous security operations such as Operasi Kenari were used to arrest and detain members and leaders of the party.

Up to the 1990s PAS did not relent in its attacks on UMNO, labeling them a westernized, liberal, Eurocentric party that was serving the interests of the West and even the Zionist lobby. UMNO leaders have likewise continued to repeat the same stereotypical allegations against PAS, labeling them extremists and militants.

With such a nasty past behind them, why are some members of both parties indulging in this public display of apparent goodwill and talking about engagement and co-operation? Talk of such co-operation beggars belief, considering the fact that both sides have been bitterly opposed to each other before. Furthermore, if PAS and UMNO wish to work together now, does this mean that they have to revise their earlier estimations of each other?

Is UMNO now prepared to work with the very same party that it once denounced as being a party of extremist fanatics? And is PAS now prepared to work with the same party it once denounced as being a party of secular liberal Godless and Westernised materialists? Or are we – the Malaysian public – meant to believe that all that bile and venom was just shadow-play, some elaborate wayang kulit that was for our sordid entertainment that was in the end just a waste of time?

Whatever the outcome of the current round of PAS-UMNO talks, all this proves that Malaysians don’t know much of their own history and that our politicians are the most ahistorical of the lot. For the sake of short-term political gains, some of our politicians seem to think that the politics of pragmatic compromise and sell-out is the best way to secure a seat in Parliament, or better still a cabinet posting.

All in all, it only confirms the view that ours is a nation without a historical map and compass, and that we have been constantly played with and toyed with by those who claim to represent us. Forget the political education and empowerment of the Malaysian public; our national political culture today seems to be more one of backroom deals, hop-overs and cross-overs, pragmatism for short-term sweeteners and frills. And we, the Malaysian public, are all the poorer as a result.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 June 2009, 7:28 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
PAS
,
Politics
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ scandal – When will Ong Tee Keat make public apology for misleading Parliament and nation in past 14 months denying that Liong Sik/Kong Choy had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support

My three questions (No.34 to No. 36 on the 12th day in the current series)  to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal today are:

1.	Since becoming Transport Minister, Ong had misled Parliament and the nation in denying that his two predecessors as Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Snd. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor – to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market.

The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval.

The first Letter of Support was issued by Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister. The other three “Letters of Support” were issued by Kong Choy on 23rd April 2004, 8th December 2005 and 23rd May 2006 all of which stated  that ““the MOT (Ministry of Transport) shall at all times in the future ensure that PKA is in the position to meet (and do meet on a full and timely basis) their liabilities in respect of the Repayment Amount for so long as an amount in respect of the Repayment Amount remains outstanding”.

In recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” issued by Liong Sik and Kong Choy as Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in July 2007  to give retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

When  will Ong admit that he had misled Parliament and the nation in denying that Liong Sik  and Kong Choy had unlawfully issued the four Letters of Support resulting in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ burden to the Malaysian nation and people and tender a public apology for his Ministerial misconduct in the past 14 months?

2.	What action Ong proposes to take against both Liong Sik and Kong Choy as well as government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support”, resulting in the RM12.billion PKFZ burden to the people and  nation?

3.	Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung yesterday launched the Audit and Assurance Standards Board and Ethics Standards Board at the Securities Commission yesterday.

He said “honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability” are key words in good corporate governance and hoped that the implementation of the two boards “will reinforce ongoing efforts by MIA (Malaysian Institute of Accountants) to meet stakeholders’ stringent expectations of audit quality and ethical behaviour among financial professionals”.

Doesn’t Ong find it sickening to hear such hypocritical spoutings when Chor has yet to give a full accounting of his Chairmanship of Port Klang Authority from April 2007 to March 2008,which saw the worsening of the PKFZ into a RM4.6 billion scandal, more than four times the original cost of RM1.1 billion and now set to become a RM12.5 billion monster scandal.

Why is Ong not asking Chor to resign as Deputy Finance Minister unless Chor can give proper accountability of his chairmanship of the PKA with regard to the PKFZ scandal?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 June 2009, 12:01 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.