At crossroads – MCA or Chinese community?

By
Stanley Koh
 | February 17, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

Some equate truth and falsehood to water separating from oil. The Chinese proverb “shi zhen nan jia, shi jia nan zhen” means if it is the truth, it is impossible to falsify and likewise, equally difficult to make a truth out of falsehood.

This in mind, if MCA is at the crossroads, does it also mean that the Chinese community is facing the same predicament?

The symbolic relationship between MCA and the Chinese community is akin to fish to water and is destined to become irrelevant as more and more conscientious Chinese Malaysians abandon the party at the crossroads.

In the 2008 electoral tsunami, some 3.7 million Malaysians voted against the Barisan Nasional (BN) component parties of which the opposition DAP garnered more than one million votes against MCA’s 840,000 votes despite having a membership population of 1.3 million.

It was even more humiliating that DAP won many of the 25 parliamentary out of 40 seats contested by MCA.

“MCA never enjoyed the support of the Chinese-dominated constituencies in the past and this is not peculiar in the 12th general election,” outlined its 2008 general election’s confidential post-mortem report.

The report also outlined numerous major weaknesses of the party and blamed Umno for its poor electoral showing.

The party also admitted that its accusation of DAP being an apologist for PAS’s Islamic state was not effective because PAS remained silent.

“To worsen the 2008 electoral scenario, MCA was silent when former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad stated that Malaysia was an Islamic state,” the report added.

Umno to blame

In a candid admission of weaknesses, the party’s post-mortem report apportioned much of its blame to Umno for its arrogance, corruption and cronyism, excessive abuse of power, lack of transparency, interference in the judiciary, failure to control inflation and rising prices.

The rakyat’s repressed and postponed anger against the BN was clearly acted upon at the ballot boxes.

Despite the party’s great dissatisfaction against Umno-BN over its massive losses, the MCA leadership concluded that “at this point of time, the MCA’s leadership has made the decision to remain in the BN”.

Given this appalling background and the current prevailing political landscape, it is not surprising the predicament facing MCA since the 2008 electoral tsunami.

MCA has stayed on the crossroads.

Nothing much has changed despite multi-million ringgit sloganeering, repackaging and rhetoric on transformation.

Political mind-sets of the ruling regime and many decades-old issues confronting the various communities remain unchanged or outstanding like sore thumbs in a row.

“I don’t see any change in the political scenario of the country in 10 years’ time. Politics in the country would continue to be very racial, and race-based parties will continue to thrive in Malaysia,” Dr Chua Soi Lek had remarked in 2005.

His words displayed his short-sighted vision in response to a question asking him the directions of MCA in the years ahead.

Chua’s leadership in MCA will continue to compromise with trade-offs with Umno to get the crumbs and little benefits for the community in the long term, while he holds onto a thin thread to his party’s power throne.

Should Chua step down?

Chua has achieved little to prove to the Malaysian voters at large that the party is serious in political and institutional reforms.

It has been “business as usual” in his performance as party president, repeating the same mendacity and dirty tricks of his predecessors.

Accused of being a peddler of false hopes by his opponents within the party, Chua runs and controls the party machinery with no promises of real transformation.

“The only strategic move he has made was ‘money politics’ – distributing money to party veterans and spouses with new births,” claimed a party insider.

In which case should Chua step down to pave the way for a new collective leadership to lead the MCA towards the general election? Will this drastic move then improve the image or the chances of the party’s performance at the next general election?

Tragically, the chances of an improved perception from the Chinese community on the party’s image has been largely discouraging.

“Political image is like mixing cement. When it is wet, you can move it around and shape it, but at some point it hardens and there is almost nothing you can do to re-shape it.’

These words spoken by former American vice-president Mondale Walter best described the predicament facing Chua in removing the hardened negative perceptions from the general Malaysian public towards the 62-year-old party.

Politically reincarnated, Chua is no longer bothered with his personal image tarnished by his controversial sexual escapade in 2008.

He is also largely ignoring the tainted past of his party’s history ridden with a series of leadership power struggle since the early 70s.

Chua failed to lead

Rather than hobbling into the political sunset, Chua is engaging tactical gimmicks, strategic manoeuvres, offensive approach and even perverted logic in his public persuasion to re-capture public voting support.

Hence, not surprisingly, his latest orchestration of a “Chinese soap opera” in the form of a public debate on Feb 18 is seen as a final desperate move to confront DAP, its chief rival nemesis, following weeks of publicity attacks against PAS on the hudud issue.

After weeks of firing blank shots at PAS with the hidden agenda to undermine DAP’s partnership within Pakatan Rakyat, Chua harbours hopes of a divine wind to arrest the steep decline of his party’s unpopularity and boost greater confidence within the party.

With speculations of general election around the corner, the MCA leadership is frantically exerting efforts to reclaim legitimate representation of the Chinese community.

It is a season for theatrical politics. But there is a thin line between politics and theatrics.

“To do well in the next general election, we have to overcome the negative perception of the Chinese towards MCA,” Chua told delegates at the 57th party general assembly in 2010.

Chua promised to check policies against corruption and kickbacks. He pledged the party would not be a blind follower to BN’s unfair practices, wrong-doings and the NEP’s implementation weaknesses.

But the sad fact is that, Chua’s effort is hampered by his own current leadership behaviour characterised by his own party’s old politics of misrepresentation and distortion on issues of the day relating to human rights, electoral reforms, corruption and financial mismanagement of the nation’s resources.

Chua’s election to the party top leadership has been nothing more than another failed leader, continuously playing an active patronage role in support of Umno’s anaemic politics of race supremacy against a political background of Umnoputra sectarian elitist rule.

Instead of fulfilling his promises and aspirations made during his presidency contest in 2010, Chua is just muddling through a bewildering display of barking at the opposition coalition and political gamesmanship to control his power-base within the party.

Chua fooling the public

Since he ousted his rival predecessor Ong Tee Keat prematurely from serving a full term as party president, Chua’s leadership performance has been eye-gouging, to say the least.

His greatest asset has been grooming his son, Tee Yong, to a political climb and his greatest liability remains his sex scandal in 2008.

His hollow rhetoric to complaints about government policies is often tinged with sarcasm and arrogance while constantly heaping praises upon his political master, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, for the latter’s commitment to fairness and justice which benefited the Chinese community.

The glaring hypocrisy of his public statements against the grain of truth and lack of moral justification seems to justify that only twisted information exists in the cyber world.

Forbidding his members and leaders from participating in rallies to uphold human rights and electoral reforms are wrong but participating in Perkasa’s activities is perfectly allowable.

Pulling wool over the public eyes, Chua is probably hoping the public has amnesia over longstanding, unresolved promises made by his party.

Erosion of non-Bumiputera rights and meagre economic benefits have rendered today’s Chinese community to be grossly under-represented in equity-stake ownerships in almost all the strategic economic sectors of banking, technology, utilities and infrastructure, lopsided racial composition in the civil service, armed forces.

Notwithstanding the fact that his party leadership has lost forever some of the important Cabinet portfolios which MCA leaders have held in the 1960s.

Instead, this pathetic party leadership is grateful for the occasional financial allocations to Chinese schools and new villages.

‘MCA must work for all’

MCA has failed to take cognizance of the fact that the Malaysian mind-sets are moving away from political patronage vis-à-vis the BN system of promoting discrimination or divisive race-based policies in governance.

“The idea of MCA is not only to put into practice the process on Malayanising and making the Chinese in this country patriotic and loyal to this land but its basic aim is (also) to kill communalism, not to foster it,” said MCA founding father Tun Tan Cheng Lock when addressing the Malacca Chinese Chamber of Commerce in 1952.

“The MCA must work for all and be broadminded. Its motto is ‘not for Chinese only’ but for all Malayans,” Cheng Lock emphasised, with a vision for the party to de-communalise racial politics decades ahead of his time.

Party delegates and critics alike are beginning to realise that Chua’s greatest achievement has been grooming his son, Chua Tee Yong, to a higher political climb and appointing him to key portfolios including taking charge of managing the party’s billion-ringgit assets.

Chua’s spinners might speak of his great achievements in various community projects since he helmed the party’s presidency, but all his oratory of uplifting, transformation and party unity has made no difference in changing the air.

__

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

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 February 2012, 11:44 am and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP: Gov’t manipulated laws to legitimise debt

Malaysiakini

Feb 17, 2012

DAP has blamed the country’s rising debt level to the ruling BN having raised the statutory borrowing ceiling “multiple times” to legitimise the debt.

DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua slammed the government for modifying the ceiling “at its whims and fancies over the past decade, rendering meaningless the legal debt ceiling”.

Therefore, he said, the government’s debt at 53.8 percent of GDP as reported in the Economic Report 2011/2 is below the statutory borrowing ceiling of 55 percent, is purely the result of the government’s “creative manipulation”.

“What is worrying is the fact that the ‘statutory borrowing ceiling’ has actually been raised multiple times by the BN government over the past decade to ‘legalise’ the federal government debt level which has been increasing at a much faster pace than our GDP.

 The 55 percent statutory borrowing ceiling only came into effect in July 2009 by order of current second finance minister Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah.

“Prior to the revised limit, the limit was set at 45 percent  in June 2008, barely 13 months before by the then second finance minister Nor Md Yakcop,” said Pua in a statement today.

He added that the limit was raised to 40 percent five years before that, by then second  minister finance minister Jamaluddin Jarjis.

“Hence our statutory borrowing ceiling has been raised by 15 percent of our GDP in just six years.

“The question is if the ceiling is repeatedly raised with such nonchalance, why did the government bother setting a limit at all?” said Pua, who is also PJ Utara MP.

More creative accounting?

Pua then questioned whether the government will again raise the ceiling as our debt level is expected to scale up beyond 55 percent over the next two years.

Yesterday, citing the government’s Economic Report 2011-2012 published last year, Pua pointed out that federal government debt will hit RM455.7 billion as at the end of 2011 or 65.2 percent of our GDP, well above the current limit.

Besides  shifting the goal posts, Pua also noticed that the government is using other ‘creative measures’ to by-pass the limit set by law.

One of the glaring examples is the first phase of Klang Valley MRT mega-project which costs around RM20 billion.

Pua pointed out that since the MRT project was never debated in the Budget 2012 tabled in Parliament for approval last year, it is clear that the funding will be raised by a wholly-owned ‘special purpose vehicle’ (SPV) known as Dana Infra, and guaranteed by the government.

“This way, the BN federal government kills two birds with one stone.

“Firstly, the debt raised will not be part of the federal government debt because Dana Infra is ‘not’ federal government and hence will not be perceived to jeopardise our credit standings.

“This is despite the fact that all parties are expecting MRT to be a financially loss-making project and that the federal government will have to fund Dana Infra’s debt repayments at some point in the future,” he explained.

Where’s the transparency?

Other examples are the construction of 74 police headquarters with government-guaranteed RM10 billion debt by Ministry of Finance-owned Pembinaan BLT Sdn Bhd, and the proposed RM20 billion sukuk plan by Pengurusan Aset Air Bhd (PAAB) to restructure the country’s water assets.

“Governments all over the world, especially in developed countries like the UK and Germany, are now changing their laws to require such debts and contingent liabilities to be incorporated into the government’s financial statement to ensure greater transparency and financial accountability.

“This is to avert a financial crisis which has already enveloped the Euro-zone over  the past two years.

“However, it appears that the Malaysian government is still sitting back and resting easy, while making full use of the ‘loop-hole’ in our government financial reporting standards to continue to recklessly indebt future Malaysians with none of the checks put in place,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 February 2012, 1:20 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Finance
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nasib masa depan Shahrizat adalah ‘prerogative’ PM, kata Najib

Oleh
Aspan Alias
 | February 16, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

16 FEB — “Masa depan politik Shahrizat bergantung kepada Perdana Menteri” kata PM Najib. Sesungguhnya itulah hakikatnya jika dipandang dari sudut jawatannya sebagai ahli jemaah kabinet negara. Sememangnya jawatan menteri itu adalah ‘prerogative’ Perdana Menteri seratus peratus. PM boleh melantik sesiapa sahaja dalam jamaah menteri, waimma melantik orang yang tidak berguna kepada negara dan rakyat.

Begitu juga dengan pemilihan sesiapa yang hendak dilantik sebagai senator yang dicadangkan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan. Itu juga adalah ‘prerogative’ Perdana Menteri. Oleh kerana ‘prerogative’ Perdana Menteri itulah maka kita lihat ramai menteri-menteri kabinet Najib itu ramai dikalangan mereka yang menjadi persoalan dan isu besar dalam politik negara pada hari ini.

Itulah sebabnya kita melihat ramai menteri-menteri yang masuk ke dalam jemaah menteri itu mengikut ‘pintu belakang’ kerana mereka telah ditolak oleh rakyat dalam pilihanraya yang lalu. Selalunya mereka ditolak oleh rakyat kerana bersebab. Tentulah penolakkan itu disebabkan kerana mereka tidak melepasi tahap kelayakan yang asas tetapi oleh kerana Perdana Menteri tidak menghormati pandangan rakyat, mereka ini dibawa juga ke dalam kabinet oleh Najib dan tentunya Najib mempunyai sebab yang tersendiri membawa yang ‘reject’ ini ke dalam jemaah menteri beliau.

Shahrizat telah ditolak oleh pengundi Lembah Pantai dalam pilihanraya dahulu. Begitu juga Koh Tsu Koon. Tetapi mereka masih dibawa ke dalam kabinet oleh Najib dan memegang jawatan yang tinggi-tinggi. Idris Jala tidak pernah pun menjadi ahli kepada mana-mana parti dan tidak pun tahu rupa borang pencalonan pilihanraya. Raja Nong Cik pun begitu dan beliau kini menjadi Menteri bertanggungjawab terhadap Wilayah Persekutuan. Ramai lagi ahli-ahli parlimen yang dipilih rakyat tetapi mereka hanya diarah untuk menjadi pak turut sahaja.

Shahrizat yang telah didesak oleh rakan dalam partinya sendiri untuk berundur berkata yang beliau tidak akan meletakkan jawatan, Beliau berkata beliau mempunyai 1.3 juta ahli wanita Umno dibelakangnya. Saya tidak tahu kenapa dibabitkan ahli-ahli wanita Umno bila berhadapan dengan skandal wang yang sangat besar oleh keluarganya. Tetapi ramai juga ahli-ahli wanita Umno yang tidak bersetuju Shahrizat kekal dalam jawatannya kerana ia sudah pasti menjejaskan nama baik Umno khususnya wanita.

Tetapi oleh kerana itu adalah ‘prerogative’ Perdana Menteri maka Shahrizat kekal sehingga saat ini sebagai seorang menteri. Najib boleh memilih untuk mengekalkan Shahrizat atau meletakkan beliau ditepian politik perdana negara kita. Najib mempunyai hak untuk mengikut kehendak ramai atau menolak kehendak ramai dikalangan ahli-ahli dan pemimpin Umno sendiri.

Didalam Umno apabila seseorang itu sudah mendapat pangkat yang tinggi seperti menteri, kesalahan sebesar mana pun amat susah untuk dibuktikan kerana ‘prerogative’ Perdana Menteri tadi. Tetapi mata-mata yang menerima sogokan sebanyak RM200 sangat cepat dan mudah untuk diambil tindakan.

Kalau ditanya beberapa orang menteri yang ada sekarang ini semuanya mahukan supaya Nor Mohammed Yakcop dibersarakan kerana imej beliau yang tidak setaraf dengan jawatan yang beliau pegang. Setiausaha politik beliau ditangkap dengan jumlah wang yang besar dalam rumahnya di Pulau Pinang, tetapi Nor Mohammed Yakcop masih segar bugar dalam kabinet Najib kerana itu adalah ‘prerogative’ Perdana Menteri.

Justru itu kita telah melihat bukti kukuh yang ‘prerogative’ yang ada pada Perdana Menteri itu hanya diperguna untuk mengekalkan orang yang tidak lagi layak untuk diletakkan dimana-mana. Oleh kerana terlalu ramai pemimpin ‘reject’ dalam pentadbiran kita, maka keseluruhan parti itu juga sudah menjadi parti ‘reject’.

Oleh kerana parti itu sudah menjadi parti ‘reject’ maka pimpinan menggunakan wang ringgit untuk membeli perasaan rakyat dalam kita menghampiri pilihanraya kali ini. Maka beraturlah rakyat lima enam jam untuk mendapatkan jumlah wang sebanyak RM500 kerana kesuntukan dalam kehidupan dan di antaranya yang teramai beratur itu adalah kaum parti pemerintah itu sendiri iaitu Melayu.

Sebegitu lama kita merdeka rakyat masih dibeli dengan wang secebis itu untuk meneruskan kuasa yang mereka sedang pegang dengan penuh keenakan itu. Dalam pada itu beretoriklah pimpinan kita kononnya akan membawa negara kepada negara berpendapatan tinggi menjelang tahun 2015.

Saya tidak nampak bagaimana ia akan dicapai bila rakyat masih diarak untuk beratur untuk mendapatkan RM500 itu. Ini kah dia salah satu cara untuk meningkatkan pendapatan rakyat sehingga USD15,000 setahun seperti yang dijanjikan oleh pentadbiran Najib kepada rakyat?

Dari RM500 jika nak sampaikan kepada pendapatan tahunan sebanyak US15,000 setahun itu, amat jauh untuk dicapai. Tidak tahu lah samada tahun 2015 itu merupakan ‘target’ yang tepat untuk mencapainya. Tetapi kalau ‘target’ itu pada tahun 3015 mungkin matlamat itu akan tercapai.

Tetapi bagi segelintir yang dalam kuasa serta kroni-kroninya, usahkan US15,000 setahun, malahan USD berbillion-billion pun boleh dicapai. Maklum sajalah mereka akan terus bermaharajalela dalam kuasa kerana Perdana Menteri menggunakan ‘prerogative’ beliau untuk mengekalkan mereka yang tidak semenggah ini dalam barisan pimpinan yang tamak haloba tanpa batas itu.

Selagi PM menggunakan ‘prerogative’ beliau untuk mengekalkan pimpinan yang tidak semenggah ini dari menggunakan ‘prerogative’ beliau untuk mengeluarkan mereka dari barisan kabinet negara, selagi itulah kita tidak dapat memperbaiki keadaan yang kita semua hadapi.

Maka kali ini kita mengharapkan rakyat pula untuk menggunakan ‘prerogative’ mereka untuk melakukan pertukaran yang amat diperlukan oleh rakyat kini. —
aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 February 2012, 11:41 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Of regime change and democracy in Malaysia

By
Dr Mustafa K Anuar
, Aliran Hon Secretary

16 February 2012

Aliran is troubled by the ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s recent prediction in warning Prime Minister Najib Razak that Israel and the United States were “conspiring to cause a regime change in Malaysia through ‘a puppet government’ to be led by Anwar (Ibrahim)”.

This political ‘forecast’ has serious implications and repercussions for the country. If there is any grain of truth to this international conspiracy, then our sovereignty, and political independence and security would indeed be in jeopardy.

The gravity and severity of this matter, therefore, demand that Mahathir presents incontrovertible evidence to support his allegation. This will enable Malaysia to safeguard itself and remain as an independent nation in the world community, without fear that it would be transformed into a “client state” of the US or any other world powers for that matter.

Mahathir’s honest response would enable Malaysians, particularly their leaders, to take the necessary steps available in order to safeguard the country’s independence and sovereignty.

Mahathir’s allegation has implications for those voting in the forthcoming general election. They need to make an informed choice based on all available information, including his allegation, so that they can vote into power a group of politicians who really have the interests and concerns of the people and the nation close to their hearts. When such information is available, it would prevent them from voting in political leaders who would eventually colonise their minds and shackle their freedom of expression, assembly and association.

But if the former prime minister fails to convince ordinary Malaysians – with evidence – of this supposedly impending political catastrophe, then his cautionary call can only be interpreted as a desperate attempt to derail the democratic process of Malaysian citizens to vote for any political party of their preference, and for a meaningful change in their collective life.

Worse, it can also be seen as a calculated and mischievous attempt to equate the federal opposition with things that are evil. In short, to demonise the Pakatan Rakyat alliance – the members of which are legal entities – with baseless allegation is a despicable act that must be condemned without reservation.

We call upon Mahathir in all fairness to furnish Malaysians with some evidence pertaining to this serious matter. Otherwise, his prediction is as reliable as crystal ball-gazing.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 February 2012, 11:39 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


That Saturday with the Oracle (Part 2)

By
Sakmongkol AK47
 | February 16, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

FEB 16 — I think one commentator misread my article “Another Saturday with The Oracle”. He accused me of underestimating Bangsar Bala. I know Mr Bala personally and am aware of his capabilities as a political operative.

The sting of my short mention of Bangsar Bala isn’t Bala, but Raja Nong Chik.

He doesn’t fraternise with people like Bala and, when given casual assurance that the Indians are back with BN, is easily over enthused. His exuberance leads him to generalise on the thinking of Malaysian Indians. Anecdotal evidence on the other hand indicates that Malaysian Indians are not for BN. But let the illusion permeate the BN camp.

If Raja Nong Chik contests in Lembah Pantai, that will be his Waterloo. At the function he was asked some sharp questions and was clearly agitated in his response. Many people who know the lean Raja Ning Chik are aware of his short fuse.

Anyway, I now want to continue the conversation I had with the Oracle. Yes, there is another part. I am amused also at the commentator who asked me a technical question of whether it’s how do you know? I asked OR how do you know, I asked? Being technical in the linguistic sense isn’t my priority at the moment. I am more focused on presenting the message. I don’t know. It’s how you read it. Imagine it to be a conversation.

As I said, it was a free range conversation. I asked the Oracle, how is the health of Umno really? In his opinion, it’s a 50:50 possibility. It’s touch and go for both sides. If the BN performs worse in this outing than what it got in 2008, Najib will be out. How? The Umno people will not forgive him for failing to resuscitate Umno.

But isn’t he doing very well? He’s going around Santa Clausing, giving money like water? He is Ajib Gor on Facebook and he tweets. He goes on his walkabouts pressing palms, kissing babies, engaging in small talk and sweet nothings?

He is working on the script written by his phalanx of advisers. Nothing more. This isn’t the US style presidential elections. Once, he was speaking at Oxford with students. He was asked some questions and he couldn’t answer, because it wasn’t in the script.

What does that tell you? Most of the time, Najib is playacting. He and Anwar are cut from the same cloth.

So is Anwar better than Najib?

Anwar isn’t that bright either. He is the great communicator and functions supremely well in bringing crowds. That’s his forte and in elections, crowds do matter. But in substance Anwar is short. He makes up the deficiency however by having good people around him. These are committed and are politically sharp. People like Rafizi and Nik Nazmi are intelligent people. There are others too.

What about the advisers around Najib?

They give good working papers without the political smarts. Najib fails to apply political experience to the papers given to him.

The bigger problem with Umno is that it doesn’t have leaders now. Najib isn’t made in the mould of Dr Mahathir. Mahathir is not always right but he makes firm decisions. People, especially Malays, need that form of leadership. Najib is ….every day is shuffling.

What about the money?

You know, the age where everything is solved by giving money is over. People take the money but without the reciprocal assurance you get their votes. What do people want now?

People are asking where are you taking this country to. You must engage the people as thinking human beings nowadays. They don’t take kindly to being treated as digits. So many numbers receiving BR1M. So many receiving RM200.

Talking about leadership, what about Shahrizat?

You know, this NFC thing is only the tip of the iceberg. Sooner or later more dirt is coming out. It’s imbecilic to assert that a grant or loan given for specific purpose can be freely applied by the recipient as he or she wishes. But the bigger question is, when spending that are out of the terms of reference were made, how come auditors didn’t censure them? Where were the internal controls?

So what is the politically-correct thing for Shahrizat to do?

She must take the high moral ground and offer her departure. Otherwise, Umno will also depart. —
sakmongkol.blogspot.com

*
Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 February 2012, 11:07 am and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The story of a prime minister

By
Zairil Khir Johari
 | February 17, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

FEB 17 — This is the story of a man who became prime minister not very long ago.

This man had not, however, been elected into the premiership, and consequently never earned his own governing mandate. He had succeeded into the job when his predecessor was forced to resign under internal pressure. While the coup was not entirely of his own orchestration, this prime minister had played an important albeit implicit role in facilitating it.

His predecessor is an altogether different story. Initially elected with much fanfare by a buoyant nation on a platform of hope and change after years of rule by an authoritarian and right-of-centre leadership, his premiership had by its tail-end been reduced to a lethargic disappointment.

Though heavily criticised and the subject of mass ridicule, he was still able to pull through with a mediocre win at the general election. Remaining defiant, he announced that he would fulfil the mandate of the people and see through his term as prime minister.

However, his own party members had other plans. Disenchanted with his leadership, the internal politicking began. New pacts were formed, loyalties shifted and deals were cut. Attention now turned to our protagonist, the then-deputy prime minister, a man long known for his loyalty and methodical methods.

Convinced that the gamble would pay off, he began to make his moves. Though his actions were not overt, the die was cast and the message was clear. In the end, faced with open revolt and under immense pressure, the incumbent prime minister had no choice but to announce that he would step aside within a year. Even that was too long and before the year was up, his premiership had crumbled to an abrupt end.

Expectations were high for the new prime minister. In an elaborate campaign to both distinguish himself from his predecessor and spruce up his public image, he took on the mantle of a statesman with vision for leadership and change.

This led to a popularity high and favourable approval ratings. Soon, the opportunity for snap polls presented itself. With the benefits of a honeymoon period still lingering, it would have been the perfect time to call it. Yet an indecisive itch overcame him and he decided against it at the last minute. Instead, he thought it best to wait for a better opportunity.

In hindsight, that was perhaps his biggest mistake.

As days went by, the public began to realise that a man who has been a part of the system for so long is really incapable of change. His promises of a better future began to ring hollow amidst growing economic uncertainty.

The longer he was into his administration, the more problems unravelled. Financial irregularities and scandals involving his party members made dimmer and dimmer the prospect of a desirable moment for a general election.

Yet the prime minister kept waiting and waiting, until by the time he knew it, his government’s term of office was up. In the end, what was supposed to have been snap polls that would have leveraged upon his then-popularity and caught his opponents by surprise had become an exercise that was easily predicted by all and sundry.

Having rigorously prepared for so long, the hungry opposition wasted no time in pouncing aggressively. Without the element of surprise, the prime minister had lost the upper hand and soon found himself on the defensive. Election Day came and the nation delivered its result. Though not very conclusive, it was certainly very clear about one thing: the people had rejected the prime minister.

After a short period of denial and desperate attempts at forming a coalition, the prime minister had little choice but to accept his fate. Indecisiveness, poor decision-making and the inability to carry out necessary reforms are traits that will characterise his legacy as a short-lived prime minister who had never won his own mandate.

This is the story of the former British prime minister, Gordon Brown.

Zairil Khir Johari is a chocolate purveyor, chicken rice enthusiast and noodle lover. When he’s not preoccupied with any of the above, he is also a politician.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 February 2012, 11:29 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
,
Zairil Khir Johari
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Open letter to Chua Soi Lek

— Tota

Malaysian Insider

Feb 17, 2012

FEB 17 — Soi Lek, hold your silence, apologise to the Chinese Malaysian community and repent.

You always claim that the MCA is the defender of “Chinese rights” and that the party has done a great deal for the community. Your party’s record shows otherwise. The MCA has been in the Alliance/BN since independence, but politically and economically the position of Chinese Malaysians has nose-dived because the MCA representatives in the Cabinet and state governments have behaved like political eunuchs. Their behaviour shows how successfully emasculated the MCA is.

After independence, Umno has successfully colonised the country and MCA has aided and abetted in this by sticking with Umno in spite of this. Currently, the MCA is helping Umno in oppressing people, creating fear among the people and destroying national unity. We are worse off now than under the British. The British allowed Umno to demonstrate against the Malayan Union. They did not fire tear gas or chemical-laced water through cannons at the demonstrators. Under the British, we had local council elections. Now Umno, aided by the MCA, is denying us this basic right.

What were the Cabinet positions the MCA held in the Tunku government and what are the Cabinet positions the MCA holds now? You often talk about the Social Contract. The Reid Commission is the Social Contract and some unwritten gentlemen’s agreements. The MCA aided and abetted Umno in shredding that Constitution, thus destroying the Social Contract.

As to the gentlemen’s agreements, one example was the governorship/CM arrangement for Malacca — if the governor was non-Malay, the CM’s post was to be held by a Malay and vice versa. Tunku appointed an ethnic Chinese as governor and he was the first and last. Now Umno cronies hold both positions.

The MCA supported every amendment to the Constitution, thus nullifying the most sacrosanct provision to keep Malaysia a democratic, progressive secular state. The ISA, the OSA, the Sedition Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, and the Universities and University Colleges Act took away civil rights and liberties and violated human rights.

The MCA supported Umno when the constitutional provision of 1:2 rural/urban weightage in delineating constituencies was amended, thus creating a lop-sided electoral system in which Barisan could win less than 50 per cent of the popular vote but still grab 80 per cent of the seats at state and federal levels. Most Chinese Malaysians are urban dwellers and their vote is perhaps less than 1/20 of the rural vote.

For example, Putrajaya has fewer than 7,000 registered voters but Lim Kit Siang’s constituency of Ipoh Timur has more than 76,000 while Kapar in Selangor has 112,000. And yet you proclaim together with Umno that our elections are free and fair.

The MCA supported Umno in suspending local council elections in the 1960s when an emergency was declared. Urban Chinese Malaysian dwellers are deprived of their constitutional right to elect their local government representatives. An MCA goon is on record as having said that local council elections cannot be held because rural people cannot participate! The 1957 Constitution provided for a 2:1 Malay/non-Malay ratio in the civil service. The MCA supported Umno in amending that constitutional provision, thus creating an almost ethnic Malay domination of the civil service.

The MCA supported Mahathir Mohamad, a real half-past six PM, when the Constitution was amended to set up syariah courts. This half-past six leader was later to say that he was lucky to get away with that amendment. The MCA Cabinet ministers behaved once again like political eunuchs. Look at the problems this has created for non-Muslims in conversion cases.

Soi Lek, have you heard of the Lina Joy case? Now some religious lunatics are claiming that the civil courts are subordinate to the syariah courts! Why have you not had the courage to condemn such claims? Where in the world is the federal constitution subordinate to state enactments as in Malaysia?

The MCA supported the NEP, which was successfully hijacked by the Umnoputras. Through Ali-Baba businesses, as argued by many scholars, Malaysian companies, GLCs and many others have caused a horrendous capital outflow at the expense of people’s welfare and a just distribution of economic wealth to the rakyat.

Umno has assigned you a job — to attack hudud law and frighten the Chinese into believing that hudud law would be implemented if Pakatan Rakyat came into power and that there would be a PAS PM in such an eventuality. Your statements on hudud law are indeed sacrilegious but it is okay with Umno!

You often talk about power-sharing in the government. If it were so, what was the necessity for MCA Cabinet ministers, together with other non-Malay ministers, to send a memorandum to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi? When Umno took offence, the MCA ministers ran for cover and then went on bended knee, apologising profusely and begging for forgiveness! So much for power-sharing in BN. Lim Keng Yaik once said that “the coalition partners were beggars”. This is the truth. So, Soi Lek, do not kid yourself.

Very often, important government policy decisions have been announced at Umno supreme council meetings. Isn’t it true that what the Umno supreme council decides, the Cabinet approves and Parliament rubber stamps?

You claim to fight for “Chinese rights”. Very often, you say that the government must build more Chinese schools and train more Chinese teachers. This is ridiculous! What is the ethnic Chinese representation in the civil service, the police, the army, navy and air force, the diplomatic corps and the judiciary? You have settled for tokenism in all areas of national life.

The deputy minister of education is from the MCA. I consider him as dead as a dodo in his job. What was he doing when the Islamo-fascists wrote the school history textbooks which contain so many irregularities? The Education Ministry is the most racist ministry of all. There are no non-Malay directors in any of its various divisions. There are no non-Malay chief education officers in any state. There are 20 public universities and all V-Cs are Malays. There are four deputy V-Cs in each university. Out of 80 deputy V-Cs, one may find one or two non-Malays. Within each university, most of the deans are Malays. For example, at USM, the “apex university” there are 27 schools and only one dean is a non-Malay.

So, Soi Lek, your claim that if Chinese Malaysians vote for the MCA their position in the government will be strengthened is a black lie. For almost 50 long years, Chinese Malaysians had blindly given their vote to the MCA. With their support, the Alliance/BN maintained its two-thirds majority in Parliament. This majority has been misused to destroy the Constitution and all independent institutions and literally set up a police state. Even Mahathir has said so.

You have called upon the DAP to emulate the MCA. Of course, the DAP will not set up a multi-purpose company or deposit-taking institutions to cheat poor Chinese Malaysians of millions of their hard-earned money. When Lim Guan Eng set an example of a RM100 award in appreciation of senior citizens, he began a trend that was emulated by the MCA and other component parties. Good that the MCA is emulating DAP!

With regard to your forthcoming debate with LGE, you have already adopted a defeatist attitude by saying that he is young, strong and a better debater. You took a cheap shot in calling him a street fighter. Guan Eng has too much finesse and is too classy to disrespect you, given your track record.

When Shabery Cheek debated Anwar Ibrahim, the mainstream media hailed him as a great orator, but he was frothing at the mouth and appeared to have forgotten his handkerchief. I would advise you to bring a towel to the debate.

Good luck, Soi Lek. — aliran.com

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 February 2012, 12:39 am and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sabahans entitled to a clear and unequivocal answer why Najib has not announced the formation of RCI on illegal immigrants in Sabah

I am most disappointed that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has ended his two-day visit to Sabah without making  the widely-touted announcement on the formation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants in Sabah.

Sabahans and Malaysians have been given to understand that the Cabinet had approved the establishment of a RCI on illegal immigrants in Sabah and that Najib would be making the announcement during his Sabah visit this week.

Sabahans and Malaysians are entitled to know why Najib has failed “deliver” on this issue during his Sabah trip and whether the claim of certain Sabah Ministers  that the Cabinet had made a final decision on the establishment of a RCI on illegal immigrants in Sabah is mere “hot air” without any basis grounded on facts or whether this is another example of the Cabinet being subordinate and subservient to the dictates of UMNO hegemony?

For more than three decades, I have personally been raising the issue of illegal immigrants in Sabah, creating political, economic, social and security problems for Sabahans and making  them feel that they have become foreigners in their own homeland because they have been outnumbered by the unchecked influx of  illegal immigrants.

Immediately after the 2008 general elections, I had sought to move a motion in the first meeting of the new Parliament to fulfil the three-decade dream of Sabahans for a RCI on illegal immigrants but this effort  was thwarted by the refusal of Sabah Barisan Nasional MPs to support the RCI motion.

I had thought that at last there would be a RCI into illegal immigrants both in Sabah  and throughout  Malaysia but this has proved to be premature.

Sabahans are  entitled to a clear and unequivocal answer from Najib whether there is going to be a RCI on illegal immigrants in Sabah and Malaysia, its full term of reference, the composition and most important of all, the time line particularly on whether there would be time for the RCI not only to submit its report and recommendations but also for their implementation before the next general elections.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 February 2012, 3:30 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1 Care: Show us the mathematics

— John Teo

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 19, 2012

FEB 19 — 1 Care for 1 Malaysia sounds like a very good slogan but behind this impressive slogan and all the controversies, rhetoric, claims and counter claims lies a very big and fundamental question of where is the funding of such a massive overhaul of our healthcare system going to come from?

We know that the basic principle of part-government and part-public funding underlies this concept and the reason behind this shift of funding policy is the ever-escalating health costs which the government cannot continue to provide funding for indefinitely.

Let me quote two very important facts. 1) According to the 2012 Budget that was announced by our prime minister, the allocation for health totals RM1.8 billion, which is equivalent to 3.7 per cent of the total budget. There were other ministries that have higher budget, notable ones being the Ministry of Defence.

The World Health Organisation recommends that at least five to six per cent of a total budget be allocated to health. Many other countries allocate up to seven to eight per cent. Malaysia is way below that mark.

2) A recent quote by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Idris Jala, as published in The Star on February 19 is as follows “I am of the view that we must introduce the GST. We have 28 million people but only one million are paying tax.”

My questions to the ruling government are as follows. 1) Since Malaysia’s health allocation is still way below the WHO recommendations and that many other countries have much higher contributions, is it justifiable at this point to claim that we cannot continue to fund our healthcare system when many other countries are funding theirs at a much higher rate?

2) Even if this inability to fund the healthcare system is inevitable, wouldn’t it be prudent to cut costs first by running the system more efficiently, multitasking staff rather than having one staff for each and every task, preventing leakages and unnecessary wastage of medicine, resources etc and only finally if all this is done, then sources of other funding such as from the public are considered as any basic financial course will have taught us.

3) If only one million Malaysians are paying tax, how is it mathematically possible for the one million to support the healthcare bill of 28 million? How can the other 27 million contribute to the fund, when they are not even eligible to pay tax? Even if they are supposed to contribute to the fund, how much as total percentage will come from the 27 million? Inevitably, the government’s bill will still be substantially higher than what it is today considering that a big portion of this general fund will obviously go to the third party who will be tasked with running this massive system.

These are fundamental questions that need to be answered before such a scheme can even be considered in finer detail.

Healthcare is a human right and each and every government of this world is obliged to provide to its citizens the best of healthcare in the form that is most efficient, cost effective and acceptable to its citizens.

It is an integral principle in medicine that “First do no Harm” and each and every government is mandated to hold on to this principle where the provision of healthcare is a concern, for any wrong move may result in tragedies befalling families that will never heal.

I plead with the government concerned to not institute any massive steps without being very sure that the results will not harm its citizens and that if the proposal was from the heart then the results will always be good and if it is otherwise, then let the Person above judge our actions.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 11:21 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN Corruption – CSL’s public admission in debate with LGE

Tweets
@limkitsiang
:

1:19 AM – 19 Feb 12

MCA CSL said shocked allgtn 30% “rebate” demanded by Kedah PR ADUN from st govt allctn as they happen in BN! MCA confession BN corrupt!

1:32 AM – 19 Feb 12

Any MCA Minister/leader dare 2repudiate CSL’s confession tt BN corrupt in MP/ADUN constituency allocations?

1:44 AM – 19 Feb 12

If allegations 30% “rebate” agnst PR ADUN true, take action agnst them. But is CSL going 2lodge corruption reports agnst corrupt BN reps?

Comments on
Open letter to Chua Soi Lek

boh-liao on Sunday, 19 February 2012 – 1:01 am

Ha, ha, it’s interesting dat during d debate, CSL ADMITTED dat BN always MAKAN SUAP, JIAK LUI, ACCEPTS BRIBE “我以為这是国陣罷了哦”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13nXDvTn4_c&feature=related

Watch 1.29 to 1.31 不打自招 SELF-ADMISSION of CORRUPTION

boh-liao on Sunday, 19 February 2012 – 1:03 am

Yes, SELF-ADMISSION of CORRUPTION by CSL, live in front of d entire world

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 2:23 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Debat CSL vs LGE: MCA tunjukkan lagi sikap chauvinisnya

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 19, 2012

19 FEB — Perdebatan diantara Lim Guan Eng (LGE) dan Chua Soi Lek (CSL) semalam menampakkan sikap dan pandangan MCA dan Presidennya yang ‘flip-flop’. Pandangan Soi Lek jelas menunjukkan lidah bercabang-cabang diantara parti terbesar dalam BN, Umno dan MCA. Saya tidak tahu mengapa CSL memberanikan diri untuk berdebat dengan topik sistem dua parti atau sistem dua bangsa dengan Setiausaha Agong DAP itu. Dari awal lagi saya telah menelah yang MCA akan gagal untuk meyakinkan orang ramai yang parti itu adalah sebuah parti yang hampir hilang seluruh kerdibilitinya dimata rakyat ramai.

Kita boleh mempelajari beberapa perkara dalam perbahasan ini. Pertamanya ia menunjukkan yang MCA lah yang anti Islam dengan menjadikan perhubungan baik di antara PAS dan DAP sebagai isu besar dalam perdebatan itu. Bagi MCA, PAS itu adalah parti Islam dan kerjasama DAP dengan PAS itu hanya akan menjadikan DAP sebagai keldai politik PAS untuk kepentingan PAS dan Islamnya.

Dengan kenyataan CSL itu maka hilanglah isu DAP anti Melayu dan Islam itu kerana MCA menganggapnya sebagai satu perkara yang tidak sepatutnya berlaku. Bagi MCA ia mahukan DAP menolak PAS kerana PAS adalah parti Islam yang didominasi oleh orang Melayu Islam. MCA tidak selesa melihat kerjasama DAP dengan parti Islam ini dan ia menunjukkan yang anti Melayu dan anti Islam itu adalah MCA. MCA masih tidak menyedari yang isu rasis dan agama ini adalah isu yang tidak lagi laku kepada generasi sekarang ini.

Umno pula selalu menyatakan tentang isu ini bertentangan dengan pandangan MCA. Oleh kerana permainan politik yang dianggap tidak bijak Umno sebaliknya menuduh PAS diperguna oleh DAP pula. Ini menunjukkan yang parti-parti komponen dalam BN masih mahukan cara mengekalkan kuasa dengan memecah belahkan kerjasama yang terjalin diantara parti-parti dalam pakatan itu.

CSL menggunakan isu kerajaan Perak yang diketuai oleh seorang pemimpin PAS (Nizar) walaupun DAP telah memenangi 18 kerusi dalam pilihanraya yang lalu, sedangkan PAS dan PKR hanya memenangi 13 kerusi. CSL telah cuba membuktikan tuduhan beliau yang DAP diperguna oleh PAS sehinggakan calon PAS telah menjadi Menteri Besar Perak sedangkan majoriti kemenagan itu adalah dari pihak DAP. CSL lupa yang Umno mempunyai majoriti kerusi di Pulau Pinang semasa BN mentadbir negeri itu sedangkan Ketua Menterinya di wakili oleh parti Gerakan.

Dalam kes di Perak CSL mesti faham yang jawatan Menteri Besar mesti seorang Melayu sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Undang-Undang tubuh negeri itu maka itulah sebabnya Nizar Jamaludin telah dilantik menjadi Menteri Besar negeri itu sehinggalah BN melakukan rampasan kuasa mengikut pintu belakang dua tahun dahulu.

Dalam kes di Perak itu ia dapat membuktikan yang DAP menjunjung perlembagaan negara dan negeri dan sanggup merelakan seorang Melayu menjadi Menteri Besar walau pun parti itu memenangi kerusi yang lebih dari parti-parti lain dalam komponen PR itu. Oleh kerana itu Umno, BN dan orang Melayu keseluruhannya tidak ada sebab untuk merasa sangsi untuk memberikan sokongan kepada DAP dari sekarang ini.

Sesungguhnya tuduhan MCA dan Umno terhadap DAP yang bersalah-salahan itu hanya menunjukkan ketakutan MCA terhadap sokongan rakyat berbilang kaum terhadap DAP sekarang ini. Dengan kata-kata CSL semalam ia membuktikan yang MCA sudah terasa ‘desperate’ untuk mendapatkan sokongan rakyat terutamanya kaum Cina kepada parti itu walaupun CSL memainkan isu rasis yang begitu menebal dalam perbahasan itu. BN tidak dapat memberikan pendapat dan pandangan yang sama terhadap DAP; Umno menuduh DAP rasis dengan mengatakan parti itu memperkudakan PAS dan sebaliknya MCA pula menuduh DAP diperkudakan oleh PAS.

Parti-parti dalam BN begitu gelisah dengan sikap parti-parti dalam PR mampu untuk bertoleransi diantara satu dengan lain didalam gabungannya. Kesemua parti dalam PR adalah parti ‘multiracial’ yang menjadi cara yang terbaik untuk negara dalam zaman sekarang ini. MCA dan Umno amat resah jika politik rasis ditolak rakyat kerana dengan penolakkan isu-isu rasis ini ia akan menghilangkan ‘comfort zone’ BN yang selama ini kekal di atas isu perkauman yang menebal. Lagi berpecah rakyat dengan isu perkauman lagi mudah untuk BN mengekalkan kuasa.

Rakyat sudah mula merasakan nikmat hidup bertoleransi diantara rakyat yang berbilang kaum dan agama. Rakyat tidak mahu lagi diperkotak katikkan oleh politik yang berbau perkauman kerana mereka sedar yang akan menerima kebahgiaan atau celaka didalam hidup adalah mereka sendiri (rakyat) bukannya pemimpin-pemimpin yang sudah kaya raya seperti Qarun di zaman Firaun dahulu.

Jika kita dengar pandangan sempit dan chauvinis MCA ini kita akan kerugian terus terusan. Sikap bermuka-muka MCA sangat jelas kerana suatu masa yang tidak berapa lama dahulu MCA telah mengingatkan PAS yang DAP menentang hukum hudud dan PAS perlu berwaspada terhadap DAP. Tetapi semalam MCA telah menakutkan orang Cina supaya tidak menyokong DAP kerana PAS akan melaksanakan hukum hudud di Kelantan dan Kedah. Entah mana satu sikap sebenar MCA dan CSL. Sekejap begini sekejap begitu. Mungkin kita patut meminta CSL membuka mulutnya lebar-lebar bagi kita melihat apakah jenis lidah yang ada didalam mulutnya itu dan berapa cabang lidahnya.

Bagi DAP, parti ini sedang mendapat sokongan semua pihak setelah puluhan tahun bersusah payah berjuang dengan tohmahan dan momokan parti-parti yang berkuasa. DAP sangat ditakuti oleh banyak pihak kerana parti itu sedang menjadi parti yang sedang meningkat kepopularitinya di kalangan semua pihak. Adalah amat tidak bermoral bagi mana-mana pihak yang menganggap DAP sebagai chauvinis kerana yang chauvinis sebenarnya ialah BN; Umno dengan chauvinis Melayunya dan MCA dengan chauvinis cinanya.

Isu rasis tidak lagi mendapat tempat dihati rakyat yang ramai. MCA tidak akan berjaya untuk melabelkan DAP sebagai parti chauvinis kerana DAP sekarang sudah mula mendapat kepercayaan rakyat berbilang kaum. Dengan kemasukan ramai orang-orang Melayu didalamnya, ia amat menggerunkan MCA dan parti-parti dalam komponen BN. MCA tidak boleh disertai oleh orang Melayu kerana parti itu hanya untuk orang Cina. Itulah sebabnya MCA sedang berusaha keras untuk mendapat sokongan orang Cina yang rata-rata memberikan sokongan bukan sahaja kepada DAP, tetapi juga kepada PAS.

Jika rakyat menolak isu rasis untuk hidup aman dan damai dinegara kita ini maka semua parti-parti rasis dalam BN akan mati tegak dan tidak menjadi relevan lagi dalam jangka masa yang singkat ini.

Apa yang perlu dilakukan oleh DAP ialah untuk meneruskan pentadbiran kerajaan bersama dengan parti-parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat secara adil dan berjuang habis-habisan untuk mengecilkan atau menghapuskan ketirisan yang berlaku dalam pentadbiran BN selama ini.

Walaupun ia memakan sedikit masa untuk memberikan bukti tentang ketelusan pantadbiran PR, ia akhirnya akan disedari oleh rakyat jelata, empunya negara yang kita semua cintai ini. Tiada siapa yang bertanggungjawab kepada negara kita selain dari kita rakyat yang ramai ini. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 10:30 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
MCA
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Debate idea set to bloom

Terence Netto | Feb 19, 2012

Malaysiakini

COMMENT

The topic for the debate did not matter; in any case, it was too vague for the speakers to make much sense of it.

The moderator was not up to the task; in any case, allowing questions from antagonistic members of rival parties was an invitation to dishevelment.

Nevertheless, the speakers got off the hits they must have been honing all week; in any event, this was whole point of the exercise.

In sum, the principle of debate and of its utility between leaders of contending political parties came off well from the Dr Chua Soi Lek versus Lim Guan Eng televised clash yesterday.

Score one for the fledgling idea which may well come to be called the ‘Great Malaysian Electoral Debates’.

This series – it appears there may be a round two between Soi Lek and Guan Eng, this time in Bahasa Malaysia or English – could well be a worthy successor of the ‘Great Malaysian Economic Debate’.

The latter was at one time held every year in November or so, by the Economics Society of Universiti Malaya and hosted at the Dewan Tunku Chancellor.

Those debates pitted government ministers against opposition leaders and were moderated by university professors and featured questions from the floor.

They were not televised but were hugely attended, with any signs of flakiness among the invited speakers roundly booed by the largely student audience.

After the debates took a hit from Dr Mahathir Mohamad who, despite taking part in one edition in 1974 where he gave an impressive performance, went on to deride the series as neither great in stature nor economic in content, the annual affair was gradually discontinued and the principle of debate between leaders of contending political parties withered on the vine.

Pressure is on Najib

Now the drooping concept is being revived through the examples of Anwar Ibrahim’s match-up in 2008 with Shabery Cheek on live television on the topic of the price of oil, followed by Koh Tsu Koon’s head-to-head duel with Lim shortly after, and the recent joust between Khairy Jamaluddin and Rafizi Ramli.

MCA president Chua had it somewhat right when after his going toe-to-toe with Lim yesterday, he offered the view that the winners of the exchange were the Malaysian people, presumably because the televised contest gave them the chance to evaluate the debating mettle of leaders vying for their votes in the coming general election.

Needless to say, the grand finale to these preludes would be BN supremo Najib Razak going head-to-head with Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar has said in jest that he is agreeable to allowing Najib double the speaking time allotted him; so keen is the Pakatan chief’s desire to cater to the need of the public to assess on television the convictions that animate our top leaders and the articulation they command.

With TV having become a ubiquitous medium, the absence of a live debate between contenders for the premiership of the country must rank as a deprivation to the electorate.

Lim did well to advert to the need for a televised duel between Najib and Anwar in his opening remarks at yesterday’s contest.

Thus he used his debate with Soi Lek to constructive and collaborative effect, displaying in that way the rapport he enjoys with his Pakatan supremo.

Plurality of views

Small as that tell-tale sign was, it threw into relief the utilitarian, not to mention, exploitative nature of the bond between Soi Lek’s MCA and Najib’s Umno.

On the one hand, the former berates DAP for being a tool in PAS’s quest to impose theocratic rule in Malaysia; on the other, MCA’s ally, Umno, chides PAS for sacrificing its religious ideals by going to bed with DAP.

Soi Lek’s relentless espousal of the point about DAP allowing itself to be duped by PAS in tandem with Umno’s taunting the same party for the same weakness vis-à-vis DAP make the ruling BN coalition resemble a boat whose oarsmen are rowing in opposite directions.

That fundamental incoherence contrasts with the make-up of an opposition coalition which allows for a plurality of views within an overarching agreed-on manifesto that prioritises good and clean governance, and democratic norms, an agenda that by its very operation would preclude the imposition of theocracy.

Lim used yesterday’s debate to hew steadily to that message in the face of an opponent whose lunging and lurching was like cargo come loose in the hold of a boat rowed by contrarian oarsmen.

——————————————————————————–

TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for close on four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them. It is the ideal occupation for a temperament that finds power fascinating and its exercise abhorrent.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 5:08 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
MCA
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Do you know how to write the word ‘shame’?

— May Chee Chook Ying

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 19, 2012

FEB 19 — Read that CSL took a swipe at OTK by saying that he, the latter, can’t lead and that was why he was toppled in a year. On the contrary, he, OTK, was toppled because he exposed corruption and that to me, is the sorriest thing MCA has done to itself!

Not too long ago when CSL was vilified left and right for his “indiscretion” I remember telling my husband that everyone should just forgive him (after all, he admitted his transgression) and let him be. I wasn’t condoning his act but I believe in second chances and more than that, I felt sorry for his wife and family for the pain they must have been going through. I remember, then, I wasn’t too happy that OTK did not seem to be able to forgive him. On hindsight, OTK maybe, knew a lot, lot more.

I have always admired OTK since his days as a youth leader. He was a rare breed. He dared to say what had to be said. So, when this whole PKFZ fiasco came about, I was not too surprised. He always had the guts to do the right thing. And here we have, coming from another MCA chief, proudly declaring that if a leader has the guts and gumption to take on corruption, they, the MCA, could bring him down within a year! My dear CSL, “Ni, hwei pu hwei, seh na ke cho zhi?” Do you know how to write the word “shame”?

Here is a man who could have brought back dignity to their ranks but they brought him down! What went into their heads? What was going through their minds? Mind you, I don’t think every MCA guy is useless. I hear there’s a good “Datuk” in Seremban and another kind “doctor” in Ipoh. I wish I could say the list goes on but …

Some time back, I remember telling my kids that Malaysian politics, has to at some point move away from being race-based. In my humble opinion, the point is now or never. So, MCA, let me tell you this — you are not representing me, a Chinese because I refuse to remain a racist. If I need any help I will go to those who can best handle my problem, not because I’m Chinese, so only a Chinese political party can best watch out for me. For that, kudos to the DAP for realising that race-based politics is so out of touch, today.

OTK is the only visible MCA leader today who dares to call a spade, a spade. And you MCA people can’t appreciate nor treasure that? Just recently one of your leaders lied through his teeth about the Tung Shin teargas incident (I should know, I was there!) and now with the 1 Care controversy that’s going to rob us blind, he’s still around? CSL, prove your mettle now, bring him down within a year!

Please, MCA, look at what you have reduced yourself to? You, the present crop of leaders want to compare yourself to others. Only two of you are facing trial for the PKFZ debacle, on charges of corruption. How many from the other side have been incarcerated for upholding the truth? How many of them had their health compromised, dignity stripped and years taken away because of the injustice inflicted, something you were party to, for just keeping quiet. Unlike the rest of you, OTK exposed corruption and how did you reward him? What does it say about the MCA when a leader is brought down by his very own people for upholding the truth?

Why are you still in the MCA, OTK? I’m hoping you don’t reduce yourself to being — “Since I can’t beat them, I’ll just join them!” Don’t you dare! Don’t you dare make my father turn in his grave! My dad started his voting years, voting for the MCA while my mum was a DAP diehard. Sadly, he ended his years, voting for the DAP. I remembered how, during each election season, they would be debating, too. The debates became lesser with the years and eventually, came to a halt. My dad died, disillusioned with the MCA. My mum, died, still a DAP diehard.

Do you know how we used to distinguish between the MCA and non-MCA politicians? Easy-peasy. The MCA politicians always looked fat and clumsy while the other, lean and sprightly. My two-sen’s worth — don’t vote for politicians who can’t fit into the normal chair or the ones who carry potbellies. Unsightly! Corruption does have a look, you know. Anyway, RPK is right, it’s not about the party. It’s about the candidate who would work for the interests of his or her constituents. It’s about being accountable to his or her electorate. It’s about service; it’s about him or her being your servant, not your master. It’s about him or her running around making things right, not sitting on his fat ass, getting fatter! It’s about him or her, dishing out money, making a difference to other people’s life, not stashing away money in some secret account. It’s about him or her, upholding the truth, not pulling wool over our eyes with some cock and bull rationale. Since when have we, Malaysians, been that stupid, that unscrupulous, that undignified? Hey, most of us do know how to write the word “shame”, right?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 11:05 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M ‘assaulted’ judicial independence, says Bar Council

By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 19, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 — The Bar Council has accused Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad of stripping the judiciary of its independence, saying the former prime minister “assaulted” the institution with “Machiavellian ruthlessness” during his tenure.

Council president Lim Chee Wee said the 1988 amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution had effectively tampered with the judiciary’s independence, forcing the courts to be subservient to the executive arm of government.

“The Malaysian Bar has consistently held the view that Dr Mahathir Mohamed had with Machiavellian ruthlessness assaulted the once great Malaysian judicial institution.

“First with this amendment, then the sacking and suspension of the Lord President and Supreme Court Judges and later the appointment of three different Chief Justices, whose reputation the Bar holds in low regard,” he told The Malaysian Insider in an emailed statement.

Lim was responding to Dr Mahathir’s claim in a blog posting on Friday that the constitutional amendment had not altered judicial powers but merely gave the Attorney-General the responsibility to choose which court should hear a case.

“The rights and functions of the judiciary have not been subservient to the politicians or the prime minister before or after the amendment.

“This is because the amendment involves only the procedure in which the A-G was given back the responsibility to transfer cases. It did not give the prime minister any authority to overrule the courts,” he had written.

The country’s longest serving former prime minister was denying the claim by former Chief Justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah last Saturday that the judiciary had become subservient to politicians after the former clipped its wings in the 1980s with the amendment.

Dzaiddin had said the change was repugnant because Parliament could now decide what powers the judiciary should be given, altering in a very fundamental way the basic structure of the Federal Constitution.

Agreeing with Dzaiddin, Lim said the June 10, 1988, amendment had removed the words “the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in two High Courts” from Article 121, effectively deleting the provision that judicial power of the federation is vested in the judiciary.

Instead, he said, it was stipulated that “the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law”.

Lim recalled that when the Bill was being moved through Parliament, then Dr Mahathir had stated that its intent was to clarify the separation of powers, namely that the judiciary was to be prevented from interfering with the acts and functions of the executive.

“He (Dr Mahathir) had also stated that the amendment was to remove the powers of the judiciary in respect of judicial review, to make and develop Malaysian common law, and to do natural justice.

“This clearly is a misconception of the doctrine of separation of powers,” Lim said.

Following the amendment, he said, it was later misconceived that the courts had become powerless to address issues wherever there was a lacuna (when the law is silent).

They were wrongly thought to be confined to interpreting and implementing acts of Parliament, no longer able to develop common law and deprived of their inherent right to exercise judicial review over decisions of public bodies and executive functions, he added.

Noting that the judiciary was finally on its journey towards restoring independence and credibility, Lim urged the apex court to strike down the 1988 amendment as unconstitutional and contrary to the structure of the Federal Constitution.

He commended Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz for acknowledging the “shameful era” of the Malaysian judiciary and called on the latter to support another constitutional amendment, this time towards restoring judicial power.

“And the Bar urges all parliamentarians to support the Honourable Minister in this endeavour,” said Lim.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 1:23 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA’s achievements

By
Tan Teck Huat
 | February 19, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

FEB 19 — I think it is time everyone gave the MCA some recognition for their achievements and what they have done for Malaysians.

So here is the roll call of high achievers in MCA:

Tan Koon Swan:  in 1986, he was sentenced to two years’ jail by the Singapore High Court for criminal breach of trust relating to the collapse of Pan Electric Industries.

Ling Liong Sik: former party president and long-time minister has been charged with cheating and misleading the government in the Port Klang Free Zone scandal.

Chan Kong Choy: former party president and minister charged with several counts of deceiving former PM Abdullah Badawi into approving deals linked to the PKFZ.

Chua Soi Lek: current party president who resigned in 2008 after being featured in a sex VCD with a woman who was not his wife.

Kee Yong Wee: deputy trade minister was jailed for his role in the Komuda, the deposit-taking cooperative, in which the cash deposits of many ordinary Chinese members were found to have been misappropriated to save companies owned by some MCA leaders. The total loss was estimated to be RM3.6 billion.

Wang Choon Wing: deputy minister was jailed in 1987 with criminal breach of trust in a deposit-taking cooperatives scandal.

* In between alleged criminal activities and indulging in their own fantasies, the party that claims to represent Malaysian Chinese has also scored other achievements, namely, leadership tussles.

There was Michael Chen who left MCA after losing to Lee San Choon; the first Team and Team B battle between Neo Yee Pan and Tan Koon Swan; there was the fallout between Ling Liong Sik and Lee Kim Sai; and the fallout between Lim Ah Lek and Ling, which resulted in the second Team A and Team B fight. And then there was the third Team A and Team B fight between Chua Soi Lek and Ong Tee Keat.

All in all, the MCA has achieved much. Just not sure for whom.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 2:39 pm and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The 1 Malaysia charade has ended

— Ali Kadir

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 19, 2012

FEB 19 — Today is the day that the charade of 1 Malaysia has finally come to an end. Thank you, Najib Razak for finally showing some honesty and playing the race card and in doing so, burying the notion that you actually were supportive of a country where race and religion were becoming less important.

It is a fact of life that we discover much about ourselves, our friends and our leaders when the going gets tough and challenges abound.

So it is with Najib today. It is a fair conclusion that with the National Feedlot Centre scandal, the civil service salary fiasco and continuing antipathy towards Umno, he is feeling some pressure with the general elections coming up. In this type of back-against-the-wall situation, I would have hoped that Najib would have resisted the temptation to play the race and religious cards.

But like I said you know a person’s mettle in tough times and Najib sadly went down the road of the typical Umno politician. Speaking at a gathering today, he said that a vote for PAS is a vote for DAP.

I have been around long enough to decipher what Najib means: a vote for Malay (PAS) is a vote for DAP (Chinese). This has been the attack line of Utusan Malaysia.

I find this line of thinking offensive because it is this divide and rule system which has made our polarisation problem serious. It is also offensive because if our so-called leaders are racists or closet racists can you imagine what kind of policies the government will enact?

When a leader goes down this road and demonises one race, it is a green light for others to embrace stereotypes.

Najib warns Malays that a vote for PAS is a vote for DAP and Chua Soi Lek warns Chinese that a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS.

I am thankful that Najib and Chua have finally stopped this wayang about 1 Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 February 2012, 11:13 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN political chicanery,  mendacity and bankruptcy of first order with CSL warning Chinese voters  “A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS” while Najib warning Malay voters “A vote for PAS is a vote for DAP”

This is a disgraceful episode Malaysians must never forget, especially in the forthcoming 13th General Elections which holds out the possibility for the first time in the 54-year history of our nation of effecting a change of government at the national level.

The message of the MCA President Datuk Seri Chua Soil Lek in his debate with DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng on Saturday 18th February 2011 was his canard to Chinese voters warning that “A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS” resulting in an Islamic state and hudud Islamic laws.

Barely 24 hours later yesterday,  the Prime Minister and UMNO President Datuk Seri Najib Razak decided to emulate the MCA President’s political chicanery and mendacity, producing his duly modified canard to Malay voters warning  that “A vote for PAS is a vote for DAP” resulting in a “anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Malay Rulers” future for Malaysia – and which can only mean no Islamic State and no hudud Islamic laws!

Imagine the sheer political insanity of a Barisan Nasional campaign where MCA warns Chinese voters that “A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS” in the sense that DAP will just be a stooge of PAS while UMNO warns Malay voters that “A vote for PAS is a vote for DAP” in the sense that PAS will be a puppet of DAP!

And horror of horrors, Barisan Nasional leaders do not see the sheer illogicality, insanity and even  idiocy of such a campaign line!

No sane, rational and responsible political coalition would have used such diametrically conflicting canards – mutually cancelling each other out – with MCA warning Chinese voters that “A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS” while UMNO warns Malay voters the diametric opposite that “A vote for PAS is a vote for DAP” with the clearly explicit threat that Chinese or Malay rights would be sacrificed in each scenario!

There can be no doubt that with Chua Soi Lek warning Chinese voters “A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS” while Najib warns Malay voters “A vote for PAS is a vote for DAP’, Malaysians are seeing Barisan Nasional political chicanery, mendacity and bankrupticy of the first order.

But even more serious, this marked another important milestone in the Najib premiership – that in less than three years, the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia has “given up the ghost” on his signature 1Malaysia policy to create a Malaysia where Malaysians regard themselves as Malaysians first and their race, religion, region or socio-economic status second.

The racist, irresponsible and dishonest Barisan Nasional propaganda, warning the Chinese that “A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS” and the Malay voters that “A vote for PAS is a vote for DAP”, is a total affront to the concept of 1Malaysia and Najib’s preachings calling on the moderates of the world to unite against extremists everywhere!

It stands as a testimony to the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of Barisan Nasional politics, where the  basic thrusts of UMNO and MCA election campaigns are based on lies and falsehoods, and what is worse, sheer nonsense and illogicality which mutually cancels each other out.

In contrast, PKR, PAS and DAP offer a common message to all Malaysians to unite as Malaysians to save Malaysia from the corruption, abuses of power, injustices and racialism of UMNO/BN rule.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 February 2012, 3:23 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP and the PAS Islamic agenda

Comment by THOMAS LEE SENG HOCK

One of the most contentious issues that MCA president Chua Soi Lek raised at last weekend’s great debate is the so-called call PAS Islamic agenda, and the alleged failure of his opponent DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng to make a public stand on the matter.

Soi Lek and his MCA have been harping on this PAS issue consistently, persistently, and tediously since early 2011, trying to score political points rhetorically to undermine the credibility of Guan Eng and the DAP, using in particular the party-owned newspaper The Star in his unrelenting determined campaign against the DAP.

But does Soi Lek truly understand what the whole matter of the Islamic agenda is all about?

PAS, like any other political party all over the world is founded on a political idealogy, in its case the Islamic theocratic idealogy. The raison d’être for the founding of PAS is the promotion, advancement and establishment of an Islamic theocratic society. Without this mandate, PAS has no legitimate purpose to continue its existence.

Hence, like the communist idealogical platform, the liberal social political philosophy, the capitalism system, the authoritarian right-wing fascism, the democratic securalism of the DAP, the open laissex-faire free society concept, and even the contemporary green movement, PAS has a very social, civil, human and constitutional right to promote and advance its Islamic agenda, more so when our country is a Muslim-majority state.

The problem is not the PAS Islamic agenda per se, but the stupidity of its leaders, who are not too intelligent, let alone intellectual.

Despite so many of them having purported doctorate degrees, they are going about promoting their PAS Islamic ideology the wrong way, by stressing and emphazing on petty irrelevant matters of non substance such as protesting against concerts by foreign artistes, moral policing of personal behaviour, banning fo Valentine celebration, objection to even healthy entertainment joints like cinemas, enforcing dress code on the women folks, and going on witch-hunting at Christian churches for so-called apostates, etc. In the process of such silly and senseless practices, they frighten off the non-Muslims and brought about a lot of ill-wills and caused a lot of anger among the non-Muslims.

What the Muslim party should stress on is the fundamental goodness of Islam in the areas of truth, righteousness, justice, fairness, and human rights, to win the hearts and minds of both the Muslims and non-Muslims, not to put them off with all those nonsense propagated and perpetualled by the likes of Hasan Ali and the Bangi state assembly member Shafie Abu Bakar.

Being a Christian, whose religion also teaches the exclusiveness of the faith, I can understand the stand of my Muslim sisters and brothers in PAS who insist on and stand firm on the exclusiveness of their religion.

From the strictly theological perspective, PAS is right. Islam, like Christianity, is certainly an exclusive religious faith, claiming in the Shahada (Declaration of Faith) that “There is no god, but Allah” (La ilah illa Ilah) and Muhammad is Allah’s messenger (Wa Muhammad rasul u’llah). The PAS position is certainly consistently with the fundamental doctrine of Islam.

Like Christianity, Islam also claims exclusivity to its beliefs and teachings. A Muslim’s faith is firmly based on the belief that the source of his religion Islam is God and Muhammad is the only and last and final prophet and spokesman for God on the Earth. A true Muslim holds that Islam is not just one of the many religions, but THE religion per se, the only true religion of God, the religion of the created natural order (din-al-fitrah).

The religion is called Islam because Allah had decreed it in the Quran: “Lo the religion with God is Al Islam to His will and guidance” (3:19) and “I have chosen for you as religion Al Islam” (5:3). Islam, an Arab word, means submission, total surrender and obedience, and that is the practical implications for Muslims. There are several greetings based on the word Islam, such as “Peace be upon you” (salamalek) and “Go in peace” (bissalma, masalma).

Thus, the teaching of Islam is about a life of faith and peace through submission to the one and only true God Allah. The word “Muslim” means a person who has totally surrendered his whole life to Allah.

The Islamic faith is not just purely an organized ritualistic religion, but a complete way of life, covering every area of life and thoughts, including politics.

Hence, the PAS claim to exclusivity for Islam is not without theological merit.

As I said earlier, as a Christian, I can understand the PAS position, since my faith is also an exclusive one. No Christian will dispute or challenge my contention that Christianity also claims exclusivity to be the only way of salvation for mankind, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” and “No one comes to the Father (God) except through me (Jesus)”. (John 14:6), and that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The issue before us, therefore, is not the question of theological belief per se, but how to relate an exclusive faith to other religions in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual society like Malaysia.

This is where many PAS leaders lack the wisdom and intelligence to understand and articulate the relationship of Muslims with people of other faith the the plural society like Malaysia.

The word “pluralism” has been used unilaterally by almost everyone – religious leaders, politicians, journalists – without fully understanding what the concept actually means and implies.

The Oxford Dictionary defines “pluralism” as “a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, etc co-exist.

The keyword, I believe, is “co-exist”. The context in which pluralism exists and practiced is the widely diverse and varied range of religious faiths in a given society, such as Malaysia which has Islam as its official religion and other faiths being part of the scenario.

The fundamental issue we face in a plural society like Malaysia is the matter of peaceful and harmonious co-existence among the people of various races and religious beliefs.

Although I believe that PAS is theologically consistent with the teaching of Islam, its leaders’ stated public stand that Islam rejects religious pluralism that claims all religions to be equally good and truthful is certainly not politically correct in the context of the Malaysian plural society.

I believe PAS should look at the issue of pluralism from two broad perspectives, before making a sweeping dismissal of pluralism per se.

First, there is the pluralistic perspective that all religions are equal and “all roads lead to God”. Obviously, Islam, and, for that matter Christianity, will never endorse such a view. Islam and Christianity both teach and propagate that their respective faith is the only true religion, with all other religious systems and faiths being considered “pagan”.

Hence, it is simply impossible for a true Muslim or an honest Christian to agree to inter-faith “spiritual activities”. For a Muslim or Christian to participate, for example, in an inter-faith “worship” or prayer is to acknowledge that his faith is just one among many others, to place his God on equal standing with the deities of other religious faiths.

This is what justifies the PAS position in relationship to other faiths. And I will say that the PAS concern is valid and theologically consistent with the Islamic teaching. As a Christian, I take a similar stand that I cannot participate in an inter-religious worship service or other inter-faith spirituality activities, without dishonouring and betraying my Lord Jesus.

But, there is another perspective of pluralism which does not involve the matter of spiritual compromise, and that is the common universal moral values among all peoples of the world. And it is this common earthly destiny of all peoples that PAS should consider the vital role of Muslims to help promote peace and harmony among the people, who are the vice-regents of Allah (khalifa Allah) on Earth.

As I said before, as a Christian, I will not participate in an inter-faith worship service which will place my Lord Jesus as being among one of the gods, on equal standing with them. If I do, it will mean I am not consistent with my faith in the Lord Jesus as the only way, the truth, and the life. Such a compromise in matters of spirituality is surely not correct and honest.

My Muslim friends, too, are correct in taking a similar stand, or else their Shahada becomes a vain recitation, rendering their faith to be meaningless. Hence, PAS is theologically correct in its stand.

However, in the matters of truth, morality, justice, righteousness, equality, freedom, human, civil and constitutional rights, I will endorse and support any inter-faith “dialogue” and joint stand and actions.

This is the other perspective of pluralism that I believe PAS should seriously study and evaluate, before dismissing the whole concept of pluralism per se.

Although the people of Malaysia are adherents of various faiths and religious systems, they are united for the common purpose of nation-building, and are jointly dealing with many fundamental civil, social, constitutional and human rights issues relating their role as citizens. Hence, the need to come together to talk and compromise.

There is an urgent need for inter-faith dialogues on matters such as the freedom to worship, teach and propagate each other’s religion, the matter of land for places of worship and burial, the right to use the national language Bahasa Malaysia without restriction in worship and religious education, the legal disputes over the conversion of individuals, particularly children, and the vital matter of co-existence.

PAS and all the responsible Muslim leaders should be willing to participate in such inter-faith dialogues as the common-interest issues need not involve doctrinal compromise or theological dispute.

I hope all parties concerned with the dispute over pluralism will understand and accept that the fundamental matter is the peaceful and harmonious co-existence of all persons or all faiths, with each practicing his faith with full sensitivity and due respect to people of other faiths.

What we want is not a theological war, but a channel for inter-faith dialogues and a medium for communication on issues of universal common interests.

That, I believe, is what Lim Guan Eng and the DAP stand for.

__

Thomas Lee is currently the media consultant to the Penang state government, but will be unemployed as his contract expires in the middle of March and will not be renewed. He has several advanced degrees in theological studies, and had even even attended courses at Pusat Islam. He can be contacted at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 February 2012, 10:23 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.